# nash is the best player on the planet



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

...according to scott skiles



> "Nash is the system," he said. "I don't mean to shortchange anybody else or anything but he's the best basketball player on the face of the Earth in my opinion. I don't think it's even close. He can shoot the ball. He can go right or left. He can finish right or left. He has a middle game. He has the best vision in the league. He's probably the best conditioned player. People may say he's not athletic. I think what they should say is he's not a great leaper. But everything else athletically he does well. He moves well laterally. He's fast. He has great hand-eye coordination. He pivots on either foot. He has no real offensive weakness."


http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/0102sunsnb0102.html


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

c p 9 said:


> ...according to scott skiles
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/0102sunsnb0102.html


But he has plenty of defensive weaknesses, so Kobe, among others, are better than him.


----------



## afireinside (Jan 8, 2004)

That's funny. All those offensive traits of Nash and not one defensive trait. And this is coming from a coach who preaches defense to his Bulls.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

Had Barbosa missed that shot he might have said the Gordon is the best ever after lighting up Nash for 41.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> Had Barbosa missed that shot he might have said the Gordon is the best ever after lighting up Nash for 41.


The worst ever could light Nash up for 41.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Nash is great.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I'd say right now he is the best player in the league. Lol guess the league = planet for Skiles


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> The worst ever could light Nash up for 41.


So you telling me that Kevin Ollie or even Jeryl "the worst to ever wear a jersey" Sasser could drop 40+ on Nash. I believe you.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Bird sucked at defense. Arguably the best player on the planet during his prime.

I think Nash's offensive insanity makes up for (overratedly) bad defense. He tries to stay in front of his man, he's just small and weak and therefore can not run through screens. I don't think it adds up to a big problem over the course of a game.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> I've learned around here a quick way for rep is being a smartass at obvious jokes.


I understand.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

This is incredibly shocking, considering the position Skiles played and the type of player he was. Almost as shocking as Michael Jordan making similiar comments about Kobe Bryant. 

Now we just need some Larry Bird comments on Dirk Nowitzki.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

He's the best offensive threat on the planet, and the best user of both hands in the league imo (or at least up there with jason kidd) but he's not a good enough defensive player to be the best on the planet. I still think that player is Garnett.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is incredibly shocking, considering the position Skiles played and the type of player he was. Almost as shocking as Michael Jordan making similiar comments about Kobe Bryant.
> 
> Now we just need some Larry Bird comments on Dirk Nowitzki.



He probably just admires Nash because Nash doesn't have to dribble with his head down to see where he's going like Skiles did.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Mateo said:


> Bird sucked at defense.


ummmhh.


----------



## essbee (Oct 30, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> But he has plenty of defensive weaknesses, so Kobe, among others, are better than him.


"December 31, 2006 -- NO MATTER whom Kobe Bryant guards this season, the opposing coach goes right at him. Gilbert Arenas scorched him up for the majority of his 60. Michael Redd scalded him for 45, Dwyane Wade fricasseed him for 40. Vince Carter barbecued him for 31 in three quarters before Maurice Evans came to his rescue. And Gerald Wallace and Matt Carroll (career high 27) combined to pan-sear him for 55.

Watching ESPN's highlights, you would've thought Kobe, who busted the Bobcats for 58 consensual points, ruled supreme. Only if you watched Wallace and Carroll abuse him would you know what really went down. Kobe can't stop a soul and, of course, it becomes contagious.

The Lakers surrendered 58 first-half points to a team that is second to last in league scoring and were hushed-hushed in three overtimes, 133-124, in sweet (Emeka Okafor, 22 points and career-high 25 boards) Charlotte.

In other words, yet another loss to another sub .500 outfit while giving up in far excess of 100 points . . . and it's not like Friday was the second of a back-to-back.

The Lakers lost at home to the injury-decimated Hornets, the only victory on that road tour for New Orleans; all the others were double digit defeats. L.A. lost to Portland sans Brandon Roy, lost to Milwaukee at home when the Bucks were groping for gravity. What's more, their loss to the Heat was Miami's lone victory against a team better than .500 since Shaq went out of service.

I know, I know, Kobe's surgically-repaired knee restricts his mobility, especially lateral movement. Then again, it didn't seem to inhibit him from uncorking 45 field-goal attempts. What does it say, in a 63-minute game, when L.A.'s second-leading scorer, Luke Walton, amassed all of 14 points?

The team desperately misses Lamar Odom, that's for sure. They're 4-5 without him while he nurses his current injury and 7-22, overall, minus his unique versatility.

Kobe craves Laker leadership. Consequently, he must shoulder the blame when his time comes out flat against lesser comp. That's all I'm saying. Hold up, that's not all I'm saying.

Check it out: Kobe frequently runs right into the screener on a pick-and-roll, leaving all responsibility to the other involved Laker who has no defensive position since Bryant basically has set a double-pick on him.

Immediately following Wade's torching of Kobe, the prey congratulated the predator on his 40-point effort. A little later, Kobe laid off accountability on Andrew Bynum. Noting Kwame Brown was in foul trouble most of the game, Kobe underlined that trying to control Wade on the pick-and-roll may have been too much for the 19-year-old.

Way to man up, Kobe."




In short, kobe's a poor defender and always has been.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

^lol


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

I think Nash is the best player in the league right now. He can dominate games offensively nearly like I remember Jordan doing albeit in a different way. It seems like every time I watch the Suns it is Nash coming down and popping two threes in a row, nothing but net, every time the other team makes a run. And the rest of the game ... well, he is handing his teammates a plethora of wide open shots.

Of course, he doesn't dominate Jordan style defensively .. not even close. But I don't think he's a complete turnstyle on D either. Phoenix's defensive strategy is to just try to make the team take tough shots and don't foul ... and if they make a shot, cram it back down their throats. Nash fits their system perfectly.

I think he wins his 3rd MVP this year, just edging out Duncan and Dirk.


----------



## FirstRocket (Mar 10, 2005)

Scott Skiles is referring to planet Mars. :biggrin: ​


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

There is an arguement for calling Nash best player in the league.

There is also an arguement for others.

Stiles is just putting forward his arguement. Right now I think Nash is the best player but when I wake up tommorrow it will be someone else Kobe, Duncan, Nowitzki etc. When Yao comes back might even throw him into the mix.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

I've said it before..

Se he doesnt dunk on anybody nor perform spectacular blocks/defensive plays. He doesnt even get aerial much..

But I also think Nash is the best player in the world... and that may not be surprising since I am a Suns fan.... but seriously. Nash is the best team player in the world at the moment... sure Kidd and Duncan comes to mind also, Nash is not as impactful as those guys defensively, but offensively... Nash is on another level. And as someone stated, defense is coached... and I seriously don't think D'Antoni emphasizes much on defense... so did Don Nelson back in Mavs, so I think a lot over rates Nash's lack of defense.

Basketball is a team sport and Nash is the ultimate Team player... the other 4 players on the court are like his arms... extensions of himself... So yes, Nash = Suns System. Not the other way around.


----------



## LowOnMyPaper (May 9, 2006)

I believe either Kobe Bryant or Tim Duncan are the best players in the world.

To essbee: You're criticizing Kobe's defense because he couldn't guard the pick-and-roll by himself? Wow...


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

still the MVP in my eyes. I saw the pistons game..... he sat out with a 7 point lead, Pistons came right back and tied the game. Nash takes out his warmups pops a couple of Js and a layup and 2 assists and before you know it. its back to a 7-8 point lead for phx. Same thing at halftime when they had a 6 point lead then ballooned in the beginning of the 3rd quarter to 11 pts in a span of just 2 possessions for phx. 

he single handledly changes the game for whoever Phoenix is playing. Thats Jordanesque in its own.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Kobe or Duncan is the best. 

People are always sleeping on TD, but he's still unstoppable on the block when he wants to be and he anchors a top 3 defense. Nash's lack of defense keeps him out of this group.


----------



## Kidd's Nets (Jun 10, 2006)

if i remember correctly (really not sure here) but i think nash was in most of the 4th quarter during the first nets-suns matchup this season (not the 2OT). It was the Nets' bench against Nash, Stoudemire and i can't remember who else and the nets bench managed to get a 22(?) point deficit down to 3 with nash still in the game with the nets point guard (at the time Marcus Williams) going for 20-something points.

I believe the player with the title of 'best player on the planet' should be able to perform at a high level on both ends of the court.

that said, i believe he is still top 3 or top 5 in the world.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Nash is the best player in the nba.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Nash had no points in the first half against the Raptors then scored 13 in the fourth quarter to boost his team to the win, including a moving transition three, drawing contact and hitting three free throws, and a few pull ups. Guy is a monster.

Edit: 8 points in the last 79 seconds. Ouch.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

the Suns success is 75% reliant on Nash utilizing his team mates and making clutch plays... I saw the play by play too.... Suns down.. Nash scores... makes a play and nails clutch free throws.... gun!


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

jasonskills said:


> if i remember correctly (really not sure here) but i think nash was in most of the 4th quarter during the first nets-suns matchup this season (not the 2OT). It was the Nets' bench against Nash, Stoudemire and i can't remember who else and the nets bench managed to get a 22(?) point deficit down to 3 with nash still in the game with the nets point guard (at the time Marcus Williams) going for 20-something points.
> 
> I believe the player with the title of 'best player on the planet' should be able to perform at a high level on both ends of the court.
> 
> that said, i believe he is still top 3 or top 5 in the world.


I can see arguments for Duncan, Dirk, and even Kobe ... but I don't really see the point in bringing up a single game against Nash. I'm sure Duncan, Dirk, and Kobe have all had games where a guy on the other side has lit them up.

Individual defense, especially on the perimeter, is highly overrated. Especially these days when teams practically all play some sort of zone. Unless you've got a game changing big like a prime Dikemebe down low or a guy like Bowen/Artest on the wing, it is all about team defense and hoping other teams miss outside shots.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> Had Barbosa missed that shot he might have said the Gordon is the best ever after lighting up Nash for 41.



Nash guarded Ben for how long? 3 minutes top.

Bell, LB and Marion were his primary defenders.
You need to start watching the games before you spew 
your stupidity out in these forums.

I also got a good laugh when Dre said "Nash isn't a good
defender, so therefore Kobe among others are still better"
If you want to buy Kobe's all-defensive team hype. I say go
for it, you're only fooling yourself. Kobe might be one of
the worst perimeter defenders. Yee haw! Look at Kobe. He can
block someones shot, lets put him on All NBA Defensive team
because we want him to be as close to Jordan-esq as we can
make him.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

I wonder Dr. Seuss.. How many Lakers games have you watched this year? or the past 4-5 years?


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

t1no said:


> I wonder Dr. Seuss.. How many Lakers games have you watched this year? or the past 4-5 years?




Since I live by Los Angeles, alot.


I used to only watch Laker games because I didn't have
league pass.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Since I live by Los Angeles, alot.
> 
> 
> I used to only watch Laker games because I didn't have
> league pass.


Then i'm sure you have seen Kobe do a good job on the defensive end, i mean sure he is not consistent with his defense but to call him "one of the worst perimeter defenders." that's just :lol:


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

t1no said:


> Then i'm sure you have seen Kobe do a good job on the defensive end, i mean sure he is not consistent with his defense but to call him "one of the worst perimeter defenders." that's just :lol:



I stand by my opinion.


He gets beat by his man just as much as Nash does.
Only difference is he gets a few steals and blocks here
and there to trick people into believeing he can actually
defend.

If Kobe was 6'1 we would all be discussing how bad he is
defensively. But all he has going for him is that he's an
athelete.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> I stand by my opinion.
> 
> 
> He gets beat by his man just as much as Nash does.
> ...


ummh sure... but "one of the worst perimeter defenders." is still :lol:


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

t1no said:


> ummh sure... but "one of the worst perimeter defenders." is still :lol:





In my book he barley qualifies for All 3rd Defensive team.

So wherever that puts him as a perimeter defender, is where I
think he is.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> I also got a good laugh when Dre said "Nash isn't a good
> defender, so therefore Kobe among others are still better"
> If you want to buy Kobe's all-defensive team hype. I say go
> for it, you're only fooling yourself. Kobe might be one of
> ...


This is a "KG is a loser" old discussion. I'm not going to feed into it. Kobe's been all-defense like 4,5 times. People don't make that mistake 4,5 times. And even is he isn't all-NBA, he's better than Nash.

At least as you say, he gets a couple steals and blocks in, all Nash does is look at the back of someones jersey.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> In my book he barley qualifies for All 3rd Defensive team.
> 
> So wherever that puts him as a perimeter defender, is where I
> think he is.


3rd Defensive team?? Decent? Pretty good?


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> At least as you say, he gets a couple steals and blocks in, all Nash does is look at the back of someones jersey.


:rofl2: Well at least he's not leaving his man open.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> In my book he barley qualifies for All 3rd Defensive team.
> 
> So wherever that puts him as a perimeter defender, is where I
> think he is.


Oh please, that's still better than Nash. So I maintain that as he's the best defender of the star guards in the league, he's the best guard in the league, and probably the best player at that.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

"star guards"!!


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> This is a "KG is a loser" old discussion. I'm not going to feed into it. Kobe's been all-defense like 4,5 times. People don't make that mistake 4,5 times. And even is he isn't all-NBA, he's better than Nash.
> 
> At least as you say, he gets a couple steals and blocks in, all Nash does is look at the back of someones jersey.



You're right. 

Bruce Bowen is a horrible defender as well. He doesn't get
any steals or blocks. I can't believe he's thought so highly
as a defender. Hell, Raja Bell doesn't average any steals
or blocks. He's a bad defender as well. I wonder why Iverson
hasn't taken Bowen's place on the All NBA Defensive team.
I mean, he does average over 2 steals. That _must_ qualify him
as a great defender.

Nash's 'horrible' defense has allowed him to take 36 charges
this year. Coming in at 23 overall in the entire league.
I'll also point out that you have to be _infront_ of your man to
take a charge.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> You're right.
> 
> Bruce Bowen is a horrible defender as well. He doesn't get
> any steals or blocks. I can't believe he's thought so highly
> ...


You've got to be tabloid journalist of the year in Phoenix...because you know that's not what I meant at all. 

I'd rather have a 3rd team all-defensive player than a guy who is ranked 23rd in charges :uhoh:. Is that really the best you can come up with? Nash's best defensive tactic is getting plowed over at the position where penetration is essential? Weeeeeak.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> You've got to be tabloid journalist of the year in Phoenix...because you know that's not what I meant at all.
> 
> I'd rather have a 3rd team all-defensive player than a guy who is ranked 23rd in charges :uhoh:. Is that really the best you can come up with? Nash's best defensive tactic is getting plowed over at the position where penetration is essential? Weeeeeak.


You say my arguement is weak.....So it must have worked.

It clearly resulted in quieting you. Since you couldn't think
of something to say.

You guys say he gets blown by, yet 23rd in the league drawing
charges states otherwise.

I haven't said Nash is equal or better then Kobe at defense.
All I'm saying is Kobe is not as good of a defender as you suggest. 
Which leads me to believe you go off what you hear, not what
you see. Which is very typical of a poster on these boards.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Which leads me to believe you go off what you hear, not what you see. Which is very typical of a poster on these boards.


and you are not one of them?


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

t1no said:


> and you are not one of them?






We all have our ignorant statements. Man up to them
and admit you're wrong. Which I have done a few times when
I felt I said something that was unjust.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> We all have our ignorant statements. Man up to them
> and admit you're wrong. Which I have done a few times when
> I felt I said something that was unjust.


Wrong? you are stating opinions, there is no right or wrong.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

t1no said:


> Wrong? you are stating opinions, there is no right or wrong.




I disagree.


If someone goes off of what they hear and start calling
Arenas a chucker. Yet someone shows statistics or 
something or makes an arguement to suggest otherwise. Then you should
admit you're wrong. Unless you feel you are not and have a
counter-arguement.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> You say my arguement is weak.....So it must have worked.
> 
> It clearly resulted in quieting you. Since you couldn't think
> of something to say.
> ...


What I said back is that I'd rather have Kobe than a point guard who gets charges. 

Furthermore, being charged 23 times in 30 or so games doesn't mean you don't get blown by, it just means people occasionally foul you while blowing by you. I don't think that's an impressive stat anyway considering he guards point guards who penetrate all the time, at least compared to being a "3rd team" all-NBA defender.

And if you agree Kobe's a better defender, which is all I said initially, what's your beef with me?


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> I disagree.
> 
> 
> If someone goes off of what they hear and start calling
> ...


I agree with you, but i was not thinking about statements like that.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

> What I said back is that I'd rather have Kobe than a point guard who gets charges.


Fair enough.



> Furthermore, being charged 23 times in 30 or so games doesn't mean you don't get blown by, it just means people occasionally foul you while blowing by you. I don't think that's an impressive stat anyway considering he guards point guards who penetrate all the time, at least compared to being a "3rd team" all-NBA defender.


Perhaps it shows he can stay infront of much quicker point
guards. You cannot say the point guard position is most
common for penetration. Not when you're guarding a guy like
Ray Allen or Manu Ginobili. You could easily pickup some 
charges guarding those guys. But maybe Kobe can't stay infront
of them?



> And if you agree Kobe's a better defender, which is all I said initially, what's your beef with me?


I don't have a 'beef' with you. I felt you put Kobe on a
thrown and named him King of defenders. Which I totally 
disagree with.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> I felt you put Kobe on a
> thrown and named him King of defenders. Which I totally
> disagree with.


You are not alone, i truly think his defense is overrated but he is still a pretty good defender and a good defender when he feels like trying a lil harder imo.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, maybe SG is most common for penetration, but PG is the second most, and not by much I bet. And the guys you mentioned, who at the 2 and 3 can effectively guard these guys? Bruce Bowen is about the gist of the list IMO, and I don't think it's much of a discredit to Kobe saying he can't guard these guys, because I know for sure none of them can guard him. Only great defensive players can guard great offensive players, and Kobe isn't great, he's good, which is better than Nash, who's a poor defender.





> I don't have a 'beef' with you. I felt you put Kobe on a
> thrown and named him King of defenders. Which I totally
> disagree with.


...All I said was he doesn't play good defense, so Kobe, who plays better, is a better player. I never said he was king of anything, best at anything, or great at anything.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> ...All I said was he doesn't play good defense, so Kobe, who plays better, is a better player. I never said he was king of anything, best at anything, or great at anything.


It's time to man up eh? What do you think Dre?


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

> Ok, maybe SG is most common for penetration, but PG is the second most, and not by much I bet. And the guys you mentioned, who at the 2 and 3 can effectively guard these guys? Bruce Bowen is about the gist of the list IMO, and I don't think it's much of a discredit to Kobe saying he can't guard these guys, because I know for sure none of them can guard him. Only great defensive players can guard great offensive players, and Kobe isn't great, he's good, which is better than Nash, who's a poor defender.



I didn't say anything about guarding. All I said was taking
charges. No excuses for Nash not staying infront of his
man to take a charge. There should be none for Kobe.




> ...All I said was he doesn't play good defense, so Kobe, who plays better, is a better player. I never said he was king of anything, best at anything, or great at anything.


I can agree with that.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

t1no said:


> It's time to man up eh? What do you think Dre?


No. Find in here where I said anything more than Kobe is a better defender than Nash. I never put Kobe on any unfair pedestal....


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> No. Find in here where I said anything more than Kobe is a better defender than Nash. I never put Kobe on any unfair pedestal....


I meant Dr. Seuss.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

t1no said:


> I meant Dr. Seuss.



:lol: 


You *****.......


I'll admit I misinterpreted his statement. =)


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> I didn't say anything about guarding. All I said was taking
> charges. No excuses for Nash not staying infront of his
> man to take a charge. There should be none for Kobe.


Taking charges is not the mark of a good defender at all IMO, but nevertheless, Kobe's lack of charges means either he doesn't allow defenders past him, or that he just generally just doesn't get charging calls. That's not an indictment or praise of his skills as a defender. 

And anyway, like someone said earlier in the thread, so many Zones are played these days that man defense on the perimeter is greatly overrated, so this discussion in the end is over a pretty small portion of the game these days.


----------



## t1no (Jul 10, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> You *****.......
> ...


haa man, it's not personal.. i'm just trying to give you a hard time that's all :lol:


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> Taking charges is not the mark of a good defender at all IMO, but nevertheless, Kobe's lack of charges means either he doesn't allow defenders past him, or that he just generally just doesn't get charging calls. That's not an indictment or praise of his skills as a defender.



Here's some notable defenders who finished top 20 in charges
taken last year......

Kirk Hinrich
Bruce Bowen
Ben Wallace
Shane Battier
Raja Bell
Andre Nocioni
Derek Fisher

That's a pretty good group of defenders. People are going to
point to flopping. Well, guess what? That flopping just gave
their team an extra possesion. So suck it haters.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Here's some notable defenders who finished top 20 in charges
> taken last year......
> 
> Kirk Hinrich
> ...


But they do things aside from Charging that put them in that category of good defenders, whereas you pretty much mentioned charges as Nash's only defensive attribute. T

hat doesn't make a good defender, that helps, but it's not the ultimate IE being a good shooter making you a good offensive player.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> But they do things aside from Charging that put them in that category of good defenders, whereas you pretty much mentioned charges as Nash's only defensive attribute. T
> 
> hat doesn't make a good defender, that helps, but it's not the ultimate IE being a good shooter making you a good offensive player.



Agreed.


But I'm simply trying to show that Nash doesn't get blown
by as much as people like to believe.
I'd also rather have my defenders take charges then block
a shot. Charges end a possesion, which isn't a guarantee for
a blocked shot.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Fact: Suns are better with Nash in the game than without.

Fact: Suns defense is better with Nash in the game than without.

Fact: Jesus and Moses beat back the Romans using M-16 machine guns


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> Had Barbosa missed that shot he might have said the Gordon is the best ever after lighting up Nash for 41.


This is stupid... Nash didn't even guard Gordon in the game... it was Bell and Barbosa.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> But I'm simply trying to show that Nash doesn't get blown
> ...


what happens if you go for a charge and don't get it? you're usually either on your ***, or you're left flat footed and out of position. you can have slow lateral movement but good anticipation and draw charges but be a poor overall defender. drawing charges is obviously good for your team. it doesn't mean you're a good defender. like steals. or blocks. 

on kobe, you said he may be one of the worst perimeter defenders. now you're saying you never said nash was as good as him. 

kobe's defense this year is not up to his standards, certainly. his mobility has clearly been hindered from his off season surgery. it takes time to get back, moreso defensively than offensively, as it's tougher to compensate. when judging kobe overall, i'd put less weight on his defense to date this year, and more on his history, unless you expect him to never return to his past ability. 

this all said, it's not ridirkulous to think nash is the best player on the planet anymore.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Welp...I might as well jump in here. I had a similar argument over at RealGM, and here is what I said:



carrrnuttt said:


> On offense: http://www.nbcsports.com/nba/717186/detail.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And when a clarification of the defense against Prince was requested:



> 5:32 left in the 4th quarter, Suns leading 90 against the Piston's 89, Tayshaun brings up the ball on offense. Nash traps him against the out of bounds line just at the elbow of the three point line. Tayshaun posts him up, backing him up with superior strength, but Nash manages to lead Tayshaun to a helping Barbosa with footwork, leading to Prince picking up the dribble, and passing hurriedly to Rip Hamilton, which causes a turnover.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

essbee said:


> "December 31, 2006 -- NO MATTER whom Kobe Bryant guards this season, the opposing coach goes right at him. Gilbert Arenas scorched him up for the majority of his 60.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. In short, you look like a fool posting Peter Vescey articles.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

_Dre_ said:


> Taking charges is not the mark of a good defender at all IMO, but nevertheless, Kobe's lack of charges means either he doesn't allow defenders past him, or that he just generally just doesn't get charging calls. That's not an indictment or praise of his skills as a defender.
> 
> And anyway, like someone said earlier in the thread, so many Zones are played these days that man defense on the perimeter is greatly overrated, so this discussion in the end is over a pretty small portion of the game these days.


It's because Kobe isn't a regular flopper like most of the players in the league. He focuses on playing his game and not trying to fool inept officials. 

This season he has only attempted to draw 3-4 charges.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Flopping is bailing out poor defenders around the league. Period. 

Nash is not a good defender, BUT because he works hard, anticipates, and draws charges/flops, both in front of his own man, and to make the play on help, he does have an impact on the defensive end. It’s pretty easy to draw a charge, today, you just have to be willing to hit the ground, and be able to jump in front of a offensive player. 

You can't call Nash a horrible defender until the league gets rid of this flopping craze that allows poor defenders to not be totally exposed and abused. 

Kirk Hinrich can guard all the elite 2 guards in this league, 10 years ago they would back him down like it was nothing and score or draw constant attention. 

Hinrich is a very good defender but 10 years ago, Hinrich guarding an elite 2 would be considered what you call a mismatch. The mismatch advantage has been fading away in the last few seasons.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

afireinside said:


> That's funny. All those offensive traits of Nash and not one defensive trait. And this is coming from a coach who preaches defense to his Bulls.



Good catch.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

bballlife said:


> Flopping is bailing out poor defenders around the league. Period.
> 
> Nash is not a good defender, BUT because he works hard, anticipates, and draws charges/flops, both in front of his own man, and to make the play on help, he does have an impact on the defensive end. It’s pretty easy to draw a charge, today, you just have to be willing to hit the ground, and be able to jump in front of a offensive player.
> 
> ...


I don't agree that all charges are flopping. 

If a guy runs into you, the guy falling over shouldn't be
Immediately called a flopper. Lets remember that he had a
200 pound man run him over. Not everyone would normally 
stay their ground. Taking a charge is also a testimony to
the defender to reconize that he has that player beat and
so he should sell the call. 

Although I hate Ginobili and his, sometimes, rediculous 
flopping, he is a Gold Metalist as well as an NBA Champion.
I think that shows flopping does help.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> I don't agree that all charges are flopping.
> 
> If a guy runs into you, the guy falling over shouldn't be
> Immediately called a flopper. Lets remember that he had a
> ...




Yes, charges fall into two categories. 1) legit charges 2) flops

Many people, me included, can easily determine which is which. 

I am not saying Nash doesn't draw legit charges, he does, sometimes. But a majority of the time, he is hitting the ground because of his own doing. 

Nobody is questioning if flopping helps, if it didn't help then most of the league wouldn’t be doing it. Scrubs like Jason Collins would have to find something else to depend on. 

I just think it's a complete joke that the league has let get out of hand. Flopping should not be a part of the game.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

bballlife said:


> Yes, charges fall into two categories. 1) legit charges 2) flops
> 
> Many people, me included, can easily determine which is which.
> 
> ...


Interesting that someone is criticising Nash for flopping... I've been saying for years that if the refs were to call palming, travelling and carrying, guys like Jordan and AI will be lesser players...

Hmmm....


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

bballlife said:


> Yes, charges fall into two categories. 1) legit charges 2) flops
> 
> Many people, me included, can easily determine which is which.
> 
> ...


Nash a flopper? Uhh no.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> Nash a flopper? Uhh no.


If you are serious...I have no idea why you even post on a basketball message board.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Interesting that someone is criticising Nash for flopping... I've been saying for years that if the refs were to call palming, travelling and carrying, guys like Jordan and AI will be lesser players...
> 
> Hmmm....



I am not picking on Nash, like I have stated, several times, most of the league flops/acts. Most of the league palms the ball, as well.


----------



## On Thre3 (Nov 26, 2003)

in his dreams


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

he'll have 3 straight MVP's, no one can stop him.


----------



## 604flat_line (May 26, 2006)

_Dre_ said:



> But he has plenty of defensive weaknesses, so Kobe, among others, are better than him.


