Steve Nash’s place in the point guard pantheon

I thought that LeBron James was indeed the best player in the league in 2006; his all-around contributions were superior to Bryant's, and he was a dominant scorer to boot. Bryant was the best scorer, but not necessarily the best player.

For prime or peak value, Kevin Johnson was the second-best point guard in NBA history, behind Magic Johnson (again, not counting Oscar Robertson). For career value, John Stockton was the second-best point guard after Magic. K.J. certainly proved superior to the likes of Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, and Tim Hardaway, none of whom were nearly as efficient or as explosive.

It's unfortunate Nash won 2 MVP's? Many people thought he should have won 3. Looking back now is not the same as being there watching those games and seeing the impact he had on those teams. As I said, they couldn't win without him on the floor, so the system can't be given all the credit and neither can his teammates like Amare & Marion. Without him they were like a football team without a QB. Having a great PG isn't necessary in some systems (like the Triangle). Of course, you've got to have great players like Kobe & Jordan. In D'Antoni's system the PG is critical. Kidd was still a good PG when Dallas won their title. He might not have been as good as he was in his prime, but he was still a very important part of that team.

"The vast majority of people believe Nash was more valuable than Marion" I'm curious as to where you pull your information from. Nash's MVPs, but especially his second MVP, is often cited as one of the MVPs awarded over the past 30 years that was a controversial choice. "Take Nash off that team, and it's obvious who the MVP was." I mean, have you seen that team? Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa, Raja Bell, Eddie House, 53 games of Kurt Thomas and 26 games of Tim Thomas. If you take Marion off the 06 team, the impact would have been equal to, if not more severe than taking Nash off since, again, he plays both ways (THIS is my main point. I am not "fixated on this teammate thing", I'm fixated on the entire scope of a basketball game--offense AND defense). Like express34texas has pointed out, I'm not saying Nash wasn't the MVP of the team. I'm saying it's not clear cut, especially for 06. And if it's not clear cut on his own team, then how in the world is it clear cut across the entire NBA? Especially looking at who he won over. Look at the team Lebron carried in 06. He won 4 less games than Nash and had no one nearly as good as Marion as a sidekick. You're telling me Nash is more valuable than Lebron in that case? He's not more valuable than Lebron anyway. Even in 06. How many guys could have done a close approximation of what Nash did with that talent in D'Antoni's system, or close to it? Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Baron Davis, Andre Miller, Chauncy Billups, and you can absolutely add Lebron in point guard mode to that discussion. Further evidence? Look at the guys that played like all-stars in D'Antoni's offense: Jeremy Lin is the posterboy for this argument, but you can also point to Chris Duhon (11 and 7) and Raymond Felton (17 and 9) as other examples of otherwise not-great players putting up career OFFENSIVE numbers in D'Antoni's system. Duhon was a third string point guard at best, putting up Ricky Rubio numbers, Lin is a nice point guard (but not an all-star), while Felton was putting up Billups/Kevin Johnson numbers. The system amplifies offensive output because, well, it's specifically designed to max out offensive opportunities. My two favorite NBA players of all time, the ones I watched the most are Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash. And I don't think Nash deserved the second one. Not by a long shot. The MVP should be considered based on every possible angle, especially when there is no clear cut choice. To focus strictly on one aspect of basketball, offense (namely assists or "making everyone better"), that's crazy. Nash just retired this year, and already, his back-to-back MVPs look funky and out of place. Multiple MVP winners in NBA history: Wilt, Kareem, MJ, Magic, Bird, the Malones, Russell, Pettit, Lebron, and Nash. Nash is the only one that never made it to the finals. He's the outlier. He was never the best player in the league. In 05 he was arguably the best player on the best team (I say arguably because look at Amare's crazy production) and was the lead engine on the best (or top 3) offense of all time. But in 06, Marion was better statistically, and was invaluable on BOTH sides of the ball. "I think everyone understands what Marion brought to the team." No, you don't.

Nash probably was the MVP for the Suns, but it's not as black/white as you make it out to be. Marion and Stoudemire both have strong cases as being the best players on those Suns' teams. I agree with Jordan's premise. And I don't think he's disqualifying Nash just because he had 2 great players to play with, though it's important to remember that. Nash and the uptempo Suns were a great story and media darlings. That's not the only reason, but by far the #1 reason why he won his MVPs. It's hard to actually definitively say Nash was the #1 guy in PHO, so to say he's the MVP of the league is even a bigger stretch.

The MVP isn't the best player in the league. It doesn't work that way, everybody knows that and there's no point arguing about it. Kidd was the big story of 2001 and was the choice of players, coaches and trainers. If the players still selected the award, Kidd would have won it. But because he played in the weaker East and the Nets didn't win a huge amount of games, the media went with Duncan. Lebron was second in voting in 2006, Dirk third and Bryant fourth. Kobe wasn't getting the MVP that year.

You seem fixated on this teammate thing with regard to MVP. The reason the vast majority of people believe Nash was more valuable than Marion is the same reason that the QB more often than not is the MVP in the NFL. They are the players that make everything else work. Take Nash off that team, and it's obvious who the MVP was. Removing Marion would make a difference, but not close to the impact of the absence of Steve Nash. I think we've exhausted this subject. As you have already acknowledged, most people agree with me. I've never heard anyone (other than you) say they thought Marion was more valuable (or equally valuable). I think everyone understands what Marion brought to the team. But D'Antoni's offense is a PG driven system, and Nash was uniquely qualified to run it.

"Marion wasn't equally valuable. His stats are irrelevant." So why are Nash's stats relevant? Why wasn't Amare the MVP in 05 then? He averaged 29 and 9 on 58%. Cuz that was all Nash? Here's an idea, let's present opinions backed up with some sort of evidence other than more opinion. "Marion wouldn't have had the offensive numbers without Nash." Nash wouldn't have had the offensive numbers without Marion or Amare or Joe Johnson, etc. etc. I understand that all great players, all MVPs play with other great players. Magic played with Kareem. Bird with McHale and Parish. MJ with Pippen, etc. But the fact is, that Nash had the best teammate (Marion) out of any of the other possible MVP candidates in 2006 other than Shaq and Wade. That's a fact. "Marion's contributions didn't match Nash." True. They exceeded Nash's according to old school numbers and advanced numbers and good old metrics like minutes played and games played. Nash was better at 3-point shooting, FT %, and assists--a majority of which came off of Marion (the team's leading scorer in 06). That's it. Yes, he was the offensive engine, but Marion was the defensive engine and the second best offensive option. Nash was a defensive liability even in his prime. Let's get one thing absolutely clear. Basketball is a game that has two sides: Offense and Defense. The age old trope is that Defense wins championships. Even if that's not true, 50% of basketball is played on offense. The other 50% is on defense. Which means that even if Nash was the best offensive player in the world (he's not), the fact he is one of the worst defensive point guards in the game absolutely has to be factored in. Marion was a major contributor on both ends. The second option on offense and the first option on defense. How can you just dismiss this and say Nash was the offense so he's waaaay better? You may not like boxscore stats or advanced stats (all of which point to Marion's invaluable contributions to the Suns) but what you like or not is pretty irrelevant if not backed up with facts. "To say he was as valuable as Nash is crazy." No, it's not. It's crazy that so many people think like you do. When facts don't back up that storyline.

Marion wasn't equally valuable. His stats are irrelevant. I don't agree with your logic about Nash not deserving the MVP because there was another strong player on the team. Look at the players on the Celtics when Bird was winning his MVP's. He wasn't the only great player on that team, but the team was at the top of the league & he was the best player on the team. Same for the Suns and Nash. You may believe Marion and Nash were equal, but they weren't. Marion wouldn't have had the offensive numbers he had without Nash. Nash makes everyone around him better. Yes, Marion's defense and rebounding helped the team, but his contributions didn't match Nash. Marion was never as good in Dallas as he was in Phoenix. That's because he didn't have Nash feeding him those easy lay-ups. I'm not denigrating Marion. But to say he was as valuable as Nash is crazy.

2014 Houston is nothing like 2005 Phoenix. Phoenix won more games than any other team in the league. Don't think Houston is in that class, and nobody believes Howard is the best player on that team. No one questions the fact that Marion was a good player, but let's get real. If you don't believe that the addition of Nash was the real difference between 2003-2004 Phoenix and 2004-2005 you're kidding yourself. D'Antoni was in Phoenix for at least half of that 2003/2004 season. I don't think he's under any illusions about what Steve Nash meant to his offense. I don't know why these continuing arguments about Nash's MVP's, but bringing Shawn Marion into the discussion is just ridiculous. There are a lot of players in the NBA who are great players and contribute a lot to their teams. That doesn't mean they are in the MVP conversation. And it wouldn't matter who was in Phoenix first. Nash was clearly the engine that ran that team. No one was ever going to say otherwise. Harden was in the conversation for MVP because he's such a dominant player and because of his numbers. There's also the fact that there just aren't that many genuine MVP candidates this season. I don't think any of the guys being mentioned are that far ahead of anyone else. I think MVP voters get it right more often than not. Steve Nash deserved the MVP those two seasons and could have made it 3 in a row if Dirk hadn't had the year he had.

