ESPN's running a best point guards of all time (which makes me wonder, how come no one ever does a "Best Small Forwards of All-Time" list? Personally, I think it's the inherent anti-Mark Aguirre/George Gervin bias in today's media).
As you can imagine, Gary Payton's on the list. As you could not imagine, he's 10th, ranked behind - ugh - Steve Nash at number 9. Now, I could go on and on about what a travesty this is, but I thought it might be more instructive to compare the Hall of Fame probability numbers for these two gentlemen, courtesy of basketball-reference.com.
Gary Payton's probability of making the HOF: 79.8%
Steve Nash's probability of making the HOF: 5.6%
Oh, yeah, Nash is all over him. Good call, ESPN.
33 comments:
In addition to Payton, here's some other PGs I'd rank ahead of Nash in the top 10:
1. Tim Hardaway
2. Norm Nixon
3. Dennis Johnson
Now that's some bullshit, ranking Nash over GP is a damn insult. GP and His student Jason Kidd are both way better point guards. Gp in his prime when he won defensive player of the year against Nash in his prime, no contest, G would've locked that fool down. KJ is better than steve nash. Whatever it's just a bunch of great white hype, it's so stupid that it's just funny.
I like KJ, too. I don't know if it's because Nash is white, or if it's because he's playing in his prime right now and none of the other guys are. Whatever's the flavor of the month always gets overhyped.
Wait a few years from now when Nash is eligible for the Hall - then we'll see who the 10 best PGs of all time are.
Here's another nominee - Mark Jackson - 3rd all time in assists and out of the top 10? Outrageous!
It probably has happened, but has a guy ever won the MVP and not been inducted into the HOF when he was eligible? I'd bet my lunch that no 2-time winner has been denied. HOF's are stupid anyway, but GP is definatly a better PG than Nash.
I can't beleive I forgot Marc Jackson, my bad, and what about dude from the knicks um.... Starks. He's better than Nash too.
Good point, Lance. In fact, no one has ever won an MVP and failed to make the HOF, with the exception of active players, at least as far as I can tell from the list of MVPs (not counting ABA guys).
On the other hand, nobody's ever won an MVP, let alone two, with the kind of numbers Nash has put up. Seriously, nobody. The only guy who's even close is Bill Walton in '78, and he only led his team to the Championship the previous year.
One guy nobody seems to mention is Lenny Wilkens. If you check his stats, he was an outstanding player for a long time. 9-time all star, annually in the top 3 or 4 in assists, close to 20 ppg, got to the line alot - especially for a guard - just a great all-around player. He's not the greatest of all-time, but he's in the top 10 in my opinion.
Agreed, Lenny is the man.
LOL
Nash better than GP ?:D
I really hate nash now because of all this buzz around him, this guy sucks; i agree with you that KJ, Hardaway or Jackson are way better (but black)
wtf does (but black) mean??
I suspect he means that they get ranked behind Nash because he's become the short white hope...
No MVP winner has ever not made the HoF, and none of the guys who are not eligible should fail to make it...except Nash.
I've never understood the obsession with him. He pushes the ball up the court...fine, but I can find you 15 other point guards who can do it as well. Yes, he's a good passer, but again, he's not the best passer in the league, and certainly not one of the best of all time. He's an inconsistant scorer and an atrocious defender.
GP was better at every phase of the game with the possible exception of passing...but then again, he didn't get to play in the Phoenix offense (which is an assist-generating machine, since so many of the shots are taken right off passes).
"wtf does (but black) mean?? "
I begin to wonder if Nash's skin color has an influence on his hype, that's all...
It would be very sad but it's the only explanation i can find
and Nash is not such a good passer, 10 assists in a "110 points per game" offense is very good but not fabulous. (Billups 's Assists/team PPG is almost as good as Nash's)
If Amare come's back next year and if the Suns win more than 60 games Nash is ready for the three-peat !:(
Nash is a greater lock for the HOF than GP. The basketball HOF doesn't induct based on stats, so much as contribution to the game. Nash is the first really great Canadian NBA player so he should enter the hall easily.
The fact he's Canadian shouldn't have too much impact; after all, who was the best Canadian before Nash?
Anybody?
Bueller?
And I think the HOF does indeed induct based upon stats, with the exception of international players who never played in the NBA, or coaches, or contributors. The number I tossed out was created by the fellow who runs basketball-reference.com to precisely estimate who or who would not make the Hall, based upon previous players who were inducted.
In other words, he looked at who has been inducted, what their stats and accomplishments were, and created a formula so we could better estimate who the next person in would be. The fact Nash's statistics are so woefully inadequate compared to Payton's just further illustrates the maniacal obsession the media has with Nash, and how this obsession is totally out of whack in relation to his on-field accomplishments.
The way I see it, if the nerds over at basketball-reference.com factored in the MVP, Nash would get a 100%. But does anyone care about the basketball HOF? Other than baseball, whose fans wrap themselves in sappy good-old days bullshit, what other sport HOF matters to the fans of that sport. I know the baseball HOF is in Cooperstown, and I despise baseball, but I have no idea where the NBA HOF is, and could really care less.
I'd personally rank Stockton at #1, over Magic. Magic was doubtless a better player. Stockton was, in my opinion, a better point guard. Also, his longevity counts for something. Granted, Magic's retirement wasn't because of age or skills, but Stockton played for nearly 20 years and was nearly as good in his final seasons as he was in his prime.
Also, where the hell is Mo Cheeks on this list?
Awsome info of the day. Over at sonicscentral they are postulating on who should be the new "color" man over at ktth or whatever that station is called but ironically there are no suggestions of anyone of COLOR to be the "color" guy. WTF????? Are you kidding me, just give it to David Locke, ya know the guy who is constantly practicing his Rosanne Barr impression. Seriously, can we get this man a tissue, he sounds like B-real from Cypress Hill. It is just grating to the eardrums. I think they probably interviewed one black guy, after the interview they told him "we've decided to go with someone else, but don't give up, you speak so well".
From what I understand, the debate right now is over the new play-by-play guy, as the simulcast business is now dead. Calabro will have a color guy, and the new play-by-play guy will have a color guy.
I don't think anyone is rumored to be up for the positions, other than that Craig Ehlo is no longer in consideration. It'll be interesting to see who the Sonics pick. Maybe Lenny Wilkens, although I never heard him during his brief bits on FSN. Any other nominees?
Marques Johnson and James Worthy were both great. I loved it when those guys were with Calabro, it was perfect, Billy Mckinney was allright but he's kind of a dork.
Oh contrair Nuss. According to this article some guy named Davis and our current guy Brian Wheeler on at least rumored to be in the running.
Black, I understand the frustration, but would it make you feel any better if they hired a black guy simply for the token effect? If so, please, please, please take our guy Antonio Harvey.
I don't feel hiring a black man to do basketball commentary is tokenism, actually if you look at the ratio of black to white in the NBA, white basketball comentators should be looked at as tokens.
Au contraire, Lance, if you read the article closely - I know it must tough for Oregonians to understand our complicated, north-of-the-Columbia English - you'll see that those 3 fellows are in competition for a play-by-play position. Here is how it will work out as I understand it:
1. Kevin Calabro will call all televised games on FSN, and the 10 games not televised on radio.
2. Locke/Davis/Wheeler will call all 72 games on radio whilst Calabro is on TV.
3. Unnamed Man #1 will be color commentator on tv
4. Unnamed Man #2 will be color commentator on tv
Got all that?
And, no, we don't want Antonio Harvey, even with his great nickname. We will, however, accept a trade of Craig Ehlo for Bill Schonely, with a weekend sports anchor to be named later.
You know, I almost qualified that post with an "I could be wrong" but I thought I'd let 'em hang out for once.
That's what I thought Black. It wouldn't be a token hire if said black person is the right guy for the job, or even if said black person is as good or even almost as good as white guy. I'm guessing no one will know what I'm talking about, but Ed Whalen is the only black sports guy on TV here in Portland, and he's fucking horrible. Did he get his job because he's black? Probably not, but he sure didn't get it because he's good at what he does.
