Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ
D Nice wrote:- They're 5-4.NYK 455 wrote:Yet he's running the second best offense this year with offensive mismatch juggernauts like Hakim Warrick and Robin Lopez.
- You have a 9 game sample size.
- There are about 5 point guards playing better basketball right now.
Why do people post w/l differentials like they mean anything without context. If a team is completely structured around the talents of one player, and lack depth at that player's position, they will struggle without him. It's like the people who like to point out the Laker's w/l differentials with Shaq and with Kobe, acting like the Lakers perimeter depth was comparable to having Samaki Walker, Slava Medvedenko, and AC Green as your replacements.
Yeah. The roster was "revamped" to continually sport undersized athletic finishers at the 4/5 with shooters/all-star wings up and down the perimeter. Seriously
05: Amare, Marion, JJ, Q, Barbosa
06: Diaw, Marion, TT, KT, Bell, Barbosa
07: Amare, Diaw, Marion Bell, KT, Barbosa
08: Amare, Shaq (18/10), Hill, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa
10: Amare, J-Rich, Frye, Lopez, Dudley
Yeah, there have been plenty of teams that could replicate that talent, shooting, and athleticism.
People like to blame Nash's failures on lack of defensive big men, completely ignoring the fact that the reason he's able to lead offensive teams like that is because he's running up and down the court with small forwards as his center. Color me confused (but not surprised).
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
Rose, Westbrook, Paul, Williams, Rondo.NYK 455 wrote:D Nice wrote:- They're 5-4.NYK 455 wrote:Yet he's running the second best offense this year with offensive mismatch juggernauts like Hakim Warrick and Robin Lopez.
- You have a 9 game sample size.
- There are about 5 point guards playing better basketball right now.
D Nice wrote:- They're 5-4.NYK 455 wrote:Yet he's running the second best offense this year with offensive mismatch juggernauts like Hakim Warrick and Robin Lopez.
- You have a 9 game sample size.
- There are about 5 point guards playing better basketball right now.
D Nice wrote:Rose, Westbrook, Paul, Williams, Rondo.
Thanks for playing. There was literally just a thread ranking the top 10 PGs. Nash was in the 4-6 range on the majority of lists.
Um, yes, particularly with variation of the triangle the Lakers ran.bastillon wrote:Why do people post w/l differentials like they mean anything without context. If a team is completely structured around the talents of one player, and lack depth at that player's position, they will struggle without him. It's like the people who like to point out the Laker's w/l differentials with Shaq and with Kobe, acting like the Lakers perimeter depth was comparable to having Samaki Walker, Slava Medvedenko, and AC Green as your replacements.
are you implying that Kobe's backups were lesser than what Medvedenko/decomposing AC Green and Samaki Walker represented ?
Yeah. The roster was "revamped" to continually sport undersized athletic finishers at the 4/5 with shooters/all-star wings up and down the perimeter. Seriously
05: Amare, Marion, JJ, Q, Barbosa
06: Diaw, Marion, TT, KT, Bell, Barbosa
07: Amare, Diaw, Marion Bell, KT, Barbosa
08: Amare, Shaq (18/10), Hill, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa
10: Amare, J-Rich, Frye, Lopez, Dudley
Yeah, there have been plenty of teams that could replicate that talent, shooting, and athleticism.
People like to blame Nash's failures on lack of defensive big men, completely ignoring the fact that the reason he's able to lead offensive teams like that is because he's running up and down the court with small forwards as his center. Color me confused (but not surprised).
another example, 2006 Suns with Kurt THomas and Diaw. they were THE slowest starting bigs in the league, you do realize that, don't you ?
It was always evident Marion was a system player, I got in several arguments on other message boards contending Odom/AK-47 were better or more useful players because of how reliant Marion was on having an elite passing PG (Kidd...Nash). At least while playing 4. And from the 3, his jumper is only average. Once his athleticism began to fall, it was the end of his utility, at least as an elite player.I wonder also how do you explain monstrous Nash +/- over the years or how his teammates always VASTLY regressed without him, like this year's Amare, Miami/Dallas Marion etc.
