if you had told me 5 yrs ago that steve nash would have been a 2 time (maybe 3!) MVP winner, i wouldve thought you were crazy. now he is seeking his third straight! where does this place him in history? is he ahead of Stockton as a point guard. People gawk at Nash's numbers, but stockton avged 17 and 14 or close too it multiple times. So is nash THAT good, or is he a product of the Suns system? hmmmm, tough one. personally, i think this may be the greatest 3 yr run a pt guard has ever had. magic, isiah, nash (!?!?!!) WOW, who woulda thought
Nash is definitely below Stockton and Magic. He's also below Isiah, Oscar and a whole lot of other floor generals I'm forgetting. These 3 great years doesn't make up for his years past years.
somewhere in the top 8. magic and stockton are number 1 and 2 he's in the bottom 6 somewhere. but top 8 for sure. alltime
Talk about being in the right place at the right time. If Nash had signed with any other team other than the Suns when he became a FA, he probably wouldn't even made it to an all-star game, let alone win an MVP. He has been doing this for years with the Mavs and no one seemed to notice or give any credit and all of a sudden, he gets Amare and Marion as his teammates and he becomes a top 10 PG of all time? Nash is probably one of the top 20 guards of all time, but without the Phoenix system, Marion and Amare, he would've just been remembered as a mediocre point guard who played in the NBA.
I say he's top 10 but I don't see him getting into the HOF without a title. I'd rank him in the bottom 5 probably even under Jason Kidd as well.
<div class="quote_poster">Playmaker15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I say he's top 10 but I don't see him getting into the HOF without a title. I'd rank him in the bottom 5 probably even under Jason Kidd as well.</div> must be kidding me...
For me personally he's still got a ways to go to reach the top two. Improving every season and picking up two straight MVP awards is earning him more and more respect, but he still isn't on the level of John Stockton, who is my number one, and Magic. He's close to many others right now though, the man is a genius in setting up the Phoenix game. Even with a limited role he puts up a great contribution. You can put a smudge on his past, but what he's doing right now more then makes up for his low play in the first few seasons. <div class="quote_poster">Playmaker15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I say he's top 10 but I don't see him getting into the HOF without a title.</div> So, there's no chance of John Stockton getting into the Hall of Fame either? lol! Right, right.
<div class="quote_poster">dallasdude Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Talk about being in the right place at the right time. If Nash had signed with any other team other than the Suns when he became a FA, he probably wouldn't even made it to an all-star game, let alone win an MVP. He has been doing this for years with the Mavs and no one seemed to notice or give any credit and all of a sudden, he gets Amare and Marion as his teammates and he becomes a top 10 PG of all time? </div> People were definitely taking notice his last 2-3 years in Dallas. <div class="quote_poster">dallasdude Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Nash is probably one of the top 20 guards of all time, but without the Phoenix system, Marion and Amare, he would've just been remembered as a mediocre point guard who played in the NBA.</div> Mediocre point guard? You do remember him making the all-star team and All NBA third team twice while he was on Dallas right? Do you have a short memory span or something? Do you call 17 and 8 mediocre? Nash was already an all-star and one of the better point guards in the league even before he joined Phoenix. Don't tell me that he would have just been a mediocre point guard on any other team. You don't just suddenly turn into a multiple MVP and one of the best point guards in history because he is in a good "system". <div class="quote_poster">Playmaker15 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I say he's top 10 but I don't see him getting into the HOF without a title.</div> He has back-to-back MVPs with a good chance of getting 3 in a row. Please be serious.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Nash is definitely below Stockton and Magic. He's also below Isiah, Oscar and a whole lot of other floor generals I'm forgetting. These 3 great years doesn't make up for his years past years.</div> Nash has exceed Isiah Thomas my opinion. Other than Magic and maybe Stockton, I don't think there's been a better PG on the offensive end. Granted, I wasn't watching the NBA 30 years ago, but I just think Nash is special. In terms of pure basketball skill and "IQ," he's the best since Larry Bird.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Nash has exceed Isiah Thomas my opinion. Other than Magic and maybe Stockton, I don't think there's been a better PG on the offensive end. Granted, I wasn't watching the NBA 30 years ago, but I just think Nash is special. In terms of pure basketball skill and "IQ," he's the best since Larry Bird.</div> Steve Nash really has taken is game to another level, there's no denying that, but I think when measuring up to former point guards, he simply can't compare. If he played his whole career like he did in Phoenix, he might be up there with Magic and Stockton. But he hasn’t, so that’s moot a point. And how has he exceeded Isiah Thomas? Isiah is a two-time NBA champion, 5th all-time in total assists, and 4th all-time in assists per game. You also have to take into account the era he was playing in. The 80's and 90's is considered the NBA’s golden age. The game was much more physical and was at its peak in competitiveness. Isiah was able to thrive in this era and get two NBA championships while being one of a few teams to knock off the Bulls. Remember a point guard’s duties aren’t only on offense. Defense is just as important. In terms of defense I don’t think it’s debatable that Isiah Thomas—one of the best defensive point guards of all-time—was much better than Nash and again, his competition was much more elite. And in terms of toughness, Isiah wins. We’re talking about a player who played on a severely sprained ankle in the NBA Finals. I doubt Nash could muster enough inner toughness to do that. And that’s not discrediting him, since most players can’t do it either. It just goes to show you how good Isiah was. Another reason why I find Nash suspect is his years in Dallas. Why couldn’t he replicate the same success as he did in Phoenix? His MVP awards are impressive, but they don’t put him on the same level as Isiah who has two championships, while Nash is yet to go to the Finals let alone win it all. In fact, all of the great point guards have gone to the finals multiple times: Magic, Stockton, Isiah, Oscar, Kidd, Frazier, etc. Until Nash can get to that plateau he can’t be considered better than any of the aforementioned point guards.
Great points MrJ. To say that Nash has passed Isiah is ludacris! When Nash gets his 2 championships then we will start talking. I am suprised that a few of you rate Stockton as #1 all time- you are WAY off. If you are talking pure point guards then Magic has to come first. Oscar was better than Magic but not as much a pure point. So I say it is Magic then Isiah. Stockton didnt even make allnba 1st team till like 94 or so. Magic was 1st team EVERY year. I have always wondered if Isiah could trade teams with Magic, how great he would be viewed. I think the Lakers still win 5, maybe 4. Also, put the Celts in the West and 80s Lakers in the east and I think the Celts win 5. No Philly, Washington, Bucks, Bulls, Hawks, Pistons, etc in the West.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Steve Nash really has taken is game to another level, there's no denying that, but I think when measuring up to former point guards, he simply can't compare. If he played his whole career like he did in Phoenix, he might be up there with Magic and Stockton. But he hasn?t, so that?s moot a point. ...</div> I admit, I'm focusing mostly on Nash's last 3 years. But he was very good, allstar-caliber in Dallas as well. Those Dallas teams were amongst the very best offensively, in the history of this league. You have to give a lot of credit to the PG for that. Stockton and Isiah had the benefit of playing for the same team their entire career. Maybe they wouldn't have been superstars in another system. Leaving aside Stockton (certainly if you consider longevity, he had a more accomplished career than Nash up to this point), I think I'd rank Nash ahead of Isiah. I get the feeling that Isiah has been somewhat overrated. His teams were only successful in about a 5-year period -- outside that he was the PG on some average to simply terrible teams. I think his reputation as a defensive PG is overblown -- Joe Dumars was the defensive stopper in that backcourt, not Isiah. Isiah's individual numbers certainly don't scream all-time great. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Another reason why I find Nash suspect is his years in Dallas. Why couldn?t he replicate the same success as he did in Phoenix? His MVP awards are impressive, but they don?t put him on the same level as Isiah who has two championships, while Nash is yet to go to the Finals let alone win it all. In fact, all of the great point guards have gone to the finals multiple times: Magic, Stockton, Isiah, Oscar, Kidd, Frazier, etc. Until Nash can get to that plateau he can?t be considered better than any of the aforementioned point guards.</div> The Western Conference has been tough the last 5 years. There's no shame in not getting out of it. I think we're looking at this a little different. You're focusing on the overall career accomplisments -- a perfectly legitimate perspective. I guess I'm more looking at how good the player was at his peak.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">I admit, I'm focusing mostly on Nash's last 3 years. But he was very good, allstar-caliber in Dallas as well. Those Dallas teams were amongst the very best offensively, in the history of this league. You have to give a lot of credit to the PG for that.</div> I agree, but I also think many point guards can do what Nash did in Dallas. He had two good scorers in Nowitzki and Finley, both all-stars, and a lot of offensive options off the bench to choose from including Nick Van Exel. Dallas having one of the best offenses in the league didn’t translate into a championship or a Finals appearance for that matter. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Stockton and Isiah had the benefit of playing for the same team their entire career. Maybe they wouldn't have been superstars in another system. Leaving aside Stockton (certainly if you consider longevity, he had a more accomplished career than Nash up to this point), I think I'd rank Nash ahead of Isiah. I get the feeling that Isiah has been somewhat overrated. His teams were only successful in about a 5-year period -- outside that he was the PG on some average to simply terrible teams. I think his reputation as a defensive PG is overblown -- Joe Dumars was the defensive stopper in that backcourt, not Isiah. Isiah's individual numbers certainly don't scream all-time great.</div> I think Stockton and Isiah staying with the same team for their whole career just proves their worth. But it doesn’t matter since Nash, despite playing for two teams, had coaches with a fastbreak philosophy. Every team he’s been on has been primarily a fastbreak team so Nash has been in the same system his whole career too. The only time the Pistons have been simply terrible is in Isiah Thomas’ first two season and his lat season when the team suffered many injuries. And during that five-year span you mentioned, Isiah enjoyed more success than Nash ever has. Joe Dumars was the better defender, but Isiah was a good defender and much better than Nash anyway. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Western Conference has been tough the last 5 years. There's no shame in not getting out of it. I think we're looking at this a little different. You're focusing on the overall career accomplisments -- a perfectly legitimate perspective. I guess I'm more looking at how good the player was at his peak.</div> The Western Conference was far less superior to the Eastern Conference in the 80’s and 90’s. While we’re on the subject let it be known that Isiah Thomas is the only player in NBA history to have a winning record against Bird, Magic, and Jordan—arguably three of the greatest players of all-time and certainly at their respective positions. None of the teams in the Western Conference can compare to the NBA’s elite teams during the 80’s and 90’s. When measuring all-time greats you have to look at them for what they did during their whole career—not just during their peak. And Isiah Thomas was the better player and played during a much harder era not to mention his teams have enjoyed much more success.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> The Western Conference was far less superior to the Eastern Conference in the 80?s and 90?s. While we?re on the subject let it be known that Isiah Thomas is the only player in NBA history to have a winning record against Bird, Magic, and Jordan?arguably three of the greatest players of all-time and certainly at their respective positions. None of the teams in the Western Conference can compare to the NBA?s elite teams during the 80?s and 90?s. When measuring all-time greats you have to look at them for what they did during their whole career?not just during their peak. And Isiah Thomas was the better player and played during a much harder era not to mention his teams have enjoyed much more success.</div> I think Nash has had a better career than Isiah. In terms of individual accomplishments, I would weight 2 MVPs higher than 2 championships. I guess I don't credit Isiah as much for his team's success as you do. Yes, he helped his team win a lot of games. But he was generally an inefficient and high turnover-player, which means he also helped his team lose a lot of games.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think Nash has had a better career than Isiah. In terms of individual accomplishments, I would weight 2 MVPs higher than 2 championships. I guess I don't credit Isiah as much for his team's success as you do. Yes, he helped his team win a lot of games. But he was generally an inefficient and high turnover-player, which means he also helped his team lose a lot of games.</div> How did he have a better career? The main goal of being in the NBA is helping your team win a championship. 2 MVP awards with 0 Finals appearances isn't as highly rated as 2 championships. Players and especially point guards are generally ranked by how much they win and Nash hasn't really been too close to an NBA championship. How can Nash have the better career because of three great seasons? And Isiah was inefficient? He did get a lot of turnovers because as a point guard, he frequently handled the ball. This is the same Isiah who averaged 21/4.5/14 in a season, which is greater than any season Nash has ever had. Had Isiah been a part of this extremely less competitive season in the 2000's, he could have gotten 3 maybe 4 MVP awards. His FG% was also very high, so how was he inefficient enough to help his team lose a lot of games?
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">How did he have a better career? The main goal of being in the NBA is helping your team win a championship. 2 MVP awards with 0 Finals appearances isn't as highly rated as 2 championships. Players and especially point guards are generally ranked by how much they win and Nash hasn't really been too close to an NBA championship. How can Nash have the better career because of three great seasons? </div> We don't rate players by how many championships they won, for obvious reasons. I feel quite comfortable in saying that Kevin Garnett is a much better player than James Worthy, despite only getting out of the first round once. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And Isiah was inefficient? He did get a lot of turnovers because as a point guard, he frequently handled the ball. This is the same Isiah who averaged 21/4.5/14 in a season, which is greater than any season Nash has ever had.</div> I disagree there. Just based on the pure individual numbers, Isiah had a 22.2 PER that season (a career high for him). Nash had a 22.6 PER season with Mavs (in 2003), he was 23.2 last year, and this year he's at 24.6 Remember that teams played much faster in the 80s compared to now (yes, even compared to the Suns). That seaons, Isiah got about 10 more possessions a game to get his stats than Nash has had. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Had Isiah been a part of this extremely less competitive season in the 2000's, he could have gotten 3 maybe 4 MVP awards. His FG% was also very high, so how was he inefficient enough to help his team lose a lot of games?</div> FG% ignores his lack of three point shooting. He was below average in his offensive efficiency for most of his career. Certainly after 1986 (when the Pistons actually became legitimate title contenders).
<div class="quote_poster">mmonte4 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Great points MrJ. To say that Nash has passed Isiah is ludacris! When Nash gets his 2 championships then we will start talking. </div> Ludicrous, not Ludacris ... Just pointing it out because its one of the few big words in my vocab. Durvasa, man ... I don't know if I would rate 2 MVP awards over 2 championships and Isiah's defense counts for a lot too while Nash has no defense whatsoever.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">We don't rate players by how many championships they won, for obvious reasons. I feel quite comfortable in saying that Kevin Garnett is a much better player than James Worthy, despite only getting out of the first round once.</div> A championship won isn?t always the determining factor to a player?s legacy, but they are definitely important in measuring a player and much more important than an MVP award, which is often times debatable. The difference in this argument is Isiah was not only better than Nash, but he also has two championships, which adds to his legacy. It?s asinine to conclude Nash had the better career than Isiah, especially since your only basis is due to the fact he has twp MVP awards. Using that logic I can conclude that Nash has a better career than Kobe who has no MVP awards, right? While he doesn?t have the MVP awards Isiah has: ? NBA All-Rookie Team (1982) ? Three All NBA First-Team (1984, 1985, 1986) ? Two All NBA Second-Team (1983, 1987) ? Two NBA Championships with the Detroit Pistons (1989, 1990) ? NBA Finals MVP, 1990 (27.6 ppg, 7.0 apg, 5.2 rpg) ? 12-time NBA All-Star (1982-1993) ? Two All-Star Game MVP?s in 1984 (following a 21-point, 15 assist outing) and in 1986 (following a 30- point, 10 assist game) ? Ranks fourth in NBA history in assists (9,061, 9.3 apg) ? Ranks ninth in NBA history in steals (1,861) ? All-time leading scorer in Detroit Pistons history (18,822, 19.2 ppg), 28th in NBA history upon retirement and currently 34th best in NBA history ? All-time assist holder (9,061) in Detroit Pistons history ? Holds the NBA Finals single-game record for most points in one quarter with 25 (June 19, 1988 vs. ? Los Angeles Lakers) ? Holds the NBA Finals single-game record for most field goals in one quarter with 11 (June 19, 1988 vs. Los Angeles Lakers) ? Shares NBA Finals single-game record for most field goals in one half with 14 (June 19 vs. Los Angeles Lakers) ? Dished out 25 assists against the Washington Bullets on Feb. 7, 1985 and versus the Dallas Mavericks on Feb. 13, 1985 ? NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team (1996) Now can you honestly say Nash?s two MVP awards in a much less competitive NBA can compare to Isiah Thomas and his career awards? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I disagree there. Just based on the pure individual numbers, Isiah had a 22.2 PER that season (a career high for him). Nash had a 22.6 PER season with Mavs (in 2003), he was 23.2 last year, and this year he's at 24.6 Remember that teams played much faster in the 80s compared to now (yes, even compared to the Suns). That seaons, Isiah got about 10 more possessions a game to get his stats than Nash has had.</div> I don?t know where you got those stats from, but I just calculated Isiah?s PER that season and it came out to 27.9, which, as I said, is higher than any of Nash?s PER for a season. Also the 3-point line was introduced to the league in 1980, so Isiah never really added that to his game. He was a very good midrange shooter though and got to the line much more than Nash. And those stats barely take into account a player?s defensive prowess, which we already concluded that Isiah was a much better defender than Nash.
<div class="quote_poster">MrJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">A championship won isn?t always the determining factor to a player?s legacy, but they are definitely important in measuring a player and much more important than an MVP award, which is often times debatable. The difference in this argument is Isiah was not only better than Nash, but he also has two championships, which adds to his legacy. It?s asinine to conclude Nash had the better career than Isiah, especially since your only basis is due to the fact he has twp MVP awards. Using that logic I can conclude that Nash has a better career than Kobe who has no MVP awards, right? </div> MVP is not my basis. Ignoring any awards and just focusing on their individual games, I think Nash is better. If we want to look beyond their individual play and consider other career accomplishments to help us determine how great they were, yes I'd weight an MVP much higher than a championship. 2 MVPs, and perhaps a 3rd? That's an indicator for an all-time great player. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Now can you honestly say Nash?s two MVP awards in a much less competitive NBA can compare to Isiah Thomas and his career awards?</div> Yes. Those accomplishments you listed apparently impress you much more than they impress me. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don?t know where you got those stats from, but I just calculated Isiah?s PER that season and it came out to 27.9, which, as I said, is higher than any of Nash?s PER for a season. Also the 3-point line was introduced to the league in 1980, so Isiah never really added that to his game. He was a very good midrange shooter though and got to the line much more than Nash. And those stats barely take into account a player?s defensive prowess, which we already concluded that Isiah was a much better defender than Nash.</div> How did you calculate PER? What formula did you use? Unless you have all the stats for every player in the league in that season, you can't calculate PER as it is defined. I got those numbers from basketball-reference.com. Isiah's efficiency was below average, relative to the league he was in, so we can't excuse him for not being as efficient because he didn't develop the 3-point shot. He should have shot a higher percentage inside the arc, then. As for the defense, if Isiah was a such an accomplished defensive player why was he never recognized by the league for it? For a high profile player on a team with a reputation for defense, you'd think he would have made one of those All-Defense teams. Never happened. Let's not overblow the difference in their defensive abilities. Even if Isiah was a much better defender, I'd argue that has a marginal impact on winning games. Certainly relative to their offense.
