Kerr or Nash

[CubbieBum]

So PTI debated which career you would rather have Steve Kerr or Steve Nash. Kerr was asked and said Nash. I was surprised to hear both PTI guys say they were surprised by Kerr's statement. They said they thought winning was always what a player wanted most.

 

To me that was dead wrong. What a player wants most is to play. Kerr barely played and was never anything other than a bench 3-pt shooter. Meanwhile Nash has been a starter his whole career and has won two MVP's. As a player I want to win but if you gave me the choice of playing 40 minutes and losing or 5 minutes and winning I'll take the first one.

 

Anyways I made it my facebook status and already two friends have said they would rather be Kerr (Andy was one of them). I'm curious as to what this board thinks. I would think Nash will win easily but I could very well be wrong.

 

Oh and Bulls fans don't be biased and ruin the poll :P

[manbearcub]

Kerr because he played for da Bulls and isn't a dirty canadian.

[jersey cubs fan]

you made your facebook status a question that was asked on PTI?

[CubbieBum]

you made your facebook status a question that was asked on PTI?

 

No it was more of a rant about being surprised Kerr said he would rather have Nash's career. Now a bunch of my friends are saying they would rather have Kerr's.

 

So everyone knows what kind of career each has had ...

 

Kerr won 5 championships, started only 30 times in his career (out of 910 games), averaged 18 minutes a game, 6 points and nothing else over 2 and his career high was 8.6 points a game.

 

Nash has started in 783 of his 942 games, averaged 31 minutes a game, 14.4 points, 8.1 assists, won two MVP's, made six all-star teams, will finish somewhere between 2nd and 9th in career assists and has never won an NBA championship nor conference championship.

[UMFan83]

It's not like Nash played for the Clippers his whole career. He's been on some very competitive teams, and despite not getting to the promised land, he's been in some pretty fierce playoff battles and won a few too. So it's not like choosing Nash would be like wanting to be the star of a depressing bad team your whole career.

[TruffleShuffle]

well by the end of his current contract steve nash will have made over $100M and he's probably going to be in the hall of fame, while steve kerr made about $16M and is remembered as a role player on great teams, so this seems pretty damn easy to me.

[CubbieBum]

well by the end of his current contract steve nash will have made over $100M and he's probably going to be in the hall of fame, while steve kerr made about $16M and is remembered as a role player on great teams, so this seems pretty damn easy to me.

 

Seems like a no brainer to me but it doesn't look like. I like how my brother put though. He said that while role players in the moment of a championship say they wouldn't trade, almost all of them would want a Barkley type career 10 years later.

 

One way to look at it is a role player will be all but forgotten a decade later while a HOFer won't be. How little was Kerr talked about after his retirement and prior to his GM duties? And he is perhaps the most memorable role player of all-time (interesting debate).

[Andy]

There are a kajillion (and I'm not sure how much of an exaggeration that is) examples of guys trying to win a ring late in their careers and hanging on with any team they think has a good chance to do it, even if it's as a role player (Malone and Payton are the ones I'm coming up with immediately). And that's not exclusive to basketball.

 

There are probably half a handful of guys in the history of sports who passed up the chance to win a title intentionally so they could be the alpha dog somewhere on a team that wasn't going to win the title.

 

I'm going with Kerr. And you can change the option to Robert Horry or any other role player who won a bunch of titles without ever being one of the best four guys on a team and I'd pick them.

 

Kerr made a title-winning shot. I have to believe I'd give anything to have that experience if I were a pro athlete.

[CubbieBum]

There are a kajillion (and I'm not sure how much of an exaggeration that is) examples of guys trying to win a ring late in their careers and hanging on with any team they think has a good chance to do it, even if it's as a role player (Malone and Payton are the ones I'm coming up with immediately). And that's not exclusive to basketball.

 

There are probably half a handful of guys in the history of sports who passed up the chance to win a title intentionally so they could be the alpha dog somewhere on a team that wasn't going to win the title.

