Mike Monroe: Who's the best?

[Bruno]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA021807.10C.COL.NBA.monroe.19c1258.html


Web Posted: 02/18/2007 04:37 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News


LAS VEGAS — The best players in the NBA have been in Las Vegas all weekend, so the question seems a natural: Which player is the best of the best, the best player in the world?

I have been thinking about this since Bulls coach Scott Skiles, never shy about stating precisely what he believes, declared Steve Nash "the best player on the face of the Earth."

In case anyone thought Skiles was insincere, he added that he didn't think there was another player even close to being as good as Nash.

I have asked most of the basketball experts whose opinions I value this very question. The responses seem to fall along two distinct lines of reasoning: One that puts a premium on physical talent, both size and athleticism, and another that values understanding of how to play the game while recognizing the physical gifts that separate the very best athletes from those more pedestrian.

The first school of thought favors players such as Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade. The second prefers players such as Nash, Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki.

I have also asked some of the players whose names are in this subjective conversation whom they believed should be part of the discussion.

The smartest of them deflect direct response, and that includes Nash.

What was Nash's reaction when he heard what Skiles had said about him?

"Other than he's the smartest man I've ever met in my life, not much," Nash said.

"It's very flattering. It's such a subjective thing I would never claim that it would be me. Not only that, but it's very difficult to discern who would be. I probably wouldn't put myself in the top two or three players."

Nash, always self-effacing, said the players he regards as the best in the game — Duncan, Bryant, Wade, James and Nowitzki — "do things I can't dream of doing."

Aren't there things he does that those players can't dream of doing?

"Probably," Nash said. "But it's not a conversation I really like to have. The competitor in you thinks, yeah, I belong in the conversation. I wouldn't necessarily think someone was wrong to have me in the conversation, but I wouldn't think someone was wrong if they didn't."

When I asked Bryant if Nash should be part of such a conversation, his initial response was a good laugh.

"In my opinion he's definitely one of the best," Bryant said. "He's easily the most overlooked. I do a lot of clinics where I talk with kids, high school kids, top basketball players. Players they want to talk about are the Wades and LeBrons. They forget about Steve Nash and what a great basketball player he is and what he does for his team. He can score the ball and shoot and pass and facilitate. So I would say yes, he should be included in that conversation.

"Wade, LeBron and don't write off Tim Duncan, just for his responsibilities and what he does, and also Nash. But that's about it."

Let the record show: Bryant agreed to list the players he believed should be on the list only after first removing himself from the discussion, saying he would leave that to others. He also made a point of mentioning, relative to Nash's inclusion on his short list, that he thought the best player in the game typically has been one who works both ends of the court.

Suns coach Mike D'Antoni admits his bias in discussing Nash, his back-to-back MVP point guard, but Skiles' assertion gave him a convenient entry point for agreement. He also countered Bryant's subtle criticism of Nash's lack of defensive impact.

"Scott Skiles said something like 'it's not even close,'" D'Antoni said, "and I agree. First of all, his defense has improved, and that's something most people have not seen. One of the reasons we're a lot better defensively is that he's a lot better. We, as a team, lead the league in charges taken, and he leads our team in charges taken. You have shot blockers. Well, he takes charges.

"He's the best shooter in the league, I think. You might make a case for Michael Redd or Ray Allen, but of the guys you think of as the best players, he's the best shooter, by far, the best passer, by far."

D'Antoni thinks the best player conversation is brief: Nash, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki and Bryant, as long as Bryant continues to demonstrate he is more of a team player now than in previous seasons.

I tried Friday to draw Duncan, the only player other than Nash on D'Antoni's short list who also is a two-time MVP, into the discussion. It hardly was shocking when he demurred.

After all this discussion and consideration, I have come to my own conclusion: Skiles is right, on one hand, wrong on another. Nash is the best player on the planet, but it is close.

I am certain many who read this will disagree, some vehemently. Unfortunately, most basketball fans place more value on a spectacular dunk than a subtle pass that leads to a dunk. They don't know what it means to be a good player, let alone a great one. You're a good player when you're engaged totally and you're in every play and making the right decisions and you're there every day. There are no dead spots in a great player's game.

On All-Star Sunday, 2007, Steve Nash is the best of the best.

[Kamnik]

nice read

Nash probably is the best

my favourite player to watch

[TDMVPDPOY]

steve nash is bs

tim duncan is fuckn god on and off the court

he destroy you in might and magic, he fuckd you up hardcore in halo 2, yeh thats right td is would breath on you and you die

[L.I.T]

I think it's a testament to Duncan that 'even' now he's still included in this discussion. Remember just a couple of years ago when it was Duncan, KG or Kidd in the best player in the NBA discussion?

[1Parker1]

Nash is not a great rebounding PG a la Kidd, his defense is not even close to being as good as other PG's like Billups, his passing and court vision he obviously has the greatest edge in.

Here's my question: When Jason Kidd was in his prime and leading the New Jersey Nets to back to back finals appearances with a team a lot less talented than the one Nash has, how come Kidd who was doing it on both ends of the floor and rebounding like crazy, never was talked about as "The Best Player on the Planet?" Or how come he never won one MVP? Nash has yet to take his team to the Finals, let alone win a championship. I should think that "the best player on the planet" would be able to do at least that. :rolleyes

Nash is a great player, but his overhyped-ness is starting to piss me off. He obviously makes the Suns go, but try watching any other top team without their best player and they will struggle just like the Suns are: Mavs w/o Dirk would be struggling, same with Duncan, Kobe, Wade, etc. Is Nash a better PG than John Stockton? or a Jason Kidd in his prime? or how does Nash compare talent-wise next to a Magic Johnson?


My list:

1) Kobe, Duncan, Wade....you can reorder that in whatever way you want. That should be the end of the discussion. Until Lebron shows us what he can do in the postseason or until he can carry his team to better regular season records, he's not in the discussion, IMO.

[wildbill2u]

Watching Nash attack a defense and dismantle it, is simply a thing of beauty.

If his defense has improved as his coach says, then he definitely belongs on the short list of "who's the best?"

[Texas_Ranger]

Nash is not the best. You've got to be good in defense and offense if you wan't to be the best. And Nash is not even a solid defender.

