I thought this debate was interesting because both guys were drafted in '96, they're two of the best small guards in the modern era (though at 6'3'', Nash is actually closer in size to Jason Kidd than he is to Iverson), and Nash gets so much more media hype and love than AI. So I put the question to the other players in one of my fantasy leagues (ugh...don't ask me why I joined a league with no injured list and 14-player rosters - the dumbest fantasy format I've ever seen). Actually, I asked two questions: who's had the better career and who would you rather have running your team? The consensus was for AI on the first part, for predictable reasons (took his team to the finals, more of a franchise player, been great for 12 years vs just 6 years for Nash, etc.). Here's my thoughts on the subject - I figured this was one of my better rants, best not let it go to waste.
"I agree, AI is the better player.
The [reasons above] covered most of the best arguments for AI, but I'd also add the fact that AI has been the tougher player. Even though AI has played well over 40 minutes per game, he never runs out of gas at the end of the season, unlike Nash, who has looked tired in the playoffs the last two years. I'm not saying Nash is soft, but it's crazy how durable and tough AI is - he never gets tired!
While Nash is an atrocious defender, AI is also pretty bad on D - he gambles a lot for steals and always seems out of position, despite his athletic ability. He may be marginally better than Nash, only because I don't see teams isolate against AI the same way they exploit Nash (watch what Nellie does with Baron, for example; Pop also does it with Parker, when Tony's not playing like Eva). Nash's D literally costs his team games, which is why [I can't believe] that he actually won MVP twice.
For the same reasons AI's had a better career, I'd rather have him on my team. Nash fits in easier with teams because of his passing. But if you surround AI with guys who play defense, you'll have a better team, because AI will come up bigger in crunch time. He's been better than Nash in the playoffs, and I think he'll give you a better chance of winning a ring.
Denver's problem right now is that they don't have enough of a defensive mentality to make up for AI (and Melo) not playing any damn defense. That's why there's a real chance AI will bolt when he hits free agency (next summer? two years?). My Pistons should be under the cap by 2009. Hmmm...
Oh yeah, and I was partially inspired by this:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7650438
bullspit article, where Rosen proves that Nash's teammates are better then AI's, then uses it to argue that Nash is better than AI. I like how the numbers show AI had the better game, so he has to use some other arguments to prove his point."
AI is an extremely talented offensive player, especially for a guy only six feet tall. But he doesn't make those around him better nearly as much as Nash does. I don't know how effective AI would be if he weren't scoring. Regarding Nash's two MVPs, whether he deserved them or not is debateable. But then I usually don't put a lot of stock in awards that are voted on anyway, since there's so much subjectivity.
@Ricko - If the people voting are in a position to know something, like the NBA coaches, then I put stock in it, but having the PRESS vote for the MVP is like having game show hosts vote select the brain surgeon of the year. MVP's shouldn't be the media's vote, it should be the coaches -- or at least there should be another award, the coaches' Player of the Year or something.
Hoffman did a great blog last year comparing Tim Duncan's career accomplishments to Shaq's. If Tim isn't a better player, than at least he is VERY comparable, and yet how long have we been listening to the media tell us about how dominate Shaq is.
Yeah, Shaq is dang good, but what Shaq also is, is fun. He's a good interview. He is a media darling. Tim is a good guy, but frankly, he is boring so the media never gets too juiced about him.
Nash is another media darling -- not that he also isn't a fantastic player, but Iverson, on the other hand, has had a thug image. It took a long time of outstanding playing for the media to begrudgingly accept him. Rather than attack his image though, they attack his scoring and lack of passing.
Let's face it: when people say someone makes others around them better, what they are REALLY saying is he passes to teammates when they are in a position to score. He isn't really making them better, he is making them look better by improving their scoring average. No one says a lousy shooter makes the people around him better because he causes his teammates to get more rebounds ... we are just talking about points here.
Rats. I hate it when they truncate your message; why can't they warn you when you post comment and give you a chance to edit it?
Hopefully I can remember what I was saying.
Whether or not you prefer Nash to AI might be cultural, but it also might be what a team needs. Do you need scorers, or do you have scorers who need someone to get them the ball where they can do what they do?
Finally, we all love to love the assist leaders, but in reality, there hasn't been an assist leader with a championship ring since the 1980s.
Scoring champions, however, have been in 10 of the last 17 NBA Finals.
The most valuable players are probably those who are almost unstoppable by team defenses, but contribute much more than points, especially defensively.
The ONLY thing AI does better than Nash is score. Neither player is a defensive stalwart. Nash shoots better from the field, line and beyond the arc. Q Rich, Tim Thomas, Raja Bell and Boris Diaw all magically got better when teamed with Nash.. I can't think of an individual player whom AI has done that for.
Had Nash (still a strong possibility) taken his team to one Finals, I doubt we'd even have a serious discusion about who the better PG is.
AI is a great offensive talent, but at the end of the day, Nash is a better overall player.
