Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[Baller2014]

There are dumb threads on all sorts of dumb things, the fact someone makes a thread about something isn't an indication of anything. In terms of controversial MVPs Nash's is way, way down the list. There was a good argument for his winning, and in most years that's all you can ask. His case was a lot stronger than quite a few MVP's over the last 10-15 years (Rose, Iverson, Kobe, etc), and historically there have been legitimately bad MVP choices (Wes for eg), but Nash isn't one of them. You could make an argument for Shaq in 05 for instance, but that doesn't make his MVP invalid by any means. And a tonne of evidence was provided, from the historic offenses he led, through to his teams miserable record without him.

[G35]

There are dumb threads on all sorts of dumb things, the fact someone makes a thread about something isn't an indication of anything. In terms of controversial MVPs Nash's is way, way down the list. There was a good argument for his winning, and in most years that's all you can ask. His case was a lot stronger than quite a few MVP's over the last 10-15 years (Rose, Iverson, Kobe, etc), and historically there have been legitimately bad MVP choices (Wes for eg), but Nash isn't one of them. You could make an argument for Shaq in 05 for instance, but that doesn't make his MVP invalid by any means. And a tonne of evidence was provided, from the historic offenses he led, through to his teams miserable record without him.

You are right there are dumb threads...there are some dumb posts also.

The one thing you can't refute and have noticeably not commented on is Nash has not made the finals.

He and Derrick Rose are the only MVP's who haven't. Go ahead and spin that.....

[Baller2014]

I've explained in great detail why making the finals is a meaningless metric. I've also asked you repeatedly a question in relation to this issue, and you've dodged it each time. I will try once more: "If Oscar had not gone to Milwaukee to ride Kareem's coat-tails at age 32, he would not have made the finals either. Would that have made him a worse player?"

[ElGee]

I kind of understand this. But for instance, while a post like Shaq having good shooters around him doesnt make him a better player, but they can make him more effective. Or to tie it back to this thread, the finishers/shooters Nash played with didnt make him a better player, but they were better equipped to take advantage of his skills then Dirk/Finley et all.

So on one hand, I completely agree. Nash didn't become a better basketball player in 2005 because of Amare,Marion, MDA, etc. I think he did improve as a player, but more as a result of some improvements he made in taking care of his body. But I don't think we can question that a part of why he was so effective in Phoenix was because of how symbiotic a relationship he had with the other players on his team and with his coach.

Its one of the reasons I look at 5 man unit stats more than just individual stats. I think players do impact the effectiveness of other players and while we can attempt to isolate and quantify their individual impact I don't think it's possible to do it definitively considering the game is always played 5 v 5. And why do we want to attempt to look exclusively at a player in a vacuum when the game is never played as such?

Some of this is my opinion and some of it is questions. I appreciate your insights as always even tho we don't look at things in exactly the same ways.

Agree completely. We aren't looking at something in a vacuum -- again, I was simplifying. When I give players a point-per game impact, it's an average of their impact across different settings. For the purpose of the wallet analogy, treating the average as a dollar denomination was sufficient and most practical. We absolutely want to look at how a guy looks next to spot-up shooters, post players, ball-dominant players, etc. (That's why portability matters.) It's why there is a fundamental difference between situational value and absolute goodness, and we should not become married to the former if we are actually trying to evaluate a player.

With your bills analogy were you implying that Nash was the $20 bill?

No -- I was illustrating independence. It's fundamental to answering your original question about separating individuals and teams. If you understand the concept of independence, but you don't think it applies to basketball, how do you explain LeBron James's impact on a game he isn't playing in?

[G35]

No -- I was illustrating independence. It's fundamental to answering your original question about separating individuals and teams. If you understand the concept of independence, but you don't think it applies to basketball, how do you explain LeBron James's impact on a game he isn't playing in?

Well that's an easy and difficult question to answer at the same time. You didn't give any parameters so there are an infinite number of possibilities. It's easy if you are asking Lebron's impact on last weeks G6 Thunder-Spurs game, because he didn't play in it. So he had zero impact on it.

If you decide to narrow it down to Lebron James impact on a Miami Heat game that he didn't play in and it also has a number of possibilities:

- Did he miss the whole game or just a portion
- Was he legitimately injured or was he being rested
- Who did the Heat play e.g. Milwaukee, Golden State, or Brooklyn
- Was it the first of a back to back or the second half
- Who else didn't or did play for the Heat
- What was the motivation of the team at the time
- Did he miss the game for personal reasons


This year Lebron missed 5 games, so there is a precedence.

