Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

ronnymac2 · Post #501 » by **ronnymac2** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:35 pm

Brenice wrote:I also question Nash's killer instinct. Its that Nash is a loser because it appears that all he cares about is scoring....Nash settles for second place...

Post #502 » by **rsavaj** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:19 am

Brenice wrote:I also question Nash's killer instinct. Its that Nash is a loser because it appears that all he cares about is scoring....Nash settles for second place...

You know you've outdebated your opponent when the "he doesn't care about WINNING because he's a LOSER" arguments start flowing in.

GodDamnRobin · Post #503 » by **GodDamnRobin** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:31 am

As people have said, it's a made up (and plainly untrue) narrative you've created, you have no evidence for it that isn't circular ("Isiah won because he was a winner, and he was a winner because he won").

As for ahonui, his narrative is even more bogus. The Mavs went from a situation where they had a radically different team, who their gimmick coach was mis-using (their C in 2004 was A.Walker for heaven's sake). Their record makes it clear that if they keep Don Nelson, the record without Nash would have been worse, even with all the talent upgrades. There's no reason for us to believe Nash (an excellent half court player) doesn't thrive with the team under Avery too, he just never got that chance.

tihsad · Post #504 » by **tihsad** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:41 am

The rings do matter. Not the only criteria for determining a player's greatness, but a factor to use with MVPs (shares), 1st Team selections, and the like. Given that this is RealGM I'll wager that the majority of the posters here believe Hakeem to be a greater player then the Admiral. Why? Same amount of MVPs, comparable shares, D team, D player of the year, etc. Outside of one notable match-up there had been a fairly constant ebb and flow between the two regarding who outplayed who. The difference is one guy won as the man, the other guy won riding another player's coattails.

The advanced stats are fine measures as well, but not without serious flaws. MVP shares? Someone please go explain to me how Adrain Dantley wasn't top 3 in MVP votes in 1984 when he lead the league in PER, Win Shares, and his team won its division. That's right, lots of human error in those votes. Does that mean that Thomas should have won some MVP, by no means, but it certainly dismisses clinging to the veracity of a stat determined by votes.

392 pages back I saw a comment, I believe by Dr. MJ, stating that he considered Russell greater then Wilt despite the statistical differences because the Celts reflected his defense (this didn't apply to Thomas given he wasn't the best defensive player on the Pistons). No, Thomas wasn't there primary defensive force, but there was more to that team then blocks and man D. They were tenacious. They were a gritty, nasty, underdog team that was willing to do whatever to win (part of the reason they were reviled by the league). The 08 Celts were a great D team, but for very different reasons. This later part of their identity was a reflection of Thomas, and why he was their unquestioned leader (there is a reason he doesn't win a popularity contests). As I've seen written, he was a guy that almost wanted to win too much.

On a final note can we stop will the inane "they got lucky to play at the time they did" nonsense. Would that 89 team beat the 83 Sixers, much less the 86 Celts or 87 Lakes maybe not - but then again neither would any team from the last 20 years.

Post #505 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:59 am

tihsad wrote:The rings do matter. Not the only criteria for determining a player's greatness, but a factor to use with MVPs (shares), 1st Team selections, and the like. Given that this is RealGM I'll wager that the majority of the posters here believe Hakeem to be a greater player then the Admiral. Why? Same amount of MVPs, comparable shares, D team, D player of the year, etc. Outside of one notable match-up there had been a fairly constant ebb and flow between the two regarding who outplayed who. The difference is one guy won as the man, the other guy won riding another player's coattails.

The key distinction to understand is between using accolades to help guide the process of forming conclusions about players' careers, and treating accolades as if they ARE a player's career. Hakeem's titles are so impressive because of the details of how he played to get those titles, not because "title" + "the man" says something clear and consistent for whoever gets singled out each year.

To put it another way: Hakeem would be way better than Isiah even if he'd never have won a title as the man, just as David Robinson is.

tihsad wrote:The advanced stats are fine measures as well, but not without serious flaws. MVP shares? Someone please go explain to me how Adrain Dantley wasn't top 3 in MVP votes in 1984 when he lead the league in PER, Win Shares, and his team won its division. That's right, lots of human error in those votes. Does that mean that Thomas should have won some MVP, by no means, but it certainly dismisses clinging to the veracity of a stat determined by votes.

