Reply With Quote
nice read
Nash probably is the best
my favourite player to watch
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/b...e.19c1258.html
Web Posted: 02/18/2007 04:37 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
LAS VEGAS The best players in the NBA have been in Las Vegas all weekend, so the question seems a natural: Which player is the best of the best, the best player in the world?
I have been thinking about this since Bulls coach Scott Skiles, never shy about stating precisely what he believes, declared Steve Nash "the best player on the face of the Earth."
In case anyone thought Skiles was insincere, he added that he didn't think there was another player even close to being as good as Nash.
I have asked most of the basketball experts whose opinions I value this very question. The responses seem to fall along two distinct lines of reasoning: One that puts a premium on physical talent, both size and athleticism, and another that values understanding of how to play the game while recognizing the physical gifts that separate the very best athletes from those more pedestrian.
The first school of thought favors players such as Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade. The second prefers players such as Nash, Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki.
I have also asked some of the players whose names are in this subjective conversation whom they believed should be part of the discussion.
The smartest of them deflect direct response, and that includes Nash.
What was Nash's reaction when he heard what Skiles had said about him?
"Other than he's the smartest man I've ever met in my life, not much," Nash said.
"It's very flattering. It's such a subjective thing I would never claim that it would be me. Not only that, but it's very difficult to discern who would be. I probably wouldn't put myself in the top two or three players."
Nash, always self-effacing, said the players he regards as the best in the game Duncan, Bryant, Wade, James and Nowitzki "do things I can't dream of doing."
Aren't there things he does that those players can't dream of doing?
"Probably," Nash said. "But it's not a conversation I really like to have. The compe or in you thinks, yeah, I belong in the conversation. I wouldn't necessarily think someone was wrong to have me in the conversation, but I wouldn't think someone was wrong if they didn't."
When I asked Bryant if Nash should be part of such a conversation, his initial response was a good laugh.
"In my opinion he's definitely one of the best," Bryant said. "He's easily the most overlooked. I do a lot of clinics where I talk with kids, high school kids, top basketball players. Players they want to talk about are the Wades and LeBrons. They forget about Steve Nash and what a great basketball player he is and what he does for his team. He can score the ball and shoot and pass and facilitate. So I would say yes, he should be included in that conversation.
"Wade, LeBron and don't write off Tim Duncan, just for his responsibilities and what he does, and also Nash. But that's about it."
Let the record show: Bryant agreed to list the players he believed should be on the list only after first removing himself from the discussion, saying he would leave that to others. He also made a point of mentioning, relative to Nash's inclusion on his short list, that he thought the best player in the game typically has been one who works both ends of the court.
Suns coach Mike D'Antoni admits his bias in discussing Nash, his back-to-back MVP point guard, but Skiles' assertion gave him a convenient entry point for agreement. He also countered Bryant's subtle criticism of Nash's lack of defensive impact.
"Scott Skiles said something like 'it's not even close,'" D'Antoni said, "and I agree. First of all, his defense has improved, and that's something most people have not seen. One of the reasons we're a lot better defensively is that he's a lot better. We, as a team, lead the league in charges taken, and he leads our team in charges taken. You have shot blockers. Well, he takes charges.
"He's the best shooter in the league, I think. You might make a case for Michael Redd or Ray Allen, but of the guys you think of as the best players, he's the best shooter, by far, the best passer, by far."
D'Antoni thinks the best player conversation is brief: Nash, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki and Bryant, as long as Bryant continues to demonstrate he is more of a team player now than in previous seasons.
I tried Friday to draw Duncan, the only player other than Nash on D'Antoni's short list who also is a two-time MVP, into the discussion. It hardly was shocking when he demurred.
After all this discussion and consideration, I have come to my own conclusion: Skiles is right, on one hand, wrong on another. Nash is the best player on the planet, but it is close.
I am certain many who read this will disagree, some vehemently. Unfortunately, most basketball fans place more value on a spectacular dunk than a subtle pass that leads to a dunk. They don't know what it means to be a good player, let alone a great one. You're a good player when you're engaged totally and you're in every play and making the right decisions and you're there every day. There are no dead spots in a great player's game.
On All-Star Sunday, 2007, Steve Nash is the best of the best.
nice read
Nash probably is the best
my favourite player to watch
steve nash is bs
tim duncan is n god on and off the court
he destroy you in might and magic, he d you up hardcore in halo 2, yeh thats right td is would breath on you and you die
I think it's a testament to Duncan that 'even' now he's still included in this discussion. Remember just a couple of years ago when it was Duncan, KG or Kidd in the best player in the NBA discussion?
Nash is not a great rebounding PG a la Kidd, his defense is not even close to being as good as other PG's like Billups, his passing and court vision he obviously has the greatest edge in.
Here's my question: When Jason Kidd was in his prime and leading the New Jersey Nets to back to back finals appearances with a team a lot less talented than the one Nash has, how come Kidd who was doing it on both ends of the floor and rebounding like crazy, never was talked about as "The Best Player on the Planet?" Or how come he never won one MVP? Nash has yet to take his team to the Finals, let alone win a championship. I should think that "the best player on the planet" would be able to do at least that.