Well, I bet Nash WOULD beat Iverson in a game of HORSE, but if you put them head to head in a game of one on one, I bet Iverson would take Nash's lunch money.
This may be one of those instances where stats don't tell the complete story.
Iverson has been a one man band most of his career. Hamper his scoring, hamper the Sixers chances of winning. Consequently, defenses have been doing a LOT more to hurt Iverson's shooting than they have Nash's over the course of his career.
And Iverson can create shots where Nash can't. So while Iverson's shooting percentage may be worse, he was also able to create scoring opportunities for himself where Nash would have to pass -- literally.
Good discussion y'all. Here's my latest weighing in on the issue:
"...are you saying that Nash at his peak was/is better than AI at his peak, or more valuable? There's a big difference there.
If you're saying better, then I think we covered the reasons why I'd argue that AI was better. But let me say one more thing about AI in his prime: I've never seen a more explosive scorer other than Jordan. No-one else, not even Kobe (yet), took over quarters and halves of playoff games as completely as he did when Philly was contending in the early part of the decade. The spurts he would go on, particularly in the series against Toronto and Milwaukee, were just awesome to watch.
But it sounds like you were saying that Nash was/is more valuable during his prime because he's more unique than AI (justifying the MVPs). Is Nash more unique? I'd say so, when you factor in his shooting and his creativity as a passer. You could argue though that AI is just as unique because he's better than all of the other scoring points. And I don't agree that uniqueness makes one player more valuable than another. For MVP purposes, value means (or should mean, who knows how MVP votes are decided these days) how much a team actually relies on the player.
It's also interesting to point out that AI and Nash are close enough that the outcome of this debate could be decided in the next few years, based on how the Suns and Nuggs do in the playoffs."
Also, upsguy and CAMike, what y'all are saying highlights how much more help Nash has had than AI throughout his career. That's why Na
Also, upsguy and CAMike, what y'all are saying highlights how much more help Nash has had than AI throughout his career. That's why Nash's career record is better, and that's why you don't remember who AI has "made better" over the years. (By the way, I agree with Tom, the whole "making players better" is media BS talk.)
But if you want some names, how about Aaron McKie? Eric Snow? George ####? Jumaine Jones (got a fat contract after his play in the '01 playoffs that he never lived up to)? All guys who not-so-magically put up better stats playing with AI than they did elsewhere.
(FYI Tom, after losing numerous blog posts and comments b/c of Fox's technical dumbness, I obsessively copy everything I write to the clipboard before clicking "post." Since I started it, it's saved years of my lifespan.)
Last edited by NBAGuru on January 22nd at 2:04 PM.
@NBAGuru - Thanks for the tip! Believe it or not, I've already been doing that today on my comments since that message was truncated.
I have a hard time comparing these two; it is almost as if they don't play the same position. Iverson kind of plays like a small 2 (shooting guard) who dribbles too much.
Iverson dominates the ball, daring defenses to stop him, and if they can, he passes to a teammate who often can easily score thanks to how Iverson scrambled the defense.
Nash dominates the ball until he sees an opportunity to score -- for him or a teammmate.
To me though, the opposite of Iverson isn't Nash, it is Jason Kidd. Kidd looks to score only when he needs to, preferring to contribute with assists, rebounds and defense. Nash is kind of the Iverson / Kidd hybrid.
"That's why Nash's career record is better, and that's why you don't remember who AI has "made better" over the years. (By the way, I agree with Tom, the whole "making players better" is media BS talk.)"
Last I checked, doesn't AI play with Melo and Camby? Look, it's as simple as this: Suns record in 03-04 = 29/53. Suns record in 04-05 = 62/20, 05-06 = 54/28, 06/07 = 61/21. Can you identify when Nash came on board?
Nuggets: 04-05 = 49/33, 05-06 = 44/38, 06-07 = 45/37. If I asked you the same question about AI, could you identify which season he arrived?
'Nuff said! Who has had the bigger impact on their team as a whole AND individual players. I think BOTH are required to making you the MVP. Nash did not single-handedly do this. But he makes a below .500 team one of the best out there, period.
Doesn't that sort of debunk the theory that "Nash cannot take over a game" or "Nash isn't a scorer."
Seriously folks. Is it really a debate between AI and Nash?? The only other point guard I would consider comparing to Nash is Chris Paul, and he's so young, it's still hard to tell if he will be consistently this good and able to withstand injuries. I think Kidd should definitely be considered in any talk of best point guard as well.
My preferred list of CURRENT point guards, in order of best "right now":
1. Steve Nash (no question about it).
2. Jason Kidd.
3. Chris Paul (if he stays healthy and continues to improve on his current game, he has the potential to be greater than Nash).
4. Allen Iverson (yes he's definitely better than Tony Parker).
5. Gilbert Arenas (if he had Carmelo anthony and Marcus Camby to back him up, I think he would easily be better than AI).
Last edited by NashtyBall on January 23rd at 9:56 AM.
