Bill Simmons with MAJOR Suns Love...

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thank you, but I am looking for legitimate answers. Magic hadn't done that yet. I'm talking about MVP voting here.

Please, a legitimate answer to my question.

Well fuck your question, because you dodged his argument with that question. Nothing was said of MVP seasons.

"Oh, and comparing Nash to Magic and Bird? Laughable."

That's the quote from jthig you were responding to.

And "Magic hadn't done that yet?" Huh? Are you talking about his first MVP, or his superhuman performance in the '80 finals? Because that was his rookie season when he was 20 years old.

[chumdawg]

Thig said that in response to a post of mine, in which I did nothing near compare Nash to Magic. I'm just talking about MVP voting here.

Fair enough point, that Magic had already won titles before he won his first MVP. Is that the extent of your argument?

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Boy, am I ever sick and tired of this logical fallacy. Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--knows that the Mavs missed more than one beat when Harris and then Terry took over from Nash at point guard. They managed to improve in other areas, to be sure, but they took a major blow at PG at the time.

How do you define "skipping a beat" then? Because for me, "skipping a beat" usually doesn't include... well... getting better.

That, to me, is probably the single biggest argument against Nash, at least in 04-05.

If you mean that ball movement became a major problem for the Mavs, then yes. But honestly, tell me this. Can you remember any time in NBA history before Steve Nash, when a guy left a team, won 3 consecutive MVP's (he will win the award again this year, nothing will stop that), while his previous team enjoyed the greatest success in its history? Don't teams usually... like... suck... when a player of such caliber leaves?

[chumdawg]

I guess you could start by telling me which teams meet your criteria, so I can research them. Which teams let a three-time MVP walk? I will go look them up, after you tell me.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thig said that in response to a post of mine, in which I did nothing near compare Nash to Magic. I'm just talking about MVP voting here.

Fair enough point, that Magic had already won titles before he won his first MVP. Is that the extent of your argument?

No, my argument is merely that Nash and Magic are such radically different players that it's just not valid in any way, shape, or form. It has even less relevance to the Bird/Dirk comparison.

Steve Nash is a special player in today's NBA. But he's really a prototypical point guard, defensive abilities notwithstanding. Magic, on the other hand, was a freak of nature that will probably never be seen again.

It's not a knock on Nash. My point really had nothing to do with titles. It was the fact that Magic filled in for Kareem. It was the fact that the dude could play any position, 1 to 5, and play any of them as well as anybody.

It's just not a valid comparison. If you're just comparing numbers, fine. But otherwise, it's like comparing Allen Iverson to Moses Malone.

[Captain Disaster]

My problem with this article is that it is WAY TOO EARLY for all of this (even for the Mavs). How many times have we seen teams do well up to the all star break, or even to the end of the regular season, and then fizzle in the playoffs? Injuries will play a big part, schedules, etc... AND many teams are not at full strength in the west. Everybody is writing off the Spurs; what about the Rockets at full strength; Denver; the Lakers; Mavs; how about the Jazz; even Minnesota; the Heat with Shaq. Unless the NBA has somehow exempted the Suns from playing all of these teams, let's not anoint the Suns (or anyone else for that matter) just yet. Comparing them to the greatest teams of all time! C'mon, get real! IF, the Suns roll off three or four CHAMPIONSHIPS, THEN we can talk!!

What utter stupidity!

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Boy, am I ever sick and tired of this logical fallacy. Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--knows that the Mavs missed more than one beat when Harris and then Terry took over from Nash at point guard. They managed to improve in other areas, to be sure, but they took a major blow at PG at the time.

What other areas did they improve on to cover for the loss of a Magic Johnson like player? I mean they signed Damp but he sucks.

Honestly, there's no way in the hell you replace Magic with a non-all star player and improve as a team. But the fact that gets overlooked is that Nash was no longer an all-star in dallas himself. He was a good player and nothing more.

