RealGM

Most on here consider Nash to be a tier 1 offensive player alongside Jordan, LeBron, and Magic among others. But he's rarely considered to have a top tier peak and is often placed below bigger box score guys like Steph Curry, Kobe, KD, or Jokic despite having a clear argument as the best offensive player ever. Was his defense really detrimental enough to knock him so far that he's out of the GOAT peaks conversation even at the least important defensive position?

Nash used to make Mike Bibby and Bobby Jackson look like Magic and Oscar in the playoffs. Yes, his defense was really bad.

Yes.

Not like he's Traeyoungesque in that regard, but he's negative, and a constant among non-big GOAT contender peaks is that they are not only tier 1 offensive players, but also very strong defensive players.

Also, Magic, Curry, Kobe or KD are not really in the GOAT peaks conversation either.

Yes and no. His defense wasn't a huge detriment, but it's hard to see him being a contributor to an elite defense, at best he just wouldn't drag them down too much. I personally don't consider him a tier 1 offensive player, i have Lebron and Jordan among others to be clearly better. I know what the offensive impact metrics say, but Nash doesn't create mismatches the way those other guys do and that isn't going to show up on a stat sheet or impact formula.

Nash only had elite impact in the D'Antoni system. He never had an elite offensive season outside of Phoenix.

No-more-rings wrote:Yes and no. His defense wasn't a huge detriment, but it's hard to see him being a contributor to an elite defense, at best he just wouldn't drag them down too much. I personally don't consider him a tier 1 offensive player, i have Lebron and Jordan among others to be clearly better. I know what the offensive impact metrics say, but Nash doesn't create mismatches the way those other guys do and that isn't going to show up on a stat sheet or impact formula.

is not that too dogmátic? why does that have to be a requisite for offensive goatness?

falcolombardi wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:Yes and no. His defense wasn't a huge detriment, but it's hard to see him being a contributor to an elite defense, at best he just wouldn't drag them down too much. I personally don't consider him a tier 1 offensive player, i have Lebron and Jordan among others to be clearly better. I know what the offensive impact metrics say, but Nash doesn't create mismatches the way those other guys do and that isn't going to show up on a stat sheet or impact formula.

is not that too dogmátic? why does that have to be a requisite for offensive goatness?

I don't think "dogmatic" is a fair way to describe it but no not really.

What is yours for offensive goats? We know all those guys were cable of leading super elite or even goat offenses, I'd rather not boil it down to who leads better offenses or who's RAPM was better. I don't think it's unfair to start to look at things beyond just that. Personally I may also just value scoring more than many. Nash has shown flashes of what he can do when he really wanted to score, but not sure how that holds up in dire straights however.

No-more-rings wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:Yes and no. His defense wasn't a huge detriment, but it's hard to see him being a contributor to an elite defense, at best he just wouldn't drag them down too much. I personally don't consider him a tier 1 offensive player, i have Lebron and Jordan among others to be clearly better. I know what the offensive impact metrics say, but Nash doesn't create mismatches the way those other guys do and that isn't going to show up on a stat sheet or impact formula.

is not that too dogmátic? why does that have to be a requisite for offensive goatness?

I don't think "dogmatic" is a fair way to describe it but no not really.

What is yours for offensive goats? We know all those guys were cable of leading super elite or even goat offenses, I'd rather not boil it down to who leads better offenses or who's RAPM was better. I don't think it's unfair to start to look at things beyond just that. Personally I may also just value scoring more than many. Nash has shown flashes of what he can do when he really wanted to score, but not sure how that holds up in dire straights however.

is not magic who is always put in offensive goat listssimilar to nash in that regard?

moderate but hyper efficient scoring they could ramp up when needed + being passers first and scorers second

Thing with Nash is he has a huge perception problem. Media didn't see him being the full package sort of player like some of the other names you mentioned. Nash was thought to be the run-n-gun floor general of D'Antoni's Suns, a style that everyone thought would fail vs the Spurs. These stylistic issues aren't there with KD, Kobe, Jokic or Curry.

