Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[Doctor MJ]

Well most people don't value my opinion because it goes against convention so I can live with that.

Interesting that gets stated while also stating that people on the board all have a similar type of bias. How did they get that "bias"? By talking to each other, listening, and gradually better reasoning won out. The conventions here that deviate from conventions others are used to only exist because people came in with open minds willing to listen such deviation.

In short: That's a cop out dude. The people you're complaining about being sheep are typically more willing and able to objectively analyze the topics here than those with outlier opinions are.

[Warspite]

Just out of curiousity, Warspite, which Pistons team is among the best OFFENSIVE teams of all time?

The one that was involved in the highest scoring game of alltime.

The 84 team avg 117ppg
The 85 team avg 116ppg


For the most part this thread is about not letting the facts get in the way. Thats why I havent taken any of this so seriously. Its for most part Isiah haters and few Suns fans trolling. Theres nobody who looks at there stats, video, resume that would take Nash over Isiah. I just assumed the Nash fans were forgetting the green font.

IMHO it is a closer comparison between Kobe and Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton than it is between Isiah and Nash. There just so far apart and thats what most Nash fans readily admit. DRMJ admits that Isiah is the better player with better stats but he still thinks Nash wins because of MVP voting. Thats the same argument I would use to claim Dana Tarasi is better than CP3. So yes I think this a total troll thread.

[therealbig3]

Just out of curiousity, Warspite, which Pistons team is among the best OFFENSIVE teams of all time?

The one that was involved in the highest scoring game of alltime.

The 84 team avg 117ppg
The 85 team avg 116ppg


For the most part this thread is about not letting the facts get in the way. Thats why I havent taken any of this so seriously. Its for most part Isiah haters and few Suns fans trolling. Theres nobody who looks at there stats, video, resume that would take Nash over Isiah. I just assumed the Nash fans were forgetting the green font.

IMHO it is a closer comparison between Kobe and Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton than it is between Isiah and Nash. There just so far apart and thats what most Nash fans readily admit. DRMJ admits that Isiah is the better player with better stats but he still thinks Nash wins because of MVP voting. Thats the same argument I would use to claim Dana Tarasi is better than CP3. So yes I think this a total troll thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/youtube]

[Doctor MJ]

Just out of curiousity, Warspite, which Pistons team is among the best OFFENSIVE teams of all time?

The one that was involved in the highest scoring game of alltime.

The 84 team avg 117ppg
The 85 team avg 116ppg

For the record:

The '83-84 Pistons had the best ORtg in the league that year at 111.5. So that's good, but for perspective:

At 111.5 they were 3.7 points above the league median (107.8).

The '04-05 Suns had an ORtg of 114.5 which was 8.4 points above the league median (106.1). In fact the gap between those Suns and the #3 team in the entire league was bigger than the gap between the '83-84 Pistons and offensive mediocrity.

I suppose what I find most disturbing about your assertion is not that you aren't using stats, but that you're insisting on using primitive stats when the more advanced stuff is more meaningful in every conceivable way. To me it just smacks of someone who is set in his ways, without really knowing what all went in to him acquiring those "ways".

IMHO it is a closer comparison between Kobe and Ray Allen or Rip Hamilton than it is between Isiah and Nash. There just so far apart and thats what most Nash fans readily admit. DRMJ admits that Isiah is the better player with better stats but he still thinks Nash wins because of MVP voting. Thats the same argument I would use to claim Dana Tarasi is better than CP3. So yes I think this a total troll thread.

And this is just jawdropping stuff Warspite. This is the 2nd time in this thread alone that you've used something that I've supposedly admitted to try to ruin my credibility where I can't think of any conceivable way you could have honestly mistaken what I said to mean what you want it to mean.

I never said Isiah was the better player.
I never said Isiah had the better stats.
I never said I based my opinion here predominantly on MVP voting.

And truthfully, your assertions are so far out there, I'd imagine even the people nominally on your side of the argument were already thinking, "Um, what? I think Doctor MJ is totally wrong here but I can't imagine he said that. I better not rely too much on Warspite here."

You cannot play this fast and loose with other people's words and expect people not to notice, and when they do, it undermines your side's entire credibility even when other have made the same case in reasonable manners.

[Brenice]

What impact would Nash have had on those Pistons if he was the point guard instead of Isiah, under the rules for those years? Would he have impacted so much that they would have beaten Chicago in the ECF? Would they have defeated a Portland in the Finals? Would they have defeated a Laker team in the Final? Would they have made the Finals in 88? Would running a pick and pop with Laimbeer be as effective as running a pick and roll with Amare? Would Rodman be effective shooting 3's? Would Nash be as effective sharing the ball with a Dumars or Vinnie Johnson?

What about Zeke? What impact would he have had on those Suns if he was the point guard instead of Nash, under the rules for those years? How good would the Suns be with Zeke instead of Nash? Would they have made it as far as Phoenix did in any year? Would they have made it further? Would he be effective with Amare? Would Amare have to be guarded more closely than a Laimbeer or any other Piston, drawing double teams? Would a Marion be more effective if he focused on rebounds and defense and being stationed less on the 3pt line, playing a Rodman role but with more offense?

Who translates into different systems better, Nash or Zeke?

[G35]

Well most people don't value my opinion because it goes against convention so I can live with that.

Interesting that gets stated while also stating that people on the board all have a similar type of bias. How did they get that "bias"? By talking to each other, listening, and gradually better reasoning won out. The conventions here that deviate from conventions others are used to only exist because people came in with open minds willing to listen such deviation.

