Bill Russell's Offense

[Rapcity_11]

If Kobe had shot 20-25 and scored 50 points but lost vs the Celtics in the 2010 finals rapcity_11 would be the only one saying "Kobe was the best player in that series! Look at how well he shot and his impact." Everyone else would be saying, "They lost the game."

Is this supposed to make me look like the one who's off base?

I won't waste any other time with the rest of your pathetic post.

[Laimbeer]

I'll only go back to the sixties, but the only guys to win three or more titles as the guy are Russell, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq and Duncan. Four of those are generally considered top 6, and all top 10. Even by the people that claim titles don't matter.

[Rapcity_11]

I'll only go back to the sixties, but the only guys to win three or more titles as the guy are Russell, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq and Duncan. Four of those are generally considered top 6, and all top 10. Even by the people that claim titles don't matter.

Yes, because being the best players of all-time makes you extremely likely to win multiple titles.

[Doctor MJ]

If Kobe had shot 20-25 and scored 50 points but lost vs the Celtics in the 2010 finals rapcity_11 would be the only one saying "Kobe was the best player in that series! Look at how well he shot and his impact." Everyone else would be saying, "They lost the game."

Is this supposed to make me look like the one who's off base?

Man, I can't help it. That's just funny.

G35, you really have problems approaching analysis with unclouded objectivity. It's obviously entirely possible that a player is the best on the court but his teammates let him down. Kobe supporters have argued this since '05. When and where we see this happen, we need to do our best to not knock the star for the faults of others.

In general, when we do "player comparisons" in a team sport, it's pretty much our entire task to disentangle what the player is doing from what the rest of the team is doing. If you aren't trying to do that, then you aren't accomplishing anything.

[mysticbb]

One of the major arguments FOR Nash is that the Suns are so terrible when he is off the court. Why trade a PG that could help that? Also I give you Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli, Darren Collison, Ryan Anderson, Courtney Lee, Serge Ibaka, Nicholas Batum, George Hill all were recently drafted after pick 21.

That is a question the Suns management has to answer, not me. I thought Rondo was a steal at #21, they obviously thought he would not be worth it. But that move does not speak for your idea that the Suns traded defense for offense in order to make Nash look better. They were just not very good at evaluating players and their potential.

Once again stat guys generally look only at the offensive output and not the defensive impact.

http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/players/4.png

That is a look at Marion's RAPM development over the years. He got worse since leaving the Suns in terms of offense and defense.

Marion was the Suns best defensive player. The problem I see with Nash fans is that they want to hype up the offense. Great the offense is amazing for Phoenix but after awhile you get diminishing returns, HOW MUCH better does the offense need to get? Why not make the defense better at some point? Look at the drop off of the Suns offense after Marion left.

:lol:

You are insane, if you think that people here around arguing for Nash are completely ignoring defense. In fact multiple times was the defensive inability of a guy like Stoudemire pointed out. You are either completely dishonest here or just completely unable to understand coherent arguments, if you really think that "we" would ignore defense and hype up offense. Matter of fact is that most of "us" are arguing with point differential, that is offense PLUS defense, not just one aspect. So, get it into your brain, that the game is about scoring more than your opponents, which means you need offense AND defense. In fact, in average the NBA champion was over the last 34 years as much better offensively as defensively.

Another major part here is that the PG can't influence the defense much, the bigger influence is made by bigs. But a PG should run the offense, he can influence the offense much more than the defense.

Marion takes the brunt of the blame for the Phoenix losses in the playoff's but during the regular season it wasn't a problem. But then people wonder why he can't guard Tim Duncan. Really? So the reason why the Suns lost is because Marion can't find his offense after trying to guard Duncan.

WHAT? Who is blaming Marion, because he "couldn't find his offense"? The major blame is on Stoudemire being unable to provide any type of interior defense and rebounding, that was a much bigger issue. As I showed you multiple times now the Suns offense was fine, in fact, they played better offensivly during the playoffs than during the regular season. Also, adjusted for the strength of the opponents, the Suns played OVERALL BETTER during the playoffs with Nash than during the regular season. Unfortunatetly their opponents were just better teams overall or they had bad luck with suspensions and injuries. Look at the circumstance before you make silly claims.

Now unless you want to say that Nash is that much greater than Amare you might be on to something but I don't see it that way.

Yes, I think Nash is much better than Stoudemire. The fact that the Suns with Nash right now are playing clearly better than the Knicks with Stoudemire should tell you something. Or would you choose Grant Hill over Carmelo Anthony? Or Marcin Gortat over Tyson Chandler?

I think that Amare and Nash are relatively equal players.

No, they obviously are not equal by any means. How does Stoudemire without Nash look like? Does he look like a high efficient scorer? Check his numbers in New York and you might realise that Stoudemire's high efficiency in Phoenix was a result of playing with Nash.

I'm not going for any "impact" stats that Nash-stans want to pull out saying Nash is good on defense, save that and put it in your pocket for later

Who is saying that Nash is "good" on defense? Nobody is saying that. It just doesn't matter much that his defense is below average, because the impact on defense by a PG is marginal. And that's why Nash's defensive impact is slightly negative, but not by a huge amount. Right now the Suns with Nash are playing 1.2 points better defensively than average. The Knicks with Stoudemire and Chandler together on the court are 2 points worse than average (both times adjusted for offensive strength of the opponents).

I think I can put a team around Amare and build a contender easier than I can around Nash.

How so? The current Knicks are proving the opposite. Would you pick the current Suns without Nash over the current Knicks without Stoudemire?

How can you forget that Dallas let Nash walk after 5 years with Dirk.

They were outbid by the Suns due to $6m less in guaranteed money. The Mavericks offered Nash basically the same deal as the Suns, but they were concerned about his health in the future and had the last year only half guaranteed, while it would have been completely guaranteed, if Nash could have played 20 minutes per game for 60 games in year 4! They didn't let him "walk", because they thought he sucks.

Dirk wasn't seen as being a great defender also. I think a big that has defensive deficiencies can be easier built around than a PG that plays best in a high octane offense that is crap on defense.

And that just shows either your complete lack of understanding basketball or your hate for Nash. Seriously, how can you say that a weak big defender can be hidden easier than a weak defensive PG? Really? How do you think defense works?
The issue is that Nowitzki is in a whole different universe defensively than Stoudemire. Just watch Stoudemire trying to defend someone and it is really hard to not laugh all the time, because Stoudemire has just no clue how to be in any sort or way being effective defensively. Nowitzki always had a positive impact on defense, because he makes way less mistakes and does not go for every fake like Stoudemire. Right now the defense with Nowitzki on the court is 7 points better than average (again, adjusted for the offensive strength of the opponents), Stoudemire can only dream about that.
And you just have to understand that the defense of the Suns with Nash over the last 1.5 years is BETTER than the defense of the Knicks with Stoudemire. As I pointed out even with Chandler together on the court, the defensive failures of Stoudemire can't be countered. What player do you want to put next to Stoudemire in order to get at least average defense? Dwight Howard?
Yeah, no it is for sure not easier to build around Stoudemire than around Nash. In fact we have now multiple instances in which the defense with Nash on the court was clearly better than average (remember 2006 with Kurt Thomas and now with Gortat+Hill+Frye+etc.). We have no such instances for Stoudemire which are above 50 minutes played over the course of a season.

But a fact. The Suns never overcame their lack of defense through their offense.....

The Suns with Nash ALWAYS scored clearly more points than their opponents. In NO season the Suns got in average outscored with Nash on the court. So, how can you even come close to claim that would have not been the case?

[G35]

I'll only go back to the sixties, but the only guys to win three or more titles as the guy are Russell, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq and Duncan. Four of those are generally considered top 6, and all top 10. Even by the people that claim titles don't matter.

Yes, because being the best players of all-time makes you extremely likely to win multiple titles.

Except Nash

If Kobe had shot 20-25 and scored 50 points but lost vs the Celtics in the 2010 finals rapcity_11 would be the only one saying "Kobe was the best player in that series! Look at how well he shot and his impact." Everyone else would be saying, "They lost the game."

Is this supposed to make me look like the one who's off base?

I won't waste any other time with the rest of your pathetic post.

You think I'll miss your pathetic attempts at trying to take winning out of the equation for competitive sports? I'm praying you don't respond. I would rather hear J23F talk about Jordan than you rant about "winning doesn't matter" nonsense and then say you care more about winning. Ridiculous.....

[rrravenred]

Let's keep this on Russ, shall we.

Nash has had enough threads of his own to keep the argument in rather than spilling out into other threads, yeah?

[G35]

That is a question the Suns management has to answer, not me. I thought Rondo was a steal at #21, they obviously thought he would not be worth it. But that move does not speak for your idea that the Suns traded defense for offense in order to make Nash look better. They were just not very good at evaluating players and their potential.
e since leaving the Suns in terms of offense and defense.

Stop making assumptions that I was saying they were making a trade for offense over defense. The Suns needed a PG period. Barbosa wasn't cutting it. Remember Nash's whole argument is that the Suns fall apart when he isn't on the floor. Well then get a damn PG. When your whole team falls apart with your best player off the floor then you are making too many concessions to your star player. the Bulls didn't fall apart without Mike. I'm sure the Celtics didn't fall apart without Russell. Your star player is suppose to make the rest of the team better.

You are insane, if you think that people here around arguing for Nash are completely ignoring defense. In fact multiple times was the defensive inability of a guy like Stoudemire pointed out. You are either completely dishonest here or just completely unable to understand coherent arguments, if you really think that "we" would ignore defense and hype up offense. Matter of fact is that most of "us" are arguing with point differential, that is offense PLUS defense, not just one aspect. So, get it into your brain, that the game is about scoring more than your opponents, which means you need offense AND defense. In fact, in average the NBA champion was over the last 34 years as much better offensively as defensively.

Another major part here is that the PG can't influence the defense much, the bigger influence is made by bigs. But a PG should run the offense, he can influence the offense much more than the defense.

You can look at your stats "after the fact" and say that it's all on Stoudemire that the Suns were terrible offensively but it was a team effort. Amare wasn't the only one giving up points. Nash had plenty of games where the opposing guard went off on him in the playoff's. The point is in the playoff's the Suns offensive system wasn't sustainable. You can get away with Marion/Stoudemire as your frontcourt in the regular season. You can't do that in the playoff's.

You need to get it in your brain that there aren't many NBA champions with average defense. You can't outscore your opponent when you can't stop their offense at all. The claim is that Nash creates this incredible offense but it's really not that unstoppable. It's not like they are shooting 70% or even 60% as a team. You can stop the Suns offense. Why are you trying to make it seem like there isn't a well known formula to stop the Suns. It's easy. Limit their three point attempts. It's not like Nash is doing anything cosmic.

But a PG is not necessary to run a good offense. Why people don't understand that I don't know. Chauncey Billups is not a great PG. But he was good enough to run an offense. Most PG's like to get up and down the court, especially now most PG's don't like to come down and run a play or run a half court offense. Is Westbrook a great playmaker? Is Rose? Is Parker? You can get many players that can get the ball to the open man.

I don't get it. I fight against Jordan as much as anyone (shout out to J23F) but the reason why he is so celebrated is because he was the only player to win without a great big man. Now he had a competent frontcourt but we all know that if you want to attack the Bulls it's going to be on the interior.

That's why I choose Amare over Nash. They both suck on defense. I never said they didn't but there is no chance that Nash as your best player is going to win a title. He needs a big man. It's why Russell is able to win with limited offense. He can affect the game more defensively and still bring some offense. Nash is only going to be able to affect the offensive side of the ball. And I also think that D'Antoni bringing up Amare in that no defense system affected his fundamentals. Even Gortat complained about the Suns when he came over and you can't blame Marion or Amare for this.

http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2010/ ... -nightmare

When a player, especially a player who's new to the team, speaks up like this, it can go two ways. The rest of the team can see his words as a wake-up call and react in a positive way. Or he can create division in the locker room with guys pointing fingers and resenting the "new guy" for speaking out of school. We'll see what happens next.

