Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[Doctor MJ]

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?.....

From what I see here this is a really simple idea that's gotten more and more complicated over the past few posts:

You tend to judge players based on their final team results.
ElGee, as others before, pointed out this is a team game and hence there's stuff beyond the player's control.

After back & forths ElGee started going in a more abstract, academic direction to the get to the logical crux of the matter outside of basketball, to which you respond treating the questions with probably more depth than was intended because he was trying to simplify things not complicate them.

In the end what he's saying is that to justify the player = team results perspective you have to attribute every factor that went into that final result to the player in question, and then he's giving you deliberately absurd examples that you cannot possibly disagree with. Such as: When you watch SAS-OKC, you're not sitting there thinking that LeBron should be judged based on what happened in that series. And yet that result very clearly has the possibility of swaying the end results of the NBA season which will affect your opinion on LeBron. This means LeBron is only part of the story of the NBA champion, and the NBA championship is only part of the story of LeBron this year, which means you have to deal with the other parts, aka context.

I'll add in another example that I've given before:

While it makes sense to judge a player in part based on whether he made or missed one clutch shot in the NBA finals, it doesn't make sense to judge him based on whether someone else hit a shot.

So, when Ray Allen hits that key shot last year, that should have had ZERO direct impact on you opinion on LeBron. And if Allen missing that shot (which would have meant the Heat lost the finals) makes you see LeBron's standing differently, this means you're essentially allowing pure chance to determine your opinions on a player, which you should see as a problem.

[MisterWestside]

You tend to judge players based on their final team results.
ElGee, as others before, pointed out this is a team game and hence there's stuff beyond the player's control.

Honestly DocMJ, it's not all that much different from what some posters here who boast about impact also do.
Because many things that are beyond the player's control also affect impact.

For the particular example of Nash, it's always interesting to wonder how we would all view him as a player if he stayed in Dallas and played Dirk's lackey (Cuban's golden boy) instead of going to Phoenix, where the organization figured out he was friggin' talented at passing and shooting the basketball. Not as one of the GOAT PGs.

[Doctor MJ]

You tend to judge players based on their final team results.
ElGee, as others before, pointed out this is a team game and hence there's stuff beyond the player's control.

Honestly DocMJ, it's not all that much different from what some posters here who boast about impact also do.
Because many things that are beyond the player's control also affect impact.

For the particular example of Nash, it's always interesting to wonder how we would all view him as a player if he stayed in Dallas and played Dirk's lackey (Cuban's golden boy) instead of going to Phoenix, where the organization figured out he was friggin' talented at passing and shooting the basketball. Not as one of the GOAT PGs.

It's what people do in general to varying degrees, and it's what I and others are fighting against.

I'm well aware that my perception of Nash was changed by being able to see him in the context of Phoenix, but what consequences do you think there should be that I'm aware of this?

In another universe Nash never goes to Phoenix and we're all trapped seeing Nash as only being capable of what we saw in Dallas...which is just another way of saying we'd be wrong about Nash and not know it. The fact that we only know X because A happened is not a reason to ignore X. But in recognizing that A happened when it might not have, this should cause us to consider what other things B, C, D, etc didn't happen that might have.

In general I would characterize this as the reason why we need to look at players from a more optimistic perspective rather than a more pessimistic perspective. We saw what Nash was doing in Phoenix. That's real. Nothing can change that.

What's more, no one should require seeing Nash in Dallas in order to judge him in Phoenix. Anyone who thinks they do is simply doing analysis poorly. The Dallas vs Phoenix comparison is a more abstract analysis than simply looking at Nash in one place. It should be MORE difficult for people. If it isn't, that means that all the analysis done is simply superficial. Nash showed what he was capable of in Phoenix, end of story.

Does that mean we ignore Dallas? No. Once you've got the fundamentals down and understand what a player is capable of, going and working to understand why he was limited in other circumstances is extremely useful. And it's fine to factor that in in longevity (obviously) as well as versatility, portability, etc. All of this though is just the shading of the blurry edges around the actual shape of the player in question.

