MainEv3nt Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Suns point guard Steve Nash doesn't believe that players should be judged solely on the number of championships they win. "I'm not one of those people that feel if you don't win a title everything was for naught," Nash told Yahoo! Sports. "Only one team wins it and a lot of times there is luck involved." Read More nash must secretly have an otr for him to say this. i sees ya nash! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 He wouldn't be saying the same thing if he actually won a title himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revis Island Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Agreed, they should be judged on defense. Oops you still suck Nash. :glasses: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNextBestThing Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 It's the truth. Winning the championship is not something that can be done alone. And if it's that reliant on teamwork, then it's not a very good measure of a single player's worth. Besides, if it weren't for NBA executives being thundering morons, the his Suns would have won the title in 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 I agree with Nash. IF you think a championship makes you the better player. that means Derrick Fisher deserves to be in the HOF over John Stockton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 I agree with Nash. IF you think a championship makes you the better player. that means Derrick Fisher deserves to be in the HOF over John Stockton. I understand your point, but that's the kind of argument I don't like because those two players aren't even in the same class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Dre Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Agreed, but you cant be the best without winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klashnekoff Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 100% the truth and i stand by this strongly also. Rankings of who is the most skilled player always ends with the top 20 being champions and the championships have a sway on those rankings instead of the skill of the player being the main focus of the ranking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I understand your point, but that's the kind of argument I don't like because those two players aren't even in the same class. Exactly, these are what you call smelly logics which cant be applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNextBestThing Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Agreed, but you cant be the best without winning. In an individual sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I understand your point, but that's the kind of argument I don't like because those two players aren't even in the same class. How are they not? both basketball players, both play the point guard. fisher has nothing on John Stockton but rings, but according to most people the ring is what makes you the best player ever. Thats not a damn bit of true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 How are they not? both basketball players, both play the point guard. fisher has nothing on John Stockton but rings, but according to most people the ring is what makes you the best player ever. Thats not a damn bit of true.Exactly - their only similarity is that they both play the same position. It would be like an average high school PG that happened to play for a team that went to the state championship, and comparing him to the highest rated division 1 college PG. Doesn't mix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) So tell what makes you a good(the better) player? Rings? If its that then my point is proven iF its not rings i think thats what Nash was trying to say Edited September 23, 2009 by deestillballin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) So tell what makes you a good(the better) player? Rings? If its that then my point is proven iF its not rings i think thats what Nash was trying to sayNash is a talented player, a hard worker, and a great teammate. I think his 2 MVPs represent enough about his positive accomplishments, the negative is that he could never carry his team to the championship, even though he's had the opportunity more than once. Edited September 23, 2009 by Poe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Exactly - their only similarity is that they both play the same position. It would be like an average high school PG that happened to play for a team that went to the state championship, and comparing him to the highest rated division 1 college PG. Doesn't mix. Not the same situation, only the greatest players will lead their team to a championship. Nash is a good player defenitely but rings can defenitely be used when the players are pretty much equal skillfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Not the same situation, only the greatest players will lead their team to a championship. Nash is a good player defenitely but rings can defenitely be used when the players are pretty much equal skillfully.I agree. I don't think a player should be judged SOLELY on their amount of rings, of course, but it should definitely be counted. Jordan wouldn't have ever been considered the greatest if he hadn't won any championships. The rings are part of what separates him from many of the other Hall of Famers. Nash is wrong in saying that players shouldn't be judged on titles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headliner Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 I think if a player wins the NBA championship and especially if that player wins more than one it just justifies what they accomplished in their career. Meaning it gives their career more meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted September 23, 2009 Report Share Posted September 23, 2009 Not the same situation, only the greatest players will lead their team to a championship. Nash is a good player defenitely but rings can defenitely be used when the players are pretty much equal skillfully. Thank you. Thats what most people dont understand with me. When they try to say "Well he is better then him because he has rings..." Having Rings does NOT make you a better player than another.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Blasco Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 He wouldn't be saying the same thing if he actually won a title himself. Exactly my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.t.a.t. Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Brian Scalabrine>Nash because of the ring :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Robert Horry > Charles Barkley in the HOF because he has 7 ringsGlen Davis > Karl Malone in the HOF because he has a ring [/sarcasm] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) I think rings should only be used in a comparison argument between 2 players if both have had equal opportunities to win them. Some guys just never get that chance, but Nash had his window and he failed so you can definitely hold that against him IMO. But when people act like rings are the end all be all of a player's career, that pisses me off. Same with how people act like if your team isn't good you shouldn't be in the all-star game (although most of those people are complete morons and there aren't that many of them, most of them are somehow ESPN "experts") Edited September 30, 2009 by travesy3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.