Steve Nash vs John Stockton

[iversonyin]

We can't really judge until Nash finish his career. Even then it would be tough because of the rule changes in NBA.

But I would sure as hell like to watch Nash plays over Stockon, its fancier and more exciting if you might...

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Scourge

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole
Assists per game:
Nash: 7.1
Stockton: 10.5

Assist to turnover ratio:

Nash: 2.93
Stockton: 3.72

Nash can't even hold Stockton's bags. Add Stockton's awesome defense, and the fact Nash plays on a no-defense team, its irrational to put nash even near being in stockton's league. The fact Nash has two mvp's is no less delirious.

I was wondering when your esteemed analysis of comparing a 19 year career to a 10 would show up. Rofl, and if the Suns really were a "no defense team" then Kobe would have went for 50 every night and they would have won the series. Thanks, try again.

Thank you for bringing that up - those are number and not totals - where Stockton averaged those numbers for 19 years, including many far past his prime. Nash has had only 2 good seasons and when its all said and done will have a shadow of a career that Stockton had.

As far as first 10 year totals:

Assists

Nash: 5006
Stockton: 9383

Steals

Nash: 569
Stockton: 2031


So please quit blowing smoke up your @ss about how great Nash is.

Still comparing 10 years to 19? Wow you're dense. Thankfully you don't work for ESPN, or you'd be fired in about an hour for making such a stupid comparison. Nothing you say can be taken seriously again.

Isn't he comparing 10 year totals?

Yes I edited it. He was comparing totals for Nash when Stockton has played with a HoF all his career. That's just utterly stupid.

I'll try to spell it out...Nash has done sh!t in his first 10 years compared to Stockton's first 10 years. And there's no guarantee nash will offer much more in the future as well.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole
Steve Nash

* NBA Most Valuable Player,
2004-05, 2005-06

* All-NBA First Team, 2004-05

* NBA Western Conference Player of the Month, November 2004

* Ranked first in NBA in assists per game (career-high 11.5)

* 2003-04 All-Interview Team

* 2003 All-NBA Third Team

* Three-time NBA All-Star (2002, 2003, 2005)

* 2002 All-NBA Third Team

* Ranked 17th in the NBA in three-point field-goal percentage with .403 in 1999-2000.

* Led the Suns in 1997-98, and ranked 13th in the NBA, in three-point percentage (.415)

* Finished third, with Michele Timms of the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, in the inaugural Nestle Crunch All-Star 2ball during All-Star Saturday

* Participated in the Schick Rookie Game during the 1997 NBA All-Star Weekend in Cleveland

* Posted rookie season-highs of 17 points, 12 assists and 7 rebounds, in his first career NBA start and his British Columbia homecoming, against the Vancouver Grizzlies on 11/14/96 Named West Coast Conference Player of the Year in 1995 and 1996

What does this have to do with anything? Anyone can post accolades from a 19 year career vs a 10, again. And you still never even mentioned that Stockton played with a HoFer his whole career, your argument is trash.

Apparently you're a little intimidated by Stocktons stellar career. And you believe Nash's next 10 years are going to be more productive? lol.

Btw Dirk is an HoF, first ballot. Stoudamire, if he stays healthy, is an HoF, first ballot. Marion may have a chance. There might be others as well, since I don't know the previous Dallas and Phoenix rosters.

So what's your point - players Nash has played with...that are still playing of course, haven't been elected yet? Well, hello, they are still playing.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I look at Nash's stats, and I do not see MVP numbers. Are these MVP stats?

I would say leading the league in assists and shooting % easily warrants an MVP. Only Bird, Reggie Miller, and Price ever reached the 50/40/90 shooting percentages.

That's a propaganda statistic if I've ever seen one.

The difference between Nash being in the 90% percentile vs. being in the 80% percentile is less than 1/4 of a made free throw per game. And its that 1/4 made free throw per game that your putting him in this class with top HoF's. Sorry but there's a heck of a lot more than 1/4 of a made free throw that keeps Nash far far away from the class of Bird and Miller.