Take it away, Marcin:

"I came from a team where everybody was competing and trying to do what the coach told you. We just totally changed our rotations and what we said before the game. We were not playing hard enough and we have a lot of work in front of us."

"I think we need to be in the gym everyday for three hours, learn the rotations and everything from the beginning. There are so many things we are doing bad and I can't find an explanation."

This lack of defensive discipline didn't just start in 2010. It's been like that for a while! The Suns don't stress defense. And people wonder why Nash is staying in Phoenix. Because he ain't got to play defense.

Now Marcin is suggesting that the way the Suns go about their business is part of the problem and here he gets into potentially dangerous territory.

"I'm trying to get some rebounds and stops, but unfortunately there is not too many opportunities to rebound because the 76ers are scoring 120-something points. It is just frustrating. It is frustrating as hell; I'm not going to lie. It is a reality check for me, going from a team who is winning to a team who is losing and we are the worst defensive team in the league."

So the lack of defensive rebounding is a result of giving up too many points, which has a certain logic to it except the 76ers still had 12 offensive rebounds and 18 second chance points. The comment about going from a winning team to a losing team is refreshingly candid, but potentially decisive. It's not like the Suns are the 76ers, who haven't had playoff success in years.

"We have to be more serious about everything we do. When you pass through that door up front over there, this is time when you pack it in and are getting ready for the game or the practice. We got to read the scouting report, which guy likes to do what and learn it. It's a lot of work."

It's the Suns philosophy that sucks. And imo your philosophy comes from your best player. Or in this case Nash who has finally been utilized the "right way". And here is another article about what makes the Nash system work. And you can't say I'm not being objective. These are Phoenix based writers.

http://arizona.sbnation.com/2010/12/29/ ... e#comments

Great offense plus mediocre defense equals success in the desert. Unfortunately, the defense has a LONG way to go before it sniffs mediocrity, but that's a topic for another day.

Of course, for that formula to work, it also needs the offense to be great and, for the Suns, that's revolved around Steve Nash and his ability to handle the ball, get into the lane and make **** happen. Pick-and-roll or drive and kick -- that's how the Suns scored so efficiently over the years.

And while Nash is the engine that makes that machine go, the unsung hero has been the tires that carry the load. Or is it the windows that let you see? Or maybe the satellite navigation system that helps you find your way?

And regardless of the cheesy metaphor, we mean the floor spacing.

For the Suns' "Nash System" to work on offense, the floor has to be spaced and that means there can only be one big man in the lane who doesn't have decent range. Four shooters surrounding one big man in the paint is a classic NBA alignment, but for the Suns, that "big man" has been Steve Nash. He's the one who needs the painted area relatively free so he can do his best work.

Last year, Phoenix reached its offensive pinnacle with Amare Stoudemire being able to both space the floor for Robin Lopez and, of course, play in the paint with Steve Nash when Channing Frye was in the game.

This part of the article shows how invaluable Amare was to Nash offensively.

But when Amare blew out of town like a high-priced tumbleweed, it turned out that it wasn't his pick-and-roll finishing abilities that were most missed. It was his ability to both space the floor for Lopez AND finish on the pick-and-roll that left the big hole big enough to drive Robin Lopez's hair through.

The Suns tried to replace that with two guys who each could do one of those things.

Hakim Warrick can finish the hell out of the pick-and-roll, but can't space his way out of a paper bag. Hedo Turkoglu created more space than a chaperon at a Catholic prep school dance, but couldn't roll down a hill if he was laying on his side and given a big shove. And those two combined to make Amare look like the love child of Kevin Love and Joakim Noah on the defensive and rebounding parts of the game.

And this is why Channing Frye gets so much playing time. Nash needs a big that can spread the floor. Which in turn keeps him off the offensive boards and also it's rare to have the big that can shoot three's well and is good defensively. Which creates such a void defensively for the Suns. To make Nash so effective it creates holes on the defensive side.

It would be extremely difficult for the Suns offense as we know it to function with Warrick on the floor for big minutes with either Gortat or Lopez, unless Hakim suddenly developed a reliable 18-foot shot.

Even when Frye is on the court, his ability to hit three-point shots keeps the defense from collapsing into the paint. There have been games the Suns lost when those outside shots were open and simply missed. That's kind of how outside shooting works. Those missed shots allow the opposing defense to pack the paint and keep Nash from going all Nash on them.

And if you are into stats to prove a point, it turns out that when Frye scores over 15 points, the Suns are 6-1. When he scores under 15 points, they are 7-15. So put that in your stat pipe and smoke it.

That, my friends, is why Channing Frye is the key to the entire Suns offense. He's the guy that starts the engine.

[Doctor MJ]

Stop making assumptions that I was saying they were making a trade for offense over defense. The Suns needed a PG period. Barbosa wasn't cutting it. Remember Nash's whole argument is that the Suns fall apart when he isn't on the floor. Well then get a damn PG. When your whole team falls apart with your best player off the floor then you are making too many concessions to your star player. the Bulls didn't fall apart without Mike. I'm sure the Celtics didn't fall apart without Russell. Your star player is suppose to make the rest of the team better.

Worth noting two things:

1) I think we'd all agree that the Suns management did a poor job...which was part of the reason why the team didn't win more, i.e. win championships.

2) You saying "get a damn PG" like you do shows your assumptions. Meaning, you assume that it isn't that hard to fill that role, which of course makes sense because you aren't that impressed with Nash. Do you realize though how many point guards D'Antoni has now had a chance to work with? Really quite a lot over the years, and he's never really had much offensive success with any of them except Nash. Even with Lin, who seems clearly ahead of the rest, the Knicks offense isn't actually good.

It was pretty understandable back in 2004 to wonder if you could simply trust the decision making to your point guard, like D'Antoni did, and by running & gunning you could destroy opposing defenses. Since then though, we just keep seeing a huge gap between how it works with Nash and and how it works with a variety of other NBA point guards. It seems pretty clear that you can't just "get a damn PG" to make it work.

Let's also note that when we talk about the the team falling apart without Nash, and you saying that didn't happen with Jordan, what we're really talking about is +/- style statistics, and those don't put Nash's overall effect light years beyond other superstars. The reality is really that Nash is having the type of falloff you'd expect from a well used superstar.

Also, when for so long the Suns had an absolutely dominant offensive efficiency, and all the more so with Nash on the court, it's just kind of crazy to expect that having a backup leading that offense would result in similar production. It's really dang hard to ever reach that level of efficiency, so if the team was able to maintain it without their star, that would be basically unprecendented.

[G35]

Stop making assumptions that I was saying they were making a trade for offense over defense. The Suns needed a PG period. Barbosa wasn't cutting it. Remember Nash's whole argument is that the Suns fall apart when he isn't on the floor. Well then get a damn PG. When your whole team falls apart with your best player off the floor then you are making too many concessions to your star player. the Bulls didn't fall apart without Mike. I'm sure the Celtics didn't fall apart without Russell. Your star player is suppose to make the rest of the team better.

Worth noting two things:

1) I think we'd all agree that the Suns management did a poor job...which was part of the reason why the team didn't win more, i.e. win championships.

2) You saying "get a damn PG" like you do shows your assumptions. Meaning, you assume that it isn't that hard to fill that role, which of course makes sense because you aren't that impressed with Nash. Do you realize though how many point guards D'Antoni has now had a chance to work with? Really quite a lot over the years, and he's never really had much offensive success with any of them except Nash. Even with Lin, who seems clearly ahead of the rest, the Knicks offense isn't actually good.

