Which 22 yr old? Timmy or Bird

[Pudge714]

Assani,
Bird had better/deeper teams than Nash yet he still played more minutes per game and took more shots.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Assani,
Bird had better/deeper teams than Nash yet he still played more minutes per game and took more shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you really trying to argue that the Suns are pulling Nash from the game becuase they don't think hes good enough? Come on, man. Think about that for a second.

I havn't watched enough of Bird's games to comment, but I doubt they had as many one-on-one guys as Phoenix does. But regardless, let me ask you this: If Nash took 9 more shots per game(and I realize they might not all be open looks since hes now shooting 9 more times) do you really not think he could score 10 more points?

Edited to add: And I could also argue that if Bird had deeper/better teams and was such a great passer, then why didn't he have the assist numbers that Nash had? But clearly we'd just be going around in circles. Nash simply looks for his teamates more, while Bird looked to score more. That doesn't mean that either couldn't do what the other did if they put their minds to it.

[Pudge714]

Assani,
I'm arguing that because Nash is tired of because they want to rest him for the playoffs or because they want to appease Barbosa or whatever. He doesn't play as many minutes as Bird. The suns are generally pretty efficient with there resources and if they could play him 8 more minutes a game without hurting there team they would.

Nash has better assist numbers than Bird because he's a PG and a a better passer.

He wouldn't score 10 more points if he took 9 more shots. If that were the case he would be as good a scorer as anyone in the NBA which strikes me as being pretty intuitively wrong. There are probably better calculations to determine the marginal returns of each shot, but I have no idea how or where to find it.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]

He wouldn't score 10 more points if he took 9 more shots. If that were the case he would be as good a scorer as anyone in the NBA which strikes me as being pretty intuitively wrong. There are probably better calculations to determine the marginal returns of each shot, but I have no idea how or where to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres no way you can really believe this. Imagine 9 possessions in which Nash would otherwise have ended up passing the ball. Instead he comes down the court and just takes his man one-on-one. You really don't think he could score 10 points on these 9 possession? I can't see how anyone who has watched Nash would think that he couldn't do it.

I guess this is the crux of our disagreement about Nash: I think hes one of the best, if not the best, scorers in the game. I think he could score 30+ per game if he played SG instead of PG and just tried to score, but it wouldn't make his team better.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He wouldn't score 10 more points if he took 9 more shots. If that were the case he would be as good a scorer as anyone in the NBA which strikes me as being pretty intuitively wrong. There are probably better calculations to determine the marginal returns of each shot, but I have no idea how or where to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres no way you can really believe this. Imagine 9 possessions in which Nash would otherwise have ended up passing the ball. Instead he comes down the court and just takes his man one-on-one. You really don't think he could score 10 points on these 9 possession? I can't see how anyone who has watched Nash would think that he couldn't do it.

I guess this is the crux of our disagreement about Nash: I think hes one of the best, if not the best, scorers in the game. I think he could score 30+ per game if he played SG instead of PG and just tried to score, but it wouldn't make his team better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your argument Assani, do you think Nash passes up good shots? You can't just claim that he would score more if he took more shots. He doesn't and there is a reason he doesn't.

Couldn't I just as easily say that if Bird didn't take shots on his worst 9 looks of the game he would shoot a higher percentage? Or that if he passed 9 more times instead of shooting he would have a higher assist average?

I mean, I think Nash is awesome and is playing at a level that puts him among the greatest of all time. But you can't just say, "He could score if he wants to." His team doesn't need him to, so he doesn't. If the Celtics didn't need Bird to hoist up shots at the end of the shot clock and if they didn't rely on him to take tough shots, he would shoot a better percentage.

Also, I highly doubt that the Suns don't have Nash on the floor as much as they can. He only plays 30 MPG because he is only capable of playing that much effectively for an entire season. If he is as good as you say he is, they would be retarded not to play him more if he was capable.

Now can we get back to Bird vs. Duncan [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]?

[kidcolin]

Sweet another Nash debate.

Assani,

First off just drop the 30 PPG if he was a 2 guard. If he was a 2 he'd get chewed up by most wing defenders. That being said, I agree with you, to a point. i.e., Nash is a pretty damn good scorer. The Nash haters don't give him enough credit. Part of the reason the Suns are so effective is because you can't give Nash an inch. He's too deadly from anywhere on the floor. So you can't cheat passing lanes, you have to hang tight on the pick and roll, etc.

Now, Nash is a creative little guy. He does some neat things in the lane to get shots over big guys. But let's be real here. He's a small framed, 6'3" PG, who isn't as strong or durable as guys like AI or Wade. He'd essentially have to play with that reckless abandon to be a premiere scorer. He'd need a lot of trips to the line. He just doesn't have the tools a guy like Bird had. Bird could score from anywhere, on pretty much anybody. He could create from any position on the floor.

Nash isn't that lucky. You're overestimating him. If you stick him on a team and say, "Nash is our number one scoring option", he's going to have a hard time. He's a great scorer precisely because he's a great PG. The way his game works is he gets some damn great looks because his ability and PHX's system stifles defenses. If he starts looking for 20-25 shots per game, he's not going to be as efficient a scorer. He's not going to get great looks.

Now you could argue he's such a great play maker that he'd find other people since he's pressured so much. I think that's true. I think that's why he currently takes 13 shots a game. I think it's settled on that number because that's what works.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you realize that Bird dropped 40+ points over 50 times? I don't really think Nash is capable of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nash is averaging 19 points per game this year on 12.9 shots per game. He averaged the same 19 points last year on 13.4 shots per game.

In Bird's 3 highest scoring years he scored 29.9, 28.7, and 28.1 points per game. His shots per game were: 22, 22, and 20.29.

Nash is every bit the scorer that Bird was. He just doesn't shoot as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were going pretty good this thread and then you spout this crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

THAY3R,

Pretend for a second that its not Nash or another player you hate. Pretend for a second that we were just talking about two random players. I think you'll see then thats its a vaild point I made.

One guy averages 19 points on 13 shots. Another guy averages in the high 20s on 22 shots. The second guy also plays 8 more minutes per game.

I understand that you've grown tired of the Nash debates, and I have too. But I still feel compelled to bring out the stats when people make statements like that. You can attack Nash all you want for his defensive liabilities. YOu can attack him for his lack of rebounding. But passing and scoring....hes one of the best ever in those areas, and I felt the need to speak up.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with Nash.

Based on your logic, David Lee is better at scoring than any HOF'er and it's not even close.

[THAY3R]

David Lee :

Career 60% from the field.


60%!!! LMAO like Kobe or Nash or anyone could ever even come close!

80% FT Shooter!!! Not too shabby for a big man!

Oh yea, he's never missed a three pointer!!!

60% FG
80% FT
NEVER MISSED A THREE

LMAO at anyone who tries to argue anyone is better at scoring than him!

[Assani Fisher]

My argument is this:

There are opportunities when Nash could pass to an open teamate and that teamate could hit the shot. Nash could shoot the ball himself instead of doing this. But if he shot himself, it wouldn't go in at the same rate of the open teamate's shot, so its a better idea for him to pass.

But some players are better off shooting themselves. The reasons for this could include: they don't have Nash's passing skills so they can't always complete the passes, they don't have Nash's court vision so they don't see those open teamates, their teamates aren't as good as Nash's so it'd be better for them to shoot themselves.

But if Nash were so inclined, he COULD shoot the ball himself on some of these instances. His team wouldn't be as good, but Nash would score more.

Yes I completely agree with you that Bird COULD shoot a bit less and have a higher percentage, but similarly to Nash he didn't do that because it would hurt his team. Note what started this argument: Someone stating that Nash COULDN'T score like Bird. All I'm arguing is that Nash COULD do it, but because of a unique set of circumstances(he has great teamates and he has great passing skills) its better for him not to. If Nash's passing skills weren't as good, he'd probably take a lot more shots and score more but shoot a worse percentage.


As far as the minutes played, do you not agree that playing at a faster pace(especially when you're the point guard) requires more rest? If the Suns walked the ball up each time, I can guarantee you that Nash would play a lot more. Also the fact that Nash has such a good backup plays a part. For example, in blowouts theres no reason for Nash to play. It would only risk injury. If they didn't have a capable backup, then they would have to be more careful because the other team may come back.




Anyway, I agree: lets get back to the initial debate. We already have way too many Nash debates. I only responded because I thought it was a rather silly for someone to only look at scoring average and then determine that one player is a better scorer. You have to look at a lot more imo. Back to Duncan/Bird or whatever other tangent we get onto.....

[THAY3R]

Guys, Nash is already the best player in the game. The only reason he doesn't shoot as much, or doesn't play as much is because of a huge conspiracy in which David Stern is trying to keep the white man down and to promote parity.