I've been doing a film study on both Chris Paul and Nash. Hopefully I'll be able to post more in-depth play by play notes soon, after I finish writing them. But I thought I'd give an initial impression until then.
2007 Steve NashOffense: Nash's great shooting efficiency is apparent, both in the 3 point range and in the midrange. However, with his slightly lower scoring volume than the pack, it's his playmaking that stands out. As a floor general, Nash's preference for quick actions, attacking the defense right out of transition before they can set up, clearly led to great shots. The high-volume use of spread pick and roll was clearly a strategic advantage over the competition, and they went to it frequently in this game. If Nash ended the pick and roll possession shooting, it would usually be after a snake dribble. If it ended with Nash playmaking, it would usually involve Nash going to the side (rather than opting for middle penetration), quickly passing to the top where the waiting big man would shoot the midrange or drive.
Defense: Nash's preferred spot on defense is on the weak side, avoiding playing at the point of attack. Here, he would zone up the 2 weak side shooters. He loves to clog the lane or fake at doubling when there's middle penetration. It's better than nothing, but it's not much. He puts high effort in recovering when the ball kicks out to the shooter, quickly accelerating and jumping to disrupt the shot... but his physical limitations prevent these contests from being too effective. Add on the occasional defensive mistake (e.g. miscommunication on screen, etc.), and Nash's reputation as a worse defender seems to fit the film.
2015 Chris PaulOffense: Paul's scoring reputation is also apparent. At slightly less efficiency than Nash, Paul has slightly more volume. He's less quick to turn to the 3 point shot, although he's not a liability there. Instead, he often prefers the midrange. Both use frequent pick and rolls, and both enjoy going to the snake dribble. Creation-wise, Paul also shows good passing. Like Nash, he often draws the defense on his drives through the midrange, and he shows a willingness to pass back to the open man. However, his slightly slower style of play is also apparent, clearly being less willing to get a teammate a shot early in the shotclock, and his timing for passing out of doubles is just a hair slower than Nash.
Defense: Paul was playing with a injured hamstring this playoff game (shocker, I know...), so his lateral quickness on this film may have been slightly slower than healthy Paul. Nonetheless, Paul is far more active on defense than Nash. Instead of preferring the weak side, Nash prefers to be at the point of attack. He shows occasional physicality, which is good. However his screen navigation was slightly worse than I would have liked... he loses a bit too much position on screens. It doesn't fully break down the Clippers' defense: his teammates' help /zone defense gives Paul some time to recover, and once Paul showed a good contest from behind. This could be a case where the hamstring injury limited his lateral mobility, but I'd need more film from 14/15 to say for sure.
Comparison:
Scoring: Comparable.
Nash is a bit more efficient, Paul has slightly higher volume. Both are good 3 point shooters (though Nash is better), and both are good midrange shooters. Both go to the snake dribble to get open, often preferring to shoot from the elbow or the side rather than the middle. I like how both keep their dribble alive, probing until they see the right opportunity. Neither are the best finishers at the rim, limited by their size.
Playmaking: Nash > Paul.
Both show good passing skills, and a preference for the pick and roll. Both are able to collapse the defense and draw the double team, and both show a willingness to pass out. Nash is just a touch quicker in passing out of these situations, which I like. The bigger difference is that Nash is far quicker attacking out of transition or before the defense gets fully set (the "Seven Seconds or Less" moniker definitely is apparent on film). To my eye, this willingness to attack quickly generates some of the Suns' best looks, and I think it's one of the areas where Nash's playmaking surpasses Paul's. Even if Paul's conservative passing helps limit team turnovers, his slightly slower decision making also costs some good looks.
Off-ball: Neither are great.
Both are fairly lazy off-ball, preferring to stand around the perimeter and solely provide spacing. To my eye, Nash provided slightly more spacing value with his better shooting closer to the 3 point line. Interestingly Paul preferred to stand quite a ways back from the 3 point line. This made it easier for his defender to sag off of him, since it was clear Paul wasn't going to shoot from Curry-range. I think Paul was trying to make it easier for his teammate to pass out of an action and restart the possession if the non-Paul action fizzled out. It also made it easier for him to get back on defense.
Nash showed a greater willingness to be a screener off-ball, though none of his screens were effective and they weren't common either.. Both will occasionally direct traffic off-ball, though to my eye Paul will do so more (note: tiny sample for this data, so probably not representative). All-in-all, both left something to be desired off ball. I think the scalability concerns (i.e. the concerns with losing value next to better on-ball teammates) are fair.
Defense: Paul > Nash.
Nash's defense was very low-activity. He showed a willingness to put effort in, which is good, but neither his occasional help defense when clogging the lane nor his recovery defense when chasing the perimeter shooter were that impactful. I guess it's good that he preferred to defend on the weak side, as this prevented him from being a liability more often. Still, it also doesn't add value. He occasionally made defensive mistakes too, which isn't doing him any favors.
While Paul's defense was also not super high-impact, he clearly had larger "defensive volume" at the point of attack, instead of hiding on the weak side like Nash. He showed good activity and occasional physicality, though his screen navigation left something to be desired. This may have been the limits of Paul's injured hamstring. Regardless, this seemed like more positive defensive value than Nash.
I also think Nash is an easy top eight shooter in the history of the sport, with a decent claim to second. His shot and shot percentages are every bit as good as anyone’s, they maintain into the postseason, and he created those shots for himself far more than any other top shooter did. This was a massive advantage in his time, but with the spacing revolution I think his gravity would take another leap. (Note: I am not suggesting he would be a regular high volume scorer in the modern league, which is a claim I think grossly misinterprets the value and intent of his playstyle; simply going more to his playoff volume and increasing the proportion of threes taken would already represent a notable jump and would even further strain defences that have become hyper-aware of the effects of that type of spacing.)
