# Nash to be named MVP



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0426nash0426.html



> *Source: Nash to be MVP*
> Suns guard would be 10th player to win award in consecutive seasons
> 
> Paul Coro
> ...


Considering today's NBA, in my opinion this is well deserved! 

From now until eternity Nash will be mentioned among the likes of Bob Pettit, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-jabbar, Moses Malone, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone and Tim Duncan.


----------



## Shining Greatness (Feb 22, 2006)

Kobe is the real MVP. Just like AI was the real MVP last year. Nash isn't even the best PG this year. The guys who vote just vote for there favorite player, but get mad at the fans for not making the right pics for the allstar team. It's no wonder the NBA is at a all time low.


----------



## Theoretic (Aug 19, 2004)

The lack of respect Kwame Brown gets is disgusting.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

grandmaster192 said:


> Kobe is the real MVP. Just like AI was the real MVP last year.


Bingo. *sigh*


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Wow, I was expecting it to go to either Kobe or Lebron. I was all up in arms last year, but I can't say that Nash isn't a good pick this year considering how the Suns performed without Amare.

Also, there was no way in hell Iverson was worthy of MVP last year.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

If true, the theory that James and Bryant would split votes has probably been realized. I think maybe their late season pushes had more of an affect on the fans than the voters.

What Nash has been able to do in Phoenix is outstanding. What other team could lose a 26.0 points per game scorer and still cruise to the division title? In the West, too.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

ralaw said:


> http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0426nash0426.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nash isn't near their talent levels. I guess that shows you the lack of MVP candidates nowadays, or a fault in the voting procedure.

Nash is probably more deserving this year than last, but a back-to-back MVP winner? Come on. He's the 2nd point guard to achieve the feat, but definitely doesn't rank in the top 5 point guards of all time. That has to tell you something about the quality of the NBA.

No problems with Nash winning the award, but does he really deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the mentioned players? I don't think so.

Nash has the perfect system in Phoenix, and I think D'Antoni needs more recognition. He's the perfect coach for Nash, fast break basketball with little defense. At least on Nash's part.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> Nash isn't near their talent levels. I guess that shows you the lack of MVP candidates nowadays, or a fault in the voting procedure.
> 
> Nash is probably more deserving this year than last, but a back-to-back MVP winner? Come on. He's the 2nd point guard to achieve the feat, but definitely doesn't rank in the top 5 point guards of all time. That has to tell you something about the quality of the NBA.
> 
> ...


Pretty much agree. Nash is nowhere near an elite HOF'er, but deserves the award as much as anyone else this season. I thought he'd miss out based on the fact he won last year.

The guy above that said AI deserved it last year over Nash gave me a good laugh though!


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Blablabla

Nash is an elite Hall of Famer now, time to face reality. 2 Straight MVPs.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Historically the point guard position is deep with great hall-of-famers. I don't think it is such an issue for Nash not to be at the top.

You don't have to be the best player to be the MVP. You need to be the most valuable player to be the MVP.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

If reports are correct & Nash & Diaw get MVP & MIP respectively, Phoenix is raking in the awards again. Many deserving candidates this yr but Nash had even a better yr than last yr & lead his team even better. Nash, back-to-back MVP winner. That's huge.


----------



## Steez (Nov 28, 2002)

Your right... Voters dont pick for who they think is the real MVP... they vote for their favourite player unfortunetly and right now everynoe is like hmm... wouldnt it be a great story if this white canadian guy won it 2 years ina row... yeah lets pick him!

Simple as that... this year Kobe/LeBron deserved it more than Nash and anyone saying different is saying the samething as all thsoe voters are which is picking fav player and not the real mvp.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Steez said:


> Your right... Voters dont pick for who they think is the real MVP... they vote for their favourite player unfortunetly and right now everynoe is like hmm... wouldnt it be a great story if this white canadian guy won it 2 years ina row... yeah lets pick him!
> 
> Simple as that... this year Kobe/LeBron deserved it more than Nash and anyone saying different is saying the samething as all thsoe voters are which is picking fav player and not the real mvp.


Ridiculous...

Of course you are only saying that because Kobe did not win.


----------



## michael90002002 (Apr 14, 2005)

You gotta be kidding me, Kobe deserved MVP.


----------



## Steez (Nov 28, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Ridiculous...
> 
> Of course you are only saying that because Kobe did not win.



No no, you see... I am a Kobe fan so I would have loved it if Kobe won obviously. But LeBron James is the one that deserved it this year. Most people would say Oh hes young and is gonna get more chances... Who cares? If your the MVP, your the MVP.

LeBron James : 31 ppg, 7 apg, 7 rpg, plus a 50 win season... if thats not enough, I dont know what is.
Kobe Bryant : Led a team of no-namers to the playoffs in the WESTER CONFERENCE, and 7th not 8th which is a big accomplishment. Also, dont forget the 35 ppg and the 81 point game. (Yes that 81 point game is a significant fact for MVP status)

I think LeBron should have won the MVP with Kobe a close second. Than Dirk in at 3rd, Nash at 4th and Billups at 5.


----------



## CrackerJack (Jul 2, 2005)

grandmaster192 said:


> Kobe is the real MVP. Just like AI was the real MVP last year. *Nash isn't even the best PG this year*. The guys who vote just vote for there favorite player, but get mad at the fans for not making the right pics for the allstar team. It's no wonder the NBA is at a all time low.


im pretty sure if i were to build a new franchise and had a shot at any floor general in the league i would take Nash, sure Kidd is good but he just doesnt have that presence that nash does. and why did you join this board just to complain about something that isnt even official. so please stop making up stories like voters voting for their favourite players and if steve nash wins just accept it that he is *THE MVP* and while kobe is sitting at his house during the 2nd round of playoffs nash will be *leading* the Suns


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Steez said:


> No no, you see... I am a Kobe fan so I would have loved it if Kobe won obviously. But LeBron James is the one that deserved it this year. Most people would say Oh hes young and is gonna get more chances... Who cares? If your the MVP, your the MVP.
> 
> LeBron James : 31 ppg, 7 apg, 7 rpg, plus a 50 win season... if thats not enough, I dont know what is.
> Kobe Bryant : Led a team of no-namers to the playoffs in the WESTER CONFERENCE, and 7th not 8th which is a big accomplishment. Also, dont forget the 35 ppg and the 81 point game. (Yes that 81 point game is a significant fact for MVP status)
> ...


Well if we want to make this a stats debate Shawn Marion should have a few MVPs already.

Besides Nash is averaging 19/11/5 90+%/50+%/40+%. Only the 3rd player in NBA history to have those shooting numbers in the same season, his team leads the league in scoring for the SIXTH straigth year.

Oh yeah and before further comparing statistics. Nash only plays 35 minutes a game. Lebron 42.5 and Kobe 41.


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

That's really sad. This league is crazy
How many MVPs has John Stockton ?Gary Payton ? Isiah Thomas ?

The MVP is for the best player of the regular season, not for the player that helps the team blablablabl, thats the finals MVP.


----------



## Chris Bosh #4 (Feb 18, 2005)

:banana:


----------



## Steez (Nov 28, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Well if we want to make this a stats debate Shawn Marion should have a few MVPs already.
> 
> Besides Nash is averaging 19/11/5 90+%/50+%/40+%. Only the 3rd player in NBA history to have those shooting numbers in the same season, his team leads the league in scoring for the SIXTH straigth year.
> 
> Oh yeah and before further comparing statistics. Nash only plays 35 minutes a game. Lebron 42.5 and Kobe 41.


Those #s dont impress me as much as LBJs.
Plus Marion has avged what he is avging his whole career... before Nash was even there, so Nash didnt make him better at all. Stoudamire could average what hes averaging without Nash.

But you know what, no one is gonna win this argument because this is basically personal opinions... its all good.... we all know LBJ is the MVP... you guys are just too scared to admit it.


----------



## italianBBlover (Mar 5, 2003)

BBowen said:


> That's really sad. This league is crazy
> How many MVPs has John Stockton ?Gary Payton ? Isiah Thomas ?
> 
> The MVP is for the best player of the regular season, not for the player that helps the team blablablabl, thats the finals MVP.


MVP and top scorer champion are 2 different things ...


----------



## CrackerJack (Jul 2, 2005)

italianBBlover said:


> MVP and top scorer champion are 2 different things ...


well said as are most valuable player and best player, because LeBron & Kobe are easily the 2 best players in the league but are they the most valuable?


----------



## italianBBlover (Mar 5, 2003)

grandmaster192 said:


> Nash isn't even the best PG this year.


Nash is one of the best Play*maker* of ever.

Plain and simple.


----------



## wightnoiser (Oct 29, 2003)

The precident been set for the last 30 years... you have to play on one of the top 5 teams to win the MVP. Lebron and Kobe's chances to win MVP were slim and none.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Time to take away the media's voting privelages. Give the MVP voting to the coaches.

These guys vote for Nash because they see the success the Suns are having and they can't explain it. They see the subtraction of Amare, all the new guys, and they say "Wow, I have no idea what is going on.... Steve Nash must just make everybody better!" And they leave it at that.

What they don't see is the floor spacing, they don't see the brilliantly crafted offense, they don't see WHY the stuff that is happening is happening. In short, they don't see Mike D'Antoni. How can Nash MVP and D'Antoni not win COY? And don't say "Steve Nash IS Mike D'Antoni's offense" because that couldn't be further from the truth.

The problem is that the actual mechanics of an NBA offense are still a mystery to most NBA writers. How often do you see the kind of analysis and situation breakdowns in NBA broadcasts that you see so expertly done with the NFL? You get it from some former coaches, but the vast majority of broadcasters can only coo and preen about how "amazing" that play was or how this guys "makes his teammates so much better". 

Where does this all lead? To media members voting Nash for MVP because "Without Amare they thought they would be a lot worse." What kind of reason is that? I underrated them at the start of the season too, but that doesn't mean Nash is the MVP, it just means I was wrong about their team.

It's like after so many years of the Marbury, Steve Francis, Baron Davis hype machines you get a point guard who actually knows how to run an offense and he's suddenly the best player in the league because he makes everybody so much better? That's what a point guard is SUPPOSED to do. It's his job.

18.8 points and 10.5 assists are great numbers. I'm not trying to take anything away from Nash. But MVP?

Where were all the MVP awards for John Stockton when he was putting up 17 and 14 year after year? Isiah Thomas averaged 21 points and 14 assists in 1985, he finished 9th in MVP voting.

If you had to pick a team to win 1 playoff series would anybody take Nash with their first pick? Would he even be in the top 5? That's our MVP.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> Nash isn't near their talent levels. I guess that shows you the lack of MVP candidates nowadays, or a fault in the voting procedure.


Yeah, that is what I have been saying all season. The real issue is the criteria for the voting hasn't changed but the NBA as a whole has changed and with that the all time great level players in the league (Kobe, KG, McGrady, etc.) are no longer on the more dominant teams. In recent MVP history the truly all-time great players were on the top teams in the league such as Jordan, Barkley, K. Malone, Duncan hence the award going to the top player on a top team. However, in today's NBA it is different, but the voting hasn't caught up. I truth to how the NBA has changed can be seen by simply looking back about 10 years. Gary Payton was doing what both Nash and Billups were doing now, but due to the star power of Jordan, Olajuwon, K. Malone, Barkley, etc and the fact that they played on the best teams caused GP to not even sniff an MVP. 



Lachlanwood32 said:


> Nash is probably more deserving this year than last, but a back-to-back MVP winner? Come on. He's the 2nd point guard to achieve the feat, but definitely doesn't rank in the top 5 point guards of all time. That has to tell you something about the quality of the NBA.


If people would have known what Nash would do this year, he wouldn't have won the award in '05. However, I have no problem with him winning the award as long as people keep the voting criteria consistent. I would of had a problem if part of the voting this year would have taken into account him winning it last year. Every season should be taken individually. 



Lachlanwood32 said:


> No problems with Nash winning the award, but does he really deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the mentioned players? I don't think so.
> 
> Nash has the perfect system in Phoenix, and I think D'Antoni needs more recognition. He's the perfect coach for Nash, fast break basketball with little defense. At least on Nash's part.


Nash winning having 2 MVP awards and being mentioned among the likes of the players mentioned only illuminates the problem with the voting criteria and how it should be revamped. The top players are no longer on the dominant teams so simply looking at the best player on the team with the best record no longer should be the main criteria. With that logic a players such as Michael Redd could conceivably win the award every year if they are surrounded with the right talent.

The argument over the MVP is a argument of semantics of what is valuable versus most outstanding and what meaning a person places on those words.


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

Amareca said:


> Blablabla
> 
> Nash is an elite Hall of Famer now, time to face reality. 2 Straight MVPs.


I'm not hatin. Its not a negative thing to be considered a tier down from the Magics and Isiahs of the world. However, if Nash can win a championship before his days are over he will begin to threaten that group. If he can win more the one championship then you could argue him right up there with those names from the past. Not going to happen this season IMO though.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Mike luvs KG said:


> Where were all the MVP awards for John Stockton when he was putting up 17 and 14 year after year? Isiah Thomas averaged 21 points and 14 assists in 1985, he finished 9th in MVP voting.


Not to take anything away from their career totals, but the scoring in the NBA was a lot higher back then. Plus there were a few good players that dominated the league during those years, guys like Magic and MJ and Bird, so the MVP wasn't really up for grabs for anyone but them. If you take into account team success, nobody was _that_ much better than Nash this season.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

speedythief said:


> Not to take anything away from their career totals, but the scoring in the NBA was a lot higher back then. Plus there were a few good players that dominated the league during those years, guys like Magic and MJ and Bird, so the MVP wasn't really up for grabs for anyone but them. If you take into account team success, nobody was _that_ much better than Nash this season.


But if you take into account team success Chauncey Billups and Dirk Nowitski WERE better than Nash this year.

You can't use team success to say he is more deserving than Kobe and Lebron, but then ignore the fact that he would be less deserving than Chauncey and Dirk.

The Suns finished the season with 4 more wins than the Cavs. Detroit finished with 10 more wins than the Suns. 

Either records matter or they don't.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Mike luvs KG said:


> But if you take into account team success Chauncey Billups and Dirk Nowitski WERE better than Nash this year.
> 
> You can't use team success to say he is more deserving than Kobe and Lebron, but then ignore the fact that he would be less deserving than Chauncey and Dirk.
> 
> ...


I'm saying if you go purely by stats James would win the award, or if you go by record Billups or Nowitzky would win the award. The best combination of stats and team success is Nash, IMO, and that is probably a big part of the rationale of the voters.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

I was just looking at some old stats:

With the Pistons this year, there are now 14 teams in NBA history to win 64+ regular season games. 12 of those teams had a player win the MVP award. In the two cases a player from a 64+ win team didn't win the MVP, it was because it went to a player on another 64+ win team (Malone and Jordan in 97, Jordan and Payton in 96).

This year, with a 64 win team, a 63 win team, and a 60 win team. The MVP award is going to a player on 54 win team.

Just food for thought.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> But if you take into account team success Chauncey Billups and Dirk Nowitski WERE better than Nash this year.
> 
> You can't use team success to say he is more deserving than Kobe and Lebron, but then ignore the fact that he would be less deserving than Chauncey and Dirk.
> 
> ...


As you said in another post I think much of Nash winning the award has to do with Nash not having Stoudemire. However, that same logic could be used with Dirk to a lesser extent. If Stoudemire would have played this year I bet Nash wouldn't have won this award. Also, in my opinion Nash is more deserving of an MVP this year than compared to last year. 

Here in my opinion is the rationale of why Nash won the award this year:

Nash - played without Stoudemire and had better statistical season and surpassed expectations
Kobe - people just aren't ready to give him an individual award like this and genuinely do not like him
LeBron - too young in people's mind
Billups - hurt by "team concept" philosophy of team
Dirk - people just don't look at him as a MVP calibur player


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

awesome. i love nash. it was well deserved imho

MP3!


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

Amareca said:


> Blablabla
> 
> Nash is an elite Hall of Famer now, time to face reality. 2 Straight MVPs.


No he's not. Its showing how much of a joke the MVP has become. Time to stop letting the media vote for these things. And don't come back at me with the "you're just mad because Dirk didn't win" bs, because as I stated about a month ago, I think Kobe should be the MVP.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

It was a toss-up for me. But Nash deserves it just as much as Kobe. If anything, I'd say Nash is more important to the Suns than Kobe is to the Lakers. Without Kobe, Odom will take shots. Without Nash, the Suns are nothing.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

He won because he's white and I 100% believe this. No one could have watched the NBA all season long and concluded he deserved it over Dirk, Lebron and Kobe. If you're not going to give it to Lebron or Kobe, Dirk should have beat him out.

The writers can deny all they want, but they want the little white guy to win. YES, THIS IS A FACT!


----------



## Nash2Amare (Jan 30, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> Time to take away the media's voting privelages. Give the MVP voting to the coaches.
> 
> These guys vote for Nash because they see the success the Suns are having and they can't explain it. They see the subtraction of Amare, all the new guys, and they say "Wow, I have no idea what is going on.... Steve Nash must just make everybody better!" And they leave it at that.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but have you seen the Suns without Nash? Their offense is the same? HA! Whenever Nash misses a game they are simply HORRIBLE.

They'd be a sub 30 win team without Nash while averaging about 95ppg.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

HKF said:


> He won because he's white and I 100% believe this. No one could have watched the NBA all season long and concluded he deserved it over Dirk, Lebron and Kobe. If you're not going to give it to Lebron or Kobe, Dirk should have beat him out.
> 
> The writers can deny all they want, but they want the little white guy to win. YES, THIS IS A FACT!


You just opened a can of worms. I don't know though because I think Nash is above the Rudy label.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

ralaw said:


> You just opened a can of worms. I don't know though because I think Nash is above the Rudy label.


I really don't give a ****. It's white writers voting for the white guy cause it makes a cool story. I'm disgusted. Yeah, he's been good, but he hasn't even been better than Shawn Marion the whole season, but he's the MVP.

:hurl:


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

HKF said:


> I really don't give a ****. It's white writers voting for the white guy cause it makes a cool story. I'm disgusted. Yeah, he's been good, but he hasn't even been better than Shawn Marion the whole season, but he's the MVP.
> 
> :hurl:


I think thats a hard argument to defend. I can see why you would think that on the surface, but I must say I also believe many people (blacks in particular) are too quick to blame everything on prejudice/racist views, because in my opinion it undermines racism when it really is present. I do believe it is possible for a few voters to have their preferences, but I'm not sure those views dictate their vote for an MVP becuase if they did I am of the belief that they would vote for a white guy regardless if there was or wasn't a candidate.


----------



## naibsel (Dec 21, 2005)

Steez said:


> No no, you see... I am a Kobe fan so I would have loved it if Kobe won obviously. But LeBron James is the one that deserved it this year. Most people would say Oh hes young and is gonna get more chances... Who cares? If your the MVP, your the MVP.
> 
> LeBron James : 31 ppg, 7 apg, 7 rpg, plus a 50 win season... if thats not enough, I dont know what is.
> Kobe Bryant : Led a team of no-namers to the playoffs in the WESTER CONFERENCE, and 7th not 8th which is a big accomplishment. Also, dont forget the 35 ppg and the 81 point game. (Yes that 81 point game is a significant fact for MVP status)
> ...


nice to see some love for lebron from the kobe krew. and i actually didn't just make this post coz its about "MA BOI" lebron. i just had a fat rofl when i looked at your sig.

now the fanclub apparently has his own fan club :biggrin:

nash isn't as talented overall as kobe or lebron but u what exactly do u need a point guard to do besides make the majority of shots he takes. have good decision making - which also leads to racking up assists. its always got to do with the system. scotty pippen is probably on a few ppls top #10 all time players but he never once won an MVP coz he played next to jordan. nash is on a team full of young legs with jumpshots. kobe is on a team of nobodys so he gets to go crazy. lebron is on a team with good role players but not one of them dominates it their area so his overall talents can contribute to team success. 2005 awards MVP, COY, Executive of the Year. 2006 awards MVP MIP and still counting. phoenix has got its **** together better than any other team in the league in terms of what it does without house hold names being the 3rd person off the bench (finley, payton)

nash deserves to win it for back to back year. in the grand scheme of things when ppl look back at the back to back MVP's and see his name they may be a little confused. if they look at his stats these years they will be less confused. and if they understand the context as stated above it is completely reasonable for him to win it.

personally i would have had him tied for 3rd with dirk behind lebron and kobe respectively and either billups or brand in 5th. but this is like COY, theres a few more years until bron really starts cementing himself as a top 5 all time player and when he's playing next to someone (kobe) who will probably also make a few ppls top 10 there are no clear favorites. and when there is no clear favorite you must assess who accomplishes the most in their role on the team. the only weakness nash has is defense in terms of point guard skills but when he orchestrates the top scoring team in the league, a team that is woeful offensively without him. he proves that his offensive skills more than make up for his defense deficiencies


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I think thats a hard argument to defend. I can see why you would think that on the surface, but I must say I also believe many people (blacks in particular) are too quick to blame everything on prejudice/racist views, because in my opinion it undermines racism when it really is present. I do believe it is possible for a few voters to have their preferences, but I'm not sure those views dictate their vote for an MVP becuase if they did I am of the belief that they would vote for a white guy regardless if there was or wasn't a candidate.


I'm watched tons of basketball this season and you'd have a tough time convincing me that Nash was the best player or most valuable in the league.

What is this damn criteria? It's almost like they had it in mind to give it to him from the start. They said Chauncey can't be it, because Nash is better than him on offense, but he's better than Nash on defense by far. 

Dirk's team won 6 more games, with Van Horn hurt, Howard hurt, Harris hurt, Stackhouse missing the first few weeks of the season. So his team had injuries as well. Not to mention he doesn't play with any All-Stars.

Let me get this straight. Nash plays with Marion (an All-NBA player this year) and the MIP in Diaw and he's just willing his team to victory dominating the league.

See when the Suns don't make it to the Finals yet again, I'm going to have to hear about Nash potentially winning 3 MVP's in a row. Give me a ****in break.

I know people are mad the league's hue is so damn dark, but damn, this **** is so blatant, I don't give a **** if people get mad what I'm saying. The **** isn't right. He shouldn't have won. 

Notice I didn't say anything last year, but this year he doesn't deserve it.


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

The MVP is going to be less important with this Nash MVP's
Jordan, Olajwuon, Duncan, O'Neal,and now NAsh and NAsh, it's seems like a joke, but its what this stupid writers want
Otherwise this awards are overrated. I don't care more about this stupid awards.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Here in my opinion is the rationale of why Nash won the award this year:

Nash - played without Stoudemire and had better statistical season and surpassed expectations
Kobe - people just aren't ready to give him an individual award like this and genuinely do not like him
LeBron - too young in people's mind
Billups - hurt by "team concept" philosophy of team
Dirk - people just don't look at him as a MVP calibur player[/QUOTE]

I think you've summed up the situation nicely. I might also add that Brand didn't win because he's not a very "exciting" player and because this is his first year of both performing at such a high level statistically and of leading his team into the playoffs. And Iverson didn't win because too many people don't like his style of play, and his team didn't make the playoffs. And Wade didn't win because he's too young and not quite as versatile as Lebron. 

This is the toughest year I can remember for picking an MVP--which is exciting on the one hand, because there are so many decent cases to be made, but also bound to be frustrating because it highlights just how subjective the process inevitably is. 

I think it's more than just a popularity contest, I'm by no means ready to say that there are racist motivations at work, and I don't think that the people casting the votes that count are generally ignorant about the game. There have just been a number of players performing at a very high level, and none of them are clearly head-and-shoulders above the others given the variety of criteria that come into play (e.g., team performance, statistical domination, charisma and media appeal, duration of peak performance, performance against other superstars, clutch play, affect on teammates' performance...). 

In my opinion, all the guys ralaw lists above, plus Brand, Iverson and Wade, had the best seasons of their career this year. Just about any of them could have justifiably won MVP last year. 

Now that the regular season is finished, I think I have to rank them this way:

1) Lebron James. If he deserves it, he deserves it, and I don't care if he's 21 or 210. And I think he deserves it, and I think the case will be even clearer next year.

2) Kobe Bryant. Behind by a hair. More dominating still than James, and he probably had to be the ballhog he was this year given the lack of firepower among his teammates other than Odom. But he's not really an effective, consistent leader yet, and an MVP needs to be.

3) Steve Nash. His impact on the game goes far beyond his stats. The Suns were awful this year without him, and could compete with anyone with him. Has a Kidd-like effect on the performance and attitude of his teammates, without going into sulks the way Kidd does. Plus he's a far better shooter than Jason ever was or will be. Too bad he's not a better on-the-ball defender, and didn't really "peak" until pretty late in his career. (Those last two considerations, by the way, are what keep me from considering him to be on a Hall of Fame track at this point.)

4) Dirk Nowitzki and Elton Brand: I put these guys on roughly the same level based on this season's performance. Very different games. Nowitzki isn't quite versatile enough, nor Brand generally dominant enough in any one area, for either of them to really be MVP-worthy yet. Nowitzki is the closer of the two, but I'd want to see him excel in at least one additional dimension of the game--e.g., emerge as a consistent double digit rebounder, become more of a force on defense, or evolve into a better playmaker (a la Gasol).


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

HKF said:


> I know people are mad the league's hue is so damn dark, but damn, this **** is so blatant, I don't give a **** if people get mad what I'm saying. The **** isn't right. He shouldn't have won.
> 
> Notice I didn't say anything last year, but this year he doesn't deserve it.


In my opinion Nash was more deserving of the award this year over last. Using your logic last year he played with 2 All-NBA players in Marion and Stoudemire and a rising star in Joe Johnson, so why is he less deserving this year having played with one in Marion? I agree with you the criteria is somewhat shaddy, but it has always been like this, the only difference is the all-time great players were playing on the top teams in the league hence the voting criteria. I still don't see the racial issue behind it other than the fact that Nash is white and won the award and your beliefs are more of a reactory viewpoint over a factual.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I think thats a hard argument to defend.


I don't think it's a hard argument to defend. You have to look at racism as a *possibility* whenever what's on the table is being ignored and hidden factors are at play. Nash is well behind other candidates statistically and is the worst defender of all candidates. Team success is a factor usually, but was it this time? The last MVP to be on a team that won less than 56 games was Michael Jordan in 1988. 

Obviously, Steve Nash had something _else_ going for him. Some kind of buzz outside of what other candidates had considered for them. I'm not saying it's being white, but it could be, and in a situation like this it needs to be considered. This isn't Larry Bird winning the MVP, this is Steve Nash. 

Multiple MVP's puts Steve Nash in the conversation for top 10 players of all-time. Only 10 players in history have done that.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

ralaw said:


> In my opinion Nash was more deserving of the award this year over last. Using your logic last year he played with 2 All-NBA players in Marion and Stoudemire and a rising star in Joe Johnson, so why is he less deserving this year having played with one in Marion? I agree with you the criteria is somewhat shaddy, but it has always been like this, the only difference is the all-time great players were playing on the top teams in the league hence the voting criteria. I still don't see the racial issue behind it other than the fact that Nash is white and won the award and your beliefs are more of a reactory viewpoint over a factual.


This is easily answered by saying Phoenix won the most games in the NBA a year ago and the NBA rewarded him for spearheading the best team after they didn't make the playoffs. 

This year Dirk spearheaded a team that won more games and had more injuries as well.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Mike luvs KG said:


> I was just looking at some old stats:
> 
> With the Pistons this year, there are now 14 teams in NBA history to win 64+ regular season games. 12 of those teams had a player win the MVP award. In the two cases a player from a 64+ win team didn't win the MVP, it was because it went to a player on another 64+ win team (Malone and Jordan in 97, Jordan and Payton in 96).
> 
> ...


this is part of what annoys me the most about this selection. i posed the question before, noone answered, but i'll pose it again - dirk was better statistically, had a worse 2nd star, arguably worse starting lineup, better defensively, played more minutes, more feared, and his team won 6 more games. chauncey equal statistically, much better defensively, and his team won 10 more games. that's guys whose teams won more games. you could probably add duncan as well (parker is like his marion), at least as a player on a better team who's invaluable to his teams success. then you go to teams with worse records, and you have kobe and lebron who had unique seasons and are the dominant players. the only argument you have left for nash is they (the suns) played better than they were expected to. big deal.

i heard stephen a smith saying he voted for nash because they lost amare, johnson and q (doesn't mention they added diaw or bell or thomas), and that he was the defending mvp, and you need to unseat the defending mvp! i know that's one moron's opinion, but the arguments are less rational and more emotional for nash. and again, in large part due to the lower opinion of nash in the first place. 

take kobe or lebron, put them with marion, significantly downsize their stats, and have them win 54 games, and they don't win mvp.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't think it's a hard argument to defend. You have to look at racism as a *possibility* whenever what's on the table is being ignored and hidden factors are at play. Nash is well behind other candidates statistically and is the worst defender of all candidates. Team success is a factor usually, but was it this time? The last MVP to be on a team that won less than 56 games was Michael Jordan in 1988.
> 
> Obviously, Steve Nash had something _else_ going for him. Some kind of buzz outside of what other candidates had considered for them. I'm not saying it's being white, but it could be, and in a situation like this it needs to be considered. This isn't Larry Bird winning the MVP, this is Steve Nash.
> 
> Multiple MVP's puts Steve Nash in the conversation for top 10 players of all-time. Only 10 players in history have done that.


