Walt Frazier vs Steve Nash

[Knicks4life]

Who is the better player Nash in his MVP years or Frazier in his prime?

[caseyrh]

Isn't Frazier like 65?

I think Nash would kill him right now.

Who has the better vocabulary is the better question.

[Knicks4life]

Updated the question.

[SheriffKilla]

Still Nash though, this goes back to different eras and players in today's NBA being more athletic and talented on average.

[Knicks4life]

You think Steve Nash is more athletic than Frazier?

[Knick Killer]

Nash and it isnt even close.

[swu2208]

steve nash no question

[Luke]

Steve Nash. Unlike big men, offense is the more important side of the ball when talking about point guards. And Nash is a far better passer and shooter then Walt was at any point in his career.

[e-monk]

first - bs on the athleticism thing - Frazier himself is proof of that - well more athletic than Nash
second - does defense count? it's like half the game right? so give Frazier a +50% advantage because he was lock down and Nash is um... around here somewhere, right?
third - one was the best player on two title winning teams, the other is a canadian
fourth - Frazier was actually the better scorer (when did Nash average better than 20ppg? Clyde did it 7 times) and (given the fact that there was no 3 point shooting in his day)the efficiency is actually close

Nash certainly represents more of his teams assists and is the better distributor - I'll give him that

but Im guessing that alot of you fellas never really got to see Clyde play - try this: 36 points 19 assists 5 steals in that game 7 every one gives Willis Reed credit for

[Luke]

Originally Posted by e-monk

first - bs on the athleticism thing - Frazier himself is proof of that - well more athletic than Nash
second - does defense count? it's like half the game right? so give Frazier a +50% advantage because he was lock down and Nash is um... around here somewhere, right?
third - one was the best player on two title winning teams, the other is a canadian
fourth - Frazier was actually the better scorer (when did Nash average better than 20ppg? Clyde did it 7 times) and (given the fact that there was no 3 point shooting in his day)the efficiency is actually close

Nash certainly represents more of his teams assists and is the better distributor - I'll give him that

but Im guessing that alot of you fellas never really got to see Clyde play - try this: 36 points 19 assists 5 steals in that game 7 every one give Willis Reed credit for

Offense is the more important side of the ball when talking about point guards. It's been proven time and time again and you look at all of the most succsessful point guards in league history (Magic, Cousey, Parker, ect.) and none of them were notable defenders.

One is a two time MVP and the other never received such an honor. And oh! He made a Canadian joke! Someone call R-Star!

Clyde wasn't as good of a shooter as Nash is. Nash is arguably the best shooter of all time going by the numbers and their scoring efficiencies aren't close by the way. 49/43/90 is freaking ridiculous. That's literally insane for someone who wasn't/isn't particurally athletic and didn't hamper his team with his ball hogging.

Walt averaged 49/79 with no three point shooting. That's nothing really special considering the weaker defenses at the time, and I'm not really seeing how it's close at all.

Nash isn't just a better distributor. He was a far better passer/playmaker. Nash averages nearly three more assists per game throughout his career and that's taking into consideration the many years that Nash was put on the bench. If we're talking about peak playmaking years it's even less of a competition, and considering that passing is the most important job of a point guard, I'd say that it makes it pretty difficult to say Walt is better then Nash.

[Xeneise]

Walt averaged 49/79 with no three point shooting.

The three point shot wasn't added until 1979-1980, Clyde's final season where he played 3 games. Do you have any evidence to suggest he'd be a bad 3 point shooter if the line existed? Even if he made some at a decent percentage, his Pts/Game would be much higher, and his prime years of around 22/7/7 would look more like Lebron's stat line of maybe around 25/7/7.

I think considering defense, you have to go with Clyde, though both are hall of fame players.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by VanillaPrice

Offense is the more important side of the ball when talking about point guards.

Great point, except for you know, it ignores all the great PGs who were great defenders like Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, not to mention, historically: Jerry West, Dennis Johnson (Finals MVP, 6 time All NBA Defense first teamer), Mo Cheeks (1 title, 4 time all NBA 1st team defense)and um Walt Frazier

It's been proven time and time again and you look at all of the most succsessful point guards in league history
except for you know, most of them(see above)

(Magic, Cousey, Parker, ect.) and none of them were notable defenders
and yet even these 3, (Parker, really?)were superior to Nash by leaps and bounds (except for maybe Parker but Im not even sure why you included him unless you felt like "Magic, Cousy (who by the way what do you know about his defensive play?) etc" looked insufficient to support your point?.

