Skip Bayliss has an interesting take on the MVP Award

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

you take dirk off the mavs and they dont make the playoffs. Same for duncan on the spurs. I firmly believe the suns make the playoffs without nash.

Heck if you take Nash off the Mavs you have a 58 win team.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Heck if you take Nash off the Mavs you have a 58 win team.

That post was all net.

[V2M]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

That post was all net.

And 1

[FreshJive]

Nash isn't the best overall player in the league, but there isn't a better player on the offensive side of the ball right now. He leads the league in true shooting percentage and assists.

[V2M]

Assists are vastly overrated

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

This sums it up. The media always want's the quick and easy answer.

PHX also traded for Kurt Thomas who gave them an inside presscence. They signed Raja Bell who replaced Quinton Richardson's 3-point shooting and played defense. They added Boris Diaw who went on to win most improved player. And Shawn Marion picked up his game to the point where he was a borderline MVP candidate.

Nevermind all that though, Nash must have been carrying the team on his back. Because that makes the best story.

I like your line of thinking. But c'mon, with one thing: how many teams was Boris Diaw going to win most improved on? Basically, Diaw can thank Nash for that award.

It's stuff like that that actually cements Nash case.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Heck if you take Nash off the Mavs you have a 58 win team.

A lot of teams win 58 (or more, sometimes) and don't win a championship. In itself, that says nothing. As it stands yet, the Mavs haven't proven anything more without him than they proved with him.

Phoenix, on the other hand, has proved a great deal.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I like your line of thinking. But c'mon, with one thing: how many teams was Boris Diaw going to win most improved on? Basically, Diaw can thank Nash for that award.

It's stuff like that that actually cements Nash case.

no chum. you are flat out wrong here. Diaw can thank an up tempo system and a coach that thinks out of the box enough to play a shooting guard at center for the majority of the season due to the fact that said sg cant shoot but its not nash. Did nash help him? im sure he helped him as any great player helps the other players around him BUT you guys are acting like diaw was garbage without nash. he had a higher plus/minus than nash AND he had 2 triple doubles in the 4 games that nash missed. Diaw is just fine.

[dude1394]

How long has dan-to-ni been coaching the suns? How many seasons before little stevie? Did the uptempo come on just when he showed up?

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I like your line of thinking. But c'mon, with one thing: how many teams was Boris Diaw going to win most improved on? Basically, Diaw can thank Nash for that award.

It's stuff like that that actually cements Nash case.

No he has D'Antoni to thank for it. D'Antoni ran a system that created some incredible mismatches for a guy with the skillset of Diaw. Nash may have helped a tad, but he didn't "win the award" for Diaw. If Nash "won the award for him" Diaw wouldn't put up numbers like this when Nash was sitting out -

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore...gid=2006041613

Or numbers like this -

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore...gid=2006041409

That's right two triple-doubles. 28 assists total in those two games. To say Nash created Boris Diaw is absurd.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

A lot of teams win 58 (or more, sometimes) and don't win a championship. In itself, that says nothing. As it stands yet, the Mavs haven't proven anything more without him than they proved with him.

Phoenix, on the other hand, has proved a great deal.

Huh? I think you are missing the point here. How did Phoenix without Amare prove anything more than Dallas did without Nash? So why is Nash getting all the credit for what the Suns did and Dirk not getting any credit here?

And how has Phoenix proved a great deal? Last year they played a gimmicky style that won them a good amount of games but wasn't all that successful when the playoffs rolled around. 54 wins is proving a great deal while 58 wins says nothing? I have to admit I'm awfully confused by this line of thinking.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

no chum. you are flat out wrong here. Diaw can thank an up tempo system and a coach that thinks out of the box enough to play a shooting guard at center for the majority of the season due to the fact that said sg cant shoot but its not nash. Did nash help him? im sure he helped him as any great player helps the other players around him BUT you guys are acting like diaw was garbage without nash. he had a higher plus/minus than nash AND he had 2 triple doubles in the 4 games that nash missed. Diaw is just fine.

No, you're right. But Nash is the guy who allows them to play that way. Anybody else who can?

That's why people have voted him MVP.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

To say Nash created Boris Diaw is absurd.

Well, the Hawks sure didn't create Boris Diaw!

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, you're right. But Nash is the guy who allows them to play that way. Anybody else who can?

