More overrated: Garnett or Nash

Brenice · Post #161 » by **Brenice** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 10:52 am

At some point you learn how to win. You crawl before you walk. You walk before you run.

Detroit had to lose to and then go thru Boston. Chicago had to lose to and then go thru Detroit. Sometimes that's the path. You learn what it takes to be a winner at the NBA level. Phoenix, including Nash, never did learn that from San Antonio for whatever reason, they never learned that lesson.

It's 18 years for Nash. Nash and all his stats under that custom made system never learned the lesson. You have to know what to do when the best meet the best. How to force your will on an equal team. How to NOT be the prey and BE the predator.

Champions take.

ronnymac2 · Post #162 » by **ronnymac2** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 10:56 am

Brenice wrote:At some point you learn how to win. You crawl before you walk. You walk before you run.

Detroit had to lose to and then go thru Boston. Chicago had to lose to and then go thru Detroit. Sometimes that's the path. You learn what it takes to be a winner at the NBA level. Phoenix, including Nash, never did learn that from San Antonio for whatever reason, they never learned that lesson.

What the **** kind of fairy tale world do you live in?

mysticbb · Post #163 » by **mysticbb** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 10:57 am

Brenice wrote:Detroit had to lose to and then go thru Boston. Chicago had to lose to and then go thru Detroit. Sometimes that's the path. You learn what it takes to be a winner at the NBA level. Phoenix, including Nash, never did learn that from San Antonio for whatever reason, they never learned that lesson.

The Suns swept the Spurs in 2010 ... so much for that narrative ...

Gregoire · Post #164 » by **Gregoire** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:01 am

MacGill wrote:
Gregoire wrote:Nash is clearly overrated here, KG not so much.

Can you expound on your response here? How do you personally feel Nash is overrated on RealGM?

Assuming by 'here' you mean RealGM?

Yes, here I mean realGM. Here a lot of posters believe he is GOAT offensive peak, with which I strongly disagree. I rank him below Magic, Bird, Jordan, Barkley, Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Kareem, Dirk, Shaqs ofensive peaks, maybe below Wlts too. And his defense was minus-impact.

Brenice · Post #165 » by **Brenice** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:09 am

mysticbb wrote:[quote="Brenice"That'stroit had to lose to and then go thru Boston. Chicago had to lose to and then go thru Detroit. Sometimes that's the path. You learn what it takes to be a winner at the NBA level. Phoenix, including Nash, never did learn that from San Antonio for whatever reason, they never learned that lesson.

The Suns swept the Spurs in 2010 ... so much for that narrative ...[/quote]

Thats because San Antonio was not an equal team that year. When the Suns met an equal team, they lost. They never did learn to not be prey. They lost and got broke up. Nash don't have predator in him. That's the difference between Zeke and Nash. Zeke was a predator. Nash was prey.

Grandpa Waiters · Post #166 » by **Grandpa Waiters** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:14 am

Brenice wrote:
mysticbb wrote:[quote="Brenice"That'stroit had to lose to and then go thru Boston. Chicago had to lose to and then go thru Detroit. Sometimes that's the path. You learn what it takes to be a winner at the NBA level. Phoenix, including Nash, never did learn that from San Antonio for whatever reason, they never learned that lesson.

The Suns swept the Spurs in 2010 ... so much for that narrative ...

Thats because San Antonio was not an equal team that year. When the Suns met an equal team, they lost. They never did learn to not be prey. They lost and got broke up. Nash don't have predator in him. That's the difference between Zeke and Nash. Zeke was a predator. Nash was prey.[/quote]

Zeke was a predator. Nash was prey. LOL. I might have to use that as my signature. That's great!

mysticbb · Post #167 » by **mysticbb** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:18 am

Brenice wrote:Thats because San Antonio was not an equal team that year. When the Suns met an equal team, they lost.

The Spurs in 2010 had a +5.1 SRS, the Suns had +4.7 SRS. No idea, but that sounds awfully "equal" to me. But yeah, we may as well find another narrative ...

Brenice wrote:They never did learn to not be prey. They lost and got broke up. Nash don't have predator in him. That's the difference between Zeke and Nash. Zeke was a predator. Nash was prey.

And I always thought both were humans who played basketball for living ...

B_Creamy · Post #168 » by **B_Creamy** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:21 am

Brenice wrote:
Thats because San Antonio was not an equal team that year. When the Suns met an equal team, they lost. They never did learn to not be prey. They lost and got broke up. Nash don't have predator in him. That's the difference between Zeke and Nash. Zeke was a predator. Nash was prey.

