Steve Nash keeping options open

[deanerandterry]

I'm not arguing who the better player is as Lebron is certainly a better player, but the real question is this. Is Lebron a better playoff player than Nash, more notably in the finals?

I don't know why but when Lebron was needed the most last year he simply didn't play up to the standards we are used to seeing him play at, his numbers fell significantly at the worst possible time.

I can also use the argument that Lebron had teams in Cleveland that could have won the NBA title just like Nash did in Phoenix. Cleveland often had a great regular season record, looked like they were destined to take it all but would get knocked out in the second round outside the year they went to the finals only to get annihilated by San Antonio.

My big thing is you don't have to worry about Nash falling apart in the playoffs, the same thing can't be said about Lebron. The only reason he's in Miami in the first place is because Wade has proven he can get the job done. If Wade never won an NBA title, Lebron wouldn't be in Miami.

[Big Sexy]

Originally Posted by deanerandterry

I'm not arguing who the better player is as Lebron is certainly a better player, but the real question is this. Is Lebron a better playoff player than Nash, more notably in the finals?

Considering Steve Nash has never been to the finals before then I'm going to go ahead and say that LeBron is the better post season player.

I can also use the argument that Lebron had teams in Cleveland that could have won the NBA title just like Nash did in Phoenix. Cleveland often had a great regular season record, looked like they were destined to take it all but would get knocked out in the second round outside the year they went to the finals only to get annihilated by San Antonio.

LeBron never had the talent in Cleveland that Nash did in Phoenix. He had Mo Williams for two years, Antawn Jamison for half a year, and Big Z who kept deteriorating as the years went on.

[agentmichaelscarn]

Originally Posted by deanerandterry

I'm not arguing who the better player is as Lebron is certainly a better player, but the real question is this. Is Lebron a better playoff player than Nash, more notably in the finals?

I don't know why but when Lebron was needed the most last year he simply didn't play up to the standards we are used to seeing him play at, his numbers fell significantly at the worst possible time.

I can also use the argument that Lebron had teams in Cleveland that could have won the NBA title just like Nash did in Phoenix. Cleveland often had a great regular season record, looked like they were destined to take it all but would get knocked out in the second round outside the year they went to the finals only to get annihilated by San Antonio.

My big thing is you don't have to worry about Nash falling apart in the playoffs, the same thing can't be said about Lebron. The only reason he's in Miami in the first place is because Wade has proven he can get the job done. If Wade never won an NBA title, Lebron wouldn't be in Miami.

Here's both of theirs career playoff numbers.

Nash
17.3ppg 8.9APG 3.5RPG

James
28 PPG 7APG 8.5RPG

Those two numbers aren't even close. Lebron DESTROYS him.

Also I don't get where this whole Lebron "falling apart in the playoffs" narrative comes from. Granted Lebron does disappear in the 4th quarter sometimes but for his career Lebron averages more points, more rebounds and more assists during the postseason than he does in the regular season. So if anything he raises his game in the playoffs.

[PlayTheGame]

I think LeBron is clearly the better player and the better postseason player. LeBron's been to the finals. Nash hasn't. LeBron's put up better postseason numbers. Nash's numbers, while good, aren't as good as LeBron's. I don't really know what could then make Nash a better postseason player. LeBron seems to have already surpassed him in postseason play, and he's been in the league for far less time than Nash has been. You have to give it to LeBron.

However, if you're talking about being a "clutch" player, then there may be something worth debating there. I can't really speak on if Nash is clutch or not. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with the peak of his career, so he may be considered clutch. I can certainly see him being cool as ice and hitting a clutch shot or vital pass when his team needed it at the end of games. On the other hand, you have LeBron. Unrelated to the Nash conversation, LeBron certainly hasn't cemented himself as being very clutch. It may be the one hole in his game that has impeded him from being in talks with greats like Michael Jordan, and may keep him from being truly an all-time great. LeBron does seem to disappear in the 4th quarter, doesn't often take control of games late, disappeared in the Finals last year, and seems to want to pass the ball away instead of taking the final shot to decide the game. If he can improve in the "clutch" category, it will probably complete his game. But he's still the best player in the NBA right now hands-down and an extraordinary talent.

But if you're talking strictly postseason play, James > Nash.

[deanerandterry]

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

Considering Steve Nash has never been to the finals before then I'm going to go ahead and say that LeBron is the better post season player.

LeBron never had the talent in Cleveland that Nash did in Phoenix. He had Mo Williams for two years, Antawn Jamison for half a year, and Big Z who kept deteriorating as the years went on.

