Would you be just as excited about him if his individual numbers stayed relatively the same as his Dallas years? If so, then there's nothing wrong with that. I always thought he was a very good PG. The issue I have is with people who see these obviously inflated stats and attempt to compare them to the rest of the league. Personally, I don't think that he should have ever been an mvp. Particularly in 2006, he wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team. Shawn Marion scored well snagged 12 boards a night and most importantly played AMAZING defense. He defended anyone from PG's to C's and rendered many of the opposing teams' PnR's useless. Maybe that's why i'm not too high on Brooks. He's a complete liability on defense but he's a shooter that has great handles and speed which makes him perfect for the more uptempo style that we want to have this year. His numbers look great this year, but I think it has much more to do with the style of play than some drastic improvement by AB. And while this style may be fun to watch for many Rockets fans (and I assume Nash fans as well) it does not win championships. You need a big man who plays defense and the game will slow down. If Nash were to play on a championship team his numbers would likely look more...ordinary.
^^ so what do you think? will the cavs win it all this year? i just realized besides shaq, they've added quite a few other pieces as well.
Last year? I think Shaq was still a top 5 center. I mean, what else do you bring Shaq in for? To run high screen&roll's? space the floor for Amare? He was brought in to solidify their post game on both defense and offense. Amare and Nash wanted none of it so it didn't work despite Shaq playing some of his best ball in years.
I never give much of a damn when someone say an INDIVIDUAL player wins championship. You just said yourself that it was not Shaq's fault the Suns were not winning. Now you turned around and say it's all his credit when he was on championship team? Shaq is as much a "system" guy as Nash, according to your logic. He can only be great when the team plays HIS style.
I don't know. Paul tries to do it all himself. Nash tries to let everyone else do it. I wish Nash would try to score more. He's an amazing shooter.
I can't say I really disagree with that but Shaq's "style" is not only something most teams strive to have (a dominant post offense) it is what has won championships...since like forever. You can say Shaq is a system player but he would fit into 20 or more other systems where as Nash would only be as productive in maybe 5. And, that's mostly what I mean when I say Shaq wins championships, he plays a championship brand of basketball, which is probably why he has 4 rings. The low post game has been a staple on championship teams, no? What Nash does has yet to win a championship...ever...in the history of the NBA. Do you think that's a coincidence?
lol @ somebody saying Shaq is a "system" guy lol. Well 4 championships and 1 "non-controversial" MVP....I'll take it. Nash aint winning no championships...BOOK IT!
Nash has always been their most valuable player. Marion was their best defender, sure, but what turned them from a bad team to a great team was the revitalized offense. And I don't get your issue with the "inflated stats". If the goal is to get big individual numbers, then that's a valid criticism. But the goal is to win, and the individual production is a means to that goal. You want to tell me that his impact on his team winning is "inflated"? I'd say its very real. The argument some people put forward that he only gets the attention because the ball is in his hands so much, and because he's short and he's white isn't supported by the hard evidence. The metrics that are known and available to measure his impact on winning, in particular the adjusted +/-, indicates how good he's been. MVP-good.
Fair enough, although I don't totally agree. Jordan's teams did not have a low post game. The Pistons did not have a low post game. I would have agreed more if you said that good low post DEFENSE was a staple on championship teams. On the offensive side, I would say a great perimeter player is more of a staple for title winners. I think Nash's teams could have won something if they had a better bench. If they did not trade away Marion, they would have a pretty good chance. If Amare would use his physical tools to play a lick of defense, they would have a great chance.
I wouldn't "book it" if Nash wasn't this old. His window is closing because of his age, not because of his style and skills. There are plenty of great players who never have won a championship. Winning a title ain't easy. Everything (including other teams' weaknesses) has to lineup perfectly. You have to be both good and lucky to get it.
Marion was amazing for the suns, but his defense didn't mean jack when Nash was on the bench. Every time he did, the suns went to hell. It's like Shaq/Kobe on the lakers. Kobe was amazing, but every time Shaq went to the bench the other team made a run. It's obvious who the respective MVP's were on those teams. Also, losing Marion and playing at a slower pace had no effect on Nash's shooting percentages whatsoever. Grant Hill and Shaq cannot spread the floor, yet Nash still shot a pristine 50% from the field and 44% from downtown. Meanwhile, Marion's production dropped off considerably last year, even when playing on a good 3pt shooting team like the raptors.
Well, sure when you add a very good player to a team it has an impact. Are we still assuming that Nash was the only one that had anything to do with that revitalized offense? Dantoni could run more of his style of offense with Nash, Q-rich, and Jim Jackson instead of Marbury and Penny Hardaway. Dantoni being able to run his style with his guys had a huge impact on that offense. Yes, he definitely helped turn that team around and i'm really not trying to argue that he isn't a very good player, he is. How good a player is quite subjective imo, so i'm fine with whatever level a player you feel he is. My argument is in the perception of his abilities/impact as a player from the beginning of 2004 to the end of 2004, nothing else. If you felt he was an mvp caliber player at the beginning of 2004 then we agree. Again, at the end of the day an mvp award is based on subjective opinion. I just don't understand the astronomical difference in opinion of a player's ability within a span of less than a year, especially when that player is 30.
He was very good, but not MVP caliber before joining the Suns. He has been MVP caliber while with the Suns, for the simple reason that's being put in a role where he needs to do more and he has been doing more. Like I said before, how "good" you are is not independent on the system you're playing under. You seem to be arguing that because Nash was not an MVP caliber player in Dallas, he must have not been so in Phoenix either. If that's what you're saying, I don't agree with it.
Do you know of any other players who went from being very good to mvp caliber at his age? Is that not um fishy at all to you?
There's nothing fishy about it. He's a guy who's constantly honing his skills in the offseason, his particular athletic skills do not diminish as much with age, and he was put in a situation where the ball would be in his hands far more. All of that adds up to him becoming a more valuable player for his team.
QFT. One could have made an argument in the past that it was D'Antoni's "system" but Nash has clearly proven otherwise. He (Nash) is making Alvin Gentry an atrocious coach IMO look damn good and he's probably an early season candidate for COTY. It's not like the Suns are super-loaded with talent or have a deep bench either. Nash is getting production out of guys like Frye (making him look like Okur), Amundson, Dudley, Dragic etc. Defense or not... there's no arguing the greatness of Nash.