And what of those who may not have been as fortunate as Nash in finding an ideal setting for them to impact a team? Well, we should be trying to think about those scenarios for everyone. That's the lesson, and it clearly even extends back to Nash...as there's clearly no reason to think that Nash's Suns couldn't have won a title given how close the '07 series with the Spurs was despite referee hijinks and Amare already being physically reduced from injury.

To the question at hand: The big 'what if' is Stockton for me. We know the least about him in terms of detailed analytics, and he played for a coach of rigid mindset. What were the full extent of his capabilities? I don't claim to know.

[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

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.

How its not a big deal? You don't think his impact suffers?
Not sure I'm following you here

[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.

How its not a big deal? You don't think his impact suffers?
Not sure I'm following you here

Consider this question:

Don't you think Shaq's impact would suffer if you forced him to stand in the corner and shoot 3's?
What about if you forced Joe Montana to play wide receiver?
Or Wayne Gretzky to play goalie?
Or a CEO to be an engineer?

Obviously these things would have huge impact on impact, but how much do you care? Hopefully not very much.

Those are extreme examples of course, but understand the point: When we look to get the most accurate possible picture of what a person is capable of, we don't allocate equal thought or equal value to all scenarios, and in general the ones we should always be weighting most heavily are those that actually represent the capabilities to the fullest.

Once you know what someone's capable of in the right scenario you can start asking about degradation of impact in other scenarios to the extent it's useful, but it's not the main thrust.

Additionally there's the matter that in the examples I'm giving, much of the issue is that someone is choosing to use them improperly when there's no reason given to justify this. I believe it was earlier in this thread that people made comments along the lines of "Nash couldn't play for Coach X" as if the mere fact that that coach was a good coach made it reasonable to play Nash for hypothetically clashing with the coach. If a coach has the opportunity to play someone the right way and have the great results that come with that, and he doesn't because he's too rigid, then the loss in value is on the coach. Simple as that. Doesn't matter who the coach is.

Larry Brown was one of the names give, and he's brilliant...but he's also not in the NBA right now because he's got issues. Other side of the coin:

The most brilliant coaching move in the history of basketball was Alex Hannum moving "the greatest scorer ever" to be a pass first coach. For that alone he deserves HOF status and mention on all GOAT coach lists. He also got replaced in Denver after a weak '73-74 season, and his replacement - Larry Brown - led the team to an elite record.

The takeaway from this should not be that Hannum was a hapless fool and Brown's a genius capable of adding 28 wins to the team simply by standing where Hannum stood, but rather than coaches have blind spots. Hannum had'em, Brown had'em, they all got'em, and where a player runs into such a blind spot, it's on the coach.

This does not mean, of course, that we should go around saying that Nash was "the real MVP" in Dallas. Regardless of the reasons why, he simply wasn't. However acknowledging that Nash didn't have anything like MVP impact in Dallas has no bearing on whether he had the capability of MVP impact in the right situation.

And since that brings up another obvious rebuttal, let me head that one off:

"But Doc, if he's only having seemingly MVP impact with the right situation, doesn't that mean it's the outside context contributing the value rather than Nash?"

No, impact is based on irreplaceability, what you're describing is versatility. His limited versatility means that he's not equally impactful in all situations, but it does not change the fact that he has night & day impact in his wheelhouse.

[ElGee]

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?.....

So Doc recapped well as we have taken a dive into the details, which I think this has provided clarification, but before responding to any more specifics let me tie it back to the main point and echo what he said:

Q: How do you separate an individual from the team result?

A: By understanding that the individual is not responsible for the entire team result (there are things independent from the individual that contribute to the team result)

That's why I started with independence and the wallet analogy. If you understand the concept, it applies to basketball or your pocket change.