 

I'm going with Kerr. And you can change the option to Robert Horry or any other role player who won a bunch of titles without ever being one of the best four guys on a team and I'd pick them.

 

Kerr made a title-winning shot. I have to believe I'd give anything to have that experience if I were a pro athlete.

 

Your first example is pointless. Every player wants to win one the same as every player wants to be great.

 

There's a difference between being starter on a championship team and the 7th or 8th guy who only plays to take a couple 3's and hit FT"s late. A lot of guys leave teams they have won championships on so they can start elsewhere. A lot of starters do it too (Ariza comes to mind).

 

Finally Robert Horry isn't the same as Kerr. Horry was a starter for half of his career, on great teams no less, Kerr was never a starter. Horry's career average minutes played is Kerr's career high. He got regular playing time throughout a large majority of his career and got to win championships at the same time. Kerr was a bench warmer his entire career. Again I think most player's given the choice of rarely playing but being on a championship team and being an all-star but not winning a championship would take the latter.

[CubbieBum]

Oh and there have been HOFers asked after they retired (not in the heat of the moment) if they would trade all their individual accolades for one ring and said no. Barkley has said that on many occasions and he's one of the most famous as well as best players to not win one.

[NCCubFan]

There are a kajillion (and I'm not sure how much of an exaggeration that is) examples of guys trying to win a ring late in their careers and hanging on with any team they think has a good chance to do it, even if it's as a role player (Malone and Payton are the ones I'm coming up with immediately). And that's not exclusive to basketball.

This reminds me of Oscar Robertson, although that's many years ago. For most of his career Robertson was with the Cincinnati Royals (now Sacramento Kings) and he was one of the biggest superstars in the history of the game, regularly averaging near or over 30 points per game and making the All-Star Game more than 10 years in a row, but his team never won a championship. Late in his career he's traded to the Milwaukee Bucks and he plays second fiddle to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. His first year on the team, the Bucks win the NBA title.

[Guest]

It basically comes down to whether you'd rather have a few rings or have a whole lot of money and people actually know who you are.

[TruffleShuffle]

There are a kajillion (and I'm not sure how much of an exaggeration that is) examples of guys trying to win a ring late in their careers and hanging on with any team they think has a good chance to do it, even if it's as a role player (Malone and Payton are the ones I'm coming up with immediately). And that's not exclusive to basketball.

 

that's because those players CAN do something like that - going to good teams to try to win a championship in the twilight of their careers. i'm sure a player like kerr would have left the bulls if he could have gone to a middling team and score 25 points a game for $12M a year. but guys like kerr and horry can't do that because they're not talented enough. great players hanging around trying to win a championship isn't proof of anything.

[Andy]

It basically comes down to whether you'd rather have a few rings or have a whole lot of money and people actually know who you are.

I'd rather have the former. Kerr made over $16 million in his career according to Basketball-Reference and parlayed that career into a job I think most of us would love to have (or at least attempt). He did it while playing with the greatest player ever, on one of the greatest teams ever, and yet with no real outside pressure (media, fans). He made a title-winning shot on one of MJ's most famous plays, when MJ told Kerr he was going to him if MJ got doubled in advance. He even had a throwback game in the '03 Finals, hitting a bunch of threes to help SA get a title in his last year.

 

Granted, I'm also factoring in things like "I'd be able to live a relatively normal life because I wouldn't be constantly surrounded by fans" and things like that, but I'd much rather make 16M and win a bunch of titles than make five times that (and really, how much can you spend?) and never win anything, even if it means I'm not as famous.

[CubbieBum]

It basically comes down to whether you'd rather have a few rings or have a whole lot of money and people actually know who you are.

