The Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame is not the NBA Hall of Fame. That would explain why people like Van Chancellor, and Drazen Dalipagic are in it. The 2007 class featured five coaches, one entire team, a referee, and not one individual player.
The entire Hall of Fame consists of only 258 players and five teams. That isn't a lot, when you consider that the Hall opened it's doors in 1960.
How exclusive is the Naismith Hall of Fame? James Worthy didn't get in the first time he was on the ballot. Neither did Dominique Wilkins. Worthy was a collegiate champion, a four-time NBA champion and a Finals' MVP. Had the United States not boycotted the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow, Worthy would have had his chance at a gold medal too.
How about the fact that since 1996, only nine players from the modern NBA have been enshrined who didn't have either the Lakers or the Celtics listed on the back of their basketball card. (In case you're wondering, Alex English's role as a Celtic in Amazing Grace and Chuck does not qualify him as a Celtic).
Taking a look at the current crop of NBA players, I wanted to see how great the company we are in the presence of actually is.
I went through all of the NBA rosters and came up with three lists: "In", "On The Way", and "Out".
The "In" list is reserved for the guys that if they'd played their last game yesterday, would still be voted in.
The "On The Way" list is for the guys that just need to continue progressing the way they have been (i.e. Dirk Nowitzki) or only need to add a couple more achievements to their bio (i.e. Manu Ginobili) for their ticket to be punched.
The "Out" list is reserved for the guys who are either considered Hall-worthy only by their hometown fans (i.e. Gilbert Arenas) or don't have enough years left in their careers to make a strong enough case (i.e. Chauncey Billups). Don't forget that Dennis Johnson isn't in the Hall of Fame. So if the guy you think isn't better than DJ, then don't waste your time trying to make an argument.
There's an old school of thought regarding the Hall of Fame that says if you have to think about it, then the answer is no.
Here are the six that you don't have to think about (in no particular order):
IN
- Kevin Garnett
- Allen Iverson
- Shaquille O'Neal
- Jason Kidd
- Kobe Bryant
- Tim Duncan
That's it. I don't think anyone will argue that any of them aren't worthy. It's pretty amazing that the list stops at six.
Kidd is the only one who some might take issue with. In addition to a stellar amateur career, Kidd took his teams to two NBA Finals, trails only Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson in career triple-doubles (99), and is behind only Magic, Oscar, John Stockton and Mark Jackson in career assists. If he can accumulate at leat 500 assists in each of the next two seasons, he'll finish his career second only to Stockton.
Iverson is the only one who the Honors Committee might have a problem with because of his image, although none of his contemporaries would argue. The fact that he was the toughest player in the league at 6-feet and 165 pounds is all you need to know.
ON THE WAY
73 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Dallin Page about 1 year ago
I agree with every part of this article except for one thing. Deron Williams should be on the fringe. He is a very great leader, and excellent player, just as good as parker and paul.
But other than that, excellent points. Horry should never get near the hall, and I think your six "in's" are right on the money.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
I love Deron Williams. I think he's still a year away, in spite of the fact that he kills Paul when the two go head to head. He's playing with three guys who've been all-stars. I still don't know what his ceiling looks like. If I put him on the list, I wouldn't have regretted it. I thought it about it, long and hard and decided he's a year away.
Thanks for the feedback.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
I love reading all your articles - great job, man.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Thanks. It's great knowing that all the work is appreciated.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
wow tmac, arenas, nash, Jemain,and peice not going to the hall of fame you are stuoid.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Ladies and Gentlemen- I present you the greatest example of irony.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dallin Page about 1 year ago
wow, that was one of the funniest things that I have ever seen. What a moron!
Edit Comment Cancel
Sean Francois about 1 year ago
hahahahahaha
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
yo you aint even know what you talkn about.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Whittenberg about 1 year ago
you aint even know what you are talkn about? Talk about illiterate.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
This guy is on to some thing Dylan your the moron
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
this guy is on to something Andrew wouldnt even put MJ in the Hall
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Are you trying to compare Nash, McGrady, Pierce, Arenas, and Jermaine O'Neal to MJ? Your analysis is almost as bad as your spelling. Nobody would be surprised if Nash got in. But if you really think Jermaine O'Neal is hall-bound then there's nothing else I need to know about your knowledge of basketball. I'd remain Anonymous too if I were you.
Edit Comment Cancel
Isaac Sorsa about 1 year ago
As a die-hard Pacers fan, Jermaine is not even in the conversation for the Hall.
But I think Chris Webber and Steve Nash are both hall of famers because of the impact both have had on the league. Webber is one of the best passing big men we've ever seen and opened the door for teams to try and use a version of the princeton offense in the NBA. Before that Sacramento team was so successful, teams were really going towards isolation offenses or "superstar ball". Sacramento helped bring team basketball back in to the conversation, and it was built on Chris Webber's passing ability. Not to mention he was a hell of a scorer in his prime.
Steve Nash is a tough one, because he really has only had 3 seasons that make him in the conversation for the Hall, but the fact that they have been so successful playing the style they do that so many other teams have tried to emulate it tells you a lot. Nobody has reached the level that they reached playing that style, and its because none of them have the point guard play Phoenix has had.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
I wouldn't be surprised if Nash got in. But Webber has a slightly better chance of getting in than I do. If anybody deserves credit for Sacramento's success it's Pete Carril and he was enshrined a couple years ago. Webber was a product of the system.
What you call Webber's "passing ability" is what others criticize about him--he was a glorified small forward with big-man's height who never wanted to take the big shot and made his living from the elbow. He had a stellar three years in Sacramento but everything before and after pales in comparison.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Whittenberg about 1 year ago
I don't know about Manu as a hall of famer.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
It's not the NBA Hall of Fame, it's the basketball Hall of Fame. This is from Manu's wikipedia page:
Ginóbili spent the early half of his basketball career in Argentina and Italy, where he won several individual and team honors. His stint with Italian side Kinder Bologna was particularly productive, earning two Lega A Most Valuable Player awards, one Euroleague MVP award and the 2001 League Championship. The San Antonio Spurs drafted the shooting guard as the 57th overall pick in the 1999 NBA Draft, but Ginóbili returned to Italy and only joined the Spurs in 2002. He did not take long to establish himself as a key player for the Spurs, and has since won three NBA championships as well as being named an All-Star once.
"With the national team, Ginóbili has also enjoyed success. He made his début in 1998, and was a member of the team which won the gold medal during the 2004 Olympics. Hailed as one of the finest Europe-based players to grace the NBA with his high-tempo and intensive game, Ginóbili is also the only basketball player ever to win a Euroleague title, an NBA championship, and an Olympic gold medal."
That last sentence says a lot.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Whittenberg about 1 year ago
Oh okay. Now that you put it that way, then yes he is on his way. I think the same can be said for Toni Kukoc, too.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
You know what? You're right. I haven't thought about that. Kukoc had as glowing an international career as anyone. By the time he came over to the NBA he was already What about Sabonis? He was 31 when he came over to the NBA.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Whittenberg about 1 year ago
Yeah, Sabonis can be added as well. I think Mourning will be enshrined one day.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
YA well All my freinds think your wacked and some our on 1 teams in the state.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
http://hooked-on-phonics.com/
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
If Tracy gets passed the second round of the playoffs he might make it in that will be the only way. But Lebrone probably is already in don't you think?
