Nash with a b2b MVP (?)

[polandprzem]

Source: Nash to be MVP
Suns guard would be 10th player to win award in consecutive seasons

Paul Coro
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 26, 2006 12:00 AM

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


Suns star Steve Nash will be named the NBA's Most Valuable Player for a second straight season, according to a league source familiar with the voting.

The announcement may not come for two weeks, like last season's May 8 ceremony. The votes have been tabulated in what was expected to be a close race with LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki, Chauncey Billups and Kobe Bryant.

Nash won the fourth-closest MVP vote last year, edging Shaquille O'Neal a year after Nash was not even an All-Star. advertisement

Nash, 32, impressed voters this season by posting career highs in scoring (18.8 points per game), rebounding (4.2 per game), field goal percentage (.512) and free-throw percentage (NBA-best .921). He led the league in assists again with 10.5 per game and finished sixth in three-point shooting (43.9 percent).

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/pics/0426nashbig-autosized158.jpg

After Amaré Stoudemire's knee surgery deprived the Suns of their top scorer, Nash led the team to 54 wins and its first repeat division title with only Shawn Marion and Leandro Barbosa back for a full season.

Nash would be the first international and Suns player to win twice.

Only nine previous players repeated as MVP winners. Magic Johnson was the only point guard to do so.

[themvp]

No way...

In my opinion, Dirk should get it.

[TDMVPDPOY]

paper is from arizona, i believe it when i see it, atm fuck this false marketing campaign crap

[Pistons < Spurs]

IMO Nash is the most deserving.....but I really didn't think they'd give him back 2 back awards.

[polandprzem]

IMO Nash is the most deserving.....but I really didn't think they'd give him back 2 back awards.

Well he is mentioned here or there. And he can get the most second places. You know they will be picking Kobe, Nash, James....Nowitzki, Nash, Kobe....Billups, Nash, James...

Because hmm he is changing the game when he in on the floor and that can make the jurnalist to the thinking "Hmm I won't give him the MVP, but he deserves the 2nd place in my voting" and in someone elses voting he is first like for example Hubie Brown, he said it loud that Nash in his opinion is MVP. many voters can suggest by that.

[JamStone]

That would basically guarantee Steve Nash induction to the Hall of Fame. Now, while I don't necessarily disagree with him winning the MVP this year, has he had a HOF career?

[NCaliSpurs]

I disagree with his back-to-back MVPs.

That right has been reserved for the very best in NBA history. He clearly isn't in that group.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

That would basically guarantee Steve Nash induction to the Hall of Fame. Now, while I don't necessarily disagree with him winning the MVP this year, has he had a HOF career?
If Nash has a few more seasons with his consistent stats, then maybe. it'd be nice for him to make a Finals trip with Amare, but then that'd mean he'd have to go through the Spurs and well...If Michael Jordan didn't have to share the wealth, then Tim, Manu and Tony don't have to either

... Nash at 35 can just join the Spurs, play backup point guard to Tony for their 7th Championship Ring against Lebron James.

[BillsCarnage]

paper is from arizona, i believe it when i see it, atm fuck this false marketing campaign crap

It's also on ESPNEWS' wire - bottom of the screen.

[ducks]

Reports say Nash earns NBA MVP award

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2422255

PHOENIX -- Steve Nash will win his second straight NBA Most Valuable Player award, according to reports on several area newspapers.

The announcement may not come for two weeks, according to the Arizona Republic. But the paper, and others, report that the voting shows Nash edging LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki, Chauncey Billups and Kobe Bryant for the MVP.

This season, Nash had career-highs in points (18.8 points per game), rebounds (4.2 per game), field goal percentage (51.2 percent) and free throw percentage (92.1 percent -- best in the league). He was also the league-leader in assists (10.5) and shot nearly 50 percent from three-point range.

The Suns are currently playing the Los Angeles Lakers in the first round of the Western Conference playoffs.

A year ago, Nash edged Shaquille O'Neal in what was the fourth-closest balloting in history.

[JMarkJohns]

I disagree with his back-to-back MVPs.

That right has been reserved for the very best in NBA history. He clearly isn't in that group.

Valuable. No best.

Value can only be determined for a specific player, in a specific system or on a specific team at that specific time.

The past, the future, not even the postseason is supposed to factor in to the voting. Only that regular season.

That's all there is to it.

Would have been just fine had any of the others won, but I'm very happy that a very deserving player won. In fact, I'm surprised because before the voting, I read several writers who were of this same flawed line of thought.

I won't debate that Nash isn't at the same level as the previous nine. You can't even construct an argument, but as far as value goes, his teams are 2-9 without him and score an average of 30 points fewer per game the past two years without him. Its obvious that Nash is the glue or the engine or whatever metaphor it takes to prove his importance. Without him, the Suns fall apart, or never get going, blah, blah, blah...

[LEONARD]

Amazing.

The same dude plays the same way in 2 cities. In city one, he is over-rated and ripped nationally for being soft, in city two, he is a back-to-back MVP winner…. :rolleyes

[Sec24Row7]

The media has basically done it.

They don't like hard nosed defense and precisely executed plays.

They like fly by the seat of your pants shoot with 22 seconds on the shotclock basketball and that what nash makes his team good at.

[timvp]

Pathetic.

[nkdlunch]

Amazing.

The same dude plays the same way in 2 cities. In city one, he is over-rated and ripped nationally for being soft, in city two, he is a back-to-back MVP winner…. :rolleyes

The whole team in city 1 was soft. So he was just part of the group :lol

[DDS4]

damn. there goes my vBookie $$$.

[baseline bum]

I hate the argument that he's not Magic, so he doesn't deserve B2B MVPs. If he had the best season in the NBA (which it can be easily argued he did), then he's the MVP and that's it. Kobe's my pick, but Nash has been spectacular this season and is worthy of the MVP again. He's playing with a team of Marion and a bunch of (former) no-namers and he led them to 54 wins. His teammates aren't as good as what Marbury had around him when he led them to a 29-54 record. Nash alone transformed that team to a contender.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

That would basically guarantee Steve Nash induction to the Hall of Fame. Now, while I don't necessarily disagree with him winning the MVP this year, has he had a HOF career?
Don't be silly, Nash clearly deserves being in the Canadian Basketball Hall of Fame. :lol

Oh wait, maybe you meant the other one... :oops

[conqueso]

Consecutive MVPs:

Russell (3): '61-'63
Chamberlain (3): '66-'68
Abdul-Jabbar (2): '71-'72, '76-'77
Malone (2): '82-'83
Bird (3): '84-'86
Johnson (2): '89-'90
Jordan (2): '91-'92
Duncan (2): '02-'03

Question:

Does Steve Nash deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, nay, the same paragraph, as any of these other players who have won consecutive MVPs?

Comments:

I don't want to focus on whether or not Steve Nash deserved to win the MVP either this year or last...we'll obviously have plenty of time to debate that issue. My problem is that I don't believe Nash deserves the accolade of back-to-back MVPs. Winning again this year puts him in a class of players to which he does not belong. I think that honor is reserved for only the very best players to ever play. Look at that list...Nash's name does not deserve to be up there with Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, Larry, Magic, Michael and Duncan. I think voters should take into account the historical significance of their vote instead of just looking at the current season in a vacuum.

Maybe I'm attaching too much importance to winning consecutive MVPs. But look at the people on that list...each one of them is at least top 3 all-time at their position. I don't think anyone, not even the most diehard Suns fan, would reasonably claim that Steve fucking Nash is a top 3 all-time PG. I still think there is a question of whether he's in the top 10. Hell, there are plenty of people who don't even think he is the best PG in the league right now.

If I were an MVP voter (which I'm not), and even if I believed Nash deserved to win the award this year (which I don't), I still would not have voted for him because of the historical significance of winning two straight MVPs.

Anyone agree with me?

[NCaliSpurs]

Some voters, in fact, do consider historical significance of a player.

It is part of the reason Tim won in 2002, and the only reason why Malone got it in 1999.

JMarkJohns - You are a tool.

[JamStone]

conqueso,

I agree. If I were an MVP voter, I would have taken that into consideration absolutely. Two MVP trophies all but guarantees Nash a place in the Hall of Fame. While he has been spectacular the last two years, and he's been solid throughout most of his career, I don't think anyone can argue that his career as a whole deserves Hall of Fame induction, especially when you look at what he's failed to do in the playoffs so far. I would have not voted for him just because of the historical significance of winning multiple League MVPs.