Interesting points about Marion, and mostly agree. Most people don't realize just how good he was, and that he was an AS before Nash joined PHO. Nash certainly deserves some credit for PHO success, but Dantoni deserves a lot, too. Along with Nash, PHO had a current star in Marion, a superstar in the making in Amare, and a near-future star in JJ. They had a lot. As I pointed out previously, there were several big changes for PHO in 05 compared to 04. It wasn't just the addition of Nash. This is a very good point that brings to light how unfortunate Nash winning even 1 MVP was. Now that we've seen his career come full circle, we see how DAL immediately got better after he left, and he never made a finals, especially with how many great teams/players he played on/with. Kobe probably robbed Shaq of at least 1 MVP, but Shaq has some strong cases for MVP in the 90s, too. You shouldn't be penalized for having a weak cast or playing with another great player. Though, the latter happens a lot less. Westbrook was a top 5 player last year, and Durant still won. 2014 HOU is similar to 2005 PHO. Harden is already with HOU, and then Howard joins HOU in 2014. HOU does a lot better in 14, making it seem like Howard is their best player to some people. While Harden wasn't much better than Howard, it should've been clear who's that team was, and Harden has since distanced himself as 'the man' in HOU this year, regardless of Howard's injuries. Harden has no business winning MVP in 2014, but he was in the conversation. Perception, whether right or not, is big to MVP voters. If Nash was on PHO in 04, and Marion joins him in 05, then it would seem like Marion was the big factor, though Nash would've still been the media darling, which is big as well to MVP voters.

Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. True, in 06, the Suns lost all three games Nash sat out and won the single game Marion sat out (a game both teams rested their players due to the impending playoffs). Whether they lost those games or not, isn't the point. The point is that Nash and Marion were nearly equally valuable in order to make the Suns the Suns. Just because you "don't think anyone believed that Shawn Marion was more valuable than Nash" doesn't mean he wasn't. I provided ample proof. Not only was he invaluable to the team as a scorer, but he was the team's glue on defense and by far its best rebounder. Yes, Nash made Marion better, but Marion allowed Nash to be Nash by covering for Nash' s defensive shortcomings. I never made the claim Marion was more valuable than Nash. I just said, he was equally valuable to the Suns, and in 06, there is a very good argument to be made that he was more valuable. I bring up Shaq/Kobe because Shaq got robbed of at least one, if not two MVPs because he had Kobe on his team with him. Nash's contribution to the Suns was valuable (duh), but so was Marion's. Most people don't give Marion enough credit for what he did. I am trying to point that out. The argument is that in 06, Nash shouldn't have won because Marion statistically outproduced him while the other MVP candidates (outside of Shaq) had no one nearly as good as Marion. Duncan had a young Parker. Nowitzki had Howard/Terry. Kobe had no one. Lebron had Big Z (almost no one). Shaq had Wade.

Marion was with the Suns the year before Nash arrived. They didn't win 30 games. They rarely won a game that Nash sat out. All good teams have more than one great player. I don't think anyone believed that Shawn Marion was more valuable than Nash (unless it was Marion). Apparently he has a high opinion of himself. Not really following your logic about Kobe/Shaq--Nash/Marion. I don't think you can compare them. Bottom line--the Suns were one of the top teams those two seasons that Nash was MVP. He was the key to that offense and was like a coach on the floor. The whole time Nash was in Phoenix they couldn't win without him. That's a statistical fact. That's the essence of an MVP. Take him off that team, and they weren't the same. Not saying he wasn't a good player or that his presence didn't make a difference, but MVP? No.

You can even make the case that Nash wasn't the most valuable player on his own team during the two seasons he won the MVP. Not if taking into account both offense and defense. It's unquestionable he made everyone else better offensively. But his defense needed to be hidden in order for the Suns to win (playoff) games. I'd argue no one else in the NBA at that time could do what Shawn Marion did for the 05 and 06 Suns (including a third-year MVP-caliber Lebron who was still years away from knowing how to effectively play off the ball and spot-up shoot from distance). In 05, Marion was 1st on the team in rebounding, defensive rebounding (which is an important distinction), steals, and VORP. He was 2nd on the team in scoring, blocks, win-shares, games played (6 more than Nash), and minutes. He could guard point guards. He could guard power forwards. He guarded Kobe Bryant and Manu Ginobili. In 06, he was even more valuable as Amare Stoudemire played in only three games. Marion guarded every position (played center frequently), led the team in points, rebounding (nearly 5 more than everyone else), steals, blocks, FTA, minutes, games, win-shares, and VORP. He was second in FG% and OFF rating. Again, Nash made everyone else on that team better offensively, but in many ways, so did Marion. He was the team's best offensive rebounder, scored efficiently, and shot efficiently 52/34/82. While Bell was probably pound-for-pound a better defender, Marion defended from an A to C level at every weight class. The team finished 16th in defensive rating despite a starting five where nobody was over 6-8. Marion was the team's second most important offensive player (or third as one could reasonably argue Diaw was second) and the most indispensable defensive player. Nash was the most important offensive player and like the 7th or 8th best defensive player. I'm not taking sides one way or the other, but if Shaq got robbed because of Kobe, Nash should have suffered the same fate because of Marion, especially in 06. Duncan (18 and 11, Spurs lead league in defense, 10th in offense), Lebron (31, 7.0, 6.6, 48% on a 50-win team), Bryant (45 wins, 35 ppg, best player in League), Nowitzki (60 wins, 26 and 9), and Shaq (20 and 9, played in only 59 games). Only Shaq played with a player better than Marion (Wade) and there is an argument that Wade was more valuable (and a better player) than Shaq even at that early stage of his career. He did win the Finals MVP that year. Bryant's team was absolute trash (Kwame Brown, Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Lamar Odom), Lebron's wasn't much better (Big Z, Drew Gooden, Eric Snow, Hughes/Pavlovic), Nowitzki's second best player was Josh Howard, Duncan's was Tony Parker. Nash had Marion. And Marion was at the very least just as valuable to the Suns.

