Bill Simmons says he'll take Nash ahead of Iverson

[pimpineasy]

Simmons done fell off but he aint lying.
Only if he is talking about peak form for both players.
Nash was hella average first couple years.
When his final form tho. He was absolutely phenomenal at running a team. Smaller Jkidd with a shot but no D.
If you looking to run team ball especially in this era then peak Nash
Iverson all day if you playing one on one but team ball ill take Nash.

 

[Consumed]

Naw I read all of that bullshyt, but it’s what called on this board “juelz’ing”....and has shifted in the last couple of posts to some try-hard condescending bullshyt about “what I don’t understand”....boy If you don’t get your cornball ass the fukk outta here with that....I “understand” your posts, I just don’t agree with them...“Great” is a vague term that can mean a bunch of things...

we’re in a thread with two prominent basketball media members elevating Steve Nash, retroactively, above Allen Iverson....and lowering AI not just below Nash, but Ray Allen also...mainly based on relative team success, while ignoring the context of their careers....so every post that I make is through that lens....I flatly don’t agree with players getting huge legacy boosts based on the team success of teams that didn’t actually accomplish anything....it’s lunacy....I flatly don’t give a flying fukk about the offensive rating of teams whose ceiling is winning a 2nd round series ...not when we’re talking bout jumping dudes ahead of other players ....shyt is like empty calories....your attempts at explaining away an entire career worth of Nash not winning shyt, while simultaneously fellating him for being in more advantageous situations than AI is nonsensical....add that to you tearing down Nash’s teammates for no reason other than to give Nash credit for everything, and we’re both wasting our time

the suns biggest strength was their offense, which 100% of the credit goes to Nash...so Marion who was their leading scorer and their best defender shouldn’t get any credit for the team success because despite of his efforts on defense, they were a middling defensive team...largely because Nash was a historic sieve on that end


Yeah aiight man

You are literally ignoring the context of Nash's career in these posts. You are engaging in what you criticize.

"That didn't accomplish anything", what is an accomplishment in the NBA to you? Tell me this. What does a team need to do to accomplish in your eyes. Win a championship? Something that one team every year does? Emphasis on team.

You not caring about offensive rating in a discussion about best offensive players (important to single this out, as neither of the discussed players are good defensively) is the issue. I gave you an example of Nash, away from MDA, playing with a 38 year old Hill and 34 y/o Vince and Robin Lopez, zero all star teammates, leading a unit to an offense that would rank best in the league, when he himself was 36 years old, and you don't care. Even though it completely blew up this statement from you -

never mind the fact that the moment they traded Matrix, SSOL died, D’Antoni is forced out, Nash fell back to earth, they get eliminated in the first round one year, and don’t make the playoffs the next

Also gave context to why the Mavericks got better after Nash left, and why they moved on from him, which blew up this statement from you

Just like the ‘04 Mavs (ANOTHER stacked team Nash was on that DIDNT WIN JACK shyt)...got better when they let Nash walk for nothing and were in the finals within a season of him leaving?

With zero response from you on those points, because you KNOW you were wrong.

That whole post is adding context to statements you made with no effort to explain them. You thinking those teams were empty calories is another example for why you struggle to get his value. You don't know how to evaluate player influence because you are only looking at the end result. You keep talking about how Nash never made a finals while ignoring injuries to players in three seperate Western Conference Finals, not including the Amare/Diaw controversial suspensions, as if they had no influence on the end result.

the suns biggest strength was their offense, which 100% of the credit goes to Nash...so Marion who was their leading scorer and their best defender shouldn’t get any credit for the team success because despite of his efforts on defense, they were a middling defensive team...largely because Nash was a historic sieve on that end

Nowhere did I say no credit. Just not as much as his accolades as an All-NBA player and his numbers on face value would suggest. Not as much credit as you gave him when you said that the Suns should've been a 70 win team based on their talent around him, including Shawn Marion. THAT terrible comment is what spawned this entire argument, one that you still seem to actually believe because you overrate how "stacked" that team truly was.