Actually someone posted this in the peaks thread, if you looked really closely Nash's Suns were 2nd in D-Rating for a while that year, before Kurt Thomas went down with injury. Not having a traditional defensive center really hurt that team, and that little shift would have helped Nash's perception a ton. So you actually can build a good defensive team with Nash playing. Also, looking at some of the opponent PG PER during that era, it doesn't look awful, and sometimes looks around average. They were around the same level as young Chris Paul at the time.

I don't think defense alone makes him a tier worse than Kobe, KD, Jokic or Curry. You'd have to dig a little deeper.

letskissbro wrote:Most on here consider Nash to be a tier 1 offensive player alongside Jordan, LeBron, and Magic among others. But he's rarely considered to have a top tier peak and is often placed below bigger box score guys like Steph Curry, Kobe, KD, or Jokic despite having a clear argument as the best offensive player ever. Was his defense really detrimental enough to knock him so far that he's out of the GOAT peaks conversation even at the least important defensive position?

Aside from his back issues early in his career it was his lack of defense that played a role and Cuban allowing Nash to walk in free agency. The theory was you can’t have your two best players also be your two worst defenders. As great as he was as a PG and as fun as he was to watch on the offensive end, he was pretty terrible on defense.

Jaivl wrote:Yes.

Not like he's Traeyoungesque in that regard, but he's negative, and a constant among non-big GOAT contender peaks is that they are not only tier 1 offensive players, but also very strong defensive players.

Also, Magic, Curry, Kobe or KD are not really in the GOAT peaks conversation either.

Agree with all your points. You're right Nash is up a tier from the true dumpster fire players. I consider Barkeley the captain of that team.

Fundamentals21 wrote:Thing with Nash is he has a huge perception problem. Media didn't see him being the full package sort of player like some of the other names you mentioned. Nash was thought to be the run-n-gun floor general of D'Antoni's Suns, a style that everyone thought would fail vs the Spurs. These stylistic issues aren't there with KD, Kobe, Jokic or Curry.

Actually someone posted this in the peaks thread, if you looked really closely Nash's Suns were 2nd in D-Rating for a while that year, before Kurt Thomas went down with injury. Not having a traditional defensive center really hurt that team, and that little shift would have helped Nash's perception a ton. So you actually can build a good defensive team with Nash playing. Also, looking at some of the opponent PG PER during that era, it doesn't look awful, and sometimes looks around average. They were around the same level as young Chris Paul at the time.

I don't think defense alone makes him a tier worse than Kobe, KD, Jokic or Curry. You'd have to dig a little deeper.

fun y thingh is that people used to say you couldnt win led by a junpshooting guard like curry, and it was kind of a dogma until it was not

falcolombardi wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:
is not that too dogmátic? why does that have to be a requisite for offensive goatness?

I don't think "dogmatic" is a fair way to describe it but no not really.

What is yours for offensive goats? We know all those guys were cable of leading super elite or even goat offenses, I'd rather not boil it down to who leads better offenses or who's RAPM was better. I don't think it's unfair to start to look at things beyond just that. Personally I may also just value scoring more than many. Nash has shown flashes of what he can do when he really wanted to score, but not sure how that holds up in dire straights however.

is not magic who is always put in offensive goat listssimilar to nash in that regard?

moderate but hyper efficient scoring they could ramp up when needed + being passers first and scorers second

It's fair to question the consistency, but that's why i pointed out the mismatches thing too. You can't teach size, and it's a big reason why I have Magic over Cp3 for offense. But my reason for having one player over another isn't always going to be the same.

falcolombardi wrote:

Fundamentals21 wrote:Thing with Nash is he has a huge perception problem. Media didn't see him being the full package sort of player like some of the other names you mentioned. Nash was thought to be the run-n-gun floor general of D'Antoni's Suns, a style that everyone thought would fail vs the Spurs. These stylistic issues aren't there with KD, Kobe, Jokic or Curry.