In short: That's a cop out dude. The people you're complaining about being sheep are typically more willing and able to objectively analyze the topics here than those with outlier opinions are.

I vehemently disagree that the pro-Nash camp are willing to concede anything negative about Nash. I have my suspicions of some posters that would try to argue Nash over Magic particularly the stat heavy fans. I think those of us that argue against Nash would give Nash his due if he won something or affected his team in other ways besides shooting or passing the ball.

I will actually give it to the pro-Nash camp that they are really the outlier pov. I never thought I would hear someone say that Nash was so much better than Isiah, Payton, Stockton, or KJ. I put them all around the same level and then put them in order as far as my personal preference. But the Nash guys they don't think anyone but Magic is better than Nash and when they go to their advanced stats? Whooo boy in their hearts they think he is just as good but tread lightly in that debate because they that argument is ridiculous......

[G35]

On some level this argument will never be solved because the core argument for one side (Isaiah won twice as the best player on his team and Nash didn't therefore Isaiah is a better player) is presented as an article of faith: winning>losing. Whereas the other side does not share the belief that winning necessarily means one is a better player than someone who does not win, and as soon as this core article of faith is dismissed, there are many potent arguments that favour Nash.

Personally, I think the debunkers have done a good job showing that a) winning doesn't make you better than a player who loses and b) that given this, based on available metrics, team composition, impact on team when in/out of the lineup, quality of opposition, contemporary opinion and other considerations, that Nash is better.

But if you believe he can't be better because he didn't win, you will never accept that these arguments trump Zeke's rings.

That's not my argument.

Winning is greater than losing but doesn't necessarily make you the better player. I think if you measure everything and they are all relatively equal then rings are a point in Isiah's favor.

But the "debunkers" are doing the same thing. Saying stats are better than rings/intangibles or anything else. They are trying to equate stats to impact which would be fine IF ALL THINGS WERE EQUAL. Nash played for OFFENSIVE coaches. Of course his offenses are going to do well. How thick can people be? What happened when Terry Porter came on board? Sun's O-Rtg didn't do so well now did it?

What happened when Shaq came on board? Nash and the Suns didn't fare so well. Nash fans want it both ways. They can complain about coaching when it comes to defense....but OOHHHH NO. Any offensive stats the Suns accomplished was pure Nash. Hypocritical. Especially when they complain so much about D'Antoni and Nelson.

Isiah did have a balanced team and didn't get to do whatever he wanted. He incorporated his skills into a varied offense. Vinnie Johnson was a designated scorer. Aguirre and Dantley were designated scorers. Laimbeer was a jump shooting big man. Dumars had to get his touches. What do you with Rodman/Salley on offense?

Nash was given a ton of offensive talent and he was allowed to make it work any way that he wanted. You can't do a straight comparison of each players impact when their roles are different.....

[Strange Clouds]

The post count was 666 so I just wanted to say hi lol

[rsavaj]

After 45 pages, this is how I feel now:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FYTc55nGEI[/youtube]

[ahonui06]

Prime Steve Nash RS Career 2000-2001 through 2010-2011

16.6PPG, 9.8APG, 3.3RPG, 49.6 FG%, 43.4 3%, 90.9 FT%, 21.4 PER

Dallas finished 53-29 in 2001 (5th seed)
Dallas finished 57-25 in 2002 (4th seed)
Dallas finished 60-22 in 2003 (3rd seed but tied for best overall record)
Dallas finished 52-30 in 2004 (5th seed)
Phoenix finished 62-20 in 2005 (1st seed)
Phoenix finished 54-28 in 2006 (2nd seed)
Phoenix finished 61-21 in 2007 (2nd seed)
Phoenix finished 55-27 in 2008 (6th seed)
Phoenix finished 46-36 in 2009 (No playoffs)
Phoenix finished 54-28 in 2010 (3rd seed)
Phoenix finished 40-42 in 2011 (No playoffs)

Prime Steve Nash PS Career 2000-2001 through 2010-2011

18.4PPG, 9.5APG, 3.7RPG, 47.5 FG%, 41.3 3%, 90.4 FT%, 20.0 PER

2001 - Dallas upset Utah and an aging Stockton & Malone in 1st round in 5 games and then lost to Spurs in 5.
2002 - Dallas swept KG's Wolves and then lost to Kings in 5
2003 - Dallas defeated Blazers & Kings in 7 and then lost to Spurs in 6. DIRK injured his knee late in Game 3 which definitely hurt the team.
2004 - Dallas lost to Kings in 5 in 1st Round
2005 - Suns swept Grizz in 1st Round, Beat Mavs in 6 and lost to Spurs in 5
2006 - Suns defeated Lakers & Clippers in 7 and then lost to Mavs in 6. Amar'e was injured throughout the season
2007 - Suns beat Lakers in 5 and lose to Spurs in 6. Bench incident occurs
2008 - Suns lose to Spurs in 5 in 1st Round
2009 - Suns miss playoffs with Terry Porter. Seems as though the Suns roster was not willing to learn and implement a new offensive system. Most importantly though, Suns did not want to grasp defensive concepts.
2010 - Suns beat Blazers in 6, sweep Spurs, and then lose to Lakers in 6
2011 - Suns miss playoffs yet again. Roster was pretty awful so not that surprising.