@ 76ers 87-100 L
@ Wizards 93-114 L
vs Bulls 93-79 W
@ Blazers 108-107 W
@ Celtics 96-101 L

You could describe the impact of Lebron's absence five different ways.

The Heat were able to beat 2 playoff teams without Lebron during the middle of the regular season. They lost the last two games of the season but Bosh didn't play in either of those last two games either. Further Wade played a total of 42 minutes in those two games so it's hard to describe his impact.

Now you also have to ascertain how the Heat play when Lebron leaves the floor for a rest.

Also even when a player is not there how does it affect the psyche of your teammates/coach.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/spurs-swea ... 30845.html

"I think it felt like a punch in the gut when you see your leader limping like that back to the bench," Spoelstra said.

How does Lebron's absence affect the psyche of the opponent

"When LeBron goes out, obviously you lose the best player in the world," Spurs guard Tony Parker said. "We realized that, so we took advantage of it."

James "asked out of the game once or twice before [his final exit]," Duncan said. "So we knew he was getting tired out there. I didn't assume it was anything more than him getting tired and getting a blow.

"Him in or out, obviously he's one of the best players in the league. He is going to make a difference. But we played through all that. We started taking care of the ball and that was the difference."

[Baller2014]

And predictably G35 has replied to Elgee's post, but once again ignored the question I asked him. It's a rather deafening silence. The reason you won't answer it is pretty obvious. Making the finals is actually an arbitrary benchmark.

[G35]

And predictably G35 has replied to Elgee's post, but once again ignored the question I asked him. It's a rather deafening silence. The reason you won't answer it is pretty obvious. Making the finals is actually an arbitrary benchmark.

No, your arguments are boring.....

[ElGee]

No -- I was illustrating independence. It's fundamental to answering your original question about separating individuals and teams. If you understand the concept of independence, but you don't think it applies to basketball, how do you explain LeBron James's impact on a game he isn't playing in?

Well that's an easy and difficult question to answer at the same time. You didn't give any parameters so there are an infinite number of possibilities. It's easy if you are asking Lebron's impact on last weeks G6 Thunder-Spurs game, because he didn't play in it. So he had zero impact on it.

If you decide to narrow it down to Lebron James impact on a Miami Heat game that he didn't play in and it also has a number of possibilities:
...

Now you also have to ascertain how the Heat play when Lebron leaves the floor for a rest.

Also even when a player is not there how does it affect the psyche of your teammates/coach.

Ah. That's likely the crux of why you don't understand team/player separation. You simultaneously believe the two following positions:

1. LeBron not playing in a basketball game (OKC-SAS) means LeBron has no impact on the game via his absence.
2. LeBron not playing in a basketball game (Heat game) means LeBron impacts the game via his absence.

This is logically inconsistent since he is absent in both cases. :/

Note that you've gone on to infer how LeBron's presence impacts a Heat game, and then removed his presence. Yet you don't do this for non-Heat games, which is again logically inconsistent.

I imagine you're rightfully thinking "well yeah, it's slightly different because hes' under contract with Miami so the Miami players/opponents expect James to be out there while others do not, which changes their psyche." This is true -- there are psychological elements to consider in sports.** But these expectations are unrelated to his physical impact. His absence cannot affect the game physically, because he cannot use his physical gifts to shoot, pass, defend, rebound, etc. when he is absent.

This is absolutely fundamental to the concept of independence and ultimately separating a player from the team. Put more bluntly, if you believe that LeBron impacts Mario Chalmers when he's shooting free throws or Danny Green's accuracy on wide open 3's in any meaningful way, especially when he isn't playing in the game, then you are holding onto a belief that isn't supported by the laws of physics. He cannot have a physical impact on something he isn't physically involved in, as you stated in point No. 1 at the top of this post.

**

Spoiler:

Regarding psychological effects -- whether one considers them small or even negligible as most evidence suggests, or one considers them relatively large is moot to this point unless one believes that a player can exert psychological control with his mind to the same degree he can physical control. Ironically, what you've described here, G35, is that a star's absence, like LeBron's in G1 of the Finals, hurts his team and emboldens the opponent. It's a psychological effect that suggests the team is worse than if LeBron weren't there in the first place...which only strengthens the argument for separating teams and individuals. ONLY in a universe where the psychological effect of the individual could be strong and positive could you ever argue "it doesn't matter if a player is on the bench, he can still impact the game enough to win with his psychological effect." If this effect is either zero or negative on the team, then a player's absence would amplify the entire reason why independence necessitates a separation from the team and the individual.

