I wanted to analyze a few representative highlight plays, since I that may be easier for people to read rather than the full list of plays. I have the full list too if anyone wants.
DraymondGold wrote: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.
2:50, Man Defense and Help Defense
Great man d, showing some physicality and good screen navigation. He then knows he can clog lane on Kawhi's drive, to deter the rim attempt and help on the rebound. While Nash is much more of a weak-side zoning defender, Paul's in the thick of the action at the point of attack.
13:05, off-ball offense (cons)
Paul likes to stand far back from the 3 point line when he’s off ball. This doesn’t provide much off-ball value, but it makes it easier for his teammates to pass back out. Here, the reset involves Paul starting a drive which starts to break down the defense, then setting up the play with a pass.
15:00, pick and roll on-ball offense (pros)
High screen, and Paul shows great quickness on his drive. He collapses the defense, pulling in multiple defenders, then shows he's a willing and fairly quick passer. Nash might have been just a hair quicker, using a behind-the-back pass rather than a turnaround pass, but we're talking very small differences and Paul still generates the open shot here.
39:20, defense (cons)
A few times, Paul had some trouble navigating screens in this game. Some of this is likely reduced quickness, as he is playing injured. Often when he struggles around a screen, his teammates will provide temporary help defense until he recovers. Still, even with these cons, I see him as a clearly better defender than Nash.
42:13, midrange offense
Like Nash, Paul likes to start with a screen. Great handle and acceleration to get by Kawhi, then it's a snake dribble to a great midrange shot. Great possession, classic CP3. This midrange shot is very resilient against good defense.
48:25, transition offense and off-ball play
Many say Nash was a more aggressive passer. This is true, but like many all-time great offensive players, Paul still shows willingness to pass ahead and push opportunities in transition. Here he passes to the streaking Griffin.
Then, in the half court, he stands far behind the 3 point line. But this play, you see his spacing value. He sneaks back to the line and nails the 3 when he gets the pass.
54:24, Point of attack defense
At the point of attack, Paul shows defensive ability well beyond Nash. This is a great block to prevent the layup. Then he shows willingness to push ahead in transition, which leads to the open 3.
At this point in the game, Paul's hamstring starts acting up and clearly bothers him, hampering his speed on both sides of the floor. But there are still 2 plays that are worth watching for entertainment value alone.
1:06:38, Clutch 3 point shooting
Paul’s not normally the one to make super long 3s (though he’s by no means a poor shooter)… but wow, what a shot. It starts a hot streak that carries into the fourth quarter, where Paul makes several more tough shots from range.
Also, Paul ignoring Blake Griffin’s high five is hilarious haha.
1:34:40, Clutch Iso Offense.
Here's a wonderfully entertaining clutch play. Chris Paul's late-game decision making is usually very good. Here, he starts off ball, isolates, and nails the midrange shot over the double team.[/quote]