[ca®lo]

unless u can play D. u cant be the best

[PM5K]

....

[exstatic]

Nash's defense may have gone from shitty, to just flat bad, but that doesn't put him on a short list of two way players.

[itzsoweezee]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA021807.10C.COL.NBA.monroe.19c1258.html


The responses seem to fall along two distinct lines of reasoning: One that puts a premium on physical talent, both size and athleticism, and another that values understanding of how to play the game while recognizing the physical gifts that separate the very best athletes from those more pedestrian.

The first school of thought favors players such as Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade. The second prefers players such as Nash, Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki.



this is the dumbest shit

[FromWayDowntown]

Here's my question: When Jason Kidd was in his prime and leading the New Jersey Nets to back to back finals appearances with a team a lot less talented than the one Nash has, how come Kidd who was doing it on both ends of the floor and rebounding like crazy, never was talked about as "The Best Player on the Planet?" Or how come he never won one MVP? Nash has yet to take his team to the Finals, let alone win a championship. I should think that "the best player on the planet" would be able to do at least that. :rolleyes

Remember, 1P1, that when Tim Duncan was named MVP in 2001-02, there were a whole lot of people who thought that Jason Kidd was robbed for precisely the reasons that you cite. I don't agree with that -- Tim was excellent in 2001-02 and 2002-03 and genuinely deserved those awards; but the argument for Kidd was similar to the argument that now exists for Nash.

[SpursFanFirst]

Nash is not a great rebounding PG a la Kidd, his defense is not even close to being as good as other PG's like Billups, his passing and court vision he obviously has the greatest edge in.

Here's my question: When Jason Kidd was in his prime and leading the New Jersey Nets to back to back finals appearances with a team a lot less talented than the one Nash has, how come Kidd who was doing it on both ends of the floor and rebounding like crazy, never was talked about as "The Best Player on the Planet?" Or how come he never won one MVP? Nash has yet to take his team to the Finals, let alone win a championship. I should think that "the best player on the planet" would be able to do at least that. :rolleyes

Nash is a great player, but his overhyped-ness is starting to piss me off. He obviously makes the Suns go, but try watching any other top team without their best player and they will struggle just like the Suns are: Mavs w/o Dirk would be struggling, same with Duncan, Kobe, Wade, etc. Is Nash a better PG than John Stockton? or a Jason Kidd in his prime? or how does Nash compare talent-wise next to a Magic Johnson?


My list:

1) Kobe, Duncan, Wade....you can reorder that in whatever way you want. That should be the end of the discussion. Until Lebron shows us what he can do in the postseason or until he can carry his team to better regular season records, he's not in the discussion, IMO.


:tu

[SAGambler]

IMO, no one can be called "the greatest in the game".

All mentioned have skills. They also have liabilities. While Nash is a great passer and scorer, can he simply take over a game like Wade or Kobe can? Of course neither of these can make the passes Nash does.

Wade is a fair defender, but not in the class of aTim Duncan. Maybe Nash has improved his defense, but when every team is putting up a 100 on you, do you really call it defense?

It's all in the what you are looking for. I don't believe there has ever been anyone who held all the skills needed to be proclaimed "the greatest on the planet".

Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

[T Park]

First of all, his defense has improved, and that's something most people have not seen

Change most to ALL OF there Antoni.

[1Parker1]

Remember, 1P1, that when Tim Duncan was named MVP in 2001-02, there were a whole lot of people who thought that Jason Kidd was robbed for precisely the reasons that you cite. I don't agree with that -- Tim was excellent in 2001-02 and 2002-03 and genuinely deserved those awards; but the argument for Kidd was similar to the argument that now exists for Nash.

You're right about that. I guess the MVP arguement is subjective. However, my main qualm is calling Nash "the best player on the planet" when he has never even taken his team to the NBA Finals. When Duncan won the MVP in 2001-02...he already had won a championship and had shown he can take his team to the next level. I don't think Nash has yet shown that.

FWD, Do you really think that Nash deserves 3 MVP's in a row? Heck, do you think he's "the best player on the planet?"

[aaronstampler]

The best is Kobe. There isn't a single thing he can't do. He can score inside, outside, shoot 3s really well, make his free throws, pass, rebound and defend. I'll give him a slight edge over Wade because he shoots 3s better, guards way better and turns it over less.

[T Park]

IMO its down to him and Dirk.

If he comes back and they go on some run, then it would be tough not to give it to Nash.

[stretch]

my vote goes to Dwayne Wade. i dont think anyone in the NBA is as well-rounded as he is, not only in terms of talent, but also leadership and other intangibles, such as clutch playmaking, making teammates better, etc... the guy is simply amazing. his mechanics are solid, he makes plays on both ends of the court, and wins games. there arent many flaws with him, other than that he is not a great 3 point shooter, although it seems that he hits the 3s that matter the most, much like Jordan did in his early years in the league. he isnt always the strongest defender either, but much like his 3 point shooting, he makes the defensive plays when they matter the most, which is what winners do.

Kobe is great, but doesnt always make his team better, and still doesnt know when hes supposed to shoot, and when hes supposed to pass the ball. even when players take over games, you have to know when to pass and when to shoot, and he still doesnt seem to understand that. and quite frankly, it really seems as if he will never learn how to truly be a "winner", like players such as Jordan, Duncan, Bird, etc... he seems more interested in trying to put up Jordan-like stats, perhaps trying to surpass him statistically someday. hence some people have theories that his number change to "24" has something to do with being better than Jordan, who's number was "23", although he claims it was his first high school number.

Lebron is also great, and probably the most talented player in the league, but his fundamentals and shooting still need some work and fine tuning, and he isnt consistently clutch enough to be the best. sometimes hes brilliant in clutch situations, other times, he does absolutely nothing. while a piss-poor team doesnt help him much, he doesnt help the situation either by missing 5 free-throws a game.

Nash is one of the greatest offensive PGs the league has ever seen. he is probably the best shooter in the NBA, best passer in the NBA, and has incredible IQ on the offensive end. he is basically unstoppable offensively. but his lack of defensive abilities cannot allow him to be considered the best. im not sure what makes D'Antoni think hes such an improved defender, if guys still blow by him with ease, even when he gives them extra space just so that he can be in better defensive position to guard them if they try to drive on him. Steve Nash may not have ever made a defensive play that won a game.

