# Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

The NBA announced Thursday that the announcement of the Most Valuable Player, the NBA's 50th, will be Sunday. That could mean the Suns point guard has won a tight race with Miami center Shaquille O'Neal.


----------



## DwyaneWade4MVP (Apr 1, 2004)

Is it already official??? if yes: congratulations!


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

i though the mvp doesnt get announced till the semi's or confrence?


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Hey, don't jinx him!


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

I still think Shaq won it


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

lol, what kind of thread title is that? :nonono:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Ballscientist said:


> The NBA announced Thursday that the announcement of the Most Valuable Player, the NBA's 50th, will be Sunday. That could mean the Suns point guard has won a tight race with Miami center Shaquille O'Neal.


Do they really need to announce when an announcement will be made?


----------



## Greater Levitator (Dec 29, 2004)

If he really wins it, it would be ridiculous...

Steve Nash is not a MVP-caliber player whatsoever. Seriously.

Steve Nash has his abilities. Like a shooter has the ability to shoot, Steve Nash has the ability to run the floor and distribute the ball. Exactly this ability was the one, that the Suns lacked in the past, now they have it and that makes it possible for the other players to excel.

Nash is valuable to the Suns, like for example Jon Barry, Mike James and David Wesley are valuable. Without their abilities that they provide the Rockets would not be that succesful.

But Nash is not a core player like Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Tracy and so on.

If you put any of these above mentioned to a team like the Hornets or Hawks, those teams would be instant playoff or in some cases (Duncan, Shaq) even title contenders, even though those teams lack talent.

If you put Nash on any of those teams, I doubt they will improve a lot.

And that is the thing that eliminates Nash from MVP contention. He is no core player, no franchise player. He is a great addition to team that already has talent. Like M. Redd or Joe Johnson would be great fits for Cleveland, who already have talent in Lebron James. 

Giving Steve Nash the MVP is an insult to every genuine franchise player who never won this award.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Ballscientist, I don't understand why this would mean Nash won it. I'm guessing (since you didn't give a link) that you're saying it just because it's being given on Sunday. I don't understand why that would matter.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

socco said:


> Ballscientist, I don't understand why this would mean Nash won it. I'm guessing (since you didn't give a link) that you're saying it just because it's being given on Sunday. I don't understand why that would matter.


Just look at your sig when looking at a BallScientist thread.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

It's pretty ridiculous that Shaq only has one MVP award as he's been the real MVP of the league nearly every season since MJ retired.


----------



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

Steve Nash ain't no MVP. Neither is Shaq this year.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

sherwin said:


> Steve Nash ain't no MVP. Neither is Shaq this year.


Id love to hear your stance on who you think is the MVP of the league.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

Heres a link:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0506sunsmvp0506.html



> The NBA announced the previous five MVPs when the winning players were idle, and on a day before each had a playoff game.
> advertisement
> 
> The Suns are expected to start their second-round series Monday. Miami is slotted for a Sunday start to its second-round series if Washington closes its series with Chicago today.
> ...


----------



## Greater Levitator (Dec 29, 2004)

HallOfFamer said:


> Id love to hear your stance on who you think is the MVP of the league.


Even if you did not ask me, but I think it should be either Duncan or Shaq.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

socco said:


> Ballscientist, I don't understand why this would mean Nash won it. I'm guessing (since you didn't give a link) that you're saying it just because it's being given on Sunday. I don't understand why that would matter.


You know I don't create the news. I have only 3 hours in this board a week. Sometimes I don't have link.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Greater Levitator said:


> If he really wins it, it would be ridiculous...
> 
> Steve Nash is not a MVP-caliber player whatsoever. Seriously.
> 
> ...



:laugh: Wow, I thought I've seen it all, but now I realize I hadn't till I read you post.

MVP doesn't have to be a franchise player or a top player. It's not who the best player award among the top franchise players. There aren't many franchise players as it is. It's who had the best yr and provided the team with impact.

All you're doing is hypothetical stuff on whether he would help other teams. You can't do that it that way. It didn't happen that way. 

Nash is not a core player? Wow.. and You compare Nash to James, Wesley and Barry? LOL. If Nash doesn't provide much impact to you than whats 62-20? From 29 wins. Obviously he's better than those players because of what he does. He's a pure PG. A top PG in that regards. He does a lot more than some of the other so called great PGs of this league and those guys you mentioned. Now, I'm not saying he should be MVP but your post sounds like you're delusional if you really believe that.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Ballscientist said:


> You know I don't create the news. I have only 3 hours in this board a week. Sometimes I don't have link.


You must've read it. So it shouldn't be too hard to give the link for it. You might not think it's a big deal, but to other people you're just saying crazy things, and you won't have much credibility. Try to include links whenever possible. It does make a difference.


----------



## Greater Levitator (Dec 29, 2004)

I won't engage with a discussion with a homer.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*I edited the title, since this is just speculation*.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Paul Coro 
The Arizona Republic 
May. 6, 2005 12:00 AM 

Steve Nash and the MVP trophy apparently have a date. 

The NBA announced Thursday that the announcement of the Most Valuable Player, the NBA's 50th, will be Sunday. That could mean the Suns point guard has won a tight race with Miami center Shaquille O'Neal. 

Here's why: The NBA announced the previous five MVPs when the winning players were idle, and on a day before each had a playoff game. 
advertisement 


The Suns are expected to start their second-round series Monday. Miami is slotted for a Sunday start to its second-round series if Washington closes its series with Chicago today. 

If O'Neal is playing in Sunday's ABC game, it seems unlikely he would be the subject of the MVP halftime interview that ABC is promoting. 

The last MVP to not receive the award a day before a playoff game was Utah's Karl Malone in 1999, when the Jazz were already eliminated. 

An Arizona Republic survey of 106 of the 127 MVP voters showed Nash with an 895-883 lead over O'Neal in total points. Nash received 53 first-place votes to O'Neal's 51. Phoenix's Amaré Stoudemire and San Antonio's Tim Duncan received the other two. 


-------------------

I'd say there is a 99.9% chance Nash won the MVP award.


----------



## maKINGSofgreatness (Aug 17, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

...and if he is, he will be the worst MVP of all time, and it's not even close.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



maKINGSofgreatness said:


> ...and if he is, he will be the worst MVP of all time, and it's not even close.


Lol You haters are hillarious.


The Suns prove everyone wrong yet again. Booya grandma! :biggrin:


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

The question I have for those who think Steve Nash should win is, if he has the same season again next year, should he win the MVP again? If the answer is no, then he has no business winning this year either. But for some reason, the voters tend to focus on players that just changed teams. For example, Jason Kidd arguably had a better year in 2002-03 than in 2001-02, leading the Nets to the Finals twice, but in 2001-02 he finished a close second and in 2002-03 he got hardly any votes and finished ninth.

Players who have been on the same team for awhile are going to get shortchanged in the MVP race and that's yet another reason why I don't care who wins these awards, because I don't trust the voters' judgment.



tempe85 said:


> Lol You haters are hillarious.
> 
> 
> The Suns prove everyone wrong yet again. Booya grandma! :biggrin:


Is it too much to ask you for an example of a player who had a worse season, but still won MVP?


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

for real. i really hope he does not win this mvp, he's not even a better player than mark price in his prime. if he wins, i will wonder, where are mark price's mvps?


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



sherako said:


> for real. i really hope he does not win this mvp, he's not even a better player than mark price in his prime. if he wins, i will wonder, where are mark price's mvps?


The season where Price played the best and his team won the most was probably in 1988, when the Cavs finished with 57 wins and Price averaged 19/8.4.

That happened to be the season where Magic averaged 23/8/13, with the Lakers also winning 57 games.


There is no player in the NBA who is head-and-shoulders above Nash this season. Some players like Garnett are ahead statistically, but they didn't win enough.

Duncan missed a lot of games and put up some of the lowest numbers of his career, but he still had a good seaosn. Iverson, Stoudemire, Nowitzky, and O'Neal all had great seasons.


I personally don't think Nash will win, but the fact of the matter is that there isn't a clear-cut MVP, whoever wins will be challenged, and life goes on.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



> Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday


does this mean that Nash will be introduced to Shaq on sunday???


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



shobe42 said:


> does this mean that Nash will be introduced to Shaq on sunday???


Yeah, they are getting married.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



RP McMurphy said:


> Is it too much to ask you for an example of a player who had a worse season, but still won MVP?


If you think scoring points is the only way to win an MVP (ala Allen Iverson) then you are a sad sad little man. You have my pity.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

HOT LIST just reported the "breaking news" that Marc Stein is reporting that Steve Nash has indeed been named MVP.


stay tuned


http://espn.go.com/


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Here is a list of the MVP's since 1980, in my opinion Nash has nothing to do on that list.

1980-81 - Julius Erving, Philadelphia
1981-82 - Moses Malone, Houston
1982-83 - Moses Malone, Philadelphia
1983-84 - Larry Bird, Boston
1984-85 - Larry Bird, Boston
1985-86 - Larry Bird, Boston
1986-87 - Magic Johnson, Los Angeles Lakers
1987-88 - Michael Jordan, Chicago
1988-89 - Magic Johnson, Los Angeles Lakers
1989-90 - Magic Johnson, Los Angeles Lakers
1990-91 - Michael Jordan, Chicago
1991-92 - Michael Jordan, Chicago
1992-93 - Charles Barkley, Phoenix
1993-94 - Hakeem Olajuwon, Houston
1994-95 - David Robinson, San Antonio
1995-96 - Michael Jordan, Chicago
1996-97 - Karl Malone, Utah
1997-98 - Michael Jordan, Chicago
1998-99 - Karl Malone, Utah
1999-00 - Shaquille O'Neal, Los Angeles Lakers
2000-01 - Allen Iverson, Philadelphia
2001-02 - Tim Duncan, San Antonio
2002-03 - Tim Duncan, San Antonio
2003-04 - Kevin Garnett, Minnesota

Full list: http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-mvp-history.shtml


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

This is it:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2005/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2054677 

You might as well take the "Rumor" part off of the thread title.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Nash would join Iverson as the worst two MVP winners in the past 25 years. There are atleast 3-4 considerably better candidates. I'm starting to wonder if John Stockton had played in todays game, if he would be considered the reason for Malone being successful. He would probably be getting MVP votes. 

Stockton was everything that Nash was, except he was actually a good defender. Yet he was never even top 5 in MVP voting was he? Was he ever even a candidate? This either indicates an extreme downfall of NBA talent, or the voting criteria changing drastically. If this was 15 years ago, Amare Stoudemire would be the MVP candidate and Nash would just be an elite point guard.


----------



## Kicito (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

I remember a time when people said that Ben Wallace couldn't be the MVP because he has no offensive game . . . well it seems that the opposite is not true.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

:nonono:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

one things for certain - never has an mvp contributed less on the defensive side of the ball than nash. which leaves us with nash's offensive contributions. well, in his favor, his team had one of the best offenses in league history, arguably the best (statistically, at least). how much of that credit should go to nash is debatable. but judging it this way makes it kinda hard to see how nash should win. i mean, on the defensive side, shaq obviously has a tremendous edge. statistically, he has an edge overall. to swing in nash's favor, you'd have to think that he contributes alot more offensively. and that the few games phx won more than mia are a difference.

i'm not a huge fan of alot of the arguments for nash. some are compelling, some i can discard as pretty meaningless.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Nash would join Iverson as the worst two MVP winners in the past 25 years. There are atleast 3-4 considerably better candidates. I'm starting to wonder if John Stockton had played in todays game, if he would be considered the reason for Malone being successful. He would probably be getting MVP votes.
> 
> Stockton was everything that Nash was, except he was actually a good defender. Yet he was never even top 5 in MVP voting was he? Was he ever even a candidate? This either indicates an extreme downfall of NBA talent, or the voting criteria changing drastically. If this was 15 years ago, Amare Stoudemire would be the MVP candidate and Nash would just be an elite point guard.


if nash had been playing on phx for years, this wouldn't be a discussion, and he (nash) wouldn't be a top candidate. but because he's the new guy in the mix (along with q), he's getting the credit for alot of work being done by others. 

alot of the top competition also have glaring strikes against them. still, nash seems like he's getting too much of the benefit of the doubt, and nobody's looking at his shortcomings at all.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Nash is only the third point guard to win an MVP award, the other two are Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson. This is the weirdest MVP award I've ever seen, Nash is nowhere near that good... The MVP is the best player in the NBA during the season, and Nash has been good, but not that good...


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



tempe85 said:


>


Editor, please delete the word "Rumor" for yourself.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

the reason Nash is gonna be MVP is because the NBA is gonna introduce
its 50TH mvp
if shaq won he would still be the 49th because he already won the mvp before


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

The thing is, MVP's are usually lock HOF's and Steve Nash is no lock to even be on a ballot. This is very surprising. A guy that I never thought was even in the top 20 of best players in the league is all of a sudden the MVP of the NBA, thoroughly not caring about one side of the court and the fact that he plays with Amare Stoudemire as well. 

Nash winning is a surprise and it should have went to Shaq or Duncan.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



fjkdsi said:


> the reason Nash is gonna be MVP is because the NBA is gonna introduce
> its 50TH mvp
> if shaq won he would still be the 49th because he already won the mvp before


Actually Nash is the 25th different player to win the MVP, not the 50th. There's been 50 MVP awards given out, to a total of 25 people.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Its a shame that these awards are losing credibility like this. We used to have Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem and Malone winning. Then in recent years we have Iverson and Nash. I mean, the league is not declining this much, it's just the league continues to overlook some guys because they're consistently better than everyone else. If the MVP no longer is given to the most valuable player, then it loses it's impact. Who cares about it anymore. The same goes for the other awards. Wallace won DPoY on reputation, Ben Gordon was runner-up for ROY when he only played 24 miutes per game. If our children were to look back on these awards in 50 years, they'd think this year was considerably worse than others, when it really wasn't. 

I look forward to the All-NBA teams, and defensive teams, since the coaches pick those I believe.


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

minutes - 34.3 
fgp -.502
3fgp - .431
ftp - .887
rpg - 3.30
apg - 11.5
to - 3.27
ppg - 15.5

Here is the new MVP  

No doubt the worst MVP of all time. Amare is about equally important to the suns. He'd be pissed for sure


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Would never have thought that Steve Nash would finish his career with as many MVPs as Julius Erving, Kevin Garnett, Charles Barkley, and it looks like Shaq. This is ridiculous. Nash is a great player but he might not even the most valuable player on his team (come on guys if yo had to pick btw him and Amare who would you take?) and only plays half the court. The MVP is an individual award NOT a team award. 

Sorry for the rant and I don't want to seem like I don't like Nash. I love the Suns and I think their a great team. However, Nash could be the first MVP not selected to the basketball hall of fame. His career pales in comparison to his contemparies like Kidd and Payton. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm depressed idiotic writers like Mark Stein get to vote


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

The only thing that bothers me about Nash winning MVP (besides Shaq being more deserving) is that it'll only further the stereotype that Amare isn't nearly as effective without him.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

With that said, nobody should be angry with Nash. He just did his thing all season, and he is a really good player. He seems like a good guy, and he really knows the game of basketball. Congratulations to him. 

It's just the damn voters who put this guy way out of his league by voting him for this award.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

That's cool that Nash won it if he did. I've always been a fan of his from his days with Dirk. I like the cut of his jib. He's a cool guy. And it throws a bone to our canadian bretheren. That yes, even you canadians can one day become MVP of the NBA. So put down the hockey sticks and start working on your jump shot canada.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Pioneer10 said:


> Sorry for the rant and I don't want to seem like I don't like Nash. I love the Suns and I think their a great team. However, Nash could be the first MVP not selected to the basketball hall of fame. His career pales in comparison to his contemparies like Kidd and Payton. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm depressed idiotic writers like Mark Stein get to vote


How does Jason Kidd not win one, but Nash wins one? So if the T'Wolves won 50 games, KG would be winning it correct? I don't have anything against Nash, but he better have 4-5 more seasons like this or he's going to end up with an MVP season in a non-HOF career. How does that happen? Don't tell me First team all-NBA offense and defense Tim Duncan and first team all-NBA and second team All-NBA defense Shaquille O'Neal, not beat out first team All-NBA Steve Nash and non existent defense? Yet the Suns won only 3 more games then both teams.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The lone wolf said:


> No doubt the worst MVP of all time. Amare is about equally important to the suns. He'd be pissed for sure


Actually when Stoudemire has been asked who he thinks the MVP of the league is he immediately says Nash.

Also there is a very good chance that Stoudemire will at least finish 4th (behind Nash, Shaq, and Duncan) in MVP voting. Possibly third (the unofficial tally has Duncan and Stoudemire being the only two players other than Shaq and Nash with first place votes... both got two votes a piece.. therefore he could very well finish ahead of Duncan).

(by the way I would never give an MVP award to someone who only hit 46% of his free throws... that's beyond awful)


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Sir Patchwork said:


> I'm starting to wonder if John Stockton had played in todays game, if he would be considered the reason for Malone being successful. He would probably be getting MVP votes.


If Stockton played these days I think he would be a solid pick for MVP. The guy was amazing. Kevin Johnson would be another guy who would be a candidate if he played in the current league; he put up 20 points and 10 assists at around 50% shooting. Also, how about Gary Payton? The guy was great in his prime; he was a great defender and put up numbers that would look amazing in the current league.

Two words why none of these guys had a chance: Michael Jordan.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Gary Payton would've won a couple of MVPs nowadays, I bet. In his prime he was basically like a mix of Stephon Marbury and Jason Kidd, with better defense than both of them put together.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



7 said:


> If Stockton played these days I think he would be a solid pick for MVP. The guy was amazing. Kevin Johnson would be another guy who would be a candidate if he played in the current league; he put up 20 points and 10 assists at around 50% shooting. Also, how about Gary Payton? The guy was great in his prime; he was a great defender and put up numbers that would look amazing in the current league.
> 
> Two words why none of these guys had a chance: Michael Jordan.


 Huh? How about the more pertinent fact that his teammate Malone won two MVP's or do you think those guys were better then Hakeem as well or David Robinson. MJ wasn't the only one who was considered an MVP calibre player in the 90's: Stockton and KJ weren't however

Stockton and KJ in any rationale year would never win an MVP. Great players but not MVP calibre players. Nash is the same: great player not an MVP.


----------



## Greater Levitator (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Like I said, if the Cavs manage to sign a shooter a la redd or Johnson and improve significantly, give the MVP to him.

Those writers must be out of their mind.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

the ONLY reason nash won the award was because he came to a team that won 29 games last year. had phx not sucked last year, or had nash played on phx last year, he would not have been top 5. circumstances played a huge role in nash's favor.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

It seems pretty one-sided in people believing that he shouldn't have won.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

so, even if payton, stockton, kj, etc played today, they likely wouldn't win the award, unless they had circumstances in their favor similar to nash.


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



tempe85 said:


> Actually when Stoudemire has been asked who he thinks the MVP of the league is he immediately says Nash.


I remember an interview on nba.com when Amare was asked who the MVP was he said something like "You are looking at him. it's a toss-up between me and nash" There was even a huge thread calling amare cocky.



tempe85 said:


> (by the way I would never give an MVP award to someone who only hit 46% of his free throws... that's beyond awful)


I would never give an MVP award to someone who is one of the 5 worst starters defensively for his position.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



kflo said:


> the ONLY reason nash won the award was because he came to a team that won 29 games last year. had phx not sucked last year, or had nash played on phx last year, he would not have been top 5. circumstances played a huge role in nash's favor.


It's ridiculous, point blank.


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Look at this from an outsiders point of view. Point guards like Nash are not extremely rare in Europe.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The lone wolf said:


> I would never give an MVP award to someone who is one of the 5 worst starters defensively for his position.


Do you actually have any proof of that? I bet you have absolutely no proof of what you just said.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



tempe85 said:


> If you think scoring points is the only way to win an MVP (ala Allen Iverson) then you are a sad sad little man. You have my pity.


And someone is forgetting that Nash is consistently absent on the defensive end of the game.

Please tell me 5 guys who are worse defensive PG starters in the NBA.


----------



## Greater Levitator (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The lone wolf said:


> Look at this from an outsiders point of view. Point guards like Nash are not extremely rare in Europe.


Word...Seriously...How is Steve Nash a better player than Sarunas Jasikevicius ?


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Spriggan said:


> Gary Payton would've won a couple of MVPs nowadays, I bet. In his prime he was basically like a mix of Stephon Marbury and Jason Kidd, with better defense than both of them put together.


It shows that the point guard position has fallen quite dramatically since the 1990's. Kidd has been considered by many to be the best point guard of the last few years and Stockton, Payton and KJ were all superior; then you also have guys like Mark Price and Tim Hardaway who were excellent pg's. Now we have Kidd and Nash who are really good and a few other guys (Bibby, Baron, etc) who are good.


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



tempe85 said:


> Do you actually have any proof of that? I bet you have absolutely no proof of what you just said.



What's your point? 
You cannot even "prove" that Nash is worse defensively than say Kirk hinrich. It's pretty well known that Nash is a liability defensively


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The lone wolf said:


> Look at this from an outsiders point of view. Point guards like Nash are not extremely rare in Europe.


If that was really the case, the NBA would pay BIG bucks to bring them over.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



kflo said:


> so, even if payton, stockton, kj, etc played today, they likely wouldn't win the award, unless they had circumstances in their favor similar to nash.


I disagree about GP. I think he would've had a greater shot than the other great PGs of the 90s to win MVP nowadays. He scored a lot, he played DPOY-caliber defense, and he was terrific at getting teammates involved. He basically did everything at Seattle. The prototypical MVP. Had Payton had a season this year like he had in 99-00, he would have won MVP easily.

Now I'm not saying Payton would be beating the likes Shaq, KG and Duncan if he were in his prime now, but he'd have the best chance out of any of the other point guards because of his all-around game.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Spriggan said:


> I disagree about GP. I think he would've had a greater shot than the other great PGs of the 90s to win MVP nowadays. He scored a lot, he played DPOY-caliber defense, and he was terrific at getting teammates involved. He basically did everything at Seattle. The prototypical MVP. Had Payton had a season this year like he had in 99-00, he would have won MVP easily.
> 
> Now I'm not saying Payton would be beating the likes Shaq, KG and Duncan if he were in his prime now, but he'd have the best chance out of any of the other point guards because of his all-around game.


agreed. in his prime, he usually placed higher than any of his peers (outside kidd recently).


