Nash B.S. Report

[Griffin]

Nash never shows up on defense and there is no upside to his defensive game.

Nash never shows up on defense? I hope that you are only exaggerating for emphasis. Every year Nash is among league leaders in drawing offensive fouls, which is one of the most effective defensive plays you can make, since it gives the ball back to your team (and gets opposing players in foul trouble). You talk about not wanting to ignore the negative aspects of his game, but in doing so you have ignored any positive that Nash brings on defense as if he is completely useless there.

As for the debate on who hurts the team more on defense, Nash or Amare, doesn't that depend on which position is more important defensively? You could have the best defensive point guard in the league, but if your interior defenders were Amare and Shaq, or Amare and Lopez/Frye as it may be this year, you will still get burned by opposing guards having big scoring games. There are many players in this league that simply cannot be guarded one-on-one no matter how great the defending guard is.

Would we be a better defensive team if Nash were a better defender? Sure. But the improvement would be small compared to the improvement if we were to replace Amare with a better defensive big, imo. And then you also have to consider what would happen on the offensive end with a defensive point guard who doesn't have the ability to distribute the ball like Nash and give his teammates easy baskets. Because it is not just defense that matters obviously, you still have to score points on the other end. How good you need to be defensively is directly related to how good you are offensively.

So which combination does everyone think would make our current team better, taking into account both offense and defense:

• Replace Nash with a great defensive point guard with very limited offensive skills and keep Amare as the primary big man, or,
• Replace Amare with a great defensive big man with very limited offensive skills and keep Nash as the point guard

 

[BC867]

So which combination does everyone think would make our current team better, taking into account both offense and defense:

• Replace Nash with a great defensive point guard with very limited offensive skills and keep Amare as the primary big man, or,
• Replace Amare with a great defensive big man with very limited offensive skills and keep Nash as the point guard.

How about:

• Put a good defensive big man (legitimate Center) alongside Amare and absorb Nash's weak team defense at the (super on offense) Point Guard position?

Amare as the primary big man is a bigger negative than all of the other potential negatives combined.

 

[mojorizen7]

So which combination does everyone think would make our current team better, taking into account both offense and defense:

• Replace Nash with a great defensive point guard with very limited offensive skills and keep Amare as the primary big man, or,
• Replace Amare with a great defensive big man with very limited offensive skills and keep Nash as the point guard

Why does it have be one or the other? I'll answer my own question....it doesn't.

Anyway,if i had to choose between the two scenario's you provided i'll take propositon #1.

But....there are several PG's in the league who are pretty good on both ends of the floor and won't hurt you either way.
For some reason the SUNS have generally chosen to always put 4 guys on the floor who can be dynamic scorers along with no more than 1 guy who can actually be called a solid defender(as long as he can score too).
The thinking that you're going to win a title by only putting one guy on the floor that doesn't suck on defense is flawed and downright ignorant IMO.

 

[Suns_fan69]

Every year Nash is among league leaders in drawing offensive fouls, which is one of the most effective defensive plays you can make, since it gives the ball back to your team (and gets opposing players in foul trouble).

But this is also the same reason he's such a liability on the defensive end. His 'happy feet' (as the coaching staff described in SSOL) constantly puts him out of defensive position on his own guy.

Just like looking purely at the Steals stat isn't a good indicator at overall defense, neither is looking at charges drawn. I'd like to see how many wide open 3's he's given up to his guy floating to look for a charge, or how many 'and 1's' he's given up by coming too late for each charge he's drawn.

 

[Covert Rain]

Nash never shows up on defense? I hope that you are only exaggerating for emphasis. Every year Nash is among league leaders in drawing offensive fouls, which is one of the most effective defensive plays you can make, since it gives the ball back to your team (and gets opposing players in foul trouble). You talk about not wanting to ignore the negative aspects of his game, but in doing so you have ignored any positive that Nash brings on defense as if he is completely useless there.

Sorry but taking charges doesn't make you a good defensive player. I can name a dozen good defensive players that don't lead the league in taking charges. That is like saying a guy you gets blocks but never steals or lets his guy score a ton of points is still a good defensive player.

Also, how did I ignore the positive aspects of his game? I have mentioned them. The point of that statement was that I recognize the positives of Nash's game but it doesn't excuse the negatives and the impact his has on this team defensively.

As for the debate on who hurts the team more on defense, Nash or Amare, doesn't that depend on which position is more important defensively? You could have the best defensive point guard in the league, but if your interior defenders were Amare and Shaq, or Amare and Lopez/Frye as it may be this year, you will still get burned by opposing guards having big scoring games.

If your PG keeps guys in front of them, the opposing PG never gets to your big men. So I don't see how that statement is accurate. However, I do believe the opposite is true. If your PG cannot keep guys in front of him, your big men become even more important. A PG that constantly gets driven around (a la Nash), will result in a few different scenarios; easy buckets, getting your big man into foul trouble or causing another player to rotate to help out which forces your team into bad rotation scenarios. Bad rotations was the number one reason the Suns perimeter defense has been so bad.

There are many players in this league that simply cannot be guarded one-on-one no matter how great the defending guard is.

True but Nash gets burned by even the the players that are not considered unguardable.

Would we be a better defensive team if Nash were a better defender?

Yes...much more so because of the reasons I listed above. Nash is the weakest link in the starting 5 and impacts the bigs defense more then the bigs impact his defense.

And then you also have to consider what would happen on the offensive end with a defensive point guard who doesn't have the ability to distribute the ball like Nash and give his teammates easy baskets. Because it is not just defense that matters obviously, you still have to score points on the other end. How good you need to be defensively is directly related to how good you are offensively.