One is a two time MVP and the other never received such an honor. And oh! He made a Canadian joke! Someone call R-Star!

you are going to hang your whole argument on two of the most laughable mvp awards in league history (behind maybe only AI over Shaq in 01)? - ok, here's mine 7 all NBA first team Defense nods + 2 titles

Clyde wasn't as good of a shooter as Nash is.

Walt averaged 49/79 with no three point shooting.
and Nash has averaged 49/90 with 3 point shooting - your point being? oh that Walt scored more? and all else being equal was just as efficient? ok

That's nothing really special considering the weaker defenses at the time, and I'm not really seeing how it's close at all.
so are you just going on gut feeling with that whole weaker defenses conjecture? because it's not borne out by league average efg% or pace adjusted ppg you realize, right?

Nash isn't just a better distributor. He was a far better passer/playmaker. Nash averages nearly three more assists per game throughout his career and that's taking into consideration the many years that Nash was put on the bench. If we're talking about peak playmaking years it's even less of a competition, and considering that passing is the most important job of a point guard, I'd say that it makes it pretty difficult to say Walt is better then Nash.

unless you take into account that Walt was probably the best player on two title teams and Nash has never gotten out of conference play - if you do that you're kind of forced to admit you're wrong

there's lots of different kinds of PGs, Nash is a no D playing pass first system specialist, Frazier was a shoot first lock down defender - I'll take the titles over the dimes

[Luke]

First of all, I didn't say that defense was not important when talking about point guards. I said that it wasn't as important as offense, because it's not. The main job of a point guard is to be able to distribute the ball, have a good shot, and make those around him better. Nash does all three things considerably better then Frazier ever did, and that's why I'm taking Nash. It's not a knock on Walt, I just want my point guard to do what it's supposed to do, just like I want my power forward to rebound. It's not that difficult of a concept to understand.

You seem to put a great deal of stock into players winning rings, and that's fine. Until you contradict yourself. You say that I'm ignoring "greats" like Kidd (has never won a ring) Payton (didn't win a ring until he was a below average role player) Jerry West, (A shooting guard?) Mo Cheeks (How was he signifigantly better then Parker in his prime, especially to the extent that Parker is laughable and Cheeks is acceptable.) and Dennis Johnson.

Cousey was considered to be a poor defender. There's no real away around that. I can't think of anything that points to the contrary, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Reguardless of wheather or not Nash deserved those MVPs, he won the award. And for what it matters, Clyde in no point of his career could touch a '05-'07 Nash, not even close. You're throwing around Clyde's titles like Nash was in the same situation. Clyde had better teammates in a weaker league, and Nash still would have a ring to his name if Stat wasn't suspended in '07.

Uh, except that Walt wasn't as efficient. Nash is probably the greatest "cooler" of all time, whereas Clyde was an average free throw shooter at absolute best. Clyde also never had the opprotunity to knock down the three ball, but if I was a betting man, I'd say that him and Nash would have been about a stratosphere apart in that aspect. People don't realize that the Suns' verzion of Nash has been arguably the best shooter of all time.

The league was less athletic and the talent was diluted in contrast to today's NBA. The 70's are generally reguarded as one of the weakest eras in NBA history and trying to refute the fact that Nash played in a tougher league is just making you look bad. The current league is better offensively and defensively.

First of all, Walt wasn't the best player on both teams, you're reaching with that one. Secondly, it doesn't matter considering that if you threw those Knicks teams against any of the teams that Nash has been eliminated against ('10 Lakers, '07 Spurs, '05 Spurs, ect.) the Knicks would have lost too. You can't hold something against Nash just because he played under different circumstances, that's unfair.

Yes, there are different kinds of point guards. But history has shown us that the prototypical point guard with good passing and shooting ability tends to be the most effective, and I'm going to go with the history of the game on this one.

[Xeneise]

Haha, man, you and I disagree on everything it seems, VanillaPrice.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Xeneise

Haha, man, you and I disagree on everything it seems, VanillaPrice.

Seems like it, haha. Atleast it's not a ChrisRichards situation and you can actually back up the majority of what you say. (Not a stab at e-monk, more of just a comment on trolls in general.)