Reply With Quote
IMO the notion that Nash shouldn't even be in the discussion is silly as well.
He can pass as good as any of those guys, penetrate as good as well as those guys, finish as good as anyone, but he can shoot WAY better than any of those guys. I'd say that the shooting is what makes him stand out to me. His range and ability to make the most ridiculous, off-balance jumpers with such ease is something that I can't think of any PG being able to do as well as Nash. He would stretch a defense much more than Magic, Stockton, Thomas, or any of those guys could, because of his shooting. He basically has no weaknesses offensively (for a PG). Some of those guys may have been better scorers, but the thing about Nash is, he doesn't need to have shots to be effective, and he is a pass-first PG. And when he gets shots, he hits them like crazy. If he got as many shots as higher scoring PGs, I guarantee he could easily average 25-30 ppg, and still shoot in the 50% FG and 40% 3PT.
IMO the notion that Nash shouldn't even be in the discussion is silly as well.
He wouldn't be discussed in my list. What does Nash average? 13.5 Ppg and 7 assists? Hardly top PG numbers ?I would take Isiah, KJ, Murphy, Nate, Free, Earl Monroe just to name a few with many more to go thru before I even considered Nash.,
I didn't say that he shouldn't be in the discussion -- I'm just saying that there are at least 5 guys historically who are better (and, I would argue, substantially better). Nash was an All-Star level point guard who has found a stretch of greatness through his marriage to a system.
Most of the other guys being mentioned here -- Magic and Big O in particular -- had extended stretches of time playing better than Nash has in the last three years.
Take Magic's 3 MVP seasons and compare them to Nash's. It's not particularly close. Magic's "worst" MVP season had him averaging 19.6 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 12.8 apg, 1.8 spg, 4.1 to/g, while shooting .509 from the field and .911 from the line -- a PER of 26.9. At his best, Magic averaged 23.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 12.2 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.8 to/gm, while shooting 52% from the floor -- a per of 27.0.
Nash's best MVP season had him averaging 18.8 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 10.5 apg, 0.8 spg, 3.5 to/g, while shooting .512 from the floor and .921 from the stripe -- a per of 23.3.
Statistically, Nash isn't even close to the best seasons of guys like Robertson or Archibald, either. Trying to compare Nash to Robertson (from a statistical standpoint) is laughable. From 1960-61 to 1967-68, the Big O's worst statistical season was one in which he averaged 28.3 ppg and 9.5 apg while shooting .518 from the floor. He had a stretch of 8 consecutive seasons in which he averaged at least 28 ppg and at least 9 apg while shooting better than 47% from the floor. In that time, he had a stretch of 3 seasons in which he averaged 30.4 ppg or better and 11.0 apg or better while shooting better than 47.5% in each season. Not one of Nash's MVP seasons deserves to be mentioned with that sort of production.
I realize this argument isn't about all-time greatness; but there isn't one season's worth of play that would convince me to choose Nash over Magic or Robertson. It's not even close.
There's a Pantheon of great point guards in NBA history. Nash is hanging out on the steps to its entrance, but he is, in my mind, much closer to the really good point guards who will never gain admission to the elite of the elite than he is to joining the elite of the elite.
From FWD's posts above. Big O's stats are SICK, but you can't help to think what kind of compe ion he had to play against early in his career, which leads me to say:
If I had a time machine, traveled back to the beginings of basketball.........I would dominate. 6 MVPs in a row, 20 rings in a row. BUT DAMN, I don't have one.
Go back and watch how much defense the league played back then compared to now. It's not particularly close either.
Shooting 50% back then was pretty average, the main reason being because it was rare to see a team consistently play solid defense (up until the bad boys came around, which really was the start of a true defensive era in basketball). All you have to do is watch old games. Look how many uncontested jumpers are shot every single game. About 80% of the shots are uncontested, even though a man is close enough to at least get a hand in the face or something. Nowadays, with the increased amount of defense and more sophisticated defensive schemes, shooting 50% is incredible.
I'm not taking anything away from Magic or those guys, but the fact is, a lot of offensive stats were higher back then, because of the lack of defense played in the league. Back then, the Bad Boy's defense was considered lock-down and the best ever seen, but nowadays, its not even close to the defense that teams like the Spurs play. The Spurs would absolutely murder the Bad Boy Pistons. And as much as I hate to say it, I think the Spurs would even beat Magic's Lakers and Birds Celtics in a 7 game series, because they play such good defense, and are still a very efficient offensive team. The more I watch old games and games today, the more I think that 80's teams are overrated because no one played defense.
