Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[G35]

I'm not claiming. I'm saying that Nash is A PART of the construction of the team. A team is BUILT around it's superstars strengths. I think that Nash was just fine with every move that the Suns have made over the years. I don't think Nash was upset at all with the lack of a defensive/rebounding presence on the team. I believe Nash always felt he could outscore teams.

Let's think this through a bit.

You really think after '04-05, it made sense to say, "This isn't working, we need to totally change our front court?". The team had just skyrocketed to 60+ wins. You don't mess with that.

You really think after '05-06, it made sense to say, "This isn't working, we need to totally change our front court?". The team had their year destroyed by injury and still got to the WCF.

After '06-07, I still thought it made zero sense to totally change the team since the team was VERY close to beating the champs, and yet they did make the change you suggest.

So the very first time it made any kind of sense to go big, the Suns went big. How the hell do you manufacture this narrative that says "Nash didn't want defense/rebounding!" given that chronology.

The most disturbing thing in this thread, the more I think about it, is how much of the anti-Nash arguments essentially come down to assumptions about what Nash was doing behind the seasons that don't even make sense when you say them out loud. I hate it when people say "Just watch the game!" because debate necessitate we be free to talk about the entire context, but c'mon folks, listen to yourselves.

Either a huge chunk of your opinion is based on you completely guessing about what happened off the court, or you're simply assuming that every star who ever won a title is better than any star who didn't win one, or you're only acting like this because Isiah and/or Nash is involved. None of those alternatives is rational in the slightest.

My problem is that Nash supporters dismiss Nash's failings in the playoff's as if he had nothing to do with it since it was all defense/rebounding. Nash had his opportunity's with TWO separate teams. Is it really a coincidence that both teams failings were defensively?.....

There's a difference between saying "A team with Nash on it has an advantage offensively, but not defensively, and thus still needs to find defensive solutions to be the best", and saying "Nash forces his teams to have bad defense" though.

More generally, I just hate this "playoff failing" perspective. Nash has been on very successful teams, there were simply another team that was even better. This is a danger for every individual in a team game, and certainly a danger for a player that virtually everyone agrees was not the best player of his generation. We're not talking about a title-less Jordan here man, we're talking about Nash. He was good enough to lead a team to a title, but not good enough that anyone should have thought it was a given.

If you aren't improving then you have the chance of falling back. The Heat went to the finals their first year together. Doesn't mean they don't have holes to fill. I do remember hearing leading up to the playoff's that their style of play wouldn't win in the playoff's. I was skeptical. I thought the Suns could do what had not been done before. But they lost convincingly to the Spurs. The Spurs had a gameplan and stuck to it. They let Amare go off and contained the rest of the Suns. Why didn't Nash take over when he saw what was going on? That's what stars do in the NBA. TAKE OVER.

I know someone that took over when he had to in the finals on a sprained ankle. Scoring 25 points in a quarter. I will say Nash can't do that. Haven't seen him do it. Talking about doing something and doing it are two different things.

All we hear is what we think Nash could do. Isiah did it. That is what we do. I personally think Dr.J is better than Bird. But Bird is unequivocally seen as the better, smarter player. There is only one reason why and that's the rings. Bird played with better players. When Doc got a great frontcourt player the Sixers dominated at a level no other team had played before in the playoff's, sweeping a Lakers team. The Celtics never swept the Lakers.

Yes as much as people hate it winning matters. Not just rings, but in my opinion, if I lose a game I sucked. I don't care what the stats say. You did not do enough to win. Winning matters. The only place Nash is on Isiah's level is on advanced stats. Those who don't win will say winning doesn't matter.....

[Rapcity_11]

I know someone that took over when he had to in the finals on a sprained ankle. Scoring 25 points in a quarter.

Isiah lost that game. He must be a loser, right?

Yes as much as people hate it winning matters.

And what's been hammered home about a million times by Nash supporters is that Nash helps his team win more than Isiah.

[easiestplayfts]

Dallas changed their philosophy and that is the primary reason why they got better. Nash didn't fit into that philosophy so that is why they improved when he left.

