I don't think Nash has been glorified much at all lately. People have their ups, and then they decline. Nash is probably not the player he was two seasons ago. He didn't win MVP this season, his team didn't do as well as years past, and the hype isn't there anymore. Nash was a very valuable cog for the Suns in his two MVP seasons. Take him out, and they sucked. It doesn't mean Nash was a one man wrecking crew by himself. Did someone lose some money on the Spurs/Suns first round matchup?
no.. it's don david sterleone.. he's the one who has the last say he is the biggest boss that you've seen thus far and he said "give it to the NASHster"... 2 years in a row
Dude, if you reread this thread (starting with the title), you will see that in no way am I defending Tracy McGrady. I do think he is a hollow player....he looks great on the outside but he has nothing inside where it really counts. My only point was that there are, and have been, quite a number of 'superstars' who have never done anything in the playoffs, but do not take the constant pounding that Tmac gets. I'm not saying Tmac doesn't deserve every ounce of hate that comes his way. What I am saying is that all that hate should be spread around a little more evenly to guys like Steve Nash. I just picked on Nash because, independently from the first topic, I also happen to think he is by far the absolute worst mulitple-MVP in league history. And if you also reread the thread, you will see that the 8 other guys who have been given this award more than once are clear, no-doubt-about-it, 1st-ballot Hall-of-Famers (Kareem, Dr. J, Moses, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Mailman and Duncan). Steve Nash is more like Tmac, Gary Payton, John Stockton and Jason Kidd. But for some reason, even on a HOUSTON ROCKETS fan board, he gets more slurping and drooling than Jessica Simpson sunbathing topless next to a construction sight. It is a phenomenon that puzzles me and I felt like pointing it out. And as a Dallas fan, I would expect you to be aware of the fact that the Mavs actually IMPROVED 3 straight years after he left. Over his last 4 years in Dallas, they averaged 55.5 wins per season and peaked in the 02/03 season with 60 wins and a loss in the WC Finals. Over the last 4 years since he left, they averaged 59 wins per season and peaked in 05/06 with 60 wins and a loss in the NBA Finals. They even got better the next year, winning 67 games, until Don Nelson took out his Mark Cuban voodoo doll and sent them into a tailspin from which they have still not recovered. I would not put the demise of the Mavericks on losing Steve Nash, considering it took almost 4 full seasons to take effect. Of course I would take him over Rafer Alston. Just like 20 other guys playing PG in the NBA or NCAA right now. I'm not comparing him to Rafer Alston. I'm saying that he clearly fits into 1 of 2 distinct categories, despite all public praise to the contrary: 1. All-time NBA Legends - To include, but not limited to, Michael, Magic, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, and (possibly) Chris Paul. 2. Some-time NBA All-Stars - To include, but not limited to, Tmac, The Glove, JKidd, and the Pasty Gangster. All I'm saying is that, despite his 2 MVPs, Nash clearly belongs in the latter. He is John Stockton without the defense, multiple Finals appearances and all-time records for steals and assists. As much as it pains me to say this, Stockton in his prime was just as good a shooter and distibutor as Nash has ever been, plus he did it for 40 minutes, on both ends of the court, every night for 20 straight playoff years. Nash just can't compete with that. And Stockton never even came close to winning 1 MVP, let alone 2. To insult me as 'dumb' for saying so is very manly of you, to be sure, but you haven't really proven why I am wrong.
Oh, I almost forgot, this is my favorite part of your whole post. You nailed my thoughts exactly. I had to do a little tweaking to make sure it was dead-on though: Don't misunderstand me here: Steve Nash is a very good player - a star player - but his lack of playoff success both defines and taints his legacy. Until he does win something there will always be whispers about just how good he is/was. I couldn't have said it better myself.
The problem with this analysis is that you fail to factor in competition. Stockton in his prime had much more competition than Nash in his prime. That being said, I'd rather have stockton on my team over nash.
When you harp on the 'multiple MVP' thing...you have to remember it is an award that's handed out each year. So....you can't just go back in history and pick out a more deserving HOF'er. His first one....Shaq was really the only other one in contention. And it was close. But do you give it to Shaq in a year that his production was down, over Nash who's production was up? More of the media gave it to Nash. And not by much. In 2005-06 the next two finishers were Lebron and Dirk. Would you be happy with Dirk as a two time MVP???? It would have been tough for Lebron to win the first year his team made the playoffs. Or do you defer the award until someone 'more deserving' emerges? So....weak fields. Nash probably is the weakest 2 time MVP'er -- but so what? Should TMac have been given the award?