Dirk has the all-around game, incredible versatility, and may possibly be the hardest guy to gameplan for in the NBA, because of his guard-like skills in a 7-Foot body. He has improved tremendously in his toughness (both mental and physical), playmaking, defense, and clutch abilities, and has arisen to a top-5 player in the league in most peoples minds. however, because of his past which included absolute incompetence on defense, inability to be a clutch playmaker, and being labeled as a "soft white boy" (which was absolutely true), he is going to have to prove to everyone that he truly has improved (especially after the meltdown in last years finals) by winning a title. Only then, will he begin to truly earn respect for his improvements.

Duncan still MUST be in the conversation. While he has gotten older and broken down a bit due to injuries and such, he is still probably the best leader in the NBA, and is as valuable to his team as anyone in the game. all you have to do is look at his resume, and see that this guy is simply a winner, and quite frankly, thats what matters most. not talent, size, or athleticism, but the ability to find a way to win games. Tim Duncan epitomizes the word "winner", and as long as he is with the Spurs and is playing 30-35 minutes a game, his team will always be in the playoffs, and will always be a title contender. Tim Duncan is hands down, the best PF to ever play basketball, and is one of the best "winners" that basketball has ever seen (along with guys such as Jordan, Magic, Russell, and Bird).

[1Parker1]

my vote goes to Dwayne Wade. i dont think anyone in the NBA is as well-rounded as he is, not only in terms of talent, but also leadership and other intangibles, such as clutch playmaking, making teammates better, etc... the guy is simply amazing. his mechanics are great, he makes plays on both ends of the court, and wins games. there arent many flaws with him, other than that he is not a great 3 point shooter, although it seems that he hits the 3s that matter the most, much like Jordan did in his early years in the league. he isnt always the strongest defender either, but much like his 3 point shooting, he makes the defensive plays when they matter the most, which is what winners do.

Kobe is great, but doesnt always make his team better, and still doesnt know when hes supposed to shoot, and when hes supposed to pass the ball. even when players take over games, you have to know when to pass and when to shoot, and he still doesnt seem to understand that. and quite frankly, it really seems as if he will never learn how to truly be a "winner", like players such as Jordan, Duncan, Bird, etc... he seems more interested in trying to put up Jordan-like stats, perhaps trying to surpass him statistically someday. hence some people have theories that his number change to "24" has something to do with being better than Jordan, who's number was "23", although he claims it was his first high school number.

Lebron is also great, and probably the most talented player in the league, but his fundamentals and shooting still need some work and fine tuning, and he isnt consistently clutch enough to be the best. sometimes hes brilliant in clutch situations, other times, he does absolutely nothing. while a piss-poor team doesnt help him much, he doesnt help the situation either by missing 5 free-throws a game.

Nash is one of the greatest offensive PGs the league has ever seen. he is probably the best shooter in the NBA, best passer in the NBA, and has incredible IQ on the offensive end. he is basically unstoppable offensively. but his lack of defensive abilities cannot allow him to be considered the best. im not sure what makes D'Antoni think hes such an improved defender, if guys still blow by him with ease, even when he gives them extra space just so that he can be in better defensive position to guard them if they try to drive on him. Steve Nash may not have ever made a defensive play that won a game.

Dirk has the all-around game, incredible versatility, and may possibly be the hardest guy to gameplan for in the NBA, because of his guard-like skills in a 7-Foot body. He has improved tremendously in his toughness (both mental and physical), playmaking, defense, and clutch abilities, and has arisen to a top-5 player in the league in most peoples minds. however, because of his past which included absolute incompetence on defense, inability to be a clutch playmaker, and being labeled as a "soft white boy" (which was absolutely true), he is going to have to prove to everyone that he truly has improved (especially after the meltdown in last years finals) by winning a title. Only then, will he begin to truly earn respect for his improvements.

Duncan still MUST be in the conversation. While he has gotten older and broken down a bit due to injuries and such, he is still probably the best leader in the NBA, and is as valuable to his team as anyone in the game. all you have to do is look at his resume, and see that this guy is simply a winner, and quite frankly, thats what matters most. not talent, size, or athleticism, but the ability to find a way to win games. Tim Duncan epitomizes the word "winner", and as long as he is with the Spurs and is playing 30-35 minutes a game, his team will always be in the playoffs, and will always be a title contender. Tim Duncan is hands down, the best PF to ever play basketball, and is one of the best "winners" that basketball has ever seen (along with guys such as Jordan, Magic, Russell, and Bird).


:tu Good Summary. Though I may argue that I'd put Kobe ahead of Wade, but that's always going to be an argument.

[exstatic]

Wade can't shoot beyond the arc. That's a big flaw in a guard. No one is saying he ain't got game, but the best? Naw.

[stretch]

Wade can't shoot beyond the arc. That's a big flaw in a guard. No one is saying he ain't got game, but the best? Naw.
Jordan wasnt a good 3pt shooter early in his career either. in his first 4 seasons, he never shot better than 18%. he didnt shoot better than 27% until his 6th season.

[exstatic]

Jordan wasnt a good 3pt shooter early in his career either. in his first 4 seasons, he never shot better than 18%. he didnt shoot better than 27% until his 6th season.
Jordan wasn't the best player then, either. It was Bird/Magic. His first 6 years, he was known as a choker, until 1991 when he won. Hard to believe, but it's true.

I'm not saying Wade won't ever be the best, just that he isn't now.

[FromWayDowntown]

You're right about that. I guess the MVP arguement is subjective. However, my main qualm is calling Nash "the best player on the planet" when he has never even taken his team to the NBA Finals. When Duncan won the MVP in 2001-02...he already had won a championship and had shown he can take his team to the next level. I don't think Nash has yet shown that.

FWD, Do you really think that Nash deserves 3 MVP's in a row? Heck, do you think he's "the best player on the planet?"

Personally, I think the "he isn't the best player because he's never led his team to the Finals" is a bit too simplistic. It's very tempting, of course, to cite to playoff successes as a measuring stick for greatness; but, there are guys who have historically been great players whose teams haven't had great success. There are so many variables that go into whether a team experiences playoff success and many of those are not within the control of a single player. I've always thought there's perhaps too much emphasis on team success in assessing the greatness of individual players.

