Talk:Steve Nash

We need to add this statment to the MVP 2006 section

"He is also the first player to win back-to-back MVPs without a championship or an appearance in the NBA Finals."

You tell me why not??? Why not??? It is a KEY stat We have him listed with all those other greats. They do not relate to the award either. This article is so POV, it is disgusting. Hganesan 18:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

It's not a key stat: it's certainly not referenced by any prominent writers (you don't count). It's an attempt to disparage Nash's MVP award by implying he's not worthy of it. It makes a generalization based on a small sample size (only back to back MVP winners). It's redundant (if he hasn't won a title, he obviously hasn't appeared in the Finals). It's not clear what the meaning of the sentence is (does it mean he didn't make the Finals before/after/in-between his back to back years? does it mean all the other winners won a title before or after their MVPs?). Finally, it's ridiculous to make such a statement in the middle of the current playoffs where it could be proven wrong in a few days. For that matter, it's inappropriate in the middle of his career; such a retrospective look should wait until he's retired.

WHAT??? Till he's retired?? He is the first player to not win a championship with back to back MVPs. It's redundant?? So is everything positive about the guy. No it is not because people from all around the world don't know that. Do you want me to add NEVER??? I will add it. It is not inappropriate. Explain how the other players are appropriate then??? Explain that category that he falls into with the 8 others. They did not vote him as MVP and most of them were not playing when he "WON" his back to back awards. He is also different from those guys because he never won a championships. He is the same as those 8, now we must post how he's different. You have agendas man, that is why this site is so horrible. It is so biased. Hganesan 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

This ignores, of course, your ongoing obnoxious behavior. Now your sockpuppets are posting messages to your own talk page to make it look like people support you? Come on, dude. Simishag 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey the buc guy is NOT ME. AMAZING. Everytime a guy posts something that agrees with my opinion you call him a sockpuppet. You don't know anything about basketball man. Quit it, and quit accusing. I don't even know who he is. Hganesan 20:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

BTW it is not redundant, because the statement is saying he is the FIRST to win back-to-back MVPs WITHOUT a TITLE. So it is not like saying he has 0 titles. I am making clear here that the others all have won a title in their careers. Hganesan 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

KEEEP steve nash strengths and weaknesses PEOPLE

This is WIKIPEDIA, not ESPN or a media source. AS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, we need to address all the facts and criticisms as well as strengths. KOBE has been criticized on his page as well. Nash has been criticized for being a horrible defender, but all of that is overlooked IN THE MEDIA by the MVP love he receives from THE MEDIA. The media loves NASH. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE MEDIA, IT IS AM ENCYCLOPEDIA. Henry and others are trying to create propaganda. DON't SUPPORT propaganda on Wikipedia!!!Hganesan 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

On ESPN, commentators may say what they think and give their opinions. On Wikipedia we may not do those things, We can only summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If you can find some noteworthy critic of Nash's then we can summarize his or her criticisms. But we can't just write our own assessments of Nash. -Will Beback 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

-Hey this BTW "He is also the only player with multiple MVPs to average less than 15 points and 1 steal or block per game in his NBA career (since the NBA started tallying blocks and steals)." IS NO ASSESMENT OF NASH IT IS FACTUAL. It has been on for over a day now without getting deleted and now you are coming in here complaining. Hganesan 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

He's not the one who removed it. Another editor did. In addition, multiple editors have expressed that they don't think it should be in there. You're the only one who thinks it should be in there. Please remember that just because it is factual doesn't mean it should be included in the article. It should be relevant and notable as well. I think many of your edits here have been good, but you also need to compromise and work with your fellow editors. Maximusveritas

No the problem is i have compromised TOO MUCH here already with the Nash lovers. It is totally relevant, it is a very KEY STAT. LESS than 15 pts and 1 blk/1 steal, THAT IS VERY STANDARD stat. It is like saying a team averaging under 100 pts a game. Like that. So far, you and him are the only ones to post here. 15 pts, under 1 steal/block are noteworthy stat, explain how it is not noteworthy stats?? They have to do with the past MVPs!!!! We put him in the categorys and write he is in a prestigious group with all of these people, now we say how he his different (also from Malone and Pettit) FACTUALLY. There is too much nash bias here. The editors who are arguing with me are all PRO-NASH. I could already tell by the type of language and love for nash that the article implicated when I started editing a few days ago. Things like "Nash reigns supreme once again", the "remarkable nash", "nash a remarkable anamoly", "nash is amazing", "nash and his teammates won", "nash had great stats but the broncos did not realize expectations". How come none of this was taken care of until I came here? It is not like I am saying the first player to average under X amount of points on odd days of the months of january-may in his career. NO, this is a very STANDARD stat. What is so wrong about bringing it up?? To all the Nash lovers out there, he STILL HAS HIS 2 MVPs even with the facts I post, ok?? Wikipedia needs to be revolutionary regarding this Nash guy. It is going to be the very first non-bias source of this guy, everything else in the media is nashy. I will compromise and keep it at the only player to average under 15 pts in a career. I will get rid of the defensive stuff then, or if the nash lovers want, choose to get rid of the 15 pts average, and keep the 1 stl, blk. Hganesan 04:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

First off, it is not a key stat. Not one major media outlet or article has mentioned this. You dug around stats and are trying to only post negative influenced stats. For example, you don't mention that he is probably the only one to average double digit assists out of the group of players he was listed with. I wonder why. If you want to put Steve Nash's stats in the article, perhaps there is another area for it. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THEM TO BE IN THE MVP SECTION. They are entirely UNRELATED. Just because something is factual doesn't mean it belongs there. On a side note, it's obvious you are desperately trying to only add negative facts to the Steve Nash article. This just further shows how you are being completely biased in your contributions, facts or not. You are being very manipulative and if you are all about telling the "whole story", include some good things as well. The way I and many others see it, you are only telling your story. -EW

- KEY STAT??? Wow wake up. Not having a championship ring??? THAT IS A BIG TIME KEY STAT. Go post your stuff about double digit assists, and I will delete it right away because it is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Hganesan 20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

The media all loves nash that is why they will not mention it. Enough I have compromised enough with you nash whiners. I'm sick of this. It has been on for over a day and now you come on and complain all of a sudden. Hganesan 20:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

You are just upset because you cannot find a POSITIVE FACT for Nash. The FACTS don't lie. These are STANDARD FACTS. Find one and put it, it probably doesn't exist except some FT percent, and if it does and I see it is accurate, I won't delete it, I will just add the steals and blocks to it. But don't delete my stuff that has been accepted already here. Hganesan 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

Wow that is SO Funny. I did not dig up for the championship ring fact. LOL I did check for the standard 15 pt stat.Hganesan 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

LOL LOL LOL. You know why I can't tell anymore good things??? BECAUSE... everything good about him has already been told, retold, and emphasized here! Notice you did not delete the Malone and Pettit info that I WROTE.Hganesan 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

I don't think that individual games should be mentioned unless they are career defining games (i.e. MJ's first title or Magic Johnson playing center.) Those are career notable games. You cannot use an isolated game to prove Kidd is better than Nash (which I do agree, Kidd is better, in fact, I'm a Nets fan so I'm a little biased). They have more than 1 head to head matchup and in more than one instance, Nash has outplayed Kidd. So, it's up for debate. Please discuss here before you repost these things. -EW

Billups owned nash in his two meetings against him this year. Nash gave up career highs to Ben Gordon and Luke Ridnour this year, AND season highs to Damon Stoudamire and JR Smith also. And he scored less than 10 in 7 games. you should be thankful not even one of these games has been put on. DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

MVP EDITS

The following " He is the first player in this group without a championship ring, and an average of under 20 points per game in both MVP seasons. He is also the only player in this category to average less than 15 points and 1 steal or block per game in his nba career (since the NBA tallied blocks and steals)." has nothing to do with an MVP award. MVP is an award for a specific season. Referencing a players previous seasons has absolutely nothing to do with the award itself. Furthermore, you've been warned by several people to remain neutral. We would all prefer that you discuss why this belongs there rather than calling everyone idiots. Maybe you could actually try to make a point. - Henry

I cannot make a point, this is WIKIPEDIA, FREE OF BIAS. Full of FACTS. Referencing previous players has nothing to do with it either them. I prefer to post all the facts. You want to delete all the facts Henry. That is not good. It only shows your propaganda motives. Hganesan 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

We can't post "all the facts". If we did, the articles would get way too long and become unreadable. Therefore, we try to determine if a certain fact has "notability". There are some methods for making that determination, but it is still relatively subjective. So the best way is to just discuss it on the Talk Page and come to some consensus among the different editors. Personally, I think the fact that he's the "first player in this group without a championship ring" is notable while the rest is not notable since you could probably pick out stats like that for any of those players and they'd be just as meaningless. That's my opinion anyway. We'll see what others have to say. Maximusveritas 05:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

HE IS THE SECOND PLAYER to win back-to-back MVPs averaging under 20 ppg, the first being 11-time NBA champion BILL RUSSELL. Hganesan 04:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)hganesan

The consecutive MVP statements says he joined a group of people who accomplished a feat of getting 2 MVPs in a row. That's it. There is no legitimacy in pointing out how each individual achieved it. Steve Nash's career stats belong in a different section as do the stats he averaged during these seasons. There is even less legitimacy comparing the stats of these players in this section given that each of these players played in different eras and the numbers are likely to show no correlations. Furthermore, they each played different positions and in the case of PPG, a point guard is expected to get less points and more assists. So, the statement has no relevance and I would appreciate it if you discuss this before reposting. Several others have made the same points I do. Please don't ignore it like you have previously.

You are forgetting that the other multiple MVP winners DO NOT relate to Steve Nash. That is just like the 0 NBA finals appearance stats. They both have nothing to do with Nash. So either delete both or keep both. You decide.

GO PISTONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO DETROIT PISTONS!!!!!!!! DEEEETRRROOOIIIT BASSSKKEETBALLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no way this guy deserves MVP

Hey I'm gonna make sure all you Steve Nash lovers get real. He is a horrible defender and not even deserving of the MVP. Who led the suns in pts, reb, blks and steals, huh? It is not Nash! Get real. Don't even compare nash to Stockton or Magic. It is disgusting. Stockton and Magic were both 2 dimensional and better even offensively than Nash, it is not even close. All the way to the hoop, score?? Does anyone notice this guy always gets the screen by his teammates and help to get open shots. The same screen EVERY POSESSION. He provides experience to his team? Look at all this fraud. We gotta be REAL here. You gotta keep it real. Kobe and LeBron deserved the MVP WAY MORE than Nash. Amazing. Do you know the other players to win multiple MVP awards??? Take a look at the article notice they are all GREAT DEFENDERS. This is a big fraud without question. Steve Nash the best pg ever to play since Stockton??? Hey, lemme ask you something. HOW MANY MVPS DID STOCKTON WIN???? How many NBA FINALS has Steve Nash led his team to??? Disgusting, Steve Nash is messing up Kobe's career. This should be Kobe's MVP no question, if not his LeBron or Dirk's. Just try debating me on Steve Nash being the MVP. I am not even getting started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hganesan (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC).

Repeat after me "Wikipedia is not some blog where I can rant away all my POVs and pent up frustrations." Sunray 03:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice that this Hganesan guy is totally obsessed with promoting Kobe and dissing Steve Nash?

That's why I don't rant POV on the articles but in the discussion. I keep it real young boy sunray.

LOL, BS, you've had like 20 edits reverted because of BLANTANT POV. -BJL

GET REAL, I posted the facts and nash lovers are terrified, like you. Give me an example of POV in my last 10 edits. Try it nash lover. Everything I post is fact. BTW I've had like 40 edits STAY. Don't edit encyclopedia articles if you want to delete FACTS.

Alright guys. First of all, please start signing your comments on the discussion page. Just put four tildas(~) after your comment and it'll do it automatically for you. Also, please stop throwing around insults and other useless info in your edit summaries. It's nice that you "KEEP IT REAL" and all, but just keep it to yourself next time, ok. Maximusveritas 22:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

I've never heard him compared to Stockton

Stockton was more of a distributer and Nash a better scorer. But he has gotten more assists as a Sun than a Mav. It would be interesting if a white Canadian wins the NBA MVP.

