Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[Doctor MJ]

Doc,

Those comments are being taken out of the context of the discussion I was having with Baller where all his arguments were narrative based and so i was painting a different narrative for him. If you go back to the beginning of the exchange I offered to help him see where pro-Stockton guys were coming from after he accused them of dodging specific arguments he was making. He made no real arguments other than narrative so I tried to make his narrative more accurate in regards to what actually happened in Dallas because he had so many details wrong and had a very strange interpretation of why they won.

I agree those comments you quote are intellectually lacking and thats my mistake. Please don't take those comments as anything other than me getting caught up into a stupid narrative based argument and me getting tired of hearing how everything Nash is amazing and everything Kidd is trash. I admit Im a passionate basketball fan and get caught up in the moment from time to time.

Also, I still disagree with the idea that Kidd can only have a transformative impact by making team's offense great. It's just a perplexing argument that ignores all the other aspects of his game that imo at least have signficance. That seems as flawed to me as my comments to do you.

Okay I appreciate the polite response, and I get how tough it is to respond to poster X succinctly after multiple iterations without leaving yourself open to looking silly to poster Y. I don't regret pointing out the silliness of your specific words, but I should have had more faith that that didn't represent you foundational thinking, and I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions.

Re: disagree about transformative impact on offense vs defense.

Using the RAPM analysis I've done, here's what we see about Kidd:
Best Defensive Year: 3.58
Average of Top 5 Years: 3.25

Best Offensive Year: 5.31
Average of Top 5 Years: 4.71

The evidence thus suggest that Kidd's more important on offense than on defense.

I realize that's just one bit of data here, but the whole reason I say what I do so strongly is that this is what all point guard data going back 15 years says about their impact:

Point guards are never anything close to legit DPOY candidates.
If a point guard's defense is better than his offense, it simply means he's a mediocre offensive player.

None of this means of course that defense can't sway the comparison in the favor of the more 2-way player, but when you see a point guard arrive on a team and the defense jumps like crazy, you can take it as a given that most of that is not due to what that point guard is doing on the court as a player.

So then, if Kidd is to be given bulk credit for New Jersey's epic improvement, we're talking fundamentally about him doing intangible stuff off the court. That stuff counts too so I don't mean to disparage it, but I think most would agree that we need to be careful going too far attributing all good off court vibes to one player.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't regret pointing out the silliness of your specific words, but I should have had more faith that that didn't represent you foundational thinking, and I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions.

Spoiler:

Re: disagree about transformative impact on offense vs defense.

Using the RAPM analysis I've done, here's what we see about Kidd:
Best Defensive Year: 3.58
Average of Top 5 Years: 3.25

Best Offensive Year: 5.31
Average of Top 5 Years: 4.71

The evidence thus suggest that Kidd's more important on offense than on defense.

I realize that's just one bit of data here, but the whole reason I say what I do so strongly is that this is what all point guard data going back 15 years says about their impact:

Point guards are never anything close to legit DPOY candidates.
If a point guard's defense is better than his offense, it simply means he's a mediocre offensive player.

None of this means of course that defense can't sway the comparison in the favor of the more 2-way player, but when you see a point guard arrive on a team and the defense jumps like crazy, you can take it as a given that most of that is not due to what that point guard is doing on the court as a player.

So then, if Kidd is to be given bulk credit for New Jersey's epic improvement, we're talking fundamentally about him doing intangible stuff off the court. That stuff counts too so I don't mean to disparage it, but I think most would agree that we need to be careful going too far attributing all good off court vibes to one player.

Your comments re my post were totally fine btw, but thanks.

I know where you are coming from re: PG offense and Kidd specifically--to a degree. I agree with much of it and acknowledge freely that where I disagree, I don't have a clear and concise counter-argument to it.

I guess for me it just boils down to some players just have, for lack of a better word, it. They just make teams better. It's not always easy to define, or boil down statistically, but that they just are really good at winning team basketball. Kidd is one of those guys for me. I can't tell you exactly why he's great(I can point out things he's great at, but that's incomplete really imo), but I feel confident in saying he is. There are other players like this for me. It's part of why I refuse to go allow with the near consensus that Russell would be merely a good player in this era. It's why I defend guys like Rondo, Marion, Rodman, Deke, even Robert Horry whom I think would be more respected on RealGM ironically enough if he didnt have quite so many rings, etc.

[Baller2014]

It doesn't seem you can be reasoned with on this subject. Your entire point is predicated on lack of team success for Stockton, when posters have repeatedly shown his team success was greater than Nash's.

Let me explain why career win % is a bad measure. A guy can be in lots of different roles and situations through his career. For instance, some years a guy like Nash or Kobe might have been a back-up, other years that guy might have been a star, and other years he might have been injured and old (like on the Lakers the last 2 years). I see no reason we should be "counting" years when a guy is not yet in his prime, or when he is past his prime. If you want to do a serious comparison between their primes, I'm all for it, but "hey, look at his career win %" is not a nuanced analysis. I remember providing that nuanced analysis several pages earlier. In it I noted that Stockton first started playing starter minutes in late 1987 at age 25. From 87-94 the Jazz averaged 50 wins a season. And Stockton was the Robin for this team. I also explained how Don Nelson totally misused Dirk and Nash (and the whole team), something the numbers clearly back up. Nash and Dirk both did much better once Nellieball was gone (though the Mavs, despite various upgrades, were actually worse without Nash, up until Nelson was fired, and they went 16-2 to close the season). This shouldn't be controversial... I mean, the man was starting Antoine Walker at the 5 spot. So a comparison of Nash being used properly v.s Stockton being used properly, while both are in their primes, is a totally fair one to make, and I'll be happy to make it here (I'll even use the blunt instrument that is win %).

From 05-10 Nash's teams won an average of 55.33 games. Stockton's teams from 1988 through to the end of his prime in 97 won an average of 54.1 games. So Nash wins that comparison. Of course, once we look deeper it gets worse and worse for Stockton, because:
1) Nash was clearly the best player in his team (evidenced by the win-loss record without Nash over that period, as well as the seeming irrelevance of Amare/Marion when they left the team at different points), and
2) We're including the year Terry Porter screwed up the offence and ran it around Shaq instead of Nash (resulting in an outlier of 46 wins only).
Now if you want to claim Sloan, Stockton's only coach effectively, was misusing him, then you are welcome to advance that claim. I don't think it's reasonable, but it would at least be an argument.

Now of course, Stockton has 10 years to Nash's 6, but the level Nash played at in the 2 years after 2010 was no really any worse than he was in 2010. The only difference, and the reason I've excluded those years, is because he had a horrible support cast (no Amare, no Marion, no nothing). But he still led that horrible support cast to a better than 500. ball record in the games he played. And from 01-04 Nash was still an all-nba player. So Stockton doesn't really have a longevity advantage at all. He had 5 sub-prime years afterwards to tack onto his 10 prime ones, some quite a lot worse, but given how superior Nash's peak was it's hard to see how it matters.

You bring up a number of embarrassing playoff losses but ignore my earlier posts showing how Stockton was not to blame and played extremely well in those series.

I fully addressed this in my reply post. You were the one who ignored my reply. To summarise "if the Heatles posted great individual stats but lost in round 1, we would not be giving them a pass, rather we'd be asking why those big individual stats didn't translate into wins". As I keep telling you, stats are not the same as actual impact.