Career Playoff Averages: Steve Nash 17.3 ppg (93rd all-time, right behind Shawn Kemp) 8.7 apg 3.6 rpg 36.1 mpg .467 fg% .413 3fg% .900 ft% Tracy McGrady 28.5 ppg (4th all-time, right behind Jerry West) 6.2 apg 6.9 rpg 42.2 mpg .430 fg% .301 3fg% .756 ft% Considering neither one has any rings, or Finals appearances, to show for it, who's doing more for their team in the playoffs?
How about you include how many playoff games have been played by each player? That makes big difference.
Kobe averaged 35 ppg that season. And he drug a team giving 35 mpg to Smush Parker into the playoffs as a 6 seed in the loaded West. Steve Nash on the 05/06 Lakers would have been watching the 1st-round from his couch. Kobe on any of Nash's Suns teams until this year would be looking for ring 4 ro 5 this season.
Tracy has to do everyone's job anyways. Its not like he has a PG, or a legit center to take care of those jobs, he hasn't been playing his NATURAL position, the dude is the 2nd best SG in the league trust me he would have avgd 30 if he was playing his natural position
I have no problem putting Nash in that company. I would kill for any of those PGs in their prime on the Rockets. Couple of contentions. Kobe and Paul do not deserve "all time legends" group just yet. Neither one has had a D Wade like run (who himself isn't there because despite a magnificant run, it was just 1 year). Let them lead their team to 1 or 2 titles 1st. I do agree Kobe or Lebron are the closest (or maybe if Wade can come back to 96 form, and CP could over time get in the mix), but they need to do more. As for number of MVPs, that is irrelevant. There wasn't a Michael Jordan playing during Nash's peak. That is just how the cookie crumbles. I would never say Nash was better than Hakeem or Barkley because he has more MVPs, but that doesn't mean Nash doesn't deserve his. As for Nash vs Stockton, Stockton is greater because of longevity. It is my subjective opinion at the very top of their games Nash was a more dominant force. I could not see Stockton leading the rag tag 96 Phx group to the 2nd seed in the west and to the WCF. That team's front line considered of Tim Thomas, Shan Marion and Boris Diaw for Pete's sake (and the off guard was Raja Bell--pretty average overall and sub-average for a playoff team). Tell me the last time a team overmatched in so many respects accomplished what they did.
He averaged 35 on 45% shooting (total line 35.4-5.3-4.5-1.8-.4-45%FG). And they were the 7th seed, 1 game out of the 8th spot. And that season isn't all that distinguished statistical wise from Tmac's 02-03 season 32-6.5-5.5-1.7-.8-46%FG or AI's 05-06 season 33-3.2-7.4-1.9-.1-45%FG or LJ's cumulative lines in 05-06 or 07-08 (except Lebron hit a much more respectable 48% than the rest). These are all great individual seasons, but Kobe's is hardly set apart from the rest (say like Jordan's were where he hit over 50% shooting on top of the cumulative stats). Besides there is and always has been recognition for the NBA scoring title, and it is only modestly releated to league MVP status.
True on all counts. To me, there is just a clear line at 35 ppg, because I believe only 3 players (Wilt, Jordan, Kobe, anyone else?) have ever averaged that over a full season, and none in the last 15 years besides Kobe. It just seems like a big difference, but I admit there really isn't much difference between 35 and 32 or 30. Either way, I just think a guy that can go out and get you 40 or 50 on any given night ON HIS OWN is way more valuable than a guy who can get SOMEONE ELSE 40 or 50. The thing about Nash is that without a Dirk or Amare to keep feeding the ball, he has never shown the ability to consistently, night-in-night-out take over games when needed down the stretch ON HIS OWN. He needs another great player to take over a game offensively, whereas guys like Kobe and LeBron can do it completely independently of how their teammates are playing. Tracy can do this too, but it just never amounts to enough in the playoffs to get them over the hump.