I have to disagree with you on the issue of the ratio of black players to black broadcasters. For one, there seem to be quite a few black broadcasters in the NBA, certainly more than in any other sport, which I think does go the fact that there are more Blacks in the NBA. But that also presumes that skill on the court equals skill on the mic. I have no doubt that Antonio Harvey knows far more about basketball than I, but that doesn't mean he can convey that knowledge to a radio audience. And I damn well know that he can't do that.
I've also noticed that while ex-players get jobs as "color guys" they don't usually get the head broadcaster position, probably because they haven't spent years practicing their craft doing high school and college games.
Yep, In another city you probably wouldn't hear me bitching. But oh Seattle, we finally change the symbol to king county to Dr. King, but that's just a bone. Don't get uppity and expect that KJR is gonna put black people on the air unless it's a guess spot for former Husky ball players, it sucks to have such a love hate relationship w/ your hometown.
Nash is a mortal lock to be in the HOF. Two MVP awards - in consecutive years? Sure thing.
And by the way - Nash is a great player. He's not the MVP, and he wasn't last year. But he's a great player, and really fun to watch.
It's kind of sad that the plain silliness of him being a two-time MVP has generated a backlash of people saying, oh he plays crap.
Don -- I'm sorry, but a player can't be great if he plays no D. It's half the game. And Nash is so, so bad on D. He's so bad, I've never heard a person make the case that he even plays that side passably.
I understand why people like him, and like the Suns; they're fun to watch, and I wish more teams pushed the ball like they do. But that doesn't make Nash a great player. He's good, very good, not great.
Hate to be harsh, but anyone who rates Norm Nixon above Steve nash has got to be drunk, racist or just plain ignorant.
Without Steve Nash, the Suns would not be in the playoffs much less a potential contender. Not sure who you could rate as having thatkind of impact on their team. I think there is a difference between the best player and the MVP.
Through age 31:
POINTS
Nixon - 11,500
Nash - 9,500
ASSISTS
Nixon - 6,000
Nash - 5,000
STEALS
Nixon - 1,100
Nash - 550
TURNOVERS
Nixon - 2,200
Nash - 1,700
FINALS APPEARANCES
Nixon - 3 (2 wins)
Nash - 0
Go ahead. Tell me where in those stats that Nash is better.
Now, was Nixon solely responsible for the Lakers winning 2 titles? Of course not. Was he a key member of one of the greatest teams in history? Yes. Has Nash ever done anything in the playoffs? No. Did the Mavericks fall apart when he left? No.
Look, just because Nash is the be-all and end-all right now, doesn't mean that Norm Nixon never existed. Just because our view of history is limited to people like Robertson and Kareem and Chamberlain doesn't mean great players like Nixon never lived.
Norm Nixon's career was tragically cut short by injury at the age of 30 and he only played one season after he turned 31; maybe that clouds people's judgements. But when you say that Steve Nash is one of the 10 greatest point guards of all time, tell me why that is, beyond emotional nonsense about making his team better.
Good job on the stats,but you are not saying Nixon would be making th impact that Nash is on the Suns right now? Was Nixon ever in the running for MVP? Did the lakers fall flat when he got traded by Jerry West for Byron Scott. Are you saying Scott(not a point guard Iunderstand) is a better player than Nash?
Nixon was a good complementarty player. Nash is a creator from whom the offense flows through.
Sorry for the mis-spelling
You're right, Nixon was never in consideration for the MVP, but maybe that's because of his situation.
Perhaps if Nixon had been in the same situation as Nash now, he may have been a candidate.
How about you flip the scenario: What if Nash took on Nixon's role in LA back in the early 80's; would he have been an MVP candidate?
No,he would not. Nash is clearly not as good as Earvin Johnson was, so he would have never won an MVP on the Lakers. And no, I do not believe Nixon would be the MVP now if was the starting point guard on the Suns.
Post a Comment