Those Suns teams were equivalent to the “Greatest Show on Turf” Rams and Nash was Kurt Warner. The whole thing started with the ball in his hands...although Marion, Johnson, Bell were no slouches; I can say Nash was arguably the best player on a championship caliber team.
Jason Terry got the championship that was meant for Nash. Jj bareA got ring meant for Nash LOL. No one wanted Cuban to win, and defied all odds.
its really hard to say he could be the best player on a championship team, when his career is already over and he won... 0 championships. By the way, same can be said of patrick ewing, Drobinson, barkley and a lot more guys. Was he talented enought to be the best player on a championship team? Sure. But thats not enough, mentality and clutchness is a big thing too. Hes got good teams on phoenix and Dallas and could never get there. You can say its bad luck, or wathever else, but those are the facts. The nba has too many "ifs" to worry about them. In order to be a championship team, you have to have all things go your way, and not only elite players and talent. The mvps discusion, he certainly shouldnt have 2. One was a steal from Duncan, and you can argue the other from Shaq, but mvps are not only about the best players, but the narrative behind them. Thats why when you look back some of them not make any sense, because you miss the narrative, Like Drose over Lebron, or even Iverson on 2000 ( and i love Iverson, not sure he should have been a league mvp). Same reason why Russ got his, and Harden has been robbed at least once or twice. To me, Nash could be the second best player on a championship team.
You explain it well. He WAS the best player on a championship-level team. So, not sure why everyone is so confused by people making choices that were historically factually accurate.
Nash was from Canada. Should have stuck with nowitZi and van exel. Nash and Dirk beat Kings in a major series Nash was taking care of business, not sure if Nash ever became citizen.
"Best player on a championship-level team" is quite misleading. The 2004 Pistons were a championship team. And Billups was their best player. Few people would think that Billups was on Nash's level, let alone the levels of Jordan and LeBron. The fact is, "championship-level teams" come in very different shapes. There were teams that was led by an all-time great. There were teams that were led by two or three superstars but not all-time greats. There were rare teams like the Pistons that were led by no superstars but a great collection of very good players. Again, this confusion stems from using TEAM achievement to measure individual greatness. This is the same as the simplistic ring-counting thing that is so prevalent in NBA discussions.
Great white hype. Shaq should have won the first one and lebron or kobe should have won the second one. Correct me if I’m wrong but I have never seen an MVP In the modern era to average 16 ppg and win an MVP. I argued before that it is about Sales/marketing, Image, and timing. But also of race unfortunately as many things in this society revolves around. It is good for the league’s image and sales to have white representatives of the league as white fans and consumers make up a large part of the market. Do not be surprised if luka donkey wins one while being the 3rd or 4tg best candidate. It is what it is. I agree that nash is no better than a 3rd option on a championship team.
nash was never that good. He was a guy that can weave throw defenses and pick and choose openings to pass the ball into. He was one of the best at that. Guy couldn’t score on his off the dribble most of the time But had a good 3 shot. He filled his role well.
Great player. Possibly underrated. Unless you listen to Max Kellerman. Who repeatedly says that the only reason that Harden has such good stats is because of MDA. But Kellerman has no idea what he is talking about, which makes me think that Nash must be even better
Are you talking about Nash, or Curry? Steve Nash was a great player. But James Harden is on a completely different level.
Harden is great individually, but it seems like Nash made the players around him better than they really were. Thats why he got those 2 MVP's it wasn't that he had ridiculous stats its the success of the those Suns teams.
Nash,Dirk, Finley, van exel, Walt Williams, and lafrenz, and Bradley had me jealous of Dallas. I got recordings of that game, and it was good! I am still surprised Dallas beat Sacramento after the Chris Weber injury. Surprised vlade divac lost and Nash had alot to do with Dallas surprising Sacramento back in 2003!
I don’t understand till this day the concept of “making guys better”. How do we know if Steve Nash made his team better? Really how do we know? Is this something quantifiable? How does a player simply makes other players better? Is it his communication? Private discussions sharing details and knowledge in the locker room? Constant motivation? A player can pass the ball all day and find players driving to the basket. That’s called good passing or feel for the game. This has nothing to do with the mythical concept of “making players better”.
Nash is for sure better than Westbrook considering nash to be from Canada. Nash got better after leaving Dallas and Dirk, can't say Westbrook got better just yet.
Does he consistently break down his man one on one and score off the dribble? No. Much like curry thats not his game. Much of that dribble drive scoring us thru screens or open lanes not 1-1. Harden, LBJ, Kobe are in a different class. Nash simply is not that player. Guy averaged 15-17 ppg. Again timing, marketing and sales, image, and race. Luka donkey will win an MVP no doubt about it if mavs are in contention in years to come. Mark my words. Image, race, marketing/sales, and timing.
