# nba.com's Race to the MVP...



## JoeD (Sep 2, 2004)

... has Nash at #1. Get ready for a 3 peat.

http://www.nba.com/features/player_rankings_061212.html


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

i don't really care about the mvp race that much, but he's had enough. let someone else win it.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Look at his numbers and what he does on the court, he would be deserving again this year.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

With the suns 11 win streak and the numbers he is putting it is hard to argue


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

Mateo said:


> i don't really care about the mvp race that much, but he's had enough. let someone else win it.


The way he has been playing I wouldn't mind giving him 10 MVPs.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Mateo said:


> i don't really care about the mvp race that much, but he's had enough. let someone else win it.



Haha terrific way to look at it... let's share the wealth because one guy has taken too much pie. Why should Nash have to answer for the fact no one else is playing better than him? If someone wants to beat him for MVP they have to take it from him... they can't simply say, "He's won 2 already so give it to me please!!".. retarded


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

No. He is not getting it again. Don't care what anyone has to say.


----------



## streetballa (Dec 5, 2006)

With the way he is playing right now then he will probably win a third mvp, and if he continues to play this good then he will win a fourth mvp and then possibly a fifth and will only stop until he gets old and has to retire.


----------



## JoeD (Sep 2, 2004)

tempe85 said:


> Haha terrific way to look at it... let's share the wealth because one guy has taken too much pie. Why should Nash have to answer for the fact no one else is playing better than him? If someone wants to beat him for MVP they have to take it from him... they can't simply say, "He's won 2 already so give it to me please!!".. retarded


You assume that he actually deserves it this year. It isn't something that is agreed upon. This year looks like his most deserving year so far, actually, but imo he shouldn't of got it either of the last two years. If he is the undisputed MVP this year I'm happy for him not to get it... because he'd still have 2 MVP trophies to one deserving year.

And this reasoning has been used by the MVP voters before. Look at Shaq. He should have 2-3.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

How did he not deserve it last year? If anything he was a thief the first year, last year he played great, the only knock on him was that he already had one and have a back to back would of been crazy.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Welp, now its Yao's time to shine


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Haha terrific way to look at it... let's share the wealth because one guy has taken too much pie. Why should Nash have to answer for the fact no one else is playing better than him? If someone wants to beat him for MVP they have to take it from him... they can't simply say, "He's won 2 already so give it to me please!!".. retarded


The only truely "retarded" thing here is that Steve Nash has two MVPs, and yet was arguably not even a top 5 player the last two seasons.


----------



## Steez (Nov 28, 2002)

This year he deserves it, with the way Phoenix has been playing etc. Last year and the year before he didn't. If he keeps playing the way he is, why not? But its too early to be naming MVPs now... way too early, he is the front runner though.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

The funny thing is that Nash and the suns are the antithesis to Yao


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

EHL said:


> The only truely "retarded" thing here is that Steve Nash has two MVPs, and yet was arguably not even a top 5 player the last two seasons.


:lol:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

someone make a case for why duncan doesn't deserve it? 

and if the lakers maintain their pace (57 wins), if duncan doesn't win, kobe probably will.

nash is having a great year though.

of course, lebron, dirk and yao will be there too (i'd put wade, but their record needs to get significantly better).


----------



## Steez (Nov 28, 2002)

Personally, I dont think Kobe is the MVP of the Lakers ... Lamar Odom is, SO FAR! By the end of the year, it will be Kobe though.


----------



## Raxel (Nov 10, 2004)

Yao can win it IF (big, huge if) he can keep Rockets' current winning percentage without T-Mac.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> someone make a case for why duncan doesn't deserve it?
> 
> and if the lakers maintain their pace (57 wins), if duncan doesn't win, kobe probably will.
> 
> ...


You realize the Lakers played like 17 of 21 at Staples so far?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

tempe85 said:


> Haha terrific way to look at it... let's share the wealth because one guy has taken too much pie. Why should Nash have to answer for the fact no one else is playing better than him? If someone wants to beat him for MVP they have to take it from him... they can't simply say, "He's won 2 already so give it to me please!!".. retarded


they did it to jordan.

and saying he is deserving "again" is misleading. i dont think he was deserving of the first one and the second one is really sketchy


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

kflo said:


> someone make a case for why duncan doesn't deserve it?
> 
> and if the lakers maintain their pace (57 wins), if duncan doesn't win, kobe probably will.
> 
> ...


Kobe won't win the MVP award even if the lakers go 82-0 and Kobe averages triple double.
75 % of the voters hate him.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Theonee said:


> Kobe won't win the MVP award even if the lakers go 82-0 and Kobe averages triple double.
> 75 % of the voters hate him.


75% of the media hates kobe? c'mon. the hate is far more concentrated on forums and from fanboys.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Amareca said:


> You realize the Lakers played like 17 of 21 at Staples so far?


well, 15 of 20, but point taken. that said, the point was if the lakers win alot of games, kobe will stand a good chance.


----------



## shoprite (Dec 18, 2002)

Raxel said:


> Yao can win it IF (big, huge if) he can keep Rockets' current winning percentage without T-Mac.


It's hard to keep the SAME percentage when a team's best or 2nd best player is not able to play, especially when it's a two man team. Not to mention Rockets' schedule gets tougher with so many road games against good teams coming.


----------



## shoprite (Dec 18, 2002)

Theonee said:


> Kobe won't win the MVP award even if the lakers go 82-0 and Kobe averages triple double.
> 75 % of the voters hate him.


Well, Lakers 3-0 without Kobe. That may mean something.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Steez said:


> This year he deserves it, with the way Phoenix has been playing etc. Last year and the year before he didn't. If he keeps playing the way he is, why not? But its too early to be naming MVPs now... way too early, he is the front runner though.



He deserved it the first yr, because of what the team and he did in the regular season. But he shouldn't have gotten it last yr. Not how the Suns finished late struggling, and how his play dipped a little bit. I still don't think he will win it this yr. 

I really hate this topic. It's been beaten to death already. I wish it would go away, or people would just be quiet about it. Sick of the comments that try to just tear away at someone, despite playing great or at a higher level, which people still admit he is, yet are still against it and wouldn't be if it was someone else who won it or their favorite player(s). Enough is enough.


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

shoprite said:


> Well, Lakers 3-0 without Kobe. That may mean something.


Does that mean Lakers can go 82-0 without Kobe?

remember Cleveland had better record last year without Lebron playing.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> well, 15 of 20, but point taken. that said, the point was if the lakers win alot of games, kobe will stand a good chance.


One of their road games was at Staples Center too..


----------



## Raxel (Nov 10, 2004)

shoprite said:


> It's hard to keep the SAME percentage when a team's best or 2nd best player is not able to play, especially when it's a two man team. Not to mention Rockets' schedule gets tougher with so many road games against good teams coming.



The harder this mission is, the bigger chance yao has if he actually accomplishs it. Rockets' current winning PER is 0.7, that's scaled to 57-58 wins.


----------



## shoprite (Dec 18, 2002)

Theonee said:


> Does that mean Lakers can go 82-0 without Kobe?
> 
> remember Cleveland had better record last year without Lebron playing.


Nobody can go 82-0。 It could mean Lakers without Kobe is already a very good team even though 3 games are very small sample size.

Lebron didn't win MVP last year.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

I personally thought LeBron would run away with. But
his team has struggled and he has not been the talk of
the NBA. 

I laugh at people saying Nash didn't deserve those MVPs.
You can say he deserved them, but maybe there were others that deserved it more? Don't be a fool saying Steve didn't
deserve those MVPs.

I liked a quote from D'Antoni. I believe he said something
like "If you are looking back at history to give an award, you're looking at it the wrong way" 

And it's true. If you are going to look at history and say
"We can't put Steve Nash with Larry Bird" then you are 
definitely looking it the wrong way. It should be based on
whether or not he deserves it. Right now he is playing out
of his mind. I haven't seen anyone else to show that they 
mean more and contribute more to there team then he does 
right now.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Two of those three wins without Kobe came against the Warriors and Hawks...I'm just saying.


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

shoprite said:


> Nobody can go 82-0。 It could mean Lakers without Kobe is already a very good team even though 3 games are very small sample size.
> 
> Lebron didn't win MVP last year.


But Lebron came second in the voting. I am also pointing out a fact that just because a team wins few games without its best players doesn't necessarily mean they are better off without their best player or their best player is useless.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Basel57 said:


> Two of those three wins without Kobe came against the Warriors and Hawks...I'm just saying.


And another in their season opener at home against a choking Suns team with bad chemistry that flat out beat themselves.


----------



## shoprite (Dec 18, 2002)

Basel57 said:


> Two of those three wins without Kobe came against the Warriors and Hawks...I'm just saying.


I'm not saying Kobe is not worthy MVP talking. But that 3-0 will affect people's thinking when they vote. One big reason for Nash to win his 1st MVP was those few games when he was out, Suns played like crap, Amare played like crap. That alone gave Nash a huge advantage. It showed how valuable he was to the team.


----------



## shoprite (Dec 18, 2002)

Theonee said:


> But Lebron came second in the voting. I am also pointing out a fact that just because a team wins few games without its best players doesn't necessarily mean they are better off without their best player or their best player is useless.


See my reply above.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

As long as Nash doesn't run away with it, which he isn't at this point, then the voters will give it to someone else for sure.

Not saying he isn't deserving, but there will be other players who are arguably just as deserving like Dirk, Lebron, Kobe, Duncan etc. The voters would rather see a change in MVP rather than a 3peat by Nash.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

one reason nash won his first was because of low expectations. that contributed to last years win as well, as they were expected to do much worse without amare. writers don't have the same story this year for nash. just more of the same. the lakers, on the other hand, if they finish with a great record, would be on the way up. and that would be a good story. and that matters.

but again, i'm not sure why duncan isn't deserving. isn't his team at the top, isn't he the dominant defender, and isn't he having a great statistical season? why would nash be more deserving than timmy?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

I would truly love ro see Steve Nash win another MVP. I would be thrilled about it.

Maybe then people would begin to apretiate the meaning of "context" on the basketball game.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> but again, i'm not sure why duncan isn't deserving. isn't his team at the top, isn't he the dominant defender, and isn't he having a great statistical season? why would nash be more deserving than timmy?


His team is on top too even after a bad start and his numbers are absolutey INSANE plus then you add the intangibles he brings and the clutch shots he makes.. that's your MVP.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Amareca said:


> His team is on top too even after a bad start and his numbers are absolutey INSANE plus then you add the intangibles he brings and the clutch shots he makes.. that's your MVP.


ateve Nash's game is tigh, and it's been consistent.
It will take another guy putting up amazing numbers to overcome NAsh (and if Kobe couldn't make it last year, i'm guessing no one can this year).


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

Really can't argue with the way Nash has been playing lately. Its still way too early in the season, but you know Nash will bring it every night.


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

I don't really care what kind of numbers he puts up. It would be a disgrace to the game of basketball for him to win 3 straight. The 1st one was highly controversial, but he did make the Suns turn into gold. The second-he did it without Amare, even though he probably didn't deserve 2 straight. No way he gets a third one. It would make the MVP award worthless. Name one MVP in the past 25 years that Steve Nash is better than. It's not that he doesn't deserve it this year, its just that he doesn't deserve 3 straight. My vote right now would be between Yao, Duncan, and Boozer. AI might win it again if the team he gets traded to all of a sudden becomes great. Nash should not win it this year.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Flash is the Future said:


> I don't really care what kind of numbers he puts up. It would be a disgrace to the game of basketball for him to win 3 straight. The 1st one was highly controversial, but he did make the Suns turn into gold. The second-he did it without Amare, even though he probably didn't deserve 2 straight. No way he gets a third one. It would make the MVP award worthless. Name one MVP in the past 25 years that Steve Nash is better than. It's not that he doesn't deserve it this year, its just that he doesn't deserve 3 straight. My vote right now would be between Yao, Duncan, and Boozer. AI might win it again if the team he gets traded to all of a sudden becomes great. Nash should not win it this year.


*CONTEXT*, eager bunny, *CONTEXT*!


----------



## LineOFire (Apr 20, 2004)

He's leading right now because the Suns are on an 11 game winning streak. They're not going to keep winning so many games in a row in my opinion.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Raxel said:


> The harder this mission is, the bigger chance yao has if he actually accomplishs it. Rockets' current winning PER is 0.7, that's scaled to 57-58 wins.


..And the Jazz's winning per is scaled to like 65 wins. They aren't going to get there, and Carlos Boozer shouldn't even be whispered as an MVP candidate right now. Same goes for Yao. The only way Yao gets it is if McGrady is hurt for 30+ games and Yao leads his team to 55+ wins.

This year, so far, Nash is deserving it. He did NOT deserve it last year, but this year he actually looks like the MVP, rather than a surprise MVP.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Amareca said:


> His team is on top too even after a bad start and his numbers are absolutey INSANE plus then you add the intangibles he brings and the clutch shots he makes.. that's your MVP.


duncan's team record is better. his individual numbers are better. and he's dominant on both sides of the ball. and his supporting cast is weaker. this is no disrespect to nash, but duncan is taken for granted to the point where it's expected that he's going to lead his team to the top.


----------



## Fray (Dec 19, 2005)

I will lose all faith in the NBA if Nash wins 3 MVP's. How can Steve Nash even have 2 let alone 3 MVP's? It's so mind boggling that I am getting a headache as I type this.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

kflo said:


> duncan's team record is better. his individual numbers are better. and he's dominant on both sides of the ball. and his supporting cast is weaker. this is no disrespect to nash, but duncan is taken for granted to the point where it's expected that he's going to lead his team to the top.


San Antonio has the same number of losses and Nash's efficiency is better. But if you REALLY think that the Suns have a better team, then you are deluded! Spurs have Finley, Barry, Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, Bowen, Elson, Udrih and Horry. That's nine deep! That is enough to be a championship caliber team!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

How old is Nash? He could have 4-5 MVP awards by the time he retires.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

kflo said:


> duncan's team record is better. his individual numbers are better. and he's dominant on both sides of the ball. and his supporting cast is weaker. this is no disrespect to nash, but duncan is taken for granted to the point where it's expected that he's going to lead his team to the top.


Duncan's stats are better? And his cast is weaker?

You say these things like they are fact, when they are both highly debatable.


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> How old is Nash? He could have 4-5 MVP awards by the time he retires.


Hope he doesn't get too old to play the run and gun offense that the suns play, because sooner or later when he gets older he will have to play the half court more or run out of gas.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

IceMan23and3 said:


> San Antonio has the same number of losses and Nash's efficiency is better. But if you REALLY think that the Suns have a better team, then you are deluded! Spurs have Finley, Barry, Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, Bowen, Elson, Udrih and Horry. That's nine deep! That is enough to be a championship caliber team!


Spurs don't event think the Spurs are 9 deep. Finley has been trash this year, Udrih is Sasha Vujacic on steroids, and Horry doesn't add much of anything anymore except come playoff time.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

On a related note Kidd's numbers are ridiculous.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

LineOFire said:


> He's leading right now because the Suns are on an 11 game winning streak. They're not going to keep winning so many games in a row in my opinion.


Yeah, good call. Plus look at the teams the Suns have beat during their winning streak: Warriors, Hornets, Nets, Blazers, Rockets, Bucks, Kings, Nets, Celtics, and Magic. Rockets W was good and Magic W was alright. Otherwise an average schedule, not spectacular.

Suns are still elite of course, but not cause of this winning streak.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

EHL said:


> Yeah, good call. Plus look at the teams the Suns have beat during their winning streak: Warriors, Hornets, Nets, Blazers, Rockets, Bucks, Kings, Nets, Celtics, and Magic. Rockets W was good and Magic W was alright. Otherwise an average schedule, not spectacular.
> 
> Suns are still elite of course, but not cause of this winning streak.



I'm wonder if they winning streak would be more impressive
if they were all at home. 

Suns have won quite a few on the road. I believe half
of the wins have been on the road. 4 straight on the road,
with a ton of back-to-backs.


----------



## Rule_By_His_Own_Hand (Jun 20, 2006)

If you base it on how he is playing right now and the season so far, then it seems like you are nothing but a hater saying Nash would not deserve it if the voting were held now.

Of course Yao deserves it too.

But this doesn't mean either will win it.


But seriously if he keeps this up all year why the hell couldn't he win it?


----------



## LineOFire (Apr 20, 2004)

Dr.Seuss said:


> I'm wonder if they winning streak would be more impressive
> if they were all at home.
> 
> Suns have won quite a few on the road. I believe half
> ...


No doubt the Suns are a great team. But just like when the Mavs went on their huge streak everyone hyped them up. Now that they have come back to earth and lost a couple of games there's not as much talk about them. Too many people completely overreact when teams go on big streaks (whether winning or losing). Unfortunately, it will continue to happen no matter which team does it.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

The suns are 1-3 when amare doesn't start, 0-1 without nash, and 13-3 when amare starts.  

simple math, amare = MVP


----------



## JMES HOME (May 22, 2006)

Mateo said:


> i don't really care about the mvp race that much, but he's had enough. let someone else win it.


why dont we give it turkoglu then !!


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Look at his numbers and what he does on the court, he would be deserving again this year.


To be honest, He is better than Amare. I dunno if he is No.1 again but Amare will never be a MVP!


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

IceMan23and3 said:


> San Antonio has the same number of losses and Nash's efficiency is better. But if you REALLY think that the Suns have a better team, then you are deluded! Spurs have Finley, Barry, Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, Bowen, Elson, Udrih and Horry. That's nine deep! That is enough to be a championship caliber team!



for every parker there's an amare. for every manu there's a marion. for every finley there's a diaw. for every bowen there's a bell. for every elson there's a thomas. for every udrih there's a barbosa. for every barry there's a rose. going 9 deep doesn't make you a championship team. having talent does. and both teams have talent, with the suns seemingly more loaded at the top than the spurs.

nash's efficiency is better, duncan has the significantly better PER. and again, he's dominant on DEFENSE as well. when we get past the emotion of a winning streak and nash actually having his best season, you're still left with duncan playing on the team with the currently better record and better overall stats while dominating on both ends.