You repeatedly bring up Malone and his Jazz teammates while not recognizing that A) Hornacek joined the Jazz when he was past his prime, and that was enough to push the Jazz to the Finals

Except, as I broke down in my previous reply (which you ignored) the Jazz had plenty of good team mates prior to Horney arriving. Plenty. They also shouldn't have needed more than nbdl scrubs to get them out of the first round given they had Karl Malone and Stockton leading them (if Stockton is comparable to an MVP player like Nash anyway). Names you have ignored include DPOY Mark Eaton, all-star Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey (closer to an all-star than a role player), still prime Kelly Tripucka (a faux all-star, but an all-star nonetheless), etc. I mean, how much help should two MVP type players NEED to get out of the first round? Especially when one is a top 15 all-time type player like Malone.

[G35]

It doesn't seem you can be reasoned with on this subject. Your entire point is predicated on lack of team success for Stockton, when posters have repeatedly shown his team success was greater than Nash's.

Let me explain why career win % is a bad measure. A guy can be in lots of different roles and situations through his career. For instance, some years a guy like Nash or Kobe might have been a back-up, other years that guy might have been a star, and other years he might have been injured and old (like on the Lakers the last 2 years). I see no reason we should be "counting" years when a guy is not yet in his prime, or when he is past his prime. If you want to do a serious comparison between their primes, I'm all for it, but "hey, look at his career win %" is not a nuanced analysis. I remember providing that nuanced analysis several pages earlier. In it I noted that Stockton first started playing starter minutes in late 1987 at age 25. From 87-94 the Jazz averaged 50 wins a season. And Stockton was the Robin for this team. I also explained how Don Nelson totally misused Dirk and Nash (and the whole team), something the numbers clearly back up. Nash and Dirk both did much better once Nellieball was gone (though the Mavs, despite various upgrades, were actually worse without Nash, up until Nelson was fired, and they went 16-2 to close the season). This shouldn't be controversial... I mean, the man was starting Antoine Walker at the 5 spot. So a comparison of Nash being used properly v.s Stockton being used properly, while both are in their primes, is a totally fair one to make, and I'll be happy to make it here (I'll even use the blunt instrument that is win %).

From 05-10 Nash's teams won an average of 55.33 games. Stockton's teams from 1988 through to the end of his prime in 97 won an average of 54.1 games. So Nash wins that comparison. Of course, once we look deeper it gets worse and worse for Stockton, because:
1) Nash was clearly the best player in his team (evidenced by the win-loss record without Nash over that period, as well as the seeming irrelevance of Amare/Marion when they left the team at different points), and
2) We're including the year Terry Porter screwed up the offence and ran it around Shaq instead of Nash (resulting in an outlier of 46 wins only).
Now if you want to claim Sloan, Stockton's only coach effectively, was misusing him, then you are welcome to advance that claim. I don't think it's reasonable, but it would at least be an argument.

Now of course, Stockton has 10 years to Nash's 6, but the level Nash played at in the 2 years after 2010 was no really any worse than he was in 2010. The only difference, and the reason I've excluded those years, is because he had a horrible support cast (no Amare, no Marion, no nothing). But he still led that horrible support cast to a better than 500. ball record in the games he played. And from 01-04 Nash was still an all-nba player. So Stockton doesn't really have a longevity advantage at all. He had 5 sub-prime years afterwards to tack onto his 10 prime ones, some quite a lot worse, but given how superior Nash's peak was it's hard to see how it matters.

You bring up a number of embarrassing playoff losses but ignore my earlier posts showing how Stockton was not to blame and played extremely well in those series.

I fully addressed this in my reply post. You were the one who ignored my reply. To summarise "if the Heatles posted great individual stats but lost in round 1, we would not be giving them a pass, rather we'd be asking why those big individual stats didn't translate into wins". As I keep telling you, stats are not the same as actual impact.

You repeatedly bring up Malone and his Jazz teammates while not recognizing that A) Hornacek joined the Jazz when he was past his prime, and that was enough to push the Jazz to the Finals

Except, as I broke down in my previous reply (which you ignored) the Jazz had plenty of good team mates prior to Horney arriving. Plenty. They also shouldn't have needed more than nbdl scrubs to get them out of the first round given they had Karl Malone and Stockton leading them (if Stockton is comparable to an MVP player like Nash anyway). Names you have ignored include DPOY Mark Eaton, all-star Jeff Malone, Thurl Bailey (closer to an all-star than a role player), still prime Kelly Tripucka (a faux all-star, but an all-star nonetheless), etc. I mean, how much help should two MVP type players NEED to get out of the first round? Especially when one is a top 15 all-time type player like Malone.

Debating with you is a fools errand because you read only what you want to read, you hear what you want to hear, you change goal posts to fit your narrative, and you cherry pick the hell out of stats to make your argument.

Nash's years when he wasn't in his prime lol, really. Nash didn't start for two years with PHX and then was traded to DAL...what top 20-25 player starts their career like that? I can't think of any. Even going to Dallas he had to compete with Hubert Davis and Robert Pack as the starter. Nash's ability doesn't pop out at you as a game changer. He was labeled as a great shooter but that didn't become apparent until he went back to Phoenix. Nash was never seen as a franchise player, Dirk was clearly the best player and Finley was arguably the 2nd best player. It's funny how players failures are blamed on the coach. Except in Nash's case I think he has been LUCKY to play with the coach's he had; Nash wouldn't work with Phil Jackson who preferred bigger guards who can defend, Nash wouldn't work with Jerry Sloan who prefers...a more physical type player, same thing with Pat Riley who emphasized defense. Nash is lucky he played with offensive minded coach's, Nelson played to Nash's strengths actually. It just wasn't conducive to winning a championship....which is is similar to what Mike D'Antoni did with Nash. It's curious how NO ONE ever says Mike D ever misused Nash but he he can't coach anywhere else, wonder why?

You cherry picking Nash from 2005-2010 as his prime is as funny when people say Hakeem's prime is from 1994-95. But it's hard to pinpoint Nash's prime because he was spotty in Dallas and even in your selected 2005-10 the Suns failed to make the playoff's....why?....once again the blame is on the coaching. Nash has had some terrible coach's, which is a legit excuse for his teams underachieving but Nash looks good...../green font/

Then for some inexplicable reason you only pick Stockton's years from 87-94.....clearly avoiding the years when the Jazz finally acquired someone in the form of Hornacek to help Stockton/Malone. That is as obvious an agenda as it gets. In the four full seasons with Hornacek the Jazz averaged 60.25 wins which is clearly dominant and shows that if the Jazz had done something earlier in Stockton/Malone's prime they could have done much more in the playoff's. I think it's clear that a 3rd/4th player is huge at taking defensive pressure off stars, you can clearly see that with OKC and Miami, you have to have good role players.

Now you rant about how much help does an MVP player need and I think you should be asking Nash that question. Who is the only MVP to not lead his team to the finals? That would be Nash. Even Durant has participated in the finals. Nash had a lot of help, Amare/Marion are two All NBA level players...MVP contending players....and he couldn't get to the finals. Nash even had Boris Diaw.....now this is something I always thought but I think Nash's 2006 MVP narrative is so overrated. That he somehow led a bunch of scrubs to 54 wins in 2006 when that is further from the truth. Marion has a greater PER that year than Nash did. Marion had more wins shares (14.6 to 12.4) than Nash and the gap on offense was not even that big. I actually believe that if Marion had gone down that season instead of Amare that team would have done worse because Marion was the defensive anchor on that team. Furthermore, I know everyone just saw how good Boris Diaw played yesterday creating offense, and leading the Spurs in scoring. That is what Boris did for the Suns that year; Diaw was second on the team in assists handing out over six assists a game, 6.9 reb's and 13 ppg. That is a huge role player for that team. Nash was not the only one creating and as we see Nash did not make those players good, they were talented as well. But people get Nash-glare in their eyes and can't see anything else going on the court.

When an MVP has two other All NBA players, 6MOY (Barbosa), 1st team all defensive player (Raja Bell) on his team at the same time in a 3-5 year period, those Suns teams underachieved.....

[NaturalBuns]

Nash
Stockton
Kidd

people can break down stats in numerous ways to argue the point.
Most people are arguing what did Nash do in playoffs?
well Stockton played in the MJ era but he was in the opposite conference.
Nash played in the Kobe/Phil & Duncan era and they happened to be in the same conference.

People will say Stockton had more APG that is more teammate based the "assist" stat to some degree.
Lets not act like he didn't have Malone. I think Nash utilized everyone better from the other 4 positions.
Nash and Amare at peaks were probably at that level but Amare had a career plagued by injury's.

Kidd has got to be the most overall player off them all but I don't want to call him a stat padder but alot of his stats was kinda just empty stats at times

[Baller2014]

Debating with you is a fools errand because you read only what you want to read, you hear what you want to hear, you change goal posts to fit your narrative, and you cherry pick the hell out of stats to make your argument.

You haven't been debating at all. You just ignore my posts. Like the time you claimed Marion was more impactful than Nash, I pointed to the mountain of evidence that showed this was clearly untrue, and you didn't reply.

Nash's years when he wasn't in his prime lol, really. Nash didn't start for two years with PHX and then was traded to DAL...what top 20-25 player starts their career like that?

Kobe was drafted 13th (2 spots higher than Nash in the same draft) and did not start his first 2 years. Kobe was traded before Nash was, on draft day, and if the right offer had come up (or if the team had misused him as they did Nash) maybe he would have been traded again. At least Nash had the excuse that he had to back up Jason Kidd (and Kevin Johnson), when only one guy can start at the point guard position. Moses Malone was not even drafted, and played for 4 teams in his first 4 years (7 teams in all owned his rights during that period). Marc Gasol was drafted in the 2nd round. Dennis Rodman was drafted in the 2nd round. Billups bounced around the NBA until he found a home. Heaps of young players were benched to start their career, and became stars later. You can't refute his actual career play based on a generality about how it started, even if no player had ever done what he did before.

I can't think of any. Even going to Dallas he had to compete with Hubert Davis and Robert Pack as the starter. Nash's ability doesn't pop out at you as a game changer. He was labeled as a great shooter but that didn't become apparent until he went back to Phoenix. Nash was never seen as a franchise player, Dirk was clearly the best player and Finley was arguably the 2nd best player. It's funny how players failures are blamed on the coach. Except in Nash's case I think he has been LUCKY to play with the coach's he had; Nash wouldn't work with Phil Jackson who preferred bigger guards who can defend, Nash wouldn't work with Jerry Sloan who prefers...a more physical type player, same thing with Pat Riley who emphasized defense. Nash is lucky he played with offensive minded coach's, Nelson played to Nash's strengths actually. It just wasn't conducive to winning a championship....which is is similar to what Mike D'Antoni did with Nash. It's curious how NO ONE ever says Mike D ever misused Nash but he he can't coach anywhere else, wonder why?

Nash was an all-nba player in Dallas, and when he finally escaped Nellie ball he became an MVP type player. Dirk likewise improved, as did his whole team. To claim Nash's style wasn't conducive to winning a title is silly. Why? Because they didn't win one? Obviously if the Spurs weren't there the Suns win the title in 07 at least, and maybe 05 and 06 (if Amare was healthy). The Jazz never won a title either, but nobody is using that as the basis to claim their style "couldn't work", because it's absurd.

You cherry picking Nash from 2005-2010 as his prime is as funny when people say Hakeem's prime is from 1994-95. But it's hard to pinpoint Nash's prime because he was spotty in Dallas and even in your selected 2005-10 the Suns failed to make the playoff's....why?....once again the blame is on the coaching. Nash has had some terrible coach's, which is a legit excuse for his teams underachieving but Nash looks good...../green font/

Nash became Nash, the MVP candidate, in 2005. Prior to that he was merely an all-nba player from 01-04. That prime basically continued to 2012, but given he had zero talent next to him in 11-12 it's a bit silly to include those 2 years when we look at team success. I explained Terry Porter, it's not complicated. You choose to ignore it.

Then for some inexplicable reason you only pick Stockton's years from 87-94.....clearly avoiding the years when the Jazz finally acquired someone in the form of Hornacek to help Stockton/Malone. That is as obvious an agenda as it gets. In the four full seasons with Hornacek the Jazz averaged 60.25 wins which is clearly dominant and shows that if the Jazz had done something earlier in Stockton/Malone's prime they could have done much more in the playoff's. I think it's clear that a 3rd/4th player is huge at taking defensive pressure off stars, you can clearly see that with OKC and Miami, you have to have good role players.

Not at all. I compared Stockton's team win % from 88-97 (his full prime), even though I think "win %" is a bad measure (especially when Stockton is the Robin of his team, and Nash is not), but Nash won that comparison too. I merely pointed out that prior to 95, the year Stockton fans like to begin with, Stockton's teams had been decidedly underachieving. A team with 2 supposed MVP candidates shouldn't need an all-star 3rd wheel to win 60 games. And if that was all they did need, then it begs the question of why they didn't do that with all-stars Jeff Malone, Kelly Tripucka or Mark Eaton. I put less of the credit for that with Stockton, and more to Karl Malone and Hornacek (who was frankly more like an all-nba player than an all-star). If Stockton was so vital to this improvement we wouldn't have seen the team barely miss a beat when he was hurt in 98 and played 36% less minutes that year.

Now you rant about how much help does an MVP player need and I think you should be asking Nash that question. Who is the only MVP to not lead his team to the finals? That would be Nash. Even Durant has participated in the finals.

How many times does this need to be explained? It's a meaningless and arbitrary benchmark. You might as well ask how many MVP's were left handers who used to play soccer. It proves nothing. Making a finals is situational, and Nash's situation did not allow him to make the finals because better teams existed. Oscar Robertson was an MVP, but he would never have made the finals at all if he hadn't jumped on Kareem's coattails at age 32. Would that mean if Oscar had stayed with the Royals he'd have been a worse player? Don't be silly.

Nash's 2006 teams had some good players... who were all asked to play out of position. The team was widely predicted to collapse after the losses of Amare and Joe Johnson. Instead Nash, with a starting line-up of 4 small forwards playing out of position, took them to 54 wins, a top SRS, and the WCFs. Call me when Stockton does anything remotely like that. And yes, Marion was an all-nba type player and Diaw a solid role player (though a SF at this point in his career with his weight much less), but the value of players like Marion and Diaw was reduced by the need to play them out of position, just like if Durant played at the 4 full time he'd be less valuable. It was Nash who was the engine of the team, which is why in games he missed they sucked over the year, but in games he played they were awesome. Meanwhile Marion left and the team made the WCFs anyway, and Amare was injured in 2006 and the team was just fine.

When an MVP has two other All NBA players, 6MOY (Barbosa), 1st team all defensive player (Raja Bell) on his team at the same time in a 3-5 year period, those Suns teams underachieved.....

Look at how those players looked when they left and didn't have Nash to help them out. They were all big disappointments.

[G35]

When an MVP has two other All NBA players, 6MOY (Barbosa), 1st team all defensive player (Raja Bell) on his team at the same time in a 3-5 year period, those Suns teams underachieved.....

Look at how those players looked when they left and didn't have Nash to help them out. They were all big disappointments.

You talk about how players performed without Nash and condemn them if they don't perform up to the same standards.

But then you say this.