Steve Nash is probably the best point guard ever to play in the NBA since John Stockton's time. (EDIT: HAVE YOU EVEN HEARD OF JASON KIDD, FAR BETTER POINT GUARD THAN NASH ALL TIME AND HE IS THE BEST POINT GUARD SINCE JOHN STOCKTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)0Most point guards have the typical talent that needs to become an NBA superstar but what makes Steve Nash stand out from the rest is his ability to make the players he play with look good as well. He doesn't only pass the basketball so well but can also take it all the way to the hoop to score points. He provides the experience to his team, the Phoenix Suns. He provides the energy and the excitement in the team.

Many people look at Nash and say that he's probably too old to carry on the run and gun style that the Suns are putting up right now. Well, maybe he is old but not that old. Many people had those doubts but slowly those people are swallowing their words, including the Mavericks. During this present season, he has shown agility and the capability to run down the court with guys like Amare, Marion, Q-Richardon and JJ. He has proven every nay-sayers wrong and by the look of it, Steve Nash is here to stay.

Steve Nash, all 31 years of him, is as eclectic as they say he is. He reads books such as The Communist Manifesto. He attended school in Santa Clara and actually had to beg for a scholarship. And now, he is in a position where no one envisioned him to be, an NBA All-Star, yet again. But Steve Nash, of Nasty Nash, is not about the 'bling-bling', he is not about the fame nor the fortune. He simply just wants to play the game. He doesn't wear flashy clothes and doesn't drive a flashy car. He just lives life as simply as possible and just plays the game he loves the most.

Today, a lot of players have been praised for their talents and versatility but none of those compare to what Steve Nash is getting. And eventhough he continue to reject the possibility of winning this season's MVP award, we all know he is on his way to winning that coveted title. But, Steve is not about awards, he is just about the game.

Hey, that's all great. I love the guy. But no way in hell is he more valuable to his team than Shaq or Iverson. I mean c'mon, the guy's old team (Dallas) IMPROVED after losing him as a free agent! That sure didn't happen to the Lakers sans Shaq. Funnyhat 06:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Shaq went to the Heat in a trade, there were like 6 or 7 players switching teams in that deal. Nash was a free agent and was the main addition to the Suns lineup that yr. And Dallas completely revamped their lineup (Nash, Walker, Jamison out.... Terry, Dampier, Stackhouse in) so it's not even a fair comparison. --Madchester 05:32, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Mavs have been a really deep team for the past 5 years. They always had 5 players on the court that can score anytime. The Lakers only had Shaq and Kobe and what they got in return for Shaq was not allstars except for Odom and he only puts up 15-18ppg. Nash is an amazing player and is as useful to his team as AI is to the sixers

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

One slight change

I've made a small change to this page, deleting the words "trek" and "all the way" to describe Davey's trip to Victoria from Northern California to see Nash play in high school. Victoria isn't actually all that far, being in the Pacific Northwest. The flight to most NBA cities from Northern California would be far longer, for example.

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

Removed section (Strengths and Weaknesses)

However, other observers will emphasize that although Nash's STEAL'S AVERAGES (see below) are lower than Gary Payton and Jason Kidd's, Nash does play defense with immense intensity. Nash plays both man-to-man and zone defensive schemes to his fullest. When beat off the dribble, Nash is always seen sprinting to regain his defensive positioning. When challenged with a shot, Nash hurls a defensively sound block attempt at his opponent; Nash is so technically sound that when he goes for a block attempt, Nash is often seen lunging at his opponent TOWARD HIS MAN'S SIDE in order to avoid fouling while maintaining his objective to bother the shooter. This superb consistent defensive play was especially evident during his years in Dallas where he didn't have to shoulder as much of the offensive load unlike with Phoenix in 2005.

Observers will also point to the fact that questions about his defense never really were raised UNTIL AFTER San Antonio's 2005 Playoff rout of Nash's Suns. During this rout, Nash had to shoulder even more of the team's work load averaging a career playoff high of 40.67 minutes per game (MPG). As a matter of fact, Nash stepped out of his usual pass-first mentality to average a career playoff points-per-game average of 23.9 PPG. This was also a common theme throughout Nash's 2005 NBA Playoff appearance as he had to tally 48 Pts (Game 4) and 39 Pts (Game 6) against Dallas; these were his largest point totals ever in his career, highschool, college and pro careers combined. He was virtually forced to do this because of his team's circumstance: Joe Johnson hurt, Shawn Marion struggling, Quentin Richardson Struggling and with a very shallow unreliable bench.

This increased workload weared down Nash to the point where his defenseive intensity became compromised; keeping in mind this was also happening during his MVP year where he was undoubtedly a marked man by the opposing teams. One could also argue that an individual's defense is just as good as his supporting teamate's; this was especially true with Phoenix as they, aside form Nash, lacked any defensive stoppers.

Career Regular Season Steals, Turnover and Defensive Rebounding Averages (as of the conclusion of the 2004-2005 Season)
NASH......0.8(STL)....2.6(TO)....2.0(DEF REB)
PAYTON....2.0(STL)....2.4(TO)....3.0(DEF REB)
KIDD......2.1(STL)....3.3(TO)....4.9(DEF REB)

Steve Nash's Career Regular Season Averages For Minutes Played (MPG) and Points Per Game (PPG):
29.3(MPG),12.8(PPG)

Steve Nash's 2005 Playoff Averages For Minutes Played (MPG) and Points Per Game (PPG):
40.67(MPG),23.9(PPG)

Well, IMHO this is full of original research and extremely POV. I am big fan of Nashty, but he cannot play D to save his life, and this section describes him as the next DPOY. Onomatopoeia 09:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This section should be removed. Without citations, this looks like a sports site. Far too POV, and it's getting out of hand. --Downwards 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Questionable use of words

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!! Who wrote in "His man-to-man defense is extremely suspect"? hahahahahaha steve nash is gay. That's why I put the {{NPOV-SECTION}} tag on it.--203.214.88.244 11:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

This article is so far the best article I have seen of a current player of any sport in Wikipedia. Should this be nominated for featured article status or no. --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 20:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This is a very good article, and Wikipedia:Featured articles#Sport and games doesn't have many entries in it that are actualyl about sports. Nominate it, and see how it does! I'd be interested in seeing what kind of feedback it gets. --Idont Havaname 18:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem a few of the images has no source infomation so I need new images for this article to make it into a featured article --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am browsing the 'discussion' page because I found the writing so poor and it was driving me crazy. There is a great deal of intersting data and it is organized OK. But the writing...whew. There are too many unnecessary adjectives, for one. At times the article reads like prose, maybe a high school research paper - too much melodrama for an encyclopedia. I strongly discourage submission for feature article.

