Top 3 Most undeserved MVP in the last 3 18 years.

[apalisoc_9]

So looking at the last 18 MVP Winners, what MVP winner won its award with mostly narrative, Stat-padding, Race...

1. Nash second MVP...:lol

- The Suns won 54 games that year, signficantly less than Dirks and Duncans team. In Addition James was a monster stat-wise and beat Nash in many advanced categories and was only 4 wins shy of the suns...How Dirk or Lebron didnt win those awards considering they had a decent combination of stats and wins specially dirk is beyond me.

2. Westbrook - 47 Wins...enough said, one of the most fabricated and selfish display of basketballI have seen in my life. Not evem Kome can top it off.

3. Kome....Probably one of the most underwhelming MVP winners in recent years.

[DMC]

Reality TV. Doesn't matter.

[DAF86]

Derrick Rose.

[Spurtacular]

So looking at the last 18 MVP Winners, what MVP winner won its award with mostly narrative, Stat-padding, Race...

1. Nash second MVP...:lol

- The Suns won 54 games that year, signficantly less than Dirks and Duncans team. In Addition James was a monster stat-wise and beat Nash in many advanced categories and was only 4 wins shy of the suns...How Dirk or Lebron didnt win those awards considering they had a decent combination of stats and wins specially dirk is beyond me.

2. Westbrook - 47 Wins...enough said, one of the most fabricated and selfish display of basketballI have seen in my life. Not evem Kome can top it off.

3. Kome....Probably one of the most underwhelming MVP winners in recent years.

Translation:

1. I hate whitey
2. I love sucking Kawhi's dick.
3. I'm Lebron jocker through and through.

:lmao Today's player fan

[Clipper Nation]

1. Kobe - giving MVP to a role player for marketing purposes will never not be pathetic.

2. Nash's second MVP - gifted to him instead of LeBron because he's white.

3. Nash's first MVP - gifted to him instead of Shaq because he's white.

Dishonorable mentions:

Rose - the "I Hate LeBron" award, brought to you by the same old white sportswriters who gifted Nash his MVPs. He wasn't even the best anti-LeBron choice that year :lol

Russell in '62 - I like Russell more than most, but in no way did he deserve it over Wilt that year.

[apalisoc_9]

Derrick Rose.

sure, but rose checked the marks even though Lebron was clearly the mvp...lots of wins and good stats.

[DAF86]

sure, but rose checked the marks even though Lebron was clearly the mvp...lots of wins and good stats.

Nah, his stats were shit for MVP level and his true influence on the team was even shittier.

[RD2191]

Curry has to be #1. TBH

[Spurtacular]

Curry has to be #1. TBH

Nash would take his game to a higher level in the playoffs. Curry shrank like a bitch pre KD. Two MVPs and none in the Finals :lmao

[apalisoc_9]

Nash would take his game to a higher level in the playoffs. Curry shrank like a bitch pre KD. Two MVPs and none in the Finals :lmao

dont ever compare curry to nash..fag

[Spurtacular]

dont ever compare curry to nash.

:lmao Curry would be a guard coming off the bench overnight if the NBA got rid of the three point line.

[apalisoc_9]

:lmao Curry would be a guard coming off the bench overnight if the NBA got rid of the three point line.

You just hate him cause he aint full white...No need to deny it, terrorist.

[Spurtacular]

You just hate him cause he aint full white...No need to deny it, terrorist.

Schtick.

Actually, Curry was one of my top three favorite players coming out of college in the last decade, brah. I do find it funny that you're suddenly on his nuts, though.

[DMC]

:lmao Curry would be a guard coming off the bench overnight if the NBA got rid of the three point line.

So then in a parallel universe.....

Bullshit

Curry deserved the MVP. He was the most feared player in the game, most unstoppable because of his range. It doesn't matter if it's because he can jump over you or shoot over you, he can score.

Nash deserved it because the times he was out his team went tits up, and when he returned so did they, then they dominated the RS. He was a phenomenal passer, great shooter, great ball handler and fearless. People undervalue him because he never rang, but Nash was a phenomenal player.

Rose deserved it the year he won, Lebron deserved it every year he's played, at least an argument could be made for him, but Rose was a beast that year before he got injured in the 1st round.

Revisionist history is pretty rife on this forum.

Westbrook didn't deserve it this year. Kawhi Leonard did. It's already a farce so just roll with it.

[Spurtacular]

Curry deserved the MVP. He was the most feared player in the game, most unstoppable because of his range. It doesn't matter if it's because he can jump over you or shoot over you, he can score.


I never said that Curry didn't deserve his MVPs. Though, I'll say that much like the Warriors' success, everything just fell ever so wonderfully into place and that he is basically the weakest back to back MVP in league history; and he'll never win another MVP; you can take that to the bank.

[DMC]

I never said that Curry didn't deserve his MVPs. Though, I'll say that much like the Warriors' success, everything just fell ever so wonderfully into place and that he is basically the weakest back to back MVP in league history; and he'll never win another MVP; you can take that to the bank.

Bullshit with a guarantee is just guaranteed bullshit

[Spurtacular]

Bullshit with a guarantee is just guaranteed bullshit

Curry ain't winning an MVP on the north side of 30. Even Kerr dogged him and said he wasn't the most valuable player on his own team.

[DMC]

Curry ain't winning an MVP on the north side of 30. Even Kerr dogged him and said he wasn't the most valuable player on his own team.

Surely you're not that naive.

[Spurtacular]

Surely you're not that naive.

I booked it, bro. Straight cash.

[dfens]

1. Kobe - giving MVP to a role player for marketing purposes will never not be pathetic.

2. Nash's second MVP - gifted to him instead of LeBron because he's white.

3. Nash's first MVP - gifted to him instead of Shaq because he's white.

Dishonorable mentions:

Rose - the "I Hate LeBron" award, brought to you by the same old white sportswriters who gifted Nash his MVPs. He wasn't even the best anti-LeBron choice that year :lol

Russell in '62 - I like Russell more than most, but in no way did he deserve it over Wilt that year.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[TD 21]

Can't pick 3 of, in chronological order: '01 Iverson, '05 and '06 Nash, '08 Bryant, '11 Rose, '17 Westbrook.

Notice the trend: all guards and save for Bryant, small ones at that. They almost always win on narrative because they're supposedly more relatable and often average more points than the others in the running.

The reality is, this has and always will be a game primarily dominated by size, even if the function and utilization of it has mostly changed. Paul and Curry are the only small guards, in the modern era at least, who have ever truly been MVP caliber players.

[djohn2oo8]

Didn't DMC call Curry an overrated chucker?

[apalisoc_9]

Can't pick 3 of, in chronological order: '01 Iverson, '05 and '06 Nash, '08 Bryant, '11 Rose, '17 Westbrook.

Notice the trend: all guards and save for Bryant, small ones at that. They almost always win on narrative because they're supposedly more relatable and often average more points than the others in the running.

The reality is, this has and always will be a game primarily dominated by size, even if the function and utilization of it has mostly changed. Paul and Curry are the only small guards, in the modern era at least, who have ever truly been MVP caliber players.

Yup..

The last three MVPS have all been PGs with rose winning in 11.

meanwhile SF's have been dominating the playoffs and wings, in general, have been far more vital to team success than little guys.

Still can't wrap my head around someone averaging less than 20ppg for a 54 team considering Lebron and and Dirk season in 2006..

[TD 21]

Yup..

The last three MVPS have all been PGs with rose winning in 11.

meanwhile SF's have been dominating the playoffs and wings, in general, have been far more vital to team success than little guys.

Still can't wrap my head around someone averaging less than 20ppg for a 54 team considering Lebron and and Dirk season in 2006..

I've heard countless times in the past half decade that "it's a PG driven league", but it's really a big wing (even if some do function as de facto PG's on offense) driven league and before that, it was a big driven league.

Nash was a wet dream come to life for the majority of the media. The only thing that could have made him more appealing to them, would have been if he were American.

[apalisoc_9]

I've heard countless times in the past half decade that "it's a PG driven league", but it's really a big wing (even if some do function as de facto PG's on offense) driven league and before that, it was a big driven league.

Nash was a wet dream come to life for the majority of the media. The only thing that could have made him more appealing to them, would have been if he were American.

refresh my memory bro, but how in the world did Dirk not win MVP in 06? What was the narrative?

61 wins, 26.6 PPG, 9RPG, 40-49-90 split and played 81 total games...
54 wins, 18.8, 10.5 Assist, 43-50-90 split and 79 total games

and that 50 win Lebron James team...:lol

Dirk had a virutal 40-50-90 season at 26.6 with a 61 win team...

Not to mention by most standards, Nash had a hell of a team but only 64.

[AlexJones]

Nash's 1st MVP should have gone to Shaq.

[Spurtacular]

Nash's 1st MVP should have gone to Shaq.

No. And it's not even that close, tbh.

[apalisoc_9]

Not surprised the terrorist is supporting an English Speaking White :lol

[Spurtacular]

refresh my memory bro, but how in the world did Dirk not win MVP in 06? What was the narrative?

