Is there an argument for taking Nash over Kobe to start a team, with hindsight?

[Texas Chuck]

I mean there is no serious argument that the triangle supressed Mike or Kobe offensively. Kobe was taking well over 20 FGA(plus all those FT's), had very high usage rates. Mike led the league in scoring every year, high usage, etc...

Kobe didn't play like Harden not just because of the triangle, but because he's a different player. Harden is a much more natural playmaker, but he's also the analytics poster child. He's only going to take layups, 3's, and FT's and his assists are going to be rim runners and 3-pt shooters. Kobe was a mid-range killer and a guy who passed mostly off the attention he drew as a scorer. Kobe is much more a higher usage, shorter Dirk than he is a Harden.

[Doctor MJ]

tbf to Phoenix, if any team in the league thinks Nash is a potential star coming out of Santa Clara he doesn't last to them. But also they had no idea when they drafted him that Dallas was going to gift them Jason Kidd. Sam Cassell was in the last year of his contract so my guess is the hope was Nash could be the primary backup to KJ by his 2nd season and eventually maybe the starter.

But even with KJ and Cassell and then KJ and Kidd, he still managed to get into over 60 games as a rookie and played 20 mpg in year 2. The Suns were definitely giving him real opportunity considering the PG's in front of him.

And of course Dallas traded 2 first round picks for, immediately gave him a big contract extension and installed him as the engine of their offense in his 3rd season. And Nellie certainly knew how to use offensive talent.

I agree there are plenty of scenarios in which Nash doesn't take 5 years to become a quality starter and 8 years to become a star. But I don't think its because his teams were stupid. He was given chances. He simply wasn't the player he later became yet.

Well, we've been through this debate before so I know you have your thoughts.

What I see is that by Nash's 2nd (and last) year in his initial Phoenix run, the Suns were doing better with him out there than Jason Kidd.

Hmm, I'm gonna jump in on this comment.

I'm going to assume [possibly in error] that this comment is based upon the fact that Nash's raw on/off that year is positive, whereas Jason Kidd's is negative.

However, a closer look shows that the bulk of Nash's positive on/off is coming on the defensive end [and the bulk of Kidd's perceived inferiority likewise on the defensive end]........which is feeling a bit questionable right off the bat.

So we look at the line-up info and it appears Nash functioned primarily as a substitute for Rex Chapman, and that the FIVE most common line-ups he was a part of were actually WITH Jason Kidd.
His top FOUR most common line-ups also included Antonio McDyess.
Three of his top four most-common line-ups included Cliff Robinson, too.
And three of his top five most-common line-ups included Danny Manning.

In other words, he rarely ever hit the court EXCEPT when playing alongside all the best players on that Suns team. This might account for something. Particularly considering that Kidd [playing >38 mpg] was tasked more often than any other starter with carrying the bench players.

And indeed if we look at PI RAPM: Kidd is a +2.50 (positive both offensively and defensively), while Nash is a -2.2 (negative both offensively and defensively).
(fwiw, NPI pegs Kidd better by just a small margin, too: negligibly worse offensively, but better defensively [where Nash is also rated a solid positive--->questionable, in other words.......I'm guessing NPI is just having difficulty parsing Nash's effect out of line-ups that frequently feature ALL of [or most of] Kidd, McDyess, Robinson, and Danny Manning; who were all decent/good defenders]).

Great points to bring up, and no doubt the stat I was pointing to is a simplistic one that doesn't tell the whole story.

I would point out that the team still did (slightly) better with Nash but without Kidd, than with both Nash & Kidd on the floor, so we're definitely not talking about a situation where Nash's numbers are getting obviously inflated by getting to join Kidd's platoon. And while I wouldn't want to make a vehement argument based on any of these numbers, the fact that Nash sure seems to be playing more off-ball when he plays next to Kidd, but more point guard without Kidd, is an interesting wrinkle to consider. That's some nice versatility there.

I'd also point out that the guy Nash plays with the most is Danny Manning, and that his On numbers with Manning are considerably better than they are with Kidd (and that Manning's numbers are considerably better with Nash than Kidd while playing nearly as much with Nash as Kidd). None of that represents "proof" that Nash > Kidd, but it is further evidence that it's dangerous to write off what Nash was doing in Phoenix.