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

Great Britain hasn't had an olympic soccer team since ages

Great Britain hasn't had an olympic soccer team since ages and the article says he was offered a position in the team. I think that should be incorrect. I will check and edit if required.

• I believe the article is talking about him playing for the Great Britain Olympic basketball team, though it is confusing because the rest of the paragraph is talking about soccer. I couldn't find a source for that, but I did find something about him possibly taking a role in building the team for 2012 [1], so it makes sense that he would have been offered to play previously. -Maximusveritas 17:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

Don Nelson vs. Donnie Nelson

Why the hell is Don Nelson being referred to as Donnie? Can someone please edit that to make formal sense. This is Canada's MVP's former coach we're speaking of, not a 6 year old's mentor.

Calm down, fella. Donnie Nelson is clearly identified as the son of "Canada's MVP's former coach". Get it? Don Nelson is one person, Donnie Nelson is his son. See how that works? Get a clue. You should have your computer taken away.

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

Trimming down the article

I've made a few changes already, but I think the main problem is in the sections on his NBA career where it sometimes loses focus from Nash and spends too much time discussing the Mavs and Suns in general. I think it would be good to move some of that information to the articles about those teams and let this article focus on Nash. Also, I don't think we need a section for "Career Averages" since he's still an active player and it's gonna be changing constantly. I could find no other article on an NBA player that had such a section. If there are any objections, let me know. - Maximusveritas 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

Advertising

No mention of his promoting MDG Computers? --Quiddity 04:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think mentioning something like that would be notable or appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I don't think any other articles on NBA players mention who they are promoting. - Maximusveritas 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There can be a section of Nash's (lack of) endorsement deals. For example, the Michael Jordan article shows how the man was both an athletic and marketing icon.

Nash apparently chose to be a spokesperson for MDG Computers b/c the firm had a history of providing its hardware to schools in Canada.

Nash also has a new Nike commercial out, with a new contract he signed with the firm recently. But the commercial shows more clips of Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, and Shawn Marion than Nash himself. Kinda reflects the low-key nature of Nash's personal life. --Madchester 19:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know about all that. Apparently he donated the money from his MDG deal to a hospital in Paraguay, where his wife is from. [2] This stuff could probably go into his "Off the Court" section, since I'm not sure if there's enough for a full section, but you may know more about it than I do. Maximusveritas 19:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

DEEEEEETROOOOOOOOIIITT BASSSEKKKKKKEEETBALLLLLL!!!!! GO DEEEETROIIIT PISTONS!!! CHAUNCEY=MVP!!!!!!!!!

2006 NBA MVP

I can't find anything about him winning the 2006 NBA MVP. I'm pretty sure it wasn't announced yet, can anyone find a source?

There's only been leaked reports from insiders that he's reclaimed the award for 2006... no official word from the NBA yet. I've rewritten some of the sections to remove the speculatory nature of the article. --Madchester 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve Nash's career numbers should not even be mentioned in an MVP section. MVP is a single season award. Perhaps there is another section to mention them. Not in a single season section.

Strengths & Weaknesses section, revisited

I basically nuked this thing, rewrote and renamed it. This section was really getting out of hand, full of either fanboy or hater talk. I made it IMHO more factual and CONCISE.

• Nash is seen as one of the premier point guards in the NBA. He is a two-time regular-season MVP, the only second point guard in NBA history to have achieved this after Magic Johnson. ==> Fact
• He is one of the most creative and intelligent players, averaging double digits in assists. ==> Fact (he averaged 11.5 and 10.5 apg the last 2 years)
• His ballhandling is superb as seen in the 2005 NBA All-Star Skills Contest, which he won. ==> Fact
• He is also a great three-point shooter and is the third best free throw shooter in NBA history. ==> Fact, .421 on three-pointers and .896 on FTs is stellar.
• Nash is also very effective playing the pick and roll with former Dallas teammate Dirk Nowitzki and later Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion. ==> well-known, hard to reference though
• Many critics point to Nash's defense as his primary weakness. ==> Fact, he has yet to get voted into an NBA All-Defense Team. Payton is a DPOY, Kidd perennially in the All-D-Team and Billups is two-time All-D.
• On May 11, 2006, ESPN.com rated Nash as the 9th greatest point guard of all time[8]. ==> Fact

BTW, plz remind yourself that this is an encyclopedia, and not a sports site. Also, plz do not pick single unrelated games to make a point, plz stick to complete playoff series or seasons, because they are much more representative. With random games, I am pretty sure I could pick 20+ games which make Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain look like complete buffoons, and just elegantly forget the hundreds of games in which they played legendary.

Onomatopoeia 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I added to the player profile that he did not recieve any votes for all-defense team. Simply not making a defensive team is not indicitive of being a poor defener as the article tries to state. Just this year players like Richard jefferson or andre iguodala did not make it yet they are still considered good defensive players. it is more relevent that he has not recieved any votes then it is that he has not made a team. just trying to avoid confussion.

Duhon , 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nash MVP & consensus

While I strongly object to User:Hganesan's methods, I suppose we must admit that his opposition requires us to achieve consensus (even if he's the only one objecting). In the interest of following the rules, I propose this copy be added:

Nash is only the second point guard, along with Magic Johnson, to win the award multiple times. Nash joined eight other NBA players to earn back-to-back MVP awards (Magic Johnson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan).