If there is a nefarious "something else" Steve has going for him, my strong personal opinion is that it's style of play, not complexion. Same reason why Billups is sometimes mentioned as a candidate this year, despite shooting 40%. Beyond the best-player-on-the-best-team thing, I think many people are championing Billups because he is team-oriented, is humble with the media, teammates love him, and he plays a straightforward and non-flashy game. 

In an era when sportswriters, coaches, GMs, broadcasters, and a vocal minority of fans express disgust with the me-first attitudes and affectations of guys like Sprewell, Kobe, etc., players like Nash, Billups, and Duncan are going to have an edge in the establishment voting. They present a good public face, are role models, rely on fundamentals, seem humble, appear to make their teammates better...and so forth. These are the guys that are low on tattoos, bling-bling, fines, flagrant fouls, tantrums, lawsuits, and controversial quotes. 

Can there be an element of racism in that dynamic? Maybe...sometimes, for some individuals, most of whom are probably stupid or careless rather than hateful or truly ignorant. But, in my own limited wisdom, I think it's a small part at best of what goes into MVP voting. 

Out of curiosity, HKF and Sir Patchwork, would you sound the same alarm bell if Nowitzki were to win?


----------



## Morongk22 (Jan 11, 2006)

WTChan said:


> It was a toss-up for me. But Nash deserves it just as much as Kobe. If anything, I'd say Nash is more important to the Suns than Kobe is to the Lakers. Without Kobe, Odom will take shots. Without Nash, the Suns are nothing.


I don't agree with this without Kobe the Lakers would have only won 30-35 games, maybe less, same with Cleveland if they didnt have LBJ. Odom wouldnt pik up that the 20 less PPG that he scores than Kobe. The Lakers would have been awful. I believe that any mid-tier PG could have been put into Nash's place and they would have won the same amount of games. Giving Nash the MVP would be the same as giving the award to a Piston, they are both products of a good system. 

On the whole white issue. I think that if Nash were black he wouldnt have won back to back MVP awards. It could very easily be that he is getting more credit becuase he is white.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't share HKF's opinions about race playing a factor. I think it plays a factor is a more innocuous way (not KKK-ish) but I still think it plays a factor. That being said, lets ignore race for a second. The reason why voters are putting Nash ahead of Kobe and Lebron is because he led his team to more wins, right? Obviously, both Kobe and Lebron are better players on both ends of the court so you can't use that reason. Why is Nash getting more votes than Billups and Dirk? They are clearly the best players on their respective teams and both teams have had better seasons than the Suns have (much better in Detroit's case). Voters will play the "Nash has less talent to work with" card (even though Dirk's team isn't much better than Nash's). I'm just wondering what these voters will have to say for themselves when Nash's team once again falls short of the Finals. As much as they like to put Nash above every superstar in the league, what go is a superstar that can't lead his team to the Finals. Granted, they'll be playing teams that are better than they are but that is precisely why I think they should give the award to either Kobe or Lebron. Both guys have gotten mediocre rosters to overachieve this season. Neither guy has nearly as much talent to work with as Nash has. When Nash loses in the WCF (or before that), the media will say that the opposing team won because they have more talent. If they want to be consistent, they'll acknowledge that the only reason why Nash is the MVP is because he has more talent on his team than either Kobe or Lebron.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Ummm... I thought Dirk should have WON!


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't think it's a hard argument to defend. You have to look at racism as a *possibility* whenever what's on the table is being ignored and hidden factors are at play. Nash is well behind other candidates statistically and is the worst defender of all candidates. Team success is a factor usually, but was it this time? The last MVP to be on a team that won less than 56 games was Michael Jordan in 1988.
> 
> Obviously, Steve Nash had something _else_ going for him. Some kind of buzz outside of what other candidates had considered for them. I'm not saying it's being white, but it could be, and in a situation like this it needs to be considered. This isn't Larry Bird winning the MVP, this is Steve Nash.
> 
> Multiple MVP's puts Steve Nash in the conversation for top 10 players of all-time. Only 10 players in history have done that.


It still is based on speculation and can't be proven. I will tell you what Nash has going for him........it is the media riding him the entire season and already forming their opinion when they saw the amount of wins the Suns had in comparison to what everyone predicted when Stoudemire went down. The fact is Kobe, Dirk LeBron and Billups had great statistical season, but they nor their teams did anything from what people already expected. Kobe scoring 81 is a great individual accomplishment on the same level as Scott Skiles having 30 assist in a game, but when it comes to an MVP it is irrelevant! Nash won this award based off of what people had already been geared towards believing the entire season plus what I already posted.

*Nash* - played without Stoudemire and had better statistical season and surpassed expectations
*Kobe * - people just aren't ready to give him an individual award like this and genuinely do not like him
*LeBron* - too young in people's mind
*Billups* - hurt by "team concept" philosophy of team
*Dirk* - people just don't look at him as a MVP calibur player
*Brand* - as jericho already stated, Brand is considered a "new" when it comes to playing at this level

I am not saying their isn't a racial touch to this, but I have become tired of blacks and some others being so quick to point to racism in situations like this. As I already said, if a voter is that racist to vote for Nash because he is white, that same person would vote for a white guy 10/10 times even if they weren't a candidate. I guarantee if someone voted like this they would be noticed and relieved of thier duties.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

When was the last time an MVP winner didn't make it out of the first round?

Thats what would of happened to Kobe. 

I hope people don't start disliking Nash because the accolades that hes recieved.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

HKF said:


> Ummm... I thought Dirk should have WON!


That seems to mute the cry of racism, then. Nash isn't any whiter than Nowitzki, is he? Whether U.S. sportswriters have reservations, subconscious or otherwise, about giving the award to a non-U.S. citizen is, I think, an entirely different and real can of worms.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

jericho said:


> Out of curiosity, HKF and Sir Patchwork, would you sound the same alarm bell if Nowitzki were to win?


No. He was top 3 statistically leading a top 3 team this year. If you look at the top 5 teams, Dirk is the only one leading a top 5 team without another all-star next to him. You have 4 all-stars on the Pistons, Duncan/Parker, Nash/Marion, Shaq/Wade. Who did Dirk have? 

If anything, Dirk was the clear winner this year when you look at team success and individual accomplishments combined. If he didn't win this year, he won't ever win.


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

FOr this same criteria, John Stockton should have won 4 MVPs


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I don't get how Dirk isn't MVP caliber. That just doesn't make any sense. Mark Cuban is right. The NBA doesn't like the Mavs.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

jericho said:


> Out of curiosity, HKF and Sir Patchwork, would you sound the same alarm bell if Nowitzki were to win?


You can add me to that group but no I wouldn't. I consider Dirk to be one of the top 5 players in the league. I don't consider Nash a top five player. Dirk is not a very good defender but Nash isn't even average. Dirk is better statistically. He led his team to more wins. He doesn't play with better players, either. I just don't see a reason to hold Nash above Dirk. The people that like to point out that Nash's team had the best offense this season also like to ignore the fact that Nash's team had the 3rd wrost defense in the league. Nash may be the best offensive player on his team but he's also the wrost defender on his team, by far. His team's inability to prevent other teams from acoring will be why they won't make a trip to the Finals for the second year in a row. Dirk, on the other hand, leads a much better defensive team and they haven't sacrificed their ability to score at all. Their defensive prowess is why they are being viewed as a legit championship contender.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

jericho said:


> That seems to mute the cry of racism, then. Nash isn't any whiter than Nowitzki, is he? Whether U.S. sportswriters have reservations, subconscious or otherwise, about giving the award to a non-U.S. citizen is, I think, an entirely different and real can of worms.


Cause he's a little "scrawny" looking white guy who we all can relate to while sitting in press row. This is why.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> No. He was top 3 statistically leading a top 3 team this year. If you look at the top 5 teams, Dirk is the only one leading a top 5 team without another all-star next to him. You have 4 all-stars on the Pistons, Duncan/Parker, Nash/Marion, Shaq/Wade. Who did Dirk have?
> 
> If anything, Dirk was the clear winner this year when you look at team success and individual accomplishments combined. If he didn't win this year, he won't ever win.


and, the biggest knock against him, his defense, is actually an advantage in comparison to nash.

this vote leaves a bad taste in my mouth. many voters are clueless hacks.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

ralaw said:


> In my opinion Nash was more deserving of the award this year over last. Using your logic last year he played with 2 All-NBA players in Marion and Stoudemire and a rising star in Joe Johnson, so why is he less deserving this year having played with one in Marion? I agree with you the criteria is somewhat shaddy, but it has always been like this, the only difference is the all-time great players were playing on the top teams in the league hence the voting criteria. I still don't see the racial issue behind it other than the fact that Nash is white and won the award and your beliefs are more of a reactory viewpoint over a factual.


Nash deserved it more last year. Last year, The Suns had the best starting five in the NBA but had the worst bench ever. Nash literally carried a team of only five players (that callapes in Nash's absence) to the best record in the West! 
This year the MVP goes to Mike D'antoni and the Suns GM. They rebuilt the team specificly on fixing the problems of last year. The Suns brought in House, Jones, T. Thomas, and Bell who all had a history of shooting so intergating them into the Suns style was rediculously easy. Then they added K. Thomas and Grant for defense. Barbosa came into his own and Diaw just needed a posistion change. As you can see the Suns had enormous depth in scoring. If Nash was tired they'd send in Barbosa. If they need extra scoring they send in House. All of these players are having career season becuase they are in a system that incourages them to do what they do best: shoot. As strange at it may sound, Nash had too much help this season because many times I saw Nash go to the bench for extended periods and the Suns will still blow teams out (which does not happen for other MVP's like Dirk, Kobe, LeBron ect.). What kept the Suns from getting a better record (and also Nash's flaw) is that when Grant and Kurt got injured the Suns D was just unwatchable and the Suns sputtered down the season. I know It's a weak argument but it's also interesting to know that out of the top seven MVP's, Nash has the worst defense by far!!!


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

SunsFan57 said:


> When was the last time an MVP winner didn't make it out of the first round?
> 
> Thats what would of happened to Kobe.
> 
> I hope people don't start disliking Nash because the accolades that hes recieved.


Don't get too cocky there. The Suns barely won game 1 and they got an All World performance out of Tim Thomas. Meanwhile, Kobe did next to nothing in the scoring department because he was too passive. Those two things probably won't happen again.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

pretty much everyone mentioned for MVP could've won....you could make good arguments for each one....


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the little white guy angle, imo, just aids in the lowered expectations for nash and therefore the suns. allowing nash and the suns to leap over those expectations.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Nash might have been picked because the way the Suns splashed onto the surface in 04/05 with high-octane, shoot at will offense that took the league by storm.
People find a uniqueness about him then any other player in the league. The will to pass, and the passes him makes as well as leading a team to two back-to-back division titles in Phoenix Suns franchise history. Take as you want. Nash was the MVP of this year. 


People want to look at as "Oh, hes up there with Magic! That can't be!"
No, hes not up there with Magic. You cannot compare a player with accolades, but more so of how talented they were. Nash won it last year with an easy MVP class, which lead to the league voting for him again this year, because he had already broken the mold of what an MVP is, and can be.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> *Nash* - played without Stoudemire and had better statistical season and surpassed expectations
> *Kobe * - people just aren't ready to give him an individual award like this and genuinely do not like him
> *LeBron* - too young in people's mind
> *Billups* - hurt by "team concept" philosophy of team
> ...


This is exactly what me, HKF and Pinball are talking about. Look at the bias of these reasons. Nash is the only one up there who isn't looked at negatively, despite having the biggest flaws in his argument. 

Kobe can't get the award, I don't like him. 
LeBron had the best season, but he is too young. 
Billups was the best player on the best team, but he has good teammates. 
Dirk has the best overall resume, but I don't feel like giving him the MVP. 
Brand is great, but he is boring. 

Knocking down better players in ways like that, to give the award to Nash, just makes it more suspect.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Pinball said:


> Don't get too cocky there. The Suns barely won game 1 and they got an All World performance out of Tim Thomas. Meanwhile, Kobe did next to nothing in the scoring department because he was too passive. Those two things probably won't happen again.



Suns will win the series wether its in 7 or 4. 

But I don't want to hijack the thread.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

If a player is going to win two straight MVP's he'd better win achampionship. It's a shame that the Suns will get creamed by the Clippers or the Spurs. of course their is a good chance that the Suns don't even get out of the first round!!!

The MVP should have went to Dirk. Then a Kobe and LeBron tie for second, and then Nash at third.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Pinball said:


> You can add me to that group but no I wouldn't. I consider Dirk to be one of the top 5 players in the league. I don't consider Nash a top five player. Dirk is not a very good defender but Nash isn't even average. Dirk is better statistically. He led his team to more wins. He doesn't play with better players, either. I just don't see a reason to hold Nash above Dirk. The people that like to point out that Nash's team had the best offense this season also like to ignore the fact that Nash's team had the 3rd wrost defense in the league. Nash may be the best offensive player on his team but he's also the wrost defender on his team, by far. His team's inability to prevent other teams from acoring will be why they won't make a trip to the Finals for the second year in a row. Dirk, on the other hand, leads a much better defensive team and they haven't sacrificed their ability to score at all. Their defensive prowess is why they are being viewed as a legit championship contender.


i believe Dirk is a top 5 PF, but in my opinion he is given too much credit for the MAVS new found interest in defense. Dirk is nothimg more than the superstar player on a team who has a coach who preaches defense. Dirk just bought into Johnson's style of coaching. In other words Dirk is less of the catalyst and more of the beneficiary.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

HKF said:


> Cause he's a little "scrawny" looking white guy who we all can relate to while sitting in press row. This is why.


I like Nash. I really do. He's not the least bit self-centered from what I've seen. He seems like a really down to Earth kind of guy. I just hate how people in the media have suddenly propelled him into the same class as guys like Zeke, Stockton, and Magic. They've given him some ammunition too by giving him 2 MVPs. Two years ago no one was even talking about Nash as a top 3 PG in this league. Nash was widely considered to be the worst player of the "big 3" on Dallas. Now, he's suddenly on Magic and Stockton's level because he's playing in an offense that suits his style of play perfectly. Ridiculous. He's still going to be watching the Finals on TV like the rest of us come June.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Pinball said:


> I like Nash. I really do. He's not the least bit self-centered from what I've seen. He seems like a really down to Earth kind of guy. I just hate how people in the media have suddenly propelled him into the same class as guys like Zeke, Stockton, and Magic. They've given him some ammunition too by giving him 2 MVPs. Two years ago no one was even talking about Nash as a top 3 PG in this league. Nash was widely considered to be the worst player of the "big 3" on Dallas. Now, he's suddenly on Magic and Stockton's level because he's playing in an offense that suits his style of play perfectly. Ridiculous. *He's still going to be watching the Finals on TV like the rest of us come June.*


As well as Dirk, LeBron and Kobe.

Whats your point?


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

yeah, he is a very good player but not an MVP.
The MVP is reserved for the superstars on the best team, and he is not a superstar and he is not on the best team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Suns better win a title this year. A back to back MVP, a top 15 player, a top 40 player and a bunch of good roleplayers is the recipe for a title winner in almost any year.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

i like nash, he had a good season, congrats to him again....

with all that said, I still say either Dirk or Lebron deserved it more....

Dirk had an amazing season, including the fact that he improved in his weakest area-defense...he's not an amazing defender, not a good defender, but he's improved in that area, along with rebounding.... its a shame that people don't look at him as a leader, he does as much leading as does nash...

Lebron, well what else can you say about lebron? The "he's too young" argument is ridiculous, so he's old enough to play in the nba, win allstar mvp, but not regular season mvp? Lebron put the cavs on his back when hughes went down and took them to the playoffs, somewhere they haven't been in 8 years, he took a 19 win team to within a game of the playoffs his rookie season... he's done it all, and this year he's done more...

but anyways congrats to nash


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

This award is going to be the 1995 all over again (Hakeem over Robinson). 

Nash is considered an overachiever, while everyone else is just doing what they should do. I don't think Dirk, Kobe or Lebron should win because this is what they're expected to do. 

Little Stevie is playing way over his head. :nonono:


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is exactly what me, HKF and Pinball are talking about. Look at the bias of these reasons. Nash is the only one up there who isn't looked at negatively, despite having the biggest flaws in his argument.
> 
> Kobe can't get the award, I don't like him.
> LeBron had the best season, but he is too young.
> ...


No it's called having a belief and using the process of elimination we all do it (you are doing it now arguing against Nash). In all of these cases the player could have came out on top, but this is why you have a collective vote.



Sir Patchwork said:


> Suns better win a title this year. A back to back MVP, a top 15 player, a top 40 player and a bunch of good roleplayers is the recipe for a title winner in almost any year.


The only reason you are using this argument is so when he doesn't win the championship you have something to validate you beliefs. The fact is none of the finalist outside of maybe Billups will win a championship this year and the MVP is based off of the regular season, this is what the Finals MVP is for.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

SunsFan57 said:


> As well as Dirk, LeBron and Kobe.
> 
> Whats your point?


Well, I'm not sure about Dirk. I think his team has a legit chance to make the Finals. However, my point is that Nash is being held above Kobe and lebron because of team success. What better measure of team success is there than championships? Nash will not sniff a championship, even in his wettest dream. Dirk has a great chance and Chauncey's team is a near lock to make the Finals. If you are going to give it to Nash over Kobe and Lebron because his team was better, go a step further and give it to Dirk or Billups because their teams were even better. It just seems like they (NBA voters) are setting up the criteria in such a way that only Nash can win. 

NBA voters:
"Team success matters (Suns have more wins than LA and Cleveland) but only to a point (Pistons and Mavs don't count). Supporting cast matters in some cases (Detroit has better players) but we'll ignore it in others (LA and Cleveland have worse players). Individual stats don't matter at all, only team stats. However, despite the adage that we like to throw around about defense winning championships, we;ll ignore the fact that our candidate is the leader of a horrendous defensive team and just focus on how well he does on offense."

That's the bull**** that I'm talking about.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

The Suns were top 5 in defense for a part of the season. Until, Kurt went down.

Kind of hard to be a good defensive team when you have Tim anchoring the paint.

But I understand what you're saying.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Pinball said:


> Well, I'm not sure about Dirk. I think his team has a legit chance to make the Finals. However, my point is that Nash is being held above Kobe and lebron because of team success. What better measure of team success is there than championships? Nash will not sniff a championship, even in his wettest dream. Dirk has a great chance and Chauncey's team is a near lock to make the Finals. If you are going to give it to Nash over Kobe and Lebron because his team was better, go a step further and give it to Dirk or Billups because their teams were even better. It just seems like they (NBA voters) are setting up the criteria in such a way that only Nash can win.
> 
> NBA voters:
> "Team success matters (Suns have more wins than LA and Cleveland) but only to a point (Pistons and Mavs don't count). Supporting cast matters in some cases (Detroit has better players) but we'll ignore it in others (LA and Cleveland have worse players). Individual stats don't matter at all, only team stats. However, despite the adage that we like to throw around about defense winning championships, we;ll ignore the fact that our candidate is the leader of a horrendous defensive team and just focus on how well he does on offense."
> ...


You are selectively forgetting about the Suns missing Stoudemire (and the image that puts out) and people's expectations of the team when he went down.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> No it's called having a belief and using the process of elimination we all do it (you are doing it now arguing against Nash). In all of these cases the player could have came out on top, but this is why you have a collective vote.


Process of elimination is not good to use for MVP. You shouldn't win the award by default. You shouldn't have to justify why 5 other guys shouldn't win it, just to give it to someone else. The MVP should have the best argument, and with all the arguments presented without any bias, Nash isn't even top 3. 



ralaw said:


> The only reason you are using this argument is so when he doesn't win the championship you have something to validate you beliefs. The fact is none of the finalist outside of maybe Billups will win a championship this year and the MVP is based off of the regular season, this is what the Finals MVP is for.


My beliefs are validated. I know the Suns are going to win anything, even though like I said, an MVP alongside a top 15 player, alongside a top 40 player and a few good roleplayers is good enough to win a title in almost any year. This year included. 

Let's use Kobe Bryant as an example. 

He has Lamar Odom, who is thought to be worse than Boris Diaw on this site. Shawn Marion, is thought to be a top 15 player, with the likes of a Pau Gasol. Same calibur. Of course, I'm sure Marion and Diaw will now get downplayed for the sake of boosting Nash, even though people have been talking about how great they are the whole year. 

So if you added Pau Gasol to the Lakers, they would be Spurs-Pistons level. At the worst, they would be a 54 win team, at worst. This goes back to kflo's point, that Nash not being seen as an MVP caliber player actually works in his favor, because the team exceeds expectations that way. If Kobe-Gasol-Odom were together, they would be expected to win 60 games. And as we all know, actual results aren't as important as how much you exceed expectations.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Process of elimination is not good to use for MVP. You shouldn't win the award by default. You shouldn't have to justify why 5 other guys shouldn't win it, just to give it to someone else. The MVP should have the best argument, and with all the arguments presented without any bias, Nash isn't even top 3.


I guarantee every single year the MVP vote has been in existence people have used the process of elimination. When you compare an accomplishment over another you are using that very process. I personally have a problem with how the rationale behind the voting process, but I have no problems with Nash winning it. A solid case could be made for any of the candidates.



Sir Patchwork said:


> My beliefs are validated. I know the Suns are going to win anything, even though like I said, an MVP alongside a top 15 player, alongside a top 40 player and a few good roleplayers is good enough to win a title in almost any year. This year included.
> 
> Let's use Kobe Bryant as an example.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to get into specualtion of Kobe playing with Gasol and Odom. Its a matter of perception and how you value and define most oustanding player vs. most valuable player.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I guarantee every single year the MVP vote has been in existence people have used the process of elimination. When you compare an accomplishment over another you are using that very process. I personally have a problem with how the rationale behind the voting process, but I have no problems with Nash winning it. A solid case could be made for any of the candidates.


Looking at the top three candidates and how you "eliminated" them, it's suspect. Kobe doesn't win because voters don't like him, Dirk doesn't win because he isn't seen as an MVP caliber player (but Nash is?), and LeBron doesn't win because he is too young. 

When those are the reasons those guys aren't winning, you can't help but wonder if there is an agenda at work. I don't see how you can disagree with that, given your reasons for Kobe, LeBron and Dirk not winning.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Too much bias going on as Patches just indicated.

I happen to think Nash is a fabulous player and I enjoy watching the Suns play because of it, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call a spade a spade. In the grand scheme of things does this really matter? No of course not, but when Nash wins again next year (which I'm sure he will, cause the team will be better), we'll have to look at Nash in the same category as Michael Jordan.

Just think about that for a moment. This guy is good, but he aint that good.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Looking at the top three candidates and how you "eliminated" them, it's suspect. Kobe doesn't win because voters don't like him, Dirk doesn't win because he isn't seen as an MVP caliber player (but Nash is?), and LeBron doesn't win because he is too young.
> 
> When those are the reasons those guys aren't winning, you can't help but wonder if there is an agenda at work. I don't see how you can disagree with that, given your reasons for Kobe, LeBron and Dirk not winning.


I believe there is an agenda; however, my beliefs aren't based on race as you and HFK are attempting to claim. My beliefs are that Nash won the award because in people's mind he has done the most with what he had to work with. Do I agree with that? No, but most likely in the voters mind this is how Nash has been portayed. If you look back at my post in different threads and I believe my second or third post in this thread you would see my choice is LeBron James, but I also have no problem with Nash winning it considering the the standards of "yesterdays" NBA are still in place.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> Time to take away the media's voting privelages. Give the MVP voting to the coaches.
> 
> These guys vote for Nash because they see the success the Suns are having and they can't explain it. They see the subtraction of Amare, all the new guys, and they say "Wow, I have no idea what is going on.... Steve Nash must just make everybody better!" And they leave it at that.
> 
> What they don't see is the floor spacing, they don't see the brilliantly crafted offense, they don't see WHY the stuff that is happening is happening. In short, they don't see Mike D'Antoni. How can Nash MVP and D'Antoni not win COY? And don't say "Steve Nash IS Mike D'Antoni's offense" because that couldn't be further from the truth.



The voters HAVE recognized what D'Antoni has done... in fact they awarded him Coach of the Year last season and he finished second in the voting this year. Obviously you want to claim you cannot possibly have a great coach and an MVP on the same team...


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

He won the MVP last year, and is even better this year. He's lead the Suns without Amare to a 50+ win season when everyone thought we would suck.

Nash = MVP.

Stop hating.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This is exactly what me, HKF and Pinball are talking about. Look at the bias of these reasons. Nash is the only one up there who isn't looked at negatively, despite having the biggest flaws in his argument.
> 
> Kobe can't get the award, I don't like him.
> LeBron had the best season, but he is too young.
> ...


I think what ralaw is saying, and certainly what I've been saying, is that there are 5-7 decent candidates this year that have arguments in their favor and marks against them. ralaw's analysis was just tracking the justifications that might be used in moving Nash to the top of the list. But of course there are reasons why Nash shouldn't win it, and why any of the others should. Note that I wouldn't give the award to Stevie N. this year (as if it were in my power to do so), and I'm a bit surprised that he's rumored to be the winner. But I understand the arguments in his favor. He had arguably his best year (improving on his own MVP performance), he helped a decent team overachieve in the absence of one of the league's most potent offensive weapons, and he was the biggest difference-maker on one of the league's best teams. And yes, I'd still give the award to Lebron James.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why does everyone want to be politically correct? I believe this because this is what I'm presented with. Not this cookie cutter world where race doesn't play a factor. 

I live in the United States of America (a country built on racism and backwards *** thinking).


----------



## kg_mvp03-04 (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought Kobe or Lebron should have won, at first but now i realize that Dirk Nowitzki is the real mvp. Dirk should be the MVP because look at his teams success without a second all-star option. Marion is better than everyone on the Mavs roster except for Dirk, I would also take Diaw above everyone except for maybe Josh Howard. His team has 6 more wins than the Suns with a worse team on paper. Dirk has much better numbers than Nash other than assists but that is not really dirks job. 

I have no idea why the writers do not like Nowitzki, i never heard of him being a candiddate for MVP this yeaar even with how well there team is doing. THe mvp criteria is screwed up, remember 2002 when Kidd did the same thing that Nash did last year but did not get the award because of the Spurs winning more games. This year Dirk has more wins but is not the MVP. I think the media just loves Steve Nash for some reason, they have there biases and Kobe will never win the Award cause no one in the media likes him. I have no idea why no one wants to give the award to lebron or nowitzki.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

HKF said:


> Too much bias going on as Patches just indicated.
> 
> I happen to think Nash is a fabulous player and I enjoy watching the Suns play because of it, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call a spade a spade. In the grand scheme of things does this really matter? No of course not, but when Nash wins again next year (which I'm sure he will, cause the team will be better), we'll have to look at Nash in the same category as Michael Jordan.
> 
> Just think about that for a moment. This guy is good, but he aint that good.


Okay, I hope you're exaggerating out of exasperation. I love Nash's game, and I'm happy to see him win MVP once, but not so much twice, and after three times you'd have me on your conspiracy/prejudice bandwagon. He's more deserving of the award this year than last, but I happen to think 2-3 guys are even more deserving, as I've stated. Of this year's serious candidates, at least Lebron figures to be even better next year, and if Stoudemire can return to anything like full form he'll take even more votes away from Nash.

Nash is very good, in my book, but not 3-time MVP great. I think he'll be looked back on as one of the least formidable MVP winners in league history. 

And isn't there always bias at work in making these subjective judgments, whether you're a sportswriter hack or an internet board hack? I can think of other instances of weird biases or values coming into play that resulted in the award going to someone other than the consensus best player. The first year Karl Malone won it, no one really thought he was better, more talented, more dominant, or more valuable than Michael Jordan, who was still active and went on to lead his team to a championship that year. It was pretty clear that voters were sick of giving the award to Jordan, wanted to pick a moment to give an "honorary lifetime achievement award" to Malone, and had no idea that MJ would temporarily hang up his sneakers nor that Malone would play 400 more years. Was Karl the "Most Valuable Player" of that season? Probably not, in the opinion of most hacks of any description. But he got the hardware nonetheless. 

