Which 22 yr old? Timmy or Bird

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
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!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

THAY3R,

Most of the time I just ignore your posts. Every now and then I try to have a debate with you, and you nearly always show me why its better to just ignore you. You'd rather be sarcastic and take things to the extreme than actually debate. Thats fine. I'm just not interested in that. I'll go back to just ignoring you. Please just do the same for me.

[kidcolin]

Assani,

I'm pretty sure those Celtics teams had a higher pace factor than the Suns of the past 3 years. I could only find the '05-'06 stat one place, which sited 98 pace factor, compared to 103 for the 86 Celtics. Could be the stats are calculated differently here. Can someone provide some better data?

[Assani Fisher]

kidcolin,

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said I was speaking solely of offense and assuming that the PG was a big guy(like a Livingston perhaps) who could guard the other team's SG on defense.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if you put Nash on a team that had a lot of guys that could hit open shots or could finish with a strong dunk but could not create for themselves, then Nash would score in the high 20s per game. Whenever Barbosa, Marion, or Amare find themselves one on one, they nearly always try to score(and rightfully so- they are good scorers). Diaw, to a lesser extent, also will attack in this situation, but hes more of a creator than a pure scorer.

I think that Nash in a pick and roll with a good finishing big man and with a good shooter spotting up on the wing is nearly impossible to defend. They could run that play all day long over and over again and they'd be one of the better offenses in the league imo.

Now I will agree with you in this regard: If Nash came down the floor, cleared his teamates out, and simply tried to score then he wouldn't be as good as many other scorers. I totally agree with you that Nash is a great scorer because the threat to pass keeps defenses on their heels. You're right in that regard. I take that threat into account when evaluating a scorer. If you don't, then I would agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
who isn't as strong or durable as guys like AI or Wade.

[/ QUOTE ]

AI isn't very strong. Wade isn't very durable. Not sure what you're getting at here.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure I agree with this. He shoots the ball from long distance so much better than these guys that I think it would make up for his lack of trips to the line. Also I'd point out that 10 FTs for him is probably equivalent to 12 or 13 from another guy since Nash shoots so well from the FT line.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ] Basically you're saying that Bird has height. Bird certainly wasn't stronger or quicker than most of his opponents. I do agree with you that Bird's height gave him a big advantage over Nash.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree completely on plays in which he either scores, gets the assist, or is directly involved in the score. What I was pointing out though, is that the Suns have a lot of one on one type players. If they had less of these, then more plays would run through Nash and his shot attempts would naturally go up.

[ QUOTE ]
Sweet another Nash debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I agree with you here. I didn't intend for it to go on as far as this. My entire point was this:

When evaluating a players scoring ability you can't ONLY look at their scoring average or their career 40+ point games.

Thats really all I was trying to point out. Wasn't even trying to argue about Nash. Theres clearly something about Nash that bring out the arguments, which is what I was trying to say to THAY3R: Pretend that I'm not talking about Nash here and just focus on my bolded point above. I think most of you would agree.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Assani,

I'm pretty sure those Celtics teams had a higher pace factor than the Suns of the past 3 years. I could only find the '05-'06 stat one place, which sited 98 pace factor, compared to 103 for the 86 Celtics. Could be the stats are calculated differently here. Can someone provide some better data?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you at all. In Pudge's last post he said:


[ QUOTE ]
Nash's PPG/MPG is inflated because Phoenix plays such a fast-paced offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

We were directly comparing Bird and Nash when he made this comment. Since he stated this so factually, I took it as fact and didn't bother to actually check it. Thats the only reason that I've been stating that Phoenix plays at a faster pace. I would like to see some actual stats as well so we can figure this out for sure.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd rather be sarcastic and take things to the extreme than actually debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what happens when one argues with somebody who usually makes insane arguments (you). note i dont know what you said in this thread i am just working off your past body of work.

[kidcolin]

"Now I will agree with you in this regard: If Nash came down the floor, cleared his teamates out, and simply tried to score then he wouldn't be as good as many other scorers. I totally agree with you that Nash is a great scorer because the threat to pass keeps defenses on their heels. You're right in that regard. I take that threat into account when evaluating a scorer. If you don't, then I would agree with you."