61 wins, 26.6 PPG, 9RPG, 40-49-90 split and played 81 total games...
54 wins, 18.8, 10.5 Assist, 43-50-90 split and 79 total games

and that 50 win Lebron James team...:lol

Dirk had a virutal 40-50-90 season at 26.6 with a 61 win team...

Not to mention by most standards, Nash had a hell of a team but only 64.

Dirk was a jump shooter on a stacked team. LBJ was in a much weaker conference. 50 wins BFD, tbh. Nash was the biggest impact player in the league in 06. Like Curry, following his first MVP, he actually went up another level. And Nash was probably more deserving than Dirk of the MVP in 07 when he peaked, but they weren't going to award a third straight MVP in the margins.

[AlexJones]

2004-05

Shaq BPM: 5.7 PER: 27.0 VORP: 4.7 WS/48: .211
Nash BPM: 1.7 PER: 22.0 VOPP: 2.4 WS/48: .212

[apalisoc_9]

2004-05

Shaq BPM: 5.7 PER: 27.0 VORP: 4.7 WS/48: .211
Nash BPM: 1.7 PER: 22.0 VOPP: 2.4 WS/48: .212

:lmao

[Spurtacular]

2004-05

Shaq BPM: 5.7 PER: 27.0 VORP: 4.7 WS/48: .211
Nash BPM: 1.7 PER: 22.0 VOPP: 2.4 WS/48: .212

New Age Bull Shit, tbh.

[TD 21]

refresh my memory bro, but how in the world did Dirk not win MVP in 06? What was the narrative?

61 wins, 26.6 PPG, 9RPG, 40-49-90 split and played 81 total games...
54 wins, 18.8, 10.5 Assist, 43-50-90 split and 79 total games

and that 50 win Lebron James team...:lol

Dirk had a virutal 40-50-90 season at 26.6 with a 61 win team...

Not to mention by most standards, Nash had a hell of a team but only 64.

The reasoning was, Suns remained elite sans Stoudemire and Nash was having at least as good a season as pervious, so if he was the MVP then, why not now (as if that logic couldn't be applied to most MVP's in history)?

Why James didn't win: Wasn't "his turn yet" and 50 wins, no matter the roster, was considered a minimum requirement from '83-'16.

Why Nowitzki didn't win: Was/is 9-10 inches taller and came from overseas. He won in '07 because even the media knew they couldn't justify Nash joining Russell, Chamberlain and Bird as the only players to win it 3 consecutive years. Also, Mavericks finished 6 games clear of next closest team and posted what was then t-4th all-time with 67 wins.

If the amount of coverage and information that's available now, was available throughout history, the history of this and other awards would look a lot different than they do.

[Chucho]

Kobe
Russ
Kobe

[DMC]

Didn't DMC call Curry an overrated chucker?

It wasn't the year he won the MVP.

[AlexJones]

Nobody brought up Iverson over Shaq?

[Spurtacular]

Nobody brought up Iverson over Shaq?

You have a Shaq fetish, don't you?

[Chucho]

Nobody brought up Iverson over Shaq?

I was going to, but the East wasn't the absolute shit blizzard it is now and that team was ALL AI. I think the media was giving too much credit to Phil coming back, albeit to a ready-made contender, due to the Lakers flaming out in 99, and also having a much more complete roster.

[Spurtacular]

Wilt said it best; Shaq was allowed to foul fifty times a game and just run people over. He wasn't robbed of shit.

[Clipper Nation]

2004-05

Shaq BPM: 5.7 PER: 27.0 VORP: 4.7 WS/48: .211
Nash BPM: 1.7 PER: 22.0 VOPP: 2.4 WS/48: .212
You forgot the pivotal metric that made the voters choose Nash over Shaq, tbh.

Shaq: black
Nash: white

[Fabbs]

Wilt said it best; Shaq was allowed to foul fifty times a game and just run people over. He wasn't robbed of shit.

[Jodelo]

Didn't DMC call Curry an overrated chucker?

And Green does not fit. :wakeup

[spurraider21]

Nash deserved it the year Stoudemire went down tbh

[lefty]

Nash deserved it the year Stoudemire went down tbh

This.

[resistanze]

This.

Well he didn't deserve it one of the years, depending on the logic people used.

If Stoudemire was such a big piece then no way should Nash be credited for 'making everyone better' which was the logic they used to give him the MVP over Shaq in 2005 (disregarding the fact Amare was hurt in 2004 and the Suns completely overhauled their team mid-season).

2005: They won 62 games! Complete turnaround, it's because of Nash! (Amare averages 26/10)
2006: They lost 8 more games but still did okay without Amare! It's because of Nash!

BS.

[resistanze]

Nash, Westbrook and Rose probably.

[Spurtacular]

Well he didn't deserve it one of the years, depending on the logic people used.

If Stoudemire was such a big piece then no way should Nash be credited for 'making everyone better' which was the logic they used to give him the MVP over Shaq in 2005 (disregarding the fact Amare was hurt in 2004 and the Suns completely overhauled their team mid-season).

2005: They won 62 games! Complete turnaround, it's because of Nash! (Amare averages 26/10)
2006: They lost 8 more games but still did okay without Amare! It's because of Nash!

BS.

Still won 54 with scrubs while boosting his numbers. Media learned from the Stockton/Malone days when Stockton wasn't getting the MVP credit he deserved.

[da_suns_fan]

You guys are forgetting a couple of key details

1) MVP is always "player of the year". You can use any stat metric bullshit you want but it always goes to "player of the year". I tried explaining that to Asian kid I work with. Russ Westbrook was guaranteed to win despite the low seed because he was, far and away, the player of the year.
2) In 2006, the Suns didnt just lose Amare. The Suns lost Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson (3/5 of the previous years starting five) and still won 54 games with almost a brand new team.

[da_suns_fan]

Well he didn't deserve it one of the years, depending on the logic people used.

If Stoudemire was such a big piece then no way should Nash be credited for 'making everyone better' which was the logic they used to give him the MVP over Shaq in 2005 (disregarding the fact Amare was hurt in 2004 and the Suns completely overhauled their team mid-season).

2005: They won 62 games! Complete turnaround, it's because of Nash! (Amare averages 26/10)
2006: They lost 8 more games but still did okay without Amare! It's because of Nash!

BS.

And Joe Johnson. And Quentin Richardson.

And did it with some guys named "Boris Diaw", "Raja Bell" and "James Jones" in the starting lineup.

[resistanze]

You guys are forgetting a couple of key details

1) MVP is always "player of the year". You can use any stat metric bullshit you want but it always goes to "player of the year". I tried explaining that to Asian kid I work with. Russ Westbrook was guaranteed to win despite the low seed because he was, far and away, the player of the year.
2) In 2006, the Suns didnt just lose Amare. The Suns lost Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson (3/5 of the previous years starting five) and still won 54 games with almost a brand new team.

Well then your argument works against his 2005 MVP (which I remember in the past you agreed he didn't deserve).

[da_suns_fan]

Well then your argument works against his 2005 MVP (which I remember in the past you agreed he didn't deserve).


I dont remember saying that, ever. I might have.

I dont really care, Shaq was worthy of it in 05 but Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first and were leading the league in scoring by margin of around 7 points.

[resistanze]

I dont remember saying that, ever. I might have.

I dont really care, Shaq was worthy of it in 05 but Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first and were leading the league in scoring by margin of around 7 points.

Yeah you said Shaq deserved it over Nash. But either way, 'player of the year' is no less ambiguous than 'MVP'. If you're saying Russell Westbrook deserved it despite his lack of team success, why didn't Kobe or LeBron win it in 2006? They completely destroyed Nash for by traditional or advanced statistical measure, and LeBron's team even won 50 games.


Rk Player Season Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% 2P 2PA 2P% eFG% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 80 80 3277 978 2173 .450 180 518 .347 798 1655 .482 .491 696 819 .850 71 354 425 360 147 30 250 233 2832
2 LeBron James 2005-06 21 79 79 3361 875 1823 .480 127 379 .335 748 1444 .518 .515 601 814 .738 75 481 556 521 123 66 260 181 2478
3 Steve Nash 2005-06 31 79 79 2796 541 1056 .512 150 342 .439 391 714 .548 .583 257 279 .921 47 286 333 826 61 12 276 120 1489




Rk Player Season Age G MP PER TS% 3PAr FTr ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 80 3277 28.0 .559 .238 .377 2.6 12.7 7.6 24.1 2.4 0.7 9.0 38.7 11.6 3.7 15.3 .224 7.3 -1.5 5.8 6.5
2 LeBron James 2005-06 21 79 3361 28.1 .568 .208 .447 2.6 17.1 9.8 32.8 2.0 1.5 10.7 33.6 12.0 4.3 16.3 .232 7.9 1.4 9.3 9.5
3 Steve Nash 2005-06 31 79 2796 23.3 .632 .324 .264 1.9 11.1 6.6 44.4 1.1 0.3 19.0 23.3 10.3 2.1 12.4 .212 5.4 -1.6 3.7 4.0

[Spurtacular]

1) MVP is always "player of the year".


