It's not "efficient debating" simply because you don't understand basic shyt, and you're trying to argue against common sense (to make matters worse you shifted the argument once you realized what you initially said was wrong), therefore, I need to breakdown and reiterate everything so that hopefully with repetition your brain starts to process what is gong on.
You can't be better on offense than someone "by a mile" if you aren't a better scorer - scoring is the most important and impactful part of offensive play. It holds more value than any other string in the game. Next thing you're going to start arguing Rondo and Rubio are
miles better on offense than Kyrie because of their floor generalship. For all of Kidd's perceived ability to "control an offense, dictate pace and put players in scoring position", it didn't translate to winning that side of the floor:
2001/02 Nets - 17th ranked offfense (Kidd averaged 37 minutes)
2002/03 Nets - 18th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 37 minutes)
2003/04 Nets - 25th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 36 minutes)
2004/05 Nets - 26th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 36 minutes)
2005/06 Nets - 25th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 37 minutes)
2006/07 Nets - 16th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 36 minutes)
2007/08 Nets - 25th ranked offense (Kidd averaged 36 minutes)
The Nets were ranked average to bottom of the league on offense, not just once or twice, but for every season that Kidd led their offense, and if it wasn't for their great defensive play in the early '00s, they would've been a footnote in the East during arguably its weakest period of the modern era. This is a problem a lot of folks have when discussing his skillset (and pass-first PGs alike) and what impact he had despite not being able to score on a high volumne nor efficiently (and not being a threat to do so), they tend to overcompensate by inflating his strengths to make up for his lack of scoring ability. For all thought of how great he was at controlling the offense and putting players into scoring position, he really wasn't. He was great at running the break, which is where a lot of the perception of his playmaking stems from, but once in the halfcourt and the defense was set, he wasn't. Since he struggled to score in the halfcourt, and because he wasn't a threat to score in the halfcourt, it affected the fludiity and consistenscy of the offense.
You're quick to blame Nash for why the Suns defense was bad (and he doesn't even anchor the defense), let's see if you keep the same energy when it comes to blaming Kidd for why the Nets offense was bad (he, of course, being the team's offensive anchor).
If you're the main ball-handler and you aren't balancing when to shoot/pass properly, everything breaks down. It's why someone like Nash was able to run the #1 offense in the league for nearly a decade, no matter the team and no matter the personnel.
"And it's
not just about how many points the PG scores, or how efficient the PG is (because that it all depends on the context of the game, the personnel and scheme), it's about how the opposing defense is treating the PG and therefore how they're treating the offense as a unit, and the opportunities this gives the offense to score. Just look at some of the things it affects:
the spacing (how a PG pulls in defenders all across the court and gives their teammates more room to operate with)
the help defense (how a PG pulls in defenders, rips defensive schemes and gives teammates easier scoring opportunities and/or mismatchups)
defenders rotating (how a PG forces teams to rotate)
the rhythm, confidence and belief of defenses (how a PG can get a strangehold on the control of possession flow, limit the defense's confidence by making it harder and less predictable for them to defend)
defensive matchups (how a PG can get a defense to mentally and physically overcompensate by being an equal shot/pass threat - teams using better guard/wing defenders and how it affects the awareness of other defenders of where the PG is and what they're going to do, and how it affects their mental ability of being concerned about another player while their own defensive assignment)
the mental and physical strain (how a PG can break a defense mentally and physically and the domino effect it has on the opposing team's offense, how much energy and willpower they have throughout the game, how the opposing team's gameplan changes and lineup changes etc etc)"
The Raptors have had a top-10 offense for nearly every season that Lowry has been the main-ball handler (13th, 10th, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd last season) and that is largely due to the fact of his progression as a scorer, because he was already a good floor general/playmaker before going to Toronto, in fact, that's all he was known for earlier in his career, his playmaking and defense. You can be the greatest passer in the world and know how to
run an offense, but if you can't score for shyt, your team's offense is gonna suffer. Look at all the offenses Rondo's been in charge of.
It's hilarious that you think Kidd is better than Lowry on offense by that margin, because of all these floor general traits, when if someone said LeBron was better than Kobe "by a mile" on offense because he was better at controlling the offense, dictating pace, and putting players into scoring position, you'd be screaming blue murder.
So gon'head and try to juelz your way to explaining why Kobe is better than LeBron on offense. This should be fun.
Except they didn't have strong defensive players in the positions they needed most. It doesn't matter if they have good defensive players, in general, it matters if they have good defensive players in positions which have the most impact/influence on that side of the floor. On an equal-term basis, a good defensive C will have more impact than a good defensive PG. Great defense at the PG position isn't needed, it's a luxury.
And this is why I need to break down everything for you, because you simply do not understand the game, on any level. Nash's "terrible" defense wasn't the reason why they didn't win, it wasn't the only reason, it wasn't the main reason, hell, it was barely even a reason, at all. Nash is NOT the defensive anchor, Nash is not a wing player, Nash is a PG - the least important position on defense - all you
need from the PG position is someone who's competent, gives effort, and understands and sticks to the system in place. Anything else, like I said, is a luxury. Pretty much all the things you need from the PG all lie on the offensive end of the floor.
Blaimg the Suns defensive issues on Nash is the equivlient to your car not working properly when you've got a blown head gasket, a radiator leak, faulty transmission, a dead battery and then you go and blame it on the tyres not having the right tread. While yes, it maybe an issue, it's long down the list of problems on why the car isn't working properly. It's completely ridiculous to shell all the blame on someone for a role which they barely have any responsibility for. If the Warriors went through a rough patch offensively, you wouldn't go and blame ZaZa for it now would you? Of course not. Why? Because other players have greater roles and responsibility on that end of the floor. Just like the Suns had players who had greater roles and responsibility on defense, over Nash.
The fact you keep on refrencing a series which was decided by a technical foul, and claiming the only or main difference between winning and losing that series was due to a player's performance on the side of the floor which he had the least amount of influence, potential impact and responsibility, is truly some mind-boggling shyt, that only an agenda-driven zealot could argue something so farcical.
SMH.
