# OT - S.Nash wins the MVP Award?



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

*OT - S.Nash wins the MVP Award*

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/quickie




> Announcement coming on Sunday for the NBA's MVP, which has led conspiracy buffs to claim the timing indicates Nash will win.
> 
> Something about how the NBA schedules the award on the winner's off-day; the Suns are off; and Shaq plays Sunday if the Wiz win tonight...


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Not a doubt in my mind that Nash deserves it this year.

Phoenix would be nowhere without him.

Edit: Okay, maybe not nowhere, but they definitely wouldn't have won +60 games.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

It looks like its now official:

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


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

I have a small problem with him winning it. I don't think that he's the most talented, dominent or important player in the league.

I feel like what he is is an important piece of the Sun's lineup but it's the contributions and skills of all the pieces that make that team so dominent. For instance, if Nash was there last year and Stouds wasn't added until this year, my guess is that it would be Amare who was in the MVP conversation - not Nash.

He's very good but I'm not sure that he's the most important player in the league, let alone the team, regardless of how you'd like to measure the MVP award.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Quick - 

Who is the MVP of the Suns?

I know many/most would say Nash, but some, including myself, would say Amare. Take Nash off the Suns this year and they are probably not very good. But replace Nash with an average point guard and they make the playoffs easy. They just can't run the system they have this season without Nash. But start with another PG in camp with a system that PG is capable of running, and Amare is still great, Marion is still a triple threat, Q is still solid, Joe Johnson is still good.

Take Amare off the Suns this year and they are not very good at all. Replace Amare with an average power forward and they are only a little better.

The Suns are great because 1) no one can stop Nash from creating, and 2) no big can stop Amare from doing his thing, even in the half-court. Amare is a matchup nightmare for the NBA. Amare is EXPLOSIVE and nearly unstopable.

Quick - 

If you could steal any player from the Suns to have on your team for the next 3 years only, who would you take?

Me, I take Amare without hesitation. Nobody can guard this guy. I think next season his improved jumper will be even better, and his defense will be improved. Nash is perfect in the system in Phoenix and the stuff that Nellie ran in Dallas. But I don't trust his "MVPness" in other systems, nor his playoff basketball abilities - the slowdown, the extra hits, the increase half-court action, the need for occaisional stops. And his defense is atrotious.

So, if you aren't the absolute MVP of your own team, how do you win the award for the league?

As an aside for stats buffs, Nash has the lowest Tendex score of any MVP winner I have ever seen (I stopped looking in 1980).

Nash's Tendex 24.27.

The typical past MVP has a Tendex score in the 30's. 20% to 25% MORE production per game. 

Nash had the 11th highest Tendex this season.

I understand for a PG texdex style stats are somewhat unfair. Really good big guys look better. You have to give the PG's some extra consideration for running the offense. But when the gap is that huge, it is hard to ignore. 

Other Tendex numbers this season:

#1, Garnett: 32.41
#2, LeBron: 30.48
#5, Stoudemire: 26.25
#6, Marion: 25.95
http://www.dougstats.com/04-05Tendex.html

I know, I know, their teams were losers. Give Garnett, Joe Johnson, Amare and Marion and they make a run at the title.

Give LeBron those same three and watch him give the East fits.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Quick - Who is the MVP of the Suns?


I'd go with either Marion or Amare. I've been saying the same sorts of things you laid out in the rest of your post whenever the Nash MVP talk came up this season. Sure he's a fine player, but take either of those other guys off the team, and I bet they drop even further then Nash elevated them.

Though I really don't care too much about these sorts of awards, I'd have probably voted for Shaq as the MVP of the league.

STOMP


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I'd go with either Marion or Amare. I've been saying the same sorts of things you laid out in the rest of your post whenever the Nash MVP talk came up this season. Sure he's a fine player, but take either of those other guys off the team, and I bet they drop even further then Nash elevated them.
> 
> Though I really don't care too much about these sorts of awards, I'd have probably voted for Shaq as the MVP of the league.
> 
> STOMP


Shaq was my pick as well.

I too love Marion's game. I think he is still an underated player, clearly lost in the Nash/Amare hype this season. Maybe the Blazers should look to trade for him and his monster contract? I would rather have Marion as our starting SF than Miles.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I love it when a player out of that "poor" WCC conference wins the MVP....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I love it when a player out of that "poor" WCC conference wins the MVP....


and this proves what now?

about as much as saying that Kevin Garnett (high schooler) winning the MVP bodes well for Green. Nattadamnting.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I love it when a player out of that "poor" WCC conference wins the MVP....


And I think it's fitting that when a WCC alumni wins it, he didn't come close to deserving it. 

Still...it's cool that a Bay Area school alum won it. Even if he isn't the best player on his team or at his position.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> and this proves what now?
> 
> about as much as saying that Kevin Garnett (high schooler) winning the MVP bodes well for Green. Nattadamnting.


I wasn't proving anything, I'm simply saying that I'm happy for a WCC guy winning the MVP....Many people write off that conference as a poor conference, when they actually produce quality NBA players....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> And I think it's fitting that when a WCC alumni wins it, he didn't come close to deserving it.
> 
> Still...it's cool that a Bay Area school alum won it. Even if he isn't the best player on his team or at his position.


He wasn't the best player on the team, but he was the glue to that team....Without Nash making many of those shots so easy for Marion and Stoudamire and kicking it outside to Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson, I'm pretty sure that team wouldn't be nearly as good as they are.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I wasn't proving anything, I'm simply saying that I'm happy for a WCC guy winning the MVP....Many people write off that conference as a poor conference, when they actually produce quality NBA players....


Outside of the players from 45-50 years ago (Russell, Jones) or from the 70's (Dennis Johnson)..who are these quality NBA players?

Kurt Rambis?
Doug Christie?
Brian Shaw?


basically, you have steve nash and stockton, and a bunch of so-so role players.

I guess if thats what you want to argue is proof, go right ahead.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Once again, I said I wasn't proving anything, I just said I'm happy for Nash because he's from the WCC..That is a pretty fine list of players for a "poor conference" you mentioned, include Greg Anthony in that list (he played his freshman year at Portland), Bill Cartwright, Rick Adelman, Bo Kimble, Darwin Cook, Dan Dickau and Richie Frahm... 

But that is all besides the point, your making me saying I'm happy for a player out of the WCC winning the MVP more complicated than it is....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Once again, I said I wasn't proving anything, I just said I'm happy for Nash because he's from the WCC..That is a pretty fine list of players for a "poor conference" you mentioned, include Greg Anthony in that list (he played his freshman year at Portland), Bill Cartwright, Rick Adelman, Bo Kimble, Darwin Cook, Dan Dickau and Richie Frahm...
> 
> But that is all besides the point, your making me saying I'm happy for a player out of the WCC winning the MVP more complicated than it is....


counting Greg is a tad of a stretch, since he transferred. And counting players that are barely in the league (Frahm) and didn't make it in the league as anything special (Cooke, Kimble) and weren't that good (Adleman) doesn't really prove anything and you were trying to prove something. 

You were trying to prove that the WCC isn't a "poor" league (nice way of putting words in our mouths btw) by the fact that the MVP of the league went to a college in the WCC.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> You were trying to prove that the WCC isn't a "poor" league (nice way of putting words in our mouths btw) by the fact that the MVP of the league went to a college in the WCC.


