Peak Chris Paul vs Peak Steve Nash

[G35]

Why do people think that Nash's impact on offense means his impact is greater than any other PG's impact as a whole? And Nash's impact wasn't that great on the Mavericks. What makes anyone think it would be greater outside of Phoenix? Can you quantify that, because we already have an example of him with another team in his prime and his impact......

[Alhazred]

Nash for me.

Paul had huge individual #'s in 07/08, but it didn't translate into a great offensive team. New Orleans ranked 9th in PTS/G and 8th in FG%.

Nash led teams were pretty much a lock to finish 1st in both those categories regardless of who he was playing with (ie the year Amare missed the whole season and the Suns still killed it offensively).

This.

[raptorforlife88]

Why do people think that Nash's impact on offense means his impact is greater than any other PG's impact as a whole? And Nash's impact wasn't that great on the Mavericks. What makes anyone think it would be greater outside of Phoenix? Can you quantify that, because we already have an example of him with another team in his prime and his impact......

Has this not been explained a million times over? The offense in Dallas wasn't run though Nash, and for some reason Michael Finley had the ball a lot despite being rather inefficient. If the offense was run through Nash he would have likely put up the same numbers he did in Pheonix. It's simply a matter of utilization. For example everyone knows that James Harden could put up star numbers, but with Durant and Westbrook he won't be utilized to his maximum abilities. When he's made the the first option, his impact will obviously be greater. The same thing to a slightly lesser extent happened with Joe Johnson going to Atlanta.

Also just throwing this out there, but Nash is still statistically performing like he did in his prime with his current numbers. This despite the fact that the teams pace is 20th in the league. That means Phoenix is the 10th slowest team in the league if you're not picking up on that. This is clearly not the same offense being run from six or seven years ago. So the point about Phoenix's system or whatever else is pretty much moot.

As for the question on hand, it's close but I would lean towards Paul because his season was just absurd. He was putting up a PER of 30, handling a large amount of usage ridiculously efficiently. He hasn't managed to get back to it since, but he was in other league. Nash's 06/07 season was also ridiculously efficient, but doesn't quite match up to it.

[Speedlot]

Nash much higher peak. Paul has random "god" mode. Ala the game against Miami, Playoffs against Lakers.

Overall though, other PG are just simply better constantly. Drose of last year/this year. Deron SEVERAL years.

"both" of these godly PG hasn't done anything though to see the finals.

[JustCame]

Paul easily.

Nash is one of the more overrated players in history.

+1

..apparently Nash is better than Magic now.

[Mr. Natural]

Impact stats > Traditional stats.

A player's contribution to a team cannot be truly evaluated through traditional stats. For instance, a great shooter helps space the floor opening things up for other teammates yet this is not accounted for in the boxscore. There are numerous others factors that help improve a team that is not recorded by traditional stats.

With this in mind, I voted for Nash. His impact is much greater than what is shown in the traditional stats and I prefer his peak to Paul's.

[GhostsOfGil]

Impact stats > Traditional stats.

A player's contribution to a team cannot be truly evaluated through traditional stats. For instance, a great shooter helps space the floor opening things up for other teammates yet this is not accounted for in the boxscore. There are numerous others factors that help improve a team that is not recorded by traditional stats.

With this in mind, I voted for Nash. His impact is much greater than what is shown in the traditional stats and I prefer his peak to Paul's.

I agree. Prime Nash lead a devastating and efficient offense that didnt always reflect in his personal stat line.

[Rapcity_11]

Paul easily.

Nash is one of the more overrated players in history.

+1

..apparently Nash is better than Magic now.

According to one guy...

On topic, CP3 wins the box-score comparison however both guys are known for beyond the box-score impact.

[G35]

The slow pace benefited Paul. He also likes to play at a slow pace. EVERYTHING ran through Paul that season. I highly doubt a quicker pace would have any impact on his scoring or assist numbers.

Has this not been explained a million times over? The offense in Dallas wasn't run though Nash, and for some reason Michael Finley had the ball a lot despite being rather inefficient. If the offense was run through Nash he would have likely put up the same numbers he did in Pheonix. It's simply a matter of utilization.

Now people complain about Lebron, Kobe, or Wade about dominating the ball and that's why they accumulate so many stats. When one player dominates the ball of course he is going to make a bigger impact/better stats. Duh.

The problem with Nash dominating the ball is the Suns didn't win. Make all the excuses you want but the Mavericks won with Kidd giving the ball up to Dirk to make plays. Nash dominating the ball will get you great efficiency but it doesn't guarantee you winning the game. His offense hasn't been good enough to beat other teams, especially when the IDENTITY of the Suns becomes offense oriented.

And as was said in the Oscar thread, Nash had the benefit of many, many great three point shooters. He has had more three point threats surrounding him than just about any other PG in NBA history. It's like the Suns liked accumulating three point shooters for some peculiar reason instead of getting a defensive presence....I wonder why?

[RandomKnight]

Impact stats > Traditional stats.

