So Nashty
Is that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Moses Malone maybe? Nope. It's Steve Nash.

Chances are, you've probably read or heard about how Steve Nash -- "disguised" in a Chinese opera bandana and a pair of funky goggles -- played some pickup basketball (followed by a little pickup soccer) in Beijing over the weekend. Apparently, Nash is in China for the week doing promotional and (of course) charity work. And, naturally, awesomeness ensued.

Said a decidedly un-ninja-like Nash: "As soon as I walked on they recognized me. [The disguise] didn't really work." Of course they recognized you, Steve. How could they not? After all, you're the only living human being who can swim faster than sharks. Oh, and they might know you for that whole "two-time NBA MVP" thingie too.

I'm not really into hero worship (and don't bring up Larry Bird, because that's more "way of life" than "religion"). But if there was one NBA player I'd want to hang out with -- past or present -- it would be Steve Nash. He's just so cool. Maybe not in an Arthur Fonzarelli kind of way, but Nash seems genuinely fun, clever and self-effacing. Maybe I'm wrong. I mean, I don't know Nash, or any other NBA players for that matter. For all I know, he secretly spends time stealing social security checks and working on a Death Ray that will finally destroy Superman once and for all. But I don't think so.

Seriously, doesn't Nash seem more well-adjusted than most NBA players...particularly the elite ones? There's a noted absense of rampant ego-mania, apathy, self-centeredness and needless alpha male posturing. He's dedicated to winning, but not in the obsessive, borderline (and sometimes over-the-border) toxic way most superstars are. Sure, Nash has expressed disappointment and pointed the random finger on occasion, but he doesn't abuse his teammates or blame them for his shortcomings (or lack of a championship). I can't remember him demanding a trade or humiliating his teammates in the press. He certainly expressed some skepticism (and maybe a little discontent) with the Suns' change in philosophy last season, but I don't believe he got Terry Porter fired. And if he didn't give Porter his full support, that is (as far as I know) his worst sin as a professional basketball player. (Well, that and the hair.)

The fact is, I just really like Steve Nash. And not just because he likes to get liquored up with Dirk Nowiztki. He's one of the good guys. The NBA could use a lot more guys like him. It's unfortunate that his name has become synonymous with the problems surrounding MVP voting. It's even more unfortunate that the :07 Seconds or Less Suns were dismantled (or crumbled from within) before he could make it to the Finals. On the bright side, Nash doesn't appear to measure his life by awards, championships or public opinion. And he's a better person for it.

Labels:

113 Comments:
Blogger chris said...
Someone tell me who imported the Clippers jerseys to China...

Blogger Dan B. said...
Steve Nash does seem like a cool guy to hang out with. Based on what I read about him in 7 Seconds or Less, plus other interviews with him, he just seems to be very personable, laid-back, and stupidly talented at basketball.

In other news, ESPN has some information on NBA 2K10. This game sounds very promising. NBA 2K9 was great except for a few bugs (most noticably, it was hard to run down the court and bring home a quality layup or dunk because the wrong animation would get used quite often, and you'd dribble sideways down the court as if you had a defender at your side even if you were in open court!). Any improvements on that game will be a lot of fun, even if I truly, completely, totally suck at it like I do with 2K9.

The most promising thing about this 2K10 preview? There will be plentiful amounts of bawful! When the "NBA 2K10" producers announced that they were lowering the player ratings in their game across the board to better separate the superstars you cheer from the bench players doing all the cheering, all you had to do was look at Jerome James and his embarrassing 42 overall rating to know they weren't messing around. Other casualties of the ratings game include Adam Morrison (crashing hard to a 55 overall) and even former 2K Sports spokesman J.J. Redick, who despite showing some flashes in the postseason, drops to a 52.

Blogger bsdrat said...
man crush. the end.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
i knew my man-crush on Steve Nash wasn't just because of his skills and sexiness. Only Steve Nash would try to disguise himself during a pickup game!

Blogger Michael Hsu said...
I think Nash just broke his contract :( Or is the pick up rule just in the United States?

Blogger gordon gartrelle said...
Seriously, doesn't Nash seem more well-adjusted than most NBA players...particularly the elite ones? There's no rampant ego-mania, 20-member posse, rap sheet or string of illegitimate children

The 55 year old white guys on The Sports Reporters called. They want their racial stereotypes back.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
gordon gartrelle -- First off, rampant ego-mania is not the exclusive province of African American athletes. Furthermore, Larry Bird had a child out of wedlock, and his non-relationship with her has always been a hot topic among his critics.

Also, didn't Jason Williams have a posse? I seem to remember some stories about one. I mean, I wasn't aware that white people couldn't have posses. Should I call it an entourage? Would that be suitably non-racist?

OpenID NarSARSsist said...
Dan B - That looks really awesome. I've always be kind of "eh" about basketball games until I played 2K9 (but unfortunately, it crashes my computer after anywhere from 3 minutes to half an hour of play). Now I'm really looking forward to 2K10 (and hopefully this time it doesn't crash).

I've always enjoyed managing teams too. I wish they would tweak the franchise mode so that different teams have different goals (i.e. "slash salary and rebuild", "screw the future, get that extra piece now!").

Blogger Basketbawful said...
I want to stress this isn't a White versus Black thing. I've always been a huge Larry Bird fan, but I think he wasn't exactly what you'd call "well-adjusted."

Believe me, white players have issues too, there are just fewer of them (white players, not issues).

Blogger Wild Yams said...
I've always been more a fan of Nash's other drunken escapade than his one with Dirk. He does come across as a self effacing guy, which is fairly rare for any superstar athlete. I do think his MVP-ness was overrated though. Anyone who wins back to back MVPs should have at least played in one Finals game, especially considering the rather staggering amount of talent he's been surrounded by for the last decade or so. Seriously, go back and look at those last couple Dallas teams he was on before you point to the injuries to key Phoenix players or suspensions as the reason he never made it to the championship round. I mean, the Mavs lost him for nothing and they made it to the Finals anyway. I'm just sayin'.

Blogger gordon gartrelle said...
Come on, man.

That response is the same as a Red Sox fan saying, "we're don't have a problem with the blacks; we love Big Papi! And we hate white players too!"

One of the best things about this site is that, because of the naunced views underlying the humor, it attracts intelligent comments.

Why would you of all people appropriate the most uncritical, problematic narratives of the aggrieved old white guy, trousers up to their chests media? Why would you echo the same stereotypes as the anonymous mouth-breathers who troll the more popular sports sites?

Yeah, I know you didn't mean it that way, but damn.

Blogger Jose said...
You're just like most white guy who watch the nba. You root for other good white guys and exaggerate their impact on the game. Larry Bird was a great player, but if he we're black, he would get as much credit as Dominique Wilkins got. I'd take a jerk obsessed with winning a la MJ over any good human being who couldn't deliver. I mean Bird got waxed just about every time he played Magic. Seriously. Magic owned Bird.

Blogger BadDave said...
When I say I'm doing the Nash, I mean this.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Yams -- Eh, I'm not really interested in getting into another Steve Nash debate. And this post really wasn't about rating him as a player or defining his legacy. I would have liked to see him in the Finals for the same reason I would have like to see, say, Dominque Wilkins in the Finals once or twice during his career...because he was a great player and it would have been fun to see him on the biggest stage.

gordon gartrelle -- Okay. Fair enough. Perhaps I didn't give that sentence a reasonable amount of thought. After a little additional consideration, I changed the sentence to: "There's a noted absense of rampant ego-mania, apathy, self-centeredness and boorish behavior."

There. You have had impact on this blog.

Jose -- Dude, I root for many players, black and white. I have done my fair share of raving about Karl Malone. Moreso than about John Stockton, I should point out, although Stockton certainly deserves the kudos.

And where in this post did I exaggerate his impact on the game? No, really. Point it out to me. Did I say he changed the face of the league, the style of play, the scope of its influence? No. I said I think he's a cool guy.

And for the record, you are way, way, WAY off-base with the Bird-Wilkins comparison. By any objective measure other than pure physical abilities, Bird was a superior player in virtually every area of the game.

By the way, Magic never owned Bird, since Magic played point and Bird was a forward. But nice try.

Blogger Joe said...
Nash Vs. would have been so much better!

Blogger Adam said...
Brandon Roy's response to winning the Magic Johnson award:


“I try to be cooperative with (the media) off the court,” Roy said. “And on the court, I do my best to try to help my team win games. I just try to be a good professional.


“I’ve always carried the approach that we should be good citizens whether we’re bus drivers or NBA players. There’s no difference. When people say, ‘You’re a good citizen,’ ... well, I should be a good citizen. You should, too.


“That’s how we should live. We should be good people first, and our profession is second. I’m happy that people recognize that. That’s why the award is kind of cool.”"


Does hearing something like that come out of a player's mouth make me hope he succeeds, make me want to root for him a little harder? Yes.

It is reassuring to believe that good people will meet with success - it makes the times when I have to choose the right over the easy a little bit more palatable.

Nash, also, seems like a good person. Both of them seem like people I would like to get to know much more than BigMat or (*choose your current player who runs around with an entourage who are constantly talking him up*) It has nothing to do with race.

OpenID NarSARSsist said...
Jose - The problem for Wilkins was that his team never went very deep in the playoffs (never even a conference finals if I remember correctly). You can argue that it's not his fault (I don't know the era well enough to make an argument either way). Unfortunately, fair or not, the guys that win more ultimately get more accolades, even if they're surrounded by superior talent.

