More overrated: Garnett or Nash

[Laimbeer]

They're both overrated at realgm, but the mainstream has it about right.

[Grandpa Waiters]

You make it sound like it's a ton of work for you. You know you can just upload these things right?

Or just use copy&paste ...

I do have a list but it's kept in a hermetically sealed envelope which I placed in an acid-free container in a windowless room ... the precise location is kept secret. The temperature hovers between 65 and 68 degrees; the humidity is 40 percent; the air is changed six times an hour. The list is classified top secret and marked "eyes only". It will not see the light of day until 50 years after my death at which time it will be on loan to the National Archives in Washington DC. Keep yourself in good shape and perhaps one day, if you're lucky, you might be able to attend a viewing.

(I just copy and pasted this, my earlier response, just for you)

[ronnymac2]

The only agenda I have is to start a new discussion on this forum because I'm tired of looking at the same old threads.

KG. The guy who got bounced in the first round seven consecutive years. The guy who only got a ring after teaming up with Pierce and Allen. No FMVP and only one MVP in a career that's lasted longer than some posters have been alive. The guy I've seen placed in a few top ten lists and most top fifteen lists.

Nash. The guy who couldn't shoot 50% OR average double digit assists for the first eight years of his career being labeled the greatest shooter/passer by many. The guy who has the weakest resume, BY FAR, of any multiple MVP winner ever. The guy who has more MVP's than West, Oscar, Baylor, Havlicek, Parrish, McHale, Isiah, Dominique, King, Ewing, Pippen, Paul, and Durant have....COMBINED. The guy who never even PLAYED in an NBA Finals game let alone won a championship who ranks in many top twenty lists and a few top 15

If you've actually read the same old threads, I wouldn't think you'd use these same old arguments. These same old tired, atrocious, illogical arguments.


As for the thread...I don't think KG and Nash are overrated. I do think, however, that their most ardent defenders aren't as forthcoming with describing KG's/Nash's weaknesses as they should. That said, I am sympathetic towards these posters. The arguments used against KG/Nash are extremely ignorant at times.

[mysticbb]

The Suns were never as effective after Marion left and he was the player everyone bitched about in the playoff's. Nash was not able to effectively play with Shaq even though Shaq played very well, so Shaq was shipped out and Nash went back to his same old playing style and once again it was not Nash who had anything to do with the teams failures.

No idea, but the 2010 Suns made it to the WCF without Marion and O'Neal. Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to go back to the "Nash style" afterall?

In 2009:

Suns with Nash+O'Neal: +4
Suns with Nash and without O'Neal: +5.9
Suns with O'Neal and without Nash: -1.5

So, the Suns played better basketball with Nash and without O'Neal than with both on the court, they also played nearly 7.5 points worse with O'Neal and without Nash than vice versa.

Afterall, the Suns played better basketball in 2010 with Nash after getting rid of O'Neal than in 2009. They also played clearly better basketball with Nash in 2009 than with O'Neal. No idea, but what conclusion can we draw from that? That they should have actually kept O'Neal for the 2010 season, because Nash was actually the problem? Really? Do you actually really believe that, if the Suns would have rather build around O'Neal in 2010, they could have had more success (ending in the finals or even winning the title)?

[G35]

No idea, but the 2010 Suns made it to the WCF without Marion and O'Neal. Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to go back to the "Nash style" afterall?

In 2009:

Suns with Nash+O'Neal: +4
Suns with Nash and without O'Neal: +5.9
Suns with O'Neal and without Nash: -1.5

So, the Suns played better basketball with Nash and without O'Neal than with both on the court, they also played nearly 7.5 points worse with O'Neal and without Nash than vice versa.

Afterall, the Suns played better basketball in 2010 with Nash after getting rid of O'Neal than in 2009. They also played clearly better basketball with Nash in 2009 than with O'Neal. No idea, but what conclusion can we draw from that? That they should have actually kept O'Neal for the 2010 season, because Nash was actually the problem? Really? Do you actually really believe that, if the Suns would have rather build around O'Neal in 2010, they could have had more success (ending in the finals or even winning the title)?

Well here we go with the cherry picking of stats:
2007/08 the Suns have D'Antoni and Marion, they win 55 games, Nash is 2nd team All NBA, All Star team, and they flame out vs the Spurs. Not bad but nothing to write home about. It's obvious they will never get past the Spurs with the small ball/3pt shooting.

They get rid of D'Antoni/Marion and bring in Shaq to give them an interior presence/rebounding/shot-blocking. So in 2008/09 Nash fails to make any All NBA team (while Shaq makes the 3rd team), Nash also fails to make an ALL STAR team losing out to Brandon Roy, Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker, and CP3.

I know what the typical Nash defense is: they weren't using him right, Shaq really wasn't that effective DESPITE the face that he was putting up very productive numbers, Shaq also clogged up the offense, also the coaching the was horrendous (primarily Porter). Which all resulted in the Suns failing to even make the playoff's. None of thise is Nash's fault, not...one...bit. Any other superstar would get their butt handed to them (except that other guy...KG!) but since the offense ws 2nd in the league who cares what else happened with the team. Even though every rejoinder was that Nash never had a big man with toughness that could get rebounds. So Shaq was the problem?

So then they get rid of Shaq and the offense is once again still elite and the defense is still once again horrible. Does that make them a bad team...No. But it does say they aren't a legit contender. That team shot exceptionally...but it was plain to see that there was going to be a team that would exploit their defensive shortcomings and take advantage of the pace Phoenix likes to play at.

No I do not believe the Suns could build around Shaq, did I say that? Did I ever say build around Shaq? That's going to a place I never took it. The Suns weren't going to win building around Nash either.

Look at the Suns this year, they have a chance to win 50 games, they have an SRS of 3.34, they have a dynamic PG, their offense is 9th in the league. It has to be killing Nash fans that the Suns are playing pretty damn well with a team that is similarly talented to the ones Nash was leading. What is really funny to me is that they don't have a really great player defensively in the middle but their defense is 12th in the league. which would be the best defense the Suns have played in the Nash era......

[mysticbb]

2007/08 the Suns have D'Antoni and Marion, they win 55 games, Nash is 2nd team All NBA, All Star team, and they flame out vs the Spurs. Not bad but nothing to write home about. It's obvious they will never get past the Spurs with the small ball/3pt shooting.

Marion played 0 minutes in the 2008 series against the Spurs, because he was already in Miami.

They get rid of D'Antoni/Marion and bring in Shaq to give them an interior presence/rebounding/shot-blocking.

The trade Marion for O'Neal happened in February 2008.

So Shaq was the problem?

They played better without him. Does that answer your question?

The Suns weren't going to win building around Nash either.

They went to the WCF (which means they obviously won a lot of games) where they lost in 6 to the Lakers. Maybe they just faced a better team? Oh well, we know the answer to this ...

It has to be killing Nash fans that the Suns are playing pretty damn well with a team that is similarly talented to the ones Nash was leading. What is really funny to me is that they don't have a really great player defensively in the middle but their defense is 12th in the league. which would be the best defense the Suns have played in the Nash era......

Why would all of that matter when the question was: How good was Steve Nash? Did Nash play with those players together under the current coach and showed to be making them worse? No, he didn't.
And while the Suns team really plays surprisingly well, they aren't even close to the offensive performances of the Nash's Suns as well as being worse than the those Suns teams in average overall.

Nobody ever said that the only style leading to wins would be "letting Nash do his thing", just that the concept of "letting Nash do his thing" was leading to an amazing offensive and overall playing level. I guess, you are not quite sure what the difference between those two statements is; which also would explain, why you try to find some hidden agenda people arguing for both, Nash and Garnett, are supposed to have, because you are just not capable of understanding that winning a basketball game can be achieved in different ways. That's what your argument comes down to in the end; in your world there is just one right way to win games, then you use all kinds of cognitive biases (including hindsight and confirmation biases) to justify that opinion. You simply don't acknowledge that teams actually won a lot of games, and whenever those really good teams are not winning the championship, the only reason you can come up with is: the best player on that team was not that good. There aren't any answers like "bad luck" or "the other team was simply better" or "the teammates failed" for you possible; you just try to find a way to justify your preconception. Pretty sad, to say the least ...