Then we went into the weeds a little on a basic idea about independent plays (e.g. free throw shooting%). Which leads us to the application of the original question:

So from what I gather when Nash creates a better shot for a shooter...Is there an effect or isn't there?

Nash's impact is that he creates a better shot. That's very powerful and caused by Nash.
The accuracy with which the other player shoots that open shot is independent of Nash.

The reason why this creates such a noticeable impact in basketball is because most people are much better at shooting open shots than covered shots. And most people can't create their own open shot.

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?....

So this is beyond the scope of this conversation, but in general, yes, the better we measure and understand these actions the better our predictions are. I've written about this on my blog and it's one of the reasons why, for instance, my analysis of the 2011 Dallas-LAL series was so different than everyone else's. I'll leave it at that, though, as I do this kind of analysis with Amare and another player similar to Kwame in something I'm in the process of publishing. What I will say here is that anytime our predictive power is improved it's because our descriptions are better -- looking at these interactions among all the players on the court will outperform a simplistic "player=team" description/prediction every time.

[Texas Chuck]

This does not mean, of course, that we should go around saying that Nash was "the real MVP" in Dallas. Regardless of the reasons why, he simply wasn't. However acknowledging that Nash didn't have anything like MVP impact in Dallas has no bearing on whether he had the capability of MVP impact in the right situation.

And since that brings up another obvious rebuttal, let me head that one off:

"But Doc, if he's only having seemingly MVP impact with the right situation, doesn't that mean it's the outside context contributing the value rather than Nash?"

No, impact is based on irreplaceability, what you're describing is versatility. His limited versatility means that he's not equally impactful in all situations, but it does not change the fact that he has night & day impact in his wheelhouse.

I think a very simple, but almost never mentioned(except by me) reason for why Nash was so much more effective in Phoenix was how much better shape he got himself into. One of his problems in Dallas was conditioning. He was more interested in living the NBA life than doing everything possible to be his very best. Nash freely admits that he drastically changed his ways prior to the 04-05 season because he was determined to show Cuban what a giant mistake he made. And mission accomplished.

Again, I've posted it before but this idea that Nash didnt have the ball enough in Dallas is wrong--his usage and FGAs verify what I remember: he always had the ball in Dallas. And the idea that Nellie didnt know what to do with a talented offensive PG is so ludicrous as to be laughable.

1. Nash' improved fitness/strength/back care
2. A better synergy with players who complemented him better than Dirk/Fin etc...
3. Nash was always really good, but he got lost in the shuffle with Fin and Dirk(mainly Dirk) but its impossible to ignore the massive impact he had on elevating that Suns teams so he got more notice for doing much of what he'd already done.

I agree with Doc that we should primarily focus on Phoenix Nash for the reasons he gave. I do think the Dallas portion of his career is relevant, but shouldn't be seen primarily as a negative, but rather mostly as a positve, despite some disappointing playoff performances at times.

Nash is one the greatest players ever and we should celebrate that.

[ElGee]

To the question at hand: The big 'what if' is Stockton for me. We know the least about him in terms of detailed analytics, and he played for a coach of rigid mindset. What were the full extent of his capabilities? I don't claim to know.

This is a great question and I'll go into broken record mode: This is exactly why I separate value and goodness. Value is situational.

Now, when it comes to our analysis of players and the effect of our own perception of them, it's also why -- on the heels of my conversation with G35 here -- we should look at the interactions of plays and situations to paint a picture of goodness and not just the situation. In basketball parlance, this means "skill set" or "game" or thinking about applications of concepts like "portability." In other words, if a player has the following distribution of plays on a team:

80% catch and shoot jumpers in the corner
10% PnR
10% Pinch post isolations

His VALUE will be a result of the weight of this distribution (heavily skewed toward his corner 3 accuracy). But this does not mean we can't look at his PnR's, mid-post isolation game, etc. and understand how the result would be different with different teammates and how that would change the player's distribution. (Goodness in this sense is a weighted average of value.)

