Author Topic: The Steve Nash Question  (Read 14245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2008, 11:38:44 PM »

Offline MaineBleedsGreen

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 344
  • Tommy Points: 29
1) Does Nash help Amare? Does Amare help Nash? or are their fates intertwined?

Answer: 7 foot monster + any pure point guard + D'Antoni system = inevitably great numbers. No, they just do their jobs and are used to each other.

2) Did Nash deserve either of his MVP awards?

Answer: No, he didn't deserve them, at all. Product of the system, plays no defense. More “valuable” than Shaq, a travesty. Yes they’d be hooped without him but it’s because he exclusively runs their offense, that’s a different type of MVP.

3) If you were rating point guard performance this season, where would you rank Nash?

Answer: I won't rank him, I wouldn't pay him his salary to play no defense therefore I can't even put him top 5.

4) If you were starting a team where and could choose any point guard where would Nash rank?

Answer: Read number 3.

5) So is Nash overrated?

Answer: Yes.

These are the only stats that matter.

Dallas Steve Nash - 14 to 17 ppg, 7 to 8 apg, 47 percent from the field, 40 to 45 percent from three, 2.68 - 2.93 turnovers.

Phoenix Steve Nash - 17 to 18 ppg, 10.5 to 11.5 apg, 52 percent from the field, 43 to 47 percent from three, 3.27 - 3.78 turnovers.

So he's open and he has the ball in his hands more, not exactly hard to figure out why he drops so many dimes. Let's not even get into the D'Antoni shot clock rules. That's 2-3 apg right there.

It wasn’t Steve Nash that did that to Phoenix, it was Mike D’Antoni and his group of atheletic freaks. The way Barry Bonds is criticized for hitting the spontaneous veteran production steroid switch Steve Nash should get the exact same critique for moving to that bush league one dimensional team.

Here's the bigger question, of the top pure pg's in the league name which ones wouldn't avg 10-14 assists per game in that system?

They should save whatever they're paying him and go get Calderon, spend the money on a big perimeter defender who can get to the line consistently and stop selling offense to people that are too mindless to realize that D'Antoni/Nash combo is going to result in a big fat loss to a defensive team every single season in the playoffs in a big, fat sold out arena, which is obviously the only thing their ownership cares about.

Everybody has different views on this whole thing but I hold Steve Nash in the same light as Peyton Manning (considering they play defense equally well), top five but far from number one, right guy, right time, right system. He was never better than Jason Kidd and he sure as heck isn’t better than Chris Paul.

Anyone that would want Steve Nash in his prime over even Chancey Billups doesn’t want a ring.

The Suns are TERRIBLE against the top defensive teams that have quicker point guards that are able to penetrate and exploit this guy. That's why they keep losing to the Spurs, Steve Nash. Here's some recent proof and no joke these were the first 5 games I looked up, I didn't even know the Hornets swept them, it's just science and common sense.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=ApPQMfq.B_k5oPUAFzhsTHyLvLYF?gid=2008032602
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AuBaAci.7XRuIArjtd2ooKeLvLYF?gid=2008020621
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AtIPOShzIrklLvY4zACzVK6LvLYF?gid=2008022703
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=Andwlq9TNE5sBWbOGlGtlT.LvLYF?gid=2007121503
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AmVBsZDObjS2UysoiLwvhImLvLYF?gid=2007101321

If they play New Orleans or Boston they're done and he's the reason why, those words should never be uttered regarding a supposed MVP.


hahaha, I like in the second box score down he had a trip-dub with pts, ast, and TO's

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2008, 12:41:55 AM »

Offline Bahku

  • CB HOF Editor
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19771
  • Tommy Points: 3632
  • Oe ma krr pamtseotu
Amare gets a lot of easy shots down low because of pick and rolls with Nash.


Put him with an average PG, he easy shots will go down.  He becomes more of a jumpshooting PF.  (or he develops some back to the back moves)


If you replaced Amare with Howard, Howard will score just as many points at a high %
.  The Suns would be better because of defense. 


Nash is terrible on defense, but he is what makes Phoenix, Phoenix. 

You can replace Amare with Diaw, and the Suns are still a top team. 