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
You can't tell me that T-Mac is better than Dominique Wilkins and he barely got in. If I took that list of 6 that are guaranteed to get in and added T-Mac, he would look completely out of place.
No, LeBron is not in after just four years. Sorry. He needs another five years like the previous four or better.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Fennelly about 1 year ago
Stop worrying about the Hall of Fame and start worrying how the U.S. is going to regain world basketball supremacy.
None of these guys can shoot like the players of yesteryear
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
You're right, John. I just pulled out my playbook. I'll get working on that right away. I don't know what that has to do with the Hall of Fame.
There are definitely shooters in today's game as good as any shooter from yesteryear. The problem is that are only a handful of them nowadays.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Fennelly about 1 year ago
I know my comments are off topic, but I can't go to Springfield and see plaques of guys who never developed a full basketball skill set. I guess that goes for any sport these days.
My point is kids leap to the NBA without learning the basics, and then the league coddles them until they either learn some, or the league bends to help them succeed - example LeBron James.
The weaknesses are glaring in level playing fields such as international play, where the dunking, showboating and lax defense of the US players is overshadowed by the shooting, passing, rebounding and defensive play of their more disciplined opponents.
One of the reasons John Thompson left the game...
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Which players on my list of 6 or currently in the hall are you referring to?
Edit Comment Cancel
John Fennelly about 1 year ago
I think those six are all good players.... Kidd, Kobe and Duncan are great players - versatile - and I have no problem with them
I'm speaking of the pre-ordained 'stars, such as Carmelo and Lebron......they are not great all around players and they will be in the hall someday
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Carmelo is still a big ball of potential. I'd hate to see it go to waste. He hasn't progressed this year nearly the way he has when he first came into the league. The thing that I love about LeBron is that he listens to the criticism and responds. They used to say he lacked the killer instinct. Did you watch the game yesterday??? Next they'll talk about his 32% career three-point shooting and that'll be up to 43% by 2010. He has that desire to be the greatest. I don't see that with Melo. He's so gifted physically that it's so frustrating to watch. I think AI stunted his growth. He's so careful not to step on AI's toes that it's doing more harm than good. LeBron's defense is much better this year too. He's still not great but he's much much better.
Edit Comment Cancel
Sean Francois about 1 year ago
Andrew - excellent article man - you definitely put some work into this! I certainly enjoyed reading it.
KG & AI are two of my favorite players to EVER play the game - so I'm with you 100% with them being on your 'automatic' list of 6, I agree with the other 4 you listed as well.
Nash...I read all your points and they are definitely valid, but I think his career numbers, and back-to-back MVPs will get him enshrined to the HOF if he were never to play another game. Of course like the other players listed in this article, their careers aren't done - so like you said, a ring and/or another MVP could happen before he hangs up his sneakers would put him in for sure.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Leney about 1 year ago
Good article. I was a little surprised not to find Joel Pryzbilla's name on the "IN" list though.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
He was on the original list. It was either him or Garnett and I opted for Garnett.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
whats that
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Mabey in a few years Amare will be on this list.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
I ment mabe typo in a few years Amare will be on this list. I should be that anonymous guy.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
The reason I said I would re-visit this in a year is because of Amare. By the end of the season he'll be on the way. He's as good of a mid-range shooter as there is in the NBA, not just center/forwards. He doesn't get enough recognition for it because people would rather use that as a negative to point out that he has no low-post game.
In reality, he's like the Hulk version of Chris Webber/Bruce Banner. He's a much better finisher than Webber and he can't pass like him. But in terms of them knocking down the shot from the elbow where it seems like they never miss they're very much alike. He's the only member of the Suns to benefit from Shaq's presence. He's shooting 58% and more than half of his shots are beyond ten feet.
Edit Comment Cancel
Heather Stidham about 1 year ago
I love this article. It looks like it took a lot of work. The only gripe I have is that you are willing to re-visit this in a year for Amare, but you think Nash is out. That makes no sense to me at all. Amare is a good player, but not a two-time MVP, six-time All Star and five-time all NBA selection. In terms of achievments he surpasses numerous others. Other than that...GREAT Article!
Edit Comment Cancel
Heather Stidham about 1 year ago
I love this article. It looks like it took a lot of work. The only gripe I have is that you are willing to re-visit this in a year for Amare, but you think Nash is out. That makes no sense to me at all. Amare is a good player, but not a two-time MVP, six-time All Star and five-time all NBA selection. In terms of achievments he surpasses numerous others. Other than that...GREAT Article!
Edit Comment Cancel
Heather Stidham about 1 year ago
I love this article. It looks like it took a lot of work. The only gripe I have is that you are willing to re-visit this in a year for Amare, but you think Nash is out. That makes no sense to me at all. Amare is a good player, but not a two-time MVP, six-time All Star and five-time all NBA selection. In terms of achievments he surpasses numerous others. Other than that...GREAT Article!
Edit Comment Cancel
Heather Stidham about 1 year ago
I love this article. It looks like it took a lot of work. The only gripe I have is that you are willing to re-visit this in a year for Amare, but you think Nash is out. That makes no sense to me at all. Amare is a good player, but not a two-time MVP, six-time All Star and five-time all NBA selection. In terms of achievments he surpasses numerous others. Other than that...GREAT Article!
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
I think Nash is out because he's 34 and his best days are probably behind him. Amare is 25. At the rate that he's improving he's clearly on pace to be on the Hall of Fame track. Nash has been first team All-NBA only three times. He was on the third-team twice. He's led the league in assists thrice as well. His last few years were great but from 1997 to 2004 he was really good but not amazing. Amare has at least another ten years left in his career. If he continues at his current rate of improvement he's a lock for the Hall. I don't know what doesn't make sense about that. One guy may have missed his chance and the other guy has plenty of years left. If Nash wins another MVP (which seems unlikely) or a ring (even more unlikely) than he's a lock.
Edit Comment Cancel
Heather Stidham about 1 year ago
Oops.. Sorry. Obviously I am an idiot!
Edit Comment Cancel
Compfever about 1 year ago
Leaving Nash on the "out" list makes no sense at all and diminishes your entire article. If he is not a hall of famer now, his career can have as much as 5 more good years in it (see Cassell) and by the end of this season (less than 20 games) he will be 15th all time in assists and a couple of more similar seasons will put him in the top 5. He should be "in" and at a minimum "on the way". He is one of the top shooters for a guard the game has ever seen and one of the all time leaders in three point shooting percentage and free throw percentage (his three point shooting alone should add longevity to his career as there is a place for those who can merely nail the 3). He is an international player and has played on the Canadian olympic team. His college career at a small time basketball school, Santa Clara, brought them to the NCAA tourney a couple of times and resulted in one of the NCAA's biggest upsets of all time when Santa Clara beat #2 seed Arizona in the first round. He is a true floor general and his court vision or as good as any other point guard in the history of the NBA. He is raved about by every coach he has ever had and Don Nelson said something akin to when Nash left Dallas he lost his fire to coach anymore. Take into account he is also a true sportsman, a tough competitor in the post season and tireless in his worth ethic, the Hall would be lucky to have him, not visa versa.