Re: PI & NPI. I'm glad you didn't just talk about PI given that I don't see why we'd bother with PI when talking about a rapidly developing player like we'd expect a rookie-turned-2nd-year guy to be.

As you say, the NPI though still gives a small edge toward Kidd, and that's an excellent rebuttal to my superficial stats from before. I would point out though when you mention that the positive numbers are defensive, that Nash's offensive numbers look better than Kidd's despite the fact that as you say, Nash was having to play a lot with Kidd and in doing so was certainly forced to take a smaller role in decision making on the floor. If you have Nash out there but don't let him play like the point guard we see him as, we'd expect that to take a toll on his impact.

Last, while it's very true that Nash spent most of his minutes with the guys who got most of the minutes, it's important to note that this isn't a situation where Nash was "getting to play" with only the best guys. Mark Bryant, for example, played a greater fraction of this minutes with Nash than Jason Kidd did. So I'd say that the guys who were playing less minutes were getting to play with Nash, but with Nash playing more minutes, he - probably naturally - ended up playing them with the guys who were most likely to be out on the floor at any given time.

[colts18]

Nash got an opportunity to start without Jason Kidd and the results were a disaster.



1999+ 2000 (Age 24 and 25):

29.2 MPG, 8.3 PPG, 5.1 AST-1.9 TOV, 2.4 Reb, 0.9 Stl+blk, .542 TS%, -1.6 BPM, 12 PER

That's not a player who shown flashes of being a great player at a young age.

Nash broke out at age 30 when he was put in Mike D'Antoni's system. There's never been a player in NBA history who shown so little in his 20's who became an MVP caliber player in their 30's.

[Doctor MJ]

The triangle held back both Kobe and Jordan in terms of raw numbers and individual production which is what you guys base so many of your arguments on. So it should be noted. Of course it allowed for their overall teams to play better and compete for titles which allowed Kobe showcase his leadership and intangibles that he actually gets no credit for in these discussions. But since we don't honor and acknowledge team success anymore we are forced to just focus on individual stats and production. In which case it should be noted that Nash played in a system that enhanced his individual stats and production where as Kobe played in a system that limited those things to a degree.

I know you're responding to multiple people right now so apologies for pulling this out of context.

What I can't help but point out is that you are focused on "raw numbers and individual production" and using that to say that that inflated Nash in Phoenix, but that the arguments for Nash as an MVP were never about this sort of production.

Hence, there's a disconnect between what you're alleging caused other people to overrate Nash, and how the people you think overrate Nash actually think.

And I'll note that this disconnect has literally been there in these conversations since '04-05. Literally, people were saying stuff like this 15+ years ago, folks like me were immediately responding by pointing out the disconnect - as well as trying to explain why the term "system player" was being misunderstood by those who were using it - and since then, years have passed, and folks are still trying to make the same arguments without ever trying to think in terms of how those who disagree are actually drawing their conclusions.

Additionally, a subtle thing people don't understand about why the "system player" critique caught on with Nash is that the strategy the Phoenix Suns were using reminded people of the "run and shoot" college football system that ended up creating the quarterback prospects that would be drafted high but then flame out. The analogies in style between the "system quarterback" who played run & shoot football and the "system player" who played pace & space basketball made people draw a throughline that seemed to make sense, but the analogy never made sense for reasons I've already stated, and even the intuition proved as wrong as you could possibly get.

The reality is that the entire league plays pace & space now because what people back then thought was a gimmick, turned out to be the start of a revolution.

In the end with Nash, all we're talking about is a guy who thrives with pace because he can think faster than anyone else and thrives with space because he's an incredible shooter and passer. There's literally nothing damning about this at all, and it would really be great if people realized this.

By all means, bring up Nash's actual limitations - defense, injuries, etc - but attempts to treat what Nash was doing on offense as somehow less impressive than naive box score numbers traps the cynic in an epistemic limbo that prevents them from ever understanding what they could have understood when George W. Bush was still president.

[Doctor MJ]

Nash got an opportunity to start without Jason Kidd and the results were a disaster.



1999+ 2000 (Age 24 and 25):

29.2 MPG, 8.3 PPG, 5.1 AST-1.9 TOV, 2.4 Reb, 0.9 Stl+blk, .542 TS%, -1.6 BPM, 12 PER

That's not a player who shown flashes of being a great player at a young age.

Nash broke out at age 30 when he was put in Mike D'Antoni's system. There's never been a player in NBA history who shown so little in his 20's who became an MVP caliber player in their 30's.

Someone who read only this post without knowing anything about basketball history would think that that meant that Nash didn't become an All-NBA player in his 20s being the floor general on the best offense in the league 3 straight years before ever playing for D'Antoni. They would also surely be confused as to why Phoenix desperately wanted Nash back and recruited him hard when he became a free agent.

The entire basketball world was amazed and surprised by what happened in '04-05, but let's not talk about things as if they were more of a surprise than they actually were.

[Doctor MJ]

Not really. Kobe has done the 1a/1b thing multiple times over multiple years to championship success.

Also team ceiling issues arises from a Nash led system, could paint the picture for Trae and Lillard from history.

Could argue who the better floor raiser is at their peak but then you are better off grabbing CP3 it’s a better foundation than Nash as a starting point.

Still it’s Kobe, the only argument is age on draft day which is fine but the player themselves nope.

What ceiling issues?

Exactly.

Nash was on all-star level guy on the best offense in the league for 3 years in Dallas, then went to Phoenix and had the best on-court +/- in the league for 7 straight years. That's not a "ceiling" in any meaningful way - nor is it something Lillard ever achieved anything like, and chances are Trae won't either.

It's find to talk about Nash's defensive limitations, but in general when we speak to ceiling vs floor raising, we're talking about what a guy can do in his area of strength. The classic offensive floor raiser is thus a guy who scores a lot on not-great efficiency, because you can't expect to lead an elite offense that way, and thus the ceiling to that approach is low.

[Texas Chuck]

Nash got an opportunity to start without Jason Kidd and the results were a disaster.



1999+ 2000 (Age 24 and 25):

29.2 MPG, 8.3 PPG, 5.1 AST-1.9 TOV, 2.4 Reb, 0.9 Stl+blk, .542 TS%, -1.6 BPM, 12 PER

That's not a player who shown flashes of being a great player at a young age.

Nash broke out at age 30 when he was put in Mike D'Antoni's system. There's never been a player in NBA history who shown so little in his 20's who became an MVP caliber player in their 30's.

Someone who read only this post without knowing anything about basketball history would think that that meant that Nash didn't become an All-NBA player in his 20s being the floor general on the best offense in the league 3 straight years before ever playing for D'Antoni. They would also surely be confused as to why Phoenix desperately wanted Nash back and recruited him hard when he became a free agent.

The entire basketball world was amazed and surprised by what happened in '04-05, but let's not talk about things as if they were more of a surprise than they actually were.

Yeah I pretty strongly disagree with you as you know as to how effective Nash was the first 4-5 years of his career, but regardless of which of us is right about that, he had clearly established himself as one of the best offensive players in the league years before he signed with the Suns in free agency in the summer of 2004.

People were shocked that his addition made that huge of an impact on the Suns w/l record that quickly and yeah probably shocked he elevated himself to an MVP caliber player, but this guy was clearly already a top 15 or higher level player in Dallas. And I think the 04 Mavs roster construction was so mangled and not Nash-friendly that it made his leap the next year seem all the higher. But if you look back to 02 and 03 on rosters that made a lot more basketball sense, Nash was really good.

[DCasey91]

Not really. Kobe has done the 1a/1b thing multiple times over multiple years to championship success.

Also team ceiling issues arises from a Nash led system, could paint the picture for Trae and Lillard from history.

Could argue who the better floor raiser is at their peak but then you are better off grabbing CP3 it’s a better foundation than Nash as a starting point.

Still it’s Kobe, the only argument is age on draft day which is fine but the player themselves nope.

What ceiling issues?

The over reliance on great team defenders. Nash is the worst defender for a top player of all time. Also volume propensity arises. Dantoni or not it’s true that stat rise. He is the system but it remains to be seen if you want to go down that route all in.

Trae will be a similar gauge for relevant terms.

Caps the ceiling. Still the tried and true method of a championships works, it’s elite team defense, good enough offense with a great 1/2 punch that works together. To this day it’s the same thing it’s basketball it’s not reinventing the wheel lol.
Nash doesn’t really fit the first option well enough and defensively it’s galaxies away.

