nm132 said:
That's about as objective as position by position comparisons that people always make.
Prior to last season Nash was not being compared to Magic Johnson. Lots of credit should go to D'Antoni.
KJ shot .493 for his career compared to .471 for Nash (Nash also only averages 1.2 three point makes per game).
KJ also got to the line almost twice as much.
If that is the defining characteristic then Jason Kidd (in his prime) would be at the top of the list. He could make all the passes and was as fast as any PG. He could also play defense (but couldn't shoot).
Nash might be the best point guard for a team with two athletic finishers and some shooters, he is not the overall player that KJ was IMO.
OK lets refine some of the shooting stats:
First a disclaimer on overall FG%, which depends on opposing defense, spreading the D by complementary players, and how many layups were taken(big advantage KJ, many more layups)
career FT 85% KJ, 90% nash edge nash
career 3pt 41% nash, 30% KJ, but the three point line was shortened in 94 so this isnt a fair comparison. But after the distance was changed KJ shot over 40% 1 of 5 years, nash has shot >40% threes 8 of 11 seasons
so I make the conclusion that Nash was a better shooter, especially at long range
One on one play:
The fact that KJ got to the line 2x more is covered by the better one-on-one category, I think. Also KJ hoisted alot more shots/game than Nash, KJ had 4 consecutive seasons of >1100 shot attempts, while Nash had one season with 1100 and one with 1000.
comparisons to magic:
The "comparisons to Magic" is not objective, and KJ was not compared with Magic anyway. Lets be serious, magic could play 5 positions, no one really compares, though Riley says Nash's passing does compare. He never said this of KJ. Also, Magic had a great supporting cast to pass the ball to. He had a very balanced set of offensive options from low post scorers(Green, Worthy, Jabbar) to outside sharpshooters(Cooper, Scott, McAdoo) to fast break finishers like worthy, cooper, and Wilks. Nash in Dallas had Finley and Nowitski, and NO low post option to spread the defense. Big edge to Magic and to KJ who had a much better supporting cast of Majerle, Hornacek, Barkley, Chambers, Ceballos, Person(3pt) etc. Big edge KJs supporting cast over Nashs supporting cast in Dallas.
Jason Kidd:
As for Kidd, his lack of outside shooting meant that he did not force the passing lanes open, so often passes couldnt be made into the interior. The strategy of collapsing the defense into the lane and letting him shoot worked on JKidd, but not on KJ or Nash. So this ***** in JKidds game causes him to be less effective at the point, less effective in getting other players the ball where they need it. He was less effective than both KJ and Nash, unless he was on the break. Enough said.
Supporting Cast:
This year and last, Nash has had a very good supporting cast to pass to, though many fans will say that it remains to be seen whether these guys are better than the 88-99 suns or the showtime Lakers. I think that with Stat, Nash has a great low post talent to work with for the first time in his career, so the defense cannot just extend to smother ther perimeter shooters. D'Antoni's system does deserve some credit, but the showtime laker and the run and gun suns also had a system that allowed for great stats, as they were the best running teams of their eras.
As far as Nash needing the finishers, it doesnt explain why he is more effective in the half court game than KJ was. Oh yeah, and KJ had some very good finishers himself. Nash has not had the recognition because many fans think that a guy must be a great one-on-one player to be an all star. Perhaps only Larry Bird has risen above this discriminatory perception. Nash only received recognition because Dallas won a number of consecutive division and conference titles. Only flashy one-on-one players get invited to that joke that is the (defenseless) NBA all star game.
That's hillarious.. Also, gotta include the late Johnny High and perhaps Dumas on the honorable mention squad.