Edit Comment Cancel
compfever about 1 year ago
Further to the above, I don't find the arguments about his slow start all that compelling. When he entered the league he was on a team with Kevin Johnson, Jason Kidd and Michael Finley and I don't expect that was an easy group to get any pt with, especially since he was just entering the league and they were all established studs in their prime. His career numbers per game take a huge hit because he only played a limited amount of minutes behind those guys in his first few years (his fault?). Even if he doesn't win a championship, you can put his 6 all star appearences, 2 mvps, career assists, career shooting percentage, team winning percentages and match them up against anyone and I expect anyone with remotely similar numbers is already in the Hall of Fame or not yet eligible. Also, he is given credit for changing the way basketball has been played over the last 4 years and anyone who has that kind of effect on a league should be given a little more credence. Finally, and probably least importantly, he has a flash to his game and makes spectacular passes (and shots) on a nightly basis which makes him fun to watch. If you put to highlight reel with his passes, alley oops, drives (left and right) and shots, it is more spectacular then almost any other guard in the history of the NBA.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
First of all, Nash's collegiate and International achievements really aren't that great to consider. One shocking upset in the tournament and a 7th place finish in the 2000 Olympics don't really add that much to his legacy.
Why don't you take a look at the point guards that are in the Hall of Fame and tell me which ones Nash should be compared to?
The last three point guards to be inducted into the Hall of Fame were Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Marques Haynes. Haynes played for the Globetrotters when they were still a legitimate team so he doesn't have the NBA stats. That leaves Thomas and Johnson as the only two in the last fifteen years to be inducted. John Stockton is obviously just a couple years away.
As good as Nash has been, he's no Magic or Isiah. Or Stockton for that matter.
Why don't we compare Nash to Isiah Thomas and another guy not in the Hall, Kevin Johnson. You'll notice that Nash's numbers, minus the MVPs, much more resembles that of KJ's.
Nash is in his 12th year. He's already played 110 more games than KJ and about 135 fewer than Isiah did. Despite the discrepancy in games played, KJ has scored 1,100 more points and has 500 more assists. KJ made 3 all-star teams in a conference that had Magic, Stockton, and Gary Payton (another Hall of Famer to be) and would have made more teams had he been playing in the same years as Nash. He was 2nd team All-NBA four times.
Isiah in two more seasons played has 6000 more points and 2500 more assists. He was All-NBA four times and 2nd team twice. He made 12 All-Star teams. He won two titles and won the Finals MVP in one of them.
If Nash was 30 I'd say he's on the way. But the fact that he's 34 means he will most likely finish with numbers that compare to a guy like KJ who is not in the Hall then to Isiah who makes Nash's numbers look pedestrian.
Regardless of what his coaches say about him or how good his court vision is, he's a defensive liability who has never made it to an NBA Finals.
So to say that my entire article is diminished is asinine. Comparing Nash to Cassell is also irresponsible because Cassell relies on his brain and mid-range shooting and Nash relies on speed and athleticism. Cassell not going to the Hall either so the comparison makes no sense there also.
We shall see. My biggest issue is that some people think that everybody belongs in the Hall. I don't care about the flash in his game (see Williams, Jason) or how fun he is to watch (see Madsen, Mark) or that his coaches love him (see Hoiberg, Fred). Nash didn't change the way basketball has been played. He thrived off of pick-and-rolls, the game's oldest strategy. He is a great shooter. But when it's all added up you can't mention his name with Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Kidd or Payton. Nash is in the category of "Out" along with Cassell, KJ, Mark Price, Derek Harper and Tim Hardaway.
Edit Comment Cancel
compfever about 1 year ago
You are missing it again on so many levels it is difficult to know where to start.
1. Comparing Nash to arguably the 2 best point guards to ever play the game, Magic and Isiah, is unfair to put it mildly. Based on that reasoning every Center not named Chamberlain or O'Neal, every off guard not named Jordan or Bryant, etc. wouldn't be worthy. Further, as I expect you realize, his accomplishments to date far exceed many who are in the hall (Wilkens, Monroe, etc.). Notwithstanding this fact, I expect your point was to compare him against players of a similar generation but those people named (Magic, Isiah ) are not of his generation at all. Further, entrance into the hall isn't based on longevity as many studs whose career was ended prematurely for one reason or another have still made the hall based on their concentrated body of work. Nash clearly competes here. Comparing Nash to KJ is also weak. KJ is not in the hall for many reasons for which a comparison to Nash is inappropriate. KJ was injured often diminishing an otherwise great career (see Grant Hill). No one doubts his talent and arguably he maybe should get in. What you are clearly ignoring and have not addressed is that Nash played about 10 minutes per game coming out of college behind Kidd, KJ and Finley, who were in their prime. No one was going to get significant minutes coming out of school behind those guys. His stats per game played is clearly diminished because of this as is your comparisons based on games played. Further, as alluded to above, entrance to the hall is not just about stats.
2. Nash's career, however, is impressive as against most players of his generation. Two time MVP and he came in 2nd in the voting last year. That 3 year stretch as voted on by experts (not you or I) competes with any. Throw in his other 3 all star appearances, his league leading assists, shooting percentage for guards, 50 win seasons for his team, etc. and all of a sudden he has one of the most impressive resumes of his generation. And oh by the way, in 4 or 5 more games Nash will be 15th in the league all time in assists (to go with other categories for which he is in the top all time of the league including free throw percentage, 3 point percentage, etc.). Your analysis of KJ that he only made 3 all star games because he was playing during a generation with Magic, Isiah and Peyton is also misguided and your point is confusing. Nash is playing in a league with numerous hall of famers or future hall of famers and I don't expect Iverson, J. Kidd, T. Parker, C. Paul, D. Williams, B. Davis, would be slouches in any generation (and oh by the way Kobe takes up an all star guard roster spot every year in the West as well). What you are also grossly missing is Nash is still in his prime. This year his team will have another 50 win season, he is leading or in the tops in the league in assists, shooting, wins etc. The comparison to Cassell was to show that Nash still can have many more years in his career - meaning to put him "out" when he is in his prime and can have many years left is incorrect. His basketball skills allow for a much longer career. Your statement that Cassell relies on his brain and shooting and Nash relies on his speed and athleticsim is one of the most puzzling I have ever heard. I didn't think anyone doubted that two of Nash's major strengths are his brain and shooting. As far as defensive liability, I expect we should judge any deficiencies here by the success of his team and as is clear his teams almost always win. So either his defensive deficiencies are not that bad or his offense outweighs it to such an extent that his defense cannot be viewed as a liability. As far as his not being in the finals, few have made the finals in the West who are not on the Lakers or Spurs. No one can doubt he is an intense competitor in the post season and leads his team like a champion. I expect if he pulls a Gary Payton and joins a team like the Heat when his contract expires to win a championship this would satisfy this issue. Oh by the way, he is still competing for championships while leading a top team (see standings).
3. As far as the other stuff that is just the extra frosting for an otherwise terrific career. He has played on Olympic teams, he has had an exciting college career at a small school, he is credited with ushering in a new style of basketball, he is imminently watchable. These just show he is extra relevant.
Finally for now, nobody things that "everybody belongs in the Hall". That is as bizarre a comments as any of your others. Nash belongs in the hall or at the very least, a player with his credentials to date, while still in the prime of his career, does not belong in your "out" category.
Edit Comment Cancel
The word crossman about 1 year ago
Compfever you are right. To put Nash in the "out" category does not make sense. You will see Andrew even said later on in response to Isaac that he wouldn't be surprised if Nash got in and these contradicts his very statement that Nash is "out".
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
If you compare Nash to K. Johnson based on minutes played, Nash has only played 962 more minutes as of yesterday which translates into only 20 more games in his career.
As I review their comparative careers, K. Johnson only has 72 more assists than Nash. K. Johnson has 6711 for his career while Nash has 6639 as of yesterday (K. Johnson does not have 500 more assists like Andrew states above). Where Nash clearly exceeds K. Johnson is he is still doing it at a league leading, all star pace where K. Johnson is all done. Nash overshadows K. Johnson given the recognition he has received as the best point guard in the league over the last 4 years (and an all star for years before it) and a two time league MVP and in comparison K. Johnson was never even regarded as the best at his position during his career. If K. Johnson had 2 MVP's he would be in for sure. That being said, Nash is in for sure.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
You said "Even if he doesn't win a championship, you can put his 6 all star appearences, 2 mvps, career assists, career shooting percentage, team winning percentages and match them up against anyone and I expect anyone with remotely similar numbers is already in the Hall of Fame or not yet eligible."
Well, I compared him to the Hall of Fame point guards of his own era, Kidd and Payton and to the last two point guards voted into the Hall of Fame, Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas. You're more than welcome to find your own Hall of Famers to compare him to.
I was wrong about their assist totals KJ is only 74 ahead of Nash. I must've been looking at the wrong category.
As far as what The word said, I didn't contradict myself. Me not being surprised if Nash got in says more about the voters than it does about Nash's achievements.
Whether or not he was a back-up early on in his career might make his numbers less than they should be but it doesn't change the fact that he was a late-bloomer. Steve Young was a back-up to Joe Montana for years before he finally got a chance to lead a team. He won an MVP and a Super Bowl and because of that he's in the NFL Hall.
Nash averaged 22 minutes per game his second year in the league. After his second year, he only had two years in the league where he averaged less than 33 minutes a game, 31.7 in 1998-9 and 27.4 in 1999-0. He didn't average double digit numbers in scoring until his fifth season in the league and didn't average more than 8 assists until his eighth season.
Feel free to compare him to Kidd and Payton if you want him to be compared to Hall of Fame players from his generation.
Kidd, by comparison, never had a season where he averaged less than double-digits in scoring and 10 times has averaged more than 9 assists, including one season where he averaged 8.9. Kidd was First-Team All-Defense 4 times and Second-Team All-Defense five times.
Payton had 13 seasons where he averaged double-digits in scoring and in 9 of those he averaged more than 19 points per game. He had 9 seasons where he averaged at least 8 assists. Payton was First-Team All-Defense 9 times and Second-Team All-Defense 5 times.
To try to defend Steve Nash as a defender is the funniest thing I've ever read on Bleacher Report. Please continue that thought. That one is going in the archives. The only time "Nash" and "defense" are mentioned in the same sentence is when someone says "Steve Nash is horrible on defense."
Whether or not Payton won a ring with Miami he was guaranteed a spot in the Hall because he was a much better all-around point guard than Nash ever was. As was Kidd. And anybody who would rather have Nash on their team than either of those two guys has no business debating basketball. Anybody who would take Nash over any current Hall of Famer from the past twenty years is just as ill-informed. Magic, Isaiah, Stockton, Payton, Kidd. All better than Nash.
You can take the worst point guard in the Hall of Fame and compare Nash to him. It doesn't matter to me. But if you wanna talk about the Hall of Fame then you should be able to compare the guy to two of the best of all-time. There are only a handful of point guards in the Hall of Fame.
The most ridiculous statement you made was about Nash being in the top 15 in career assists. Do you know how many guys on the current top-15 list (other than Stockton and Payton) are not in the Hall? Seven! Muggsy Bogues is the guy that Nash is about to pass. Do you think anyone is impressed by the fact that Nash is about to pass Muggsy Bogues? At number 14 is another non-Hall of Famer, Guy Rodgers. Number 12 - Tim Hardaway. Number 11 - Terry Porter. Number 9 - Maurice Cheeks. Number 8 - Rod Strickland. Number 2 - Mark Jackson. None of those guys will get into the Hall of Fame without a ticket.
The MVP voting is done by experts? The voting is done by members of the print and broadcast media. As well-informed as all of them are, I would never go so far as to call them all experts.
What you consider "ushering in a new style of basketball" everyone else calls Nellie Ball and D'Antoni's up-tempo offense. Nash didn't create those styles. Those styles created him. He either drives into the paint and hits an open man when the defense collapses or his gets Nowitzki or Stoudemire to set a pick and he goes around them. He's amazing at those two things. I wouldn't say he ushered in anything.
By the way, his stats don't far exceed those of Dominique Wilkins. 'Nique is 8th on the list of All-Time scoring and the 7 guys ahead of him are all in the Hall of Fame as well. He finished in the top-6 in MVP voting four times. The guys that won the awards those four years: Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley. He averaged more than 25 points in his career 10 times and averaged more than 17 points in 4 other seasons. He was First-Team All-NBA twice, Second-Team 4 times and Third-Team twice--and that was all during the NBA's Golden Age.
As for Monroe, you can compare Nash's numbers to Monroe's but Monroe won a ring and is credited with changing the way the game was played. His career was also cut short because of knee problems.
He was also voted by his peers as one of the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time so somebody thinks he deserves to be there. He also averaged an astonishing 41.5 points per game his senior year in college.
For now we'll just agree to disagree and wait until his playing days are over and the only Hall of Fame he ends up in is the Canadian one.
If the MVP voting were solely based on a player's best three years then he's in. But it isn't. His first seven years weren't Hall-worthy. Sorry.
Edit Comment Cancel
Compfever about 1 year ago
Your comments are bewildering.
1. Are you saying that your original statement at the beginning of this blog is your own personal belief of who should be "in" and who should be "out"? It seems as though you were acting like an authority on the matter and that at this point you know who was "in" and who was "out". If it is your own personal opinion then okay I guess. If you are acting as an authority as to what will happen then your statements that "I wouldn't be surprised if Nash got in" is contradictory. As such, we will now listen to your blog as your personal opinion as to who should be in and who should be out (the personal opinion of a non-expert, non-professional sports playing, blogger).
2. I love your analysis about being a backup and then comparing him to Steve Young as you discuss how after Montana, Young had his turn. I can understand your point but then why is Nash "out" when it is still his turn? He is still playing at an all star level and still putting up "all star" numbers like, let's say this season or last night for example, 23 points and 11 assists.
3. With respect to his career and your analysis I am not getting it and nor is anyone else I expect. You compare his career numbers to other hall of famers or hall of famers to be in an effort to make the argument that he does not have enough longevity with his top tier performance. Putting aside the fact he is still an all star, how do you then justify your argument about Monroe when you state "his career was cut short because of knee problems" as some justification for why he doesen't have the career stats? That statement contradicts. What is funny thereafter is you use other random facts such as a college average his senior year (see Eddie House) or being voted on by his peers. Most experts put Nash as one of the ten all time greatest point guards (See, for example, http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestPointGuards.)
4. My other favorite statement of mine was you acknowledge that Payton did not need to earn a ring to put him in the hall based on his accomplishments. That being said, I assume we can then take off the table that a ring is a prerequiste to the hall, correct? Your statement was that if your career was great enough, no need for a ring? As such, please show me any 2 time MVP, 6 time all star (and counting), 5 time all NBA (soon to be 6), soon to be within the top 15 in the league in the assists who are not in the hall? I'm waiting.