Ask yourself how much value there is in being the best defender on a team that isn't good defensively. Marion was best suited as a cog in an already structurally sound defense. Not a transformational defender whose presence would flip a team from solid to great. Nash wasn't largely the reason the Suns were bad defensively - the Suns playing small lineups that sacrificed defense at crucial positions (center, think Amare) and got crushed on the glass was why they hovered around average to worse. There have been plenty of great defenses with non-outstanding defensive PGs who are hidden on weaker options. but its lot harder to cover for a bad defensive big, and that was a critical weakpoint for the team.

 

[El Bombi]

Dallas got better when Nash left.

Dallas beat Nash Suns team in the playoffs as well.


D'Antoni superstars always have balloon stats.

 

[jwinfield]

Dallas got better when Nash left.

And Denver got better when AI left.

shyt, the Sixers first full year after AI they had a better record.

 

[Long Live The Kane]

You are literally ignoring the context of Nash's career in these posts. You are engaging in what you criticize.

"That didn't accomplish anything", what is an accomplishment in the NBA to you? Tell me this. What does a team need to do to accomplish in your eyes. Win a championship? Something that one team every year does? Emphasis on team.

in the context of retroactively placing one player over another that was universally considered better in real time based on little more than analytics and "team success"... yes, I'm going to need those team accomplishments to be AT LEAST close to winning a championship...if I'm gonna consider the merits of an argument based around "well of course you take that guy because he's more impactful in winning" I'm gonna need examples of said impact more substantial than winning a couple of 2nd round playoff series

You not caring about offensive rating in a discussion about best offensive players (important to single this out, as neither of the discussed players are good defensively)

Naw stop that bullshyt, what's important is that you don't invent imaginary discussions that no one was having mid argument...this wasn't a discussion about who the best offensive player was...and if it were, team offensive rating is not close to the sole measure of individual offensive talent

Nice try though

is the issue. I gave you an example of Nash, away from MDA, playing with a 38 year old Hill and 34 y/o Vince and Robin Lopez, zero all star teammates, leading a unit to an offense that would rank best in the league, when he himself was 36 years old, and you don't care. Even though it completely blew up this statement from you -

But yeah, the reason why I don't give a fukk about offensive rating... particularly in this specific case in regards to a bunch of teams whose collective ceiling, again, is a couple of 2nd round series wins...is because that metric doesn't exist in a vacuum... strategy, style of play and roster/lineup decisions to that end determine that rating...and there's a give and take between offense/defense, speed/size, fast breaking/rebounding etc etc that is involved... So when we see teams who go all-in on one way of those extremes, but CONSISTENTLY fail in the playoffs.. then yeah I don't care what the offensive rating was... The object of basketball at the highest is to win championships, there are no "highest regular season offensive rating" trophies...(though with all these non hooping ass nerds in the media, maybe it's coming).....Nash's most successful years came playing a certain style of ball that was absolutely perfect and tailormade for him to maximize his individual game, but consistently proved to only lead to middling playoff success...and not due to any lack of talented teammates or lack of opportunity either..Nash in non gimmick all offense, more well balanced teams wasn't gonna make him look special....which is cool, there's no shame in being an Allstar level player whose crowning achievement was winning 2nd round series...teams like the DeRozan raptors or the Paul George Pacers or the Sheed Wallace Blazers or the Iso Joe Hawks are all cool lil teams that have their place in history....but them shyts ain't placing you above players that were clearly better than you....

Also gave context to why the Mavericks got better after Nash left, and why they moved on from him, which blew up this statement from you



With zero response from you on those points, because you KNOW you were wrong.

That whole post is adding context to statements you made with no effort to explain them. You thinking those teams were empty calories is another example for why you struggle to get his value. You don't know how to evaluate player influence because you are only looking at the end result. You keep talking about how Nash never made a finals while ignoring injuries to players in three seperate Western Conference Finals, not including the Amare/Diaw controversial suspensions, as if they had no influence on the end result.