Where did you find this new information?

[Spurtacular]

You guys are forgetting a couple of key details

1) MVP is always "player of the year". You can use any stat metric bullshit you want but it always goes to "player of the year". I tried explaining that to Asian kid I work with. Russ Westbrook was guaranteed to win despite the low seed because he was, far and away, the player of the year.



I dont remember saying that, ever. I might have.

I dont really care, Shaq was worthy of it in 05 but Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first and were leading the league in scoring by margin of around 7 points.

So, for one, "player of the year" isn't based on team success; and for the other, "player of the year" is based on team success. Did you explain to your "friend" while you were at it that you're an idiot. No need, he probably figured it out.

[Clipper Nation]

da_suns_fag getting destroyed per par :lol

[140]

da_suns_fag getting destroyed per par :lol

[da_suns_fan]

Yeah you said Shaq deserved it over Nash. But either way, 'player of the year' is no less ambiguous than 'MVP'. If you're saying Russell Westbrook deserved it despite his lack of team success, why didn't Kobe or LeBron win it in 2006? They completely destroyed Nash for by traditional or advanced statistical measure, and LeBron's team even won 50 games.


Rk Player Season Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% 2P 2PA 2P% eFG% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 80 80 3277 978 2173 .450 180 518 .347 798 1655 .482 .491 696 819 .850 71 354 425 360 147 30 250 233 2832
2 LeBron James 2005-06 21 79 79 3361 875 1823 .480 127 379 .335 748 1444 .518 .515 601 814 .738 75 481 556 521 123 66 260 181 2478
3 Steve Nash 2005-06 31 79 79 2796 541 1056 .512 150 342 .439 391 714 .548 .583 257 279 .921 47 286 333 826 61 12 276 120 1489




Rk Player Season Age G MP PER TS% 3PAr FTr ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 80 3277 28.0 .559 .238 .377 2.6 12.7 7.6 24.1 2.4 0.7 9.0 38.7 11.6 3.7 15.3 .224 7.3 -1.5 5.8 6.5
2 LeBron James 2005-06 21 79 3361 28.1 .568 .208 .447 2.6 17.1 9.8 32.8 2.0 1.5 10.7 33.6 12.0 4.3 16.3 .232 7.9 1.4 9.3 9.5
3 Steve Nash 2005-06 31 79 2796 23.3 .632 .324 .264 1.9 11.1 6.6 44.4 1.1 0.3 19.0 23.3 10.3 2.1 12.4 .212 5.4 -1.6 3.7 4.0

Because, for the first time ever, a player averaged a triple double. He was the talk of the league/media because of it.

That is why he was player of the year.

[da_suns_fan]

So, for one, "player of the year" isn't based on team success; and for the other, "player of the year" is based on team success. Did you explain to your "friend" while you were at it that you're an idiot. No need, he probably figured it out.

Fucking Idiots on Spurstalk. I forget just how stupid most people on this forum are.

When did I say MVP was based on individual vs team success? I said it was "player of the year". That can happen for either individual or team success. If youre credited for turning a team around and make them successful you could be MVP even other players have better statistics. If you have a ridiculous season with stats never achieved before you could be MVP even if your team was mediocre. Depends on the other candidates.

Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first by adding him. The previous year they had same coach, same Amare, same Marion. Nash was correctly given all of the media attention because going to worst to first rarely happens.

In Westbrook's case, he became first player to average a triple double. Again, he gets all the media attention because, not only is he the first to do it, most would have said averaging a triple double would be impossible in the modern era.

Spurstacular, when you pull your head out of your ass, please show me where I said MVP was based on either individual vs team success. Or just admit youre a fucking moron.

[Clipper Nation]

Nash was "player of the year" because of old white North American media members voting for the white North American player. That's it and that's all.

[apalisoc_9]

Yeah you said Shaq deserved it over Nash. But either way, 'player of the year' is no less ambiguous than 'MVP'. If you're saying Russell Westbrook deserved it despite his lack of team success, why didn't Kobe or LeBron win it in 2006? They completely destroyed Nash for by traditional or advanced statistical measure, and LeBron's team even won 50 games.


Rk Player Season Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% 2P 2PA 2P% eFG% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 80 80 3277 978 2173 .450 180 518 .347 798 1655 .482 .491 696 819 .850 71 354 425 360 147 30 250 233 2832
2 LeBron James 2005-06 21 79 79 3361 875 1823 .480 127 379 .335 748 1444 .518 .515 601 814 .738 75 481 556 521 123 66 260 181 2478
3 Steve Nash 2005-06 31 79 79 2796 541 1056 .512 150 342 .439 391 714 .548 .583 257 279 .921 47 286 333 826 61 12 276 120 1489




Rk Player Season Age G MP PER TS% 3PAr FTr ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP
1 Kobe Bryant 2005-06 27 80 3277 28.0 .559 .238 .377 2.6 12.7 7.6 24.1 2.4 0.7 9.0 38.7 11.6 3.7 15.3 .224 7.3 -1.5 5.8 6.5
2 LeBron James 2005-06 21 79 3361 28.1 .568 .208 .447 2.6 17.1 9.8 32.8 2.0 1.5 10.7 33.6 12.0 4.3 16.3 .232 7.9 1.4 9.3 9.5
3 Steve Nash 2005-06 31 79 2796 23.3 .632 .324 .264 1.9 11.1 6.6 44.4 1.1 0.3 19.0 23.3 10.3 2.1 12.4 .212 5.4 -1.6 3.7 4.0

Boom..

Kobe didn't have the wins, but unlike westbrook he trully did have an atrocious supporting cast.

Westbrook Supporting cast is acutally quite decent defensively and they had certain skill sets that helped him achieve his numbers.

[Spurtacular]

When did I say MVP was based on individual vs team success? I said it was "player of the year". That can happen for either individual or team success. If youre credited for turning a team around and make them successful you could be MVP even other players have better statistics. If you have a ridiculous season with stats never achieved before you could be MVP even if your team was mediocre. Depends on the other candidates.



So, team success counts except when it doesn't. Got it.

[Spurtacular]

In Westbrook's case, he became first player to average a triple double. Again, he gets all the media attention because, not only is he the first to do it, most would have said averaging a triple double would be impossible in the modern era.


Actually, Westbrook showed just how easy it is to stat pad for a triple double with the right cuck teammates. Clearing space so he could get rebounds. Allowing him to chuck all game long and be ready to bail him out to pad his assist numbers. If you think about it, a pairing or trio o players will get 30-11-10 every game. Just let a guy ball hog and he can make up the difference given a minimum level of talent. How many games worse was OKC than the year prior? And I'd say they were only at 47 because the company men saw the writing on the wall and did their thing.

[da_suns_fan]

Boom..

Kobe didn't have the wins, but unlike westbrook he trully did have an atrocious supporting cast.

Westbrook Supporting cast is acutally quite decent defensively and they had certain skill sets that helped him achieve his numbers.

He just proved is that individual stats dont necessarily equal MVP. I never said they did.

Russell is MVP because he averaged a triple double and got a shit ton of media attention for it. His accomplishment made him stand out this season.

Kobe got a lot of attention in 2006, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Peeps laughed that the Lakers were struggling to make playoffs while Shaq was competing for a title in Miami. Likewise they said he shot the ball too much and didnt trust his teammates enough blah blah blah. It didnt matter that he averaged 35 a game. Meanwhile, Nash has far worse numbers but was credited for taking an almost whole new team and still winning the pacific and got a lot of positive attention for it.

Now what did they say about Westbrook this year? Were they blaming him for KD leaving and saying he doesnt trust his teammates enough? No, they were saying someone could "ACTUALLY" average a triple double for a season.

Again, its not "Team accomplishments" vs "individual accomplishments". Its which player stood out. Thats what "player of the year" is and who they almost always give the MVP to.

The league loves that every year peeps argue over what makes a player "valuable". They choose to call the award "most valuable player" over "player of the year" because its more ambiguous and they WANT everyone to debate and talk about it. But go back through the winner's history and tell me you dont remember why a player won it for a given year. Its pretty easy because they give it to the guy who stood out that year.

If you want to know the most "underserved MVP", its Duncan in 2002. Jason Kidd was player of the year that season and I seem to remember Shaq calling him "The real MVP" that year in the finals. He was right. Kidd was robbed.

[da_suns_fan]

2002 MVP voting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2002.html

Kidd. Was. Robbed.

[da_suns_fan]

Interesting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2006.html

As I said, Nash won in 06 because he got a lot of positive attention for winning with new cast and there werent any other worthy candidates. He only got 57 of the first place votes but the rest were split up evenly amongst five different players. Nash got less first place votes in 06 than he did in 05 yet won the vote by a greater total margin.

[Spurtacular]

Russell is MVP because he averaged a triple double and got a shit ton of media attention for it. His accomplishment made him stand out this season.