For Stockton, I don't see any evidence that he was some player who was kept back. I mean, Stockton was a pretty damn good player -- probably only bested by a few players in the world on offense at any given time throughout his prime. I have a hard time thinking he was held back by the coach or situation though because

a) He was on the ball so much
b) He very clearly was hyper-selective about his shot, passing on angles and plays that someone like Nash does not
c) His "successor" Deron Williams was clearly never held back

Is it possible Stockton is slightly better than I think? Of course -- I'd say that about every player though. Is there something with him that suggests more variance/uncertainty in our ability to evaluate him? I don't see that, but I'm certainly open to an argument/analysis.

Nash, OTOH...I personally do think he improved clearly as a player in Phoenix (note conditioning and athleticism) and that the rules of 2005 helped magnify his value. Which is another way of saying that if he played in Dallas without a rules change (and no conditioning improvement) that I don't think I would be underrating his career (hopefully).

[ElGee]

Haha Chuck -- Jinx.

[Hook_Em]

I think there's a misconception that Dallas got better once Nash left. The Suns smoked them in 05' and Nash dominated. Something like 30/7/12 on 64TS%... Had it not been for Amare going down (who dominated Dallas as well) the Mavs probably wouldn't have made it past them in 06'. Even with that Finals appearance Dallas made it past the 2nd-round once in the 6 years after Nash left. The Suns made it past the 2nd-round three times in that span but simple bad luck cost them in b2b years. Although Dallas doesn't regret anything cause Dirk went God-mode and won them a championship but it would've been interesting to have seen them together for longer.

[Texas Chuck]

I think there's a misconception that Dallas got better once Nash left. The Suns smoked them in 05' and Nash dominated. Something like 30/7/12 on 64TS%... Had it not been for Amare going down (who dominated Dallas as well) the Mavs probably wouldn't have made it past them in 06'. Even with that Finals appearance Dallas made it past the 2nd-round once in the 6 years after Nash left. The Suns made it past the 2nd-round three times in that span but simple bad luck cost them in b2b years. Although Dallas doesn't regret anything cause Dirk went God-mode and won them a championship but it would've been interesting to have seen them together for longer.

Couple things:

1. Doesnt matter if Suns were better than Dallas after Nash left, Dallas could still be a better team than they were. Suns are irrelevant to the Mavs here.

2. I don't think there is any question the Mavs were better. Their record was better and they could match up against any team in the league--something not the case even with the underrated 03 squad. Not nearly as showy, but definitely a better team. I think what you are looking for is whether or not they would have been even better had Nash not left. Really really hard to answer that considering they don't make the Dampier deal if Nash stays nor do they likely make the Nellie/Avery swap when they do. Both of which were instrumental in changing the importance the post-Nash Mavs placed on defense. With Nash, they could continue to outscore teams and be very successful. Without him(And Jamison and Finley etc) they had to be prepared to win a different way some of the time and luckily Dirk is so special offensively that they got away with playing lots of 1-way defensive players around him.

I don't think what happened in Dallas starting in-04-05 is really very relevant to Nash except to show that all the credit he gets for those offenses in Dallas should be tempered a bit since the offense with a lot less talent around Dirk continued to be among the league's best. So while Nash unquestionably deserves most of the credit for the elite Suns offenses, I think we should tap the brakes before crediting him too much for those Mavs offenses which appear to be more closely tied to the presence of Dirk.

And yes as a Mavs fan I wish we had gotten another decade of Nash-Dirk. I think Cuban would have come to the realization that he needed to surround them with defenders the way they did Dirk and who knows maybe Dallas gets another ring or two. Still a really tough conference to win with Kobe/Pau and Duncan in their primes at the same time then the arrival of Durant/Westbrook. But yeah I'd have loved to have seen it.