----------



## Auggie (Mar 7, 2004)

JJ not even in the top 10? hmm..


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Steve Nash is the greatest point guard of all-time. What other point guard has won 3 MVPs? Has Magic even done that?

It drives me insane that Nash continues to win these MVPs, but never receives any scrutiny.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Hope that last part is sarcasm or a joke too, because that is all he ever receives. 

I already stated what I thought about it in this thread. Deserving first one, not the other.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

magic won in '87, '89, '90


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

I would not be shocked at all if he won it three times.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> It drives me insane that Nash continues to win these MVPs, but never receives any scrutiny.


Are you serious?

Not only has he recieved more scrutiny then any othr player to win the MVP, but he's actually earned a boatload of haters because *the voters* picked him for the MVP the last two years.

Way to keep your ear to the ground.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Steve Nash is the greatest point guard of all-time. What other point guard has won 3 MVPs? Has Magic even done that?
> 
> It drives me insane that Nash continues to win these MVPs, but never receives any scrutiny.



I don't understand why everyone has to be so sarcastic
to present their opinion. 

The last part of your paragraph is anything but true.
Everybody thinks Nash should never have touched an MVP
trophy. 

I find it funny how everyone acts like it's very common for
someone to average 20, 11, 3 and shoot 50+ from 3 and overall from the field.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Not only has he recieved more scrutiny then any othr player to win the MVP, but he's actually earned a boatload of haters because *the voters* picked him for the MVP the last two years.
> 
> Way to keep your ear to the ground.


Steve Nash has "haters"?

Oh Canada.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

EHL said:


> Steve Nash has "haters"?
> 
> Oh Canada.


Yes, he does. There all over this board.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

EHL said:


> Steve Nash has "haters"?
> 
> Oh Canada.


Take a look into the mirror, Stop baiting.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> Yes, he does. There all over this board.


Get that self-prosecutory crap out of here. Hardly anyone on this board or any other board "hates" Steve Nash the way they do many other NBA players. Off the top of my head, at least 10 NBA players get more hate than Nash, as in personal jibes, criticism of mannerisms, unreasonable criticisms of style of play, etc. 

1) LeBron
2) Kobe
3) Wade
4) Ginobli
5) Melo
6) Dirk
7) Carter
8) Tmac
9) Artest
10) Fill in the blank

And it's not even close.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Take a look into the mirror, I know your parents forbid it but ...


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/john_hollinger/10/31/nba.curse/


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

EHL said:


> Get that self-prosecutory crap out of here. Hardly anyone on this board or any other board "hates" Steve Nash the way they do many other NBA players. Off the top of my head, at least 10 NBA players get more hate than Nash, as in personal jibes, criticism of mannerisms, unreasonable criticisms of style of play, etc.
> 
> 1) LeBron
> 2) Kobe
> ...


That's your opinion. I don't know why your opinion, moreso than others, always seems to translate into fact.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> That's your opinion. I don't know why your opinion, moreso than others, always seems to translate into fact.


Anything that can be recorded and proven to be true is fact, and it would be pretty easy to list the countless posts and threads hating on players not named Steve Nash in this forum and others. Give it a shot.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

Nash is making a strong case yet again for what would be his 3rd successive MVP award.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

EHL said:


> Anything that can be recorded and proven to be true is fact, and it would be pretty easy to list the countless posts and threads hating on players not named Steve Nash in this forum and others. Give it a shot.


Yes, and if I had time I would record the countless posts of people bashing Nash and with my findings I would likely conclude that Nash has plenty of haters.

BTW, I said Nash has haters. I don't see how listing 10 players who apparently have more haters makes Nash have no haters. I don't see the logic in that.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

i'm not gonna lie, i thought nash winning two MVPs was ridiculous, especially his first one, but he is making me a believer this year. never thought i would say it, but he's the front runner for the award so far...damn that kind of hurts to say.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

c p 9 said:


> i'm not gonna lie, i thought nash winning two MVPs was ridiculous, especially his first one, but he is making me a believer this year. never thought i would say it, but he's the front runner for the award so far...damn that kind of hurts to say.


Why would it hurt to say that someone deserving of the award should win it?


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> Why would it hurt to say that someone deserving of the award should win it?


mainly because the entire last week i kept telling my dad how nash has no chance in hell and i don't think he deserves it...now i have to eat it.


----------



## PFortyy (May 31, 2006)

yao will win mvp


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

melo 8th? :/


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> Yes, and if I had time I would record the countless posts of people bashing Nash and with my findings I would likely conclude that Nash has plenty of haters.
> 
> BTW, I said Nash has haters. I don't see how listing 10 players who apparently have more haters makes Nash have no haters. I don't see the logic in that.


There are probably at least a few haters for every NBA player in the league, it goes without saying. But do the lone two haters of, say, Jake Tsakalidis make him "hated"? Yeah, sure, he's "hated". Relative to the rest of the league? No, not really, certainly not worth noting anyway. And you noted it with Nash, saying he has a "boatload" of haters which, of course, is not the least bit true relative to the rest of the league.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

EHL said:


> There are probably at least a few haters for every NBA player in the league, it goes without saying. But do the lone two haters of, say, Jake Tsakalidis make him "hated"? Yeah, sure, he's "hated". Relative to the rest of the league? No, not really, certainly not worth noting anyway. And you noted it with Nash, saying he has a "boatload" of haters which, of course, is not the least bit true relative to the rest of the league.


I completely disagree, and I'm going to leave it at that.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> I completely disagree, and I'm going to leave it at that.


Yeah, no kidding. Data be damned!


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

EHL said:


> Yeah, no kidding. Data be damned!


And what data do you have that makes your stance stronger, exactly?

Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thought. Just checkin.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> And what data do you have that makes your stance stronger, exactly?
> 
> Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thought. Just checkin.


http://www.basketballforum.com/search.php?searchid=292659

Nothing but a database full of threads disproportionally hating the players I listed (and more) more consistently and more deeply than Steve Nash receives. 

You truly believe what you're saying because you're a Suns fan and nothing more. Don't front.


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2006121314



> Miami Heat coach Pat Riley has nothing but high praise for Steve Nash, the NBA's two-time reigning MVP.
> 
> "He may be the best player in the league," Riley said.





> "The league MVP," Heat forward James Posey said. "He had a big 3 there."


Nash's already gaining momentum for a 3-peat, wow...


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

EHL said:


> http://www.basketballforum.com/search.php?searchid=292659
> 
> Nothing but a database full of threads disproportionally hating the players I listed (and more) more consistently and more deeply than Steve Nash receives.
> 
> You truly believe what you're saying because you're a Suns fan and nothing more. Don't front.



This was a silly argument to begin with (like every argument you get involved with), but your last post just tops it all. 

I'm just going to assume you made that post as a joke against logic, and a sign that you realize how dumb our argument is as well.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> This was a silly argument to begin with (like every argument you get involved with), but your last post just tops it all.
> 
> I'm just going to assume you made that post as a joke against logic, and a sign that you realize how dumb our argument is as well.


Huh? Look, I could waste my time compiling all the data, throw it in your face, and you'd go into hiding or make up some excuse. But I'm not going to waste my time searching these forums calculating the percentage differntials of each of the players I listed in comparison to Nash. It's clear as day to anyone that reads this board based on just having consistently viewed NBA General as well as other teams forums that Steve Nash does not receive a "boatload of hate", as you put it. You're a Suns fan, of course you have a complex about your favorite player. It's OK to admit it and move on. Just don't pretend it's reality.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

EHL said:


> Yeah, no kidding. Data be damned!





> http://www.basketballforum.com/searc...earchid=292659


Your answer worries me. How does a few threads justify anything? Since Nash won his second straight MVP award, there has been many comparison made between Nash and other past players that have won 2 straight. The general consensus was that Nash isn't nearly as good as players like Magic, MJ, Bird. The players that have won multiple MVP awards were always dominant players of their time. Because Nash isn't considered to be a dominant player, there has been many people criticizing the decision to hand him a second MVP trophy. You've said it yourself, he isn't a top 5 players in terms of individual play. 

For you to compare this type of criticism to "I dislike AI because he's a ballhog" or "I dislike Adonal Foyle because he's a bum" is like comparing apples with oranges. Steve Nash's "hate" comes from his MVP awards. There is only a selected group of individuals that can be compared with him. Did Adonal Foyle win 2 MVPs? Did Kobe win 2 MVPs? If you want to compare the amount of hate, or criticism that David Robinson received by winning the MVP over Hakeem or Malone over MJ then yes, those "hate" would be relevent. But if you want to compare why Toronto fans hate VC to people critcize Nash for winning 2 and possibly 3 straight MVPs, save yourself and us the time to go through your "Data" because honestly, those aren't going to support your argument at all.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> Your answer worries me. How does a few threads justify anything? Since Nash won his second straight MVP award, there has been many comparison made between Nash and other past players that have won 2 straight. The general consensus was that Nash isn't nearly as good as players like Magic, MJ, Bird. The players that have won multiple MVP awards were always dominant players of their time. Because Nash isn't considered to be a dominant player, there has been many people criticizing the decision to hand him a second MVP trophy. You've said it yourself, he isn't a top 5 players in terms of individual play.