It obviously isn't a poor league...

The all-time steals and assists leader went to a college in the WCC as well, as well as a coach who coached a team to a championships and one of the best Centers in the history of the game.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> It obviously isn't a poor league...
> 
> The all-time steals and assists leader went to a college in the WCC as well, as well as a coach who coached a team to a championships and one of the best Centers in the history of the game.....



you're stretching just a bit here to prove your point. I assume you mean KC Jones is the coach (or Russell for that matter). If you honestly think that them going to a WCC had anything to do with them winning a title, you're niave. 

And going back as far as Russell being in the WCC, as proof..thats just silly and baseless. College was a tad different back then.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> If you honestly think that them going to a WCC had anything to do with them winning a title, you're niave.


Speaking of putting words in one's mouth....



> And going back as far as Russell being in the WCC, as proof..thats just silly and baseless. College was a tad different back then.


It was still the WCC no matter how you look at it....

You've started a pointless argument...your clearly looking way too far into my statement....


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Who is the MVP of the Suns?
> 
> I know many/most would say Nash, but some, including myself, would say Amare.


Anybody else remember that the Blazers offered Zach and the #21 pick in the 2002 draft to Cleveland for the #6 pick so that Whitsitt could take Amare?

Cleveland ended up keeping the pick and took Dejuan Wagner....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> He wasn't the best player on the team, but he was the glue to that team....Without Nash making many of those shots so easy for Marion and Stoudamire and kicking it outside to Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson, I'm pretty sure that team wouldn't be nearly as good as they are.....


Obviously. If you take just about any good player away froma team, they won't be as good as they were. I guess Rasheed Wallace is the MVP. After all "without Rasheed Wallace, I'm pretty sure that team wouldn't be nearly as good as they are....."

More importantly, if you take Amare Stoudemire off the Suns, they probably fall even further.

Glue guys are great. The best players are even more important. Pippen was a "glue guy" on the Bulls (and many times greater than Nash). Was he more valuable than Jordan?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Speaking of putting words in one's mouth....
> 
> 
> It was still the WCC no matter how you look at it....


yah, but going back 50 years to prove that the WCC isn't weak, is in itself, weak. Hasn't there been more than John Stockton between Bill Russell and today?

If you have to go back 50 years to get another big name player (who was more than just a role player (at best), you've already lost the arguement (that you claim you're not making).



> You've started a pointless argument...your clearly looking way too far into my statement....


It's funny that everytime someone tears down your weak argument, you have to pull the "you're looking way to far into my statement". You ever think it's because your statements are so poorly constructed?

lets look at your statement:

"I love it when a player out of that "poor" WCC conference wins the MVP...."

now, let's see what you could've meant by that. In the past, people have said that Morrison and Turiaf have padded their #'s because they play in a weaker conference and that their #'s aren't nearly as impressive as you've made them out to be. 

And you basically pinch a fit because someone doesn't think Turiaf and Morrison walk on water.

And now you bring up how you love it when a player from that same "poor" conference won the MVP of the league. What exactly is your point? That you simply love it when someone who went to a college in the same conference that houses the school you profess a blind love for, won the mvp?

That seems to be a pointless point. When someone makes a comment like that, they're not just saying it to say it. You were obviously trying to prove that the WCC isn't the weak sister conference of the Pac-10 (or any other big name conference) because a player won the MVP (and was the first player to not lead his team in scoring since Cowens won the MVP).

Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> Anybody else remember that the Blazers offered Zach and the #21 pick in the 2002 draft to Cleveland for the #6 pick so that Whitsitt could take Amare?
> 
> Cleveland ended up keeping the pick and took Dejuan Wagner....


Cleveland should have dealt the pick just to avoid one more draft embarrassment. I'm honestly impressed that they got the LeBron James pick right, considering Paxson's draft history.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Obviously. If you take just about any good player away froma team, they won't be as good as they were. I guess Rasheed Wallace is the MVP. After all "without Rasheed Wallace, I'm pretty sure that team wouldn't be nearly as good as they are....."
> 
> More importantly, if you take Amare Stoudemire off the Suns, they probably fall even further.
> 
> Glue guys are great. The best players are even more important. Pippen was a "glue guy" on the Bulls (and many times greater than Nash). Was he more valuable than Jordan?


I agree, but the best point guard in the league is a lot more important than Stoudemire....He makes everything happen for them.....

Do you think Malone could have won without Stockton?.....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Do you think Malone could have won without Stockton?.....


Malone won? I thought that was why he turned himself into a big joke with the Lakers - because he never did win with Stockton.

barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I agree, but the best point guard in the league is a lot more important than Stoudemire....


I would say Jason Kidd (when completely healthy) and Stoudemire are of similar value, actually, if you want to compare Stoudemire to the best point guard in the NBA for some odd reason.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> yah, but going back 50 years to prove that the WCC isn't weak, is in itself, weak. Hasn't there been more than John Stockton between Bill Russell and today?


Yea, Dennis Johnson and Kurt Rambis....But on a serious note what does that have to do with me congratulating Nash for his MVP?....WCC produces quality players considering it is a smaller conference, if you can't accept that learn to deal with it....



> If you have to go back 50 years to get another big name player (who was more than just a role player (at best), you've already lost the arguement (that you claim you're not making).


There is no argument to win or lose, your instigating a stupid discussion....



> It's funny that everytime someone tears down your weak argument, you have to pull the "you're looking way to far into my statement". You ever think it's because your statements are so poorly constructed?


You need to learn to take my statement for what there worth....I never pull out the "your looking way to far into my statement" routine, your just saying I do to try and crumble an argument that I never began.....



> now, let's see what you could've meant by that. In the past, people have said that Morrison and Turiaf have padded their #'s because they play in a weaker conference and that their #'s aren't nearly as impressive as you've made them out to be.


I'm a fan of the WCC in general, not just Gonzaga, so to imply that I'm trying to prove a point that somehow this makes Gonzaga look better is just silly on your part....



> And you basically pinch a fit because someone doesn't think Turiaf and Morrison walk on water.


And you pinch a fit anytime someone criticizes a Blazer, whats your point?



> That you simply love it when someone who went to a college in the same conference that houses the school you profess a blind love for, won the mvp?


You hit the nail on the head, exactly the point I was trying to make....Nothing more, nothing less....



> That seems to be a pointless point. When someone makes a comment like that, they're not just saying it to say it. You were obviously trying to prove that the WCC isn't the weak sister conference of the Pac-10 (or any other big name conference) because a player won the MVP (and was the first player to not lead his team in scoring since Cowens won the MVP).


Quit psycho-analyzing everything I say.....I have never stated that the WCC was ever better than the Pac-10....



> Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?


Yep thats it, thats my intent is to fool people into thinking that the WCC is the best conference alive.....

anything better to do?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I would say Jason Kidd (when completely healthy) and Stoudemire are of similar value, actually, if you want to compare Stoudemire to the best point guard in the NBA for some odd reason.


Steve Nash won the MVP for a reason.....

Do you think it was some conspiracy that he won it?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> Malone won? I thought that was why he turned himself into a big joke with the Lakers - because he never did win with Stockton.
> 
> barfo



Yup, i would consider something like 17? straight playoff appearances as winning....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> But on a serious note what does that have to do with me congratulating Nash for his MVP?....WCC produces quality players considering it is a smaller conference, if you can't accept that learn to deal with it....