It was pretty understandable back in 2004 to wonder if you could simply trust the decision making to your point guard, like D'Antoni did, and by running & gunning you could destroy opposing defenses. Since then though, we just keep seeing a huge gap between how it works with Nash and and how it works with a variety of other NBA point guards. It seems pretty clear that you can't just "get a damn PG" to make it work.

Let's also note that when we talk about the the team falling apart without Nash, and you saying that didn't happen with Jordan, what we're really talking about is +/- style statistics, and those don't put Nash's overall effect light years beyond other superstars. The reality is really that Nash is having the type of falloff you'd expect from a well used superstar.

Also, when for so long the Suns had an absolutely dominant offensive efficiency, and all the more so with Nash on the court, it's just kind of crazy to expect that having a backup leading that offense would result in similar production. It's really dang hard to ever reach that level of efficiency, so if the team was able to maintain it without their star, that would be basically unprecendented.

Doc I am impressed Nash. Really I am. I just get frustrated with the over the top claims people have for Nash. That he's far better than Isiah, Stockton, Kidd, and GP. In ten years from now he will be grouped right along with these guys. He's seen as better because we are witnessing him now. I really do like Nash and I think he is an unbelievable shooter. Every time he shoots I think it's going in. In fact I think Nash should shoot more, he's that good.

Just like those that say Stockton didn't shoot enough but neither does Nash. He doesn't take over enough. Second I think Nash has been given everything he could be give to make HIMSELF better. I don't think the Suns benefited from Nash being allowed to do whatever he wanted. He's not good enough to beat teams that way. I've seen him lose when he had the opportunity to win.

But here too many people are ready to make excuses for Nash. I would like to see a thread that asks, "What could Nash do better?" but I would be afraid that it would be empty because everyone thinks he is the perfect player. If he was as good as he is presented in this forum he would have won a title or at least gone to the finals. A lot of players have gone to the conference finals. If Nash would have won a ring, this board would be fighting to make him a top 10 player. There are people now that want to do that.

As much as there are people that want to say rings don't matter they do. And you can tell they do because rings are the only reason why Nash isn't knocking on the door of the top 10 players. Look at KG. He won one ring and people want to say he is as good as Duncan and Shaq because of "impact".

As far as getting a PG it isn't that hard. Are we asking the Suns to get an All NBA or All Star PG to spell Nash? No it's someone that can keep the ship right while Nash gets his 10-15 minutes on the bench. You don't think Rondo couldn't have done that?

Give the Knicks a prime Marion/Joe Johnson/Marion etc and I think D'Antoni could have made it work with Felton. Carmelo/Amare isn't a perfect match. People underrate Marion's contributions to the team. He did the little things on the court like spacing, defense, hustling that people obviously underrated on the Suns.

Why can't people see that Marion was an awesome tool for Nash. Amare was an awesome fit for Nash. That system (wait I'm sorry that pisses people off for some reason) that philosophy by D'Antoni to "let Nash do whatever he wanted) was great for Nash. What I don't get is that it's made to seem that Nash didn't benefit at all and he could duplicate his success in Phoenix anywhere. It was mutual exchange.....

[Rapcity_11]

Except Nash

And Barkley, Malone, etc.

What's your point?

Great players don't always win. The best player doesn't always win.

You think I'll miss your pathetic attempts at trying to take winning out of the equation for competitive sports? I'm praying you don't respond. I would rather hear J23F talk about Jordan than you rant about "winning doesn't matter" nonsense and then say you care more about winning. Ridiculous.....

The fact that you don't think I care about winning really says it all. That's all I care about.

[ahonui06]

And Barkley, Malone, etc.

What's your point?

Great players don't always win. The best player doesn't always win.

Actually they do. It's the reason why Bill Russell is the GOAT.

[Rapcity_11]

And Barkley, Malone, etc.

What's your point?

Great players don't always win. The best player doesn't always win.

Actually they do. It's the reason why Bill Russell is the GOAT.

Did he win every year? No.

Did MJ? No.

