Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[easiestplayfts]

Nash is the only regular season NBA MVP (in recorded NBA HISTORY) who has not lead their team to a finals..ever. The Suns had the best record 3-4 years in the 2000s, not one final appearence? SMDH

As for your other "SMDH" point...what on earth does that have to do with anything? Steve Nash didn't make the NBA FInals in the two seasons he won the MVP...which makes him exactly like 25 other MVP seasons. Indeed, the NBA MVP has been handed out 56 times and 27 times -- 48.2% of the time -- the winner hasn't played in the Finals.

In all fairness to Steve Nash....I'm not talking about making the finals the same year they were league MVP. But every other league MVP has led their teams to the finals at some point in their career except Nash (and actually DRose but he's got time).

[G35]

Those Pistons were the definition of "team". Worm, Joe D, Lambs, Buddha, Spider, Aguirre, Microwave. Chuck Daly was also an excellent coach. This wasn't a case of Isiah willing his team to championships. In his championships seasons, he wasn't even a top 3 point guard in the NBA - he didn't even make any all-NBA teams. Was Isiah a great player, a great leader, a fierce competitor? Yes, to all. But don't give him undue credit and diminish that Pistons team just to prop him up.

So Nash had just as much talent as Isiah had with the Pistons. Nash didn't do any "willing" of his own either.

There are definite sacrifices a player has to make to make the team greater. Jordan wasn't as good statistically during his championship years as he was earlier in his career. Most superstars draw back their game for the greater success of the team. Nash had that in Dallas when he was part of a big three and he wasn't the main component. Dallas didn't win. Dallas improved without Nash. Why can't Nash fans get that a team can improve without him. It was done! It's just being thick headed that they can't accept that.

Now when Nash goes to Phoenix he becomes a bigger part of the offense and the Suns seem to be an unstoppable offensive juggernaut. Only they aren't. They can be stopped. And citing injuries is really a lame excuse when every team is subject to the injury factor. The Spurs have shown they had the formula to stop the Suns. And what's even more telling is that the Mavericks were able to beat the Spurs in 2006. So it's not like the Spurs weren't beatable......

[Rapcity_11]

1988 wasn't the only time he had outstanding playoff performances. Time to let go of the straw.

Straw? No, that's the principal argument of Isiah supporters. Isiah is a winner and Nash isn't. Even though Isiah's crowning individual achievement (s) are when he was a loser by their definition.

That is not a strawman argument.

As were English and Gervin, who cares? That is not what the argument was.

Who cares?

Uh, what? How can you not care how good a player plays in the playoffs?

[ElGee]

Do the people voting for Isiah understand that the best player on the court doesn't always win? That there is a wide range of teams from -10 MOV teams to +10 MOV teams and that factor is PRIMARILY dependent on how many rings an individual finishes with?

It's a spectacularly simple concept that I believe they are trying not to grasp in order to protect their stance of Isiah > Nash because they have nothing else to argue.

How many years did it take Nash to accomplish what Zeke did in 13? Come on, give me the excuses. How many more years will it take for Nash to lead his team to the Finals?

I know it ain't about stats. I know it ain't about rings. What it is about, for captains of the team, not only captains, but captains who happen to play the "Lead" guard position(AKA Point guard)(AKA "1" position). Your job is to lead your team, somewhere. Maybe, just maybe, Nash needs to change something in his game(leadership). What is the definition of insanity? What is the definition of pride, as in too much pride?

Nash fans want to throw out they had to play the "Big Bad Wolf" San Antonio. That's why they lost. Zeke had to LEAD his team thru Bird in Beantown, Showtime Lakers, and Jordans Bulls. Nash fans will say the Celtics and Lakers were too old, and Bulls, too young or not ready or Michael needed help. But that went the same for Zeke. Bird, Magic, Jordan were Isiah's contemporaries and each led dynasties(not Zeke). Hell, Jordan was a rival. Magic and Zeke were 'kissing cousins'. The strength of the Lakers, Celtics, and Pistons were all within the same age range when considering Bird, Magic, Worthy, Isiah, Worthy, Rodman, McHale. Laimbeer was similar in age to a Parish.

To say Zeke's team didn't age with the Lakers and Celtics is ridiculous. They all had stacked squads.
You win some, you lose some. Better to have won at all then to have never won at all.

Who had the better early years? Zeke easily. Who had the better latter years? Rings or MVP's. Which do you prefer? The Mailman, Stockton, Barkley, etc. have been known to say they would give up all their individual accoloades for 1 ring. Zeke gave up his individual accolades for 2 rings and another Finals appearance. Leadership.

Nash is 15 seasons in now. Tick, Tick, Tick....Almost Midnight.

As for your other "SMDH" point...what on earth does that have to do with anything? Steve Nash didn't make the NBA FInals in the two seasons he won the MVP...which makes him exactly like 25 other MVP seasons. Indeed, the NBA MVP has been handed out 56 times and 27 times -- 48.2% of the time -- the winner hasn't played in the Finals. I don't really know what that has to do with anything, or why it make you shake your head in incredulity, but if you're asking why the TWO (not 4) Suns teams that were legit contenders didn't make it through the West, the answer is patently obvious: The San Antonio Spurs were better.

That you let the fact that they play in the same conference impact your view of *an individual* is deeply concerning. It makes me think you'd take the 16-seed in an NCAA Tournament over the NIT champ. It makes me really want to gamble with you actually.

[And yes, arguing against winning bias is exactly like arguing against religion. I believe, even in the anonymity of the Internet, most people are uncomfortable with the notion "I was wrong."]

Can you post the percentages of one time MVP's that have never reached the finals? And also the percentages of two-time MVP's that have never reached the finals?

Why is that relevant?....perhaps Nash's value is (I know this is crazy talk because the numbers say differently but let's not be sheep) SLIGHTLY overrated.....

Do the people voting for Isiah understand that the best player on the court doesn't always win? That there is a wide range of teams from -10 MOV teams to +10 MOV teams and that factor is PRIMARILY dependent on how many rings an individual finishes with?

It's a spectacularly simple concept that I believe they are trying not to grasp in order to protect their stance of Isiah > Nash because they have nothing else to argue.

Unfortunately for Nash when can you say that he was the best player on the court and lost. It's not like when the Lakers almost upset the Suns and Kobe was the best player on the court and lost. It's debateable whether Nash was the best player on his own team every year the Suns lost.

So yes it is spectacularly simple. Nash fans answer the question: When was Steve the best player and lost in the playoff's?

Nash is the only regular season NBA MVP (in recorded NBA HISTORY) who has not lead their team to a finals..ever. The Suns had the best record 3-4 years in the 2000s, not one final appearence? SMDH

As for your other "SMDH" point...what on earth does that have to do with anything? Steve Nash didn't make the NBA FInals in the two seasons he won the MVP...which makes him exactly like 25 other MVP seasons. Indeed, the NBA MVP has been handed out 56 times and 27 times -- 48.2% of the time -- the winner hasn't played in the Finals.

In all fairness to Steve Nash....I'm not talking about making the finals the same year they were league MVP. But every other league MVP has led their teams to the finals at some point in their career except Nash (and actually DRose but he's got time).

None of you seem to be grasping this incredibly simple point, which must mean I'm doing a bad job explaining it.

Individuals don't win basketball games. Teams do. The best player can never win if his team isn't good enough. This is a fact -- it's not simply a belief of the other side of the coin. Judging INDIVIDUAL performance by looking at anything other than INDIVIDUAL performance is wrong, and all it does it subject you to massive confounds.

This is fundamental to all team sports.

So, it's simple:
-Players would give up accolades to win because they are competitive. It doesn't change how good they were at basketball.
-Every other league MVP has not LED a team to the Finals. That's patently false.
-Nash was arguably better than Duncan in 2007, although it doesn't matter. That's the point. An individual player plays as well as he plays. The outcome of the game is the result of the teams on the court, and no individual in basketball history has been able to overcome this. Why?

Teams typically range from about -10 to +10 in scoring margin. There has never been any evidence of a player having a +20 impact, or even close, in the history of the sport. Stop using team results to judge individuals and start judging the individuals.

PS - the Tuck Rule wasn't overturned in multiple offseason reviews, but regardless, if the Patriots still lost that game it *wouldn't change how good they were as a team.* You need to start understanding variance and luck better. It's not a stretch to say Oakland was a better team in 2001.

[lorak]

Judging INDIVIDUAL performance by looking at anything other than INDIVIDUAL performance is wrong, and all it does it subject you to massive confounds.