I assert that this is not POV. It reflects that Nash has accomplished what few other players have accomplished. The obvious implication is that Nash is an elite player, but one could say that is the obvious implication of saying "Steve Nash is an NBA player" (since he must be somewhat elite, compared to the general public, to play in the NBA). Suggesting that this constitutes POV is ridiculous; it would mean we couldn't say anyone won the MVP, or for that matter, than anyone plays in the NBA. I would venture to say we'd have a lot of empty pages if we had to be concerned about the POV implications of basic facts (as opposed to related facts, as in the next paragraph).

I assert that it is POV to cherry pick stats like "Nash is the only MVP to average less than 20 ppg". The award is subjective, which is why it's voted on; to point at Nash's stats in this fashion is not only to suggest Nash is unworthy (POV), it also impugns the voting process by suggesting the voters don't know what they're doing. Also POV to say "Nash is the only MVP without a title" (irrelevant; he's also still playing so such a comment isn't appropriate until he retires). The statements are perhaps factual but they have a clear bias to make Nash look undeserving. It would be just as unacceptable to say "Jason Kidd is the only MVP to be accused of beating his wife" in his MVP section (that doesn't mean it's off limits for his article, just that section).

It was noted that Kidd never won MVP. Fine. It's a hypothetical example. The point about writing style is still valid. Simishag 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't take into account the pattern of edits this user has made, which suggests his own personal agenda. Simishag 02:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Individual Games

Individual games should not be listed unless they are a significant game that helped defined one's career (such as Michael Jordan's 60+ playoff performance against the Celtics or Kobe Bryant's 81 point game). Recently, there have been edits showcasing Nash performing poorly against other elite point guards in an attempt to show he's not as good as the point guards he is matched up against. First off, a single head to head performance does anything but define a point. Nash has to have atleast 20 matchups with each of those players and there has been plenty of games in which he has outpeformed them. I suggest that if individual games are to be included, they should be discussed first. Benihana Lee

Agreed. I don't think individual games are appropriate to discuss. The comparisons about other PG's made under "Player Profile" are uncited and probably invalid. How can one say that Nash gave up all the points? How many minutes did each player play simultaneously? Were the Suns running a zone defense? Did they have a player in foul trouble? Did they win or lose the game? There are simply too many variables to make these statements as if they are definitive of Nash as a player. This might be more acceptable if it was cited from a major source, but as it stands I think it's original research on the part of User:Hganesan or User:Bucsrsafe (who look to me like the same person). Simishag 21:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong simi, I cannot live on two different continents. 128.6 is you btw. Someone check.Hganesan 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

yeah ok simishag and benihana lee, fair enough on the point of putting in about his matchups with other elite point guards. yeah these were only single incidents, but the point about the 4 guys he gave up highs too (they were all his opposite pg's). you know its nash's job to guard them (do you watch the nba), one pg guards another. reckon you can get your head around that one and they go for highs. its relevant, i will edit it in as much as i want. why dont you go back to editing the sections that just praise nash as an offensive genius and i will handle with the other guy the defense (or lack of) section. ok? BUCSRSAFE.

You continue to ignore the complaints about your edits. You have provided no sources or citations. You have performed original research. You haven't established the validity of the comparisons to the players you have selected. You have implied but not established that any of these other guys are bad players (actually they're all pretty good). You haven't established that all point guards are great defenders. You used an incredibly small, statistically invalid sample (4 games out of a career) to attempt to make a point (he's not a great defender) which has ALREADY been made in the paragraph in a much less objectionable way. Since you haven't provided any citations, we can't examine Stoudamire or Smith. For the players and games you cherry-picked for this season:

• Ridnour scored 30 [3] in a 2 OT game where the teams combined for 301 points, not exactly an ordinary game. Ridnour wasn't even the leading scorer for the Sonics in that game; Ray Allen went for 42. Ridnour had 11 assists; you can't blame that entirely on Nash since someone else also failed to play defense on the scorer on each of those plays. The suggestion that Nash was slacking in this game is ludicrous: he missed a triple-double by 2 rebounds.
• Gordon scored 39 [4] for the Bulls, who lost by 17 points. Nash only played 29 minutes in the game, probably because it the Suns led by 20 after 3 quarters. Gordon had 9 threes; was Nash even in the game? Were there switches or screens?

Of course, if you'd bothered to look at the box scores while doing your research, you might have realized that they were poor choices with which to make your point. But I guess it's easier to rant here about how none of us know anything about the NBA. Simishag 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn something simishag. Defensive schemes affect EVERY GAME. Gordon has 9 threes, that doesn't mean nash was not in the game, he is A DEFENSIVE LIABILITY. Do you expect Ridnour to be the leading scorer? We are not blaming Nash for the assists, we are saying he blew the game and they lost because of his pathetic defense. The game went into double OT, and nash still did not even score as much as Ridnour. Assists don't mean the defense was bad. You can pass the ball to a guy who is triple teamed and if he scores in that spot withouth dribbling it can still count as an "assist". The whole stat is subjective. Hganesan 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

All of that is original research. See WP:OR:

• Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

Assists are a subjective stat? That's a new one. Simishag 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows that assists are subjective. Hganesan 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

Nash Defense

Statements such as "some believe Nash's defensive struggles lead to ..." are considered " Weasel Words". Please don't add anything of such in before discussing it in the discussion page.

Coumarin 6/1/06

Here we go again: Simishag's false claims

User:Hganesan is back with his new "friend" User:Bucsrsafe (looks like another sockpuppet to me). More uncivil behavior from both of them, and now they're talking to each other as well. Looking for an admin to check this out before the page blows up again. Simishag 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:12.134.204.214 (previously identified as a sockpuppet of User:Hganesan) removes sockpuppet tags from User:Hganesan and User:Bucsrsafe within a few minutes of each other. What an amazing coincidence. Simishag 20:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, you are the only one being uncivil. I am being perfectly reasonable, its relevant that suddenly these random players play against Nash and put up career highs. will edit it back in cos 2 of us think its relevant now. also, i can talk to who i want to and if i want to share comments with the other dude then i will. you have no right to label other people "sockpuppets", just 2 people who agree that nash's defense is shocking. BUCSRSAFE.

