Which players get too much/little credit for their teams success?

[OhayoKD]

Weird to write all of this while completely sidestepping this post:

Odd to accuse me of "completely sidestepping" when this Colbinii post was actually his second response to the same post of mine. I replied to his original response and this second response slipped under my radar. Looking at it now, I didn't miss much as it's essentially the same on/off argument he already put forth

For my own part, the idea that defenders singularly anchor all-time great defences seems facially ridiculous.

An interesting take. In any case, I can't claim full ownership of the idea I put forth. I'm saying I agree with the commonly held belief that interior defense is the single most important single element of overall team defense, and elite rim-protectors have a greater impact on their team's interior defense than do other players fulfilling other roles

Is Dikembe Mutombo not an all-time great defender because of 1995/1996/1998/2000?

Mutombo and Atlanta's numbers don't suit your interest here, not sure why you cited him

Is Patrick Ewing the best defender of the past forty years? He anchored a lot of all-time great defences.

Was Patrick Ewing most responsible for New York's dominant defense? That's the relevant question

Why did someone like Hakeem not do the same?

Ugh... teammates? Coaching? I'm aware this is an intended "gotcha" but it fails for reasons that should be clear. To assert that X is most impactful on Y isn't a declaration that non-X is irrelevant

Or is Hakeem just overrated because individually he never broke that -5 drtg mark?

So strawman, much misrepresentation

Regardless, both he and Ewing have better results than someone like Dikembe, even though Dikembe more purely fits this shotblocking archetype you value so completely above all else.

It's becoming a trend, the strawman thing. In any case I suggest you recheck your Deke data

Alonzo Mourning has a -6 defence under his belt; does he too have the higher defensive peak?

I consider peak Zo to be among the most impactful defenders in NBA history, so his performance here doesn't contradict my argument. It rather supports it

Interestingly — and with the acknowledgment the core point of this particular argument can be applied to Boston Garnett too — Howard shares something of a defensive through-line with Patrick Ewing and Alonzo Mourning; do you happen to know what it is?

No? Howard and Mourning both played for SVG but Ewing was coached by Stan's brother

Why did the 2006 Pistons and 1992/93 Spurs take such a step back defensively after a certain bench individual left the team?

Because coaching matters and Larry Brown was an excellent defensive coach?

If the question is whether prime versions of Mutombo, Ewing, Olajuwon and Mourning were more valuable defenders than KG, my answer would be that evidence says they were. If you were trying to dismantle my argument with examples of inferior defenders boosted by what you perceive to be my criteria, you could've done a lot better than these 4 ATG defensive monsters

So teammates and coaching systems matter. “Merely” anchoring a -4 drtg is not prohibitive because of teammates and coaching systems. Data matters — we know these defenders are impactful. And on different teams that have better schemes or teammates, or even with changes on the same team over time, we can see drastically different results in team defence.

So apart from simply disbelieving that he could possibly be as important as any all-time rim protector, what is the case against Garnett, who generally had poor defensive support and systems in Minnesota but regularly showed giant impact on his team and at his best had the team playing at elite levels, then went to Boston and anchored historically great defences which also collapsed without him?

Data is only relevant when it fits my priors tbh

[OhayoKD]

To preface I'm basing credit and its amounts on what I've perceived on this board:

Too much credit for offense: Shaquille O'Neal. He's generally regarded as a top 3 ATG peak (ranks 2nd, 2nd, 4th and 3rd on this board's peak projects conducted in 2012, 2015, 2019 and current) and it isn't for defense, yet he's never been a part of what's generally discussed as an ATG offense. This in spite of the fact that prime Shaq was blessed with the ridiculously improbable fortune of 3 consecutive pairings with absolutely elite wing creators. My take is that his FT shooting was a greater general vulnerability than mere specific hack-a-Shaq scenarios would imply, and his relatively tiny scoring range coupled with his dependency on perimeter players to facilitate meant that Shaq wasn't the historically reliable source of go-to halfcourt scoring that the ingrained visuals of his sheer physical dominance would have us believe

