Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    30,564
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    if we're doing tiering based on how much a player elevated their team during their prime (relative to era) it should realistically look like:

    Tier 1:
    MJ/LeBron/Kareem/Russell

    Tier 2:
    Shaq/Hakeem/Magic/Duncan/Bird/Wilt/KG

    Tier 3:
    West/Oscar/D Rob/Steph (after this season)

    Tier 4:
    Kobe/Nash/Dirk/Wade/CP3/Barkley/K. Malone/KD/Moses/Erving

    Could honestly make a decent argument for Rick Barry as a tier 4 guy as well but I'll leave it be.

    If you disagree with the Kobe placement please break down in detail your valuation of his defense after 2003. Citing All Defense awards isn't a valuation fyi
    I mean what about defense though Curry and Nash couldn't guard their own shadows.

    The awards may not be an evaluation, but you cant discredit them either. A poor defender would never be on an all defensive team.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 04-28-2021 at 02:35 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,138
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    I mean what about defense though Curry and Nash couldn't guard their own shadows.
    the offensive value they bring far outweighs the value Kobe brings. Also Steph isn't even a bad off ball defender lol

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    30,564
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    the offensive value they bring far outweighs the value Kobe brings. Also Steph isn't even a bad off ball defender lol
    yeah but youre comparing them to one player. Isn't this your tiered all time list, shouldn't they be compared to all their peers all around games instead of just kobe
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 04-28-2021 at 02:40 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,138
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    yeah but youre comparing them to one player. Isnt this your tiered all time list shouldnt they be compared to all their peers all around games instead of just kobe
    it's about net impact. If a player makes their team 6 points better per 100 possessions on offense, but their defense causes their team to lose a point per 100 possessions, netting them out at +5, is this not better than someone who makes their team 3 points better per possession on offense and saves them one point on defense (+4)?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    30,564
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    it's about net impact. If a player makes their team 6 points better per 100 possessions on offense, but their defense causes their team to lose a point per 100 possessions, netting them out at +5, is this not better than someone who makes their team 3 points better per possession on offense and saves them one point on defense (+4)?
    On one hand you say you have to watch them in order to give a proper evaluation, but on the other you are relying on statistical analyses. Kobe was a much better defender than Nash was I dont know how that can ever be debated in any context. He was also carrying a trash team on his back in 06 while Nashs team was stacked. Did Nash ever lead his team to a ship. Impact can be measured in so many ways. you're just picking what supports your narrative.

    And again why are we only comparing Nash and Curry to Kobe, when its an all time list. Im guessing you're putting KG on that list for his defensive impact. so you're solely focusing on one side of the game when putting guys like KG, Nash, and Curry on that list while leaving out someone like Tim Duncan.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    48,485
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    I mean what about defense though Curry and Nash couldn't guard their own shadows.

    The awards may not be an evaluation, but you cant discredit them either. A poor defender would never be on an all defensive team.
    Yeah but they can vote in a middling defender sometimes based on rep(pretty sure this happened with West, Hondo, MJ..) And I would argue that at least one of those years Kobe coasted enough to be below average.
    Random Highlight of the Month: * RARE - Zo DUNKS on Shaq *

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,138
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    On one hand you say you have to watch them in order to give a proper evaluation, but on the other you are relying on statistical analyses. Kobe was a much better defender than Nash was I dont know how that can ever be debated in any context. He was also carrying a trash team on his back in 06 while Nashs team was stacked. Did Nash ever lead his team to a ship. Impact can be measured in so many ways. you're just picking what supports your narrative.

    And again why are we only comparing Nash and Curry to Kobe, when its an all time list. Im guessing you're putting KG on that list for his defensive impact. so you're solely focusing on one side of the game when putting guys like KG, Nash, and Curry on that list while leaving out someone like Tim Duncan.
    nah you're just not understanding. You can disagree with my conclusions by my methodology is sound.

    1.Where did I say you can ONLY either make valuations based on film or based on stats? Why would anyone ever do that? The reality is a healthy dose of both is the best approach. Look at how a player affects their team offense and defense on paper, and then reference film to help contextualize the numbers. If you understand what you're reading instead of taking numbers at face value, and you understand how to watch film, you can make a ton of inferences.

    2. I don't disagree that Kobe was a better defender, even after his defensive drop off in '03. However the difference is marginal enough to where the difference of their offensive impact nets them out the same overall in terms of impact. But since you made a claim about Kobe's defense, please by all means break down how you have valuated his defense. How much better does his defense improve his team's defense?

    3. It's funny you mention 06 considering that Amar'e played 3 games that year and Nash still put out a top offense and was 2 wins away from a finals appearance. If you want I can truly break down Nash's impact over the course of his prime and how ultimately we have a mountain of evidence that shows that regardless of who was out there on the court with him, or who his coach was, he was still going to put out a top tier offense.

    4. I'm gonna tell you something that will blow your mind - Some title winning teams are worse than other teams that didn't win a title. And also - there a multiple teams every year that play at an NBA championship level. Crazy concept I know. It's funny how literally every postseason Nash was at the helm in Phoenix the Suns offense actually IMPROVED in the postseason. It was their piss poor defensive rotation in the front court that did them in.

    But that's truly besides the point. If you're still under the impression that winning a title is some ultimate arbiter of truth, or that winning a title is anything but circumstantial I have some bad news for you.

    5. I compare all players against each other because we can ultimately draw conclusions about a player's net impact vs the era they played in when taking the time to dive deep into things.

    6. I put KG on that list because of his 2 way impact. Yes, he's an all time great defender but he probably has the most portable offense for a big man in NBA history. KG is a transcendent passer for a big man, and doesn't need the ball in his hands on offense to add value.

    I assure you I'm focusing on everything, and ultimately how it sums up a players net impact.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Yeah but they can vote in a middling defender sometimes based on rep(pretty sure this happened with West, Hondo, MJ..) And I would argue that at least one of those years Kobe coasted enough to be below average.
    Agreed on this front. Along with MJ and Kobe I'd throw Payton's name in there as well. Especially after like 96. West is interesting because by all accounts and reports he defended at an All NBA level. For how long who's to say. But I generally operate with an assumed positive impact on defense when evaluating West, as he's always looked really good on that end when watching film.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    30,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Yeah but they can vote in a middling defender sometimes based on rep(pretty sure this happened with West, Hondo, MJ..) And I would argue that at least one of those years Kobe coasted enough to be below average.
    ok but you have to put up some strong seasons as a defender to gain that rep. where as guys like Curry and Nash have the exact opposite rep. Nash was like the door man in your hotel lobby greeting you as you walked passed him. He was atrocious on that end of the floor.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    30,564
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    nah you're just not understanding. You can disagree with my conclusions by my methodology is sound.

    1.Where did I say you can ONLY either make valuations based on film or based on stats? Why would anyone ever do that? The reality is a healthy dose of both is the best approach. Look at how a player affects their team offense and defense on paper, and then reference film to help contextualize the numbers. If you understand what you're reading instead of taking numbers at face value, and you understand how to watch film, you can make a ton of inferences.

    2. I don't disagree that Kobe was a better defender, even after his defensive drop off in '03. However the difference is marginal enough to where the difference of their offensive impact nets them out the same overall in terms of impact. But since you made a claim about Kobe's defense, please by all means break down how you have valuated his defense. How much better does his defense improve his team's defense?

    3. It's funny you mention 06 considering that Amar'e played 3 games that year and Nash still put out a top offense and was 2 wins away from a finals appearance. If you want I can truly break down Nash's impact over the course of his prime and how ultimately we have a mountain of evidence that shows that regardless of who was out there on the court with him, or who his coach was, he was still going to put out a top tier offense.

    4. I'm gonna tell you something that will blow your mind - Some title winning teams are worse than other teams that didn't win a title. And also - there a multiple teams every year that play at an NBA championship level. Crazy concept I know. It's funny how literally every postseason Nash was at the helm in Phoenix the Suns offense actually IMPROVED in the postseason. It was their piss poor defensive rotation in the front court that did them in.

    But that's truly besides the point. If you're still under the impression that winning a title is some ultimate arbiter of truth, or that winning a title is anything but circumstantial I have some bad news for you.

    5. I compare all players against each other because we can ultimately draw conclusions about a player's net impact vs the era they played in when taking the time to dive deep into things.

    6. I put KG on that list because of his 2 way impact. Yes, he's an all time great defender but he probably has the most portable offense for a big man in NBA history. KG is a transcendent passer for a big man, and doesn't need the ball in his hands on offense to add value.

    I assure you I'm focusing on everything, and ultimately how it sums up a players net impact.
    Don't get me wrong Im not questioning your logic Im simply trying to understand. I agreed with you with respect to how these awards sometimes mean very little. But I was pointing out the fact that a player who makes an all defensive team, weather it be based on the individuals performance for that year or based on reputation gained from having strong seasons as a defender prior, is still going to far out weigh someone who doesn't play defense at all. Like Steve Nash. And while we glorify his impact, what prevented him from winning a title then is my question. It certainly wasn't the lack of talent around him because he had a very talented and deep squad.

    Also the reason I ask why compare these guys to Kobe is because its a hard comparison to make. Were talking about a floor general who was pass first compared to a gun slinging sg. That PHX team was lost with out Nash, so his importance was vital as a play maker. And yes you're right Amare missed that season, but the Suns still had a potent team with Marion, Bell, Diaw, Barbosa etc. Look at Kobe's team in that year to compare. He literally only had Odom. The rest of his team was straight garbage. Bynum was a rookie, and beyond that you'd have a hard time even naming another player on his team worth mentioning. Kobe carried that team to 45 wins and had 13 roster spots that could have been replaced with you or I, unless Smush Parker is a lot better than you, I dunno lol.

    When Kobe had a good team around him he was leading them to ships. Even after Shaq left he won two more when he was given a good team to run with. We can say that he played selfishly, or that his defense was over rated in certain seasons but I don't think we can doubt the impact he had on his teams. Nash fell short and it wasn't because he didn't have the talent around him so when we talk impact we do have to consider that as well.
    Last edited by smith&wesson; 04-28-2021 at 03:54 PM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    California, US
    Posts
    11,272
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    Injuries are part of the game. If youíre going to discredit that ship then you would have to discredit a bunch of teams who have won historically.

    Did you watch the 76ers series or the Bucks in that ship run? Kawhi was in beast mode.

    Also remember when ZaZa intentionally injured Kawhi when the Spurs were handling the Warriors? Golden State wasnít getting passed the Spurs that year if Kawhi wasnít taken out.

    Iím just saying that argument can be made for so many teams in so many different ways.
    The Spurs having any chance In that series before or after Leonard went down is a myth. That was only game 1 lol

    I was bummed Leonard went down because I knew this would just be another reason for people to tarnish the Warriors and Steph Curry. Since the warriors were clearly the superior team that year.

    The Warriors went 2-1 against the Spurs during the regular season that year and both wins were a blowout greater than 20. The one time the Spurs won was by a margin 5. The game was tight all night and the Warriors had just come off an emotional, high scoring 2 point loss against the Mavs.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The 6
    Posts
    30,564
    Quote Originally Posted by COOLbeans View Post
    The Spurs having any chance In that series before or after Leonard went down is a myth. That was only game 1 lol

    I was bummed Leonard went down because I knew this would just be another reason for people to tarnish the Warriors and Steph Curry. Since the warriors were clearly the superior team that year.

    The Warriors went 2-1 against the Spurs during the regular season that year and both wins were a blowout greater than 20. The one time the Spurs won was by a margin 5. The game was tight all night and the Warriors had just come off an emotional, high scoring 2 point loss against the Mavs.
    I viewed the Warriors as a dynasty regardless. And Curry is the greatest shooter of all time. Iím not taking anything away from them, they would still have a bunch of ships etc.

    But we all know ZaZa is dirty lol

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    48,485
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    ok but you have to put up some strong seasons as a defender to gain that rep. where as guys like Curry and Nash have the exact opposite rep. Nash was like the door man in your hotel lobby greeting you as you walked passed him. He was atrocious on that end of the floor.
    True.

    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    Agreed on this front. Along with MJ and Kobe I'd throw Payton's name in there as well. Especially after like 96. West is interesting because by all accounts and reports he defended at an All NBA level. For how long who's to say. But I generally operate with an assumed positive impact on defense when evaluating West, as he's always looked really good on that end when watching film.
    I know its unreliable for its time and sample size but theres some primitive +/- stuff that puts him at about average, granted it was way later in his career but Im pretty sure it came during some of those "all defensive selections". Ill see if I can scrummage it up.
    Random Highlight of the Month: * RARE - Zo DUNKS on Shaq *

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,138
    Quote Originally Posted by smith&wesson View Post
    Don't get me wrong Im not questioning your logic Im simply trying to understand. I agreed with you with respect to how these awards sometimes mean very little. But I was pointing out the fact that a player who makes an all defensive team, weather it be based on the individuals performance for that year or based on reputation gained from having strong seasons as a defender prior, is still going to far out weigh someone who doesn't play defense at all. Like Steve Nash. And while we glorify his impact, what prevented him from winning a title then is my question. It certainly wasn't the lack of talent around him because he had a very talented and deep squad.

