ESPN overrates Nash once again, ranks him ahead of Payton

[Johnny RIngo]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestPointGuards

Some interesting quotes by ESPN:


His performance over the last two years in Phoenix has put him in this elite category.

Getting eliminated by the Spurs twice and the Mavs in '06 puts him above Gary Payton now? Strange considering Payton's led his team to the Finals before, was cheated out of a Finals appearance in '93(where Phoenix shot 65 FTs), and played in two other Finals series. Oh yeah, he has a ring too.

Not to mention his DPOY award, his superior career averages, his career 8966 assists(compared to 5979 for Nash), his 8 All-Defensive First team selections, 2 All-NBA First team selections, 5 All-NBA Second team selections, 9-time All-Star.

What does Nash have in comparison?

3 All-NBA First team selections and 5 all-star appearances. Oh and two tainted MVP awards(thank you Phoenix media).


He's the only point guard other than Magic to win back-to-back MVPs.

Tainted the award, plain and simple. He'll probably go down in history as the worst MVP winner of all-time.

Anyway, first one should have gone to Shaq. Second one to either Lebron, Kobe, or Wade.


Takes the "makes players around him better" tag to a whole new level.

Dallas got better after he left. Marion and Amare were already good players before he joined the team.


Has the ability to make entire teams adjust to his style of play.

Has this ever worked out for him? More importantly, he's a defensive liability that's never been able to lead a team to the Finals.


ESPN's comments about Payton:


Great scorer who could run a team and, when necessary, put the club on his back. Break down his career and you'll conclude he's been underrated.
lol, talk about hypocrisy.

[Findog]

I don't understand it either. I genuinely like the guy and am fond of him, but people have short, short memories. No way he's better than Payton. A better outside shooter than Payton was in his prime, but that's about it.

[ShaqDynasty]

Gary Payton should be ranked ahead of Steve Nash. Me and Payton beat the Mavericks in 2006 for the championship. I was just dunking dunks that I was supposed to dunk and he made a winning shot that he was supposed to make in the game that was supposed have taken place. All these rankings are fluke rankings.

Diesel and Flash are back.

[dirk4mvp]

Gary Payton should be ranked ahead of Steve Nash. Me and Payton beat the Mavericks in 2006 for the championship. I was just dunking dunks that I was supposed to dunk and he made a winning shot that he was supposed to make in the game that was supposed have taken place. All these rankings are fluke rankings.




:lol This is one of the better dynasty posters.

[SenorSpur]

I don't understand it either. I genuinely like the guy and am fond of him, but people have short, short memories. No way he's better than Payton. A better outside shooter than Payton was in his prime, but that's about it.

Agreed. Payton did far more with less natural talent. Could score, pass, run the offense and oh, by the way, would lock down his man at the other end. Perennial top 5 in steals leader during his heydey. I don't want to get into head-to-head comparisons, but the glove is certainly way underrated here. To rate him behind Nash is a definite injustice to Payton.

[bdictjames]

Payton has that many assists?

This is utter bullshit.

[Hemotivo]

wow

[exstatic]

You can argue about the offense all day. They both had their good and great attributes. What you cannot argue is that Nash plays no defense and Payton was elite.

Payton >> Nash

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Getting eliminated by the Spurs twice and the Mavs in '06 puts him above Gary Payton now? Strange considering Payton's led his team to the Finals before, was cheated out of a Finals appearance in '93(where Phoenix shot 65 FTs), and played in two other Finals series. Oh yeah, he has a ring too.

Not to mention his DPOY award, his superior career averages, his career 8966 assists(compared to 5979 for Nash), his 8 All-Defensive First team selections, 2 All-NBA First team selections, 5 All-NBA Second team selections, 9-time All-Star.

What does Nash have in comparison?

3 All-NBA First team selections and 5 all-star appearances. Oh and two tainted MVP awards(thank you Phoenix media).

Note how ESPN said "his performance", as opposed to "his team's performance". Nash played very well in the playoffs during his time in Phoenix, none of our eliminations were because he failed to step up or to play well.

Yeah, Payton had superior averages. However, Nash had superior peak years, you can't just base rankings off of mean performance, as they don't tell the full story.

Oh, and the Phoenix Media?! What the fuck? Since when has anybody ever heard of the Arizona bias. We don't have a high profile within the sports media.


Tainted the award, plain and simple. He'll probably go down in history as the worst MVP winner of all-time.

Anyway, first one should have gone to Shaq. Second one to either Lebron, Kobe, or Wade.

Nash rightfully deserved both awards. With the MVP, you'll typically have two or three deserving candidates, but the voters place alot of emphasis on succeeding pre-season predictions, which both Nash led Phoenix teams did.


Dallas got better after he left. Marion and Amare were already good players before he joined the team.

Faulty cause and effect. There were many different variables that changed in Dallas since Nash left, and to say that the Mavericks became better because they lost Nash is totally baseless and completely illogical.


Has this ever worked out for him? More importantly, he's a defensive liability that's never been able to lead a team to the Finals.

Who gives a shit whether or not your team gets to the finals. Whether you lose in the first round or in the big game, it doesn't matter. Gary Payton couldn't do it until he was old and rode Shaq and Wade's coattails to a win. And you know what? That shouldn't be counted against him. Like Nash he never shrunk in the playoffs and his postseason undoing were because of his supporting cast.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

B/C of the two nash mvps, the award has become "Offensive Player of the Year"* award.
It is utterly apparent that one does not have to even know how to play defense to win the mvp anymore.

*Moreover -- Nash wasn't even the best offensive player in either of the two years that he won.

MoreMOREover -- who the fuck respects an ESPN analysis anway?

[Lebowski Brickowski]

...his postseason undoing were because of his supporting cast.


hahahaha...either nash makes his teammates 'better' or he doesn't. Either he is a great 'leader' or he isn't. Either he is part of a 'team' or he is a one man show.

You can't say that "It wasn't stevie's fault that the suns have never had postseason success!!!"

His postseason 'undoing,' as you call it [failures as I do], were because the other team was always BETTER. Unfortunately, that concept has always and will always be lost on a fucking suns fan.

[resistanze]

Faulty cause and effect. There were many different variables that changed in Dallas since Nash left, and to say that the Mavericks became better because they lost Nash is totally baseless and completely illogical.

I agree, but wasn't this a major line of reasoning people used to give Nash his MVP in 2005?

[da_suns_fan__]

First of all, this article is old.....Johnny Ringo is such a tool.

Secondly, go ask the Rockets how overrated Nash is.

If you can't see that Nash is one of the greatest point guards of all time (FAR better than Kidd) then your just a hater.

The way Nash plays is inspiring. The guy NEVER gives up and never takes a play off. What he lacks in natural talent he makes up for with effort.

Its gonna be hard to watch the Suns after he leaves. He's not the best player in the league, but he has defined what an MVP is suppose to be.

[Hemotivo]

:lol

[OldDirtMcGirt]

hahahaha...either nash makes his teammates 'better' or he doesn't. Either he is a great 'leader' or he isn't. Either he is part of a 'team' or he is a one man show.

What's with this false dilemma bullshit. There are more than two possible outcomes here. Nash is a good leader. Nash makes his teammates better. Nash does not play all five positions on the floor and he can't win every series single handedly. Just because he has the ability to run the offense and allow his teammates to work better inside of the offense doesn't mean that he should bear the full responsibility for series defeats when he plays well. As KG said, "It takes five."


You can't say that "It wasn't stevie's fault that the suns have never had postseason success!!!"

And why the hell not? Nash has always played well in the postseason and done all he can. That's all you can ask for out of a player.


His postseason 'undoing,' as you call it [failures as I do], were because the other team was always BETTER. Unfortunately, that concept has always and will always be lost on a fucking suns fan.

You do realize that when I say that Nash's team was worse, it typically then implies the other team was better. But nice job.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I agree, but wasn't this a major line of reasoning people used to give Nash his MVP in 2005?

The two situations are pretty different. In one season, the Suns went from a 29 win team to a 62 win team with the best record in the league, whereas Dallas only posted a six win increase.

[Findog]

If you can't see that Nash is one of the greatest point guards of all time (FAR better than Kidd) then your just a hater.

If you think Nash is better than Kidd, you're just a homer.




The way Nash plays is inspiring. The guy NEVER gives up and never takes a play off. What he lacks in natural talent he makes up for with effort.

All true. And it makes him admirable. Doesn't make him better than prime Gary Payton or prime Jason Kidd, though.


Its gonna be hard to watch the Suns after he leaves. He's not the best player in the league, but he has defined what an MVP is suppose to be.

I've always thought that as he makes his teammates better, they make him better as well. It's a symbiotic relationship. Together they've done things they couldn't do apart.

[Findog]

The two situations are pretty different. In one season, the Suns went from a 29 win team to a 62 win team with the best record in the league, whereas Dallas only posted a six win increase.

Didn't the Suns trade away their starting PG early into that season? And didn't Amare miss a lot of time with injuries? Nash is certainly better than Marbury, by quite a bit in fact, but the Suns were a young team that won 44 games in 02-03, and they were continuing to get better. At best you can say it was an 18-game improvement, and probably even a little less than that, since 04-05 Amare and 04-05 Joe Johnson were certainly better than they had been in 02-03.

As for Dallas, they exchanged Nash for a rookie PG and a classic tweener in Terry, and a decent but not great C in Dampier. Shaq, on the other hand, left the Lakers in exchange for 60 cents on the dollar and the Lakers fell apart, whereas he lifted Miami from true mediocrity to the East Finals. And they probably would've made the Finals if not for the injuries they suffered in that series.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Didn't the Suns trade away their starting PG early into that season? And didn't Amare miss a lot of time with injuries? Nash is certainly better than Marbury, by quite a bit in fact, but the Suns were a young team that won 44 games in 02-03, and they were continuing to get better. At best you can say it was an 18-game improvement, and probably even a little less than that, since 04-05 Amare and 04-05 Joe Johnson were certainly better than they had been in 02-03.

As for Dallas, they exchanged Nash for a rookie PG and a classic tweener in Terry, and a decent but not great C in Dampier. Shaq, on the other hand, left the Lakers in exchange for 60 cents on the dollar and the Lakers fell apart, whereas he lifted Miami from true mediocrity to the East Finals. And they probably would've made the Finals if not for the injuries they suffered in that series.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Suns' turnaround was totally Steve Nash, although he did have alot to do with it. But by the same token the Dallas turnaround wasn't Steve Nash either. I was merely pointing out that with MVP (and COY also) the media typically looks at a team's turnaround as evidence of worthiness, however flawed that may be.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Oh, and Findog is right. While I believe that Nash is better than GP, career wise he isn't better than Kidd, although I believe that at this very moment he is.

[da_suns_fan__]

Im not even going to argue about this. I watched Kidd for YEARS in his prime. He couldn't carry a team the way Nash does. Kidd is a good passing point guard, but his defensive abilities never made up for the fact that he just couldn't shoot.

Nash is just on another level. There's no question in mind. If you guys want to debate it thats fine, but you kidding yourselves (no pun inteded).

[dirk4mvp]

Kidd never did bring the ratings to satisfy me, so fuck him.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Im not even going to argue about this. I watched Kidd for YEARS in his prime. He couldn't carry a team the way Nash does. Kidd is a good passing point guard, but his defensive abilities never made up for the fact that he just couldn't shoot.

Nash is just on another level. There's no question in mind. If you guys want to debate it thats fine, but you kidding yourselves (no pun inteded).


I agree that Nash is by far the superior OFFENSIVE player when compared to Kidd. If the game is on the line and I needed a bucket, I would choose Nash over Kidd any day of the week.

BUT, Kidd is a much much much better defender and far more of a triple threat (I can't ever see Nash getting 19 boards in a game)

Also, Kidd took a horrendous NJ team to the top seed (granted, in a very weak conference) with FAR LESS TALENT than what Nash had when he arrived in Phoenix.