Well, Lebron doesn't have that excuse anymore and I didn't see him getting the job done last year.

He didn't have a superstar team in Cleveland but there was certainly enough talent in Cleveland for Lebron to win the title.

Also with Nash even though he had Amare and Marion I didn't see them winning too many games until Nash got there, that's when the team started to look like a threat. He may not have made it to the finals, but he was playing in a much harder conference with much tougher teams than Lebron ever did in the playoffs.

[Big Sexy]

Originally Posted by deanerandterry

Well, Lebron doesn't have that excuse anymore and I didn't see him getting the job done last year.

He didn't get the job done last year. He and the Heat failed and I'll be the first person to say that. All of that still does nothing for Nash in this debate.

He didn't have a superstar team in Cleveland but there was certainly enough talent in Cleveland for Lebron to win the title.

Not unless LeBron beyond flawless for an entire playoff run, and even then it may not have been enough. Go find one of those Cleveland teams that you think should have won the title and I'll show at least two teams better. Last year he should have won, the previous years it would have been an upset for him to win.

Also with Nash even though he had Amare and Marion I didn't see them winning too many games until Nash got there, that's when the team started to look like a threat. He may not have made it to the finals, but he was playing in a much harder conference with much tougher teams than Lebron ever did in the playoffs.

They were an extremely young team and D'Antoni just took over part way through the season the year before Nash go there. The Suns rise was a combination of many things from the arrival of Steve Nash, to D'Antoni's system being fully in place, to the continued development of the young guys like Amare and Joe Johnson. The West was definitely a tougher conference but with the talent Nash had, those teams were capable of making at least one NBA Finals. LeBron took a garbage team to the Finals over a great Detroit Pistons team while Nash couldn't get the Suns over that hump.

[deanerandterry]

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

Not unless LeBron beyond flawless for an entire playoff run, and even then it may not have been enough. Go find one of those Cleveland teams that you think should have won the title and I'll show at least two teams better. Last year he should have won, the previous years it would have been an upset for him to win.

You don't need to have the best team to win the NBA title, being the best team throughout the year and being the champs are 2 different things, the Giants are living proof of that. When Detroit in 04 won the NBA title they weren't the best team but they played the best when it counted.

I don't think Lebron had to play flawless in Cleveland he just had to up his game.

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

They were an extremely young team and D'Antoni just took over part way through the season the year before Nash go there. The Suns rise was a combination of many things from the arrival of Steve Nash, to D'Antoni's system being fully in place, to the continued development of the young guys like Amare and Joe Johnson. The West was definitely a tougher conference but with the talent Nash had, those teams were capable of making at least one NBA Finals. LeBron took a garbage team to the Finals over a great Detroit Pistons team while Nash couldn't get the Suns over that hump.

Its never a 1 man effort but I think its fair to say Nash was the #1 reason that team turned it around which is why he won the MVP award the next 2 seasons. The Suns had probably 3-4 teams that should have made it I'll admit that, but getting past teams like the Spurs and the Mavericks in that point in time is a very difficult thing to accomplish, I don't think anyone would have got past them during that point int time.

Lebron's Cleveland teams certainly weren't better but saying Lebron took them to the finals by himself is an unfair statement, the same as calling them a garbage team, especially since the team record was often better without Lebron playing.

Also I will say is the year Cleveland made it to the finals I saw Phoenix put up much more of a fight against the Spurs than Cleveland did, they didn't get swept and almost made it a 7 game series.

[agentmichaelscarn]

Originally Posted by deanerandterry

You don't need to have the best team to win the NBA title, being the best team throughout the year and being the champs are 2 different things, the Giants are living proof of that. When Detroit in 04 won the NBA title they weren't the best team but they played the best when it counted.

I don't think Lebron had to play flawless in Cleveland he just had to up his game.



Its never a 1 man effort but I think its fair to say Nash was the #1 reason that team turned it around which is why he won the MVP award the next 2 seasons. The Suns had probably 3-4 teams that should have made it I'll admit that, but getting past teams like the Spurs and the Mavericks in that point in time is a very difficult thing to accomplish, I don't think anyone would have got past them during that point int time.

Lebron's Cleveland teams certainly weren't better but saying Lebron took them to the finals by himself is an unfair statement, the same as calling them a garbage team, especially since the team record was often better without Lebron playing.

Also I will say is the year Cleveland made it to the finals I saw Phoenix put up much more of a fight against the Spurs than Cleveland did, they didn't get swept and almost made it a 7 game series.