What Westbrook did is what every kid playing 2K does; just do a all out player-centric offense while not playing defense. If the Spurs had done the same thing with Kawhi, his numbers would have been even better (and their wins down). The media rewarded selfishness, not VALUE.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol da_suns_fag still trying to justify Nash's white privilege awards

[Spurtacular]

2002 MVP voting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2002.html

Kidd. Was. Robbed.

A guy at 14-9 and 39 FG was robbed? :lmao

Frankly, second place was quite generous. I'd argue him for 13th place behind old Jordan before I would MVP, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

:lol da_suns_fag still trying to justify Nash's white privilege awards

There's way more black privilege than white privilege in the NBA, son.

[resistanze]

Boom..

Kobe didn't have the wins, but unlike westbrook he trully did have an atrocious supporting cast.

Westbrook Supporting cast is acutally quite decent defensively and they had certain skill sets that helped him achieve his numbers.

When Kobe beats you in advanced stats you know its bad :lol

[resistanze]

Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first by adding him. The previous year they had same coach, same Amare, same Marion. Nash was correctly given all of the media attention because going to worst to first rarely happens.


Well that's just historically inaccurate. The previous year the Suns:

- Fired their coach during the season
- Lost Amare for more than 1/3 of the season due to injury (averaging 20/9)
- Had a blockbuster trade mid season, which included losing Marbury
- Hardaway and Gugliotta missing significant time with injuries
- Didn't have Quentin Richardson

To say Nash alone led to the turnaround is ludicrous. Amare averaged 26/10 and led the team in Win Shares, PER, TS% and second to Marion in BPM. Nash was 3rd on his own team in win shares, 5th in BPM, 3rd in PER :lol. His MVP campaign alone predicated on fat sports writers repeating 'MAKES HIS TEAM BETTER!'

It was a terrible decision then and even worst from a historical perspective.

[Clipper Nation]

If Nash made his teammates better, why was Dirk so much better without him? :lol

[da_suns_fan]

A guy at 14-9 and 39 FG was robbed? :lmao

Frankly, second place was quite generous. I'd argue him for 13th place behind old Jordan before I would MVP, tbh.

You still dont get it.

Jason Kidd was player of the year in 2002. YES, his numbers werent that great. YES, it was in the east (at its lowest point). But he took the NETS from worst to first which was the big story that season. That is why Duncan, who had far better numbers, BARELY beat Kidd in voting. No one remembers one fucking thing Duncan did in 2002. Kidd was the one who was getting all of the attention.

This is why KG won the 04 MVP in a landslide despite posting the exact same numbers in 03. Its why Kobe won the MVP in 08 despite putting up much weaker numbers than he did in 06. Its why Barkley won in 93 despite Jordan being in the league and putting up weaker numbers than he did in 91. Its why Westbrook won despite his team being a low seed.

You guys argue over advanced stats and what the word "valuable" means completely clueless that it doesnt fucking matter. Theyre gonna give it to player of the year.

[ambchang]

You still dont get it.

Jason Kidd was player of the year in 2002. YES, his numbers werent that great. YES, it was in the east (at its lowest point). But he took the NETS from worst to first which was the big story that season. That is why Duncan, who had far better numbers, BARELY beat Kidd in voting. No one remembers one fucking thing Duncan did in 2002. Kidd was the one who was getting all of the attention.

This is why KG won the 04 MVP in a landslide despite posting the exact same numbers in 03. Its why Kobe won the MVP in 08 despite putting up much weaker numbers than he did in 06. Its why Barkley won in 93 despite Jordan being in the league and putting up weaker numbers than he did in 91. Its why Westbrook won despite his team being a low seed.

You guys argue over advanced stats and what the word "valuable" means completely clueless that it doesnt fucking matter. Theyre gonna give it to player of the year.

Duncan and Robinson should have been MVPs in their rookie years then. 35 and 36 game turnarounds.

And :lol as if player of the year isn't even more ambiguous

[lefty]

Duncan's turnaround is overrated tbh, Robinson missed most of the 96/97 season.

Bird did have an impressive impact though, and before you bring up Cowens, Maravich and Nate, they were TOSBs at this point

[ambchang]

Duncan's turnaround is overrated tbh, Robinson missed most of the 96/97 season.

Bird did have an impressive impact though, and before you bring up Cowens, Maravich and Nate, they were TOSBs at this point
Oh of course. It was to make fun of his retardedness.

[resistanze]

Interesting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2006.html

As I said, Nash won in 06 because he got a lot of positive attention for winning with new cast and there werent any other worthy candidates. He only got 57 of the first place votes but the rest were split up evenly amongst five different players. Nash got less first place votes in 06 than he did in 05 yet won the vote by a greater total margin.

You should sort that year and others by Win Shares, you'll see a funny trend :lol

1990-00: Shaq (1st in WS)
2000-01: Iverson (8th)
2001-02: Duncan (1st)
2002-03: Duncan (1st)
2003-04: Garnett (1st)
2004-05: Nash (11th)
2005-06: Nash (8th)
2006-07: Dirk (1st)
2007-08: Kobe (4th)
2008-09: Lebron (1st)
2009-10: Lebron (1st)
2010-11: Rose (4th)
2011-12: Lebron (1st)
2012-13: Lebron (1st)
2013-14: Durant (1st)
2014-15: Curry (3rd)
2015-16: Curry (1st)
2016-17: Westbrook (3rd)

It's interesting that the most controversial winners that people commonly talk about have WS nowhere near top 3 (if not first, like most winners).

[Arcadian]

2002 MVP voting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2002.html

Kidd. Was. Robbed.

That link you posted shows Duncan with a WS/48 of .257, compared to Nash with .140.

'02 was arguably Duncan's best individual regular season, so we're talking about the best season by the best player of his generation. With a terrible supporting cast. He deserved it.

[lefty]

Oh of course. It was to make fun of his retardedness.

:tu

[Spurtacular]

You should sort that year and others by Win Shares, you'll see a funny trend :lol

1990-00: Shaq (1st in WS)
2000-01: Iverson (8th)
2001-02: Duncan (1st)
2002-03: Duncan (1st)
2003-04: Garnett (1st)
2004-05: Nash (11th)
2005-06: Nash (8th)
2006-07: Dirk (1st)
2007-08: Kobe (4th)
2008-09: Lebron (1st)
2009-10: Lebron (1st)
2010-11: Rose (4th)
2011-12: Lebron (1st)
2012-13: Lebron (1st)
2013-14: Durant (1st)
2014-15: Curry (3rd)
2015-16: Curry (1st)
2016-17: Westbrook (3rd)

It's interesting that the most controversial winners that people commonly talk about have WS nowhere near top 3 (if not first, like most winners).

For me, the controversy is that wins shares is not a real stat.

[AlexJones]

Nash deserved it in 2006.

[AlexJones]

For me, the controversy is that wins shares is not a real stat.
Win Shares is overrated but not useless.

[AlexJones]

ESPN's RPM is the single most valuable statistic in predicting how many wins a given player adds to his team.

[Spurtacular]

Win Shares is overrated but not useless.

Agreed, I take it as an indicator; but not as an absolute.

[apalisoc_9]

11th. :lmao

[Clipper Nation]

Nash deserved it in 2006.
:lmao

[da_suns_fan]

You should sort that year and others by Win Shares, you'll see a funny trend :lol

1990-00: Shaq (1st in WS)
2000-01: Iverson (8th)
2001-02: Duncan (1st)
2002-03: Duncan (1st)
2003-04: Garnett (1st)
2004-05: Nash (11th)
2005-06: Nash (8th)
2006-07: Dirk (1st)
2007-08: Kobe (4th)
2008-09: Lebron (1st)
2009-10: Lebron (1st)
2010-11: Rose (4th)
2011-12: Lebron (1st)
2012-13: Lebron (1st)
2013-14: Durant (1st)
2014-15: Curry (3rd)
2015-16: Curry (1st)
2016-17: Westbrook (3rd)

It's interesting that the most controversial winners that people commonly talk about have WS nowhere near top 3 (if not first, like most winners).


That link you posted shows Duncan with a WS/48 of .257, compared to Nash with .140.

'02 was arguably Duncan's best individual regular season, so we're talking about the best season by the best player of his generation. With a terrible supporting cast. He deserved it.

EVERYONE in Texas, must be fucking stupid. Or maybe its just everyone on this board.

I could say twenty times that win shares, PER etc dont matter and Spurs fan will come back with "Look at his win shares, how can you say he deserves it?!". What is it that YOU THINK I am arguing?

That. Doesnt. Matter.

Look at the table above. #1 in Win shares doesnt mean youre going to win MVP. Steve Nash won it twice without cracking the top five, so win shares cant be an indicator of who is going to win the MVP.

As I've said, the player who gets the most positive media attention (OR PLAYER OF THE YEAR) is going to get it every fucking year.

Now, Ive said this, yet fucking morons will come back with different advanced stats indicating why Steve Nash was an inferior player to someone else. I. Dont. Care.