So yeah,

Kidd >>>> Nash

[Findog]

I watched Kidd for YEARS in his prime. He couldn't carry a team the way Nash does.

He didn't have the caliber of teammates that Nash does. Antonio McDyess, Cedric Ceballos, Rex Chapman, Hot Rod Williams, Cliff Robinson, Tom Gugliotta, a washed-up Penny. He took the Nets to the Finals twice with just Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson and not much else. You keep Nash from scoring and you take away a large portion of his impact. You take away Kidd's scoring, which is not that hard to do, and he's still a major factor.



Kidd is a good passing point guard,

Kidd is a GREAT passing point guard.


but his defensive abilities never made up for the fact that he just couldn't shoot.

Kidd didn't need to consistently hit the outside jumper to have a huge impact. His defense more than made up for it.


Nash is just on another level.

The kindest thing you could say about Nash is arguing that he's Kidd's peer. No way he's "on another level."

[Findog]

I agree that Nash is by far the superior OFFENSIVE player when compared to Kidd. If the game is on the line and I needed a bucket, I would choose Nash over Kidd any day of the week.

I agree. If it's an end of game situation, I'd much rather run a play to get a look for Nash over Kidd.


BUT, Kidd is a much much much better defender and far more of a triple threat (I can't ever see Nash getting 19 boards in a game)

da_suns_fan can't understand the importance of defense to save his life.

[Axl Van Dam]

The Glove is a better all around player than Steve Nash. I don't know :dizzy what those ESPN geniuses were thinking when they ranked Nash ahead of Payton.

[bdictjames]

Suns fans might very well be the biggest homers in the planet. :lol

[Jason_Terry]

Steve Nash if total shit compared to Gary Payton in his prime. He shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Payton.

Why is ESPN always sucking this guys balls? I guess when the little bitch whines after they get their ass kicked in playoffs this year, ESPN will be there to toss his salad and trash the team that beat Phoenix in the media.

Next thing you know, they'll be comparing him to Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan.

He hasn't done shit but lose and whine. Fuck him.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Suns fans might very well be the biggest homers in the planet. :lol

Considering that an ESPN panel comprised of non-Suns fans voted for Nash over Payton, this could hardly be attributed to Phoenix homerism.

[vicphoenix]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestPointGuards

Some interesting quotes by ESPN:



Getting eliminated by the Spurs twice and the Mavs in '06 puts him above Gary Payton now? Strange considering Payton's led his team to the Finals before, was cheated out of a Finals appearance in '93(where Phoenix shot 65 FTs), and played in two other Finals series. Oh yeah, he has a ring too.

Not to mention his DPOY award, his superior career averages, his career 8966 assists(compared to 5979 for Nash), his 8 All-Defensive First team selections, 2 All-NBA First team selections, 5 All-NBA Second team selections, 9-time All-Star.

What does Nash have in comparison?

3 All-NBA First team selections and 5 all-star appearances. Oh and two tainted MVP awards(thank you Phoenix media).



Tainted the award, plain and simple. He'll probably go down in history as the worst MVP winner of all-time.

Anyway, first one should have gone to Shaq. Second one to either Lebron, Kobe, or Wade.



Dallas got better after he left. Marion and Amare were already good players before he joined the team.



Has this ever worked out for him? More importantly, he's a defensive liability that's never been able to lead a team to the Finals.


ESPN's comments about Payton:


lol, talk about hypocrisy.


Talk about obsessed. Every thread Johnny Ringo posts is dedicated to hating Steve Nash. While I agree that Payton should be ranked ahead of Nash, it isn't a stretch to suggest Nash belongs among the top ten point guards of alltime.

[anakha]

Talk about obsessed. Every thread Johnny Ringo posts is dedicated to hating Steve Nash. While I agree that Payton should be ranked ahead of Nash, it isn't a stretch to suggest Nash belongs among the top ten point guards of alltime.

Top ten of this generation? Sure.

All time? I dunno. There's some stiff competition Nash is facing there.

[DannyB]

Getting eliminated by the Spurs twice and the Mavs in '06 puts him above Gary Payton now? Strange considering Payton's led his team to the Finals before, was cheated out of a Finals appearance in '93(where Phoenix shot 65 FTs), and played in two other Finals series. Oh yeah, he has a ring too.

Once again, Johnny, you reveal yourself to be a simpleton. You're seriously gonna dispute that Nash is a better player than Payton? You think Payton is better just because he's got a ring? You're an idiot for thinking that winning a championship somehow magically puts him in a class above Nash. Winning a championship has to do with having a good team, and has nothing directly to do with how good a player is. It's not an individual accomplishment. And you think his MVPs are tainted? Talk of anything being "tainted" by a Spurs fan is pretty fucking retarded. Welcome to the short bus.

[samikeyp]

I would take Nash over Payton. GP was a better athlete but IMO, Nash was smarter and unselfish. Two things Payton will never be accused of.

[da_suns_fan__]

Like I said, Im not even argue about this. Let the haters believe what they want.

Saying Kidd is better than Nash is like saying Dirk is better than Larry Bird.

There's absolutely no question in my mind. I can't tell you how many times Nash will take over a game and I'll just shake my head in disbelief and say "Man....that guy is so good."

You haters can believe what you want. I wouldn't trade Nash for Kidd (in his prime) if you paid me.

btw - I love how all other Suns fans on this board have picked up on the fact that Johnny Ringo doesn't post ANYTHING except how much he hates the Suns. My favorites are when he bring up how much he hates the Suns into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

I.E. "What does everyone think about the Nuggets"

Johnny Ringo: The Nuggets play defense, unlike the shitty Phoenix SOns!!!!

[anakha]

Like I said, Im not even argue about this. Let the haters believe what they want.

Saying Kidd is better than Nash is like saying Dirk is better than Larry Bird.

There's absolutely no question in my mind. I can't tell you how many times Nash will take over a game and I'll just shake my head in disbelief and say "Man....that guy is so good."

You haters can believe what you want. I wouldn't trade Nash for Kidd (in his prime) if you paid me.

btw - I love how all other Suns fans on this board have picked up on the fact that Johnny Ringo doesn't post ANYTHING except how much he hates the Suns. My favorites are when he bring up how much he hates the Suns into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

I.E. "What does everyone think about the Nuggets"

Johnny Ringo: The Nuggets play defense, unlike the shitty Phoenix SOns!!!!

Not to nitpick, but who exactly was comparing Nash to Kidd in this thread before you did?

[JMarkJohns]

I think it's a toss up, personally. Depends on the type of team you have constructed around said PG. No one can argue that Nash isn't the better pure PG, the better passer and the better shooter. No on can argue that Payton isn't the better slasher and defender. However, Payton had many a issue with teammates and coaches in his time, whereas Nash has never. So again, it all just depends.

However, the logic used in the orginal post to diminish Nash is so flawed it's not even funny. No facts beyond what I just admitted to above (like being the better defender), mostly just biased opinion such as the MVPs being tainted because of the Phoenix media machine. Well since when did Phoenix become New York, and its press become a publications everyone in the country reads? Let's not be rediculous.

Also, you're comparing a now-retired Payton to a still in-prime Nash. Stevie may very well add another two All-NBA 1st teams, giving him a total of five to Payton's two.

Beyond that Nash was faulted for some playoff struggles, failing to get the youngest-team in the League at the time (04-05 Suns) past a very experienced Spurs team, then in 05-06 failing to get an undermanned, undersized Suns team that was using three SFs as a frontcourt rotation to the Finals, then selling the 06-07 Suns short, a team who had been more than competative at full strength with the Spurs, and while it's true it's their own damn fault they got suspended, nobody can diminish the impact said suspensions had on the series.

Overall, the only series of the three they really should have won was last year, but after being stupid, that was never much of a reality beyond game five.

I can understand favoring Payton over Nash because of his all-around prowess, but not to the point where a legitimate top-10 PG is made to seem inferior and underserving to even be mentioned in the same sentence. It's not like Payton is in the top-half of All-Time PGs. Until he landed his Shaq/Wade-given Title late in his career, it's not like his team's didn't suffer some humiliating defeats in the playoffs *cough, cough... '94 Nuggets... cough*

[da_suns_fan__]

Not to nitpick, but who exactly was comparing Nash to Kidd in this thread before you did?


Oh I see...this a strictly Payton vs. Nash thread?

Fine. Would anyone honestly trade Nash for Payton?

If your answer is yes, then you need to watch more Suns games.

[Nashfan]

I think it's a toss up, personally. Depends on the type of team you have constructed around said PG. No one can argue that Nash isn't the better pure PG, the better passer and the better shooter. No on can argue that Payton isn't the better slasher and defender. However, Payton had many a issue with teammates and coaches in his time, whereas Nash has never. So again, it all just depends.

However, the logic used in the orginal post to diminish Nash is so flawed it's not even funny. No facts beyond what I just admitted to above (like being the better defender), mostly just biased opinion such as the MVPs being tainted because of the Phoenix media machine. Well since when did Phoenix become New York, and its press become a publications everyone in the country reads? Let's not be rediculous.

Also, you're comparing a now-retired Payton to a still in-prime Nash. Stevie may very well add another two All-NBA 1st teams, giving him a total of five to Payton's two.

Beyond that Nash was faulted for some playoff struggles, failing to get the youngest-team in the League at the time (04-05 Suns) past a very experienced Spurs team, then in 05-06 failing to get an undermanned, undersized Suns team that was using three SFs as a frontcourt rotation to the Finals, then selling the 06-07 Suns short, a team who had been more than competative at full strength with the Spurs, and while it's true it's their own damn fault they got suspended, nobody can diminish the impact said suspensions had on the series.

Overall, the only series of the three they really should have won was last year, but after being stupid, that was never much of a reality beyond game five.

I can understand favoring Payton over Nash because of his all-around prowess, but not to the point where a legitimate top-10 PG is made to seem inferior and underserving to even be mentioned in the same sentence. It's not like Payton is in the top-half of All-Time PGs. Until he landed his Shaq/Wade-given Title late in his career, it's not like his team's didn't suffer some humiliating defeats in the playoffs *cough, cough... '94 Nuggets... cough*


:tu Good post on this subject

[anakha]

Oh I see...this a strictly Payton vs. Nash thread?

Fine. Would anyone honestly trade Nash for Payton?

If your answer is yes, then you need to watch more Suns games.

*shrugs* Since Ringo started the comparison, might as well keep it there.

Besides, there's already a Kidd/Nash thread in the front page of this board.

On Payton/Nash? Can't give an unbiased opinion there, cause I think Payton is an assclown. :lol

[resistanze]

Saying Kidd is better than Nash is like saying Dirk is better than Larry Bird.

:lol, You must be trying to upstage SpursDynasty. What has Nash done in his career to justify such a gap between Nash and Kidd? Three notable years?

Compared to the 6 All NBA Selections (5 First Team), 9 All Defensive Selections, 89 Triple Doubles (3rd All-Time), Leading the NBA in Assists 5 times, and 2 Finals Appearances?

Why exactly does Kidd = Dirk and Nash = Bird again?

I much as I like seeing Nash play, I'll never believe that he suddenly decided to elevate his game when he turned 30, after joining a new team with a completely different and unique run-and-gun system. I don't why anyone would be a hater for choosing Kidd over Nash, the ESPN article in this thread put Kidd two spots over Nash; the issue here was Payton or Nash.

[JMarkJohns]

I won't debate that Kidd has had the better career of the two, but if there was ever an asterisk moment in the NBA, then the Nets two Finals appearances should qualify. On their trek, they literally defeated just on 50-win team to get there. This was before the Eastern Conference broke through and win a Finals. This was the very definition of the Leastern Conference. If you don't think that Nash, even that same time Nash, couldn't have switched places with Kidd and led those Nets teams to the Finals, then you're fooling yourself.

[SenorSpur]

Im not even going to argue about this. I watched Kidd for YEARS in his prime. He couldn't carry a team the way Nash does. Kidd is a good passing point guard, but his defensive abilities never made up for the fact that he just couldn't shoot.

