Reply With Quote
It's a push:::they're both losers---in a winner's circle.
It happens that way sometimes.
Two very impressive, somewhat underrated, players, who are unfairly labeled as chokers because they failed to capture a championship. If Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, and Garnett are the top 4 players of their respective era (I consider Lebron and Wade part of the next era, the post Shaq/Kobe/Duncan era, if you will), which one of these players takes the 5th spot?
Nash is a two-time NBA MVP with 7 all-star game appearances and has placed on the all-NBA team 7 times. In addition, he's led the league in assists 4 times and ranks 8th all time in that category.
His regular season career averages in the major stat categories are: 16.8ppg, 9.5apg, 3.4rpg, and 49% FG.
Unlike many superstars, his averages remain consistent into the post-season, posting marks of: 17.3ppg, 8.9apg, 3.5rpg, 47% FG. He couldn't reach the Finals, but he's reached the Western Conference Finals 5 times in his career.
It's logical to believe that if Nash had a bigman with a strong post game and a larger front line that could better control the boards, one of those Conference Finals trips would have resulted in championship.
He often gets knocked for his defense, but Point Guards aren't usually relied upon to be lock down defenders, anyway. Still, he's sub-par in this area, and it's something to consider. Some will be inclined to say that his inability to win a championship will be the greatest blow against him as an all-time great, but I'm a firm believer in the idea that rings are team accomplishments and it's disingenuous to resort to the "ring argument" when comparing two players. They should be compared on what they achieved individually rather than as part of a team.
On to Dirk.
His career parallels Nash's in many ways. Not only did they play together, but they're both maligned for not being able to seal the deal in June, as well as their inability to play high-level defense.
Dirk's career averages are: 22.9ppg, 8.5rpg, 2.7apg, 47%FG.
Impressively, he raises his numbers in points and rebounds in the post-season, and raises them by a good margin, while staying consistent in assists and field goal percentage. 25.6ppg, 10.9rpg, 2.6apg, 46%FG.
He's an MVP award winner, a 9 time all-star, and has made 9 all-NBA teams.
Just like Nash, he's criticized for not winning a championship, even more so, because of the debacle against Miami (which he shouldn't be blamed for), and the upset at the hands of Golden State (which he deserves a good amount of the blame for). But when you examine Dirk's post-season career, taking a close look at the games, he's really only had one terrible post-season performance, against Golden State. All other times, his team was clearly over matched, or as in the case against Miami, his supporting cast failed, namely Josh Howard, who was the Maverick's second leading scorer.
Dirk's career has been criminally reduced to two playoff series.
That considered, who do you choose?
It's a push:::they're both losers---in a winner's circle.
It happens that way sometimes.
Hard to compare players who play at different positions. I personally like Nash better and think he's done better although never making the finals. Dirk has been excellent nevertheless
Generally appropriately evaluated and ranked as players. They'll both go down as MVP players who weren't able to lead teams to championship but who were really good. Neither among the very best of HOF players the league has seen, but still really, really good players. They both should be below the likes of Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor, and Patrick Ewing among great players who didn't win championships.
I'd say Dirk has had the better career and has pretty much been the better player throughout their two respective careers. I think Nash's greatness was largely due to Phoenix' offensive system. Still a great player, but I think overblown because he really fit the open style of putting up big offensive numbers and was never really required to play defense. Coincidentally, after Nash left Dallas, the Mavs actually got better the next couple seasons, obviously culminating in the 2006 NBA Finals appearance. Taking away a great player from a team shouldn't make a team better.
Dirk is and was the better player and with the better career. Nash is great too and it's not his fault that he found a perfect system to play in. But I'd take Dirk over Nash 10 times out of 10 times.
As a side, the two of them played together in their prime for about 4-5 seasons or so (I think) but only got to the WCF once. Having two all-time greats (MVP winners) plus another all star caliber player (Finley) all in their prime and not even making the NBA Finals once is disappointing when you consider both Nowitzki and Nash are supposed to be so great.
