Nash is an MVP caliber player. I don't care about system, or his previous career performances. The bottomline is he was viewed as the most valuable player, and there were very good reasons.
Statistically, Steve Nash is not an MVP-caliber player. Over the past 25-plus years, the league MVP typically had a PER in the top four in the league -- Nash is the only player beside Allen Iverson who won without having a single-season PER in the top 10, and Nash accomplished that twice.
Even subjectively, you can't make an argument that Nash is one of the top 10 players in the league (I personally don't think he has been the best point guard over this span -- see Jason Kidd and Chris Paul). If there was an open draft and every player in the NBA was available, do you actually think Nash would go ahead of Kevin Garnett? Tim Duncan? LeBron James? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Nash would have a hard time going ahead his own teammates, Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunsfan81
Even most who thought Nash shouldn't have won an MVP think he clearly belonged in the consideration. And why couldn't he have improved from his Dallas days?
Nash hasn't improved from his Dallas days -- he's the same player now he was in a Mavericks uniform, which means unless you thought he was an MVP-caliber player then he's not improved in any area to elevate his game.
If Nash improved on his weaknesses (notably, his defense) then I could understand some of the fallacious logic. But that's the thing -- no one can point to any improvement in his game that supposedly elevated him to an MVP-level player vs. his Dallas days (but at the same time, likely would not go in the top 10 of a hypothetical draft of all the players in the NBA).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunsfan81
Dude, ask any Suns fan, or NBA analyst. Nash is the best player on the Suns.
At best, Nash is arguably the best player on the Suns and even that is a tough argument to make -- again, until Nash I had never heard of a league MVP being arguably or maybe the best player on his own team. Usually, the league MVP is clearly the best player on his team and at worst is arguably the best player in the whole NBA.
It's also hard to believe a player as "valuable" as Nash is would be allowed to walk like he did in Dallas, be replaced effectively by Jason Terry and the Mavericks actually improved -- how many times in NBA history have you ever heard of a team getting better after getting rid of an MVP?
No one is saying Nash is garbage, but at the same time his first two seasons in Phoenix have been overvalued to the point that conflicting logic has to be used to rationalize why he has more league MVPs than the likes of clearly superior players like Shaquille O'Neal, Oscar Robertson and Julius Erving.
It's insane that a person whose game is built on complementing others and is such a sieve on defense has not one, but two league MVP trophies. It would be akin to naming Mark Price (the player most comparable to Nash) league MVP back in the late 1980s and eary 1990s despite superior players like Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and Hakeem Olajuwon dominating the league.
i'm sorry, you are saying Westphal is better than Nash because Nash doesn't play good defense? (a) neither did Westphal and (b) When Westphal was putting up his big numbers for the Suns, the other Suns players numbers all went down . . . with Nash, people claim his teammates get inflated numbers . . . at the least they don't go down.
And whoever said Amare had showed he was great without Nash . . . when? Marion has showed he is the same player without Nash; and for that matter without Amare too . . . Amare hasn't.
__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk
Statistically, Steve Nash is not an MVP-caliber player. Over the past 25-plus years, the league MVP typically had a PER in the top four in the league -- Nash is the only player beside Allen Iverson who won without having a single-season PER in the top 10, and Nash accomplished that twice.
Again, it's not all about stats. You need to watch the games instead of relying on a dumb stat like PER. Nash is incredibly valuable when he's on the court. The difference is huge when he's not. Those who saw him play correctly acknowledged that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Najee
Even subjectively, you can't make an argument that Nash is one of the top 10 players in the league (I personally don't think he has been the best point guard over this span -- see Jason Kidd and Chris Paul). If there was an open draft and every player in the NBA was available, do you actually think Nash would go ahead of Kevin Garnett? Tim Duncan? LeBron James? Dwyane Wade? Kobe Bryant? Nash would have a hard time going ahead his own teammates, Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion.
Chris Paul??? HAHAHA ok. If it was just for one season Nash would be the first player taken from the Suns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Najee
Nash hasn't improved from his Dallas days -- he's the same player now he was in a Mavericks uniform, which means unless you thought he was an MVP-caliber player then he's not improved in any area to elevate his game.
Yes he has. He was a good PG in Dallas, but he has now taken it to higher levels. So the MVP voters just suddenly decided out of nowhere, "hey we like Steve Nash he was a good player on Dallas, nobody would have ever thought of him as an NBA MVP when he played there, but now that he's on the Suns, even though he hasn't improved at all, let's vote for him for MVP, get him the award a couple of times, and get him in the Hall of Fame!" So either the MVP voters are retarded or it was a conspiracy to get merely a good player some MVP awards and into the Hall of Fame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Najee
If Nash improved on his weaknesses (notably, his defense) then I could understand some of the fallacious logic. But that's the thing -- no one can point to any improvement in his game that supposedly elevated him to an MVP-level player vs. his Dallas days (but at the same time, likely would not go in the top 10 of a hypothetical draft of all the players in the NBA).
Not top 10? If it was only for one season, he probably would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Najee
It's also hard to believe a player as "valuable" as Nash is would be allowed to walk like he did in Dallas, be replaced effectively by Jason Terry and the Mavericks actually improved -- how many times in NBA history have you ever heard of a team getting better after getting rid of an MVP?
Well he wasn't an MVP when he was there. Dallas would love to have him back now instead of Jason Terry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Najee
It's insane that a person whose game is built on complementing others and is such a sieve on defense has not one, but two league MVP trophies. It would be akin to naming Mark Price (the player most comparable to Nash) league MVP back in the late 1980s and eary 1990s despite superior players like Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and Hakeem Olajuwon dominating the league.
Oh come on. Mark Price was a very good player, but he was never at the level Nash has been the past three seasons. And Nash can dominate game without scoring much, although he can score too. And even if Nash was only as good as Mark Price, it wouldn't be akin because there's no Michael Jordan playing in the NBA today.
IMO, here are the 10 greatest players in the history of the Phoenix Suns in order:
1.) Charles Barkley
2.) Walter Davis
3.) Connie Hawkins
4.) Larry Nance
5.) Kevin Johnson
6.) Paul Westphal
7.) Jason Kidd
8.) Steve Nash
9.) Shawn Marion
10. - tie) Tom Chambers
10. - tie) Amare Stoudemire
I'm sorry in advance if I offended someone, but I feel that Steve Nash and Paul Westphal are rated appropriately. Nash is debatably the third-best player on his own team and he and Westphal likely received more credit for their teams' success than they deserved.
Good list.
__________________ Here is something you can't understand
10 Greatest Suns
Linear Mode