I think there are differences in evaluating pure talent (one measure of who's the best player on the planet), value to a team (another such measure), and difference making in terms of winning championships (still another such measure). I could come up with different answers to each of those questions and feel content that my answer in each category was perfectly defensible. I don't know that any of those, standing alone, provides an answer to who is the best player on the planet.

I do think that Nash is probably the most valuable player in the league right now, because his appearance in Phoenix has single-handedly turned that franchise from a low-end playoff team to a championship contender. To boot, the Suns take a decided step backwards when Nash doesn't play. Does that make him the best player on the planet? I don't think so. But does it provide a great argument for his being the most valuable single player in the league? Absolutely. Of course, the counter of that argument is that there are other players who've never changed teams who arguably are more significant to their franchises: Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki immediately come to mind.

All of that is quite different from asking who is the single best basketball player on the planet, which to me is suggestive of a combination of talent and some intangibles like leadership. And, of course, that argument requires distinctions between the sorts of talent that guards and wings display and the sorts of talent that big guys display. Can Tim Duncan do everything that Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, and Dwyane Wade do? No. But can those guys do all of the sorts of things that Tim Duncan can do? Of course not. If you measure talent in terms of pure athleticism, you can't include players like Timmy in the conversation. If you measure it in terms that are relative to the position a guy plays, the answer, I think, is much different.

[lrrr]

People can throw all sorts of arguments out there about what it means to be "the best", talent, physical athleticism, court vision blah blah blah, but the only thing that really matters in the game is winning, on a consistent basis. A "champion" is deemed the best. So over the last 10 years, there can only be an argument for 2 players as "the best", Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan.

[johnpaulwall21]

nash is way overrated!!!!

First 8 seasons: 11.8 PPG 5.8 APG <<<< Parker

3 seasons with suns: 17.8 PPG 11.2 APG



he was an average player before he joined the run and gun suns. His stats inflated just like Quentin Richardson cause of the system.

[ducks]

First 8 seasons: 11.8 PPG 5.8 APG <<<< Parker
yes but people think tp should have 12 assist a game now
but nash took 8 seasons to do trhat
tp is scoring more now then nash thew first 8 seasons

[stretch]

Jordan wasn't the best player then, either. It was Bird/Magic. His first 6 years, he was known as a choker, until 1991 when he won. Hard to believe, but it's true.

I'm not saying Wade won't ever be the best, just that he isn't now.
yes, but right now, Kobe and Lebron are HARDLY like Bird and Magic. Wade already knows how to win, something that even Jordan took a while to learn. and its clear that Kobe and Lebron dont know how to win yet either. and of course, knowing how to win is the most important characteristic to have in sports. Ill take a winner over talent any day.

[stretch]

People can throw all sorts of arguments out there about what it means to be "the best", talent, physical athleticism, court vision blah blah blah, but the only thing that really matters in the game is winning, on a consistent basis. A "champion" is deemed the best. So over the last 10 years, there can only be an argument for 2 players as "the best", Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan.
agreed. however, we arent talking about the past 10 years. we are talking about RIGHT NOW. right now, Wade has an incredible mix of athleticism, talent, etc... and he basically won a ring for Miami singlehandedly by taking over the finals and averaging 40 ppg. for people that know that winning is the most important thing of all, then i dont think there should be any question that right now, Dwayne Wade is the best player in the NBA.

[dbreiden83080]

Nash fits in perfectly with the system he plays in out there in Phoenix that really makes him look better than he is. I say he is a top 10 player but nowhere near the conversation of the best player in the NBA. Just look at how good Dallas is since he left there is no doubt they are better now than when he was there. I know Terry is a good player in his own right but take Dirk off that team and they are no longer contenders, yet Nash left and they are even better without him.

[stretch]

First 8 seasons: 11.8 PPG 5.8 APG <<<< Parker
yes but people think tp should have 12 assist a game now
but nash took 8 seasons to do trhat
tp is scoring more now then nash thew first 8 seasons
what the fuck does Parker have anything to do with what we are talking about? stick to the convo.

[stretch]

nash is way overrated!!!!

First 8 seasons: 11.8 PPG 5.8 APG <<<< Parker

3 seasons with suns: 17.8 PPG 11.2 APG



he was an average player before he joined the run and gun suns. His stats inflated just like Quentin Richardson cause of the system.
dumb post. remember how Damon Stoudemire's career started off? look where he is now. just because Nash took a while to develop doesnt mean Parker will eventually average 20 and 10. different players develop in different ways. again, this has nothing to do with the conversation.

oh, and Nash's presence turned the Suns from having the worst record in the West, to having the best record in the west... in ONE year. STFU

[johnpaulwall21]

dumb post. remember how Damon Stoudemire's career started off? look where he is now. just because Nash took a while to develop doesnt mean Parker will eventually average 20 and 10. different players develop in different ways. again, this has nothing to do with the conversation.

oh, and Nash's presence turned the Suns from having the worst record in the West, to having the best record in the west... in ONE year. STFU


are u nashs butt buddy or what? Im just telling facts, didnt dantoni change the record cause of the new system, and i never said anything bout parker averaging 20 and 10. I just said parkers better then nashs first 8 years. and if nash just DEVELOPED how come this didnt happen in dallas? it had to happen in the suns where everyones stats inflate....

[wildbill2u]

are u nashs butt buddy or what? Im just telling facts, didnt dantoni change the record cause of the new system, and i never said anything bout parker averaging 20 and 10. I just said parkers better then nashs first 8 years. and if nash just DEVELOPED how come this didnt happen in dallas? it had to happen in the suns where everyones stats inflate....
I think Avery getting the job and changing the chemistry of the team vis-a-vis defense had a lot to do with making Dallas #1 in the league. If Nash were still there they would be even better, truly scary.

[ShoogarBear]

The problem is Nash has to be in a particular kind of system that minimizes his weaknesses to excel. And despite all that, I think it is still a valid criticism to note he hasn't even sniffed the Finals.