I also explained how Don Nelson totally misused Dirk and Nash (and the whole team), something the numbers clearly back up. Nash and Dirk both did much better once Nellieball was gone.

Now of course, Stockton has 10 years to Nash's 6, but the level Nash played at in the 2 years after 2010 was no really any worse than he was in 2010. The only difference, and the reason I've excluded those years, is because he had a horrible support cast (no Amare, no Marion, no nothing).

If Amare/Marion get judged for how they played without Nash....then Nash should get judged for how he played without Amare/Marion....unless you just have no interest at all in making a fair comparison......

[Baller2014]

We did look at the evidence.
-Without Nash the Suns were a terrible team, with a losing record (From 05-11 the Suns were 10-23 in the games Nash was out).
- In contrast they were fine without Amare in 2006. Without Marion in 2010 they were fine. But with Marion and/or Amare (and no Nash) they were a losing team, and not by a small amount. I gave you the stats on this. The Suns were a 25 win team from 05-10 without Nash, but a 55 win team with him. If Marion or Amare was more valuable than Nash, what we should have seen is the team do well even without Nash (instead of playing like a 25 win team v.s a 55 win team).
- Now of course, without both Amare and Marion the Suns were worse than if Nash had one or both of them (though still above 500. ball, as I pointed out using the 2011 and 2012 season record with Nash as an example)... because those are still good players who help teams win games. That has no bearing on which of them was the most important though. It's almost like you're demanding Nash turn the 2011 and 2012 Suns into contenders, even though they had no talent. Nash can't do that, very few players in NBA history could (and those guys are invariably top 10 players, ranked ahead of Nash).
- He's being compared to Stockton, not to those top 10 guys, and Stockton has plenty of mediocre seasons despite having a top 15 all-time player on his team, and a 3rd all-star! I'm amazed that you accuse me of not looking at how the Suns did without Nash (which isn't even true), in order to argue in favour of Stockton (whose 60 win team didn't miss a beat when Stockton got hurt in 98 and played 36% less minutes that season).

[G35]

We did look at the evidence.
-Without Nash the Suns were a terrible team, with a losing record (From 05-11 the Suns were 10-23 in the games Nash was out).
- In contrast they were fine without Amare in 2006. Without Marion in 2010 they were fine. But with Marion and/or Amare (and no Nash) they were a losing team, and not by a small amount. I gave you the stats on this. The Suns were a 25 win team from 05-10 without Nash, but a 55 win team with him. If Marion or Amare was more valuable than Nash, what we should have seen is the team do well even without Nash (instead of playing like a 25 win team v.s a 55 win team).
- Now of course, without both Amare and Marion the Suns were worse than if Nash had one or both of them (though still above 500. ball, as I pointed out using the 2011 and 2012 season record with Nash as an example)... because those are still good players who help teams win games. That has no bearing on which of them was the most important though. It's almost like you're demanding Nash turn the 2011 and 2012 Suns into contenders, even though they had no talent. Nash can't do that, very few players in NBA history could (and those guys are invariably top 10 players, ranked ahead of Nash).
- He's being compared to Stockton, not to those top 10 guys, and Stockton has plenty of mediocre seasons despite having a top 15 all-time player on his team, and a 3rd all-star! I'm amazed that you accuse me of not looking at how the Suns did without Nash (which isn't even true), in order to argue in favour of Stockton (whose 60 win team didn't miss a beat when Stockton got hurt in 98 and played 36% less minutes that season).

Amare has played on some bad Knicks teams and has been injured, he has had stretches where he did play well without Nash.

I don't know if you know this but Marion was a huge reason why the Mavericks went to the finals and won a ring. I didn't see Nash helping anywhere. Marion was a huge reason why the Mavericks were able to control Lebron. I know, defense isn't a big thing when discussing Nash....hard to discuss that impact isn't it.

Boris Diaw....I've already explained that he can be a huge impact player. Maybe you didn't watch these recent playoff's and see how effective Diaw has been, being the playmaker for the Spurs.

That is a dumb argument saying that the Jazz didn't miss a beat without Stockton...you want me to go down the list of stars that didn't miss a beat without their star players?

Heat without Wade
Clippers without CP3
Bulls in 1994 without Michael Jordan
Bulls without Derrick Rose
Thunder without Westbrook

There are so many instances of teams playing well without their stars in the regular season that it's nearly irrelevant....because the regular season means so much less than the playoff's. In fact I think any team that is built in a way that it is so dependent on one player to win is not a good team and has no chance to win anything relevant....much like those Suns. It's why those Suns could not get through to the finals (only MVP ever) but the Jazz were, twice.

What is more relevant is those Jazz teams won with defense. I know...a foreign in Nash arguments. Not once in the 98 finals did a team score a 100 points. Four out of six games the Jazz held the Bulls under 90 points. Not a chance that happens with a Nash led team. In fact that was one of the worst series that Michael Jordan ever played. Stockton had more assists than Jordan/Pippen combined, it's too bad we will never know how well Nash would have played in the finals. At the highest level...because has NEVER played at the highest level. Stockton has.

I'm also trying to think of who is this 3rd all star you are speaking of? Hornacek? He only played in one all star game in 1992. Thurl Bailey? Never made an all star game. Mark Eaton? He did...once...in 1989. Jeff Malone? He made two All Star teams....for the Washington Bullets in 1986 and 1987. When the Jazz did get someone else who could play in Hornacek, they made two finals.

When the Suns ever tried to upgrade their team it ended in abject failure....acquiring Shaq for Marion ended up being a horrible move. Terry Porter trying to integrate defense onto that Suns team showed that Nash can't be a part of a team with defensive principles.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3910443

The sputtering Suns fired Porter just four months into his first season as Phoenix coach and replaced him with assistant coach Alvin Gentry. Gentry promptly promised a return to the style so successful under Porter's predecessor, Mike D'Antoni.

"We are who we are and I think we have to go back to trying to establish a breakneck pace like we've had in the past," Gentry said at a news conference Monday announcing his promotion.

Sounds like Nash is a system player to me.

Porter, who played in the NBA for 17 seasons, was an assistant with the Pistons when he was hired by the Suns. The intention was for him to bring the Pistons' defense-oriented style with him. It was a bad fit.

"In the last month, it became apparent to me that, look, this is not working," Kerr said, "what we're trying is not working.

Nash supporters claim that Mike D didn't coach defense...didn't practice defense...but when a coach comes in specifically to install a defense and he can't even last four months. That says volumes about Nash's ceiling.

John Hollinger's take
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... uns-090216

Ten months after the Suns allowed him to leave for New York and declared they would play slower, smarter, tougher basketball, they made a philosophical U-turn by firing head coach Terry Porter and replacing him with assistant Alvin Gentry; at Monday's news conference, they all but announced to the world that they were going to let the greyhounds run free again.

Once again, this seems like Nash has to play a specific brand of basketball to bring out his best. HIS best.

Kerr, of course, was the one pushing for such a transition. His icy relationship with D'Antoni and his focus on being a more defensive-oriented, slow-paced team in the mold of the Spurs led to the decision to let D'Antoni leave and hire Porter, his former San Antonio teammate, in his place.

"I hired Terry because I believe in him, and I still do," Kerr said. "[But] the dynamics were tough ... it was probably the most difficult job in the league that he stepped into."

Well, I guess we know who we can blame for trying to incorporate defense on to the team...Steve Kerr...yeah that Steve Kerr who just got handed $25 million to coach the Warriors.

Certainly Gentry would, because Nash is about to become the focal point of the offense again.