Nash is just on another level. There's no question in mind. If you guys want to debate it thats fine, but you kidding yourselves (no pun inteded).

I don't think the gap between Kidd and Nash is as wide as you believe. JKidd is a triple-double machine. Which means that he's one of the best rebounding guards in NBA history. Take whatever shots you want about his shooting ability (or lack thereof), but his rebounding prowess and defensive abilities narrows the gap between he and Nash considerably.

[resistanze]

I won't debate that Kidd has had the better career of the two, but if there was ever an asterisk moment in the NBA, then the Nets two Finals appearances should qualify. On their trek, they literally defeated just on 50-win team to get there. This was before the Eastern Conference broke through and win a Finals. This was the very definition of the Leastern Conference. If you don't think that Nash, even that same time Nash, couldn't have switched places with Kidd and led those Nets teams to the Finals, then you're fooling yourself.
To be fair, if the Suns had made the finals 2 years ago, they would have done the same thing (albeit beating a 60 win team and two 40 win teams). No one on that Nets team even averaged over 15 PPG (Kenyon and Van Horn their leading scorers) and even the 54 win Suns team minus Amare of 05-06 had a better supporting cast than a team made up of Van Horn, Kittles, Martin, and Todd MacCulloch. Like I said before, it's hard for me to believe Nash drastically evolved as a player the second he left Dallas, but I certainly don't think it's a given that Nash could've done what Kidd did in '02.

To me, it's not really significant that Kidd played in an inferior conference to get to the Finals, because his team was not at all vastly superior to the teams he faced during the run. Kidd had to be a beast in those playoffs, averaging like 20/9/8, so it wasn't like he didn't have to elevate his game to get his crappy Nets team into the Finals.

Likewise, the Suns have been a top tier, 60 win team with Nash in the superior Western Conference for the past 3 years. They've already proved they're among the elite in the conference, so I don't see why the difficulty in the conference can be used as a reason when they get knocked out of the playoffs . It's different if the Suns were an 6-8th seed, first round fodder team that would likely spank everyone in the Eastern Conference, but they're clearly on par with the elite teams they've faced (Spurs, Mavs).

[JMarkJohns]

To be fair, if the Suns had made the finals 2 years ago, they would have done the same thing (albeit beating a 60 win team and two 40 win teams). No one on that Nets team even averaged over 15 PPG (Kenyon and Van Horn their leading scorers) and even the 54 win Suns team minus Amare of 05-06 had a better supporting cast than a team made up of Van Horn, Kittles, Martin, and Todd MacCulloch. Like I said before, it's hard for me to believe Nash drastically evolved as a player the second he left Dallas, but I certainly don't think it's a given that Nash could've done what Kidd did in '02.

To me, it's not really significant that Kidd played in an inferior conference to get to the Finals, because his team was not at all vastly superior to the teams he faced during the run. Kidd had to be a beast in those playoffs, averaging like 20/9/8, so it wasn't like he didn't have to elevate his game to get his crappy Nets team into the Finals.

Likewise, the Suns have been a top tier, 60 win team with Nash in the superior Western Conference for the past 3 years. They've already proved they're among the elite in the conference, so I don't see why the difficulty in the conference can be used as a reason when they get knocked out of the playoffs . It's different if the Suns were an 6-8th seed, first round fodder team that would likely spank everyone in the Eastern Conference, but they're clearly on par with the elite teams they've faced (Spurs, Mavs).

I just had a huge response when my comupter crashed. FUCK!!! :pctoss

So now, in bullet form...

1. You can't expect the youngest team in the League that missing a 20-ppg scorer to defeat a two-time Champion, therefore you can't really use said series loss against any of the Suns players. That's fucked up if you do. They went as far as they were supposed to according to the experts. They were just too young and hadn't enough depth to make up for the injured Johnson. Not taking anything away from the Spurs. With a healthy Johnson, I still think the Spurs win in no more than six. That just speaks to the advantage San Antonio had stemming from their experience and coaching.

2. You can't hold it against an injury-ravaged team to lose in the Western Conference Finals. I mean, take the starting PF and C off any team and they'd be lucky to get as far as Phoenix did, no matter the seeding break Phoenix got. Frankly, I picked them to lose to any playoff team past the Lakers, so in beating the Clippers in seven games they surpassed my expectations.

3. Your comparison of the 05-06 Suns and the 02-03 Nets is flawed because that Nets team was 90% healthy. As I recall Martin was hobbled, but still able to play and play well. Take he and Mutombo off the Nets and see how far they advance. I seriously doubt they get past the Pistons. Of course it's all speculation at this point, and I don't bring this up to slight Kidd as a player, just to say that his Leastern Conference series wins are a joke compared to the teams Nash has had to face out West.

4. The only reason I bring it up is vs. the West Kidd is 0-fer. Nash is 9-7, including 5-7 vs. 50+ win teams, with three of the seven 50-win series losses coming in the Conference Finals. So, despite never playing in the Finals, Nash-led team have a far superior record vs. the far superior Western Conference than does Kidd-led teams. Like I said, had the 01-02 and 02-03 Nash been on those Nets teams, I imagine he'd have advanced to the Finals as well. The East was just terrible from 2001 to 2003, accounting for a 3-12 record in the Finals vs. the West. Once the East gets better, the Nets fail to beat a 50-win team from then on out (0-4). In total Kidd is like 1-9 vs. 50-win teams in his career. Nash, again, is 9-7, despite playing his entire career in the tougher conference.

[Johnny RIngo]

Once again, Johnny, you reveal yourself to be a simpleton.

Says the pwned guy. I present facts while you S0ns fans have nothing but garbage to bring to the table.


You're seriously gonna dispute that Nash is a better player than Payton?

Uh, yeah. That was the point of the topic, retard.


You think Payton is better just because he's got a ring?

No. Reread the first post, moron. Payton's better because:

-has a championship ring
-has three appearances in the NBA Finals(should have been four but the refs gave Phoenix 65 FTAs in the '93 Western Conference Finals)
-superior career averages including his career 8966 assists(compared to 5979 for Nash)
-DPOY award
-8 All-Defensive First team selections
-2 All-NBA First team selections
-5 All-NBA Second team selections
-9-time All-Star

Now let's compare that to Nash who has:

-0 rings
-0 Finals appearances
-3 All-NBA First team selections
-5 all-star appearances

Payton's defense, in his prime, was excellent. He held Jordan to his lowest ever Finals averages(much better than anyone on the pathetic '93 Suns roster who allowed Jordan to go off for 41 ppg). Also, Payton and his Sonics held Jordan's Bulls to the lowest-scoring quarter in the Bulls' NBA finals history.

In all-time NBA history Payton ranks:

-21st in points (21,813) - passed Larry Bird (21,791) on March 26, 2007
-6th in assists (8,966)
-3rd in steals (2,445)
-7th in minutes (47,117)
-8th in games (1335)

Payton also ranks fifth all-time among guards in defensive rebounds, 12th in offensive rebounds, and 10th in total rebounds for a guard.

Not to mention his work ethic...In 16 seasons, Payton only missed 11 games, and at one point held the longest active streak for consecutive games played, with over 300.


You're an idiot for thinking that winning a championship somehow magically puts him in a class above Nash. Winning a championship has to do with having a good team, and has nothing directly to do with how good a player is. It's not an individual accomplishment.

Thanks for confirming that Steve Trash's MVPs mean nothing since they were really team accomplishments. Shaq, Wade, Lebron, and Kobe all had better individual numbers, and thus, deserved the MVP more than Nash.


And you think his MVPs are tainted? Talk of anything being "tainted" by a Spurs fan is pretty fucking retarded. Welcome to the short bus.

Stop denying the taint. Nash has no business winning one MVP award, let alone two. Why the hell does this clown have the same amount of MVPs as Duncan and one more than Shaq?

Duncan's sixth on the all-time career effciency list. Just for comparison's sake, Nash is 65th. Duncan's carried some horrible Spurs teams to 50 win seasons in the early 00s, has never been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, and he's played all-star calibre basketball since the day he joined the league. Proof here:

http://www.wagesofwins.com/RookieStar.html

While guys like Garnett and Kidd started out rough(Steve Nash has a negative value for his rookie year-LOL) Duncan, along with Shaq, have been top level players from day they entered the NBA. There's a reason why they're both called the best players in the game since Jordan retired.

Considering this fact, how the fuck does someone like Nash get two MVPs...the same amount as a 4-time champ like Duncan and one more than a 4-time champ like Shaq. He's only played good basketball for the last three years and he's somehow more valuable than either of these two? Gimme a fucking break. Perfect example of the the Phoenix hype machine at work trying to make Nash the great white hope of the NBA.

[Johnny RIngo]

Haha, this is pretty hilarious. Check it out:


First of all, this article is old.....Johnny Ringo is such a tool.

Secondly, go ask the Rockets how overrated Nash is.

If you can't see that Nash is one of the greatest point guards of all time (FAR better than Kidd) then your just a hater.

The way Nash plays is inspiring. The guy NEVER gives up and never takes a play off. What he lacks in natural talent he makes up for with effort.

Its gonna be hard to watch the Suns after he leaves. He's not the best player in the league, but he has defined what an MVP is suppose to be.


Im not even going to argue about this. I watched Kidd for YEARS in his prime. He couldn't carry a team the way Nash does. Kidd is a good passing point guard, but his defensive abilities never made up for the fact that he just couldn't shoot.

Nash is just on another level. There's no question in mind. If you guys want to debate it thats fine, but you kidding yourselves (no pun inteded).



Like I said, Im not even argue about this. Let the haters believe what they want.

Saying Kidd is better than Nash is like saying Dirk is better than Larry Bird.

There's absolutely no question in my mind. I can't tell you how many times Nash will take over a game and I'll just shake my head in disbelief and say "Man....that guy is so good."

You haters can believe what you want. I wouldn't trade Nash for Kidd (in his prime) if you paid me.

btw - I love how all other Suns fans on this board have picked up on the fact that Johnny Ringo doesn't post ANYTHING except how much he hates the Suns. My favorites are when he bring up how much he hates the Suns into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

I.E. "What does everyone think about the Nuggets"

Johnny Ringo: The Nuggets play defense, unlike the shitty Phoenix SOns!!!!

LMAO, this fool accuses me of obsession while he goes off on a tangent(3 times!) about Jason Kidd. I thought this topic was about Payton vs Nash?

Sensitive much?

And, for the record, Kidd is better than Nash. I'll take a real point guard, anyday, over a gimmick like Nash.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

-has a championship ring

That he won shamelessly chasing a ring and riding on the coattails of Shaq and Wade. Payton could never lead his own team to a championship, something that Nash hasn't done either. So that's hardly an advantage.


-has three appearances in the NBA Finals(should have been four but the refs gave Phoenix 65 FTAs in the '93 Western Conference Finals)

I must've forgot that they handed out rings for winning Conference Championships. Totally irrelevant how far you lead your team into the playoffs unless you're choking (which neither Nash or Payton did) or you actually win the title.


-superior career averages including his career 8966 assists(compared to 5979 for Nash)

First Nash's career isn't over, and he's only getting better (he's improved the past three years). Secondly, career stats are a very small piece of the puzzle. It's also important to look at peak years, because clearly Nash has improved his game greatly since he came into the league.


-DPOY award
-8 All-Defensive First team selections

No argument there. Payton was a better defensively player than Nash.


Thanks for confirming that Steve Trash's MVPs mean nothing since they were really team accomplishments. Shaq, Wade, Lebron, and Kobe all had better individual numbers, and thus, deserved the MVP more than Nash.

The MVP is not an award that is bestowed based upon individual performances.




Stop denying the taint. Nash has no business winning one MVP award, let alone two. Why the hell does this clown have the same amount of MVPs as Duncan and one more than Shaq?