----------



## The lone wolf (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



7 said:


> If that was really the case, the NBA would pay BIG bucks to bring them over.


Ha... 

Cuban (one of the richest owners) didn't even match the 65 mil offer that Suns gave..


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Man, I'm still pretty shocked. I always thought Nash was like this years version of Stojakovich, a nice guy to consider, but not a realistic possibility to win it.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

If true it's correct!!! Shaq is gonna be pissed :clap: Hahahah!!


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The lone wolf said:


> Ha...
> 
> Cuban (one of the richest owners) didn't even match the 65 mil offer that Suns gave..


Because he thought he was getting older and had the potential to get injured, due in part to his reckless style of play. If you can find a point guard that is as good as Nash and younger, I'm sure Cuban would pony up 65 mill or more. (and if they are indeed "not rare" it shouldn't be too hard for you to find one that meets those qualifications)

Also, if there are a bunch of point guards as good as Nash over in Europe don't you think the GM's in the NBA would be doing everything possible to bring them over. Heck, I think there are twenty-something teams that could use a point guard of that caliber...


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

I have to add to my first post: Steve Nash a great player but not an MVP calibre player now has as many MVP's as *Charles Barkley, Oscar Robertson, Julius Erving, David Robinson, Hakeem Olujawan, and Shaquille O'neal*. Unbelievable, really. In one of the best years the league has had awhile, the NBA picks agruablly it's worst MVP of all time.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



7 said:


> Because he thought he was getting older and had the potential to get injured, due in part to his reckless style of play. If you can find a point guard that is as good as Nash and younger, I'm sure Cuban would pony up 65 mill or more. (and if they are indeed "not rare" it shouldn't be too hard for you to find one that meets those qualifications)
> 
> Also, if there are a bunch of point guards as good as Nash over in Europe don't you think the GM's in the NBA would be doing everything possible to bring them over. Heck, I think there are twenty-something teams that could use a point guard of that caliber...


 The guy people have wanted for awhile is the Lithuanian dude Sarunas Jasivisouc (sp?) who torched the US over the summer Olympics. He's been courted by more then a few NBA teams in the past. I have no idea if he's better then Nash, but who cares Nash is a great player he just not an MVP calibre player by nearly any measure


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Pioneer10 said:


> The guy people have wanted for awhile is the Lithuanian dude Sarunas Jasivisouc (sp?) who torched the US over the summer Olympics. He's been courted by more then a few NBA teams in the past. I have no idea if he's better then Nash, but who cares Nash is a great player he just not an MVP calibre player by nearly any measure


I agree. When I saw Sarunas play he looked like a great player. I just take issue to the fact that he said Nash caliber players were "not rare" which implies that you could find more than a few.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Stein reports Nash MVP. I think it's true now. 

Congrats.  I am going to save my typing. Nash deserves it. You can say the competition is weak this season but Suns did win 62W with Nash and have an amazing 33 game improvement which is the 3rd best turnout in NBA history. Either you like it or not, Nash is the leader of Suns. 

Just like how Billiups won the Final MVP. Well, if Shaq doesn't like it, WIN THE DAMN SERIES then it's his.  

If Heat doesn't agree with Nash, then get 62W! 


Now, let's see if anybody can turn Hawks around like that. I would love to know who can do it.  Hawks 60W season watch starts now!


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



tempe85 said:


> Actually when Stoudemire has been asked who he thinks the MVP of the league is he immediately says Nash.


Umm, no, I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite of that. He was asked around midseason who he thinks the MVP is, and he said himself.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

I think a lot of you hate Nash too much. 

Yes, Stockton was good and so was Kidd/KJ but did they improve Suns as much as Nash has done for the Suns this year? 

Nash only averages 15.5 point but you fail to realize Nash is only the 5th option on the offense end. Nash shoots 50% and 40% from the arc. What's bad about it? For a team that runs so much, Suns has very few turnovers. Thank who? Nash. 


I know Nash doesn't look like a guy that can win MVP but this just shows you that you need a TEAM to win games. This is the classic IN YOUR FACE, HA-HA, kind of story that shows basketball is a TEAM sports not a COLLECTION OF GREAT PLAYERS. If you want to know a great story how a collection of great players doesn't work, look at our last Olympic Team. :curse: 

Pistons made quite a story for themselves last year because they played like a team. You guys can give any stats you want to insult Nash. When Nash is on the court, Suns wins and I am sure all the GM in the league only cares about the BIG W than who scores more or who plays better defense. When it comes down to it, it's only the W that matters. 

Now Nash's next job is to get the Ring.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



socco said:


> Umm, no, I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite of that. He was asked around midseason who he thinks the MVP is, and he said himself.


Correct. Even if he said Nash, it's just courtesy, I'm sure Nash would say Stoudemire, or Shaq, or Duncan, or the other players who were more deserving.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



jibikao said:


> I know Nash doesn't look like a guy that can win MVP but this just shows you that you need a TEAM to win games. This is the classic IN YOUR FACE, HA-HA, kind of story that shows basketball is a TEAM sports not a COLLECTION OF GREAT PLAYERS.


So Ron Artest should have been MVP last year?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

I forgot that NBA championship was given to the best team or I guess the Pistons were a bunch of ballhogging selfish players with bad attitudes?

The MVP is an individual award and one argue what "valuable" means but should not be construed to be about team success. I guess having a healthy Amare, the addition of Q, the improvement in Joe Johnson, also had nothing to do with Phoenix's success as a team?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Why would anyone hate Nash? No one hates him, but we feel he is not deserving of the MVP. There is a difference.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



HKF said:


> Why would anyone hate Nash? No one hates him, but we feel he is not deserving of the MVP. There is a difference.


I agree. Nothing against Nash, but if Jason Kidd couldn't win the MVP in his first season in New Jersey over Tim Duncan, I don't see how Nash wins it this year over Shaq. If you look at the scenarios, the two year's MVP races are very similar. Kidd was a PG who came to a new team that was awful the year before and led them to one of the best records in the East while putting up OK scoring numbers, very good rebounding numbers for a PG, and great assist numbers. Tim Duncan was the 20+ point 10+ rebound per game anchor of the team with the best record in the league. Duncan won. This year Nash is the Kidd, coming onto a new team and turning them around from 25 wins to over 60 and the best record in the league while putting up decent scoring numbers and great assist numbers. Shaq is the 20+ point 10+ rebound per game anchor of the best team in the East. Only this time, Nash wins. Shaq gets shafted on yet another MVP award, simply ridiculous. How the hell does he only have 1 MVP in his career? :nonono:


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Read this:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/colu...mns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2041492

If you don't have Insider, read the full article here:
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb...page=2&highlight=Nash+link+history's+offenses


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Congrats to Nash. He deserved it.

Best player on the league's best regular season team. Phoenix w/o him wouldn't even sniff the postseason this year. His incredible impact on that team was obvious when he missed some games due to injury.

He had the numbers too. Best assist numbers since Stockton a decade ago. He also had a bunch of other statistics only accomplished by Magic and Stocton over the last 25 years or so.

I'm glad he won.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The lone wolf said:


> What's your point?
> You cannot even "prove" that Nash is worse defensively than say Kirk hinrich. It's pretty well known that Nash is a liability defensively


My point is you actually have to have proof to make claims such as that. Nash's defense has been very very overexaggerated for quite some time now. Every person I've seen say he can't play defense never actually tries to prove that point through statistics. For example I could say Shaq is terrible defensively and it would be worth just as much as what you said. Not that Shaq is any unwordly defensive player (which he by far is not!) but he's not the worste either. 

I decided to actually look at real tangible statistics to see how Nash's defense stacked up against other PG's in the league this year. And guess what I found? All this baloney about Nash sucking at defense is just that: Baloney!

eFG% allowed to opposing PG's

Indiana- 43.0%
San Antonio- 43.6%
*Phoenix- 44.5%*
Miami- 44.6%
Denver- 44.6%
Dallas- 44.7%
Houston- 45.0%
Memphis- 45.1%
Boston- 45.1%
Seattle- 46.3%
Chicago- 46.5%
LA Clips- 47.2%
Minnesota- 47.3%
New Orleans- 47.4%
Milwaukee- 47.8%
Sacramento- 48.0%
New York- 48.1%
Hawks- 48.4%
Detroit- 48.5%
Orlando- 48.5%
LA Lakers- 48.7%
Washington- 49.0%
Cleveland- 49.0%
Bobcats- 49.2%
Philadelphia- 49.4%
Warriors- 49.5%
Toronto- 49.7%
Utah- 50.0%
New Jersey- 50.4%

(These stats were taken from 82games.com )
---------

That's some pretty awful defense Nash plays if he holds his opponent to the 3rd worst shooting percentage out of 30 teams in the NBA. Man it's just unreal what some people can get themselves to believe without any semblance of proof/evidence. Yes proof and evidence IS VERY important because how else can we judge players? Hunches? Aura? Shoot... If that was the case we'd all be Isiah Thomas.


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> Read this:
> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/colu...mns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2041492
> 
> If you don't have Insider, read the full article here:
> http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb...page=2&highlight=Nash+link+history's+offenses


Thanks for posting that. I was looking for the same article.

It’s not like Steve Nash came out of nowhere. He has been one of the best offensive players in the game for a few years now, and was severely underrated as a Dallas Maverick.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Brian34Cook said:


> If true it's correct!!! Shaq is gonna be pissed :clap: Hahahah!!



That is actually a very interesting point. Obviously Shaq plays better when motivated. If this really pisses him off, it could be trouble for other teams. If Miami and Phoenix play in the Finals, I'd expect a big one from Shaq and a lot of talk about the "real" MVP.

It blows my mind that Shaq has only one MVP award.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Pioneer10 said:


> I forgot that NBA championship was given to the best team or I guess the Pistons were a bunch of ballhogging selfish players with bad attitudes?
> 
> The MVP is an individual award and one argue what "valuable" means but should not be construed to be about team success. I guess having a healthy Amare, the addition of Q, the improvement in Joe Johnson, also had nothing to do with Phoenix's success as a team?



Did you even watch Suns games or you are saying to insult Nash? 

All the Suns players are benefiting from Nash's creativity, leadership and penetration. JJ WILL NOT have that many wide open Threes if it wasn't for Nash's penetration and pass. Amare will not score that many points if it wasn't for Nash's pick&roll offense. Did you even watch the game? 

You can say all the Suns players have improved but I bet none of you thought Suns would be an elite team with Nash. NONE OF YOU. The best bet is probably an #8 team in the West. 

What Nash has done for Suns is far more than "oh, he only scores 15.5 points" or "he has 11.5 assist". It's dumb to measure Nash's success with the Suns in terms of "stats". 



Another thing about Kidd is that his Nets didn't have the best record that year, did it? Nets was on the weak East division and how did Nets match up with Spurs in the playoffs? There was even no competition. Kidd's Nets was praised way too much. Duncan won that year because Spurs is a better team and if I remember correctly, they had the best record too. 

The voters never think Nash is better than Shaq/Duncan as a player but since Duncan missed so many games and Shaq missed a month towards the end, the obvious choice is Nash. You can call it LUCKY but you can't deny Suns' success this season. If your team improved from 29W to 62W in ONE SEASON, won't you think Nash is the MVP??


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



tempe85 said:


> My point is you actually have to have proof to make claims such as that. Nash's defense has been very very overexaggerated for quite some time now. Every person I've seen say he can't play defense never actually tries to prove that point through statistics. For example I could say Shaq is terrible defensively and it would be worth just as much as what you said. Not that Shaq is any unwordly defensive player (which he by far is not!) but he's not the worste either.
> 
> I decided to actually look at real tangible statistics to see how Nash's defense stacked up against other PG's in the league this year. And guess what I found? All this baloney about Nash sucking at defense is just that: Baloney!
> 
> ...



Thank GOD, somebody speak up for Nash's defense. All this "Nash is the BIGGEST defense liability" has gone way too far. When Nash was in Mavs, the whole freaking team is not a defensive team. Not just Nash. There was no help defense when the opposing team runs pick&roll.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

Shaq is my mvp for this season. I would have probably picked Wade, Tmac, Nowitski and Duncan ahead of Nash. Shaq is far and away the greatest impact player in the nba and his presense was a big factor in Dwayne Wade putting up mvp numbers.

I think Nash helps Amare put up MVP numbers but nash doesn't have mvp numbers other than assists. Im not all about the numbers, but the whole team the suns have is really good. The whole team makes itself look good and he is the kick starter. It just makes me wonder how good the mavericks would have been if they had a powerful inside force like amare, and a great wing defender.


----------



## AnDrOiDKing4 (Feb 6, 2005)

Shaq... he should of won it, cleary defined what a impact player he is.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

AnDrOiDKing4 said:


> Shaq... he should of won it, cleary defined what a impact player he is.


I 2nd that.

I guess they felt that giving it to Shaq would've been boring.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

Greater Levitator said:


> I won't engage with a discussion with a homer.



because he refuted your points? good counter-argument. and people wonder why suns fans have a complex on this board . . .


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

ScottVdub said:


> Shaq is my mvp for this season. *I would have probably picked Wade, Tmac, Nowitski and Duncan ahead of Nash.* Shaq is far and away the greatest impact player in the nba and his presense was a big factor in Dwayne Wade putting up mvp numbers.
> 
> I think Nash helps Amare put up MVP numbers but nash doesn't have mvp numbers other than assists. Im not all about the numbers, but the whole team the suns have is really good. The whole team makes itself look good and he is the kick starter. It just makes me wonder how good the mavericks would have been if they had a powerful inside force like amare, and a great wing defender.


Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut???

I Also think Shaq should've won.But 2 MVP candidates in the same team?
*Has that ever happened*?If so,Why?

PS----I would feel embarrassed if the answer to my question is Kobe and Shaq...I sure as hell hope it's not Kobe and Shaq.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

VCFSO2000 said:


> Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut???
> 
> I Also think Shaq should've won.But 2 MVP candidates in the same team?
> *Has that ever happened*?If so,Why?
> ...



wade put up big numbers all over the place and plays good defense. He doesnt take too many stupid shots. He gets alot of rebounds for a guard. And he gets quite a bit of assists. I'll take a look at the numbers in a little while but they are phenomenal. He kept it up while Shaq was hurt.

And no I wouldnt say Kobe and Shaq, I would say Jordan and Pippen were both mvp worthy players on the same team. Lots of teams have had more than 1 mvp worthy player. The 80's Lakers and Celtics for example. Heck, Kevin Johnson was better than Nash when they had Barkley in my opinion. Payton and Kemp were also there as far as impact goes.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



LegoHat said:


> Here is a list of the MVP's since 1980, in my opinion Nash has nothing to do on that list.
> 
> 1980-81 - Julius Erving, Philadelphia
> 1981-82 - Moses Malone, Houston
> ...



you're approaching it like the mvp is a lifetime achievement award. it is not. he's not being named to the hall of fame. and he's not being compared to mvp's in other seasons. he's being compared to players and teams' accomplishments in THIS season. and i think even the most hard-headed of you out there would have to give little stevie nash his due this year. he's been the main catalyst in turning a team that finished A GAME ABOVE LAST IN THE WESTERN CONFERENCE last year into the BEST TEAM (at least in regular season wins and losses) IN THE LEAGUE this year. without him, that doesn't happen. and compared to the others up for the award, i think he definitely measures up this year.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



HKF said:


> The thing is, MVP's are usually lock HOF's and Steve Nash is no lock to even be on a ballot. This is very surprising. A guy that I never thought was even in the top 20 of best players in the league is all of a sudden the MVP of the NBA, thoroughly not caring about one side of the court and the fact that he plays with Amare Stoudemire as well.
> 
> Nash winning is a surprise and it should have went to Shaq or Duncan.



what are your arguments supporting shaq or duncan?

awarding it to shaq would be a lifetime achievement award. that's NOT what the mvp is supposed to be. and the argument against nash that he had amare is prolly triplefold against shaq for having wade as wade is the ice-cold closer on shaq's own team. heat don't win a lot of games if wade can't close. the same is not true of nash, the suns don't win a lot of games w/o nash at the end.

as for duncan - his numbers are down a bit. his cast has improved greatly (ginobili has been indispensible this year). and he missed a lot of time.

i realize a lot of you will consider me a homer, but i think nash, for THIS year, fits in with the others. would i be upset if he didn't win it? no. but i think all the teeth gnashing (pun intended) over nash taking it home is somewhat ridiculous.


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

ScottVdub said:


> And no I wouldnt say Kobe and Shaq, I would say Jordan and Pippen were both mvp worthy players on the same team. Lots of teams have had more than 1 mvp worthy player. The 80's Lakers and Celtics for example. Heck, Kevin Johnson was better than Nash when they had Barkley in my opinion. Payton and Kemp were also there as far as impact goes.


Two MVP candidates might actually be pretty common. Right now we have Shaq/Wade and Nash/Amare; others from the resent past that come to mind are: Malone/Stockton, Kobe/Shaq, Jordan/Pippen, Barkley/KJ, and probably others that I'm not thinking of.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Sir Patchwork said:


> It seems pretty one-sided in people believing that he shouldn't have won.



apparently not so one-sided amongst the professionals though . . . gotcha!


----------



## Ravnos (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



jibikao said:


> Yes, Stockton was good and so was Kidd/KJ but did they improve Suns as much as Nash has done for the Suns this year?


So is your criteria for MVP merely the number of wins a team improves by when he joins them?


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The lone wolf said:


> Look at this from an outsiders point of view. Point guards like Nash are not extremely rare in Europe.



are you serious?!?

then how come the nba ain't importing them by the dozens?

i hate to be inflammatory, [strike]but this is a stupid comment.[/strike]


----------



## Ravnos (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



PHXSPORTS4LIFE said:


> apparently not so one-sided amongst the professionals though . . . gotcha!


professional WRITERS though ... gotcha!


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



 The lone wolf said:


> Ha...
> 
> Cuban (one of the richest owners) didn't even match the 65 mil offer that Suns gave..



know your arguments. he didn't match it based on the length of the contract, not the dollar amount. you continue to dig your own pit. classic.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



PHXSPORTS4LIFE said:


> what are your arguments supporting shaq or duncan?
> 
> awarding it to shaq would be a lifetime achievement award. that's NOT what the mvp is supposed to be. and the argument against nash that he had amare is prolly triplefold against shaq for having wade as wade is the ice-cold closer on shaq's own team. heat don't win a lot of games if wade can't close. the same is not true of nash, the suns don't win a lot of games w/o nash at the end.
> 
> ...


Oh, I definitely think hes a worthy candidate. There are just people here who would of rather seen other people win over Nash. I'm not trying to insult Steve Nash by my opinions because he's an incredibal player who's made impacts in both Dallas and Phoenix. I just think Shaqs presense on a team is by far more valuable than any player in the nba. Duncan would have easily been higher on the list of my candidates but he missed some time so his 82 game impact was probably more valuable. Nash is one of the most valuable players in the league, shaq is the most valuable.

The last few years only Duncan and KG have had seasons worthy enough to not give Shaq his mvp. But ever since his 2nd season in the league the only players who I beleive have had an undeniably better seasons are Jordan, and Olojuwon and(edit) Karl Malone, i forgot to add him because he pissed me off.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

a no defense, worse version of mark price just won mvp. unbelievable! they gotta take the voting power out of the hands of the writers, these guys don't know what they are talking about period. this happened at just the right time, where every little white guy voting, saw themselves in nash and jumped. its just disgusting.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Pioneer10 said:


> The guy people have wanted for awhile is the Lithuanian dude Sarunas Jasivisouc (sp?) who torched the US over the summer Olympics. He's been courted by more then a few NBA teams in the past. I have no idea if he's better then Nash, but who cares Nash is a great player he just not an MVP calibre player by nearly any measure



you mean by nearly any measure other than the votes which is the only measure that actually matters??? i love everyone's outrage. live with it people. he's your mvp.


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



jibikao said:


> Yes, Stockton was good and so was Kidd/KJ but did they improve Suns as much as Nash has done for the Suns this year?


To be fair, the Suns did win 27 more games in KJ's first full season with the Suns than they did the season before.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



hobojoe said:


> I agree. Nothing against Nash, but if Jason Kidd couldn't win the MVP in his first season in New Jersey over Tim Duncan, I don't see how Nash wins it this year over Shaq. If you look at the scenarios, the two year's MVP races are very similar. Kidd was a PG who came to a new team that was awful the year before and led them to one of the best records in the East while putting up OK scoring numbers, very good rebounding numbers for a PG, and great assist numbers. Tim Duncan was the 20+ point 10+ rebound per game anchor of the team with the best record in the league. Duncan won. This year Nash is the Kidd, coming onto a new team and turning them around from 25 wins to over 60 and the best record in the league while putting up decent scoring numbers and great assist numbers. Shaq is the 20+ point 10+ rebound per game anchor of the best team in the East. Only this time, Nash wins. Shaq gets shafted on yet another MVP award, simply ridiculous. How the hell does he only have 1 MVP in his career? :nonono:


funny that in the kidd-duncan comparison you state that duncan anchored the "team with the best record in the league" and when you did the nash-shaq comparison you state that shaq was the "anchor of the best team in the EAST" while neglecting to include that nash "anchored the team with the best record in the LEAGUE" which was one of your criteria in the kidd-duncan showdown. nice selectivity in your arguments.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Ravnos said:


> professional WRITERS though ... gotcha!



but strangely enough, they're the only ones whose vote counts . . . gotcha!


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



PHXSPORTS4LIFE said:


> but strangely enough, they're the only ones whose vote counts . . . gotcha!


 but they shouldn't count. . . gotcha!


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



7 said:


> To be fair, the Suns did win 27 more games in KJ's first full season with the Suns than they did the season before.


yeah, but they also picked up tom chambers as a free agent that offseason and drafted tim perry and dan majerle. that team got considerably better all the way around.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



sherako said:


> but they shouldn't count. . . gotcha!


but they do and you have no say in the matter. no more gotcha. game. set. match.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

The NBA MVP just became a freaking joke. The Great White Hype in full effect.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



PHXSPORTS4LIFE said:


> funny that in the kidd-duncan comparison you state that duncan anchored the "team with the best record in the league" and when you did the nash-shaq comparison you state that shaq was the "anchor of the best team in the EAST" while neglecting to include that nash "anchored the team with the best record in the LEAGUE" which was one of your criteria in the kidd-duncan showdown. nice selectivity in your arguments.



You keep coming back to that "best record in the league garbage". Yet you keep running from:



> So is your criteria for MVP merely the number of wins a team improves by when he joins them?


Its a legitimate question. One I think you should answer since you so hypocritically throw around the word "selective". I have yet to see you offer up one single argument beyond: He's on the best team in the league.

And

He's not a bad defender 

I'll deal with the second point since I've actually watched Nash's defense since the ASB, precisely so I could have this discussion after he won it (I knew it was coming, since the writers need something to write about and Shaq winning it ain't it).

Nash does not fight through screens. He routinely gets lost in la-la land after getting screened. He has trouble staying in front of his man. I've seen him completely give up on plays after getting beat off the dribble. He is routinely posted up by bigger guards and cannot hold his position. He does not create man on man pressure and cause a good number or TO's/posession. He is just horrible defensively...

As for your FG% numbers, well it stands to reason that teams that are not built to run and take a bunch of shots will see a decrease in FG% the more shots they take. It looks like good defense, but in reality, its just a larger sample size and therefore a greater likelihood of lower FG%


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

player efficiency rating (per, from john hollinger) is a pretty good measure. top 3 were garnett, duncan and shaq. per doesn't reflect defensive impact either. nash came in 15th (amare came in 4th, marion 17th). garnett's team just flopped, and duncan played 7 games less than shaq. i just don't see it for nash. one side of the equation is that phx got alot better. the other side is that the team nash left actually got better as well. the mvp went to a player who's prior team actually got better without him.


----------



## 7 (Sep 14, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



sherako said:


> but they shouldn't count. . . gotcha!


Only your vote should count, right?


----------



## Ravnos (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



PHXSPORTS4LIFE said:


> but strangely enough, they're the only ones whose vote counts . . . gotcha!


but strangely enough, that actually makes the award less credible ... gotcha!

But let's put an end to this game. Your latest comeback doesn't make sense when taken with your original argument. When you first said this:


> apparently not so one-sided amongst the professionals though . . . gotcha!


You were implying that "professionals" knew better and thought Nash deserved the award over Shaq. You specifically chose the word "professionals" because you wanted to invoke the idea of professional opinions being better than amateur (us) opinions. That's why I emphasized that these "professionals" were writers, and not coaches/players/GMs, so their opinions are not any more informed and knowledgeable than ours. And then you come back with "they're the only ones whose vote counts . . . gotcha!" That doesn't even respond to my point, and actually HURTS your position, which is that Nash actually does deserve the award. Please, think about you say.


----------



## Pejavlade (Jul 10, 2004)

I agree Nash does not deserve MVP but one thing I like that might happen is basketball might become much larger in Canada.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Pejavlade said:


> I agree Nash does not deserve MVP but one thing I like that might happen is basketball might become much larger in Canada.


 i already said give it to the players to decide. the ones who know and play the game. if nash wins it then, i got no qualms, no bones to pick.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The Krakken said:


> You keep coming back to that "best record in the league garbage". Yet you keep running from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


first, i think that the teams record should be part of the criteria in determining the league's mvp. if a man put up superhuman numbers on the worst team in the league they just shouldn't be mvp. that said, i don't think it's the only factor, but i think the combo of being the best record in the league AND the turnaround in the suns is a big factor. second, i don't keep bringing it up, i was just calling that previous poster on his lack of consistency in forming his arguments.

as for an argument beyond the record and turnaround, how about operating as the glue in an as yet untried experiment. d'antoni instituted a new system into the league and put the entire ball of wax into nash's hands to run. very little in the way of structure other than nash's creativity, ball-handling, passing, and decision-making. the reason the suns are able to run their offense is steve nash. have you seen the suns when he's not in the game? scary. and this is not a team predicated on defense (as you have all pounded into our collective brains time after time), so nash's defensive shortcomings, real or perceived, are not as detrimental to this team as might be the case with others. part of d'antoni's schemes is to avoid fouls. by definition that places additional limitations on his players ability to d up. i'm not saying that nash could be a stopper, i realize his limitations, but he's also not expected to be one on this team. he plays his role to the best of his abilities, lead the team, set the table, don't turn the ball over, come through in crunch time and lead the team to the best record in the league. do i think he's the slam dunk mvp this year? no. but i don't think it's the travesty that most of you make it out to seem.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



Ravnos said:


> but strangely enough, that actually makes the award less credible ... gotcha!
> 
> But let's put an end to this game. Your latest comeback doesn't make sense when taken with your original argument. When you first said this:
> 
> You were implying that "professionals" knew better and thought Nash deserved the award over Shaq. You specifically chose the word "professionals" because you wanted to invoke the idea of professional opinions being better than amateur (us) opinions. That's why I emphasized that these "professionals" were writers, and not coaches/players/GMs, so their opinions are not any more informed and knowledgeable than ours. And then you come back with "they're the only ones whose vote counts . . . gotcha!" That doesn't even respond to my point, and actually HURTS your position, which is that Nash actually does deserve the award. Please, think about you say.


you actually make a good argument. then i'll support my argument of "professionals" (be they writers) over amateurs with the following: i don't know what you do for a living but it isn't watching as many professional basketball games as typical beat writers do. i'll also bet it isn't investigating every storyline around the nba as nba beat writers do. do i think they have a better gauge on the league than us amateurs? hell yes i do. do i think they're always right? no. but you can't argue with their collective vote. it isn't just one or two guys. you can say that you don't agree (okay, so maybe you can argue, but it's a hollow argument when you have no recourse) if you wish, but if the majority of individuals with greater knowledge vote a certain way, don't you have to give it some merit?

btw, i agree that players and coaches should do the voting, but then i'd be afraid of bias. really, there is no good way to pick such a subjective award.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

For those who are referring to the voters as "professionals" and giving that as a reason why Nash deserved it, take a look at this and tell me again that these people are true "professionals". After reading something like that, it's pretty tough to put a whole lot of importance on who these guys vote for MVP. Now of course all of them aren't like this, it's probably a very small amount of them, but it still really diminishes the credibility of the award imo.


----------



## Bron_Melo_ROY (Apr 12, 2004)

I think that it was a close call btwn Shaq and Steve Nash and although the arguement can be made that Steve Nash is not a bonafide superstar and not a household name, the argument can be made that he has been more valuable than Shaq in the sense of how much better his team was this year with him in comparison to last year without him. Then again, the argument can be made for Shaq that even though he didn't dominate statistically, he made each and every person on his team better and produced a bonafide superstar out of Dwayne Wade (you could say the same about Nash and Amare but Amare was already on the verge of stardom even if Steve Nash didn't come over). I think both were very deserving and whatever decision the NBA makes will not get an argument from me.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



socco said:


> For those who are referring to the voters as "professionals" and giving that as a reason why Nash deserved it, take a look at this and tell me again that these people are true "professionals". After reading something like that, it's pretty tough to put a whole lot of importance on who these guys vote for MVP. Now of course all of them aren't like this, it's probably a very small amount of them, but it still really diminishes the credibility of the award imo.



I started to read it but mid-way through the article I was disgusted and stopped.

If every reporter is like him,then the MVP race is a popularity contest.

But that allegation is irrelevant in this case,since shaq is arguably the most beloved player in the league and he still lost.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



The Krakken said:


> You keep coming back to that "best record in the league garbage". Yet you keep running from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No offense but this is a load of horse manure. If it were true then the Suns would obviously have one of the lower FG%'s in the league. Yet in eFG% they are by far the #1 team in this category despite the fact they have the largest sample size.

And large sample sizes don't necessarily mean it'll be lower rather it will be a more precise measurement. If someone shoots 2 Ft's and hits one of them that's a very imprecise measurement but if he shoots 1,000 and hits 750 that's more precise. Also if he shoots 1,000 more there's nothing to say he's suddenly going to go to the crapper as a FT shooter because he's taken too many.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



kflo said:


> player efficiency rating (per, from john hollinger) is a pretty good measure. top 3 were garnett, duncan and shaq. per doesn't reflect defensive impact either. nash came in 15th (amare came in 4th, marion 17th). garnett's team just flopped, and duncan played 7 games less than shaq. i just don't see it for nash. one side of the equation is that phx got alot better. the other side is that the team nash left actually got better as well. the mvp went to a player who's prior team actually got better without him.


 Did you read the John Hollinger article I linked to? You know...the one proclaiming Nash the top offensive player of the past few years?

_Nash the link to history's best offenses
By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider
Archive_

_What do the two best offenses in NBA history have in common?

Here's a hint: He was born in South Africa, raised in Canada, has a $60 million contract, and a $5 haircut.

The man is Steve Nash, the Phoenix Suns' point guard who has become an unlikely MVP candidate by energizing their offense and leading them to this year's best record. Nash could become only the second foreign-born player to win MVP honors, not to mention the first to do it while wearing a Neil Young wig (hey, it's a Canadian thing).

But many might not appreciate just how good the Suns' offense has been, and that this is nothing new for Nash. The Suns' 110.5 points-per-game scoring average towers over the league average of 97.2. But considering the Suns' frenetic pace -- led by Nash, of course -- we should expect his team to play high-scoring games because each team gets more possessions than usual.

One way to more precisely measure teams' offenses is with a statistic called Offensive Efficiency, which tracks how many points a team scores for each 100 possessions it uses.


Try as he might, Marbury (right) cannot wrest "best offensive point guard" honors from Nash.

The Suns are also No. 1 in this category, and their advantage is large. The Suns average 112.1 points per 100 possessions, easily outpacing the second-place Miami Heat's 108.3. Compared to the league average of 103.1, the Suns are well ahead of the curve, topping the average by 9.0 points. Since the average Suns game had nearly 100 possessions for each team (98.1 to be exact), that means their offense provides a mammoth advantage of nearly nine points every night compared to the output from an average team.

And that nine-point edge relative to the league is among the best in "modern" basketball history. Offensive Efficiency stats are only available dating to 1973-74, when the league started keeping track of turnovers. But in the 32 seasons since, only one team has put up a better Offensive Efficiency than this year's Suns.

Believe it or not, it was last year's Mavericks – led by Steve Nash.

That's right, the team Nash quarterbacked so successfully in Dallas was quite possibly the greatest offense in history. The Mavs averaged 110.1 points per 100 possessions a year ago, while the league average was 100.8. The Mavs' advantage of 9.3 points above the norm was even better than the 2004-05 Suns' mark of +9.0.

Nash's accomplishments don't end there. Check out the chart showing the other greatest offenses in history, and you'll notice two things.

First, the No. 6 team was Nash's Mavs of 2002-03, earning him three spots in the top six. Second, check out the difference between the past two seasons and every other team on the list. Nash's Mavs and Suns teams didn't just scrape by the previous record, they blasted it out of the water. No team had even been +7.5 relative to the league before two years ago, but Nash's teams averaged better than +9.

Top Offenses Since 1973-74
Team Year Off. Eff. NBA Avg. Difference
Dallas Mavericks 2003-04 110.1 100.8 9.3
Phoenix Suns 2004-05 112.1 103.1 9.0
Denver Nuggets 1981-82 111.7 104.2 7.5
Boston Celtics 1987-88 112.4 105.0 7.4
Chicago Bulls 1991-92 112.3 105.0 7.3
Dallas Mavericks 2002-03 108.7 101.4 7.3

While both of Nash's teams played helter-skelter, the real key to the offensive success of each was turnover avoidance. Last year, Nash's Mavs committed just 11.8 turnovers per game, setting a new NBA record. Thanks to their mistake-free play, the Mavs took 519 shots more than any other team, which made it pretty easy for them to pile up the points. 

Similarly, this year's Suns are also experts at avoiding the miscue. The Suns turn the ball over on 13.8 percent of their possessions, second only to the Sacramento Kings for the league's best rate. Without Nash last year, they were at 15.5 percent, so Nash is getting them two extra possessions a game. In contrast, the Mavs' rate sans Nash of 14.1 percent is a big reason they've gone from great to merely good, ranking fifth in Offensive Efficiency this year.

Of course, Nash had some help. In both Phoenix and Dallas, he could tag-team with a superb finisher at small forward and a devastatingly effective big man. Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitzki and Antawn Jamison all made this year's All-Star game, reflecting the outstanding offensive talent that surrounded Nash in both cities.

However, Nash is arguably the best offensive player of the bunch. Based on my Player Efficiency Rating (PER), which measures each player's per-minute statistical production, Nash is well down the leaderboard. However, that's mostly because of his inability to rebound or defend. If we zero out those numbers for everyone and just look at "Offensive PER," Nash takes his rightful place among the elites.

Offensive PER leaders 04-05
Player Team Off. PER
Amare Stoudemire Phoenix Suns 19.81
Dirk Nowitzki Dallas Mavericks 19.62
Steve Nash Phoenix Suns 19.45
LeBron James Cleveland Cavaliers 19.44
Stephon Marbury New York Knicks 19.32

While Nash ranks a close third, the news item here is that Stoudemire and Nowitzki are Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. Looking at the chart, some might wonder how Nash can be labeled the best offensive player in the game if his current and former teammate are both better.

The evidence is clear from Nash's previous two seasons. They show that he has consistently been among the game's top offensive performers, while 2004-05 has been a career year for both Stoudemire and Nowitzki. For instance, only one name makes a repeat appearance in the 2003-04 leaders in Offensive PER:

Offensive PER leaders 03-04
Player Team Off. PER
Tracy McGrady Orlando Magic 20.39
Sam Cassell Minnesota Timberwolves 20.28
Kevin Garnett Minnesota Timberwolves 18.84
Kobe Bryant Los Angeles Lakers 18.75
Steve Nash Dallas Mavericks 18.01

And, as you might have surmised, Nash was in the top five in 2002-03 as well, although Nowitzki wasn't far behind:

Offensive PER leaders 02-03
Player Team Off. PER
Tracy McGrady Orlando Magic 24.72
Shaquille O'Neal Los Angeles Lakers 21.04
Kobe Bryant Los Angeles Lakers 20.52
Steve Nash Dallas Mavericks 19.86
Sam Cassell Milwaukee Bucks 19.34
Dirk Nowitzki Dallas Mavericks 19.34

So, who deserves the title of the game's best offensive player?

Consider these three factors:

1) The margin among the top five players in Offensive PER this season is razor-thin;

2) Nash was much better than the others each of the previous two seasons; and

3) Nash conducted the two best offenses in "modern" NBA history.

While it's hard to imagine the game's most dominant offensive player being a 6-foot-3 guard who played four years in a second-tier college conference, the results speak for themselves.

If Nowitzki, Stoudemire and LeBron James perform at their current levels again next season, then we'll have to re-examine the issue. But for now, the title has to go to Nash. Not bad for a guy who looks like a roadie for Crazy Horse, eh?_


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

ESPN just said during Bulls/Wizards halftime show that Nash would be made MVP this Saturday/Sunday.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

This has got to be the first time in NBA history that the Top 2 MVP candidates aren't even the leading scorers on their own teams. At least we know that voters realize it's not all about scoring.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Seriously they should of opted for a co-mvp this year.








Nash and Amare.




j/k 

But in a serious note, Duncan was injured and NBA's next "greatest" asset LeBron didnt make the playoffs. KG's team also flopped. Shaq is having a good year but to his standards isnt really dominating enough, thats why he didnt ran away with the MVP. Iverson was also 10 wins away from being a contender.

Nash stood out, because he was part of a historic season in terms of the Suns having one of the best offensive efficiencies of all time. That also traslated to the Suns having the best record and rising out of the elite bunch of western teams. 

I wanted Duncan to win it seriously, but I knew once he got injured that would sway a lot of voters away.


The best thing about Nash is that NBA is sending a good message all around, today's game almost all the superstar point guards are scorers first then play makers. Hopefully a lot of these superstar combo guards will see the light and be play makers, because they are a become rare since most are becomming combo guards. And some NBA teams might actually become as offensive minded as the suns. I think the voters are just really favouring the things Nash has brought to the table.


Hopefully he plays as good as this season next season.... Now that would be a travesty if he just drops off.


And the nash insulting is unbeliavable, the guy didnt vote himself in. He was even so honoured to even be mentioned. But all these put downs and insults come out of the wood work to someone like Nash doing good things for the game. Its not like he talks trash after the games, its not like he proclaims he is the best guard. He just plays to his ability and he happens to be noticed for doing it..... shame on bashers.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

A lot of people in here discount the leadership side of Nash, that does not show in the stats, but you do see evidences of.

He has THE youngest group supporting him, among NBA point-guards and he is (and more recently JJax), the anchoring factor, that allowed the yong'uns to not only improve their games, but to keep their focus. Do you think a punk-*** like JKidd, as good he is a player, can focus such a young team enough to win 62 games, and conduct a sweep in the playoffs?

As for those of you pimping JKidd over Nash, Nash has always punked Kidd everytime they have ever faced each other, even in college, when Kidd was an absolute star in UCLA, and Nash played in a college named Santa Clara.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Greater Levitator said:


> I won't engage with a discussion with a homer.


How am I a "homer?" [strike]Do you know how to read?[/strike] I said, "Now, I'm not saying he should be MVP." In fact I would go as far as to say Shaq should've gotten it. [strike]But I guess you're illiterate then.[/strike] Cuz I said NOTHING that makes me sound like a homer. And I never post like one either, if you read my posts. [strike]But then again you do not know how to read.[/strike]


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

I'm surprised that the MVP isn't going to Shaq this year, however there is no better candidate to recieve the award than Steve Nash

Why people are hating on this decision, is beyond me  

It seems a lot of people have thier own definition of the *MOST VALUABLE PLAYER*, 

The MVP award is based on the just completed regular season and cannot be compared to previous winners/finalists from previous years. When People mention Mark Price and Jason Kidd not winning the MVP award, that has nothing to do with what happened *THIS YEAR*, and the current players that were playing at thier best.

*Most common misconceptions* 
1. the MVP has to be the best/most dominant offensive player in the league
2. the MVP has to be chosen from a list of perennial all-stars/future H.O.Fers
(Shaq, Duncan, KG, Lebron)

Truth be told, the more typical/popular choices all but eliminated themselves from MVP contention, leading to an MVP showdown between Shaq/Nash
1. KG-missed playoffs
2. Duncan - missed to many games to win
3. Lebron - missed playoffs after being a lock

Shaq was just edged out this year, but I am very happy to see Nash win it!!


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



carrrnuttt said:


> Did you read the John Hollinger article I linked to? You know...the one proclaiming Nash the top offensive player of the past few years?
> 
> _Nash the link to history's best offenses
> By John Hollinger
> ...


Did you not read you're own article? Hollinger *******izes his PER ranking which measures overall effect and takes out stats that measure OVERALL impact and finds stats that support Nash being a great offensive player. This article actually supports a lot of opinions here that while Nash is a great player he is not an MVP calibre player. An MVP is the one that dominates the whole game: both offensive and defensive sides.

I love this team success crap too. Dallas the team Nash left as a free agent. A team that got nothing back for him *actually won 6 more games this year without him*. I guess Jason terry should get some MVP votes as well. 

Miami not only got better but the team that trade shaq away (i.e. actually got players back other then Nash) lost 22 games more!! That is called impact. The team success argument actually supports Shaq.

I'm not a hater of Nash who is a great player but he is not an MVP calibre player. His season has not been that exception. You're own article basically states he is the same player as last year - how come no MVP talk for Nash last year then? the arguments for Nash as MVP have all been weak and statiscally flawed


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

I think you have to give the award to Dirk this year.. Duncan 2nd, Shaq 3rd, Ginobili 4th and Nash 5th.


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



PHXSPORTS4LIFE said:


> you're approaching it like the mvp is a lifetime achievement award. it is not. he's not being named to the hall of fame. and he's not being compared to mvp's in other seasons. he's being compared to players and teams' accomplishments in THIS season. and i think even the most hard-headed of you out there would have to give little stevie nash his due this year. he's been the main catalyst in turning a team that finished A GAME ABOVE LAST IN THE WESTERN CONFERENCE last year into the BEST TEAM (at least in regular season wins and losses) IN THE LEAGUE this year. without him, that doesn't happen. and compared to the others up for the award, i think he definitely measures up this year.


Quentin Richardson for MVP!!!!!! How quickly everyone forgets that Nash wasn't the only player Phoenix added this year. And about his defensive horribleness, one just has to look at the numbers Bibby put up against him in the playoffs. He is downright BRUTAL on the defensive end.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

jcs83md said:


> I think you have to give the award to Dirk this year.. Duncan 2nd, Shaq 3rd, *Ginobili 4th * and Nash 5th.


Could you explain why Ginobili is an MVP candidate? There should be a rule that says...

"If a player is sent to the bench after a playoff loss,he is not eligible for the MVP award"


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Yeah, MVP is usually awarded to the player that is universally recognized as a Star, yet stands out among other stars because of performance that lead to success.

If it was awarded for the most dominant or BEST player... then Michael Jordan should have atleast 10 MVPs. He lost out to players that stood out either because that player is attracting attention because of standout plays or outstanding performance that lead to team success.


With that said, anyone from this list I dont mind winning the MVP.
-Duncan
-Shaq
-Nash
-Dirk
-Amare
-T-Mac


----------



## FlyingTiger (Aug 4, 2002)

HAHAHAHAHAHA to all you guys hating on Nash the whole year. NASH is the MVP. just last year you guys didnt even have him top 5 at PG. davis, bibby, cassell, francis, parker, kidd etc. everybody hating on nash needs to learn basketball.


----------



## AnDrOiDKing4 (Feb 6, 2005)

FlyingTiger said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHA to all you guys hating on Nash the whole year. NASH is the MVP. just last year you guys didnt even have him top 5 at PG. davis, bibby, cassell, francis, parker, kidd etc. everybody hating on nash needs to learn basketball.


[STRIKE]And you need to learn english.[/STRIKE]

You need to refrain from making insulting remarks like this. Thanks --hobojoe


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

I read his statement. I don't see anything that might lead me to believe that his english his horrible...

Maybe he uses the word "hating" too much but other than that,you must be f'n demanding when it comes to grammar...

this bbb.net not an english class.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



HKF said:


> The thing is, MVP's are usually lock HOF's and Steve Nash is no lock to even be on a ballot. This is very surprising. A guy that I never thought was even in the top 20 of best players in the league is all of a sudden the MVP of the NBA, thoroughly not caring about one side of the court and the fact that he plays with Amare Stoudemire as well.
> 
> Nash winning is a surprise and it should have went to Shaq or Duncan.


Being as knowledgeable as you are, you should know that just because Nash isn't HOF worthy right now doesn't mean he isn't deserving. It's completely irrevelant.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

Wow.....that's all I really have to say. I stopped reading after page 2 because I was so disgusted. I think this is going to scar the MVP trophy from here on out and is pretty degrading for all other MVPs. Nash is not an MVP. Nash is not a top 5 player, hell Nash isn't even a top 10 player in my books. What has Steve Nash done that is so great; turn the Phoenix franchise around? No, no, no, he did not do that. Amare Stoudemire's growth, JJ's growth, Marion's great season, adding Q.Rich *AND* adding Nash turned this team around, not just Nash. I really don't see any strong argument for him winning this award.

The MVP is supposed to be the person who had the best season, what did Nash do that was so spectacular? Shaq automatically turned a team into a championship contender, and the team he left is in the lottery, funny how that is. Sure some are going to say Nash did the same, turning a team into a contender, but once again, it wasn't just Nash, there was many more factors contributing to this great Phoenix season. Shaq should have gotten this award hands down. Nash is a terrible defender, and the only reason why he's being called MVP is because he apparently turned a team around, which he didn't even do. Some may say something like "well he averaged 11 apg", well no ****. What good passing point guard wouldn't average 11 apg on that team. I have no doubt in my mind that Jason Kidd and Mike Bibby could do a very similar job in Phoenix, hell I even think J-Will would do a good job in Phoenix. They have 4 starters who are all capable of 20-30 points per game every single night, and the way Phoenix runs, getting 11 apg isn't that difficult. Who could you throw into Miami and produce and change that team like Shaq did? Maybe Tim Duncan could and I wouldn't put up much of an argument because it is possible, but outside of him, no one could. 

An MVP is supposed to be a very great player, both individually and on a team aspect; what has Nash done individually to deserve an MVP? Oh right, he averaged 15 ppg, that must warrant some consideration, or maybe it was that subpar defense he plays....wait scratch that, maybe it was the bad defense he plays. Yeah that must be it.

Now I'm sure that a lot of people will bring up those 5 games where Nash didn't play, and Phoenix lost all 5, what a glorious stat that is. What kind of team loses 5 games when the catalyst of their offense is out for the first time all season? Phoenix was destined to lose those games, just like the Nets played bad without J-Kidd, or how the Sixers played bad without Iverson... you see a pattern here? Teams don't play expecting injuries, and usually when the catalyst of the offense goes down unexpectidly, and there is no good replacement, and it is the first time the team will be playing without that catalyst, the team is going to struggle. The fact that Phoenix lost those games is utterly worthless. 

Now tell me one final thing, what has Nash done differently here, than he did in Dallas? Be on a 60 win team? Oh wait he did that in Dallas. What about averaging 11 apg? Oh wait, he has JJ, Amare, Q, Marion and an extremely high paced offense in Phoenix, much higher paced than Dallas. He is still playing the same here he did in Dallas, so what makes this year so special? Please, explain this for me.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

Sorry I forgot about this. Sir Patchwork....tell me once and for all, why do you hate Iverson. It is clear as daylight, "I don't buy his hype," "Worst MVP of all time," c'mon man, you degrade this guy every chance you get. Please give him credit where he deserves it. I understand hating, even I hate some players, like Manu Ginobili for example (I don't really hate, hate him, but it's all I could think of), I don't really like him a lot because of what people say about him and how highly people think about him, but I give credit when it is due. He is a tremendous player, and a very key piece to the San Antonio team, I will be willing to put my hate aside and congratulate players when they rightfully deserve it. You need to learn to do this with Iverson, give him some credit, he is a great player, and was a very worthy MVP when he won it, please just accept that.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

I totally disagree with Nash winning the award. In my opinion Shaq deserved it more and Duncan as a second, I wouldn't have minded if either got the award. Nash is good, but he's no where near the level of the those two and even Allen Iverson is better than Nash. I can't believe that Steve Nash of all the people got this award, he's not even the best player on his own team. What a disgrace.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Wow.....that's all I really have to say. I stopped reading after page 2 because I was so disgusted. I think this is going to scar the MVP trophy from here on out and is pretty degrading for all other MVPs. Nash is not an MVP. Nash is not a top 5 player, hell Nash isn't even a top 10 player in my books. What has Steve Nash done that is so great; turn the Phoenix franchise around? No, no, no, he did not do that. Amare Stoudemire's growth, JJ's growth, Marion's great season, adding Q.Rich *AND* adding Nash turned this team around, not just Nash. I really don't see any strong argument for him winning this award.
> 
> *The MVP is supposed to be the person who had the best season,* what did Nash do that was so spectacular? Shaq automatically turned a team into a championship contender, and the team he left is in the lottery, funny how that is. Sure some are going to say Nash did the same, turning a team into a contender, but once again, it wasn't just Nash, there was many more factors contributing to this great Phoenix season. Shaq should have gotten this award hands down. Nash is a terrible defender, and the only reason why he's being called MVP is because he apparently turned a team around, which he didn't even do. Some may say something like "well he averaged 11 apg", well no ****. What good passing point guard wouldn't average 11 apg on that team. I have no doubt in my mind that Jason Kidd and Mike Bibby could do a very similar job in Phoenix, hell I even think J-Will would do a good job in Phoenix. They have 4 starters who are all capable of 20-30 points per game every single night, and the way Phoenix runs, getting 11 apg isn't that difficult. Who could you throw into Miami and produce and change that team like Shaq did? Maybe Tim Duncan could and I wouldn't put up much of an argument because it is possible, but outside of him, no one could.
> 
> ...




That's sad...You took all that time to write that text and your entire post loses its credibility after that sentence.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> That's sad...You took all that time to write that text and your entire post loses its credibility after that sentence.


Why? Did Nash really have the best season?


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Why? Did Nash really have the best season?


1st of all,the reason your text lost credibility is because you said something about "The MVP is supposed to be the guy with the best season"

That is false. It's the guy who proves to be more valuable to his team than any other player in the league. Which I think Nash qualifies as.

2nd of all.No he didn't have the best season. What is the best season?
Most ppg? If that's the case T-Mac should've won it 2 yrs ago.
Or maybe it's best all-around-game?If that's the case,than Lebron should've won it with his 25,7,7.(*I would really like to know what your definition of the best season is) And if none of these are definitions for "best season" I can't imagine one that Shaquille O'Neal would embody.

Finally, I think that Nash proved this year that if he had played for ORL,they would've finished at least 4th.

Having that Amare-prototype in Howard and enough fire-power for him to work with.Nash won the MVP because he made everyone around him better. Not by just catching a low-post feed and waiting for the dbl to act fast(as shaq does) but by working hard and having that PG acumen to find the open player ALL THE TIME.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

By the way in this entire thread not a single person has actually made a reasonable statistical arguement in favor of Shaq. Statistically I'd rank this as Shaq's second worste season in his entire career. Anyone care to disagree? Other than a higher FG% this is his worst season in his career other than last year. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/statistics?statsId=847


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> 1st of all,the reason your text lost credibility is because you said something about "The MVP is supposed to be the guy with the best season"
> 
> That is false. It's the guy who proves to be more valuable to his team than any other player in the league. Which I think Nash qualifies as.
> 
> ...


My definition of best season: Someone who makes more of an impact on his team than any other player in the league, and yes you have to be on one of the premier teams in the league (which I personally don't agree with, but that's besides the point). I never brought up best all around numbers, I never brought up scoring leader, so I don't know where you thought to bring those up in your post. Shaq had the best season because he automatically turned the Heat team into a contender, even after they gave up 3 of their core players to get him (3 starters actually). I think your post lost a lot of credibility when you said this


> I can't imagine one that Shaquille O'Neal would embody.


 How can you not see Shaq being a legit MVP? I also think you lost a lot of credibility in your post when you said Nash could take the Magic to a number 4 seed, when did Nash prove that this season? Explain that for me, because right now, I find that completely absurd. Howard isn't an Amare prototype, and they don't have a lot of fire power outside of Hedo, and Francis. Also, you're making it seem like the MVP should go to the player who works the hardest, because apparently Shaq shouldn't win it because all he does is stand in the post, and they should also find the open man all the time, well by those standards, why doesn't Jason Kidd win it? Or hell, why doesn't Brevin Knight win it? They both work extremely hard, and both are great at finding the open man.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> By the way in this entire thread not a single person has actually made a reasonable statistical arguement in favor of Shaq. Statistically I'd rank this as Shaq's second worste season in his entire career. Anyone care to disagree? Other than a higher FG% this is his worst season in his career other than last year.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/statistics?statsId=847


If you're trying to argue in favor of Nash, I urge you to not bring up statistics, 15 ppg/3 rpg/11 apg don't bode well for him. Who cares if Shaq had his worst statistical season of his career, does that automatically disqualify him from the MVP runnings? He is more than stats, and his stats are still impressive, especially when considering they are "career lows."


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> If you're trying to argue in favor of Nash, I urge you to not bring up statistics, 15 ppg/3 rpg/11 apg don't bode well for him. Who cares if Shaq had his worst statistical season of his career, does that automatically disqualify him from the MVP runnings? He is more than stats, and his stats are still impressive, especially when considering they are "career lows."


Lol.. and Nash isn't more than stats? That's a double standard by the looks of it.

And putting up 22.9-10.4 really isn't all that special (lot's of players do it)... and when you shoot 46% from the free throw line... kind of makes it hard to see him as an MVP. 

However considering only one other person has put up 11.5 assists or more in the past 20 seasons or so... I'd say that is special.
-------

Lol by the way Kudos to you for rounding down on all of Nash's statistics


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> Lol.. and Nash isn't more than stats? That's a double standard by the looks of it.
> 
> And putting up 22-10 really isn't all that special (lot's of players do it)... and when you shoot 46% from the free throw line... kind of makes it hard to see him as an MVP.
> 
> ...


OK name me one player in the past 20 seasons that has had as many options and has played in an offense that is as uptempo as the Suns, then I'll call it really special.

Also you saying Shaq is not a good MVP candidate because he shoots bad from the line is just idiotic. He makes his team better than Nash does. Reread my first post and get back to me.

EDIT: Sorry missed that last part, and I'm sorry if I missed each stat by 0.5 or less, it makes a really big deal doesn't it?


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> OK name me one player in the past 20 seasons that has had as many options and has played in an offense that is as uptempo as the Suns, then I'll call it really special.
> 
> Also you saying Shaq is not a good MVP candidate because he shoots bad from the line is just idiotic. He makes his team better than Nash does. Reread my first post and get back to me.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry missed that last part, and I'm sorry if I missed each stat by 0.5 or less, it makes a really big deal doesn't it?


I find it funny how people think the Suns supporting cast is so amazingly good when 80% of you didn't even think the Suns would be better than 8th seed before the season started. If these guys were already so amazingly good then they should have been at least #3 seed in most peoples minds. Players begin to look good when they start winning lots of games... and Nash has been the catalyst. You're holding Nash to a double standard... because he helped Johnson increase his 3Point% by 17 percent this year by getting open looks.. you use the fact Johnson shoots the ball so good as a reason Nash ISN'T the MVP.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> My definition of best season: Someone who makes more of an impact on his team than any other player in the league, and yes you have to be on one of the premier teams in the league (which I personally don't agree with, but that's besides the point). I never brought up best all around numbers, I never brought up scoring leader, so I don't know where you thought to bring those up in your post. Shaq had the best season because he automatically turned the Heat team into a contender, even after they gave up 3 of their core players to get him (3 starters actually). I think your post lost a lot of credibility when you said this How can you not see Shaq being a legit MVP? I also think you lost a lot of credibility in your post when you said Nash could take the Magic to a number 4 seed, when did Nash prove that this season? Explain that for me, because right now, I find that completely absurd. Howard isn't an Amare prototype, and they don't have a lot of fire power outside of Hedo, and Francis. Also, you're making it seem like the MVP should go to the player who works the hardest, because apparently Shaq shouldn't win it because all he does is stand in the post, and they should also find the open man all the time, well by those standards, why doesn't Jason Kidd win it? Or hell, why doesn't Brevin Knight win it? They both work extremely hard, and both are great at finding the open man.


You misquoted me on a fiew things but hey...

What I said about shaq is he can't win MVP solely on presence.He averaged career lows in pts and rebs and admitted in not giving his all during the reg.season stating that "Right now,I'm letting Wade drive the bus.When it's playoff time,I'll drive it".

So with that statement,you know he wasn't giving his all...That hurts.


All I know his Shaq didn't play like Shaq this year. The heat finished 1st because of Shaq's "presence" and Wade's unbelievable development.

And presence,alone,isn't enough to win MVP because we all know that's the only thing that ppl keep talking about.

Another thing,whenever the Suns were in a tight game in 4th quarter,they looked to their PG for leadership and execution of their offensive sets in order to win.

In MIA,when the 4th Q rolls around,It's Wade time.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> I find it funny how people think the Suns supporting cast is so amazingly good when 80% of you didn't even think the Suns would be better than 8th seed before the season started. If these guys were already so amazingly good then they should have been at least #3 seed in most peoples minds. Players begin to look good when they start winning lots of games... and Nash has been the catalyst. You're holding Nash to a double standard... because he helped Johnson increase his 3Point% by 17 percent this year by getting open looks.. you use the fact Johnson shoots the ball so good as a reason Nash ISN'T the MVP.


I never once said, or even said anything near to JJ's 3Point%, or even 3pointers in general. Also I think it was Amare's presence that helped JJ increase his percentage too, not just Nash. Maybe it was also because JJ actually improved his shooting, that seems logical doesn't it? There was more factors than just Nash finding him when he was open. Now I have a question for you, why do piddly little things like this matter when it comes to MVP? Averaging 11.5 apg shouldn't make you MVP, a teammate improving his 3point% durastically shouldn't make you MVP. Also, because a lot of people thought that Suns weren't going to be that great this season isn't a good argument for Nash as MVP, nor does it have much relevance at all. No one knew that Amare would become the scoring machine he is now (though yes he benefits from Nash, but as the season went on, he got much better scoring on his own without Nash's help), no one knew that Mario would average 12 rpg, no one knew that Q would lead the league in 3 pointers made, no one knew that JJ would improve on both ends of the floor like he did, and especially no one knew that the Suns would gel as well as they did.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> You misquoted me on a fiew things but hey...
> 
> What I said about shaq is he can't win MVP solely on presence.He averaged career lows in pts and rebs and admitted in not giving his all during the reg.season stating that "Right now,I'm letting Wade drive the bus.When it's playoff time,I'll drive it".
> 
> ...


I think you misquoted Shaq there, just because he was letting Wade drive, doesn't mean he was slacking throughout the season, not at all, it means he was letting Wade control the team, but his presence, and his play is what really won this team games. Also just because Wade took over in the clutch, does not make him the better player on the team. You could use that argument to say that Mike Bibby was more important than both C-Webb and Peja when they were all in Sac. And again, it wasn't just presence that Shaq was playing on, he still put up 22.9 ppg/10.4 rpg/2.7 apg/2.34 bpg on 60% shooting, he had a great season, even if it wasn't the Shaq we used to know, it was still an MVP caliber season.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> I never once said, or even said anything near to JJ's 3Point%, or even 3pointers in general. Also I think it was Amare's presence that helped JJ increase his percentage too, not just Nash. Maybe it was also because JJ actually improved his shooting, that seems logical doesn't it? There was more factors than just Nash finding him when he was open. Now I have a question for you, why do piddly little things like this matter when it comes to MVP? Averaging 11.5 apg shouldn't make you MVP, a teammate improving his 3point% durastically shouldn't make you MVP. Also, because a lot of people thought that Suns weren't going to be that great this season isn't a good argument for Nash as MVP, nor does it have much relevance at all. No one knew that Amare would become the scoring machine he is now (though yes he benefits from Nash, but as the season went on, he got much better scoring on his own without Nash's help), no one knew that Mario would average 12 rpg, no one knew that Q would lead the league in 3 pointers made, no one knew that JJ would improve on both ends of the floor like he did, and especially no one knew that the Suns would gel as well as they did.


That was one weird post...

I guess before a season actually starts no one can predict all the occurences.

No one knew this...No one knew that...  

Look,quite simply,The Heat without Shaq is D-Wade's team and quite frankly they make the playoffs.

PHX without Nash,is a bunch of scorers running wild who can't figure how to use all of their talents to win games,AND THEY DON'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS.

with Nash,they win 60 something games and have the best record in the league.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

VCFSO2000 said:


> That was one weird post...
> 
> I guess before a season actually starts no one can predict all the occurences.
> 
> ...


lol what made u so sure of wade's team would make the playoffs and the suns minus nash wouldnt? if u take AI out of the sixers or lebron off the cavs, both teams wouldnt win mre than 20games.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> That was one weird post...
> 
> I guess before a season actually starts no one can predict all the occurences.
> 
> ...


So you're telling me that a team of...

PG - Damon Jones
SG - Dwyane Wade
SF - Eddie Jones
PF - Udonis Haslem
C - Michael Doleac

is better than...

PG - Leandro Barbosa
SG - Joe Johnson
SF - Quentin Richardson
PF - Shawn Marion
C - Amare Stoudemire

please say you are kidding. The Suns would make the playoffs without Nash.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> I think you misquoted Shaq there, just because he was letting Wade drive, doesn't mean he was slacking throughout the season, not at all, it means he was letting Wade control the team, but his presence, and his play is what really won this team games. Also just because Wade took over in the clutch, does not make him the better player on the team. You could use that argument to say that Mike Bibby was more important than both C-Webb and Peja when they were all in Sac. And again, it *wasn't just presence that Shaq was playing on, he still put up 22.9 ppg/10.4 rpg/2.7 apg/2.34 bpg on 60% shooting, he had a great season, even if it wasn't the Shaq we used to know, it was still an MVP caliber * season.


First of all,I think Bibby was and still is the most important player on that SAC squad...Although put up great numbers,you can't say that the biggest factor in his candidacy is his presence...Can you?...


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> First of all,I think Bibby was and still is the most important player on that SAC squad


So Mike Bibby is better than a prime Chris Webber?


> ...Although put up great numbers,you can't say that the biggest factor in his candidacy is his presence...Can you?...


You can't really say anything is the biggest factor, everything Shaq does it what makes him great, not one aspect of his game, though his presence is very, very helpful for a team; it opens up lots of shots, it stops teams from driving the lane as much, it makes the defense pay attention to Shaq forcing them to not pay as much attention to the other players...


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> So you're telling me that a team of...
> 
> PG - Damon Jones
> SG - Dwyane Wade
> ...


No they wouldn't. Just as a team with Marbury/Crawford/Thomas/Thomas/Sweetney didn't make the playoffs.

you base that argument just because you look at that starting line-up and you think of what they've done and you say "These guys are good!"
When what they've accomplished offensively can be attributed to Nash. And if he's not around,they don't do what they've done.

Who sets them up?
Who's the leader?
Who runs the offense in crunch time?Barbosa?

While if you ask those questions for MIA;

Who sets them up?Wade has shown he can do it
Who's the leader?Wade
Who runs the offense in crunch time?Just make sure Wade has the ball.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> So Mike Bibby is better than a prime Chris Webber?
> 
> Bibby,in all those playoff runs was more valuable than Webber.Yes.If bibby isn't there,lakers win 5.
> 
> ...


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> So Mike Bibby is better than a prime Chris Webber?
> 
> You can't really say anything is the biggest factor, everything Shaq does it what makes him great, not one aspect of his game, though his presence is very, very helpful for a team; it opens up lots of shots, it stops teams from driving the lane as much, it makes the defense pay attention to Shaq forcing them to not pay as much attention to the other players...


You've fallen into the same trap.

I didn't say Bibby was better. I said he was more valuable than a injury-riddled webber.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

VCFSO2000 said:


> Ps!ence_Fiction said:
> 
> 
> > So Mike Bibby is better than a prime Chris Webber?
> ...


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> No they wouldn't. Just as a team with Marbury/Crawford/Thomas/Thomas/Sweetney didn't make the playoffs.
> 
> you base that argument just because you look at that starting line-up and you think of what they've done and you say "These guys are good!"
> When what they've accomplished offensively can be attributed to Nash. And if he's not around,they don't do what they've done.
> ...


Not every team has a point guard setting them up every play. Amare can create his own offense, Marion can do what he's been doing all these years and getting 20 ppg with almost no plays run for him, Q Rich will still get plenty of 3 pointers, and JJ has actually shown he has playmaking skills.

The leader would obviously be Amare, since he already is pretty much the leader of this Suns teams, he's at least one of the leaders.

In crunch time, they don't have one real player to take over the game, not every team does, actually the Suns right now don't really. Are you saying that Steve Nash takes over in the clutch? They would run their offense just like the would for the rest of the game.

Also a line of Marbury, Crawford, Thomas, Thomas and Sweetney isn't the greatest line up, and doesn't even have a quarter of the talent that a Nashless Suns team would have.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

The most illogical thing here is that.

All of a sudden people who usually put down Amare all of a sudden things he is more of an MVP than Nash since Nash is likely the MVP.

I can guarantee that if it was Amare that was to be announced MVP, the other way around would be used, "Nash made Amare who he is", "Nash made this suns team run this offense to make Amare better", "Nash lead Suns not Amare".

Not that I believe Amare should even be top 5 candidate this year. But thats just the gist of how everyone twists everything around to degrade the phoenix suns team, and no most of the fans are not paranoid, they are constantly defensive because of the attitude and doubt about the suns.


Shaq is no way near the run away MVP, Im going out on a limb here that if Mourning started for Miami this season, he would post 15 points 10 rebounds and 2 blocks a game, assuming he plays healthy most of the season. Shaq had a good season, no way near a "run away" MVP choice. Hell, Duncan playing less minutes posted near his career averages, and consider that he was also plague with distractions all season long. 
Everyone forgetting that Miami had this kid named Dwayne, who has been tearing it up lately, there are a handful of games where Dwayne lead his team to victories. And when Shaq was out they were almost the same. Not a dis to Shaq, but he didnt run away with the MVP this year, there was a handful of players that could take the MVP. It only became apparent that Nash stood out the most since the circumstances he is in was more outstanding than Duncan, Shaq and Nowitski's.

Suns offense is one of the best in history, and its so obvious that this is due to the running game that Nash helms in.


A.I, LeBron if they were a winning team... they could of ran away with the trophy... Shaq and Duncan were safe bets... and people just cant believe that a 6'3 white point guard wins it.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

1 Penny said:


> The most illogical thing here is that.
> 
> All of a sudden people who usually put down Amare all of a sudden things he is more of an MVP than Nash since Nash is likely the MVP.
> 
> ...



I know there is such a double standard here.

People say Richardson is a crappy shooter when they feel like bashing the Suns, then when Nash wins the MVP award they're like "Richardson is a great three point shooter and would still be without Nash". And then people are like "Amare cannot create for himself" when they feel like bashing Amare but are like" Amare can create for himself and would be just as good without Nash". It's disgusting how Sun haters try to get away with this double standard.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

All you crybabies ******** in this thread, because the basketball writers' collective did not live up to what you expect should be, are the same *******s that love 80-point games, and think that is "real" basketball, and saw the Suns as a tenth-place team this year, WITH Nash.

Also, more than likely:
• Felt the Suns organization overpaid Nash.
• Claimed that "they'll die-down right before the all-star break".
• Claimed that "they'll break-down at the end of a long season".
• Claimed that "Nash will break-down at the end of the season".
• Claimed that "they won't be able to run in the play-offs".
• Said "the Grizzlies will give them a hard time".
• Said "they might not make it out of the first round".
• One person's sig even still reads: "Grizzlies over the Suns in 6".

Face it. All these claimed basketball "knowledge" you guys profess, you simply raise the ******** to the next level, as the Suns prove your last theory wrong. Guess who orchestrated all of it? Yes. The one you are all ******** about now...the one who spat in your cereal-bowl of "basketball-eology", and made some of you look like idiots.

If Shaq went to the Suns, instead of Miami, would any of you be ********, or making as many of the above claims listed? No. Because it is conventional. 

Nash has led the way to a basketball revolution that the league sorely needed. A revolution which he started in many ways with the Mavs (to a lesser extent), and now that he has a coach who saw more than what everybody has seen, has opened him up even more.

Look at the possible failing-points of the Suns:
• Older point-guard.
• Very young squad.
• No dominant (true) center.
• 6'7", skinny guy, playing against near 7-footers, who are oftentimes a LOT heavier than him.
• An SF that's really a guard, who came from a losing environment in the Clippers.
• A PF playing center, who doesn't want to be a center - a guy 3 years out of high-school.
• An unproven SG that has been quiet, mentally, and physically.
• Almost no bench.
• An unproven coach with a losing record (in the NBA).
• Plays a style of basketball long thought to be obsolete.

You know what? All you guys are mad that Nash took all these negatives, and slammed it like a pie in all of you "basketball gurus" faces, and you can't handle it. All you can do is slam a guy who is teaching all his young teammates what a fricking TEAM is all about, instead of working on getting their stats up, or working for that contract (although JJ might be getting paid, you can tell he is not looking to dominate the ball, a la Ray Allen, the king of contract players).

Seriously.

Why can't you guys just let a good guy get his? He might not be as athletic, or as dominant physically as many of your prototypical MVP's, but he is currently heads-and-shoulders ahead of any of them in leadership, and basketball IQ - especially in the terms of playing a team game.

BTW - who here picked the Heat to finish any less than maybe 4th in the East? If you say you did, you are a ******* liar.

Who picked the Suns to have the best record in the NBA, and come early May, have a playoff sweep in their hands? Thought so.

Yes...I'll listen to you guys...right.


*DO NOT MASK YOUR CURSING!

Please read the site guidelines. Doing things to bypass the site's censor is NOT allowed.

- HearToTemptYou*


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

1 Penny said:


> The most illogical thing here is that.
> 
> All of a sudden people who usually put down Amare all of a sudden things he is more of an MVP than Nash since Nash is likely the MVP.
> 
> ...


You may think that, but I personally think they both make each other better, and I think neither should be MVP.




> Shaq is no way near the run away MVP, Im going out on a limb here that if Mourning started for Miami this season, he would post 15 points 10 rebounds and 2 blocks a game, assuming he plays healthy most of the season. Shaq had a good season, no way near a "run away" MVP choice. Hell, Duncan playing less minutes posted near his career averages, and consider that he was also plague with distractions all season long.
> Everyone forgetting that Miami had this kid named Dwayne, who has been tearing it up lately, there are a handful of games where Dwayne lead his team to victories. And when Shaq was out they were almost the same. Not a dis to Shaq, but he didnt run away with the MVP this year, there was a handful of players that could take the MVP. It only became apparent that Nash stood out the most since the circumstances he is in was more outstanding than Duncan, Shaq and Nowitski's.


Wow....umm....how exactly did Nash stand out more than Duncan, Shaq and Dirk?




> Suns offense is one of the best in history, and its so obvious that this is due to the running game that Nash helms in.


Yes but you really think that if Nash had players like Tim Thomas they would really be the same? Nash doesn't really make the offense, everyone in that starting line up makes the offense, Nash is just the catalyst, the doesn't make him an MVP, find another catalyst and the offense still runs.




> A.I, LeBron if they were a winning team... they could of ran away with the trophy... Shaq and Duncan were safe bets... and people just cant believe that a 6'3 white point guard wins it.


I don't even see why the race card was even played here, race doesn't matter to me personally, I really don't look at people and see black, white or brown, I look at people, and see people.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i will give 1 more reason.. then i will go to bed....:

the lakers minus shaq even with odom/bulter, well u know the result.
the mavs minus nash, they imporoved 6 games.....

now if i m not mistaken, a mvp leaving shouldnt equal to +wins for ur team...


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

carrrnuttt said:


> All you crybabies ******** in this thread, because the basketball writers' collective did not live up to what you expect should be, are the same *******s that love 80-point games, and think that is "real" basketball, and saw the Suns as a tenth-place team this year, WITH Nash.
> 
> Also, more than likely:
> • Felt the Suns organization overpaid Nash.
> ...



Wow... that was a freaking good post. It's going to be really hard for the Nash haters to spin this one (however I'm sure they will try... they are a determined bunch). You couldn't have summed up more about what Nash means to the Suns then what you just said.

To add about Stoudmire has only played organized basketball since he was 14 and only played 2 years in high school. Not nearly enough time to learn about what a team is all about.... he's very gifted but Nash has instilled in him what a team player is all about. 

And I agree. Sun/Nash haters are just pissed off they've been proven wrong time and time again. What's sad is that someone with real integrity would say "wow you really proved me wrong... you deserve credit for doing so"... instead they don't want Nash to get credit because it makes them look bad. They still can't admit how vastly wrong about the Suns they've been all season and can't handle the fact there are people out there that actually think they deserve a little credit for putting together the most amazing season in the Suns franchise history.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> I know there is such a double standard here.
> 
> People say Richardson is a crappy shooter when they feel like bashing the Suns, then when Nash wins the MVP award they're like "Richardson is a great three point shooter and would still be without Nash". And then people are like "Amare cannot create for himself" when they feel like bashing Amare but are like" Amare can create for himself and would be just as good without Nash". It's disgusting how Sun haters try to get away with this double standard.


I'm not one of those people that does this. Q has been a great 3 point shooter all year, and was even one of the Clippers last year, without Nash. Amare can create his own shot, but he does benefit from having Nash on his team, so his scoring might not be as high without him, but I still think he'd be a good scorer.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Sith said:


> i will give 1 more reason.. then i will go to bed....:
> 
> the lakers minus shaq even with odom/bulter, well u know the result.
> the mavs minus nash, they imporoved 6 games.....
> ...


UGH! Don't people realize the Lakers also lost two future hall of famers in Payton and Malone... and also lost argueably the greatest coach in the history of the NBA and future hall of famer himself Phil Jackson.

I think that might have had a teeny bit to do with the Lakers downfall.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Yes but you really think that if Nash had players like Tim Thomas they would really be the same? Nash doesn't really make the offense, everyone in that starting line up makes the offense, Nash is just the catalyst, the doesn't make him an MVP, find another catalyst and the offense still runs.


[strike]Dude, you really need to shut up.[/strike] You are mad, because your basketball God did not carry your team into the promised land, stats or not. And believe-you-me, I was rooting for him to get to the playoffs, as I didn't think VC deserved any of it. Glad he was swept by the Shaq's team.

Anyhow.

Don't even try and tell me that you would have swapped teams with Phoenix at the beginning of this year. You weren't gushing about how good they were then, were you?

*Come on everyone, let's be respectful of each other.*


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> All you crybabies ******** in this thread, because the basketball writers' collective did not live up to what you expect should be, are the same *******s that love 80-point games, and think that is "real" basketball, and saw the Suns as a tenth-place team this year, WITH Nash.
> 
> Also, more than likely:
> • Felt the Suns organization overpaid Nash.
> ...


So because Nash taught a young Suns team how to actually be a team, he deserves the MVP? Leadership and basketball IQ don't just make you an MVP. Also having the Suns be a surprise while the Heat weren't doesn't make Nash any more of an MVP than Shaq, this has been brought up several times and I really don't see why, this does not support Nash as an MVP candidate at all.



> Wow... that was a freaking good post. It's going to be really hard for the Nash haters to spin this one (however I'm sure they will try... they are a determined bunch). You couldn't have summed up more about what Nash means to the Suns then what you just said.


Please don't refer to me as a "Nash Hater" because I don't hate Nash, I'm Canadian, I like Nash, I'm just not biased here, Nash does not deserve MVP.



> To add about Stoudmire has only played organized basketball since he was 14 and only played 2 years in high school. Not nearly enough time to learn about what a team is all about.... he's very gifted but Nash has instilled in him what a team player is all about.


So why does that make Nash MVP, because he taught Amare the value of a real team?



> And I agree. Sun/Nash haters are just pissed off they've been proven wrong time and time again. What's sad is that someone with real integrity would say "wow you really proved me wrong... you deserve credit for doing so"... instead they don't want Nash to get credit because it makes them look bad. They still can't admit how vastly wrong about the Suns they've been all season and can't handle the fact there are people out there that actually think they deserve a little credit for putting together the most amazing season in the Suns franchise history


When I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong, I have the balls to step up and admit I was wrong. I'll admit the Suns surprised me this year, key word being the "Suns," Nash isn't the one who surprised me.

I'm getting pretty tired, it's 3:48am here, but I don't want to leave until this is settled, so to move this on a bit quicker, let's get down to reasons of why he is MVP. Name some solid reasons of why Nash should be MVP.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> [strike]Dude, you really need to shut up.[/strike] You are mad, because your basketball God did not carry your team into the promised land, stats or not. And believe-you-me, I was rooting for him to get to the playoffs, as I didn't think VC deserved any of it. Glad he was swept by the Shaq's team.


How did LeBron get into this conversation? He's not even my favorite player. Big deal, he didn't make the playoffs, how does that have any relevence to this conversation?



> Anyhow.
> 
> Don't even try and tell me that you would have swapped teams with Phoenix at the beginning of this year. You weren't gushing about how good they were then, were you?


So I didn't know they would be this good, what is your point, and how does that support Nash as an MVP?


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> So because Nash taught a young Suns team how to actually be a team, he deserves the MVP? Leadership and basketball IQ don't just make you an MVP.


Yes, but winning 62 games, the NBA's best reacord this season, while doing it, does.



Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> So I didn't know they would be this good, what is your point, and how does that support Nash as an MVP?


Because it moots your argument that Nash's team is "too good", for him to stand out as an MVP. Can you argue with someone claiming that they are this good, BECAUSE of Nash?

He had a standout season, because he helped his team, who was not expected to do anything, have one.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> Yes, but winning 62 games, the NBA's best reacord this season, while doing it, does.


So Jermaine O'Neal was the leader of the best team last year, why did he not win MVP? No matter how good your team is, you don't get an MVP for teaching leadership and having a high basketball IQ.




> Because it moots your argument that Nash's team is "too good", for him to stand out as an MVP. Can you argue with someone claiming that they are this good, BECAUSE of Nash?
> 
> He had a standout season, because he helped his team, who was not expected to do anything, have one.


So you expected people to know that Amare would improve like he did, and Q would bomb away like he did, and Marion would rebound like he did....the Suns team did things that people didn't expect, it's not like Nash stepped up and improved his game while everyone else stayed the same as last year.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> So Jermaine O'Neal was the leader of the best team last year, why did he not win MVP? No matter how good your team is, you don't get an MVP for teaching leadership and having a high basketball IQ.


LOL. You compare JO's "leadership" to Nash's? He led alright. He led with his right. Just because you are the best player on your team, doesn't mean that you are the leader. But you know basketball, which means you should know this, right?

Oh, BTW, what does JO's LAST season, have to do with THIS season? Weak man, weak...




Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> So you expected people to know that Amare would improve like he did, and Q would bomb away like he did, and Marion would rebound like he did....the Suns team did things that people didn't expect, it's not like Nash stepped up and improved his game while everyone else stayed the same as last year.


That's the fricking point, genius. NOBODY expected them to be good, including Suns fans. Nash led the team to exploit their strengths, along with their underrated coach. Well, D'Antoni was underrated at the beginning of the year, at least...

Hah. I can only imagine the *DO NOT MASK YOUR CURSING* and whining, if coach D somehow gets COY. Some of you will probably hang yourselves, [strike]not that I'd stop you - the gene pool is getting a bit murky.[/strike]

*carrrnuttt, Please read over the site FAQ. Your recent posts have not been acceptable.*


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> LOL. You compare JO's "leadership" to Nash's? He led alright. He led with his right. Just because you are the best player on your team, doesn't mean that you are the leader. But you know basketball, which means you should know this, right?


Ah yes, those suttle personal attacks, those really improve the argument. JO and Reggie were the leaders of that Pacers team, and no being the best player doesn't mean the leader, but in this case, JO was the best player and a leader.



> Oh, BTW, what does JO's LAST season, have to do with THIS season? Weak man, weak...


I find it far from weak. Last season's best team's leader didn't win the MVP, while this season's best team's leader does win the MVP, how is that weak?





> That's the fricking point, genius. NOBODY expected them to be good, including Suns fans. Nash led the team to exploit their strengths, along with their underrated coach. Well, D'Antoni was underrated at the beginning of the year, at least...


Personal attack count number 2. Anyways, because they were good, it's Nash's fault? I don't really understand your logic. They improved individually, it wasn't just Nash that made them all better, they all worked on their games over the summer and improved as individual players, so how is Nash the cause for the whole team getting better?



> Hah. I can only imagine the **edit * and whining, if coach D somehow gets COY. Some of you will probably hang yourselves, [strike]not that I'd stop you - the gene pool is getting a bit murky.[/strike]


Wow you really are a fan of these suttle, little personal attacks, still to basketball.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> I find it far from weak. Last season's best team's leader didn't win the MVP, while this season's best team's leader does win the MVP, how is that weak?


One, it's weak, because one doesn't have anything to do with the other. It's like you telling a cop "but the last officer to pull me over only gave me a warning!" There's a "suttle" analogy for ya'.

[strike]Second, it's spelled _*subtle*_.[/strike]

*This isn't an english class. Keep your posts focused on Basketball please.*

[strike]Third, quit whining. A subtle attack is only offensive, if it's hitting too close to home. Also, your whole tirade against the MVP award is a long, drawn-out whine.[/strike]

And lastly...yes, it's somewhat hard to argue that the team's almost miraculous improvement had more than a little "assist" from Nash's team-play this year - despite all the perceived drawbacks, and detractors.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

carrrnuttt said:


> One, it's weak, because one doesn't have anything to do with the other. It's like you telling a cop "but the last officer to pull me over only gave me a warning!" There's a "suttle" analogy for ya'.
> 
> [strike]Second, it's spelled _*subtle*_.
> 
> Third, quit whining. A subtle attack is only offensive, if it's hitting too close to home. Also, your whole tirade against the MVP award is a long, drawn-out whine.[/strike]


One, I'm sorry for misspelling a word at 4:41am when I'm damn tired

Two, it is relevant because MVPs work much different then tickets because it is the same people voting. If people don't vote for the leader of the best team one year, what says they can do it the next year, especially when the year before that player had a much better season?

Three, how is this one big whine? I am hosting a solid argument, and am using solid points in everyone of my posts. Now let's get back to basketball. 



> And lastly...yes, it's somewhat hard to argue that the team's almost miraculous improvement had more than a little "assist" from Nash's team-play this year - despite all the perceived drawbacks, and detractors.


I never said it had nothing to do with Nash, I just said it's not all Nash doing it, he's not the only reason for the turnaround.

Now since it is 4:41am, I would like to wrap this up. Please post some clear, concise reasons of why Nash should be MVP and we can work from there.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

A shot at giving a look into the thoughts of those who voted for Nash:

I think the method of thinking here was that if you take Nash off the Suns, they sucked big time. You see the Suns' effectiveness diminish almost every game when he leaves the floor. As good as Amare, Shawn, JJohnson, Q, JJax are...the numbers show how they suffer when Nash is off the floor. He is the oil that runs the NBA's best machine. Yes, that statement was speculative. But don't forget the Suns went something like 31-4 when they had no bench at all besides Barbosa and Hunter. This award is a regular season award, and the Suns were the kings of the regular season. When Shaq left the Heat, they mostly kept winning.

I think the emergence of Dwayne Wade hurt Shaq, and he would have otherwise been MVP. There are some insiders who believe Wade is even more important than Shaq, which would no doubt hurt his MVP chances if that method of thinking was with some voters. Dwayne has had a breakout year, and some people say more on his own doing than Amare. A lot of people still believe Nash made Amare' the beast that he is, while it's hard for them to envision Dwayne being unstoppable because of a center in Shaq.

While Nash can be absent on defense, many say the same about the Suns in general. Yet their style still carried them to 62 wins, and Nash was the court general of that style...averaging over 16 assists per 48 minutes while breaking down defenses with his dribble penetration. He dominates the ball on the team that dominated the season, so he gets the attention.

Someone mentioned that Amare would be upset that Nash won the MVP...that's just crazy. Someone threw out some Amare or Nash comment too, yet failed to point out that Amare was asked the same question a million times. He always said Steve was the guy that made it run and made this style work. He knows full well that without Nash, the style fails miserably. Every superstar envisions themself winning the MVP, so yes Amare wants it and thinks he deserves it. He said it himself plenty, Nash makes the machine run. And sure Shaq wants it. He says he wants a title more, but trust me...he still wants the MVP award. I'm sure all players in contention for it would want a championship more than the MVP award.

Really, the candidates this year were not that great. Duncan was hampered by injury and only played 33 minutes per game. Shaq only was able to play 33 minutes per game and fought through injuries. KG's team fell off the map. Iverson had a great year, but his team barely made the playoffs in a weak division. There was no clear cut dominating presence this season.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

carrrnuttt, I'm too tired, I'll comeback on tomorrow bright and early to finish this. Until then.


----------



## Kobe8 (Mar 2, 2005)

Way to go Nash!!!!!!


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

*carrrnuttt, Please check your PMs.*


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Name some solid reasons of why Nash should be MVP.


No one has even mentioned Shaq's credentials... I mean honestly what are they? He dominates? LOL... So I could say I dominated on the court without any semblance of real verifiable statistics and I would deserve the MVP? Sweet man I might do just that. If you think Shaq had a good season this year think again. Honestly Stoudemire had much better statistics than Shaq. 22, 10 is not MVP worthy at all. It's just not... and combined with the fact he stopped caring about his FT's (yes stopped caring... if Shaq worked on them it wouldn't have been the worst FT shooting year of his entire career... and FT's matter... if you don't realize that just watch the end of basketball games and I think you'll understand). What else did Shaq do... hmm let's see... he conserved himself for the playoffs (many people have said this).. MVP MVP!! I don't know about you but I want my MVP to be someone who doesn't even try his hardest during the regular season and also miss more FT's in one season than anyone in league history (I'm not sure if he holds the record but I bet he's close).


----------



## jcs83md (Jun 9, 2003)

VCFSO2000 said:


> Could you explain why Ginobili is an MVP candidate? There should be a rule that says...
> 
> "If a player is sent to the bench after a playoff loss,he is not eligible for the MVP award"


Yeah its called an opinion.. Try having one that holds water instead of criticizing others that do


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Lol.. and Nash isn't more than stats? That's a double standard by the looks of it.
> 
> And putting up 22.9-10.4 really isn't all that special (lot's of players do it)... and when you shoot 46% from the free throw line... kind of makes it hard to see him as an MVP.


How about the 60% FG percentage? How many people do that?



> However considering only one other person has put up 11.5 assists or more in the past 20 seasons or so... I'd say that is special.


Shaq and Kevin McHale are the only people in the past 25 years to score 20+ ppg while shooting 60% from the floor...I'd say that is special.

