Dr Spaceman wrote:Re: Nash, it's a good criticism, but I'd answer it pretty simply. Universal value, as you put it, comes into play for me when the overall effectiveness is pretty close. I just see Nash as a much more effective player than anyone on that list.
I'll compare it with how I see things between Nash and Kobe currently. I think Nash, based on what he did in the 05-07 stretch, was more effective on the court than Kobe was at his best. That said, Kobe is bigger, stronger, durable, and his resilience against increasing defensive pressure is probably GOAT. He has advantages that Nash just can't match, and thus it makes more sense to contribute resources to building around Kobe as opposed to Nash, from a practical standpoint. I'm comfortable ranking Kobe above Nash for these reasons.
But then we get into another practical question: Kobe is on Nash's plane as an offensive player, but how many others can make that claim? For my money, less than ten in NBA history. Maybe less than 5, or less than 1 if you're a big believer in impact stats. As such if were comparing Nash to players who can reasonably match his on-court impact, Nash will almost always lose that comparison. But the thing is anyone who can match or supersede Nash's on-court impact is an all time great. Thus practical concerns about building around Nash sort of go out the window for me if we're debating Nash vs a guy like Kidd.
Put another way: Nash has real concerns about fitting into a smaller role in a team context, but it's really not a practical concern, because as long as I don't have a talent on the level of Kobe, Jordan, LeBron, Magic and maybe a couple others, the ROI ongiving Nash the keys just makes this debate irrelevant.
The logics consistent. And I'm guessing that, like most, your feeling on Nash primarily comes from the Sun's team ORTG's and Nash's high RAPM marks to coincide.
We don't have the same individual data available for either of KJ or Payton during their peaks (early 90's for KJ, mid 90's for GP). What we do know is their team ORTGS were right there at the top of the league. KJ's Suns were top 2-3 offenses on an annual basis before Barkley arrived. Then reeled off a couple #1 ranked offense seasons with Chuck. All the while, KJ doing serious box score work with consistent 20/10's and reliable defense on the other end.
Payton, same thing. The Sonics produced annual #2 and #3 ranked offenses with him at the head, while also being able to maintain stringent defensive efficiency as a team, unlike the Nash-era Suns and Mavs. In part due to Payton himself.
If I'm handing the keys to my point, building around his talents, and just trying to outscore everyone, I get the argument for Nash. But not only is that a consistent recipe for failure, it's still an inequal comparison in a vacuum, as Payton and Johnson never played in a D'antoni style system. Their teams were averaging 10-15% 3PAr (compared to the Nash-Suns near 30% 3PAr and the current Rockets near 50% 3PAr). They regularly slowed it down to post up bigs. Not apples to apples.
So say I have a point who managed top 2-3 offenses, on equally or more successful teams (vis a vis Nash) that were able to maintain defensive and rebounding efficiency as well. What practical advantage is there to choosing another player whose optimal value comes from unilateral offensive control that produces a top 1 offense and below league average D?
Balance is what wins in the NBA. Touting Nash's team ORTG's as indicator of his general superiority is essentially punishing GP and KJ for playing under more pragmatic coaches. Kidd as well, to a lesser extent. It seems a little unfair.
The argument for Nash's advantage as a #1 does exist. He made those Suns teams great. But its also conditional, and contingent on factors that the majority of the greatest teams -- and greatest players -- have deliberately avoided. Then, he's at a clear disadvantage as a diminished role contributor, especially when dealing with players whose defensive utility drastically outstrips his. Most points this isn't a huge deal with. But with players like Payton, Kidd, KJ -- these are guys who can guard three positions and occasionally shut them down.
Not to imply Nash couldn't have been a big part of a championship team. It isn't like Payton and KJ have won titles either.
But his higher ROI really only materializes when you gear your team toward imbalanced play styles that most successful teams have eschewed.
Which you can do, and it still might work. It just wouldn't be my first or second choice for how to build my team.