That's why people have voted him MVP.

jason kidd, chauncey billups, chris paul, deron williams etc... There would be a dropoff sure but they would still be a great team.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Huh? I think you are missing the point here. How did Phoenix without Amare prove anything more than Dallas did without Nash? So why is Nash getting all the credit for what the Suns did and Dirk not getting any credit here?

And how has Phoenix proved a great deal? Last year they played a gimmicky style that won them a good amount of games but wasn't all that successful when the playoffs rolled around. 54 wins is proving a great deal while 58 wins says nothing? I have to admit I'm awfully confused by this line of thinking.

Dirk got a lot of credit. I think he was second or third in the MVP voting, wasn't he?

The season before they voted on last year's award, Nash had dismissed of Dirk in the playoffs. What do you want people to go on? The general concensus, I think, is that Dirk had a better cast around him last year than Nash did.

The sad thing is that they may, in fact, be the best two players in all of the NBA. And once they were teammates!

You shudder to think about it.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

jason kidd, chauncey billups, chris paul, deron williams etc... There would be a dropoff sure but they would still be a great team.

You could maybe even add Raymond Felton to that list. The guy averages about 9 or 10 assists a game for Charlotte when he is running the point. Not to mention he ran a very similar system to perfection at North Carolina. His jumpshot is nowhere near Nash's, but I have faith that he could distribute the ball comparably.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Dirk got a lot of credit. I think he was second or third in the MVP voting, wasn't he?

The season before they voted on last year's award, Nash had dismissed of Dirk in the playoffs. What do you want people to go on? The general concensus, I think, is that Dirk had a better cast around him last year than Nash did.

The sad thing is that they may, in fact, be the best two players in all of the NBA. And once they were teammates!

You shudder to think about it.

the general consensus is that dirk had a better cast around him? Really? Then the general populas that came to that consensus needs to get a clue besides the mavs were signifigantly better than the suns last year so if the casts were CLOSE even if dirk had the better cast he would have deserved it.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I like your line of thinking. But c'mon, with one thing: how many teams was Boris Diaw going to win most improved on? Basically, Diaw can thank Nash for that award.

It's stuff like that that actually cements Nash case.

And it's thinking like that that led to Nash wrongly being awarded his 2nd MVP.

First of all, let's give the kid some credit for his own development because he's the one who put in the work. I watched quite a bit of Eurobasket 2005 and Diaw was the best player on a French team with Tony Parker and Mikael Pietrus.

5-0 and Fintastic have already pointed out how he benefited from the Suns system so I won't go into that.

I will say that Diaw is not a finisher like Amare and Marion. In fact, he's an initiator himself. He came into his own early in the season while coming off the bench. The Suns didn't have a competent backup PG so D'Antoni ran the offense through Diaw and it worked our really well. Eventually he moved into the starting lineup but he still handled the ball quit a bit. One of their most effective sets was the high low game with Diaw and Marion.

And I'm sure you remember the WCF when he was doing most of his damage by taking Dirk and our centers off of the dribble.

Boris Diaw is not a Nash creation but since it's a feel good story we (and by we I mean you and the media) give him the credit.

[FINtastic]

Dirk got a lot of credit. I think he was second or third in the MVP voting, wasn't he?

He got third, which isn't a lot of credit when you consider Nash is running away with the award for doing less.

The season before they voted on last year's award, Nash had dismissed of Dirk in the playoffs.

Why isn't anyone in the media bringing up that Dirk dismissed of Nash this year?

The general concensus, I think, is that Dirk had a better cast around him last year than Nash did.

Well I disagree with that consensus. Nash had a sidekick in Marion that was head and shoulders above the second best guy on the Dallas roster. He had pretty darn good role players in Diaw and Bell. Thomas was solid. Nash wasn't playing with mince meat. Not to mention Dirk won 6 more games anyways.

[FreshJive]

What has been proven is that Cuban made a retarded decision.

Why we were wrong about Steve Nash

By John Hollinger

http://www.bdasports.com/news/steve_nash_why_wrong.htm

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

What has been proven is that Cuban made a retarded decision.

Why we were wrong about Steve Nash

By John Hollinger

http://www.bdasports.com/news/steve_nash_why_wrong.htm

no such thing has been proven. since steve nash left(and im projecting for this season) the mavs have had the two best seasons in team history in only a 3 year period and won 58 in the down year.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

What has been proven is that Cuban made a retarded decision.

Why we were wrong about Steve Nash

By John Hollinger

http://www.bdasports.com/news/steve_nash_why_wrong.htm

What does this have to do with the MVP award?

[FreshJive]

"What does this have to do with the MVP award?"
Well Hollinger has always been a doubter of sorts when it comes to Nash's greatness. If he is coming around then I think Nash might have a chance to repeat.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

"What does this have to do with the MVP award?"
Well Hollinger has always been a doubter of sorts when it comes to Nash's greatness. If he is coming around then I think Nash might have a chance to repeat.

So his one vote is going to tip the scales?

*Edited - I just scanned through the whole article I don't see anywhere in there where Hollinger states that Steve Nash is his MVP. Steve Nash's contract status doesn't really have much to do with whether or not he's MVP.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

And it's thinking like that that led to Nash wrongly being awarded his 2nd MVP.

First of all, let's give the kid some credit for his own development because he's the one who put in the work. I watched quite a bit of Eurobasket 2005 and Diaw was the best player on a French team with Tony Parker and Mikael Pietrus.

5-0 and Fintastic have already pointed out how he benefited from the Suns system so I won't go into that.

I will say that Diaw is not a finisher like Amare and Marion. In fact, he's an initiator himself. He came into his own early in the season while coming off the bench. The Suns didn't have a competent backup PG so D'Antoni ran the offense through Diaw and it worked our really well. Eventually he moved into the starting lineup but he still handled the ball quit a bit. One of their most effective sets was the high low game with Diaw and Marion.

And I'm sure you remember the WCF when he was doing most of his damage by taking Dirk and our centers off of the dribble.

Boris Diaw is not a Nash creation but since it's a feel good story we (and by we I mean you and the media) give him the credit.

Hey, I'm not knocking the kid. I recognized right away that the Suns fleeced the Hawks in that Johnson deal. The kid can play.

But...he faces a lot less defense in that Nash-led offense than he would on just about every other team in the NBA, doesn't he?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Why isn't anyone in the media bringing up that Dirk dismissed of Nash this year?

That's a very fair point. I do think the flipside had credence that year, and likewise I think this point has credence this year.

For the record, I don't think there is any way Nash wins the MVP this year, nor do I think he deserves it. I think it's Dirk award to lose. And yes, that does take into account playoff performance from last year.

[FreshJive]

I never said anything about Hollinger's vote, Fintastic. Just that even Nash's critics seem to be impressed by his sustained stats. Nash is making it harder and harder to say he doesn't deserve it.

[FINtastic]

A lot of people in this thread seem to think he doesn't deserve it -

http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics...opic.php?t=696

It's from April of 2006, but the points remain very relevant. They are also points that the Nash apologists never do seem to be able to answer. I'll paste the article that the thread centers around.

Nash the MVP: Who cares?

By Anthony Coleman

By now you may have heard that Steve Nash will almost certainly win his second MVP consecutive MVP award. Well as a basketball fan the problem that I had with Nash’s MVP win (much like his win the year before) is that his case for winning basketball’s top individual honor, is dubious at best. When the news broke on ESPN, I was angry about the result; now I’m just disappointed.

I’m not disappointed over the fact that so many voters got the award wrong. OK that’s a lie. I am a little angry over Nash’s win.
As was the case last year, Nash received way too much credit for Phoenix’s season. By looking at the information that is available and watching the games it was clear that Shawn Marion was every bit as important to the Sun’s success as Nash was. Yet because Nash was the “new guy” last year, and because the Suns enjoyed a very good season despite the absence of Amare Stoudemire this year; Nash was given the credit for carrying the team. In the words of Paul Mooney; “It’s all crap”.

Marion lead the Suns in points, rebound, steals, minutes played, blocked shots, and was second on the team in True Shooting percentage. Meanwhile Steve Nash was second in the team in points, first in assists, and the leader in true shooting percentage. I’m sorry but, based on the evidence, how can anybody suggest that Nash is far and away the best player on the Phoenix Suns? In reality, Nash was just as equal to Marion, but because Nash has the halo of “making the Suns a championship team”, Nash is looked upon as the superstar, while Marion is viewed as a fine, but complementary player.