Duncan's sixth on the all-time career effciency list. Just for comparison's sake, Nash is 65th. Duncan's carried some horrible Spurs teams to 50 win seasons in the early 00s, has never been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, and he's played all-star calibre basketball since the day he joined the league. Proof here:

http://www.wagesofwins.com/RookieStar.html

While guys like Garnett and Kidd started out rough(Steve Nash has a negative value for his rookie year-LOL) Duncan, along with Shaq, have been top level players from day they entered the NBA. There's a reason why they're both called the best players in the game since Jordan retired.

Considering this fact, how the fuck does someone like Nash get two MVPs...the same amount as a 4-time champ like Duncan and one more than a 4-time champ like Shaq. He's only played good basketball for the last three years and he's somehow more valuable than either of these two? Gimme a fucking break. Perfect example of the the Phoenix hype machine at work trying to make Nash the great white hope of the NBA.

Total red herring. What does Nash's rookie year have to do with his MVP awards? And the validity of an MVP award has nothing to do with direct comparison to others who had won it. His race also has nothing to do with it, nor how long he's been playing MVP caliber basketball. And there's no such thing as the Phoenix hype machine.

[JMarkJohns]

OlDirt, just leave RIngo alone. His happy in his ignorance. He seems to delight in bashing the Suns and Suns players more than anything his Spurs or Spurs players could ever give him.

I'd venture to say half his posts are on the Suns, with nary a one being positive.

EDIT: OK I searched and for just a reference of his "S0ns" catchphrase turned up 149 posts out of just over 600. That's just posts containing "S0ns" mind you. Since there's no way to really know if he's got posts on the Suns without said word, I'll just let your imaginations wander with a minimum over 20% of his site's posts bashing the Suns.

He's definately one of the Spurs fans that Suns fanatics claim is obsessed. He is. No doubt about it.

[resistanze]

I just had a huge response when my comupter crashed. FUCK!!! :pctoss :lol That sucks man.


1. You can't expect the youngest team in the League that missing a 20-ppg scorer to defeat a two-time Champion, therefore you can't really use said series loss against any of the Suns players. That's fucked up if you do. They went as far as they were supposed to according to the experts. They were just too young and hadn't enough depth to make up for the injured Johnson. Not taking anything away from the Spurs. With a healthy Johnson, I still think the Spurs win in no more than six. That just speaks to the advantage San Antonio had stemming from their experience and coaching.

My point was not that the Suns should've beaten the Spurs and Mavs the past few years, it was that they were on the same level as them. Likewise, the Nets were on the same level as their Eastern Conference opponents; it's not like they were as good as the present-day Suns and had a cakewalk to the finals.



2. You can't hold it against an injury-ravaged team to lose in the Western Conference Finals. I mean, take the starting PF and C off any team and they'd be lucky to get as far as Phoenix did, no matter the seeding break Phoenix got. Frankly, I picked them to lose to any playoff team past the Lakers, so in beating the Clippers in seven games they surpassed my expectations.
Again, I didn't mean to imply that Phoenix should've gotten to the Finals. But they certainly weren't underdogs in their first two series; they were a 54 win team without Amare for the whole season and facing two 40-something win teams from their own division. The fact that they were in a tougher conference doesn't change the fact that they were among the elite in that tougher conference and significantly better than the Nets teams.


3. Your comparison of the 05-06 Suns and the 02-03 Nets is flawed because that Nets team was 90% healthy. As I recall Martin was hobbled, but still able to play and play well. Take he and Mutombo off the Nets and see how far they advance. I seriously doubt they get past the Pistons. Of course it's all speculation at this point, and I don't bring this up to slight Kidd as a player, just to say that his Leastern Conference series wins are a joke compared to the teams Nash has had to face out West.
I've stated earlier that even with the injures, the Suns were a formidable opponent in the Western Conference, winning 54 games. Amare didn't go down midseason, hampering their postseason chances. They knew what they had from the beginning and were still a pretty good team with Marion, Nash, Bell, Barbosa, Thomas and Diaw.

But if you recognize the mediocrity of the Eastern Conference during that time, you have to include the Nets! That's my main point; why should Kidd getting the Nets Finals be taken any more for granted than Nash taking the Suns to the Finals? Kidd played in an inferior conference with an inferior team; I don't see his path as remarkably easier to the Finals considering his team than it should've been for Nash in the past 3 years on a top 3 Western Conference team.


4. The only reason I bring it up is vs. the West Kidd is 0-fer. Nash is 9-7, including 5-7 vs. 50+ win teams, with three of the seven 50-win series losses coming in the Conference Finals. So, despite never playing in the Finals, Nash-led team have a far superior record vs. the far superior Western Conference than does Kidd-led teams. Like I said, had the 01-02 and 02-03 Nash been on those Nets teams, I imagine he'd have advanced to the Finals as well. The East was just terrible from 2001 to 2003, accounting for a 3-12 record in the Finals vs. the West. Once the East gets better, the Nets fail to beat a 50-win team from then on out (0-4). In total Kidd is like 1-9 vs. 50-win teams in his career. Nash, again, is 9-7, despite playing his entire career in the tougher conference.
I'd dispute the similarities between the Suns team Kidd played for and the teams Nash played for. I don't remember any of the Suns teams Kidd played for ever being a top 3 seed in the West or having similar personnel and coaching philosophy the Suns have now. I don't believe we can attribute Kidd's playoff record in the West solely on Kidd's shoulders if were gonna consider other factors (experience, injury) for to explain why Nash hasn't made the Finals.

[Amare_32]

Says the pwned guy. I present facts while you S0ns fans have nothing but garbage to bring to the table.



Uh, yeah. That was the point of the topic, retard.



No. Reread the first post, moron. Payton's better because:

-has a championship ring
-has three appearances in the NBA Finals(should have been four but the refs gave Phoenix 65 FTAs in the '93 Western Conference Finals)
-superior career averages including his career 8966 assists(compared to 5979 for Nash)
-DPOY award
-8 All-Defensive First team selections
-2 All-NBA First team selections
-5 All-NBA Second team selections
-9-time All-Star

Now let's compare that to Nash who has:

-0 rings
-0 Finals appearances
-3 All-NBA First team selections
-5 all-star appearances

Payton's defense, in his prime, was excellent. He held Jordan to his lowest ever Finals averages(much better than anyone on the pathetic '93 Suns roster who allowed Jordan to go off for 41 ppg). Also, Payton and his Sonics held Jordan's Bulls to the lowest-scoring quarter in the Bulls' NBA finals history.

In all-time NBA history Payton ranks:

-21st in points (21,813) - passed Larry Bird (21,791) on March 26, 2007
-6th in assists (8,966)
-3rd in steals (2,445)
-7th in minutes (47,117)
-8th in games (1335)

Payton also ranks fifth all-time among guards in defensive rebounds, 12th in offensive rebounds, and 10th in total rebounds for a guard.

Not to mention his work ethic...In 16 seasons, Payton only missed 11 games, and at one point held the longest active streak for consecutive games played, with over 300.



Thanks for confirming that Steve Trash's MVPs mean nothing since they were really team accomplishments. Shaq, Wade, Lebron, and Kobe all had better individual numbers, and thus, deserved the MVP more than Nash.



Stop denying the taint. Nash has no business winning one MVP award, let alone two. Why the hell does this clown have the same amount of MVPs as Duncan and one more than Shaq?

Duncan's sixth on the all-time career effciency list. Just for comparison's sake, Nash is 65th. Duncan's carried some horrible Spurs teams to 50 win seasons in the early 00s, has never been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, and he's played all-star calibre basketball since the day he joined the league. Proof here:

http://www.wagesofwins.com/RookieStar.html

While guys like Garnett and Kidd started out rough(Steve Nash has a negative value for his rookie year-LOL) Duncan, along with Shaq, have been top level players from day they entered the NBA. There's a reason why they're both called the best players in the game since Jordan retired.

Considering this fact, how the fuck does someone like Nash get two MVPs...the same amount as a 4-time champ like Duncan and one more than a 4-time champ like Shaq. He's only played good basketball for the last three years and he's somehow more valuable than either of these two? Gimme a fucking break. Perfect example of the the Phoenix hype machine at work trying to make Nash the great white hope of the NBA.


I am not saying that Nash is better then Payton or vice versa but 2 things. You do realize that the Sonics lost to the Bulls 4-2. Why are will still having the MVP debate 3 years later? Yes Shaq improved Miami by 17 wins his first year. Nash on the other hand improved his team by 33 wins in 04-05. In 05-06 when the media was all gloom and doom when Amare went down for the season Nash still managed to lead the Suns to 54 wins and 6 games in the WCF against the Mavs. Last thing what is the Phoenix hype machine? So far this season the only teams that have been talked about most have been the Spurs,Dallas and Boston.

[DannyB]

OlDirt, just leave RIngo alone. His happy in his ignorance. He seems to delight in bashing the Suns and Suns players more than anything his Spurs or Spurs players could ever give him.

I'd venture to say half his posts are on the Suns, with nary a one being positive.

EDIT: OK I searched and for just a reference of his "S0ns" catchphrase turned up 149 posts out of just over 600. That's just posts containing "S0ns" mind you. Since there's no way to really know if he's got posts on the Suns without said word, I'll just let your imaginations wander with a minimum over 20% of his site's posts bashing the Suns.

He's definately one of the Spurs fans that Suns fanatics claim is obsessed. He is. No doubt about it.

That's funny. Very. I guess it's hard to enjoy a tainted trophy without getting defensive, because Johnny can't seem to get the Suns out of his head.

[anakha]

That's funny. Very. I guess it's hard to enjoy a tainted trophy without getting defensive, because Johnny can't seem to get the Suns out of his head.

Now ordinarily, I'd be all "Grrr, Spurs fan being picked on by Suns fans", but since Ringo pretty much brought this on himself...

Carry on. :lol

[JMarkJohns]

My point was not that the Suns should've beaten the Spurs and Mavs the past few years, it was that they were on the same level as them. Likewise, the Nets were on the same level as their Eastern Conference opponents; it's not like they were as good as the present-day Suns and had a cakewalk to the finals.

They did beat the Mavs in 04-05. A 58-win Dallas team, at that. And in the second round. The 01-02 Nets never even played a 50-win team, let alone a nearly 60-win team, let alone in the second round, and the best the 02-03 Nets could beat was a mere 50 game winner in the Pistons. A 49-win team beats a 50-win team, in the conference Finals.

And yes, that 01-02 team had 52 wins and beat a 42-win team, a 43-win team and a 49-win team en route to getting swept by a 58-win team. I'd call a path sans a 50-win club pretty easy, even for the best of the worst. That next year they beat a 41-win team and 43-win team before they even faced a 50-win club.

They certainly had easier paths to the Conference Finals, unless you don't consider being a dozen games better than your opponants easy.

As flawed as I may be, and I may be, I won't budge on this. Those paths the Nets had were rediculously easy, even for an average club like the Nets.




Again, I didn't mean to imply that Phoenix should've gotten to the Finals. But they certainly weren't underdogs in their first two series; they were a 54 win team without Amare for the whole season and facing two 40-something win teams from their own division. The fact that they were in a tougher conference doesn't change the fact that they were among the elite in that tougher conference and significantly better than the Nets teams.


I've stated earlier that even with the injures, the Suns were a formidable opponent in the Western Conference, winning 54 games. Amare didn't go down midseason, hampering their postseason chances. They knew what they had from the beginning and were still a pretty good team with Marion, Nash, Bell, Barbosa, Thomas and Diaw.

This makes sense. However, it doesn't matter how long you've been able to adjust without your starting PF and C, it's still a big fuckin' loss when you're matched up against players like Brand and Kaman and Dirk, Dampier and Diop. Those 6-8, 230 pound frontcourt players the Suns roled out nightly as PFs and Cs got eaten alive on the boards.

And, also, I've already posted on the topics, while the Suns may not have been underdogs according to Vegas, according to writers and news anchor "experts" they were not favorites either. Both the Lakers and the Clippers series were a toss up according to the media, and with each going seven games, I guess they were right. A majority of basketball experts actually picked the Lakers over the Suns. That's right, a majority. The post with names, sites and picks is in a thread or two dated back then.

