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

[greenwise]

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.

Nash, average? You have to be kidding. The guy has been among the top 3 true Play Makers of the last 10 years.

[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.

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.

He did choke in those playoffs, in 04-05 The Suns had Nash(MVP),Amare(Roty) and Shawn Marion (who averaged 20-11 that year)

You say "Tim Duncan's title teams" like its this unstoppable force, like its impossible to win against them. Nash could go down as one of the best PG's ever... but he won't becuase he can't pull his team through.

And steve nash isn't a "borderline" HoFer, he's a lock. He's a six time all-star and was about 100 votes away from being the first player to win 3 MVP's in a row since Larry.

[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.

Nash, average? You have to be kidding. The guy has been among the top 3 true Play Makers of the last 10 years.

For a period of 4 years he was the best PG i've ever seen. Before that he was above average, and since that he's right about average. But he's a great player.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

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.

Nash, average? You have to be kidding. The guy has been among the top 3 true Play Makers of the last 10 years.

For a period of 4 years he was the best PG i've ever seen. Before that he was above average, and since that he's right about average. But he's a great player.

maybe on one side of the ball. in the other half of the game, the defensive end, he is one of the worst in the league. and that is half the game of basketball. and he has been somewhat a product of the systems he plays in which inflate stats (david lee is a very good player but his numbers were bigger than they would be on another team by playing in a d'antoni system...i'd still be happy to have him on the c's)

[jambr380]

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.

Nash, average? You have to be kidding. The guy has been among the top 3 true Play Makers of the last 10 years.

For a period of 4 years he was the best PG i've ever seen. Before that he was above average, and since that he's right about average. But he's a great player.

maybe on one side of the ball. in the other half of the game, the defensive end, he is one of the worst in the league. and that is half the game of basketball. and he has been somewhat a product of the systems he plays in which inflate stats (david lee is a very good player but his numbers were bigger than they would be on another team by playing in a d'antoni system...i'd still be happy to have him on the c's)

David Lee was quite good before D'Antoni got to the Knicks- and that was as a 6th man. If his numbers have increased, it's because his minutes have increased.

As for Nash, he should be a lock for the HOF, but I feel that 'emptiness' that others feel. Those two MVPs will get him there and he probably deserved the MVP award in those seasons, but his whole career hasn't been great. It's too bad for him he is now stuck in Phoenix where he has no chance of a title. He would have been much better off saying no to the $$ and signing with a better team when his contract ran out.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

Nash, average? You have to be kidding. The guy has been among the top 3 true Play Makers of the last 10 years.

For a period of 4 years he was the best PG i've ever seen. Before that he was above average, and since that he's right about average. But he's a great player.

I don't know about average.  Last season among PGs, he was 10th in scoring, 3rd in assists, tied for 1st in assists per minute, 3rd in double-doubles, 3rd in FG%, 3rd in 3PT%, 1st in eFG%, and second in FT%.

I think he's far, far above average at his position.

[hpantazo]

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.

Nash, average? You have to be kidding. The guy has been among the top 3 true Play Makers of the last 10 years.

For a period of 4 years he was the best PG i've ever seen. Before that he was above average, and since that he's right about average. But he's a great player.

I don't know about average.  Last season among PGs, he was 10th in scoring, 3rd in assists, tied for 1st in assists per minute, 3rd in double-doubles, 3rd in FG%, 3rd in 3PT%, 1st in eFG%, and second in FT%.

I think he's far, far above average at his position.

I agree, he may not be MVP level at this point in his career, but he is still far above average, he   is still a true all-star pg.

[CountChockula]

Who needs a ring when you have infomercials to fall back on...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxZkaEge0R8

[hpantazo]

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.

I agree with this. I think if you are viewed as great enough, and a great teammate, other good players will want to come to play on your team, and you will win titles. Also, you should be able to make players around you better, if not, you are not a great player. Ewing, Barkley, Stockton, Malone, Drexler, were all very good, but not great. They certainly had their chances and had some pretty solid teams, and yet they could not come up big to lead their teams to titles. Nash had his chances too, and played with some very talented lineups, yet he was not great enough to min it all even in a period when the league was pretty weak IMO. Olajuwon on the other hand, totally dominated the league for two years when he stepped up his game. Who on that team was so good that they made it easy for him...Cassell and Horry, please. Hakeem was the man for two years, and was great, and got the rings to show it.