Last I checked Bball is a team sport, and not only does Nash consistently put up great number and hit clutch shots + FTs, he also leads his team to victory with regularity and many times in the playoffs when they shouldn't have won. If Kobe was better the Lakers would be better. They aren't and he isn't.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Flopping.... pump faking, a foul is a foul. If the offensive player is not good enough to not put his shoulder into the chest of the opposing player, no matter how light the contact was, it's his fault for not being a good offensive player by not passing but trying to be the team. I see this SO dang much that it's driving me nuts! Kobe doesn't get called for offensive fouls on floppers, nor does Arenas. Why don't they you ask? Because they are better than that on offense. They don't put themselves in that position because they are too good. But these marginal players that aren't near the level of Redd, Kobe, Arenas, or even Joe Johnson keep trying to be "the man" and play 1 on 5 basketball. 

Also, with the pump fake, it's a BS play to make, but that's the defender's fault for leaving his feet. I think all of you agree that is a foul when a player bites on a pump fake and the offensive player jumps into him to make contact when he has no outs on the play. 

So why all the whining about the defensive end when an offensive player is a little out of control and the defensive player takes advantage of that? It's called SMART BASKETBALL!


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> Interesting that someone is criticising Nash for flopping... I've been saying for years that if the refs were to call palming, travelling and carrying, guys like Jordan and AI will be lesser players...
> 
> Hmmm....



And noticing your hatred of Jordan, I take this with a grain of salt.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Last I checked Kobe Bryant sucks at defense too despite all the hype.

Last I checked I haven't seen any lockdown PG defeneder in the league since handchecking is illegal. Name one PG that doesn't have trouble guarding the quick PGs out there. Ok Steve Nash is horrible defender then but so must be every PG in the league because Nash tears up all of them.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Kobe sucks at defense, huh? 


No.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

kobe hasn't been very good defensively THIS YEAR, but is a very good defender. his recovery has slowed him, but he'll likely get far better over the course of the year as he continues to regain his strength / speed / explosiveness. there's a wide descrepency between kobe and nash when the other team has the ball. when their team has the ball, you could probably go either way and make a legitimate argument.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The politicking to get Nash his third MVP in a row has started early? Why white media? Why?


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

I think Kobe's D has been inconsistent this year, similar to last season, but with more poor games this season. Still, people are jumping off the deep end. 

Looking at his last 4 games. His D was very good last night against Martin and the Kings, solid/good against the Sixers, horrible against the Bobcats, and above average against the Magic. 

He was extremely active last night, not letting Martin get anything. Martin ended with 21 points but nearly all of them were against other defenders and bail outs by the officials.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

HKF said:


> The politicking to get Nash his third MVP in a row has started early? Why white media? Why?


Don't blame it on the white media. Blame it on the people that think troll dolls are cute because they are little.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

HKF said:


> The politicking to get Nash his third MVP in a row has started early? Why white media? Why?


You just reached rock bottom, blaming white media for Nash's MVPs.

Nash is hands down by far the best player this season so far. That's the bottom line, he deserves MVP again.

Derek Harper is not only black but the Mavs color analyst. Guess who he voted for last season? Steve Nash.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Nash has never been the best player in the league and he never will, sorry buddy.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

bballlife said:


> Nash has never been the best player in the league and he never will, sorry buddy.


I am sorry to dissappoint you but soon to be 3-MvPs in a row tell me that he is the undisputed best player in the league for 3 straight years.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

amare - if you think nash was thought of as the BEST player in the league when he won his 1st mvp, you're nuts. even the writers who voted for him weren't claiming that. the used much different words to rationalize their selection.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Amareca said:


> I am sorry to dissappoint you but soon to be 3-MvPs in a row tell me that he is the undisputed best player in the league for 3 straight years.



Using your logic, why didn't Jordan finish with far more than 5 MVP's?????


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

bballlife said:


> Using your logic, why didn't Jordan finish with far more than 5 MVP's?????


Coz in 92-93 for example Barkley was the better player, doh.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

I still think Kobe is the best in the game...

Followed by Dirk & then Nash & Yao

But Skiles was a PG....So it doesn't really suprise me.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Coz in 92-93 for example Barkley was the better player, doh.


Is that why the Bulls beat the Suns in the finals? Get that outta here...


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

_Dre_ said:


> Is that why the Bulls beat the Suns in the finals? Get that outta here...


John Paxson plus some key injuries especially to Richard Dumas who was giving Pippen fits.

Can I reverse your logic now that Steve Nash is obviously better than Kobe Bryant because that's why Phoenix beat LA?


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Amareca said:


> John Paxson plus some key injuries especially to Richard Dumas who was giving Pippen fits.
> 
> Can I reverse your logic now that Steve Nash is obviously better than Kobe Bryant because that's why Phoenix beat LA?


owned.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

amare - if you think nash was thought of as the BEST player in the league when he won his 1st mvp, you're nuts. even the writers who voted for him weren't claiming that. the used much different words to rationalize their selection.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

except nobody really thought that. just like nobody thought malone was a better player in '97. nobody thought iverson was the best in '01. it's not a best player award, even if it often goes to the best player.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Can I reverse your logic now that Steve Nash is obviously better than Kobe Bryant because that's why Phoenix beat LA?


No, because that wasn't the only basis for that statement. Jordan was pretty much the best player in the league since his 2nd year in the league, he doesn't suddenly become second best for one year, then become the best again, especially if he wasn't injured or anything.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Prolific Scorer said:


> I don't analyze, I just like statements that sound like they're making a point.


Eh..I understand.


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> Don't blame it on the white media. Blame it on the people that think troll dolls are cute because they are little.


:laugh:


----------



## cadarn (Feb 1, 2006)

He's an incredible player, but rapidly approaching being the most overrated on the planet.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

HKF said:


> The politicking to get Nash his third MVP in a row has started early? Why white media? Why?


He is the MVP.

But of course I'm only saying that because I'm white. And racist. Just like the media.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Coz in 92-93 for example Barkley was the better player, doh.


Stop posting, you're not good at it.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The constant changing of the rules to fit Nash is becoming irritating. Yes, it's because he's white. Damnit. First, it's because he helped the Suns win the most games, then it's because he's defied odds, now no one can lay claim to being as good as him, even though Gilbert Arenas is carrying a team on his back, Duncan and Dirk are their usual outstanding selfs. 

Nash is the just the little engine that could. I think I can, I think I can. 

Whatever. I thought having Amare back made them a better team (which it does), yet Nash is once again the MVP. This guy just can't lose. Although he won't win a championship yet again.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

HKF said:


> The constant changing of the rules to fit Nash is becoming irritating. Yes, it's because he's white. Damnit. First, it's because he helped the Suns with the most games, then it's because he's defied odds, now no one can lay claim to being as good as him, even though Gilbert Arenas is carrying a team on his back, Duncan and Dirk are their usual outstanding selfs.
> 
> Nash is the just the little engine that could. I think I can, I think I can.
> 
> Whatever.


Dirk is white also. It has far more to do with him being little


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Amareca said:


> John Paxson plus some key injuries especially to Richard Dumas who was giving Pippen fits.
> 
> Can I reverse your logic now that Steve Nash is obviously better than Kobe Bryant because that's why Phoenix beat LA?



You are forgetting Jordan's 41 a game in that series.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Here is what Marty Burns said...



> Sorry, Josh (and all the other Arenas fans who flooded my mailbox Thursday), but I had to cut off the list at some point. There's no doubt Arenas is a great scorer, and he had a spectacular December. But the Wizards have been so mediocre the past two years that it's comical to say Arenas deserves to be a serious MVP candidate. It's the same reason I wouldn't vote for Carmelo Anthony right now (well, that and the fact that he got himself kicked out for 15 games). They're great scorers but they need to win something -- or do a whole lot more than just fill the basket -- if they're going to be considered among the real MVP candidates. *If Arenas can make the Wizards consistent winners -- as Nash has done in Phoenix -- he'll get plenty of consideration for MVP.*


This is not the criteria he used for Nash when he first one the MVP, nor is he using that now. He's now judging MVP's by previous years and he's weaving an argument to fit his line of thinking. 

I don't agree with this way of thinking, because it keeps denying deserving people by crafting an argument to fit one person only. 

Also Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, Dirk are still having fantastic seasons. Nash plays with more talent then all of them, with the exception of Dirk and yet this is not held against him.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Dirk is white also. It has far more to do with him being little


Dirk is not white. Dirk is German (and you know exactly why I say that).


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

HKF said:


> Dirk is not white. Dirk is German (and you know exactly why I say that).


Yeah, the national media definitely holds it against Dirk that he's German. But wait a minute, if the white media is so racist, shouldn't it be to Dirk's _benefit_ that he's German????

I'm not sure how Magic Johnson ever won an MVP, you know, you'd think Larry Bird would have won it ever year he was in the league. Unless the media has something against white country boys from Indiana too.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Yeah, the national media definitely holds it against Dirk that he's German. But wait a minute, if the white media is so racist, shouldn't it be to Dirk's _benefit_ that he's German????
> 
> I'm not sure how Magic Johnson ever won an MVP, you know, you'd think Larry Bird would have won it ever year he was in the league. Unless the media has something against white country boys from Indiana too.


Different era. It doesn't really matter to me. You can believe what you want, I believe what I want. I'm not changing my opinion on it.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

HKF said:


> Dirk is not white. Dirk is German (and you know exactly why I say that).


Nash is Canadian and the US media far more likely to like a German than a Canadian.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

The Truth said:


> Yeah, the national media definitely holds it against Dirk that he's German. But wait a minute, if the white media is so racist, shouldn't it be to Dirk's _benefit_ that he's German????
> 
> I'm not sure how Magic Johnson ever won an MVP, you know, you'd think Larry Bird would have won it ever year he was in the league. Unless the media has something against white country boys from Indiana too.


Nah, they don't have anything against white country boys, it's the black guys who score 30 a night off isolation for a losing team, and have a few character flaws and quotes that can be magnified for villification. 

Those guys, and the pending doom of Hip Hop having a place in basketball have them looking for the closest thing to John Stockton to put on a pedestal. How come Jason Kidd wasn't unquestionably the best player in the universe when he was doing this?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i think it has less to do with being white than the lowered expectations of being a short white guy. 

he happens to be having a spectacular year this year and deserves to be among the few frontrunners. but it is also frustrating that the formula can consistently change to tilt towards nash, and he makes it easier by improving on his prior mvp seasons.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Nash > your favorite player.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

what makes nash automatically better than the guy whose bags he used to carry and who took his team to the finals after he left? and oh yeah, his team currently sits with the best record in the league.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

_Dre_ said:


> Nah, they don't have anything against white country boys, it's the black guys who score 30 a night off isolation for a losing team, and have a few character flaws and quotes that can be magnified for villification.
> 
> Those guys, and the pending doom of Hip Hop having a place in basketball have them looking for the closest thing to John Stockton to put on a pedestal. How come Jason Kidd wasn't unquestionably the best player in the universe when he was doing this?


It's the character flaws and the undesireable style of play that people don't like, not the player's race.

And Jason Kidd was never doing "this." Not ever, not even close, yet he was widely regarded (even by the dreaded "white media") as the best point guard in the game for a long time.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

since he left - he's been way better - I'd take Nash on my team any day. player his caliber dont come every 30 years.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

HKF said:


> Different era.


Okay, so the "white media" wasn't racist in the 80's, but is racist in the 2000's???? Is that what you're saying? I don't really know, because you're not really saying anything.

So can you tell me exactly when the "white media" stopped being racist, and then when they started again?



> It doesn't really matter to me. You can believe what you want, *I believe what I want. I'm not changing my opinion on it.*


Good to see you thought this one through carefully. Very rational.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

Air Fly said:


> since he left - he's been way better - I'd take Nash on my team any day. player his caliber dont come every 30 years.


Actually, they do. Since the 60's (and may be 50's as well, i dont remember a lot of players from that era), there are a couple of players from each decade clearly better than nash.

You could say that about someone like Magic or jordan. Not about nash.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

I don't see it - Nash is a very unique and rare player.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

HKF said:


> The politicking to get Nash his third MVP in a row has started early? Why white media? Why?


Check Nash's stats and his teams record so far this year if you're confused why he's in contention. It has nothing to do with race. Many black voters picked Nash as well over the last couple years, so please think before spewing your ignorant comments.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

HKF said:


> The constant changing of the rules to fit Nash is becoming irritating. Yes, it's because he's white. Damnit. First, it's because he helped the Suns win the most games, then it's because he's defied odds, now no one can lay claim to being as good as him, even though Gilbert Arenas is carrying a team on his back, Duncan and Dirk are their usual outstanding selfs.


Ignoring the race card you keep pulling, how are the rules constanly changing?

You said: *First, it's because he helped the Suns win the most games, then it's because he's defied odds*

The first season he completely tunred around the Suns while putting up great stats. The second season he lost almost of all his supporting cast and still the Suns had a great record and he himself put up better stats. It wasn't just him defying the odds, his team was extremely successful with less to work with, and he himself produced more.

So really, the rules for MVP havn't changed. You have to put up great stats and you have to lead you team to a great record. Both seasons he did that.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

HKF said:


> Different era. It doesn't really matter to me. You can believe what you want, I believe what I want. I'm not changing my opinion on it.


Different era? So what are you suggesting? As our society has progressed the media has become more racist? I don't think so.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You don't live in the United States, so what do you know about American media? The fact is the criteria is changing every single year to make sure that Nash remains a frontrunner. It's becoming annoying.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If Nash wins his 3rd MVP this year and the Suns fail to win the title, he may end up being remembered as the ultimate come-up-short guy. Dallas was the come-up-short team when Nash was there, and when he left, they ditched that reputation and finally got over the hump. Somehow the Suns now have that reputation, coincedence? 

Nash needs to prove that this style of play that he brings to his teams can be successful enough to win a title, not just a bunch of regular season games. Atleast then he can sit on his MVP's with a little justification.

I mean, on paper, a three time MVP, plus two top 20 players, plus 2-3 really good roleplayers, is dynasty material.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If Nash wins his 3rd MVP this year and the Suns fail to win the title, he may end up being remembered as the ultimate come-up-short guy. Dallas was the come-up-short team when Nash was there, and when he left, they ditched that reputation and finally got over the hump. Somehow the Suns now have that reputation, coincedence?
> 
> Nash needs to prove that this style of play that he brings to his teams can be successful enough to win a title, not just a bunch of regular season games. Atleast then he can sit on his MVP's with a little justification.
> 
> I mean, on paper, a three time MVP, plus two top 20 players, plus 2-3 really good roleplayers, is dynasty material.


It's gotta be the style they play if they don't win.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

HKF said:


> The politicking to get Nash his third MVP in a row has started early? Why white media? Why?


Damage control. Steve Nash should give Ron Artest a call and thank him because race does have to do with it and if the "thugs" never got into a brawl there wouldn't be such a strong will to portray someone unselfish with such a good clean image.


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

Nash reminds me of Peyton Manning, but Peyton Manning is a legend. Nash is not there yet.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If Nash wins his 3rd MVP this year and the Suns fail to win the title, he may end up being remembered as the ultimate come-up-short guy. Dallas was the come-up-short team when Nash was there, and when he left, they ditched that reputation and finally got over the hump. Somehow the Suns now have that reputation, coincedence?
> 
> Nash needs to prove that this style of play that he brings to his teams can be successful enough to win a title, not just a bunch of regular season games. Atleast then he can sit on his MVP's with a little justification.
> 
> I mean, on paper, a three time MVP, plus two top 20 players, plus 2-3 really good roleplayers, is dynasty material.



Since when did Mavs got over the hump?

Oh.. you mean losing to Miami in 6 last season.. yup gotcha!


If the Suns and Nash continue going like this.. I dont see why he shouldn't win his 3rd..

Again... the MVP is given at the end of the first round playoffs.. not at the end of the Finals....

actually.. they have another individual award there... i think its called the Finals MVP.... 

Regular season MVP = Finals MVP ???

Nope...


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

1 Penny said:


> Since when did Mavs got over the hump?
> 
> Oh.. you mean losing to Miami in 6 last season.. yup gotcha!
> 
> ...


...And the Suns haven't even seen the top of the hump, so shhh.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

It is pretty ridiculous, at least this year, to contend Nash is an MVP candidate only because he is white.

His PER is right up there close to all the other main MVP candidates, he leads the league in assists, has one of the top TS% in the league, 4th in double-doubles, and his team has the second best record in the league right now even after a slow start and basically starting without Amare.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dirk I believe will win it


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

Air Fly said:


> I don't see it - Nash is a very unique and rare player.


I agree, he's the first 2 time MVP with NO Defense...


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

HKF said:


> You don't live in the United States, so what do you know about American media? The fact is the criteria is changing every single year to make sure that Nash remains a frontrunner. It's becoming annoying.


exactly, I don't see how Nash can be the best player when the Mavericks IMPROVED without him...


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If Nash wins his 3rd MVP this year and the Suns fail to win the title, he may end up being remembered as the ultimate come-up-short guy. Dallas was the come-up-short team when Nash was there, and when he left, they ditched that reputation and finally got over the hump. Somehow the Suns now have that reputation, coincedence?
> 
> Nash needs to prove that this style of play that he brings to his teams can be successful enough to win a title, not just a bunch of regular season games. Atleast then he can sit on his MVP's with a little justification.
> 
> I mean, on paper, a three time MVP, plus two top 20 players, plus 2-3 really good roleplayers, is dynasty material.


The Suns aren't built for a 7 game series...with one game they can run the table, but in a 7 game series where adjustments can be made game to game, they fold...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

1 Penny said:


> Since when did Mavs got over the hump?


The last time a non-Spurs/Lakers team got to the finals in the west, Michael Jordan was still a Bull, and winning titles, and Karl Malone and John Stockton were still running viscious pick and rolls. I'd say that's a pretty big hump. 



1 Penny said:


> Again... the MVP is given at the end of the first round playoffs.. not at the end of the Finals....


Real MVP's are decided in the playoffs, just like real teams are. Nobody cares that the Detroit Pistons won 64 games last year, because the Heat beat them in 6 games and didn't look back. You have to be able to translate regular season success into playoff success, or else your regular season accomplishments will be looked off and you'll get the reputation of a come-up-short team/player who can't get it done when it really counts. Look at Malone and Barkley. Everyone says their MVP's belong to Jordan, even though in their MVP seasons, they were statistically better than Jordan, and Nash can't even say that on guys like Nowitzki, Duncan and Wade.


----------



## 604flat_line (May 26, 2006)

TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife said:


> The Suns aren't built for a 7 game series...with one game they can run the table, but in a 7 game series where adjustments can be made game to game, they fold...


WTF?

Last I checked, in the playoffs last year they were riddled with injuries not to mention losing their #2 player the whole season. The only starter that didn't have injury problems last playoffs was Diaw, and they almost made it to the finals.

Oh, and by the way, didn't both the series they won go 7 games?


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife said:


> I agree, he's the first 2 time MVP with NO Defense...


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## 604flat_line (May 26, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The last time a non-Spurs/Lakers team got to the finals in the west, Michael Jordan was still a Bull, and winning titles, and Karl Malone and John Stockton were still running viscious pick and rolls. I'd say that's a pretty big hump.
> 
> 
> 
> Real MVP's are decided in the playoffs, just like real teams are. Nobody cares that the Detroit Pistons won 64 games last year, because the Heat beat them in 6 games and didn't look back. You have to be able to translate regular season success into playoff success, or else your regular season accomplishments will be looked off and you'll get the reputation of a come-up-short team/player who can't get it done when it really counts. Look at Malone and Barkley. Everyone says their MVP's belong to Jordan, even though in their MVP seasons, they were statistically better than Jordan, and Nash can't even say that on guys like Nowitzki, Duncan and Wade.


At least theres no doubt you're a Suns/Nash hater for a bit now, just by looking at your sig.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The last time a non-Spurs/Lakers team got to the finals in the west, Michael Jordan was still a Bull, and winning titles, and Karl Malone and John Stockton were still running viscious pick and rolls. I'd say that's a pretty big hump.


So what. Dallas didn't play the Bulls, and nor did they win a championship like the Lakers and Spurs. Fact is neither Dallas or the Suns have won a championship. However, both of them HAVE won 4 series, and been in 6 series over the last 2 years. They've both been fairly successful playoff teams who havn't won a championship yet. It doesn't make sense for Dallas to get painted as a great playoff team but the Suns to get painted as a regular season team. They've pretty much had equal success.





Sir Patchwork said:


> Real MVP's are decided in the playoffs, just like real teams are. Nobody cares that the Detroit Pistons won 64 games last year, because the Heat beat them in 6 games and didn't look back. You have to be able to translate regular season success into playoff success, or else your regular season accomplishments will be looked off and you'll get the reputation of a come-up-short team/player who can't get it done when it really counts. Look at Malone and Barkley. Everyone says their MVP's belong to Jordan, even though in their MVP seasons, they were statistically better than Jordan, and Nash can't even say that on guys like Nowitzki, Duncan and Wade.


Nash has got to the WCF the last 2 years while averaging 22.3 PPG, 10.8 APG, and 51FG% in 35 games played. Not only has he led his team deep into the playoffs but he's put up MVP like stats. You act like the only way an MVP player can justify his award is by winning a championship, which really doesn't make any sense since the award is decided before the playoffs start. The funny thing is, with Nash's playoff performances over the last 2 years he would probbaly have earned more MVP votes since he's played even better than in the regular season.

BTW, please enlighten me and tell me why Nowitzki's and Duncan's playoff stats are better than Nash's... because quite frankly, they aren't.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

HKF said:


> You don't live in the United States, so what do you know about American media? The fact is the criteria is changing every single year to make sure that Nash remains a frontrunner. It's becoming annoying.


I live half an hour away from the States. This isn't medieveil times okay? It's not hard to access American media. Jesus Christ.

And I pointed out that the criteria has stayed the same. Care to elaborate on how you think it has changed, other than your orginal post, which I already pointed out doesn't make any sense.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Damage control. Steve Nash should give Ron Artest a call and thank him because race does have to do with it and if the "thugs" never got into a brawl there wouldn't be such a strong will to portray someone unselfish with such a good clean image.


Huh?

Who was the main competition of Nash the last two years? Hmm ..lets think...Shaq and Dirk. Where is their thug image? They don't have one.

Your theory doesn't hold up.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

The criteria for MVP has actually been the same in 30 years, the voters answer the question "who helped his team for more wins this year, considering how the differenze between 60 and 50 is much more than the one between 20 and 30?".
I would have voted for Nash in 2005 (Dirk 2nd and Shaq 3rd) and Dirk in 2006 (Nash 2nd and LeBron 3rd), to consider such a outrage Nash's win you should think he wasn't even a legit contender, who thinks so?

What about success in the post season, someone already wrote'em off before seeing the games.
Had they lost in the first round I'd have agreed, but they got to the WC finals twice! They lost to the best teams in the NBA while they were full of injuries, with no depth and giving them a run for their money. Meanwhile, Nash was out of his mind in 2005 (making more than legit his prize, unlike his runner up that season) and still good with a bad back in 2006. 
It's not about race or marketing, both Nash and the Suns are legit contenders, and they've proven it in the past two years.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife said:


> exactly, I don't see how Nash can be the best player when the Mavericks IMPROVED without him...


That's some very flawed logic.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

KidCanada said:


> BTW, please enlighten me and tell me why Nowitzki's and Duncan's playoff stats are better than Nash's... because quite frankly, they aren't.



Because 3 finals MVP > 0

And because some people watch basketball games without homer goggles and can see in one team the best defender of the league (duncan) and in the other team a poor-to-average defender (nash).


----------



## Helvius (Jul 4, 2006)

Heh, good defender or not, Dirk Nowitzki took Duncan to school last night.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Helvius said:


> Heh, good defender or not, Dirk Nowitzki took Duncan to school last night.


So did Amare Stoudemire in the 2005 playoffs and Nowitzki in the 2006 playoffs.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

Helvius said:


> Heh, good defender or not, Dirk Nowitzki took Duncan to school last night.


However:

1) Duncan didn't guarded nowitzki until the last plays of the game.

2) Duncan always was double or triple teamed by the mavs. The rest of the team wasnt able to take advantage of that.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

Amareca said:


> So did Amare Stoudemire in the 2005 playoffs and Nowitzki in the 2006 playoffs.


mmm 2005? the same year the spurs almost sweep the suns ? :lol: 

or 2006 ? the same year duncan averaged MORE POINTS on better % than nowitzki in the spurs-mavs series while playing INJURED?

You sir, are wrong.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Ryoga said:


> The criteria for MVP has actually been the same in 30 years, the voters answer the question "who helped his team for more wins this year, considering how the differenze between 60 and 50 is much more than the one between 20 and 30?".
> I would have voted for Nash in 2005 (Dirk 2nd and Shaq 3rd) and Dirk in 2006 (Nash 2nd and LeBron 3rd), to consider such a outrage Nash's win you should think he wasn't even a legit contender, who thinks so?
> 
> What about success in the post season, someone already wrote'em off before seeing the games.
> ...


repped.

I agree with that. I understand people's arguments that these great players deserve the MVP, they do, they are ALL worthy, but let's face it. People that have covered this sport and been a part of it for longer than a lot of us have been alive all voted and voted heavily for Nash! 

The fact that the Mavs improved after Nash left isn't true. They improved once they cleared Finley from the team and gave Howard a chance. Also, they lost Nash, but signed Jason Terry and Dampier that same offseason! With the Shaq trade, they essentially got Odom and Brown for Shaq who went onto a team that went toe to toe with the NBA champion Pistons the previous season. They also added Zo back onto the team along with Haslem. So to say that Shaq deserved the MVP when he was the second best player on that team is ridiculous!


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

JNice said:


> That's some very flawed logic.



How so??? The Mavs got further in the playoffs without him....

Makes sense to me...


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

I'm just wondering why they players, you know, the guys who actually play agaisnt eachother don't have a vote...Why leave it up to solely to sportswriters who probably couldn't even make thier jv teams in high school???


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

KidCanada said:


> I live half an hour away from the States. This isn't medieveil times okay? It's not hard to access American media. Jesus Christ.
> 
> And I pointed out that the criteria has stayed the same. Care to elaborate on how you think it has changed, other than your orginal post, which I already pointed out doesn't make any sense.


Well the first year he won it was because of team success. The second year, the criteria was changed somehow so Steve got it again. If you went the team success route, Nowitzki should have won it, and if not, Billups should have. If you went the better individual player and stats route, LeBron should have won it; 31/7/7 with roughly the same amount of wins as Nash. Not to mention that Nash had a much better team than LeBron.


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

Ras said:


> Well the first year he won it was because of team success. The second year, the criteria was changed somehow so Steve got it again. If you went the team success route, Nowitzki should have won it, and if not, Billups should have. If you went the better individual player and stats route, LeBron should have won it; 31/7/7 with roughly the same amount of wins as Nash. Not to mention that Nash had a much better team than LeBron.



This is what intrigues me...Before the start of the 05-06 season, the majority if not ALL of the sportswriters had the Lakers pegged in at the number 11 or 12 spot in the western conference...NOBODY except Laker fans and Greg Anthony believed they would even sniff the playoffs....Basically, EVERYONE had the Lakers closer to the lottery than the playoffs....Kobe leads his team to a seventh seed in a very amazing season stat wise and accomplishmentwise in the WESTERN CONFERENCE...Yet he wasn't the Most Valuable Player to his team???

Every other guy that was mentioned was picked to lead thier teams to the playoffs....

look who was sitting at home at the end of the regular season and who wasn't...

How Kobe was not the MVP last season is beyond comprehension...


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Ras said:


> Well the first year he won it was because of team success. The second year, the criteria was changed somehow so Steve got it again. If you went the team success route, Nowitzki should have won it, and if not, Billups should have. If you went the better individual player and stats route, LeBron should have won it; 31/7/7 with roughly the same amount of wins as Nash. Not to mention that Nash had a much better team than LeBron.


Yes the criteria for voting for him changed from he turned his team around to he carried his team like a superstar. Well, the first one is the classical voting for the player on the team that has the best record in the league (i.e. Barkley and Malone) to voting for the superstar season (i.e. Jordan in the 80s) because everyone wanted to vote for Kobe, but his team didn't have enough wins last year to validate voting for him (especially because they did better when he scored 20-25points than 30+). Since his team finished with a 44-38 record and Nash's Suns finished with a 54-28 record (without any paint players or 3 or 5 starters from last season) the press agreed that he is the reason for the Suns' success. Which wasn't hurt by the fact that the Suns were winless in the 8 regular season games he missed over the last two seasons. 

