I didn't say every single stat goes up when you play with worse players. I'd say that from watching them play that Nash does dominate the ball more than Nash. You could also notice that Nash has the highest usage rate for the top 6 Suns in terms of minutes played this year while Rondo has the lowest usage rate for the top 6 for the Celts.
Are you implying that Steve Nash is a stat padder? He has consistently inflated the stats of good players as well (Amare Stoudemire, Marion, Boris Diaw). This isn't Mike James putting up numbers on a bad team because he's getting the ball more. He's a great point guard and certainly better than Rondo.
I didn't say Nash was a stat padder at any point in time. You keep claiming that it's impressive that he had better individual numbers than Rondo with worse teammates, I was explaining that his numbers were good because he played with worse teammates.
This is just not true in any way. The "good stats bad teammates" is a myth that gets uses to argue against players soemone doesn't like, just as the "he put up good stats because he's on a good team" (an argument that many use against Rondo unfairly, or used, ironically, for many of Nash's teammates in the '05 era) is equally flawed, unproven, and unreplicable.
Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. Look at the big three's stats before and after they joined forces. Look at the stats of the Miami guys, Kobe and Pau, AI and Melo or other situations where players that are the focal points of offenses are put with more talented players. Their stats almost always take a hit.
It's completely random and variable; hence the exact opposite logic is used equally to express whichever view the arguer wants to argue.
People say "oh, without the Big 3, rondo wouldn't look this good" or "without nash, stoudemire would be nothing, because 'nash makes others better'" or "Nash put up good stats last year because he's on a bad team."
Fact is, it's totally untrue. Most of the time, the statistical impact is not more or less, but simply changed: usually decreased absolute values (due to sharing the load/focus) with increased efficiency. This is what happened (largely) with boston's big three: decreases in points and usage, with increases in scoring efficiency.
You say things like "it's completely false" and "fact is" but you do absolutely nothing to back up your claims, refute my examples or come up with any of your own. Either my claim was demonstrably false (where you'd demonstrate that it was false, just to be clear) or your statement was a significant overstatement of your opinion.
But somehow you've convinced yourself that Nash had good stats last year because he was on a bad team, despite the fact that that very same player put up BETTER numbers when surrounded by Amare/Marion/Joe Johnson! That is absolute proof of your erroneous logic in this case. Nash puts up good stats because he's good. Rondo puts up good stats because he's good. That's it. Zach Randolph puts up good stats for years because he's good; This year it's the Narrative surrounding him that has changed, when in reality he brought the exact same stuff he always has: size, elite post scoring, elite rebounding, to a team that was actually good around him.
Yes, the fact that Nash put up better numbers in his early thirties than he would in his late thirties is absolute proof. Sadly, it's proof that he's aging and nothing else.
Agreed that players generally get worse when they age. But that it not the question.
You said you don't want Nash because he put up good stats on a bad team.
I showed you that THAT VERY SAME PLAYER put up BETTER STATS withing the last 5 years playing on title contenders with other all stars. You asked me to prove you wrong, and I did.
Same team:
Amare: blossoming player, very good stats on a bad team the year before nash, Great stats on great team with Nash, great stats (more points, less efficient" on an ok knicks team...Again, doesn't matter whether it's a good or bad team, same player, same impact, good, similar stats.
Keeping the same team, Joe Johnson. good stats on the suns team...better stats on a crappy atlanta team...but then keeps those same stats as Atlanta becomes a perennial playoff team.
I gave you Zach Randolph. Great stats, doesn't matter what team, because he's a very good player, but one player can't do it all; everyone needs teammates.
For a decade, Allen Iverson put up great stats for the sixers, on teams ranging from 33-49 to in the NBA finals.
Good players put up good numbers and impact the game in positive ways. This is not just measured by absolute values of points, or rebounds or assists, but also by efficiency: shooting percentage, rebound percentage, rate of drawing fouls, etc. I agree that mediocre players on bad teams can attain high point totals, mostly through high shot totals and high minutes. However, there are many good players who are quite efficient trapped with terrible teammates. I gave you several examples (twice, but you chose to ignore the first few) of players whose stats have consistently been very good regardless of how good their team is. I can't do anything else, anything further is you disagreeing for the sake of not wanting to admit that your original premise, that Nash's good production last season was due to his being on a bad team, is easily falsifiable.
