Is Steve Nash a Hall of Famer?

[CoachCowens]

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.

You could add Dirk and Dwayne Wade to that list of players that could have been mvp in the Nash MVP years.

MVP is subjective. KG could easily have been the MVP last year.
I think Nash will go to the HOF but for me the MVP's are less important than being one of the top PG's for quite a few years.

[kozlodoev]

He was a marginal 3rd team all-NBA PG before and after.

You realize that being a "marginal 3rd team all-NBA" means being one of the top 15 players in the game at that point, right?

[nickagneta]

I think they are both Hall of Famers and I think for the time they played(their generation of players), they were the two best PGs in the league by far. Where Nash gets my nod as a better player is in his shooting and in his per minute stats and PER. He has just been a more productive and efficient player on the court when they have been on the court the same amount of time than was Kidd. Don't forget their career assists and points scored per game is pretty even but Kidd averaged 6.5 minutes more per game over his career

[BballTim]

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.

  He's probably the only MVP who's never appeared in the finals. If he'd only won one MVP I don't think it would tip the scales in his favor.

[indeedproceed]

I don't think there is any possible argument against Steve Nash as a HOF'er. Don't even use numbers, just think the question and there is your answer.

[EarthBall]

Proves my point exactly:

One of those players was a forever-grateful Nash, who was slightly better than Mark Price and now goes down for eternity as an all-time great.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3797805

Though I would still debate whether he is actually an all-time great. Just that people right now claim he is an all-time great. In 10 years, I think Kidd will be remembered as a far better player than Nash.

[LarBrd33]

Well that Simmons article convinced me.  Obviously anyone who wins back-to-back MVP's is going into the HOF, but I think it's tough to disagree that his stats were inflated during those years.  Interesting.

[LarBrd33]

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.

Gary Payton was better than both
NBA Champion: 2006
9-time NBA All-Star: 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003
9-time All-NBA:
        * First Team: 1998, 2000
        * Second Team: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2002
        * Third Team: 1994, 2001
9-time All-Defensive First Team member: 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999*, 2000*, 2001, 2002 (shares record for selections with Michael Jordan)
NBA Defensive Player of The Year: 1996 (only point guard ever to win the award, and only guard to win the award in the 1990s)

I take Payton in his prime over either of those guys.  He would own you on both ends.

[Bankshot]

I don't think Nash is a hall of famer.  I know he won two MVP's, but personally, I didn't think he deserved the 2nd MVP.

[Hoops]

Proves my point exactly:

One of those players was a forever-grateful Nash, who was slightly better than Mark Price and now goes down for eternity as an all-time great.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3797805

Though I would still debate whether he is actually an all-time great. Just that people right now claim he is an all-time great. In 10 years, I think Kidd will be remembered as a far better player than Nash.

It's funny that you say this after I had said exactly the opposite much earlier in the thread. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because I think history will look much more favorably on Nash's career than Kidd's career. But you know what, they're both great and will both probably end up in the HOF.

[CoachCowens]

I think Bill Simmons recent article puts Nash's career in perspective. Without D'Antonni's run and gun Nash wouldn't be rated as high as he is. He is somewhere around the Mark Price level.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3797805

[Donoghus]

He's gonna make the Hall of Fame.  I'm certain of that.  This is the Basketball Hall of Fame here.  It's not the most picky hall of fame.