Call it bias if you want...I call it human subjectivity at play in the absence of clear and consistent criteria.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ralaw said:


> I believe there is an agenda; however, my beliefs aren't based on race as you and HFK are attempting to claim.


I never said it was based on race, I said it should be looked at. The only thing worse than paranoid black folks who jump on any opportunity to claim racism, is folks who don't even want to consider that race could have played a role in something. Not saying you fall into the category, but a lot of people would just throw the idea completely out the window because they're afraid of it. In a situation where a clearly inferior white candidate is winning over two black players who are widely considered the two best players in the league and it's not even close, I can't just look away from the possibility that race played a role.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

HKF said:


> Why does everyone want to be politically correct? I believe this because this is what I'm presented with. Not this cookie cutter world where race doesn't play a factor.
> 
> I live in the United States of America (a country built on racism and backwards *** thinking).


I'm honestly not trying to be politically correct, and I certainly hope I haven't lost sight of the prejudices, intended and otherwise, that are very much alive in the world of sports and most every other part of our society. But I just don't think you're substantiating the race factor in this case. If the media is set on giving the award to a white guy, then why not, as you say, give it to Dirk? Because he's not American? Neither is Nash. I really think the bias at work has more to do with style of play, and affect on and off the court. Not that Dirk is a bad***...just that Nash is more of an "ordinary guy" who exemplifies selfless play. And again, in terms of this year, I think that's given Billups a boost in the considerations as well. I don't think either players would be as high in the running as they've been if they were covered in tattoos, went nowhere without a raucous posse, were constantly sparring with team and league officials in the press, talked trash about opponents to the press, and postured up and down the court. The NBA in general, and several teams in particular, have been on a long journey to polish the public image and maintain widespread marketability.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

I can't believe people so easily throw the race card. It's crap and you all know it. Since 1977 24 of the 28 MVP winners have been black. Do you really think a group of racially motivated voters would award 85% of the MVP's to those of other color (oh and as a side note there are plenty of black voters as well.. many of whome probably voted for Nash.. because of coarse Nash is white)?

I could actually make the arguement that there has been a racial motivation to NOT award the MVP to white players. The fact that John Stockton recieved so little MVP consideration is a travesty. Just because the voters made the mistake of not recognizing Stockton's amazing accomplishments does not mean they should just continue and not recognize Nash. 

The voting had NOTHING to do with race. Nash deserved to win plain and simple.


----------



## matt! (Feb 21, 2005)

They should go back to letting the players choose MVP, because the sportswriters really don't know anything.


----------



## belgian (Feb 21, 2004)

I don't get it, why would race factor in? 
The player who got robbed was obviously Dirk Nowitzki as a team barely making the playoffs can't deliver a MVP in any case.

So race had nothing to do with it unless you think Dirk is a black guy


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

tempe85 said:


> I can't believe people so easily throw the race card. It's crap and you all know it. Since 1977 24 of the 28 MVP winners have been black. Do you really think a group of racially motivated voters would award 85% of the MVP's to those of other color (oh and as a side note there are plenty of black voters as well.. many of whome probably voted for Nash.. because of coarse Nash is white)?
> 
> I could actually make the arguement that there has been a racial motivation to NOT award the MVP to white players. The fact that John Stockton recieved so little MVP consideration is a travesty. Just because the voters made the mistake of not recognizing Stockton's amazing accomplishments does not mean they should just continue and not recognize Nash.
> 
> The voting had NOTHING to do with race. Nash deserved to win plain and simple.


Which furthers my point. A guy like Stockton (who was better than Nash) received no love, while Nash is getting all this love from the media.

Like I said, when Nash wins his 3rd MVP in a row next year, then you'll all learn. Steve Nash is the little white guy who we think all of a sudden became an NBA HOF-type player, but he's still just overachieving, while guys like Dirk, Kobe and Lebron should have the numbers they have. 

The voting has everything to do with race and you can become an Ostrich if you like, but I'm not going to do that. 

Dirk is German. He aint "white." Nash may be Canadian, but he's white to voters (and he looks like a guy who shouldn't be as good as he is, so they reward him). It's crap.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Pinball said:


> I'd be lying if I said that I didn't share HKF's opinions about race playing a factor. I think it plays a factor is a more innocuous way (not KKK-ish) but I still think it plays a factor. That being said, lets ignore race for a second. The reason why voters are putting Nash ahead of Kobe and Lebron is because he led his team to more wins, right? Obviously, both Kobe and Lebron are better players on both ends of the court so you can't use that reason. Why is Nash getting more votes than Billups and Dirk? They are clearly the best players on their respective teams and both teams have had better seasons than the Suns have (much better in Detroit's case). Voters will play the "Nash has less talent to work with" card (even though Dirk's team isn't much better than Nash's). I'm just wondering what these voters will have to say for themselves when Nash's team once again falls short of the Finals. As much as they like to put Nash above every superstar in the league, what go is a superstar that can't lead his team to the Finals. Granted, they'll be playing teams that are better than they are but that is precisely why I think they should give the award to either Kobe or Lebron. Both guys have gotten mediocre rosters to overachieve this season. Neither guy has nearly as much talent to work with as Nash has. When Nash loses in the WCF (or before that), the media will say that the opposing team won because they have more talent. If they want to be consistent, they'll acknowledge that the only reason why Nash is the MVP is because he has more talent on his team than either Kobe or Lebron.



First of all it is my personal opinion that Ben Wallace is the best player on the Pistons. He's only one of the greatest rebounders of all time... and brings tremendous defense. I think Billups is a fine player who fits into the Pistons system really well... but Wallace is what makes it work. Plus the team had two other all-stars... do you really think you can win MVP when you're playing with three other all stars? No way.

Kobe and Lebron didn't win because they simply didn't lead their teams to enough wins... and the voters who tend to look past record probably split their vote between the two negating each others chances to win.

Dirk didn't win either.. probably for a number of reasons: A) He didn't have to overcome nearly as much as Nash did... I'm sorry but losing a sixth man in Stackhouse for some of the year... and Van Horn (who sucks anyways) isn't nearly as difficult as losing one of the top scorers in the league (Stoudemire) and the best defensive/post presence the Suns had (Kurt Thomas). B) He's not even any better of a defensive player than Nash... so you can't use that to his advantage. C) The Mavericks failed to win their division and ended up with the fourth seed (Yes they had more wins than Nash's team.. but not so much more that it negated what Nash had to overcome). On a side note I think Dirk would have won the award had they wraped up the #1 seed in the West.

That leaves Steve Nash... your 2005-2006 MVP award winner.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

HKF said:


> Cause he's a little "scrawny" looking white guy who we all can relate to while sitting in press row. This is why.


And the black people that voted for this "little 'scrawny' looking white guy"? Could they relate to him? Or for whatever reason did they just think he was the MVP?



HKF said:


> Dirk is German. He aint "white."


:laugh:


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

HKF said:


> Which furthers my point. A guy like Stockton (who was better than Nash) received no love, while Nash is getting all this love from the media.
> 
> Like I said, when Nash wins his 3rd MVP in a row next year, then you'll all learn. Steve Nash is the little white guy who we think all of a sudden became an NBA HOF-type player, but he's still just overachieving, while guys like Dirk, Kobe and Lebron should have the numbers they have.
> 
> ...


How does that further your point? Stockton SHOULD have recieved consideration. I'm merely saying the voters today have merely corrected the problem by recognizing someone who creates so many other opportunities for his teammates by the assist. In fact you could couple Isiah Thomas into this disucussion as well... the voters simply didn't give enough emphasise to what the assist brings... which has nothing to do with color. 

And yes Dirk is white in all senses of the term. Heck I'm part german myself.. am I now not white? Heck Nash might even be part German. I guess we're all not white. 

Wow I learn something new everyday.

(By the way it's people like you who group people into racial categories... going so far as to say a European isn't white... who perpetuate the racial stereotyping and racism that plagues our world today)


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

Who did Ernie Johnson vote for?


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

HKF said:


> This award is going to be the 1995 all over again (Hakeem over Robinson).


Can you imagine what Chauncey Billups would do to him if they met in the Finals. I think the Steve Nash mystique would end pretty damn quickly if that were to happen. Hell, it might not survive Tony Parker.

And to everybody trying to justify Steve Nash as the MVP through process of elimination... you're just further proving the other side's point. You are saying other guys can't be MVP for reasons that have nothing to do with the way they play basketball.

Just because people didn't expect the Suns to be good doesn't mean they weren't a good team. It just means people were wrong about them, why should Nash get any advantage in voting because of that? Pretend Amare doesn't come back, the Suns keep their same roster, and they win 54 games again next year. Would you still consider Nash the MVP? Of course not, because you would expect them to win 54 games. So what is the difference?

I didn't think the Suns would be this good at the start of the season, but they are. It doesn't mean Steve Nash is the MVP, it just means I was wrong. It just mean the Suns knew something I didn't when they went out and got Boris Diaw and James Jones and Eddie House and Kurt Thomas and Raja Bell.

As for the racism thing, it's either that or the writers are just stupid. I prefer to think the latter. But they probably go hand in hand.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

By the way... just as a side note.. but I think Mark Cuban just crapped his pants. 


:biggrin:


----------



## Card Trader (Apr 17, 2006)

The only thing more enjoyable than watching Nash have another masterful MVP season, is watching all these little kids whine and cry over him winning the award.

Conspiracy theories are always good for a chuckle.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Card Trader said:


> The only thing more enjoyable than watching Nash have another masterful MVP season, is watching all these little kids whine and cry over him winning the award.
> 
> Conspiracy theories are always good for a chuckle.


N00b?


----------



## Card Trader (Apr 17, 2006)

HKF said:


> N00b?


Ohhhhh, I get it, I have only 2 posts, so I must be a "N00b"...."N00b" or not, these theories are comical and are so far fetched they would have to have been designed in the minds of 13 year olds.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Because you disagree with them. In my mind, race is never a conspiracy theory. It simply exists. Always has. You feel Nash deserves it, I disagree. 

The same criteria that allows him to win penalized better players for not winning. Meh. I guess Shawn Marion is an all-star because of Steve Nash.


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

I would have voted for Lebron, but Nash is also deserving.


----------



## Card Trader (Apr 17, 2006)

HKF said:


> Because you disagree with them. In my mind, race is never a conspiracy theory. It simply exists. Always has. You feel Nash deserves it, I disagree.
> 
> The same criteria that allows him to win penalized better players for not winning. Meh. I guess Shawn Marion is an all-star because of Steve Nash.


Without even seeing the results, I'll bet that more than one black writer voted for Nash....did all the writers get together and decide that they were going to vote for the white guy with long hair? Did they all take a blood oath to never reveal this? It's ridiculous to even think that this award is given based on race. It's absurd.

People act like the other players in the running for the award were not surrounded by talent. Lebron has one of the better big men in the game....a rare thing in the league. Kobe plays along side a triple double threat and has the greatest coach in the game. Dirk has one of the best supporting casts and the deepest team in the league and Chauncey has the best starting 5 in the game.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

tempe85 said:


> Kobe and Lebron didn't win because they simply didn't lead their teams to enough wins... and the voters who tend to look past record probably split their vote between the two negating each others chances to win.


LeBron had 4 less wins than Nash.



> Dirk didn't win either.. probably for a number of reasons: A) He didn't have to overcome nearly as much as Nash did... I'm sorry but losing a sixth man in Stackhouse for some of the year... and Van Horn (who sucks anyways) isn't nearly as difficult as losing one of the top scorers in the league (Stoudemire) and the best defensive/post presence the Suns had (Kurt Thomas). B) He's not even any better of a defensive player than Nash... so you can't use that to his advantage. C) The Mavericks failed to win their division and ended up with the fourth seed (Yes they had more wins than Nash's team.. but not so much more that it negated what Nash had to overcome). On a side note I think Dirk would have won the award had they wraped up the #1 seed in the West.
> 
> That leaves Steve Nash... your 2005-2006 MVP award winner.


Riight......Dirk might not have had to overcome as much, but that's because he was never given the benefit of having an Amare Stoudemire, plus simply because Nash lost him, doesn't make the Suns bad. Stevie has more all-star teammates than Kobe, Dirk and LeBron all do put together, not to mention he's got a hell of a supporting cast behind that. Now if Dirk's extra 7 wins weren't enough to negate what Nash had to overcome, what about LeBron? He had only 4 less wins than Nash, and he lost his arguably second best player for most of the season too. Not to mention outside of him, he didn't have much of a supporting cast when compared to Phoenix. Plus look at his stats (31/7/7 roughly), they're a whole lot better than Nash's.

Overall, Nash only had 4 more wins, but had 1 more all-star, a lot better supporting cast, and worse stats than LeBron...and Nash won.

One thing that really baffles me is when people say Phoenix losing Amare is a reason to give the MVP to Nash. It really doesn't matter if they lost Amare, they still had a hell of a team, they just would have been a whole lot better with him. Also, they lost more games than last year, so how does losing Amare support the argument. Also, LeBron, Dirk and Kobe have never even had the chance to lose Amare becuase they've never played with a player that good.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Now that Nash has won a 2nd MVP the degradation of his supporting cast begins to happen. Oh yes, why am I not surprised. I guess Diaw should give his MIP trophy to Nash, since Nash is the reason he is even in the NBA. Marion isn't that great as well it seems. I guess Dissonance, needs to change his sig, because those numbers Marion put up before Nash got there don't mean much.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Congrats to Steve Nash! He was my 2nd choice after LeBron for MVP. Great numbers, great team record in the powerful WC despite losing 3 starters. He's the heart and soul of that team. Take him out and Suns victory total gets divided by 2.


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

tempe85 said:


> .Dirk didn't win either.. probably for a number of reasons: A) He didn't have to overcome nearly as much as Nash did... I'm sorry but losing a sixth man in Stackhouse for some of the year... and Van Horn (who sucks anyways) isn't nearly as difficult as losing one of the top scorers in the league (Stoudemire) and the best defensive/post presence the Suns had (Kurt Thomas). B) He's not even any better of a defensive player than Nash... so you can't use that to his advantage. C) The Mavericks failed to win their division and ended up with the fourth seed (Yes they had more wins than Nash's team.. but not so much more that it negated what Nash had to overcome). On a side note I think Dirk would have won the award had they wraped up the #1 seed in the West.


A)Dirk had Stackhouse miss the first 26 games of the year. Thats almost ONE THIRD of the season. Josh Howard missed 23 games. Marquis Daniels missed 20 games. Devin Harris missed 26 games. Van Horn missed 29 games. He carried the team the last month when the Mavs were playing most nights without 4 of their top 9 players. He's had to overcome much more than Nash. B)Dirk is infinitely better than Nash defensively. Nash is one of the worst defensive players in the league. Dirk is about average defensively(maybe slightly below average). He's way ahead of Nash on the defensive end. C) You made my point for me. Dont blame Dirk for the NBA's retarded seeding system.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

Congrats to Nash... Now I hope my boy Izzo drops 100 on you tonight!!!


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

If you didn't think the MVP award was a joke before, it's pretty clear it's beyond a joke now. Several decades and counting people. Get used to it.


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

This might actually be good for the Lakers, if Kobe gets word of it. I expect a huge night from him and a Laker W because of this.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Nash being more of a candidate than Lebron & Kobe cause Phoenix won more games is one thing....but Nash being more of a candidate than Dirk & Billups cause he had "less to work with" is some ****. Its almost like its the "Steve Nash" award....everything is in his favor; there's no way he cant win it.

He has to be one of the luckiest players this league has seen in some time....im talkin' Derek Fisher getting to play with Shaq type lucky. The guy was barely top 5 at his position 2 years ago at 30yrs old...now he's a back to back MVP. I like him but this just doesn't feel right....cause of this he's gonna down as a greater player than Gary Payton & Jason Kidd


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I never said it was based on race, I said it should be looked at. The only thing worse than paranoid black folks who jump on any opportunity to claim racism, is folks who don't even want to consider that race could have played a role in something. Not saying you fall into the category, but a lot of people would just throw the idea completely out the window because they're afraid of it. In a situation where a clearly inferior white candidate is winning over two black players who are widely considered the two best players in the league and it's not even close, I can't just look away from the possibility that race played a role.


I have no problem with the rationale of claiming race when it is warranted, but simply looking at a white guy winning the award over two black guys and claiming racism is asinine to me. Where were these oversensitive blacks when Andrew Bogut was the #1 overall player selected? Was that a result of racist GM's in the NBA? Were these oversensitve blacks happy than Avery Johnson was COY? As I have been saying throughout this thread, I am not saying the voters don't have a bias preference towards whites winning the award, because I do not personally know the voters nor their beliefs. However, my main problem comes in when oversensitive blacks claim racism after the fact and those same blacks are no where to be found when a black is placed in a position they shouldn't be in order to meet a quota. Do you not see the racism in that? The only reason you got the position was to meet a quota??

Another issue I have with this way of thinking is when oversensitive blacks cry racism it does nothing more than undermine racism when it really exist. This is why as community we as blacks are behind due to some of our "slave mentality" that makes us feel like a victim at every turn. Should I expect Jesse Jackson to be knocking on David Stern's door in front of several news cameras to gain some much desired "face time?"

HFK's issue isn't with Nash being white, his issue is with Nash winning a second MVP due to what he perceives to be bias opinion. He just used the race angle to gain some attention. He already stated he believed Dirk should have won the award and had he won it he would have never said the media was desirous of a white player to win the award.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

Jason Kidd > Steve Nash > Gary Payton


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

The MAMBA said:


> Jason Kidd > Steve Nash > Gary Payton


 are you crazy??? unless you're talkin about this season; you are.

GP from 93-2000>>>>>any PG currently playing


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

speedythief said:


> What Nash has been able to do in Phoenix is outstanding. What other team could lose a 26.0 points per game scorer and still cruise to the division title? In the West, too.


What other team could lose a two-time MVP and still contend for the best record in the NBA?

Oh. I know. Dallas.

This award is bull****. Nash did not deserve it this year. Who cares if he had a better year than last year. So did everybody else. That neither Kobe, Dirk, or Lebron won this award is a sham.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Card Trader said:


> The only thing more enjoyable than watching Nash have another masterful MVP season, is watching all these little kids whine and cry over him winning the award.
> 
> Conspiracy theories are always good for a chuckle.


i musta missed the conspiracy theory.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Kevin Johnson has zero MVP's.
Jason Kidd has zero MVP's.
John Stockton has zero MVP's.
Gary Payton has zero MVP's.

Why was the criteria changed to help Nash win in the mind of voters?


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

HKF said:


> Why was the criteria changed to help Nash win in the mind of voters?


Because we have people like Marc Stein who look like they've never touched a basketball in their life, yet somehow have the loudest voice when it comes to voting.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

tone wone said:


> Nash being more of a candidate than Lebron & Kobe cause Phoenix won more games is one thing....but Nash being more of a candidate than Dirk & Billups cause he had "less to work with" is some ****. Its almost like its the "Steve Nash" award....everything is in his favor; there's no way he cant win it.


good point.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

HKF said:


> Kevin Johnson has zero MVP's.
> Jason Kidd has zero MVP's.
> John Stockton has zero MVP's.
> Gary Payton has zero MVP's.
> ...


The criteria didn't change. The NBA changed and with that the all-time great players (who we are use to winning the award) being on the top teams in the league changed. The top players such as Kobe, KG, McGrady etc are not on the truly dominant teams and this is why Nash won the award.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

How is Dirk not a dominant player? His 26.6 ppg on a 60 win team that starts Diop or Dampier is not good enough?


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> The criteria didn't change. The NBA changed and with that the all-time great players (who we are use to winning the award) being on the top teams in the league changed. The top players such as Kobe, KG, McGrady etc are not on the truly dominant teams and this is why Nash won the award.


And the other top players like Shaq or Duncan are on great teams but aren't having great seasons.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

HKF said:


> How is Dirk not a dominant player? His 26.6 ppg on a 60 win team that starts Diop or Dampier is not good enough?


I never said Dirk wasn't dominant player , I said the all-time great players who use to win the award during the up until this point are no longer playing on the top teams and if they are as socco pointed out they are not at their top form. Dirk is dominant in the same way Elton Brand is dominant if you consider that to be dominant.

Also, Don't get great stats confused with domination. 



socco said:


> And the other top players like Shaq or Duncan are on great teams but aren't having great seasons.


Amen! That is very true!


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

HKF said:


> Kevin Johnson has zero MVP's.
> Jason Kidd has zero MVP's.
> John Stockton has zero MVP's.
> Gary Payton has zero MVP's.
> ...


And let me tell you why.

KJ was never on a good team that didnt feature Charles Barkley.
Kidd cant shoot the ball worth anything
Stockton always had Malone
Payton just doesnt run his team as well as Nash does. He also had the misfortune of having his best season in 1996 when the Bulls won 72. You couldnt deny Jordan that year.

Face it. Nash could take any team to the playoffs, even the suckiest of teams, just as James and Kobe could (this year, obviously thats not the case for either of them last year). So to me they are all of an incredibly high value to their team, just in different ways. Now seeing as among them, Nash's team has the best record, he gets it. And dont go saying that James has only 4 less wins than Nash cause thats in the East. The Suns could probably win 58 in the East.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

ralaw said:


> I never said Dirk wasn't dominant player, I said the all-time great players who use to win the award during the up until this point are no longer playing on the top teams and if they are as socco pointed out they are not at their top form. Dirk is dominant in the same way Elton Brand is dominant if you consider that to be dominant.


What?

That doesn't make sense.

Dirk is a dominant player, but the dominant players aren't playing on the dominant teams? Dallas won 60 games!

So he is a dominant player on a dominant team.


----------



## dastrey (Dec 30, 2003)

I think even Steve Nash considers this a joke. Back to back MVP? You gotta be kidding me. Steve Nash now has more MVP's than Shaquille O'neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson and Charles Barkley. Meanwhile we have a 21 year old phenom averaging 31-7-7 on a 50 win team and a player dominating the league while carrying an NBDL team to the 7th seed in the west. Like someone else in this thread said...it's time give the voting to the coaches. It's obvious that the media are a bunch of retards. It won't surprise me if Chris Paul wins the MVP next year.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> What?
> 
> That doesn't make sense.
> 
> ...


Where are you guys getting me saying Dirk is a dominant player?

I said the "*all-time great players*" playing on *dominant teams*! Dirk is by no means an all-time great player! Me saying he is as dominant as Brand was me pointing out that he isn't dominant, but simply a good player with great stats.

Don't get great stats confused with domination


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

So Nash is an all-time great now? :nonono:


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

HKF said:


> So Nash is an all-time great now? :nonono:


Why are you putting words in my mouth? You do know reading is fundamental and reading things in the proper context is always important? 

If you would read my post you would see I have been saying througout this thread the reason Nash won this award is due to him benefiting from the "all-time great" players playing on mediocre teams (Kobe, KG, McGrady, AI, etc) or not being themselves(Duncan and Shaq).


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

While I do think Nash is the MVP, I do also think that giving the MVP to Nash is the media's way of trying to get players to stop the me-first attitude by rewarding someone for the opposite.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

If that's the case, then the award still should have went to Dirk.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

ralaw said:


> Where are you guys getting me saying Dirk is a dominant player?





ralaw said:


> I never said Dirk wasn't dominant player!


So he's not a dominant player but he's also not not a dominant player?

Saying Dirk is dominant in the same way that Elton Brand is dominant is exactly the type of attitude we are all talking about.

There is some imagined "quality" about Dirk (and Chauncey, Kobe, Lebron, etc...) that precludes him from winning the award in your mind. He averaged 26.6 and 9, dominant by any definition. What doesn't he do? You can't say play defense because Steve Nash is a far worse defender than Dirk.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

lessthanjake said:


> And let me tell you why.
> 
> KJ was never on a good team that didnt feature Charles Barkley.
> Kidd cant shoot the ball worth anything
> ...


KJ won 50+ games every season with the suns without Barkley.

Nash has been better than all those PGs the last 2 years that's why. He has been better than Kidd, KJ, Payton...

Nash is one of the all-time greatest PGs, top 3.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i think nash is the worst of all candidates. he's squarely in the middle of it all. no matter your angle, nash doesn't come out on top. the only angle that he comes out on top is when comparing to expectations. which has little to do with actual production on the court this year. it's like a never before seen definition that doesn't even try and consider "best", in any capacity. it shows a complete lack of thought. it's irrational, and doesn't stand up well to scrutiny.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Amareca said:


> KJ won 50+ games every season with the suns without Barkley.
> 
> Nash has been better than all those PGs the last 2 years that's why. He has been better than Kidd, KJ, Payton...
> 
> Nash is one of the all-time greatest PGs, top 3.


nash is now better than stockton?


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Amareca said:


> KJ won 50+ games every season with the suns without Barkley.
> 
> Nash has been better than all those PGs the last 2 years that's why. He has been better than Kidd, KJ, Payton...
> 
> Nash is one of the all-time greatest PGs, top 3.


Go away. There is no way even you can believe that.

So who is Nash better than? Magic, Stockton, or Isiah?

And nothing short of multiple championships will make me ever believe Nash is better than Payton was in his prime.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> nash is now better than stockton?


In his prime, yes.

And don't bring up Stocktons assists now. In Stockton's era how many PG were averaging double digits assists? KJ, Tim Hardaway, Price, Magic and more.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Mike luvs KG said:


> And nothing short of multiple championships will make me ever believe Nash is better than Payton was in his prime.


Then I pity you.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> So he's not a dominant player but he's also not not a dominant player?
> 
> Saying Dirk is dominant in the same way that Elton Brand is dominant is exactly the type of attitude we are all talking about.
> 
> There is some imagined "quality" about Dirk (and Chauncey, Kobe, Lebron, etc...) that precludes him from winning the award in your mind. He averaged 26.6 and 9, dominant by any definition. What doesn't he do? You can't say play defense because Steve Nash is a far worse defender than Dirk.


You also are taking my comments out of context. In the second quote you posted I was responding to HFK saying that I said that when I didn't.



ralaw said:


> The NBA changed and with that the all-time great players (who we are use to winning the award) being on the top teams in the league changed. The top players such as Kobe, KG, McGrady etc are not on the truly dominant teams and this is why Nash won the award..


No word of me saying Dirk wasn't dominant, If you notice I used the words "all-time great players."

In response to my above quote HFK says



HFK said:


> How is Dirk not a dominant player? His 26.6 ppg on a 60 win team that starts Diop or Dampier is not good enough?


Where did he get me saying Dirk wasn't dominant? 


Now getting past that argument of semantics in my opinion Dirk isn't a dominant player. He is a wonderful offensive player who has great stats, but those stats don't determine dominance. If that is the case Stephon Marbury has been dominant his entire career. I am by no means saying Dirk shouldn't be in contention for the MVP. I am simply making a point to his perceived dominance, the truth is I really could care less who won the award because all the players are deserving in their own way.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

*Nash over Kobe for MVP? What a joke  *

DIME Magazine / Dime Magazine 
Posted: 1 hour ago 




Word leaked Wednesday morning that Steve Nash will be named this year's MVP. While it won't be officially announced for some time, it looks like it's a done deal. And we think it's absurd.

The fact that Steve Nash is going to win the award isn't the problem. The problem is that Kobe Bryant didn't. Honestly, what more could Kobe have done this season to win the MVP? It's a joke. And what makes the whole thing even more outrageous is that his losing out is clearly personal. To be blunt, he didn't win it because the people with the votes just don't like him. And that's a shame.

Heading into this season, if someone asked you to make a list of what Kobe would have to do in the 2005-06 NBA season to win the MVP, what would you have said? Something like that Kobe would have to show that he's the best player in the NBA and he would have to take that god-awful Lakers team to the playoffs — not an easy thing to do in the Western Conference.

So what did Kobe do? Here are three numbers: 81, 62 and 35.4. The 81-point explosion against the Raptors in January completely eclipsed the fact that he gave the Mavericks 62 in just three quarters a few weeks prior. His 35.4 points per game, easily enough to secure him the league's scoring title, was the eighth-highest single-season scoring average in league history and the most since MJ put up 37.1 points per game back in '87. No. 8 put together two separate streaks this season where he scored 40 or more points in four straight games.

Let's be blunt: Kobe Bryant is clearly the best basketball player in the world.

We've said it so many times: Steve Nash's supporting cast includes Shawn Marion (a guy who should have received some MVP attention) and Boris Diaw (potentially the NBA's Most Improved Player). But if you substituted any other elite NBA shooting guard for Kobe Bryant and kept that same Lakers supporting cast, L.A.'s season would have been very, very different. Is there any doubt that Los Angeles would have finished with a record that was just as abysmal as that of the Knicks, Raptors or Trail Blazers?

Kobe didn't barely get the Lakers to the playoffs, just scraping out the eighth seed. They finished seventh, were firmly entrenched in the playoff picture for much of the year, and their 45-game win total in the West was more than all but four teams in the Eastern Conference. With complimentary pieces like Chris Mihm, Devean George, Brian Cook and Sasha Vujacic surrounding Kobe, 45 wins in the Western Conference is nothing short of a miracle.

