GOAT Phoenix Sun (peak-wise) - KJ, Barkley or Nash?

[Quotatious]

Who is the best player in Phoenix Suns history, peak-wise?

I feel like Kevin Johnson probably won't get any votes here, but I think that he was good enough to be an option in the poll (he definitely deserves it considering how many seasons he spent with the franchise, too).

[MrKnox]

Chuck in '93. 44/24 in game 7 of the WCF only to run into a buzz saw named Jordan. I'm sure Nash groupies will defend him to the end but he never even made the Finals. At least the bread truck willed his team there with the epic performance I mentioned above.

[penbeast0]

Was peak KJ better than peak Westphal? If you were putting together an All-Time Suns team, would any of the starters play great defense?

Nash/KJ (Buse)
Westphal (Bell)
Hawkins/Davis (Marion)
Barkley (Nance)
Amare (Who is the Suns best defensive center ever?)

[MrKnox]

Was peak KJ better than peak Westphal? If you were putting together an All-Time Suns team, would any of the starters play great defense?

Nash/KJ (Buse)
Westphal (Bell)
Hawkins/Davis (Marion)
Barkley (Nance)
Amare (Who is the Suns best defensive center ever?)

Don't sleep on Hornacek at two guard.

[Doctor MJ]

Just based on time in Phoenix, I'd have to go with Nash. What he did will be mandatory reading for any serious basketball historian for as long as the NBA has historians because of how drastic the shift was centered around Nash. Nothing so dramatic of impact can be seen with the other two.

On my all-time list I do rate Barkley ahead of Nash, and while I could debate it, I don't see any issue really with saying Barkley has the better absolute peak.

KJ's interesting to ponder, and I really wonder what he'd do in this modern league, to say nothing about what he'd have become without the injuries, but I don't see where you can point to one of his season's have seriously question whether it's the best season by a Sun in history.

[Biddy77]

Barkley, considerably.

When Nash got to Phoenix, he played in a situation where personnel and system created a perfect storm for raw production. Those 7SOL teams were built to run up regular season numbers, and obviously wilted in the playoffs. The "kill you with offense" approach was basically an identity that Stat and Nash each carried throughout their individual careers, and that nature is part of why those Suns never had a chance to really be a threat to win it all. They played a style that was almost diametrically opposed to playoff basketball.

On the flip side, Phoenix had the 5th rated O in the league before Barkley got there, and they went out 1-4 in round 2.

Then Barkley happened.
93: number 1 offense in the league, team takes the NBA Champions to 6 games.
94: number 1 offense in the league, team takes the NBA Champions to 7 games
95: number 3 offense in the league, team takes the NBA Champions to 7 games (this was the real Finals that year)

In 96, the Suns had some personnel and injury issues. KJ played 56 games, Barkley missed 11, Manning missed about 60% of the season, and their C situation was a nightmare.

That is actually nuts. Barkley basically took the Suns the distance against the NBA Champions 3 years in a row.

[Ballerhogger]

i got Barkley got the Suns to the Finals. While Nash is a close second

[DirtyDez]

Nash not making the finals wasn't his fault. For those who remember the 05'-07' playoffs the Suns dealt with significant injuries and suspensions. That's not on Nash.

This is still Barkley though quite easily. He was on a different level and only behind Jordan and Hakeem as far as dominant players during that period.

[KilloJoeX]

Nash was a system player who needed a very special set of circumstances in order to make his impact and he was still never a top 5 player in the league outside of 05 and 07. He's a loser whose defense makes Chuck look like Duncan. This is easily Barkley.

[JordansBulls]

Barkley by a clear margin followed by KJ

[Joao Saraiva]

Charles Barkley for me. As crazy as it sounds I think he's actually an underrated player. His impact on offense is absolutely GOAT type, and he was also one of the best reounders I've seen. His handles were superb for his position too.

[E-Balla]

I say Barkley wins easy. Also if KJ gets an option in the poll Amare deserves one because as great as KJ was 05 Amare was better.

[Dr Spaceman]

Those 7SOL teams were built to run up regular season numbers, and obviously wilted in the playoffs.

They played a style that was almost diametrically opposed to playoff basketball.

2005
RS ORTG: 114.5
WC1 vs MEM: 113.8
WCSF vs DAL: 118.9
WCF vs. SAS: 114.0

2006
RS ORTG: 111.5
WC1 vs LAL: 114.2
WCSF vs LAC: 116.8
WCF vs. DAL: 111.5

2007
RS ORTG: 113.9
WC1 vs. LAL: 115.3
WCSF vs. SAS: 107.8

It actually looks like their style carried over quite well into the playoffs; in many cases their offense improved in the playoffs.

and that nature is part of why those Suns never had a chance to really be a threat to win it all.

From 2005-2007 they won 5 playoff series. Dallas, the other elite WC team during that period only won 4. The Spurs, by comparison, won 7 (9 incl. Finals)

So really, what you're saying here is they weren't as good as the Spurs. But that is not at all the same as saying they were never a threat.

As a matter of fact, they actually outscored the eventual champion Spurs in their 2007 series, despite suspension-gate.

[penbeast0]

Was peak KJ better than peak Westphal? If you were putting together an All-Time Suns team, would any of the starters play great defense?

Nash/KJ (Buse)
Westphal (Bell)
Hawkins/Davis (Marion)
Barkley (Nance)
Amare (Who is the Suns best defensive center ever?)

Don't sleep on Hornacek at two guard.

-Westphal 79 32.6min 2.0reb 6.5ast 24.0pts on .580ts% in a league with no 3 point line (77, 78, and 80 similar) 1st team All-NBA (also 1st team in 77 and 80, 2nd team in 78)
Hornacek 92 38.0 min 5.0reb 5.1ast 20.1pts on .592ts (excellent 3 point shooter; never reached 20ppg again) only all-star appearance

Similar defensive reps (above average).

[MrKnox]

Was peak KJ better than peak Westphal? If you were putting together an All-Time Suns team, would any of the starters play great defense?

Nash/KJ (Buse)
Westphal (Bell)
Hawkins/Davis (Marion)
Barkley (Nance)
Amare (Who is the Suns best defensive center ever?)

Don't sleep on Hornacek at two guard.

-Westphal 79 32.6min 2.0reb 6.5ast 24.0pts on .580ts% in a league with no 3 point line (77, 78, and 80 similar) 1st team All-NBA (also 1st team in 77 and 80, 2nd team in 78)
Hornacek 92 38.0 min 5.0reb 5.1ast 20.1pts on .592ts (excellent 3 point shooter; never reached 20ppg again) only all-star appearance

Similar defensive reps (above average).

I was talking about Raja Bell.

[penbeast0]

Ah, the names in parentheses are the Phoenix best defenders, not best players, thus Dan Buse over Nash and KJ.

[Odinn]

The answer is Chuck without a doubt.
Also it's so sweet that you think the Suns were good enough to win it all in Nash's era.

[Biddy77]

Those 7SOL teams were built to run up regular season numbers, and obviously wilted in the playoffs.

They played a style that was almost diametrically opposed to playoff basketball.

2005
RS ORTG: 114.5
WC1 vs MEM: 113.8
WCSF vs DAL: 118.9
WCF vs. SAS: 114.0

2006
RS ORTG: 111.5
WC1 vs LAL: 114.2
WCSF vs LAC: 116.8
WCF vs. DAL: 111.5

2007
RS ORTG: 113.9
WC1 vs. LAL: 115.3
WCSF vs. SAS: 107.8

It actually looks like their style carried over quite well into the playoffs; in many cases their offense improved in the playoffs.

and that nature is part of why those Suns never had a chance to really be a threat to win it all.

From 2005-2007 they won 5 playoff series. Dallas, the other elite WC team during that period only won 4. The Spurs, by comparison, won 7 (9 incl. Finals)

So really, what you're saying here is they weren't as good as the Spurs. But that is not at all the same as saying they were never a threat.

As a matter of fact, they actually outscored the eventual champion Spurs in their 2007 series, despite suspension-gate.

Yes, they ran up a lot of points in the playoffs. But they ran up those points in a system that intentionally gave the opposing team seductive looks early so that they didn't probe for higher percentage looks, thereby producing a lot of rebounds and opportunities to run the other way. Those Ortgs look great, IF you disregard how they went about getting them.

2005, they beat an offensively poor Griz team, then went 6 against a very solid Dallas team. That six game series is actually reasonably impressive. Out against SAS in 5, of course.

2006, they were taken to 7 games by a 45-37, mediocre defense LAL team, AGAIN taken to 7 by a Clippers team that had the 18th rated O and 8th rated D in the league that year, then took the Mavs to 6.

2007, they beat the 42-40 LAL again, who boasted the 7th rated O and 24th rated D in the league, then went out in 6 against SAS.

If we just count series wins, yeah, we can make it look impressive. However, when we look at how those paths through the playoffs looked... I'll just put it this way: does a real contender go 7 games in round 1, then another 7 in round 2? Do we give them contender credibility for beating the 2005 Griz or 2007 Lakers?

They really were not a threat to win it all, and their style of play is a big part of why.

[Dr Spaceman]

2005, they beat an offensively poor Griz team, then went 6 against a very solid Dallas team. That six game series is actually reasonably impressive. Out against SAS in 5, of course.

Right, so they handily beat the team that would represent the West in the 2006 Finals, and then lost to the team that would represent the West in the 2005 Finals. Which puts them exactly between Dallas and San Antonio on the scale of WC elite teams, doesn't it?

2006, they were taken to 7 games by a 45-37, mediocre defense LAL team, AGAIN taken to 7 by a Clippers team that had the 18th rated O and 8th rated D in the league that year, then took the Mavs to 6.

So if you're going to hold 2006 against them it's probably worth noting that they were trotting out a 4/5 rotation featuring various combinations of Marion/Diaw/Tim Thomas. I mean, what exactly were you expecting?

2007, they beat the 42-40 LAL again, who boasted the 7th rated O and 24th rated D in the league, then went out in 6 against SAS.

The issues in that SAS series have been discussed, but if you honestly think they had no chance of winning it's worth looking at that series again. The series was tied 2/2 heading into a game 5 in Phoenix, with Phoenix boasting a +14 point differential to that point. Diaw and Stat missed that game 5, which the Suns lost by 3, and they never recovered. Phoenix overall still had a point differential of +3 for the series.

If we just count series wins, yeah, we can make it look impressive. However, when we look at how those paths through the playoffs looked... I'll just put it this way: does a real contender go 7 games in round 1, then another 7 in round 2? Do we give them contender credibility for beating the 2005 Griz or 2007 Lakers?

So again you're looking at the year without Stoudamire in which Diaw was the lone center on the roster going into the playoffs, and using that as your litmus test of a "contender". Do you not see the flaws in that approach?

How about giving them contender credibility for beating the 5.86 SRS Dallas Mavs?

They really were not a threat to win it all, and their style of play is a big part of why.

So just for a hypothetical say they win the 2007 series vs. San Antonio. Do they lose to the Jazz next round? Or the Cavs in the Finals? Literally the only way you can say they were not contenders in 2007 is if you believe they had 0 shot of beating the Spurs, which is just not true.

[Biddy77]

DrSpaceman,

I think we're at a place where we're going to have to agree to disagree with regard to Nash's Suns. I certainly respect your right to disagree with me.