There's a pretty clear difference between constructive criticism and hate. Which I outlined a few posts ago, where I partially defined player haters as "personal jibes, criticism of mannerisms, unreasonable criticisms of style of play, etc.". It's a pretty clear and obvious distinction.



> For you to compare this type of criticism to "I dislike AI because he's a ballhog" or "I dislike Adonal Foyle because he's a bum" is like comparing apples with oranges. Steve Nash's "hate" comes from his MVP awards. There is only a selected group of individuals that can be compared with him. Did Adonal Foyle win 2 MVPs? Did Kobe win 2 MVPs? If you want to compare the amount of hate, or criticism that David Robinson received by winning the MVP over Hakeem or Malone over MJ then yes, those "hate" would be relevent. But if you want to compare why Toronto fans hate VC to people critcize Nash for winning 2 and possibly 3 straight MVPs, save yourself and us the time to go through your "Data" because honestly, those aren't going to support your argument at all.


I'd be real interested to hear you explain why someone must win an MVP award to be in this conversation, because frankly that makes no sense. How, exactly, is it comparing "apples and oragnes"? How does a player receiving undue hate for MVP awards they have won make null and void the hate other non-MVP players have received in comparison?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

EHL said:


> There's a pretty clear difference between constructive criticism and hate. Which I outlined a few posts ago, where I partially defined player haters as "personal jibes, criticism of mannerisms, unreasonable criticisms of style of play, etc.". It's a pretty clear and obvious distinction.


It's kind of funny since if you know that there is a clear difference in terms of criticism, you should have realized that Nash's criticism is different from other players. Nash's critcism came from his MVP trophies, other people did not share this characteristic.



> I'd be real interested to hear you explain why someone must win an MVP award to be in this conversation, because frankly that makes no sense. How, exactly, is it comparing "apples and oragnes"? How does a player receiving undue hate for MVP awards they have won make null and void the hate other non-MVP players have received in comparison?


Well, I think you are probably one of the few here that is actually interested in hearing me explain. This is such a simple logic that most people would see when reading this thread. But then again, I wouldn't find your posts ridiculous if you could read like regular people. Let me break it down for you.

When one of the posters said that there are many "Nash haters", he meant that there is an unusually large amount of people that disagrees with Nash getting those 2 MVP trophies. When Michael Jordan won his MVPs, people did not critcize the decison because he was the most dominant player. When Tim Duncan won his MVPs(well, first MVP anyway), again, most people approved. The same can be said for Magic's MVPs, AI's, Bird's MVPs. When Nash won his first MVP, it was a controversial decision. When he won his second, more people disagreed with the decision. Now that he might win his 3rd one in a row, more people are voicing their disapproval. That's where the "Nash haters" comment was directed to. And yes, if you count the number of people that has a problem with Nash winning his 3rd MVP with the amount of people that thought someone else should've won the MVP award other than MJ in 97', you are going to see quite a difference in numbers. Meanwhile, there you are comparing Nash's critcism with someone having a problem with Adonal Foyle. You don't find this ridiculous? My suggestion to you is to just stop posting in this thread. Let the real fans discuss their opinion.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

This Race to MVP ranking changes frequently anyway. 

I don't think Nash will get another one.


----------



## Rule_By_His_Own_Hand (Jun 20, 2006)

This is stupid. Reilly the guy that coached Magic in his prime says Nash is every bit as good except the difference of rebounding, playing multiple positions, and being able to post up.

In other words he said Nash is exactly like a 6-3 version of Magic.


So granted he said magic was a better overall player but he said Nash was just as good a point guard.

So Reilly is in effect saying Nash is nearly as good as one of the top 5 probably players of all time.

I think some of the "fans" and "expert analysts" need to get a clue.

The only difference between Nash and previous multiple MVP winners is that they played as superstars their entire carees, where Nash didn't.

Nash is unique in that way, but that means it's fair to say he is NOT as good overall in career, but NOT fair to say his prime isn't as good.

If he leads the Suns to the title this year (which could very well happen) he's easily a first ballot hall of famer, he does that and wins another MVP and finals MVP (all of which very well could also happen) he's a unamimous first time hall of famer.

This is of course the "if" game, but it's probably 50/50 chance it happens this year.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

again, tim duncan is having one of the best seasons of his career, and his team is once again the best in the league. mvp talk should start right there. 



> This is stupid. Reilly the guy that coached Magic in his prime says Nash is every bit as good except the difference of rebounding, playing multiple positions, and being able to post up.


fairly significant differences. and magic was the better scorer and even defender.



> So granted he said magic was a better overall player but he said Nash was just as good a point guard.


he said that?



> So Reilly is in effect saying Nash is nearly as good as one of the top 5 probably players of all time.


he said that?


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

I don't understand how some people here love to argue how the coaches praise Nash. 

What makes you think you know better than a coach like Reilly?? Those coaches devote their lives in basketball and what have you done to make you think you know better than they do? By watching NBA TV? TNT? ESPN? 

Some of the comments are probably just from being "generous" but I think Reilly genuinely thinks Nash is THAT good, and who are you to argue with Reilly who probably knows basketball a million times more than you do?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

who are you directing that at?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kflo said:


> again, tim duncan is having one of the best seasons of his career, and his team is once again the best in the league. mvp talk should start right there.


It should, but Dirk proved last season that posting better numbers while leading a better team with less of a supporting cast doesn't really mean anything. 

It's less about what everyone else does, and more about what Nash does. If he has a bad season, he won't win MVP. If he has a good season for his standards, it's hard to imagine anyone else winning, regardless of what other players do.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

who are you directing that at?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

who are you directing that at?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

again, tim duncan is having one of the best seasons of his career, and his team is once again the best in the league. mvp talk should start right there. 



> This is stupid. Reilly the guy that coached Magic in his prime says Nash is every bit as good except the difference of rebounding, playing multiple positions, and being able to post up.


fairly significant differences. and magic was the better scorer and even defender.



> So granted he said magic was a better overall player but he said Nash was just as good a point guard.


he said that?



> So Reilly is in effect saying Nash is nearly as good as one of the top 5 probably players of all time.


he said that?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kflo is smokin'


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

you want some of this patch?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

you want some of this patch?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> It's kind of funny since if you know that there is a clear difference in terms of criticism, you should have realized that Nash's criticism is different from other players. Nash's critcism came from his MVP trophies, other people did not share this characteristic.


That's nice. Please explain exactly what about this fact changes the relevance of the hate. 



> Well, I think you are probably one of the few here that is actually interested in hearing me explain. This is such a simple logic that most people would see when reading this thread. But then again, I wouldn't find your posts ridiculous if you could read like regular people. Let me break it down for you.
> 
> When one of the posters said that there are many "Nash haters", he meant that there is an unusually large amount of people that disagrees with Nash getting those 2 MVP trophies. When Michael Jordan won his MVPs, people did not critcize the decison because he was the most dominant player. When Tim Duncan won his MVPs(well, first MVP anyway), again, most people approved. The same can be said for Magic's MVPs, AI's, Bird's MVPs. When Nash won his first MVP, it was a controversial decision. When he won his second, more people disagreed with the decision. Now that he might win his 3rd one in a row, more people are voicing their disapproval. That's where the "Nash haters" comment was directed to. And yes, if you count the number of people that has a problem with Nash winning his 3rd MVP with the amount of people that thought someone else should've won the MVP award other than MJ in 97', you are going to see quite a difference in numbers. Meanwhile, there you are comparing Nash's critcism with someone having a problem with Adonal Foyle. You don't find this ridiculous? My suggestion to you is to just stop posting in this thread. Let the real fans discuss their opinion.


lmao, come on, you can do better than that. You have not explained one bit how a player receiving undue hate for MVP awards they have won make null and void the hate other non-MVP players have received in comparison. You infered something that was not actually said in regards to MVP hate versus regular hate, good for you. You also have completely ignored the fact that many posters who criticize the MVP awards Nash have received have no hate for him whatsoever but in fact direct their anger towards MVP voters who consistently give out MVP awards year after year based on faulty criteria (wins before impact, for example).


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

kflo said:


> again, tim duncan is having one of the best seasons of his career, and his team is once again the best in the league. mvp talk should start right there.



Slow down buddy.

Phoenix and San Antonio have just about equal records (if not, exactly the same).

Nevermind that Tim Duncan is not on the best team in the NBA, and is getting outproduced by a guy that IS on the best team in the NBA.

I love how you can just default to an MVP, like he deserves it over somebody that is still edging him out, as far as the season goes.

As far as raw production and his importance being completely reflective of the team's wins, I could make a much better case for Carmelo Anthony right now than you could about Tim Duncan. So far your only response to anything other than Duncan is to the effect of "why not?"... which just says you think he deserves it no matter how good any other player or team is doing, just because he's Tim Duncan. 

