Yours truly takes a spin as a guest-blogger. First of a two-part series.
Quote:
Steve Nash is, at the moment, having the best passing season of the last 30 years put together by a player not named "John Stockton". When you consider what an efficient scorer Nash is as well, you could drop his line this season into the middle of Stockton's career, adjust for league and pace, and I doubt anyone would be the wiser.
Last edited by Kevin Pelton on Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1506 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:34 am Post subject:
Kevin P writes:
"If Nash isn't a serious, serious MVP candidate this year, can any point guard ever be?"
Anyone can be MVP, if enough people vote for them. Anytime you get a groundswell of opinion, it can happen. For many people, an election is like a horse race: If you bet on the winner, you are a winner.
KP:
"Steve Nash is, at the moment, having the best passing season of the last 30 years put together by a player not named "John Stockton"."
Beside 9 years by Stockton, I find 3 of Magic's seasons, and one each by Isiah and Kevin Porter, to have had greater assist rates. You don't seem to be considering turnovers in your rankings.
Since 1974 (avoiding Cousy, Oscar, West, Frazier), I can find about 77 seasons by some 22 players who were PG, and who I'd consider "more likely" MVP candidates than this year's Nash.
Of course point guards can be MVP. But how many times was Stockton a serious candidate? This career year for Nash looks like an average year for Stock.
So I think it can be said that my system is more than fair to John Stockton-type players.
So where does Steve Nash end up in my ratings this season? He ends up at #40. He surely is better than that, but there just have not been a lot of players like Nash who are so good on the offensive end and so invisible on the defensive end. Just a little over one steal per 40 minutes is incredible for a point guard as quick as Steve Nash. So my system or pretty much anybody's system is going to have a hard time figuring out what to do with Nash.
What seems pretty uncontroversial is that his skills are a perfect fit for what Phoenix is trying to do. He is a bit overrated because his substitutes are pretty bad, but I don't think it is absurd that Dallas can be better without him (and with Dampier and Terry) and he could still be the Most Valuable Player in the league. Most Valuable is different from best.
At this time I will not argue with anyone who calls him an MVP candidate, but I still don't think he is as good as Stockton was during most of his career.
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 665 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:46 am Post subject:
To me, the MVP issue is separate than the Stockton comparison. Nash doesn't have to be better (or more valuable) than Stockton to be the MVP in 2004-2005. That said, I don't think he's the MVP this season. Personally, I think it's Dirk, who does everything for Dallas.
Wow. I'm a big "statistical" fan of Stockton, but I never had him ranked this high. His best years, in my system, were '88-91, though '95 was a good one. And I have him hitting #5-8 at his best.
He steps down a notch in '96, another notch in '98, and out of the top 20 by '01. Somehow our systems agree less and less as the years go on.
As far as Nash, he's just inside my top 30 this year. The biggest dissimilarity I see with Stockton is, as you mention, his steals which are only 1/2 to 1/3 what Stock typically gathered.
Is Nash really "a perfect fit for what Phoenix is trying to do"? Or are the Suns players just making the best of what they do have? Maybe the players themselves just discover what it is they do best.
"Most Valuable is different from best. "
What do we measure as "good", or "best" that isn't a quantification of "Value"? Is this some alternative form of Valuable that might have to do with media appeal, or marketablilty, or pizzazz?
Wizardskev wrote:
"I think it's Dirk, who does everything for Dallas."
Lots of guys "do everything" for a Team. (Antoine Walker "did everything" in Atlanta.) If that makes his team the best team in the League, then it's a valid approach. The one guy fitting that description, of course, is Tim Duncan.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1506 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:43 am Post subject:
WizardsKev wrote:
I don't know about you, but I noticed a qualitative difference in the "everything" Walker did for Atlanta and the "everything" Dirk does for Dallas.
This is quantitatively equivalent to the difference between the Hawks and the Mavs.
But I've wondered why I've read the Hawks were better when Walker wasn't on the floor. They have so damn little. And why is it that every one of (6 or 7 of them?) the head coaches Walker's been thru, have seen fit to use him 40+ minutes (excepting Nelly, who still gave him more minutes than anyone but Dirk and Fin).?
DanR: If your rating system has a guy at #40; and then you say, "He surely is better than that"; what do you suspect in your system is coming up short of the full picture?
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 665 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:01 pm Post subject:
Mike G wrote:
But I've wondered why I've read the Hawks were better when Walker wasn't on the floor. They have so damn little. And why is it that every one of (6 or 7 of them?) the head coaches Walker's been thru, have seen fit to use him 40+ minutes (excepting Nelly, who still gave him more minutes than anyone but Dirk and Fin).?