I have considered it and look no further then the last decade of NBA champs. There has only been a couple examples of explosive offenses (i.e. Showtime Lakers) who have won the NBA title and those teams also played good defense on the other end of the court. They were not one dimensional like the Suns.

2 facts cannot be disputed. You don't need a fancy offense to win a title and you have to have good to great defensive to win a title.

So which combination does everyone think would make our current team better, taking into account both offense and defense:

• Replace Nash with a great defensive point guard with very limited offensive skills and keep Amare as the primary big man, or,
• Replace Amare with a great defensive big man with very limited offensive skills and keep Nash as the point guard

I think this entire roster needs an enema and should be rebuilt with a solid defensive foundation. However, if I had to chose one of the above, no question I chose Option 1. For several reasons. One I think it makes us better on the defensive end. Two, this team is not one player away from a title so keeping a younger player for an older player doesn't make sense.

 

[Griffin]

Sorry but taking charges doesn't make you a good defensive player.

I didn't say that taking charges makes you a good defensive player. You said that there is no upside to Nash's defensive game, and I argued that taking charges can definitely be considered an upside.

Also, how did I ignore the positive aspects of his game?

Again, I was very specific when I said that you have ignored any positive aspects that Nash brings on defense. Do you really contend that Nash brings absolutely nothing on the defensive end?

If your PG keeps guys in front of them, the opposing PG never gets to your big men. So I don't see how that statement is accurate. However, I do believe the opposite is true. If your PG cannot keep guys in front of him, your big men become even more important.

But the scenario where your point guard can always stop the player he is defending from penetrating is unrealistic. This is why there is help-side defense. it is part of the game, not just some "bail out" strategy intended to make up for the deficiencies of your other defenders. Man-to-man is still a team defense. If you don't switch on screens, if you don't help defend, if you don't double-team and rotate, you have no chance of stopping anyone.

I agree that Nash is not a good defender, everyone knows that. I agree that he allows more penetration that the average player. On the other hand, one reason why opposing point guards tend to drive to the hoop more against us is because they know that the help defense will arrive late, if at all. Our problem is not that we have a bad PG defender, but that we have both a bad PG defender and bad help defenders, and come to think of it, not many good defenders at all. It is my assertion however that the most effective fix would be to improve interior/help defense, because the good teams generally have players that can beat anyone off the dribble, so having a strong point guard defender will not help if you still have a gaping hole in the middle.

I think this entire roster needs an enema and should be rebuilt with a solid defensive foundation.

I don't disagree, but currently that is not an option. In fact, we no longer have any options for improvement for this coming season in terms of personnel moves, so sadly all we can do is argue about where the problems lie, without any real chance of seeing them resolved any time soon.

 

[Covert Rain]

I didn't say that taking charges makes you a good defensive player. You said that there is no upside to Nash's defensive game, and I argued that taking charges can definitely be considered an upside.

I would consider Nash being able to shut down the occasional player an upside. I would consider Nash showing up every other game on defense an upside. But taking charges???

Again, I was very specific when I said that you have ignored any positive aspects that Nash brings on defense. Do you really contend that Nash brings absolutely nothing on the defensive end?

Nash is one of the worst defensive PG in the entire NBA. What do you think?

But the scenario where your point guard can always stop the player he is defending from penetrating is unrealistic. This is why there is help-side defense. it is part of the game, not just some "bail out" strategy intended to make up for the deficiencies of your other defenders. Man-to-man is still a team defense. If you don't switch on screens, if you don't help defend, if you don't double-team and rotate, you have no chance of stopping anyone.

I never said always. I also never said that even good players don't need help on occasions because of set plays, screens etc.... My point is that Nash needs alot more help then a good defensive PG which puts more defensive pressure on the players around him.

On the other hand, one reason why opposing point guards tend to drive to the hoop more against us is because they know that the help defense will arrive late, if at all. Our problem is not that we have a bad PG defender, but that we have both a bad PG defender and bad help defenders, and come to think of it, not many good defenders at all. It is my assertion however that the most effective fix would be to improve interior/help defense, because the good teams generally have players that can beat anyone off the dribble, so having a strong point guard defender will not help if you still have a gaping hole in the middle.

The team needs both but you can have Tim Duncan back there and it wouldn't make a difference with Nash at the helm. Tim would be in foul trouble every other game because of Nash. The better your guys can defend 1 on 1, the less help defense you need and the less your team has to come to your rescue.

 

[mojorizen7]

A characteristic of this team ever since D'Antoni took over is that every player on the roster regards defense as somebody else's problem. Stoudemire blames the other big men, Nash blames O'Neal, O'Neal blames the wings, the wings blame the interior. The roster seems simply unable to buy into the concept that defense is a team effort, defined by team successes and failures.

Great post E.
A little simplified, but that's not my problem.

 

[cly2tw]

So which combination does everyone think would make our current team better, taking into account both offense and defense:

• Replace Nash with a great defensive point guard with very limited offensive skills and keep Amare as the primary big man, or,
• Replace Amare with a great defensive big man with very limited offensive skills and keep Nash as the point guard

The answer is clear. We'd be better replacing Nash while keeping Amare, at least if you had any ambition for the playoffs. In playoffs, Nash or not, there is no easy basket to be had. Yet, he still is a sieve that put huge pressure on our interior defense. No, not even Garnett would wipe it clean for Nash if the likes of Paul and Parker got by him without any resistence, for that matter even Anthony Carter and Brooks of the league.