Retro POY '04-05 (Voting Complete)

[TMACFORMVP]

there would be no game #7 hadn't Dunca been struggling so much in those finals. I mean you can re-watch them and it was like... blatantly obvious that Manu was the man. you know, kinda like you're watching Utah Jazz and you know that Karl Malone was FAR better than John Stockton despite equal win shares. and I'm not talking about the difference between Manu/Duncan, but the visual experience - watching those finals gives an impression that Manu was clearly better player at the time.

I remember thinking nearly the opposite during the time. Duncan was definitely their best player in that title run, and was evidently more key to the Spurs in the finals as well. Without Duncan, you're indeed correct there would have been no Game 7, instead they wouldn't have come close to reaching the Finals.

In fact, the three Spurs wins prior to Game 7, Duncan averaged:

Code: Select all

22.7 PPG | 15.7 RPG | 1.7 APG on .470 from the field

That's not even factoring that he was the DEFENSIVE anchor for the Spurs. How can you say that the Spurs would have fared better possibly without Duncan playing so "poorly?" I mean, 23/16/2 with elite defense is considerably more valuable than Ginobili's 22/6/5 IMO.

I think that was common throughout the whole playoffs as well. Ginobili on a whole was more consistent, but it was when Duncan played well did the Spurs dominate. Even look at that PHX series in the WCF:

Code: Select all

Duncan: 27.4 PPG, 13.8 RPG, 3.2 APG on .515 from the field.
In wins (4) - 30.5 PPG, 13.2 RPG, 3.2 APG on .530 from the field.
In loss (1) - 15 points, 16 rebounds, 3 assists on 6-12

Ginobili: 22.2 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 4.8 APG on .493 from the field.
In wins (4) - 20.7 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 4.2 APG on .490 from the field
In loss (1) - 28 points, 4 rebounds, 7 assists on 11-22

Ginobili was great, and he was extraordinary in the playoffs. But Duncan was still the PRIMARY focus of the opponents game-plan, and the anchor to the Spurs offensive and defensive execution.

[Silver Bullet]

Another huge change between 03-04 Suns and 04-05: NBA hand-check rules.

How would you say that affects this discussion?

I think it makes both Nash and D'Antoni's system both much more effective than they were the previous year, which is yet another reason why the Suns record improved so much. It's not 99.999% Nash or anything of the like.

Why ?

It's a league wide change, how does it benefit the Suns more than the others ? Hand check rules would benefit, dribble penetrators like Lebron, Kobe, Carter, Mcgrady the most -

The only guy who penetrates on the Suns is Nash - and he doesn't have the quickness to do it as often -

If the hand check rules were that significant, wouldn't Nash average more free throws ? Well, he averaged less free throws per minute or per shot, either way you wanna look at it. He averaged the same number of free throws as the year before, while playing more minutes and taking more shots.

How about Joe Johnson, the starting shooting guard ? Well, he too averaged less free throws per shot, less free throws per minute and considerably less free throws overall despite growing as a player.

So I'm afraid, there is no evidence to back up your statement - in fact there is contradictory evidence.

[ElGee]

ElGee- I don't know if you meant that Marbury question in a vague way or not, but for those observers who aren't aware, we're going to be talking about Jason Kidd a lot when it comes to the 2000-2001 season. Here's a PG that goes from one team to another. The new team sucks, and this PG leads it to a huge turnaround. Sound familiar? Who was the PG for the 'new' team the year before, when it sucked? Stephon Marbury. Coincidence? Or is losing Marbury addition by subtraction before you even get into who you're replacing him with?

And, in the case of the 04-05 Suns, before you get into new hand check rules, team health, the previous season's ROY's development, etc.

No, it wasn't vague. And you picked right up on it.

