More Effective Player at age 38....

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

Nash has Gortat putting up a dbl/dbl average and Jordan had Rip Hamilton chipping in with 20 ppg while hitting 89% from the line, nearly 40% from 3pt range and 45% from the field in 35 MPG.

Now ya'll go from there.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

I think the point that was being made is that it's easier to play close to the same level into your late 30's as a PG than a SG/SF. No idea why guys are getting up in arms by using this logic to describe Nash. The example given was pretty clear in showing how it's true for players of any level. It doesn't say a thing about how good of a point guard Nash is (he's one of the best ever), it only speaks on how much easier it is for him to play at HIS high level than it would be for Jordan to play at his.

If we want to talk about marginalizing a player then point the finger at Gortat. You can't just throw a name out there like that... he's playing at an all star level this year. That Wizards team was hot garbage and won 19 games the year before. I don't think there is a comparison to a player that can come back after 4 years off and go to a terrible team like that and have them in the hunt for .500 when being asked to be the main scorer. I don't cry a river for Jordan bc he should've stayed retired. But I also won't act like his role (which is much more physical in nature) is on the same level for a 38 year old as that of an elite PG.

It seems to me that the argument that it's more difficult to play at a high level at SG/SF is more about what's most "impressive" rather than "effective". Nash is easily more effective. Jordan was probably more impressive (although both are insanely impressive).

[TMagic]

It seems to me that the argument that it's more difficult to play at a high level at SG/SF is more about what's most "impressive" rather than "effective". Nash is easily more effective. Jordan was probably more impressive (although both are insanely impressive).

Which is why I called into question what they meant by "effective".

Like you just said, from his post, it sounded like the guy was saying it was more "impressive". Not effective. Especially when he's bringing up the fact that Jordan was doing it against guys half his age.

[SteelersFreak]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

Points contributed per 100 possessions:
Nash: 116
Jordan: 99

Points allowed per 100 possessions:
Nash: 110
Jordan: 105

Points contributed - points allowed:
Nash: +6
Jordan: -6

Win Shares:
Nash: 5.8 (with Nash being in a far stronger conference)
Jordan: 3.3

PER:
Nash: 20.9
Jordan: 20.8

TS%:
Nash: 62.8%
Jordan: 46.8%

eFG%:
Nash: 58.6%
Jordan: 42%

Phoneix Suns WITH Nash: 110 points per 100 possessions and 105 points allowed
WITHOUT Nash: 100 points per 100 possessions and 110.5 points allowed.

Not only does the offense score 10 less points when Nash isn't there, but their defense gives up more points as well.

Today, Nash is still probably the best offensive PG in the entire league. His numbers aren't far off from his 2 MVP seasons, and he's doing it with far less talent around him (compared to his MVP seasons, not to Jordan's Wizards). Still arguably the best passer in the NBA. Still arguably the best shooter in the NBA.

This thread never should have made it past 1 page in my opinion.

BUT

BUT

BUT

ITS MJ

[wwharton]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

So I'm just wondering....if its "that easy" to keep up that kind of play at PG...may I ask who has actually done it?

Serious question.

First of all it's not that easy to PLAY at that level, so there are only so many names you can choose from because not many have reached that level to begin with. Things that are hard to maintain into the late 30's like jumping ability, quickness, and various aspects of defensive play are all things Nash has never needed to be as successful as he's been. Then you have the general nature of the positions where one requires getting hit a lot more, using athleticism to create your own shot, let alone while playing through injury... it's much harder.

I don't have stats but I'd venture to believe PGs in general play a prominant role much later into their lives than SGs for that reason. Even guys like Ray Allen, we forget that he used to fill a stat sheet while now he's pretty much just catch and shoot. In general they maintain play close to their overall level longer than most others.

It seems to me that the argument that it's more difficult to play at a high level at SG/SF is more about what's most "impressive" rather than "effective". Nash is easily more effective. Jordan was probably more impressive (although both are insanely impressive).

That's an interesting play on semantics. I think I still believe Jordan's contribution to that Wizards team slightly outweighs Nash's this season bc he had to be the lead of so many different areas (scoring, rebounding, assists, defense) but it's MUCH MUCH closer if we just focus on it like this. But I will say I don't think it's fair to even make the comparison if we don't consider that one of the two guys being compared was out of the game for 4 years and plays a position much more susceptible to a drop off due to age. It just makes it a loaded question to begin with.

[wwharton]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

BUT

BUT

BUT

ITS MJ

You're better than this. There are good arguments being made on both sides so why make a mocking 5th grade level post like this?

Nash may still be the best offensive PG in the league. Where would he rank if he were a SG? How about a SF? Now how does that fact matter in this debate considering he played a different position. If anything, the comparison is just a bad one all around. Bringing up things like fg% for a guy who shoots less than 10 times a game, or other things that are easily related to the nature of his position vs a completely different one doesn't help anything really. Jamie Moyer's a 38 year old pitcher. Could we compare him to Rickey Henderson's "effectiveness" at the same age? Favre was a 40 year old QB. Could we compare his "effectiveness" to Tomlinson at the same age? It's not a good comparison.

