RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #24 (Steve Nash)

[One_and_Done]

Yeh we clearly disagree.

[lessthanjake]

Vote for #24 Steve Nash
Alternate Vote: Giannis Antetokounmpo
Nomination: Nikola Jokic

At this point, for me, it’s just time for Steve Nash. I think he has a good case for being the greatest offensive player in the history of the NBA. Yes, he didn’t even make the finals, and that does matter to me. And yes, his defense was a weakness, and that also matters to me. But those are reasons why I wasn’t voting for probably the greatest offensive player ever (and definitely a short-list candidate) earlier than #24. In a sport where individual players can make more of a difference on the offensive end, a guy with Nash’s offensive talent just has to be ranked highly.

Giannis gets my alternate vote. It was between Giannis and Wade for me, and I don’t really have a nuanced reason for choosing Giannis except that my perception of how good Giannis was when watching him has just been slightly higher than Wade’s. It’s a vibes choice, I admit, but it’s just an alternate vote that I’m pretty sure won’t matter (since Nash will be top 2 here anyways).

As for nomination, Jokic is just the clear best player left on the board IMO. Like, we can hold current longevity against him, but there’s just not a player left who has ever been at all in the tier of player Jokic has been the last few years.

[DraymondGold]

Voting Post

Vote: Steve Nash
Alternate vote: Charles Barkley
Nomination: Stockton
Alternate Nomination: Wade

I see Nash as a Tier 2 GOAT offensive player ever. The recent Thinking Basketball video goes into detail on his case. Two of the major points for him are film-based and team based.

Impact metrics are slightly more mixed on him than some of our previous players. Which in part makes sense the further down the list we go. In Goldstein RAPM, one of the two traditional sources for RAPM, Nash has
-First place ranks: 0
-Top 3 ranks: 5 times
-Top 5 ranks: 6 times
-Top 10 ranks: 8 times.
That’s pretty great stuff. For comparison, that’s better than Wade who was Top 5 three times and Top 10 six times.

Other versions of RAPM aren’t quite as high. He’s lower on box stats and in certain box/plus-minus hybrids like PIPM and EPM. F4p raised some good points about how one-sided team performance may be overrated here while box stats may be underrated. Box stats do a pretty good job fitting to our rankings, aren’t that much less accurate than impact metrics in general, etc. Still, I do think they have certain blind spots in areas like defensive rim protection / intimidation (e.g. Russell), off-ball creation (e.g. Steph), and on ball leadership (e.g. Nash!).

And WOWY stats ranks him quite highly! He’s 8th all time in raw prime WOWY, and 3rd all time in Thinking Basketball’s adjusted prime WOWY metrics. Our best adjusted WOWY metric, Moonbeam’s RWOWY, doesn’t have exact rankings. But I’ve been collecting players into approximate rankings based on their in-era percentiles, and Nash looks top 15, above the other players in contention here. I do think WOWY is the kind of metric that would overrate Nash here. It tends to rate players who are the system very highly, and the entire offensive system was built around Nash. That’s credit to Nash’s on ball ability, but it does overstate the overall two-way goodness slightly. I see his defense as a clear negative, and I don’t think guard defense is negligible enough to just hand wave away. I also see it as having poor scalability: his value on other teams would not be as high. Still, he probably has the 2nd best peak here after Giannis, and has much stronger longevity. I see Nash as slightly better than Barkley at his best, and the longevity doesn’t flip the order for me.

Ultimately, we’re getting to a point where players are starting to have larger and larger flaws in their case. Nash lacks defense and box impact. Barkley lacks a standout peak, from a weaker defense or playmaking. Moses has the team results, but he has weaker playmaking and inconsistent defense, which shows up in box metrics and WOWY. Giannis lacks longevity and postseason offensive resilience (perhaps from health). The lower we go on the list, the closer together the players get and the wider we should expect the uncertainty bands to be. Lots of players have legitimate cases. With my criteria and interpretation of these players, I just happen to side with Nash and Barkley first.

[One_and_Done]

Wade's already been nominated.

[AEnigma]

Kind-of funny, I was functionally the tiebreaker vote for Moses and Nash last round, and no Nash voters reached out.

VOTE: Steve Nash
NOMINATE: Patrick Ewing
(AltNom: Nikola Jokic)

I think criticisms on nash ball dominance or "heliocentrism" are way overstated

Botg because he dominated the ball a lot less than people imagine (people seem to imagine he must have "ball hogged" as much as a luka currently) and because suns offense was way more dinamic than people (and me before rewstching nash suns games) remember it like

If you watch nash suns they are sort of like a reverse motion system.

Instead of having a "static" guy on ball while everyone else cuts/screens the way a team like the warriors do. Nash pushes the pace and makes quick decisions to drive/shot/pass....and he often cancels mid action to improvise somethingh else as everyone else reacts to the advabtage he created

Think running into a leaning jump forward jumper (like a floater but in a 2-handed jumpshot motion) and either hitting it smoothly or throwing a perfect dime on the jump to a cutter who just saw nash do start his jumper and started cutting just in case he gets a pass

Or driving past a big, stopping to freeze the defend, put the big in jail with his back and doing a hand off 2 meters off the rim to a running stoudamire who quicly realized the chance for a hand off dunk

He was not -quite- curry/reggie off ball movement wise but even though he was a on-ball player he was almost always running until he gave up the ball

you rarely saw him walk up the ball slowly or run a slow set. He would always be applying constant pressure in some way and making consistently great quick reads for passing and scoring off the chaos he created

The motion thingh i mention is because diaw,richardson, grant hill, barbosa, marion amd even (and perhaps surprisingly, mainly) stoudamire would "read and react" to nash quickly and cut/spot timely and accurstely to nash moves and then do quick decisions to shoot/pass or drive after receiving his passes

The whole thingh is just so smooth and contradicts the idea that on-ball quarterbacks turn role players into nothingh but lob or 3-point finishers. The suns are a constant moving machine around nash on-ball play in a similar way warriors best offense is a constant movement machine around curry off ball threath

Where a chris paul is like peyton manning running perfectly executed sets, nash is more like a lamar jackson or patrick mahomes. He can run, pass, run pass and you never know which is coming as he is always moving.

That is the best way to describe nash, he is always moving, he just does it more on ball than curry and more than your usual ball handler

You dont create the arguably goat offense relative to era with "just" a 6 foot guard playing pick and roll as everyonr else spots up. Nash is not big enough to just do a lebron through teams and get to the paint to score nonstop. He is a bit too small for that. Instead he achieves this by creating openings consistently that all of his twammates or himself later in the play can exploit to score

Where lebron and curry always "start with white" so to speak. Aka curry and lebron sort of compromise the defense before the play even starts cause their shooting or driving threat is so big that teams react preventively to take that option away. They always play chess with 1 move advantage as far as compromising the defense goes

Nash instead doesnt cause either effect (maybe if he shot mpre 3's today?) As teams didnt guard his 3 as tightly as curry's and he obviously is not lebron going to the paint.

Instead he maximizes his skillset to the max exploiting every small advantage by pushing the pace, using his handles and size to sneak in the paint and put the defense in an awkward position to stop his passing and because he is a more gifted passer/decision maker than curry and even bron. He makes it work. He does thinghs then reacts mid move to the defense reaction and finds somethingh ovet and over.