    Also the reason I ask why compare these guys to Kobe is because its a hard comparison to make. Were talking about a floor general who was pass first compared to a gun slinging sg. That PHX team was lost with out Nash, so his importance was vital as a play maker. And yes you're right Amare missed that season, but the Suns still had a potent team with Marion, Bell, Diaw, Barbosa etc. Look at Kobe's team in that year to compare. He literally only had Odom. The rest of his team was straight garbage. Bynum was a rookie, and beyond that you'd have a hard time even naming another player on his team worth mentioning. Kobe carried that team to 45 wins and had 13 roster spots that could have been replaced with you or I, unless Smush Parker is a lot better than you, I dunno lol.

    When Kobe had a good team around him he was leading them to ships. Even after Shaq left he won two more when he was given a good team to run with. We can say that he played selfishly, or that his defense was over rated in certain seasons but I don't think we can doubt the impact he had on his teams. Nash fell short and it wasn't because he didn't have the talent around him so when we talk impact we do have to consider that as well.
    1. I still just fundamentally disagree that a player getting an All Defense Award gives them the benefit of the doubt. But regardless, you still never specified what steps you've personally taken to evaluate Kobe's defensive impact over the course of his career. If you haven't done this just say so and we can move past it.

    2. You're speaking purely anecdotally, "He had a great team", "He had a deep squad", without pulling any actual numbers to reflect this. The Suns were totally reliant on Nash, and were unable to function without him. You name guys like Marion and Barbosa, but these are guys who Nash elevated on offense. Hell, Barbosa owes Nash his sixth man of the year award. Look at Barbosa's drop in efficiency with Nash off the court during his 6MOY winning season:

    https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/...6&PlayerId=959


    He drops SEVEN points in TS efficiency. That's massive. It's no coincidence that Marion's offense totally fell off after leaving Phoenix either.

    3. I answered this question in my previous post. The thing that prevented Phoenix from winning a title? Their defense. Every postseason their offense IMPROVED. It was their defense that let them down, and that's hardly because of Nash.

    4. Speaking of Nash's defense, let's actually really dive into it, because you're totally exaggerating on this end. The reality is that Nash's quick feet in vision bumped him up to nearly a league average guard defender.

    His soccer footwork actually allowed him to defend screens decently well. Here's a good example of this from an 05 playoff game:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHn0S2lEeLk

    He was always great at drawing charges

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yQT...ture=emb_title

    and was regularly near the top of the league in charges drawn:

    http://www.82games.com/charge0607.htm


    Most importantly however, is that Phoenix did what the Lakers did with Kobe - hid him off ball on the opposing team's weakest offensive player. As a result of this scheme, Nash's vision allowed him to make good reads off ball and as a result was above average in forcing turnovers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ture=emb_title


    Ok so we have film, what does ultimately mean though? Well here's where we can cross reference it with team level data to try and get a better idea of the big picture.

    https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos...&PlayerIds=959

    Over a large, 3 year sample, we can see that Nash on the court made Phoenix's defense only slightly worse, which aligns with most analysts inference that guard defense can ultimately be hidden effectively, (for example: the 2016 Celtics had the 4th best defense in the league with little Isaiah thomas playing 32 mpg).

    So essentially, the Suns defense was just mediocre, regardless of Nash being on or off the court. With this in mind, I think it's reasonable to assume that his lack of a strong defensive presence ultimately does not have a large bearing on his overall net impact.


    "Nash fell short and it wasn't because he didn't have the talent around him so when we talk impact we do have to consider that as well"

    You say this, but what are you saying, exactly? Are you putting the burden of their losses on Nash? Why do you think they failed? And what lead you to this conclusion? Elaborate with numbers + film plz.

    Oh also, just because it's funny, those lousy Laker teams actually had a better defense with Kobe OFF the court in the same 3 year sample I used for Nash lmao.

    https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos...&PlayerIds=977



    So with all this being said, is it really a stretch to say that Nash and Kobe more or less have a similar net impact for their prime? (Kobe with greater longevity obviously)
    Last edited by VCaintdead17; 05-01-2021 at 11:53 AM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    61,719
    Glad to see someone sticking up for Nash. Heís was without question the best offensive engine in the league and was become very very underrated
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •