Nash MVP

[Kobulingam]

Dallas can beat more than 50% of the teams in NBA without Dirk in a 7 game series, no doubt. Suns will lose to _every_ team in the NBA in 7 game series without Nash.

How the heck can people consider Dirk the MVP. How is he the "most" valuable to his team?

[mavsfan1000]

The mavs are the best team in the league. Therefore they are the most capable team of winning without their superstar. That is just a lame argument as the teams aren't equal record wise.

[Kobulingam]

The mavs are the best team in the league. Therefore they are the most capable team of winning without their superstar. That is just a lame argument as the teams aren't equal record wise.


Then don't use their record to justify Dirk=MVP. Justify it some other way please.

Note: Suns and Mavs are VERY CLOSE in terms of w-l record, and Suns owned Mavs last two times. Keep this in mind when you justify.


My point still stands after your weak post: Remove Nash, Suns suck. Remove Dirk, Mavs still awesome. Thus GAIN from having Nash much greater than GAIN from having Dirk. Thus Nash is more valuable to his team. Done deal.

quod erat demonstrandum

[mavsfan1000]

The mavs are not awesome without Dirk. George just had an unusually good game which is good news for the mavs but bad news in Dirk's chances as the MVP. The suns would be just fine without Nash with Barbosa running the show. They even made their lead bigger against the mavs last game with Nash on the bench. They didn't play enough games without Nash to really show what they are.

[ponky]

Then don't use their record to justify Dirk=MVP. Justify it some other way please.

Note: Suns and Mavs are VERY CLOSE in terms of w-l record, and Suns owned Mavs last two times. Keep this in mind when you justify.


My point still stands after your weak post: Remove Nash, Suns suck. Remove Dirk, Mavs still awesome. Thus GAIN from having Nash much greater than GAIN from having Dirk. Thus Nash is more valuable to his team. Done deal.

quod erat demonstrandum


I don't really think that the Mavs are still awesome without Dirk, although they do eke out wins without him...look at the games he's been out, those wins were VERY narrowly won. To be honest, I will say that Nash, from a win-loss perspective, is more valuable than Dirk but mostly because Nash's position affects all the other players the way Dirk's position cannot. However, this doesn't mean that the Suns aren't capable of winning games without Nash, as a Suns fan pointed out to me the other day. Amare did fine with Marbury as point and there are other guards that can play well enough to maybe eke out some of those wins that the Suns haven't been able to do without Nash...the Suns org refuses to play other guys and give them that opp, or maybe they haven't acquired the right guy. To me, one is not better than the other, but the Suns' failure to win games without Nash should not only be seen as a sign of Nash's value but also as a sign of their failure to secure a decent backup pg. Also, if the Mavs w/o Dirk are greater than the Suns w/o Nash, then take some of those other All-Stars kudos away from them, can't have it both ways...unless you also want to argue that Nash's value is in securing All-Star props for his other teammates.

Let me just clarify, I will be disappointed if Dirk doesn't win this year because I thought he deserved it last year...but it's not like I don't understand why Nash deserves it as well, if he does indeed get it this year.

[DON VITO]

If both squads are healthy, I guarantee the Suns will beat the Mavs in the playoffs. Watch.

[Flight3107]

If both squads are healthy, I guarantee the Suns will beat the Mavs in the playoffs. Watch.


You saying the Spurs are going to lose to the Suns?

[dg7md]

You saying the Spurs are going to lose to the Suns?

Very possible, because they will be extremely tough.

[Fromthebleachers]

Dont substitute the fact that the Suns most often malfunction when Steve is out as a case for MVP. The Suns clearly have the edge in talent 1-8, but The mavs have veteran leadship and a wealth of guys that know theyre roles and exceute very well. The suns have a crop of talent that doesnt perform nearly as efficiently as their style of play dictates. That being said, Nash is THE offense.

Using the "remove this player from this team" argument doesnt work, because every team has a player that is vital to their success. That qualifier for MVP only works in association with the W-L record. (the one people are trying to throw out)

-MVP is the most valuble player on his team.
-The most impactfull player on his team
-Makes his teamates better
-Is having an extrodinary year stat wise
-Is one of the better teams in the league
-And has also been the difference in most of his teams wins

The world waits for the mavs to lose now? Id say the team has come a looooong way.

[monosylab1k]

Fuck the MVP. There's only one trophy Dirk is interested in.

(Although I do find it disturbing that, even in an MVP race, Dirk is finding a way to wilt and fold under pressure)

[bdictjames]

Sad to say Nash is the only multiple-time MVP with no championship - yet. It will be a hard road but unless they play defense, I dont think they could breeze past any West playoff team by now.

[Shank]

Was Nash running the point when the Suns lost by a combined 46 points in back-to-back games a couple weeks ago? Just like with Dirk, the Suns lose games when Nash is still playing.

[Shank]

My point still stands after your weak post: Remove Nash, Suns suck. Remove Dirk, Mavs still awesome. Thus GAIN from having Nash much greater than GAIN from having Dirk. Thus Nash is more valuable to his team. Done deal.

That's the most elementary argument when debating the award. You can do that with any team in the league. And, if we're going to use that as a platform, then Kobe is the clearcut winner.

Best player on the best team with the best record, though = Dirk.

[JMarkJohns]

There will be no winners or losers for th MVP award this year. Only he who is awarded the honor and those who aren't. There are two very deserving candidates and a third much deserving one. If either of Dirk, Nash or Kobe get the nod, then I don't see how any can argue against it. Each is very valueable to his team, and their team to the NBA. For any number of reasons, I do think Dirk gets the award.

[Dirk Nowitzki]

If the Mavs had to go 10 consecutive games without Dirk, I can promise you we wouldnt go 10-0. We would be 5-5 or 6-4. No Dirk in the playoffs=1st round loss. No Dirk for an 82 game season=lottery bound. I dont get where people think this team without their fucking superstar is better then 50% of the league in a 7 game series! Sure we managed to win the games Dirk was out but its been 1 game every once and a while. We wouldnt be doing this if he was out for a few weeks.

[JMarkJohns]

If the Mavs had to go 10 consecutive games without Dirk, I can promise you we wouldnt go 10-0. We would be 5-5 or 6-4. No Dirk in the playoffs=1st round loss. No Dirk for an 82 game season=lottery bound. I dont get where people think this team without their fucking superstar is better then 50% of the league in a 7 game series! Sure we managed to win the games Dirk was out but its been 1 game every once and a while. We wouldnt be doing this if he was out for a few weeks.

That's fine, but yout 5-5 is still better than the likely 3-7 of the Suns without Nash. Two years ago, it was 1-6. So 3-7 may be overestimating things a bit. 2-8 to 4-6 tops. I'd say the Mavs, against the same teams the Suns face would go 5-5 to 7-3.

They just have a team more inclined to win without its superstar. They run a spread-isolation offense where any number of players can break down the defense, get into the lane for points, fouls or perimeter kickouts.

It would be harder for the Mavs, but still doable. Howard, Terry and Stackhouse can each score 20 points without help from others. Amare is the only one on the Suns that can make that claim. Marion needs a set up, Diaw is too passive to try, Bell needs the kickout, Barbosa needs it as well, but not to the extent.

This is all just talk, since neither Dirk nor Nash has missed 10 games this year, but the Suns lost to Atlanta and got blown out by Seattle as well as losing to Chicago big without Nash. 0-3 isn't 3-7, but it's certainly a telling start.

[monosylab1k]

Arguing how good a team would be without their superstar is retarded. Isn't MVP awarded for what they do ON the court?

So if Nash blows out a knee early next season and plays 3 games (all wins), and the Suns go 15-67 that year with him injured, he's MVP cuz of how bad they are without him?

[JMarkJohns]

Arguing how good a team would be without their superstar is retarded. Isn't MVP awarded for what they do ON the court?

So if Nash blows out a knee early next season and plays 3 games (all wins), and the Suns go 15-67 that year with him injured, he's MVP cuz of how bad they are without him?

That's a fair point. But a few games here or there can certainly give a good guage of what a team can and can't do without said star. It shouldn't be the whole arguement, but it shouldn't be dismissed either. Ya know, since it is the vague, "MOST VALUEABLE"... It's basically decided on a whim unless someone just plays unbelieveable for an entire season.

[01Snake]

Without Dirk, the Mavs would not be anywhere close to W-L total they have right now. I hate the Mavs but you gotta give Dirk credit. He's had a great year.

Nash has already gotten the last two. He won't be getting another.

[LakeShow]

If any year, this should be the year that the league should go away from the "Best Record" as the criteria to win the award. Kobe is the MVP! He does whatever needed for his team to win. He had Nash like numbers the other day in a win for the Lakers. It's not another player in the league that can do it all as Kobe does.

[nsrammstein]

Steve Nash and his nut huggers have turned the MVP into a total fucking joke. It used to be that the best player on the best team won the MVP, now all the nash nut huggers are trying to change the defenition of the ward to what your team does while you are injured. Now a days a player has to miss 10 straight games and his team has to lose all of them in order for him to win the MVP.

[T-Pain]

suns>mavs

nash>nowitzki

[nsrammstein]

suns>mavs

nash>nowitzki

you just killed the thread thanks. Now go to the spurs boards so you can amaze them with your comedy.

[T-Pain]

you just killed the thread thanks. Now go to the spurs boards so you can amaze them with your comedy.
not a problem. now try to recessitate it :rolleyes

[Nashfan]

There will be no winners or losers for th MVP award this year. Only he who is awarded the honor and those who aren't. There are two very deserving candidates and a third much deserving one. If either of Dirk, Nash or Kobe get the nod, then I don't see how any can argue against it. Each is very valueable to his team, and their team to the NBA. For any number of reasons, I do think Dirk gets the award.
:tu

[DarkReign]

Kobe is the MVP.

No one is better (period), no one makes his teammates better (except Steve), no one is as dominate (period).

Im sorry. If MVP still means Most Valuable Player, then Kobe is the very definition.

I dont even like the guy, or the team. This isnt the proper argument, Im sure, but put Dirk on LA, or Steve Nash on LA....

Yeah, exactly. Kind of funny to think about what that team would be.

[nkdlunch]

Kobe makes his teamates better? since when.

Duncan, hell, Manu Ginobili makes his teamates better than Kobe

[Shank]

Well, have Nash or Dirk take 44 shots a game and we'll see them put up similar numbers. What those two do that Kobe doesn't is make their supporting cast into a solid team. You'd think Odom or Walton would be a bit better with Kobe around them, but they're not because he retards any chance of a teammate stepping up their game.

[DubMcDub]

Dallas can beat more than 50% of the teams in NBA without Dirk in a 7 game series, no doubt. Suns will lose to _every_ team in the NBA in 7 game series without Nash.

How the heck can people consider Dirk the MVP. How is he the "most" valuable to his team?

The MVP award goes to the league's most valuable player, not the player whose team needs him the most.

The league's most valuable player should almost always be the best player on the team with the best record, as, in relation to the league as a whole, that guy is the most valuable.

[nkdlunch]

The MVP award goes to the league's most valuable player, not the player whose team needs him the most.

The league's most valuable player should almost always be the best player on the team with the best record, as, in relation to the league as a whole, that guy is the most valuable.

says you.

the league has never defined MVP on purpose. So they don't have to give any explanations when they pick someone.

[DubMcDub]

says you.

the league has never defined MVP on purpose. So they don't have to give any explanations when they pick someone.

No, says the fact that it's the "NBA League MVP Award".

[nkdlunch]

No, says the fact that it's the "NBA League MVP Award".

huh?

[Trainwreck2100]

Kobe

[mardigan]

Kobe, or Nash after him

[Shank]

You two want to take bets on this? No way Kobe wins MVP this year.

[mardigan]

You two want to take bets on this? No way Kobe wins MVP this year.
Maybe he wont, but that doesnt mean he wont have been deserving of it. Kobe is the most valuable player to his team, without him, that team is one of the worst in the league

[ponky]

Maybe he wont, but that doesnt mean he wont have been deserving of it. Kobe is the most valuable player to his team, without him, that team is one of the worst in the league

but they barely crack 0.500 at 39-35...so is he also responsible for those 35 losses? after all, he did play in those games as well.

[bulletedge]

Uh...who really cares, anyway?

[Shank]

Maybe he wont, but that doesnt mean he wont have been deserving of it. Kobe is the most valuable player to his team, without him, that team is one of the worst in the league

I deserve to win the lottery, too. But it's not going to happen.

By your logic, then Bosh, Tracy McGrady and Shaq need to be seriously considered in the argument. Those that are actually voting for the award don't use that silly notion, though, so there aren't any worries.

[mardigan]

I deserve to win the lottery, too. But it's not going to happen.

By your logic, then Bosh, Tracy McGrady and Shaq need to be seriously considered in the argument. Those that are actually voting for the award don't use that silly notion, though, so there aren't any worries.
You dont deserve shit :lol . Out of those three, yea, Bosh could be argued as well.
The other two have all-stars on their team, just like Dirk, Nash and Duncan. Who does Kobe have?

[ponky]

You dont deserve shit :lol . Out of those three, yea, Bosh could be argued as well.
The other two have all-stars on their team, just like Dirk, Nash and Duncan. Who does Kobe have?

the ZEN master with more rings than any other coach coaching in the NBA right now!!!! :lol

[Trainwreck2100]

I deserve to win the lottery, too. But it's not going to happen.

By your logic, then Bosh, Tracy McGrady and Shaq need to be seriously considered in the argument. Those that are actually voting for the award don't use that silly notion, though, so there aren't any worries.



I beg to differ, I deserve to win the lottery more than you.

[ShoogarBear]

Dallas can beat more than 50% of the teams in NBA without Dirk in a 7 game series, no doubt. Suns will lose to _every_ team in the NBA in 7 game series without Nash.

How the heck can people consider Dirk the MVP. How is he the "most" valuable to his team?Gee, on this basis LeBron is more valuable than either, then.

[endrity]

Why do people still not get it????
It's NBA M V P, not team MVP!!!! The 'value' of the league has been, is, and will be measured in wins, not how good you look. No way in hell someone wins an MVP with a .500 record, get it. And drop the whole "if X missed this many games, if X went to Y's team". The teams are build around specific players, Dirk and Nash are succesful in their situation, just as Jordan became unstopabble in the triangle offense with Pippen next to him. And those guys are keys to their system. Dirk has led one of the most impressive regular season teams in years, therefore he has been the most valuble player in the league. Wilt didn't get MVP when he averaged 50 in a season, MJ didn't get it when he average 37 with 50+ fg%. Why? Their teams were not good enough. In a season when the Mavs will end up winning 68-69 games, nobody but their lone 'all star' (howard was a second addition) should be mentioned for MVP. CASE CLOSED MORONS!!!!

[ShoogarBear]

I love it when Mav Fan gives lectures on what the NBA is all about.

[ponky]

I love it when Mav Fan gives lectures on what the NBA is all about.

no you don't spur fan

[ShoogarBear]

I see no blue italics in my post.

[endrity]

I love it when Spurs fans listen

[LakeShow]

Why do people still not get it????
It's NBA M V P, not team MVP!!!! The 'value' of the league has been, is, and will be measured in wins, not how good you look. No way in hell someone wins an MVP with a .500 record, get it. And drop the whole "if X missed this many games, if X went to Y's team". The teams are build around specific players, Dirk and Nash are succesful in their situation, just as Jordan became unstopabble in the triangle offense with Pippen next to him. And those guys are keys to their system. Dirk has led one of the most impressive regular season teams in years, therefore he has been the most valuble player in the league. Wilt didn't get MVP when he averaged 50 in a season, MJ didn't get it when he average 37 with 50+ fg%. Why? Their teams were not good enough. In a season when the Mavs will end up winning 68-69 games, nobody but their lone 'all star' (howard was a second addition) should be mentioned for MVP. CASE CLOSED MORONS!!!!

Michael Jordan didn't win in 1986-87 because Magic Johnson, who already had lead his team to 3 NBA titles was having his finest season as a Laker. His team also had the second best regular season record in Lakers History. 65-17 Magic was MVP of the finals as well.

The NBA has given the award to players other than the best player on the best team before. Why not do it again. Kobe is clearly the definition of Most Valuable Player!

[lefty]

KOBE mvp ???? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Cry Havoc]

Kobe is the MVP.

