RealGM

Who had the better career, prime and peak, Mourning or Nash? Give your reasonings.



Career:

Mourning -
RS-
838gm, 31mins, 17.1pts, 52.7fg%, 8.5reb, 1.1ast, 0.5stl, 2.8blk, 2.6tos, 108OR, 100DR, 21.2PER, 58.3ts%, 41.8ows, 48dws, 89.7ws, .166ws/48, 2.2bpm, 27.4vorp, (1997-2008)+1.8 on court, +6.9 on/off

PO-
95gm, 27.3mins, 13.6pts,.51.2fg%, 7reb, 0.9ast, 0.5stl, 2.3blk, 2.4tos, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off



Nash -
RS-
1217gm, 31.3mins, 14.3pts, 49fg%, 3reb, 8.5ast, 0.7stl, 0.1blk, 2.9tos, 118OR, 111DR, 20PER, 60.5ts%, 113.7ows, 16.1dws, 129.7ws, .164ws/48, 3bpm, 48.2vorp, +6.3 on court, +7.0 on/off

PO-
120gm, 35.7mins, 17.3pts, 47.3fg%, 3.5reb, 8.8ast, 0.6stl, 0.1blk, 3.2tos, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off




Prime:

Mourning -
RS-
1993-2000, 534gm, 35.6mins, 21.1pts, 52.6fg%, 10.1reb, 1.5ast, 0.6stl, 3.1blk, 3.2tos, 109OR, 100DR, 22.4PER, 58.7ts%, 35.4ows, 35.1dws, 70.5ws, .178ws/48, 2.9bpm, 23.5vorp, (1997-2000), +10.4 on court, +11.0 on/off

PO-
52gm, 37.9mins, 20.4pts, 43.8fg%, 9.8reb, 1.3ast, 0.7stl, 2.9blk, 3.5tos, 102OR, 98DR, 19.9PER, 55.2ts%, 1.3ows, 4.1dws, 5.4ws, .131ws/48, 2.9bpm, 2.4vorp, +1.8 on court, +8.4 on/off



Nash -
RS-
2001-2012, 915gm, 33.9mins, 16.3pts, 49.8fg%, 3.3reb, 9.9ast, 0.8blk, 0.1blk, 3.3tos, 120OR, 111DR, 21.4PER, 61.3ts%, 103.1ows, 12.8dws, 115.9ws, .180ws/48, 3.9bpm, 45.8vorp, +7.5 on court, +8.1 on/off

PO-
110gm, 37.8mins, 18.4pts, 47.5fg%, 3.7reb, 9.5ast, 0.6stl, 0.1blk, 3.4tos, 116OR, 114DR, 20PER, 58.7ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws 11.9ws, .137ws/48, 3.3bpm, 5.5vorp, +2.5 on court, +4.6 on/off




Peak:

Mourning -
RS-
1999-2000, 79gm, 34.8mins, 21.7pts, 55.1fg%, 9.5reb, 1.6ast, 0.5stl, 3.7blk, 2.7tos, 112OR, 96DR, 25.8PER, 59.6ts%, 7.3ows, 5.6dws, 12.9ws, .226ws/48, 5.3bpm, 5vorp, +7.1 on court, +5.8 on/off

PO-
10gm, 37.6mins, 21.6pts, 48.4fg%, 10reb, 1.4ast, 0.2stl, 3.3blk, 2.4tos, 1O6R, 91DR, 23.8PER, 54.2ts%, 0.7ows, 1dws, 1.7ws, .217ws/48, 5.5bpm, 0.7vorp, +3.4 on court, -1.3 on/off



Nash -
RS-
2006-07, 76gm, 35.3mins, 18.6pts, 53.2fg%, 3.5reb, 11.6ast, 0.8stl, 0.1blk, 3.8tos, 124OR, 110DR, 23.8PER, 65.4ts%, 10.8ows, 1.7dws, 12.6ws, .225ws/48, 5.9bpm, 5.3vorp, +11.5 on court, +11.7 on/off

PO-
11gm, 37.5mins, 18.9pts, 46.3fg%, 3.2reb, 13.3ast, 0.4stl, 0.1blk, 4.4tos, 114OR, 110DR, 21.9PER, 57.7ts%, 1.3ows, 0.1dws, 1.4ws, .165ws/48, 5.2bpm, 0.8vorp, +6.7 on court, +4.8 on/off

I have Nash as a borderline top 15 player all-time. Amazing floor general, invented modern offense, and one of the best shooters of all time. He’s my pick for all three.

