Where would Peak Steve Nash rank today?

[IdolW0rm]

No way he's playing 35min a night and shooting just 4.5 three's when he's draining over 45% of them.
That's going closer to 7 or 8 3PA's in todays league and erasing a lot of his long 2's.
He's scoring more for sure in 2023. Something close to 2015 Curry like someone said earlier is what I'd project.

[eminence]

I'm not sold he can get to '15 Steph volume, even today with folks to have inspired them to that volume there's only a very few guys with that sort of volume who play a primary ball handler type role - the list of starters with 11+ 3PA/100 and 8+ Ast/100: Dame/Steph/FVV/Luka.

He'd be higher for sure, but I don't know if he can scale near the top of the league in shooting volume.

[Doctor MJ]

Nash himself admitted he regrets not shooting as much as he did back then, and would definitely shoot more if he played today. Would sure have been fun to see.

A question I have here is: could Nash get many more shots off? He was an off the dribble pull-up king but he dribbled into his shots and didn’t have the step back that guys today have. His release also isn’t quick like Steph or Dame’s so I wonder just how realistic it is to assume that he can double his volume or something.

Of course he's not doubling his volume, but his firing rate is getting a bump in 2023.
And Nash is one of the most technically proficient players to ever step foot on an NBA court.
He'd master the stepback or pretty much any move you can possibly pull off with a basketball in a couple afternoons in the gym.

I'm glad you mention Nash's proficiency in stuff like this. It would be trivial for him to adjust his shooting mechanics.

Doesn't mean he'd shoot as well as Steph, but pretty much anyone else, yeah, he can shoot how they shoot as well as they shoot it.

It's really just the fundamental limitations in explosiveness that he couldn't get past.

[Clyde Frazier]

Fun Fact From Discord Server I am in:

"Was wondering about Steve Nash's scoring scalability after I did all that work on him the other day so I just did some math.

During the 65 games from 05/06 until 07/08 in which he had 15 or more field goal attempts
Steve Nash scored **25.4** points per game on **63.9%** TS
which I think is eerily similar to Steph Curry's 14/15 season
where he scored **23.8** points per game on **63.8%** TS"

-bowman

Nash himself admitted he regrets not shooting as much as he did back then, and would definitely shoot more if he played today. Would sure have been fun to see.

A question I have here is: could Nash get many more shots off? He was an off the dribble pull-up king but he dribbled into his shots and didn’t have the step back that guys today have. His release also isn’t quick like Steph or Dame’s so I wonder just how realistic it is to assume that he can double his volume or something.

I wasn't really implying a massive jump in volume. Nash’s career high in FGA per game was 13.6 with the mavs in 03 and his highest with the suns was 13.4 in 06. Let’s say he ups that to 17 per game taking 8 3s per game. Maybe we see a dip in efficiency (but still very efficient) and I think that increase in volume would be beneficial.

[IdolW0rm]

I'm not sold he can get to '15 Steph volume, even today with folks to have inspired them to that volume there's only a very few guys with that sort of volume who play a primary ball handler type role - the list of starters with 11+ 3PA/100 and 8+ Ast/100: Dame/Steph/FVV/Luka.

He'd be higher for sure, but I don't know if he can scale near the top of the league in shooting volume.

Maybe not quite 15 Curry volume, but Nash isn't shooting anywhere close to 4 threes a game nowadays. His FGA's would likely be higher (at 19 per100 in 07, he's maybe going to near 21 in 2023, not quite 15 Curry who was averaging 25 FGA's per100). But a lot of those long two's he was taking with the Suns (almost 40% of his shots from 05 to 07) are turning into threes in 2023 and he was a >43% shooter from behind the arc.
His efficiency is obviously taking a bit of a dip, but he should still be in super rarefied air, close to where Curry was in 2015.
That version of Curry is probably a bit of a stretch from a scoring comparison pov, but not by much I don't think.

[penbeast0]

Let's take Nash's 06 MVP campaign compared to last year's leaderboard and make a crude scaling comparison.

He was 6th in 3pt% (.439) and only 27th in 3PA (342). The equivalent ranking puts him at the Curry level of 3 pt efficiency . . . Seth Curry that is . . . at .422 (yes, the 6th best in the league shot a higher 3 point % in 06), and the Zach LaVine level of 3 pt frequently at 475 attempts. So using this simple look, he's probably be taking around 25% more 3 pointers (5.5 a game) and be slightly less efficient at shooting them.