All of this, more juelz'ing ... Providing "context" for each of the instances through out the entirety of his what 17 year career with a rotating cast of Allstar and all NBA teammates, that the great Steve Nash oh gosh just got unlucky with to be burdened with ... like every player that's ever played the game hasn't had to deal with random shyt happening ..... You provided "context" to explain how the Mavs got better after they let Nash walk and decided to go in a more balanced defensive direction and ended up in the finals within a year....none of this is seeming like a reoccurring theme to you yet

Nowhere did I say no credit. Just not as much as his accolades as an All-NBA player and his numbers on face value would suggest. Not as much credit as you gave him when you said that the Suns should've been a 70 win team based on their talent around him, including Shawn Marion. THAT terrible comment is what spawned this entire argument, one that you still seem to actually believe because you overrate how "stacked" that team truly was.

So you're saying Shawn Marion had his status as a player arbitrarily inflated because he played in a gimmick system that inflated everyone's stats and gave him certain accolades that you don't believe he otherwise would be deserving of...and because of this, the team didn't accomplish what one would expect from a team with players that were REALLY on that level




It's like, that line of logic sounds soooooo familiar...if only it could be applied to a certain middling sometimesy Allstar point guard that played in the same exact gimmick system and quickly saw him blossom at the age of 30 into the only multiple MVP winner in the history of basketball to never play a second in the NBA finals




If Nash was who y'all pretend he is and the sun's are who y'all pretend them to be...yes, they'd be the dynasty warriors....that's the level of accomplishment that would be required for me to buy this retroactive rewriting of history of Nash's legacy....they're not though....so get that bullshyt outta here

 

[Everythingg]

If Nash and AI are supposed to be on the same level of players, I’m gonna need to see more critique of Nash being on STACKED squads damn the entirety of his career and NOT WINNING shyt...cause it sure seems to me that AI is the only one of the two that’s getting judged by the standards we actually hold top guys to...while Nash is instead elevated for a couple of years of low volume high efficiency shooting splits, and “leading” a team with multiple other all nba players to empty suit “all time great offenses” that was getting eliminated in the 2nd round and shyt lol...the east-west conference disparity is not enough to explain away the huge gap in talent they played with and still have Nash treated with kiddie gloves .::Nash is one of a select few players that gets best of both world treatment

Bruh stop it...

AI didnt have the game to play with others. Thats why they had to fine tune that Sixers team to just fit around him. Let him shoot all the shots while the other players pick up the scraps. He goes to Denver which had plenty of players (Melo, JR, Camby, Kenyon) and does nothing. Gets traded for billups and they go to the WCF....

While Nash can fit in with any player. Better shooter/passer. One on one, AI got it. But when it comes to the team game, Nash all day..

 

[Shadow King]

All of inconsistency in this thread to bend this as some blasphemy against Iverson. Certain talking points used to big him up are used to slight others. Noted.

 

[ISO]

Sixers don't even run pin down screens for him, a 5'11 supernova.

Iverson pioneered the pin downs the Iverson Cut as it’s known in modern offensive playbooks...


I wonder what circumstances it would take to make Iverson win. I think he needs to play with a guy like LeBron.

Does Iverson on the ‘07 Cavs with young LeBron knock off the Spurs?

 

[Lord Beasley]

nicca name is bubbachuck.

 

[El Bombi]

And Denver got better when AI left.

shyt, the Sixers first full year after AI they had a better record.

So, did the Nuggets or Sixers go to 2 NBA Finals without AI.

The Sixers hasn't been to the NBA Finals or ECF since AI left.

Try again fam.

 

[jwinfield]

So, did the Nuggets or Sixers go to 2 NBA Finals without AI.

The Nuggets made it to the WCF the year they got rid of AI after winning only 1 game the previous two postseasons, losing in 6 to the eventual champs.

And did the Mavs get better because they just lost Nash or did they add Jason Terry, Erick Dampier, Keith Van Horn, Devin Harris, Jerry Stackhouse, and got a new coach?

 

[El Bombi]

The Nuggets made it to the WCF the year they got rid of AI after winning only 1 game the previous two postseasons, losing in 6 to the eventual champs.

And did the Mavs get better because they just lost Nash or did they add Jason Terry, Erick Dampier, Keith Van Horn, Devin Harris, Jerry Stackhouse, and got a new coach?

Iverson was out of his prime when he left the Nuggets.

Nash was in his prime when he left the Mavericks.

Erick Dampier, Keith Van Horn, and a Jerry Stackhouse.