A player's contribution to a team cannot be truly evaluated through traditional stats. For instance, a great shooter helps space the floor opening things up for other teammates yet this is not accounted for in the boxscore. There are numerous others factors that help improve a team that is not recorded by traditional stats.

With this in mind, I voted for Nash. His impact is much greater than what is shown in the traditional stats and I prefer his peak to Paul's.

I agree. Prime Nash lead a devastating and efficient offense that didnt always reflect in his personal stat line.

These two guys get it, and are making the essence of my argument. The thing is, people just don't realize what an extreme outlier Nash is.

And in answer to the question above, his extreme impact on team offense makes his average defense (and it is average - not below) a matter of indifference in comparing him with great two way point guards like Paul.

[G35]

According to one guy...

On topic, CP3 wins the box-score comparison however both guys are known for beyond the box-score impact.

Really....Nash has some intangibles, some leadership qualities that he is identified with? I haven't seen them yet, because if you are comparing a supposed elite player vs elite player intangibles generally means winning something.....

[G35]

These two guys get it, and are making the essence of my argument. The thing is, people just don't realize what an extreme outlier Nash is.

And in answer to the question above, his extreme impact on team offense makes his average defense (and it is average - not below) a matter of indifference in comparing him with great two way point guards like Paul.

It would make his an the outlier of all time that he led such a devestating offense with a decided lacking defense and won something. As is, Nash and those Suns teams are going to be the Loyola Marymount, Denver Nuggets, Paul Westhead, Houston Oilers run n shoot, Buffalo Bills, Run TMC of their era.

Outliers.....

[Rapcity_11]

According to one guy...

On topic, CP3 wins the box-score comparison however both guys are known for beyond the box-score impact.

Really....Nash has some intangibles, some leadership qualities that he is identified with? I haven't seen them yet, because if you are comparing a supposed elite player vs elite player intangibles generally means winning something.....

Well Nash has been voted as the best leader in the NBA numerous times but that's not what I'm talking about at all. A floor general's impact goes well beyond the box-score. You've been involved in many Nash threads, this has been covered to death.

Nash has certainly won more than Paul, no?

[Rapcity_11]

Now people complain about Lebron, Kobe, or Wade about dominating the ball and that's why they accumulate so many stats. When one player dominates the ball of course he is going to make a bigger impact/better stats. Duh.

Which explains Nash's slightly worse individual production in Dallas, a concept you have repeatedly failed to grasp.

The problem with Nash dominating the ball is the Suns didn't win. Make all the excuses you want but the Mavericks won with Kidd giving the ball up to Dirk to make plays. Nash dominating the ball will get you great efficiency but it doesn't guarantee you winning the game. His offense hasn't been good enough to beat other teams, especially when the IDENTITY of the Suns becomes offense oriented.

See here you're mixing up offense with the end result on the scoreboard. The Nash-led Suns and Mavs offenses have been historically great in the PLAYOFFS. Looking at the best playoff offenses since 1980 Nash quarterbacked the top 2 and 5 of the top 20 offenses.

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/19/the ... ince-1980/

Did Nash ever win, obviously not. Isolating offense however, he has led all-time great offense. And what's a PG's main responsibility...?

[rrravenred]

Did Nash ever win, obviously not. Isolating offense however, he has led all-time great offense. And what's a PG's main responsibility...?

... making sure his bigs defend, block out and don't stand up from the bench when you get hip-checked....

Obviously.

[Hemskyfanboy83]

The whole Nash never won is a poor argument as well IMO.

Yes he didn't win and yes that is a knock against him but you have to look at the situations.

Year 1: Joe Johnson breaks his face and misses the series against the Spurs in the WCF.
Year 2: Amare misses the whole season, and Nash carries the Suns to Game 6 of the WCF against the Mavs with a supporting cast of Marion, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa, Tim Thomas
Year 3: After a huge comeback on the road in Game 4, Amare gets suspended for game 5. Suns lose at home and lose the series in 6 to the Spurs.

The Suns suffered some terrible luck those first 3 years. I am willing to bet if healthy, they likely win at least 1 championship in this time frame given that the East was pretty bad.

[G35]

Well Nash has been voted as the best leader in the NBA numerous times but that's not what I'm talking about at all. A floor general's impact goes well beyond the box-score. You've been involved in many Nash threads, this has been covered to death.

Nash has certainly won more than Paul, no?

I haven't heard anything about Nash being awarded any best leader awards. But that's also besides the point. The only argument I ever hear about Nash is his impact statistically and how he led these great offenses. I haven't heard anything else about his intangibles. I don't hear of his great motivating tactics, his inspiring displays on the court, or overcoming the odds and winning. Intangibles from my pov is that you may not be the best statistical player but you make plays or inspire your teammates to help them win against the odds. If anything Nash wins he's suppose to and loses when he's suppose to. He does what is expected.

Which leads into Nash has won more than Paul. Yes he has. No doubt about it. He has also been on two separate teams that had twice as much talent on it than Paul has had. So Nash once again does what is expected. When you have All NBA talent on your team you should win a lot in the regular season. You should win in the playoff's. What has Nash done without All NBA talent?