He was an efficient 3 point shooter though not a peak Curry style outlier and the 3 pointer was definitely a weapon but he wasn't one of the main 3 point shooters of his day and his playmaking style, where he like to dribble through tempting guys to leave their man to help then hitting the open player, would mitigate against his scaling those up too much unless you really want to scale down his ability to create shots for others which was a stronger weapon than any shooting he ever brought to the table.

FWIW

[rate_]

Spoiler:

Top 5ish.

Jokic, Giannis and Curry are definitely better. He's in the Luka/Embiid range, but I'd be willing to take Nash against just about anyone else this season considering the health issues of guys like James/Durant/Kawhi.

He was already a consistent top 3-5 player from '05-'07 competing against Kobe, Dirk, Wade and Duncan. He was a stupendous Playoff performer (his '05 Playoffs is probably the best offensive Playoffs by a PG not named Curry in the last 30 years). He'd likely raise his scoring volume today and be even more effective.

What makes Curry definitely better? Especially with all the games missed.

It is feasible that if you put 2007 Nash in 2023 he may actually be better but I just can't rank Steph lower than 3 this year after what he did in the Playoffs last season. Steph is also a better defender.

The games missed mean more for the other guys imo since Steph has still proven himself to be at the highest level in the Playoffs recently despite the injury issues.

If that's the case, then Jimmy Butler should be included on the list.

2022 PLAYOFFS
Butler: 17 G | 27/7/5 | 29.9 PER | .291 WS/48 | 11.8 BPM
Curry: 22 G | 27/5/6 | 24.4 PER | .203 WS/48 | 7.7 BPM

2023 REGULAR SEASON
Butler: 63 G | 23/6/5 | 27.6 PER | .274 WS/48 | 8.6 BPM
Curry: 54 G | 30/6/6 | 23.9 PER | .186 WS/48 | 7.4 BPM

[LA Bird]

On offense the question is the more standard question to ask when doing "How would X do today?" questions:

Would the advantages he gained today be greater than the advantages gained by others?

I think it's quite possible that he gain less of an advantage today than he did back then because now the rest of the league is playing pace & space.

Nash would still be the smartest guard if he played today, would still pass better than any other guard, and may well be the 2nd best shooter in the league. You'd absolutely want him as the star of your offense without question, but when you're talking about a guy who arguably has the GOAT resume when it comes to creating outlier team offense, the league may well catch up to some degree.

There's a broader point here about spearheads: Their innovation edge lets them benefit in competition with their actual contemporaries more so than against those who later follow the path of the spearhead.

Isn't this a lose-lose scenario for the older player in every time travel comparison though? For example,

• If they didn't shoot 3s - they are playing an outdated style of basketball that won't work in the league today. 3>2.
• If they did shoot 3s - they get less of an advantage today because everybody else shoot 3s now so they stand out less.

No matter what, the older player would come out worse than they did in their own era.

[Doctor MJ]

On offense the question is the more standard question to ask when doing "How would X do today?" questions:

Would the advantages he gained today be greater than the advantages gained by others?

I think it's quite possible that he gain less of an advantage today than he did back then because now the rest of the league is playing pace & space.

Nash would still be the smartest guard if he played today, would still pass better than any other guard, and may well be the 2nd best shooter in the league. You'd absolutely want him as the star of your offense without question, but when you're talking about a guy who arguably has the GOAT resume when it comes to creating outlier team offense, the league may well catch up to some degree.

There's a broader point here about spearheads: Their innovation edge lets them benefit in competition with their actual contemporaries more so than against those who later follow the path of the spearhead.

Isn't this a lose-lose scenario for the older player in every time travel comparison though? For example,

• If they didn't shoot 3s - they are playing an outdated style of basketball that won't work in the league today. 3>2.
• If they did shoot 3s - they get less of an advantage today because everybody else shoot 3s now so they stand out less.

No matter what, the older player would come out worse than they did in their own era.

Well there's a KG thread going on where this isn't the case for me if you'd like to see a counter example. But I'll say this:

1. If what you mean is that there's always going to be a cudgel to be wielded against players from the past if people so choose, yes, that's true. Doesn't mean that this approach yields that for me, but if all you're looking to do is bash the past, you can find a way with this method just as you can with other methods.

2. I'd say that in general we should be expecting players from the past in any growing sport to be less than the players of today. It's not an absolute rule - outlier talents are gifts from the sporting gods - but in general better scouting & player development is going to lead to a better capitalized upon talent pool, with the glaring exception being the sports that are getting relegated as time goes by. Classic example: The best heavyweight boxing talent of today probably aren't focusing on boxing, so of course that's going to hurt.