So why no love for Kobe? Like we said earlier, it's strictly personal. There's no other explanation. The writers with the votes just don't like him. They're blurring their feelings about Kobe as a person with their how they view him as a basketball player.

We've been hearing all year that Kobe shouldn't win the MVP because he "doesn't make the players around him better." We don't necessarily agree, but if that's what we're basing this on, then by all means, give Steve Nash the "Makes Those Around Him Better Award" and be done with it.

Kobe perfectly fits the two criteria that voters traditionally use when deciding on an MVP: he's the best player in the league and he's invaluable to his team.

Kobe Bryant is the NBA's Most Valuable Player. 

It's not even close.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Amareca said:


> KJ won 50+ games every season with the suns without Barkley.
> 
> Nash has been better than all those PGs the last 2 years that's why. He has been better than Kidd, KJ, Payton...
> 
> Nash is one of the all-time greatest PGs, top 3.


My bad about KJ. I realized I was wrong before you posted this. BUT they did have Tom Chambers scoring a bunch and everything. But he never even made all nba first team so for anyone to compare him to Nash in terms of getting MVP votes is a little ridiculous. I do like KJ though.

And yes you are right, he has been better than all of those. His offensive numbers so ridiculously efficient this year. He was second in the league in true shooting percentage this year and was only behind a dude who has only played 733 minutes this year by the SLIMMEST of margins, and of course his assists make the other guys more efficient.

I find it interesting that in the last two years Nash has missed 10 games and I know the Suns lost at least 8 of them, and I think 9. Shows how valuable he is.




> If that's the case, then the award still should have went to Dirk.


Dirk is certainly a good candidate but his lack of getting 10 rebounds, 3 assists and anything reasonable in the steals and blocks catagory hurt him. His statistics just dont make you say wow.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why do you keep saying HFK? It's HKF. You even re-worded the quoting of me. That was weird.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

ralaw said:


> Now getting past that argument of semantics in my opinion Dirk isn't a dominant player. He is a wonderful offensive player who has great stats, but those stats don't determine dominance. If that is the case Stephon Marbury has been dominant his entire career.


When has Stephon Marbury even sniffed 60 wins.

Dirk averaged 27 and 9 as far and away the best player on a 60 win team. The team has nobody else that is even close to being an all-star. 

I'll ask you this question: if he's not already, what would it take for Dirk to magically become "dominant"?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

lessthanjake said:


> Dirk is certainly a good candidate but his lack of getting 10 rebounds, 3 assists and anything reasonable in the steals and blocks catagory hurt him. His statistics just dont make you say wow.


they are better than nash's. he lead the league (with lebron) in per, while playing more mpg. that's a bad angle to play.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

lessthanjake said:


> And let me tell you why. KJ was never on a good team that didnt feature Charles Barkley.


*From 1989 to 1992, the Suns averaged 54 wins per season, and went to WCF twice* 



> Kidd cant shoot the ball worth anything


* Why is shooting well a criterion, but playing defense is not?*



> Stockton always had Malone


* Nash has had D'Antoni and Marion both years and Amare last year. *



> Payton just doesnt run his team as well as Nash does. He also had the misfortune of having his best season in 1996 when the Bulls won 72. You couldnt deny Jordan that year.


* And Nash will never be able to play the kind of defense Payton played in his prime. Payton also had a spectacular 1997 season and his team won 57 games. The year Malone won the MVP*



> Face it. Nash could take any team to the playoffs, even the suckiest of teams, just as James and Kobe could (this year, obviously thats not the case for either of them last year).


* This is a conjecture that most people would disagree with. *



> So to me they are all of an incredibly high value to their team, just in different ways. Now seeing as among them, Nash's team has the best record, he gets it. And dont go saying that James has only 4 less wins than Nash cause thats in the East. The Suns could probably win 58 in the East.


* And Dirk could probably win 65 games in the East. So what's the point?*


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> When has Stephon Marbury even sniffed 60 wins.
> 
> Dirk averaged 27 and 9 as far and away the best player on a 60 win team. The team has nobody else that is even close to being an all-star.
> 
> I'll ask you this question: if he's not already, what would it take for Dirk to magically become "dominant"?


As I said earlier, Dirk is given too much credit for the MAVS success especially on defense! Dirk is a glorified Peja Stojakovic and is not the catalyst, but simply the beneficiary of playing in a great situation. Please don't take that the wrong way, he is a great player, but being dominant should only be used for players such as Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, etc... you know all-time greats who have proven themselves to be able to dominate on a consistent basis on the biggest stage.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Dirk is a glorified Peja? Oh my goodness. :uhoh:


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Great debate I've enjoyed reading this whole thread.

My thoughts on the MVP....

I don't see why the Suns are considered an over achieving team this season. They have Nash who is the MVP of last season, they have Shawn Marion an all star who is also in the talks for MVP this season. They have the most improved player in the entire league in Diaw (credit goes not only to Nash for this but the Suns system as a whole to let Diaw truly play up to his potential, Remember last season he was with the Hawks) They have great Vet players who are putting up the same numbers they did on their previous teams in Bell and Kurt Thomas. So it's not as if Nash is really making them any better, they were already solid players and had their reputations made. This Suns team is not a real elite team, they have a system similiar to the Nuggets with the only excpetion they can hit the 3 ball all day long. If the Nuggets could hit the 3 ball the way the Suns do we would easily be right there with the Suns.

Also keep in mind a Suns team with a younger Amare and Marbury as the vet lead the Suns to a 6 game series against the Spurs just the year before Nash came in. That following season with Nash leading the Suns the Spurs nearly swept the Suns in the playoffs.

So should we say... Marbury > Nash since all the players say once your're in the post season the regular season doesn't matter anymore ? Since Marbury with a younger Amare and over all less talented Suns team were able to give the Spurs a much more difficult challenge. Just something to think about..

IMO Nash is getting way to much credit this season. I thought MVP players with good talent surrounded them were suppose to have a good record, and do well. For some reason with Nash if the team does well it's like WOW! how did NASH do that! well ummm... remember he's the MVP you voted for right ? Meaning he's the MVP player in the entire league. I don't recall a day when Jordan was winning MVP's and people were all WOW Jordan was able to carry his team in to the playoffs. For some reason we have a twisted view on NASH. Who IMO doesn't deserve the MVP this season. It should go in this order -

Kobe Bryant
Dirk Nowitzki
LeBron James

I rest my case. :cheers:


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

John Stockton had Karl Malone and Nash has Shawn Marion, and the last season with Amare.
The new trend now is to overrate the point guards on great teams.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Aurelino said:


> And let me tell you why. KJ was never on a good team that didnt feature Charles Barkley.
> 
> *From 1989 to 1992, the Suns averaged 54 wins per season, and went to WCF twice*
> Kidd cant shoot the ball worth anything
> ...


D'antoni has done NOTHING without Nash. He was a totally unknown coach before 2 years.

Nash would take most teams to the playoffs. It's not coincidence that the last 6 leading scoring teams in the NBA all had Nash at the Point and never missed the playoffs.

Kidd's defense is terribly overrated and Stockton would be way way worse defensively with the current rules than what he was looked at in his era.

But well that doesn't really matter. Offensively Nash is definately the best PG ever.

If someone hasn't noticed yet, Steve Nash IS the Suns system.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

kflo said:


> they are better than nash's. he lead the league (with lebron) in per, while playing more mpg. that's a bad angle to play.


The difference is that Nash's candidacy isnt based on stats. Its based on what he does to the players around him. Dirk doesnt make the players around him that much better and so he NEEDS to be putting up monster stats.

Besides Nash's stats are pretty damn amazing anyways.

1st in assists BY FAR
2nd in TS% (a hair away from first and the only player with significant minutes even in the top ten)

Essentially hes the most efficient offensive player in terms of scoring for his team in the entire league.


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

Same with Stockton ,same with Kidd, same with Gary Payton, Kevin Johnson, Isiah Thomas......


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

ralaw said:


> As I said earlier, Dirk is given too much credit for the MAVS success especially on defense! Dirk is a glorified Peja Stojakovic and is not the catalyst, but simply the beneficiary of playing in a great situation.


I couldn't disagree more. What is Dirk's situation? He's on the worst passing team in the NBA, with no point guard, whose offense doesn't get much deaper than a pick and roll? Dirk has to create everything himself, Dallas runs more isolation plays than any team in the league.



> Please don't take that the wrong way, he is a great player, but being dominant should only be used for players such as Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, etc... you know all-time greats who have proven themselves to be able to dominate on a consistent basis on the biggest stage.


I don't disagree with that. But then where does Steve Nash fit into this? Surely you don't consider him to be in that group with Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, etc... If Dirk isn't dominant, Nash isn't either. And Dirk still won 6 more games.

I'm not saying Dirk should have been the MVP, but I just don't see any circumstance in which Nash is. If you're going by strictly the best player, it's Lebron or Kobe. If you're factoring in team success, it's Chauncey Billups. If you're taking a combination of team success, outstanding play, and being the most relied on player on the team, it's Dirk Nowitski. Nash doesn't belong in the argument under any criteria.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

Amareca said:


> But well that doesn't really matter. Offensively Nash is definately the best PG ever.
> 
> .


Whoa...you ever heard of Isaiah Thomas?


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

bray1967 said:


> Whoa...you ever heard of Isaiah Thomas?


So?

Isiah Thomas wasn't nearly as good passer, playmaker, shooter as Steve Nash is, sry.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

Amareca said:


> So?
> 
> Isiah Thomas wasn't nearly as good passer, playmaker, shooter as Steve Nash is, sry.


Sorry, Zeke was in a different league. No way Nash could have played the role in those series against the Celtics, Bulls, and Laker teams. 

No way.


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

It's official.Steve Nash MOP
Steve NaSh the Most Overrated Player


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

I read the first page of this, but not the other 10. What about Elton Brand? He's just as deserving as Nash, Kobe, LeBron...


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

lessthanjake said:


> The difference is that Nash's candidacy isnt based on stats. Its based on what he does to the players around him. Dirk doesnt make the players around him that much better and so he NEEDS to be putting up monster stats.





Mike luvs KG said:


> These guys vote for Nash because they see the success the Suns are having and they can't explain it. They see the subtraction of Amare, all the new guys, and they say "Wow, I have no idea what is going on.... Steve Nash must just make everybody better!" And they leave it at that.
> 
> What they don't see is the floor spacing, they don't see the brilliantly crafted offense, they don't see WHY the stuff that is happening is happening. In short, they don't see Mike D'Antoni. How can Nash MVP and D'Antoni not win COY? And don't say "Steve Nash IS Mike D'Antoni's offense" because that couldn't be further from the truth.


Steve Nash plays point guard. He is supposed to pass guys the ball and "make them better". Dirk is a power forward.

Holding the whole "making people better" thing over Dirk is like saying Dirk is better than Nash because of the way he provides front court scoring.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> From 1989 to 1992, the Suns averaged 54 wins per season, and went to WCF twice


Already corrected that. He still had Tom Chambers who was scoring a bunch back then. Besides KJ was never even all nba first team so to be outraged that he never won the MVP is ridiculous.



> Why is shooting well a criterion, but playing defense is not?


Shooting the ball badly is a much more visible problem first off. And as a point guard you are supposed to make the offense run smoothly. Theres a giant problem with fulfilling that role if you are scoring at a horrible efficiency.

Furthermore, in todays NBA as bad as it is, a single guys defense doesnt matter as much due to zones. Nash's below average defense doesnt hurt his team nearly as much as Kidd's shooting does.



> Nash has had D'Antoni and Marion both years and Amare last year.


Wow. Is Marion even close to Malone? Hes All NBA third team at best this year. Malone is probably one of the top 15 players ever.



> And Nash will never be able to play the kind of defense Payton played in his prime. Payton also had a spectacular 1997 season and his team won 57 games. The year Malone won the MVP


A few things about 97. The first is that his teams win total went down by 7 that year without any significant loss of guys like Nash had with Amare. Secondly 21/7/4 arent MVP numbers. If you are a point guard and want the MVP you are gonna have to do better than 7 assists.

Malones just had a better year. Payton didnt deserve it.



> This is a conjecture that most people would disagree with.


Give him some people that can run and shoot threes and you will make the playoffs. People in the D-League can do that. 



> And Dirk could probably win 65 games in the East. So what's the point?


I wasnt talking about Dirk. That was strictly directed towards the Lebron vs Nash argument. And Dirk has a deeper team than Nash does, which is why they won 6 more games.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Mike luvs KG said:


> I'm not saying Dirk should have been the MVP, but I just don't see any circumstance in which Nash is.


He was the MVP last year, and he's having an even better season this year. Some people expected the Suns to not even make the playoffs this year, and one of the biggest questions was whether they could stay close enough to the playoff race until Amare came back. Yet, behind Nash, they've been a great team all year long without Amare, and have the 2nd seed.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

NASH is DEFINETLY the MVP. Most Violated Player. He has no defense to speak of... lol


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Will Nash be remembered as the guy who sniped consecutive MVP awards in seasons with relatively weak contenders while other great PG's who also made their teammates better (Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, Jason Kidd) never won the award due to playing in the same era as Bird, Magic, Michael, Shaq, Duncan in their MVP primes??


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> Steve Nash plays point guard. He is supposed to pass guys the ball and "make them better". Dirk is a power forward.
> 
> Holding the whole "making people better" thing over Dirk is like saying Dirk is better than Nash because of the way he provides front court scoring.


Thats not what I am saying. I am not saying that Dirk should be making his teammates better in the same way Nash does. What I was saying is that since he doesnt do that, his stats needed to be higher than they were in order to get the MVP.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

JPSeraph said:


> Will Nash be remembered as the guy who sniped consecutive MVP awards in seasons with relatively weak contenders while other great PG's who also made their teammates better (Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, Jason Kidd) never won the award due to playing in the same era as Bird, Magic, Michael, Shaq, Duncan in their MVP primes??


Yes. :biggrin:


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

tone wone said:


> are you crazy??? unless you're talkin about this season; you are.
> 
> GP from 93-2000>>>>>any PG currently playing


Negative, he always has been overrated. Especially his defense. He wasn't even the best defender on his team, that title belonged to Nate McMillain.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

Amareca said:


> D'antoni has done NOTHING without Nash. He was a totally unknown coach before 2 years.
> 
> Nash would take most teams to the playoffs. It's not coincidence that the last 6 leading scoring teams in the NBA all had Nash at the Point and never missed the playoffs.
> 
> ...



Nash has done nothing MVP-worthy without D'Antoni.

I don't care what you think about Kidd or Stockton's defense but they're certainly well above average whereas defensively, Nash is probably the worst starting PG in the league. 

Nash is not the Suns' system. He's a valuable part of it. Do you know Diaw had more alley-oops to Marion than Nash did? If Nash is the system, how can that happen? 
Marion's blocks, steals and rebounds also lead to easy assists for Nash at the other end. 
If Nash is the system, shouldn't his team miss him most when he is not on the floor? The fact is that Diaw has better +/- than Nash. I can go on and on, but you get the idea.


----------



## Kaas (Apr 8, 2003)

This is pathetic.

No matter what Big Amare says, Nash is probably not even a top 10 PG of all time (yet he's got 2 MVPs?). Has his game changed at all since he left Dallas? Hell no. He was a great passer and shooter with the Mavs too. Yet he's magically making all these players better in Phoenix. Shouldn't he be criticized for not doing the same in Dallas? His game is the exact same, except now he's playing in an open court offense. He found a system that utilizes his strengths and is now the media's favorite player. Nash owes D'Antoni about a million sexual favors right now. Before coming to Pheonix, I personally believe Nash wouldn't have made the Hall of Fame. Now he'll get in the first time on the ballot, and like I said his game hasn't improved, just the way his game is being used.

Didn't Jason Kidd do the same thing? He went from having to shoot 3 pointers in Phoenix to leading a Princeton offense (fastbreak) team in New Jersey. This is reality in today's NBA. Put a good passing point guard on a run and gun team and it breeds success. But I guess the media likes what Nash did more since the Nets style results in dunks, but the media appreciates the 3-ball more (this is relative to the train of thought that people suck at shootin in today's NBA). However there's a difference between the two. First, Kidd brought a defensive presence along with running the offense and second he was already considered the best PG in the NBA. They both lucked out in getting offensive systems that favored them, but D'Antoni made Nash's career. Eddie Jordan and Byron Scott just rejuvinated Kidd's.

And no, I'm not some Nets homer and I actually like Nash.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

173 posts already!

Oh wait, 174. Damn.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> I couldn't disagree more. What is Dirk's situation? He's on the worst passing team in the NBA, with no point guard, whose offense doesn't get much deaper than a pick and roll? Dirk has to create everything himself, Dallas runs more isolation plays than any team in the league.


I am of the belief that with the MAVS the sum is greater than it's parts. 




Mike luvs KG said:


> I don't disagree with that. But then where does Steve Nash fit into this? Surely you don't consider him to be in that group with Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, etc... If Dirk isn't dominant, Nash isn't either. And Dirk still won 6 more games..


I do not consider Nash to be dominant. I am on record of having said numerous times (inlcluding in this thread) that NAsh is the beneficiary of this new form of NBA of it's all-time great players playing on either mediocre teams or now being the dominant player they have been known to be due to injuries. 



Mike luvs KG said:


> I'm not saying Dirk should have been the MVP, but I just don't see any circumstance in which Nash is. If you're going by strictly the best player, it's Lebron or Kobe. If you're factoring in team success, it's Chauncey Billups. If you're taking a combination of team success, outstanding play, and being the most relied on player on the team, it's Dirk Nowitski. Nash doesn't belong in the argument under any criteria.


My MVP isn't Nash. My MVP is LeBron James because to me he is the best candidate from a talent, statisitical and consisteny perspective with the highest team winning percentage. If Kobe Bryant had 52 wins he would be my pick. I don't believe the award should be for players such as Nash and Billups who are beneficiaries of being in a good situation and to a lesser extent Dirk, but I do not have a problem with them being in the running. Nonetheless, I believe all of the candidates outside of Brand could have won the award and a case coud be made for all depending on personal preference.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

*55 win team minus MVP = 60 win team?!!*


*does not compute, does not compute*


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

People arguing for Kobe/LeBron: Are you honestly surprised they didn't win?

This is the first time in almost two decades the MVP hasn't played for a team with either the best record in the NBA or the second best. As insane as that is, that's the criteria, apparently. A precedent has been set by the media, and I expect that to continue. Jordan was the last player to win it without being on a top 2 team, and his statline was just as amazing as Kobe's or LeBron's this year but his team at least won their division. The MVP award is so much about team success it's not even funny. 

Whether you think Kobe or LeBron _should've_ won, you shouldn't have thought for a second there was a realistic chance for it to happen.


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

The last season he won because it was the best team, now becasue he has better stats than the last year, LOL.


PGs are overrated. Now it seems that a great team is thanks to the point guard. Billups, nash, wtf this sportswriters are crazy


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Amareca said:


> D'antoni has done NOTHING without Nash. He was a totally unknown coach before 2 years.


Actually I have to disagree with this. D'Antoni won two championships in a very difficult Italian league before heading over here. He ran this system over there and it worked great... with a different point guard.

That being said.... there's nothing wrong with giving the MVP to a player who has a great coach that runs a system which fits him perfectly. Heck Jordan only did it six times!


By the way... as a side note... what does everyone say is the best way to stop Nash? Turn him into a scorer and keep him from being a playmaker. Why would anyone want to do that when he's turned in one of the most offenively efficient numbers in NBA history? I'll tell you why: Because a playmaker benefits the team more. If you make Nash score 35 but only get 7 assists he's less effective than he would have been if he had 18 and 13 assists. This is a philosophy almost every coach believes... yet you're argueing we should give the award to someone who exemplifies the opposite end of the spectrum. 

Just some food for thought.


----------



## jworth (Feb 17, 2006)

Nash deserved the MVP.

But I'd have been just as happy to see Lebron, Kobe, or Dirk win it. All four of those guys have had VERY good seasons deserving of accolades.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> This is a philosophy almost every coach believes... yet you're argueing we should give the award to someone who exemplifies the opposite end of the spectrum.


So the award should be renamed "most valued philosophy", I guess.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Nash is getting plenty of unwarranted votes IMO, since I didn't have him in my top 4. I don't know if race plays a factor, but if it does, it is minor because the following easily accounts for the poor logic.

If everything was stagnant, and Amare/Richardson/Johnson returned, then Nash doesn't win MVP this year. But with voters who don't watch and analyze all the games, they will tend to give more credence to value that is presented to them in obvious fashion. And this is done when the following situation occurs:

*1) Keep one constant - the MVP candidate* - Nash
*2) Change a bunch of other variables for the worse (his teamates, coaches, etc) )* - replace Amare/Richardon/Johnson with Diaw/Thomas/Bell
*3) See how the team performs* - Suns win division

That's how Nash won it last year, it's how Kidd almost stole it from Duncan a few years ago, and if the sources are accurate, it is how Nash will seemingly do so again this year. If Lebron was on a different team last year, during which the Cavs won only 25 games, then he would win the MVP this year. If you're expecting the voters to realize that Diaw was underrated, that the Suns offense still performs well with Nash on the bench, that Amare was overrated on the basis of last year's WCF, or other subtleties, then you're giving the voters too much credit.

Nash has just caught a hell of a wave in a time when the NBA is devoid of classic MVP candidates.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

Aurelino said:


> So the award should be renamed "most valued philosophy", I guess.


You get repped for that one dude. :banana: 

Sheer greatness - you should make it your signature.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Just because Nash won MVP last year, shouldn't count against him this year... Good pick... I'm glad he won...


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

HKF said:


> ...when Nash wins again next year (which I'm sure he will, cause the team will be better), *we'll have to look at Nash in the same category as Michael Jordan*.


I think you know that we won't have to look at Nash in that way. It's our choice how we use MVPs to judging a player's career and I think we agree on how little merit it has.

Will this MVP award overrate him to some extent with the average fan? Yes. But even if he wins a third award next year, I wouldn't expect anyone to be claiming him to be better than Shaq. Well, not unless we're counting Amareca.

There's no need to worry, Nash will never sniff any top 50 all-time discussions and will never be mistakened for an all-time great.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Aurelino said:


> So the award should be renamed "most valued philosophy", I guess.


Well since that "philosophy" is what a majority of people (well other than 13 year olds who post on message boards) believe is a good measuring stick for determining a players overall "value" to his team... then essentially that's the same thing as saying "Most Valueable Player" or in other words MVP.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

speedythief said:


> If true, the theory that James and Bryant would split votes has probably been realized. I think maybe their late season pushes had more of an affect on the fans than the voters.
> 
> What Nash has been able to do in Phoenix is outstanding. What other team could lose a 26.0 points per game scorer and still cruise to the division title? In the West, too.


hahaha Props to the Avy.....NBA Jam TE was the ish on Sega.


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

shawn marion deserved the mvp more-so than Nash, i can't believe people even think Nash is an MVP canidate...it was a 2 man race all year imo--Kobe or Lebron--everyone else was just background noise..this is just further proof that the MVP award has gone to crap.

Steve Nash back to back NBA MVP---what a joke

13ppg 7apg 2rpg , 0 finals appearences

well he's a legened now


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

clien said:


> *shawn marion* deserved the mvp more-so than Nash, i can't believe people even think Nash is an MVP canidate...it was a 2 man race all year imo--Kobe or Lebron--everyone else was just background noise..this is just further proof that the MVP award has gone to crap.
> 
> Steve Nash back to back NBA MVP---what a joke
> 
> ...


Ha...."MVPs" don't get held to 8 ppg in the WCF.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Well since that "philosophy" is what a majority of people (well other than 13 year olds who post on message boards) believe is a good measuring stick for determining a players overall "value" to his team... then essentially that's the same thing as saying "Most Valueable Player" or in other words MVP.


All MVP candidates are playmakers in their own right. You don't have to be a pass-first PG to do that. In the history of the NBA, the only PGs to win a regular season MVP are Cousy, Big O, Magic and Nash. It is safe to say that, over the years, the sportswriters have had a broader philosophy in mind.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

..

You people ... :no:

I've really got no problem with Nash winning MVP. I wouldn't have had a problem with Dirk or Lebron winning also. Sorry folks, but look at the history of the MVP award .. Kobe needed more wins and he also got suspended for a brutal forearm this year. 

And you have to remember the award is about this season. The award isn't about "which guy stacks up with the all-time greats" ... and it has zero to do with his career numbers. 

Nash was playing with nearly a completely different team, without Amare, improved his numbers from last year, and still took his team to 54 wins. Is he the best or most talented player in the league? No. But he is the best possible fit as the captain of that team and the best possible fit for their system and he carries them to where they are. 

Marion as MVP .. :laugh: ... Come on, Marion is a good player but he is a finisher. He couldn't carry a team anywhere by himself.

Don't worry, Kobe will have his opportunities to win a few and Lebron will have his chances to win a handful. In fact, I fully expect Lebron to win it next year and win it in a landslide.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

JNice said:


> ..
> 
> You people ... :no:
> 
> ...


 :clap:


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

That's an average Stockton season.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

BBowen said:


> That's an average Stockton season.



1. Why does that matter?
2. Where was Malone out there with Nash?

I mean really, pick apart that team and who would think they'd be #2 seed in the West? Most people considered Diaw crap before this year. Raja Bell is a career role player. Tim Thomas? Chicago didn't even give him any PT. James Jones? Who thinks really highly of him? House ... a career streak chucker. Kurt Thomas = Mr Injury. And where are their big men? They have almost none.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

JNice said:


> 1. Why does that matter?
> 2. Where was Malone out there with Nash?
> 
> I mean really, pick apart that team and who would think they'd be #2 seed in the West? Most people considered Diaw crap before this year. Raja Bell is a career role player. Tim Thomas? Chicago didn't even give him any PT. James Jones? Who thinks really highly of him? House ... a career streak chucker. Kurt Thomas = Mr Injury. And where are their big men? They have almost none.


Thank you. I like your attitude. I am probably the biggest Nash fan here and even I don't mind if the award goes to Kobe, Lebron, Dirk or Billups. I think everybody can build a case for himself but Nash has better story and better record than Kobe/Lebron. Mavs got their coach of the year (AJ won it in this 2nd year when Jerry Sloan has NEVER won one!?? You don't see people ***** about that). Joking aside, I think AJ has done a great job on Mavs. They have the best chance to beat Spurs on the West this season. 

I don't know why people compare Nash to Stockton. Is Stockton playing right now??? Can somebody answer me this question? This is for year 2006 MVP award and it goes to Nash who plays in year 2006. What if Kobe won it? I can equally say that Kobe can't compare to MJ but I won't say that because we all know how talented Kobe is and it's for year 2006.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

i get the whole argument about amount of wins and amare was out ... and he is the engine that makes the best offense in the L go and yadayadayada, *but* if we are just talking about best player then he isnt close... you could make the argument that he isnt the best player on his team...

*most interesting is if the voters don't screw up on the All-NBA voting, which they most likely will, Nash will probbably be the first MVP to not make the All NBA first team because there is no way in hell that he deserves it over Kobe, Wade , or Lebron*


----------



## TheGodfather (Mar 9, 2006)

no disrespect to nash or his game but this is a complete joke...mockery of the award!he is a great player,but he is not the MVP this year.should have been a racehorse for the top 3 "REAL" MVP contenders,namely...Bron,Kobe and Dirk.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

shobe42 said:


> i get the whole argument about amount of wins and amare was out ... and he is the engine that makes the best offense in the L go and yadayadayada, *but* if we are just talking about best player then he isnt close... you could make the argument that he isnt the best player on his team...
> 
> *most interesting is if the voters don't screw up on the All-NBA voting, which they most likely will, Nash will probbably be the first MVP to not make the All NBA first team because there is no way in hell that he deserves it over Kobe, Wade , or Lebron*



Nash will be first team, no doubt. 

Who could you argue is the best player on the Suns? Thats absurd. 

MVP isn't just about being the best player in the league. Never has been. Why would it change now for Kobe?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

JNice said:


> 1. Why does that matter?
> 2. Where was Malone out there with Nash?
> 
> I mean really, pick apart that team and who would think they'd be #2 seed in the West? Most people considered Diaw crap before this year. Raja Bell is a career role player. Tim Thomas? Chicago didn't even give him any PT. James Jones? Who thinks really highly of him? House ... a career streak chucker. Kurt Thomas = Mr Injury. And where are their big men? They have almost none.


