Suns at Magic Game Thread

[Superbone]

His opposing points per against the man he is guarding last year disagrees with you. Statistically he has been one of the worst defensive PG in the league since joining the Suns.

I didn't even mention the TO's. Now factor in his league leading turnover totals last year that nullified many of his assists. Maybe he cuts down on turnovers this year because of the speed we are running but that won't make his defense any better.

I don't need to see any stats. I've seen enough games to know it's utter BS.

See the Miami game this week for the most recent example.

 

[mojorizen7]

I've got to agree with SteelDog here, Nash is an all-star,2-time MVP future HOF PG....who easily gets beat off the dribble ,gets lost in rotations,and couldn't guard a chair.

His best(and only)asset defensively is the willingness to sacrifice his body taking charges with the occasional flop.

I love Nash, but he(and Amare) have been the model of consistency for awful defense in PHX since they arrived. They're outstanding offensive players obviously,but neither man is close to being a "complete" basketball player.

Grant Hill is the most complete BB player on this team IMO.

 

[Superbone]

I've got to agree with SteelDog here, Nash is an all-star,2-time MVP future HOF PG....who easily gets beat off the dribble ,gets lost in rotations,and couldn't guard a chair.

His best(and only)asset defensively is the willingness to sacrifice his body taking charges with the occasional flop.

I love Nash, but he(and Amare) have been the model of consistency for awful defense in PHX since they arrived. They're outstanding offensive players obviously,but neither man is close to being a "complete" basketball player.

Grant Hill is the most complete BB player on this team IMO.

This is what we're arguing:

"He hurts us on defense as much as he helps us on offense."

If you agree with that, I'm dumbfounded.

Of course he's not a good defender. But his offense more than makes up for it. You're better off with him than without him. 99.99% of the experts would agree with that. Sorry.

 

[Superbone]

And another thing, you can't be an MVP or future HOFer if your defense nullifies your offense or vice versa.

 

[Covert Rain]

This is what we're arguing:

"He hurts us on defense as much as he helps us on offense."

If you agree with that, I'm dumbfounded.

Of course he's not a good defender. But his offense more than makes up for it. You're better off with him than without him. 99.99% of the experts would agree with that. Sorry.

You just said it yourself "Nash makes up for it". Meaning that his defense is bad enough that you factor in his offensive output to offset his defense. Sorry but most experts have said repeatedly Nash is a liability on the other end of the court. Not Nash is a good defender, not Nash is an average defender but Nash is not a good defender.

I don't care if you want to ignore the stats. The stats say he is one of the worst defending PGs in the NBA. They say the PG position has been the worst defended position on the floor since Nash got here. They say the Suns have been anywhere from a below average to bad defensive team since he got here. Just like you can't ignore his offensive contribution, you also cannot ignore his defensive deficiencies. On what planet can you take one of the worst defending PGs in the NBA and say that he doesn't have an extremely adverse effect on your team? That is ridiculous.

I have watched probably 99% of the Suns games dating back to the CB era. I have also watched at least 50 to 60 games in person during that time. I don't need the stats either to tell me how awful of a defender he has been. I have been attending Suns games since I was a kid and can easily say Nash is the worst defending starting PG the Suns have had during that time.

And another thing, you can't be an MVP or future HOFer if your defense nullifies your offense or vice versa.

Completely false. There are plenty of players in the HOF that were offensive powerhouses that were not known for being good defenders. There are HOF Players who were known as great defenders but lousy offensive players. The players are recognized for the accomplishments on one end all the time.

Maybe we have a disconnect here about what I mean by "nullify"??? When I say "nullify" I mean the outcome of a game or series. Often the Suns put up 100+ Points but then give up 100+ points and lose the game. Meaning that despite the offensive greatness....the horrible defense ultimately ends up nullifying the great offense they played. Nash is a huge contributor to that on both ends.

I didn't say Nash's horrible defense nullifies his offensive statistical accomplishments at the end of the day.

I've got to agree with SteelDog here, Nash is an all-star,2-time MVP future HOF PG....who easily gets beat off the dribble ,gets lost in rotations,and couldn't guard a chair.

