Comments on: Nash more than just a D’Antoni player

By: DC

DC — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:40:18 +0000

Wasn’t Nash’s last season with Dallas the Toine and Tawn season?

That Dallas team was built to implode: no D from any starter, a known poor-shooting shot-jacker who didn’t get enough shots to justify his existence on the team (Toine), a solid offensive player and rebounder who can play within any system but is an even worse defender than Nowitzki (Tawn), and the previous Dallas big three. All of them clamoring for their shots. That’s why Toine was sulking for most of that season and was pretty much batshit useless.

There’s a reason why Nash ‘only’ averaged 14 and 89that season, and Simmons failed to take that into account in his argument. Before Toine and Tawn came into town, Nash was averaging 17 and 8 for Dallas, which is not much different from his stats on the Suns besides fewer assists.

By: EP

EP — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:25:28 +0000

I take issue with the idea that the Suns “don’t need Nash to be the same kind of point guard.” Which kind of PG do you mean? An MVP-caliber PG? You’re saying the Suns don’t need Nash to be an MVP-caliber PG? Is that because they’re doing so well they can afford not to utilize all their talent? The Suns are a middle-level team, not a contender. It’s true they have a different style than in past years, but if Nash is capable of MVP-caliber play this year, it’s ludicrous to say the Suns don’t need it. They need it. It’s just that Nash is not capable of delivering that kind of play. I’m afraid the Nash bubble has burst.

By: PC

PC — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:21:02 +0000

Its just funny how Gary Payton and Jason Kidd (among others) have averaged the same numbers for their entire careers as Nash's numbers in his best 2 seasons but they've never really been considered for an MVP – and yet Nash somehow has 2. In fact those guys have helped take their teams to the Finals which is further than Nash has ever been with Phoenix.

Here's another point that is a touchy topic but it needs to be addressed. We all know David Stern is trying to steer the NBA's image as a hip-hop gangsta franchise into a "whiter" more wholesome one. I can understand why he wants this. I haven't heard of a business that didn't think catering to its largest market isn't important, but what I don't understand is the way its being done. OK, no street clothes or bling bling allowed on the sidelines – fair enough, but I believe politics had something to do with Nash being voted MVP TWICE, I mean what better way to attract interest from a country with 30 million people that really only care about Hockey – I know! We'll make a player from Canada a legend, a superstar, one of the best ever – besides we're tired of giving it to those black guys who can jump out of the building that we can NEVER relate to, lets give it to the little guy, he's a nice guy why not. I'll tell you why not, because it is an insult to Kareem, Bird, Magic, Moses, Jordan, Russell, Duncan, Wilt, and others who have defined the NBA. Its an insult to the the greats who play today like Duncan, Shaq, Kobe. But most importantly its an insult to the fans for trying to make them believe that Nash is nothing less than the best PG to ever play in the game but only had 2 decent seasons. I think an asterisks is in order. *

By: Irk

Irk — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:55:22 +0000

How can someone without any D can win MVP award consecutively?..Kareem, Bird, Magic, Moses, Jordan, Russell, Duncan, Wilt … and Nash.. Look at these players and think twice..Is it really fair ? I think Bill Simmons got a point

By: Ivan

Ivan — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:51:14 +0000

Nash second MVP was more worthy than his first, I remember other players having better numbers than him that first year, but either they didn´t play enough games or their teams played poorly. I think that Nash winning that first MVP was in part because the voters saw an opportunity to reward a style of play that was not selfish, from a position that had not win since Magic (Allen Iverson is a shooting guard, he doesn’t create enough game for others to be considered a truly point, his numbers are awesome, but he is a 2G) and (I say it meaning no offence to anyone), because he represented a minority in the NBA that had no win an MVP since Bird. He was as worthy as the others mainly because in the pool of candidates there was not a single one that was leaps ahead of the others. I guess that now with the benefit of hindsight many people think that he should have not win 2 MVPs. But in his second MPV he did was the one candidate leaps ahead of the others mainly because his numbers were up, the others were down, and his team was doing better, it would have been against the logic and the principles of what is an MVP not to vote him MVP. Having said that, I do think he should have not win that first MPV, that should have been Shack´s, but his numbers were way down his average, and that’s the problem of numbers, they misguide you sometimes of what a players really means for a team.