WCC produces quality players once in a blue moon. So basically, since 1970, they've produced 4 good players. Dennis Johnson, John Stockton, Doug Christie (maybe) and Steve Nash. 
well woopty doo.


> There is no argument to win or lose, your instigating a stupid discussion....


if there's no argument, you wouldn't have brought up the "poor" wcc reference.



> You need to learn to take my statement for what there worth....I never pull out the "your looking way to far into my statement" routine, your just saying I do to try and crumble an argument that I never began.....


Yes you do.



> I'm a fan of the WCC in general, not just Gonzaga, so to imply that I'm trying to prove a point that somehow this makes Gonzaga look better is just silly on your part....


So you agree that Gonzaga being better is silly. Good.



> And you pinch a fit anytime someone criticizes a Blazer, whats your point?


like to see some kind of proof of that, because thats the 2nd time you've made that false statement. where have I "pinched" a fit over someone criticizing Damon? or Zach? or Darius? or Joel? Or others?



> Yep thats it, thats my intent is to fool people into thinking that the WCC is the best conference alive.....


why are you incapable of arguing with what people said? I don't recall ever saying, suggesting, or implying that you thought the WCC is the best conference "alive". 



> anything better to do?


anyone who ever says "anything better to do", looks stupid. Because anyone who says it, shows that they themselves have nothing better to do.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Yup, i would consider something like 17? straight playoff appearances as winning....


Ok, but is that your definition of winning?  Are there other things Malone could have done instead to 'win'? 

Would Malone have won without Stockton? Well, it depends on what you mean by 'won'. Would his career have traced exactly the same path if Stockton didn't exist? Certainly not. Would he have had a successful career relative to the average NBA player? Probably so. Would he have 'won'? Well, what does that question mean?

Or am I looking too deeply into your question? 

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> WCC produces quality players once in a blue moon. So basically, since 1970, they've produced 4 good players. Dennis Johnson, John Stockton and Steve Nash.


Yup, pretty good for a small conference....



> if there's no argument, you wouldn't have brought up the "poor" wcc reference.


People have implied that it is a poor conference...



> Yes you do.


Where's some proof, I can only remember once or twice that I have said that....



> So you agree that Gonzaga being better is silly. Good.


Uhhh, how old are you?



> like to see some kind of proof of that, because thats the 2nd time you've made that false statement. where have I "pinched" a fit over someone criticizing Damon? or Zach? or Darius? or Joel? Or others?


Oh please, anytime someone is critical of anything that happens with the Blazers or anything somewhat related to the Blazers you make a big stink and will defend them with everything you got.....Well I'm the same way with Gonzaga and the Blazers.....



> why are you incapable of arguing with what people said? I don't recall ever saying, suggesting, or implying that you thought the WCC is the best conference "alive".


You're trying to say that I think that the WCC is just as good as the Pac-10 and I have never said that, in fact I never mentioned anything about the Pac-10, you did....



> anyone who ever says "anything better to do", looks stupid. Because anyone who says it, shows that they themselves have nothing better to do.


I'm not the one who started this pointless discussion....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

BTW Hap,

Is this thread going to result in you locking it, like you usuallydo when you get frustrated because you feel your wrong?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> BTW Hap,
> 
> Is this thread going to result in you locking it, like you usuallydo when you get frustrated because you feel your wrong?


you think I close them because I feel I'm wrong?

wow, how do you fit through doors with a head that big?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> you think I close them because I feel I'm wrong?
> 
> wow, how do you fit through doors with a head that big?


Yep, why else would you close them, I never break any of the rules and you usually have to get the last word in before you lock it up......


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Yup, pretty good for a small conference....


I'd say thats pretty bad for a 35 year stretch.


> People have implied that it is a poor conference...


they actually implied it's a weak conference, because so many of the teams aren't big name schools. Just like when OSU plays "Idaho State" in their non conference games, it's not a big deal.



> Uhhh, how old are you?


73, why?



> Oh please, anytime someone is critical of anything that happens with the Blazers or anything somewhat related to the Blazers you make a big stink and will defend them with everything you got.....Well I'm the same way with Gonzaga and the Blazers.....


Please do not confuse someone stating something thats *wrong* with the crap you just stated there.

that might be the silliest thing you've said here. If that was the case, why don't I take down Play all the time, for stating things about certain players on the team? 



> You're trying to say that I think that the WCC is just as good as the Pac-10 and I have never said that, in fact I never mentioned anything about the Pac-10, you did....


you didn't want to admit that the conference games for the WCC teams were weaker than that of the conference games for the pac 10, and therefore, their stats were padded. 



> I'm not the one who started this pointless discussion....


if thats what you want to believe.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Yep, why else would you close them, I never break any of the rules and you usually have to get the last word in before you lock it up......


actually, they were closed (not by me) because you kept altering what you were arguging against, and were really just acting childish by making the arguments going nowhere.

Evidenced by the fact you just had to PM me the last bit of your arguement (which was full of holes) to prove something. 

There's a difference in someone having "the last word" when they actually are countering an argument with logic and facts, and someone who just changes what the argument is, by altering what the other person said, and making it out to be something it's totally not. 

One is acceptable, the other is considered baiting. You do the math.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> I'd say thats pretty bad for a 35 year stretch.


So now your admitting that you were implying that you said it was a "poor" conference....



> they actually implied it's a weak conference, because so many of the teams aren't big name schools. Just like when OSU plays "Idaho State" in their non conference games, it's not a big deal.


Comparing the Big Sky to the WCC is laughable....



> that might be the silliest thing you've said here. If that was the case, why don't I take down Play all the time, for stating things about certain players on the team?


Because you know he'll prove you wrong...



> you didn't want to admit that the conference games for the WCC teams were weaker than that of the conference games for the pac 10, and therefore, their stats were padded.


I agree that the WCC isn't as strong of a conference as the Pac-10 but it's still a solid conference, how can the players help having padded stats? When they play the big time programs and the players put up the same stats are they still padded?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Steve Nash won the MVP for a reason.....


Sure, bad logic. The reason most bad decisions are made. Just because there's a "reason," doesn't mean it was a correct decision.



> Do you think it was some conspiracy that he won it?


No. Unless you consider systematic poor reasoning a "conspiracy." The _conspiracy of bad logic_.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> actually, they were closed (not by me) because you kept altering what you were arguging against, and were really just acting childish by making the arguments going nowhere.


You were the one who closed that David Lucas discussion, no other posters were on....



> Evidenced by the fact you just had to PM me the last bit of your arguement (which was full of holes) to prove something.


Which you ignored why? because you were wrong?



> There's a difference in someone having "the last word" when they actually are countering an argument with logic and facts, and someone who just changes what the argument is, by altering what the other person said, and making it out to be something it's totally not.


You say I change my arguments as a way to think you can side step the main argument....Thinking you don't start new arguments in a discussion is foolish on your part....



> One is acceptable, the other is considered baiting.


Baiting only when i do it, right?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> No. Unless you consider systematic poor reasoning a "conspiracy." The conspiracy of bad logic.


Bad logic in your mind, not in the people voting....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> So now your admitting that you were implying that you said it was a "poor" conference....


said it was a weak conference.