I love Nash, but he(and Amare) have been the model of consistency for awful defense in PHX since they arrived. They're outstanding offensive players obviously,but neither man is close to being a "complete" basketball player.

Grant Hill is the most complete BB player on this team IMO.

Totally agree with the statements above.

Despite Nash's defensive problems, I still love the guy. I still love watching him play and I am glad he came back here to Phoenix after Dallas. Put simply, from an offensive standpoint Nash has been a pure joy to watch on that end. I appreciate Nash putting the Suns back on the map just like Barkley did when he got here. I even appreciate Shaq's short stint here. I have just hit a stage in which I think the Suns need a new philosophy and direction.

 

[Superbone]

Yes, there's a huge disconnect. My argument is not whether Nash is a good defender or not. My argument is about your statement that he hurts us on defense as much as he helps on offense. His offense more than makes up for his lack of defense. I'd guesstimate at about a 3-1 ratio.

 

[elindholm]

Maybe we have a disconnect here about what I mean by "nullify"??? When I say "nullify" I mean the outcome of a game or series. Often the Suns put up 100+ Points but then give up 100+ points and lose the game. Meaning that despite the offensive greatness....the horrible defense ultimately ends up nullifying the great offense they played.

By that logic, you would have to argue that the Suns would be improved as a team if Nash were replaced with an average PG. Are you taking that step? If not, then you have to concede that his overall contribution is positive.

 

[nashman]

Have to agree with Superbone here, Steel if you think Nashs' defense is not made up what he does on offense not sure what you have been watching since he has been back in PHX.

 

[msdundee]

"I didn't say Nash's horrible defense nullifies his offensive statistical accomplishments at the end of the day."
....no, you said....
"He hurts us on defense as much as he helps us on offense."

Your original statement was even more arguable because it didn't limit Nash's "offensive accomplishments" to what shows up on the stat line. His contributions to the Suns' offense includes a whole lot more than his own stats would ever indicate, and those contributions were mainly what earned him the MVPs.

 

[JCSunsfan]

By that logic, you would have to argue that the Suns would be improved as a team if Nash were replaced with an average PG. Are you taking that step? If not, then you have to concede that his overall contribution is positive.

Agreed

 

[Chaplin]

It's like saying that if Nash has a 17 point, 12 assist game, his defense also gives up 17 points and 12 assists--singlehandedly. That's ludicrous.

 

[Covert Rain]

Yes, there's a huge disconnect. My argument is not whether Nash is a good defender or not. My argument is about your statement that he hurts us on defense as much as he helps on offense. His offense more than makes up for his lack of defense. I'd guesstimate at about a 3-1 ratio.

I would argue that this team is so loaded on offense that Nash is not the only one making up for his poor defense on the offensive end. Most teams don't have guys that can score 1-5. So in that regard the Suns do. There are two ways to try and make up for it. Offensively by outscoring every opponent or to surround him with alot of defense. Nash alone is not making up for his poor defense on the offensive end.

Can Nash really make up for everything offensively? This team doubles ALOT, retreats to zone more often because Nash can't keep guys in front of him and is constantly forced into bad rotations when Nash gets beat. Not to mention all the fouls that result in guys rotating either to guard Nash's guy or chase the open shooter. Foul totals by our Forwards/Centers have sky rocketed since Nash got here. It's not just about Nash giving up points to the opposing player. His impact is much larger from a team defense perspective.

I would love to see what would happen if Nash joined a team deep on the defensive end 2-5. What kind of impact would he have on that teams defense? Could he keep his average with lesser talented offensive players? I personally would love to see him on a team like the Celtics or Spurs to see what he can do with a team that can cover his defensive liabilities on the defensive end versus trying to do it on the offensive end by outscoring opponents.

The other outlining factor is that my end game is a title. IMO, you can't win a title with Nash as your PG because he is such a huge liability on defense ...unless you surround him with some really good defensive players.

By that logic, you would have to argue that the Suns would be improved as a team if Nash were replaced with an average PG. Are you taking that step? If not, then you have to concede that his overall contribution is positive.