[Baller2014]

How many times has it been explained? The Mavs record under Nellie, without Nash, was worse, despite adding a number of good players to the team. The reason their 05 record without Nash was better was because Don Nelson was fired during the season, and the Mavs finished 16-2 under Avery. Don Nelson was the reason for a supressed Mavs record, he was holding the whole team back, and his removal resulted in the team's subsequent improvement... not Nash leaving.

[MisterWestside]

It's what people do to varying degrees, and it's what I and others are fighting against.

I'm well aware that my perception of Nash was changed by being able to see him in the context of Phoenix, but what consequences do you think there should be that I'm aware of this?

In another universe Nash never goes to Phoenix and we're all trapped seeing Nash as only being capable of what we saw in Dallas...which is just another way of saying we'd be wrong about Nash and not know it. The fact that we only know X because A happened is not a reason to ignore X. But in recognizing that A happened when it might not have, this should cause us to consider what other things B, C, D, etc didn't happen that might have.

In general I would characterize this as the reason why we need to look at players from a more optimistic perspective rather than a more pessimistic perspective. We saw what Nash was doing in Phoenix. That's real. Nothing can change that.

What's more, no one should require seeing Nash in Dallas in order to judge him in Phoenix.Anyone who thinks they do is simply doing analysis poorly. The Dallas vs Phoenix comparison is a more abstract analysis than simply looking at Nash in one place. It should be MORE difficult for people. If it isn't, that means that all the analysis done is simply superficial. Nash showed what he was capable of in Phoenix, end of story.

Does that mean we ignore Dallas? No. Once you've got the fundamentals down and understand what a player is capable of, going and working to understand why he was limited in other circumstances is extremely useful. And it's fine to factor that in in longevity (obviously) as well as versatility, portability, etc. All of this though is just the shading of the blurry edges around the actual shape of the player in question.

And what of those who may not have been as fortunate as Nash in finding an ideal setting for them to impact a team? Well, we should be trying to think about those scenarios for everyone. That's the lesson, and it clearly even extends back to Nash...as there's clearly no reason to think that Nash's Suns couldn't have won a title given how close the '07 series with the Spurs was despite referee hijinks and Amare already being physically reduced from injury.

To the question at hand: The big 'what if' is Stockton for me. We know the least about him in terms of detailed analytics, and he played for a coach of rigid mindset. What were the full extent of his capabilities? I don't claim to know.

I wouldn't make that claim. Obviously, what Nash did in Phoenix isn't a supposition. It actually took place.

The issue, however, is that this also required an important and fortuitous mid-career shift to another basketball ecosystem. If you even go so far as to admit this, then what about the countless number of players who didn't get this luxury? I mean, for one of many examples, remember the days when we laughed about Al Jefferson heading to the Bobcats when the team just needed a defensive anchor? Guess what? In a vacuum, he still sucks as a defender. The Bobcats also figured out how to use him on their way to a solid NBA season, especially on defense. It was abstract thinking (along with some luck with personnel moves as well) that made this work, because it sure wasn't his prior, real-world reputation as a **** defender. We hate using it, but we must also realize that being able to rate skills in a vacuum and thinking about how certain rosters can use them is hella important, even if those some of those rosters don't exist. (Personally, I disagree with ElGee here with regards to Stockton; I think that he brings much of the same skills as Nash. His ability to create shots in the playoffs is the one drawback about Stockton that I'd consider.)

What evidence did you have of Nash being a HoF PG before Phoenix? If you were strictly going by his impact in Dallas, you'd have none. Would you be the GM who refuses to sign such a player to become the catalyst for your team, based on his record of impact? I would hope not.

[MisterWestside]

How many times has it been explained? The Mavs record under Nellie, without Nash, was worse, despite adding a number of good players to the team. The reason their 05 record without Nash was better was because Don Nelson was fired during the season, and the Mavs finished 16-2 under Avery. Don Nelson was the reason for a supressed Mavs record, he was holding the whole team back, and his removal resulted in the team's subsequent improvement... not Nash leaving.