5. Comparing Nash to Kidd and Payton who you claim are from his generation is odd since they have both been in the league years longer than Nash so I expect you should provide Nash with a few more years at the level he has been performing for lets say the last 5 to make a more suitable comparison. Notwithstanding that fact, those guys have been around for a hell of a long time, like few others, and yes their stats will get up there. Further, they are future hall of famers as you said and as I expect you can surmise, I can provide you with stats where Nash exceeds them as well. Those guys belong in the hall, they are great. Nash belongs in the hall too as he is equally great. As for comparing Nash to other point guards in the Hall, Tiny Archibald has a relatively similar career (his only championship came late in his career after Larry Bird joined him - See Gary Payton). Not to diminish Tiny at all because he was a great player and deserves to be in the hall.
6. Your reference to Dominique is random. Dominque was great and has great stats but I don't get the point as to why he is being mentioned for comparison purposes?
7. Nash's defense. No one denies that Nash works hard on D. He uses max effort but unfortunately isn't blessed with height or the defensive quickness of others. He is one of the best in the league at taking charges, not making dumb fowls and using his head. So to look at the player, I would expect you would look at whether a player such as he, with the defensive deficiencies you claim, is more valuable on the floor or off. No one, and I mean no one denies that his teams are not better with him on the floor. He wins games, 50 plus a year for almost every season of his career. He is also known as very clutch and a warrior in the playoffs. Therefore, again, the statement must be either his defensive deficiencies are not that bad or his value in so many other areas far exceeds any defensive deficiencies such that they cannot be considered deficiencies at all.
8. Finally, thank you for recognizing that you were wrong about the assist comparisons, now if you would only do that about Nash we would be somewhere.
Edit Comment Cancel
Compfever about 1 year ago
Actually, for comparison purposes why don't you please look at "Dave Bing" a worthy hall of famer and compare him with Nash.
Bing: 3 time all NBA, 7 time all star, 5,397 assists (avg 6 per game), Hall of fame
With respect to the Dominique statement, I see above I had referred to Wilkens for comparison purposes (meaning Lenny Wilkens), which you thought to mean Dominique Wilkins, who you should note spells his name different than Lenny, although they sound the same. Please compare Nash with Lenny as well if you like:
L. Wilkens: 9 time all star, 7,211 assists (6.7 per game), Hall of fame
Conclusion:
Nash compares with these hall of fame guards and he is still chugging.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Since we're correcting each other's spelling, you should know that fowl refers to poultry. I think you were shooting for foul.
You're really grasping for straws here. I gave you Hall of Fame point guards and you responded with Dave Bing. Let me ask you this: for argument's sake, is it better to compare Nash to the next two point guards going into the Hall or three of the first in Lenny Wilkens, Dave Bing and Earl Monroe?
You've missed every one of my points and I don't know if you're doing it on purpose or you really don't get them.
The comparison to Steve Young is to show you that without that ring he might not have got in.
The point about Payton was that he didn't need the ring.
The two points combined mean that certain players, like Young, need the ring to put them over the top and others, like Payton, have enough on their resume' that they don't need it. Clearly, Nash is in the group with Young since they both got such late starts to their careers.
The point about Monroe was that since this is the Basketball HOF, not the NBA HOF, his college career definitely contributed to his legacy and compensated for a career cut short.
Your list of experts is hilarious. Just because a guy works for ESPN doesn't make him an expert. The only guy on that list who has an opinion worth anything is Jack Ramsay. Do you really consider Marc Stein, Tim Legler and B.J. Armstrong experts? Scoop Jackson, bro? C'mon. Especially Stein. The guy rides Nash's jock almost as hard as you do. Ramsay has him as the 7th best of all-time. I disagree but his opinion matters.
My favorite statement from this particular response was: "As such, we will now listen to your blog as your personal opinion as to who should be in and who should be out (the personal opinion of a non-expert, non-professional sports playing, blogger)."''
You might have been the only person in America who didn't already know that. Who did you think I was? My opinions are purely opinions. Mine was formulated by what I've perceived as the Hall's criteria based on who they've already voted in and the player's entire basketball career.
And on the flip side, your opinion was based on grasping for straws like "He is also known as very clutch and a warrior in the playoffs" as well as comparison to three point guards who played in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
Wilkens, Bing and Monroe were three of the first point guards inducted into the Hall. The criteria has changed dramatically over the years. If your case for Nash is dependent on how he matches up against only those three guys then you have no case. And the stats for Monroe weren't cited because there were no stats kept for many categories until the middle of Monroe's career.
If Nash plays like he has for five more years, then he's in. The problem is that he won't play another 5 years. It's more likely that he will be able to play at this level or slightly below it for the next 2-3 years. The guy is clearly a citizen of the world with a young family. He might decide to walk away on his own accord, even with a couple years left in him.
I'm not going to get into the contradictory thing anymore. If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, you'll never get it.
If you compare Nash to the last 5 point guards either in the Hall or guaranteed to get in, his numbers pale by comparison. Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Payton and Kidd. As of today, 3/20/08, Nash is not in. No matter how much of a "warrior" he is. All of those guys have better credentials than "2 time MVP, 6 time all star (and counting), 5 time all NBA (soon to be 6), soon to be within the top 15 in the league in the assists". You're trying to argue that there isn't a player with Nash's credentials that isn't in the HOF. I'm telling you about how he stacks up against the guys that are in.
Who do you feel should be in the Hall of Fame that isn't? Compare them to Nash.
Edit Comment Cancel
Compfever about 1 year ago
My response to your latest is: what are you talking about?
1st. I never corrected your spelling? We are blogging not spell checking and part of a blog is to go stream of conscious. My referencing the difference between Lenny "Wilkens" and Dominique "Wilkins" was not a spelling correction but a correction of your misunderstanding as to who we were talking about. Understand the difference? Let's hope.
2nd With respect to comparing hall of fame point guards, please look at your statement which says, and I quote "You can take the worst point guard in the Hall of Fame and compare Nash to him.....There are only a handful of point guards in the Hall of Fame." This was your comment. Then when I do compare him with hall of fame point guards you come back with the "Wilkens, Bing and Monroe were three of the first point guards inducted into the Hall. The criteria has changed dramatically over the years." Good contradictory reasoning.
3rd. I understand your points about Young & Payton, however circularly you have made them. You feel Young needed a championship to make the Hall (which I personally disagree with). You feel that Payton does not. Point we can agree on then is you don't necessarily need a ring to make the hall. I agree. With respect to Monroe if you are stating his non professional career contributed to his candidacy for the hall of fame you are wrong and grasping. Good college careers make little of any difference to the hall, however great international careers do. Monroe's college career had little if any bearing on his pro career and did not account for any short cut. Nash's college career/international career compete with Monroe's pre-professional. He was a two time conference Player of the Year, Two-time Wooden Award candidate, Played for the Canadian National Team in 1993 and won a silver medal after a loss to the Team USA, and a captain of the nation of Canada's men's basketball team at the Sydney Olympics in 2000.
