Steve Nash really should have won multiple championships.

[Roscoe Sheed]

Bad era. He had to overlap with the end of Shaq, prime of Duncan, Kobe, start of Lebron, Wade and then his own issues with injuries. One true bad break were the suspensions in 2005.

that was '07 and I think they would have won it all if not for the suspensions of Diaw and Amare

[Peregrine01]

Nash really should've won in 2007 but the ridiculous suspensions stole that from him. Keep in mind though that he was also regularly going up against a consensus top-10 guy in his prime (Duncan) before his window was effectively closed.

But there are other great players who won a championship in the Duncan era.

The early to mid-2000s were dominated by the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the Duncan/Ginobili/Parker Spurs. They won all championships from 2000-2005. Shaq and Wade won in 2006 (Amare was injured that year and Nash's Suns still went to the WCF) and then Nash got robbed in 2007. Nash's Suns actually had a very small window to win it all but injuries (Amare in 2006) and ridiculous suspensions (2007) ultimately closed it for them.

[JustBuzzin]

Attention everyone Nash is a 2x MVP.

We hold our MVP's to a different standard. Y'all can slander and hold Embiid accountable with 1 MVP. Yet you don't keep that same energy for all MVPs.


All I see is excuses for Nash.

Everyone comes out the woodworks to make excuses for every year of Nash’s seasons in the NBA. This board absolutely loves him. Some people here even calling him underrated, wild. A 2 time undeserved MVP that is a defensive sieve with 0 chips is “underrated”. Hilarious.

I'm starting to notice this. People getting mad because I'm holding a 2x MVP accountable is crazy.

I don't blame them for liking Nash he is a good guy. Just saying he should have a ring.

[aminiaturebuddha]

Attention everyone Nash is a 2x MVP.

We hold our MVP's to a different standard. Y'all can slander and hold Embiid accountable with 1 MVP. Yet you don't keep that same energy for all MVPs.


All I see is excuses for Nash.

Which standard is that, though? There are 8 different MVPs who never won championships - Malone, Nash, Barkley, Iverson, Rose, Harden, Westbrook, and Embiid.

While all of those guys are Hall of Famers (with the exception of Rose because injuries destroyed his career), I don't see anyone saying that any of them are top 10 all time players, just like I don't see anyone saying that with Nash. Seems to me that he's being held to the exact same standard as everyone else, and fits in pretty well with a bunch of other very good but not top tier MVPs.

[Peregrine01]

Nash really should've won in 2007 but the ridiculous suspensions stole that from him. Keep in mind though that he was also regularly going up against a consensus top-10 guy in his prime (Duncan) before his window was effectively closed.

Their (Suns) window stayed opened til 2011.

By 2011, Nash was 37, Amare was gone and their famously cheap owner Sarver still didn't want to spend any money. Nash was carrying a team in his late-30s with the remains of Vince Carter, Jason Richardson and Channing Frye at center.

The Suns window ended after Steve Kerr traded for old Shaq in 2008.

[cupcakesnake]

You can't come into my threads and start unnecessary drama because I mentioned something in the past. The sad part is I don't even know you, but you seem to know everything I post. Grow up man. If you don't like my threads then just stop responding.

Oh, I can do that very much. At least as long as the moderators think that it's OK. As long as you ignore facts and other takes and make the same allegations multiple times, you'll have to live with users like me reacting. This is a discussion board, or isn't it? So let's finally discuss. Make arguments, and respect answers when people don't agree with you. Somehow you tend to disappear when others give facts or ask for reasoning, only to re-emerge a couple of posts later to make the same unproven claims. Take a look at the respective seasons and the injuries and say in what year Nash should have won. And another hint: Look at Nash's stats and say if he really didn't do enough.

Somehow it seems that you are not that comfortable with your own opinion that Nash did not deserve to be a two-time MVP? Or why do you demand that much confirmation over and over again?

You do realize I made this topic because he is a 2x MVP?

You do realize I view him in high regard which is why I am asking why didn't he win a championship despite playing on some great teams.

It seems you just have a problem with me holding Nash accountable. If you think he was great he should have a championship with the players he played with.

People are literally coming to your topic and explaining the facts that resulted in a 2x MVP not winning a championship. You're being given the details. Instead of talking about the details, you prefer to generalize.

I think you want the answer to be: "Steve Nash did not win multiple championships because he was not good enough and probably wasn't an MVP talent". But that's probably not the answer. People are giving you pretty good answers and you aren't interested in them (you even call them "excuses"). It makes your topic seem like... not so much a genuine question but more an agenda to take down a player you aren't a fan of.

I've seen you go hard on Nash a ton of times so this isn't like something that just crossed your mind today and you decided to make a topic. What's your thing with Nash?

[tsherkin]

Nash really should've won in 2007 but the ridiculous suspensions stole that from him. Keep in mind though that he was also regularly going up against a consensus top-10 guy in his prime (Duncan) before his window was effectively closed.

But there are other great players who won a championship in the Duncan era.

They did not bear the brunt of major injuries or critically ill-timed suspensions in so doing. And Duncan also benefited from the acquisition of Kawhi Leonard later on. In the 99-04 period, the three-peat Lakers and the 04 Pistons were the only ones to really break that up. 06, no Amare and they STILL made the WCFs, which was incredibly impressive. Dallas had beaten the Spurs, but lost to the Wade/Shaq Heat. A year later, Horry's cheating and the suspensions caused problems. In 2008, the Spurs were legit just better with their trio, whereas Nash was trying to do everything and Amare wasn't the same kind of threat he'd been pre-microfracture surgery, and Shaq was causing chemistry issues. Coaching changes, injury issues, 2009 was a lost season, and then they were back in the WCFs in 2010, with 35 year-old Nash and 37 year-old Grant Hill featuring prominently along the way.

So after 06, you had the historic defense of the 2008 Celtics winning a title, and the the rise to prominence of the Kobe/Pau Lakers. The Suns were good, but they were too old to really push the Lakers, and Kobe was quite good in that series. *shrug*

The idea that "there are other great players who won a championship in the Duncan era" reflects poorly on Nash is non-sensical.

[Special_Puppy]

Was Nash actually the best and or most valuable player in the regular season the years he won MVP?

[Peregrine01]

Was Nash actually the best and or most valuable player in the regular season the years he won MVP?

Certainly the most valuable to his own team.

[lessthanjake]

I think if you replayed those Suns years again, there’s a good chance Nash comes out of it with a title. They had some bad luck that tipped things against them. At the same time, though, those teams were never clearly the best team in the league or anything. They were one of the top 2-4 teams in the league several times, though, and so they stood a decent shot of getting a title, but needed to not have luck go against them.

The thing with those peak Suns teams is that they were amazing offensively but just had no rim protection. As good as Amare was offensively, I think the Suns would’ve been better off with a more offensively limited big man that could protect the rim. For instance, I’ve long thought that the Suns would’ve been better off with Tyson Chandler instead of Amare—even though there’s a huge offensive gap between those two players. Nash was so good offensively and so ahead of his time that I think he just needed a center who was solid defensively and could be a pick and roll partner. Maybe Tyson Chandler is a bit of a stretch, but Rasheed Wallace is another one that comes to mind. My ideal historical pairing with Nash would be David Robinson, but obviously that’s giving Nash someone from a different era who was much better than Amare.

[jkvonny]

OP is toying with us!

He was around, paying attention, seen that era back then! He knows!
Plus, there are lots of older threads of this. Very popular topic/subject (Nash/Dirk Mavs...SSOL Suns.... Nash Suns, etc)


But, ya. Pretty simple. Timing.
Late '90s. Nash was very young, the Suns team was good. But, not major contenders. They were bit of an older team. These were the post Barkley/Kevin Johnson/Majerle teams. 1st round exits in the playoffs.

After 2 season, traded to a bad, terrible, rebuilding, young Dallas team. (Mavs sucked the entire '90s, lottery teams...). They were the Washington Wizards/Detroit Pistons (for all yall younger Wiz/Pistons fans, look up them Mavs teams of the '90s also the Nuggets teams during the '90s, this should give yall hope in the future! lol) of today of the West during the '90s.
This is where/when Nash started gettin more playing time (later '90s). They stunk at drafting great players (minus Kidd). But, knew how to obtain great players (Dirk obviously, via trade with the Bucks....Michael Finley few yrs prior via trade , etc) 1st couple of seasons , The Mavs stunk under young Dirk/Nash. Aside from Finley, the Mavs weren't very good yet. Then they got a new owner (Mark Cuban) and things got better. They finally have a winning season, make the playoffs in 2001 (upset a veteran Jazz team in the 1st round). Lost to a strong veteran Spurs team in the next round. Problem was, the whole West got good as well during the 2000s. The Nash/Dirk teams normally lost in the playoffs to the Kings and Spurs (more veteran groups with good defense).
When Nash was traded back to the Suns in 2004. The Suns had to deal with the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs in the playoffs.
The Mavs and Suns were a fast paced offense, but tend to play little defense. Kings were fast paced offense as well, but played good defense. It was thei Mavs/Suns weakness in the playoffs. While older, veteran teams with good defense (Jazz, Kings, TWolves, Spurs, Lakers, Portland, Nuggets later on, Rockets, etc) . Sometimes injuries hurt the Mavs/Suns in the playoffs.
The Suns aged out by 2010/2011 ish and the dynamic group were traded away or left via FA. Phoenix declined.

Nash obtained by the Lakers via sigh and trade. As for the Nash/Howard/Kobe teams of the mid 2010s...... Lakers were old, banged up, so was Nash (injury prone at the time, bad back). Howard (traded by Orlando). Howard/Kobe chemistry was a disaster. and they both were dealing with their own injuries. Barely made the playoffs in 2013 as a 7th seed (45-37), swept by the Spurs in round 1. 2014, Lakers finished 27-55! Losing season/no playoffs. Nash missed most of that season, he retired after the season. Bad back.
Lakers went on to have 6 straight losing seasons/no playoffs. 2014-2019. The last Kobe years and post Kobe years. Even in Lebron's 1st season with the Lakers. Their worst stretch in their history. Similar to what the Spurs have been going through the past 5 seasons. Post Duncan years/Manu/Parker years.

So, ya. OP. Don't make us have to explain it to you again, you were there to witness it all or at least to have paid attention to it back then!

EDIT: As a Spurs fan, I would say that the suspensions (WCSF vs Spurs) did hurt the Suns chances for the title as well. Controversial.

[og15]

Attention everyone Nash is a 2x MVP.

We hold our MVP's to a different standard. Y'all can slander and hold Embiid accountable with 1 MVP. Yet you don't keep that same energy for all MVPs.


All I see is excuses for Nash.

You say this, but then you cited Nash not winning at 38 when he wasn't anywhere near MVP level, lol

It has to actually make sense

[Slim Charlez]

It’s crazy how many excuses RealGM posters will make for Nash. Never see this for any other player. For Lebron, Kobe and MJ it’s how they wouldn’t have won if not saved by Ray Allen, Kyrie, Fisher, Shaq, Pippen, Phil Jackson etc. But for Nash it’s every excuse for every year and moving goal posts for why he deserved those 2 ridiculous MVPs. He was a good passer, very poor man’s Steph on offensive and a turnstile on Defence. He would be relentlessly targeted in today’s NBA, so he was lucky to be in that era. He just was never good enough to win due to his shortcomings.

Tell me you didn't watch Steve Nash in his prime without telling me you didn't watch Steve Nash in his prime

[Bornstellar]

Maybe, maybe not. Had the Spurs not been in his way, he might have. But, if they beat SA in the three years they had the best chance to win a ring (2005, 2007, 2008 and assuming they get to the Finals in 07 and 08), they would have had to face the Pistons, Cavs, and Celtics in the Finals. I don't think they would've beaten Detroit in 2005 or even got past the Lakers in 2008 to face Boston and even if they did they would still not have won imo. So 2007 realistically was their best shot but unlike SA they did not have the team defense to slow LeBron down, so even that year is questionable

[laronprofit9]

He got screwed in 2007. His best chance at the title. If Suns beat the Spurs, no doubt they have a clear path to the title

[laronprofit9]