Prime Isiah Thomas RS 1981-1982 through 1991-1992

19.7PPG, 9.5APG, 3.7RPG, 45.7 FG%, 28.4 3%, 76.4 FT%, 18.5 PER

Detroit finished 39-43 in 1982 (Detroit missed playoffs)
Detroit finished 37-45 in 1983 (Detroit missed playoffs)
Detroit finished 49-33 in 1984 (4th seed)
Detroit finished 46-36 in 1985 (4th seed)
Detroit finished 46-36 in 1986 (5th seed)
Detroit finished 52-30 in 1987 (3rd seed)
Detroit finished 54-28 in 1988 (2nd seed)
Detroit finished 63-19 in 1989 (1st seed)
Detroit finished 59-23 in 1990 (1st seed)
Detroit finished 50-32 in 1991 (3rd seed)
Detroit finished 48-34 in 1992 (5th seed)

Prime Isiah Thomas PS 1981-1982 through 1991-1992

20.4PPG, 8.9APG, 4.7RPG, 44.1 FG%, 34.6 3%, 76.9 FT%, 19.8PER

1982 - Detroit missed playoffs
1983 - Detroit missed playoffs
1984 - Lost to Knicks in 5
1985 - Swept Nets and lost to Celtics in 5
1986 - Lost to Dominique's Hawks in 4
1987 - Swept Bullets, beat Dominique's Hawks in 5, Lost to Celtics in 7 (Steal by Bird!)
1988 - Beat Bullets in 5, Beat Jordan's Bulls in 5, Beat Bird's Celtics in 6, Lost to Showtime Lakers in 7
1989 - Swept Celtics and Bucks, Beat Jordan's Bulls in 6 and then swept Showtime Lakers to win a title
1990 - Swept Pacers, Beat Knicks in 5, Beat Jordan's Bulls in 7, Beat Blazers in 5 to repeat as champions
1991 - Beat Hawks in 5, Celtics in 6 and swept by Jordan's Bulls
1992 - Lost to Knicks in 5

Obviously, Nash is the better shooter than Isiah. Nash is arguably the greatest shooter in NBA history so he wins all those categories. It should be noted that Isiah managed to improve his 3% tremendously in the playoffs which I find pretty amazing.

Isiah is also more of a scorer by nature and as such his raw points totals are higher than Nash. Isiah is a tad bit underrated when it comes to passing and as evidenced above his assist numbers are about the same as Nash's during their prime years.

Stats-wise there isn't much difference between the two players. They both are better than the others in various aspects and similar in others. However, I believe the biggest difference between the two is offense and defense. Nash is a historic offensive orchestrator while Isiah is the better defensive player.

And of course, the next greatest factor is success throughout the postseason. Isiah was able to win back-to-back titles in 1989 and 1990. It was also very impressive that the Pistons were able to finish with the 1st seed in 1989 and go on to sweep Bird's Celtics and Pressey's Bucks and then defeat Jordan's Bulls before sweeping the Showtime Lakers in the Finals. In 1990, the Pistons once again finished with the top seed and swept Reggie's Pacers, Ewing's Knicks in 5, Jordan's Bulls in 7, and then defeated Drexler's Blazers in 5. These postseason accomplishments to me are what separates Isiah from Steve Nash.

Isiah & Nash both have their strengths as basketball players. Both were tremendous leaders for their respective organizations, but Isiah's Pistons were built around toughness and defense while Nash's Suns were built around high octane offense. This building philosophy was ultimately the deciding factor in getting the proper pieces for the respective players and helping Isiah win 2 titles while Nash still hasn't made the Finals.

[ElGee]

This thread is fascinating...

Winning Bias, we know, has been covered extensively. It's not new. It's used against players all the time. Nash included.

I think what's unique to Nash in this case is what ahonui just said -- there are people who believe in the finality of a style or "system" based on the smallest of margins and the smallest of sample sizes. Such conclusions are scientifically unsound and utterly baseless. It's just not how the world works. Really, it's a trap for our brain.

The example I see constantly is in single-elimination tournaments versus Best of 7s. When a football team wins a playoff game -- and there is a LOT of variance in football -- they are often instantly regarded as the better team. (Let's ignore that much of that is driven by a need to sell newspapers.) I mean, they won the game, and so they are better, and if they played again the majority of people would bet on the team that just won, because, you know, they just "proved" they were better.

But when Minnesota beats San Antonio to steal HCA, or the Pistons grab G1 from the Lakers, or the Hornets win in LA, no one shifts the line heavily for the next game. They barely flinch, in fact. In that case, the sample size issue is explicit - people are able to look at the two teams competing and think "well, they did it once, but it's not that indicative of anything conclusive and I still think LA wins the serieseasily...they are still the better team."

Yet they can't come to the same conclusions when sample size is implicit, as it is in the NFL playoffs. It's kind of a startling insight into the way the brain tries implementing inductive reasoning.

So what is it about Steve Nash that makes him a lightning rod (and much of the same for rhetoric used in this thread)?

1. He was a system player
2. You can't win with that system

Yet you CAN win with that system. There's significantly more evidence suggesting you can, from the success of the other offensive dynasties in NBA history, to the success of Nash's Suns teams themselves. But people are severely limited -- even handicapped -- by unbelievably limiting factors:

1. Steve Nash did not win a championship
2. Steve Nash had the same opportunities to win as everyone else, therefore his system is conclusive a failure

It's a massive breakdown in logic, that ignores (implicitly) obvious factors like:
1. Steve Nash's Suns teams were good enough to win, based on our best predictive team measurements, twice. The sample size is roughly two.
2. In both of those seasons, they had incredibly unfortunate internal luck
3. In both of those seasons, they ran into a BETTER, dynastic team
4. In one of those seasons (2007), despite circumstances the Suns were INCREDIBLY close (or better) by all reasonable accounts than the Spurs.