No one is better (period), no one makes his teammates better (except Steve), no one is as dominate (period).

Im sorry. If MVP still means Most Valuable Player, then Kobe is the very definition.

I dont even like the guy, or the team. This isnt the proper argument, Im sure, but put Dirk on LA, or Steve Nash on LA....

Yeah, exactly. Kind of funny to think about what that team would be.

Except the fact that his teammates have literally stopped shooting as of late. 4-6 shots per game is NOT helping your teammates gear up for the playoffs.

IMO, it should be Duncan. Just kidding. I think Duncan seriously has to be considered. But the fault in making Nash out to be the MVP because the Suns suck without him is faulty logic (IMO) for two reasons:

It shows the lack of any backup for Nash even remotely close to carrying the team.

And the other point is that Steve Nash is a point guard. PGs arguably are the MVP position of the NBA (although centers are close too, they don't control the ball as much). ANY team without a point guard is essentially useless. Look at all the good teams in the league - Spurs, Suns, Mavs, Pistons. Take away their star PG. What happens? Well, the team might win games, but they are going to struggle, even if the PG wasn't the best player on the team.

By it's very nature an NBA team will be a shell of itself when their PG gets hurt. It's just the way things go. The entire offense is geared to run through the point, most of the time.

This isn't to take away from what Nash has done. It's just easier for other players to fill in the 2, 3, 4, and even center roles on a team in place of an injury, so the freefall to a backup isn't nearly as far as it is at PG.

[Shank]

I beg to differ, I deserve to win the lottery more than you.

Lies.

[Dirkgreatness]

Fuck the MVP. There's only one trophy Dirk is interested in.

(Although I do find it disturbing that, even in an MVP race, Dirk is finding a way to wilt and fold under pressure)

Dude, shut up.

[monosylab1k]

Dude, shut up.

no

[Viva Las Espuelas]

(Although I do find it disturbing that, even in an MVP race, Dirk is finding a way to wilt and fold under pressure)He shall be called Origami-man

[Kobulingam]

I deserve to win the lottery, too. But it's not going to happen.

By your logic, then Bosh, Tracy McGrady and Shaq need to be seriously considered in the argument. Those that are actually voting for the award don't use that silly notion, though, so there aren't any worries.


Bosh would be an MVP candidate if he wasn't in Canada (hardly anyone sees what he's doing). Also he just turned 23 so he has time.

[mFFL03]

jesus just settle this with a CO MVP

theres no way we can anoint another trophy to a guy who doesn't have a ring, or been in the position to get one

[Kobulingam]

jesus just settle this with a CO MVP

theres no way we can anoint another trophy to a guy who doesn't have a ring, or been in the position to get one

MVP = NASH. We can't CO it and reduce the achievement for Nash.

[NBA Junkie]

What's so great about winning the MVP?

Recent history suggests that the guys that were slighted usually get the last laugh if their respective teams meet in the playoffs.

[mFFL03]

MVP = NASH. We can't CO it and reduce the achievement for Nash.


reduce what achievement exactly?

[Kobulingam]

reduce what achievement exactly?

3 peat as MVP.

[Cry Havoc]

3 peat as MVP.

3 time MVP winners should be able to at least get their team into the Finals.

The way things are looking, the Suns could very well go down in round 2 again this year. If Nash is truly an MVP he should be able to get them past the two Texas teams.

[Kobulingam]

3 time MVP winners should be able to at least get their team into the Finals.

The way things are looking, the Suns could very well go down in round 2 again this year. If Nash is truly an MVP he should be able to get them past the two Texas teams.

You do realize we're talking about the regular season MVP, not the finals MVP ?

[Cry Havoc]

You do realize we're talking about the regular season MVP, not the finals MVP ?

MVP stands for Most Valuable Player.

Nash showed tonight that he's still extremely suspect on defense.

I cannot give a player who's great on one end of the court and horrible on the other a 3 time MVP award. It just makes zero sense.

I'd have to say it's 1. Dirk and 2. Duncan this year. They play both ways.

[lefty]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/070409

Russell, Wilt, Bird ... and Nash?