So, while they certainly had time to adjust to life without big men, it wasn't much of a low-post life. Take Duncan off the Spurs for an entire year, then have to sit Nazr from March on, with each missing the playoffs and imagine how easy it would be for a lineup of Rasho, Horry and whomever to beat the Mavericks. Hell, even those Clippers. I bet it'd be hard, even with being used to being without.



But if you recognize the mediocrity of the Eastern Conference during that time, you have to include the Nets! That's my main point; why should Kidd getting the Nets Finals be taken any more for granted than Nash taking the Suns to the Finals? Kidd played in an inferior conference with an inferior team; I don't see his path as remarkably easier to the Finals considering his team than it should've been for Nash in the past 3 years on a top 3 Western Conference team.

Let's just say that with their best recorded team, the 52-win 01-02 Nets faced one 58-win or better team. Said team came all the way in the Finals. The Nets got swept.

Meanwhile, the Suns faced a 58-win Mavericks club in the second round. Hmmmm... 43-win club in the second round or 58-win club in the second round. You tell be which opponant would be easier. THEN, the Suns faced a 59-win Spurs in the Conference Finals. That's a second 58+ win team, each before the Finals. The Nets had to face just one all playoffs long, and not until the Finals. The Suns had to play two just to get there.

I can't believe that this is scoffed at in place of a "It's all relative" counterpoint. The Nets has a vastly easier time to the Finals because of the East. Out West that team is lucky to make it past the second round. Damn lucky.

That's my point. They were a good team as far as Eastern Conference teams went, but that conference was like three-deep, and even those three teams were no better than teams losing in the first-round out west. They had a very easy path and had very, very good health throughout their runs. Even with their easiest path, the Suns have never been able to claim both. Not even at their hardest.



I'd dispute the similarities between the Suns team Kidd played for and the teams Nash played for. I don't remember any of the Suns teams Kidd played for ever being a top 3 seed in the West or having similar personnel and coaching philosophy the Suns have now. I don't believe we can attribute Kidd's playoff record in the West solely on Kidd's shoulders if were gonna consider other factors (experience, injury) for to explain why Nash hasn't made the Finals.

In 1997-98 the Kidd-led Suns, a 56-win team with home-court lost 3-1 in the first round. That team had Antonio McDyess (15 ppg, 8 rpg), Clifford Robinson (14 ppg, 5 rpg), Danny Manning (14 ppg, 6 rpg) and still had Hot Rod to throw at opposing centers to comprise a very talented and deep frontcourt. on the wins and in the backcourt the Suns had Rex Chapman (16 ppg), KJ (10 ppg, 5 apg, Ceballos (10 PPG) and George McCloud (8 ppg) to flank Kidd (12 ppg, 9 apg, 6 rpg). That's an incredable team to lose in the first round.

Kidd also had runs with players like Gugliotta, who went 18-9 in 1998-99 with the Suns, Marion, who went 17-11 in 2000-01, Hardaway, who went 17-6-6 in 1999-00, not to mention several more seasons with Robinson, Manning, Chapman and quality additions like Delk and Rodgers, with each averaging a dozen or more ppg for many of those seasons.

Kidd had a lot of talent in Phoenix, hence 56-win, 53-win and 51-win clubs in his tenure. Not once did any of those teams ever threaten a series with Kidd leading it. Not once. The best they could muster was 3-1 twice and a 4-1 second-loss once Kidd returned from injury. They also got swept in the lock-out shortened 1998-99 season. I'm telling you, with talent, Kidd's Phoenix team's were terrible in the playoffs. In no way was Nash's 05-06 team of Marion, Diaw, Thomas, Jones, Bell and Barbosa better than Kidd's 97-98 team of McDyess, Robinson, Manning, Williams, Chapman, Johnson and McCloud, but they toughed it out.


In closing, I'd like to say you've made some great points. HOWEVER, as someone who's experienced the goods and bads of each, I can tell you that Nash has had more goods than bads and that, despite having very good talent, Kidd had more bads than goods.

It's not taking anything away from Kidd as a player. He's the better of the two over each's career. HOWEVER... If Kidd is traded to a Western Conference team rather than to the East, I wonder if he ever advances a team past the first-round. Ya know, after being like 1-9 vs. 50 win teams and all.

[resistanze]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, since we've made clear our stance and just probably would end up reiterating our points. You argue your position well though. :toast

[BradLohaus]

Oscar Robertson was directly responsible for 44 points per game for his teams (ppg + 2 x APG).

Magic's was 42 ppg by the same caclulation, but he played in the 3 point era, so his has to be higher than 42. They have to be the top 2 in that stat. MJ's number is 40.

I think that's an interesting stat in the question of greatest player ever, but it only matters to guards, obviously.

[Johnny RIngo]

That he won shamelessly chasing a ring and riding on the coattails of Shaq and Wade. Payton could never lead his own team to a championship, something that Nash hasn't done either. So that's hardly an advantage.

He still has a ring. Sure, he rode the bandwagon but it's not like he sat on the bench the whole time either(he averaged 22 mins a game against Dallas). Considering his age at the time(38 yrs old), that's not too shabby.


I must've forgot that they handed out rings for winning Conference Championships. Totally irrelevant how far you lead your team into the playoffs unless you're choking (which neither Nash or Payton did) or you actually win the title.

Well, Payton's first chance at a championship was shot down by the GOAT and his 72 win Bulls. The fact that he led his team to the Finals through a stacked Western Conference is still impressive. Nash has teammates that are just as good,if not better, than Payton's. Until Nash can lead a team to the Finals Payton still has the edge here.


First Nash's career isn't over, and he's only getting better (he's improved the past three years). Secondly, career stats are a very small piece of the puzzle. It's also important to look at peak years, because clearly Nash has improved his game greatly since he came into the league.

Regardless of how well Nash has played the past three years, you can't honestly tell me that his prime is better than Payton's.

Payton's prime years from '94 to '03:

21.37 ppg, 8.1 apg, 4.6 rpg, 2.1 spg over 9 seasons on .465 FG% and .322 3P% missing only 6 games total throughout that period.

Nash's prime years from '00 to '07:

16.9 ppg, 9.2 apg, 3.3 rpg, .87 spg over 7 seasons on .493 FG% and .429 3p% missing 32 games throughout that period.

Payton is clearly the better player. Better scorer, defender, rebounder. Has only one less apg then Nash too.


The MVP is not an award that is bestowed based upon individual performances.

The award should go to the most valuable player. Unfortunately, in Nash's case, they gave it out to the "best player on the team with the best record". Lame. Even then I question the notion that Nash is the best player on the team considering the fact that Marion has produced more wins for the team than Nash (http://www.wagesofwins.com/Suns0507.html).

Nash's value to his team has been greatly exaggerated by the media.

How is Nash MVP worthy when he has Amare, Marion, Barbosa, and Bell to back him up. Lebron and Kobe have little to no help on their teams. Shaq turned Miami around in '05 and made them a legit contender in the West. Wade carried the team afterwards. Those four are more deserving of the award than Nash.


Total red herring. What does Nash's rookie year have to do with his MVP awards? And the validity of an MVP award has nothing to do with direct comparison to others who had won it. His race also has nothing to do with it, nor how long he's been playing MVP caliber basketball. And there's no such thing as the Phoenix hype machine.

If you look back at all the previous MVP winners over the past 20 years all of 'em are players that have sustained great numbers over a long career. Nash hasn't. Also, I compare him to previous winners because it's glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain that Nash is easily the worst recipient of the award.

[Johnny RIngo]

OlDirt, just leave RIngo alone. His happy in his ignorance. He seems to delight in bashing the Suns and Suns players more than anything his Spurs or Spurs players could ever give him.

Actually, I'm quite satisfied with my Spurs.

Funny that you call me ignorant when 90% of all the S0ns posters are only interested in the ratings championship.

Just because I'm shooting down the ignorant hype surrounding Phoenix and their players doesn't make my opinions less valid than anyone else's.


I'd venture to say half his posts are on the Suns, with nary a one being positive.

EDIT: OK I searched and for just a reference of his "S0ns" catchphrase turned up 149 posts out of just over 600. That's just posts containing "S0ns" mind you. Since there's no way to really know if he's got posts on the Suns without said word, I'll just let your imaginations wander with a minimum over 20% of his site's posts bashing the Suns.

He's definately one of the Spurs fans that Suns fanatics claim is obsessed. He is. No doubt about it.

Compared to 100% of DSF or Danny Douchebag's posts being about the Spurs. And I'm called the obsessed one. lol


That's funny. Very. I guess it's hard to enjoy a tainted trophy without getting defensive, because Johnny can't seem to get the Suns out of his head.

Ad hominem. If you don't know what that means, it's a fallacy in which you try to justify your argument by attacking the opposition instead of their argument in hopes that by discrediting them you will prove your own argument. The problem lies in that by focusing on discrediting the opposition you don't actually provide any evidence that your argument is correct. Thus the fallacy.

Since you're incapable of arguing I'll just take that as a concession.

[vicphoenix]

He still has a ring. Sure, he rode the bandwagon but it's not like he sat on the bench the whole time either(he averaged 22 mins a game against Dallas). Considering his age at the time(38 yrs old), that's not too shabby.



Well, Payton's first chance at a championship was shot down by the GOAT and his 72 win Bulls. The fact that he led his team to the Finals through a stacked Western Conference is still impressive. Nash has teammates that are just as good,if not better, than Payton's. Until Nash can lead a team to the Finals Payton still has the edge here.



Regardless of how well Nash has played the past three years, you can't honestly tell me that his prime is better than Payton's.

Payton's prime years from '94 to '03:

21.37 ppg, 8.1 apg, 4.6 rpg, 2.1 spg over 9 seasons on .465 FG% and .322 3P% missing only 6 games total throughout that period.

Nash's prime years from '00 to '07:

16.9 ppg, 9.2 apg, 3.3 rpg, .87 spg over 7 seasons on .493 FG% and .429 3p% missing 32 games throughout that period.

Payton is clearly the better player. Better scorer, defender, rebounder. Has only one less apg then Nash too.



The award should go to the most valuable player. Unfortunately, in Nash's case, they gave it out to the "best player on the team with the best record". Lame. Even then I question the notion that Nash is the best player on the team considering the fact that Marion has produced more wins for the team than Nash (http://www.wagesofwins.com/Suns0507.html).

Nash's value to his team has been greatly exaggerated by the media.

How is Nash MVP worthy when he has Amare, Marion, Barbosa, and Bell to back him up. Lebron and Kobe have little to no help on their teams. Shaq turned Miami around in '05 and made them a legit contender in the West. Wade carried the team afterwards. Those four are more deserving of the award than Nash.



If you look back at all the previous MVP winners over the past 20 years all of 'em are players that have sustained great numbers over a long career. Nash hasn't. Also, I compare him to previous winners because it's glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain that Nash is easily the worst recipient of the award.


Give it a rest! You've made your opinion known that Steve Nash is overrated way too many times. Move on to another topic.

[RonMexico]

Did you even watch the 1993 Western Conference Finals? They show it pretty often on NBA TV and ESPN Classic. In fact, I still have the game recorded and you pretty much watch Gary Payton jack up stupid shots, commit dumb fouls by being unable to keep up with Kevin Johnson and watch Shawn Kemp slap foul Charles Barkley about 100 times. The Suns were attacking the whole game, so 64 FTs isn't all that surprising (oh, and the Sonics shot over 40 FTs).

Oh well, it's pretty much like you to applaud George Karl and Bill Simmons for complaining about FT disparity from a game in 1993, but rip Karl for it when the Nuggets play the Spurs.

[RonMexico]

He still has a ring. Sure, he rode the bandwagon but it's not like he sat on the bench the whole time either(he averaged 22 mins a game against Dallas). Considering his age at the time(38 yrs old), that's not too shabby.