[Texas Chuck]

Again I have to disagree. It goes beyond the psychological impact, tho I think that does in fact exist. That team is built around his skill set. Guys are used to certain roles, certain rotations and his absence after having been a very signficant part of the team all season is going to have an on-court impact.

This is completely different from him not being involved in a game involving two teams that have never had play for them. But the Heat team is obviously impacted by Lebron not being there. And it effects them physically because guys are playing more minutes and with greater responsibility.

[sp6r=underrated]

I've re-read this thread during my bed rest period. One thing I've noticed in a lot of comments is that Nash is a terrible defender. Is this true? I know his reputation is terrible but I've never bought it and the statistical evidence doesn't point in that direction either.

What is the evidence for him being a terrible defender?

[sp6r=underrated]

BTW, thanks to the posters who brought up the 04 Mavs. Nellie was a genius who made massive contributions to the NBA over his coaching career. Nonetheless, his coaching performance of the 04 Mavs was maybe the worse coaching job of a championship level team in my lifetime.

The 03 Mavs were playing at a championship level and may well have won a title if Dirk didn't get hurt. The sensible thing to do would have been bring the team back and try it again. Instead the Mavs who had a monster offense went out and acquired Jamison and Walker. It didn't make sense at the time and is in retrospect.

[Texas Chuck]

it was more his GMing that sucked--for those very reasons you gave. What was any coach supposed to do with that roster? Tho the Walker addition was never intended to be permanent--that was the only way Dallas could dump the terrible Rafe contract.

[Doctor MJ]

it was more his GMing that sucked--for those very reasons you gave. What was any coach supposed to do with that roster? Tho the Walker addition was never intended to be permanent--that was the only way Dallas could dump the terrible Rafe contract.

I don't think these things can really be separated here. If a franchise has a GM who does whatever the coach wants - which is what happens when it's the same guy - then the GM is only doing it because the coach thinks this is what he needs to make the team better.

So Nelson basically had what we now know to be GOAT level offensive talent with some defense that needed help, and his response to this was to acquire two mediocre volume scorers. It's a serious indictment of his understanding of coaching "court vision".

[spectacularmove]

I want to say Nash is the best, but I really don't see him having the same kind of impact he had if he had played in the Stockton's era

[Doctor MJ]

I want to say Nash is the best, but I really don't see him having the same kind of impact he had if he had played in the Stockton's era

I think it's at least as important to be asking what Stockton would do in Nash's era. Clearly if you think Stockton would surpass Nash nowadays, this is an easy dilemma to resolve.

I don't disagree with asking how Nash would do in Stockton's era, but in general I'm more focused on how a player does when things are right. Meaning:

"Yeah, but how would Nash do with a coach who didn't let him improvise and thought the 3-point line was evil while playing against players who were free to shove him whenever he drove?"

Isn't really that big a deal to me.

[ElGee]

Again I have to disagree. It goes beyond the psychological impact, tho I think that does in fact exist. That team is built around his skill set. Guys are used to certain roles, certain rotations and his absence after having been a very signficant part of the team all season is going to have an on-court impact.

This is completely different from him not being involved in a game involving two teams that have never had play for them. But the Heat team is obviously impacted by Lebron not being there. And it effects them physically because guys are playing more minutes and with greater responsibility.

Yes but focusing only on the physical, notice the semantics. What you are describing is:

"Inverse of on-court impact"

What I'm talking about is

"The actual ways a player influences the game on plays he physically isn't part of"

These are different things. What you're talking about is a variable (determined by on-court actions). What I'm talking is a constant (at least physically) based on independence.**

**

Spoiler:

Mathematically, it's two parts of the same equation:

Y = A - B

Y is the loss a team experiences when a player isn't playing in the game
A is the player's ability to impact the game while off the court
B is the player's ability to impact the game while on the court

You're talking about B. I'm talking about A.

I'm also talking about practice.

[Baller2014]

And predictably G35 has replied to Elgee's post, but once again ignored the question I asked him. It's a rather deafening silence. The reason you won't answer it is pretty obvious. Making the finals is actually an arbitrary benchmark.

No, your arguments are boring.....

You can't respond to them you mean.

[G35]

No -- I was illustrating independence. It's fundamental to answering your original question about separating individuals and teams. If you understand the concept of independence, but you don't think it applies to basketball, how do you explain LeBron James's impact on a game he isn't playing in?