But neither of those stats are relevant since we're not comparing them to other seasons. The MVP is about this season, not how there season stacks up against other seasons in NBA History. Oscar Robertson didn't win the MVP when he averaged a triple-double, and he wasn't even runner up. So what? The voters didn't say, well nobody's ever done this before so he must be the MVP this year.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> No one has even mentioned Shaq's credentials... I mean honestly what are they? He dominates? LOL... So I could say I dominated on the court without any semblance of real verifiable statistics and I would deserve the MVP? Sweet man I might do just that. If you think Shaq had a good season this year think again. Honestly Stoudemire had much better statistics than Shaq. 22, 10 is not MVP worthy at all. It's just not... and combined with the fact he stopped caring about his FT's (yes stopped caring... if Shaq worked on them it wouldn't have been the worst FT shooting year of his entire career... and FT's matter... if you don't realize that just watch the end of basketball games and I think you'll understand). What else did Shaq do... hmm let's see... he conserved himself for the playoffs (many people have said this).. MVP MVP!! I don't know about you but I want my MVP to be someone who doesn't even try his hardest during the regular season and also miss more FT's in one season than anyone in league history (I'm not sure if he holds the record but I bet he's close).


Doesn't matter about just statistics. I don't like using stats, but Shaq has had a terrific season. If you don't think that, you haven't watched the Heat very much. He has become the ultimate team player, he still dominates, though only in stretches when he needs to. He really prefers to defer to Wade now that he plays with a talented perimeter player that he actually likes. So what if Amare had better stats than Shaq? John Stockton had better stats than Nash, all while playing good defense, and he never won MVP. Nash operates in a system where his assist numbers are so high because he dominates the ball and has so many talented scorers around him. I'm not going to say that Nash doesn't deserve MVP this season. Look at the talent pool for the MVP award, lets make a rundown of the top players in the league.
Duncan had injury problems,
Lebron, Garnett, Kobe and AI are all on vacation. Two of which are frustrated with their teams, one who is still trying to repair his public image, and one just... well being AI, at least he made the playoffs.

Tmac, Shaq and Dirk are imo the only other viable options. The spotlight hasn't been on Dirk all season until he started to suck it up in the playoffs, the Rockets underachieved for half the season, really leaving only Shaq. I guess if you are talking strictly in terms of being the most valuable player, it might have to go to Nash. Wade has shown that he is capable of carrying the team when Shaq is absent, but the rest of the Suns haven't. Would Nash deserve MVP if he got it? yes, but should he actually get it? Thats questionable, because other players deserve to get it too.


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

congrats to Steve Nash :clap:


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Oscar Robertson didn't win the MVP when he averaged a triple-double, and he wasn't even runner up. So what? The voters didn't say, well nobody's ever done this before so he must be the MVP this year.


that was back when the voters were the players themselves, you couldn't question their credibility on knowledge of the game, or suspect ulterior motives, because they played the game, and they knew. they knew. indeed, those were the good ol' days, not like today where folks get snubbed because they are "so damn big" or aren't polite to you in an interview.


----------



## Nashaholic (Mar 30, 2005)

:banana: Steve Nash is MVP! :banana: 

I'd have hoped that with Stevie winning MVP he might start getting a bit of the respect he deserves. Apparently though this is not the case. People are so focused on stats and image that they simply cannot concieve a player winning MVP for his impact on the overall game. Steve Nash will never do a windmill 360 dunk, he doesn't complement himself or blatantly put down other players to build up his image (Shaq) and Steve Nash will never have the kind of popularity that players like Duncan and Shaq enjoy. However this does not make him any less deserving. What other player in the histoy of basketball has come to a new team and influence a 33 game turnaround in their season?

Heres a final quote that says it all about this years MVP:

"I know I can score and I know I can pass, but the biggest thing for me is to just try to make these guys feel good about themselves and help them become better players."


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

well, bird, robinson, and duncan, all far better players, influenced huge turnarounds, and none were rewarded with mvp for their efforts.

of course, how many great players find themselves on teams that won 29 games the year before? we're talking about a small universe that could possibly have had a 33 game impact. from that universe, how many find themselves on teams that won 29 games the year before but have 3 very talented individual players? how many come to a team that didn't lose anyone, and add 2 starters and some key reserves? the suns had to get better - they just did better than anyone expected. part of the lower expectations were due to expectations around the type of player nash was. had he been thought of higher (like a kidd), the expectations would have been extremely high with the talent they had.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

This is my last post on this topic.

What I clearly saw was that the MVP race would come down to shaq and nash.

Out of those two,I first thought that Shaq should've won but later realized that Nash would be better suited for the honors.


While Nash is the most deserving of the two,this is probably the WORST MVP RACE OF ALL TIME.

People say shaq,should've won because they think that out of the two guys in the race,shaq was the most deserving but should shaq have been in the running in the 1st place?

I think so but in the top 2?No.
Nash?Arguably.

A.I's points,dimes and steals,if you want to talk from a statistical standpoint,crushes those two.


PHX/Minus Nash,although I think has a pretty nice core,is not a 60 win team,maybe a 43 win team at best.

MIA/Minus shaq...Who knows?No one. IMO,If MIA doesn't have shaq,Wade makes the playoffs and becomes and MVP candidate.

PHI/Minus A.I?Some would say that it wouldn't be that bad as,at times,PHI has proven that they can win some games without A.I,but during the course of 82 games? I get goosebumps just thinking about it.

A.I should've won it.clearly,IMO. 2 questionable finalists and "Oh,would you like at that,they both have the best records in their respective conferences."


Nonetheless,Shaq and Nash shouldn't have been the 2 finalists.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Well, it looks like the MVP award just lost a little bit of it's value.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> How about the 60% FG percentage? How many people do that?


Bo Outlaw did this 3 times in his career. 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/outlabo01.html 

His career FG% is 56.5% yet no one is calling him one of the best shooters of all time.

And no offense but FG% is a very very crappy statistic. It doesn't factor in FT% or 3PT% whatsover, which are very important when it comes to how efficient of a shooter you are. The TS% (total shot percentage) of Steve Nash was 60.6% this year while Shaquille O'Neal's was 58.3%. Which means your arguement that Shaquille shot better than Nash this year is completely false. However if you want to go on believing that the 2pt shot is the only shot in the game of Basketball be my guest.


----------



## MiamiHeat03 (Mar 28, 2003)

I dont get it?!

If Nash won then why didnt Kidd won it in 2003 when he was clearly a better player than Nash will ever be and made his impact without much depth and talent.

Shaq should have won it IMO every single player in Miami Heat uniform has improved their stats since Oneal came, even Wade.

Bo Outlaw never ever ever ever average close to 60% FG at a 22ppg pace which is what Shaq has done.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

nash wouldn't be mvp if he didn't come to an underachieving team that won 29 games last year. i think that's pretty obvious. the analysis of nash as a candidate often comes back to how bad phx was last year. nash switching teams to a poor team with quality pieces was the only way he'd be a candidate, and that's what happened. strip that out of the equation, and there's no way he wins, imo. 

nash did have a higher ppfga (or psa) than shaq this year. but statistically, shaq overall, obviously, was superior, by almost any all-inclusive measure. so you have to go to other ways to rationalize nash as a choice. 29 to 62 wins certainly looks good. unfortunately, no other candidate had the benefit (that's right, here it's a benefit), of going to a team that won 29 games last year. 

larry bird came in a distant 4th when boston went from 29 to 60 wins. robinson a distant 3rd when they went from 21 to 56 wins. duncan 5th when sa went from 20 to 56 wins. imo, those voters had it right - you look past the change in wins, and look to actual contributions on the court. both positives and negatives.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Well, it looks like the MVP award just lost a little bit of it's value.


A little?

A lot!
But you could see at the beginning of the year that when Nash and the suns started quickly,people were saying he could be MVP.

reporters just want a nice story.

Coaches,not players or media members should vote for the MVP.
(I said that my previous post would be my last on this topic...oh well)


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> Bo Outlaw did this 3 times in his career.
> 
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/outlabo01.html
> 
> His career FG% is 56.5% yet no one is calling him one of the best shooters of all time.


That is a absolutely terrible argument, if you're going to bring up a 60% shooter, at least follow his entire stat, he said 60% that also had 20 ppg. When Bo shot 60%, he had 7.3 ppg, 7.6 ppg, 6.0 ppg and 3.4 ppg. Impressive.



> And no offense but FG% is a very very crappy statistic. It doesn't factor in FT% or 3PT% whatsover, which are very important when it comes to how efficient of a shooter you are. The TS% (total shot percentage) of Steve Nash was 60.6% this year while Shaquille O'Neal's was 58.3%. Which means your arguement that Shaquille shot better than Nash this year is completely false. However if you want to go on believing that the 2pt shot is the only shot in the game of Basketball be my guest.


One your stats are wrong, but that's besides the point. 

Two, this stat doesn't really matter, you don't have to be a great 3point shooter to be a great player, even MJ wasn't a great 3point shooter. So he's bad at Free-throws, should he be robbed of the MVP because he's bad at free-throws? That's a pretty lame reason. I'd rather have someone who shoots 60% with 20 ppg and a bad FT% than have someone who averages 20 ppg with a 43 FG% and a 70% FT. You make it seem like free-throws are just as important as normal FGs. This season, Shaq scored 1316 points on FGs, and only 353 points on free-throws, and even if he hit every free-throw, he'd only 765 points off of free-throws, which is almost still half of his FG points.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> That is a absolutely terrible argument, if you're going to bring up a 60% shooter, at least follow his entire stat, he said 60% that also had 20 ppg. When Bo shot 60%, he had 7.3 ppg, 7.6 ppg, 6.0 ppg and 3.4 ppg. Impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My stats AREN'T WRONG. 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

CHECK IT FOR YOURSELF. Nash finished with a higher TS% than Shaq. TS% includes all three stats equally and fairly (giving 3P% advantage over 2P% and 2P% over FT%). It is a very widely used statistic but it is no surprise I my part that you've never even heard of it.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

The thing I don't understand is that;

Nash won the MVP, he had an unbelievable supporting cast and he didn't have a spectacular season,from a statistical standpoint.

Shaq was runner-up,he had one of his worst seasons,he has an unbelievable supporting cast and he had another superstar on the team.

While A.I had probably his best season,had as inconsistent a supporting cast as there is in the league.


I dunno...Just don't....know.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> My stats AREN'T WRONG.
> 
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html
> ...


Sorry, I didn't know they weighed 3P% and 2P% heavier.

Anyways, I still don't pay much attention to this stat, Shaq's 22 ppg on 60% shooting is much more important than Nash's so called impressive 11.5 apg.


----------



## MiamiHeat03 (Mar 28, 2003)

Also add that Nash is the worst MVP defensively.

Nash defenseless equals as much as Shaq's FT.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> The thing I don't understand is that;
> 
> Nash won the MVP, he had an unbelievable supporting cast and he didn't have a spectacular season,from a statistical standpoint.
> 
> ...


I kind of agree with you here, I've been supporting AI all season, but the MVP usually isn't given to a player on a team that isn't close to the best team in the league, which I personally don't agree with.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Sorry, I didn't know they weighed 3P% and 2P% heavier.
> 
> Anyways, I still don't pay much attention to this stat, Shaq's 22 ppg on 60% shooting is much more important than Nash's so called impressive 11.5 apg.



Nash and shaq's impacts on their respective teams can't be measured with just stats.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> Nash and shaq's impacts on their respective teams can't be measured with just stats.


I agree with that, and I personally don't like the stat. Every player has their weaknesses, and this stat takes Shaq's weakness into play.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> I kind of agree with you here, I've been supporting AI all season, but the MVP usually isn't given to a player on a team that isn't close to the best team in the league, which I personally don't agree with.


I also hate it. I don't care if he's on a team with a bad record,but I do think your team needs to make the playoffs...

Here's a question...If the Bobcatshad finished 9th,although not making the playoffs,exceeding everyone's expectations...

And Emeka had put up the same stats as shaq did(same ppg.same rpg)
Would you have considered him for the MVP?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Bo Outlaw did this 3 times in his career.
> 
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/outlabo01.html
> 
> ...


Good job, that's the most completely slanted response to a post I've ever seen. First off you quoted one sentence that I wrote rather than the whole thing, and secondly you quoted the least important part and disregarded my point. And why exactly should FG% take into account FT%? It should take into account 3-PT%, OK fine, fair enough. 

eFG%: 
Shaquille O'Neal- 60.1%
Steve Nash- 55.7%


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> Good job, that's the most completely slanted response to a post I've ever seen. First off you quoted one sentence that I wrote rather than the whole thing, and secondly you quoted the least important part and disregarded my point. And why exactly should FG% take into account FT%? It should take into account 3-PT%, OK fine, fair enough.
> 
> eFG%:
> Shaquille O'Neal- 60.1%
> Steve Nash- 55.7%


Why shouldn't it take into account FT%? If you score 5 of your 22 points from FT's like Shaq it very well should be! (unless you only think that we should talk about just 17 PPG for Shaq). eFG% doesn't tell the whole story of how efficient a scorer you are. FT% is very important and it can effect a game drastically. Have you ever seen basketball games where FT's undoubtebly are the difference between who wins and who loses? If you don't think it's important than you're blind.

TS%
Steve Nash- 60.6%
Shaquille O'Neal- 58.8%

Steve Nash is a more efficient scorer whether you like it or not.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> The thing I don't understand is that;
> 
> Nash won the MVP, he had an unbelievable supporting cast and he didn't have a spectacular season,from a statistical standpoint.
> 
> ...


Shaq did not have one of his worst seasons. If you look at stats only, then maybe, but obviously, you haven't watched the Heat very much this seaosn.


----------



## MVPlaya (Oct 12, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Steve Nash is a more efficient scorer whether you like it or not.


Shut up. You sayin that as if Nash is a realiable scorer. You just sayin some BS now. Nash is a more efficient scorer, LOL @ you. You sayin that as if you can depend on Nash to score. 

Iverson was the NBA's real MVP...Nash had an all-star cast.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> Why shouldn't it take into account FT%? If you score 5 of your 22 points from FT's like Shaq it very well should be! (unless you only think that we should talk about just 17 PPG for Shaq). eFG% doesn't tell the whole story of how efficient a scorer you are. FT% is very important and it can effect a game drastically. Have you ever seen basketball games where FT's undoubtebly are the difference between who wins and who loses? If you don't think it's important than you're blind.
> 
> TS%*
> Steve Nash- 60.6%
> ...


So.... you are saying...

Steve Nash is a more efficient scorer than the most dominant offensive force in the history of the NBA outside of Jordan and Chamberlain?


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Drewbs said:


> So.... you are saying...
> 
> Steve Nash is a more efficient scorer than the most dominant offensive force in the history of the NBA outside of Jordan and Chamberlain?


Maybe he's implying that that was the case this year


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

MVPlaya said:


> Shut up. You sayin that as if Nash is a realiable scorer. You just sayin some BS now. Nash is a more efficient scorer, LOL @ you. You sayin that as if you can depend on Nash to score.
> 
> Iverson was the NBA's real MVP...Nash had an all-star cast.


Lol... I don't think having crappy teammates automatically qualifies you to be the MVP. Also bringing a team to the 8th seed in a horrendous conference shouldn't qualify you either. Just my opinion at least.

By the way you really shouldn't tell people to shut up. That's against board policy.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Drewbs said:


> So.... you are saying...
> 
> Steve Nash is a more efficient scorer than the most dominant offensive force in the history of the NBA outside of Jordan and Chamberlain?


You really believe putting up 22 PPG is being one of the most dominant offensive forces in the history of the NBA outside of Jordan and Chamberlain?


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> Maybe he's implying that that was the case this year


Even this season:

You need a basket, would you rather have Steve nash take a jumpshot or dump the ball into Shaq? 

And no "well someone oculd just foul Shaq" garbage.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> Lol... I don't think having crappy teammates automatically qualifies you to be the MVP. Also bringing a team to the 8th seed in a horrendous conference shouldn't qualify you either. Just my opinion at least.
> 
> By the way you really shouldn't tell people to shut up. That's against board policy.


First of all, the East isn't horrendous

Secondly, he had the 7th seed

Thridly, it's not having crappy teammates that would get him the MVP, it's the fact that he got those crappy teammates to a 7th seed is what would get him MVP


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> You really believe putting up 22 PPG is being one of the most dominant offensive forces in the history of the NBA outside of Jordan and Chamberlain?


Actually it's 23 ppg (22.9 is close enough), and secondly, if you deny that Shaq is the most dominant force outside of Jordan and Wilt, you're fooling yourself.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> First of all, the East isn't horrendous
> 
> Secondly, he had the 7th seed
> 
> Thridly, it's not having crappy teammates that would get him the MVP, it's the fact that he got those crappy teammates to a 7th seed is what would get him MVP


Iverson carried his team, Nash didn't.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

Drewbs said:


> Iverson carried his team, Nash didn't.


Exactly, and that's why Nash shouldn't have won his MVP. 

I had the race between Nash and Shaq. Shaq because he made everyone on his team better and Nash because he engineered and offense that was one of the best ever. However...

Look at Phoenix's starting lineup, minus Nash: Joe Johnson, Quentin Richardson, Shawn Marion, and Amare Stoudemire. 

Honestly, now, that's just ridiculous. Given the Phoenix organization all the credit in the world. They did an incredible job putting the team together. They grabbed Marion and Amare in the draft, they traded for Joe Johnson, and they signed Richardson. It's really the perfect running team, and unbelievably talented. They were smart and got Nash in free agency: the perfect guy to run the system and a good player in his own right. 

But honestly, did Nash even get one MVP vote when he was in Dallas? Probably not, and you know why - he's simply not a "core" player, however overused that term may be in this thread. If you put Jason Kidd on this Phoenix team they would've had the same season. Any point guard that is willing to run will thrive in the system. 

That said, very few point guards have the ability to execute how Nash does. He is fully committed to running and has the ability to pull it off. He's a great passer and a great team player. He can hit shots when needed also. 

But come on, this is ridiculous. Seriously, look at the players he has around him. It couldn't be anymore perfect. When I think of an MVP, I think of a player that can carry his own weight and carry his team deep into the playoffs. Nash doesn't come to mind, in part because he isn't a stand-alone player. Iverson is, Shaq is, Duncan is, Nowitzki is, Garnett was...Nash isn't. Nash couldn't do this on the Philly team. Nash couldn't do this on a Nuggets team. Nash couldn't do this on a lot of teams. Not that he isn't on of the best players in the league, but the table is set perfectly. Don't give him the MVP for taking advantage of that.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> Exactly, and that's why Nash shouldn't have won his MVP.
> 
> I had the race between Nash and Shaq. Shaq because he made everyone on his team better and Nash because he engineered and offense that was one of the best ever. However...
> 
> ...



samethign i said earlier. it's all the early season hype when suns suprised everyone with 31-4 record. silly how people thought it was all nash lol. like i said earlier, when you look at the list of all former mvps, whats the first thing that comes to your mind? it should be that the mvp is undisputed BEST player on his own team. now u look at nash, u think he's the best player on suns?


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

Sith said:


> samethign i said earlier. it's all the early season hype when suns suprised everyone with 31-4 record. silly how people thought it was all nash lol. like i said earlier, when you look at the list of all former mvps, whats the first thing that comes to your mind? it should be that the mvp is undisputed BEST player on his own team. now u look at nash, u think he's the best player on suns?



Yup. Nash is the best player on Suns.  He is the leader and the best point guard for this year's Suns. You wanna discredit this?


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

Drewbs said:


> Iverson carried his team, Nash didn't.


Yup. AI carries his team while Nash pushes his team to the limit. That's the difference you guys don't understand. 

AI can carry the whole team on his back but he won't go far. 

Nash can push his team farther than AI can.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

jibikao said:


> Yup. AI carries his team while Nash pushes his team to the limit. That's the difference you guys don't understand.
> 
> AI can carry the whole team on his back but he won't go far.
> 
> Nash can push his team farther than AI can.


No Nash can't, Nash can't do anything different than Jason Kidd can do. Do you really think that if Nash was on the Sixers, the Sixers would do better?


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> No Nash can't, Nash can't do anything different than Jason Kidd can do. Do you really think that if Nash was on the Sixers, the Sixers would do better?


*You know what, I DON'T KNOW. Do you? :biggrin: 

I would love to know WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if you throw certain players on a certain team and then GIVE THE MVP AWARD based on that assumption. :clap:


Use your mighty basketball knowledge to tell us who should be on what team to be the best team and then foward this info to Cavs. I am sure they need your "I know it all" list.  *


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

jibikao said:


> *You know what, I DON'T KNOW. Do you? :biggrin:
> 
> I would love to know WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if you throw certain players on a certain team and then GIVE THE MVP AWARD based on that assumption. :clap:*


*
Oh I'm not not giving the award to Nash based on assumptions, you brought up that Nash does a better job winning games, so I brought up what would happen if you switched. So you pretty much brought this up, not me. Do you really think a line up of Steve Nash, Andre Iguodala, Kyle Korver, Kenny Thomas/Chris Webber and Marc Jackson/Samuel Dalembert would win that many games? Who would score? They would struggle to win 30, actually they probably wouldn't win many more than 20.





Use your mighty basketball knowledge to tell us who should be on what team to be the best team and then foward this info to Cavs. I am sure they need your "I know it all" list. 

Click to expand...

*sorry......what?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Did someone just discover the bold and font commands?: you don't need to "shout" to make points.

It's really amazing the number of votes Nash got that Jason Terry didn't get even a single vote. After all, he replaced the MVP and led them to 6 more wins then when Nash was running the team. Using the team success argument he clearly is a better player then Nash.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

Iverson should have won it.

Stats? First in scoring, fifth in assists, second in steals. Enough to offset his turnovers IMHO.

Record? Say what you want about the Atlantic season and the seventh seed, but a winning record is still a winning record.

Nash was a "meh" candidate.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

..

I respect Nash and think he is a great player, but my vote would have gone to Shaq.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Did someone just discover the bold and font commands?: you don't need to "shout" to make points.
> 
> It's really amazing the number of votes Nash got that Jason Terry didn't get even a single vote. After all, he replaced the MVP and led them to 6 more wins then when Nash was running the team. Using the team success argument he clearly is a better player then Nash.


Interesting...