Maybe, maybe not. Had the Spurs not been in his way, he might have. But, if they beat SA in the three years they had the best chance to win a ring (2005, 2007, 2008 and assuming they get to the Finals in 07 and 08), they would have had to face the Pistons, Cavs, and Celtics in the Finals. I don't think they would've beaten Detroit in 2005 or even got past the Lakers in 2008 to face Boston and even if they did they would still not have won imo. So 2007 realistically was their best shot but unlike SA they did not have the team defense to slow LeBron down, so even that year is questionable

The Suns dominated those Cavs teams. The Cavs had a terrible matchup with those SSOL Suns teams and always lost by double digits everytime. Best case is Cavs take 1 maybe 2 if they get lucky.

[Bornstellar]

Also, I am tired of people whining about the suspensions in 2007 being the reason they lost. They lost Diaw/Amare for 1 game. They were back for Game 6 and still couldn't get it done to force Game 7. If they were really a better team than SA, they would have won Game 6. Horry was still out for SA in Game 6 and at that time he was still a key playoff contributor on both sides.

If this was a true championship level team they would have forced a Game 7. But they couldn't even do that. Enough with the excuses

[jkvonny]

Small guards who don't play defense, other than Kyrie 1 time with Lebron James don't win championships.

Throw in Isiah Thomas as well, good thing his teammates (Bad Boy Pistons) were great defenders tho. lol

[JustBuzzin]

Oh, I can do that very much. At least as long as the moderators think that it's OK. As long as you ignore facts and other takes and make the same allegations multiple times, you'll have to live with users like me reacting. This is a discussion board, or isn't it? So let's finally discuss. Make arguments, and respect answers when people don't agree with you. Somehow you tend to disappear when others give facts or ask for reasoning, only to re-emerge a couple of posts later to make the same unproven claims. Take a look at the respective seasons and the injuries and say in what year Nash should have won. And another hint: Look at Nash's stats and say if he really didn't do enough.

Somehow it seems that you are not that comfortable with your own opinion that Nash did not deserve to be a two-time MVP? Or why do you demand that much confirmation over and over again?

You do realize I made this topic because he is a 2x MVP?

You do realize I view him in high regard which is why I am asking why didn't he win a championship despite playing on some great teams.

It seems you just have a problem with me holding Nash accountable. If you think he was great he should have a championship with the players he played with.

People are literally coming to your topic and explaining the facts that resulted in a 2x MVP not winning a championship. You're being given the details. Instead of talking about the details, you prefer to generalize.

I think you want the answer to be: "Steve Nash did not win multiple championships because he was not good enough and probably wasn't an MVP talent". But that's probably not the answer. People are giving you pretty good answers and you aren't interested in them (you even call them "excuses"). It makes your topic seem like... not so much a genuine question but more an agenda to take down a player you aren't a fan of.

I've seen you go hard on Nash a ton of times so this isn't like something that just crossed your mind today and you decided to make a topic. What's your thing with Nash?

I have no thing with Nash. It seems like every player I call out people have a problem with it.

I think it's more of a me problem with the board.

I stopped talking about Luka like the mods asked. Now I can't talk about Nash. It doesn't matter who I talk about people have a problem with it.


My thing is I have seen much worst when it comes to other players. The moment I say something it's "why do you hate said player."

Maybe I should continue slandering LeBron and Embiid because it's the cool thing to do.

[Capn'O]

Defense wins championships and he was never paired with great defensive casts in his prime. Ultimately, teams could stop Nash led teams and they couldn't stop anybody. Stoudemire was a big liability and Dirk was decent enough but not enough to cover for Nash. Then there was the Amare incident in 2007, which was their best shot.

Also, I am tired of people whining about the suspensions in 2007 being the reason they lost. They lost Diaw/Amare for 1 game. They were back for Game 6 and still couldn't get it done to force Game 7. If they were really a better team than SA, they would have won Game 6. Horry was still out for SA in Game 6 and at that time he was still a key playoff contributor on both sides.

If this was a true championship level team they would have forced a Game 7. But they couldn't even do that. Enough with the excuses

It certainly didn't help. But yeah, they still could have won and they didn't.