Prime Steve Nash on the 2001 Sixers / 2003 Nets

[onedayattatime]

in place of iverson / kidd, respectively. would those teams have performed better? obviously, given the nash discussion in a similar thread, i'm curious what people think about his floor-raising.

[DirtyDez]

I’m the 03’ Finals Kidd scored 118 points on 121 shots. Nash usually played well vs the Spurs so I’m thinking he gives them a better chance.

[rand]

I’m the 03’ Finals Kidd scored 118 points on 121 shots. Nash usually played well vs the Spurs so I’m thinking he gives them a better chance.

In 2003, 29 year old Nash averaged 14.8 PPG (.545 TS%) and 6.5 APG (2.7 TO) vs that San Antonio defense with far better offensive talent around him than Kidd had on the Nets. The moral of the story is D'Antoni's system and the Suns supporting cast made a huge difference with Nash's effectiveness vs the Spurs from 2005-2010. Put Nash on that Nets team and he probably does worse than he did that year on the Mavs.

Same story with the 2001 Sixers. Nash won't be more effective than Iverson playing for Larry Brown with Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill and Dikembe Mutombo around him.

[Matt15]

They do worse in both scenarios. If you put Kidd or Iverson in place of Nash on Phoenix they do worse as well.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

That still would have been a bad 76er offense with Nash replacing Iverson. There was not much for Nash to work with on that 76er team. Playing a box and one on Nash might destroy that 76er team.

In someways Iversen was the perfect go to guy for that team because even though Iversen was not efficient he wasn't defendable. I actually think Nash is more defendable even though Nash is more efficient. Sometimes it looked offesive rebounding Iverson's misses was the 76ers best offense. Iverson did get the defense all twisted up. If Iverson could've finished a little better and found the open man a little better that offense might have worked.

Nash would make Snow useless on offense. Rookie Jumaine Jones, Rookie Radja Belle and Aaron Mkie can't replace Qrich, Joe Johnson, Jim Jackson. Dikembe and Tyrone Hill is nice on defense but on offense they are not Amare and Shawn Marion.

Now if I could add the best of Steve Nash to the best of Eric Snow (A good defender and a pretty good point guard who understood that team) then The 76ers would have a chance against the Lakers but Iverson will still be playing in important role. I want to give Iverson
Leandro Barbosa's understanding of how to play with Nash .

[cupcakesnake]

Kidd for Nash on the 2003 Nets is a defense for offense swap. Considering this was the league's best regular-season defense and a league-average offense, it's probably a worthwhile trade-off. One thing that sticks out to me is that the 2003 Nets underachieved as a 3-point shooting team. Kittles, Lucious Harris, and Rodney Rogers all shot under their career averages. Assuming that Nash is going to increase 3-point shot quality on this team, as well as replace Kidd's janky shooting with his own all-time great shooting... I think it's pretty reasonable to assume a big offensive bump for this team. I think Kenyon Martin gets to do more finishing next to Nash and less high-post work.

So does the defensive drop-off negate the offensive bump? Remember there's not much Mutombo here. He was 36 and injured that year. The center spot was manned by Jason Collins and Aaron Williams. Swapping Kidd for Nash means no more #1 defense, the main reason they got to the finals. Could they still be top 5? Or is Nash too big a defensive target that forces the Nets to play more help (opening up more opportunities for Duncan and Robinson to get easy offense)? Hard to guesstimate this.

Phili is a harder thing for me to picture. You'll definitely get some helio-Nash, if he's replacing Iverson (the most helio guy ever?), but the 3-point shooting upside isn't there as much. We can give a boost to Aaron McKie's shooting, but you can't get blood from a stone (Eric Snow). The idea basic idea is that Nash is going to score less and shoot less than Iverson, but he's going to boost the offense at a team level with his passing. This team lacks shooters and finishers, so while I'm sure Nash raises their offensive rating, the ingredients he has to work with don't scream at me that there's a good offense to unlock. 2001 was kind of a magical year for the Sixers where Iverson's hero ball just kind of made sense on an overly defensive slanted roster. Nash's Suns teams, even the later, less talented version, always provided him with shooters and finishers. This Phili team does not.

[Masigond]

The 2001 Sixers were built around Iverson at least to the extent possible at the time as Philadelphia didn't have that much trade material, and free agents weren't lining up to play for that team. Brown surrounded Iverson with selfless players capable to give the team something without having the ball in their own hands for long stretches of the game as AI was too much of a ball hog and his instincts weren't doing the things best for his team, but exploring scoring opportunities for himself.