Too little credit for offense: Michael Jordan. Similar to Shaq, Jordan isn't synonymous with ATG offenses. But unlike Shaq, Jordan should be. The Bulls offense posted some historic numbers both in absolute and relative terms with Jordan at the helm, they were particularly resilient vs elite defense, and they accomplished all of this with the relatively limited Scottie Pippen as a #2 and no real #3. I've looked at scoring data in series after series where Pippen struggles and all other non-Jordan Bulls players combine to deliver mediocrity at best, and yet Jordan just churns out his consistent volume and Chicago's offense proceeds to dramatically outperform elite defenses over and over and over again

Too much credit for defense: Kevin Garnett. Perhaps the poster child for when inferences of impact data can supersede reality. He's a RAPM king, but KG never participated in an elite defense until his age 31 season as Boston's starting PF. The 2008 Celtics produced a 101.4 DRTG with KG off the floor, which would've been good for a -6.1 and the #2 defense in the league. Perhaps there's an argument for KG as an ATG defensive ceiling raiser, but as a floor raiser he just doesn't have the supporting evidence

Too little credit for defense: Dwight Howard. He presided over a half-decade reign as Orlando's starting center where the Magic were one of the league's most elite defensive teams; from a +7.5 before he was drafted, to a +1.2 and +1.3 in his first two seasons when he was played at PF, 21yo Dwight moved to center in '07 and the rest is (Orlando defensive) history. Magic proceeded to rank 6th (-2.4), 6th (-2.0), 1st (-6.4), 3rd (-4.3) and 3rd (-5.3) defensively until Dwight's back issues manifested in '12. These rosters weren't exactly talented on the defensive end outside of Dwight, in fact his singular presence allowed Orlando to prioritize offense at the expense of defense with Hedo Turkoglu and Rashard Lewis at F and Jameer Nelson at PG. And yet, Dwight with his back's limited lifespan still produced a level of defense in Orlando that was far superior to anything Garnett ever accomplished in his 12 seasons in Minnesota (8 of 12 spent in the defensive red), and Dwight did this in every season of 3 consecutive seasons

What data are you going off for shaq and jordan here?

Bulls were a great offense but i dont think they were as trascendent against great defenses as you put it. Knicks (multiple times), seattle or utah had solid defensive performances against them from what i remember

Shaq lakers run if i am correct produced all time level playoffs offense (wouldnt be surprised if they were unremarkable in reg season tho, shaq health and reg season effort were famously inconsistent)

Jordan's Bulls ORTG vs opponent DRTG in the playoffs:

'85 Bulls: 108.7 vs Bucks 103.6 +5.1
'86 Bulls: Jordan injured
'87 Bulls: 109.8 vs Celtics 106.8 +3.0
'88 Bulls: 109.9 vs Cavs 106.0 +3.9
'89 Bulls: 106.8 vs Cavs 102.9 +3.9; 115.8 vs Knicks 107.5 +8.3; 103.1 vs Pistons 104.7 -1.6
'90 Bulls: 110.5 vs Bucks 108.1 +2.4; 116.7 vs Sixers 108.4 +6.3; 101.4 vs Pistons 103.5 -2.1

Literal overperformance in literally every series from his literal outset not against Detroit (Pippen was at 45.3 and 52.0 TS% in these ECFs) in a manner of consistency that suggests outlier value

Once Pippen came into his own as a viable #2, Jordan's Bulls proceeded to produce historic offensive results in an absolute sense (literally the 2nd and 4th highest team ORTGs of all-time when they occurred)

The deduction is evident; you need only give Jordan the bare minimum in order for him to deliver a degree of ATG team offensive impact that rivals anything else we've seen in NBA history

Except the bulls weren't the bare minimum, as we saw when jordan wasn't on the court. Additionally when Jordan was actually given the bare minimum, his offenses were average.