To compare him to Magic is blasphemy.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

No, my argument is merely that Nash and Magic are such radically different players that it's just not valid in any way, shape, or form. It has even less relevance to the Bird/Dirk comparison.

Steve Nash is a special player in today's NBA. But he's really a prototypical point guard, defensive abilities notwithstanding. Magic, on the other hand, was a freak of nature that will probably never be seen again.

It's not a knock on Nash. My point really had nothing to do with titles. It was the fact that Magic filled in for Kareem. It was the fact that the dude could play any position, 1 to 5, and play any of them as well as anybody.

It's just not a valid comparison. If you're just comparing numbers, fine. But otherwise, it's like comparing Allen Iverson to Moses Malone.

That's fine. I don't disagree. But still and all, Magic *was* the guy that made that (incredible) offense run. In that regard, I think it's fair to compare the two.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

What other areas did they improve on to cover for the loss of a Magic Johnson like player? I mean they signed Damp but he sucks.

Honestly, there's no way in the hell you replace Magic with a non-all star player and improve as a team. But the fact that gets overlooked is that Nash was no longer an all-star in dallas himself. He was a good player and nothing more.

To compare him to Magic is blasphemy.

They completely changed their offensive style when Nash left. Harris/Terry weren't anywhere NEAR as big a part of the offense as Nash was when he was here (perhaps excepting the ill-fated '04 season). They become an iso offense, and if it weren't for Dirk Nowitzki they would probably have been terrible.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Would you diminish Magic's MVP's because he had a former MVP himself, Kareem, on the team--not to mention Worthy, Scott, and Cooper? Would you diminish Bird's MVP's because he played with Parish and McHale? Would you diminish Shaq's because he played with Kobe?

This is a weak line of argument.

Bird had a great supporting cast in 1985-86. Hard to debate that one. But he also played on one of the greatest teams of all time in 1985-86. Phoenix won't be in that category at the end of this season, when it's all said and done. By the time Magic was winning MVPs (which began with the 1986-87 season), Kareem was a shell of his former self. Kareem wasn't even close to the level he was at when he was winning MVPs. Big Game James was in the prime of his career, but the other players weren't anything more than really, really good role players. And as far as Shaq's help? Kobe was young, probably providing no better than what Shawn Marion provides currently. And in fact considering how selfish Kobe was in the beginning of his career, I'm guessing most coaches would have taken the present Shawn Marion over the Kobe from Shaq's MVP year. Shaq flat out dominated the entire league that year. Dominated. Are you really, really trying to say little Stevie belongs in the same category? To even provide Shaq as counterevidence is laughable really. Oh and despite a run of 3-4 years where he was easily the most dominant player in the league and won three rings, he has one MVP trophy to show for it. And Stevie has two MVP trophies, and people for some reason think he deserves another.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I guess you could start by telling me which teams meet your criteria, so I can research them. Which teams let a three-time MVP walk? I will go look them up, after you tell me.

Did the Lakers get better when Shaq went to Miami? Did the Celtics get better when Bird retired? Do you think the Spurs get better if Duncan left?

You just proved my point, Chum.

Three time MVP, two time MVP, one time, no time.... It just doesn't matter anymore. It's meaningless.

The 05 vote, I was ok with. Didn't agree with it, but I was ok with it. Last year? A travesty. And this year? Honestly, he does deserve to be in the discussion, maybe even the frontrunner. But that just doesn't fucking matter. It just doesn't fucking matter. He'd win it anyway. It doesn't matter how good or bad the team does without him, or how good or the rest of his team is, or how many games they win. They could finish at .500 and he'd probably still have more votes than Dirk.

It's just the Steve Nash mystique. The Steve Nash myth. It's a powerful, powerful thing. So powerful that it has the idiots at TNT and ESPN saying that Phoenix is proving the words "Defense wins championships" no longer applies in todays NBA, despite not only having not reached the finals, but in fact not having one single significant win this season. Not one.

I'm in awe. Simply in awe.

[Five-ofan]

i dont really see how having in 05 changes anything in this discussion. Remind me again of the transaction that brought in dirk in between the 04 and 05 season or the season ending injury he was coming off of. I seem to remember a tall blonde german guy on the 04 team too(and every other mav team nash was on)...

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Did the Lakers get better when Shaq went to Miami? Did the Celtics get better when Bird retired? Do you think the Spurs get better if Duncan left?

You just proved my point, Chum.

Three time MVP, two time MVP, one time, no time.... It just doesn't matter anymore. It's meaningless.

The 05 vote, I was ok with. Didn't agree with it, but I was ok with it. Last year? A travesty. And this year? Honestly, he does deserve to be in the discussion, maybe even the frontrunner. But that just doesn't fucking matter. It just doesn't fucking matter. He'd win it anyway. It doesn't matter how good or bad the team does without him, or how good or the rest of his team is, or how many games they win. They could finish at .500 and he'd probably still have more votes than Dirk.

It's just the Steve Nash mystique. The Steve Nash myth. It's a powerful, powerful thing. So powerful that it has the idiots at TNT and ESPN saying that Phoenix is proving the words "Defense wins championships" no longer applies in todays NBA, despite not only having not reached the finals, but in fact not having one single significant win this season. Not one.

I'm in awe. Simply in awe.

now spiral, they did just beat the rockets tonight to raise their record to 2-6 against the west playoff teams... whats that you say? the rockets didnt have yao? well they were a solid team without him anyway. Mcgrady was carrying them. Whats that you say? the rockets didnt have Mcgrady either? Well ummmm, they did get bonzi wells back tonight....

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

They completely changed their offensive style when Nash left. Harris/Terry weren't anywhere NEAR as big a part of the offense as Nash was when he was here (perhaps excepting the ill-fated '04 season). They become an iso offense, and if it weren't for Dirk Nowitzki they would probably have been terrible.

And yet they won as many games as they ever won when Stevie was here, with the exception of the 2002-03 season. And they were only behind that season by 2 wins. I mean 58 wins ain't nothing to sneeze at. So it looks like you just made the argument for us that Nash didn't deserve the MVP in 2004-05. You see when you make the argument that the Mavericks were that much worse without Stevie but still won 58 games, you really paint yourself in a corner because it makes Dirk look that much better.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

They completely changed their offensive style when Nash left. Harris/Terry weren't anywhere NEAR as big a part of the offense as Nash was when he was here (perhaps excepting the ill-fated '04 season). They become an iso offense, and if it weren't for Dirk Nowitzki they would probably have been terrible.

So Nash not dominating the ball allowed Dirk to have his best season to date?

I wonder if we would have seen a similar effect had magic left the Lakers for say Derick Harper.

[Five-ofan]

the mavs didnt miss any beats without steve. They won 58, 60 and they are winning 60+ this year barring injuries.

BTW on the three time mvp thing i would mention wilt chamberlain off the top of my head. I have no clue how they did after he left though. Shaq has one but he is unquestionably a better player than steve nash and the lakers got alot worse without him.

Moving right along, what was the difference between nash and magic when he won his first mvp? you do realize that magic averaged 24-12-6-.5-2 right? That utterly dwarfs anything steve nash has ever thought about doing. they went 65-17.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Did the Lakers get better when Shaq went to Miami?

And heck, the Lakers got some talent in return with Lamar Odom and Caron Butler. Lamar Odom has always been a top 30-40 player, and Caron Butler has always been talented. And of course they still had Kobe (who a lot of pundits said was better than Dirk at the time of the Shaq trade). Yet they completely fell apart without Shaq. Of course Shaq wasn't worthy enough to win 3 MVPs like Stevie.