His motor/agressiveness may be low key as valuable as his mind, handles or jumper. And all these 4 thinghs combine for a perfect package that wouldnt work nearly as well if only one of the 4 thinghs was lesser.

Here are the top offenses in league history (by z-score) up until 2010:

Code: Select all

Year   Team   Pts   ePoss   eORtg   Offense
2007   Phoenix Suns   10182   8775.7   116   3.25
2005   Phoenix Suns   10734   9245.7   116.1   2.92
1971   Milwaukee Bucks   11237   10385.1   108.2   2.72
2010   Phoenix Suns   10753   9241.6   116.4   2.59
1982   Denver Nuggets   10729   9463.4   113.4   2.56
2004   Dallas Mavericks   9124   8231.5   110.8   2.49
1975   Houston Rockets   9389   9015.3   104.1   2.4
1987   Los Angeles Lakers   11826   10204.9   115.9   2.34
2004   Sacramento Kings   9575   8677.1   110.3   2.33
2006   Phoenix Suns   11030   9748.3   113.1   2.31
2009   Phoenix Suns   8974   7845.5   114.4   2.13
1988   Boston Celtics   11074   9655.8   114.7   2.12
1998   Seattle Supersonics   9198   8125   113.2   2.07
1996   Chicago Bulls   10378   8925.2   116.3   2.02
1985   Los Angeles Lakers   12096   10552.3   114.6   2.01
1978   San Antonio Spurs   10032   9395.3   106.8   2
1995   Seattle Supersonics   9444   8142.5   116   2
2004   Seattle Supersonics   7964   7289.2   109.3   1.99
2002   Dallas Mavericks   9501   8602.3   110.4   1.98
1997   Seattle Supersonics   9535   8331.9   114.4   1.94
1951   Rochester Royals   6930   7595.4   91.2   1.93
1993   Phoenix Suns   11813   10403   113.6   1.92
1986   Los Angeles Lakers   11235   9921.6   113.2   1.86
1994   Phoenix Suns   9940   8867.8   112.1   1.85
1962   Cincinnati Royals   10314   10483.5   98.4   1.84


And the top defenses:

Code: Select all

Year   Team   oppPts   ePoss   eDRtg   Defense
1993   New York Knicks   9315   9409.9   99   2.72
1984   Milwaukee Bucks   9952   9693.9   102.7   2.31
1963   Boston Celtics   10437   11799.9   88.5   2.24
2004   San Antonio Spurs   7771   8211.1   94.6   2.19
1965   Boston Celtics   9669   11360.6   85.1   2.14
1962   Boston Celtics   10489   12120.7   86.5   2.13
1975   Washington Bullets   9700   10395.6   93.3   2.13
2008   Boston Celtics   9712   9633.4   100.8   2.11
1970   New York Knicks   10712   11259.6   95.1   2.08
1952   Minneapolis Lakers   6276   7742.7   81.1   2.06
1990   Detroit Pistons   9952   9779.1   101.8   2.05
2003   New Jersey Nets   9198   9374.3   98.1   2.04
1964   Boston Celtics   9382   11140.7   84.2   2.02
2007   Cleveland Cavaliers   9353   9320.3   100.4   2
1999   San Antonio Spurs   5617   5914.5   95   1.99
2005   Detroit Pistons   9476   9485.3   99.9   1.99
1989   Utah Jazz   8518   8283.9   102.8   1.98
2000   Los Angeles Lakers   9807   10111.8   97   1.97
1989   Detroit Pistons   9843   9566.1   102.9   1.96
2008   Houston Rockets   8090   7985.3   101.3   1.94
2002   Miami Heat   7276   7359.3   98.9   1.93
1959   Boston Celtics   9183   10757.3   85.4   1.93
1957   Boston Celtics   8258   9839.1   83.9   1.92
1994   New York Knicks   9696   9729   99.7   1.92
2004   Detroit Pistons   8765   9161.8   95.7   1.92


The first thing that stands out to me is that there are 9 offenses better than the number 2 defense. The second thing is the massive difference between the z-scores of the GOAT defensive dynasty and the GOAT offensive dynasty. The Nash Suns have an average z-score of 2.64 in their top 5 years and the Russell Celtics have an average z-score of 2.09 in their top 5 years. That doesn't sound like much but that's the difference between the 99.2nd percentile and the 96.3rd percentile. These numbers show there's a real cap on how good a defense can be and it follows the logic of the game. You can play perfect defense but it means nothing if a lucky shot goes in.

For another quick comparison on the individual impact of offense vs defense let's use prime Ewing vs Nash as they've led what are probably the best defensive and offensive dynasties since Russell was patrolling Boston. Nash on average from 02-10 (across 2 different teams) had an average 7.1 offense. Ewing on the same team (with 3 different coaches) from 92-99 had an average -5.6 defense with only 2 seasons above the 7.1 mark (93 and 94).

When I first noticed this I thought both sides were equal and I tried to come up with reasons why its easier to break away from the mean offensively compared to defensively and I came to a few conclusions.

The first, as mentioned above, is that perfect offense beats perfect defense. You can stop a team from advancing past the baseline but if they're perfect (meaning they keep their handle) they can still make a half court heave. Extreme example I know but we all know there's some things you can't stop with great defense. Look at Melo and Lebron's 60 point games against Charlotte. MKG guarded both well and was still getting burnt. They didn't do as well against him as they did against other guys but in a vacuum they were still very good.

The second conclusion is that one man can make a great offense but not a defense. To illustrate this point I'll use the GOAT defender of the last 40 years (IMO) Deke. Towards the end of his tenure with Denver, Bernie Bickerstaff, and the worst defensive supporting cast in the league outside of Antonio McDyess, the Nuggets struggled to be average defensively. He goes to the Hawks (who were previously an average defense more or less) and they're a top 3 defense his first season with him while Denver dropped to the bottom 5 of the league. With other great defenders that were stuck with a terrible supporting cast and coach we see the same thing. KG was leading average defenses most years and Zo was leading some mediocre defenses until he went to Miami and immediately started leading top 5 level defenses. Meanwhile we can look at a guy like T-Mac, Harden, and Melo all of whom were not GOAT level offensive players consistently (because 03 T-Mac is up there) but they all have always had top 10 offenses and sometimes top 5 offenses (mainly thinking of the 13 Knicks and Rockets here) despite not having much to work with.

The third conclusion I came to and the one that most changed my mind on defensive players is that defensive coaches get good defensive production out of some bad teams. Doc Rivers is never usually seen as a defensive savant but with some of the stinker teams he's had you'd think he's had some bad defenses when the worst defense he's ever coached (or a full season because 11 games in 04 isn't a large enough sample) was only +1.4 (03 Magic). Outside of that his teams at worst have been around 15th on defense (once they finished 20th but were only +0.9 compared to league average). Meanwhile you look at a guy like D'antoni and he's had some pretty bad offenses. You look at a guy like JVG and notice the worst defense he's ever coached was still a -2.9 team that finished 6th. You look at a guy like Pat Riley and notice he once led a +2.5 defense (on a 17 win Miami team with a -7.0 offense) but outside of that always had an average level defense at worst. You can also look at ATG defenders that had good teams around them and notice that without a great defensive coach they never were first on defense.