Because people watched Dantley play and saw that there were serious flaws in how he earned those stats. Understanding just how detrimental non-box score effects were in the case of Dantley and young Wilt is perhaps the most mind-blowing thing I've come to realize. Others don't think it's possible for the stats to be off by this much, and I wouldn't have believed it either, but you do more digging and the results are jaw dropping.

tihsad wrote:392 pages back I saw a comment, I believe by Dr. MJ, stating that he considered Russell greater then Wilt despite the statistical differences because the Celts reflected his defense (this didn't apply to Thomas given he wasn't the best defensive player on the Pistons). No, Thomas wasn't there primary defensive force, but there was more to that team then blocks and man D. They were tenacious. They were a gritty, nasty, underdog team that was willing to do whatever to win (part of the reason they were reviled by the league). The 08 Celts were a great D team, but for very different reasons. This later part of their identity was a reflection of Thomas, and why he was their unquestioned leader (there is a reason he doesn't win a popularity contests). As I've seen written, he was a guy that almost wanted to win too much..

Lot of things I could say to this, but the one jumping out the most is this:

It's not that I don't believe in the importance of leadership to inspire. What makes me grit my teeth here is the way it becomes a catch-all for Isiah. I mean, you just compared his impact to Russell, and Russell's leadership impact was OFF the damn chart. He also happened to block a ton of shots, cover more court volume (horizontally and vertically) than maybe anyone else in history, had a mega-BBIQ that allowed him to direct his team verbally while also planning rotations, etc as a coach, and a compulsive opponent tracking memory which meant that he already had strategies planned for opposing stars in the league before he even joined the NBA.

To imply that Isiah's leadership impact was so big that it makes him rather parallel to everything Russell gave is silly. Russell had GOAT impact because of both the intangible and the tangible...and so does every other legit GOAT candidate.

This trashing of Nash's intangibles that we're seeing on the thread is more of the same. I could make an incredibly long list of all the thing Nash does that inspire his teammates (hell, why do you THINK his teammates left the bench against the Spurs? Out of loyalty to him. If those were Pistons doing it for Isiah, this would be part of the Isiah legend, instead it's somehow a sign Nash's teams couldn't ever possibly be the best as a child's game), but they all get ignored by Isiah supporters simply because he didn't win the title.

Now, truthfully, I do think there's more going on here than simply believing that the guy with the ring is better. That's part of why it's so fascinating, because people who truly were that focused on rings wouldn't spend so much time talking about a guy who won two titles.

tihsad wrote:On a final note can we stop will the inane "they got lucky to play at the time they did" nonsense. Would that 89 team beat the 83 Sixers, much less the 86 Celts or 87 Lakes maybe not - but then again neither would any team from the last 20 years.

1) The "lucky" aspect becomes necessary because Isiah supporters keep talking about how he beat Jordan, Magic & Bird more than they beat him. The reason that happened is very clearly due to the luck of timing (along with the luck of supporting cast).

2) I know that by mentioning SRS this is going to bounce off most Isiah supporters, just like it tends to do with almost anyone who disagrees with what the SRS says about their team/guy, but I feel the need to say it anyway.

So SRS measures how good a team is by taking average margin of victory and adjusting for quality of opponent. Here are the number of times various teams had years with SRS better than 6:

Magic Lakers 6
Bird Celtics 8
Jordan Bulls 6
Kobe Lakers 6
Duncan Spurs 7
Nash Suns 2
Thomas Pistons 1

Incidentally, the Pistons peak was +6.24. For comparison, in all 7 of the Spur years in question they surpassed that SRS.

So this is the thing: When people talk about those Pistons being lucky, they weren't just lucky to avoid a couple dynasties at their peak, quite literally the objective evidence says that the Pistons were a team...kind of like Nash's Suns. A team that really just didn't dominate like the top teams of really any decade dominate. Doesn't mean they can't win a title because stuff happens, but one should be extremely careful about equating what they do with more dominant teams.

ElGee · Post #506 » by **ElGee** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:37 am

GodDamnRobin wrote:As people have said, it's a made up (and plainly untrue) narrative you've created, you have no evidence for it that isn't circular ("Isiah won because he was a winner, and he was a winner because he won").

As for ahonui, his narrative is even more bogus. The Mavs went from a situation where they had a radically different team, who their gimmick coach was mis-using (their C in 2004 was A.Walker for heaven's sake). Their record makes it clear that if they keep Don Nelson, the record without Nash would have been worse, even with all the talent upgrades. There's no reason for us to believe Nash (an excellent half court player) doesn't thrive with the team under Avery too, he just never got that chance.

