One of my readers over at Jones on the NBA sent me a link to a Marty Burns piece in which Burns reviews which NBA veterans he thinks will eventually make the NBA Hall of Fame. My reader, Adrian, is an avid Steve Nash fan that normally only comments when I post about Nash, so I figured this Burns piece had to be pro Nash.
In the piece, Burns breaks down the players into five categories: "no-brainers", "probably in, but have to think about it", "bubble candidates", "early hall potential has since faded away", and "as for everyone else". For the purpose of the post, Burns only considers players that have played nine or more seasons in the league. Along with Shaq, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Garnett, Steve Nash was able to crack Burns' "no-brainer" list. Meanwhile, Jason Kidd and Gary Payton only made his "probably in, but have to think about it" list. I guess this was supposed to be some kind of proof to me that Steve Nash has had a better career than both Jason Kidd and Payton.
I've explained this before, and I'll explain it again: While Steve Nash is certainly the best point guard in the game today and has had three straight incredible seasons, that doesn't allow him to catapult over guys like J-Kidd and Payton. Kidd and Payton are players that at one point in their careers played ten or so seasons where they were both one of the top offensive and defensive guards in the entire league. On defense, Nash will never be able to accumulate the numbers and accolades that those two players have compiled. As well, on offense, Nash will have to play for at least five more years at his current level to even come close to accumulating the numbers and statistics that Payton and Kidd have compiled. He may very well get there one day, but until then, to have him catapult over Payton and Kidd in hall of fame worthiness is ridiculous. Lastly, Payton and Kidd both have Nash beat in All-Star, All-Defensive, All-NBA, and Finals apperances. So I just don't see where Nash has them beat on hall worthiness.
Previously at Fanhouse:
Comparing Steve Nash to the All-Time Great Point Guards
Marty Burns: Steve Nash over Jason Kidd and Gary Payton for Hall of Fame
- 26Comments
- Say Something »
4/02/2007 1:54 PM ET By Nate Jones
-
- Nate Jones
- Nate Jones is an NBA Blogger for FanHouse
Read More: Nets Heat Suns Eastern Western NBA Awards NBA Media Watch
- 26Comments
- Say Something »
Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Great entry Nate, I agree with you totally. Three outstanding seasons does not make you a hall-of-famer.
Good story Nate, both here and elsewhere you've written about it.
I disagree with the assessment that Nash has only had 3 great seasons. He was one of the best three points in the league each of his last three years in Dallas as well. In my mind he's on a 6-year tear with some considerable playoff success (3 trips to the conference Finals in that time and one of the best playoff series by a point guard ever against Dallas in '05).
I agree that JKidd is the definitive point guard of this era, but I don't understand why people like Payton so much. That guy was never a great shooter from range, never averaged 10 apg, and never had any real playoff success on a team that wasn't absolutely stacked. Putting him in the same sentence with Kidd (who _willed_ the Nets to two straight Finals and 6 playoff appearances) seems ridiculous.
I'm sure Burns is just including Nash because of the two MVPs. According the HOF monitor on basketballreference.com, winning 1 MVP pretty much makes you a lock for the Hall.
If Nash wins a ring this year, does everyone stop second guessing his HoF and MVP status? With Amare's development, I think it's a real possibility, though I think it's far more open than it was last year.
Either you think everyone else in the league sucks, you think the rest of Nash's team is pathetic and useless without him, but he's won 2 MVPs in a row for a reason.
Career-wise his numbers don't compare to Payton or Kidd (especially Kidd) - YET. He could have a lot of play left in him, and it won't take him that much longer to hit that level at his current pace.
Kevin Johnson was a better point guard than Nash and he is not getting in the HOF. To be honest if Nash and Tony Parker both auditioned for 10 teams i doubt if more than five teams would chose Nash over Parker. When he played for Dallas, he was not even in the conversation for top 5 PG. If i recall as early as last 2004 Kidd, Bibby, Sam i am, GP, Andre miller, Starbury and Baron Davis were all considered equal or better than Nash. Note i did not even mention AI or Chauncey Bilips. Three years does not a career make.
Jason Kidd is the bball molding of what a point guard should be. Even at the age of 34 and dealing with a nasty public divorce, bad knees, and a terrible team he still manages to be the point guard every coach in the league would die to have their point play like. Constant triple double threat with defense to match. Enjoy it now because it will be over and you will then realize that J Kidd was the best pg in the past decade. Yep I said it!
the sun:
"When he played for Dallas, he was not even in the conversation for top 5 PG."
Um, no, he was voted All-NBA 3rd team twice with Dallas, so he was at least considered to be in the top 6 _guards_ in the league. He was also voted into the All-Star game twice by the coaches (that wasn't a popularity contest!). Your recollection of Nash's Dallas career is not accurate, he was easily a top 5 point guard his last three years there. I mean, clearly Jason Kidd was better, but c'mon, on the All-Time, All-NBA team I have Jason Kidd coming off the bench for Magic! That guy's good!