O-
PG-Magic
SG-MJ
SF-Larry Bird
PF-Timmy
C-Kareem
D-
PG-The Glove
SG-MJ
SF-Bruce Bowen
PF-Timmy
C-Hakeem
All Around-
PG-Magic
SG-MJ
SF-Larry Bird
PF-Timmy
C-Hakeem
Offensive
Point Guard: Magic Johnson
Shooting Guard: Kobe Bryant
Small Forward: Larry Bird
Power Forward: Karl Malone
Center: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Defensive
Point Guard: Jason Kidd
Shooting Guard: Michael Jordan
Small Forward: Scottie Pippen
Power Forward: Tim Duncan
Center: Bill Russell
All-Around
Point Guard: Magic Johnson
Shooting Guard: Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant
Small Forward: Larry Bird
Power Forward: Tim Duncan
Center: Hakeem Olajuwon
I hope like you’re just stating this for the sake of arguments because that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. I thought this thread was about the best offensive players to play the game. Naming Nash is an insult to all the great players that played the game. The defenses of the 80’s were much tougher than the defense of today. Back then you played man on man, only the strong survived! Back then you could get physical and hand check. Contact was allowed. Back then teams had real centers. Back then you couldn’t put a player outside of the key waiting for players.
The offenses of the 80’s were inside/out. Today’s game is outside,.. farther out (3pointer) game. That is why you have the weak FG% in the league today. Back then if they missed a couple of shots from the outside they would put their heads down and attack the rim. Today, they just keep shooting from outside.
I will agree that the Spurs of today would compete in the 80’s. Would they have been better than the Lakers? I don’t think so. No one had an answer for Magic! He was unstoppable and a freak of nature! The East was a very physical Conference. Boston, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Philly, Detroit, NY, NJ, Cleveland and others were very good defensive teams. They were fun to watch because the games were always very compe ive. They wanted to win! Defenses were just like the pistons, maybe not as good and mean, but strong.
Those teams were built just like the Lakers of 2000-2002 and the Spurs of today. You had to be effective on both ends of the court, high percentage low post shots. Attack the rim if your shots not falling. They all played solid defense back then.
If you are saying that 80% of the shots being wide open mid-range jumpers means teams were playing solid defense, then you dont know what the you are talking about. Go back and watch old tape.
If physical play was allowed so much, then why were defenses so crappy compared to today? If that same physical play was allowed in the league today, imagine how teams like the Rockets, Pistons, and Spurs could shut teams down EVERY ING NIGHT. they already hold teams in the low 90 to 80 ppg range. With that kind of physical defense and handchecking and all being allowed, they could probably hold opponents to an average of 70 ppg. But looking back, teams back then were allowed to play that way, but they still allowed 100-120 ppg. Obviously defense was not preached very much. Not even CLOSE to how much it is preached today. And don't say its because offenses were higher paced, because while that may be somewhat true, but a slow, half-court paced offense is a defensive tactic as well. Why do you think the Spurs are so effective against the Suns? Because they control the clock, and doing so will limit the Suns chances at shot opportunities, and also allow them to have more energy to exert on the defensive end.
Also, keep in mind its easier to get into a rhythm if you are hitting shots, because no one is playing defense on you, again boosting stats of players in the 80s.
Last edited by stretch; 08-21-2007 at 08:26 AM.
I see now that you were not kidding, you're just clueless! A mind is a terrible thing to waste!
I don't have to go back and look at any ing tapes, The players were better back in the day! Centers and PF's actually had low post games and actually had midrange games. I lived thru the 80's and was a big fan. You should ask some of the other posters about that time if you really want to know about the game back in the day.You're trying to speak on something you know absolutely nothing about! What you're preaching is total garbage and not worth the time of day for a discussion. Babble on!
This is from the same guy saying that if the US wins gold, then Kobe is instantly a better basketball player than Michael Jordan, and the greatest player of all time. Please shut the up.
Some players, big men in particular, may have been more skilled than most big men today. I never questioned that one bit. But my point is that defense was not a big staple in the NBA back then. Nowhere close to the staple it is now. And because of that, some players stats are a little more inflated from back then, and players stats today are a little deflated in comparison. Steve Nash would be a perfect fit for an 80's player. Incredible offensive skill set, but a lazy defender. He would probably average a good 25 ppg and 12-15 apg in the 80s.
Steve Nash is compared to great PGs of the league, just like your argument. Your knowledge of the game is borderline stupidity! Please stop! You don't know what the youre talking about!
This is from the same guy saying that if the US wins gold, then Kobe is instantly a better basketball player than Michael Jordan, and the greatest player of all time. Please shut the up.
Some players, big men in particular, may have been more skilled than most big men today. I never questioned that one bit. But my point is that defense was not a big staple in the NBA back then. Nowhere close to the staple it is now. And because of that, some players stats are a little more inflated from back then, and players stats today are a little deflated in comparison. Steve Nash would be a perfect fit for an 80's player. Incredible offensive skill set, but a lazy defender. He would probably average a good 25 ppg and 12-15 apg in the 80s.
Steve Nash is compared to great PGs of the league, just like your argument. Your knowledge of the game is borderline stupidity! Please stop! You don't know what the youre talking about!
Someone who says that a 2-time (almost 3-time) MVP, who is about a 50%/40%/90% shooter that averages over 10 APG is not to be compared to all-time great offensive PGs, or that if the US wins gold, that Kobe is the GOAT (despite Jordan helping the US to two Golds, as well as winning 6 les getting all 6 Finals MVPs, winning 5 league MVPs, a DPOY, and plenty more) is the one who doesnt know what the he is talking about.