[picko]

Too little credit:

- Hakeem's teammates in 1993-94 and 1994-95 (particularly Drexler in the latter)
- Dirk's teammates in 2010-11
- Scottie Pippen

Too much credit is simply the reverse. We have a tendency to say that someone carried a team if they were clearly better than the next best player and it's almost without exception a terrible take. Houston goes home in round 1 in 1994-95 if Drexler doesn't have a huge series. Dirk shot 37.5% from the field in the final three games of the 2010-11 finals (all Dallas wins). Meanwhile, Jordan is a cautionary tale of why a high volume scorer cannot succeed without Pippen.

[Stalwart]

Meanwhile, Jordan is a cautionary tale of why a high volume scorer cannot succeed without Pippen.

A cautionary tale? A volume scorer can't succeed without Pippen? These,are silly narratives.

[picko]

Meanwhile, Jordan is a cautionary tale of why a high volume scorer cannot succeed without Pippen.

A cautionary tale? A volume scorer can't succeed without Pippen? These,are silly narratives.

That was the prevailing narrative around Jordan's career before his first title. He was an amazing athlete, a phenomenal scorer but not as valuable as team oriented superstars like Magic, Bird and Thomas. So yes, without Pippen, there is a fair chance that Jordan is viewed as a cautionary tale for players who think they can do it by themselves.

[falcolombardi]

To preface I'm basing credit and its amounts on what I've perceived on this board:

Too much credit for offense: Shaquille O'Neal. He's generally regarded as a top 3 ATG peak (ranks 2nd, 2nd, 4th and 3rd on this board's peak projects conducted in 2012, 2015, 2019 and current) and it isn't for defense, yet he's never been a part of what's generally discussed as an ATG offense. This in spite of the fact that prime Shaq was blessed with the ridiculously improbable fortune of 3 consecutive pairings with absolutely elite wing creators. My take is that his FT shooting was a greater general vulnerability than mere specific hack-a-Shaq scenarios would imply, and his relatively tiny scoring range coupled with his dependency on perimeter players to facilitate meant that Shaq wasn't the historically reliable source of go-to halfcourt scoring that the ingrained visuals of his sheer physical dominance would have us believe

Too little credit for offense: Michael Jordan. Similar to Shaq, Jordan isn't synonymous with ATG offenses. But unlike Shaq, Jordan should be. The Bulls offense posted some historic numbers both in absolute and relative terms with Jordan at the helm, they were particularly resilient vs elite defense, and they accomplished all of this with the relatively limited Scottie Pippen as a #2 and no real #3. I've looked at scoring data in series after series where Pippen struggles and all other non-Jordan Bulls players combine to deliver mediocrity at best, and yet Jordan just churns out his consistent volume and Chicago's offense proceeds to dramatically outperform elite defenses over and over and over again

Too much credit for defense: Kevin Garnett. Perhaps the poster child for when inferences of impact data can supersede reality. He's a RAPM king, but KG never participated in an elite defense until his age 31 season as Boston's starting PF. The 2008 Celtics produced a 101.4 DRTG with KG off the floor, which would've been good for a -6.1 and the #2 defense in the league. Perhaps there's an argument for KG as an ATG defensive ceiling raiser, but as a floor raiser he just doesn't have the supporting evidence

Too little credit for defense: Dwight Howard. He presided over a half-decade reign as Orlando's starting center where the Magic were one of the league's most elite defensive teams; from a +7.5 before he was drafted, to a +1.2 and +1.3 in his first two seasons when he was played at PF, 21yo Dwight moved to center in '07 and the rest is (Orlando defensive) history. Magic proceeded to rank 6th (-2.4), 6th (-2.0), 1st (-6.4), 3rd (-4.3) and 3rd (-5.3) defensively until Dwight's back issues manifested in '12. These rosters weren't exactly talented on the defensive end outside of Dwight, in fact his singular presence allowed Orlando to prioritize offense at the expense of defense with Hedo Turkoglu and Rashard Lewis at F and Jameer Nelson at PG. And yet, Dwight with his back's limited lifespan still produced a level of defense in Orlando that was far superior to anything Garnett ever accomplished in his 12 seasons in Minnesota (8 of 12 spent in the defensive red), and Dwight did this in every season of 3 consecutive seasons

What data are you going off for shaq and jordan here?

