I thought this debate was interesting because both guys were drafted in '96, they're two of the best small guards in the modern era (though at 6'3'', Nash is actually closer in size to Jason Kidd than he is to Iverson), and Nash gets so much more media hype and love than AI. So I put the question to the other players in one of my fantasy leagues (ugh...don't ask me why I joined a league with no injured list and 14-player rosters - the dumbest fantasy format I've ever seen). Actually, I asked two questions: who's had the better career and who would you rather have running your team? The consensus was for AI on the first part, for predictable reasons (took his team to the finals, more of a franchise player, been great for 12 years vs just 6 years for Nash, etc.). Here's my thoughts on the subject - I figured this was one of my better rants, best not let it go to waste.
"I agree, AI is the better player.
The [reasons above] covered most of the best arguments for AI, but I'd also add the fact that AI has been the tougher player. Even though AI has played well over 40 minutes per game, he never runs out of gas at the end of the season, unlike Nash, who has looked tired in the playoffs the last two years. I'm not saying Nash is soft, but it's crazy how durable and tough AI is - he never gets tired!
While Nash is an atrocious defender, AI is also pretty bad on D - he gambles a lot for steals and always seems out of position, despite his athletic ability. He may be marginally better than Nash, only because I don't see teams isolate against AI the same way they exploit Nash (watch what Nellie does with Baron, for example; Pop also does it with Parker, when Tony's not playing like Eva). Nash's D literally costs his team games, which is why [I can't believe] that he actually won MVP twice.
For the same reasons AI's had a better career, I'd rather have him on my team. Nash fits in easier with teams because of his passing. But if you surround AI with guys who play defense, you'll have a better team, because AI will come up bigger in crunch time. He's been better than Nash in the playoffs, and I think he'll give you a better chance of winning a ring.
Denver's problem right now is that they don't have enough of a defensive mentality to make up for AI (and Melo) not playing any damn defense. That's why there's a real chance AI will bolt when he hits free agency (next summer? two years?). My Pistons should be under the cap by 2009. Hmmm...
Oh yeah, and I was partially inspired by this:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7650438
bullspit article, where Rosen proves that Nash's teammates are better then AI's, then uses it to argue that Nash is better than AI. I like how the numbers show AI had the better game, so he has to use some other arguments to prove his point."
Wassup, blog crew, I've found myself with some free time, so I'ma weigh in on the offseason moves. From the top:
Rockets: Juwan Howard to TWolves for Mike James and Justin Reed
Looks like the Rox are gambling that last year was a fluke for the 30-something James. And I ain't gonna lie: I haven't seen MJ play since his last stint in Houston, against the Mavs in '05. He was the second or third best scorer on the team in that series (Yao was good, but always in foul trouble). JVG shoulda given him more burn, but instead stuck with the shooting-challenged Bob Sura. Not that I'm still bitter about that series or anything.
But in 2007, I don't see Mike James as a significant upgrade over Rafer Alston, if at all. Both are thirtysomething guards who are perfect coming off of the bench on a winning team. But no one of these guys now is going to have to start.
Losing Howard hurts as well, leaving Chuck Hayes as the only power forward left. Unless the Houston braintrust knows something I don't about Justin Reed, this deal doesn't do much for the Rockets. Grade for Rockets: C-.
On talent, I think the TWolves came out ahead on this one. Howard may be older than Mike James, but at 6'10'' hes a good shooter out to 18 feet and can pass the ball unusually well for a four, a skill underutilized by JVG (man am I making him look bad!). All in all, Juwan's a solid veteran role player.
But Minnesota's acquiring him just goes to show how little direction this franchise has. If, as rumored, they are planning on moving Kevin Garnett, why bring in a vet in a rebuilding project? If they plan on keeping KG, is Juwan Howard going to get them back in playoff contention? Probably not. It's early in the offseason, so this could just be an intermediary step in a bigger scheme. But with Kevin McHale at the helm, why should we believe 2007 will be any different from the last 9 years or so? Ever since the promising Garnett-Gugliotta-Marbury team died stillborn, he has made one desparate move after another to remain competitive, and other than the 2004 conference finalist team, it hasn't worked out. Still, for unloading the James contract for Howard's shorter deal, Minny fans can't be too disappointed. Celebrate the small victories, right? Grade for TWolves: C+
This is really a double-shot of Guruisms. First, hitting clean-up for my second round slate:
Suns-Spurs: Before the series, I picked the Spurs in five. Although on paper, the Phoenix has matchup advantages with Shawn Marion and Steve Nash over Tony Parker, I couldn't shake the memory of what happened in the regular season and in 2005. The Spurs just have the perfect gameplan to counter what Phoenix does. The Spurs have the best transition defense in the league, and limit their turnovers, so Phoenix has a hard time getting out on the break against them. The Spurs are also supremely patient and disciplined on offense, meaning they don't rush shots, and they dictate tempo probably as well as anyone else in the league.