Last edited by stretch; 08-21-2007 at 04:30 PM.
offensive
PG Michael Jordan
SG Kobe Bryant
SF Tracy Mcgrady
PF Tim Duncan
C Hakeem Olajuwon
Defensive
PG Michael Jordan
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Scottie Pippen
PF Tim Duncan
C David Robinson
All - Around
PG Tony Parker
SG Michael Jordan
SF Manu Ginobili
PF Tim Duncan
C David Robinson
Tony Parker best pg ever??? Ginobili better than Worthy, Bird, Pippen etc??? Robinson better than Shaq or Olajuwon? Wow, just wow.
Big O's game would have transcended any generation. He was a very gifted player and averaged triple doubles for 2 entire seasons. He averaged 30+ points, 10.5 assists and 9 rebounds for his first 8 seasons . He was a 6'5" guard, not a big man like Wilt or Russell who had distinctive size advantages back in the 60's. I have no doubt that he would have been an all-time great in any era.
Do you put any thought into your posts? First off, do you recall Cuban whining to the league about getting rid of the Hand check rule? He did it because Nash was being manhandled and could not get around hand checks. Nash’s game did not flourish until the rule change. Hand Checks were legal in the 80’s, although Nash is a very good guard and would hold his own against some, he would be considered just like he was considered before the rule change, “Average”
Someone who says that a 2-time (almost 3-time) MVP, who is about a 50%/40%/90% shooter that averages over 10 APG is not to be compared to all-time great offensive PGs, or that if the US wins gold, that Kobe is the GOAT (despite Jordan helping the US to two Golds, as well as winning 6 les getting all 6 Finals MVPs, winning 5 league MVPs, a DPOY, and plenty more) is the one who doesnt know what the he is talking about.
Now here are a few PG’s who were better offensively than Nash.
Nash
PPG - 14
APG - 7.6
Best season - PPG 18.6, 11
Nate
PPG - 18.8
APG - 7.4
Best Season - PPG 34, 11.4 assists
KJ
PPG - 17.9
APG - 9.1
Best Season - PPG 22.5, 11.4 assists
Magic
PPG – 19.5
APG – 11.2
Best Season - PPG 23, 12.8 assists
Isiah
PPG – 19.2
APG – 9.3
Best Season - PPG 21.2, 13.9 assists
That’s just a few, Nash is not the ALL Time OFFENSIVE PG in the League, so please STFU!
and how many times did Thomas, KJ, and Nate win MVP? I believe that combined, they have a whopping ZERO. To add to it, for someone that played in a low-defense era like the 80s, Isaiah had some pretty ty percentages. A thing that makes Nash so unique is that he is such an efficient, and smart offensive player. he doesnt need tons of shots to be effective. the most shots per game he ever took was 13.4, and averages 10.4 shots per game. Thomas averaged 6 more shots per game (16.2 for his career), but still could only average 2.3 more ppg in his best season. and his 3pt% is ing horrid.
KJ was a great PG, but a pretty poor shooter compared to Nash. Keep in mind, that one of the biggest reasons I put Nash on the All-Offense team is because of his ridiculous shooting ability. there are two things on offense that all true PGs should be able to do. they have to be able to pass, and shoot. Nash can pass as good as any PG we have ever seen, and is one of the best jump shooters in NBA history. not to mention he is a of a penetrator and finisher. now, did I say he is the best PG ever? not at all. Magic is far superior. but in terms of offensive ability, Nash has no real flaws. Magic has more offensive flaws than Nash does, because he couldnt shoot. Isaiah couldnt shoot. KJ couldnt shoot. (all in comparison to Nash, and Nash is just as good and creative of a passer as any of those guys)
I would really like to see what Nash could do, if he shot 15-20 times a game like many other high scoring PGs. Imagine the kinds of points he would put up if he took as many shots as Allen Iverson, but was shooting in the 50% range, unlike the typical high 30% to low 40% Iverson puts up. It would be insane (maybe Nash wouldnt shoot 50%, but he sure as would never go below 45%, or even a whopping 38%).
and again, Nash is doing all of this in an era where defense is preached MUCH more strongly than in the 80's and early 90's. thank goodness for the bad boy pistons and Jordan's bulls to show the league the importance of good defense. i dont care what other people say, but id rather see a low scoring game, being played the right way, with defense, then tons of points and absolutely no defense. i absolutely love watching good, compe ive basketball being played the right way. people may call the Spurs boring, but the funny thing is, i enjoy watching their slugfest games against teams like Detroit and Houston as much as i enjoy watching teams like the Suns, Nuggets, and Warriors have 140 point games.
Last edited by stretch; 08-21-2007 at 10:56 PM.
The Spurs are Boring!
You may think so, but that "boring" play got them 4 rings, and status as a dynasty. I wish the Mavs played as boring as those mother ers, just so we could have 1 ing ring.The Spurs are Boring!
They were only exciting when they had the lakers as their rivals. Now? They're boring!
They still got 4 rings being boring. I'll take that anyday.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