[capitalcity]

Steve Nash hates apple pie.
Steve Nash hates puppies.
Steve Nash hates Jesus.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

the mavs didnt miss any beats without steve. They won 58, 60 and they are winning 60+ this year barring injuries.

BTW on the three time mvp thing i would mention wilt chamberlain off the top of my head. I have no clue how they did after he left though. Shaq has one but he is unquestionably a better player than steve nash and the lakers got alot worse without him.

Moving right along, what was the difference between nash and magic when he won his first mvp? you do realize that magic averaged 24-12-6-.5-2 right? That utterly dwarfs anything steve nash has ever thought about doing. they went 65-17.

Maybe Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with the Bucks?

Of course, Nash wasn't even on anyone's MVP radar when the Mavericks correctly decided not to re-sign him, let alone in position to be considered for a third MVP.

Why does this have to be zero-sum anyway? The Mavericks got better overall after Nash left, and Nash himself got into a better situation by leaving the Mavs. It was win-win. Why is that so hard for some peopel to accept?

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

They completely changed their offensive style when Nash left. Harris/Terry weren't anywhere NEAR as big a part of the offense as Nash was when he was here (perhaps excepting the ill-fated '04 season). They become an iso offense, and if it weren't for Dirk Nowitzki they would probably have been terrible.

Couldn't agree more, Chum. Sounds to me like Dirk Nowitzki was the most valuble player that year. I guess they changed the criteria for the award and didn't tell anybody about it.

I know one thing though. If Nash had stayed with the Mavericks, and put up the exact same numbers he's put up in Phoenix, and the Mavs won the same amount of games... that is, if Nash did EVERYTHING in Dallas that he's done in Phoenix, he not only wouldn't have won the MVP, I'd wager he wouldn't even have made the All-NBA first team. When Nash came and the team turned around, he became the most overrated player in the league, maybe in any sport... hell, maybe in the history of sports. It didn't matter that the team was a melting pot of offensive talent that had played the previous year with no point guard at all. It didn't matter what Dirk Nowitzki did for his team.

It's just incredible. I've never seen anything quite like it. The Steve Nash mystique has actually surpassed and eclipsed the Shaquille O'Neal mystique. At least most people can acknowledge that Shaq is no longer the "most dominant" center in the league. But Steve Nash? As far as the world is concerned, he's Larry Bird. He's Magic Johnson. He's Michael Jordan. He's the three-time... hell... four... five time MVP. Phoenix is nothing and nowhere without Steve Nash. Without him... Shawn Marion is just another guy. Steve Nash... the straw that stirs the drink... God's gift to basketball.

You know what? I believe it now.. It's so powerful, he's convinced me.

Dirk? Well, he's played well... But you know, being the best player on the best team just isn't enough. He just doesn't have it where it counts. He doesn't make his teammates better, or something.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

So Nash not dominating the ball allowed Dirk to have his best season to date?

I wonder if we would have seen a similar effect had magic left the Lakers for say Derick Harper.

Well, when Magic was forced to retire because of HIV the Lakers went from a 58 win team that made the NBA Finals year before (and had won/played in 4 of the previous 5 NBA Finals) to a 43 win team that got eliminated in the first round. In the five years between Magic's retirement and Shaq's arrival, the Lakers made it to the second round of the playoffs once.

[Five-ofan]

ok well finish the nash/magic comparison since you asked chum
Magic-nash
Ppg 23.9 - 15.5
rpg 6.3-3.3
apg 12.2-11.5
bpg-0.5-0.1
spg-1.7-1.0


now do you really need to ask what was different?

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Maybe Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with the Bucks?

Of course, Nash wasn't even on anyone's MVP radar when the Mavericks correctly decided not to re-sign him, let alone in position to be considered for a third MVP.

Why does this have to be zero-sum anyway? The Mavericks got better overall after Nash left, and Nash himself got into a better situation by leaving the Mavs. It was win-win. Why is that so hard for some peopel to accept?

i agree with this the only problem is that in order to make that argument you have to agree that the suns system benefits nash just like it benefits boris diaw and that it is that system and not steve nash that makes that team work. You cant give a system an mvp though...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Couldn't agree more, Chum. Sounds to me like Dirk Nowitzki was the most valuble player that year. I guess they changed the criteria for the award and didn't tell anybody about it.

I know one thing though. If Nash had stayed with the Mavericks, and put up the exact same numbers he's put up in Phoenix, and the Mavs won the same amount of games... that is, if Nash did EVERYTHING in Dallas that he's done in Phoenix, he not only wouldn't have won the MVP, I'd wager he wouldn't even have made the All-NBA first team. When Nash came and the team turned around, he became the most overrated player in the league, maybe in any sport... hell, maybe in the history of sports. It didn't matter that the team was a melting pot of offensive talent that had played the previous year with no point guard at all. It didn't matter what Dirk Nowitzki did for his team.

It's just incredible. I've never seen anything quite like it. The Steve Nash mystique has actually surpassed and eclipsed the Shaquille O'Neal mystique. At least most people can acknowledge that Shaq is no longer the "most dominant" center in the league. But Steve Nash? As far as the world is concerned, he's Larry Bird. He's Magic Johnson. He's Michael Jordan. He's the three-time... hell... four... five time MVP. Phoenix is nothing and nowhere without Steve Nash. Without him... Shawn Marion is just another guy. Steve Nash... the straw that stirs the drink... God's gift to basketball.

You know what? I believe it now.. It's so powerful, he's convinced me.

Dirk? Well, he's played well... But you know, being the best player on the best team just isn't enough. He just doesn't have it where it counts. He doesn't make his teammates better, or something.

Dirk Nowitzki was definitely the Most Valuable Player for the MAVS that year (and every year since).

We are talking, though, about the MVP of the *league*.

I think we all agree that Dirk is an improved player over the guy he was four years ago. (No arguments, right?)

I think we also agree that the Mavs squad the last couple years is deeper and more dangerous than it was back in 2003. (No arguments there, either, right?)

How amazing is it that the Mavs won 60 back then, then? Steve Nash was ALWAYS the guy that led that team. He was, as they said, the straw that stirred the drink.

People want to say that Nash kinda came out of nowhere and lucked into a spot in Phoenix where he could win the MVP. Hell, he should have been the MVP in 2003!

Oh, but we "rightfully" decided not to re-sign him. HA!

I don't know what else you want out of Nash. He is MOST CERTAINLY a generational player. He's as good as it gets at what he does. Any mystique he has is rightfully earned.

Dirk is, without question, the MVP of the Mavs these days. Nash was, when Dirk was still cutting his teeth. Now Nash is the MVP of the Suns. You stack them up and decide which one you want. No big deal. They are both generational players, and they are both among the small handful of best players in the game. Nash has been doing it a little longer, but I'm sure Dirk will keep it up a bit longer after Nash's best days are done.

[Five-ofan]

moses malone changed teams too. On wilt it took 5 years before they won 50 again. dont know about the others.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Dirk Nowitzki was definitely the Most Valuable Player for the MAVS that year (and every year since).

We are talking, though, about the MVP of the *league*.

I think we all agree that Dirk is an improved player over the guy he was four years ago. (No arguments, right?)

I think we also agree that the Mavs squad the last couple years is deeper and more dangerous than it was back in 2003. (No arguments there, either, right?)

How amazing is it that the Mavs won 60 back then, then? Steve Nash was ALWAYS the guy that led that team. He was, as they said, the straw that stirred the drink.

People want to say that Nash kinda came out of nowhere and lucked into a spot in Phoenix where he could win the MVP. Hell, he should have been the MVP in 2003!

Oh, but we "rightfully" decided not to re-sign him. HA!

I don't know what else you want out of Nash. He is MOST CERTAINLY a generational player. He's as good as it gets at what he does. Any mystique he has is rightfully earned.

Dirk is, without question, the MVP of the Mavs these days. Nash was, when Dirk was still cutting his teeth. Now Nash is the MVP of the Suns. You stack them up and decide which one you want. No big deal. They are both generational players, and they are both among the small handful of best players in the game. Nash has been doing it a little longer, but I'm sure Dirk will keep it up a bit longer after Nash's best days are done.

chum you have utterly lost your damn mind if you think nash was the mvp in 03. also no in 05 i dont think we had a deeper or more dangerous team. we had dirk and not a hell of alot else.

Have you even thought about what you are saying? Nash was the mvp in 03? Wake the hell up. You have to be close to the best player/mvp of your own team first.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Dirk Nowitzki was definitely the Most Valuable Player for the MAVS that year (and every year since).

We are talking, though, about the MVP of the *league*.

I think we all agree that Dirk is an improved player over the guy he was four years ago. (No arguments, right?)

I think we also agree that the Mavs squad the last couple years is deeper and more dangerous than it was back in 2003. (No arguments there, either, right?)

How amazing is it that the Mavs won 60 back then, then? Steve Nash was ALWAYS the guy that led that team. He was, as they said, the straw that stirred the drink.

People want to say that Nash kinda came out of nowhere and lucked into a spot in Phoenix where he could win the MVP. Hell, he should have been the MVP in 2003!

Oh, but we "rightfully" decided not to re-sign him. HA!

I don't know what else you want out of Nash. He is MOST CERTAINLY a generational player. He's as good as it gets at what he does. Any mystique he has is rightfully earned.

Dirk is, without question, the MVP of the Mavs these days. Nash was, when Dirk was still cutting his teeth. Now Nash is the MVP of the Suns. You stack them up and decide which one you want. No big deal. They are both generational players, and they are both among the small handful of best players in the game. Nash has been doing it a little longer, but I'm sure Dirk will keep it up a bit longer after Nash's best days are done.

Of course Steve Nash is the MVP of the league, Chum. He could spend an entire NBA season playing soccer and he'd still be the MVP. It's like Vince Carter making the All-Star team, or movie stars not liking a Republican president. It's just the way things are. Doesn't much matter why.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

chum you have utterly lost your damn mind if you think nash was the mvp in 03. also no in 05 i dont think we had a deeper or more dangerous team. we had dirk and not a hell of alot else.

Have you even thought about what you are saying? Nash was the mvp in 03? Wake the hell up. You have to be close to the best player/mvp of your own team first.

His team won 60 in 2003. With Bradley and Raef and Walt Williams and all the rest.

Do you recognize how hard it is to win 60 games?

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

His team won 60 in 2003. With Bradley and Raef and Walt Williams and all the rest.

Do you recognize how hard it is to win 60 games?

do you recognize it wasnt his team? do you recognize they had dirk and a still very good michael finley then? there is a very legit argument to be made that he was the third best player on his team.

[chumdawg]

Since we all like clever little arguments, how about this:

Nash managed to lose Nowitzki...and get better.

[Five-ofan]

dirk beat nash in every category but assists that year where nash beat him 7.7-3.0 that includes steals. Im sorry but there is absolutely no argument that nash was the best or most valuable player on that team. actually this proves my point about nash. people said the same shit then about him being the guy who made everything go and how the team would fall apart without him.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Since we all like clever little arguments, how about this:

Nash managed to lose Nowitzki...and get better.

he however gained shawn marion, amare stoudamire, joe johnson, and qrich. Dirk gained erick dampier jason terry stack and a rookie devin harris. Now you tell me which is more impressive?

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Since we all like clever little arguments, how about this:

Nash managed to lose Nowitzki...and get better.

Yeah, but he didn't just lose Nowitzki did he? He gained Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, the latter of whom is a better fit with Nash than Dirk ever was. Throw Boris Diaw and a bunch of shooters into the mix and you've got a pretty decent trade on Nash's end.