Not that W-L record is the best way to look at impact anyway (hi on-off/+/-/RPM!), but didn't the Mavs have a better winning percentage through the 64 games that Nelson coached that season?

[Doctor MJ]

It's what people do to varying degrees, and it's what I and others are fighting against.

I'm well aware that my perception of Nash was changed by being able to see him in the context of Phoenix, but what consequences do you think there should be that I'm aware of this?

In another universe Nash never goes to Phoenix and we're all trapped seeing Nash as only being capable of what we saw in Dallas...which is just another way of saying we'd be wrong about Nash and not know it. The fact that we only know X because A happened is not a reason to ignore X. But in recognizing that A happened when it might not have, this should cause us to consider what other things B, C, D, etc didn't happen that might have.

In general I would characterize this as the reason why we need to look at players from a more optimistic perspective rather than a more pessimistic perspective. We saw what Nash was doing in Phoenix. That's real. Nothing can change that.

What's more, no one should require seeing Nash in Dallas in order to judge him in Phoenix.Anyone who thinks they do is simply doing analysis poorly. The Dallas vs Phoenix comparison is a more abstract analysis than simply looking at Nash in one place. It should be MORE difficult for people. If it isn't, that means that all the analysis done is simply superficial. Nash showed what he was capable of in Phoenix, end of story.

Does that mean we ignore Dallas? No. Once you've got the fundamentals down and understand what a player is capable of, going and working to understand why he was limited in other circumstances is extremely useful. And it's fine to factor that in in longevity (obviously) as well as versatility, portability, etc. All of this though is just the shading of the blurry edges around the actual shape of the player in question.

And what of those who may not have been as fortunate as Nash in finding an ideal setting for them to impact a team? Well, we should be trying to think about those scenarios for everyone. That's the lesson, and it clearly even extends back to Nash...as there's clearly no reason to think that Nash's Suns couldn't have won a title given how close the '07 series with the Spurs was despite referee hijinks and Amare already being physically reduced from injury.

To the question at hand: The big 'what if' is Stockton for me. We know the least about him in terms of detailed analytics, and he played for a coach of rigid mindset. What were the full extent of his capabilities? I don't claim to know.

I wouldn't make that claim. Obviously, what Nash did in Phoenix isn't a supposition. It actually took place.

The issue, however, is that this also required an important and fortuitous mid-career shift to another basketball ecosystem. If you even go so far as to admit this, then what about the countless number of players who didn't get this luxury? I mean, for one of many examples, remember the days when we laughed about Al Jefferson heading to the Bobcats when the team just needed a defensive anchor? Guess what? In a vacuum, he still sucks as a defender. The Bobcats also figured out how to use him on their way to a solid NBA season, especially on defense. It was abstract thinking (along with some luck with personnel moves as well) that made this work, because it sure wasn't his prior, real-world reputation as a **** defender. We hate using it, but we must also realize that being able to rate skills in a vacuum and thinking about how certain rosters can use them is hella important, even if those some of those rosters don't exist.

What evidence did you have of Nash being a HoF PG before Phoenix? If you were strictly going by his impact in Dallas, you'd have none. Would you be the GM who refuses to sign such a player to become the catalyst for your team, based on his record of impact? I would hope not.

I'm not making myself clear it seems.

Look, I'm all for analyzing Nash's entire career. I don't want to ignore the Dallas years. However there should be no possibility of watching Nash in Phoenix, then going back to watch Nash in Dallas, and then saying "Aha! His Phoenix performance isn't so impressive after all when you consider that in Dallas...".

I do understand why some analyze things this way, and I'm pretty sympathetic to people who own up to their limitations - I know I have mine, but the contingent who vehemently denies Nash's MVP candidacy in Phoenix because of what he did elsewhere truly has no idea what they are doing. The ideal analyst ought to be able to figure out what they need to know about Nash in Phoenix based on watching him in Phoenix. The limited analyst can't, uses all information they have from his entire career, but also understands this doesn't tell the whole story. The non-analyst things that Dallas proves something that invalidates what Nash did in Phoenix without even realizing their own limitations.

Re: others who didn't get this luxury. Did you not read my post? I mean I'd go up and highlight the section where I talked about this except it's like the entire post.

Re: Jefferson. Honestly I think the hype around Jefferson is overrating him for much the same reason he's always been overrated. An offensive semi-star joins a team the same time a new defensive specialist takes over as coach, the defense becomes elite with the results correlating far more with other players than with the offensive semi-star, and this is supposed to mean it's the semi-star's impact that made the difference?

Seems pretty clear to me a case where Jefferson's getting the credit because he's the highest profile player and good things happened while he got there with most not noticing that those good things aren't his territory.

To be clear, if Jefferson came to the Bobcats and showed signs of now having night & day impact I'd be all for talking about him based on that (well, that and if the Bobcats were good enough to warrant any discussion at all, instead of being a negative SRS team still), but the very things we point to with Nash tell us we shouldn't be pointing to Jefferson right now. It has nothing to do with Nash being some unique event, it's just Jefferson ain't one of those things.

[MisterWestside]

DocMJ, I wasn't arguing at all that Jefferson was some kind of a defender (re-read when I talked about his defensive skills in a vacuum). His example was to illustrate how even a negative-impact player (Big Al on defense) can still have plenty of utility on a roster, under the right circumstances. It's what a proper basketball ecosystem can do for a player.

I don't essentially disagree with anything you said.

[ceiling raiser]

I don't have much to contribute, but the conversation in this thread and in past related threads is very interesting. This exchange early on really forced me to pause and think:

I still maintain that if people evaluated Kidd as a basketball player and not a point guard he would be more appreciated. Very little gets discussed about him except his flaws as a shooter/scorer and his non-elite team offenses. And if he was just a PG I agree those would be devastating to him in comparison.

But Kidd wasnt really just a PG, and regardless of how he did it, his influence on his team's success goes almost without saying. Every team he joined got better and every team he left got worse and in most cases by a significant number of games.

He contributes to winning games in a ton of ways from his rebounding to his defense to his leadership to his high IQ at both ends of the floor to his passing to his shooting(yes shooting) in the 2nd half of his career.

I actually believe that if his position didnt say PG, his average ranking would go up 10-12 places.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Were Kidd labeled any other position no one would see him as more than a role player on offense. He gets massive points for being a "brilliant point guard" after all.

Perhaps you agree but think the rest of his game would warrant his superstar status, but I certainly disagree there. By any other position his rebounding totals aren't a big deal, and there are other defenders with superior reputations that never make all-star status.

Great points by both TC and Doc, I'm really not sure what to think here. I'm opposed to pigeonholing Kidd as a PG, but even if we view him as somebody who takes on the role he did independent of position, how valuable was he?

Are we comfortable calling Kidd a plus perimeter defender (independent of positional designation)? I'm not sure. As for rebounding, probably not a huge factor when considering perimeter players as a whole (though I'm not as concerned with non-bigs rebounding or really individual rebounding in general, as rebounding is probably more of a team event, with boxing out and all; though I guess it comes down to whether you believe gambling for boards took away from his transition O/D). Passing/IQ/team offense is interesting. Like Stockton (though I don't think Kidd's numbers are as impressive), he has pretty good RAPM numbers overall, but the O/D splits don't paint either as a dominant offensive force. Three plausible explanations as far as I can tell (apologies if I'm leaving something out or misinterpreting the phenomenon here):

1) Collinearity (though with more possessions added as in prior-informed seasons, this won't be as much trouble I believe) causing a small set of possessions to decide the difference between players who shared the floor often (probably more of an issue with Stockton with Malone; we also have data for fewer of his prime seasons than we do for Kidd, though the first two years on ATC's site were Utah's best two offensive seasons of his tenure in terms of relative ORtg I believe)
2) There's a lot of interdependence between Kidd's/Stockton's offense/defense, making the splits unreliable (collinearity might also be an issue here). Since offense creates defense and defense creates offense, strict splits may not be all that useful.
3) The ORtg numbers (and perhaps the WOWY data) are correct in suggesting that Kidd-run offenses were not spectacular (relative to Stockton-run or certainly Nash-run offenses).