Kobe or LeBron deserved it this year anyway.

[Horry For 3!]

I don't think a player deserves MVP if they only play one part of the nba game, all Nash does is O, he plays 0 D

[baseline bum]

Some voters, in fact, do consider historical significance of a player.

It is part of the reason Tim won in 2002, and the only reason why Malone got it in 1999.

JMarkJohns - You are a tool.

Maybe you could make that argument for Duncan over Garnett in 2003, but in 2002 Duncan was far and away the greatest player in the game. His numbers blew everyone away that year, and he took them to a division title with his weakest supporting cast of the TP era.

[SirChaz]

Nash has as good an argument as anyone for this year.

Should he be discounted out of hand because he won last year and some have a preconceived notion of what a b2b MVP should be?

[JamStone]

Nash has as good an argument as anyone for this year.

Should he be discounted out of hand because he won last year and some have a preconceived notion of what a b2b MVP should be?


Obviously there are people at least on this messageboard that would answer that question YES.

I would be one of them. I think you have to think historical relevance when giving out the League MVP.

[baseline bum]

I don't think a player deserves MVP if they only play one part of the nba game, all Nash does is O, he plays 0 D

Magic and Bird sucked defensively too, although I would never put them at Nash's level of defensive ineptitude. Seriously though, Nash makes his teammates great, the same way Duncan always has (although even moreso for the Canadian).

Nash is such a great player the Spurs used to throw everything they had to stopping HIM in Dallas, even to the point of switching AJ or Tony onto Nowitzki on the pick and roll every time, because he was that devastating when he got into the paint. I remember one game in the 2001 playoffs where Dirk put up like 42 on post-up isos against Avery off screens because Pop was so scared to give Nash the lane or the 3.

[baseline bum]

Obviously there are people at least on this messageboard that would answer that question YES.

I would be one of them. I think you have to think historical relevance when giving out the League MVP.

I hate when people let anything other than who had the best season factor into MVP voting. It was the reason Jordan didn't win it every year when he pretty much deserved it every season he played from 87 to 98, save 93 when the Bulls underachieved in the regular season and 95 when he played like 30 games. They got sick of giving it to MJ. Similar thing with Shaq. His numbers were ridiculous in 00-01, but everyone came to expect it from him after his performance in 00, and AI was the popular guy. Malone had no business winning in 99 after the nosedive he led the Jazz on the final 15 games or so of the season. He didn't deserve it in 97 either... not when MJ leads his team to the second-greatest record in NBA history (69-13).

[SirChaz]

Obviously there are people at least on this messageboard that would answer that question YES.

I would be one of them. I think you have to think historical relevance when giving out the League MVP.


Why? It is the the MVP award for 2005-2006 isn't it?

Doesn't that hurt the integrity of the award more than a player like Nash winning it against some arbitrary historical criteria?


I just have a hard time agreeing that Nash being B2B MVP hurts the award more than dismissing worthy candidates because we have some preconcieved notion of what a B2B winner is or should be.

[JamStone]

I also believe that LeBron or Kobe were more deserving of the MVP award than Nash. So, even just basing it on the 2005-06 season, I don't think Nash should have won the award.

But, adding to that the historical significance, it makes it a no-brainer not to give it to Nash.

It's just my opinion.

[conqueso]

I hate when people let anything other than who had the best season factor into MVP voting. It was the reason Jordan didn't win it every year when he pretty much deserved it every season he played from 87 to 98, save 93 when the Bulls underachieved in the regular season and 95 when he played like 30 games. They got sick of giving it to MJ. Similar thing with Shaq. His numbers were ridiculous in 00-01, but everyone came to expect it from him after his performance in 00, and AI was the popular guy. Malone had no business winning in 99 after the nosedive he led the Jazz on the final 15 games or so of the season. He didn't deserve it in 97 either... not when MJ leads his team to the second-greatest record in NBA history (69-13).

I agree with the emphasized statement, but all of those situations you just mentioned are different from this one; in those cases, the MVP was given to the wrong person because of some interest in "spreading the wealth." With Nash, you have (arguably) the right person winning the award despite consequences (i.e. HoF, mention with the other 8) that have an negative impact on NBA lore.


Why? It is the the MVP award for 2005-2006 isn't it?

Doesn't that hurt the integrity of the award more than a player like Nash winning it against some arbitrary historical criteria?


I just have a hard time agreeing that Nash being B2B MVP hurts the award more than dismissing worthy candidates because we have some preconcieved notion of what a B2B winner is or should be.

That historical criteria is not arbitrary in any way. When Duncan won his second MVP, people mentioned his name along with the other seven and it symbolized his arrival in the annals of NBA elite. When people mention Nash's named along with the other seven, the integrity of the game is hurt because he does not belong with them. It unfairly decreases the magnitude of the accomplishment of winning two straight when someone much much MUCH less talented achieves the same thing. People should consider that when they vote.

Looking at anything in a vacuum is a close-minded and short-sighted way of considering things. If you think the MVP means only about the season it's awarded for Sir Chaz, you should never be allowed to call Nash the two-time MVP.

[SirChaz]

That historical criteria is not arbitrary in any way. When Duncan won his second MVP, people mentioned his name along with the other seven and it symbolized his arrival in the annals of NBA elite. When people mention Nash's named along with the other seven, the integrity of the game is hurt because he does not belong with them. It unfairly decreases the magnitude of the accomplishment of winning two straight when someone much much MUCH less talented achieves the same thing. People should consider that when they vote.

Looking at anything in a vacuum is a close-minded and short-sighted way of considering things. If you think the MVP means only about the season it's awarded for Sir Chaz, you should never be allowed to call Nash the two-time MVP.


But that is your opinion which is by definition arbitrary. THe MVP in itself is arbitrary because often people cannot even agree on what the exact criteria are.

Nash may not be very tall or strong but he is very talented and effective at what he does.


Like I said in the other thread I don't know that I would vote for him if I had a vote but he deserves consideration whether or not he won last year.

[Obstructed_View]

Magic and Bird sucked defensively too.
Sorry, I have to take issue with this comment.

Magic was a 6'9" point guard who, despite either having to defend quicker smaller guys or the other team's 4 or 5, probably averaged two steals a game for his career. I know he led the league in steals at least twice because he did it back to back.

I had to look this one up, but there were years that Bird averaged 8 defensive boards, two steals and a block per game. Some of his most memorable plays were on the defensive end.

Both guys managed to get steals without shooting gaps and freelancing like Iverson does. Anyone that watched them would have to agree that they both played excellent team defense. Jordan wasn't the best individual defender on his own team, either.

There's a big difference between not being a great defender and being an outright liability on defense. Considering the era in which they played, Bird and Magic didn't "suck" at anything.

[Vashner]

Nash is a dirtbag. If you harvest the grease in his hair you can sold this countries oil problem.

[NCaliSpurs]

Maybe you could make that argument for Duncan over Garnett in 2003, but in 2002 Duncan was far and away the greatest player in the game. His numbers blew everyone away that year, and he took them to a division title with his weakest supporting cast of the TP era.


Don't you remember the Jason Kidd conspiracy?

One writer even wrote that he would change their votes if he could, and only voted for Duncan because he didn't want him to NEVER to get an MVP.

[NCaliSpurs]

Bottom line is that he wasn't the best player on the best team.

Last year, that was a valid argument.

As far as value is concerned is Lebron James less valuable than Nash?

Kobe Bryant is less valuable than Nash?

Dirk, the best player and the leader of a 60 win team, is less valuable than Nash?

I have great respect for Steve Nash. But he is neither the best, nor the most valuable player in the NBA.

But hey, a million fools can't be wrong, eh?

[jochhejaam]

!9 and 10 are not MVP numbers. He's not a very good defender.

Lebron 30/7/7 is more deserving.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Kobe was robbed

[ALVAREZ6]

WTF...fuck Nash.



I needed Kobe to win that shit.

[rayray2k8]

damn. there goes my vBookie $$$.
:lol
Damnit, I guess my Kobe vote got fucked..
:rolleyes

[NCaliSpurs]

It is hard to justify giving Nash the MVP by any objective measure.

[SirChaz]

Bottom line is that he wasn't the best player on the best team.



I don't think that is the criteria for the MVP.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't think that is the criteria for the MVP.
It was last year.

[SirChaz]

It was last year.

For some people maybe.

