It's only b/c Paul takes more shots. Honestly to me I'd take Paul over Nash in a heart beat but Nash is a more efficient scorer. Nash shot an amazing 47% from 3 this year. His pps is 1.42 this year to Paul's 1.3. I think Passing wise they are similar in skill but scoring wise Nash might actually be a better/more efficient scorer. He just doesn't take as many shots as CP3.

Also, Nash is a MUCH easier player to build around.

They got their due to a botch in the system though which was fixed the year after. They were at best the 3rd best team in the WC that year and yes they beat 2 LA teams who were mediocre at best. Not saying doing well without Amare isn't amazing, it is. I just think their WCF appearance was a lot to do with seeding.

How so? You need athletic players which there are a lot of, but to win it all you need really skilled athletic players that can play D, which there are not a ton of. I don't think building around any PG is going to be easier than another if they have similar skillsets. 1 big thing with building around Nash over Paul is your going to have to have somebody to help defensively ie great player in the paint like the Spurs have for Parker.

You're absolutely right. It's just impressive that they pushed that Dallas team (which was great) to 6 games.

I think you just outlined it. There's a number of players who can play defense and have a great singular offensive skill (be it shooting or finishing) which a great player like Nash can use to the team's advantage.

He was great in the playoffs in 03-04 for his first go around averaging 18 points and about 6 assists. He had an immediate presence and hit some clutch shots. In 04-05 he had a playoff run that I would consider stellar avg 27 6 and 5 a game with his team just missing out on the NBA Finals. Of course the championship year he was stellar. I think people want to just write off D-Wade because of his injuries the last year but the guy is still a great player. Yes he might turn the ball over a bit but I think the positives out weight that. He's already showed at a young age he's a winner and can carry a team to a title if you put some motivated help around him. I think writing him off and saying he just had a lucky run is a mistake.

If for the theoretical season DWade is healthy than it's a pretty solid pick. Just stick him with a dominant center and you'll be allllll set.

So if this is the case, hasn't he also proved that he can lead a team to a crappy record as well? I'm not saying the guy is horrible, but everybody seems so quick to write off this last season and attribute it to injuries, and then write off those injuries. I just think the guy has major holes in his game--holes that he has yet to fix.

Miami was a mess this past season. Shaq quit, DWade was hurt, Riley was disinterested and he had a supporting cast of NBDL players. The Heat were tragic this year. I wouldn't say he lead them to a bad record he just happenned to be the best player on a really bad team. Is his game perfect? Of course not but I would venture to say that a guy who has already proven he can lead his team to the title in just his 3rd year and can still have room for improvement in his game, is most likely a problem most GMs and coaches wouldn't mind having.

I agree that they were a mess, but not a 15 game winner mess. People act like it was Dwade and a bunch of down-syndrome kids out there. I don't attribute their poor play to Wade, but it's hard to ignore that he didn't perform as well when his supporting cast wasn't there, just like it's hard to ignore that he did perform stellar in that playoff series against Dallas. I just don't think you can ignore one and focus on the other.

Maybe I did not make myself very clear. It's not so much that he did not win a championship, is that he has played for incredibly staked team, and had a real shot at a championship just once.
If he was so good, he's teams would have been more competitive come playoff time.
I mean to give a silly example, imagine that James or even Bryant playing instead of Nash on the mavericks and Suns teams. Wouldn't they get riled for not winning a championship or at least not being competitive.

I think Paul is an average defender at that position, but for the most part the entire league is average. It's just not common to see a stellar defender at that size. There's too much open space to cover, and you're generally matched up against someone who can shoot from long distance. It's a tough position to defend, which is probably why there are very few great defenders at the point.

I don't know if I would consider those Suns teams "stacked." We're talking about a team that won 30 games before Nash got there. It's just as easy to say that he's the reason they are stacked. Not that I wholly believe either.

Paul on 82games.com opp: 17.1. Defensive Win Shares 14.3.
Nash: 17.5. DWS: 4.5.
Rondo: 16.3. DWS: 14.4
Davis: 17.9 DWS: 8.8
Iverson: 14.1 (suprisingly good). DWS: 8.4.
Parker: 15.3. DWS: 10.0.
Calderon: 16.7 DWS: 5.6.
Williams: 15.5 DWS: 6.5

Example of bad: Bibby: 20.0 (3).

There are other methods and of course it's very tough to perfectly gauge defense.

And even if you're a great defender at the point, it does not make your team a good defensive team whereas a Tim Duncan alone ...
And that's why I 'm a little hating on Nash offensive game (not really hating but I thinks that he 's significantly worse than Paul). He's not that bad of a defender, especially compared to the other points.
It seems to me that people slightly overrate Nash's offensive game and then use the he sucks on D argument to balance it

is there really an argument going on that nash is easier to build around than CP3

Rondo: KG
Parker uncan
Paul: Chandler
Nash: Amare/shag
Calderon:Bosh
bibby:???

also, Iverson has camby.

two questions: 1. what is the 1st number?
2. good link to an explanation of defensive win shares?

Sorry to be a nit, but Assani politely requested we refrain from undrafted players who might be picked shortly.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Nash is as good as Lebron or Kobe. There is a reason LBJ went 3, Kobe went 10, and Nash lasted til 27. But just because he is not in Lebron's and Kobe's class doesn't make him a bad pick and that point in the draft.

It's PER for the opponent of the PG. It's not a great rating, as I said earlier there aren't many great defensive ratings.
2- http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

The Suns turnaround argument is ridiculous.
They won 44 with Marbury at the point, Rookie stoudemire and young Joe johnson and almost upset the Spurs.
THe 30 win was due to injuries and quitting cause of the sucky season.
Nash's team in his first year was amazing and I could not believed that any decent analyst was surprised by theirrecord.
He was the man in his second year though.

I wasn't arguing about their turnaround. But since you mentioned it, that other guy was a pretty good PG at the time, and to go from 44 wins to 62 is pretty freaking impressive. My argument was that the Sun's weren't stacked before Nash got there, and that it's possible that the players around him got better because of him.

Does anyone know this sammykid11? He has been on the clock for 12 hours. Man, I want to pick argh.