> Comparing the Big Sky to the WCC is laughable....


wasn't comparing the big sky to the wcc. I was saying that when OSU plays weak opponents, it doesn't mean the stats they get against them, are as valid as they are when they play in pac-10. So when Gonzaga plays San Diego or Santa Clara or U of Portland, their stats are going to be skewed.



> Because you know he'll prove you wrong...


If Play will "prove me wrong" like you've "proved me wrong", that means plays gone down several dozen notches.



> I agree that the WCC isn't as strong of a conference as the Pac-10 but it's still a solid conference, how can the players help having padded stats? When they play the big time programs and the players put up the same stats are they still padded?


they put up better stats in conference (and against weaker oppoents) than they did against the "big time programs".

Thats why Turiaf had 33 vs Portland and 40 against Idaho. Take out those 2 games, and his ppg goes down 1.5 ppg. 

gosh, thats not padding..


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> You were the one who closed that David Lucas discussion, no other posters were on....


um, no i wasn't.



> Which you ignored why? because you were wrong?


why continue arguing with someone who has no clue on how to argue? Even if I responded, you'd start adding things into what i said, changing what I said, and then pull this "you were wrong", when no one with an ounce of sense would be able to do that.



> You say I change my arguments as a way to think you can side step the main argument....Thinking you don't start new arguments in a discussion is foolish on your part....


there's a huge difference between starting NEW arguments, and changing the jist of someone elses argument midway through the argument. There's a huge difference.



> Baiting only when i do it, right?


considering the others in that thread (and others) have been dealt with and aren't playing the victim, I'd say that you're the only one who doesn't realize they're baiting.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> they put up better stats in conference (and against weaker oppoents) than they did against the "big time programs".


Your now changing the argument from the WCC conference as a whole to how Gonzaga players pad their stats....Double standard...



> Thats why Turiaf had 33 vs Portland and 40 against Idaho. Take out those 2 games, and his ppg goes down 1.5 ppg.


Thats why Morrison scored 26 against Illinois, 24 against Georgia Tech, 26 against Washington and 19 against Oklahoma St., but oh wait that was early in the year so thats padding stats right?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Your now changing the argument from the WCC conference as a whole to how Gonzaga players pad their stats....Double standard...


um...they're the same arguement. Who does Gonzaga play? weak teams out of conference and weak teams in conference.



> Thats why Morrison scored 26 against Illinois, 24 against Georgia Tech, 26 against Washington and 19 against Oklahoma St., but oh wait that was early in the year so thats padding stats right?


we weren't talking about morrison now, nor were we talking about morrison earlier. No one cares about Morrison. I don't know why you just can't admit that the WCC is a weaker conference, and the players stats are skewed.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Bad logic in your mind, not in the people voting....


Yes, of course. Nobody who uses bad logic _thinks_ they're using bad logic. Or else they wouldn't do it.

The fact that they didn't believe it was bad logic doesn't make it good logic.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> um, no i wasn't.


Keep telling yourself that...



> why continue arguing with someone who has no clue on how to argue? Even if I responded, you'd start adding things into what i said, changing what I said, and then pull this "you were wrong", when no one with an ounce of sense would be able to do that.


you add things to what I say all the time, I don't cry foul when you do it, I live with it and then get accused of changing the argument when I respond to you....



> there's a huge difference between starting NEW arguments, and changing the jist of someone elses argument midway through the argument. There's a huge difference.


Yea i forgot, it's only changing arguments when I do, but when you do it it's changing the jist of an argument.....????



> considering the others in that thread (and others) have been dealt with and aren't playing the victim, I'd say that you're the only one who doesn't realize they're baiting


You baited me into this pointless argument and many others, anytime I mention anything on here about the WCC or Gonzaga you consider it baiting when your the one who instigates the pointless arguments....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Yes, of course. Nobody who uses bad logic _thinks_ they're using bad logic. Or else they wouldn't do it.
> 
> The fact that they didn't believe it was bad logic doesn't make it good logic.


and vice versa, but somehow your logic isn't skewed on whether Nash deserves the MVP or not how?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Keep telling yourself that...


this may come as a shock to you, but there are other mods and cm's who can close threads.


> you add things to what I say all the time, I don't cry foul when you do it, I live with it and then get accused of changing the argument when I respond to you....


I don't add things to what you say "all the time". Infact, I never add to what you say. I counter what you say, and thats it. You just try to change what you've said after someone has called you out on it. Like the nash thing.

There's no logical reason why you would've said what you said, unless you wanted to prove that the WCC is a valid conference. Unless you're illogical. 

And not only that, why would you have brought it up, several days _later_?

does anyone here still give a **** about that conversation? 



> Yea i forgot, it's only changing arguments when I do, but when you do it it's changing the jist of an argument.....????


I can't help it that you don't know the difference between changing what Ive stated (or others have stated) and adding something totally new to an arguement. 



> You baited me into this pointless argument and many others, anytime I mention anything on here about the WCC or Gonzaga you consider it baiting when your the one who instigates the pointless arguments....


It's not the WCC or Gonzaga stuff thats what is being called or has been deemed baiting. This is another example of you trying to implicate something I've done. 

As I said before, show me where I've said that anything you say about Gonzaga or WCC is considered "baiting"?

It's how you will just say things about players that just are said to antagonize posters. Like the shots you took at David Lucas, and then your illogical "proof" said just to irk people. 

Me (or others) countering that is not the same (thats something else you don't seem to be able to tell the difference of).


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> and vice versa, but somehow your logic isn't skewed on whether Nash deserves the MVP or not how?


It could be, but I think I'm using more rational factors, like statistical analysis and the sorts of players that are most valued in terms of winning (I doubt you could find me a GM who'd rather have Nash than Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Bryant, McGrady, Nowitzki...).


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> you think I close them because I feel I'm wrong?


So then why did you close them?



> I don't add things to what you say "all the time". Infact, I never add to what you say. I counter what you say, and thats it. You just try to change what you've said after someone has called you out on it. Like the nash thing.


I just counter what you say....I don't change arguments like you accuse me of....



> There's no logical reason why you would've said what you said, unless you wanted to prove that the WCC is a valid conference. Unless you're illogical.


I've said all along that its a "valid" conference...I just said that I'm happy that a guy from the WCC won the MVP and you have changed it into some argument about padded stats and such...example of you changing arguments...



> And not only that, why would you have brought it up, several days later?


I can't bring up that I'm happy that Nash won the MVP because he's from the WCC, because it alludes back to a post several days ago?



> does anyone here still give a **** about that conversation?


Obviously you do or you wouldn't have made such a big stink about it....



> I can't help it that you don't know the difference between changing what Ive stated (or others have stated) and adding something totally new to an arguement.


you bringing up padded stats isn't bringing something new into the argument, than what is?



> As I said before, show me where I've said that anything you say about Gonzaga or WCC is considered "baiting"?


i don't need to provide a reference, because your doing it in this thread....



> It's how you will just say things about players that just are said to antagonize posters. Like the shots you took at David Lucas, and then your illogical "proof" said just to irk people.


or what about how you have discredited Gonzaga's players for padding their stats...I like how you pick and choose what baiting is...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> So then why did you close them?


because like this one, they're becoming distruptive and pointless. 

there's no real point in you continually doing this.



> I just counter what you say....I don't change arguments like you accuse me of....


yes you do. You've already done it in this thread.