But I see your trick tho...stick to shooting percentages in order to mask his overall mediocre productivity.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: LordUnum

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
stockton. He'd actually play defense, and didn't dissapear at crunch time. of course he was also one of hte dirtiest players ever.

Exactly. He was also unfortunate enough to play in the same era of huge players and huge personalities like those of Hakeem, Isiah, Ewing, Bird, Dominique, Magic, Jordan, Barkley, Robinson, etc. so he never garnered much MVP consideration then.

Oh god, you have touched me.

Those names symbolize an era of NBA greatness that isn't there anymore. Especially with Ewing, John Starks, Alonzo, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Jeff Hornaceck, Detlef Shcrempf, Vlade Divac, Michael Jordan, Mitch Richmond, Gary Payton, David Robinson, Shawn Kemp, Avery Johnson and many many more.

I wish guys like that still played.

John Stockton was one of the smartest players ever, excellent passer and made up for his lack of athleticism by doing other things like playing smart defense and of course, acting really well. If you compare their careers overall, I think Stockton would win. But for the past few years, Steve Nash has been outstanding. I really miss those great Utah teams. Jeff Nornaceck, Malone and others.

I don't really watch the NBA anymore except for the rare playoff game here and there.

Something is lacking these days with the NBA. NBA in my opinion was the best when the guys I listed above played.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I look at Nash's stats, and I do not see MVP numbers. Are these MVP stats?

I would say leading the league in assists and shooting % easily warrants an MVP. Only Bird, Reggie Miller, and Price ever reached the 50/40/90 shooting percentages.

That's a propaganda statistic if I've ever seen one.

The difference between Nash being in the 90% percentile vs. being in the 80% percentile is less than 1/4 of a made free throw per game. And its that 1/4 made free throw per game that your putting him in this class with top HoF's. Sorry but there's a heck of a lot more than 1/4 of a made free throw that keeps Nash far far away from the class of Bird and Miller.

But I see your trick tho...stick to shooting percentages in order to mask his overall mediocre productivity.

For every 10 free throws in a game, Nash will make one more than Stockton. One point in the playoffs is huge (*cough* Kobe game winner). You never saw any team in the playoffs hesitant to foul Stockton intentionally like the Lakers did with Nash this year. 10% is a huge margin, don't try to downplay it.

Out of the guys w/ the exclusive shooting percentages that I mentioned above (Bird, Miller, Price), none of them ever did it while leading the league in assists. Price was the closest at 8th in the league, and Stockton doesn't qualify because of the poorer free throw shooting. The bottom line is the NBA has never seen a guy shoot as well as Nash while being the best passer in the league.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole
Steve Nash

* NBA Most Valuable Player,
2004-05, 2005-06

* All-NBA First Team, 2004-05

* NBA Western Conference Player of the Month, November 2004

* Ranked first in NBA in assists per game (career-high 11.5)

* 2003-04 All-Interview Team

* 2003 All-NBA Third Team

* Three-time NBA All-Star (2002, 2003, 2005)

* 2002 All-NBA Third Team

* Ranked 17th in the NBA in three-point field-goal percentage with .403 in 1999-2000.

* Led the Suns in 1997-98, and ranked 13th in the NBA, in three-point percentage (.415)

* Finished third, with Michele Timms of the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, in the inaugural Nestle Crunch All-Star 2ball during All-Star Saturday

* Participated in the Schick Rookie Game during the 1997 NBA All-Star Weekend in Cleveland

* Posted rookie season-highs of 17 points, 12 assists and 7 rebounds, in his first career NBA start and his British Columbia homecoming, against the Vancouver Grizzlies on 11/14/96 Named West Coast Conference Player of the Year in 1995 and 1996

What does this have to do with anything? Anyone can post accolades from a 19 year career vs a 10, again. And you still never even mentioned that Stockton played with a HoFer his whole career, your argument is trash.

Apparently you're a little intimidated by Stocktons stellar career. And you believe Nash's next 10 years are going to be more productive? lol.

