Originally posted by Coredweller
As far as Nash\'s history, I don\'t know exactly why he wasn\'t as successful in Dallas as he has been in Phoenix. Certainly he\'s been growing and improving as a player, but there must be some indefinable element in the chemistry of the teams that contributes to the situation. BTW this is Nash\'s FIRST season in Phoenix, so you can leave Amare and Marion out of your statement about "despite having unarguably better supporting casts." The Suns are GOING TO THE FINALS THIS SEASON. You heard it here. 
I think the reason is simple enough for why he\'s having more success in Phoenix than in Dallas. It\'s all about the style of offense they\'re running. In Dallas, they had a high power offense, but it wasn\'t run the same way at the one in Phoenix. A lot of the time it was run through different people, other than Nash. The Phoenix game is more open, it suits his talents better.
The reason I wouldn\'t take Nash first to start my team is that I think to use him best, you have to be able to use him in this sort of an offense, and being able to run this sort of an offense requires other skilled players. Think of how Phoenix would look without Marion and Amare there.
As for me including them in the arguement about what Nash has done, I was just pointing out that that is his situation now, because before this year, he wouldn\'t have even been in the conversation of the best guard in the league.
And as for the Suns being in the finals, I\'d love that.
I see you worded some of these statements carefully. 
He accomplished his 1st in scoring by playing an average of 8 minutes more per game than Nash. (Not his fault, but you have to take it into consideration) Nash averages 2.5 more assists than his next closest competitor. Still, 7.9 assist per game is good for Iverson. I just think it reflects the poor standards the league has developed over the last 10 years. I happen to think the NBA should have 15 or more players with at least 10 assists per game, instead of ONE player.
Iverson\'s field goal percentage is .424. Nash\'s is better at .502. Iverson\'s free throw percentage may be good at .835, but Nash\'s is better at .887. Let\'s not forget another of Iverson\'s no.1 ratings: First in the league in turnovers at 4.59.
And Nash was 7th in the league in turnovers per game, despite playing so many fewer mintues. Look at the list of the top players in turnovers per game: Iverson, Wade, Bryant, Francis, Walker, James, Nash. Those are some of the very best in the league. It\'s not because they\'re bad, it\'s just because they have so many more opportunities to turn it over. They touch the ball on every play, and the offense runs through them, to varying degrees.
As far as the shooting percentage, once again, there are reasons for that. It is easier to shoot a high percentage when you are not the first and main scoring option, as Iverson is. Hell, I should know. A player from my college team led the nation in 3 point shooting as a 3rd option on the team 2 years ago. Then the two better players graduated and he sucked. I\'m not saying Nash sucks, but just saying when you have guys that detract attention and prevent double teams, it makes it easier, and Nash has that a lot more than Iverson. Plus, taking fewer shots makes it easier too.
It\'s dumb to argue which player is better; they are both great. I just think it\'s especially crazy to say you wouldn\'t start Nash because he\'s never "carried a team." The goal should be to build a team that doesn\'t need to be carried by anyone. That is the path to success in the regular season, as the Suns demonstrated with 62 wins. If Nash started with the Suns, and they had that kind of success, how can you argue with it? [/B]
Don\'t get me wrong, I would love to have Nash on my team. I just would rather make sure I had a legitimate top flight scorer for him to play with. I mean, can you imagine what it would be like if Nash were leading the Hawks or something?
I agree, you don\'t want to make a one man team, but I would like a player who can step up if his team is playing poorly and put them on his back. Besides maybe the Pistons last year, every previous champion for a long time has had a player like that (Duncan, Shaq/Kobe, Jordan, Hakeem). I think that\'s important. You don\'t have them carry by design, but sometimes they do by necesity. I think Nash is a good player to compliment other talent. He makes other players better, he runs a team well, etc. But if he were running a team with no talent, it might be hard. Once again, I ask you, before this year, what has he done that was so noteworthy? (Besides being replaced by Nick Van Exel, of all people, in crunch time).
And as for this year, against serious competition, it still remains to be seen if the team will be able to play this way in the playoffs. We\'ll see