I have never thought so.

[TDMVPDPOY]

if thenba doesnt award it to the best player in the game, like jordan for example how he didnt win many durin his prime cose they dont want viewers to get bored with the same player winnin it again, then wtf does nash get it with a 50win team? theres a guy name dirk who is in a 60win team who should get sum consideration. Thats why its a joke with the award. what has nash basically done to get b2b mvps? he hasnt even raise the bar of his game, how about try and play defense of sumshit. dirk has improve his game more than nash and doesnt get shit and still labled as a no defense player.

they are basically the same team from last season the suns, dont tell me due to nash n suns system, guyz like TT had a breakout game, dude had talent just that he didnt use them, wattabout diaw who was a scrub on the hawks, yep he showed he had game on teh france team, hawks didnt see it. raja bell he was already distinguish defensive player, its not nash that made these players who they are today.

nash is the worst b2b mvp in the league.

[conqueso]

But that is your opinion which is by definition arbitrary. THe MVP in itself is arbitrary because often people cannot even agree on what the exact criteria are.

Nash may not be very tall or strong but he is very talented and effective at what he does.


Like I said in the other thread I don't know that I would vote for him if I had a vote but he deserves consideration whether or not he won last year.

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle


My opinion is not arbitrary just because it's my opinion. I have provided rational reasons and stated widely-held principles which all stand for the two following propositions:

1. Steve Nash has not been, is not now, and probably never will be anywhere near as great of a player as Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan or Tim Duncan. If you think he deserves recognition with them you are not being either objective or impartial. Motherfucker is 32...he hasn't ever played in an NBA Finals, and likely isn't going to play in one this year. His window of opportunity is closing fast, and he doesn't have very much time to prove that he belongs in such elite company.

2. There is at least some harm done to the reputations of those past winners and to the game of basketball by Nash repeating as MVP. Most of it is for posterity's sake. 8 years from now when LeBron wins his second MVP in a row, kids are going to hear those nine names and be like "Steve Nash...what the fuck? How the hell did some no-defense-playing bitch who never won a title manage to claim two straight MVPs." 20 years from now when someone else repeats, our children are going to ask us "Daddy/Mommy, I've heard of all these other guys...they're all on the Top 10 Players of All Time...but who is this Steve Nash guy?"

I agree with you that he deserves consideration regardless of whether or not he won last year. But the fact that he did win last year is one factor (of many) that should influence MVP voters. And it's clear that some of the same morons who voted for AI have fucked up again because they don't understand the game of basketball. Fucking media.

[SirChaz]

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

definition #2
Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary


I think it is close between Nash and Dirk personally.

And if I was voting I would probably argee with you somewhat and vote for Dirk.

I don't think it somehow damages the award or the league if Nash wins it B2B.

[Darrin]

Consecutive MVPs:

Russell (3): '61-'63
Chamberlain (3): '66-'68
Abdul-Jabbar (2): '71-'72, '76-'77
Malone (2): '82-'83
Bird (3): '84-'86
Johnson (2): '89-'90
Jordan (2): '91-'92
Duncan (2): '02-'03

Question:

Does Steve Nash deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, nay, the same paragraph, as any of these other players who have won consecutive MVPs?

Comments:

I don't want to focus on whether or not Steve Nash deserved to win the MVP either this year or last...we'll obviously have plenty of time to debate that issue. My problem is that I don't believe Nash deserves the accolade of back-to-back MVPs. Winning again this year puts him in a class of players to which he does not belong. I think that honor is reserved for only the very best players to ever play. Look at that list...Nash's name does not deserve to be up there with Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, Larry, Magic, Michael and Duncan. I think voters should take into account the historical significance of their vote instead of just looking at the current season in a vacuum.

Maybe I'm attaching too much importance to winning consecutive MVPs. But look at the people on that list...each one of them is at least top 3 all-time at their position. I don't think anyone, not even the most diehard Suns fan, would reasonably claim that Steve fucking Nash is a top 3 all-time PG. I still think there is a question of whether he's in the top 10. Hell, there are plenty of people who don't even think he is the best PG in the league right now.

If I were an MVP voter (which I'm not), and even if I believed Nash deserved to win the award this year (which I don't), I still would not have voted for him because of the historical significance of winning two straight MVPs.

Anyone agree with me?

Totally. It is amazingly hard for a guard to win this thing, and just look at the list.

Bob Cousy
Oscar Robertson
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Steve Nash.

That's all the guard to ever win an MVP.

Nate Archibald
Rick Barry
Dave Bing
Clyde Drexler
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Sam Jones
Pete Maravich
Earl Monroe
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkens

That's the list of players on the NBA's 50 Greatest NEVER to win an MVP. Steve Nash has two.

I don't think he deserves two over Jason Kidd or Gary Payton in today's game. Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, or Dirk Nowitzki. That's the top 3 in MVP voting with Nash probably 5th. He's winning in comparison to his season last year, not compared to his peers or to the annauls of NBA history. People like watching the Suns and they score a lot of points. That's why he won and no other reason.

[Obstructed_View]

For some people maybe.

I have never thought so.
If you don't believe that then there's no way to make a case for Nash as MVP last year. Without Nash being MVP last year, there's no way to make a case for him as MVP this year. From a historical perspective, back to back MVP awards suddenly throw nash into the realm of the hall of famers. If Nash plays two more seasons at his current level he'll come close to catching Muggsy Bogues on the all-time assists list. Why are we even having this conversation?

[Darrin]

I don't think that is the criteria for the MVP.

It isn't? Isn't the argument against Bryant that his team lost too many games? The same with Lebron? Do you think that Chauncey Billups would be in this discussion if the Pistons hadn't won 64 games?

[SirChaz]

Why are we even having this conversation?


Good question.

[SirChaz]

It isn't? Isn't the argument against Bryant that his team lost too many games? The same with Lebron? Do you think that Chauncey Billups would be in this discussion if the Pistons hadn't won 64 games?


To me the MVP is the player that is most instrumental to their team's success in a given season.

Pistons are a successful team so they have an MVP candidate.

To me Billups falls short because he is not as instrumental to his teams success as other players are to theirs. i.e. his teammates are too good.

Kobe falls short this year because his team was not successful enough.

IMHO of course.

[Tanya]

I used to be confused about the difference between MVP and best player. Now I am pretty sure they are the same thing. If Kobe is the best player, why isn't he the most valuable? Nash definitely makes his teammates much better, but does that mean they are the champion material? It's not only about making the teammates better, it's all about winning come to the end. I believe Chauncey, Dirk and Kobe(with a better supporting cast) are more capable than Nash to accomplish that goal -- to win a champ.

[SirChaz]

I used to be confused about the difference between MVP and best player. Now I am pretty sure they are the same thing. If Kobe is the best player, why isn't he the most valuable? Nash definitely makes his teammates much better, but does that mean they are the champion material? It's not only about making the teammates better, it's all about winning come to the end. I believe Chauncey, Dirk and Kobe(with a better supporting cast) are more capable than Nash to accomplish that goal -- to win a champ.


Except the MVP is a regular season award.

[Obstructed_View]

Good question.
It's not a good question if you don't answer it. Your shit just gets weaker and weaker. It doesn't matter; you've pretty much said that you know Nash doesn't deserve MVP, and that's as much as anyone can expect from you, considering that you can't see past the name on the front of his jersey.

[Darrin]

Good question.

Because two other guards have won multiple MVPs - Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson, and Johnson was 6-9!

Michael Jordan - 6 NBA Championships.
Magic Johnson - 5 NBA Championships.
Steve Nash - 0 NBA Championships.

Is that company most people would put Steve Nash with? No.

We're having this conversation because his assists fell off by a full assist a game, the Suns lost 8 more games than last season.

We're having this conversation because the top 3 teams in the league set franchise marks for wins in a season.

Because Kobe Bryant had 60+ wins twice this season, including the highest scoring game since Wilt Chamberlain in 1962. His scoring season was top-8 all-time and only Rick Barry joins him in not having an MVP on that list.

Because Lebron James just wrapped up a career season of 31, 7, and 7 while leading the Cavaliers to their first playoff appearance since 1998, and their first 50-win season since 1992-93.

[Obstructed_View]

To me Billups falls short because he is not as instrumental to his teams success as other players are to theirs. i.e. his teammates are too good.