"We are who we are," Gentry said. "We have to go back to trying to establish a breakneck pace like we did in the past. We have to open up more lanes for Steve, he's the motor behind the whole car. We've got to give him every opportunity to be successful at what he does. That means penetrate, find open guys, screen on the ball more. It's a really unique team. We have to play [that way] to be successful."

When a player is made the focal point of the team....whose fault is it when they lose? When a team fires a coach, changes their system, just to cater to one player...whose fault is it when they lose? When he is given every opportunity to show he can lead a team in his preferred style of play and they lose....whose fault is it?

Funny thing about Terry Porter before he came to the Suns
http://www.nba.com/suns/news/porter_080607.html

"We had an impressive list of candidates, but Terry stood out based on his leadership, his communication skills and his coaching experience as the head guy in Milwaukee for two seasons and the last couple years in Detroit," Kerr said.

Thus far, Porter’s coaching career reflects just that. As the head coach in Milwaukee, the Bucks boasted the top scoring offense in the Eastern Conference. But as an assistant with the Pistons this past season, they were ranked the best defensive team in the league.

"He's a guy who is committed to uptempo basketball, which was important to us,” Kerr explained. “But he's also very experienced when it comes to defense, both from his time with the Pistons and as a player. He was a tenacious defensive player and he's very tough minded."

Porter was capable of coaching a great offensive team and defensive team. You would think a previous NBA point guard would be able to relate to Nash.

Another curious point about statistics and how we view them
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/ar ... orter.html

Expectations became a beast in 2008. They devoured Mike D'Antoni, who left with the Suns brass' blessing and the best winning percentage of any Suns coach.

All those statistics you spout about Nash being so irreplaceable, having so much impact and Mike D'Antoni had the best winning percentage of any Suns coach...he is also the coach that Nash excelled the most under.....but it is hilarious how much people hate Mike D'Antoni but love Steve Nash. Makes zero sense.

Porter's blame is intentionally nebulous. Porter would not cite what was specifically wrong with the roster but did give more of an indication when the topic of Shaquille O'Neal was raised. O'Neal had been acquired by the Suns four months before Porter's hiring.

"You can't keep that style and then say, 'We're going to go get Shaq,' " Porter said. "There was some inner thought that the style was going to move another direction.

"I don't want to get into details. That's spilled milk. I just think there are opportunities to make moves. What was the identity? That's the biggest thing we struggled with. What was our identity going to be? When they went and got Shaq, they had a certain idea of what the identity was going to be. To try to implement that, you would have to change some roster spots."

You can't play at a high-tempo, without any set plays, and then have Shaq on the floor. That makes zero basketball sense. What is apparent is Nash does not excel in all situations....in fact when the offense is not centered around him he doesn't seem to excel at all. So when the offense is focused on him, there is no reason not to blame him when things do not work out.....

[Baller2014]

Look, I try to do people the courtesy of replying to their arguments, but what you've written below seems to be a collection of random assertions that do not cohere on any point. It's mostly wrong, but I'm not really seeing a counter argument here.

Amare has played on some bad Knicks teams and has been injured, he has had stretches where he did play well without Nash.

Played well? What does that even mean? Notice the shifting of the goal posts as well. The whole reason we're discussing Marion and Amare is not because people dispute they can "play well", it's because they were vastly less important to the Suns than Nash. I spent quite a lot of time explaining this, showing the win-loss records at various points with/without Nash/Marion/Amare. So I'm not sure what this remark is meant to prove, even if it were true (it's pretty vague though, we could say anyone "played well in stretches". What of it?). The point is that the evidence showed us how much more impactful Nash was, and when Marion and Amare left the Suns they added even more proof to this, by disappointing hugely.

I don't know if you know this but Marion was a huge reason why the Mavericks went to the finals and won a ring. I didn't see Nash helping anywhere. Marion was a huge reason why the Mavericks were able to control Lebron. I know, defense isn't a big thing when discussing Nash....hard to discuss that impact isn't it.

Again, I don't know what this remark is meant to be a response to. Nobody is saying Marion is a bad player, just a much less impactful one than Nash (which you disagreed with). I don't see how Marion's stint on the Mavs as a role player is meant to have any bearing on this. That's kind of the point, after leaving the Suns Marion bounced around as a role player for hire, and generally disappointed. Nash was an MVP type player. Marion wasn't.

Boris Diaw....I've already explained that he can be a huge impact player. Maybe you didn't watch these recent playoff's and see how effective Diaw has been, being the playmaker for the Spurs.

Another weird remark. Sure, Diaw was a good role player (though less effective when played wholly out of position of course). Nobody disputed that. And he was there next to Amare/Marion in games the Suns missed, just as he was next to Nash in games they missed/played. What of it? Diaw left in 09 and Nash still took the Suns to the WCFs the next season, all without Marion.

That is a dumb argument saying that the Jazz didn't miss a beat without Stockton...you want me to go down the list of stars that didn't miss a beat without their star players?

Heat without Wade
Clippers without CP3
Bulls in 1994 without Michael Jordan
Bulls without Derrick Rose
Thunder without Westbrook

Just to dwell on these examples:
1) I'm not sure which Wade we're talking about here, but if it's recent years Wade then that's not very helpful, because people use it as evidence of his declining importance all the time. It's basically directly analogous to the Stockton situation in fact. Someone trying to claim both Wade/Stockton and Lebron/Malone were MVPs this year would be laughed at, because people can see it's Lebron carrying the team, while Wade can miss games with no real effect on the outcome.
2) When Paul missed time people began to rethink how good Blake Griffin was, and came to the conclusion he'd improved tremendously. The sample size is small, and the Clippers obviously aren't as good without Paul, but clearly Blake has basically become a co-MVP of the Clippers along with Paul.
3) The Thunder are worse without Westbrook, which shows in lots of ways, from lower SRS and win/loss % through to getting knocked out of the playoffs in Rnd 2 last year.
4) The Bulls were worse without D.Rose, but the degree to which they were ok without him did indeed lead to people asking tough questions about Rose's impact, with the general feeling now being that he was a ridiculously bad MVP selection.
5) The Bulls in 94 are a bad example. They made other roster changes (adding Kukoc the best player in Europe, and an excellent Steve Kerr), and in 93 they'd been coasting through the season anyway (as repeat champs often do). Plus the SRS of the team collapsed, indicating they were much worse as a team (which proved itself come playoffs, when they couldn't just flip a switch like last year).

Stockton on the other hand had a massively reduced role in 98, playing a full 36% less minutes, and falling off a little due to injury, and the team was basically just as good (playoffs and regular season). It seemed to confirm everything else we'd seen to that point, namely that Stockton was an all-star, but Malone was the only MVP type player on the Jazz, and it was him they rose and fell with.

There are so many instances of teams playing well without their stars in the regular season that it's nearly irrelevant....because the regular season means so much less than the playoff's. In fact I think any team that is built in a way that it is so dependent on one player to win is not a good team and has no chance to win anything relevant....much like those Suns. It's why those Suns could not get through to the finals (only MVP ever) but the Jazz were, twice.

The data here is pretty extensive. Sure, teams sometimes play over there heads, but this isn't a one off or a fluke, it's cause and effect. Nash missed games at many points over his tenure with the Suns, and without him they sucked. Meanwhile we have numerous examples of other players like Marion and Amare missing games (or whole seasons), and there is no effect on the Suns really (or a very minor effect). The Suns couldn't get to the finals because a better team was in front of them (the Spurs), and because Amare got hurt in 06. If the Suns played in the East they'd have made more finals, particularly in 07 for instance. I have explained repeatedly why "did he make the finals" is meaningless, yet you continue to invoke it like it matters. Then of course there's the clincher, namely that Stockton was the Robin for these "finals" making Jazz teams, while Nash was demonstrably the Batman. Hard to see how Stockton's impact can compare.

