Quote:
|
Originally Posted by orangedays
The closest thing I said to that was asserting that Nash simply was not good enough to take us to the promised land. I didn't say it was his fault, I just said he couldn't do it - an irrefutable fact seeing as how Dallas has yet to bring home an O'Brien Trophy.
|
This is certainly, beyond question--to borrow a term you seem to like to use, irrefutably--NOT a fact. Let me repeat. This is NOT a fact. Again for you, I will say it one...more...time: This is NOT a fact.
The Mavs took a twelve- or thirteen-point lead (I cannot remember which) to the fourth quarter in Game Six of the Western Conference Finals in 2003. They would have been decided favorites against New Jersey if they had won the series.
Given those two propositions--well, one is a "fact" and one is a proposition, but a well-founded one--what do you expect the statistical likelihood was of the Mavs winning the series against the Spurs and then going on to win the series against the Nets? I'm certain it was at least 25%, and I'm fairly confident it was closer to one-third, if not greater.
If you want to disparage Steve Nash, please do not do it on the basis that the Mavs did not beat the Spurs in 2003, clearly the year that they were best poised to win the conference and, in turn, the league championship. For all the talk you do about Nash getting his ass whipped by Bibby, the Mavs beat the Kings that year--and might I add that Bibby chipped in there with a well-time airball in the last minute of a close game.
If Dirk struggles "relatively," Nash struggles relatively. It is a well-established fact that individual, and thusly also team, statistics drop off in the postseason as compared to the regular season because the opposition is filtered. This is nothing new. Yet you find a way to champion Dirk while disparaging Nash.
If you want to retract what you said and say that you appreciate Nash's contributions to the team, and that he helped WAY more often than he hurt (if he ever did), you can expect a "fair enough" from me. But if you continue to paint Nash as an ineffective performer, playoffs or otherwise, you will continue to get a counterargument from this end. And if you persist in saying that we are better off without an All-NBA player than with an All-NBA player...well, I will just have to shake my head and question your sanity.
You characterize a one-third chance that didn't get there as "could not." Not in my world, buddy. In my world, a one-third chance "can," and does so, in fact, one time in three.