Then Nash shouldn't have won last year. Billups has exactly the same starting lineup as he did last year. If Billups isn't MVP, then Flip should have been coach of the year. Doesn't someone deserve credit for the Pistons' improvement? Nash wins MVP for losing MORE games and having FEWER assists than the previous year. Nowitzki is a candidate with LOWER numbers and only TWO more wins, yet Kobe and LeBron get to the playoffs with terrible teammates, and Billups improves the team with the same teammates. I don't understand this at all.

It must just be a conspiracy by the white media.

[SirChaz]

It's not a good question if you don't answer it. Your shit just gets weaker and weaker. It doesn't matter; you've pretty much said that you know Nash doesn't deserve MVP, and that's as much as anyone can expect from you, considering that you can't see past the name on the front of his jersey.


Didn't realize we are talking about last season.

Under the criteria I posted a couple of posts ago there is a case for Nash last year. He was most instrumental to his teams success. They brought in Nash and Richardson and they went from 29 wins to 62. I think Nash was pretty instrumental to that teams success and the most valuable of any team in the league.

As far as Nash deserving or not deserving MVP this year I think he is top three candidates this season at minimum. I can understand why people would vote for someone else for all the reason stated over and over.

I think any number of players could win it from year to year and it is largely based on opinion not only about the value of the player but about the criteria for selecting the MVP. To me it part of what makes the MVP an interesting award.

[Obstructed_View]

Under the criteria I posted a couple of posts ago there is a case for Nash last year. He was most instrumental to his teams success. They brought in Nash and Richardson and they went from 29 wins to 62. I think Nash was pretty instrumental to that teams success and the most valuable of any team in the league.
Under the criteria you posted a couple of posts ago you said that Billups didn't deserve it because his teammates are too good, yet you credit Nash for the improvement of the team when you completely fail to mention that Amare was injured for 30 games in the 29 win season and Nash was replacing Stephon "teamkilla" Marbury as the point guard. The main case for Nash as MVP last year was when he was out for a couple of games and the team struggled. Nash should have therefore won the "most valuable to our system because we don't have an adequate backup or guys who can create their own shot" award.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

No OV. Nash won it last year because the Suns had the best record in the league. This year? No clue. I have him at 5 for MVP. Kobe, LeBron, Dirk, and Billups are ahead of him...

[SirChaz]

Under the criteria you posted a couple of posts ago you said that Billups didn't deserve it because his teammates are too good, yet you credit Nash for the improvement of the team when you completely fail to mention that Amare was injured for 30 games in the 29 win season and Nash was replacing Stephon "teamkilla" Marbury as the point guard. The main case for Nash as MVP last year was when he was out for a couple of games and the team struggled. Nash should have therefore won the "most valuable to our system because we don't have an adequate backup or guys who can create their own shot" award.


Is Billups most instrumental to his teams success this year? Significantly more so than any of the starting 5?
If you have a good argument for that maybe you could convince me that Billups deserves it this year.



To me this is a crazy argument. I am not even sure what the point is anymore.

You don't think Nash deserves the MVP this year or last. Did I get that right?

[conqueso]

Didn't realize we are talking about last season.

Under the criteria I posted a couple of posts ago there is a case for Nash last year. He was most instrumental to his teams success. They brought in Nash and Richardson and they went from 29 wins to 62. I think Nash was pretty instrumental to that teams success and the most valuable of any team in the league.

As far as Nash deserving or not deserving MVP this year I think he is top three candidates this season at minimum. I can understand why people would vote for someone else for all the reason stated over and over.

I think any number of players could win it from year to year and it is opinion not only about the value of the player but about the criteria for selecting the MVP. To me it part of what makes the MVP an interesting award.


After all is said and done, I agree with your criteria. I do believe the MVP should be determined by balancing team success with individual responsibility for that success. But even if that is the case, I agree with Darrin and O_V: Nash's' team was not the most successful in the NBA, and Nash was not the player most instrumental to their particular team's success.

There were three teams this year more successful than the Suns (Pistons, Spurs, Mavs).

There were several players more important to their team's success than Nash (Kobe and LeBron unquestionably, Dirk arguably).

In order to choose Nash over Dirk (the only person who fulfills both criteria of top-three team success and top-three individual responsibility), you have to weight individual responsibility way more than team success. I guess I just disagree with how you've weighted the two factors. I think they should be taken on more equal footing. Take the top teams in the league, then take the top important players, and see where the two overlap. Last year, they overlapped in Phoenix. But this year, they did not.

I think Nash wins this award because a) he won it last year and b) everyone predicted the Suns would suck dick without Amare. In order for the voters to lend credibility to their votes from last year and explain away their horrific errors in predicting the Suns' performance they have voted for him again. It's kind of an ego thing...they don't want to admit that they were wrong, so they find the one excuse that will make it okay, deluding themselves into thinking "Nash had a better year this year than last, and that's the reason why Phoenix stayed afloat in the Western Conference." But as others have pointed out, Nash didn't have a better year, and his team didn't do as well, and there was much stiffer competition. The ego factor is the only thing that explains this award.

On a side note, I appreciate that you haven't been sucked into a flame war with any of us SirChaz...a few of us (myself included) have said some pretty derogatory things about you and your boy Steve Nash.

[Trainwreck2100]

To me the MVP is the player that is most instrumental to their team's success in a given season.

.


Then why didn't Jordan win it every year?

[Darrin]

Didn't realize we are talking about last season.

Under the criteria I posted a couple of posts ago there is a case for Nash last year. He was most instrumental to his teams success. They brought in Nash and Richardson and they went from 29 wins to 62. I think Nash was pretty instrumental to that teams success and the most valuable of any team in the league.

As far as Nash deserving or not deserving MVP this year I think he is top three candidates this season at minimum. I can understand why people would vote for someone else for all the reason stated over and over.

I think any number of players could win it from year to year and it is largely based on opinion not only about the value of the player but about the criteria for selecting the MVP. To me it part of what makes the MVP an interesting award.

That's great to say, but there isn't a single MVP winner that isn't in the Basketball Hall of Fame. Crediting Nash for all the success last season is great, even though Marion, Johnson, Barbosa, and D'Antoni were starting their season together, and all they needed was point guard who could distribute to go fro 29 games to 50.

He had an amazing season, and I don't think there was a slam-dunk winner last year, so it's okay. This is like if John Stockton had won over Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Michael Jordan in 1987. There are plenty of viable candidates, and he doesn't deserve it. He had a better scoring season, but he didn't have a better season.

People should just nut up and say they like watching a team that can score 107.0 ppg.

[SirChaz]

After all is said and done, I agree with your criteria. I do believe the MVP should be determined by balancing team success with individual responsibility for that success. But even if that is the case, I agree with Darrin and O_V: Nash's' team was not the most successful in the NBA, and Nash was not the player most instrumental to their particular team's success.

There were three teams this year more successful than the Suns (Pistons, Spurs, Mavs).

There were several players more important to their team's success than Nash (Kobe and LeBron unquestionably, Dirk arguably).

In order to choose Nash over Dirk (the only person who fulfills both criteria of top-three team success and top-three individual responsibility), you have to weight individual responsibility way more than team success. I guess I just disagree with how you've weighted the two factors. I think they should be taken on more equal footing. Take the top teams in the league, then take the top important players, and see where the two overlap. Last year, they overlapped in Phoenix. But this year, they did not.

I think Nash wins this award because a) he won it last year and b) everyone predicted the Suns would suck dick without Amare. In order for the voters to lend credibility to their votes from last year and explain away their horrific errors in predicting the Suns' performance they have voted for him again. It's kind of an ego thing...they don't want to admit that they were wrong, so they find the one excuse that will make it okay, deluding themselves into thinking "Nash had a better year this year than last, and that's the reason why Phoenix stayed afloat in the Western Conference." But as others have pointed out, Nash didn't have a better year, and his team didn't do as well, and there was much stiffer competition. The ego factor is the only thing that explains this award.

On a side note, I appreciate that you haven't been sucked into a flame war with any of us SirChaz...a few of us (myself included) have said some pretty derogatory things about you and your boy Steve Nash.


Excellent post.

Your theory may have some merit. I am not really sure and it is hard to generalize with a large group of voters.

Hubie Brown made the case for Nash on the broadcast the other day in that 7 players on his team are having career years, it is a new team, and his percentages are at an elite level etc.

I know there are some excellent arguments for other players over Nash and I don't blame anyone for thinking that. It is their opinion.