[G35]

While I have both in my top 30 something I've noticed about their fans is I've never seen them say anything negative about them. Like I've never seen a KG fan criticize KG for anything or a Nash fan criticizing Nash for anything. Nothing is ever their fault

Really? I've seen KG's fans admit that he's not a dominant scorer and couldn't be a great go-to-guy offensively and would've been better suited as a second fiddle, and Nash's fans admit that he was a mediocre defender. Well, I guess reasonable people are willing to accept and point out the obvious facts.

I have seen some people say the same things; KG is not a dominant scorer and Nash is not a good defender.

However, while they are saying that the typical response is KG is not dominant as a scorer but he's close to i.e. Duncan, Dirk, Barkley, Malone and his otherworldly defense puts him over the top.

What people mean by dominant scorer is how capable are you of putting a team on your back for a quarter? A Half? The whole game? Can he put up 40 points when the rest of your team is struggling? Can he do that for a series? Can he do that in critical junctures? I know that scoring (particularly volume scoring) is like the black sheep of statistics, it's almost as if it's better to be a facilitator than scorer (but somebody has to take the shot). KG at his best is a floor spacer, knocking down those elbow 18-20 ft shots. How he played in Boston is his most effective role, which isn't a dominant scorer.

Nash is in no way, shape, or form even an average defender but you will hear people say that he is a good team defender and his incredible BBIQ makes him great at rotations....there is an appropriate gif that I don't have access to right now.

Raven I will have to respond to you after I get off work.....

[Texas Chuck]

This thread feels like some kind of trap for me.....

[G35]

2007/08 the Suns have D'Antoni and Marion, they win 55 games, Nash is 2nd team All NBA, All Star team, and they flame out vs the Spurs. Not bad but nothing to write home about. It's obvious they will never get past the Spurs with the small ball/3pt shooting.

Marion played 0 minutes in the 2008 series against the Spurs, because he was already in Miami.

They get rid of D'Antoni/Marion and bring in Shaq to give them an interior presence/rebounding/shot-blocking.

The trade Marion for O'Neal happened in February 2008.

So Shaq was the problem?

They played better without him. Does that answer your question?

The Suns weren't going to win building around Nash either.

They went to the WCF (which means they obviously won a lot of games) where they lost in 6 to the Lakers. Maybe they just faced a better team? Oh well, we know the answer to this ...

It has to be killing Nash fans that the Suns are playing pretty damn well with a team that is similarly talented to the ones Nash was leading. What is really funny to me is that they don't have a really great player defensively in the middle but their defense is 12th in the league. which would be the best defense the Suns have played in the Nash era......

Why would all of that matter when the question was: How good was Steve Nash? Did Nash play with those players together under the current coach and showed to be making them worse? No, he didn't.
And while the Suns team really plays surprisingly well, they aren't even close to the offensive performances of the Nash's Suns as well as being worse than the those Suns teams in average overall.

Nobody ever said that the only style leading to wins would be "letting Nash do his thing", just that the concept of "letting Nash do his thing" was leading to an amazing offensive and overall playing level. I guess, you are not quite sure what the difference between those two statements is; which also would explain, why you try to find some hidden agenda people arguing for both, Nash and Garnett, are supposed to have, because you are just not capable of understanding that winning a basketball game can be achieved in different ways. That's what your argument comes down to in the end; in your world there is just one right way to win games, then you use all kinds of cognitive biases (including hindsight and confirmation biases) to justify that opinion. You simply don't acknowledge that teams actually won a lot of games, and whenever those really good teams are not winning the championship, the only reason you can come up with is: the best player on that team was not that good. There aren't any answers like "bad luck" or "the other team was simply better" or "the teammates failed" for you possible; you just try to find a way to justify your preconception. Pretty sad, to say the least ...

I know when the trade was. Do you know that the Suns record was 34-14 the last game Marion played? That is a winning percentage of 71%. After Marion left the Suns went 21-13, a winning percentage of 62%. Not that the Suns had a chance of winning against the Lakers since they went 1-3 against them that year.

In 2004/05 when the Suns were at their best they lost to the Spurs 4-1. That year with Shaq they lost to the Spurs again 4-1. However in their 2005 series they lost by an average margin of 4.2 ppg. With Shaq they lost to the Spurs by an avg margin of 2ppg. Three of the four losses came by 6 points or less, in 2005 without Shaq two of their losses were by 7 points or more.

