Is Steve Nash a Hall of Famer?

[EarthBall]

I don't understand how you can say that Nash has only had 4 great years and then say Kidd is such a better PG when Nash's PER every single year that PER has been measured at ESPN is higher than Kidd's. That's seven years in a row or half of Kidd's career Nash has been measured to be a more effective overall player than Kidd.

Also Nash has more years of 10+ assists per game, more years of 15+ points per game, more years with a higher FG%, more years with a higher FT% and more years with a higher 3PTFG%. Also, if you take a look at their career per minute stats, Nash is much better in just about every area except rebounding.

And Nash has more MVPs and like it or not that award means everything when talking Hall of Fame in basketball.

1) PER and everything about John Hollinger is stupid.

2) No one is debating that Nash is a better shooter than Kidd.

3) Regarding the assists, Kidd has 10 seasons of >=9 assists. Nash has 4 seasons. Furthermore, if you put Kidd with that kind of talent that Nash played with, his assists would go through the roof.

4) As I said before, the basketball HOF is stupid if it weighs MVPs so much more over career numbers 

[guava_wrench]

HOF is not stupid if it considers MVP more than stats. Anyone with 2 MVPs should be in HOF unless they had a very short career.

Are there any MVPs who didn't get into HOF?

[Fafnir]

Are there any MVPs who didn't get into HOF?

As others have said above, every eligible MVP is in the Hall.

[Hoops]

I don't understand how you can say that Nash has only had 4 great years and then say Kidd is such a better PG when Nash's PER every single year that PER has been measured at ESPN is higher than Kidd's. That's seven years in a row or half of Kidd's career Nash has been measured to be a more effective overall player than Kidd.

Also Nash has more years of 10+ assists per game, more years of 15+ points per game, more years with a higher FG%, more years with a higher FT% and more years with a higher 3PTFG%. Also, if you take a look at their career per minute stats, Nash is much better in just about every area except rebounding.

And Nash has more MVPs and like it or not that award means everything when talking Hall of Fame in basketball.

1) PER and everything about John Hollinger is stupid.

2) No one is debating that Nash is a better shooter than Kidd.

3) Regarding the assists, Kidd has 10 seasons of >=9 assists. Nash has 4 seasons. Furthermore, if you put Kidd with that kind of talent that Nash played with, his assists would go through the roof.

4) As I said before, the basketball HOF is stupid if it weighs MVPs so much more over career numbers 

If your internal reasoning parallels comments such as "PER and everything about Hollinger is stupid," then it will be hard to have a rational debate with you, my friend. PER certainly doesn't tell the whole story, but writing it off as "stupid" is just plain ignorant.

"Furthermore," your use of hypotheticals adds no real value to the debate. You can argue till the cows come home about what Kidd might have done. It's what you HAVE actually done that matters. But, if we're going to open up the discussion to hypotheticals, I could argue that Nash would have won a championship if he were playing on those New Jersey teams with Kenyon Martin (pre-injury) and Jefferson. One of the major reasons those Nets teams couldn't win in the Finals was because defenses dared Kidd to hit the long jumper and he couldn't deliver. Defenses could then help off Kidd on Martin and Jefferson. Wouldn't have happened with Nash. And Nash is every bit the playmaker that Kidd was in his prime. In fact, as good a passer as Kidd was, Nash is a better passer.

[Big Ticket]

I'm pretty sure that every eligible player who has won an MVP award has made the HOF.  Nash will get in, even if his career numbers don't ultimately stack up.

What he said.

[EarthBall]

If your internal reasoning parallels comments such as "PER and everything about Hollinger is stupid," then it will be hard to have a rational debate with you, my friend. PER certainly doesn't tell the whole story, but writing it off as "stupid" is just plain ignorant.

"Furthermore," your use of hypotheticals adds no real value to the debate. You can argue till the cows come home about what Kidd might have done. It's what you HAVE actually done that matters. But, if we're going to open up the discussion to hypotheticals, I could argue that Nash would have won a championship if he were playing on those New Jersey teams with Kenyon Martin (pre-injury) and Jefferson. One of the major reasons those Nets teams couldn't win in the Finals was because defenses dared Kidd to hit the long jumper and he couldn't deliver. Defenses could then help off Kidd on Martin and Jefferson. Wouldn't have happened with Nash. And Nash is every bit the playmaker that Kidd was in his prime. In fact, as good a passer as Kidd was, Nash is a better passer.

1) I was somewhat facetious with the 'PER and Hollinger are stupid' comment. Okay, so Nash is more efficient than Kidd. That said, PER has limited abilities in accounting for defense, which Kidd is exponentially better than Nash at.

2) Fine, no hypotheticals (though how is it possible to compare two players playing in two different systems?). Let's look at what they've done:

Kidd:
9-time all-star
Rookie of the Year
9-time 1st or 2nd team all-defense
5-time all-NBA 1st team
1-time all-NBA 2nd team
5th all-time in career assists per game
9th all-time in career steals
2 NBA finals appearances

Nash:
6-time all-star
3-time all-NBA 1st team
1-time all-NBA 2nd team
2-time all-NBA 3rd team
11th all-time in career assists per game
2 MVP awards (my bad...)
0 NBA finals appearances

Sure you could argue that Nash played in the West, which has tougher competition, but I think the statistics speak for themselves. Furthermore, who would you want to build your team around? Steve Nash in his prime or Jason Kidd in his prime. If I am looking to play both offense and defense, I will choose Kidd.