I agree that LeBron and Dirk have very good arguments over Nash but I don't think that Kobe had enough team success. Some would say that just making the playoffs with that team is enough but I disagree.


As far as the derogotory statements I am somewhat used to it on this board and my skin is not that thin.

[SirChaz]

Then why didn't Jordan win it every year?


Good question. Maybe he should have.

I didn't have a vote.

[SirChaz]

People should just nut up and say they like watching a team that can score 107.0 ppg.


I know I do. ;)

[Trainwreck2100]

Good question. Maybe he should have.

I didn't have a vote.


He didn't get it cause the media basically rewarded the player that wasn't him, they should have taken the same road here

[JMarkJohns]

:blah

Please note, thee above quote was edited for excessive bitching...


NCali... Wake me when you're the final authority on the matter. Until then, your opinion is no better than mine, except that mine adheres to the description and definition of the award (as given by the NBA), while yours wonders off into the notion of League importance, postseason accomplishment and overall legacy...

The NBA laid out the guidelines. Think they are wrong? Then take your bitch session to the League office ala one Mr. Mark Cuban... Oh wait, you probably have issues when he, a non-Spur, does that. You probably call him a whiner and a baby... Maybe even a pussy or tool...

Facts are, this is a regular season award. Not past, not future, not postseason... regular season. All your bitching won't change this. If you don't like it, tough. It is also awarded to the one player deemed to have the most importance to his team and its success. Sometimes record factors in, sometimes standing, but it shouldn't be the only determining factors, neither should said player standing amongst the current top-5 players, or all-time greats.

As I said... It's an award for a specific player's importance, in a specific system for a specific team in that specific season. That's it. Nothing more needs to be factored in.

Sorry you don't agree. Obviously as opposing fans we're not always going to.


Obviously there are exceptions, but holding the exceptions up as the rule is insane. Maybe, in the broad scheme of things, voters have awarded the MVP based upon previous seasons a total of 10 times (bet not even that many). Maybe, sometimes the award goes to the best player on the best team, but that, again, is debatable and probably only happened around 10 times.

This year was a tough race. It was almost a lose/lose for the voters.

Pick Nash and the Billups, Kobe, Dirk, LeBron camps are all up in arms.
Pick Dirk and the Billups, Kobe, LeBron, Nash camps are all up in arms.
Pick Kobe and the Billups, Dirk, LeBron, Nash camps are all up in arms.
Pick LeBron and the Billups, Dirk, Kobe, Nash camps are all up in arms.
Pick Billups and the Dirk, Kobe, LeBron, Nash camps are all up in arms.

There's no equation that will make every fan, everyone happy, just as there's no real right or wrong choice. Each player has a great argument for themselves.

Bryant is the best player.
Billups is the best player on the best team.
Dirk is the best player who's team had great sucess.
LeBron is the most talented player.
Nash is the reigning MVP who's had a statistically better season than his MVP year of last season, had an even greater responsibility with his team, has the largest turnover of any contending team this season, suffered the most injury, the most setbacks and still won 54 games.

Here's an idea that might shut you up.

Find a dart and a dart board. Label board with those five names (or others if you so desire since this award is all about you, your opinions and your overall happiness), distance yourself 15 feet from the board, close your eyes and throw the dart.

Happy now?

[Obstructed_View]

No OV. Nash won it last year because the Suns had the best record in the league.
Wrong. The historical argument against point guards or guys who can't play defense had legs until Nash got hurt in the middle of the season and the Suns dropped three straight. They also lost the game in which he got hurt, the game prior to that and got pelted by the Spurs when he came back, so the perception was that they lost six games in a row due directly to Nash's absence. Once the Suns had the best record, it was easy to start beating the "Best player on the best team" drum again, but without that stretch in the middle Shaq would have won MVP, because prior to last year, one dimensional smalls didn't win MVP.

[Obstructed_View]

Is Billups most instrumental to his teams success this year? Significantly more so than any of the starting 5?
If you have a good argument for that maybe you could convince me that Billups deserves it this year.
Here's the Nash argument for Billups, with Detroit stats dropped in:

He's the best player on the best team. He's the point guard, and the guy who makes them go. His PPG was up by 2 and his APG was up by 3. His team record improved by ten games in a season that they not only lost their hall of fame coach, but had the exact same starting lineup as the previous year.

[Obstructed_View]

You don't think Nash deserves the MVP this year or last. Did I get that right?
Yes. I don't think Nash deserves to be in the top three of MVP either this year or last.

[SirChaz]

Yes. I don't think Nash deserves to be in the top three of MVP either this year or last.


Do you agree with the criteria or do you base that on something else?

[Obstructed_View]

Do you agree with the criteria or do you base that on something else?
The criteria that he was most instrumental to his team's success? He was the most instrumental person to his team's success -on his own team. This is pretty definite for both of his seasons in Phoenix.

Now, let's say that the Cavs had played this entire season with Lebron James on the injured list. With Larry Hughes also injured for part of the season, would the Cavs be in the playoffs? No way. Orlando would have a better record.

The same case could be made for Kobe Bryant, but it's not as strong because Lamar Odom is hugely under-utilized and could be a Pippen to Kobe's Jordan. The fact that he's good enough to keep them treading water in Kobe's absence skews the whole thing. This is one reason that the best player on a bad team is typically NOT rewarded with MVP. If he is just taking away stats from his teammates, the record will reflect that. That said, Kobe is still more instrumental to his team's success than Nash IMHO.

[Darrin]

I know I do. ;)

And the only problem with that is if you look historically over the best scoring teams in NBA history, they won as many games as the Suns, and none of them garnered the stature Steve Nash did. Kiki Vandeweghe, Dan Issel, and Alex English never got an MVP. Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, and Peja Stojakovic never got an MVP.

My question after almost every post on this is "Why is the criteria different for Nash?" Because I can name 8 or 9 scenarios for almost every justification of his winning this award.

Boris Diaw is the MIP because he came out of nowhere while playing with nobody. Steve Nash is the MVP because he came to the team and they started winning. Instead of people say "Hey, we thought they didn't have anybody, but Boris Diaw was there. Shawn Marion was there," they seem to think Nash is responsible for it all.

I don't get it, and I don't think I ever will.

[Darrin]

All this has done has made me a hardcore Lakers for this series.

[Tanya]

Except the MVP is a regular season award.

I am just trying to say, Nash is a very valuable player. But is he the MOST valuable among Dirk, Kobe, LBJ, Chauncey? I would say no.

[1Parker1]

By awarding Steve Nash back to back MVP's, isn't that indirectly saying that he is better than John Stockton (who never got an MVP award) and in the same echelon as guys like Magic Johnson, Tim Duncan, and MJ? :wtf

[1Parker1]

I am just trying to say, Nash is a very valuable player. But is he the MOST valuable among Dirk, Kobe, LBJ, Chauncey? I would say no.

:tu

[JMarkJohns]

By awarding Steve Nash back to back MVP's, isn't that indirectly saying that he is better than John Stockton (who never got an MVP award) and in the same echelon as guys like Magic Johnson, Tim Duncan, and MJ? :wtf

No, just as naming Nash MVP over Kobe, Dirk, LeBron doesn't mean he's the better player.

[Obstructed_View]

No, just as naming Nash MVP over Kobe, Dirk, LeBron doesn't mean he's the better player.
So if we all agree that Kobe and Lebron are better players, with worse supporting casts, I'm not sure how Nash keeps winning it. History is going to point back to this time and say "what the hell were they doing?"

[JamStone]

Damn, I leave for the evening, and this thread got really good ... still haven't read it all, but some really good discussion in this thread.

[Trainwreck2100]

So if we all agree that Kobe and Lebron are better players, with worse supporting casts, I'm not sure how Nash keeps winning it. History is going to point back to this time and say "what the hell were they doing?"

Kobe and Lebron, didn't deserve it, why wasn't Lebron in the playoffs his last two years, because he's the one that choked away the second half of the season. Kobe was 2 games out of the POs, so you're basically giving him the MVP for two frickin games, it should have gone to Dirk

[JamStone]

One question I have is what role should team success play in the determination of the MVP.

Plenty of people argue that a team should at least be a playoff team. But, then you get into the gray area of how many wins is sufficient to make an argument for a player to deserve the award. 50 wins? A top 2 team in the conference, record wise? As in Kobe Bryant's case, is there ever a situation where the player is so valuable and so great that he transends the notion of team success?