They played worse in 2008/09 because Nash didn't like the system. He didn't like Porter, this is where context comes in to play. Porter was fired after 51 games. What I don't understand is that the offense didn't struggle, they were still the #2 offense for the whole year so why does Shaq get all the blame?

Maybe they made it to the WCF's because they played inferior teams? See how that works. Of course you play superior teams in the playoff's...because it's not as if Nash hasn't lost being a higher seed...like in 2005. I really don't get this logic of "they played a superior team so that's the excuse for why they lost". So that makes Nash an elite player because he lost to better teams? Well then Wilt, Dr J, Jerry West and Oscar should be at the top of the GOAT list!

It should not be a contest anymore that Dirk is a more effective player than either KG/Nash:

The Mavericks beat a Trailblazer team that was an unfavorable matchup
They beat a higher seeded Laker team
They beat a younger/faster Thunder team
They beat a higher seeded more talented Heat team

Why is it ALWAYS the same excuse for Nash/KG that they lost to more talented teams. Why don't teams just give up in the playoff's when they play a higher seeded team, they can't win. I mean Nash/KG never beat a better team so that's how it is for everyone....right?

You are absolutely correct in that you win a basketball in so many different ways, sometimes you have to make adjustments to your offense/defense, sometimes your star player carries you and sometimes it's a role player that makes a crucial play and sometimes the better team doesn't always win. That's the problem with formulas...they don't work in basketball. I don't know what you think my "right" way is to win basketball games but the only "right" way is to do it. Not talk about "what if's"....either you did it or you didn't. That's it. That's why I give more credit to those who win, it's so damn hard to win that you can't just dismiss what someone accomplishes because you THINK someone could do the the same thing.....

[Volcano]

They're both overrated at realgm, but the mainstream has it about right.

mainstream gave Nash two MVP's when most of realgm didn't think he deserved both and realgm rates him as one of the worst MVP's in NBA history.

I know when the trade was. Do you know that the Suns record was 34-14 the last game Marion played? That is a winning percentage of 71%. After Marion left the Suns went 21-13, a winning percentage of 62%. Not that the Suns had a chance of winning against the Lakers since they went 1-3 against them that year.

In 2004/05 when the Suns were at their best they lost to the Spurs 4-1. That year with Shaq they lost to the Spurs again 4-1. However in their 2005 series they lost by an average margin of 4.2 ppg. With Shaq they lost to the Spurs by an avg margin of 2ppg. Three of the four losses came by 6 points or less, in 2005 without Shaq two of their losses were by 7 points or more.

They played worse in 2008/09 because Nash didn't like the system. He didn't like Porter, this is where context comes in to play. Porter was fired after 51 games. What I don't understand is that the offense didn't struggle, they were still the #2 offense for the whole year so why does Shaq get all the blame?

Maybe they made it to the WCF's because they played inferior teams? See how that works. Of course you play superior teams in the playoff's...because it's not as if Nash hasn't lost being a higher seed...like in 2005. I really don't get this logic of "they played a superior team so that's the excuse for why they lost". So that makes Nash an elite player because he lost to better teams? Well then Wilt, Dr J, Jerry West and Oscar should be at the top of the GOAT list!

It should not be a contest anymore that Dirk is a more effective player than either KG/Nash:

The Mavericks beat a Trailblazer team that was an unfavorable matchup
They beat a higher seeded Laker team
They beat a younger/faster Thunder team
They beat a higher seeded more talented Heat team

Why is it ALWAYS the same excuse for Nash/KG that they lost to more talented teams. Why don't teams just give up in the playoff's when they play a higher seeded team, they can't win. I mean Nash/KG never beat a better team so that's how it is for everyone....right?

You are absolutely correct in that you win a basketball in so many different ways, sometimes you have to make adjustments to your offense/defense, sometimes your star player carries you and sometimes it's a role player that makes a crucial play and sometimes the better team doesn't always win. That's the problem with formulas...they don't work in basketball. I don't know what you think my "right" way is to win basketball games but the only "right" way is to do it. Not talk about "what if's"....either you did it or you didn't. That's it. That's why I give more credit to those who win, it's so damn hard to win that you can't just dismiss what someone accomplishes because you THINK someone could do the the same thing.....

