PDA

View Full Version : Starting from scratch: Jason Kidd vs Steve Nash



Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 12:46 PM
If you were starting a team from scratch, which player would you favor and why?

mrblisterdundee
09-09-2016, 01:24 PM
I would lean toward Jason Kidd.
Steve Nash is possibly the best-ever at running an offense. He shot lights out from three his entire career.
But Kidd made the all-NBA defensive first team four times in his career. Even at age 38, Kidd played some impressive defense on peak LeBron James. Combine that with his excellent ability to run an offense, strong rebounding and his drastic late-career improvement in three-point shooting, and he's narrowly the point guard I'd go with.

europagnpilgrim
09-09-2016, 02:05 PM
Kidd, better two way player, not the natural shooter but from U of Cal to Mavs to Suns to Nets he was the better impact player and I bet Nash would trade his 2 mvp's for those 2 finals trips led by Kidd and that late career ring with the Mavs

Kidd was like the Draymond Green version PG, he was just everywhere doing it all from taking charges to dropping dimes and was a triple double threat every night in his youthful days and could guard both backcourt spots and sometimes SF players at times because of his size

to me its not even close but what do I know

Chronz
09-09-2016, 02:18 PM
Out of all the PG debates, Kidd vs Nash will always be among the most divisive. It really highlights what you value in a player because as good of a passer Kidd was, I always felt he needed more help to spearhead an elite offense, without his transition game (Which was elite) I highly doubt Kidd had what it would take due to his inefficiency and complete lack of spacing. Whereas Nash (with great help) was always leading the best offenses. Because defense is soo hard to quantify, we may never truly know how dominant Kidd was in that regard but if you know anything about the defensive metrics available, Kidd is the one outlier you dont have trouble buying. He stands out because his box score numbers are strong yes, always a great stat padding rebounder but the thing is, it was actually in his teams best interest to chase rebounds (unlike some other stat padders) because it got the running game going and he was the fastest guy around for like a decade.



There are guys like Stephon Marbury with greater stats than Kidd but you could always discount them because of an utter lack of team influence but Nash was far different. He was efficient, devastating without the ball and truly made everyone around him better. Kidd did as well, but it was a result of his ball hoggery more than him being a threat without it ala LeBron.


Career wise, I take Kidd cuz he developed quicker, had a 2-way game and proved to be an effective role player in his final days.

If Im building around a single player (as the thread asks), its Nash, simply because if Im starting with him I already sport the most important and IMO, the most influential aspects of a team game. With Kidd, I have to really build with his inefficiencies offensively in mind and with the idea that I have to highlight his defensive strengths. Which is harder to do with a PG, as its easier to find bigmen who can rebound than bigmen who can shoot. Nash is more adaptive IMO and that matters more when I dont know the comp. Like if this is a historical draft, I prolly take Kidd but the fact that its close means the fact that I want Nash over Kidd ALL DAY EVERY DAY IN TODAYS LEAGUE, means he gets the edge.


Easier to build with Nash, him being a liability doesn't matter in most cases because teams rarely have the talent to expose defenders at every wing position.

flea
09-09-2016, 02:31 PM
I agree with Chronz, in today's P&R bombs away league with zero physicality on the perimeter I take Nash. Hell he's the blueprint for that type of offense and I don't think any guard has surpassed him at it yet - I'm not sure any ever will. I think Nash and Kobe are neck and neck for best offensive guard after Jordan and I think I might just take Nash there.

In the time when you could play physically on the perimeter I think it's closer. Kidd had a physical offensive style and had maybe one of the most effective post games of all guards - not at scoring but playmaking. Plus his all around game is somewhat unequaled among guards of his generation, and he's widely regarded as one of the highest IQ players ever.

I think I still take Nash. It's not like he wouldn't be able to make it with handchecking at all - hell when he started his career it was nothing like it is today on the perimeter. Even in 2005-2007 before they made the rules clarifications for shooters it was quite different. If Kevin Johnson and John Stockton were able, Nash would be more than capable of being a top guard in the 90s.

IndyRealist
09-09-2016, 02:40 PM
I would lean toward Jason Kidd.
Steve Nash is possibly the best-ever at running an office. He shot lights out from three his entire career.
But Kidd made the all-NBA defensive first team four times in his career. Even at age 38, Kidd played some impressive defense on peak LeBron James. Combine that with his excellent ability to run an offense, strong rebounding and his drastic late-career improvement in three-point shooting, and he's narrowly the point guard I'd go with.

#managerialskillz

MJL80
09-09-2016, 02:52 PM
Nash could score, no doubt... But give me Kidd for the D

mngopher35
09-09-2016, 02:55 PM
Pretty much agree with Chronz/Flea. Nash to run the offense, especially in todays game, is just too good to pass up. If we are talking who had the better career or a different era I can see Kidd being the answer but if I am building around the prime version of either of them today I take Nash.

naps
09-09-2016, 03:36 PM
Steve Nash.

Best floor general not named Magic. Defense for point guards is overrated. It's the bigs that make the true defensive impact. You can easily hide defensive deficiencies of your point guards if you have good defensive bigs. Steve Nash was insanely great with his playmaking, court vision, ability to make others better, and perimeter game. Kidd was great too but Nash was just better. Not a hard pick for me.

TheMightyHumph
09-09-2016, 03:40 PM
Didn't watch Kidd all that much with the Suns, but being a Net fan, watched him closely when he became a Net.

Kidd was good defensively, but not at guarding PGs. Quick PGs would blow by Kidd like he wasn't there. He also liked to slough off the PG he was defending and drift towards the basket, looking for rebounding position, often leaving his man open for 3-pointers.

Kidd could guard the hell out of SGs and David Wesley.

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 03:42 PM
Comparing their careers:


Steve Nash
8 All-Star Games
2 MVP's and 1 Runner-Up MVP
7 All-NBA teams (3 first, 2 second and 2 third)


Jason Kidd
10 All-Star Games
1 Runner-Up MVP
6 All-NBA teams (5 first, 1 second)
9 All-Defensive teams (4 first, 5 second)

All time ranks Nash
46th in minutes
36th in games
16th in 3 pointers made
3rd in assists
83rd in points
70th in PER
17th in ts%
1st in FT%
10th in ORtg
16th in OWS
38 in Win Shares
65th in WS/48
95th in VORP

All time ranks Kidd
4th in minutes
9th in games
5th in 3 pointers made
62nd rebounds
2nd in assists
2nd in steals
80th in points
31st in Win Shares
29th in BPM
11th in VORP



plus Kidd has one ring; i think Kidd had the better career, a lot of that has to do with him being able to stay healthier than Nash (as evidence by Kidd being 4th in the history of total minutes played and Nash only 46th)

Heediot
09-09-2016, 04:20 PM
Kidd.

shep33
09-09-2016, 05:40 PM
Nash easily for me.

One can legit put Nash on a short list of the greatest shooters ever to play, and one of the top 3-4 playmakers ever.

Shammyguy3
09-09-2016, 05:51 PM
I would lean toward Jason Kidd.
Steve Nash is possibly the best-ever at running an office. He shot lights out from three his entire career.
But Kidd made the all-NBA defensive first team four times in his career. Even at age 38, Kidd played some impressive defense on peak LeBron James. Combine that with his excellent ability to run an offense, strong rebounding and his drastic late-career improvement in three-point shooting, and he's narrowly the point guard I'd go with.


Kidd, better two way player, not the natural shooter but from U of Cal to Mavs to Suns to Nets he was the better impact player and I bet Nash would trade his 2 mvp's for those 2 finals trips led by Kidd and that late career ring with the Mavs

Kidd was like the Draymond Green version PG, he was just everywhere doing it all from taking charges to dropping dimes and was a triple double threat every night in his youthful days and could guard both backcourt spots and sometimes SF players at times because of his size

to me its not even close but what do I know


Out of all the PG debates, Kidd vs Nash will always be among the most divisive. It really highlights what you value in a player because as good of a passer Kidd was, I always felt he needed more help to spearhead an elite offense, without his transition game (Which was elite) I highly doubt Kidd had what it would take due to his inefficiency and complete lack of spacing. Whereas Nash (with great help) was always leading the best offenses. Because defense is soo hard to quantify, we may never truly know how dominant Kidd was in that regard but if you know anything about the defensive metrics available, Kidd is the one outlier you dont have trouble buying. He stands out because his box score numbers are strong yes, always a great stat padding rebounder but the thing is, it was actually in his teams best interest to chase rebounds (unlike some other stat padders) because it got the running game going and he was the fastest guy around for like a decade.



There are guys like Stephon Marbury with greater stats than Kidd but you could always discount them because of an utter lack of team influence but Nash was far different. He was efficient, devastating without the ball and truly made everyone around him better. Kidd did as well, but it was a result of his ball hoggery more than him being a threat without it ala LeBron.


Career wise, I take Kidd cuz he developed quicker, had a 2-way game and proved to be an effective role player in his final days.

If Im building around a single player (as the thread asks), its Nash, simply because if Im starting with him I already sport the most important and IMO, the most influential aspects of a team game. With Kidd, I have to really build with his inefficiencies offensively in mind and with the idea that I have to highlight his defensive strengths. Which is harder to do with a PG, as its easier to find bigmen who can rebound than bigmen who can shoot. Nash is more adaptive IMO and that matters more when I dont know the comp. Like if this is a historical draft, I prolly take Kidd but the fact that its close means the fact that I want Nash over Kidd ALL DAY EVERY DAY IN TODAYS LEAGUE, means he gets the edge.


Easier to build with Nash, him being a liability doesn't matter in most cases because teams rarely have the talent to expose defenders at every wing position.


I agree with Chronz, in today's P&R bombs away league with zero physicality on the perimeter I take Nash. Hell he's the blueprint for that type of offense and I don't think any guard has surpassed him at it yet - I'm not sure any ever will. I think Nash and Kobe are neck and neck for best offensive guard after Jordan and I think I might just take Nash there.

In the time when you could play physically on the perimeter I think it's closer. Kidd had a physical offensive style and had maybe one of the most effective post games of all guards - not at scoring but playmaking. Plus his all around game is somewhat unequaled among guards of his generation, and he's widely regarded as one of the highest IQ players ever.