Please see WP:BAN#Enforcement. Banned users' edits may be reverted without discussion or justification. You are the only user making these claims (if you are in fact a legitimate separate user and not a sockpuppet; I will remain skeptical until I see evidence to the contrary). Simishag 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Last time i looked, i wasnt a banned user, therefore that makes your point about reverting my edits completely irrelevant. how is the fact that we have 2 different user names and edit at different times not evidence that we are different people. also, its not coincidence that players when nash is playing opposite them score career highs. also, if i found articles that mention nash's defense being shocking, would i be able to include their phrases and stuff. the point is that this is an encyclopedia and there must be more than just 2 lines of reference to his main deficiency, that is his defense. you already got rid of the strengths and weaknesses thing that should have stayed in my opinion, so please let us write stuff about his shocking defense. BUCSRSAFE.

Also, man, sources and research not very hard, just go to their bios on nba.com, scroll to the bottom of the page (can you manage that) and look that their career highs are against (yeah, you guessed it, phoenix). reckon you can work that one out, simishag, you nash lover. BUCSRSAFE.

It is your responsibility to add sources when you add new claims. It is not our responsibility to find sources for all the claims you make. Uncited claims are commonly removed from pages across WP. You have also just admitted that you are performing original research, which is not allowed. Simishag 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It was already proven that Bucsrsafe is in another continent, he is most likely a lot closer to you than me Simishag. Hganesan 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

"Foreign" MVP

Nash is mentioned as a "foreign" born MVP along with Hakeem. Tim Duncan is being added and removed to this, depending on whether people think the US Virgin Islands is "foreign" or not. It is foreign for anyone outside the US, and the territory has a special status in the US even if it's not "foreign". Does Duncan properly belong in this category, and if so can we change this to "non-mainland-US born" or something? Simishag 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This one's really bugging me. Tim Duncan is unambiguously NOT "foreign." If you're born in the USVI, you get a US passport and no other. Period. The fact that he wasn't born in the contiguous 48 is barely relevant in his own article, and completely irrelevant here. Two foreign players: Olajuwon and Nash. Cory.willis 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Something has to be done about the lack of emphasis on Nash's bad defense

Ok, lets talk about this reasonably. in my opinion, this article does not have any where near enough emphasis on Nash's lack of defense. There are 3 lines in the whole article about his defense. its his main deficiency in the game and nobody seems to want to talk about it. i will stop editing in statistics and things with the other dude if it is addressed properly. i honestly want to sort this out by agreement with other people but it seems that so many people are just wanting to keep Nash's page without any reference to his deficiencies. this is an encyclopedia, not a nash love page and there should be more than a couple of lines reference to his poor defense. its not a coincidence that rubbish players suddenly score loads of points against nash. this needs to be addressed and i want to hear people's thoughts on the matter. Buscrsafe, 18.28, 4 June 2006.

It sounds like you have an agenda to portray Nash as a lousy defender because that's your opinion of him. In fact, based on the comments you made on User:Hganesan, you are both admitted "anti-Nashers". That's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought). We've explained over and over again how to add these things in a non-biased fashion (on this entire talk page, on your talk page), but neither you nor your friend seem to care about doing this the right way. When your content was removed as inappropriate for multiple reasons, you immediately added it back in, ignoring the objections of others. When I added the original research tag as a compromise, you promptly removed the tag. Now someone else has stepped in and removed the individual games part entirely. Do you plan to add it back in yet again?

If this is to stay in the article, you need to find prominent, reputable journalistic sources who see Nash as a bad defender, and really, they should say it more strongly than that. We've already noted that he's not a "great" defender, but your opinion appears to be that he's so bad that he's a liability to his team. This hasn't been backed up by anything that's been posted here, and I don't think you'll find it easily in a reputable source, but I'm willing to examine any such sources you find. Please post them here first before adding anything to the main page, so we can avoid further disputes.

Finally, both of you should read WP:CITE and WP:NPOV carefully. You should especially pay attention to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:NPOV#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone. There are ways to get your point across about people without heavy handed attempts at making them look like chumps. Simishag 19:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What more is there to say about it? Do you want 5 paragraph's on his "bad defense". It's listed that he is not a good defender, has never made an all-nba defensive team, or even been voted for. Furthermore, his defensive stats are listed and it is stated that his averages are low for a point guard. What else is there to say? Give some examples. And please, don't even list an individual games. Coumarin

Should I bother or do people delete valid content all the time?

I actually like Steve Nash, but I pointed out that his MVPs have been somewhat controversial amongst statistically minded observers. This was quickly deleted. Is that just par for the course here? If you don't like the apbrmetrics message board, do you have a better collection of well informed NBA statistical analysts?

The Animal 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would never reference any blog or message board to use a citation for an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, I wouldn't reference an extreme borderline unsubstantiated POV article, such as Bucsrsafe tried to do as well.

Coumarin 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Coumarin is correct- blogs and forums are not reliable sources. Newpspaer and magazine sportswriters are considered relaible, and if this is a widley-held view then it shouldn't be hard to find one of them expressing it. -Will Beback 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've given up on bothering to work on the Nash page, but I think contributors here should be aware that there is a community of statistically minded NBA analysts. Some of them publish books, work for NBA teams, run highly regarded websites, and write for established publications. The only forum that I know of where many of them routinely debate and discuss the NBA is the APBRmetrics forum. [5]

In any event, I wasn't citing an opinion from there. I was claiming a debate over Nash's MVP existed amongst statistically inclined analysts. One can claim that a debate among statistical analysts is not relavant to a Nash wikipedia page, but note that's not what anybody has done here. If an entry claiming such a debate exists is valid, then a link to the apbrmetrics forum seems the most valid link I can think of. Certainly, nobody has proposed a better one.

