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

[Eja117]

I wouldn't be upset at all with Jordan if he walked up to a podium and was like "This week Steve Nash said players shouldn't be judged by titles. Well titles aren't all that matters. It's the ONLY thing that matters"

but then I want Bill Russell to walk up from behind, tap him on the shoulder and be like,  "Excuse me. Get off the stage loser"


Nash is wrong. Titles matter a lot.  I can't take players with zero or one titles seriously in the "Who is the best player in this sport or at this position" discussion.

[Roy Hobbs]

Nash is wrong. Titles matter a lot.  I can't take players with zero or no titles seriously in the "Who is the best player in this sport or at this position" discussion.

I think it depends on the sport.  For instance, I've got no problem calling Ted Williams the best LF of all time, despite not having won the World Series.  It's a rarity, but there are legitimately elite, "best ever" type player who never won.

[Bahku]

I think overall, that how many Championships a player has won reflects more on the team as a WHOLE than it does on the individual player, (as NO one player gets there by himself), and that consideration for Hall of Fame induction should be quantified in terms of the INDIVIDUAL'S ability and accomplishments. A great team can win a Championship without a "superstar", but a "superstar" can not win a Championship without a great team. Correspondingly, an athlete's entrance into the HOF should not be based on the accomplishments of his team, but on his OWN accomplishments, and his AFFECT on the team.

[PosImpos]

I think overall, that how many Championships a player has won reflects more on the team as a WHOLE than it does on the individual player, (as NO one player gets there by himself), and that consideration for Hall of Fame induction should be quantified in terms of the INDIVIDUAL'S ability and accomplishments. A great team can win a Championship without a "superstar", but a "superstar" can not win a Championship without a great team. Correspondingly, an athlete's entrance into the HOF should not be based on the accomplishments of his team, but on his OWN accomplishments, and his AFFECT on the team.

BINGO!

[Fafnir]

Nash is wrong. Titles matter a lot.  I can't take players with zero or no titles seriously in the "Who is the best player in this sport or at this position" discussion.

I think it depends on the sport.  For instance, I've got no problem calling Ted Williams the best LF of all time, despite not having won the World Series.  It's a rarity, but there are legitimately elite, "best ever" type player who never won.

It happens a lot more in baseball than in basketball. Great players just have less of an individual impact in baseball

[PosImpos]

Nash is wrong. Titles matter a lot.  I can't take players with zero or no titles seriously in the "Who is the best player in this sport or at this position" discussion.

I think it depends on the sport.  For instance, I've got no problem calling Ted Williams the best LF of all time, despite not having won the World Series.  It's a rarity, but there are legitimately elite, "best ever" type player who never won.

It happens a lot more in baseball than in basketball. Great players just have less of an individual impact in baseball

Nevertheless, the course and success of a basketball player's career can be affected to a large extent by the management of the teams he plays for, and the players around him. 

I don't think it's fair to say that a player isn't great and deserving of recognition if they weren't fantastic enough to lift their team to a championship with very little talent around them - just as nobody would say Dwayne Wade is not one of the elite talents in the league just because he couldn't get past the first round with a team of role players and rookies around him this past year.

Similarly, the fact that Steve Nash has never been able to get a title over the course of his career doesn't take away from the fact that he's one of the best PGs to play the game, and definitely one of the best passers in recent memory.  He simply was not given the opportunity to play on a great team.  Sure, he perhaps never was enough of a talent to single handedly take a team of role players and lesser stars to a championship (like Jordan), but that doesn't mean he hasn't had a great career. 

[KevinConnor]

If I understand some of you guys correctly it is a good thing Wilt did win that one nba title late in his career otherwise he would just have been a good player and not a great player? Wow imagine Bill Cartwright and Bill Wennington great players and Wilt without the title just a good player!

[Celtics17]

Wilt was definitely a great player. He won two titles actually. The thing though is, did Wilt know how to control the game? Did he know how to dominate at just the right time to control the game minutes down the road. Also, did he have the "fire" that a guy like MJ or Russ had? I dont really know as I never saw him play but I have read a ton about him. Players who win titles frequently have those qualities. A team is only as strong as its weakest link but I think the corrolary to that should be that it also is only as strong as its strongest link too.