Every other player on that short list (with the possible exception of Dirk), the coach doesn't need to devise a strategy to hide their weaknesses.

[stretch]

are u nashs butt buddy or what? Im just telling facts, didnt dantoni change the record cause of the new system, and i never said anything bout parker averaging 20 and 10. I just said parkers better then nashs first 8 years. and if nash just DEVELOPED how come this didnt happen in dallas? it had to happen in the suns where everyones stats inflate....
ok then. so what does your Parker comparison have anything to do about Nash being good? and how come only Nash is made to look so good? if Nash is so overrated, then why wasnt Stephon Marbury able to do any better? if Nash is so overrated, then why is it that the season before he came, they had basically the same exact core of guys, and had the worst record in the west, yet the year he came, they had the best record in the west? i dont think a new system will instantly change you from a 20 win team to a 60 win team. use your brain you moron.

oh, and personally, i dont even think Nash belongs in the conversation about being the best player in the NBA. i think the argument is mainly among Wade, Lebron, and Kobe, but you can also throw a case in for Dirk and Duncan.

[stretch]

Every other player on that short list (with the possible exception of Dirk), the coach doesn't need to devise a strategy to hide their weaknesses.

i dont see how Avery has made a system to cover Dirk's weaknesses. Dirk has played, the two main types of basketball. he has played in a system with an all-offense/no-defense mindset, and a system with a ball-control and defensive oriented mindset. he has been very successful at both. he really has improved his defense TREMENDOUSLY. its not All-NBA defense, but when he need to make a play, he will make one. if he needs to give a hard foul to prevent an easy score, he will give one. hes not the soft, "Irk" that we used to know, anymore.

[ShoogarBear]

i dont see how Avery has made a system to cover Dirk's weaknesses. Dirk has played, the two main types of basketball. he has played in a system with an all-offense/no-defense mindset, and a system with a ball-control and defensive oriented mindset. he has been very successful at both. he really has improved his defense TREMENDOUSLY. its not All-NBA defense, but when he need to make a play, he will make one. if he needs to give a hard foul to prevent an easy score, he will give one. hes not the soft, "Irk" that we used to know, anymore.Yeah, I'm pretty much buying at this point that Dirk has evolved his game enough over the last year so that he doesn't have major weaknesses that he team has to cover, and htat he can play in any style of game.

[stretch]

Yeah, I'm pretty much buying at this point that Dirk has evolved his game enough over the last year so that he doesn't have major weaknesses that he team has to cover, and htat he can play in any style of game.
yea. i mean i understand why people still have doubts about Dirk because of his past, but i think that people that really watch him play know that it is simply his past, and nothing more. he is a completely different player as opposed to what he was 3 years ago, and doesnt puss away from contact like he used to, or watch guys just waltz by him for easy alley-oop dunks 10 times a game. hes not afraid to commit a hard foul anymore. i understand why he doesnt get respect from some people, and that is his own fault. but im glad that people are really seeing how much he has developed his game nowadays though.

[exstatic]

yes, but right now, Kobe and Lebron are HARDLY like Bird and Magic. Wade already knows how to win, something that even Jordan took a while to learn. and its clear that Kobe and Lebron dont know how to win yet either. and of course, knowing how to win is the most important characteristic to have in sports. Ill take a winner over talent any day.
Hello? Kobe is. He's got the rings AND the numbers for the HOF.

My point is, Wade isn't there yet. He's a fine young player, but you'll notice where Miami is in the standings with him doing the heavy lifting: 500 ball. He's got a huge hole in his game that he needs to patch before he can be the best in the game.

[SequSpur]

Tony Parker has more game both on and off the court... so he is the best.... :D

[stretch]

Hello? Kobe is. He's got the rings AND the numbers for the HOF.

My point is, Wade isn't there yet. He's a fine young player, but you'll notice where Miami is in the standings with him doing the heavy lifting: 500 ball. He's got a huge hole in his game that he needs to patch before he can be the best in the game.
Kobe got rings when SHAQ led the team. but he has proven that he is not capable of leading his team. so far, Kobe has destroyed a dynasty, got his wish of being the undisputed leader, and led his team to a losing record, and then choked in a first round defeat.

Wade came, turned a shitty franchise into a playoff team in his first year, led the team to the ECF his second year, and won a ring in his third. so far, the Heat havent started great, however the season isnt over yet. as of RIGHT NOW, I'll take Wade anyday.

[stretch]

Tony Parker has more game both on and off the court... so he is the best.... :D
No way. No one comes close to Jason Kapono. I heard he did a tomahawk on Shaq when he was only 13.

[mabber]

my vote goes to Dwayne Wade. i dont think anyone in the NBA is as well-rounded as he is, not only in terms of talent, but also leadership and other intangibles, such as clutch playmaking, making teammates better, etc... the guy is simply amazing. his mechanics are solid, he makes plays on both ends of the court, and wins games. there arent many flaws with him, other than that he is not a great 3 point shooter, although it seems that he hits the 3s that matter the most, much like Jordan did in his early years in the league. he isnt always the strongest defender either, but much like his 3 point shooting, he makes the defensive plays when they matter the most, which is what winners do.

Kobe is great, but doesnt always make his team better, and still doesnt know when hes supposed to shoot, and when hes supposed to pass the ball. even when players take over games, you have to know when to pass and when to shoot, and he still doesnt seem to understand that. and quite frankly, it really seems as if he will never learn how to truly be a "winner", like players such as Jordan, Duncan, Bird, etc... he seems more interested in trying to put up Jordan-like stats, perhaps trying to surpass him statistically someday. hence some people have theories that his number change to "24" has something to do with being better than Jordan, who's number was "23", although he claims it was his first high school number.

Lebron is also great, and probably the most talented player in the league, but his fundamentals and shooting still need some work and fine tuning, and he isnt consistently clutch enough to be the best. sometimes hes brilliant in clutch situations, other times, he does absolutely nothing. while a piss-poor team doesnt help him much, he doesnt help the situation either by missing 5 free-throws a game.