If you think the media narrative surrounding Steve Nash was overblown, thats your opinion. But if you want to know who is going to win MVP, theyre going to give it to the player of the year almost every fucking year. The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

And to answer another poster, Duncan didnt get it in 98 because Spurs turnaround was attributed to both and he and Robinson. I dont care if you think thats true or not or if you think Nash was incorrectly given all the credit for Suns turnaround. Im just telling you what happened.

Fucking moronic responses in 3...2...1...

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan's turnaround is overrated tbh, Robinson missed most of the 96/97 season.

Bird did have an impressive impact though, and before you bring up Cowens, Maravich and Nate, they were TOSBs at this point


Oh of course. It was to make fun of his retardedness.

No, Lefty just pointed out why neither was player of the year which just made my point.

Thanks!

- DSF out

[StrengthAndHonor]

EVERYONE in Texas, must be fucking stupid. Or maybe its just everyone on this board.

I could say twenty times that win shares, PER etc dont matter and Spurs fan will come back with "Look at his win shares, how can you say he deserves it?!". What is it that YOU THINK I am arguing?

That. Doesnt. Matter.

Look at the table above. #1 in Win shares doesnt mean youre going to win MVP. Steve Nash won it twice without cracking the top five, so win shares cant be an indicator of who is going to win the MVP.

As I've said, the player who gets the most positive media attention (OR PLAYER OF THE YEAR) is going to get it every fucking year.

Now, Ive said this, yet fucking morons will come back with different advanced stats indicating why Steve Nash was an inferior player to someone else. I. Dont. Care.

If you think the media narrative surrounding Steve Nash was overblown, thats your opinion. But if you want to know who is going to win MVP, theyre going to give it to the player of the year almost every fucking year. The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

And to answer another poster, Duncan didnt get it in 98 because Spurs turnaround was attributed to both and he and Robinson. I dont care if you think thats true or not or if you think Nash was incorrectly given all the credit for Suns turnaround. Im just telling you what happened.

Fucking moronic responses in 3...2...1...

Exactly.

[da_suns_fan]

Exactly.

Holy shit. Someone finally gets it.

[Spurtacular]

Exactly.

He also said this in the same quote, The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

Dude shot 39 FG and was under 15/10 and is stacked up against one of TD's best years.

[resistanze]

EVERYONE in Texas, must be fucking stupid. Or maybe its just everyone on this board.

I could say twenty times that win shares, PER etc dont matter and Spurs fan will come back with "Look at his win shares, how can you say he deserves it?!". What is it that YOU THINK I am arguing?

That. Doesnt. Matter.

Look at the table above. #1 in Win shares doesnt mean youre going to win MVP. Steve Nash won it twice without cracking the top five, so win shares cant be an indicator of who is going to win the MVP.

As I've said, the player who gets the most positive media attention (OR PLAYER OF THE YEAR) is going to get it every fucking year.

Now, Ive said this, yet fucking morons will come back with different advanced stats indicating why Steve Nash was an inferior player to someone else. I. Dont. Care.

If you think the media narrative surrounding Steve Nash was overblown, thats your opinion. But if you want to know who is going to win MVP, theyre going to give it to the player of the year almost every fucking year. The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

And to answer another poster, Duncan didnt get it in 98 because Spurs turnaround was attributed to both and he and Robinson. I dont care if you think thats true or not or if you think Nash was incorrectly given all the credit for Suns turnaround. Im just telling you what happened.

Fucking moronic responses in 3...2...1...

But yet you've also simultaneously argued in this very thread Duncan didn't deserve to be the MVP in 2003. And again, I could find you stating Shaq was deserving in 2005.

You seemed to have regressed significantly over the last decade, some shit must've happen bad IRL, tbh. You maybe you were always this retarded, can't tell.

[ambchang]

No, Lefty just pointed out why neither was player of the year which just made my point.

Thanks!

- DSF out

It's about the narrative and turnaround, except when it's not.

It's about popularity, but then the Spurs shouldn't win because they are boring.

[da_suns_fan]

But yet you've also simultaneously argued in this very thread Duncan didn't deserve to be the MVP in 2003. And again, I could find you stating Shaq was deserving in 2005.

You seemed to have regressed significantly over the last decade, some shit must've happen bad IRL, tbh. You maybe you were always this retarded, can't tell.

No, I said he should have lost to Kidd in 2002.

I can say for it the twenty first time but you guys just dont get it. Too fucking stupid.

[da_suns_fan]

He also said this in the same quote, The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

Dude shot 39 FG and was under 15/10 and is stacked up against one of TD's best years.

Fuck it. You dont get it. You are too dumb.

Sorry.

[da_suns_fan]

It's about the narrative and turnaround , except when it's not.

It's about popularity, but then the Spurs shouldn't win because they are boring.

Yes, its all about narrative but I never said it has to specifically be a turnaround.

Youre pretending that I said theres a certain way to be "player of the year" because you realize that I am right. I usually am.

You can be player of the year for stats, turnaround, team accomplishments etc. Obviously it depends on what was expected, what other players that year did etc. Which player stood out that season.

I was right when I said there was no way the media wasnt going to give it to Westbrook. Didnt matter his team was low seed. A player averaging a triple double is too big of a story.

Let me try a different way, idiot Spurs fans:

Whatever logic/criteria you use for "Coach of the year", "Sixth man of the year", "Rookie of the year" etc, apply it to all players in the league. Thats who wins MVP.

[Arcadian]

<stupid nonsense>

I'm not arguing who the media will arbitrarily view as "player of the year"; I'm arguing who actually deserved to be MVP. Those are dissociable concepts.

You're also contradicting yourself. On one hand, you use your own criterion to argue "Nash deserved it because he was player of the year. See? My criterion is predictive." On the other hand, you argue "Kidd deserved to win because he was player of the year. He got robbed!"

Thus, we can conclude one of two things: either you have to admit that Duncan was the player of the year in '02, or your criterion is wrong.

If you think the media was wrong in '02, why do you assume they were obviously correct in '05 and/or '06? Obviously they can be wrong. The truth is, they were right in '02 and wrong in '06.

The funny thing is, I'm not even arguing against Nash here. I liked Nash. I was simply refuting your claim that Duncan didn't deserve it in '02. Granted, you're a notorious irrational Duncan hater, so your opinion is worthless. But even you should be able to deduce that the best player of his generation in his best individual season deserved to be MVP. And he was.

[Spurtacular]

<Stupid Nonsense 2>

If you had any doubt about whether Kidd was "robbed in 02," The 03 Finals should've put those doubts to bed.

[ambchang]

Exactly.


Holy shit. Someone finally gets it.

Well, duh! Because the media votes on it. But then the title isn't about who really got it, the point of the thread is about who didn't deserve it.

[ambchang]

Yes, its all about narrative but I never said it has to specifically be a turnaround.

Youre pretending that I said theres a certain way to be "player of the year" because you realize that I am right. I usually am.

You can be player of the year for stats, turnaround, team accomplishments etc. Obviously it depends on what was expected, what other players that year did etc. Which player stood out that season.

I was right when I said there was no way the media wasnt going to give it to Westbrook. Didnt matter his team was low seed. A player averaging a triple double is too big of a story.

Let me try a different way, idiot Spurs fans:

Whatever logic/criteria you use for "Coach of the year", "Sixth man of the year", "Rookie of the year" etc, apply it to all players in the league. Thats who wins MVP.

In other words, your whole point is that the media gets to decide who gets it or not, which we all already know. But then that's not the topic of discussion, you just haven't figured that part out yet.

[da_suns_fan]

Well, duh! Because the media votes on it. But then the title isn't about who really got it, the point of the thread is about who didn't deserve it.

And MY POINT was you guys were debating who was undeserving of MVP without knowing what the MVP actually is. ALL IT IS is a player of the year award. If I ask for an instant/blink reaction to the question "which player stood out this season", THATS who they give the award to.

Having said that, the answer to the question "who was most undeserving of winning", the answer is obviously Tim Duncan in 2002 who edged out the true "player of the year" Jason Kidd by narrowest of margins.

[da_suns_fan]

In other words, your whole point is that the media gets to decide who gets it or not, which we all already know. But then that's not the topic of discussion, you just haven't figured that part out yet.

No, my whole point was you guys dont understand what the award is and thus, who is undeserving.

We have a coach of the year, rookie of the year, sixth man of the year etc. So WHY does the league call its"player of the year" award "most valuable player"? Because they know douche bags like yourself will take it so fucking seriously and debate on what the word "valuable" means, who had best advanced stats etc.

There was only one player undeserving and that was in 02.

[da_suns_fan]

I'm not arguing who the media will arbitrarily view as "player of the year"; I'm arguing who actually deserved to be MVP. Those are dissociable concepts.



And I wont do that. Its pointless. Youre falling into the leagues trap of taking something more seriously than it deserves.

