Shaq hasn't helped his team the last three seasons

[sp6r=underrated]

I think this is a legitimate topic even though it is really just a continuation of the topic that me and tsherkin have gone over earlier in the season. My position is Shaq really didn't help the Suns at all last year, and isn't helping the Cavs this year. tsherkin, thinks he was making a positive contribution last year I think is overly influenced by Shaq's impressive box score. First the objective evidence:

I. There is no evidence that Shaq has helped the Cavs this year.

A. Cavs record last year: 66-16, Avg. Margin of Victory 8.93

B. Cavs record this year in games w/o Shaq*: 18-2 (10 Home, 10 Away)
(Opponents winning Percentages: .397), Avg Margin of Victory: 8.35

C. Cavs record when Shaq plays: 40-13, Avg Margin of Victory: 7.28

D. Shaq's plus/minus data: -3.13

* I disregarded the two games that are played w/o Lebron

Now, in fairness to Shaq the schedule has been soft w/o him in the lineup and it was hard with him. But overall body of evidence supports the conclusion Shaq hasn't helped the team. They were a better team last year. They have a much better record when he is injured. They have a larger point differential without him. In games when he is not injured the team plays better with him on the bench.

II. The Suns have been a much better team this season than last season.

A. 2009 Suns Record: 46-36

B. 2009 Suns Point Differential: 1.93

C. 2010 Suns Record: 49-26

D. 2010 Suns Point Differential: 4.59

The Suns have been markedly better this year after basically giving Shaq away. Originally, tsherkin felt the Suns would skid out over a hot start:

Steve Nash is playing better, and the Suns are skidding out HARDCORE this year. They won 46 games last year and while it's true that they're on-pace for about 45 this year... they started 14-3 and have since gone 8-18.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=980729&p=22091976#p22092947

Now, that argument is no longer valid so tsherkin offers several different reasons for the difference in performance which I will address later.

III. Shaq's hurt the 08 Suns

Shaq, was acquired in a mid-season trade with Miami. Shaq missed the first few games and played his first games against the Lakers.

A. Phoenix Suns before making the trade. 34-14,
Avg Margin of Victory: 6.14,
22 Home, 26 Away
Opponents winning percentages: .465

B. Phoenix Suns w/Shaq in lineup: 17-11
Avg. Margin of Victory: 3.32
15 Home, 13 Away
Opponents winning percentages: .563

Now, the schedule was harder with Shaq, but the drop off is quite large. The Suns were playing like a title contender before making the trade, and weren't after acquiring him.

IV. Summary

Shaq for the last three seasons have been tied to teams that achieved better results with him elsewhere. I have established this through several different measurements. Thus, I have presented sufficient evidence to support my position that Shaq hasn't helped team. tsherkin offers several counter-explanations that I'll address.

V. The Suns success this year and failure last year is difficult to tie to Amare..

Amare, despite his box score numbers has not been essential to the Suns success this year. He has a terrible plus/minus -6.13 (http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers. ... 0&team=PHX). The Suns have generally played pretty well in games when he was injured outside 2009. That's why I'm quite skeptical of the idea that Amare's injury caused the decline of the Suns.

VI. The coaching change didn't really help the Suns that much.

A. Under Coach Porter: 28-23, ( 24 Home, 27 Away) (Avg. Margin of Victory: .941)
B. Under Coach Gentry: 17-11, (17 Home, 14 Away) (Avg. Margin of Victory: 3.921)



Now, as you stated we only had a two game body of evidence to see what the trio of Shaq, Amare, and Nash could do together, but based on the three seasons worth of evidence we have, I see little reason to think they would be doing better with Shaq.


btw: Shaq did steal Nash's idea for a TV show so he wasn't totally drama free.

VII. Conclusion

Shaq's arrival in Phoenix marked the immediate end of the Suns contending for championships. Contrary to myth they were still playing like a title contender before the trade. Shaq gets traded away from Phoenix for basically nothing and the suns immediately improve. The cavaliers have played slightly worse this year in comparison to last year, and play better with him on the bench in games in which he isn't injured. I don't believe he helps teams anymore despite the nice box score numbers he still puts up. I'm curious for others thoughts on the matter.