Sorry, but a reputation doesn't win MVP's.


----------



## LineOFire (Apr 20, 2004)

Seifer, I can love Steve Nash and still not think he deserves two MVP's in a row. That doesn't make me a Steve Nash hater.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

duncan's 2nd in the league in PER (dirk's #1), his team is #2 defensively, and #4 offensively, both in large part because of timmy d. the argument for timmy is based precisely by what he brings to the table, tangibly, and not rep. 

make your carmello argument, or your boozer argument, if you wish. i'm sticking with the guy with the overall numbers, the team record, the defensive impact, the offensive impact. the game changer on both sides.


----------



## JoeD (Sep 2, 2004)

jibikao said:


> I don't understand how some people here love to argue how the coaches praise Nash.
> 
> What makes you think you know better than a coach like Reilly?? Those coaches devote their lives in basketball and what have you done to make you think you know better than they do? By watching NBA TV? TNT? ESPN?
> 
> Some of the comments are probably just from being "generous" but I think Reilly genuinely thinks Nash is THAT good, and who are you to argue with Reilly who probably knows basketball a million times more than you do?


Well, you could answer this yourself by finding a lot of nonsensical things coaches have said in the past, including Riley. Coaches are usually liberal in giving out praise, particularly in post game conferences after they just got beat.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

So this year, Steve Nash's MVP will be based on stats.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> duncan's 2nd in the league in PER (dirk's #1), his team is #2 defensively, and #4 offensively, both in large part because of timmy d. the argument for timmy is based precisely by what he brings to the table, tangibly, and not rep.
> 
> make your carmello argument, or your boozer argument, if you wish. i'm sticking with the guy with the overall numbers, the team record, the defensive impact, the offensive impact. the game changer on both sides.


That's the thing: every knowledgebull (sp?) basketball fan would think that a team with Tim Duncan is a championship contender. Not winning it all is a failure of a season.

The same can't be said about the LBJ's Cavs, and Kobe's Lakers... 

WHY IS THAT?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> That's the thing: every knowledgebull (sp?) basketball fan would think that a team with Tim Duncan is a championship contender. Not winning it all is a failure of a season.
> 
> The same can't be said about the LBJ's Cavs, and Kobe's Lakers...
> 
> WHY IS THAT?


Because a prime Tim Duncan is probably better than both LeBron and Kobe?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

duncan's 2nd in the league in PER (dirk's #1), his team is #2 defensively, and #4 offensively, both in large part because of timmy d. the argument for timmy is based precisely by what he brings to the table, tangibly, and not rep. 

make your carmello argument, or your boozer argument, if you wish. i'm sticking with the guy with the overall numbers, the team record, the defensive impact, the offensive impact. the game changer on both sides.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kflo is dominating this thread, lol.


----------



## Theonee (Dec 5, 2006)

EHL said:


> Because a prime Tim Duncan is probably better than both LeBron and Kobe?


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

kflo said:


> duncan's 2nd in the league in PER (dirk's #1), his team is #2 defensively, and #4 offensively, both in large part because of timmy d. the argument for timmy is based precisely by what he brings to the table, tangibly, and not rep.
> 
> make your carmello argument, or your boozer argument, if you wish. i'm sticking with the guy with the overall numbers, the team record, the defensive impact, the offensive impact. the game changer on both sides.


Can you tell me where you get current season running PER numbers?


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> kflo is dominating this thread, lol.







I like it when people agree with my opinion as well.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Jordan23Forever said:


> Can you tell me where you get current season running PER numbers?


http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_PER.htm


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

HB said:


> http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_PER.htm


Thanks.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It should, but Dirk proved last season that posting better numbers while leading a better team with less of a supporting cast doesn't really mean anything.


Wow, if you want to talk about haters then there's no better place to start than right here.

When Nash won his first MVP you cried and whined like a banshee about how unjust giving the award to him was. It was your opinion and that's fine. In your eyes his success was more due to players like Marion, Amare, JJ and even Q-Rich. Whatever.

So, coming into last season when Amare was out for the season, and JJ and Richardson had left, you picked the Suns to finish 11th in the conference. In your eyes the team would falter without the amazing depth they had the year before.

Interestingly enough, you picked Dallas to finish in the top 3 in the West last year. BUT why would you pick Dallas to finish soo much higher than the Suns if you believe that Dirk led Dallas to a better record "with less of a supporting cast"? If Nash had such a better supporting cast than Dallas, why on earth would you have picked them to finish so much lower in the standings?

I think you said that, actually, I KNOW you said that, because you're a hypocrite, and someone who consistenly changes his arguments and predictions to shape your belief that Nash doesn't deserve any MVP recognition. If you're going to argue Nash doesn't deserve the MVP awards then atleast try and stay consistent.

P.S. Sorry for interupting you and kflo, I wasn't sure if you were done finishing him off yet.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

kflo said:


> duncan's 2nd in the league in PER (dirk's #1), his team is #2 defensively, and #4 offensively, both in large part because of timmy d. the argument for timmy is based precisely by what he brings to the table, tangibly, and not rep.
> 
> make your carmello argument, or your boozer argument, if you wish. i'm sticking with the guy with the overall numbers, the team record, the defensive impact, the offensive impact. the game changer on both sides.


The point is no one is an obvious choce right now. Duncan and Nash, along with a handful of other players, make great cases.

I don't see how someone having a better PER by 2 points makes them that much better of a candidate. I've seen people overrate the importance of PER before, but I think you're taking it too far.

Also, teams stats are nice, but winning games means everything. Who cares if Spurs have great defensive and offensive stats if teams like the Suns have identical records? It really isn't relevant. The Suns also play a much faster paced game, so consequently they are going to give up more PPG. They're still number one in points scored per game, and they have almost an identical record. That's their style.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Not only do the Suns have the MOST EFFICIENT offense in the league, but they also have the best Points Per Shot differential in the league (they conver 1.34PPS and allow 1.20PPS), That is incidentally the fourth best in the league in PPS allowed. The best is Houston, followed by San Antonio and Minnesota. Cleveland has the same PPS allowed as the Suns. 

Oh and by the way, San Antonio only scores 1.27 points per shot

So the Suns DO play defense even though everyone thinks that they don't. It's all smoke and mirrors in that the defense gives lower percentage shots unguarded and lure the opposing team out of their natural offensive flow.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

It's not that Nash is suddenly a stat monster, but moreso that he is the captain of the Suns and where he goes, so go the Suns. They are HORRID without Nash in the game. He is more important to his team than Duncan. 

On top of that, no one like Duncan's game because it is so boring. (yes this is also a popularity contest Kobe fans)

No one is really stepping up this season vs last other than Boozer, but I don't think anyone will vote for him.... LBJ will be MVP before Melo even gets a whiff of that trophy! So if LBJ ain't MVP worthy neither is Melo... sorry Melo fans, but no matter how illogical that seems, we all know it's true.

Nash is overall being the Man for the Suns, the true go-to guy. The Spurs need Ginobili and Parker for last ditch shots now. Duncan is become more of a workhorse than a superstar even though he has superstar numbers (just like Marion)


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

kflo said:


> duncan's 2nd in the league in PER (dirk's #1), his team is #2 defensively, and #4 offensively, both in large part because of timmy d. the argument for timmy is based precisely by what he brings to the table, tangibly, and not rep.
> 
> make your carmello argument, or your boozer argument, if you wish. i'm sticking with the guy with the overall numbers, the team record, the defensive impact, the offensive impact. the game changer on both sides.


Good call. Duncan plays both sides of the court, better statistical impact, and has led his team to multiple titles and nothing really looks different this year. Clear favorite this season, but MVP voters will fail again, I'm sure. Duncan isn't "new". Knowing these voters they'd give it to Carlos Boozer even if the Jazz finish just one game better than the Spurs.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

EHL said:


> Good call. Duncan plays both sides of the court, better statistical impact, and has led his team to multiple titles and nothing really looks different this year. Clear favorite this season, but MVP voters will fail again, I'm sure. Duncan isn't "new". Knowing these voters they'd give it to Carlos Boozer even if the Jazz finish just one game better than the Spurs.


Edit* NVM, don't feel like arguing semantics.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> He's definately a top contender, but why is he a clear favorite?


The reasons I listed; better stats, much better defensive impact than most of the current favorites, and what those MVP voters like most; wins. But hell, maybe they'll surprise me and get it right this year with Duncan.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

EHL said:


> The reasons I listed; better stats, much better defensive impact than most of the current favorites, and what those MVP voters like most; wins. But hell, maybe they'll surprise me and get it right this year with Duncan.


Steve Nash has the best shooting stats and passing stats out of anyone in the league. His team also has a very similar record to the Spurs.

I don't get what the big difference is.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> Steve Nash has the best shooting stats and passing stats out of anyone in the league. His team also has a very similar record to the Spurs.
> 
> I don't get what the big difference is.


