STEVE NASH LEGEND or just a crazy fast, good shooting, passing guy?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 7 2007, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And do you really think that he wouldn't have won a ring without Phil? I'm not sure if he'd have still won six but he'd have probably won a couple. He probably also wouldn't have retired to play baseball sans the three peat</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You made my point for me. It was pippen, rodman, even armstrong, kerr, paxon, longley, and all those role players, who won them their championships.</div>
I said that everyone played a big part including Phil. Besides all those role players weren't with Jordan through the entire 6 rings, I said Jackson was a key part. Without the tri-angle offense and Jackson as I said Jordan would've won maybe one ring. I was saying both Jackson and the role players played a huge part, you said that it was just hte role players.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I said that everyone played a big part including Phil. Besides all those role players weren't with Jordan through the entire 6 rings, I said Jackson was a key part. Without the tri-angle offense and Jackson as I said Jordan would've won maybe one ring. I was saying both Jackson and the role players played a huge part, you said that it was just hte role players.</div>And I disagree. Jordan would have won probably 3-4 rings without jackson. They were just so much better than anybody else in the league. A coach makes maybe a 4-5 game difference max.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 8 2007, 01:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And I disagree. Jordan would have won probably 3-4 rings without jackson. They were just so much better than anybody else in the league. A coach makes maybe a 4-5 game difference max.</div>
You think that without good coaching the Bulls would have been succesful? Coaching is one of the biggest if not the biggest factor to winning games. Rotations, practicing offense/defense, and leadership play such a big part in winning basketball games. Thinking that without arguebely the greatest coach of all time the Bulls would still have won 68 or so games? If you do then you're underrating the value of good coaching a great deal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GArenas @ Apr 8 2007, 12:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You think that without good coaching the Bulls would have been succesful? Coaching is one of the biggest if not the biggest factor to winning games. Rotations, practicing offense/defense, and leadership play such a big part in winning basketball games. Thinking that without arguebely the greatest coach of all time the Bulls would still have won 68 or so games? If you do then you're underrating the value of good coaching a great deal.</div>With all of the talent the Bulls had, especially with the bets player in the league and one of the best in Pippen, they were just totally dominant in that era. They would have won multiple rings without Phil.

 

I'm of the Valo / BigMo stance on this one. In terms of point guard comparison, let's look at some frequent names. John Stockton, often regarded as the greatest half court passer of all time, was surrounded by a team that was often fast break demented. Having seen upwards of a dozen - twenty games of Stockton in his prime, and tons of games of Stockton in his latter years, it is painfully clear that John Stockton was in a situation that worked. Aside from having an incredible baseball pass that often saw a streaking Karl Malone downcourt, Stockton slowed games down in intelligent fashion more that most players will dare. From there, Stockton was always surrounded by guys who could shoot, had centers who could catch, and then there's Karl Malone, possibly the best screen and roll player of all time.Stockton was in a great and suitable situation.Magic Johnson, often revered as the greatest full court passer and greatest point guard of all time, had more tools than a home improvement store. For names, refer to Valo. In short, he had spot-up shooters, slashers, everyone on his team ran, and he had a certain post up player good for 3 assists per game. Basically, Magic had as good a situation as any player in NBA history, and his playing with a fast paced game for nearly an entire career garnered him statistics most players cannot dream of.Magic was in a great and suitable situation.Jason Kidd, right up there with Magic in terms of fastbreak passing, exploded in 2002 for his best season. Why, do you ask? Well, the team was the best fastbreak squad in the NBA and sported the precursor to Phoenix's present day style. Jason Kidd likes running, and he played on a team that sported a spot-up shooting Kerry Kittles, possibly the fastest and most athletic NBA big man in Kenyon Martin, a spot-up shooting center in Jason Collins, and Keith Van Horn, who could not only shoot but finish in transition as well. Yeah, you've also got Richard Jefferson coming off the bench. Kidd played with guys who could run, maybe of whom could run very well, and he took advantage. He will be remembered in his time with the Nets.Kidd was in a great and suitable situation.Isiah Thomas was a different breed, a scorer. He played on a Pistons squad that, while having shooters and tough guys, was lacking in the "attack" department. Bill Laimbeer could shoot and hit the hook, but he couldn't isolate. Joe Dumars could isolate on limited occasion, but was more the quintessential mid-range shooter of the 80s. Bob Lanier could bang, but play one-on-one or blitz across 94 feet? No. Isiah had to drive, he had to attack, many times he had to take a team on his back, and that's how he garnered such a noticeable scoring ability. Isiah was in a great and suitable situation.All I know, is that all the greats have been in situations that worked in their favor. Steve Nash, is in a situation that works in his favor, but don't for a second use that against him.Just look at the San Antonio game several nights ago. Steve Nash got shut down. He was unable to penetrate to the middle, he was marked in transition everytime, and the defense collapsed on him just enough to make passing lanes close. What happened? The Spurs beat the Suns with relative ease in one of the most misleading statistical games ever played.Steve Nash means everything to the Suns, but I would go much further than that. He does have a good team, but that shouldn't be bad, it should be a given. All great players have needed appropriate teammates to:A) WinB) Become a better individual playerLook what happened to Ben Wallace when he went to Detroit. Slow defensive team? That's Big Ben's forte, and it made him better for the time being.Look what happened after Joe Johnson got traded to the Suns and they started playing up-tempo. That's a spot-up shooter benefiting right there. It made him better, and better known.When TMac got traded to Orlando, he had one great playoff series under his belt and B-player status. The next year he was an All Star and one of the best scorers in the NBA. Orlando had nothing, so TMac was put in a position to score, and score much. Those guys went to teams virtually unknown, used a suitable offense to attribute their ability, and used the gained abilities to become stars. That's what NBA players do, they find teams that will correlate with their skill, making them better.It's how things work. Degrading Steve Nash for being in a great and undeniably perfect situation is the basis for degrading many, many, players in NBA history. It's dumb in my opinion, and that's no shot at anyone who holds such a belief, but rather at the principle itself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Apr 8 2007, 02:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>With all of the talent the Bulls had, especially with the bets player in the league and one of the best in Pippen, they were just totally dominant in that era. They would have won multiple rings without Phil.</div>
They would still need a good coach to win multiple chips even if it wasn't phil jackson. It was a very talented squad and it could've still won a chip but Pestilicance says that the difference between have phil would only be about 4/5 games...that's ridiculous.

 

[quote name='KMart?' post='328999' date='Apr 8 2007, 08:07 AM']I'm of the Valo / BigMo stance on this one. In terms of point guard comparison, let's look at some frequent names. John Stockton, often regarded as the greatest half court passer of all time, was surrounded by a team that was often fast break demented. Having seen upwards of a dozen - twenty games of Stockton in his prime, and tons of games of Stockton in his latter years, it is painfully clear that John Stockton was in a situation that worked. Aside from having an incredible baseball pass that often saw a streaking Karl Malone downcourt, Stockton slowed games down in intelligent fashion more that most players will dare. From there, Stockton was always surrounded by guys who could shoot, had centers who could catch, and then there's Karl Malone, possibly the best screen and roll player of all time.[/quote]Yes, Stockton had Malone, but really not much else in terms of role players during the jazz' prime years. Not half of what nash has, and the offense wasn't nearly as dangerous or uptempo as the Suns. yet Stockton would score about as much as nash, dish 13-15APG, and shoot over 50%.

Magic was in an awesome situation, and as I said before, no one is for certain how he would have done with less help and not in the offense. But due to his size and sheer ability, I am sure he would have been the top PG in the league no matter the offense.

Kidd was awesome no matter what team he played for. You say the nets were so uptempo, yet they only scored 96PPG in their best year. Van Horn was only with the Nets for a year, RJ is an isolation player, and if you EVER see Jason Collins taking a jumpshot you know the Nets are in trouble. Kidd had an awesome PF in Kenyon who could finish in transition, and Kerry Kittles was a pretty good spot up jumper, but they didn't have a ton of help outside of that to help the uptempo offense. The Suns best PF (Amare) is better than Kenyon, give me Raja spotting up for 3 over Kerry, give me the way more versatile SF in marion over RJ, and give me the awesome D'Antoni offense over the more defensive oriented Byron Scott team.

As you said, Isiah wasn't in exactly the best offense to help him out. Yet, he was an awesome scorer and very good passer. It is fair to say he would have been doing greater things in an uptempo offense, and would have been arguably the best PG of the time no matter the offense.

That game is EXACTLY why people criticize Nash. With the game slowed down to a more normal pace, and Suns forced to play totally in the half court, what happenned? Nash couldn't get those easy drives to the rim, pullup 3's, 11 assists, etc...

No one is degrading Nash for what he is doing with the Suns. He is what makes the Suns a 60 win team, and is doing a better job than anyone else in the NBA could do. But people question Nash because he couldn't play at a superstar level in another offense in which he played most of his career. The only time he has played at this kind of level is with the perfect offensive system and role players built around him. Is it unfair to Nash as players like Magic played in a similar offense their whole career? Possibly, but I make my judgement on watching the games. I truly feel Magic would have been the best PG in the league no matter the offense. He was the most versatile PG to ever play the game due to his size and unique abilities. Nash has not shown he can be top 50 all time caliber in any other system, and fair or not, I feel that will ultimately be a detriment to him when looking back on him 20 years from now.

 

And immediately, you've missed the point, while proving mine. Stockton was primarily a halfcourt passer, and upon receiving the ball after an opposing miss, he would routinely pull back if nothing was blatantly there. Hence, his Jazz teams were built to play to Stockton's strengths. Stockton liked playing half court offense, and his teams were made up of players who did most of their damage in the halfcourt.Stockton liked playing the pick and roll game, so he was routinely stocked with centers who could catch the ball well off screens. Nothing should be said for Karl Malone.Stockton liked using screens, again, the reason he was routinely stacked with great screeners. After Stockton became the Jazz's starting point guard, all his teams in Utah started being build around a similar blueprint. He was always in the situation that was best for his game. That's the argument here, and it's unarguable Stockton was in a prime situation with a congruous offense in Utah.

But again, he was in an awesome situation.

This is what I'm getting at: In 2002, where Kidd was wonderfully equipped, the best he's been equipped in his career, he had his most memorable year, finishing 2nd in MVP voting. SG - He had Kerry Kittles and Lucious Harris running up and down, and spotting up for jumpshots in frighteningly identical fashion.SF - He had Keith Van Horn and Richard Jefferson getting up and down the court. Richard Jefferson at the time was primarily a fast break player, who could isolate 3 - 5 times a game. Keith Van Horn shot the ball and slashed in respectable fashion.PF - Kenyon Martin, who at the time, was making a name for himself.C - Jason Collins and Aaron Williams, both banging inside while shooting open shots with decent reliability. Williams could run in limited bursts.Kidd had a solid 8 man rotation going, and his team's were indeed uptempo. I can remember throughout that year, there were countless declarations of - "80s basketball is back!" That team was up tempo, at least compared to everyone else.And, what do you know, Kidd is an up tempo player. Again, perfect situation resulting in great success.

Isiah was always a scorer, and having such mediocre offenses allowed him to shoot, shoot, and shoot. History has shown us that scorers playing in situations where they have to pass is not always a good thing.Look at Allen Iverson in Denver. The athleticism is still there, but the need to share and alter his game is killing him individually and from a team standpoint. Look at all those scorers who went to New York, and how their careers have become second thoughts due to needed attempts at being more passive and up tempo.Then again, you do have situations where positive things have resulted from scorers trying to go elsewhere, so it goes both ways. We can't be sure that either would have resulted, but we can be sure that Isiah's desires filtered through perfectly with Detroit, and allowed him to play in such a way he was successful.

The Suns get a higher percentage of their points in the half court than people think. I can't check, but I'm guessing the Suns average around 25 FBPPG, factor in 30 off FTs, and you're still looking at 50 PPG that the team gets in the halfcourt. If you've seen Nash play as you claim, you'd know he has a massive part to do with that aspect as well.But again, what I'm trying to prove is that Nash's valuability goes beyond the system. The guy rarely has a bad game, against slower teams or faster teams, but when he does play badly it is often in direct correlation with a L.

Let's compareallas - Touches in transition: Every time the Mavericks break, Nash controls the ball.Touches in half court: Nash brings the ball up, and after giving it off he becomes the third scoring option.Phoenix - Touches in transition: Every time the Suns break, Nash controls the ball.Touches in half court: Nash brings the ball up, and after giving it up the is still the #1 scoring option.Phoenix plays to Nash's strengths more than Dallas does, but a bigger part of it is that he is the #1 guy. Period. In Dallas, he didn't get the opportunity to work has ballhandling in such abundance because of Dirk and Finley. Here is what I'm getting at:In NBA history, it is factual that great players have been in matching situations to their needs. Magic likes to run, he plays for a fast break team. Stockton likes it slow, he plays with others that like it slow. Thomas likes to score, he plays on a team that needs him to score. Kidd likes to run, he's played on teams that like to run, and in his best year, played on a team so transition oriented they were dubbed as the "2nd coming of showtime" in the Toronto Star, on TSN, and in the LA Times if I'm not mistaken. Maybe this isn't directed at you, but when I hear certain members and fans degrade Nash because he plays in a situation that works for him, I get angry. Nash won't rank as high as Magic, Isiah, Stockton, perhaps not even Kidd, but right now, at this point in time, he is playing the PG position as well as it has ever been played, and for that, he is legendary.

 

[quote name='KMart' post='329318' date='Apr 8 2007, 04:05 PM']And immediately, you've missed the point, while proving mine. Stockton was primarily a halfcourt passer, and upon receiving the ball after an opposing miss, he would routinely pull back if nothing was blatantly there. Hence, his Jazz teams were built to play to Stockton's strengths. Stockton liked playing half court offense, and his teams were made up of players who did most of their damage in the halfcourt.Stockton liked playing the pick and roll game, so he was routinely stocked with centers who could catch the ball well off screens. Nothing should be said for Karl Malone.Stockton liked using screens, again, the reason he was routinely stacked with great screeners. After Stockton became the Jazz's starting point guard, all his teams in Utah started being build around a similar blueprint. He was always in the situation that was best for his game. That's the argument here, and it's unarguable Stockton was in a prime situation with a congruous offense in Utah.[/quote]But again, after Malone he didn't have a ton of great role players. And with Phoenix, the uptempo offense doesn't necassarily mean fastbreak. Constant ball movement, 3 players can play PG, etc... Towards the end of the '90's he started to get good spot up shooters to go along with Malone, but in the early '90's he had no great shooters and a bunch of no name players outside of Malone, yet was putting up 15-17PPG/12-14APG on over 50% shooting. Without the kind of uptempo offense Nash is in, he wasn't able to just walk into lane for easy layups, and rarely got the kind of spot up 3's off amazing team ball rotation like Nash gets.

Kerry Kittles was never the kind of shooter Bell is right now, scoring 15PPG and over 40% from 3. Harris was nice off the bench, but not as dangerous as what Phoenix has. KVH was there for 1 year, and once RJ was alone the Nets never had much at the SF position. And once again, Jason Collins doesn't shoot jumpers and is a horrible finisher.It was a nice team, but it was an extremely weak East and outside of Kidd there were no palyers that could be all stars by themselves (Amare and Marion are both stars with or without Nash). They were not near the Suns team in terms of fastbreak or halfcourt execution, and Nash has a MUCH stronger supporting cast at every position. There was a ton of talk about the Nets fast break offense because Kidd was a 1 man fastbreak and they had a few nice finishers...and the fact that the league average was in early-mid '90's. They were handicapped in the halfcourt, and they only averaged 96PPG in their heyday. the league average now is in upper '90's, and the top offensive teams like the Suns are in mid-upper 100's.And as I said, Kidd has been successful on each team and system he has played on/with. Even now, he is playing with a player in VC who handles the ball just as much/more than Kidd, isolation players in RJ and Krstic when healthy, and another PG/SG who creates his own shots in Marcus Williams. Despite all of this, Kidd has been awesome the past 2 seasons (especially this season). This season he has been as good as he was with the showtime Nets :happy0144:

You can't compare Isiah to AI. AI, for his whole career, has been a 30PPG scorer and playing the SG position up until very recently. He also has never shot a very good % from the field. Isiah, while had a scorers mentality, had 6 seasons of over 9APG, and always shot a pretty good % and never scored more than 22PPG. His team needed him to be PG, with no more emphasis on scoring than playmaking.

Of course he does, but look at the points he gets in the halfcourt. When he drives, on most nights, NO one comes to help or collapse due to the finishers around the rim and the amazing jumpshooter that the Suns are. Easy layup. When the ball is being thrown around like a hot potato, he is left open from 3. This happenned twice in the first quarter of today's game vs LA. On the pick and roll, due to the versatility of Marion, Amare and Diaw, he gets really akward mismatches (like Dirk). With the Spurs, they play defense against the Suns like any other team. They cover up the 3pt shooters, collapse on Nash, and force the big men like Amare to beat them.

What makes Nash, and the Suns, work with the offense they have is that Nash isn't the #1 scoring option....no one in particular is is. On any given night there are 6 guys that can drop 30. In Dallas he was taking more FGA than in Phoenix, and he had the ball in his hands just as much. He had a lot of finsihers on the fastbreak, and he also had quite a number of targets in the halfcourt 9although valo is correct, a number of them were isolation players). But, the bottom line is he wasn't a superstar caliber player with the Mavs like he is with the Suns. Unlike players like Kidd, he doesn't get the rebounds or play the defense to make his presence felt in other places.

Of course, players will naturally play their best in situations that conform to their special abilities. The problem with Nash and ranking him among the best of all time is that he was barely an all star caliber player when he wasn't with the Suns. This Suns team is one of the most talented the NBA has ever seen with quite possibly the perfect mix of finishers and 3pt shooters. I agree with you, Nash is PERFECT for the system, but he is in a situation few have ever been in, and unlike a Magic Johnson, doesn't have the rings to show for it, doesn't quite have the stats Magic did, and wasn't as versatile as Magic (the man played center in the NBA Finals as a rookie and had 42/15/7/3). Unlike Kidd or Stockton, he isn't a fantastic rebounder or defender.What Nash is doing right now is incredible, but when I think of ranking him with the best PG's of all time, I have all of these things to think about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They would still need a good coach to win multiple chips even if it wasn't phil jackson. It was a very talented squad and it could've still won a chip but Pestilicance says that the difference between have phil would only be about 4/5 games...that's ridiculous.</div>Is that why the '60s celtics couldn't win back to back rings with red auerbach being replaced by a young guy with no coaching experience?Is that why the lakers in the '80s couldn't win a ring with a guy who had never coached before in the NBA and would only coach in the league for five years, with only two winning seasons?Oh yeah, they did.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Apr 6 2007, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Because a championship is a team accomplishment. I think it would help Nash's case, but you can be a legend without a championship.</div>With the talent that he has, it is a shame that he hasnt won it. If they give him the MVP award again this year, and his team doesn't win it all, I will be so disgusted. To keep on giving the award to a man who has proven NOTHING in the playoffs would be ridiculous. If he wins the MVP this year, and gets a ring this year, call him a legend...If not, then you know my stance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Apr 8 2007, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>With the talent that he has, it is a shame that he hasnt won it. If they give him the MVP award again this year, and his team doesn't win it all, I will be so disgusted. To keep on giving the award to a man who has proven NOTHING in the playoffs would be ridiculous. If he wins the MVP this year, and gets a ring this year, call him a legend...If not, then you know my stance.</div>
Well, 2 conference finals in a row is pretty impressive especially out West. It is hard for Pheonix to win a ring because they play in a very tough conference that could hypothetically lead to 3 straight 7 games series for Pheonix. The Suns also have to get past a powerhouse team in Dallas which is very difficult. This is getting repetetive but Stockton/Malone never won rings yet they had HoF careers. I'm not saying it's not possible for the Suns to win it this year but if they don't it's not completely un-reasonable to give it to Nash unless Pheonix faces a first round exit.

 

Not to mention that last year they were without Amare Stoudemire. The thing that bothers me about the playoffs though is that no matter who comes out of the West, they are going to be so beat up because of how tough the conference is that it will give the East team a little bit of an advantage in the Finals since their path is easier. That's why I think they should just do away with the whole "top eight teams in each conference making the playoffs" and just put the top sixteen teams in the playoffs, regardless of conference. Seed them 1-16, and play it out. That would be more fair, in my opinion.

 

^^Yeah, and who is the best team that they have beaten out of the western conference???? Last years Clippers team who has folded this year, or the Lakers, who are nothing better than a 5th seed in the west at best. They havent beaten the Spurs, they havent beaten the Mavericks, which meanst they havent beaten anything.Since Steve Nash is the leader of the Phoenix Suns, it is his responsibility to take them to the finals. He definitely has the talent to do it...Even last year when they didnt have Amare, they were at least equally as talented as the Mavericks were...And the year before that, they were definitely more talented than the Spurs yet they lose in 5 games....All im saying is that if Nash gets the MVP this year, and they dont win it all, his MVP's are IMO, considered worthless, and he is definitely not a "legend". Because when I look back at his career, I will see a point guard who has been given more talent than needed to win it all, and when I look at his accomplishments, I will see that he never even made it to the finals. If he doesn't make it to the finals this year, and he doesn't win it all, and he does win the MVP, what will you be saying?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Apr 8 2007, 11:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^Yeah, and who is the best team that they have beaten out of the western conference???? Last years Clippers team who has folded this year, or the Lakers, who are nothing better than a 5th seed in the west at best. They havent beaten the Spurs, they havent beaten the Mavericks, which meanst they havent beaten anything.Since Steve Nash is the leader of the Phoenix Suns, it is his responsibility to take them to the finals. He definitely has the talent to do it...Even last year when they didnt have Amare, they were at least equally as talented as the Mavericks were...And the year before that, they were definitely more talented than the Spurs yet they lose in 5 games....</div>They beat the mavs 2 years back in 6 games.Last year they had no inside presence without Amare or KT, and Bell was hurt in WCF. year before they didn't have JJ against the Spurs for the first 2 games.Keep in mind I agree with most of what you are saying, but they did have reasonable excuses outside of Nash as to why they have lost in the WCF the past 2 years. Assuming everyone is healthy for this years run, there is no more excuses as to why they didn't win.

 

What you said in your last statment is what I am basically saying. Last year, they still had a shitload of talent. Obviously having Amare would have helped dramatically, but they dont appear to be THAT much better of a team this year than they were last year. And as for two years ago, they were fully healthy besides not having Joe Johnson for two games...They lost 4-1 with all of that talent. Its a shame...If they dont get it this year, they definitely dont have any excuses.