Think about what people were expecting from the Suns before the season started. Joe Johnson left and some bench player from Utah gets the starting job and a ridiculously bad 25 million dollar contract. Richardson, the team's leading 3pt shooter was traded for a center that is only 6'9 and lost their premier inside player who averaged 26points and 9 rebounds a game as well as led the league in FT makes and attempts the previous season. Couple that with the player that the Suns get back for Joe Johnson in Diaw, a guy that couldn't get any playing time in Atlanta of all places in the league! However, Nash and Marion led that team to 54 wins when everyone projected them to not even be a 0.500 team.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife said:


> This is what intrigues me...Before the start of the 05-06 season, the majority if not ALL of the sportswriters had the Lakers pegged in at the number 11 or 12 spot in the western conference...NOBODY except Laker fans and Greg Anthony believed they would even sniff the playoffs....Basically, EVERYONE had the Lakers closer to the lottery than the playoffs....Kobe leads his team to a seventh seed in a very amazing season stat wise and accomplishmentwise in the WESTERN CONFERENCE...Yet he wasn't the Most Valuable Player to his team???
> 
> Every other guy that was mentioned was picked to lead thier teams to the playoffs....
> 
> ...


Well the Lakers weren't a top team. No matter what people thought they were going to do, you still have to be somewhat of a top team (I'd say 50 wins) to win the MVP.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> Yes the criteria for voting for him changed from he turned his team around to he carried his team like a superstar. Well, the first one is the classical voting for the player on the team that has the best record in the league (i.e. Barkley and Malone) to voting for the superstar season (i.e. Jordan in the 80s) because everyone wanted to vote for Kobe, but his team didn't have enough wins last year to validate voting for him (especially because they did better when he scored 20-25points than 30+). Since his team finished with a 44-38 record and Nash's Suns finished with a 54-28 record (without any paint players or 3 or 5 starters from last season) the press agreed that he is the reason for the Suns' success. Which wasn't hurt by the fact that the Suns were winless in the 8 regular season games he missed over the last two seasons.
> 
> Think about what people were expecting from the Suns before the season started. Joe Johnson left and some bench player from Utah gets the starting job and a ridiculously bad 25 million dollar contract. Richardson, the team's leading 3pt shooter was traded for a center that is only 6'9 and lost their premier inside player who averaged 26points and 9 rebounds a game as well as led the league in FT makes and attempts the previous season. Couple that with the player that the Suns get back for Joe Johnson in Diaw, a guy that couldn't get any playing time in Atlanta of all places in the league! However, Nash and Marion led that team to 54 wins when everyone projected them to not even be a 0.500 team.


You mean Nash, Marion, Diaw, Bell and Barbosa led that team to 54 wins. And since when are expectations before the season reason to give someone an MVP? Also, just because players like Bell and Diaw weren't so high profile before they came to Phoenix doesn't mean they were bad players. They're good players, regardless of Nash. There's no denying Phoenix had a very good team last year, even with the loss of JJ, Q and Amare. Also, they went from a 60+ win season to a 50+ win season, so you could still see the effects of losing players. Also, why do you paint all the players they got as horrible, and all they players they were losing as great?

Also, you basically ignored everything I said. If you went the team route, Dirk or Chauncey should have won. If you went the individual route, LeBron should have won.


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

Ras said:


> Well the Lakers weren't a top team. No matter what people thought they were going to do, you still have to be somewhat of a top team (I'd say 50 wins) to win the MVP.



says who??? Andre Dawson won an MVP award in the 87 season on a LAST PLACE TEAM....

Its called the MOST VALUABLE *PLAYER* AWARD....not the TEAM with a better record award...

Take Kobe off of last years team and they have 33% chance of getting the number 1 pick...

again, the sportswriters just showed how hyprocritical they are...most picking the Lakers to finish near the bottom of the WC and were so surprised that the team made the playoff that some didn't even give him ONE vote....


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife said:


> says who??? Andre Dawson won an MVP award in the 87 season on a LAST PLACE TEAM....
> 
> Its called the MOST VALUABLE *PLAYER* AWARD....not the TEAM with a better record award...
> 
> ...


Well, it's just a matter of how the award gets handed out. It's pretty much guaranteed that it will go to one of the top teams, regardless of who the best individual player is. That's just how it is in the NBA. Also, I don't see how Andre Dawson applies, this isn't baseball.


----------



## TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife (Nov 9, 2004)

Ras said:


> Well, it's just a matter of how the award gets handed out. It's pretty much guaranteed that it will go to one of the top teams, regardless of who the best individual player is. That's just how it is in the NBA. Also, I don't see how Andre Dawson applies, this isn't baseball.



so then you'd agree if thats the basis for the award, its name should be changed and given to the team????


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife said:


> so then you'd agree if thats the basis for the award, its name should be changed and given to the team????


No, not at all. That's just how the MVP award works in the NBA. It's never been about the best individual player so much, moreso the best player on the best (or one of the best) teams. I'm not saying my personal stance on it, that's just the way it works in the NBA.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

IceMan23and3 said:


> repped.
> 
> I agree with that. I understand people's arguments that these great players deserve the MVP, they do, they are ALL worthy, but let's face it. People that have covered this sport and been a part of it for longer than a lot of us have been alive all voted and voted heavily for Nash!
> 
> The fact that the Mavs improved after Nash left isn't true. They improved once they cleared Finley from the team and gave Howard a chance. Also, they lost Nash, but signed Jason Terry and Dampier that same offseason! With the Shaq trade, they essentially got Odom and Brown for Shaq who went onto a team that went toe to toe with the NBA champion Pistons the previous season. They also added Zo back onto the team along with Haslem. So to say that Shaq deserved the MVP when he was the second best player on that team is ridiculous!


Good post. I'm getting tired of the simplistic logic employed by many in this thread implying that the Mavs improved _because_ Nash left, which seems to me to be a reactionary argument opposing the notion that the Suns drastically improved when Nash joined the team.

In truth, the Mavs improved for a number of reasons, namely the emergence of Josh Howard, the signings of Terry and Dampier, a new coach (possibly the most important factor of all), and a determination to improve on the defensive end.

Also, let's not forget that Nash was not fully utilized in the Mavs offensive system, where the half-court sets were designed to initiate by getting the ball to Dirk. I think this is the biggest reason that people were so surprised at how good Nash was when he went to the Suns, since they had never really seen him turned loose.

I think all of the Steve Nash hate is pretty silly; this guy is one of the most exciting players I've ever seen, and I'm glad I have the opportunity to watch him. But hey, that's probably just because I'm white.


----------



## kbird (Dec 7, 2006)

Yes he is by far the best player on the planet.

An do you know why: Read this and remember.

If Lebron, Kobe or KG played on Phoenix instead of nash EVERYBODY WOULD be *****ing how they have no supporting cast. That is the difference. Those guys suck as star players. They do not make anybody better, they make everybody worse. Nash makes everybody better. And he has the best stats in the league himself.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

The Truth said:


> Good post. I'm getting tired of the simplistic logic employed by many in this thread implying that the Mavs improved _because_ Nash left, which seems to me to be a reactionary argument opposing the notion that the Suns drastically improved when Nash joined the team.
> 
> In truth, the Mavs improved for a number of reasons, namely the emergence of Josh Howard, the signings of Terry and Dampier, a new coach (possibly the most important factor of all), and a determination to improve on the defensive end.
> 
> ...


Avery has a lot to do with our improvement too.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

_Dre_ said:


> Avery has a lot to do with our improvement too.


Yeah, I know, that's why I said that the new coach was possibly the most important factor contributing to the Mavs improvement.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kbird said:


> If Lebron, Kobe or KG played on Phoenix instead of nash EVERYBODY WOULD be *****ing how they have no supporting cast. That is the difference. Those guys suck as star players. They do not make anybody better, they make everybody worse. Nash makes everybody better. And he has the best stats in the league himself.


If that's the case, we need to stop putting Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion on all-star teams. Clearly, if Nash is the only reason they're good, then we need to give some other forwards in the west who are playing well without Nash the spot on the team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The Truth said:


> I think all of the Steve Nash hate is pretty silly; this guy is one of the most exciting players I've ever seen, and I'm glad I have the opportunity to watch him. But hey, that's probably just because I'm white.


We are here to discuss and debate, and everyone gets sensitive when you say Steve Nash isn't as deserving of the MVP as some other players. I mean, you call that Steve Nash hate? That's what I call silly. 

You are absolutely correct, Nash is a wizard with the ball. He is an amazing passer, ball handler and shooter. The players I appreciate most in this league are the highly skilled ones, ones that don't rely on athletic ability to be effective, and Nash is one of those guys. I appreciate his creativity. That's why I like Kobe, and also Duncan among big men. 

I like Steve Nash like I like Ray Allen. If he hadn't won any MVP's, and I didn't have Suns fans on my tail whining about me "hating" because I don't think he deserved MVP's despite being a great player, you'd realize that I really love his game. I just hate the hype.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> We are here to discuss and debate, and everyone gets sensitive when you say Steve Nash isn't as deserving of the MVP as some other players. I mean, you call that Steve Nash hate? That's what I call silly.
> 
> You are absolutely correct, Nash is a wizard with the ball. He is an amazing passer, ball handler and shooter. The players I appreciate most in this league are the highly skilled ones, ones that don't rely on athletic ability to be effective, and Nash is one of those guys. I appreciate his creativity. That's why I like Kobe, and also Duncan among big men.
> 
> I like Steve Nash like I like Ray Allen. If he hadn't won any MVP's, and I didn't have Suns fans on my tail whining about me "hating" because I don't think he deserved MVP's despite being a great player, you'd realize that I really love his game. I just hate the hype.


Because your logic in justfiying why Nash doesn't deserve any recognition is always contradcitory and flawed.

Comparing Nash to Ray Allen reveals your stance on Nash quite cleary as well. Talk about underrating a player...

And thanks for also ignoring my post 2 pages ago. Ignore what you can't spin...I guess that's your new motto.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

KidCanada said:


> Because your logic in justfiying why Nash doesn't deserve any recognition is always contradcitory and flawed.


No it's not. You're a Suns homer and so you think everything that isn't pro-Nash is automatically anti-Nash. 



KidCanada said:


> Comparing Nash to Ray Allen reveals your stance on Nash quite cleary as well. Talk about underrating a player...


Talk about spin...I said like Nash like I like Allen. If you think that means I think of them as equal caliber players, then that's your problem. I can't teach you how to read. I like Brandon Bass like I like Tim Duncan too, I must be underrating Duncan bad!! 



KidCanada said:


> And thanks for also ignoring my post 2 pages ago. Ignore what you can't spin...I guess that's your new motto.


Oh god. Have we not been through this a 1,000 times? 

First of all you said that the Mavericks and Suns have had equal playoff success, which isn't true, because the Mavericks have reached the finals and they beat the defending champions to get there, the Suns have not. The Suns had their chance at that, and lost in 5 games. _You_ can try to spin that any way you want, but that's the truth. 

Since Shaquille's departure from the west, the Spurs have been the team to beat in the west, and the Mavericks got over the hump finally. Has any other team besides the Lakers even eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs in the Tim Duncan era? Maybe his rookie year, but that's it. That's a huge hump to get over. The Mavericks have everyone believing the west is wide open. 

As far as stats, Nash's playoff stats have been good, but he has been outplayed by both Dirk and Duncan.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

Dallas won 53 games in 2001, 57 in 2002 and 60 in 2003. That summer Cuban forced Nelson to make some moves, like trading for Walker and Jamison, so they had chemistry issues ending with 52 games and a first round exit.
In 2005 they got beack on track with a more balanced team ending 58 games. 
The 2004 season abnormal, the Mavs has always been a 58-60 wins team in the last few years.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Has any other team besides the Lakers even eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs in the Tim Duncan era? Maybe his rookie year, but that's it. That's a huge hump to get over. The Mavericks have everyone believing the west is wide open.
> 
> As far as stats, Nash's playoff stats have been good, but he has been outplayed by both Dirk and Duncan.


First of all, if you are pro Duncan, you really NEED to know his numbers. His rookie season was the NBA lockout year in which he teamed up with David "The Admiral" Robinson to WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP. I agree that Duncan's teams have been incredible good, hell the Spurs have been incredibly good for over 15 years!

If it(The MVP award) were to be handed out to the "statistically" best player every year, then Jordan would have had 10! It is a bunch of factors that one cannot calculate with a simplistic computation (Hollinger) and is based on watching the games. Dirk's team does not suffer nearly as much when he is absent as Nash's does. Through this logic, one can ascertain that Nash, not Dirk, is more valuable to his team. Also, Parker and Ginobili, no matter how much you don't like them, are both captains of their respective National teams(Argentina won a gold medal at the Olympic and Parker is averaging 20ppg this season, almost the same as Duncan).

So to conclude, the MVP was voted on, get over it, and Nash won! These guys have seen Jordan in his heyday, have seen Stockton in his Heyday, have seen Magic in his heyday, and if they vote Nash again, know what it means to the NBA and Nash's reputation. Most of these journalists have been covering, not just watching, the NBA for longer than a lot of us on this board have been alive! I understand that there are a lot of GREAT players playing right now in the NBA and I love it! 

However, I like that Nash has received the award because he represents an aspect of the game that has all but become lost in this league: teamwork. I am tired of EVERYONE trying to be the "next" Jordan and playing one on five basketball every game, or "intense" games ending in the 80's or even 70's! Why did Stern change the handchecking rules? Because slow-down games were ruining the league! Nash is bringing back 5-man ball! Look at the stats on the Suns this year. FIVE, yes you read that right, FIVE guys are averaging 15ppg or more this season(Nash, Stoudemire, Marion, Barbosa, Bell)! I am very pro-Nash, as you can tell, but I just don't see the other true contenders (Duncan, LBJ, Dirk, Yao, Melo, or Boozer) really stepping up to take that honor from Nash!​


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

These dudes are typing through angry tears defending Nash :laugh:


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

IceMan23and3 said:


> First of all, if you are pro Duncan, you really NEED to know his numbers.


And yet...



IceMan23and3 said:


> His rookie season was the NBA lockout year in which he teamed up with David "The Admiral" Robinson to WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP.


:clap: :clap: :clap: 



IceMan23and3 said:


> If it(The MVP award) were to be handed out to the "statistically" best player every year, then Jordan would have had 10! It is a bunch of factors that one cannot calculate with a simplistic computation (Hollinger) and is based on watching the games. Dirk's team does not suffer nearly as much when he is absent as Nash's does. Through this logic, one can ascertain that Nash, not Dirk, is more valuable to his team. Also, Parker and Ginobili, no matter how much you don't like them, are both captains of their respective National teams(Argentina won a gold medal at the Olympic and Parker is averaging 20ppg this season, almost the same as Duncan).


Too bad that nash by far has better team mates than either Nowitzki or duncan. Too bad he is the one which never has get to the finals too.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

IceMan23and3 said:


> First of all, if you are pro Duncan, you really NEED to know his numbers. His rookie season was the NBA lockout year in which he teamed up with David "The Admiral" Robinson to WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP. I agree that Duncan's teams have been incredible good, hell the Spurs have been incredibly good for over 15 years!​




His rookie season was 97-98, not the lockout year. The Bulls, not he Spurs, won the title. 



> If it(The MVP award) were to be handed out to the "statistically" best player every year, then Jordan would have had 10! It is a bunch of factors that one cannot calculate with a simplistic computation (Hollinger) and is based on watching the games. Dirk's team does not suffer nearly as much when he is absent as Nash's does. Through this logic, one can ascertain that Nash, not Dirk, is more valuable to his team. Also, Parker and Ginobili, no matter how much you don't like them, are both captains of their respective National teams(Argentina won a gold medal at the Olympic and Parker is averaging 20ppg this season, almost the same as Duncan).


This is all highly debatable. And besides, if you're going to say "Look at the Suns without Nash", why not also acknowledge that the Mavs have in fact _improved_ without Nash, making it to the Finals last year?



> So to conclude, the MVP was voted on, get over it, and Nash won! These guys have seen Jordan in his heyday, have seen Stockton in his Heyday, have seen Magic in his heyday, and if they vote Nash again, know what it means to the NBA and Nash's reputation. Most of these journalists have been covering, not just watching, the NBA for longer than a lot of us on this board have been alive! I understand that there are a lot of GREAT players playing right now in the NBA and I love it!


MVP voters have been a joke for decades. This is well known. Sports journalism, especially today but also somewhat many years ago, has become the butt of jokes in terms of integrity, accuracy, and analysis.



> However, I like that Nash has received the award because he represents an aspect of the game that has all but become lost in this league: teamwork. I am tired of EVERYONE trying to be the "next" Jordan and playing one on five basketball every game, or "intense" games ending in the 80's or even 70's! Why did Stern change the handchecking rules? Because slow-down games were ruining the league! Nash is bringing back 5-man ball! Look at the stats on the Suns this year. FIVE, yes you read that right, FIVE guys are averaging 15ppg or more this season(Nash, Stoudemire, Marion, Barbosa, Bell)! I am very pro-Nash, as you can tell, but I just don't see the other true contenders (Duncan, LBJ, Dirk, Yao, Melo, or Boozer) really stepping up to take that honor from Nash!


It's arguable that Nash has not been a top 5 player ever in his entire career, so to say someone has to "take away" the MVP honor assumes people take the MVP award that seriously. Besides, Nash's inferior aggregate statistics and inferior defensive impact compared to other MVP candidates makes the case by itself. 

What Nash is, is a perfect fit with the personnel over in Phoenix, with the right coach to boot. He is not being held back. He is an elite NBA player, but clearly not in the conversation of the all time greats that have won two MVP awards, especially the ones that have won consecutive awards.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

My bad, duncan didn't start with the lockout year, but my point remains valid that he didn't "only lose to the Lakers in his era" since he lost to the Jazz as well. 



_Dre_ said:


> These dudes are typing through angry tears defending Nash :laugh:


Actually, i just have the flu. uke:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> However, I like that Nash has received the award because he represents an aspect of the game that has all but become lost in this league: teamwork. I am tired of EVERYONE trying to be the "next" Jordan and playing one on five basketball every game, or "intense" games ending in the 80's or even 70's!


Why is what Nash's represents so much better than what Dirk and Duncan represent if they have teams built around them too (with lesser or equal supporting cast) and have been more successful in terms of winning? Winning is the bottom line. You can emphasize teamwork until you're blue in the face, but if it doesn't get the job done, it doesn't mean squat. 

When people start putting winning secondary to style of play, that's when you start talking about And1 basketball type stuff. It's way different styles of play, but if you're making your style of play more important than winning, it's the same thing.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Duncan can't hit ft's. His FT shooting is really pathetic. Laugh all you want but I have a hard time giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line. And if his team doesn't have the best record on top of his free throw shooting...he definately is not the MVP in that case.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

EHL said:


> This is all highly debatable. And besides, if you're going to say "Look at the Suns without Nash", why not also acknowledge that the *Mavs have in fact improved without Nash,* making it to the Finals last year?
> MVP voters have been a joke for decades. This is well known. Sports journalism, especially today but also somewhat many years ago, *has become the butt of jokes in terms of integrity, accuracy, and analysis.*
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, they have improve personell without Nash (Terry, Howard, Stackhouse, and Dampier) and are hardly the same team that Nash played on for 6 seasons.

Secondly, the media being a joke is news to me, I thought that the sports media actually knew what was going on. Yes there are quite a few that are loud mouthed idiots that get a lot of ink, but for the most part, they are good (imo) and balanced.

Third, you won't find a single Suns fan or superNash fan that would disagree with that statement that he has not been as good as the legendary players in the NBA. What IS being argued is that these past 2 1/5 seasons have been Nash's best and are on par with the great's seasons. 

I really cannot argue that he did or didn't deserve the MVP and have you agree. 

His numbers of 20ppg 11apg and 3rpg are worse than Boozer's and Duncan's stats? They're not at all! The same goes for all of the MVP candidates, they are all very close in stats and what it's going to come down to is who in each sportscaster's opinion meant more to his team's success.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

IceMan23and3 said:


> First of all, they have improve personell without Nash (Terry, Howard, Stackhouse, and Dampier) and are hardly the same team that Nash played on for 6 seasons.


I'd say it's plenty arguable that they had at least as much talent with Nash as they had since he went to PHX. Walker, Jamison, Finley, Van Exel, etc. 



> Secondly, the media being a joke is news to me, I thought that the sports media actually knew what was going on. Yes there are quite a few that are loud mouthed idiots that get a lot of ink, but for the most part, they are good (imo) and balanced.


I guess it depends who you read. For example, when it comes to politics and news, some of the most influential writers are with NY papers, yet several of their journalists are notorious for making up stories, exaggerating stories, or just plain slanting stories to fit their agendas. This goes for certain sports papers in Chicago, NY, and LA. 



> Third, you won't find a single Suns fan or superNash fan that would disagree with that statement that he has not been as good as the legendary players in the NBA. What IS being argued is that these past 2 1/5 seasons have been Nash's best and are on par with the great's seasons.


I guess I'd have to ask you how you define "the greats". I assume legends would be MJ, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, etc., but what would "the greats" be? 



> I really cannot argue that he did or didn't deserve the MVP and have you agree.
> 
> His numbers of 20ppg 11apg and 3rpg are worse than Boozer's and Duncan's stats? They're not at all! The same goes for all of the MVP candidates, they are all very close in stats and what it's going to come down to is who in each sportscaster's opinion meant more to his team's success.


Nash is definitely better than Boozer, I don't think otherwise. Anyway, with regards to how people should vote an MVP, IMO it should always be the best player in the league with winning only coming into the picture keeping the supporting cast in mind. The following factors I take, in order of importance:

1a) Watching games consistently and watching for the right things.
1b) Balanced statistics. 
3) Defensive impact, which can't be measured by stats. 
4) Wins.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> Duncan can't hit ft's. His FT shooting is really pathetic. Laugh all you want but I have a hard time giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line. And if his team doesn't have the best record on top of his free throw shooting...he definately is not the MVP in that case.


Some of the greatest players of all time in Shaquille O'Neal and Wilt Chamberlain couldn't hit FTs worth a damn, especially with the game on the line. So I don't buy your reasoning.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

Iceman, did you forget me?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

EHL said:


> I'd say it's plenty arguable that they had at least as much talent with Nash as they had since he went to PHX. Walker, Jamison, Finley, Van Exel, etc.


 Van Exel has always been a cancer on a team and never helped the team win. Jamison? Jamison averaged 15ppg in ONE season with the Mavs as a bench player. Granted, they had a really high octane offense, but they had no defense at all (Nelson doesn't like defense). The Mavs turnaround is more attributed to Avery than the Mavs being better off without Nash. Terry is a very able replacement for Nash, especially since the offense runs through Dirk who finds the open man so therefore they don't need a PG who is a pass first player. Also, I believe that the Mavs, Suns, and Spurs haven't gotten better, but the elite got worse as well as the East(which allows for a very padded regular season record). The Lakers and the Kings are no longer dominant within one season. The Blazers had their superstar in Sabonis retire and Wallace traded to the Pistons, so that left the Spurs as the de-facto champions of the west. 

The Mavs were only a few seasons from beating the Spurs (imo) when Nash left and reacted very well to his departure by getting Terry(16ppg 5apg) who is a decent replacement(it's not like they got Smush Parker from the D-League, this is a 10th overall draft pick... Nash was 15th), especially for this system, and developed Howard who is just as good as Finley. They also got GOOD centers to allow Dirk to get out of the paint more. The rule changes also helped the Mavs more than the Suns because they have an offense that relies basically on Dirk passing out of the double and having guards who can slash to the hoop.



EHL said:


> I guess it depends who you read. For example, when it comes to politics and news, some of the most influential writers are with NY papers, yet several of their journalists are notorious for making up stories, exaggerating stories, or just plain slanting stories to fit their agendas. This goes for certain sports papers in Chicago, NY, and LA.


Well if you go by that, Greg Anthony and Stephon A. Smith both HATE Nash. They see Kobe as the second coming, except better! ( I think that they are a little gay for him.)



EHL said:


> I guess I'd have to ask you how you define "the greats". I assume legends would be MJ, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, etc., but what would "the greats" be?


 Come on now, are you gonna bust my balls on semantics? I am comparing Nash's impact to the legend's impacts (that I have seen which is 89-present, other than Hardwood Classic games which don't properly represent the everyday work that they do) I believe that Nash, through his offense, sucks teams into the Suns' style which helps them win. So in essence, his best defensive asset is to get the opposing team to play outside of their 'normal' pace. He is rarely found out of position on defense and is great at funnelling a faster opponnent into traps and help coverage. The best scorer on the opposing team isn't guarded by him, but by either Bell or Marion, so don't blame Nash for that!



EHL said:


> Nash is definitely better than Boozer, I don't think otherwise. Anyway, with regards to how people should vote an MVP, IMO it should always be the best player in the league with winning only coming into the picture keeping the supporting cast in mind. The following factors I take, in order of importance:
> 
> 1a) Watching games consistently and watching for the *right things.*
> 1b) Balanced statistics.
> ...


I'll assume that the "right things" are energy, intensity, and dependability? Such as a statistically bad night doesn't necessarily mean a bad game?

I really can't disagree with this, except for the order of these. I would put wins atop this list because if a team were to go 75-7 we all know that someone on that team is getting the MVP! This is a ridiculous circumstance, but I use it to illustrate my point. A team has to be winning at least 60% of its games for a player to be considered for the MVP (50 wins). Also, strength of schedule should also be factored in such as if you are beating up on the Atlantic division 4 times each, your record is a little bit more inflated than if you were to play in the west... sorry east, you're a victim of your environment! 

But then I would list 
1) Stong winning record (sorry this ain't baseball)
2a) Watching games consistently and watching for the right things.
2b) Balanced statistics. 
3) Defensive impact, which can't be measured by stats.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> Come on now, are you gonna bust my balls on semantics? I am comparing Nash's impact to the legend's impacts (that I have seen which is 89-present, other than Hardwood Classic games which don't properly represent the everyday work that they do) I believe that Nash, through his offense, sucks teams into the Suns' style which helps them win. So in essence, his best defensive asset is to get the opposing team to play outside of their 'normal' pace. He is rarely found out of position on defense and is great at funnelling a faster opponnent into traps and help coverage. The best scorer on the opposing team isn't guarded by him, but by either Bell or Marion, so don't blame Nash for that!


Nash's last two seasons are not comparable to legends like Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Malone and such (unless you feel you can prove otherwise).


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Ras said:


> You mean Nash, Marion, Diaw, Bell and Barbosa led that team to 54 wins. And since when are expectations before the season reason to give someone an MVP? Also, just because players like Bell and Diaw weren't so high profile before they came to Phoenix doesn't mean they were bad players. They're good players, regardless of Nash. There's no denying Phoenix had a very good team last year, even with the loss of JJ, Q and Amare. Also, they went from a 60+ win season to a 50+ win season, so you could still see the effects of losing players. Also, why do you paint all the players they got as horrible, and all they players they were losing as great?
> 
> Also, you basically ignored everything I said. If you went the team route, Dirk or Chauncey should have won. If you went the individual route, LeBron should have won.


 Well, I believe that the voters took into account that the Suns went 13-11 in their final 24 games without Kurt Thomas and also awknowledged that Tim Thomas who was viewed as done with his career had a rebirth with Nash at the helm of the Suns offense. Before Kurt Thomas went down, the Suns were on pace to win 58 games and had one of the best defenses in the league. I know Tim Thomas is 6-11, but he plays defense like a T-Rex(his arms don't go above his head EVER)! Also, I want to take a time out here to knock the Clippers here for being stupid and signing him to such a huge contract, D'Antoni actually mentions wanting him to play hard and then fleece another team into a huge contract in the book *07 Seconds Or Less (it's really good, just to see a team dynamic at such a close standpoint is really interesting!)*. Also, if Dirk went down for the whole season and Howard led the Mavs to a 50+ win season, do you think that the voters wouldn't be swayed by that?