[The 24th Letter]

Comparing football and baseball to this is apples and oranges....not even close.

Trying to dismiss the discussion completely just feeds into SF's post. It's a valid discussion, and there's good points made on both sides...

[23]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

You're better than this. There are good arguments being made on both sides so why make a mocking 5th grade level post like this?

Nash may still be the best offensive PG in the league. Where would he rank if he were a SG? How about a SF? Now how does that fact matter in this debate considering he played a different position. If anything, the comparison is just a bad one all around. Bringing up things like fg% for a guy who shoots less than 10 times a game, or other things that are easily related to the nature of his position vs a completely different one doesn't help anything really. Jamie Moyer's a 38 year old pitcher. Could we compare him to Rickey Henderson's "effectiveness" at the same age? Favre was a 40 year old QB. Could we compare his "effectiveness" to Tomlinson at the same age? It's not a good comparison.

Thank You man... this is a terrible topic to be honest with you because its just so random and unrelated. I would even call it so bad that ESPN wouldn't even pull out something like this, and they suck for doing stuff like this as a profession.

Im not even sure what the point is to be honest... so many factors to put in a discussion like that, it makes no sense nor does it make a difference on either of those guys careers

[wwharton]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

Comparing football and baseball to this is apples and oranges....not even close.

Trying to dismiss the discussion completely just feeds into SF's post. It's a valid discussion, and there's good points made on both sides...

Pretty sure I said (in one or both of the posts right above yours) that good points are being made on both sides, but I don't see how that makes it a valid discussion. There is good discussion being had, but I wouldn't call it valid. These players are/were in situations so incredibly different that the only thing they had in common was age. And lets not act like a thread made in Nash's 38th year on this planet when he's having a great season, compared to the greatest player ever isn't just an attempt to say "Hey, Nash is having a great year." That's all this is, and in that sense the comparison is a huge stretch.

If you don't think the comparison to other sports is close then back that up. I didn't bring stats to the average age of decline for PGs vs other positions so you could prove my assumption there wrong with numbers. As it stands, I don't see how it's any different than comparing players of any sport that play different positions, with different responsibilities, and different depreciation expectations.

But lets stick to basketball instead of me just saying you go do the work... Should we compare 38 year old Nash to 38 year old Shaq? How about Artest? Or, since this thread was obviously about pumping up Nash lets use a still effective Jason Kidd. The comparisons just don't work.

And just like in other areas, I get up in arms bc it creates a situation where a bunch of people that like, respect and are amazed by Nash basically shooting down what he is doing bc of a logical defense against an illogical comparison.

[The 24th Letter]

Well I'm not into baseball, but I know comparing a QB to a RB, WR or TE makes little sense...are you saying that comparing a SG to SF etc is in the same line?

So for instance comparing Kobe/Brons games are completely baseless because they play diff positions at the present?

Sorry cant buy that.

As for your examples....yes, if we're talking about how players at a certain age are performing, why can't we compare? There are variables involved. In this case we have two players that did pretty damn good for 38...

[Jukeman]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

Well I'm not into baseball, but I know comparing a QB to a RB, WR or TE makes little sense...are you saying that comparing a SG to SF etc is in the same line?

So for instance comparing Kobe/Brons games are completely baseless because they play diff positions at the present?

Sorry cant buy that.

As for your examples....yes, if we're talking about how players at a certain age are performing, why can't we compare? There are variables involved. In this case we have two players that did pretty damn good for 38...

I always refer to the SG and SF as the wing position.

[23]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

Well I'm not into baseball, but I know comparing a QB to a RB, WR or TE makes little sense...are you saying that comparing a SG to SF etc is in the same line?

So for instance comparing Kobe/Brons games are completely baseless because they play diff positions at the present?

Sorry cant buy that.

As for your examples....yes, if we're talking about how players at a certain age are performing, why can't we compare? There are variables involved. In this case we have two players that did pretty damn good for 38...

How about comparing a 38 year old Barnes to 38 year old Kareem

Thats a comparison that would be equally mind numbingly bad

[The 24th Letter]

How about comparing a 38 year old Barnes to 38 year old Kareem

Thats a comparison that would be equally mind numbingly bad

Matt Barnes?

Their stats/impact won't even comparable at that age ....not sure what you mean, haha

I think the whole point was that both Nash/Jordan at age 38 had solid impacts

[wwharton]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

Well I'm not into baseball, but I know comparing a QB to a RB, WR or TE makes little sense...are you saying that comparing a SG to SF etc is in the same line?

So for instance comparing Kobe/Brons games are completely baseless because they play diff positions at the present?

Sorry cant buy that.

As for your examples....yes, if we're talking about how players at a certain age are performing, why can't we compare? There are variables involved. In this case we have two players that did pretty damn good for 38...