Most people never saw Diaw play before this year. I and the Phoenix Suns front office knew he'd be great for the Suns, and you can go back and find posts to that effect. Raja Bell has been a career role player, but a very good one. Tim Thomas, Chicago is just stupid--he obviously could play--name one place he's been where he couldn't play, y'know? Just because Chicago was high on jib, doesn't mean what they did was right. James Jones--ask Pacers fans if they wanted to see him go. House--yeah a chucker, he's still a chucker. As far as Big men, they have as many as they did last year. D'Antoni's system doesn't require a big man.

The Suns front office did a great job, and D'Antoni is a great coach.

The Suns still only got 4 more wins than the Lebron led Cavs, and had less wins than the Mavs, who lost Nash, a 2-time MVP, Finley, a team captain, and injuries all through the season to Stackhouse and Van Horn, two key components on the team, as well as Josh Howard.

There is no rationale to give Nash the MVP. If you are going on record, both Dirk and Billups had better records.

If you go on numbers, Dirk, Wade, Billups, Kobe, Lebron all had better seasons.

I don't buy the whole no "classic" mvp candidates arguement. This season was chock full of them. The voters just chose to ignore them.

Nash winning the MVP this year is a sham.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Then why did Jordan win 5 MVP's if it wasn't about being the best (or close to) player in the league? 

Shouldn't Patrick Ewing have an MVP on his mantle as well?


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

Hell, Jordan should've won it in 87, 93, and 97 as well... he was robbed those years as well.


----------



## TheGodfather (Mar 9, 2006)

to those people who credits Suns "team" success solely to nash are way underrating and overlooking the value of cats like marion,diaw,bell and others,and also D'Antoni's system...i say marion is as impt as nash to their team...


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

shobe42 said:


> i get the whole argument about amount of wins and amare was out ... and he is the engine that makes the best offense in the L go and yadayadayada, *but* if we are just talking about best player then he isnt close... you could make the argument that he isnt the best player on his team...
> 
> *most interesting is if the voters don't screw up on the All-NBA voting, which they most likely will, Nash will probbably be the first MVP to not make the All NBA first team because there is no way in hell that he deserves it over Kobe, Wade , or Lebron*


Wade? i dont think so. Wade is equal to Kobe and Lebron or maybe a step behind but he isnt a PG and thats what Steve Nash is. the best PG in the NBA. the All-NBA is the 5 best players at their respective positions.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

DuMa said:


> Wade? i dont think so. Wade is equal to Kobe and Lebron or maybe a step behind but he isnt a PG and thats what Steve Nash is. the best PG in the NBA. the All-NBA is the 5 best players at their respective positions.


No that's not what it is at all. 

It's best Center, Best Forwards and Best Guards.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

HKF said:


> No that's not what it is at all.
> 
> It's best Center, Best Forwards and Best Guards.


bingo


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

HKF said:


> No that's not what it is at all.
> 
> It's best Center, Best Forwards and Best Guards.


really. thats odd. somehow i always thought it was best 1,2,3,4,5

the more you know


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Good for Nash. I think he deserved it more this year than last, actually. Last year I thought Shaq was the MVP, but didn't have any problem w/ Nash getting it. Never forget, the MVP is about the story, nothing else. It is reporters that vote on it after all.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> I don't buy the whole no "classic" mvp candidates arguement. This season was chock full of them.


This season was chock full of them? The only one who comes close to filling prior MVP standards is Dirk.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

TheGodfather said:


> no disrespect to nash or his game but this is a complete joke...mockery of the award!he is a great player,but he is not the MVP this year.should have been a racehorse for the top 3 "REAL" MVP contenders,namely...Bron,Kobe and Dirk.


completely agree, nash is a great player n all, but hes got a good supporting cast, and a hell of a system to be playing in... i dont think hes the mvp, might put him in my top 5.
i totally disagree with the way that the award is judged and voted for though


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Personally, I don't think that Nash should have won it, he had a great year, but it was a year full of them. As individual players, Kobe, Lebron and Dirk all had superior years, in terms of team success, Dirk's injury ridden Mavs finished with 60 wins. The voting is too inconsistent for the MVP award to hold as much crediblity as it does. Imo, Kobe and Lebron and Dirk all had better years overall. 

Its hard to not love Nash though, I never forgot when he was interviewed on TNT after winning last year and spent the entire interview talking about why Dirk or Shaq should've won instead before ever talking about his own achievements.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

Drewbs said:


> Personally, I don't think that Nash should have won it, he had a great year, but it was a year full of them. As individual players, Kobe, Lebron and Dirk all had superior years, in terms of team success, Dirk's injury ridden Mavs finished with 60 wins. The voting is too inconsistent for the MVP award to hold as much crediblity as it does. Imo, Kobe and Lebron and Dirk all had better years overall.
> 
> Its hard to not love Nash though, I never forgot when he was interviewed on TNT after winning last year and spent the entire interview talking about why Dirk or Shaq should've won instead before ever talking about his own achievements.


if the Traitor were to bash the voters for giving him the award during his acceptance speech, it would go a long way in repairing his fractured relationship with me...


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Avalanche said:


> completely agree, nash is a great player n all, but hes got a good supporting cast, and a hell of a system to be playing in... i dont think hes the mvp, might put him in my top 5.
> i totally disagree with the way that the award is judged and voted for though


Jordan and basically every MVP fits the same criteria of having a good supporting cast and system to play in. I really don't understand that argument. Whenever you are using a team record as part of the criteria for the voting a good supporting cast is a given considering there is no player who could lead his team to a top 3 finish by himself.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

HKF said:


> *This award is going to be the 1995 all over again (Hakeem over Robinson). *
> 
> Nash is considered an overachiever, while everyone else is just doing what they should do. I don't think Dirk, Kobe or Lebron should win because this is what they're expected to do.
> 
> Little Stevie is playing way over his head. :nonono:


What do you mean by this? In 1995 Robinson won it over Hakeem. Hakeem won it in 1994. He was the clear winner then. Should have been 1995 also, but the spurs had the better record. 

Anyway, im with you on the Nash MVP stuff. Its a shame honestly that he won.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

ralaw said:


> Jordan and basically every MVP fits the same criteria of having a good supporting cast and system to play in. I really don't understand that argument. Whenever you are using a team record as part of the criteria for the voting a good supporting cast is a given considering there is no player who could lead his team to a top 3 finish by himself.


most 'valuable' player... take nash off the suns and they still win games, take kobe off the lakers or cp off the hornets and they get wooped all season long, they are the most valuable in the true sense of the word.
i personally think the award should be judged on best player of the season, in which case kobe or bron should have gotten it.
personal opinion is all, i just dont think nash is the great player that should deserve back to back mvp's


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

OneBadLT123 said:


> What do you mean by this? In 1995 Robinson won it over Hakeem. Hakeem won it in 1994. He was the clear winner then. Should have been 1995 also, but the spurs had the better record.
> 
> Anyway, im with you on the Nash MVP stuff. Its a shame honestly that he won.


Meaning the true MVP will be shown come playoff time.


----------



## The MAMBA (Jan 6, 2006)

ralaw said:


> Whenever you are using a team record as part of the criteria for the voting a good supporting cast is a given considering there is no player who could lead his team to a top 3 finish by himself.


I remember hearing that from Shaq in a pretty recent interview. He said even the best player on the planet can't lead a team to an elite level record without help. And it's true.


----------



## Kaas (Apr 8, 2003)

2 things to mention about Nash winning.

1. If he won because people didn't expect the Suns to perform at such a high level, then shouldn't Brand have won? The Clippers season was certainly a bigger surprise than the Suns'. Brand helped the Clippers go from perennial losers to one of the class teams in the West. 

2. Most people voting for Nash don't like the direction of the current NBA. They don't like the idea of a superstar dominated league, and enjoy seeing team success. They've come to the conclusion that since Nash passes a lot and has double digit assists he must be the biggest contributor to his teams offense. Well these voters are stupid. The league isn't watered down, and isn't in a down period. The fact is the salary cap has changed the face of the league immensly. Before the cap, the best players were surrounded by great role players since said players wanted to be apart of winning franchises. Now, the best players have no one else to rely on and carry their teams on their back. This is an even more impressive feat and numbers get inflated. However, wins go down and it takes them out of the MVP picture. So why punish players for what is out of their control? Makes no sense to me.

And one last thing, as someone else mentioned (I believe it was Aurelino), just because Nash is a pass first PG doesn't mean he's the only great passer of the candidates. Billups had plenty of assists, LeBron was the primary passer and scorer on his team (amazing for a 21 year old), and Kobe has porven to be a facilitator before during the Laker championship years (this year he was needed more as a scorer than as guy running the offense).


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Avalanche said:


> most 'valuable' player... take nash off the suns and they still win games, take kobe off the lakers or cp off the hornets and they get wooped all season long, they are the most valuable in the true sense of the word.
> i personally think the award should be judged on best player of the season, in which case kobe or bron should have gotten it.
> personal opinion is all, i just dont think nash is the great player that should deserve back to back mvp's


Again, with that logic Jordan and a host of others should have never sniffed an MVP. 

I'm not sure of your definition of "valuable" but I disagree with your assessment of Nash. However, I'm not going to argue speculation because that is nothing more than your opinion and that can't be disproven or proven. I think a better word for how you judge an MVP should be "Most Outstanding player" to which the award should go to either LeBron or Kobe.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> if the Traitor were to bash the voters for giving him the award during his acceptance speech, it would go a long way in repairing his fractured relationship with me...


lol the traitor. He left, and the Mavs figured out that they could run the offense through Dirk and they got better, why complain?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Mike luvs KG said:


> Time to take away the media's voting privelages. Give the MVP voting to the coaches.
> 
> These guys vote for Nash because they see the success the Suns are having and they can't explain it. They see the subtraction of Amare, all the new guys, and they say "Wow, I have no idea what is going on.... Steve Nash must just make everybody better!" And they leave it at that.
> 
> ...


I can't be bothered to read this entire thread, especially when this post says it all perfectly.

Very nicely stated and exactly right, in my opinion. Nash is a very good point guard in the perfect system with tremendous role-players around him. What he isn't is the best or most valuable player in the game.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

Drewbs said:


> lol the traitor. He left, and the Mavs figured out that they could run the offense through Dirk and they got better, why complain?


he could have let us sign and trade him to Phoenix!!!


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> he could have let us sign and trade him to Phoenix!!!


Why would he do that when Cuban pretty much believed he was getting old and wasn't worth the asking price? Nash did well by leaving Dallas the way he did and he didn't owe Dallas anything.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

My two cents about this...

1- Steve Nash winning the award is strangely reassuring, to me. In all honesty, i figured it would be given to someone on the Kobe-Dirk-Nash trio. Kobe's team didn't win enough. That's a no-no while considering the award. Dirk? He's mostly a gunner. So, it's Nash, the one who keeps the Suns thriving under all the turmoil. Between Kobe, Dirk and Nash, i find Nash to be the guy who plays the game the "righter" (sp?) way. 

2- Back-to-back MVPs? So what? Steve Nash is NOT one of the top-10 pgs in history, MVP or not. The fact that he won it again only shows how diluted the talent of NBA is. He is no better than Magic, Oscar, Cousy, Zeke, Stockton, Frazier, KJ, Kidd, Tim-bug, Payton, and others. 

3- IIRC, Nash scored at a +500FG%, +.900FT%, +.4003PFG% clip. That's monstruous at this day and age. And lead the most potent NBA offense.

4- For all the guys proping up Lebron James: 10 Tos? In a playoff game?


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> 4- For all the guys proping up Lebron James: 10 Tos? In a playoff game?


Penny Hardaway, Tim Duncan and KG all have 10 TO's in a plyoff game ... **** happens


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Avalanche said:


> Penny Hardaway, Tim Duncan and KG all have 10 TO's in a plyoff game ... **** happens


Not right after a OH-MY-GO!-A-TRIPLE-DOUBLE!-I'M-WETTING-MY-PANTS-IN-AWE-OF-THIS-SUBLIME-BEAUTIFULL-MANHUNK-OF-A-PLAYER! game...


----------



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

*KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Steve Nash now has 2 MVPs. This award means nothing now.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Not right after a OH-MY-GO!-A-TRIPLE-DOUBLE!-I'M-WETTING-MY-PANTS-IN-AWE-OF-THIS-SUBLIME-BEAUTIFULL-MANHUNK-OF-A-PLAYER! game...


i'd have to look that up lol


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

agreed :curse:


----------



## spursgospurs (Apr 26, 2006)

I didn't read through the whole thread but...
I was waffling between Nash and Nowitzki for MVP. I guess we'll see....


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Don't hate the player hate the game (voting process)!


----------



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

esp after kobe whips up on the suns tonight


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



ralaw said:


> Don't hate the player hate the game (voting process)!


agree even more with that ^^


----------



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Nash isnt even a hall of famer at this point, and he has 2 MVPs. right


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i still haven't seen a compelling reason for nash over dirk.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

ralaw said:


> Why would he do that when Cuban pretty much believed he was getting old and wasn't worth the asking price? Nash did well by leaving Dallas the way he did and he didn't owe Dallas anything.


way more to it then that but Im not hijaking this thread...

I also think its a race issue but not in the negative sense...I thinks its enamorment(sp?) with a playing style from a player who doesnt fit the normal description of a plalyer who would have that style...The Traitor is no better then whan he was with Dallas but the system is more fit to his style of play...6 years of leading one of the top offenses, but also 6 years of being destroyed by any point guard who is decent, Is it a coincidence that almost all the starting point guards in this league today have had thier career games against the Traitor?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

not sure which is right, but basketball-reference.com has dallas as the #1 offense for '06 (with phx #2).


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



sherwin said:


> Nash isnt even a hall of famer at this point, and he has 2 MVPs. right


he will be now... just by default... and thats a real shame


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> way more to it then that but Im not hijaking this thread...
> 
> I also think its a race issue but not in the negative sense...I thinks its enamorment(sp?) with a playing style from a player who doesnt fit the normal description of a plalyer who would have that style...The Traitor is no better then whan he was with Dallas but the system is more fit to his style of play...6 years of leading one of the top offenses, but also 6 years of being destroyed by any point guard who is decent, Is it a coincidence that almost all the starting point guards in this league today have had thier career games against the Traitor?


You bring up an interesting point that I believe jericho touched on several pages (post #49) back about the NBA and the media wanting to push for team play over individual greatness..............I can see this happening because Stern in enamored with the model that the NFL uses with pumping team play and chemistry over individual players.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Boo hoo.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the nba markets its stars as hard now as it ever has.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

kflo said:


> the nba markets its stars as hard now as it ever has.


Yes within certain paramaters, but it also supports team play and the stripping down of individual creativity.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

HKF said:


> No that's not what it is at all.
> 
> It's best Center, Best Forwards and Best Guards.



Well LeBron is a Forward....

So the 1st All NBA team will most likely be:

Nash, Kobe, LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

boo ****ing hoo.


----------



## FastbreaK (Mar 25, 2006)

Well if Nash wins it again, that keeps the African-American MVP streak still intact. :rofl:


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

boo hoo hoo


----------



## KingofNewark (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Does this mean Steve Nash is now one of the greatest players of all time? After 2 MVP trophy's he surely must've surpassed Jason Kidd and John Stockton as one of the greatest point guards, wow unbelievable. Nash in the same HOF league as Tim Duncan, Micheal Jordan, Jerry West, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, WTF!?!?!?!!?!?


----------



## Baron Davis (Apr 14, 2004)

Nash deserves it. After getting their roster revamped, and losing Amare for the whole season, and still leading the team to 54 wins. If I remember correctly, before the all star break, most people had Nash as their mvp. Since they didn't end the season so strong, so many people changed their mind to either Kobe, Dirk, or Lebron. Weak.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> if the Traitor were to bash the voters for giving him the award during his acceptance speech, it would go a long way in repairing his fractured relationship with me...


I can't believe Maverick fans refer to Nash as "the traitor". It was actually the Mavericks who turned their backs on Nash... he said they could have matched Phoenix's offer but refuesed.. instead they gave the money to Eric Dampier. That sure worked out for them. (that last part was sarcasm)


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

In 1994, without Jordan and without any replacement for him, Pippen had the Bulls winning 56 games. Where is his MVP? In the hands of Hakeem. 

People swear that voting has always been like this, but it hasn't. Aside from Iverson, the MVP has always gone to a statistically dominant player. Top 5 atleast. 

Today, we'd have guys like John Stockton and Scottie Pippen winning MVP's over Michael Jordan and Hakeem Olajuwon.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Baron Davis said:


> Nash deserves it. After getting their roster revamped, and losing Amare for the whole season, and still leading the team to 54 wins. If I remember correctly, before the all star break, most people had Nash as their mvp. Since they didn't end the season so strong, so many people changed their mind to either Kobe, Dirk, or Lebron. Weak.


dirk lead his team to 60 wins, 6 more than phx, without anyone close to shawn marion, and with arguably a worse starting 5, and injuries. nash was worse statistically, on a per minute basis, and played 3 less minutes per game. and he's worse defensively. i don't see the argument for nash here.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

The award either means nothing, or it puts Steve Nash into the conversation for top 10 players of all-time. It's one or the other, because being recognized as the best and most valuable player in the league for 2 years and running is something that less than 10 players have ever done. 

Nobody hates Nash, so Suns/Nash fans need to stop defending their boy because he isn't the one being attacked. It's the crooked voting process. How can you hate Steve Nash? Dude is amazing on the court and humble/down to earth off the court. He just isn't the MVP.


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

^He's surpassed Olajuwon and Shaq, to name two dominant centers. Neither of them won multiple MVP's (Which just doesn't seem.....right)


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> 4- For all the guys proping up Lebron James: 10 Tos? In a playoff game?


Since the MVP is a regular season award and the votes are in before the playoffs begin, it wouldn't matter if LeBron scores 100 points per game or gets 50 TO's, the decision for the MVP was already made. So looking at Game 2 game and saying "Look at that," when it's not a game used in the body of work to determine the award is pointless.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

I heard what Stein had to say about this.
The argument that Nash deserves it because he's been better than last year, is ridiculous because it assumes that the performance of other players remained the same as last year, but the truth is that Dirk, Kobe and LeBron have played significantly better than last year, and their teams are significantly better as well.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> dirk lead his team to 60 wins, 6 more than phx, without anyone close to shawn marion, and with arguably a worse starting 5, and injuries. nash was worse statistically, on a per minute basis, and played 3 less minutes per game. and he's worse defensively. i don't see the argument for nash here.


Nash is worse than Dirk defensively??

At least Reggie Miller knows that's wrong.

And please... before the season you guys were saying Phoenix wouldn't make the playoffs without Amare and now that you have seen this new guys play with Nash you are saying well Nash has a great supporting cast.

What a joke. Nash absolutely deserved it again.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the voters are a bunch of brainless idiots. i mean, stephen a voted for nash in part because he was the defending mvp! good lord.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Nash is worse than Dirk defensively??
> 
> At least Reggie Miller knows that's wrong.
> 
> ...


The Traitor is the worst defensive player in the league...


and you (*edit*) was saying Amares injury was minor and he would bounce back with no problem...

personal attacks are not tolerated

*premier*


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Aurelino said:


> I heard what Stein had to say about this.
> The argument that Nash deserves it because he's been better than last year, is ridiculous because it assumes that the performance of other players remained the same as last year, but the truth is that Dirk, Kobe and LeBron have played significantly better than last year, and their teams are significantly better as well.


That must be why Dirk's stats are basically worse than last year and Kobe wasn't even in the top 20 MVP-wise last season so yeah he improved but he was not a legimate candidate this year.

Even Mavs broadcaster Ron Harper voted for Nash and Dirk's teammate Stackhouse doesn't think Dirk should be MVP either.

And lol, Nash the traitor. He left Dallas because Cuban didn't want to match the contract and signed Dampier instead. What a traitor, moron.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

You can't say that Nash doesn't desesrve it. 

I just find it absurd that Steve Nash has two MVP's, and better players such as John Stockton, Gary Payton, and Jason Kidd have none, let alone Shaquille O'Neal, who has one MVP.

Personally I wanted Kobe to win it. I mean, he was absolutely INSANE this season.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

nash gets credit for the individual play of everyone. heck, even dallas players are still good because of nash.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

kflo said:


> dirk lead his team to 60 wins, 6 more than phx, without anyone close to shawn marion, and with arguably a worse starting 5, and injuries. nash was worse statistically, on a per minute basis, and played 3 less minutes per game. and he's worse defensively. i don't see the argument for nash here.


Great so in the future I better never hear you say that Josh Howard or Marquis Daniels are even close to All-Star caliber. 

The arguements for Nash are pretty simple. A) Suns lost every game Nash missed. B) Nash is one of 3 (or 4) players in NBA HISTORY to post 50%+ FG, 40%+ 3P, 90%+ FT C) Nash had better stats that last year.. when he won the MVP D) Nash missed a 26.0PPG scorer... someone who everyone claimed was solely responsible for Nash's high assist totals last season (his assist totals only went down about 1/2 an assist per game)... he also had Kurt Thomas miss major time... but still won games with Tim Thomas at PF and Boris Diaw at C D) The Suns won their division and claimed the #2 seed E) Nash averaged almost 2 more APG than any other player in the league.. in Stockton's big assist years around 8 players a season averaged more than 9 APG... this year Nash was the only one... showing how it's much more difficult to record assists than it was then (probably due to zone defense among other things).. making his assist total all the more impressive F) Almost all of Nash's teammates had career years... well at least James Jones, Shawn Marion, Leandro Barbosa, Raja Bell, Eddie House, among others... most of these guys are spot up shooters... a great PG makes a big difference in this respect G) Many people predicted the Suns would barely make the playoffs or even miss it when Stoudemire went down... leading the Suns to 54 wins is remarkable.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Sir Patchwork said:


> The award either means nothing, or it puts Steve Nash into the conversation for top 10 players of all-time. It's one or the other, because being recognized as the best and most valuable player in the league for 2 years and running is something that less than 10 players have ever done.
> 
> Nobody hates Nash, so Suns/Nash fans need to stop defending their boy because he isn't the one being attacked. It's the crooked voting process. How can you hate Steve Nash? Dude is amazing on the court and humble/down to earth off the court. He just isn't the MVP.


pretty much sums it up


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)




----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I just wonder what kind of perspective can be gained from Nash winning the award twice in a row. 

I've narrowed it down to three directions. 

1. MVP voting has become crooked, Nash simply didn't deserve it. He was a top 10-15 player who somehow got love from the voters and took home an award that he shouldn't have won. The award no longer holds any value in comparing players. 

2. Steve Nash is playing at a level that gives him an argument for being a top 10 player of all-time. He is the 11th player in history to win multiple MVP's, and even some of those players didn't win back to back. This two years and running that Nash has won MVP has only been done a few times in NBA history. 

3. The NBA isn't nearly as good as it used to be, and Nash winning is a product of the game not having any really great players. John Stockton would be the best player in today's game, because there are no Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley or David Robinson type players. 

It has to be one of those three options. It covers all grounds. So giving the award some perspective, one of those three is the truth. Which one? You decide.


----------



## jworth (Feb 17, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Benedict_Boozer said:


> ^He's surpassed Olajuwon and Shaq, to name two dominant centers. Neither of them won multiple MVP's (Which just doesn't seem.....right)


Must remember that Dream was in his prime while Jordan and other future HOFs were gracing the League, and Shaq was in much of his prime during that span as well. 

Each individual season is seperate meaning that the fact Nash has two MVPs doesn't mean that he's as good a player as someone else that has won two MVPs. Nash just happened to be in an easier situation to win both of these, because these last two seasons there has not been one clear cut winner. Nash is the best PG in the NBA by a long shot and deserved the MVP just as much as anyone else. Had Kobe or Lebron won it there would still be a lot of people griping. Nobody was the clear choice. Take the two trophies as what they are.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

at least last years award was consistent with the idea that the mvp goes to a player on one of the best teams. if they were gonna break that trend, it at least needed to go to a top 5 player in the league who was leading a play off team. 

if you want to claim nash won this year because of a weak rolleyes supporting class then why did he win last year? too much hype went into both nash mvps.

at least we used to be able to say the mvp would go to the top player on a top team, we knew exactly what value it had. iff they are randomly gonna make up criteria, it has no value.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I just wonder what kind of perspective can be gained from Nash winning the award twice in a row.
> 
> I've narrowed it down to three directions.
> 
> ...



I've been saying througout this thread it is #3. However, the league does have the calibur players such as MJ, K. Malone, Olajuwon, but they either are playing on mediocre teams (Kobe, KG, AI, McGrady, etc) or are not playing at their usual form due to injury (Shaq and Duncan).


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I've been saying througout this thread it is #3. However, the league does have the calibur players such as MJ, K. Malone, Olajuwon, but they either are playing on mediocre teams (Kobe, KG, AI, McGrady, etc) or are not playing at their usual form due to injury (Shaq and Duncan).


I said the same thing a couple weeks ago, that this is one of the weakest years for the MVP, maybe the weakest ever, and had 10 guys ripping on me left and right.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I just wonder what kind of perspective can be gained from Nash winning the award twice in a row.
> 
> I've narrowed it down to three directions.
> 
> ...



It's #2

I am getting sick of people refusing to accept that present players might be better or become better than "legends".

Who says Stockton would be the same player in todays league?

In Stockton's era a lot of PG were averaging many assists. Over the last 10 years nobody came close to the numbers from the 80s and early 90s. Defenses are better , shooting percentages down , it is harder to get assists.

Even Stockton's dirty defense which was all about handchecking, grabbing etc couldn't be played in today's league.

Stockton wouldn't have Malone either.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

tempe85 said:


> Great so in the future I better never hear you say that Josh Howard or Marquis Daniels are even close to All-Star caliber.


josh howard and marquis daniels were not close to shawn marion this year.



tempe85 said:


> The arguements for Nash are pretty simple. A) Suns lost every game Nash missed.


he missed 3 games.



tempe85 said:


> B) Nash is one of 3 (or 4) players in NBA HISTORY to post 50%+ FG, 40%+ 3P , 90%+ FT


he wins novelty stat of the year. overall, statistically, he was clearly behind all the other candidates, with the exception of billups.



tempe85 said:


> C) Nash had better stats that last year.. when he won the MVP


completely irrelevant.



tempe85 said:


> D) Nash missed a 26.0PPG scorer... someone who everyone claimed was solely responsible for Nash's high assist totals last season (his assist totals only went down about 1/2 an assist per game)... he also had Kurt Thomas miss major time... but still won games with Tim Thomas at PF and Boris Diaw at C


the question is how good was the supporting cast that he DID have. and in comparison to dallas, it's arguable. but they won 6 less games.



tempe85 said:


> D) The Suns won their division and claimed the #2 seed


and lost 6 more games than dallas.



tempe85 said:


> E) Nash averaged almost 2 more APG than any other player in the league.. in Stockton's big assist years around 8 players a season averaged more than 9 APG... this year Nash was the only one... showing how it's much more difficult to record assists than it was then (probably due to zone defense among other things).. making his assist total all the more impressive


nash led the league by 18% over #2. stockton led by 26% in '90, 28% in '92.




tempe85 said:


> F) Almost all of Nash's teammates had career years... well at least James Jones, Shawn Marion, Leandro Barbosa, Raja Bell, Eddie House, among others... most of these guys are spot up shooters... a great PG makes a big difference in this respect


raja bell's per was 12.7, 12.2, 12.9 the last 3 years (12.9 this year). 
barbosa's a 3rd year player who's played his whole career in phx.
eddie house had a lower per than last year.
marion's was better statistically than nash, and a far better defensive player. he's a key to phx's style of play as well.



tempe85 said:


> G) Many people predicted the Suns would barely make the playoffs or even miss it when Stoudemire went down... leading the Suns to 54 wins is remarkable.


and leading dallas to 60 was remarkable as well. as was leading phx to 50, la to 45, det to 64.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> I said the same thing a couple weeks ago, that this is one of the weakest years for the MVP, maybe the weakest ever, and had 10 guys ripping on me left and right.


Yes I remember that thread and I backed you in my one and only post.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I've been saying througout this thread it is #3. However, the league does have the calibur players such as MJ, K. Malone, Olajuwon, but they either are playing on mediocre teams (Kobe, KG, AI, McGrady, etc) or are not playing at their usual form due to injury (Shaq and Duncan).


The players you name have a few thing in common, which are partially reason for being on mediocre teams.

Can you imagine Steve Nash on a mediocre team? I'd bet any amount Houston, Philly, Minnesota would all have been better with Nash as their captain and LA as well.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> nash gets credit for the individual play of everyone. heck, even dallas players are still good because of nash.


hahaha...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

amareca - you think he's the best offensive pg ever.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

well this sucks mainly cuz kobe should have won it

seriously he has scored 40 pts in 1/3 of the games this year


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Amareca said:
 

> The players you name have a few thing in common, which are partially reason for being on mediocre teams.
> 
> Can you imagine Steve Nash on a mediocre team? I'd bet any amount Houston, Philly, Minnesota would all have been better with Nash as their captain and LA as well.



i bet dallas would be better without steve nash (and with jason terry instead).


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> amareca - you think he's the best offensive pg ever.


Yes he is, name another PG who could pass, shoot and score like he can when needed.

If you need statistical confirmation on his MVP go here
http://www.dougstats.com/05-06CumulativeTendex.html

Per Minute


```
1) o'neal,shaquille      Mia   48.71
[B]2) nash,steve            Pho   47.01[/B]
3) ming,yao              Hou   45.45
4) garnett,kevin         Min   45.29
5) wade,dwyane           Mia   44.74
[B]6) james,lebron          Cle   44.46[/B]
7) ginobili,manu         San   44.42
8) duncan,tim            San   42.69
9) brand,elton           LAC   40.90
10) parker,tony           San   40.82
11) pierce,paul           Bos   40.53
[B]12) bryant,kobe           LAL   40.42[/B]
13) camby,marcus          Den   39.54
[B]14) billups,chauncey      Det   39.50[/B]
15) iverson,allen         Phi   39.43
[B]16) nowitzki,dirk         Dal   39.37[/B]
17) ilgauskas,zydrun      Cle   38.42
18) gasol,pau             Mem   38.37
19) paul,chris            NOr   37.81
20) kirilenko,andrei      Uta   37.50
```


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

Hey Amareca, do you ever stop and think that if Stockton still played in the league his scoring would go up tremendously, since it's so much easier to score now, and if Nash played in Stockton's era he wouldn't be half the player he is, because A) There were many more good PG's that would have abused his terrible defense, and B ) He would have gotten manhandled with the type of defense that was allowed to be played.

As for Stockton not having Malone, he'd just make another scrub an all-star like Steve Nash seems to do according to his fanboys.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> i bet dallas would be better without steve nash (and with jason terry instead).


In that case you are an absolute fool.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

PER is a better stat than tendex. and nash ranks 11th. and plays less minutes than all the candidates above him.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Amareca said:


> In that case you are an absolute fool.


uh, it actually happened.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Yes he is, name another PG who could pass, shoot and score like he can when needed.


magic johnson was easily better offensively. easily. as was oscar.


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

Ha, nice list, Camby over Dirk, Manu over Tim and Tony, and we all know how big of an MVP KG has been this year. Wouldn't wanna mess with Yao the MVP either. What a pathetic list.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> uh, it actually happened.


Going from WCF to 2nd round exit presented by Nash makes you better? :angel:


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

thug_immortal8 said:


> Ha, nice list, Camby over Dirk, Manu over Tim and Tony, and we all know how big of an MVP KG has been this year. Wouldn't wanna mess with Yao the MVP either. What a pathetic list.


Well , doh, it is objective statistics which are a reason you are saying Kobe or Lebron should be MVP because in some peoples opinions they have so much better stats than anyone.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I just wonder what kind of perspective can be gained from Nash winning the award twice in a row.
> 
> I've narrowed it down to three directions.
> 
> ...


#1 may be true, but I doubt it and I hope not. 

Regarding #2, I might be willing to put Nash in the top 100, but I'd have to think about it. Top 10 would be ridiculous...and I take it you'd agree.

#3 is wildly facetious, so I assume you're just shoring up your argument for option #1. 

As I and a handful of other bozos have been saying in this thread, there's an option #4, which is that voters are expressing a bias for a style of play and personal comportment. Added to that, Nash did in fact have a great season by many/most standards. I think it defies credibility to say that he wasn't one of the league's best players this year, and I think he's a legitimate candidate for MVP. And, I join most of the people in this thread in saying that he probably shouldn't have won it. 

The voters gave a heap of extra credit to the "boy next door" of the leading candidates, and it apparently ended up tipping the scales. Call this a stretch, an injustice, or a cause for outrage...fine. But it feels wrong to me to call it crooked. This thread has been jam-packed full of members who are far more prolific, respected and informed than me, disagreeing with each other about what the outcome should have been. Voter bias aside, that tells me that Nash was one of several legitimate contestants, and reasonable people should be allowed to differ.

I doubt this is the only year that could spark such debate. If we thoughtful amateurs could exist in some sort of time warp, yodeling on in cyberspace about the merits of various MVP candidates year in and year out, I'm sure we'd have found other episodes to have disagreements of similar volume over.

Should Malone or Barkley REALLY have won over Jordan, in '97 and '93, respectively? Was Walton better than Kareem and Moses in '78? Cowens over Kareem in '73? Reed in '70? And for God's sake, Unseld as a rookie in '69?


----------



## Arti (Nov 6, 2004)

Amareca said:


> Going from WCF to 2nd round exit presented by Nash makes you better? :angel:


The Mavs only made it it to the WCF that year because C-Webb got hurt. Don't forget that Nash was still there the next season, which was dreadful, and the Mavs improved after he left.

Nothing against Nash, as I believe he is a worthy MVP. Just want to get the facts straight.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

socco said:


> I said the same thing a couple weeks ago, that this is one of the weakest years for the MVP, maybe the weakest ever, and had 10 guys ripping on me left and right.


There are five players this year with a PER (player efficiency rating) of 27 or better. 

Year by year, this is how many players have done that. 

2005- Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal
2004- Kevin Garnett
2003- Tracy McGrady, Shaquille O'Neal
2002- Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan
2001- Shaquille O'Neal
2000- Shaquille O'Neal
1999- Shaquille O'Neal
1998- Shaquille O'Neal, David Robinson, Karl Malone
1997- Karl Malone, Michael Jordan
1996- David Robinson, Michael Jordan
1995- David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal
1994- David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal
1993- Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon
1992- Michael Jordan, David Robinson
1991- Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley
1990- Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley
1989- Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson

So three, at most, and none of those names don't belong, which reflects positively on the formula used. 

2006- LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Kevin Garnett

And the first four are all above 28. This is not a weak year for MVP, in my opinion.

Just FWIW.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

I agree....Nash winning once is a joke, twice is a joke that isnt even funny anymore


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> There are five players this year with a PER (player efficiency rating) of 27 or better.
> 
> Year by year, this is how many players have done that.
> 
> ...


Only two of those guys have good enough teams to be an MVP.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

socco said:


> Only two of those guys have good enough teams to be an MVP.


nash won with 54 wins. lebron won 50. what's the cutoff?


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

kflo said:


> nash won with 54 wins. lebron won 50. what's the cutoff?


In the East.

Nobody would call Cleveland a top 5 Team in the league or serious contender.

Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix and Detroit and maybe Miami would be the teams most people would mention as contenders so the MVP would have to be on one of those teams definately.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> Only two of those guys have good enough teams to be an MVP.


BTW, Happy Birthday socco!


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

i really like Nash but the voting has ruined it 4 me.. this guy isnt even a top5 player in the NBA... Kobe and Lebron had historic seasons, if you want a top team give it to Dirk, cuz they won more than Dallas and lost Nash just 2 seasons ago...

i hate ****ing Nowitzki... i hate his game and i hate the Mavs, but i have actually just let the words "give to Dirk" slip out of my mouth in context to the MVP b/c Nash winning was so incredibly asinine... this is what the NBA has come to... they have turned me to a Dirk fan.... NOOOOO!


----------



## TWolvesGG2144 (Apr 2, 2005)

LMAO at the people comparing Nash to Stockton. I assume those people started watching basketball last season, and never got to see John in his prime. There is no comparison between the two, not even close. 

Nash getting all the credit for the Sun's success is all a bunch of crap too. He is the exact same player that he was before in Dallas. The only difference is that Mike D'Antoni gives him an open spread offense with a bunch of three point shooters. For people who say that you need Nash to run this system, the exact same thing worked for D'Antoni when he coached Benneton Treviso in Italy for years. That's the reason a player like Diaw can come in and dominate like he did for the French National team over the SUMMER (he was the best player on the French national team, before he ever played a game with Nash). Without D'Antoni, Nash puts up the same numbers as in Dallas, and isn't on the MVP radar. Mike D'Antoni=coach of the year. Steve Nash=/= MVP. 

Also, for you Suns homers who think Nash has a shot at Stocktons assist record, Stockton has more than 10,000 career assists more than Nash at this point. Nash would have to play 82 games per season for the next 10 years, and average 13.2 assists per game to tie Stockton.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Yes he is, name another PG who could pass, shoot and score like he can when needed.


C'mon, dude. You'll be lonely in here if you start making the argument that he's the best ever at his position. We've all had to wade through ten million posts on whether he was even in the ballpark of the best player this year. If you're going to start putting his career achievements and performance over Oscar, Magic, Isiah, Stockton, and West (and we can argue about Kidd, KJ, Payton, Cousy, Pistol Pete, T. Hardaway, and a few others), then you're buying yourself a ticket to Neverland.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Yeah that's incredible. I love Nash, but to me there's no justification for him to have two MVPs at this point. But let's proceed now. This means that Nash is one of the ten greatest players of all-time. I hope the media acknowledges what they have done. If the MVP trophy means anything, then what Nash has just done is HUGE. The media has just told us that Nash is the best player in the league right now. Back to back MVPs. That's what that means. You don't give back to back MVPs to some schmoe. I want the media to act like Nash is the best player in the league right now. All the hype they give Kobe and Lebron. They should give it all to Nash. Kobe has multiple titles, scored 81 points in a basketball game. 62 in 3 quarters of another. He's in his prime. But he has NO Mvps. If he couldn't get an MVP this year, it's very likely that he will never get one. I want the media to acknowledge what that means. I don't want the media to give Nash the MVP, and then pretend it didn't happen next year. Steve Nash is the best player in the league, so says the media. Put that target on his back.

I want the Nash vs. Magic debate to happen. I don't even want people to consider Stockton being in the same breath as Nash.

SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE MEDIA. BAD DOG. BAD!


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

Amareca said:


> In the East.
> 
> Nobody would call Cleveland a top 5 Team in the league or serious contender.
> 
> Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix and Detroit and maybe Miami would be the teams most people would mention as contenders so the MVP would have to be on one of those teams definately.


dirk.... ****, i'd take the broken Duncan... or um DWAYNE WADE... hes far better than Nash... this is a joke...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

jericho said:


> #3 is wildly facetious, so I assume you're just shoring up your argument for option #1.


It's really not sarcastic at all. 

You don't win back to back MVP's without being one of the greatest players in history, getting the award(s) unfairly, or without playing against a watered down league. It's one of the three. I'm all about clarity, I just want to put the proper perspective on the award. I think even folks who believe Nash deserved it can agree that one of those three options have to be true. There really isn't any other option. 



> As I and a handful of other bozos have been saying in this thread, there's an option #4, which is that voters are expressing a bias for a style of play and personal comportment.


Showing bias in voting is crooked. Therefore your 4th option falls under my 1st option.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

You know what I always find absolutely hillarious... Is the fact that all these "basketball purists" think the game has become too much fancy dunks, three point shots, and fancy dribbling. Then go out and complain when a guy that plays the game fairly simple, but is the most important player to a team than anyone in the league wins... BTW, what the hell is this whole "this means that Nash is one of the ten greatest players of all time" Idiotic crap... It's just such dumb logic. Ben Wallace is the second greatest defensive player of all time right? Right behind Dikembe Mutumbo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Defensive_Player_of_the_Year_Award


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

kflo said:


> nash won with 54 wins. lebron won 50. what's the cutoff?


You can't tell me that people look at the Cavs as being as successful as the Suns, or close.



ralaw said:


> BTW, Happy Birthday socco!


Thanks!


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

socco said:


> You can't tell me that people look at the Cavs as being as successful as the Suns, or close.


isn't it about team wins?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



S-Star said:


> You know what I always find absolutely hillarious... Is the fact that all these "basketball purists" think the game has become too much fancy dunks, three point shots, and fancy dribbling. Then go out and complain when a guy that plays the game fairly simple, but is the most important player to a team than anyone in the league wins... BTW, what the hell is this whole "this means that Nash is one of the ten greatest players of all time" Idiotic crap... It's just such dumb logic. Ben Wallace is the second greatest defensive player of all time right? Right behind Dikembe Mutumbo...


I love it when people act like Steve Nash doesn't play an And1 game because he's white and from Canada. There's nobody who plays a flashier game in the NBA than Nash right now.

And name me a two time MVP who isn't one of the all-time greats?

Yeah that's right. You can't.


----------



## dominikan_balla1 (Aug 4, 2004)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Some people want to use the "he didn't have amare this year and still won 50+ games" excuse ..so freaking what!! ..he still had another all star on his team ..the most improved player in the league ..and a good supporting cast like raja, leandro, kurt, and thomas ..i think lebron deserved it 10 times more than nash ..50 wins ...31,7,6 ..C'MON


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Ugh.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Showing bias in voting is crooked. Therefore your 4th option falls under my 1st option.


Well, if you insist. I wonder if we're quibbling over semantics, but maybe not. 

Part of my point in this thread has been that voting is naturally and necessarily going to be subjective, and therefore reasonable people will differ on the biases (or preferences or perspectives or values or beliefs or interpretations) that they employ in ranking one player above the other. I remember back in the early or mid-'90s an NBA GM saying he would vote for Matt Fish for the All-Star game before he'd vote for Derrick Coleman. This was in the long-ago day when every other pundit was saying Coleman had the talent to be a top 5 player, but there was wide concern that his "whoop-de-damn-do" attitude would prevent that from ever happening. 

Based on sheer talent and on performance (certainly individual and arguably team), that GM should have voted for Coleman. But his "bias," or preference for how the game should be played and how players should conduct themselves on and off the court, would have kept him from doing so. Was he crooked?


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



futuristxen said:


> I love it when people act like Steve Nash doesn't play an And1 game because he's white and from Canada. There's nobody who plays a flashier game in the NBA than Nash right now.
> 
> And name me a two time MVP who isn't one of the all-time greats?
> 
> Yeah that's right. You can't.


Yes, let's make this a race issue... So let me get this straight, if Allen Iverson has an AWESOME year, and wins MVP, would that be a problem? I don't consider AI one of the top 10 of all time... Whine all you want, but the fact that history says that only the greatest have won it multiple times shouldn't affect the outcome. Let me ask you this, would you have had this big of a problem with it if he HADN'T won it last year?


----------



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

*KOBE DOESNT EVEN HAVE AN MVP!!!*


I'm not even a kobe fan


they are going to look back at us and laugh


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Sir Patchwork said:


> The award either means nothing, or it puts Steve Nash into the conversation for top 10 players of all-time. It's one or the other, because being recognized as the best and most valuable player in the league for 2 years and running is something that less than 10 players have ever done.
> 
> Nobody hates Nash, so Suns/Nash fans need to stop defending their boy because he isn't the one being attacked. It's the crooked voting process. How can you hate Steve Nash? Dude is amazing on the court and humble/down to earth off the court. He just isn't the MVP.


pretty much, repped...


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

kflo said:


> isn't it about team wins?


Alright, team success. The Suns and Cavs aren't on the same level there.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

I am a Nash fan, I am not hatin on that man at all but there is no way in HELL he deserves to be a 2-time MVP...YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!! :curse:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

I think it's ridiculous how people want to make this a two years in a row thing... If he was the most valuable in the first year, and the most valuable in the second year, he should win them both. The fact that they are coming in succession should have NOTHING to do with it. Want to talk about crooked voting? How crooked would it be if they voted not on performance, but on the fact that in the past only the greatest have won multiple MVP's... Most valuable is most valuable... Regaurdless of who it is... What his name is... He was the most valuable in two years. Quit crying...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

what's the math to translate ec wins to wc wins?


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Steve Nash over Kobe and LeBron? You gotta be kidding me! I think Dirk should of won it over him,but over Kobe and LeBron!!! This is like the Bulls 3rd championship year when they gave MVP to Barkley!!Everyone knew that was another MVP year for Jordan and he proved it to sir Charles too.They just felt he had too many probley.In this case Nash has not one too many but (2) too many!!! uke:


----------



## jworth (Feb 17, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

There was no clear cut winner this year so it's hard to give Nash such a hard time on this.


----------



## VeN (May 10, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

I think Nash is awesome, I hate that he left Dallas. But him winning the MVP again this year is retarded. Personally even though I hate to admit it, I felt like Kobe deserved it. He pretty much willed the Lakers into the playoffs. And then dropped historic scores twice this season. If not him, then Dirk followed closely by LBJ.


----------



## LBJthefuturegoat (Nov 13, 2004)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Dirk was robbed and Nash is the most overrated player in the media not Kobe and not LeBron.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



jworth said:


> There was no clear cut winner this year so it's hard to give Nash such a hard time on this.


There were 3 clear cut winners, and none of those three are named Steve Nash. I would have no problem if Kobe, Dirk, or Bron had won it. But Nash winning it diminishes the award. And I'm a fan of the little guys. But he didn't do nearly as much this year as Kobe, Bron, and Dirk did.


----------



## CbobbyB (Feb 16, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Benedict_Boozer said:


> ^He's surpassed *Olajuwon* and Shaq, to name two dominant centers. Neither of them won multiple MVP's (Which just doesn't seem.....right)


hell yea, i was thinkin' the same exact thing.

although i dont have a problem with Nash winning it...hes a damn good player.(of course)


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

..

I don't understand the whole "so you are saying Nash is a top 10 player of all time" argument. MVP is an award for this season. It isn't an award of historical perspective. The fact that Stockton was better and never had an MVP or that Shaq doesn't have enough MVPs is absolutely meaningless in the argument. If you are a voter you aren't going to ask yourself before voting for Nash where this puts him in history. 

There were 5-6 guys who were all strong candidates and none of them was the inarguable MVP. I don't see how Nash winning it can be a sham when no one really went out and took the MVP. And the fact that the voting has a points system for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place votes and there were so many viable candidates mean any one of those guys could have taken it.

In the words of the immortal Nature Boy Ric Flair - "to be the man, you gotta beat the man"


----------



## jworth (Feb 17, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



futuristxen said:


> There were 3 clear cut winners, and none of those three are named Steve Nash. I would have no problem if Kobe, Dirk, or Bron had won it. But Nash winning it diminishes the award. And I'm a fan of the little guys. But he didn't do nearly as much this year as Kobe, Bron, and Dirk did.


There's no doubt that those guys have been spectacular this season, but Nash has had a nasty season as well. Those three guys and Nash have been MVPs in their own right for each of their teams this year, and NONE of them would have been the clear cut MVP. NONE. Regardless of who would've won it, there would have been plenty of legit intelligent arguements for the other players who didn't win.


----------



## jworth (Feb 17, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



JNice said:


> ..
> 
> I don't understand the whole "so you are saying Nash is a top 10 player of all time" argument. MVP is an award for this season. It isn't an award of historical perspective. The fact that Stockton was better and never had an MVP or that Shaq doesn't have enough MVPs is absolutely meaningless in the argument. If you are a voter you aren't going to ask yourself before voting for Nash where this puts him in history.
> 
> ...


repped


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



jworth said:


> There's no doubt that those guys have been spectacular this season, but Nash has had a nasty season as well. Those three guys and Nash have been MVPs in their own right for each of their teams this year, and NONE of them would have been the clear cut MVP. NONE. Regardless of who would've won it, there would have been plenty of legit intelligent arguements for the other players who didn't win.


I think if we did a poll here, you would find far more people who would have accepted either a Lebron/Kobe/ or Dirk MVP than a Nash one. People have been saying for weeks that they wouldn't mind if one of those 3 won it, so long as it wasn't Nash or Billups.


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

:nah: Nash wins another MVP :nah:

:biggrin: good job by the voters :clap:


----------



## kidd2rj (Jan 29, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

What's wrong with Nash winning MVP. Did he not carry his suns team to one of the top records last year and this year. Is he not doing it while putting up amazing numbers. The only problem I have with him winning it is the fact that jason kidd did an even more amazing job than him in both years the nets went to the finals and kidd didn't get it. Kidd deserved it over duncan that year. MVP award does not have to mean you're the best player in the league. To me, it should mean the player who elevates the play of himself, his team and around the league....and nash does that.


----------



## jworth (Feb 17, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



futuristxen said:


> I think if we did a poll here, you would find far more people who would have accepted either a Lebron/Kobe/ or Dirk MVP than a Nash one. People have been saying for weeks that they wouldn't mind if one of those 3 won it, so long as it wasn't Nash or Billups.


I suppose there would be plenty of people who would ignore what Nash has done this season and leave him completly off the list.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Ha...."MVPs" don't get held to 8 ppg in the WCF.


Wow didn't i say this before the game?


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

That's what separates Marion from being a superstar....ever since he's been in Phoenix he hasn't ever did anything in the Playoffs.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Amareca makes his return. Surprisingly, I don't recall seeing him around when Amare went down, again. Welcome back.

Ralaw, exactly. The voting is flawed, or the NBA's extremely weak if Nash can be mentioned in the same breath as the other 2 time MVPs. All of them won a championship too, Nash hasn't come close. The MVP is a regular season award though, so I guess it doesn't count for much.

Again, no problem with Nash winning the award. A strong case can be made for him to win the award. But he does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the other 2 time winners, besides when it comes to MVP awards. He's not the player any of the others were.

Oscar Robertson could only manage to win 1 MVP award, whereas Nash already has 2. Either this shows you the difference between the NBA standards, the difficulty back then to win the award, or just how ridiculous the award is. I don't know anyone that would realistically take Nash over Robertson.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

jericho said:


> Well, if you insist. I wonder if we're quibbling over semantics, but maybe not.
> 
> Part of my point in this thread has been that voting is naturally and necessarily going to be subjective, and therefore reasonable people will differ on the biases (or preferences or perspectives or values or beliefs or interpretations) that they employ in ranking one player above the other. I remember back in the early or mid-'90s an NBA GM saying he would vote for Matt Fish for the All-Star game before he'd vote for Derrick Coleman. This was in the long-ago day when every other pundit was saying Coleman had the talent to be a top 5 player, but there was wide concern that his "whoop-de-damn-do" attitude would prevent that from ever happening.
> 
> Based on sheer talent and on performance (certainly individual and arguably team), that GM should have voted for Coleman. But his "bias," or preference for how the game should be played and how players should conduct themselves on and off the court, would have kept him from doing so. Was he crooked?


Good point....continue.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



JNice said:


> ..
> 
> I don't understand the whole "so you are saying Nash is a top 10 player of all time" argument. MVP is an award for this season. It isn't an award of historical perspective. The fact that Stockton was better and never had an MVP or that Shaq doesn't have enough MVPs is absolutely meaningless in the argument. If you are a voter you aren't going to ask yourself before voting for Nash where this puts him in history.
> 
> ...


31/7/6 and 50 wins for a team that didn't make the playoffs last year and 2nd best player hurt half the season.

35/5/5...81...62 in 3 and 45 wins for a non playoff team without another All Star.

27 and 9 and leading role players to the 3rd best record in the entire league.

THERE WERE PLAYERS THAT TOOK THE MVP, however, the MVP case for Nash(both seasons) is framed in intangibles that somehow depend on the fact that Amare didn't play. Guess what media morons, Kobe, Dirk, and LeBron made it through the season without Amare also and neither had a player as good as Marion next to them. I find it hilarius that the entirte argument for giving Steve Nash the MVP in 2005 (he had great talent around him BUT they had the best record) was turned around this season.


----------



## kidd2rj (Jan 29, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

no way would i have given it to kobe. he lost way too many games because of his play. You can bring up the argument of who he has on his team but you can win games other than shooting 35 times. That's how nash does it and duncan and shaq and garnett. Like i said in my previous post, I have no problems with nash winning it. Personally, I probably would have voted Dirk 1st, nash 2nd, and lebron 3rd.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



KingofNewark said:


> Does this mean Steve Nash is now one of the greatest players of all time? After 2 MVP trophy's he surely must've surpassed Jason Kidd and John Stockton as one of the greatest point guards, wow unbelievable. Nash in the same HOF league as Tim Duncan, Micheal Jordan, Jerry West, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, WTF!?!?!?!!?!?


It really depends how you see the MVP award, and how it influences your ranking of the GOAT. Robertson only won 1 MVP, but I'd consider him a top 3 point guard, definitely. I wouldn't consider Nash a top 5 point guard of all time. Nash has been great for 2 seasons, before that he was impressive but not even an All-Star selection his last year in Dallas. His career as a whole has not been that impressive.

That alone, drops him a few places. It's one thing to have 2 great seasons, but another to have 10 on the run. Stockton and Kidd have been more impressive over a longer period of time.

Nash's stats as of now are 13ppg and 7apg over his career. Not impressive, considering that he has yet to experience a downfall in production like most players, which will certainly decrease his stats unless he retires beforehand.

Nash will be a HOF, but most will be able to recognize that he is not and won't be an elite player. 4 time All-Star, 2 time MVP? Does that sound a little crazy to anyone else? Nash hardly showed up before his MVP awards. He was a good point guard, but was never going to be mentioned as a GOAT. 2 MVP awards don't change that in my books.

There's a huge flaw in the MVP award, and that's a definition. If there was one definition, there would be fewer arguments about the award. But it's more publicity. Also, this could really show a drop off in talent. If Nash is truely the MVP, and the MVP represents the most-valuable player of the last 2 years, then I'd pick him last out of all the other 2-time MVP winners. Shows you the top of the crop isn't up there with generations of the past.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



JNice said:


> ..
> 
> I don't understand the whole "so you are saying Nash is a top 10 player of all time" argument. MVP is an award for this season. It isn't an award of historical perspective. The fact that Stockton was better and never had an MVP or that Shaq doesn't have enough MVPs is absolutely meaningless in the argument. If you are a voter you aren't going to ask yourself before voting for Nash where this puts him in history.


So basically it shows that this season the MVP candidates are weak, or just not as impressive as previous years? Probably true.

An MVP award guarantees you a place in the HOF, 2 MVP awards guarantees you'll move up the GOAT list significantly. All the 2-time MVP winners are top 20 GOAT, of those who aren't still playing. If we follow the trend, Duncan will make it, but will Nash?

I agree, it's this years MVP award and it can't be awarded with regards to historic selections. This years award is based on this years accomplishments. But having 2 MVP awards puts Nash in a very exclusive group, and examining whether Nash is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath does give some perspective on the state of the NBA, it's MVP candidates and the voting process.


----------



## justasking? (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

As much as I enjoy Steve Nash and recognize his talent, in my personal opinion, there are others who are more worthy of being the MVP this year. He is a great player and one who has really been great for his team. But MVP?? I honestly thought it was going to be either Dirk, Lebron or Kobe. I'm not a fan of any of these 3 players, but as objectively as I can be, these 3 deserve it more.


----------



## VeN (May 10, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

IM going to sum up all the "nash winning is a sham" arguments so everyone can understand. 

- Every candidate had a LEGIT reason to win it, yes even Nash. Him winning it is less him deserving it over the other candidates and more with the fact that they were just too lazy to determine who the real MVP was out of that great group of players. Thats what it seems like in all honesty. Im not discrediting Nash cause I love the guy, he is a great player. But it doesnt seem like all the pros and cons were weighed in and they just went with the nostalgia factor. Him winning again is going to hurt him in the long run though.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Sir Patchwork said:


> The award either means nothing, or it puts Steve Nash into the conversation for top 10 players of all-time. It's one or the other, because being recognized as the best and most valuable player in the league for 2 years and running is something that less than 10 players have ever done.
> 
> Nobody hates Nash, so Suns/Nash fans need to stop defending their boy because he isn't the one being attacked. It's the crooked voting process. How can you hate Steve Nash? Dude is amazing on the court and humble/down to earth off the court. He just isn't the MVP.


That's how I feel. I don't hate Nash...I hate everybody that voted for Nash though. That was Kobes award, and he got unrightfully conned out of it.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



MemphisX said:


> 31/7/6 and 50 wins for a team that didn't make the playoffs last year and 2nd best player hurt half the season.
> 
> 35/5/5...81...62 in 3 and 45 wins for a non playoff team without another All Star.
> 
> ...



So ON POINT.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

I hope everyone remembers what a joke this award is so when LeBron and Kobe win it
They call just laugh at it. Because it obviously means nothing.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



SunsFan57 said:


> I hope everyone remembers what a joke this award is so when LeBron and Kobe win it
> They call just laugh at it. Because it obviously means nothing.



It's only the Nash MVP seasons so far that I will call the MVP a joke award.


----------



## justasking? (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

As I've mentioned in another thread, in my opinion, I think this 2nd MVP will do more harm than good for Nash. He has been a great player and he has carried this Suns team well. But to give it to him this season when there are other more deserving players out there simply makes it a travesty. Kobe, Lebron or even Dirk are more deserving in my opinion (And I'm not even a fan of any of these players). Nash a great player, no doubt about that. He's been having a good career and 2 great seasons. However, because of the "criticism or disagreement" surrounding his 2nd MVP, he might be remembered as the two time MVP who didn't deserve it (one or both), more than the great player who he truly has become these past few seasons.


