Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than CP3

[therealbig3]

These are the types of posts that just do everything they can to make Nash look like baby Jesus......

And these are the types of posts that just add nothing to the discussion......................................................................................................................

[Lost92Bricks]

The 08 Hornets had less offensive talent than the 06 Suns? Huh? Both of them had one All-Star on their team (Marion and West), but CP3 also had Tyson Chandler, who is an immensely valuable offensive big man, and is a perfect fit next to a great PG. And CP3 had his shooters too, like Peja and Mo-Pete. I think CP3 had better talent imo, Nash was mainly just playing with 3pt shooters, and he was kind of the main reason they were lighting it up from 3 that year anyway. He also MADE Marion look like an efficient offensive player. Marion as a SF is super limited offensively, and wasn't even a great shooter that year.

And according to BBR, the 06 Suns with Nash on the court were a 114.2 offense, while the 08 Hornets with Paul on the court were a 115.2 offense. But taking league average into account, the 06 Suns were +8.0 with Nash on the court, while the 08 Hornets were +7.7. So pretty much even, but like I said, I think the 08 Hornets had comparable or better offensive talent as the 06 Suns, since they didn't have Amare. David West is a super underrated player.

Either way, they both played with similar offensive support and had similar results. Also according to BBR, the Hornets were +15.2 on offense with Paul on the court as opposed to the Suns who were +8 on offense with Nash...

[G35]

These are the types of posts that just do everything they can to make Nash look like baby Jesus......

And these are the types of posts that just add nothing to the discussion......................................................................................................................

Actually that's what I thought about your post. You are being a partisan as you can. Paul could lead Nash in every metric and I guarantee you would find an excuse, alibi, justification, rationalization, or evasive argument.

Paul is a better scorer than Nash.

Paul produces more points per possession than Nash

Paul has produced more WS at peak than Nash

Paul has a higher USG rate

Paul's peak AST % is greater than Nash's peak


Then to say that Tyson Chandler is a valuable offensive asset? For what? Outside of lob dunks and put backs what does Chandler do for you on offense? Are you saying he is better offensively than Kurt Thomas? Amare? Boris Diaw?

Then you say that Nash made Marion.......how biased can you be? Nash didn't make Finley as good as Marion. He didn't make anyone else as good as Marion. Marion made All NBA 3rd team.....and I like David West but he was never thought of as an All NBA level player. You cannot logically say it is equal talent just because each had an All Star on their team. I guess your research skills are slipping because you failed to mention that Marion was:

3rd team All NBA
3rd in the league in DWS
3rd in rebounding
5th in steals per game
10th in MVP voting
12th in PER (higher than Nash)
8th in Ortg
7th in WS (higher than Nash)

Also your comment about Marion's skills as a SF is irrelevant. The Suns played Marion as a PF, and in 2006 they put Marion at the C position. Check out where BRB has him listed.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2006.html

You claim that the Hornets had comparable talent to the Suns but you don't use anything other than your inner thoughts. So in all I really don't think you added anything other than a prejudiced opinion with nothing substantial to back it up......

[therealbig3]

Then to say that Tyson Chandler is a valuable offensive asset? For what? Outside of lob dunks and put backs what does Chandler do for you on offense? Are you saying he is better offensively than Kurt Thomas? Amare? Boris Diaw?

He is. Anyone that understands the game knows that Chandler is a hugely valuable offensive player. Never actually compared him to anyone though, but yeah, I'd take 08 Chandler over 06 Thomas or 06 Diaw. Amare didn't even play that year.

Then you say that Nash made Marion.......how biased can you be?

I said he made him into an efficient offensive player, which is true. Marion from 01-04 averaged 19 ppg on 53% TS and a 108 ORating. Marion from 05-07 averaged 20 ppg on 58% TS and a 117 ORating. This despite playing with two pretty good PGs prior to Nash (Kidd and Marbury).