By Scoop Jackson
Page 2

Steve Nash basically won the MVP award Sunday. But that's not the issue. The question now has become: Does he deserve it?

It has nothing to do with whether Nash has earned the MVP, or whether he should win it, or whether he's the most valuable player to his team. None of that matters anymore. With five games left in his season it's about history and his place in it.

On only three other occasions in NBA history has a player won the MVP award three consecutive seasons. But it's what happened when those three players won their awards that's at the point of debate over whether Nash deserves the award for a third season in a row.

The MVP race came down to two games: on April 1, when the Suns beat the Mavs 126-104 (Nash had 23 points and 11 assists) and Sunday (Nash had 25 points and 11 assists, including 11 points in the fourth quarter). And even though the Suns won both games, the contest inside both games was judging Nash against the two players who were in position to "knock the champ out and take his belt," Dirk Nowitzki and Kobe Bryant. With Nash outplaying Dirk in that rout (and in Phoenix's classic March 14 double-OT win as well) and the Suns winning in Los Angeles as Kobe failed to have his eighth 40-plus game in a month, Nash locked up the MVP vote and secured his place as one of the greatest players of this generation.

Which is why history comes into question.

If you look at the players who won three MVPs in a row -- Bill Russell (1961-63), Wilt Chamberlain (1966-68) and Larry Bird (1984-86) -- and if you include the six-year stretch between 1986-92 when Magic and Michael flipped the award between themselves three times apiece, one fact is consistent among all of them: rings.

Now we all know that the MVP award is given for performance during the regular season. But if we the media keep brainwashing you all into believing that sports is all about winning and players should be judged mostly on their ability to do that, what does it mean when a player who is on the verge of redefining what this generation of basketball represents doesn't have a ring on his finger?

When Russell won his three MVPs, he also won three rings. In the middle of Wilt winning his three, he won one chip (1967). In his reign, Bird won two rings ('84 and '86). And during that MJ six-pack, Jordan and Johnson snatched two championships apiece.

Steve Nash has yet to even play in an NBA championship game.

Which is why the question has to be thrown out there, now that it appears Nash has the collective consensus of those voting. Can Steve Nash's consideration for MVP be only about his play this season or should it be about something bigger?

Should we judge solely on how he performed this season or do we have to take into consideration what it actually means for a player to win the award three times in a row? What does it say about the game when someone wins the award that many times but never wins a ring or reaches the Finals? (Obviously, the Suns have a great shot to do so this year.) No disrespect, but ... is this baseball? (Barry Bonds' MVP run from 2001-04 comes to mind, but he did play in the 2002 World Series during that era of supremacy).

Basketball is a different sport. It's that sport with the overused cliché and the concept that individual greatness is defined by "how a player makes everyone around him better."

That's the lexicon of the game, how greatness is achieved and rewarded. Steve Nash may be the best player in the history of the game when deliberating that concept. The argument: If he doesn't win or play in the final game of the season, how true is it? How much better has he really made the players around him? When you see someone's name in the record books three years in a row as the best player in that sport, it seems -- if you look at Russell, Chamberlain, Bird -- like there should be a championship attached to it, something more significant than what happened over 82 games.

And the bigger question, if this line of thinking finds ground over the next couple weeks, is if this is at all fair to Nash. Should his play be judged by what it will mean in the midst of history or should everything remain as-is and he be judged, voted on, made a living martyr by what he did on the basketball court between the months of October and April?

Stephen A. and Dave Aldridge sway with Nash. Doug Stewart of the "Two Live Stews" sways with history. Are we unfair to the game's history? Or unfair to Nash?

In the end, it is history we're going to have to answer to. How do you explain to kids 15 years from now who missed Nash's revolutionary display of basketball that he hat-tricked the MVP award without winning a championship?

How can we do this with consciousness clear or without ever thinking to ourselves years later, how did that happen? Was the NBA really that bad during that during those years? Was Bob Ryan right?

So which way do you sway? Even if the Suns reach the Finals this year, the question will remain valid. If they win the chip, it will justify Nash's third Podoloff trophy and leave the argument on life support (is Nash really on the level of Russell, Chamberlain and Bird?). And history doesn't die. At least not easily.

If only they had given Shaq the MVP two years ago.