Dallas would not have been better with Nash at the helm. The past seasons have also eluded to this fact as their philosophy is working without him.

This board just has too many Nash supporters and don't want to believe that a team could be better without him.

Right.....I don't see why Nash supporters don't get it.

[rrravenred]

Dallas also changed their playing personnel and their coach (and anyone would have been an upgrade from Don "I play Antawn Jamison at Centre" Nelson at that point).

Right... I don't see why Isiah supporters don't get it.

[Doctor MJ]

If you aren't improving then you have the chance of falling back. The Heat went to the finals their first year together. Doesn't mean they don't have holes to fill. I do remember hearing leading up to the playoff's that their style of play wouldn't win in the playoff's. I was skeptical. I thought the Suns could do what had not been done before. But they lost convincingly to the Spurs. The Spurs had a gameplan and stuck to it. They let Amare go off and contained the rest of the Suns. Why didn't Nash take over when he saw what was going on? That's what stars do in the NBA. TAKE OVER.

I know someone that took over when he had to in the finals on a sprained ankle. Scoring 25 points in a quarter. I will say Nash can't do that. Haven't seen him do it. Talking about doing something and doing it are two different things.

All we hear is what we think Nash could do. Isiah did it. That is what we do. I personally think Dr.J is better than Bird. But Bird is unequivocally seen as the better, smarter player. There is only one reason why and that's the rings. Bird played with better players. When Doc got a great frontcourt player the Sixers dominated at a level no other team had played before in the playoff's, sweeping a Lakers team. The Celtics never swept the Lakers.

Yes as much as people hate it winning matters. Not just rings, but in my opinion, if I lose a game I sucked. I don't care what the stats say. You did not do enough to win. Winning matters. The only place Nash is on Isiah's level is on advanced stats. Those who don't win will say winning doesn't matter.....

Re: "If you aren't improving...". Yes, and when you make changes out of a desperate attempt to take a quantum leap forward you might take a step back...which is exactly what happened to the Suns when they made the Shaq move. And let me also make clear that this isn't a case of "Well the reasoning was sound, I guess that didn't work either." The trade for Shaq seemed ridiculous from the start to many of us for a variety of reasons, one of which was that we knew what kind of sorry shape Shaq was in.

Bottom line: When you have a team winning 60+ games, you need to have a very, very good reason to make major changes.

Re: "Hey, Heat know they have holes to fill." Yup, it's obvious with the Heat. Theirs is a case of ridiculous talent, and rather glaring flaws. Rather like a natural athlete with poor form. It's clear what they need to do to get better, and if they can do it, they should be one of the great dynasties around. The Nash Suns (and Isiah Pistons) were never teams with anywhere near that kind of potential. When they were winning 60 games, it was because things were flowing very, very well.

Re: "Thought the Suns could do what had not been done before." Winning title while looking to take advantage of transition has been done dozens and dozens of times before, so you were right to think that, and your issue is that once a coin flips heads a couple times, you lose faith in the existence of tails.

Re: "The Spurs won convincingly." There's no way in hell you could say that about the '06-07 series.

RE: "Why didn't Nash take over." Nash went for 23/10 on fantastic efficiency, otherwise known as "Better than what Isiah normally did when it was all on the line". The player who can routinely go for 30/15 against the best defense in the league has NEVER existed.

Re: "I know someone who took over...". How the hell can you bring that up without mentioning that the Pistons lost? Quite clearly there's no amount of points Nash could score that would satisfy you if the Suns lost, but Isiah's crowning moment in your eyes is exactly that.

I don't know how you can be so blind.

Re: "I personally prefer Erving, but others prefer Bird because of rings." And this doesn't send a signal to you that perhaps following the sheep mindset of others leads you off a cliff?

Re: "if I lose a game I sucked. I don't care what the stats say." Well then, if you aren't able to objectively analyze both the details of your performance to see what you did well and what you did poorly in anything in life, then you had best get used to sucking, because you'll be competing with others who don't share your handicap.

[sheba021]

I know someone that took over when he had to in the finals on a sprained ankle. Scoring 25 points in a quarter.

