Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[ElGee]

Just to reiterate the first bullet point from above, in the 2007 series Phoenix outscored San Antonio with Steve Nash on the court (492-481).

The unit of Thomas-Amare-Marion-X-Nash played 68 minutes and outscored the Spurs by 25, 146-121, for an ORtg of 112 and a Drtg of 97.

[ElGee]

You somehow found a post full of misinformation that represents the epitome of the all the pitfalls I described.

-Bowen didn't really guard Nash well. No one did. His individual numbers were great against San Antonio, (22.2 ppg 59.1% TS 11.7 apg 4.5 tpg) as were the team offenses. http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/19/the ... ince-1980/
http://basketballvalue.com/teamvsteam.p ... &team2=SAS

-Phoenix was arguably better in the halfcourt. Pace wasn't a huge issue. In fact, the slower the pace, the better the Suns offense performed in 2007 (small correlation of -0.16. The 87 Showtime Lakers - a fastbreak team - had a positive correlation of 0.28.

-Phoenix's offense wasn't really a high variance offense. It's standard deviation in ORtg in 2007 was 11.0 points per game. The 89 Pistons was 10.3 points per game. The team Phoenix lost to, San Antonio, had a standard deviation of 11.7.

-Teams didn't "adapt" adapt as the post claimed. They were historically good on offense with Shaq in the lineup and they were historically good in 2010. As they were in 05 and 07. I don't think a few guys complained, let alone "everyone," at any point.

The post you imported is exactly what I wrote about. A bias, rife with errors that contradict what actually happened, formed around a notion that the system can't win.

What you are failing to see is that it's not that Phoenix didn't play well offensively. It's not that Nash didn't play well offensively.

The Spurs had a plan and it was a simple one. Keep Phoenix from shooting three's and make them shoot two point shots. I have already posted in other threads how poorly Phoenix shot the three ball which was a major component of the SSOL.

And why do you keep talking about Phoenix' offense? The Spurs were willing to concede that the Suns were going to score points. They just knew that they just had to stop Phoenix at key points in the game. I look at it similar to the Heat-Mavericks in the finals. Dallas stopped the Heat when the had to not the whole game. That's what the Spurs did and they knew that the could easily score on the Phoenix defense. The Suns offense was predicated from outside in and at points in the game the Suns shooting would go south. It inevitably happens. The Suns didn't always take high percentage shots because of how their offense goes through Nash.

And they were absolutely terrible on defense with Shaq in the lineup. How can they have someone like Shaq who was better than Amare or Frye and get that bad on defense.....

Dude, I really don't know what to say to you at this point. You don't respond to any of the points I ever make, and in this case you've criticized me mentioning offense when I literally responded to the points one by one that you just posted. (!)

Shaq was a terrible defender at 37 years old...what does that have to do with Steve Nash??

Obviously the 07 Spurs tried to defend the 3, they were the 2nd-best RS defensive team and 2nd-best against the 3. Their strength against the Suns was on offense, where Phoenix struggled to match their bigs, mainly Duncan, and no one could stop Manu Ginobili. You seem to be the one to use that as an indictment on Steve Nash, which is like blaming Jay Leno's Sept. 10, 2001 monologue for the events of the next day.

[bastillon]

Elgee, he has a point, even though I don't think he knows that. Spurs knew how to stop Nash and Phoenix in key points of the game. they trapped him hard on the pick and rolls and rotated quickly with Suns not being able to do anything 4 on 3 while improvising. it's not really even a knock on Nash and it doesn't change the fact that Manu and Duncan killed the Suns, not Spurs defense. and it doesn't change the fact that the reason why Manu and Duncan were so succesful against Phoenix is that Suns didn't have any interior defense whatsoever. so in the end if we're looking for the reasons why Suns didn't win it was because of their defensive rebounding and interior defense. Steve Nash was unstoppable in the playoffs, consistently elevating his game then and anchoring best playoff offenses of all time.

[G35]

Dude, I really don't know what to say to you at this point. You don't respond to any of the points I ever make, and in this case you've criticized me mentioning offense when I literally responded to the points one by one that you just posted. (!)

Shaq was a terrible defender at 37 years old...what does that have to do with Steve Nash??

Obviously the 07 Spurs tried to defend the 3, they were the 2nd-best RS defensive team and 2nd-best against the 3. Their strength against the Suns was on offense, where Phoenix struggled to match their bigs, mainly Duncan, and no one could stop Manu Ginobili. You seem to be the one to use that as an indictment on Steve Nash, which is like blaming Jay Leno's Sept. 10, 2001 monologue for the events of the next day.