It's as if you think you can say whatever you want and it just becomes true.

therealbig3 · Post #169 » by **therealbig3** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:25 am

Nash is one of the fiercest competitors in the game...just because he's not a huge douchebag like Isiah doesn't mean he didn't have that competitive fire in him. He played through a busted nose that wouldn't stop bleeding all over the place just to give his team a chance to win. He played with one freakin' eye and still closed the deal against the Spurs. But Nash playing through injuries doesn't count, because his team didn't win...but for some reason I hear about Isiah scoring 25 points in a quarter on a bum ankle ALL THE TIME...in a game his team ended up LOSING. In a series his team ended up LOSING. Why is this held in such high regard then, but Nash's accomplishments are always undermined, just because his team had deeper flaws than he could overcome?

Brenice · Post #170 » by **Brenice** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:41 am

therealbig3 wrote:Nash is one of the fiercest competitors in the game...just because he's not a huge douchebag like Isiah doesn't mean he didn't have that competitive fire in him. He played through a busted nose that wouldn't stop bleeding all over the place just to give his team a chance to win. He played with one freakin' eye and still closed the deal against the Spurs. But Nash playing through injuries doesn't count, because his team didn't win...but for some reason I hear about Isiah scoring 25 points in a quarter on a bum ankle ALL THE TIME...in a game his team ended up LOSING. In a series his team ended up LOSING. Why is this held in such high regard then, but Nash's accomplishments are always undermined, just because his team had deeper flaws than he could overcome?

Because the greatest, most efficient offense in history lost because another team forced its will on the Suns and the leader of the greatest, most efficient offense in history.

Then people think that that leader needed better players but that leader doesn't play the same with better players because better players don't want to play his way.

And the prey fate of the greatest, most efficient offense in history has nothing to do with the too nice leader. The leader is a big part of the flaw. You cant take the beating all the time. You got to give the beating. To take azz you got to bring azz. Nash is prey.

therealbig3 · Post #171 » by **therealbig3** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:45 am

Brenice wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:Nash is one of the fiercest competitors in the game...just because he's not a huge douchebag like Isiah doesn't mean he didn't have that competitive fire in him. He played through a busted nose that wouldn't stop bleeding all over the place just to give his team a chance to win. He played with one freakin' eye and still closed the deal against the Spurs. But Nash playing through injuries doesn't count, because his team didn't win...but for some reason I hear about Isiah scoring 25 points in a quarter on a bum ankle ALL THE TIME...in a game his team ended up LOSING. In a series his team ended up LOSING. Why is this held in such high regard then, but Nash's accomplishments are always undermined, just because his team had deeper flaws than he could overcome?

Because the greatest, most efficient offense in history lost because another team forced its will on the Suns and the leader of the greatest, most efficient offense in history.

Then people think that that leader needed better players but that leader doesn't play the same with better players because better players don't want to play his way.

And the prey fate of the greatest, most efficient offense in history has nothing to do with the too nice leader.

Because the greatest, most efficient offense in history WAS STILL the greatest, most efficient offense in history in the playoffs, and it had everything to do with how awesome Nash was.

You are so clueless on why the Suns lost, where most of the blame lies, and just how much better Nash made that team. You just continue to come up with crazy, fairy-tale, National Geographic narratives while you hand-wave away the facts.

Brenice · Post #172 » by **Brenice** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:51 am

They lost because they couldn't win. The greatest, most efficient offense got out scored by the same team 4 times. Will to win. Heart of a champion. Your facts are excuses.

Grandpa Waiters · Post #173 » by **Grandpa Waiters** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 12:24 pm

therealbig3 wrote:
Brenice wrote:
therealbig3 wrote:Nash is one of the fiercest competitors in the game...just because he's not a huge douchebag like Isiah doesn't mean he didn't have that competitive fire in him. He played through a busted nose that wouldn't stop bleeding all over the place just to give his team a chance to win. He played with one freakin' eye and still closed the deal against the Spurs. But Nash playing through injuries doesn't count, because his team didn't win...but for some reason I hear about Isiah scoring 25 points in a quarter on a bum ankle ALL THE TIME...in a game his team ended up LOSING. In a series his team ended up LOSING. Why is this held in such high regard then, but Nash's accomplishments are always undermined, just because his team had deeper flaws than he could overcome?

Because the greatest, most efficient offense in history lost because another team forced its will on the Suns and the leader of the greatest, most efficient offense in history.

Then people think that that leader needed better players but that leader doesn't play the same with better players because better players don't want to play his way.

And the prey fate of the greatest, most efficient offense in history has nothing to do with the too nice leader.