Bulls were a great offense but i dont think they were as trascendent against great defenses as you put it. Knicks (multiple times), seattle or utah had solid defensive performances against them from what i remember

Shaq lakers run if i am correct produced all time level playoffs offense (wouldnt be surprised if they were unremarkable in reg season tho, shaq health and reg season effort were famously inconsistent)

Jordan's Bulls ORTG vs opponent DRTG in the playoffs:

'85 Bulls: 108.7 vs Bucks 103.6 +5.1
'86 Bulls: Jordan injured
'87 Bulls: 109.8 vs Celtics 106.8 +3.0
'88 Bulls: 109.9 vs Cavs 106.0 +3.9
'89 Bulls: 106.8 vs Cavs 102.9 +3.9; 115.8 vs Knicks 107.5 +8.3; 103.1 vs Pistons 104.7 -1.6
'90 Bulls: 110.5 vs Bucks 108.1 +2.4; 116.7 vs Sixers 108.4 +6.3; 101.4 vs Pistons 103.5 -2.1

Literal overperformance in literally every series from his literal outset not against Detroit (Pippen was at 45.3 and 52.0 TS% in these ECFs) in a manner of consistency that suggests outlier value

Once Pippen came into his own as a viable #2, Jordan's Bulls proceeded to produce historic offensive results in an absolute sense (literally the 2nd and 4th highest team ORTGs of all-time when they occurred)

The deduction is evident; you need only give Jordan the bare minimum in order for him to deliver a degree of ATG team offensive impact that rivals anything else we've seen in NBA history

That is not what overperformance means,scoring more against a team that the -average- team does is not a overperformance unless you are an average to below average offense.

On your sample the bulls are a +3.3 offense which is not exactly "deliver a degree of atg offense impact that rivals anythingh else we have seen in nba history and with bare minimum help"

[Ambrose]

I have a hard time with properly grading the offense of Steve Nash. He's obviously a great offensive force but was he so good he's arguably the GOAT on offense? I'm just not quite sure. 2005 especially is messing with my head on this. On one hand Dallas didn't miss a beat without him so it's hard to say he was extremely important for their offense but then he also almost singlehandedly turned the Suns from a below average offense to best in the league on that side of the ball.

His PI RAPM (which is probably the main reason for his hype here) goes from really good in Dallas (+2 to +3 range) to all-time great in Phoenix (+6, +7). The odd thing to me is that there is no significant uptick in terms of usage so it's not like this is simply due to him taking on a much larger role and his boxscore production remains almost the same as well. I'm just not really buying Nash suddenly becoming the best offensive player overnight on the Suns when there is otherwise very little to suggest he's on a completely different level than the last few years in Dallas.

There was a big discussion about Jordan being so effective on offense due to his teams being optimized around him but you never really hear this brought up about Nash. Isn't it fair to say Nash landed in a very helpful environment for him to thrive? The 7 seconds or less offense was more or less build on the skillset of Nash. If someone has a different perspective on this please share as I might very well be missing something.

I dont think the reason people are so high on nash is only his plus-minus metrics as you say. The team offense results are probably a bigger reason why

But either way i am high on him more so because of his skillset. One which was very well complimented by his coach and teammates in phoenix no doubt, but he created goat (no hyperbole) level offense with that opportunity so what more can you ask of him there?

What I meant with the +- stuff is that Nash doesn't particularly stand out among all-time greats in terms of raw production, boxscore stats or team success but it's the +- metrics where he ranks incredibly highly so I assume people who have Nash higher than average are likely taking +- into account pretty heavily. I'm not insinuating Nash shouldn't be getting any type of support as an offensive GOAT candidate, I personally have a hard time seeing the case for him but am open to arguments.

Like the offensive team results are great but obviously like I said how much of that is because of Nash and how much is that because of system/coaching/teammates etc? What I'm getting at with that is that Nash didn't move the needle that much in Dallas but had a huge positive effect for the Suns on offense so it's not as clear for him as for some other players in my eyes.

