Texas Chuck wrote:InsideInfo wrote:I don't think any of these guys on the list prevents you from winning... but at the end of the day he didn't win a ring. If I start a franchise and have my choice between Nash and Curry, I think I am picking Curry every time.
For me, when you are putting together all time great lists you have to take into account a mix of personal and team accomplishments. If Jordan went 0-6 in the finals... he isn't the best SG of all time... and the same line of thinking for me says Nash needs to be dropped way out of the top 5 for never making it out of the conference finals.
Side note...I give Stockton a little bit of a pass since he made it to the finals twice and ran into Jordan and the Bulls.
Oh I value team success as well. My issue is its really hard to win championships and Nash played in a conference where one of Kobe, Duncan, or Dirk was always representing his conference and the Suns lost to the West champ and/or the Spurs every single year and in 03 his only contending level team in Dallas lost to the Spurs when Dirk got hurt.
So context matters. It's like all the players in the East for the past decade where Lebron was looming over everything. Judging them all terrible because Lebron was in the way feels misguided at best since Lebron is arguable the GOAT and at minimum in that conversation. Same with guys whose primes overlapped Russell's or Jordans or was trying to deal with Bird/Magic/Moses.
There was this KG can't win narrative and then he got to move East and all of sudden it was deep run after deep run. That narrative was dead wrong all along.
So I look at Nash's level of play which was really high, his team success which was good, though not great. The bad luck he had with his best teams that was outside of his control and then I look at Curry who was definitely the driving force on the first championship team and the 73 win team that lost. But who then had overwhelming talent and for all his regular season brilliance his game hasn't proven to be as durable against better teams, better coaches, defenses better able to scheme him over a series. And Draymond proved the oppposite--he had great regular season impact as well, but upped his game in the playoffs.
I say none of that to take away from Curry, but rather to say for me its not as simple as this guy won 3x and this guy never did so the winner has to be better. He is definitely better in some ways, but Nash is clearly better in some others. And as of now I would rate his career higher. Steph still has time and if healthy should continue to move up the list.
I rate Nash highly, but in what ways exactly does he surpass Curry ?.