I think it's that gray area along with the lack of a true definition of "valuable" that makes it so tough of a debate. People have different criteria. People weigh certain things more heavily than others. While most would agree that it has to be some combination of individual accomplishment along with team success, most voters weigh the two differently.

And, what about defense? I know there is already a DPOY award and an all-NBA Defensive team. But, should an MVP player at least be adequate to solid at the defensive end? That is now in question when discussing the MVP.



Personally, if you really dissect the word "valuable" and try to argue something along the lines of what SirChaz wrote about a player being the "most instrumental to their team's success" ....

HECK, I think CHRIS PAUL would be a leading candidate for the MVP. Forget that his team didn't make the playoffs. Look at the fact that they traded away their starting center, their back-up center got banned from the league, the fact that they had to move their franchise to Oklahoma City and they had to deal with all the devestation of Katrina, and that they were a horrible tam the previous season. The Hornets almost made it into the playoffs.

Last year's record: 18-64
This year's record: 38-44

A 20 game improvement on the shoulders of a rookie point guard after all that franchise and team had gone through.



Anyway ... I know that's a bit tangental. But, my point is that with all the differing criteria voters use for the MVP award, I think there should be a more concise criteria or formula to determine the winner. But, I guess whoever would have one, there would be people upset about the decision.

[Darrin]

Kobe and Lebron, didn't deserve it, why wasn't Lebron in the playoffs his last two years, because he's the one that choked away the second half of the season. Kobe was 2 games out of the POs, so you're basically giving him the MVP for two frickin games, it should have gone to Dirk

All-Time Scoring Seasons:
1. Wilt Chamberlain - 4,029 points (1961-62)
2. Wilt Chamberlain - 3,586 points (1962-63)
3. Michael Jordan - 3,041 points (1986-87)
4. Wilt Chamberlain - 3,033 points (1960-61)
5. Wilt Chamberlain - 2,948 points (1963-64)
6. Michael Jordan - 2,868 points (1987-88)
7. Kobe Bryant - 2,832 (2005-06)
8. Bob McAdoo - 2,831 (1974-75)
9. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 2,822 (1971-72)
10. Rick Barry - 2,775 (1966-67)

One game, my ass.

[1Parker1]

^Plus...isn't this award supposed to be about the individual player?! To me, MVP=BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA for a given season. People get caught up in the whole, who makes his team-mates better thing. That's only part of it, but with Nash....he's winning it soley based on this factor.

[Obstructed_View]

Kobe and Lebron, didn't deserve it, why wasn't Lebron in the playoffs his last two years, because he's the one that choked away the second half of the season. Kobe was 2 games out of the POs, so you're basically giving him the MVP for two frickin games, it should have gone to Dirk
So we are using previous playoff success to determine MVP now? Okay, Tony Parker for MVP it is. He will be stopping by Nash's house to pick up last year's MVP trophy, too, since he and Billups will be sharing it.

[Trainwreck2100]

So we are using previous playoff success to determine MVP now? Okay, Tony Parker for MVP it is. He will be stopping by Nash's house to pick up last year's MVP trophy, too, since he and Billups will be sharing it.

Last I checked you have to get to the Playoffs to even be considered, I don't get why people want to reward a player whose fault it was that he didn't get to the POs to begin with.


Where did I bring up previous playoff success?

[1Parker1]

Last I checked you have to get to the Playoffs to even be considered, I don't get why people want to reward a player whose fault it was that he didn't get to the POs to begin with.

What player are u talking about? Kobe, Lebron, and Dirk took their teams to the playoffs.

[Trainwreck2100]

What player are u talking about? Kobe, Lebron, and Dirk took their teams to the playoffs.

It was a response to his response to me.

[Darrin]

^Plus...isn't this award supposed to be about the individual player?! To me, MVP=BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA for a given season. People get caught up in the whole, who makes his team-mates better thing. That's only part of it, but with Nash....he's winning it soley based on this factor.

:tu I couldn't have said it better myself. Team is team and MVP is MVP. They cannot be completely seperated because this isn't an individual sport, but Steve Nash is getting all the credit for Boris Diaw's shot selection, comprehension of the team's system, and time in the gym. How fair is that to Diaw, Bell - I owe my career to this one guy? It wasn't fair when they did that with Michael Jordan, and it's not fair now.

[Darrin]

Anyway ... I know that's a bit tangental. But, my point is that with all the differing criteria voters use for the MVP award, I think there should be a more concise criteria or formula to determine the winner. But, I guess whoever would have one, there would be people upset about the decision.

I have been irritated over awards before - Ron Artest getting the Defensive Player of the Year Award in 2004 - but not like this. I think this is, perhaps, the worst selection for a postseason award in my lifetime. I don't think that's overstating this.

[JMarkJohns]

I have been irritated over awards before - Ron Artest getting the Defensive Player of the Year Award in 2004 - but not like this. I think this is, perhaps, the worst selection for a postseason award in my lifetime. I don't think that's overstating this.

It's not a postseason award, thus the pre-playoff deadline for the voting.

It's supposed to be based solely upon that year's regular season.

Get over it. It's hardly that big a deal. I thought D'Antoni was very deserving this year for COY. Don't see me bitching that he didn't get it. Mainly because I didn't think he deserved it last year, but I digress... point is, the world will continue to rotate upon its axis, even after the travashamockery of nash winning another MVP award comes to pass...

[Darrin]

It's not a postseason award, thus the pre-playoff deadline for the voting.

It's supposed to be based solely upon that year's regular season.

Get over it. It's hardly that big a deal. I thought D'Antoni was very deserving this year for COY. Don't see me bitching that he didn't get it. Mainly because I didn't think he deserved it last year, but I digress... point is, the world will continue to rotate upon its axis, even after the travashamockery of nash winning another MVP award comes to pass...

They are handed out after the season is over, or how could they judge by the whole season? They are commonly referred to as postseason awards. By your definition, "postseason" awards would be limited to the Larry O'Brien trophy for the best team, and the Finals MVP for the best player of that series.

[101A]

Marion, Diaw, Nash

On that list, Nash would be my THIRD pick to join the Spurs - and that's just from his own team.

Back when MJ, Bird, Magic, Malone, Shaq, Hakeem hell even AI & Kidd were winning; w/o a doubt they would have been the 1st pick from there respective teams, and way up on the list from ANY team in the league if I could choose a single player.

I'd take Amare w/his knees right now over Nash, as well.

I think most people would agree with me; what kind of value is that?

[ducks]

one writer said he would not vote for kobe because of the lakers record
but only thought lebron james could be better then kobe this year
but he voted for nash

[NCaliSpurs]

Please note, thee above quote was edited for excessive bitching...

The NBA laid out the guidelines. Think they are wrong? Then take your bitch session to the League office ala one Mr. Mark Cuban... Oh wait, you probably have issues when he, a non-Spur, does that. You probably call him a whiner and a baby... Maybe even a pussy or tool...



I am pretty sure you are making this up, because if you are not, then you can settle this whole thing right now.

Please post the "guidelines" with a link.

[Obstructed_View]

Where did I bring up previous playoff success?
When you said this to support your case the Lebron doesn't deserve MVP:


why wasn't Lebron in the playoffs his last two years

[Obstructed_View]

It's not a postseason award, thus the pre-playoff deadline for the voting.

It's supposed to be based solely upon that year's regular season.


The award is given at the end of the regular season. The prefix "post" is Latin for "after", therefore the word "postseason" means "after the season". Its used to describe the playoffs doesn't mean that it's the only meaning of the word.

And don't try to change the subject. Nash doesn't deserve the freaking award.

[JMarkJohns]

I am pretty sure you are making this up, because if you are not, then you can settle this whole thing right now.

Please post the "guidelines" with a link.

You're right, there are none... I am caught.

no guidelines to speak of, other than the voters definition of "valuable"...

Still, I'm confident in my definition as it fits to far more cases than does yours.

You simply cannot base a regular season award on anything other than that season and those players being considered. Right now, I'm not sure if any of the candidates really could stand under the weight of your criteria.

What was it again, I believe it was...

To win MVP...
Player must be a HOF calibur player on the verge of a Title, if not already with one in hand.

To win multiple MVPs...
Player must be a All-NBA legand with at least one Title in hand, if not multiple ones.

To win back-to-back MVPs...
Player must be arguably the best ever at his position, with a minimum of two titles in hand and the possibility of more on the way.