Reread my post, nothing has changed since you quoted it. "What is the big difference"? Defense, that is the big difference. Compared to Nash, Duncan plays a lot more of it. Not to mention the fact the Spurs still have a better record than the Suns, and Nash has the better supporting cast.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

I believe that Nash did deserve his first MVP. That franchise was a sub .500 team when he got there, and after his first season, 60+ wins. He turned the Suns around in 04/05

Last year though, I dont think he should have won it. Just my opinion. And I wont go into detail as it has been beaten to death. 

But this year though, it is really hard to argue against him. Right now the Suns are the hottest team in the NBA aside from Dallas. So to my it could go either way. 

The way Yao has been playing though, and if Houston gets around 55+ wins this year, I think he should be in the tops of the discussion. (Homer alert I know). But as long as LBJ, Dirk, and Nash are playing at thier levels, it just will never happen.


----------



## Husstla (Nov 5, 2006)

Players that should be ahead of Steve:

KG
J Kidd.


----------



## Rule_By_His_Own_Hand (Jun 20, 2006)

KidCanada said:


> Wow, if you want to talk about haters then there's no better place to start than right here.
> 
> When Nash won his first MVP you cried and whined like a banshee about how unjust giving the award to him was. It was your opinion and that's fine. In your eyes his success was more due to players like Marion, Amare, JJ and even Q-Rich. Whatever.
> 
> ...



Logic? Word of friendly advice, stop using it. You will find that you will fit in much better on this board, just as I have found.


----------



## Rule_By_His_Own_Hand (Jun 20, 2006)

EHL said:


> Good call. Duncan plays both sides of the court, better statistical impact, and has led his team to multiple titles and nothing really looks different this year. Clear favorite this season, but MVP voters will fail again, I'm sure. Duncan isn't "new". Knowing these voters they'd give it to Carlos Boozer even if the Jazz finish just one game better than the Spurs.



If we want to talk about things like impact, things like dominating both ends of the court, things like that then the discussion should start and end with Yao.

If we want to talk about making the difference to the team it should start and end with T-Mac.

Rockets are 9-32 (.220) last 3 years without him and 90-28 (.763) with him.

Project both records over an 82 game season, equals 18-64 equivalent without him and 58-24 equivalent with him, a difference of 40 games won.


Winning an MVP goes well beyond such simple arguments.

There is a certain standard established of what the criteria is, and the last 2 years only Nash met it, and this year so far if it were held right now only Nash meets it.

Just because some people may disagree, it doesn't change this.

As you can see the V in MVP literally stands for Tracy McGrady, so why doesn't he win it?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Rule_By_His_Own_Hand said:


> If we want to talk about things like impact, things like dominating both ends of the court, things like that then the discussion should start and end with Yao.
> 
> If we want to talk about making the difference to the team it should start and end with T-Mac.
> 
> ...


what standard is that exactly? what criteria does only nash meet? 

win/loss record with and without aren't the end all of course, and nobody was suggesting it is. what's the rockets record without yao?


----------



## Wombatkilla1 (Dec 5, 2006)

Husstla said:


> Players that should be ahead of Steve:
> 
> KG
> J Kidd.



haha, kidding right? :lol:


----------



## Husstla (Nov 5, 2006)

No, J Kidd over steve for sure. Has a high rate of triple doubles thi year.


----------



## Card Trader (Apr 17, 2006)

20/12/3
vs.
13/10/9


Not even close. Nash.


----------



## Card Trader (Apr 17, 2006)

Husstla said:


> No, J Kidd over steve for sure. Has a high rate of triple doubles thi year.


And his team has a high rate of losing.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

there is no clear favorite right now for MVP, but the top three are duncan, nash, and dirk and you can make a case for all three.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

c p 9 said:


> there is no clear favorite right now for MVP, but the top three are duncan, nash, and dirk and you can make a case for all three.


EXACTLY! No one has dominated more than they had last year. Other than Nash. Duncan is nowhere near his top numbers whereas the leagues reigning MVP is putting up career numbers AGAIN! (21ppg-10rpg is nowhere near his MVPx2 runs averaging 25ppg-13rpg) No one has separated themselves from the pack other than Nash with career numbers in assists and points. 

How does the reigning MVP increase his numbers from the previous season and not deserve the award?


----------



## Wombatkilla1 (Dec 5, 2006)

Husstla said:


> No, J Kidd over steve for sure. Has a high rate of triple doubles thi year.


yeah yeah i get it.....APRIL FOOLS, right!? you cant trick me...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

IceMan23and3 said:


> EXACTLY! No one has dominated more than they had last year. Other than Nash. Duncan is nowhere near his top numbers whereas the leagues reigning MVP is putting up career numbers AGAIN! (21ppg-10rpg is nowhere near his MVPx2 runs averaging 25ppg-13rpg) No one has separated themselves from the pack other than Nash with career numbers in assists and points.
> 
> How does the reigning MVP increase his numbers from the previous season and not deserve the award?


duncan's PER is at a career high. his team has a better record. how does the consensus better player playing on the better team putting up better numbers and career highs, playing at the top of his game dominating both ends of the court not deserve the award? 

nash is definitely a strong candidate this year, but we still need to objectively look at each players contributions to their teams, their production, their teams performance. nash improving on historically low mvp numbers can be used to illustrate he wasn't deserving in prior years as much as it can be used to illustrate him deserving this year. just assess what these guys bring to the table. how good they actually are, what they're producing, and how good they make their teams, and why.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

When Nash is on the floor his team is: +12.8; when he's off the floor the team is -7.5.

*Net total: +20.5*


When Duncan is on the floor his team is: +14.5; when he's off the floor his team is -3.6.

*Net total: +18.2*



Defensive impact varies in importance depending on the system the team plays. With Nash, his perimeter defense isn't a huge factor in his teams overall play and it shows in his net total. But is overall impact is still greater than Duncans because his offensive impact is so important to the team.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

+/- doesn't measure overall impact. nash plays almost all his minutes with marion on the court. +/- makes no attempt at determining who is more responsible for the +/- when they're on the court together. +/- is better at measuring relative performance of units with and without a player, not their overall contribution to those units. it's not irrelevant, but i wouldn't make to much of a case around it. certainly not to conclude on overall impact.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and nash's defense isn't a huge factor in part because other guys are picking up the slack on defense and rebounding.


----------



## Rule_By_His_Own_Hand (Jun 20, 2006)

Duncan isn't even a candidate based on stats.


Doesn't anyone here understand how the MVP voting works?

There are about 5 simple things the voters use, you fail to meet one you dont win it (unless you have an absolutely incredible year better by a wide margin than Kobe or LeBron did last year).


Duncan and Boozer don't qualify right now because they lack the needed stats.

Melo doesn't make it because he lacks the needed winning margin, same with LeBron, same with Yao, same with Wade.

Leaves at the moment Dirk and Nash.


The voters then look at help around them, which team performs better in regular season, and who means more to the team.

Simply put Nash wins it.


It is that simple and it's amazing that so many fans can follow the MVP voting for years and still haven't grasped how simple it is.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Rule_By_His_Own_Hand said:


> Duncan isn't even a candidate based on stats.
> 
> 
> Doesn't anyone here understand how the MVP voting works?
> ...


duncan has better stats than nash THIS YEAR, nevermind in comparison to when nash won his first mvp.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and then compare dirk last year to nash and tell me how he didn't meet the criteria.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

its amazing that NOW its about stats. even if it ignores the best ones.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> duncan has better stats than nash THIS YEAR, nevermind in comparison to when nash won his first mvp.


No he doesn't.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

PER is stupid and shouldn't be a factor in MVP voting. just use the good old fashioned stats and watch a damn game instead of judging what they do based on some stupid formula. PER is equivalent to the BCS.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

c p 9 said:


> PER is stupid and shouldn't be a factor in MVP voting. just use the good old fashioned stats and watch a damn game instead of judging what they do based on some stupid formula. PER is equivalent to the BCS.



just say "i don't understand it" instead.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

c p 9 said:


> PER is stupid and shouldn't be a factor in MVP voting. just use the good old fashioned stats and watch a damn game instead of judging what they do based on some stupid formula. PER is equivalent to the BCS.


watching a damn game, do you think nash is a better player than duncan?


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

kflo said:


> just say "i don't understand it" instead.


what's there to understand? according to PER, Adam Morrison is one of the worst ten players in the entire league, which is laughable. i don't need some formula to know if a player is good or not.

according to PER, Zach Randolph is the fourth best player in the league. and Kobe Bryant is 15th. ahahaha. funny stuff right there.

it's just like the BCS. florida is the second best team in the country? riiight. carlos boozer the fifth best player in the NBA? riiight.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

kflo said:


> watching a damn game, do you think nash is a better player than duncan?


they're different players, and play way opposite positions. that's like trying to compare michael jordan and hakeem olajuwon. you can't compare the two.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

c p 9 said:


> what's there to understand? according to PER, Adam Morrison is one of the worst ten players in the entire league, which is laughable. i don't need some formula to know if a player is good or not.
> 
> according to PER, Zach Randolph is the fourth best player in the league. and Kobe Bryant is 15th. ahahaha. funny stuff right there.
> 
> it's just like the BCS. florida is the second best team in the country? riiight. carlos boozer the fifth best player in the NBA? riiight.


again, just say you don't understand it.

do good old fashioned stats tell you kobe is better than zach? 