Replace Nash, the team is probably out of the playoffs this year.

wd, I don't dispute that the Suns are likely better with Dwight than Amare, simply because Howard's all-around package is of greater worth than Amare's, and the difference on defense is so vast.  That said, I think the bolded sentence above is an instance of you discounting Amare's progress on the offensive end.  His big advantage over Howard is that his game with the ball in his hands is so much more developed.  Stoudemire can kill you from 15 to 18 feet (something he used to be able to do, and Howard utterly cannot at this point), and he has in fact increased both his moves and his touch around the basket to a fairly significant extent. What makes Howard so scary is that we're talking about a guy who is able to average 20 points per game already when he has to do most of his scoring on dunks and put-backs.  If he could gain any greater semblance of touch, he'd complete his development into monster.  But right now he doesn't have that.  STAT is the better scorer, and his field goal percentage certainly hasn't been too shoddy in its own right this seaosn.

-sw

Very good points, SW (TP). Howard is indeed a monster inside, but Amare is a more complete player, and you can't sustain the same level of play on both ends of the floor by replacing one for the other. Different games, and different energy. It will be interesting to see how Howard develops in the years to come, and whether or not he can get the 12 to 18 foot shot as part of his game. If he can, then he'll be close to unstoppable, but for now, he's got a ways to go.
2010 PAPOUG, 2012 & 2017 PAPTYG CHAMP, HD BOT

* BAHKU MUSIC *

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2008, 01:58:17 AM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
Steve Nash makes everybody on the Suns better. He most definitely deserved the MVP trophies he was awarded with. He accounts for almost 50 points a game between points and assists, something only him and Chris Paul are able to accomplish on a consistent basis.

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2008, 04:23:50 AM »

Offline Steve Weinman

  • Author / Moderator
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2766
  • Tommy Points: 33
  • My alter ego
Steve Nash makes everybody on the Suns better. He most definitely deserved the MVP trophies he was awarded with. He accounts for almost 50 points a game between points and assists, something only him and Chris Paul are able to accomplish on a consistent basis.

Statistically speaking, it seems hard to leave Deron Williams out for this distinction as well...though he doesn't necessarily create nearly 50 points per game between points and assists, he certainly isn't all that far off Paul and Nash.  Just worth noting.

-sw


Reggies Ghost: Where artistic genius happens.  Thank you, sir.

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2008, 04:25:52 AM »

Offline Steve Weinman

  • Author / Moderator
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2766
  • Tommy Points: 33
  • My alter ego
Amare gets a lot of easy shots down low because of pick and rolls with Nash.


Put him with an average PG, he easy shots will go down.  He becomes more of a jumpshooting PF.  (or he develops some back to the back moves)


If you replaced Amare with Howard, Howard will score just as many points at a high %
.  The Suns would be better because of defense. 


Nash is terrible on defense, but he is what makes Phoenix, Phoenix. 

You can replace Amare with Diaw, and the Suns are still a top team. 

Replace Nash, the team is probably out of the playoffs this year.

wd, I don't dispute that the Suns are likely better with Dwight than Amare, simply because Howard's all-around package is of greater worth than Amare's, and the difference on defense is so vast.  That said, I think the bolded sentence above is an instance of you discounting Amare's progress on the offensive end.  His big advantage over Howard is that his game with the ball in his hands is so much more developed.  Stoudemire can kill you from 15 to 18 feet (something he used to be able to do, and Howard utterly cannot at this point), and he has in fact increased both his moves and his touch around the basket to a fairly significant extent. What makes Howard so scary is that we're talking about a guy who is able to average 20 points per game already when he has to do most of his scoring on dunks and put-backs.  If he could gain any greater semblance of touch, he'd complete his development into monster.  But right now he doesn't have that.  STAT is the better scorer, and his field goal percentage certainly hasn't been too shoddy in its own right this seaosn.

-sw

Very good points, SW (TP). Howard is indeed a monster inside, but Amare is a more complete player, and you can't sustain the same level of play on both ends of the floor by replacing one for the other. Different games, and different energy. It will be interesting to see how Howard develops in the years to come, and whether or not he can get the 12 to 18 foot shot as part of his game. If he can, then he'll be close to unstoppable, but for now, he's got a ways to go.

Thanks for the props, Bahku (and a TP back to ya).  I would hasten to clarify however that I would agree that Stoudemire is a more complete offensive player but that Howard is a more complete player overall.  He is a stud defender who isn't exactly doing nothing on the offensive end, with more than 20 points per game.  He just isn't quite Amare at that end, whereas STAT has an incredibly logn ways to go on D.  Not sure which you meant when you said "more complete' -- just offense or overall.  But fully with ya beyond that.

