Comments on: The Nash Conundrum: Four Years Later

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:50:04 +0000

Those attempting to knock Nash by claiming that his leaving Dallas in 2004 caused the Mavs to improve by 6 games need to review the rosters a bit. From 2004 to 2005, the Mavs lost Nash, Antawn Jamison (played a lot off the bench), Antoine Walker (started and played 35 awful minutes a night – 43% FG, 27% 3-PTFG, 55% FT – yes, those percentages are right), Tony Delk, and Danny Fortson. They gained Jerry Stackhouse, Jason Terry, a still functioning Keith Van Horn (12.2 PPG and much more efficient than Walker), Erick Dampier, and rookie Devin Harris. The Mavs’ personnel wasn’t as suited to Nash’s game in 2004: besides Dirk (who wasn’t playing on the perimeter as much as he later did), only Jamison and Michael Finley were decent to good 3-point shooters. Speaking of Dirk, he was more efficient the year after Nash left, largely because he was playing with a real center in Dampier (despite what Shaq might say). That freed up Dirk to roam the perimeter and be more of a playmaker. Ironically, he also got more rebounds in 2005.

So there are a lot of factors that changed in Dallas between 2004 and 2005 besides Nash leaving. We now know the offensive system that fits Nash best: an athletic big to run the PNR with (Amare), good/efficient 3-point shooters, athletic wings (Marion, Joe Johnson), and run, run, run. The 2004 Mavs were pretty good at those things, but that wasn’t exactly their system.

Here’s the change from several Suns’ players from 2004 to 2005: Amare (2004: 20.6 PPG, 47.6 Adj FG%; 2005: 26.0 PPG, 56.0 Adj FG%), Marion (2004: 47.4 Adj FG%; 2005: 52.0 Adj FG%); Joe Johnson (2004: 46.2 Adj FG%; 53.6 Adj FG%). Of course there were several factors that changed in Phoenix from 2004 to 2005; Nash happened to be the biggest change, and everyone else became much more efficient because of it. Whether he deserved to be a 2-time MVP is a valid debate; whether he made teams and players better and more efficient really is not.

By: LRob

LRob — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:06:26 +0000

Nash is the only MVP winner in NBA History that has NEVER played in the NBA finals. And he's a back to back MVP. That says it all. Very good player. An All-Star but definitely not an MVP. The biggest argument I had for Shaq winning in 2005 is the team he left went in the tank while the team Nash left won 58 games...wow. Young hoop lovers 20 years from now will wonder how did Steve Nash win 2 MVP titles and never make it to the NBA finals. While superior pg's like Isiah, Stockton and Kidd didn't win any MVP's and other all time greats like Kobe and Shaq only won one apiece. In the words of Ricky Ricardo the MVP voters will have some splaining to do!

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:36:01 +0000

I've been a Suns fan since the days of Connie Hawkins, but I also loathe him personally for his belligerent left wing opinions, so I have a clear mind about Nash. And I must say that after watching him closely, he must be one of the top five offensive players in NBA history. Since he's arrived in Phoenix, the Suns have led the league in scoring five out of six years, frequently by large margins. Name me four other people in NBA history who have had that kind of effect on a team's offense At first I wanted to believe that it was Dantoni's system, but the Suns kept leading the league in scoring even after the system and coach changed. And as for Amare, I'm convinced that he was the beneficiary of Nash's brilliance, not the other way around. Amare has some nice moves and can dunk like a beast, but Nash is the superior offensive player. Amare is a good offensive player but Nash is an amazing offensive player. Seeing as how the two are playing for separate teams this year, we may be able to get some perspective as to who was the engine and who was the rider. On the other hand, Nash is a below average defensive player, which probably undercuts any serious claim for MVP. Now if there were an award for Offensive player of the year, I think Nash could have won that three or four times. On the OTHER other hand, Nash has always been content to play for far less than he's worth. ($13 mil last year, compared to $23 mil for Kobe) So take that into account when you assess his value. I know that if I had to start a team from scratch, the first player I would pick is Steve Nash at $13 million

By: Nate D.