So yeah to a certain extent Nash’s MVP win annoyed me, but it didn’t disappoint me. No, my disappointment lies in the fact that the majority of basketball writers selected Nash as the MVP winner; for all the wrong reasons and thus cheapened the award.

Leading up to the vote, I read so many Nash-for-MVP articles, and what disturbed me wasn’t because they were wrong. No, my resentment stems from the fact that these writers refused to adequately support their claims and pay attention to details. Instead these writers relied upon homilies and warmed over clichés such as “Nash makes his teammates better” or “Nash is the reason for Phoenix’s success”, “Steve Nash is carrying the Suns” and “Shawn Marion is a good sidekick but Steve Nash is called upon to win games”.

Yes all of those claims are nice, but you know what? If you choose not to support your claims based on clear and concise research then those proclamations are hollow. In the vast majority of the Nash articles, I saw writers relying solely upon grand statements, yet none of these writers asked or attempted to answer basic fundamental questions such as:

-How does Nash make his teammates better?
-Why are the Suns a title contender?
-What effect does Nash have on the Suns’ offense and defense?
-Is Nash the main reason why the Suns are winning despite Stoudemire’s injury? And if I do think that Nash was the reason, then why?
-Is he the best player on the team? And if so why is he the best player on the team?

This isn’t too much to ask. In fact it is a necessary part of making an argument: the ability to ask questions, and provide evidence that would most effectively answer the questions. But I rarely saw any of this from Nash’s MVP supporters; instead I read articles that relied solely on those aforementioned groundless statements. It seemed as if knowledge was irrelevant to their “arguments” for Nash being the MVP.

That is the exact reason why I’m so disappointed because these journalists are so called experts, but they refuse to analyze every faucet of the game; something that experts are supposed to do. If somebody thinks that Nash is the MVP, that isn’t so much a problem as long as you have evidence to support your proclamation. I won’t agree with your opinion, but you will have my respect because it at least shows that you are making an honest effort to understanding the game.

To be quite honest I’m beginning to care to less and less about these awards. Why should I care about an award that is handed out by people who won’t take the time to research and determine who the MVP truly is? Well if most (but not all) of the major basketball writers will not do this then I won’t care about their opinion. Instead if I want to know who the MVP is, I research for myself or I’ll read the articles of noted APBRmetricians like Kevin Pelton and John Hollinger.

Do I always agree with Pelton’s or Hollinger’s opinions? Absolutely not, but when I read their articles I know that they will create a reasoned argument and have evidence to suggest why their ideas are correct. I didn’t agree with Pelton when he said that Nash was Phoenix’s MVP candidate in 2005; but at least he proved that Marion and Stoudemire were heavily dependant on Nash for an assist.

Likewise I’m not necessarily in agreement with Hollinger’s claim that Chris Paul’s rookie season being superior to Magic Johnson’s rookie season, but he did make a reasoned and good case to suggest why Paul is better than Johnson, and he didn’t succumb to narrow logic (i.e. “Magic Johnson was better than Chris Paul as a rookie because Magic Johnson was a legend and Chris Paul is not”). I know they respect the reader enough to make a good and balanced argument and if they will say some player is the MVP, I’ll pay attention because I respect their journalistic opinion.

So in the end; why should I care about the MVP award? It is just an award handed out by a group of people whose opinion is as valid as any internet blogger or statistical analyst. Why should I care about the significance about an award that is seemingly given out to the best story instead of the best player? I shouldn’t and that is why I’ll make a good effort not to care when the award is announced next year.

[chumdawg]

I'll let Anthony Coleman, with all his mental acuity, analyze the "faucets" of the game.

Meantime, I'll be happy observing the facets.