The Animal 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The books and established publications would be fine sources. If the debate is limited to webforums then it isn't a notable debated. -Will Beback 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the jury is still out on the usefulness and validity of APBR, 82games, etc. They make some interesting points, and their analysis fills a gap that has been lacking in basketball for a long time. That said, there are potential problems. Some of their stats are based on pretty small sample sizes. The long term validity of their numbers isn't clear; in particular, I don't see how their current metrics can be useful for anything before 1980, when the 3 point line was introduced (which very obviously changed the game). The impact of rules changes and other variables (like the rest of the players on the floor) isn't accounted for. I could go on, but basically statisical hyperanalysis seems too close to pseudo-science for my tastes. It's more useful in baseball, where they've been doing this longer and have fewer externalities to worry about (the key matchup is 1-1, batter-pitcher), and clearly has proven useful (see Theo Epstein). As a compromise, I would not object to citing the work of a prominent NBA analyst who makes arguments based on stats from APBR or others. Simishag 01:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Player Profile & POV

I have reworked the disputed section about Nash & criticism. For starters, it was full of weasel words like "Some criticize..." It really should not be hard to find and cite this criticism appropriately. I can almost guarantee that anything uncited will be promptly removed (by someone, not necessarily me). However, a citation alone is not a blanket license to add anything. It needs to be presented fairly, and it needs to be germane to the article. If you aren't sure, post it here on the talk page first, and I'll be happy to provide feedback. And even with citations... actually, especially with citations, you need to put "Joe Blow criticizes Nash...", not just "Some criticize Nash..." There is really no excuse for weasel words once you have a good citation. Once that's done, we can argue about whether the criticism is relevant to the article.

Also, the Simmons article does not appear to be a criticism of Nash per se. Simmons' point is that recent NBA rules have made the game better. He mentions 5 specific rule changes (some are merely "points of emphasis" for refs) and 1 "unannounced, under-the-table" change. It is the last change which Simmons believes benefits "penetrating guards" like "Nash, Wade, Harris & Terry..." This doesn't strike me as "criticism", and I think to suggest that Simmons is taking a swipe at Nash is misleading at best. Simishag 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

it is slightly criticizing nash in that Simmons believes he would never have reached these heights without a rule change. ie, he needed a rule change to make him a better pg. --Bucsrsafe 20:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be Simmons' point. He also mentions "Wade, Harris & Terry, Parker, Hinrich, Billups, even an old-timer like Sam Cassell." I don't think he's criticizing all of them; he certainly is not taking a critical tone. In fact, the overall point of his article is how great the playoffs are now. Also, it's sufficient to say "rules changes." We don't need to get into the specifics; the reader can go to the source if they want to know more. Simishag 20:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

An editor removed an attributed, sourced assertion, with the edit summary:

• rv, the goal is to not have a pov. You need to reference an objective article. Bill Simmon's is an opinionated journalist, he's not paid to analyze. He's paid to give his opinion

Without commenting on the contents, as a general principle, it is entirely proper to add the opinions of noteworthy critics. This is the same as adding the opinion of a music critic to an article about a composer. We should not give our own opinions, but we should include the notable opinions from others. WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints be included. There is no requirement that we only use objective sources and we'd be remiss if we did. -Will Beback 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with this in general, you are incorrect in stating that NPOV "requires that all viewpoints be included." Specifically, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight states that all significant viewpoints be included, and, more to the point:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

We are not obligated to indulge everyone who hates Steve Nash and can find a source who also hates Nash. Simmons is noteworthy, so I think he's okay to include here without imparting a bias. However, one could argue that his commentary constitutes mere trivia rather than serious critical analysis. Simishag 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree with the statement of user: willbeback. simmons is a noteworthy critic and one of the few who actually has the audacity to note that nash would not be as good without the recent rule changes. in response to simishag, the only reason that a small minority of people hold this few is that most people who edit this article often are keen nash enthusiasts thus do not want to find stuff anti-nash. also on the bias front, i think its fair that some people who do not give nash as much respect as most are included because in my view this article is already heavily in favour of nash and does not include enough information on his weaknesses. --Bucsrsafe 20:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a Nash fan. I've been a Lakers fan since I was maybe 7 or 8 years old and Kobe is probably my favorite player after Magic. However, I know crappy, biased writing when I see it. I and other editors have spent an enormous amount of time cleaning up after the mess made by User:Hganesan. He's been blocked at least 10 times already by 5 or 6 admins, for up to a week at a time, and every time he's unblocked, he returns here and to Kobe's page to add his own views. He's very obviously biased for Kobe and against Nash, and it's getting old having to defend these pages against that kind of intrusion. Now we're going through this all over again (check the edit logs for Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant over the last 24 hours) and I suspect he'll end up being blocked again in a day or two. This is nothing but a big waste of time for all involved, and it's to the point now where everyone else is a little sensitive about new material being added here.

This is not to say that criticism of Nash is inappropriate. Noteworthy, properly sourced criticism is welcomed. However, we really haven't seen much of that yet, just a handful of box scores which purport to explain how bad Nash is. Aside from the inanity of citing 4 games, it's original research and violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. It reduces the quality of the article. I've added my opinion on this at Talk:Steve_Nash#Individual_Games and there's been no response, yet User:Hganesan adds it back in saying "it's already been discussed." Simishag 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A career??? We're talking about ONE SEASON here. I got 11 games right there to show it, and the suns went 5-6 in these games so his performance affected the team. You want to pick a 100 games out of any hall of famer go ahead, you will not find games that bad. He is the most overrated player in NBA History. I live in the US, you live somewhere in Britain or another country, it's not my fault. You did not even think the alley-oop pass from Kobe to Shaq was a famous play. If you knew anything about the Lakers you would know that is the signature play of the duo. We're talking about 11 horrible nash games in just one season. That is not MVP, you are not a Lakers fan btw, not a good idea to lie here, just like you did with your false claims. Hganesan 02:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

BTW I didn't add the games now. We still should add a few, because lack of stats is not the only indication of horrible defense. Hganesan 02:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

