Kobe vs Nash — Who do you take to start a team?

[ceiling raiser]

This is a heated debate nowadays. Both guys are usually pretty close on all-time guard lists. I think there are advantages to take both guys:

Kobe
• Better as #1 option
• Better with big men
• Better in structured offense

Nash
• Better at leading #1 offenses
• Better in free-flowing offense
• Better shooter

Both guys are probably equal defensively, similar longevity, and succeeded in the 00s West, one of the hardest conference we’ve seen.

Who do you take?

[70sFan]

Nash isn't equal to Kobe defensively, that's ridiculous take.

I also strongly disagree with longevity. Kobe became a superstar in 2001 and ended his prime in 2013. Nash was in his prime for 2005-12 period at most.

[PT416]

Hmm tough choice. Maybe I'll go with the guy who wins championships.

[tsherkin]

This is an interesting discussion.

In 2012, Nash's last All-Star season (at 37), he helped Phoenix to a .500 record with a roster prominently featuring Marcin Gortat, Jared Dudley, Channing Frye, Shannon Brown, RoLo, Markief Morris and the corpse of Grant Hill. That's pretty impressive, and an indication of what his shooting and playmaking can do for a team. I can only imagine that in the contemporary league with its more developed approach to pace-and-space, emphasis on PnR action and so forth, he'd be wildly effective as a younger player. HIs style of play was basically the trendsetter for the modern era, and translates very, very well.

Nash's defense left a lot to be desired, of course. People talk about his ability to elevate his scoring as required by his team, but he averaged 23.9 ppg in the 05 postseason. Shy of some shoddy officiating, he also would have had a great shot at the 07 title, which would have changed a lot of minds on these forums about him as a player, I think. But that didn't happen and crappy officiating has burnt a lot of players, to be fair.

Kobe was a better defender in his prime. He was obviously a whole different level as a scoring threat. The advanced metrics and what have you of all flavors don't like his offensive value relative to Nash's, but Kobe was able to be both the second star and the primary star on title teams. His 08-10 Lakers were pretty wild. Bryant would have laughed at the modern league as far as the way some guys are bombing threes, looking at it as a validation of his shot selection from his own career, heh. 01-13, he was a 4.4 3PA/g player anyway; he only shot 33.6%, but also from 06-08, he shot 5.6 and shot 35.1%. I think that with more emphasis on the three earlier on in his development, given his general shooting prowess, we would have seen him maintaining something like 5 3PA/g at 35% for the bulk of his prime if he played today. Also, he was a .388 FTr guy from 01-13. He was .395 from 05-11. I think he'd have been a .400+ guy in the modern era. And after a conversational back and forth with another poster whom I sadly forget (it was a stiff discussion), I think I've come around to the idea that he might shoot a little better at the rim in this era because of the way the spacing works out. Either way, I think he' ends up remaining something like a 107 TS+ player on high-volume scoring in this era without even much changing HOW he played. If he bothered to adapt and learn to use on-ball screens a little more to his advantage for slithering into the paint, which was something he did a bit even in his own time, well...

This one's tough. In his own career, Nash took some time to be discovered and for MDA to figure out how best to position him to revolutionize an offensive style that is now the league's generic approach (if in more developed fashion). I think Nash would thrive, but I think Kobe would also thrive. And given their relative sizes and level of athleticism, I would be inclined to try Kobe even though I really want to pick Nash here. Speculatively, I think they'd be similar in terms of success but from different angles of approach. Wouldn't take much for Nash to prop up a team like Phoenix, for example. But Kobe could potentially be like Houston Harden, which becomes a very interesting discussion. I don't think Kobe turns into an 11 apg player, of course, but you get what I mean.

[Dutchball97]

I've got to say I love threads like this. Most of my time on the PC board lately is spent arguing with people who have Kobe in their top 5 so this is a nice opportunity for me to be able to unquestionably back Kobe for a change. I think Kobe has a solid argument for the top 10 and he's top 15 at minimum, while I don't really entertain the idea of Nash anywhere near the top 20.

[LAL1947]

I'm taking Kobe... and I think even Nash would take Kobe. Nash was a great player and a really nice guy though. Loved watching him play and I'd have been delighted if his Phoenix Suns won in 2006-07.

Some points to note:

1) Nash pre-2004 was not as effective as post-2004 not because people didn't know how to use him, lol. It was because hand-checking still existed and players on the perimeter could be herded where the defense wanted to herd them if they didn't have the dribbling skills, footwork, speed and athleticism to work around that either by getting past the defender or by creating separation to rise up and shoot over them.

2) Nash was not equal to Kobe defensively. To even imply this is just stupid... but you do you.

3) I'm taking you literally when you say "Kobe was better with big men"... and this isn't true. I think Nash was better with big men and that big men would prefer playing with Nash, since he was unselfish and so good in the P&R. Kobe was a gunner who didn't need anyone to do his thing... but he needed competent players with some gravity to their game around him to win, he didn't have many of those in the dark years from 2004-05 to 2007-08.

4) When you say "free-flowing offense", are you referring to a system or to this era? Nash gets the nod for systems as he's the point and the main man responsible for D'Antoni's league changing style of play. If you're referring to this free-flowing offense era we have now with all the spacing and so much quality 3&D depth on contending teams, I think young Kobe and young Lebron would be equally vying for best player in the league (if there was no MJ). You see what Luka is doing? Young Kobe would do all that and more. Don't forget he was the primary play-maker on our teams before Shaq's toxic behavior made him go full selfish-mode... and most importantly, he could operate from anywhere on the court.

5) Nash did succeed in the 2000s West and won 2 MVPs, a tremendous accomplishment. Yet I don't think Nash would say he succeeded to the same extent since Kobe won 5 titles in this decade and Nash won 0 (should have been 1 in 2006-07).

[1993Playoffs]

I think it depends on what you need for that particular team

[Stalwart]

Obvious troll thread.

[Matt15]

Kobe rather easily. A closer comparison for Nash would be someone like Ewing or Barkley.

[tsherkin]

1) Nash pre-2004 was not as effective as post-2004 not because people didn't know how to use him, lol. It was because hand-checking still existed and players on the perimeter could be herded where the defense wanted to herd them if they didn't have the dribbling skills, footwork, speed and athleticism to work around that either by getting past the defender or by creating separation to rise up and shoot over them.

No, that isn't really correct. He was able to gain the paint just as effectively pre-2004, but he wasn't being deployed as a high-volume handler because the Mavs had Michael Finley in the backcourt with him and Dirk ahead of him. Time on ball was very, very different for him before he got to Phoenix and had his own team. That was the biggest thing D'Antoni did, putting Nash in charge of the ball. MAD wasn't running crazy schemes to enhance Nash's effectiveness and Steve wasn't getting into the paint any differently than he had prior to the rules change for 05. He didn't suddenly start getting a crazy whistle which changed his efficiency the way some players did, and he didn't suddenly start hitting 3s because of the change.

The rest of your post is pretty solid, but the meaningful change for Nash was being in charge of the team, not the rules changes.

[sp6r=underrated]

All Manu threads ultimately comedown to how you weigh the durability and minutes concerns.

All Nash* threads comedown to how you view the pre-05 years. If you think he was elite for most of those years you end up on being much higher on him than those that seem as a secondary all-star at best.

* also rings for the ring counting crew but this isn't unique to Nash

[No-more-rings]

Aside from in your own mind, not really sure where else this is a heated debate. Kobe is the better player, and most would pick him.

[tsherkin]

Aside from in your own mind, not really sure where else this is a heated debate. Kobe is the better player, and most would pick him.

It is actually a pretty interesting debate. Nash was really, really good but one of those players whom people didn't really want to like because he didn't match their desired paradigm in his approach to the game.

[ceiling raiser]

This isn’t a troll thread, I am legitimately split on this.

I see the case for Nash. For Kobe I would have to convince myself he can play defense and hit the three at a high level today. Maybe that’s the case.

[tsherkin]

This isn’t a troll thread, I am legitimately split on this.

I see the case for Nash. For Kobe I would have to convince myself he can play defense and hit the three at a high level today. Maybe that’s the case.

What's your baseline reasoning for the idea that Kobe couldn't play defense at a high level today?

And given his actual skill profile from three in an era where it wasn't encouraged, what's your expectation that he couldn't hit it near to or as well as, say, James Harden?

[dygaction]

I'm taking Kobe... and I think even Nash would take Kobe. Nash was a great player and a really nice guy though. Loved watching him play and I'd have been delighted if his Phoenix Suns won in 2006-07.

Some points to note:

1) Nash pre-2004 was not as effective as post-2004 not because people didn't know how to use him, lol. It was because hand-checking still existed and players on the perimeter could be herded where the defense wanted to herd them if they didn't have the dribbling skills, footwork, speed and athleticism to work around that either by getting past the defender or by creating separation to rise up and shoot over them.

2) Nash was not equal to Kobe defensively. To even imply this is just stupid... but you do you.

3) I'm taking you literally when you say "Kobe was better with big men"... and this isn't true. I think Nash was better with big men and that big men would prefer playing with Nash, since he was unselfish and so good in the P&R. Kobe was a gunner who didn't need anyone to do his thing... but he needed competent players with some gravity to their game around him to win, he didn't have many of those in the dark years from 2004-05 to 2007-08.

4) When you say "free-flowing offense", are you referring to a system or to this era? Nash gets the nod for systems as he's the point and the main man responsible for D'Antoni's league changing style of play. If you're referring to this free-flowing offense era we have now with all the spacing and so much quality 3&D depth on contending teams, I think young Kobe and young Lebron would be equally vying for best player in the league (if there was no MJ). You see what Luka is doing? Young Kobe would do all that and more. Don't forget he was the primary play-maker on our teams before Shaq's toxic behavior made him go full selfish-mode... and most importantly, he could operate from anywhere on the court.

5) Nash did succeed in the 2000s West and won 2 MVPs, a tremendous accomplishment. Yet I don't think Nash would say he succeeded to the same extent since Kobe won 5 titles in this decade and Nash won 0 (should have been 1 in 2006-07).

Pretty measured response to a trolling post designed for you (at least seems to me )

[Jaivl]

I would take Kobe even if I was (even) higher on Dallas Nash's hidden abilities. There's just too much of a gap in career value, IMO.

[Homer38]

Kobe and this is not close

[tsherkin]

Kobe and this is not close

That is a fairly bad take.

[70sFan]

I would take Kobe even if I was (even) higher on Dallas Nash's hidden abilities. There's just too much of a gap in career value, IMO.

Yeah, I get it that Nash is underrated and it's probably closer than some would like to admit, but Kobe has much longer and more valuable prime than Nash. I'd say that Kobe peaked higher as well, although I know some may disagree.

It's not a contest to me, like the gap between top 15 and top 30 player.