[FreshJive]

Such deep questions

-How does Nash make his teammates better?
Ummm he passes them the ball when they are standing under the rim, while they are flying towards the rim, and when they are standing wide open because he drew all the attention of the defense.
-Why are the Suns a title contender?
Because they win alot
-What effect does Nash have on the Suns’ offense and defense?
He makes the offense score alot and makes their defense worse.
-Is Nash the main reason why the Suns are winning despite Stoudemire’s injury? yes
And if I do think that Nash was the reason, then why? Becase he is thier best player
-Is he the best player on the team? yes
And if so why is he the best player on the team? He is the best offensive player on a team that relys on offense to win.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by FreshJive

Such deep questions

-How does Nash make his teammates better?
Ummm he passes them the ball when they are standing under the rim, while they are flying towards the rim, and when they are standing wide open because he drew all the attention of the defense.
-Why are the Suns a title contender?
Because they win alot
-What effect does Nash have on the Suns’ offense and defense?
He makes the offense score alot and makes their defense worse.
-Is Nash the main reason why the Suns are winning despite Stoudemire’s injury? yes
And if I do think that Nash was the reason, then why? Becase he is thier best player
-Is he the best player on the team? yes
And if so why is he the best player on the team? He is the best offensive player on a team that relys on offense to win.

You just misssed the entire point of the argument. It's that you gotta have some evidence for your argument. In fact, you are kinda proving the point he was trying to make by spewing the same cliches without any real evidence or proof (kind of like the rest of the media does). Steve Nash won because he was the best story not the best player.

[FINtastic]

Here's an interesting post from the one thread that I posted a little bit earlier. It's on page 5 of the thread. If you are a stats junkie, you might enjoy. In other words, most won't give a rat's behind. But I still find it interesting nonetheless.

Originally Posted by davis21wylie2121

If there's one thing I dislike about PER, it's that it doesn't mean anything; it fails to have the "power of language," as Bill James once said. Its units are not in points or wins; in fact, I'm not sure I could define what unit it actually is measuring. So I can understand skepticism toward an argument based solely on PER, a stat that makes a lot of assumptions (i.e., linear weights can apply to basketball) and a stat that doesn't even correlate well to winning (the Seattle SuperSonics went 35-47, but had a team PER of above 15.00 because their ghastly defense wasn't taken into account in the formula).

So, let's look at other methods. Dean Oliver's work is as cutting-edge as possible (given traditional statistics to work with), and I believe quantifies the effect of teamwork as well as any formula using those statistics can, so we should start there. In terms of offensive ratings, Nash's 121 pprod/100 poss easily beats D-Wade and LeBron's 115, and Kobe's 114. But he lags behind Billups and Nowitzki, who posted 127 and 123, respectively.

Of course, offensive efficiency is only one-half of the equation; you can have the highest offensive rating in the world, but it won't matter if you can't create shots -- for yourself, and others. We'll simplify possessions by looking at Usage Rate: Nash's Usage was 23.4 poss/40, a number dwarfed by Bryant's 35.3, James' 31.4, Wade's 30.1, and Nowitzki's 27.5... only Billups (also 23.4) was even with Nash among the MVP contenders.

Putting the two factors together to form a rough sketch of points produced/40 minutes, we arrive at:
Code:

Player ORtg Usage Est. PProd/40
-----------------------------------------------
Nash 121 23.4 28.31
James 115 31.4 36.11
Bryant 114 35.3 40.24
Wade 115 30.1 34.62
Nowitzki 123 27.5 33.83
Billups 127 23.4 29.72
-----------------------------------------------

Nash can't hold a candle to these guys in terms of points produced per 40 minutes. Remember as well that the PProd formula accounts for Nash's passing, and any other teamwork that he may have added to the Suns.

The gap widens when we consider minutes played. In order to be truly "most valuable", you can't be sitting on the bench, whether due to a coach's decision or an injury. Nash played 2801 minutes this season, the second-most he's ever played in a campaign. Too bad James played 3361 minutes, Kobe 3273, Dirk 3086, Wade 2897, and Billups 2928. When we account for playing time with Pts Over Replacement, Nash gets creamed:
Code:
Player Est. PPd/40 Minutes VORP
-----------------------------------------------
Nash 28.31 2801 1234.5
James 36.11 3361 2136.8
Bryant 40.24 3273 2418.7
Wade 34.62 2897 1733.9
Nowitzki 33.83 3086 1786.0
Billups 29.72 2928 1393.7
-----------------------------------------------
(Assumes a replacement level of 2/3 the lg. average Pts/Min)


Well, what if those ballhogs with high usages were hurting the team with their frequent hoists? Well, let's compare the players' efficiencies to their teams'; if their individual per-possession efficiency is lower than their teammates', they should have shot less.
Code:
Player ORtg Team ORtg
-----------------------------------------------
Nash 121 112
James 115 108
Bryant 114 109
Wade 115 109
Nowitzki 123 112
Billups 127 111
-----------------------------------------------


I'm pretty sure none of these guys were dragging down their teammates.