I think I still take Nash. It's not like he wouldn't be able to make it with handchecking at all - hell when he started his career it was nothing like it is today on the perimeter. Even in 2005-2007 before they made the rules clarifications for shooters it was quite different. If Kevin Johnson and John Stockton were able, Nash would be more than capable of being a top guard in the 90s.


Pretty much agree with Chronz/Flea. Nash to run the offense, especially in todays game, is just too good to pass up. If we are talking who had the better career or a different era I can see Kidd being the answer but if I am building around the prime version of either of them today I take Nash.


Steve Nash.

Best floor general not named Magic. Defense for point guards is overrated. It's the bigs that make the true defensive impact. You can easily hide defensive deficiencies of your point guards if you have good defensive bigs. Steve Nash was insanely great with his playmaking, court vision, ability to make others better, and perimeter game. Kidd was great too but Nash was just better. Not a hard pick for me.


Nash easily for me.

One can legit put Nash on a short list of the greatest shooters ever to play, and one of the top 3-4 playmakers ever.

i've added all of these votes to the poll

dhopisthename
09-09-2016, 05:52 PM
http://bkref.com/tiny/zaQZv

one interesting thing is that nash wasn't a full time starter till age 26 or his 5th year. that is a ton of patience for a guy. I think that I would probably rather have kidd even with his lower ceiling then nash. it is really tough though because I think nash would be even better in todays nba then he was in his and kidd might not be.

europagnpilgrim
09-09-2016, 05:59 PM
Nash easily for me.

One can legit put Nash on a short list of the greatest shooters ever to play, and one of the top 3-4 playmakers ever.

one of the best shooters no doubt but top 3-4 playmakers ever is really really stretching the imagination, off top Jordan/The Answer/Big O and plenty more better at making plays(creating for self/others), you should have said one of the best passers to do it as he should be since he was a supreme pass heavy PG like Magic/Kidd/Stockton/Jackson

zn23
09-09-2016, 06:35 PM
I'm assuming in their prime?

Jason Kidd was a superior defender, but Nash was a far superior offensive player in his prime than Jason Kidd could ever dream of. He was practically was 50,40,90 for his career. Plus he was a passing wizard.

Give me a better offensive player over a better defensive player any day.

Start with a player like Nash and it's easy to build around. If you start with Kidd you need a whole lot of help offensively.

Bruno
09-09-2016, 09:54 PM
Steve Nash.

Best floor general not named Magic. Defense for point guards is overrated. It's the bigs that make the true defensive impact. You can easily hide defensive deficiencies of your point guards if you have good defensive bigs. Steve Nash was insanely great with his playmaking, court vision, ability to make others better, and perimeter game. Kidd was great too but Nash was just better. Not a hard pick for me.

For most PGs, maybe. But not for Kidd. he anchored elite defenses from the PG position. go look at those team defensive numbers in Phoenix before and after, and NJN before and after, look at the rosters. looking at the names it doesn't make any sense how these teams were so high in defensive rating, I tend to give Kidd a lot of credit for that.

JordansBulls
09-09-2016, 09:57 PM
Kidd he played both ends and Nash didn't become a superstar until he was 30 years old.

TheMightyHumph
09-09-2016, 10:21 PM
For most PGs, maybe. But not for Kidd. he anchored elite defenses from the PG position. go look at those team defensive numbers in Phoenix before and after, and NJN before and after, look at the rosters. looking at the names it doesn't make any sense how these teams were so high in defensive rating, I tend to give Kidd a lot of credit for that.

I can only tell you what I saw of him as a Net.

Kidd could not guard PGs. Fortunately, Kerry Kittles was excellent at guarding PGs.

The one really good season Nets had with Kidd and not Kittles, Jacque Vaughn played a lot as PG on defense.

Raps18-19 Champ
09-09-2016, 10:23 PM
Nash because he's better.

FlashBolt
09-09-2016, 10:43 PM
I'd take Nash over Kidd any day. A much more consistent game and though Kidd was better overall, Nash's style would be much easier to build around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

europagnpilgrim
09-10-2016, 12:05 AM
I'm assuming in their prime?

Jason Kidd was a superior defender, but Nash was a far superior offensive player in his prime than Jason Kidd could ever dream of. He was practically was 50,40,90 for his career. Plus he was a passing wizard.

Give me a better offensive player over a better defensive player any day.

Start with a player like Nash and it's easy to build around. If you start with Kidd you need a whole lot of help offensively.

But that 50-40-90 wasn't in a superior realm like a Bird/KD who shot way more or were just flat out better scorers, Kidd with his assist-points combined made up for that and his rebounds he would get to ignite a break were crucial to go along with his steals/charges he would take, he had a bigger impact from college to the nba, regardless of a offensive system since he was the qb, it was like Nash had to run a particular system fast pace to do his thing while Kidd could play in any system being the more dynamic talent who was a walking triple double since college

Nash would take like 10-12 shots per game pretty much when I watched and would rack up dimes like crazy, its similar to how Stockton played but when the chips were down and those two needed to drop 30pts or so to help the team they were just too unselfish or not built for it(I say the latter), especially Stockton in those 97/98 finals when the Jazz needed him to do that but it just wasn't his dna style of play, that's why I like the Zeke/Answer PG/hybrid and even a CP3 type who has shown he is capable of putting up that 30 if needed for the team to put the team over the top

had Nash took 20 shots per game with those percentages than you would have a very strong case but taking 10-12 shots and shooting 50pct is not special at all in my bball book

Nash avg like 14ppg on like 11 shots per game, nothing superior at all about those numbers even when being compared to a non scoring PG like Kidd who averaged like 13ppg on like 11 shots per game, efficiency is overrated, what needs to be done for the team to win is all that matters and Kidd was more of that and it shows with his 3 finals trips and 1 ring

europagnpilgrim
09-10-2016, 12:13 AM
I'm assuming in their prime?

Jason Kidd was a superior defender, but Nash was a far superior offensive player in his prime than Jason Kidd could ever dream of. He was practically was 50,40,90 for his career. Plus he was a passing wizard.

Give me a better offensive player over a better defensive player any day.

Start with a player like Nash and it's easy to build around. If you start with Kidd you need a whole lot of help offensively.

Kidd must have been in his prime in college since he was a walking triple double at that level and didn't miss a beat once he entered the league and won I think co rookie of the year with Hill

mrblisterdundee
09-10-2016, 01:57 AM
I agree with Chronz, in today's P&R bombs away league with zero physicality on the perimeter I take Nash. Hell he's the blueprint for that type of offense and I don't think any guard has surpassed him at it yet - I'm not sure any ever will. I think Nash and Kobe are neck and neck for best offensive guard after Jordan and I think I might just take Nash there.

I think you're forgetting about Stephen Curry and Jerry West.
In seven seasons, Curry's had three better than any Nash ever had in 18. Curry's already seen as the better shooter and overall scorer. Replace Draymond Green with Suns-era Shawn Marion, and Curry would significantly juice his assist numbers, just as Green would eat into Nash's if he had been on the Suns. Curry will likely have similar longevity as Nash, along with a higher and longer peak.
The big mystery with West, an excellent shooter and superior scorer, was how he would have done with a three-point line. But with four fewer seasons and no three-point line, he still solidly outperformed Nash.

PowerHouse
09-10-2016, 09:30 AM
Cant I just take the '98 Suns?

That squad had both!

..and KJ to boot.

xbrackattackx
09-10-2016, 05:13 PM
It's like asking if you want Prime Rondo or Prime Curry.

HandsOnTheWheel
09-10-2016, 05:45 PM
Nash

Chronz
09-10-2016, 08:23 PM
I think you're forgetting about Stephen Curry and Jerry West.
In seven seasons, Curry's had three better than any Nash ever had in 18. Curry's already seen as the better shooter and overall scorer. Replace Draymond Green with Suns-era Shawn Marion, and Curry would significantly juice his assist numbers, just as Green would eat into Nash's if he had been on the Suns. Curry will likely have similar longevity as Nash, along with a higher and longer peak.
The big mystery with West, an excellent shooter and superior scorer, was how he would have done with a three-point line. But with four fewer seasons and no three-point line, he still solidly outperformed Nash.

He did say AFTER MJ so West dont count but he does rank up there. By various +/- measures, Kobe and Nash rank higher than you would think based on their relatively low individual metrics, which many newbs might disregard (which is a funny quirk considering these are the metrics that tend to favor their idols) but still matter immensely.

Chronz
09-10-2016, 08:36 PM
Didn't watch Kidd all that much with the Suns, but being a Net fan, watched him closely when he became a Net.

Kidd was good defensively, but not at guarding PGs. Quick PGs would blow by Kidd like he wasn't there. He also liked to slough off the PG he was defending and drift towards the basket, looking for rebounding position, often leaving his man open for 3-pointers.

Kidd could guard the hell out of SGs and David Wesley.

Yeah, Kittles really changed the complexion of the Finals vs the Spurs. Against the Lakers there was no purpose in hounding a PG as both Kidd and Kittles excelled on taller guards and there was no quickness factor to eliminate with length, it was a bunch of mid sized perimeter players showcasing their skill. The thing about defense tho, is if you're focusing on how 1 player guards his initial man, you're neglecting what makes defense so important. Its the constant help and recover actions, their team defense. Kidd may not have been as effective on a PG but hes WAY better at making sure your guy doesn't beat you as a result of a lack of helpside defense. You ever see players point at their teammates after a layup like they ****ed up instead of them? Thats because sometimes (depends on the player, obviously) its because they were expecting the help to come but it never did. Kidd was rarely the guy you could credibly point the finger at.

Look at a guy like Harden, hes an OK 1v1 defender an ELITE post defender, but hes so stupid and lazy at helping that it negates his 1V1. You MUST help in a team game, you look at the best defenders in league history and you would be surprised how many were at one point considered liabilities in the game. Ben Wallace was both simultaneously a great help defender at his peak and a great 1v1 defender in his decline, guess when he won his DPOY's?