Well that's an easy and difficult question to answer at the same time. You didn't give any parameters so there are an infinite number of possibilities. It's easy if you are asking Lebron's impact on last weeks G6 Thunder-Spurs game, because he didn't play in it. So he had zero impact on it.

If you decide to narrow it down to Lebron James impact on a Miami Heat game that he didn't play in and it also has a number of possibilities:
...

Now you also have to ascertain how the Heat play when Lebron leaves the floor for a rest.

Also even when a player is not there how does it affect the psyche of your teammates/coach.

Ah. That's likely the crux of why you don't understand team/player separation. You simultaneously believe the two following positions:

1. LeBron not playing in a basketball game (OKC-SAS) means LeBron has no impact on the game via his absence.
2. LeBron not playing in a basketball game (Heat game) means LeBron impacts the game via his absence.

This is logically inconsistent since he is absent in both cases. :/

Note that you've gone on to infer how LeBron's presence impacts a Heat game, and then removed his presence. Yet you don't do this for non-Heat games, which is again logically inconsistent.

I imagine you're rightfully thinking "well yeah, it's slightly different because hes' under contract with Miami so the Miami players/opponents expect James to be out there while others do not, which changes their psyche." This is true -- there are psychological elements to consider in sports.** But these expectations are unrelated to his physical impact. His absence cannot affect the game physically, because he cannot use his physical gifts to shoot, pass, defend, rebound, etc. when he is absent.

This is absolutely fundamental to the concept of independence and ultimately separating a player from the team. Put more bluntly, if you believe that LeBron impacts Mario Chalmers when he's shooting free throws or Danny Green's accuracy on wide open 3's in any meaningful way, especially when he isn't playing in the game, then you are holding onto a belief that isn't supported by the laws of physics. He cannot have a physical impact on something he isn't physically involved in, as you stated in point No. 1 at the top of this post.

**

Spoiler:

Regarding psychological effects -- whether one considers them small or even negligible as most evidence suggests, or one considers them relatively large is moot to this point unless one believes that a player can exert psychological control with his mind to the same degree he can physical control. Ironically, what you've described here, G35, is that a star's absence, like LeBron's in G1 of the Finals, hurts his team and emboldens the opponent. It's a psychological effect that suggests the team is worse than if LeBron weren't there in the first place...which only strengthens the argument for separating teams and individuals. ONLY in a universe where the psychological effect of the individual could be strong and positive could you ever argue "it doesn't matter if a player is on the bench, he can still impact the game enough to win with his psychological effect." If this effect is either zero or negative on the team, then a player's absence would amplify the entire reason why independence necessitates a separation from the team and the individual.

No, I understood that Lebron's absence from the OKC-SAS can have an impact because the Spurs wanted to close out the Thunder so they could have the full time off and not have to face Lebron with possible injured personnel.

However, you never set any parameters. If that game is affected by Lebron's absence then every basketball game played, every pick up game played is affected in some way.

You aren't asking a question based on basketball analysis but possible reality implications.

"Every time someone dies a reality blinks out of existence"

yin and yang, cause and effect, action and reaction

Anytime anything happens there is an effect.

If you believe in this independence effect....lol then Nash goes way down. He isn't singularly responsible for those great ORtgs....he isn't responsible for how well Amare/Marion/Barbosa/Diaw/QRich/Thomas shot the ball. And I don't think that once Nash releases the ball he can cause a player to make a shot. In that aspect I do believe in independence. Nash didn't make anyone shoot the ball better, they had to have the talent to make those shots on their own. I have always had my doubts how well Nash would have played with a lineup of Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Lamar Odom, and Kwame Brown. I sincerely doubt they are even a top 10 offense.....

[ElGee]

Well that's an easy and difficult question to answer at the same time. You didn't give any parameters so there are an infinite number of possibilities. It's easy if you are asking Lebron's impact on last weeks G6 Thunder-Spurs game, because he didn't play in it. So he had zero impact on it.

If you decide to narrow it down to Lebron James impact on a Miami Heat game that he didn't play in and it also has a number of possibilities:
...

Now you also have to ascertain how the Heat play when Lebron leaves the floor for a rest.

Also even when a player is not there how does it affect the psyche of your teammates/coach.

Ah. That's likely the crux of why you don't understand team/player separation. You simultaneously believe the two following positions:

1. LeBron not playing in a basketball game (OKC-SAS) means LeBron has no impact on the game via his absence.
2. LeBron not playing in a basketball game (Heat game) means LeBron impacts the game via his absence.