Btw Dirk is an HoF, first ballot. Stoudamire, if he stays healthy, is an HoF, first ballot. Marion may have a chance. There might be others as well, since I don't know the previous Dallas and Phoenix rosters.

So what's your point - players Nash has played with...that are still playing of course, haven't been elected yet? Well, hello, they are still playing.

There's no intimidation necessary. Compare Karl Malone's stats for ANY of the guys you mentioned above (Dirk/Amare/Marion) for however long they've been playing to however long Malone was in the league for the same amount of time. Nobody even compares, Malone is a TWO TIME MVP in the era of Micheal Jordan (or maybe you missed 1997 when Malone beat out MJ for MVP when MJ averaged 29.7ppg). Would any of the guys you mentioned above ever beat out Micheal Jordan for MVP? No offense, but was somebody dropped on their head as a child?

Nash has had less to work with but posted a comparable (I would say better) best season than Stockton so far.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I look at Nash's stats, and I do not see MVP numbers. Are these MVP stats?

I would say leading the league in assists and shooting % easily warrants an MVP. Only Bird, Reggie Miller, and Price ever reached the 50/40/90 shooting percentages.

That's a propaganda statistic if I've ever seen one.

The difference between Nash being in the 90% percentile vs. being in the 80% percentile is less than 1/4 of a made free throw per game. And its that 1/4 made free throw per game that your putting him in this class with top HoF's. Sorry but there's a heck of a lot more than 1/4 of a made free throw that keeps Nash far far away from the class of Bird and Miller.

But I see your trick tho...stick to shooting percentages in order to mask his overall mediocre productivity.

For every 10 free throws in a game, Nash will make one more than Stockton. One point in the playoffs is huge (*cough* Kobe game winner). You never saw any team in the playoffs hesitant to foul Stockton intentionally like the Lakers did with Nash this year. 10% is a huge margin, don't try to downplay it.

Out of the guys w/ the exclusive shooting percentages that I mentioned above (Bird, Miller, Price), none of them ever did it while leading the league in assists. Price was the closest at 8th in the league, and Stockton doesn't qualify because of the poorer free throw shooting. The bottom line is the NBA has never seen a guy shoot as well as Nash while being the best passer in the league.

You're so fixated on percentages and Nash isn't even all that great of a passer. He has an assist to turnover ratio of 3, hardly elite, and dominated by stockton's numbers.

The suns play a wide open score-more-than-the-other-guy offense, open spacing and lots of shots going up. He also has good shooters around him. Jason Kidd would have led the league this year if the Nets didn't play the same tough defense that they do, which slows down the game. In fact previous to the latest stint with the suns, Nash only averaged 7 assists. Where was this supposed greatness? Stockton averaged 10 his whole career, including good teams and bad. Nash needs the perfect system to excel, Stockton was the perfect system.

As for 1 more point a game for Nash because of his free throws, he only has shot an average of 5, so statistically it would take 2 games to get 1 point.

You point out only differences between the two, not areas that denote Nash is better than stockton.

 

[Abel007]

Stockton was the reason Malone got those MVPs and became a HOFer imo. So stop saying Malone was the reason Stockton's numbers were so great, they both helped each other and made each other great. It wasn't just one person on the team. It was both of them.

Stockton > Nash any way you slice it.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole
Steve Nash

* NBA Most Valuable Player,
2004-05, 2005-06

* All-NBA First Team, 2004-05

* NBA Western Conference Player of the Month, November 2004

* Ranked first in NBA in assists per game (career-high 11.5)

* 2003-04 All-Interview Team

* 2003 All-NBA Third Team

* Three-time NBA All-Star (2002, 2003, 2005)

* 2002 All-NBA Third Team

* Ranked 17th in the NBA in three-point field-goal percentage with .403 in 1999-2000.