> I've said all along that its a "valid" conference...I just said that I'm happy that a guy from the WCC won the MVP and you have changed it into some argument about padded stats and such...example of you changing arguments...


and this is an example of it. I didn't "change" it into an arguement about padding stats. I references the other argument by talking about how people reffered to the WCC as a weak conference for that (and other) reasons. 



> I can't bring up that I'm happy that Nash won the MVP because he's from the WCC, because it alludes back to a post several days ago?


I want to ask you if you can see the difference here:

"Man, thats sweet that Nash won the MVP! Making the WCC fans' proud!"

and 
"I love it when a player out of that "poor" WCC conference wins the MVP...."

do you really not see the difference? No reference to a previous thread (implied or not). Doesn't come off as tho you're trying to prove some point, slyly.


> Obviously you do or you wouldn't have made such a big stink about it....


you set the bait, and someone bit.



> you bringing up padded stats isn't bringing something new into the argument, than what is?


see above



> i don't need to provide a reference, because your doing it in this thread....


really, you need to read clearer.



> or what about how you have discredited Gonzaga's players for padding their stats...I like how you pick and choose what baiting is...


I'm done with this conversation, and any conversation that involves you. You aren't worth trying to have an intelligent conversation with. I know that you'll probably think you 'won' or that I'm doing this because i don't want ot "admit I'm wrong", so whatever.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Yep, why else would you close them, I never break any of the rules and you usually have to get the last word in before you lock it up......


nice selective memory you've got Zagsfan... need me to link a few threads where you were edited for breaking the rules? 

STOMP


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

its really interesting to read you guys nitpick the crap out of each others posts piece by piece but cmon fellas - this thread is going nowhere cept turning into a ego trip over who can mircoscope who the hardest. take it to a PM or summin.

the thread was going good till the egos stepped in , now its time for them to step out.

*BACK ON TOPIC*

Nash totally deserves the award imo , its great to see a PG win and one as nice as Nash is just a bonus. Congrats to Steve and the Suns.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> because like this one, they're becoming distruptive and pointless.
> 
> there's no real point in you continually doing this.
> 
> ...



What is the whole point you were trying make at the beginning of this argument and let me know what it is....I'm tired of bickering with you over pointless stuff that you negate...

If you would have not psycho-analyzed a simple statement, this thread would have still been on what the main subject is: Nash won the MVP and I'm proud of someone who wins it from the WCC...

now copy and paste and pick apart my whole post if thats what you get your jollies from....


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> *BACK ON TOPIC*
> 
> Nash totally deserves the award imo , its great to see a PG win and one as nice as Nash is just a bonus. Congrats to Steve and the Suns.


Relating back to the original points by some of us on why Nash doesn't deserve to win, why do you feel this was deserved?


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Hap, why is it when I read this thread, I feel like you're the one being the *******? Let him like his conference, for God's sake! You don't even seem to have have an investment in the argument, just in arguing with someone.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

trifecta said:


> Relating back to the original points by some of us on why Nash doesn't deserve to win, why do you feel this was deserved?


well he had a great season, turned the Suns totally around 29w last season to league best 62 this season - they play entertaining ball because of him , its real TEAM basketball , and he led the league in assists.

He was a good pick on performance and also is a great image for the game , they run , pass , shoot and play as a team. well deserved imo.

of course some people dont think he deserved it, thats cool - everyone has an opinion , just seems here that people cant express it unless they are willing to do 10-15 followup justification posts.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I don't buy it... 

Nash is MVP because a few media members have been pushing the idea non-stop all season long - not because people actually had rational thoughts about it. Think about it. What's the argument that gets used?

The Phoenix Suns from last year + Steve Nash = +33 wins.

Let's look at that for a second. First of all, the Suns completely underachieved last season and totally tanked the second half of it to clear cap space, trading away Marbury for crap, leaving them with no point guard. Nobody expected them to have that awful of a season - their year was pretty similar to the Blazers this year... bad start, some injuries and then they just gave up.

They picked up Nash and Richardson as FA's so they didn't have to trade anyone away. They also changed coaching staff (right?) and went to a completely different style of play to take advantage of their athleticism and the rule changes.

Yet Nash gets 99.9% of the credit for the Sun's success this year, because nobody thinks about any of these other factors... why? Because Marc Stein and a bunch of other blowhards have been writing daily columns about why Nash is so great... I mean, I think he's a quality player, but as some have said here, he's not the Suns MVP.

And if Nash is the MVP of the league, how in the world could the Mavericks replace him with Jason Terry and win 6 more games (They lost Nash for nothing)?

The Lakers tried to replace Shaq with Brian Grant, Chris Mihm and Lamar Odom - that didn't quite work out though.

Take a look at Shaq if the team record comparison is so important...

Heat w/o Shaq - 42 wins
Heat w/ Shaq - 59 wins

+ 17

(Heat had to trade half their team to get him too)

Lakers w/ Shaq - 56 wins
Lakers w/o Shaq - 34 wins

- 22

Factor in the success of the past teams and it becomes pretty clear who is more valuable...


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Dan Patrick just said that somone had PJ BROWN 5th on their MVP ballot... and Shaq wasnt even in the top 5 on another person ballot.... what!?!?!?!?!?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Steve was hands down the Mvp this year well deserved


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

My ballot would look like this:

1 - Nash
2 - Shaq
3 - McGrady
4 - Iverson
5 - Duncan


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Steve had a phenominal year

see his stats 


11.5 assists and 15.5 points per games is very very good


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Steve had a phenominal year
> 
> see his stats
> 
> ...


Yes, he was very good. He just doesn't have as much value, as a player, as players like Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki. He doesn't even have as much value as players on his team, like Amare Stoudemire and, possibly, Shawn Marion. Nor is he even the most valuable point guard in the NBA, as Jason Kidd, at the very least, is more valuable.

MVP doesn't mean the best artifical story combined with a very good season. It means "most valuable." I'd love to see someone say they'd prefer to have Nash instead of Duncan.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Nash looks like he's proving all of you critics wrong in these playoffs.....I haven't seen a PG that dominate in a long time.....

I'm proud of the guy....


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Nash looks like he's proving all of you critics wrong in these playoffs.....I haven't seen a PG that dominate in a long time.....
> 
> I'm proud of the guy....


No doubt about that. Nash has completely proved that he's the MVP of the NBA. Wait. Hold on. A better way to state what I'm feeling is this-

Nash has completely proved that he deserves the MVP over Shaq.

Seriously, the two best playoff performers of my "basketball life" are Jordan and Hakeem. I have no heartburn over saying Nash is one successfull series away from joining Jordan and Hakeem as one of the top 3 playoff performers over the last 10+ years. 

One series. We'll see.....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Terry just couldn't keep up with Nash, it's going to be interesting to see how Parker does.....

The Duncan and Stoudemire matchup should be interesting as well....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Outplaying Terry doesn't make him the player with the most value in the NBA.

Does anyone think there's a single GM that would take Nash over a healthy Duncan, Shaq or Garnett, at the very least? (For one season...future has nothing to do with it.)

Nash is an excellent point guard and he's landed with pretty much the perfect team to exploit his talents. But he doesn't have more value to a team than the superstars of the league.

And a great post-season series, or even post-season, won't change that. Those players would still be the guys who bring more overall value to a neutral team (that is, one not artificially designed to make a certain player unnecessary).


