<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart? @ May 8 2007, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As a debate regarding the regular season, this is valid.First, one thing many Nash-haters overlook is that this guy means more to the Suns' offense than throwing fastbreak passes. In terms of total activity, Nash is involved in 58.6% of everything the Suns do offensively. Dirk Nowitzki is not even in the top 20 - he is #45. So, Steve Nash factually does more for his respective offense than Dirk Nowitzki.Steve Nash also assists on 46.8% of his team's baskets. Upon statistical evaluation, Steve Nash factually does more for his respective offense. He also factually contributes more to his teammate's scoring from a straight-forward aspect. (Influence, diversions, lurking is not taken into account)When we look at their skills, Steve Nash has an undeniable edge. As Bill Simmons insightfully stated, Dirk Nowitzki is a very good scorer - but he is not a great one (unless you call 24.6 PPG great, and then something is painfully wrong with you). Nowitzki is not even a very good passer, he is not a great rebounder (unless 8.9 RPG is great, and then something is wrong with you), and he isn't even a good defender.Steve Nash is a great passer. Screw statistics, just watch this guy play - he knows how to pass the basketball. Steve Nash is a good, if not very good scorer. San Antonio tried making this guy stop passing, and he ended up shooting 11/18 for 31 points - his team was competing, and I believe leading when he went out with that nose gash.So Steve Nash effects the game in more ways with Nowitzki, as he is great at one thing and very good at another. Nowitzki is simply a very good scorer and mediocre in every other aspect. Steve Nash also has more to do with his team's offensive production.These three things are unarguable, and if you tried doing so I'd be so bold as to call you pig-headed. Seriously, think about it - what does Nowitzki do better than Steve Nash in regard to team success?Once more why don't I: Steve Nash factually does more for his team offensively, both are terrible overall defensive players, Steve Nash can change a game more than Nowitzki, Steve Nash in unquestionably a better leader than Nowitzki (Nowitzki screams; Nash encourages), and the Suns and Mavs are at the top of the NBA standings.Come on, this isn't even close. Hey, I'm probably a tad biased in favor of Steve Nash, but the statistics, the results, and common sense says I'm correct none-the-less.[1] www.82games.com[2] www.foxsports.com[3] www.nba.com/playoffs2007</div>100% agrred. Very insightful stuff KMart, this guy is a master of the passing game. Nash is just involved with so much offesnively for the Suns, without them, im telling you guys, Shawn Marion and Stuodemire are mere role players. He makes his teammates better.
Amare is not a role player. One of the best scoring big men who can rebound well and block shots is not a role player. You see how his numbers went up when Nash was injured and how he was improving year after year without Nash when Marbury was here(averaging over 20 points in only his 2nd year, a good chunk of those games with no real point guard)? Nash does make a lot of the players look better though offensively by getting them good shots and is very important to the team success, I agree.
6'3 PG is a very good size, Nash isnt undersized. And it DOES come easier to Nash for scoring becuase of his passing. Hes such a great passer and his teammates are so good at getting open that if a team double-teams him and can pass right outve it and set a player up almost prefectly. You NEVER see Nash double team because its suicide for the other team. As Kenny Smith has always said, you want Nash to score more than to pass...he wont go for 50, but he will go for 20 assists. It comes easier to him because he never gets doubled unlike most other superstars.
too bad we had to see his playoff game.... they should really give these awards out before the playoffs(.)
I always thought Nash deserved it. It was more of a qualitative thing than quantitative, I just watched their teams play and when Nash was off the court the Suns fell apart whereas when Dirk was off the court they didn't suffer close to as much. It really looked like if Dirk left we'd start talking about Josh Howard as a top 15 player in the league, as he'd be a 23-10 guy on a 50 win team, whereas if Nash left Marion would suddenly no longer be an allstar and the team as a whole would suffer seriously, as referenced by their 4-12 record without him.
<span style="font-family:Georgia">It's much more difficult to replace an MVP PG than it is an MVP PF. You can make the obvious case that the PG is always going to be more valuable....because...duh...they run the team. So why don't we give it to the PG every time in that situation....And it's obvious that when Nash misses let's say, 5 games, it's going to be very difficult because you have a new person running the team...it's obvious the Suns wouldn't be as good without Nash, but if you give Barbosa 20+ to start in his place, I think the Suns would be more comfortable and it wouldn't hurt them as much...but judging Nash's impact when he's gone for three or so games to me is foolish...."Well look at the Suns when Nash was gone for 3 games, they suffered..." Well no sh*t. When a PF misses a few games, it's much easier to replace because they don't have as many responsibilites.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ May 8 2007, 06:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is his team perfect for a playmaker? He leads the team in points.</div><span style="font-family:Arial">No he doesn't, where did you get that info? Amare Stoudemire scores more points than Nash does, and Barbosa/Marion both score nearly the same as Nash.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ May 9 2007, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">No he doesn't, where did you get that info? Amare Stoudemire scores more points than Nash does, and Barbosa/Marion both score nearly the same as Nash.</span></div> Nash averages around 19, Amare around 20. But I know for a fact at one point in the season Nash was leading, its only 1-2 points anyways.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ May 9 2007, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nash averages around 19, Amare around 20. But I know for a fact at one point in the season Nash was leading, its only 1-2 points anyways.</div><span style="font-family:Arial">Ok?</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ May 9 2007, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">Ok?</span></div>Im just arguing the fact that people said that the Suns team was perfect for a playmaker. Im saying Nash is not only a play maker, hes a well rounded scorer too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If the playoffs are not taken into account, then it's Dirk. The Mavs were the better team, Nash has already won twice.....Dirk suited his role perfectly...He scored the ball very well...but he didn't force it like Kobe and other superstars.If the playoffs are taken into account, then Steven Nash...MVP's just don't lose in the first round....it's as simply as that....MVP's are guys that lead their teams to the Finals...not guys who choke and lose against 8th seeds...</div>What about leading an injury plagued 7th seed to a 5 game loss to a talented 2 seed?