We have a clear difference in thinking. You look at the stats and say that Nash was effective because the team produced offensively. I look at it like Gregg Popovich did. I don't care what Nash did. I KNOW that Nash cannot beat the Spurs by himself. Unlike some superstars Nash doesn't have that ability. So the Spurs used a gameplan to limit what Nash could do. They let Amare go one on one on close out on all the Suns shooters. The Spurs won. That's all I need to know. If you need to pore over thousands of numbers to come to the conclusion that it wasn't Nash's fault they didn't win more power to you. I look at the game and see that Spurs had the plan to BEAT the Suns regardless what Nash did.

That's the difference at how we see the game. No matter what Nash did it wasn't going to be enough. He just didn't have the ability to beat that gameplan.....

[rrravenred]

First, those are only two years.

Fine, here are the rest. Nash's teams 2000 - 2011

Pace -
2000-2001 - 93.2 (4th of 29, top 94.7)
2001-2002 - 92.8 (4th of 29, top 95.6)
2002-2003 - 92.5 (7th of 29, top 95.4)
2003-2004 - 93.2 (2nd of 29, top 93.3)
2004-2005 - 95.9 (1st of 30, next 94.9)
2005-2006 - 95.8 (1st of 30, next 93.9)
2006-2007 - 95.6 (3rd of 30, top 99.2)
2007-2008 - 96.7 (4th of 30, top 99.7)
2008-2009 - 96.0 (4th of 30, top 98.2)
2009-2010 - 95.3 (4th of 30, top 100.4)
2010-2011 - 94.4 (7th of 30, top 96.5)

So ther's a four possession difference between the fastest and slowest paces Nash has played at, and it can't be said that Nash's teams were ridiculously over the average pace of the league.

Secondly, Nash has much more control in the Phoenix offense compared to Dallas. The Mavericks had more of a 3-headed monster with Nash/Finley/DIRK in the early 2000s. There were much more isolation plays in Dallas compared to the uptempo and P&R Phoenix system.

Exactly. I'd add that Dirk's such a good Iso player and Nash is such a good P'n'R player that it's not surprising that both were able to operate as such effective offensive anchors. Having said that, based on Nash's age I would probably have let him go from that squad, too, given that he was looking to double his previous contract on the wrong side of 30. Nash's longevity past the age of 30 has been almost unprecedented.

[bastillon]

Dude, I really don't know what to say to you at this point. You don't respond to any of the points I ever make, and in this case you've criticized me mentioning offense when I literally responded to the points one by one that you just posted. (!)

Shaq was a terrible defender at 37 years old...what does that have to do with Steve Nash??

Obviously the 07 Spurs tried to defend the 3, they were the 2nd-best RS defensive team and 2nd-best against the 3. Their strength against the Suns was on offense, where Phoenix struggled to match their bigs, mainly Duncan, and no one could stop Manu Ginobili. You seem to be the one to use that as an indictment on Steve Nash, which is like blaming Jay Leno's Sept. 10, 2001 monologue for the events of the next day.

We have a clear difference in thinking. You look at the stats and say that Nash was effective because the team produced offensively. I look at it like Gregg Popovich did. I don't care what Nash did. I KNOW that Nash cannot beat the Spurs by himself. Unlike some superstars Nash doesn't have that ability. So the Spurs used a gameplan to limit what Nash could do. They let Amare go one on one on close out on all the Suns shooters. The Spurs won. That's all I need to know. If you need to pore over thousands of numbers to come to the conclusion that it wasn't Nash's fault they didn't win more power to you. I look at the game and see that Spurs had the plan to BEAT the Suns regardless what Nash did.

That's the difference at how we see the game. No matter what Nash did it wasn't going to be enough. He just didn't have the ability to beat that gameplan.....

Popovich would laugh his ass badly

[Stripes13]

The Spurs won. That's all I need to know. If you need to pore over thousands of numbers to come to the conclusion that it wasn't Nash's fault they didn't win more power to you. I look at the game and see that Spurs had the plan to BEAT the Suns regardless what Nash did.

Oh for crying out loud...

I'm done lurking this thread. Good to see that the correct player won the vote though.