Tell that to all those people who for example prise Nash's greatness based on Suns offensive results.

[Brenice]

Straw? No, that's the principal argument of Isiah supporters. Isiah is a winner and Nash isn't. Even though Isiah's crowning individual achievement (s) are when he was a loser by their definition.

Sure you can label Isiah a loser during those early years. Like Nash's WHOLE CAREER, their are reasons Isiah and Nash lost. But let's not pretend Isiah didn't have a high quality career in total, as part of a team and individually.

Nash has not had that same career. Tick, Tick, Tick. The clock is about to expire. You can be cynical all you want. Deny it all you want. Trivialize everything Zeke did. I for one am not basing Zeke's career on 1989 and 1990. You and your Nash supporters are the ones faking like Nash was a rookie in 2004. The fact of the matter, Nash has had 2 careers, 1996-2004 and 2004-present.

By my definition, hell yes Zeke is a winner. He lost, overcame some obstacles, and won. Nash, he lost, and lost, and lost. Clock still ticking.

I'm going out on a limb this year. I'll give Nash a break. He don't have to win the ring. I'll bet Phoenix will not rep the west this year either. Tick, Tick, Tick. I'll bet my house on it. Tick, Tick, Tick.

Y'alls argument is Zeke had to get help. Well Nash needs help. Tick, Tick, Tick. He should be desperate like an unmarried woman approaching 40. At least he should be. At least LeBron is. Nash cares only about stats. Just like his fans.

[magicman1978]

Thomas or Barkley, Ewing, Malone - who's better? Is Thomas better because those guys never won a title?

[Aeternus]

Tell that to all those people who for example prise Nash's greatness based on Suns offensive results.

Is the difference one's presence/absence on the court makes on the team's overall offensive prowess not an individual achievement?

[G35]

Judging INDIVIDUAL performance by looking at anything other than INDIVIDUAL performance is wrong, and all it does it subject you to massive confounds.

Tell that to all those people who for example prise Nash's greatness based on Suns offensive results.

Exactly

Individuals don't win basketball games. Teams do. The best player can never win if his team isn't good enough. This is a fact -- it's not simply a belief of the other side of the coin. Judging INDIVIDUAL performance by looking at anything other than INDIVIDUAL performance is wrong, and all it does it subject you to massive confounds.

Teams win based on their best players and no sport emphasizes that more than basketball. Teams win in the playoff's because of the performance of their star players. Your best player typically is your leader on the court. I can't think of too many champions where that is not a fact. Only the 2004 Pistons can I say that the best player was not the leader. Imo Rasheed was the Pistons best player but it is debateable amongst any of the starting five.

Nash is being claimed to be amongst the best ever at impacting a team. How do you measure that? Through stats? Wins and losses? Rings? I agree with you that the best player doesn't always win. As I said before I think Kobe played better than anyone in 2006 when the Lakers almost upset the Suns. Does that mean he was more valuable than Nash? That he had greater impact than Nash?

I will say that it is not even close that Nash was ever a better player than Duncan in any year or any series with Steve Nash. I would also say that there have been quite a few individuals that overcame teams that were better than them. They are called UPSETS. It's what makes sports so intriguing. A player that leads him team against the odds and beats them. Nash only wins when he is suppose to. If there is a reason to lose Nash has found it.

It use to be that a team had to lose a few times in the playoff's and then they would break through. The 83 Sixers, Bad Boy Pistons, MJ's Bulls all had reasons to say they lost but eventually they all broke through. For someone that is getting all this credit dismissing his lack of team success just shows how biased Nash fans are. If he had won a championship then you would hear a different tune...

[magicman1978]

So we can then deduce that pre-championship Isiah is not as good as post championship Isiah.

[Rapcity_11]

If he had won a championship then you would hear a different tune...

This is just bull.

Same rules apply to everybody.

[Brenice]

Thomas or Barkley, Ewing, Malone - who's better? Is Thomas better because those guys never won a title?

Nope. Titles have nothing to do with whether anybody is better. Zeke is better than Nash title or no title.

Is Nash better than Barkley, Ewing, Malone?

[magicman1978]

Thomas or Barkley, Ewing, Malone - who's better? Is Thomas better because those guys never won a title?

Nope. Titles have nothing to do with whether anybody is better. Zeke is better than Nash title or no title.