You don't have to buy that bc I didn't say that, lol. SG and SF are very similar positions. Meanwhile you have a guy at SF in James who's being praised for his ability to play like a PG. The reason is bc the responsibilities of the two positions are vastly different. But let me dig into the comparison to other sports bc even though I don't think it makes sense to compare the guy who sets up everyone else to the guy who entire teams have to stop from scoring that's a very small bit of why this is a really bad comparison.

In baseball, pitchers that didn't just get by on throwing the ball as hard as they can past a batter can pitch for a long time. There are high heat throwers that adjust as they get older to stick around, but in this example, Nash would be closer to a Maddux than a Clemens. This has always been his game, and it's a perfect style at the perfect position to help him play at a high level late into his 30's. Henderson, on the other hand, had a rare combination of great power and speed... things that can't help but deteriorate as one gets older. Him playing late into his 30's can't be compared to a pitcher doing it.

In football, great QBs thrive more with the ability to read defenses quickly and effectively, feel the pocket and make accurate passes. Those that have cannon arms and/or speed like a RB can adjust their game for more longevity, but again, Nash is the former in this example. If he were a QB his game would be perfectly built for playing well into his late 30's. Meanwhile Tomlinson's agility, quickness and power play a much larger roll in his success than say his vision and sure handedness. Those things he'll never lose won't extend his career with the pounding his body takes as a RB, and the natural effect aging has on agility, quickness and power. Therefore Tomlinson (or any RB) playing late into the 30's can't be compared to Favre (or a normal QB bc that guy was still a freak of nature) doing the same.

In that sense, I think the comparison to this situation is on point. As a SG/SF, the main scoring option, and the leader at a wing position on defense, anyone's natural physical progression alone would make it more difficult to maintain close to the same level of play as a true PG. Jordan specifically was a slasher and high flyer who defenders would pound on night in and night out... he was physically better than everybody else, before we even account for skill, heart, etc. He had to completely change his game to even maintain some level of greatness as the aging process took it's toll over the years. In that sense, if we were talking about Allen Iverson playing at a high level (or even Rose at 38) the comparison would make a bit more sense. We shouldn't expect Nash to be playing as well as he is right now, but it was miraculous what Jordan was able to do at the same age.

With that said, YTG made a good point about most impressive vs most effective. To me, effectiveness has to be based somewhat on team success, and again, the situations are too different. No matter what you guys say, that Wizards team was on the level of this year's Bobcats they were so bad. The fact they were flirting with .500 at all deserves a lot of props. But the Suns do play in a tougher conference, and again, how do you compare the significance of the guy who directly sets up all around him to the guy that gets others more looks by drawing the defense, and wills unexpected victories by taking over the scoring even though an entire defense is geared to stop him? It's not fair to compare.

So this isn't really a vote for Jordan by me, it's just not a comparison that makes sense for many reasons.

Matt Barnes?

Their stats/impact won't even comparable at that age ....not sure what you mean, haha

I think the whole point was that both Nash/Jordan at age 38 had solid impacts

I don't think that's the point at all. Jordan hasn't played a game in a while now and Nash is currently 38. I'd rather praise him without trying to find a way to match him up with the GOAT. I mean I'd take Nash over Kareem at 38... not sure what the point of that comparison would be either though. Something else to talk about I guess, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

[PrettyT11]

Re: More Effective Player at age 38....

The thing to me and I'm sure the others who have said this topic/thread is out there is the fact that we are trying to compare a guy who hasn't missed any years at all to a guy who sat out three full seasons. That alone makes it a very difficult thing to compare no matter who the names are.

Also just to be technical if we are wanting to compare them at the same age we would actually have to use what Nash does next year not this year. Both guys birthdays are only a week apart. This year Nash started the season at 37 and turned 38. The year we are talking about MJ he started the year at 38 and turned 39. So you guys aren't even looking at them at the same age to begin with.

Lastly to throw it out there for the guys making the point that it is easier to play the PG position at an advanced age than playing the wing and being the go to scorer on a team(I do agree with this). There are examples of guys who have played damn good PG at older ages. Magic came back from sitting out 5 years into the middle of the season and put up 15,7, and 6 in 30 minutes a night. His first game back off the street was 19,10, and 8.

Stockton also put up over 12 and 9 on 50 plus percent shooting at 37 and 38 and even 13 and 8 with over 50 percent shooting at 39.

Then you also have Jason Kidd who was just an all star a year or two ago and one of the leaders on the championship team last year and also Mark Jackson who was getting double doubles at 37.

But on the flip side there has never been a wing player to average 20 a night at the age 38 or better besides Jordan. Nobody besides Jordan has even got over 15 a night. Jordan, Malone, and Kareem are the only guys ever to put up 20 a night at that age and MJ sat out three full years. Combine that with the defensive workload he had on that team combine with everything that has already been said about that team put what MJ did in very very rare air.

I'm not knocking anything either guy is doing or has done. Both are extremely outstanding for their own rights. I just don't think it is a fair comparison you can make when given all that is there plus no real answer on what the OP means by effective anyway.