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

The Professional Fan said:


> No doubt about that. Nash has completely proved that he's the MVP of the NBA. Wait. Hold on. A better way to state what I'm feeling is this-
> 
> Nash has completely proved that he deserves the MVP over Shaq.


So the MVP is a prospective award given for playoff performance prior to the playoffs? Hmm. I'd always assumed, given the timing of the announcement, that it was a retrospective award given for regular season performance. In which case Nash's playoff performance, terrific as it has been, proves nothing whatsoever about whether he deserved the award.

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Outplaying Terry doesn't make him the player with the most value in the NBA.


he didn't just outplay him, he terrorized him....Any kind of switch they would make to try and stop Nash, wouldn't work and they couldn't keep up with him...Without his 30.3 ppg/ 12.3 apg/ 6.5 rpg in that series I highly doubt we would be talking about Phoenix in the Western Conference finals, no matter how you can spin it....

Give credit, where credit is due....



> But he doesn't have more value to a team than the superstars of the league.


What is your definition of a superstar?.....IMO Nash is a superstar and he has proved that....



> And a great post-season series, or even post-season, won't change that.


You're right, post-seasons don't matter....Just the regular season....

Post-season is when players play with everything they got....Great post-season performances like Nash has had should be the true measurement of how good a player is.....(and BTW, his regular season #'s were shabby enough for him to be voted the MVP).


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Does anyone think there's a single GM that would take Nash over a healthy Duncan, Shaq or Garnett, at the very least? (For one season...future has nothing to do with it.)
> 
> Nash is an excellent point guard and he's landed with pretty much the perfect team to exploit his talents. But he doesn't have more value to a team than the superstars of the league.


I'm not sure if any GM would take Nash over those you listed, but I think they should if you're just talking about 1 year. I know it sounds crazy because players like Duncan, KG, and Shaq are superstars, but the media has just pounded that for the longest time. The short white guy gets overlooked IMO. I though Nash was pretty good this year, but I've had a hard time looking at him as a superstar. After moving to AZ and going to a few games and watching more of Nash, I can say he's better than I gave him credit for. When he sits out, the team loses it's direction.

I'd love TD, KG or Shaq, but if they were teamed up with lets say Damon at the starting PG, the team would go as far as KG usually does in the post season.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Joe Johnson will be ready to play on Sunday... giving Nash another option he didnt have most of the series vs. Dallas. I'm rooting for the Suns.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> You're right, post-seasons don't matter....Just the regular season....
> 
> Post-season is when players play with everything they got....Great post-season performances like Nash has had should be the true measurement of how good a player is.....(and BTW, his regular season #'s were shabby enough for him to be voted the MVP).


A single postseason doesn't cement someone's legacy or Steve Nash would forever be known as Mike Bibby's bleep... and of course the MVP award doesn't factor in playoff success at all as the voting is done at the end of the regular season.

This MVP award debate seems to be headed towards the _should be..._ vs _reality is..._ category. The Most Valuble Player award should go (IMO) to the most valuble/best player in the league. Reality is that other things factor into the award. For instance, it often goes to a player on the team with the best record, and that player may not be necessarily the best player on the team but the best player who is also a good story. It's not like it's an award voted on by players or coaches, the MVP award is voted on by the Jason Quicks of the league.

Nash had a great year and led the Suns to new heights. I also happen to feel he's the 3rd best player on a very good club.

STOMP


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Nash had a great year and led the Suns to new heights. I also happen to feel he's the 3rd best player on a very good club.
> STOMP


Yup, I think that's the biggest knock on the Nash MVP vote - even bigger than what Shaq has done.

It is easy to argue that Nash is not even the most valuable player on his TEAM, let alone the entire league.

I think if you replaced Nash with Jason Terry, Phoenix would be almost as good. But if you replaced Marion with Rashard Lewis, or Amare with Boozer, there's no way...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> It is easy to argue that Nash is not even the most valuable player on his TEAM, let alone the entire league.
> 
> I think if you replaced Nash with Jason Terry, Phoenix would be almost as good. But if you replaced Marion with Rashard Lewis, or Amare with Boozer, there's no way...


Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. Terry puts up some nice stats, but he doesn't have a clue as to how to run a team and make those around him better players. Nash has been great at doing that for most of his career, but especially this season. Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion are terrific players, but without Nash last season, the Suns were the second worst team in their division. Now Nash sets the table for those guys so that they're even better. IMO, a better way to look at this is to ask yourself what happens in the Suns/Mavs series if you do switch Nash and Terry. I think without a doubt it's the Mavs who are in the WCF instead of the Suns if you make that trade.

The MVP award is not supposed to be about who is the best player in the league. It's about which player has been the most valuable in helping his team achieve success. Viewed in that light, I think Nash is the correct choice this year for MVP.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. Terry puts up some nice stats, but he doesn't have a clue as to how to run a team and make those around him better players. Nash has been great at doing that for most of his career, but especially this season. Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion are terrific players, but without Nash last season, the Suns were the second worst team in their division. Now Nash sets the table for those guys so that they're even better. IMO, a better way to look at this is to ask yourself what happens in the Suns/Mavs series if you do switch Nash and Terry. I think without a doubt it's the Mavs who are in the WCF instead of the Suns if you make that trade.


The Mavericks did better than they did last year with Terry at PG than Nash. I don't think that Terry is a better player or PG, but this is true...

There were a lot of reasons the Suns are better than they were last year. A lot of people forget that they literally tanked the second half of the season last year, trading away Marbury for expiring deals. I believe Amare was out for a big portion of the season as well.

You take that, and then you add a new coach (coach of the year) with a bold new strategy. Then you add Steve Nash AND Quentin Richardson. You have virtually no injuries during the season and a lot of improvement from Amare, and Joe Johnson. People seem to be giving Nash all of the credit. You do all of those other things and add Jason Terry instead of Nash and they still have a great year... maybe not as good, but still a top team.



> The MVP award is not supposed to be about who is the best player in the league. It's about which player has been the most valuable in helping his team achieve success. Viewed in that light, I think Nash is the correct choice this year for MVP.


I think Nash had a career year, but I think Amare and Marion are probably more important to that team. Nash helps the team as a whole click, but they are the ones who make them such a dangerous, unstoppable team.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. Terry puts up some nice stats, but he doesn't have a clue as to how to run a team and make those around him better players. Nash has been great at doing that for most of his career, but especially this season. Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion are terrific players, but without Nash last season, the Suns were the second worst team in their division. Now Nash sets the table for those guys so that they're even better. IMO, a better way to look at this is to ask yourself what happens in the Suns/Mavs series if you do switch Nash and Terry. I think without a doubt it's the Mavs who are in the WCF instead of the Suns if you make that trade.
> 
> The MVP award is not supposed to be about who is the best player in the league. It's about which player has been the most valuable in helping his team achieve success. Viewed in that light, I think Nash is the correct choice this year for MVP.


Wait, you can't make those assumptions. Things don't happen in a vacumn. One change affects another.

If the Mavs kept Nash at the big dollars Phoenix offered, they would not have signed Damp. Then they would have played with Dirk at Center and/or center by committee. Get ready to see a lot of Shawn Bradley.

