AYC is entitled to his opinion, but the claims he make are often presented without rigid proof. With Nash it's faster pace = better production, even though this isn't the case alot of the time even if you just look at year-by-year stats without controlling for other variables. With Eddy Curry it's the suggestion that he doesn't play better at faster paces even though his best per 48 minute production have actually come on the faster paced teams he's played on.

Many people love to do two things - discredit Steve Nash and push win shares/PER/+/- etc. Lets not forget that Steve Nash is on pace to finish with near 120 Win Shares after next season, and only needs a few more after that to be ranked in the the top 30 all-time. Nash also ranks 6th all-time among all point guards in win shares right now and 5th in career PER too. It seems that PER and W.S. are actually tools that would benefit Nash's status and perception. Lets not forget his prodigious placements in Roland's Ratings every year.

As far as the MVP's, of course he didn't deserve the first one and probably not the second one either. Of course Nash isn't as good as Duncan or Shaq or Kobe or LeBron. And of course he isn't as good as Stockton or probably Payton or Kidd - but he doesn't need to be to be viewed as a legit HOFer.

The 2-MVP backlash has gone too far.

I'm not shooting the messenger at all, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. In his rookie season, Nash played on the 3rd fastest paced team in the league and had the worst production numbers in his career (and don't use the "it was his rookie season" response; you didn't seem to have a problem doing the same when you used Nash's 3rd season as an example despite the fact that you were using a season with a minuscule sample size and one in which he was still a developing and erratic player in the league). He then played for a SLOWER paced team the following season and put up BETTER numbers - but the thing you keep overlooking is that Nash has had plenty of seasons he playing at a slower pace yield better numbers. His '02 and '03 seasons were better than his '01 season offensively; his '03 was better than his '08 (the fastest paced team he was on), and also his '09 and '10. His '09 was actually among the fastest paced teams he ever played on, and he had his most pedestrian production numbers since his early years in Dallas. The following season the Suns took a step back in pace and he put up better numbers. As a matter of fact, his '08 and '09 seasons were the fastest paced team, but he had plenty of better offensive seasons nonetheless. His 2010 season is among the fastest and he still had better seasons on his "slow-as-molasses" (in comparison) Dallas teams. And these are just some of the examples where Nash played better at a slower than faster pace.

Like I said before, you can't simply look at year-to-year numbers and draw a conclusion about Nash and pace without controlling for other variables, such as stating that Nash played his best years on the fastest paced teams - which ALSO happens to coincide with the prime production years for some NBA guards.

"That's not I implied, nor is that what is implied when you run a regression relating efficiency to an independent variable (pace). But you really don't know too much about how these things work, do you?"

I know enough to see through your BS. If that's not what you were implying, then what point WERE you trying to make? You didn't state your point explicitly, probably because the implication you tried to draw is nonsensical.

Please reread post #28. Beginning of the 2nd paragraph.

"Please note that Neil didn't disagree with my comment. Do you think all players are equally capable of playing in all types of systems? That's what your comment implies... but I don't think many people would agree with you."

That's not I implied, nor is that what is implied when you run a regression relating efficiency to an independent variable (pace). But you really don't know too much about how these things work, do you?

But since you like to post past quotes over and over again without reading what was written afterward, let me try:

"Hey, I'm not arguing the point; I'm just a lay-person trying to get an idea of how these things relate."

From #41 - your post. So is there really any point in debating you on this matter?

Anon, I used the words "I think" to acknowledge that I was expressing an opinion; but since you've decided that we're not allowed to express opinions that aren't grounded in "SCIENCE", can you please provide the empirical support for your above statement (which started this whole line of discussion)? I tried to find some evidence for you, based on the tiny sample that we have of Nash at a slow pace, but it didn't turn out so well for your position did it?

"But I think what you're saying applies on the team level, not the individual level."

I'm pretty sure Neil's findings were based on the population of individual NBA players.

Please note that Neil didn't disagree with my comment. Do you think all players are equally capable of playing in all types of systems? That's what your comment implies... but I don't think many people would agree with you.

Seeing as you have NO sound statistical proof for your claim, a rational person would certainly not give any credence to this statement until you can properly verify it.

It's silly for you to assume this without accounting for a myriad of other factors that could go into his '99 performance besides pace. There's a SCIENCE that you can use to determine if your claim is valid, and you're not using it.

"PS Anon, Nash's best statistical seasons HAVE come on his fastest paced teams..."

Not quite the point I was trying to make. Rather, I wanted to emphasize that it's naive to think that there's a nice relationship where faster pace = better Nash performance, as if bumping up the pace factor automatically gave you a better Nash. Nash has had plenty of years where a slower pace yielded better play than years where he played at a faster pace.

Clearly, you can't go year-by-year and relate directly performance to pace without controlling for other relevant variables. And once again, YOU DIDN'T DO THIS!

"But I think what you're saying applies on the team level, not the individual level."

I'm pretty sure Neil's findings were based on the population of individual NBA players.