[Hila]

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....

Some of those Suns teams had ridiculously bad luck, too.

There was regular inopportune injury bad luck: Joe Johnson's destroyed face in the 2005 playoffs, Stoudemire’s knee and Raja Bell’s calf in the 2006 playoffs. OK, all teams deal with injuries.

There was regular terrible refereeing bad luck: in the 2006 playoffs they basically had to beat the Lakers 5 times to win a series because the referees were the only people watching game 4 who didn't see Nash calling timeout or Luke Walton hanging on Nash... while Walton was out of bounds. OK, all teams deal with  referee error and the Suns won the series in question anyway.

There was just plain old bad luck: Tim Duncan hasn't made a 3 pointer all year, but he manages to hit a game winning 3 against the Suns in the playoffs. OK, Duncan is clutch and the Suns had a responsibility not to let something like that go to their heads.

And then there was one of the most insanely overblown (though technically by-the-book) punishments in the history of the NBA in 2007. Robert Horry checked Nash into the scorer's table... so Stoudemire and Boris Diaw jumped off the bench... but didn't do anything... but still got suspended. Earlier in the game, Duncan and Bruce Bowen also left the bench during another on-court entanglement... but they WEREN'T suspended.

At some point, the Nash-era Suns started getting a little more bad luck than can be brushed off as "it happens to everyone, a better team would have risen above it."

[nickagneta]

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.

Nash, average? You have to be kidding. The guy has been among the top 3 true Play Makers of the last 10 years.

For a period of 4 years he was the best PG i've ever seen. Before that he was above average, and since that he's right about average. But he's a great player.

I don't know about average.  Last season among PGs, he was 10th in scoring, 3rd in assists, tied for 1st in assists per minute, 3rd in double-doubles, 3rd in FG%, 3rd in 3PT%, 1st in eFG%, and second in FT%.

I think he's far, far above average at his position.

Those are all very impressive for an aging guard and could possibly make Nash considered well above average as a PG but when you take into consideration what he gave up:

Player 48-Minute Production by Position
   
FGA      eFG%     FTA      iFG     Reb      Ast      T/O       Blk      PF      Pts       PER*
16.4      0.566      4.1      17%     4.3      13.9      4.8      0.2      2.1      22.4      21.7 
      

Opponent Counterpart 48-Minute Production
   
FGA      eFG%      FTA     iFG     Reb     Ast     T/O       Blk      PF       Pts      PER*
19.0      0.485      4.7      21%     5.0      8.9      2.9      0.3      3.7      22.5      18.2   


These are some seriously awful numbers to give up to your direct counterpart and because his defense ids so awful, I would have to put Nash at just about average right now.

[jambr380]

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.

I agree with this. I think if you are viewed as great enough, and a great teammate, other good players will want to come to play on your team, and you will win titles. Also, you should be able to make players around you better, if not, you are not a great player. Ewing, Barkley, Stockton, Malone, Drexler, were all very good, but not great. They certainly had their chances and had some pretty solid teams, and yet they could not come up big to lead their teams to titles. Nash had his chances too, and played with some very talented lineups, yet he was not great enough to min it all even in a period when the league was pretty weak IMO. Olajuwon on the other hand, totally dominated the league for two years when he stepped up his game. Who on that team was so good that they made it easy for him...Cassell and Horry, please. Hakeem was the man for two years, and was great, and got the rings to show it.

This is a solid post, but the only thing is, Drexler did win a championship- with the Rockets in 1995. I know Hakeem was dominating (nobody is a bigger fan of him than I am), but the Rockets were 6th that year going into the playoffs and they pulled out a championship. They certainly weren't the best team in the west that year, but when they got Drexler mid-season, they really turned it on.

Overall, I agree with most of your points, I just don't want Drexler to lose out on where credit is due.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

Nash, average? You have to be kidding. The guy has been among the top 3 true Play Makers of the last 10 years.

For a period of 4 years he was the best PG i've ever seen. Before that he was above average, and since that he's right about average. But he's a great player.