4th My list of experts, if I provided such a list, includes those who make a living based on the NBA, have watched and analyzed more basketball then you have by a multiple of at lease 100 and are in the hall of fame in the case of Jack Ramsey as you point out. You disagree with them okay, but you are a just a blogger with a minimal resume to support such a disagreement. Lord knows your analysis doesn't provide much support. As for your opinions being personal, I agree, as few others hold or support them. Saying Nash is "out" is wrong. He is not "out" and to quote a minimally relevant blogger, that being you, you "wouldn't be surprised if Nash got in"
5th Finally, to hit the nail on the head, Nash is almost definitely "in" now. His resume competes. You will never be able to take away 2 mvps (and just missing a third). Your comparisons with respect to stats to those who have had longer careers is a little dumb as I am sure you will notice all your recent comparisons have had longer careers. Right now Chris Paul doesn't compare to Nash either but give him some time to catch up and I expect, barring injury, he wil be able to be compared - get it? Give Nash, let's say one more year, in which he will almost assuredly be in the top 10 all time in assists (and where 6 of the 8 above him in total assists are either in the hall or locks according to you) and even the doubters will call him a lock. Also, your beginning blog does not state that Nash is not in "now" and in fact says he is "out". A point made in my first response is he should at least be "on the way" in your categories. That at least makes a little more sense.
Good try anyway, if you ever get done blogging, you can come mow my lawn.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
I could have a better argument with a desk lamp. I told you to compare Nash to the worst point guards in the Hall of Fame because those seem to be the only ones he compares with. All three of those guys would be questionable Hall of Famers today, just like your boyfriend Stevie.
When did Nash win a silver medal? Let's take a look at Nash's Wikipedia page:
"He won a bronze medal at the Canada Games and won a silver medal at the World University Games, losing to Team USA"
Wow. A silver medal in the World University Games!! I'm not surprised you left it ambiguous. He couldn't even win the gold in the Canada Games.
Then it says about the 2000 Olympics, "A victory in its final game of the tournament, a placement game against Russia, enabled Canada to salvage 7th place. "
So lemme get this straight, genius, a college career has little bearing on the Basketball Hall of Fame but a silver medal in the World University Games does?
He was the captain of the Canadian team? Who'd he beat out for that distinguished honor, Tod McCulloch?
If I"m just a blogger with a minimal resume' then why are you letting me get to you so badly? I'm not saying that I know as much about basketball as Marc Stein. I'm saying Marc Stein knows as much about basketball as me. Honestly, do you really think Marc Stein can explain anything about the game? He's basketball's version of a gossip columnist. Those guys make a living covering the NBA because they can write and have contacts. They were all sideline reporters like Craig Sager, Stuart Scott, and Michelle Tafoya. Bill Simmons was one of those experts you cited also. Isn't he just a blogger? Wasn't Simmons the same guy that said the Magic were dumb for drafting Dwight Howard instead of Okafor at the time? If what makes them qualified is that they've seen a lot of basketball then I'm just as qualified.
Being "on the way" is reserved for the guys that are young. Nash is 34. If I don't believe he's in at 34, I can't say that he's on the way. How many more times do I have to tell you that when I said that I wouldn't be surprised if Nash got in, I was speaking about the voters. Those same voters are considering Dick Vitale for his contributions to the game. You can make a case for anybody with 2 MVPs. Personally, I don't think that's enough.
You keep telling me where Nash is going to be in the future and I'm giving you my opinion based on what he's done. We don't know what he's going to do in the future. If he played his last game last night he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Dennis Johnson, who isn't in the Hall, is more deserving today than Steve Nash.
If what you want is the last word you can have it. I'd mow your lawn but I'm afraid that if I accidentally got a peek in your window I might catch you masturbating to Nash's silver medal performance in the 1993 World University Games. I'd continue this debate but it's no fun arguing with retards.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
gay references, masturbation references and name calling - andrew you appear desperate and not very professional. In fairness to compfever, your opinion was carved up to 3 categories, "in" "on the way" and "out", endeavoring to say your blog was just looking at what players have done to date and not in the future doesn't add up
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
You're right. I should have just let him get away with his classy lawn mowing comment and maybe asked him to do some chores around my house instead.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Apparently this has turned into a debate as to whose in andrew's personal hall of fame and not the Naismith memorial basketball hall of fame. If I read this blog correctly, in the Naismith hall of fame Nash will probably get in but in Andrew's personal hall of fame he will not.
Edit Comment Cancel
Compfever about 1 year ago
Andrew, pathetic, pathetic, pathetic
Where my reasoning is orderly, numbered and clearly laid out yours is scattered, halting and difficult to understand. You are obviously unwilling to specifically and orderly address almost all of the clearly numbered points I have made as I expect you can't since this would require you to have facts on your side and otherwise be articulate. I agree you could have a better argument with a desk lamp from your perspective as there is a chance a desk lamp wouldn't make you look as ridiculous as you do now.
So you don't get confused any further (if that is even possible), Nash's hall of fame resume can be based solely on his professional career (as should Earl Monroe's despite your belief that his college career was some sort of difference maker for his professional "career shortcut" - recall the point of bringing Nash's other activities was to show they are comparable to Mr. Monroe's). As for experts cited, I merely referred to one article on espn in which a professional panel has Nash in the top 10 pg's of all time. Despite your stated belief that you know as much as all those people in the article who make a living analyzing the nba, who are in some cases established basketball authors/hall of famers, and who are all paid handsomely for their ability while working at the most pre-eminent sports company/network in the world, I would have say that is hard for anyone to believe since your analysis, writing ability and insight all speak to the contrary (and the only money you will ever make based on your blog here is the $9.25 per hour you would get from the offer to mow my lawn) .
On a side note, sexual references when debating a point are weak (am I supposed to make the same comments back to you about Kidd, Payton, etc. who you have taken great effort to support?). Name calling is weak as well. Offers to mow lawns on the other hand, at least for you I expect, is as a solid a money making opportunity as you will find.
Notwithstanding the above, I will agree with you on one thing, Nash will probably get into the NBA hall of fame. This wouldn't be surprising right?
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
The only thing weak is your argument. If you want to stick to the subject and have a debate that's fine.
Your entire argument is made up of speculation, ambiguity and exaggeration. You changed the subject on numerous occasions. You took the time to read something I wrote as my personal opinion and it made you cry so you decided to write long-winded diatribes thinking you'd come off as intelligent because you repeatedly used words like "notwithstanding" and "furthermore".
I presented you with fact after fact to support my own opinion and you responded with speculation about the future and your own opinions. You touted Nash's two MVPs and 3 First-Team All-NBAs as the only things to support your case. You tried to defend his defense and made up some BS about Nellie's passion for the game. You gave me speculations about his ability to dominate over the next 5 years. All I gave you were facts and all you gave me was opinion. Nobody cares about his All-Star appearances. He won't be First-Team this year behind Paul and Kobe. His best days are behind him. He turns the ball over way too much and Shaq now occupies the space where he used to do his damage.
Just because you number your run-on sentences doesn't make them clear. I make my living as a writer. I'd love to hear what compfever does for a living.
You've tried to tout Marc Stein, Chris Broussard, Ric Bucher and Bill Simmons as basketball experts, you've defended Steve Nash's defense, you've exaggerated his international career, and decided that three stellar years makes fo a Hall of Fame resume'. My opinion is that Steve Nash, at this point in his career, does not deserve to mentioned in the same group with Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Kidd and Payton. Period. After watching Black Magic and seeing the clips of Earl Monroe and how he changed the game, Nash shouldn't be compared to him either.
You've obviously had your feelings hurt. Isn't there a story on Dan Majerle's Hall of Fame career you'd like to write? You can make up just as many facts and compare him to a Hall of Famer from the 1940s.