Forgive me, but isn't such recognition what the Hall of Fame is for?

How can you so willingly base a regular season award upon a players resume and All-NBA potential.

It's entirely short-sighted of you. It basically limits the call of greatness to a handful of players redetermined year after year after year after year.

That's not what the award is for.


I do apologize for my ignorance which you posted above. Should have known better.

[LilMissSPURfect]

Best Player On The Best Team!

[JMarkJohns]

The award is given at the end of the regular season. The prefix "post" is Latin for "after", therefore the word "postseason" means "after the season". Its used to describe the playoffs doesn't mean that it's the only meaning of the word.

Well, considering half in here are using past Titles won as part of the criteria, one can't know for certain what is meant by "a postseason award".

I called tails, the coin landed heads, let's move on...

I think we can all agree that the award is a regular season award that, in order to factor in the entire regular season, is given after the end of the regular season or, as you've so clearly laid out, postseason.



Funny that Nash gets so much hate around here. Honestly, I just can't figure it out. He's not a threat to the Spurs overall sucess. He's not a pompous ass or a showboat or ballhog. He's a player many though so little of coming out of high school that he received one DI scholorship offer, then worked his ass off to make a name for himself enough to get drafted, then enough to succeed at the NBA level. I'm sure he regrets his inability to defend, but it is just that, an inability. It's not for a lack of effort. His one main weakness is slow lateral speed, which happens to be the key to perimeter defense.

Gripe all you want. It's your right. I'm not here to say it isn't or that you're not qualified to have an opposing opinion.

Many of the differing here are well thought out and well backed. Some aren't. Some, just come from leftfield and hold no water.

I've certainly held all three kinds, as I'm quite sure every has.

[NCaliSpurs]

You're right, there are none... I am caught.


Yes you are caught.

And you oversimplify my arguments to the point that you represent yourself as either stupid, too "biased" to see past your own point of view, or are a plain and simple liar.

I said that you have to consider historical significance when giving a player a nod to a back-to-back MVP's. Absolutely.

Whether you agree with this point or not, you still can't find an objective measure by which to give the MVP to Nash.

You say you can't consider previous seasons in one sentence, but then say that he deserves based on winning it last year in the next.

I am not the authority. But like I said, a million fools can't be wrong, so you and the media must be correct.

Face.

[Obstructed_View]

To win MVP...

Player must not be the best player on his own team. If he plays alongside one or more all-stars, is coached by the NBA Coach of the year and his team is managed by the executive of the year, these facts must be glossed over and all credit given to player. If player plays in a system that inflates his offensive numbers, that must be pointed out and also used to excuse player's lack of defense.



To win multiple MVPs...

Player must be white and have the attention of the media. Reasons used to make the case for the first MVP can be disregarded now that he has his foot in the door


To win back-to-back MVPs...
Player play for what is perceived to be an exciting team just because they jack up a lot of shots, and must receive all the credit for exceeding the low preseason predictions made by self-appointed basketball experts.


Let me be the first to start the campaign: WHITE CHOCOLATE FOR MVP 2007!
http://thedraftreview.com/history/drafted1998/images/jason-williams.jpg

[JamStone]

That is true. One argument was that Nash had better stats than the previous season in which he also won the MVP. But, then you countered you have to base it only on the current regular season and that only.

The truth is if you base it only on the 2005-06 season, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Dirk Nowitzki all have had better individual seasons. And, in Dirk's case, his team had more success.

Voters who did cast their ballots for Nash DID take into consideration last season. That's why many people who have posted on this thread oppose giving the MVP to Nash. It just appears he is being honored for helping his team be very good when they should have been great, instead of realizing that Nash just helped his team be very good, BUT NOT GREAT.

[JamStone]

Let me be the first to start the campaign: WHITE CHOCOLATE FOR MVP 2007!
http://thedraftreview.com/history/drafted1998/images/jason-williams.jpg



I don't know if Jason Williams will be able to edge out Luke Walton.

[NCaliSpurs]

At the end of the day, Nash is still a rich, back-to-back-MVP NBA player.

So good for him.

As a big fan of the NBA, I don't have to like it. And god forbid that I don't.

[JMarkJohns]

That is true. One argument was that Nash had better stats than the previous season in which he also won the MVP. But, then you countered you have to base it only on the current regular season and that only.

My argument for Nash is this.

His team had the highest turnover of players of any team in the League. Not even Miami had the number of new players Phoenix did as just four (not counting Amare) remained from last season.
- He had three new starters that he both had to grow accustomed to, but involve in a system that didn't easily fit them (Thomas is older, slower; Jones was slower and playing big minutes for really the first time; Bell had never attempted more than 200 threes in a season).
- He had a brand new bench, one which faced the same problems as his new starters; unfamilierity, lack of development and ability to adapt to a system (Barbosa was coming off a horrid season; House was a journeyman; Diaw was an unknown; Grant was old, slow and coming off a injury plagued season).

His team faced the most injury of any team in the League. From the beginning of the year, thoughout and even up until the end, he never got a chance to play with a full squad, something no other team can really say.
- Amare, his #1 man from last season and the teams only low-post presense played three injury-conscious games all season.
- Barbosa, Jones, Grant and Thomas missed significant chunks of time, all at random periods. All were integral pieces to a team that had to depend on its depth ot overcome its lack of inside play.

His team, despite everything above, was one of the most potent offensive teams in League history and it was largely because of Nash. Nash's team led the League in all of the following stats...
Points Per Game
Assists Per Game
Own Assists/Opponants Assists Ratio
Field Goals Made
Field Goal Percentage
3-pointers Made (set NBA record)
3-Point Field Goal Percentage
Free Throw Percentage
Offensive Efficiency
Offensive Efficiency Differential
...And most importantly...
POINTS IN THE PAINT

I've never held the MVP award was Nash's and Nash's only. I've clearly said, many, many times that either Dirk, Kobe, James or even Wade could win and I'd be fine with it. More than fine, because I can make a case for them just as easily. However, in the three games Nash didn't play this season, the Suns were 0-3 and scored an average of 95 points, compared to 108 in with him.



The truth is if you base it only on the 2005-06 season, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Dirk Nowitzki all have had better individual seasons. And, in Dirk's case, his team had more success.

Nash nearly averaged 20 points, 11 assists while shooting better than 50% from the field and 40% from range while leading the NBA in FT%.

He had his best year across the board and did so despite everything above. Nothing I've said right now being last year into things.


Voters who did cast their ballots for Nash DID take into consideration last season. That's why many people who have posted on this thread oppose giving the MVP to Nash.

Yet some of the same voters who oppose Nash winning the award are saying that the award should have history factored in to the criteria.

Seems contradictory that they want to factor in other players and their success, but don't want Nash's success last year to be part of the criteria for the award this year.

As I said above, you can make a hell of a case for Nash, without bringing up last season.



It just appears he is being honored for helping his team be very good when they should have been great, instead of realizing that Nash just helped his team be very good, BUT NOT GREAT.

That's not fair. Take off any teams most talented player for basically the entire year and you should not have expectations of greatness. In fact, most experts had the Suns battling for a final playoff birth, if not missing the playoffs entirely. If anything, Nash helped these Suns be very good when most expected them to be average.

If that factors in, I'm not sure why it's such a big deal, considering COY usually goes to a coach who's teams superceed the lowly expectations and when the NBA tends to award players who come from out of nowehere for the MIP rather than players who gradually improve over the course of a few years.

Exceeding expectations is a big part of all the "postseason" awards.



Again, NCali, Obstructed View, whomever else... Not saying you're entirely wrong, I'm just not saying I agree...

[TDMVPDPOY]

Theres talk of ben wallace winnin dpoy again :(:(, feel sorry for the kingz though bruce bowen will show the critics wrong they gave the award to wrong player. WTF does a spurs player have to do to win a DPOY award? we been dominating in the defensive end since duncan era.

[Obstructed_View]

Again, NCali, Obstructed View, whomever else... Not saying you're entirely wrong, I'm just not saying I agree...
There's always room for disagreement. If there were no disagreement, this would be the Kings board.

I have never, EVER before heard a case made for Jordan, Duncan, Magic, Hakeem or anyone else that has ever been an MVP that took their teammates or their health or their team turnover or their personal perception of the team system or the preseason projections or the previous season into account. It has just never happened until the last two years. A couple of people started making excuses to get Nash the MVP last year and it has absolutely snowballed.

