Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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 in' 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.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.
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. , even those Clippers. I bet it'd be hard, even with being used to being without.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 bag'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.
Give it a rest! You've made your opinion known that Steve Nash is overrated way too many times. Move on to another topic.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by DannyB; 11-19-2007 at 08:15 AM.
Owned. Nice job.
Absolutely fantastic job on italicizing "is". Be sure to use a backslash next time to make it work properly.
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 le. 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 compe ion 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.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.
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.
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.
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 ty teams, and i felt he did the best he could with what he had.
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 ulative 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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.
That's actually what I am saying. I'm saying three Western Conference Finals runs equates to two Eastern Conference les 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.
Great point. Even a Camby and his defense looks much better because penetration ends with pull-up jumpers rather than layups.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions