Nash's MVP's are greatest crime ever

[dirk4mvp]

I wonder if the fact that Nash and Dirk are white may have helped them somewhat in getting all those MVP's.

Of course, the only reason Bird won 3 in a row was because of his pasty skin.

What a dumb ing comment.

[pauls931]

The Suns won 29 games in 2003-2004

The Suns won 62 games in 2004-2005 when they acquired Nash.

Don't tell me that isn't a valuable player. Case closed. MVP well deserved.

Haters, hate facts.

[itzsoweezee]

the fact that he's won two, while shaq has only won once is completely beyond reason. nash is so ing overrated it's sickening.

[itzsoweezee]

Haters, hate facts.

valuable, yes. most valuable? the no.

[balli]

I don't think his play this season should factor into it at all, but I've never thought Nash should have won those trophies.

[z0sa]

Of course, the only reason Bird won 3 in a row was because of his pasty skin.

What a dumb ing comment.

Eh, wasn't shaq the one who said he lost the MVP to Nash over a racial issue? I think thats what he's using as the base of his joke.

[ShoogarBear]

The fact that the Suns couldn't win the West despite having almost twice the talent of every other team makes those MVPs meaningless.

Swap Tim Duncan for Nash on those teams and give them a normal coach and they win multiple les.

[ClingingMars]

I wonder if the fact that Nash and Dirk are white may have helped them somewhat in getting all those MVP's.

-Mars

[timvp]

The Suns won 29 games in 2003-2004

The Suns won 62 games in 2004-2005 when they acquired Nash.

Don't tell me that isn't a valuable player. Case closed. MVP well deserved.

The Mavs won 52 games in 2003-2004

The Mavs won 58 games in 2004-2005 when they replaced Nash with Dampier.

Don't tell me Dampier isn't a valuable player. Case closed. MVP was deserved.

[sook]

The Mavs won 52 games in 2003-2004

The Mavs won 58 games in 2004-2005 when they replaced Nash with Dampier.

Don't tell me Dampier isn't a valuable player. Case closed. MVP was deserved.

are you stupid? Are you trying to compare a 20 win to 60 win turnaround to a 52 to 58 win tunraround?

FAIL.

[ShoogarBear]

The point is, if Nash was so valuable, how did the Mavericks get better without him? And not just a little bit better, but much, much better over the next two seasons? And not just without him, but losing him to free agency without getting anything back?

[resistanze]

Let's ignore that fact that the year before Nash joined the Suns, they blew up their team with a blockbuster trade during the season, fired their coach, and missed Amare for 1/3 of the season due to injury.

Bottomline: Disregarding Nash, every back-to-back MVP winner in NBA history has won the NBA le in at least one of those back-to-back years. It's not a coincidence.

[dirk4mvp]

The Mavs won 52 games in 2003-2004

The Mavs won 58 games in 2004-2005 when they replaced Nash with Dampier.

Don't tell me Dampier isn't a valuable player. Case closed. MVP was deserved.

Obviously, the only reason he didn't receive that MVP was because of the discrimination towards the state of Mississippi.

[duncan228]

Bottomline: Disregarding Nash, every back-to-back MVP winner in NBA history has won the NBA le in at least one of those back-to-back years. It's not a coincidence.

It's a pretty short, elite list. (I think I have them all).

Duncan
Jordan
Magic
Bird
Moses Malone
Kareem
Wilt
Russell

[Darkwaters]

There are worse calamities. Like TD never being winning defensive player of the year...

Bowen

[resistanze]

It's a pretty short, elite list. (I think I have them all).

Duncan
Jordan
Magic
Bird
Moses Malone
Kareem
Wilt
Russell

Yup, thanks. All top 20 players all-time.

[Girasuck]

There are worse calamities. Like TD never being winning defensive player of the year...

or Sloan never winning a COY.

[Allanon]

or Sloan never winning a COY.

I have to agree that THIS is the greatest diss of all time.

[SpursDynasty]

The greatest NBA crime ever was having both Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony start the NBA All-Star Game...Denver Nuggets with 2 All-Star starters?

[BRHornet45]

sons what makes this even funnier is that Nash is a cuckold in his personal life LOL

[Obstructed_View]

The Suns won 29 games in 2003-2004

The Suns won 62 games in 2004-2005 when they acquired Nash.

Don't tell me that isn't a valuable player. Case closed. MVP well deserved.

Then where are the MVP awards for David Robinson, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett? All of their teams had bigger turnarounds upon their arrival, right? If you're going to just ignore the injuries, trades and coaching changes the Suns went through the previous season, then those other guys are far more deserving of the MVP based on your ignorant logic.

[Obstructed_View]

i think shaq deserved his first one, and nash deserved the 2nd one he got, and that 2nd one that he got belonged to him by a long shot.

I agree with the first part. Duncan and Shaq both had arguments that year if memory serves. Seems like Duncan missed some games at some point which was the excuse used to disqualify him.

Lebron averaged 31 points, 7 assists, 7 rebounds, a block and 1.6 steals the same year Nash won his second. John Stockton never finished higher than 7th in MVP voting despite having stats that just shredded Nash's. If a guy who leads the league in assists and steals a couple of times can't get a sniff, there's no way Nash should have even been considered.

[resistanze]

I wasn't outraged until the second MVP. The first MVP you could get away with, there was no clear-cut frontrunners for the award. Nash was like the Dustin Pedroia of the 2004-05 season.

The second MVP however, there were so many candidates more deserving, with LeBron leading the pack. , Dirk was more deserving for the award that year IMO than the year he actually won. I just don't get how you credit a guy for single-handledly turning a team around one year, then the following year reward him "keeping the team afloat" when Amare was injured.

[kcplayboi_26]

are you stupid? Are you trying to compare a 20 win to 60 win turnaround to a 52 to 58 win tunraround?

FAIL.

lol yea that was pretty pointless, very bad

[Kai]

are you stupid? Are you trying to compare a 20 win to 60 win turnaround to a 52 to 58 win tunraround?

FAIL.

You "FAIL" to notice that he is pointing out that the Mavs lost such a "valuable" player, yet went on to win more games without him than they did with him. He's being sarcastic about Dampier.