Another post in the last thread I quoted mentioned David Robinson going from leading 2 1st ranked defenses under Larry Brown (another ATG defensive coach who's first #1 defense came his first year in the NBA) to leading a 9th ranked defense under John Lucas and peaking at 3rd under Hill before finally going back to number one defenses after Popvich (and Duncan) came. Look at Hakeem rarely having a top 3 defense and always having a ton of defensive talent around him and decent (but not great) defensive coaches like Don Chaney (5x all defense in his playing career) and Bill Fitch. Look at a team like the [2015] Bucks going from the bottom of the barrel to the top with a coaching change (yes the players improved some as they were all young but they didn't improve enough to go from 30th to 4th).

On the other end of the floor you notice great PGs usually don't need coaches to implement strategy. Nash still led great teams without D'antoni, and Magic notoriously got Westhead fired because he felt he was stepping on his toes (which led to LA hiring a defensive coach and going on to having one of the GOAT dynasties).

Okay look there's two really fundamental things here. The first of which goes into common sense:

1) The most important offensive player at any given time is generally going to be the guy with the ball in his hands. When we refer to someone as a "point", this has come to mean "guy who has the ball in his hands making plays for the team". Point guard is thus essentially just a euphemism for "offensive leader". Does not make sense to think the position isn't important on offense.

Now, Kobe's a SG, LeBron's a SF, etc...but those position titles are meaningless. Kobe & LeBron are the true point men of their offense.

The only time where we really see something different than this is when we have someone who is so good at scoring that he's the best offensive player on the team even with that crippling weakness that prevents the team from letting him have the ball more. So Shaq is an unreal offensive player...even though he's not nearly as good as he would be if he didn't have to depend on someone else to get him the ball at a particular place on the court in order for him to do any damage.

2) This is why understanding of statistics is so valuable. And I'm talking generally, not simply knowing specific basketball stats. I understand stats, so I know what I'm looking for. When +/- data became available I saw what was good about it and what it's issues were, as did people with better understanding and tech savvy than me, and they proceeded to make improvements.

At it's essence, +/- is a valid stat because it's tied to something with direct meaning: The scoreboard. It's issue is in reliability. If you don't have enough data, there's too much noise to trust +/- for much. The cure for reliability though is just getting more data, and in basketball we don't have trouble getting that. When we talk about multi-year studies across the whole league comparing positions, that is a TON of data. What does that data say? That the more toward the perimeter you go generally, the better the offensive impact, and the more toward the interior you go generally, the better the defensive impact. I emphasize the generally because it isn't always true, and the bit of prime Shaq data we have indicates that his offensive APM numbers were fantastic (which they better be given how dominant he was).

Nash is of course a super glaring example of this because in every long term APM study we have he ranks #1 in the league on offense. And it so happens, he ranks basically neutral on defense.

You mention Garnett, and of course he's the guy who APM champions most of all. Easily the most dominant player in those studies until he left his prime and LeBron reached his prime.

Re: Nash system player. A system player, as defined in football, is a player whose individual statistics make him look like he's harder to replace than he actually is because the system is allowing him to rack up gaudy numbers, but other players could do the same thing.

Nash didn't win his MVPs because of individual stats. He got it because he made his team far better, which is of course why he looks so good with +/- stats (which are basically there to say "who is hardest to replace"). 16 & 11 is not anyone's idea of what an MVP should be putting up, which is exactly why people don't think he's worthy, and ironically, why they started calling him a system player, which simply means they don't know what a system player is.

So what exactly did happen in Phoenix? Well Nash played a different role, and one with far more autonomy. Instead of being in an offense based more around Dirk Nowitzki's strengths, in Phoenix they focused more on Nash's strengths, and that meant having the ball in Nash's hands more, more running, more pick & roll, more guys standing out at the 3 ready to shoot the ball when Nash passed it to them.

So is it meaningful that Nash couldn't have the same impact when the offense wasn't trying to make the most of his talents? I don't know, would it be meaningful to watch Shaq's disappear if an insane coach decided he shoot camp out and take 3's all game long? I mean, yes technically Shaq would be a better player if he could hit 3-pointers, but if the coach takes you out of your strengths, you're going to have less positive impact no matter who you are.

Re: lack of wins. You don't buy advanced stats like +/- which are direct measures of how a guy's play leads to wins, and then you criticize a player for not winning even when he won quite a lot simply because he didn't win the big one? C'mon, there's nuance in life. The guy who leads the 2nd best team in the league is perfectly capable of leading the best team in the league, there just happens to be one other team in the way.

As it happens, it was the championship Spurs who stopped the two top Sun teams from getting further, and they were led by Tim Duncan who I rank way ahead of Nash on my GOAT list, so we don't even need nuance for this. "If Nash's the greatest, why does he lose to Duncan?", "Um, who said Nash was better than Duncan?"

Now ftr, Nash is better at OFFENSE than Duncan, but even though I maintain Nash wasn't really a major defensive problem for his team, I do realize that some players are much better on defense than he is and that can lead them to be better overall players than Nash. Such is the case with Duncan.

And yes, the fact that Nash's teams had to play Duncan's teams while not at full strength only makes it more unfair that those losses are held against him. I don't even know why this is being be debated.

Re: Can't impact the game with rebounding & defense. This is meaningful, but can easily be overrated. Consider: You don't want to have 5 players crashing the boards. You need to have players at all different parts of the court, and the ones out on the perimeter needs to be skilled at many things other than rebounding.

In other words, you need 6'3"-ish guys on your team, so why does it make sense to look at the 6'3" guy and say "Why aren't you rebounding?". It doesn't any more than it does to say to the 7-footer "Why can't you maintain your dribble like Nash?".

A players' ability to impact the ball in many different ways can help, but if Nash's team is weak on rebounding, the question to ask is why the big men on the team aren't doing what big men are supposed to do? In the case of '05-06 where rebounding absolutely killed the Suns, it was because the team only had two legit big men (Amare & Kurt Thomas), and when they went down the team was simply crippled. It's an incredible irony that that team somehow still made the WCF and won 2 games in that series, and yet people still bring up how they almost lost to the Lakers as if it's a sign that Nash teams choke in the playoffs.

Re: More dependent on teammates making baskets. Yup. And Shaq is more dependent on others getting him the ball, but that doesn't make him less valuable of an offensive player than freaking Jerry Stackhouse. The big thing to understand is that basketball is a complex system where navigating the terrain toward the highest percentage play is paramount. Volume scorers typically aren't even thinking on this level, which is why you'll often see them jack up low percentage shots rather than make use of teammates. This is a major issue.

It should also be noted though that when it comes to the last 5 minutes of close games, Nash actually scores a heck of a lot. The reasons for this are complex, and it's debatable whether this is actually a good sign for the team, but as to the question of whether Nash can up his scoring load when the pressure's on and that's what the team needs, there's no debate. He does it routinely.

Re: Nash will not make any momentum changing plays on defense. BS. Total BS. I've seen Nash make plenty of such plays. I've seen him clinch a game with an incredibly heady play. Nash makes spectacular plays on defense, and plays smart team defense. Doesn't make him a great defensive player because he simply doesn't have the quickness for that, but any notion that he does nothing on defense comes from lazy analysis.

Re: Offense/Defense: 50/50? 70/30? Here's how it is my friend.

