Steve Nash really should have won multiple championships.

[DimesandKnicks]

IMO he was a good passer but not an exceptional one. Nash was an all-time great in the likes of Bird, Magic, Jokic, Kidd and else in terms of seeing scoring opportunities for his teammates before anyone else realized that there actually was one.

No one considered Nash an all-time great passer until his second act. And in both his first and second act he played with two of the most innovative offensive minded coaches in NBA history. Marbury played with bad to mediocre coaches and still managed to dish out nearly 8 assist playing with inferior teamates relative to Nash. He even made all-NBA teams ahead of Nash despite Nash playing on 50 and 60 win teams.

There's a reason why Marbury never managed to run a better than average team offense while Nash managed to run great team offenses, proven even with other than top-notch teammates.

What's the reason in your opinion? What team did he play for that had the talent or coaching that Nash had?

Nash played for Don Nelson and Mike D'antoni; two hall of fame coaches.

He played with two franchise players (Amare, and Dirk) and played with Finley, Marion, Jamison, Josh Howard, Walker, Jamison, Diaw, Joe Johnson.

Marbury played for Frank Johnson, Byron Scott, Herb WIilliams, Don Cheaney. I don't think any of these coaches got a second HC job. He played for Larry Brown for a year but that team didn't have enough talent.

Marion and KG are the best players Marbury played with and the latter was baby. Then who: Keith Vanhorn and a young Kenyon Martin? Jamal Crawford? Zach Randolph was a 20 and 10 guy but that roster was terribly constructed. He never played on teams that were well constructed

Nash managed to run great team offenses, proven even with other than top-notch teammates. That was actually the reason for his second MVP as the Suns lost way less of a beat than expected when they had to play without their best offensive big man. If Nash was the reason for the Suns winning 62 games in 2004-05 (and he was the main reason for this as he was the guy able to run that system), he was obviously even more responsible for that than thought as he still could have his team score the most points per game with the 2nd best offensive rating even without a classic big man option in 2005-06. Who would ever had thought that the system would still work with Diaw in Stoudemire's place? Nash was a big part of making that work.

The We Believe Warriors scored the second most points in the league and beat the Mav's in his MVP season coached by the same coach who Nash was an All NBA third team player at best. Does Nash deserve credit for that second season...absolutely. But they were able to have success BECAUSE they didn't deploy a traditional big man rotation - they played small ball. They went from 4 out to 5 out. You had Diaw and Tim Thomas playing C. Both plyaers who can shoot threes. But all in all that team wasn't a legit title contender.

They it took 7 games for them to beat the pre-Gasol Lakers, and 7 games to beat the a Clippers that didn;t make the playoffs the following season and missed it the year prior and loss to the Mavs in 6.

The year Terry Porter took over....they didn't make the playoffs. When Alvin Gentry tookover, a D'antoni assistant, and they returned to that D'antoni style of play....they went to the western conference finals.

I'm not argueing that Nash isn't a great offensive player, but it clearly took a certain system for him and his teams to flourish.

Marbury was long enough in the league with enough opportunities to show something comparable.

With what team and coach comparable to the teams Nash played on? Despite this he still beat out Nash for all nba votes in a eyar where I think the Mavs won 60 games if I'm not mistaken.

While obviously very skilled he lacked the BBIQ to really run a great team offense, and when you compare the usage rates of him and Nash you see that he needed more possessions for the same output.

USG rate doesn't relfect the amount of possession or time a player has with the ball, it measures how many possession that player owns that end in a FG, TO, or FT i think.

And as I remember him I never had the feeling that he made his teammates truly thrive in the same manner as the best playmaker PGs in the history of the NBA.

and this is why you have people saying Nash is overrated. We saw har far Nash's "greatest playmaking PG in NBA history" brought Finley and Dirk. How far do you think he would have taken Keith Vanhorn and Kenyon Martin? How many assist does he average playing on a Knicks team where the paint is clogged by Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph? We saw what he did with Dirk and the other mad scientist of a headcoach.

Stats can be deceiving regarding a player's true impact for his team being able to win games. It was arguably somewhat of the same when the Kings could replace Webber as the alleged motor of the team with Brad Miller and didn't really get worse.

The King's with a healthy Webber were legitamte title contenders. The Kings with Brad Miller were not. No one looked at the King'sas legitamte contenders at that time

[Masigond]

and this is why you have people saying Nash is overrated. We saw har far Nash's "greatest playmaking PG in NBA history" brought Finley and Dirk. How far do you think he would have taken Keith Vanhorn and Kenyon Martin? How many assist does he average playing on a Knicks team where the paint is clogged by Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph? We saw what he did with Dirk and the other mad scientist of a headcoach.

