Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[G35]

Oh wait, ROY HIBBERT? As in the guy on the Pacers? What on earth does he have to do with anything? Why not replace him with David West? I don't really get your point, Nash has had success with multiple teammates, if we're really gonna pretend like Nash hasn't made guys who don't look that good, look good then I don't know what to tell you. You're right, he's a system PG.

That's the whole point, people make this assumption that Nash can turn any big man into a great pick and roll player. There is some weird assumption that adding Nash to any team will make them into a great offense.

Adding Nash to the 2002 Nets will not make them a great offense. Kenyon Martin, Richard Jefferson, Kerry Kittles were good, solid players but they were not anything special on offense.

If you want to say that Nash is the only PG to make average teammates look good on offense then I don't know what to tell you. To me Nash has to have the ball in his hands all the time, and play with players that have a specific skillset to maximize HIS own talent. That argument that coaches didn't use Nash to the best of his abilities is a bad argument. PG's are suppose to make other players better, not what is best for them. The Terry Porter/Shaq situation showed that Nash is not portable and still elite at the same time.....

[Baller2014]

Nellie outcoaching Avery in 1 round really doesn't change the fact that he was the reason for Nash (and all the Mavs) being underutilised, because he was playing Nellieball, not adjusting to the team he actually had (which was capable of so much more). Avery wasn't the best coach in the world or anything, but his willingness to play sensible line-ups sure helped a tonne (eg, not trying to make A.Walker the starting 5, which was laughable). The record of Avery on the Mavs (and then Carlisle, who actually is a good coach) shows pretty clearly that Don Nelson was the main problem. Your implication that somehow it was Nash's fault is pretty silly to be honest, but that's the explanation anyway. It doesn't actually matter though, because I'm not trying to give Nash credit for being Phoenix Nash during his time with the Mavs. Like I said, I judge players off the careers they actually had, not the ones they might have had, if circumstances had been different. That's the same reason to judge Stockton harshly as it happens, because he never actually played like Nash (or Kidd) did. He was never a franchise player, and even as a Robin his team clearly underachieved a lot of years.

[Texas Chuck]

I havent blamed NAsh for anything. You arent actually reading what Im writing but just assume Im attacking Nash and Im not really sure why.


I actually was saying Nash was really good in Dallas. Just trying to set some facts straight.

Good luck to you mate.

[Jonny Blaze]

Jason Terry and Jerry Stackhouse were able to replicate Nash's scoring and shooting ability.
Devin Harris was an elite perimeter defensive player. These three players together are an upgrade over what Nash brought.

Im sorry but an intended defense of Steve Nash by stating that JET, terrible Stack, and rookie Devin were an improvement over one of Nash's peak season is simply amazing.

Your defense of Nash is that he worse than JET and a couple of very mediocre role players. OK.

I personally think Steve Nash is a lot better than that.....

Also, the Mavs talent did go down. They became a better team I agree but thats a completely different argument.

"Amazing"??????????
Okay.....so 58-24, 60-22 (Western Conference Champs) and 67-15 just didn't happen.

Stackhouse was "terrible" and Devin Harris was just a "mediocre" Role player.....ok

Its just dumb luck that the Mavs replaced a hall of fame point guard and then proceeded to have the three best years that they ever had.

It has nothing to do with them:
- increasing their athleticism
- adding players that could play defense
- adding players that could attack the rim instead of settling for jumpers
- adding some rim protecting centers to their roster.

[Jonny Blaze]

Nellie outcoaching Avery in 1 round really doesn't change the fact that he was the reason for Nash (and all the Mavs) being underutilised, because he was playing Nellieball, not adjusting to the team he actually had (which was capable of so much more). Avery wasn't the best coach in the world or anything, but his willingness to play sensible line-ups sure helped a tonne (eg, not trying to make A.Walker the starting 5, which was laughable). The record of Avery on the Mavs (and then Carlisle, who actually is a good coach) shows pretty clearly that Don Nelson was the main problem. Your implication that somehow it was Nash's fault is pretty silly to be honest, but that's the explanation anyway. It doesn't actually matter though, because I'm not trying to give Nash credit for being Phoenix Nash during his time with the Mavs. Like I said, I judge players off the careers they actually had, not the ones they might have had, if circumstances had been different. That's the same reason to judge Stockton harshly as it happens, because he never actually played like Nash (or Kidd) did. He was never a franchise player, and even as a Robin his team clearly underachieved a lot of years.

This is spot on.

One of the big reasons the Mavs went 58-24, 60-22 and 67-15 after Nash's and Don Nelson's departure was that they got rid of playing Nellie Ball.

