Reply With Quote
2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Duncan
2003- Duncan
2004 - Kevin Garnett
2005 - Shaq
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Dirk
2008 - Kobe
2009 - Lebron James
Only thing I did was exchange CP3 for Kobe in 2008.
my list:
2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Duncan
2003- Duncan
2004 - Kevin Garnett
2005 - Shaq
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Dirk
2008 - CP3
2009 - Lebron James
2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Duncan
2003- Duncan
2004 - Kevin Garnett
2005 - Shaq
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Dirk
2008 - Kobe
2009 - Lebron James
Only thing I did was exchange CP3 for Kobe in 2008.
2009 MVP - Kevin Garnett (Most Valuable Prick)
2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Duncan
2003 - Duncan
2004 - Garnett
2005 - Shaq
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Dirk
2008 - LeBron
2009 - LeBron
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Allen Iverson (led that Sixers team to same record as Lakers with much less help)
2002 - Jason Kidd (more valuable than Duncan that year imo)
2003- Tim Duncan
2004 - Kevin Garnett
2005 - Shaquille O'Neal
2006 - Steve Nash (cannot reward a 45 win Lakers team with MVP)
2007 - Dirk Nowitzki
2008 - Kobe Bryant (CP3 a really close second)
2009 - LeBron James
This is the first non-homer post Ive seen in this thread.
Althought I would probably make Nash the MVP in 05 and Kobe in 06.
MVP is so stupid. They should just call it "Player of the Year" and be done with it.
2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - TD
2003 - TD
2004 - KG
2005 - Shaq
2006 - Shawn Marion
2007 - Nash
2008 - Kobe
2009 - Lebron
2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Timmay
2003- Kidd
2004 - KG
2005 - Shaq
2006 - Billups
2007 - Dirk
2008 - CP3
2009 - Lebron
Player of the decade: Paul Perce
Player of the decade Tim Duncan
2000 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq
2002 - Duncan
2003- Duncan
2004 - Kevin Garnett
2005 - Shaq
2006 - Kobe
2007 - Dirk
2008 - CP3
2009 - LeBron James
Agree with OP. Nash didn't deserve his MVPs. If you don't play defense, you shouldn't be even in the running for MVP.
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Allen Iverson
2002 - Tim Duncan (VERY close with Kidd)
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - Kevin Garnett
2005 - Steve Nash/Shaquille O'Neal (don't care either way)
2006 - LeBron James
2007 - Dirk Nowitzki
2008 - Chris Paul
2009 - LeBron James
the first list is almost perfect but replace kobe with cp3 in 2008 and its now perfect
2000 Shaq
2001 Shaq (As good as AI was with Philly that year, Shaq was not human during those years)
2002 Kidd (because of how he transformed the culture of perennial losing team in one season, Duncan was amazing as well though)
2003 Duncan
2004 KG
2005 Shaq (gave instant credibility and championship credentials to that team, something Phx never had because of their inexistant defense, in which Nash played as big a role as he did for their thrilling offense)
2006 Dirk/Wade (toughest race I have ever witnessed, those two had the season of their career, somehow Nash won it with a stupid argument, Billups could have easily won it, Kobe and LBJ held back by team record)
2007 Dirk (as a side note, pleased to see that the smart spurtstalk posters agree that Dirk completely owned that year's award)
2008 Kobe (2nd toughest to call, CP3, KG, LBJ have a good case, but Kobe finally became the leader everyone wanted to see him become)
2009 LBJ (as easy to call as 2000 or 2007)
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal
2001 - Allen Iverson
2002 - Kidd
2003 - Tim Duncan
2004 - Kevin Garnett
2005 - Steve Nash
2006 - Kobe Bryant (this was the year he averaged 35 per game right?)
2007 - Dirk (I guess I don't remember other MVP worthy performances this year)
2008 - Chris Paul
2009 - LeBron James
WTF? Are you serious?
2000 Shaq
2001 Shaq
2002 Duncan
2003 Duncan
2004 Garnett
2005 Shaq
2006 LeBron
2007 Dirk
2008 Kobe
2009 LeBron
2002 MVP shouldnt even have been close. SA won 6 more games than NJ, and Duncan put up 25.5/12.7/3.7/2.7, and led the team to 58 wins without a second real star.
Kidd averaged under 15 PPG and below 40% shooting. His being in the discussion was based on his ability to make his team mates better on Offense, yet that year the Nets were a middle of the road Offensive team. In fact, they finished 17th, out of 29 teams in that statistic.