You can't really ask more of Nash in Phoenix, he did an amazing job. The thing is that the likes of Jordan and LeBron get pretty extreme scrutiny over how much of their offensive success was because of them and if they'd be able to replicate or come close to that level in less fortunate team environments. Because of this divide between his impact in Dallas and Phoenix I have a harder time seeing Nash able to replicate his GOAT level offenses anywhere. Still though I'm not just stating Nash isn't as good offensively as some people here make it seem, I'm saying I can see why people have him that high up but Dallas not really dropping off at all offensively when he left gives reason for doubt. While in most basketball discussions you're up against people who are pretty low on Nash so it rarely comes up but in a more critical and knowledgable board like this I feel like there should be some room to question whether Nash might be getting more benefit of the doubt on his portability than others.

We see this posted literally all the time and it drives me crazy. The only constant in the greatness was Nash. When Nash played they were a GOAT level offense. When he didn't, the offense (and team) cratered. Amare/Marion/Shaq/MDA/JJ/others all came and went. The results barely fluctuated. Nash was that good.

[Jaivl]

I dont think the reason people are so high on nash is only his plus-minus metrics as you say. The team offense results are probably a bigger reason why

But either way i am high on him more so because of his skillset. One which was very well complimented by his coach and teammates in phoenix no doubt, but he created goat (no hyperbole) level offense with that opportunity so what more can you ask of him there?

What I meant with the +- stuff is that Nash doesn't particularly stand out among all-time greats in terms of raw production, boxscore stats or team success but it's the +- metrics where he ranks incredibly highly so I assume people who have Nash higher than average are likely taking +- into account pretty heavily. I'm not insinuating Nash shouldn't be getting any type of support as an offensive GOAT candidate, I personally have a hard time seeing the case for him but am open to arguments.

Like the offensive team results are great but obviously like I said how much of that is because of Nash and how much is that because of system/coaching/teammates etc? What I'm getting at with that is that Nash didn't move the needle that much in Dallas but had a huge positive effect for the Suns on offense so it's not as clear for him as for some other players in my eyes.

You can't really ask more of Nash in Phoenix, he did an amazing job. The thing is that the likes of Jordan and LeBron get pretty extreme scrutiny over how much of their offensive success was because of them and if they'd be able to replicate or come close to that level in less fortunate team environments. Because of this divide between his impact in Dallas and Phoenix I have a harder time seeing Nash able to replicate his GOAT level offenses anywhere. Still though I'm not just stating Nash isn't as good offensively as some people here make it seem, I'm saying I can see why people have him that high up but Dallas not really dropping off at all offensively when he left gives reason for doubt. While in most basketball discussions you're up against people who are pretty low on Nash so it rarely comes up but in a more critical and knowledgable board like this I feel like there should be some room to question whether Nash might be getting more benefit of the doubt on his portability than others.

We see this posted literally all the time and it drives me crazy. The only constant in the greatness was Nash. When Nash played they were a GOAT level offense. When he didn't, the offense (and team) cratered. Amare/Marion/Shaq/MDA/JJ/others all came and went. The results barely fluctuated. Nash was that good.

Also Nash did move the needle on Dallas. Not AS much of course, more like a +3 or +4 than a +6 on offense, and 2004 is probably a down year for him, which makes the comparison with 2005 more starking, but yeah, he was plenty good before.

[therealbig3]

Nash was an All-Star and widely considered a top 5 PG in the game when he was with Dallas. It’s not like he went from mediocre to MVP all of a sudden. His Dallas years are very underrated. And in retrospect, guys like Marbury and Francis were getting the nod over him at the time, which was clearly a mistake.

[parsnips33]

Not sure Devin Booker gets enough credit for the Suns

[Colbinii]

Not sure Devin Booker gets enough credit for the Suns

He finished 4th in MVP last year--thats more than enough credit.

[parsnips33]

Not sure Devin Booker gets enough credit for the Suns

He finished 4th in MVP last year--thats more than enough credit.

LMAO I actually forgot about that I take it back

[LukaTheGOAT]

Not sure Devin Booker gets enough credit for the Suns

He finished 4th in MVP last year--thats more than enough credit.

LMAO I actually forgot about that I take it back

He also got an all-nba first team spot over Steph.

