Sorry for the late reply, just been really busy.
AI has been a top 10 MVP vote-getter 6 times compared to Nash's 4 times. I think thats pretty significant. They both have 3-All NBA 1st teams, but after that, AI has 3 All-NBA 2nd teams + 1 All-NBA 3rd team compared to Nash's 2 All-NBA 3rd teams + 1 All-NBA 2nd team. I think thats pretty significant. Then he has 9 All-Star appearances vs. Nash's 6. I think thats pretty significant. Accomplishment-wise, there might not be much of a difference, but watching them throughout their careers, which has been the same length, its pretty obvious at least to me who's been the more relevant player.
But Nash has overall 2 MVPs more than him, and more active win shares overall than him. That should count for something, when we talk about career we are talking about a player that was highly inefficient, turnover prone, and unsuccessful for all but 1 season, compared to a player in his career that started out slow, but ended off phenomenally from his 2nd season in Dallas and on. You've got 2 MVPs, more active MVP win shares, and for the most part hes been a big reason to why his teams have succeed in Dallas and Phoenix.
Nash never put up "terrific stats" in Dallas. 18/8, which was his best season, is definitely impressive but it wasn't something to go consider that great. And it doesn't matter that Nash was 2nd fiddle to Dirk, and actually it was Finley, not Nash who was the 2nd best player on that team. If it was AI instead of Nash, Dirk would've been the 2nd fiddle, at least earlier in his career. Nash on the other hand, would not have been the 1st option in Philly, if he was in AI's place.
Nash was 2nd option in the seasons they succeed overall all more, especially from 01-03, where his game had more of a value compared to Michael. But he had his value overall on those Dallas teams that were pretty good.
What Nash did in his first year is completely overrated. Yes, they didn't make the playoffs the year before, but do you realize what happened to the Suns the year before? There two best players were bothered by injuries. Stephon Marbury missed around 50 games, and Amare missed around 30 games. They also had a coaching change in the middle of the season. The year before, when everyone was healthy, they won 44 games, made the playoffs, and took the Spurs to 6 games in the 1st round, which by the way is better then what they did against the Spurs in 05. Don't get me wrong, what Nash did was definitely impressive, and he's definitely an upgrade over Marbury, but he got way too much credit for that. They weren't a bad team at all beforehand, and you also should consider the fact that guys like Amare and Joe Johnson, who were still in their early 20s were naturally going to get better regardless. Nash probably deserved MVP consideration, mainly cause there wasn't much competition that year, and he definitely deserved 1st team, but he didn't deserve to be MVP. It should've went to Shaq. When you take into account everything that I just mentioned, Shaq improved the Heat just as much as Nash improved the Suns, and he was more dominant and put up greater stats in a slower-paced offense.
See, I don't know if he ultimately deserved it, but its something that can be debatable; like I said the value was his team was quite significant, regardless if Shaq measured up or not; and it showed especially in games Nash missed, where the Suns went 2-6 (the games they won weren't pretty at all), where in the games he played in their record was 60-15.
Now, the year before Marbury was traded to the Knicks in the early part of January, while Marion and Joe Johnson played the entire season. Amare was injured for about 25-30 games, yeah; but considering how they were playing before Amare's injury; it wasn't a good start at all, they were 8-10. Amare got injured about a month after, they went on a losing streak, and traded Marbury to New York. Then Amare comes back, you've got their big 3 of Joe Johnson, Marion, and Amare finishing off the last 2 months of the season. And so what happens?
--They got a 7 game losing streak
--They finish the season off 10-20
Nash has a better case in 06 then he did in 05. But I still don't think he deserved it. Lebron deserved it more. He led a pretty crappy team as well to 50 wins while putting up historic stats, 31/7/7. I would also say Dirk deserved it more, as he averaged 27/9, which is arguably better then what Nash did, led the Mavs to 60 wins, and didn't play with another all-star.
But Dirk did play with better players, LeBron did come in 2nd, but are statistics everything? LeBron led that team to 50 wins, but his cast wasn't anything of the poor. Big Z, Drew Gooden were combining for 25/18/3, and also Larry Hugues that season started the season, but ended up getting hurt. When he did get hurt, their record was exactly: 18-10, with already one 8 game winning streak, and another 6 game winning streak. They then later had a 9 game winning streak in the season which boosted their total wins by a pretty good margin, but if you look at the season splits a lot of those players stepped up overall on both ends to end the season off. I'm not calling it a great supporting cast, but I wouldn't say it was crappy.
In the '05 off season, you've got Joe Johnson and Q. Richardson traded (two guys that were big in the success of the Suns in '05). Then on the top of that, you've got Amare being out for the entire season. So that's 3 guys gone out of the starting lineup; you replace them with Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Eddie House, James Jones, Tim Thomas, and Kurt Thomas; that's a total of 6 new guys that basically Nash utilized as key players for production.
Raja Bell the year before in Utah coming off the bench putting up 12.3 points on good percentages, then you've got Boris Diaw who really wasn't a trusted player that didn't seem to show his potential the year before, Eddie House was a 5ppg bench player, James Jones was a chucker and a scrub, Kurt Thomas was nothing more than a solid all around vet, and Tim Thomas was just another 10-12ppg guy. So that's 6 new players to replace 2 All-Stars, and 1 Starter.
I mean to start the season off, I don't think it was expected of this team to be once again in championship contention, especially with some of the players that were replaced, including Nash missing his biggest and most lethal offensive weapon in Amare. He stepped up, 18/11/4/50%/40%/90%, and took them to a 54 win season. He won the voting by a pretty fair margin, wasn't close what so ever.
AI had no one on his team as close to Kobe or Robinson, or Amare or Marion when comparing it to Nash's teams. I don't think he necessarily deserved it over Shaq or Duncan, but it was not as undeserving as Nash's MVPs. The Sixers had a great defense, but no good offensive players aside from AI. He was basically their whole offense, so its hard to blame him for shooting 42% and 26 shots. You really think the team would've been better with Eric Snow or George Lynch getting a few more shots each? Probably not. Part of the reason he might've not deserved it is cause of the conference he played in, but the Sixers were still one of the best teams in the league that year, while being completely carried by one player on offense. And you got your math wrong. Teams play their own conference for 2/3 of the season not 3/4.
Ehh, look at is this way:
You've got Shaq and Duncan leading their teams to similar records in a much tougher conference, then you've also got the Lakers who finished the last 50-60 games with something amazing, I forget exactly. Then you've got both of them putting up much dominant and effective stats.
Compare that to Nash, where he may have not been putting up a high number of points, but his value and overall impact to the team was considered just as big to Shaq; if not better. Shaq did something like 22/11, Nash was 16/11/50%/40%/90%, where his team impact measured to be significantly greater if not just as good. Then you can also bring in the tougher conference when debating Nash v AI MVP awards.
He didn't become an above average player until 2001. Like I said, he was a role player/scrub for 4 years. He's played 12 full seasons, so like I said, he was a role player/scrub for a 3rd of his career, and a borderline-allstar/superstar for 2/3 of his career, not 3/4. And the below .500 records without him really shouldn't be brought up. 6 games is such a small sample that you really shouldn't expect teams to win that much when they basically have no significant time to adjust to their best player being missed.
Ehh, I don't think he was average, in 2000-2001 he was still giving you 15.6, 7.7, 48%, 40%, but most importantly served to be valued, especially after the season before Nash wasn't a starter, Dirk was shaping into his form, and Finley was playing just like he usually did. In '02 though Nash was pretty much on par in terms of impact and had every bit to do with the Mavs success, since 2000 though, it can be argued from 2000-2008 that Nash's last 3 seasons were so good in terms of value, success, and even statistically it could be considered that Nash from 2000-2008 was the better player in this decade.
Who cares if he was playing behind Kidd? You think if he was playing in Philly right away instead of AI, he would've been getting big minutes and leading the team to the playoffs? So should we just give Nash credit for things he didn't do, just cause he had to play on the bench behind Kidd? And he still wasn't playing that great in his first two years in Dallas so it doesn't matter. Why do you think that is? Cause he just wasn't that good.
Nash's game from 1999-2000 improved drastically the year after. He had impact on how well the Mavs succeeded from 01-03. So, yes his first year wasn't good, he was a bench player; but the season when Don Nelson trusted him, he showed up, and the 2 years after, his value to the teams success was close to on par with Dirk. Now, Iverson was drafted out of college as the first pick on an 18 win team, he was a arguably a top 3 prospect coming out of college that year. I'm not discounting Nash not playing starter minutes from 96-00, no; but when you didn't get more success as a valued player, just as much recognition, I don't find it in favor of Iverson "easily".
I was saying AI from 96-04 was better then Nash from 96-04 by a wide margin. I was not saying AI from 96-04 was better then Nash from 05-08 by a wide margin. And you're underestimating AI it seems. You're saying that Philly had to rely on AI's 30 shots per game to get to the Finals. And guess what? It worked. The only thing they had to rely on worked, and it was cause of AI. I'm not really going to debate with you about who's prime was better. I think its arguable. But we're talking about careers not primes.
Alright, when we are talking about careers, aren't you suppose to go over the entire career. From 96-04, yes Iverson I'd say was better, but check this out during those years he made it to the playoffs only 5 times. In his rookie year, despite his team acquiring him the team only won 22 games. That's only a 4 games increase from the season before, and even then the season before Philly didn't have Coleman the entire year. So in 1997, AIs rookie year his supporting cast was: Jerry Stackhouse, Derrick Coleman, and Clarence Weatherspoon whom all at the time were good/decent players for the exception of Stackhouse who provided 20+ points. But, yet only a 4 game increase? to make it into the playoffs, you needed 44 wins that year, but with all the talent, plus AI; why only a 4 game increase? IMO talent wise, that team is good enough to at least give you 32 wins. Yeah him taking 30 shots a game worked, but he was inefficient, and did it when the eastern conference was at its weakest point. I'm not taking it away from him, but it should be a factor at least when considering how and why he got to where he was. Also, something else to note was, besides that 2001 season, any of the other seasons under Larry Brown, his team wasn't ever a top 5 defense, or for that matter even top 10. Primes is arguable from 1 standpoint, but from another in terms of team success and consistency I really think its in favor of Nash.
AI was a greater player by a considerably wide margin for 2/3 of their career. From 97-00, AI was an all-star, while Nash was a role player/scrub. From 01-04, AI was a superstar, while Nash was an all-star. From 05-08, Nash was the better player, by a good margin, but not nearly as much of an edge as AI had on Nash beforehand. Both were on the same tier, superstars.
See, this is where I'm considering weather or not Nash has a big enough advantage. His value to the team was tremendous with the Suns, but it was even good in '02 and '03 (close to on par with Dirk). Alright, so from 96-00 Iverson was in the all-star game once, led a team to the playoffs twice, and for his scoring, he was one of the most inefficient players. From 00-04-- you've got Iverson
AI's been inefficient and missed the playoffs when he had bad teams. You can't seriously compare the teams that AI's been on to what Nash has been on. Nash has played on much better teams, and has never had to carry teams the way AI has had to for the majority of his career.
'96-97 could have won more than 3 extra games overall from the season before. Hes been inefficient though, and unsuccessful for the most part of his career, you trade Iverson to Denver, and he still has a problem; its not that he isn't a good player, but hes just one of the hardest players to build around.
I give more credit to D'Antoni, then Nash, but I've never said Nash doesn't deserve credit. What do you mean its the system not the coach? Its the coach's system. Do you see whats happening right now? Nash has never been nearly as successful without D'Antoni. Before he played for him and after he played for him. Now sure, Nash has gotten old, but he was old and slowed down last year as well, but he still put great stats and had more of an impact. While D'Antoni has made Chris Duhon look like an above average PG, after not even being able to start on a bad team last year. Right now, Nash is basically the player he was in Dallas, who is great but not anywhere nearly as great as he was with D'Antoni.
Even though there is the coach's system, there is also the player. Regardless of him being in a system that succeeded, you can't argue that he was the perfect player. Coming into that season he was one of the best passers in the league, but I wouldn't discount his success based on him being in the system of D'Antoni. 2006 is the perfect reason why IMO.
Umm, yea. Main reason being because from 96-00, Nash was basically a roleplayer or scrub. That is enough to say AI had a wide-marginal advantage. If Eddy Curry all of a sudden becomes as good as Dwight Howard, and thats how it goes from 2009-2012, Dwight Howard is still going to have a wide-marginal advantage from 2004-2012, because he was a signficantly better player from 04-08.
But from 1996-2000 what did Iverson do that was so much more significant to discount being a value to a successful Dallas team, overtaking 2 MVPs, and being a MUCH better player, one of the more efficient may I add in Today's game.
Like I said earlier in his rookie year even though there were some offensively talented players on that Philly squad there was only a 4 game improvement. What's the reason for that? Iverson can't with with offensively talented players, and that 2001 season is a perfect example why. He dominates the ball, and he needs it. For the most part of his career besides 2001, he has been inefficient and unsuccessful at leading his teams to anything. So from 96-00:
1997: 22 games won
1998: 31 games won; Larry Brown
1998: 28 games won; Larry Brown
2000: 49 games won; Larry Brown
So what exactly has Iverson done to be better by a wide margin of his career in 00-01. He only had 1 successful season in 2001 besides that. Where Nash from 96-00 was a bench player; but from 00-08 you've got one of the best offensive players, successful players. That's good enough IMO to overtake what Iverson did from 96-00, which was be inefficient and take his teams no where by having offensive talent.
A better question is....can rookie Nash win more than 4 games from the year before than Iverson in '97? (interesting, could be thread worthy lol).
And the development of Amare and Joe Johnson had nothing to do with the team success of the Suns that year?
Again though, look at the season before, I pointed out what Amare, Joe, and Marion were doing in Mike's system without Nash, but look at what he was doing with them.
I don't think thats a great way to really look at things. Some players get overrated and more remembered then others even though they weren't as great. Nash probably won't be remembered more then AI, but he probably will be more remembered then Jason Kidd, who from a career perspective, should definitely go down as greater. Vince Carter will probably be remembered more then Dirk, even though Dirk is greater. Reggie Miller is remembered more then Clyde Drexler, but Clyde is definitely better.
I'm not exactly sure how to address this one; you've got Kidd and Nash IMO are better then Allen Iverson. I agree with the Reggie and Clyde thing; Miller wasn't on Drexler's level or anywhere close. But as of late; the peak of Nash has been IMO more amazing then the peak of Iverson. Iverson is terribly inefficient and just was known as a tough player to build around. And even with given talent Iverson can't succeed; while given decent talent, Iverson succeeded in a weak conference. While for Nash its the other way around.