ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #13 - Steve Nash vs. Gary Payton

[G.O.A.T]

Make your arguments here for the next 48 hours on rather Steve Nash or Gary Payton should advance and continue to move higher on the list. Put the players name you are voting for in BOLD so I don't miss it when I tally. The loser of this poll will be ranked #14 in our project.


http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/nashnose(2).jpg

15 seasons
7x all-NBA
7x all-star
2005 & 2006 MVP
5x Assists Leader
2x FT% Leader
1st All-time in FT%
8th All-time in 3pt fg%
10th All-time in 3-pointers made


Votes (11)

SteveNashMVPcro
iamgine
Rose
ThaSwagg3r
RobertdeMeijer
Shaqattack3234
magnax1
Big 164
WillC
G.O.A.T
nycelt84


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.fanhouse.com/media/2008/04/gary-payton-sonics-425.jpg


17 seasons
9x all-NBA
9x all-star
9x all-defensive (all 1st team)
1996 DPOTY
1x steals leader
4th all-time in steals
8th all-time in assists
2006 NBA Champion

Votes (4)

bizil
PTB Fan
crosso√er
Gotterdammerung
necya

[SFMF]

Damn... this is harder than I thought

[iamgine]

Well let me repost what I said about Steve Nash a while back...


I used to be one of those people who said those 2 MVPs Nash got was a big mistake. I mean, over Kobe and Duncan? You gotta be joking. Clearly those 2 players must be better right? Then I started to follow Nash over a few games. My view totally change. My goodness, he's totally unstoppable. One of the smartest player I've ever seen stepped on the court. I would put him up there with Magic Johnson. Steve Nash was a combination of one of the most accurate shooter and one of the most elite playmaker in NBA history.

And he got a somewhat undeserved rep on defense. He does try hard, and while still a liability, he's not as bad as many people make him out to be. He's really bad against certain type of players but otherwise a decent defender. Plus PG position is the least important defense-wise.

I have no doubt in my mind that had the Suns played with a good defensive big back in mid 2000s, they'd have dominated the league.

[PTB Fan]

Gary Payton


He was a more complete player, who has edge more aspects of the game, was clearly a better defender, had better resume and his peak was arguably better.

[pauk]

Nash > Payton in terms of career

Payton > Nash in terms of talent-skill

[Bigsmoke]

Gary Payton

I think more teams would benifit from Payton's abilities because he great on both offense and defense... so good on defense that he was able to win DPOY as a PG which is very rare and defended MJ better than anyone. Payton also give you 20ppg on around 49% shooting and 8 assists a game so its not like he's offensively challanged.

Nash is the better offensive player but his defense is ass.

I have Nash over Kidd tho'

[Pushxx]

Definitely Steve Nash.

[Rose]

Nash could run some of the best offenses, which is a historical fact, not opinion. He could literally turn a guy like Diaw, into a capable power forward. He could make sure to keep his team relatively happy, and ALWAYS on track for 50+ wins. No matter who he was with when he had another all star. and now that he doesn't at 38, he STILL CARRIED them to 40. What he could do offensively made up for his lack of defense, and there's only a handful of guys who you can say that about. Also, he's the best shooter of all time.

With Payton, sure he played elite and the best defense from the point guard position ever. But it's not like he was a center, yes his defense was valuable, but nowhere near Nash's level of offense. Yes he could run an offense as well, but I'm still taking Nash

To me the answer is Steve Nash

[HylianNightmare]

Steve Nash

[Clippersfan86]

Gary Payton. Gary was a better scorer, rebounder and 10 times better defender. The only aspects Nash has Gary is passing and playmaking ability. I understand it's important as a PG but Gary's defense was elite.

If I asked you.... which stat line you'd take you tell me?

24 ppg, 9 apg, 6.5 rpg, 2 spg on good all around shooting percentages and elite defense. Arguably best man defender in NBA history. Only PG ever to win DPOY and it was during the toughest era.

or

19 ppg, 12 apg, 3.5 rpg and 1 spg on good all around shooting percentages. Arguably the greatest playmaker/passer in NBA history and at worst top 3. Extremely efficient all around shooter, can hit any shot.


One of those statlines is arguably the greatest all around PG season ever... right next to CP3's best season and Magic and Stockton's best seasons.

[LastEpisode]

No matter how good Nash is on offense, that guy is a liability on defense..

I'm not hating on Nash but Payton and Kidd are better than him..

[Droid101]

Nash, and not close.

The dude almost had TWO 50/50/90 seasons (freaking unheard of). This is arguably the BEST shooter in NBA history. He's led HISTORICALLY GREAT offensive teams, some of the best of all time.

[Droid101]

LOL! I guess I sold Steve Nash short.

Steve Nash has been the point guard of the BEST FIVE offenses since the league started tracking the offensive officiency stat in 73-74.

BEST OFFENSES SINCE 1973-74


Team

Year

Off. Eff.

League Average

Difference




Dallas

2003-04

109.58

100.05

+9.53



Phoenix

2004-05

111.90

103.07

+8.82



Phoenix

2009-10

112.65

103.99

+8.66



Dallas

2001-02

109.49

101.59

+7.89



Phoenix

2006-07

111.42

103.06

+8.06



There is no reason to pick GP over Nash. Nash has incredible shooting percentages and will end his career with the best FT percentage in history. Two MVP's. There's just no case for Payton.

[G.O.A.T]

Here is how Nash and Payton fared against the best PG they faced in each of their five prime playoff runs.

Steve Nash

2005 vs. Tony Parker (Spurs win in five)

Nash - 23.2 ppg 10.6 apg 52 fg%
Parker - 20.4 ppg 4.2 apg 46 fg%

2006 vs. Sam Cassell (Suns win in seven)

Nash - 18.3 ppg 10.8 apg 48 fg%
Cassell - 20.4 ppg 6.0 apg 46 fg%

2007 vs. Tony Parker (Spurs win in six)

Nash - 21.3 ppg 12.7 apg 44 fg%
Parker - 20.8 ppg 5.7 apg 45 fg%

2008 vs. Tony Parker (Spurs win in five)

Nash - 16.2 ppg 7.8 apg 46 fg%
Parker - 29.6 ppg 7.0 apg 51 fg%

2010 vs. Tony Parker (Suns win in four)

Nash - 22.3 ppg 7.8 apg 56 fg%
Parker - 19.5 ppg 5.0 apg 48 fg%

Overall vs Tony Parker

20 Games played (Spurs lead 12-8)

Nash - 20.7 ppg 10.0 apg 48 fg%
Parker - 22.6 ppg 5.5 apg 47 fg%

Overall Totals

27 games played (Suns 12-15)

Steve Nash - 20.0 ppg 10.2 apg 48 fg%
Opposing PG's - 22.0 ppg 5.7 apg 47 fg%



Gary Payton

1996 vs. John Stockton (Sonics win in seven)

Payton - 20.7 ppg 6.0 apg .504 fg%
Stockton - 9.9 ppg 7.6 apg .397 fg%

1997 vs. Kevin Johnson (Sonics win in five)

Payton - 25.4 ppg 9.0 apg 41 fg%
Johnson - 16.8 ppg 6.0 apg .295 fg%

1998 vs. Stephon Marbury (Sonics win in five)

Payton - 26.0 ppg 5.6 apg 50 fg%
Marbury - 13.8 ppg 7.6 apg .306 fg%

2000 vs. John Stockton (Jazz win in five)

Payton - 27.0 ppg 7.2 apg 44 fg%
Stockton - 13.0 ppg 12.2 apg 51 fg%

2002 vs. Tony Parker (rookie) (Spurs win in five)

Payton - 22.2 ppg 5.8 apg 42 fg%
Parker - 17.2 ppg 2.6 apg 50 fg%

Overall Totals

27 games played (Sonics 15-12)

Gary Payton - 24.5 ppg 6.7 apg 45 fg%
Opposing PG's - 13.8 ppg 7.1 apg 39 fg%

[G.O.A.T]

Why wouldnt you just make a topic to discuss what you wish about Payton?

Why get involved in his thing if he doesnt wish for you to?

Just to be difficult?

The fact that he wouldn't do that is exactly why I don't want him ****ing up the project. It's all about being an instigator.

[Kblaze8855]

There's just no case for Payton.

There is a case for Payton it just depends on the team. nash wouldnt make the 90s sonics any better and Payton might...might...give the suns a better chance in some of the playoff series they lost. Hes not letting Parker run as wild as he did at times(I say that knowing that Parker first gained fame for running wild on Payton years ago in the playoffs).But I suspect they win less games in the regular season so the matchups are thrown off....

Skill by skill its pretty close since nash is better at virtually everything with the ball in his hands and Payton is better at virtually everything without it. Some might say Payton was a better scorer...eh. Nashs ppg doesnt show his real talent for scoring. I cant see Payton doing what Nash did vs the Mavs in 05. At all. Nash was on some legit Isiah Thomas shit...like...the best of Isiah Thomas. If Magic Johnson had that series...we would call it one of Magics best series.

Nash had agreater potential to score than he showed. Which is probably why he was/is so hard to guard...hes an outstanding scorer who chooses not to do it most of the time so when he does you dont know how to handle it. He walks the line between scoring and playmaking better than most ive ever seen.

He isnt exactly...better...than Payton. Depends on which side of the ball you value more. And the question comes down to if you value the on the floor impact more than Paytons edge in total game(his offense being better than Nashs defense by miles).

Me? I tend to go defense first.

But ive never seen Payton look as dominant as Nash did at his best. Even when Payton would have like 25/8 and hold the other guard to 4-15 shooting he didnt come off as dominant. Part of the edge people give to offense. But Nash at times was just a wizard. 48 points on 70+ percent shooting? Then 34/13/12? Then 39/12/9 to close it out?

Ewww...

I might throw up in my moutha little just remembering it.

But...he isnt flat out better than Payton. Not as a total player.

Just depends on if you care or not compared to bottom line effectiveness and ability to help the teams you were on.

Because of that I guess I can see why one might vote Nash. Plus undeserved or not..he is a 2 time MVP. Regardless of what results here...history wont remember Payton as better.

[Clippersfan86]

Nash, and not close.

The dude almost had TWO 50/50/90 seasons (freaking unheard of). This is arguably the BEST shooter in NBA history. He's led HISTORICALLY GREAT offensive teams, some of the best of all time.

Did you see my Payton statline in his prime? 24 ppg, 9 apg, 6.5 rpg and 2 spg. Nash hasn't even grazed any of those categories besides assists. Sure Nash offensively is the most efficient PG of all time. You honestly are going to tell me with a straight face you'd pick Nash over prime Glove???

Another difference is Payton was in the finals and would absolutely have a 2nd ring if it wasn't against the dynasty Bulls. The Sonics have 2 of the best NBA seasons ever as well with 63 and 64 win seasons led by Gary. Nash hasn't been to the finals and even the year they got close Amare was averaging something absurd in the WCF like 34 ppg, 13 rpg and 3 bpg. Yes I'm aware of Suns winning 62 games BTW... but winning 64 games in the 90's where defense was a lot better?

Nash is the most efficient offensive PG ever... but Payton is arguably the greatest ball/man defender in NBA history. I like your posting Droid but to say Nash, not even close isn't fair considering accomplishments wise how much better Payton was. A PG winning DPOY and making 9 or w/e Defensive 1st teams to tie Michael Jordan?????? :no:

Edit: I forgot to mention Payton won a ring as 6th man in Miami which again contributes to his side of the argument.

[Clippersfan86]

Here is how Nash and Payton fared against the best PG they faced in each of their five prime playoff runs.

Steve Nash

2005 vs. Tony Parker (Spurs win in five)

Nash - 23.2 ppg 10.6 apg 52 fg%
Parker - 20.4 ppg 4.2 apg 46 fg%

2006 vs. Sam Cassell (Suns win in seven)

Nash - 18.3 ppg 10.8 apg 48 fg%
Cassell - 20.4 ppg 6.0 apg 46 fg%

2007 vs. Tony Parker (Spurs win in six)

Nash - 21.3 ppg 12.7 apg 44 fg%
Parker - 20.8 ppg 5.7 apg 45 fg%

2008 vs. Tony Parker (Spurs win in five)

Nash - 16.2 ppg 7.8 apg 46 fg%
Parker - 29.6 ppg 7.0 apg 51 fg%

2010 vs. Tony Parker (Suns win in four)

Nash - 22.3 ppg 7.8 apg 56 fg%
Parker - 19.5 ppg 5.0 apg 48 fg%

Overall vs Tony Parker

20 Games played (Spurs lead 12-8)

Nash - 20.7 ppg 10.0 apg 48 fg%
Parker - 22.6 ppg 5.5 apg 47 fg%

Overall Totals

27 games played (Suns 12-15)

Steve Nash - 20.0 ppg 10.2 apg 48 fg%
Opposing PG's - 22.0 ppg 5.7 apg 47 fg%



Gary Payton

1996 vs. John Stockton (Sonics win in seven)

Payton - 20.7 ppg 6.0 apg .504 fg%
Stockton - 9.9 ppg 7.6 apg .397 fg%

1997 vs. Kevin Johnson (Sonics win in five)

Payton - 25.4 ppg 9.0 apg 41 fg%
Johnson - 16.8 ppg 6.0 apg .295 fg%

1998 vs. Stephon Marbury (Sonics win in five)

Payton - 26.0 ppg 5.6 apg 50 fg%
Marbury - 13.8 ppg 7.6 apg .306 fg%

2000 vs. John Stockton (Jazz win in five)

Payton - 27.0 ppg 7.2 apg 44 fg%
Stockton - 13.0 ppg 12.2 apg 51 fg%

2002 vs. Tony Parker (rookie) (Spurs win in five)

Payton - 22.2 ppg 5.8 apg 42 fg%
Parker - 17.2 ppg 2.6 apg 50 fg%

Overall Totals

27 games played (Sonics 15-12)

Gary Payton - 24.5 ppg 6.7 apg 45 fg%
Opposing PG's - 13.8 ppg 7.1 apg 39 fg%


Exactly the kind of stats that prove overall impact. Droid if Nash is the most efficient offensive PG of all time... but allows other top PG's to cream him in playoff series.... what good does that do? Gary could shut you down AND bust your ass for 20+ and 8+ to go with a few rebounds and steals.