The Mavs LOST one of their best players (Nash) to free agency without compensation, thus their overall talent level was reduced from the prior year. They traded for a center they badly needed, but had to give up a solid role player (Najera - and a couple of picks) to get him. Though probably better set up for the longer run, the Mavs aren't as talented or as deep as they were last season. And yet, they won 6 more games during the regular season.

As for the Suns, this thing has been rehashed over and over and over and over.....

Last season the Suns suffered through injuries to Amare and Joe Johnson that derailed both their seasons. Marion was the only one of the key players that was his steady same self.

After the Suns had stumbled enough that their season seemed shot, they threw in the towel and made moves for the future. They made trades that hurt the team last season (Marbury and Penny for ending contracts and picks) with an eye toward the future. They made changes in the lineup that hurt the team last season with an eye toward the future. They experimented with offenses and defenses that hurt the team last season with an eye toward the future.

Quentin Richardson was signed as a free agent. Phoenix gave up no talent to obtain him.

Steve Nash was signed as a free agent. Phoenix gave up no talent to obtain him.

Their talent level is vastly higher than it was during the second half of last season, and is higher than it was two season's ago.

You cannot compare a team in transition to the set roster of this season. Last year's Suns had:
Marion - full year
Marbury - part year - traded
Amare - part year - injury
Joe Johnson - part year - injury

Even the prior year's team that won 44 games doesn't compare to this season's roster.
Marbury
Penny - think DA, and you know what this was like for Suns fans
Marion
Amare - rookie, good, but not yet great, and terrible defense
???? - who remembers the bad center play they suffered through.

This year's Suns had every key player healthy the entire year:
Nash - his best year ever, no doubt.
Johnson - finally came into his own
Richardson - his best year ever
Marion - solid as always
Amare - his best year ever, improves every season

plus they had a full camp and pre-season to implement a new offense.

To look at these facts and conclude that the Suns win total improvement is all about Nash seems like a jump to me.

In fact, I don't buy it at all. If Nash was so important why did the Mavs win more games? Why didn't the Mavs win last year with such a deep and talented roster? Why didn't the Mavs win the year before that?

Nash is a very important piece of a TEAM. Nash is not THE team. Or maybe even the most important part. That might the coach.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> The Mavs LOST one of their best players (Nash) to free agency without compensation, thus their overall talent level was reduced from the prior year. They traded for a center they badly needed, but had to give up a solid role player (Najera - and a couple of picks) to get him. Though probably better set up for the longer run, the Mavs aren't as talented or as deep as they were last season. And yet, they won 6 more games during the regular season.


I'd contend that this was easily the most complete Mavs team ever and at least as talented and deep as any of the other teams they've ever fielded as well. Dampier is a massive talent upgrade over Najera... that he plays a position of need only accentuates this upgrade. I'd say Stack and Terry are probably a talent upgrade over Jamison and Walker too, and are also a better fit with the rest of the club. That Nellie also scored a good sized lotto PG (Harris) out of the Jamison swap makes his upgrading of their talent base more lopsided IMO. A little more luck with the injury bug, and I think they could have easily doubled their 6 game improvement. Unfortunately for them, Dirk did not save his best for the playoffs... most of his stats were down. I've never seen him miss so many open looks. 

STOMP


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I'd contend that this was easily the most complete Mavs team ever and at least as talented and deep as any of the other teams they've ever fielded as well. Dampier is a massive talent upgrade over Najera... that he plays a position of need only accentuates this upgrade. I'd say Stack and Terry are probably a talent upgrade over Jamison and Walker too, and are also a better fit with the rest of the club. That Nellie also scored a good sized lotto PG (Harris) out of the Jamison swap makes his upgrading of their talent base more lopsided IMO. A little more luck with the injury bug, and I think they could have easily doubled their 6 game improvement. Unfortunately for them, Dirk did not save his best for the playoffs... most of his stats were down. I've never seen him miss so many open looks.
> 
> STOMP


Agreement to your contention is completely dependant on rejection of Nash as worthy of league MVP.

Any of those who support Nash being chosen MVP, then must accept that Dallas is worse off talent-wise than last season, as they lost Nash for nothing. There is no way a team without cap space can lose an MVP talent with no compensation, and be BETTER the next season.

I never contended that Najera was better than Damp, only mentioned that Dallas had to give up players (even if of modest skill, he was a Patterson type energy-guy fan fav) to get him, unlike Phoenix who added Q and Nash without giving up other players.

You bring up Stack and Terry, but they did lose Jamison (6th man of the year on Dallas, All-Star this season) and Walker. But, more important Stack was coming off a bad season and Terry was coming off a so-so year leading the worst team in the league. Few predicted good things for either player. How is it they both had such good seasons? I mean, Nash (the MVP who single handedly makes the careers for Marion, Amare, Q and Johnson) wasn't there to lift the careers of those two. Who did?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Agreement to your contention is completely dependant on rejection of Nash as worthy of league MVP.
> 
> Any of those who support Nash being chosen MVP, then must accept that Dallas is worse off talent-wise than last season, as they lost Nash for nothing. There is no way a team without cap space can lose an MVP talent with no compensation, and be BETTER the next season.


sure they can, just make a bunch of lopsided trades, good picks, and have their young talent continue to improve... check check and check... Dallas improved their talent.



> I never contended that Najera was better than Damp, only mentioned that Dallas had to give up players (even if of modest skill, he was a Patterson type energy-guy fan fav) to get him, unlike Phoenix who added Q and Nash without giving up other players.


Eddie sat all year on the bench for the W's and later the Nugs... I think his value was almost exclusively as an expiring deal. He's a former 2nd round pick whose role is to solidly attach his butt to the bench. 



> You bring up Stack and Terry, but they did lose Jamison (6th man of the year on Dallas, All-Star this season) and Walker. But, more important Stack was coming off a bad season and Terry was coming off a so-so year leading the worst team in the league. Few predicted good things for either player.


Stack was coming off an injury plaugued year, I didn't think he forgot how to play hoops... and btw, I was one of the few here who predicted that they had improved the team in the offseason. I feel that Jamison is an ok talent overrated because of his gaudy offensive stats. Here's the preseason thread Dallas Mavs improved or not thread with comments from both of us... 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=115389&page=1&pp=15



> I mean, Nash (the MVP who single handedly makes the careers for Marion, Amare, Q and Johnson) wasn't there to lift the careers of those two. Who did?


Certainly Nash helped the games of the Suns players, but following in the footsteps of a guy who had no business starting the year before only made him look better. He's a very nice player, but I'd guess you'd agree that many PGs in the league could thrive in that lineup and look good in comparison to Barbosa. Saying that Nash single handedly makes the careers of Marion, Amare, Q, and Johnson... wowza! thats nothing I can back at all. 

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Without his 30.3 ppg/ 12.3 apg/ 6.5 rpg in that series I highly doubt we would be talking about Phoenix in the Western Conference finals, no matter how you can spin it....
> 
> Give credit, where credit is due....


I'm not spinning anything. You seem to be under the impression that I don't think Nash is excellent or that he didn't have an amazing series. He is and he did.

And yet, he's still less valuable than various players in the league.



> What is your definition of a superstar?.....IMO Nash is a superstar and he has proved that....


"Superstar" is a vague term that people have different standards for. My point wasn't really whether Nash is a "superstar" or not; my point is that Nash isn't as valuable as the people *I* consider superstars: Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant and Dirk Nowitzki. And he's not as valuable as those approaching superstardom, like LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Amare Stoudemire.