I don't hide behind an alias. Apparently, there is a whole history on the internet of you running around defending Nash. Don't you think that's a little pathetic? Here's this one where you comment on Nash compared to Kidd:
http://jonesonthenba.blogspot.com/2006/12/jason-kidd-vs-steve-nash-revisited.html
Here's one where you defend Nash winning the MVP:
http://jonesonthenba.blogspot.com/2006/04/jason-kidd-is-much-better-than-steve.html
Give me your phone number and we can discuss that lawn mowing gig. Better yet, you should give me your mom's. Just because you live in her basement doesn't give you the right to hire the help. I can tell her all about her son's stalker-like obsession with an overrated Canadian basketball player.
I should probably call Nash's agent to and have him get a restraining order so you can't get within 100 yards of him.
My bottom-line argument is that the guy had only 5 good/great years and if he was done playing today he wouldn't be in. He doesn't compare favorably to the best points in the generation before him. His delayed start will probably mean he'll have to wait 30 years for induction by the Veteran's Committee.
That's perfect because it will coincide with the same time you'll probably move out of your mom's basement.
Edit Comment Cancel
Compfever about 1 year ago
You are hilarious. This is by for the funniest post of them all. I can picture now like a beetle on his back kicking his legs furiously in the air trying to get right side up. You make your living as a writer? Now that is funny. How can you make your living as a writer when you can't support any of your points and contradict yourself constantly?
Looks like at your latest post and see some of your contradictions:
1. Andrew: "Your entire argument is made up of speculation, ambiguity and exaggeration". Then a couple of sentences later "You touted Nash's two MVPs and 3 First-Team All-NBAs as the only things to support your case". So which is it Andrew, is it speculation, ambiguity or exaggeration or is it I have supported my case with only a few facts? See the problem in making a point when your own statements contradict themselves?
2. Andrew: "You touted Nash's two MVPs and 3 First-Team All-NBAs as the only things to support your case" but in one of your earlier posts (your second response to my post) you quote me when I say "Even if he doesn't win a championship, you can put his 6 all star appearences, 2 mvps, career assists, career shooting percentage, team winning percentages and match them up against anyone and I expect anyone with remotely similar numbers is already in the Hall of Fame or not yet eligible". So again, I ask you, are the ONLY things I have used to support my case are 2 mvp's and 3 First-Team All-NBA's or in a quote which you yourself cited did I also add 6 all star appearances, career assists, shooting percentage, etc. Again Andrew, you are contradicting yourself with your own words.
3. Andrew: "My opinion is that Steve Nash, at this point in his career, does not deserve to mentioned in the same group with Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Kidd and Payton." No, Andrew, your opinion when you started this post is that Steve Nash was "out" of the hall of fame. Then you back tracked when you said you wouldn't be surprised if Nash got in the hall of fame, then you back tracked and said he doesn't compare to any hall of fame guards, then, after being provided with hall of fame guards he does compare favorably with, you backtracked to state he doesn't compare to certain guards who have all had much longer careers. The amount of back tracking you have done so far amounts to a full blown retreat.
4. Andrew "If you want to stick to the subject and have a debate that's fine" - but then you don't stick to the subject. You talk about obsessions, what you do for a living, feelings, basements, Nash's agent, etc. Is this sticking to the subject? Again, contradictions.
Despite your efforts, I will say, No I don't want to give you my phone number; No, I don't want to respond to name calling; No, I don't want to respond to gay innuendo's; No I don't want to involve our mothers in this blog; and No, nobody believes that you could make a living as a writer (but please write that again as it is really funny when you do).
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
If you didn't understand what I was trying to say the first fifteen times I wrote it then there's no sense in writing it a sixteenth time.
You're never going to convince me that an aging point guard with three great seasons is Hall of Fame worthy and I'm never going to convince that he's not.
But rather than entitle me to my opinion (which still won't change) you've presented me with a weak case that makes my case even stronger. Steve Nash only compares favorably to Hall of Fame point guards from the NBA's early days.
When compared to modern era point guards his resume looks weak.
You exaggerated his achievements to include an unimpressive international career and decent collegiate career.
You used ambiguity by not specifying that nearly half of his All-NBA selections came as a Third-Team member and by not specifying in which weak international tournaments he won his medals in.
You used speculation by assuming that Nash would play another five years at an All-Star level and by the end of his career his resume would stack up with Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Payton and Kidd.
For the eleventh time, when I said I wouldn't be surprised if he got in I was referring to the selection committee. I don't know why you've said that six times and I've had to repeat my answer six times.
Nobody is impressed with his assist numbers yet. Nobody is impressed by his 6 All-Star selections. For someone that seems to have peaked his numbers will pale in comparison to the modern-day Hall of Fame point guards.
I'll repeat myself since you can't stop repeating yourself:
Nash averaged 22 minutes per game his second year in the league. After his second year, he only had two years in the league where he averaged less than 33 minutes a game, 31.7 in 1998-9 and 27.4 in 1999-0. He didn't average double digit numbers in scoring until his fifth season in the league and didn't average more than 8 assists until his eighth season.
Kidd, by comparison, never had a season where he averaged less than double-digits in scoring and 10 times has averaged more than 9 assists, including one season where he averaged 8.9. Kidd was First-Team All-Defense 4 times and Second-Team All-Defense five times.
Payton had 13 seasons where he averaged double-digits in scoring and in 9 of those he averaged more than 19 points per game. He had 9 seasons where he averaged at least 8 assists. Payton was First-Team All-Defense 9 times and Second-Team All-Defense 5 times.
Those are all facts. You responded by trying to defend Nash's defense rather than admitting he's horrible, touting his highlight reel of passes and making up Don Nelson quotes.
You thought I'd be impressed by a bunch of basketball gossip columnists thinking he's top-ten. By the way, nobody really cares about All-Star selections. You've acknowledged it's a popularity contest and 6 isn't really that impressive. I think it's safe to assume that he might not make another considering he's already been passed over by Paul and Deron Williams.
Are his assist totals and shooting percentage impressive? Absolutely. Have you ever heard anyone tout shooting percentage when discussing the Hall of Fame? Is it his fault he was a back-up when he entered the league? No. Just like it wasn't the fault of Damon Stoudemire, Greg Anthony or Terrell Brandon that they didn't get to play in systems like Nelson's or D'Antoni's and put up the numbers that Nash did.
Unless Steve Nash wins a title or another MVP, his achievements up to this point don't make him Hall-worthy. That's my opinion.
Now go find another Steve Nash article on the internet to attack or defend. You're welcome to google my name if you don't believe I make my living as a writer. I left an article from Daily Variety on your page for you to read.
Please tell me we're done with this. If I'm a beetle on my back and then you're a gnat that I just wiped off my windshield. See? I can come up with lame bug analogies almost as good as you.
Edit Comment Cancel
Compfever about 1 year ago
I agree that you just repeat yourself constantly but the problem is you are not articulate and do not know how to make a point. What is even worse you are way too emotional, petty and lack objectivity. I understand you want to be a writer in the same way as a child wants to be a superhero but if you don't have the skill you can't be what you want. Make no mistatke: You don't have the skill. Nonetheless if you are intent on trying to be a writer, I suggest you don't let anyone see this blog as no one will take you seriously you if they do. Also, please allow an editor substantial time to review your work before it goes out so he can use up a few of his red pens to make anything your write coherent. You are not a writer despite any claim that you have written one or two things, even if you feel they will be produced, in the same way as my 5 year old niece can't claim to be a professional model for the rest of her life because she had her photo printed in a magazine. Also, make note that Jose Canseco fancies himself is a writer too.