They simply happened to lose in the end, and it's something people can't get past IMO.

System = failure --> Nash is limiting.

Similarly, they said the same thing about Michael Jordan in 1990. Or that the Colts had to change to win a Super Bowl. (System = failure --> Pass Happy no run defense is limit) And given more opportunities, and better circumstances, Nash's teams could easily have won a title...that they didn't doesn't change their quality as a team one iota. And as a team, they were clearly capable of winning a championship, which, ironically, is the primary argument used against Steve Nash by some people (his system just couldn't win a championship).

[C-izMe]

I find it funny that the best argument for Nash is "In Isiah's championship years he is not as good as Nash in him prime non-championship years. He couldn't win because of situations not him so bringing up Isiah's monstrous finals performances are irrelevant. Also do not bring prime Isiah into this, he never one an MVP. He couldn't even be the best point guard in the league at that time. Averaging 21 and 14 is beyond easy, Nash could do it in his sleep. "
Here are the facts:
1. In his prime Isiah was playing in the best era of the NBA in terms of overall talent in the league. He was at a level that only 5 other points have played at early in his career. Magic, Stock, Nash, Paul, and Payton are the only guards to play that good for over two years. He didn't win because of the abundance of talent all around the league.
2. Nash is statistically better than every point guard minus Magic
3. Nash wasn't a dominant personality. He was very tough, but his teams never had an edge. You need an edge to win a championship.
4. Isiah's teams redefined edge. He had a calmish Rodman along with Lambs, and other tough people to make his players strong and mentally ready.
5. Nash played with Dirk and was taken to the playoffs early in his career.
I was originally Kidd over Nash and Nash fans convinced me I was wrong. I had no idea who was the better of the two, but Isiah has a better argument. He played before 88 and he played better. Nash also played before 05 and he played like crap in comparison to prime Isiah and prime Nash. Comparing championship years Isiah to Prime Nash is unfair. Nash played at a never-mentioned-with-the-greatest level for 10 years before he got to top 3 all time level for 5 years. Doesn't make him second to magic IMO.

[bastillon]

1. Steve Nash's Suns teams were good enough to win, based on our best predictive team measurements, twice. The sample size is roughly two.

sample size hasn't been emphasized enough. Nash only had 2 legit shots at the title (both times with external issues as you said - JJ's injury and Donaghy + Stern). meanwhile Malone had a shot to get to the finals for like 10 years ? how much time did Shaq need ? he was getting swept in the 90s and didn't win until all the competition retired or was too old to play anyway. how about Wilt ? how many opportunities did he waste with bad performances ? or Kareem in the early 70s ? Dr J ?

nobody counts opportunities in Nash's case.

[rrravenred]

I vehemently disagree that the pro-Nash camp are willing to concede anything negative about Nash. I have my suspicions of some posters that would try to argue Nash over Magic particularly the stat heavy fans.

That was (I think) one poster in this thread, who was immediately derided by both sides, and none of the heavier stat-heads in this argument (DoctorMJ, ElGee, Bastillon) have made that claim.

Generalising about "camps" and "they're all like that" arguments are generally unhelpful (and I'm perhaps guilty of that as well).

I think those of us that argue against Nash would give Nash his due if he won something or affected his team in other ways besides shooting or passing the ball.

The arguments that Isiah DID affect his teams in other ways have been put, but haven't really been supported with a lot of evidence (which is inevitably the case with arguments centering on intangibles).

For Nash, we've generally got speculative statements about "what Nash told management to do" or "what Nash didn't management to do" which look a hell of a lot like inventions on the spur of the moment in order to support a point.

To put it another way, what Isiah supporters expect Nash to have done has always been really fuzzy, and (with the possible exception of defense) I've never really heard a clear, concrete argument about what concrete aspects of Isiah's game they expect Nash to have.

I will actually give it to the pro-Nash camp that they are really the outlier pov. I never thought I would hear someone say that Nash was so much better than Isiah, Payton, Stockton, or KJ. I put them all around the same level and then put them in order as far as my personal preference. But the Nash guys they don't think anyone but Magic is better than Nash and when they go to their advanced stats? Whooo boy in their hearts they think he is just as good but tread lightly in that debate because they that argument is ridiculous......

Your personal incredulity is noted.

Once again, you're really generalising, and once again, don't pick the outlier as representative of the entire "Nash Camp".

Magic, Oscar and (most probably) Frazier are pretty clearly ahead of Nash all time, but after that it gets fuzzy, depending on what it is you value. Zeke, Stockton, Kidd, Payton and KJ were all great players who signficantly impacted the game (all too briefly in KJ's case), but I personally put Nash at the top of that pile, as I value distribution, team and play management and scoring and playmaking efficiency.

And as I said, ONE poster in this thread has advanced the view that Nash is better than Magic. Don't get your intestines knotted over it.

[G35]

This thread is fascinating...

Winning Bias, we know, has been covered extensively. It's not new. It's used against players all the time. Nash included.

I think what's unique to Nash in this case is what ahonui just said -- there are people who believe in the finality of a style or "system" based on the smallest of margins and the smallest of sample sizes. Such conclusions are scientifically unsound and utterly baseless. It's just not how the world works. Really, it's a trap for our brain.

The example I see constantly is in single-elimination tournaments versus Best of 7s. When a football team wins a playoff game -- and there is a LOT of variance in football -- they are often instantly regarded as the better team. (Let's ignore that much of that is driven by a need to sell newspapers.) I mean, they won the game, and so they are better, and if they played again the majority of people would bet on the team that just won, because, you know, they just "proved" they were better.