I'd like to think that the voters are human and are influenced by circumstance as well as reputation. Kobe was fresh off the chased-Shaq-out-of-LA-raped-a-chick train and definately was on a lot of sportswriter's ****-list. Also, Nowitzki does not average huge big man numbers like I listed before, nor does he even dish out a lot of assists for a big man(less than 3 per game). His numbers are completely average for a star player. Very few players put up 20ppg and 10apg while shooting better than 50% from the field, better than 90% FT, and better than 40%3pt. The fact is that Nash led the league in two categories(Assists and FT%) as well as being in the top 20 in scoring, FG%, and 3pt%. Kobe led the league in 1 category, his numbers weren't as good as LBJ's in assists(4.5vs6.6) and rebounds(5.3vs 5.7) and LBJ averaged 31.4 to Kobe's 35.4 but had more wins than Kobe. Like I said, it is an unspoken rule in the NBA that you need at least 50 wins to be considered MVP.

The arguments for Nash are valid, they may not be your choice, in fact a lot of writers didn't vote for him first, in fact, less than half voted for him as No.1 choice! He did win enough 1st 2nd and 3rd votes to win though!
http://www.nba.com/news/nash_mvp_05-06.html


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Ras said:


> Iceman, did you forget me?


crybaby.:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

IceMan23and3 said:


> Van Exel has always been a cancer on a team and never helped the team win.


I don't think a single Mavs fan would agree with you. When it came to playoff time, Van Exel was arguably the Mavs most deadly clutch shooter and his production was absolutely fine.



> Jamison? Jamison averaged 15ppg in ONE season with the Mavs as a bench player. Granted, they had a really high octane offense, but they had no defense at all (Nelson doesn't like defense).


OK, but Jamison was a fine player and 15 ppg isn't garbage off the bench. He was a 6th man candidate that year. 



> The Mavs turnaround is more attributed to Avery than the Mavs being better off without Nash. Terry is a very able replacement for Nash, especially since the offense runs through Dirk who finds the open man so therefore they don't need a PG who is a pass first player. Also, I believe that the Mavs, Suns, and Spurs haven't gotten better, but the elite got worse as well as the East(which allows for a very padded regular season record). The Lakers and the Kings are no longer dominant within one season. The Blazers had their superstar in Sabonis retire and Wallace traded to the Pistons, so that left the Spurs as the de-facto champions of the west.
> 
> The Mavs were only a few seasons from beating the Spurs (imo) when Nash left and reacted very well to his departure by getting Terry(16ppg 5apg) who is a decent replacement(it's not like they got Smush Parker from the D-League, this is a 10th overall draft pick... Nash was 15th), especially for this system, and developed Howard who is just as good as Finley. They also got GOOD centers to allow Dirk to get out of the paint more. The rule changes also helped the Mavs more than the Suns because they have an offense that relies basically on Dirk passing out of the double and having guards who can slash to the hoop.


The coaching change was important, I agree. But if you're going to cite Nash's replacement (Terry) in why the Mavs were able to sustain Nash's departure, why not also mention that when the Suns don't play with Nash that their backup PG is an absolutely horrid replacement in terms of impact and fit. 



> Well if you go by that, Greg Anthony and Stephon A. Smith both HATE Nash. They see Kobe as the second coming, except better! ( I think that they are a little gay for him).


OK, but this doesn't address the fact that a lot of members of the media aren't particularly impartial, or knowledgeable. Which I think is pretty well known. 



> Come on now, are you gonna bust my balls on semantics? I am comparing Nash's impact to the legend's impacts (that I have seen which is 89-present, other than Hardwood Classic games which don't properly represent the everyday work that they do) I believe that Nash, through his offense, sucks teams into the Suns' style which helps them win. So in essence, his best defensive asset is to get the opposing team to play outside of their 'normal' pace. He is rarely found out of position on defense and is great at funnelling a faster opponnent into traps and help coverage. The best scorer on the opposing team isn't guarded by him, but by either Bell or Marion, so don't blame Nash for that!
> 
> 
> I'll assume that the "right things" are energy, intensity, and dependability? Such as a statistically bad night doesn't necessarily mean a bad game?


I'm still not sure what you mean by "greats" and "legends". Either way, Nash doesn't deserve to be in the same company as the players that have won consecutive MVPs (Jordan, Magic, etc.), which was my main point. 



> I really can't disagree with this, except for the order of these. I would put wins atop this list because if a team were to go 75-7 we all know that someone on that team is getting the MVP! This is a ridiculous circumstance, but I use it to illustrate my point. A team has to be winning at least 60% of its games for a player to be considered for the MVP (50 wins). Also, strength of schedule should also be factored in such as if you are beating up on the Atlantic division 4 times each, your record is a little bit more inflated than if you were to play in the west... sorry east, you're a victim of your environment!
> 
> But then I would list
> 1) Stong winning record (sorry this ain't baseball)
> ...


Winning has and always will be a team game, so we'll have to agree to disagree here.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Ras said:


> Nash's last two seasons are not comparable to legends like Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Malone and such (unless you feel you can prove otherwise).


Yes, yes I can...*TWO MVP'S!* 

HAHAHAHA!!!!!! WINNER! ME! DRUNKEN! ME! :cheers:

If you haven't seen him, you need to, he is AMAZING!!! Just watch their game against Washington if you have Hi-Def on the 23rd, if you don't have that channel, then watch their game against Cleveland on the 28th on ABC(I know all of you get that channel!). It is really amazing to see him play. You can tell who is in control of the game when he plays. He owns the game or the Suns lose. It's as simple as that! The Suns don't want him to be their primary shooter. In fact, the Suns have the most balanced team(5 guys averaging 15ppg) since the 1983 Lakers! Nash is the reason why these players are getting their shots. It's as simple as that! You look at the amount of time he has the ball, the scoring is predicated on Nash having the ball and creating for his teammates.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

EHL said:


> Winning has and always will be a team game, so we'll have to agree to disagree here.


I think that will have to go with this entire thread! Anyways, I will celebrate whoever is MVP of the league this year! I kinda believe that if the Lakers maintain their 55 win pace, Kobe will be MVP this year, even though James deserves it more! I don't think anyone would be upset if Nash didn't win it again! He single-handedly tripled the number of MVPs the Suns organization has had! (1 to 3!) However, one thing I will be upset about is if Yao, Duncan, or Boozer wins the award with their numbers! That would be an insult to the league! Big men have to have 30-12-3 to be MVP just because they are bigger than everyone else! Sorry, it's kinda like girls vs guys hurdles imo! 

However, realistically, I believe that the race is truly between Arenas(out of nowhere), Kobe, Nash, and LBJ.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ I'll tear gas ESPN if Boozer gets any run as MVP.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

EHL said:


> Some of the greatest players of all time in Shaquille O'Neal and Wilt Chamberlain couldn't hit FTs worth a damn, especially with the game on the line. So I don't buy your reasoning.


:lol: Duncan is NOT Wilt Chamberlain. Shaq only has 1 MVP so even though you don't buy my reasoning you kind of just supported it. A borderline candidate that doesn't have the best team in the league doesn't deserve the MVP when he is a liability at the end of games. He literally loses games in the last minutes whereas Steve Nash wins them.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

EHL said:


> ^ I'll tear gas ESPN if Boozer gets any run as MVP.


Ill fund this little coup if this happens.

:banned:


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

IceMan23and3 said:


> I think that will have to go with this entire thread! Anyways, I will celebrate whoever is MVP of the league this year! I kinda believe that if the Lakers maintain their 55 win pace, Kobe will be MVP this year, even though James deserves it more! I don't think anyone would be upset if Nash didn't win it again! He single-handedly tripled the number of MVPs the Suns organization has had! (1 to 3!) However, one thing I will be upset about is if Yao, Duncan, or Boozer wins the award with their numbers! That would be an insult to the league! Big men have to have 30-12-3 to be MVP just because they are bigger than everyone else! Sorry, it's kinda like girls vs guys hurdles imo!
> 
> *However, realistically, I believe that the race is truly between Arenas(out of nowhere), Kobe, Nash, and LBJ*.


No Dirk or TD on your list. And before the end of the year KG might get into the convo


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

kbird said:


> Yes he is by far the best player on the planet.
> 
> An do you know why: Read this and remember.
> 
> If Lebron, Kobe or KG played on Phoenix instead of nash EVERYBODY WOULD be *****ing how they have no supporting cast. That is the difference. Those guys suck as star players. They do not make anybody better, they make everybody worse. Nash makes everybody better. And he has the best stats in the league himself.


True words spoken, haters take note.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

adam said:


> :lol: Duncan is NOT Wilt Chamberlain. Shaq only has 1 MVP so even though you don't buy my reasoning you kind of just supported it. A borderline candidate that doesn't have the best team in the league doesn't deserve the MVP when he is a liability at the end of games. He literally loses games in the last minutes whereas Steve Nash wins them.


Games aren't just won on the offensive side... You could say the same thing about Nash being a liability on defense in crunch time situations when the other team has the ball and you need a stop. And by your argument, why is it ok for Wilt to suck at free throw shooting yet not ok for Shaq or Duncan? You all of a sudden go "Duncan is not Wilt" So what is your point? You could very much argue that Shaq and Duncan could be listed right up there if not right next to Wilt as some of the best big men to ever play the game.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Zero Hero said:


> Games aren't just won on the offensive side... You could say the same thing about Nash being a liability on defense in crunch time situations when the other team has the ball and you need a stop. And by your argument, why is it ok for Wilt to suck at free throw shooting yet not ok for Shaq or Duncan? You all of a sudden go "Duncan is not Wilt" So what is your point? You could very much argue that Shaq and Duncan could be listed right up there if not right next to Wilt as some of the best big men to ever play the game.


Did I say that offense is the only thing that matters? Did I say defense didn't matter? Nash isn't such a bad defender that the other team will have as high a chance to score on him as Duncan has of missing BOTH his free throws. Duncan just lost that game against Dallas like 3 days ago with his poor shooting.

Why is it ok for me to say that Wilt balanced out his poor free throw shooting by the rest of his stats? Are you joking? A guy getting 45ppg and 30rpg missing a couple free throws is SIGNIFICANTLY better than a guy getting 20 and 10 and missing free throws. Are you joking? You have to be joking.


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

being an elite defender is overrated. i mean while it is important being able to defend man to man but its not as important as team defense. the team defense of the suns is effective enough for them to keep piling up the wins. 

nash as an offensive player blows everyone else out of the water.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

So quick to use stats... By all accounts then the greatest ever SHOULD be Oscar Roberston if not in the top 5. If you ever looked at his numbers they are insane. Of course the big O had... 1 MVP... Nash has... 2...Jordan by most is said to be the best players of all time. Yet they don't even COMPARE to Wilt's numbers. So if you want to use stats for comparisons go ahead and use the often over inflated numbers of Wilts time. You are talking about the end of the game. Where Wilt was MORE of a liability at the end of the game. You said and I quote "A borderline candidate that doesn't have the best team in the league *doesn't deserve the MVP when he is a liability at the end of games* END OF GAMES. And who was more of a liability on the floor at the end of a game than one of the worst free throw shooters in NBA history?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

If we're talking about two players who are great at everything and poor at one thing, I'd take the poor free throw shooter over a guy missing half his game. Especially since he's a big man. I don't think that rationale should decide MVP though. Duncan is more valuable to the Spurs team than Nash to the Suns. With an average PG who knows how to run, the Suns are better than the Spurs without Duncan. I think this type of thing does magnify itself in the playoffs though, which isn't in consideration when you're doing MVP. It's a very tricky argument.

All that said, Dirk or Arenas is easily the most valuable player to the players around him in the league, among the good teams. If Nash gets MVP, D'Antoni deserves COY, because their success at this rate is largely intertwined.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Zero Hero said:


> So quick to use stats... By all accounts then the greatest ever SHOULD be Oscar Roberston if not in the top 5. If you ever looked at his numbers they are insane. Of course the big O had... 1 MVP... Nash has... 2...Jordan by most is said to be the best players of all time. Yet they don't even COMPARE to Wilt's numbers. So if you want to use stats for comparisons go ahead and use the often over inflated numbers of Wilts time. You are talking about the end of the game. Where Wilt was MORE of a liability at the end of the game. You said and I quote "A borderline candidate that doesn't have the best team in the league *doesn't deserve the MVP when he is a liability at the end of games* END OF GAMES. And who was more of a liability on the floor at the end of a game than one of the worst free throw shooters in NBA history?


Oscar Robertson...what are you arguing? I really can't follow your thought process.

There are no absolutes so making blanket statements is hard. I NEVER said that anybody from Wilt on can't be MVP if they're not a good free throw shooter. I was referring to Duncan when I said, "a guy who is a liability at end of games and isn't on the best team." That was a reference to Duncan. It was not a rule of thumb that you can apply to everyone. It's my belief that if you compare Steve Nash and Tim Duncan, Duncan loses the MVP because he doesn't have the best record and he is a liability at the end of games. No MVP for him. Will Duncan win it? Nope. Am I glad he won't? Yup.

I didn't bring up Wilt but when asked why Wilt did not follow into my rule for Duncan I stated that because he was averaging 40+ points you can't fault him for free throws. A man getting 40 and 30 is given a bigger pass than a man getting 20 and 10. You can't just ignore his 40 and 30 if his team is down by 2 with 1 minute to go because if Duncan was there instead of Wilt then the team would probably be down 10+ instead of just 2. Wilt was winning games and putting up bigger numbers than everyone. Duncan's numbers are not astounding compared to his competition's. Wilt's were.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

adam said:


> It's my belief that if you compare Steve Nash and Tim Duncan, Duncan loses the MVP because he doesn't have the best record


Neither does Nash if you compare him with Nowitzki.



adam said:


> and he is a liability at the end of games.


And Nash is one through the whole game :clap: 



adam said:


> No MVP for him. Will Duncan win it? Nope. Am I glad he won't? Yup.


Slow down on the hatorade my friend.



adam said:


> I didn't bring up Wilt but when asked why Wilt did not follow into my rule for Duncan I stated that because he was averaging 40+ points you can't fault him for free throws. A man getting 40 and 30 is given a bigger pass than a man getting 20 and 10.


Why are we comparing duncan to a prime wilt when judging if he is worth the MVP ? Last time i checked, wilt is not playing anymore.



adam said:


> You can't just ignore his 40 and 30 if his team is down by 2with 1 minute to go because if Duncan was there instead of Wilt then the team would probably be down 10+ instead of just 2.


And this matters because ?



adam said:


> Wilt was winning games and putting up bigger numbers than everyone.


Rusell was winning rings while wilt put his bigger numbers than everyone.



adam said:


> Duncan's numbers are not astounding compared to his competition's. Wilt's were.


Nobody right now is playing at the level of a prime Wilt, jordan, kareem, etc. Or are you saying that Nash is playing at that level ?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Wow did that guy just pick my post apart line by line...

Such invaluable contribution to the thread. Gems like, "Slow down on the hatorade my friend."

Did I say that I'm a Nash fan? You seem to think that insulting Nash insults me. I could also pick apart the numerous statements in your reply, the tangential waste of time stuff about Russell (MVP is an individual award not a team award. the Celtics were the greatest team in the NBA for years), but that doesn't contribute anything.

If Duncan does not have the best record in the league on top of his poor free throw shooting, he does not deserve the MVP. It will go to Nash or Nowitzki. Cry and complain all you guys want but that is the fair and just truth of the matter.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

adam said:


> Wow did that guy just pick my post apart line by line...


Not all. Just the more laughable ones.



adam said:


> If Duncan does not have the best record in the league on top of his poor free throw shooting, he does not deserve the MVP. It will go to Nash or Nowitzki. Cry and complain all you guys want but that is the fair and just truth of the matter.


Actually it doesnt matters for me. Is not like Duncan is going to come here to give me the trophy. But if you are going to make statements, at least it would be wise to back them with some facts and not your personal opinion that you want to use as a fact.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

carlos710 said:


> Not all. Just the more laughable ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it doesnt matters for me.


Oh the irony. Your inability for grammar is the only thing that is laughable.



> Is not like Duncan is going to come here to give me the trophy. But if you are going to make statements, at least it would be wise to back them with some facts and not your personal opinion that you want to use as a fact.


All any of us can offer is our opinion buddy. At least I know that what I offered was opinion whereas you seem to think that...you offered some sort of fact? Perhaps you should review the definition of fact and opinion if you want to continue.



> Neither does Nash if you compare him with Nowitzki.


We aren't comparing Nash and Nowitzki. I made the statement about the criterion for comparing Duncan and Nash. The rules for comparing Nash and Nowitzki are another matter altogether. We can easily get into that.



> And Nash is one through the whole game


More of your "fact."



> Nobody right now is playing at the level of a prime Wilt, jordan, kareem, etc. Or are you saying that Nash is playing at that level ?


Seriously...what? What did that sentence even mean? Who said that anybody has to play at any hypothetical level to be considered MVP? Who said that? Are you implying that I did? Guess your ability for following a discussion is concordant with your grammar. Fitting.

Follow me closely:

Duncan does not have the best record in the league and he is a liability at the end of games. Therefore, Duncan is NOT the MVP. Deal with it. Whether the MVP is Nash or Nowitzki or whoever, that is another matter altogether.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

So you can remove Duncan's MVP for not having the best record + poor free throw shooting but can't remove Nash's for not having the best record + poor defense? I am not arguing that Duncan should be MVP this season. He is having a relatively average Duncan season. I just don't agree with the fact that you are removing him on the basis that he has poor free throw shooting.


----------



## myst (Feb 22, 2006)

Nash is the best player on the planet....

when the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th best players on the planet are his teammates.



Imagine if his team didn't have any 3 point shooters, then the defenders wouldn't have to play on the perimeter and it would shut everything down for Nash. He would be in the top 10 in point guards if hes lucky.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

adam said:


> Oh the irony. Your inability for grammar is the only thing that is laughable.


Given my location it should be obvious that english is not my first language, but we are not arguing about languages, are we ?



adam said:


> All any of us can off is our opinion buddy. At least I know that what I offered was opinion whereas you seem to think that...you offered some sort of fact? Perhaps you should review the definition of fact and opinion if you want to continue.


However, you make it sound like if it were a fact that duncan wont be the MVP because he cant shoot FTs and doesn't have the best record in the league. Nobody knows who will be the MVP, but you are stating that he won't win like if it were a fact.



adam said:


> We aren't comparing Nash and Nowitzki. I made the statement about the criterion for comparing Duncan and Nash. The rules for comparing Nash and Nowitzki are another matter altogether. We can easily get into that.


I would like to hear them, since the thread is about proclaming Nash as the best player on the planet, not only Nash vs Duncan.




adam said:


> More of your "fact.".


Just like that duncan wont win the MVP due to his FT %




adam said:


> Seriously...what? What did that sentence even mean? Who said that anybody has to play at any hypothetical level to be considered MVP? Who said that? Are you implying that I did? Guess your ability for following a discussion is concordant with your grammar. Fitting.





adam said:


> I didn't bring up Wilt but when asked why Wilt did not follow into my rule for Duncan I stated that because he was averaging 40+ points you can't fault him for free throws. A man getting 40 and 30 is given a bigger pass than a man getting 20 and 10. You can't just ignore his 40 and 30 if his team is down by 2 with 1 minute to go because if Duncan was there instead of Wilt then the team would probably be down 10+ instead of just 2. Wilt was winning games and putting up bigger numbers than everyone. Duncan's numbers are not astounding compared to his competition's. Wilt's were.


Yes, im implying that you did say that duncan shouldn't be the MVP because he is not putting Wilt-like numbers. And btw, if you prefer, we can post in spanish and you would see the best of my grammar.





adam said:


> Follow me closely:
> 
> Duncan does not have the best record in the league and he is a liability at the end of games. Therefore, Duncan is NOT the MVP. Deal with it. Whether the MVP is Nash or Nowitzki or whoever, that is another matter altogether.


According to your logic, he only would be a liability if he has to shoot FTs which is not a sure thing. Is a sure thing that Nash has to play defense at the end of a close game.

And well, like i has said already on some other threads, Nowitzki should be the MVP imo. But i won't state that Nash wont win it because of his bad defense. Just the same way i wouldn't state that duncan won't win it because of his FT%


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

myst said:


> Nash is the best player on the planet....
> 
> when the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th best players on the planet are his teammates.
> 
> ...


Yes and imagine if Tim Duncan's teammates were a bunch of third graders. Tim Duncan could be pentuple teamed! He would never be the MVP...


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Zero Hero said:


> So you can remove Duncan's MVP for not having the best record + poor free throw shooting but can't remove Nash's for not having the best record + poor defense? I am not arguing that Duncan should be MVP this season. He is having a relatively average Duncan season. I just don't agree with the fact that you are removing him on the basis that he has poor free throw shooting.



"His." I didn't know the MVP was his to remove. If he doesn't have the best record on top of his poor shooting then he is not even in the conversation with Nowitzki let alone Nash. As I already said, Nash's poor defense doesn't give the opponent the % to score as Duncan does to miss both free throws with the game on the line.

You think he deserves the award over Nowitzki if he doesn't have the best record? Then why not give the award to Garnett if record doesn't matter? Garnett has better stats.

You trivialize his free throw shooting as just an "offensive liability" but its more than that. It's a "winning liability." These guys are all very close together. Nobody is head and shoulders above the competition so when there is a guy costing his team games and his team doesn't have the better record...No way he deserves it over Nash or Nowitzki.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

> And btw, if you prefer, we can post in spanish and you would see the best of my grammar.


Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? English is not my first language either but I was not the one to condescend while posting irrelevant material.



> Yes, im implying that you did say that duncan shouldn't be the MVP because he is not putting Wilt-like numbers.


I did no such thing. Perhaps you should resign to arguing in Spanish if you are going to misquote somebody? I said that a guy who does not have the best record on top of not being able to shoot free throws will not win the MVP. I didn't say that Duncan has to put up 45 and 30 to be the MVP. I will say that the fact that he doesn't put up 45 and 30 means that you can't excuse him for not having the best record and being a liability at the end of the game. Duncan, Nowitzki, and Garnet all basically 20 and 10 guys. How do you expect these guys to be seperated when it comes time? It will be record and ability to win games. The two things that I mentioned. I'm sorry if you don't like it but that's just how it will be.



> However, you make it sound like if it were a fact that duncan wont be the MVP because he cant shoot FTs and doesn't have the best record in the league. Nobody knows who will be the MVP, but you are stating that he won't win like if it were a fact.


If he doesn't have the best record in the league? I can GUARANTEE you that he wont win the MVP. That's 100% fact. There is no question that he will not win the MVP if he can't get the best record. The only thing seperating Garnett, Nowitzki, and Duncan? Record and free throw shooting.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

adam said:


> Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? English is not my first language either but I was not the one to condescend while posting irrelevant material.


I had been quoting you. The irrelevant material would be your own words. You said that you were posting your opinion, well then my opinion is as relevant as yours.



adam said:


> I did no such thing. Perhaps you should resign to arguing in Spanish if you are going to misquote somebody?


??
I didn't said a word in spanish.



adam said:


> I said that a guy who does not have the best record on top of not being able to shoot free throws will not win the MVP. I didn't say that Duncan has to put up 45 and 30 to be the MVP. *I will say that the fact that he doesn't put up 45 and 30 means that you can't excuse him for not having the best record and being a liability at the end of the game.*


Nobody is putting those numbers right now, you keep comparing duncan to the numbers of a prime Wilt.



adam said:


> Duncan, Nowitzki, and Garnet all basically 20 and 10 guys. How do you expect these guys to be seperated when it comes time? It will be record and ability to win games.


Nowitzki > Duncan in record
Duncan > Nowitzki in defense
Nowitzki > Duncan overall stats (including FT%)

So again, i think Nowitzki should be the mvp this season.



adam said:


> The two things that I mentioned. I'm sorry if you don't like it but that's just how it will be.
> 
> If he doesn't have the best record in the league? I can GUARANTEE you that he wont win the MVP. That's 100% fact. There is no question that he will not win the MVP if he can't get the best record. The only thing seperating Garnett, Nowitzki, and Duncan? Record and free throw shooting.


(and defense, duncan and garnett > nowitzki)

A difference of a few games wont make a huge diference for the voters imo. Assuming phx, dallas and spurs all finish between a 55-60 range in wins, i guess they will look at:

1) How the stars of those teams played in the last month of the season
2) Overall stats (including FT%, i doubt they give a huge consideration to FT% tho)
3) Overall impact (which includes defense)

Once again, right now i would give Nowitzki the trophy taking into consideration those factors.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

In my opinion, the era of “Big Man” dominance is over. Here is a list of the “potential MVP” big men in the league:
Boozer: 21ppg, 11rpg, 3apg
Garnett: 22ppg, 12 rpg, 4 apg
Duncan: 20ppg, 10rpg, 3apg
Dirk: 24ppg, 9 rpg, 3apg

Here is a list of previous big man MVP winners:
KG: 24ppg 15rpg 5apg 1.5spg 2.2bpg
Duncan: 25ppg 13rpg 2.5bpg
Shaq: 30ppg 13.6rpg 3.8apg 3bpg
Malone: 27ppg 10rpg (I think that this is more based on his career and team season than individual performance)
Robinson: 27.6ppg 10.8rpg 2.85bpg 
Olajuwon 27.3ppg 12.2rpg 3.6apg 3.7bpg
Barkley: 25.6ppg 12.2rpg 5.1apg 1.57spg

I am sorry, but I just don’t feel that ANY of these players have numbers near the level of these players! Also, these teams that these players were on won 58, 58(60), 64(37*), 62, 58, and 62 respectively. Most MVPs receive the award for team record as well as individual performance. 

The era of the point guard has just begun! Right now, IMO the only legit contenders are Arenas, Bryant, James, and Nash. James has a better record and stats than Arenas, so I don’t think that people will vote for him. Kobe went nuts last season and if he performs near that level AND his team wins 55 games(which they’re on pace to do), I believe that he would be a valid choice. Nash, of course, is leading the Suns to a rumbling record (24-3 since going 1-5) as well as improving his scoring numbers and posting more than 11apg again.


----------



## kbird (Dec 7, 2006)

> If that's the case, we need to stop putting Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion on all-star teams


Amare didn't play last season, nobody even noticed.
Put Amare on a team with KG, AI, LeBron, their teams remain exactly the same, because they wouldn't know what to do with Amare. Nash knows how to run offense and use all of the other 4 players.

And all these guys playing with Nash would still be nobodys had they stayed wherever they were before they joined Nash.
That IS A FACT.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

kbird said:


> Amare didn't play last season, nobody even noticed.
> Put Amare on a team with KG, AI, LeBron, their teams remain exactly the same, because they wouldn't know what to do with Amare. Nash knows how to run offense and use all of the other 4 players.
> 
> And all these guys playing with Nash would still be nobodys had they stayed wherever they were before they joined Nash.
> That IS A FACT.


Preach on.


----------



## Minstral (Dec 9, 2006)

Skiles (an actual NBA coach) > a few dumb Nash haters on the internet.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> :lol: Duncan is NOT Wilt Chamberlain.


News at 11. 



> Shaq only has 1 MVP so even though you don't buy my reasoning you kind of just supported it.


Amazing that Shaq won 4 NBA championshiops as such a bad FT shooter, eh? Seriously, you're arguing that Shaq has one MVP (he has 3 Finals MVPs) and that therefore I'm "supporting" your point that bad FT shooters shouldn't get MVPs? This is, of course, ignoring the fact that it's well known that Shaq is a first ballot HOF'er and generally considering no worse than the 15th best player of all time.



> A borderline candidate that doesn't have the best team in the league doesn't deserve the MVP when he is a liability at the end of games. He literally loses games in the last minutes whereas Steve Nash wins them.


You don't seem to understand what it takes to win games or that it's irrelavant that Wilt Chamberlain and Tim Duncan are not the same person. Plenty of poor FT shooters in NBA history have turned out to be great players, in fact some of the greatest players of all time. So your original was and still is, factually unsupported garbage.