[bastillon]

in addition to this great analysis, I'd like to point out that most of this Shaq hype comes from nice looking boxscore numbers alongside Nash, which were inflated in the first place as are all offensive numbers playing with Nash.

[tsherkin]

Because I'm leaving for work and don't have time, this is a placeholder post.

But it bears mention that Shaq and the team both had to adjust to one another, being as this is their FIRST year together. Chemistry is learned over time, not instantaneously, especially with a coach who isn't exactly an offensive savant.

I will post more later.

[sp6r=underrated]

tsherkin,

I'm looking forward to your response, and I notice my tone in the OP came off as rude so sorry about that

[Dr Positivity]

I think a lot of the Suns struggles had to do with Porter. IIRC after Porter was fired they went back to the 115 ORTG powerhouse they are now. With that said the main reason the Porter period didn't work is he tried to center the offense around Shaq so you could argue he hurt the team there

As for the Cavs, I think the Cavs offense is so efficient with Lebron + 3 point shooting between Mo, Parker, post trade Jamison, etc. that there's no need for a dump it in post scorer and I think Shaq could be one of their downfalls this year because of his lack of mobility. The offensive advantage of a Jamison/Shaq frontcourt just isn't worth what they do defensively... Shaq will be able to hold Dwight in the post, but will be completley incapable of effective help d. All they need is a mostly defensive player who'll dunk it if you leave him open under the rim and then their offense will be "Lebron, open 3 point shot, or dunk" Shaq was nice as a 2nd option earlier, but when you have Jamison you just don't need that extra offense... a guy like Haywood would fit much more, or even Kwame

Mike Brown is a good defensive coach, I'll be very very interested in how he handles the rotation this playoffs. If he's smart he'll mostly play Jamison/Varejao and then use Shaq to run the Lebronless unit, but I dunno...

[oaktownwarriors87]

Come playoffs, when the game is slower and more physical, it will be his time to shine. Sure, he wont put up big numbers and he will only have a small effect compared to LeBron... but he will make a difference, especially against the Lakers and Magic.

[CzBoobie]

The Cavs got him for LA and Orlando...only that and nothing else. He did quite fine against those teams with 4-1 record so far (and in the only loss he went for 20 points on 9/10 shooting). Last year? 3-9.

Nuff said.

[InBoobieWeTrust]

I said it before the season, during the season, and still say it now.

The Cavs are probably better without Shaq against most of the league.

Problem? Most of the league doesn't matter. The Lakers and Magic are easily the two biggest(literally and figuratively) blockades to an NBA championship for the Cavs, the Cavs brought him in mainly to battle those two teams, and so far it has been a success. Other things that have happened because of Shaq are that the Cavs are one of the best teams in the league as far as defending the paint, the Cavs now have many more cohesive offensive sets for a half-court playoff style game, we have multiple options offensively.

Also remember that Shaq got almost no time with a "Stretch 4" next to him, which is where the team and Shaq would be at their best. Also remember that Shaq's slow start(first month or two) was inevitable because of adjustments he had to make and that the team had to make, and again, remember how great he started looking for a good 2 month stretch before he got injured.

The Cavs are better off with Shaq than without him and the on/off numbers you throw out are skewed and irrelevant at this point. I personally don't care if we beat the Pacers by 8 instead of 20 because of Shaq. I do care that without Shaq, we are likely to get dominated by L.A. and Orlando, much like last season.

[jaypo]

Actually, in Phoenix, the problem wasn't Shaq. It was the fact that a new coach came in, installed a new system stressing DEFENSE, and its 2 main stars (who are obviously incapable of playing any defense) gave up and left the coach out to dry. They traded away their most reliable backup and best perimeter defender and took gambles on 2 others in Richardson and Barnes. Then, a coaching change took place, and they started putting up 143 ppg using SSOS. It worked fine. Then, they lose Amare for the majority of the year. So to blame 1 player is asenine. Don't you think that had Amare played the remainder of the season, they would have done a tad bit better????