Dirk? He got Jason Terry and Erick Dampier.

[Captain Disaster]

This thread is ridiculous. The whole Simmons article and perception of the Mavs around the league is one of grudging acceptance (and the Mavs have to keep it up or everyone will kick them to the curb with all due speed). Maybe it's Cuban or Dirk's style, or Dirk's ethnicity, or that we don't have any nasty players except maybe for Stack. Who knows? It is patently absurd and unfair, but it is the NBA. You didn't really think that the way we were treated in last year's finals was an accident did you? Maybe we didn't follow the script; maybe we made it because of Ginobli's mistake; maybe Dirk is too spastic or effeminate? Who knows what these people think? The bias is there, however, and it won't leave unless we start kicking the crap out of everyone else in the league, with regularity, for a looong time. If only we had won last year... We would STILL be disrespected by nut jobs like Legler,etc..

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

dirk beat nash in every category but assists that year where nash beat him 7.7-3.0 that includes steals. Im sorry but there is absolutely no argument that nash was the best or most valuable player on that team. actually this proves my point about nash. people said the same shit then about him being the guy who made everything go and how the team would fall apart without him.

Maybe it's time for you to consider the body of evidence in front of you and rethink your skewed perception of Steve Nash.

I mean, did it in Dallas with a young Dirk and a fading Finley and nobody else...did it in Phoenix with an entirely new team, one coming off a poor season...again, what other evidence do you need?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Yeah, but he didn't just lose Nowitzki did he? He gained Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, the latter of whom is a better fit with Nash than Dirk ever was. Throw Boris Diaw and a bunch of shooters into the mix and you've got a pretty decent trade on Nash's end.

Dirk? He got Jason Terry and Erick Dampier.

What about Howard and Harris and Diop and Stackhouse? I thought we loved those guys!

[birdsanctuary]

Suns - Nash = Lottery

[birdsanctuary]

Originally Posted by Captain Disaster

This thread is ridiculous. The whole Simmons article and perception of the Mavs around the league is one of grudging acceptance (and the Mavs have to keep it up or everyone will kick them to the curb with all due speed). Maybe it's Cuban or Dirk's style, or Dirk's ethnicity, or that we don't have any nasty players except maybe for Stack. Who knows? It is patently absurd and unfair, but it is the NBA. You didn't really think that the way we were treated in last year's finals was an accident did you? Maybe we didn't follow the script; maybe we made it because of Ginobli's mistake; maybe Dirk is too spastic or effeminate? Who knows what these people think? The bias is there, however, and it won't leave unless we start kicking the crap out of everyone else in the league, with regularity, for a looong time. If only we had won last year... We would STILL be disrespected by nut jobs like Legler,etc..

The Mavs will always be losers until they win it all.... that is when the NBA allows them to win it all...

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Maybe it's time for you to consider the body of evidence in front of you and rethink your skewed perception of Steve Nash.

I mean, did it in Dallas with a young Dirk and a fading Finley and nobody else...did it in Phoenix with an entirely new team, one coming off a poor season...again, what other evidence do you need?

that "young" dirk was a damn 25 and 10 and 3 a night guy. no you cant give nash all the credit for it. You know why? because in the seasons without nash he has been 26 and 10, 27 and 9 and 25 and 10(numbers are rounded) That fading finley was also still a 19 a night guy. Good effing god chum. People accuse me of dismissing the talent on the mavs to make arguments for dirk but hell you act like dirk nowitzki,a still solid michael finley, shawn marion, amare stoudamire, and joe johnson are trash. Do you even watch basketball anymore.

Do you even believe what you argue anymore? I would almost pay to see you answer all these questions about nash and the people he has played with while connected to a lie detector. I just dont believe its possible for someone to truthfully believe all this bull shit.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by birdsanctuary

Suns - Nash = Lottery

Is this one of those Borat "Not" jokes?