And seriously, there isn't a team in the league who is actually trying to win who would take Parker over Nash. The SPURS wouldn't take Parker over Nash! The guy's worth 20 easy points a night, Parker can't pass _or_ shoot.
I'm glad at least a couple of you can give Nash some credit for what he accomplished in Dallas as well as in Phoenix. Kidd has been great over the years as well. Neither has a ring but both deserve one. Shouldn't have to be an "either/or" situation with these two great point guards- both deserve to be Hall of Famers. Payton has always been fun to watch but I don't think he's quite at the same level as Nash and Kidd. Yea, he's got a ring but he went team shopping whereas both Nash and Kidd made their teams better.
Finally, Parker is no slouch so I don't know why some of you want to make him out to be such a looser. Theres a chance he'll lead the Spurs to a ring this year. Nash has a good chance to do that as well. Too bad Kidd doesn't have a supporting cast. Too bad Payton is the second or third option... oh well.
Before you push aside Payton, please take a look at these accomplishments:
NBA Championship: 2006 (Miami Heat)
9-time NBA All-Star: 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003
9-time All-NBA:
First Team: 1998, 2000
Second Team: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2002
Third Team: 1994, 2001
9-time All-Defensive First Team member: 1994–2002 (shares record for selections)
NBA Defensive Player of The Year: 1996 (only guard to win the award in the 1990's)
NBA All-Rookie Second Team: 1991
NBA milestones
In NBA history (as of 27th March 2007):
ranks 21nd in points (21,792) - passed Larry Bird (21,791) on March 26, 2007
ranks 6th in assists (8,941)
ranks 3rd in steals (2,441)
ranks 7th in minutes (46,994)
ranks 9th in games (1328) - trails Moses Malone by 1 game
Only player in NBA history to accumulate 20,000 points, 5,000 rebounds, 8,000 assists and 2,000 steals in a career
Along with John Stockton, Payton is one of only two players to compile 8,000 assists and 2,000 steals in his career (Note: steals were first recorded in 1973)
Between 1990-91 and 2005-06, Payton was first in the league in total minutes played, games played, and steals, was second in total assists (behind John Stockton), and was third in points (Karl Malone, Shaquille O'Neal). During this span, Payton also led all guards in offensive rebounds.
Also check his stats from 93-94 to 02-03:
'93-94 Seattle 82 82 35.1 2.29 0.23 3.3 6.0 16.5
'94-95 Seattle 82 82 36.8 2.49 0.16 3.4 7.1 20.6
'95-96 Seattle 81 81 39.0 2.85 0.23 4.2 7.5 19.3
'96-97 Seattle 82 82 39.2 2.40 0.16 4.6 7.1 21.8
'97-98 Seattle 82 82 38.4 2.26 0.22 4.6 8.3 19.2
'98-99 Seattle 50 50 40.2 2.18 0.24 4.9 8.7 21.7
'99-00 Seattle 82 82 41.8 1.87 0.22 6.5 8.9 24.2
'00-01 Seattle 79 79 41.1 1.61 0.33 4.6 8.1 23.1
'01-02 Seattle 82 82 40.3 1.60 0.32 4.8 9.0 22.1
'02-03 Sea/Mil 80 80 40.1 1.66 0.25 4.2 8.3 20.4
When you stack Steve Nash's career up next to his, it doesn't even compare. I know Payton is a SHELL of himself these days, but please don't discount how GREAT of a player he was.
Nate,
I'm sure you could pull stats out all day long that show Payton used to be a better player in his prime than Nash is now. Great! However, I happen to think that Nash, while a different player, is just as good. I also happen to think that he's been better the past three years than Payton ever was. That's just me. I mean, I could throw out some reasons if you like:
-It isn't like Payton was a particularly efficient scorer (he was taking 20 shots a game to get 20-24 points)
-He's never been a great outside shooter (only over 35% once)
-During his 'great' prime the next best point guards in the league were good-but-not-great players like Tim Hardaway and Rod Strickland.
Payton has been an integral part of some of the league's most impressive playoff collapses:
-Remember the 8th seeded Denver knocking off Payton's 60+ win Sonics squad?
-Or Payton consistently killing the Lakers in '03-04?
-How about Nick Van Exel ripping apart Payton in the first round as a 2nd year player with the Lakers in '95?
I mean, to me Payton is great for all the reasons you list, but he's just not in the same category as Jason Kidd.
Saying he has a ring is worth exactly zero, since as far as I could tell (and I watched every playoff game he was in) he did more to hurt the Heat than help them. I mean, dribbling the ball off his foot? Jawing with the ref instead of watching for the pass? Really? In the Finals? I'm supposed to believe they really gave him a ring for that? I mean, Steve Kerr has what, 4 rings? He did a lot more to earn them than Payton did to earn his.