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

just because hakeem and shaq both have one combined MVPs compared to Nash's 2 MVPs does not mean Nash wasnt deserving. thats probably the ****tiest argument i've heard all day.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Yeah, as much as I wanted Kobe to win MVP, or as much as I thought Lebron deserved it more, that "2 MVPs in a row for Nash" argument is totally off base. Did Dirk, Kobe, and Lebron deserve it more? Probably. But Nash was in the race all year, and let's be honest, who really thought they would've been the 2 seed with the cast they had during the preseason. The Suns definitely overachieved year this year, so did Nash. Now he may not be in the class of the MJs, Birds, and Magics with 2 MVPs in a row, but that doesn't mean he should be discounted from the award. To take away that trophy just because he isn't in that company is ridiculous. The man played out of his mind for the last year, without one of the most intimidating forces in the paint all year, give him his props.


----------



## Tyrellaphonte (Feb 21, 2004)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

horrible. People will say he's better than Kobe in the long run because he has won 2 and Kobe has won none. How many times has somebody averaged 35 points per game and hasn't been recognized for it? People need to realize the meaning of the title MVP.. it means MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Not most valuable player on a great team, it's most VALUABLE player. Take Kobe away from the Lakers? OK, fair enough, now try and win more than 2 games. It's not gonna happen. Nash is good, and a great point guard, but now his name gets put up into the likes of Magic Johnson, John Stockton, etc.. and he's just not that good, period. It's a shame that the voters fail to realize this.

.. and thats real


----------



## edabomb (Feb 12, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

I agree Nash doesn't fit in the legends category. He definately deserved the award last season, I'm not sold on this season TBH. But still, its more a reflection on the lower standard of the leage and lack of great players at the moment rather than anything else.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Some of you totally missed the point about what two MVP's mean. It has to mean one of the following. 

*1.* Nash is in the argument for top 10 of all-time. He is the 11th player to win multiple MVP's. It's not a common thing. 
*2.* Nash has two MVP's, but he deserved them, and won them as a result of watered down league where the candidates he was up against aren't the same caliber as they have been in the past. 
*3.* He didn't deserve it more than another player this season. 

It's impossible to deny that one of these three things is true. Either he deserved it a great year and that puts him among the greats, deserved it in a watered down year, or didn't deserve it. Fairly simple.

Like futuristxen said, Nash can't be the underdog as a two-time MVP. The MVP award is not a joke award to be taken lightly and laughed off as some cool breezy accomplishment. It has serious historical significance. That's why it's important to put the award into perspective.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



SunsFan57 said:


> I hope everyone remembers what a joke this award is so when LeBron and Kobe win it


It's only a joke when players who don't deserve it win it.


----------



## LW (Apr 15, 2006)

From a Kobe fan,

Congrats to Steve Nash for a wonderful season. Although I disagree with the pick not being Kobe Bryant, deep down I always knew Kobe would never win the MVP. I'll wait for the official ranking, but I believe Kobe finished 4th or 5th. This is surely an indication of the media's personal agenda against Kobe, a personal agenda I'm sure even some of you hold against him.

Since there is really nothing Kobe can do, short of AVERAGING 81ppg, to win MVP, I'm glad Steve Nash won it, because he is a classy person (most of the time) and he represents team-basketball. I'm a bit disappointed that so many all-time NBA greats have been devalued a bit in terms of MVP history, but, eh, what can you do.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

Giving Steve Nash MVP over Kobe is like giving Mark Price MVP over Jordan.

well sort of... :angel:


----------



## Kicito (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Some of you totally missed the point about what two MVP's mean. It has to mean one of the following.
> 
> *1.* Nash is in the argument for top 10 of all-time. He is the 11th player to win multiple MVP's. It's not a common thing.
> *2.* Nash has two MVP's, but he deserved them, and won them as a result of watered down league where the candidates he was up against aren't the same caliber as they have been in the past.
> ...


Or 

*4.* The media don't know what they're talking about.

When you think that Nash has more MVP awards than players like Shaq, Olajuwon, Barkley, D. Robinson, etc. you know something is wrong. Those guys are legends, Nash is a great PG but he is no legend IMO.


----------



## VeN (May 10, 2005)

tempe85 said:


> Dirk didn't win either.. probably for a number of reasons: A) He didn't have to overcome nearly as much as Nash did... I'm sorry but losing a sixth man in Stackhouse for some of the year... and Van Horn (who sucks anyways) isn't nearly as difficult as losing one of the top scorers in the league (Stoudemire) and the best defensive/post presence the Suns had (Kurt Thomas). B) He's not even any better of a defensive player than Nash... so you can't use that to his advantage. C) The Mavericks failed to win their division and ended up with the fourth seed (Yes they had more wins than Nash's team.. but not so much more that it negated what Nash had to overcome). On a side note I think Dirk would have won the award had they wraped up the #1 seed in the West.
> 
> That leaves Steve Nash... your 2005-2006 MVP award winner.



1. You are forgetting: Josh Howard (arguably the 2nd option), Devin Harris, Armstrong, Christie (yes DOUG Christie people), Griffin, and Marquis Daniels. This is most of Dallas main lineup. If youre gonna bring up injuries, list them all not just one or two. We had a myriad of injuries this season. And still almost took top seed over the Spurs. Lets see how far Nash and the Suns would get without say... Bell, Diaw, Marion and 2 or 3 others gone for 20-30 games of the season. Theyed be lucky to get 45 wins. 

2. Id say Dirk TRIES harder on the defensive end though. Its like someone said once (I think it was Artest), that a great defensive presense is mostly effort and a want to defend. And from what Ive seen Dirk wants it more than Nash. 

3. Falling a game or two short of winning the division over the current champs is nothing to look down upon. They are the 3rd best team in the league, and thats inarguable. And that was accomplished with all those injuries I mentioned and Dirks great play.


----------



## VeN (May 10, 2005)

Ras said:


> Also, LeBron, Dirk and Kobe have never even had the chance to lose Amare becuase they've never played with a player that good.



Kobe had Shaq :x


----------



## VeN (May 10, 2005)

Amareca said:


> Nash is one of the all-time greatest PGs, top 3.


My eyes just exploded... wow... ho ho ho hoooooomer


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Some of you totally missed the point about what two MVP's mean. It has to mean one of the following.
> 
> *1.* Nash is in the argument for top 10 of all-time. He is the 11th player to win multiple MVP's. It's not a common thing.
> *2.* Nash has two MVP's, but he deserved them, and won them as a result of watered down league where the candidates he was up against aren't the same caliber as they have been in the past.
> ...


\

The award became a "joke award" when Nash won it last year. Nash is a great player, but he by no means should be anywhere around an MVP trophy. However, you can't discount the fact that Nash fit all of the criteria last year and this year to win it. I think the voting process needs to be revamped. 

Next year, Nash will be doing the samething he did this year and last, but hopefully with Stoudemire, so the Suns will be in position to win atleast 60+ game barring any Nash injury. If the voters look at the same qualities they have looked at the past 2 years, how could they not vote Nash for a 3rd MVP if he leads this team to 60+ wins and statistics in the range of what he has done the past 2 years? It would be hypocritical and would cheapen the award even more if they didn't.

The voters have messed up and it is time to revamp the process.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

dannyM said:


> Giving Steve Nash MVP over Kobe is like giving Mark Price MVP over Jordan.
> 
> well sort of... :angel:



Not really, since MJ's team was far far far better than Mark Price's Cavs.







I think Nash is a deserving winner, he is one of 4 players who deserved it. But the player that deserved it the most factoring all the parameters of selection... is Dirk.

If Kobe's Lakers were a 55 win team, he'd win it by a landslide. Lebron won 50 games, but seriously if LeBron wins it with 50 wins, then LeBron will win it for the next 6 years... in a row atleast, the voters obviously looked at that possibility, since Cavs winning 50 games a year with LeBron averagin 30/6/6 for the next decade is a HUGE possibility. So I dont think LeBron will win it unless Cavs is in the top 4 teams in the NBA.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

tempe85 said:


> Nash averaged almost 2 more APG than any other player in the league.. in Stockton's big assist years around 8 players a season averaged more than 9 APG... this year Nash was the only one... showing how it's much more difficult to record assists than it was then (probably due to zone defense among other things).. making his assist total all the more impressive


That is not a good argument. Do you think Nash getting almost 2 apg more than anyone else shows that he's THAT much better playmaker? No. Try to understand what lies behind such stats. It's the system that enables Nash to get more assists. 

The average FGA per team in 2006 was 6477. The Suns took 7167 FGA. That is almost 9 FGA/game more than average for the league. The average assisted FG made per team was 1690, and the Suns had 2179 assisted FGs. So the bottomline is that, not only did they averaged 9 FGA/game more than average, they also registered almost 6 apg more than average. It is easy to see why the Suns system is conducive to getting more assists, since there's more FGAs and almost no one-on-one play. 

Compare that to the Detroit Pistons, who took only 1 FGA/game more than league average, and yet Billups was able to average 8.7 apg. 

The Nets, for example, were 2 FGA/game *below* the league average and Kidd still averaged 8.4 apg. 

Compare that to Stockton's 14.5 apg year, the average FGA and assisted FG per team were 7146 and 2038 respectively. These numbers are very comparable to those of the Suns this year.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Teezy said:


> Nash is good, and a great point guard, but now his name gets put up into the likes of Magic Johnson, John Stockton, etc.. and he's just not that good, period. It's a shame that the voters fail to realize this.
> 
> .. and thats real


Not at all real, actually. 

Look at his stats: Steve Nash _is_ that good. Don't mistake the mellow Canadian nice-guy act for somebody who doesn't compete hard and have stats this season to match Magic's and Stock's and Isaiah's and Cousy's. Nash has changed from his old days with the Mavs; nowadays he's everything the League could want to represent the teams and fans as its MVP. No surprise he's being honored with the award again--but I bet he'd trade both those MVP awards for one of Kobe Bryant's Championship Rings.

Laurie


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Sir Patchwork said:


> It's only a joke when players who don't deserve it win it.


And only the guy _you_ think should win it deserves it. Wow.

Be real. If the award is valid when one player wins it, it's valid when another does. 

The League's not watered down--how can a league with Kobe, LeBron, Dirk, 'Melo, Brand, Nash and even guys like Artest, the two O'Neals, etc., be watered down??--but this year (as last) the Most Valuable Player is Steve Nash. Not the _Best_ Player; _that_ award would belong to Kobe Bryant. But the Most Valuable is Steve Nash. Those two categories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but this year, like last, they are.

You have to decide: Is the MVP a worthless award? If it is, it's worthless when Nash wins it--and it was worthless when MJ, Shaq, Magic, Bird and Malone won it too. Okay, fine. If it's a true and honorable award, then Nash is by definition at the top of his profession--and by winning two of them, he's solidified his position as one of the finest point guards to ever play the game...and that's fine too.

Laurie


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Some of you totally missed the point about what two MVP's mean. It has to mean one of the following.
> 
> *1.* Nash is in the argument for top 10 of all-time. He is the 11th player to win multiple MVP's. It's not a common thing.
> *2.* Nash has two MVP's, but he deserved them, and won them as a result of watered down league where the candidates he was up against aren't the same caliber as they have been in the past.
> *3.* He didn't deserve it more than another player this season.


Fine, I'll play by your rules, and go with a qualified #3...Nash had a terrific season--arguably his best ever--but the award probably should have gone to Lebron or Kobe. 

But I think you're overstating the historical, geopolitical, intergalactic significance of Nash winning it twice. I think it's obvious that better players than Nash have won it less often, and it's fairly understandable why that's the case. There's a good chance Oscar would have won more than once if his peers hadn't included Wilt and Russell. There's a reasonable chance Olajuwon and Barkley might have won it again (and Stockton might have won it at all) if they hadn't played during the Jordan era. 

So this leads back to the question of whether Nash deserved it this year. Clearly, if you put the matter to a democratic vote on this board (and probably among the general fan base, not to mention the players and coaches), Nash would lose out. But I view this as a strong signal that the voting criteria need to be much more explicit, systematic and transparent than as a sign of some deep corruption, because Nash in fact did have a fabulous year--his best ever. The award isn't a joke, because he's not a joke. I personally don't think he should have won it, but I think there's a case for reasonable people to argue that he deserved it. 

This raises the question of whether this kind of injustice, or whatever we're going to call it, has happened before. Why did rookie Wes Unseld win the award in '69? He was the most important player on the team with the best record. But was he better, more dominant, more valuable that year, than Jerry West or Wilt Chamberlain, whose Lakers were only two games behind? I find that hard to believe. Using the logic that seemed to prevail that year, Billups or Rasheed (or maaaybe Big Ben) should be MVP this year. 

How about 1970? West, Chamberlain, and Kareem all had monster years statistically, and their teams had two of the five best records in the league. But the award went to Willis Reed, whose Knicks had the best record. Was this a travesty? 

And let's not even talk about Barkley and Malone winning over Jordan...

I think there are years in the voting where subjective elements come more strongly into play. Voters want to reward a special effort of will, career achievement, a comeback performance, a breath of fresh air. Or they want a change of pace, or to send a message. Is this right? Should it be allowed to happen? Opinions will differ. But to say that this year, or the past couple years, have seen the league's moral compass reach new depths simply because one of the less qualified of the legitimate candidates won the award doesn't make sense to me.

I think Lebron deserved it more. And I think voters must figure, consciously or not, that in the future he'll be a shoo-in for several years running, so why not put off the inevitable for a little while.

I think Kobe deserved it more. And I think the media are clearly still hazing him--for sullying the league's reputation with the rape trial, and for being the blockhead who soured the locker room and broke up a dynasty. Whether it's deserved and fair or not, I almost don't care. It is what it is, and I doubt it will continue into next year unless something new happens.

One of the two of them will probably win it next year. Even if neither of them ever does, their career impact will rank more highly than Nash's in the minds of thoughtful experts and clear-headed fans. Let Nash enjoy his hardware, and let's get on with the playoffs.


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

Steve Nash is the same Nash that played in the Mavericks.
It's just the playing style of the team that changed,

The MVP award now it's a joke , superstars players won't win it anymore, and that's bad for the NBA.


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

BBowen said:


> Steve Nash is the same Nash that played in the Mavericks.
> It's just the playing style of the team that changed,
> 
> The MVP award now it's a joke , superstars players won't win it anymore, and that's bad for the NBA.


it's a joke now? Nash isn't a superstar?" How is he still the same player when he had career highs in points and assists? He elevated that team incredibly since he arrived. If you want to say kobe thats fine but you don't think it has anything to do with phil jacksons system. This has been one of the tightest races and no matter who won someone is going to complain kobe or nash deserved it with lebron and company are looking in from the outside


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

> Guess what media morons, Kobe, Dirk, and LeBron made it through the season without Amare also and neither had a player as good as Marion next to them.


:laugh: it's funny cuz its true!


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Here are my thoughts from the Cavs forum:
How do you determine when comparing the best of the best? You have several ways and Nash simply doesn't compare when you look into the fact that his 18/10 comes in a Phoenix offense which plays tons more possesions then any other team in the league. Also if you don't like stats w/o his amazing impact how come Dallas has done better w/o him. In fact his +/- is NOT that good and this where minutes is important as well. The Suns do NOT collapse w/o Nash on the floor and so that is why he plays far fewer minutes then any of the other top candidates. 

The injury excuse is a joke as Dallas and Cleveland have been plagued with injuries as well.

Let's look and compare shall we:
<table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"> <td colspan="3" bgcolor="#0000ff"><center>*Production*</center></td> <td colspan="3" bgcolor="#ff0000"><center>*On Court/Off Court*</center></td> <td bgcolor="#ffcc00"><center>*Roland*</center></td> <td bgcolor="#000000"><center>*Fair Salary*</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#33cc33"> <td><center>*Player*</center></td> <td><center>*Min*</center></td> <td><center>*Own*</center></td> <td><center>*Opp*</center></td> <td><center>*Net*</center></td> <td><center>*On*</center></td> <td><center>*Off*</center></td> <td><center>*Net*</center></td> <td bgcolor="#ffcc00"><center>*Rating*</center></td> <td bgcolor="#000000"><center>*($Million)*</center></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor="#ffffff"> <td align="left"> Bryant</td> <td><center>83%</center></td> <td align="right"> 30.0 </td> <td align="right"> 14.1 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +15.9 </td> <td align="right"> +4.8 </td> <td align="right"> -7.9 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +12.7 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#cccccc"> +14.8 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff99">$ 27.39 </td></tr></tbody></table><table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffffff"><td align="left"> James</td> <td><center>85%</center></td> <td align="right"> 30.2 </td> <td align="right"> 12.6 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +17.6 </td> <td align="right"> +3.9 </td> <td align="right"> -7.2 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +11.0 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#cccccc"> +15.3 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff99">$ 28.76 </td></tr></tbody></table><table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffffff"><td align="left"> Nowitzki</td> <td><center>78%</center></td> <td align="right"> 30.1 </td> <td align="right"> 17.0 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +13.1 </td> <td align="right"> +7.9 </td> <td align="right"> -0.6 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +8.5 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#cccccc"> +11.6 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff99">$ 21.58 </td></tr></tbody></table><table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffffff"><td align="left"> Nash</td> <td><center>70%</center></td> <td align="right"> 24.6 </td> <td align="right"> 15.3 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +9.3 </td> <td align="right"> +8.1 </td> <td align="right"> -0.7 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +8.8 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#cccccc"> +9.1 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff99">$ 16.45 </td></tr></tbody></table><table bgcolor="#cccccc" border="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffffff"><td align="left"> Wade</td> <td><center>73%</center></td> <td align="right"> 29.8 </td> <td align="right"> 14.6 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +15.2 </td> <td align="right"> +8.1 </td> <td align="right"> -7.7 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#efefef"> +15.8 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#cccccc"> +15.4 </td> <td align="right" bgcolor="#99ff99">$ 24.82 </td></tr></tbody></table>
Oh and when was the last time the MVP (i.e. the best player in the league) gets DOMINATED not just outplayed BUT dominated by the other players at this postion:

Vs. Kidd
<table class="pTitle" style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" bordercolor="#d2dbe7" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tbody><tr align="center" bgcolor="#d2dbe7" height="12"><td colspan="3"> 
</td><td colspan="3" align="center">Field Goals</td><td colspan="3" align="center">Rebounds</td><td colspan="6"> 
</td></tr> <tr align="center" bgcolor="#d2dbe7" height="12" valign="middle"><td> 
</td><td>pos</td><td>min</td><td>fgm-a</td><td>3pm-a</td><td>ftm-a</td><td>off</td><td>def</td><td>tot</td><td>ast</td><td>pf</td><td>st</td><td>to</td><td>bs</td><td>pts</td></tr> <tr class="playerStats" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="playerName" align="left"> S.Nash  </td>  <td>G</td> <td>26:03 </td> <td>0-5</td> <td>0-1</td> <td>0-0</td> <td>0</td> <td>3</td> <td>3</td> <td>5</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
Vs. Billlups
<table class="pTitle" style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" bordercolor="#d2dbe7" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tbody><tr align="center" bgcolor="#d2dbe7" height="12" valign="middle"><td> 
</td><td>pos</td><td>min</td><td>fgm-a</td><td>3pm-a</td><td>ftm-a</td><td>off</td><td>def</td><td>tot</td><td>ast</td><td>pf</td><td>st</td><td>to</td><td>bs</td><td>pts</td></tr> <tr class="playerStats" height="17" valign="middle"> <td class="playerName" align="left"> S.Nash  </td> <td>G</td> <td>35:32 </td> <td>4-11</td> <td>1-5</td> <td>4-4</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>2</td> <td>9</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>13</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="pTitle" style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" bordercolor="#d2dbe7" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tbody><tr class="playerStats" height="17" valign="middle"><td class="playerName" align="left">C.Billups  </td> <td>G</td>  <td>40:00 </td> <td>12-23</td> <td>5-7</td> <td>6-6</td> <td>2</td> <td>2</td> <td>4</td> <td>5</td> <td>3</td> <td>0</td> <td>3</td> <td>0</td> <td>35</td></tr></tbody></table>
Not to mention he was outplayed by other notable such as PG's Shaun Livington, Charlie Bell, etc: his defense is TERRIBLE.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> In the end you'd be crazy to pick Nash ahead of guys like Lebron and Kobe, so him winning the award when others are having HOF type season is a joke. The biggest irony here is that Nash is getting credit for a Phoenix organization which has saved the careers of guys like Stephon Marbury, Joe Johnson (who had his breakout yeat the year before Nash arrived), Boris Diaw and yet no one looks at what has happened with Dallas since Nash left. They basically replace with a good sub all-star level player and have done BETTER w/o him. This is important because Nash supporters have to make a mythical argument that Nash makes a bigger impact then his stats suggest. There are 3-4 players having better seasons then Nash and on two of those teams (Cavs and Lakers) the Phoenix team has 4 players other then Nash who would start for them- Barbaso, Marion, Diaw, and Kurt Thomas


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Mike Luvs KG said:


> To media members voting Nash for MVP because "Without Amare they thought they would be a lot worse." What kind of reason is that?


When you put it like this, and consider the fact that the requirement for the award changed from last years requirement (If you go by last year's, Chauncey Billups is the MVP this year) then technically - according to the switch - *Ray Allen* should have been the MVP last year.


The Sonics last year finished with the second best record in the West; the Suns this year finished with the third best record in the West.

Last year the Sonics were 4th overall, while this year the Suns are 4th overall.

The Sonics were thought to be the worst team prior to the 2004 Season. The Suns weren't thought to be the worst at all, they were still figured to make the playoffs, and just struggle without Amare.

Make whatever case you want for Steve Nash winning the MVP, and it doesn't matter. The *only* fact is the requirements have changed season to season to suit Steve Nash as the MVP. Everything else is just opinion.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

Nowitzki deserves it WAY more then Nash does, for the simple fact that he has been THE MVP of the past 5 years for the 50+win dallas teams....he has done it with AND without Nash, i mean wat other All-Star brought their team this year or any year with only 1 all-star in the line up to 60 wins, now Dallas have above average role players and 2 players considered 'stars' under Dirk (Terry and Howard) but Nash has Marion, had Kurt Thomas, and the suns role players arent that bad either (Raja Bell, Tim Thomas, Learndo Barbosa, BORIS DIAW) wat sets 54 win Nash apart from 60 win dirk??????? Ouside Jkidd and the other 2, wat the heck does NJ have not to give Kidd or Carter a chance at MVP??? Same goes for Kobe and Dwyane Wade

Just under MVP tier (becoz of win-loss), Elton Brand, his supporting cast consists of 2 18ppg players 1 15ppg player and 2 12ppg players, which is pretty damn good, so not just yet for brand....but he has been the rock for this team, also other rocks are Pau Gasol, Lebron James and Carmello Anthony


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

dwade3 said:


> Nowitzki deserves it WAY more then Nash does, for the simple fact that he has been THE MVP of the past 5 years for the 50+win dallas teams....he has done it with AND without Nash, i mean wat other All-Star brought their team this year or any year with only 1 all-star in the line up to 60 wins, now Dallas have above average role players and 2 players considered 'stars' under Dirk (Terry and Howard) but Nash has Marion, had Kurt Thomas, and the suns role players arent that bad either (Raja Bell, Tim Thomas, Learndo Barbosa, BORIS DIAW) wat sets 54 win Nash apart from 60 win dirk??????? Ouside Jkidd and the other 2, wat the heck does NJ have not to give Kidd or Carter a chance at MVP??? Same goes for Kobe and Dwyane Wade
> 
> Just under MVP tier (becoz of win-loss), Elton Brand, his supporting cast consists of 2 18ppg players 1 15ppg player and 2 12ppg players, which is pretty damn good, so not just yet for brand....but he has been the rock for this team, also other rocks are Pau Gasol, Lebron James and Carmello Anthony


most star players on their team are the rock and kurt thomas isnt a star


----------



## -BasketBallBoy- (Jan 22, 2006)

Yah I agree, Nash will be named MVP.

*M*ost *V*iciously *P*osterized.


----------



## numb555 (May 25, 2003)

HERE ARE TISSUES! WOULD YOU GUYS WANT A GROUP HUG TOO??? :banana: :banana:


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

That was a charge plus Ricky Davis has that mantle on Nash already.



-BasketBallBoy- said:


> Yah I agree, Nash will be named MVP.
> 
> *M*ost *V*iciously *P*osterized.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

I skipped to page 25, from 7 so chances are I am covering something that already been said but three things...

1) Did Steve Nash utter lack of defense ever come into these voters minds? Are the voters willing to say that Nash is so far ahead of the competition offensively that the next seven guys all who are better defenders, some of who are much better (Kobe, Billups) can't bridge the gap.

2) I think "the voters are racist" is too strong of a statement and cannot be proven. However, I do think race could potentially play a factor. It is a nice story to see a Candian come in a dominate the league traditionally dominated by American blacks. The Rudy theory can work without the writers being outright racist.

3) I'd always take Kobe, LeBron, Wade, and Dirk if I were starting a team from scratch...if this means anything. With Nash, if I take him first I have two problems. First, I've started my team with an awful defender, I've got overcompensate defensively or offensively if I want to be successful. Secondly, my team would have to be much more specialized, I need to replicate the type of offense Phoenix has and that's gonna take a special coach and special breed of players to do it. I can surround the others with more convential, easily accessable players.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

MJ in 86-87 went on a tear against the league for 37.1 ppg (3041 points) with a TS% of .562, and PER of 29.8 and PW of 15.9. The Bulls finished 40-42 with Oakley as the 2nd leading scorer on the team. He also had 236 steals and 125 blocks and I believe was the first player ever to have a 200 steal and 100 block season since the stats were recorded. I think he is still the only guard to ever do that and he did that twice. Anyways, he didn't win the MVP (finished 2nd in voting to Magic) but he had IMO a more impressive season than Kobe did this year (35.4 ppg, .559 TS%, 28.0 PER, 13.7 PW)...81 points or not. 

MJ in 88-89 had one of most impressive all-around seasons ever with 32.5-8.0-8.0 with 234 steals and 15 triple doubles including three 40 triple double games (two of them back-to-back), and five 50 point games. He also had a TS% of .614, PER of 31.1, and PW of 16.8. The Bulls finished with 47-35. But he didn't win MVP (finished 2nd to voting to Magic) and he had IMO a more impressive season than Lebron this year (31.4-7.0-6.6, .568 TS%, 28.1 PER, 14.7 PW).

I don't think people really have a problem with Kobe or Lebron not winning the MVP. The problem people have is Kobe and Lebron losing the MVP to Nash.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: KiLLED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

The Phoenix Suns are the Colorado Rockies of the NBA. Their numbers are all inflated because of the way they play. I think the voters look at the Suns like this is fantasy football or something. Just cause guys put up great fantasy stats doesn't mean they are the best player in the league.

Michael Redd avg. 25.1 ppg this season and he isn't even going to be all-NBA.


----------



## Kicito (Jun 3, 2003)

I have no problem with Nash winning the MVP award but i have a problem with Nash winning the MVP award twice in 2 years. 

I love the guy, Phoenix is one of my favorite team thanks to my fellow frenchman Boris Diaw, and obviously i love how they play, pretty much like everybody else. But IMO there is no way Nash has a better season or is more valuable to his team than Nowitzki, James or Bryant. I won't develop my arguments much because what i'm saying has been said over and over again in this thread but here is what i think. Nowitski has been a monster this year, he has better stats, his team has a better record and their rosters are pretty much equal IMO. James has way better stats, his team has fairly the same record and he has easily a worst roster. Kobe, well he is pretty much the Lakers, without him putting ridiculous stats, his team doesn't win more the 20 games. 

I think Nowitzki should have won it, with Kobe as a close second, then LeBron and Nash as a 4th.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Gilgamesh said:


> MJ in 86-87 went on a tear against the league for 37.1 ppg (3041 points) with a TS% of .562, and PER of 29.8 and PW of 15.9. The Bulls finished 40-42 with Oakley as the 2nd leading scorer on the team. He also had 236 steals and 125 blocks and I believe was the first player ever to have a 200 steal and 100 block season since the stats were recorded. I think he is still the only guard to ever do that and he did that twice. Anyways, he didn't win the MVP (finished 2nd in voting to Magic) but he had IMO a more impressive season than Kobe did this year (35.4 ppg, .559 TS%, 28.0 PER, 13.7 PW)...81 points or not.
> 
> MJ in 88-89 had one of most impressive all-around seasons ever with 32.5-8.0-8.0 with 234 steals and 15 triple doubles including three 40 triple double games (two of them back-to-back), and five 50 point games. He also had a TS% of .614, PER of 31.1, and PW of 16.8. The Bulls finished with 47-35. But he didn't win MVP (finished 2nd to voting to Magic) and he had IMO a more impressive season than Lebron this year (31.4-7.0-6.6, .568 TS%, 28.1 PER, 14.7 PW).
> 
> I don't think people really have a problem with Kobe or Lebron not winning the MVP. The problem people have is Kobe and Lebron losing the MVP to Nash.