Realistically, it's likely a combination of (1)-(3) (and perhaps it's also a matter of Kidd not being put in the right situation to succeed). I do think it's worth further investigation, though I guess we do need more data. We also probably should decide what we think about Kidd's defense, if framed as a perimeter player in general (and not just as one who also played the PG role). At the end of the day he may still finish third in this comparison, but I think having a conversation about the value/impact of his defense could be quite beneficial.

[Doctor MJ]

DocMJ, I wasn't arguing at all that Jefferson was some kind of a defender (re-read when I talked about his defensive skills in a vacuum). His example was to illustrate how even a negative-impact player (Big Al on defense) can still have plenty of utility on a roster, under the right circumstances. It's what a proper basketball ecosystem can do for a player.

Right so, I'll grant your general point, it's just Jefferson's a bad example imho.

The situation with Jefferson is actually exactly the type of situation that Nash skeptics are skeptical about. The want to avoid calling praising a guy simply because he popped up somewhere at the right time riding a wave of success that largely would have been there without him, and so do I. I work to make clear that Nash is not one of those guys...but Jefferson totally is one of those guys.

I'll go so far as to say that this past year has shown that you can make a great defense even if you have Al Jefferson, and that that's only possible if you find a way to keep him from going dysfunctional out there. That is indeed part of the coaching accomplishment there, and it does make one be forced to include in a scouting analysis: Does this guy just look horrible on defense because his coach hasn't found a way to make it work?

[MisterWestside]

Right so, I'll grant your general point, it's just Jefferson's a bad example imho.

The situation with Jefferson is actually exactly the type of situation that Nash skeptics are skeptical about. The want to avoid calling praising a guy simply because he popped up somewhere at the right time riding a wave of success that largely would have been there without him, and so do I. I work to make clear that Nash is not one of those guys...but Jefferson totally is one of those guys.

I'll go so far as to say that this past year has shown that you can make a great defense even if you have Al Jefferson, and that that's only possible if you find a way to keep him from going dysfunctional out there. That is indeed part of the coaching accomplishment there, and it does make one be forced to include in a scouting analysis: Does this guy just look horrible on defense because his coach hasn't found a way to make it work?

I juxtaposed Jefferson with Nash for that exact reason Like I said, if you went strictly by impact, you'd get the impression that the man didn't hurt you alot on defense in a vacuum when that isn't the case; I thought I made that clear when I referenced his defensive skill-set. Clifford was a master with his defensive schemes, and also with hiding Jefferson in those schemes.

No, the Nash detractors can't do the same with Nash.

[Baller2014]

How many times has it been explained? The Mavs record under Nellie, without Nash, was worse, despite adding a number of good players to the team. The reason their 05 record without Nash was better was because Don Nelson was fired during the season, and the Mavs finished 16-2 under Avery. Don Nelson was the reason for a supressed Mavs record, he was holding the whole team back, and his removal resulted in the team's subsequent improvement... not Nash leaving.

Not that W-L record is the best way to look at impact anyway (hi on-off/+/-/RPM!), but didn't the Mavs have a better winning percentage through the 64 games that Nelson coached that season?

The win-loss % was basically the same for the 64 games under Nelson though. It was fractionally higher, but the smaller sample size makes that fractional difference basically negligible. And the Mavs added a bunch of talent over the offseason. So it looks to an objective observer like the catalyst for the Mavs improving was the dumping of Don Nelson and his gimmick ball, not Nash leaving.