Doctor MJ wrote:iggymcfrack wrote:Owly wrote:Maybe I'm missing something but ... "if I purposefully don't pick the best sample but one an unstated amount worse for one of the players..." is that not what the above case is?
Just in terms of 4 year on-off every single 4-year Suns spell (all five of them) is better than going back and including the final Dallas year. So whilst that may not be true of RAPM (I don't know, and the later "On" gets weaker) ... "even one Dallas season" ... seems like a big ask if you're sincerely looking to compare players' best spells.
Like I say, perhaps I'm missing something.
I think when we’ve seen Nash in different systems and he’s SOOOOO much more impactful in one specific system that was tailored to him with an ahead of his time coach and a roster where he’s the only real playmaker than he was in other system, it makes sense to be a little skeptical. I think his poor defense and need to dominate the ball to show impact make it hard for him to scale up next to other elite talent. His actual value has to be somewhere between what he showed in Phoenix and what she showed in Dallas and LA.
Do you really think it’s just a super weird aging curve that made him elite from age 30-37 in Phoenix and not show any comparable impact before or after? We’ve seen Harden perform in a variety of roles and systems and be very effective. Nash probably has the biggest difference in performance I’ve seen for how a player did in one system vs. how he did in any other system, and he also has some of the biggest difference between his peak impact stats and his box stats. If there’s any player in NBA history where the context would make me question his peak impact stats, it’s Nash.
Hmm. So I get where you're coming from, but I'd disagree fundamentally.
If a coach goes and makes Shaq a 3-point shooter, he's going to drastically decrease Shaq's impact. Should we then try to judge Shaq's "value" as halfway between him being used like a dominant interior big and him being used like something he's awful at? I don't think anyone would say "Yes". The most pushback I could imagine is someone saying "That's not realistic because no coach is that dumb.", but this rebuttal falls apart when you chew on it. If we're judging players based on their talent being so obvious even an idiot coach won't misuse it, then we're literally punishing smart players for being smart. Why would we do that?
Re: think just a super weird aging curve that made Nash elite from 30-37? No I don't. I think it was coaches & GMs not being smart enough to do their job optimally. Not saying I would have done better, just saying, given what Nash proved himself capable of doing, he very clearly should have been seen as a big time prospect... but he wasn't.
RE: system. Such a problematic word because people are using it like it's some intricate super-plan that the players follow, but that's not what happened in Phoenix. As I've said before, what D'Antoni did with Nash is essentially just let him make all the decisions on the floor. He deserves credit for this, but it's not the same thing as if Nash were a puppet doing what he was told.
Re "if there's any player in history where context makes me question peak impact it's Nash". I mean I'd just say: You're not really thinking about context when you're factoring in a year of Nash in Dallas and pointing at what RAPM says. You're instead saying that if a player's value was dependent on context, then it wasn't really HIS value. You're trying to use a zero-sum method of value allocation wherein the possibility of a player not being able to give value in all contexts damns him... but you're not following through with this logic to all other players because there's not a stat like RAPM that let's you see it the same way, even though it really could be done with absolutely any player.
A player's value is dependent on how he's used. Take the world's best basketball decision maker - arguably Nash - and don't let him make as many decisions, and he won't be as valuable. Take the world's best 3-point shooter (obvs Steph) and don't let him shoot 3's, he won't be as valuable. Take the biggest, baddest mofo in the history of the NBA (arguably Shaq) and make him do anything on the perimeter, and he won't be as valuable.
And by that same token: Take the world's best drummer and make him sing, he won't be as good. Take the world's best chef and make him work short-order, he won't be as good. Take the world's best anything and make them do anything else, they won't be as good. We all know this and don't try to judge Einstein the theoretical physicist by how he'd do at experimental physics, writing calligraphy, or ballroom dancing, we judge him by what he could achieve if his gifts were properly made use of.
I would suggest, we shouldn't lose sight of this general norm we all follow without worry elsewhere, and if usage of a given stat is leading to do that, then we need to step back and ask ourselves why we don't see our approach as problematic.
I don’t think his impact was weaker in Dallas because he was used wrong. Don Nelson wasn’t exactly a fuddy duddy who didn’t want to let an offensive maestro cook. If anything I’d say the team’s ORtg was evidence that he was used pretty optimally.
I think it’s as simple as that Nash has some serious weaknesses especially defensively that make it hard for him to have elite impact unless the offense is completely and utterly dependent on him. I don’t think he scales well next to other top talents which makes it pretty hard to win a ring with him. With a Dirk-level offensive talent on his roster his strengths are muted and his weaknesses are magnified.
I’d actually compare him to Iverson even though they’re completely different player types. Both of them can show superstar impact if they have a team that perfectly fits their strengths. They’re both weak defenders who can single-handedly carry an offense that’s lacking creation, but it’s hard to win a title with them because their value is muted when they play with enough talent for their team to actually contend.
I don’t want to overstate things. Nash was a great player and I still give him tons of credit for what he did in Phoenix. I’m not saying it “doesn’t count” because he was in a good system.
I’m just saying that if only the pure impact metrics see him at this level, not the box or hybrid metrics, and if they only see it in Phoenix with nowhere even remotely close to even a similar impact shown elsewhere during what would typically be much more productive years in a players career, there’s probably some signal given out by this other data that we should pay attention to.
Because it is possible that a player whose box score profile improves in the PS doesn't necessarily see an increase in impact. But then how would we assess that? We actually lack reliable impact metrics in the PS. The only reliable statistical signal we can really go off of is box scores.