I don't know about average.  Last season among PGs, he was 10th in scoring, 3rd in assists, tied for 1st in assists per minute, 3rd in double-doubles, 3rd in FG%, 3rd in 3PT%, 1st in eFG%, and second in FT%.

I think he's far, far above average at his position.

Those are all very impressive for an aging guard and could possibly make Nash considered well above average as a PG but when you take into consideration what he gave up:

Player 48-Minute Production by Position
   
FGA      eFG%     FTA      iFG     Reb      Ast      T/O       Blk      PF      Pts       PER*
16.4      0.566      4.1      17%     4.3      13.9      4.8      0.2      2.1      22.4      21.7 
      

Opponent Counterpart 48-Minute Production
   
FGA      eFG%      FTA     iFG     Reb     Ast     T/O       Blk      PF       Pts      PER*
19.0      0.485      4.7      21%     5.0      8.9      2.9      0.3      3.7      22.5      18.2   


These are some seriously awful numbers to give up to your direct counterpart and because his defense ids so awful, I would have to put Nash at just about average right now.

Opponent's PER is a junk stat.  According to Opponent's PER, Mikki Moore was one of the most effective defensive big men in the entire NBA when he played for us last year.  I don't trust it. 

Of course, Nash isn't good defensively, but his poor defense doesn't devalue him to the point of being "average".  Also, of course, his defense hasn't degraded all that much from his MVP years, when he was far from average, as well. 

All I know is that the Suns were roughly 8 points per 48 minutes better with Nash in the game than they were with him on the bench.  They outscored opponents by 242 points when he was in the game, and were outscored by 84 when he wasn't.  The defense only got marginally better when he went to the bench, but the offense got much, much worse.  If Nash was average, I don't think we'd see such a swing.

[Roy Hobbs]

Opponent Counterpart 48-Minute Production
   
FGA      eFG%      FTA     iFG     Reb     Ast     T/O       Blk      PF       Pts      PER*
19.0      0.485      4.7      21%     5.0      8.9      2.9      0.3      3.7      22.5      18.2   

Also, here are the Opp. PER numbers for Rajon Rondo:

FGA      eFG%      FTA     iFG     Reb     Ast     T/O       Blk      PF       Pts      PER*
15.5      0.474      4.5      28%     4.0      7.9      3.7      0.3      4.0      18.7      16.5

And for Chris Paul:

FGA      eFG%      FTA     iFG     Reb     Ast     T/O       Blk      PF       Pts      PER*
15.3      0.471      4.0      25%     4.9      7.3      2.9      0.2      4.6      17.6      17.2 

While Nash is behind both players, his Opp. PER isn't that far behind either player, nor are his points allowed per 48 minutes or eFG% allowed.  While Nash isn't good defensively, it's not like he gets torched on a nightly basis; if he did, I would imagine that it would reflect more in the statistics.

[guava_wrench]

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.

I agree with this. I think if you are viewed as great enough, and a great teammate, other good players will want to come to play on your team, and you will win titles. Also, you should be able to make players around you better, if not, you are not a great player. Ewing, Barkley, Stockton, Malone, Drexler, were all very good, but not great. They certainly had their chances and had some pretty solid teams, and yet they could not come up big to lead their teams to titles. Nash had his chances too, and played with some very talented lineups, yet he was not great enough to min it all even in a period when the league was pretty weak IMO. Olajuwon on the other hand, totally dominated the league for two years when he stepped up his game. Who on that team was so good that they made it easy for him...Cassell and Horry, please. Hakeem was the man for two years, and was great, and got the rings to show it.

I strongly disagree that Barkley, Stockton and Malone were not great.

If Jordan doesn't retire the first time, Hakeem isn't a great player since the Bulls win 8 straight?

No non-Celtics were great players during Russell's run since he the Celts won all the championships?

I agree that Jordan's drive made him special and factored in strongly in his championships, but there are too many variables to weigh championships as an absolute criteria. It is one of many criteria.

Would KG have been a lesser player if he wasn't traded by Minny? Is he more "great" because he was traded? I find that absurd.

Jordan's offensive foul jumper against Russell means that Stockton and Malone aren't great? That is a highly questionable standard.