Bill Simmons for the Ivy educated--I like it, even though I only went to Tufts.

Woohoo Slate! This has been your wish! Congratulations on pulling your punches! Do I see Gregg Easterbrook 2015 here? I think so!

Can't wait for your blame it on the trees environmental series!!!!

sweet dude, that's a good article. Of course, as others have pointed out, it's interesting that sometimes (stockton/malone or magic/kareem) a great point can coexist well, even symbiotically, with a great forward or center. Not sure what it was about Nash and Nowitski that makes that not work as well. But clearly it's not that either of them is "too good on their own" because some duos have featured equally good players.

I didn't see much of magic/kareem (too young) but stockton and malone was basically a pick and roll factory, right? I wonder if there was any chance for an offense built right out of some central nash/nowitski relationship. Maybe they actually had such an offense and I wasn't paying attention.

Oh lordy, not more basketball. It was bad when you and Amy Sullivan went off on it and it's bad now. Shame the softball NCAA championships are over, I was rooting for Northwestern over Arizona.

*Turns back to MLB and French Open (real one, not some wimpy golf tourney)*
Stop sucking Twins!
Yes! Hingis goes down!

Matthew Yglesias, on Slate, explains why the Dallas Mavericks are better after losing Steve Nash. Basically, it's because they were able to unleash the Hasselhoff-loving beast that Dirk Nowitzki has become. I'll buy it, although I'm not so sure about the defense not getting better. The basketballreference.com stats that he is so fond of (specifically, defensive efficiency) has them go from 26th out of 29 teams in '04, Nash's last year, to 9th out of 30 in '05 and 10th this year. That seems significant to me. Also, shouldn't the offensive stats show some improvement? 2004: 1st; 2005:4th; 2006: 1st.

Yeah, but you don't adequately mention in the article what the Mavericks did with that cap room. Jettisoning Steve Nash wasn't just a cap clearing move, it was a one to one choice-- choosing Eric Dampier over Nash. I can't find the quote but Mark Cuban said specifically at the time that the Mavs couldn't keep Nash because they needed size and interior defense.

And Dampier has been an unmitigated disaster for the Mavs. Can you really tell me that at this point you would choose Dampier for your team over Nash? Perhaps Dirk's offense has evolved becase Nash is gone. Or perhaps he's simply gotten better, and finally realized that taking the ball to the hoop is the only way to go deeper into the playoffs.

Is incredible to me the degree to which Steve Nash has been criticized for winning his MVPs, awards he doesn't vote on and has no control over. To your credit, you don't do much Nash bashing--although the "Least Valuable MVP" tagline is grating. The fact is that he is absolutely one of the handful of best players in the league who has taken an otherwise mediocre team to the upper echelon of his sport two years running.

Congrats Matt! Looks like someone at Slate still reads your old blog.

Wow, Slate publishes a contrarian article. I'm shocked, shocked!

Seriously, though, nice, well-crafted argument. Hard to disagree with.

No I'm saying the difference to the Jazz W-L record between Stockton (who I'd put in the top 15 or 20, not the top 10) and a competant PG from that era (say Avery Johnson or Doc Rivers) is slight at best. Karl Malone's pick and roll ability and outside shot from PF are what made that team what it was.

And sorry, but Jason Kidd is far above Stockton as a PG, they aren't even in the same area code:-)

While it's hard to argue that Dirk Nowitzki has flourished since the Nash separation, the idea that some stars are better off alone - that their teams in fact prosper in such a scenario - flies in the face of not only conventional wisdom, but also history. Almost every championship team has had at least two bona fide superstars (and prior to expansion, most had three). The Detroit Pistons, Dallas Mavericks and, arguably, the San Antonio Spurs have to be considered anomalies.

The early Boston Celtics had at any given time six hall of fame players in their rotation. The Lakers and Knicks of the 1970's had Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, and Gail Goodrich, and Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, and Bill Bradley, respectively. The Lakers in the 80's had Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabaar and James Worthy. The '83 Sixers had Dr. J and Moses Malone, along with perennially underrated Andrew Toney and Bobby Jones. The Celtics had one of the greatest, star-filled front lines of all-time in Bird, McHale and Parrish, and a borderline hall of fame point guard in Dennis Johnson. The late 80's Pistons had Zeke, Dumars and Laimbeer. Obviously the Bulls had Jordan and Pippen. And clearly the recent Lakers had both Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant. Among all of those teams and all of those players, the only ones to have won championships without their complementary superstars were Kareem and Wilt. Of course, in those instances Kareem was "supported" by Oscar Robertson and Wilt had Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham. Shaq could fall into that list with the help of Dwayne Wade.

I suppose Nowitzki alone could be the exception to the rule. Without question, Nowitzki's game did not benefit as it should have with Nash (and Finley), but that is more attributable to the coach at the time, Don Nelson, who has always had a fondness for having his giants lounge at the three-point line and shoot threes (see: Manute Bol). His teams were also notoriously soft (see: Shawn Bradley). Avery Johnson has called on Dirk to mix it up (as he should because he's basically unguardable)- something Nelson never did. That more than anything has contributed to Nowitzki and the Mavs success. And he certainly doesn't have a bunch of losers playing with him. Josh Howard and Jason Terry are on the cusp of stardom, and one might argue (though I never would) that Stackhouse was a star at one point in his career). And they've also added some big bodies to mask Nowitzki's less than competent defense.

Still, I'd take any of the teams I mentioned earlier in a best of seven with these Mavs or the Heat. In fact, for most of them I'd have to begin by looking in the broom closet.

I don't think the argument is that some stars are better alone. It is that the stars skills compliment in different ways and the key is finding the optimal set of stars.

For example Nash on San Antonio would likely not be as good a fit as Parker. Duncan doesn't need Nash to make him better, he needs Parker and Manu who have different skills and ability to score on their own. Likewise Parker would not be as effective on Phoenix as he is on San Antonio.

Pre salary cap teams like the Celtics and Lakers aren't really apt comparisons, back then they could have the luxury of redundant superstars. Nowdays with the cap teams have to allocate their funds.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, but I don't believe that is what Mr. Yglesias actually is arguing. He explicitly says this:

"So, what to make of the conventional wisdom that great players make their teammates better? Based on Phoenix's success over the past two seasons it still looks sound, but with an important caveat: The truly great ones don't need much help, and the biggest stars shine brightest when they're on their own."

I can think of no instance where the "biggest stars shine brightest when they're on their own."

As for the timeline comparisons, I agree they're not entirely apt, but I would argue that the salary cap has less to do with the quality comparisons than does expansion which has dispersed the truly talented more broadly. Even if there were a salary cap, but less teams, each team would have more great players (they just might actually be paid according to their talent level rather than being grossly overpaid across the board). Expansion in all sports may have been a financial windfall for the leagues (arguable and clearly not true of the NHL), it has weakened the overall level of play.

Maybe the idea that "all stars are better alone" isn't true in the long run but in Nowitzki's case it most certainly is. Nowitzki has been the Mavs most talented player for several years now, but only recently could it be said that he was the leader of the team in any sense. The loss of Nash & Finley as competition for leadership of the team, combined with the Mavs rather heterodox offense that forgoes the traditional PG in favor of a series of individual isolation plays has essentially forced Nowitzki, reluctantly in some cases, to be the player he should have been for 4 years.

The only caveat I would add to the piece is to remember that new interpretations of the rules this year resulted offensive improvements across the board so any comparisons between years need a little park adjustment.