 

Last year him and Kurt Thomas were big losses. With Amare and minus Tim Thomas and Eddie House(who won a few games in the end by himself) we should be at least 8 games better, which is a pretty big difference. Last year, the Mavs had the better record during the season and then they came in healthy while we were without KT and Raja was injured as well as Amare. The Mavs were the better team after the injuries we had to go through. It's the equivalent of you guys losing Manu, taking away one of your starting guards for a game or two and then taking away his speed and shooting ability and taking away your best defensive center. I really doubt you guys beat any top teams with those types of injuries even though you might've made the WCF depending on seeding. And the year before the Spurs were the better team I think. No matter what the regular season records were it was expected that the Spurs would win...at least by me and most people on forums at the time. They just were the better team and then we lost Joe Johnson for the first two games, which were 2 close games that could've changed the outcome if he was there...but it's really stupid to take away from Nash for this because he has always given it his all and has been excellent in the playoffs. It's not his fault that we lost. If you have two teams that are close and then you take key players away from one then that team won't win.I know this is totally different from what I thought last year, it's the opposite, but the person who deserves blame is D'Antoni. I have always defended him, but especially now that he's also the GM...he deserves major blame for it. He fails to use the bench, even now that we have very capable players who succeeded on other teams. Joe Johnson's was an accident, but the reason why we were so worn out last year is because he uses such a small rotation that it pisses me off. Kurt Thomas got injured because of wear and tear and he was soooo important to our defense last year. He was responsible for an 8% difference in opponent's FG% and that's huge. Raja got too many minutes and this year he overplaying his starters again. So I blame him, not a guy that did nothing wrong. Nash has been amazing in the playoffs and there's no reason to blame him for the losses. He's put up his numbers, gotten everyone involved and has been a very hard worker. Last year we just had injuries that no team would overcome in the playoffs. Nash deserves praise for what he's done actually. The first year I saw the Suns being predicted as a 6th seed to not even being in the playoffs....the 2nd year after Amare was injured we were put in the same exact position. The Suns have overachieved the last two years and he's responsible for that.Now, this year if we stay mostly healthy there won't be much of an excuse, but Nash doesn't deserve all the criticism because he has been consistently great the last three years.

 

one thing that is interesting is that there are 132 players in the hall of fame and only four players have missed the hall of fame with a 135 basketballreference hall of fame monitor. That's a pretty damned accurate stat eh? Well Steve Nash's hall of fame monitor is 273 and has a 78% hall of fame probability on basketball-reference.com (separate website). Nobody with close to those numbers has ever not made the hall of fame, and no MVP has ever missed the hall, so the people who think that Nash won't make the hall of fame (there are a number of sportswriters who do) are in error.That being said, Nash needs to win at least a ring or two to be considered a legend. Even then, all he'll be considered as is a player who was great for three to five years (depending on when he drops off).And for the umpteenth time, the MVP is an award for the regular season and the regular season only.

 

Well, 5 years of amazingness and 3 or 4 before that being a really good point guard is still pretty damn good.One more thing I forgot to add...the Suns did beat a damn good Dallas team 2 years ago. They were on fiyah after getting Avery and we lost Joe Johnson early in that series and still won in 6, thanks to an amazing game by Nash in Game 6 on the road. And I also couldn't care less if the Clippers dropped off this year. Last year, the year that we actually played them, they were very good and had 2 really good big men against our no good big men because of our injuries and we won.I just hate using championships to determine personal greatness. It's a team effort, it should have nothing to do with the individual UNLESS that players chokes in the playoffs or is just average and you are comparing him to people that really step up their games, but Nash has been great in the playoffs....they just faced better teams.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I just hate using championships to determine personal greatness. It's a team effort, it should have nothing to do with the individual UNLESS that players chokes in the playoffs or is just average and you are comparing him to people that really step up their games, but Nash has been great in the playoffs....they just faced better teams.</div>Well I think championships will always define who is a legend and who isn't, because you can't really be considered a legend without a ring or three. But I agree it's overvaluedAlso, I think that what a lot of people don't get is that raw statistics doesn't equal how good a team is. A lot of people think Phoenix it incredibly stacked, moreso than any other team in the league, because it has a lot of players getting good production. By that same measure, people always think the Spurs are overachieving because they don't have that many players with good stats, same with the Mavs. The truth is that the pace of the team makes it look a lot more stacked than it is, and it really is no more talented than the Spurs or Mavericks. Nash plays amazingly well in the playoffs, he's just been thwarted by better teams, much like Barkley. It doesn't mean he doesn't deserve his MVPs