[ITGM]

Zeke played in a hard-nosed era when defense was legally malevolent. = Less Asst/pts opportunities

Isiah Thomas Averaged

19.2pts
1.9stls
9.3asst
0.7-threes
45.2fg%

Steve Nash plays in a David Stern contrivance: designed for optimum scoring. = More Asst/pts opportunities

Steve Nash Averages

14.6pts
0.8stls
8.5asst
1.4 trys
48.9FG%

Nash is a great player, but even with him playing in an advantageous system, he still doesn't compare to Isiah Thomas (One of the all time greats).

[rsavaj]

The Spurs won. That's all I need to know. If you need to pore over thousands of numbers to come to the conclusion that it wasn't Nash's fault they didn't win more power to you. I look at the game and see that Spurs had the plan to BEAT the Suns regardless what Nash did.

Oh for crying out loud...

I'm done lurking this thread. Good to see that the correct player won the vote though.

That's essentially the crux of the Pro-Thomas arguments. "Isiah is a winner, Nash is not. Isiah won, Nash did not."

[Ballings7]

Nailed it.

If Nash was the system I guess the system was broken in Dallas. Nash flourished once he returned to Phoenix and began playing with D'Antoni in an extremely uptempo system predicated on Nash dominating the ball and being the trigger man for the entire offense.

True. But if Nelson had believed in traditional ball... like playing centers who didn't have to be a mandatory shooter, whatever kind of foward or big it was. Things may of been different.

That's really where the system was broken, as well as being less conservative and selective in taking those quick shots, and leaking out. Just toned it down some, and played a center who was a better defender.

[lobosloboslobos]

...

great posts

[Ballings7]

IRC also Spurs players got off the bench during one game when there was an altercation and Duncan and someone else should've been suspended.

despite all of the Suns shortcomings on the glass, I still think that team was the best in the NBA in 2007. I remember at the time I had no doubt whatsoever they'd win the title and was mad as hell after NBA made that series just lopsided in Spurs favor. lack of suspension for Bowen, Donaghy gambling his money on game 3 which he officiated, suspensions for Amare and Diaw, but not for Duncan... and despite all of that Suns still outscored the Spurs in that series. that's how much Spurs were overwhelmed in the 2 remaining games.

Aside from their lackings on defense, Phoenix had no legit secondary offensive creation source. Amare's not consistently good at creating his own offense, especially against a playoff-level defensive squad. Marion's limited offensively in a half-court game for his own offense, he has to have others create openings for him in some way.

That 3rd qtr deal in G3, was when Francisco Elson and James Jones got tangled up under the basket, and they had a stand off. Duncan got up from his chair and walked onto the court area, in front of his chair some, he didn't leap up from the bench and run toward the altercation area, like he was going to escalate the altercation (like Amare and Diaw and whoever else did). Which, when when you make a quick movement with an overly concerned look on your face, while RUNNING toward the area, the intent to do further damage with more bodies fleeing to scene is there. It created a bad element, and Phoenix stepped in their own crap.

Completely different manner of a reaction to altercation with Duncan in the 3rd qtr, Duncan didn't deserve a suspension or even a fine. Stu Jackson was justified in not penalizing SA at all.

Nobody ever talks about this in all the G3 suspension/altercation stuff, but Raja Bell (who was in the game) actually really could of escalated things more seriously by pushing Robert Horry after he hip-checked Nash. Went right over to him, and he lost his head. Horry didn't really respond though, Ginobili came over and got in between things. Yet, nobody ever brings that up.

Everybody believes the Suns were a victim at the hands of the vicious power beast that is the athletic scorer loving, nifty offensive-oriented NBA! Phoenix were a victim of their own lack of composure, they put themselves in a risky position of officai judgement. Ultimately as well, a victim of their own lack of effective communication with Nash, and recognition, in improving their team after getting exposed in the playoffs from 2005 and on by teams with inside-out offenses and skilled big men on both sides of the damn floor.

I can't imagine any other star player playing with a guy who averaged 37 ppg in the conference finals and loses and still gets credit as being the best player on the team with a teammate with that kind of production on his team.

Because if you watch that series more closely, the Spurs stayed focused more on containing the Suns role-players. In the half-court and in transition. Getting back, stunting, closing out, and rotating on three pt shooters, to make them take tougher twos off the dribble, or give up the ball. As, with all of the Suns supporting cast, or even most players, are not as comfortable or as effective going off the dribble. Which is prepositioned with an adjustment required from the offensive player, dicated by the defense, from beginning your shooting form, then having to make more motions to get a shot off. So, the Spurs played softer on Amare and let him go off, drawing more attention to him was not going to be as conducive in defending the Suns offense.