Interesting point. The Suns would be worse offensively for sure. However, they would be better on defense IMO. If that would ultimately result in more or less wins I don't know. I know that defense is more important come playoff time and the team would be better equipped for the playoffs. Let me make one thing clear, it's not all on Nash and I have never stated that. Only that Nash is a huge reason this team's defense sucks. We all know we have guys on this roster that are not good defenders besides Nash.

However, if you entertain the idea that Nash would not be on this team you would have to entertain the idea you could get some PG of value in return. For instance, if I could trade Nash for say Billups or probably a handful of other PG's, I would argue yes, this team would be better.

Now factor in this team would be forced to double team less (Nash allowing penetration) and will be able to play less zone defense (which the team has admitted they retreat into to help Nash), it's hardly a leap to say this team would be better at the very least on that end. If that replacement PG is at least competent on the other end, we have enough other scorers on this team to be very good offensively IMO.

It's like saying that if Nash has a 17 point, 12 assist game, his defense also gives up 17 points and 12 assists--singlehandedly. That's ludicrous.

Using that same logic... to say guys that scored on Nash's 12 assists didn't have a hand in making those shots to help Nash make up for other miscues is equally ludicrous. If Nash was on a team with horrible shooters and he doesn't get that help to make up for say 15 Points an opposing PG might score coupled with 4 or 5 turnovers then what?

Ofcourse it's not single handed on either end of the court. Just like you can't blame every single PG score on Nash, you can also say the same for other players on the team. How many times has Nash contributed other positions scoring besides PG? It works both ways.

The point being is if the Suns are a horrible defensive team with one of the worst defensive PG in the league, then obviously Nash is just as big a detriment to defensive as he is a commodity to the offense that is so good.

In a fantasy world, what if you replaced Nash with Chris Paul? Can anybody here say that this team not only would continue to be one of the best offensively in the league but would also dramatically improve on defense?

 

[Superbone]

Steel, I can see you like to argue for arguments sake. I'll say one more thing and then I'm done. As brilliant as Nash's offense is, shooting, scoring, assists, P&R, decisions, there's no way his defense is so bad as to negate it. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Covert Rain]

Steel, I can see you like to argue for arguments sake. I'll say one more thing and then I'm done. As brilliant as Nash's offense is, shooting, scoring, assists, P&R, decisions, there's no way his defense is so bad as to negate it. Let's agree to disagree.

Arguing is not fun if it's for the sake of arguing. By saying that, you infer that I don't really believe what I am saying about Nash because I want to argue with you. If you believe that then that's because you don't frequent the forums enough. My convictions about Nash have been consistent.

However, agreeing to disagree is fair enough and I do respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

 

[goldseraph]

I made a thread about 2 years ago saying we should trade Nash when he had value, cause this team as comprised is never winning a title with our two best players being one-dimensional. I really wish we had traded Nash and Marion two yrs ago, it is kind of sick to think that if the Suns had played their cards differently, we could be sitting with a core of Rondo, Joe Johnson, Barbosa, and Amare. That said, we might as well keep Nash now that he has almost no trade value, and he is obviously still an excellent playmaker and scorer.

 

[joshstmarie]

Steel, I can see you like to argue for arguments sake. I'll say one more thing and then I'm done. As brilliant as Nash's offense is, shooting, scoring, assists, P&R, decisions, there's no way his defense is so bad as to negate it. Let's agree to disagree.

this is exactly why I dont respond to his posts even if its a conversation I started. Smoke and mirrors. The dude is never wrong and makes enough middle of the road statements to claim he is one way for a certain topic and a different for the next.

 

[elindholm]

However, if you entertain the idea that Nash would not be on this team you would have to entertain the idea you could get some PG of value in return.

Irrelevant to your contention.

For instance, if I could trade Nash for say Billups or probably a handful of other PG's, I would argue yes, this team would be better.

That's a completely different argument. "Billups is a better overall PG than Nash" is something that a decent percentage of reasonable people would agree with. "Nash's overall contribution is negative" isn't. Are you retracting your earlier statement?

 

[Superbone]

My convictions about Nash have been consistent.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

- Ralph Waldo Emerson[SIZE=-1] (1803–1882)[/SIZE]

 

[Griffin]

His opposing points per against the man he is guarding last year disagrees with you. Statistically he has been one of the worst defensive PG in the league since joining the Suns.

