What PG was better than Steve Nash in the last 30 years?

[AITheAnswerAI]

a racist named "Black" - fitting.

Reverse victimization waaaa!!! Waaa!!! Whites are the heavy weight champs of racism, so please stfu with this projection you're doing.

And step your ball knowledge up fakkit.

 

[Jplaya2023]

i would take Kevin Johnson over steve nash no question. Nash is great and had a system dedicated to exploit his talent. In dallas he was essentially an allstar not a top 10 player at all.

 

[7oclock]

i would take Kevin Johnson over steve nash no question. Nash is great and had a system dedicated to exploit his talent. In dallas he was essentially an allstar not a top 10 player at all.

blocked

 

[7oclock]

Reverse victimization waaaa!!! Waaa!!! Whites are the heavy weight champs of racism, so please stfu with this projection you're doing.

And step your ball knowledge up fakkit.

dude you're -60 reputation points, no one takes you serious.

 

[LesterDiamond]

Tony Parker maybe but Nash is probably the best shooting PG ever. No way you can just replace him with CP3 or Isaiah and get similiar results. He MADE Ama're...Ama're was not as skilled as he looked, it was mostly Nashes great abilities to get him the ball when needed and the fact that you couldn't double down off Nash or he would burn you with his shooting.

Amare was averaging 20 and 9 on 45%FG before Nash even got to PHX

and that was on raw ability

 

[Remote]

Tony Parker maybe but Nash is probably the best shooting PG ever. No way you can just replace him with CP3 or Isaiah and get similiar results. He MADE Ama're...Ama're was not as skilled as he looked, it was mostly Nashes great abilities to get him the ball when needed and the fact that you couldn't double down off Nash or he would burn you with his shooting.

I just think that Nash could score but he wasn't really putting the whole team in a position to win games.
He got all the numbers. Assists, points, whatever. But he could never advance in the playoffs. And I think it's because when he plays good teams and they buckle down on him and his teammates defensively, he doesn't have anything else to do.

When the Suns could run up and down, Nash was amazing. Put him in a half-court system, and he's not as good.

The guys that I would prefer to have on my teams...Mark Jackson, Tony Parker, John Stockton...they could run the point in crunch time against tough defenses a bit better than Nash could.

Just my view.

 

[7oclock]

Amare was averaging 20 and 9 on 45%FG before Nash even got to PHX

and that was on raw ability

are you working with me? This is a sweet setup!


and after Nash got to PHX, he upped his scoring average and efficiency....went from 45% to over 55% lol

 

[7oclock]

I just think that Nash could score but he wasn't really putting the whole team in a position to win games.
He got all the numbers. Assists, points, whatever. But he could never advance in the playoffs. And I think it's because when he plays good teams and they buckle down on him and his teammates defensively, he doesn't have anything else to do.

When the Suns could run up and down, Nash was amazing. Put him in a half-court system, and he's not as good.

The guys that I would prefer to have on my teams...Mark Jackson, Tony Parker, John Stockton...they could run the point in crunch time against tough defenses a bit better than Nash could.

Just my view.

untrue, he had some soft players to be honest...he made those guys great but they couldn't return the favor. He was basically AI on Philly, doing everything on what was basically a mediocre team.

 

[feelosofer]

first paragraph - NO/Wrong

second paragraph - Yes - Kidd = Mark Jackson

To be fair, even though I think Isiah is better than Nash that could be a push.

But no Jason Kidd is not Mark Jackson, that is direspectful to both players.

 

[GreatestLaker]

so Paul is a better scorer? What's better - because Nash is/was more efficient in scoring.

Ball handler...are you serious? Nash would go through the teeth of the defense and back out without losing his dribble. Like you just looking at flash, you looking at Paul doing a cross-over/carry dribble or a flashy layup and giving him bonus points because Nash simply goes out there without yapping it up, hot doing, and plays basketball like it was meant to be played before all you ABAers came across.

It's because I watch the games I am disagreeing with you, it's bigger than stats. Efficiency is huge as a point guard and I'm saying Steve Nash did a lot more with less.

Try arguing against these stats.

Anyone that watched these dudes play and know basketball knows Steve Nash wasn't on 2008/2009 Chris Paul's level at any point in his career. The stats back that up.

Chris Paul

Steve Nash

 

[LesterDiamond]

untrue, he had some soft players to be honest...he made those guys great but they couldn't return the favor. He was basically AI on Philly, doing everything on what was basically a mediocre team.

He couldn't defend anybody.

 

[godkiller]

dude you're -60 reputation points, no one takes you serious.

You're -280 and the night is still young.

 

[ManBearPig]

Picking Nash over the K-Town assassin needs to get Sharkeisha'd

And fukk the Pistons

 

[MaLi]

So we gonna ignore defense?

 

[7oclock]

how many MVP's does chris paul have?

Chris Paul has lot of PER and WS stats skewed because Nash was feeding Amare to tune of 26 PPG ; however, assists are a wash, ppg are a wash, efficiency is Nash, and defense we can give to Paul based on the steals. But Nash totally demoralizes Paul in efficiency and shooting stats.