And in the playoffs, we see the most obvious proof of Nash's impact. Marion goes from a guy that routinely disappeared come playoff time to an extremely valuable contributor. It's because he had Nash. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Marion hasn't had anywhere close to the same production before or after playing with Nash.

Also your comment about Marion's skills as a SF is irrelevant. The Suns played Marion as a PF, and in 2006 they put Marion at the C position. Check out where BRB has him listed.

Um, ok? I couldn't care less where he's listed...the most used lineup that season was Nash-Bell-Marion-Diaw-Thomas. After Amare was injured and after they incorporated Thomas, Marion went back to being a SF. Marion went back to playing PF after Thomas got hurt...then Diaw switched to C.

So in all I really don't think you added anything other than a prejudiced opinion with nothing substantial to back it up......

This is rich.

As for every metric backing Paul, that's not necessarily true, as RAPM says Nash was better, even during 08 and 09. As far as the box score stats...yeah, Paul does look better. But that's exactly what's being discussed, Paul specifically prefers to slow down the pace (so that can't really be an argument against Nash), and he barely commits any TOs. Nash is a higher risk, higher reward player, and his style of play leads to more easy baskets, more situations where the defense is out of position, but yeah it'll also end up in more TOs. And because of that, Nash actually doesn't have the ball as much as Paul...the ball actually moves around a lot more. Paul having a higher USG rate would mean it's easier for him to rack up points and assists, because he's got the ball in his hands a lot more than Nash. Paul's style of play is very conducive for looking like a box score god, but we're determining who overall is better at lifting his team's offense. Nash's ceiling appears to be higher.

[RebelWithACause]

Marion from 01-04 averaged 19 ppg on 53% TS and a 108 ORating. Marion from 05-07 averaged 20 ppg on 58% TS and a 117 ORating. This despite playing with two pretty good PGs prior to Nash (Kidd and Marbury).

Why don't you mention the rule changes for your stat showing?

How much of this improvement should we direct at the rule changes and the sheer higher pace?

From my experiences TS of research, a lot of athletic guys upped their TS between 2 and 5 %.

This has to be mentioned here, especially when you choose that time frame.

[therealbig3]

Marion's efficiency compared to league average 01-04:

52.5% TS (+0.7%), 108 ORating (+4.5)

Marion's efficiency compared to league average 05-07:

58.0% TS (+4.5%), 117 ORating (+10.5)

Even taking the rule changes into account, Marion saw a HUGE offensive improvement after Nash joined the team. And after Marion left the Suns, his TS% dropped back down to that 52-53% range, despite the rule changes. This was despite playing with another offensive superstar like Wade in Miami.

[RebelWithACause]

Marion's efficiency compared to league average 01-04:

52.5% TS (+0.7%), 108 ORating (+4.5)

Marion's efficiency compared to league average 05-07:

58.0% TS (+4.5%), 117 ORating (+10.5)

Even taking the rule changes into account, Marion saw a HUGE offensive improvement after Nash joined the team. And after Marion left the Suns, his TS% dropped back down to that 52-53% range, despite the rule changes. This was despite playing with another offensive superstar like Wade in Miami.

No you do not take them into account, you only show the relative averages. This does not show how much it actually helped Marion.
When his TS dropped back he was declining already (from his prime form), lost some motivation and his shooting touch, bad argument.

Albeit a different player, here is how much the rule changes affected some players.

Iverson 01-04: 29 ppg, 49.8 % TS (-2 %) , 102 ORTG (-2)
Iverson 05-08: 29 ppg, 54.6 % TS (+1%) , 109 ORTG (+2)

I am sure Nash played a rather bigger role in this, but to not mention the rule changes at all (especially for a time frame 01-04 , 05-07) or just brushing them aside like this makes your argument look weak.

[therealbig3]

Marion's efficiency compared to league average 01-04:

52.5% TS (+0.7%), 108 ORating (+4.5)

Marion's efficiency compared to league average 05-07:

58.0% TS (+4.5%), 117 ORating (+10.5)

Even taking the rule changes into account, Marion saw a HUGE offensive improvement after Nash joined the team. And after Marion left the Suns, his TS% dropped back down to that 52-53% range, despite the rule changes. This was despite playing with another offensive superstar like Wade in Miami.