Look at them now- they are ahead of where they were last year, but is it really that far? Add to that the fact that they had Amare the entire year. No coaching changes. Same system for the full year. Nash performing at a high level. And basically no personnel changes. If your ascertion were true, and Shaq hurt them so much, you would think that they'd be so much better now. Instead, they're 49-26 with 7 games left. If they win out, they would finish out 10 games better than with Shaq in 08. Don't you think that with Amare in the lineup for the 2nd half of the entire 08 season, they could have won 1 out of every 4 games???

The only evidence you need that Shaq has helped the Cavs is their record against the Lakers and Howard's performance against Shaq. And you need to factor in his impact vs. the ones he was traded for.

Conclusion- you're just plain wrong.

[semi-sentient]

The Cavs got him for LA and Orlando...only that and nothing else. He did quite fine against those teams with 4-1 record so far (and in the only loss he went for 20 points on 9/10 shooting). Last year? 3-9.

This.

Shaq is the reason that the Cavs are going to get over the hump this season and win a championship. He is not nearly the most important or impactful player (that is LeBron, by far), but you can not deny the effects that he's had against the upper echelon teams, particularly the Magic and Lakers.

Speaking from the Lakers POV, we had all kinds of problems dealing with Shaq's presence, and that presence seems to have instilled some serious confidence in the other bigs. Offensively our bigs were not getting easy shots because they couldn't get position, and defensively they were in foul trouble and didn't do much to stop him. The attention that he got allowed guys like Varejao and Hickson to get rebounds and/or score at will. There was nothing like that last year, which is why the Lakers waxed the Cavs both times.

[ronnymac2]

I said this when they got Shaq in the off-season. To be honest, I thought the Cavs would be a 55-win team this year- maybe 60. Obviously they will surpass my regular season expectations of them (though, Shaq's absensce due to injury helps that haha). Shaq is clearly bad for them in the regular season at this point in his career. His low minutes totals, probable not 100% effort, and being the oldest player in the league make him a large disadvantage in matchups against teams like Toronto or the Warriors.

But those types of teams suck and don't matter.

What matters is how they play against legitimate playoff teams and contenders in a 7 game series. Shaquille O'neal, even now at age 37 or whatever he is, will help them there. Against teams that are good and do matter.

Honestly- who cares if you win 10 less regular season games but win a title?

Now, I don't think the Cavs are odds on favorites for a title (though, looking at their team now, even I must say they are favorites). I think my Lakers have the best chance of beating them out of any team. Cleveland doesn't want to see that Kobe-Gasol pick-n-roll when Gasol is playing C and Shaq is out there. It's a pick-em imo if those teams meet in the finals.

But Shaq definitely gives them a better chance at winning 4 out of 7 games in a playoff series against the teams in the league today. At least imo. Sp6r=underrated's OP is premature (admittedly, as is me stating Shaq's presence helps in the playoffs, but I think my statement makes more sense, and I think I'll be right haha) Asking the question "has Shaq helped CLE this year?" can only really be answered at the end of the year.

[ronnymac2]

And with regards to Shaq and PHX....as a Laker fan, I loved that Porter screwed the Suns over by inexplicably making an over-the-hill post player the vocal point of his offense as opposed to Nash and Amare, two of the best offensive players in the game today. And as a Shaq fan, I loved it even more since my favorite player could put up nice-looking stats and be on the all-nba 3rd team. haha

Really though, management and Porter are more to blame for what happened in PHX than Shaq or any other player.

[tsherkin]

in addition to this great analysis, I'd like to point out that most of this Shaq hype comes from nice looking boxscore numbers alongside Nash, which were inflated in the first place as are all offensive numbers playing with Nash.

The first problem with this is that the pace slowed down considerably under Porter, and that Nash had little to no involvement in the production of Shaq's points, which is one of the reasons Porter's system was so bad in the first place. Nash creates plays by penetrating and pitching out to shooters or by attacking through the pick-and-roll... neither of which were especially relevant to the way Shaq scores.