It worked. Phoenix averaged less PPG in that series, than they did in the regular season and in the previous playoff series, opposite for the Spurs - who basically beat Phoenix at their own game.

That's why they always beat Phoenix before the Spurs dropped off and Phoenix had a better overall team than before, in 2010. SA were well-rounded, thus better, on offense, and very solid on defense. Balance.

Suns were the more "explosive" offensive team because of Nash/D'Antoni's philosophy, but they had no real substance within their offense. Because of the over reliance on Nash to run it, and nobody else to help him create, in support of running the offense.

[Doctor MJ]

And they were absolutely terrible on defense with Shaq in the lineup. How can they have someone like Shaq who was better than Amare or Frye and get that bad on defense.....

As is the case generally, that's an excellent question for a discussion on the player causing the problem, and yet you seem to not only prefer to use it to damn a different player, but take it as a given that the player causing the problem wasn't the problem. It's just bizarre.

I mean, I'm all for bringing all context to a player analysis, but when I see Player A performing well and Player B performing poorly, there is no step to my analysis where I say "and Player A is responsible for all things his teammates do, so therefore this is all Player A's fault and he is incapable of great team success".

How can Shaq make the defense worse if he's a better defender than X? Well short answer: He can't. Yes we can talk about fit, etc, but there's just an obvious answer here: Shaq was old and fat and bouncing from team to team because new teams kept hoping he could bring some of his old magic (while current teams gleefully traded him to the new sucker).

[Doctor MJ]

Zeke played in a hard-nosed era when defense was legally malevolent. = Less Asst/pts opportunities

Isiah Thomas Averaged

19.2pts
1.9stls
9.3asst
0.7-threes
45.2fg%

Steve Nash plays in a David Stern contrivance: designed for optimum scoring. = More Asst/pts opportunities

Steve Nash Averages

14.6pts
0.8stls
8.5asst
1.4 trys
48.9FG%

Nash is a great player, but even with him playing in an advantageous system, he still doesn't compare to Isiah Thomas (One of the all time greats).

You really have no clue at all what you're talking about. I mean, stunningly so. Go to b-r.com, go look at the assists from various year. I'll show you two right here:

In 1985, the average team had 2153 assists.
In 2005, the average team had 1745 assists.

Isiah played in BY FAR the most inflated era of assists in all of basketball history. That you simply assume that the modern game is more assist prone than it was in Isiah's day shows that you either have not put in a tiny fraction of the effort to understanding this stuff of the people you're debating with, or that you simply don't have the ability to do this type of thinking yourself. Either way, you need to stop talking and start listening.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay folks. 47 pages is a long time, and I feel like I'm just getting way to harsh and negative, and it's Christmas time for goodness sake. So I'm out of this thread, and my best wishes to Isiah supporters everywhere.

[ahonui06]

Nailed it.

If Nash was the system I guess the system was broken in Dallas. Nash flourished once he returned to Phoenix and began playing with D'Antoni in an extremely uptempo system predicated on Nash dominating the ball and being the trigger man for the entire offense.

True. But if Nelson had believed in traditional ball... like playing centers who didn't have to be a mandatory shooter, whatever kind of foward or big it was. Things may of been different.

That's really where the system was broken, as well as being less conservative and selective in taking those quick shots, and leaking out. Just toned it down some, and played a center who was a better defender.

Unfortunately, Don Nelson loves gimmick basketball so that would never happen. DIRK improved the day he left Dallas.

[Aeternus]

^^^Then why should we blame Nash and call him a system player for not playing to his Phoenix level with Nelson? Shouldn't this fact be seen as an objective impediment to his performance, rather than accusing the rule change, D'Antoni's "system" etc. for Nash's improvement?

[ahonui06]

^^^Then why should we blame Nash and call him a system player for not playing to his Phoenix level with Nelson? Shouldn't this fact be seen as an objective impediment to his performance, rather than accusing the rule change, D'Antoni's "system" etc. for Nash's improvement?

D'Antoni's system definitely fostered Nash's improvement. Nash wasn't ball dominant in Dallas compared to Phoenix.

[rrravenred]

Nash having that ball-dominant role in Dallas would have made for an interesting team.

[ahonui06]

Nash having that ball-dominant role in Dallas would have made for an interesting team.

It would have been interesting. It also would have been interesting if Don Nelson didn't love Michael Finley. They would run isolation plays for Finley down the stretch of games instead of Nash or Nowitzki. Finley very rarely came through in the clutch. Very frustrating.