Why are Magic/Nash seen as better offensive players than CP3

[RebelWithACause]

What is difference between Magic/Nash that propels them above CP3?

[Bobbcats]

pace

[The Infamous1]

According to this board Team offensive ratings

[Jaivl]

Paul was a ballhogger in NOLA.

[Texas Chuck]

According to this board Team offensive ratings

I hope thats not really the case considering the vast gulf in weapons that Magic and Nash had as compared to what Paul has had.

[bigboi]

Nash is overrated as an offensive player too, but for CP3, you could argue that he is a ballhog and he doesn't really make the Clippers that much better IMO.

[Illmatic12]

pace

If it's pace, then that overrates Nash significantly

[Doctor MJ]

What is difference between Magic/Nash that propels them above CP3?

Let's start with the contemporaries.

Nash ran far superior offenses, that were known for falling apart considerably worse without him than we've seen from Paul. Kinda end of story right there, no? Why wouldn't it be?

Now getting into more details, Nash & Paul are the very best at two different ways of running the point. Nash is the king of improvisation and immediately exploiting all advantages you see. This is why he's known for playing fast - not because he can't play in the half court (his pick & roll game is superb), but because you really should act as soon as you see the mismatch.

Paul could almost be seen as an opposite. While Nash embraces chaos, Paul wants order. He slows it down and commits incredibly few turnovers. His is a machine that works reliably without generating waste.

To me it's no given which would be more valuable, and I could see it varying by the situation. However, in practice, Nash's way was indeed more valuable.

Additionally, there's the matter of how there tendencies affected other stars. When Nash came to Phoenix, he made Amare look like a god. When Paul came to LA, he made people wonder what was wrong with Griffin - and we now see with Doc Rivers' insistence that Paul speed up the game to take advantage of the young athletic team that Paul was actually part of the problem. He had to be coaxed by an authority figure to play in a manner conducive to Griffin's strengths and I think when in a comparison of all-timers, that's rather a big deal. You judge a floor general in large part of how much bang he gets for his buck of the guys around him, and if a guy isn't then that either means he doesn't have the very top awareness you'd hope for, or that his control issues prevent him from acting on his awareness. Either way it's an issue.

We move then to Magic, and it's very clear which mold Magic is made of: He capitalizes on what's available to him refusing to be pigeon-holed at all. And that's just the eye test. Then add in how good his team offenses were despite the major changes to the supporting cast over his run, and there's just every reason to think he's having impact in line with Nash. (Some may say great obviously, but that's not really the debate being asked about here).

[G35]

What is difference between Magic/Nash that propels them above CP3?

Let's start with the contemporaries.

Nash ran far superior offenses, that were known for falling apart considerably worse without him than we've seen from Paul. Kinda end of story right there, no? Why wouldn't it be?

According to this board Team offensive ratings

I hope thats not really the case considering the vast gulf in weapons that Magic and Nash had as compared to what Paul has had.

CP3 had a prime David West as his best offensive running mate, he did not have the same quality shooters, nor run an offense as geared towards offense. That story is still being written imo.....

[Basketballefan]

Paul was a ballhogger in NOLA.

How can you be a ballhog when averaging 11-12 assists in multiple seasons?

[Texas Chuck]

Nash ran far superior offenses, that were known for falling apart considerably worse without him than we've seen from Paul. Kinda end of story right there, no? Why wouldn't it be?

I see this argument a lot, but it has some flaws. Phoenix didnt really have a backup pg for much of the Nash era. Mostly it was Barbosa, but also guys like Marcus Banks(yikes) or Eddie House. Paul has had Collison(in 2 different spots), Bledsoe, Jarrett Jack.

So Nash has more weapons when he's in and played only for offensive-driven coaches. Then when he sits, no real PG takes his place. Diaw is having to facilitate or Joe Johnson for a year. Meanwhile Paul plays for defensive-minded coaches, and has a quality backup when he sits.

I think Nash is a better offensive player than Paul, but I think we have to be careful using that particular argument without looking at why it might be the case.

[Basketballefan]

Nash is overrated as an offensive player too, but for CP3, you could argue that he is a ballhog and he doesn't really make the Clippers that much better IMO.

I dont think cp3 is a ballhog i just think his impact in general is overrated.

[Winglish]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Qbo0WqvOI

Is this really a question? Watch the best PG who ever lived then get back to us.

[bigboi]

Nash is overrated as an offensive player too, but for CP3, you could argue that he is a ballhog and he doesn't really make the Clippers that much better IMO.

I dont think cp3 is a ballhog i just think his impact in general is overrated.

I think so as well, but before this season, Paul held the ball for way too long. He took the ball from Griffin which made people think that Paul somehow made him. For a player that's supposed to be such a good offensive player, he hasn't really been a ridiculous impact on the Clips IMO. I think Steph Curry would be a much better fit

[bigboi]

What is difference between Magic/Nash that propels them above CP3?

Let's start with the contemporaries.

Nash ran far superior offenses, that were known for falling apart considerably worse without him than we've seen from Paul. Kinda end of story right there, no? Why wouldn't it be?

Now getting into more details, Nash & Paul are the very best at two different ways of running the point. Nash is the king of improvisation and immediately exploiting all advantages you see. This is why he's known for playing fast - not because he can't play in the half court (his pick & roll game is superb), but because you really should act as soon as you see the mismatch.

Paul could almost be seen as an opposite. While Nash embraces chaos, Paul wants order. He slows it down and commits incredibly few turnovers. His is a machine that works reliably without generating waste.

To me it's no given which would be more valuable, and I could see it varying by the situation. However, in practice, Nash's way was indeed more valuable.

