He's been the leader on multiple teams that have gotten deep into the playoffs.
Well, we'll ignore the fact that Carter has been out of the first round multiple times. In fact, we can ignore the fact that Nash has been out of the first round exactly one more time than Carter.
I see. Rasheed has had a better career than Vince Carter because Vince has only made a conference final series and Rasheed has a title, which makes Vince a career loser. Steve Nash has gone as deep in the playoffs as Vince Carter has, but Nash is a "winner" because his teams have gotten "deep into the playoffs" - namely, as far as Vince Carter has.
The reason he hasn't sustained more success is due to the systems he has played in.
A. Yeah, those Nets systems that Vince played in were real winners.
B. The system is set up exactly to tailor to Steve Nash's game. Is your point that Steve Nash's style of play isn't championship caliber?
The fact that Nash has enjoyed as much success as he has in an "offense only" system is a testament to him.
It's actually not, it's a detriment to Nash. Why is it offense only? Could it be because Nash has been a liability on the defensive end his whole career? Of course Nash makes his team better on the offensive end. But on the defensive end, he makes his team much worse. So, what about that makes him less of a "career loser" than Vince Carter?
Vince, on the other hand, is indeed a career loser, who has never been a leader on a team, period. The guy puts up empty stats, and doesn't contribute to wins.
I don't even know what that means. Steve Nash's stats are less empty than Carter's? Carter doesn't contribute to wins? What exactly has Nash led his team to? I think Vince Carter can lead a team to no rings just as well as Nash.
The bias here is ridiculous. It just goes to show how overused and cliche the terms "winner" and "loser" are.
