Similar to the intentions of the blogger who accused Raul Ibanez of taking PEDs, I initially started writing this article to prove that Steve Nash had secured a place for himself in the Hall of Fame. Upon discovery of several strong arguments going the other way, I decided to write the article against Nash’s induction. His career is definitely an exception becausevery few players have ever been so dominant, elite and influential for only a short portion of their careers.
I’d like to thank readers and commentors who engaged in a lively discussion and brought up some great points. I’d like to discuss a few of the most compelling and frequently made arguments:
1. It doesn’t matter if Nash wasn’t an elite player for a long period of time and has inferior numbers compared to other Hall of Famers! Look at Bill Walton (10 total seasons, 13.3 ppg, 10.5 rpg)!
The first counterargument that comes to mind is that Bill Walton has a ring and that Nash has never made it to the finals. However, the more sound argument here is that this is not the NBA Hall of Fame. Rather, it is the basketball Hall of Fame. Few have rivaled the excellence and the impact that Walton had on the floor for the UCLA Bruins. He is one of the greatest, if not the greatest college basketball player of all time.
2. His career numbers are too strong for total assists, 3pt % and FT%!
I must say this is a very good argument. Not individually, but collectively. Individually, it would not hold much merit. Mark Jackson, the NBA’s 2nd leading career assist man is clearly not a Hall of Famer. Neither is Steve Kerr, the NBA record holder for career 3pt%, or Mark Price, the career FT% leader. The fact that Nash will probably land in the top five for all three categories by the end of his career is impressive and presents a strong argument for why he should be inducted.
3. Every MVP winner eligible for the Hall of Fame has been inducted.
If history is a good indicator, this fact alone should grant Nash a pass to the Hall. The only counterargument that can be posed here is that Nash’s two MVPs have been very controversial. Many believe Shaquille O’Neal should have taken the MVP award in the 2004-05 season and that Kobe Bryant should have won the 2005-06 season when he had one of the most memorable individual seasons a player has ever had in this league. The last time the MVP award was this controversial was in 1997 when Karl Malone won when many felt Michael Jordan clearly should have been the winner. For the purposes of our argument here, it wouldn’t matter because Malone won a convincing MVP two seasons later when MJ retired.
4. Nash’s influence on the game alone is enough to qualify him as a Hall of Famer.
Nash’s influence in the game is debatable. I would argue that his impact on the game was not significant enough as the other influential players in NBA history. George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquille O’Neal had NBA rules changed because of their style of play. Nash merely executed a style of play that changed according to new changes in the NBA rules. Phoenix’s success of the small ball strategy became popular across the league — it made the game more exciting, more watchable. However no small-balling team has ever won an NBA championship. He did not invent or reinvent the high-octane offense, it was highly popular in the 1980’s. If anything, Mike D’Antoni should get the credit here.
I’d like to reemphasize the fact that the Hall of Fame is not for players who were elite for a short period of time, but rather for players who have displayed excellence for a long period of time. Barring injury, Nash will probably play for a total of 17 or 18 seasons, maybe more. But he will have played at an elite level for only four or five of those seasons — which is the biggest argument against his induction.
If Steve Nash is ever elected into the Hall of Fame, expect me to write an article about why Grant Hill should be inducted as well.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:36 am
More defensive crap.
Don't you ever tire from propogating such nonsense and having the nerve to call it journalism? This piece is another insult to the intelligence of each and every reader. Will you write a part 3 and part 4 continuing to attempt to defend your embarassing bias?
Does seem to me that you must know somebody in order to get away with this pitiful excuse for research. You obviously must own a crystal ball. How else can one explain your certainty of what the last years of his career will look like? I can tell you what you look like but it won't be good.
Nash does not deserve a jerk like you.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Stop posting arguments that have COMPLETELY wrong facts! Never made it past the second round of the playoffs?!
Steve Nash led the Suns to the NBA finals in EACH of his first TWO seasons as a Phoenix Sun. Eliminated in the West finals by San Antonio (4-1) in 2004-05 and by Dallas (4-2) in 2005-06, in a series Phoenix may have won without some untimely injuries.
So, would you like to continue this bogus argument with anymore fabrications? Maybe he doesn't deserve the HOF because he placed Flubber on the bottom of his sneakers? Switched the gameball out for a smaller one just prior to tipoff, so his shooting percentage would go up? Or maybe he doesn't deserve the HOF because he actually used a stunt double for six seasons to preserve his body for his later years?
The most important thing in journalism is accuracy. And, you sir, have placed very little emphasis on that. Embarrassing to journalists everywhere. Please, just please, stop writing.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Thanks for the heads up, I corrected it. That has absolutely nothing to do with my argument though. The main point is that Walton was one of the greatest college players ever and owns a ring neither of which Nash could say the same for.
September 19th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Uh, actually Walton owns 2 rings (got one in Boston). And I think it IS the NBA Hall of Fame, and there's one for NCAA too, which if I were a journalist I would double check before writing about. You'd think Google alone would end what is basically sloppy use of facts. I really think it's more often than not about bias and making the story fit desired outcome. But honestly, today's journalists are about as well thought of as used car salesmen and politicians and traditional media is dying a slow, well deserved death.
But come on, 2 MVP's and top 5 in assists, three pt%, and FT % is a no brainer. Let it go. You're a pretty good writer so move on to something else!
September 20th, 2009 at 4:17 am
Hey anthony,
I apologize for the couple of insignificant errors I've made in my article.
However, the little errors that I made have NO BEARING on the argument I am making.
Walton has two rings instead of one. Great. Does that change the fact that Nash still doesn't have one?
I also said that the "number of rings" argument isn't nearly important compared to the Hall of Fame argument.
If the usage of Google was so easy, you could have easily typed in "NBA HOF" and found out that it doesn't exist. It's the Basketball Hall of Fame buddy. Nice try though.
In writing these two Nash pieces, the biggest lesson I learned was that I should have really focused on the minor details in my piece. None of the petty mistakes I've made had anything to do with the legitimacy of my argument. Yet tons of commentors hung onto these mistakes and called into question my merits as a "journalist" (which is retarded because I'm clearly a blogger that writes about sports as a hobby) instead of focusing on the arguments that I presented.
All in all, I'd probably agree that Nash is going to make it to the Hall. It's just that there's a lot of convincing arguments on the other side that weren't being talked about. The purpose of these articles was to point the arguments against Nash out.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:05 am
….