Well, Payton's first chance at a championship was shot down by the GOAT and his 72 win Bulls. The fact that he led his team to the Finals through a stacked Western Conference is still impressive. Nash has teammates that are just as good,if not better, than Payton's. Until Nash can lead a team to the Finals Payton still has the edge here.



Regardless of how well Nash has played the past three years, you can't honestly tell me that his prime is better than Payton's.

Payton's prime years from '94 to '03:

21.37 ppg, 8.1 apg, 4.6 rpg, 2.1 spg over 9 seasons on .465 FG% and .322 3P% missing only 6 games total throughout that period.

Nash's prime years from '00 to '07:

16.9 ppg, 9.2 apg, 3.3 rpg, .87 spg over 7 seasons on .493 FG% and .429 3p% missing 32 games throughout that period.

Payton is clearly the better player. Better scorer, defender, rebounder. Has only one less apg then Nash too.



The award should go to the most valuable player. Unfortunately, in Nash's case, they gave it out to the "best player on the team with the best record". Lame. Even then I question the notion that Nash is the best player on the team considering the fact that Marion has produced more wins for the team than Nash (http://www.wagesofwins.com/Suns0507.html).

Nash's value to his team has been greatly exaggerated by the media.

How is Nash MVP worthy when he has Amare, Marion, Barbosa, and Bell to back him up. Lebron and Kobe have little to no help on their teams. Shaq turned Miami around in '05 and made them a legit contender in the West. Wade carried the team afterwards. Those four are more deserving of the award than Nash.



If you look back at all the previous MVP winners over the past 20 years all of 'em are players that have sustained great numbers over a long career. Nash hasn't. Also, I compare him to previous winners because it's glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain that Nash is easily the worst recipient of the award.

Might as well and just go ahead and look at stats, then. Wow, Manu Ginobili has only averaged 13.4 points, 3.9 rebs, 3.4 assists, 1.6 steals, 2.4 TOs, with 45% FG, 37% 3PT, and 80% FTs.

The guy must be terrible - how can he possibly have any championships with such mediocre numbers like that? He must be a complete waste of air for his team out there, with not a single kind of clutch, intangible play in his 6 year career.

[DannyB]

Actually, I'm quite satisfied with my Spurs.

Funny that you call me ignorant when 90% of all the S0ns posters are only interested in the ratings championship.

Just because I'm shooting down the ignorant hype surrounding Phoenix and their players doesn't make my opinions less valid than anyone else's.



Compared to 100% of DSF or Danny Douchebag's posts being about the Spurs. And I'm called the obsessed one. lol



Ad hominem. If you don't know what that means, it's a fallacy in which you try to justify your argument by attacking the opposition instead of their argument in hopes that by discrediting them you will prove your own argument. The problem lies in that by focusing on discrediting the opposition you don't actually provide any evidence that your argument is correct. Thus the fallacy.

Since you're incapable of arguing I'll just take that as a concession.

This [I]is[I] Spurstalk.com, right? What? Should I be posting on politics or something?

Incidentally, I understand ad hominem very well. The problem is that your definition is fine, but I fail to see where you have identified any sort of ad hominem. It's not an attack for me to say the Spurs' trophy is tainted, it's an opinion based on what happened last year; but I find it revealing of your own psychological issues that you choose to take it personally.

[da_suns_fan__]

This [I]is[I] Spurstalk.com, right? What? Should I be posting on politics or something?

Incidentally, I understand ad hominem very well. The problem is that your definition is fine, but I fail to see where you have identified any sort of ad hominem. It's not an attack for me to say the Spurs' trophy is tainted, it's an opinion based on what happened last year; but I find it revealing of your own psychological issues that you choose to take it personally.

Owned. Nice job.

[stretch]

This [I]is[I] Spurstalk.com, right? What? Should I be posting on politics or something?

Absolutely fantastic job on italicizing "is". Be sure to use a backslash next time to make it work properly.

[JMarkJohns]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, since we've made clear our stance and just probably would end up reiterating our points. You argue your position well though. :toast

You made great points that very well may have swayed a less stubborn post. I hate the Nash vs. Kidd debate because Kidd is the better player of the two, with the better statistical career, but Kidd's playoff failures out west have really jaded my perception of him as a great playoff PG capable of leading a team to a Title. Save for a rediculously easy road in the East, his playoff resume' is clearly lacking, what with a 1-8/1-9 record vs. 50-win teams and an 0-fer 7 or 0-fer-8 record vs. the West. Nash, despite his flaws, simply has beaten tougher teams, despite never having advanced past the Conference Finals. So I don't think Kidd's two Finals runs can be used to diminish Nash three Western Conference Finals runs, considering the level of competition each faced along the way, and the injuries suffered before and during the runs. He's had some terrible luck and had such while facing terribly hard teams to beat.

Again, I'm not trying to diminish Kidd, only saying that a little context can put each players playoff success into a better perspective that the basic descriptions point out.

[oligarchy]

Might as well and just go ahead and look at stats, then. Wow, Manu Ginobili has only averaged 13.4 points, 3.9 rebs, 3.4 assists, 1.6 steals, 2.4 TOs, with 45% FG, 37% 3PT, and 80% FTs.

The guy must be terrible - how can he possibly have any championships with such mediocre numbers like that? He must be a complete waste of air for his team out there, with not a single kind of clutch, intangible play in his 6 year career.

13.8 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.6 SPG, 2.4 TO, 45% FG, 37% 3P, 80.5% FT
27.2 MPG

Now, Nash's career averages:

14.1 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 7.6 APG, 0.8 SPG, 2.58 TO, 48.5% FG, 42.8% 3P, 89.8% FT
30.5 MPG

So, what's the point of posting Manu's career numbers here? Are you saying Manu is terrible, thus Nash is terrible? His stats are a hair better than Manu's with 3.3 more minutes per game. :dizzy

[stretch]

IMO, they are about equal overall. Nash is FAR superior offensively, and Kidd is FAR superior defensively. Passing is about even, although I personally think Nash is a more creative passer. They have both had some playoff success as well. Kidd took a below average team in an average conference to the finals twice. Nash took a very solid team to 2 straight WCFs in a very tough conference. I'd say their playoff success is about even, despite all that JMark brings up, because Kidd had to lead some very shitty teams, and i felt he did the best he could with what he had.

[JMarkJohns]

13.8 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.6 SPG, 2.4 TO, 45% FG, 37% 3P, 80.5% FT
27.2 MPG

Now, Nash's career averages:

14.1 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 7.6 APG, 0.8 SPG, 2.58 TO, 48.5% FG, 42.8% 3P, 89.8% FT
30.5 MPG

So, what's the point of posting Manu's career numbers here? Are you saying Manu is terrible, thus Nash is terrible? His stats are a hair better than Manu's with 3.3 more minutes per game. :dizzy

I think it's rediculously silly to compare a now retired player with a 20-year career to an active player just in the midst of his prime with only 10-years worth of a career. To use cumulative stats is of course going to favor the 20-year player over the 10-year, so citing assist totals and overall career acheivements is kind of pointless, but to then base an entire thread based upon such is laughable.

I don't know if this is what Ron was going for, but it's certainly something I take issue with of the original post.

If you want to compare each at their best, find a specific number of seasons, like five or eight, and compare only their five or eight best statistical seasons. That eliminates unproductive rookie years, or a slower development as a starter, but still compares each player at their best.

I'd be very curious to see a best five you statistical breakdown of Nash vs. Payton. As the years of Nash's career increase, the number of best seasons compared can increase with it, but Nash was trapped behind players like KJ, Kidd, Cassell for the first handful of seasons in the league, so so include those years isn't proving that one player is better than the other, only that Payton had a more productive career at the start.

See what I'm saying?

[DannyB]

13.8 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.6 SPG, 2.4 TO, 45% FG, 37% 3P, 80.5% FT
27.2 MPG

Now, Nash's career averages:

14.1 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 7.6 APG, 0.8 SPG, 2.58 TO, 48.5% FG, 42.8% 3P, 89.8% FT
30.5 MPG

So, what's the point of posting Manu's career numbers here? Are you saying Manu is terrible, thus Nash is terrible? His stats are a hair better than Manu's with 3.3 more minutes per game. :dizzy

You must have missed out on the sarcasm that was dripping from his post. I think his point was just the opposite: Manu's career numbers aren't very exciting either, but everyone on Spurstalk knows he's a better player than the statistical sum of his career. Same with Nash. Career stats don't really tell the whole story about great players. There's no category for intangibles, like clutch & the ability to take over a game, etc.

[stretch]

and if I was building a team, it would depend on what the team consists of, but I would personally take Nash, because he gives you three things you need out of a PG... great passing, shooting, and penetration. he may not have the defense and rebounding, but like i said, it depends on who is around him. if you have a dominant big man behind him like Shaq or Duncan, give me Nash ANY DAY.

[JMarkJohns]

IMO, they are about equal overall. Nash is FAR superior offensively, and Kidd is FAR superior defensively. Passing is about even, although I personally think Nash is a more creative passer. They have both had some playoff success as well. Kidd took a below average team in an average conference to the finals twice. Nash took a very solid team to 2 straight WCFs in a very tough conference. I'd say their playoff success is about even, despite all that JMark brings up, because Kidd had to lead some very shitty teams, and i felt he did the best he could with what he had.

That's actually what I am saying. I'm saying three Western Conference Finals runs equates to two Eastern Conference Titles within a proper context. I'm saying that Nash's failure to advance to the Finals shouldn't diminish his accomplishments when a proper perspective is placed around it, such as his winning record vs. Western Conference opponants, as opposed to Kidd's 0-fer record, and his like 7-9 record vs. Western Conference 50-win teams, as opposed to Kidd's 1-9 record vs. any 50-win team, regardless of conference.

I think we can all agree that the Western Conference is the tougher conference from top to bottom since Jordan retired. So why is what I'm saying not being understood? if the West was tougher and a trek to the Finals routinely facing two or more 50-win teams just to get to the Finals, then how is it less difficult than defeating three 40-win teams? I'm lost at such a logic.

[JMarkJohns]

and if I was building a team, it would depend on what the team consists of, but I would personally take Nash, because he gives you three things you need out of a PG... great passing, shooting, and penetration. he may not have the defense and rebounding, but like i said, it depends on who is around him. if you have a dominant big man behind him like Shaq or Duncan, give me Nash ANY DAY.

Great point. Even a Camby and his defense looks much better because penetration ends with pull-up jumpers rather than layups.

[stretch]

That's actually what I am saying. I'm saying three Western Conference Finals runs equates to two Eastern Conference Titles within a proper context. I'm saying that Nash's failure to advance to the Finals shouldn't diminish his accomplishments when a proper perspective is placed around it, such as his winning record vs. Western Conference opponants, as opposed to Kidd's 0-fer record, and his like 7-9 record vs. Western Conference 50-win teams, as opposed to Kidd's 1-9 record vs. any 50-win team, regardless of conference.

I think we can all agree that the Western Conference is the tougher conference from top to bottom since Jordan retired. So why is what I'm saying not being understood? if the West was tougher and a trek to the Finals routinely facing two or more 50-win teams just to get to the Finals, then how is it less difficult than defeating three 40-win teams? I'm lost at such a logic.
West is absolutely tougher, and has been, as you said, since Jordan left. Just IMO, with the talent that Nash had, and had to face, compared to the talent that Kidd had, and had to face, they are about even.

[RonMexico]

I think it's rediculously silly to compare a now retired player with a 20-year career to an active player just in the midst of his prime with only 10-years worth of a career. To use cumulative stats is of course going to favor the 20-year player over the 10-year, so citing assist totals and overall career acheivements is kind of pointless, but to then base an entire thread based upon such is laughable.

I don't know if this is what Ron was going for, but it's certainly something I take issue with of the original post.

If you want to compare each at their best, find a specific number of seasons, like five or eight, and compare only their five or eight best statistical seasons. That eliminates unproductive rookie years, or a slower development as a starter, but still compares each player at their best.

