Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in the weak east, yes most likely
because nash can shoot, and pass, and create for everyone else.
So you feel Nash is capable of putting up 30ppg as the focus of opposing defenses? That's probably what he needs to do on a team like that. If you say yes, than why not go a step farther and say Nash is probably one of the top 5 players all time...capable of scoring like Jordan and passing like Stockton. Perhaps that makes home the GOAT?
what you guys dont seem to get is the PPG is moot, there are other parts of the game. nash, stockton, kidd, those type of guys all did more than just score. nash could shoot, but his game was not about shooting. nash is one of the best % shooters in the games history. #9 in 3 point, #1 in ft %. his career average assists is higher than AIs best apg year ever. they rebounded about the same rate, and while AI stole the ball about 1 more steal per game, he also turned the ball over about 1 more turnover. all those numbers are based on the career average 10 more minutes per game over nash.
or look at kidd, he shot every category better, he assisted better, he rebounded TWICE as many per game, and is only about .3 less steals per game behind AI. he defended better, he was just better in every category except ppg.
john stockton was also better in every category except PPG and RPG.. hell stockton averaged more than 3.5 apg over his career higher than AIs best APG season average.
the ONLY thing iverson was REALLY good at was taking a lot of shots. he wasnt even good at MAKING shots, he just took so many that through volume he scored a lot of points.
if you ask yourself, "if i were starting a team today and could pick any player to play PG, who would i pick?" (yeah yeah yeah, AI was a shooting guard right? except he played PG half his career) if you pick AI youre in for some exciting ball, and never gonna win ****. period.
what you guys dont seem to get is the PPG is moot, there are other parts of the game. nash, stockton, kidd, those type of guys all did more than just score. nash could shoot, but his game was not about shooting. nash is one of the best % shooters in the games history. #9 in 3 point, #1 in ft %. his career average assists is higher than AIs best apg year ever. they rebounded about the same rate, and while AI stole the ball about 1 more steal per game, he also turned the ball over about 1 more turnover. all those numbers are based on the career average 10 more minutes per game over nash.
or look at kidd, he shot every category better, he assisted better, he rebounded TWICE as many per game, and is only about .3 less steals per game behind AI. he defended better, he was just better in every category except ppg.
john stockton was also better in every category except PPG and RPG.. hell stockton averaged more than 3.5 apg over his career higher than AIs best APG season average.
the ONLY thing iverson was REALLY good at was taking a lot of shots. he wasnt even good at MAKING shots, he just took so many that through volume he scored a lot of points.
if you ask yourself, "if i were starting a team today and could pick any player to play PG, who would i pick?" (yeah yeah yeah, AI was a shooting guard right? except he played PG half his career) if you pick AI youre in for some exciting ball, and never gonna win ****. period.
You totally ignore how efficiency stats are always lower for players who are the sole focal point of an offense. How would Nash's efficiency stats look if he was the only person on his team who could create a shot and the person opposing defenses double teamed on nearly every possession? I'll give you a hint they'd be a lot lower. If you think Nash could get anywhere near 30 ppg in a similar situation you're even dimmer than I thought.
This argument like everyone you made is simplistic and ill informed.
You totally ignore how efficiency stats are always lower for players who are the sole focal point of an offense. How would Nash's efficiency stats look if he was the only person on his team who could create a shot and the person opposing defenses double teamed on nearly every possession? I'll give you a hint they'd be a lot lower. If you think Nash could get anywhere near 30 ppg in a similar situation you're even dimmer than I thought.
This argument like everyone you made is simplistic and ill informed.
you mean like KG, whom you AI apologists have brought up as similar in situation?
look at his numbers look at his efficiency. his play was very similar with minny and with the celtics. if you look at both his per 36 and his per 100 possession numbers, they actually dropped when he joined the celtics. it is widely accepted that KG had some of the worst teams as a twolf. comparable to or worse than AI yet his efficiency was as good or better in minny than when he had a good team around him.
if you look at AI in denver when he did have a supporting cast, his efficiency didnt exactly get better.
your "one man show" argument is silly. please try again.
KG's fg% went up in Boston despite being past his prime. He shot 47.6% during his last year in Minn and 53.9% during his first year in Boston at 31 years old. That's a drastic improvement. What changed? One thing that definitely changed was that he was surrounded by better players. His scoring actually increased also on a per 36 basis.
KG's fg% went up in Boston despite being past his prime. He shot 47.6% during his last year in Minn and 53.9% during his first year in Boston at 31 years old. That's a drastic improvement. What changed? One thing that definitely changed was that he was surrounded by better players. His scoring actually increased also on a per 36 basis.
except the 2nd to last year in minny was 52.6, and he was at or over 50% most of his minny career.
in addition, his rebounds dropped 3 and a half per game, and his assists blocks an points all dropped.
his per 36 went up .2, his rebounds drop almost 2 rpg. his assists stay the same.
bottom line, the argument that AI didnt have a supporting cast being the reason he was so inefficient is a silly argument, its false. even when he had a supporting cast. his % was basically the same, his points dropped, his rebounds dropped, his assists dropped. the supporting cast argument is silly and wrong.
Wrong! Kg shot over 50% 3 seasons and was 49-50 every other season except 3, when he was 46 and 477 twice.
Once again across the board nearly every category for both players dropped. In KGs case he drop from 1 season to the next nearly 4 ppg, an apg, and nearly 4 RPG. That's HUGE!
That wasn't age either.
Iversons drop in stats wasn't as drastic right off the bat, but they did take a sharp decline over a couple years after leaving philly, and after leaving Denver.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