BTW why don't you all check simishag's posts on Kobe Bryant attacking me on the article itself. Hganesan 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

i think it needs consideration about people including simmons who have this view that the NBA is moving into a new direction with the selection of MVP's in that point guards are now more important in the voters eyes than they ever used to be. kidd, thomas (isiah), stockton never won the MVP but in the modern time, a point guard inferior to those listed has, and in Simmons'eyes and some others, kidd was just as valuable to the nets in the 02-03 season as nash was to the suns in the last two yet did not win the mvp. i wonder what people's thoughts would be on such an inclusion or words to that effect in the article? --Bucsrsafe 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Player profile

Just wondering, but do people think that the player profile article should include things on Nash's early struggles in his first 4 years in the NBA rather than going straight onto his more successful years (the last two). i think some reference should be made to his poor first years. opinions? --Bucsrsafe 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It would work better earlier in his bio. I see "player profile" as the equivalent of a current scouting report. Perhaps it's not there yet but it should be limited to current info rather than historical if possible. A note about his improvement in certain areas might be okay, but don't just say "he was bad when he came into the league" because you could say that about a lot of players. Simishag 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ok fair enough on pretty much everything you have said in response to my points, the only thing i want to say is that there are often very few statistics and critics who want to criticize nash because it is out of step with the normal view on him at the moment. i will look into the bio part of his early career and also he was pretty awful for the first 4 years of his career, other point guards like kidd were just excellent immediately. thanks, simishag, you are a lot more reasonable than i thought, certainly better than that user: downwards guy. --Bucsrsafe 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks I guess. In his defense, we've had to deal with a lot of nonsense lately from User:Hganesan. Most of the rest of us are in agreement that this article is more or less complete, and any additional content needs to be compelling and well-written. We don't need pages and pages about all sorts of tangential information (see this talk page, for instance).

If there are really "very few critics" of Nash right now, then this article should reflect that by "framing the debate." It is not our job to "balance out" the lack of noteworthy criticism by adding it to this article. It is also not our job to assume that the lack of criticism is simply due to his current popularity. That's your opinion. If Charles Barkley said it, it might be okay to add in, but you alone are not noteworthy (which is fine, neither am I). I'm sure plenty of people actually think he's a great player because of his on-court performance.

Finally, you don't need to state an obvious opinion to be biased. Adding a whole lot of obscure statistics that purport to illustrate how "bad" Nash is also advances an opinion. It's just more subtle, and more damaging, because it tries to hide under a veneer of "objective" statistics. I'm sure we could pick 10 or even 100 games out of the career of any Hall of Famer and use that to "prove" how bad they were. That doesn't make it a legitimate argument. Simishag 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A career??? We're talking about ONE SEASON here. I got 11 games right there to show it, and the suns went 5-6 in these games so his performance affected the team. You want to pick a 100 games out of any hall of famer go ahead, you will not find games that bad. He is the most overrated player in NBA History. I live in the US, you live somewhere in Britain or another country, it's not my fault. You did not even think the alley-oop pass from Kobe to Shaq was a famous play. If you knew anything about the Lakers you would know that is the signature play of the duo. We're talking about 11 horrible nash games in just one season. That is not MVP, you are not a Lakers fan btw, not a good idea to lie here, just like you did with your false claims. Hganesan 01:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

Once again, this is original research by you. Try reading WP:OR. You are picking a handful of games to push your agenda that Nash is overrated. More specifically, you are analyzing raw data to make new claims which have not been made by anyone, except you. That is the textbook definition of original research. You're welcome to do that on your own site, BUT NOT HERE. The alley-oop play discussion belongs on Talk:Kobe Bryant, not here. Simishag 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW why don't someone check simishag's connections with bucsrsafe? Hganesan 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

Go for it. Please. By all means. Don't let anyone stop you. Every time you come to the attention of admins, they block you. I would like nothing more than for you to bring yourself to their attention and save us all the trouble. Simishag 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I question whether being effective at the pick-and-roll is objective enough and important enough to be placed along side other solid statistics. The referenced article mentions his pick-and-roll but doesn't include references to as many players as are referenced in the sentence about it in the article.Ryanminier 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Player profile" doesn't necessarily mean statistics. As I've said elsewhere, I see it like a scouting report. However, it should be cited, and if a better reference is necessary let's do that. Simishag 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, It is NOT a solid and important stat. Nash has FEW solid stats. That's why in terms of ENCYCLOPEDIA, it is way too pov; from an objective standpoint, nash is trash compared to the league's elite guards. But the nash lovers are in excess here, so you have to compromise; it's sad. The whole article was so pov before i started editing. Now it is a little less. For example, the MVP section for 2006 read, "Nash Reigns supreme once again". For the first mvp it read, "Nash a REMARKABLE Anamoly". I'm dead serious, check it out. In the college section someone had written, something like "Nash played great but the Broncos failed to realize expectations," all these nashty love you will not believe. You have to see it to believe it. Now people are upset because i am working to make this article better and more objective. Hganesan 17:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Hganesan

Let me see if I've got this right. You came in here and decided that some things needed changing. But rather than work on those things, you started adding in a bunch of stuff to balance out the discussion. Now you're complaining about being forced to compromise? That's kind of the whole point of this wiki thing. If you aren't willing to compromise (and you've certainly been unwilling so far), if you aren't willing to discuss changes without interpreting everyone else's opinion as worthless, perhaps you shouldn't be here. Simishag 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You aren't trying to make anything objective. You have a clear agenda which is Nash=bad. Coumarin 18:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree with all people here really. i agree with user: hganesan in that there is not much stuff on the article about nash's deficiences and the article is generally balanced towards the good things that nash has done in his career and not the bad things. just that the section where he was poor, first 4 years of his career and that section is 7 lines long. his good years have about 4 different sections, this is biased towards his accomplishents. this is sort out of becoming better with the player profile where things against nash are now being allowed. i also agree with user: simishag and user: coumarin that user: hganesan, although some of his points are legit that he just edits in what he wants without consultation. if we are to address this stuff, we need to talk about it rather than just editing each others stuff out. --Bucsrsafe 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Due to 3RR violations by an aol anon, I've semi-protected the page. Discuss below: William M. Connolley 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)