[nickagneta]

If your internal reasoning parallels comments such as "PER and everything about Hollinger is stupid," then it will be hard to have a rational debate with you, my friend. PER certainly doesn't tell the whole story, but writing it off as "stupid" is just plain ignorant.

"Furthermore," your use of hypotheticals adds no real value to the debate. You can argue till the cows come home about what Kidd might have done. It's what you HAVE actually done that matters. But, if we're going to open up the discussion to hypotheticals, I could argue that Nash would have won a championship if he were playing on those New Jersey teams with Kenyon Martin (pre-injury) and Jefferson. One of the major reasons those Nets teams couldn't win in the Finals was because defenses dared Kidd to hit the long jumper and he couldn't deliver. Defenses could then help off Kidd on Martin and Jefferson. Wouldn't have happened with Nash. And Nash is every bit the playmaker that Kidd was in his prime. In fact, as good a passer as Kidd was, Nash is a better passer.

1) I was somewhat facetious with the 'PER and Hollinger are stupid' comment. Okay, so Nash is more efficient than Kidd. That said, PER has limited abilities in accounting for defense, which Kidd is exponentially better than Nash at.

2) Fine, no hypotheticals (though how is it possible to compare two players playing in two different systems?). Let's look at what they've done:

Kidd:
9-time all-star
Rookie of the Year
9-time 1st or 2nd team all-defense
5-time all-NBA 1st team
1-time all-NBA 2nd team
5th all-time in career assists per game
9th all-time in career steals
2 NBA finals appearances

Nash:
6-time all-star
3-time all-NBA 1st team
1-time all-NBA 2nd team
2-time all-NBA 3rd team
11th all-time in career assists per game
0 NBA finals appearances

Sure you could argue that Nash played in the West, which has tougher competition, but I think the statistics speak for themselves. Furthermore, who would you want to build your team around? Steve Nash in his prime or Jason Kidd in his prime. If I am looking to play both offense and defense, I will choose Kidd.

Once again you are conveniently leaving out 2-MVPs for Nash. If Kidd's ROY award is on that list then Nash's MVPs have to be and those awards put the advantage squarely in Nash's corner.

[BballTim]

I don't understand how you can say that Nash has only had 4 great years and then say Kidd is such a better PG when Nash's PER every single year that PER has been measured at ESPN is higher than Kidd's. That's seven years in a row or half of Kidd's career Nash has been measured to be a more effective overall player than Kidd.

Also Nash has more years of 10+ assists per game, more years of 15+ points per game, more years with a higher FG%, more years with a higher FT% and more years with a higher 3PTFG%. Also, if you take a look at their career per minute stats, Nash is much better in just about every area except rebounding.

And Nash has more MVPs and like it or not that award means everything when talking Hall of Fame in basketball.

  Comparing Nash to Kidd as a player is kind of like comparing Big Al to KG. Their numbers are probably similar as long as you discount the difference in defense.

[EarthBall]

Once again you are conveniently leaving out 2-MVPs for Nash. If Kidd's ROY award is on that list then Nash's MVPs have to be and those awards put the advantage squarely in Nash's corner.

Leaving them out was a honest mistake. Regardless, if we are talking about careers, two seasons shouldn't outweigh the rest of their career accomplishments. They were big awards, don't get me wrong, but we could debate about whether he even deserved them over the likes of Lebron or Duncan or Kobe (but that goes into the whole what does the MVP mean to you, which is a little off-topic). I get the fact that his two MVP awards will get him into the HOF because that's how it works. What I don't get is that Nash is better than Kidd career-wise.

[dark_lord]

both kidd and nash belong in the HOF, so the comparison of numbers is redundant (at least to me).

personally, i think kidd has had a better career, but like i said, they both deserve to be in the HOF

[dark_lord]

HOF is not stupid if it considers MVP more than stats. Anyone with 2 MVPs should be in HOF unless they had a very short career.

to go along with this.....he won back to back mvps, which is even rarer.

[xmuscularghandix]

simply put, yes. theres very few PG's i'd rather have on my team.

[Schupac]

I don't understand how you can say that Nash has only had 4 great years and then say Kidd is such a better PG when Nash's PER every single year that PER has been measured at ESPN is higher than Kidd's. That's seven years in a row or half of Kidd's career Nash has been measured to be a more effective overall player than Kidd.

Also Nash has more years of 10+ assists per game, more years of 15+ points per game, more years with a higher FG%, more years with a higher FT% and more years with a higher 3PTFG%. Also, if you take a look at their career per minute stats, Nash is much better in just about every area except rebounding.

And Nash has more MVPs and like it or not that award means everything when talking Hall of Fame in basketball.

  Comparing Nash to Kidd as a player is kind of like comparing Big Al to KG. Their numbers are probably similar as long as you discount the difference in defense.

Defense favors Kidd, but you don't want to even compare the shooting percentages.  Blow all the kisses you want Jason, Nash makes %90 of his.

[KCattheStripe]

The OP makes it sound like people think that Nash should be in at the exclusion of Kidd, just because his numbers aren't as good. THATS IT! KICK EVERY PG OUT OF THE HALL OF FAME WHO'S NUMBERS AREN'T AS GOOD AS JOHN STOCKTON'S... where'd everyone go?   


Nash is a Hall of Famer, doesn't say anything about his career in relation to Kid's. Just that he's a Hall of fame caliber player.

[Evantime34]

Yes he is. How many league MVP's haven't been elected into the hall? (probably not many). How many back to back MVP's haven't been elected into the hall (none).