So... I know it's a stupid thought to compare Nash to Harden, but lets play some theoretical games about how good Nash was since MDA is still Harden's coach and people keep arguing that MDA is why Harden has superhuman statistical output (even though we all know Harden is clearly an all-around better player than Nash and thus the numbers from Harden will always be better). I also don't know how else to rank Nash than beg the question would he have won a championship with a slightly better roster or was he never going to win one without someone better than him taking him to the promise land. I posit that he's at best a 2nd or 3rd best player on a championship-level roster. That's the best he'll get, I imagine.
Nash is carrying the torch as best Canadian. Like Kidd he wasn't stat stuffing, couldn't and wouldn't explode in stats. Also no Defense. A system and specialist star player like Curry, just in the assist and shooting department. Runs alot. Very elite at couple things and much better team player than ball hogging superstars.
2nd or 3rd best player on a championship level team. He's not in MJ, Kobe, or LeBron tier. It's astounding how he has two MVPs over some all time greats. He's fairly rated as a top 5 to 10 point guard.
He was the worst defender I've ever seen. But his court vision was legendary, as was his shooting. Seems like being a playmaker is currently hugely undervalued by the talking heads. I'd say 2nd. best player on a championship team.
Offensively, he is one of the best PGs all time. He can do anything you hope your PG can do, shoot, penetrate, draw the defense, pass, make the right decision, control the pace...on an elite level. People say MDA had a potent offensive system in Phoenix. Nash was the system. Defensively, he's terrible.
Nash could have won championship only if he stayed with Dirk! Imo Nash is better than rafer alston, and anyone who knows me understands this comparison is worthwhile. Nash gets condescending treatment only because he is canadian.
Think Jason Kidd with a much better shot, but not a good defender at all. He could control a game without scoring and thats a rare thing to do. The Harden comparison is valid and I think Nash was a better shooter but never shot enough volume to put up big scoring numbers. They probably compare them because they are both known to suck on defense and played in the same system. I think another plus is he pulled off the rare 50/40/90 shooting season more than once.
He was so dominant because he had 2 right hands. He wasn't fast, strong, or tall, but just intelligent and fundamentally sound player which makes it impressive
I'm surprised to see people say he can be the best player on a championship team. Did I miss something or did he actually have a lot of help on his roster?
he was a lethal shooter and ball handler and could pull up for that mid range at anytime unlike harden. could weave in and out of places. he was like jeremy lin on steroids. could play off the ball or on. only issue was his defense. but his offense was so great it was worth it.
MVP back then was given to the player who elevated his team the most and not stat savvy dudes. Now the standard has become really different. You probably cannot give it to someone who can't be a volume scorer. MDA played a role there as well.
The 2004 Suns were very similar to the 2005 Detroit Pistons in that the sum of their parts were greater than their individual talent. Yes, both teams had very good players, but those players worked so well together that the teams were elite. The difference between the teams were that the Suns were constructed for offense while the Pistons were constructed for Defense. Nash was an elite PG but his defense was so bad that he needed elite defensive players around him to cover for his mistakes. The 04 Suns were elite on offense but wouldn’t have won 40 games if it wasn’t for Marion and Amare’s elite defense. What made the suns a contending team was the sum of their parts, not their individual talent. The 04 Suns and the recent Rockets are very similar. Harden and Nash have been very similar in that they need strong defenders around them. However, in the past 2-3 seasons Harden has proved that he is a much better defender than Nash ever was. IMO Harden is a better player than Nash but by not a whole lot. If I was ranking players from the last 20 years, I would have Harden in the 5-15 range and Nash would probably fall somewhere in the 25-35 range.
The question is if that team would be realistic in terms of cap, or if it's even possible. If there's no realistic way to translate that team at its height through trades to the roster you mention, I'm not sure if it's worth discussing.
Like Stockton, he could have taken and made critical shots, clutch shots, but refused to take control at the critical moment. That makes him a wingman.
i didn't want to put best player on a championship-level team because that implies lebron/hakeem/shaq type players, but realistically he was the best player on the suns and they were certainly championship level. if nash's nose doesn't get busted in one game and amare get suspended from another game in 2007, the suns could have beaten the spurs. it was a 6 game series as it was. and it was certainly the de facto nba finals as nobody was beating whoever came out of that series. getting to game 6 of the finals seems like championship-level. i suppose you could argue that's only because the mavs got upset by the warriors and i think the mavs fared pretty well against the suns, but either way there were basically 3 fairly even contenders and nash was the best player on 1 of them.
