Nash was good....but

[carolinajazz]

Nash was fun to watch and a true "team" player! Won 2 MVP's and should have won a 3rd in my opinion! But retired so far behind Stocktons totals that it's laughable! 3,000 behind John in points scored....2,000 steals behind Stockton and a WHOPPING 5,000 assists behind big John! Of course, everybody in town knows that Stocktons assist and steals totals will NEVER be broken!

 

[Jazz Insider]

he's only 2 spots behind Stock. not that far tbh.

 

[Jazz Insider]

2 league MVPs really trump career-assist totals for most people tho.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Your wife is only a 9/10, mine is a 10/10.

 

[carolinajazz]

he's only 2 spots behind Stock. not that far tbh.

....he may only be 2 spots behind Stockton, but when your 5,000 assists short of catching him....and you've just retired, well, you might as well be 5,000 assists back!

 

[carolinajazz]

....Nash should have had 3 MVP's....but the fact of the matter is this: fanzs don't remember MVP's that were won.....but the Assist and Steal records of Stockton are etched in stone and more will remember who has those records than any MVP's won!

 

[gregbroncs]

....Nash should have had 3 MVP's....but the fact of the matter is this: fanzs don't remember MVP's that were won.....but the Assist and Steal records of Stockton are etched in stone and more will remember who has those records than any MVP's won!

I'd argue that Iverson, Nash and Rose winning MVP's all were a joke. None of those players had a prayer in hell of winning them when the league was decent. They were all good players but to think any of those 3 as the best in the league at any time in the league means the league was **** in those years. Or they didn't deserve them. I go with a little of both to be honest. They didn't deserve them and the league was ****.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I'd argue that Iverson, Nash and Rose winning MVP's all were a joke. None of those players had a prayer in hell of winning them when the league was decent. They were all good players but to think any of those 3 as the best in the league at any time in the league means the league was **** in those years. Or they didn't deserve them. I go with a little of both to be honest. They didn't deserve them and the league was ****.

Steve Nash changed the NBA and was the head of one of the most deadly offenses in league history, he deserved his MVPs.

 

[gregbroncs]

Steve Nash changed the NBA and was the head of one of the most deadly offenses in league history, he deserved his MVPs.

Stockton in his prime was better. And didn't even sniff an MVP. Nash got #'s on a high speed offense so won the MVP. I Think his MVP trophies are the 3rd biggest joke in the history of the award. Only rose #1 and Iverson #2 were bigger jokes.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Stockton in his prime was better. And didn't even sniff an MVP. Nash got #'s on a high speed offense so won the MVP. I Think his MVP trophies are the 3rd biggest joke in the history of the award. Only rose #1 and Iverson #2 were bigger jokes.

The Phoenix Suns were 29-53. They added Nash, and next year they became 62-20. Nash deserves a lot of the credit for that.

 

[gregbroncs]

The Phoenix Suns were 29-53. They added Nash, and next year they became 62-20. Nash deserves a lot of the credit for that.

I'm sure a lot of things changed for that team and not just Steve Nash. He was a hell of a player but I just don't think he should have been MVP.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

I'm sure a lot of things changed for that team and not just Steve Nash. He was a hell of a player but I just don't think he should have been MVP.

Do you think Curry is a top 3 MVP candidate this year?

 

[gregbroncs]

Do you think Curry is a top 3 MVP candidate this year?

Actually that is a great counter. I do think he is. Looking back at the #'s Curry scores more, rebounds more, has 1/2 the TO, and double the steals. While playing for the team with the best record in the league. I could also argue that Nash had a better supporting group than Curry has, though not by much. I think Curry is a better player this year than Nash ever was. Also Nash played one end of the floor while Curry does play both.
.
It is interesting to me that when Nash won it I considered it another in a line of MVP trophies that I thought were flawed. While I agree that Curry deserves to at least be in the conversation. I never thought Nash was the best player in the game in any year. Therefore I never thought he deserved it.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Actually that is a great counter. I do think he is. Looking back at the #'s Curry scores more, rebounds more, has 1/2 the TO, and double the steals. While playing for the team with the best record in the league. I could also argue that Nash had a better supporting group than Curry has, though not by much. I think Curry is a better player this year than Nash ever was. Also Nash played one end of the floor while Curry does play both.
.
It is interesting to me that when Nash won it I considered it another in a line of MVP trophies that I thought were flawed. While I agree that Curry deserves to at least be in the conversation. I never thought Nash was the best player in the game in any year. Therefore I never thought he deserved it.

Looking at his 2006 NBA season.

3.3 TO compared to 3.5 TO
4.3 RBs compared to 4.2 RBS
Pretty much a wash man, cannot say one was that much more than the other. True Nash played almost 2 more minutes a game but these stats are pretty much a wash still.

The only thing Curry did more statistically was score more but Nash passed more. I guess you could give the edge to Curry here but you could argue 10.5 assists a year compared to 7.9 is more valuable for a PG over 23.3 pts a game over 18.8. I would personally consider this close to a wash.

Nash defense troubles is exaggerated considering he played with one of the worst defensive centers in NBA history in Amare stoudemire while Curry plays with Bogut and Draymond Green.

 

[carolinajazz]

I'd argue that Iverson, Nash and Rose winning MVP's all were a joke. None of those players had a prayer in hell of winning them when the league was decent. They were all good players but to think any of those 3 as the best in the league at any time in the league means the league was **** in those years. Or they didn't deserve them. I go with a little of both to be honest. They didn't deserve them and the league was ****.

.....Nash not only deserved those 2 MVP's he won....they gypped or rooked him out of a most deserving 3rd one as well! Being MVP doesn't mean he was the "best" player in the league, just responsible for leading his team to victory and making a poor/good team into a great one, or at least lead them to a much better record! And what do you mean the league was crappy at that time? You could argue that today's NBA is "crappier" than at any other time in NBA history! You've got two teams in the Eastern Conference making the playoffs with a LOSING record! Back to Stockton and his career....vs other point guards in NBA history: Stockton had Malone and just an average supporting cast after that! Had he played with just one decent center who could have put the ball in the basket 40% of the time, he would have won 2 NBA titles, don't ya think?

 

[TroutBum]

Gregbroncs, doing his retarded ute fan impression.

 

[gregbroncs]

Nash Curry Stockton's best
1st 2nd this year 89-90
pts 15.6 18.8 23.4 17.2
ast 11.5 10.5 7.9 14.5
stl 1 .8 2.1 2.7
reb 3.3 4.2 4.3 2.6
TO 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.5
.
My thought was that Nash was not better than Stockton and Stockton never sniffed an MVP award despite playing in a far slower pace offense and still being on a contender. Curry this year scores more, rebounds a little more, Steal more than double and Turns the ball over less than Nash did in either MVP season.
.
Nash's first MVP they were the best team in the league. The 2nd one it looks like they were 3rd best.
.
So if Nash was worth those MVP trophies then the league was weak, which was one of my original points.
.
Generally speaking I just never felt he was the best player in the league. I'm not saying he didn't belong in the conversation, like Curry is this year. I just didn't feel he deserved them.
.
I'm done now. That's my reason.
.
I'm sort of surprised nobody tried to argue Iverson deserved his.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Stockton in his prime was better. And didn't even sniff an MVP. Nash got #'s on a high speed offense so won the MVP. I Think his MVP trophies are the 3rd biggest joke in the history of the award. Only rose #1 and Iverson #2 were bigger jokes.

Because Stockton had Karl Malone. Nash had Amare, but he wasn't close to Malone's caliber. Nash was the clear alpha for the Suns where as Stockton had to share the spotlight with Malone.

 

[Carbon13]

Nash was great and his mvps were well deserved (kobe could have claimed one of them). Lets not get all threatened by great pg play! Stock was great too. Theres plenty of real estate on the pg mount rushmore.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Have you ever looked back at Iverson's team when he led them to the finals? Go back and look at that team. It's amazing they made it to the finals...hell, even the playoffs. That team sucked sans Iverson! Dude was a punk, but he was a great player!