Steve Nash really should have won multiple championships.

[AbeVigodaLive]

He couldn’t defend Tony Parker and was a defensive liability overall. In none of his most important playoff series was he the best player on the court.

On top of that the Suns lit resources on fire to save money, selling valuable draft picks for petty cash so the team had less room for error.

I think he spent about 6-7 years on title caliber teams yet failed to make the finals.

2003 - would have beaten the Nets but lost in WCF to Spurs, had a mediocre series

2005 - lost to spurs, would have been favored vs Pistons

2006 - lost to Mavericks, may have been favored vs Heat. Struggled in series.

Nash averaged 21 ppg and 10 ast on 52/44/96 shooting splits.

2007 - lost to Spurs in semis, would have be huge favorites vs Jazz and Cavs to win it all

2010 - lost to Lakers in WCF, would have been a toss up series vs Magic

That’s several years as strong contenders. He never had that ‘put the team in my back and carry’ series that title teams have

Never? In 2005, Nash's former team tried a new strategy by making him a scorer later in the 2nd rd. series. Nash responded with a 48/5 game followed by a 34/13/12 game and finally a 39/9/12 game to close out the series. Nash averaged 30/7/12 for the series with 55/42/96 shooting splits.

Just a couple of nuggets for those interested (in bold).

Fair points - I was looking at stats on my phone and may have referenced wrong series when referencing his weak series. I did not look at the Mavs series when he scored like crazy and forgot about it offhand.

Either way, in every series he lost he wasn’t the best player.

Nash is unique in that when he was winning MVPs nobody considered him a top 3 player and most didn’t consider him a top 5 player.

I view it less as Nash as being a disappointment but more that he’s clearly the worst multi time MVP winner in recent memory and people don’t hold him to same standard as other MVPs.

In NFL Lamar Jackson has 2x MVPs and nobody holds him to Mahomes standards. I think it’s similar there

It was a unique time in the NBA.

There wasn't a great MVP candidate in 2005. There were a lot of big names... but most had meh or even down years (for them).

For example, both Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant were considered better. But while Garnett led the NBA in VORP, PER and Win Shares in 2005... his team disappointed and didn't even make the playoffs. Kobe's team was even worse, winning only 34 games in 2005. Neither could be seriously considered for MVP.

Duncan played for a great team and posted similar stats to previous seasons, if slightly down. He didn't have the narrative juice though.

Nowitzki had a very good season, too. Arguably his best one up to that point. He finished 3rd in MVP voting in '05 and '06 before winning in '07. But his teammate left... and helped his new team win 32 more games and finish ahead of the Mavs.

Shaq did have the narrative juice. He joined a new team (Miami) and kept at his previous standards. The Heat even won 17 more games. He was a worthy winner in hindsight.

Remember, the NBA was going through some big changes at the time (handchecking) and Nash and the Suns were the poster boys for a new, more exciting NBA. Nash became a darling in 2005 because of the impact he had right away in Phoenix. Stats be damned. Scoring be damned. Something about that Suns team was interesting. Magical even. They played differently. And it was Nash orchestrating it. Did he deserve it? Meh. It made a good story.

Don't worry folks... it was a fluke though. We'll get back to regularly scheduled programming in 2006. Only...

The Suns lost Joe Johnson in the offseason. And then lost its blossoming star, Amare Stoudemire, for the season in the first week. And that gave Nash yet another narrative... especially after a strong postseason in '05 proved he wasn't a fluke.

He upped his points quite a bit in 2006. And the Suns kept winning, even with a failed former PG (Diaw) playing in place of Stoudemire. So, the Nash MVP cycle began anew. James, Bryant and Nowitzki were all worthy winners, too. I just think everyone was so shocked by what was happening in Phoenix that Nash sneaked in for #2... even if it was more deserved than #1.

_____________________________________

Summary: MVPs don't happen in a vacuum. And narratives matter. That guy, at that time, was the key differentiator in the NBA.

In the moment, I'm glad he won. In part for personal reasons. I was bored with 67 - 64 NBA games. Nash and the Suns brought energy and flair and creativity and excitement... and winning. It rekindled my love for the game.

In hindsight, with a deep dive into statistics while ignoring all other context... strong cases can be made against Steve Nash.