PER tells us that morrison's per minute contributions on the court have been poor. and that's borne out no matter what stats you use. 

PER provides a fairly robust and meaningful measure of a players statistical contributions per minute. now, you can rely on fg%, i'll put more weight on PER. it's not the end all, of course - yes, watching the game helps.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

c p 9 said:


> they're different players, and play way opposite positions. that's like trying to compare michael jordan and hakeem olajuwon. you can't compare the two.


except that's exactly what mvp forces you to do.

and duncan's alot closer to hakeem than nash is to jordan (i know, it was only an example).


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

kflo said:


> again, just say you don't understand it.
> 
> do good old fashioned stats tell you kobe is better than zach?


26, 5 and 4.5 vs. 25 and 10? pretty much even, but they play different positions. then you look at team record, and watch a game or two...and wow, kobe is the best player on the planet. but does PER tell you that?


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

kflo said:


> except that's exactly what mvp forces you to do.
> 
> and duncan's alot closer to hakeem than nash is to jordan (i know, it was only an example).


so duncan averages 21 and 10 and has a huge impact on the floor. nash averages 20 and 12, and also has a huge impact on the floor. duncan may have more of a defensive impact, but nash has more of an offensive impact (highest scoring, most efficient, bla bla bla). and the suns don't look so great without nash on the floor.

so again, how is duncan a "clear favorite" over nash? or dirk for that matter? you like PER. dirk has a higher PER than duncan. and a top 4 record. i'm not saying duncan isn't deserving, but to say he is the favorite is wrong.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

Nash's statline is by far the more impressive in the league, IMO more than the ones Bryant, James and Iverson were putting last year. Pair it with the Suns' success and you have a very strong candidate.

Still, I'd put my money on Tim Duncan.

The problem with Nash, is that he won twice in two *very* debatable years, when he wasn't as strong of a MVP as others were in the past, let alone back to back MVPs.
Winning it is a lot about hype and perception, but he's been a very good candidate and will be this year too.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

c p 9 said:


> 26, 5 and 4.5 vs. 25 and 10? pretty much even, but they play different positions. then you look at team record, and watch a game or two...and wow, kobe is the best player on the planet. but does PER tell you that?


PER tells you that kobe is recovering from offseason surgery and coming back to form. PER doesn't tell you who the best player is, and doesn't purport to do so. but for someone to argue that someone with the best (2nd best, in this case) PER doesn't have the necessary stats, well, i'd say they're not looking at the right stats.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

kflo said:


> PER tells you that kobe is recovering from offseason surgery and coming back to form. PER doesn't tell you who the best player is, and doesn't purport to do so. but for someone to argue that someone with the best (2nd best, in this case) PER doesn't have the necessary stats, well, i'd say they're not looking at the right stats.


PER does not tell you anything about kobe's knee surgery. if you just look at PER and never watch a game, how does that tell you kobe was injured? how do you know he's not just having an off year?

and who said duncan doesn't have the necessary stats? sure he does, i never said he didn't, i just don't think he's the clear favorite like you're making him out to be. he's easily a top three candidate thus far along with nash and dirk.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

c p 9 said:


> so duncan averages 21 and 10 and has a huge impact on the floor. nash averages 20 and 12, and also has a huge impact on the floor. duncan may have more of a defensive impact, but nash has more of an offensive impact (highest scoring, most efficient, bla bla bla). and the suns don't look so great without nash on the floor.
> 
> so again, how is duncan a "clear favorite" over nash? or dirk for that matter? you like PER. dirk has a higher PER than duncan. and a top 4 record. i'm not saying duncan isn't deserving, but to say he is the favorite is wrong.


i don't think he's the favorite. i think he's most deserving.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

kflo said:


> i don't think he's the favorite. i think he's most deserving.


again, why? none of those three is more deserving than the other this early into the season. it's too early to be picking favorites or "most deserving". that kind of decision can't be made until much later into the season.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

when the best player is playing on the best team and having one of his best years, i tend to place him as the most deserving, over players i consider not as good playing on teams not as good (at this point, albeit close).


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

hmmm maybe you're seeing something i'm not, but i definitely wouldn't call this one of duncan's best years. he's definitely playing better than last year, but i can think of at least four seasons where he played better.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

c p 9 said:


> hmmm maybe you're seeing something i'm not, but i definitely wouldn't call this one of duncan's best years. he's definitely playing better than last year, but i can think of at least four seasons where he played better.


Duncan is having a great year. Unfortunately because he's only playing 33 mpg, the "regular" stats simply don't show it

Although I think Dirk is playing great and I thought he should have won it last year as well


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Duncan is having a great year. Unfortunately because he's only playing 33 mpg, the "regular" stats simply don't show it
> 
> Although I think Dirk is playing great and I thought he should have won it last year as well


oh no doubt, but i'm just saying duncan has had better years. '99 through '03 i can think of off the top of my head, maybe even '05.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

EHL said:


> Because a prime Tim Duncan is probably better than both LeBron and Kobe?


Duncan's prime seems to be gone.

Are the Spurs championship contenders?


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

kflo said:


> when the best player is playing on the best team and having one of his best years, i tend to place him as the most deserving, over players i consider not as good playing on teams not as good (at this point, albeit close).


So far you have done nothing to prove why Duncan is more impactful than Nash other then to say he has the highest PER.


Nash has the *best* shooting and passing stats in the entire league(for players in the top 20 in PER) and is leading the best offensive team to a very similar record as the Spurs.

There is nothing that seperates them as you say there is.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

kflo said:


> +/- doesn't measure overall impact. nash plays almost all his minutes with marion on the court. +/- makes no attempt at determining who is more responsible for the +/- when they're on the court together. +/- is better at measuring relative performance of units with and without a player, not their overall contribution to those units. it's not irrelevant, but i wouldn't make to much of a case around it. certainly not to conclude on overall impact.


That stat is just a microcosm of what is already known about the Suns. They aren't as good without him : 2-8 over the last 2 years.


And BTW, does PER conclude overall impact? Because I don't think it takes into factor the system of each team. Like I've said before, Nash playing defense and collecting steals and rebounds isn't pertinent to anything the Suns do. The team relies on his offensive capabilites where his stats are easily better than Duncans.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Husstla said:


> No, J Kidd over steve for sure. Has a high rate of triple doubles thi year.



Haha because triple doubles are the only thing that matters.

By the way... refresh my memory.. who was the one who hit the shot with the game on the line during the Suns-Nets game... and who was the one who missed it?

Answer:

The one who made the shot was Nash... the one who missed the shot was Kidd.

Tempe shoots... swish.. and that's the game! :clap2:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

KidCanada said:


> So far you have done nothing to prove why Duncan is more impactful than Nash other then to say he has the highest PER.
> 
> 
> Nash has the *best* shooting and passing stats in the entire league(for players in the top 20 in PER) and is leading the best offensive team to a very similar record as the Spurs.
> ...


i've said he has the higher per, and he's dominant on both ends of the court. saying the suns aren't predicated on nash playing defense doesn't mean defense is unimportant to the suns. it simply means they have other players who fill the void. duncan is the center of the spurs offense and defense.


----------



## melo4life (Jun 5, 2006)

if the mvp was to be decided right now i think i would have to give it to either jason kidd, carlos boozer, lebron or KG


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

This stuff goes nowhere in a hurry because if you wanted you could justify any of the top 15 players in the NBA winning MVP by resorting back to intangible things. That makes the entire thing subjective, which leaves room for homerism to such a ridiculous degree. 

We need more Jazz fans in here fighting to the death about how Boozer's impact has been bigger than anyone elses in the league. Who is going to tell them they're wrong if they can call any stat used in his favor useless and stupid? Stat junkies need to watch games!


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

well kobe tonight once again proves he's the best player on the planet with 53 10 and 8. who's to say he isn't the mvp?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

c p 9 said:


> well kobe tonight once again proves he's the best player on the planet with 53 10 and 8. who's to say he isn't the mvp?


^ Except Kobe is not the MVP this season. Not if you include those first two weeks. If you ignore those first two weeks, sure, he's averaging like 30/5/5/50% since then or whatever and playing much better defense. On the whole, though, nope. 