This isn’t really much of a comparison. Mourning has a case for single year peak, but not much beyond that.

Peak might be interesting, though I don't view Mourning as top tier defender and his offense is very limited even at his best.

Career is not close, Nash crushes Mounring.

70sFan wrote:Peak might be interesting, though I don't view Mourning as top tier defender and his offense is very limited even at his best.

Career is not close, Nash crushes Mounring.

What does he have besides more games played? Interesting the thorough"stat based" response.

migya wrote:

70sFan wrote:Peak might be interesting, though I don't view Mourning as top tier defender and his offense is very limited even at his best.

Career is not close, Nash crushes Mounring.

What does he have besides more games played? Interesting the thorough"stat based" response.

Much better passer and playmaker.
Arguably the 2nd best shooter in history.
Significantly better offensive impact.
Longer and more durable prime.
Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance.
Bigger impact on a team after he joined in.

Mourning has some strong impact signals in his best seasons, but his prime is very short and we don't have any evidences that he was GOAT-level defender, while is offense is very limited.

Why do you think Mourning has any case here, outside of playing in the 1990s?

Another thread about a 90s player. Migya, basketball existed outside that decade.

70sFan wrote:

migya wrote:

70sFan wrote:Peak might be interesting, though I don't view Mourning as top tier defender and his offense is very limited even at his best.

Career is not close, Nash crushes Mounring.

What does he have besides more games played? Interesting the thorough"stat based" response.

Much better passer and playmaker.
Arguably the 2nd best shooter in history.
Significantly better offensive impact.
Longer and more durable prime.
Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance.
Bigger impact on a team after he joined in.

Mourning has some strong impact signals in his best seasons, but his prime is very short and we don't have any evidences that he was GOAT-level defender, while is offense is very limited.

Why do you think Mourning has any case here, outside of playing in the 1990s?

Yet another fact based response. Really in depth analysis.

- Much better passer? He's a PG, Mourning's a Center that was the focal point for scoring on his teams. That's like saying, Mourning was a better rebounder, again, really in depth.

- Arguably the 2nd best shooter ever? No he wasn't. No proof for such a big statement.


- Significantly better offensive impact? Because he was the PG on the great scoring Phoenix team from 2005-2010(11)?
Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.


- Longer prime? Yes, because of Mourning's kidney disease but for best 8 years, a considerable amount of seasons:

Nash - 2003-2010, 626gm, 34mins, 16.8pts, 49.9fg%, 3.3reb, 10.2ast, 0.8stl, 0.1blk, 3.3tos, 121O4, 111DR, 21.8PER, 61.6ts%, 74.3ows, 9.6dws, 83.9ws, .189ws/48, 4.2bpm, 33.3vorp, +8.6 on court, +8.1 on/off

Mourning - 1993-2000, 534gm, 35.6mins, 21.1pts, 52.6fg%, 10.1reb, 1.5ast, 0.6stl, 3.1blk, 3.2tos, 109OR, 100DR, 22.4PER, 58.7ts%, 35.4ows, 35.1dws, 70.5ws, .178ws/48, 2.9bpm, 23.5vorp, (1997-2000), +10.4 on court, +11.0 on/off


Mourning is better.


- Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance? Team performance isn't largely based on one player and so isn't a strong indicator of a player most of the time. Garnett in Minnesota is a relevant example for you.

Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup.


- Bigger impact on a team after he joined in? As has been said by many and is the main factor, D'Antoni's system/style was what made it work. Nash was the brains and deserves his credit but it's been overblown. Mourning arrived in Miami and once they got a pretty good roster, in 1997, they performed well. Those Miami teams didn't have the talent Nash's Phoenix teams had, particularly offensively.


*Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender.

Mourning came back from his kidney disease and was still one of the best defenders, he just played much less in court time and was backing up Shaq.

HeartBreakKid wrote:Another thread about a 90s player. Migya, basketball existed outside that decade.

He peaked in 2000, inform yourself before being a smart alek.

migya wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:Another thread about a 90s player. Migya, basketball existed outside that decade.

He peaked in 2000, inform yourself before being a smart alek.

Yeah a player who's rookie year was in 1993 and peaked in 2000 is totally not a 90s player.

Obviously the 2000s when he was in his 30s the entire decade is his prime years.

migya wrote:

70sFan wrote:

migya wrote:

What does he have besides more games played? Interesting the thorough"stat based" response.

Much better passer and playmaker.
Arguably the 2nd best shooter in history.
Significantly better offensive impact.
Longer and more durable prime.
Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance.
Bigger impact on a team after he joined in.

Mourning has some strong impact signals in his best seasons, but his prime is very short and we don't have any evidences that he was GOAT-level defender, while is offense is very limited.

Why do you think Mourning has any case here, outside of playing in the 1990s?

Yet another fact based response. Really in depth analysis.

- Much better passer? He's a PG, Mourning's a Center that was the focal point for scoring on his teams. That's like saying, Mourning was a better rebounder, again, really in depth.

- Arguably the 2nd best shooter ever? No he wasn't. No proof for such a big statement.


- Significantly better offensive impact? Because he was the PG on the great scoring Phoenix team from 2005-2010(11)?
Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.


- Longer prime? Yes, because of Mourning's kidney disease but for best 8 years, a considerable amount of seasons:

Nash - 2003-2010, 626gm, 34mins, 16.8pts, 49.9fg%, 3.3reb, 10.2ast, 0.8stl, 0.1blk, 3.3tos, 121O4, 111DR, 21.8PER, 61.6ts%, 74.3ows, 9.6dws, 83.9ws, .189ws/48, 4.2bpm, 33.3vorp, +8.6 on court, +8.1 on/off

Mourning - 1993-2000, 534gm, 35.6mins, 21.1pts, 52.6fg%, 10.1reb, 1.5ast, 0.6stl, 3.1blk, 3.2tos, 109OR, 100DR, 22.4PER, 58.7ts%, 35.4ows, 35.1dws, 70.5ws, .178ws/48, 2.9bpm, 23.5vorp, (1997-2000), +10.4 on court, +11.0 on/off


Mourning is better.


- Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance? Team performance isn't largely based on one player and so isn't a strong indicator of a player most of the time. Garnett in Minnesota is a relevant example for you.

Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup.


- Bigger impact on a team after he joined in? As has been said by many and is the main factor, D'Antoni's system/style was what made it work. Nash was the brains and deserves his credit but it's been overblown. Mourning arrived in Miami and once they got a pretty good roster, in 1997, they performed well. Those Miami teams didn't have the talent Nash's Phoenix teams had, particularly offensively.


*Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender.

Mourning came back from his kidney disease and was still one of the best defenders, he just played much less in court time and was backing up Shaq.

I love how you think that Nash being one of the greatest playmakers of all time doesn't matter because he's a point guard and that's what they're supposed to do (doesn't make sense) but Alozno Mourning's defense totally counts when he plays center.

Nash is much closer to being the best playmaker than Mourning is the best defender. Has nothing to do with their positions.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

migya wrote:

70sFan wrote:Much better passer and playmaker.
Arguably the 2nd best shooter in history.
Significantly better offensive impact.
Longer and more durable prime.
Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance.
Bigger impact on a team after he joined in.

Mourning has some strong impact signals in his best seasons, but his prime is very short and we don't have any evidences that he was GOAT-level defender, while is offense is very limited.

Why do you think Mourning has any case here, outside of playing in the 1990s?

Yet another fact based response. Really in depth analysis.

- Much better passer? He's a PG, Mourning's a Center that was the focal point for scoring on his teams. That's like saying, Mourning was a better rebounder, again, really in depth.