This is logically inconsistent since he is absent in both cases. :/

Note that you've gone on to infer how LeBron's presence impacts a Heat game, and then removed his presence. Yet you don't do this for non-Heat games, which is again logically inconsistent.

I imagine you're rightfully thinking "well yeah, it's slightly different because hes' under contract with Miami so the Miami players/opponents expect James to be out there while others do not, which changes their psyche." This is true -- there are psychological elements to consider in sports.** But these expectations are unrelated to his physical impact. His absence cannot affect the game physically, because he cannot use his physical gifts to shoot, pass, defend, rebound, etc. when he is absent.

This is absolutely fundamental to the concept of independence and ultimately separating a player from the team. Put more bluntly, if you believe that LeBron impacts Mario Chalmers when he's shooting free throws or Danny Green's accuracy on wide open 3's in any meaningful way, especially when he isn't playing in the game, then you are holding onto a belief that isn't supported by the laws of physics. He cannot have a physical impact on something he isn't physically involved in, as you stated in point No. 1 at the top of this post.

**

Spoiler:

Regarding psychological effects -- whether one considers them small or even negligible as most evidence suggests, or one considers them relatively large is moot to this point unless one believes that a player can exert psychological control with his mind to the same degree he can physical control. Ironically, what you've described here, G35, is that a star's absence, like LeBron's in G1 of the Finals, hurts his team and emboldens the opponent. It's a psychological effect that suggests the team is worse than if LeBron weren't there in the first place...which only strengthens the argument for separating teams and individuals. ONLY in a universe where the psychological effect of the individual could be strong and positive could you ever argue "it doesn't matter if a player is on the bench, he can still impact the game enough to win with his psychological effect." If this effect is either zero or negative on the team, then a player's absence would amplify the entire reason why independence necessitates a separation from the team and the individual.

No, I understood that Lebron's absence from the OKC-SAS can have an impact because the Spurs wanted to close out the Thunder so they could have the full time off and not have to face Lebron with possible injured personnel.

However, you never set any parameters. If that game is affected by Lebron's absence then every basketball game played, every pick up game played is affected in some way.

You aren't asking a question based on basketball analysis but possible reality implications.

I'm asking a question about cause-and-effect in the context of basketball. Why would we care whether some action leads to more sweating or someone tying their shoe tighter? We care about the scoreboard. That's the context. For you to say:

Anytime anything happens there is an effect.

is the crux of the issue because this is not the case in analyzing basketball. When I turn on the game on, it has no effect on the outcome. We are talking about things that effect the outcome in some measurable and meaningful way. The existence of LeBron James has no impact on the OKC-SAS game -- that you think it does it at the heart of the matter.

If you believe in this independence effect....lol then Nash goes way down. He isn't singularly responsible for those great ORtgs....he isn't responsible for how well Amare/Marion/Barbosa/Diaw/QRich/Thomas shot the ball. And I don't think that once Nash releases the ball he can cause a player to make a shot. In that aspect I do believe in independence. Nash didn't make anyone shoot the ball better, they had to have the talent to make those shots on their own.

Yes - this describes separation of individual and team. Nash doesn't shoot for other players. What he does is create better shots for other players. That's the contribution of Global Offense that's so critical to basketball. What we see in correlation ("everyone shoots better when playing with Nash!") can be explained causally.

The reason I can predict Amare Stoudemire's stats so well in NY is because we can look at all the open shots Amare receives because of Nash and the percentage of those shots, including dunks, and normalize them to an average situation that Amare will face in NY.

We can measure the difference between Joe Johnson's open 3's and his covered 3's. And we can observe that Nash causes X amount more open 3's because of the actions of Nash, and calculate the value between those open 3's and the covered 3's. We can then predict what will happen to Phoenix's offense or JJ without Nash. And on and on.

It's not a giant mystery, it just takes analysis. We are interested in when a player's actions affect something -- like Nash creating more open shots -- but we do not ascribe an independent team action to the individual (someone being a GOAT level 3-point shooter when wide open has nothing to do with Nash.)

[G35]

Ah. That's likely the crux of why you don't understand team/player separation. You simultaneously believe the two following positions:

1. LeBron not playing in a basketball game (OKC-SAS) means LeBron has no impact on the game via his absence.
2. LeBron not playing in a basketball game (Heat game) means LeBron impacts the game via his absence.

This is logically inconsistent since he is absent in both cases. :/

Note that you've gone on to infer how LeBron's presence impacts a Heat game, and then removed his presence. Yet you don't do this for non-Heat games, which is again logically inconsistent.