But the people on the other side of the fence in this thread don't live in the real world. They live in world where stuff like your center, your coaching, your balance and your depth mean nothing because teams don't win, individuals do. They don't understanding confounding variables and they don't understand correlation. It's like trying to explain to someone the odds of flipping heads on a quarter after 9 consecutive tails (which, btw, are 50/50).

Someone in this thread actually said "If Nash really was concerned about the lack of rebounding/defense he would have said something. Even if it was in private to the GM." So, this man is criticizing Nash the basketball player for not secretly saying something to someone else. Maybe he also blames Nash for secretly telling all the defensive bigs of the world not to come to Phoenix to ruin his system. So either that guy has a wire on Steve Nash since 2005, or we've entered epic bizarro logic.

And it's so obvious how much of a warrior Steve Nash is that the comments about his leadership or heart are indicative of people who never saw him play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7seVNFJj3w&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0nIHCR- ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU76A3T9 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM0ndgMMVEA

Brenice · Post #507 » by **Brenice** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:03 pm

[quote="Doctor MJ"]To imply that Isiah's leadership impact was so big that it makes him rather parallel to everything Russell gave is silly. Russell had GOAT impact because of both the intangible and the tangible...and so does every other legit GOAT candidate.

Nobody is comparing Zeke to Russell. He is being compared to Nash. Nash is not the leader that Isiah was.

This trashing of Nash's intangibles that we're seeing on the thread is more of the same. I could make an incredibly long list of all the thing Nash does that inspire his teammates (hell, why do you THINK his teammates left the bench against the Spurs?

Sure they went in to assist/protect their teammate. People do that for EVERYBODY!!!! That is why they made the rule disallowing players leaving the bench. However, Isiah would be the aggressor/instigator as that is what it took to compete with the Superteams of the Lakers/Celtics. Zeke would do what it takes to win. Matter of fact, that is what Horry was doing when he hip-checked Nash, doing what it takes to win. Testing Nash's heart. I'm not saying Nash doesn't have heart, but Nash is not like a Jordan in that Jordan obsessed with winning. Zeke was similar in that manner. Nash, not as much.

Now, truthfully, I do think there's more going on here than simply believing that the guy with the ring is better. That's part of why it's so fascinating, because people who truly were that focused on rings wouldn't spend so much time talking about a guy who won two titles.

But winning is the goal. Either you win or you lose. Bottom line, each year, there is only 1 champion. Runner-ups are disappointed and get not ring. They get a conference championship banner. It also is about more than winning. Basketball is played on 2 sides of the court, offensive end and defensive end. It is also a mental as well as a physical game. There is b-ball iq and also mental intimidation. There is performing in the clutch and choking. There is slashing and shooters. There is defending the post and defending the post. There are loose balls and rebounds. There is running an offense and setting a tone defensively. I'm not saying Nash is weak at everything, but the only thing Nash is clearly better than Zeke at is running the offense. He is more the pure point guard. Zeke did an excellent job in getting assists though. It was said on some channel last night that only 4 players averaged 20 points and 9 assists(or something like that) over their careers, Zeke was one, Nash not. I STILL SAY NASH runs the better offense. The greater majority of those other areas and intangibles, Zeke was better.

1) The "lucky" aspect becomes necessary because Isiah supporters keep talking about how he beat Jordan, Magic & Bird more than they beat him. The reason that happened is very clearly due to the luck of timing (along with the luck of supporting cast).
Why are you exaggerating? Nobody said he beat Jordan, Magic & Bird more than they beat him. They said he beat them, basically on the road to winning titles. There is a difference because it went both ways. The whole world (except Nash people), are in agreement as to how the Bulls and[quote] Pistons progressed toward winning the championship the first time. Detroit lost to Boston originally. Then they finally beat Boston to go to the Finals, and lose to the Lakers. Then beat the Lakers the next year…In a similar manner the Bulls lost to the Pistons. Then the Bulls conquered Detroit to advance to the Finals. Zeke fans aren’t exaggerating this. You did Doctor MJ.

Then the Nash fans will say timing, Zeke needed better teammates…Well why aren’t y’all saying the same thing about Jordan needing better teammates and timing. I guess the Pistons weren’t aging like the Celtics and Lakers did in order for the Pistons to win. Didn’t Jordan need better teammates? Weren’t Scottie(a lottery pick) and Grant(a first round pick), in the same draft? [/b][quote]

lobosloboslobos · Post #508 » by **lobosloboslobos** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:02 pm

Once every few months i stop in to visit this thread just to make sure the earth is still round and that Brenice still thinks Isaiah made his team win and Nash made his team lose. I'll check back in a few years and see if anything has changed...