----------



## PFortyy (May 31, 2006)

Wilt Chamberlin huge gap Tim Duncan


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

IceMan23and3 said:


> In my opinion, the era of “Big Man” dominance is over. Here is a list of the “potential MVP” big men in the league:
> Boozer: 21ppg, 11rpg, 3apg
> Garnett: 22ppg, 12 rpg, 4 apg
> Duncan: 20ppg, 10rpg, 3apg
> ...


and here's part of the rub. nash won his 1st mvp averaging 15.5 ppg, 11.5 apg, 3.3 rpg, 3.3 to/g, and then won his 2nd winning 54 games. now we can say the standard is min 55 wins and stats in line with historic winners. 

nash is an obvious frontrunning candidate this year, but mvp can be rationalized a number of ways. i won't cry if it's rationalized to another player this year. any argument made for nash can easily be made for dirk as well. i'll also say the guy who goes to the new team and appears to turn them around (nash) gets more leverage over the years than the guy who stays in 1 place (dirk).


----------



## numb555 (May 25, 2003)

Nash is not going to be the MVP this season, his stats will dip as the Suns keep on blowing out teams. 

The real MVP this year regardless how well Nash plays should be Dirk! (he was robbed last year)


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

EHL said:


> News at 11.


Says the person who drew a parallel between the two...



> Amazing that Shaq won 4 NBA championshiops as such a bad FT shooter, eh? Seriously, you're arguing that Shaq has one MVP (he has 3 Finals MVPs) and that therefore I'm "supporting" your point that bad FT shooters shouldn't get MVPs? This is, of course, ignoring the fact that it's well known that Shaq is a first ballot HOF'er and generally considering no worse than the 15th best player of all time.


Are we talking about Hall of Fame or Championships? What a load of garbage. What does the Hall of Fame have to do with the MVP award? I guess Joe Dumars got robbed of an MVP also. We're talking about this year and the reasons why Duncan loses the MVP to guys like Nash and Nowitzki.



> You don't seem to understand what it takes to win games or that it's irrelavant that Wilt Chamberlain and Tim Duncan are not the same person.


I don't understand what it takes to win games? With what do you base that? Also, it's o.k. for you to draw an analogy between Duncan and Chamberlain and it's not o.k. for me to respond with how they are incomparable? "It's irrelevant that Wilt and Tim are not the same person," how ironic considering you're the one who brought Wilt into the conversation. Perhaps you should have left him out if it's irrelevant to compare the two.



> Plenty of poor FT shooters in NBA history have turned out to be great players, in fact some of the greatest players of all time. So your original was and still is, factually unsupported garbage.


Did I say poor FT shooters don't turn out to be great players? Reading comprehension for the love of god...

One more time: Duncan does not have the best record in the league and he is a liability at the end of games so he does not deserve the MVP. Go ahead and compare him to Wilt again and then make a sarcastic comment when I point out your garbage comparison.:lol:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

IceMan23and3 said:


> In my opinion, the era of “Big Man” dominance is over. Here is a list of the “potential MVP” big men in the league:
> Boozer: 21ppg, 11rpg, 3apg
> Garnett: 22ppg, 12 rpg, 4 apg
> Duncan: 20ppg, 10rpg, 3apg
> ...


and here's part of the rub. nash won his 1st mvp averaging 15.5 ppg, 11.5 apg, 3.3 rpg, 3.3 to/g, and then won his 2nd winning 54 games. now we can say the standard is min 55 wins and stats in line with historic winners. 

nash is an obvious frontrunning candidate this year, but mvp can be rationalized a number of ways. i won't cry if it's rationalized to another player this year. any argument made for nash can easily be made for dirk as well. i'll also say the guy who goes to the new team and appears to turn them around (nash) gets more leverage over the years than the guy who stays in 1 place (dirk).


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

I don't know why Nash gets all the credits for the suns achievement. Even the bench players like Kurt Thomas and Barbosa are better than most starters in the league. They would be starting in almost all of the NBA teams, except Suns. This proves that Suns have a lot of good players.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

when the spurs had the best record (not very long ago), was duncan a top candidate, or was he still behind nash? if the spurs finish with the best record, will duncan be a top candidate?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> I don't understand what it takes to win games? With what do you base that? Also, it's o.k. for you to draw an analogy between Duncan and Chamberlain and it's not o.k. for me to respond with how they are incomparable? "It's irrelevant that Wilt and Tim are not the same person," how ironic considering you're the one who brought Wilt into the conversation. Perhaps you should have left him out if it's irrelevant to compare the two.


I can't help you if you don't comprehend the Wilt example. It's pretty simple. 



adam said:


> Are we talking about Hall of Fame or Championships? What a load of garbage. What does the Hall of Fame have to do with the MVP award? I guess Joe Dumars got robbed of an MVP also. We're talking about this year and the reasons why Duncan loses the MVP to guys like Nash and Nowitzki.





adam said:


> Did I say poor FT shooters don't turn out to be great players? Reading comprehension for the love of god...
> 
> One more time: Duncan does not have the best record in the league and he is a liability at the end of games so he does not deserve the MVP. Go ahead and compare him to Wilt again and then make a sarcastic comment when I point out your garbage comparison.:lol:


Hey now, I'm not the dork that thinks Nash and Dirk should win MVP over Duncan based on a couple wins and FT shooting. That's pretty sad considering both the Suns and Mavs are a lot deeper, which you choose to ignore, and that Duncan is a far, far superior defender and post presense than either Dirk or Nash. Does Dirk's shooting or Nash's passing outweigh Duncan's defensive presense? Most smart fans will tell you no, they don't. Unless you're the best passer or shooter in history, the ability to play *some* sort of elite defense is far more defining of the greatness of a player than _FT shooting_ (lmao), and it should therefore define who wins MVP awards. And often times throughout history, it has. I mean realy now, what's next; Duncan can't hit 3-pointers so he's a liability at the end of games, cause he doesn't spread the floor enough? Lord.

So not only do you not have your history right, your reasoning was shoddy from day 1. It's OK though, everyone gets put in their place at some point.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

> 2004-05: Recapturing the Ring
> Since Tim Duncan joined the Spurs for the 1997-98 season, the team has enjoyed remarkable success ... the Spurs not only own the best record in NBA, going 438-186 over that span, but also have the best winning percentage of any team in the four major sports during the eight year span ... during this period the Spurs have won three NBA titles (1999, 2003, 2005), held the NBA's best record three times ('98-'99, '00-'01, '02-'03), and earned five division titles (1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005).


source: http://www.nba.com/spurs/history/spurs_history.html

So yeah, the spurs have been the best team in proffesional sports in USA since duncan came to the league, and somehow Duncan is a liability for them. I dont remember his bad FT shooting costing a lot of games for the spurs in his whole carrer. Certainly, not their last loss vs the mavericks, they just got outplayed and still bowen had a chance to tie the game with a wide open miss.

So the whole argument about the FT% is pretty weak.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

EHL said:


> Hey now, I'm not the dork that thinks Nash and Dirk should win MVP over Duncan based on a couple wins and FT shooting.


Let's just give the award to Jermaine O'Neal then. You disagree? Are you some kind of dork that thinks Duncan should win the MVP based on a couple wins and points?



> That's pretty sad considering both the Suns and Mavs are a lot deeper, which you choose to ignore, and that Duncan is a far, far superior defender and post presense than either Dirk or Nash.


Yeah, I seem to have forgotten Dallas and Phoenix winning those NBA championships with their "deeper" teams. Raja Bell is on about his sixth team right? Jason Terry is having his best statistical year and living up to that contract right? Try again. Don't worry, I'll be here to put you in your place again.



> Does Dirk's shooting or Nash's passing outweigh Duncan's defensive presense? Most smart fans will tell you no, they don't.


"Most." Is that why Nash won the MVP over Duncan? Because Duncan had the majority? Try again, I'll be here to put you in your place again.



> Unless you're the best passer or shooter in history, the ability to play *some* sort of elite defense is far more defining of the greatness of a player than _FT shooting_ (lmao), and it should therefore define who wins MVP awards. And often times throughout history, it has. I mean realy now, what's next; Duncan can't hit 3-pointers so he's a liability at the end of games, cause he doesn't spread the floor enough? Lord.


A team winning would not have to make 3-pointers to ice the game so your analogy is once again flawed. You act like I'm doing something unfair by comparing what Duncan can't do and what the MVP competition can do! Don't you understand that that's what you do when comparing players? Lord. Duncan can't ice games. You just want to gloss over the things that he can't do well, free throw shooting and getting the best record, to focus on his defense. If you just ignore what every player doesn't do well then you can make a case for anybody for MVP by your methodology.



> So not only do you not have your history right, your reasoning was shoddy from day 1. It's OK though, everyone gets put in their place at some point.


I don't have my history right? What historical evidence did I cite? Attribute more things to me that I never said. :lol:


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

adam, whats up bro - keep doing your thing.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> Let's just give the award to Jermaine O'Neal then. You disagree? Are you some kind of dork that thinks Duncan should win the MVP based on a couple wins and points?


Huh? Jermaine O'Neal does not measure up to Duncan's impact defensively, offensively, or statistically. Nor has Jermaine O'Neal enjoyed nearly the same success as Tim Duncan. So your example is poor and your crafty deflection hasn't gone unnoticed; again, explain to me which is more important, Nash or Dirk's team winning a couple more games than the Spurs while being better FT shooters than Duncan, or Duncan's winning a couple fewer games while being the far superior defender and low post scorer? 



> Yeah, I seem to have forgotten Dallas and Phoenix winning those NBA championships with their "deeper" teams. Raja Bell is on about his sixth team right? Jason Terry is having his best statistical year and living up to that contract right? Try again. Don't worry, I'll be here to put you in your place again.


lmao, you point to the Spurs' success winning titles yet pretend as if the supporting cast's abilities are all that different, despite the fact that Amare Stoudemire is a far better sidekick than anyone Duncan has on the Spurs and that Josh Howard would be the 2nd best player on the Spurs next to Ginobli and Parker? The Spurs have had that success because it's clear Duncan is the superior player to both Dirk and Nash when it comes to winning in the postseason. It's supported statistically and by observational data that shows Duncan to be the far superior defender. It shows in number of titles despite less talented supporting casts than the Mavs and Suns have had the last two seasons. 

But go ahead, start a thread here asking people to list in order which teams have better and deeper talent around their best players; Mavs, Suns, and Spurs. Spurs will come in 3rd each time.



> "Most." Is that why Nash won the MVP over Duncan? Because Duncan had the majority? Try again, I'll be here to put you in your place again.


Duncan has as many MVP awards as Nash in addition to 3 titles and 3 Finals MVPs. That's 3 more, each, than Nash has, so you still lose here. Try again.



> A team winning would not have to make 3-pointers to ice the game so your analogy is once again flawed. You act like I'm doing something unfair by comparing what Duncan can't do and what the MVP competition can do! Don't you understand that that's what you do when comparing players? Lord. Duncan can't ice games. You just want to gloss over the things that he can't do well, free throw shooting and getting the best record, to focus on his defense. If you just ignore what every player doesn't do well then you can make a case for anybody for MVP by your methodology.


In reality this is what I actually said: "the ability to play some sort of elite defense is far more defining of the greatness of a player than FT shooting". 

You continually dodge this point. Which is more important, FT shooting to "ice" games or elite defensive impact? History says elite defensive impact, both in terms of the MVP winners and championship winners. This is just fact you'll have to deal with. And I have no problem pointing out the flaws in a player's game, as FT shooting is clearly one of Duncan's flaws. Difference is I'm not daft enough to claim Nash and Dirk's superior FT shooting ability (and Nash doesn't even take that many FTs anyway) is more important than Duncan's superior defensive impact. 



> I don't have my history right? What historical evidence did I cite? Attribute more things to me that I never said. :lol:


You said the following: "If Duncan doesn't have the best record in the league I can GUARANTEE you that he wont win the MVP. That's 100% fact. There is no question that he will not win the MVP if he can't get the best record."

In reality: there have been _multiple_ MVP winners in NBA history, including Steve Nash last season, that won an MVP award on a team without the best record in the league. Your guarantee is utter nonsense like pretty much the rest of your posts. Yeah, woops.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

EHL said:


> Huh? Jermaine O'Neal does not measure up to Duncan's impact defensively, offensively, or statistically.


Jermaine O'Neal averages more RPG and .8 less PPG and leads the league in blocked shots and is right now a candidate for defensive player of the year. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. 0/3.



> Nor has Jermaine O'Neal enjoyed nearly the same success as Tim Duncan. So your example is poor and your crafty deflection hasn't gone unnoticed;


So record matters? Duncan gets credit over O'Neal because his team has and will have more wins. Thank you for proving my point. 



> again, explain to me which is more important, Nash or Dirk's team winning a couple more games than the Spurs while being better FT shooters than Duncan, or Duncan's winning a couple fewer games while being the far superior defender and low post scorer?


I'm gonna go with Nash or Dirk. Only for this reason: if they have better records the voters will have to ask, "why did they win more games than Duncan?" "Why did San Antonio lose several more games than them?" If they have a worse record by maybe 2 games and Duncan gaffs a couple high profile games like he did the other day in Dallas...You think that wont play in the voters' minds? Then those liabilities that you see as a mole hills will turn into a mountain. Don't hate me for stating the truth. This is the way that it will be. 



> lmao, you point to the Spurs' success winning titles yet pretend as if the supporting cast's abilities are all that different, despite the fact that Amare Stoudemire is a far better sidekick than anyone Duncan has on the Spurs and that Josh Howard would be the 2nd best player on the Spurs next to Ginobli and Parker? The Spurs have had that success because it's clear Duncan is the superior player to both Dirk and Nash when it comes to winning in the postseason. It's supported statistically and by observational data that shows Duncan to be the far superior defender. It shows in number of titles despite less talented supporting casts than the Mavs and Suns have had the last two seasons.


The MVP is an individual award, however nobody is head and shoulders above the competition. If a guy was averaging 45ppg and 30 rpg then he would win the MVP regardless of record. However, everybody's stats are very close so record has to be taken into account. Nash doesn't have to have the best record to win the award because he does other things (impact upon his teammates). Duncan has lost the MVP two years in a row because he did not have the best record. I expect this trend to continue. Of course you would call me a "dork" for going against Duncan because of record just because his supporting cast is not the greatest. It's unfair but I already explained why record has to be taken into account. I suggest you deal with it and move on.



> But go ahead, start a thread here asking people to list in order which teams have better and deeper talent around their best players; Mavs, Suns, and Spurs. Spurs will come in 3rd each time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He hasn't been winning too many MVP's since Nash moved back to Phoenix has he? Want to know why? Because his team hasn't had the best record. Nash won the MVP his first year back in Phoenix, his 2nd year back in Phoenix...





> In reality this is what I actually said: "the ability to play some sort of elite defense is far more defining of the greatness of a player than FT shooting".
> 
> You continually dodge this point. Which is more important, FT shooting to "ice" games or elite defensive impact? History says elite defensive impact, both in terms of the MVP winners and championship winners. This is just fact you'll have to deal with. And I have no problem pointing out the flaws in a player's game, as FT shooting is clearly one of Duncan's flaws. Difference is I'm not daft enough to claim Nash and Dirk's superior FT shooting ability (and Nash doesn't even take that many FTs anyway) is more important than Duncan's superior defensive impact.


I'm not dodging the issue. I just never answered your question because up until now I have only stated the reason why Duncan will not win the MVP. Do I think that Duncan's defense makes up for his small liability at the end of games? No, only because he doesn't have the best record. His liability is costing him games and his team doesn't have the best record so I don't think his defense is making up for those 2 holes. 

Don't forget that I said his record on top of his end game liability. His inability to elevate his team to win enough games to have the best record while being a liability at the end of games will degrade him in the voters' eyes and he will not win the MVP over Nash or Nowitzki. The voters seem to agree with me but I guess that is unimportant in your universe.



> You said the following: "If Duncan doesn't have the best record in the league I can GUARANTEE you that he wont win the MVP. That's 100% fact. There is no question that he will not win the MVP if he can't get the best record."
> 
> In reality: there have been _multiple_ MVP winners in NBA history, including Steve Nash last season, that won an MVP award on a team without the best record in the league. Your guarantee is utter nonsense like pretty much the rest of your posts. Yeah, woops.


This part of your post angers me. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me or is it an honest mistake? I said *Duncan* will not win the MVP if he does not have the best record in the league. I didn't say that any player has to have the best record to be named MVP. Do you just fail at reading comprehension?

The rules for Duncan might be unfair but they have been proven the last 2 seasons: if you don't have the best record you will not win MVP (Duncan only). A more interesting discussion would be why does Duncan have such higher standards than Nash and Nowitzki? Maybe it's because he has won those 3 championships. That would be my guess. Either way, I'll say it once more:

Tim Duncan will not win the MVP if his team does not have the best record and with him being a liability at the end of games.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> Jermaine O'Neal averages more RPG and .8 less PPG and leads the league in blocked shots and is right now a candidate for defensive player of the year. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. 0/3.


Duncan PER: 25.9
O'Neal PER: 21.7

Spurs; opp. FG% rank - 10th
Pacers: opp. FG% - 13th

^ And that's low for the Spurs, who have been in a slump lately and are normally top 5 defensively. Plus Duncan has been 1st Team All D far, far more often than Jermaine O'Neal could ever dream of being. As in 9 total All D Teams for Duncan to *bagel* for Jermaine. 

1, 2, 3 and you're out. Again.



> So record matters? Duncan gets credit over O'Neal because his team has and will have more wins. Thank you for proving my point.


Sorry, but there's a difference between early playoff exits and 3 NBA titles. Especially when O'Neal had his chance to win a title in a weak Eastern Conference with a great supporting cast, including DPOY Artest, and came up short. Duncan leading that team and there's no question they get past Detroit to the Finals because it's laughable to even compare the two players. 



> The MVP is an individual award, however nobody is head and shoulders above the competition. If a guy was averaging 45ppg and 30 rpg then he would win the MVP regardless of record. However, everybody's stats are very close so record has to be taken into account. Nash doesn't have to have the best record to win the award because he does other things (impact upon his teammates). Duncan has lost the MVP two years in a row because he did not have the best record. I expect this trend to continue. Of course you would call me a "dork" for going against Duncan because of record just because his supporting cast is not the greatest. It's unfair but I already explained why record has to be taken into account. I suggest you deal with it and move on.


I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that Nash has more impact on his teammates than Duncan, especially when Duncan's team was able to win 9 more games last season despite an off year for Duncan and despite the fact that the Suns were loaded with at least as much talent as the Spurs. Baffling to even make a comment like yours, really. 

Additionally, Duncan's overall stats have been better than Nash the last two seasons anyway, so your point is moot there as well. Btw, I don't think Duncan deserved the MVP award last season, I'm just stating facts for you. 



> He hasn't been winning too many MVP's since Nash moved back to Phoenix has he? Want to know why? Because his team hasn't had the best record. Nash won the MVP his first year back in Phoenix, his 2nd year back in Phoenix...


You're confused. The Spurs won 63 games to Phoenix's 54 last season. Check it out on NBA.com dude. 



> I'm not dodging the issue. I just never answered your question because up until now I have only stated the reason why Duncan will not win the MVP. Do I think that Duncan's defense makes up for his small liability at the end of games? No, only because he doesn't have the best record. His liability is costing him games and his team doesn't have the best record so I don't think his defense is making up for those 2 holes.


OK, so what you're saying is that Steve Nash (and Dirk) are so good at FT shooting that it makes up for the monsterous edge that Duncan holds over both players defensively. Which, btw, most everyone agrees that defense, and not FT shooting, is eventually what will win you a title more often than not. Honestly, I can't even begin to tell you how bad that makes you sound, especially when you ignore that the Mavs and Suns have deeper and more talented casts than the Spurs do. 



> Don't forget that I said his record on top of his end game liability. His inability to elevate his team to win enough games to have the best record while being a liability at the end of games will degrade him in the voters' eyes and he will not win the MVP over Nash or Nowitzki. The voters seem to agree with me but I guess that is unimportant in your universe.


For one, the voters only partially agree with you since Dirk AND Nash on the same team won 60 games in 2003 yet Duncan won the award that year. Secondly, the voters aren't very intelligent to begin with and the MVP award itself has been a joke for years. And finally, your argument is apparently that FT shooting at the end of games is Duncan's liability (sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't) yet no mention of the fact that Dirk and Nash's blatantly obvious liabilities as defenders hurt their teams' chances of getting stops at the end of games too. Unlike Tim Duncan, who has made a career of getting stops and winning titles and MVPs. As dumb as the MVP voters are, I can guarantee you their reasoning for giving Nash the MVP award last season and the season before had little to nothing to do with Nash's great FT shooting and/or Duncan's poor FT shooting. 



> This part of your post angers me. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me or is it an honest mistake? I said *Duncan* will not win the MVP if he does not have the best record in the league. I didn't say that any player has to have the best record to be named MVP. Do you just fail at reading comprehension?
> 
> The rules for Duncan might be unfair but they have been proven the last 2 seasons: if you don't have the best record you will not win MVP. A more interesting discussion would be why does Duncan have such higher standards than Nash and Nowitzki? Maybe it's because he has won those 3 championships. That would be my guess. Either way, I'll say it once more:
> 
> Tim Duncan will not win the MVP if his team does not have the best record and with him being a liability at the end of games.


Again, what you're essentially arguing is that Steve Nash last season, whose team won 54 games and was the 4th best team record-wise in the NBA, won it over Duncan last season because he was a better FT shooter than Duncan? Despite a 9 win differential? Your logic is baffling. And don't blame it on the standards other people set for Duncan, YOU claimed yourself in the very first post: "Laugh all you want but *I* have a hard time giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line." 

Essentially, you value FT shooting more than defense. A ridiculous notion, but it becomes clear why you think Nash or Dirk truly deserve it over Duncan.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

> You're confused. The Spurs won 63 games to Phoenix's 54 last season. Check it out on NBA.com dude.





> Again, what you're essentially arguing is that Steve Nash last season, whose team won 54 games and was the 4th best team record-wise in the NBA, won it over Duncan last season because he was a better FT shooter


Guy, are you so emotionally charged that you are turning this into a Duncan vs. Nash debate? I'm only stating the reasons why DUNCAN will not win the MVP. The reasons why he has not won the MVP the past 2 years. I DID NOT SAY THAT THE PLAYER WITH MORE WINS GETS THE MVP! For the love of god read what the person you are quoting is saying. You keep misattributing things to me. Are you really 30 because you have the reading comprehension of a 13 year old.

Did I say that Nash wins the MVP because of free throw shooting? Did I say that FT shooting is better than defense? No and no. I said that Duncan cannot win the MVP while not having the best record and being a horrible free throw shooter who loses games which the voters watch and take note of.

Edit:

Do you just ignore the parts of my post that you can't spin? Do you read the parts that you don't quote or do you just not post them because you can't spin them? Let me quote myself:



> I'm gonna go with Nash or Dirk. Only for this reason: if they have better records the voters will have to ask, "why did they win more games than Duncan?" "Why did San Antonio lose several more games than them?" If they have a worse record by maybe 2 games and Duncan gaffs a couple high profile games like he did the other day in Dallas...You think that wont play in the voters' minds? Then those liabilities that you see as a mole hills will turn into a mountain. Don't hate me for stating the truth. This is the way that it will be.





> The rules for Duncan might be unfair but they have been proven the last 2 seasons: if you don't have the best record you will not win MVP (Duncan only). A more interesting discussion would be why does Duncan have such higher standards than Nash and Nowitzki? Maybe it's because he has won those 3 championships. That would be my guess. Either way, I'll say it once more:
> 
> Tim Duncan will not win the MVP if his team does not have the best record and with him being a liability at the end of games.


Why do you seek to spin me as some Rick Barry free throw loving Nash tea-bagger? I'm stating the reasons why Duncan has lost the MVP the past two seasons and why he will lose it again this year. I'm addressing the glaring holes in his game and why they will cause him to lose the MVP AGAIN so you can continue your crusade because I'm done. I'll gladly bump this thread for you when Duncan does not win the MVP as long as he does not have the best record in the league. Because in that situation he will NOT be the MVP. Book it.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> Guy, are you so emotionally charged that you are turning this into a Duncan vs. Nash debate? I'm only stating the reasons why DUNCAN will not win the MVP. The reasons why he has not won the MVP the past 2 years. I DID NOT SAY THAT THE PLAYER WITH MORE WINS GETS THE MVP! For the love of god read what the person you are quoting is saying. You keep misattributing things to me. Are you really 30 because you have the reading comprehension of a 13 year old.
> 
> Did I say that Nash wins the MVP because of free throw shooting? Did I say that FT shooting is better than defense? No and no. I said that Duncan cannot win the MVP while not having the best record and being a horrible free throw shooter who loses games which the voters watch and take note of.


Here's what you said: 



adam said:


> Do I think that Duncan's defense makes up for his small liability at the end of games? No, only because he doesn't have the best record. His liability is costing him games and his team doesn't have the best record so I don't think his defense is making up for those 2 holes.


Am I not supposed to draw the conclusion that you believe that FT shooting is more important than defense? You obviously do not want to acknowledge the fact that Nash and Dirk are liabilities at the end of games too, except defensively and far more severely than Duncan. 

So if I cannot make that conclusion, please elaborate and tell us all whether you believe Nash/Dirk/whoever's FT shooting advantage over Duncan should be singled out, but not his superior defense?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

I said it here:



> I'm gonna go with Nash or Dirk. Only for this reason: if they have better records the voters will have to ask, "why did they win more games than Duncan?" "Why did San Antonio lose several more games than them?" If they have a worse record by maybe 2 games and Duncan gaffs a couple high profile games like he did the other day in Dallas...You think that wont play in the voters' minds? Then those liabilities that you see as a mole hills will turn into a mountain. Don't hate me for stating the truth. This is the way that it will be.


Now I know exactly where you will go, you will ask if the inverse is true, "if Nash doesn't have the best record then will the voters single out his liabilities like they single out Duncan?" No. They have proven that the past 2 years. Nash doesn't even have to win the most games to get the MVP. If Duncan doesn't have the best record then they will pick his game apart like vultures and point that he is not a clutch player. If Nash doesn't have the best record then they will point out that he makes his teammates better and how he's so clutch at the end of games. It's kind of unfair. Instead of arguing with me about it why don't we agree that it is unfair and ask why Nash has to achieve less than Duncan to win the MVP? As I said before:



> A more interesting discussion would be why does Duncan have such higher standards than Nash and Nowitzki? Maybe it's because he has won those 3 championships. That would be my guess.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> I said it here:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know exactly where you will go, you will ask if the inverse is true, "if Nash doesn't have the best record then will the voters single out his liabilities like they single out Duncan?" No. They have proven that the past 2 years. Nash doesn't even have to win the most games to get the MVP. If Duncan doesn't have the best record then they will pick his game apart like vultures and point that he is not a clutch player. If Nash doesn't have the best record then they will point out that he makes his teammates better and how he's so clutch at the end of games. It's kind of unfair. Instead of arguing with me about it why don't we agree that it is unfair and ask why Nash has to achieve less than Duncan to win the MVP? As I said before:


I'll bold this in plain English so you'll understand it a little better.

*In the context of a comparison between Dirk+Nash vs. Duncan, which do YOU value more, FT shooting or defense?*

And by the way, this is NOT about the voter's opinion, this is about your original post in this thread where you said the following: "Laugh all you want but _*I*_ have a hard time giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line". 

You said "I", yet your latest post that I have quoted here is suddenly talking about why MVP voters may be vultures in picking apart Duncan's game unfairly? When was this thread ever about that? 