-sw


Reggies Ghost: Where artistic genius happens.  Thank you, sir.

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2008, 05:40:31 AM »

Offline davemonsterband

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1135
  • Tommy Points: 160
Steve Nash makes everybody on the Suns better. He most definitely deserved the MVP trophies he was awarded with. He accounts for almost 50 points a game between points and assists, something only him and Chris Paul are able to accomplish on a consistent basis.

If he truly deserved it the they would have made the Finals. I'm sure that statement's going to get jumped all over but the point of attack against Phoenix goes straight through Steve Nash, he's as much of an individual defensive liability against penetrating PG's (which most top tier PG's are) as he is an asset on offense.

Of the MVP's in recent history let's see who's been a member of the NBA Finals within a few years after winning the award.

Dirk - got to Finals
Nash - can't guard anyone
Nash - can't guard anyone
KG - Sam was out, this/next year will make up for it
Duncan - got to Finals
Duncan - got to Finals
Iverson - got to Finals
Shaq - got to Finals
Malone - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Malone - got to Finals
Robinson - got to Finals
Dream - got to Finals
Barkley - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals

Aside from KG every other MVP going back to the 70's (I won't look them ALL up) has made it there. That's not to say that any MVP not making them shouldn't win the award but there is that general trend obviously. Nash's career isn't over by any means but the Phoenix Suns are (say what you will, they'll never make it with that system, including the "pound it" Shaq system, which will never work). History proves that teams with this makeup cannot do it.

And of these MVP's every single one of them except for Steve Nash was a top notch defender, rebounder, shot blocker and/or steals leader the season they won the award, at the very least to the best of their ability.

He won it on inflated offensive statistics. Am I the only person around here that actually believes offense is only half of the game? If that's not the case 'Nique deserves an awful lot of retribution for being passed over these past few years. Nash is going to go down in history as the next Charles Barkley but the difference being he won't even make the Finals, and if he does it will be because he'll have to chince his way there Michael Finley style as a dwindling star looking to complete himself. There's no such thing as a championship caliber leader that plays only one half of the game.

Chris Paul leads the league in steals and assists and scores 21.1 ppg, if Steve Nash deserved the MVP would you not think NBA fans would be up in arms about Chris Paul probably not winning the award? This season by Paul DWARFS every season Nash has had statistically. The whole thing's stupid IMO. If he can win the MVP playing one side of the ball then call it offensive player of the year, not MVP. I know that's an obvious statement but to some it's obviously not because he won the darn award.

Yes he runs the offense which is integral to the team but him winning the award is a slap in the face to the true greats who worked on and stressed all facets of the game. Like, say, Kevin Garnett. Who's more valuable? You decide. It's not a coincidence that the defensive minded player of the two is going to waltz into the Finals while Nash is back home teaching shooting clinics in Victoria. It's also no coincidence that the real MVP of the league just won DPOY. Or that the other true MVP, Chris Paul, leads the league in steals. And his team is dominating in the playoffs.

I'll stop beating this dead horse but this discussion is exactly why NBA teams waste our time with garbage teams like the Warriors and the old Mavs and Kings and the Suns, people actually buy into believing that these teams can win. They can't, they never do, they never have and they never will. Look at the NBA Finals match ups and see how many teams that played terrible defense were there. And how many of those teams' best player was their worst defender.

The red pill folks, the red pill.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 06:09:33 AM by davemonsterband »
"The Best Revenge Is Massive Success"
~Ole Blue Eyes~

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2008, 08:46:27 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Steve Nash makes everybody on the Suns better. He most definitely deserved the MVP trophies he was awarded with. He accounts for almost 50 points a game between points and assists, something only him and Chris Paul are able to accomplish on a consistent basis.

If he truly deserved it the they would have made the Finals. I'm sure that statement's going to get jumped all over but the point of attack against Phoenix goes straight through Steve Nash, he's as much of an individual defensive liability against penetrating PG's (which most top tier PG's are) as he is an asset on offense.

Of the MVP's in recent history let's see who's been a member of the NBA Finals within a few years after winning the award.