- Arguably the 2nd best shooter ever? No he wasn't. No proof for such a big statement.


- Significantly better offensive impact? Because he was the PG on the great scoring Phoenix team from 2005-2010(11)?
Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.


- Longer prime? Yes, because of Mourning's kidney disease but for best 8 years, a considerable amount of seasons:

Nash - 2003-2010, 626gm, 34mins, 16.8pts, 49.9fg%, 3.3reb, 10.2ast, 0.8stl, 0.1blk, 3.3tos, 121O4, 111DR, 21.8PER, 61.6ts%, 74.3ows, 9.6dws, 83.9ws, .189ws/48, 4.2bpm, 33.3vorp, +8.6 on court, +8.1 on/off

Mourning - 1993-2000, 534gm, 35.6mins, 21.1pts, 52.6fg%, 10.1reb, 1.5ast, 0.6stl, 3.1blk, 3.2tos, 109OR, 100DR, 22.4PER, 58.7ts%, 35.4ows, 35.1dws, 70.5ws, .178ws/48, 2.9bpm, 23.5vorp, (1997-2000), +10.4 on court, +11.0 on/off


Mourning is better.


- Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance? Team performance isn't largely based on one player and so isn't a strong indicator of a player most of the time. Garnett in Minnesota is a relevant example for you.

Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup.


- Bigger impact on a team after he joined in? As has been said by many and is the main factor, D'Antoni's system/style was what made it work. Nash was the brains and deserves his credit but it's been overblown. Mourning arrived in Miami and once they got a pretty good roster, in 1997, they performed well. Those Miami teams didn't have the talent Nash's Phoenix teams had, particularly offensively.


*Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender.

Mourning came back from his kidney disease and was still one of the best defenders, he just played much less in court time and was backing up Shaq.

I love how you think that Nash being one of the greatest playmakers of all time doesn't matter because he's a point guard and that's what they're supposed to do (doesn't make sense) but Alozno Mourning's defense totally counts when he plays center.

Nash is much closer to being the best playmaker than Mourning is the best defender. Has nothing to do with their positions.

And I'm not anti-Alonzo but the idea that since he's a scoring focus his weak passing (career: 1.9 assists per 100 pos, 6.7 assist%, 0.428248076 A/T ratio [latter a clumsy tool given turnovers come about in things other than creating for others]) doesn't matter is interesting. If the ball's going to him surely it matters more that he's not predictable, no?

migya wrote:Yet another fact based response. Really in depth analysis.

- Much better passer? He's a PG, Mourning's a Center that was the focal point for scoring on his teams. That's like saying, Mourning was a better rebounder, again, really in depth.

Nash is basically the greatest passer and playmaker in NBA history (with Magic being the only other competitor), so yeah that matters a lot. Mourning averaged 7.9 AST% and 15.0 TOV% in his prime, that's arguably the worst ever among the main scoring options on solid playoff teams. So yeah, we'te not comparing a random PG vs random C here - we're comparing the greatest passer ever to one of the worst passers among stars. It matters a lot.

Your false analogy in rebounding doesn't work here, because Mourning is below average rebounder for his position, so this difference doesn't represent the gap well.

- Arguably the 2nd best shooter ever? No he wasn't. No proof for such a big statement.

2001-12 Nash:

48.0% from 10-16
48.5% from 16-3P
43.2% from 3P
90.8% from FT line

The only argument against him is volume, but his shooting profile is nothing short of incredible. On top of that, basically all of his points were self-created.

- Significantly better offensive impact? Because he was the PG on the great scoring Phoenix team from 2005-2010(11)?

No, because the strategic shift (giving Nash the ball all the time) turned his team into the greatest offensive team ever and elite offensive team even after D'Antoni left.

Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.

Now include efficiency and postseason numbers.

The idea that scoring numbers gives you the answer who is better offensive player is completely flawed as well.

- Longer prime? Yes, because of Mourning's kidney disease but for best 8 years, a considerable amount of seasons:

So you agree.

- Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance? Team performance isn't largely based on one player and so isn't a strong indicator of a player most of the time. Garnett in Minnesota is a relevant example for you.

Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup.

Even these limited numbers don't show Mourning in better light...

- Bigger impact on a team after he joined in? As has been said by many and is the main factor, D'Antoni's system/style was what made it work.

What is this system about exactly?

Mourning arrived in Miami and once they got a pretty good roster, in 1997, they performed well. Those Miami teams didn't have the talent Nash's Phoenix teams had, particularly offensively.

They had much more defensive talent though and they didn't miss a bit when Mourning missed full season in 2001.

*Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender.

Mourning is also horrible passer and mediocre rebounder. Don't ignore important things.

Owly wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:

migya wrote:

Yet another fact based response. Really in depth analysis.

- Much better passer? He's a PG, Mourning's a Center that was the focal point for scoring on his teams. That's like saying, Mourning was a better rebounder, again, really in depth.

- Arguably the 2nd best shooter ever? No he wasn't. No proof for such a big statement.


- Significantly better offensive impact? Because he was the PG on the great scoring Phoenix team from 2005-2010(11)?
Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.


- Longer prime? Yes, because of Mourning's kidney disease but for best 8 years, a considerable amount of seasons:

Nash - 2003-2010, 626gm, 34mins, 16.8pts, 49.9fg%, 3.3reb, 10.2ast, 0.8stl, 0.1blk, 3.3tos, 121O4, 111DR, 21.8PER, 61.6ts%, 74.3ows, 9.6dws, 83.9ws, .189ws/48, 4.2bpm, 33.3vorp, +8.6 on court, +8.1 on/off

Mourning - 1993-2000, 534gm, 35.6mins, 21.1pts, 52.6fg%, 10.1reb, 1.5ast, 0.6stl, 3.1blk, 3.2tos, 109OR, 100DR, 22.4PER, 58.7ts%, 35.4ows, 35.1dws, 70.5ws, .178ws/48, 2.9bpm, 23.5vorp, (1997-2000), +10.4 on court, +11.0 on/off


Mourning is better.


- Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance? Team performance isn't largely based on one player and so isn't a strong indicator of a player most of the time. Garnett in Minnesota is a relevant example for you.

Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup.


- Bigger impact on a team after he joined in? As has been said by many and is the main factor, D'Antoni's system/style was what made it work. Nash was the brains and deserves his credit but it's been overblown. Mourning arrived in Miami and once they got a pretty good roster, in 1997, they performed well. Those Miami teams didn't have the talent Nash's Phoenix teams had, particularly offensively.


*Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender.

Mourning came back from his kidney disease and was still one of the best defenders, he just played much less in court time and was backing up Shaq.

I love how you think that Nash being one of the greatest playmakers of all time doesn't matter because he's a point guard and that's what they're supposed to do (doesn't make sense) but Alozno Mourning's defense totally counts when he plays center.

Nash is much closer to being the best playmaker than Mourning is the best defender. Has nothing to do with their positions.

And I'm not anti-Alonzo but the idea that since he's a scoring focus his weak passing (career: 1.9 assists per 100 pos, 6.7 assist%, 0.428248076 A/T ratio [latter a clumsy tool given turnovers come about in things other than creating for others]) doesn't matter is interesting. If the ball's going to him surely it matters more that he's not predictable, no?

I didn't imply that he was a great offensive player. He didn't pass to a good level but he was a good scorer and that was in response to it being said that Nash was a better scorer. Mourning was a great player on both ends, better defender than offensively but still, very good two way player. Nash only has his offense to be considered at all as he was horrible defensively.

The defensive gap is worth at least exploring. I’ll probably still take Nash.

Mourning is an overlooked player in an all-time sense imo. Playing at the same time as Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing and Mutombo is tough. However, for peak I think this comparison with Nash is basically a pick'em. I'd probably give the edge to Nash for more convincing play-off performance but it's closer than most would probably think on first look. In terms of prime I don't agree Mourning was only good in 2000 but even then Nash clearly has more years at an elite level. For career the comparison could've been fair if Mourning could've played out his career without the kidney problems. Taking that into consideration, Mourning was already declining somewhat after 2000 (his age 29 season), while Nash came scarily close to winning his 3rd consecutive MVP at the same age Mourning missed a full season and never fully recovered.

