Where Does Nash Rank Among The Greatest PGs Of All Time?

Look at their free throws. Stockton was a career 83% and Nash is a career 90% shooter.

 

that's stretching dude.

I would like to see a shooting contest between those two.

Flip the situation, put Stockton in D'Antoni's system and make Nash play pick and roll all the time.

Now who do you say is better?

 

Nash is the ONLY player in NBA history to avg 50-40-90 for 4 years, and he takes some tough shots.

 

To settle the debate of who shot better, use TS%, which combines FG%, incorporates 3 pointers, and FT%.

Stockton career TS%: .608
Nash career TS%: .605

 

I still think as far as being a point guard, Stockton is better.

My argument was people saying that Nash is a better shooter than Stockton, that's not the case and that stats show that.

True Nash is more of a scorer than Stockton because of the way Phoenix plays, but I wouldn't say he's better a better point guard than Stockton.

 

I almost made it a point to say just how great a shooter Stockton was. Still, Nash is a better shooter than Stockton was.

 

I don't know how many people were making that contention. There's no doubt Stockton was better.

 

Wow, lotta love for Isiah on this board. It is misplaced.

Nash came to the Suns and they improved by 33 freaking games. He was the only major player they added that year. The previous year, when they won 29 games, they already had Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, and Stoudemire.

Isiah? His early career was one mediocre team after another. They only reached the championship caliber when they managed to draft Rodman and Salley the same year.

I saw Isiah play many times. Sure, good player, but there's nothing that truly distinguishes him from guys like Payton and KJ, or Steve Nash. Nash certainly has his warts, but Isiah's history is one that shows he was not a franchise player. You fools who think he was must not remember how great Dumars was on offense. And Joe D was the one who had to cover MJ too!

You can call Isiah a fierce competitor. Whatever. Von Wafer was a fierce competitor too.

 

You're equating hairstyle with championship credentials? Excellent. Let's knock down Stockton, then, as well, cause his haircut and those short-shorts definitely do not rank him as a top 5 point guard. Let's take Kidd down a peg for his mixed race, too- and while we're at it, let's move Magic down for his HIV, Isiah Thomas for his sexual harassment suit, Nate Archibald because no one should be in the top 10 with a nickname like Tiny, and especially Walt Frazier for stealing Clyde Drexler's name for his nickname.

Wow, when did Steve Nash play for the Rockets? Did I miss something? What's so hard to understand that Nash might, might possibly be a top 10 point guard as opposed to a top 5? Really, the way some of you vociferously defend Nash and denigrate Payton, Kidd, etc., you make it sound like it's an extreme insult to even mention Nash with the likes of Isiah Thomas.

So, let me be as clear as I can, for those who misread between the lines:

Steve Nash is a possible top 5 point guard, but not a lock.
Steve Nash is a possible top 10 point guard, but could possibly make the top 5 depending on whether you are using "pure point guard skills" or "overall player" as your criteria (although I don't know what, besides assists, makes a better point guard- scoring or defense).

Steve Nash is not better than Magic Johnson, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas, and Oscar Robertson, statistically or in measuring team success. He is ahead of Stockton and Thomas in terms of MVPs, I give you that. But he's #5 at the most, nothing more.

Steve Nash is a debate when it comes to how he ranks against Jason Kidd, Tiny Archibald, Clyde Frazier, and Gary Payton. I can see how, being the primary catalyst for the Suns' turnaround and his MVPs, he can be ranked above these players. I can also see how he can be ranked below these players in that his defensive game is much worse than his offensive game is better than these players.

This is all IMHO, but it is definitely based on reasonable criteria- if you think championship credentials and playoff success aren't part of the discussion, you're in the minority- go ask Ewing, Barkley, and Malone about this. Now, if I were putting someone like Kenny Smith above Nash based on championship credentials, then yes, that is a dumb argument. But Magic, Isiah, Stockton, and The Big O- it'll be a long time before any point guard cracks that top 4- maybe Paul, maybe Williams- maybe Nash if he can make it to the Finals and improve his statistics to being way, way above those 4- which they aren't.

 

So, the Suns added Barkley and they made a huge turnaround, as well- PLUS they actually made it to the Finals. Also, what about Nash's early career? Pretty pedestrian numbers- Thomas was an All-Star his 2nd year in the league and has made way more All-NBA teams than Nash.

All the focus on Nash is based on Phoenix over the past 5 years- but what about Nash in Dallas? How come he didn't lead a team with Dirk and Finley to the Finals? Why has Phoenix repeatedly let teams like the Spurs and the Mavs surpass them in the playoffs? Sorry, but as much as I like Nash's regular season career with Phoenix, his early career can easily be labeled "average" at best and his playoff record (which, yes, players are indeed judged upon- look at McGrady) is less than impressive.

 

this is because people didn't watch games back then. they just pick up things.

I would like to see how amare fares without Nash. We know how some of the guys are doing since they don't play with Nash anymore. Many of the PGs that some of you listed had great supporting casts. In my opinion, Suns are just mediocre team through all these years.

He is lame on D though. With som right mix of players it can be compensated.

 

What are you talking about? Nash truly deserves his two MVPs. He turned the Suns franchise around and he is a great PG even in his mid 30s. He is a great offensive threat and his passing skills is great. He has a full PG package. I know that he's one of the top best offensive PG in the NBA.

He's a hard player and he is humble. There is no doubt Nash will be one of the top PG of all time.

 

This isn't even debatable. John Stockton is the all time leader in assists AND STEALS. He palyed a slower brand of basketball and avaraged similar offensive numbers. Played in a tougher era and made it to the NBA finals appearance. Nash is not in the same stratus as Stockton as an all around player.

 

1. It's because Dirk was still learning and was "potential"
2. All Nash Suns teams have been bad. They haven't looked bad, but in reality they have all been bad. And this is what great PGs do. They make players better - even mediocre ones.

 

Yes, that's why Barkley is a hall-of-famer.

True, Nash's stats were not that great early. This is partly a matter of PT and also partly a matter of system. And we all know that he plays a style that has trouble versus teams with a strong half court game.

I am arguing for him above Isiah, not above Magic and not, as much as I hate to say, above Stockton.

Isiah's early teams were pretty average, much like Nash when he was young. Then Isiah got Dumars in 85 and then Rodman, Salley, and Dantley in 86. Care to guess when Isiah's teams started contending?

The Suns 33-game improvement is, when you think about it, one of the more amazing accomplishments in NBA history. That kind of change just never happens. The only case I can think of like that was Tim Duncan's rookie year. But that's only b/c David Robinson missed the previous season too.

I don't put a lot of stock in the All-NBA team stat. David Robinson beat out Hakeem in some of those before. That tells you something about how reliable it is.

 

The post right above yours.

 

Sorry, meant to bold the last line in Tinman's reply...not the 2nd one.

 

The Suns won 53 games and advanced to the second round of the playoffs the year before they got Barkley. The following year they won 62 games and made it to the Finals. That's an improvement, sure, but hardly a "huge turnaround."

And how is Barkley (a HOF PF) relevant to this conversation about where Nash ranks among the league's greatest point guards?

 

How about playoff statistics? Isiah played 111 playoff games, Nash played 106. So that's pretty even right there. Isiah averaged more steals per game, more assists per game (yes, even though it's 8.9 to 8.8, it's still more, so Nash clearly wasn't a way better playmaker than Zeke), and more points per game. Nash has him beat in free throw, field goal, and 3-point percentage. I would argue that steals, assists, and overall points are much more important stats than shooting percentage.

Isiah Thomas led the Indiana Hoosiers to a national championship. And he led the Pistons to 2 championships (there is no doubt that Thomas was the leader of that team: ask Laimbeer, ask Mahorn, heck, even ask Dumars and Rodman.). And were 2 points from a 3rd in 1988. Sure, he was on a great team, but how many times have we heard how great a team the Suns had with Nash and Amare? If I'm not mistaken, they were favored in at least 2 of those series against the Spurs.

Look, Nash is a possible top 5, top 10 point guard. And he may rise up even higher depending on what he does the next few years. But Isiah Thomas was a player who could take over games single-handedly. I never, ever felt that Steve Nash was that dominating of a player. So, statistically, Isiah has him beat, in the regular season and in the playoffs. Team success? I'm still giving the edge to Thomas even with Nash's turnaround success thing- 2 championships to none. MVPs? Clearly Nash. Overall? Thomas. Nash's edge is that he still has time to surpass Thomas. But he hasn't done it yet.

 

It is relevant to the use of a "team turnaround" as a means for ranking a player. Several on here have used this statistic to justify Nash's ranking as a top 5 point guard. I don't think it's that strong of a statistic. I think his overall impact on the Suns is much more viable- one season does not a top 5 point guard make.