So replacing AI with Nash doesn't make much sense. Nash needs players capable to do something with the ball when passed to, and the Sixers had way too many players whose offense is too mediocre. Even though Nash is one of the best playmakers of all time who really could make the game easier for his teammates, he would not have been able to make Mutombo, Hill, Snow, Lynch and the rest of the bunch score that much more than at Iverson's side. So he would have had to score a lot himself and that wasn't his instinct, and McKie who would have been the best player for the team's offense other than him isn't a capable 20+ ppg scorer either. So that team's offense would still be quite a train wreck that would not have been better. Give Nash to the Sixers in 1999, and the team would have been built very different. Actually the Sixers tried to trade Iverson and do something else, but the trade fell flat, and thus they were stuck with him.
Surrounding him with good defensive selfless players was the best they could do in that situation.

[penbeast0]

While it's far from an ideal team for Nash, Nash at age 37 ran a top 10 offense with Marcin Gortat and Jared Dudley as his top 2 other options. Can't say Mutombo, Hill, Lynch, McKie are much below that level of offensive ability (though Phoenix did have more spacers).

[Masigond]

While it's far from an ideal team for Nash, Nash at age 37 ran a top 10 offense with Marcin Gortat and Jared Dudley as his top 2 other options. Can't say Mutombo, Hill, Lynch, McKie are much below that level of offensive ability (though Phoenix did have more spacers).

In my opinion they were. On top of Gortat and Dudley there were some more players like ancient Grant Hill (high IQ player who ran his teams' offense for years and found his role after his injury), Channing Frye (you mentioned the spacing), Michael Redd (on his last legs, but still good for some couple of points, albeit on mediocre efficiency, but he wasn't the team's go-to guy anyway).
Most important for me: Other than McKie no Sixer of the 2001 Playoffs team was able to shoot. I can't imagine a much better outcome from Nash's passes to Tyrone Hill, and jamaalstar21 mentioned Snow's lack of scoring talent...
AI gets a lot of excuse from his stans for a allegedly badly built team, and it's somewhat true regarding his teammates offensive capabilities, but it was the guys' defense and selflessness why they were traded for.

I think I said it before (years ago?) that the argument that Iverson had to carry the team's offense because there was noone else is putting the cart before the horse. He did that anyway, and better scorers like Stackhouse, Hughes, Kukoc and others all had to go (or signed somewhere else like Jim Jackson). Those guys needed the ball in their hands, too, and that wasn't that possible with Iverson running the Sixers' offense. That would not have been the case with Nash on the team in prior years, so the team would have been vastly differently built. If traded one-for-one it would have been interesting how much Nash could have gotten out of Iverson's teammates but most of them were never more than a typical 3rd to 5th option on their teams. So I have my doubts that they would have been that much better. I've never seen a Nash-led team with good offense without shooters so that would have been a first.

[KobesScarf]

Both would be 4 or 5 seeds + 2nd round exits at best

[feyki]

Lose-lose.

[No-more-rings]

I’m the 03’ Finals Kidd scored 118 points on 121 shots. Nash usually played well vs the Spurs so I’m thinking he gives them a better chance.

In 2003, 29 year old Nash averaged 14.8 PPG (.545 TS%) and 6.5 APG (2.7 TO) vs that San Antonio defense with far better offensive talent around him than Kidd had on the Nets. The moral of the story is D'Antoni's system and the Suns supporting cast made a huge difference with Nash's effectiveness vs the Spurs from 2005-2010. Put Nash on that Nets team and he probably does worse than he did that year on the Mavs.

Same story with the 2001 Sixers. Nash won't be more effective than Iverson playing for Larry Brown with Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill and Dikembe Mutombo around him.

Nash also without D’Antoni averaged 22/7.8 on 64.3 ts% in a sweep of the Spurs in 2010. Funny you don’t mention that.

[rand]

I’m the 03’ Finals Kidd scored 118 points on 121 shots. Nash usually played well vs the Spurs so I’m thinking he gives them a better chance.

In 2003, 29 year old Nash averaged 14.8 PPG (.545 TS%) and 6.5 APG (2.7 TO) vs that San Antonio defense with far better offensive talent around him than Kidd had on the Nets. The moral of the story is D'Antoni's system and the Suns supporting cast made a huge difference with Nash's effectiveness vs the Spurs from 2005-2010. Put Nash on that Nets team and he probably does worse than he did that year on the Mavs.

Same story with the 2001 Sixers. Nash won't be more effective than Iverson playing for Larry Brown with Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill and Dikembe Mutombo around him.

Nash also without D’Antoni averaged 22/7.8 on 64.3 ts% in a sweep of the Spurs in 2010. Funny you don’t mention that.

Gentry was D'Antoni's assistant from 2005-2008. I'm not going to pretend to know but I'm guessing they kept running a lot of the same sets. Independently, the 2010 Suns had Amare, Jason Richardson, Grant Hill, Jared Dudley and Channing Frye playing almost 90% of Nash's playoff minutes. So again, much more offensive talent, much more shooting, much more spacing, much higher pace. And quite a bit of difference between the 2003 Spurs and the 2010 Spurs. Funny how you didn't mention any of that.

[DirtyDez]

I’m the 03’ Finals Kidd scored 118 points on 121 shots. Nash usually played well vs the Spurs so I’m thinking he gives them a better chance.

In 2003, 29 year old Nash averaged 14.8 PPG (.545 TS%) and 6.5 APG (2.7 TO) vs that San Antonio defense with far better offensive talent around him than Kidd had on the Nets. The moral of the story is D'Antoni's system and the Suns supporting cast made a huge difference with Nash's effectiveness vs the Spurs from 2005-2010. Put Nash on that Nets team and he probably does worse than he did that year on the Mavs.

Same story with the 2001 Sixers. Nash won't be more effective than Iverson playing for Larry Brown with Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill and Dikembe Mutombo around him.

I’m using peak Nash for this hypothetical. 03’ Nash was pretty good but not the offensive juggernaut he was in Phoenix. He operates better running the show which he didn’t do in Dallas. Also the Suns training staff did wonders for his back.

[Prokorov]

in place of iverson / kidd, respectively. would those teams have performed better? obviously, given the nash discussion in a similar thread, i'm curious what people think about his floor-raising.

Sixers would be worse, they werent built with player who could feed off a pass first guy like nash, not built to run. they needed a bucket getter like AI.

Nets get significantly worse. that team was built on D. kidd was a huge part of that.

[rand]

I’m the 03’ Finals Kidd scored 118 points on 121 shots. Nash usually played well vs the Spurs so I’m thinking he gives them a better chance.

In 2003, 29 year old Nash averaged 14.8 PPG (.545 TS%) and 6.5 APG (2.7 TO) vs that San Antonio defense with far better offensive talent around him than Kidd had on the Nets. The moral of the story is D'Antoni's system and the Suns supporting cast made a huge difference with Nash's effectiveness vs the Spurs from 2005-2010. Put Nash on that Nets team and he probably does worse than he did that year on the Mavs.

Same story with the 2001 Sixers. Nash won't be more effective than Iverson playing for Larry Brown with Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill and Dikembe Mutombo around him.

I’m using peak Nash for this hypothetical. 03’ Nash was pretty good but not the offensive juggernaut he was in Phoenix. He operates better running the show which he didn’t do in Dallas. Also the Suns training staff did wonders for his back.

He operated better running a different system (one which was basically revolutionary in the NBA of the day) with superior offensive talent. Was he actually better at basketball in his age 31 season than in his age 30 or age 29 seasons or did circumstances make him more effective? I think it's more the latter than the former, and that if you replaced Nash at age 29 on the Mavs with Nash at age 31 the difference in effectiveness would be minimal unless he could persuade Don Nelson to install D'Antoni's offense (and the installation was successful).

Nellie was an innovative offensive coach and the Mavs had a lot of offensive talent so maybe if Nash persuades Nellie they could have come close to replicating D'Antoni's success. I have much less confidence Byron Scott or Larry Brown could have done the same even if Nash had persuaded them and even if he could, the Nets/Sixers offensive talent was far below the level of either the Nash Suns or the 2003 Mavs.

Put Nash at any age on the 2003 Nets in place of Kidd and I think their offense gets marginally better but lose more on defense. Put Nash on the 2001 Sixers in place of Iverson and I think they stay around par.

[No-more-rings]

Gentry was D'Antoni's assistant from 2005-2008. I'm not going to pretend to know but I'm guessing they kept running a lot of the same sets.

What is it specifically about Gentry or even D'Antoni for that matter that in your mind was the difference between Nash being an atg offensive player vs just a good one? I don't think any system could ever do that for a player, i find that absurd. To say Nash didn't have the talent is silly.

Independently, the 2010 Suns had Amare, Jason Richardson, Grant Hill, Jared Dudley and Channing Frye playing almost 90% of Nash's playoff minutes. So again, much more offensive talent, much more shooting, much more spacing, much higher pace.

Nash at 35/36 years old took that cast to the 1st ranked offense. Grant Hill was very old and past his prime, Frye and Dudley were never really that good of players at any point, and Richardson was decent but outside of Amare this sounds like a pretty average cast to me.

And quite a bit of difference between the 2003 Spurs and the 2010 Spurs. Funny how you didn't mention any of that.

Sure, but i don't think anyone aside from maybe yourself considers 03 to be Nash's real prime.