[AEnigma]

On offense the question is the more standard question to ask when doing "How would X do today?" questions:

Would the advantages he gained today be greater than the advantages gained by others?

I think it's quite possible that he gain less of an advantage today than he did back then because now the rest of the league is playing pace & space.

Nash would still be the smartest guard if he played today, would still pass better than any other guard, and may well be the 2nd best shooter in the league. You'd absolutely want him as the star of your offense without question, but when you're talking about a guy who arguably has the GOAT resume when it comes to creating outlier team offense, the league may well catch up to some degree.

There's a broader point here about spearheads: Their innovation edge lets them benefit in competition with their actual contemporaries more so than against those who later follow the path of the spearhead.

Isn't this a lose-lose scenario for the older player in every time travel comparison though? For example,

• If they didn't shoot 3s - they are playing an outdated style of basketball that won't work in the league today. 3>2.
• If they did shoot 3s - they get less of an advantage today because everybody else shoot 3s now so they stand out less.

No matter what, the older player would come out worse than they did in their own era.

Which players do you feel would be demonstrably more valuable today than they were relative to their own era?

For me that list is maybe Kobe (with an assumed adjustment to shot profile), but even then, he was already one of the three or so most impactful offensive players of his era.

[bigboi]

Not better than Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Steph, KD, Kawhi, Bron, Luka, Dame, Ja, Jimmy, Tatum and arguably not better than Harden

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't know why there's so much arguing about how much he could increase his volume now when he was a 2x mvp shooting it as little as he did. Would it go up today? Most likely. Is him putting up 23+ppg necessary in order for him to be a top 5 player today? I don't think so. I don't think it matters that much.

[Bergmaniac]

Not better than Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Steph, KD, Kawhi, Bron, Luka, Dame, Ja, Jimmy, Tatum and arguably not better than Harden

Ja? Seriously?

[LA Bird]

On offense the question is the more standard question to ask when doing "How would X do today?" questions:

Would the advantages he gained today be greater than the advantages gained by others?

I think it's quite possible that he gain less of an advantage today than he did back then because now the rest of the league is playing pace & space.

Nash would still be the smartest guard if he played today, would still pass better than any other guard, and may well be the 2nd best shooter in the league. You'd absolutely want him as the star of your offense without question, but when you're talking about a guy who arguably has the GOAT resume when it comes to creating outlier team offense, the league may well catch up to some degree.

There's a broader point here about spearheads: Their innovation edge lets them benefit in competition with their actual contemporaries more so than against those who later follow the path of the spearhead.

Isn't this a lose-lose scenario for the older player in every time travel comparison though? For example,

• If they didn't shoot 3s - they are playing an outdated style of basketball that won't work in the league today. 3>2.
• If they did shoot 3s - they get less of an advantage today because everybody else shoot 3s now so they stand out less.

No matter what, the older player would come out worse than they did in their own era.

Well there's a KG thread going on where this isn't the case for me if you'd like to see a counter example. But I'll say this:

1. If what you mean is that there's always going to be a cudgel to be wielded against players from the past if people so choose, yes, that's true. Doesn't mean that this approach yields that for me, but if all you're looking to do is bash the past, you can find a way with this method just as you can with other methods.

I stopped reading that KG thread after Randle > Garnett on page 1 so I had to go back and revisit the thread in full.

It seems to me your argument is that Garnett wasn't optimized in his own era and would be much more valuable on offense today by playing more helio... but couldn't the exact same be said for Nash? If anything, it's easier for me to imagine Nash taking on a larger role on offense than Garnett. Point guards today have the green light to fire away as many shots as they want whereas there was still some reservations back in Nash's days because an ideal "pure" point guard was supposed to prioritize passing and not scoring. Nash had both the handles and scoring ability to increase his scoring volume considerably if necessary. Garnett does not. This is a guy who already averaged 18 FG attempts a game while leading his team in assists one year because they didn't have a serviceable point guard (sorry Troy Hudson) - how much more of a helio role could he realistically play?

Do you have any other counterexamples besides Garnett?

Which players do you feel would be demonstrably more valuable today than they were relative to their own era?

For me that list is maybe Kobe (with an assumed adjustment to shot profile), but even then, he was already one of the three or so most impactful offensive players of his era.

Probably none but I never put too much thought into it because I don't use the time travel argument in my own player evaluations.

[Doctor MJ]

Isn't this a lose-lose scenario for the older player in every time travel comparison though? For example,

• If they didn't shoot 3s - they are playing an outdated style of basketball that won't work in the league today. 3>2.
• If they did shoot 3s - they get less of an advantage today because everybody else shoot 3s now so they stand out less.