Of course I take that into consideration. That's how I arrived at the conclusion that Nash probably shoots the optimum number of shots. It's not just that his passing keeps the defense on its heels, it's the other way, too. His shooting keeps passing lanes open. So he found a perfect balance.

Another way to look at it. If anyone ever had the ability to drop 30 points per game, they probably would, because you're looking at a max contract at that point.

I also disagree about the Wade not being durable thing.. well that's until he carted off in a wheel chair. He took a lot of abuse.

Also, AI could totally take a pre-roids Nash in a fight. No contest.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'd rather be sarcastic and take things to the extreme than actually debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what happens when one argues with somebody who usually makes insane arguments (you). note i dont know what you said in this thread i am just working off your past body of work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh...we've been through this before. Heres a list of my "insane" arguments:

The Eagles aren't as good as they looked in their start to the season

The Vikings will be a good team because they can run and stop the run

Steve Nash is deserving of his 2 MVPs

Kobe Bryant is closer to Jordan than most people think

Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning

Vick is such a great runner that he can be a great QB without being a top passer. Winning is more important than great stats.





I understand that the majority of this views aren't popular. Thats why i try to argue them. Theres many things which I do agree with the majority on, but I rarely address those things because it'd be a pretty boring topic to discuss if everyone agreed. So I go out of my way to talk about the things I know that I'm in the minority on. Do you really think any of these views are that "insane"?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]


Of course I take that into consideration. That's how I arrived at the conclusion that Nash probably shoots the optimum number of shots. It's not just that his passing keeps the defense on its heels, it's the other way, too. His shooting keeps passing lanes open. So he found a perfect balance.

Another way to look at it. If anyone ever had the ability to drop 30 points per game, they probably would, because you're looking at a max contract at that point.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your first paragraph. I disagree with the second. Believe it or not, most players in the NBA COULD score a ton of points. Do you know that Bruce Bowen led some European league in scoring and was the MVP before he played in the NBA? But many players don't score a ton because:

1. They'd be benched since their coach doesn't want them shooting that much

2. They realize thats not the best thing for the team.

Obviously I don't think Nash is worried about being benched, so I'd group him in with #2.

This is why I'm simply not that fond of guys who score but shoot a horrible percentage. I just don't think theres a lack of scorers in basketball. I realize that at first this seems rather counter-intuitive since the point of the game is to score, but I really think its true.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, AI could totally take a pre-roids Nash in a fight. No contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard this(roids) before...is this an ongoing joke that I'm missing out on?

[ QUOTE ]
I also disagree about the Wade not being durable thing.. well that's until he carted off in a wheel chair. He took a lot of abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wade only played 61 games in his rookie year. He played 77 the next year and 75 the next. In his 3rd year, he got injured before the biggest game of his career and missed game 7 of the ECF against the Pistons. This year he is obviously hurt.

So in 4 years he has played 2 years in which he missed a handful of games and 2 years in which he had a significant injury. He also missed the biggest game of his career(at the time it was).

Maybe it'd be a stetch to call him injury prone, but I certainly wouldn't call him durable.

[sublime]

insane may be a strong word. either way its not personal, just pointing out how i view it.

[kidcolin]

assani,

agree with your two points. #2 is what complicates the whole thing, and why I disagree with your Nash statement (or hypothetical low shot attempt, high %age guy). First, it's just speculation, and second, to me, truly great scorers can poor in a ton of points without f'ing up the team. That's Jordan, that Abdul-Jabbar, that's Bird. I mean, Bird poured in points every night when the core of his team had two other Hall of Famers and a fringe candidate in DJ (he also had Tiny Archibald, a 3rd HOF teammate). Him taking 20 shots was by design. I think if Nash was TRULY one of the greatest scorers today, he'd take 20 shots a game, because ultimately the game is about points.

The 'roids thing has been something I've thrown out there a few times. I don't really think it, but he doesn't seem a lot more jacked now than a few years ago? And his temper has reached new heights. He gets pissed at everyone. You see him when he got T'd up against the Warriors? Classic roid rage.