The Nash era CLEARLY is the best the Suns have been, if you can't see that then there is no point of arguing with you. The 92-95 team does not come close, final appearance or not.
I wouldn't argue the point if you hadn't put CLEARLY in all caps, because it's debatable at best. Here's what I think: the two eras to compare are actually 88/89 through 94/95 (7 seasons from the KJ trade to Barkley being traded away) and 04/05 through 09/10 (six seasons from the Nash signing to Amar'e departing). You could extend the latter until Nash's departure, but I don't think it makes a difference.
We don't have championships to examine, so we're stuck with playoffs as the most salient point of comparison. The earlier team won 10 playoff series, went to 3 Conference Finals, and won 2 games against the Bulls in the NBA Finals. They never missed the playoffs. The later team won 7 playoff series, went to 3 conference finals, didn't make the NBA Finals, and missed the playoffs once. The advantage the earlier team has in this comparison is one more season to work with, plus best-of-five first round series (although those are also easier to lose). But because of missing the playoffs in 2009, the later team still has only 36 playoff wins compared to the earlier team's 46 playoff wins.
I like my chances seeing how Colangelo won nothing.
Suns record under Sarver? .580 517-369
Suns record in previous 37 years? .542 1582-1338
Suns MVPs under Sarver in 10 years? 2
Suns MVPs in previous 37 years? 3
Suns allstars under Sarver ? 1.5 per year
Suns allstars in previous 37 years? 1.27 per year
Suns NBA 1st Teamers under Sarver? 4
previous 37 years? 9
I don't see the point in comparing Sarver's tenure to the entire Suns history if we are debating best eras. The whole history would include both the immediate expansion era and the drug scandal era. I don't know if you are counting playoff wins or not in the record, but if not, the earlier team's regular season winning % was .686, and the later team's was .673.
Beyond that, I don't agree that marginal differences in all-star and often-debated MVP voting can be considered a statistical determination of superiority. But even so, it's not a resounding win for the Nash era. The earlier team had five players that made the all-star game.
Chambers (3x reserve)
KJ (1x starter, 2x reserve)
Majerle (1x starter, 2x reserve)
Hornacek (1x reserve)
Barkley (2x starter)
Over 7 seasons, that's 1.714 all-stars per year (12 total), .571 starters per year (4 total), and 1.143 reserves per year (8 total).
The later team had four players that made the all-star game:
Stoudemire (2x starter, 3x reserve)
Nash (2x starter, 2x reserve)
Marion (3x reserve)
Shaq (1x reserve)
Over 6 seasons, that's 2.167 all-stars per year (13 total), .667 starters per year (4 total), and 1.500 reserves per year (9 total). There were no all-stars in 2011 and Nash was a reserve for the final time in 2012.
Considering all of this, I would still give the earlier team the edge. Soon enough we'll be nostalgic for both eras (I am already). I'm not going to suggest a Colangelo=good/Sarver=evil dialectic, but between the two, I put the blame for the earlier team's failure to win a title more on the players for crapping out in 1994 and 1995, while I put more of the latter team's failure on Sarver and management for failing to re-sign Joe Johnson and trading away necessary pieces. Although D'Antoni not developing a bench and a few seriously bad bounces didn't help...