OK, I admit I may have misunderstood the gist of your post. This is indeed a valid point. There's just too many threads around here attempting to defend Tmac's lack of ultimate success rather than accepting the guy for what he actually is: a star player but not a superstar player. As for the other point about superstars, that's just the nature of the beast with which we we now live: a success and results driven culture. Basically, you are what you've won. Hell, Jordan didn't win a ring for 7 years but that's another story. Tmac doesn't deserve the sheer volume of the hate that comes his way, I'll grant you that because he's actually a good player and not a nut job or thug. But he brings a lot of the negativity down on himself with his ill-timed remarks after playoff bellyflops following declarations like "It's On Me". I also think a lot of the anger stems from unrealized expectations from all of the hype that accompanied his coming here. If you'll recall, there were far too many folks here trumpeting championship without taking a realistic look what really happened during that trade. It's been an awfully long time since Heart of a Champion and the natives are beyond restless for another trophy... Not a Dallas fan, sorry. I'm an expatriate Rockets' fan living in Dallas. But I've been watching the Mavericks for over 10 years - it's been like my own private edition of Groundhog Day. Nope, that's when they embarked on the course that led them to making the Kidd trade (how'd that work out Mark?). They had their best chance to get a trophy 2 years ago and they flat blew it. Nash or his lack of defense never was their problem and they weren't losing games because of Devon Harris which would have necessitated making the Kidd trade. Their problem was (and is) their continued refusal to get a big man who can actually play basketball in the paint. Sorry, but Shawn Bradley, Rafe LaFrentz & Eric Dampier don't even remotely qualify in that respect. The dumb reference was to the argument and not directed towards you personally. That's just not something I do here although I've noticed a distinct trend toward mean-spirited personal attacks substituting for rational discourse. We obviously have differing points of view on Nash. I think your assessment on him is a bit on the harsh side particularly about defense. I can't argue against the numbers but numbers don't always tell the whole story. You forget that he played for years in a system - Don Nelson's - where playing real defense was an afterthought and he was surrounded by offensive players. Consequently when Avery took over and started to emphasize actually playing defense the Mavs experienced their greatest success. Again that's no knock on Nash so that's why I don't hold that against him very much. And today he is definitely on the downside of his career. But I have seen him play in his prime and he was much more than you say. He wasn't blessed with limitless talent and his road to the NBA was not exactly easy but as a PG, he was legitimately amongst the best I've ever seen and I go back a long time.
That's just not Nash. He's more in the vein of a facilitator of the offense rather than a scoring component in said offense. He's a classic PG whereas a Chris Paul would be of the neo-classic variety (he can do both). He simply can't be judged in the same vein as a Kobe or LeBron because he's just not that type of player. I have been very stern with Tracy but it's been exclusively based on his actions and statements. He does play hard and upon occasion he can elevate to the level of a Kobe. But he lacks the mental strength and drive that Kobe has to win and that will forever define (and curse) him. But I also realize that he's played on flawed teams in Houston that weren't exactly championship timber. Not his fault as he's not the GM or owner which is why I'm not among the horde bringing up his 1st round playoff record.
They weren't a good defensive team the year after Nash left with Nelson as the coach. The Mavericks had the number one offense in the league during Nash's last season with the team, and dropped to third without. Phoenix shot to first. They became a good defensive team when Avery Johnson took over. Ignorance is bliss for some.
I think you underestimate the role of a distributer and floor general. Larry Bird or Magic Johnson never scored 30PPG but I don't believe Kobe at his best has been the better basketball player among these 3. Jordan yes, because he scored with even higher efficiency, was the best defensive guard in the league, and could distribute (had a season at 8 APG actually). That on top of his relentless drive for his team to end up on top. I also don't see anything magical about 35 vs 33 or 31 PPG. I'd much rather have a guard get 23-12 on high efficiency shooting and distributing (e.g., Magic in his heyday) than 35PPG on less effiency. Here is a list of the scoring title winners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ketball_Association_scoring_leaders_by_season Guys like Rick Barry (36PPG), Kobe (35.4PPG), Bob McAdoo (35PPG), George Gervin (33PPG), AI (33PPG, 2nd to Kobe in 05-06) and Tracy McGrady (32PPG) are great. But give me a guard or swingman (I'll exclude bigs) like Magic Johnson or Larry Bird. Another thing to notice that with the handcheck rules changes you see a lot more scoring by guards. Notice the only 2.4 spread between Kobe and AI in 05-06 (with Lebron only 1.6 behind AI). In Jordan's 37.1 season the next closest was Wilkens at 29PPG (8 point spread). A 30PPG season by a guard or swingman doesn't look near as hard as it was from the mid 80s until the late 90s. I have no doubt Clyde Drexler or Dominique Wilkens would regularly be over 30PPG scorers with the clamps on hand checking we now have. One final thing. I do think I weight scoring and scoring efficiency a lot more than many others. It is why at their peak I'd give the slighest of nods for Isiah Thomas or Steve Nash as PGs over Stockton (who IMO had less an ability to create his own shot than the previous 2) or Kidd (who at his best was an average shooter/creator of his own offense). Now Gary Payton, I don't know what to do with. When you consider his total stats lines his best seasons (24-9-7-2) and the fact he was the best defensive PG perhaps in history you would think he has an argument for being next in line after Magic--but just in my subjective opinion I just think his floor and team leadership pales in comparison to the others discussed in this paragraph and I knock him for it. I think Kobe has somewhat the same issue going on that GP had--to date, though maybe to change this year, his lack of ability to elevate his team and his weak (for a superstar) knowledge and trust of his teammates strengths/weaknesses has made his a less effective player than his individual statistics suggest. If you read into Phil Jackson comments he has implied the same--Kobe is a better team basketball player this year than ever before, it is more than just having better teammates, it is learning how to play with them and play to their strengths.