So, as I said, is it not fair to say you value FT shooting over defense? Because FT shooting is Duncan's liability just as defense is Nash and Dirk's liability (especially Nash). Answer this without talking about wins, for once. That way maybe you don't deflect for like the 3rd time already.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> Why do you seek to spin me as some Rick Barry free throw loving Nash tea-bagger? I'm stating the reasons why Duncan has lost the MVP the past two seasons and why he will lose it again this year. I'm addressing the glaring holes in his game and why they will cause him to lose the MVP AGAIN so you can continue your crusade because I'm done. I'll gladly bump this thread for you when Duncan does not win the MVP as long as he does not have the best record in the league. Because in that situation he will NOT be the MVP. Book it.


You were done from the beginning when you insinuated that Duncan's liabilities as a player (FT shooting) were more important to note in _your_ flawed opinion than Nash and Dirk's liabilities as players (defense). You tried to save face by suddenly making this about the voters' opinions. Sorry, it was never about that and only now do I realize just how much you have dodged your original post. A truly impressive job.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

EHL said:


> You were done from the beginning when you insinuated that Duncan's liabilities as a player (FT shooting) were more important to note in _your_ flawed opinion than Nash and Dirk's liabilities as players (defense). You tried to save face by suddenly making this about the voters' opinions. Sorry, it was never about that and only now do I realize just how much you have dodged your original post. A truly impressive job.


No, you actually took my simple statement and turned it into a debate about defense versus ft shooting. I never said that I didn't value defense. I'll have to quote myself in every reply to you because you only select to acknowledge the parts of my posts that can support your arguments:



> Laugh all you want but I have a hard time giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line. And if his team doesn't have the best record on top of his free throw shooting...he definately is not the MVP in that case.


My original post. You deflect my claim that a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line is not the MVP by arguing that Steve Nash's defense is a worse problem so that excuses it? I have repeatedly stated that Duncan's defense does NOT make up for his free throw shooting. You bolded your question like I haven't answered it already! We've already established that your ability for reading comprehension is that of a small child so I guess you missed where I already answered your question: 



> Nash isn't such a bad defender that the other team will have as high a chance to score on him as Duncan has of missing BOTH his free throws. Duncan just lost that game against Dallas like 3 days ago with his poor shooting.


However, you only quote what you can spin. You claim that I am now calling this only the voter's opinion and not my own so as to dodge my statement. Once again you only believe what you want to believe.



> If Duncan does not have the best record in the league on top of his poor free throw shooting, he does not deserve the MVP. It will go to Nash or Nowitzki. Cry and complain all you guys want but that is the fair and just truth of the matter.


You can't be 30. If you are then I pity you because you have the mentality of a pre-teen. You're so immature to try and discredit me by not posting things that don't support your argument. I answered your question if you would actually read my posts you would have seen that. The fact that I tried to explain the mentality of the voters AND myself was for your own benefit. I was trying to explain why Duncan would not win the MVP. That was my aim from the start of this. You keep trying to pass me off as something that I'm not so let me give you the summation of every one of my posts starting from that first one that I already posted:

*Tim Duncan causes his team to lose at the end of games. He will not win the MVP when he does not have the best record and can't make free throws in crunch time. When comparing Steve Nash and Duncan, Nash is a clutch player and Duncan is not and that contributes to Nash's MVP case. Steve Nash is not so bad a defender that the player he is defending will have as great a chance to score on him as Duncan has to miss both free throws. Duncan's "superior defense" doesn't mean jack **** because he will lose games and that will cost him the MVP. Furthermore, I would take Nash over Duncan for the last 2:00 of the 4th quarter 11 times out of 10.* 

What you fail to realize is that I agree with the voters. As I already stated, the voters agree with me that Duncan is not the MVP. That was one thing that I stated if you were willing to acknowledge it. But of course _you_ wouldn't. I gave you a considerable explanation of why the voters will (AND HAVE 2 YEARS RUNNING) pick Nash over Duncan. Instead, you use it to accuse me of dodging the question.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Zero Hero said:


> You are talking about the end of the game. Where Wilt was MORE of a liability at the end of the game. You said and I quote "A borderline candidate that doesn't have the best team in the league *doesn't deserve the MVP when he is a liability at the end of games* END OF GAMES. And who was more of a liability on the floor at the end of a game than one of the worst free throw shooters in NBA history?



I think 40+PPG and 20+ RPG more than makes up for it. 

By the way I think people really underscore the value of having the 3rd greatest FT shooter of all time on your team. Put the ball in his hands at the end of the game and it's an automatic W. Pretty valuable if you ask me.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Bet me that I'm wrong. Bet me that Duncan will win the MVP over Nash or Nowitzki because his defense will make up for the fact that he doesn't have the best record and that he will not lose a couple high profile games because he is a late game liability. Do it. Say right now that Duncan will win the MVP because his defense cancels out the reason why Nash or Nowitzki will have a better record -- because they are more clutch than Mr. Robot. That's what you are arguing so say it.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> My original post. You deflect my claim that a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line by arguing that a Steve Nash's defense is worse so that excuses it? I have repeatedly stated that Duncan's defense does NOT make up for his free throw shooting. You bolded your question like I haven't answered it already! We've already established that your ability for reading comprehension is that of a small child so I guess you missed where I already answered your question:


"Nash isn't such a bad defender that the other team will have as high a chance to score on him as Duncan has of missing BOTH his free throws. Duncan just lost that game against Dallas like 3 days ago with his poor shooting."

For one, the only way my reading comprehension would be bad is if you ever said this to me at all, but you didn't. Going back through the thread you apparently said this in response to someone else. Not to me. Good for you. 

Except now that it's clear you really do believe that Nash's defense is less of a liability than Tim Duncan's FT shooting, your laughable opinion becomes all the more funny. Anyone who seriously compares FT shooting to defense, where the defensive player in question is Tim Duncan and the comparison is to Steve Nash, well it's pretty self-explanatory. As I said, it's already well known that defensive stops at the end of games are far more important than FT shooting, as has been proven throughout history. Yet, you want to use one regular season game a couple days ago to prove that Duncan is a liability at the end of games, while ignoring the fact that Duncan has 3 NBA championships as the leader of his team. I mean, can you get any more daft than that?



> You can't be 30. If you are then I pity you because you have the mentality of a pre-teen. You're so immature to try and discredit me by not posting things that don't support your argument. I answered your question if you would actually read my posts you would have seen that.


I didn't read your other discussions, sorry, I wasn't interested in them. 



> Tim Duncan causes his team to lose at the end of games. He will not win the MVP when he does not have the best record and can't make free throws in crunch time. *Steve Nash is not so bad a defender that the player he is defending will have as great a chance to score on him as Duncan has to miss both free throws. *


This bolded part is especially important to note, since in all my posts you never replied with this sentence. Perhaps you thought you had, but in reality you never did, it was someone else's post. Yeah, your bad. 



> Duncan's "superior defense" doesn't mean jack **** because he will lose games and that will cost him the MVP. Furthermore, I would take Nash over Duncan for the last 2:00 of the 4th quarter 11 times out of 10.


And many people will think this is pretty laughable though, of course, that's to say nothing of the fact that you're ignoring 46 minutes of a game by making this statement. Which do you think is more important, the first 46 or the final 2? Is Nash's "finishing ability" at the line in the last two minutes more important than Duncan's ability to play defense throughout a game? You believe so, and most would disagree based on history, where Tim Duncan has had plenty of success despite his bad FT shooting, in fact a TON more than Nash has had in Dallas or Phoenix.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

myst said:


> Nash is the best player on the planet....
> 
> when the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th best players on the planet are his teammates.
> 
> ...



Yeah and imagine if he didn't have any teamates at all! Dang man people be scoring on him at will... I mean 5 on 1... freaking A that dude would suck big. He'd be lucky to not be the worst PG in the league (he'd have 0 assists for the season).

Is it a crime the team actually puts players that compliment you on the same team? What you don't think the Spurs haven't done the same thing?


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> I think 40+PPG and 20+ RPG more than makes up for it.
> 
> By the way I think people really underscore the value of having the 3rd greatest FT shooter of all time on your team. Put the ball in his hands at the end of the game and it's an automatic W. Pretty valuable if you ask me.


People underscore it because they defend to the death players that by comparison look horrible. At the end of the season when Duncan loses some nationally televised games because of his free throw shooting and his team doesn't have the #1 seed by a couple games then it really shines.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

And even if you are of the opinion that Steve Nash's finishing ability as a FT shooter makes him more valuable than Tim Duncan, how do you explain the fact that Steve Nash-led teams, with supporting casts at least as good as Tim Duncan and often times quite a bit better, have absolutely zero championships to Duncan's three? How on earth does someone who is such a liability at the end of games continue to win championships? Perhaps his defensive presense throughout a game, beginning to end, in addition to the defensive attention he draws as a low post scorer, has something to do with him being more valuable than Nash's superior FT shooting? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that yes, Tim Duncan's one flaw, FT shooting, does not make him less of an MVP candidate compared to Nash (or Dirk) because unlike both players, Duncan impacts the game at a high level defensively and in the low post when he draws double and triple teams. 

Now, you can continue to make a joke of yourself by claiming that Nash isn't such a bad defender that the other team will have as high a chance to score on him as Duncan has of missing BOTH his free throws, but most here will continue to believe that Tim Duncan does those things (defend, low post scoring) so much better than Nash that it isn't even a debate as to who is the better player and MVP is.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

In all honesty, I hate the MVP award. I think that it's a joke. We all know that Kobe is the best player. It seems disingenuous to give the award to somebody else. Nash should be embarassed to have accepted it these past 2 years.:biggrin:

Edit: Honestly, I think that you can call it a crazy theory, but how many people only watch the 4th quarter of games anyway? Tim Duncan will lose a couple nationally televised games in the 4th quarter and that just fuels the campaign against him. Personally, I think that the league is shifting and becoming more guard-oriented and I would rather have Nash than Duncan for the whole 4th quarter.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ And it's not like Nash isn't in the discussion of MVP candidates, he most certainly is. But because of FT shooting? As if that is more important in determining the outcome of games than Tim Duncan's ability to anchor a defense, deny penetration thereby forcing low percentage outside shots, as well as drawing double teams to free up the shooters? Simply ridiculous. And FYI, the Spurs lead the league in 3-point % this season, in no small part due to one Tim Duncan.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> Bet me that I'm wrong. Bet me that Duncan will win the MVP over Nash or Nowitzki because his defense will make up for the fact that he doesn't have the best record and that he will not lose a couple high profile games because he is a late game liability. Do it. Say right now that Duncan will win the MVP because his defense cancels out the reason why Nash or Nowitzki will have a better record -- because they are more clutch than Mr. Robot. That's what you are arguing so say it.


Boy, you just get slower and slower on the uptake. I'm not talking about who will win the MVP award, this isn't about who the voters will vote for. YOU stated your opinion with your first post in this thread, which read "Laugh all you want but I have a hard time giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line". 

So this isn't about who will win this year, this is about why YOU believe he shouldn't win. And as is clear by now, after you mistakingly believed that I should have read your replies to other posters, you actually believe Nash isn't such a bad defender that the other team will have as high a chance to score on him as Duncan has of missing BOTH his free throws. An absolutely ridiculous notion, but to each his own. 

And by the way, as you failed to address in any meaningful detail, it's clear both Dirk and Nash have superior talent surrounding them.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

EHL said:


> Boy, you just get slower and slower on the uptake. I'm not talking about who will win the MVP award, this isn't about who the voters will vote for. YOU stated your opinion with your first post in this thread, which read "Laugh all you want but I have a hard time giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line".
> 
> So this isn't about who will win this year, this is about why YOU believe he shouldn't win. And as is clear by now, after you mistakingly believed that I should have read your replies to other posters, you actually believe Nash isn't such a bad defender that the other team will have as high a chance to score on him as Duncan has of missing BOTH his free throws. An absolutely ridiculous notion, but to each his own.
> 
> And by the way, as you failed to address in any meaningful detail, it's clear both Dirk and Nash have superior talent surrounding them.


Oh I get it, but as you said:



> Now, you can continue to make a joke of yourself by claiming that Nash isn't such a bad defender that the other team will have as high a chance to score on him as Duncan has of missing BOTH his free throws, but most here will continue to believe that Tim Duncan does those things (defend, low post scoring) so much better than Nash that it isn't even a debate as to who is the better player and MVP is.





> And even if you are of the opinion that Steve Nash's finishing ability as a FT shooter makes him more valuable than Tim Duncan, how do you explain the fact that Steve Nash-led teams, with supporting casts at least as good as Tim Duncan and often times quite a bit better, have absolutely zero championships to Duncan's three?


You're arguing that Duncan impacts the game with his defense so much that it cancels out any bad he might do and that he is more valuable than Nash because Nash is a horrible defender and the good Nash does will never cancel out his horrible defense. You said that most people here think that. Then why doesn't Duncan win the MVP? You should feel confident saying that Duncan will win the MVP if you believe what you wrote. At least I believe the inverse and am willing to bet that the guy on my side of the argument is going to win. You say that "most" people wouldn't agree with me but Nash must be doing something to win the MVP. You don't think his FT shooting being better than Duncan helps him in the game of basketball? Why do you undervalue FT shooting so much?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Game, set, and match.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> You're arguing that Duncan impacts the game with his defense so much that it cancels out any bad he might do and that he is more valuable than Nash because Nash is a horrible defender and the good Nash does will never cancel out his horrible defense. You said that most people here think that. Then why doesn't Duncan win the MVP?


It's funny that you claim my reading comprehension is poor yet you still can't seem to understand that this conversation has never revolved around that, and frankly I couldn't give a flying eff what MVP voters think. I'm asking, based on your criteria, why you, you as in you as in you the person Mr. Adam, "have a hard time giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw when the game is on the line" when in reality it simply is not as cut and dry as this. I have listed tons of data to back up my point and will do so again with one simple sentence; Tim Duncan has won 3 championships and 3 Finals MVPs, while Steve Nash has none of either, with equal to or better supporting casts to boot. Knowing this, it is intellectually dishonest in the extreme to isolate his FT shooting while ignoring the flaws in Nash's game in comparison (little to no defensive impact, non-existent post game, does not draw double and triple teams on the level of Duncan). 



> You should feel confident saying that Duncan will win the MVP if you believe what you wrote. At least I believe the inverse and am willing to bet that the guy on my side of the argument is going to win. You say that "most" people wouldn't agree with me but Nash must be doing something to win the MVP. You don't think his FT shooting being better than Duncan helps him in the game of basketball? Why do you undervalue FT shooting so much?


I can't believe I'm even having this argument. For one, do you even know if MVP voters are actually weighing FT shooting at the end of games into their decisions between Duncan and Nash? Duncan is a career 68% FT shooter, he's not Shaq for god sakes. 

And secondly, this has and never will be about who will win the MVP this year, this is about your opinion and why you believe in what you do. You severely underrate Nash's liabilities (defense) and ignore completely Duncan's superior low post scoring ability and defensive attention that he draws.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

EHL said:


> And even if you are of the opinion that Steve Nash's finishing ability as a FT shooter makes him more valuable than Tim Duncan, how do you explain the fact that Steve Nash-led teams, with supporting casts at least as good as Tim Duncan and often times quite a bit better, have absolutely zero championships to Duncan's three? How on earth does someone who is such a liability at the end of games continue to win championships?


Doesn't Scott Williams (played for the Bulls) have like 4 or 5 championships? Dan Marino... statistically probably the greatest QB of all time has less championships than Trent Dilfer. Championships are won and lost as a team... not by a single player... what's unfortunate is that the team Nash has won the MVP with the past 2 seasons weren't with him in the playoffs. The Suns went from #2 in DefEff to #16 in a matter of 20 games when Kurt Thomas got hurt... likewise the season before Joe Johnson broke his face and Shawn Marion hurt his arm badly that really screwed up his shot. If Duncan hadn't made the Championship if Parker and Ginobili got injured no one would be blaming him or take away from his regular season success. Likewise if Dirk had Howard injured from the start of the season... and then lost Damp and Diop and didn't win the championship people would not hold it against him.

For some reason Nash is an exception here. People do hold it against him... they underscore his tremendous regular season because he wasn't a God that could will a depleted team that was tired and demorlized past the WCF. I think if Duncan or Nowitzki had made it to the WCF in the previous two scenarios I had mentioned and then fallen short people would heap praise on them... not trash their name.. belittle their ability as a player and question the validity for an award they did not give themselves... rather EARNED through tireless effort and an unparaleled work ethic. 

When Tiki Barber retired the other day he mentioned how he once believed that by winning a championship he would validify his career. That without a championship there would be no success. But Tiki said he realized it's not about that at all... it's more about the constant effort and work that you bleed on the field in pursuit of the championship.. win or lose. This is who Steve Nash is... this is how he plays... he does everything he can to win... and through his effort the Suns have achieved more success than they have in almost their entire franchise history. Twice he has guided them to seasons that everyone doubted they could possibily imagine to achieve. He has reinvigorated a franchise in desperate need for a reason to believe. The sports writers.. those people you believe are fools for giving Nash the MVP... see this unique value in Nash. Hundreds of players have won a Championship.. few have played the game of basketball like Steve Nash.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Another thing people forget is that Steve Nash isn't just the MVP of his team on the court... he's also the MVP of his team off it by leading by example.. and furthermore the most valuable representation of what a basketball player should. People try to underscore the value of team play but how then can you explain a team of vastly less talented Greek players being able to defeat a powerful US team? It's because they play together... they unify despite insurmountable odds... much the Suns have done the past two years. Steve is the most valuable player to the NBA because he's what young future players should aspire to become... if people see someone who is a team player being able to achieve so much success and recognition then they too may be inspired to follow in suit. To often the NBA reaps rewards.. through All Star games.. all team NBA... ect. to players who represent the underlying reason the NBA is losing internationally.. and thus is downgrading the quality of the play itself. A good number of players in the NBA are out their for themselves.. they want to win THEIR championships.. their awards... ect. Finally the most qualifying aspect I find about having Steve Nash be the MVP is that he would give it back in a second if it meant making his team better... I'm telling you while many players might say that few actually believe it... Steve Nash is one of them.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

So now we're going to give Nash the MVP because he's an example to all mankind on how to perfectly play the game of basketball? 

*Yawn*


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Doesn't Scott Williams (played for the Bulls) have like 4 or 5 championships?


Does he have a career PER of 25.1 and was he the first option like Duncan on one of his 4 or 5 championship teams? 



> Dan Marino... statistically probably the greatest QB of all time has less championships than Trent Dilfer. Championships are won and lost as a team... not by a single player... what's unfortunate is that the team Nash has won the MVP with the past 2 seasons weren't with him in the playoffs.


Very true, titles are won as teams, but when you're comparing similar supporting casts, it's pretty easy to make the case that Duncan was the superior player to Nash. Look at 2005; even without JJ the Suns had at least as talented a cast as the Spurs; Marion, Amare (37ppg), Barbosa, QRich, Hunter, etc. Yet the Spurs won in 5 and went on to the title. 



> The Suns went from #2 in DefEff to #16 in a matter of 20 games when Kurt Thomas got hurt...


And what that shows you is that Nash simply cannot do what Duncan can. Duncan can anchor your defense AND be it's first option score AND first option initiator. He can do it all. Nash can't anchor a defense and it's what makes Duncan more valuable. Besides, Diaw, Marion, Barbosa, Jones, and Bell is hardly lacking in talent. Balance was off, sure, I agree there. 



> likewise the season before Joe Johnson broke his face and Shawn Marion hurt his arm badly that really screwed up his shot. If Duncan hadn't made the Championship if Parker and Ginobili got injured no one would be blaming him or take away from his regular season success. Likewise if Dirk had Howard injured from the start of the season... and then lost Damp and Diop and didn't win the championship people would not hold it against him.


Well that Marion excuse is a damn poor one since he still played and had no where near as much trouble as he did against the Spurs. Duncan played on two bad, tired ankles throughout 2005 anyway. But they were knick knack like Marion's. JJ's was legit, but the Suns weren't going to beat the Spurs anyway with or without JJ, and still had at least as talented a cast as the Spurs. 



> For some reason Nash is an exception here. People do hold it against him... they underscore his tremendous regular season because he wasn't a God that could will a depleted team that was tired and demorlized past the WCF. I think if Duncan or Nowitzki had made it to the WCF in the previous two scenarios I had mentioned and then fallen short people would heap praise on them... not trash their name.. belittle their ability as a player and question the validity for an award they did not give themselves... rather EARNED through tireless effort and an unparaleled work ethic.


Except JJ wasn't an integral part of Phoenix's success. Hell, the Suns won 54 games without Amare last season. They are a plenty talented squad with or without injuries. 



> When Tiki Barber retired the other day he mentioned how he once believed that by winning a championship he would validify his career. That without a championship there would be no success. But Tiki said he realized it's not about that at all... it's more about the constant effort and work that you bleed on the field in pursuit of the championship.. win or lose. This is who Steve Nash is... this is how he plays... he does everything he can to win... and through his effort the Suns have achieved more success than they have in almost their entire franchise history. Twice he has guided them to seasons that everyone doubted they could possibily imagine to achieve. He has reinvigorated a franchise in desperate need for a reason to believe. The sports writers.. those people you believe are fools for giving Nash the MVP... see this unique value in Nash. Hundreds of players have won a Championship.. few have played the game of basketball like Steve Nash.


Steve Nash is a wonderful player, one of my favorite in the NBA. He is not the best player in the NBA, and has come up short with loaded teams in the postseason for the better part of a decade now; 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. He played with some damn fine talent in Dirk and Amare, and just gobs and gobs of other talented players. For a 2-time MVP, to say he came up short most seasons would be an understandment. And remember, half the time it has been against a Duncan-led Spurs squad, in 2001, 2003, and 2005. Maybe he gets through the Spurs this year, but honestly, the Suns are ridiculously loaded this season if Amare is anywhere near healthy, and the Spurs' supporting cast is declining, so I'd honestly be surprised if they didn't at least push the Spurs to the brink like the Mavs did last season.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Haters will hate.... fans will praise...

at the end.... Nash has 2 MVPs and has a good chance for his 3rd, respected by coaches, much loved by his team mates, not a single player in the world would not want to play with him. Smart people, especially the ones who know what Nash brings in to any team.... which is cohesiveness, confidence etc... those are the intangibles.. a great play maker does to his team. He's not alone, but he is definitely one of them..

Its funny some are discreditting the MVP award, but if their fave player won it... everything is forgiven...


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

EHL said:


> Does he have a career PER of 25.1 and was he the first option like Duncan on one of his 4 or 5 championship teams?


Williams doesn't... but you could say Marino was the first option on his team... put up some of the greatest numbers a QB has ever seen...but you would discredit him because he didn't win a championship. You'd argue he didn't deserve to win the MVP... it's baloney.

Secondly... 4 or 5 championship teams? What Tim Duncan are you talking about? He's won 3 championships and was the second option on one of them... and had a shared role with Robinson in the second one. 


Very true, titles are won as teams, but when you're comparing similar supporting casts, it's pretty easy to make the case that Duncan was the superior player to Nash. Look at 2005; even without JJ the Suns had at least as talented a cast as the Spurs; Marion, Amare (37ppg), Barbosa, QRich, Hunter, etc. Yet the Spurs won in 5 and went on to the title. 


As I mentioned Marion was hurt... he could barely shoot the ball. Secondly JJ was an integral part of the Suns team... when a team loses a starter it's not that simple to replace him in a moments notice.. The Suns game plan depended on JJ being there and they had to regroup very quickly. Barbosa wasn't a big part of the team that season... he was still young and very inconsistent.. Why you discredit the talent the Spurs have beyond Duncan is laughable. They had a ton of depth.. the Suns were depleted and had almost no bench... JJ going out and Marion getting hurt gave the Spurs a huge huge advantage. Despite this the Suns were in every single game until the last moments.




> And what that shows you is that Nash simply cannot do what Duncan can. Duncan can anchor your defense AND be it's first option score AND first option initiator. He can do it all. Nash can't anchor a defense and it's what makes Duncan more valuable. Besides, Diaw, Marion, Barbosa, Jones, and Bell is hardly lacking in talent. Balance was off, sure, I agree there.


BULL what this shows is that Nash can't play post defense which he shouldn't be expected to do. The Suns had no post defenders.... Zero.. nada... nothing... when Kurt got injured. They had to replace him with Tim Thomas... Name a single team in NBA history that has made the conference finals with a PG (Diaw played PG with the Hawks the season before) and a SF playing in the post. Trust me you won't find one... the fact the Suns made it that far was amazing. Think about it this way... what if all of the Spurs play makers got injured? Could Duncan suddenly play PG? If you think so you're dillusional.



> Well that Marion excuse is a damn poor one since he still played and had no where near as much trouble as he did against the Spurs. Duncan played on two bad, tired ankles throughout 2005 anyway. But they were knick knack like Marion's. JJ's was legit, but the Suns weren't going to beat the Spurs anyway with or without JJ, and still had at least as talented a cast as the Spurs.


Marion hurt his freaking arm buddy in the series against the Mavs.. he couldn't shoot the ball.... that's a big deal when you have a weird shot like Marion. He scored 3 freaking points in game one against the Spurs, 11 in the second, 6 in the 3rd, 11 in the 4th, and 8 in the fifth. When freaking Steven Hunter is your most consistent bench player you're in big trouble... The fact they still almost beat the Spurs in almost every single game is a miracle and should be a testament to the quality of Nash and Amare.



> Except JJ wasn't an integral part of Phoenix's success. Hell, the Suns won 54 games without Amare last season. They are a plenty talented squad with or without injuries.


Dang straight JJ was an integral part of their success. Who the freak do you think played point with Steve out? Barbosa? That guy was way over his head two years ago... and wasn't nearly the quality of player he is today. JJ was huge for the Suns... he was their most consistent 3 point shooter... he played pretty good defense... he could score... 

The reason they can still play good with injuries is because of Nash.. thanks for helping extend my arguement. However playing well and winning championships is two different things... you can't simply expect Nash to do it himself... just like Duncan has had plenty of help... Duncan would have 0 championships without Ginobili, Parker, Robinson, and their coach Popovich I guarentee it. 



> Steve Nash is a wonderful player, one of my favorite in the NBA. He is not the best player in the NBA, and has come up short with loaded teams in the postseason for the better part of a decade now; 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. He played with some damn fine talent in Dirk and Amare, and just gobs and gobs of other talented players. For a 2-time MVP, to say he came up short most seasons would be an understandment. And remember, half the time it has been against a Duncan-led Spurs squad, in 2001, 2003, and 2005. Maybe he gets through the Spurs this year, but honestly, the Suns are ridiculously loaded this season if Amare is anywhere near healthy, and the Spurs' supporting cast is declining, so I'd honestly be surprised if they didn't at least push the Spurs to the brink like the Mavs did last season.


This is the first season the Suns might actually be healthy (knock on wood). I think the Suns winning the Championship this year is as good as it's been... and the reasons behind it starts with MVP Steve Nash.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

HKF said:


> So now we're going to give Nash the MVP because he's an example to all mankind on how to perfectly play the game of basketball?
> 
> *Yawn*


Don't put words on my mouth... I was making the point that I think it's becoming more and more obvious team play is much more valuable than shake and bake one on one crap guys like Iverson and Kobe are famous for... don't believe me?.. just ask the US Olympic team.. they'll agree.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Spurs will most likely beat the Suns again... I admit that... no ways about it... the team has a few players who enjoys the fast pace... Parker, Ginobili, Barry etc... then they have stoppers... done

But it would take the Sun's best effort and absolute best from Nash to bring that team down.. and thats what I want to see... even if its just a small chance...

But theres so many good teams... Lakers can actually beat the Mavs.. well atleast push them to 7... Mavs and Suns series would be classic too... I think thats a 7 game series there also...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Williams doesn't... but you could say Marino was the first option on his team... put up some of the greatest numbers a QB has ever seen...but you would discredit him because he didn't win a championship. You'd argue he didn't deserve to win the MVP... it's baloney.
> 
> Secondly... 4 or 5 championship teams? What Tim Duncan are you talking about? He's won 3 championships and was the second option on one of them... and had a shared role with Robinson in the second one.
> 
> ...


