Introduces "The Nash Doctrine," like he's some genius, then goes
on to make an argument that 95% of basketball fans over 12 y/o
could make.

Not only is his central argument boring, the actual Nash
Doctrine isn't even the correct term, since Steve Nash has, before
this season, always been good enough to justify a place based on
his offensive wizardry. So its really not much of a "Nash Doctrine"
after all. You have to find a relevant example. Nash has always
belonged.


End of discussion.