Actually someone posted this in the peaks thread, if you looked really closely Nash's Suns were 2nd in D-Rating for a while that year, before Kurt Thomas went down with injury. Not having a traditional defensive center really hurt that team, and that little shift would have helped Nash's perception a ton. So you actually can build a good defensive team with Nash playing. Also, looking at some of the opponent PG PER during that era, it doesn't look awful, and sometimes looks around average. They were around the same level as young Chris Paul at the time.

I don't think defense alone makes him a tier worse than Kobe, KD, Jokic or Curry. You'd have to dig a little deeper.

fun y thingh is that people used to say you couldnt win led by a junpshooting guard like curry, and it was kind of a dogma until it was not

This is a good point. When you're a trailblazer for a new style of play people become very binary in their thinking. Until you get a ring people will assume it is impossible to win playing that way.

Since Nash never made the finals he was unable to shake the stylistic attack.

Unfair IMO, since (i) his style of play is now common in NBA; (ii) his teams were clearly playing at a championship level. But binary thinking rules a lot of sports analysis. If Lebron plays a little better in 2011 finals Dirk's reputation is still nuked.

This is asking like why Bird is better than Dirk.

Considering there is enough evidence that he was a notable negative on defense while there are several guys who had a significant portion of value on defense, it does matter in the long-run. You see it in the same plus-minus metrics that consider him as a GOAT level offensive player, but not a GOAT level player. Being able to provide resistance against an opposing attack matters.

feyki wrote:This is asking like why Bird is better than Dirk.

No it's not because the answer there is passing ability

MartinToVaught wrote:Nash used to make Mike Bibby and Bobby Jackson look like Magic and Oscar in the playoffs. Yes, his defense was really bad.

Hyperbole is fun (or maybe this is illustrating how memory is the murkiest lens??), but this statement is "a bit strong", to put it lightly....

vs Nash in playoffs
Mike Bibby '02 WCSF: 21.8 ppg @ +6.0% rTS, 6.8 apg, 2.0 topg (*that degree of scoring/efficiency in part because he was hitting from deep at an unsustainable rate [sample size is always an issue in the playoffs]; also was a perfect 18/18 from the FT-line in the series). *EDIT: Suppose he hits "only" [a still pretty hot] 11/24 from 3pt, and makes 16/18 FT's......this suddenly becomes 20.2 ppg @ +1.7% TS. Make it 10/24 from 3pt [which is STILL better than his rs standard], and it's then 19.6 ppg @ +0.1% rTS. Make it 9/24 [basically in-line with his rs standard] and it's 19.0 ppg @ -1.5% rTS.

Bobby Jackson '02 WCSF: 13.6 ppg @ -0.4% rTS, 3.8 apg, 2.0 topg

Bibby '03 WCSF: 12.3 ppg @ -2.1% rTS, 4.1 apg, 1.3 topg
Jackson '03 WCSF: 15.4 ppg @ -0.3% rTS, 2.86 apg, 1.43 topg

Bibby '04 WC1R: 23.6 ppg @ +7.9% rTS [again unsustainable rate of 3pt shooting, fwiw], 4.6 apg, 2.6 topg


So I see Bibby having two very good series' [for him; though not to the standard of the names you've mentioned, and both in part due to unsustainable outside [+/- FT] shooting], and one bad series.
Jackson I see having two entirely average [for him] series' (if not just marginally toward poor with the sub-standard shooting efficiency).