Look, this entire post is filled with opinion. Marion wasn't that hurt in 05, that's utter baloney. He folded when Bowen clamped down on him. And like I said, Duncan played on two bad ankles during the entire postseason, so your Marion excuse is at best equalized and in reality more like completely nullified. Besides, Marion is neither a dribbler nor is he a shooter as much as he is an off-the-ball scorer, back-door lob catching, fast breaking player. He does not get the majority of his shots off long jumpers. And no, JJ was not that integral, like I said even the 06 Suns won 54 without Amare freaking Stoudemire, probably just a _slightly_ more important player than JJ, no? 

Additionally, Duncan was the first option on every title team he played on and that's just fact you'll have to deal with. "Shared" role with Drob defensively maybe, but offensively there was no question. Besides, he won a title with a far thinner squad in 03 than Nash has EVER been on in his entire career. If Nash can do that once, maybe, just maybe he can be considered as good as Tim Duncan. As is, not as good plain and simple fact. 

Btw, you don't seem to understand the point of the Tim Thomas comparison; Duncan is so versatile that he can have a big man go down and it still not affect the defense the way it did with the Suns, because he can anchor a defense unlike Steve Nash. Duncan could have a perimeter defender like Bowen go down and he'd still be able to anchor the defense, unlike Steve Nash. The logic is perfeclty legit, and I can't help you if you don't understand that Duncan being able to anchor a defense despite injuries to his supporting cast makes him more _valuable_ than Steve Nash. It's one of the benefits of being a D-first big man.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

And btw, Duncan won when Parker and Ginobli were still marginal players in 03, so your contention that he couldn't win without them is again pretty much hogwash since they developed quite a bit since 03. 04-05 Amare was 2-3 times the player Parker was and maybe almost twice the player Ginobli was too. To even pretend to forget to mention Amare's impact is laughable, dude averaged 37 ppg against the Spurs that postseason. Have Ginobli or Parker ever touched that? Please!


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

nash? um no.

jordan.

or did you mean current players?

kobe
kidd (depends)
brandon roy (will be better in the future, debatable)
duncan (debatable)
Z-Bo (like duncan, its debatable)
james (mayb)
shaun livingston (mayb in the future)


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

duncan has shot 33 clutch time ft's this year, most of them while being fouled on a fga. his ft% is 60.6%, making it an efficient trip down the court. when they need to play keep away, they simply have the ball in someone elses hands. nash has taken 23 clutch time ft's all season, most of them not on fga's. THIS is what the mvp should be decided upon? lol. 

mvp voters will vote however they wish. they can pick whoever they want for whatever reason they want, and they need not answer or explain or debate. here, we do. simply saying the voters agree with me isn't enough. 

nash stands up against dirk in last years voting only in an emotional sense, an underdog sense. but whatever, he won. not because he fit any criteria better, or performed at a higher level. he was a better story, tugged at your emotions more, played a more attractive style.


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

kflo said:


> duncan has shot 33 clutch time ft's this year, most of them while being fouled on a fga. his ft% is 60.6%, making it an efficient trip down the court. when they need to play keep away, they simply have the ball in someone elses hands. nash has taken 23 clutch time ft's all season, most of them not on fga's. THIS is what the mvp should be decided upon? lol.
> 
> mvp voters will vote however they wish. they can pick whoever they want for whatever reason they want, and they need not answer or explain or debate. here, we do. simply saying the voters agree with me isn't enough.
> 
> nash stands up against dirk in last years voting only in an emotional sense, an underdog sense. but whatever, he won. not because he fit any criteria better, or performed at a higher level. he was a better story, tugged at your emotions more, played a more attractive style.



^^

I neved have seen anyone do a "hack-a-duncan", while we have seen plenty of times a hack-a-shaq, and the "hack-a-wilt" even created changes in the rules back on the 60's.

Duncan IS NOT a liability at the end of the games, otherwise, the spurs wouldn't be the best team in ALL major spors since he came to the league.


To argue otherwise, is laughable at best.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

The MVP is a "what have you done for me lately" REGULAR SEASON award. Past championships, past regular seasons, and postseason impact do not factor into the MVP decision.

Carlos, did I say that Duncan causes the SAS to lose lots of games with his free throw shooting and that they are a losing franchise? I didn't argue that at all. They will lose a few games because of Duncan and they will be in the top 3. If we are having an MVP conversation and we are comparing Nash to Duncan, Nowitzki to Nash, etc. then you compare what one can and can't do compared to each other. I said that I would take Nash over a guy who can't make free throws with the game on the line. EHL wants to argue that FT shooting is laughably important when compared to the other aspects of the game. Carlos you seem to think that I'm saying Duncan is a loser. I didn't say that. I said I'm not giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw with the game on the line. I think that he is in the top 3 for MVP candidates but he is not the MVP.

Duncan brings a lot to the game with lowpost defense and impact upon the game and those attributes are part of his debate for MVP. Nash has his attributes as well. If we compare these two I say that Nash is clutch and I'm not taking Duncan because he will lose games with his free throw shooting and that will make him lose the MVP. You can't drop regular season games by sucking at an aspect of basketball and expect to win the ultimate regular season award. He isn't clutch and his numbers have been declining compared to his early career on top of that. He will not win the MVP.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

saying he will lose games with his ft shooting is trivializing the argument. duncan will win many games with his defensive presence, his rebounding, his scoring, his passing - impacting the game in many ways. you're focusing on an area that nash has an obvious advantage and saying that THAT is the differentiating factor, when other factors in duncan's advantage can have an equal or greater impact on w/l. again, look at the numbers i gave you - are you really comfortable having that as the reason you say "you're not taking duncan"? duncan has very infrequently been fouled in a non-shooting situation, and nash almost never draws a foul to get to the line. nash is his teams key ft shooter to ice games, the spurs have someone other than duncan handle those responsibilities, and him being a frontcourt player means they simply keep the ball in the hands of their primary ballhandlers. 

and improving or decreasing numbers are irrelevant - you said yourself that the past isn't relevant. it's where they currently stand. duncan just 2 weeks ago led the league in per and had the best record in the league. what happens if he gets back to that spot? would his ft shooting still disqualify him?

yes, it's likely he will not win mvp, as the voters likely will put an emphasis on irrelevant things (duncan's numbers aren't as good overall as they were when he won his mvp's, and nash's are better than when he won his mvp's). that's not going to carry much sway in this debate though. 

the spurs win as many games as they do in large part because of duncan. he gets them many wins. to say the differentiator is the games he doesn't win is extremely incomplete analysis, imo. i'm not saying "clutch" isn't an advantage for nash or dirk or kobe - it is - but there's plenty more. it should only be the ultimate differentiator after considering all factors, not as a non-starter to begin with.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Duncan is not going to win the MVP because he is having "statistically" one of his worst seasons of his career. I don't care about Hollinger Stats because it's a total crock. It's some permutation that puts a theorhetical value on real numbers to make his own answer as to why he likes certain players. It is total BS. Anyone who watched the NBA Finals, the last one San Antonio won (I know, it was probably the most boring series in the history of basketball, how did it go to a game7 no one will know), you would know that Ginobili completely outplayed Duncan and should have won the Finals MVP over Duncan.

However, that is neither here nor now, but statistically, Duncan is averaging career lows in BPG, PPG, and RPG. I cannot fathom a player playing so far below his normal production rate that he would garner an MVP! Oh yes, I forgot, he is averaging only 34.1 MPG, well if you were to compare his blocks(1.9BPG) this season and rebounds(10.1) with his 2004-05 season in which he posted only 33.4mpg and posted 2.6BPG and 11.1RPG! So please explain to me how you can vote in good conscience for a player playing nowhere near the level he once was playing and receive the MVP?? I don't even think that he'll make ALL NBA 1st Defensive Squad this year. Let alone All NBA 1st Team!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

tempe85 said:


> I was making the point that I think it's becoming more and more obvious team play is much more valuable than shake and bake one on one crap guys like Iverson and Kobe are famous for...


Dwyane Wade is as shake and bake as Kobe is, and he dominated the finals with one on one moves. It's not about one style being the right or wrong way, it's about what works. It's about what wins. You can't knock what works just because you have a moral bias towards a style of play where everyone gets to the play and touch the ball. This is the NBA, results is what matters.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Dwyane Wade is as shake and bake as Kobe is, and he dominated the finals with one on one moves. It's not about one style being the right or wrong way, it's about what works. It's about what wins. You can't knock what works just because you have a moral bias towards a style of play where everyone gets to the play and touch the ball. This is the NBA, results is what matters.


Yup. Funny thing is, what tempe refers to as "shake and bake" is simply an excuse to prop Nash. tempe, you're a solid poster, but sometimes stuff like this just diminish your points. I mean, you talk about shake and bake versus one on one play, but that's a dubious distinction at best, as the results in that comparison prove otherwise; Iverson was able to take a team to the Finals 3 wins short of the ship, Kobe has 3 titles and 4 Finals appearances, with Nash on the other hand making 3 total Conference Finals in his career with far more talent than Iverson ever had and at least as much talent as Kobe ever had. For god sakes, Magic Johnson was about as flashy and shake and bake 1v1 as you could get, but because he passed instead of shot the ball suddenly it's OK? Pssst, the point of basketball is to maximize scoring opportunities, because outscoring your opponent is the object of the game. Whether it's passing or shooting it's irrelavant as long as the job gets done.

You play to your strengths and AI/Kobe's are scoring, Nash's is passing. Besides, elite scorers have proven throughout history to be more successful than elite passers anwyay. And defense is always the constant.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

adam said:


> The MVP is a "what have you done for me lately" REGULAR SEASON award. Past championships, past regular seasons, and postseason impact do not factor into the MVP decision.
> 
> Carlos, did I say that Duncan causes the SAS to lose lots of games with his free throw shooting and that they are a losing franchise? I didn't argue that at all. They will lose a few games because of Duncan and they will be in the top 3. If we are having an MVP conversation and we are comparing Nash to Duncan, Nowitzki to Nash, etc. then you compare what one can and can't do compared to each other. I said that I would take Nash over a guy who can't make free throws with the game on the line. EHL wants to argue that FT shooting is laughably important when compared to the other aspects of the game. Carlos you seem to think that I'm saying Duncan is a loser. I didn't say that. I said I'm not giving the MVP to a guy who can't make a free throw with the game on the line. I think that he is in the top 3 for MVP candidates but he is not the MVP.
> 
> Duncan brings a lot to the game with lowpost defense and impact upon the game and those attributes are part of his debate for MVP. Nash has his attributes as well. If we compare these two I say that Nash is clutch and I'm not taking Duncan because he will lose games with his free throw shooting and that will make him lose the MVP. You can't drop regular season games by sucking at an aspect of basketball and expect to win the ultimate regular season award. He isn't clutch and his numbers have been declining compared to his early career on top of that. He will not win the MVP.


FT shooting. Lord.  

Nash is an MVP candidate for many reasons, but FT shooting barely cracks the top 5.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I'm confused, how is Nash not a great shake and bake player? The dude's dribbling skills are about as mixtape as you can get in the NBA and still be successful. Nash might not be a leaper but he's got a lot of playground in him


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ Yeah but Nash doesn't do it as consistently. Great handles but rarely as flashly; i.e. few no-look passes, behind-the-back, cross-over dribble type basketball. And very few hard drives to the basket for the And1. Best one of his I can remember was his ridiculous circus shot against Dirk in the 05 WCFs, without the And1 part.


----------



## Skydivedan (Sep 5, 2006)

Did someone mention Shawn Livingston? 

Excuse me while I :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: my a** off!!!


----------



## KillWill (Jul 1, 2003)

this has to have already been mentioned, but if we swapped nash with say a cris paul,a jason kidd, a gilbert arenas, or hell, maybe even a deron williams, or a baron davis would phx fall of that much? That is a highly talented and deep squad with many contributers. 

please don't get me wrong, nash is an incredible talent, and one of the greats of this generation, but best player on the planet? 

i think even most suns fanatics will admit that nash has more talent surrounding him than most so-called "best on earth" type players.


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

nash has the best offense in the nba, but when it comes to defense hes horrible. defense is just as important as offense. Its just like if you get 50 points per game but then have 50 Turn overs, they just cancel each other out. Thats why you have a player like duncan, who is a great offensive player but at the same time even a better defensive player.IMO Duncan is still the best in the game.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

phx would have a decent dropoff with any other pg.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

KillWill said:


> this has to have already been mentioned, but if we swapped nash with say a cris paul,a jason kidd, a *gilbert arenas*, or hell, maybe even a *deron williams*, or a *baron davis* would phx fall of that much? That is a highly talented and deep squad with many contributers.
> 
> please don't get me wrong, nash is an incredible talent, and one of the greats of this generation, but best player on the planet?
> 
> i think even most suns fanatics will admit that nash has more talent surrounding him than most so-called "best on earth" type players.


They would jump off big time with those players.

If having a good supporting cast should make everything 
easier, why are the Warriors so bad? Dunleavy, Monta, Murphy
Pietrus, Diogu, Richardson.......They play a fast tempo game. Yet,
B-DIddy hasn't been able to lead this team.
But you're right. Magic was good, but simply replace him 
with Terry Porter or Mark Price and you should get about 
the same results. =)


----------



## KillWill (Jul 1, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> They would jump off big time with those players.
> 
> If having a good supporting cast should make everything
> easier, why are the Warriors so bad? Dunleavy, Monta, Murphy
> ...


i usually dig your posts man, so i'm sorry to disagree. as much of a nash fan as i am, he is not magic johnson. maj dominated the game. nash often, and this is no disrespect, is gutsy and unrelenting, but often seems out of control (though that's usually when he pulls a miracle out of his ***). i shouldn't have to elaborate much more than that on this point.

also, out of curiousity, do you really want to equate dunleavy, ellis, murphy, richardson and co. to amare, marion, barbosa, diaw, and kurt thomas?

that being said, nash wouldprobably do better with baron's supporting cast than mr. davis, but put one of the guards mentioned in my quote on the suns, they would continue to be a handful.

arenas, well, you may have something there as his supporting cast is quite capable, and quite a handful. 

again nash's imapact on his teamates is irrefutable. he is a great player, and arguably the best point over the past few seasons, but best overall player on earth? well, maybe for a 6' whiteboy from canada.

p.s. i do love the reference to porter and price, both underated distributers. it's a shame how easily solid players are forgotten about.


----------



## 604flat_line (May 26, 2006)

KillWill said:


> i usually dig your posts man, so i'm sorry to disagree. as much of a nash fan as i am, he is not magic johnson. maj dominated the game. nash often, and this is no disrespect, is gutsy and unrelenting, but often seems out of control (though that's usually when he pulls a miracle out of his ***). i shouldn't have to elaborate much more than that on this point.
> 
> also, out of curiousity, do you really want to equate dunleavy, ellis, murphy, richardson and co. to amare, marion, barbosa, diaw, and kurt thomas?
> 
> ...


Besides Amare and Marion no one knew any of the other Suns before Nash came along. Remember when they had Marbury and sucked super hard? No one ever heard of Mike D'antoni either and everyone was saying they cant win games with that style.


----------



## Helvius (Jul 4, 2006)

Just look at Tim Thomas. Winner with Nash, loser with not. 

Or the other "best supporting cast" members before they played at Phoenix. And none of this "style" bull**** - it takes five and a catalyst and the only catalyst that'll produce the same results is Steve Nash.

This is getting ridiculous since every post has someone saying, "No, Duncan is better"; "No Wade is better"; "No [insert great player here] is better."

Get a clue. You're a whatever-aged basketball fan who posts on a forum and supports your favorite team/player/owner/organization. It usually doesn't matter the topic whether it be most improved, best player, ugliest mug - the player's uniform matches your avatar/comes from your teams.

At the end of the day, your opinion isn't the reporters' one; it isn't even the mainstream one. People buy into Steve Nash being MVP, the Suns being legit contenders, Mike D'Antoni revolutionizing the game and so on and so forth. If you get paid x-many number of dollars, coach a team and have your own woes to worry about then why lie and say something very praising of Nash - why not say, "Ben Gordon is coming into his own each night" or other such bull****.

You have Kobe and Arenas sniping at each other, Phil Jackson and Mark Cuban bsing and then you have several coaches highlighting that Steve Nash is the best player in the league. If they wanted to stump for their players like Mark Cuban does Dirk Nowitzki, the time would be the press conferences.

So just give up on this conversation. Stats don't matter; your team doesn't qualify because you love them; who was great ten years ago doesn't qualify; who won 3 awards in a row doesn't qualify into the conversation; nothing except reporters who make the money for what they do matter when it comes to the MVP.

And at the end of the day, all the nay-sayers in reporting apparently voted enough for Nash; all the announcers still say "Nash as MVP"; all the analysts say "Nash for MVP." Don't like it? Become an NBA great/coach/assistant and become a reporter and then vote for Kobe Bryant/Dwayne Wade/Tim Duncan.

What's worst about having this discussion is it's a regular season award; I'd take two Finals MVPs and two Championships in Phoenix any day of the week but here we have people who're going to ca-ca-ca-cry about Steve Nash winning twice in a row - boo bloody hoo.

As for best on the planet? At the moment? Who knows? We wouldn't be importing talent for some other reason. And what does the best player do? Does he win games or dazzle on the floor? It's too vague with too many great ball players. The MVP doesn't have a set formula but it's pretty straightforward - Most Valuable Player. Value. It's all subjective but at the end of the year you can say - ah, they won 64 games and Steve Nash was the catalyst... valuable... or ah, almost everyone's gone and they're in the playoffs again... valuable.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

```
Year Ag Tm  Lg     G  FG%  3P%  FT% eFG%  TS%   AsR  ToR  Usg  RbR  PER ORtg DRtg lgRtg    PW    PL   PW%   WS 
+---------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+
 1998 20 PHI NBA   77 .447 .363 .740 .493 .538|  9.1 11.9 21.0  9.3 14.9| 105  107   105   3.2   4.2  .430|   8
 1999 21 PHI NBA   17 .403 .263 .792 .440 .503| 13.9 13.9 20.8 10.2 12.8|  99  100   102   0.3   0.4  .437|   1
         MIL NBA   33 .495 .327 .614 .533 .558|  9.9  9.9 19.1  9.0 16.9| 111  104   102   1.8   0.8  .691|   5
         TOT NBA   50 .473 .309 .652 .511 .545| 10.9 10.9 19.5  9.3 16.0| 108  104   102   2.1   1.2  .633|   6
 2000 22 MIL NBA   80 .461 .346 .774 .503 .549| 10.3 11.7 19.6  9.3 14.7| 107  109   104   3.7   4.8  .434|  11
 2001 23 MIL NBA   76 .430 .412 .771 .501 .549| 12.3 10.2 19.5  8.5 16.3| 109  105   104   5.3   3.4  .608|  16
 2002 24 MIL NBA   74 .420 .326 .793 .483 .522|  9.9 11.9 20.1  8.7 13.1|  99  107   105   2.1   6.3  .249|   7
 2003 25 MIL NBA   80 .443 .366 .780 .495 .527|  8.2 10.7 20.1  9.6 14.3| 101  108   104   2.9   7.2  .282|   9
 2004 26 MIL NBA   42 .443 .362 .762 .489 .525| 12.4 10.0 19.6  8.7 14.2| 102  106   103   2.2   3.4  .386|   6
         NYK NBA   24 .452 .406 .813 .495 .547|  8.1 10.2 21.6  8.9 16.7| 106  104   103   1.8   1.4  .556|   6
         TOT NBA   66 .446 .376 .784 .491 .534| 10.8 10.1 20.3  8.8 15.1| 104  105   103   3.9   4.9  .448|  12
 2005 27 NYK NBA   71 .439 .409 .786 .498 .536| 10.8 11.1 19.6  7.2 12.3| 103  111   106   2.1   5.7  .266|   6
 2006 28 CHI NBA    3 .375 .167      .406 .406| 10.5  5.3 22.2  7.4  8.8|  85  106   106   0.0   0.1  .042|   0
         PHO NBA   26 .435 .429 .667 .526 .543|  5.7 10.2 18.0 11.1 12.4| 100  106   106   0.9   1.7  .334|   3
         TOT NBA   29 .431 .414 .667 .519 .535|  6.0  9.9 18.2 10.9 12.2| 100  106   106   0.9   1.9  .320|   3
+---------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+
  9 Seasons       603 .442 .371 .763 .497 .537| 10.0 11.0 19.9  8.9 14.4| 104  107   104  26.1  39.7  .397|  78
```
i'm looking at tim thomas - not seeing the dramatic "nash" affect.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Helvius said:


> Just look at Tim Thomas. Winner with Nash, loser with not.
> 
> Or the other "best supporting cast" members before they played at Phoenix. And none of this "style" bull**** - it takes five and a catalyst and the only catalyst that'll produce the same results is Steve Nash.
> 
> ...


The point of this thread flew over your head by, like, a lot. And your comments about posters arguing for their "favorite" players/teams based on avatars is not only untrue, but irrelavant as you make no attempt to contend the actual arguments set forth.

And yeah, see kflo's post regarding your baseless claim about Thomas.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

kflo said:


> i'm looking at tim thomas - not seeing the dramatic "nash" affect.


Look at the records of those teams that he put up those numbers on. Other than when he was on Milwalke with Ray Allen, Cassell, and The Big Dog Glenn Robinson, he never had a winning team. Nor was he regarded as a trustworthy perimeter player. He got a max deal because they thought that he would become great, but he has always been a bust. 

However, in the Playoffs, he averaged nearly 50% FG as well as a career high in 3pt FG% in the regular season. That's the part that was the most affected by Nash. Of course Nash doesn't all of a sudden make a player into Nowitzki or take a Fortson and make him into a Stoudemire, but he will optimize the player's efficiency as much as possible by giving him the ball in a situation where he can do the most for the team. Defense is an individual thing. Everyone in the NBA plays defense, some just play incredible defense(like Harpring, Ben Wallace, Marion, and Camby). Nash isn't the worst in the league, but he isn't the best either. He is average or slightly above just because he knows how to funnel his defensive assignments to his teammates for help consistently. However, on the offensive end, he makes the team as potent as possible. There isn't a point guard in the league, nor a player in the league that can do what he does on the offensive end. Period. His assists are down a bit because he is now using Diaw as a pivot pass, which takes away a Nash assist, but gets the points on the board. If you were to watch a Suns game, 85% of all of the points scored were setup by Nash.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

KillWill said:


> also, out of curiousity, do you really want to equate dunleavy, ellis, murphy, richardson and co. to amare, marion, barbosa, diaw, and kurt thomas?


Diaw? LB? Are you talking about Boris Diaw, the ****ty 
frenchmen from Atlanta? That was thrown in the trade just
for the hell of it. Or Leandro Barbosa who struggled trying
to play point guard, so they put him alongside Nash? You mean
those two? Ellis, Murphy, Richardson, Dunleavy and Diogu
are very capable of puting up big numbers. But maybe they
don't have the right teamate for the job.


My point was, hypothetical thinking doesn't cut it. 
You cannot base an arguement on hypothetical ideas. We would
be here forver if I was allowed to say Kobe isn't that important,
because you could simply replace him with Dwayne Wade and
you would get the same results. Which is totally hypothetical.

Steve Nash is important to the Suns because of what he does
for the team. Whether or not Kidd or Chris Paul could do
the same or better of a job is irrelevant.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Steve Nash is the best OFFENSIVE player in the NBA.

Bar none.


----------



## KillWill (Jul 1, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Diaw? LB? Are you talking about Boris Diaw, the ****ty
> frenchmen from Atlanta? That was thrown in the trade just
> for the hell of it. Or Leandro Barbosa who struggled trying
> to play point guard, so they put him alongside Nash? You mean
> ...



you know, i actually tend to agree with you in terms of hypotheticals. however, how often does the mvp debate not include the "subtract [insert player] from [insert team]; and let's just see how successful said team would be" argument? it's a hypothetical that is constantly used. in fact, these boards are almost entirely based on speculation, heresay, uninformed opinions, and statistics used without context. it is human nature to contemplate the "what ifs." i never stated that nash is not important to his team, infact i stated quite the contrary. he is still a two time (and counting) league mvp. my humble point was not to show that he is overrated by anymeans, but to emphasize the value of his teamates which you seem to underate, apperantly to slightly exagerate nash's greatness.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

KillWill said:


> you know, i actually tend to agree with you in terms of hypotheticals. however, how often does the mvp debate not include the "subtract [insert player] from [insert team]; and let's just see how successful said team would be" argument? it's a hypothetical that is constantly used. in fact, these boards are almost entirely based on speculation, heresay, uninformed opinions, and statistics used without context. it is human nature to contemplate the "what ifs." i never stated that nash is not important to his team, infact i stated quite the contrary. he is still a two time (and counting) league mvp. my humble point was not to show that he is overrated by anymeans, but to emphasize the value of his teamates which you seem to underate, apperantly to slightly exagerate nash's greatness.


What people underrated is what Nash has to do for the Suns.
Believe me, it isn't *hand to Amare* *Dunk* That's not how
it goes. Steve Nash has to make up a lot of plays just 
because of the system. Not every player can do that.

I don't mind hypothetical thinking, but in the end it doesn't
mean ****.......


----------



## TheTruth34 (Jul 22, 2006)

steve nash is amazing....
hes a great player but for some reason...
Lebron and Kobe are the 1 & 2 best players in the league 3 is nash...4 Tim dUNCAn followed by melo dirk and kg


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Steve Nash is the best player in the Galaxy.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

People run themselves in a circle when they say that the supporting cast for Nash is better than the supporting cast for people like Kobe and LeBron. The fact is that, Nash DOES make his teammates better. He does it in a more prolific way than Kobe or Lebron do (hes a point guard, after all). So you have to factor in that part of the reason these players on the suns are so good, is because of what Steve Nash does for them on the court.

People talk about how Nash has Amare and Marion.

However, before Nash, both those players were good but nowhere near where they are now. THe big difference is that both of them were not efficient scorers before Nash. Now they are. It makes a gigantic difference in how they are percieved as players. They both used to be about as good as like Antawn Jamison. Now they are a good deal better than that. Was that cause of Nash? Possibly. And if so you cant use the argument that his supporting cast is so good to diminish how good he is, because he is a factor in why his cast is so good.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

nash improved with marion and amare as much as they improved with him. they all find themselves playing a style that compliments their games. and amare was just getting started when nash came on board. he was going to be great with or without nash. the uptempo game allows all of them to highlight their strengths.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I haven't seen people mention D'Antoni's impact on Nash. This is about as perfect a marriage as maybe we've ever seen with player and coach. That system is doing a good job of inflating Nash's true skill and value. And it's not even hate, because not everybody can improve how Nash has...but it's true.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Unreal. Why do people try to undersell what Amare and Marion have accomplished? Marion has been a multiple time all-star before Nash and Amare is one of the best big men in the entire league. These guys are not stiffs.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

you people drive me crazy. The real reason why Steve Nash is so successful is because of the system and the type of players that the Suns organization has surrounded him with- not to mention their coach. The shooters, the finishers, the guys who get out and run the break all make this team successful - just as much as Nash makes the people around him better, the people around Nash make him better. The preconcieved notion that "Steve Nash makes everyone around him better" isn't an absolute truth. Not to sound negative, but he makes the Suns so good because it is convienant for him to do so. If you placed Steve Nash in a traditional half-court offense, he'd be no more than an above-average borderline All-Star.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Duck34234 said:


> you people drive me crazy. The real reason why Steve Nash is so successful is because of the system and the type of players that the Suns organization has surrounded him with- not to mention their coach. The shooters, the finishers, the guys who get out and run the break all make this team successful - just as much as Nash makes the people around him better, the people around Nash make him better. The preconcieved notion that "Steve Nash makes everyone around him better" isn't an absolute truth. Not to sound negative, but he makes the Suns so good because it is convienant for him to do so. If you placed Steve Nash in a traditional half-court offense, he'd be no more than an above-average borderline All-Star.


true dat.

nash is nowhere near the BEST player in the league. this thread deserves to be locked.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> Well, I believe that the voters took into account that the Suns went 13-11 in their final 24 games without Kurt Thomas and also awknowledged that Tim Thomas who was viewed as done with his career had a rebirth with Nash at the helm of the Suns offense. Before Kurt Thomas went down, the Suns were on pace to win 58 games and had one of the best defenses in the league. I know Tim Thomas is 6-11, but he plays defense like a T-Rex(his arms don't go above his head EVER)! Also, I want to take a time out here to knock the Clippers here for being stupid and signing him to such a huge contract, D'Antoni actually mentions wanting him to play hard and then fleece another team into a huge contract in the book *07 Seconds Or Less (it's really good, just to see a team dynamic at such a close standpoint is really interesting!)*. Also, if Dirk went down for the whole season and Howard led the Mavs to a 50+ win season, do you think that the voters wouldn't be swayed by that?


I think the fact that Tim Thomas was in a contract-season type situation with the Suns was more of a reason for his better play then Nash. Also, how does Kurt Thomas going down and their record dropping to 13-11 help Nash's case at MVP? You don't necessarily know the would've won 58 games, and either way, it's not like they finished far off with 54. Also, if Howard led the Mavs to 50+ wins without Dirk, it would be much different than Nash leading his team to 54 wins. First reason being, Nash still had Marion, who would be better than anyone on the Mavs really. Not to mention Diaw had a hell of a year. Just because their roster had a big shake up and they lost Amare doesn't mean Nash should be propped up. He had a great team around him even with the changes, and that should matter more than he led a different team to still a good record.



> I'd like to think that the voters are human and are influenced by circumstance as well as reputation. Kobe was fresh off the chased-Shaq-out-of-LA-raped-a-chick train and definately was on a lot of sportswriter's ****-list. Also, Nowitzki does not average huge big man numbers like I listed before, nor does he even dish out a lot of assists for a big man(less than 3 per game). His numbers are completely average for a star player. Very few players put up 20ppg and 10apg while shooting better than 50% from the field, better than 90% FT, and better than 40%3pt. The fact is that Nash led the league in two categories(Assists and FT%) as well as being in the top 20 in scoring, FG%, and 3pt%. Kobe led the league in 1 category, his numbers weren't as good as LBJ's in assists(4.5vs6.6) and rebounds(5.3vs 5.7) and LBJ averaged 31.4 to Kobe's 35.4 but had more wins than Kobe. Like I said, it is an unspoken rule in the NBA that you need at least 50 wins to be considered MVP.


That's rather unfair. I think it's bull**** that writers are influenced by reputation and circumstance like that. If Kobe had all the drama around him, if he deserves MVP (not saying he did), he should get it regardless. I don't care that that's not how it is, that's how it should be because otherwise it's not actually a fair take of the situation. Also, how can you bring up Nowitzki's stats and say he's 'average' for a star player, and then explain why Nash isn't? You do know very few players average 26 ppg and 9 rpg while shooting 48% from the field, better than 90% FT, and better than 40% 3PT? The fact is that Dirk was top-10 in scoring, efficiency and double-doubles, while being in the top 20 in FT%, 3P%, and rebounds? Also, did you forget that I said LeBron should maybe have been MVP? He had 50 wins, and apparently that's the standard. He had the best statistical season in the league. He had a much worse supporting cast than Nash as well, and he only won 4 fewer games. What about LeBron?

*EDIT -* Also, Dirk won more games. His and Nash's stats were both good, arguing one was better over the other is a little pointless becasue they were both pretty damn good; neither was too far ahead of the other. Dirk did have wins though. If they are similar enough statistically, and Dirk had a better winning record, why shouldn't Dirk win? Nash won the year before because of team success, why shouldn't Dirk? Especially when he was the similar to Nash statistically.



> The arguments for Nash are valid, they may not be your choice, in fact a lot of writers didn't vote for him first, in fact, less than half voted for him as No.1 choice! He did win enough 1st 2nd and 3rd votes to win though!
> http://www.nba.com/news/nash_mvp_05-06.html


Doesn't mean he deserved it.



> Yes, yes I can...TWO MVP'S!
> 
> HAHAHAHA!!!!!! WINNER! ME! DRUNKEN! ME!


That's circular reasoning. I don't care that he has the awards, that still doesn't mean he belongs up there with the legends. It's play on the court that really matters, and his play isn't on the level of the legends.



> If you haven't seen him, you need to, he is AMAZING!!! Just watch their game against Washington if you have Hi-Def on the 23rd, if you don't have that channel, then watch their game against Cleveland on the 28th on ABC(I know all of you get that channel!). It is really amazing to see him play. You can tell who is in control of the game when he plays. He owns the game or the Suns lose. It's as simple as that! The Suns don't want him to be their primary shooter. In fact, the Suns have the most balanced team(5 guys averaging 15ppg) since the 1983 Lakers! Nash is the reason why these players are getting their shots. It's as simple as that! You look at the amount of time he has the ball, the scoring is predicated on Nash having the ball and creating for his teammates.


Nash isn't the only reason. It's not like it begins and stops with Nash. The system is great, and any passing point guard would thrive in it. Nash is best suited to it yes, but it's not all because of him, and any other player they had at point guard would be the reason the players are getting shots as well. Also, the Suns winning isn't reliant on Nash 'owning' as you put it. They have an awesome team really, the most talented in the league. They can win if Nash has an off game because there's lots of other players to pick up the slack. If you really feel that 'He owns the game or the Suns lose,' you must not really feel highly of the other players on the team.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

lessthanjake said:


> People run themselves in a circle when they say that the supporting cast for Nash is better than the supporting cast for people like Kobe and LeBron. The fact is that, Nash DOES make his teammates better. He does it in a more prolific way than Kobe or Lebron do (hes a point guard, after all). So you have to factor in that part of the reason these players on the suns are so good, is because of what Steve Nash does for them on the court.
> 
> People talk about how Nash has Amare and Marion.
> 
> However, before Nash, both those players were good but nowhere near where they are now. THe big difference is that both of them were not efficient scorers before Nash. Now they are. It makes a gigantic difference in how they are percieved as players. They both used to be about as good as like Antawn Jamison. Now they are a good deal better than that. Was that cause of Nash? Possibly. And if so you cant use the argument that his supporting cast is so good to diminish how good he is, because he is a factor in why his cast is so good.


I don't know where you get your info from. Marion was scoring on 47.1 %, 48.0% and 46.9 % his first three years in the league. Amare averaged 47% his first two years. Amare also averaged 20/9 before Nash, and Marion averaged 21/9.5 before Nash. You're are seriously downgrading their value to prop up Nash.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Diaw? LB? Are you talking about Boris Diaw, the ****ty
> frenchmen from Atlanta? That was thrown in the trade just
> for the hell of it. Or Leandro Barbosa who struggled trying
> to play point guard, so they put him alongside Nash? You mean
> ...


Why do people consistently downgrade Nash's teammates? It wasn't Nash who made Diaw. Diaw is a great player in his own right, regardless of what he did in Atlanta. Is it Nash's fault that Diaw is a great passer? Leandro Barbosa is a great scorer and shooter, regardless of Nash. He isn't a point guard, he's a scorer. Also, Golden State's supporting cast is not as good as Phoenix's and it really isn't up for debate; they're just not as talented.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Duck34234 said:


> you people drive me crazy. The real reason why Steve Nash is so successful is because of the system and the type of players that the Suns organization has surrounded him with- not to mention their coach. The shooters, the finishers, the guys who get out and run the break all make this team successful - just as much as Nash makes the people around him better, the people around Nash make him better. The preconcieved notion that "Steve Nash makes everyone around him better" isn't an absolute truth. Not to sound negative, but he makes the Suns so good because it is convienant for him to do so. If you placed Steve Nash in a traditional half-court offense, he'd be no more than an above-average borderline All-Star.



You're right. That's why I don't put Magic in the top 50 of greatest players.
I mean, the offense was suited just for him. He also had all those running players
at his disposal. He really wasn't a great player, it was just he had great teamates.

Did you see how he passed? Sometimes he wouldn't look, how careless is that!?


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> You're right. That's why I don't put Magic in the top 50 of greatest players.
> I mean, the offense was suited just for him. He also had all those running players
> at his disposal. He really wasn't a great player, it was just he had great teamates.
> 
> Did you see how he passed? Sometimes he wouldn't look, how careless is that!?


There's a very, very, very big difference between Nash and Magic.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Ras said:


> There's a very, very, very big difference between Nash and Magic.


LOL


So many naive people. 

You clearly don't see me point. The double standard for Nash has become absolutely 
rediculous. Bird, Magic and everyone else whoever won anything had great teamates.
Why did Magic win 3 MVPs? Because he did the exact same thing that Nash has been doing
for the Suns. Whether or not his team is 'suited' for him is another matter. It
shouldn't effect someone's judgement of how good a player is. Otherwise, I could claim
half of all legends had teams 'suited' for them.


----------



## PFortyy (May 31, 2006)

lol nash isnt the best player on the planet...those space jam monsters are...


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> So many naive people.
> ...


Well of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't win. No one can win alone. My point was there is a big talent and impact discrepency between Nash and Magic. While they may have been basically doing the same things, Magic affected the game more than Nash, and there is probably reason why people don't dispute his MVPs like they do Nash. I also don't see how I'm naive because I feel Magic was a much better player than Nash.


----------



## PFortyy (May 31, 2006)

instead of michael jordan put steve nash in the middle


----------



## PFortyy (May 31, 2006)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6hVURE9O6dU


----------



## Helvius (Jul 4, 2006)

Bugs Bunny and company would play better even w/o Gatorade/water; look for Nash to have 30+ assists and 20 points against that big a team.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Ras said:


> *Magic affected the game more than Nash*


Oh really? Please explain. I can see mismatches.....now you can name some
other ones.



Ras said:


> I also don't see how I'm naive because I feel Magic was a much better player than Nash.


I'm not talking about Nash vs Magic. I'm talking about how they contribute to their
teams succes. Which, in my opinion, is the same way. It's leadership, court-vision and
desire to win. Yet, everyone uses that against Nash for why he shouldn't win.

It doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Oh really? Please explain. I can see mismatches.....now you can name some
> other ones.


Rebounding


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Oh really? Please explain. I can see mismatches.....now you can name some
> other ones.


I really don't even see a need to get into this. Magic is a top 5 player of all time, the fact that he affects the game more than Steve Nash shouldn't really be called into question in my opinion. If you feel they effect the game the same way, is that not basically saying they contribue just as much to success, which would mean that Nash is as good as Magic? 



> I'm not talking about Nash vs Magic. I'm talking about how they contribute to their
> teams succes. Which, in my opinion, is the same way. It's leadership, court-vision and
> desire to win. Yet, everyone uses that against Nash for why he shouldn't win.
> 
> It doesn't make any sense.


Sure they contribue the same way, but that certainly doesn't mean Magic didn't contribute more. Also, I don't see everyone saying it's Nash's leadership, court-vision and desire to win that makes him not worthy of an MVP, and I know I personally have never said such a thing.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Yes, Nash does have all the same strengths as Magic (except a better shooter, but much poorer rebounder). Magic just did every one of those things, uh, better than Nash. By, like a lot.

Please don't ever compare Nash to Magic.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Ras said:


> I really don't even see a need to get into this. Magic is a top 5 player of all time, the fact that he affects the game more than Steve Nash shouldn't really be called into question in my opinion. If you feel they effect the game the same way, is that not basically saying they contribue just as much to success, which would mean that Nash is as good as Magic?


Career-wise, no. But prime-wise, it isn't that bad of a comparison.
In terms of leading their team, especially with their style of play, Nash and
Magic have done some comparible things. (More greater things from Magic)




> Sure they contribue the same way, but that certainly doesn't mean Magic didn't contribute more. Also, I don't see everyone saying it's Nash's leadership, court-vision and desire to win that makes him not worthy of an MVP, and I know I personally have never said such a thing.


People are trying to use his teamates and style of play against him. But that's exactly
why Magic and Nash are so good. It's because they were given more respondsibility.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Career-wise, no. But prime-wise, it isn't that bad of a comparison.
> In terms of leading their team, especially with their style of play, Nash and
> Magic have done some comparible things. (More greater things from Magic)
> 
> ...


No...all great players are given responsibility. There's a minority who are in situations that fit them. I don't think there's a line of reasoning that says Nash deserves more credit because of the way he's fitting into a system _tailored_ for him.

When I compare Nash to other players, I automatically hold his system against him. Not heavily, but even you can't ignore how perfect D'Antoni is for him.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> No...all great players are given responsibility. There's a minority who are in situations that fit them. I don't think there's a line of reasoning that says Nash deserves more credit because of the way he's fitting into a system _tailored_ for him.
> 
> When I compare Nash to other players, I automatically hold his system against him. Not heavily, but even you can't ignore how perfect D'Antoni is for him.



So, would it be fair if I held that against Dirk? 

He gets isolated at the top of the key for a reason, it's because he is
most effective there.

EVERY star player gets an offense created for him. Some later then others.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Career-wise, no. But prime-wise, it isn't that bad of a comparison.
> In terms of leading their team, especially with their style of play, Nash and
> Magic have done some comparible things. (More greater things from Magic)


Prime wise or not, Magic is much better player. They may do similar things, but Magic was just better.



> People are trying to use his teamates and style of play against him. But that's exactly
> why Magic and Nash are so good. It's because they were given more respondsibility.


Magic wasn't just good because he had a good team, Magic was just good. He put up a triple double to win game 6 of the Finals, without Kareem, playing all 5 positions, scoring over 40 points, and was a rookie. 

How I feel about Nash and his teammates; no one else in the league has teammates as good as Nash. If Nash were an MVP type player and best player in the world, having the best supporting cast in the league should mean they are far and away the best team. They're not though.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Ras said:


> Prime wise or not, Magic is much better player. They may do similar things, but Magic was just better.


Did I ever say he wasn't? I was comparing their teams and style.





> Magic wasn't just good because he had a good team, Magic was just good. He put up a triple double to win game 6 of the Finals, without Kareem, playing all 5 positions, scoring over 40 points, and was a rookie.


Didn't Sharman(sp) allow Magic to play center and an uptempo game?

Seems taylored to me.....



> How I feel about Nash and his teammates; no one else in the league has teammates as good as Nash. If Nash were an MVP type player and best player in the world, having the best supporting cast in the league should mean they are far and away the best team. They're not though.


Funny, two years ago no one would have taken James Jones, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell.
On top of that, Leandro Barbosa wasn't thought of too highly. Yet, here we are saying
he has amazing teamates. It never seems to amuse me that they now are considered great
teamates. (which they are)

On top of that, many think Dirk and the Mavericks are the most talented team.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> So, would it be fair if I held that against Dirk?
> 
> He gets isolated at the top of the key for a reason, it's because he is
> most effective there.
> ...


There's a difference between an offense tailored for you, and what the Suns have. Their and his teammates are inflating his value. I'm not going to get into a mudslinging fest, cause I love watching Nash. But he's just overrated because of his system. 

Dirk might get to the top of the key to his sweet spot, but Nash gets Amare, Marion, Diaw, and Barbosa, and a coach who wanted to run regardless of Nash.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> There's a difference between an offense tailored for you, and what the Suns have. Their and his teammates are inflating his value. I'm not going to get into a mudslinging fest, cause I love watching Nash. But he's just overrated because of his system.


Oh, I didn't know Dirk didn't have any good teamates. Someone should really
help him out over there. It's probably tough playing with Jason Terry, Josh Howard,
Devean George, Harris, Croshere, and a coach who allows you to play to your strengths. 



> Dirk might get to the top of the key to his sweet spot, but Nash gets Amare, Marion, Diaw, and Barbosa, *and a coach who wanted to run regardless of Nash.*


So, the offense wasn't taylored for him? Stay on the same path Dre.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Oh, I didn't know Dirk didn't have any good teamates. Someone should really
> help him out over there. It's probably tough playing with Jason Terry, Josh Howard,
> Devean George, Harris, Croshere, and a coach who allows you to play to your strengths.


Yeah. I heard Nash couldn't take it so he left with for Amare, Joe Johnson, Marion, and a coach who likes to run. 



> So, the offense wasn't taylored for him? Stay on the same path Dre.


D'Antoni already liked to run. But Nash's arrival allowed him to tailor the offense further for Nash. Is that too hard to understand?

Either way I'm done with it. I've given my opinion on what I think about Nash..he's oversaturating the board as it is.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

As great as Steve Nash is, he still has the best finishers in the league with Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion; they put up sick highlights for sportcenter.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

f22egl said:


> As great as Steve Nash is, he still has the best finishers in the league with Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion; they put up sick highlights for sportcenter.


They are some of the best finishers because of Steve Nash, to an extent...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Basel57 said:


> They are some of the best finishers because of Steve Nash, to an extent...


This is not true. How come Steven Hunter couldn't magically catch the ball when he played for the Suns? Nash plays with the most talent in the NBA and in a comparative situation with other players, he's not head and shoulders better than them, yet people want to act like he is and continue to change their MVP voting criteria to suit him winning. That's not right.


----------



## Mohamed_#8 (Jan 24, 2006)

It's difficult to compare Kobe and Nash because they are two completely different players.

I think when you have discussions like these, it's important to remember that each player plays in a particular system, wether it suits him or not.

Do I think Kobe would do what Nash is doing for that *Phoenix* system? No chance.

At the same time, I don't think Nash has that cold-blooded takeover mentality that has defined Kobe over the years.

It's difficult to say, each player is the best in his own right. Nash looks like the best player in the World in that system, but that doesn't mean he is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

HKF said:


> This is not true. How come Steven Hunter couldn't magically catch the ball when he played for the Suns? Nash plays with the most talent in the NBA and in a comparative situation with other players, he's not head and shoulders better than them, yet people want to act like he is and continue to change their MVP voting criteria to suit him winning. That's not right.


???

Steven Hunter was a good finisher on the Suns, pls dont talk about stuff you don't know about.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> You're right. That's why I don't put Magic in the top 50 of greatest players.I mean, the offense was suited just for him. He also had all those running players at his disposal. He really wasn't a great player, it was just he had great teamates.


Bird and Magic had great teammates, and both won MVP's, and all of that made sense because they were winning titles. That's what you're supposed to do if you're the best player in the league with the best cast. 

Something doesn't fall right if you're winning your 3rd MVP, have an all-star cast better than any other cast in the league, and you have no titles to show for it. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Some choose to downgrade Amare and Marion, some choose to downgrade Nash, but either way, without titles, all of these guys can't be as good as they are propped up to be. Something has got to give. The only way that sense can be made of it is if they win a title. That's what you're supposed to do with a 2-3 time MVP, three all-stars, a couple other really good roleplayers and great chemistry.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Bird and Magic had great teammates, and both won MVP's, and all of that made sense because they were winning titles. That's what you're supposed to do if you're the best player in the league with the best cast.
> 
> Something doesn't fall right if you're winning your 3rd MVP, have an all-star cast better than any other cast in the league, and you have no titles to show for it. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Some choose to downgrade Amare and Marion, some choose to downgrade Nash, but either way, without titles, all of these guys can't be as good as they are propped up to be. Something has got to give. The only way that sense can be made of it is if they win a title. That's what you're supposed to do with a 2-3 time MVP, three all-stars, a couple other really good roleplayers and great chemistry.



I can understand that. But there is too many excuses for why Nash shouldn't have won
MVP and not winning a title wasn't really one of them. I think it's unfair for people
to continue to make up things for why Nash shouldn't have won or win an MVP.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Dr. Seuss said:


> I can understand that. But there is too many excuses for why Nash shouldn't have won
> MVP and not winning a title wasn't really one of them. I think it's unfair for people
> to continue to make up things for why Nash shouldn't have won or win an MVP.


On the contrary, I think many people get upset because they would argue that MVP voters were specifically moving the goal posts to get Nash the MVP in a back to back fashion.

i.e. Nash makes his teammates better based on guys like Diaw. Yet it doesn't seem to bother them that guys like Dirk, Howard, and Joe Johnson have had there best seasons after Nash left

i.e. Nash gets the MVP last year because the Suns were good with Amare down. Yet a guy like Dirk put up better numbers on a better team and didn't win it.

These aren't necessarily arguments you're making but it's the arguments guys liek Stein make all the time


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

Dr. Seuss said:


> I can understand that. But there is too many excuses for why Nash shouldn't have won
> MVP and not winning a title wasn't really one of them. I think it's unfair for people
> to continue to make up things for why Nash shouldn't have won or win an MVP.


It's also ridiculous how the criteria changes for him. First year they went with team success and voted him the MVP. The second year...I don't know. Dirk had great stats as well and had 10 more wins if I'm not mistaken. If they were going on personal stats and so on, why didn't LeBron win? 31/7/7 on a 50 win team, with less talent than Nash had, and only 4 less wins.



> Did I ever say he wasn't? I was comparing their teams and style.


Well you did question me when I said Magic affects the game more.



> Didn't Sharman(sp) allow Magic to play center and an uptempo game?
> 
> Seems taylored to me.....


So Sharman is the reason Magic scored over 40 and dropped a triple double to seal a game 6 Finals victory without the teams best player?



> unny, two years ago no one would have taken James Jones, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell.
> On top of that, Leandro Barbosa wasn't thought of too highly. Yet, here we are saying
> he has amazing teamates. It never seems to amuse me that they now are considered great
> teamates. (which they are)


Bull****. I liked James Jones in Indiana when he first got a chance to play in the brawl season. Raja Bell was always a good defender, he helped Philadelphia as a rookie in the playoffs. He also went over to the Jazz and was a very solid role-player, and he could hit the three there as well. Also, how is Steve Nash the reason Barbosa is so good? He's a great scorer, with or without Steve Nash. 

The Phoenix system is great for players, and players like James Jones and Raja Bell really thrive in it. This isn't all Nash, this is the system. It's a combination of everything. It doesn't begin and end with Nash.



> On top of that, many think Dirk and the Mavericks are the most talented team.


I strongly disagree. Name a teammate of Dirk who is better than Amare Stoudemire, or Shawn Marion.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Yes it does look how they played with D'Antoni before Nash. Nash is the one who makes the system.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

> It's also ridiculous how the criteria changes for him. First year they went with team success and voted him the MVP. The second year...I don't know. Dirk had great stats as well and had 10 more wins if I'm not mistaken. If they were going on personal stats and so on, why didn't LeBron win? 31/7/7 on a 50 win team, with less talent than Nash had, and only 4 less wins.


The criteria never changed.

04-05, Suns aren't expected to make the playoffs. 
05-06, Suns are predicted to clinge to the 8th spot in the West.

This is the only year they would not surpise anybody. Yet, this is Nash's 
best year. Last time someone's averaged 20 and 11 was way back in '89. (Magic)



> Well you did question me when I said Magic affects the game more.


And you used the excuse of "Well.....uh....it's Magic I don't have to explain."
I'll still wait for you to explain if you want. Is Nash as good as Magic? No.
But effecting the game almost the same way doesn't mean you're as good as the player
that's being compared. The system effects that.



> So Sharman is the reason Magic scored over 40 and dropped a triple double to seal a game 6 Finals victory without the teams best player?


So Mike D'Antoni is the reason Nash is averaging 20 and 11? Hmmmm......



> Bull****. I liked James Jones in Indiana when he first got a chance to play in the brawl season. Raja Bell was always a good defender, he helped Philadelphia as a rookie in the playoffs. He also went over to the Jazz and was a very solid role-player, and he could hit the three there as well. Also, how is Steve Nash the reason Barbosa is so good? He's a great scorer, with or without Steve Nash.


Barbosa is allowed to play the SG because of Nash. But he is a great scorer regardless.



> The Phoenix system is great for players, and players like James Jones and Raja Bell really thrive in it. This isn't all Nash, this is the system. It's a combination of everything. It doesn't begin and end with Nash.


I agree.



> I strongly disagree. Name a teammate of Dirk who is better than Amare Stoudemire, or Shawn Marion.


It is different. Simply because the Mavericks play a grind it out style. Which Dampier
and Josh Howard are perfect for. Just like Marion and Amare are perfect for the fastbreak style.


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Bird and Magic had great teammates, and both won MVP's, and all of that made sense because they were winning titles. That's what you're supposed to do if you're the best player in the league with the best cast.
> 
> Something doesn't fall right if you're winning your 3rd MVP, have an all-star cast better than any other cast in the league, and you have no titles to show for it. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Some choose to downgrade Amare and Marion, some choose to downgrade Nash, but either way, without titles, all of these guys can't be as good as they are propped up to be. Something has got to give. The only way that sense can be made of it is if they win a title. That's what you're supposed to do with a 2-3 time MVP, three all-stars, a couple other really good roleplayers and great chemistry.


:clap: :cheers:


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

I love how everyone is saying that the Phoenix system is tailored for Nash. NO WAY?!?! You're telling me that the offense in Phoenix is crafted around the best player on the team? WHAT A RIDICULOUS CONCEPT! I wonder how Michael, Kobe, or Duncan ever managed to play on a team that they weren't the pinwheel of the offense. Oh wait, they were and are the pinwheels of their respective teams. That is the lamest excuse of a cop out I have ever read, and a lot of you seem to think that Nash is overrated because of the system! Here's a thought: Nash IS the system! He is the captain in the locker room and the captain on the court. 

Nash won MVP because he took a team the had won 29 games the season before (they had Marion, Johnson, and Stoudemire that year) and went to 62 wins the next. The following year, they lost *Amare(27ppg 9rpg) Joe Johnson(17ppg 5rpg) and Quinton Richardson (15ppg 6rpg) and added Diaw(5ppg 2rpg 2apg) Bell(12ppg 3rpg) James Jones(5ppg 2rpg) and Thomas(11ppg 10rpg). In essense, the Suns were on pace (until Kurt Thomas went down towards the end of the season and they went 11-13 to finish the season) to win 61 games. Of course, in reality, they did win 54 which was around 12-16 more games than anyone projected them to win. In fact, the best case scenario was that they were a 0.500 team until Stoudemire returned after the All Star break. So, if you were to do the math, they lost an average of 59ppg and 20rpg and added 33ppg and 17rpg. On paper, HOW is this team "as good as" the other team? That's a difference of 26ppg and 3rpg on average! Only in retrospect is this a good team and that is because of Nash. It's easy to look good when all you have to do is drain open jumpshots created by Nash. 

Defensively, Nash isn't a Shaq or Duncan, but neither is Dirk or Kobe or Arenas. In fact, in the book 07 Seconds or Less, they talk about isolating Dirk or Van Horn when they're playing defense because they are crappy defenders(Van Horn especially).


----------



## ElMarroAfamado (Nov 1, 2005)

Field Goal Selection
Layups: 2-3
*Jumpers: 2-7*
Dunks: 2-2

that was for Marion against the MAgic....

Field Goal Selection
Layups: 3-3
*Jumpers: 1-5*
Dunks: 4-4

Marion against the Cavs....

TAKE AWAY NASH and he doesnt get those layups and dunks that is pretty much all he does, when he gets a higher point total its cuz he got more dunks/layups.he cant miss those...without Nash he would not get them...so they should thank Nash he makes them seem better than they are .....


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

ElMarroAfamado said:


> Field Goal Selection
> Layups: 2-3
> *Jumpers: 2-7*
> Dunks: 2-2
> ...


C'mon, Elmarro lets not downplay Marion like that.

I only said Nash didn't have the greatest teamates in 05-06. But Amare and Marion are
good players without Nash. But he just adds a little more to their games.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

IceMan23and3 said:


> I love how everyone is saying that the Phoenix system is tailored for Nash. NO WAY?!?! You're telling me that the offense in Phoenix is crafted around the best player on the team? WHAT A RIDICULOUS CONCEPT! I wonder how Michael, Kobe, or Duncan ever managed to play on a team that they weren't the pinwheel of the offense. Oh wait, they were and are the pinwheels of their respective teams. That is the lamest excuse of a cop out I have ever read, and a lot of you seem to think that Nash is overrated because of the system! Here's a thought: Nash IS the system! He is the captain in the locker room and the captain on the court.


Yeah no kdding. Out of all the ignorant tripe in this thread, the "Nash is a product of the system" argument takes the cake.


----------