* Led the Suns in 1997-98, and ranked 13th in the NBA, in three-point percentage (.415)

* Finished third, with Michele Timms of the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, in the inaugural Nestle Crunch All-Star 2ball during All-Star Saturday

* Participated in the Schick Rookie Game during the 1997 NBA All-Star Weekend in Cleveland

* Posted rookie season-highs of 17 points, 12 assists and 7 rebounds, in his first career NBA start and his British Columbia homecoming, against the Vancouver Grizzlies on 11/14/96 Named West Coast Conference Player of the Year in 1995 and 1996

What does this have to do with anything? Anyone can post accolades from a 19 year career vs a 10, again. And you still never even mentioned that Stockton played with a HoFer his whole career, your argument is trash.

Apparently you're a little intimidated by Stocktons stellar career. And you believe Nash's next 10 years are going to be more productive? lol.

Btw Dirk is an HoF, first ballot. Stoudamire, if he stays healthy, is an HoF, first ballot. Marion may have a chance. There might be others as well, since I don't know the previous Dallas and Phoenix rosters.

So what's your point - players Nash has played with...that are still playing of course, haven't been elected yet? Well, hello, they are still playing.

There's no intimidation necessary. Compare Karl Malone's stats for ANY of the guys you mentioned above (Dirk/Amare/Marion) for however long they've been playing to however long Malone was in the league for the same amount of time. Nobody even compares, Malone is a TWO TIME MVP in the era of Micheal Jordan (or maybe you missed 1997 when Malone beat out MJ for MVP when MJ averaged 29.7ppg). Would any of the guys you mentioned above ever beat out Micheal Jordan for MVP? No offense, but was somebody dropped on their head as a child?

Nash has had less to work with but posted a comparable (I would say better) best season than Stockton so far.

When Nash puts up 13 to 14 assists per game and shoots between 53%-57% fg%, and has an assist-turnover ratio of over 4, and gets 2.75-3 steals per game...in the same season, then you can begin to make a dimly lit argument.
UNTIL THEN...

/thread.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I look at Nash's stats, and I do not see MVP numbers. Are these MVP stats?

I would say leading the league in assists and shooting % easily warrants an MVP. Only Bird, Reggie Miller, and Price ever reached the 50/40/90 shooting percentages.

That's a propaganda statistic if I've ever seen one.

The difference between Nash being in the 90% percentile vs. being in the 80% percentile is less than 1/4 of a made free throw per game. And its that 1/4 made free throw per game that your putting him in this class with top HoF's. Sorry but there's a heck of a lot more than 1/4 of a made free throw that keeps Nash far far away from the class of Bird and Miller.

But I see your trick tho...stick to shooting percentages in order to mask his overall mediocre productivity.

For every 10 free throws in a game, Nash will make one more than Stockton. One point in the playoffs is huge (*cough* Kobe game winner). You never saw any team in the playoffs hesitant to foul Stockton intentionally like the Lakers did with Nash this year. 10% is a huge margin, don't try to downplay it.

Out of the guys w/ the exclusive shooting percentages that I mentioned above (Bird, Miller, Price), none of them ever did it while leading the league in assists. Price was the closest at 8th in the league, and Stockton doesn't qualify because of the poorer free throw shooting. The bottom line is the NBA has never seen a guy shoot as well as Nash while being the best passer in the league.

You're so fixated on percentages and Nash isn't even all that great of a passer. He has an assist to turnover ratio of 3, hardly elite, and dominated by stockton's numbers.

The suns play a wide open score-more-than-the-other-guy offense, open spacing and lots of shots going up. He also has good shooters around him. Jason Kidd would have led the league this year if the Nets didn't play the same tough defense that they do. In fact previous to the latest stint with the suns, Nash only averaged 7 assists. Where was this supposed greatness? Stockton averaged 10 his whole career, including good teams and bad. Nash needs the perfect system to excel, Stockton was the perfect system.

As for 1 more point a game for Nash because of his free throws, he only has shot an average of 5, so statistically it would take 2 games to get 1 point.

You point out only differences between the two, not areas that denote Nash is better than stockton.

Stockton doesn't dominate Nash statistically in their best years (which is all you can go off b/c Nash just had his best year). Nash had better rebounding and shooting % and points, while Stockton had more steals and assists. That's dominating?

It's already been established that neither Nash (4 more assists per game and better shooting) or Dirk (all around) were in their primes in Dallas, so bringing up the 7 assist average there is irrelevant. If they were together now and had one other above average player they would easily win the West IMO.