I'm also trying to think of who is this 3rd all star you are speaking of? Hornacek? He only played in one all star game in 1992. Thurl Bailey? Never made an all star game. Mark Eaton? He did...once...in 1989. Jeff Malone? He made two All Star teams....for the Washington Bullets in 1986 and 1987. When the Jazz did get someone else who could play in Hornacek, they made two finals.

Hornacek was pretty underrated. I think he was more of an all-nba talent than an all-star. But I already explained all this in my previous post, where I noted Bailey was "closer to an all-star than a role player", and that Eaton, Jeff Malone and even Tripucka were all-stars, who were still in the prime of their careers for at least some of the time with Stockton and Malone... and they didn't make the finals due to the existence of those guys, suggesting it's more complex than "all they needed was a 3rd all-star".

When the Suns ever tried to upgrade their team it ended in abject failure....acquiring Shaq for Marion ended up being a horrible move. Terry Porter trying to integrate defense onto that Suns team showed that Nash can't be a part of a team with defensive principles.

I know people have explained to you that D at the 1 spot is not especially relevant, since nobody can really do much to stop point guards penetrating, but you have ignored it as usual. Likewise, you have misrepresented the reason Porter's system failed (it has nothing to do with Nash supposedly being unable to play D). You are literally reading into those quotes ideas that are never expressed by the people you quote. Porter's system failed because he tried to run the offense through Shaq, instead of the team's best offensive player as usual, who had led the Suns to historic offensive success in previous seasons. Anyway, plenty of point guards have been bad on D, and been part of fantastic defensive systems, so this idea Nash couldn't do this is really silly. Acquiring Marion didn't work out so hot for the Heat either btw.

I also dislike your general suggestion that we should look at "D" and "O" as 50% components, as though weighing them in each player like that tells us how valuable a player is. That's utter nonsense. Someone can be below average at most NBA skills, but specialise in just 1, and by doing so they become more valuable than someone whose all around skills are superior to them. For instance, a 7 footer who could hit 3pt shots from anywhere on the court would be the most valuable player in the NBA, even if he was a little below average in all other aspects of the game. Nash can be "bad on D", and still kill Stockton in terms of his impact, regardless of Stockton's "all around ability" being better. Who cares about "all around balance"? I sure don't. Voshon Lenard and Bob Sura had more all around skill than Shaq, but I know who the more impactful player was. Shaq. A balanced skill set has nothing to do with impact. Nash's impact was greater than Stockton's. That's all that matters.

[The Infamous1]

While it's true stockton was a robin, if Nash played with Malone he's not winning any MVP's either. And winning 2 straight MVP's(almost 3 in a row) is a major part of Nash's legacy

The reality is none of these 3 guys should be your best player if you're trying to win an nba championship

[Marcus]

John Stockton
Steve Nash
Jason Kidd

Name these guys from best to Worst career wise and also where each ranks on the Goat list if you would. Thanks

For the topic

Stocks
Kidd/Nash

My personal preference

Kidd
Stocks
Nash

Never was big on Nash, always considered him a system guy but the same argument could be made about Stocks. Liked the all-around game JK brought to the table more.

[G35]

While it's true stockton was a robin, if Nash played with Malone he's not winning any MVP's either. And winning 2 straight MVP's(almost 3 in a row) is a major part of Nash's legacy

The reality is none of these 3 guys should be your best player if you're trying to win an nba championship

This is the correct answer. They are all there to make another elite player better. The point of this comparison is who did it the best.

Kidd actually won a title with Dirk....when he wasn't in his prime...coincidentally with an out of his prime Marion.

Stockton went to the finals twice with Karl Malone....that is not underachieving when so many great players do not even make it once.....like Steve Nash.

Now there are some key points to make:

1. You say that Stockton was an All Star...that's true....he was an All Star more times than Nash was....he was also an All NBA level player...more times than Nash was. Nash was an MVP twice, I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of them but if Nash as an MVP level player and he had two All Stars/All NBA players next to him...why didn't he get it done? No BSing around, Nash was a really weak MVP level player, who needs a lot of help to advance in the playoff's.

2. You also point out that the Suns always ran into better teams in the playoff's, which is a great excuse for why they lost. Yet, they had the MVP on their team two years in a row....the MVP is suppose to make a significant difference between teams. Lebron is the difference between, the Spurs, the Thunder, the Pacers, and a number of teams. Nash obviously does not have that sort of impact as past MVP's had e.g. Kobe, Shaq, KG, Dirk, etc etc. It also seems like an excuse:

2006 finals
Dallas SRS - 5.96
Heat SRS - 3.59 Heat won

2006 Semi-finals
Dallas SRS 5.96 Dallas won
Spurs SRS 6.69

2007 Semi-finals
Cavaliers SRS 3.33 Cavs won
Pistons SRS 3.68

2008 quarterfinals
Suns SRS 5.14
Spurs SRS 5.10 Spurs won

2008 semi-finals
Spurs SRS 5.10 Spurs won
Hornets SRS 5.46

It is not isolated examples of a seemingly better team losing to a lesser team. The difference is the impact the best players make on the game. In Nash's case there is always a better star beating him. Even when he supposedly has the greatest impact/MVP type season.

3. You claimed the Jazz had a 3rd All Star. You are categorically wrong. Hornacek, Bailey, Malone were not All Stars during their time with Utah, bottom line. The only player that made an all star team with Malone/Stockton was Eaton. You also bring up that the Jazz lost to the Warriors that year. Eaton, if you have no clue about his player profile was a 7'4 shot blocking machine, that had a very limited offensive game. It's funny that you bring up that series as an indictment against Stockton when that is one of his better playoff series:
27.3 ppg, 13.7 ast, 3.7 stl, 3.3 reb, 1.7 blk, .508 FG%, .750% 3p%, .905 FT%, 129 Ortg, .601 TS%,

Stockton had the highest ORtg and Drtg in the playoffs. Their other All Star big man Eaton did not perform up to standards that series. His claim to fame was blocked shots and he had two blocks the whole series. His counterpart Manute Bol, on the other hand had 18 blocked shots in 3 games. Also, for your own knowledge Stockton outscored Karl Malone in two of those three games.

More food for thought:

Stockton's career RS avg's: 13.1 ppg, 10.5 ast, 2.2 stl, TS% .608
Stockton's career PS avg's: 13.4 ppg, 10.1 ast, 1.9 stl, TS% .568

Malone's career RS avg's: 25.0 ppg, 10.1 reb, 3.6 ast, TS% .577
Malone's career PS avg's: 24.7 ppg, 10.7 reb, 3.2 ast, TS% .526

Both of these players performed similar in the RS compared to the PS except for their shooting efficiency went down. Whereas Stockton went from ATG shooting to just elite shooting, Malone went from elite shooting to chucker type efficiency. It's one of the criticisms of Malone is he wasn't as effective a scorer in the playoff's.

Also, I would rather be Robin and go to the finals than be Batman constantly losing to "better" teams. What you fail to see is that Nash is a pretty, poor Batman. Like Infamous noted, Nash should not be the best player on a contending team. You will keep running into better teams, it's a cycle of futility where the only comfort Nash supporters can hide under is team ORtg's, and it is someone else's fault why they couldn't get it done......

[baki]

1. Stockton. Many former and current NBA players have said that Stockton was the toughest point guard to guard (see Gary Payton's comparison with MJ), and I believe it. Guy was a hell of a passer, scorer and defender, he leads the all time list of most assists and steals as well as best averages, and all the while not being the most athletic guy to do it. You can compare him to the current PGs like Paul, Parker, Westbrook and it'll still be Stockton as my point guard.