Dirk - got to Finals
Nash - can't guard anyone
Nash - can't guard anyone
KG - Sam was out, this/next year will make up for it
Duncan - got to Finals
Duncan - got to Finals
Iverson - got to Finals
Shaq - got to Finals
Malone - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Malone - got to Finals
Robinson - got to Finals
Dream - got to Finals
Barkley - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals

Aside from KG every other MVP going back to the 70's (I won't look them ALL up) has made it there. That's not to say that any MVP not making them shouldn't win the award but there is that general trend obviously. Nash's career isn't over by any means but the Phoenix Suns are (say what you will, they'll never make it with that system, including the "pound it" Shaq system, which will never work). History proves that teams with this makeup cannot do it.

And of these MVP's every single one of them except for Steve Nash was a top notch defender, rebounder, shot blocker and/or steals leader the season they won the award, at the very least to the best of their ability.

He won it on inflated offensive statistics. Am I the only person around here that actually believes offense is only half of the game? If that's not the case 'Nique deserves an awful lot of retribution for being passed over these past few years. Nash is going to go down in history as the next Charles Barkley but the difference being he won't even make the Finals, and if he does it will be because he'll have to chince his way there Michael Finley style as a dwindling star looking to complete himself. There's no such thing as a championship caliber leader that plays only one half of the game.

Chris Paul leads the league in steals and assists and scores 21.1 ppg, if Steve Nash deserved the MVP would you not think NBA fans would be up in arms about Chris Paul probably not winning the award? This season by Paul DWARFS every season Nash has had statistically. The whole thing's stupid IMO. If he can win the MVP playing one side of the ball then call it offensive player of the year, not MVP. I know that's an obvious statement but to some it's obviously not because he won the darn award.

Yes he runs the offense which is integral to the team but him winning the award is a slap in the face to the true greats who worked on and stressed all facets of the game. Like, say, Kevin Garnett. Who's more valuable? You decide. It's not a coincidence that the defensive minded player of the two is going to waltz into the Finals while Nash is back home teaching shooting clinics in Victoria. It's also no coincidence that the real MVP of the league just won DPOY. Or that the other true MVP, Chris Paul, leads the league in steals. And his team is dominating in the playoffs.

I'll stop beating this dead horse but this discussion is exactly why NBA teams waste our time with garbage teams like the Warriors and the old Mavs and Kings and the Suns, people actually buy into believing that these teams can win. They can't, they never do, they never have and they never will. Look at the NBA Finals match ups and see how many teams that played terrible defense were there. And how many of those teams' best player was their worst defender.

The red pill folks, the red pill.


If Nash and the Suns played in the same conference as AI and 76ers did the year they made it to the finals, they would have made it multiple times.




I think he has lost his chance with this team.  They went the wrong way with this team.

They tried to become a better defensive team by becoming bigger and more of a half court team. 

But they replaced their best two defenders Marion and Thomas with Hill and Shaq.


They would have been so much better off keeping Thomas and Marion, adding Hill and adding one other big man that could defend. 

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2008, 10:03:24 AM »

Offline celticmaestro

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4558
  • Tommy Points: 81
  • "Love is the soul of a true Irishman"
i think they wont get out of the first round this year. and as a result i see them making a few changes in the summer and going for one last run next year. that will again prove to be unsuccessful, but better than this year and that's when they should blow it up and start by trading amare for someone younger and without the chip on his shoulder.

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2008, 11:10:11 AM »

Offline drza44

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 749
  • Tommy Points: 187
I think that Nash is a really good/great player.  The problem that I have is that as a 2-time MVP, Nash should be an All-time player.  And he's not that.

The offense vs. defense arguments in this thread were well played, as I do think that it's ironic that a purely offense/no-defense player can be an MVP but a purely defense/no-offense player like Ben Wallace or Mutombo are considered very good role players.  In both cases, the player is dominating one end of the court and having a big impact on team victories.  Hell, if you believe the concept of "defense wins championships" then you could make the argument that Wallace may have been even more valuable.  But I digress.

Here is how I look at it: what was the team's potential with you and without you, and how would others do in your spot?  The Suns have had staggering talent over the past few years, with Stoudemire and Marion as just the top of a very deep heap.  Can you picture putting Duncan with Stoudemire and Marion and the rest of the recent Suns' talent and not having at least one title?  What about KG?  How about Kobe?  In my opinion, any one of those three would be working on a dynasty right now if surrounded by that kind of talent.  Nash was able to lead a very good team to lots of regular season wins and crowd-pleasing interest, but I don't think that he's on the level with the other elite players of the new millennium.