I guess that he would have been fine with Van Horn and Martin. Very probably not winning championships, but better than Marbury. I'm quite sure of that. You are referring to teammates and coaches. The Suns were still quite good to great even when Stoudemire was missing.
Or Nash was still having better records with his teams when he was playing for way more mediocre coaches like Porter or Gentry than Marbury did with most of his teams over the course of his 12 years in the NBA.
He had not shown that he was able to read the game in the same manner as Nash. You mentioned Larry Brown: True, the Knicks of that era were a mess (thanks to Isiah who never understood that piling up "talent" doesn't make a good team), but that was also due to Marbury himself. A player with higher basketball IQ would arguably been able to figure out how to improve his team. Marbury was doing his usual thing and that lead to the Knicks' bad performances and ultimately him clashing with Brown. Yes, Brown was some kind of a diva, too, but he was right when he said this:
"So, you're the best guard in the league and the team is 17-45, yeah, it's the coach's fault," Brown told Sheridan. "I don't know why you play a team sport and not be concerned about making your teammates better and helping your team win games. That's the only thing that really matters, and if you're the best player, surely you're going to have some effect on the game's outcome."
https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=2369333

Nash was doing way better even when he had to deal with teammates missing due to injuries. The Suns were doing great even before Tim Thomas finally joined the team in March (when the Suns already had a record of 40-17, with James Jones often starting).
I agree that Nash was best in the D'Antoni system and that he had / would not have been as good in other systems. I even said that before myself. But he had been good enough to be an important part of other good teams. Even when the Mavs weren't using him up to his greatest strengths and making him play off-the-ball way too often for a guy of his talent as a playmaker running a team. I've seen enough of Nash finding spaces and creating scoring opportunities for even rather mediocre teammates leading to great team offenses. Marbury was much more systematical and not as good in reading the game.
He might even not have been the better scorer. As had been already shown in this discussion, Nash could score quite well. Proven against the Mavs in the 2005 playoffs when he scored 30 ppg on 55/42/96 shooting over 6 games. He also had several other series scoring 20+ ppg with good to great efficiency. How did he managed to do that? The reason is his basketball IQ and right decision making. But it was also against his instincts and he needed some time and a lot of persuasion to finally taking more shots and balancing his game better between passing and scoring himself.
Marbury could rack up stats but was not able to do it with the same efficiency. So, he was averaging 20/8 for many seasons. But for what outcome? Stats are deceiving, or do you think Mike James was more than mediocre when he was doing comparable things to Marbury when he was averaging 20/6 on surprisingly good shooting for the Raptors in 2005-06?

Coaches are a part of it, but in the end the best players figure out how to improve their team. Or they make their team build around their strengths. With Marbury you often had neither, and I think that he simply was not the player who was good enough to be the focal point of a great team. I could not care less about All-NBA nominations as an alleged proof for anything.

[SashimiLover]

Anyone winning multiple championships means someone else isn't winning. What champs should Nash's teams have been displacing?

Championships don't happen in a vacuum.

So OP, which years should he have won? How many championships exactly or is this just a vague throw it into the air. If you give us that, we can discuss something. There's usually reasons why teams that "should" win don't win.

2002 (DAL): Lost in the Western Conference Semifinals against the Kings who were clearly the better team

2003 (DAL): Lost in the Western Conference Finals against the eventual champions (Spurs) with Nowitzki being injured and missing the last 3 games of that series

2004 (DAL): After Dirk's injury Cuban messed up the team and traded for Walker and Jamison. The outcome: A more talented team on paper that did not fit that well. Lost in the first round against a better Kings team.

2005 (PHO): Made a team that missed the playoffs in the season before win 62 games. Lost against the eventual champions (Spurs) who were by no means the weaker team (higher SRS in the regular season despite winning "only" 59 games) as the Suns were playing essentially only 7 players. Nash was averaging 23 / 10.5 but the Spurs prevailed 4-1.

2006 (PHO): Lost against the Mavericks in the Western Conference Finals with Stoudemire missing almost the whole regular season and all of the playoffs due to injury. And Joe Johnson wasn't with the team anymore...

2007 (PHO): Lost against the eventual champions (Spurs) in the Western Conference Semifinals. Should they have won? The Spurs were great with their top three players in their prime (or near their prime). And there were these suspensions to Stoudemire and Diaw...

2008 (PHO): As had been said, the Suns had traded Marion for a declining and somewhat ill-fitting Shaq (who was far removed from being the volume scorer he had been several years before). First round exit against a better Spurs team.

2009 (PHO): Rebuilding year, new coaches, winning 46 wins but missing the playoffs.

2010 (PHO): A healthy season, reaching the Western Conference Finals only to lose against a better Lakers team

2011 & 2012 (PHO): Stoudemire gone (for a second-round draft pick...), and the team lacked talent to make much of a fuzz. Missed the playoffs in both years. Nash was 36 and 37 years old respectively, just to remember.

After that: Nash's body was broken down, so why even mentioning that he played with Dwight and Kobe? Actually he only managed to play 65 games over two seasons with them before retiring. Furthermore Kobe had his own injury issues in Nash's last season.

Those are facts. Not that "he played with A, B, C, so he should have won" BS without regarding the competition, opponents and circumstances.

The Western conference was ridiculously competitive in 2008 (with at least 6 teams winning no less than 50 games). Even though Lakers did clinch the No.1 seed, the Spurs and Hornets were also regarded as legit contenders by many with a few other teams whose championship chances could not be entirely ruled out.

The Spurs-Suns series actually had some of the closest games (decided only by a few points) in all first round series. Ironically, the entire series was rather lopsided and ended almost the quickest.

[IamBBAnalysis]

IMO he was a good passer but not an exceptional one. Nash was an all-time great in the likes of Bird, Magic, Jokic, Kidd and else in terms of seeing scoring opportunities for his teammates before anyone else realized that there actually was one.