And Don Nelson>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Avery Johnson.

Dirk took 2 coaches to the NBA Finals.
Go sit down fam.

 

[Long Live The Kane]

Bruh stop it...

AI didnt have the game to play with others. Thats why they had to fine tune that Sixers team to just fit around him. Let him shoot all the shots while the other players pick up the scraps. He goes to Denver which had plenty of players (Melo, JR, Camby, Kenyon) and does nothing. Gets traded for billups and they go to the WCF....

While Nash can fit in with any player. Better shooter/passer. One on one, AI got it. But when it comes to the team game, Nash all day..

This is bullshyt that just sounds good

AI played with maybe the most iso heavy "he shouldn't be able to play with him" player imaginable at the time in Melo...they were fine together...won 50 games and lost to a finals bound Lakers team

If "make it to the 2nd round a handful of times, and win couple of times, but never actually getting within sniffing distance of a title like Nash" is the bar for fitting in with others and excelling...take someone that’s a better fit for AI, and on the same level as Dirk that Nash spent years not winning shyt with, like KG ...put AI on the Twolves with KG with a prime Finley level player, they’re good for a WCF or two easy

 

[FlyRy]

nash is a passer who took 6 years to become a star at 27. AI and CP3 were balling from day one, it’s an insult to group then all together. You casually said “CP3 and Nash”like they’re equals. CP3 has dominated in several systems across 4 teams. There’s none of that in Nash’s career

Cp3 who gets clowned for never making a CF most his career dominated? Nash and suns had some bad luck. Cp3 just flat out choked in LA

 

[Consumed]

@Long Live The Kane

in the context of retroactively placing one player over another that was universally considered better in real time based on little more than analytics and "team success"... yes, I'm going to need those team accomplishments to be AT LEAST close to winning a championship...if I'm gonna consider the merits of an argument based around "well of course you take that guy because he's more impactful in winning" I'm gonna need examples of said impact more substantial than winning a couple of 2nd round playoff series

What is retroactive here? Iverson wasn't universally considered better than Nash in "real time". Who am I elevating Nash over who was considered better in "real time"? If we were talking about Kobe or Wade or Duncan or Dirk I'd get it. But Iverson? Not on that level.

Naw stop that bullshyt, what's important is that you don't invent imaginary discussions that no one was having mid argument...this wasn't a discussion about who the best offensive player was...and if it were, team offensive rating is not close to the sole measure of individual offensive talent

I used offensive rating to show you that Nash led lineups with no stars to strong production. I also used offensive rating to show how great the Suns were relative to the league average, which is how we accurately measure offense across eras (much better than raw ppg). It's useful to show how a lineup performed when led by a single player and works best when 1) there's a large sample size of data with various different combinations to compare it against and 2) a player is directing the flow of an offense through prolific creation. This disproves the theory that his influence was a product of MDA or the talent around him when it remained intact when they left and shows that a common denominator was Nash, and no one else. You're pretty much choosing to ignore information that ends your argument. You used box score stats like points, rebounds, minutes played for Marion but will ignore something that gives far more context to the influence of a player in a specific circumstance.

I did not use ortg to show how good Nash was individually. I'm using it in the context of a team was unrecognizable without him. That's important when measuring his prime.

ut yeah, the reason why I don't give a fukk about offensive rating... particularly in this specific case in regards to a bunch of teams whose collective ceiling, again, is a couple of 2nd round series wins...is because that metric doesn't exist in a vacuum... strategy, style of play and roster/lineup decisions to that end determine that rating...and there's a give and take between offense/defense, speed/size, fast breaking/rebounding etc etc that is involved... So when we see teams who go all-in on one way of those extremes, but CONSISTENTLY fail in the playoffs.. then yeah I don't care what the offensive rating was... The object of basketball at the highest is to win championships, there are no "highest regular season offensive rating" trophies...(though with all these non hooping ass nerds in the media, maybe it's coming).....Nash's most successful years came playing a certain style of ball that was absolutely perfect and tailor made for him to maximize his individual game, but consistently proved to only lead to middling playoff success...and not due to any lack of talented teammates or lack of opportunity either..Nash in non gimmick all offense, more well balanced teams wasn't gonna make him look special....which is cool, there's no shame in being an Allstar level player whose crowning achievement was winning 2nd round series...teams like the DeRozan raptors or the Paul George Pacers or the Sheed Wallace Blazers or the Iso Joe Hawks are all cool lil teams that have their place in history....but them shyts ain't placing you above players that were clearly better than you....