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2008, 11:52:36 AM »

Offline MaineBleedsGreen

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 344
  • Tommy Points: 29
Steve Nash makes everybody on the Suns better. He most definitely deserved the MVP trophies he was awarded with. He accounts for almost 50 points a game between points and assists, something only him and Chris Paul are able to accomplish on a consistent basis.

If he truly deserved it the they would have made the Finals. I'm sure that statement's going to get jumped all over but the point of attack against Phoenix goes straight through Steve Nash, he's as much of an individual defensive liability against penetrating PG's (which most top tier PG's are) as he is an asset on offense.

Of the MVP's in recent history let's see who's been a member of the NBA Finals within a few years after winning the award.

Dirk - got to Finals
Nash - can't guard anyone
Nash - can't guard anyone
KG - Sam was out, this/next year will make up for it
Duncan - got to Finals
Duncan - got to Finals
Iverson - got to Finals
Shaq - got to Finals
Malone - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Malone - got to Finals
Robinson - got to Finals
Dream - got to Finals
Barkley - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals

Aside from KG every other MVP going back to the 70's (I won't look them ALL up) has made it there. That's not to say that any MVP not making them shouldn't win the award but there is that general trend obviously. Nash's career isn't over by any means but the Phoenix Suns are (say what you will, they'll never make it with that system, including the "pound it" Shaq system, which will never work). History proves that teams with this makeup cannot do it.

And of these MVP's every single one of them except for Steve Nash was a top notch defender, rebounder, shot blocker and/or steals leader the season they won the award, at the very least to the best of their ability.

He won it on inflated offensive statistics. Am I the only person around here that actually believes offense is only half of the game? If that's not the case 'Nique deserves an awful lot of retribution for being passed over these past few years. Nash is going to go down in history as the next Charles Barkley but the difference being he won't even make the Finals, and if he does it will be because he'll have to chince his way there Michael Finley style as a dwindling star looking to complete himself. There's no such thing as a championship caliber leader that plays only one half of the game.

Chris Paul leads the league in steals and assists and scores 21.1 ppg, if Steve Nash deserved the MVP would you not think NBA fans would be up in arms about Chris Paul probably not winning the award? This season by Paul DWARFS every season Nash has had statistically. The whole thing's stupid IMO. If he can win the MVP playing one side of the ball then call it offensive player of the year, not MVP. I know that's an obvious statement but to some it's obviously not because he won the darn award.

Yes he runs the offense which is integral to the team but him winning the award is a slap in the face to the true greats who worked on and stressed all facets of the game. Like, say, Kevin Garnett. Who's more valuable? You decide. It's not a coincidence that the defensive minded player of the two is going to waltz into the Finals while Nash is back home teaching shooting clinics in Victoria. It's also no coincidence that the real MVP of the league just won DPOY. Or that the other true MVP, Chris Paul, leads the league in steals. And his team is dominating in the playoffs.

I'll stop beating this dead horse but this discussion is exactly why NBA teams waste our time with garbage teams like the Warriors and the old Mavs and Kings and the Suns, people actually buy into believing that these teams can win. They can't, they never do, they never have and they never will. Look at the NBA Finals match ups and see how many teams that played terrible defense were there. And how many of those teams' best player was their worst defender.

The red pill folks, the red pill.


If Nash and the Suns played in the same conference as AI and 76ers did the year they made it to the finals, they would have made it multiple times.




I think he has lost his chance with this team.  They went the wrong way with this team.

They tried to become a better defensive team by becoming bigger and more of a half court team. 

But they replaced their best two defenders Marion and Thomas with Hill and Shaq.


They would have been so much better off keeping Thomas and Marion, adding Hill and adding one other big man that could defend. 



Come on, you can't pull the ol' "if the suns were in the east routine" we are talking about steve nash, not the suns et al...

look at the team AI took to the finals. Plus they beat a pretty good bucks team, to get to the finals, that had a core of ray allen, sam cassell, glen robinson, and tim thomas

This is AI's team 01-02

Tyrone Hill
Jumaine Jones   
Dikembe Mutombo      
Aaron McKie   
Eric Snow   
Raja Bell   
Kevin Ollie   
Matt Geiger   
Todd MacCulloch

now you think if you add steve nash to that group (even in his mvp seasons) and he takes the out of the east? I doubt it.

conversely, put AI on the Suns the two years nash won mvp, maybe they would have gone to the finals? In the Diantoni system maybe AI is winning those MvPs. who can say ... 