- Teams that SHOULD or SHOULDN'T win are YOUR perspective. Regular season record doesn't mean one team should beat another. It's about match-ups, coaching and about your supporting cast. If ONE of his teammates didn't step up, Dirk would lose. Does that make Dirk any worse? No.

- Nash teams were constructed to be regular season teams, he needs defenders on his team, just like Dirk (the 4-5th best defender on his championship team). How did Dallas beat Miami? by keeping Wade/Lebron/Bosh in check just enough. How did Dallas lose to Miami the first time? Dirk let Wade do ballet twirls all around the court. What a great interior defender.

- Dirk has had teams WAY better constructed around him than KG. Give KG a $100 million dollar pay roll team and give him 12 seasons to take multiple shots at the playoffs. It's like people who think Kobe's clutch when he makes 5 out of 24 clutch shots.

- You want to credit winning, but you ignore Dirk LOSING to inferior teams? ok

[Doctor MJ]

I do have a list that's actually 500 hundred players long. You think I'm gonna post it just to humor you? Get real.

You make it sound like it's a ton of work for you. You know you can just upload these things right?

Really? How does that work exactly?

I guess I just don't see why you brag about having a list to answer someone's challenge of you, and then refuse to show the list.

[Doctor MJ]

They're both overrated at realgm, but the mainstream has it about right.

Which is of course all the OP means. He sees the deviation from the most commonly held belief as the evidence for error.

[G35]

- Teams that SHOULD or SHOULDN'T win are YOUR perspective. Regular season record doesn't mean one team should beat another. It's about match-ups, coaching and about your supporting cast. If ONE of his teammates didn't step up, Dirk would lose. Does that make Dirk any worse? No.

- Nash teams were constructed to be regular season teams, he needs defenders on his team, just like Dirk (the 4-5th best defender on his championship team). How did Dallas beat Miami? by keeping Wade/Lebron/Bosh in check just enough. How did Dallas lose to Miami the first time? Dirk let Wade do ballet twirls all around the court. What a great interior defender.

- Dirk has had teams WAY better constructed around him than KG. Give KG a $100 million dollar pay roll team and give him 12 seasons to take multiple shots at the playoffs. It's like people who think Kobe's clutch when he makes 5 out of 24 clutch shots.

- You want to credit winning, but you ignore Dirk LOSING to inferior teams? ok

No it's not my opinion. The team that won homecourt advantage is the HIGHER ranked team. That means that they SHOULD win. Now matchups can (and WILL) cause upsets. The excuse KG and Nash always says is they met better teams. The only reason why they are considered better is because they won. If the Suns had won they would be considered better. Simple as that.

I agree that the Suns were constructed for the regular season. That they cannot win in the playoff's playing that way. However, Suns (and Nash) apologists try to shift the blame onto the defense/Amare/Marion/D'Antoni for their failures. But if they were doomed from the start then they should not have handed the keys to Nash if he wasn't going to get them anywhere in the playoff's.

Yes Dirk needed defenders...which is why they got Jason Kidd...and Shawn Marion.

Ask any Nash fan and they will tell you that Jason Kidd is nowhere as good as Nash so then why did Dirk win a championship with a PG that can't shoot nearly as well as Nash? Why isa player as criticized for failing in the playoff's as Marion was with Phoenix so crucial to the Mavericks winning?.....

[ElGee]

Why is it ALWAYS the same excuse for Nash/KG that they lost to more talented teams.

Because it's always the same premise -- Team Winning != Individual Goodness. It makes no sense to describe "blame" when there are nearly 20 primary variables involved: The player in question, the opponent's rotation, his team's rotation and both coaches. It's like the same excuses people always make as to why Duncan didn't sell as many jerseys as Iverson and Carter.

You keep misrepresenting "the other side's" opinion here (i.e. people who rate Nash/KG higher than you) -- It might help find common ground if you try and clearly explain their argument. (If you can't, perhaps that means you are arguing against something you don't fully understand...)

[G35]

Why is it ALWAYS the same excuse for Nash/KG that they lost to more talented teams.

Because it's always the same premise -- Team Winning != Individual Goodness. It makes no sense to describe "blame" when there are nearly 20 primary variables involved: The player in question, the opponent's rotation, his team's rotation and both coaches. It's like the same excuses people always make as to why Duncan didn't sell as many jerseys as Iverson and Carter.