2. Nash. Got the accolades that Stockton never got (ie. MVP), best shooter, better looking passer not so good on defense (wasn't even in the top 25 for all time steals). Guy was flat out smart and court-savvy, he was the most creative of the three.

3. Kidd. I thought Kidd was overrated earlier in his career, a bit flashy but he had good court sense. Wasn't a good shooter but was probably more athletic of the three. Reminds me of an older Deron Williams, not really exciting to watch and a bit of a headcase.

There were other very good point guards that we could have compared. I would have rated Penny Hardaway right up there, even before Kidd, Penny was taller, more athletic, could shoot, exceptional passer and communicator. He was literally the next Magic Johnson at 6'9".

[Baller2014]

You have, as usual, ignored all the points I made, in order to make some statements that have no bearing on anything being discussed previously. Nonetheless, I'll briefly respond to them.
1) Yes, Lebron is better than Nash. So is Duncan. That's why those guys have been able to carry their teams more. Glad we cleared that up. He's being compared to John freaking Stockton, not two guys who will likely finish as top 5 all-time players.
2) Nash has an 8 year prime (05-12) and 4 additional years where he was all-nba team good (01-04), but wasn't being used optimally. I don't give him extra points for being used well or not, I give him points for the career he actually had, but during those 8 years he was clearly a better player than Stockton was. Meanwhile Stockton had a 10 year prime (88-97). He might have had 1-2 all-star quality years after that, but in terms of high impact years and prime he doesn't have much of an advantage over Nash (if any), he just played longer is all. That would matter if the two were close, but they're not. One was an MVP candidate in his prime, the other was typically the 8th-17th best player in the NBA in their prime. A large amount of evidence was provided to show their impacts, which you've wholly ignored.
3) Jeff Malone and Tripucka came to the Jazz to play lesser roles, and in those lesser roles they obviously reduced their chances of being all-stars, because there is only so much ball to go around, but there's really no indication they were worse players than when they made the all-star teams. Jeff Malone was 29-32 in his time with the Jazz, and was still putting up 18-20 ppg with the Jazz, on good efficiency. Tripucka on the other hand took a much smaller role with the Jazz, however he was 27 years old when he got to Utah, and it doesn't seem like he was washed up, because as soon as he left Utah he started filling stat sheets again. Mark Eaton actually got a few MVP votes when he was in Utah, as well as DPOY and an all-star slot. So this idea the never had a 3rd all-star until Hornacek isn't really accurate. Thurl Bailey was himself close to being an all-star, his career average was 19-7 per 36 minutes, and he had seasons he was putting up almost 20ppg for you on good efficiency, despite not being asked to play full minutes.
4) Please stop alluding to Marion's stint as a role player with the Mavs, as though it somehow gives him an edge over Nash. He was a freaking role player that year.

[HeartBreakKid]

Now there are some key points to make:

1. You say that Stockton was an All Star...that's true....he was an All Star more times than Nash was....

Not really relevant, they had different competition, their primes were nearly a decade apart depending on who you ask.

Nash was an MVP twice, I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of them but if Nash as an MVP level player and he had two All Stars/All NBA players next to him..

As many MVPs have

.why didn't he get it done?

The same reason why many MVPs who have had all-star players next to them have never gotten them done. How many guys have won MVP the same year they won the title, really not that many. Also, the Suns had injury concerns, which I'm assuming you're aware of, but are promptly ignoring and intentionally making a black and white argument.

No BSing around, Nash was a really weak MVP level player, who needs a lot of help to advance in the playoff's.

Weak MVP, sure - needed a lot of help to advance in the playoffs? Not sure about that one, Magic Johnson needed a lot of help to advance in the playoffs too, don't see anyone calling him a weak level MVP player.

2. You also point out that the Suns always ran into better teams in the playoff's, which is a great excuse for why they lost.

I'm confused, shouldn't that be the only excuse for why a team loses? The other team was better, that's kinda how it works.

the MVP is suppose to make a significant difference between teams.

They lost to the Mavericks and the Spurs who had Nowitzki and Duncan who are literally MVP caliber players, so this doesn't add up. It's not like he lost to a starless team like the 2013 Nuggets.

Dirk is an MVP (and a better player than Steve Nash) and Lebron is the difference between, the Spurs, the Thunder, the Pacers, and a number of teams.

Sure, but I still don't get your point. Dirk has lost to inferior teams before, and Lebron James didn't go any further than Steve Nash did during his first back to back MVP titles. If your point is Dirk and James are better than Steve Nash, than the easy rebuttal to that is, so? They're both better than John Stockton and/or Karl Malone if he is relevant to this discussion as well.

Nash obviously does not have that sort of impact as past MVP's had e.g. Kobe, Shaq, KG, Dirk, etc etc.

That's interesting, because it's not like those guys have never been upset or have had playoff woes. I mean KG his mvp year didn't go to the finals, is he a fraud? People say Bryant deserved MVP over Nash yet he lost in the first round. Your argument which revolves a really ultimate standard of the MVP should go to the finals, doesn't add up. Being an MVP caliber player doesn't mean you should go to the finals, doesn't even mean you should make it past the first round ideally (though that has changed over the years).

Is Kevin Durant a hissy MVP too? He wasn't even the best player on his team during the post season. I mean there are a lot, a lot of examples that can counter your point against Steve Nash's short comings in the playoffs if we're just making it a discussion of "he should have won more".

[Doctor MJ]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3910443

The sputtering Suns fired Porter just four months into his first season as Phoenix coach and replaced him with assistant coach Alvin Gentry. Gentry promptly promised a return to the style so successful under Porter's predecessor, Mike D'Antoni.

"We are who we are and I think we have to go back to trying to establish a breakneck pace like we've had in the past," Gentry said at a news conference Monday announcing his promotion.

Sounds like Nash is a system player to me.

Okay, so that brings me in as the broken record to explain what I've been explaining for nearly a decade now:

That's not what a system player is.

The "system" designation comes out of football after scouts got burned by improperly attributing which aspects of a particular team were truly the irreplaceable parts. The classic case was with the Run n' Gun system of the University of Houston that led to Andre Wade and David Klingler being drafted extremely high in the draft only to be shown that they could not replicate their success outside of the entire context that existed at their college.

A useful counter example is Michael Vick (or Randall Cunningham if you're older), who one might naively think was a system quarterback. Vick is a guy who needs to be able to have the freedom to either pass or run in order to have his full effect. Forcing him to play a more traditional drop back passing role will obviously make him considerably less effective, but no one in football considers this to be strange or surprising. The salient point with someone like Vick was always that you can have great success with him if you use him properly, and if you fail to do so that's only a reflection on you being incompetent.

Hence while the extremely general word "system" can be used to describe what Vick needs, the reasons why the term "system player" came into existence were for negative attributes that have nothing to do with Vick, and therefore he is not a system player.

With Nash you've got a guy who has proven he can be incredibly successful on the highest levels, and whose statistical calling card is his irreplaceability. So, quite clearly he's not a system player. Rather, he's a guy in a Vick-like category.

The irony of all this is can be summed up as follows:

A system player puts up big individual stats without really lifting his team.
Steve Nash really lifted his team without putting up big individual stats.

Nash is quite literally the opposite of a system player because those most likely to overrate system players are also most likely to underrate Nash.

[G35]

Now there are some key points to make:

1. You say that Stockton was an All Star...that's true....he was an All Star more times than Nash was....

Not really relevant, they had different competition, their primes were nearly a decade apart depending on who you ask.

