At no point have I talked about peak value. I've been talking in terms of careers. in fact, this has been favorable for nash b/c stockton's stats have included his developing years as well as his declining years. thus far, nash's stats havent included his declining years. If Nash had more points than stockton and all else was equal, then yes, i'd agree that nash was a superior scorer. But thats not the case. Just because Stockton preferred to pass doesnt make him an inferior scorer. And just because he scored more points doesnt make nash a better scorer than stockton. refer to my previous post where i talk about free throws with billups and howard. and in case you were wondering, john stockton was the model for consistency.
So you dont compare players at their best, you choose to rate them by their career averages? Thats pretty asinine He has the better scoring rate, and higher eFG% . Yes it is, unless your not very good at math So by that logic just because Nash chooses to score doesnt make him an inferior passer??? You measure them by how they've played not by how you think they couldve played. He has the better scoring rate and higher efficiency, hes the better scorer because hes PROVEN it Yea that gave me a chuckle the first time I read it
if by some chance, ricky davis averages 39 points next season, do you think he should go down in history as a better scorer than jordan and kobe? when we say stockton is the all-time steals and assists leader, those achievements are inclusive of his entire career...not just his peak seasons. so in my opinion, if i mention either of those facts, then i'm obligated to talk about his career as a whole. according to nba.com, stockton has the better field goal %. you are exactly right about the fact that since nash chose to score, that doesnt make him an inferior passer. and you do measure a person by how they've played. fact is, we've seen stockton hit jumpshots with consistency. and we've seen nash tally up assists as well. so we know they're both capable.
LMAO, so this is how you try to prove your logic, using events that have a ZERO percent chance of happening. Sorry bud thats not how the game works. By your logic, every game that Dikembe plays from now on only diminishes his legacy because it will lower his per game averages. Of course none of this surprises me, this falls right in line with the Stockton is as good a scorer despite never scoring as effectively as Nash has. Your basically saying Hakeem wouldve had a greater legacy if he had just retired after 97 or any player for that matter should just retire before they hurt their CAREER Averages. Why do I care about all-time leaders? They are nice milestones but theyre about as insignificant as scoring titles. All I care about is year by year impact. I measure players at their best and for how long they remain at the top of their position. Besides nobody said you werent, but that doesnt mean you look solely at career averages, you take each players greatest seasons and their career trend throughout each stage. Do you make a conscious effort to ignore what I say just because it crushes your theory or is it just an automatic reaction when you have nothing new to say? eFG%: Adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal. Let me spill it in layman's terms just in case it didnt register: Say Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from the SAME amount of field goal attempts but player A would have a .40FG% while player B would have .50FG%, BUT when you ADJUST for the extra value of a 3pter both end up having the same effective field goal percentage (50%). I honestly cant fathom know how you dont know this yet, but now that you do its time to accept reality, Nash is the more effective scorer and maintains the higher scoring rate. Your hopeless, Id rather judge them by what they do, rather than what you THINK they could have done.
I really don't think Lorenzen Wright deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as Todd Fuller. Fuller did zilch. Wright notched out a decent little career (10 pts & 5 rebs? (guessing)) even though you might expect more out of a #7 pick. Samaki Walker is a far bigger bust than Wright IMO.
The chance is low, but its not zero. Its a hypothetical situation..i'm sorry you cant come up with a good response. Yes. He would have had a greater legacy if he had retired earlier. Do you think Jordan's legacy would've been greater if he had stayed retired after 1998? Of course it would've. I'm not saying players should retire just to help their averages. But if they play, their stats matter b/c thats what they did do and not what they could've done. To be an all-time great at something, that means you've been consistently getting good numbers in that category. All-time leaders is a great testament to a player's forte. We know kareem is a great scorer. to emphasize the point, he's the all-time scoring leader. Hakeem was a renowned defender. emphasized by the fact he is the all-time leading shot blocker. For a guy who measures players at their best and how long they remain at the top of their position, you should know this. I believe its better to look at what a player has done during his entire career. I tried using your logic with the ricky davis scenario. You ridiculed it and refused to respond. if this were such a reliable stat, it would be used more. its the first time i've heard of it. so lets say someone shot 50% for his 10 year career. if i said "if he took 100 more 2-pt shot attempts, would it be fair to say he'd make 50?" your response would be "no, your hypothetical scenario is impossible b/c he didnt take those extra 100 shots"
