Not being passive aggressive - it's extremely annoying when I'm trying to debate somebody and they counter with assumptions of my fandom (assuming I like Nance because of his father when I didn't even mention Sr.) and by construing my words into a narrative that I wasn't even pushing to try to help your argument.
We already know what Tristan is, and he's declining if anything. His defensive numbers have declined across the board the past four seasons, Nance has improved in DBPM the past three seasons. He is trending up, Tristan is trending down. Nance likely won't ever been an all-star, but still has potential for growth and definitely has more overall basketball skill. We've watched Nance play here for terrible coaches. I don't think either guys are starters for a contender as of right now.
And yeah, people can manipulate analytics to further arguments, but I threw out literally every single notable advanced metric that is commonly used and Nance led Tristan in all of them besides TRB%. When there is that much pure domination in an analytical comparison, it's more likely that the one player is simply better than it is of me trying to paint a false story. Nance is better than Thompson, and the numbers and eye test back it up.
You're correct on Jokic. I think he's probably the best passing big man I've ever seen, either him or Pau Gasol.
That doesn't mean that no other big man should strive to be good playmakers though. That's like saying, "hey Cedi Osman has some potential as a two way wing, but he'll never be LeBron, so who gives a shit?". Jokic is a top-7 player in basketball, of course Nance will never be that.
I agree that Nance shouldn't lead our team in assists, but I understand why he did last year. Most of it was Drew's trash system that made guys like Nance, Thompson, etc. keeping the ball too much. That should change with JB, Garland, and Sexton this year, but that also doesn't mean we should restrict Nance's passing ability, because it is extremely above average for a big man.
For his ego, you see a guy that looks like a douche (my words, not yours), I see a stand-up community guy that helps in the community and helped form a charity for those affected by Crohn's disease:
https://www.babble.com/entertainment/larry-nance-jr-noah-weber-crohns-disease/
He's honestly a pretty damn solid guy, and I don't see any ego on the court from him. He missed a rookie once on an inbound pass - it happens.
No, offensive rating measures an individual player's proficiency at producing points for the offense. Nance's 120 rating is higher than Thompson's 117, thus Nance was more useful than Thompson for getting points on the board for Cleveland last year. Basically, if you could choose between having Nance or Thompson on offense, you'd choose Nance based on that figure.
Defensive rating is the same way, except in reverse. Defensive rating measures points allowed per-100 possessions, so the lower your defensive rating number, the better. Nance's d-rating was 112, while Thompson's was 120. Again, based on that figure, you'd definitely want Nance on the floor over Thompson for your typical defensive possession. The fact that Nance led TT in both metrics (and by a lot in drtg, 8 points is significant), furthers my arguments of Nance being the more useful player to team success last season, along with Nance blowing him away in the other metrics I posted.
There really is no distinct relationship between offensive rating and defensive rating. They tell their own story on each side of the floor.
Nance also had the best offensive rating and defensive rating on the team last season, for what that's worth to you.
Honestly, I haven't really noticed him favor anybody that much. Maybe he goes to Clarkson a bit more since he's been playing with him for a far longer period than anybody on the Cavaliers - especially with the insane amount of roster turnover he has seen in his career. Clarkson has been the one constant he has had, makes sense he'd go to him a bit more while he's getting used to a new organization, coach, and teammates.