All of those players produce more towards winning games, overall, than Nash. Nash is in an ideal situation for him...put those players in ideal situations and they'd put absurd numbers and wins. But taking an empty team, that one has to build, I doubt Nash would be selected ahead of any of the players I listed above. Or Jason Kidd, for that matter.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> I know it sounds crazy because players like Duncan, KG, and Shaq are superstars, but the media has just pounded that for the longest time. The short white guy gets overlooked IMO.


You think it's a racial thing that O'Neal, Duncan and Garnett are considered superstars and considered superior to Nash?

If it _were_ true that the "short white guy" gets overlooked by the media, how did he win the MVP award, voted on by that media?

To the contrary, I think he's overrated, due to his style of play and due to the fact that he's almost solely credited with the Suns' huge increase in wins, even though that increase was fueled by a variety of factors.



> I'd love TD, KG or Shaq, but if they were teamed up with lets say Damon at the starting PG, the team would go as far as KG usually does in the post season.


And how would Nash do with the Damon equivalent at power forward...Keith Van Horn, perhaps? Pretty poorly, I'd say.

All players need supporting talent around them, in order to succeed as a team.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Stack was coming off an injury plaugued year, I didn't think he forgot how to play hoops... and btw, I was one of the few here who predicted that they had improved the team in the offseason. I feel that Jamison is an ok talent overrated because of his gaudy offensive stats. Here's the preseason thread Dallas Mavs improved or not thread with comments from both of us...
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=115389&page=1&pp=15


How were our predictions?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> I think Nash had a career year, but I think Amare and Marion are probably more important to that team. Nash helps the team as a whole click, but they are the ones who make them such a dangerous, unstoppable team.


I disagree,

Nash feeding them the ball for open looks and easy dunks and the beautiful pick and roll that team plays since Nash has come on board is what makes that team unstoppable....

I don't think its just a coincidence most the players on that team had a breakout year...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> How were our predictions?


does the link not work for you? You predicted the Mavs would stay about the same, I predicted they'd be much better. They finished somewhere between our predictions, improving by 6 games.

The factor which always greatly effects things but no one can predict is injuries. Dallas did not tread lightly through that minefield... from their rotation they lost Stack for 26 games, Finley for 18, Damp for 33, and Daniels for 22. Just for comparisons sake, the most games missed by a Suns rotation player was the guy you pointed to having durability issues... Steve Nash with 7. I think that just goes to show how injuries are hard to predict. IMO staying healthy had a lot to do with the Suns success this season and the Mavs not being all they could be.

STOMP


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Wait, you can't make those assumptions. Things don't happen in a vacumn. One change affects another.


I'm not assuming anything. All I'm offering is my opinion, based on what I saw from watching yesterday's game, that if you put Nash in a Mavs uniform and put Terry on the Suns' roster, Dallas wins that game going away and is probably favored to win Game 7. 



> Nash is a very important piece of a TEAM. Nash is not THE team. Or maybe even the most important part. That might the coach.


I thought we were discussing who should be MVP. No single player, not even MJ in his prime, wins a title without having several other very good players surrounding him. That said, IMO, Nash is the sparkplug that ignites the Suns engine. He makes all the other players on that squad better by delivering them the ball in places where they can get easy buckets. Also, he has a potent enough offensive game that he can rally his team and get them back in a game even when they're down by 16 on the opponent's home court--as he showed yesterday.

Give him his due. He's had a great year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I don't think its just a coincidence most the players on that team had a breakout year...


It's not a coincidence. Amare Stoudemire and Joe Johnson are young enough that basically every season so far has been a career season. I wouldn't credit Nash for a second and third year player _continuing_ to get better with age and experience.

And Marion didn't have a "break-out year." He's always been about this good, he's just been underrated due to being on a mediocre team.

Quentin Richardson actually had a worse season than last year.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> I thought we were discussing who should be MVP. No single player, not even MJ in his prime, wins a title without having several other very good players surrounding him. That said, IMO, Nash is the sparkplug that ignites the Suns engine. He makes all the other players on that squad better by delivering them the ball in places where they can get easy buckets. Also, he has a potent enough offensive game that he can rally his team and get them back in a game even when they're down by 16 on the opponent's home court--as he showed yesterday.
> 
> Give him his due. He's had a great year.


No doubt he had a great year, just not MVP worthy.

"give him his due"?? What does that mean? I have never once said Nash sucks, or I think he is a bad player, or that he didn't really have a great year. In fact I think I give Nash more due consideration than a lot of those who support him being MVP this year. 

Nash himself doesn't think he was MVP, he said (correctly) Shaq was. Magic Johnson (a point guard) said Shaq was. 

And I contend that Nash is "the sparkplug" because of the players he has to pass to. There are few better finishers in the NBA than Amare and Marion. Both those guys handle many of those Nash passes that other players would fumble away. Both those guys finish dunks and layups that other players would blow. They make hard finishes look easy, so it is easy to dismiss their end of the play. These guys work well together, and make each other look good, and do it in an unusual system implemented by a forward thinking coach, under the helpful push of the NBA to change rules enforcement that helps their cause.

Few players have had a 3 game playoff run as good as what Nash just did. Incredible really. Certainly the Suns MVP for the playoffs so far, and probably for all teams too. 

I will certainly credit him with destroying *his former team* (never underestimate to power of revenge, many players save their best efforts against former teams). Nash was nothing close to this good in the first round series.

As good as he was the last 3 games, and for the entire playoffs, he had no similar runs like that in the regular season, so these games are of no factor whatsoever in support for MVP, which is based only on the regular season.

Had Nash played for the entire season as he has in the playoffs, I would suport his MVP honors.

But he didn't - so I won't.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Nash himself doesn't think he was MVP, he said (correctly) Shaq was. Magic Johnson (a point guard) said Shaq was.


Nash is a humble guy...something of a rarity in today's NBA. Magic's hardly an impartial observer with their common Laker history.

The MVP was clearly a two-man race this year because both Shaq and Nash had great seasons that resulted in dramatic turn-arounds for their respective teams. A strong case can be made for either one of them. I just happen to think that Nash deserves it this year for making the Suns dramatically better.



> And I contend that Nash is "the sparkplug" because of the players he has to pass to. There are few better finishers in the NBA than Amare and Marion.


I guess we'll just have to disagree here. Finishers, even really great ones, can only "finish" when somebody sets them up. Nash did that about as well as is possible this year.



> Few players have had a 3 game playoff run as good as what Nash just did. Incredible really. Certainly the Suns MVP for the playoffs so far, and probably for all teams too.
> 
> As good as he was the last 3 games, and for the entire playoffs, he had no similar runs like that in the regular season, so these games are of no factor whatsoever in support for MVP, which is based only on the regular season.


You must be an offensive stats guy. What Nash is great for is how he orchestrates the Suns' offense. Those 11.5 assists per game, 2.5 more than the next closest guy, are what impress me. You say that's just because he has Amare and Marion to finish, but I've seen how he penetrates and dishes and how he can rifle a pass between two defenders. That's why the Suns stepped up an gave him his contract.



> Had Nash played for the entire season as he has in the playoffs, I would suport his MVP honors.
> 
> But he didn't - so I won't.


I hope this doesn't sound too rude, but I guess your lack of support won't take any of the shine off of Nash's trophy.


----------