According to Ilardi's 6-year APM study from '03-04 to '08-09, Nash was the best offensive player with a rating of +8.84. The guys filling out the top 5? LeBron, Kobe, Paul and Wade. (All of those guys btw being the "point" of their respective offenses).

Of those 5 guys, the best defensive rating of the bunch was +1.5 (which was LeBron), while Nash had the worst at -2.32. I'm not saying LeBron's defensive edge over Nash wasn't important, but when you're talking about an offensive scale that goes up to around 9 for perimeter players, while the defensive scale hover at around 2, what you have in effect is that an offense/defense ratio that's greater than 80/20.

Incidentally, Engelmann's '05-06 to '10-11 study, has the following top 5: Nash, Wade, Dirk, Ginobili, LeBron. Nash's number is +8.2 which puts him +1.8 greater than anyone else. Nash's defensive number in that study is -0.5. When I say Nash's defensive impact is neutral, that's what I mean. That doesn't mean Nash is the best player because other players are true positives on defense (LeBron scores a +2.9 on defense in the 2nd study, and he gets ranked #1 overall), but the notion that he's half a player is just misguided.

If we were rating players from 1 to 10 with 5 being neutral. Nash would be a 10 on offense and a 4 on defense, and no modern point guard would rate above a 6 on defense.

When it came to throwing tight window passes, Nash was perhaps the best at doing so in NBA history. Nash was the most aggressive passer in NBA history, constantly trying to find high value shot opportunities for his teammates. Nash’s high risk passes resulted in high value shots such as layups, dunks, or open 3s. Nash wouldn’t be scared to make such high value passes and would relentlessly try to given the opportunity.

Watch on YouTube

But Nash did not rely on such tight, risky passes to create wide open opportunities. His scoring, shooting, and rim pressure already put defenses in a “pick your poison” situation. These types of passes found wide open layups for teammates like Amare, Marion, and even Diaw. Nash’s rim pressure as a small guard was unheard of and defenders were forced to close in on him whenever he drove to the basket. This freed up his teammates even more

Watch on YouTube

We see in this clip Nash driving to the paint and Duncan realizing this. Duncan has either two options: Give up a wide open layup to Nash or force Nash to find the connecting pass to Amare. Of course Duncan choses the former and Nash is then easily able to find the wide open layup pass.

Watch on YouTube

In this clip, we see the most basic form of offense from the 2000s suns, the Steve nash Amare pick and roll. What made this pick and roll so deadly was not only Nash’s ability to throw passes with such precision with either hand, but also his threat to shoot the midrange. We see in the clip that number 44 on the mavs was forced to come up on Nash as soon as Amare went for the rim. The mavs were willing to give up the mismatch of Terry on Amare just because of Nash’s threat to shoot. This allows for a wide open dunk for Amare.

Watch on YouTube

Nash’s playmaking wasn’t just deadly in the half court, it was superb in transition. In the clip above, we can see Nash instantly survey the floor the moment he gets the ball in transition. Nash would aggressively try to find the most quality looks for his teammates. This would result in Nash throwing some wild passes.

Watch on YouTube

;t=6s

In this clip, Nash aggressively looks for the best shot possible, which also happened to be the most difficult pass to make. Luckily, Nash got much better as a lob passer during his second stint with the suns. He could make lob passes while moving or while standing still.

Watch on YouTube

But Nash’s ultimate ability as a passer was his ability to prove around the paint to create shots. When Nash was probing around the paint, he would force a switch onto the opposing team’s big man, which created a huge mismatch for the opposing team. Once the big man was drawn out of the paint, Nash would aggressively find open layup passes in the paint.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUhc3RldmUgbmFzaCBwaWNrIGFuZCByb2xsIG1pZHJhbmdl
At 0:18

Nash did not randomly become this amazing passer the moment he joined Phoenix in 2005. In Dallas while also leading the team to historical offensive heights, Nash was the primary creator, passer, and decision maker for the team, and was leading those Maverick teams in offensive load.

Many teams believed that Nash was “just a passer” and would dare him to beat them. And oh boy he did. Despite entering age 30 by his first MVP year in phoenix, Nash always had high acceleration and craftiness to finish around the basket. He was one of the most difficult rim finishers in the NBA and used both of his hands to make tough layups. He was able to controt his body in different directions to make tough paint shots and always had great touch and feel around the basket.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUnU3RldmUgbmFzaCBpc29sYXRpb24gdG91Z2ggbGF5dXAgZmluaXNo

Nash loved his one footed floater which was usually jumped off with his right foot. He went to these using a pick and roll whenever defenders covered the roll man. Nash’s incredible touch around the rim caused this to be a go to shot for Nash. He was one of the most efficient rim finishers in the NBA.

Watch on YouTube

If Nash wasn’t in transition or in the pick and roll, he was mostly in isolation situations creating for himself or for his teammates. He became one of the best isolation scorers in the NBA, using head fakes and bursts of speed to blow by defenders. His quick, low to the ground crossovers always faked out defenders as they thought he was making a one handed pick and roll pass, which he always executed to perfection.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUuU3RldmUgbmFzaCBpc29sYXRpb24gdG91Z2ggbGF5dXAgZmluaXNoIGRhbGxhcw%3D%3D

He was also an excellent scorer in transition. Due to his constant passing aggression, teams overplayed his teammates to a high degree giving Nash layups.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUbc3RldmUgbmFzaCB0cmFuc2l0aW9uIGxheXVw

Nash’s main form of scoring was from his deadly shooting from both midrange and 3. Nash shot 50/40/90 4 times in his career while attempting around 4 threes at his peak. His midrange was especially lethal in the pick and roll when teams overplayed the roll man. Nash could very comfortably spot up to his midrange off the dribble while moving from both his left and right side.

Watch on YouTube

;embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fthinkingbasketball.net%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

Nash was also an elite pull up shooter from midrange. He could pull these in transition or in half court, although he preferred to do them in half court. Defenses would sometimes give him more space in fear of Nash burning them with his passing.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUjc3RldmUgbmFzaCBwdWxsIHVwIG1pZHJhbmdlIGp1bXBlcnM%3D

Nash’s 3 point shot was most deadly in transition. He was able to set up very easily for pull up 3s, making them look like warm up shots. Nash also had a bit of range on his pull up 3s, being able to make them from 27 feet out.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUac3RldmUgbmFzaCAzIGRhbGxhcyBnYW1lIDY%3D

The suns ran a high pick and roll with Nash all the time and Nash was very comfortable shooting 3s if the defense committed to the roll man. He had a very quick release and many teams at the time were not prepared for the high pick and roll. Nash and the suns were the first team to use this play consistently since Mark Price did in the late 80s and early 90s.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUaU3RldmUgbmFzaCBwaWNrIGFuZCByb2xsIDM%3D
0:08-0:18.(I couldn’t find any short clips so I just had to use clips from a longer video on this specific point)

I've said earlier in this project that people need to realize what RAPM is actually "saying." It does not say Collison and Johnson are among the best players in the world. It also does not say they are imparting the most impact. It says that they are very impactful in their given role...which is for a short period of time, i.e. is specialized.

This really stands out to me when it comes to players like old Stockton, old Robinson, old Garnett, etc. It's not that I don't think they were good, it's just that even if the stat is "accurate" it still only says what these players were able to do in the right spots. This not only includes minute allocation for their rest/energy but also the lineup-roles they have. RAPM tries to detect when you have good/bad teammates, but it doesn't know if you only get put out there in lineups that cater to your strengths.

This really isn't an issue at all when a player is forced to play with a diversity of lineups, i.e. play big minutes. But when you get into Stockton's 27-29 mpg territory, I see the results as much more specialized. An indicator of value, no doubt, but of overall goodness? I don't see how the metric is measuring that given the circumstances. I'd say the same thing about Robinson to a degree.

Stockton interests me on a psychological level more than anything. He was revered but never crowned. Like Havlicek before him. Or Ripken in baseball. Everyone "respected" him and "the way he played," but no one really ever thought he was a high-peak guy. Then Nash came along, and from an "eye test" point of view I just kept saying "Stockton on Steroids. Stockton on Steroids." And it really almost literally was taking Stockton's mastery of the pick and roll and making it look almost passive. Nash would just look to burry defenses on every play.

In Stockton, we're talking about a player who scored over 30 points 11 times in his prime (34-point best) out of 880 games. That's 1.2% of the time. This is someone in the 14-15 pts/36 range. He took over 20 true shot attempts in a game 21 times in that period (2.4% of games).

What's worse is what happens in the playoffs. He had six games with over 20 TSA (4.7% of PS games). Against sub-103 defenses in the playoffs, he averaged 12.7 pts/36, 8.5 sat/36 2.7 tov/36 on 52.8% TS. This is a drop from 14.4 pts/10.5 ast on 61.5% TS in the regular season. His sub-105 numbers show the same trend: in 87 games, 13.5 pts/36, 10.2 ast/36 on 57% TS, down 5% from the RS along with a 2 point drop in volume.

This was someone who not only failed to ramp up his game, but his absolute metrics make him look more pedestrian than all-nba (or all-timer). This is a major problem for me, not because it exists on paper, but precisely because it reinforces what I saw when I re-watched all those Jazz games a few years ago -- where the heck was John Stockton?? That Utah's offenses were so successful in the postseason says borderline wondrous things to Malone for me since he was the anchor, the rock, the constant, etc. I understand his variance (stemming from jump-shooting), but Michael and Kobe had variance. If I were less concerned with scaling (portability), I'd probably have Malone bordering on top-5.

Nash, on the other hand, only played 67 PS games from 05-10 in Phoenix. 43 of them were against sub-105s. (!) You know what happened in those game? His scoring spiked. 19.2 pts/36 on 60.2% TS. UP from the RS of 17.6/10.6 62.5% TS.

Hold on I nearly fainted. Didn't realize it was that impressive until I hit "calculate." Never seen that before.

OK I've regained consciousness. The clutch numbers reflect all this as well. It's not a "change" in their games, but a *reflection* of their games -- Nash was a great offensive player because of the pressure of his own scoring (from shooting) combined with his GOAT-level reads and quick passes. Defending him off the PnR was a nightmare. Stockton was excellent, but more passive, not as good of a shooter, not as big and crafty in finishing and while a great passer, i don't think he was quite at Nash's Manning-level of defense-reading.

Stockton's 5+5 clutch numbers:
1997: 19.6% USG | 21.6% Pts% | 51.7 ast%
1998: 26.3% USG | 26.4% pts % | 50.0% ast%
1999: 20.6% USG | 15.7% pts% | 60.9% ast%
2000: 23.5% USG | 24.7% pts% | 58.3% ast%

Nash's 5+5 clutch numbers:
2005: 30.8% USG | 28.3% pts% | 68.6% ast%
2006: 30.6% USG | 32.7% pts% | 63.9% ast%
2007: 28.6% USG | 31.5% pts% | 55.3% ast%
2008: 31.3% USG | 34.3% pts% | 61.0% ast%

Peaking in 2010 at 35.3% USG, 36.2% pts% and 63.9% ast%. All told, their classic clutch stat lines look like this:

Nash 05-10: 27.2 pts/36 | 64.1% TS | | 54.1% eFG% | 9.7 ast/36 (856 min)
Stock 97-00: 18.3 pts/36 | 60.6% TS | 47.9% eFG% | 9.7 ast/36 (538 min)

Nash went from an 17.3/36 scorer to a 27.2/36 scorer -- a 57% improvement -- while increasing efficiency. Stockton jumped from 14.4 pts/36 to 18.3 -- a 27% scoring jump -- on a 1.1% drop in efficiency. Let's put Nash's scoring in perspective here: there have been 22 player-seasons in NBA history at 27 pts/36 and over 54% eFG%. It's been done by 12 men. (Shaq, Dantley, King, Kareem, K. Malone, Durant, Kiki, Bird, Jordan, Walter Davis and Gervin). From 03-11 Dirk was 30 pts/36 at 47% eFG% in the clutch.

And I've heard people suggest confusion as to why Nash should be heralded for situational volume scoring while others aren't (necessarily). It's simple -- there's nothing situational about the PRESSURE Nash applies on the defense -- it's constant, he just balances his own shots with his teammates. He COULD be a volume scorer if he wanted to, the way some lead guards play by default (from the Francis/Marbury type to guys like Wade and even LeBron), but Nash senses higher efficiency elsewhere and perceives passing as the best option. Hard to argue with the GOAT-level offensive results. When the passing is choked off and the option sub-optimal -- due to defensive adjustment, teammate changes, or simply Nash just hedging his bets and simplifying the game by calling his own number more -- he is still capable of volume scoring well because he's awlays been capable of scoring well. Which is exactly what makes him so different from John Stockton. Similar, but steroids make a huge difference.

In short, it's not the "volume scoring" - ness that matters, it's that Nash is just simply a superior offensive force, which is reflected in his decision to volume score at times (finding the balance). Stockton simply could not do this, in the same way that Kyle Korver can't be Reggie Miller. Stockton is smaller and neither the shooter nor scorer Nash was...and these things add up synergistically. You will see this on film when you watch Stockton -- a great offensive player, very smart, very tactical, very good passer and open shooter, very good 2-man game...but no, he doesn't pummel the defense with pressure every time down. He's very selective with his shot attempts. He can't finish in the lane like Nash. Again, this adds up when considering a constant, per-possession impact of an on-ball player.

I agree that Nash’s ORtg's are inflated by small-ball...but the overall product is an 8 SRS title-level team again. (!) In 2005, one of Phoenix’s best players broke his face. In 2006-2007, Phoenix's big-men were injured, no one insisted they be off the court. (In 2007 they were also suspended vs SAS.) In Nash's only other title shot, 2010, the key to the operation was finding ANY capable big...even Robin Lopez (also injured). Are you considering Raja Bell, Shawn Marion and Kurt Thomas offensively-slanted players?? I see them as defensive.

I don't "just" see the ridiculous team ORtgs as his case, or else I would have him as offensive GOAT. It's the overall team, particularly with and without Nash, and a clear dying need to have a big in the game that cheap Phoenix management (and the quirky Don Nelson) would not provide. (People were screaming for them to find more depth.) I'm not even saying it's impossible for Phoenix to have won with the Amare-Marion frontcourt -- they could have -- but look at the overall picture: 8 SRS teams are title-winning teams. What more can you ask for? You might say "actually winning a title" but I might say "luck plays a role when the margin of error isn't big, and a major injury (03) followed by a major injury (05), followed by a major suspension (07) is bad luck that has nothing to do with Steve Nash or how well he/his teams played.

What most people don't know is that in 2006, before Kurt Thomas' injury, Phoenix played 53 games with a -2.9 DRtg. (+6.6 SRS, +4.1 ORtg) At that point in the season, they were 0.8 points BETTER than the Detroit Pistons on defense, and for the season, that would have made Steve Nash's Suns the 5th-best defensive team in the NBA.

Phoenix's best overall lineup combo in 2006 was Nash-K. Thomas +11.2 (!) After the injury, they literally ran out of big men, player super small-ball, posted a +9.5 ORtg and +6.5 DRtg (+3.5 SRS) which was relatively brilliant given their limitations. What was not brilliant was not having any big men on the team! (Of course, Amare was injured.) But Nash didn't win MVP that year for another +10 ORtg with a skewed lineup. He won it because of something that stills boggles the mind today: He led Kurt Thomas, Boris Diaw, Shawn Marion and Raja Bell to a 59-win pace. (!)

[Doctor MJ]

So, with Nash seeming likely to be Inducted in this thread, I don't want to miss the opportunity to gush about him a bit.

First, I'll linked to my old blog post about Nash's role in changing how I did basketball analysis:

The Nash Disequilibrium, or Why I Use +/- Statistics

To context this in terms of RealGM:

Prior to '04-05, I was a basketball and NBA fan, but I was certainly casual compared to what I'd become later. I'd paid a lot of attention to basketball as a kid, when basketball was my favorite sport to play, and playing sports was my favorite thing to do, but after health issues took that away from me, my focus turned more to the academic and social. There was never a time I didn't know the gist of what was going on in the NBA basketball season, but I could say the same for college basketball and pretty much every other major sport. This was not the same as applying intense focus to it.

And so, as an example, in '00-01 I was cheering hard for Allen Iverson and thought he deserved the MVP. I was a college graduate by that time, fully capable of understanding all the analytical details we use now...but aside from the fact those details weren't available back then, I wasn't even really looking.

I wouldn't have claimed to have "known everything about basketball" - I knew that I wasn't a world expert on it after all - but I suppose what I'd say is that there was no painful bleeding ulcer in what I thought I understood about the sport. I basically thought that the stuff that the mainstream media talked about, while coarse, was roughly in the right direction. I felt like diving deeper into the study of the game wouldn't drastically change my impressions, just my ability to explain my impressions from first principles, which is another way of saying I basically thought I couldn't be all that wrong...because the talking heads I listened to couldn't be that wrong, could they?

Steve Nash and the '04-05 Suns pierced my ontological bubble, and made me re-think everything. Not immediately - mind you - my first response was more about confusion mixed with resistance. I thought I knew a guy like Nash couldn't be an MVP level guy...and yet at the same time, I didn't have an explanation for the Suns' drastic improvement that could realistically focus on anyone else, and I knew full well that the box score wasn't capturing everything Nash did simply because Nash made an extraordinary fraction of his team's decisions, and there was no decision stat, let alone a way to evaluate the quality and value of that decision.

Over the course of the season it made me think more and more about basketball, and that made me eager for more basketball content. And that's when I discovered RealGM as - at first - just an extra source for my fix. I was lurker for a while with no intent to ever make an account - I wasn't really a message board guy previously - but then eventually an MVP debate thread made me feel compelled to step to explain some of the conclusions I drew about Nash and the Suns.

And here I am 18+ years later.

In terms of making arguments, it kinda feels like there's nothing left for me to say that hasn't already been said by others. He was the greatest offensive player of his generation at the very least, and he had a amazingly positive, humble, but relentless kind of leadership that had tremendous power.

And he was a thrill to watch in action, with a proactive probing style that meant there was never a dull moment with the ball in his hands.

[OhayoKD]

S
Steve Nash and the '04-05 Suns pierced my ontological bubble, and made me re-think everything. Not immediately - mind you - my first response was more about confusion mixed with resistance. I thought I knew a guy like Nash couldn't be an MVP level guy...and yet at the same , I didn't have an explanation for the Suns' drastic improvement that could realistically focus on anyone else, and I knew full well that the box score wasn't capturing everything Nash did simply because Nash made an extraordinary fraction of his team's decisions, and there was no decision stat, let alone a way to evaluate the quality and value of that decision.

Say it louder, for the people at the back.

[Doctor MJ]

[b]Induction Vote 1: Dwyane Wade[/b]



Induction Vote 2: Steve Nash

So, pretty weird combo of posts for me as I write a love letter to Nash but continues to blandly support Wade. The reality is that I think Nash was the more influential player, and also a player who was and is capable of more over the course of his career...but in practice, I think peaked higher and then continued to have a huge off-court impact for the Heat even as his on-court prime faded away.

Nomination Vote 1: Nikola Jokic



Nomination Vote 2: Bob Pettit

So yeah, flipping on Jokic vs Pettit again, may flip back again before we're done.

It's a question of whether he was enough better than Pettit to make up for Pettit's longevity. Highly debatable, but voting at this moment in time just before the deadline, Jokic doesn't just seem better but greater as well. This last season cemented Jokic as having one of the greatest 3-year peaks in NBA history, and while Pettit was a legend, I really can't say I'd even consider him near where I had Jokic .

[iggymcfrack]

Well, looks like it’s gonna be Nash anyway. The good news is after about 5 rounds of voting for Giannis, I get to switch my vote to Jokic.

[One_and_Done]

Well, looks like it’s gonna be Nash anyway. The good news is after about 5 rounds of voting for Giannis, I get to switch my vote to Jokic.

Time to nominate Kawhi?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Vote: Charles Barkley

He continues to be undervalued around here, and I fear Jokic and Giannis may actually get inducted before him.

Secondary Vote: Steve Nash

For all the reasons articulated by others - the lift he gave his teams, his impact numbers, his scoring efficiency, etc.

Nomination: Bob Pettit

Giving him the edge over Pettit for longevity and more Finals appearances.

Secondary Nomination: Nikola Jokic

Perhaps the highest peak of those being discussed for nomination currently.

[Narigo]

Vote: Charles Barkley
Nom: Dwyane Wade
Alt: Bob Pettit

Charles Barkley is best offensive player currently on the board imo. He scored at crazy good efficiency. An excellent rebounder and post player for his size.

I choose Wade over Harden mostly because he is a much better playoff performer and better defender. Harden has better longevity but I think Wade had better prime.

Nash is an offensive juggernaut but I struggle to see what's makes him a make a better player than Harden. Harden is much better scorer with good passing ability. Nash was a bit passive in the scoring department

[cupcakesnake]

Just reusing my votes from last round. This has been a good thread by the way! Despite voting Giannis here, I do have the yet-to-be nominated Jokic one spot above him.