No you do not take them into account, you only show the relative averages. This does not show how much it actually helped Marion.
When his TS dropped back he was declining already (from his prime form), lost some motivation and his shooting touch, bad argument.

Albeit a different player, here is how much the rule changes affected some players.

Iverson 01-04: 29 ppg, 49.8 % TS (-2 %) , 102 ORTG (-2)
Iverson 05-08: 29 ppg, 54.6 % TS (+1%) , 109 ORTG (+2)

I am sure Nash played a rather bigger role in this, but to not mention the rule changes at all (especially for a time frame 01-04 , 05-07) or just brushing them aside like this makes your argument look weak.

I don't get your point. What are you asking for exactly? You wanted to see how much the rule changes affected his efficiency...his efficiency went up with Nash, which coincidentally was the same time the rule changes took effect. If Nash didn't make much of a difference compared to Kidd and Marbury, then his relative TS% should have been the same. It wasn't. Not only was it not the same, it was WAY better. His performance in the playoffs was also WAY better.

And Marion was only 29 when he left Phoenix, and even to this day, he's still a very athletic player. So he hadn't really declined. And that argument would also make more sense if he wasn't already at 59% TS with Phoenix in 08, and then after the trade, dropped to 50% TS. Clearly, it wasn't decline...it was the fact that he played with Nash.

And Marion's FTA rate didn't even go up that much following the rule changes. It went from .201 during 01-04 to .220 during 05-07. The main difference that occurred was that Marion's eFG% went from 48.7% during 01-04 to 54.6% during 05-07. That didn't really have much to do with the rule changes...that had to do with Nash spoonfeeding him easy baskets.

In Iverson's case, his FTA rate went from .381 to .464 in those selected years. That's how the rule changes helped him. Marion didn't really see much of an increase in FTs...he just got a lot more easy baskets.

[Texas Chuck]

No one is disputing that playing with Nash helps guys offensively. That imo is frankly indisputable. I guess all we are looking for is some acknowledgement of the facts that seem to go against the typical Nash rhetoric.

I think Nash is a better offensive player than Paul, but the supporting arguments being given for Nash itt seem rife with inconsistency and if I didn't already believe Stevie to be the better guy I would be more inclined to lean towards Paul if for no other reason than the Nash guys all appear to be not analyzing them as much as pushing their talking points.

The Nash Dallas years continue to get ignored because they frankly don't support the favored Nash narrative. I think you can still make a case for how great Nash is while not trying to gloss over that. Or not glossing over the vast difference in coaching,system, supporting cast between he and other PGs he frequently gets compared to. I don't think we should penalize Nash for playing for Nellie/MDA and with Dirk/Amare/Marion/shooters galore, but we should take some of the video game numbers with a grain of salt when we compare him to other players.

Its obviously not the system who made Nash. Nash made the system.

But another thing that keeps getting overlooked is that those Nash teams all sacrificed defense in the name of more offense. That hurts you a bit imo as an offensive player if the overall team suffers to play the way that makes you as an individual most successful.

[therealbig3]

No one is disputing that playing with Nash helps guys offensively. That imo is frankly indisputable. I guess all we are looking for is some acknowledgement of the facts that seem to go against the typical Nash rhetoric.

I think Nash is a better offensive player than Paul, but the supporting arguments being given for Nash itt seem rife with inconsistency and if I didn't already believe Stevie to be the better guy I would be more inclined to lean towards Paul if for no other reason than the Nash guys all appear to be not analyzing them as much as pushing their talking points.