Additionally, there's the matter of how there tendencies affected other stars. When Nash came to Phoenix, he made Amare look like a god. When Paul came to LA, he made people wonder what was wrong with Griffin - and we now see with Doc Rivers' insistence that Paul speed up the game to take advantage of the young athletic team that Paul was actually part of the problem. He had to be coaxed by an authority figure to play in a manner conducive to Griffin's strengths and I think when in a comparison of all-timers, that's rather a big deal. You judge a floor general in large part of how much bang he gets for his buck of the guys around him, and if a guy isn't then that either means he doesn't have the very top awareness you'd hope for, or that his control issues prevent him from acting on his awareness. Either way it's an issue.

We move then to Magic, and it's very clear which mold Magic is made of: He capitalizes on what's available to him refusing to be pigeon-holed at all. And that's just the eye test. Then add in how good his team offenses were despite the major changes to the supporting cast over his run, and there's just every reason to think he's having impact in line with Nash. (Some may say great obviously, but that's not really the debate being asked about here).

While I agree with the CP3 part. I don't agree with your assessment on Nash, Amare was fine without Nash until Melo came and injuries started to plague him. I think Nash was blessed with players, who were just beasts in general and he just helped the players with his control of pace. Overall I think PGs' offense is overrated

[Basketballefan]

Nash is overrated as an offensive player too, but for CP3, you could argue that he is a ballhog and he doesn't really make the Clippers that much better IMO.

I dont think cp3 is a ballhog i just think his impact in general is overrated.

I think so as well, but before this season, Paul held the ball for way too long. He took the ball from Griffin which made people think that Paul somehow made him. For a player that's supposed to be such a good offensive player, he hasn't really been a ridiculous impact on the Clips IMO. I think Steph Curry would be a much better fit

I would go as far as to say that if the clippers are to ever win a championship griffin would need to be their best player, i just don't think cp3 is that lead you to the promised land kind of player that a lot of people seem to think he is.

[bigboi]

I dont think cp3 is a ballhog i just think his impact in general is overrated.

I think so as well, but before this season, Paul held the ball for way too long. He took the ball from Griffin which made people think that Paul somehow made him. For a player that's supposed to be such a good offensive player, he hasn't really been a ridiculous impact on the Clips IMO. I think Steph Curry would be a much better fit

I would go as far as to say that if the clippers are to ever win a championship griffin would need to be their best player, i just don't think cp3 is that lead you to the promised land kind of player that a lot of people seem to think he is.

Exactly, I feel like a core of Bledsoe/Jordan/Griffin/Gordon would've been great moving forward and through the draft would probably be a championship team. As much as people want to deny it, the clippers are not good enough to be a championship team IMO

[Doctor MJ]

What is difference between Magic/Nash that propels them above CP3?

Let's start with the contemporaries.

Nash ran far superior offenses, that were known for falling apart considerably worse without him than we've seen from Paul. Kinda end of story right there, no? Why wouldn't it be?

CP3 had a prime David West as his best offensive running mate, he did not have the same quality shooters, nor run an offense as geared towards offense. That story is still being written imo.....

My statement was not about the offense simply being better but Nash having more total impact in making whatever offense happened happen.

If you want to come back and say "well you never know what might've..." okay, but it's obvious what people might see the guy actually having better effect and think that guy was the better player as a result, and hence that answers the thread's question.

[Woodsanity]

I haven't seen Nash have nearly as much success outside of Phoenix. I question his portability. I don't think he is a better offensive player than Cp3. They are pretty much on par with each other. To say that Nash made Amare is extremely disingenuous considering a washed up Amare played fairly well on the Knicks pre-Melo when the Knicks were surrounded by mediocre players. I don't remember the last time the Knicks had a good PG(not gonna include Lin here).

Magic on the other hand is clearly better due to his size advantage which gives him a lot more options as a scorer.

[Doctor MJ]

Nash ran far superior offenses, that were known for falling apart considerably worse without him than we've seen from Paul. Kinda end of story right there, no? Why wouldn't it be?

I see this argument a lot, but it has some flaws. Phoenix didnt really have a backup pg for much of the Nash era. Mostly it was Barbosa, but also guys like Marcus Banks(yikes) or Eddie House. Paul has had Collison(in 2 different spots), Bledsoe, Jarrett Jack.

So Nash has more weapons when he's in and played only for offensive-driven coaches. Then when he sits, no real PG takes his place. Diaw is having to facilitate or Joe Johnson for a year. Meanwhile Paul plays for defensive-minded coaches, and has a quality backup when he sits.

I think Nash is a better offensive player than Paul, but I think we have to be careful using that particular argument without looking at why it might be the case.

Re: Nash didn't have a backup. I don't really see this as much of an argument in general. Reason being that typically we don't see a massive gap between guys good enough to be in the rotation but not good enough to start. When it happens, it's typically an injury thing.

Add in that Nash for much of the time had Barbosa coming in for him, and Barbosa was actually pretty celebrated given what he was. Now you might say: Okay, but Barbosa wasn't a 1 in the same sense that Nash was. And I'd say: That's the thing, Nash played the game very differently not only from Barbosa but from everyone else. You can put in a poor man's version of what Paul does, but how do you do it with Nash? He's doing things you'd simply tell a lesser player not to do.

That actually can be used as an argument against Nash - "sure it's great when he's on the court, but what will you do with the lineups he's not on the floor given that they are so used to playing off him?" - of course you could literally say that about any player that much of an outlier.

Additionally there's just the point that Phoenix was so damn good overall on offense it just seems bizarre to me to try to poke at the threads. It's one thing to knock a night & day impact player on a weak team for his weak backups, but when you're running the most dominant offense people have ever seen, it just is what it is.