That teams staple was their defense, where they finished the season ranked #1 Overall in Defensive Efficiency. So im sorry, even though he was one of the best defensive Point Guards in the League at that time, Jason Kidd does not impact a game of basketball on the Defensive end that much.
Only big men can.
If Jason Kidd won MVP that year, you could put that right above both of Steve Nash's awards as the biggest up in the NBA in recent memory. In fact, Nash had by far the better season, especially in his second award - and there wasnt anyone who dominated the league that year like Tim Duncan did in 2001/2002.
But, people continue to run with the whole Jason Kidd should have been MVP in 2002 thingo.
The only other award that was wrong IMO was in 2006, Nash's second award. I though LeBron did enough to lead his team to 50 wins, while putting up something ridiculous like 30-7-6, to win MVP. Wade was a close second for me, leading the Heat to 52 wins while putting up something like 27-5-7 on 50% shooting.
Kobe was great, but like JamStone pointed out, i think 50 wins is the magic number, provided there isnt a team clearly above the rest, say a 65+ win team.
Last edited by mystargtr34; 04-30-2009 at 12:19 AM.
That Nets team doubled their win total from the previous year from 26 wins to 52 wins. Kidd's numbers weren't "sexy" but his "value" to his team was undeniable. And, the very fact that Nash won those two MVPs is a huge reason why Kidd can make a strong argument in 2001-02. Also, if your main argument for it "not being close" is Duncan's statistics and the Spurs record, then one could argue Shaq deserved the MVP in 2002 just as much as Duncan so it wasn't "close." Lakers won the same amount of games as the Spurs and Shaq's numbers were pretty much the same as Duncan's. Duncan rebounded and blocked shots slightly better and Shaq scored and shot the ball better than Duncan, but also averaged 4 fewer minutes a game.
Jason Kidd completely turned around that Nets franchise. That's the type of season that really evidences the value of a player.
Should David Robinson have won the 1990 MVP? As a rookie, he turned a 21-win team into a 56-win team.
Uhm your argument is flawed. Duncan won with trash that year literally, who was the number 2 guy on the spurs that year I think Parker only average 8-10 points a game and that team was composed with a bunch of hasbeens and still managed to win 58 games that year when they should have won only 40 with the talent they have. Second Shaq had a young Kobe who averaged I think around 25-26 points a game and that lakers team only won 58 games. Duncan won 58 games with a team that had nobody of Kobe's calibur on there. It always boggles my mind how Duncan gets a bunch of haters for that '02 MVP.
No doubt he was valuable. But the improvement had alot to do with Marbury too - that was a time when GM's were still dumb enough to trade for 'stats' - which was the case with Marbury. Steph was an immense talent, but he was never the player Jason Kidd was, yet if i remember correctly (which i probably dont) the Nets got more than just Kidd back from the Suns, so the Suns though they were getting the better player back.
The biggest difference between the 2000 team and the 2001 team was Defense. Kidd improved the team on Offense obviously, they were ranked 24th the year before Kidd, then 17th after his first season. Talking in terms of Points per 100 possessions.
Defensively, they went from 23rd, to Number 1 overall in Points Allowed per 100 possessions. Defense was obviously the biggest reason they improved so much as a team. So, like i said, even though Kidd was a good defensive player at that time, i just dont see how he made that much impact on the defensive end.
Two other additions made differences too, Richard Jefferson, as a spark off the bench offensively, and Kerry Kittles defensively and offensively. Plus you would expect Kenyon martin to have improved from his rookie season to his second year.
Of course, you have to factor in intangibles like leadership and ability to make team mates better. So, Kidd was a top player at that time, i just dont think he was the best player, nor the most valuable player in the League.
agree with most that nash doesnt deserve MVP but if not neither did CP3 ...his defense cucks too hez just better at steals ...cp3 the black Steve Nash and his numbers are just as inflated ...
He is great offensive PG (ball-skills, penetration and vision) but because he is so small and crappy at man to man defense you can't switch him on any legit 2 gaurd and he cant gaurd a good PG either ...If Denver started JR Smith this series Cp3 would of had no one he could matchup with .../i know you guys are all over his nuts and the stat geeks and people wowed by flash love him ...but ...
Cp3 was NOT the MVP last year ...
Dwill is STILL a better all-around PG
In a big game I'd still rather have CHauncey (regular season it's CP3all day)
Rondo is a better all around PG
Parker is a better scorer ...
Those again from a coaches perspective ...i dont root for any of the above teams ...
In 2 playoffs i have watched him closely and I just don't think he measures up literally or figuratively ...he has had ONE really good series ...that's it.