[eminence]

There's probably an argument for it, I wouldn't be doing it though.

[70sFan]

I'd still take Kobe quite clearly. The peaks debate is really interesting, but we shouldn't just forget about Nash early years when he just wasn't so good. His first 3 years were just bad relative to other ATG players and he didn't reach his prime until 2002 (so that's another 2 years of not ATG play). Kobe wasn't spectacular in his first 3 years either, but he has a clear edge in 1999 and 2000, then 2001-02 is a blowout for him.

I get the idea that circumstances limited Nash impact early on, but I don't buy the idea that Nash could have been a superstar just from the start. He needed a lot of time to become solid starter in the league and he kept progressing year after year. Just this reason is enough to put Kobe clearly ahead, even if you think that Nash peaked higher (and I'm not sure he actually did, it's a tough question).

[DCasey91]

Me neither lol. If you want a great 1a/1b it’s Kobe.

Remember Nash peaked very very late so you are going to have to wait a awhile. Whereas young early 20’s Frobe was going bananas while Nash was still trying to establish himself.

The only argument is floor raising but once again I’d prefer CP3, Stockton, Kidd as the PG everyday of the week.

I don’t like putting my eggs in an ultimately flawed philosophy. All offense no defense it’s not where to be. Loot at the WCF results for reference the team ratings, etc. it’s a hard cap in the end. Majority they got beaten comfortably. I couldn’t see a Nash led team in the finals. Whereas well Kobe did win twice as the best player back to back years.

Nash probably peaked offensively over Kobe I’ll buy that but so what? You are giving up more than enough on the other end while arriving at volume, size issues. CP3 covers Nash easily being more balanced and still issues arise.

[Doctor MJ]

Not really. Kobe has done the 1a/1b thing multiple times over multiple years to championship success.

Also team ceiling issues arises from a Nash led system, could paint the picture for Trae and Lillard from history.

Could argue who the better floor raiser is at their peak but then you are better off grabbing CP3 it’s a better foundation than Nash as a starting point.

Still it’s Kobe, the only argument is age on draft day which is fine but the player themselves nope.

What ceiling issues?

The over reliance on great team defenders. Nash is the worst defender for a top player of all time. Also volume propensity arises. Dantoni or not it’s true that stat rise. He is the system but it remains to be seen if you want to go down that route all in.

Trae will be a similar gauge for relevant terms.

Caps the ceiling. Still the tried and true method of a championships works, it’s elite team defense, good enough offense with a great 1/2 punch that works together. To this day it’s the same thing it’s basketball it’s not reinventing the wheel lol.
Nash doesn’t really fit the first option well enough and defensively it’s galaxies away.

I mean, the Suns absolutely could have won the title as they were, and that was with a 5 who couldn't play D or hit 3's who was on the roster before D'Antoni or Nash took over. You're pointing to anecdotes that have clear anomalies and saying they represent absolute limitations.

I understand you think "until it's proven, I don't see it as proven", but what exactly is "it"? Because back when the NBA was so skeptical of the Suns, people were arguing that playing fast meant you could not have good defense and shooting lots of 3's meant your offense fell apart in the playoffs. Both of those statements have been blown up and with the way you're talking it feels like all that's left is pointing out specific imperfections in those Suns that everyone always knew about and then relying on the fact that the Suns didn't win a title as proof that the Suns couldn't win one.

You also exaggerate Nash's defensive issues. The reality is that he was a smart defender who made very few mistakes when placed in a scheme that properly protected him, and when this was done his defensive +/- really looked fine. And to be clear also: Literally every point guard-sized point guard in the NBA needs this sort of protection today. If it were otherwise, then we'd actually see that there were certain point guards who has massive defensive +/- impact compared to others, and we just don't.

Not saying that there aren't guys better at defense than Nash at his size, but you've swallowed a bunch of exaggerations about Nash's defense if you think he's glaring, glaringly, glaringly worse than everyone else.

Though as I say all that: I'll acknowledge we haven't gotten to see Nash in this era, and it's reasonable to expect that teams would take better advantage of his defensive limitations today. We can debate the extent of that, but that's clearly not what you're arguing when you say "worst defender for a top player of all time". You think you saw something you didn't actually see.