04-05

Amare Stoudemire
Shawn Marion    
Quentin Richardson
Joe Johnson
Jim Jackson
Steven Hunter
Leandro Barbosa
Walter McCarty
Bo Outlaw

05-06

Shawn Marion
Boris Diaw
Tim Thomas
Leandro Barbosa
Raja Bell
James Jones
Eddie House
Pat Burke
Brian Grant
Kurt Thomas
Nikoloz Tskitishvili

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2008, 11:54:57 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Steve Nash makes everybody on the Suns better. He most definitely deserved the MVP trophies he was awarded with. He accounts for almost 50 points a game between points and assists, something only him and Chris Paul are able to accomplish on a consistent basis.

If he truly deserved it the they would have made the Finals. I'm sure that statement's going to get jumped all over but the point of attack against Phoenix goes straight through Steve Nash, he's as much of an individual defensive liability against penetrating PG's (which most top tier PG's are) as he is an asset on offense.

Of the MVP's in recent history let's see who's been a member of the NBA Finals within a few years after winning the award.

Dirk - got to Finals
Nash - can't guard anyone
Nash - can't guard anyone
KG - Sam was out, this/next year will make up for it
Duncan - got to Finals
Duncan - got to Finals
Iverson - got to Finals
Shaq - got to Finals
Malone - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Malone - got to Finals
Robinson - got to Finals
Dream - got to Finals
Barkley - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
MJ - got to Finals
Magic - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals
Larry - got to Finals

Aside from KG every other MVP going back to the 70's (I won't look them ALL up) has made it there. That's not to say that any MVP not making them shouldn't win the award but there is that general trend obviously. Nash's career isn't over by any means but the Phoenix Suns are (say what you will, they'll never make it with that system, including the "pound it" Shaq system, which will never work). History proves that teams with this makeup cannot do it.

And of these MVP's every single one of them except for Steve Nash was a top notch defender, rebounder, shot blocker and/or steals leader the season they won the award, at the very least to the best of their ability.

He won it on inflated offensive statistics. Am I the only person around here that actually believes offense is only half of the game? If that's not the case 'Nique deserves an awful lot of retribution for being passed over these past few years. Nash is going to go down in history as the next Charles Barkley but the difference being he won't even make the Finals, and if he does it will be because he'll have to chince his way there Michael Finley style as a dwindling star looking to complete himself. There's no such thing as a championship caliber leader that plays only one half of the game.

Chris Paul leads the league in steals and assists and scores 21.1 ppg, if Steve Nash deserved the MVP would you not think NBA fans would be up in arms about Chris Paul probably not winning the award? This season by Paul DWARFS every season Nash has had statistically. The whole thing's stupid IMO. If he can win the MVP playing one side of the ball then call it offensive player of the year, not MVP. I know that's an obvious statement but to some it's obviously not because he won the darn award.

Yes he runs the offense which is integral to the team but him winning the award is a slap in the face to the true greats who worked on and stressed all facets of the game. Like, say, Kevin Garnett. Who's more valuable? You decide. It's not a coincidence that the defensive minded player of the two is going to waltz into the Finals while Nash is back home teaching shooting clinics in Victoria. It's also no coincidence that the real MVP of the league just won DPOY. Or that the other true MVP, Chris Paul, leads the league in steals. And his team is dominating in the playoffs.

I'll stop beating this dead horse but this discussion is exactly why NBA teams waste our time with garbage teams like the Warriors and the old Mavs and Kings and the Suns, people actually buy into believing that these teams can win. They can't, they never do, they never have and they never will. Look at the NBA Finals match ups and see how many teams that played terrible defense were there. And how many of those teams' best player was their worst defender.

The red pill folks, the red pill.


If Nash and the Suns played in the same conference as AI and 76ers did the year they made it to the finals, they would have made it multiple times.




I think he has lost his chance with this team.  They went the wrong way with this team.

They tried to become a better defensive team by becoming bigger and more of a half court team. 

But they replaced their best two defenders Marion and Thomas with Hill and Shaq.


They would have been so much better off keeping Thomas and Marion, adding Hill and adding one other big man that could defend. 