the award has traditionally been tied to a combination of team and individual performance” Sure I know and traditionally (and unfortunately still currently for many journalists) we thought per game box score numbers were useful stats in and of themselves . Traditional failure shouldn’t lead to us creating sacred cows. “what you would pay the most for is not the criteria” now this is odd as I thought the award had no actual criteria so therefore the criteria should be derived from what the award is supposed to embody. The NBA’s most valuable player for a season should by definition have the highest valuation placed on their performance for that season, given what the words “most” and “valuable” mean, ergo the player whose production for the season would fetch the highest price (i.e. objective valuation of performance) in an informed competitive process should win the award. I’m more than willing to acknowledge they don’t always but then I’d acknowledge that my respect for the voting group’s motives and analytical ability as a whole probably isn’t high either. “It’s not that complicated” well actually it is exponentially more complicated with your system because now you are layering in a weighting to the production based on beating the flawed assumptions of people with incomplete information and then assuming that the majority of the differential between outcomes and expectations is due solely to the anointed “best” player on that team which is incredibly unlikely in a 5 player a side sport where no one plays 48 minutes for 82 games and you have a coach who seems to ultimately bear the market expectations for performance. It’s impossible to view something which = A (value of performance) * B (team record / expected team record) * C (credit applied to player for B) as not being more complicated as something which simply = A. “but it’s not just about the individual” It listed as an individual award, it is awarded to an individual and carries a title with singular terms like most and player that implies individual accreditation.

The award has traditionally been tied to a combination of team and individual performance. If it was simply an award for the best player in the league LeBron would win every year. It's usually the player who has had the best year as part of a team that's in the conversation for a championship. Kobe has arguably been the best player in the league many times, but unless the Lakers had a realistic chance of going to the Finals he wasn't going to be MVP. It's not really that complicated. You can have an amazing year for a lousy team, and you're not going to be the MVP. What you would pay the most for is also not the criteria. The team has to have a great season, not just the player. I know I'm being redundant here, but it's not just about the individual.

I find people's distiniction between best and valuable odd. Surely you would retrospectively pay the most for the best season making it the most valuable, If not then your method of valuation is flawed.

The MVP award is not given to the best player in the league. It's given to the "most valuable" player, and that player is usually on one of the top teams in the league. Take a look at the Lakers record in 2005/ 2006, and you'll know why Kobe didn't deserve that MVP. Most people who question that MVP want to give it to Shaq, but Nash was more valuable to that Suns team without Amare than any other player IMO. Reasonable people can disagree, but there's no way Kobe deserved it. The 05/06 Suns had Amare for 3 games. Raja Bell was out for 2 games in the WCF's against the Mavs. I don't think the roster was ungraded. After the 2004/2005 season the team started letting players leave because they didn't want to pay them. It progressively got worse, and if Nash hadn't been there the Suns would have faded away long before they did. The fact that they had a real chance against the Lakers in the WCF's in 2012 was nothing short of miraculous. Would never have happened without Nash.

Lebron? Please. Kobe was far and away the best player in the league in 06. Not sure about Duncan in 02, but Kidd didn't deserve it, no way was the best player in the league. Shaq probably deserved it in 02, and definitely deserved it in 01. I think KG has a legitimate case in 04, he just didn't have as much consideration for MVP until his cast got better. Kobe was better, but he missed 17 games, so it's understandable. Rose was phenomenal in 11. James, Kobe, and Howard all have cases. But, Rose wasn't playing with 2 other big-time players like James was, and his team did better during the regular season with a rookie head coach. I don't think that was a bad choice. The 05 Suns had a deeper team than 04, upgraded their roster some, some young players played better, and they had much fewer injuries.

Nash deserved his first MVP award. The Suns went from a 29-53 team to 62-20. Shaq winning in 2006 would have been like Duncan winning in 2002 instead of Kidd. If Nash is undeserving then so was Iverson in '01, Garnett in '04 and Rose in '11. The '06 award probably should have gone to Lebron.