70sFan wrote:

migya wrote:Yet another fact based response. Really in depth analysis.

- Much better passer? He's a PG, Mourning's a Center that was the focal point for scoring on his teams. That's like saying, Mourning was a better rebounder, again, really in depth.

Nash is basically the greatest passer and playmaker in NBA history (with Magic being the only other competitor), so yeah that matters a lot. Mourning averaged 7.9 AST% and 15.0 TOV% in his prime, that's arguably the worst ever among the main scoring options on solid playoff teams. So yeah, we'te not comparing a random PG vs random C here - we're comparing the greatest passer ever to one of the worst passers among stars. It matters a lot.

Your false analogy in rebounding doesn't work here, because Mourning is below average rebounder for his position, so this difference doesn't represent the gap well.

- Arguably the 2nd best shooter ever? No he wasn't. No proof for such a big statement.

2001-12 Nash:

48.0% from 10-16
48.5% from 16-3P
43.2% from 3P
90.8% from FT line

The only argument against him is volume, but his shooting profile is nothing short of incredible. On top of that, basically all of his points were self-created.

- Significantly better offensive impact? Because he was the PG on the great scoring Phoenix team from 2005-2010(11)?

No, because the strategic shift (giving Nash the ball all the time) turned his team into the greatest offensive team ever and elite offensive team even after D'Antoni left.

Per 100 -
Mourning - 29.1pts (career), 31pts (prime), 33.5pts (peak)
Nash - 23.3,pts (career) 24.5pts (prime), 26.4ots (peak)

Mourning the significantly better scorer. Nash playmaked great but overall if he's better offensively it isn't by alot.

Now include efficiency and postseason numbers.

The idea that scoring numbers gives you the answer who is better offensive player is completely flawed as well.

- Longer prime? Yes, because of Mourning's kidney disease but for best 8 years, a considerable amount of seasons:

So you agree.

- Far better postseason career in terms of team and individual performance? Team performance isn't largely based on one player and so isn't a strong indicator of a player most of the time. Garnett in Minnesota is a relevant example for you.

Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup.

Even these limited numbers don't show Mourning in better light...

- Bigger impact on a team after he joined in? As has been said by many and is the main factor, D'Antoni's system/style was what made it work.

What is this system about exactly?

Mourning arrived in Miami and once they got a pretty good roster, in 1997, they performed well. Those Miami teams didn't have the talent Nash's Phoenix teams had, particularly offensively.

They had much more defensive talent though and they didn't miss a bit when Mourning missed full season in 2001.

*Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender.

Mourning is also horrible passer and mediocre rebounder. Don't ignore important things.

- Your false analogy in rebounding doesn't work here, because Mourning is below average rebounder for his position, so this difference doesn't represent the gap well.
Averaging over 10rebs before his kidney problem isn't below average. You are being comical now.


- 2001-12 Nash:

48.0% from 10-16
48.5% from 16-3P
43.2% from 3P
90.8% from FT line


For career:
CP:
49.3% - 10-16
46.9% - 16-3P
37% - 3P

Old man Stockton, age 34-40
46.1% - 10-16
49.8% - 16-3P
39.5% - 3P

Durant
47.5% - 10-16
45% - 16- 3P
38.4% - 3P

They have similar numbers than Nash. There's no numbers before 1997 otherwise Bird and West, probably a few others would have such numbers.


- The idea that scoring numbers gives you the answer who is better offensive player is completely flawed as well.
They give a pretty good indication. Mourning was an efficient and good level scorer in his career, always as the #1 option. Nash was never really the fist option for his team.