Shawn Marion went from "what a fantasy bball stud" to "wow, this guy is redefining the forward position with his SF-playing-PF ways!" after the Suns started winning, not because he acquired some white guy genes from Nash. Isiah Thomas gets a lot of praise (back when he was tearing down players and not organizations) because the Bad Boys won championships, not because he acts white.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Adam -- Agreed. I could have said the same for Roy, or Danny Granger, or Grant Hill. It's just that none of those guys were caught wearing disguises and playing pickup ball in China.

Which I suppose is another aspect of this post. I love the fact that Nash did that, probably because it's something I'd want to do if I was a pro player. Well, not the soccer part.

OpenID NarSARSsist said...
Bawful - But definitely the knee high socks part?

Blogger Basketbawful said...
NarSARSsist -- Definitely.

Regarding what you said about winning, it's true. Or, at least, it's one major component. Then there's how you play the game. And how you're regarded by your teammates also matters. People forget this, but a lot of the Hawks were dancing a jig when 'Nique got traded to the Clippers...because, true or not, several of them thought he was hogging the ball. (Kevin Willis was perhaps the most outspoken on that subject.)

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Nash is laid back cause hes Canadian b. He's got a great sense of humor which not a lot of players show these days in the NBA.

P.S. I hope steve ker falls off a bridge for ruining the suns.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Truer words have never been spoken. Steve Nash perfectly balances competitiveness and perspective on the game as just a game. And on top of that, he is one funny, intelligent guy. The same could be said about Alonzo Mourning or Grant Hill. No need to get sensitive here.

OpenID bluefromhere said...
I completely agree with your thoughts on Steve Nash and I'd love to meet him too because he seems like a cool, laid-back and down to earth guy, unlike many other NBA players, plus he's so cute! Sorry, I couldn't help it. :P

Anyway, I know this sounds cliché but there's no I in team, so it's refreshing to see someone actually being a team player in the NBA and working hard to involve his teammates on every play.

On the other hand, I think that Nash can be unselfish to a fault, because when I watch Suns games I often find myself wishing he would shoot more often and not pass so much. Sometimes I think that has hurt the Suns too. But, would I rather he favored taking shots over creating scoring opportunities for his teammates? No... It just wouldn't be him.

Another proof of Nash's unselfishness and loyalty is the fact that he extended his contract with the Suns this summer, even though he might've had the chance to sign next year with a team that had a better shot of giving him a ring.

I love the Phoenix Suns and I love watching him play and I love the good chemistry of the teams of the :07 seconds or less era and I hoped he would finish his career with the Suns. However, part of me also wanted for him to ignore his ties to the team and the city of Phoenix and try to get signed by a contender after the coming season. It would have felt wrong (at least in my opinion) but dammit, HE DESERVES TO PLAY IN THE FINALS AND THE RING TOO!

Yeah, that's how passionate I am about the whole Nash/Suns situation. Do NOT even get me started on the 2007 playoffs against the Spurs.

Anyway, those were my 2 cents. I loved the post it was really cool! Nice to read on one of Livin' Large's days off. :)

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
There's been a bunch of feel-good stories this summer involving Suns players, Amare especially. Like they are trying to reel us in after so many consecutive years of broken hope. Like rooting for the abused faithful housewife on the downhill of her prime, sticking with the awful husband just for the kids. Ugh.

I think I'd prefer when Nash retires for the entertainment business, because unless Kerr falls off the London bridge as mentioned above (honestly, is there even one actual bridge in Arizona?), these next two years will be just as despair-filled as the last two.

Blogger KR said...
I love Nash.

I used to watch Steve play at Santa Clara when I was in high school - some friends and I got in the odd pick-up game with him. He was always super chill...and dominated. I'm sure you've heard the stories of how he walked around campus constantly dribbling a tennis ball and the famous, or infamous game where he single-handedly took out Kansas in the opening round of the NCAA Tourney. But he has an organic feel to the game of basketball that most never achieve.

One of my favorite Nash moments, actually - scratch that - one of my favorite hoops moments of all time was during the playoffs in 2001. The deciding game 5 of the Jazz-Mavs series. Mavs are down 14 going into the 4th quarter in Utah. I vividly remember my friends saying that its over...thanks, have a great day. But Nash tore apart Utah's defense repeatedly dribbling circles around them. He kept going baseline keeping a live dribble and dropping dimes to dudes underneath for easy layups. The Mavs won, against all odds, and I was yelling at the top of my lungs...I'm not even close to a Mavs fan...but was definitely a Utah hater. Either way, Nash is one of my all-time faves.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Look, I like Steve Nash as much as the next guy, and I really do respect him as a person, but anyone who thinks that he's deserved to get to the Finals and/or get a ring is just being silly. If he had deserved it, he would have done it. As I said above, Nash is not like some players who were mired on poor teams throughout their careers, and he didn't run into a Jordanesque figure who prevented him from accomplishing his goal.

Look at the roster from the last Mavs team Nash was on, for instance: Dirk, Josh Howard, Michael Finley & Antawn Jamison all alongside Nash. Now guess how many playoff games they won that year. That's right, one. And they lost 4-1 to a Kings team they'd beaten the previous year. They were even in the opposite bracket from the Lakers & Spurs that year, but it didn't matter cause they went nowhere. That happened before Nash even went to Phoenix, where the Suns had their disappointments and Nash won his MVPs. Meanwhile Dallas enjoyed more success without Nash.

Look, Nash is clearly a great player, and maybe one of the top 5 point guards of all time. But he cares about defense as much as Mike D'Antoni does, so maybe there's a good reason why he's never been to the Finals. If he'd deserved to have been there by now, then he would have already gone.

BTW, the stuff above about how Dominique was as good as Bird, or about how Bird was overrated because he was white, or even about how Magic always owned Bird are total nonsense. Dominique was a vastly different player than Bird. Nique was unquestionably more athletic, but he was nowhere near the rebounder, passer or shooter that Bird was. It would seem he didn't have the drive and force of will that Bird did, nor did he display the ability to elevate his teammates like Bird did.

I think Bird is probably underrated in history's eyes because he was white, and because he's thought of as being unathletic and slow. When you just look at clips of him compared to guys like Jordan or Nique, you don't think he looks like he's a baller; but you could say the same about Stockton or even Magic. The fact was that Bird flat out owned the fundamentals of the game, and he had a feel for it that was almost unparalleled, but for a very select few. I think people who didn't watch him play don't understand how good he was. He was Steve Nash-like in terms of court vision, passing and the ability to run an offense if he wanted to do so, and he was probably a better shooter as well (which is really saying something). Unlike Nash though, Bird knew exactly when to take the offense into his own hands, and would deliver the dagger exactly when it was needed. He was also 6'9 and could rebound with almost any power forward. Nique may have had more spectacular dunks, but he couldn't do what Bird did.

Finally, if Magic always owned Bird, how do you explain 1984? I'm a Laker fan, and I think it's silly to say Magic always won that matchup. They didn't guard each other (Bird had his hands full with James Worthy), but the real test of who prevailed was which team won, and other than 1987 (in which a loaded Laker squad faced an admittedly banged up Celtics team), it was often too close to call.

IMO if you don't have Bird at SF on your All-Time Starting Five list, you don't know what you're talking about.

Blogger Ash Haque said...
ONe of my favorite Nash interviews:

http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/features/steve-nash/steve-nash-1.html

Ahem, yes I'm linking to playboy, unfortunately there isn't any *real* nudity on that page.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Yams -- Okay. Now I think you're trying to bait me. Nash didn't run into a Jordanesque figure? Really? Because I seem to remember that Tim Duncan and the Spurs kept putting his Suns down year after year.

And please, Yams, for the love of God, unless you want me to start bleeding from the ears, stop making comments like "If he had deserved it, he would have done it." The main reason being, making it to the Finals is an organizational accomplishment, not an individual accomplishment. Period. Done. End of story.

To wit, you bring up the last Mavs team that Nash was on as some sort of ironclad proof without also mentioning other pertinent facts, such as: 1) Antoine Walker was a freaking starter, 2) Michael Finley was beginning to decline (he shot 38 percent in the playoffs), 3) Josh Howard (who's not really all that good to begin with) was a rookie (he played a whopping seven minutes in their final playoff game), 4) the team's "bench" (outside of Antawn Jamison) effectively consisted of Howard (a rookie), Eduardo Najera and Shawn Bradley, 5) Don Nelson had cleary started mailing it in as a coach (and, indeed, he wouldn't even finish out the following season), and 6) due to the personnel AND point number five the team played NO defense. I should also point out that Nash's role with that team was vastly different than it was during his time in Phoenix. Many times, he was expected to bring the ball up, pass it to a teammate, and then spot up...which didn't really play to his strengths.

But since Nash couldn't change all that, he's not worthy. [Insert laugh track here.]

It comes back to what I said before. Winning, reaching the Finals, that's an organizational accomplishment. If Phil Jackson didn't come back to coach, if the Pau Gasol heist never happened, if Lakers management hadn't kept its cool when Kobe was freaking out a few summers ago, so on and so forth, Kobe never would have gotten a whiff of the Finals again. And if he hadn't played with Shaq, he wouldn't have made his first four appearances (nor would Shaq have made them w/o Kobe). Would that have made Kobe any less deserving of making it to the NBA's Big Dance?

By the bristling beard of Odin, please don't reduce a ridiculously complex series of circumstances (not to mention quite a bit of luck) down to whether one player "deserved" to make the Finals or not.

Okay. Whew. I'm calm now. And your Bird section soothed the hurt in my soul.

Anonymous Marc said...
It's because he's Canadian.

You'd be surprised at how well brutal cold weather breeds humility.

And he's from BC. It's actually kind of nice there most of the time.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Mr. Bawful - Steve Nash didn't deserve to make it to the Finals.

The End.

If you need me I'll be taking my victory lap :)

PS - People are always saying Kobe is always trying to imitate Jordan, but if you check this picture and compare it to my avatar, I think we can see who he's really trying to emulate. Also, I think gordon gartrelle is right: if Kobe was white he'd be just another good guy.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Based on some of the comments, I am starting to think that it's taboo to like a white Canadian basketball player.

I totally dig those googles on Nash. I am so going to get flamed...

Blogger Ryan said...
Great argument Yams. I especially like the "case-in-point" part where you really broke it down and fought for opinion.

What was this article about again?

Oh yea, Steve Nash would be the coolest guy in the NBA to hang out with. Here's another reason..

Brandon Roy seems like a really great guy, someone you would want your kids to look up to, but nobody I want to have a drink or play xbox with.

Also, I resent the hair comment.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Yams -- Touche'.

Blogger elefes said...
It was Steve Nash who first made me sit up and pay attention to the NBA when my male friends would come over and watch it on my TV. (I was the only one who had Pay TV and it was only shown on that in Australia up until last year.)

It's interesting to read the comments regarding race, especially how white guys root for other white guys. I don't think this is the case at all. For me, as I said, Nash made me pay attention. It had absolutely nothing to do with race, it was more about how there was a guy out on the court that was different. He was shorter than everybody else, could shoot, could pass... he was a good team player/leader. He made all his team better. He made Richardson look so good that he earned a fat contract in New York where he went on to do absolutely sweet FA. He made Marion look god-like, Stoudemire look unstoppable and without Nash playing his style, none of these players have amounted to anything. Well, overpriced stiffs who manage to get great contracts from other teams and cripple those teams in the process. There's something to that. All of them were made to look really good when Nash seemed to be running the team as he liked which was the case up until last season. He makes all of his team mates better and his reward for this is that they all leave as incredibly overrated players. And people wonder why he never got a ring. As soon as things start working, selfish players follow the money. Hence players like Johnson and Richardson leaving, hence players like Marion getting traded because they weren't enough of a superstar and now Stoudemire appears to be next on the trading block because they know that his stats from the last couple of years make him look like a much stronger player than he actually is. The problem for the Suns is that other teams seem to have cottoned on to this phenomenon.

Continuing on re: race. White or black, if a guy is different I'm going to pay attention. Be it his appearance, height, style on the court, gets busted for marijuana possession, his sense of humor/personality, if his Dad is court side bursting with pride and with tears in his eyes, the fact that he's still with his high school sweetheart... it's a combination of factors which makes me interested in various players.

Oh and two interesting side notes. It was because of googling stuff about Steve Nash that I came to this blog in the first place. You may remember a picture of Nash when he shaved his head side by side with a picture of Ripley from the Alien series. And 2. I had 2 NBA jerseys. Both Nash, one Dallas and one Phoenix. Every time I wear them, I would get people commenting, cars honking & people pointing. Never happens when I wear my bf's jerseys.

Now bring on the comments about how Australian girls who haven't watched basketball since they came out of the womb shouldn't be able to have an opinion.

Blogger Yiping said...
I agree with everything you have said about Steve Nash.

You should listen to Simmon's recent podcast with Steve Nash, and you'll like him even more. Simmons asked him why he stayed with the Suns, and he said he felt he owed the fans, the team and the city for his success, and thus decided to stay. Where can you find loyalty like that nowadays? All around good guy. Real funny too.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
elefes - "I had 2 NBA jerseys. Both Nash, one Dallas and one Phoenix. Every time I wear them, I would get people commenting, cars honking & people pointing. Never happens when I wear my bf's jerseys."

This is what you should have expected when you started dating Keith Closs.

Anonymous Geert said...
If it wasn't for the ugly coloured Suns jerseys, I would already have gotten one from Nash. He is also one of my favourite players, not because he's white or just a bit taller then me. Of course he's a good baller but also because, as pointed out, he is so much more. The moviemaking, other sports, political stuff, the "No war. Shoot for peace" shirt he wore to an all star game, his down-to-earthness... This all makes him one of the coolest persons on earth in my opinion. I even wrote a blogpost about him once on my tiny friends-only blog. Mind you, my friends are all Dutch people who don't know shit about basketball.

And there is also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqqcXa1QXD0

Anonymous naama said...
Here's a couple of links that further add to the awesomeness of Nash. Here's Nash on Letterman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ66pCgcw_E

And here he's being interviewed by Bill Simmons:
http://podloc.andohs.net/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=2864xhttp://query-origin.andohs.net/8000A6/content-root3.andomedia.com/origin/mp3/espnradio/sportsguy/simmons090820.mp3

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I'm so tired of this anti-american, pro-canadian hyperbole.
Take your unpatriotic slander out of here, bawful. If you don't love america, you can get the hell out.

Posse's, ego's, rap, illegitimate children - you are obviously dogging on americans. "I have american friends" is not an argument which will work here, either, pal.
Canadians might have invented the game, but the game has changed - its now played by Americans. Live with it.
Many Americans deserved those MVPs much more than that canuck, but the canuck-controlled media wouldn't allow it.
Just because American players don't say "Pardon?" instead of "What?" and "excuse me" instead of just bumping you while walking by, doesn't mean that they are any worse than you or me. You can't judge them by the fact that they don't know the metric system and aren't sure how far Poland is from Canada.

And by the way, those American friends you have? We all know you're comfortable around them only because they have assimilated, and listen to Alanis with you and discuss the Québécois. As soon as they meet up with their other American friends and start talking about "whatup with that fred durst ya'll" you quickly avert your eyes and excuse yourself

Anonymous Arlen said...
If Nash wasn't white, how many people would have questioned his mvps. There would still be discussion (points are usually so important in mvp races) but not nearly as much. I think the MVPs mainly came because of lack of competition. I really don't think kobe or shaq or lebron or duncan stood out in either of those years, so it was too hard for ppl to ignore nash.

And going by the 'names of teammates on the team' argument is like the comment from one NY player that "I put all our players into nba live and our team did really well, so I don't get whats wrong?"

I guess I can understand the argument that no one "deserves" to go to the finals, but I think ppl are saying it because of who (they think) nash is, not because of how he plays. If I said Grant Hill deserves to go to the finals, would that be an issue? He hasn't led anyone to the finals, but perhaps he "deserves" it just because it would make fans feel good.


But anyways, its not about who "deserves" it, just ask LA's therapist

(haha, get it? Yes, I opened the box!)

Blogger Cortez said...
"BTW, the stuff above about how Dominique was as good as Bird..."

My mother should have had an abortion. This is getting to be too much for me to handle.

Blogger Cortez said...
"Seriously. Magic owned Bird."

If Magic Johnson heard you say this nonsense, he would slap you across the bridge of your nose.

"I fear no man but Larry Bird"
~Magic Johnson

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Anonymous said: "Take your unpatriotic slander out of here, bawful. If you don't love america, you can get the hell out."

I say: Are you SURE you actually read this post and the comments? I can help you find a reading tutor. Seriously. Email me. Assuming you can read this.

Arlen said: "If Nash wasn't white, how many people would have questioned his MVPs?"

I think it was a combination of his pale skin and the absence of some overwhelming stat. Specifically, if Nash had led the league in scoring or come close...nobody would be saying a word.

Take Allen Iverson's MVP in 2001. The dude shot 42 percent from the field. His team only had the third-best record in the league. Despite all the steals he grabbed through his careless gambling, he didn't play real NBA defense. His 4.6 assists per game were practically nullified by his 3.3 turnovers per game. He wasn't in the top seven in PER or even the top 11 in Win Shares. But he won by a landslide (he got 93 first place votes compared to 18 for second-place Tim Duncan) and nobody EVER questions the legitimacy of A.I.'s MVP...even though the years have shown he's a me-first team cancer.

So why doesn't he get the same treatment Nash is getting? Because he led the league in scoring.

Cortez -- Yeah...things really got out of hand, didn't they?

Blogger K.A. said...
I'm not black nor white and can attest Nash likeability beyond the colour of his skin. His freewheeling gamegoofy ads, his attitude towards issues outside of basketball, he's just cool.

I might have missed it what with the rampant Nash being overrated discussion but this is the 2nd high profile pickup sighting, the previous one in NY, a court by the Hudson river or something. This was about 2 seasons back but sans goggles which make this one epic by standards.

Blogger gordon gartrelle said...
People, people.

No one said that white people only root for Nash becasue he's white, or that you should feel guilty because he's your favorite player. I've never met a black hoops fan who didn't love to watch Nash play and didn't think that he seemd like a down to earth guy.

I was only saying that in praising him, there's no need to slide into regressive racialized tones that pervade idiot fandom and sportswriting ("all of em are spoiled thugs...except this Steve Nash!")

Lest you think I'm some PC scold that whines any time a black athlete is criticized, I'm the guy who wrote this.

Blogger Shiv said...
Holy crap!!! Did someone make MVP stand for something other than "Most Valuable Player" and start awarding it for finals appearances instead of regular season performance?!?!

Also, yeah there are other "good guys" in the NBA like Hill, Roy and so on and so forth. But how many of them would fake a villanous british accent during an interview when asked about a chipped tooth?

@ Bawful:
1). Seriously dude, I HEART Steve Nash, but I had to recheck the author of this article to make sure it wasn't written by Anacondahl.

2). I believe you should activate your sarcasm filter and re-read Anonymous' comment.

Anonymous dunkside said...
me thinks you kinda missed anonymous' sarcasm.

this part: "Many Americans deserved those MVPs much more than that canuck, but the canuck-controlled media wouldn't allow it." should have made it clear he's not being serious.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
"I believe you should activate your sarcasm filter and re-read Anonymous' comment."

This.

I think Iverson got his MVP because the Sixers got off to such a phenomenal start that year and because they finished with the best record in the East. To me that was a simple case of giving it to the best player on the best team. The argument could be made that Duncan deserved it more (the Spurs had the league's best record), but he already had one and the voters do tend to spread it around a bit. Iverson's a bum, but I can see the argument for him winning it that year. And he did take his team to the Finals, after all.

I think all the outrage over Nash's MVPs doesn't have anything more to do with the fact that he won two consecutively. I think people feel like since the voters do spread it around, that for someone to win it back to back they must really be something special; and considering Nash is a matador on defense and never has been to the Finals (despite being surrounded with arguably more talent than anyone else in the last decade), you can see why people question whether he is special enough to have won those two trophies.

So that's where it all comes from. His skin color doesn't factor in at all, IMO. To me he's probably the 6th or 7th best point guard of all time (behind Magic, Oscar, Cousy, Stockton, Isiah, and maybe Jason Kidd and Chris Paul, though the jury's still out on him due to his age). I feel like a back to back MVP winner should probably be higher on that list. Unless I'm mistaken, nobody else on that list won back to back MVPs. Everyone has different criteria for who wins the MVP award, but in a historical context Nash's two trophies do seem a bit out of place. That's all I'm sayin.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Yes. I failed my sarcasm test. Damn work distractions.

Blogger Adam said...
Blogger Shiv said...

Holy crap!!! Did someone make MVP stand for something other than "Most Valuable Player" and start awarding it for finals appearances instead of regular season performance?!?!

This isn't exactly what you asked for, but it is at least related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIL-JSQX-9s

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
I don't blame Bawful, crappy Anonymous sarcasm is crappy. Although it is amazing, the use of proper accents in "Québécois".

Proper: There's nothing anti-American with this post, or when glorifying Canada. It falls right in line with being the right kind of white person, as shown here and here.

Blogger Cortez said...
Reminder: The NBA is an ENTERTAINMENT company selling a product to casual observers. Part of the consideration in handing out the MVP award is what will maximize the value of the product and coincide with the desired image that they want to portray.

Any connection between the winner and his status as Most Valuable Player (whatever the fuck that means anyway) is happenstance.

If naming Eric Dampier MVP would triple the NBA profits then we would be looking at 8 time MVP winner Eric Dampier, period.

For what it's worth (i.e. nothing) I couldn't care less who wins the MVP during any year.

Oh yeah, Steve Nash...

a) Is a beast, period.
b) Would take a crap on Jason Kidd's head and boot Bob Cousy in the nose.
c) Has never been surrounded by 'suitable' talent, never mind 'more talent'.

Teams stacked with offense first gunners may be "talented" but they certainly aren't designed to win much of anything (except games against bums or similarly constructed teams in which case someone has to lose!).

"...But this bum been taking the easy matches, fighting other bums!"
~Clubber Lang

Blogger Basketbawful said...
AnacondaHL -- Nice.

Cortez -- The Clubber Lang quote filled me with glee.

As for the rest, well, you're pretty much bang on.

That's why I tried to make the point yesterday that championships are an organizational accomplishment. Teams that are supposedly loaded with "talent" aren't a lock to win anything if the talent hasn't been assembled correctly. The :07 Seconds or Less Suns were never a complete team, regardless of how talented the players were...or were reputed to be. I mean, Shawn Marion has looked ordinary (or less) since he left Phoenix.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Cortez - Keep in mind that Kidd, unlike Nash, was a two-way player (Kidd's way past his prime now, no doubt about it, so I'm talking in the past tense here). Kidd was a 1st team All NBA defender four times, and a 2nd team All NBA defender five times. Kidd is a 9 time All Star and was All NBA 1st team four times. And Kidd led two teams to the NBA Finals. Nash, meanwhile, has never been even a mediocre defender (let alone being selected to any All NBA defensive teams), has been an All Star 6 times, and has been All NBA 1st team three times. And of course, has never been to the Finals.

Nash is a much better shooter than Kidd, and is probably a better passer than Kidd, but not by very much. Kidd is a far better rebounder though (Nash can't rebound at all), and Kidd would have to be right up there with Nash and Magic as one of the all time best fast breaking point guards, and would definitely be considered right at the top all time for players with court vision. Nash might be ahead of him on that list, but it's fairly close, and the rest of Kidd's game at least makes it a debate about who was better. Nash's MVPs were mainly a result of NBA rule changes and D'Antoni's all offense, no defense system. But that doesn't automatically mean Nash was the greatest thing ever. If you're honest and you look at Nash's whole career, he really had three phenomenal years and everything else was somewhere between decent and pretty good.

I don't know who was better between Nash and Kidd, but it's much more of a debate than you're making it out to be.

Mr. Bawful - Yes, getting to later rounds in the playoffs is as much about an organization as it is about one player, but how many All Stars has Nash played with in this decade? I bring up his teammates so much because Nash has this reputation of being one of the best all time at making his teammates better, so you would then think that with all that raw talent around him he could have molded at least one of those collections of All Stars into a Finals team. I mean, the guy played alongside Dirk Nowitzki, an MVP winner himself and a sure-fire 1st ballot hall of famer, and they couldn't make the Finals together (though Dirk did it without Nash).

D'Antoni's system was and is a gimmick. It puts up great offensive numbers and can rack up a lot of regular season wins, and it definitely makes for an entertaining game. But if you don't play defense you just will not win. If Nash himself was a good defender and was just always surrounded by a bunch of crappy defenders, then he wouldn't get any blame, but he's arguably been the worst defender on every team he's been on. Defense wins championships and Nash has never played any.

Look, he's absolutely one of the NBA's good guys, and his pairing with D'Antoni allowed his game to flourish in a way that you've rarely seen from anyone in league history. But I'm sorry, history is gonna look back and puzzle over those back to back MVP trophies. It's just the way it is.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Yams -- I'm a little up to my ears today, but since you brought up the fact that Kidd led two teams to the NBA Finals, answer me this: Don't you think that virtually any of those Nash-led teams could have come out of the East during the two seasons Kidd's Nets made it to the Finals? I'm not sure that New Jersey oozing to the top of the East's poop pile is really indicative of Kidd's superiority to Nash.

Blogger Cortez said...
"Keep in mind that Kidd, unlike Nash, was a two-way player"

Really? If by "two-way" you mean being smart enough to mask his many glaring offensive flaws then, sure, he's a "two-way" player.

...and I actually like Kidd!

"Kidd is a 9 time All Star and was All NBA 1st team four times."

All-Star games are more hollow than the MVP award.

...although Kidd is an legit All-Star so don't shoot me!

"And Kidd led two teams to the NBA Finals."

Where they subsequently got their asses handed to them in grand fashion due in large part to Kidd's "two-way" prowess, or lack thereof.

"If you're honest and you look at Nash's whole career, he really had three phenomenal years and everything else was somewhere between decent and pretty good."

Replace "Nash" with "Kidd" and that statement still stands strong.

"I don't know who was better between Nash and Kidd, but it's much more of a debate than you're making it out to be."

I was, in large part, making a subjective statement based on my likes and dislikes of the point guard position.

If I was to analyze their relative skills and production side by side I'd still take Nash.

Just like I don't give a shit if Michael Vick can run the ball, I similarly don't care if Kidd can rebound the ball.

I need my quarterback to be known for throwing the ball and I need my point guard to be a dead eye shooter and a supreme set up man with deep knowledge of the game.

Nash 3 for 3.
Kidd 2 for 3.

Nash wins!!!!

"Defense wins championships and Nash has never played any."

Never played any? That's not even remotely true.

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say, without any research, that Nash over his career has out performed any no-name bum he has been matched against.

And since truly elite players aren't being "stopped" by even "1st team All-NBA defensive playes" that isn't even that relevant as it would seem.

"so you would then think that with all that raw talent around him he could have molded at least one of those collections of All Stars into a Finals team."

I certainly never thought that.

In fact, every season it's guaranteed some local idiots will start yapping about the latest fly by night young speed demon team sure to go to the championship because they can't be stopped and every year, without fail, they are stopped.

Portland.
Golden State.
Phoenix.
Sacramento.
Dallas.
Phoenix Part Deux.
Denver.

All high scoring losers.

"I'm not sure that New Jersey oozing to the top of the East's poop pile is really indicative of Kidd's superiority to Nash."

The Suns would have won 97.99% of the conference games in the east.

Blogger CassavaLeaf.com said...
I used to love those Nash/Baron Davis videos

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Mr. Bawful - First of all, I'm not arguing about Kidd's superiority to Nash. I said quite clearly that I didn't know who was better, but just that there is actually enough there to debate it one way or the other. It's not the slam dunk that Cortez was saying it is. Second, I would have thought that the 2004 Mavs could have taken more than one game from the '04 Kings in the playoffs, but clearly that wasn't the case. Meanwhile, a far less loaded Nets team that year took the eventual champion Pistons to 7 games in the second round. So honestly I don't know what to think.

Blogger Japes said...
"If Nash himself was a good defender and was just always surrounded by a bunch of crappy defenders, then he wouldn't get any blame, but he's arguably been the worst defender on every team he's been on."

Amare called, he wants his title back.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Cortez, that's a pretty weak argument, especially for you (your takes are usually quite strong). You totally discount rebounding and defense from a point guard simply because they're not "typical" PG skills? Nonsense. There's only five guys out there, so any time one of them can help out in any area it's a big plus for the team. Shotblocking isn't a typical shooting guard skill, but it sure helped make Michael Jordan look like a better player because he was so good at it. Kidd's size and commitment to defense while matched with his court vision and ball handling abilities made him a huge asset to every team he was on while he was in his prime. Those All Star appearances were well earned. I will allow that Nash in the 04-05, 05-06 and 06-07 seasons was better than in any year of Kidd's career, but if you compare the rest of their careers Kidd basically outshines him every other year. Nash had a very average career until he was paired with D'Antoni, had three great seasons with him, and then he probably started to decline due to age and has now become what he was pre-D'Antoni: somewhere around the 4th or 5th best PG in the league.

Like I said, I'm not saying Kidd was better than Nash, cause honestly I don't really know. I'm just saying it's definitely debatable one way or the other. I think both Nash and Kidd are currently battling with Gary Payton for being the 6th, 7th or 8th best point guards of all time. Chris Paul will probably be in that discussion (maybe even ahead of all of them) by the time he's finished. Who knows. But the reason that Payton and Kidd would even be in that discussion is because they weren't a total zero on the defensive end the way Nash has been his whole career.

If Nash was even a decent defender he'd probably get the nod unquestionably. If you don't think defense matters for a point guard, just look at the ways that Tony Parker has carved up Nash at different times in their matchups. Or hell, look at that famous game by Steve Kerr in Game 6 of the 2003 WCF against Nash's Mavs and tell me it might not have helped if Nash could have got a hand up. Defense matters.

So does rebounding, especially for a quick, fast-breaking point guard. One of the many reasons Magic is widely considered the best PG of all time was his rebounding ability and how he could grab a defensive board and immediately start the break without having to wait for an outlet pass. Kidd brought that same talent to the table, something Nash never did. Nash is one of the best shooters in NBA history, and has some of the best court vision and feel for the game that anyone ever has, but he can't defend and can't rebound, and you can't just ignore that. Kidd had his weaknesses too (shooting), and that's why he's not in the top 5 PGs either. But two guys who were great in many areas of the game but who had glaring weaknesses in others can definitely get compared to each other.

You're trying to say Nash is obviously far better than Kidd. I'm just trying to say that it's debatable.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
I'm currently getting killed at my Clark Kent job, which sucks because I really want in on this debate. Although watching Yams and Cortez square off is highly entertaining. Like, I'm ready to print out the next couple back-and-forths and take them to the restroom for my afternoon dump break.

Blogger Cortez said...
"You totally discount rebounding and defense from a point guard simply because they're not "typical" PG skills?"

I didn't say that. I even gave you my list of priorities for a point guard. Kidd fails miserably at one and his rebounding and defense doesn't make up for it in my eyes.

"If you don't think defense matters for a point guard, just look at the ways that Tony Parker has carved up Nash at different times in their matchups."

I addressed this also.

a) Tony Parker carves up EVERYBODY in the league...including Kidd and whoever was the first team all-NBA defender that year.

b) Nash plays defense within the defensive scheme. He's not out their losing his man time and time again or giving up on assignments.

...just like Larry Bird. Another supposed "bad defender".

"You're trying to say Nash is obviously far better than Kidd."

You're saying that, not me.

I clearly said that my judgment was SUBJECTIVE based on my personal idea of what a point guard should consist of.

If someone, as you have, wants to make the case for Kidd being better, I certainly wouldn't think they were whacked out of their minds.

"One of the many reasons Magic is widely considered the best PG..."

If nothing else I'm consistent because, not shockingly, I DON'T LOVE MAGIC JOHNSON EITHER!

Never have.

"Michael Jordan look like a better player because he was so good at it."

Jordan could have had ZERO blocks for his career and it would not have mattered in the least.

Blocks != defense

I'm not really trying to even have an "argument" as, similar to women, I don't even rank players in that fashion anyway. In my mind there are classes of players that can be rank much better and within those classes their skill sets may or may not be suitable for whatever team they are on.

...and after Gary Payton ducked that Jordan match up he isn't shit either in my eyes.

"Fuck 'um"
~Fenster/Benico Del Toro: Usual Suspects

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Regarding Magic being widely considered one of the best PGs ever: You know...like Nash, Magic was a very porous defender. Only, oddly enough, that doesn't count against him when people are putting together their "Best Ever" lists.

But it counts against Nash.

Funny how that works.

Cortez, I'm curious: can you give me Cortez-style rundown on how you feel about Magic and why?

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Cortez - I'm sorry, I construed your "Steve Nash... Would take a crap on Jason Kidd's head and boot Bob Cousy in the nose." comment to mean that you thought Nash was better than Kidd. Gee, my mistake. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I'm not arguing that either one is better. I'm saying you could debate that either way. You and Mr. Bawful are the ones who seem to disagree with that since you keep arguing against me.

Also, blocks don't equal defense, but they are a part of defense. Jordan had steals and blocks as well as being a great man to man defender and team defender. But to say if he'd had zero blocks that wouldn't have made any difference is silly.

Mr. Bawful - Magic played in an era in the NBA, like Bird, where defense really was an afterthought. But being a triple-double machine while winning 3 league MVPs and 5 rings will help answer a lot of questions about how good a player actually is. Finals MVPs will do that too, but of course, you have to actually play in the Finals to get considered for that award. Like it or not, players really tend to only enter into the "greatest ever" discussions if they've got MVP awards and rings. It was even the case for Jordan.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Yams -- A few things (although I really should be working...):

"I'm sorry, I construed your "Steve Nash... Would take a crap on Jason Kidd's head and boot Bob Cousy in the nose." comment to mean that you thought Nash was better than Kidd. Gee, my mistake."

You have read Cortez's many comments on this blog right? When he starts speaking in hyperbole, he's usually (one assumes) trying to be funny.

"You and Mr. Bawful are the ones who seem to disagree with that since you keep arguing against me."

Don't misunderstand me. I think a Nash versus Kidd debate is certainly on the table. And if you review my comments, I never argued against your premise...only against some of your proofs. For instance:

"Like it or not, players really tend to only enter into the 'greatest ever' discussions if they've got MVP awards and rings. It was even the case for Jordan."

That's true. But I don't like it, nor do I completely agree with it. Waaaaay too much weight is put on rings and awards. I mean, Chauncey Billups has a Finals MVP award. Robert Horry has, what, seven championships with three different teams? How does that equate them with Nash and Karl Malone?

The MVP award is highly political. Championships are organizational accomplishments. If Larry Bird had played his entire career the same way he played in Boston, only he did it with the Pacers and never won a damn thing, he would be -- to me, if not the media and all the so-called experts -- just as great.

Blogger Cortez said...
"...comment to mean that you thought Nash was better than Kidd. Gee, my mistake."

Now who's being silly here?

Of course I think Nash is better than Kidd. My thoughts on that matter aren't in dispute. I've said it at least 4 times now.

The problem for your line of reasoning is that I ALSO said that evaluation is based on my personal preference of point guard skills.

And I ALSO said that I certainly don't think that someone arguing for Kidd is out of their mind.

So it would seem that the only person you are in disagreement with is YOURSELF.

In fact, I explicitly said...

"I'm not really trying to even have an 'argument'"

However you keep saying supporting your position by saying things like Tony Parker kills Nash, as if that was indicative of anything important since Tony Parker kills EVERYBODY.

So to clear it up for you.

a) There IS a legitimate debate to be had on Nash vs. Kidd.

b) I'm on board with Nash in part because he would shit on Kidd's head in a direct matchup despite Kidd's stellar defensive rep. And due to Kidd's less than stellar offensive prowess would be just fine on the defensive end as well.

c) I don't care either way because I don't even make "top 5" lists to evaluate players in the first place. Too many variables for the list to mean anything.

In my mind...

Kevin McHale >>>>>> Karl Malone (or anyone else at the 4)

"Also, blocks don't equal defense, but they are a part of defense."

Blocks are a possible result of defense not the desired outcome.

"But to say if he'd had zero blocks that wouldn't have made any difference is silly"

To say if he didn't play defense would be silly. Blocks in and of themselves are almost near irrelevant.

...Ask Hubie Brown, (or any successful coach for that matter), he'll tell you the same thing every telecast he's a part of.

Blogger Cortez said...
"You have read Cortez's many comments on this blog right? When he starts speaking in hyperbole, he's usually (one assumes) trying to be funny."

Funny?

I really think Nash would take a dump on Kidd's head and front kick Cousy in the nose (in the current day).

Then we would link up right after and bench press boulders and wipe our asses (from crapping on Jason Kidd's head) with mountain lions!

...and I should be working too!

Blogger Cortez said...
"Cortez, I'm curious: can you give me Cortez-style rundown on how you feel about Magic and why?"

Sure thing, then I'm done for the day.

All I'll say about Magic Johnson is...

He ain't no Larry Joe Bird so F'him and his 5 championships!

The only thing he did better than Larry Bird is jump 3 inches higher and smile a lot.

The End.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Mr. Bawful - Cortez may typically use a lot of hyperbole, but for him to make a rather blatant statement that one player is better than another and then to later in the same thread say he never said that is... Well you figure it out (see below).

I tend to agree that when discussing a "who was better" type topic, it's mostly subjective and everyone's criteria will differ. Nevertheless I think it's OK to explain what your criteria is and make your case (like I did with my Bird vs. Nique argument). For me when I try to figure out who the best were, I generally include individual accomplishments and team accomplishments. I think to be considered the best at any position a player must have at least one MVP award and at least one championship. I also think a player should have great individual stats and should demonstrate that greatness over an extended period. You might disagree that some players never played on a team good enough to win it all, or they had their careers cut short due to injuries or whatever, but to me that all factors in. If you were to compile a list of the 10 best players of all time, wouldn't they all be former NBA champions? Who is the greatest player to never win a title, and how high would he rank overall in your opinion?

In many ways a lot of this can boil down to the original player rivalry: Wilt vs. Russell. Who was the better player and why? I can't help but think that the best players of all time should be able to help bring their team a championship at least once; and further, the ones who can do it repeatedly are that much better. There's many of these kinds of debates. What about Elgin Baylor vs. Bird? What about Malone or Barkley vs. Duncan? Stockton vs. Magic, etc.

Robert Horry and Steve Nash are not in this discussion because their individual accomplishments are small. They were on lots of championship teams, but were they ever among the top 3 best players of any team they were on? I don't think so, so how can they be considered the best ever? Bill Walton's not in this discussion because his prime years were so few. Chauncey Billups and Paul Pierce aren't in this discussion because they've never really been in serious MVP contention. And in my opinion, Steve Nash is not in the discussion because he never made it to the Finals. That's just my criteria. If it differs from yours, I can live with that :)

Finally...

Cortez - Can you make some sense out of these statements for me?

- "Steve Nash... Would take a crap on Jason Kidd's head and boot Bob Cousy in the nose."

- "'You're trying to say Nash is obviously far better than Kidd.' You're saying that, not me."

- "Of course I think Nash is better than Kidd. My thoughts on that matter aren't in dispute."

Do you understand my confusion? That's just the tip of the iceberg with you in this thread though. You say on one hand you don't believe in comparing players, then compare McHale to Malone. Then there's that whole thing about how if Jordan had never blocked a shot it wouldn't have affected his defense at all. You're too all over the place and way out there to debate. I'm getting a headache trying to make any bit of sense of what you're saying. It's very unlike you, you're usually quite concise and consistent.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Just for shits and giggles, I ran a head-to-head stat search of Steve Nash versus Tony Parker. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide any advanced stats, but here's the skinny:

In 26 head-to-head matchups, Nash has averaged 17.0 PPG (.468 FG%, .439 3P%, .874 FT%), 9.5 APG, 3.5 RPG. Parker has averaged 19.4 PPG (.486 FG%, .288 3P%, .745 FT%), 4.5 APG, 2.3 RPG.

So Parker had the scoring edge by a couple points but lost almost across the board (including in the all-important rebounding battle).

In those matchups, Parker had five 30-point games to only one for Nash. However, Parker did not have a single double-digit assist game...while Nash had 15.

I'm just saying: rumors of Parkers carving of Nash are somewhat exaggerated. And, for my tastes, I'd rather have my PG setting up his teammates first and shooting second, not the other way around.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Two last things: 14 20-plus point games for Parker, 9 for Nash.

Also, 14 double-doubles for Nashty, zero for TP.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Mr. Bawful - You'll notice that none of those games were playoff games. Meaning they left off last year's series (the last time Nash was in the postseason) where Parker literally ate Nash alive for five games, scoring 26, 32, 41, 18 and 31 against Nash. BTW, a couple weeks later Parker was bottled up by the likes of Derek Fisher to the tune of 18, 13, 20, 23 and 23 in San Antonio's series against the Lakers. And few in the know have ever accused Derek Fisher of being much of a defender, especially against quick PGs like Parker.

Also, I never said Tony Parker was better than Steve Nash, nor did I say he was a better rebounder than him. Kidd was, but Parker wasn't. There's a reason the Spurs were interested in trading Parker for Kidd, after all.

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
It's like you're all allergic to Offensive Rating/Defensive Rating and Win Shares. So many generalizations were made in this thread I started feeling nauseous.

Rundown of the numbers:

Jason Kidd: 1107 games, 106 ORtg, 102 DRtg, 52.9 OWS, 62.5 DWS, (115.4 total)
Steve Nash: 934 games, 118 ORtg, 110 DRtg, 91.5 OWS, 13.8 DWS, (105.3 total)
Magic Johnson: 906 games, 121 ORtg, 104 DRtg, 110.5 OWS, 45.3 DWS, (155.8 total)

So Magic's D really wasn't that bad, both his O and D are better than Nash so any comparison there is poor. It's also clear why Magic wasn't ripped for his D. Magic also blows away Nash and Kidd in Win Shares, even having played in less games.

BTW, USG%, AST%, and TOV% are pretty equal across the board. Kidd obviously is the worst shooter, but Magic actually rebounded better than Kidd. Also, Tony Parker is gay, and enjoys homosexual relations with Tim Duncan. It's true, I read it on the Internet.

Blogger Cortez said...
"Do you understand my confusion?"

Sort of. My posts are long and are filled with hyperbole, nuisance and and simmering anger of a borderline sociopath.

Usually at this point I would attempt to demean you and go off on some random tangent but I like you so I'll take you seriously.

"Steve Nash... Would take a crap on Jason Kidd's head and boot Bob Cousy in the nose."

I think Nash is a better player based on what I think a point guard should be. I've said this many times. Taking a crap was hyperbole.

"'You're trying to say Nash is obviously far better than Kidd.' You're saying that, not me."

The key word in your statement is "obviously".

The word "obviously" make the the sentence a bit different than simply saying Nash is better than Kidd.

I went on to explain why I thought that based on my personal desires & biases.

"Of course I think Nash is better than Kidd. My thoughts on that matter aren't in dispute."

My thought's aren't in dispute on this issue. I think Nash is better than Kidd.

"You say on one hand you don't believe in comparing players, then compare McHale to Malone."

You have to read bit closer.

I said that there are clearly classes/hierarchies of players. Within those classes ranking because less concrete and are dependent on outside variables.

Clearly I "rank" players as only a fool would claim there is little difference between Mitch Richmond and Michael Jordan.

"Then there's that whole thing about how if Jordan had never blocked a shot it wouldn't have affected his defense at all."

Once again you are misreading what I actually said.

I said good defense is irrespective of actually blocking the shot. Which is exactly why the real top notch defender get passed over for tall bums who happen to record a lot of blocked shots despite their piss poor defense.

"You're too all over the place and way out there to debate."

You misinterpretations may be all over the place but my thought process and evaluation is pin point accurate, as usual.

And as an appeal to authority.

B'Awful is right on board with my nonsense.

Your only real dispute seems to be my phrasing of taking a crap on Kidd's head because it couldn't simply be the fact that I like Nash over Kidd because...

You like Kidd over Nash (based on your own rankings)!

Fine. Let's pretend I didn't say that.

...and let's also pretend that Hubie Brown and every other successful coach I know of doesn't downplay the value of blocking shots vs. playing defensive and simply disrupting the offensive flow as they believe, more times than not, attempting a block means you are gambling for a high risk/low reward outcome.

"Then there's that whole thing about how if Jordan had never blocked a shot it wouldn't have affected his defense at all."

One more time...

Blocked shots are the possible (and rare) RESULT of defense.

Blocked shots are not indicative of good one-on-one defense (neither are steals).

Jordan would have still been an excellent defender without blocking a single shot.

Blogger Cortez said...
"bottled up by the likes of Derek Fisher..."

You don't really believe that, do you?

We (you too) just spent damn near the entire playoffs wondering what Phil Jackson was doing running even though he was getting moved around like a turnstyle.

I could probably "bottle up" Parker too if my team's ENTIRE DEFENSIVE SCHEME centered around everyone helping across the lane from the weak side and Gasol, Bynum and Odom was anchoring the middle and my backcourt mate was considered the top perimeter player in the game and Parker still hadn't become a knock down shooter.

No disrespect to Fisher though.

Blogger Japes said...
Also I would add that defense is the LAST quality you look for in a PG. Seriously how many of the all-time great PGs were great defenders?

Magic
Oscar
Isiah
Stockton
Cousy
Frazier
Nash
Kidd
Tiny
Payton

Out of that list I can name 4, Payton, Frazier, Stockton, and Kidd.

And if Nash is one of the "top 10 point guards of all time" how can he not deserve to be in the finals?

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
Cortez: "...and Parker still hadn't become a knock down shooter."

What the f-... this is a joke, right? How the heck can 42.2% on 2-pt jump shots and 29.2% on 3's be considered a knock down shooter? I think you are being blinded by Tony Parker's homosexuality.

Blogger Trev said...
Cortez:"...and after Gary Payton ducked that Jordan match up he isn't shit either in my eyes."

What are you talking about in this instance? If it's the 96 NBA Finals then I think your misremembering. George Karl kept Payton off of Jordan because...well, he's George Karl. He finally switched Payton onto Jordan in Game 4 of the Series. After the switch Jordan went 22-60 and averaged and 23.7 pts in the final 3 games of that series with the Bulls going 1-2. Just sayin'.


Yams: "Chris Paul will probably be in that discussion (maybe even ahead of all of them) by the time he's finished."

Probably!?!? I think you just gave John Hollinger a heart attack. Go back and compare the last two years for Chris Paul to Nashes 2 MVP years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=nashst01&y1=2005&p2=paulch01&y2=2008&p3=nashst01&y3=2006&p4=paulch01&y4=2009

Yams: 5 rings will help answer a lot of questions about how good a player actually is."

Fair enough but which player has Nash played with that equals Kareem, Worthy or hell even a Byron Scott? How differently would Magic's career have turned out if the New Orleans Jazz had not signed Gail Goodrich in 1976? Hold on my mind just exploded thinking about Magic running in New Orleans (because in my world they wouldn't be leaving for Mormonville with Magic around to fill up the Superdome) with Adrian Dantley and Pete Maravich (even if it was an old banged up 32 year old Pistol). Um...what where we talking about again?

Blogger Basketbawful said...
AnacondaHL -- Look, I know you love advanced stats, but did you know: Larry Bird finished in the league's top 10 in Defensive Rating five times during his career? But wait, there's more! Bird finished first in Defensive Win Shares not once, not twice, but THREE times (1979-80, 1983-84, 1985-86). He also finished second three times (1980-81, 1981-82, and 1984-85).

I can honestly say that few people on this earth have watched as much Larry Bird as I have over the years. Those advanced stats paint the picture of an elite defender, right? But Bird was not. Trust me when I say he was not.

And that's one of the reasons I don't trust those numbers.

Blogger Cortez said...
"What the f-... this is a joke, right?"

Believe me, I'm well aware that Parker isn't anywhere close to being a knock down shooter.

"George Karl kept Payton off of Jordan because...well, he's George Karl."

I don't know what the reason was, all I know is he wasn't on him.

"After the switch Jordan went 22-60 and averaged and 23.7 pts in the final 3 games of that series with the Bulls going 1-2. Just sayin'."

I'm not misremembering anything. I just watched ALL of those games withing the past year.

Any offensive "problems" Jordan may have had had little, if anything, to do with Payton.

Game 4 was after a 3-0 deficit so Kudos to them.

Games 5 and 6 were low scoring affairs overall. So Payton certainly didn't do much scoring either.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Honestly my head is spinning from all of this. I will say this, I honestly don't think Kidd is/was better than Nash. I've never thought that. I would say it's acceptable to think that and I could see where one might argue it (as I have tried to do). I think the discussion is an interesting one because both players really set themselves apart from virtually everyone else in the game over the last decade or so for the same reason (their fast breaking ability, court vision and ball handling); and yet both have been very different types of players. If I was picking a team and needed a point guard and my options were Nash as he was as a rookie or Kidd as he was as a rookie I honestly don't know who I'd choose. It probably would come down to who else was on my team and who the coach was.

For instance, I've always been curious what Nash would have looked like if he'd played for the Spurs. On the surface you'd think that would be a poor match, but I've long thought that Parker would probably be thought of as a total zero as a defender if he didn't play for Popovich; and Nash is so seemingly willing to go along with what is best for the team, that the team-first inclusive philosophy of the Spurs probably would suit him. Plus, imagine a Nash-Duncan pick and roll. Yikes.

Regarding the whole getting to the Finals thing/did Nash deserve it, I'm honestly more torn on that than I've let on. Nash has been on some teams with some truly bad luck (Joe Johnson's eye socket, his own nose injury, the Amare suspension, Amare's knee injury), so you never know what might have happened. And yet, some players/teams simply have more force of will than others, and I've never sensed that from any team Nash has been on. Maybe the greatest example of this type of matchup was Bill Russell's last championship, when it appeared that his Celtics were woefully overmatched by the West/Baylor/Wilt Lakers, and yet the Celtics won anyway, as they always did. Obviously no other team has ever been that strong-willed (Jordan's Bulls come closest), but some of those Duncan-led Spurs teams are probably up there. True, they never won back to back, but those teams were tough in a way Nash never was. Nash probably is/was too nice of a guy to really do what was needed to win a title. Like David Robinson, he needed someone else to come along who could add that edge that he lacked. As great a player as Dirk has been, he's too nice also, I think.

I dunno, for all I've always felt about how Nash played the right way and had a great feel for the game, I thought he never really proved willing or able to embrace the selfishness that is occasionally needed to will his team past another. Stockton didn't have that either, and neither did Kidd. It's not really quantifiable to say that (other than the lack of rings), but it's just a feeling I've had.

Trev - You don't think Nash has ever played with anyone as good as Byron Scott was? Wow. IMO it's a rather long list, actually. Magic was teamed with many other great players though, but the league had a far greater concentration of stars per team back then than they do now (and it was even moreso back in the 60s). There's more teams now so it's less stars per team.

Anonymous DKH said...
For me when I try to figure out who the best were, I generally include individual accomplishments and team accomplishments.

Yams thinks Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world, but only because he won the 4x100m relay.

I realize there's no perfect measurement of individual basketball proficiency, but Yams seems to be intentionally overweighting team accomplishments in a comparison of individuals. I think I agree with Bawful on this subject.

Blogger Trev said...
Cortez: I believe the reason Karl gave was he didn't want Payton to get into foul trouble and/or wear down trying to defend Jordan and trying to run the offense. What that got them was an 0-3 hole to try and dig out of, basically what I'm saying is George Karl is an idiot (I think we all know this already though).

All I know is that Jordan having the worst 3 game playoff stretch of his career the second Payton is put on him makes it hard to believe Payton didn't have at least a little effect on Jordan's play. Payton scored 5 points less total than Jordan in games 5 and 6 but that was well in line what Payton was averaging for the Playoffs/regular season that year, Jordan not so much.

Yams: As for the Byron Scott comment, remember that hyperbole thing everyone was talking about earlier?

Really I just brought that up to point out how fuckin' awesome it would be to still have the New Orleans JAZZ . Damn you Gail Goodrich!!

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
Wow Bawful. As cute as your personal anecdotes and FUD mongering on advanced stats is, I'm still inclined to trust the stats on this one. League Average Pace was in the ~102 range back then, (compare to last season's 91.7), and with Larry Bird playing almost every game of those pre-1986 seasons, and with near-top minutes played, it's no wonder his DRtg and DWS were so high. These are normalized by league points per game anyways. However:

1) There is a clear drop-off in his defensive numbers post-1986, which matches with your Larry-Bird-splooge-fandom observations.
2) But I'd have a tough time believing that during his first 7 seasons he wasn't a good defender doing enough to make the Celtics an elite defensive team at worst, or a league elite defender at best, without something beyond "I'm a Bird fan trust me". 8 DRB and 2 STL per game sorta add up to lots of defensive stops.

(shh you can read Dean Oliver's Basketball on paper with Google Books shh).

Blogger Cortez said...
"I believe the reason Karl gave..."

And I'm supposed to believe that Gary Payton's loud mouth disruptive ass simply said, "Yes sir boss"?

Not likely.

He ducked Michael Jordan (or at a minimum, went happily along with the order to duck) until it was too late to matter because he, and Karl, knew that he would get exposed.

"Payton scored 5 points less total than Jordan in games 5 and 6 but that was well in line what Payton was averaging for the Playoffs/regular season that year, Jordan not so much"

All that is 100% true.

Now, send me your address and I will mail you a DVD with games 5 & 6 and you tell me if you still believe Payton did anything to "slow down" Jordan.

The entire game was slow and low scoring. The "glove" was in a 3-0 deficit from the get go in part because he, and his coach, knew that he could match up with Jordan so he, they, whatever, ducked him.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
DKH - ??? Usain Bolt competes in an individual sport, let's just keep this relegated to basketball (unless you're like Trev and you're mixing your hyperbole with legit arguments, it's tough to tell in straight text).

In any event, I don't know how you can tell how much I'm weighting one thing versus another. I factor it all in equally. IMO Nash is not as good as Magic Johnson because not only were his individual accomplishments not as impressive, not only was Nash not as good for nearly as long as Magic was, but Nash's teams never had the success of Magic's either. To me that takes into account how good Magic as an individual was, for how long, and also how good he made his team/teammates. If I compared Nash to Stockton, I'd say Nash's two MVPs are the only things really going for him, as overall Stockton's numbers were better, both in individual seasons and in the long haul, Stockton was an all around better player, and Stockton's teams had more success than Nash's, so I'd give the edge to Stockton. When comparing Nash and Kidd it's less clear, because their individual accomplishments are similar and their teams' success are relatively close as well. To me that one could go either way.

Does that make sense?

If a guy just has phenomenal stats for a long time but his teams never win (i.e. Elgin Baylor), then to me that ranks him below someone like Bird because Bird was the centerpiece of three championship teams. Similarly I'm inclined to rank Russell ahead of Wilt, because I do honestly believe that ultimately basketball is a team game, rather than a contest of one man versus another, so yes, winning games and championships should factor in as much as individual awards and statistics.

This is why Jordan is, to me, the greatest player of all time (one of the greatest offensive players ever, one of the greatest defensive players ever, racked up both individual accolades and stats as well as team success). It's also why by that same measure I put Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as the second greatest player of all time. I know it's subjective and I know all of that would be disputed, but it's my criteria and it makes sense to me. I can understand why other people might only care (or mostly care) about an individual's stats or awards, but I think the amount they contributed to their team's success is equally important. I don't think I'm alone in that either. And just to prove I'm not weighting team success too much, you'll notice I've got Russell and his 11 championships ranked below both Jordan & Kareem's half dozen each.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I can't believe I just 20 minutes reading all of that. I think I learned a valuable lesson here, that Steve Nash needs to wear a better disguise in China.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
Et tu, AnacondaHL?

Blogger Trev said...
Cortez: And I'm supposed to believe that Gary Payton's loud mouth disruptive ass simply said, "Yes sir boss"?

Actually no, I remember reading somewhere that he bitched and moaned about it the entire time begging Karl to put him on Jordan. I'm not saying Payton stopped Jordan or that he did it all by himself (he didn't he had help from Hawkins) but you can't say he didn't slow Jordan down or bug the shit out of him in those last 3 games when he was assigned to guard him.

As for the games being low scoring I don't really care. Jordan shot the ball 19, 22 and 19 times in those final 3 games which was around the same pace he was firing them up in the first 3 games. The difference? He shot 46% in the first 3 games to 37%. Seems to me like Payton may have bugged him a bit.

I'll go with Karl being a moron and not adjusting quickly more than I will say Payton was "ducking" his Airness. I mean this is the same coach that managed to lose to an #8 seed in the playoffs. And didn't we just see him blow 2 winnable games against the Lakers when his team couldn't figure out how to inbound the ball properly?

If your serious about sending me game 5 and 6 on DVD to prove me wrong email me at slowchild25@yahoo.com and I'll give you my address. I'm trying to download them right now but they are moving pretty slow.

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
Bawful: Atleast the 2nd stab wound was fatal. The other 21 are my stabs of bro-love.