So Nash's ability to inflate another player had almost nothing to do with it. He showed this in Miami and L.A. and Orlando; he does what he does as long as he gets the ball. He's too big to push out from deep post position, and then it's turn around, shoot a little hook, maybe give a little fake and get a dunk, sometimes spin. That's not stuff that Nash helps with, so saying his stats were inflated is flat-out wrong. This is especially true because you can just look at his efficiency and scoring rate and notice that the only thing that really changed was shooting volume and rebounding. The efficiency trended up, but it wasn't far outside of his usual range and he was taking fewer shots overall, so it looks higher (TS% doesn't account for shot rate, only FGA), and that all of his looks were basically good ones because he didn't need to take bad ones to get more shots per game like a true focal scorer does. More importantly, he was also in better physical condition than he had been previously because of Phoenix's training staff, so he was more mobile and had more lift, making his move to dunk or spin much quicker than it had been in some time, which helped.

Meantime, it's like everyone else has said; there were tons of factors that went into why Phoenix was bad with Shaq. He certainly didn't play well when they made the playoffs, and that's entirely on him, but the following season, it was their first full season together AND they had a new coach AND they traded their best defenders AND the coach didn't know what he was doing AND AND AND. When finally they got themselves to a semi-reliable place, they lost their leading scorer and second-best rebounder and they still played like a 48-win team, which is a CREDIT to what Shaq was doing in 29 mpg. Remember that, he was only playing 28, 29 mpg, so his impact must be measured with that in mind. It's not like he was there for 3/4s of the game and exerting his will and influence for those 36 minutes like a normal starter. He was playing Manu minutes.

You can't blame a 37 year-old man playing 6th Man minutes for the troubles of a team that can't play defense and had an awful fit of a coach for the first 2/3s of the season. That's not Shaq's fault.

Porter's biggest mistakes were dropping the pace in order to promote defense in a lineup without any really good defenders, and marginalizing the Nash/Amare pick-and-roll. Gentry had it figured out, this team is set up to score in bunches, and that's what you have to do with it. The shooters were there, Shaq's a great halfcourt weapon, but generally, you want to run it up the floor, see if you can get a good, quick look and take it. And if not, the defense sets and you pound it into Shaq. If he's got a shot, he takes it, otherwise he tosses it out, it gets swung and Nash/Amare create a good look in the PnR. And that's the way it was going until Amare got poked in the eye and went down for the season.

On to this season in Cleveland. First season, mediocre coach in terms of offense (great defensive coach, though). Didn't get a lot of run with the stretch 4 that he generally plays with when he's successful. Inevitably, new players being integrated into a team shuffles things up and makes it harder to do what you do, especially while balancing time with another player at the position. Then authoring a trade in the middle of the season? That wasn't a recipe for them to come out and win 70 games. The Bulls may have pulled it off when they acquired Rodman, but they didn't really need to scheme for him or plan to use him in their offense in any major way.

They went 14-6 with him over the first 20 games, then 16-4, then 10-3. He was part of a 13-game winning streak, playing in each game.

I mean, it's not like he's negatively impacting the team, they're 40-13 with him playing, including the more difficult period right at the beginning when everyone was getting used to him being on the roster and involved in the offense. That's on pace for 62 wins and as a team, they're on pace for 64 or 65 wins.

And again, as has been repeated, Shaq's been brought in largely to play against specific teams, and they've got an 80% winning percentage against Orlando and the Lakers with Shaq in the game, which is pretty nuts. The one game they lost, to Orlando, they had some really bad play from the supporting cast.

Everyone but Shaq, Jamison and Lebron combined to shoot 8/33, or just over 24%. The Magic jumped them in the first and fourth quarters and the Cavs just couldn't recover. When that happens, you tend not to win.

Dwight had a pretty good game, 22/16, but he also shot under 47% from the field, which is exactly what Shaq was there to make happen: make Dwight work at the other end (he was 9/10) and make him work super-hard to score by lowering his FG efficiency, which he did (and Dwight played over 43 minutes, while Shaq played just over 31).

Anyway, box score stats aside, Orlando's bench and roleplayers showed up and Cleveland's didn't (apart from a 2/3 performance by Hickson and obviously the contributions of Jamison, who came off the bench and scored very well). It's tough to win 3-on-9.

Without intending offense, I think it's an exceedingly narrow perspective to put the blame for Phoenix's troubles on Shaq's shoulders, and likewise I don't see him as a major issue for the Cavs.

In Phoenix, you had managerial issues, including replacing D'Antoni with Terry Porter... the WORST possible type of coach to head up that roster. Porter's not a bad coach, but he is a bit inflexible and knew not the first thing about how to maximize the talents of that group. He came in with a mandate from the front office to make the Suns play better defense and he failed spectacularly, especially when the Bell/Diaw-for-Richardson trade went down in the beginning of December and robbed them of what remaining defensive players they had (minding that Marion had been traded to get Shaq).

In Cleveland, I don't know WHAT people are complaining about. The Cavs continued to win at an elite level with Shaq contributing, and they got better as time went on, especially once Jamison got there. He fits just fine into the flow of the team now, and his presence is going to be a big part of why Howard won't rip them to shreds like he did last year, and could be a big part of their attack against the Lakers (certainly him knowing their offense inside, out and backwards after spending a half-decade with Phil doesn't hurt, either).

So yeah, I very much passionately disagree with the notion that Shaq should shoulder significant blame for how things have gone down the last few seasons, aside from his extremely poor showing against the Spurs offensively in the 2008 playoffs. That was weird, but he also wasn't fully healthy or possessed of the mobility he'd later reclaim as the trainers helped him through the off-season. Still, health or not, he sucked there and that was his fault but the whole team wasn't exactly a picture of harmony in that series. Last year, though? Definitely not his fault. And this year, there's not fault to allocate, the Cavs have done nothing but WIN with him.

[bastillon]

the problem with your arguments is that they're factually wrong in some places:

1) Porter didn't destroy the Suns offense by slowing things down. he did it by putting the ball out of Nash's hands. Suns could've played at Pistons pace and they'd still be absolutely elite offensive team if Nash was running the offense. that didn't happen and that's why Porter sucks, it has nothing to do with the pace.

2) there's a direct correlation between Shaq's offensive numbers (volume AND efficiency) and Nash's increased role as his teammate. first there were couple of years during which Shaq didn't play with Nash and he continously regressed during that time span:

Code: Select all

    PPG36   TS%  ORtg
05   24.1  58.3   111
06   23.5  58.6   108
07   21.9  56.7   105
08Mia17.9  57.7   100

then something happened and boom! Shaq drastically and at the same time magically improved:

Code: Select all

    PPG36   TS%  ORtg
     20.0  61.9   114

and it's not that hard to guess that Steve Nash happened... once again.

Nash is a great post entry passer, who will give you the ball in your sweet spots and at the right time. timely passes are important for big men, especially under today's rules with defenses being able to double team before the catch and obviously 3 sec rule plays an important role as well. Nash will know when to make a pass, and has the ability to deliver it where you'd like. that's vital part of the offense and don't diminish his impact and contributions.

also, when you look into those numbers deeply, you'll notice that once Nash became more important, he was able to help Shaq even more.

Code: Select all

    PPG36   TS%   ast   TOV
pre  20.4  61.0   1.9   2.6
past 22.7  64.2   2.2   2.7

no ORtg available so I inserted assists and turnovers instead, to at least get a picture of other aspects. Shaq improved, again. I suppose you could argue it was due to Amare's injury, but as a matter of fact, his efficiency improved as well, not only volumes.

and again, Suns after ASG had 118 ORtg IIRC (which would be on pace for by far the best offensive season ever relatively to lg average) so offense was not the problem.

in general, offense was not the problem at all with those Suns. as long as you have Nash, just give him the ball and watch him create those easy points - I guarantee you'll have great offense... in fact you can just look at history which confirms my words in 120%.

the problem with Shaq, though, is that he wasn't as good player as boxscore numbers would suggest. the improvement that he experienced alongside Nash was MAJOR and this is why he became overrated.

if you look at his numbers excluding Phoenix period, then you're facing reality. and the reality in this case is brutal - it tells you basically the same thing that people said before Shaq was in Phoenix - the legend died. Shaq has been non-factor the last few years; 06 was probably the last year when he was still somewhat significant. but it's no longer the case...