Yes, he only shot an average of 5 FT's, but reality is that there is no such thing as a half a point in basketball. The fact that LA was scared to foul him at the end of the game showed special treatment that altered a playoff game in a way that no team ever did with Stockton. Yup, he may have only averaged 5 during the regular season, but Nash shot 13-13FT's the night that Kobe went for 50 and won. That was pretty big, and Nash shot 34-37 Free Throws in 6 games (excluded game 7 b/c he left with an injury). That's excellence under pressure in a tight series where a point can decide a W or L (as we saw with the Tim Thomas tying 3, Kobe's tying/winning shot, or Nash's heroics in Game 1). Having a 92% FT shooter is like money in the bank in the playoffs.

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: chuckywang
I look at Nash's stats, and I do not see MVP numbers. Are these MVP stats?

I would say leading the league in assists and shooting % easily warrants an MVP. Only Bird, Reggie Miller, and Price ever reached the 50/40/90 shooting percentages.

That's a propaganda statistic if I've ever seen one.

The difference between Nash being in the 90% percentile vs. being in the 80% percentile is less than 1/4 of a made free throw per game. And its that 1/4 made free throw per game that your putting him in this class with top HoF's. Sorry but there's a heck of a lot more than 1/4 of a made free throw that keeps Nash far far away from the class of Bird and Miller.

But I see your trick tho...stick to shooting percentages in order to mask his overall mediocre productivity.

For every 10 free throws in a game, Nash will make one more than Stockton. One point in the playoffs is huge (*cough* Kobe game winner). You never saw any team in the playoffs hesitant to foul Stockton intentionally like the Lakers did with Nash this year. 10% is a huge margin, don't try to downplay it.

Out of the guys w/ the exclusive shooting percentages that I mentioned above (Bird, Miller, Price), none of them ever did it while leading the league in assists. Price was the closest at 8th in the league, and Stockton doesn't qualify because of the poorer free throw shooting. The bottom line is the NBA has never seen a guy shoot as well as Nash while being the best passer in the league.

You're so fixated on percentages and Nash isn't even all that great of a passer. He has an assist to turnover ratio of 3, hardly elite, and dominated by stockton's numbers.

The suns play a wide open score-more-than-the-other-guy offense, open spacing and lots of shots going up. He also has good shooters around him. Jason Kidd would have led the league this year if the Nets didn't play the same tough defense that they do, which slows down the game. In fact previous to the latest stint with the suns, Nash only averaged 7 assists. Where was this supposed greatness? Stockton averaged 10 his whole career, including good teams and bad. Nash needs the perfect system to excel, Stockton was the perfect system.

As for 1 more point a game for Nash because of his free throws, he only has shot an average of 5, so statistically it would take 2 games to get 1 point.

You point out only differences between the two, not areas that denote Nash is better than stockton.

jjsole brings up lots of good points in this post. style of play matters for a player's statistics, which is why you see nash's numbers skyrocket since he moved to the suns. do you think tmac would be shooting low 40's for FG% if he played in a more open style offense? nash is good, but he benefits from playing under d'antoni's system, which will skew his numbers somewhat.

nash is good, but my opinion of him will increase dramatically after he gets his team to the finals. stockton did that twice. hell, even jason kidd, with his crappy shooting form, got his team there.

i rooted against stockton his entire career, but i cant deny he's top 3 in best point guards ever.

 

[Miramonti]

The only way of salvaging sanity in this thread is to turn in into a

Steve Nash vs. Jason Kidd

Personally I'd take Kidd in his prime any day. He wasn't as good of a shooter as nash, but not only raises the intensity and effectiveness of his team on offense, he raises his teams intensity in a big way on defense.

Because of that he went to the finals twice, and has an excellent chance of getting there this year as well. He plays winning basketball, not just 'fun to watch, paper-tiger' pansy basketball like Nash and the suns.