No one considered Nash an all-time great passer until his second act. And in both his first and second act he played with two of the most innovative offensive minded coaches in NBA history. Marbury played with bad to mediocre coaches and still managed to dish out nearly 8 assist playing with inferior teamates relative to Nash. He even made all-NBA teams ahead of Nash despite Nash playing on 50 and 60 win teams.

There's a reason why Marbury never managed to run a better than average team offense while Nash managed to run great team offenses, proven even with other than top-notch teammates.

What's the reason in your opinion? What team did he play for that had the talent or coaching that Nash had?

Nash played for Don Nelson and Mike D'antoni; two hall of fame coaches.

He played with two franchise players (Amare, and Dirk) and played with Finley, Marion, Jamison, Josh Howard, Walker, Jamison, Diaw, Joe Johnson.

Marbury played for Frank Johnson, Byron Scott, Herb WIilliams, Don Cheaney. I don't think any of these coaches got a second HC job. He played for Larry Brown for a year but that team didn't have enough talent.

Marion and KG are the best players Marbury played with and the latter was baby. Then who: Keith Vanhorn and a young Kenyon Martin? Jamal Crawford? Zach Randolph was a 20 and 10 guy but that roster was terribly constructed. He never played on teams that were well constructed

Nash managed to run great team offenses, proven even with other than top-notch teammates. That was actually the reason for his second MVP as the Suns lost way less of a beat than expected when they had to play without their best offensive big man. If Nash was the reason for the Suns winning 62 games in 2004-05 (and he was the main reason for this as he was the guy able to run that system), he was obviously even more responsible for that than thought as he still could have his team score the most points per game with the 2nd best offensive rating even without a classic big man option in 2005-06. Who would ever had thought that the system would still work with Diaw in Stoudemire's place? Nash was a big part of making that work.

The We Believe Warriors scored the second most points in the league and beat the Mav's in his MVP season coached by the same coach who Nash was an All NBA third team player at best. Does Nash deserve credit for that second season...absolutely. But they were able to have success BECAUSE they didn't deploy a traditional big man rotation - they played small ball. They went from 4 out to 5 out. You had Diaw and Tim Thomas playing C. Both plyaers who can shoot threes. But all in all that team wasn't a legit title contender.

They it took 7 games for them to beat the pre-Gasol Lakers, and 7 games to beat the a Clippers that didn;t make the playoffs the following season and missed it the year prior and loss to the Mavs in 6.

The year Terry Porter took over....they didn't make the playoffs. When Alvin Gentry tookover, a D'antoni assistant, and they returned to that D'antoni style of play....they went to the western conference finals.

I'm not argueing that Nash isn't a great offensive player, but it clearly took a certain system for him and his teams to flourish.

Marbury was long enough in the league with enough opportunities to show something comparable.

With what team and coach comparable to the teams Nash played on? Despite this he still beat out Nash for all nba votes in a eyar where I think the Mavs won 60 games if I'm not mistaken.

While obviously very skilled he lacked the BBIQ to really run a great team offense, and when you compare the usage rates of him and Nash you see that he needed more possessions for the same output.

USG rate doesn't relfect the amount of possession or time a player has with the ball, it measures how many possession that player owns that end in a FG, TO, or FT i think.

And as I remember him I never had the feeling that he made his teammates truly thrive in the same manner as the best playmaker PGs in the history of the NBA.

and this is why you have people saying Nash is overrated. We saw har far Nash's "greatest playmaking PG in NBA history" brought Finley and Dirk. How far do you think he would have taken Keith Vanhorn and Kenyon Martin? How many assist does he average playing on a Knicks team where the paint is clogged by Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph? We saw what he did with Dirk and the other mad scientist of a headcoach.

Stats can be deceiving regarding a player's true impact for his team being able to win games. It was arguably somewhat of the same when the Kings could replace Webber as the alleged motor of the team with Brad Miller and didn't really get worse.

The King's with a healthy Webber were legitamte title contenders. The Kings with Brad Miller were not. No one looked at the King'sas legitamte contenders at that time

You don't need this long post man. Just watch the games. Nash was an all-time great passer. Not really any discussion needed. Elite vision, willingness, held the ball just long enough, hit players in the perfect spot to shoot, creativity, everything. Other guys only have some of those. But beyong that Nash also probed to draw the defense until a man was open or took the shot himself. He did that really better than anyone. Its why his teams were the best offenses of all-time before the era we are in now with the offensive explosion. Other guys like Jeremy Lin had some success too but not with the same kind kind of efficiency and explosiveness for the TEAM. D'Antonni deserves credit for bringing about the modern offensive game before its time. For sure.

[bklynspursfan]

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.

1. Tony got hurt on that same play Nash broke his nose. Freak accident

2. Nash admitted he flopped on that "hip check". If he didn't, those guys don't get up off the bench like they did. Blame Nash more than Horry/Spurs lol

Even if those guys are in, it's not like Phoenix/D'Antoni had much/any success against SA in the playoffs. They were just a bad matchup for them, and many others.

[cupcakesnake]

I can't believe there's a Marbury vs. Nash discussion going.

Marbury was an incredible talent in terms of his downhill driving and ball control. He was really hard to keep out of the paint, and had "a bag" once he got in there, both as a scorer and a passer. He was a really good athlete.