Nash is one of the greatest offensive PGs the league has ever seen. he is probably the best shooter in the NBA, best passer in the NBA, and has incredible IQ on the offensive end. he is basically unstoppable offensively. but his lack of defensive abilities cannot allow him to be considered the best. im not sure what makes D'Antoni think hes such an improved defender, if guys still blow by him with ease, even when he gives them extra space just so that he can be in better defensive position to guard them if they try to drive on him. Steve Nash may not have ever made a defensive play that won a game.

Dirk has the all-around game, incredible versatility, and may possibly be the hardest guy to gameplan for in the NBA, because of his guard-like skills in a 7-Foot body. He has improved tremendously in his toughness (both mental and physical), playmaking, defense, and clutch abilities, and has arisen to a top-5 player in the league in most peoples minds. however, because of his past which included absolute incompetence on defense, inability to be a clutch playmaker, and being labeled as a "soft white boy" (which was absolutely true), he is going to have to prove to everyone that he truly has improved (especially after the meltdown in last years finals) by winning a title. Only then, will he begin to truly earn respect for his improvements.

Duncan still MUST be in the conversation. While he has gotten older and broken down a bit due to injuries and such, he is still probably the best leader in the NBA, and is as valuable to his team as anyone in the game. all you have to do is look at his resume, and see that this guy is simply a winner, and quite frankly, thats what matters most. not talent, size, or athleticism, but the ability to find a way to win games. Tim Duncan epitomizes the word "winner", and as long as he is with the Spurs and is playing 30-35 minutes a game, his team will always be in the playoffs, and will always be a title contender. Tim Duncan is hands down, the best PF to ever play basketball, and is one of the best "winners" that basketball has ever seen (along with guys such as Jordan, Magic, Russell, and Bird).

While I think Wade will eventually be the best in the game, I don't think he's there yet. If he made his teammates around him better then wouldn't they be better off than a 500 team at this point? It's obvious how important Shaq is to that team even if he's not as good as he once was. Plus, Wade got ripped(in a backhanded way) by his own coach a few weeks back for not stepping up and being the leader of that team so if his own coach doesn't think he's a leader how could anyone else? He also hasn't decided to take defense seriously yet. He takes extreme chances to get his 2-3 steals each game but doesn't play anywhere close to sound defense. All of this is just a lack of maturity at this point which is understandable as he's still young. He'll get there but he's not there yet.

[ambchang]

are u nashs butt buddy or what? Im just telling facts, didnt dantoni change the record cause of the new system, and i never said anything bout parker averaging 20 and 10. I just said parkers better then nashs first 8 years. and if nash just DEVELOPED how come this didnt happen in dallas? it had to happen in the suns where everyones stats inflate....
It would probably work if the facts were true.
In his first 8 seasons, Nash averaged 12.5 and 6, yes, it’s not a major difference, but it’s still a difference. And in his 6 seasons at Dallas, he averaged 14.5 and 7.2, not spectacular, but still great numbers.
Second, the facts are misleading, Nash averaged less 10.5, 21.9, 31.8 and 27.4 minutes in his first four seasons - can’t blame him that he plays behind JKidd, in 1.5 of the first 2 seasons in the league. And when he did get consistent playing time and became a regular starter from seasons 5 to 8, he averaged 16.5 and 7.8. In other words, his production went up because he got more time.
Finally, he did see his production increase after moving over to Phoenix and play a different style of game, but the reason the style of play was possible was because of Nash’s abilities.

[stretch]

While I think Wade will eventually be the best in the game, I don't think he's there yet. If he made his teammates around him better then wouldn't they be better off than a 500 team at this point? It's obvious how important Shaq is to that team even if he's not as good as he once was. Plus, Wade got ripped(in a backhanded way) by his own coach a few weeks back for not stepping up and being the leader of that team so if his own coach doesn't think he's a leader how could anyone else? He also hasn't decided to take defense seriously yet. He takes extreme chances to get his 2-3 steals each game but doesn't play anywhere close to sound defense. All of this is just a lack of maturity at this point which is understandable as he's still young. He'll get there but he's not there yet.
then who is there? Kobe and Lebron obviously havent led their teams anywhere lately... at least not nearly as far as Wade has led his.

[phxspurfan]

if you are talking about this season alone, Dirk and Nash are the top 2, with Kobe as a distant 3rd. Duncan would probably be 4 or 5, along with Wade and Lebron. But if you really want the best, CP3 should be included as well as KG and Yao.

[stretch]

if you are talking about this season alone, Dirk and Nash are the top 2, with Kobe as a distant 3rd. Duncan would probably be 4 or 5, along with Wade and Lebron. But if you really want the best, CP3 should be included as well as KG and Yao.
but CP3, KG, and Yao hasnt won anything, especially lately. true, CP3 hasnt had much time, but that also is a knock on him. its still pretty early to see just how good he really is, and whether he belongs in the conversation of the best player in the NBA. KG obviously has always had shitty teams around him, but at the same time, he isnt exactly a clutch player. Yao is a good center, but hasnt yet learned how to be a leader. T-Mac is still the clear-cut leader of the Rockets. i dont think any of those guys can be considered right now.

[milkyway21]

My best players in the NBA shld be good offensive [/B]&[B]defensive players on the court :

Kobe, Duncan, & KG

[hitmanyr2k]

Nash is not a great rebounding PG a la Kidd, his defense is not even close to being as good as other PG's like Billups, his passing and court vision he obviously has the greatest edge in.

Here's my question: When Jason Kidd was in his prime and leading the New Jersey Nets to back to back finals appearances with a team a lot less talented than the one Nash has, how come Kidd who was doing it on both ends of the floor and rebounding like crazy, never was talked about as "The Best Player on the Planet?" Or how come he never won one MVP? Nash has yet to take his team to the Finals, let alone win a championship. I should think that "the best player on the planet" would be able to do at least that. :rolleyes



Kidd's numbers with the Nets back in '01, '02, and '03 wouldn't get him MVP honors now so I don't see how he matters in this argument. Jason Kidd's offensive efficiency was beyond terrible and would be ridiculed next to Nash. Kidd has great court vision, yeah, but he's never really had a reliable outside game to speak of and it's been his achilles heel his whole career. No way in hell should a PG (or "the best player on the planet") be shooting anywhere near 40% (or lower) as many seasons as Kidd has. And let's take a look at Kidd's numbers during his supposed MVP candidate year.

Kidd '02 -
14.7 ppg, 9.9 assts, 7.3 rebs, 2 stls
FG% - .391 3P% - .320 FT% .814

Steve Nash (presently)
19.3 ppg, 11.8 assts, 3.3 rebs, .72 steals
FG% - .543 3P% - .490 FT% .882


Give Jason Kidd's "MVP" numbers to Nash today and suggest that Nash is an MVP candidate and watch this place die laughing.

[mabber]

then who is there? Kobe and Lebron obviously havent led their teams anywhere lately... at least not nearly as far as Wade has led his.

At least they're leading their teams to decent records. Wade hasn't done a damn thing w/o Shaq this season. I think Wade is a really good player but until he at least wins a lot of games w/o Shaq then I'm not sold. A lot of people underestimate the impact that Shaq has even at this point of his career.

[stretch]

At least they're leading their teams to decent records. Wade hasn't done a damn thing w/o Shaq this season. I think Wade is a really good player but until he at least wins a lot of games w/o Shaq then I'm not sold. A lot of people underestimate the impact that Shaq has even at this point of his career.
but he singlehandedly took over a series and won a ring, did he not? While Shaq is an important part of that team, it is still Wade's team, and he was the one who had to take over the series becaues the rest of the team wasnt doing shit, and averaged 40 points a game. not Shaq. without Shaq, they probably dont get to the finals. but without Wade, they dont even make the playoffs.

Lebron has no rings, and only 1 playoff appearance. Kobe won rings when he was the second option, behind a Shaq in his prime, which is among the most dominant players the league has ever seen. Kobe in his first season of leading his team, led them out of the playoffs, and in his second season, choked away a 3-1 series lead. Wade hasnt done that yet, and still, the season isnt over. I still think that we are going to see a re-match of last years Finals, but of course with the Mavs dominating.

[mabber]

but he singlehandedly took over a series and won a ring, did he not? While Shaq is an important part of that team, it is still Wade's team, and he was the one who had to take over the series becaues the rest of the team wasnt doing shit, and averaged 40 points a game. not Shaq. without Shaq, they probably dont get to the finals. but without Wade, they dont even make the playoffs.

Lebron has no rings, and only 1 playoff appearance. Kobe won rings when he was the second option, behind a Shaq in his prime, which is among the most dominant players the league has ever seen. Kobe in his first season of leading his team, led them out of the playoffs, and in his second season, choked away a 3-1 series lead. Wade hasnt done that yet, and still, the season isnt over. I still think that we are going to see a re-match of last years Finals, but of course with the Mavs dominating.

Aren't the Heat about 6 games under 500 w/o Shaq this season? (and yes I realize that Jason Williams has been out a lot). The Heat are hot now 7 of last 8 ever since Shaq has come back (and he's not even playing that well yet). Yes, Wade is their best player (by far) but it's Shaq that makes that team a title contender.

I've been saying all along that I think the Mavs & Heat will make the finals again (assuming Shaq stays healthy now). So I agree with you on that.

[resistanze]

Kidd's numbers with the Nets back in '01, '02, and '03 wouldn't get him MVP honors now so I don't see how he matters in this argument. Jason Kidd's offensive efficiency was beyond terrible and would be ridiculed next to Nash. Kidd has great court vision, yeah, but he's never really had a reliable outside game to speak of and it's been his achilles heel his whole career. No way in hell should a PG (or "the best player on the planet") be shooting anywhere near 40% (or lower) as many seasons as Kidd has. And let's take a look at Kidd's numbers during his supposed MVP candidate year.

Kidd '02 -
14.7 ppg, 9.9 assts, 7.3 rebs, 2 stls
FG% - .391 3P% - .320 FT% .814

Steve Nash (presently)
19.3 ppg, 11.8 assts, 3.3 rebs, .72 steals
FG% - .543 3P% - .490 FT% .882


Give Jason Kidd's "MVP" numbers to Nash today and suggest that Nash is an MVP candidate and watch this place die laughing.

Interesting point. However, the numbers you quoted for Nash weren't the ones that garnered him the MVP. Nash didn't need these especially nice numbers to win.

Nash from '05
15.5 ppg, 11.5 ast, 3.3 rebs, 1.0 stls
FG% - .502 3P% - .431 FT% .887

Seems like a fairer comparison to Kidd's numbers. The whole argument for Nash's MVP as I recall was not predicated around his numbers anyways, I don't remember a previous MVP averaging such a low PPG. It was mostly in the instant turnaround that accompanied his rival. That same argument worked for Kidd also and considering there was some talk of Kidd getting MVP in '02, I don't think his FG% was much of an issue, considering what he did on D and Rebs.

[diego]

as far as kidd and nash, kidd's nets werent competing for the best record and got their asses handed to them in the finals. nash's suns may have not made it to the finals, but in the deeper west they were stronger. besides, MVP is at least in theory a regular season award.

I like nash's game and dont have a problem with him winning MVP. Unfortunately, because other players have been snubbed in the past for winning it the year before, I dont think nash should be the 1st since Jordan to get 3 in a row, particularly because his suns havent been juggernauts in that period. but this is his most deserving season of the 3.

as for the rest, I dont like Kobe and think his D is overrated. My candidate after nash is dirk. dirk isnt quite spectacular but he is very consistent. wade doesnt belong in this discussion yet- he's very good but there are a number of very good wings in the league. nash is the best PG, and dirk is the best big. they both make good teams contenders.

as for the best of the best, the parameters are different. you cant choose the best of the best based on one season. nor can you do it based on potential. and you have to take into account the difficulty in finding someone else who can do what the other guy does. duncan best fits this description, a guy who can rebound, block shots, make the right pass, score from a variety of places, and perform under pressure. but the more I elaborate, the less it sounds like 2007 Tim. i think right now there is no clear cut best, shaq is done, duncan is not as dominant as he used to be, and nash and dirk are probably the best right now but not by big enough a margin where you dont see them being eclipsed in a year or two.

just my 2 cents.

[hitmanyr2k]

Interesting point. However, the numbers you quoted for Nash weren't the ones that garnered him the MVP. Nash didn't need these especially nice numbers to win.