[falcolombardi]

Not really. Kobe has done the 1a/1b thing multiple times over multiple years to championship success.

Also team ceiling issues arises from a Nash led system, could paint the picture for Trae and Lillard from history.

Could argue who the better floor raiser is at their peak but then you are better off grabbing CP3 it’s a better foundation than Nash as a starting point.

Still it’s Kobe, the only argument is age on draft day which is fine but the player themselves nope.

What ceiling issues?

Exactly.

Nash was on all-star level guy on the best offense in the league for 3 years in Dallas, then went to Phoenix and had the best on-court +/- in the league for 7 straight years. That's not a "ceiling" in any meaningful way - nor is it something Lillard ever achieved anything like, and chances are Trae won't either.

It's find to talk about Nash's defensive limitations, but in general when we speak to ceiling vs floor raising, we're talking about what a guy can do in his area of strength. The classic offensive floor raiser is thus a guy who scores a lot on not-great efficiency, because you can't expect to lead an elite offense that way, and thus the ceiling to that approach is low.

generally, at least in communities like the pc board, it seems to be more than high usage/ball pounding players are put in the "good floor raiser/bad ceiling raiser" vault and guys whose game is more off ball with les shots and ball pounding receive the opposite perception

if it was about efficiency people here and in basketball analysis communities probably would have more doubts about larry bird as a ceiling raiser (his playoffs efficiency was often just a bit above league average or sometimes below it)

[G35]

Not really. Kobe has done the 1a/1b thing multiple times over multiple years to championship success.

Also team ceiling issues arises from a Nash led system, could paint the picture for Trae and Lillard from history.

Could argue who the better floor raiser is at their peak but then you are better off grabbing CP3 it’s a better foundation than Nash as a starting point.

Still it’s Kobe, the only argument is age on draft day which is fine but the player themselves nope.

What ceiling issues?

The over reliance on great team defenders. Nash is the worst defender for a top player of all time. Also volume propensity arises. Dantoni or not it’s true that stat rise. He is the system but it remains to be seen if you want to go down that route all in.

Trae will be a similar gauge for relevant terms.

Caps the ceiling. Still the tried and true method of a championships works, it’s elite team defense, good enough offense with a great 1/2 punch that works together. To this day it’s the same thing it’s basketball it’s not reinventing the wheel lol.
Nash doesn’t really fit the first option well enough and defensively it’s galaxies away.

Agreed that one of, if not the primary issue, with a Nash/D'Antoni led teams is an identity that is all about offense and at best cursory attention to the defense and at worst, skipping the defense to try and get more offense.

D'Antoni's style of offense was taken because you can find more people who can do what Nash can do, than you can find players that can do what Shaq, Lebron, Hakeem can do. There are just not enough skilled big men, but you can find plenty of short, players that can shoot and run an offense.

That is not to say that you can exactly replicate Nash's contributions on the court, but its easier to duplicate than trying to find another Tim Duncan. I mean why aren't we trying to duplicate what Tim Duncan can do because it led to the highest winning percentage ever in the NBA.

You can't find another Tim Duncan. That's the problem.

But you can reasonably find another Steve Nash. In fact, you can say that Steph Curry is a high volume shooting version of Steve Nash...just less playmaking skills, but the Warriors covered up that weakness by making Draymond their playmaker and they got more defense that way.

It is rhetoric to say that D'Antoni's offense is the way the NBA is going because the Bucks won a title with an offense built around a 7ftr. Defense is still required and no Nash led team has ever had the necessary defense to win it all.......

[JN61]

Give Shaq Nash and they win minimum 4.

[ceiling raiser]

I actually have Nash ranked ahead of Kobe on my ATL.

I never had considered it before, but after reading some of the great arguments in this thread I think I'd give Nash the edge.

[trex_8063]

Great points to bring up, and no doubt the stat I was pointing to is a simplistic one that doesn't tell the whole story.

I would point out that the team still did (slightly) better with Nash but without Kidd, than with both Nash & Kidd on the floor,

Can you share where you're getting this information? Thanks.

so we're definitely not talking about a situation where Nash's numbers are getting obviously inflated by getting to join Kidd's platoon. And while I wouldn't want to make a vehement argument based on any of these numbers, the fact that Nash sure seems to be playing more off-ball when he plays next to Kidd, but more point guard without Kidd, is an interesting wrinkle to consider. That's some nice versatility there.