Come on, you can't pull the ol' "if the suns were in the east routine" we are talking about steve nash, not the suns et al...

look at the team AI took to the finals. Plus they beat a pretty good bucks team, to get to the finals, that had a core of ray allen, sam cassell, glen robinson, and tim thomas

This is AI's team 01-02

Tyrone Hill
Jumaine Jones   
Dikembe Mutombo      
Aaron McKie   
Eric Snow   
Raja Bell   
Kevin Ollie   
Matt Geiger   
Todd MacCulloch

now you think if you add steve nash to that group (even in his mvp seasons) and he takes the out of the east? I doubt it.

conversely, put AI on the Suns the two years nash won mvp, maybe they would have gone to the finals? In the Diantoni system maybe AI is winning those MvPs. who can say ... 

04-05

Amare Stoudemire
Shawn Marion    
Quentin Richardson
Joe Johnson
Jim Jackson
Steven Hunter
Leandro Barbosa
Walter McCarty
Bo Outlaw

05-06

Shawn Marion
Boris Diaw
Tim Thomas
Leandro Barbosa
Raja Bell
James Jones
Eddie House
Pat Burke
Brian Grant
Kurt Thomas
Nikoloz Tskitishvili


And both teams got beat by what wins in the NBA, dominate big men (Shaq/Duncan)

The difference, AI didn't have to face it until the finals.



And that Bucks team was not that good.  They were just good for the East that year. 

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2008, 12:08:46 PM »

Offline drza44

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 749
  • Tommy Points: 187
I think Nash and Iverson would have each been bad fits on each other's teams.  The Sixers team was built for Iverson...let him go out and individually score, then surround him with defensive role players/rebounders to hold down the opposing team and clean up his chucks.  No way that works for Nash, who's offensive strength is making others better (there wasn't enough there to make it better).  Plus, as was pointed out, this was the East at a particularly weak point.  In the West that Sixers team probably doesn't get out of the first round.

Likewise, I don't think Iverson has Nash's success in Phoenix.  As he's shown with Carmelo in Denver, Iverson isn't very good at getting max team production out of being surrounded by another mega scoring star and a good defender.  Why would Iverson/Amare/Marion be all that much stronger than Iverson/Melo/Camby?  In fact, you can make a legitimate counter-argument...that if you put Nash on that Nuggets team instead of Iverson, they are probably a LOT stronger than they are currently.  Nash/Melo is scary for opposing defenses, and since Nash is legitimately a PG they could start a defensive-minded shooting guard that would help shore up their perimeter defense (instead of starting two short guards like Iverson and Anthony Carter).  I think that swap would have resulted in the Nuggets challenging for home court out West, with the Suns the ones fighting the Warriors for the last playoff spot.

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2008, 03:43:47 PM »

Offline MaineBleedsGreen

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 344
  • Tommy Points: 29
I think Nash and Iverson would have each been bad fits on each other's teams.  The Sixers team was built for Iverson...let him go out and individually score, then surround him with defensive role players/rebounders to hold down the opposing team and clean up his chucks.  No way that works for Nash, who's offensive strength is making others better (there wasn't enough there to make it better).  Plus, as was pointed out, this was the East at a particularly weak point.  In the West that Sixers team probably doesn't get out of the first round.

Likewise, I don't think Iverson has Nash's success in Phoenix.  As he's shown with Carmelo in Denver, Iverson isn't very good at getting max team production out of being surrounded by another mega scoring star and a good defender.  Why would Iverson/Amare/Marion be all that much stronger than Iverson/Melo/Camby?  In fact, you can make a legitimate counter-argument...that if you put Nash on that Nuggets team instead of Iverson, they are probably a LOT stronger than they are currently.  Nash/Melo is scary for opposing defenses, and since Nash is legitimately a PG they could start a defensive-minded shooting guard that would help shore up their perimeter defense (instead of starting two short guards like Iverson and Anthony Carter).  I think that swap would have resulted in the Nuggets challenging for home court out West, with the Suns the ones fighting the Warriors for the last playoff spot.

I only use Iverson as an example as a counter to this point made by wdleehi
Quote
If Nash and the Suns played in the same conference as AI and 76ers did the year they made it to the finals, they would have made it multiple times.

which I'm assuming he made because it was the only noticeable weak link in PearlJammers MVP and Finals appearance argument.

I personally don't think Nash and Iverson are a good comparison, but it was a comparison that had been made so I was rolling with it. What I was trying to point out was you can't make an argument for Nash by saying take Him AND his entire phoenix suns team from 04-05 or 05-06 and put them in the Atlantic Conference and the Eastern Division in 01-02 and he'll go to the finals. It's just completely faulty logic.

