Dan Majerle

 

1. Charles Barkley
2. Steve Nash
3. Kevin Johnson
4. Paul Westphal (one of the best players not in the HoF)
5. Tom Chambers
6. Larry Nance
7. Alvan Adams
8. Shawn Marion
9. Charlie Scott
10. Walter Davis

 

Adams, Nance, and Chambers over Marion? Marion has been a Sun long enough to be comparable in career impact and is a better player than Adams or Chambers ever was when you count defense as well (though Chambers was an explosive scorer). Nance v. Marion is very close, I give it to Marion for his better ball handling, rebounding, and three point range but can see giving it to Nance for his shotblocking and higher shot percentage.

I think you are right on switching up the first three Jericho. As for Westphal, I was never as impressed with him as with Walter Davis when he was playing though he does have the 1st team All-NBAs and Scott just seemed a much more unstoppable force than either.

 

Adams, Nance, and Chambers over Marion? Marion has been a Sun long enough to be comparable in career impact and is a better player than Adams or Chambers ever was when you count defense as well (though Chambers was an explosive scorer). Nance v. Marion is very close, I give it to Marion for his better ball handling, rebounding, and three point range but can see giving it to Nance for his shotblocking and higher shot percentage.

I think you are right on switching up the first three Jericho. As for Westphal, I was never as impressed with him as with Walter Davis when he was playing though he does have the 1st team All-NBAs and Scott just seemed a much more unstoppable force than either.

Scott is pretty underrated as one of the most explosive scorers ever. He's also a crack-up funny guy...I went to one of his basketball camps when I was a kid. But he never seemed to fit real well within a winning team concept, and bounced around a fair bit. I have a hard time ranking him.

Westphal received far more accolades than Davis, although he was a pitiful rebounder and probably an inferior defender to Davis. I don't have a problem with someone putting Davis ahead of him, but I think Westphal was a bigger part of the Suns' success in those days.

Maybe Marion is just too contemporary for me to appreciate fully, and I'm overvaluing the achievements of retired dudes. Adams, as an undersized high-post pivot, was a decent scorer and mediocre rebounder, but notable for being one of the best-passing big men ever. But I can drop him a notch or two.

Nance and Marion are very close. I could go either way. Chambers I guess I ranked so highly because he had a decent stretch of being a special scorer. Marion's never going to pop off for 60 points, or be the MVP of an All-Star game. But Marion is certainly a more complete player.

 

1. Steve Nash
2. Charles Barkley
3. Kevin Johnson
4. Paul Westphal
5. Tom Chambers
6. Larry Nance
7. Shawn Marion
8. Dan Majerle
9. Amare Stoudemire
10. Alvan Adams

honorable mention: Pat Burke, Luc Longley, Alton Ford, Milt Palacio, Jake Tsakalidis

 

You guys forgot Connie Hawkins!

 

1. Charles Barkley
2. Steve Nash
3. Connie Hawkins
4. Paul Westphal
5. Kevin Johnson
6. Walter Davis
7. Tom Chambers
8. Shawn Marion
9. Larry Nance
10. Amare Stoudamire

11. Dick Van Arsdale
12. Dan Majerle
13. Alvan Adams
14. Jason Kidd
15. Dennis Johnson
16. Charlie Scott
17. Truck Robinson
18. Paul Silas
19. Jeff Hornacek
20. Eddie Johnson

 

agree with Connie Hawkins, an amazing player

 

The greatest Suns

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.

 

Re: The greatest Suns

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.

I think you're totally underrating Westphal and Nash, especially Nash. Nash is indeed the best player on the Suns. He's won two MVPs, and almost won a third, and is a future Hall of Famer. He should definitely be higher than 8th on a greatest Suns list. Westphal should also be higher. He made 5 All-Star games and 4 All-NBA teams.

 

Re: The greatest Suns

I think you're totally underrating Westphal and Nash, especially Nash. Nash is indeed the best player on the Suns. He's won two MVPs, and almost won a third, and is a future Hall of Famer. He should definitely be higher than 8th on a greatest Suns list. Westphal should also be higher. He made 5 All-Star games and 4 All-NBA teams.

You can make a fair argument that Steve Nash certainly was not an MVP-caliber player in any of the last three years. He will be in the Basketball Hall of Fame because of that technicality (and being considered an international player), but I'm not going to translate that into Nash was some dominating player like the league MVP is historically (which has been done erroneously in the revision of Nash's level of play).