Okay, let's tackle this again.

The problem with opposing points statistics is that they do not take into account team defense, only individual defense. But every defensive scheme, including man-to-man defense, is still fundamentally a team concept. The on-ball perimeter defender should not be expected to stop penetration every time. That's why coaches employ help defense. Now, of course, a weak perimeter defender will force interior defenders to help out more often than otherwise. But, if those defenders are not very good themselves at getting there in time and at preventing layups, then those statistics no longer reflect how bad defensively the on-ball defender is, but rather how bad defensively the whole team is at executing a defensive scheme. The problem is compounded when the offensive team employs screen-and-rolls and the defensive team switches. So, how do you determine what percentage of the points against statistics are result of poor on-ball defense vs. poor help defense or poor execution of screen-and-roll defense?

You may also argue that Nash gets beat off the dribble a lot more often than other guards, but again that goes back to help defense. If an offensive player knows he can score a layup just by getting by his defender because help defense won't come or will come late, then that player is more likely to drive than he would be otherwise.

Now, before you say anything, I am in no way suggesting that Nash is a good or even average defender. But we also know that our help defenders and our pick-and-roll defense had been pretty horrible as well over the past few years. My point is simply that those individual points against statistics for any of our defenders don't mean much when you consider all the different ways an offensive team can exploit the many defensive holes that we have.

 

[Covert Rain]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

- Ralph Waldo Emerson[SIZE=-1] (1803–1882)[/SIZE]

"A Closed mind is like a closed book, just a block of wood".

- Ancient Chinese Proverb.

Okay, let's tackle this again.

The problem with opposing points statistics is that they do not take into account team defense, only individual defense. But every defensive scheme, including man-to-man defense, is still fundamentally a team concept. The on-ball perimeter defender should not be expected to stop penetration every time. That's why coaches employ help defense.

I will stop there. The on-ball defender is absolutely expected to stop the penetration every time unless the plan it to run that player into a trap. Help defense is employed to shrink the court and move one guy (say your Center or PF) from strong to weak or vice versa without committing himself to the double team unless necessary. All teams have a help defense scheme because eventually everybody gets burned at some point. Unfortunately, all to often it becomes necessary with Nash.

Now, of course, a weak perimeter defender will force interior defenders to help out more often than otherwise. But, if those defenders are not very good themselves at getting there in time and at preventing layups, then those statistics no longer reflect how bad defensively the on-ball defender is.

If you prevent dribble penetration, then your help defense never has to commit himself to leaving his man and trying to help out. Agreed that having horrible weakside defense compounds the situation but you should not have to rely on it as much as the Suns do with Nash. It's no coincidence that Marion went form being one of the best weak side defenders in the NBA to obscurity when he left. It wasn't because he wasn't good anymore...he just had more chances while he was here to show those skills.

You may also argue that Nash gets beat off the dribble a lot more often than other guards, but again that goes back to help defense. If an offensive player knows he can score a layup just by getting by his defender because help defense won't come or will come late, then that player is more likely to drive than he would be otherwise.

Hence the need to have a better defensive PG. Offensive players will take what you give them. You give them a bad PG, they will exploit. Even the best weak side defenders don't want to have to help out their PG every single time the opposing PG gets the ball. Sooner or later that offense will pass around the horn which eventually leads to a wide open shot. Sound familiar? That's why are perimeter defense was so bad last year.

Now, before you say anything, I am in no way suggesting that Nash is a good or even average defender. But we also know that our help defenders and our pick-and-roll defense had been pretty horrible as well over the past few years. My point is simply that those individual points against statistics for any of our defenders don't mean much when you consider all the different ways an offensive team can exploit the many defensive holes that we have.

You know what? I agree. That ALONE doesn't paint the entire picture. However, there are plenty of stats besides Opposing Per. Like combine guard stats, points in the paint along with who scored those points, Points off ball, points on ball, Opposing team +/- with certain players on the court and "what you see with your own eyes".

I would never base my opinion on one single stat. I am a stat ***** sometimes and I like to study them but you also have to use your own eyes.