If you thought you were excited about Shaq before....

[French Fries]

 

[French Fries]

Nash > Parker - Not even really close if Nash shot the number of shots Parker does the stats wouldn't be that close. Nash is one of the best shooters in the league, Parker is not.

he might but he doesn't...

 

[ambchang_]

3pt%, FT% there you go and when you look at their whole career, Nash never was as good as he is now in his Dallas days so once again you make up some irrellevant statistics.

Go on, continue to make up statistics as you go. And the Nash comment was made to show how ridiculous it is to use statistics (PPG and FG%) to gauge a player's offensive prowess.

If you want to put in 3pt% and FT% with regards to Amare, then go ahead, but it just shows that you guys like to make up new criteria during the course of argument to whatever fits your side.

 

[ambchang_]

Comparing players from different eras doesnt work since they didnt even play against the same teams, or defenders. Comparing PG stats with SG stats is a loser as well. Hopefully your big brother can help you there if you dont understand.

More criteria as you go along? Perhaps we should compare individual seasons then, why would you want to talk about a whole career when players have elapsed different stages of their careers, or have played parts of their careers in different time frames?

And why not PG vs. SG? The original poster actually pulled up Lebron James in his argument with relation to Amare Stoudemire. I was just following the rules you guys make up, but it seems like you guys like to change the rules to whatever fits you along the way.

 

[ambchang_]

is parker a better offensive player? yes. could he take the suns to a higher level than nash has, probably not. he would get his numbers, hell yeah, but more wins i don't think so...

i'm not really making any point, i'm just padding post counts to get to 100...

Good job getting to 100.
But no way is Parker a better offensive player than Nash, they are not even close. You may have some sort of an argument saying Parker is a better scorer than Nash, but even that is suspect.

 

[French Fries]

Good job getting to 100.
But no way is Parker a better offensive player than Nash, they are not even close. You may have some sort of an argument saying Parker is a better scorer than Nash, but even that is suspect.

even if it's sarcasm, i'll take it as a complement

me saying parker is a better scorer really doesn't make it a fact. i would personally pass the ball to parker first before nash if i want a quick, safe basket, but no way in the world would i choose him over nash in running the team. not that tony is bad, not at all, there are just things players specializes at...

 

[ambchang_]

even if it's sarcasm, i'll take it as a complement

me saying parker is a better scorer really doesn't make it a fact. i would personally pass the ball to parker first before nash if i want a quick, safe basket, but no way in the world would i choose him over nash in running the team. not that tony is bad, not at all, there are just things players specializes at...

I guess your name "French" Fries kinda explains your choice.
Speaking of which, French Fries actually originates from Belgium, kinda like Parker.

 

[nowagimp]

More criteria as you go along? Perhaps we should compare individual seasons then, why would you want to talk about a whole career when players have elapsed different stages of their careers, or have played parts of their careers in different time frames?

And why not PG vs. SG? The original poster actually pulled up Lebron James in his argument with relation to Amare Stoudemire. I was just following the rules you guys make up, but it seems like you guys like to change the rules to whatever fits you along the way.

The discussion was about amare, a PF, and now you use the same stats to evaluate point guards, which are known to be better if they do not score first. Disingenuous drift in the subject of the arguement, stick to the original one, or at least a "go to guy" one. Nash is not a go to guy, he(and other true) is most effective as a distributor. When Nash scores alot it because of the defenses intent to make him, he's not the best one-on-one player out there.

Better yet, find a PF with a low FG% who is recognized as an all star or outstanding player. I know you will get stuck there. It is essential that an outstanding PF be able to shoot well. If it is not important, I sure you will find many.

 

[ambchang_]

The discussion was about amare, a PF, and now you use the same stats to evaluate point guards, which are known to be better if they do not score first. Disingenuous drift in the subject of the arguement, stick to the original one, or at least a "go to guy" one. Nash is not a go to guy, he(and other true) is most effective as a distributor. When Nash scores alot it because of the defenses intent to make him, he's not the best one-on-one player out there.

Better yet, find a PF with a low FG% who is recognized as an all star or outstanding player. I know you will get stuck there. It is essential that an outstanding PF be able to shoot well. If it is not important, I sure you will find many.

It is an essential part, but a higher shooting does not a great PF make. It's not like the higher FG% the better you are as a PF. It wasn't even a go-to guy argument, I was stating that those forwards I listed are more skilled offensive players than Stoudemire, based on how well they can create offense on their own and for their teammates. Stoudemire can create offense, but not as well as the other players listed as he is a recipient from Steve Nash's fantastic offense.

And at the end of a close ball game, I would put the ball in Nash's hand and let him run plays, he can score himself AND create for his teammate, Stoudemire can only do one, and he can't even do that as well as Nash.

 

[French Fries]

I guess your name "French" Fries kinda explains your choice.
Speaking of which, French Fries actually originates from Belgium, kinda like Parker.

oh no, i'm asian american, i just like french fries. i guess having played as a center i prefer my guards to take it closer to the basket so it's easier to rebound...

one step closer to 100...