They dont give the award to the "most valuable player", they give it to the player of the year. KG won in 04 in a LANDSLIDE but didnt even finish in the top 10 in voting the very next season despite playing all 82 games with the same numbers. Did KG suddenly become less "valuable"? No, it just wasnt his year.

Game. Set. Match.

- DSF out

[ambchang]

And MY POINT was you guys were debating who was undeserving of MVP without knowing what the MVP actually is. ALL IT IS is a player of the year award. If I ask for an instant/blink reaction to the question "which player stood out this season", THATS who they give the award to.

Having said that, the answer to the question "who was most undeserving of winning", the answer is obviously Tim Duncan in 2002 who edged out the true "player of the year" Jason Kidd by narrowest of margins.

Of course your feeble brain couldn't grasp the fact that this is called the most VALUABLE player, and despite your pleas for this to be "player of the year", which would make the award even more confusing, it is still the most VALUABLE player award. Is it being voted as the player with the best narrative award now? Sure, but that would make some more deserving than others, because if it was actually voted as most VALUABLE award, every person who won the most VALUABLE award would be deserving, and there would be no point having this thread. Get it?


No, my whole point was you guys dont understand what the award is and thus, who is undeserving.

We have a coach of the year, rookie of the year, sixth man of the year etc. So WHY does the league call its"player of the year" award "most valuable player"? Because they know douche bags like yourself will take it so fucking seriously and debate on what the word "valuable" means, who had best advanced stats etc.

There was only one player undeserving and that was in 02.

No, we all understand it, it's that you don't. You have difficulty understanding the difference between intent and reality. If there is a delta between the two, then there would be issues of people being undeserving of the award.

It doesn't matter what they name the other awards, fact is they named this the most VALUABLE player, and didn't call it player of the year. The fact is, the media votes for it, so a question was posed a while back to the media member on what would impact their choice of an MVP: http://www.nba.com/article/2017/04/12/blogtable-what-criteria-matters-most-making-mvp-decision

There were 8 responses, and while this doesn't totally represent all voting members, it does provide a glimpse. Unfortunately for you, 7 of the 8 responses talk about excellence, value to the team, and impact to the team winning. Only one person talked about narrative (have I seen this before). We have a good guidance from advanced stats nowadays to determine the value of a player to the team, and Nash simply didn't make the cut in most of those advanced stats.

And if you advocate for a player of the year award as you have defined it, then there would be no undeserving winners, because the MEDIA decides who is "stood out this season" based on their articles throughout the year and the MEDIA votes on it, so there would be no delta between the two, and there would be no undeserving winners. And then you go out and said 02 Duncan was undeserving, which contradicted with your entire premise of player of the year.

[ambchang]

And I wont do that. Its pointless. Youre falling into the leagues trap of taking something more seriously than it deserves.

They dont give the award to the "most valuable player", they give it to the player of the year. KG won in 04 in a LANDSLIDE but didnt even finish in the top 10 in voting the very next season despite playing all 82 games with the same numbers. Did KG suddenly become less "valuable"? No, it just wasnt his year.

Game. Set. Match.

- DSF out

Except the entire premise of this thread is that who is not deserving at certain years, which opens up the possibly of the wrote guy being voted in, or in your example, not being voted in the top10.

However, your definition doesn't allow for that, because the voters determined who stood out in the year. Did Garnett not stand out in 05?

[resistanze]

I think it's clear he's had some type of traumatic brain injury

[da_suns_fan]

Of course your feeble brain couldn't grasp the fact that this is called the most VALUABLE player, and despite your pleas for this to be "player of the year", which would make the award even more confusing,

We have "coach of the year". Is that too confusing for you?

Youre grasping at straws now because you realize that Im correct.

[da_suns_fan]

Except the entire premise of this thread is that who is not deserving at certain years, which opens up the possibly of the wrote guy being voted in, or in your example, not being voted in the top10.

However, your definition doesn't allow for that, because the voters determined who stood out in the year. Did Garnett not stand out in 05?

Holy shit, this was pathetic.

KG was not player of the year in 05 because the wolves had a drop off and thus got a lot less positive media attention than he did the previous year despite playing great basketball in both years.

Game. Set. Match.

Next?

[Clipper Nation]

Ambchang shitting on da_suns_retard :lol

Amb

[ambchang]

We have "coach of the year". Is that too confusing for you?

Youre grasping at straws now because you realize that Im correct.

We are talking about two different awards, is that too confusing for you?


Holy shit, this was pathetic.

KG was not player of the year in 05 because the wolves had a drop off and thus got a lot less positive media attention than he did the previous year despite playing great basketball in both years.

Game. Set. Match.

Next?

But then again, why would there every be anyone being undeserving using your criteria? If the criteria is how much attention the media gives, and we know that it was the media that votes on the award, why would there ever be a disconnect between the two, creating a situation where there would be an undeserving winner? It's essentially saying the criteria is that the media says so for someone to win the MVP, and then the same media voted for that award, and a idiotic 3rd party comes along and says 02 was wrong because I don't like Tim Duncan.

KG was very valuable in 05, he got stiffed. Which actually makes sense using the logic of everybody else other than you, and that the media gets things wrong. But your interpretation is that the award is always deserving, except when it goes to Duncan, because Duncan just managed to destroy your entire franchise over the last two decades.

[da_suns_fan]

We are talking about two different awards, is that too confusing for you?



But then again, why would there every be anyone being undeserving using your criteria? If the criteria is how much attention the media gives, and we know that it was the media that votes on the award, why would there ever be a disconnect between the two, creating a situation where there would be an undeserving winner? It's essentially saying the criteria is that the media says so for someone to win the MVP, and then the same media voted for that award, and a idiotic 3rd party comes along and says 02 was wrong because I don't like Tim Duncan.

KG was very valuable in 05, he got stiffed. Which actually makes sense using the logic of everybody else other than you, and that the media gets things wrong. But your interpretation is that the award is always deserving, except when it goes to Duncan, because Duncan just managed to destroy your entire franchise over the last two decades.

Nonsense. Close votes means that there was more than one player who stood out. For example Nash/shaq in 05 and Duncan/Kidd in 02. The media can get it wrong when they start to overthink etc. And as I said, no one remembers a thing Tim Duncan did in 02. Sorry.

[ambchang]

Nonsense. Close votes means that there was more than one player who stood out. For example Nash/shaq in 05 and Duncan/Kidd in 02. The media can get it wrong when they start to overthink etc. And as I said, no one remembers a thing Tim Duncan did in 02. Sorry.

So 02 was undeserving and the evidence was a close vote, but that doesn't apply to 05?

Why would the media get the wrong? Your criteria is about what the media thinks the best story of the year is, and then the media votes on it, they can't be wrong by definition. If the definition of the better nut is which one a squirrel prefers, the one the squirrel chose will always be the better nut. There's no ambiguity.

Also, you just remembered what Duncan did in 02, and that happened 15 years ago.

[da_suns_fan]

So 02 was undeserving and the evidence was a close vote, but that doesn't apply to 05?



Shaq leaving the Lakers and leading Miami to best record in East was a big story, especially because the Lakers didnt make the playoffs in his absence. In the end, I think Nash stood out more because of the dramatic change in style of play. The Suns average 110 and the next highest was 103-104.

Kidd going to the Nets was a huge story in 2002. Most expect the Nets would stay bad and "no kidd-ing", the Nets were good. I dont even remember how many times I saw that pun. Plus media bought the idea that he had turned his life around after spousal abuse etc.

What the hell did Tim Duncan do in 2002? I looked at the standings and they only won 58 games which wasnt even tops in the West. I think Media was reluctant to give it to Kidd because of his low individual stats and the fact he was in the East (where 52 wins got top seed).

Kidd was robbed.

[ambchang]

Shaq leaving the Lakers and leading Miami to best record in East was a big story, especially because the Lakers didnt make the playoffs in his absence. In the end, I think Nash stood out more because of the dramatic change in style of play. The Suns average 110 and the next highest was 103-104.

Kidd going to the Nets was a huge story in 2002. Most expect the Nets would stay bad and "no kidd-ing", the Nets were good. I dont even remember how many times I saw that pun. Plus media bought the idea that he had turned his life around after spousal abuse etc.

What the hell did Tim Duncan do in 2002? I looked at the standings and they only won 58 games which wasnt even tops in the West. I think Media was reluctant to give it to Kidd because of his low individual stats and the fact he was in the East (where 52 wins got top seed).

Kidd was robbed.
So why did you bring up close votes?

[Killakobe81]

Shaq leaving the Lakers and leading Miami to best record in East was a big story, especially because the Lakers didnt make the playoffs in his absence. In the end, I think Nash stood out more because of the dramatic change in style of play. The Suns average 110 and the next highest was 103-104.

Kidd going to the Nets was a huge story in 2002. Most expect the Nets would stay bad and "no kidd-ing", the Nets were good. I dont even remember how many times I saw that pun. Plus media bought the idea that he had turned his life around after spousal abuse etc.

