RealGM

Who was better at their best among those two for you?

I typically had Wade quite a few spots over Nash, but after the recent top 100 project I think I may have been overrating rings and the carry-job a bit. I think considering their positions and what they excel at, Nash was probably the more impactful player.

I lean Wade though in certain team situations Nash can be more impactful

Wade

It's tough, because they're so different. You can probably reach higher peaks with Nash.

Guard defense doesn't matter, right? So I'll easily take Nash.

SHAQ32 wrote:Guard defense doesn't matter, right? So I'll easily take Nash.

It's the least important type of D, but it still has some value.

Strange how the "guard defense doesn't matter" tends to get repeated, then in the next thread it's "... is worthless in the playoffs because he will get hunted by modern offenses." And this in a league where guards and wings are the primary offensive drivers.

No one else seems any conflict in those statements?

Peak is easily Wade, come on. Nash was never on the level Wade was in ‘06, ‘09, or ‘10.

Agree to disagree. It's arguable either way. Very much apples and oranges.

penbeast0 wrote:Strange how the "guard defense doesn't matter" tends to get repeated, then in the next thread it's "... is worthless in the playoffs because he will get hunted by modern offenses." And this in a league where guards and wings are the primary offensive drivers.

No one else seems any conflict in those statements?

I think there is a difference between "guard defense doesn't matter" and "the impact of guard defense is limited, and team defense is more important from the guard spots than man-on defense due to usage of screen and roll and switch hunting."

tsherkin wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Strange how the "guard defense doesn't matter" tends to get repeated, then in the next thread it's "... is worthless in the playoffs because he will get hunted by modern offenses." And this in a league where guards and wings are the primary offensive drivers.

No one else seems any conflict in those statements?

I think there is a difference between "guard defense doesn't matter" and "the impact of guard defense is limited, and team defense is more important from the guard spots than man-on defense due to usage of screen and roll and switch hunting."

You could argue that's true of every position now more than it ever has been.

I picked Wade because of his defense but I think Nash is not getting enough respect in the comparison. A Nash led team was #1 or #2 in ORtg every season between 2002 and 2010. Only Showtime had a stretch of offensive dominance which compares. RAPM from 2005-2011 has them very close.

Peregrine01 wrote:You could argue that's true of every position now more than it ever has been.

To some extent, I suppose. But notionally, the point is the spot where you will see it the most, so man D means very little. How that player can contribute to the team defensive scheme, however, means a lot. There, someone like Nash was just fine, so it mitigated his man D, which suffered for his lack of high-end physical tools, sure. But again, it meant little and wasn't why they didn't title, so it becomes somewhat moot. Certainly, Wade was a better defender, but this is a conversation about offense.

tsherkin wrote:

Peregrine01 wrote:You could argue that's true of every position now more than it ever has been.

To some extent, I suppose. But notionally, the point is the spot where you will see it the most, so man D means very little. How that player can contribute to the team defensive scheme, however, means a lot. There, someone like Nash was just fine, so it mitigated his man D, which suffered for his lack of high-end physical tools, sure. But again, it meant little and wasn't why they didn't title, so it becomes somewhat moot. Certainly, Wade was a better defender, but this is a conversation about offense.

While I certainly agree with the premise that "guard defense isn't as important", what evidence do we have that supports this notion that Nash was anything but an all-time bad defender, off-ball included?

Ron Swanson wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

Peregrine01 wrote:You could argue that's true of every position now more than it ever has been.

To some extent, I suppose. But notionally, the point is the spot where you will see it the most, so man D means very little. How that player can contribute to the team defensive scheme, however, means a lot. There, someone like Nash was just fine, so it mitigated his man D, which suffered for his lack of high-end physical tools, sure. But again, it meant little and wasn't why they didn't title, so it becomes somewhat moot. Certainly, Wade was a better defender, but this is a conversation about offense.

While I certainly agree with the premise that "guard defense isn't as important", what evidence do we have that supports this notion that Nash was anything but an all-time bad defender, off-ball included?

What evidence is there he was a big negative defender? The question goes both ways there

Nash has to be the most overrated guard on this board.

They are tough to compare because they are very different players so it would depend on the roster makeup but I think Wade is the better player in more situations. Nash needs the ball in his hands to be effective while Wade can play a hybrid on ball/off ball game and his iso scoring is very valuable down the stretch of games even if it isn't reflected at all in impact metrics.

So I'd go Wade by a hair despite Nash being arguably my favorite player of all time.

penbeast0 wrote:Strange how the "guard defense doesn't matter" tends to get repeated, then in the next thread it's "... is worthless in the playoffs because he will get hunted by modern offenses." And this in a league where guards and wings are the primary offensive drivers.

No one else seems any conflict in those statements?

This.

It’s dumb. Defense matters everywhere on the court.

Djoker wrote:They are tough to compare because they are very different players so it would depend on the roster makeup but I think Wade is the better player in more situations. Nash needs the ball in his hands to be effective while Wade can play a hybrid on ball/off ball game and his iso scoring is very valuable down the stretch of games even if it isn't reflected at all in impact metrics.

So I'd go Wade by a hair despite Nash being arguably my favorite player of all time.

Why do you think Nash cannot play off ball or isolate?