But Marbury had some really ugly warts. **** selection was a major problem. He could get into the paint like nobody's business but once he got there, he was a really poor scorer. In his prime he was pretty good (not great) from floater range, but total barf around the rim (never once in his career did he finish at least 60% of his rim attempts over a season). On top of being weak at the rim, Marbury couldn't shoot the 3. He really needed to be a step or 2 inside the line and he never improved his range. He was good (not great) at long 2s, and well below average at shooting 3s.

On offense there simply is zero comparison. Nash was better at everything, despite Marbury having the more obvious physical advantages (first step and strength). Nash is the better shooter from every spot at the floor, especially at the rim, in the paint, and from 3.

Marbury was also even worse than Nash on defense. While Nash had serious physical limitations on defense in his prime, he was generally someone who put his frail body in the correct place (led the league in charges before it was cool). Marbury was a total ham on defense in his prime. A lazy defender with no grasp of where to be, and a bad habit of gambling on steals. He would ball hawk for a few seconds sometimes, and you'd see his defensive potential in terms of quickness and good hands, but defense just wasn't something Marbury cared about or worked at enough.

I do think Marbury was very unlucky and never played on a good team (the 2003 Suns were his best team). Marbury might have looked better in a more competitive environment. But I also think he deserves a bit of a ding here, because he forced his way off Minnesota because he wanted "his own team" (it was a weird in the post-Jordan era). He could have played the whole first half of his career next to Kevin Garnett, a player who would have covered for him on defense, and given him all the space and shots he wanted on offense, but a 21-year-old Marbury just said no.

Like DimesandKnicks... you can hate on Nash, but Marbury isn't the right guy to use to diminish him. Regardless of team context, Nash was better at basketball. I'd say Marbury's first step is literally the only thing he has over Nash. Everything else is Nash "and it's not even close".

[cupcakesnake]

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.

1. Tony got hurt on that same play Nash broke his nose. Freak accident

2. Nash admitted he flopped on that "hip check". If he didn't, those guys don't get up off the bench like they did. Blame Nash more than Horry/Spurs lol

Even if those guys are in, it's not like Phoenix/D'Antoni had much/any success against SA in the playoffs. They were just a bad matchup for them, and many others.

Yeah. I'm a Nash fanboi but in my gut I don't think the Suns were getting past the Spurs even without all the shenanigans. The Spurs had a better top 3, a way better defense, and better depth. Also the refs kinda let Bowen just hip check the **** out of Nash on every possession, lol.

Take away the shenanigans, and maybe the Suns steal one of those series. But I'd consider it a steal because I do think the Spurs were clearly the better team with the favorable matchup.

I get Suns fans frustration though because it felt everything always went the Spurs way. The Suns needed the exact opposite to win those series.

[IamBBAnalysis]

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.

1. Tony got hurt on that same play Nash broke his nose. Freak accident

2. Nash admitted he flopped on that "hip check". If he didn't, those guys don't get up off the bench like they did. Blame Nash more than Horry/Spurs lol

Even if those guys are in, it's not like Phoenix/D'Antoni had much/any success against SA in the playoffs. They were just a bad matchup for them, and many others.

Yeah. I'm a Nash fanboi but in my gut I don't think the Suns were getting past the Spurs even without all the shenanigans. The Spurs had a better top 3, a way better defense, and better depth. Also the refs kinda let Bowen just hip check the **** out of Nash on every possession, lol.

Take away the shenanigans, and maybe the Suns steal one of those series. But I'd consider it a steal because I do think the Spurs were clearly the better team with the favorable matchup.

I get Suns fans frustration though because it felt everything always went the Spurs way. The Suns needed the exact opposite to win those series.

I"m a huge Nash/Suns fan. I watched all those games in the playoffs. And I agree with you. The Spurs were really the better team. Defensively. Nash had to work his *** off in that series to make things happen because of how physical they let them be. Despite that, it says something that they really did have a chance to win that series with the suspensions. It would have been close. The Suns could have won it. Nash had that "it" thing and was usually the best player on the court. And that team loved playing together. Great chemistry.

[Revived]

Small guards who don't play defense, other than Kyrie 1 time with Lebron James don't win championships.

JJ Barea won a championship against that same LeBron James you speak of.

[DimesandKnicks]

IMO he was a good passer but not an exceptional one. Nash was an all-time great in the likes of Bird, Magic, Jokic, Kidd and else in terms of seeing scoring opportunities for his teammates before anyone else realized that there actually was one.

No one considered Nash an all-time great passer until his second act. And in both his first and second act he played with two of the most innovative offensive minded coaches in NBA history. Marbury played with bad to mediocre coaches and still managed to dish out nearly 8 assist playing with inferior teamates relative to Nash. He even made all-NBA teams ahead of Nash despite Nash playing on 50 and 60 win teams.

There's a reason why Marbury never managed to run a better than average team offense while Nash managed to run great team offenses, proven even with other than top-notch teammates.

What's the reason in your opinion? What team did he play for that had the talent or coaching that Nash had?

Nash played for Don Nelson and Mike D'antoni; two hall of fame coaches.

He played with two franchise players (Amare, and Dirk) and played with Finley, Marion, Jamison, Josh Howard, Walker, Jamison, Diaw, Joe Johnson.