[Benedict_Boozer]

Come playoffs, when the game is slower and more physical, it will be his time to shine. Sure, he wont put up big numbers and he will only have a small effect compared to LeBron... but he will make a difference, especially against the Lakers and Magic.

Great post.

[tsherkin]

the problem with your arguments is that they're factually wrong in some places:

1) Porter didn't destroy the Suns offense by slowing things down. he did it by putting the ball out of Nash's hands. Suns could've played at Pistons pace and they'd still be absolutely elite offensive team if Nash was running the offense. that didn't happen and that's why Porter sucks, it has nothing to do with the pace.

I mentioned both of those things, but they definitely slowed down under Porter. This was explicitly true, not factually incorrect, so making that assertion is a little offensive, especially given the absence of support for your point.

It's 100% true that taking the ball out of Nash's hands hurt the offense, but there was a clear trend towards the team playing faster and running once he was gone. Porter tried to get the team running off of defensive stops instead of just running. That slowed the team down, because they weren't very good at getting the stops and had to walk the ball up a lot of the time because that was what the coach was telling them to do.

There's a reason for a lot of the following quotes:

"We are who we are and I think we have to go back to trying to establish a breakneck pace like we've had in the past," Gentry said at a news conference Monday announcing his promotion.

That's from Alvin Gentry after Porter was fired, recognizing the need to increase the tempo.

"That's a pretty natural thing for me and for our group, just kind of pick the pace up a little bit and open up avenues for our guys to excel," Nash said.

That's from Nash, regarding the installation of Alvin Gentry as the head coach.

Gentry and Nash both said Shaquille O'Neal showed late last season he can be effective in a running system.

"The last 18 games we were 15-3 and we averaged 112 points a game with him in our lineup," Gentry said. "There's no reason -- you saw him yesterday [in the All-Star Game] -- why we can't run with him."

But the transition won't happen overnight, Nash said.

"We've got to get in shape, we've got to get that mentality back," he said. "I think we've also got to get some cohesion, find an understanding, a feeling between us that we're going to read and

That's from an AP article where Nash and Gentry are talking about what happened under D'Antoni and what didn't happen under Porter: running with Shaq.

When the players and the coaches are talking about needing to speed it back up, and visual evidence from watching the games suggest they slowed it down, then it's clear that they slowed it down.

Slowing it down took away their easy buckets in transition, and the flow to the offense that made it work. This team has always excelled at filling lanes and making use of the secondary break. Not always the initial moment of transition, but that disorganized few seconds as everyone staggers back in transition and the defense isn't set, that's when the Suns have ALWAYS scored the best. You're not really prepared to defend a well-executed pick-and-roll in those moments, and that's when Nash and Amare go nuts. With Shaq, the defense was always set against them; Porter wouldn't let them run, he had them walk it up and pound it inside, which was stupid because the Suns didn't know how to move around Shaq in the halfcourt, so the offense stagnated.

The offense was FINE when Gentry took over because they went to Shaq only when the initial shot wasn't there... and that worked out for everyone. Shaq kept scoring, but Nash et al were back to playing the type of ball that worked for them. The only problem was that Amare went down.

2) there's a direct correlation between Shaq's offensive numbers (volume AND efficiency) and Nash's increased role as his teammate. first there were couple of years during which Shaq didn't play with Nash and he continously regressed during that time span:

Code: Select all

    PPG36   TS%  ORtg
05   24.1  58.3   111
06   23.5  58.6   108
07   21.9  56.7   105
08Mia17.9  57.7   100

then something happened and boom! Shaq drastically and at the same time magically improved:

Code: Select all

    PPG36   TS%  ORtg
     20.0  61.9   114

and it's not that hard to guess that Steve Nash happened... once again.

That's a fallacious argument and you know it. You're blatantly ignoring the fact that the coach explicitly emphasized his role in the offense and his improved health as factors and only looking at Nash, which invalidates your argument.

