Steve Nash or Tracy McGrady?

[The Regime]

If you were starting a team, who would you take between these two in their primes?

[ChosenOne]

Tracy McGrady without a doubt. In his prime he was droping 30+ each and every night. And yes my love (no homo) for TMac might have something to do with this selection.

[Real Deal]

Steve Nash. There are few people in NBA history that run an offense better than he does.

[Make It Naaaashty]

Steve Nash for sure.

 

A PG like Nash is very hard to come around, the way he runs the offense and makes everyone around him look good is amazing. Sure, he's horrible at defense but T-Mac wasn't anything special at all either. No matter who you put around Steve, he's going to finish with his 15 points and 13 assists type game which is quite remarkable. T-Mac at his prime was VERY good no doubt but he's only had one really great year, and a few good/very good ones, and he's been injury prone. Nash has been playing MVP level basketball for 7 years now, and all star ball 4 years prior to that, and he's still going strong, so he owns the longevity part of this comparison. Consistency wise and overall, I would take Steve Nash any day.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Prodigy

[andre smoothwhite]

T-MAC easily nash is great but remember how good mcgrady was

[EastCoastNiner]

T-MAC easily nash is great but remember how good mcgrady was

 

He was pretty great getting water for his teammates while he was injured sitting on the bench.

 

Steve Nash is the correct answer.

[Nitro]

In their primes? T-Mac for me. People forget how good he was before his injuries started destroying his career...he was a 32/7/6 player at one point, and even though he never had success in the playoffs, he was individually spectacular (consistent 30/7/6 the first 4 series' he was the main guy, before the injuries caught up to him). Also, even though he wasn't known for his defense, when he exerted himself he was an above average defensive player, and in 2005 he locked down Dirk in that series. Overall, when he was healthy, he was a better all-around player than Nash, and could dominate games on a more consistent basis than Nash could.

[*Swish*]

In prime? I'd take Tracy and make sure he doesn't get injured. When this guy is healthy, he's one of the best

[Sun Tzu]

Honestly, when do you consider Nash in his prime.

 

I'm going to go with a homer choice and go with Steve Nash. Mainly because if you take into account how long T-Mac was effective for and compare it to how long Nash has been effective. But that's assuming we're going to take that into account.

[Mentch]

I'll take TMac. People forget his best years with the Magic, especially the 02-03 season, where he averaged 32.1 ppg and won the league's scoring title. And what about scoring 11 points in 33 seconds, all of them 3-pointers, including a 4-point play? That's something that you'll probably never see again

[Poe]

Tracy McGrady.

 

Not only do I believe him to be the better overall player, but he is an easier player to build around because:

 

1) He's more versatile, you can stick him in 3 or 4 different positions. So he's your man for a big or small line-up.

2) His skill-set is also versatile. You can put him in different roles. You can make him a ball handler and set up the offense, or you can have him iso on the wing. Perhaps have him post up as well.

3) He does more. He can defend multiple positions, plus add more elements other than scoring/creating such as rebounding and adding defensive length. Plus he keeps turnovers to a minimum with a career turnover percentage of just 10.2%.

 

 

Also, if you look throughout NBA history, teams that win championships are usually teams with multiple ball handlers, or multiple decision makers with the basketball (like Tim Duncan, though while he won't bring the ball up, he can make reads in the post).

 

Teams that revolve around a single decision maker like Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, and LeBron James (in Cleveland) may win games in the regular season, but when more heavily scouted and gameplanned against in the playoffs, things become much more difficult.

 

For further examples, look at the Lakers with Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, and Pau Gasol. The Spurs with Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Tim Duncan.

 

Also notice the Celtics. When they won a championship, Rondo was just one of the team's decision makers. Pierce and Garnett being the others. Ever since they changed their gameplan to have Rondo dominate the ball, they have won 0 championships.

 

 

So my main point here is that T-Mac brings something rare and much needed for championship teams. 6 foot 8 (reliable) ball handlers aren't that common. Bringing him on the team ensures that you have at least one-third of a crucial element needed to win championships. To properly build around him, the next step is to bring the other two-thirds. Then fill the rest of the needs, such as rebounding.

 

 

 

With that point made, I'm NOT saying Nash can't be a part of a championship team. HOWEVER, it's more difficult to do so with him (remember, for a championship team, not necessarily a volume winning team in the regular season).

 

While T-Mac can play four positions and fill up many elements, Nash plays one position and brings only two elements - scoring and creating (although he greatly excels in these areas).

 

Not only does this mean you've limited options, say, in the draft (like having an elite PG available using a high draft pick, whereas having an elite SF available isn't an issue with T-Mac), but you also need to put more effort into filling many other elements, like perimeter defense, interior defense, rebounding, screen-setting, players that create turnovers defensively, etc. While T-Mac brings a majority of these elements.

 

 

Now that I think I've exhausted what there is to argue on Nash vs T-Mac as far as building a team, I will make one last point about Nash, and this doesn't have to do with vs T-Mac, but more to do on what *I* would do differently to build a championship team than what the Phoenix Suns did.

 

This goes back to my earlier point on the need of having multiple ball handlers and decision makers in the offense. Having Nash run around with the ball until somebody is open may be successful up to a point, but it has its limits. You need to have more variety than that, and therefore be less predictable.

 

If I was running the Suns, I would have done what I could to have guys like T-Mac and Tim Duncan around Nash, rather than have Amar'e and Marion. And for the #1 reason: Turnover percentage. Steve Nash has a career TOV% of 19.1.

 

The reason for that is not because he is a bad ball handler by any means, but because his teams have relied FAR too much on him to handle the ball. It's FAR too much pressure to make only ONE out of FIVE offensive players handle the ball 50% of the time, and make FOUR players handle it roughly 10% each. For Nash, it needed to be decreased to no more than, say, 33%. As a result, his TOV% may have decreased from his very high 19.1%, down to more towards T-Mac's range of 10.2%, or maybe Kobe's range of 11.4%, or Chauncey Billups of 13.5%.

 

 

Had the Suns done this, they may have come that much closer to an NBA championship, if not actually won one.