The Nash Dallas years continue to get ignored because they frankly don't support the favored Nash narrative. I think you can still make a case for how great Nash is while not trying to gloss over that. Or not glossing over the vast difference in coaching,system, supporting cast between he and other PGs he frequently gets compared to. I don't think we should penalize Nash for playing for Nellie/MDA and with Dirk/Amare/Marion/shooters galore, but we should take some of the video game numbers with a grain of salt when we compare him to other players.

Its obviously not the system who made Nash. Nash made the system.

But another thing that keeps getting overlooked is that those Nash teams all sacrificed defense in the name of more offense. That hurts you a bit imo as an offensive player if the overall team suffers to play the way that makes you as an individual most successful.

Well, let's look at the Dallas years. Nash as the 2nd best player in Dallas was a key part of some great offensive teams. He left, and Dallas remained an elite offensive team. Is that an indictment on Nash? No, I think it's Dirk being awesome, taking more of a role, and being able to keep his team at an elite offensive level with Nash gone. To me, that's a situation where Dirk gets praise, not Nash getting criticism. It's not impossible to replace a great offensive player...it just means other guys have to step up big time. And Dirk did that. Props to him.

As for the sacrificing defense for offense...that's essentially the small-ball argument (aka moving Marion and Amare up a position)...but that's why I'm bringing up 06 and 09, because the Suns played very conventional lineups in those years, and specifically in 09, they DIDN'T have a great coach or a great system in place for the majority of the year. And no, the offenses weren't 05 level, when yeah, Nash had everything an offensive player could dream of, but they were still really frikin good.

[G35]

He is. Anyone that understands the game knows that Chandler is a hugely valuable offensive player. Never actually compared him to anyone though, but yeah, I'd take 08 Chandler over 06 Thomas or 06 Diaw. Amare didn't even play that year.

You still didn't explain how he is a hugely valuable offensive player. If it's so obvious then you should be able to make some points other than the old "anyone who understands the game" line. Tyson has never avg'd over 1 assist a game in his career. His greatest asset on offense is finishing and not while make any sort of basketball move. It's a good thing you didn't compare him to anyone because it would kill whatever point you are trying to make about Tyson. You already know that all the centers Nash played with in PHX were better on offense than Tyson.

I said he made him into an efficient offensive player, which is true. Marion from 01-04 averaged 19 ppg on 53% TS and a 108 ORating. Marion from 05-07 averaged 20 ppg on 58% TS and a 117 ORating. This despite playing with two pretty good PGs prior to Nash (Kidd and Marbury).

And in the playoffs, we see the most obvious proof of Nash's impact. Marion goes from a guy that routinely disappeared come playoff time to an extremely valuable contributor. It's because he had Nash. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Marion hasn't had anywhere close to the same production before or after playing with Nash.

You want to know who else wasn't as efficient before and after PHX? Steve Nash. The numbers are very clear that he was nowhere near as efficient as he was playing for the Suns. He was barely All Star caliber. Also if you ask many of the Marion detractors, it was the playoff's where Marion came up short. You know why? Because Nash wasn't able to get those easy opportunities that you get in the regular season. Teams like the Spurs, whom Nash can't solve, don't allow those gimme baskets the Suns offense thrived on. Also, Nash needed shooters, and he needed Marion. The Suns were never the same after Marion left. The numbers clearly point this out.

One last thing, what is this asinine logic about a PG making another player so that makes him so great? Isn't that the entire description of a PG? Run the offense? You know who became a better, more efficient shooter without Nash? Dirk. When Nash left, Dirk got even better. The numbers and team results bear this out.

Um, ok? I couldn't care less where he's listed...the most used lineup that season was Nash-Bell-Marion-Diaw-Thomas. After Amare was injured and after they incorporated Thomas, Marion went back to being a SF. Marion went back to playing PF after Thomas got hurt...then Diaw switched to C.

I like how you choose what you want to believe and what you don't. The most used lineup doesn't mean who is on the floor the most. That lineup was only together for 593 minutes out 3991 minutes, if you add up all the lineups Kurt is barely on the floor half the time. The next two most used lineups are without Kurt Thomas and they total 664 minutes. Irrelevant point but that's how you operate.