But when Minnesota beats San Antonio to steal HCA, or the Pistons grab G1 from the Lakers, or the Hornets win in LA, no one shifts the line heavily for the next game. They barely flinch, in fact. In that case, the sample size issue is explicit - people are able to look at the two teams competing and think "well, they did it once, but it's not that indicative of anything conclusive and I still think LA wins the serieseasily...they are still the better team."

Yet they can't come to the same conclusions when sample size is implicit, as it is in the NFL playoffs. It's kind of a startling insight into the way the brain tries implementing inductive reasoning.

So what is it about Steve Nash that makes him a lightning rod (and much of the same for rhetoric used in this thread)?

1. He was a system player
2. You can't win with that system

Yet you CAN win with that system. There's significantly more evidence suggesting you can, from the success of the other offensive dynasties in NBA history, to the success of Nash's Suns teams themselves. But people are severely limited -- even handicapped -- by unbelievably limiting factors:

1. Steve Nash did not win a championship
2. Steve Nash had the same opportunities to win as everyone else, therefore his system is conclusive a failure

It's a massive breakdown in logic, that ignores (implicitly) obvious factors like:
1. Steve Nash's Suns teams were good enough to win, based on our best predictive team measurements, twice. The sample size is roughly two.
2. In both of those seasons, they had incredibly unfortunate internal luck
3. In both of those seasons, they ran into a BETTER, dynastic team
4. In one of those seasons (2007), despite circumstances the Suns were INCREDIBLY close (or better) by all reasonable accounts than the Spurs.

They simply happened to lose in the end, and it's something people can't get past IMO.

System = failure --> Nash is limiting.

Similarly, they said the same thing about Michael Jordan in 1990. Or that the Colts had to change to win a Super Bowl. (System = failure --> Pass Happy no run defense is limit) And given more opportunities, and better circumstances, Nash's teams could easily have won a title...that they didn't doesn't change their quality as a team one iota. And as a team, they were clearly capable of winning a championship, which, ironically, is the primary argument used against Steve Nash by some people (his system just couldn't win a championship).

You should ask some of the pro-Nash guys about Nash being a system guy. Whenever I have seen someone say that Nash is a system player they say he didn't play in a system, he "was" the system. That before D'Antoni nobody utilized Nash properly or played to his strengths.

I think Phoenix did play to Nash's strengths by surrounding him with lots of shooters and players that could play an up and down tempo. I think that the players that were chosen to build the Suns were selected on purpose. It's not like the coaching staff and GM said, "Well this is what we got Steve so make it work." You can't look at Amare/Diaw/Marion and say "We are good in the front court. Nothing to do here." Yes they are going to create mismatches, yes they are all good offensively, yes they work well with Nash. But they don't get enough rebounds or have enough defense.

I think Nash fell into a great situation with D'Antoni that really clicked with him. He was nowhere near as good in Dallas. So when you talk about Nash and his successes with the offense he has to take the lumps with failures with the defense. I mean I don't get where people say the Suns don't have a system. Didn't we hear SSOL in '05?

Here is one Suns fans opinion of the Suns system:

http://phoenix.fanster.com/2009/01/28/a ... ransition/

I agree with some of your points.

But I think there are a lot of generalizations. SSOL is beautiful and entertaining basketball but I don’t think it wins championships. Some of the points I’ve raised before.

Reliance on a few guys (7 to 8) in the entire season and the playoffs — Stamina is obviously a problem here
Absolute dependence on Steve Nash centered offense. When Nash is guarded well, like with Bowen, the offense shuts as well.
“Pace-centered defense” or sucking teams into SSOL so they’d rush their shots and hope they’d get tired and miss. In every playoff game against the Spurs, we couldn’t get a stop when we needed to. The essential variable in pace-centered defense is for the teams to get follow the tempo of the Suns. If they dont follow the pace and rather play slow, like with Detroit before (albeit their team is in decline too), then the Suns offense stagnated too. It’s also hard to argue that if not for Stern or injuries, the Suns would have pass through, because counterfactuals will always be counterfactuals.
The Suns have been running the same offense for the past four years. Teams have certainly adapted to it. That’s why it was harder for the Suns to win games last year even before the Shaq Trade.
True that SSOL is unpredictable basketball, maybe in terms of entertainment, but not in terms of strategy. You have to rely on quick passing, fast breaks, quick drives, cuts, volume 3 point shooting, and PNR. It didn’t work with elite teams like the Lakers or Spurs last year.
Teams that won using offense, Shaq’s Lakers and Hakeem’s Rockets were very much low post offense teams. The good thing about the low post is relying on high% shots instead of “good shooting nights”.
The Celtics demonstrate an effective M2M and team defense basketball. Something that the Spurs were doing for the past years. Suns’ players stagnated on that aspect of the game.
Another problem with SSOL is it’s an ego filler system. It keeps guys happy by padding their stats with production. What’s the problem here? Obviously, when the offense switched during Porter, everyone’s stats went down and complained. I think with basketball, it has to be a team effort where people are ready to sacrifice their personal gain for the good of the team. SSOL inflated the stats of players in the Suns, not to mention their “market value” (better salaries). Any protest Porter’s system is obviously related to SSOL.

[ahonui06]

This thread is fascinating...

Winning Bias, we know, has been covered extensively. It's not new. It's used against players all the time. Nash included.