Why would I need to come up with a response to a hypothetical that has a zero percent chance of happening? Think of a more logical hypothetical and I would gladly educate you. Why, because his per game averages suffered, sorry but nothing he does will ever tarnish what hes accomplished in the past. Nope every game he ever played only added to his legacy because its impossible to take away from what hes PROVEN. Thank god you know nothing about stats, as proven from your previous posts. People who understand the game and the importance of their numbers know that players cannot see their legacy tarnished just because they played the game a few years after their peak, and yes you are saying they should retire because your judging them by the most idiotic of standards. No it meens you played long enough to accumulate enough of one stat that you were able to surpass some of your peers. I dont care how many more points Malone has, it wont ever stop me from knowing MJ was the better scorer. Same with Stockton racking up steals and knowing that Bowen (a guy who garners very little steals) is the better defender. I understand what they meen, I just know theyre pretty insignificant in statistical analysis. Oh allright Ill use your same logic, what if Nash plays until the age of 188, when he becomes the all-time leader in EVERY stat, will he go down as the GOAT?? Thus proving how incompetent you are at statistical evaluation and given your limited understanding about the value of a possession you should just stop talking about numbers in general. And its entirely reliable, eFG% has a higher correlation to winning than FG% has. I cant believe your even questioning it, did you not read the layman's definition? Think about it, 2 players score the same amount of points, with the same amount of possessions/shots. Its really not that hard to comprehend LMFAO OK If Nash took 55 more FG/A per game he could average 50 more PPG? No because you have no way of knowing the quality of the shots created or exactly how he got those shots. Extra attempts could easily lower his effectiveness or increase it, there is no way of knowing because quite frankly these arent MACHINES we are talking about. No, its just that your logic is extremely r****ded because your making up their legacy instead of letting them define it. Keep em coming man, I love late night domination
Chronz So even if we go ahead and say that Nash is the better scorer (quite debatable but go ahead and give him the nod), Stockton was not a bad scorer. He wasn’t even average….he was good at it. Stockton was still the better passer and a superior defender. Primary roles for a PG are to get others involved, score and pass. Nash SUCKS at one of those (defense). He is garbage defensively….no debate about it. So I don’t see how anyone can say he is better unless you just don’t care about defense. So what is your logic for Nash being better considering the vast difference in defense, or do you just not care about defensive impact?
Yeah, it's weird to see defense being totally ignored. Also, it's been brought up, but not addressed by the Nash contingent: the rule changes effecting perimeter defense. Stockton dealt with much, much more contact & physical defense than Nash has to. Nash is a much less physical player than JS...would he have been able to thrive under the old style?
I think both are great PGs but Nash imo can really only play one style of ball whereas Stockton could be effective in an open court or a half court style of ball. Dallas changed their style after Nash left and it got them (outside of last year ) playoff success as well. and as much as I hate the a**hole Stockton I would have killed to have him be the PG on my team.
Just b/c you cant come up w/ an answer doesnt mean theres a 0% chance of it happening. I'm glad you think that jordan career from 84-2003 was more impressive than his career from 84-98. you're in the minority. You must be quite stupid to think i'm saying when players should retire. especially since i've said the exact opposite. Out of curiosity, assuming you're a rockets fan, would you have preferred that hakeem spent his whole career with us instead of spending his last season with toronto? Yes. Thats EXACTLY what it means. If he becomes the all-time leader in all stats, he will be the best to have ever played the game. Its a standard assumption that any extra shots he would take would be shots that he would normally take within the course of the game. Otherwise, why bring up percentages at all?
Hey man just wanted to apologize for my earlier post, I can come off as an ass when Im baked and talking ball. So lets continue this ass raping (jk) I meant debate
LOL Go ahead man Ive already said Stockton was the superior player, I even said he was the better offensive player. That argument was settled along time ago, this current debate is about wekko's way of evaluating a players career. He chooses to define them by what he thinks they couldve accomplished rather than by what they've proven and how they actually helped their teams.
ZERO % CHANCE Id be willing to bet my life on this, thats how ridiculous the notion you just described is. I can come up with an answer, in fact Im more than willing to use your logic, if you can actually come up with a example thats actually happened. Show me a post where I said that? Remember Im not the one who diminishes a players career for every game he plays that lowers his per game averages. MJ from 84-98 still exists in my way of evaluation. MJ's play at the age of 40 was nothing short of remarkable, and nothing can ever take away from what MJ did. Nope youve already admitted that every game Deke plays from now on, diminishes his legacy because hes no longer playing at his peak, in other words what he does now somehow takes away from what hes done in the past. That my friend is the most idiotic of standards. As a fan of the team obviously not, but that has nothing to do with him continuing to play genius, I wouldnt have held it against Hakeem if he continued to play for Houston. Thats the difference between you and me, I dont let my affiliation for any team hinder my judgement as you have proven to, by mentioning Toronto. THANK YOU So if Nash had career averages of 2.6PPG, 1.6Ast, .8Reb you would label him the GOAT? LMFAO you just basically owned your own r****ded logic. What happened to comparing their career averages? GET THE F OUTTA HERE Heres a hint, we've been discussing it this entire time. We use them to measure what theyve actually performed and how theyve helped their team win. Heres why: If a team knew that no matter how many shots Stockton got off he would shoot a certain percentage then why would they even want someone else shooting? Players arent MACHINES, they dont maintain the same kind of effectiveness no matter what their role is.