[catch24]

Trolling :rolleyes:

Providing solid arguments for 1 side is now considered trolling. You don't want me posting in your topics, but if we add up the posts you have posted in my topics MORE than I have posted in yours, especially if we consider %s.

I don't really care what you think. I will present my arguments. They will be nearly infallible. And not everyone is dense as you and will actually ignore me, so I know they will at the very least be read.


I will attack...but later. Busy right now.

Problem is you post with Payton's b*llsack on your chin. No one wants you here, take the hint and make your own thread.

[DC Zephyrs]

Steve Nash

Obviously Nash can't hold a candle to Payton on defense, but his brilliance on the other end makes him more of an impact player. Defense isn't that important at the PG position anyways, and Nash's teams are usually so productive when he's on the floor that it doesn't matter if he can't defend anyone.

[Doranku]

My God, Payton MASSACRED PGs in the 90's. :bowdown:

[PowerGlove]

Nash, and not close.

The dude almost had TWO 50/50/90 seasons (freaking unheard of). This is arguably the BEST shooter in NBA history. He's led HISTORICALLY GREAT offensive teams, some of the best of all time.
:oldlol:

[Clippersfan86]

Steve Nash

Obviously Nash can't hold a candle to Payton on defense, but his brilliance on the other end makes him more of an impact player. Defense isn't that important at the PG position anyways, and Nash's teams are usually so productive when he's on the floor that it doesn't matter if he can't defend anyone.

Did you see G.O.A.T's stat list above? Payton was not only burning up PG's offensively but holding them way below their averages. Nash was brilliant offensively but also allows other PG's to torch them. He's obviously a liability. Gary Payton locked up Michael Jeffrey Jordan. That's all I have to say. If Payton wasn't nursing a torn calf muscle and Karl let Payton D up Jordan from the beginning of the series... Sonics win that series.

[Clippersfan86]

I also love Gary's fire. The dude never backed down from anyone and was one of the fiercest competitors of all time. If I had to pick a PG to lead my team into a battle it's Gary. Not saying Nash is a wuss because the guy has a ton of heart and leadership. Just saying Gary was a mean son of a bit** on the court and that has it's advantages.

He's right there was Sam Cassell when it comes to amazing mind games they play with opposing guards and great trash talkers. I just watched clips of him with the TNT crew and was laughing so hard I almost cried. He's great at clowning on people and so honest. It's hilarious. Gotta love my man GP.

[Droid101]

Exactly the kind of stats that prove overall impact. Droid if Nash is the most efficient offensive PG of all time... but allows other top PG's to cream him in playoff series.... what good does that do? Gary could shut you down AND bust your ass for 20+ and 8+ to go with a few rebounds and steals.
He didn't allow other PG's to "cream" him. One year Parker played better. Every other year Nash was better.

Also, comparing Stockton's stats isn't really legit... Stockton was a creator not a scorer. Paker was a scorer not a creator. Yet Nash was mostly outscoring Parker (and thoroughly out-creating him).

Notice nobody posted True Shooting percentages. Nash creams Payton at True Shooting.


But whatever, I guess your 1 time DPOY is more valuable than 2 time MVP?

[Droid101]

Seriously... Gary Payton was a great defender and all that, but Steve Nash led the five best offenses in NBA history. Not one best offense. Not one of the top ten best offenses. The fives best offenses.

You're going to ignore that because Gary Payton was a good defender?


Also, look at career playoff numbers.

GP: 14ppg, 3.7rpg, 5.3apg, on 44/32/70

Nashty: 17ppg, 3.5rpg, 8.9apg, on 47/41/90 (And that's including his first two seasons playing behind Jason Kidd, where he averaged 1.3/0.3/0.3 and 5/2.5/1.8)

And Nash is still going strong.

[Clippersfan86]

Seriously... Gary Payton was a great defender and all that, but Steve Nash led the five best offenses in NBA history. Not one best offense. Not one of the top ten best offenses. The fives best offenses.

You're going to ignore that because Gary Payton was a good defender?


Also, look at career playoff numbers.

GP: 14ppg, 3.7rpg, 5.3apg, on 44/32/70

Nashty: 17ppg, 3.5rpg, 8.9apg, on 47/41/90 (And that's including his first two seasons playing behind Jason Kidd, where he averaged 1.3/0.3/0.3 and 5/2.5/1.8)

And Nash is still going strong.

Do you remember that in those seasons the Suns also allowed astronomically high scoring numbers against them? If you score 120+ every game sure chances are high you'll win.... but if the other team scores 115 it proves you weren't efficient. 9 out of 10 basketball fans would pick a team that plays great defense and offense over a team that plays the best offensive basketball ever but one of the worst defensive ones ever as well.

It's all about balance man.

[Clippersfan86]

He didn't allow other PG's to "cream" him. One year Parker played better. Every other year Nash was better.

Also, comparing Stockton's stats isn't really legit... Stockton was a creator not a scorer. Paker was a scorer not a creator. Yet Nash was mostly outscoring Parker (and thoroughly out-creating him).

Notice nobody posted True Shooting percentages. Nash creams Payton at True Shooting.


But whatever, I guess your 1 time DPOY is more valuable than 2 time MVP?

Okay I used the wrong word when I said cream. What I meant to say was they matched him. If you're putting up 21 and 10 but allowing 20 and 8 or w/e.... what good does that do? It's a wash.

[Droid101]

Do you remember that in those seasons the Suns also allowed astronomically high scoring numbers against them? If you score 120+ every game sure chances are high you'll win.... but if the other team scores 115 it proves you weren't efficient. 9 out of 10 basketball fans would pick a team that plays great defense and offense over a team that plays the best offensive basketball ever but one of the worst defensive ones ever as well.

It's all about balance man.
They played at a fast pace, that's why the other team scored more.

How's this:

Steve Nash's team records:

01-02 Mavs: 57-25, .695
02-03 Mavs: 60-22, .732
03-04 Mavs: 52-30, .634
04-05 Suns: 62-20, .756
05-06 Suns: 54-28, .659
06-07 Suns: 61-21, .744
07-08 Suns: 55-27, .671
08-09 Suns: 46-36, .561
09-10 Suns: 54-28, .659

Who cares how they won? They freaking won.

[Clippersfan86]

They played at a fast pace, that's why the other team scored more.

How's this:

Steve Nash's team records:

01-02 Mavs: 57-25, .695
02-03 Mavs: 60-22, .732
03-04 Mavs: 52-30, .634
04-05 Suns: 62-20, .756
05-06 Suns: 54-28, .659
06-07 Suns: 61-21, .744
07-08 Suns: 55-27, .671
08-09 Suns: 46-36, .561
09-10 Suns: 54-28, .659

Who cares how they won? They freaking won.

You obviously do because you keep mentioning the Nash leading the most efficient/best offenses of all time. If you're going to do that tell us about their defense as well??? The Sonics led by Payton were an amazing team on BOTH ends of the floor. They finished with the best record like 3 times, made the finals once.. and had a best year of 64 wins. Even if we talk team accomplishments lead by X player.. Payton beats Nash.

[Doranku]

They played at a fast pace, that's why the other team scored more.

How's this:

Steve Nash's team records:

01-02 Mavs: 57-25, .695
02-03 Mavs: 60-22, .732
03-04 Mavs: 52-30, .634
04-05 Suns: 62-20, .756
05-06 Suns: 54-28, .659
06-07 Suns: 61-21, .744
07-08 Suns: 55-27, .671
08-09 Suns: 46-36, .561
09-10 Suns: 54-28, .659

Who cares how they won? They freaking won.

Yet with all of that winning, Nash was never able to lead his team to the finals while Payton was... just sayin'.

[NugzHeat3]

My God, Payton MASSACRED PGs in the 90's. :bowdown:
Yeah like the time he massacred Nick Van Exel in the 1995 playoffs. I remember that man. He massacred him so bad that it was the main reason the Lakers upset Seattle.

A lot of the head to head stats GOAT posted don't tell the whole story. It isn't as cut and dry as he's making it out to be.

Nash hasn't guarded Parker at all times and vice versa. They've stuck Barbosa and Bell on Parker for certain periods of time. Same with the Spurs who've put Bowen on Nash to slow him down.

Payton didn't guard PGs at all times, either. The stats make it look like he dominated Stockton in 1996 but Stockton was brutally injured and Seattle really trapped him past half-court and along the baseline forcing him to give up the ball. Of course GP had a lot to do with how effective the traps were but it was a TEAM effort overall. That 1996 Seattle team also loved switching on defense so you'd have to watch the games to see what exactly happened. There's a reason Gary Payton considers John Stockton his toughest match up ever.

It's the same with the 1997 match up vs KJ. Payton helped out a lot on defense and was often matched up with Kidd while Hawkins took KJ.

In 2000, Seattle vs Utah, Shammond Williams guarded Stockton as much as Payton did though GP was more effective in the time he spent.

[Droid101]

Yet with all of that winning, Nash was never able to lead his team to the finals while Payton was... just sayin'.
Oh please. One finals appearance makes up for years and years of winning? And it's not like they were first round exits every year. If not for injuries and bad luck, the Suns probably would have two rings in that span.

Everyone knows the Western Conference Finals were the REAL finals since like, the year 2000.

[EricForman]

Another toughie. I agreed with Blaze's post, especially all the pro-Nash bit. Nash's offense is seriously underrated. If you factor in free throws, passing, and just creating a shot for SOMEONE in his team's uniform, Nash is on the short list of greatest offensive players ever. Short as in like, top 10 short.

At the same time, defense is too important, I'd have to go with GP again.

[Clippersfan86]

Yeah like the time he massacred Nick Van Exel in the 1995 playoffs. I remember that man. He massacred him so bad that it was the main reason the Lakers upset Seattle.

A lot of the head to head stats GOAT posted don't tell the whole story. It isn't as cut and dry as he's making it out to be.

Nash hasn't guarded Parker at all time and vice versa. They've stuck Barbosa and Bell on Parker for certain periods of time. Same with the Spurs who've often put Bowen on Nash to slow him down.

Payton didn't guard PGs at all times, either. The stats make it look like he dominated Stockton in 1996 but Stockton was brutally injured and Seattle really trapped him past half-court and along the baseline forcing him to give up the ball. Of course GP had a lot to do with how effective the traps were but it was a TEAM effort overall. That 1996 Seattle team also loved switching on defense so you'd have to watch the games to soo what exactly happened. There's a reason Gary Payton considers John Stockton his toughest match up ever.

It's the same with the 1997 match up vs KJ. Payton helped out a lot on defense and was often matched up with Kidd while Hawkins took KJ.

In 2000, Seattle vs Utah, Shammond Williams guarded Stockton as much as Payton did though GP was more effective in the time he spent.

If anything you add more to the argument for Payton here. You realize Payton didn't just defend PG's right?? He also guarded the best SG's and occasionally SF's in his career.

[NugzHeat3]

If anything you add more to the argument for Payton here. You realize Payton didn't just defend PG's right?? He also guarded the best SG's and occasionally SF's in his career.
I saw Payton his entire career. Payton's versatility on defense was great and crucial to Seattle's defense.

But we're discussing head to head match ups here and since he often guarded SGs and Seattle switched a lot, it skews the head to head numbers.

[Droid101]

Yeah like the time he massacred Nick Van Exel in the 1995 playoffs. I remember that man. He massacred him so bad that it was the main reason the Lakers upset Seattle.

I love how he left that one off. Payton allowed a second year point guard (in his first playoffs) to abuse him.

But, that wouldn't help Payton's case, would it?

[Clippersfan86]

I saw Payton his entire career. Payton's versatility on defense was great and crucial to Seattle's defense.

But we're discussing head to head match ups here and since he often guarded SGs and Seattle switched a lot, it skews the head to head numbers.

Well if you saw his entire career then you wouldn't be arguing for Nash dude. I watched Gary from about... 96 which was his prime... and I actually got into basketball because of the Sonics. Gary Payton's ALL AROUND game crumbles Nash. If we want to compare Payton to Stockton... who was at least an average defender fine. To compare to someone like Nash who gets burned up by the best guards in the league on a consistent basis though???

I understand for a PG playmaking/passing is more important than defense... but the gap Payton has over him defensively is way bigger than the gap between the two on passing/playmaking. Like I said Payton's prime 9 apg... Nash's 12. Not a huge jump. Yet Nash gives up 5 ppg, 3 rpg, 1 spg and elite man defense to Payton when you compare their best seasons.

[Droid101]

Well if you saw his entire career then you wouldn't be arguing for Nash dude.
And I've been watching Gary from 92. So, I guess that makes me more knowledgeable than you? And I pick Nash.




I understand for a PG playmaking/passing is more important than defense... but the gap Payton has over him defensively is way bigger than the gap between the two on passing/playmaking. Like I said Payton's prime 9 apg... Nash's 12. Not a huge jump. Yet Nash gives up 5 ppg, 3 rpg, 1 spg and elite man defense to Payton when you compare their best seasons.


Payton gives up 2pt%, 3pt%, ft%, etc. Your points are no more valid than ours.

[NugzHeat3]

I love how he left that one off. Payton allowed a second year point guard (in his first playoffs) to abuse him.

But, that wouldn't help Payton's case, would it?
True. And for the people bringing up Nash never making the finals, they should also consider Seattle's historic collapses in 1994 and 1995.

Payton was the leader of those teams, just for the record. Nash has never been part of such postseason meltdowns.

[ihatetimthomas]

I will take Gary Payton. The best 2 way point guard ever to play imo. GP could get it done on offense, get others involved, and was very versatile. He can finish, distribute and work the post. I loved how he could back guys down in the poast. Nash overall was the better passer and shooter, free throw shooter, but I give GP the edge in every other category. Payton's defense was elite, and this is what separates the 2. You knew GP could get you the offense you needed but you also knew he would shut down opposing guards.

[Clippersfan86]

And I've been watching Gary from 92. So, I guess that makes me more knowledgeable than you? And I pick Nash.




Payton gives up 2pt%, 3pt%, ft%, etc. Your points are no more valid than ours.

:facepalm . That wasn't my point at all with my comment. My point was to put it out there that I too have seen both players in their prime. It's not like I'm a 5 year NBA fan going by stats and achievements. Gary Payton dominated games more than Nash. It's rare in my time watching the Suns from this decade for me to have thought to myself... man Nash is dominating this game... or this series. I've thought that about Amare.. and Joe Johnson but not Nash.

[ThaSwagg3r]

I absolutely hate how one of these guys will have to stop here because both of them should be ahead of Stockton and Kidd.

My vote goes to Steve Nash. In my opinion he is arguably the greatest offensive PG to ever play the game, yes that includes guys like Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson. There was almost nothing that Steve Nash couldn't do offensively except maybe grab offensive rebounds. Steve Nash was one of the most efficient shooters to ever play the game, multiple 90/50/40 seasons, 2x MVP, one of the best passers to ever play, I mean what more could you want? Maybe a little better defense but the reality is that a PG's defense does not make as much of an impact defensively as a wing player or a big man. Because of that you could also cover up a PGs defensive weakness easier.

I really can't find an area offensively where Payton was better than Nash in, posting up is probably the closest thing but Nash was a more efficient scorer. Payton may have scored better in volume (compare their ppg's) but Nash knew how to close out games too.....he wasn't like John Stockton. Nash like Payton knew how and when to assert himself and put the team on his back.

And before somebody talks about how Nash started to thrive because they took away the hand-check. Taking away the hand-check wouldn't make Payton a more efficient shooter or a better passer and he is far behind Nash in both of those categories. Taking away the hand-check would probably make Payton be an inferior defender than what he was known for. People don't understand that it works both ways. Without the hand-check you are now better offensively but worse defensively.



I take Nash over Payton for the same reasons why I would take Nash over Kidd.

[Clippersfan86]

I will take Gary Payton. The best 2 way point guard ever to play imo. GP could get it done on offense, get others involved, and was very versatile. He can finish, distribute and work the post. I loved how he could back guys down in the poast. Nash overall was the better passer and shooter, free throw shooter, but I give GP the edge in every other category. Payton's defense was elite, and this is what separates the 2. You knew GP could get you the offense you needed but you also knew he would shut down opposing guards.

:applause: . Like I said earlier. At the end of the day what do you prefer. Someone who gives you 18 and 12... but allows the same scoring from other players.... or someone who gives you 20 and 8 and shuts down the player he's guarding? Think of this mathematically with raw stats. I shouldn't have to write a formula for you guys. If someone scores 20.... but allows 20... they aren't as valuable as someone who scores 20 and holds an opponent to 10. Even with the edge in passing and shooting efficiency.

[Kblaze8855]

Even if we talk team accomplishments lead by X player.. Payton beats Nash.

I think that depends on who you credit. In another case of retrospect decisions on who to favor...Kemp gets forgotten. People at the time...plenty would call those Kemps team. you can find articles on google archives calling Payton Kemps sidekick in 96. Kemp was all NBA before Payton was. And on a higher team for a couple years. Payton really peaked after the Sonics that most remember. GP was at his best on 40 something win teams and a 61 win team in 98 when they got blown out 4 games in a row by the Lakers.

Paytons prime was probably like 94-02 and they made one finals and lost some wicked upsets(94 Nuggets most well know but its not the only one).

After Kemp was gone they didnt really do anything of note. Not beyond what Nash did.

And while Nash had amare...Amare was never considered the best on that team. Kemp and Payton were kinda looked at as co mvps. And early it was just Kemps team with Payton as his sidekick. Bigmen used to get the love. now guards do.

Not that that matters far as who was really the best. But at the time Kemp got a lot of credit. More than any of nashs teammates lately.

[Droid101]

If someone scores 20.... but allows 20... they aren't as valuable as someone who scores 20 and holds an opponent to 10.
You have got to be kidding me.

I guess Jason Kidd isn't as valuable as anyone, since opposing point guards routinely score much more on him than he scores on them. :roll:

[NugzHeat3]

Well if you saw his entire career then you wouldn't be arguing for Nash dude. I watched Gary from about... 96 which was his prime... and I actually got into basketball because of the Sonics. Gary Payton's ALL AROUND game crumbles Nash. If we want to compare Payton to Stockton... who was at least an average defender fine. To compare to someone like Nash who gets burned up by the best guards in the league on a consistent basis though???

I understand for a PG playmaking/passing is more important than defense... but the gap Payton has over him defensively is way bigger than the gap between the two on passing/playmaking. Like I said Payton's prime 9 apg... Nash's 12. Not a huge jump. Yet Nash gives up 5 ppg, 3 rpg, 1 spg and elite man defense to Payton when you compare their best seasons.
Payton is a better all around player and a more complete player but that doesn't make him more impactful.

All around players aren't always better than players who may seem one-dimensional (Nash doesn't fit because of his threat to score and create for others) but they would fit better on certain teams.

For instance, Horace Grant isn't better than Amare. Grant is better at everything besides scoring (passing, defense, hustle, rebounding, understanding ect) but the gap in their offensive prowess is so huge, that it negates any edge Grant has. But Grant would fit on better on a team like the early 90s Bulls.

I can't see the 1996 Seattle team being as good with Steve Nash in place of GP because that's a team that primarily relied on swarming defense and GP's pressure defense was the one that got them going and gave the team its identity. Nash would make them better offensively but their defense would definitely take a hit.

But I can't see the 05-present Suns being as good with Payton instead of Nash. The defense won't improve much, it would barely be noticeable partly because of rule changes and partly because the entire team besides Marion and Bell sucked. Hell, I'd say Marion was overrated too because he'd get credit for all the versatility but he couldn't guard any of the positions at a high level. Anyway, that's besides the point.

The offense would take a big hit with Payton. Screen and roll wouldn't be as effective since most teams would force Payton to shoot by going under the screen and the pick and roll is a good part of the Suns offense and causes all the defensive breakdowns. Floor spacing isn't as good since Payton isn't even half the shooter.

I'd say Nash would be better on most teams and he's had the better career top to bottom. Whether people will like it or not, you ask this question 10 years from now, Nash would win fairly easily because people will act like comparing a 2x MVP to someone who got like 5 first place votes his entire career is a travesty.

[RobertdeMeijer]

On paper, Gary Payton is the better player.

All the advance statistics I could find point in Payton's direction. Here's WAR:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=9840

I also agree that Payton's good offense + great defense > Nash's bad defense + great offense.

On the other hand, watching them play, I felt that Nash's impact was greater.

But this list is not about who's better, it's about who's greater. In terms of quality, they're close. But in terms of value to the NBA's history, Steve Nash blows Payton away. Nash stood for something bigger than himself: The D'Antoni Suns were the funnest team ever. He also made comic appearences, criticized the second Iraq war and made soccer look like fun. Everybody liked him... Payton on the other hand was a douchebag.

[Clippersfan86]

Payton is a better all around player and a more complete player but that doesn't make him more impactful.

All around players aren't always better than players who may seem one-dimensional (Nash doesn't fit because of his threat to score and create for others) but they would fit better on certain teams.

For instance, Horace Grant isn't better than Amare. Grant is better at everything besides scoring (passing, defense, hustle, rebounding, understanding ect) but the gap in their offensive prowess is so huge, that it negates any edge Grant has. But Grant would fit on better on a team like the early 90s Bulls.

I can't see the 1996 Seattle team being as good with Steve Nash in place of GP because that's a team that primarily relied on swarming defense and GP's pressure defense was the one that got them going and gave the team its identity. Nash would make them better offensively but their defense would definitely take a hit.

But I can't see the 05-present Suns being as good with Payton instead of Nash. The defense won't improve much, it would barely be noticeable partly because of rule changes and partly because the entire team besides Marion and Bell sucked. Hell, I'd say Marion was overrated too because he'd get credit for all the versatility but he couldn't guard any of the positions at a high level. Anyway, that's besides the point.

The offense would take a big hit with Payton. Screen and roll wouldn't be as effective since most teams would force Payton to shoot by going under the screen and the pick and roll is a good part of the Suns offense and causes all the defensive breakdowns. Floor spacing isn't as good since Payton isn't even half the shooter.

I'd say Nash would be better on most teams and he's had the better career top to bottom. Whether people will like it or not, you ask this question 10 years from now, Nash would win fairly easily because people will act like comparing a 2x MVP to someone who got like 5 first place votes his entire career is a travesty.

You say Payton wouldn't do well with the Suns... and that offenses of teams he joined would take a hit compared to Nash... but what about the other side of it? Team's Nash were on... Dallas and Phoenix are known to have some of the worst defenses of all time! I'm not saying Payton can run an offense like Nash. I'm saying the gap between them offensively is MUCH smaller than the one defensively, favoring Payton. Nash my have been more efficient but Payton was the better player at putting the ball in the basket in his prime. Better scorer, worse playmaker/passer, better defender, better rebounder... how ISN'T Payton better? That's a more appropriate question.

[Clippersfan86]

I think that depends on who you credit. In another case of retrospect decisions on who to favor...Kemp gets forgotten. People at the time...plenty would call those Kemps team. you can find articles on google archives calling Payton Kemps sidekick in 96. Kemp was all NBA before Payton was. And on a higher team for a couple years. Payton really peaked after the Sonics that most remember. GP was at his best on 40 something win teams and a 61 win team in 98 when they got blown out 4 games in a row by the Lakers.

Paytons prime was probably like 94-02 and they made one finals and lost some wicked upsets(94 Nuggets most well know but its not the only one).

After Kemp was gone they didnt really do anything of note. Not beyond what Nash did.

And while Nash had amare...Amare was never considered the best on that team. Kemp and Payton were kinda looked at as co mvps. And early it was just Kemps team with Payton as his sidekick. Bigmen used to get the love. now guards do.

Not that that matters far as who was really the best. But at the time Kemp got a lot of credit. More than any of nashs teammates lately.


I mean no disrespect buddy but prime Amare>Kemp not even close. Kemp's best year was what 21 and 10? It's clear to anyone who watched the Sonics that Kemp was never the best player on the team. Even stats show an edge to Payton the whole time. Amare put up 28 and 9.... so Nash wasn't even the undisputed best on his team if anything.

BTW mind telling me what Nash did last season when Amare left? That's right he missed the playoffs. Don't use post Kemp Sonics era as an example when Nash also couldn't get it done alone.

[Clippersfan86]

You have got to be kidding me.

I guess Jason Kidd isn't as valuable as anyone, since opposing point guards routinely score much more on him than he scores on them. :roll:

Jason Kidd and his creaky knees still= 2 times better defense than Nash. Pretty sad if you ask me... :lol

[Miller for 3]

My vote goes to Steve Nash. As an all around player, Payton is better. But Nash does so much more for an offense than Payton can. In 05 I thought Nash was a system player and benefited from running so many PnRs with Amare, but he proved he was legit with his 06 campaign. But I can see the argument for Payton

[ShaqAttack3234]

Gary Payton. Gary was a better scorer, rebounder and 10 times better defender. The only aspects Nash has Gary is passing and playmaking ability. I understand it's important as a PG but Gary's defense was elite.

If I asked you.... which stat line you'd take you tell me?

24 ppg, 9 apg, 6.5 rpg, 2 spg on good all around shooting percentages and elite defense. Arguably best man defender in NBA history. Only PG ever to win DPOY and it was during the toughest era.

or

19 ppg, 12 apg, 3.5 rpg and 1 spg on good all around shooting percentages. Arguably the greatest playmaker/passer in NBA history and at worst top 3. Extremely efficient all around shooter, can hit any shot.


One of those statlines is arguably the greatest all around PG season ever... right next to CP3's best season and Magic and Stockton's best seasons.

Well, Payton's numbers in 2000 make his season look better than it really was, imo. And I don't think that was his best season either despite the numbers. His defense wasn't as good as it had been by that point and he had become more of a volume scorer which he wasn't as effective as, imo and his shot selection/ball dominance is a big reason for those numbers. Don't get me wrong, he was a great player then, and 24/7/9 is amazing, especially for 2000, but I'd take quite a few of Nash's seasons over Payton's.

Look at his 2005 season for example.

Some of the numbers don't stand out quite as much(15.5 ppg, 3.3 rpg and 11.5 apg), which is good, but doesn't begin to show his impact.

He made the Suns an offensive juggernaut and they were easily the best offensive team in the league that season scoring 2.3 more points per 100 possessions than the next best offensive team and 6.7 more ppg than the next highest scoring team.

While it's true that he had a lot of offensive talent around him(Stoudemire, Marion, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson), all of those players were there the previous season except for Richardson and they were just a 28-54 team and the 9th worst offensive team. Granted, you'd expect Amare to improve going into his 3rd year and he did miss 27 games, but there were no hints of Phoenix becoming the offensive force that they did in '05 or a 62 win team.

And they were only 2-5 without Nash(2-6 including a game he played just 11 minutes in and they weren't particularly impressive in those games.

January 14th vs Indiana- Nash plays only 11 minutes and they lose by 18 to a Pacers team that didn't have Ron Artest or Stephen Jackson. Phoenix shot 39% in the game.
January 15th vs Washington- Nash didn't play and they lost by 5 to the Wizards and Phoenix shot 43%.
January 17th vs Detroit- Nash didn't play and they lost by 14 to Detroit and Phoenix shot just 35%.
January 19th vs Memphis- Nash didn't play and they lost by 9 to Memphis. Phoenix just shot 33%

Prior to these games, Phoenix was 31-5 and none of those teams except for Detroit were great teams, just solid playoff teams, but not real contenders.

They did beat the Clippers by 18, beat Dallas by 1 and lost to the Celtics by 7 in OT in another 3 game stretch that Nash missed. But Phoenix also lost by 25 to Sacramento without Nash on the last game of the season(and I'll acknowledge that it's questionable how much that game really meant to Phoenix with the best record secure and Marion also only playing 18 minutes in the game).

But that's 8 games, 5 of them vs average lower-tier playoff teams, 2 of them vs legitimately good teams who could contend and 1 vs a mediocre team where Phoenix didn't look all that impressive without Nash. Yet they were 60-15 with him(60-14 excluding the game that he played 11 minutes in).

And what really amazed me is how much Nash had held back his scoring during the regular season for the benefit of the team. He proved how much more capable he was in the playoffs when he averaged 23.9 ppg without his playmaking or efficiency falling off(11.3 apg, 52 FG%, 60.4 TS%) including the semifinals when he averaged 30.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg and 12 apg on 55% shooting(42% on 3s and 96% on free throws).

Then there's 2006 when Amare Stoudemire missed the season and Joe Johnson was traded. Nash proved who was the Suns most valuable player leading Phoenix to 54 wins and the WCF again with Raja Bell, Eddie House, James Jones and Boris Diaw being the main additions filling in for Stoudemire and Joe Johnson.

Nash increased his scoring to 18.8 ppg and still led the league in assists(10.5) and TS%(63.2) and he averaged only 20/10 in 20 playoff games on great efficiency(50 FG%, 62 TS%).

Phoenix lost all 3 games that Nash missed including a 117-93 loss to the Spurs, 110-102 loss to the Warriors and a 109-89 loss to the Lakers.

Phoenix remained an elite offensive team(2nd best offensive rating, just 0.3 fewer points per 100 possessions than Dallas, and 5.8 more ppg than any team in the league).

Nash's best statistical season was in 2007. He averaged 18.6 ppg, a league leading 11.6 apg, shot a career high 53.2% from the field and led the league in TS%(65.4) and eFG%(61.3).

Phoenix won 61 games and were just 2-4 without Nash.

They beat a 76ers team by 12 that was pretty much done with Iverson's departure near, lost by 3 in OT to Utah, beat a mediocre Blazers team by 7 in OT, lost by 9 to a mediocre Hawks team, lost by 13 to Chicago and lost by 24 to a mediocre Sonics team.

But 2010 also helped convince me what a special player Nash was. After Terry Porter was gone and the Shaq experiment was over, Phoenix was back to the Western Conference Finals. They won 54 games, were easily the best offensive team in the league again scoring 4.3 more points per 100 possessions than the next best and also scoring more points per game than any other team. They also gave the Lakers a good fight in the WCF. Nash was 35/36 by this point, but back to putting up numbers comparable to his MVP seasons including a league leading 11 apg.

And even last year was impressive all things considered. Nash's cast was pretty much a 38 year old Grant Hill, a 34 year old washed up Vince Carter, Marcin Gortat, Channing Frye and Jared Dudley, yet they were still 39-36 with Nash and just 1-6 without him. And Nash is 36/37 himself.

Nash has proven that he can take over games himself and hit clutch shots because of his historically great shooting ability, underrated finishing ability, creativity and ability to hit tough, off-balance shots, but more importantly, he runs the offensive and makes everyone else better. His ability to score makes him an effective playmaker as well as his ability to make the right pass and his creativity/skill level which allows him to make difficult passes that few others can make if necessary.

I'll take Nash running my team over Payton. Payton was a much better defender, but I have no doubt that Nash's superior offense made him a more effective player.

I vote for Steve Nash.

[Miller for 3]

Well, Payton's numbers in 2000 make his season look better than it really was, imo. And I don't think that was his best season either despite the numbers. His defense wasn't as good as it had been by that point and he had become more of a volume scorer which he wasn't as effective as, imo and his shot selection/ball dominance is a big reason for those numbers. Don't get me wrong, he was a great player then, and 24/7/9 is amazing, especially for 2000, but I'd take quite a few of Nash's seasons over Payton's.

Look at his 2005 season for example.

Some of the numbers don't stand out quite as much(15.5 ppg, 3.3 rpg and 11.5 apg), which is good, but doesn't begin to show his impact.

He made the Suns an offensive juggernaut and they were easily the best offensive team in the league that season scoring 2.3 more points per 100 possessions than the next best offensive team and 6.7 more ppg than the next highest scoring team.

While it's true that he had a lot of offensive talent around him(Stoudemire, Marion, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson), all of those players were there the previous season except for Richardson and they were just a 28-54 team and the 9th worst offensive team. Granted, you'd expect Amare to improve going into his 3rd year and he did miss 27 games, but there were no hints of Phoenix becoming the offensive force that they did in '05 or a 62 win team.

And they were only 2-5 without Nash(2-6 including a game he played just 11 minutes in and they weren't particularly impressive in those games.

January 14th vs Indiana- Nash plays only 11 minutes and they lose by 18 to a Pacers team that didn't have Ron Artest or Stephen Jackson. Phoenix shot 39% in the game.
January 15th vs Washington- Nash didn't play and they lost by 5 to the Wizards and Phoenix shot 43%.
January 17th vs Detroit- Nash didn't play and they lost by 14 to Detroit and Phoenix shot just 35%.
January 19th vs Memphis- Nash didn't play and they lost by 9 to Memphis. Phoenix just shot 33%

Prior to these games, Phoenix was 31-5 and none of those teams except for Detroit were great teams, just solid playoff teams, but not real contenders.

They did beat the Clippers by 18, beat Dallas by 1 and lost to the Celtics by 7 in OT in another 3 game stretch that Nash missed. But Phoenix also lost by 25 to Sacramento without Nash on the last game of the season(and I'll acknowledge that it's questionable how much that game really meant to Phoenix with the best record secure and Marion also only playing 18 minutes in the game).

But that's 8 games, 5 of them vs average lower-tier playoff teams, 2 of them vs legitimately good teams who could contend and 1 vs a mediocre team where Phoenix didn't look all that impressive without Nash. Yet they were 60-15 with him(60-14 excluding the game that he played 11 minutes in).

And what really amazed me is how much Nash had held back his scoring during the regular season for the benefit of the team. He proved how much more capable he was in the playoffs when he averaged 23.9 ppg without his playmaking or efficiency falling off(11.3 apg, 52 FG%, 60.4 TS%) including the semifinals when he averaged 30.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg and 12 apg on 55% shooting(42% on 3s and 96% on free throws).

Then there's 2006 when Amare Stoudemire missed the season and Joe Johnson was traded. Nash proved who was the Suns most valuable player leading Phoenix to 54 wins and the WCF again with Raja Bell, Eddie House, James Jones and Boris Diaw being the main additions filling in for Stoudemire and Joe Johnson.

Nash increased his scoring to 18.8 ppg and still led the league in assists(10.5) and TS%(63.2) and he averaged only 20/10 in 20 playoff games on great efficiency(50 FG%, 62 TS%).

Phoenix lost all 3 games that Nash missed including a 117-93 loss to the Spurs, 110-102 loss to the Warriors and a 109-89 loss to the Lakers.

Phoenix remained an elite offensive team(2nd best offensive rating, just 0.3 fewer points per 100 possessions than Dallas, and 5.8 more ppg than any team in the league).

Nash's best statistical season was in 2007. He averaged 18.6 ppg, a league leading 11.6 apg, shot a career high 53.2% from the field and led the league in TS%(65.4) and eFG%(61.3).

Phoenix won 61 games and were just 2-4 without Nash.

They beat a 76ers team by 12 that was pretty much done with Iverson's departure near, lost by 3 in OT to Utah, beat a mediocre Blazers team by 7 in OT, lost by 9 to a mediocre Hawks team, lost by 13 to Chicago and lost by 24 to a mediocre Sonics team.

But 2010 also helped convince me what a special player Nash was. After Terry Porter was gone and the Shaq experiment was over, Phoenix was back to the Western Conference Finals. They won 54 games, were easily the best offensive team in the league again scoring 4.3 more points per 100 possessions than the next best and also scoring more points per game than any other team. They also gave the Lakers a good fight in the WCF. Nash was 35/36 by this point, but back to putting up numbers comparable to his MVP seasons including a league leading 11 apg.

And even last year was impressive all things considered. Nash's cast was pretty much a 38 year old Grant Hill, a 34 year old washed up Vince Carter, Marcin Gortat, Channing Frye and Jared Dudley, yet they were still 39-36 with Nash and just 1-6 without him. And Nash is 36/37 himself.

Nash has proven that he can take over games himself and hit clutch shots because of his historically great shooting ability, underrated finishing ability, creativity and ability to hit tough, off-balance shots, but more importantly, he runs the offensive and makes everyone else better. His ability to score makes him an effective playmaker as well as his ability to make the right pass and his creativity/skill level which allows him to make difficult passes that few others can make if necessary.

I'll take Nash running my team over Payton. Payton was a much better defender, but I have no doubt that Nash's superior offense made him a more effective player.

I vote for Steve Nash.

Legit post right here. :bowdown:

[Clippersfan86]

Well, Payton's numbers in 2000 make his season look better than it really was, imo. And I don't think that was his best season either despite the numbers. His defense wasn't as good as it had been by that point and he had become more of a volume scorer which he wasn't as effective as, imo and his shot selection/ball dominance is a big reason for those numbers. Don't get me wrong, he was a great player then, and 24/7/9 is amazing, especially for 2000, but I'd take quite a few of Nash's seasons over Payton's.

Look at his 2005 season for example.

Some of the numbers don't stand out quite as much(15.5 ppg, 3.3 rpg and 11.5 apg), which is good, but doesn't begin to show his impact.

He made the Suns an offensive juggernaut and they were easily the best offensive team in the league that season scoring 2.3 more points per 100 possessions than the next best offensive team and 6.7 more ppg than the next highest scoring team.

While it's true that he had a lot of offensive talent around him(Stoudemire, Marion, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson), all of those players were there the previous season except for Richardson and they were just a 28-54 team and the 9th worst offensive team. Granted, you'd expect Amare to improve going into his 3rd year and he did miss 27 games, but there were no hints of Phoenix becoming the offensive force that they did in '05 or a 62 win team.

And they were only 2-5 without Nash(2-6 including a game he played just 11 minutes in and they weren't particularly impressive in those games.

January 14th vs Indiana- Nash plays only 11 minutes and they lose by 18 to a Pacers team that didn't have Ron Artest or Stephen Jackson. Phoenix shot 39% in the game.
January 15th vs Washington- Nash didn't play and they lost by 5 to the Wizards and Phoenix shot 43%.
January 17th vs Detroit- Nash didn't play and they lost by 14 to Detroit and Phoenix shot just 35%.
January 19th vs Memphis- Nash didn't play and they lost by 9 to Memphis. Phoenix just shot 33%

Prior to these games, Phoenix was 31-5 and none of those teams except for Detroit were great teams, just solid playoff teams, but not real contenders.

They did beat the Clippers by 18, beat Dallas by 1 and lost to the Celtics by 7 in OT in another 3 game stretch that Nash missed. But Phoenix also lost by 25 to Sacramento without Nash on the last game of the season(and I'll acknowledge that it's questionable how much that game really meant to Phoenix with the best record secure and Marion also only playing 18 minutes in the game).

But that's 8 games, 5 of them vs average lower-tier playoff teams, 2 of them vs legitimately good teams who could contend and 1 vs a mediocre team where Phoenix didn't look all that impressive without Nash. Yet they were 60-15 with him(60-14 excluding the game that he played 11 minutes in).

And what really amazed me is how much Nash had held back his scoring during the regular season for the benefit of the team. He proved how much more capable he was in the playoffs when he averaged 23.9 ppg without his playmaking or efficiency falling off(11.3 apg, 52 FG%, 60.4 TS%) including the semifinals when he averaged 30.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg and 12 apg on 55% shooting(42% on 3s and 96% on free throws).

Then there's 2006 when Amare Stoudemire missed the season and Joe Johnson was traded. Nash proved who was the Suns most valuable player leading Phoenix to 54 wins and the WCF again with Raja Bell, Eddie House, James Jones and Boris Diaw being the main additions filling in for Stoudemire and Joe Johnson.

Nash increased his scoring to 18.8 ppg and still led the league in assists(10.5) and TS%(63.2) and he averaged only 20/10 in 20 playoff games on great efficiency(50 FG%, 62 TS%).

Phoenix lost all 3 games that Nash missed including a 117-93 loss to the Spurs, 110-102 loss to the Warriors and a 109-89 loss to the Lakers.

Phoenix remained an elite offensive team(2nd best offensive rating, just 0.3 fewer points per 100 possessions than Dallas, and 5.8 more ppg than any team in the league).

Nash's best statistical season was in 2007. He averaged 18.6 ppg, a league leading 11.6 apg, shot a career high 53.2% from the field and led the league in TS%(65.4) and eFG%(61.3).

Phoenix won 61 games and were just 2-4 without Nash.

They beat a 76ers team by 12 that was pretty much done with Iverson's departure near, lost by 3 in OT to Utah, beat a mediocre Blazers team by 7 in OT, lost by 9 to a mediocre Hawks team, lost by 13 to Chicago and lost by 24 to a mediocre Sonics team.

But 2010 also helped convince me what a special player Nash was. After Terry Porter was gone and the Shaq experiment was over, Phoenix was back to the Western Conference Finals. They won 54 games, were easily the best offensive team in the league again scoring 4.3 more points per 100 possessions than the next best and also scoring more points per game than any other team. They also gave the Lakers a good fight in the WCF. Nash was 35/36 by this point, but back to putting up numbers comparable to his MVP seasons including a league leading 11 apg.

And even last year was impressive all things considered. Nash's cast was pretty much a 38 year old Grant Hill, a 34 year old washed up Vince Carter, Marcin Gortat, Channing Frye and Jared Dudley, yet they were still 39-36 with Nash and just 1-6 without him. And Nash is 36/37 himself.

Nash has proven that he can take over games himself and hit clutch shots because of his historically great shooting ability, underrated finishing ability, creativity and ability to hit tough, off-balance shots, but more importantly, he runs the offensive and makes everyone else better. His ability to score makes him an effective playmaker as well as his ability to make the right pass and his creativity/skill level which allows him to make difficult passes that few others can make if necessary.

I'll take Nash running my team over Payton. Payton was a much better defender, but I have no doubt that Nash's superior offense made him a more effective player.

I vote for Steve Nash.

I don't agree with some of this but :applause: for a well written and logical post.

[NugzHeat3]

You say Payton wouldn't do well with the Suns... and that offenses of teams he joined would take a hit compared to Nash... but what about the other side of it? Team's Nash were on... Dallas and Phoenix are known to have some of the worst defenses of all time! I'm not saying Payton can run an offense like Nash. I'm saying the gap between them offensively is MUCH smaller than the one defensively, favoring Payton. Nash my have been more efficient but Payton was the better player at putting the ball in the basket in his prime. Better scorer, worse playmaker/passer, better defender, better rebounder... how ISN'T Payton better? That's a more appropriate question.
Dallas and Phoenix wouldn't be much better defensively with Payton. Better? Yeah but not much better. A point guard can't singlehandedly transform your defense no matter how good he is especially because the defense on other positions would still be terrible.

Payton wasn't the better scorer either. He scored more because he took more shots. Teams don't play Nash like he's a scorer. When they do, Nash has shown the ability to takeover games and Nash's efficiency doesn't take a hit when he raises the volume of shots he takes because he's just that good of a shooter.

[Fatal9]

Yeah like the time he massacred Nick Van Exel in the 1995 playoffs. I remember that man. He massacred him so bad that it was the main reason the Lakers upset Seattle.

A lot of the head to head stats GOAT posted don't tell the whole story. It isn't as cut and dry as he's making it out to be.

Nash hasn't guarded Parker at all times and vice versa. They've stuck Barbosa and Bell on Parker for certain periods of time. Same with the Spurs who've put Bowen on Nash to slow him down.

Payton didn't guard PGs at all times, either. The stats make it look like he dominated Stockton in 1996 but Stockton was brutally injured and Seattle really trapped him past half-court and along the baseline forcing him to give up the ball. Of course GP had a lot to do with how effective the traps were but it was a TEAM effort overall. That 1996 Seattle team also loved switching on defense so you'd have to watch the games to see what exactly happened. There's a reason Gary Payton considers John Stockton his toughest match up ever.

It's the same with the 1997 match up vs KJ. Payton helped out a lot on defense and was often matched up with Kidd while Hawkins took KJ.

In 2000, Seattle vs Utah, Shammond Williams guarded Stockton as much as Payton did though GP was more effective in the time he spent.

Finally someone with perspective who's actually watched these series. McMillan, Hawkins and other guys defended opposing guards a lot too, when GP was out of the game, when they wanted to give a different look, on switches and not to mention like you said Seattle would trap PGs (especially Stockton) to reduce their effectiveness by keeping the ball out of their hands. And then you have a great interior defense backing you up while Nash had...Amare. It's not like Parker ran wild on Nash either, he had one series on him where you could say he did ('08). Stockton got injured in the Spurs series right before their matchup in '96, but the Seattle TEAM defense was going to give him problems no doubt. Also find it weird that Marbury was used in '98, but Van Exel not for '95.


Also, if Nash had a run of leading his teams to epic disappointments like GP did for most of the 90s, people would criticize him even harder than they do now for not making the finals. '94 upset in first round by Nuggets, '95 upset in first round by Lakers, '97 almost upset in first round again by Suns (pulled out a game in OT to avoid elimination) and lose basically every series against a good team except the '96 series against Jazz, which was the only 50+ win team Seattle ever beat from '94-'00. Let's be honest, those Seattle teams underachieved...a lot...in the playoffs. If we are switching situations, I don't see how Nash could possibly lead them to less success in the playoffs. It's not like they were losing to teams that went on to win championships either, but teams that were #8 or #7 seeds, teams that got easily dealt with in the following round. And GP was playing no where as well as Nash when his team was losing too.

[kaiiu]

Nash

[bizil]

Payton is a better all around player and a more complete player but that doesn't make him more impactful.

All around players aren't always better than players who may seem one-dimensional (Nash doesn't fit because of his threat to score and create for others) but they would fit better on certain teams.

For instance, Horace Grant isn't better than Amare. Grant is better at everything besides scoring (passing, defense, hustle, rebounding, understanding ect) but the gap in their offensive prowess is so huge, that it negates any edge Grant has. But Grant would fit on better on a team like the early 90s Bulls.

I can't see the 1996 Seattle team being as good with Steve Nash in place of GP because that's a team that primarily relied on swarming defense and GP's pressure defense was the one that got them going and gave the team its identity. Nash would make them better offensively but their defense would definitely take a hit.

But I can't see the 05-present Suns being as good with Payton instead of Nash. The defense won't improve much, it would barely be noticeable partly because of rule changes and partly because the entire team besides Marion and Bell sucked. Hell, I'd say Marion was overrated too because he'd get credit for all the versatility but he couldn't guard any of the positions at a high level. Anyway, that's besides the point.

The offense would take a big hit with Payton. Screen and roll wouldn't be as effective since most teams would force Payton to shoot by going under the screen and the pick and roll is a good part of the Suns offense and causes all the defensive breakdowns. Floor spacing isn't as good since Payton isn't even half the shooter.

I'd say Nash would be better on most teams and he's had the better career top to bottom. Whether people will like it or not, you ask this question 10 years from now, Nash would win fairly easily because people will act like comparing a 2x MVP to someone who got like 5 first place votes his entire career is a travesty.

Excellent post! The better all around player ISN'T the better player in all cases. It's about the impact u make. The Horace Grant-Amare comparison is a great analogy! Another great debate is if u would rather have a Scottie Pippen instead of a Nique-Melo-Durant-Bernard King type of SF. For me I would take the Nique type over Pippen. Even though Pip is a better all around player. For me, the best perimeter players of all time are Batman scorers AND great all around players in one. These are guys like MJ, Kobe, Bird, West, Wade, Drexler, Lebron, Havlicek. Or PG's like Magic, Big O, Isiah, Frazier. But after that, I want guys like Nique, King, Melo, Durant, Gervin, etc.

[ShaqAttack3234]

In 2000, Seattle vs Utah, Shammond Williams guarded Stockton as much as Payton did though GP was more effective in the time he spent.

Yeah, I'd say that Stockton actually guarded Payton more than Payton guarded Stockton that series and a lot of times when a 38 year old John Stockton seemed to be getting the better of the match up.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

I've sent my vote to G.O.A.T on pm how he asked but I'm also gonna put it here.So I pick Steve Nash

[chazzy]

Nash. His offensive impact trumps what Payton brings on both ends IMO.

[iamgine]

I just want to add, while it's nice to have some defense on the PG position, it's really the least important position in terms of defense. After all, how many championship teams had a great defensive PG? Big men is where you want your defense to be.

[Droid101]

I just want to add, while it's nice to have some defense on the PG position, it's really the least important position in terms of defense. After all, how many championship teams had a great defensive PG? Big men is where you want your defense to be.
Yes. Think about it.

Andrea Bargniani is berated constantly because he's so piss-poor defensively (even though he's very, very good offensively).

[Sampsonsimpson]

Hmm as much as I like Nash, when I ask myself if I were building a team who out of these two would I pick, id have to go with Gary Payton. He's the much better all around player out of the two and I feel like his defense is more valuable to have than Nash's shooting.

Gary Payton

[Kblaze8855]

I mean no disrespect buddy but prime Amare>Kemp not even close. Kemp's best year was what 21 and 10?

Depends on what you want like the Nash/GP thing. Amare was/is a beast. But so was Kemp. And Kemp cared about defense and rebounding. Too much at times. He was down to contest whatever. One reason he was in foul trouble the whole decade.



It's clear to anyone who watched the Sonics that Kemp was never the best player on the team.

Except it would seem the people of the time. Kemp was always at least given equal billing. Usually he was the one put out front if only for being way more popular. Nobody calls it the Payton sonics. IT was the Payton and Kemp sonics.

There were people calling Kemp better than Karl Malone in 96 just like people said Payton was better than Stockton.


Even stats show an edge to Payton the whole time.


Payton plays 40 minutes...Kemp like 30-32. Kemp does like 19/11 and Payton 18-20 and 7-9. Pretty similar. Especially considering he played fewer minutes and put up 20 a game on 11.6 shots. He was scoring or getting fouled on damn near every quality touch.

Gary never really blew away Kemp numbers wise. Im rpetty sure Detlef was their leading scorer one or two of those years too.

That was a deep team.



Amare put up 28 and 9.... so Nash wasn't even the undisputed best on his team if anything.

Shouldnt have been...but he pretty much was.


BTW mind telling me what Nash did last season when Amare left? That's right he missed the playoffs. Don't use post Kemp Sonics era as an example when Nash also couldn't get it done alone.

You mean when Nash was like 44 years old? Kemp left in Garys prime. And we really need to go into what Nash did without Amare? You just gonna pretend he didnt win the MVP and lose in the same round without him?

Granted he only went through the average lakers and clippers. But fact remains. Nash proved himself without a bigtime scoring bigman.

Amare was never given as much credit as Kemp was on those Sonics. Partly an era thing. But it is what it is. THe Sonics were not some one star team driven by Payton. They were a group of good players much like the Suns. But Nash got more credit for them than Gary did for the sonics.

[Sampsonsimpson]

I just want to add, while it's nice to have some defense on the PG position, it's really the least important position in terms of defense. After all, how many championship teams had a great defensive PG? Big men is where you want your defense to be.

That is true but you also have to consider that Gary Payton is a big point guard and could effectively guard 2's and some small forwards as well. He was a versatile defender so its not like he was limited to guarding the other teams point guard. This is the guy that guarded Jordan in the finals.

[iamgine]

That is true but you also have to consider that Gary Payton is a big point guard and could effectively guard 2's and some small forwards as well. He was a versatile defender so its not like he was limited to guarding the other teams point guard. This is the guy that guarded Jordan in the finals.
I certainly wasn't saying GP couldn't guard 2s or 3s. I was saying PG is the least important position in terms of defense.

[Clippersfan86]

Kblaze... Nash is clearly still in the tail end of his prime. The first half of the season he was dominating with like 21 and 12 averages. Can't compare them purely by age considering most PG's don't explode AFTER 31 years old and win MVP's at 35 years old. Nash was a late bloomer.

[blablabla]

Steve Nash

[Kblaze8855]

Indeed. Hes hanging on and is close to his best. But gary peaked without kemp and played most of his prime that way. Its not the same as nash being left with the shadow of grant hill and corpse of vc. And didnt they win 40 something games? Not nashs fault 44 games got gp to the playoffs and not him. Baker alone was better than what nash had to work with last year while awaiting his social security checks

[Doranku]

Indeed. Hes hanging on and is close to his best. But gary peaked without kemp and played most of his prime that way. Its not the same as nash being left with the shadow of grant hill and corpse of vc. And didnt they win 40 something games? Not nashs fault 44 games got gp to the playoffs and not him. Baker alone was better than what nash had to work with last year while awaiting his social security checks
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Gotterdammerung]

Very very tough decision.

Before reading through the thread, and hearing both arguments, and going by my NBA logic and memories, I'd pick Payton as if it was in a landslide victory.

But Steve Nash was awesome as a table-setting, show-running point guard, and much better than Payton as a point guard.

Being the superior passer & shooter meant he was the better ringleader. Deadly from outside, from the line, but always looking for the open man.

One way to beat the high-powered Suns? Force Nash to be the scorer, and seal off the passing lanes. Since his first instinct was to pass, he would kind of slow down their offense looking for any opening, and shoot only when he had to.

Payton OTOH was a disruptive force & an excellent PG. Probably the better PG if you had a complete team (legit bigman who defended the interior and controlled the boards, and two all-around forwards that ran the floor and shot anywhere, and a big guard who could just shoot off picks).

But if you had a weaker team, one that's full of athletes but no ball-dominant player, you'd succeed with Nash. As long you had a team that controlled the boards, you would likely win with Nash.

Since Payton won a title as a back-up guard, and led one to the finals, he had slightly more success, but he also flamed out BIG with 60-win teams twice in the 1st round. Thus the Sonics were mentally fragile, and that has to do with team chemistry and the coach, & some of it falls on Payton's shoulders as the leader. Nash did not flop as bad in the playoffs, but he couldn't get over the hump vs teams that played strong interior defense and controlled the boards better.

Can't say it's one or the other on that account. I may have to go with a tie here, but give me more time. :facepalm

[bizil]

This one is so damn close! I think both guys deserve MAJOR props for being great players for a long time. As a passer, Nash is in a class with Magic, Kidd, Big O, and Stockton. Those are the five greatest passers of all time in my book. And Nash is a PG that can also turn into Batman and takeover a game. I've never seen a PG that combined great shooting and slashing to the rack like Nash too. Awesome, legendary player still in his tailend prime. He needs to hook up with a contender and win that ring a la Kidd.

GP, along with Clyde Frazier, is the GOAT PG in terms on combining scoring, passing, and defense. That's a hell of a feat! GP is another PG that can turn into Batman and takeover a game scoring. He can check PG, SG, and many SF's. He also one of the premier PG's of all time in terms of posting up. GP didn't have any weaknesses in his game.

I think scoring wise both are very close. Passing is clearly Nash. Defense is clearly Payton. So in the end I will roll with Payton. But the only PG's I would take over Nash are Magic, Big O, Zeke, Payton, Frazier, and Kidd.

[Warriors fan]

This one is so damn close! I think both guys deserve MAJOR props for being great players for a long time. As a passer, Nash is in a class with Magic, Kidd, Big O, and Stockton. Those are the five greatest passers of all time in my book. And Nash is a PG that can also turn into Batman and takeover a game. I've never seen a PG that combined great shooting and slashing to the rack like Nash too. Awesome, legendary player still in his tailend prime. He needs to hook up with a contender and win that ring a la Kidd.

GP, along with Clyde Frazier, is the GOAT PG in terms on combining scoring, passing, and defense. That's a hell of a feat! GP is another PG that can turn into Batman and takeover a game scoring. He can check PG, SG, and many SF's. He also one of the premier PG's of all time in terms of posting up. GP didn't have any weaknesses in his game.

I think scoring wise both are very close. Passing is clearly Nash. Defense is clearly Payton. So in the end I will roll with Payton. But the only PG's I would take over Nash are Magic, Big O, Zeke, Payton, Frazier, and Kidd.
You just love that word

[Boston C's]

tough for me... better player is payton but this is based on careers and to me nash is slightly above him so my vote goes to him

[bizil]

You just love that word

Im not gonna lie I do! lol I think it's a good way to describe the guys that can takeover the game scoring and be the hero. U have guys that can put up 20-23 points a night. Some of those guys however aren't Batman type guys. They get their points in the flow, but they don't takeover a game if needed consistently. And they disappear in the clutch.

[bizil]

tough for me... better player is payton but this is based on careers and to me nash is slightly above him so my vote goes to him

Awesome point! A career or GOAT list is different from a peak value-better player list. And career wise, Nash has been pulling ahead of GP. Whether people like it or not, those two MVPs hold major, major, major weight!

[magnax1]

I think those stats GOAT posted earlier in the thread are very deceptive. Yeah, Nash was a bad defender, Payton was a great defender, so Payton will obviously have more impact on opposing players. However, you can't just compare them like that. Most of the player that went off on Nash played that way not because of Nash's defense, but because of who backed him up. Tony Parker in 08 because A Shaq/Nash pick and roll defense, backed up by Amare Stoudamire is among the worst defensive matchups you could put together. So yeah, Nash was a terrible defender, but the stats of opposing player posted by GOAT probably would not change a ton if you switched out the two players teams.
Anyway, I don't really have much more to add. What I was planning on saying about Nash being one of the best offensive players has already been said. He consistently makes a team a top offense, even when given complete shit for team mates like this year.
nash

[Kellogs4toniee]

Steve Nash for me.

If Nash's defense was just average, this would not be a debate IMO. Nash's offensive prowess is among the elite of the elite in NBA history. His free throw shooting, 3-point percentage, and field goal percentage prove this. Arguably the greatest passer in the history of the game, and you only really have three who can have any claim at all to that statement. Almost made the concept "f*ck defense" a winning formula. Lost to Duncan and Kobe, I mean can you blame the guy?

If the defense of the point guard was truly a very important assett to have, I would actually consider this extremley close and might pick Payton. But it really isn't, and unfortunately Nash never had a defensive big who could cover up his defensive shortcomings like so many other point guards have had. There in the same stratosphere but my decision is Nash 8 times out of 10.

[crosso√er]

Ask yourself this; if Nash played during Payton's prime years, would he have ever beaten out Jordan, Hakeem, Malone, Shaquille or Duncan for that illustrious MVP award? Highly doubt that, and that's in essence why some people are actually picking Steve Nash.

Fact is, Nash has better court vision, much better shooter and a superior passer. Payton was a much better defender, more effective on the glass and just as effective scoring. During Nash's twilight years (his MVP campaigns), there was really no competition. I mean, Kobe was injured one year and had a terrible team around him. James was just developing and so was Wade (not to mention having a poor cast of players around him). Garnett was in Minnesota, McGrady had back spasms, Duncan was too unselfish and aging. Has there ever been less competition for the award then the two years Nash won it?

Impact: Nash is clearly a more superior play-maker and a much better shooter; however, despite his creativity I still think Payton was a more effective low-post scorer. Overall, there isn't much of a difference between the two at putting the ball in the hoop. Payton was way more physical on both ends of the court; he would body up guards and get them into foul trouble. To me he had a more competitive spirit then Nash; because of his physicality, he was more effective on the glass and was a way better defensive guard. Like Iamgine stated; being prolific defensively for a point guard isn't an essential, however Payton was an exception. When the man can contain elite point guards day in and day out; it's very valuable. Is Nash's court vision really more important then Payton's much superior defensive prowess, aggressive mentality, low-post scoring & better at grabbing rebounds? I don't think so, I don't see how anyone can flat out tell me that Nash is a more well-rounded point guard. I know I know, based on our discussion; being more well-rounded isn't necessarily the most important criteria. However, in this case it most certainly is. Nash's superior shooting & better court vision certainly does not neutralize Payton's superior defense, better rebounding & toughness.

I'm sick of people overrating Nash; they are in such amazement whenever they see his legendary shooting numbers & his assists. But the guy is a terrible defender; god damn awful in fact. When he isn't getting hit in the nose or sacrificing his body; he gets blown by on a nightly basis. He isn't big enough, strong enough or physical enough to give elite guards trouble, period. I give the edge to Payton. He did more things better then the other way around on the basketball court and D'Antonio's coaching style really inflated Nash's contribution on the basketball court. As good as his teams were (definite contenders) they constantly came up short in the playoffs because of their poor defense and Nash was a big part of that weakness.

Success: Payton, and there shouldn't even be a debate over this. Final appearance, 60+ win teams (multiple times) etc.

Defensive Prowess: Payton by a landslide.

Personal Accolades: You switch their time-frame and Payton would collect more personal achievements then Nash. I see Payton winning at least one of those MVP awards if he was on the Phoenix squad and the rest of the marque players simply were either injured, too old or were not in a position (due to their surrounding) to compete for the award. Fact is, he was one of the worst MVP winners in league history.

Nash is no different then Reggie Miller & Allen Iverson; a household name who overtime got over-rated because he had a niche to his game (great shooter) and it exploded in to some sort of phenomenon. Is he really that much different then Mark Price if he didn't win those MVP awards? :rolleyes:

Guy was fortunate to win those two awards; his 7 all-star games & 7 all-nba teams doesn't compare to 9 All-Stars, 9 All-Defense & 9 All-NBA teams. Not to mention, Nash could never stay on the court for 40 minutes because he never really had the body to do so. Him only being able to provide maximum of 35 MPG is a huge disadvantage that some might overlook. He also has a worse career TO/AST ratio and despite his legendary shooting efficiency, he only took 10 FGA for his career. Not saying he isn't one of the greatest shooters of All-Time but that in essence is the reason why some of you are picking him, which is retarded if you contextually compare their respective careers.

Payton has had a more impressive career in almost every aspect; as I've stated, Nash's main argument is his two MVP awards and I've already derailed that point (and it's 100% accurate, Nash supporters will probably turn sour, but it's the god damn truth).

Top Three Worst MVP Winner In League History; that's what I'll remember about him, a big time underachiever come playoff time too.

[Droid101]

Ask yourself this; if Nash played during Payton's prime years, would he have ever beaten out Jordan, Hakeem, Malone, Shaquille or Duncan for that illustrious MVP award? Highly doubt that, and that's in essence why some people are actually picking Steve Nash.

Actually, nobody is really mentioning his MVP's, except as an afterthought.

He's just so superior to Payton on offense that the defense is irrelevant.



Success: Payton, and there shouldn't even be a debate over this. Final appearance, 60+ win teams (multiple times) etc.

And wait, wtf are you talking about? Of course there's a debate over this. Nash had 60 win seasons and deep playoff runs. Not his fault the West was farrrrr superior to the east during his time.

Top Three Worst MVP Winner In League History; that's what I'll remember about him, a big time underachiever come playoff time too.
I'd describe Payton as a bigger playoff underachiever. Check their stats and how many epic flameouts each have had (hint, Payton 2, Nash 0).

[crosso√er]

Actually, nobody is really mentioning his MVP's, except as an afterthought.

He's just so superior to Payton on offense that the defense is irrelevant.


And wait, wtf are you talking about? Of course there's a debate over this. Nash had 60 win seasons and deep playoff runs. Not his fault the West was farrrrr superior to the east during his time.

I'd describe Payton as a bigger playoff underachiever. Check their stats and how many epic flameouts each have had (hint, Payton 2, Nash 0).

What a junk rebuttal. Nash's offensive game is so much more superior? :facepalm

Nash won 60+ games twice in Phoenix and didn't do jack shit in the playoffs. Lost in the 2nd round once and got slapped around by SA (in 5 games) after leading his team to 62 wins. Yeah, what an amazing playoff performer. Maybe I would pick Nash over Payton if he could actually stay on the court and not do his ritual stretching for the first six minutes of every 4th quarter. The guy could not play more then 35 minutes a game in his career; that's perhaps why his team never went very far. You need your star player to step up in the playoffs and honestly whenever he played LA, I felt like Nash was their 6th man, because the guy would seem to always be on the bench resting.

Not to mention he almost got eliminated by Kobe's terrible team in the 1st round; and if it wasn't for Tim Thomas, they would have been eliminated. I'm sorry, I don't feel as strong of a connection for Nash as some of you do. I have never honestly feared him; I believe he was fortunate enough to play for teams (Dallas & Phoenix) that ran offensive schemes that absolutely maximized his talent.

I will rest my case with this post; continue with your infatuation for Steve Nash.
Another very overrated basketball player.

[magnax1]

I fail to see how Payton was more successful then Nash. He went to the conference finals once, Finals another time, and that's pretty much it.

[Miller for 3]

What a junk rebuttal. Nash's offensive game is so much more superior? :facepalm

Nash won 60+ games twice in Phoenix and didn't do jack shit in the playoffs. Lost in the 2nd round once and got slapped around by SA (in 5 games) after leading his team to 62 wins. Yeah, what an amazing playoff performer. Maybe I would pick Nash over Payton if he could actually stay on the court and not do his ritual stretching for the first six minutes of every 4th quarter. The guy could not play more then 35 minutes a game in his career; that's perhaps why his team never went very far. You need your star player to step up in the playoffs and honestly whenever he played LA, I felt like Nash was their 6th man, because the guy would seem to always be on the bench resting.

Not to mention he almost got eliminated by Kobe's terrible team in the 1st round; and if it wasn't for Tim Thomas, they would have been eliminated. I'm sorry, I don't feel as strong of a connection for Nash as some of you do. I have never honestly feared him; I believe he was fortunate enough to play for teams (Dallas & Phoenix) that ran offensive schemes that absolutely maximized his potential.

His offensive game blows Payton's away frankly. Most of the offenses he led rank among the alltime best. LOL at bashing Nash's playoff performances. Dude is one of the most clutch PGs of alltime, and seemed to always improve his play in the postseason. Payton's Sonics had a lot more playoff disappointments. You mention the Suns "almost" losing to the Lakers, well the Sonics did lose to an 8 seed.

The Suns offense was good BECAUSE of Nash, not the other way around. They had Amare, Marion, and Johnson in 04 and couldnt win 30 games. SI predicted them to win like 25 games in 05, but instead they win over 60 with an alltime great offense with Nash and QRich being basically the only additions. Seems like you aren't being objective or reading any of the arguments presented in this thread :confusedshrug:

[magnax1]

I think a good sumarization of Nash's impact is his 06 season. He loses his second and third best player (third is arguably marion, but it doesn't really matter) and only loses 8 wins, and still makes the conference finals and he does this while taking bench players Raja Bell, and Boris Diaw and turning them into legitimate starters.
And really, Payton's offensive impact isn't all that great. He could score 20 ppg on a good team, but did so inefficiently, and was not a very good passer. I have a hard time seeing how Payton's impact comes close to Nash's.

[Kblaze8855]

Nobody with a brain predicted 25 wins in 05. I do remember some thinking i was too generous saying 45 to 50 though

[crosso√er]

I fail to see how Payton was more successful then Nash. He went to the conference finals once, Finals another time, and that's pretty much it.

I made a mistake, my bad. Both had somewhat similar success; Nash did go further in the playoffs more times. Payton did go the NBA finals and conference finals; Nash went to the conference finals four times.

I'd actually give Nash the edge here, I suppose. I just remember Payton leading his team to 50+ win seasons like 6 out of his first 8 seasons in the year; I should have checked the numbers first.

It's typical to love Nash more; he's the younger player and all the great things he has done are still fresh in people's minds. My biggest problem with him is his lack of determination to take over games; he seems to be too unselfish in the 4th. He's super clutch but sometimes he'd rather pass it to an open Frye for a three then take the shot himself. As great as he is with the ball; it's kind of weird that he has only averaged 10 attempts a game over his career.

[Rose]

I think a good sumarization of Nash's impact is his 06 season. He loses his second and third best player (third is arguably marion, but it doesn't really matter) and only loses 8 wins, and still makes the conference finals and he does this while taking bench players Raja Bell, and Boris Diaw and turning them into legitimate starters.
And really, Payton's offensive impact isn't all that great. He could score 20 ppg on a good team, but did so inefficiently, and was not a very good passer. I have a hard time seeing how Payton's impact comes close to Nash's.
I said this. Unfortunately no one read my goddamn post:mad:

[crosso√er]

I think a good sumarization of Nash's impact is his 06 season. He loses his second and third best player (third is arguably marion, but it doesn't really matter) and only loses 8 wins, and still makes the conference finals and he does this while taking bench players Raja Bell, and Boris Diaw and turning them into legitimate starters.
And really, Payton's offensive impact isn't all that great. He could score 20 ppg on a good team, but did so inefficiently, and was not a very good passer. I have a hard time seeing how Payton's impact comes close to Nash's.

He was only averaging 21.5 PPG on .470 FG% during his peak years. :oldlol:
That's being inefficient for a 6'4 guard? Yeah he isn't as efficient as Nash; but he was also the type of player that drained a lot of his energy actually playing defense and taking at least four more shots a game during his best years; and actually playing close to 40 minutes per game. I'd like to see how "efficient" Stevie does when he actually starts hustling defensively, playing over 38 MPG and taking more then 13-15 shots a game.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

That Lakers series went to 7 because the Suns were outdominated on the boards by Kwame and Odom.I mean the Suns had Boris Diaw who is a undersize PF playing C wich is :wtf:

Nash won 60+ games twice in Phoenix and didn't do jack shit in the playoffs. Lost in the 2nd round once and got slapped around by SA (in 5 games) after leading his team to 62 wins. Yeah, what an amazing playoff performer.
Nash himself averaged 23ppg on 52% shooting and 10 apg against the Spurs in 2005(the Spurs were ranked 1st in opp pt/G at 88ppg)
In 2007 Nash averaged 21ppg on 48% shooting and 12 apg while having a busted nose(the Spurs were again ranked 1st in opp pt/g this time at 90ppg)
Idk what you call a good playoff performer but Nash had 2 pretty good series vs San Antionio.The reason to they loses is the lack of big men to stop Duncan and rebound.
In 2006 Boris Diaw(at 6-8 and 215 lbs) played C for the Suns in the POs.Odom and Kwame were just destroying the Suns on the boards and that's the main reason that series went to 7.Same story with the Clippers and finally they lost in 6 to the Mavs.
Nash averaged 22ppg on 51% shooting and 9.6 APG vs the Lakers,18ppg and 11 apg on 48% shooting and 11 APG vs the Clippers and finally 21ppg on 52% shooting with 10 APG vs the Mavs.
That's was Nash's 3 year peak in wich he was a 20-10 player in the playoffs and I don't think that's bad
And yeah I didn't even mention his total demoliton of the Mavs in the WCSF back in '05
In 2008 Shaq came and everything fell apart.Parker just torched the Suns on P'N'R due to Shaq's poor pnr D
No PO in 2009
In 2010 Nash had some injury problem during the Portland series then he averaged 22ppg on 55% shooting vs the Spurs(A 37 year old PG :bowdown: ).And 18 and 12 on 52% vs the future chaps the LA Lakers in 6.Add that he had that eye injury suffered vs the Spurs in game 4 and he's numbers might've been even better
In 2011 no POs:mad:

[magnax1]

He was only averaging 21.5 PPG on .470 FG% during his peak years. :oldlol:
That's being inefficient for a 6'4 guard? Yeah he isn't as efficient as Nash; but he was also the type of player that drained a lot of his energy actually playing defense and taking at least four more shots a game during his best years; and actually playing close to 40 minutes per game. I'd like to see how "efficient" Stevie does when he actually starts hustling defensively, playing over 38 MPG and taking more then 13-15 shots a game.
I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again. FG% is the most useless commonly used stat. It's alright for pre 90's ball, but still can be really deceptive. Payton's TS% peaked out at 56%, which is alright, but usually hovered around the 53-54% range, which is pretty similar to AI when he was healthy, who people love to point out as an inefficient chucker. Honestly, efficiency isn't a big thing to me unless the player is a PG, or is just a finisher/shooter and doesn't create for others. Payton created for others, but on a limited level, and obviously mostly played PG.
And Nash took 13-15 shots for a reason. It's not like he wasn't more then capable of taking more, he just was trying to run the team as efficiently as possible, and after taking 13-15 shots, his team mates usually became the more efficient option (that's not the right way to say it, but I think you'll understand what I mean)

[magnax1]

I said this. Unfortunately no one read my goddamn post:mad:
Actually your comment about Diaw is what made me write that.

[EricForman]

I fail to see how Payton was more successful then Nash. He went to the conference finals once, Finals another time, and that's pretty much it.


Um, in today's day and age, when everything is 2 seconds google click away, making blatant FACTUAL ERRORS like this is kinda inexcusable.

GP's played in the finals in 96, 2004, and 2006...but he's only played in ONE conference finals, eh? :facepalm

[EricForman]

Nash won 60+ games twice in Phoenix and didn't do jack shit in the playoffs. Lost in the 2nd round once and got slapped around by SA (in 5 games) after leading his team to 62 wins.

This is so frustrating.

WTF is it with ISH and the stupid belief that if you don't win it all, YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING????

Nash did "jack sh*t" for Phoenix in the playoffs during the 60 win years? Are you f*cking kidding me? Off the top of my head:

1: That series vs Mavs in 05 where he basically put on Magic Johnson/Isiah Thomas performance, finding guys and hitting DAGGER/KILLER shots.

2: That one eyed performance against the Spurs where he basically took over the 4th..with one eye.

3: Hell, the entire 06 run when the Suns ran with a 7 man rotation. Nash and Marion basically killed it every single game.

I'm too lazy to look up numbers I am 99% sure Nash's post season numbers from 2005 to today are probably among top 8 best in the league during this same span.

I mean really, ISH kiddies, grow the hell up and learn to look at things in context. If someone fails to make it to the finals or win it all,that doesn't always mean they failed and did nothing. The 2006 and 2010 Suns were among the two most overachieving teams in last decade or so.

This is serious question: Do you really watch basketball? Or are you blatantly hating blindly? I mean, I don't like Kobe or Melo but I wouldn't say something completely retarded about them like what you said about Nash. Saying Nash has done "jack sh*t" when he ran a high octane offense, at an all time efficient level, to several LONG playoff runs is equivalent to me saying Kobe and Melo lack one on one moves.

[Kblaze8855]

GP's played in the finals in 96, 2004, and 2006...but he's only played in ONE conference finals, eh?

Not really much different from saying Mitch Richmond won a ring. mitch didnt exist on the Lakers. Someone with the same name as Mitch Richmond was a Laker. Gary Payton never played for the Heat. Perhaps a creature similar to him played on the Lakers. But really...the Gary Payton being considered never left the Sonics.

He sure as hell wasnt out there in the 04 finals scoring 21 total points in 5 games or 16 total points in the 06 finals(though 2 were pretty big points).

You have to understand why he wouldnt even be talking about whoever that was wearing Gary Paytons name.....

[Big164]

Both guys play the same position, so the choice is easy: Steve Nash. Just a better passing point guard.

.400 3p%
.500 FG%
.900 FT%
15+ ppg

Its tough to hit all of those benchmarks in one season yet Nash did it 4 times in his career.

[EricForman]

Not really much different from saying Mitch Richmond won a ring. mitch didnt exist on the Lakers. Someone with the same name as Mitch Richmond was a Laker. Gary Payton never played for the Heat. Perhaps a creature similar to him played on the Lakers. But really...the Gary Payton being considered never left the Sonics.

He sure as hell wasnt out there in the 04 finals scoring 21 total points in 5 games or 16 total points in the 06 finals(though 2 were pretty big points).

You have to understand why he wouldnt even be talking about whoever that was wearing Gary Paytons name.....


Oh I agree, and i'm not trying to use the "he played in three finals" card as some sort of trump factor over Nash. I'm just pointing out that saying he's only been to the conference finals ONCE is a factual error. Even JUST counting his Sonics career, he's played in more than one conference finals.

[OmniStrife]

Well, Payton's numbers in 2000 make his season look better than it really was, imo. And I don't think that was his best season either despite the numbers. His defense wasn't as good as it had been by that point and he had become more of a volume scorer which he wasn't as effective as, imo and his shot selection/ball dominance is a big reason for those numbers. Don't get me wrong, he was a great player then, and 24/7/9 is amazing, especially for 2000, but I'd take quite a few of Nash's seasons over Payton's.

Look at his 2005 season for example.

Some of the numbers don't stand out quite as much(15.5 ppg, 3.3 rpg and 11.5 apg), which is good, but doesn't begin to show his impact.

He made the Suns an offensive juggernaut and they were easily the best offensive team in the league that season scoring 2.3 more points per 100 possessions than the next best offensive team and 6.7 more ppg than the next highest scoring team.

While it's true that he had a lot of offensive talent around him(Stoudemire, Marion, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson), all of those players were there the previous season except for Richardson and they were just a 28-54 team and the 9th worst offensive team. Granted, you'd expect Amare to improve going into his 3rd year and he did miss 27 games, but there were no hints of Phoenix becoming the offensive force that they did in '05 or a 62 win team.

And they were only 2-5 without Nash(2-6 including a game he played just 11 minutes in and they weren't particularly impressive in those games.

January 14th vs Indiana- Nash plays only 11 minutes and they lose by 18 to a Pacers team that didn't have Ron Artest or Stephen Jackson. Phoenix shot 39% in the game.
January 15th vs Washington- Nash didn't play and they lost by 5 to the Wizards and Phoenix shot 43%.
January 17th vs Detroit- Nash didn't play and they lost by 14 to Detroit and Phoenix shot just 35%.
January 19th vs Memphis- Nash didn't play and they lost by 9 to Memphis. Phoenix just shot 33%

Prior to these games, Phoenix was 31-5 and none of those teams except for Detroit were great teams, just solid playoff teams, but not real contenders.

They did beat the Clippers by 18, beat Dallas by 1 and lost to the Celtics by 7 in OT in another 3 game stretch that Nash missed. But Phoenix also lost by 25 to Sacramento without Nash on the last game of the season(and I'll acknowledge that it's questionable how much that game really meant to Phoenix with the best record secure and Marion also only playing 18 minutes in the game).

But that's 8 games, 5 of them vs average lower-tier playoff teams, 2 of them vs legitimately good teams who could contend and 1 vs a mediocre team where Phoenix didn't look all that impressive without Nash. Yet they were 60-15 with him(60-14 excluding the game that he played 11 minutes in).

And what really amazed me is how much Nash had held back his scoring during the regular season for the benefit of the team. He proved how much more capable he was in the playoffs when he averaged 23.9 ppg without his playmaking or efficiency falling off(11.3 apg, 52 FG%, 60.4 TS%) including the semifinals when he averaged 30.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg and 12 apg on 55% shooting(42% on 3s and 96% on free throws).

Then there's 2006 when Amare Stoudemire missed the season and Joe Johnson was traded. Nash proved who was the Suns most valuable player leading Phoenix to 54 wins and the WCF again with Raja Bell, Eddie House, James Jones and Boris Diaw being the main additions filling in for Stoudemire and Joe Johnson.

Nash increased his scoring to 18.8 ppg and still led the league in assists(10.5) and TS%(63.2) and he averaged only 20/10 in 20 playoff games on great efficiency(50 FG%, 62 TS%).

Phoenix lost all 3 games that Nash missed including a 117-93 loss to the Spurs, 110-102 loss to the Warriors and a 109-89 loss to the Lakers.

Phoenix remained an elite offensive team(2nd best offensive rating, just 0.3 fewer points per 100 possessions than Dallas, and 5.8 more ppg than any team in the league).

Nash's best statistical season was in 2007. He averaged 18.6 ppg, a league leading 11.6 apg, shot a career high 53.2% from the field and led the league in TS%(65.4) and eFG%(61.3).

Phoenix won 61 games and were just 2-4 without Nash.

They beat a 76ers team by 12 that was pretty much done with Iverson's departure near, lost by 3 in OT to Utah, beat a mediocre Blazers team by 7 in OT, lost by 9 to a mediocre Hawks team, lost by 13 to Chicago and lost by 24 to a mediocre Sonics team.

But 2010 also helped convince me what a special player Nash was. After Terry Porter was gone and the Shaq experiment was over, Phoenix was back to the Western Conference Finals. They won 54 games, were easily the best offensive team in the league again scoring 4.3 more points per 100 possessions than the next best and also scoring more points per game than any other team. They also gave the Lakers a good fight in the WCF. Nash was 35/36 by this point, but back to putting up numbers comparable to his MVP seasons including a league leading 11 apg.

And even last year was impressive all things considered. Nash's cast was pretty much a 38 year old Grant Hill, a 34 year old washed up Vince Carter, Marcin Gortat, Channing Frye and Jared Dudley, yet they were still 39-36 with Nash and just 1-6 without him. And Nash is 36/37 himself.

Nash has proven that he can take over games himself and hit clutch shots because of his historically great shooting ability, underrated finishing ability, creativity and ability to hit tough, off-balance shots, but more importantly, he runs the offensive and makes everyone else better. His ability to score makes him an effective playmaker as well as his ability to make the right pass and his creativity/skill level which allows him to make difficult passes that few others can make if necessary.

I'll take Nash running my team over Payton. Payton was a much better defender, but I have no doubt that Nash's superior offense made him a more effective player.

I vote for Steve Nash.

This. On so many levels.

Putting Nash next to Payton just shows you how much running an offense is way more impact-full than defense is for a point guard.

Steve Nash.

Oh, and people here overrate Payton, I don't even think he was the best player on his team.

[WillC]

I'd rather have Steve Nash as my starting PG, even though Payton was a great player in his own right.

Nash is arguably the best passer of all-time. He has an uncanny ability to find the open man. Superb shooter too.

[Gotterdammerung]

On the thinnest of margins (given the advantages each brings to the table) I'm going with GP. I hate to call on Bill Simmons, but he says Payton was the all-time table guy.

Nash obviously was the better leader, but GP gives you a better chance at winning the title. Gary Payton for me.

[DMAVS41]

Nash.

Although I suspect the people here that insist players must be a dominant defender in order to be great will sing a different tune.

I actually really like Payton, but Nash was the better player in my opinion.

[klee]

Could literally go on for hours, but I'm on my mobile so I'll leave it short. Utmost respect to both players and their achievements, but Gary Payton has my unwavering vote. Sure, Nash is a once in a lifetime caliber shooter that has great court vision, but Payton is just so much more of a complete package. To those who are voting that haven't seen Payton grace the court, it's remarkable how much statistics can leave out of the story. I'd take a guy with raw "lock down, whoever the f you are, contain your ass" defense, all-star passing and scoring, and arguably some of the most impactful intangibles in the game over a top 20 PG who had MVP campaigns for his unique (and not to be understated) skillset.

[iamgine]

Shouldn't we also vote downwards G.O.A.T?

For example, say Nash win this one. He'll be facing Clyde Drexler next. Lets say Clyde wins. Clyde be facing Jason Kidd. Lets say Clyde win again, shouldn't Jason Kidd then have a matchup with Steve Nash?

[crosso√er]

Does GOAT selectively decides which votes count?
He updated this thread this morning and my vote wasn't under Payton's name.

[G.O.A.T]

Shouldn't we also vote downwards G.O.A.T?

For example, say Nash win this one. He'll be facing Clyde Drexler next. Lets say Clyde wins. Clyde be facing Jason Kidd. Lets say Clyde win again, shouldn't Jason Kidd then have a matchup with Steve Nash?

I don't think so. Kidd was quite a ways ahead of Nash after the top 25 polls. When we the top 50 all-time regardless of position I'll be allowing votes to be cast for two players from each position at a time.

I can see what you are saying, but I have to stop it at some point. The top 25 ballots were the basis for the order, I
m sticking with that at least through the guards project.



Does GOAT selectively decides which votes count?
He updated this thread this morning and my vote wasn't under Payton's name.

Sorry, I missed your vote. It is getting to be a pain in the ass with the all the people who do not have a vote voting.

[iamgine]

I don't think so. Kidd was quite a ways ahead of Nash after the top 25 polls. When we the top 50 all-time regardless of position I'll be allowing votes to be cast for two players from each position at a time.

I can see what you are saying, but I have to stop it at some point. The top 25 ballots were the basis for the order, I
m sticking with that at least through the guards project.



Actually Nash and Drexler have the same amount of points so wouldn't it be fair if both gets to matchup with Kidd?

[G.O.A.T]

Drexler and Nash will get to break their tie next.

I'm not willing to change the rules for one match-up. Kidd finished 17 points ahead of each he was voted on spot higher on average of 18 votes. That's good enough for me. Whoever wins between Nash and Drexler will get there shot at Kidd.

[wally_world]

Steve Nash

With all due respect to The Glove, he was never on the MVP level that Nash was on (and still is on). Though Payton is the better defender, Nash's playmaking and his ability to make everyone around him so much better puts him on top.

[crosso√er]

I don't think so. Kidd was quite a ways ahead of Nash after the top 25 polls. When we the top 50 all-time regardless of position I'll be allowing votes to be cast for two players from each position at a time.

I can see what you are saying, but I have to stop it at some point. The top 25 ballots were the basis for the order, I
m sticking with that at least through the guards project.




Sorry, I missed your vote. It is getting to be a pain in the ass with the all the people who do not have a vote voting.

It's Okay bro; I thought maybe I was becoming a troll or something. I do admit, I'm somewhat embarrassed about this thread. I definitely was too biased in favor of Payton and didn't do my homework about Stevie.

I'll do my homework for the next comparison, sorry.

[creepingdeath]

Steve Nash, although Payton is criminally underrated.

[NugzHeat3]

Finally someone with perspective who's actually watched these series. McMillan, Hawkins and other guys defended opposing guards a lot too, when GP was out of the game, when they wanted to give a different look, on switches and not to mention like you said Seattle would trap PGs (especially Stockton) to reduce their effectiveness by keeping the ball out of their hands. And then you have a great interior defense backing you up while Nash had...Amare. It's not like Parker ran wild on Nash either, he had one series on him where you could say he did ('08). Stockton got injured in the Spurs series right before their matchup in '96, but the Seattle TEAM defense was going to give him problems no doubt. Also find it weird that Marbury was used in '98, but Van Exel not for '95.


Also, if Nash had a run of leading his teams to epic disappointments like GP did for most of the 90s, people would criticize him even harder than they do now for not making the finals. '94 upset in first round by Nuggets, '95 upset in first round by Lakers, '97 almost upset in first round again by Suns (pulled out a game in OT to avoid elimination) and lose basically every series against a good team except the '96 series against Jazz, which was the only 50+ win team Seattle ever beat from '94-'00. Let's be honest, those Seattle teams underachieved...a lot...in the playoffs. If we are switching situations, I don't see how Nash could possibly lead them to less success in the playoffs. It's not like they were losing to teams that went on to win championships either, but teams that were #8 or #7 seeds, teams that got easily dealt with in the following round. And GP was playing no where as well as Nash when his team was losing too.
The bolded is a really good point.

Now that I think about it, Seattle never beat a lot of great teams in the playoffs during Payton's reign. 1996 Jazz and there's a period after. The Rockets were the back to back champs but every single guy in their core was playing hurt that series.

They did get to the WCF in 1993 on some shady calls but that team wasn't really Payton's. Ricky Pierce, Eddie Johnson and Shawn Kemp stood out just as much, if not more.

[Story Up]

Who do guys think had better teammates?

[rodman91]

iverson.

[Gotterdammerung]

:oldlol:
iverson.:oldlol:

FATAL9, Seattle did beat the Rockets in 1993 and in 1996 due to their trapping defense that swarmed Hakeem and forced the 3 point shooters to dribble, negating that deadly inside-outside offense. Barkley came in 1997 to negate that one-sided match-up but at the cost of the Rockets' depth and defensive players.

The 1996 Jazz were plenty tough, though, and exactly who did the Suns beat besides first round fodder? The Mavericks in 05? Past-its-prime Spurs in 09? :confusedshrug:

[necya]

Payton

[G.O.A.T]

At the start of this thread I put up some numbers that suggested that Payton to a greater degree than Nash outplayed his best competition at the point guard spot in the postseason. To some degree that is true. It certainly illustrates how much of an impact Payton had in the Seattle system. But as so many people pointed out here, there is more to it than just the numbers as presented. The only argument I have against a player like Nash is that his style of play is not a Championship winning style. But what evidence do we have that Payton and his style are better suited for that lead (Batman bizil) role?

Payton's teams are 5-8 in playoff series during his prime as a franchise player. All of those five series wins occurred from 1994-1998. Over those five seasons with Payton as the teams most decorated and respected player the Sonics won an average of more than 60 games in the regular season. Their two best series wins were against the two-time defending champion Houston and 55-win Utah in the 1996 playoffs.

Otherwise it was mostly disappointment. They lost to the 42-win Nuggets in '94, the 45-win Lakers in '95, were demolished in five by the Lakers in '98 despite home court advantage. In all the Sonics five playoff series victories came against teams with an average of 47 wins.

Nash's teams are 11-9 in playoff series during his prime. 4-4 with the Mavs and 7-5 with the Suns. The Mavs averaged 55.5 wins from 2001-2004 the Suns 58 wins from 2005-2008. The Mavs won four series against teams with an avarege of 53 wins. All four teams won at least 50 games and the '03 Kings were 59 game winners. The Suns seven playoff series came against teams with an average of 48 wins. Their best victory came against the '05 Mavs who won 58 games.

The number is a little deceiving, just as the earlier stats were, but in total Nash's teams won seven series in his prime against 50 win teams and Payton's teams won just one.

In the end I conclude the same thing a lot of you did. A point guard makes a much larger impact on offense then he does on defense. The gap between Nash and Payton is larger than people think Nash scores nearly as much on much better efficiency. The play making gap is also much wider than the pure numbers. Nash can take games over with passing and play making better than either can with their scoring or Payton can with his defense. Nash has the better resume with the 2 MVP's (neither of which I'd give him, but he has them) and more all-NBA 1st team nods as well as the shooting records. Payton has the more complete resume with the defensive side of the ball and the trip to the Finals as an alpha but it's not a title and it's not enough to make for the fact that Nash had more playoff success and was the more impactful individual player even if Payton was the better all-around guy.

Steve Nash

[magnax1]

Um, in today's day and age, when everything is 2 seconds google click away, making blatant FACTUAL ERRORS like this is kinda inexcusable.

GP's played in the finals in 96, 2004, and 2006...but he's only played in ONE conference finals, eh? :facepalm
I was obviously talking about when he was a legitimate all star. I don't see how his success from 04-08 really affects that.

[SunsCaptain]

Steve Nash from 2000-present day he has averaged a double double and 40 50 90 shooting on 16 PPG and 10 APG

40 50 90 with 16 PPG and 10 APG average for a decade thats AMAZING!

Its also fitting for him to be at #13 because thats his jersey number :cheers:

[1987_Lakers]

Wow, how did I miss this thread? Anyways, Nash for me, he did everything you need a PG to do. I think Nash is top 3 ever in terms of running an offense. He could take over a game with scoring if asked to, an all-time great shooter, & an all-time great ball-handler/passer. Payton was obviously the greater defender, but defense at the PG spot isn't that important compared to other positions. Nash is the easy choice.

[KGMN]

Wait, G.O.A.T. ... I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that you were publishing a book on the top 100 players in NBA history. How is that going?

[G.O.A.T]

Wait, G.O.A.T. ... I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that you were publishing a book on the top 100 players in NBA history. How is that going?

Disaster, I spent way too much time and way too much of my own money and will need to invest even more to make it happen. My advance ran out 10 weeks into research. I'm turning it into a website though.

[magnax1]

I do have to say to people that are saying that PG defense isn't a big issue doesn't really apply to payton. The only reason that's the case is that most PGs can't guard multiple positions effectively and don't affect team defense much because they're always on the perimeter, but neither was true of Payton.

[nycelt84]

Steve Nash

[D.J.]

Gary Payton


Payton was light years ahead of Nash in defense. He led his team to the Finals. Also led the Sonics to multiple 60+ win seasons, one of which was without Shawn Kemp. He doesn't have Nash's shooting ability or shooting efficiency, but he wasn't that much below him. He shot 50% from the field before and was still a solid playmaker.

Prior to Derrick Rose winning MVP, Nash was the only MVP winner to never make the Finals. There's a reason Phoenix could never beat San Antonio with a healthy Tim Duncan. Nash runs one of the greatest offensive teams in NBA history. That's not debatable. But his folding chair-esque defense and Payton's elite defense puts Payton above Nash, at least for me.

[baseketball4life]

Glove would've shredded all these Nash arguments. It's a shame he can't post in this thread.

[GP_20]

Glove would've shredded all these Nash arguments. It's a shame he can't post in this thread.
Well obviously. But hey, let the uninformed believe what they want. Like they say, ignorance is bliss.

[EricForman]

I was obviously talking about when he was a legitimate all star. I don't see how his success from 04-08 really affects that.


you're still wrong. GP made more than one conference finals "when he was an all star". google, friend.

[NugzHeat3]

you're still wrong. GP made more than one conference finals "when he was an all star". google, friend.
1996. That's it.

Google, friend.

[iamgine]

Glove would've shredded all these Nash arguments. It's a shame he can't post in this thread.
He can actually, although I don't know if that would do any good though.

[D.J.]

1996. That's it.

Google, friend.


1 as an All-Star, another one when not an All-Star.

[magnax1]

you're still wrong. GP made more than one conference finals "when he was an all star". google, friend.
I said he made the conference finals once, and the finals another time, and I was actually wrong about him being an all star in 93. So honestly.... what the hell are you talking about?

[G.O.A.T]

Definitely Steve Nash.


Steve Nash


Steve Nash

Obviously Nash can't hold a candle to Payton on defense, but his brilliance on the other end makes him more of an impact player. Defense isn't that important at the PG position anyways, and Nash's teams are usually so productive when he's on the floor that it doesn't matter if he can't defend anyone.


Hmm as much as I like Nash, when I ask myself if I were building a team who out of these two would I pick, id have to go with Gary Payton. He's the much better all around player out of the two and I feel like his defense is more valuable to have than Nash's shooting.

Gary Payton


Steve Nash for me.

If Nash's defense was just average, this would not be a debate IMO. Nash's offensive prowess is among the elite of the elite in NBA history. His free throw shooting, 3-point percentage, and field goal percentage prove this. Arguably the greatest passer in the history of the game, and you only really have three who can have any claim at all to that statement. Almost made the concept "f*ck defense" a winning formula. Lost to Duncan and Kobe, I mean can you blame the guy?

If the defense of the point guard was truly a very important assett to have, I would actually consider this extremley close and might pick Payton. But it really isn't, and unfortunately Nash never had a defensive big who could cover up his defensive shortcomings like so many other point guards have had. There in the same stratosphere but my decision is Nash 8 times out of 10.


Could literally go on for hours, but I'm on my mobile so I'll leave it short. Utmost respect to both players and their achievements, but Gary Payton has my unwavering vote. Sure, Nash is a once in a lifetime caliber shooter that has great court vision, but Payton is just so much more of a complete package. To those who are voting that haven't seen Payton grace the court, it's remarkable how much statistics can leave out of the story. I'd take a guy with raw "lock down, whoever the f you are, contain your ass" defense, all-star passing and scoring, and arguably some of the most impactful intangibles in the game over a top 20 PG who had MVP campaigns for his unique (and not to be understated) skillset.


Steve Nash, although Payton is criminally underrated.


iverson.

You don't have votes

If you would like to vote add your opinions to the threads for a while and let us know in the main project thread that you are interested. If no one objects we will add you to the voting list.

[bizil]

I do have to say to people that are saying that PG defense isn't a big issue doesn't really apply to payton. The only reason that's the case is that most PGs can't guard multiple positions effectively and don't affect team defense much because they're always on the perimeter, but neither was true of Payton.

Excellent point about GP! GP could lockdown PG, SG, and many SF's. He wasn't like a Mo Cheeks, Paul, or Rondo type of great defender. You could put GP on MJ. Or if u had a Penny Hardaway type of PG, GP could check him. Penny didn't have all the advantages on GP or Kidd as he would have on Stockton or other PG's around that size. Having a PG 6'5 and up is rare. The PG's that are that big usually couldn't check smaller, more normal sized PG's. Payton was lil smaller at 6'4 and could check quick, smaller PG's in addition to bigger perimeter players at the 2 or 3.

[L.Kizzle]

Damn, how did GP get creamed by Nash like this? Wasn't even close. Even if yu think Nash I beter no was should it be 11 to 4. A 15 vote battle, this one should be 8 to 7 or at least 9 to 6. 11 to 4 make it seems like NASH is two tiers higher than GP.

[EricForman]

i'm stunned GP creamed AI, than go t creamed by Nash.

[L.Kizzle]

i'm stunned GP creamed AI, than go t creamed by Nash.
Both should have been close. Looks like Nash is about to kill Drexler too.