----------



## Ravnos (Aug 10, 2004)

Look at what Amare said about this:



> "I think it's more like a team award," Stoudemire said.


from here


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

I have to admit, this seems kind of ridiculas that Steve Nash actually won MVP. Last year nobody even considered him a top 10 player in the league. He was the same player than as he was this year, he just came to a team with a ridiculas starting line-up that simply needed a distrubiting PG You look at all the past MVPs, and Nash just doesn't stand up to that at all. I think even now today most people don't consider him better than Jason Kidd. He's probably not even on many people's top 5 lists still, and the MVP is supposed to be the best player in the league. 

This is shocking, Steve Nash is now going to be a Hall of Famer based on this, but nobody thought he was having a HOF career last season. And if his team wins alot next year is he still going to be a MVP candidate? does this mean that Mike Bibby should of been an MVP candidate when Sac was winning 55-60 games year year? And has their ever been a worse defensive player to even win the award? 

Just shocking, it really means that alot of guys in the league can win an MVP if the right situation presents itself. If your an All-Star calibur player and you go to a team where your the last part needed, you may find yourself winning an MVP.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Interesting...


People seem to forget that the mavs got better once Nash left. After all, they only got Dampier, who is a role player at best, and Jason Terry, the perennial loser from the Atlanta Hawks. Sure the Mavs still have a superstar on that team in Dirk, but look at the Lakers. They still have a superstar, who is as good if not better than Dirk, and once Shaq leaves town, Kobe and co are in the lottery. Nash himself is not an impact player that you can add to any team and make them instant contenders like Shaq is. That is where his value lies. Nash has been put in the right system where he gets the freedom to do his thing, win games and that is where his value lies. Should this take away from Nash's credibility? Not really, I don't have THAT much of a problem with Nash winning MVP. I think that Shaq might be more deserving, but thats just my opinion.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Nash was the fifth-best player on his team, but the reasoning of this is because he helped make the other four players that much better (and I don't think this can really be discredited.)

If you want to go by best player, than the MVP should go to Amare Stoudemire, hands down. According to my research, he's about three wins ahead of his closest competition, Dirk and Shaq. 

However, the MVP isn't about the best player; it never has been. If it was, MJ would have a mansion full of MVP's. Sure, the best player wins _sometimes_, but it's more the exception than the rule.

The MVP is basically "Catalyst of a winning team" award or "Let's give it to a great player who had a career year who has never won an MVP before" award. 

Let it be. If they choose Nash, that's just how it is. Is it a good thing? No. Is it a bad thing? No!


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

DK said:


> Nash was the fifth-best player on his team, but the reasoning of this is because he helped make the other four players that much better (and I don't think this can really be discredited.)
> 
> If you want to go by *best player, than the MVP should go to Amare Stoudemire, hands down*. According to my research, he's about three wins ahead of his closest competition, Dirk and Shaq.
> 
> ...


Since when is Amare Stoudemire the best player in the league, or did I just misread you?


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

No, you read me right.

Look at it this way- It's Amare vs. Shaq, Amare vs. Duncan, and Amare vs. everyone else.

Shaq to Amare:

Name	Year	G	MP	FG	FGA	TP	TPA	FT	FTA	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
Shaquille O'Neal 2005	73	2492	12.67	21.09	0.00	0.00	6.80	14.74	4.87	9.77	14.64	3.85	0.69	3.29	3.91	5.05	32.15
Amare Stoudemire 2005	80	2889	12.41	22.20	0.05	0.27	9.69	13.21	3.64	8.21	11.85	2.18	1.28	2.16	3.14	4.62

Per 48 minutes, Amare has more points while shooting less. He has a disadvantage in rebounding and blocked shots, but turns the ball over less and commits less fouls. He does all this while having a bigger impact on his team, as he played 400 more minutes during the season.

Amare vs. Duncan:

Tim Duncan 2005	66	2203	11.26	22.70	0.07	0.20	6.65	9.91	4.40	11.55	15.95	3.90	0.98	3.79	2.77	3.14	29.24
Amare Stoudemire 2005	80	2889	12.41	22.20	0.05	0.27	9.69	13.21	3.64	8.21	11.85	2.18	1.28	2.16	3.14	4.62	34.56

Same deal. Amare makes more points per 48 minutes while shooting a lesser amount of shots. He blocks less shots and has fewer rebounds, but creates more steals (which offsets the turnover disadvantage). He does all this while playing almost 700 more minutes than Duncan, having a 25% greater impact on his team.

Shaq was the 3rd best player in the league this year, behind Amare and Dirk.


----------



## sensei_hanson (Mar 28, 2005)

The Jason Kidd argument from the 2001-2 season is a very compelling one. It's probably the closest comparison one could draw to what Nash did in Phoenix this season.

Unfortunately, the big difference is that Kidd turned around a team in the decidedly weaker conference at the time. The East was simply waiting for a good team to establish dominance - Detroit was still building, Boston was a 3-pt gunslinging team, Indy was still too young and Philly was up-and-down. Jersey came in and blew the doors off a conference (and division) that didn't really have any serious contenders. For my money, Kidd still should have won the MVP that year, and got jobbed when he didn't. 

This year, Nash has turned around a team in the NBA's power conference. 62 wins in the West (in a year where the West is still firmly entrenched as the more powerful of the two conferences) is a remarkable feat, made even more impressive since the Suns had 29 wins last year.

The poster who remarked that the MVP award isn't a lifetime achievement award had a good point as well. The fact that Nash may not be a HOF player (which is a lousy argument, given the dodgy nature of the Basketball HOF) really doesn't account for much when you consider that 2004-5 was something of an anomaly in the NBA. 

There were power moves all over the shop (Shaq to Miami, McGrady to Houston), there was the most infamous brawl in league history, a rookie won the 6th man of the year and there were no teams from Los Angeles or New York in the postseason. The fact that a white, 6'2 PG from Victoria, British Columbia won the MVP fits quite well, IMO. It was a strange year, and the MVP choice fits well. Nash is deserving, albeit in a very bizarre NBA campaign.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

DK said:


> No, you read me right.
> 
> Look at it this way- It's Amare vs. Shaq, Amare vs. Duncan, and Amare vs. everyone else.
> 
> ...


*1) * Anything stat per 48 isn't that important since that isn't what they play, if they played that much there level of play probably wouldn't stay as high

*2) * Basketball is more then stats

*3) * Your argument is also weak because scoring is not all that matters. Both Duncan and Shaq are better rebounders than Amare, much better defenders, much better shot blockers, provide a much better presence, make their teammates better, are much better passers, are much better in the post, are much better at almost every facet of the game, so how is Amare Stoudemire the best player in the league, and how is Dirk the second best player in the league when all those things that Duncan and Shaq do better than Amare apply to Dirk as well.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

sensei_hanson said:


> The Jason Kidd argument from the 2001-2 season is a very compelling one. It's probably the closest comparison one could draw to what Nash did in Phoenix this season.
> 
> Unfortunately, the big difference is that Kidd turned around a team in the decidedly weaker conference at the time. The East was simply waiting for a good team to establish dominance - Detroit was still building, Boston was a 3-pt gunslinging team, Indy was still too young and Philly was up-and-down. Jersey came in and blew the doors off a conference (and division) that didn't really have any serious contenders. For my money, Kidd still should have won the MVP that year, and got jobbed when he didn't.
> 
> ...


I've said this several times throughout this thread, it wasn't Nash who turned this team around, there were many other factors; Amare improved a lot, Marion had a career year, JJ improved a lot, Q Rich came over and had a great season and hit a league leading amount of 3s, Jim Jackson came over midseason and played well for the bench, Steven Hunter played well.... You could say the management deserved the MVP, they got all these players here. It's not like Nash came over and there were no other changes, and turned a lottery team into a great team, there were so many other factors outside of Nash, that it was more that the team turned the Suns around, not Nash.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> *1) * Anything stat per 48 isn't that important since that isn't what they play, if they played that much there level of play probably wouldn't stay as high
> 
> *2) * Basketball is more then stats
> 
> *3) * Your argument is also weak because scoring is not all that matters. Both Duncan and Shaq are better rebounders than Amare, much better defenders, much better shot blockers, provide a much better presence, make their teammates better, are much better passers, are much better in the post, are much better at almost every facet of the game, so how is Amare Stoudemire the best player in the league, and how is Dirk the second best player in the league when all those things that Duncan and Shaq do better than Amare apply to Dirk as well.


1) I was only using per 48 minutes so we could compare them on an even scale. If you want to compare per game, the gap widens (since Stoudemire played more minutes/game, etc.)

2) Statistics are the only basis that a logical argument can be founded on. That's why I use them.

3) Scoring is not all that matters, of course. But, when it comes down to it, I'd rather have someone who can score (and score _efficiently_, which is the big problem with most shooters) than guys who do nothing but rebound, etc.

Duncan and Shaq both do rebound better than Amare, this is true. But their rebounding prowess is offset by their other deficiencies, namely scoring (already stated, and that's the big one, since he scores more points while taking less shots and less risk), stealing the ball, turning it over less, fouling less, etc. Plus, the fact that Amare played 2889 minutes to Shaq and Duncan's 2200 and 2400, his impact on the team's W-L was greater. Amare is more effective per minute than both Duncan AND Shaq, and was also playing more.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

DK said:


> 1) I was only using per 48 minutes so we could compare them on an even scale. If you want to compare per game, the gap widens (since Stoudemire played more minutes/game, etc.)


The funny thing is if you compare them without using per 48 minute stats, Duncan and Shaq both lead Amare in rebounds, assists, blocks per game, 3 of the 5 most important stats. Steals shouldn't even be taken into consideration since the difference isn't even more than 0.5 between the three. The only one Amare really leads is scoring, and he only leads this one category while playing more minutes then both of them.



> 2) Statistics are the only basis that a logical argument can be founded on. That's why I use them.


Yes stats are important when forming an argument, but you can't make conclusions about who the better player is just by stats, and the funny thing is, Tim and Shaq both have better stats than Amare.



> 3) Scoring is not all that matters, of course. But, when it comes down to it, I'd rather have someone who can score (and score _efficiently_, which is the big problem with most shooters) than guys who do nothing but rebound, etc.


Well so would I, but that doesn't apply to either Shaq or Duncan. They both score efficiently, while still rebounding and doing everything else.



> Duncan and Shaq both do rebound better than Amare, this is true. But their rebounding prowess is offset by their other deficiencies, namely scoring (already stated, and that's the big one, since he scores more points while taking less shots and less risk)


They don't have scoring deficiencies, all 3 are good scorers. Shaq also scores more efficiently, shooting 60% from the floor. Amare's field goal percentage is also higher because he plays with Nash, who really helps him with his scoring; yes he would still be a good scorer without Nash, but I doubt his field goal percentage would be as high.



> stealing the ball


Why do you even bother bringing steals up. The difference between Amare's steals per game and Duncan's is only 0.31, and the difference between Amare's and Shaq's is only 0.47, neither is a significant difference, and Amare played more minutes than both of them.



> turning it over less


First of all, Tim Duncan turns the ball over less than Amare.
The difference between him and Shaq is only 0.42, so it isn't that significant of a difference.
What makes it bad is that the ball isn't in Amare's hands a lot; in San Antonio, the ball is in Duncan's hands a lot, in Miami, the ball is in Shaq's hands a lot, in Phoenix, the ball is in Nash's hands more than anyone elses. Amare has more turnovers than Duncan, and not much less than Shaq, yet the ball is in his hands much less.



> fouling less


Tim Duncan has less fouls then him (by a whole 1.3 as well), and Shaq only has 0.1 more fouls per game. You really should get your facts straight before you make the argument.



> Plus, the fact that Amare played 2889 minutes to Shaq and Duncan's 2200 and 2400, his impact on the team's W-L was greater. Amare is more effective per minute than both Duncan AND Shaq, and was also playing more.


How is he more effective per minute than Shaq and Duncan when he puts up worse stats in less minutes?


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> First of all, the East isn't horrendous


Yes it is.

The East's record against the West this year:

190-260 

OUCH

-----------

By the way Ps!ence_Fiction you don't seem to think the Suns deserve any credit, in terms of awards, for what they did this year. What's the deal? Scared of Gorillas?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Something that isnt talked about enough on Shaqs behalf for MVP is the Lakers drop from the NBA finals to not even making the playoffs this season.

Here is why I bring this up because the Suns stunk it up last year with out Nash. This year the Lakers missed the playoffs and stunk it up with out Shaq. 

We all know that Shaq and the Lakers last year made it to the NBA finals. Nobody knows if the Suns will get out of round 2 facing a very good Dallas squad.

So shouldnt the Lakers struggles this season with out Shaq leading the charge be just as much of a factor as the Suns great turn around this year with Nash at the helm?

Something else to think about this season regarding Nash and Shaq.

The Mavs trade Nash and became a better team than they were the previous season with Nash at the helm. 

In my opinion not enough credit goes to Amare, Jrich, and Marion for their outstanding play in the Suns turnaround. And dont forget the Suns in reality with out Nash were a lower tier playoff team. Just look at the season before last years plus you have to equal in improvement from Amare who was a rookie 2 seasons ago.

Now we all know how the Lakers faired with out Shaq not very well.

And the Heat go from a lower playoff tier team to the Number one team in the East with Shaq charging the way.

Shaq = MVP


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> The East's record against the West this year:
> 
> ...


No I believe that management deserves more credit than anyone in this situation, they did a great job at getting this team together. Individually though, I don't think there was any stand out individual performance, it was an incredible team performance though.

Now, please, respond to me entire post, not just 7 words of it, and 7 of the least important words of the entire post


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

23AirJordan said:


> Something that isnt talked about enough on Shaqs behalf for MVP is the Lakers drop from the NBA finals to not even making the playoffs this season.
> 
> Here is why I bring this up because the Suns stunk it up last year with out Nash. This year the Lakers missed the playoffs and stunk it up with out Shaq.
> 
> ...


I think losing two future hall of famers in Payton and Malone as well as possibly the greatest coach in the history of the NBA, Phil Jackson, as well as Odom getting hurt for most of the year, as well as Rudy T having to leave the team, might have had a teeny tiny bit to do with the Lakers downfall.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> The funny thing is if you compare them without using per 48 minute stats, Duncan and Shaq both lead Amare in rebounds, assists, blocks per game, 3 of the 5 most important stats. Steals shouldn't even be taken into consideration since the difference isn't even more than 0.5 between the three. The only one Amare really leads is scoring, and he only leads this one category while playing more minutes then both of them.
> 
> 
> Yes stats are important when forming an argument, but you can't make conclusions about who the better player is just by stats, and the funny thing is, Tim and Shaq both have better stats than Amare.
> ...


1) I already conceded the fact that Amare is not as good a rebounder as Shaq or Duncan. He's actually a better offensive rebounder, but that's besides the point...

2) Tim and Shaq do NOT have better statistics than Amare... It all depends on which statistics you decide to put weight on. My system, which I've used on seasons 1973-1979 and 1989-2005 has consistently worked, year in and year out. Are there outliers? Sure.

3) Shaq is not a more efficient scorer. He shoots better from the field, but when you factor in his deficiencies from the line (where he only shoots 46%), his Value% is 0.565. Amare's Value% is .597. That's a huge margin to lead by if you're trying to compare player's shooting. Just for sake of argument, Duncan's is 0.527.

I personally weight shooting as one category and "Help" (such as rebounding, turnovers, steals, etc.) as another whole category. Since "Help" as a whole adds up to much more than the shooting category, I double the importance of actually putting the ball in the basket (which is true. Making a shot is roughly twice as important as anything else you do on a basketball court.)

4) I bring steals up because it's true; no matter how you slice it, Amare has been better at creating turnovers than either Duncan or Shaq. It is true that Duncan has fewer turnovers, but since the margin (per 48) is even less than the ones you stated (Off the top of my head, I believe it's 0.31), the fact that he causes more steals makes up for this difference.

As a whole, Amare Stoudemire creates 121 points per 100 possessions. Shaq creates 111, and Duncan creates 112. Both are better defensive players, but not so much to offset the difference. 

5) Again; since Duncan and Shaq both sat time out due to injuries and the like, they had much less of an impact than Stoudemire did to his team. It's possible that Nash did have a positive effect on Stoudemire's shooting ability, but since that's impossible to quantify it's also frivolous to discuss, because it'll just turn into a "I'm right- No, I'M right" kind of argument.

6) The ball is in Amare's hands a lot; not as much as Duncan or Shaq but pretty close to it.

Shaq- 27.4 Usage Rate
Duncan- 26.6 Usage Rate
Amare- 25.2 Usage Rate

So, what you're basically saying is that even with fewer attempts at the ball, Amare scores more anyway? Sounds like efficiency to me...

Look, maybe I originally came off wrong. I'm not detracting from Shaq at all; he was the 3rd best player this year (and he was better than the second-best, Dirk, if you factor in efficiency per 48). Duncan was the 6th best player, and probably would rank higher if he had played an entire season. They're both great players. It's just that Amare has done more to help his team.

All in all, I credit Amare with 48 Win shares, or roughly 0.798 WS per 48 minutes.
I credit Shaq with 38.1 Win Shares, or roughly 0.734 per 48.
Duncan has 34.4 Win Shares, or roughly 0.750 per 48.

You've put up a good argument, and I commend you for it- the margin is close when you talk about efficiency. But just as a whole, Amare was better than both Shaq and Duncan in 2005.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

DK said:


> 1) I already conceded the fact that Amare is not as good a rebounder as Shaq or Duncan. He's actually a better offensive rebounder, but that's besides the point...
> 
> 2) Tim and Shaq do NOT have better statistics than Amare... It all depends on which statistics you decide to put weight on. My system, which I've used on seasons 1973-1979 and 1989-2005 has consistently worked, year in and year out. Are there outliers? Sure.
> 
> ...


First things first, when bringing in stats that aren't very common, you have to explain them. How do you figure out win shares, where did you get the usage rate stat and how is it figured out, same goes for Value%. Explain these to me, then I'll respond to your post because currently I can't respond to about half of it.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> First things first, when bringing in stats that aren't very common, you have to explain them. How do you figure out win shares, where did you get the usage rate stat and how is it figured out, same goes for Value%. Explain these to me, then I'll respond to your post because currently I can't respond to about half of it.


I've never heard of Usage Rate either, but I sure understaood what he was saying.

Usage rate is the average number of touches each player got during the course of the game, and what he was basically outlining, and proving, was that Amare was doing more with less, compared to the two others you are attempting to jockey on us.

Go on. You'll find some way of spinning it.


----------



## MVPlaya (Oct 12, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Lol... I don't think having crappy teammates automatically qualifies you to be the MVP. Also bringing a team to the 8th seed in a horrendous conference shouldn't qualify you either. Just my opinion at least.
> 
> By the way you really shouldn't tell people to shut up. That's against board policy.



Havin crappy teammates and makin it to the play-off does. Yeah it is a horrendous conference. 

8th seed? They were 7th seed. Step up your basketball knowledge, I'm not gonna continue until you prove you're worth wasting time on. 8th seed, haha.


----------



## MVPlaya (Oct 12, 2003)

DK said:


> No, you read me right.
> 
> Look at it this way- It's Amare vs. Shaq, Amare vs. Duncan, and Amare vs. everyone else.
> 
> ...



The three top players this year were Amare, Dirk, and Shaq? 

Lol @ you, through all those stats, you still come out with an ignorant statement.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

DK what was Iverson's usage rate? Just wondering..

By the way MVPlaya 7th seed.. 8th seed? Who cares... knowing what seed a very marginal team like the Sixers were doesn't really rate high on my to do list.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

You basically got the knack of usage rate- it's the average amount of possessions used by a player per 40 (not 48, 40) minutes.

Iverson's was 32.7, the highest in the league.

Win Shares will take hours to explain how you calculate them (my version of them anyway). Justin Kubatko does his own Win Shares analysis pretty well (it's somewhat different than mine) , and the explanation is here. It's not the same as my analysis but usually brings roughly the same results.

Value% is a measure of shooting that takes into effect the value of every type of shot (three-pointer, two-pointer, and free throw) and adjusts accordingly. It's a stat I invented myself a couple of years ago that works extremely well at gauging point efficiency and ability.

MVPlaya, speaking from ignorance does not help you define it.

Sorry if I confused you guys, I do hours and hours of research every week and made the mistake that these are common. They are obviously not. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

DK said:


> You basically got the knack of usage rate- it's the average amount of possessions used by a player per 40 (not 48, 40) minutes.
> 
> Iverson's was 32.7, the highest in the league.
> 
> ...


Well if you are going to use stats you made yourself, why should I even believe you? I don't know how any of those stats are made, and you could very well be pulling them out of your ***, and I wouldn't know the difference.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Well if you are going to use stats you made yourself, why should I even believe you? I don't know how any of those stats are made, and you could very well be pulling them out of your ***, and I wouldn't know the difference.


It's a matter of trust, I suppose... Although I can tell you with some certainty I don't just pull stats out of my ***. If I did, I'd be telling you that Emeka Okafor and Nenad Krstic were the best players in the league. I really have no preference, if you want to learn further about my statistical endeavors drop me a PM or e-mail, and I'd be happy to discuss them with you.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

DK said:


> It's a matter of trust, I suppose... Although I can tell you with some certainty I don't just pull stats out of my ***. If I did, I'd be telling you that Emeka Okafor and Nenad Krstic were the best players in the league. I really have no preference, if you want to learn further about my statistical endeavors drop me a PM or e-mail, and I'd be happy to discuss them with you.


Why should I trust you though? I don't know you, this is the first time I've spoke with you...there is no basis to build this trust off of. Also, you could very well be pulling stats out of your *** to prove your favorite player is the best. It's one thing to say Amare is the best player in the L, and a completely different thing to say Emeka is the best, one is a far, far, far stretch, and the otehr is completely idiotic. I don't htink we can continue this until I really do know what your stats mean.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

Oh yeah, I'm awaiting your reply in that Anyone who isn't so foolish thread.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Hey, I just got a crazy idea; Let's _build_ bridges instead of burning them!

The Okafor/Krstic analogy was sarcasm. They're my two favorite players, and I'm not mentioning either one as the best in the league. I have no real opinion on Amare, it's just I ran the numbers and he was #1. Looking at them myself, I don't have much doubt that this is true.