Nate D. — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:22:02 +0000

I know I'm about 8 months late to this debate. But this topic is without question the one that has fired me up the most in NBA debates over the last 5 years. I strongly agree with most of the opinons already stated rebuking Nash's MVP worthiness especially in '05. I'd like to add to that evidence the fact that the team that Steve Nash fled to run with the Suns was actually BETTER without him!!! Yes the Dallas Mavericks went from a 52-win team with Nash in '04 to being a 58-win without Nash in '05. In my opinion that is a more difficult improvement than Nash "transforming" the Suns into a contender with the help of TWO other All-Stars help that Dirk Nowitzki has NEVER enjoyed in Dallas yet HE without Nash carried the Mavs to the finals in '06, a desination that a Steve Nash team has never reached! A season in which Dirk not Nash led the league in PER and WS. Making that the 5 out of 6 seasons (6 out of 7 after '07) that Dirk was in the top 3 in WS in the entire league! FIVE years in the TOP 2!! Nash wasn't even in the top 2 on his OWN TEAM in '05!!! So Neil thank you for giving me a forum in which to release some of the remaining pent up bitterness that I had towards Steve Nash's unworthy MVP selections.

By: Daniel Bui

Daniel Bui — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:57:03 +0000

@Gabe

Which one doesn't belong? I'd say Jordan

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 16 May 2009 06:38:14 +0000

A large part of Marion and Stoudemire's games are dunks. Nash didn't just get assists when playing with those players. He set those players up pefectly. He got no-doubt about it assists. He was also the best shooter in the league, among the best at the very least.

By: steve norris

steve norris — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:07:53 +0000

thanx alot for answering my question. i think if you win 2 mvps you should atleast make it to the finals once. i think kg or shaq should have won in 05 and kobe in 06. nash had alot of offensive stats playing in a run n gun backyard style. when you saw the good teams put him in a halfcourt he was less effective. like the spurs. nash is not a top 5 point guard

By: TSW

TSW — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:04:27 +0000

Attributing Marion's decline since leaving Phoenix to not being "propped up" by Nash isn't any more valid than the argument that Nash was propping him up in the first place. There's no question that the two made a formidable duo -- Nash's creative passing found a perfect match in Marion's relentless cutting, running the floor, and finishing. As a thought experiment -- replace Marion with Kwame Brown. First, Kwame never cut with the vigor (or frequency) or ran the floor like Marion. Second, Kwame wouldn't have been able to catch the ball in traffic, which means that those daring (and amazing passes) become turnovers instead of dunks or layups. Third, Kwame couldn't finish at the hoop like Marion, which means that even if he made the cut and caught the ball (dubious assumptions), a fair number of those plays would not have become scores. Marion's decline likely has something to do with not playing with Nash, but it also has a lot to do with playing a different position in a different system; with injuries; and with getting older -- he's 30 now. And it's also worth noting that Nash's assists dropped when Marion went elsewhere.

By: Romain

Romain — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:24:57 +0000

Let's not forget that Nash came close to winning 3 MVP titles in a row, in 2007 Nowitzki had 1138 pts and Nash 1013. Can you imagine that?? Not even MJ won 3 in a row...

In 2005 I would have voted for Shaq, as his presence immediately turned Miami into a contender. And by the way I still cannot believe that Nash has won more MVP titles than Shaq, I mean, come oooooooooooon !!! For anybody who saw Shaq play during the 2000-02 title runs, it's absolute non sense. I see that Garnett is also mentioned, but he did not even make the play offs that year so there is no way he should have won it.

In 2006 I think Kobe deserved it, even though his team was not good his scoring was just historical. James also deserved it more than Nash but he was just 21 at the time and still had a lot of room to improve as we've seen since.

Overall Nash was clearly All-Star and All-NBA worthy during those years, but he is by far the most overrated multiple MVP in the history of the league. He has played with many good or even great players in his career (D. Nowitzki, M. Finley, A. Stoudemire, S. Marion, S. O'Neal) and has never even made it to the NBA Finals as his teams were constantly bullied by bigger opponents (the Spurs most of the time)

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 11 May 2009 03:31:22 +0000

Gabe, which one doesn't belong?

You're not even worthy of typing their names.