I was a Marbury fan when he came into the league. I had concerns about how he played in college, in the same way I had concerns about Dajuan Wagner. He worked well with KG though, but after that, he became a negative. (Marbury was not happy he was traded away from Garnett -- I believe there was a huge SI piece on this.) So yes, I think there is addition by subtraction involved with Marbury -- look at his career arc, it's not a one-time thing.

[Gongxi]

I think it makes both Nash and D'Antoni's system both much more effective than they were the previous year, which is yet another reason why the Suns record improved so much. It's not 99.999% Nash or anything of the like.

Why ?

It's a league wide change, how does it benefit the Suns more than the others ? Hand check rules would benefit, dribble penetrators like Lebron, Kobe, Carter, Mcgrady the most -

The only guy who penetrates on the Suns is Nash - and he doesn't have the quickness to do it as often -

If the hand check rules were that significant, wouldn't Nash average more free throws ? Well, he averaged less free throws per minute or per shot, either way you wanna look at it. He averaged the same number of free throws as the year before, while playing more minutes and taking more shots.

How about Joe Johnson, the starting shooting guard ? Well, he too averaged less free throws per shot, less free throws per minute and considerably less free throws overall despite growing as a player.

So I'm afraid, there is no evidence to back up your statement - in fact there is contradictory evidence.

Huh? Some changes in rules will effect some more than others. That's kind of a no-brainer.

[Silver Bullet]

I think it makes both Nash and D'Antoni's system both much more effective than they were the previous year, which is yet another reason why the Suns record improved so much. It's not 99.999% Nash or anything of the like.

Why ?

It's a league wide change, how does it benefit the Suns more than the others ? Hand check rules would benefit, dribble penetrators like Lebron, Kobe, Carter, Mcgrady the most -

The only guy who penetrates on the Suns is Nash - and he doesn't have the quickness to do it as often -

If the hand check rules were that significant, wouldn't Nash average more free throws ? Well, he averaged less free throws per minute or per shot, either way you wanna look at it. He averaged the same number of free throws as the year before, while playing more minutes and taking more shots.

How about Joe Johnson, the starting shooting guard ? Well, he too averaged less free throws per shot, less free throws per minute and considerably less free throws overall despite growing as a player.

So I'm afraid, there is no evidence to back up your statement - in fact there is contradictory evidence.

Huh? Some changes in rules will effect some more than others. That's kind of a no-brainer.

ummm... so wouldn't it show up in attempted free throws ?

And why are you replying my question with ... my question ...

I asked why would it impact the Suns more than the others- and your answer is ....
Some changes in rules will effect some more than others ?

[Gongxi]

No, it wouldn't have to show up in free throws. Nash doesn't drive as much as many other star wings- all they have to do is play off of him more than previously.

I don't know why you would think rules effect all teams equally. If they changed the rule from 3 in the key to 2 in the key, it wouldn't effect the Magic and the Warriors equally. If you're having trouble with that...well, that's your cross to bear, I don't think we need to discuss that too much.

Moving on, we have this ample circumstantial evidence that explains why Nash enjoyed so much success when and where he did. On the other side...he just suddenly just became a franchise player and surefire HOFer at 30? Does that pass the smell test to some people?

[Silver Bullet]

Right. Just as I thought. You have no evidence or logical reasoning, you just want us to believe that the Suns magically benefited from a rule change significantly more than any other team in the league.

And for some odd reason... both the penetrators on the team averaged less free throws -

Okay-

[Gongxi]

...Was...was that you trying to make a point?

Depending on your style of play, rule changes will effect your team differently. It's kind of silly to believe otherwise. I mean, if Nash is solely responsible for the Suns' turnaround, why did he wait until he was 30 to play like that? Why couldn't he and Dirk and Finley have won multiple championships in Dallas?

Maybe because...he couldn't?

[Silver Bullet]

...Was...was that you trying to make a point?

Depending on your style of play, rule changes will effect your team differently. It's kind of silly to believe otherwise.

Yea, I hear that.