Also, again, at best you could argue Nash has equal statistical production to Duncan this season, even if you ignore PER (not sure why you want to ignore it, but that's fine). So, knowing that stats give you a good idea about offensive impact, our attention turns to defense, where it cannot be disputed that Tim Duncan has a sizable margin over Nash (FYI, PER does not measure defense and has never claimed to). When you consider the Suns' better supporting cast and the Spurs better record, shooting stats simply aren't enough to separate Nash from Duncan unless you believe 3-point shooting should be weighed more highly than defense (half the game) and the defensive attention Duncan draws, which he draws more than any player in the league save for Yao Ming and Kobe perhaps.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

PER is not the Bible, big men are too much favoured, as good as Duncan stats have been this year, there's no way you can say they come close to Nash's.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

EHL said:


> ^ Except Kobe is not the MVP this season. Not if you include those first two weeks. If you ignore those first two weeks, sure, he's averaging like 30/5/5/50% since then or whatever and playing much better defense. On the whole, though, nope.
> 
> Also, again, at best you could argue Nash has equal statistical production to Duncan this season, even if you ignore PER (not sure why you want to ignore it, but that's fine). So, knowing that stats give you a good idea about offensive impact, our attention turns to defense, where it cannot be disputed that Tim Duncan has a sizable margin over Nash (FYI, PER does not measure defense and has never claimed to). When you consider the Suns' better supporting cast and the Spurs better record, shooting stats simply aren't enough to separate Nash from Duncan unless you believe 3-point shooting should be weighed more highly than defense (half the game) and the defensive attention Duncan draws, which he draws more than any player in the league save for Yao Ming and Kobe perhaps.


You're so right! The Suns DON'T play defense at ALL! That whole thing with them being NUMBER 1 in points per shot differential (the true gauge to defense) in the league and them holding teams to fourth lowest points per shot has to be some irregularity right? I mean, if a team doesn't play defense as you say, then it should be impossible for them to hold team to less points per shot than defensive Dallas or Detroit right? Chicago with Ben Wallace shouldn't be below the Suns who only play on half the court with more PPS allowed right?

Nash actually does play really good one on one defense as well as help defense. He can somehow shut down Dirk one on one. The reason why the Suns hide him in the defense is because he is so valuable on offense that they don't want him to tire too quickly. He is the motor on the boat. If you eliminate the 1-5 start, the Suns are 16-1! 

So, if you were to rank a player by their PER ranking, it favors big men due to rebounds! And according to my calculations, there are more missed shots than made! So if my logic hold up and big men have an advantage over littler guys, then it is easier to get 12 rebounds per game than 12 assists! It's easier to dunk on a guy that is an inch shorter than you and you don't have to jump than to score against a guy 3-8 inches taller than you!

It's easy to double a guy who is going to shoot it every time he touches it, but how do you double a guy that is SO dang good at hitting the open man? He will find where the defense is lax and put a pass right there for a 3 or 2 pointer!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Ryoga said:


> PER is not the Bible, big men are too much favoured, as good as Duncan stats have been this year, there's no way you can say they come close to Nash's.


Three of the top four leaders in PER last year were perimeter players. LeBron, Wade and Kobe. Dirk Nowitzki was the other, and he is hardly your typical big man. PER doesn't favor big men at all.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

Could Nash get MVP again?

That would be amazing.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

When I checked, D-Wade wasn't even in the top 10. Not sure I can agree with the list really.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

IceMan23and3 said:


> You're so right! The Suns DON'T play defense at ALL!


Reread my post if you're still confused, as I never said any such thing. 



> Nash actually does play really good one on one defense as well as help defense.


Yes, and Steve Nash is also the best rebounder and scorer in the league. 



> So, if you were to rank a player by their PER ranking, it favors big men due to rebounds! And according to my calculations, there are more missed shots than made! So if my logic hold up and big men have an advantage over littler guys, then it is easier to get 12 rebounds per game than 12 assists! It's easier to dunk on a guy that is an inch shorter than you and you don't have to jump than to score against a guy 3-8 inches taller than you!


Rebounds aren't weighed numerically equal to assists via PER's formula. So, uh, yeah, stop. 



> It's easy to double a guy who is going to shoot it every time he touches it, but how do you double a guy that is SO dang good at hitting the open man? He will find where the defense is lax and put a pass right there for a 3 or 2 pointer!


Christ, not really. It's a pretty simple concept that Duncan draws more defenders than Nash does and that is why (among other things such as him anchoring the middle defensively for the Spurs) the Spurs are so good every year, including this season. 

Then again, weren't you that guy that oversimplified the parietal lobe as "linking vision to motor function"? How'd those MCATs go?


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

compsciguy78 said:


> Could Nash get MVP again?
> 
> That would be amazing.


I don't see why not. Suns are rolling and Nash is playing better than ever.

Although it would be impossible for any human to do, the last two seasons of Nash winning MVP should have nothing to do with the possibility of him winning it again this year. 

If he wins it this year though, he'll really have to win it. Because if anyone is on the fence I doubt they give it to him and give him 3 in a row.​


----------



## melo4life (Jun 5, 2006)

Melo Is 8th!!! Or Was


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

EHL said:


> How'd those MCATs go?


36. That's what I thought, go read a book instead of goading me.

As for the PER formula:
There are some imperfections when judging players on the PER system. As previously stated the formula cannot quantify such intangible qualities as leadership, durability, etc. The projections also don't include defense beyond blocks, steals and fouls, partly because the league has opted to make this area a void in terms of stats. In this way, invaluable lock down defenders such as Bruce Bowen, guys who simply shut down their assigned man, holding them to little scoring, are not well reflected by PER. This is why PER and MVP balloting are not always directly on par. Someday PER may have a greater influence on MVP voting but as illustrated in the tables below, the MVP ballots and PER are somewhat in disagreeance. *Some experts also argue that PER's negligence of player position defense also weakens the ranking. Their stance is that some positions dictate a higher level of fouls and turnovers and thus some players are at a distinct inherent disadvantage in the rankings.

*Also, Dwayne Wade is first in PER, so by those numbers, you should back Wade, not Duncan. Wade's team is also 3 games under 0.500, so we can all see how useful that number is.

Anyways, Nash's player rating according to ESPN is higher than Duncan's (40.98 vs 39.42) But on this list as well, Wade should be the MVP as well! I hope you can see that numbers are kinda useless when looking at MVP and you just have to go with gut feeling(?) somewhat. It's a popularity vote, not a mathematical permuation since no formula can factor in leadership and intangibles.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

IceMan23and3 said:


> 36. That's what I thought, go read a book instead of goading me.


Hey now, you're the one that fudged the description and wouldn't know microtoming if it hit you in the crack.



> As for the PER formula:
> There are some imperfections when judging players on the PER system. As previously stated the formula cannot quantify such intangible qualities as leadership, durability, etc. The projections also don't include defense beyond blocks, steals and fouls, partly because the league has opted to make this area a void in terms of stats. In this way, invaluable lock down defenders such as Bruce Bowen, guys who simply shut down their assigned man, holding them to little scoring, are not well reflected by PER. This is why PER and MVP balloting are not always directly on par. Someday PER may have a greater influence on MVP voting but as illustrated in the tables below, the MVP ballots and PER are somewhat in disagreeance. *Some experts also argue that PER's negligence of player position defense also weakens the ranking. Their stance is that some positions dictate a higher level of fouls and turnovers and thus some players are at a distinct inherent disadvantage in the rankings.
> 
> *Also, Dwayne Wade is first in PER, so by those numbers, you should back Wade, not Duncan. Wade's team is also 3 games under 0.500, so we can all see how useful that number is.


That's nice, too bad for you I've said like 10 times elsewhere and in this thread that PER has never claimed to measure defense, which is why you have to weigh PER on its face as an O-only measure and weigh D based on observational data. Where, of course, Duncan blows Nash out of the water. 

And Wade is having a very good year anyway, so it's not like he shouldn't be in the MVP discussion even though traditionally he never would be to MVP voters who weigh team wins so heavily. Besides, Duncan still gets the nod over Wade for his defense and intangibles anyway. 



> Anyways, Nash's player rating according to ESPN is higher than Duncan's (40.98 vs 39.42) But on this list as well, Wade should be the MVP as well! I hope you can see that numbers are kinda useless when looking at MVP and you just have to go with gut feeling(?) somewhat. It's a popularity vote, not a mathematical permuation since no formula can factor in leadership and intangibles.


Gut feeling? Genius! :laugh:


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

EHL said:


> Hey now, you're the one that fudged the description and wouldn't know microtoming if it hit you in the crack.


 I have done it before, it's a million dollar microscope, you put the dot on the cell you want and it cuts it out for you with a laser to make sample cultures of it! We did a lot of that in the lab I worked in at Barrow's Neurological in Phoenix



EHL said:


> That's nice, too bad for you I've said like 10 times elsewhere and in this thread that PER has never claimed to measure defense, which is why you have to weigh PER on its face as an O-only measure and weigh D based on observational data. Where, of course, Duncan blows Nash out of the water.
> 
> And Wade is having a very good year anyway, so it's not like he shouldn't be in the MVP discussion even though traditionally he never would be to MVP voters who weigh team wins so heavily. Besides, Duncan still gets the nod over Wade for his defense and intangibles anyway.


 By the committee of one(you) right? While I do agree that Duncan is top 3 right now, I also feel that Nash and Kobe are top 3. To declare a winner right now, you'd have to go your route with a little bit of stats (leads the league in at least one category) and a whole lot of who you think is better based completely on opinion.



EHL said:


> Gut feeling? Genius! :laugh:


 That's pretty much what you said above since there are no ways to measure the true value of a player on defense, you'd have to go with your perception of him on defense.


----------