Rose, Westbrook, Paul, Williams, Rondo.
Thanks for playing. There was literally just a thread ranking the top 10 PGs. Nash was in the 4-6 range on the majority of lists.
Laimbeer wrote:Rule for life - if a player comparison was ridiculous 24 hours ago, it's probably still ridiculous.
Um, yes, particularly with variation of the triangle the Lakers ran.
You mean the offense Nash had the smallest part in of those squads? Not only does is that a weak point, but you're basically underselling you're own argument in the attempt to grasp at an argument.
No they weren't. KT still had his automatic mid-range jumper, and Boris Diaw was basically a hyper-Lamar Odom minus the rebounding that season.
Amare has gone to a dogcrap situation. It's completely unfair to make that statement with regards to him, but I don't expect much different. As for various role players doing worse, that has about as much to do with leaving the open system and going to more structured settings. It happens when people leave the Warriors too. And when people leave the side of most REAL superstars, like Wade, Shaq, Kobe, you see their %s drop. It's well-documented too, and it only trends upwards for PGs (meaning the lesser a player you are, the higher an impact you can have on said %'s from that position).
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
Sure. Shaw/Harper/Fisher/Rice/Fox/Payton, aka the players who assumed Kobe's role when he was out, were infinitely superior to whoever was replacing Shaq.care to elaborate how Lakers guards were worse than Shaq's scrub backups ?
Crossed signals I guess.I don't understand what you're saying. my point was that those supposed-to-be-crucial elements all left, people weren't expecting Suns to make the playoffs and they still won 54 games despite countless injuries. what's your point ?
The starting bigs were Diaw and Marion. For the 4 and 5 those were two of the fastest/most athletic players at their position. What are you talking about?how does that argue what I said ? you were saying that Nash needed extra-athletic bigs to run up and down the floor for easy scores. I countered that with Diaw and Kurt Thomas who were LEAST athletic bigs in the game and they still had top offense that year.
Multiple posters on multiple forums have done this for various players.examples!
Malinhion wrote:Exactly. What kind of MVP puts up 16 points per game?
Sure. Shaw/Harper/Fisher/Rice/Fox/Payton, aka the players who assumed Kobe's role when he was out, were infinitely superior to whoever was replacing Shaq.
Crossed signals I guess.
The starting bigs were Diaw and Marion. For the 4 and 5 those were two of the fastest/most athletic players at their position. What are you talking about?
Multiple posters on multiple forums have done this for various players.
Semi, you mind posting the one you did on Kobe? I'm pretty sure that one encompassed some other players too, at least Lebron and Shaq if my memory serves.
bastillon wrote:bastillon wrote:in '05 there was the closest MVP race in the last decade. Nash had 34 points more(or 3.2%)or 7 1st place votes than Shaq, but I think it was a fair MVP. people were seriously overrating impact of Stoudemire whose buckets should be accounted to Nash in most cases and on the other hand, Dwyane Wade was underrated, because he was just a sophomore and Shaq was 32 and all. the next MVP for Nash was proving they made the right decision in '05.Jimmy76 wrote:Im gonna tackle this question one year at a time and from the standpoint of winning as opposed to individual statistics also note i am a suns fan so i am obviously biased in his favor
2005
To understand why Steve Nash got the MVP this year you have to look at the 2004 Suns and see how the Suns went from a lottery team to a championship contender. The 2004 Suns went 29-53 and were ranked 21st offensively and 29th defensively. Now remember the only major roster change from 2004 to 2005 is replacing Nash with Marbury (this is pre-Knicks marbury).
The Suns go from 29-53 to 62-20 and Nash is the only new player. The offence goes from 21st to 1st in the league and the defence goes from 29th to 17th in the league(Nash is not a good defender but if he were as bad as some say your D would not skyrocket 12 places by making him your starting point guard). Some of this can be accounted for by improvements in other Suns players but much of the improvement in the other players is also accounted for by Nash.
Amare goes from 21ppg on 54% TS to 26ppg on 62% TS. Marion goes from 17ppg on 51% TS to 20ppg on 55% TS. The system had not changed Dantoni was still coach the increase in production is mostly thanks to Nash. Notice how EVERY SINGLE player that joins the Suns sees their efficiency shoot up and every player that leaves the Suns sees their efficiency drop through a hole even post Dantoni.
In short:the Suns improve by 31 wins and Nash is the only new guy in town.
2006
Amare is out for the year. Joe Johnson is gone. The only real contributors from last year left are Nash and Marion. Everyone expects the Suns to do terribly compared to their former selves. This doesnt happen. Despite losing two of their most important players Phoenix still wins 54 games and goes from 1st offense in the league to 2nd and 17th defense in the league to 16th(contrary to popular belief these suns teams were ok at defense). Johnson is replaced by Raja Bell (good player but in no way comparable) and Amare is replaced by Diaw (who went from playing 18 minutes a game as a forward in atlanta to 36 minutes a game as our starting center).
So the question is how are the Suns still a top 2 offensive team without 2 of their top 3 scorers? And who is responsible for all these wins? The answer is pretty clearly Nash. Marion obviously contributes a lot but he is a player who relies completely on the creation of others for scoring since he can only finish and having Nash create for him is his ideal situation. We have seen how Marion's offense dropped radically once he left Phoenix (even within the same year playing in Miami and one year of aging does not explain a decline that radical). Diaw has a career year (which happens to a lot of players who play next to Nash) but career year for Diaw is 13/7. Name one other player who takes Marion+roleplayers and makes them contenders. Im sure you can name a few and I bet they are all MVP canidates.
The Suns manage to make the semi-finals and lose in 6 games. Nash claims the vast majority of the success of a team which was composed of two all-stars and minor pieces other teams didnt see much value in. This team was about as far from stacked as you can get and still go 6 games into the semi-finals.
Saying there was another player that year that had a good argument for MVP isnt wrong at all but saying Nash didnt deserve either of these MVPs at all is ridiculous and based on nothing but a perception that has no grounding in reality. Nash made the Suns into winners both years. In 2005 he improved the efficiency of all the players on the team and added 31 wins. In 2006 he managed to take a team that had only one other serious contributor and make them into a contender. Nash deserved his MVPs and doesnt deserve the blind uninformed criticism he often receives.
DONT BOTHER RESPONDING IF YOU DONT READ THE POST
and those who do read it please tell me your thoughtsNYK 455 wrote:Steve Nash had a strong case for MVP in 05, 06, and 07. In 2005, he joined a losing team with no real expectations and turned it into a 62 win team, and a contender. In 2006, the Suns lost Amare and Joe Johnson, and despite having the reigning MVP on the team, most people expected the Suns to either not make the playoffs, or be a low seed and not make much noise. Nash led them to 54 wins and took them to the Western Conference Finals, along the way coming back from a 3-1 deficit against Kobe Bryant and the LA Lakers. In 2007, he led the Suns to 61 wins and had career highs in assists and Field Goal %, probably his best statistical year in the NBA. He took them to the Western Conference Finals, and in my opinion would have led them to a Championship if not for the suspensions to Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw.
bastillon wrote:some facts:
Joe Johnson, Amare and Quentin were regarded as great supporting players and the reason why Suns were so succesful. but consider this: in the last 31 games of 2004, JJ-Amare-Marion-Barbosa core played all the games during which they went 11-20. in 2006 JJ, Quentin and Amare were replaced by 3 bench players with no star reputation (Bell was a solid role player prior to that, Diaw was a bust pick who was drafted as guard and sucked, Kurt Thomas was a nice veteran to provide some defense). Suns were playing just as well (pts differential stayed on the same level) in the first 53 games, before Thomas went down with a season ending injury. you really have to wonder how much JJ/Amare/Q meant to that team if they were unsuccesful without Nash and Nash did great without them.