Like Aussie said it's hard to compare players from different positions, but it's an interesting debate nevertheless. You made solid points for both, but if I had to choose I'd go with Dirk. I'm not taking anything away from Nash, but since their so similar in accomplishment I base my choice on "current potential to win it all." The Mavericks are in a much better situation to vie for a ring now that Amare bolted to NYK. Nash is still a stud though...he and D'Antoni transformed the NBA back in 2004-05--and though ultimately unsuccessful--they created a very exciting brand of basketball. I agree that they both are unfairly labeled as chokers (especially Dirk, since he's had great #'s even in playoff defeat). The only time you can legitimately say they choked was in Game 3 of the 2006 NBA Finals. You can't blame the refs for blowing a 13-point 4th quarter lead w/ 5 minutes left. However, Game 5 was an officiating atrocity (much like Game 6 of the 2002 WCF and Game 3 of the 2007 WCSF). In 2007 they would have beaten 28 of 29 teams in the first round. Unfortunately for them they drew the Warriors who were 3-0 against Dallas (they accounted for 1/5 of Dallas' losses that season).
I give Nash the edge, he's tougher, smarter and makes his team much better. Dirk is really good, but if it wasn't him scoring, it'd be someone else. Also, if he played more like a big man, he might be more favorable.
Dirk
Nash by far ... its not even close.
agree with most of the above ...it has to be Dirk. Maybe not 10 out of 10 but I would say at least 7 out of 10. Dirk has had the better career. He has been to the Finals, has had more "elite level" seasons ...has put up great playoff numbers ... except the two crushing defeats that haunt his career. Plus, Dirk at least has beat a cahmpionship caliber spur team, which Nash could never lead his team to do, even when favored. Nash's greatest playoff moments came at the expense of Kobe and his undermanned squad. Nash has two at least somewhat suspect MVP's ...that is why he is in this conversation. don't get me wrong Nash is a great player and last year's WCF run was impressive. Also, Nash though talented, really didnt blossom until D'antonoi's system. Dirk has excelled every year since his rookie one and will probably go down as the greatest foreign player of his era ...which includes Nash.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 10-20-2010 at 05:55 PM.
Nash and it ain't even close.
nash. he can carry his team farther as the only go-to guy. dirk needs a kid or a nash to be better. a player like nash can make scrubs better. a player like dirk can score and play a softer version of his position.
Is that why Dirk led the Mavs all the way to the NBA Finals in 2006 without a Kidd or a Nash?
What? Dirk carried his team to the finals as the only all star level player on his team (without either Kidd or Nash). Nash has never been to the finals. It's nothing against Nash since an elite 7 footer (even one who plays like Dirk) will almost always be able to carry a team further than an elite point guard who's barely 6 feet tall is able to, but that comment made no sense.
EDIT: that Jose took the words outa my mouf
dirk and its not even close
Dirk should've won an NBA Championship with Jason ing Terry as his sidekick.
Nash is great though, and probably should've rang w/ Dirk in '03 if not for Kerr bull shots and Dirk's injury.
I lean toward Dirk.
This thread warrants this
...great ing MVP mix
are you in re ed?
who was making him better the year he won mvp?
oh god your comment reeks of stupidity. I hope you and your family die in a fire.
I think we found what makes dirk4vmp's ass bleed.
are you in re ed?
who was making him better the year he won mvp?
oh god your comment reeks of stupidity. I hope you and your family die in a fire.
lol dirk.
are you in re ed?
who was making him better the year he won mvp?
oh god your comment reeks of stupidity. I hope you and your family die in a fire.
I would go with Nowitzki without thinking too much about it..he has been better for longer than Nash, he was a star for a few seasons prior to Nash's breakout, and he's been better by a decent margin for the last 2 years or so as well..
They are both underrated from a historical standpoint though..
I think Nash is the better player, I'm not sure he's had a better career. I don't like the Dirk since he was put into AJ's offense--he hasn't been the best offensive player in the league since then.
I gotta go with Dirk, simply because Nash might be the worst defender I have ever seen.
Dirk. His defense and rebounding are underrated imo and Nash's defense is something you just can't fix
QFT.
Nash FTW. Screw _irk. Anybody 7 foot and doesn't have a post game sucks ass in my book. That loser even got Avery Johnson fired because he refuse to get down and dirty on the low block. Cuban definitely let the wrong Maverick go. Nash is head, but I'll take him over _irk 24/7/365.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