I'd be very curious to see a best five you statistical breakdown of Nash vs. Payton. As the years of Nash's career increase, the number of best seasons compared can increase with it, but Nash was trapped behind players like KJ, Kidd, Cassell for the first handful of seasons in the league, so so include those years isn't proving that one player is better than the other, only that Payton had a more productive career at the start.

See what I'm saying?

I was just taking an exciting player who brings more to the court than just filling up the stat sheet to compare to Nash. Also, he has a had a brief career and happens to be a Spur, so I find it funny to bring Manu up because his stats barely describe what he does on the floor. Extremely similar to Steve Nash.

That was about the only serious part of my post - the rest of it was extremely sarcastic.

[stretch]

Great point. Even a Camby and his defense looks much better because penetration ends with pull-up jumpers rather than layups.
Thats what people actually think Tony Parker has good defense. You can play a LOT more agressively if you have a big man behind you that you can count on to stall out their drives. If Tony Parker had to rely on Amare behind him, he would probably be almost as bad of a defender as Steve Nash.

[DannyB]

I think it's rediculously silly to compare a now retired player with a 20-year career to an active player just in the midst of his prime with only 10-years worth of a career. To use cumulative stats is of course going to favor the 20-year player over the 10-year, so citing assist totals and overall career acheivements is kind of pointless, but to then base an entire thread based upon such is laughable.

I don't know if this is what Ron was going for, but it's certainly something I take issue with of the original post.

If you want to compare each at their best, find a specific number of seasons, like five or eight, and compare only their five or eight best statistical seasons. That eliminates unproductive rookie years, or a slower development as a starter, but still compares each player at their best.

I'd be very curious to see a best five you statistical breakdown of Nash vs. Payton. As the years of Nash's career increase, the number of best seasons compared can increase with it, but Nash was trapped behind players like KJ, Kidd, Cassell for the first handful of seasons in the league, so so include those years isn't proving that one player is better than the other, only that Payton had a more productive career at the start.

See what I'm saying?

Didn't Payton come in and start every game right away for the Sonics in his rookie season? Wasn't he a highly touted prospect who went high in the draft? Seems to me you're right on point about the advantages Payton had over Nash early in his career (as far as playing time & opportunity to develop quickly). Couple that with the silliness of comparing a 17 year complete career with an 11 year career-in-progress, and I don't see the point of the comparison at all. Lets wait until Nash racks up a few more 18 PPG/11 APG/50% FG/45% 3PG/90% FT seasons to close out his career ... then we can all revisit this debate.

[RonMexico]

13.8 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.6 SPG, 2.4 TO, 45% FG, 37% 3P, 80.5% FT
27.2 MPG

Now, Nash's career averages:

14.1 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 7.6 APG, 0.8 SPG, 2.58 TO, 48.5% FG, 42.8% 3P, 89.8% FT
30.5 MPG

So, what's the point of posting Manu's career numbers here? Are you saying Manu is terrible, thus Nash is terrible? His stats are a hair better than Manu's with 3.3 more minutes per game. :dizzy

Sarcasm, my friend.

RIngo is a moron and I love to point out his non sequitors, which amount to pretty much non arguments, in his hatred of the Suns. He's the SpursTalk equivalent of USC - which is a non-dynasty dynasty.

[sribb43]

LOL at Billups getting votes, writers are so caught up in the now

[JMarkJohns]

Payton's five best statistical seasons
- 22.6 ppg, 8.6 apg on 49% FG, 78% FT, 34% 3FG

Nash's five best statistical seasons
- 17.8 ppg, 10.2 apg on 50% FG, 91% FT, 44% 3FG

Obviously Payton was the better defender of the two, and he could obviously score in bunches in his prime, but even with just a few top-end seasons, Nash's ppg is very good for a PG, his apg is a good bit better and his FT and 3-point percentages are much better. Considering Nash probably has another two years at an elite level, and another handful after at a quality 14-8 level, I think each's prime numbers will be very, very comparable over an 8-to-10 year analysis.

[JMarkJohns]

Didn't Payton come in and start every game right away for the Sonics in his rookie season?

Payton played 2200 minutes his rookie year. Nash didn't play 2200 minutes until his fifth season.

In his fifth season overall in the NBA, Payton averaged 20 ppg, 7 apg on 51% shooting to Nash's 16 ppg, 7 apg on 49% shooting. So, just four ppg more and 2% points better, despite having player a total of 13,237 minutes to just 5,149 minutes for Nash enter that fifth season. That's quite the difference in experience gained. No wonder it took him a few extra years to hit on all cylinders


Wasn't he a highly touted prospect who went high in the draft? Seems to me you're right on point about the advantages Payton had over Nash early in his career (as far as playing time & opportunity to develop quickly). Couple that with the silliness of comparing a 17 year complete career with an 11 year career-in-progress, and I don't see the point of the comparison at all. Lets wait until Nash racks up a few more 18 PPG/11 APG/50% FG/45% 3PG/90% FT seasons to close out his career ... then we can all revisit this debate.

Agreed. When each has played equivalent amount of seasons, then you can compare. But even then it would be best to eiminate each's worst seasons and look at their best to determine statistical impact, then put said stats in context, such as Payton's highest PPG totals came with some pretty average Sonics teams, where as Nash's highest PPG totals came with a team contending for a Title. Same with assists.

[oligarchy]

I think it's rediculously silly to compare a now retired player with a 20-year career to an active player just in the midst of his prime with only 10-years worth of a career. To use cumulative stats is of course going to favor the 20-year player over the 10-year, so citing assist totals and overall career acheivements is kind of pointless, but to then base an entire thread based upon such is laughable.

I don't know if this is what Ron was going for, but it's certainly something I take issue with of the original post.

If you want to compare each at their best, find a specific number of seasons, like five or eight, and compare only their five or eight best statistical seasons. That eliminates unproductive rookie years, or a slower development as a starter, but still compares each player at their best.

I'd be very curious to see a best five you statistical breakdown of Nash vs. Payton. As the years of Nash's career increase, the number of best seasons compared can increase with it, but Nash was trapped behind players like KJ, Kidd, Cassell for the first handful of seasons in the league, so so include those years isn't proving that one player is better than the other, only that Payton had a more productive career at the start.

See what I'm saying?

Exactly. I don't get the point of the post, or even showing stats from a "6th man". Showing stats only from Nash's PHX playing only would support his argument to compare against any of Payton's best years.

The following was a quick pull from NBA's stats. I grabbed 7 years from Nash (I grabbed 7 because thats the number of years he's been a starter all season)

Then grabbed 7 years from Payton (just grabbed his last FULL 7 years at SEA)

There no you can argue over that instead of someone including crap from someone who plays a different position and role entirely. Now, back to the "Payton vs Nash" debacle.



Nash Team Games GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
00-01 DAL 70 70 34.1 0.487 0.406 0.895 0.7 2.5 3.2 7.3 1 0.1 2.93 2.3 15.6
01-02 DAL 82 82 34.6 0.483 0.455 0.887 0.6 2.5 3.1 7.7 0.6 0.1 2.79 2 17.9
02-03 DAL 82 82 33.1 0.465 0.413 0.909 0.8 2.1 2.9 7.3 1 0.1 2.34 1.6 17.7
03-04 DAL 78 78 33.5 0.47 0.405 0.916 0.8 2.2 3 8.8 0.9 0.1 2.68 1.8 14.5
04-05 PHO 75 75 34.3 0.502 0.431 0.887 0.8 2.6 3.3 11.5 1 0.1 3.27 1.8 15.5
05-06 PHX 79 79 35.4 0.512 0.439 0.921 0.6 3.6 4.2 10.5 0.8 0.2 3.49 1.5 18.8
06-07 PHX 76 76 35.3 0.532 0.455 0.899 0.4 3.1 3.5 11.6 0.8 0.1 3.78 1.5 18.6

542 542 34.33 0.49 0.43 0.9 0.67 2.66 3.31 9.24 0.87 0.11 3.04 1.79 16.94

Payton Team Games GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
95-96 SEA 81 81 39 0.484 0.328 0.748 1.3 2.9 4.2 7.5 2.8 0.2 3.21 2.7 19.3
96-97 SEA 82 82 39.2 0.476 0.313 0.715 1.3 3.3 4.6 7.1 2.4 0.2 2.62 2.5 21.8
97-98 SEA 82 82 38.4 0.453 0.338 0.744 0.9 3.6 4.6 8.3 2.3 0.2 2.79 2.4 19.2
98-99 SEA 50 50 40.2 0.434 0.295 0.721 1.2 3.6 4.9 8.7 2.2 0.2 3.08 2.3 21.7
99-00 SEA 82 82 41.8 0.448 0.34 0.735 1.2 5.2 6.5 8.9 1.9 0.2 2.73 2.2 24.2
00-01 SEA 79 79 41.1 0.456 0.375 0.766 0.9 3.6 4.6 8.1 1.6 0.3 2.65 2.3 23.1
01-02 SEA 82 82 40.3 0.467 0.314 0.797 1 3.9 4.8 9 1.6 0.3 2.55 2.2 22.1

538 538 40 0.46 0.33 0.75 1.11 3.73 4.89 8.23 2.11 0.23 2.8 2.37 21.63

[JMarkJohns]

Exactly. I don't get the point of the post, or even showing stats from a "6th man". Showing stats only from Nash's PHX playing only would support his argument to compare against any of Payton's best years.

The following was a quick pull from NBA's stats. I grabbed 7 years from Nash (I grabbed 7 because thats the number of years he's been a starter all season)

Then grabbed 7 years from Payton (just grabbed his last FULL 7 years at SEA)

There no you can argue over that instead of someone including crap from someone who plays a different position and role entirely. Now, back to the "Payton vs Nash" debacle.



Nash Team Games GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
00-01 DAL 70 70 34.1 0.487 0.406 0.895 0.7 2.5 3.2 7.3 1 0.1 2.93 2.3 15.6
01-02 DAL 82 82 34.6 0.483 0.455 0.887 0.6 2.5 3.1 7.7 0.6 0.1 2.79 2 17.9
02-03 DAL 82 82 33.1 0.465 0.413 0.909 0.8 2.1 2.9 7.3 1 0.1 2.34 1.6 17.7
03-04 DAL 78 78 33.5 0.47 0.405 0.916 0.8 2.2 3 8.8 0.9 0.1 2.68 1.8 14.5
04-05 PHO 75 75 34.3 0.502 0.431 0.887 0.8 2.6 3.3 11.5 1 0.1 3.27 1.8 15.5
05-06 PHX 79 79 35.4 0.512 0.439 0.921 0.6 3.6 4.2 10.5 0.8 0.2 3.49 1.5 18.8
06-07 PHX 76 76 35.3 0.532 0.455 0.899 0.4 3.1 3.5 11.6 0.8 0.1 3.78 1.5 18.6

542 542 34.33 0.49 0.43 0.9 0.67 2.66 3.31 9.24 0.87 0.11 3.04 1.79 16.94

Payton Team Games GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
95-96 SEA 81 81 39 0.484 0.328 0.748 1.3 2.9 4.2 7.5 2.8 0.2 3.21 2.7 19.3
96-97 SEA 82 82 39.2 0.476 0.313 0.715 1.3 3.3 4.6 7.1 2.4 0.2 2.62 2.5 21.8
97-98 SEA 82 82 38.4 0.453 0.338 0.744 0.9 3.6 4.6 8.3 2.3 0.2 2.79 2.4 19.2
98-99 SEA 50 50 40.2 0.434 0.295 0.721 1.2 3.6 4.9 8.7 2.2 0.2 3.08 2.3 21.7
99-00 SEA 82 82 41.8 0.448 0.34 0.735 1.2 5.2 6.5 8.9 1.9 0.2 2.73 2.2 24.2
00-01 SEA 79 79 41.1 0.456 0.375 0.766 0.9 3.6 4.6 8.1 1.6 0.3 2.65 2.3 23.1
01-02 SEA 82 82 40.3 0.467 0.314 0.797 1 3.9 4.8 9 1.6 0.3 2.55 2.2 22.1

538 538 40 0.46 0.33 0.75 1.11 3.73 4.89 8.23 2.11 0.23 2.8 2.37 21.63


Great post. Exactly what I was thinking, but even better than I had time to present. The best part about a debate like this is there is no right or wrong answer, only better presented answers than others.