Lack of options?
More seriously, I've long been puzzled by Walker's play. I think Jim O'Brien used him about as well as he could have been used. O'Brien actually constructed a system that made Walker's shot-jacking a part of what they did. But what's puzzled me about Walker is that in watching him play, I thought I could see flashes of a really smart player. Some of the passes and positioning, and the way he'd bait defenses to make things easier for his teammates.
His ball handling was a real asset in Boston. The Celts were nearly immune to pressure because Walker could just bring the ball up when teams tried to press.
But then there'd be these bizarro moments where Walker would jack up some 29-foot jumper with a hand in his face and 22 seconds still on the shot clock. I found those attempts inexplicable considering the hoops IQ I saw on other possessions.
Personally, I think Walker is a very skilled player, and that he's always had the ability to be a very smart player. For some reason (that I do not understand), he chose to play in a way that was oddly counter-productive. The exception to that was when he played for O'Brien, but I think that was O'Brien working around Walker more than Walker being "better."
What do we measure as "good", or "best" that isn't a quantification of "Value"? Is this some alternative form of Valuable that might have to do with media appeal, or marketablilty, or pizzazz?
This has always been my approach to the most valuable player award.
I might rate Steve Nash as the best offensive player in the league this year. His shooting efficiency and passing probably put him at tops in the league in the impact he can have in an offense. His impact could be maybe even 6-7 points per 100 possessions on an offense--iHowever, at best he's probably an average defender, correct? So probably not much of an impact there.
Whereas, say, Duncan on the other hand, improves his team quite a bit on both the offensive and defensive ends. This season, I would say he's, what, improving the Spurs by about 4 points per 100 possessions on each end? Give or take a couple on each (maybe less of an impact on offense, possibly more on defense). So for the 2004-2005 season, I'd put Duncan at roughly a net +8 points per 100 possessions for his team, more than Nash, because Steve is pretty much only valuable on offense. This is why I would pick probably Duncan as the MVP this year if I had a vote, although Nash is certainly a candidate.
Although the fact that Nash is a pass-first point guard who can shoot the 3, something more rare than a good all-around big man, bumps Nash up in my book, his average defense makes it hard for him to be deserving of the MVP, in my opinion.
Let's face it. Choosing Nash is sexy because its so easy to see Phoenix before and after, and how they play when he's not there. But is he really more important to his team than Tim Duncan? There aren't many that expect Phoenix to win the title, so he's not likely to make the ultimate difference. The Spurs are the favorites, and Duncan is the main reason. It's a boring, but easy choice. _________________ The Best Miami Heat Coverage
http://heat.mostvaluablenetwork.com/
The short-shorted one peaked in MVP voting in 1988-89, when he finished seventh. Remarkably, during his entire Hall of Fame career, Stockton received just one first-place MVP vote. In 1989-90, after setting the all-time record for assists per game, Stockton finished ninth in MVP voting, behind Tom Chambers.
Very interesting series, Kevin. My main problem is that you do all this well-thought-out research which seems to show that Nash is unworthy of MVP consideration, and then finish off by saying that he'd get your 2nd-place vote anyway. You also fail to mention that Nash is a distant second on his own team in PER - Stoudemire currently leads him by 4.14, and certainly adds more defensive value (Shawn Marion is also right on Nash's heels and is a superb defensive player). That fact alone seems to make any MVP talk ludicrous.
Have there been any attempts to calculate positional norms for PER, Offensive Rating, and Defensive Rating? That might shed more light on Nash's candidacy - if the average PER for a PG is 13.5 and average for a C is 17.2, that would certainly change things a bit. _________________ No books - no articles - no website.
Just opinions.
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 1506 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:40 pm Post subject:
Someone with a 2004 edition of an NBA simulation (BobC?) might add QRich and any top-10 PG to the Suns and see if they don't double their win total. Also, see if Amare's TS% jumps .100 with Nash as the PG; if it doesn't, then increase his TS% accordingly (non-Nash improvement), and try again.
Adding a PG to a team that doesn't have one (Suns were 26th in assists last year), plus the league's most prolific 3-pt shooter, plus a year of experience to a budding superstar, might predictably bring that team to improve as much as the Suns have.
Stockton never changed teams. If he jumped around, franchise histories would be all jumbled. Would he suddenly appear more Valuable in this city and that one?
As "a community of analysts", I hope we keep our heads out of the water on this one. Stampede, anyone?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