And if you don't believe he makes his players better than nash does, just look at the huge inflated contracts his supporting cast players have gotten over the years.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
stockton was about the dirtiest, floppiest player ever. him and jeff horny just piss me off. everytime i'd watch them play it was like they were going for an oscar for best performance while flopping.

LOL!

You people just can't accept the fact that these little white guys are extremely talented. They have to play dirty to actually be as good as they are. :roll:

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Abel007
Stockton was the reason Malone got those MVPs and became a HOFer imo. So stop saying Malone was the reason Stockton's numbers were so great, they both helped each other and made each other great. It wasn't just one person on the team. It was both of them.

Stockton > Nash any way you slice it.

That still makes no sense considering Stockton had a Hall of Fame finisher that Nash never had. When Nash can get a player capable of beating Micheal Jordan for MVP, then come back and we'll talk. It's almost as stupid as comparing Jason Kidd and Mutombo to Kobe/Shaq during their playoff years.

So the question: explain why Nash has put up comparable numbers to Stockton without a Malone like presence this year. Would you say Sean Marion this year was good as Malone (ever)? LoL.

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: jjsole
The only way of salvaging sanity in this thread is to turn in into a

Steve Nash vs. Jason Kidd

Personally I'd take Kidd in his prime any day. He wasn't as good of a shooter as nash, but not only raises the intensity and effectiveness of his team on offense, he raises his teams intensity in a big way on defense.

Because of that he went to the finals twice, and has an excellent chance of getting there this year as well. He plays winning basketball, not just 'fun to watch, paper-tiger' pansy basketball like Nash and the suns.

And if you don't believe he makes his players better than nash does, just look at the huge inflated contracts his supporting cast players have gotten over the years.

While we're picking teams, I'll take Gary Payton (in his prime) over Nash too. Screw the numbers, if you watched the games, you'd know GP would eat Nash alive at both ends of the court.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjsole
The only way of salvaging sanity in this thread is to turn in into a

Steve Nash vs. Jason Kidd

Personally I'd take Kidd in his prime any day. He wasn't as good of a shooter as nash, but not only raises the intensity and effectiveness of his team on offense, he raises his teams intensity in a big way on defense.

Because of that he went to the finals twice, and has an excellent chance of getting there this year as well. He plays winning basketball, not just 'fun to watch, paper-tiger' pansy basketball like Nash and the suns.

And if you don't believe he makes his players better than nash does, just look at the huge inflated contracts his supporting cast players have gotten over the years.

Nash is a winner, he went to the Western conf finals last year and lost to the champion Spurs. No shame in that, and if that type of success is termed "paper tiger" then tell it to all the other Western teams not named "San Antonio". Or, maybe you could ask Kobe Bryant this year about the "paper tigers": "They just have a lot of firepower over there." And that was w/out Amare or K.Thomas.

Yeah w/out pulling up the stats, I remember Kidd being around minus 10% in every shooting category compared to Nash. Don't know about that one, don't think better defense can make up for that one.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: jjsole
The only way of salvaging sanity in this thread is to turn in into a

Steve Nash vs. Jason Kidd

Personally I'd take Kidd in his prime any day. He wasn't as good of a shooter as nash, but not only raises the intensity and effectiveness of his team on offense, he raises his teams intensity in a big way on defense.

Because of that he went to the finals twice, and has an excellent chance of getting there this year as well. He plays winning basketball, not just 'fun to watch, paper-tiger' pansy basketball like Nash and the suns.

And if you don't believe he makes his players better than nash does, just look at the huge inflated contracts his supporting cast players have gotten over the years.

While we're picking teams, I'll take Gary Payton (in his prime) over Nash too. Screw the numbers, if you watched the games, you'd know GP would eat Nash alive at both ends of the court.

LOL while you're talking about incredibly weak offensive players you may as well bring up Mark Price too.

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Abel007
Stockton was the reason Malone got those MVPs and became a HOFer imo. So stop saying Malone was the reason Stockton's numbers were so great, they both helped each other and made each other great. It wasn't just one person on the team. It was both of them.

Stockton > Nash any way you slice it.