[DannyB]

Nash Team Games GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
00-01 DAL 70 70 34.1 0.487 0.406 0.895 0.7 2.5 3.2 7.3 1 0.1 2.93 2.3 15.6
01-02 DAL 82 82 34.6 0.483 0.455 0.887 0.6 2.5 3.1 7.7 0.6 0.1 2.79 2 17.9
02-03 DAL 82 82 33.1 0.465 0.413 0.909 0.8 2.1 2.9 7.3 1 0.1 2.34 1.6 17.7
03-04 DAL 78 78 33.5 0.47 0.405 0.916 0.8 2.2 3 8.8 0.9 0.1 2.68 1.8 14.5
04-05 PHO 75 75 34.3 0.502 0.431 0.887 0.8 2.6 3.3 11.5 1 0.1 3.27 1.8 15.5
05-06 PHX 79 79 35.4 0.512 0.439 0.921 0.6 3.6 4.2 10.5 0.8 0.2 3.49 1.5 18.8
06-07 PHX 76 76 35.3 0.532 0.455 0.899 0.4 3.1 3.5 11.6 0.8 0.1 3.78 1.5 18.6

542 542 34.33 0.49 0.43 0.9 0.67 2.66 3.31 9.24 0.87 0.11 3.04 1.79 16.94

Payton Team Games GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
95-96 SEA 81 81 39 0.484 0.328 0.748 1.3 2.9 4.2 7.5 2.8 0.2 3.21 2.7 19.3
96-97 SEA 82 82 39.2 0.476 0.313 0.715 1.3 3.3 4.6 7.1 2.4 0.2 2.62 2.5 21.8
97-98 SEA 82 82 38.4 0.453 0.338 0.744 0.9 3.6 4.6 8.3 2.3 0.2 2.79 2.4 19.2
98-99 SEA 50 50 40.2 0.434 0.295 0.721 1.2 3.6 4.9 8.7 2.2 0.2 3.08 2.3 21.7
99-00 SEA 82 82 41.8 0.448 0.34 0.735 1.2 5.2 6.5 8.9 1.9 0.2 2.73 2.2 24.2
00-01 SEA 79 79 41.1 0.456 0.375 0.766 0.9 3.6 4.6 8.1 1.6 0.3 2.65 2.3 23.1
01-02 SEA 82 82 40.3 0.467 0.314 0.797 1 3.9 4.8 9 1.6 0.3 2.55 2.2 22.1

538 538 40 0.46 0.33 0.75 1.11 3.73 4.89 8.23 2.11 0.23 2.8 2.37 21.63


Good post. You know what two things really jump out at me in that comparison? Minutes per game & points. Payton has the significantly better PPG avg, and I think we all concede that Payton was the better defender; but when you look at how many more minutes Payton played each year, it's really somewhat amazing that Nash's stats compare so favorably in every other respect. I mean, what if Nash was averaging 40+ minutes a game over the 7 year span? I think it's very conceivable that he would have averaged closer to 16-20 PPG for his career so far, if he played comparable minutes. And who knows, maybe a bit more in the steals, etc. Your thoughts?

[monosylab1k]

I mean, what if Nash was averaging 40+ minutes a game over the 7 year span?
there's a reason why he didn't. his body can't handle it.

[Findog]

there's a reason why he didn't. his body can't handle it.

D'Antoni sure wishes that were otherwise. Grant Hill is second on the Suns in mpg this year with 36.

[DannyB]

there's a reason why he didn't. his body can't handle it.

I don't think that's really the whole story, since we're talking about minutes he averaged in games he played, whereas games he missed due to injury wouldn't affect his MPG. But anyway, nobody is arguing that Nash is the better athlete or physical specimen, anyway. In fact, that's one of the things that makes his career so amazing. It was a purely hypothetical idea anyway.

[stretch]

I like men.

Fixed.

[DannyB]

Fixed.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe fuck your mother.

[stretch]

I like to fuck my father.

Fixed.

[LakeShow]

Exactly. I don't get the point of the post, or even showing stats from a "6th man". Showing stats only from Nash's PHX playing only would support his argument to compare against any of Payton's best years.

The following was a quick pull from NBA's stats. I grabbed 7 years from Nash (I grabbed 7 because thats the number of years he's been a starter all season)

Then grabbed 7 years from Payton (just grabbed his last FULL 7 years at SEA)

There no you can argue over that instead of someone including crap from someone who plays a different position and role entirely. Now, back to the "Payton vs Nash" debacle.



Nash Team Games GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
00-01 DAL 70 70 34.1 0.487 0.406 0.895 0.7 2.5 3.2 7.3 1 0.1 2.93 2.3 15.6
01-02 DAL 82 82 34.6 0.483 0.455 0.887 0.6 2.5 3.1 7.7 0.6 0.1 2.79 2 17.9
02-03 DAL 82 82 33.1 0.465 0.413 0.909 0.8 2.1 2.9 7.3 1 0.1 2.34 1.6 17.7
03-04 DAL 78 78 33.5 0.47 0.405 0.916 0.8 2.2 3 8.8 0.9 0.1 2.68 1.8 14.5
04-05 PHO 75 75 34.3 0.502 0.431 0.887 0.8 2.6 3.3 11.5 1 0.1 3.27 1.8 15.5
05-06 PHX 79 79 35.4 0.512 0.439 0.921 0.6 3.6 4.2 10.5 0.8 0.2 3.49 1.5 18.8
06-07 PHX 76 76 35.3 0.532 0.455 0.899 0.4 3.1 3.5 11.6 0.8 0.1 3.78 1.5 18.6

542 542 34.33 0.49 0.43 0.9 0.67 2.66 3.31 9.24 0.87 0.11 3.04 1.79 16.94

Payton Team Games GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
95-96 SEA 81 81 39 0.484 0.328 0.748 1.3 2.9 4.2 7.5 2.8 0.2 3.21 2.7 19.3
96-97 SEA 82 82 39.2 0.476 0.313 0.715 1.3 3.3 4.6 7.1 2.4 0.2 2.62 2.5 21.8
97-98 SEA 82 82 38.4 0.453 0.338 0.744 0.9 3.6 4.6 8.3 2.3 0.2 2.79 2.4 19.2
98-99 SEA 50 50 40.2 0.434 0.295 0.721 1.2 3.6 4.9 8.7 2.2 0.2 3.08 2.3 21.7
99-00 SEA 82 82 41.8 0.448 0.34 0.735 1.2 5.2 6.5 8.9 1.9 0.2 2.73 2.2 24.2
00-01 SEA 79 79 41.1 0.456 0.375 0.766 0.9 3.6 4.6 8.1 1.6 0.3 2.65 2.3 23.1
01-02 SEA 82 82 40.3 0.467 0.314 0.797 1 3.9 4.8 9 1.6 0.3 2.55 2.2 22.1

538 538 40 0.46 0.33 0.75 1.11 3.73 4.89 8.23 2.11 0.23 2.8 2.37 21.63


Excellent Post! :toast


Good post. You know what two things really jump out at me in that comparison? Minutes per game & points. Payton has the significantly better PPG avg, and I think we all concede that Payton was the better defender; but when you look at how many more minutes Payton played each year, it's really somewhat amazing that Nash's stats compare so favorably in every other respect. I mean, what if Nash was averaging 40+ minutes a game over the 7 year span? I think it's very conceivable that he would have averaged closer to 16-20 PPG for his career so far, if he played comparable minutes. And who knows, maybe a bit more in the steals, etc. Your thoughts?

That's something you can't do, assume. It is a testament to Payton that he played so many minutes. I would say that Nash didn't play as many minutes because of his weakness on defense? Doesn't mean I'm right, but it's debatable.

To be considered the best you have to be a factor on both ends of the court in my opinion. Oligarchy provided cold hard facts. That's all that matters!

I agree with the thread starter, ESPN is clueness! No way in hell should he be ranked ahead of Payton!

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

:lol I like the controversy this DannyB fellow incites.

[Armando]

Payton rode Wade and his aura which the Mavs kept fouling to win his ring.

[DannyB]

Fixed.

I guess I could get into an infantile contest to get the last word against you ... as you appear to be doing ... or I could just say fuck you and be done with it. Option B it is. Say whatever the fuck you want. Enjoy yourself. Go ahead and rub one out while you're at it. Whatever.

[Findog]

fuck...fuck

Risperdal, Haldol, Prolixin, which one do you use?

[stretch]

I want to rub Amare till he "comes" out.

Fixed.

[monosylab1k]

I guess I could get into an infantile contest to get the last word against you ... as you appear to be doing ... or I could just say fuck you and be done with it. Option B it is. Say whatever the fuck you want. Enjoy yourself. Go ahead and rub one out while you're at it. Whatever.
Would William Faulkner find this prose appealing? Ask yourself that DannyB...

[Findog]

Would William Faulkner find this prose appealing? Ask yourself that DannyB...

With all of the excessive, rat-a-tat-tat profanity, I'm thinking either Hunter. S. Thompson or Palahniuk.

[oligarchy]

Good post. You know what two things really jump out at me in that comparison? Minutes per game & points. Payton has the significantly better PPG avg, and I think we all concede that Payton was the better defender; but when you look at how many more minutes Payton played each year, it's really somewhat amazing that Nash's stats compare so favorably in every other respect. I mean, what if Nash was averaging 40+ minutes a game over the 7 year span? I think it's very conceivable that he would have averaged closer to 16-20 PPG for his career so far, if he played comparable minutes. And who knows, maybe a bit more in the steals, etc. Your thoughts?
Honestly, I couldn't say positively that with a ~6 minutes gain he could increase ~5 PPG. You could say that obviously he would get those points, but playing those extra minutes comes at what cost? It could bring his production down on back-to-back's or later in the season. I'm sure there was a reason he was limited in those minutes (the back problem?) as well as, I'm sure there was a reason Payton had that many minutes (no legitimate back-up? etc.)

I do think some people have underrated Payton. The steals are interesting to note, though. For me, you can see the increase in assists the last three years are the biggest difference. Payton, in those years, doesn't have any significant increases. Rather, he seems like a very consistent player through those years. I don't think Nash will have as long of a career as Payton, but let's see how long Nash plays and then compare against full career records.

[Cry Havoc]

I think to a small degree the better point guard would depend on the team you have. The Suns would likely not be as potent offensively with Payton instead of Nash at the point. Nash stretches the defense with his range and gets into the paint so easily it's hard to believe.

I think there is a tendency in these threads for people of their respective banners to feel as if they're player is being devalued at the expense of the other. I don't see the reason for that. Nash and Payton are two of the best point guards of the past 20 years. Saying that one is better that the other should not be an exclusion of the other player from the list of elite.

That being said, Payton is arguably the more complete player. He has the ability to make big plays on either end. However, I feel Nash has the edge in mental capacity. You almost never see him jack up a bad shot or make a horrible play.

I guess it comes down to team needs and chemistry. Since both players are so great, you can only take their flaws into account. On a team like the Spurs, I would rather have Payton, because the Spurs system is designed to have no defensive holes. It would also give us another stopper to shut down teams with. As good as Nash is, you simply cannot discount the value of a player who can shut down the other point guard.

However, if I was a young GM and I had a team that needed a leader, had less emotional stability, and needed a PG who could dominate a game with passing and offensive control, I'd take Nash. Payton has always stuck me as kind of an ego-driven guy. You really can't go wrong with either player, but in the West right now, Nash doesn't match up well. If the Suns were in the East, they'd be much better off, as they would likely dictate the pace against every other team.

[Findog]

Would William Faulkner find this prose appealing? Ask yourself that DannyB...

Nice avatar. No country for Suns trolls.