Is Nash better than Barkley, Ewing, Malone?

Then why do you keep going on and on about how Nash hasn't won anything if it winning has nothing to do with Zeke being better? The comparison to those players serves to show that you can compare players based on titles. Which seems to be what some people are doing - if you're not saying that, then my mistake. But it seems like when you talk about winning earlier - you're talking about titles.

[Brenice]

Did you read what I said?

I said that early in his career, from 81 to 87, Isiah had the individual awards, the first and second team all nba selections, multiple times. You want me to say that again? From 81 to 87 Isiah had the individual awards, being selected first(3 times) or second(2 times) team all nba, between the ages of 20 - 27. What had Nash been doing during his ages 20 - 27?

There was nothing about winning anything.

Then, from 88 to 90, he led his team to championship appearances, winning twice, ages 28-30. His individual stats went down as the team got better and the Pistons were able to compete with the Lakers and Celtics.

He did great in individual awards and team awards(championships).

And Nash has done what exactly? The highlight of Nash's career is losing to San Antonio and winning regular season MVP's.

[magicman1978]

Did you read what I said?

I said that early in his career, from 81 to 87, Isiah had the individual awards, the first and second team all nba selections, multiple times. You want me to say that again? From 81 to 87 Isiah had the individual awards, being selected first(3 times) or second(2 times) team all nba, between the ages of 20 - 27. What had Nash been doing during his ages 20 - 27?

There was nothing about winning anything.

Then, from 88 to 90, he led his team to championship appearances, winning twice, ages 28-30. His individual stats went down as the team got better and the Pistons were able to compete with the Lakers and Celtics.

He did great in individual awards and team awards(championships).

And Nash has done what exactly? The highlight of Nash's career is losing to San Antonio and winning regular season MVP's.

Ah, so I didn't misunderstand you. Obviously, titles have a lot to do with why you are saying Zeke is better. Even your last sentence within this post alone confirms this. Maybe you need to reread what you wrote.

[JordansBulls]

True. Before the Pistons competed in the finals, Zeke was getting the individual awards. That was from 1982-1987, age 21-26, while on lesser talented Piston teams(compared to the Celtics and Sixers of the 80s. 3-time first team all nba, 2-time 2nd team all nba.

Zeke was a loser then, right?

Right?

Huh???

[Brenice]

Sorry if it went over your head. I EVEN SAID IT TWICE! You focus on what Nash has not done, win. I know that is a sore spot. But to penalize Isiah by not giving him kudos for leading a team to championships is just, well it's just hate which is jealousy because Nash didn't. Did you not read the first paragraph of my post? Why are you sensitive about Nash NOT WINNING? What does he play the game for?

[Rapcity_11]

True. Before the Pistons competed in the finals, Zeke was getting the individual awards. That was from 1982-1987, age 21-26, while on lesser talented Piston teams(compared to the Celtics and Sixers of the 80s. 3-time first team all nba, 2-time 2nd team all nba.

Zeke was a loser then, right?

Right?

Huh???

Over your head.

[magicman1978]

Sorry if it went over your head. I EVEN SAID IT TWICE! You focus on what Nash has not done, win. I know that is a sore spot. But to penalize Isiah by not giving him kudos for leading a team to championships is just, well it's just hate which is jealousy because Nash didn't. Did you not read the first paragraph of my post? Why are you sensitive about Nash NOT WINNING? What does he play the game for?

Whoa, calm down there. You're saying I am focusing on what Nash hasn't done? I wasn't the one who said this "Nash, he lost, and lost, and lost." Obviously, you're focusing on it much more. No one is penalizing Isiah for anything (just saying that's not the most important factor), stop being so sensitive about it.

[JordansBulls]

Sorry if it went over your head. I EVEN SAID IT TWICE! You focus on what Nash has not done, win. I know that is a sore spot. But to penalize Isiah by not giving him kudos for leading a team to championships is just, well it's just hate which is jealousy because Nash didn't. Did you not read the first paragraph of my post? Why are you sensitive about Nash NOT WINNING? What does he play the game for?

Exactly!!! Nash had plenty of opportunities to win and didn't and most of the time had the best record in the league. I can't imagine any other star player playing with a guy who averaged 37 ppg in the conference finals and loses and still gets credit as being the best player on the team with a teammate with that kind of production on his team.