Nash is a great post entry passer, who will give you the ball in your sweet spots and at the right time. timely passes are important for big men, especially under today's rules with defenses being able to double team before the catch and obviously 3 sec rule plays an important role as well. Nash will know when to make a pass, and has the ability to deliver it where you'd like. that's vital part of the offense and don't diminish his impact and contributions.

This is all true. A lot of the time, though, it wasn't Nash making the entry pass, it was Hill or Richardson. Yes, Nash was involved, but him tossing a good PEP to Shaq wasn't the reason Shaq was scoring more effectively.

the problem with Shaq, though, is that he wasn't as good player as boxscore numbers would suggest. the improvement that he experienced alongside Nash was MAJOR and this is why he became overrated.

if you look at his numbers excluding Phoenix period, then you're facing reality. and the reality in this case is brutal - it tells you basically the same thing that people said before Shaq was in Phoenix - the legend died. Shaq has been non-factor the last few years; 06 was probably the last year when he was still somewhat significant. but it's no longer the case...

Shaq was 100% not the dominant force he was in Los Angeles or Orlando; no one has said as much.

But in Phoenix, he was still a reliable and efficient scoring weapon.

Phoenix's problem had nothing to do with Shaq. They had to do with the approach taken by the first coach and the lack of defensive personnel that had them as one of the 5 worst defenses in the league. That, and the 29 games Amare missed. And the 12 Barbosa missed. And the 8 Nash missed. And trading away their best perimeter defender. And not having a hugely reliable bench.

Is there some special reason these factors should be hung on Shaq? The offense worked perfectly once Gentry undid everything Porter did, and they started winning more, even after Amare's injury.

I can't really fathom why you keep looking at Shaq and trying to blame him. He wasn't dominant? Of course not, he was playing less than 30 mpg! Everyone knew he couldn't come out and average 25 ppg for them.

The problems the team had remained even when he wasn't in the game; Porter wouldn't let the Suns run, so they had a crappy defensive team without the kind of explosive offense that had been their hallmark before. They traded away their best defender and one of their versatile (if inconsistent) bench players and tried to play a game that just didn't work, so they lost games. And then once they finally started getting it, they lost their best player to injury for a quarter of the season. There are FAR too many factors for you too look at that situation and say "Shaq's presence disrupted the offense," nevermind the basic fact that it's patently untrue.

And then you look at Shaq and try to pick apart how Nash made him noticeably better?

His shooting rate increased with the Suns; that didn't have anything to do with Nash. While Porter was coaching, he tried to get Shaq coming out above the foul line to set screens and roll to the rim, a play that rarely worked out in a positive way for the Suns. He didn't know what he was doing, did Porter, and it disrupted everything. Gentry figured it out, SSOS, and boom, their offense exploded again.

But ultimately, Shaq came in and shot a lot when he was in the game; that was the PLAN. That was by design, and it wasn't a design that relied heavily on Nash, nor was it especially enhanced by his involvement when it was there.

[bastillon]

I mentioned both of those things, but they definitely slowed down under Porter. This was explicitly true, not factually incorrect, so making that assertion is a little offensive, especially given the absence of support for your point.

what I meant is that it wasn't the pace differential drastically improving Suns efficiency because Nash's teams are GREAT in HCO. my thesis is that putting the ball in Nash's hands made everything work, not necessarily speeding things up. Porter could speed things up and all, but in the end they wouldn't succeed with Steve in role player mode. just like the Bulls wouldn't have succeeded had MJ been a spot-up shooter. or like the Showtime wouldn't have had that historical offense with Magic only bringing the ball up the floor and doing nothing else. when you have an elite offensive anchor, like Nash, you're taking advantage of that. Porter didn't acknowledge greatness when it was right in front of him. that's what makes him bad and pace has nothing-to-little to do with it IMO.

When the players and the coaches are talking about needing to speed it back up, and visual evidence from watching the games suggest they slowed it down, then it's clear that they slowed it down.