Listen, I said if you wanted to know more about what I do, just drop me an e-mail and I'd be happy to talk about it. I don't know if my e-mail is displayed on the board, so you can e-mail me here.

My reply is up.


----------



## tdizzle (Apr 12, 2003)

Congratulations to Nash on winning this award. It couldn't have been given to a better person from everything I've heard and read about him.

I don't see why it is so unconcivable to some that Steve Nash would win this award. He had a great season on a very good and improved team.

I also think the NBA likes giving awards out to players who represent the NBA in such a positive way like Nash does. I'm not saying that Shaq isn't a good ambassador for the NBA but he has been controversial at times during his career.

Congratulations to Steve Nash again. I'm happy for him.


Steve Nash:









--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Nash plans to take over charity all-star game this summer in Toronto*


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Did Shaquille curse out the reporter on ESPN this year, or was that 2004? I honestly can't remember.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

I think this is a joke for the league. Nash is not a top 5 player and is a borderline top 10 player ( I think he is top 10). He has a team around him built to run and all top athletic prospects- (marion, amare, JJ all lottery picks). Shaq is a lot better of a player and has Wade/EJ 2 undrafted players in the starting lineup that he has helped make solid starters, in Damon and Udonis. Shaq is the true mvp, ask anybody who knows basketball and they will tell you the same. Nash won it because of hype around his team, even though it is pretty questionable if he is even the best player on his team and he has so much athletic talent around him which makes him look better than he is.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

DK said:


> Hey, I just got a crazy idea; Let's _build_ bridges instead of burning them!
> 
> The Okafor/Krstic analogy was sarcasm. They're my two favorite players, and I'm not mentioning either one as the best in the league. I have no real opinion on Amare, it's just I ran the numbers and he was #1. Looking at them myself, I don't have much doubt that this is true.
> 
> ...


Why don't you send me all of your stats in a PM on this site, then I'll reply to your post, because those stats you see that prove Amare is the best, I can't see and I wouldn't even understand if I did see.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

amare had an incredible statistical season. part of that, though, imo, is due to the circumstances he was in. same for nash. the suns complemented each other so well offensively, that it's hard to give full credit for the interdependencies that lead to the individual excellence. shaq is almost circumstance independent. he'll score efficiently, and dominate no matter who's around him or what style they play. shaq's impact is also felt beyond his touches. it's tough to quantify statistically, but he clearly opens things up by his mere presence. amare's contributions to the suns offense were tremendous, but they were also in part a function of the suns offense. same with the rest of them (nash obviously included). 

shaq's ft%'s was pathetic though, and a pretty decent size strike against him.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> Why don't you send me all of your stats in a PM on this site, then I'll reply to your post, because those stats you see that prove Amare is the best, I can't see and I wouldn't even understand if I did see.


 Well, what do you want? Saying "show me all your stats" is a pretty general statement, I've pretty much shown most of what needs to be seen already...

PM or e-mail me if/when you get a chance.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> I think this is a joke for the league. Nash is not a top 5 player and is a borderline top 10 player ( I think he is top 10). He has a team around him built to run and all top athletic prospects- (marion, amare, JJ all lottery picks). Shaq is a lot better of a player and has Wade/EJ 2 undrafted players in the starting lineup that he has helped make solid starters, in Damon and Udonis. Shaq is the true mvp, ask anybody who knows basketball and they will tell you the same. Nash won it because of hype around his team, even though it is pretty questionable if he is even the best player on his team and he has so much athletic talent around him which makes him look better than he is.


If Heat improves from 29W to 62W, I'll give Shaq the credit. And yes, I know basketball and I WON'T tell you the SAME. 

The "hype" gave Nash the award? Oh yeah, if you can be the 3rd best turnaround team in the history, then you deserve the HYPE. Any player would get the same recognition Nash got. If any player can bring Hawk to a 60W in one season, I'll give him all the respect. 

And Dude, last time I checked, Nash is a Point Guard. His job is to run the show with 4 OTHER PLAYERS. Nash knows how to utilize Suns' talents and you penalize him for that??? WTF??


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

DK said:


> Well, what do you want? Saying "show me all your stats" is a pretty general statement, I've pretty much shown most of what needs to be seen already...
> 
> PM or e-mail me if/when you get a chance.


No, I meant show me how you calculate all of the stats that you created, and send them to me in a PM.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

kflo said:


> amare had an incredible statistical season. part of that, though, imo, is due to the circumstances he was in. same for nash. the suns complemented each other so well offensively, that it's hard to give full credit for the interdependencies that lead to the individual excellence. shaq is almost circumstance independent. he'll score efficiently, and dominate no matter who's around him or what style they play. shaq's impact is also felt beyond his touches. it's tough to quantify statistically, but he clearly opens things up by his mere presence. amare's contributions to the suns offense were tremendous, but they were also in part a function of the suns offense. same with the rest of them (nash obviously included).
> 
> shaq's ft%'s was pathetic though, and a pretty decent size strike against him.


If Shaq is really that circumstance independent, he should have joined Hawks to make them a contender!!! Now, that will PROVE he is THAT circumstance independent.  

This is a very weak excuse. All the great stars need other great players to win games. If Nash is in the right circumstance, then so is Shaq with Wade!


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

jibikao said:


> If Heat improves from 29W to 62W, I'll give Shaq the credit. And yes, I know basketball and I WON'T tell you the SAME.
> 
> The "hype" gave Nash the award? Oh yeah, if you can be the 3rd best turnaround team in the history, then you deserve the HYPE. Any player would get the same recognition Nash got. If any player can bring Hawk to a 60W in one season, I'll give him all the respect.
> 
> And Dude, last time I checked, Nash is a Point Guard. His job is to run the show with 4 OTHER PLAYERS. Nash knows how to utilize Suns' talents and you penalize him for that??? WTF??


The thing is, the Suns weren't the Hawks, and how many damn times do I have to say it, Nash wasn't the only thing that changed from last season to this season. Last season Amare was injured a lot, so they didn't win as much. This season, they added Q, Amare was healthy and improved, JJ had improved, they added Jim Jackson, and they added Nash. Nash didn't turn this team around on his own. That has to be about the 30th time I've said that in a span of 3 days.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

jibikao said:


> If Heat improves from 29W to 62W, I'll give Shaq the credit.
> And Dude, last time I checked, Nash is a Point Guard. His job is to run the show with 4 OTHER PLAYERS. Nash knows how to utilize Suns' talents and you penalize him for that??? WTF??


there is a reason that before Nash joined the Suns he was rarely considered even a top 3 pg. Why? Well because he is a one dimensional player. He could shoot and run to perfection. He cant play defense and cant be the focal point of an offense. The Suns were good at hiding his weaknesses since all they did was run and not worry about defense.

These are NBA MVP's


> 2003-04 Kevin Garnett
> 2002-03 Tim Duncan
> 2001-02 Tim Duncan
> 2000-01 Allen Iverson
> ...


If you think Nash belongs anywhere close to this list you are as big as a joke as those sportswriters who voted for him. There is no excuse whatsoever for him winning this award.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

maybe we can have a rotational program, where stars rotate to talented but underachieving teams every year and we see how that team improves every year.

fact is, not many stars get to go to talented teams that won 29 games the year before. no other star player had the opportunity to turn around a talented 29 win team, because no other star went to a team that won 29 games last year. it's actually pretty rare for a free-agent star to show up at a bad teams door. nash got added to a team that complemented his skills tremendously. he was very good, and his teammates were very good.

shaq has a pretty long history - i have no doubt that he'd dominate under any circumstance. his track record is pretty solid, and his performance this year is pretty consistent with that. nash has a pretty long history as well - this year was his first like this. not that he dominated so much statistically (although he did have a career year in many respects), but he never got the credit like this.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> These are NBA MVP's


I still can't believe Karl Malone has more MVP's than Hakeem Olajuwon. What a shamockery.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

jibikao said:


> If Heat improves from 29W to 62W, I'll give Shaq the credit. And yes, I know basketball and I WON'T tell you the SAME.


Do you think if the Suns traded Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, and a third player (pick any) ,leaving a young star in Amare, for Steve Nash you really would have improved from 29 wins to 62. The Heat traded 3 starters for shaq and had a pretty solid year last year. Of couse they arent going to go up that many games.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> Do you think if the Suns traded Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, and a third player (pick any) ,leaving a young star in Amare, for Steve Nash you really would have improved from 29 wins to 62. The Heat traded 3 starters for shaq and had a pretty solid year last year. Of couse they arent going to go up that many games.


I still think that Shaq was much more deserving of the MVP, and this is just one of the reasons.


----------



## VCFSO2000 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> I still think that Shaq was much more deserving of the MVP, and this is just one of the reasons.


It doesn't matter who was more deserving of the 2,because someone else was more deserving than those 2...

Allen Iverson.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

VCFSO2000 said:


> It doesn't matter who was more deserving of the 2,because someone else was more deserving than those 2...
> 
> Allen Iverson.


Yeah I've said that for a while, but he didn't win enough games for him to qualify, but if I had a vote, it'd go to him.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

VCFSO2000 said:


> It doesn't matter who was more deserving of the 2,because someone else was more deserving than those 2...
> 
> Allen Iverson.


he would at least have been a better choice then Steve Nash.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> Do you think if the Suns traded Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, and a third player (pick any) ,leaving a young star in Amare, for Steve Nash you really would have improved from 29 wins to 62. The Heat traded 3 starters for shaq and had a pretty solid year last year. Of couse they arent going to go up that many games.


Lol You might be the only person in the world that think Brain Grant is a good player. And Butler? They signed someone else to replace him... the only real person they missed was Odom... in which they got Shaq in return.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> Lol You might be the only person in the world that think Brain Grant is a good player. And Butler? They signed someone else to replace him... the only real person they missed was Odom... in which they got Shaq in return.


Who did they sign to replace Butler? And when did he say Grant was a good player, he said pick a third player, any third player. Don't know where you got that from.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Lol You might be the only person in the world that think Brain Grant is a good player. And Butler? They signed someone else to replace him... the only real person they missed was Odom... in which they got Shaq in return.




We traded 3 starters. My point isnt that Grant is a good player, because he really isnt, but that we gave up our entire starting frontcourt. Odom was one of our best players last year. Caron was a young talent who did great in his rookie season and grant was a guy who gave his all every night. 

You obviously dont get my point. My point is the heat go 42-40 last year, trade 3 starters for one player, and you say because we didnt have a 30 game turnaround like the Suns did so Nash is the mvp :uhoh: You added Nash to a very talented team. If you traded 3 starters (pick any. I was using the 2 I listed to make the point of leaving the young star) for steve nash, you would be a lottery team, and you could argue for it all you want but only Suns fans will agree with you. There is a reason his team let him go for nothing. Trade 3 starters for Shaq and you are a championship contender.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*

Several things had to go right

1) Phoenix couldn't finish with about 40-45 wins like was expected.
2) Nash had to get around 11.5 APG, maybe not staggering by their pace but more than anyone in a long time. 50% didn't hurt, either.
3) Shaq couldn't go around 27 PPG like was expected with his new conditioning. He has shared, but Nash has, too, in a major understatement. Both styles worked.

Nash had more double-doubles than Shaq, and could go off for 30-35 like he could.

Interesting read http://www.usolympicteam.com/11767_32282.htm

This stuff is always debatable. Was Jeff Kent really the MVP or was Bonds? Kent had 125 RBI behind him, but with 350 TB and 114 R "of his own."


----------



## furnace (Jan 4, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



hobojoe said:


> I agree. Nothing against Nash, but if Jason Kidd couldn't win the MVP in his first season in New Jersey over Tim Duncan, I don't see how Nash wins it this year over Shaq. If you look at the scenarios, the two year's MVP races are very similar. Kidd was a PG who came to a new team that was awful the year before and led them to one of the best records in the East while putting up OK scoring numbers, very good rebounding numbers for a PG, and great assist numbers. Tim Duncan was the 20+ point 10+ rebound per game anchor of the team with the best record in the league. Duncan won. This year Nash is the Kidd, coming onto a new team and turning them around from 25 wins to over 60 and the best record in the league while putting up decent scoring numbers and great assist numbers. Shaq is the 20+ point 10+ rebound per game anchor of the best team in the East. Only this time, Nash wins. Shaq gets shafted on yet another MVP award, simply ridiculous. How the hell does he only have 1 MVP in his career? :nonono:




BINGO!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

It's a travesty.

If Nash deserves it now, Kidd shoulda won it in 2002.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Rumor: Nash will be introduced to 50th MVP on Sunday*



furnace said:


> BINGO!
> 
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
> 
> ...


Question... if a ref makes a bad call in a game should he just keep making the same bad call or should he correct his mistake the next time around?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

tempe85 said:


> Lol You might be the only person in the world that think Brain Grant is a good player. And Butler? They signed someone else to replace him... the only real person they missed was Odom... in which they got Shaq in return.


fact is, miami lost 3 key players from a 42 win team, and added shaq. phx lost no key players from a 29 win team and added nash and q. 

to add some additional context, look at the teams they left as well.

of course, i think there's alot more to consider than looking at last-year vs. this year. but if it's going to be a primary consideration for mvp (it shouldn't be), at least look at the full context.


----------



## kawika (May 7, 2003)

I think the Shaq was the MVP. I love Steve Nash and it's not as if there's no argument for a player like him to win an MVP, it's just so far out of the historical norms for an NBA MVP that it makes you wonder. 

Incidentally, have people looked at the actual voting? http://www.nba.com/news/nash_mvp_050508.html (sorry, I have no clue how to format that, if someone wants to, please do.)

It wouldn't have made any difference in the winner, but am I counting right? 

Shaquille O'Neal, Miami 58 61 3 3 1 1032

That's 126 total votes. Then at the very bottom:

P.J. Brown, New Orleans 0 0 0 0 1 1

There are 127 voters. I'm assuming these things are all connected. Who the hell is this person and why do they think being given the privlege to be an MVP voter gives them right to grind whatever axe it is they have to grind at the expense of the integrity of the voting? It be nice if he/she came forward and owned up to their little "protest vote". 

I'm very happy Dirk finished 3rd. It would've been terrible if that season wasn't acknowleged by a top 3 vote.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

People seem to throw out and discard 11.5 apg like it's nothing special.

Lets look at assists per 48 minutes, it makes it clearer.

A/48 ...# of players
>8 <9.......15
>9 <10.......9
>10 <11.....3
>11 <12.....0
>12 <13.....0
>13 <14.....0
>14 <15.....0
>15 <16.....0
>16...........Steve Nash

Nash didn't just lead the league. He was off the charts. WAY off the charts.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

The Mad Viking said:


> People seem to throw out and discard 11.5 apg like it's nothing special.
> 
> Lets look at assists per 48 minutes, it makes it clearer.
> 
> ...


 That also depends on how you value assists. I personally put no stock in them, as they are entirely circumstancial and speak of a team's talent to put the ball in the basket, rather than a player's talent to pass the ball.

Nash got so many assists because his teammates made so many shots. His passing ability is above average, of course, but most point guards would have easily had at least 9 APG in the same situations, and probably at least 13/48 min.


----------



## Ravnos (Aug 10, 2004)

The Mad Viking said:


> People seem to throw out and discard 11.5 apg like it's nothing special.
> 
> Lets look at assists per 48 minutes, it makes it clearer.
> 
> ...



Actually, Brevin Knight averaged 14.6 assists/48. And Nash isn't over 16, either. He's at 14.5/48.


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Assists per 48


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

kawika said:


> There are 127 voters. I'm assuming these things are all connected. Who the hell is this person and why do they think being given the privlege to be an MVP voter gives them right to grind whatever axe it is they have to grind at the expense of the integrity of the voting? It be nice if he/she came forward and owned up to their little "protest vote".


A similar thing happened last year, with some loser from Chicago voting for JO over KG. His reason? Even though he admitted KG was the most valuable player, he voted for JO because Garnett didn't give him an interview while the Wolves were in Chicago for a game about 8 years ago. That kinda crap is pretty pathetic. You vote for who deserves it, not because of some personal thing you have against the guy, or for somebody else. btw, I'm gonna guess that the person who left Shaq off the list is somebody from Phoenix really trying to get Nash the MVP. That's pure speculation, but that's my guess.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> The thing is, the Suns weren't the Hawks, and how many damn times do I have to say it, Nash wasn't the only thing that changed from last season to this season. Last season Amare was injured a lot, so they didn't win as much. This season, they added Q, Amare was healthy and improved, JJ had improved, they added Jim Jackson, and they added Nash. Nash didn't turn this team around on his own. That has to be about the 30th time I've said that in a span of 3 days.


Well this is true, because nobody really does anything on their own, Nash was clearly by far the biggest factor.

And here is some evidence to support the claim.

Nash was hurt Jan 14, and played only 11 minutes. They were 31-5 at the time, and when the dust settled, Nash had missed most of 4 games and came back early for a fifth, and Phoenix was 31-10.

Overall, they were 2-6 with Nash out, and 60-14 with Nash in.

The average margin with Nash out was -7.5 point. 
With Nash in, it was +8.7.

With the "terrible defender" in the lineup, they somehow allowed almost 6 fewer points per game.

Amare is a great player without Nash. He average a Shaq-like 22.9 in those 8 games. Of course, he averaged 26.3 with the added benefit of Nash.

Without Nash- they probably don't make the playoffs.

With Nash - they will play for the conference title, and could win the NBA.

That is why he is a perfectly logical choice for MVP.

It is very hard to pick MVPs, and IMO Shaq was certainly deserving. And the vote was extremely close.

All those arguments about Gary Payton and Jason Kidd in 93 or 2003 are total BS. You want to award the 2004-05 MVP to a player from a season other than 2004-05?

There are only so many shots to go around. PPG is probably the most useless statistic after Def RPG. Its simply a factor of how many shots you take. And most everybody is willing to jack a few more shots.


----------



## KingofNewark (Feb 18, 2005)

Steve Nash MVP, it just sounds odd that he will now be recognized among the greatest of all time.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

Ravnos said:


> Actually, Brevin Knight averaged 14.6 assists/48. And Nash isn't over 16, either. He's at 14.5/48.


Well Nash is 16.07, but for some reason Knight was not listed on the NBA stats leaders. I guess he didn't qualify, but that is BS he played nearly 2000 minutes and 66 games...


----------



## DK (May 8, 2005)

Six games is insignificant. Anything could show up like that in a stretch of six games. I read Dean Oliver's theory on insignificance a while ago, and doing a quick calculation in my head that is insignificant at ~7 percent. (That means that ~93% that it was just a random fluctuation and ~7% due to Nash, if that makes sense.) If he had missed 20 games and they played at that level, it'd be a different story.

PPG is useful but you're right that it's usefulness is limited. Rate stats and ORtg are both 100 times better at evaluating offense.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

The Mad Viking said:


> Well this is true, because nobody really does anything on their own, Nash was clearly by far the biggest factor.
> 
> And here is some evidence to support the claim.
> 
> ...



marion missed 1 game. they lost by 20. nash's #2 lineup in terms of minutes played was without amare, and that unit was outscored. point being, they were extremely dependent on all their starters. it was their team as a unit that functioned so well. how would nash have done without marion and amare etc? well, we could look to the rest of his career for a reasonable answer.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

I just saw Shaqs reaction to the Nash MVP.

He pretended to cry:laugh: and gave Steve his props. Shaq doesn't seem to be taking it so hard, he seems genuninely content with Nash getting the MVP.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

Congrats goes to Nash. Although it will seem strange to consider him amongst the greatest players in NBA history, which is automatic when one wins an "MVP".

The 2nd round will be interesting for the Mavs and the Suns because of the Nash Connection. :biggrin:


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

kflo said:


> marion missed 1 game. they lost by 20. nash's #2 lineup in terms of minutes played was without amare, and that unit was outscored. point being, they were extremely dependent on all their starters. it was their team as a unit that functioned so well. how would nash have done without marion and amare etc? well, we could look to the rest of his career for a reasonable answer.


Exactly, though I do think they may have depended on Nash the most, but any team with Phoenix style depends majorly on their ponit guard because they have to push the tempo and get everyone when they're open. When a team like Phoenix loses the catalyst of their offense for the first time, they're going to stuggle, and there's no question to it. If he was out for an extended period of time, Phoenix would adjust and would learn how to play without him, but since he was only out for a grand total of 6 games, they didn't have much time to learn how to play without him. To say that Phoenix wouldn't make the playoffs without Nash is just foolish.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

Rex Chapman and John Thompson both calling out Dan Leva*TARD* about the race issue he brought up.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm tired of people bringing up the fact that Nash scored 15.5 pts per game. First off, it's a very solid. Shaq score 22.9 pts per game. It's not like Shaq was bringing 35 a night or anything. True Shaq shot well from the field, but his ft% drops his efficiency in scoring.

Look at how Nash got his points
Nash 50.2% FG 41.8% 3pt 88.7% Ft%
He's one of the most efficient scorers in the league, how many guards can score 15.5 ppg w/ 50% FG%, go ahead and look, I don't think you find many. Nash is one of the most efficient scorers in the league

Then there is argument anyone could rack up Nash's assist numbers.
Let's look at Suns PG last year
Barbosa had 2.4 assist per game on about 25 mins
Joe Johnson had 3.5 assists per game on 40 mins per game.
You stick them together and they still have about half the assist totals of nash which is a league high of 11.5 assists per game.

If it's so easy, how come none of the Suns guards were able to get any assists last year?

You bring up supporting lineup, well Wade is a 1st or 2nd team all NBA player this year. Look at his numbers without Shaq, he's a stud. Damon Jones is a great PG. It's not like Shaq is bringing this team from nowhere, they made the playoffs last year.
The suns meanwhile were stuck in the lottery and now they have the best record. You want impact, that's impact.

If you think the award should go to best stats, then garnett is getting the award the awarde everyyear. If your talking about the best player, that's Duncan.

But Nash is the most valuable player. That's my last post on this issue.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

The Suns started the season 31-5....Then Nash got injured and they went 0-5.....That just shows how important Nash was/is to the Suns...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

27 points 17 assists for Nash tonight.....I would say thats MVP worthy...


----------

