Open Court Panel: More than any player, Steve Nash benefited from the RULE changes

[catch24]

The conversation spearheaded by Nash's former teammate, Grant Hill, suggested that Nash only became MVP because of the rule changes. That he benefited most out of everyone (perfect storm 5SOL).

Agree? Disagree?

I felt the panel underrated Nash for the 'all-decade' team. Everyone picked either GP, Kidd or AI. Depending on the makeup of your team why wouldn't Nash be in that conversation? :confusedshrug:

[StephHamann]

I felt the panel underrated Nash for the 'all-decade' team. Everyone picked either GP, Kidd or AI. Depending on the makeup of your team why wouldn't Nash be in that conversation? :confusedshrug:

Because they are all total idiots, no wonder everyone of them failed in the NBA as an executive. The only guy who didn't say stupid stuff was Kerr.

[kennethgriffin]

agree.


but you can say this about all of the leagues small weak star PG's over populating the nba these days


they replaced the big man. now nearly every team has one



they dominate the ball and you cant touch them. its obvious that taking handchecking out has ruined the game


remember nash's little dribble through the paint move where he'd circle the half court...

try doing that 20 years ago

[Kblaze8855]

It was surprising that the two people who played with Nash were the ones talking the most about him being less than some think in the eyes of other players. How he had his best year at like 32 and players know that doesn't just happen for no reason. Hill mentioned that hes heard others talk about it too.

I thought when they got to Barry he might pick Nash. He came prepared...he had lists of leading scorers by position...by decade. I don't remember who he picked but it wasn't Nash.

Nobody even had him honorable mention.

[NustABut]

agree.


but you can say this about all of the leagues small weak star PG's over populating the nba these days


they replaced the big man. now nearly every team has one



they dominate the ball and you cant touch them. its obvious that taking handchecking out has ruined the game


remember nash's little dribble through the paint move where he'd circle the half court...

try doing that 20 years ago

Would have been Robert Horry'd all over the place :oldlol:

Nash is tough though he woulda kept going at them

[Kblaze8855]

Mark Price used to do that dribble in a circle under the rim thing. He was tougher than Nash in ways but...nobody really made it hard on him.

[magnax1]

Link to this video?

[ShawkFactory]

Kidd > Nash

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

imo, peak for peak, nash is better than
every pg except magic, oscar, someone else that people will kill me for mentioning, and possibly west if we consider him a pg

[FreezingTsmoove]

Its amazing how underrated Nash has gotten over the years.

Used to watch a ton of Nash during his Suns days. There is no difference between him and Clippers CP3.

People forget how much of an offensive mastermind this guy was

You dont just win back to back MVPs by accident. Although I felt he would get much more respect and praise if he didnt win those MVPs

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

If we are talking about making a team, I definately feel like I could create a much better team with nash than with Gary Payton or Jason Kidd, and especially allen iverson.

and thats not anything against those other guys, but Nash is probably the absolute best offensive point guard in nba history, and as a offensive player, probably top 5 rather easily, on that jordan-lebron level on offense.

and I could definately have players that can make up for his defense. and even then, at his absolute peak, it seemed like he was barely below league average on defense.

pg defense isnt exactly a cancer.

[R.I.P.]

Because they are all total idiots, no wonder everyone of them failed in the NBA as an executive. The only guy who didn't say stupid stuff was Kerr.

Probably cause he was not there. That was Brent Barry.

[DonDadda59]

The beard.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Its amazing how underrated Nash has gotten over the years.

Used to watch a ton of Nash during his Suns days. There is no difference between him and Clippers CP3.

People forget how much of an offensive mastermind this guy was

You dont just win back to back MVPs by accident. Although I felt he would get much more respect and praise if he didnt win those MVPs

here is the thing.

his offense is probably better than CP3, any version.



to put it bluntly, give him scottie pippen level defense, and I probably take him as the GOAT peak.

[4 Inches]

Steve Nash only won back to back MVPs to keep white people interested in the NBA after the Malice at the Palace. David Stern at his finest :bowdown:
The next 3 years after that fight the MVP winners were white.

[IllegalD]

In terms of a 2000s squad:

Kobe
Duncan
Shaq
KG
Kidd
Dirk
Iverson

all deserve to be ranked above Steve Nash.

Like O'Neal said during the show "Nash has 2 MVPs, I got one, Kobe got one. Something ain't right with that picture." :applause:

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Disagree. The best offense he ever ran came before the rule change (and is the #1 all-time offense, +9.5 ORTG differential).

Nash is underrated, too many people choose to ignore his immense offensive impact because they have an issue with him winning MVPs over their favourite players.

[Indian guy]

I'm constantly amazed by how clueless most former players tend to be about the game, and none more so than Shaq. What was he going on about Nash stealing 2 MVPs from him while he was putting up 28/15? For one, he wasn't anywhere close to 28/15 as a Heat and two, Shaq wasn't even an MVP candidate by 2006 (Nash's 2nd MVP season). How come nobody on the panel bothered to correct him? Honestly, the only one last night who seemed to have somewhat of a clue of what he was talking about was Brent Barry. The rest are all idiots.

And I don't see why Nash would benefit most from the new rules. Theoretically, the no-contact rules to go along with greater emphasis on 3pt shooting leading to extra spacing should benefit speedy guards the most. Nash was just an above average athlete.

EDIT: And as the poster above me said, Nash was leading league-best offenses(02-04) long before the rule changes.

[kennethgriffin]

Disagree. The best offense he ever ran came before the rule change (and is the #1 all-time offense, +9.5 ORTG differential).

Nash is underrated, too many people choose to ignore his immense offensive impact because they have an issue with him winning MVPs over their favourite players.


coming from a canadian


nash is overrated.. extremely overrated infact


not in terms of todays critics. right now theyre being honest


but back when he won mvps he was the most overrated player of all time



can anyone honestly sit back and say "nash was either better or more important to his team than kobe was to that 06 lakers squad. or shaq to the 2005 miami heat"


guaranteed if there was a league wide 1 season draft. kobe and shaq get selected 1st overall both those years 100 times out of 100

[FreezingTsmoove]

here is the thing.

his offense is probably better than CP3, any version.



to put it bluntly, give him scottie pippen level defense, and I probably take him as the GOAT peak.

CP ran an elite offense this season. Number one in the league

[Wade's Rings]

In terms of a 2000s squad:

Kobe
Duncan
Shaq
KG
Kidd
Dirk
Iverson

all deserve to be ranked above Steve Nash.

Like O'Neal said during the show "Nash has 2 MVPs, I got one, Kobe got one. Something ain't right with that picture." :applause:

Why Iverson over Nash? and where are Bron & Kobe?


Disagree. The best offense he ever ran came before the rule change (and is the #1 all-time offense, +9.5 ORTG differential).

Nash is underrated, too many people choose to ignore his immense offensive impact because they have an issue with him winning MVPs over their favourite players.

:applause:


I'm constantly amazed by how clueless most former players tend to be about the game, and none more so than Shaq. What was he going on about Nash stealing 2 MVPs for him while he was putting up 28/15? For one, he wasn't anywhere close to 28/15 as a Heat and two, Shaq wasn't even an MVP candidate by 2006 (Nash's 2nd MVP season). How come nobody on the panel bothered to correct him? Honestly, the only one last night who seemed to have somewhat of a clue of what he was talking about was Brent Barry. The rest are all idiots.

Exactly. These guys have their own agendas or just seem to lack any knowledge on the game at times. Shaq is just a bias moron. He constantly bashes Wade for the fallout in Miami. Like you said, he wasn't putting up 28/15 in Miami and wasn't even Top 10 in MVP Voting in 2006. He's just an insecure idiot. Kenny(though I disagree with him a lot) and Reggie usually are the ones who seem the most reasonable and seem to have the less bias.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

can anyone honestly sit back and say "nash was either better or more important to his team than kobe was to that 06 lakers squad. or shaq to the 2005 miami heat"

guaranteed if there was a league wide 1 season draft. kobe and shaq get selected 1st overall both those years 100 times out of 100

Yawn. "Most Valuable Player" doesn't pick the best player, but the most valuable. Phoenix went from 29-53, with the league's 21st ranked offense, to 62-20, with the league's #1 offense (#5 all-time). Nash's value seems clear.