What the hell did Tim Duncan do in 2002? I looked at the standings and they only won 58 games which wasnt even tops in the West. I think Media was reluctant to give it to Kidd because of his low individual stats and the fact he was in the East (where 52 wins got top seed).

Kidd was robbed.

shaq was good that year he was newly motivated ... but if anyone deserved mvp outside of Nash it was LeBron, not Shaq..

[da_suns_fan]

So why did you bring up close votes?


Because that obviously meant that "player of the year" was a toss up between two guys. There were two players who stood out that year equally (or close to equally) in the eyes of the media.

In hindsight, we can see whose year it truly was by asking what we still remember from that season. Maybe its not fair considering we now know what happened in the playoffs (and voters didnt) which also affects our memories etc. If the Spurs would have won the title in 2002, maybe we would actually remember something, ANYTHING from Tim Duncan's season. All I remember is that the Spurs won one game against the Lakers that year in the playoffs.

I can call off the top of my head that Kidd got traded to Nets and took them from worst to first, best record in the east and all the way to the finals. Kidd owned 2002. It was his year.

Kidd got robbed.

[Clipper Nation]

Duncan's 2002 season was one of the best MVP seasons of all time, faggot :lol

https://airalamo.com/2012/08/23/tim-duncan-2002-mvp-season-one-of-top-10-all-time/

We all know the real reason why you've come up with this narrative that Kidd was "robbed" in '02. You hate the Spurs, and Duncan won. You defend losers, and Kidd lost. That's it and that's all.

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan's 2002 season was one of the best MVP seasons of all time, faggot :lol

https://airalamo.com/2012/08/23/tim-duncan-2002-mvp-season-one-of-top-10-all-time/


Yet he BARELY beat Jason Kidd in voting. Strange.

[da_suns_fan]

When NBA commissioner David Stern announced that O'Neal had won the MVP, the partisan Nets crowd mostly cheered. O'Neal then won the building over by first thanking Jason Kidd and calling him "the real MVP of the regular season".

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/home-court-win-shaq-proud-jersey-roots-article-1.482029

I remember THAT! :lol

[Clipper Nation]

Yet he BARELY beat Jason Kidd in voting. Strange.

Yet he won the MVP. Guess he was the "player of the year" after all.

[da_suns_fan]

After word of Duncan's selection got out Monday, Nets coach Byron Scott and O'Neal protested that the wrong player won. Kidd himself was more gracious, saying he was happy for Duncan....In a USA TODAY survey of players, coaches and trainers last month, Kidd won with 60% of the vote. O'Neal got 18% and Duncan 10%.

Kidd was robbed!

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/nba/spurs/2002-05-09-duncan-mvp.htm

[Clipper Nation]

Wow, you mean to tell me that a player who was always salty towards Duncan and the coach of Kidd's team both thought Kidd was robbed of the MVP? Shocker!

[ambchang]

Because that obviously meant that "player of the year" was a toss up between two guys. There were two players who stood out that year equally (or close to equally) in the eyes of the media.

In hindsight, we can see whose year it truly was by asking what we still remember from that season. Maybe its not fair considering we now know what happened in the playoffs (and voters didnt) which also affects our memories etc. If the Spurs would have won the title in 2002, maybe we would actually remember something, ANYTHING from Tim Duncan's season. All I remember is that the Spurs won one game against the Lakers that year in the playoffs.

I can call off the top of my head that Kidd got traded to Nets and took them from worst to first, best record in the east and all the way to the finals. Kidd owned 2002. It was his year.

Kidd got robbed.

The media voted for the player of the year and the media decides who is the story of the year. Nobody was robbed using that definition

[Thomas82]

Karl Malone in 1999.

[da_suns_fan]

The media voted for the player of the year and the media decides who is the story of the year. Nobody was robbed using that definition

No, the question why would the media decide not to vote for the obvious player of the year. Well, it doesn't help when the player of the year is coming off getting traded for spousal abuse. That hurt Kidd a lot.


But he was still robbed. The Spurs won the exact amount of games in 02 than they did in 01. They were tied for second place in the west. Big fucking deal.

Not a single spurs fan can name a single thing he Duncan did that year that was special.

That pretty much sums up Duncan though, huh? Or maybe just Spurs fan. Whatever, you've been enlightened and now you know.

- DSF out

[Clipper Nation]

If Kidd was truly the player of the year, then by your logic, Media would have voted for him. They gave MVPs to DK, Kobe and Karl Malone, so let's not pretend that off-court conduct was a factor.

[Clipper Nation]

Btw, naming what Duncan did that was special in 2002 is easy: he set a career high in PPG, led the league in total field goals, free throws made, total rebounds, and double-doubles. He was the anchor of one of the league's best defenses in both points and FG% allowed. He also became the 14th player in league history to put up over 2,000 points and 1,000 rebounds in a season.

[da_suns_fan]

If Kidd was truly the player of the year, then by your logic, Media would have voted for him. They gave MVPs to DK, Kobe and Karl Malone, so let's not pretend that off-court conduct was a factor.

:lol

ClipperNation, everything you say is stupid.

I repeat, EVERYTHING you say is stupid.

Kobe was given award in 08, 5 years after rape allegations. Thats quite different than Kidd admitting hitting his wife and the media having to vote on whether to give him the MVP the next year.

I dont know why I bother, EVERYTHING you say is stupid. I usually just ignore your posts because theyre really bad troll attempts. Now I know all I have to is simply point out that everything you say is stupid.

Your takes on player signings, coaches, trades, draft picks. Stupid.

Everything. You. Say. Is. Stupid.

[da_suns_fan]

Oh, FYI. ClipperNation is also bizarrely obsessed with me. I wont post for months and I'll come back and see several alerts that Ive been mentioned in different threads. They are always from CiipperNation. Always. And they are always just insults from out of nowhere.

Im honestly concerend about his mental health. I dont think its healthy to be on here every day obsessing over someone he's never met.

[da_suns_fan]

https://i.imgur.com/Xlscq7h.png

https://i.imgur.com/RbbnkEk.png

Fucking sick, man.

[apalisoc_9]

da suns fagging up this site with realgm level takes Smdh.

[da_suns_fan]

Well maybe I deserve it. There was this gem:

https://i.imgur.com/FtACo6X.png

Damn it, ClipperNation, its just too easy. :lol

[Clipper Nation]

You're proud of that "Dudley > Melo" take? :lmao

[ambchang]

No, the question why would the media decide not to vote for the obvious player of the year. Well, it doesn't help when the player of the year is coming off getting traded for spousal abuse. That hurt Kidd a lot.


But he was still robbed. The Spurs won the exact amount of games in 02 than they did in 01. They were tied for second place in the west. Big fucking deal.

Not a single spurs fan can name a single thing he Duncan did that year that was special.

That pretty much sums up Duncan though, huh? Or maybe just Spurs fan. Whatever, you've been enlightened and now you know.

- DSF out

So you explained why Kidd wasn't the media's choice, which rendered him unworthy of the player of the year award. But that doesn't matter, because we are talking about the most valuable player aware here.

and :lol Duncan not doing anything special that year. He was just dominant that year, that was all.

[da_suns_fan]

So you explained why Kidd wasn't the media's choice, which rendered him unworthy of the player of the year award. But that doesn't matter, because we are talking about the most valuable player aware here.

and :lol Duncan not doing anything special that year. He was just dominant that year, that was all.


If he was so dominant, why didnt they win any more games than the previous year?


Duncan, in his fifth pro season, set personal bests in scoring average (25.5 points) and rebounding average (12.7) while leading the Spurs to the Midwest Division title and a tie for the league's second-best record (58-24).

Duncan ranked fifth in the league in scoring, second in rebounding, and third in blocked shots (2.48 average). His 67 double-doubles led the league.

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/nba/spurs/2002-05-09-duncan-mvp.htm

So dominant. Tied for second best record in the west. Personal bests in scoring. Led the league in..double doubles.

I think Ive proved my point here.

[ambchang]

If he was so dominant, why didnt they win any more games than the previous year?



https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/nba/spurs/2002-05-09-duncan-mvp.htm

Because he was also dominant the previous year as Duncan has been an MVP candidate from his rookie year to about 07. Also, his teammates got worse. Haven't you heard team record depends on the team and not totally on one single individual?


So dominant. Tied for second best record in the west. Personal bests in scoring. Led the league in..double doubles.

I think Ive proved my point here.

Yeah, pretty damn dominant numbers, especially when you factor in pace.

[Spurtacular]

But he was still robbed. The Spurs won the exact amount of games in 02 than they did in 01. They were tied for second place in the west. Big fucking deal.



Considering the ECF finalists Nets and Celts would've probably finished 5th and 6th in the west, I'd say it's a pretty big deal. They tied with the "three-time champion" Lakers and were three back of an all-time great Kings teams. And Tim and scrubs finished better than a loaded Mavs team.

[da_suns_fan]

Because he was also dominant the previous year as Duncan has been an MVP candidate from his rookie year to about 07. Also, his teammates got worse. Haven't you heard team record depends on the team and not totally on one single individual?