I think what's unique to Nash in this case is what ahonui just said -- there are people who believe in the finality of a style or "system" based on the smallest of margins and the smallest of sample sizes. Such conclusions are scientifically unsound and utterly baseless. It's just not how the world works. Really, it's a trap for our brain.

The example I see constantly is in single-elimination tournaments versus Best of 7s. When a football team wins a playoff game -- and there is a LOT of variance in football -- they are often instantly regarded as the better team. (Let's ignore that much of that is driven by a need to sell newspapers.) I mean, they won the game, and so they are better, and if they played again the majority of people would bet on the team that just won, because, you know, they just "proved" they were better.

But when Minnesota beats San Antonio to steal HCA, or the Pistons grab G1 from the Lakers, or the Hornets win in LA, no one shifts the line heavily for the next game. They barely flinch, in fact. In that case, the sample size issue is explicit - people are able to look at the two teams competing and think "well, they did it once, but it's not that indicative of anything conclusive and I still think LA wins the serieseasily...they are still the better team."

Yet they can't come to the same conclusions when sample size is implicit, as it is in the NFL playoffs. It's kind of a startling insight into the way the brain tries implementing inductive reasoning.

So what is it about Steve Nash that makes him a lightning rod (and much of the same for rhetoric used in this thread)?

1. He was a system player
2. You can't win with that system

Yet you CAN win with that system. There's significantly more evidence suggesting you can, from the success of the other offensive dynasties in NBA history, to the success of Nash's Suns teams themselves. But people are severely limited -- even handicapped -- by unbelievably limiting factors:

1. Steve Nash did not win a championship
2. Steve Nash had the same opportunities to win as everyone else, therefore his system is conclusive a failure

It's a massive breakdown in logic, that ignores (implicitly) obvious factors like:
1. Steve Nash's Suns teams were good enough to win, based on our best predictive team measurements, twice. The sample size is roughly two.
2. In both of those seasons, they had incredibly unfortunate internal luck
3. In both of those seasons, they ran into a BETTER, dynastic team
4. In one of those seasons (2007), despite circumstances the Suns were INCREDIBLY close (or better) by all reasonable accounts than the Spurs.

They simply happened to lose in the end, and it's something people can't get past IMO.

System = failure --> Nash is limiting.

Similarly, they said the same thing about Michael Jordan in 1990. Or that the Colts had to change to win a Super Bowl. (System = failure --> Pass Happy no run defense is limit) And given more opportunities, and better circumstances, Nash's teams could easily have won a title...that they didn't doesn't change their quality as a team one iota. And as a team, they were clearly capable of winning a championship, which, ironically, is the primary argument used against Steve Nash by some people (his system just couldn't win a championship).

You should ask some of the pro-Nash guys about Nash being a system guy. Whenever I have seen someone say that Nash is a system player they say he didn't play in a system, he "was" the system. That before D'Antoni nobody utilized Nash properly or played to his strengths.

I think Phoenix did play to Nash's strengths by surrounding him with lots of shooters and players that could play an up and down tempo. I think that the players that were chosen to build the Suns were selected on purpose. It's not like the coaching staff and GM said, "Well this is what we got Steve so make it work." You can't look at Amare/Diaw/Marion and say "We are good in the front court. Nothing to do here." Yes they are going to create mismatches, yes they are all good offensively, yes they work well with Nash. But they don't get enough rebounds or have enough defense.

I think Nash fell into a great situation with D'Antoni that really clicked with him. He was nowhere near as good in Dallas. So when you talk about Nash and his successes with the offense he has to take the lumps with failures with the defense. I mean I don't get where people say the Suns don't have a system. Didn't we hear SSOL in '05?

Here is one Suns fans opinion of the Suns system:

http://phoenix.fanster.com/2009/01/28/a ... ransition/

I agree with some of your points.

But I think there are a lot of generalizations. SSOL is beautiful and entertaining basketball but I don’t think it wins championships. Some of the points I’ve raised before.

Reliance on a few guys (7 to 8) in the entire season and the playoffs — Stamina is obviously a problem here
Absolute dependence on Steve Nash centered offense. When Nash is guarded well, like with Bowen, the offense shuts as well.
“Pace-centered defense” or sucking teams into SSOL so they’d rush their shots and hope they’d get tired and miss. In every playoff game against the Spurs, we couldn’t get a stop when we needed to. The essential variable in pace-centered defense is for the teams to get follow the tempo of the Suns. If they dont follow the pace and rather play slow, like with Detroit before (albeit their team is in decline too), then the Suns offense stagnated too. It’s also hard to argue that if not for Stern or injuries, the Suns would have pass through, because counterfactuals will always be counterfactuals.
The Suns have been running the same offense for the past four years. Teams have certainly adapted to it. That’s why it was harder for the Suns to win games last year even before the Shaq Trade.
True that SSOL is unpredictable basketball, maybe in terms of entertainment, but not in terms of strategy. You have to rely on quick passing, fast breaks, quick drives, cuts, volume 3 point shooting, and PNR. It didn’t work with elite teams like the Lakers or Spurs last year.
Teams that won using offense, Shaq’s Lakers and Hakeem’s Rockets were very much low post offense teams. The good thing about the low post is relying on high% shots instead of “good shooting nights”.
The Celtics demonstrate an effective M2M and team defense basketball. Something that the Spurs were doing for the past years. Suns’ players stagnated on that aspect of the game.
Another problem with SSOL is it’s an ego filler system. It keeps guys happy by padding their stats with production. What’s the problem here? Obviously, when the offense switched during Porter, everyone’s stats went down and complained. I think with basketball, it has to be a team effort where people are ready to sacrifice their personal gain for the good of the team. SSOL inflated the stats of players in the Suns, not to mention their “market value” (better salaries). Any protest Porter’s system is obviously related to SSOL.