G35 · Post #509 » by **G35** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:00 am

ElGee wrote:
GodDamnRobin wrote:As people have said, it's a made up (and plainly untrue) narrative you've created, you have no evidence for it that isn't circular ("Isiah won because he was a winner, and he was a winner because he won").

As for ahonui, his narrative is even more bogus. The Mavs went from a situation where they had a radically different team, who their gimmick coach was mis-using (their C in 2004 was A.Walker for heaven's sake). Their record makes it clear that if they keep Don Nelson, the record without Nash would have been worse, even with all the talent upgrades. There's no reason for us to believe Nash (an excellent half court player) doesn't thrive with the team under Avery too, he just never got that chance.

But the people on the other side of the fence in this thread don't live in the real world. They live in world where stuff like your center, your coaching, your balance and your depth mean nothing because teams don't win, individuals do. They don't understanding confounding variables and they don't understand correlation. It's like trying to explain to someone the odds of flipping heads on a quarter after 9 consecutive tails (which, btw, are 50/50).

Someone in this thread actually said "If Nash really was concerned about the lack of rebounding/defense he would have said something. Even if it was in private to the GM." So, this man is criticizing Nash the basketball player for not secretly saying something to someone else. Maybe he also blames Nash for secretly telling all the defensive bigs of the world not to come to Phoenix to ruin his system. So either that guy has a wire on Steve Nash since 2005, or we've entered epic bizarro logic.

And it's so obvious how much of a warrior Steve Nash is that the comments about his leadership or heart are indicative of people who never saw him play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7seVNFJj3w&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0nIHCR- ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU76A3T9 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM0ndgMMVEA

That person who said that was me. And yes players, your star players have a voice in the direction of the team. If you don't believe that then we agree to disagree. If you don't think that the star player doesn't voice his concerns on player personnel that are signed/released then we once again agree to disagree.

I also like your analogy of flipping a coin and the odds are still 50/50 even if it has come up tails 9 times in a row. Just like even if Nash has been on teams with bad management/coaching doesn't necessarily mean that he would have gone to the finals with Avery Johnson or Rick Carlisle. That is a 50/50 proposition. You don't know for sure, you can only guess.

You are being very condescending but I get your point. I also have a point, Nash fans think that he got a raw deal on coaching and management. They don't take in account that playing for Nelson and D'Antoni also benefited Nash at all. That OFFENSIVELY Nash didn't benefit at all from playing for them. Nash fans live in a world where Nash played well despite his coaching. He is the floor general of all floor generals. He could lead any team and make them better for it.

You know what I wonder? That if Nash never played for D'Antoni and Marion/Stoudemire/Barbosa/Joe Johnson played together they might have stayed together since they could have afforded Joe Johnson's contract. I'm sure they could have been successful with that core of players but somebody would have come along and said, "If Nash could have played for D'Antoni, he would have led them to a title! That team would have been unstoppable!"

However the reality is Nash had multiple opportunities and failed to do what other PG's have done. Nash fans don't want to acknowledge that injuries are part of the game, suspensions are part of the game, coaching (good or bad) is part of the game, management (good or bad) is part of the game. All these excuses that Nash fans keep coming up with are things EVERY player has had to deal with. If you are truly exceptional then you overcome those obstacles. Of course Nash shouldn't be accountable for anything except what makes him look good.....

Post #510 » by **rrravenred** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:18 am

G35 wrote:However the reality is Nash had multiple opportunities and failed to do what other PG's have done. Nash fans don't want to acknowledge that injuries are part of the game, suspensions are part of the game, coaching (good or bad) is part of the game, management (good or bad) is part of the game. All these excuses that Nash fans keep coming up with are things EVERY player has had to deal with. If you are truly exceptional then you overcome those obstacles. Of course Nash shouldn't be accountable for anything except what makes him look good.....

Well which injury blows, bad management decisions and iffy suspensions do you believe Isiah overcame during his championship years?

GodDamnRobin · Post #511 » by **GodDamnRobin** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:33 am

Don't you get it rrravenred? Isiah willed those things not to happen in the first place. He's just that great. Only losers let circumstances get in the way.

Post #512 » by **rrravenred** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:44 am

GodDamnRobin wrote:Don't you get it rrravenred? Isiah willed those things not to happen in the first place. He's just that great. Only losers let circumstances get in the way.

Ahh... so you're saying it's like "The Secret"?

ElGee · Post #513 » by **ElGee** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:46 am

G35 wrote:
ElGee wrote:
GodDamnRobin wrote:As people have said, it's a made up (and plainly untrue) narrative you've created, you have no evidence for it that isn't circular ("Isiah won because he was a winner, and he was a winner because he won").

As for ahonui, his narrative is even more bogus. The Mavs went from a situation where they had a radically different team, who their gimmick coach was mis-using (their C in 2004 was A.Walker for heaven's sake). Their record makes it clear that if they keep Don Nelson, the record without Nash would have been worse, even with all the talent upgrades. There's no reason for us to believe Nash (an excellent half court player) doesn't thrive with the team under Avery too, he just never got that chance.

But the people on the other side of the fence in this thread don't live in the real world. They live in world where stuff like your center, your coaching, your balance and your depth mean nothing because teams don't win, individuals do. They don't understanding confounding variables and they don't understand correlation. It's like trying to explain to someone the odds of flipping heads on a quarter after 9 consecutive tails (which, btw, are 50/50).

Someone in this thread actually said "If Nash really was concerned about the lack of rebounding/defense he would have said something. Even if it was in private to the GM." So, this man is criticizing Nash the basketball player for not secretly saying something to someone else. Maybe he also blames Nash for secretly telling all the defensive bigs of the world not to come to Phoenix to ruin his system. So either that guy has a wire on Steve Nash since 2005, or we've entered epic bizarro logic.

And it's so obvious how much of a warrior Steve Nash is that the comments about his leadership or heart are indicative of people who never saw him play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7seVNFJj3w&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0nIHCR- ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU76A3T9 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM0ndgMMVEA

That person who said that was me. And yes players, your star players have a voice in the direction of the team. If you don't believe that then we agree to disagree. If you don't think that the star player doesn't voice his concerns on player personnel that are signed/released then we once again agree to disagree.

I also like your analogy of flipping a coin and the odds are still 50/50 even if it has come up tails 9 times in a row. Just like even if Nash has been on teams with bad management/coaching doesn't necessarily mean that he would have gone to the finals with Avery Johnson or Rick Carlisle. That is a 50/50 proposition. You don't know for sure, you can only guess.

You are being very condescending but I get your point. I also have a point, Nash fans think that he got a raw deal on coaching and management. They don't take in account that playing for Nelson and D'Antoni also benefited Nash at all. That OFFENSIVELY Nash didn't benefit at all from playing for them. Nash fans live in a world where Nash played well despite his coaching. He is the floor general of all floor generals. He could lead any team and make them better for it.

You know what I wonder? That if Nash never played for D'Antoni and Marion/Stoudemire/Barbosa/Joe Johnson played together they might have stayed together since they could have afforded Joe Johnson's contract. I'm sure they could have been successful with that core of players but somebody would have come along and said, "If Nash could have played for D'Antoni, he would have led them to a title! That team would have been unstoppable!"

However the reality is Nash had multiple opportunities and failed to do what other PG's have done. Nash fans don't want to acknowledge that injuries are part of the game, suspensions are part of the game, coaching (good or bad) is part of the game, management (good or bad) is part of the game. All these excuses that Nash fans keep coming up with are things EVERY player has had to deal with. If you are truly exceptional then you overcome those obstacles. Of course Nash shouldn't be accountable for anything except what makes him look good.....

I'll be frank here because you were quite courteous: There is no way that I can think of not to sound condescending when your criticism of a player is that he did/didn't do something in private. You have no idea if he did/didn't do it -- it's off the court -- and that's your criticism of him as a player. That you've moved to such an extreme place without even realizing it isn't a testament to insanity or intelligence, but instead to what the mind will go to in order to fortify it's positions. For the love of god man, look at what you are saying.

As to your other points, I really don't get them. I don't think Steve Nash got any kind of raw deal, with perhaps the exception of having to work extra hard early on for PT due to certain stereotypes. He was unfortunate in winning a title, but winning a title is probabilistic and that's simply too bad for Nash's trophy case and the ego that drives him. It has nothing to do with how good he was as a basketball player.