Yeah, pretty damn dominant numbers, especially when you factor in pace.

LOL...so dominant, they managed to increase their win total by zero.

So dominant, they managed to win A game against the Lakers in two playoffs series.

You can call him "fundamentally sound", "boring", "squeaky clean" whatever...but "dominant" is fucking absurd.

[Spurtacular]

So dominant, they managed to win A game against the Lakers in two playoffs series.


Spurs would've came out of the East in 02. So would've the Kings, Lakers and Mavs. And the western teams 5-8 would've had just as good or better odds as the Celtics and Nets.

[da_suns_fan]

Considering the ECF finalists Nets and Celts would've probably finished 5th and 6th in the west, I'd say it's a pretty big deal. They tied with the "three-time champion" Lakers and were three back of an all-time great Kings teams. And Tim and scrubs finished better than a loaded Mavs team.


Not trying to nit-pick but the 2002 the Lakers werent "three time champs" yet. The MVP is given out during the 2002 playoffs.

Webber would have been a stronger candidate (Kings finished first) except he missed the first third of the season due to injury. Shaq and Kobe were just coasting. So who do you vote for out west? Kidd's the obvious player of the year but the east is so bad and his scoring average is so low and that whole spousal abuse thing....

Tim Duncan was a nice, safe pick.

But they fucked up. NO ONE can remember a thing Tim Duncan did in 2002. The Lakers won their third title playing against the Nets with Shaq calling Kidd "The real MVP". Not a great year for MVP voting.

[resistanze]

Not trying to nit-pick but the 2002 the Lakers werent "three time champs" yet. The MVP is given out during the 2002 playoffs.

Webber would have been a stronger candidate (Kings finished first) except he missed the first third of the season due to injury. Shaq and Kobe were just coasting. So who do you vote for out west? Kidd's the obvious player of the year but the east is so bad and his scoring average is so low and that whole spousal abuse thing....

Tim Duncan was a nice, safe pick.

But they fucked up. NO ONE can remember a thing Tim Duncan did in 2002. The Lakers won their third title playing against the Nets with Shaq calling Kidd "The real MVP". Not a great year for MVP voting.

You're essentially arguing against Nash's MVP, which was closer than Duncan's, which was way more controversial, and which SHAQ said was tainted :lol

Seriously, when did you get so retarded? And haven't you 'left' this thread twice?

[ambchang]

LOL...so dominant, they managed to increase their win total by zero.

So dominant, they managed to win A game against the Lakers in two playoffs series.

You can call him "fundamentally sound", "boring", "squeaky clean" whatever...but "dominant" is fucking absurd.

06 Nash was so dominant the Suns won less games than the year before and the year after.

[da_suns_fan]

06 Nash was so dominant the Suns won less games than the year before and the year after.

Who said Nash was a dominant player?

Game. Set. Match.

[da_suns_fan]

You're essentially arguing against Nash's MVP, which was closer than Duncan's, which was way more controversial, and which SHAQ said was tainted :lol

Seriously, when did you get so retarded? And haven't you 'left' this thread twice?

Nonsense. Unlike Kidd, Nash played in the west so he wasnt dinged for that. Likewise he had the squeaky clean image as opposed to Kidd's spousal abuse. And unlike the Nets, the Suns won 60+ games scoring a ton of points so they were an even bigger story.

Shaq also had a strong case to make that season. As I said they were first in the east and the Lakers missed the playoffs (while the Mavs still won 58 games sans Nash).

But looking back at that season, Nash was the obvious player of the year. They got it right.

[ambchang]

Who said Nash was a dominant player?

Game. Set. Match.

Yeah, Nash didn't deserve the MVP, just the player of the year award that you hand out.

[da_suns_fan]

Yeah, Nash didn't deserve the MVP, just the player of the year award that you hand out.

:lol

Chang, tell us more about how DOMINANT Duncan was. Dont forget to mention pace, though!

Did Duncan not play in the 2001 & 2002 playoffs? Asking for a friend.

[ambchang]

:lol

Chang, tell us more about how DOMINANT Duncan was. Dont forget to mention pace, though!

Did Duncan not play in the 2001 & 2002 playoffs? Asking for a friend.

Duncan led the league in FGM, 2PGM, FTM, Defensive rebounds and total rebounds, offensive winshares (10.7, 0.5 over the 2nd best in the league), total win shares (17.8, 4.2 > 2nd), box score plus minus (7.6, 0.6 > 2nd) and VORP (8.1, 1.1 > 2nd).

Led the playoffs in blocks per game at 4.3 blocks, putting up 27.6ppg and 14.4rpg. He also led the playoffs in BPM that year. That year was better, numbers-wise, than the best seasons of Nowitzki, Barkley, Erving, Malone, and Larry Bird.

If you want to talk how he didn't go past the 2nd round, in the series vs. the Lakers, he put up 29/17.2/4.6/1/3.2 vs. 21.4/12.2/3.2/0.6/3.0 for Shaq, and 26.2/5.4/4.8/1.0/0.2 for Kobe. If you do the math, both Shaq and Kobe, supposedly two of the top three player in the NBA, put up a TOTAL of 47.6/17.6/8.0/1.6/3.2 for the entire series. Duncan put up similar rebounding and block numbers by HIMSELF. So yeah, it was dominant.

The only competition for him that year was Shaq, but Shaq was coasting and didn't play a full season, so the award rightfully went to Duncan.

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan led the league in FGM, 2PGM, FTM, Defensive rebounds and total rebounds, offensive winshares (10.7, 0.5 over the 2nd best in the league), total win shares (17.8, 4.2 > 2nd), box score plus minus (7.6, 0.6 > 2nd) and VORP (8.1, 1.1 > 2nd).

Led the playoffs in blocks per game at 4.3 blocks, putting up 27.6ppg and 14.4rpg. He also led the playoffs in BPM that year. That year was better, numbers-wise, than the best seasons of Nowitzki, Barkley, Erving, Malone, and Larry Bird.

If you want to talk how he didn't go past the 2nd round, in the series vs. the Lakers, he put up 29/17.2/4.6/1/3.2 vs. 21.4/12.2/3.2/0.6/3.0 for Shaq, and 26.2/5.4/4.8/1.0/0.2 for Kobe. If you do the math, both Shaq and Kobe, supposedly two of the top three player in the NBA, put up a TOTAL of 47.6/17.6/8.0/1.6/3.2 for the entire series. Duncan put up similar rebounding and block numbers by HIMSELF. So yeah, it was dominant.

The only competition for him that year was Shaq, but Shaq was coasting and didn't play a full season, so the award rightfully went to Duncan.


:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Dominant players dont LOSE. Fuck your "win shares"!

That was just what I was hoping for. Thanks!

[ambchang]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Dominant players dont LOSE. Fuck your "win shares"!

That was just what I was hoping for. Thanks!

Where did you come to that conclusion? Dominant players lose all the time, or else Kareem, wilt, shaq and Jordan would've never lost.

Make sure you figure out basketball is a team sport before you start talking basketball from now.

[da_suns_fan]

This should be a Jeopardy question.

Answer: This fan watched his team lose 7 out of 8 games to the Los Angeles Lakers and then claim a player on his team was "dominant".

Question: Who is Ambchang?

[da_suns_fan]

*Overheard in the Lakers locker room in 2001*

"What are we going to do about Tim Duncan? He's DOMINATING us!! We only won game 3 game 39 points!"

[Spurtacular]

This should be a Jeopardy question.

Answer: This fan watched his team lose 7 out of 8 games to the Los Angeles Lakers and then claim a player on his team was "dominant".

Question: Who is Ambchang?

Dude won five rings as the man. How dominant does he need to be for you to validate him?

[da_suns_fan]

Trebek: This adjective is used to describe losing to an opponent 7 out of 8 games.

Ambchang: What is dominant?

Trebek: No, sorry. We were looking for "dominated". "Dominated".

[da_suns_fan]

Dude won five rings as the man. How dominant does he need to be for you to validate him?

Surely a dominant player was able to repeat.

How many times did Duncan repeat? Once? Twice?

[ambchang]

This should be a Jeopardy question.

Answer: This fan watched his team lose 7 out of 8 games to the Los Angeles Lakers and then claim a player on his team was "dominant".

Question: Who is Ambchang?

Still haven't figured out basketball is a team sport?


*Overheard in the Lakers locker room in 2001*

"What are we going to do about Tim Duncan? He's DOMINATING us!! We only won game 3 game 39 points!"

See above


Surely a dominant player was able to repeat.

How many times did Duncan repeat? Once? Twice?

Was Kareem dominant in his prime? Or did he become dominant when he was 40 years old?

[Spurtacular]

Surely a dominant player was able to repeat.

How many times did Duncan repeat? Once? Twice?

So if Pop doesn't give LBJ a ring in 2013 then he's not dominant?

[Joseph Kony]

lol some faggot watching the 0-and-forever Suns trying to talk about dominance and championships :lmao