I agree with some of what you said, most notably that the West has been harder than the East. But with that said there is simply no reasonable argument that Nash is more valuable to a team than Lebron. When Lebron came to the league he came to a team that had the absolute worst record in the league. In two years he took that team to conference semis. In 3 years they were in the NBA Finals, and every year either finishing with the best record or making Conference finals. But as soon as he left that same team ended up finishing with the worst record in the league. When Nash left the Mavericks they seemed to be just fine.

Also even if everything you say is true you have to keep in mind, majority of the stuff you are bringing up is when Steve Nash was in his prime, not 37 like he was last year. There is absolutely no way that a 37 year old Nash would be better for a team than a prime Lebron.

[deanerandterry]

Originally Posted by agentmichaelscarn

I agree with some of what you said, most notably that the West has been harder than the East. But with that said there is simply no reasonable argument that Nash is more valuable to a team than Lebron. When Lebron came to the league he came to a team that had the absolute worst record in the league. In two years he took that team to conference semis. In 3 years they were in the NBA Finals, and every year either finishing with the best record or making Conference finals. But as soon as he left that same team ended up finishing with the worst record in the league. When Nash left the Mavericks they seemed to be just fine.

Also even if everything you say is true you have to keep in mind, majority of the stuff you are bringing up is when Steve Nash was in his prime, not 37 like he was last year. There is absolutely no way that a 37 year old Nash would be better for a team than a prime Lebron.

Nash certainly wouldn't bring more to the plate play wise than Lebron but he could bring maturity and more intangible qualities to the team, stuff like leadership and experience and for a young team like Miami that could go a long way and even at 37 he would most certainly have made Miami a contender with Bosh and Wade on that team, there's no questioning that.

Its true the Mav's were fine without Nash but they had plenty of franchise players to fall back on. Cleveland has good players but Mav's have Dirk and Dirk is just as good as Nash was, probably even better.

I guess my big thing is Nash seems to bring the very best out of the team he plays for and that's a very rare quality to find in a player. Lebron can make his team better when he wants to but there were many times Cleveland had a better record without Lebron than with Lebron, even to the point they would have a stellar record without and be less than .500 with (look it up, this actually happened and more than once).

Also Nash is the kind of guy who can admit when he messes up, Lebron blames everyone but himself. Last year he blamed God he didn't win. As good as Lebron is a lot of time his skills and maturity can get in the way of better judgement.

Believe me I completely understand what Lebron brings to the table, but sometimes straight up skill isn't enough.


All in all its all subjective. All I know is if Nash is on the Heat next year they will definitely take the title.

[Big Sexy]

Originally Posted by deanerandterry

You don't need to have the best team to win the NBA title, being the best team throughout the year and being the champs are 2 different things, the Giants are living proof of that. When Detroit in 04 won the NBA title they weren't the best team but they played the best when it counted.

I don't think Lebron had to play flawless in Cleveland he just had to up his game.

The 04 Pistons had a ton of talent and experience. Same with the Giants this year. The Cavaliers that made the finals in 2007 had a starting lineup of Eric Snow, Larry Hughes, LeBron, Drew Gooden, and Big Z. Not exactly anything to write home about. They beat Detroit because LeBron was superman game 5 in Detroit. It's a proven fact that Superman needs an adequate sidekick to win a title. He now has that which is why last year was a failure but it would have been more of a failure for the Heat if Nash was there over LeBron because they would not have made the finals.

Its never a 1 man effort but I think its fair to say Nash was the #1 reason that team turned it around which is why he won the MVP award the next 2 seasons. The Suns had probably 3-4 teams that should have made it I'll admit that, but getting past teams like the Spurs and the Mavericks in that point in time is a very difficult thing to accomplish, I don't think anyone would have got past them during that point int time.

Nash was definitely the biggest reason they were that good. However, with that accolade comes the fact that he needs to shoulder more blame then the others when it comes to the fact they failed to make the finals in all the years he was there.

Lebron's Cleveland teams certainly weren't better but saying Lebron took them to the finals by himself is an unfair statement, the same as calling them a garbage team, especially since the team record was often better without Lebron playing.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2007.html. Go look at that roster the year they made the finals and tell me it isn't mostly garbage. Take LeBron off that roster and ask yourself how many games they win. If you say more then 25 you are lying to yourself.

Also I will say is the year Cleveland made it to the finals I saw Phoenix put up much more of a fight against the Spurs than Cleveland did, they didn't get swept and almost made it a 7 game series.

Yeah because Phoenix had a better and deeper team. I would hope that a team led by Steve Nash, Amare, Shawn Marion, and Leandro Barbosa would do better then LeBron, Big Z, and Larry Hughes.