I guess lastly, to this point
Quote
And both teams got beat by what wins in the NBA, dominate big men (Shaq/Duncan)

If that's what wins in this league then those players should have won the MVP instead of Nash, because clearly they were more valuable to their team, and their teams had more success.

I would also say Nash had Amare in 04-05 and didn't make it, and this year Nash has Amare and Shaq (not to mention all his other weapons on that team) and they won't even make it out of the 1st round (speculation).

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2008, 03:45:43 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
I think Nash and Iverson would have each been bad fits on each other's teams.  The Sixers team was built for Iverson...let him go out and individually score, then surround him with defensive role players/rebounders to hold down the opposing team and clean up his chucks.  No way that works for Nash, who's offensive strength is making others better (there wasn't enough there to make it better).  Plus, as was pointed out, this was the East at a particularly weak point.  In the West that Sixers team probably doesn't get out of the first round.

Likewise, I don't think Iverson has Nash's success in Phoenix.  As he's shown with Carmelo in Denver, Iverson isn't very good at getting max team production out of being surrounded by another mega scoring star and a good defender.  Why would Iverson/Amare/Marion be all that much stronger than Iverson/Melo/Camby?  In fact, you can make a legitimate counter-argument...that if you put Nash on that Nuggets team instead of Iverson, they are probably a LOT stronger than they are currently.  Nash/Melo is scary for opposing defenses, and since Nash is legitimately a PG they could start a defensive-minded shooting guard that would help shore up their perimeter defense (instead of starting two short guards like Iverson and Anthony Carter).  I think that swap would have resulted in the Nuggets challenging for home court out West, with the Suns the ones fighting the Warriors for the last playoff spot.

I only use Iverson as an example as a counter to this point made by wdleehi
Quote
If Nash and the Suns played in the same conference as AI and 76ers did the year they made it to the finals, they would have made it multiple times.

which I'm assuming he made because it was the only noticeable weak link in PearlJammers MVP and Finals appearance argument.

I personally don't think Nash and Iverson are a good comparison, but it was a comparison that had been made so I was rolling with it. What I was trying to point out was you can't make an argument for Nash by saying take Him AND his entire phoenix suns team from 04-05 or 05-06 and put them in the Atlantic Conference and the Eastern Division in 01-02 and he'll go to the finals. It's just completely faulty logic.

I guess lastly, to this point
Quote
And both teams got beat by what wins in the NBA, dominate big men (Shaq/Duncan)

If that's what wins in this league then those players should have won the MVP instead of Nash, because clearly they were more valuable to their team, and their teams had more success.

I would also say Nash had Amare in 04-05 and didn't make it, and this year Nash has Amare and Shaq (not to mention all his other weapons on that team) and they won't even make it out of the 1st round (speculation).


Since when did the best player always win? 


If so; Jordon, Shaq and Duncan would have won just about every MVP since 1990. 

Re: The Steve Nash Question
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2008, 04:29:48 PM »

Offline Big Ticket

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2356
  • Tommy Points: 561
  • The good ole days.
In my opinion, Nash's defensive liabilities is pretty overblown.  The way the game is called nowadays, it is very, very, very difficult for any guard to be a lock down defender... they just can't get away with any touching or pushing or anything close to jockeying for position that goes on down low.  It's a bit of a joke.  The basic defense to slow KG, Shaq, Duncan, etc down is to basically wrestle them off the block, yet a simple hand check out on the perimeter gets whistled.  What are guards supposed to do?  There is not a human being on this planet that can stay in front of an elite point guard when said guard knows where he is going before you do.  It's impossible.

So yes, Nash let's guys get by him,  Well so does almost every other guard in the league.  There's one HUGE HUGE difference here though.  The Suns team defense, specifically their bigs, are absolutely atrocious at rotating, helping, or just plain making an effort to pick up a guard coming into the lane.  Look at Ginobili's game winner in Game 1... he gets by Bell (I think) at the top, and goes unbothered from the FT line all the way for a layup.  And that is with the game on the line!! They just don't do it.  Rondo let's a guy get by and they then have to contend with KG and Perk, if not Posey or Pierce poking their hands in from the wing.  When someone gets by Nash, a lot of the times they have a clear lane to the basket.  I've watched a lot of Suns games, and I see Nash busting his behind on defense regularly, but again, there's only so much guards can get away with on D.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 05:23:34 PM by Big Ticket »


"It ain't about me.  It's about us."  - KG, interview with John Thompson, 2005 All Star Game.