I imagine you're rightfully thinking "well yeah, it's slightly different because hes' under contract with Miami so the Miami players/opponents expect James to be out there while others do not, which changes their psyche." This is true -- there are psychological elements to consider in sports.** But these expectations are unrelated to his physical impact. His absence cannot affect the game physically, because he cannot use his physical gifts to shoot, pass, defend, rebound, etc. when he is absent.

This is absolutely fundamental to the concept of independence and ultimately separating a player from the team. Put more bluntly, if you believe that LeBron impacts Mario Chalmers when he's shooting free throws or Danny Green's accuracy on wide open 3's in any meaningful way, especially when he isn't playing in the game, then you are holding onto a belief that isn't supported by the laws of physics. He cannot have a physical impact on something he isn't physically involved in, as you stated in point No. 1 at the top of this post.

**

Spoiler:

Regarding psychological effects -- whether one considers them small or even negligible as most evidence suggests, or one considers them relatively large is moot to this point unless one believes that a player can exert psychological control with his mind to the same degree he can physical control. Ironically, what you've described here, G35, is that a star's absence, like LeBron's in G1 of the Finals, hurts his team and emboldens the opponent. It's a psychological effect that suggests the team is worse than if LeBron weren't there in the first place...which only strengthens the argument for separating teams and individuals. ONLY in a universe where the psychological effect of the individual could be strong and positive could you ever argue "it doesn't matter if a player is on the bench, he can still impact the game enough to win with his psychological effect." If this effect is either zero or negative on the team, then a player's absence would amplify the entire reason why independence necessitates a separation from the team and the individual.

No, I understood that Lebron's absence from the OKC-SAS can have an impact because the Spurs wanted to close out the Thunder so they could have the full time off and not have to face Lebron with possible injured personnel.

However, you never set any parameters. If that game is affected by Lebron's absence then every basketball game played, every pick up game played is affected in some way.

You aren't asking a question based on basketball analysis but possible reality implications.

I'm asking a question about cause-and-effect in the context of basketball. Why would we care whether some action leads to more sweating or someone tying their shoe tighter? We care about the scoreboard. That's the context. For you to say:

Anytime anything happens there is an effect.

is the crux of the issue because this is not the case in analyzing basketball. When I turn on the game on, it has no effect on the outcome. We are talking about things that effect the outcome in some measurable and meaningful way. The existence of LeBron James has no impact on the OKC-SAS game -- that you think it does it at the heart of the matter.

If you believe in this independence effect....lol then Nash goes way down. He isn't singularly responsible for those great ORtgs....he isn't responsible for how well Amare/Marion/Barbosa/Diaw/QRich/Thomas shot the ball. And I don't think that once Nash releases the ball he can cause a player to make a shot. In that aspect I do believe in independence. Nash didn't make anyone shoot the ball better, they had to have the talent to make those shots on their own.

Yes - this describes separation of individual and team. Nash doesn't shoot for other players. What he does is create better shots for other players. That's the contribution of Global Offense that's so critical to basketball. What we see in correlation ("everyone shoots better when playing with Nash!") can be explained causally.

The reason I can predict Amare Stoudemire's stats so well in NY is because we can look at all the open shots Amare receives because of Nash and the percentage of those shots, including dunks, and normalize them to an average situation that Amare will face in NY.

We can measure the difference between Joe Johnson's open 3's and his covered 3's. And we can observe that Nash causes X amount more open 3's because of the actions of Nash, and calculate the value between those open 3's and the covered 3's. We can then predict what will happen to Phoenix's offense or JJ without Nash. And on and on.

It's not a giant mystery, it just takes analysis. We are interested in when a player's actions affect something -- like Nash creating more open shots -- but we do not ascribe an independent team action to the individual (someone being a GOAT level 3-point shooter when wide open has nothing to do with Nash.)

It seems like we are discussing two different things and not reading what is actually being written.

You asked what effect Lebron has on a game that isn't being played...if this is important to you, you should explain your reasoning. In the context of discussing Steve Nash, I don't think Lebron has any effect. If you want to get into the minutiae everyone and everything has an effect on this world. You just can't see it.

So from what I gather when Nash creates a better shot for a shooter, it really has no effect because he is independent. Then you can predict Amare's stats because of the effect Nash had on what type of shots/looks he received.

So what are you saying? Is there an effect or isn't there? Could you predict say Kwame Brown's stats in place of Amare from 2005-2008 because you can do it for Amare? You can take this "independence" effect and accurately predict how a single player will perform?.....