Oh, but we've only covered offense so far -- defensively, Nash looks even worse. Let's begin with DeanO's defensive ratings, which (while flawed) can give us a basic outline of defensive performance:
Code:
Player DRtg Team DRtg
-----------------------------------------------
Nash 109 106
James 104 105
Bryant 105 106
Wade 103 104
Nowitzki 103 105
Billups 107 103
-----------------------------------------------

Aside from Billups, Nash is the only player to actually hurt his team on defense, according to this metric. But the metric is flawed, so let's look at some of 82games' data. I promised I wouldn't drag PER into the discussion... but I lied:
Code:
Player Opp. Prod
-----------------------------------------------
Nash 15.3
James 12.6
Bryant 14.1
Wade 14.6
Nowitzki 17.0
Billups 12.9
-----------------------------------------------


Nash acquits himself better here, but he's still sub-par. Still, counterpart production has flaws as well; let's look at each individual's impact on their team's defense:
Code:
Team Def. Rtg
Player On Court Off Court +/-
-----------------------------------------------
Nash 106.4 107.2 -0.8
James 107.2 104.1 +3.2
Bryant 107.8 101.2 +6.5
Wade 105.2 107.1 -1.9
Nowitzki 106.6 103.3 +3.3
Billups 103.4 105.1 -1.7
-----------------------------------------------

Okay, Nash looks even a little better here. Still, given the conflicting evidence we've seen on Nash's defense, we must say that he is merely average at best -- and that's statistically speaking, not scouting. Scouts would say that he's... um, not very good. Either way, Nash's defense doesn't make up for the gap between himself and the other candidates on offense.

But what if individual statistics missed something? After all, Nash's value is supposedly in his ability to control the flow of the game, to make his teammates better... Okay, let's look at overall +/- ratings:
Code:
On/Off Court
Player Net +/-
-----------------------------------------------
Nash +8.8
James +11.0
Bryant +12.7
Wade +15.8
Nowitzki +8.5
Billups +11.5
-----------------------------------------------


Have the Nash defenders given up yet? Nash isn't the MVP -- not even close. On all counts, somebody out there has played better than him, and more than him as well.

Oh, and as a parting stat:
Code:
Player PER
-----------------------------------------------
Nash 23.23
James 28.01
Bryant 27.93
Wade 27.65
Nowitzki 28.12
Billups 23.37
-----------------------------------------------

[chumdawg]

FIN, how are they cliches? His new teammates in Phoenix got demonstrably better when Nash arrived. Just about every one of them, and many of them in a big way. I'm talking staistically. Now, to explain how they got staistically better because of Nash playing with them is a bit like explaining how Leonardo painted the Sistine Chapel. The works speak for themselves.

What type of answers do you want for these questions? If you can't use statistics, what can you use?

It is worth noting that most of the guys Nash played with in Dallas in '04 treaded water or got worse offensively, not playing with Nash anymore.

But again, if not statistics, then what?

[chumdawg]

Putting the two factors together to form a rough sketch of points produced/40 minutes, we arrive at:
Code:

Player ORtg Usage Est. PProd/40
-----------------------------------------------
Nash 121 23.4 28.31
James 115 31.4 36.11
Bryant 114 35.3 40.24
Wade 115 30.1 34.62
Nowitzki 123 27.5 33.83
Billups 127 23.4 29.72
-----------------------------------------------

Nash can't hold a candle to these guys in terms of points produced per 40 minutes. Remember as well that the PProd formula accounts for Nash's passing, and any other teamwork that he may have added to the Suns.

Before I will listen to this yahoo any further, I wanna see him apply the same code to every member of the team and make sure the team totals add up. Something tells me they won't.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

FIN, how are they cliches? His new teammates in Phoenix got demonstrably better when Nash arrived. Just about every one of them, and many of them in a big way. I'm talking staistically. Now, to explain how they got staistically better because of Nash playing with them is a bit like explaining how Leonardo painted the Sistine Chapel. The works speak for themselves.

What type of answers do you want for these questions? If you can't use statistics, what can you use?