Isiah lost that game. He must be a loser, right?

He did the similar thing 2 years later and won. So no, he isn't.

Yes as much as people hate it winning matters.

And what's been hammered home about a million times by Nash supporters is that Nash helps his team win more than Isiah.

Except when it matters the most, right?

[Doctor MJ]

I know someone that took over when he had to in the finals on a sprained ankle. Scoring 25 points in a quarter.

Isiah lost that game. He must be a loser, right?

He did the similar thing 2 years later and won. So no, he isn't.

Right, so he was a loser when he was scoring 25 PPG in a quarter, but changed into a winner two years later. Got it.

Yes as much as people hate it winning matters.

And what's been hammered home about a million times by Nash supporters is that Nash helps his team win more than Isiah.

Except when it matters the most, right?

[/quote]

Nope, then too. There's no track record of Nash's teams ceasing to work in the playoffs. The closest thing anyone can mention is his team getting "upset" by a couple champion Spur teams with virtually identical records, an apparent matchup edge, and superior health.

[bastillon]

If you aren't improving then you have the chance of falling back. The Heat went to the finals their first year together. Doesn't mean they don't have holes to fill. I do remember hearing leading up to the playoff's that their style of play wouldn't win in the playoff's. I was skeptical. I thought the Suns could do what had not been done before. But they lost convincingly to the Spurs. The Spurs had a gameplan and stuck to it. They let Amare go off and contained the rest of the Suns. Why didn't Nash take over when he saw what was going on? That's what stars do in the NBA. TAKE OVER.

Nash didn't take over ? he went for 24/10 on awesome efficiency and Suns offense was amazing in that series, embarassing one of the best defensive teams of the decade. probably a better playoff series than Isiah ever played. when Nash so what was going on, with JJ gone, he went for 29/13/4 and 29/15/5 in the first 2 games, on 25/44 shooting.

so why did the Suns lose the series ? because Duncan and Manu were abusing their defenders in the paint. I don't see how Nash could've "taken over" and suddenly stop those guys.

[ElGee]

If you aren't improving then you have the chance of falling back. The Heat went to the finals their first year together. Doesn't mean they don't have holes to fill. I do remember hearing leading up to the playoff's that their style of play wouldn't win in the playoff's. I was skeptical. I thought the Suns could do what had not been done before. But they lost convincingly to the Spurs. The Spurs had a gameplan and stuck to it. They let Amare go off and contained the rest of the Suns. Why didn't Nash take over when he saw what was going on? That's what stars do in the NBA. TAKE OVER.

Nash didn't take over ? he went for 24/10 on awesome efficiency and Suns offense was amazing in that series, embarassing one of the best defensive teams of the decade. probably a better playoff series than Isiah ever played. when Nash so what was going on, with JJ gone, he went for 29/13/4 and 29/15/5 in the first 2 games, on 25/44 shooting.

so why did the Suns lose the series ? because Duncan and Manu were abusing their defenders in the paint. I don't see how Nash could've "taken over" and suddenly stop those guys.

Don't you get it?! It's Nash's responsibility to stop Manu and Duncan. If he can't do it, it's his responsibility to make sure the Suns not only seek out players who can stop Manu and Duncan, but to acquire them ahead of other teams who may want their services.

Other stars are better at this - that's why they are winners and take over. (The other stars who have won historically were also the best GM's and the best at making sure personnel gaps were shored up.)

[LAKERS_1981]

I think the only people that voted for Nash is the people that did not watch the NBA when Thomas was in his prime.
I am a big fan of Nash i love his game and his Basketball IQ. But Thomas was another type of player he was a leader, could play D, was clutch, he was mutch faster, could shoot and drive and pass the ball. Yes Nash is a better passer and shooter(but not by mutch) but his D is not close and he dose not have that i will kill sombody if we lose look in this eyes.

[sheba021]

Right, so he was a loser when he was scoring 25 PPG in a quarter, but changed into a winner two years later. Got it.

Two years later when he was scoring 23 points in a quarter and was the difference between Pistons winning and Pistons not winning the title, yeah. Glad you got it.
[

Nope, then too. There's no track record of Nash's teams ceasing to work in the playoffs. The closest thing anyone can mention is his team getting "upset" by a couple champion Spur teams with virtually identical records, an apparent matchup edge, and superior health.

There's no track record of Nash's teams participating on the big stage either, unlike Isiah's who went there 3 times. So where does the argument that Nash helps his team win more than Isiah come from exactly? Helped his team win what exactly? Regular season games? Conference semifinals? What?
Oh right I know, Isiah wasn't his teams strength, driving force, superstar, whatever, right? Well, the problem with that assertion is that it's an utter nonsense. He was their captain, their leader, played defense as well as any other player of his size (no matter how hard you try to ignore that) as well as provided an offensive spark and took over games whenever his team needed it.

Btw, time to stop using the Spurs excuse as to why Nash didn't have any trips to the finals, the care-o-meter shows below 0. Just like it shows for Gervin, English, King and countless others that were great but ultimately failed to win the ring or even appear in the finals for whatever reasons. How many times you hear "English would have beaten the Lakers in '85 if he didn' t break his finger and if Natt, Evans and Lever weren't injured and if the Nuggets GM's...blah, blah, blah"? Be prepared for the same thing to happen with Nash given the time. People champion winners, no one cares about the excuses.

[Brenice]

The thing about Zeke scoring 25 in the 3rd quarter, on a severely sprained ankle and losing is a case of Nash people cheapening what Zeke did just to make Nash look better. What that 25 pts show is that he said ok, let's go, ride me. What would have happened if he hadn't severely sprained that ankle? What happened during the 4th quarter? Did the ankle issue catch up with him? The thing is, he tried. The ankle is the reason they LOST the series to those Lakers. Did that series not go 7 games? If the Pistons lost the last 2 games, they must have been up 3-2 when Zeke got hurt. What y'all got to say about that? They didn't lose because Dumars got hurt, Rodman, Laimbeer either. Game 7 Zeke was limited by that ankle and played limited minutes. Do you really think the Lakers would have won the last 2 games IN DETROIT, if Zeke was healthy. With a healthy Zeke, they had won the last 2 games IN L.A. by 10 or more points. But y'all say the best team won, the Lakers. And the next year, when the Pistons won, the Lakers had their injury issues and y'all make all the excuses for the Lakers(age and injury) as to why the Pistons won, but in reality the best team was proven the year before, until that ankle injury.

Y'all keep underestimating Zeke. The weakness of San Antonio defensively was defending the point. It's everybody's weakness under today's rules. Nash should have put up 35 and 10 if it was necessary. Who will San Antonio defend Nash with? Parker can't defend Nash. Bowen? Bowen can defend wings, not points. They would not have been able to defend Zeke.

This new NBA, defending the point is the weakness, again of all teams. That's why Nash looks so good under the new rules. Damn, he looks perfect. He ain't. The Nash followers will point to the fact that the interior defense is the problem for the Suns. True Dat! But, in the past at least, there is a thing called ‘keeping your point guard from penetrating the paint’. Nash is amongst the worst, defensively, but great getting into the lane himself. Why? Under today’s rules, the lanes are wide open freeways. Nash fans say “But Nash doesn’t have a defense behind him”. These rules allow Nash free access to the lane. Nash drives the lane, shifts gears, puts the car in reverse and drives out the lane. He is great at it. He could not do that if hand-checking or even touching the dribbler was allowed. Oh yeah, why didn’t he shoot instead of going away from the basket? But that’s the rules of today’s game. What Nash is great at, he is amongst the worst at though, and that’s the problem. The question is why can’t Nash keep his man from penetrating, if it is not the rules? Under any rules, Nash would have that same problem, staying in front of his man. He ain’t quick enough to defend the point, too small, and not aggressive enough defensively. All he will do is go along for the ride to the rim. People say if you get 30 and give up 30, you didn’t do your job. Agent0 put up 54 on Nash in a Phoenix loss.