Shaq in 2005 was regarded as the reason why they improved so much and got nearly all the credit. there are several problems with this line of thought. 1) 2004 and 2005 Heat are two different teams. only Haslem, Wade and Eddie Jones stayed there. Odom was gone, so was Grant, Alston and Butler. it's hard to give Shaq credit for improvement when there are two seperate teams, with little in common. 2) even if you used that logic, Heat were bothered by injuries in 04: Wade played 61 games, Butler 68. 3) Shaq missed 9 games during which Heat went 6-3.
meanwhile Phoenix was pretty much the same team. personel changed a little but the core was already in place the year before. as I said, Amare-Marion-JJ-Barbosa finished the season together with a 11-20 record, during which only Marion missed one game. we do have an idea of how they performed without Nash - they weren't very good. matter of fact, Nash missed also 7 games... but Suns went 2-5 (Heat 6-3 in Shaq's absence).
this is hugely important circumstantial context.
in 2006 people were expecting Suns to miss the playoffs, like the year before when Nash came there. they went to WCFs despite several significant injuries (season ending Thomas, whole team was injured later in the playoffs after playing 15 games in 30 days in the 1st month of the playoffs). before Thomas went down they were playing with the same point differential as the year before.
low expectations + excellent record, especially in the first half of the season + team going 0-3 in Nash's absence + voters divided between lots of candidates - Nash wins his 2nd MVP. it wasn't really close like in 05. Shaq missed 23 games. Kobe's Lakers won only 45 games. Billups was the best player on the best team, but he wasn't MVP-caliber player. James led Cavs to 50 wins, but in an inferior conference and he wasn't proven yet and Cavs went 3-0 in his absence. to me only legit candidates besides Nash were Duncan and Dirk. Duncan's offense was not quite as good as usually (only 52% TS, 18.6 PPG, lower BPG, clearly he wasn't himself that year). Dirk was a great candidate, but it probably affected people that Nash torched the Mavs in 05 playoffs (30/12/6 on great TS%), IMO 2nd best player that year.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
D Nice wrote:Tallys from where people ranked Nash in the top 10 PG thread. Each Tally represents where one person put him. I omitted posters who didn't make it further than 3, and one really, really dumb list.
1 I
2 I
3 II
4 IIII
5 IIIII
6 III
7 III
>7 III
Personally, I'd rank him 3rd or 4th. That statement was slight hyperbole, I meant as good or better. But clearly I'm not in the minority here (which is surprising).Sure. Shaw/Harper/Fisher/Rice/Fox/Payton, aka the players who assumed Kobe's role when he was out, were infinitely superior to whoever was replacing Shaq.care to elaborate how Lakers guards were worse than Shaq's scrub backups ?Crossed signals I guess.I don't understand what you're saying. my point was that those supposed-to-be-crucial elements all left, people weren't expecting Suns to make the playoffs and they still won 54 games despite countless injuries. what's your point ?The starting bigs were Diaw and Marion. For the 4 and 5 those were two of the fastest/most athletic players at their position. What are you talking about?how does that argue what I said ? you were saying that Nash needed extra-athletic bigs to run up and down the floor for easy scores. I countered that with Diaw and Kurt Thomas who were LEAST athletic bigs in the game and they still had top offense that year.Multiple posters on multiple forums have done this for various players.examples!
Semi, you mind posting the one you did on Kobe? I'm pretty sure that one encompassed some other players too, at least Lebron and Shaq if my memory serves.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
D Nice wrote:Interesting reads. But again it isn't anything I don't give him credit for. But I just think Shaq going to a team that lost its 2nd and 3rd best players and turning them into a contender was more impressive than Nash joining a team with 3 all-stars and doing the same. And in the following year, what Kobe did with that cast of players is nearly unheralded. I've watched a lot of really, really great players. I can think of very very few players who could have replicated what Kobe did.
You talk about anchoring great offensive teams, but Kobe's efficiency or lackthereof undersells what he was doing for those teams...he was turning a team with little to no offensive talent into a top 10 offensive team by going one-on-five and shooting a lot.
I also don't think you understand how much the touch rules and moving-screen officiating impacted Nash on the micro level and your team on the macro level, but whatever. We're going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to your boy.
