Steve Nash: "Players Shouldn't Be Judged On Titles"

[LB3533]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AseM3XIK0K06xDA4uW1T2au8vLYF?slug=mc-sunsnash091809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Funny Nash would say this, since he is a player who doesn't have an NBA title yet and may never will.

But I agree with him.

Players don't win titles.

Teams do.

Robert Horry, Steve Kerr and Scott Pollard can keep their titles. Give me Karl Malone's career instead.

There are a handful of great all-time players who's never won a ring, who's never played on great championship caliber teams, who's had to face great Bulls, Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics teams.

Michael Jordan is arguably considered the greatest player of all-time. Was it because he won 6 titles, 2 Three-peats and quite possibly a great chance at a 4 peat?

Well for 6 years of Jordan's career he was Vince Carter!

Imagine if the Bulls front office didn't install Phil Jackson as head coach or acquired Scottie Pippen and ignored establishing the pieces to setup a championship team around Jordan?

It takes a team to win championships, Steve Nash was only fortunate enough to be on great offensive teams, not championship caliber ones.

[PosImpos]

Yeah, i agree.  Steve Nash's career shouldn't be lessened because he didn't and probably won't win any championships.  If he had been on a contender he definitely could have lifted them to a championship.  His two MVPs aren't meaningless because he never won a title.

[nickagneta]

....says the man who has no titles!!

[KungPoweChicken]

Steve Nash had a few really good seasons. But, other than that, he has been average for his career.

[screwedupmaniac]

I see Nash's argument...after watching Stockton be inducted into the basketball hall of fame last week, I can envision Nash being in that same position. I feel bad for him that Steve Kerr had to take over at the helm and that management is more concerned about payroll than winning games. Losing out on D'antoni as coach was a shame as well...they were one good defensive coordinator away from making a finals run just a few short years ago.

Oh, and being stuck in the west with the Mavs and Spurs didn't help the Suns' cause much either haha.

[Edgar]

players Shouldnt

Great players Should

[Celtics17]

I used to really have problems with this topic. It seems like there are great players who dont win titles but they are just as good of a player. Then I think back about how MJ stole the ball from Karl Malone in game 6 of the finals and then came down and won the game for the Bulls and it makes me think that some players really are that great. It takes not only the physical skills but the ability to see the game before it unfolds, something that Larry did probably as well as anyone ever. So, in retrospect I have to say that while there have been many great players who have not won titles I am not sure that some of the great players who did win titles werent better players then the ones who did not win titles.

At least that is the way I see it at times but then, you have a guy like KG who comes along wins the title and it makes a very good case for the argument that you can't judge solely on titles. It's a real hard call.

[makaveli]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AseM3XIK0K06xDA4uW1T2au8vLYF?slug=mc-sunsnash091809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Funny Nash would say this, since he is a player who doesn't have an NBA title yet and may never will.

But I agree with him.

Players don't win titles.

Teams do.

Robert Horry, Steve Kerr and Scott Pollard can keep their titles. Give me Karl Malone's career instead.

There are a handful of great all-time players who's never won a ring, who's never played on great championship caliber teams, who's had to face great Bulls, Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics teams.

Michael Jordan is arguably considered the greatest player of all-time. Was it because he won 6 titles, 2 Three-peats and quite possibly a great chance at a 4 peat?

Well for 6 years of Jordan's career he was Vince Carter!

Imagine if the Bulls front office didn't install Phil Jackson as head coach or acquired Scottie Pippen and ignored establishing the pieces to setup a championship team around Jordan?

It takes a team to win championships, Steve Nash was only fortunate enough to be on great offensive teams, not championship caliber ones.

that just ain't right...everything else is out there to talk about, but that is plain wrong

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Funny Nash would say this, since he is a player who doesn't have an NBA title yet and may never will.

But I agree with him.

Players don't win titles.

Teams do.

Robert Horry, Steve Kerr and Scott Pollard can keep their titles. Give me Karl Malone's career instead.

There are a handful of great all-time players who's never won a ring, who's never played on great championship caliber teams, who's had to face great Bulls, Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics teams.

Michael Jordan is arguably considered the greatest player of all-time. Was it because he won 6 titles, 2 Three-peats and quite possibly a great chance at a 4 peat?

Well for 6 years of Jordan's career he was Vince Carter!