Because the greatest, most efficient offense in history WAS STILL the greatest, most efficient offense in history in the playoffs, and it had everything to do with how awesome Nash was.

You are so clueless on why the Suns lost, where most of the blame lies, and just how much better Nash made that team. You just continue to come up with crazy, fairy-tale, National Geographic narratives while you hand-wave away the facts.

Greatest offense in history. ROTFL. The '80's Lakers would run the Suns right off of the court.

Brenice · Post #174 » by **Brenice** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 12:53 pm

I left off "so-called".

Post #175 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 2:22 pm

ElGee wrote:You're warping what I'm saying, particularly because I'm not talking about all people who think less of these players. You, my friend, have shoved those words into my mouth, which is OK because I'm hungry.

Well Im glad you created a new meme for the board. So something good at least came from my post....

However, I have read your original post about 10 times now and it still reads to me like you were talking about "all people". You divided the argument into only 2 groups, one that used context and one that didnt and clarified later in your post that the context group was pro-KG and pro-Nash while the other side was against them.

Im glad you have clarified that and I apologize for putting words in your mouth because I misunderstood what you wrote originally.

G35 · Post #176 » by **G35** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 4:37 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
G35 wrote:And if you can't clearly spell out your argument the sender is usually at fault.....

The arguments are crystal clear for one very obvious reason: You can't have groupthink (which is what has been alleged) unless the group understands the pro- argument. The only reason why there is a trend of Garnett & Nash putatively being overrated is because some people here listen to others and have their minds changed. Ergo, the sender generally speaking on these boards is not the issue as far as confusion is concerned.

To ElGee's idea in general: If you've never try the approach to figure out where your common ground with someone is, you really should. Has nothing to do with who is right here. It's just plain practical. If we take it on faith that no matter what you're going to think the rest of us are wrong, it would be nice at least after all these years if you would be able to simply state going forward the actual reason why we disagree rather than throwing out wild allegations.

Sigh....I don't know what wild allegations you say I make about Nash. When you make statements like that could you please either quote what I have claimed or summarize that feeling. What you feel is wild, I feel is valid.

To you and mystic's point that I should try the (senders) approach to find common ground...I'm going to assume you are suggesting going full, advanced/impact stat mindset. Which is not logical...I am not either one of you. That is suggesting changing my basic mindset. The fundamental problem is that we are looking at the sport/players from different vantage points.

From what I can tell this is how I differ from your viewpoints:

To me the end justifies the means. So my bottom line winning. That gives a player the most points in my rating. Now I do take in account that not all situations are created equal because I still rate Barkley, Robinson, Erving, West, Wilt, KJ, Stockton/Malone, very highly. So I take in account their play, how they did in particular situations under their particular circumstances.

I am also something of a comic geek and I kind of think that there are an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of probabilities. In some universe somewhere Horry misses on the hip check to Nash and Amare/Diaw do not get suspended. The Suns win that series and are able to win a ring. In another universe, Kevin McHale doesn't offer Joe Smith a deal under the table, the Wolves do not lose their draft picks, Marbury doesn't leave Minnesota (or maybe Billups stays), Malik Sealy doesn't die, perhaps Popovich goes to coach in Minnesota and teams up with Garnett to form a dynasty winning 3-4 rings. Those things ARE possible.

Unfortunately, in this reality none of that happened. So you can go off of could happen, what might happen, what should have happened, but I'm going off what actually did happen. You can give credit that a player has the potential to win in a "What if" scenario but at the end of the day you have to ground yourself and judge what actually did happen.

That is why I do give credit to Russell because even though I think his teams were stacked and Auerbach was ahead of his time you still have to go on the court and win those 11 rings. Because there are a litany of reasons why it couldn't happen i.e.:

Injuries - the number one reason why many teams do not win. I could list 20 playoff teams that could have a ring if not for injuries

Motivation/emotions - Jordan should have 8 rings....except he got burned out and retired. Kobe/Shaq should have 6-8 rings....if not for different agendas....Lebron could have won a ring in CLE if he didn't want to team up in Miami.

Upsets/Probably chance/Dumb luck - the 1977 Sixers should have been NBA chances because they were more talented but they didn't. The 1980 Sixers should have been champions because Kareem got hurt but they didn't. The 1994 Sonics should have been champions except they ran into Dikembe and the Nuggets. The 2006 Mavericks should have been champions except they ran into the officials...the 2007 Mavericks ran into a bad matchup. The 2011 Heat were favorites to win against an old, lesser talented Mavericks team. The 2013 Heat are lucky that Popovich blew game 6 taking Duncan out in a crucial moment.