To answer OP: yes, imo his defense is bad enough to take him out of the conversation for the very highest peaks discussions. Pretty much all of the guys in that conversation (Lebron [pick a year], Jordan ['91(ish)], '00 Shaq, Wilt ['67 or '64], Kareem, +/- guys like Hakeem or Duncan, etc)........ALL had substantial TWO-way impact. They were either straight-up elite on both sides of the ball, or at least elite on one side and "really good" on the other.
And Nash wasn't really an offensive outlier against guys like peak Lebron, Jordan (or arguably even Shaq and Kareem). So his defensive liabilities take him completely out of the conversation vs them, imo.

That said: I think his defensive weaknesses are frequently overstated [see above]. I'll say two positive things for Nash on defense: his effort was rarely utter crap (a la Jamal Crawford, Pete Maravich, etc), and he was fairly consistently among the league-leaders in charges taken.
It's true I can't say much else positive for his defense, but I'll at least give him that much.
His DRAPM basically never puts him in the absolutely basement of the league defensively, either.

trex_8063 wrote:

MartinToVaught wrote:Nash used to make Mike Bibby and Bobby Jackson look like Magic and Oscar in the playoffs. Yes, his defense was really bad.

Hyperbole is fun (or maybe this is illustrating how memory is the murkiest lens??), but this statement is "a bit strong", to put it lightly....

vs Nash in playoffs
Mike Bibby '02 WCSF: 21.8 ppg @ +6.0% rTS, 6.8 apg, 2.0 topg (*that degree of scoring/efficiency in part because he was hitting from deep at an unsustainable rate [sample size is always an issue in the playoffs]; also was a perfect 18/18 from the FT-line in the series). *EDIT: Suppose he hits "only" [a still pretty hot] 11/24 from 3pt, and makes 16/18 FT's......this suddenly becomes 20.2 ppg @ +1.7% TS. Make it 10/24 from 3pt [which is STILL better than his rs standard], and it's then 19.6 ppg @ +0.1% rTS. Make it 9/24 [basically in-line with his rs standard] and it's 19.0 ppg @ -1.5% rTS.

Bobby Jackson '02 WCSF: 13.6 ppg @ -0.4% rTS, 3.8 apg, 2.0 topg

Bibby '03 WCSF: 12.3 ppg @ -2.1% rTS, 4.1 apg, 1.3 topg
Jackson '03 WCSF: 15.4 ppg @ -0.3% rTS, 2.86 apg, 1.43 topg

Bibby '04 WC1R: 23.6 ppg @ +7.9% rTS [again unsustainable rate of 3pt shooting, fwiw], 4.6 apg, 2.6 topg


So I see Bibby having two very good series' [for him; though not to the standard of the names you've mentioned, and both in part due to unsustainable outside [+/- FT] shooting], and one bad series.
Jackson I see having two entirely average [for him] series' (if not just marginally toward poor with the sub-standard shooting efficiency).


To answer OP: yes, imo his defense is bad enough to take him out of the conversation for the very highest peaks discussions. Pretty much all of the guys in that conversation (Lebron [pick a year], Jordan ['91(ish)], '00 Shaq, Wilt ['67 or '64], Kareem, +/- guys like Hakeem or Duncan, etc)........ALL had substantial TWO-way impact. They were either straight-up elite on both sides of the ball, or at least elite on one side and "really good" on the other.
And Nash wasn't really an offensive outlier against guys like peak Lebron, Jordan (or arguably even Shaq and Kareem). So his defensive liabilities take him completely out of the conversation vs them, imo.

That said: I think his defensive weaknesses are frequently overstated [see above]. I'll say two positive things for Nash on defense: his effort was rarely utter crap (a la Jamal Crawford, Pete Maravich, etc), and he was fairly consistently among the league-leaders in charges taken.
It's true I can't say much else positive for his defense, but I'll at least give him that much.
His DRAPM basically never puts him in the absolutely basement of the league defensively, either.

Did you actually watch that series or are you just looking at numbers?

Nash is one of the best point guards of all time, but I don't think his overall impact is enough to put him in the GOAT peak conversation. Which is no slight to him- there are only a few players in that conversation.

Defense is the major part of it.