By: Pinky

Pinky — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:20:37 +0000

Itchandscratchy is right.

By: Michael Schwartz

Michael Schwartz — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:25:17 +0000

I don’t think you give Duhon enough credit. Keep in mind he’s averaging almost 40 minutes per game, whereas he was mainly a backup playing in the 20s for Chicago. He’s also the primary distributor for the Knicks, with no Kirk Hinrich to deal with. Even with Hinrich in the same backcourt, he averaged more assists per 40 minutes as a rookie for the Bulls in 04-05, and his 8.5 a/40 this season are within two dimes per game of every season average of his career. That’s not to say D’Antoni’s system hasn’t made a difference in Duhon’s stats, because like with the Nash argument it clearly has. I’m just pointing out Duhon’s numbers haven’t blown up thaaaaaat much, and a serviceable point guard like him isn’t going to start averaging 11 assists per game and winning multiple MVPs just because he’s playing under D’Antoni.

By: itchandscratchy

itchandscratchy — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:59:39 +0000

Simmons didn’t say that Nash went from terrible to MVP, he said that he was a player that was slightly better than Mark Price and the system created numbers that made him a two time MVP. I have to agree. Price was a very good player and his numbers were 18 and 8, shot 40% from 3 and 90% from the line which is almost exactly what Nash’s numbers were during his 4 years at Dallas. Price was good but he wasn’t MVP good and so he never got any real MVP consideration. Part of the problem was that the played during a time when there were lots of great point guards but the other thing was that there were a lot of better MVP candidates. What Simmons is saying is that Nash then went to play in a system that inflated his numbers so much that it convinced voters that he was MVP worthy when he was pretty much the same player as before. Simmons doesn’t give Nash enough credit for winning games as the Suns did win a lot of games but so did Price’s Cavs and Stockton’s Jazz for that matter. The problem that I have is that he won an MVP and even worse, 2 MVP’s which should be reserved for some of the leagues best ever. Take a look at your own team and you can see what a farce his MVP trophies are when even Shaq has only won one MVP during his long amazing career. Kobe has only won one. Barkley only won one. Stockton, Payton, Kevin Johnson, and Isiah Thomas, all of whom were better point guards than Nash never placed higher than third in MVP voting during their careers. Simmons other good point is that Nash is an awful defender and if you only play one side of the ball then you shouldn’t get MVP consideration. DH’s dont win MVP’s because they don’t play half the game and niether should point guards that regularly get lit up by opposing point guards. If Nash played lock down defense and averaged less assists, I would consider him a more worthy MVP candidate. I like Nash, he is a great offensive point guard and is maximized in a system that emphasizes offense and shuns defense but he was no MVP worthy and never should be.

By: Pinky

Pinky — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:34:00 +0000

Chris Paul could have done what Nash did in the D’Antoni years, maybe better.

By: iggy

iggy — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:48:21 +0000

All you need to know about Steve Nash is that he’s all about team play and has been at the helm of the NBA’s most efficient offense each of the last ten years. It’s a team oriented statistic, that’s true, but it’s a Rodman/Wilt like statistical dominance that followed Steve when he moved from Dallas to Phoenix.

The reason Steve is a 2-time MVP is simple: the first year he took an essentially unchanged team from 29 wins to 62 wins, his only competition was Shaq, the margin of victory was pretty slim and it could have gone either way; in the second year he won because the 4 players behind him split their share of the MVP vote fairly evenly.

But lets be clear: what Simmons should really be complaining about is the poor quality of coaching and player evaluation in the NBA. That it took Steve 10 years to find a system that maximized his abilities, is a disgrace, and we’re all the poorer for it. I can only imagine how many years of greatness we would have seen if Steve had played for Jerry Sloan, Greg Popovich or Phil Jackson his entire career.