Final stats to take us home with Steve Nash - (including this season - 2008 projected)
6 time All Star
6 time ALL NBA (3 time first team)(adding an all NBA selection for 2008 projected)
#1 All time in 3 point field goal percentage (for those who have made at least 1000 3's)
#23 All time in 3 point field goals made
#3 best free throw shooter of all time (.897)
11th All Time in assists per game (despite not starting first few years)
15th All Time total assists (currently top 17 and in a few more games will be top 15)
1 of 5 players in NBA history to go 50-40-90 in shooting percentage (FG-3PT-FT)
4 time NBA regular season leader for assists per game (including anticipated 2008)
4 time NBA regular season leader for total assists (including anticipated 2008)
2 Two time NBA MVP (every other multiple MVP is a hall of famer, and every mvp winner since they introduced the awared in 1956 is either in the Hall or a lock according to you).
Since becoming a full time starter in 2000-01 as a PG (8 years ago) - against his generation:
#1 in team wins amongst point guards
#1 in shooting efficiency amongst point guards
#1 in total assists
#1 in 50 win seasons
#1 in 60 win seasons
#1 in assists per 48 minutes
#1 in free throw percentage
#1 in All NBA selections amongst point guards
#1 in MVP's (2)
Hall of Fame Chances: 100%. Oh, and he is still an all star.... and according to you: "It's ... likely that he will be able to play at this level or slightly below it for the next 2-3 years." The average NBA career is 5 years by the way. Now keep kicking beetle boy.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Still not convinced, despite your laundry list of meaningless stats. Your opinion of my writing means as much to me as your bullshit stats do. You can continue to hate but I know you read everything I write. I have no reason to lie about what I do for a living. I've provided you with proof and you still don't believe me so what can I say? Nor do I hide behind an alias like a loser while even 13-year-olds on here have the balls to use their names.
Beetle boy? Is that supposed to be funny? Don't be mad because I get paid to write and I've run circles around you repeatedly while you grasp at straws and something called "50-40-90". Even your 5-year-old niece is embarrassed of you.
Needless to say, I'm still not convinced. Keep trying, compfever. With the exception of two controversial MVPs, none of those stats are impressive when compared to Kidd or Payton.
I think your mom just called you for dinner. Keep trying, dork.
Edit Comment Cancel
Hunter Tyler about 1 year ago
I wasn't convinced that Nash was a hall of famer but after reading this article, I have to side with compfever. Nash does appear to be the best point guard of the last decade.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Wow. Now you're creating fake profiles to agree with yourself. Amazing. It's funny that you responded to this article nearly a month after it was written. You and I seem to be the only two people still going to this page. It's an eerie coincidence that someone who just signed up for BR and has only one comment posted happened to choose a month-old article as the only one he commented on.
You're a disgrace.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeff Allen about 1 year ago
Gotta agree - "Hunter" is "Compfever" - and it's pretty sad.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
The fun part will be watching him now have to post comments as "Hunter" to try to convince me that he's not the same person.
Edit Comment Cancel
compfever about 1 year ago
This is the best, Andrew has a buddy.
Andrew, do you remember what the topic of your blog was? Here is what it isn't:
1. Yes, I am a writer, I really am....please google me, please see a variety mag where I am mentioned, please see my profile, i really did become an adult 15 years ago but have not published, nor written anything that has actually been produced in my entire career.
2. See how many times I (Andrew) can contradict myself, backtrack and mis-state facts; and after someone calls me on them I will not address because i do not have facts nor the ability to write persuasively, but i will write prose as i mutter to myself and call names
3. Because Jason Kidd and Gary Payton have better stats in certain categories over their career than Nash because they have played for many more years and eventhough Nash is still at the top of his game and has better numbers since becoming a starter over the last 8 years, there can't be more than one or two guards in the hall of fame from any 15 year span, there just can't, sniff
4. Compfever you completely crushed my analysis so eventhough I don't know one thing about you, i am going to start calling names so you are gay, you are a dork, you live with your mom, but please believe i am a writer, please give me your phone number, and watch out as I am going to get my buddy Jeff to come write on this blog
5. I (Andrew) know more than every person that works for espn as I went to television school and they only cover basketball for a living and are hall of famers
You get the point? Focus. Get back on track. The substance of your article was supposed to be about who gets a hall of fame pass. Now remember, when you say someone is "out" of the hall but thereafter recognize they will probably get in, you are not making your point persuasively. Most people call this lesson writing 101. Now do that funny thing where you say you make your living as a writer again.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
This is the best, Andrew has a buddy. Andrew, do you remember what the topic of your blog was?
Here is what it isn't:
1. Yes, I am a writer, I really am....please google me, please see a variety mag where I am mentioned, please see my profile, i really did become an adult 15 years ago but have not published, nor written anything that has actually been produced in my entire career.
2. See how many times I, Andrew, can contradict myself, backtrack and mis-state facts; and after someone calls me on them I will not address because i do not have facts nor the ability to write persuasively, but i will mutter things and prose and call names
3. Because Jason Kidd and Gary Payton have higher stats in certain categories over their career than Nash because they have played for many more years and eventhough Nash is still at the top of his game and has better numbers since becoming a starter over the last 8 years, there can't be more than one or two guards in the hall of fame from any 20 year span, there just can't, sniff
4. You (compfever) completely crushed my analysis so eventhough I don't know one thing about you, i am going to start calling names so let's see you are gay, you are a dork, you live with your mom, but please believe i am a writer, please give me your phone number, and watch out as I am going to get my buddy Jeff to come write on this blog
5. I know more than every person that works for espn as I went to television school
You get the point? Focus. Get back on track. The substance of your article was supposed to be about who gets a hall of fame pass. Now remember, when you say someone is "out" of the hall but thereafter recognize they will probably get in, you are not making your point persuasively. Let's call this writing 101. Now do that funny thing again where you say you make a living as a writer.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
You're drowning, buddy. Please do yourself a favor and stop. It's the least you can do for everybody else who thinks Nash deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. You're only hurting his chances.
I don't know Jeff but I appreciate him backing me up.
The fact that you wrote your post once as an alias and then again as Anonymous tells me all I need to know, Hunter. How many other fake profiles do you have? I can only imagine what you were thinking when you saw that you re-posted the comment as Anonymous. Doh.
This is where I do that funny thing again and tell you I make my living as a writer.
And right here is where you pretend that it's funny even though I've provided you with evidence so you know it's true and so it really makes you sad :-(
If I'm just a guy that went to Film & TV school then why do you care what I think about the Hall of Fame?
Get over it. I'm only continuing this because you insist on having the last word and by not letting you have it I know that it makes your blood boil.
Just walk away. We'll pretend it never happened.
Edit Comment Cancel
compfever about 1 year ago
Wow, you again managed to fail to address the issues related to the initial topic of the article. Well done. Fake profiles ? I only want to discuss facts, I could care less who agrees and who doesn't and who posts (but obviously you do -it's called insecurity). Again Andrew try to focus on substance.
Still laughing at you because you are well into your 30's and have no record of making a living as a writer. You have clearly shown no writing skills, you haven't shown anything that has been published and haven't had anything produced in your entire career. Yes, keep saying it because its funny.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Ungvari about 1 year ago
Walk away.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.