Nailed it.

If Nash was the system I guess the system was broken in Dallas. Nash flourished once he returned to Phoenix and began playing with D'Antoni in an extremely uptempo system predicated on Nash dominating the ball and being the trigger man for the entire offense.

[rrravenred]

Nailed it.

If Nash was the system I guess the system was broken in Dallas. Nash flourished once he returned to Phoenix and began playing with D'Antoni in an extremely uptempo system predicated on Nash dominating the ball and being the trigger man for the entire offense.

FWIW

Pace -

Dallas 2003-2004: 93.2 (2nd in league)
Phoenix: 2004-2005: 95.9 (led league)

Don't really think that two estimated possessions represents a paradigm shift in tempo.

[ahonui06]

Nailed it.

If Nash was the system I guess the system was broken in Dallas. Nash flourished once he returned to Phoenix and began playing with D'Antoni in an extremely uptempo system predicated on Nash dominating the ball and being the trigger man for the entire offense.

FWIW

Pace -

Dallas 2003-2004: 93.2 (2nd in league)
Phoenix: 2004-2005: 95.9 (led league)

Don't really think that two estimated possessions represents a paradigm shift in tempo.

First, those are only two years.

Secondly, Nash has much more control in the Phoenix offense compared to Dallas. The Mavericks had more of a 3-headed monster with Nash/Finley/DIRK in the early 2000s. There were much more isolation plays in Dallas compared to the uptempo and P&R Phoenix system.

[ElGee]

This thread is fascinating...

Winning Bias, we know, has been covered extensively. It's not new. It's used against players all the time. Nash included.

I think what's unique to Nash in this case is what ahonui just said -- there are people who believe in the finality of a style or "system" based on the smallest of margins and the smallest of sample sizes. Such conclusions are scientifically unsound and utterly baseless. It's just not how the world works. Really, it's a trap for our brain.

The example I see constantly is in single-elimination tournaments versus Best of 7s. When a football team wins a playoff game -- and there is a LOT of variance in football -- they are often instantly regarded as the better team. (Let's ignore that much of that is driven by a need to sell newspapers.) I mean, they won the game, and so they are better, and if they played again the majority of people would bet on the team that just won, because, you know, they just "proved" they were better.

But when Minnesota beats San Antonio to steal HCA, or the Pistons grab G1 from the Lakers, or the Hornets win in LA, no one shifts the line heavily for the next game. They barely flinch, in fact. In that case, the sample size issue is explicit - people are able to look at the two teams competing and think "well, they did it once, but it's not that indicative of anything conclusive and I still think LA wins the serieseasily...they are still the better team."

Yet they can't come to the same conclusions when sample size is implicit, as it is in the NFL playoffs. It's kind of a startling insight into the way the brain tries implementing inductive reasoning.

So what is it about Steve Nash that makes him a lightning rod (and much of the same for rhetoric used in this thread)?

1. He was a system player
2. You can't win with that system

Yet you CAN win with that system. There's significantly more evidence suggesting you can, from the success of the other offensive dynasties in NBA history, to the success of Nash's Suns teams themselves. But people are severely limited -- even handicapped -- by unbelievably limiting factors:

1. Steve Nash did not win a championship
2. Steve Nash had the same opportunities to win as everyone else, therefore his system is conclusive a failure

It's a massive breakdown in logic, that ignores (implicitly) obvious factors like:
1. Steve Nash's Suns teams were good enough to win, based on our best predictive team measurements, twice. The sample size is roughly two.
2. In both of those seasons, they had incredibly unfortunate internal luck
3. In both of those seasons, they ran into a BETTER, dynastic team
4. In one of those seasons (2007), despite circumstances the Suns were INCREDIBLY close (or better) by all reasonable accounts than the Spurs.

They simply happened to lose in the end, and it's something people can't get past IMO.

System = failure --> Nash is limiting.

Similarly, they said the same thing about Michael Jordan in 1990. Or that the Colts had to change to win a Super Bowl. (System = failure --> Pass Happy no run defense is limit) And given more opportunities, and better circumstances, Nash's teams could easily have won a title...that they didn't doesn't change their quality as a team one iota. And as a team, they were clearly capable of winning a championship, which, ironically, is the primary argument used against Steve Nash by some people (his system just couldn't win a championship).

You should ask some of the pro-Nash guys about Nash being a system guy. Whenever I have seen someone say that Nash is a system player they say he didn't play in a system, he "was" the system. That before D'Antoni nobody utilized Nash properly or played to his strengths.

I think Phoenix did play to Nash's strengths by surrounding him with lots of shooters and players that could play an up and down tempo. I think that the players that were chosen to build the Suns were selected on purpose. It's not like the coaching staff and GM said, "Well this is what we got Steve so make it work." You can't look at Amare/Diaw/Marion and say "We are good in the front court. Nothing to do here." Yes they are going to create mismatches, yes they are all good offensively, yes they work well with Nash. But they don't get enough rebounds or have enough defense.

I think Nash fell into a great situation with D'Antoni that really clicked with him. He was nowhere near as good in Dallas. So when you talk about Nash and his successes with the offense he has to take the lumps with failures with the defense. I mean I don't get where people say the Suns don't have a system. Didn't we hear SSOL in '05?