Slowing it down took away their easy buckets in transition, and the flow to the offense that made it work. This team has always excelled at filling lanes and making use of the secondary break. Not always the initial moment of transition, but that disorganized few seconds as everyone staggers back in transition and the defense isn't set, that's when the Suns have ALWAYS scored the best. You're not really prepared to defend a well-executed pick-and-roll in those moments, and that's when Nash and Amare go nuts. With Shaq, the defense was always set against them; Porter wouldn't let them run, he had them walk it up and pound it inside, which was stupid because the Suns didn't know how to move around Shaq in the halfcourt, so the offense stagnated.

The offense was FINE when Gentry took over because they went to Shaq only when the initial shot wasn't there... and that worked out for everyone. Shaq kept scoring, but Nash et al were back to playing the type of ball that worked for them. The only problem was that Amare went down.

all true, but I think it was the result of Nash having the ball in his hands more, he found cutters (that backdoor cut with Hill/Barbosa is nasty), trailers, slashers, shooters. he gave Shaq the ball at the right time. he gave it to Amare on the quick pnr. the way Nash creates, how easy it all comes to him, people are taking this for granted, but the truth is it speeds things up. you know, Lebron is pounding the ball 20 seconds and then creates. Nash does it in 10 seconds.

That's a fallacious argument and you know it. You're blatantly ignoring the fact that the coach explicitly emphasized his role in the offense and his improved health as factors and only looking at Nash, which invalidates your argument.

bigger role in the offense is one thing. playing at career high efficiency being the oldest player in the league is something else. significantly increasing your volume and efficiency at the same time is Steve Nash.

This is all true. A lot of the time, though, it wasn't Nash making the entry pass, it was Hill or Richardson. Yes, Nash was involved, but him tossing a good PEP to Shaq wasn't the reason Shaq was scoring more effectively.

yeah, but still it was Nash orchestrating that offense. you never answered to my point about correlation between Nash's role and Shaq's offensive output. while it could be arguable just looking at the stats at first, it's becoming more and more abutantly clear when you consider those things as well.

it just seems like Nash has those intangibles that whenever he's running the offense, everything goes right. boxscore doesn't tell you that story yet we know what happened over time. their turnaround, the loss of Amare, they played like crap whenever Nash was injured, the Diaw season, tons of players with career highs alongside him... I mean this guy has as much offensive intangibles as any player in history.

the point is that while Nash wasn't always the one throwing PEP, he was orchestrating the offense... and the more he did, the better for the team, including Shaq. of course Shaq's shooting increased, but it's an anomaly that his efficiency saw that kind of improvement at the same time. and that's what I've been saying all the time.

[bastillon]

btw.

source: basketball-reference.com

Suns ORtg in games without Nash = 108.7
Suns ORtg in games with Nash = 114.2
league average Ortg = 108.3

source: 82games.com

Suns ORtg without Nash = 109.1
Suns ORtg with Nash = 117.8

keep in mind that 82games.com's stats include also time when Nash was sitting on the bench whereas B-R's stats that I posted show only how they did in full games without him. also important to note - B-R's ORtg and 82G's ORtg isn't the same, because of different formulas for possessions.

anyway, it means basically that you put Nash on average team and you have yourself the best offense in the league or at the very least you're right on top with the best offensive teams in the league.

and those are stats from last year, when Nash was supposedly "trash" "ova" "scrub" and whatever the silly and unfair accusations were made towards him ...

as it turns out, Porter wasn't the only blind idiot who didn't acknowledge greatness right in front of him. in fact, most of casual fans were. as were many realGM's posters who bashed him millions of times.

[tsherkin]

btw.

source: basketball-reference.com

Suns ORtg in games without Nash = 108.7
Suns ORtg in games with Nash = 114.2
league average Ortg = 108.3

source: 82games.com

Suns ORtg without Nash = 109.1
Suns ORtg with Nash = 117.8

If you're discussing the 08-09 season, you know that's an 8-game sample and completely inadmissible based on small sample size, right? 8 games isn't enough to take any kind of meaningful analysis from the results.

[microfib4thewin]

Can anyone compile the stats for Shaq since Gentry took over?