They upgraded the athleticism of the roster.
They acquired some real centers.
They acquired a perimeter defender (Devin Harris) that was able to guard the Tony Parkers of the world.
They became a great rebounding team.
They played some serious defense.

[Texas Chuck]

No its not dumb luck. That's the point here. The point is that while we rightfully give Steve Nash a ton of credit for the vast improvement in the Suns, we should be intellectually honest and point out the Mavs didnt drop off despite losing the guy who went on to win the next 2 MVPS for absolutely no return.

No one denies the improvement he made on the Suns. Kidd has the same type of effect on teams he joins. The difference is that when Kidd leaves a franchise they face as significant drop. The same can't be said for Nash.

But the Mavs didnt keep winning because they were more talented. That's just not close to correct. Stack shot 40%. He was terrible. Devin was a very inconsistent role player. What do you think he was? He started 23 total games in 05 and 06. Avg less than 20 mpg those seasons combined. Looks like a role player to me.

[Jonny Blaze]

Oh wait, ROY HIBBERT? As in the guy on the Pacers? What on earth does he have to do with anything? Why not replace him with David West? I don't really get your point, Nash has had success with multiple teammates, if we're really gonna pretend like Nash hasn't made guys who don't look that good, look good then I don't know what to tell you. You're right, he's a system PG.

That's the whole point, people make this assumption that Nash can turn any big man into a great pick and roll player. There is some weird assumption that adding Nash to any team will make them into a great offense.

Adding Nash to the 2002 Nets will not make them a great offense. Kenyon Martin, Richard Jefferson, Kerry Kittles were good, solid players but they were not anything special on offense.

If you want to say that Nash is the only PG to make average teammates look good on offense then I don't know what to tell you. To me Nash has to have the ball in his hands all the time, and play with players that have a specific skillset to maximize HIS own talent. That argument that coaches didn't use Nash to the best of his abilities is a bad argument. PG's are suppose to make other players better, not what is best for them. The Terry Porter/Shaq situation showed that Nash is not portable and still elite at the same time.....

Great Argument.

Steve Nash has never made players around him better.

The Phoenix Suns were a powerhouse team before he arrived there.

Did you know that a year before they won 29 games that they went 44-38 and lost in the first round of the playoffs as a 8 seed?

[Jonny Blaze]

No its not dumb luck. That's the point here. The point is that while we rightfully give Steve Nash a ton of credit for the vast improvement in the Suns, we should be intellectually honest and point out the Mavs didnt drop off despite losing the guy who went on to win the next 2 MVPS for absolutely no return.

No one denies the improvement he made on the Suns. Kidd has the same type of effect on teams he joins. The difference is that when Kidd leaves a franchise they face as significant drop. The same can't be said for Nash.

But the Mavs didnt keep winning because they were more talented. That's just not close to correct. Stack shot 40%. He was terrible. Devin was a very inconsistent role player. What do you think he was? He started 23 total games in 05 and 06. Avg less than 20 mpg those seasons combined. Looks like a role player to me.

Jason Kidd did not have that effect on the 2008, 2009 or 2010 Mavericks.

But the Mavs didnt keep winning because they were more talented. That's just not close to correct. Stack shot 40%. He was terrible. Devin was a very inconsistent role player. What do you think he was? He started 23 total games in 05 and 06. Avg less than 20 mpg those seasons combined. Looks like a role player to me

So why did the Mavs go 58-24, 60-22 and 67-15?

Those players you listed could also play defense. Something that was lacking when Don Nelson was the coach and the Mavs were trotting out these offense only teams.

[Texas Chuck]

They had this guy named Dirk something or other who's pretty good.....

[Jonny Blaze]

They had this guy named Dirk something or other who's pretty good.....

Oh....I get it.

Basketball is a one man game.

Dirk scores, rebounds, plays defense, and is able to guard the teams 5 other players.

Dirk wasn't a great player before 2005.

The Mavs adding wing players that could attack the rim and play defense has nothing to do with their 2005-2007 run.

The Mavs adding two centers(when their previous best centers were Shawn Bradley and Raef LaFrentz) has nothing to do with them becoming an elite rebounding and defensive team in the 2005-2007.

Got it. Its just all Dirk.

[Texas Chuck]

It's also interesting that you mention Dallas improving defensively and thus being a better team. Because a criticism of the actual historical Nash-led teams in both Dallas and Phoenix were that they weren't good enough defensively. You can win huge in the RS with great offenses for a variety of reasons, but when playing against the top teams with top coaches you also need to play good defense. Nash-teams didn't do that. Im not sure how much of that Nash should be help accountable for, but if I was attempting a Nash defense I wouldnt go around saying teams improve because they dump offensive genius Nash for defensive role players and get better.