Which explains Nash's slightly worse individual production in Dallas, a concept you have repeatedly failed to grasp.

Yes what I don't understand is when you let a PG dominate the ball as much as Nash has done in Phoenix and his stats shoot up and he appears better than what he was when he wasn't allowed to dominate the ball that now he has now become some sort of elite player. He's the same player he was in Dallas, a fringe all star. Or you can give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was always an MVP type player and just wasn't able to show it.

The concept you don't get is that there are MANY players who fall in that category. If Magic and Jordan played on the same team each would not be winning multiple MVP's and would not be considered as great as they are separately. Your role on a team largely dictates the perception of how good a player you are. So as you said with CP3 he dominates the ball, but then so does Nash. CP3 dominated the ball and put up better numbers than Nash did.

See here you're mixing up offense with the end result on the scoreboard. The Nash-led Suns and Mavs offenses have been historically great in the PLAYOFFS. Looking at the best playoff offenses since 1980 Nash quarterbacked the top 2 and 5 of the top 20 offenses.

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/19/the ... ince-1980/

Did Nash ever win, obviously not. Isolating offense however, he has led all-time great offense. And what's a PG's main responsibility...?

No you are mixing up the offense with the end result. Competition is ALL ABOUT the end result. When you want to argue stats and determine who the best player is while ignoring RESULT then you can go ahead and Hollinger every player and come up with a ranking system because it will be based on numbers. But when you mix in the performance of the teams then those numbers are very much skewed.

Not everyone plays for stats regardless of Lebrons t-shirts. Some play to win and obviously better offense DO NOT correlate to winning. Winning is your best players responsibility....I know, I know...the responsibilities overlap. Which is why I don't think Nash can be the best player on a championship team....

[C-izMe]

How is this an argument? Paul had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less help offensively. To say he wasn't better than Nash for that 2.5 year prime is crazy. If anyone remembers he was on the way to another 21/12 season before he got hurt.

[Rapcity_11]

Did Nash ever win, obviously not. Isolating offense however, he has led all-time great offense. And what's a PG's main responsibility...?

... making sure his bigs defend, block out and don't stand up from the bench when you get hip-checked....

Obviously.

I love the comic relief you bring to the board.

[Rapcity_11]

I haven't heard anything about Nash being awarded any best leader awards.

There is no award for that.

He was voted by GM's as the best leader in the NBA in 05, 06 and 07.

But that's also besides the point. The only argument I ever hear about Nash is his impact statistically and how he led these great offenses. I haven't heard anything else about his intangibles. I don't hear of his great motivating tactics, his inspiring displays on the court, or overcoming the odds and winning.

Really? You must be living under a rock then.

Which leads into Nash has won more than Paul. Yes he has. No doubt about it. He has also been on two separate teams that had twice as much talent on it than Paul has had. So Nash once again does what is expected. When you have All NBA talent on your team you should win a lot in the regular season. You should win in the playoff's. What has Nash done without All NBA talent?

Are you getting it yet? It seems like you might be. Basketball is a team game, something you often seam to forget.

Yes what I don't understand is when you let a PG dominate the ball as much as Nash has done in Phoenix and his stats shoot up and he appears better than what he was when he wasn't allowed to dominate the ball that now he has now become some sort of elite player.

Stats shoot up? They took a slight up-tick up.

The same thing applies to everybody in history. Give them the ball more, they will produce more. It's up to teams to figure out how to best use their players. Nash has clearly proven his team is best-off to give him all decision making responsibility.

He's the same player he was in Dallas, a fringe all star.

So you're calling Nash a fringe all-star now?

Or you can give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was always an MVP type player and just wasn't able to show it.

Or we can judge him for what he did.

The concept you don't get is that there are MANY players who fall in that category. If Magic and Jordan played on the same team each would not be winning multiple MVP's and would not be considered as great as they are separately. Your role on a team largely dictates the perception of how good a player you are. So as you said with CP3 he dominates the ball, but then so does Nash. CP3 dominated the ball and put up better numbers than Nash did.

CP3 put up better box-score numbers, sure. But how much did each guy really help their team, that's what I want to know. I'm not even picking Nash here necessarily. It's pretty much a toss-up in my view.

No you are mixing up the offense with the end result. Competition is ALL ABOUT the end result.

Except we were talking about offense...

When you want to argue stats and determine who the best player is while ignoring RESULT

Those results from the Suns offense are just as real as the final score.

But when you mix in the performance of the teams then those numbers are very much skewed.

Skewed how exactly?

Not everyone plays for stats regardless of Lebrons t-shirts.

You think Nash plays for stats?

Some play to win and obviously better offense DO NOT correlate to winning.

Mind-blowing statement. Repeat that to yourself.

Winning is your best players responsibility....I know, I know...the responsibilities overlap. Which is why I don't think Nash can be the best player on a championship team....

As the Suns best player and PG, Nash led the greatest post-season offense of all-time......