Nash is a great player, but his overhyped-ness is starting to piss me off. He obviously makes the Suns go, but try watching any other top team without their best player and they will struggle just like the Suns are: Mavs w/o Dirk would be struggling, same with Duncan, Kobe, Wade, etc. Is Nash a better PG than John Stockton? or a Jason Kidd in his prime? or how does Nash compare talent-wise next to a Magic Johnson?
My list:
1) Kobe, Duncan, Wade....you can reorder that in whatever way you want. That should be the end of the discussion. Until Lebron shows us what he can do in the postseason or until he can carry his team to better regular season records, he's not in the discussion, IMO.
Watching Nash attack a defense and dismantle it, is simply a thing of beauty.
If his defense has improved as his coach says, then he definitely belongs on the short list of "who's the best?"
Nash is not the best. You've got to be good in defense and offense if you wan't to be the best. And Nash is not even a solid defender.
unless u can play D. u cant be the best
....
Nash's defense may have gone from ty, to just flat bad, but that doesn't put him on a short list of two way players.
this is the dumbest
Remember, 1P1, that when Tim Duncan was named MVP in 2001-02, there were a whole lot of people who thought that Jason Kidd was robbed for precisely the reasons that you cite. I don't agree with that -- Tim was excellent in 2001-02 and 2002-03 and genuinely deserved those awards; but the argument for Kidd was similar to the argument that now exists for Nash.Here's my question: When Jason Kidd was in his prime and leading the New Jersey Nets to back to back finals appearances with a team a lot less talented than the one Nash has, how come Kidd who was doing it on both ends of the floor and rebounding like crazy, never was talked about as "The Best Player on the Planet?" Or how come he never won one MVP? Nash has yet to take his team to the Finals, let alone win a championship. I should think that "the best player on the planet" would be able to do at least that.
Nash is not a great rebounding PG a la Kidd, his defense is not even close to being as good as other PG's like Billups, his passing and court vision he obviously has the greatest edge in.
Here's my question: When Jason Kidd was in his prime and leading the New Jersey Nets to back to back finals appearances with a team a lot less talented than the one Nash has, how come Kidd who was doing it on both ends of the floor and rebounding like crazy, never was talked about as "The Best Player on the Planet?" Or how come he never won one MVP? Nash has yet to take his team to the Finals, let alone win a championship. I should think that "the best player on the planet" would be able to do at least that.
Nash is a great player, but his overhyped-ness is starting to piss me off. He obviously makes the Suns go, but try watching any other top team without their best player and they will struggle just like the Suns are: Mavs w/o Dirk would be struggling, same with Duncan, Kobe, Wade, etc. Is Nash a better PG than John Stockton? or a Jason Kidd in his prime? or how does Nash compare talent-wise next to a Magic Johnson?
My list:
1) Kobe, Duncan, Wade....you can reorder that in whatever way you want. That should be the end of the discussion. Until Lebron shows us what he can do in the postseason or until he can carry his team to better regular season records, he's not in the discussion, IMO.
IMO, no one can be called "the greatest in the game".
All mentioned have skills. They also have liabilities. While Nash is a great passer and scorer, can he simply take over a game like Wade or Kobe can? Of course neither of these can make the passes Nash does.
Wade is a fair defender, but not in the class of aTim Duncan. Maybe Nash has improved his defense, but when every team is putting up a 100 on you, do you really call it defense?
It's all in the what you are looking for. I don't believe there has ever been anyone who held all the skills needed to be proclaimed "the greatest on the planet".
Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.
Change most to ALL OF there Antoni.First of all, his defense has improved, and that's something most people have not seen
You're right about that. I guess the MVP arguement is subjective. However, my main qualm is calling Nash "the best player on the planet" when he has never even taken his team to the NBA Finals. When Duncan won the MVP in 2001-02...he already had won a championship and had shown he can take his team to the next level. I don't think Nash has yet shown that.
FWD, Do you really think that Nash deserves 3 MVP's in a row? Heck, do you think he's "the best player on the planet?"
The best is Kobe. There isn't a single thing he can't do. He can score inside, outside, shoot 3s really well, make his free throws, pass, rebound and defend. I'll give him a slight edge over Wade because he shoots 3s better, guards way better and turns it over less.
IMO its down to him and Dirk.
If he comes back and they go on some run, then it would be tough not to give it to Nash.
my vote goes to Dwayne Wade. i dont think anyone in the NBA is as well-rounded as he is, not only in terms of talent, but also leadership and other intangibles, such as clutch playmaking, making teammates better, etc... the guy is simply amazing. his mechanics are solid, he makes plays on both ends of the court, and wins games. there arent many flaws with him, other than that he is not a great 3 point shooter, although it seems that he hits the 3s that matter the most, much like Jordan did in his early years in the league. he isnt always the strongest defender either, but much like his 3 point shooting, he makes the defensive plays when they matter the most, which is what winners do.
