The last two years, the two leading candidates for MVP have been Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki. Their teams have had virtually identical success in the regular season, with a one or two game difference (explained by Nash's propensity to get injured for a game or two) in pythagorean winning percentage (a more meaningful form of win% derived from point differential) and individual stats that are reasonably even. The Suns when Nash is healthy are within 2 games of the Mavs with Dirk healthy pro-rated to an 82 game season. With all other factors even, many Nash detractors often turn to the argument of Nash's superior teammates, which is what one would believe at first glance at the stats and the fact that two of Nash's teammates are not mere allstars but superstars, whereas Dirk's sole allstar teammate was put on the allstar squad solely because of the number of wins Dallas has. Down the line Phoenix players appeared to be better than their Dallas counterparts. But are they really?As Allen Iverson could tell you, aggregate stat sums of individual players are relatively meaningless. A 20 point scorer removed from the team will likely only result in a 5 point loss in a team's scoring at the most as others will make up much of the difference, but at a less efficient clip. Any player taking 22 shots per game can score 25 points, but where games are won or lost are the tiny differences in points per shot that lead the player taking 22 shots to score 30 points instead of 25. As a result, looking at team success is a lot more relevant than looking at individual success, especially when questioning how a team will do when a player is absent.Many say that the stats of the Mavericks being 3-0 when Dirk is injured and the Suns being 2-4 when Nash is injured (4-12 during his entire tenure) is a small sample size and therefore shouldn't be counted, which is true, which is why, I offer the evidence of thousands of minutes in which these players were on the bench.Dirk has been on the court 2757 minutes this season, and his team has outscored the other team 5935 to 5345 in that span, or a 10.3 points per 48 minute margin of victory when he's on the court. That's 70 win ball. Steve Nash, on the other hand, has played 2577 minutes with his team winning by 10.9 points per 48 minutes, which, because of pace, only produces an expected winning percentage equating to 69 wins. Their teams are at a virtual dead heat when they are in the game.When they are out of the game, however, it is a different story. Due to lack of minutes that they are out of the game and to make the sample size about equal with the "in the game" category, and the fact that they haven't changed much over the last two years, I'll use the last two years combined for each player.Dirk Nowitzki has been off the court for 1935 minutes the last two seasons whereas Nash has been off the court for 2450 minutes. In that time, the Mavericks are +.495 points per 100 possesions, a small amount, and a lead that would be expected to result in a 43 win team based on pythagorean win expectation. Steve Nash's off court numbers reveal a slight negative RTG, finishing with a 39 win team according to pythagorean numbers.Are Nash's teammates better individually? Yes. But do they perform better as a team than Dirk's? No.
I'll stick with Dallas. Dallas is built deep and experienced with role players who can support their stars. The Suns offense is heavily reliant on Nash to spread the ball around and make sure they got good quick open shots which by no means is easy. Pheonix isn't nearly as deep as Dallas or experienced for that matter. One could argue about Barbosa's value but I'd rather have a group of experienced vetereans surround my superstar rather than one future all-star.As you pointed out, Pheonix has some great individual performers in Marion, Amare, Bell, and Barboasa but the Suns offense is again very reliant on Nash. If the Suns can't outscore the other team then they can't win while the Mavericks can rely on slowing the other team down at times even if they'd rather play up-tempo.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GArenas @ Apr 16 2007, 05:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'll stick with Dallas. Dallas is built deep and experienced with role players who can support their stars. The Suns offense is heavily reliant on Nash to spread the ball around and make sure they got good quick open shots which by no means is easy. Pheonix isn't nearly as deep as Dallas or experienced for that matter. One could argue about Barbosa's value but I'd rather have a group of experienced vetereans surround my superstar rather than one future all-star.As you pointed out, Pheonix has some great individual performers in Marion, Amare, Bell, and Barboasa but the Suns offense is again very reliant on Nash. If the Suns can't outscore the other team then they can't win while the Mavericks can rely on slowing the other team down at times even if they'd rather play up-tempo.</div>Well, I do think they are as deep as Dallas, but D'Antoni just doesn't want to use it it seems. Don't forget Kurt Thomas. He has experience and has been great when he's played this year. I think Nash is the MVP this year, but I'd give it to Dirk since I don't think Nash deserved it last year. I know some people say you shouldn't hold that against him but I just like to be fair that way. And you use too many stats Pesty. The only sport that it's okay to do that for is baseball. It seems like you don't really have any opinion or knowledge of your own, even though I know that you do, but just throw stats out there. If anything it should be 50/50, but every sentence seems to have %'s or some sort of stat which gets annoying. *Waits for CB*
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And you use too many stats Pesty. The only sport that it's okay to do that for is baseball. It seems like you don't really have any opinion or knowledge of your own, even though I know that you do, but just throw stats out there. If anything it should be 50/50, but every sentence seems to have %'s or some sort of stat which gets annoying.</div>The difference is that it's one thing to mindlessly quote stats and it's another to do your own research, statistical processing, and analysis. The thing is that while I generally like to use hearsay and conjecture during my arguments, you need to use stats when you come to a conclusion that defies common knowledge but is heavily backed up statistically. This thread has been made a thousand times, I was trying to add some empirical flavor to it.
That's fine, it does bring something besides the normal, boring stuff to talk about. And it's kind of funny how stats can put the Warriors in the same league as the Mavs and Suns, not making fun just thinking that it's pretty interesting.