True.

I'd also point out that the guy Nash plays with the most is Danny Manning, and that his On numbers with Manning are considerably better than they are with Kidd (and that Manning's numbers are considerably better with Nash than Kidd while playing nearly as much with Nash as Kidd).

Again, please share the source of ^^^this info. The line-up references I had made are from the limited information available on bbref [which indicate he shared more time with Kidd than anyone], and doesn't provide any information about how Manning's individual numbers look with Nash vs sans-Nash.

None of that represents "proof" that Nash > Kidd, but it is further evidence that it's dangerous to write off what Nash was doing in Phoenix.

Re: PI & NPI. I'm glad you didn't just talk about PI given that I don't see why we'd bother with PI when talking about a rapidly developing player like we'd expect a rookie-turned-2nd-year guy to be.

As you say, the NPI though still gives a small edge toward Kidd, and that's an excellent rebuttal to my superficial stats from before. I would point out though when you mention that the positive numbers are defensive, that Nash's offensive numbers look better than Kidd's despite the fact that as you say, Nash was having to play a lot with Kidd and in doing so was certainly forced to take a smaller role in decision making on the floor. If you have Nash out there but don't let him play like the point guard we see him as, we'd expect that to take a toll on his impact.

Fair point in the last statement (as well as the point about PI likely under-crediting a young and quickly improving player).

That said, I don't know that one should try to draw special attention/emphasis to the fact that Nash's NPI ORAPM was better [than Kidd's] because:
a) It was [as I think I stated or implied] negligibly better (Kidd was -0.53, Nash was -0.40).
b) The NPI figure is, in general, highly questionable where Nash is concerned: it has him as a negative offensively, and a really solid positive (+1.97) defensively........it's safe to say this is [seriously] not an accurate representation of what Nash was as a player; so it's hard to give much credit to the figure at all. I simply think the single-year figure was not up to the task of sifting out all the line-up noise for a smaller-mpg player.

Last, while it's very true that Nash spent most of his minutes with the guys who got most of the minutes, it's important to note that this isn't a situation where Nash was "getting to play" with only the best guys. Mark Bryant, for example, played a greater fraction of this minutes with Nash than Jason Kidd did. So I'd say that the guys who were playing less minutes were getting to play with Nash, but with Nash playing more minutes, he - probably naturally - ended up playing them with the guys who were most likely to be out on the floor at any given time.

Hmm, this seems like it says something relevant, but I'm not sure it actually does.
Comparing the proportion of overlap (between a guy who plays 15.7 mpg and a guy who plays 38.0 mpg) doesn't seem appropriate.

I mean, Nash has Bryant covered in minutes [and played more games, too]......so theoretically ALL of Bryant's minutes could have been played with Nash. Whereas it is statistically imppossible for even 54% of Kidd's minutes to have come next to Nash.

Not to mention Nash plays [sometimes, anyway] the same position as Kidd (whereas Mark Bryant was a frontcourt player). So even if the mpg thing were equal(ish), we'd sort of expect Bryant's proportion of minutes [with Nash] to be higher than Kidd's proportion (because there's no positional overlap between Nash and Bryant).


None of this is me saying there isn't a case for Nash in the broader question at hand, fwiw. I just don't want to reach conclusions [right or wrong] based upon arguments propped on shaky foundation.

[penbeast0]

...

But you can reasonably find another Steve Nash. In fact, you can say that Steph Curry is a high volume shooting version of Steve Nash...just less playmaking skills, but the Warriors covered up that weakness by making Draymond their playmaker and they got more defense that way.

It is rhetoric to say that D'Antoni's offense is the way the NBA is going because the Bucks won a title with an offense built around a 7ftr. Defense is still required and no Nash led team has ever had the necessary defense to win it all.......

A Nash without playmaking skills comp is like saying a 6'7 Shaq or a Kobe who doesn't shoot much. You are ignoring the issue that makes him an ATG. Nash was an elite shooter but that's not the key to his game, without his playmaking he's more comparable to a Kyle Korver than an ATG player.

[G35]

...