As for Paul Westphal, I saw him play during his career. He was named to the all-NBA teams more by default than dominance; outside of George Gervin, the shooting guard position in the late 1970s was fairly weak.

Westphal's career definitely was the product of playing in Phoenix's offense -- he went from never averaging more than 9.8 points per game in Boston to suddenly a 20-point scorer in Phoenix and then after leaving the Suns he never came close to putting up those numbers in Seattle and New York.

 

Re: The greatest Suns

You can make a fair argument that Steve Nash certainly was not an MVP-caliber player in any of the last three years. He will be in the Basketball Hall of Fame because of that technicality (and being considered an international player), but I'm not going to translate that into Nash was some dominating player like the league MVP is historically (which has been done erroneously in the revision of Nash's level of play).

As for Paul Westphal, I saw him play during his career. He was named to the all-NBA teams more by default than dominance; outside of George Gervin, the shooting guard position in the late 1970s was fairly weak.

Westphal's career definitely was the product of playing in Phoenix's offense -- he went from never averaging more than 9.8 points per game in Boston to suddenly a 20-point scorer in Phoenix and then after leaving the Suns he never came close to putting up those numbers in Seattle and New York.

I've seen the Suns totally lost at times without Steve Nash on the court. He's not the best player in the league, but he's incredibly valuable. And Westphal didn't do much in Boston because he didn't get much playing time. Even if the Phoenix offense helped him, he still had to be good to put up those numbers and make those All-NBA teams.

 

Steve Nash and Paul Westphal

I've seen the Suns totally lost at times without Steve Nash on the court. He's not the best player in the league, but he's incredibly valuable. And Westphal didn't do much in Boston because he didn't get much playing time. Even if the Phoenix offense helped him, he still had to be good to put up those numbers and make those All-NBA teams.

The issue isn't whether Steve Nash is a good player (he's been an All-Star-caliber one for some time), but whether he is an MVP-caliber player (which he clearly is not). You're the one who suggested I should rate him higher and citing the MVPs with the connotation he is some dominating player. Nash is the same player he was in Dallas, and unless you believe Nash was MVP-caliber then you can't justify the awards because he didn't improve.

And no, Nash is not the best player on the Suns -- Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion are overall better players than him. They were All-Star-caliber players without Nash and among other things both (especially Marion) are clearly better defenders than Nash's prom-date defense (I'm not even going to mention that Nash is easily the worst defender ever to be named a league MVP).

As for Paul Westphal, I wasn't talking about only his years in Boston (his first three in the NBA). When Westphal was traded to Seattle in the Dennis Johnson deal, his numbers fell and they continued to decline when he was shipped to New York. You can't blame the post-Suns numbers on age because he was 30 when he left. I don't believe it's a matter of coincidence that as soon as Westphal went to Phoenix his numbers spiked and as soon as he left the Valley of the Sun his numbers took noticeable drops.

On another note, I see at least one list didn't even name Walter Davis in its top 10 (and another naming him at No. 10) but yet I have to defend my list for naming Westphal (who IMO was not better than Davis) at No. 6.

 

Re: Steve Nash and Paul Westphal

The issue isn't whether Steve Nash is a good player (he's been an All-Star-caliber one for some time), but whether he is an MVP-caliber player (which he clearly is not). You're the one who suggested I should rate him higher and citing the MVPs with the connotation he is some dominating player. Nash is the same player he was in Dallas, and unless you believe Nash was MVP-caliber then you can't justify the awards because he didn't improve.

And no, Nash is not the best player on the Suns -- Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion are overall better players than him. They were All-Star-caliber players without Nash and among other things both (especially Marion) are clearly better defenders than Nash's prom-date defense (I'm not even going to mention that Nash is easily the worst defender ever to be named a league MVP).

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. An MVP doesn't have to put up 30 points per game, or 25 points and 15 rebounds. 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?

Dude, ask any Suns fan, or NBA analyst. Nash is the best player on the Suns. I'd rather have him over Marion any day. He completely runs the offense, he's a wizard with the ball. He's tough, has guts, is a good leader who doesn't disappear in big games like Marion does. So Marion is better defensively, that doesn't make him a better player.

 

Re: Steve Nash and Paul Westphal

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.

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).

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.

 

Re: Steve Nash and Paul Westphal

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.

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.

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. :whatever:

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.

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.

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.

 

Charles Barkley,Kevin Johnson,Steve Nash,Walter Davis,Amare Stoudemire,Shawn Marion,Tom Chambers,Larry Nance,Jason Kidd,Paul Silas

 

Re: The greatest Suns

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.