Vote: Steve Nash
Alternate: Giannis
Nominate: Jokic

I get that it's easy to make a box score derived argument against Nash. Ultimately we're always going to be talking about a guy who won MVP, entirely for his offensive impact, while averaging 15.5ppg. He's also not adding any box score value with steals, blocks, rebounds etc. So if you're using the boxscore (a perfectly reasonable thing to do), of course you're going to be able to make an airtight case for Stockton, Wade, Harden or whoever over Nash. I just can't really care about what the boxscore is telling me about Nash at the end of the day when I watch him play or look at his impact on the team's results. We have other ways of extracting Nash's impact using numbers, and while that comforting in that it helps me believe what I see with my eyes, I'd probably hold onto the notion of Nash's offensive impact even with more statistical doubt in the way. I think Nash's impact doesn't need much overthinking: his handles allowed him to move anywhere he wanted to go on the court (even against elite defenses), his shooting/finishing made him a scoring threat everywhere/everything/all at once, and his passing ability allowed him to put the ball wherever it needed to be to generate a rich scoring opportunity. No one else in NBA history has been like this (until recently, when Big Honey came along and swapped out Nash's mobility for brute strength). He's in the 99th or 100th percentile in so many key skills and decision making abilities. Until Joker came along, I've never trusted a possession more than in Nash hands (I include Lebron or MJ or whoever in that). Nash moved around like a ghost. Despite no obvious physical strength, it seemed like no one could ever impede his movement (not even Bruce Bowen being allowed to constantly foul him). On the flipside, this ghost ability meant Nash really could not impact the game physically or draw many fouls.

His box score makes him seem closer offensively to lots of players that I don't consider anywhere near him offensively. He doesn't bring extra value defensively (good iq but basically no physical tools), he doesn't have great longevity (so I do see a fair argument for Stockton and others in this way). But I find a lot of efforts to diminish Nash's offensive excellence come across as overthinking it.

Giannis' physical domination of the league over the past 5 years has been quite a thing to behold. There's tons of holes in his game, and those holes have been exploited just enough times in the playoffs to chip away at his value. But we're looking at the most weaponized combination of speed, mobility, and length we've ever seen. If he doesn't make his midrange shooting counters more consistent and real, I think Giannis's prime could be short and he wont continue to climb up this list much higher. But the production has been insane. His worst playoff series are still him putting up 20/10/5 with his efficiency falling to average. He's had moments of being completely unguardable and accessing plays that only Bill/Wilt have ever been able to pull off. I'm not quite as high on Giannis' defense as some are (some people seem to think he's an excellent perimeter defender and a capable solo rim protector), but still see that mobility and length being a silly advantage as a constant disruptor and something that boosts any kind of defense in most situations.

Jokic to me is looking like Nash except he's accepted the importance of his scoring aggression earlier, and he's also able to impact the game more physically.

[Colbinii]

Vote #1: Steve Nash
Nomination: Nikola Jokic

-Nash never had playoff failures or poor playoff runs in his prime and routinely put his team in a position to win and lost to teams with players ahead of him (Duncan, Dirk, Kobe).

-TS Add effect on teammates

Steve Nash's teammates (With Nash's teams and without his teams) with respect to TS Add/48 Minutes.

Amar'e Stoudemire (2003, 2004): .42 / 1.00
Amar'e Stoudemire (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010): 4.90 / 4.46 / 6.31 / 3.75
Amar'e Stoudemire (2011, 2014): 1.37 / 2.35

Shawn Marion (2002, 2003, 2004): -.13 / .83 / -.12
Shawn Marion (2005, 2006, 2007): 1.16 / 2.45 / 1.99
Shawn Marion (2008 With and Without Phoenix, 2009, 2010, 2011): 1.86 / -1.34 / -.73 / -.27 / .38

Boris Diaw (2004, 2005): -.59 / -1.33
Boris Diaw (2006, 2007, 2008): .90 / .75 / -.71
Boris Diaw (2009 With and Without Phoenix, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016): 1.52 / .48 / .25 / .47 / 1.39 / 1.11 / -.26 / 1.18

Raja Bell (2004, 2005): -.68 / -.11
Raja Bell (2006, 2007, 2008): 1.57 / .69 / .58
Raja Bell (2011): -.30

Kurt Thomas (2004, 2005): -.44 / -1.30
Kurt Thomas 2006, 2007): -.24 / -.25
Kurt Thomas (2008, 2009): -.69 / -.32

[HeartBreakKid]

Vote: Charles Barkley
Nom: Dwyane Wade
Alt: Bob Pettit

Charles Barkley is best offensive player currently on the board imo. He scored at crazy good efficiency. An excellent rebounder and post player for his size.

I choose Wade over Harden mostly because he is a much better playoff performer and better defender. Harden has better longevity but I think Wade had better prime.

Nash is an offensive juggernaut but I struggle to see what's makes him a make a better player than Harden. Harden is much better scorer with good passing ability. Nash was a bit passive in the scoring department

Why does Nash need to score more? Also, can't you also phrase it that Nash is a much better passer with good scoring ability?

Just because Harden has higher volume doesn't mean he is superior.

[cupcakesnake]

Nash is an offensive juggernaut but I struggle to see what's makes him a make a better player than Harden. Harden is much better scorer with good passing ability. Nash was a bit passive in the scoring department

I think without even getting into the stats, here's how I'd compare these 2:

- Harden is so much physically stronger than Nash
- Harden had better athletic advantages overall: better first step, bigger/longer/taller/heavier, better vertical.
- Nash is a better shooter from everywhere
- Nash is a vastly superior passer. (Harden is a good passer but his passing is more straightforward and there's certain passes he just cannot make. Him being a more methodical/less improvisational player hurts him here too).
- Harden pressures the rim a lot more with his scoring (gets to the rim a bit more and also draws fouls).
- Nash is a better finisher and has more counters to get shots from 3-8 feet.
- Nash is an elite midrange guy where Harden either refuses or cannot counter into the midrange (at least not until last year haha).
- Nash is a better ball handler who was much more capable of probing the defense with the dribble. Harden alternated between protecting the ball to set up his drive or set back, and then going into straight line drives where he was slightly vulnerable to turovers. Nash went wherever he wanted whenever he wanted.
- Both are bad defenders, but Harden is much stronger and therefor stout in man-to-man matchups. Nash is a better help defender solely by virtue of him trying to do it. Nash was great at picking up charges.

Despite both playing in heavy-ball handling D'Antonni systems at their prime, I find these 2 players very difficult to compare as they had such opposite approaches to what they wanted to do with the ball in their hands. Think about how insane it is that: despite both playing ball dominant offense, one player has a career usage of 30% (all the up to 40% in his prime!!) and the other has a career usage of 20% (career high of 24.4). If you take away the OKC years, Harden's lowest ever usage (25.0 last year in Phili) is higher than Nash's career high. This means that Harden is using all that on-ball time to finish plays with his own scoring, his own assist, or his own turnover. So what was Nash doing with the ball all that time he wasn't generating those kinds of plays?

We're comparing one of the most box-score oriented players of all-time vs. one of the least box-score oriented players of all-time.

Almost everything Harden does is captured in the boxscore. His whole game is math'd out to the max. His game is basically a short list of the most analytically sound playtypes for him:
- Take a step back 3 if the defender protects the drive (he did this increasingly more and more as his Houston career progressed)
- drive left (look to score or get fouled)
- counter either with: left-handed pass to the right corner OR throw the lob pass OR take a floater
(Eventually Harden started doing a version of this without the Capela screen in more of a 5 out system. So the lob option was removed but it was pretty cool that he didn't even need a screen at that point and could still just demolish defenders.

These plays always ended in: a score by Harden, an assisted score by Harden, a turnover by Harden, a missed shot by Harden, or a missed shot by Harden. And that is just how Morey and Harden liked it. The most analytically productive types of plays, stacked on top of each other inside a very small decision tree. Absolutely no playing around!