On top of all that, in 2005 they used Bruce Bowen on the Matrix, taking away all of his easy baskets and offensive boards, and basically reduced Phoenix's attack to Amare Stoudemire going one-on-one against one of the toughest half-court defenses in the NBA. The only difference I saw between this year and 2005 was that the Spurs are not quite as tough on the inside as they were two years ago. (Mohammed was huge on the glass in those playoffs, and Rasho, for all his flaws, was a 7-footer guy opposing teams had to watch out for in the lane. Nowadays, Oberto and Elson give the Spurs nothing in terms of inside presence. That's why the Spurs play more small-ball now than ever before.)
And then there was game 4. Wow. The Suns contradicted all conventional thinking, not to mention their own prior history, by pulling out this game. Check it out:
The Suns play no defense: The boys in orange pulled out some huge stops at the end of this game. Going from single coverage to aggressively trapping Duncan, which Phoenix didn't start doing until crunch time, resulted in turnovers, and completely disrupted the Spur offense. This was brilliant coaching by D'Antoni & Co., and why it so completely baffled the veteran Spurs is beyond me. San Antonio's perimeter guys looked more Lost than the tv show, dribbling out the clock and hoisting rushed shot after shot. I definitely took me back to the days when the Spurs were considered too soft to beat the Lakers. That said, don't think the Suns have stumbled on some defensive kryptonite to use against SA. I don't think the same tactic will be nearly as effective next time around.
The Suns don't rebound: Down the stretch, they more than held their own on the glass, exploiting the biggest weakness in the Spurs' game. The Spurs don't need to dominate the glass to win this series, but in the past their ability to do so helped them control tempo and keep Phoenix's offense under wraps. They cannot get dominated like they did last night if they want to win the series. Even if they pull it out against Phoenix (which I think they will, even before we find out that Amare and Diaw are suspended), the Spurs' weakness on the glass will be their eventual downfall. (hint...hint...hint)
All in all a great game, Phoenix really showed me something last night. Now do it again two more times. Then I'll be really impressed.
By the way, why isn't Popovic using Bowen against Marion like he did in '05??? Was it working too well? TP has shown that he can cover Steve Nash, so I have a hard time understanding this move. Then again, I have a hard time understanding many of Pop's "strategic" moves. Take, for instance, the 2001 series against Lakers, where leaving Fisher open (allowing him to average over 20ppg in a sweep) was the move du jour. Or the 2006 series against the Kings, where the counter to Ron Artest's bullying was taking Ginobili completely out of the offense until midway through the series (after the Kings built up a lead, and might have won had Bonzi and Artest not gotten hurt). Or how 'bout this series, where you let Phoenix get away with Steve Nash on Mike Finley for stretches, even though Finley's a former all-star who likes to post up. Maybe someday I'll learn enough about the game to understand...
Under the Radar Stuff
One of the reasons I started writing this thing is that I think the people writing about the NBA in the major outlets (all two of them) miss a lot of important things. Here are two stories I think are so under the radar, the military would classify them as stealth technology.
Fatigue and the Warriors:
This has been mentioned, but I don't think people appreciate how the fact that JRich, Stephen Jack, Matt Barnes, and especially Boom Dizzle are all running on E is torpedoing the Warriors' postseason efforts. Fatigue makes b!@#$ of us all. This shows up worst on defense, where Golden State is just not rotating or getting back nearly as well as they did against Dallas. In game 4, it started showing up on offense as well, with increased settling for jumpers, most of which were being front-rimmed. Throw in a mellower-than-usual home crowd (c'mon bay area, you gotta represent! I don't care how much the tickets are!), and you have the story of game 4. Unfortunately, I don't see a magic cure for game 5 tonight in the works. The core guys of this gutty Golden State team will have to find their second wind, because I don't see their young bench guys (Ellis, Pietrus, Biedrins) working any miracles on the road. That said, Utah is still an inexperienced playoff team, and Warrior fans can still hope that they get too comfortable with their 3-1 lead. But don't bet on it.