You keep saying that rule changes effect your team differently, but you don't give us any reason to believe why they affected the Suns more than the others -

[Gongxi]

Because they were a perimeter-oriented team that had more possessions in which to run that perimeter-oriented, run and gun offense. All perimeter players benefited from it, but the quicker you are- and more times you had the ball- the more benefit you would receive.

Again, if this is all Nash why did he wait so long to play this well? Or did he just go all Raul Ibanez and decide to hold off on his prime until other players started breaking down?

[ElGee]

Because they were a perimeter-oriented team that had more possessions in which to run that perimeter-oriented, run and gun offense. All perimeter players benefited from it, but the quicker you are- and more times you had the ball- the more benefit you would receive.

Again, if this is all Nash why did he wait so long to play this well? Or did he just go all Raul Ibanez and decide to hold off on his prime until other players started breaking down?

Nash was an all-NBA level player in Dallas. It's not entirely fair to view it is a magical transformation (I certainly don't). He went into a freer system with heavy pick and roll action and a better pick and roll player in Stoudemire. That, combined with freer movement off the ball for his perimeter shooters (the bigger impact of those rules IMO) probably played a huge role in making Nash suddenly look 10x better.

Oh, and the Phoenix training staff. We can't ever forget them.

[bastillon]

...Was...was that you trying to make a point?

Depending on your style of play, rule changes will effect your team differently. It's kind of silly to believe otherwise.

Yea, I hear that.

You keep saying that rule changes effect your team differently, but you don't give us any reason to believe why they affected the Suns more than the others -

what did you expect from him ? I hope it goes without saying how Luol Deng would've led the Suns to 65 wins as well. he'd be like LeBron with D'Antoni and without Nash they'd allow 80 PPG.

Again, if this is all Nash why did he wait so long to play this well? Or did he just go all Raul Ibanez and decide to hold off on his prime until other players started breaking down?

umm perhaps because for the first time in his career he had the team built/focused around him ?

I don't even believe this is gonna convince you cause you're obviously a Nash-hater who even brought up D'Antoni here (which is about as idiotic as Marbury thing), but whatever.

[bastillon]

there would be no game #7 hadn't Dunca been struggling so much in those finals. I mean you can re-watch them and it was like... blatantly obvious that Manu was the man. you know, kinda like you're watching Utah Jazz and you know that Karl Malone was FAR better than John Stockton despite equal win shares. and I'm not talking about the difference between Manu/Duncan, but the visual experience - watching those finals gives an impression that Manu was clearly better player at the time.

I remember thinking nearly the opposite during the time. Duncan was definitely their best player in that title run, and was evidently more key to the Spurs in the finals as well. Without Duncan, you're indeed correct there would have been no Game 7, instead they wouldn't have come close to reaching the Finals.

In fact, the three Spurs wins prior to Game 7, Duncan averaged:

Code: Select all

22.7 PPG | 15.7 RPG | 1.7 APG on .470 from the field

That's not even factoring that he was the DEFENSIVE anchor for the Spurs. How can you say that the Spurs would have fared better possibly without Duncan playing so "poorly?" I mean, 23/16/2 with elite defense is considerably more valuable than Ginobili's 22/6/5 IMO.

I think that was common throughout the whole playoffs as well. Ginobili on a whole was more consistent, but it was when Duncan played well did the Spurs dominate. Even look at that PHX series in the WCF:

Code: Select all

Duncan: 27.4 PPG, 13.8 RPG, 3.2 APG on .515 from the field.
In wins (4) - 30.5 PPG, 13.2 RPG, 3.2 APG on .530 from the field.
In loss (1) - 15 points, 16 rebounds, 3 assists on 6-12

Ginobili: 22.2 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 4.8 APG on .493 from the field.
In wins (4) - 20.7 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 4.2 APG on .490 from the field
In loss (1) - 28 points, 4 rebounds, 7 assists on 11-22

Ginobili was great, and he was extraordinary in the playoffs. But Duncan was still the PRIMARY focus of the opponents game-plan, and the anchor to the Spurs offensive and defensive execution.

you cherry picked those stats. as mentioned before by Elgee, Manu shot much better than Tim (like 15% better TS%) and was more efficient in general. it was clearly Ginobili's postseason, but I see where you're going from. but then again, you'd have to look at finals stats and tell me Duncan outplayed Manu with a straight face. well, I could probably do that cause I'm a good lier in RL, but there's no way I could actually believe it.