You make some good points, but i consider CP3 the opposite of Nash - primarily because of the pace their teams played at during their best seasons. During hsi MVP seasons, Nash's Suns player at by far the fastest pace in the league, meaning more shots, more rebounds, more assists - or simply, more stats.
The Hornets consistently play at one of the slowest paces in the league, meaning fewer possessions and less opportunities for assists and points.
Looking at it that way, Chris Paul was/is more dominant than Nash, even during his MVP seasons.
Although, that does take away from Nash, since running a fast break effectively is a defined skill - so he shouldnt really be punished for playing at a faster pace.
But, i think Chris Paul is better now than Nash ever was.
My list
2000 Shaq
2001 AI
2002 kidd
2003 Duncan
2004 KG
2005 Billups
2006 Kobe
2007 Dirk
2008 Kobe
2009 Lebron (well deserved)
And i disagree wit the 55 plus win crap ...if Lebron only won 5o he is still MVP this year and Wade with his 49 should second this year ...
Good counterpoints but even at a slower pace ...he handles the ball even more than Nash because he ri=uns the break when they run and is the only creator in their offense ..nash had Diaw and Stoudemire who could make plays barbosa as well but the latter two mostly for themselves ...
There's absolutely an argument and I wouldn't think it was a bad choice if it were Robinson in 1990. I think the key factor in 1990 was that the Lakers actually got a better regular season record despite Kareem retiring the season before. That probably solidified Magic's MVP that season.
I don't see the flaw you speak of. There's two ways of looking at it. You say Duncan didn't have anybody the caliber of Kobe. Well, counterpoint is that Duncan didn't have anyone the caliber of Kobe taking away touches from him. Why didn't Duncan score more than Shaq that season? There are different ways of looking at it.
Moreover, I think you read my post incorrectly. I talked how I felt Kidd deserved the MVP that year, not Shaq. My mention of Shaq was only to respond to another side point about the criticism of Jason Kidd's statistics. My point being that if it wasn't close between Duncan and Kidd based on Kidd's statistics, then Shaq deserved the MVP just as much as Duncan based on statistics.
And, since I was talking about Kidd, your post doesn't really respond to my post accurately. So when you talk about Duncan not having much of a cast around him, the same can be said of Kidd. Kidd had very little to work with just like Duncan did.
And, I'd hardly call me a Duncan hater for his 2002 MVP. I never once said Duncan was undeserving. I did say I felt Kidd was more valuable to the Nets that particular season. That's not an outlandish opinion. You can disagree with it. That's fine. It's merely an opinion.
I don't really disagree with much of your assessment. It really depends on what factors you weigh more when determining how valuable a player is. Obviously statistics come into play. Same with team record and overall improvement of the team. I think this was an instance where the improvement was so drastic that it overshadowed statistics and team record as it related to being compared with the other great teams in the league that year. Remember the award isn't based solely on statistics or Shaq and Iverson would have multiple MVPs right now. And, the award isn't based solely on team record or Chauncey Billups would have a league MVP for 2005-06. Nash's 2 MVPs proved that changing the culture of a franchise can be an overriding factor.No doubt he was valuable. But the improvement had alot to do with Marbury too - that was a time when GM's were still dumb enough to trade for 'stats' - which was the case with Marbury. Steph was an immense talent, but he was never the player Jason Kidd was, yet if i remember correctly (which i probably dont) the Nets got more than just Kidd back from the Suns, so the Suns though they were getting the better player back
The biggest difference between the 2000 team and the 2001 team was Defense. Kidd improved the team on Offense obviously, they were ranked 24th the year before Kidd, then 17th after his first season. Talking in terms of Points per 100 possessions.
Defensively, they went from 23rd, to Number 1 overall in Points Allowed per 100 possessions. Defense was obviously the biggest reason they improved so much as a team. So, like i said, even though Kidd was a good defensive player at that time, i just dont see how he made that much impact on the defensive end.
Two other additions made differences too, Richard Jefferson, as a spark off the bench offensively, and Kerry Kittles defensively and offensively. Plus you would expect Kenyon martin to have improved from his rookie season to his second year.
Of course, you have to factor in intangibles like leadership and ability to make team mates better. So, Kidd was a top player at that time, i just dont think he was the best player, nor the most valuable player in the League.
I didn't say Kidd was the best player in 2002. I don't think that's who the MVP awards. In terms of being valuable to his team, there is more than just a soft argument for Kidd that season. Should you disagree with Kidd being deserving, that's fine. But, don't say it wasn't even close or that Kidd wasn't deserving at all. There's quite a strong argument that he very much deserved it. And that doesn't mean I'm saying Duncan was undeserving. Just that I think Kidd deserved it more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