It is worth noting that most of the guys Nash played with in Dallas in '04 treaded water or got worse offensively, not playing with Nash anymore.

But again, if not statistics, then what?

They are cliches because it's way overused and when you break it down, it's not necessarily accurate. When you throw out statistics, you gotta understand what they say. You can throw out all the statistics you want, but what does it say man? It's like me saying China has the 4th highest GDP in world. Does that mean the citizens of China are wealthy? Heck, no. So what if the players improved when Nash got there. Well, considering the players were very young and had made big strides the season before, I don't think Nash's arrival is the only explanation for their improvement. But if you want statistics read the post I made just seconds before your post.

I guess when it comes right down to it, you have to use valid statistics. Statistics that can't be easily explained away. I haven't seen a ton of those from the Nash for MVP camp. Instead I just hear "he makes his teammates" better and stuff like that. And when I do hear statistics. It's the fact that he has a lot of assists. Well, he's playing for a team that is going to inflate any point guard's assist numbers. So what?

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Before I will listen to this yahoo any further, I wanna see him apply the same code to every member of the team and make sure the team totals add up. Something tells me they won't.

Did you read the whole post? He talks about the team in general in certain parts. But I don't know the guy, I just stumbled upon the thread so I guess you have an easy out here.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

So what if the players improved when Nash got there. Well, considering the players were very young and had made big strides the season before, I don't think Nash's arrival is the only explanation for their improvement.

Was Howard a young player the year before Nash left? Daniels? Nowitzki, even? What happened to those guy's stats?

The truth is that they treaded water, or declined, when they didn't play with Nash the following season.

Gotta factor it all, m'friend, not just the arguments that make your side look better.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Did you read the whole post? He talks about the team in general in certain parts. But I don't know the guy, I just stumbled upon the thread so I guess you have an easy out here.

Yeah, I read the whole post. Besides the fact that I think he is taking extreme liberties with his very first "statistical proof," I think he's also barking up the wrong tree. He's taking the wrong approach toward determining whether someone is MVP-worthy or not. Why doesn't he just start and end at the place he ends (PER), and save us all the boring read?

[chumdawg]

I tell you what. You think Skip Bayliss has an interesting take, how's this for an interesting take...

You know how a lot of people say that Nash was holding Nowitzki back? How Nash was the security blanket and Dirk needed to finally step up and be the man and all that?

Well what about this? What if Dirk was holding Nash back? What if Nash was, all along, a playmaker at heart and needed guys around him who could finish his plays?

Maybe Dirk was a playmaker, too, and needed the ball in his hands. See, that's what I mean. It may well be the case that these are the two most talented basketball players on the planet.

What an embarrassment of riches we once had on this team!!

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Was Howard a young player the year before Nash left? Daniels? Nowitzki, even? What happened to those guy's stats?

The truth is that they treaded water, or declined, when they didn't play with Nash the following season.

Gotta factor it all, m'friend, not just the arguments that make your side look better.

really? Dirk treaded water? Chum, just stop making stuff up. These are dirks numbers in his last year with nash and his first year without him. tell me how he "treaded water"

last year with nash
Ppg RPg APG SPG BPG FG FT
21.8 8.7 2.7 1.2 1.4 46% 34%
First year without nash
26.1 9.7 3.1 1.2 1.5 46% 40%

How about josh? His scoring went up 4, and he shot 4.5% higher. big jumps in both cats. his rebounds and steals went up 2. So you have the two players you used to say they treaded water or declined who both got signifigantly better. I know the comeback to this and it is EXACTLY my point.(the comeback is that the year previous to nash leaving was flawed because of the antwins) Your right it was. You know the point that proves? That the system you choose to run and the other players on the team do matter even if you have your beloved steve nash.

I want to point something out. I dont dislike stevie at all. I hold absolutely no ill will toward him for leaving. The suns showed tremendous interest in him and from what i remember reading the mavs offer was, 25 million extra dollars. Is 40 million alot of money? Yes. Would i be absolutely thrilled with it? Yes. Would i turn down 40 because i was offered 65 by a team that seemed more interested? yes. So since i would have done the same thing it just doesnt bother me and stevie was my second favorite player when he was a mav. I dont go from players being my favorites to hating them just because they end up on another team. Hes no longer my second favorite player overall,(that would be devin harris) but I still like little stevie.