In the '05-'06 season, Nash lost Stoudemire for what was essentially the entire season (he played a total of 3 games) but still posted an 18.8/10.5 line on 50/40/90 while leading the Suns to a 54-28 record, and the league's #2 offense.

No one says that he was better than Shaq or Kobe in '05 or '06, respectively. If they say that he was more valuable in those years, then they've got a hell of a case.

[Wade's Rings]

can anyone honestly sit back and say "nash was either better or more important to his team than kobe was to that 06 lakers squad. or shaq to the 2005 miami heat"


guaranteed if there was a league wide 1 season draft. kobe and shaq get selected 1st overall both those years 100 times out of 100

Nash was very important to those squads. The 2006 Squad didn't have Amare for most of the year IIRC and Nash lead them well to 54 wins. In 2005 the Suns improved by 33 wins(I think an NBA record turnaround) with Nash compared to the previous year and he was running some amazing offenses those years.

I doubt it. There were other great players in 2005 & 2006 as well. Not just Shaq or Kobe.

[Force]

I made plenty of threads about this on this forum back in 2006.

[ShawkFactory]

coming from a canadian


nash is overrated.. extremely overrated infact


not in terms of todays critics. right now theyre being honest


but back when he won mvps he was the most overrated player of all time



can anyone honestly sit back and say "nash was either better or more important to his team than kobe was to that 06 lakers squad. or shaq to the 2005 miami heat"


guaranteed if there was a league wide 1 season draft. kobe and shaq get selected 1st overall both those years 100 times out of 100
Dirk deserved it over Nash in 06 too.

[IllegalD]

Disagree. The best offense he ever ran came before the rule change (and is the #1 all-time offense, +9.5 ORTG differential).

Nash is underrated, too many people choose to ignore his immense offensive impact because they have an issue with him winning MVPs over their favourite players.

Basketball is played on both sides of the court...

Unless your name is Steve Nash of course.

It has nothing to do with him winning it over "people's favorite players."

It's the fact that him having 2 MVPs and Shaq and Kobe having 2 COMBINED pretty much proves how much of a joke the award is when it comes to ranking players' greatness.

[IllegalD]

The show was about the best 5 players (or best starting 5) of each decade.

Nash is tied with Duncan for having the most regular season MVPs during that decade, but any knowledgable NBA fan with a pair of eyes knows that: Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Kidd, and arguably Iverson are ALL superior players to Nash and deserve way more consideration for such a list than him.

[Mr Feeny]

The conversation spearheaded by Nash's former teammate, Grant Hill, suggested that Nash only became MVP because of the rule changes. That he benefited most out of everyone (perfect storm 5SOL).

Agree? Disagree?

I felt the panel underrated Nash for the 'all-decade' team. Everyone picked either GP, Kidd or AI. Depending on the makeup of your team why wouldn't Nash be in that conversation? :confusedshrug:

Not more than Kobe tbf

[StephHamann]

Probably cause he was not there. That was Brent Barry.

I know, Kerr left for his Golden State job. But he was saying good stuff last year and the years before.

[Mr Feeny]

The show was about the best 5 players (or best starting 5) of each decade.

Nash is tied with Duncan for having the most regular season MVPs during that decade, but any knowledgable NBA fan with a pair of eyes knows that: Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Kidd, and arguably Iverson are ALL superior players to Nash and deserve way more consideration for such a list than him.

Shaq, Duncan and KG are. Dirk is arguably let. Kobe is not on their level. Dnt kid yourself. Stay mad at Kobe's pathetic solitary MVP in 20 years of basketball :lol

[IllegalD]

Shaq, Duncan and KG are. Dirk is arguably let. Kobe is not on their level. Dnt kid yourself. Stay mad at Kobe's pathetic solitary MVP in 20 years of basketball :lol

Of course a LeBron Stanley would put so much weight on a meaningless regular season MVP award since that is the only thing that LeBron is good at winning. :lol

What kind of f*ggot dubs himself "ISH vigilante"...:facepalm

[Wade's Rings]

Basketball is played on both sides of the court...

Unless your name is Steve Nash of course.

It has nothing to do with him winning it over "people's favorite players."

It's the fact that him having 2 MVPs and Shaq and Kobe having 2 COMBINED pretty much proves how much of a joke the award is when it comes to ranking players' greatness.

This Shaq MVP theory has been debunked before. He had too many years where he missed a ton of Games or had a down year in terms of impact and production. The only years you can say he really deserved it or was robbed were '01 and '05.

What years outside of '06 and '08 could you say Kobe deserved more MVP consideration or just straight up deserved it?

[Wade's Rings]

The show was about the best 5 players (or best starting 5) of each decade.

Nash is tied with Duncan for having the most regular season MVPs during that decade, but any knowledgable NBA fan with a pair of eyes knows that: Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Kidd, and arguably Iverson are ALL superior players to Nash and deserve way more consideration for such a list than him.

Again, Why Iverson over Nash? Where are Wade & Bron?

[kennethgriffin]

Nash was very important to those squads. The 2006 Squad didn't have Amare for most of the year IIRC and Nash lead them well to 54 wins. In 2005 the Suns improved by 33 wins(I think an NBA record turnaround) with Nash compared to the previous year and he was running some amazing offenses those years.

I doubt it. There were other great players in 2005 & 2006 as well. Not just Shaq or Kobe.


oh look. its 2005 all over again



no.. nash wasnt as important as people thought. those teams had offensive fire power coming out the a**... jeremy lin coulda won mvp on those teams in that offense


it was the system and the weapons nash had

[Wade's Rings]

oh look. its 2005 all over again



no.. nash wasnt as important as people thought. those teams had offensive fire power coming out the a**... jeremy lin coulda won mvp on those teams in that offense


it was the system and the weapons nash had

Then why did Nash lead Great Offenses before and after D'antoni?

[kennethgriffin]

Then why did Nash lead Great Offenses before and after D'antoni?


he didn't though.. hes just played on stacked teams that constantly underachieved

and he never even made the finals



hes overrated. a regular season stat padding system PG that hurts his team more than he helps by making everyone jack up threes all game to collect assists... that and he doesnt play a lick of defense


reminds me of lebron. except he cant rebound or dunk.. which means nash is like a double negative


he only shot high %'s due to not taking a bulk of the scoring load. he shot wide open

[ArbitraryWater]

Its been settled that the '06 MVP belonged to Dirk

[kennethgriffin]

Its been settled that the '06 MVP belonged to Dirk



:lol

even bill simmons the biggest kobe /laker hater has kobe as 06 mvp

[T_L_P]

This Shaq MVP theory has been debunked before. He had too many years where he missed a ton of Games or had a down year in terms of impact and production. The only years you can say he really deserved it or was robbed were '01 and '05.

What years outside of '06 and '08 could you say Kobe deserved more MVP consideration or just straight up deserved it?

And he still wasn't 'robbed in 05' (in 01 he probably was).

I always find it funny how Shaq talks about his superior numbers in 05 as the reason why he deserved MVP.

He put up 23/10/3 on an EC team that won 59 games.

Meanwhile Dirk averaged 26/10/3 on a WC team that won 58 games and he best teammate was Michael Finley (16/4/3).

Or Duncan, 21/11/3 on a WC team that won 59 games, better defense than Shaq, superior advanced stats pretty much across the board (same PER, more WS, higher WS/48, higher Box +/-).

And if Shaq seriously called himself the 06 MVP. :oldlol:

[kennethgriffin]

And he still wasn't 'robbed in 05' (in 01 he probably was).

I always find it funny how Shaq talks about his superior numbers in 05 as the reason why he deserved MVP.

He put up 23/10/3 on an EC team that won 59 games.

Meanwhile Dirk averaged 26/10/3 on a WC team that won 58 games and he best teammate was Michael Finley (16/4/3).

Or Duncan, 21/11/3 on a WC team that won 59 games, better defense than Shaq, superior advanced stats pretty much across the board (same PER, more WS, higher WS/48, higher Box +/-).

And if Shaq seriously called himself the 06 MVP. :oldlol:


who would you draft 1st overall for your team in just a 1 season format for 2005


asside from duncan.. cause we know your agenda... after him

[kennethgriffin]

its quite obvious MOST of the nba world has shaq as 2005 mvp. and kobe as 2006 mvp

players, coaches, owners would all vote those 2 guys in looking back


fans 90% have it that way too





only a god damn fool would agree steve nash was EVER the best, top performer or most valuable to his team in ANY season


not even steve nash believes this

[T_L_P]

oh look. its 2005 all over again



no.. nash wasnt as important as people thought. those teams had offensive fire power coming out the a**... jeremy lin coulda won mvp on those teams in that offense


it was the system and the weapons nash had

And yet, the Suns only managed to go 12-29 without Nash during his Phoenix years (4-15 without him from 05-07).

According to you, that system could have made any half-decent PG look like an MVP - yet with Phoenix's backups like Barbosa, they were a 25 win team. :oldlol:

[ShawkFactory]

:lol

even bill simmons the biggest kobe /laker hater has kobe as 06 mvp
Dirk absolutely deserved it. At least neck and neck with Kobe.

[T_L_P]

who would you draft 1st overall for your team in just a 1 season format for 2005


asside from duncan.. cause we know your agenda... after him

Probably Garnett.

[Sarcastic]

imo, peak for peak, nash is better than
every pg except magic, oscar, someone else that people will kill me for mentioning, and possibly west if we consider him a pg

Peak Isiah is right after Magic and Oscar. He had 4 straight years of 20/10 and actually played defense.

[Wade's Rings]

he didn't though.. hes just played on stacked teams that constantly underachieved

and he never even made the finals



hes overrated. a regular season stat padding system PG that hurts his team more than he helps by making everyone jack up threes all game to collect assists... that and he doesnt play a lick of defense


reminds me of lebron. except he cant rebound or dunk.. which means nash is like a double negative


he only shot high %'s due to not taking a bulk of the scoring load. he shot wide open

The 2009 & 2010 Suns were stacked? I'm going to ignore the rest of your garbage.


And he still wasn't 'robbed in 05' (in 01 he probably was).

I always find it funny how Shaq talks about his superior numbers in 05 as the reason why he deserved MVP.

He put up 23/10/3 on an EC team that won 59 games.

Meanwhile Dirk averaged 26/10/3 on a WC team that won 58 games and he best teammate was Michael Finley (16/4/3).

Or Duncan, 21/11/3 on a WC team that won 59 games, better defense than Shaq, superior advanced stats pretty much across the board (same PER, more WS, higher WS/48, higher Box +/-).

And if Shaq seriously called himself the 06 MVP. :oldlol:

I'm posting this without Context but the Heat actually had a winning record without Shaq that year. 6-3 without him and I think 5-2 without him but with Wade. He for sure wasn't robbed that year and his stats aren't correct.

He did say he deserved the 2006 MVP but this was in the "50 Greatest & Next 10" episode that came out last year.

[ShawkFactory]

who would you draft 1st overall for your team in just a 1 season format for 2005


asside from duncan.. cause we know your agenda... after him
Does it require an agenda to take Duncan #1 overall in 2005. If he wasn't the best player in the NBA he was on the incredibly short list.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Basketball is played on both sides of the court...

Unless your name is Steve Nash of course.

It has nothing to do with him winning it over "people's favorite players."

It's the fact that him having 2 MVPs and Shaq and Kobe having 2 COMBINED pretty much proves how much of a joke the award is when it comes to ranking players' greatness.

1. A poor defensive PG means nothing. 2015 Warriors are an example, and Curry's offensive impact isn't close to peak Nash's.

2. :rolleyes:

3. It absolutely does. That's why these people ignore actual evidence in favour of believing what they want to believe.

4. "Most Valuable Player." Where in that name do you see "best" or "greatest?" Oh, that's right, the most valuable player is not necessarily the best or greatest player. You can make whatever you want to out of the award but be aware that you're purposefully ignoring the value component to push an agenda.

I've said if before and I'll say it again: no one says that Nash was better than Kobe or Shaq (or Dirk, for that matter). Unfortunately for them, there is an argument to be made that Nash's value surpassed all of the named players during the seasons in which Nash won.

[Smoke117]

It certainly helped...like it has helped all guards and especially the small and weak ones. (curry for instance is a big beneficiary of the rule change) He was a good player on the Mavs, so it's not like he wasn't effective under the old rules. It's a combination of the rule change and the fact that he had the ball in his hands more and was given more control of the Suns offense as opposed to the Mavs. He probably shouldn't have won that MVP in 2005 just because of how much talent was on that team. It's hard to argue with a 29 to 62 win turnover, but Amare and Joe Johnson were young guys who were only getting better and better whether Nash was there or not.

[4 Inches]

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/3orb3t/new_open_court_clips/
Links to the episodes

[IllegalD]

Dumbasses.

No one is saying that Shaq should've won MVP this year or that year.

What I'm saying (and what the Open Court panelists are saying) is that having MORE REGULAR SEASON MVPS DOESNT MAKE YOU A BETTER ALL TIME GREAT PLAYER.

That's all.

And to the butthurt Heat fan, I also have LeBron and Wade as superior to Nash.

J*esus, calm the f*ck down.

[Kblaze8855]

one thing seems obvious... actual basketball players don't seem to give a damn about what people online call evidence. Grant Hill played and practiced with Steve Nash you think he's going to let you tell him what the truth is because you have a number he doesn't give a shit about?

These people don't care about such and such ratings. They care about basketball.

[IllegalD]

one thing seems obvious... actual basketball players don't seem to give a damn about what people online call evidence. Grant Hill played and practiced with Steve Nash you think he's going to let you tell him what the truth is because you have a number he doesn't give a shit about?

These people don't care about such and such ratings. They care about basketball.

Exactly.

Grant Hill aka Mr non controversial Nice guy who was actually his TEAMMATE is saying this. Not some ISH message board warrior.

[Sarcastic]

Dumbasses.

No one is saying that Shaq should've won MVP this year or that year.

What I'm saying (and what the Open Court panelists are saying) is that having MORE REGULAR SEASON MVPS DOESNT MAKE YOU A BETTER ALL TIME GREAT PLAYER.

That's all.

And to the butthurt Heat fan, I also have LeBron and Wade as superior to Nash.

J*esus, calm the f*ck down.

That's because they devalued the award so much by giving it to Nash. It used to be an award that only the elite of the elite could win.

[bdreason]

Nash is the poster child for the modern NBA perimeter rules. Curry is another one. Are these guys both amazing players? Of course. Would they be winning MVP's if the league allowed hand-checking and paint defense? Probably not.


These aren't the only guys benefiting from the rules though. Every 6' 165lb PG who relies on quickness over strength is benefiting from the modern rules. There's a reason we're in a "golden era" of PG's... and Steve Nash ushered in that era.

[kennethgriffin]

The 2009 & 2010 Suns were stacked? I'm going to ignore the rest of your garbage.



I'm posting this without Context but the Heat actually had a winning record without Shaq that year. 6-3 without him and I think 5-2 without him but with Wade. He for sure wasn't robbed that year and his stats aren't correct.

He did say he deserved the 2006 MVP but this was in the "50 Greatest & Next 10" episode that came out last year.



ummm... yes the 2009 suns were stacked. and they still only managed 46 wins


7 players in double figure scoring

nash had:

Amare Stoudemire 21ppg
shaquille oneal 18ppg
jason richardson 16ppg
leandro barbosa 14ppg
grant hill 12ppg
matt barnes 10ppg
raja bell = great defense
boris diaw = good player
goran dragic = good player


how is this not a stacked team?





as for 2010

amare stoudemire 23ppg
jason richardson 16ppg
grant hill 11ppg
channing frye 11ppg
jared dudley = great shooter
robin lopez = good player
goran dragic = good player
leandro barbosa = good player




how are these poor rosters? or even average...

kobe won back to back titles with sasha vujacic or luke walton as his 4th best teammate

[kennethgriffin]

Nash is the poster child for the modern NBA perimeter rules. Curry is another one. Are these guys both amazing players? Of course. Would they be winning MVP's if the league allowed hand-checking and paint defense? Probably not.


These aren't the only guys benefiting from the rules though. Every 6' 165lb PG who relies on quickness over strength is benefiting from the modern rules. There's a reason we're in a "golden era" of PG's... and Steve Nash ushered in that era.


this^



sh*t... i'd hate to see what allen iverson would do vs this league today


probly get 40ppg

[Papaya Petee]

Shaq wasn't even the best player on the Heat in 2004-2005, yet he wants to be MVP that season? :roll:

23/10/3/2 73 games regular season
19/8/2/2 13 games playoffs

Versus Wade
24/7/5/2/1 77 games regular season
27/7/6/2/1 14 games playoffs

Not to mention Wades perimeter defense > Shaqs interior defense that season.

FFS, and in 2006 Shaq played 58 games in the regular season and wasn't even a top 10 player in the NBA.

[kennethgriffin]

Shaq wasn't even the best player on the Heat in 2004-2005, yet he wants to be MVP that season? :roll:

23/10/3/2 73 games regular season
19/8/2/2 13 games playoffs

Versus Wade
24/7/5/2/1 77 games regular season
27/7/6/2/1 14 games playoffs

Not to mention Wades perimeter defense > Shaqs interior defense that season.

FFS, and in 2006 Shaq played 58 games in the regular season and wasn't even a top 10 player in the NBA.



amare's stats blew nashes out of the water in 2005

[catch24]

one thing seems obvious... actual basketball players don't seem to give a damn about what people online call evidence. Grant Hill played and practiced with Steve Nash you think he's going to let you tell him what the truth is because you have a number he doesn't give a shit about?

These people don't care about such and such ratings. They care about basketball.

Yeah that's what I got from this too. Hill saying this of all people was really surprising.

The whole panel kind of disrespected Nash though. I mean come on... Not one vote for the 2K All-Team? :eek:

[JT123]

Shaq, Duncan and KG are. Dirk is arguably let. Kobe is not on their level. Dnt kid yourself. Stay mad at Kobe's pathetic solitary MVP in 20 years of basketball :lol
:roll: Feeny going IN

[kennethgriffin]

Yeah that's what I got from this too. Hill saying this of all people was really surprising.

The whole panel kind of disrespected Nash though. I mean come on... Not one vote for the 2K All-Team? :eek:


its amazing just how different people in and around the NBA see things compared to the media


like james harden being voted mvp by the players



its obvious he was more valuable to his team than curry was.

its obvious hes a more dynamic player than curry was

its obvious hes more all around than curry was

its obvious harden would do well in the pre handchecking era. curry wouldnt




is it possible these guys in the nba know more about these players than stat/analytic geeks that never dribbled a basketball and only watch it because they went to writing school and got a job with a company that broadcasts sports?


hmmmm.. maybe media mvps are just as useless as i've always said they are. who'd a thought



i was right yet again.


:lol

[bdreason]

And this isn't the first time the entire panel has disrespected Nash. When they were doing their "next top 10", the top 10 players not picked for the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time list, not a single panel member voted for Nash. Yet every member of the panel had no problem making a case for Kidd and Payton.

I'm not one to use race as an argument, but I wouldn't doubt if there is a racial element involved as well. Even if just at a subconscious level.

[kennethgriffin]

:roll: Feeny going IN

how does it feel to be part of the "geek squad" with nerds that never picked up a basketball


and not part of the "open court squad" .. legends who know the game like isiah thomas, reggie miller, grant hill etc..




people laugh at nash... thats not a true back 2 back mvp

[Papaya Petee]

amare's stats blew nashes out of the water in 2005
Good argument. Wade > Shaq in 2005

Come playoff time Wade was literally twice as good.

Aside from rebounding (which is obvious), and 3 point shooting (which Shaq provides 0 obviously)
Wade was the best Heat player in every other aspect
Best scorer, primary playmaker, best defender, closer.

[kennethgriffin]

And this isn't the first time the entire panel has disrespected Nash. When they were doing their "next top 10", the top 10 players not picked for the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time list, not a single panel member voted for Nash. Yet every member of the panel had no problem making a case for Kidd and Payton.

I'm not one to use race as an argument, but I wouldn't doubt if there is a racial element involved as well. Even if just at a subconscious level.


kidd and payton are better

they actually played defense

forget handchecking.. lets talk real basketball for a minute


who the f*ck is picking nash over payton or kidd

[aj1987]

2001 - #4
2002 - #1
2003 - #1
2004 - #1

Three straight #1 offenses spearheaded by Nash.

[IllegalD]

:roll: Feeny going IN

You mean on of your many LeBron fam alts? :lol

[kennethgriffin]

2001 - #4
2002 - #1
2003 - #1
2004 - #1

Three straight #1 offenses spearheaded by Nash.



and probably a top 5 worst defense too




0 finals in 18 years

only multiple MVP with 0 nba finals appearances


hard to beat that

[inclinerator]

ill take chris paul in there even tho he played only a little half of the decade

[FKAri]

Reggie Miller made a dumb argument about who would be picked first in a playground.

First of all, a PG is the one position which is the most different when comparing pro 5 on 5 vs the playground.

Second of all, Jason Kidd would be the last guy you'd take in a playground game because he has the worst iso skills among GP, Nash, and AI.


kidd and payton are better

they actually played defense

forget handchecking.. lets talk real basketball for a minute


who the f*ck is picking nash over payton or kidd

They're all in the same tier.


ill take chris paul in there even tho he played only a little half of the decade

Yeah. Surprised no mention of CP.

[kennethgriffin]

Good argument. Wade > Shaq in 2005

Come playoff time Wade was literally twice as good.

Aside from rebounding (which is obvious), and 3 point shooting (which Shaq provides 0 obviously)
Wade was the best Heat player in every other aspect
Best scorer, primary playmaker, best defender, closer.


if not shaq.

then amare is league mvp..

if not amare.

then dirk is 2005 mvp..

if not dirk.

then duncan is 2005 mvp

if not duncan.. then wade is 2005 mvp

and so on.. and so on...


theres no instance in which nash is league mvp as a system PG padding assists with only 15ppg and NO DEFENSE

[Wade's Rings]

ummm... yes the 2009 suns were stacked. and they still only managed 46 wins


7 players in double figure scoring

nash had:

Amare Stoudemire 21ppg
shaquille oneal 18ppg
jason richardson 16ppg
leandro barbosa 14ppg
grant hill 12ppg
matt barnes 10ppg
raja bell = great defense
boris diaw = good player
goran dragic = good player


how is this not a stacked team?





as for 2010

amare stoudemire 23ppg
jason richardson 16ppg
grant hill 11ppg
channing frye 11ppg
jared dudley = great shooter
robin lopez = good player
goran dragic = good player
leandro barbosa = good player




how are these poor rosters? or even average...

kobe won back to back titles with sasha vujacic or luke walton as his 4th best teammate

Never said they were poor, I asked how they were stacked. 2010 doesn't seem stacked to me. Really Great Squad but not stacked IMO

[Mr Feeny]

Its been settled that the '06 MVP belonged to Dirk

If not Nash's then yes.

For me it's 1- Nash
2- Dirk
3-Bron
4- Kobe (although his 45 wins hurt him. Hard to be valuable when you win so little )

[Wade's Rings]

Dumbasses.

No one is saying that Shaq should've won MVP this year or that year.

What I'm saying (and what the Open Court panelists are saying) is that having MORE REGULAR SEASON MVPS DOESNT MAKE YOU A BETTER ALL TIME GREAT PLAYER.

That's all.

And to the butthurt Heat fan, I also have LeBron and Wade as superior to Nash.

J*esus, calm the f*ck down.

Who the f*ck is butt hurt? I didn't see you list them so I asked where they were. You still haven't answered my question about Nash vs Iverson.

[kennethgriffin]

If not Nash's then yes.

For me it's 1- Nash
2- Dirk
3-Bron
4- Kobe (although his 45 wins hurt him. Hard to be valuable when you win so little )


bron? the cavs missed the playoffs

[Mr Feeny]

bron? the cavs missed the playoffs

In 06? I think you've got the years mixed up. They won 50 games and Lebron had 31.5, 7, 6 on 48%fg while the took Detroit to u games in the ECS.

The Lakers had 45 wins and they were eliminated in the 1st round by non other than Steve Nash as kobe Bryant scored just.....wait for it....OnE point in the entire second half of the game 7!

[Mr Feeny]

Suuuuuuuuureee....

Who are you, Ricky Henderson?

F*CK outta here, f*ggot.

b-b-b-b-b-b-BACKPEDAL like the b*tch that you are. :applause:

Who talked to you. Dafuq do I care what you think?:biggums:

[Kblaze8855]

I'm not one to use race as an argument, but I wouldn't doubt if there is a racial element involved as well. Even if just at a subconscious level.

Except nobody white brought him up either...and in the next top 10...there were whites then too. Still no Nash.

[aj1987]

ummm... yes the 2009 suns were stacked. and they still only managed 46 wins


7 players in double figure scoring

nash had:

Amare Stoudemire 21ppg 55 Games and can't play D at a crucial position
jason richardson 16ppg 58 Games and can't defend anyone
grant hill 12ppg 36 years old
matt barnes 10ppg Role-player
raja bell = great defense 22 Games
boris diaw = good player 22 Games
goran dragic = good player 55 Games and 13 minutes a game


how is this not a stacked team?

as for 2010

amare stoudemire 23ppg Can't defend anyone
jason richardson 16ppg Can't defend anyone
grant hill 11ppg 37 years old
channing frye 11ppg Can't defend anyone
jared dudley = great shooter Can't defend anyone
robin lopez = good player 51 games and 2nd year in the league
goran dragic = good player LOL!
leandro barbosa = good player 44 Games

how are these poor rosters? or even average...

kobe won back to back titles with sasha vujacic or luke walton as his 4th best teammate
They were decent rosters with TERRIBLE defenders. Give Nash a team like the '15 Warriors and he'd win a ring as well.


and probably a top 5 worst defense too

13th in 2001
25th in 2002
9th in 2003
26th in 2004

[Mr Feeny]

And this isn't the first time the entire panel has disrespected Nash. When they were doing their "next top 10", the top 10 players not picked for the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time list, not a single panel member voted for Nash. Yet every member of the panel had no problem making a case for Kidd and Payton.

I'm not one to use race as an argument, but I wouldn't doubt if there is a racial element involved as well. Even if just at a subconscious level.

At times, when I see garbage like this open court frivolity discrediting Nash's play in 05-06, or when I see Lebron and Wade act like clowns disrespecting an ailing Dirk who promptly handed them both their asses on silver platters in the 2011 finals, I can see what you're talking about.

It's the same nonsense that Isiah and Romania said back in 87 "if Larry bird wad black he juss be anotha playa. Ain't nottin special dair"

It's hard to listen to some of this garbage and not feel that some racism might exist.

On the otherhand, most ex players do give Dirk his due and the examples above are anomalies, so who knows.

[R.I.P.]

I know, Kerr left for his Golden State job. But he was saying good stuff last year and the years before.

Agreed about Kerr. Reggie Miller and Brent Barry are pretty good. You can tell they prepare. Isiah Thomas is really a charismatic figure with great story-telling. Combined with his eye for talent, it

[90sgoat]

It's no surprise they single out Steve Nash. He was the prototypical drive-and-kick guard and did almost all his damage from a high pick and roll.

In case you haven't noticed, almost all plays today begin with a high pick and roll. Boring if you ask me, but apparantly the masses don't object.

Probably shouldn't have gotten those MVPs, but neither should Kawhi(Duncan was best) nor should Iggy (Curry was better).

It would be far worse if FMVP becomes a meaningless award they give to the guy covering Lebron to avoid LeHairplug losing face.

[Mr Feeny]

It's no surprise they single out Steve Nash. He was the prototypical drive-and-kick guard and did almost all his damage from a high pick and roll.

In case you haven't noticed, almost all plays today begin with a high pick and roll. Boring if you ask me, but apparantly the masses don't object.

Probably shouldn't have gotten those MVPs, but neither should Kawhi(Duncan was best) nor should Iggy (Curry was better).

It would be far worse if FMVP becomes a meaningless award they give to the guy covering Lebron to avoid LeHairplug losing face.

Nash was running that offense. He was the focal point of the Sunshine offense and took them from (iirc the 22nd ranked offensive team in the NBA to the number 1-2 ranked team, almost overnight). Kawahi is nowhere near that good. Curry is a better comparison imo.

[DMAVS41]

one thing seems obvious... actual basketball players don't seem to give a damn about what people online call evidence. Grant Hill played and practiced with Steve Nash you think he's going to let you tell him what the truth is because you have a number he doesn't give a shit about?

These people don't care about such and such ratings. They care about basketball.

I'd be careful propping up any conclusion one reaches without using multiple evidences.

Grant Hill playing with Nash is evidence. Just like the tape, numbers, and results is also evidence.

It's always interesting to me how many people on here and in the basketball world want to only focus on one piece of the bigger picture. Seems agenda driven and or driven by bias and an unwillingness to look for the truth in favor of holding onto personal opinions regardless.

Not caring about all forms of empirical evidence is just ignorant.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not sure all information is useful evidence. Some information is just white noise. How much you consider is a personal choice.....and it seems to me the closer you get to actually being in the action the less you care about some of these things we obsess over.

[DMAVS41]

Im not sure all information is useful evidence. Some information is just white noise. How much you consider is a personal choice.....and it seems to me the closer you get to actually being in the action the less you care about some of these things we obsess over.

Of course part of the work is to figure what is and what isn't good evidence. Totally agree.

Also agree that the close you get to the action the less one cares about the analytics. I think that is flawed though if one is trying to get the best answer. A combination of playing experience, watching the tape, looking at the stats and results clearly paints a better picture than only using personal experiences. I would normally say that is my opinion, but I actually think that is a fact. We all have so many biases that cloud our judgment without our knowledge often...and solely relying on our own experiences is just limited in this sense.

You take two guys that play.

One guy only uses his experiences on the court.

Other guy uses his experiences on the court combined with watching tape, evaluating the analytics, talks to scouts, and has a weekly sit down with Zach Lowe and Voulgaris.

I'd bet my life the 2nd guy has the more accurate picture of how good players/teams actually are.

[Kblaze8855]

Problem is who decides which if them is closer to the truth? You or me?

How good anyone is....is opinion. You can't really prove who is right on anything close enough to justify arguing to begin with.

So how do you decide which if them knows better?

In the end people would pick the guy closest to their own feelings.

And we are right back where we started.

Ive always felt the search for proof is half the problem. You can't prove anything....just explain why you feel one way and hope 30 things fall right to give you the results to point to.

[DMAVS41]

Problem is who decides which if them is closer to the truth? You or me?

How good anyone is....is opinion. You can't really prove who is right on anything close enough to justify arguing to begin with.

So how do you decide which if them knows better?

In the end people would pick the guy closest to their own feelings.

And we are right back where we started.

Ive always felt the search for proof is half the problem. You can't prove anything....just explain why you feel one way and hope 30 things fall right to give you the results to point to.

It depends. There might be no way to know the right answer to certain questions. But that actually doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. For example, we probably can't ever know if Magic or Bird was better....but one of them actually was a better basketball player.

I don't think how good anyone is...is opinion. I think opinion is certainly part of it, but that can only go so far. Someone tells me that it's their opinion that Pau Gasol was/is better than Duncan...they are objectively wrong. Do you agree?

I know you made the comment about being close to justify arguing, but what if someone thinks they are close?

Who is right and who is wrong is of course going to depend on the evidence. That is how you determine this stuff. Not sure why you make it so complicated.

This reminds me of an old exchange we had about Afflalo...here is something you said about Afflalo:

Its one thing to tank....its another to give away a 28 year old star on a great deal when you are on a 27 win pace anyway.

Are you implying that it's merely a matter of opinion here? That nothing can be done here if someone doesn't agree that Afflalo was and never was a "star" player? Is that in the realm of being close enough to argue for you? Or do facts and reality matter?

[Kblaze8855]

The more I think about it...im not sure we can say some people are in fact better than others. Not on a question worth answering(which again...comes down to who you ask). Bird and Magic....better doesnt really make sense at some point. Just different. Who has more ability isnt math. There isnt a cut and dry answer. One can have more high level skills...but if having the right ones in key areas didnt make their impact similar the question wouldnt be asked.

Once its close enough to be reasonable....its just who you favor in most cases.

Jordan is in fact...better...than Hubert Davis

Im not sure how one would conclude Rick Barry was in fact inferior to John Havlicek.

You are left to decide whats reasonable...but being for real...that isnt an issue. Thats a "But what if...." for arguing here and not much of a real world issue. If someone somewhere thinks Sam Cassell was better than Kevin Durant...**** it. Let them be crazy. You cant let the existence of insanity decide what rational people do in realistic situations. As reasonable people I dont know that there are factual answers. Just the assumption that there must be...and I see why you would assume that. Maybe there is a stone cold hard measurable reservoir of talent and latent potential....I just dont see a way to prove who has the most.

If it cant be proven its a theory...what you think. If we all got comfortable with just...letting people think something else...and letting it go? We would all be better for it.

Discuss it. Argue. Its interesting to do.

But its rare anyone is just...right.

In the absence of that...we are all just kinda being ***** to eachother.

[DMAVS41]

The more I think about it...im not sure we can say some people are in fact better than others. Not on a question worth answering(which again...comes down to who you ask). Bird and Magic....better doesnt really make sense at some point. Just different. Who has more ability isnt math. There isnt a cut and dry answer. One can have more high level skills...but if having the right ones in key areas didnt make their impact similar the question wouldnt be asked.

Once its close enough to be reasonable....its just who you favor in most cases.

Jordan is in fact...better...than Hubert Davis

Im not sure how one would conclude Rick Barry was in fact inferior to John Havlicek.

You are left to decide whats reasonable...but being for real...that isnt an issue. If someone somewhere think Sam Cassell was better than Kevin Durant...**** it. Let them be crazy. As reasonable people I dont know that there are factual answers. Just the assumption that there must be...and I see why you would assume that. I just dont see a way to prove it.

If it cant be proven its a theory...what you think. If we all got comfortable with just...letting people think something else...and letting it go? We would all be better for it.

Discuss it. Argue. Its interesting to do.

But its rare anyone is just...right.

Well, we know that two players aren't identically good. Right? I mean...I think we could agree that no two players can be exactly the same as basketball players.

So if they can't be exactly the same level...then that means one player is better than the other.

Now, like I said before, it clearly is the case that comparing certain players/teams results in something we simply can never know. The 86 Celtics vs the 96 Bulls is a great debate. We obviously don't know which team would win a series against the other. However, one would win and one would lose if they played. Again...impossible to ever know, but there actually is an answer to which team is better or which team would beat the other in a series.

People can have any opinion they want, but also, people can criticize that opinion.

Above I asked you about your comment about Afflalo in a previous discussion we had. You called him a "28 year old star"...so I'm curious about a few things;

1. Do you still think Afflalo was a star?

2. Is that an example of it being so close that it's merely a matter of opinion or does evidence and reality matter?

[Kblaze8855]

Of course two people cant be identical....doesnt mean one is better. It means they are different.

Again...I think you are assuming things have answers that dont.

Who wins a series wouldnt determine which team was factually the best...it would determine who won 4 games in 7.

Series have been won by a single shot....clearly...they wouldnt go exactly the same if they played the series over. Who knows who wins?

The winner not being factually superior is why you can win one day and lose the next....to the same team. Victory doesnt make you better. Victory means you won right now.

And with individuals you dont even have that...because them playing one on one doesnt decide who is best in a real game of basketball...which is always 5 on 5.

There are too many factors to decide it that way.

There is no....answer. There are results.

Results arent proof of greatness. They just make it easier for one side to say "Well....scoreboard" and not have a real discussion that ends in "I think this..." vs "I think that..." and nobody being right.

[90sgoat]

3Ball brings up some good points.

All these NBA chuckers, those big draws for the average fans, the Marbury, the Irvings, the Iversons, they fail spectacularly at international play, while team players like Tony Parker win.

I guess we can simply say that those players really are not effective basketball players?

If they are not effective basketball players - and they are not because they don't win rings either - then why are teams offering every chucking point guard these huge salaries? Why are teams building around these chuckers?

Golden State sure, but they would have been owned by Spurs or a healthy OKC and next year won't make it out of the second round.

I mean, is the current NBA even really sports or is it more entertainment like pro wrestling?

[Kblaze8855]

So only people who win rings are effective basketball players?

How then do we account for the thousands of non chuckers who didnt win?

Was John Stockton ineffective...or did he just not win a ring?

[90sgoat]

So only people who win rings are effective basketball players?

How then do we account for the thousands of non chuckers who didnt win?

Was John Stockton ineffective...or did he just not win a ring?

How many shoot first point guards have ever won as their team's dominant player?

Of course you could consider Chauncey Billups, but he wasn't a chucker. Isaiah scored but didn't chuck.

We can even do finals, how many chucking point guards do you count in the finals?

Iverson that one time, who else? On the other hand, Kidd went to 3 finals and won 1. Stockton went to 2 finals. Gary Payton went to 1 final. Magic we all know. Marc Jackson went to a final. Rondo went to 2 finals.

There is overwhelming statistical evidence that despite having all these shoot first point guards (I include Chris Paul and Nash here), that they simply do not win at the highest level.

The NBA style chucking point guard is not a winning basketball player. The shortest player on the court should not try to be the leading scorer.

[DMAVS41]

Of course two people cant be identical....doesnt mean one is better. It means they are different.

Again...I think you are assuming things have answers that dont.

Who wins a series wouldnt determine which team was factually the best...it would determine who won 4 games in 7.

Series have been won by a single shot....clearly...they wouldnt go exactly the same if they played the series over. Who knows who wins?

The winner not being factually superior is why you can win one day and lose the next....to the same team. Victory doesnt make you better. Victory means you won right now.

And with individuals you dont even have that...because them playing one on one doesnt decide who is best in a real game of basketball...which is always 5 on 5.

There are too many factors to decide it that way.

There is no....answer. There are results.

Results arent proof of greatness. They just make it easier for one side to say "Well....scoreboard" and not have a real discussion that ends in "I think this..." vs "I think that..." and nobody being right.

So you think two players can be exactly as good at basketball as each other? I disagree.

You misunderstood what I said. I didn't say a team that wins a series is the better team. I specifically said there is answer to which team would win that series and an answer to the best team overall...we just won't know. I agree that a team that wins a series doesn't make them the better team overall...I never said that.

You seem to now be going a bit further in your assertions. Are you saying that we can't objectively determine that Duncan is better than Pau Gasol?

I'm confused to your view now, because you initially said if it's close enough to argue then it's all opinion. But now you seem to be saying otherwise and saying it's all opinion.

So Duncan vs Gasol...is there an objective answer or is it all opinion?

[Kblaze8855]

before I respond on the point guard issue I would like one thing made clear to me...

Did you just tell me Steve Nash and Chris Paul are shoot first point guards?


far as Duncan and Gasol I'd say thats near the line of what I can call a reasonable question. Seeing as I've never seen a significant number of people pose it in a way I considered serious.... I'm not going to call that close enough to be a real discussion. Though I suppose that depends on when exactly you mean.

Assuming you mean for their careers...which for the record presents a whole nother set of problems.... no that isn't something I consider reasonably close.

someone on the planet may. But as I said we can't let insanity determine how we look at these issues.

somebody somewhere thinks everything.

[DMAVS41]

before I respond on the point guard issue I would like one thing made clear to me...

Did you just tell me Steve Nash and Chris Paul are shoot first point guards?


far as Duncan and Gasol I'd say thats near the line of what I can call a reasonable question. Seeing as I've never seen a significant number of people pose it in a way I considered serious.... I'm not going to call that close enough to be a real discussion. Though I suppose that depends on when exactly you mean.

Assuming you mean for their careers...which for the record presents a whole nother set of problems.... no that isn't something I consider reasonably close.

someone on the planet may. But as I said we can't let insanity determine how we look at these issues.

somebody somewhere thinks everything.

ok...then how about someone that considers Afflalo a "star"?

Also, how would you go about discussing Gasol vs Duncan with someone on the side of Gasol if you weren't allowed to use any evidence at all? Seems like it would be a really tough conversation to have.

It just seems to me that there are certain questions in which ultimately it's going to come down to opinion. Magic vs Bird is a good example of this. And then there are other questions where the answer is objective or close enough to a fact that it's unreasonable to think differently. I think we agree here.

However, the process in debating or discussing should be the same in both. You should have to give reasons why one thinks a certain way. And those reasons are subject to criticism. So one can hold an accurate conclusion for bad reasons. Someone might think Duncan is better than Gasol just because he's black or because he swims in the off season or some other stupid reason.

Reasons and evidence matter...holding a proper belief for bad reasons is silly. And reaching a false conclusion based on sound evidence and reasons actually is fine...it happens all the time. It's about the reasons for holding beliefs.

That is what I keep coming back to. Grant Hill might be right, but if he's solely using his own experience and nothing else to form his full opinion on a player or team...his reasons/evidence is limited for holding this belief.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Did that alt seriously call Steve Nash a shoot first point guard? :roll:

Are you scared to post shit that dumb on your main?

[Mr. Jabbar]

agreed.

overrated AF

and ima HUGE fan of him

[Kblaze8855]

do you think there is some set definition for what a star is? I suppose it's a very loose term for someone above being good but below being a superstar? is that part of your things can be proven line of questioning?

and I never said you can't present any evidence for anything. I said that it is not for you to determine what anyone else considers valuable evidence. You thinking something is evidence that you are right means nothing to anybody else. when they ignore it there isn't much you can do but disagree and move on. Unless you want to repeat yourself dozens of times while they are clearly not caring what you think..... which I suppose some people are fine with. I've done a bit of it over the years but I just don't see the point anymore.

Once someone is clearly not giving value to something you are what are you going to do? get upset?

it's only relevant evidence to the person deciding it is. People who decide it isn't throw it out and arrive at a different conclusion. what more do you want to do at that point?

Fly out and box?

I mean... If you want to throw hands we can throw hands. That's always an option for the record.

[DMAVS41]

do you think there is some set definition for what a star is? I suppose it's a very loose term for someone above being good but below being a superstar? is that part of your things can be proven line of questioning?

and I never said you can't present any evidence for anything. I said that it is not for you to determine what anyone else considers valuable evidence. You thinking something is evidence that you are right means nothing to anybody else. when they ignore it there isn't much you can do but disagree and move on. Unless you want to repeat yourself dozens of times while they are clearly not caring what you think..... which I suppose some people are fine with. I've done a bit of it over the years but I just don't see the point anymore.

Once someone is clearly not giving value to something you are what are you going to do? get upset?

it's only relevant evidence to the person deciding it is. People who decide it isn't throw it out and arrive at a different conclusion. what more do you want to do at that point?

Fly out and box?

I mean... If you want to throw hands we can throw hands. That's always an option for the record.


A few things:

1. Of course we'd have to come up with a definition of a star...although I think it's pretty obvious Afflalo is not and was not ever a star player based on any reasonable definition. Star players tend to not get traded for Evan Fournier.

2. If someone doesn't value evidence....what evidence can you provide to make them value it? Of course none.

3. Any reasonable and intelligent discussion require both parties to be, well, reasonable, logical, and willing to change their views.

You seem to be going after the cases in which someone isn't be reasonable or logical or willing to alter their view. Of course that is pointless.

I'm talking about the cases in which there is a point to the conversation.

Like I said...one can hold any opinion they want, but the minute they state it...they open themselves up to criticism.

So, for example, when you claimed that Channing Frye had the same skill set as Dirk outside of shooting...you can hold that opinion absolutely. I can also tell you why I think it's very ignorant.

Is there actually a right answer to that? You say no. I say yes. And that is a case in which I think the evidence is overwhelmingly on one side. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Ultimately it's just not all opinion. Tim Duncan is better than Pau Gasol regardless of what opinions there are. Global warming is happening. The earth isn't flat. The universe isn't thousands of years old...etc. You can't convince someone of any of the above if they don't value reason and evidence. But I don't get that point honestly....that doesn't make it a matter of opinion however.

[90sgoat]

Shoot first is perhaps not the correct word to use for Nash and Paul. Dribble dominant pick and roll player would be succint.

Compared to someone like Mugsy Bogues, certainly Nash is shoot first.

It's also something to do with mindset. A lot of what Nash and Paul creates comes from their threat as scorers. You go under in the pick and roll and they shoot. They are always looking for their shot, their passing the ball is a side effect of their threat to score.

Kidd, Mugsy, Magic, Rondo, these are floor general types who pass the ball and keep everyone involved.

They create offense in a lot more ways than Nash and Paul who as said, create mainly offense from defense having to commit to pick and rolls.

[Kblaze8855]

as I made clear earlier I have no interest in repeating myself dozens of times when I've clarified myself and you intentionally or otherwise misunderstand and keep bringing it up. there is zero chance of me being entertained or interested.

I am no longer obsessive enough to engage in forever fights. In retrospect it's kind of sad that I ever was. I do love to argue but not when it will literally never end.

perhaps I'll speak to you again in 4 months and you can let me down once more by attempting to have the same argument that I had for 200 posts and then made clear I wasn't interested in anymore.

One thing is clear... you are not the guy to have a discussion on opinion based fighting being futile with. so in the spirit of dropping things that are going nowhere I'm going to go back to watching these kids play a modified version of GTA San Andreas that somehow has Chief Keef on the soundtrack.

continue drawing whatever sustenance you gain from circular arguments with the next unsuspecting poster and enjoy your night

[Kblaze8855]

Shoot first is perhaps not the correct word to use for Nash and Paul. Dribble dominant pick and roll player would be succint.

Compared to someone like Mugsy Bogues, certainly Nash is shoot first.

It's also something to do with mindset. A lot of what Nash and Paul creates comes from their threat as scorers. You go under in the pick and roll and they shoot. They are always looking for their shot, their passing the ball is a side effect of their threat to score.

Kidd, Mugsy, Magic, Rondo, these are floor general types who pass the ball and keep everyone involved.

They create offense in a lot more ways than Nash and Paul who as said, create mainly offense from defense having to commit to pick and rolls.


I just feel like you picked the wrong people to make that example with. wrong enough that I don't see this going anywhere.

Nash and Paul...

[Goro]

This has always been my stance.

[HOoopCityJones]

How many shoot first point guards have ever won as their team's dominant player?

Of course you could consider Chauncey Billups, but he wasn't a chucker. Isaiah scored but didn't chuck.

We can even do finals, how many chucking point guards do you count in the finals?

Iverson that one time, who else? On the other hand, Kidd went to 3 finals and won 1. Stockton went to 2 finals. Gary Payton went to 1 final. Magic we all know. Marc Jackson went to a final. Rondo went to 2 finals.

There is overwhelming statistical evidence that despite having all these shoot first point guards (I include Chris Paul and Nash here), that they simply do not win at the highest level.

The NBA style chucking point guard is not a winning basketball player. The shortest player on the court should not try to be the leading scorer.



You'd be better off arguing those two don't win because they're strictly passing PGs than arguing they're scoring guards. Magic is the exception as his Teams were all historically stacked when you put em into context of era and conference.

[kennethgriffin]

So only people who win rings are effective basketball players?

How then do we account for the thousands of non chuckers who didnt win?

Was John Stockton ineffective...or did he just not win a ring?


if a superstar never has the right pieces around him to win. he has an excuse

nash on the other hand has had a plethora of talent throughout his career


and stockton has legit beef with the jordan push off

and the steve kerr shot to win the series a year before


its obviously not the same cause nash never even came close

[97 bulls]

They need to get some guys on open court that are actually willing to debate. All this kissyface/i stroke you you stoke me stuff has to stop.

[DMAVS41]

as I made clear earlier I have no interest in repeating myself dozens of times when I've clarified myself and you intentionally or otherwise misunderstand and keep bringing it up. there is zero chance of me being entertained or interested.

I am no longer obsessive enough to engage in forever fights. In retrospect it's kind of sad that I ever was. I do love to argue but not when it will literally never end.

perhaps I'll speak to you again in 4 months and you can let me down once more by attempting to have the same argument that I had for 200 posts and then made clear I wasn't interested in anymore.