- Per 100 -
Nash - 120gm, 47.3fg%, 5.1reb, 12.8ast, 0.8stl, 0.2blk, 4.6tos, 25pts, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.6vorp, +2.1 on court, +4.7 on/off

Mourning - 95gm, 51.2fg%,14.1reb, 1.7ast, 1stl, 4.5blk, 4.8tos, 27.3pts, 103OR, 98DR, 19.2PER, 57.7ts%, 2.1ows, 5.4dws, 7.5ws, .139ws/48, 2.8bpm, 3.1vorp, +6.4 on court, +7.6 on/off


Again, Mourning is better and that's with almost half his playoff games at the end of his career as a backup

Even these limited numbers don't show Mourning in better light...

Then they don't show Nash in a good light either. He was worse in the playoffs also.


- *Defense is the factor that makes Mourning better. He was a good scorer and great defender, Nash was a good scorer and offensive player and horrible defender. [/quote]
Mourning is also horrible passer and mediocre rebounder. Don't ignore important things.

Defense is one of the most important things.

So by your view Moses and Olajuwon aren't as good.


So much ignoring of much just to push the agenda, even if the facts don't line up.

Dutchball97 wrote:Mourning is an overlooked player in an all-time sense imo. Playing at the same time as Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing and Mutombo is tough. However, for peak I think this comparison with Nash is basically a pick'em. I'd probably give the edge to Nash for more convincing play-off performance but it's closer than most would probably think on first look. In terms of prime I don't agree Mourning was only good in 2000 but even then Nash clearly has more years at an elite level. For career the comparison could've been fair if Mourning could've played out his career without the kidney problems. Taking that into consideration, Mourning was already declining somewhat after 2000 (his age 29 season), while Nash came scarily close to winning his 3rd consecutive MVP at the same age Mourning missed a full season and never fully recovered.

Besides the Suns having a great offense what makes Nash better than Mourning? Look at the numbers, Nash doesn't have alltime great numbers to support the claims his so great. For being such a horrible defender, her had to not only playmake at an elite level but score as well. He was rather unique, in a good and bad way, but he isn't overall better than a number of players he is often listed ahead of.

Nash easily for career/prime, way out in front for games played and general health.

Peak is somewhat interesting, certainly team dependent, I think I’d lean Nash overall. One of the very best offensive #1s to ever do it.

migya wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Mourning is an overlooked player in an all-time sense imo. Playing at the same time as Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing and Mutombo is tough. However, for peak I think this comparison with Nash is basically a pick'em. I'd probably give the edge to Nash for more convincing play-off performance but it's closer than most would probably think on first look. In terms of prime I don't agree Mourning was only good in 2000 but even then Nash clearly has more years at an elite level. For career the comparison could've been fair if Mourning could've played out his career without the kidney problems. Taking that into consideration, Mourning was already declining somewhat after 2000 (his age 29 season), while Nash came scarily close to winning his 3rd consecutive MVP at the same age Mourning missed a full season and never fully recovered.

Besides the Suns having a great offense what makes Nash better than Mourning? Look at the numbers, Nash doesn't have alltime great numbers to support the claims his so great. For being such a horrible defender, her had to not only playmaker at an elite level but score as well. He was rather unique, in a good and bad way, but he isn't overall better than a number of players he is often listed ahead of.

Let's just slow down a bit there. I did look at the numbers, just that there are more numbers than what you posted. This comes up all the time so I'm confused how you still seem to fail to understand this. I'm probably closer to your approach than most because I use boxscore metrics like WS and BPM quite heavily, while a significant amount of posters dismiss them altogether or use them as a minor factor at best. That said when we're talking about players who played at a time with more sophisticated metrics available we should definitely factor those in as well. Even with all that, Mourning doesn't even have better boxscore metrics than Nash. Yet I stil clearly acknowledge that at their peak I don't see much between them and then you still ask me why I think Nash is so great?

"Nash had to be an elite playmaker and shooter to compensate for his weak defense" Well yeah but he did that so what's your point? The last point especially is pretty empty without further context. "He's better than a number of players he is often listed ahead of" Ok, who and why?

I just find it weird you want me to go into detail of what makes Nash so great when I have one of the least pro-Nash replies on your question and am in general lower than him than the concencus on this board. Maybe that's a sign for you to reflect when even people who aren't as high on Nash have him higher than you to such a degree that you think they're super bullish on him.