[migya]

Too little credit:

- Hakeem's teammates in 1993-94 and 1994-95 (particularly Drexler in the latter)
- Dirk's teammates in 2010-11
- Scottie Pippen

Too much credit is simply the reverse. We have a tendency to say that someone carried a team if they were clearly better than the next best player and it's almost without exception a terrible take. Houston goes home in round 1 in 1994-95 if Drexler doesn't have a huge series. Dirk shot 37.5% from the field in the final three games of the 2010-11 finals (all Dallas wins). Meanwhile, Jordan is a cautionary tale of why a high volume scorer cannot succeed without Pippen.

Though I don't think Olajuwon's teammates were that good, particularly in 94 without Drexler, they played their roles pretty decently and fit Olajuwon. Olajuwon was huge those years and every year carried those Houston teams.

Great information about Nowitzki's teammates in 2011 as on the surface it looks like he was the only good player in his prime but the effect of his teammates was big.

Don't agree about Pippen's effect on Jordan. He was great and without him those Bulls teams don't win and would be horribly untalented but Jordan was alltime great even before Pippen arrived. Look at his past games in the mid 80s, Jordan was unbelievable and noone alltime compares to his level of performance.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I have a hard time with properly grading the offense of Steve Nash. He's obviously a great offensive force but was he so good he's arguably the GOAT on offense? I'm just not quite sure. 2005 especially is messing with my head on this. On one hand Dallas didn't miss a beat without him so it's hard to say he was extremely important for their offense but then he also almost singlehandedly turned the Suns from a below average offense to best in the league on that side of the ball.

His PI RAPM (which is probably the main reason for his hype here) goes from really good in Dallas (+2 to +3 range) to all-time great in Phoenix (+6, +7). The odd thing to me is that there is no significant uptick in terms of usage so it's not like this is simply due to him taking on a much larger role and his boxscore production remains almost the same as well. I'm just not really buying Nash suddenly becoming the best offensive player overnight on the Suns when there is otherwise very little to suggest he's on a completely different level than the last few years in Dallas.

There was a big discussion about Jordan being so effective on offense due to his teams being optimized around him but you never really hear this brought up about Nash. Isn't it fair to say Nash landed in a very helpful environment for him to thrive? The 7 seconds or less offense was more or less build on the skillset of Nash. If someone has a different perspective on this please share as I might very well be missing something.

I dont think the reason people are so high on nash is only his plus-minus metrics as you say. The team offense results are probably a bigger reason why

But either way i am high on him more so because of his skillset. One which was very well complimented by his coach and teammates in phoenix no doubt, but he created goat (no hyperbole) level offense with that opportunity so what more can you ask of him there?

What I meant with the +- stuff is that Nash doesn't particularly stand out among all-time greats in terms of raw production, boxscore stats or team success but it's the +- metrics where he ranks incredibly highly so I assume people who have Nash higher than average are likely taking +- into account pretty heavily. I'm not insinuating Nash shouldn't be getting any type of support as an offensive GOAT candidate, I personally have a hard time seeing the case for him but am open to arguments.

Like the offensive team results are great but obviously like I said how much of that is because of Nash and how much is that because of system/coaching/teammates etc? What I'm getting at with that is that Nash didn't move the needle that much in Dallas but had a huge positive effect for the Suns on offense so it's not as clear for him as for some other players in my eyes.

You can't really ask more of Nash in Phoenix, he did an amazing job. The thing is that the likes of Jordan and LeBron get pretty extreme scrutiny over how much of their offensive success was because of them and if they'd be able to replicate or come close to that level in less fortunate team environments. Because of this divide between his impact in Dallas and Phoenix I have a harder time seeing Nash able to replicate his GOAT level offenses anywhere. Still though I'm not just stating Nash isn't as good offensively as some people here make it seem, I'm saying I can see why people have him that high up but Dallas not really dropping off at all offensively when he left gives reason for doubt. While in most basketball discussions you're up against people who are pretty low on Nash so it rarely comes up but in a more critical and knowledgable board like this I feel like there should be some room to question whether Nash might be getting more benefit of the doubt on his portability than others.