Marbury played for Frank Johnson, Byron Scott, Herb WIilliams, Don Cheaney. I don't think any of these coaches got a second HC job. He played for Larry Brown for a year but that team didn't have enough talent.

Marion and KG are the best players Marbury played with and the latter was baby. Then who: Keith Vanhorn and a young Kenyon Martin? Jamal Crawford? Zach Randolph was a 20 and 10 guy but that roster was terribly constructed. He never played on teams that were well constructed

Nash managed to run great team offenses, proven even with other than top-notch teammates. That was actually the reason for his second MVP as the Suns lost way less of a beat than expected when they had to play without their best offensive big man. If Nash was the reason for the Suns winning 62 games in 2004-05 (and he was the main reason for this as he was the guy able to run that system), he was obviously even more responsible for that than thought as he still could have his team score the most points per game with the 2nd best offensive rating even without a classic big man option in 2005-06. Who would ever had thought that the system would still work with Diaw in Stoudemire's place? Nash was a big part of making that work.

The We Believe Warriors scored the second most points in the league and beat the Mav's in his MVP season coached by the same coach who Nash was an All NBA third team player at best. Does Nash deserve credit for that second season...absolutely. But they were able to have success BECAUSE they didn't deploy a traditional big man rotation - they played small ball. They went from 4 out to 5 out. You had Diaw and Tim Thomas playing C. Both plyaers who can shoot threes. But all in all that team wasn't a legit title contender.

They it took 7 games for them to beat the pre-Gasol Lakers, and 7 games to beat the a Clippers that didn;t make the playoffs the following season and missed it the year prior and loss to the Mavs in 6.

The year Terry Porter took over....they didn't make the playoffs. When Alvin Gentry tookover, a D'antoni assistant, and they returned to that D'antoni style of play....they went to the western conference finals.

I'm not argueing that Nash isn't a great offensive player, but it clearly took a certain system for him and his teams to flourish.

Marbury was long enough in the league with enough opportunities to show something comparable.

With what team and coach comparable to the teams Nash played on? Despite this he still beat out Nash for all nba votes in a eyar where I think the Mavs won 60 games if I'm not mistaken.

While obviously very skilled he lacked the BBIQ to really run a great team offense, and when you compare the usage rates of him and Nash you see that he needed more possessions for the same output.

USG rate doesn't relfect the amount of possession or time a player has with the ball, it measures how many possession that player owns that end in a FG, TO, or FT i think.

And as I remember him I never had the feeling that he made his teammates truly thrive in the same manner as the best playmaker PGs in the history of the NBA.

and this is why you have people saying Nash is overrated. We saw har far Nash's "greatest playmaking PG in NBA history" brought Finley and Dirk. How far do you think he would have taken Keith Vanhorn and Kenyon Martin? How many assist does he average playing on a Knicks team where the paint is clogged by Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph? We saw what he did with Dirk and the other mad scientist of a headcoach.

Stats can be deceiving regarding a player's true impact for his team being able to win games. It was arguably somewhat of the same when the Kings could replace Webber as the alleged motor of the team with Brad Miller and didn't really get worse.

The King's with a healthy Webber were legitamte title contenders. The Kings with Brad Miller were not. No one looked at the King'sas legitamte contenders at that time

You don't need this long post man. Just watch the games. Nash was an all-time great passer. Not really any discussion needed. Elite vision, willingness, held the ball just long enough, hit players in the perfect spot to shoot, creativity, everything. Other guys only have some of those. But beyong that Nash also probed to draw the defense until a man was open or took the shot himself. He did that really better than anyone. Its why his teams were the best offenses of all-time before the era we are in now with the offensive explosion. Other guys like Jeremy Lin had some success too but not with the same kind kind of efficiency and explosiveness for the TEAM. D'Antonni deserves credit for bringing about the modern offensive game before its time. For sure.

Was he an all time great passer pre ssol?

[Kurtz]

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.

1. Tony got hurt on that same play Nash broke his nose. Freak accident

2. Nash admitted he flopped on that "hip check". If he didn't, those guys don't get up off the bench like they did. Blame Nash more than Horry/Spurs lol

Even if those guys are in, it's not like Phoenix/D'Antoni had much/any success against SA in the playoffs. They were just a bad matchup for them, and many others.

Yeah I'm not saying Parker did it intentionally, but the outcome was they couldn't stop the blood flow and couldn't get Nash back into what was a very tight game.

It didn't look like a flop on video, but either way it was a reaction to a dirty play and the fact is those guys getting suspended basically ended that series. Up until that point Phoenix had the momentum and if I remember correctly were the favourites at that point in time.

Spurs did play dirty back in the day and injured a lot of guys. Mainly through Bowen. Off course they were on the other side of the coin when Zaza intentionally injured Kawhi and derailed his career. Who knows how many more rings that could have cost the Spurs.

[IamBBAnalysis]

No one considered Nash an all-time great passer until his second act. And in both his first and second act he played with two of the most innovative offensive minded coaches in NBA history. Marbury played with bad to mediocre coaches and still managed to dish out nearly 8 assist playing with inferior teamates relative to Nash. He even made all-NBA teams ahead of Nash despite Nash playing on 50 and 60 win teams.



What's the reason in your opinion? What team did he play for that had the talent or coaching that Nash had?

Nash played for Don Nelson and Mike D'antoni; two hall of fame coaches.

He played with two franchise players (Amare, and Dirk) and played with Finley, Marion, Jamison, Josh Howard, Walker, Jamison, Diaw, Joe Johnson.

Marbury played for Frank Johnson, Byron Scott, Herb WIilliams, Don Cheaney. I don't think any of these coaches got a second HC job. He played for Larry Brown for a year but that team didn't have enough talent.

Marion and KG are the best players Marbury played with and the latter was baby. Then who: Keith Vanhorn and a young Kenyon Martin? Jamal Crawford? Zach Randolph was a 20 and 10 guy but that roster was terribly constructed. He never played on teams that were well constructed



The We Believe Warriors scored the second most points in the league and beat the Mav's in his MVP season coached by the same coach who Nash was an All NBA third team player at best. Does Nash deserve credit for that second season...absolutely. But they were able to have success BECAUSE they didn't deploy a traditional big man rotation - they played small ball. They went from 4 out to 5 out. You had Diaw and Tim Thomas playing C. Both plyaers who can shoot threes. But all in all that team wasn't a legit title contender.

They it took 7 games for them to beat the pre-Gasol Lakers, and 7 games to beat the a Clippers that didn;t make the playoffs the following season and missed it the year prior and loss to the Mavs in 6.

The year Terry Porter took over....they didn't make the playoffs. When Alvin Gentry tookover, a D'antoni assistant, and they returned to that D'antoni style of play....they went to the western conference finals.

I'm not argueing that Nash isn't a great offensive player, but it clearly took a certain system for him and his teams to flourish.



With what team and coach comparable to the teams Nash played on? Despite this he still beat out Nash for all nba votes in a eyar where I think the Mavs won 60 games if I'm not mistaken.



USG rate doesn't relfect the amount of possession or time a player has with the ball, it measures how many possession that player owns that end in a FG, TO, or FT i think.



and this is why you have people saying Nash is overrated. We saw har far Nash's "greatest playmaking PG in NBA history" brought Finley and Dirk. How far do you think he would have taken Keith Vanhorn and Kenyon Martin? How many assist does he average playing on a Knicks team where the paint is clogged by Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph? We saw what he did with Dirk and the other mad scientist of a headcoach.



The King's with a healthy Webber were legitamte title contenders. The Kings with Brad Miller were not. No one looked at the King'sas legitamte contenders at that time

You don't need this long post man. Just watch the games. Nash was an all-time great passer. Not really any discussion needed. Elite vision, willingness, held the ball just long enough, hit players in the perfect spot to shoot, creativity, everything. Other guys only have some of those. But beyong that Nash also probed to draw the defense until a man was open or took the shot himself. He did that really better than anyone. Its why his teams were the best offenses of all-time before the era we are in now with the offensive explosion. Other guys like Jeremy Lin had some success too but not with the same kind kind of efficiency and explosiveness for the TEAM. D'Antonni deserves credit for bringing about the modern offensive game before its time. For sure.

Was he an all time great passer pre ssol?

Yes, he just didn't handle the ball all the time. You know he won those all-star pg skill challenges in the all-star games too? His precision in the passing part was way better than the other elite point guards.

[IamBBAnalysis]

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.

1. Tony got hurt on that same play Nash broke his nose. Freak accident

2. Nash admitted he flopped on that "hip check". If he didn't, those guys don't get up off the bench like they did. Blame Nash more than Horry/Spurs lol

Even if those guys are in, it's not like Phoenix/D'Antoni had much/any success against SA in the playoffs. They were just a bad matchup for them, and many others.

Yeah I'm not saying Parker did it intentionally, but the outcome was they couldn't stop the blood flow and couldn't get Nash back into what was a very tight game.

It didn't look like a flop on video, but either way it was a reaction to a dirty play and the fact is those guys getting suspended basically ended that series. Up until that point Phoenix had the momentum and if I remember correctly were the favourites at that point in time.

Spurs did play dirty back in the day and injured a lot of guys. Mainly through Bowen. Off course they were on the other side of the coin when Zaza intentionally injured Kawhi and derailed his career. Who knows how many more rings that could have cost the Spurs.

It was a bad hip check by Horry. What Nash was saying he "flopped", as in he sold it more. Not really a flop when you actually were fouled hard.

[Optms]

If people remember, the 2007 Spurs have one of the biggest title asterisks.

The league suspended Amare during the series and screwed the Suns that year vs the Spurs. Duncan could never contain Amare: check the numbers. The Phoenix Suns were a lock that year if it wasn't for the league stepping in. To the people that say Steve Nash is one of the most overrated players of all time, I'll go one further, Tim Duncan and the Spurs are the most overrated "dynasty" of all time.

[DimesandKnicks]

You are referring to teammates and coaches. The Suns were still quite good to great even when Stoudemire was missing.
Or Nash was still having better records with his teams when he was playing for way more mediocre coaches like Porter or Gentry than Marbury did with most of his teams over the course of his 12 years in the NBA.

They didn’t make the playoffs with Porter, once they stopped running the SSOL system. When Gentry took over and implemented the old system there team offense exploded immediately and they likely would have made the playoffs if Amare didn’t get poked in the eye. In SSOL system Nash was a HOF all time passer running the offense on legit championship contenders. Without it he was a third team All NBA guy in Dallas and didn’t make the Playoffs in Phoenix. Where is the lie?

