Nash vs CP3

Nash won two MVPs in his prime, of course he was better. Also I'd say Deron Williams deserves consideration in the best pg of the decade conversation. He had stretch in Utah where id argue he peaked higher than CP3 ever did.

 

This is a interesting debate. To me both players are overrated. They both have huge downsides.

Nash has had better teams and advanced further in the play offs. But he was a huge negative on defense. His MVP's are not deserved, the turnaround Phoenix made when he started playing for them was also a result of having a healthy team (the year before many key players missed many games because of injuries).

While I am not a huge fan of Paul his defense is light years better than Nash. However he has not been able to lead his team.

I think I will still vote for Nash.

 

To me it isn't that close, on an individual basis cp3 is ahead.

 

CP3 is a better all-round player and also light-years ahead on defense. Sad that people only look at MVP trophies and playoff success. You think CP3 wouldn't have been as successful as Nash with those Suns teams?

 

I took Nash just because of this one game. The dude always showed up and was always clutch. I know statistically CP3 has pretty much always been better but as a basketball fan it's hard not to love Nash.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a2UhjrJkof8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Nash all day every day.

He made his teammates significantly better and got them insane contracts they could never live up to.

 

I not a huge fan of either one but this shot chart tells you all you need to know.


edit:

Here is another one.

 

That's impossible to say, CP3 has never been a high tempo pg like Nash, I'm not sure how much more successful he would be in that Mike D run and gun system. If anything that system would hinder CP3's strengths.

 

Paul is the better all around player, especially if you include flopping.

 

CP3 and it's not even close. Nash's numbers were inflated in Dantoni's system.

 

They each do certain things better, but I'd take CP3.

 

I have to disagree about Williams. He was really good but Paul was always better, in my opinion. And when Williams started getting injured, Paul continued his success.

Paul is one of the few people to have a PER over 30 for the season. Only players like Jordan, LeBron, Wade and TMac are players to accomplish that. Paul took some underwhelming Hornets teams to the playoffs. He has lead the league in steals and assist while keeping his turnovers relatively low. I do think Paul can be overrated who gets away with flops as well as anyone but he is still an amazing player.

I have to go with Paul over Nash, too. Mainly because Paul is a great defender and Nash has always been a revolving door defensively. Offensively, Nash gets the edge due to his shooting but overall, Paul has been the better player.

 

Nash is my favorite player of all time, and Chris Paul is really kind of a punk, but Paul is still better. He's just so damn good.

 

I'll take CP3 for the overall game. People call out Nash's defense, I think that's overblown. No he didn't play defense, but I don't think it means he wasn't great. Barkley was the same way.

Ultimately it depends a bit on how the team is constructed as to which I'd take. For this Rockets team I'd take CP3. For Yao's Rockets - give me Nash.

A reminder though, these elite ball dominators don't have much success in the playoffs or winning titles. Isiah was the last of the breed. Elite PG might be the most over valued position in sports.

 

i agree with this

Paul, as talented as he it, just hasn't accomplished much and just seems to be missing something to me

 

Nash in his prime was unreal and relied even less on athleticism (at least in the realm of being lightning quick) than Paul. He had like six years of being at or right at 50/40/90 percentages. People give D'Antoni a ton of credit for Nash being great, but he was pretty awesome his last 2 years with the Mavs too, (18 and 8 player). Plus, it's not like D'Antoni has replicated that level of success everywhere he's gone (albeit maybe he hasn't had as good of a team, but that still speaks to how good Nash was though at distributing the ball and keeping people happy).

And he did pretty well when Terry Porter got replaced with Alvin Gentry. Nash was incredibly close to making the Finals a couple of times. Maybe one of his MVPs was undeserved, but for a player to dominate the game as he did relying purely on skill and IQ was so awesome to see in a time when the league was taken over by raw athleticism. Nash made so many players look way better than they actually were.

Chris Paul is on another level for me, though. The fact that he's a pretty good defender despite being shorter, smaller, and less athletic than almost everyone he guards is impressive. He tops many people's list as the best point guard in the league at a time where there are a ton of pretty good point guards. He manages an offense incredibly well, and I think if he was more aggressive with his scoring, all his teams would be/would have been better suited. The fact that his usage is so high, his PER is ridiculous, but his turnovers are so low, is amazing. His playoff success is the biggest knock against him, though. I think that has a lot to do with coaches and management. Maybe Doc can take him far, they have to be one of the favorites to top the West, now that Durant will be out for a little while.

 

This question is a good litmus test to see who understands basketball.

 

Nash's toughness and grit in playoffs is some of the coolest stuff that I've ever seen on a basketball court. Dude was a beast offensively and could've went down as one of the greats if he would've been an elite defender. But he wasn't an elite defender, he wasn't even a good or average defender.

CP3's ability to ball on both ends of the court gives him the nod, IMO. But if they're both in their primes, and the game is tied with five minutes to go in the fourth quarter of game seven in the WCF. I'm taking Nash.