It is okay for you have your questions surrounding Nash, I just would like to shine some light on the idea that the coaching/teammates.

From 2005-10, the Suns with Steve Nash on the court WITHOUT Marion and Stoudemire put up a 117.5 ORtg (a +10.5 rORtg) with a +3.6 NRtg.

With both Marion and Stoudemire on the court, and Nash OFF, the team had a +1.8 rORtg with a -2.7 NRtg.

Generally, if Nash were teammate dependent, you would hope to see better offensive results than that.

His teammates seem to greatly benefit from playing with Nash.
Here's a list of some teammates' career TS% in years with Nash vs. without:

Marion: .582, .526
Stoudemire: .628, .562
Bell: .569, .522
Amundson: .547, .435
Barbosa: .581, .532
Marks: .558, .481

Finally, a lot of people contribute Nash and Harden's success to D'Antoni's scheme but considering they have the same coach, I think we can be more confident that we are comparing their actual abilities and not just who is more well coached (also Nash lead a top 10 offense ever in 2010 with D'Antoni...plus you we maybe could argue D'Antoni got better as a coach as time went on, as perhaps he learned from past mistakes).

Underrated 2009-2010 Steve Nash:

▫️19.2 IA Pts/75
▫️11.0 AST
▫️3.3 REB
▫️+7.20 rTS%
▫️17.8 adjusted box creation
▫️9.5 adjusted passer rating

Read on Twitter

These numbers are pretty similar to his years with D'Antoni, and this was a season where he would turn 36 later on; when he was older and slower too compared to his 05-07 versions.

[VanWest82]

Nash will always remain underrated, but only because so many believed him to be overrated due to his B2B MVPs. He was a lot closer to Magic and Lebron in terms of offensive impact than people want to admit.

P.S. it's still insanity to me that so many try to paint him as a product of the system as appose to being the system.

[Ambrose]

Nash will always remain underrated, but only because so many believed him to be overrated due to his B2B MVPs. He was a lot closer to Magic and Lebron in terms of offensive impact than people want to admit.

P.S. it's still insanity to me that so many try to paint him as a product of the system as appose to being the system.

100% this. Those 05-10 Suns teams were my favorite ever, mainly because Amare was my favorite player at the time. It always blew my teenage mind how bad they were when Nash wasn't in, it didn't make sense to me. The more I learned about basketball the more I realized that not only was Amare not the team's best player...it wasn't even close. Nash made everything go, and the wide variety of scenarios and rosters he did it with proves that fact.

[Texas Chuck]

Nash will always remain underrated, but only because so many believed him to be overrated due to his B2B MVPs. He was a lot closer to Magic and Lebron in terms of offensive impact than people want to admit.

P.S. it's still insanity to me that so many try to paint him as a product of the system as appose to being the system.

Two things:

Nash is freaking awesome and deserves every offensive flower he gets.

The system is really good and its been shown to be even without Nash.

So put the two together, play everyone down a position which is to an offensive advantage, with an elite PNR big, tons of shooting, and a couple guys so good defensively to not have the Suns be a total trainwreck on that end, and yeah you are going to have the best offense every year.

[Colbinii]

Nash will always remain underrated, but only because so many believed him to be overrated due to his B2B MVPs. He was a lot closer to Magic and Lebron in terms of offensive impact than people want to admit.

P.S. it's still insanity to me that so many try to paint him as a product of the system as appose to being the system.

Two things:

Nash is freaking awesome and deserves every offensive flower he gets.

The system is really good and its been shown to be even without Nash.

So put the two together, play everyone down a position which is to an offensive advantage, with an elite PNR big, tons of shooting, and a couple guys so good defensively to not have the Suns be a total trainwreck on that end, and yeah you are going to have the best offense every year.

You are missing the most important part here Chuck--Having Top 30 players of all-time in Steve Nash and James Harden.

[Texas Chuck]

You are missing the most important part here Chuck--Having Top 30 players of all-time in Steve Nash and James Harden.

didn't realize we were ignoring the rest of MDA's career or all of the other coaches who used his system?