He had not shown that he was able to read the game in the same manner as Nash. You mentioned Larry Brown: True, the Knicks of that era were a mess (thanks to Isiah who never understood that piling up "talent" doesn't make a good team), but that was also due to Marbury himself. A player with higher basketball IQ would arguably been able to figure out how to improve his team. Marbury was doing his usual thing and that lead to the Knicks' bad performances and ultimately him clashing with Brown. Yes, Brown was some kind of a diva, too, but he was right when he said this:

Nash on the Mavs at best was third team all nba, Nash independent of the SSOL system was a non allstar that didn’t make the playoffs. Do you think he’d be a HOF if instead of playing with the Mavs and Suns he played on the Nets and Knicks?

Even when the Mavs weren't using him up to his greatest strengths and making him play off-the-ball way too often for a guy of his talent as a playmaker running a team.

Will get back to this..cuz you contradicted yourself later in this post.

As had been already shown in this discussion, Nash could score quite well. Proven against the Mavs in the 2005 playoffs when he scored 30 ppg on 55/42/96 shooting over 6 games. He also had several other series scoring 20+ ppg with good to great efficiency. How did he managed to do that? The reason is his basketball IQ and right decision making. But it was also against his instincts and he needed some time and a lot of persuasion to finally taking more shots and balancing his game better between passing and scoring himself.

Nash is a spectacular offensive player, but you’re right…stats don’t tell the whole story. One of the reason the Suns didn’t win a championship is because they were predictable. They just spanned pick and rolls enabling Nash to decide whether to hit Amare or a shooter. Nash’s scoring numbers increased in the playoffs because teams decided to let him have at it. Two points is less then three. Opposing defenses opt to defend the three empower Nash to score more.

Marbury could rack up stats but was not able to do it with the same efficiency. So, he was averaging 20/8 for many seasons. But for what outcome? Stats are deceiving, or do you think Mike James was more than mediocre when he was doing comparable things to Marbury when he was averaging 20/6 on surprisingly good shooting for the Raptors in 2005-06?

You aren’t going to be as efficient when your rosters are lacking.

[b]Coaches are a part of it, but in the end the best players figure out how to improve their team. Or they make their team build around their strengths

. With Marbury you often had neither, and I think that he simply was not the player who was good enough to be the focal point of a great team. I could not care less about All-NBA nominations as an alleged proof for anything.[/quote]

But you said the Mav’s weren’t using him to the best of his strength. Can we agree that Marbury never played on rosters talented enough to be legitimate contenders?

[Masigond]

...

I'm getting a bit annoyed by your mixing up of arguments, blatant exaggerations, your ignorance of circumstances and suggestive questions. What are we talking about? It has been said that Nash could run great offenses.

Yes, the Suns missed the playoffs in 2008-09, when they traded for Shaq who was an ill-fitting piece for that team that was in quite a turmoil with players not being happy with the change of style, leading to a mid-season trade (Diaw and Bell for Dudley and Richardson), and they also had to deal with injury problems again (Stoudemire missing 29 games). Do you realize that despite that they still won 46 games which would have been enough to reach the playoffs in most other seasons which is another sign how competitive the Western Conference was during Nash's prime?

Your claim is that without the success Nash might not be an HoFer or no more than All-NBA Third Team. Quite a straw man argument as noone else has talked about that. The claim is that Nash was an all-time great passer / playmaker / creator of easy scoring opportunities and that he made his teammates better. One down season that would normally would still have been participating in the playoffs does change that how? Mind that Nash still averaged almost 10 apg in this system nevertheless and that they still had the second-best offensive rating of all teams that season. Their biggest problem was that they sucked on defense. Hardly Nash's fault as PGs are the least effective players for a team's overall defense in most cases. The Nash-led Suns of 08-09 were still great offensively. Even without SSOL. Nash did his job, and he made that offense way more than that offense made him.

As had been said: Just watch some games or at least an analysis like this video:

Watch on YouTube

. If you don't see Nash's superior reading of the game and the quality of him creating scoring opportunities (and don't let yourself be too much distracted from his helter-skelter style. It's weird but highly effective as his opponents were distracted as well, never knowing what he would do. Which made defending a team run by him so hard and what made scoring often easy for his teammates. They just had to move and position themselves), never mind. Then trying to argue with you seems to be to no avail.

Marbury was putting up good totals and per game stats, but he lacked efficiency. And he had not really proven that he could make his teammates much better. There's some evidence to that: 12 years without ever running a more than mediocre team offense. You will again point to his teammates but as already answered to that: Nash did not have all-time greats all the time around him due to injuries and lack of depth due to team management, and nevertheless the Suns were scoring like crazy with great efficiency. For years and years. I don't care about awards. I've seen him play for many teams that had exceptionally great offenses, and that led to respectable team success. Only thing missing is winning championships but that has also been explained: There were some other even better teams around that Nash's team were running into for years.

[schnakenpopanz]

Steve Nash was the best offensive orchestrator ever.
Scrubs could shine alongside him.
He changed basketball so that the Currys and Thompsons could win.