Here is one Suns fans opinion of the Suns system:

http://phoenix.fanster.com/2009/01/28/a ... ransition/

I agree with some of your points.

But I think there are a lot of generalizations. SSOL is beautiful and entertaining basketball but I don’t think it wins championships. Some of the points I’ve raised before.

Reliance on a few guys (7 to 8) in the entire season and the playoffs — Stamina is obviously a problem here
Absolute dependence on Steve Nash centered offense. When Nash is guarded well, like with Bowen, the offense shuts as well.
“Pace-centered defense” or sucking teams into SSOL so they’d rush their shots and hope they’d get tired and miss. In every playoff game against the Spurs, we couldn’t get a stop when we needed to. The essential variable in pace-centered defense is for the teams to get follow the tempo of the Suns. If they dont follow the pace and rather play slow, like with Detroit before (albeit their team is in decline too), then the Suns offense stagnated too. It’s also hard to argue that if not for Stern or injuries, the Suns would have pass through, because counterfactuals will always be counterfactuals.
The Suns have been running the same offense for the past four years. Teams have certainly adapted to it. That’s why it was harder for the Suns to win games last year even before the Shaq Trade.
True that SSOL is unpredictable basketball, maybe in terms of entertainment, but not in terms of strategy. You have to rely on quick passing, fast breaks, quick drives, cuts, volume 3 point shooting, and PNR. It didn’t work with elite teams like the Lakers or Spurs last year.
Teams that won using offense, Shaq’s Lakers and Hakeem’s Rockets were very much low post offense teams. The good thing about the low post is relying on high% shots instead of “good shooting nights”.
The Celtics demonstrate an effective M2M and team defense basketball. Something that the Spurs were doing for the past years. Suns’ players stagnated on that aspect of the game.
Another problem with SSOL is it’s an ego filler system. It keeps guys happy by padding their stats with production. What’s the problem here? Obviously, when the offense switched during Porter, everyone’s stats went down and complained. I think with basketball, it has to be a team effort where people are ready to sacrifice their personal gain for the good of the team. SSOL inflated the stats of players in the Suns, not to mention their “market value” (better salaries). Any protest Porter’s system is obviously related to SSOL.

You somehow found a post full of misinformation that represents the epitome of the all the pitfalls I described.

-Bowen didn't really guard Nash well. No one did. His individual numbers were great against San Antonio, (22.2 ppg 59.1% TS 11.7 apg 4.5 tpg) as were the team offenses. http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/19/the ... ince-1980/
http://basketballvalue.com/teamvsteam.p ... &team2=SAS

-Phoenix was arguably better in the halfcourt. Pace wasn't a huge issue. In fact, the slower the pace, the better the Suns offense performed in 2007 (small correlation of -0.16. The 87 Showtime Lakers - a fastbreak team - had a positive correlation of 0.28.

-Phoenix's offense wasn't really a high variance offense. It's standard deviation in ORtg in 2007 was 11.0 points per game. The 89 Pistons was 10.3 points per game. The team Phoenix lost to, San Antonio, had a standard deviation of 11.7.

-Teams didn't "adapt" adapt as the post claimed. They were historically good on offense with Shaq in the lineup and they were historically good in 2010. As they were in 05 and 07. I don't think a few guys complained, let alone "everyone," at any point.

The post you imported is exactly what I wrote about. A bias, rife with errors that contradict what actually happened, formed around a notion that the system can't win.

[G35]

You somehow found a post full of misinformation that represents the epitome of the all the pitfalls I described.

-Bowen didn't really guard Nash well. No one did. His individual numbers were great against San Antonio, (22.2 ppg 59.1% TS 11.7 apg 4.5 tpg) as were the team offenses. http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/19/the ... ince-1980/
http://basketballvalue.com/teamvsteam.p ... &team2=SAS

-Phoenix was arguably better in the halfcourt. Pace wasn't a huge issue. In fact, the slower the pace, the better the Suns offense performed in 2007 (small correlation of -0.16. The 87 Showtime Lakers - a fastbreak team - had a positive correlation of 0.28.

-Phoenix's offense wasn't really a high variance offense. It's standard deviation in ORtg in 2007 was 11.0 points per game. The 89 Pistons was 10.3 points per game. The team Phoenix lost to, San Antonio, had a standard deviation of 11.7.

-Teams didn't "adapt" adapt as the post claimed. They were historically good on offense with Shaq in the lineup and they were historically good in 2010. As they were in 05 and 07. I don't think a few guys complained, let alone "everyone," at any point.

The post you imported is exactly what I wrote about. A bias, rife with errors that contradict what actually happened, formed around a notion that the system can't win.

What you are failing to see is that it's not that Phoenix didn't play well offensively. It's not that Nash didn't play well offensively.

The Spurs had a plan and it was a simple one. Keep Phoenix from shooting three's and make them shoot two point shots. I have already posted in other threads how poorly Phoenix shot the three ball which was a major component of the SSOL.

And why do you keep talking about Phoenix' offense? The Spurs were willing to concede that the Suns were going to score points. They just knew that they just had to stop Phoenix at key points in the game. I look at it similar to the Heat-Mavericks in the finals. Dallas stopped the Heat when the had to not the whole game. That's what the Spurs did and they knew that the could easily score on the Phoenix defense. The Suns offense was predicated from outside in and at points in the game the Suns shooting would go south. It inevitably happens. The Suns didn't always take high percentage shots because of how their offense goes through Nash.

And they were absolutely terrible on defense with Shaq in the lineup. How can they have someone like Shaq who was better than Amare or Frye and get that bad on defense.....