I'd rather have the former. Kerr made over $16 million in his career according to Basketball-Reference and parlayed that career into a job I think most of us would love to have (or at least attempt). He did it while playing with the greatest player ever, on one of the greatest teams ever, and yet with no real outside pressure (media, fans). He made a title-winning shot on one of MJ's most famous plays, when MJ told Kerr he was going to him if MJ got doubled in advance. He even had a throwback game in the '03 Finals, hitting a bunch of threes to help SA get a title in his last year.

 

Granted, I'm also factoring in things like "I'd be able to live a relatively normal life because I wouldn't be constantly surrounded by fans" and things like that, but I'd much rather make 16M and win a bunch of titles than make five times that (and really, how much can you spend?) and never win anything, even if it means I'm not as famous.

 

Did you read the ESPN the Mag Player X thing this week. He talked about how easy it is to go through it. You owe so many people for helping you achieve your dream so you have massive payrolls. Plus all the agents and managers have to be paid.

[Guest]

It basically comes down to whether you'd rather have a few rings or have a whole lot of money and people actually know who you are.

I'd rather have the former. Kerr made over $16 million in his career according to Basketball-Reference and parlayed that career into a job I think most of us would love to have (or at least attempt). He did it while playing with the greatest player ever, on one of the greatest teams ever, and yet with no real outside pressure (media, fans). He made a title-winning shot on one of MJ's most famous plays, when MJ told Kerr he was going to him if MJ got doubled in advance. He even had a throwback game in the '03 Finals, hitting a bunch of threes to help SA get a title in his last year.

 

Granted, I'm also factoring in things like "I'd be able to live a relatively normal life because I wouldn't be constantly surrounded by fans" and things like that, but I'd much rather make 16M and win a bunch of titles than make five times that (and really, how much can you spend?) and never win anything, even if it means I'm not as famous.

 

Did you read the ESPN the Mag Player X thing this week. He talked about how easy it is to go through it. You owe so many people for helping you achieve your dream so you have massive payrolls. Plus all the agents and managers have to be paid.

 

Yeah. You might make $16M but just taxes take away a good chunk of that and your agent takes a bit more. And $16M for a career, while still a good chunk of change, could be very, very easy to blow if you're not careful.

[TruffleShuffle]

yeah once you're done with taxes and agent you're probably at about $6M. you're not exactly living like jay-z after making steve kerr money.

[Mike Aller]

Yeah, Nash. No doubt in my mind.

 

Kerr was a very small reason for his team's championships (except for one, obviously) in comparison to Nash's reason for his team's successes. Sure, it would suck a whole hell of a lot, but Nash was much more successful at basketball. No one will ever confuse who is the better basketball player. I'd rather go down as a hell of a good basketball player (especially with Nash who is probably a top 10 PG of all time) than a decent player who happened to luck into playing with the best player ever.

 

Also, the money wouldn't hurt.

[rocket]

steve kerr doesn't get referenced in nelly furtado songs. easy choice.

[mcgoobs]

Kerr has two memorable games: The game winner against the Jazz in the 5th championship year, and when he came off the bench for the Spurs in the playoffs and nailed four threes.

 

Absent those I might have picked Nash.

[XZero771679666304]

Yeah, Nash. No doubt in my mind.

 

Kerr was a very small reason for his team's championships (except for one, obviously) in comparison to Nash's reason for his team's successes. Sure, it would suck a whole hell of a lot, but Nash was much more successful at basketball. No one will ever confuse who is the better basketball player. I'd rather go down as a hell of a good basketball player (especially with Nash who is probably a top 10 PG of all time) than a decent player who happened to luck into playing with the best player ever.

 

Also, the money wouldn't hurt.

 

This.

 

Steve Kerr was a bit player. I know he has the rings, but how much of those championships was he responsible for? There are always going to be players who are essentially an interchangeable part who have the good fortune to be on a great team.

 

When and if Nash wins one ring, it will be worth more than all of Kerr's because he will have been one of the driving forces. Even if he never gets one, I'd rather have Nash's career.

[biittner77]

I wonder what someone like Allen Iverson would say about this. I wonder how different his answer would be 10 years from now.