[Tottery]

Well, the answer is pretty simple. The Spurs. Spurs knocked the Suns out a couple of times when the Suns were among favorites to win. The Spurs slowed the game down, played dirty, and won. Heck, if you were to believe Tim Donaghy, some of those games were rigged by another ref.

The Mavs weren't good enough and Nash was old with a busted back in L.A.

I don't know why people try to discredit Nash. He was really good, but no one is comparing him to MJ or James. He's one of the greatest shooters of all time with the most 50/40/90 seasons. During the playoffs his numbers would go up, but his shooting percentages were still great. He's 2nd all time in FT percentage as well. There is no denying his shooting skills.

His ability to create shots for his teammates was top tier as well as his passing. His glaring weakness was defense.

[DimesandKnicks]

I'm getting a bit annoyed by your mixing up of arguments, blatant exaggerations, your ignorance of circumstances and suggestive questions. What are we talking about? It has been said that Nash could run great offenses.

Yes, the Suns missed the playoffs in 2008-09, when they traded for Shaq who was an ill-fitting piece for that team that was in quite a turmoil with players not being happy with the change of style, leading to a mid-season trade (Diaw and Bell for Dudley and Richardson), and they also had to deal with injury problems again (Stoudemire missing 29 games). Do you realize that despite that they still won 46 games which would have been enough to reach the playoffs in most other seasons which is another sign how competitive the Western Conference was during Nash's prime?

Two games more than Marbury won with two rookies and Shawn Marion.

Your claim is that without the success Nash might not be an HoFer or no more than All-NBA Third Team. Quite a straw man argument as noone else has talked about that. The claim is that Nash was an all-time great passer / playmaker / creator of easy scoring opportunities and that he made his teammates better

.

If that’s how you feel fine. You can’t take away what he did in PHX. I just asked if you think he was an all time passer when he was with the Mavs?

One down season that would normally would still have been participating in the playoffs does change that how? Mind that Nash still averaged almost 10 apg in this system nevertheless and that they still had the second-best offensive rating of all teams that season. Their biggest problem was that they sucked on defense. Hardly Nash's fault as PGs are the least effective players for a team's overall defense in most cases. The Nash-led Suns of 08-09 were still great offensively. Even without SSOL. Nash did his job, and he made that offense way more than that offense made him.

Ignorance of circumstance. That team played 50 something games with Porter and 31 games with Gentry who resestablished the run and gun style.

Literally immediately after firing porter and returning to running and gunning they had 3 straight 140 point games.

With Porter Nash averaged:

13.8 points, 3.8 TO, 9.8 assists, 41 percent from three, and 46 percent from FG. This is with Amare

Not bad numbers at all but José Calderon had almost identical numbers that same season.

With Gentry he averaged

18.7 points 2.6 TO, 9.6, 47 percent from 3 and nearly 55 percent from the field

This is without Amare

Under porter they averaged about 103 points per page. That team averaged 115 points per page, again this is without Amare. So Nash wasn’t leading a top five offense when under Porter. Under D’antoni’s assistant he did.

As had been said: Just watch some games or at least an analysis like this video:

I was fully immersed in basketball at this time. You get no argument for me that Nash was an incredible HOF level pg in PHX, but it took that system for that to be the case and other PGs could have benefitted from that system as well or done even better. Thats my only argument.

Marbury was putting up good totals and per game stats, but he lacked efficiency. And he had not really proven that he could make his teammates much better. There's some evidence to that: 12 years without ever running a more than mediocre team offense.

His second year in the league the Wolves they averaged the second most ppg in the league. Outside of that…what teams did Marbury play on that could have been a top 5 offense?

You will again point to his teammates but as already answered to that: Nash did not have all-time greats all the time around him due to injuries and lack of depth due to team management, and nevertheless the Suns were scoring like crazy with great efficiency.

You think that’s because he’s Steve Nash, I think it’s because he played for two of the most innovative offensive head coaches of our time and in Phoenix he played for one of their disciples. When he played with Don Nelson he was all nba third team at best. That 50 plus games without one of those two he was not running a top 5 offense.

Ironically, the Knicks scored the 4th most points that same season with Chris Duhon running point.

For years and years. I don't care about awards. I've seen him play for many teams that had exceptionally great offenses, and that led to respectable team success. Only thing missing is winning championships but that has also been explained: There were some other even better teams around that Nash's team were running into for years.

I’ve seen him play too. The reason his teams didn’t win championships is because they couldn’t play defense.

[DimesandKnicks]

You don't need this long post man. Just watch the games. Nash was an all-time great passer. Not really any discussion needed. Elite vision, willingness, held the ball just long enough, hit players in the perfect spot to shoot, creativity, everything. Other guys only have some of those. But beyong that Nash also probed to draw the defense until a man was open or took the shot himself. He did that really better than anyone. Its why his teams were the best offenses of all-time before the era we are in now with the offensive explosion. Other guys like Jeremy Lin had some success too but not with the same kind kind of efficiency and explosiveness for the TEAM. D'Antonni deserves credit for bringing about the modern offensive game before its time. For sure.

Was he an all time great passer pre ssol?

Yes, he just didn't handle the ball all the time. You know he won those all-star pg skill challenges in the all-star games too? His precision in the passing part was way better than the other elite point guards.

Great passer sure. All time great passer; I disagree