[Quattro]

If people are really interested in why... there's some legit NBA history behind why some of those teams didn't get over the proverbial hump.

Nah. Much rather just blather on about how the MVP award should go to a Laker every year over and over and over again.

[jkvonny]

"Standard" is a pretty vague rule set seeing there isn't any specific guidelines whatsoever. It's a hugely subjective measurement and your values may differ from mine or that if anyone else.

You're presenting a case of fallacy by false authority. Not to mention trying to argue based solely on subjectivity.

We all get it: You don't like Nash for any number of reasons. That's fine. But coming here and slandering a guy's individual accomplishments and value to a TEAM in a TEAM SPORT is pretty silly. His effect on the team was obvious and clearly they were outstanding with him and definitely worse without him.

Should he have won? Sure. Did he? No. Was that because Nash was a bad player? Obviously not.

Sent from my [Samsung Z4 Fold] using RealGM mobile app

I'm just curious how a 2x MVP didn't win a championship.


Charles Barkley gets hate all the time for not winning a championship. It's not his fault, but when you look at the teams Barkley played for you can see why he struggled to win a championship.

Nash on the other hand has played with other great players and had loaded rosters. I'm just curious as to why he came up short.

Barkley and the rest of the Suns ran into the Bulls at their peak, and they took two games from them and nearly pushed it to a game 7. The Bulls and Suns was a great matchup and only a Paxson three landed them that title.

Barkley isn't to blame any more than Nash is. Continuing down this path is laughable and makes no sense.

Sent from my [Samsung Z4 Fold] using RealGM mobile app

Also, the Suns/Barkley ran into those Rockets teams back then, too. After the lost to the Bulls in the 1993 NBA Finals. The following seasons, couldn't hold their 3-1 series leads back to back seasons in the playoffs in the playoffs. Houston came back and won both of those series, 4-3 (went 7 games). 1994 and 1995. The Rockets ended up winning the NBA title those season, too.
Just tuff luck for the Suns/Barkley.
Losing to eventual champs in the playoffs 3 straight seasons.

[Quattro]

Nash didn't win a ring because in the pivotal Spurs series he got his nose broken by Tony Parker and then got hip checked by Robert Horry leading to key suspensions.

Spurs had some dirty ass teams back in the day but it was effective.

Facts. In my opinion, but for Robert Horry, the Suns win that year. Nobody would have stopped them once they got past the Spurs.

[uncleduck13]

Luck was the only thing that prevented the Suns from winning. But if there was anything that was truly detrimental, basketball wise, it was Amare’s lack of interior defense and his inability to grab critical, timely rebounds (especially on the offensive glass).

[JustBuzzin]

No one said you aren't allowed to talk about Nash. There is nothing in this topic from you that I've seen that breaks any rules.

I'm talking basketball with you: responding to your basketball opinions and the way you're talking about basketball.

I don't even necessarily think you have a problem with Nash, I'm just sort of curious what people's "excuses" aren't doing for you. There's so much interesting story filled with real things that really happened on the the path of Nash not winning a title. You already know Nash won 2 MVPs and zero titles and are asking why, but you don't seem to like anyone's answers/explanations.

There's just so much there, and I think "Nash not being good enough to win a title" just isn't a factor that makes it to the top of the list. Do you think Nash wasn't good enough to lead a team to a title? Or do you think it was circumstance and luck?

Im fine with people answers.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with me. It's the people who defending Nash that act like im in the wrong. You got people in this very thread calling him overrated. My problem is more about holding players accountable. I have seen previous MVP players get criticism for not winning a championship. Nash is no different imo.

#Accountability

Accountability for what?

For not winning a championship a season 7 years after his MVP?

Yes!

Don't let the good guys get away without accountability.

[cupcakesnake]

I have no thing with Nash. It seems like every player I call out people have a problem with it.

I think it's more of a me problem with the board.

I stopped talking about Luka like the mods asked. Now I can't talk about Nash. It doesn't matter who I talk about people have a problem with it.


My thing is I have seen much worst when it comes to other players. The moment I say something it's "why do you hate said player."

Maybe I should continue slandering LeBron and Embiid because it's the cool thing to do.

No one said you aren't allowed to talk about Nash. There is nothing in this topic from you that I've seen that breaks any rules.

I'm talking basketball with you: responding to your basketball opinions and the way you're talking about basketball.

I don't even necessarily think you have a problem with Nash, I'm just sort of curious what people's "excuses" aren't doing for you. There's so much interesting story filled with real things that really happened on the the path of Nash not winning a title. You already know Nash won 2 MVPs and zero titles and are asking why, but you don't seem to like anyone's answers/explanations.

There's just so much there, and I think "Nash not being good enough to win a title" just isn't a factor that makes it to the top of the list. Do you think Nash wasn't good enough to lead a team to a title? Or do you think it was circumstance and luck?

Im fine with people answers.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with me. It's the people who defending Nash that act like im in the wrong. You got people in this very thread calling him overrated. My problem is more about holding players accountable. I have seen previous MVP players get criticism for not winning a championship. Nash is no different imo.

#Accountability

Ok so, the reason people are acting like you're "in the wrong" is because you're using false generalizations (or stereotypes) to explain something complicated. You list big teammate names (without mentioning their dramatic injury history or front office blunders). You also use some junk points like bringing up the Lakers (when Nash was just old and too injured to play). That causes people to react and feel like they need to correct you.

Like you say, there are plenty of people who are calling him overrated, so it's hard to reconcile that with your argument that Nash needs to be held accountable (whatever that means). Nash is a player who has his own legions of haters. He's a divisive figure because of those MVPs already, so you coming in here to hold him accountable isn't something new. There's been fierce Nash debate ever since he won MVP. You're not really correcting an imbalance with your accountability act, you're just repeating the same stuff people have said about him for almost 20 years.

Everynow and then I see some smart Nash criticism. No one thinks he's perfect (mostly due to the defense and early career reluctance to ramp up scoring volume). But listing his best teammates and saying "wHy nO rInGz" isn't clever accountability. It's just more of the same low-level discourse. I've seen a lot of people go deep on Steve Nash with you, and you tend to just say you disagree and then cite the generalizations again.

[JustBuzzin]

No one said you aren't allowed to talk about Nash. There is nothing in this topic from you that I've seen that breaks any rules.

I'm talking basketball with you: responding to your basketball opinions and the way you're talking about basketball.

I don't even necessarily think you have a problem with Nash, I'm just sort of curious what people's "excuses" aren't doing for you. There's so much interesting story filled with real things that really happened on the the path of Nash not winning a title. You already know Nash won 2 MVPs and zero titles and are asking why, but you don't seem to like anyone's answers/explanations.

There's just so much there, and I think "Nash not being good enough to win a title" just isn't a factor that makes it to the top of the list. Do you think Nash wasn't good enough to lead a team to a title? Or do you think it was circumstance and luck?

Im fine with people answers.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with me. It's the people who defending Nash that act like im in the wrong. You got people in this very thread calling him overrated. My problem is more about holding players accountable. I have seen previous MVP players get criticism for not winning a championship. Nash is no different imo.

#Accountability

Ok so, the reason people are acting like you're "in the wrong" is because you're using false generalizations (or stereotypes) to explain something complicated. You list big teammate names (without mentioning their dramatic injury history or front office blunders). You also use some junk points like bringing up the Lakers (when Nash was just old and too injured to play). That causes people to react and feel like they need to correct you.

Like you say, there are plenty of people who are calling him overrated, so it's hard to reconcile that with your argument that Nash needs to be held accountable (whatever that means). Nash is a player who has his own legions of haters. He's a divisive figure because of those MVPs already, so you coming in here to hold him accountable isn't something new. There's been fierce Nash debate ever since he won MVP. You're not really correcting an imbalance with your accountability act, you're just repeating the same stuff people have said about him for almost 20 years.

Everynow and then I see some smart Nash criticism. No one thinks he's perfect (mostly due to the defense and early career reluctance to ramp up scoring volume). But listing his best teammates and saying "wHy nO rInGz" isn't clever accountability. It's just more of the same low-level discourse. I've seen a lot of people go deep on Steve Nash with you, and you tend to just say you disagree and then cite the generalizations again.

I understand your point of view trust me I do.

Now look at it from my point of view...

I see Nash as an all-time great pg who happened to play with some of the better players during his prime. Those rosters Nash had compared to a guy like say CP3/Kidd and these guys have led much less to a Finals and even won a championship. I'm just saying Nash should have a ring because he had the talent to win a championship. People in this thread calling him the best offensive pg's of all-time. I expected at least 1 championship from Nash.

Is that really hating that I think Nash should have a championship?

[DCasey91]

Just looking back at some of the teams he played for dude had Amare Stoudemire/Joe Johnson/Shawn Marion. That team should have won a championship.

He also had prime Dirk. Then he had Kobe/Pau/Dwight at the end of his career.


Why couldn't Steve Nash get over the hump with these talented teams?

How so? He’s the worst defensive player not close when you consider his playing time.

Amazing offensive player but when you talk about winning a championship he’s a big liability in of itself

And no you cannot just hide a player on court.

He should be in a divisive range but for some reason isn’t

And he’s not like AI (2.2 to 0.7 for career) where he can go steal hunting.

The reality was when you build a team you are going to need 4 all nba like defenders around him.

[tsherkin]

Just looking back at some of the teams he played for dude had Amare Stoudemire/Joe Johnson/Shawn Marion. That team should have won a championship.

He also had prime Dirk. Then he had Kobe/Pau/Dwight at the end of his career.


Why couldn't Steve Nash get over the hump with these talented teams?

How so? He’s the worst defensive player not close when you consider his playing time.

Amazing offensive player but when you talk about winning a championship he’s a big liability in of itself

And no you cannot just hide a player on court.

He should be in a divisive range but for some reason isn’t

And he’s not like AI (2.2 to 0.7 for career) where he can go steal hunting.

The reality was when you build a team you are going to need 4 all nba like defenders around him.

None of that is actually accurate.

[JustBuzzin]

Just looking back at some of the teams he played for dude had Amare Stoudemire/Joe Johnson/Shawn Marion. That team should have won a championship.

He also had prime Dirk. Then he had Kobe/Pau/Dwight at the end of his career.


Why couldn't Steve Nash get over the hump with these talented teams?

How so? He’s the worst defensive player not close when you consider his playing time.

Amazing offensive player but when you talk about winning a championship he’s a big liability in of itself

And no you cannot just hide a player on court.

He should be in a divisive range but for some reason isn’t

And he’s not like AI (2.2 to 0.7 for career) where he can go steal hunting.

The reality was when you build a team you are going to need 4 all nba like defenders around him.

How is a 2x MVP a liability?

[VanWest82]

Just looking back at some of the teams he played for dude had Amare Stoudemire/Joe Johnson/Shawn Marion. That team should have won a championship.

He also had prime Dirk. Then he had Kobe/Pau/Dwight at the end of his career.


Why couldn't Steve Nash get over the hump with these talented teams?

How so? He’s the worst defensive player not close when you consider his playing time.

Amazing offensive player but when you talk about winning a championship he’s a big liability in of itself

And no you cannot just hide a player on court.

He should be in a divisive range but for some reason isn’t

And he’s not like AI (2.2 to 0.7 for career) where he can go steal hunting.

The reality was when you build a team you are going to need 4 all nba like defenders around him.

None of that is actually accurate.

Especially when you consider how close he was multiple times to getting to the Finals where he would've been the overwhelming favourite, and yet he was playing mostly with average or subpar defenders outside of Marion.

[DCasey91]

Just looking back at some of the teams he played for dude had Amare Stoudemire/Joe Johnson/Shawn Marion. That team should have won a championship.

He also had prime Dirk. Then he had Kobe/Pau/Dwight at the end of his career.


Why couldn't Steve Nash get over the hump with these talented teams?

How so? He’s the worst defensive player not close when you consider his playing time.

Amazing offensive player but when you talk about winning a championship he’s a big liability in of itself

And no you cannot just hide a player on court.

He should be in a divisive range but for some reason isn’t

And he’s not like AI (2.2 to 0.7 for career) where he can go steal hunting.

The reality was when you build a team you are going to need 4 all nba like defenders around him.

None of that is actually accurate.

Oh care for your explanation?

Besides Lillard, Nash is the worst defensive player I’ve seen for a star player and it’s not close.

They really can’t even defend an average person I’m serious. They are awful.

[VanWest82]

How so? He’s the worst defensive player not close when you consider his playing time.

Amazing offensive player but when you talk about winning a championship he’s a big liability in of itself

And no you cannot just hide a player on court.

He should be in a divisive range but for some reason isn’t

And he’s not like AI (2.2 to 0.7 for career) where he can go steal hunting.

The reality was when you build a team you are going to need 4 all nba like defenders around him.

None of that is actually accurate.

Oh care for your explanation?

Besides Lillard, Nash is the worst defensive player I’ve seen for a star player and it’s not close.

They really can’t even defend an average person I’m serious. They are awful.

Yeah, this is hyperbole to a ridiculous extent. The NBA is littered with guys who either didn't try or were just too plain stupid to get defensive concepts. Nash was neither. He was at a disadvantage physically and it showed up against guys like Baron Davis and Tony Parker, but he always knew where to be and he always competed on that end. Unless you're talking about his first couple years in Phoenix in which case, yeah he was an actual bad defender. That wasn't the case in Dallas or Phoenix rd2.

[SomeBunghole]

Is that really hating that I think Nash should have a championship?

Yes it is. You're obtusely and stubbornly ignoring context and nuance and then acting like other kids on the playground are being mean just for the sake of being mean.

Steve Nash was never on a team considered title favourites going into any season. Feel free to look up the odds on basketball-reference. This should be the starting point in this discussion. You can't just throw around some players' names and say that team should've won the title like they were playing in a vacuum.

[Myth]

Bad era. He had to overlap with the end of Shaq, prime of Duncan, Kobe, start of Lebron, Wade and then his own issues with injuries. One true bad break were the suspensions in 2005.

Agreed with everything but LeBron/Wade. They never interfere with his championship chances.

[JustBuzzin]

Is that really hating that I think Nash should have a championship?

Yes it is. You're obtusely and stubbornly ignoring context and nuance and then acting like other kids on the playground are being mean just for the sake of being mean.

Steve Nash was never on a team considered title favourites going into any season. Feel free to look up the odds on basketball-reference. This should be the starting point in this discussion. You can't just throw around some players' names and say that team should've won the title like they were playing in a vacuum.

So a 2x MVP with no championships doesn't make you think why?

This is more about Nash being so great, that he doesn't have a championship. Im simply wondering why?


This is not a right or wrong topic. I simply expected Nash to win championships given his resume.

[DCasey91]

None of that is actually accurate.

Oh care for your explanation?

Besides Lillard, Nash is the worst defensive player I’ve seen for a star player and it’s not close.

They really can’t even defend an average person I’m serious. They are awful.

Yeah, this is hyperbole to a ridiculous extent. The NBA is littered with guys who either didn't try or were just too plain stupid to get defensive concepts. Nash was neither. He was at a disadvantage physically and it showed up against guys like Baron Davis and Tony Parker, but he always knew where to be and he always competed on that end. Unless you're talking about his first couple years in Phoenix in which case, yeah he was an actual bad defender. That wasn't the case in Dallas or Phoenix rd2.

No Nash was straight out a bad defender. Couldn’t keep anyone in front, not physical enough to defend individually or team help.

I don’t care for trying when you are straight up bad. Face fact

That’s a weak excuse actually frankly it’s not even excuse. Everyone competes lol

Dude was a 2x MVP he has to held a defined standard which personally he isn’t because it’s taken a back seat to his offence.

It is bad when you are playing minus 1 at the front especially in half court settings.

[tsherkin]

Besides Lillard, Nash is the worst defensive player I’ve seen for a star player and it’s not close.

Then you need to work on your evaluation skills, I suggest.


But it's more the other stuff that you said which is problematic. Discussing him as the primary liability on that team is incorrect. Defensively, that was very clearly Amare, and Nash's counterpart was not the one routinely destroying the Suns. And the idea that you need 4 All-NBA defenders around Nash to account for him is ludicrous. The Suns weren't losing because they were getting demolished from the point. And they were only a bad defense as they became a true donut team and as everyone aged. They were mildly above average a couple years, no less. A lot of that had much more to do with the lack of effective interior defense from Amare than anything to do with Nash, though. Obviously, he was not a plus defender, for sure, but you're exaggerating the impact of his defense to a comical extent.

[ChipotleWest]

Posted in wrong thread.