Flopping - it's Fann-tastic!
In the wake of Suns-Spurs, we're hearing lots of complaints about flopping in the playoffs. I'm with Bill Walton on this one (one of the few times you'll hear me say that), and think that flopping is an abuse of the rules. But it's interesting to think what the cause of this new trend is, because while flopping isn't new (is it, Reggie Miller fans?), it has greatly picked up in the last couple of seasons. There are many factors, but the biggest one seems to be that refs are much more willing to blow the whistle at any contact that occurs on a play, not just contact that gives a player an advantage (historically, what a "foul" is).
Who do we have to blame for this development? THE "FANS." Let me be more specific: the highly vocal "fans" of the game, who thought the physical basketball of the '90's sucked, and praise the Phoenix Suns as the messiahs of "good" basketball. These "fans," and their mouthpieces in the media, are arrogant pricks who think college basketball is better than the NBA, and at their core dislike the NBA for a littany of reasons, usually related to being too "playground," and worse, too "black." If you can't tell, I like these people.
Sadly, these people apparently have a lot of pull up in the League office. Why else would the Commish, generally a smart guy, be so hell bent on eliminating contact in the sport? The league has been pressuring refs to crack down on contact, both on the perimeter and around the basket, and this is naturally causing refs to be more trigger-happy. Developments like the circle under the basket (which I'm not necessarily against), which seemingly necessitates a call every time somebody falls down, only increase this pressure. As a ref, doesn't it make sense at this point to make a call every time somebody gets bump, since it's in line with league policy? At this point, doesn't it make sense for a player to exaggerate contact every chance you get, because the odds are in favor of the call going your way?
The only cure for this problem that I see is for refs to refocus on what constitutes a foul, which comes back to how hard the contact has to be for there to be an advantage. In cases where the contact isn't clearly enough to disrupt the play, the refs should #### their whistles and let the play continue. More non-calls like this will cause players and coaches to realize that its in their interest to keep playing after enough turnovers/easy scores are caused by flop-attempts (boy I'd like to see that statistic - Ginobili could average a double-double!).
So basketball "fans" around the country, this column's for you. Give yourselves a pat on the back every time you see a 6'10'' guy falling into the basket support when hit by a 6'1'' guy. You earned it.
The Western conference, graveyard of predictions. We'll see how the Guru can keep pace this round.
Jazz-Warriors
Man, this is a tough series to predict. On the one side, my brain tells me that Utah is going to be chowing on glass for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and Carlos Boozer will punish the Warriors for going small, either with his own scoring or by kicking it out for open shots (Utah moves the ball much better than Dallas, who relied heavily on isolation plays and screen/rolls for their offense). And with their disciplined halfcourt game, they should keep the turnovers down, and limit Golden State's transition game.
But my gut disagrees. The gut says that Baron will outplay Deron Williams at both ends (though this didn't happen in game 1; Baron's trick hammy limited him badly on D, and he got torched to the tune of 30 and 8). The gut also says that Monta Ellis and Al Harrington can't play as badly as they did in round one, and Monta in particular should cause matchup problems. Finally, the gut says the Warriors will shred Utah's porous D (do any of Utah's starters play D besides Kirilenko?), which comes into the series overhyped because of Houston's one-dimentional offense, and get into the paint even more easily than they did against Dallas.
So what's the call? I give this round to the gut. Warriors in six. But Golden State cannot give 30 to Deron Williams for this to happen, the defense has to pick back up. Hopefully, starting tonight Nellie will give Monta Ellis some more burn. The kid's looked mostly lost in the playoffs, but he can at least be used on D to slow down DWilliams because none of Utah's guards can take advantage of Baron's gimpiness. Boozer is a big man's big man, and other than a total lack of defense, and the fact that he has a problem scoring on defenders with length (and any semblance of mobility, sorry Yao), he has few weaknesses. But if Biedrins can stay out of foul trouble, he could help slow down the Booz cruise. I'd be surprised to see that in Salt Lake City, but in the comfy confines of Oracle Arena, AB should make a difference.
And now for game 2 predictions. Utah made a mistake in game 1 by trying to play the Warrior's pace. That's not their game, and it led to 20 turnovers. The question is, are the Jazz disciplined enough to slow the pace down? I don't think so, but if any coach can do it, Jerry Sloan can. By my own prediction, I said the Warriors are either taking game 2 or game 5, and I think tonight's game will be the one. Either way, expect one hell o####ame and a "barn-burner" of a series (I see you Chuck!).