[ahonui06]

And Barkley, Malone, etc.

What's your point?

Great players don't always win. The best player doesn't always win.

Actually they do. It's the reason why Bill Russell is the GOAT.

Did he win every year? No.

Did MJ? No.

Bill won 11 out of 13 years. The two years he didn't win he wasn't the best player.

Your sad attempt of trying to prove winning doesn't matter is hilarious though. Great players find a way to win titles.

[Rapcity_11]

Bill won 11 out of 13 years. The two years he didn't win he wasn't the best player.

Your sad attempt of trying to prove winning doesn't matter is hilarious though. Great players find a way to win titles.

What about Jordan?

And christ, how many times do I have to say this; winning is all that matters to me. I care about it more than you do. Using rings is what's pointless.

[ronnymac2]

Bill won 11 out of 13 years. The two years he didn't win he wasn't the best player.

Your sad attempt of trying to prove winning doesn't matter is hilarious though. Great players find a way to win titles.

This line of thinking is scary...

[AussieBuck]

Enjoying your work here Rapcity.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc I am impressed Nash. Really I am. I just get frustrated with the over the top claims people have for Nash. That he's far better than Isiah, Stockton, Kidd, and GP. In ten years from now he will be grouped right along with these guys. He's seen as better because we are witnessing him now.

Well I think for most people he's grouped with those other guys right now, and will continue to be so grouped in the future.

For the people on here you're frustrated with though, I'd say pretty firmly that the glaring trend for us is not overrating or underrating current players. I mean, we're in a Bill Russell thread, right? You don't ever have to think we're right, but after spending so much time on the subject you should be clear what it is about us that makes us side with certain types of players too much for your taste.

So yeah, I respond to your Nash stuff really because I can't help myself, but don't short change the Russell conversation. That you think we overrate both Russell and Nash MEANS something. Try to come up with a unifying principle.

I really do like Nash and I think he is an unbelievable shooter. Every time he shoots I think it's going in. In fact I think Nash should shoot more, he's that good.

Just like those that say Stockton didn't shoot enough but neither does Nash. He doesn't take over enough. Second I think Nash has been given everything he could be give to make HIMSELF better. I don't think the Suns benefited from Nash being allowed to do whatever he wanted. He's not good enough to beat teams that way. I've seen him lose when he had the opportunity to win.

I think it is reasonable to ask whether a pass-first point guard who also happens to be one of the greatest shooters in history should shoot more. The thing is though, Nash actually does tend to have games where he scores quite a bit, and when he was younger he tended to do this pretty regularly in the clutch. So it doesn't make much sense to say that he never took such opportunities, and given that his calling card is all-time great level team offense, it begs the question how anyone can really know that a clearly better approach existed?

And of course, by contrast, Stockton really didn't take over the game the same way. Why he didn't is up for debate, it's reasonable to say this had much to do with Sloan, and it certainly had something to do with Malone.

But here too many people are ready to make excuses for Nash. I would like to see a thread that asks, "What could Nash do better?" but I would be afraid that it would be empty because everyone thinks he is the perfect player. If he was as good as he is presented in this forum he would have won a title or at least gone to the finals. A lot of players have gone to the conference finals. If Nash would have won a ring, this board would be fighting to make him a top 10 player. There are people now that want to do that.

I'm fine with a thread like that being debated, but I'd say you've got the causality reversed here to at least some degree. I enjoy seeing players make good basketball decisions, and I hate it when they consistently make the same bad decisions. Do you think that's unrelated to why I rate Russell and Nash so highly? (Unifying Principle alert)

As much as there are people that want to say rings don't matter they do. And you can tell they do because rings are the only reason why Nash isn't knocking on the door of the top 10 players. Look at KG. He won one ring and people want to say he is as good as Duncan and Shaq because of "impact".

Ugh, I hate that logical fallacy.

You've just used your own GOAT list (and hence the methods you value) as proof that that the methods you value are objectively correct and ours are in correct.