You'll get no arguement from me in regard to Kidd being better than Payton. I made no mention of Payton over Kidd or Kidd over Payton. My beef is with people that have Nash jumping over both of them. Forget Payton from the last two seasons. The guy has been playing since 1990. You can't expect him to be the player he was from his prime. But compare his 10 best years to Nash's ten best years and tell me who's better.
Not a winner? See all of the 50+ win seasons his teams have had. Also he the 96 team he led to the Finals and two victories against the greatest team of all-time.
Lacking competition? When Payton was in his prime, he had Mark Price, Tim Hardaway, John Stockton, Jason Kidd, Kevin Johnson, Stephon Marbury, Nick Van Exel, Steve Nash, etc. to deal with on a nightly basis.
Nate, you're a Laker far... or more accurately, a Kobe fan so you can't see anything good about Nash. I'm sure if he wins it a thrid time it will eat your guts out- especially when the Lakers make an early exit from the playoffs! ha ha
Me being a Laker fan has nothing do with my assesment of Nash. As of right now, I think he is the best PG in the league. I also think this is the one year he REALLY deserves the MVP. But because he's one it two times already, voters will be hard pressed to give it to someone else. MVP voting is all jacked up. My beef is not with Nash, but with people that are so short sided that they forget the accomplishments of the all-time greats. Yes Nash is a wondeful player. Yes he is the best at his position today, but it takes sustained greatness for years at a time to jump over JKidd and Payton in my mind. Beyond Payton and Kidd, there are people that actually think Nash has had a better career than John Stockton. Nash's best year might be better than Stockton's best year, but when you compare each of their respective careers, Nash is clearly behind Stockton. Same for GP and Kidd. That's all I'm saying.
To say Payton was a bad shooter is ignorant. He has shot 47% his entire career. For a guard, that's not bad at all. You're right that he wasn't a great three point shooter, but neither was Magic Johnson. Are you saying he wasn't a great point guard? And outside shooting is not just limited to a three point shot. Payton in his prime had a tremendous mid range and post up game. So Payton can't shoot threes...well Nash can't defend. Let's put it this way, Payton shot threes better than Nash currently defends. Because Payton has played a little longer than he should a lot of people have forgotten about how good he was. The guy is an All-Time great. If you don't recognize that, you haven't watched much basketball.
Ah, well...I think I misunderstood what we were arguing about (whoops).
I agree that Nash shouldn't be considered better than either. I don't think there's any chance I'll ever think of him as better than Kidd.
I just think that Nash and Payton are comparable players (in terms of talent), only Payton has played a lot longer. Obviously, Nash's career stats are lower than Payton's. Payton has been in the league for 7 years longer.
So comparing Nash's career stats to Payton's at this point isn't really a fair comparison, although I agree it is downright comical for people to say Nash is 'clearly' superior to either at this point.
I think Mr. Burns is right about one thing though, Nash is a lock for the Hall. Nobody with an MVP trophy has ever been rejected.
The other thing that is probably a factor here (for Burns and others) is style of play. There have only been a handful of really explosive offensive teams in the past 5-6 years, and Nash has been an integral part of 2 of them (the Nellie Mavs and the current Suns). Those are/were just fun teams to watch. I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't stand watching Seattle after Kemp left. Relative to the rest of the league, those Sonics teams were boring post-Kemp. I think the fact that Nash's teams stand out from the rest of the league is a big factor in how he's perceived.
OK, Nate, I see your point. Excuse me about the other comment. I still don't think anyone is disrespecting Payton or Kidd by giving Nash credit where its due but thinking people will differ.
Although it is a given that people who get MVPs are guaranteed a place in the HOF, I really don't think this is statistically fair, as the jury is still out in a lot of people's minds as to the objectiveness of the award.
Not only that, Steve Nash has no rings or conference championships. Yet, he is somehow given a free pass to his MVPs because of how "great" he makes his teams. Something has to give. Is he choking on the big stage or is he not really making his teams that great?
His accomplishment as of late are questionable in my mind because his teams have absolutely nothing to show for it.
And by the way...
Who in the HELL can call themselves truly knowledgeable in the game of basketball and forget about "The Glove"... Payton was possibly THE BEST defensive guard over the span of most of his career.
Nash can't check my grandmother. His defense is so pathetic he doesn't even try.
Now combine his not-as-good offensive numbers to Payton's #s and then factor in defense. READ THOSE STATS! (Thanks Nate) Give me a break. Nash may eventually deserve HOF, but to put him above Payton? Yeah - That really IS disrepecting him.
It's truly sickening and tiresome; and turns the more objective fans away from Nash (who is really great) because you people just can't WAIT to crown him King of the NBA.
i'll give nate his due because he has an intelligent argument (even if i disagree) but U will be BACK! are nuts. for all his talking, payton never won anything until he took a reduced roll in miami. not to say he wasn't a great player but his ring is bullshit. hate on nash all you want but he was good in dallas and is great in PHX. the suns may or may not take it all but nash will, in the end, deserve his accolades- whether you like it or not.
U will be BACK! you are an idiot.
the Glove is cool but whats the point in hatin on the rest? chill