One thing is clear... you are not the guy to have a discussion on opinion based fighting being futile with. so in the spirit of dropping things that are going nowhere I'm going to go back to watching these kids play a modified version of GTA San Andreas that somehow has Chief Keef on the soundtrack.

continue drawing whatever sustenance you gain from circular arguments with the next unsuspecting poster and enjoy your night


It's not a circular argument at all. Your assertion that it is all "opinion" is demonstrably false...and clearly some form of evidence is always used.

And it's also clear that more "good evidence" is better than less.

The reason I bring up those examples is because nobody's "opinion" is above criticism...and those opinions you gave...you absolutely have a right to them. However, at the same time, it doesn't just end there with you giving your opinion and everyone else saying..."oh well, that's his opinion and it's just as valid as any"

No no. You have to actually back up what you say. And if there are good reasons and evidence....you have a valid opinion. If there isn't...you don't.

It's simple...and that goes for everyone. It's why Michael Jordan doesn't know shit about evaluating talent or running a franchise....but under view..."he played"..."he knows the game"..."he doesn't give a shit about what we call evidence here"...etc.

Not sure why you complicate this stuff as much as you...nor do i know why you favor the view so consistently that his less information.

You know that part of the reasonable conversation I brought up? A big part of that is someone willing to change their views and or admit they were wrong. You seem incapable of doing both.

Had to try though...usually as time passes people are less likely to hold to false beliefs than they are in the moment. You are a rare exception I guess.

[ShawkFactory]

if a superstar never has the right pieces around him to win. he has an excuse

nash on the other hand has had a plethora of talent throughout his career


and stockton has legit beef with the jordan push off

and the steve kerr shot to win the series a year before


its obviously not the same cause nash never even came close
It's amazing how you find ways to put down Jordan. Keep fighting the good fight. You'll lose...but keep on.

[TheBigVeto]

The conversation spearheaded by Nash's former teammate, Grant Hill, suggested that Nash only became MVP because of the rule changes. That he benefited most out of everyone (perfect storm 5SOL).

Agree? Disagree?

I felt the panel underrated Nash for the 'all-decade' team. Everyone picked either GP, Kidd or AI. Depending on the makeup of your team why wouldn't Nash be in that conversation? :confusedshrug:

Was any of the panel members non racist/white?

[senelcoolidge]

It's weird how all of a sudden so many people are downplaying Nash. He was an excellent point guard for those years. Sure he benefited from rule changed, but all guards did. Nash was nearly Stockton like minus the defense. High percentage shooter and high assist man.

[Straight_Ballin]

Basketball is played on both sides of the court...

Unless your name is Steve Nash of course.

It has nothing to do with him winning it over "people's favorite players."

It's the fact that him having 2 MVPs and Shaq and Kobe having 2 COMBINED pretty much proves how much of a joke the award is when it comes to ranking players' greatness.

It's not about greatness it's about VALUE. They are 2 different things.

[jstern]

I agree. He didn't start shooting 50% until age 30, during his 9th year in the league. He was a career .461 shooter. So it was crazy to me a few years ago when I was reading a thread on ish talking about the possibility of Nash finishing out his career at .500.

Edit: Forgot to mention that it's all relative, since pretty much all other guards had career years after the rule changes.

[warriorfan]

Nash is overrated but is probably being slightly underrated by the panel.

[kennethgriffin]

It's amazing how you find ways to put down Jordan. Keep fighting the good fight. You'll lose...but keep on.


i'm sorry. there was no push off. and jordan hit both finals winners against phoenix in 93 and utah in 97

my bad

[houston]

Nash is overrated but is probably being slightly underrated by the panel.


yea this true

talent transcend any rule changes

[Mr Feeny]

yea this true

talent transcend any rule changes

Not only this, but I found it funny that they've focused on Nash specifically. EVER perimeter player benefited from the rules changes. Iverson, Kobe, Arenas. Why there's this resentment towards the guy who won MVP 2 years running at the time in which the rule changes were implemented, is beyond me.

[IllegalD]

It's not about greatness it's about VALUE. They are 2 different things.

Actually. It IS about greatness. This is what the panel was voting on. 5 GREATEST players of each era. :confusedshrug:

It's only the Nash whiteknights that fail to realize this and keep derailing the topic to make it about his MVPs.

You name the 5 best players of the 2000s and Nash doesn't make the cut, just plain and simple.

[FKAri]

Actually. It IS about greatness. This is what the panel was voting on. 5 GREATEST players of each era. :confusedshrug:

It's only the Nash whiteknights that fail to realize this and keep derailing the topic to make it about his MVPs.

You name the 5 best players of the 2000s and Nash doesn't make the cut, just plain and simple.

Neither do AI and JKidd if you put it like that.

[sportjames23]

Neither do AI and JKidd if you put it like that.

:biggums:

[IllegalD]

Neither do AI and JKidd if you put it like that.

But the topic is about Nash, not those guys. :confusedshrug:

I mentioned AI and Kidd as additional players that I would rank above Nash in that era even if they don't crack the top 5.

Players of the 2000s that are definitely better than Nash:

Kobe
Duncan
Shaq
Garnett
LeBron
Wade
Dirk

Players of the 2000s that are at least as good or better than Nash:

Kidd
Iverson
Paul Pierce

[FKAri]

But the topic is about Nash, not those guys. :confusedshrug:

I mentioned AI and Kidd as additional players that I would rank above Nash in that era even if they don't crack the top 5.

Players of the 2000s that are definitely better than Nash:

Kobe
Duncan
Shaq
Garnett
LeBron
Wade
Dirk

Players of the 2000s that are at least as good or better than Nash:

Kidd
Iverson
Paul Pierce

There's more guys you can add to those lists:

TMac
Chris Webber
Yao Ming
CP3
Carmelo

[aj1987]

:biggums:
You think Nash and Kidd are in the top 5 from the '00's?

As I always say, stick to spamming smilies or riding MJ.


Actually. It IS about greatness. This is what the panel was voting on. 5 GREATEST players of each era.

It's only the Nash whiteknights that fail to realize this and keep derailing the topic to make it about his MVPs.

You name the 5 best players of the 2000s and Nash doesn't make the cut, just plain and simple.

My post from another thread:

Nash turned a 27th ranked offense in '98 to 15th in '99 and 7th in '00. Took the Suns from 29 wins to 62 wins and from being the 9th worst offense to the BEST offense in the league. Dude led 6 #1 offenses, 4 top 5, and 2 top 10. Led multiple 60 win teams. Carried the Suns to 54 wins as the #2 offense in '06 when Amar'e went down for the season.

[IllegalD]

There's more guys you can add to those lists:

TMac
Chris Webber
Yao Ming
CP3
Carmelo

TMac was better than Nash prime vs prime but Nash had a better overall career and longevity.

CP3 didn't even come into the league until halfway through the decade and didn't make his first allstar game until 2008. 6 Allstar appearances (and counting) in the 2010s vs 2 in the 2000s. (he'd be the starting PG of my 2010's Era team, though)

Yao Ming barely played and had sh*t longevity.

Carmelo (came into the league in the early 2000s but the bulk of his Allstar years have come in the 2010s [6 Allstars and counting in the 2010s vs 2 in the 2000s)

Nash over Webber because of longevity.

[BoutPractice]

He did benefit from those rules, as does Curry, but I still think he's a top point guard all time who deserves to be in the same conversation as Kidd and CP3 (both MVP worthy players who themselves belong in the same conversation as the Stocktons and Cousys...).

I'd actually lean towards Nash being underrated. He's being disrespected as if he doesn't actually belong in that elite group, but he does. The defense was a real issue, however his offense was not just good, it was unbelievably great, which both the eye test and the stats will tell you...

Playing with this sort of unselfish point guard who makes basketball fun and exciting is a transformative experience for all involved. There's a reason why the mid 00s Suns were like the Google of the NBA - everyone wanted to play there. Having that sort of player as your leader also typically leads to more wins... nothing surprising there.

(Similarly, the negative impact on their teams of selfish point guards who aren't also exceptional scorers tends to be understated)

[longhornfan1234]

They mentioned T Mac, but no Wade? :biggums:


04-10 Wade >> T Mac's career.