Name an MVP in the last 20 years aside from Nash where exceeding expectations was a factor. In fact, look at the list all time and tell me where it has ever happened in the entire history of the award. We are entering uncharted territory here. This is like awarding the 1997 MVP to Matt Maloney instead of Karl Malone because the Rockets improved by ten games. It's complete insanity.

[1Parker1]

Nash can have the award. When fans look back on the 2006-2007 season they will think:

1) 81 points
2) Lebron leading Cavs to playoffs...finally
3) Billups big shots which helped Pistons get one of the hottest starts in NBA history
4) Dirk leading a Mavs team to 60 wins...while playing defense :wow
5)....Nash helping the Suns win 50 games, without Amare, Marion dominating points in the paint, and the emergence of Diaw.

[JMarkJohns]

I think it stems from the lack of legit superstars.

Think about it. Today's superstar constitutes the likes of McGrady, Pierce, Ming, Carter, etc...

None of them are complete. Not of them are that great. None of them ever have much playoff success. None of them can individually lead their teams.

Obviously there's players like Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Wade, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk who all could/can, but Duncan and Shaq breaking down (please take with a grain of salt), missing time and becoming just great players. Garnett and Kobe had each taken a step back in team success, despite great individual success. Wade and LeBron are still incomplete players and struggle against the best teams (LeBron more than Wade, but Wade averged around 6+ TO's per game without Shaq in the lineup) and Dirk has a stigma surrounding him.

So Nash sneaks in, mainly because his teams always seem to do very well, no matter what. They exceed expectations, break, set records and always compete...

He's not at their level, but when their level isn't exactly "All-Time" any longer, than they have no one to blame but themselves.

There's no line of All-timers anymore. You once had player like Magic, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, Barkley, Drexler, Pippen, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Malone, Stockton...

Now we have LeBron, Dirk, Iverson, Kobe, Amare, McGrady, Wade, Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, Nash...

Just about every player is better from the 1980-1992 era than the 1993-2005 era.

This current era, save for Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and possibly James just don't add up.

Therefore, under the scope of history, you can't expect this era's MVP to always measure up.

[Darrin]

I think it stems from the lack of legit superstars.

Think about it. Today's superstar constitutes the likes of McGrady, Pierce, Ming, Carter, etc...

None of them are complete. Not of them are that great. None of them ever have much playoff success. None of them can individually lead their teams.

Obviously there's players like Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Wade, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk who all could/can, but Duncan and Shaq breaking down (please take with a grain of salt), missing time and becoming just great players. Garnett and Kobe had each taken a step back in team success, despite great individual success. Wade and LeBron are still incomplete players and struggle against the best teams (LeBron more than Wade, but Wade averged around 6+ TO's per game without Shaq in the lineup) and Dirk has a stigma surrounding him.

So Nash sneaks in, mainly because his teams always seem to do very well, no matter what. They exceed expectations, break, set records and always compete...

He's not at their level, but when their level isn't exactly "All-Time" any longer, than they have no one to blame but themselves.

There's no line of All-timers anymore. You once had player like Magic, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, Barkley, Drexler, Pippen, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Malone, Stockton...

Now we have LeBron, Dirk, Iverson, Kobe, Amare, McGrady, Wade, Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, Nash...

Just about every player is better from the 1980-1992 era than the 1993-2005 era.

This current era, save for Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and possibly James just don't add up.

Therefore, under the scope of history, you can't expect this era's MVP to always measure up.

Like him or not, Kobe Bryant led his team to an eleven game improvement over last season. His shooting percentage went up from .433 to .450 in a season that he bested his best season average by 5.4 points a night. He's led his team in scoring in the NBA Finals, and he's been an All-Star MVP. The problem is, he's crediting with breaking up the Lakers and people haven't forgotten about his sexual assault case. I think this is ridiculous considering that Michael Jordan was paying off a former mistress until 2002.

Bryant played in 121 playoff games and won 3 rings. He was discredited for not getting it done without Shaq. Well, here he sits in the playoffs, his team tied in a first-round series and he's had one of the best scoring seasons in a generation. I think the fact we hate out superstars is the difference.

I think the fact that we're at the generational crossroads is another concern.

Allen Iverson is 32-years-old.
Lebron James is 21-years-old.
Chris Bosh is 22-years-old.
Shaquille O'Neal is 34-years-old.
Dwight Howard 20-years-old.
Tim Duncan is 30-years-old.

The last time the NBA went through a period like this was probably in 1997-1999. When KG, Duncan, and Rasheed were the promise of the league while Karl Malone and Hakeem Olajuwon were battling it out for Conference titles. The Dream Team was the toast of the league, even at ages 35-40.

The difference is, our old guys aren't winning. Chris Webber was in studio today explaining why he and Allen Iverson haven't been immature. I think the NBA will look back at this era (1995-2005) and wonder why are superstars were such asses.

- Jerry Stackhouse demanding half the price of Jordan's 31-million-a-year contract.
- Allen Iverson lamenting at a press conference about 'practice.'
- Ron Artest rushing into the stands and challenging coaches to fights.
- Latrell Sprewell choking his coach.
- Isaiah Rider.
- Vince Carter taking games 'off.'
- Tracy McGrady taking games 'off.'
- The Portland "Jail"Blazers.
- Ruben Patterson and Kobe Bryant's sexual assault cases.
- Vin Baker's alcoholism.
- Bonzi Wells being banned from an arena.
- Steve Francis demanding a trade from Vancouver, pouting over losing Cuttino Mobley.
- Stephon Marbury declaring he's the "best point guard ever," demanding a trade from Minnesota because he "didn't like the city."
- Shawn Kemp's battle with cocaine.
- Shaq-Kobe feud.

We didn't just lose guys to injury (Alonzo Mourning, Larry Johnson, Tom Gugliotta, Penny Hardaway, Chris Webber, Kerry Kittles, Jayson Williams), we started losing talent and goodwill because it sells to sensationalize, and the NBA players have taken the attitude that all press is good press.

Once you've whittled down the pool, of course it looks like they had more talent. They didn't; it's just we didn't wait for them to fuck up, we were actually saddened when they did. I mean, Kemp is in one of the worst fights you can have as a person and fans have signs like "Kemp's my dad" in the stands. If it didn't sell, the amoral media would lay off.

We want our athletes to be perfect, and somehow we can forgive Charles Barkley for demanding a trade, but not Vince Carter. We forgave Jordan for cheating on his wife, but not Bryant. We have an attitude that our superstars aren't what they used to be.

[Obstructed_View]

This current era, save for Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and possibly James just don't add up.

In other words, either Lebron or Kobe should have been MVP, and Shaq should have won last year. I completely agree.

[Obstructed_View]

We forgave Jordan for cheating on his wife, but not Bryant. We have an attitude that our superstars aren't what they used to be.
Jordan's girlfriend wasn't bent over a chair screaming. Terrible comparison.

[JMarkJohns]

In other words, either Lebron or Kobe should have been MVP, and Shaq should have won last year. I completely agree.

yeah.... that's not what I said at all, considering the NBA does not require an MVP be an All-Time great.



As for Kobe, that's not fair. As far as I know, the only thing you have to base that opinion upon is the word of a known easy lay who also suffered from a few mental breakdown before the incident and who was stupid enough to have sex in the hours after her alledged rape, then wear dirty underwear to her rape kit examination, thus building the defense's assessment that any potential "sexual damage" was consistant with constant sex with multiple partners over a 2/3 day period.

Remember, she backed out of testimony, then took the money and ran come time for the civil trial.

I can't claim any confidence in her claims. Not one bit.

[conqueso]

Jordan's girlfriend wasn't bent over a chair screaming. Terrible comparison.

woah...

[NCaliSpurs]

The Suns getting owned by the Lakers is a validating point to many arguments here.

Will this be the first time ever that an MVP doesn't get his trophy at a game?

[NCaliSpurs]

First round elimination forum.

[Dre_7]

The Suns getting owned by the Lakers is a validating point to many arguments here.

Will this be the first time ever that an MVP doesn't get his trophy at a game?

And hes a back to back MVP that wont get his trophy in a game. :lmao

[NCaliSpurs]

But you don't have to go far in the playoffs if you are going to be an MVP.

It is just embarassing if you don't, apparently.

[lefty]

Congratulations, Steve Nash

[Kool Bob Love]

Lakers paying nash in 2014. LMAO!!!!! :rollin:rollin