So when I see statistical evidence that shows impact and how events should unfold I give it a healthy dose of skepticism because that is the antithesis of sports. The entire reason I watch sports (I understand that is not the motivation for many others so I have to temper my understanding of others) is because I never know the outcome. No one does. When we do comparisons with all the information we have that is based off past events. It has ZERO bearing off what will happen in the future or ANY OTHER POSSIBLE SCENARIO......

G35 · Post #177 » by **G35** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 4:59 pm

rrravenred wrote:
Once again you sidestep my point. THE PISTONS went through the gauntlet of THE LAKERS, THE BULLS and THE CELTICS. If Zeke matched up directly against any of those players it's a fundamental coaching fail on either side.

You may want to reduce the interactions of 20 odd players, referees, coaches and support staff into a glorified one on one game, but it's a PROFOUNDLY simplistic way to analyze basketball and one that garners zero respect from me.

Sent from my SM-T310 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I don't believe he is reducing it to a one on one game. People are making it Nash vs Isiah but the way I interpret it is who were those teams leaders? Nash for the Suns and Isiah for the Pistons. That is clearcut. Each led their teams. Now I don't know how anyone can quantify/rate leadership but to me that is one area that Nash fails in.

Isiah led the Bad Boy Pistons. He was the leader...does anyone doubt that? He led the those Pistons against Bird's Celtic's and Magic's Lakers....two other legendary leaders. Isiah lost to the Celtics twice in the playoff's before finally breaking through...heartbreaking series. Isiah through that horrible pass that Bird stole and passed to DJ for the winning basket. He had to bring his team back and beat those same Celtics only to lose to Magic in the finals. But he posted one of the best performances in NBA finals history on a sprained ankle, 43 points, 25 points in the 3rd quarter. If Nash would have done that vs the Spurs I would give him more credit. But I can't remember a similar performance from him. I guess you could cherry pick a series but this was in the NBA finals vs the dynasty Lakers.

That is offensive impact. You can talk all you want about offensive ratings but those ratings are built off regular season performances against the Milwaukee Bucks in December, the Hornets in February, or the Wizards in March. I thought that we had decided that the regular season had significantly less impact than what a player/team does in the playoff's.

Not only does he lead his team to a championship over the vaunted Lakers, he does it back to back beating an up and coming Jordan led team and a stacked Trailblazers team. Now you can say that Nash lost to SA, Dallas, the Lakers and I understand that teams lose. All teams lose, (Well except those Celtics!) but they also have to win to balance out the losing. You can't just sweep aside the losses and say they, "Well they lost to better teams." As if that's some legitimate excuse in sports. It's....not. Otherwise you have to look at the shortcomings of the whole team...not just Amare...not just Marion...not just D'Antoni.

What I would like to see from ONE Nash supporter is that he came up short to...but that can't happen because the numbers say that Nash was the entire reason the Suns offense was great and he has zero to minimal impact on defense and that's not his fault or responsibility....which is mighty convenient.....

Post #178 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 5:09 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:To ElGee's idea in general: If you've never try the approach to figure out where your common ground with someone is, you really should. Has nothing to do with who is right here. It's just plain practical. If we take it on faith that no matter what you're going to think the rest of us are wrong, it would be nice at least after all these years if you would be able to simply state going forward the actual reason why we disagree rather than throwing out wild allegations.

I guess Im also confused why this only holds true for one side in this debate. Especially the bolded portion. Id say the pro-Nash or pro-KG crowd also has plenty of guys who think and argue from this same vantage point: Im right and you are wrong and they do no better job of entertaining arguments from the other side.

You need go no further than the litany of posts where guys quote an entire post and proceed to pick part and "destroy" every single argument made by the other side. This isnt dialogue or debate with an open mind. Its I've already made up my mind and Im not interested in your ideas because they don't agree with mine.

Now not everyone on either side of the debate does this, but people on BOTH sides do. This isnt just a G35 issue.

Dipper 13 · Post #179 » by **Dipper 13** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 5:12 pm

This isnt dialogue or debate with an open mind. Its I've already made up my mind and Im not interested in your ideas because they don't agree with mine.

This is how almost every topic is discussed on the forum, it's unfair to isolate the Garnett or Nash fans.

Post #180 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sat Feb 1, 2014 5:14 pm

Dipper 13 wrote:
This isnt dialogue or debate with an open mind. Its I've already made up my mind and Im not interested in your ideas because they don't agree with mine.

This is how almost every topic is discussed on the forum, it's unfair to isolate the Garnett or Nash fans.

Im doing exactly the opposite of that. Im saying its not people on only one side or the other as was being alleged multiple times itt.