Anonymous Arlen said...
"I can't believe I just 20 minutes reading all of that. I think I learned a valuable lesson here, that Steve Nash needs to wear a better disguise in China."

lolol, amen to that.

Anonymous Shiv said...
Speaking of hyperbole:

Lets say Lebron James came into the league, averaged 30 points, 8 rebounds and 5 assists, led the Cavs to a 62-20 record and a top seed in the East. Would you begrudge him an MVP award? What if he died in a car crash the day after? Would he be considered one of the greatest of all time? Would you begrudge him his MVP because he never got his Championship and never became a hall of famer?

The fact remains that for those 2 seasons, Nash was quite clearly the most important player to his team in the league. And his team was one of the best in the league, if not THE best during the regular season. Why does it matter if he is or isn't on the list of top-10 point guards of all time?

Yes, he was a defensive liability, a drawback made more glaring by fact that there was and has never been an intimidating post presence covering his mistakes like Parker has with Duncan or Paul had with Chandler. But, without him his team was sub-500. With him they were elite. You can't argue with that. AND, unlike Dirk, Nash is pretty damn clutch too.

OpenID NarSARSsist said...
Damn it, the one day I was out I miss out on an awesome debate. Is there any way to rewind time so that I can jump in? F*** me.

Blogger Cortez said...
That's all I was going to do was download them again.

http://bt.davka.info/torrents/davka/06. ... vi.torrent

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Shiv - If a player like LeBron came into the league and played one season like the one you're referring to, but then didn't win the title that year and died in a car wreck that summer, I wouldn't "begrudge" him winning an MVP award, but I wouldn't put him anywhere near the "greatest ever" lists either. He'd be in the Bill Walton category of "what could have been" I suppose.

In any event, Nash didn't die after starting his career with one (or three) great seasons. Nash kicked around for 8 seasons of decent to pretty good ball, then exploded for three of the best seasons ever seen by a PG, and presumably age or personnel/coaching changes (Shaq in, D'Antoni out) have now dropped him back down to just being pretty good. Speaking of which...

"Yes, he was a defensive liability, a drawback made more glaring by fact that there was and has never been an intimidating post presence covering his mistakes like Parker has with Duncan or Paul had with Chandler." Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nash just complete a full season playing alongside an All Star center? Yeah, he did. And his team didn't make the playoffs. Thanks for playing.

Blogger Basketbawful said...
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nash just complete a full season playing alongside an All Star center? Yeah, he did. And his team didn't make the playoffs. Thanks for playing."

Yams...please tell me your kidding? I mean, you MUST be. Because Shaq doesn't provide a fraction of the defensive help that Tim Duncan does.

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
Instead of bringing up DRtg yet again to show Shaq's decline in defensive effectiveness (protip: compare his DRtg to the team's overall DRtg), I'll just link the 09-10 Eastern Conference predictions, which assumes not one, but two teams with sub-.500 records will make the playoffs again, and point a giant fat middle finger towards anyone mentioning the 45-win Suns missing the playoffs last year. Seriously, [word KG mouths on the sidelines] you.

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
46-win Suns. Like twisting the knife in my own eye.

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Mr. Bawful - Shaq doesn't provide a fraction of the defensive help that Tim Duncan does, but that isn't what I said. Read Shiv's statement again: "there was and has never been an intimidating post presence covering his mistakes." Now I'm no fan of Shaq, and I do think that Shaq traded the Suns' success for his own personal achievements, but the fact does remain that whether we like it or not Shaq is still an "intimidating post presence", especially in a season in which the coaches around the league vote him to the All Star team.

But step back from all this for a second and look at what an asinine argument Shiv is making. He's saying Nash really isn't a bad defender, he just never had Tim Duncan behind him, so he appears to be bad. Focus on that. Nash is a sieve, period. That would still be the case if he had Bill Russell behind him. All that would mean is that Russ would probably finish the year with a career high in blocks from all the guys Nash would have said "Ole!" to as they breezed past him.

Either way, if you guys think Shaq is a poor example, then how bout all the years Nash played with Shawn Bradley in Dallas. Bradley at least (unlike Shaq) led the league in blocks one year, and in 4 of the years he played with Nash he was in the top 10 in blocks (twice he was in the top 3). That definitely puts him in the same realm as Tyson Chandler as an "intimidating post presence" when it comes to weakside shotblocking help to cover for the defensive deficiencies of a point guard. Wouldn't you agree?

Blogger Japes said...
Yams, it sounds to me like you're just hating now. You're actually comparing Shawn Bradley to Tyson Chandler in terms of weakside shotblocking? Really?

Blogger Wild Yams said...
Japes, it sounds to me like you've got a reading comprehension problem. Or maybe you're too lazy to look this stuff up, I dunno. In reality Tyson Chandler has never been anywhere near the shot blocker Shawn Bradley was. He might be a better player or whatever, but he's nowhere near the shot blocker. Chandler's best season average for blocks was 1.8 per game, which he did twice (his career average is 1.4). Shawn Bradley, meanwhile, only recorded less than 2 blocks per game three times in his 12 year career (his career average was 2.5). Like I said, Bradley actually led the league in blocks one year, while Chandler's never even been in the top 10 before.

I know Shawn Bradley's a big white goofball and all that, but the dude definitely racked up a whole lot of blocks, and many of those came when he was protecting the rim from guys Nash was supposed to be defending.

Blogger Cortez said...
"I know Shawn Bradley's a big white goofball and all that, but the dude definitely racked up a whole lot of blocks"

This is exactly the line of thinking I was trying to get you away from yesterday. Shawn Bradley was a...wait for it...

A DEFENSIVE LIABILITY despite his high number of blocks.

To use a favorite analogy of mine...

Shawn Bradley is to blocks as Inspector Gadget is to solving capers. They typically fall ass backwards into any success they have.

"but he's nowhere near the shot blocker."

That's 100% true and wholly irrelevant to his (or any meaningful) point.

Bradley got a lot of blocks because everyone in the league knew challenging him was more times than not (much more) a good offensive plan.

"That definitely puts him in the same realm as Tyson Chandler as an "intimidating post presence" when it comes to weakside shotblocking help to cover for the defensive deficiencies of a point guard. Wouldn't you agree?"

No.

Blogger Japes said...
Nice Yams, unlike you, I will not resort to insults to get my point across. I don't have to look up stats because I've seen both Chandler and Bradley play many many times. If you know anything about ball (which I know you do), you would agree with me that Chandler is a much much much better weakside help defender than Shawn freaking Bradley. It's not even close. Not by a mile.

Blogger Cortez said...
"...He's saying Nash really isn't a bad defender."

He didn't say that, period. Here's what he actually said.

"Yes, he was a defensive liability, a drawback made more glaring by fact that there was and has never been an intimidating post presence covering his mistakes"

That's a hell of a lot different than what you're claiming he said.

Blogger AnacondaHL said...
What's with the Shawn Bradley hate? Sure he was goofy and tall and white, and maybe even overpaid, but he put up with it and produced solid numbers. Hell, even produced better after his "paycut".

At age 30, his 2002-03 year ratings were an outstanding 121/96 (team was 110.7/102.3).

Tyson Chandler has also put up good numbers. If you're asking specifically about weakside defence, beats me. But as overall defenders both seem pretty good, neither as a "defensive liability" atleast.

Blogger Japes said...
I got nothing against Bradley. In fact, I'd kill to be him. 7' 6" millionaire and more posters than all the superstars combined. I'm just saying, if I can't guard my man (like Nash), I would much rather have Chandler behind me manning the paint than Shawn Bradley.

OpenID NarSARSsist said...
AnacondaHL - That's a pretty damn impressive offensive/defense split for even if it all came against scrubs, let alone including 39 starts. On the flip side of the coin though, what's with the Little General? 97/106? You would think that with Bradley playing more than half the season as LaFrentz's backup, the two would have a solid amount of overlapping time, so damn if AJ didn't really suck it up the rest of the time.

Blogger Trev said...
Was just looking over at Basketball Reference and damn the 96-97 Suns had a pretty good PG situation eh?

Kevin Johnson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash and the immortal Rumeal Robinson!

Blogger Wild Yams said...
I don't know what else to say. I was just refuting a rather uninformed statement by Shiv that Nash had never played with any kind of defensive presence around the rim, and I provided two examples. I think a lot of people in this thread are on pro-Nash autopilot and will just refute anything which could possibly cast him in a bad light, and that includes supporting the aforementioned ill informed statement. We just disagree, and that's fine with me :)

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Grunching here, but 03-04 mavs were easily the worst of the mavs teams in their run, so the whole "mavs got better after nash left" is absurd. Their best nash team was 02-03 where they had a damn good chance of getting to the finals if not for a series-ending injury to dirk and an unreal game by steve kerr's corpse. And obviously if they had gotten to the finals, they would have f'd the nets in the a.

Blogger Cortez said...
"...and I provided two examples."

You provided two bad examples. An aged Shaq and a fucking bum (and known defensive liability) who happened to be 7'6"

Not that this proves shit but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Bradley

"Bradley, who was very thin, had a tough time against the physical centers and forwards of his generation and had a reputation for being inconsistent and not aggressive when it came to defense."

Bradley was a fucking bum offensively and defensively.

And looking at how you manage to keep "misinterpreting" everyone's statements it seem that it is you on autopilot.

I repeat...

Bradley got a lot of blocks because everyone in the league knew challenging him was more times than not (much more) a good offensive plan.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Those early 2000 Mavs played a lot of zone with Bradley in the middle, which is a recipe for a) mediocre defense and b) Bradley to get weakside blocks on penetration.

Just sayin'

Anonymous Anonymous said...
nash could've taken a lesson from Phil Laak, IYAM.

Links to this post:
Create a Link