You keep misrepresenting "the other side's" opinion here (i.e. people who rate Nash/KG higher than you) -- It might help find common ground if you try and clearly explain their argument. (If you can't, perhaps that means you are arguing against something you don't fully understand...)

You can do that when the same players are doing all the winning.

Now if you are trying to be fair, have a level playing field, equally represent each side, I don't see you calling out the KG/Nash fans for clearly explaining the argument against KG/Nash...maybe they don't fully understand the argument against.

And if you can't clearly spell out your argument the sender is usually at fault.....

[ElGee]

Why is it ALWAYS the same excuse for Nash/KG that they lost to more talented teams.

Because it's always the same premise -- Team Winning != Individual Goodness. It makes no sense to describe "blame" when there are nearly 20 primary variables involved: The player in question, the opponent's rotation, his team's rotation and both coaches. It's like the same excuses people always make as to why Duncan didn't sell as many jerseys as Iverson and Carter.

You keep misrepresenting "the other side's" opinion here (i.e. people who rate Nash/KG higher than you) -- It might help find common ground if you try and clearly explain their argument. (If you can't, perhaps that means you are arguing against something you don't fully understand...)

You can do that when the same players are doing all the winning.

Now if you are trying to be fair, have a level playing field, equally represent each side, I don't see you calling out the KG/Nash fans for clearly explaining the argument against KG/Nash...maybe they don't fully understand the argument against.

And if you can't clearly spell out your argument the sender is usually at fault.....

Yes the sender is usually at fault -- that may well be case. I'm suggesting we find out.

I'm not calling anyone out. I'm making a suggestion -- from where I stand, if we follow your demarcation, the pro-Nash/KG crowd clearly understands the anti-Nash/KG stance. In essence, they can write the anti-Nash posts perfectly as well.

However, It looks like you (and others) don't understand their viewpoint, given how often it is misrepresented. You cannot write the pro-Nash posts perfectly well. I may be wrong, but either way it's moot, because my suggestion to start by explaining their argument in detail is a valuable exercise alone. In general, it's a great way to bridge a gap...it'll helps both sides quite a bit...assuming each party wants to hear and be heard.

[mysticbb]

That they cannot win in the playoff's playing that way.

But the Suns won in the playoffs. They played like a 7.4 SRS team in average in their 67 playoff games from 2005 to 2010 while winning 36 of those games. They had +5.2 SRS in average in those seasons in the regular season. Overall they played BETTER in the playoffs than in the regular season; just that they lost to an even better team in the end. The Spurs were simply better with Duncan and Ginobili playing in 2005 and 2007 as well as in 2008, the Lakers in 2010 were better, the Mavericks in 2006 were better.
So, yes, they didn't won the title and they were not even making the finals, but overall they won in the playoffs and played at a pretty high level (the average title winning team is at about +7 level!), usually good enough to win the title.

Your view on those teams is compromised by your hindsight and your confirmation bias; nothing else. They could have easily won a title in 2005 or 2007 or 2010 without playing differently overall, just by having a bit more luck and you would change your opinion on them. I wouldn't, because they would still be the same team. Winning the title in a specific year is not just a question of the playing level of a particular team, but also determined by luck; getting the average or below average opponents for the respective round; making that one particular shot instead of having that shot bouncing out of the rim and getting the 50/50 call rather than having the opponent getting it (those are just a few things having influence on winning the title). And when we judge a single player, we have many more influences going into the equation. And you just dismiss all the evidence speaking for Nash (or Garnett) as being as good as advertised by the generalization that the Suns (Timberwolves) didn't win the title, and therefore Nash (or Garnett) can't be that good. You are not evaluating the individual player, but rather trying to justify a previously formed opinion on those players based on a number of cognitive biases.

I can easily test your hypothesis that Nash or Garnett aren't as good while their teammates were by artificially reducing their value in my stats (based on a combined boxscore and +/- stats) while increasing equally the value of their respective teammates to fit the strength of their respective teams. Guess what? The predictive power (using the player's individual metric of the previous season and the played minutes in the respective season to determine the SRS of the team in the respective season, that's called a retrodiction test) decreased. I get worse prediction for the Suns in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012, if I do that. Only in 2009 the prediction is slightly better. For Garnett I get a worse prediction in every season from 2002 to 2012 except of 2005, where the prediction gets a bit better. And the prediction goes further off, the further I decrease the respective value for Nash and Garnett while increasing the value for their respective teammates.
From my perspective that test could easily disprove my stance on both players, but it didn't, therefore: Nash and Garnett are as good as advertised.