As for coaching, I always attempt to take it into account. I am a big proponent of team evaluation (which gets lost so much in the shuffle of individuals) and coaching influence in certain areas of the game. What I find strange is that you know that Nash has a track record of ridiculous success with a plethora of offensive combinations, in different situations, with 4 different coaches, yet it doesn't seem to influence you in the slightest. What, then, I wonder would!

Finally, I don't know what you mean when you say "Nash failed to do what other PGs have done." What exactly are you referring to? Because technically Michael Jordan failed to do what a number of other players did...I don't really see what the heck it has to do with how good someone is at basketball.

Brenice · Post #514 » by **Brenice** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:55 pm

I'm waiting to see what areas of basketball in skills and intangibles, outside of running the phoenix offense and shooting, is Nash better than Zeke, that make him a better basketball player. I gave my reasons on the previous page as to why I think Zeke is better, and rings, awards, and statistics don't figure in.

Post #515 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:27 pm

Brenice wrote:I'm waiting to see what areas of basketball in skills and intangibles, outside of running the phoenix offense and shooting, is Nash better than Zeke, that make him a better basketball player. I gave my reasons on the previous page as to why I think Zeke is better, and rings, awards, and statistics don't figure in.

So if I may paraphrase:

I'm waiting to see what areas of basketball outside of offense makes Nash better than Zeke?

See the thing is that the Nash folks are really pretty straight forward here. We think Nash is way high up there as an offensive player, and admit he wasn't impressive on defense. As such there are some players who are weaker on offense but better overall (most would agree on LeBron, Garnett, etc). We just don't put Isiah up there with that club.

Post #516 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:29 pm

rrravenred wrote:
GodDamnRobin wrote:Don't you get it rrravenred? Isiah willed those things not to happen in the first place. He's just that great. Only losers let circumstances get in the way.

Ahh... so you're saying it's like "The Secret"?

This is a fantastic retro-active nickname.

Jerry "The Logo" West
Wilt "20,000 women can't be wrong" Chamberlain
Isiah "The Secret" Thomas

Brenice · Post #517 » by **Brenice** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:17 pm

What did LeBron, KG or anyone else have to do with anything? The question was about Nash and Isiah. I guess you ducking it cause you sure didn't answer it. I got too much respect for you to think you only see the stat side of things, so it must be something else.

easiestplayfts · Post #518 » by **easiestplayfts** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:39 pm

Brenice wrote:What did LeBron, KG or anyone else have to do with anything? The question was about Nash and Isiah.

Warspite · Post #519 » by **Warspite** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:56 pm

So we have learned that DRMJ thinks Nash>Russell. No wonder he thinks Isiah is a lesser player.

DrMJs absurdity gets worse with every page. Fortuantly having raised small children I know that hes only in a phase and that he will grow out of it..

To Nash supporters

If Nash was such a great leader and PG why is it that hes hated by his teammates and that Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion and many role players couldnt wait to get away from him?

Sarver has always been the scape goat but the truth is that these players wanted out because they believed they were limited by Nash and that he held them back from being a better player.

Of course most of those guys didnt get better stats once they left the Suns but why did they believe that?

Post #520 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:00 pm

Brenice wrote:What did LeBron, KG or anyone else have to do with anything? The question was about Nash and Isiah. I guess you ducking it cause you sure didn't answer it. I got too much respect for you to think you only see the stat side of things, so it must be something else.

Just trying to be clear that I don't side with Nash blindly here. The basic argument of "X is a more complete player on both sides of the ball so he's better", works on me in some cases. It does not in Isiah's case.

Ducking the question? I rephrased what you said to say Nash was the better offensive player. You already know I don't accept Isiah's superior intangibles. I'll grant Isiah's superior defense. What more do you want me to say for the comparison? Just list specifics?

Nash is...

Better at the transition game
Better at seeing the floor in the half court
Better at maintaining his dribble in and back out of traffic
Better at extreme improvisation which allows him to do things efficiently that you'd bench other players for
Better at using those abilities to manipulate defenses like chess pieces to produce open players
Better at getting the ball to open players
Better at a little thing called shooting the ball
Better at properly gauging his own scoring abilities relative to teammates which leads to
Better at decision making
Off the charts at positive encouragement of teammates, and acting as an active mentor to them on and off the courts
Willing to sacrifice his body like nobody's business, and play through the blood without complaint
Humble enough that he doesn't alienate teammates, and is willing to make sacrifices for his team without complaint
A relentless worker in the off-season, who gets his teammates to work as well