By contrast, Nash's style was 100% playing around. He dribbled into the paint, threatened the defense with his scoring/passing synergy, and then waited for (or forced) the defense to make a mistake and give up something really juicy. The juice came in many forms: rolls and cuts from Amar'e/Marion, open 3s from a capable catch and shoot guys, or any kind of shot for Nash against a paralyzed defender. You never knew what was going to happen on a Nash possession, but you knew it was going to be good. Harden you knew exactly what was coming, but you couldn't stop it.

Back to the boxscore stuff, Nash played to constantly threaten the defense to produce high-level scoring opportunities for the team. A lot of the time that meant assists for Nash, but a lot of the time it also meant the Suns getting to attack with advantage due to Nash's threat. With Nash on the court, every player is fully weaponized to threaten the defense, and that results in plenty of plays that Nash doesn't get a box-score stat from. Breaking down the defense to set up a passing chain shows up in on/off but not in box. Spacing the floor for post-ups is the same.
(To be clear, I'm not saying Harden's plays weren't "for the team"! Just differentiating what shows up in a boxscore and what doesn't).

Why I prefer Nash's style to Harden's, and why I think it's better, is just the unpredictability of it makes it harder to guard. Harden's Houston teams would face playoff defenses that would completely load up on Harden's favorite plays. Harden would basically never counter, he'd just trust that these plays were the most efficient plays. This is a big reason why Houston's offense was much less dependable in the playoffs. Even against inferior opponents that they would crush, Houston's offense often had to smash up against strategies designed specifically for those plays. Guys guarding Harden from behind is one of many examples. It's incredible that Harden was still able to produce against that degree of difficulty, but he might have had more success if he could punish defenses for playing so far away from their base defense.

Nash was harder to gameplan for in the playoffs because there weren't specific plays to sit on. A lot of defenses did the Jokic thing where you want to "force Nash to be a scorer". While there was some scoring reluctance there (Nash knew the team was better when everyone was in on the fun), he would occasionally punish teams for making him score (30ppg against Dallas in 2005). In Nash's Phoenix years he was a 16ppg scorer in the regular season and a 20ppg scorer in the playoffs. But regardless, Nash's Suns produced the best 5 year run of playoff offense in NBA history (as noted in that recent Elgee video).

[Colbinii]

Vote: Charles Barkley
Nom: Dwyane Wade
Alt: Bob Pettit

Charles Barkley is best offensive player currently on the board imo. He scored at crazy good efficiency. An excellent rebounder and post player for his size.

I choose Wade over Harden mostly because he is a much better playoff performer and better defender. Harden has better longevity but I think Wade had better prime.

Nash is an offensive juggernaut but I struggle to see what's makes him a make a better player than Harden. Harden is much better scorer with good passing ability. Nash was a bit passive in the scoring department

Why does Nash need to score more? Also, can't you also phrase it that Nash is a much better passer with good scoring ability?

Just because Harden has higher volume doesn't mean he is superior.

Nash On-Court play-off Ratings (2005-2010):
Minutes: 2543
Net Rtg: 4.82
Ortg: 116.31
Drtg: 111.49

Harden On-Court play-off Ratings (2015-2020):
Minutes: 2728
Net Rtg: 0.96
Ortg: 109.79
Drtg: 108.83

So, to understand the point Narigo is making..Nash leads offenses that are significantly better, as in, they score significantly more points yet somehow Nash needs to score more? Can someone make this make sense for me? How is it that a player who leads offenses which score significantly more points is somehow criticized to score more when his team is outscoring the opponents team by a large margin?

[Colbinii]

I love Harden but c'mon, let's get real here Narigo. Nash scored at a similar rate as Magic and led offenses better than Magic. Do you also have Harden over Magic?

[rk2023]

Cooy and pasting over a snippet from the last thread , as a reply towards the Harden Harden Nash conversation. CCS and Colbinii laid it out pretty well, so don’t have too much novel to add here.

When looking more at granular tracking, Nash comes out as a more productive player than Harden - which makes the BBR Box Score "conclusion" that Nash ~= Harden-lite questionable.

Here are their shot-charts for example -
Harden: https://imgur.com/a/2RxCg5f
Nash: https://imgur.com/a/s4sY0nq

As shown, there is much more red and orange in Nash's chart -> leading to (perceived) a much better ability to attack and score efficiently from both sides of the floor (especially from the midrange). A 5.5% gap in eFG is significant for me regardless of volume - keep in mind we're considering similar role(d) players here as Harden and Nash are both heliocentric volume creators/engines.

Even with TS%, which would favor someone whom draws a ton of defensive fouls like Harden - 2005-10 Nash comes out averaging 21.6 adjusted points / 75 on +8.2% opponent adjusted rTS with 2013-20 Harden only being at 4.1%, albeit at 28.6 aPts/75. Where Nash blows Harden away is creation and passing potency. In TB's scoreval model, both come up with values of 1.0 come playoff time (up from Nash's .7 RS value and down from Harden's 1.5)

RS -> PS, their box creation, passer rating, and play-val is as follows.
Harden: 13.7, 7.1, 1.6 -> 11.9, 6.9, 1.3
Nash: 14.2, 9.3, 2.5 -> 14.3, 8.5, 2.4

So by the box approach, Harden looks a tier and then-some below Nash ITO playmaking.

I don't have their Regular Season values, but Nash's OBPM on TB/Backpicks through this playoff span was 5.7 compared to that of 4.2 for Harden. Same story for Nash having an AuPM/G edge of 3.9 to 3.3 (this is more on the impact proxy side rather than a box derivation, however).

So in summary, we have a player in Nash whom when compared to Harden:
(1) Has a more diverse scoring arsenal
(2) Comes off as more methodical picking spots and blending that approach into creating shots for teammates / making their lives easier
(3) Objectively adds more for a given team through volume passing and proficiency in such
(4) leads better team offenses, and provides more of a lift at face value [eg. using all of 2005-12 for Nash: 116.36 Offense on, 105.06 Offense off | using all of 2013-20 for Harden: 113.51 Offense on, 108.58 Offense off]

If anything, Nash looks more 'Magic Johnson lite'.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Giannis - 5 (beast, OaD, Samurai, Joao, iggy)
Nash - 10 (falco, trelos, hcl, HBK, rk, ltj, DGold, AEnigma, cupcake, Colbinii)
Barkley - 5 (Gibson, trex, Clyde, OSNB, Narigo)
Wade - 1 (Doc)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Giannis, Nash & Barkley:

Nash - 1 (Doc)

Nash wins 11-5-5 over Giannis & Barkley.

Steve Nash is Inducted at #24.



Nomination Vote 1:

Jokic - 9 (beast, trelos, HBK, rk, ltj, Doc, cupcake, iggy, Colbinii)
Pippen - 2 (falco, hcl)
Pettit - 5 (Gibson, Samurai, Clyde, OSNB, Narigo)
Kawhi - 1 (OaD)
Stockton - 3 (trex, Joao, DGold)
Ewing - 1 (AEnigma)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Jokic & Pettit.

Jokic - 5 (hcl, OaD, trex, Joao, AEnigma)
Pettit - 0 (none)
neither - 2 (falco, DGold)

Jokic 14, Pettit 5.

Nikola Jokic is added to Nominee list.