No matter what, the older player would come out worse than they did in their own era.

Well there's a KG thread going on where this isn't the case for me if you'd like to see a counter example. But I'll say this:

1. If what you mean is that there's always going to be a cudgel to be wielded against players from the past if people so choose, yes, that's true. Doesn't mean that this approach yields that for me, but if all you're looking to do is bash the past, you can find a way with this method just as you can with other methods.

I stopped reading that KG thread after Randle > Garnett on page 1 so I had to go back and revisit the thread in full.

It seems to me your argument is that Garnett wasn't optimized in his own era and would be much more valuable on offense today by playing more helio... but couldn't the exact same be said for Nash? If anything, it's easier for me to imagine Nash taking on a larger role on offense than Garnett. Point guards today have the green light to fire away as many shots as they want whereas there was still some reservations back in Nash's days because an ideal "pure" point guard was supposed to prioritize passing and not scoring. Nash had both the handles and scoring ability to increase his scoring volume considerably if necessary. Garnett does not. This is a guy who already averaged 18 FG attempts a game while leading his team in assists one year because they didn't have a serviceable point guard (sorry Troy Hudson) - how much more of a helio role could he realistically play?

Do you have any other counterexamples besides Garnett?

Okay, let me use more concrete language.

In '03-04, KG's peak, his team was 27th in 3PA. So in addition to the fact that the greater 3's of today giving more spacing to everyone, there's the matter that KG was playing on teams that were particularly space-averse.

In those schemes he sometimes played a point forward role that could be seen as helio-esque, but without the benefit of actual spacing. Give him real spacing with real spacers, encourage him to take 3's instead of long 2's, and he'd have a lot more space to work with on the interior whenever he wanted to use it.

Nash on the other hand in his best years was having his team shoot more 3's than other teams. It's possible that the greater 3's they'd take today - including from him the best shooter on every team Nash ever played on, Nash himself - would make an emergent difference, but just from a relative perspective, he had the strategic advantage over the rest of the league, and so if he no longer had that advantage, he might have less impact.

Now keep in mind that Nash's actual career is probably the most extreme in basketball history in terms of offensive success, so him sliding a bit back to the pack doesn't mean he wouldn't be amazing today, but I'd be very cautious about arguing he'd be even more of an outlier.

Other counter examples? Sure, Larry Bird & Jerry West are two guys along these lines for me. In both cases what I see are greater shooters with extreme court awareness. I think in both cases if they were grounded in modern strategy they could be incredible focal points for offenses. Both were good in the day of course, but I think they lagged behind in offensive impact relative to their primary rivals (Magic & Oscar respectively) because their approach was not as well optimized.

In deeper history a guy like Sweetwater Clifton comes to mind, though one part of that was just the racial-reluctance that the NBA had in his day. In the '50s having a Black man on your team was one thing, having him be your lead decision maker was another.

I could certainly think of others too, but key things:

1. It's about them having skillsets that would be great today that were not well utilized in the past.

2. I do think in general that any given Player X is likely to be less successful in any era after his own compared to how successful he was in his own because the competition is tougher.

[canada_dry]

Top 5. This league is tailor made for nash.

A lot of that due to his own impact on revolutionizing the game when it was needed most (mis 2000s).

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[canada_dry]

Those suns teams would be last in pace/scoring today (i firget exactly what the stat was).

Just put nash in a fast paced team today even without a concerted effort to shoot more and he's going from 19 and 11 on all time great efficiency to 22-23 ppg and 14-15 apg on all time great efficiency and he'd just be looked at differently by the average fan who continues to overlook and disrespect him.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[canada_dry]

I'd love to see some Nash/Stockton shootouts where both went full Lilliard on each other (in a modern offense that focuses on outside shooting setting up interior scoring instead of the other way around). Nash the more creative scorer, Stockton the superior defender, neither of whom shot anywhere near the volumes you might expect out of guys with their shooting range today.

One of those guys dribbled with his left hand maybe 20 times in his 20 year career.

And quite frankly, he TRIED to scale up in the playoffs. It just didnt work. He scored the same amount but just on more shots i.e less efficiently.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

[bigboi]

Not better than Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Steph, KD, Kawhi, Bron, Luka, Dame, Ja, Jimmy, Tatum and arguably not better than Harden

Ja? Seriously?

Yea. Seriously. Honestly, they’d prob have the same impact. You switch Ja and Nash around for both their respective teams, nothing really changes