Imagine if the Bulls front office didn't install Phil Jackson as head coach or acquired Scottie Pippen and ignored establishing the pieces to setup a championship team around Jordan?

It takes a team to win championships, Steve Nash was only fortunate enough to be on great offensive teams, not championship caliber ones.

Well, like everything it is much more complicated than choosing between A or B, being dependent on situation and the overall arc and accomplishments of a players career to judge greatness. Obviously no one in their right mind would tell you BJ Armstrong was a better player than John Stockton despite one possessing rings and the other having bare fingers.  

Definitive categorical marks being used as measures of a player are always somewhat askew. MVP awards in all sports are voted on by writers votes are subject to so many personal biases, media manipulations, presence in the public eye (see people who say Jeter should be MVP this year), etc etc that they are essentially meaningless, yet people use these foolish awards to back up the claims of a players quality. At least titles are concrete accomplishments (this is not to say they are the be all end all, as stated above). I just get irritated when subjective awards are offered as the proof of a players greatness. In a year Ted Williams won the Triple Crown but did not win the MVP because of his chilly relationship to sports writers are we really supposed to take that award as the judge of how good a player was?

Ok I have been rambling but maybe stumbled upon a point or two in there.

Also, really? MJ was Vince Carter? That is a bit much. Granted I think Vince Carter is one of the most overrated players to ever lace up sneakers but that bit of hyperbole is quite far off the mark.

Yeah, i agree.  Steve Nash's career shouldn't be lessened because he didn't and probably won't win any championships.  If he had been on a contender he definitely could have lifted them to a championship.  His two MVPs aren't meaningless because he never won a title.

No, but they are two of the most undeserved, least meaningfull MVP awards ever given out.

[nickagneta]

But when differentiating between similar players titles do help to determine who might have been better. Examples:

Scottie Pippen or Clyde Drexler

Karl Malone or Kevin McHale

Hakeem Olajuwan or Patrick Ewing

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Dwayne Wade or Allen Iverson

Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett

Russell or Chamberlain

Bird or Magic

Sometimes the subtle difference between players is who has won a championship and who hasn't or who has won the most championships. Sometimes titles are the determining factor in who is great or who is the greatest.

[screwedupmaniac]

If MJ didn't have guys like Pippen and Rodman, he wouldn't have won 6 championships. That's not taking anything away from MJ's greatness either, but basketball is a 5 man game, and team is only as strong as it's weakest link.

For instance: 2008 NBA Finals. The best player on the floor was Kobe Bryant. However, the best team beats the best player.

In the words of KG, "It takes 5".

I think that when it boils down to it, players shouldn't be judged solely on titles. General managers should be judged though, as it is up to them whether or not a winning team is built.

Dwayne Wade is one of the top talents in the game today, but he needed Shaq to win. Lebron is arguably THE top talent in the game, but he's yet to win anything without help. Kobe needed Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Fisher, and Trevor Ariza. David Robinson needed Tim Duncan...Tim Duncan needed Manu and Parker...Bird needed McHale, Parish, DJ, Walton, Ainge, etc...the list goes on and on.

[xmuscularghandix]

Steve Nash had a few really good seasons. But, other than that, he has been average for his career.

I agree, this had to be said.

[xmuscularghandix]

Another thing is that Nash has been deep in the playoffs, he's been on teams capable of winning titles. It's not like he was on the Clippers for 12 years. Now if PP played for his whole career in green, and they never got KG or Ray... Paul might have a valid argument, But Nash got to the spotlight and instead of leading his guys into the finals he led his team's right into the offseason.

[Fafnir]

Another thing is that Nash has been deep in the playoffs, he's been on teams capable of winning titles. It's not like he was on the Clippers for 12 years. Now if PP played for his whole career in green, and they never got KG or Ray... Paul might have a valid argument, But Nash got to the spotlight and instead of leading his guys into the finals he led his team's right into the offseason.

You guys make it sound like the Suns choked in the playoffs. They lost to two of Duncan's title teams, and a Mavericks team that should have won a title if it weren't for the emergence of Dwayne Wade's superhero power of drawing free throws no matter how little contact he got on the way to the rim....

Steve Nash is a borderline HoFer, but he's a HoFer.

[fairweatherfan]

Players in general shouldn't be judged on titles, but great players should.  If you want to be considered a great player, you've got to accept that you'll be judged partly on the rings you've won.