[rand]

What is it specifically about Gentry or even D'Antoni for that matter that in your mind was the difference between Nash being an atg offensive player vs just a good one? I don't think any system could ever do that for a player, i find that absurd. To say Nash didn't have the talent is silly.

I never said Nash didn't have atg offensive talent. He had the talent all along but needed more optimal conditions to capitalize on it more fully.

I'm not a basketball technician; I've never been a coach and I've never played on any level worth mentioning. Therefore I'm not going to try to break down the differences between the stuff Phoenix ran with D'Antoni (and presumably later with Gentry) in comparison with what Nellie ran in Dallas. Instead I'm just going to point to two facts about the situation which suggest that the dramatic increase in Nash's effectiveness beginning with his age 31 season was primarily due to exogenous rather than endogenous factors:

(1) Nash changed teams, playing for a new coaching staff. D'Antoni's offense was renown at the time for being innovative and exhibiting elements of his background in European basketball. Whether there was actually anything different about what he was doing vs the rest of the NBA, I'll leave to the input of anyone who feels competent to elaborate.

(2) Independently of whether there was any other benefit from D'Antoni's coaching, in Phoenix Nash was playing with lineups that had more mobility, more shooting and played at a higher pace, all of which are known to correlate with higher scoring and more efficiency.

Nash at 35/36 years old took that cast to the 1st ranked offense. Grant Hill was very old and past his prime, Frye and Dudley were never really that good of players at any point, and Richardson was decent but outside of Amare this sounds like a pretty average cast to me.

In 2010 Nash was playing with lineups that had a lot more offensive skill and mobility than the lineups he played the 2003 playoffs. In the 03 playoffs, one of LaFrentz, Najera or Shawn Bradley on the court with him at all times, while in 2010 he had Channing Frye or Amare at 5 for 100% of his minutes, often both. Frye shot .545 on 3PAs (12/22) vs San Antonio in their sweep. Najera and Bradley did not attempt a 3 in the 2003 Mavs series vs the Spurs and LaFrentz shot 3/14. Even without going to the film, this suggests a huge advantage in spacing for Nash in Phoenix.

Dudley shot 40% vs the Spurs on 2.5 3PAs/game. JRich shot .522 on 5.8 3PAs/game. Hill didn't hit a 3 (0/4) but shot .516 from the field. Regardless of how these guys rated individually, they were effective weapons for Nash.

Sure, but i don't think anyone aside from maybe yourself considers 03 to be Nash's real prime.

I wouldn't mind being the only one. It's not easy to have an original thought today.

It's worth noting at this point there was a significant shift in officiating in 2005, right at the same time Nash went to Phoenix and which represents another exogenous factor responsible for Nash's peak production and impact coming at such late ages in his career.

We have two competing explanations for why Nash was so much more effective and productive at ages 31-36 than ages 29-30:

Endogenous: Nash had an internally driven quantum leap in skill.

Exogenous: From age 31 on, Nash played with softer hand checking rules, at much higher pace, with smaller more offense-oriented lineups, and much higher ball dominance.

I think the latter group makes more sense and explains why Nash is such an outlier with his entire extended peak coming after turning 30 and happened to coincide with all of the external factors I mentioned. I do believe that playing in Phoenix he learned a another way to run offense that made him more effective and he could have carried at least part of that with him to anywhere that was willing to run an offense on the lines of what Phoenix did with Nash. Now consider the situations this hypothetical is placing him in: the 2001 Sixers and 2003 Nets, coached by Larry Brown and Byron Scott, with only a fraction of the shooting and spacing Nash had in Phoenix and with the pre-2005 hand-checking rules.

I don't think Nash would have been more significantly more effective vs SA in 2003 if the age 31 Nash time-traveled and replaced the age 29 Nash. Therefore I think what Nash did in 2003 vs the Spurs is a fair approximation of what "prime Nash" would have done. I think he would have been significantly but not massively more effective offensively than Kidd for the 2003 Nets but less effective on defense by at least as large a margin. I don't think he would have been more effective on offense than Iverson for the 2001 Sixers and the defense is a wash.

[onedayattatime]

i think we all assume nash would upgrade the nets' offense because he was such a better offensive player than kidd. and while i think that is undeniable, the extent might not be as big as we think. in 2003, the nets led the league in fast break points by a substantial margin (and this wasn't a fluke, as they'd led the league in fbp in the previous year, too). part of this was because kidd was an excellent defensive rebounder for a guard, so he was sort of facilitating a poor man's showtime lakers for them, which gave their otherwise mediocre offense a lot of easy points.

[Karate Diop]

Oh boy, been a while since I've had this argument, but the Nets defense falls apart of you replace Kids with Nash... Kidd was quarterbacking the Nets defense every night and his grit / determination are what largely created that team's identity.