[Doctor MJ]

Again, if this is all Nash why did he wait so long to play this well? Or did he just go all Raul Ibanez and decide to hold off on his prime until other players started breaking down?

Okay, if I get peak Shaq on my team, and tell him to stay on the printer and shoot 3's, he's going to suck. That doesn't mean Shaq sucks, it means he's not being used as well as he could be.

Obviously that's an absurd example, but when you're an averaged sized white guy without hops coaches and scouts don't always recognize what you're capable of. In Dallas, the team was more oriented toward Dirk and others running iso's, in Phoenix the team focuses more on Nash bobbing and weaving to manipulate the defense and get the guy to the open man cutting toward the hoop or spotting up for a 3.

I mean honestly, '04 Phoenix shot 400 3's, '04 Dallas shot 500, '05 Phoenix shot 800 3's. Pretty dang clear '05 Phoenix was playing in a much different way than either team played before. It really shouldn't be hard to believe that Nash was being used differently too. Nash rose to MVP level '05 because of that new role.

[Doctor MJ]

Nash was an all-NBA level player in Dallas. It's not entirely fair to view it is a magical transformation (I certainly don't).

Good point as well. In Nash' last 3 years in Dallas, there was only one point guard in the league clearly ranked ahead of him (Kidd). Nash didn't come out of nowhere, he went from being arguably the #2 PG in the world to an MVP candidate. Big jump, but not as big as some might think.

[bastillon]

I mean honestly, '04 Phoenix shot 400 3's, '04 Dallas shot 500, '05 Phoenix shot 800 3's. Pretty dang clear '05 Phoenix was playing in a much different way than either team played before. It really shouldn't be hard to believe that Nash was being used differently too. Nash rose to MVP level '05 because of that new role.

no way, you're wrong. Nash suddenly became an MVP candidate because rules changed allowed Suns perimeter players to make 3s and run in transition. clearly that's something they couldn't do before the rules changes. and they'd struggle to be .500 without great coach in Mike D'Antoni too. not to mention how much Q-Rich contributed to this team. I think it goes without saying his intangibles were off the charts that year.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc - not to start a tangent, but I don't know how Marbury could be a top-5 point guard. He had a poor concept of basketball and I don't remember him orchestrating great offensives. I think he's what most call a ball-dominant "shoot-first" point guard.

Hasn't every point guard looked better after replacing Marbury? It's just not fair to act like Nash was replacing a top-5 PG.

This is a good point. At the time though Marbury was absolutely considered a Top 5 point guard.

[bastillon]

screw orchestrating offenses, the big thing that Marbury did for his teams was improving their chemistry

[Gongxi]

bastillon, you seem to be very emotional about this. Are you his mom or something? It's just driving you crazy that (as Dr. MJ already pointed out, although probably not really meaning to) that the system helped make Nash an MVP candidate, isn't it? I mean, I'm a 'Nash-hater' because I recognize that? Are you crying as you write some of these posts? Calm down, dude. Try some rationality.

[bastillon]

no, you're Nash hater because you're refering to irrational points that were rejected on this board time and time again, just to be re-touched again. when someone is pointing out Marbury, health in '04, D'Antoni and rules changes and is on this board longer than a month, then he's most likely a hater. it's like I was a Kobe fan and talked to a guy who calls Kobe "selfish", "rapist", "rode Shaq's jock" and "Gasol has more Win Shares". it's not really hard to acknowledge the guy is a hater.