[Ancalagon]

Stockton wasn't leading that offense though. Malone was. Malone was the one getting the accolades. Malone was the one playing the minutes. Malone was the one with superior offensive box score stats. Malone we're now seeing is the one the offense lived & died with.

For the first three seasons of #1 rated offense (in Nash's career), Nash wasn't the clear leader with whom the offense lived and died with, either: Dirk was.

And as mentioned, that's still overselling Stockton's run. The reality is that he not only wasn't a #1 on a run comparable to Nash's #1 run, he wasn't on a team making such a run at all even while being the sidekick.

You'll see me say in many threads that the rebuttal to that last point is that Stockton may have only scratched the surface of his potential due to Sloan's micromanaging - I'm not trying to claim I know with a certainty what Stockton can't do - but attempting to see the two contexts here as even remotely analogous is putting one's head in the sand.

Well, I'm not saying I'm going to hang my hat on that argument, but you must admit it's a bit compelling. However......

The argument over who actually had more offensive impact isn't one with legs.

I don't believe I tried to make that argument; I merely suggested the offensive gap may not be that big.

The argument for Stockton is that his two-way impact gives him the edge

This is the argument that has some legs, imo. Considering for instance that in 2001 (post-prime, nearly twilight of his career) Stockton's Off/Def combined +/- was 5.6 (3rd in league) by one source I'm looking at, 7.0 (4th in league) by the other source. And in 2002 (twilight era Stockton), I got one source saying combined +/- at 5.7 (8th in league), another source showing RAPM of 2.2 (12th in league)/NPI RAPM at 3.0 (17th in league).........sure makes me wonder if in the late 80's/early 90's he was routinely putting up combined +/- stats that were every bit as impressive as anything Nash did.

And again, Stockton wins the longevity comparison, too. jsia......

The +/- and RAPM isn't available for Stockton's whole career, but what we DO know shines a very favorable light on him. He was wayyyy past his prime in 2001-02.

[CaliBullsFan]

Nash is a level below Stockton and Kidd IMO

[Ryoga Hibiki]

That would be a great reason if Nash led that Suns team by himself, but it's arguable that Marion was even more valuable than Nash that year. He anchored that Suns defense and was the leading rebounder and scorer for that team. Who on the Jazz could have done that......

Well, people can argue on anything these days...

[D Nice]

All-time I've got it...

#23 Steve Nash
#29 John Stockton
#30 Jason Kidd

[Baller2014]

How can a player who was barely top 20 among his contemporaries be top 29 all-time? Bizarre.

[Clyde Frazier]

How can a player who was barely top 20 among his contemporaries be top 29 all-time? Bizarre.

...Barely top 20?

- Finished top 12 in MVP voting 9 times (5 of which were top 10)

- Made 11 all NBA teams (8 of which were 2nd team or better)

- Led the league in assists in 9 straight seasons

What do you have against stockton that you feel the need to underrate him so much?

[Baller2014]

Barely top 20 indicates he was in the top 20. It depends who you consider his contemporaries to be, etc, and who you're comparing him to. I generally think he was a top 8-17 player through his 10 year prime. But during that period the 7-16 guys better than him did not stay the same, because not everyone's career overlaps neatly. So there are actually more than 7-16 guys better than him during his prime, just not all at the same time.

I'll add that Stockton's two all-nba 1st teams are a product of extraordinary luck. Almost everyone he was competing with was injures or retired those years.

[Clyde Frazier]

Barely top 20 indicates he was in the top 20. It depends who you consider his contemporaries to be, etc, and who you're comparing him to. I generally think he was a top 8-17 player through his 10 year prime. But during that period the 7-16 guys better than him did not stay the same, because not everyone's career overlaps neatly. So there are actually more than 7-16 guys better than him during his prime, just not all at the same time.

I'll add that Stockton's two all-nba 1st teams are a product of extraordinary luck. Almost everyone he was competing with was injures or retired those years.

Your ridiculing him for the 1st round exits, for example: the 3 conference finals and 2 finals appearances are insignificant, right? Especially when he played in a conference that featured plenty of solid teams to contend with over the years (blazers, sonics, spurs, rockets, etc).

[Baller2014]

He should absolutely be ridiculed for those exits, the reasons have been explained in depth. Either he, Karl Malone, Sloan, or all three should get some blame for it. They constantly underachieved relative to what their talent supposedly was (and I'm talking about the claimed talent of Malone and Stockton). If Lebron and the Heatles got swept in the first round by losers like the 1989 Warriors he'd be under a lot of scrutiny too.