[Finkelskyhook]

Nash will never win a title unless he becomes a bit player on a different team.  The style of basketball he thrives in will never win a title.  No team will win a title when their point guard plays no defense.

Titles do matter, Stevie.

He simply was not given the opportunity to play on a great team.

? ? ?.  Look at Nash's teams.  They all have one thing in common.  With Nash on the court it's like a constant power play for Phoenix's opponent.  Colangelo smartly tried to toughen up his team  with Terry Porter.  But Nash has played Westhead/D'Antoni-style basketball his whole career.  He's not going to change at 35. 

[Fafnir]

Nash will never win a title unless he becomes a bit player on a different team.  The style of basketball he thrives in will never win a title.  No team will win a title when their point guard plays no defense.

Titles do matter, Stevie.

He simply was not given the opportunity to play on a great team.

? ? ?.  Look at Nash's teams.  They all have one thing in common.  With Nash on the court it's like a constant power play for Phoenix's opponent.  Colangelo smartly tried to toughen up his team  with Terry Porter.  But Nash has played Westhead/D'Antoni-style basketball his whole career.  He's not going to change at 35. 

Its not like poor defenders haven't won titles in the NBA before. Steve Nash led teams were the second best team to the eventual NBA champ 3 times in my mind.

I think he's a HoF if he continues to play at a solid level through his latest contract.

If Nash doesn't get in, DJ never will.....

[PosImpos]

Nash will never win a title unless he becomes a bit player on a different team.  The style of basketball he thrives in will never win a title.  No team will win a title when their point guard plays no defense.

Titles do matter, Stevie.

He simply was not given the opportunity to play on a great team.

? ? ?.  Look at Nash's teams.  They all have one thing in common.  With Nash on the court it's like a constant power play for Phoenix's opponent.  Colangelo smartly tried to toughen up his team  with Terry Porter.  But Nash has played Westhead/D'Antoni-style basketball his whole career.  He's not going to change at 35. 

Nash is undoubtedly an offensively minded player, but that doesn't mean a team with him on it has to be fundamentally bad at defense.  He thrives in an uptempo style but it's possible to play a faster paced game while also playing decent defense.  The Suns also were serious contenders a few years ago but weren't able to get to the Finals, but not because they didn't have the talent or the opportunity.

[LB3533]

Steve Nash is right because even in our own voting for Greatest Celtics of All-Time, Bird is #2 and he has only 3 titles. Pierce is #7 with 1 title. Reggie is in the top 20 with zero titles.

When judging players, championships matter a little, but the overall body of work, the talent, being a good teammate and working with the coaches etc. all are bigger deals.

[TradeProposalDude]

I think its limited for one to suggest that you are a loser if you win no titles. But in Steve Nash's case, I'm almost inclined to say that PHX falling short of a title during their recent mini "dynasty" is correlative to Nash's lack of defense. In fact, PHX's lack of defense as a team was atrocious. But Nash being the guy who either lets the penetration in or out is as much responsible for PHX's shortcomings as anyone.

I do think that Steve Nash is a great shooter, a terrific teammate, and a fun player to watch. He displays a high level of basketball IQ whenever he steps onto the court. But yes, he's not the best player in the game, and not well rounded enough to be a lead dog or anything close to it for a title team.

[Fan from VT]

I tend to agree with Nash. His team would have won the title without the ludicrous suspensions of Diaw and Stoudemire, or the fluke injury to Joe Johnson. How should those events, completely independent of Nash, affect the determination of Nash's abilities? Every TEAM gets some breaks that help win a title, or has some unlucky breaks that prevent them from doing so, independent of the quality of the players.


KG never gets traded to a decent team. Now he's a better player?

PJ Brown isn't bought out, signs with the C's, doesn't save game 7. Pierce, Ray, and KG are now worse?

Kobe was a different player last year than now?

Bynum is healthy all of 2 seasons ago, maybe the C's never win. Fluke circumstances, independent of all other players.

[Fafnir]

In fact, PHX's lack of defense as a team was atrocious. But Nash being the guy who either lets the penetration in or out is as much responsible for PHX's shortcomings as anyone.

That isn't true though. When you adjusted for the pace they played at those Suns teams weren't all that bad defensively.