That still makes no sense considering Stockton had a Hall of Fame finisher that Nash never had. When Nash can get a player capable of beating Micheal Jordan for MVP, then come back and we'll talk. It's almost as stupid as comparing Jason Kidd and Mutombo to Kobe/Shaq during their playoff years.

So the question: explain why Nash has put up comparable numbers to Stockton without a Malone like presence this year. Would you say Sean Marion this year was good as Malone (ever)? LoL.

Because of the style in which his team plays.

Stockton got to the finals with Malone, lost to the best player ever, Jordan.
Jason Kidd got to the finals with a bunch of guys who will probably never make HoF
Gary Payton got to the finals with a Shawn Kemp, questionable whether Kemp will make HoF.

So the real question: Why hasn't Nash made it to the finals, when he had Nowitzki and Finley with the Mavs, and had Marion and Stoudemire last year with the Suns?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: jjsole
The only way of salvaging sanity in this thread is to turn in into a

Steve Nash vs. Jason Kidd

Personally I'd take Kidd in his prime any day. He wasn't as good of a shooter as nash, but not only raises the intensity and effectiveness of his team on offense, he raises his teams intensity in a big way on defense.

Because of that he went to the finals twice, and has an excellent chance of getting there this year as well. He plays winning basketball, not just 'fun to watch, paper-tiger' pansy basketball like Nash and the suns.

And if you don't believe he makes his players better than nash does, just look at the huge inflated contracts his supporting cast players have gotten over the years.

While we're picking teams, I'll take Gary Payton (in his prime) over Nash too. Screw the numbers, if you watched the games, you'd know GP would eat Nash alive at both ends of the court.

Great point, he was a nightmare to play against. He never had a good center iirc , altho in '97(?) I'd swear they could have beaten the bulls if not for Dennis Rodman's first team defense and rebounding to make the ultimate difference. (and, iirc, nate mcmillan's bad back that limited him and kept him out of late games in the series.)

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: jjsole
The only way of salvaging sanity in this thread is to turn in into a

Steve Nash vs. Jason Kidd

Personally I'd take Kidd in his prime any day. He wasn't as good of a shooter as nash, but not only raises the intensity and effectiveness of his team on offense, he raises his teams intensity in a big way on defense.

Because of that he went to the finals twice, and has an excellent chance of getting there this year as well. He plays winning basketball, not just 'fun to watch, paper-tiger' pansy basketball like Nash and the suns.

And if you don't believe he makes his players better than nash does, just look at the huge inflated contracts his supporting cast players have gotten over the years.

While we're picking teams, I'll take Gary Payton (in his prime) over Nash too. Screw the numbers, if you watched the games, you'd know GP would eat Nash alive at both ends of the court.

LOL while you're talking about incredibly weak offensive players you may as well bring up Mark Price too.

Incredibly weak offensive players? I can't figure out who you're talking about. Surely not Payton, who scored 20 PPG for most of his career?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Abel007
Stockton was the reason Malone got those MVPs and became a HOFer imo. So stop saying Malone was the reason Stockton's numbers were so great, they both helped each other and made each other great. It wasn't just one person on the team. It was both of them.

Stockton > Nash any way you slice it.

That still makes no sense considering Stockton had a Hall of Fame finisher that Nash never had. When Nash can get a player capable of beating Micheal Jordan for MVP, then come back and we'll talk. It's almost as stupid as comparing Jason Kidd and Mutombo to Kobe/Shaq during their playoff years.

So the question: explain why Nash has put up comparable numbers to Stockton without a Malone like presence this year. Would you say Sean Marion this year was good as Malone (ever)? LoL.

What is your point? Nash can't be as good statistically as stockton because he hasn't had a finisher like Karl Malone? LOL............

Nash had stoudamire, who shot a better percentage (55.9%) than Malone EVER did (except 1 year). And Marion is one of the best shooters in the league, over 52%. Quit the sensationalism...stocktons best years pummel Nash's best years, and his worst years over 19 years in the league are comparable to Nash's best, and one could arguably say Nash has had MORE than stockton (because you also have diaw and had joe johnson last year.)