You accuse me of juelzing but type an incoherent wall of text that contains a serious, non-troll comparison of DeRozan, Paul George, Rasheed Wallace and Joe Johnson to Nash in Phoenix. Do you think any of those players are remotely close to Nash. And do you not understand what their flaws were as primary options compared to Nash. Do you think any of those teams influenced the direction of the NBA as the Phoenix Suns did. I just gave you context in three separate seasons where the Suns/Mavericks had key injuries in the middle of the WCF appearances that influenced the outcome on some level not including the DIaw/Amare suspensions but you continue to think the Suns ceiling was only the WCF, because you are not able to see past the result. Also keep in mind who the Suns are losing to in the postseason. If they had the luxury of playing in a weaker conference this wouldn't be a conversation. Yes a lot of other players deal with unfortunate circumstances, tough opposition. Which is why it's stupid to hold team results against an individual player and say that a player making the finals is evidence of their superiority over others, or their inability to make the finals is evidence of their inferiority compared to others who did. It's always been stupid to say that Allen Iverson leading to the Sixers to the Finals in 2001 was evidence of his singular greatness, rather than being a product of the competition at the time in the Eastern Conference and his defensive support that was of greater assistance than anyone he faced en route to the Finals.

I don't think making the Western Conference Finals three times in six playoff appearances middling playoff success. I don't think you know what middling playoff success means. You keep saying the Suns style was perfect for Nash but the style doesn't work without him, so maybe you should be giving him more credit for the style functioning the way that it did? A possibility.

All of this, more juelz'ing ... Providing "context" for each of the instances through out the entirety of his what 17 year career with a rotating cast of Allstar and all NBA teammates, that the great Steve Nash oh gosh just got unlucky with to be burdened with ... like every player that's ever played the game hasn't had to deal with random shyt happening .... You provided "context" to explain how the Mavs got better after they let Nash walk and decided to go in a more balanced defensive direction and ended up in the finals within a year....none of this is seeming like a reoccurring theme to you yet

The Mavericks were a balanced, good defensive team in 2003 with Nash. Use less smilies and spend more time reading the information in front of you. The decisions Dallas made to pair Dirk with a defensive center could have been made with Nash, as it already happened two years prior on a 60 win team that lost in six to San Antonio despite Dirk only playing half the series. Avery Johnson could have coached Dirk and Nash to the finals. You choose to ignore all context and only focus on what makes your argument look better.

So you're saying Shawn Marion had his status as a player arbitrarily inflated because he played in a gimmick system that inflated everyone's stats and gave him certain accolades that you don't believe he otherwise would be deserving of...and because of this, the team didn't accomplish what one would expect from a team with players that were REALLY on that level

Can you explain how Nash's stats were inflated? Its cool to just say that, but let me hear you explain it in basketball terms. It's also curious how you're so high on the supporting cast on the Suns but then seem to ignore the situations when those players were not available due to injury. Like Amare in 2006 when the Suns lost to the Mavericks in six. If you think so highly of them, why doesn't it matter when they weren't available?

If Nash was who y'all pretend he is and the sun's are who y'all pretend them to be...yes, they'd be the dynasty warriors....that's the level of accomplishment that would be required for me to buy this retroactive rewriting of history of Nash's legacy....they're not though....so get that bullshyt outta her

The Warriors added Kevin Durant to form a dynasty. You are comparing what is arguably the best team in NBA history, certainly the most talented, to the Suns and holding Nash to that standard. How disingenuous can you be. I'd like to know what you think I'm pretending that Nash is. I don't consider him a top 15 player all time or on the level of Magic, Curry, Oscar as point guards. I'd place Chris Paul over him all time as a PG. I'm fair about his placement in general. It's just that we're comparing him to Allen Iverson who isn't an all time great in terms of on court impact nor longevity.