This is rich.

As for every metric backing Paul, that's not necessarily true, as RAPM says Nash was better, even during 08 and 09. As far as the box score stats...yeah, Paul does look better. But that's exactly what's being discussed, Paul specifically prefers to slow down the pace (so that can't really be an argument against Nash), and he barely commits any TOs. Nash is a higher risk, higher reward player, and his style of play leads to more easy baskets, more situations where the defense is out of position, but yeah it'll also end up in more TOs. And because of that, Nash actually doesn't have the ball as much as Paul...the ball actually moves around a lot more. Paul having a higher USG rate would mean it's easier for him to rack up points and assists, because he's got the ball in his hands a lot more than Nash. Paul's style of play is very conducive for looking like a box score god, but we're determining who overall is better at lifting his team's offense. Nash's ceiling appears to be higher.

Ok not EVERY metric but let's say 80% of all metrics favor Paul...lol smh. It's not a discussion when the majority of metrics favor Paul. That's like saying the majority of metrics favor Jordan but let's argue for Kobe. The highlighted part is the worst argument. Nash is a higher risk, higher reward...what reward do you get with Nash? What does his offensive leadership reward you with? A high Ortg? Is that the goal? The Suns offense doesn't always look as good in the playoff's as it does in the regular season. Once again, defenses will get back preventing your so called easy opportunities. What offenses strive to do is be EFFICIENT. You are talking out of both sides, first you say Nash makes everyone efficient but then you criticize Paul for not taking chances and not committing TO's. In the playoff's, when games actually matter, maximizing every possession is what should matter to offenses. Not taking risks. Also, you are interpreting Paul's style of play negatively, any other player that you compare Nash to it's all about the numbers. Well in this case the numbers do not favor Nash, that's the bottom line.

The problem with Nash is his boxscore does not look as good when he has a team that tries to play a modicum of DEFENSE. Yes, this a thread about offense but most teams are built (especially contenders) with both sides in mind. Paul is much more capable of lifting an offense that does not have great shooters or scorers. That's Nash's crutch.....

[therealbig3]

^I can't really debate with you when you completely ignore a FACT that you've been made aware of plenty of times: the Suns offense didn't dropoff in the playoffs, especially not when they faced the Spurs. It was quite the opposite, actually.

If you're going to ignore fundamental truths, there's no point in continuing this discussion. It's quite obvious who's biased here.

[lorak]

What about in Dallas? The team thought Dirk was the better talent and made Nash defer. It still worked out fantastically so no one should see that as Nash not being successful, but it absolutely would have been better to do it differently.

Im struggling to understand your interpretation of all things Nash. You give him all this credit because things fell apart when he sat in Phoenix. Point out that playing with Dirk worked(well duh). But what you don't mention is what happened to the Mavericks offense when their PG went from top 2 all-time offensive PG to Jason Terry playing out of position and very young raw Devin Harris.

Nash's last year in Dallas: 105.2 ppg (1st) Off rtg 112.1 (1st) about what you'd expect if Nash is everything you say he is playing with Dirk(and other very talented offensive players)

Dallas first year no Nash: 102.5 (3rd) Off rtg 110.3 (4th) so a drop off. But considering they also replaced Jamison with terrible Stack, Finley regressed further, and Avery took over mid-stream hardly the collapse you should expect with this all-time great leaving.

League averages changed a lot from 2004 to 2005, so we should look at ORTG relatively to league average:

Dallas 2004 +9.2
Dallas 2005 +4.2

So from GOAT offense with Nash in 2004 Mavs regressed to "just" very good in 2005. That's GOAT offensive impact even if we include other changes on Mavs roster. Besides there's one more point you guys are missing: Nash in Dallas wasn't used the way he should be. I mean, he was so great decision maker that the best for a team was to have ball in his hands as much as possible. And that happened in Phoenix. But in Dallas his role was a bit different, team didn't rely on him as much as in Phoenix, so obviously his impact was lower (but still very good).

re: no backup PG in Phoenix

I know most of you Nash's haters don't like RAPM, but on the other hand some of you are using things like WS against Nash... Anyway, RAPM not directly, but still, does "backup adjustment", because it looks at with who you play.