[sheba021]

Don't you get it?! It's Nash's responsibility to stop Manu and Duncan. If he can't do it, it's his responsibility to make sure the Suns not only seek out players who can stop Manu and Duncan, but to acquire them ahead of other teams who may want their services.

Other stars are better at this - that's why they are winners and take over. (The other stars who have won historically were also the best GM's and the best at making sure personnel gaps were shored up.)

You are joking, right? Nash's responsibility is to run, score, pass, play little to no defense, fail in the playoffs, win meaningless popularity contests (that are similar to one other contest that was won by a golfer 5 times already), and then have a handful of homers on some message board hail him above one of the all-time greats based on borderline irrelevant reasons.

[Stripes13]

The thing about Zeke scoring 25 in the 3rd quarter, on a severely sprained ankle and losing is a case of Nash people cheapening what Zeke did just to make Nash look better. What that 25 pts show is that he said ok, let's go, ride me. What would have happened if he hadn't severely sprained that ankle? What happened during the 4th quarter? Did the ankle issue catch up with him? The thing is, he tried. The ankle is the reason they LOST the series to those Lakers. Did that series not go 7 games? If the Pistons lost the last 2 games, they must have been up 3-2 when Zeke got hurt. What y'all got to say about that? They didn't lose because Dumars got hurt, Rodman, Laimbeer either. Game 7 Zeke was limited by that ankle and played limited minutes. Do you really think the Lakers would have won the last 2 games IN DETROIT, if Zeke was healthy. With a healthy Zeke, they had won the last 2 games IN L.A. by 10 or more points. But y'all say the best team won, the Lakers. And the next year, when the Pistons won, the Lakers had their injury issues and y'all make all the excuses for the Lakers(age and injury) as to why the Pistons won, but in reality the best team was proven the year before, until that ankle injury.

But don't you get it? If Isiah were great he still would have taken over and won!

Y'all keep underestimating Zeke. The weakness of San Antonio defensively was defending the point. It's everybody's weakness under today's rules.

Strange then how Nash gets bashed for his defense...

[Brenice]

But don't you get it? If Isiah were great he still would have taken over and won!

Y'all keep underestimating Zeke. The weakness of San Antonio defensively was defending the point. It's everybody's weakness under today's rules.

Strange then how Nash gets bashed for his defense...

The question is not about is Zeke great. It is who is the better player, Isiah or Nash. As for Nash getting bashed for his defense, it is because he is one of the worst.

[Rapcity_11]

He did the similar thing 2 years later and won. So no, he isn't.

We're talking about 88, when Isiah was a loser by definition.

Except when it matters the most, right?

No, Nash has been outstanding in the playoffs on a consistent basis.

[Ballings7]

Even though his team failed, it wasn't mainly because of Nash, he was their rock.

If Nash had bigger front-court players to play defense in general, better depth (most years), and another offensive creator with him Phoenix would of at least made one NBA finals, if not two.

[rrravenred]

But don't you get it? If Isiah were great he still would have taken over and won!

Y'all keep underestimating Zeke. The weakness of San Antonio defensively was defending the point. It's everybody's weakness under today's rules.

Strange then how Nash gets bashed for his defense...

The question is not about is Zeke great. It is who is the better player, Isiah or Nash. As for Nash getting bashed for his defense, it is because he is one of the worst.

No he's not. He's got weak MAN defence, but is a more-than-useful HELP defender, as can be observed from his "neutral" defensive RAPM as well as by watching the games. The narrative of Nash as a defensive abomination is way out of step with reality.

[Brenice]

Then Nash needs to focus on defending the opposing point instead of leaving his man open to help. I guess you gonna blame lack of rotation.

[G35]

I know someone that took over when he had to in the finals on a sprained ankle. Scoring 25 points in a quarter.

Isiah lost that game. He must be a loser, right?

Yes as much as people hate it winning matters.

And what's been hammered home about a million times by Nash supporters is that Nash helps his team win more than Isiah.

Yeah and what happened next year?....and the year after. What has Nash ever won....well being the only MVP to never reach the finals. That must show he helps his team a lot......