Kobe is great, but doesnt always make his team better, and still doesnt know when hes supposed to shoot, and when hes supposed to pass the ball. even when players take over games, you have to know when to pass and when to shoot, and he still doesnt seem to understand that. and quite frankly, it really seems as if he will never learn how to truly be a "winner", like players such as Jordan, Duncan, Bird, etc... he seems more interested in trying to put up Jordan-like stats, perhaps trying to surpass him statistically someday. hence some people have theories that his number change to "24" has something to do with being better than Jordan, who's number was "23", although he claims it was his first high school number.
Lebron is also great, and probably the most talented player in the league, but his fundamentals and shooting still need some work and fine tuning, and he isnt consistently clutch enough to be the best. sometimes hes brilliant in clutch situations, other times, he does absolutely nothing. while a piss-poor team doesnt help him much, he doesnt help the situation either by missing 5 free-throws a game.
Nash is one of the greatest offensive PGs the league has ever seen. he is probably the best shooter in the NBA, best passer in the NBA, and has incredible IQ on the offensive end. he is basically unstoppable offensively. but his lack of defensive abilities cannot allow him to be considered the best. im not sure what makes D'Antoni think hes such an improved defender, if guys still blow by him with ease, even when he gives them extra space just so that he can be in better defensive position to guard them if they try to drive on him. Steve Nash may not have ever made a defensive play that won a game.
Dirk has the all-around game, incredible versatility, and may possibly be the hardest guy to gameplan for in the NBA, because of his guard-like skills in a 7-Foot body. He has improved tremendously in his toughness (both mental and physical), playmaking, defense, and clutch abilities, and has arisen to a top-5 player in the league in most peoples minds. however, because of his past which included absolute incompetence on defense, inability to be a clutch playmaker, and being labeled as a "soft white boy" (which was absolutely true), he is going to have to prove to everyone that he truly has improved (especially after the meltdown in last years finals) by winning a le. Only then, will he begin to truly earn respect for his improvements.
Duncan still MUST be in the conversation. While he has gotten older and broken down a bit due to injuries and such, he is still probably the best leader in the NBA, and is as valuable to his team as anyone in the game. all you have to do is look at his resume, and see that this guy is simply a winner, and quite frankly, thats what matters most. not talent, size, or athleticism, but the ability to find a way to win games. Tim Duncan epitomizes the word "winner", and as long as he is with the Spurs and is playing 30-35 minutes a game, his team will always be in the playoffs, and will always be a le contender. Tim Duncan is hands down, the best PF to ever play basketball, and is one of the best "winners" that basketball has ever seen (along with guys such as Jordan, Magic, Russell, and Bird).
Last edited by stretch; 02-18-2007 at 02:17 PM.
Wade can't shoot beyond the arc. That's a big flaw in a guard. No one is saying he ain't got game, but the best? Naw.
Jordan wasnt a good 3pt shooter early in his career either. in his first 4 seasons, he never shot better than 18%. he didnt shoot better than 27% until his 6th season.
Jordan wasn't the best player then, either. It was Bird/Magic. His first 6 years, he was known as a choker, until 1991 when he won. Hard to believe, but it's true.
I'm not saying Wade won't ever be the best, just that he isn't now.
Personally, I think the "he isn't the best player because he's never led his team to the Finals" is a bit too simplistic. It's very tempting, of course, to cite to playoff successes as a measuring stick for greatness; but, there are guys who have historically been great players whose teams haven't had great success. There are so many variables that go into whether a team experiences playoff success and many of those are not within the control of a single player. I've always thought there's perhaps too much emphasis on team success in assessing the greatness of individual players.
I think there are differences in evaluating pure talent (one measure of who's the best player on the planet), value to a team (another such measure), and difference making in terms of winning championships (still another such measure). I could come up with different answers to each of those questions and feel content that my answer in each category was perfectly defensible. I don't know that any of those, standing alone, provides an answer to who is the best player on the planet.
I do think that Nash is probably the most valuable player in the league right now, because his appearance in Phoenix has single-handedly turned that franchise from a low-end playoff team to a championship contender. To boot, the Suns take a decided step backwards when Nash doesn't play. Does that make him the best player on the planet? I don't think so. But does it provide a great argument for his being the most valuable single player in the league? Absolutely. Of course, the counter of that argument is that there are other players who've never changed teams who arguably are more significant to their franchises: Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki immediately come to mind.
All of that is quite different from asking who is the single best basketball player on the planet, which to me is suggestive of a combination of talent and some intangibles like leadership. And, of course, that argument requires distinctions between the sorts of talent that guards and wings display and the sorts of talent that big guys display. Can Tim Duncan do everything that Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, and Dwyane Wade do? No. But can those guys do all of the sorts of things that Tim Duncan can do? Of course not. If you measure talent in terms of pure athleticism, you can't include players like Timmy in the conversation. If you measure it in terms that are relative to the position a guy plays, the answer, I think, is much different.
People can throw all sorts of arguments out there about what it means to be "the best", talent, physical athleticism, court vision blah blah blah, but the only thing that really matters in the game is winning, on a consistent basis. A "champion" is deemed the best. So over the last 10 years, there can only be an argument for 2 players as "the best", Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