Besides we don't even need RAPM to see Nash's GOAT level offensive impact, because teams with him on the floor were constantly VERY GOOD on offense. No matter what teammates (even with Kurt Thomas or old Shaq in the lineup) he played with or coaches if they didn't hinder him (vide Porter), Suns offense always was very good.

[G35]

^I can't really debate with you when you completely ignore a FACT that you've been made aware of plenty of times: the Suns offense didn't dropoff in the playoffs, especially not when they faced the Spurs. It was quite the opposite, actually.

If you're going to ignore fundamental truths, there's no point in continuing this discussion. It's quite obvious who's biased here.

I said the Suns couldn't solve the Spurs defense. It was never good enough to win in the playoffs vs an elite defense. And yes we do disagree, I don't measure the strength of an offense on the sum. Offense is not a static metric. Scoring, efficiency, style changes from game to game especially in the playoff's.

If you look at the 4 factors for the Suns vs the Spurs in the playoff's.

In the 2005 playoff's vs the Spurs the Suns pace, ORtg, ORB% all went down, and their TO% went up...result a 4-1 destruction.

In the 2007 playoff's vs the Spurs their pace, ORtg, eFG%, ORB%, all went down significantly, TO% went up...result 4-2 loss

In the 2008 playoff's vs the Spurs their pace, ORtg, eFG%, ORB% all went down

Now what always get's me is that the Suns are suppose to have the best offense....but why does the Spurs with their plain, vanilla, fundamental offense always perform better. Are these the fundamental truths I keep ignoring?.....

[lorak]

^I can't really debate with you when you completely ignore a FACT that you've been made aware of plenty of times: the Suns offense didn't dropoff in the playoffs, especially not when they faced the Spurs. It was quite the opposite, actually.

If you're going to ignore fundamental truths, there's no point in continuing this discussion. It's quite obvious who's biased here.

I said the Suns couldn't solve the Spurs defense. It was never good enough to win in the playoffs vs an elite defense. And yes we do disagree, I don't measure the strength of an offense on the sum. Offense is not a static metric. Scoring, efficiency, style changes from game to game especially in the playoff's.

If you look at the 4 factors for the Suns vs the Spurs in the playoff's.

In the 2005 playoff's vs the Spurs the Suns pace, ORtg, ORB% all went down, and their TO% went up...result a 4-1 destruction.

In the 2007 playoff's vs the Spurs their pace, ORtg, eFG%, ORB%, all went down significantly, TO% went up...result 4-2 loss

In the 2008 playoff's vs the Spurs their pace, ORtg, eFG%, ORB% all went down

1. ORB%, TOV% and so one are included in ORTG, so no need to mention them separately if we want to talk about overall offensive performance.

2. It silly to expect that ORTG wouldn't went down vs good defensive team like Spurs. And guess what, Spurs DRTG went up vs Suns - does it mean their defense was bad?

3. If we want to judge how offense/defense performed in playoff series, we have to look at expected ORTG/DRTG ([team A regular season ORTG+team B regular season DRTG]/2). Here's how Sunns ORTG looks vs Spurs:

Code: Select all

YEAR   EXP ORTG   vs SAS   DIFF
2005   106,7   114,0   7,3
2007   106,9   107,8   0,9
2008   107,6   104,5   -3,1
2010   109,9   115,9   6,0


So every year expect one (2008) Suns offense was better than Spurs defense and during two series (2005 and 2010) was MUCH, MUCH better.

[Texas Chuck]

I know most of you Nash's haters

First this is irrelevant and is just attempting to discredit by labeling me a hater.

Second, I have been consistent itt that I would take Nash over Paul(and anyone not named Magic) as an offensive pg. I am hardly a "hater".

Everything is about how Nash wasnt used right. No mention of his poor conditioning in Dallas--Nash himself freely admits to this, his party lifestyle in Dallas(again Nash concedes this), etc... People want to trash Marion as a PS performer but ignore the last 3 series Nash lost in Dallas he got outplayed by very young Tony Parker and Mike Freaking Bibby twice. Dallas happened. Post-Nash Dallas happened. Let's deal with it. Nash still comes out looking really good as an offensive player.

Yes he was great in Phoenix when everything was tailor-made. But the reason I have a number of PGs ahead of Nash overall as players is because of these factors that get brushed aside because OMG Team ORTG!

[colts18]

Nash is a higher risk, higher reward...what reward do you get with Nash? What does his offensive leadership reward you with? A high Ortg? Is that the goal? The Suns offense doesn't always look as good in the playoff's as it does in the regular season. Once again, defenses will get back preventing your so called easy opportunities. What offenses strive to do is be EFFICIENT. You are talking out of both sides, first you say Nash makes everyone efficient but then you criticize Paul for not taking chances and not committing TO's. In the playoff's, when games actually matter, maximizing every possession is what should matter to offenses. Not taking risks.

Where has CP3's style of play led him in the playoffs? He has never made it past the 2nd round. His style of play led him to get owned in the playoffs by Chauncey Billups and Tony Parker.

Nash's playoff offenses actually improved from the regular season.

Nash on court O rating:
05: 118.7
06: 116.5
07: 112.5
10: 120.6

05 vs Grizzlies: 124.1 Ortg vs 102.9 Drtg (+21.2)
05 vs Mavs: 118.1 Ortg vs. 104.1 Drtg (+14)
05 vs Spurs: 115.7 Ortg vs 98.8 Drtg (+16.9)

06 vs Lakers: 115 Ortg vs 105.7 Drtg (+9.3)
06 vs Clippers: 115.1 Ortg vs 103.8 Drtg (+11.3)
06 vs Mavs: 113.3 Ortg vs 105 Drtg (+8.3)

07 vs Lakers: 111.8 Ortg vs 105.6 Drtg (+6.2)
07 vs Spurs: 109.6 Ortg vs 99.9 Drtg (+9.7)

10 vs Blazers: 111.5 Ortg vs. 107.1 Drtg (+4.4)
10 vs Spurs: 124.5 Ortg vs 104.5 Drtg (+20)
10 vs Lakers: 122 Ortg vs 103.7 Drtg (+18.3)

[G35]

Nash is a higher risk, higher reward...what reward do you get with Nash? What does his offensive leadership reward you with? A high Ortg? Is that the goal? The Suns offense doesn't always look as good in the playoff's as it does in the regular season. Once again, defenses will get back preventing your so called easy opportunities. What offenses strive to do is be EFFICIENT. You are talking out of both sides, first you say Nash makes everyone efficient but then you criticize Paul for not taking chances and not committing TO's. In the playoff's, when games actually matter, maximizing every possession is what should matter to offenses. Not taking risks.

Where has CP3's style of play led him in the playoffs? He has never made it past the 2nd round. His style of play led him to get owned in the playoffs by Chauncey Billups and Tony Parker.

Nash's playoff offenses actually improved from the regular season.

Nash on court O rating:
05: 118.7
06: 116.5
07: 112.5
10: 120.6

05 vs Grizzlies: 124.1 Ortg vs 102.9 Drtg (+21.2)
05 vs Mavs: 118.1 Ortg vs. 104.1 Drtg (+14)
05 vs Spurs: 115.7 Ortg vs 98.8 Drtg (+16.9)

06 vs Lakers: 115 Ortg vs 105.7 Drtg (+9.3)
06 vs Clippers: 115.1 Ortg vs 103.8 Drtg (+11.3)
06 vs Mavs: 113.3 Ortg vs 105 Drtg (+8.3)

07 vs Lakers: 111.8 Ortg vs 105.6 Drtg (+6.2)
07 vs Spurs: 109.6 Ortg vs 99.9 Drtg (+9.7)

10 vs Blazers: 111.5 Ortg vs. 107.1 Drtg (+4.4)
10 vs Spurs: 124.5 Ortg vs 104.5 Drtg (+20)
10 vs Lakers: 122 Ortg vs 103.7 Drtg (+18.3)

Nash's teams have underperformed relative to their talent. CP3 in NOH had one year where the talent level gave them any playoff expectations. I do agree that Paul's rep has a lot riding on it this year. He needs to get to the WCF's to avoid a lot of critiquing.

However, Nash had multiple All NBA players/All Defense/MVP type players on his teams. The Suns are in the top 5 all time of teams that failed to advance to the finals relative to their talent. Nash's personal offense is nowhere near capable of carrying an offense on just his ability alone. Nash's claim to fame is all based on how his team performs. It's not like Nash has some all time great offensive series.

Also I don't get where you are getting your numbers.

2005 Spurs-Suns series
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 114.0 (regular season 114.5)
Nash's Ortg 114 (regular season 123)

2007 Spurs-Suns
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 107.8 (regular season 113.9)
Nash Ortg 115 (regular season 124)

2008 Spurs-Suns
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 104.5 (regular season 113.3)
Nash Ortg 110 (regular season 121)

If Nash's claim to fame is offense and his teams do not play any defense, there is zero excuse for any reduction in any offensive category. And true impact players do it against the best defenses.....

[colts18]

Nash's teams have underperformed relative to their talent. CP3 in NOH had one year where the talent level gave them any playoff expectations. I do agree that Paul's rep has a lot riding on it this year. He needs to get to the WCF's to avoid a lot of critiquing.

However, Nash had multiple All NBA players/All Defense/MVP type players on his teams. The Suns are in the top 5 all time of teams that failed to advance to the finals relative to their talent. Nash's personal offense is nowhere near capable of carrying an offense on just his ability alone. Nash's claim to fame is all based on how his team performs. It's not like Nash has some all time great offensive series.

Also I don't get where you are getting your numbers.

2005 Spurs-Suns series
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 114.0 (regular season 114.5)
Nash's Ortg 114 (regular season 123)

2007 Spurs-Suns
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 107.8 (regular season 113.9)
Nash Ortg 115 (regular season 124)

2008 Spurs-Suns
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 104.5 (regular season 113.3)
Nash Ortg 110 (regular season 121)

If Nash's claim to fame is offense and his teams do not play any defense, there is zero excuse for any reduction in any offensive category. And true impact players do it against the best defenses.....

I got them from here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... der_by=pts

[G35]

Nash's teams have underperformed relative to their talent. CP3 in NOH had one year where the talent level gave them any playoff expectations. I do agree that Paul's rep has a lot riding on it this year. He needs to get to the WCF's to avoid a lot of critiquing.

However, Nash had multiple All NBA players/All Defense/MVP type players on his teams. The Suns are in the top 5 all time of teams that failed to advance to the finals relative to their talent. Nash's personal offense is nowhere near capable of carrying an offense on just his ability alone. Nash's claim to fame is all based on how his team performs. It's not like Nash has some all time great offensive series.

Also I don't get where you are getting your numbers.

2005 Spurs-Suns series
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 114.0 (regular season 114.5)
Nash's Ortg 114 (regular season 123)

2007 Spurs-Suns
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 107.8 (regular season 113.9)
Nash Ortg 115 (regular season 124)

2008 Spurs-Suns
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#SAS-PHO

Suns Ortg 104.5 (regular season 113.3)
Nash Ortg 110 (regular season 121)

If Nash's claim to fame is offense and his teams do not play any defense, there is zero excuse for any reduction in any offensive category. And true impact players do it against the best defenses.....

I got them from here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... der_by=pts

Well that's definitely a different result than what is on the series page.....