But you can reasonably find another Steve Nash. In fact, you can say that Steph Curry is a high volume shooting version of Steve Nash...just less playmaking skills, but the Warriors covered up that weakness by making Draymond their playmaker and they got more defense that way.

It is rhetoric to say that D'Antoni's offense is the way the NBA is going because the Bucks won a title with an offense built around a 7ftr. Defense is still required and no Nash led team has ever had the necessary defense to win it all.......

A Nash without playmaking skills comp is like saying a 6'7 Shaq or a Kobe who doesn't shoot much. You are ignoring the issue that makes him an ATG. Nash was an elite shooter but that's not the key to his game, without his playmaking he's more comparable to a Kyle Korver than an ATG player.

I'm not saying Nash without playmaking skills...I was saying that Curry is similar to Nash in shooting but has less playmaking ability.

Yes, Nash's playmaking ability and shooting is all time great, but you can find that easier than you can find a Shaq, Duncan, Lebron.

There are some players that play in a unique way that is effective on the court.

What Nash does is special but not so unique you cannot find another Nash. I think there will be another 6'3 playmaker, with elite shooting ability...I think there will be many.

Even Jordan is not unique, because we have a facsimile in Kobe...not exact, but close enough. But what Duncan did and how he played is far more unique imo.......

[LukaTheGOAT]

D'Antoni and Nash are higher IQ players than Kobe and significantly better passers.

I think Kobe was in the perfect place--the triangle with Phil Jackson, complimented by two of the best passing big men in the league.

Bolding this last sentence.

While I find the "Nash=system player" a silly argument in general, it's particularly silly in a Nash vs. Kobe discussion. Kobe played nearly his entire career in a much more defined system: The Triangle Offense. Kobe played outside that offense for a single season in his prime, and it was the only season he missed the playoffs. There are a ton of other factors there (mostly team talent and a Kobe injury), but I think people underrate how the triangle offense weaponized Kobe's off-ball game and allowed him to get easy points (which complimented all the tough points he was legendary for). In 2005, during Phil Jackson's sabbatical, Kobe was a slightly different player. He drives the ball a lot more, and his free-throw rate explodes to a career-high (.502), but this is offset by a career-high turnover rate (14.3). He also takes a lot more 3s, but too many of them are contested. Phil comes back the next year, Kobe is back in the triangle (but he's the focus of it now instead of Shaq), and that's when we get those big juicy peak Kobe years where he's leading the league in scoring, getting back to the playoffs, and eventually once they have Gasol: winning championships.

I don't have a problem with players playing a system that highlights and maximizes their abilities. If they're a hall of fame level player, their abilities are rarer than a system. Just don't bring up Nash as a system player when comparing him to a guy who had all of his success under a single coach and single offensive system.

Kobe put up the same numbers no matter what system or coach he was playing under. You can't say that for Nash.

Also Kobe played different roles even within that system showing that he is indeed a versatile player not dependent on a certain roll in a certain system. If glitter system is breaking down or you've teammates are having off nights you can always just give the ball to Kobe and let him take over.

Nash may not be a system player but he didnt put in enough prime years outside of that system to really make the case. Plus the Dantoni system, specifically, is notorious for enhancing the production and output of its point guard turning them into perennial mvp candidates. The triangle not so much. That actually holds back your individual production at times.

Kobe played 1a, 1b, sidekick, 6th man, on ball, off ball, lead defender, help defender, in the trangle, outside of the triangle...and he was stand out and successful in every one of those roles. Thats not a system player.

2005-2008( with Dantoni): 19.79 IA points per 75 | +9.7 rTS% | 16.87 Era Adjusted Box Creation| 9.35 Passer rating

2009-2010( With Porter/ Gentry):18.93 IA points per 75 | +7 rTS%|15.4 Era Adjusted Box Creation | 9.15 Passer rating

Both players are All-Time offensive players, and the Dantoni damaged due to injury in 2009. His RAPM data from 2005-2005 painted him as +6.82 points per 100 on offense.

2005:+8.4 rORTG / +13.96 with Nash on

2006:+5.3 rORTG / +7.8 with Nash on

2007:+7.4 rDRTG/+12 with Nash on

2008:+5.8 rORTG /+10.5 with Nash on

2009:+5.3 rORTG /+8.6 with Nash on

2010:+7.7 rDRTG/+10.2 with Nash on