Good post. 

The problem is the media and their love affair with Nash. How ever I'm sure Nash is all to happy to accept another MVP and believe he is worthy. However he is not. Lakers > Suns.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

Well, I hope none of Nash's teammates are reading this thread, because the Suns will be eliminated from the playoffs - via a mass suicide. 

With all this talk of Nash's teammates being nothing without him, where would Nash be without these teammates, in the kind of system they all run? 

To me, and MVP can be put in a variety of systems and still thrive in it. Can Nash go to a slower offense like L.A., San Antonio, or Miami and still be in the mix for MVP? Of course not. What makes Nash so great in Phoenix's system is the fact that it is perfectly suited for him. Nash is a master at pushing the tempo and setting up teammates, as well as scoring efficiently. What I admire about Nash is his commitment to run the ball no matter what. Put Nash in Denver, and I believe they can become an elite team. 

But look at who Nash has as teammates - Shawn Marion and Raja Bell are top perimeter defenders, and both can hit the three. Marion can finish on the break and grab offensive rebounds. Tim Thomas, Barbosa, Eddie House, and James Jones can all hit the three. Almost all these guys are quick and athletic at their respective positions. In the right system, these guys aren't slouches. Nash is the catalyst for the whole team, and should be given a ton of credit for what he's done. But what about Colangelo? What about D'Antoni? What about Marion? What about the myriad of three-point shooters? People act like Nash has no one to work with, but the reality is that he has a whole lot to work with. Look at Diaw. He causes serious matchup problems and takes some pressure off Nash, but his contributions have been turned into "he'd be nothing without Nash". 

I really can't argue with Nash's award last year, because I felt like no one else other than Shaq really stood out enough. Phoenix's improvement and numbers were so dramatic that Nash had to be in the discussion. But even with Amare, Phoenix wasn't a serious contender last year, and they aren't this year. To me, an MVP needs to be on a contending team. For that, I'd would've liked to see Dirk get it. But Nash as a two-time MVP? Do people actually realize what just happened? Nash doesn't belong there, period. Say what you want about the criteria changing, but I guarantee that the criteria hasn't been the same year to year before now, and that didn't result and any undeserving players winning it twice. 

Steve Nash - back to back NBA MVP. Come on now...


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

RoddneyThaRippa said:


> Well, I hope none of Nash's teammates are reading this thread, because the Suns will be eliminated from the playoffs - via a mass suicide.
> 
> With all this talk of Nash's teammates being nothing without him, where would Nash be without these teammates, in the kind of system they all run?
> 
> ...


REP

Couldn't of said it any better myself.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

The argument that Nash shouldnt win it cause itll give him 2 in a row is ridiculous for a few reasons:

1. Each seasons should be taken by itself, without reference to what has happened before.
2. Just because all the other people who have won 2 MVPs are top 20 players ever and Nash isnt doesnt mean that Nash is instantly put on that list by doing the same thing. Hes had two amazing seasons but the rest of his career isnt up to par with the rest of those other guy's careers.


----------



## LW (Apr 15, 2006)

Gilgamesh said:


> MJ in 86-87 went on a tear against the league for 37.1 ppg (3041 points) with a TS% of .562, and PER of 29.8 and PW of 15.9. The Bulls finished 40-42 with Oakley as the 2nd leading scorer on the team. He also had 236 steals and 125 blocks and I believe was the first player ever to have a 200 steal and 100 block season since the stats were recorded. I think he is still the only guard to ever do that and he did that twice. Anyways, he didn't win the MVP (finished 2nd in voting to Magic) but he had IMO a more impressive season than Kobe did this year (35.4 ppg, .559 TS%, 28.0 PER, 13.7 PW)...81 points or not.
> 
> MJ in 88-89 had one of most impressive all-around seasons ever with 32.5-8.0-8.0 with 234 steals and 15 triple doubles including three 40 triple double games (two of them back-to-back), and five 50 point games. He also had a TS% of .614, PER of 31.1, and PW of 16.8. The Bulls finished with 47-35. But he didn't win MVP (finished 2nd to voting to Magic) and he had IMO a more impressive season than Lebron this year (31.4-7.0-6.6, .568 TS%, 28.1 PER, 14.7 PW).
> 
> I don't think people really have a problem with Kobe or Lebron not winning the MVP. The problem people have is Kobe and Lebron losing the MVP to Nash.


In Kobe's case, the problem is that he finished fourth and was left off the ballot of 13 different voters. He received only 11 first place ballots. MJ finished second to MAGIC. Kobe finished fourth to NASH. That's the problem.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

LW said:


> In Kobe's case, the problem is that he finished fourth and was left off the ballot of 13 different voters. He received only 11 first place ballots. MJ finished second to MAGIC. Kobe finished fourth to NASH. That's the problem.


Kobe was left off the ballot of 13 voters. How sad.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Clearly, a Congressional investigation is needed. In fact, w/ Toronto now part of the league, it looks like this issue is going to need to be taken to the UN.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

lessthanjake said:


> The argument that Nash shouldnt win it cause itll give him 2 in a row is ridiculous for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. Each seasons should be taken by itself, without reference to what has happened before..


Ideally this is true, but in reality people will allow other seasons to dictate thier decision. Steve Nash winning it two times in a row virtually has eliminated him from winning it anymore in fear of the backlash the voters would receive. At some point the voters will begin to feel the pressure of having to give an MVP to Kobe Bryant for several reasons, but also because of him needing one on his resume to help in validating him as a truly elite player.



lessthanjake said:


> 2. Just because all the other people who have won 2 MVPs are top 20 players ever and Nash isnt doesnt mean that Nash is instantly put on that list by doing the same thing. Hes had two amazing seasons but the rest of his career isnt up to par with the rest of those other guy's careers.


You are correct Nash isn't instantly put on the list, but he will be mentioned. You actually pointed out one of my major problems with Nash winning it back to back. You said, Nash has had two amazing seasons as compared to consistent greatness across a career. There have been many, many players who have had two amazing seasons, but they do not have 2 MVP trophies.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

lessthanjake said:


> The argument that Nash shouldnt win it cause itll give him 2 in a row is ridiculous for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. Each seasons should be taken by itself, without reference to what has happened before.
> 2. Just because all the other people who have won 2 MVPs are top 20 players ever and Nash isnt doesnt mean that Nash is instantly put on that list by doing the same thing. Hes had two amazing seasons but the rest of his career isnt up to par with the rest of those other guy's careers.


1. A strong argument in favor of Nash has been that his team this year without Amare was weaker than last year and they still got 54 win. Why compare last year to this one, like you said.

2. Agreed, but 50 years from now, people are not going to remember these circumstantial MVP awards. They're just going to remember Nash amongst the select few to have won it twice in a row.


----------



## DANNY (Aug 9, 2005)

So does this officially mean defense will not be a factor in the MVP voting from now on?

great :greatjob:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

dannyM said:


> So does this officially mean defense will not be a factor in the MVP voting from now on?
> 
> great :greatjob:


None of the MVP candidates play any notable defense...


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

So I guess I'm alone in my "Ray Allen is the real MVP last season based on this seasons criteria?"

I guess we'll just have to wait till next year to see how it's spun.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

S-Star said:


> None of the MVP candidates play any notable defense...


Chauncey can defend. I was hoping he would get it, but I would understand why Nash would get it. Had his team made no roster changes, I don't think his MVP probability would've been as great. Chauncey is just as much of a catalyst as Nash is, but Chauncey can change the pace of the game to how he wants it, whether slow or fast. As for Nash, he's just constantly pushing it. Billups, is a shooter but also a slasher/driver if he needs to be. He can bring his team back with shooting if need be, or spur a run and that in turn will encourage his teammates to do better as well. But hey, Nash is good as is Chauncey, it's just because Nash was placed in a different situation from Chauncey. So whatever.


----------



## Kneejoh (Dec 21, 2004)

S-Star said:


> None of the MVP candidates play any notable defense...


 Thats very unfair to say. Even if the other candidates have bad D, Nash has to be twice as worse, there isn't any other candidate who gets lit up more by scrubs than Nash.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

Billips got my vote this year, if the Pistons got to 70 wins you would have to of given it to someone on that team

Kobe will never win the MVP ever, he just might be as popular as Barry Bonds, and is percieved as a pompeous snitch to most writers outside of Cali. Sports writers are only human, and Kobe's image will hurt his chances of getting the vote

Lebron had a good year, but he'll have to sustain this high level of play and continue to pileup the wins, but this guy will have many MVP trophies when it's all said and done


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

Anyone is comparing Steve Nash with the past MVPs. 
But you know something is wrong by looking the history mVPs and now Nash being 2MVPS


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

TRON said:


> Billips got my vote this year, if the Pistons got to 70 wins you would have to of given it to someone on that team
> 
> Kobe will never win the MVP ever, he just might be as popular as Barry Bonds, and is percieved as a pompeous snitch to most writers outside of Cali. Sports writers are only human, and Kobe's image will hurt his chances of getting the vote
> 
> Lebron had a good year, but he'll have to sustain this high level of play and continue to pileup the wins, but this guy will have many MVP trophies when it's all said and done


 I feel you on the Kobe thing, he would have to have a ridiculous season like this one along with bringing a team full of 14 year old prep players to the division championship to win the mvp. He'd probably have to save a bunch of kittens from a fire in a pet store somewhere in the season to add on to that.

As far as Lebron, I don't see why he should have to maintain a high level for a while before he can win an MVP. Steve Nash blowing out of nowhere just shows it could be a seasonly thing.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Gilgamesh said:


> MJ in 86-87 went on a tear against the league for 37.1 ppg (3041 points) with a TS% of .562, and PER of 29.8 and PW of 15.9. The Bulls finished 40-42 with Oakley as the 2nd leading scorer on the team. He also had 236 steals and 125 blocks and I believe was the first player ever to have a 200 steal and 100 block season since the stats were recorded. I think he is still the only guard to ever do that and he did that twice. Anyways, he didn't win the MVP (finished 2nd in voting to Magic) but he had IMO a more impressive season than Kobe did this year (35.4 ppg, .559 TS%, 28.0 PER, 13.7 PW)...81 points or not.
> 
> MJ in 88-89 had one of most impressive all-around seasons ever with 32.5-8.0-8.0 with 234 steals and 15 triple doubles including three 40 triple double games (two of them back-to-back), and five 50 point games. He also had a TS% of .614, PER of 31.1, and PW of 16.8. The Bulls finished with 47-35. But he didn't win MVP (finished 2nd to voting to Magic) and he had IMO a more impressive season than Lebron this year (31.4-7.0-6.6, .568 TS%, 28.1 PER, 14.7 PW).
> 
> I don't think people really have a problem with Kobe or Lebron not winning the MVP. The problem people have is Kobe and Lebron losing the MVP to Nash.


you have to add a little more context.

In 1986-87, Magic Johnson averaged 23/6/12 on 52%FG on a team that won 25 more games than Jordan's team. So I am pretty sure if Nash's stats were as dominant as Magic's *and* his team was the best in the league then people would ***** and moan a little but would not be saying that it is the atrocity that it will be...

In 1988-89, Magic Johnson was 23/8/13 on the 2nd best team in the entire NBA and coming off an NBA championship.

The problem that I (and most posters critical of the voters) have with giving Nash the MVP is that he is not held to a MVP standard. If Lamar Odom plays like he has in the playoffs and the Lakers were to return a similarly talented roster, Kobe will be getting criticism not praise for "only" winning 54 games. Watch next year, Kobe and LeBron are going to be expected to win 55+ to get MVP consideration regardless of supporting cast. If voters really considered Nash the MVP last year, why would they be shocked that the Suns won 54 games without Amare? Even before Amare's injury, Phoenix was not the title favorite. That speaks volumes about what the voters really think about Steve Nash. Nobody considers them to even be a threat to get to the finals. Did anyone consider them a threat to go to the finals last season? Hell no. So on one hand voters say that Nash is the MVP because of the Suns record during the regular season but on the other hand they say their style of play leads to regular season wins but means nothing as far as title contention.

He is not the MVP but he is a good enough player that if you want to (_and this is where the racism angle shoots in because why are voters trying so hard to make it fit?_) try and fashion his case to fit whatever situation he is in you can especially if you disregard opposing viewpoints like Dallas's improvement since he left and Joe Johnson's improvement away from his helping hand.

I mean I get the case for giving it to him over Kobe and LeBron...team record.

What is the case for Steve Nash winning the award over Dirk? 

Now what is really pissing people off is that you cannot make a case for Nash winning the award over all three of them. You can hem and haw and say whatever you want but there is no credible explanation for anyone looking back on this season (using whatever criteria they consider important for the MVP) and saying Steve Nash fit that criteria better.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> you have to add a little more context.
> 
> In 1986-87, Magic Johnson averaged 23/6/12 on 52%FG on a team that won 25 more games than Jordan's team. So I am pretty sure if Nash's stats were as dominant as Magic's *and* his team was the best in the league then people would ***** and moan a little but would not be saying that it is the atrocity that it will be...
> 
> ...


 exactly!

He's getting awards for doing things people didn't expect him to do....which is cool for MIP or COY but you dont win your 2nd straight MVP trophy for leading your team to a record worse than the year before. I've come to the conclusion that Amare is the 05-06 MVP cause his name keeps coming up as a reason why Nash should win it.

You're absolutly right about last year. That the voters must really didn't think he was MVP worthy last season to be so damn surprised that Phoenix is winning this year...dont tell me Garnetts overrated cause a real MVP calibre player wouldn't miss the playoffs the year after winning the award then be in aw of Phoenix making it this year

its literally the Steve Nash award


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> you have to add a little more context.
> 
> In 1986-87, Magic Johnson averaged 23/6/12 on 52%FG on a team that won 25 more games than Jordan's team. So I am pretty sure if Nash's stats were as dominant as Magic's *and* his team was the best in the league then people would ***** and moan a little but would not be saying that it is the atrocity that it will be...
> 
> ...


Great post, my man.

:clap:

EDIT: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MemphisX again.

Sorry.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

tone wone said:


> exactly!
> 
> He's getting awards for doing things people didn't expect him to do....which is cool for MIP or COY but you dont win your 2nd straight MVP trophy for leading your team to a record worse than the year before. I've come to the conclusion that Amare is the 05-06 MVP cause his name keeps coming up as a reason why Nash should win it.
> 
> ...


saved me posting it... i completely agree with everything in the above.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Is that 11 first place ballots the final tally?

Anyways what you said is exactly my point.

The problem is Kobe and Lebron losing to Nash not Kobe and Lebron not getting the MVP.

You also don't really need to capitalize Magic and Nash to emphasize the contrast. Trust me I know the difference. :biggrin: 



LW said:


> In Kobe's case, the problem is that he finished fourth and was left off the ballot of 13 different voters. He received only 11 first place ballots. MJ finished second to MAGIC. *Kobe finished fourth to NASH. That's the problem.*


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Please Suns fan's don't take this as disrespect to you. However the fact's are your boy Nash just doesn't add up to win the MVP this season under any circumstances. No matter how you want to slice it or dice it Nash was not the best player in the NBA. Nash was not the MVP player in the NBA for his team. Kobe, Dirk, and LeBron are better MVP picks this season.


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

tone wone said:


> exactly!
> 
> He's getting awards for doing things people didn't expect him to do....which is cool for MIP or COY but you dont win your 2nd straight MVP trophy for leading your team to a record worse than the year before. I've come to the conclusion that Amare is the 05-06 MVP cause his name keeps coming up as a reason why Nash should win it.
> 
> ...


Good post man, I agree. No disrespect to Nash, but these are my thoughts exactly.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

A lot of people here are over reacting negeatively anyways.

Nash won because of his impact to the Suns, the Suns being the league's most potent offense and arguably the most exciting too. That factors in a lot since the MVP is influenced by the media a lot. 

Now in Nash's defense, in terms of his basketball talents and ability, if you simply see him as an all-star point guard, then yes... you will have a hard time accepting him being an MVP. But ever since Nash has been the helm of the Suns and D'Antoni's trust, Nash has been "unleashed" per say. He has elevated as the most potent play maker and point guard in the world.... period.

he isn't the better dunker, nor athelete, but everything else that encompasses basketball and team philosophy... he is the epitome of a superstar while being the best team player in the game... think about that for a second, the league is full of selfish me first stars that lead their teams to sub 0.500 records. We are not talking about Nash winning it over MJ or Magic, or Hakeem who are the best players on the best teams.... thats why Stockton, KJ, Payton etc didnt even got to sniff the MVP award.

And to the Sun's defense, a lot of people didnt expect the Suns to win 54, since Amare, Joe Johnson, Q were all gone from the line-up... whether Nash is last year's MVP or not... he was given a totally new team... but in just 1 season these new players were able to mesh without problems at all... thanx to D'Antoni as well, but its Nash that makes it work.. its BS to say any pass first point guards can lead the Suns the same way... we will never find out since it wont happen.


Now... the only real candidate(s) that got robbed are Dirk Nowitski and LeBron... as I stated before, LeBron will put up 30/7/7 for the next decade for him to be given the MVP, his team must atleast top 4 in the league... or else he would have 6-7 straight MVP awards.

Dirk has his best season ever... career season.. and Mav's best record... this guy got screwed... My voting would of given it Dirk for first place, Nash second place and then LeBron and Kobe for third and fourth.

I think the media and the league approves Nash winning it, because they are changing the image of the game. They want Nash's style to be copied and celebrated. 

Because ever since MJ retired, the league got saturated of excellent scorers with all the atheletic abilities in the world... but are selfish and are not really winners. The MVP award is not just for the Most Valuable Player, but the best representative of what the NBA is currently trying to achieve.... Kobe's past off court troubles made sure he won't win it this year.


----------



## VeN (May 10, 2005)

If that were even true, that would mean that Dirk didnt win it because he isnt outspoken enough.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

All that you are saying is just a bunch of bull****. Steve Nash is a one way player that has NEVER won anything in his entire career. Never. (Well except division titles...lol). It is a disgrace to be the two time MVP and not ever make the NBA finals. When you say back to back MVPs, it used to mean the player dominated the league...now it is just a very good player with a very good story. 

Is Steve Nash going to be the first back to back MVP in the history of the game to not win a title in either season? Not make a finals appearance? Get knocked out in round one(j/k)? This what people are talking about when they say you have to put the awards in perspective.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

1 Penny said:


> A lot of people here are over reacting negeatively anyways.
> 
> Nash won because of his impact to the Suns, the Suns being the league's most potent offense and arguably the most exciting too. That factors in a lot since the MVP is influenced by the media a lot.


so he won for 2 completely different reasons over the past 2 years...how is this possible...are we gonna change MVP criterea every year to fit the story that excites the media?



1 Penny said:


> Now in Nash's defense, in terms of his basketball talents and ability, if you simply see him as an all-star point guard, then yes... you will have a hard time accepting him being an MVP. But ever since Nash has been the helm of the Suns and D'Antoni's trust, Nash has been "unleashed" per say. He has elevated as the most potent play maker and point guard in the world.... period.


a potent point guard who dishes out 15 assist but gives up 30 points...



1 Penny said:


> he isn't the better dunker, nor athelete, but everything else that encompasses basketball and team philosophy... he is the epitome of a superstar while being the best team player in the game... think about that for a second, *the league is full of selfish me first stars that lead their teams to sub 0.500 records*. We are not talking about Nash winning it over MJ or Magic, or Hakeem who are the best players on the best teams.... thats why Stockton, KJ, Payton etc didnt even got to sniff the MVP award.


Detroit 64 18--Billups, Ben Wallace, Hamilton
San Antonio 63 19--Parker, Duncan 
Miami 52 30--Wade, Shaq
New Jersey 49 33--Kidd,Carter, Jefferson
Denver 44 38--Anthony
Dallas 60 22--Dirk
Cleveland 50 32--Lebron
Memphis 49 33--Gasol
Washington 42 40--Arenas
LA Clippers 47 35--Brand,Cassell

yup selfish bunch of guys there.


1 Penny said:


> And to the Sun's defense, a lot of people didnt expect the Suns to win 54, since Amare, Joe Johnson, Q were all gone from the line-up... whether Nash is last year's MVP or not... he was given a totally new team... but in just 1 season these new players were able to mesh without problems at all... thanx to D'Antoni as well, but its Nash that makes it work.. its BS to say any pass first point guards can lead the Suns the same way... we will never find out since it wont happen.


but we do know that when he leaves a team they dont get worst...they actually get better



1 Penny said:


> Now... the only real candidate(s) that got robbed are Dirk Nowitski and LeBron... as I stated before, LeBron will put up 30/7/7 for the next decade for him to be given the MVP, his team must atleast top 4 in the league... or else he would have 6-7 straight MVP awards.
> 
> Dirk has his best season ever... career season.. and Mav's best record... this guy got screwed... My voting would of given it Dirk for first place, Nash second place and then LeBron and Kobe for third and fourth.


if you are truly being honest(and not a Suns fan or Canadian) there is no way you could put Nash higher the 5th...its been proven repeatedly that his effeciency doesnt match up to Kobe, Lebron or Dirk and Billups does everything Nash does to a lesser extent except get destroyed on defense...


1 Penny said:


> I think the media and the league approves Nash winning it, because they are changing the image of the game. They want Nash's style to be copied and celebrated.
> 
> *Because ever since MJ retired, the league got saturated of excellent scorers with all the atheletic abilities in the world*... but are selfish and are not really winners. The MVP award is not just for the Most Valuable Player, but the best representative of what the NBA is currently trying to achieve.... Kobe's past off court troubles made sure he won't win it this year.


and theyve never sold more jerseys or other crap...


the MVP is for the best player in the league on a playoff team...you have the league full of the most talent in its history yeat you call them non winners?!! thats a GM and coaching problem...

In one sentence you call them selfish and accuse them of not willing thier team to win. which is it? to selfish to share the ball so they can win or to soft to win because they wont take over(further proof that people change the criterea of MVP on a person by person basis to get thier favorite guy the MVP)


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

lol selfish me first stars.

do people still believe that crap?

cut the cliché's out. it doesn't help at all.


----------



## LW (Apr 15, 2006)

Tragedy said:


> lol selfish me first stars.
> 
> do people still believe that crap?
> 
> cut the cliché's out. it doesn't help at all.


Yup they believe it when the name is Kobe.


----------



## VeN (May 10, 2005)

Tragedy said:


> lol selfish me first stars.
> 
> do people still believe that crap?
> 
> cut the cliché's out. it doesn't help at all.


lol there are some guys out there. Most of them are in NY now


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> All that you are saying is just a bunch of bull****. Steve Nash is a one way player that has NEVER won anything in his entire career. Never. (Well except division titles...lol). It is a disgrace to be the two time MVP and not ever make the NBA finals. When you say back to back MVPs, it used to mean the player dominated the league...now it is just a very good player with a very good story.
> 
> Is Steve Nash going to be the first back to back MVP in the history of the game to not win a title in either season? Not make a finals appearance? Get knocked out in round one(j/k)? This what people are talking about when they say you have to put the awards in perspective.


Would be nice if the MVP was decided by the playoffs, but it's not. So it's a moot point to argue about his playoff success...


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Tragedy said:


> lol selfish me first stars.
> 
> do people still believe that crap?
> 
> cut the cliché's out. it doesn't help at all.



yes they are all playing for New York last time I checked... talented point guards too.

Iverson comes to mind also, his style of game just never seems to get him team success... except for that one time in 2000. 

Kobe before this season, kudos to Phil Jackson really.


Also, if you ask players themselves who play with selfish stars and players who play with unselfish stars, you can really see who is happy and who isnt.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> All that you are saying is just a bunch of bull****. Steve Nash is a one way player that has NEVER won anything in his entire career. Never. (Well except division titles...lol). It is a disgrace to be the two time MVP and not ever make the NBA finals. When you say back to back MVPs, it used to mean the player dominated the league...now it is just a very good player with a very good story.
> 
> Is Steve Nash going to be the first back to back MVP in the history of the game to not win a title in either season? Not make a finals appearance? Get knocked out in round one(j/k)? This what people are talking about when they say you have to put the awards in perspective.


Well Dirk Nowitzki hasn't won anything and neither has LeBron James.. yet you don't seem to use that arguement against them. In fact if I remember correctly Nash has been to two WCF... more than Dirk and James. As for Kobe he hasn't done jack since Shaq, one of the most dominating centers of all time, left. I mean it really speaks volumes when the so called "MVP" can't even lead his team to the playoffs (Last year) and only manages a 7th seed (this year).


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

tempe85 said:


> Well Dirk Nowitzki hasn't won anything and neither has LeBron James.. yet you don't seem to use that arguement against them. In fact if I remember correctly Nash has been to two WCF... more than Dirk and James. As for Kobe he hasn't done jack since Shaq, one of the most dominating centers of all time, left. I mean it really speaks volumes when the so called "MVP" can't even lead his team to the playoffs (Last year) and only manages a 7th seed (this year).


Dirk,Lebron and Kobe arent back to back mvps either...his statement was that no back to back MVP doesnt have a title...


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> Dirk,Lebron and Kobe arent back to back mvps either...his statement was that no back to back MVP doesnt have a title...


But the fact he won an MVP last year should have no berring on whether he should win it this year.


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

tempe85 said:


> But the fact he won an MVP last year should have no berring on whether he should win it this year.


it wouldnt if he was the most deserving...


----------



## og15 (Dec 18, 2005)

tempe85 said:


> But the fact he won an MVP last year should have no berring on whether he should win it this year.


It shouldn't, but neither should the fact that the team is still able to play good without Amare. They added a lot of pieces, and underatted pieces too, so while Amare was gone, the team was not bad by any means, but it is used as a measuring stick that he's not there.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

1 Penny said:


> My Post was complete garbage.


Nuff said...


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

Steve Nash in another team would not even be an all-star


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

og15 said:


> It shouldn't, but neither should the fact that the team is still able to play good without Amare. They added a lot of pieces, and underatted pieces too, so while Amare was gone, the team was not bad by any means, but it is used as a measuring stick that he's not there.


No the measuring stick is that they lost Amare AND Joe Johnson AND Q. They were left with no big scorer except Marion. But Marion doesnt create his own shots too much. He still relies a lot on Nash setting him up. Nash not only picked up the scoring slack a bit, but also helped non prolific scorers get points.

They also got like 6 or 7 new players. Nash was instrumental in making them play as a team from the start even with those new guys. And thats not easy to do.

For instance, my team, the Wizards, also got a lot of new guys and we stunk for the first 1/3-1/2 of the year because they werent playing together well yet.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

lessthanjake said:


> No the measuring stick is that they lost Amare AND Joe Johnson AND Q. They were left with no big scorer except Marion. But Marion doesnt create his own shots too much. He still relies a lot on Nash setting him up. Nash not only picked up the scoring slack a bit, but also helped non prolific scorers get points.
> 
> They also got like 6 or 7 new players. Nash was instrumental in making them play as a team from the start even with those new guys. And thats not easy to do.
> 
> For instance, my team, the Wizards, also got a lot of new guys and we stunk for the first 1/3-1/2 of the year because they werent playing together well yet.


 so next season when he wins again the reason behind it will be "cause he did such a great job of integrating Amare back into the lineup."

The guy cant lose.


----------



## TheGodfather (Mar 9, 2006)

to me,Nash wasnt even the real MVP last year...but i dont need to get into that no more,il focus in this years contenders...obviously,he is a contender,but dont even belong to the Top 3,its a toss up between Kobe,Dirk and Bron...its so sad that the award is gettin irrelevant as time passes by coz of things like these,the more deserving contenders arent recognized...imagine Shaq retiring with only 1 MVP award...JKidd was more deserving than TD circa 02...KG more deserving than TD circa 03...what a joke!this award is not that significant no more


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

BBowen said:


> Steve Nash in another team would not even be an all-star


Ok, I want you to say three phrases.

I'm

Sofa King

We Todd Ed.

Now say it together fast. But not too fast.


----------



## numb555 (May 25, 2003)

Okay guys i can feel it, ITS GROUP HUG TIME!


----------



## SharpShooter (Oct 11, 2005)

Mike luvs KG said:


> Can you imagine what Chauncey Billups would do to him if they met in the Finals. I think the Steve Nash mystique would end pretty damn quickly if that were to happen. Hell, it might not survive Tony Parker.
> 
> And to everybody trying to justify Steve Nash as the MVP through process of elimination... you're just further proving the other side's point. You are saying other guys can't be MVP for reasons that have nothing to do with the way they play basketball.
> 
> ...



Agree 100%, i wouild like to see someone respond to this post!!!!


----------