[Brenice]

Nash. You can't win a ring with him as your best player and he doesn't play his best when not the best player on the team.

[WhateverBro]

That they cannot win in the playoff's playing that way.

But the Suns won in the playoffs. They played like a 7.4 SRS team in average in their 67 playoff games from 2005 to 2010 while winning 36 of those games. They had +5.2 SRS in average in those seasons in the regular season. Overall they played BETTER in the playoffs than in the regular season; just that they lost to an even better team in the end. The Spurs were simply better with Duncan and Ginobili playing in 2005 and 2007 as well as in 2008, the Lakers in 2010 were better, the Mavericks in 2006 were better.
So, yes, they didn't won the title and they were not even making the finals, but overall they won in the playoffs and played at a pretty high level (the average title winning team is at about +7 level!), usually good enough to win the title.

Your view on those teams is compromised by your hindsight and your confirmation bias; nothing else. They could have easily won a title in 2005 or 2007 or 2010 without playing differently overall, just by having a bit more luck and you would change your opinion on them. I wouldn't, because they would still be the same team. Winning the title in a specific year is not just a question of the playing level of a particular team, but also determined by luck; getting the average or below average opponents for the respective round; making that one particular shot instead of having that shot bouncing out of the rim and getting the 50/50 call rather than having the opponent getting it (those are just a few things having influence on winning the title). And when we judge a single player, we have many more influences going into the equation. And you just dismiss all the evidence speaking for Nash (or Garnett) as being as good as advertised by the generalization that the Suns (Timberwolves) didn't win the title, and therefore Nash (or Garnett) can't be that good. You are not evaluating the individual player, but rather trying to justify a previously formed opinion on those players based on a number of cognitive biases.

I can easily test your hypothesis that Nash or Garnett aren't as good while their teammates were by artificially reducing their value in my stats (based on a combined boxscore and +/- stats) while increasing equally the value of their respective teammates to fit the strength of their respective teams. Guess what? The predictive power (using the player's individual metric of the previous season and the played minutes in the respective season to determine the SRS of the team in the respective season, that's called a retrodiction test) decreased. I get worse prediction for the Suns in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012, if I do that. Only in 2009 the prediction is slightly better. For Garnett I get a worse prediction in every season from 2002 to 2012 except of 2005, where the prediction gets a bit better. And the prediction goes further off, the further I decrease the respective value for Nash and Garnett while increasing the value for their respective teammates.
From my perspective that test could easily disprove my stance on both players, but it didn't, therefore: Nash and Garnett are as good as advertised.

The bolded sounds really interesting but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're doing. Could you explain that part a bit dumbed down? lol.

[mysticbb]

The bolded sounds really interesting but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're doing. Could you explain that part a bit dumbed down? lol.

Well, I can test a metric's ability to predict by using the value for each player from the previous season in order to calculate the expected team overall performance level in a respective season. Say, I want to predict how good the Suns in 2007 would be, if I use the 2006 values for each player playing on the Suns.
As an example (using rounded values): The Suns playing level according to my team rating in 2007 was +7.5. I now use the individual player values for the Suns' players from 2006 (e.g. Nash with +5, Marion and Diaw with +3, etc.) and their respective minutes in 2007. That gives me a value of +6.4, 1.1 point worse than they really were. Now I replaced Nash's value of +5 with +3 instead and raised everyone else by 0.3 to match the team rating level of the Suns in 2006. Doing that gives me +6.2 as expected level for the 2007 Suns, worse than using Nash with +5 and the rest with their lower respective values from 2006. Now I do a similar thing just with Nash getting +1 and everyone else gets raised by +0.6. In that case the predicted playing level of the Suns would have been +6.1, the prediction gets even worse.
That is true for the Suns in the respective seasons I noticed besides 2009, and for Garnett from 2002 to 2012 except of 2005.

Btw, if I replace Stoudemire's 2006 value, which was lowered due to his worse condition and achieved in a small sample, with the 2005 value, my metric would have predicted the Suns to be a +7.6 team in 2007.