YAWN.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Abel007
Stockton was the reason Malone got those MVPs and became a HOFer imo. So stop saying Malone was the reason Stockton's numbers were so great, they both helped each other and made each other great. It wasn't just one person on the team. It was both of them.

Stockton > Nash any way you slice it.

That still makes no sense considering Stockton had a Hall of Fame finisher that Nash never had. When Nash can get a player capable of beating Micheal Jordan for MVP, then come back and we'll talk. It's almost as stupid as comparing Jason Kidd and Mutombo to Kobe/Shaq during their playoff years.

So the question: explain why Nash has put up comparable numbers to Stockton without a Malone like presence this year. Would you say Sean Marion this year was good as Malone (ever)? LoL.

Because of the style in which his team plays.

Stockton got to the finals with Malone, lost to the best player ever, Jordan.
Jason Kidd got to the finals with a bunch of guys who will probably never make HoF
Gary Payton got to the finals with a Shawn Kemp, questionable whether Kemp will make HoF.

So the real question: Why hasn't Nash made it to the finals, when he had Nowitzki and Finley with the Mavs, and had Marion and Stoudemire last year with the Suns?

First off, questioning whether Kemp will make the HoF shows you don't follow basketball much. No way in hell.

It's easily been answered, Nash nor Dirk weren't in their primes in Dallas. Neither won an MVP with them.

Weak argument with Amare/Marion, 1, 2 or even 3 players does not a team make (unless you're an absolutely unguardable player like TD, Shaq and Kobe lol).

Last year, the Suns lost to the best forward on the best team in the league, a Hall of Famer named Tim Duncan who had a sick supporting cast (and still does). You know, the Hall of Famer who beat Kidd's Nets in 2003 Finals? It's the same reason the Miami Heat didn't get to the Finals last year with Shaq (arguably MVP) because of Detroit's dominance. Surely you must remember Shaq and Kobe, who obliterated Kidd's weak ass Nets in a 4-0 sweep? Just because a team has the MVP doesn't mean they'll win the title or even get to the Finals. For example, in 2002, TD won the MVP but his team was decimated by Shaq/Kobe in the semi's.

 

[Miramonti]

Shawn Kemp would be a shoe-in for the HoF if not for his drug problems.

Your arguments SP33Demon are constantly full of excuses but the numbers and success don't lie. Nash is very good, altho Stockton is one of the greatest ever.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Abel007
Stockton was the reason Malone got those MVPs and became a HOFer imo. So stop saying Malone was the reason Stockton's numbers were so great, they both helped each other and made each other great. It wasn't just one person on the team. It was both of them.

Stockton > Nash any way you slice it.

That still makes no sense considering Stockton had a Hall of Fame finisher that Nash never had. When Nash can get a player capable of beating Micheal Jordan for MVP, then come back and we'll talk. It's almost as stupid as comparing Jason Kidd and Mutombo to Kobe/Shaq during their playoff years.

So the question: explain why Nash has put up comparable numbers to Stockton without a Malone like presence this year. Would you say Sean Marion this year was good as Malone (ever)? LoL.

What is your point? Nash can't be as good statistically as stockton because he hasn't had a finisher like Karl Malone? LOL............

Nash had stoudamire, who shot a better percentage (55.9%) than Malone EVER did (except 1 year). And Marion is one of the best shooters in the league, over 52%. Quit the sensationalism...stocktons best years pummel Nash's best years, and his worst years over 19 years in the league are comparable to Nash's best, and one could arguably say Nash has had MORE than stockton (because you also have diaw and had joe johnson last year.)

YAWN.

I find it funny that you're still saying that Stockton "pummeled" Nash in his best years when he was easily beaten in rebounding and FT% by Nash. More assists and steals is hardly pummeling anything, only in your fantasy land.

Rofl, so now you're saying Amare has had a higher FG% after Malone beats him in every other category except blocks? YAWN. The Suns have Marion who's a "good shooter", the Jazz had Horacek (top 10 FT% 9X/13th best all time, top 10 3pt% 6X/15th best all time). YAWN. Keep reaching!