Chronz
09-10-2016, 08:38 PM
It's like asking if you want Prime Rondo or Prime Curry.

Hell no. This one is actually hard to consider

Chronz
09-10-2016, 08:59 PM
Kidd must have been in his prime in college since he was a walking triple double at that level and didn't miss a beat once he entered the league and won I think co rookie of the year with Hill

Ur either a clone account or just regurgitating originally flawed arguments. Him being a walking triple double doesn't change the fact of when he was a more productive force. Why would people care about arbitrary numerical totals over actually influential stats? Kidd was not in his prime from day 1 for ****s sakes, thats the dumbest **** reserved for the FIRE homeboys.

europagnpilgrim
09-11-2016, 02:21 AM
Ur either a clone account or just regurgitating originally flawed arguments. Him being a walking triple double doesn't change the fact of when he was a more productive force. Why would people care about arbitrary numerical totals over actually influential stats? Kidd was not in his prime from day 1 for ****s sakes, thats the dumbest **** reserved for the FIRE homeboys.

You either didn't watch Kidd until he got with the Nets or just feel like nitpicking because the Kidd I recall at Cal was a triple double threat and it carried over to the nba

Shaq was a monster force at LSU and it carried over to the nba and so on

so either you know or you don't know

so if speaking the truth is the dumbest **** then no wonder the world/psd in so intelligently cloned to rehash trends of mediatalk(efficiency being the new fad)

Jason kidd had the same game that he showcased throughout his career until age slowed his fast pace down, so all that other arbitrary numerical talk you try to make yourself look intelligent means jack **** when actually just sitting back and watching the damn games, get off your cloned high horse

a player like Shaq wasn't in his prime being heavy as a Laker and 3peating, he was a dominant primed force when he went up against Dream in 95' and his rookie year when he put up like 24/14 and was getting 25/20+/15blocks in game(s) and a older one with the Lakers and even older one with short stint with Heat then father time bit him in the ***, same with the old school more dominant version Dipper who averaged like 50ppg in his 3rd season or so because he was primed(that dominant/good) off the rip no matter how you try and divide the pie, when a player is that good they have no prime just need the proper pieces around to contend for a title that Shaq had in Orlando to LA to Miami


but since 'prime' gets said so much on here I like to say it sarcastically to feed the egos to the experts on this site

the psd version prime of a player = when they win a ring around the age of 27-30 or a 3year peak of best years

my version of dominant/top players(prime) = NCAA to nba day 1 until the wheels slow down around 33-34 yrs of age

this is no argument when speaking on what actually happens on the hardwood, its only an argument in your intelligent metric mind

Shammyguy3
09-11-2016, 02:31 AM
You either didn't watch Kidd until he got with the Nets or just feel like nitpicking because the Kidd I recall at Cal was a triple double threat and it carried over to the nba

Shaq was a monster force at LSU and it carried over to the nba and so on

so either you know or you don't know

so if speaking the truth is the dumbest **** then no wonder the world/psd in so intelligently cloned to rehash trends of mediatalk(efficiency being the new fad)

Jason kidd had the same game that he showcased throughout his career until age slowed his fast pace down, so all that other arbitrary numerical talk you try to make yourself look intelligent means jack **** when actually just sitting back and watching the damn games, get off your cloned high horse

You do know that efficiency is something that is not just a fad, but is being used across all of sports and in business too? It's not a fad, because a fad typically has something that appeals only to a certain demographic and/or it is fundamentally flawed, like certain "new diets" that claim to have the cure for obesity if you follow htem.

Federal Reserve
09-11-2016, 02:44 AM
Nash ran one of the most efficient and successful offenses in all of NBA history. He was a transcendental player who redefined the way the NBA game is meant to be played. He was a ferocious leader and a great teammate. Nash was a better scorer and passer than Kidd was. And, no, stealing defensive rebounds from your teammates to get a triple double does not make you a better player.

europagnpilgrim
09-11-2016, 03:01 AM
You do know that efficiency is something that is not just a fad, but is being used across all of sports and in business too? It's not a fad, because a fad typically has something that appeals only to a certain demographic and/or it is fundamentally flawed, like certain "new diets" that claim to have the cure for obesity if you follow htem.

you know its a fad when 90pct of the people who now watch sports spew it on every comment made on here, look around and see what I mean

it is always about winning and what situations you are placed in to be efficient, this is basic in the game of basketball as it gets

like for instance do you think KD against Memphis some years back when Westbrook was out for that series shot as well when Westbrook was there? he wasn't the 50-40-90 guy because Westbrook helped ease the load for him to be more efficient, but for the most part KD disappeared or just didn't play up to his usual efficient standards, hell he wasn't as efficient after going up 3-1 this past postseason either, **** happens I guess

like you guys will say Nash is so efficient but he shot 10x a game and would hit 5 field goals to make it 50pct, there is no pressure on a player who has to shoot 10x a game so he should be efficient

and those new diet claims are a fad/flash in the pan because most realize they have to go back to the natual stuff that been ignored in the past but were outed for the new diets(efficiency talk), alkaline always was the way to go to cure obesity and other man made nonsense

basketball has always been about winning and doing what is best for the team and who impact the team/game/outcome the most, not being efficient to boost up a certain player over the other when everybody and they mom know who was more dominant without the extra Yiddish added

Shammyguy3
09-11-2016, 03:53 AM
you know its a fad when 90pct of the people who now watch sports spew it on every comment made on here, look around and see what I mean

One, that is an arbitrary number. And two, because it is widely used does not mean it is a fad. The microwave was widely used when introduced to the general public in the 50s.


it is always about winning and what situations you are placed in to be efficient, this is basic in the game of basketball as it gets

like for instance do you think KD against Memphis some years back when Westbrook was out for that series shot as well when Westbrook was there? he wasn't the 50-40-90 guy because Westbrook helped ease the load for him to be more efficient, but for the most part KD disappeared or just didn't play up to his usual efficient standards, hell he wasn't as efficient after going up 3-1 this past postseason either, **** happens I guess


You would be onto something if you were actually correct. Finding out how well a player shot with or without a teammate is quantifiable.


Now your example:
In the 2010 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 6 games
Durant: 35% from the field, 28.6% from three, 49.9ts% 98 ORtg
Westy: 47.3% from the field, 41.7% from three, 57.1ts% 118 ORtg

In the 2011 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 6 games
Durant: 44.9% from the field, 33.9% from three, 58.2ts% 119 ORtg
Westy: 39.4% from the field, 29.2% from three, 49.9ts% 103 ORtg

In the 2012 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 20 games
Durant: 51.7% from the field, 37.3% from three, 63.2ts% 119 ORtg
Westy: 43.5% from the field, 27.7% from three, 50.6ts% 108 ORtg

In the 2014 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 19 games
Durant: 46.0% from the field, 34.4% from three, 57.0ts% 110 ORtg
Westy: 42.0% from the field, 28.0% from three, 53.9ts% 111 ORtg

In the 2016 playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 18 games
Durant: 43.0% from the field, 28.2% from three, 54.2ts% 107 ORtg
Westy: 40.5% from the field, 32.4% from three, 51.5ts% 112 ORtg

There you go, When Durant played poorly Westy played well. When Westy played poorly, Durant played well. Coincidence?

In the 2013 Playoffs, Durant played 11 games and Westbrook only 2 games
Durant with Westbrook: 42.5% from the field, 21.4% from three, 55.8ts% 119 ORtg
Durant w/o Westbrook: 46.1% from the field, 33.9% from three, 57.7ts% 111 ORtg
Westy: 41.5% from the field, 22.2% from three, 50.9ts% 100 ORtg

With Westbrook, Durant played worse. Without him, he played.... better? Yes.

In the 2015 regular season, here are Westbrook's splits with and without Durant
Westbrook with Durant: 42.1% from the field (216/513)
Westbrook w/o Durant: 41.6% from the field (399/958)




So, we can quantify the following:
1) Durant played better when Westbrook played worse than his average
2) Durant played worse when Westy played better than his usual self.
3) in the 2013 playoffs, Durant played BETTER after Westbrook got injured
4) in the 2016 playoffs, Westbrook played better than Durant when Durant was struggling
5) in the 2015 season, Westbrook actually did not play any differently even with Durant out. Damn near identical efficiency numbers for his splits.


So, you are 100% wrong man.




like you guys will say Nash is so efficient but he shot 10x a game and would hit 5 field goals to make it 50pct, there is no pressure on a player who has to shoot 10x a game so he should be efficient

and those new diet claims are a fad/flash in the pan because most realize they have to go back to the natual stuff that been ignored in the past but were outed for the new diets(efficiency talk), alkaline always was the way to go to cure obesity and other man made nonsense

basketball has always been about winning and doing what is best for the team and who impact the team/game/outcome the most, not being efficient to boost up a certain player over the other when everybody and they mom know who was more dominant without the extra Yiddish added

Steve Nash from age 27 to age 35, his prime, shot 12.3 field goals a game (13 per 36 minutes) but still scored 16.9 and 17.9 respectively; and tapping out at 18.8ppg one season taking only 13.4 shots. That is really damn good. His usage rate in that time was 22.2%, and his career high per game scoring he had a usage at 23.3% which is within the top-40 highest usage rates for qualified players that season.


You know what you don't understand with the bolded? Is that, all of these numbers actually contribute to winning.

KnicksorBust
09-11-2016, 10:05 AM
One, that is an arbitrary number. And two, because it is widely used does not mean it is a fad. The microwave was widely used when introduced to the general public in the 50s.




You would be onto something if you were actually correct. Finding out how well a player shot with or without a teammate is quantifiable.


Now your example:
In the 2010 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 6 games
Durant: 35% from the field, 28.6% from three, 49.9ts% 98 ORtg
Westy: 47.3% from the field, 41.7% from three, 57.1ts% 118 ORtg

In the 2011 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 6 games
Durant: 44.9% from the field, 33.9% from three, 58.2ts% 119 ORtg
Westy: 39.4% from the field, 29.2% from three, 49.9ts% 103 ORtg

In the 2012 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 20 games
Durant: 51.7% from the field, 37.3% from three, 63.2ts% 119 ORtg
Westy: 43.5% from the field, 27.7% from three, 50.6ts% 108 ORtg

In the 2014 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 19 games
Durant: 46.0% from the field, 34.4% from three, 57.0ts% 110 ORtg
Westy: 42.0% from the field, 28.0% from three, 53.9ts% 111 ORtg

In the 2016 playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 18 games
Durant: 43.0% from the field, 28.2% from three, 54.2ts% 107 ORtg
Westy: 40.5% from the field, 32.4% from three, 51.5ts% 112 ORtg

There you go, When Durant played poorly Westy played well. When Westy played poorly, Durant played well. Coincidence?

In the 2013 Playoffs, Durant played 11 games and Westbrook only 2 games
Durant with Westbrook: 42.5% from the field, 21.4% from three, 55.8ts% 119 ORtg
Durant w/o Westbrook: 46.1% from the field, 33.9% from three, 57.7ts% 111 ORtg
Westy: 41.5% from the field, 22.2% from three, 50.9ts% 100 ORtg

With Westbrook, Durant played worse. Without him, he played.... better? Yes.

In the 2015 regular season, here are Westbrook's splits with and without Durant
Westbrook with Durant: 42.1% from the field (216/513)
Westbrook w/o Durant: 41.6% from the field (399/958)




So, we can quantify the following:
1) Durant played better when Westbrook played worse than his average
2) Durant played worse when Westy played better than his usual self.
3) in the 2013 playoffs, Durant played BETTER after Westbrook got injured
4) in the 2016 playoffs, Westbrook played better than Durant when Durant was struggling
5) in the 2015 season, Westbrook actually did not play any differently even with Durant out. Damn near identical efficiency numbers for his splits.


So, you are 100% wrong man.



Steve Nash from age 27 to age 35, his prime, shot 12.3 field goals a game (13 per 36 minutes) but still scored 16.9 and 17.9 respectively; and tapping out at 18.8ppg one season taking only 13.4 shots. That is really damn good. His usage rate in that time was 22.2%, and his career high per game scoring he had a usage at 23.3% which is within the top-40 highest usage rates for qualified players that season.


You know what you don't understand with the bolded? Is that, all of these numbers actually contribute to winning.

:clap:

I take Nash btw.

IndyRealist
09-11-2016, 11:48 AM
Efficiency is not a fad. SSOL was a fad. I don't get saying that Nash is easier to build around. He really only peaked in one system, that was custom tailored to his skills. Kidd played both fast and slow, defense and offense, as the primary facilitator and off of a ball dominant wing. What Nash did was transcendant, but he was not easier to build around.

YAALREADYKNO
09-11-2016, 12:41 PM
I like both but I'll lean towards Kidd

europagnpilgrim
09-11-2016, 01:33 PM
One, that is an arbitrary number. And two, because it is widely used does not mean it is a fad. The microwave was widely used when introduced to the general public in the 50s.




You would be onto something if you were actually correct. Finding out how well a player shot with or without a teammate is quantifiable.


Now your example:
In the 2010 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 6 games
Durant: 35% from the field, 28.6% from three, 49.9ts% 98 ORtg
Westy: 47.3% from the field, 41.7% from three, 57.1ts% 118 ORtg

In the 2011 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 6 games
Durant: 44.9% from the field, 33.9% from three, 58.2ts% 119 ORtg
Westy: 39.4% from the field, 29.2% from three, 49.9ts% 103 ORtg

In the 2012 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 20 games
Durant: 51.7% from the field, 37.3% from three, 63.2ts% 119 ORtg
Westy: 43.5% from the field, 27.7% from three, 50.6ts% 108 ORtg

In the 2014 Playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 19 games
Durant: 46.0% from the field, 34.4% from three, 57.0ts% 110 ORtg
Westy: 42.0% from the field, 28.0% from three, 53.9ts% 111 ORtg

In the 2016 playoffs, Durant and Westbrook both played all 18 games
Durant: 43.0% from the field, 28.2% from three, 54.2ts% 107 ORtg
Westy: 40.5% from the field, 32.4% from three, 51.5ts% 112 ORtg

There you go, When Durant played poorly Westy played well. When Westy played poorly, Durant played well. Coincidence?

In the 2013 Playoffs, Durant played 11 games and Westbrook only 2 games
Durant with Westbrook: 42.5% from the field, 21.4% from three, 55.8ts% 119 ORtg
Durant w/o Westbrook: 46.1% from the field, 33.9% from three, 57.7ts% 111 ORtg
Westy: 41.5% from the field, 22.2% from three, 50.9ts% 100 ORtg

With Westbrook, Durant played worse. Without him, he played.... better? Yes.

In the 2015 regular season, here are Westbrook's splits with and without Durant
Westbrook with Durant: 42.1% from the field (216/513)
Westbrook w/o Durant: 41.6% from the field (399/958)




So, we can quantify the following:
1) Durant played better when Westbrook played worse than his average
2) Durant played worse when Westy played better than his usual self.
3) in the 2013 playoffs, Durant played BETTER after Westbrook got injured
4) in the 2016 playoffs, Westbrook played better than Durant when Durant was struggling
5) in the 2015 season, Westbrook actually did not play any differently even with Durant out. Damn near identical efficiency numbers for his splits.


So, you are 100% wrong man.



Steve Nash from age 27 to age 35, his prime, shot 12.3 field goals a game (13 per 36 minutes) but still scored 16.9 and 17.9 respectively; and tapping out at 18.8ppg one season taking only 13.4 shots. That is really damn good. His usage rate in that time was 22.2%, and his career high per game scoring he had a usage at 23.3% which is within the top-40 highest usage rates for qualified players that season.


You know what you don't understand with the bolded? Is that, all of these numbers actually contribute to winning.

based off those numbers KD isn't that efficient like all the experts on here and afar like to spew then, that's one of the main reasons people rank him so high because they scream out he is so efficient, that's the new age talk amongst experts and that doesn't ring true because all that matters is did you win or not, so all the efficient experts missed the boat bad on that and those numbers actually back up my view on players of regardless how inefficient you shoot you still are who you are and shooting 40pct shouldn't make you in a lesser light of a guy who shoots 50pct who has nowhere near the responsibility of shouldering a heavier load

I rank KD on what he brings to the table as far as what he does on the court and how teams gear up to stop him, not what pct. he shoots or TS or ORTG or whatever metric you try to mention, and he looked lost without Westbrook in that Memphis series since they could gear the entire defense up to stop him, but with Westy there he could take off the load no matter if KD shot 4pct points better when he was accustomed to shooting 50pct, just like current Westbrook is not a better player now that he shoots 45pct from the field, he was the same dynamic reckless abandon player years ago as he is right now

Nash was the same player coming out of S. Clara or whatever college he attended and he wasn't a transcendent talent/player like someone croaked on here in other post, he was good PG who fit perfect in that Mike D run and fun gun style with the right players surrounding him, also with the Mavs who kept a nice crop of talent and his actual prime from was the time he entered the league in 96' draft until 35 yrs of age

Nash had the ball all the time so to me his usage rate was higher than that pct you showed since he was the qb of those teams, when the chips were down and his team needed 20+ shots from him he couldn't come through because he wasn't accustomed to that type of pressure, he shot 12 shots per game for a reason, had he taken more like KD and others he wouldn't have been as efficient, its just that simple

just go back to that 2010 playoffs and see what I mean by his team needing him to shoot more and he wasn't built for it because I guess he was worried about being too efficient, Nash is good late bloomer but give me Kidd all day everyday, the better/impact day 1 players are always better years later unless injuries derail that player

numbers you also don't see contribute to winning(game plan/schemes to stopping certain special players/support cast), but I am guessing you don't understand that either

Shammyguy3
09-11-2016, 02:18 PM
based off those numbers KD isn't that efficient like all the experts on here and afar like to spew then, that's one of the main reasons people rank him so high because they scream out he is so efficient, that's the new age talk amongst experts and that doesn't ring true because all that matters is did you win or not, so all the efficient experts missed the boat bad on that and those numbers actually back up my view on players of regardless how inefficient you shoot you still are who you are and shooting 40pct shouldn't make you in a lesser light of a guy who shoots 50pct who has nowhere near the responsibility of shouldering a heavier load

Let's get back to what your point was. You said that it is common sense that Durant is not the efficient guy he's supposed to be when Westbrook is not there. I showed you, that you were wrong. Can you acknowledge that?

Regarding the bolded, that makes no sense. You are discussing two things here. Nobody is saying that DeAndre Jordan is a better offensive player than Blake Griffin. Yes, strictly by the true shooting percentage, offensive rating, etc one could incorrectly say that DeAndre is the better offensive player. That is not true, because yes you need to take into account usage rates and the like.

You are straying from the original points you were trying to make. Points that were wrong.

All things being equal, would you rather have someone that shoots 8/20 from the field and scores 17 points OR rather have someone that shoots 8/20 from the field but scores 20 points? It is clear as day that the second guy is more efficient. And on the same usage. So, it is reasonable to say that he is better if all other things are equal.

Nobody is saying that Kyle Korver is a better offensive player than Allen Iverson because of the offensive load both players are best utilized at. However, when you compare ultra-high usage players to ultra-high usage players, then you MUST take into account efficiency.

And that's where I showed that you were wrong. You said that it is common sense without Westbrook, Durant is not as good. However, without Westbrook Durant was actually better than with him. Even though without Westbrook Durant had to take on a higher role, he was just as productive. That is quantifiable, and that is the point you are not comprehending.



I rank KD on what he brings to the table as far as what he does on the court and how teams gear up to stop him, not what pct. he shoots or TS or ORTG or whatever metric you try to mention, and he looked lost without Westbrook in that Memphis series since they could gear the entire defense up to stop him, but with Westy there he could take off the load no matter if KD shot 4pct points better when he was accustomed to shooting 50pct, just like current Westbrook is not a better player now that he shoots 45pct from the field, he was the same dynamic reckless abandon player years ago as he is right now

Again, you are just wrong. If Durant shoots 40% from the field and 30% from three, and takes 20 shots, let's say he scores 17 points. That is not as good as Durant shooting 45% from the field, 35% from three, taking the same 20 shots, but scoring MORE points.

Feel free to rank players however you want, I won't pull your arm on it. But you are incorrect.

And the bold here is incorrect. He IS a better player because he scores more points on the same amount of shots. I don't know how many times I have to explain it.

Hypothetical Player
Season 1: scores 8 points on 12 shots
Season 2: scores 10 points on 13 shots
Season 3: scores 15 points on 14 shots.
Season 4: scores 20 points on 16 shots.
Season 5: scores 25 points on 19 shots.

Same player, same style of play. There is absolutely zero argument that his increase in efficiency does NOT make him a better player. It does. It absolutely ****ing does.






Nash was the same player coming out of S. Clara or whatever college he attended and he wasn't a transcendent talent/player like someone croaked on here in other post, he was good PG who fit perfect in that Mike D run and fun gun style with the right players surrounding him, also with the Mavs who kept a nice crop of talent and his actual prime from was the time he entered the league in 96' draft until 35 yrs of age

You are wrong. That's like saying Lebron James is the same player today as he was coming out of high school.


Nash had the ball all the time so to me his usage rate was higher than that pct you showed since he was the qb of those teams, when the chips were down and his team needed 20+ shots from him he couldn't come through because he wasn't accustomed to that type of pressure, he shot 12 shots per game for a reason, had he taken more like KD and others he wouldn't have been as efficient, its just that simple

Usage rate is a statistic that takes into account how many possessions you use that results in a field goal attempt or a turnover. To get a better picture of how impactful a player is on offense, you also must take into account assist rate, turnover rate, ORtg per 100 possessions, Box Plus Minus, etc.

In 2004-2005 playoffs, Nash averaged 24 points per game. So the bolded here makes zero sense. Want to know why? Well, Nash took on a much higher scoring load, yet he ALSO maintained the same assist rate (43.9% that playoffs, higher than his career playoff rate), the same turnover rate (19.1% turnover rate, just slightly higher than his career playoff rate), and ultimately he was MORE efficient than his average even with the higher offensive scoring workload: 60.4% true shooting percentage, 23.4 PER, 0.164 WS/48, 4.0 Offensive BPM, 1.0 VORP.

Everything you are proclaiming to know, can be explained by stats showing you that you are incorrect. There is quantifiable, unbiased objective evidence showing you are wrong.


just go back to that 2010 playoffs and see what I mean by his team needing him to shoot more and he wasn't built for it because I guess he was worried about being too efficient, Nash is good late bloomer but give me Kidd all day everyday, the better/impact day 1 players are always better years later unless injuries derail that player

This is hilarious. You bring up the 2010 playoffs, and I will break it down for you.
Steve Nash regular season numbers during the 2010 season:
16.5 points per game, 11.0 assists per game, 3.6 turnovers per game, 12.2 shots per game
21.6 PER, 61.5ts%, 50.9ast%, 21.4tov%, 22.9usg%, 0.178 WS/48, 4.9 Offensive BPM

Compare that to his 2010 playoffs
17.8 points per game, 10.1 assists per game, 3.8 turnovers per game, 11.9 shots per game
22.4 PER, 63.4ts%, 49.1ast%, 21.1tov%, 24.2usg%, 0.175 WS/48, 4.3 Offensive BPM


numbers you also don't see contribute to winning(game plan/schemes to stopping certain special players/support cast), but I am guessing you don't understand that either


Nash took on a greater scoring load, maintained his excellent passing rates while not increasing his turnover rate, increased his overall usage and was actually MORE efficient.

So, are you trying to say that Nash actually being more efficient and increasing his productiveness in the playoffs did not contribute to winning?

JasonJohnHorn
09-11-2016, 07:37 PM
Kidd came in NBA ready and knew how to push teammates to be their best. Nash took a few years to develop, hit a sweet spot in Phoenix for a few years and a solid performance in Dallas. Very impressive players. I like Nash as a person better, but I feel like Kidd would be the guy to take if you had him for his entire career.

This is assuming he isn't going to beat his wife or drive drunk.

Chronz
09-12-2016, 01:24 AM
You either didn't watch Kidd until he got with the Nets or just feel like nitpicking because the Kidd I recall at Cal was a triple double threat and it carried over to the nba
I already adressed this nonsense, I dont care about arbitary barometers over actual productive value, sorry.


Shaq was a monster force at LSU and it carried over to the nba and so on

LOL, doesn't change the FACT that he was MORE of a monster at his peak once he acclimated himself to the game fully. Nobody is dumb enough to ignore OBVIOUS improvements.


so either you know or you don't know

so if speaking the truth is the dumbest **** then no wonder the world/psd in so intelligently cloned to rehash trends of mediatalk(efficiency being the new fad)

New or rehashed? Not sure what you're arguing but it doesn't change that analysts/coaches/gm's etc... have used objective data to enhance analysis forever.


Jason kidd had the same game that he showcased throughout his career until age slowed his fast pace down, so all that other arbitrary numerical talk you try to make yourself look intelligent means jack **** when actually just sitting back and watching the damn games, get off your cloned high horse

Except that I disagree with your incredibly unsubstantiated theories and choose to focus on attempting to make this personal, so why would anyone care? I dont have to apoligize for actually understanding numbers, its not that I sound smart its that you're just that ignorant. Heres the thing, when you bring up triple doubles, then you enter the realm of statistics and thats where you cant hide behind cliches.


a player like Shaq wasn't in his prime being heavy as a Laker and 3peating, he was a dominant primed force when he went up against Dream in 95' and his rookie year when he put up like 24/14 and was getting 25/20+/15blocks in game(s) and a older one with the Lakers and even older one with short stint with Heat then father time bit him in the ***, same with the old school more dominant version Dipper who averaged like 50ppg in his 3rd season or so because he was primed(that dominant/good) off the rip no matter how you try and divide the pie, when a player is that good they have no prime just need the proper pieces around to contend for a title that Shaq had in Orlando to LA to Miami

Yeah and when you look at his overall productive value, show me the barometers that back your theories? I know the stats, thats why they were at their best in LA. So long as that remains true, Ill go with my own 2 eyes + the data that backs me over your BS any day of the week.



this is no argument when speaking on what actually happens on the hardwood, its only an argument in your intelligent metric mind
Except I dont believe your inane theories over my own assessments+data that backs it, so......?

IndyRealist
09-12-2016, 08:41 AM
It's a reoccurring theme that people who rail against statistics regularly cite statistics.

Chronz
09-12-2016, 11:05 AM
It's a reoccurring theme that people who rail against statistics regularly cite statistics.

Stats aren't everything yo, Kidd was dropping triple doubles since Cal, #samestarsinceday1 #fiyah

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2016, 07:15 PM
Stats aren't everything yo, Kidd was dropping triple doubles since Cal, #samestarsinceday1 #fiyah

And although Nash ran the Mavericks offense, Don Nelson ran an offense that didn't take advantage of Nash's full capabilities.

No one in the Mavs FO expected Nash to become what he became.

valade16
09-12-2016, 08:34 PM
For what it's worth on NBA Open court when talking about the best players, Reggie Miller said (when picking between Nash, GP and Kidd) "I take it back to the playground and who would be picked first, and Kidd and GP would both be picked ahead of Nash" and everyone seemed to agree.

Grant Hill also said many believe Nash's statistical prowess and success came in part because of the rule changes that took the physicality away from the game. I don't really see how that's relevant for the Nash/Kidd debate since they both played at the same time except maybe to say Kidd could play at a higher level in any era whereas Nash may only be superior under the current rules.

flea
09-12-2016, 09:40 PM
For what it's worth on NBA Open court when talking about the best players, Reggie Miller said (when picking between Nash, GP and Kidd) "I take it back to the playground and who would be picked first, and Kidd and GP would both be picked ahead of Nash" and everyone seemed to agree.

Grant Hill also said many believe Nash's statistical prowess and success came in part because of the rule changes that took the physicality away from the game. I don't really see how that's relevant for the Nash/Kidd debate since they both played at the same time except maybe to say Kidd could play at a higher level in any era whereas Nash may only be superior under the current rules.

Nash's handles were so good that I have no problem saying he'd be at least as good as Stockton. I think very few guards compare to Nash's ballhandling, and nobody really today except CP3 and Parker (Curry's handles are probably the most overrated thing about his game unless you're one of those guys who thinks he's a good defender). Even CP3 I don't think is as agile as Nash at changing directions, and Parker has never had PG's vision or passing ability.

Sure Kidd had a physical style, played in the post a lot, and was more like Magic than anybody until Lebron. Players respect that, especially players like Hill and Reggie who would have no shot at guarding prime Nash on any day - but could probably handle Kidd. Hill should know better, being the beneficiary of Nash's offenses in his renaissance.

Chronz
09-12-2016, 10:30 PM
I really dont understand the Nash transformed in Phx. The rule changes didn't just help his game, it helped the majority of the league and thats why we look at league rates and by those, his productive levels weren't that different from his best years in Dallas. We really underrate Pre-MVP Nash imo, dude was the floor general of the best offenses even then while putting up the kind of numbers that would put him in a different level. We just perceive him differently because of those MVP's. I mean, guys like Kobe and AI saw a similar if not higher boost, to a lesser extent Bron/Wade but they were rooks so they were obviously going to improve but they blew up, we dont discriminate against them.

valade16
09-12-2016, 11:05 PM
Nash's handles were so good that I have no problem saying he'd be at least as good as Stockton. I think very few guards compare to Nash's ballhandling, and nobody really today except CP3 and Parker (Curry's handles are probably the most overrated thing about his game unless you're one of those guys who thinks he's a good defender). Even CP3 I don't think is as agile as Nash at changing directions, and Parker has never had PG's vision or passing ability.

Sure Kidd had a physical style, played in the post a lot, and was more like Magic than anybody until Lebron. Players respect that, especially players like Hill and Reggie who would have no shot at guarding prime Nash on any day - but could probably handle Kidd. Hill should know better, being the beneficiary of Nash's offenses in his renaissance.

I think the primary difference between Nash/Stockton is on defense.

One thing about Nash, and This is anecdotal, but he was one of the best clutch shooters I've ever seen. Like whenever his team needed a basket to stay in it late he would nail a 3. I'm convinced he could have scored well over 20 PPG had he focused more on scoring.

Chronz
09-12-2016, 11:53 PM
I think the primary difference between Nash/Stockton is on defense.

One thing about Nash, and This is anecdotal, but he was one of the best clutch shooters I've ever seen. Like whenever his team needed a basket to stay in it late he would nail a 3. I'm convinced he could have scored well over 20 PPG had he focused more on scoring.

Dude was all about the team, I forget which year it was but the Spurs forced him into being more selfish and he put up some pretty big scoring numbers for someone with his efficiency. I know he improved as he got older but my lasting image of him will always be his adaptability. He remained an efficient beast in any role, maybe not as prolific but that should be expected. In Dallas, he made room for Antoine Walker despite it not being in the teams best interest, in Phoenix he lost Amare and picked up his scoring to compensate, when Amare came back he maintained that aggression with added playmaking (ironically his best year was the one in which he didn't win the MVP), when the Suns added Shaq he adjusted/sacrificed but still led an elite offense, then in LA he met the biggest challenge hes ever admitted to facing, adjusting to Kobe Bryant and tbh, injuries aside, I liked how he played out there. Its an irrelevant sample size but I saw a team forming during preseason and in the short healthy minutes he played.

Chronz
09-12-2016, 11:59 PM
Oh yeah, and Stockton was willing/allowed to play dirty whereas Nash couldn't/wouldn't in his era. Even then I think Nash was tougher than people want to admit, its similar to the BS about Dirk being a bad defender back in his prime. Mostly stereotypical BS IMO. He wasn't a DPOY but Dirk was a pretty good defender, 7ft and that fast/nimble means almost by default you're going to be decent.

europagnpilgrim
09-13-2016, 12:14 AM
Stats aren't everything yo, Kidd was dropping triple doubles since Cal, #samestarsinceday1 #fiyah

13ppg 5rpg 8apg - Cal
17ppg 7rpg 9apg - Cal
13ppg 6rpg 9apg - entire NBA career

dropping or flirting with triple doubles since Cal and probably HS but I don't know his numbers from there #samestarsinceday1 #fiyah

basketball is such a simple sport to dissect until the non sense is added into the equation

europagnpilgrim
09-13-2016, 12:31 AM
Let's get back to what your point was. You said that it is common sense that Durant is not the efficient guy he's supposed to be when Westbrook is not there. I showed you, that you were wrong. Can you acknowledge that?

Regarding the bolded, that makes no sense. You are discussing two things here. Nobody is saying that DeAndre Jordan is a better offensive player than Blake Griffin. Yes, strictly by the true shooting percentage, offensive rating, etc one could incorrectly say that DeAndre is the better offensive player. That is not true, because yes you need to take into account usage rates and the like.

You are straying from the original points you were trying to make. Points that were wrong.

All things being equal, would you rather have someone that shoots 8/20 from the field and scores 17 points OR rather have someone that shoots 8/20 from the field but scores 20 points? It is clear as day that the second guy is more efficient. And on the same usage. So, it is reasonable to say that he is better if all other things are equal.

Nobody is saying that Kyle Korver is a better offensive player than Allen Iverson because of the offensive load both players are best utilized at. However, when you compare ultra-high usage players to ultra-high usage players, then you MUST take into account efficiency.

And that's where I showed that you were wrong. You said that it is common sense without Westbrook, Durant is not as good. However, without Westbrook Durant was actually better than with him. Even though without Westbrook Durant had to take on a higher role, he was just as productive. That is quantifiable, and that is the point you are not comprehending.




Again, you are just wrong. If Durant shoots 40% from the field and 30% from three, and takes 20 shots, let's say he scores 17 points. That is not as good as Durant shooting 45% from the field, 35% from three, taking the same 20 shots, but scoring MORE points.

Feel free to rank players however you want, I won't pull your arm on it. But you are incorrect.

And the bold here is incorrect. He IS a better player because he scores more points on the same amount of shots. I don't know how many times I have to explain it.

Hypothetical Player
Season 1: scores 8 points on 12 shots
Season 2: scores 10 points on 13 shots
Season 3: scores 15 points on 14 shots.
Season 4: scores 20 points on 16 shots.
Season 5: scores 25 points on 19 shots.

Same player, same style of play. There is absolutely zero argument that his increase in efficiency does NOT make him a better player. It does. It absolutely ****ing does.







You are wrong. That's like saying Lebron James is the same player today as he was coming out of high school.



Usage rate is a statistic that takes into account how many possessions you use that results in a field goal attempt or a turnover. To get a better picture of how impactful a player is on offense, you also must take into account assist rate, turnover rate, ORtg per 100 possessions, Box Plus Minus, etc.

In 2004-2005 playoffs, Nash averaged 24 points per game. So the bolded here makes zero sense. Want to know why? Well, Nash took on a much higher scoring load, yet he ALSO maintained the same assist rate (43.9% that playoffs, higher than his career playoff rate), the same turnover rate (19.1% turnover rate, just slightly higher than his career playoff rate), and ultimately he was MORE efficient than his average even with the higher offensive scoring workload: 60.4% true shooting percentage, 23.4 PER, 0.164 WS/48, 4.0 Offensive BPM, 1.0 VORP.

Everything you are proclaiming to know, can be explained by stats showing you that you are incorrect. There is quantifiable, unbiased objective evidence showing you are wrong.



This is hilarious. You bring up the 2010 playoffs, and I will break it down for you.
Steve Nash regular season numbers during the 2010 season:
16.5 points per game, 11.0 assists per game, 3.6 turnovers per game, 12.2 shots per game
21.6 PER, 61.5ts%, 50.9ast%, 21.4tov%, 22.9usg%, 0.178 WS/48, 4.9 Offensive BPM

Compare that to his 2010 playoffs
17.8 points per game, 10.1 assists per game, 3.8 turnovers per game, 11.9 shots per game
22.4 PER, 63.4ts%, 49.1ast%, 21.1tov%, 24.2usg%, 0.175 WS/48, 4.3 Offensive BPM




Nash took on a greater scoring load, maintained his excellent passing rates while not increasing his turnover rate, increased his overall usage and was actually MORE efficient.

So, are you trying to say that Nash actually being more efficient and increasing his productiveness in the playoffs did not contribute to winning?

I never said KD was not as good without Westbrook, I said it would take a load off of him being his mate, KD is the same player/game as he was drafted out of Texas no matter the efficiency/PER or whatever numbers thrown out there, I only made a wiff on him shooting FG pct wise better with Russ and the numbers you posted showed diff

Nash needed to put up 30ppg in those playoffs when he team needed to and couldn't do it or wasn't built to do it, and the efficiency he had he should have done it and plus being the back to back MVP you do whatever the team needs and they needed him to score way more to advance further

I mention the 2010 playoffs because that's when I think him and G Hill were leading that team and he needed to drop 30-40ppg but wasn't capable or just decided it wasn't best for the team

I take into account what I watched, that trumps all

I don't need a bunch of advanced numbers to show me who is who and what is what, its very easy to see Nash was shooting 12x per game without even looking at stats, it was very clear to see no matter how efficient he was when the chips were down and his team needed 30+ he didn't come through, Nash is a good player no doubt but he wasn't that guy to lead you to the promised land as he proved

Lebron James is the same player he was out of HS but I guess he has a added a post game, but he always was a PG style player who always wanted to make the right play/pass and could score and take over a game if needed, he was like Magic/Kidd but with ability to drop 30-50pts unlike Nash, go look at the draft scouting report and tell me what is such a difference with Lebron today

efficiency doesn't make you a better player, that is poppycock

KD was still a top 2-3 player rather he shot 40pct or 45 or 55pct in any series/Season since his mvp season and a season or so prior to that possibly 12', not based on efficiency, not even close

europagnpilgrim
09-13-2016, 12:49 AM
I already adressed this nonsense, I dont care about arbitary barometers over actual productive value, sorry.


LOL, doesn't change the FACT that he was MORE of a monster at his peak once he acclimated himself to the game fully. Nobody is dumb enough to ignore OBVIOUS improvements.


New or rehashed? Not sure what you're arguing but it doesn't change that analysts/coaches/gm's etc... have used objective data to enhance analysis forever.


Except that I disagree with your incredibly unsubstantiated theories and choose to focus on attempting to make this personal, so why would anyone care? I dont have to apoligize for actually understanding numbers, its not that I sound smart its that you're just that ignorant. Heres the thing, when you bring up triple doubles, then you enter the realm of statistics and thats where you cant hide behind cliches.


Yeah and when you look at his overall productive value, show me the barometers that back your theories? I know the stats, thats why they were at their best in LA. So long as that remains true, Ill go with my own 2 eyes + the data that backs me over your BS any day of the week.


Except I dont believe your inane theories over my own assessments+data that backs it, so......?

So Shaq was a super monster during his time in the nba since in college he was a monster, wow who woulda thunk it, of course the game slows down more for the player as he gets more seasons but Shaq was putting up monster dominant numbers with the same damn game/style from LSU to Magic to Lakers no matter how much more MONSTER you insist he was

if the media used frogs and snakes then you would be saying the same thing about the gm/coaches etc. who use it and it still wouldn't mean much

I mention triple doubles according to Kidd because that what he was basically doing and known for since his Cal days, why is that so hard to wrap your brain around to something that actually happened? I think Kidd ranks like 3rd all time in that category so how is that such a big deal when speaking on something a player actually does or did? you experts are something else, I don't need to bring up stats because when you watch the games closely he was getting or flirting with triple doubles, don't believe go check out his season by season games and then reflect on it

Shaq was a monster who put up 28 and 13 against the Dream just like he was a monster who put up 38 and 16 against Pacers and he was a monster at LSU who was getting quad teamed and went to the nba and got double-triple teamed, same damn player/person on and off the court

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2016, 12:55 PM
I really dont understand the Nash transformed in Phx. The rule changes didn't just help his game, it helped the majority of the league and thats why we look at league rates and by those, his productive levels weren't that different from his best years in Dallas. We really underrate Pre-MVP Nash imo, dude was the floor general of the best offenses even then while putting up the kind of numbers that would put him in a different level. We just perceive him differently because of those MVP's. I mean, guys like Kobe and AI saw a similar if not higher boost, to a lesser extent Bron/Wade but they were rooks so they were obviously going to improve but they blew up, we dont discriminate against them.

In Dallas, many, many times, the ball stopped at Dirk.

Chronz
09-13-2016, 01:07 PM
13ppg 5rpg 8apg - Cal
17ppg 7rpg 9apg - Cal
13ppg 6rpg 9apg - entire NBA career

dropping or flirting with triple doubles since Cal and probably HS but I don't know his numbers from there #samestarsinceday1 #fiyah

basketball is such a simple sport to dissect until the non sense is added into the equation

yeah man show us his HS stats. that will definitely show us how much hes plateaued

thats cute how you use basic rates

Chronz
09-13-2016, 01:25 PM
So Shaq was a super monster during his time in the nba since in college he was a monster, wow who woulda thunk it, of course the game slows down more for the player as he gets more seasons but Shaq was putting up monster dominant numbers with the same damn game/style from LSU to Magic to Lakers no matter how much more MONSTER you insist he was
Im not insisting anything, its YOU who insist we ignore the obvious facts that stats back. If the roles were reversed, THEN I'd be the one insisting you ignore all the evidence. The game slowing down is PRECISELY why he improved, that and he became an unstoppable load in the paint that even Orlando didn't get to see. Spare me your arrogance about how games translate from College to Pros, I doubt you even know what statistical trends show us about players and the aspects of their game that tend to improve/decline as they age. Shaq being a turnover machine his rookie year and improving his floor game overall falls right in line with historical trends, Shaq was always a good passer but he became a much smarter one after he got his reps in. He became a more dominant finisher and all the stats show us the biggest beast coming in LA. Its almost like you think Im saying Shaq went from scrub to All-Time great with the advancements, otherwise, whats the point of who thunk he would be great BS? Newsflash broski, we all knew Shaq was going to dominate when he came in, doesn't change the FACT that he was at his BEST in LA.


if the media used frogs and snakes then you would be saying the same thing about the gm/coaches etc. who use it and it still wouldn't mean much

It would mean more than your inane analysis and ridiculous comparisons. Yeah frogs and snakes prove so effective that we are now using advanced frogs and snakes to assess players.



I mention triple doubles according to Kidd because that what he was basically doing and known for since his Cal days, why is that so hard to wrap your brain around to something that actually happened? I think Kidd ranks like 3rd all time in that category so how is that such a big deal when speaking on something a player actually does or did? you experts are something else, I don't need to bring up stats because when you watch the games closely he was getting or flirting with triple doubles, don't believe go check out his season by season games and then reflect on it

Because arbitrary numbers mean **** when compared to the totality of a player productive worth and heres what you're not getting. You dont want to talk numbers then dont bring up triple doubles. You're better off being more vague and just saying he was always an all-around player, like thats how pathetic your argument has to get in order to prevent those in the know, from using your outdated barometers against you.


Shaq was a monster who put up 28 and 13 against the Dream just like he was a monster who put up 38 and 16 against Pacers and he was a monster at LSU who was getting quad teamed and went to the nba and got double-triple teamed, same damn player/person on and off the court
Yeah pass on that, Im more interested in the nuances of his evolution. I saw a different Shaq in LA than I saw in Orlando and all the facts/stats back what I saw and **** on what you saw END O STORY, obviously both Shaqs were "monsters" but this ignores the very real improvements hes made in his game. Had Dream faced PEAK Shaq, I think its a far more interesting battle.

Redrum187
09-13-2016, 04:59 PM
For those that say "defense doesn't matter for PG's", I strongly disagree. The offensive potent players are typically PGs, and many of them are PG's in SG bodies. Kidd would be able to handle either. His versatility, IQ, leadership, etc... is what separates him by a hair from Nash. I love Nash too though...

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2016, 05:07 PM
For those that say "defense doesn't matter for PG's", I strongly disagree. The offensive potent players are typically PGs, and many of them are PG's in SG bodies. Kidd would be able to handle either. His versatility, IQ, leadership, etc... is what separates him by a hair from Nash. I love Nash too though...

Kidd had trouble guarding PGs. At least he did when he was a Net.

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2016, 06:51 PM
one of the best shooters no doubt but top 3-4 playmakers ever is really really stretching the imagination, off top Jordan/The Answer/Big O and plenty more better at making plays(creating for self/others), you should have said one of the best passers to do it as he should be since he was a supreme pass heavy PG like Magic/Kidd/Stockton/Jackson

I don't get what you are suggesting.

Are you saying Nash wasn't a playmaker?

europagnpilgrim
09-13-2016, 07:47 PM
I don't get what you are suggesting.

Are you saying Nash wasn't a playmaker?

Not at all saying that, saying he wasn't a top 3-4 ever as who I was replying to had stated

any player who can get 10+ assists or drop 30+pts is a playmaker but Nash isn't top 3-4 ever all time best

Nash is one of the best passer/assists guys and he is one of the best pure natural shooters but those guys I mentioned can drop 40pts and get 10 assists in the same game, that's serious play making in my bball book

europagnpilgrim
09-13-2016, 08:13 PM
Im not insisting anything, its YOU who insist we ignore the obvious facts that stats back. If the roles were reversed, THEN I'd be the one insisting you ignore all the evidence. The game slowing down is PRECISELY why he improved, that and he became an unstoppable load in the paint that even Orlando didn't get to see. Spare me your arrogance about how games translate from College to Pros, I doubt you even know what statistical trends show us about players and the aspects of their game that tend to improve/decline as they age. Shaq being a turnover machine his rookie year and improving his floor game overall falls right in line with historical trends, Shaq was always a good passer but he became a much smarter one after he got his reps in. He became a more dominant finisher and all the stats show us the biggest beast coming in LA. Its almost like you think Im saying Shaq went from scrub to All-Time great with the advancements, otherwise, whats the point of who thunk he would be great BS? Newsflash broski, we all knew Shaq was going to dominate when he came in, doesn't change the FACT that he was at his BEST in LA.


It would mean more than your inane analysis and ridiculous comparisons. Yeah frogs and snakes prove so effective that we are now using advanced frogs and snakes to assess players.



Because arbitrary numbers mean **** when compared to the totality of a player productive worth and heres what you're not getting. You dont want to talk numbers then dont bring up triple doubles. You're better off being more vague and just saying he was always an all-around player, like thats how pathetic your argument has to get in order to prevent those in the know, from using your outdated barometers against you.


Yeah pass on that, Im more interested in the nuances of his evolution. I saw a different Shaq in LA than I saw in Orlando and all the facts/stats back what I saw and **** on what you saw END O STORY, obviously both Shaqs were "monsters" but this ignores the very real improvements hes made in his game. Had Dream faced PEAK Shaq, I think its a far more interesting battle.

Shaq cut back on his turnovers so that made him better in LA? okay expert

Players are at they best when they are young and then decline when they are older and the stats they put up show in the transition, but I guess I missed that boat also

Shaq was putting up or flirting with 25+/20/15 block style stat lines with Orlando on regular and when he got to Lakers he scored more but didn't rebound or block as many shots on a regular as he was quite a bit heavier/fatter or whatever you want to call it and he gave Dream the business they just lost tight games in that series but he avg 6 assists that series so I don't see how is passing wasn't effective then as it was in the triangle, he dominated from LSU to Lakers and flashes with Heat then the decline came heavily regardless of what barometer is used

I know you are way too intelligent to think Shaq was a scrub, I am saying Shaq was the same monster beast from his inception and it carried over to LA, same player just heavier version and he was effective as a old man with Cavs based on his minutes played per avg.

Shaq won titles with LA that's the only thing that changes perception because he did make a Finals trip with Orlando so he was on the verge of winning a title pre LA, because he was that dominant and he had nice pieces around him also to work with, Shaq was capable of putting up those numbers in Orlando that he did with Lakers so just because he won titles with Lakers doesn't mean he was at his best, he was always that dominant

the snakes and frogs was a joke to say that if the analyst experts start using that then everybody would also, same with the efficiency madness nowadays

Shaq didn't evolve(unless you count getting fat and injured as that) and the only thing that changed from Orlando to LA was Penny - Kobe swap, Hill - Jackson swap and the triangle offense, Shaq gave Dream gave 28/13/6apg/3blocks per game in 95' Finals, had Shaq been that Lakers version Dream would have ran him off the court since Shaq would have been gassed and would have fouled him out like the Kings use to have him in foul trouble cause he just played bully ball more in LA, it was hard to officiate Shaq during that LA tenure because of his nearly 400lbs of girth he carried around, regardless of what barometer is used

when something happens it just happens and if its outdated then it must have happened a while ago, like Russell winning rings is outdated because they changed the format and have way more teams but the fact remains he won 11 rings in 13 seasons and 13 out of 15 if you count his back to back NCAA tenure, no matter the barometer you use


Triple doubles do equate to all around player/game, like how Big O/G.Hill/Lebron and others who flirt or get triple doubles, why would I need to word it like that when it speaks for itself...3rd all time on triple double list(J Kidd) and his college numbers were basically mirror image of his NBA numbers

you experts be acting like its that time of the month sometimes on here

Shammyguy3
09-13-2016, 10:15 PM
Not at all saying that, saying he wasn't a top 3-4 ever as who I was replying to had stated

any player who can get 10+ assists or drop 30+pts is a playmaker but Nash isn't top 3-4 ever all time best

Nash is one of the best passer/assists guys and he is one of the best pure natural shooters but those guys I mentioned can drop 40pts and get 10 assists in the same game, that's serious play making in my bball book

I ignored your response earlier because you completely ignored all of my valid, backed up points.

However, you listed Jordan/The Answer/Oscar Robertson. And you now say that all three of those players can score 40 points while also having 10+ assists. I don't understand your logic in this thread, because you bash stats and then go on to name other stats to distinguish great players from not great players, or great players from other great players.

I'll bite though. Here is a list of all players since the 1963-1964 season that have both (a) scored 40+ points and (b) had 10+ assists in the same game.
1. Michael Adams (four times)
2. Kenny Anderson (two times)
3. Gilbert Arenas
4. Larry Bird (four times)
5. Kobe Bryant (five times)
6. Vince Carter (two times)
7. Stephen Curry
8. Clyde Drexler (two times)
9. Joe Dumars
10. Kevin Durant
11. Alex English
12. Sleepy Floyd
13. Steve Francis
14. World B. Free
15. Rickey Green
16. Tim Hardaway
17. James Harden (6 times)
18. Devin Harris
19. Allen Iverson (8 times)
20. Lebron James (7 times)
21. Kevin Johnson (three times)
22. Michael Jordan (7 times)
23. Bernard King
24. Damian Lillard (three times)
25. Stephon Marbury (four times)
26. Tracy McGrady (three times)
27. Steve Nash (two times)
28. Tony Parker (two times)
29. Chris Paul (three times)
30. Ramon Sessions
31. Latrell Sprewell
32. Jason Terry
33. Isiah Thomas (three times)
34. Nick Van Exel
35. Dwyane Wade (5 times)
36. Antoine Walker
37. John Wall
38. Russell Westbrook (5 times)
39. Deron Williams
40. Mo Williams


So literally, Steve Nash is indeed one of those serious playmakers of basketball. At least in your book.
Here's the link: http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=game&is_playoffs=N&age_min=0&age_max=99&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&c1stat=pts&c1comp=gt&c1val=40&c2stat=ast&c2comp=gt&c2val=10&order_by=pts

here's Nash's stat line in those games
42 points, 13 assists, 6 rebounds on only 25 shots with only 3 turnovers
42 points, 12 assists, 3 rebounds on only 25 shots with only 5 turnovers


Now, here's Iverson's stat lines in those games

40 points, 10 assists, 2 rebunds on only 26 shots with 1 turnover
41 points, 10 assists, 5 rebounds on 36 shots with only 3 turnovers
42 points, 12 assists, 5 rebounds on only 28 shots with 6 turnovers
44 points, 10 assists, 3 rebounds on only 29 shots with 9 turnovers
44 points, 15 assists, 5 rebounds, on only 22 shots and 1 turnover
45 points, 10 assists, 2 rebounds on 30 shots and only 1 turnover
46 points, 10 assists, 5 rebounds on only 30 shots with only 2 turnovers
47 points, 12 assists, 2 rebounds on only 28 shots with 4 turnovers


those are phenomenal games yes. But i wanted to show you that your memory of Nash is wrong because he is one of those players.

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2016, 11:57 PM
Not at all saying that, saying he wasn't a top 3-4 ever as who I was replying to had stated

any player who can get 10+ assists or drop 30+pts is a playmaker but Nash isn't top 3-4 ever all time best

Nash is one of the best passer/assists guys and he is one of the best pure natural shooters but those guys I mentioned can drop 40pts and get 10 assists in the same game, that's serious play making in my bball book

The concept that Iverson was a better playmaker than Nash is too strange to respond to.

Chronz
09-14-2016, 12:42 AM
Shaq cut back on his turnovers so that made him better in LA? okay expert
Far more relevant than hes been dropping trips dubz since preschool therefore same player same game.


Players are at they best when they are young and then decline when they are older and the stats they put up show in the transition, but I guess I missed that boat also
You did, its why Shaq was more productive in LA. I believe in what some within the game refer as the "Phental" state, the time where you're at the absolute apex with both your understanding of the game AND your athleticism. Look at a guy like DJ, you could look at his stats alone and be dumb enough to think hes been basically the same exact player but that would ignore the very real work hes put in, CP3 said when he first got to the Clips DJ was pretty bad at recognizing when to slip the screen, now hes the best in the league and his teams have benefited greatly


Shaq was putting up or flirting with 25+/20/15 block style stat lines with Orlando on regular and when he got to Lakers he scored more but didn't rebound or block as many shots on a regular as he was quite a bit heavier/fatter or whatever you want to call it and he gave Dream the business they just lost tight games in that series but he avg 6 assists that series so I don't see how is passing wasn't effective then as it was in the triangle, he dominated from LSU to Lakers and flashes with Heat then the decline came heavily regardless of what barometer is used

LOL, his MVP season, he was at his peak strength and it wasn't fat. Again, I dont care about your arbitrary numbers. Where did I say he didn't dominate from day 1, the argument you have trouble understanding is that he was MORE dominant in LA and its backed by actual barometers, my values are rooted in what statistics are about portraying and what my eyes tell me. You keep bringing up his play in the Finals where he ALSO averaged 5.6 turnovers BTW, but see thats the thing with you, you bring up your selective stats as if they somehow hold any merit alone when I never denied their existence. Either way, without consideration of pace/efficiency and established level of play all year, they dont tell much of a tale. I've already given you opinion on what I think Shaq would do to Hakeem had he been at his apex and not a kid. Just like I KNOW Hakeem would have loved to have had a crack at Boston in his first Finals as a grizzles vet as opposed to the child he was back then. Whats hilarious is how eerily similar Shaq and Hakeem evolved only more offense for Hakeem vs better defense with Shaq. Both came in and led their teams to the Finals early and both had the exact same issue with turnovers (NBA trends have told us for years that turnovers are the one aspect players tend to improve upon as they age the most, just as they lose offensive rebounding the most as they age).


I know you are way too intelligent to think Shaq was a scrub, I am saying Shaq was the same monster beast from his inception and it carried over to LA, same player just heavier version and he was effective as a old man with Cavs based on his minutes played per avg.

Shaq won titles with LA that's the only thing that changes perception because he did make a Finals trip with Orlando so he was on the verge of winning a title pre LA, because he was that dominant and he had nice pieces around him also to work with, Shaq was capable of putting up those numbers in Orlando that he did with Lakers so just because he won titles with Lakers doesn't mean he was at his best, he was always that dominant

the snakes and frogs was a joke to say that if the analyst experts start using that then everybody would also, same with the efficiency madness nowadays

Nah, it wasn't just perception his improvement is rooted in reality based on both the subjective AND objective measures coming to an agreement. Theres a very real reason the vets tend to win the most, theres also been studies suggest that talent is the most important but if 2 teams are equally talented, the more tested version of the team tends to win out.


Shaq didn't evolve(unless you count getting fat and injured as that)
I count his strength reaching crazy levels in LA, call it what you want to call it.


and the only thing that changed from Orlando to LA was Penny - Kobe swap, Hill - Jackson swap and the triangle offense, Shaq gave Dream gave 28/13/6apg/3blocks per game in 95' Finals, had Shaq been that Lakers version Dream would have ran him off the court since Shaq would have been gassed and would have fouled him out like the Kings use to have him in foul trouble cause he just played bully ball more in LA, it was hard to officiate Shaq during that LA tenure because of his nearly 400lbs of girth he carried around, regardless of what barometer is used
I couldnt disagree more, he would have pummeled Hakeem to an even greater degree and the team was already doubling him more than vice versa. Again, I dont care for arbitrary metrics, Shaq would have scored more AND turned it over less (you know, that 5.3 number you like to ignore) and older Hakeem wasn't going to outrun ****, if it were that easy superior athletes would have had the same, instead we saw Shaq produce his greatest level of consistency and 2-way efficiency whilst winning 3 in a row.


when something happens it just happens and if its outdated then it must have happened a while ago, like Russell winning rings is outdated because they changed the format and have way more teams but the fact remains he won 11 rings in 13 seasons and 13 out of 15 if you count his back to back NCAA tenure, no matter the barometer you use

Agreed but even Bill had a peak.


Triple doubles do equate to all around player/game, like how Big O/G.Hill/Lebron and others who flirt or get triple doubles, why would I need to word it like that when it speaks for itself...3rd all time on triple double list(J Kidd) and his college numbers were basically mirror image of his NBA numbers

Because then you enter the realms of analysis and data. The area that doesn't support your argument, now add the fact that you just named 4 WILDLY different players and it continues to prove how irrelevant your barometer is. I dont care about meaningless similarities, I care how dominant they are and when they were at their best.



you experts be acting like its that time of the month sometimes on here
Maybe you're the one being alil too girly here.

Chronz
09-14-2016, 12:45 AM
The concept that Iverson was a better playmaker than Nash is too strange to respond to.

Especially considering his own coaches tried to get him to play more like a PG but understood there would be large portions where he had no interest in running the O. Its why poor Anthony Carter had to defend SG's in Denver.

JordansBulls
09-15-2016, 12:22 AM
The concept that Iverson was a better playmaker than Nash is too strange to respond to.

Why would it matter in a Kidd vs Nash thread?

TheMightyHumph
09-15-2016, 12:37 AM
Why would it matter in a Kidd vs Nash thread?

Read the thread.

JordansBulls
09-17-2016, 05:10 PM
Read the thread.

I did and it says Kidd vs Nash.

TheMightyHumph
09-17-2016, 06:32 PM
I did and it says Kidd vs Nash.

And Iverson wasn't mentioned in the 72 posts in this thread?

TheMightyHumph
09-17-2016, 06:34 PM
Not at all saying that, saying he wasn't a top 3-4 ever as who I was replying to had stated

any player who can get 10+ assists or drop 30+pts is a playmaker but Nash isn't top 3-4 ever all time best

Nash is one of the best passer/assists guys and he is one of the best pure natural shooters but those guys I mentioned can drop 40pts and get 10 assists in the same game, that's serious play making in my bball book

So a player has to drop a lot of points to be a playmaker? That doesn't sound right.

And using your theory, where does that put Chamberlain?

To me, a playmaker usually brings the ball up, sets the offense, and then MAKES THE PLAYS.

TheMightyHumph
09-17-2016, 06:45 PM
I've been rewatching Nets games from '06-07 and '07-'08, which are after his surgery.

His court sense is still unbelievable. Incredibly quick hands and a great sense for reading the floor. Just amazing to watch.

But he couldn'r guard PGs, but was a very tough defender of many SGs and some SFs. He was never a great finisher, but after the surgery he became much more reluctant to take it to the basket.