Nash from '05
15.5 ppg, 11.5 ast, 3.3 rebs, 1.0 stls
FG% - .502 3P% - .431 FT% .887

Seems like a fairer comparison to Kidd's numbers. The whole argument for Nash's MVP as I recall was not predicated around his numbers anyways, I don't remember a previous MVP averaging such a low PPG. It was mostly in the instant turnaround that accompanied his rival. That same argument worked for Kidd also and considering there was some talk of Kidd getting MVP in '02, I don't think his FG% was much of an issue, considering what he did on D and Rebs.

I think that same "turn-around" argument could have worked for Kidd but 2 things killed it for him. One, I think Kidd's FG% cost him because people recognized he was a liability on offense. When Kidd ran the break it was a thing of beauty but in a half court game teams would dare him to shoot and much more often than not he would miss. 39% shooting for a PG is atrocious. Secondly, the Nets played in the much weaker Eastern Conference and still only won 52 games while Nash was in the superior Western Conference and led his team to 62 wins.

[stretch]

Aren't the Heat about 6 games under 500 w/o Shaq this season? (and yes I realize that Jason Williams has been out a lot). The Heat are hot now 7 of last 8 ever since Shaq has come back (and he's not even playing that well yet). Yes, Wade is their best player (by far) but it's Shaq that makes that team a title contender.

I agree that Shaq makes them a title contender, but they arent title contenders without Wade either. and remember... it was WADE who took over the series when it was slipping away, and averaged 40 ppg and made all the most clutch baskets in the series... not Shaq, Mourning, Walker, or Williams. it was Wade. and even though the Heat are under 500 without Shaq, imagine what they would be without Wade. if that team went an entire season without Wade, they MAYBE win 15 games. they have a team full with Shaq, and a bunch of third and fourth options, but no one that can be consistently good, and lead the team to victory. everyone on that team, including Shaq, is an incredibly streaky player now. Wade is the glue that keeps that team in talks of being in the Finals. not Shaq.

[mabber]

I agree that Shaq makes them a title contender, but they arent title contenders without Wade either. and remember... it was WADE who took over the series when it was slipping away, and averaged 40 ppg and made all the most clutch baskets in the series... not Shaq, Mourning, Walker, or Williams. it was Wade. and even though the Heat are under 500 without Shaq, imagine what they would be without Wade. if that team went an entire season without Wade, they MAYBE win 15 games. they have a team full with Shaq, and a bunch of third and fourth options, but no one that can be consistently good, and lead the team to victory. everyone on that team, including Shaq, is an incredibly streaky player now. Wade is the glue that keeps that team in talks of being in the Finals. not Shaq.

I can't argue with anything you just wrote, but it still doesn't convince me that Wade is the best player in the league right now. Wade even said recently that one of his goals was to "master" the game like Kobe already has. That sounds to me like even he knows he's not the best yet.

[stretch]

I can't argue with anything you just wrote, but it still doesn't convince me that Wade is the best player in the league right now. Wade even said recently that one of his goals was to "master" the game like Kobe already has. That sounds to me like even he knows he's not the best yet.
well, most players that are even the best, wont go out and say they are "the best" either.

and yes, i think Kobe has a more developed game than Wade. but the biggest difference between the two is that Wade knows how to lead a team and win, and Kobe doesnt. knowing how to win is the most important characteristic to have if you want to be the best. i think Kobe is the most skilled player in the NBA, but i dont think he is the best basketball player in the NBA.

[mabber]

well, most players that are even the best, wont go out and say they are "the best" either.

and yes, i think Kobe has a more developed game than Wade. but the biggest difference between the two is that Wade knows how to lead a team and win, and Kobe doesnt. knowing how to win is the most important characteristic to have if you want to be the best. i think Kobe is the most skilled player in the NBA, but i dont think he is the best basketball player in the NBA.

My bad...I guess those championships with Lakers don't count as winning.

[stretch]

My bad...I guess those championships with Lakers don't count as winning.
but who's team was that? Kobe's? or Shaq's?

We all know that was Shaq's team. Just like we all know Miami is Wade's team. Wade was the one who took over the series and won it for Miami. But Kobe didnt do that for the Lakers. Last i checked, during that run, it was Shaq who got all the Finals MVPs, and league MVP awards. not Kobe. but now that the Lakers are Kobe's team, what have they done? he first destroyed a dynasty that would have likely won more titles, then led his team out of the playoffs, and led his team to a masterful choke job against Phoenix the next year. but Wade... he took a team that was literally doing NOTHING, and got them to the second round of the playoffs in his first year, then ECF in his second, and then carried them to a championship in his third. sorry, but if i need someone who is a winner and a good leader on my team, i will take Dwayne Wade in a heartbeat.

[mabber]

but who's team was that? Kobe's? or Shaq's?

We all know that was Shaq's team. Just like we all know Miami is Wade's team. Wade was the one who took over the series and won it for Miami. But Kobe didnt do that for the Lakers. Last i checked, during that run, it was Shaq who got all the Finals MVPs, and league MVP awards. not Kobe. but now that the Lakers are Kobe's team, what have they done? he first destroyed a dynasty that would have likely won more titles, then led his team out of the playoffs, and led his team to a masterful choke job against Phoenix the next year. but Wade... he took a team that was literally doing NOTHING, and got them to the second round of the playoffs in his first year, then ECF in his second, and then carried them to a championship in his third. sorry, but if i need someone who is a winner and a good leader on my team, i will take Dwayne Wade in a heartbeat.

My heart is just not in this argument enough to continue as I'm more of a fan of Wade than I am of Kobe. I'd still take Kobe over Wade at this point with everything else being equal. Over on one of the Miami Heat forums, they are debating if Wade is already better than Michael Jordan ever was...I shit you not :lol :lol :lol

[stretch]

My heart is just not in this argument enough to continue as I'm more of a fan of Wade than I am of Kobe. I'd still take Kobe over Wade at this point with everything else being equal. Over on one of the Miami Heat forums, they are debating if Wade is already better than Michael Jordan ever was...I shit you not :lol :lol :lol
thats fine. its debatable. just IMO, Wade has shown that he is a better basketball player right now than Kobe. but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

but we can definitely agree that Wade isnt on the same level as Jordan, LOL. thats just ridiculous.