I don't adhere to your schema or anyone else's. That's the point.

As far as getting a PG it isn't that hard. Are we asking the Suns to get an All NBA or All Star PG to spell Nash? No it's someone that can keep the ship right while Nash gets his 10-15 minutes on the bench. You don't think Rondo couldn't have done that?

What I'm saying is that if keeping the ship righted means diminishing the +/- falloff to great extent, what we've seen is that it actually takes a really special player to pull it off.

Re: Rondo. I'm wary of you mentioning him here given what you've said about the Suns acquiring point guards and the fact that they technically had Rondo. You want me to say that he could have helped immensely when Nash went to the bench? Yes, he would have.

That the Suns were busy selling off draft picks when they should have been doing everything possible to maximize a championship contender window is one of the greatest sins I've ever seen a front office make. That in retrospect we know they actually sold off one of the top 5 point guard minds of his generation for berries and beads just makes it all the more insane.

Keep focused on the actually point though: You're perplexed how the Suns failed to acquire strong back up point guards because you see it as a skill many have. I'm telling you that Nash's skill on this front is so high that it's hard to find anyone who wouldn't look drastically worse in his place.

I'll agree Rondo would have been just what the doctor ordered, but Rondo wouldn't have fallen that far in the draft if people knew his abilities at the time. At the time, Rondo would have just been one of the many other names available to try. D'Antoni's tried many, and has yet to come close to duplicating his success with Nash.

Give the Knicks a prime Marion/Joe Johnson/Marion etc and I think D'Antoni could have made it work with Felton. Carmelo/Amare isn't a perfect match. People underrate Marion's contributions to the team. He did the little things on the court like spacing, defense, hustling that people obviously underrated on the Suns.

Key question I'd say is: What does "make it work" mean to you? The reason we're so high on Nash is that the offenses weren't just good but all-time great good, and they did it as the parts moved around (i.e. they did it without Marion dude). As in, the vast majority of coaches never have offenses approaching this level.

I just don't see what basis you have for predicting an offense anywhere near that level on the Knicks. If you want to take the more reasonable approach and say, "Well not that good, but still pretty good", okay. I don't really disagree.

Why can't people see that Marion was an awesome tool for Nash. Amare was an awesome fit for Nash. That system (wait I'm sorry that pisses people off for some reason) that philosophy by D'Antoni to "let Nash do whatever he wanted) was great for Nash. What I don't get is that it's made to seem that Nash didn't benefit at all and he could duplicate his success in Phoenix anywhere. It was mutual exchange.....

Right so understand:

-Amare & Marion aren't really anything like each other.
-Suns' offense achieved amazing stuff without Marion or anyone like him.
-Suns' offense achieved almost as amazing stuff without Amare or anyone like him, and were able to improve their defense.

The implication behind these guys being great fits with Nash is that they are just the right type of player that Nash needs in order to do his thing. That claim starts ringing hollow when it gets applied to multiple players, and Nash proves he can win without any one type of teammate.

Let's also note that the reason why "fit" gets talked about is because these players have struggled elsewhere. It's a way of getting around how they've disappointed, while still being able to claim Nash was lucky to have them.

I'm not trying to claim Nash wasn't more fortunate to have them than to not have them, but when you actually go so far as to make arguments saying Amare > Nash while you're going far beyond that.

[penbeast0]

Rapcity is right in one sense . . . it's not just about the rings, but in another sense you don't win rings unless you are doing something right. So the 11 rings make you look deeper rather than just assume that a Michael Jordan or Allen Iverson is superior to a low scoring player like a Bill Russell.

But it is true that Russell's teams won with great defense and rebounding rather than good offense and so Russell's offensive contribution may not have been that great.

Doesn't make Russell any less the GOAT, just not an offensive GOAT like Jordan.

[Rapcity_11]

Rapcity is right in one sense . . . it's not just about the rings, but in another sense you don't win rings unless you are doing something right.

Yup. There's a lot of ways to see what that something right is.

Great players win because they are great, they aren't great because they win.