You are right, Stockton had to compete with Magic, Payton, KJ, Mark Price, Isiah, Tim Hardaway...while Nash had to compete vs Kidd, Marbury, Bibby, Cassell, Baron Davis, and Billups. Stockton had better competition, competing against the best PG and still had more awards than Nash.

Nash was an MVP twice, I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of them but if Nash as an MVP level player and he had two All Stars/All NBA players next to him..

As many MVPs have

Yep, but Nash is the only two time MVP to never get to the finals...that's not getting it when every other MVP has.

.why didn't he get it done?

The same reason why many MVPs who have had all-star players next to them have never gotten them done. How many guys have won MVP the same year they won the title, really not that many. Also, the Suns had injury concerns, which I'm assuming you're aware of, but are promptly ignoring and intentionally making a black and white argument.

Being the only two time MVP to never get to the finals is as black and white as you can get. Actually the only other MVP to never make the finals is Derrick Rose. I'm sure you are aware of that since you likely will avoid replying to that point.

No BSing around, Nash was a really weak MVP level player, who needs a lot of help to advance in the playoff's.

Weak MVP, sure - needed a lot of help to advance in the playoffs? Not sure about that one, Magic Johnson needed a lot of help to advance in the playoffs too, don't see anyone calling him a weak level MVP player.

Magic also beat ATG teams competing vs players who would be in the top 20 all time. Nash can't even win when he has two All NBA players on his team as the MVP and get's beat bad at the same time, while having homecourt advantage.

2. You also point out that the Suns always ran into better teams in the playoff's, which is a great excuse for why they lost.

I'm confused, shouldn't that be the only excuse for why a team loses? The other team was better, that's kinda how it works.

I also showed you that the better team doesn't always win....not surprised you didn't see that or failed to reply.

the MVP is suppose to make a significant difference between teams.

They lost to the Mavericks and the Spurs who had Nowitzki and Duncan who are literally MVP caliber players, so this doesn't add up. It's not like he lost to a starless team like the 2013 Nuggets.

Being MVP caliber and being the MVP is two different things. Nash won the MVP in two different years and lost quite handily. Losing in the playoff's is not excused because the other team is great, that's what happens when you go deeper into the playoff's. These aren't scrub teams that you get to beat up on as if it's the regular season. The playoff's mean more and you have to beat MVP caliber players....are you new to the playoff's?

Dirk is an MVP (and a better player than Steve Nash) and Lebron is the difference between, the Spurs, the Thunder, the Pacers, and a number of teams.

Sure, but I still don't get your point. Dirk has lost to inferior teams before, and Lebron James didn't go any further than Steve Nash did during his first back to back MVP titles. If your point is Dirk and James are better than Steve Nash, than the easy rebuttal to that is, so? They're both better than John Stockton and/or Karl Malone if he is relevant to this discussion as well.

The point is that Nash never did overcome, everyone loses, that's acceptable, but not even making it out of your conference one time is damning....and you must have forgotten that Lebron did make it to the finals in 2007. They also had to beat a team that had a better SRS than them to get to the finals. It's really tiring to hear the same excuse about losing to a "better" team. The great ones defy conventional wisdom....which Nash does not. Apparently when he goes against a better team you know his team is going to lose before the series even starts.

Nash obviously does not have that sort of impact as past MVP's had e.g. Kobe, Shaq, KG, Dirk, etc etc.

That's interesting, because it's not like those guys have never been upset or have had playoff woes. I mean KG his mvp year didn't go to the finals, is he a fraud? People say Bryant deserved MVP over Nash yet he lost in the first round. Your argument which revolves a really ultimate standard of the MVP should go to the finals, doesn't add up. Being an MVP caliber player doesn't mean you should go to the finals, doesn't even mean you should make it past the first round ideally (though that has changed over the years).

Ok....I hear that argument....now tell me when exactly will Nash go to the finals.....I'll wait.

Is Kevin Durant a hissy MVP too? He wasn't even the best player on his team during the post season. I mean there are a lot, a lot of examples that can counter your point against Steve Nash's short comings in the playoffs if we're just making it a discussion of "he should have won more".

Durant did go to the finals. He's made it through his conference. You seem to think that other great players losing in the playoff's absolves Nash. I guess Carmelo is as good as Lebron, he lost to better teams than his Denver Nuggets teams, he just didn't have the help. Tracy McGrady is better than Dwyane Wade because he had a higher peak, it doesn't matter that he could never get out of the first rd. Winning in the playoff's doesn't matter as long as I can find someone else who failed to win also.....

[G35]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3910443

The sputtering Suns fired Porter just four months into his first season as Phoenix coach and replaced him with assistant coach Alvin Gentry. Gentry promptly promised a return to the style so successful under Porter's predecessor, Mike D'Antoni.

"We are who we are and I think we have to go back to trying to establish a breakneck pace like we've had in the past," Gentry said at a news conference Monday announcing his promotion.

Sounds like Nash is a system player to me.

Okay, so that brings me in as the broken record to explain what I've been explaining for nearly a decade now:

That's not what a system player is.

The "system" designation comes out of football after scouts got burned by improperly attributing which aspects of a particular team were truly the irreplaceable parts. The classic case was with the Run n' Gun system of the University of Houston that led to Andre Wade and David Klingler being drafted extremely high in the draft only to be shown that they could not replicate their success outside of the entire context that existed at their college.

A useful counter example is Michael Vick (or Randall Cunningham if you're older), who one might naively think was a system quarterback. Vick is a guy who needs to be able to have the freedom to either pass or run in order to have his full effect. Forcing him to play a more traditional drop back passing role will obviously make him considerably less effective, but no one in football considers this to be strange or surprising. The salient point with someone like Vick was always that you can have great success with him if you use him properly, and if you fail to do so that's only a reflection on you being incompetent.

Hence while the extremely general word "system" can be used to describe what Vick needs, the reasons why the term "system player" came into existence were for negative attributes that have nothing to do with Vick, and therefore he is not a system player.

With Nash you've got a guy who has proven he can be incredibly successful on the highest levels, and whose statistical calling card is his irreplaceability. So, quite clearly he's not a system player. Rather, he's a guy in a Vick-like category.

The irony of all this is can be summed up as follows:

A system player puts up big individual stats without really lifting his team.
Steve Nash really lifted his team without putting up big individual stats.

Nash is quite literally the opposite of a system player because those most likely to overrate system players are also most likely to underrate Nash.

So you are saying that there are offenses in the NFL that do not have a system? That Michael Vick and Steve Nash are similar in that they have unique abilities that just need to be harnessed properly and that is without having a system.

I can say without much hesitation that I do not agree with that. I have read hundreds of articles describing both Nash and Vick and I've never heard that description. I have yet to read an article about Nash saying he is a system-less PG. I can show you where analysts/coaches/GMs describe him as being in a particular system.

In fact when you say that Nash has to be used properly, suggests that he requires a particular system. It's not as if Nash is like Lawrence Taylor and Bill Parcells is just releasing him on the field to wreak havoc. Nash should be used in a specific manner. I think the difference of opinion is defining what "system" means:

sys·tem [sis-tuhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.
2.
any assemblage or set of correlated members: a system of currency; a system of shorthand characters.
3.
an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
4.
a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.
5.
any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge.

If Nash does not require a system, then there would be no order on the court, they would be playing pick up basketball.....

[Baller2014]

This must be the 10th time you've restated your "he didn't make it to the finals" argument, like it means something, when in reality it's been shut down about 10 times now. If Oscar Robertson had not gone to the Bucks at age 32, on the tail end of his career, he would never have gone to the finals either. Does he therefore become a worse individual player?