Discuss Kobe's 1 MVP in 14 years

[Cry Havoc]

Because I have no choice


But seriously, I don't watch as much NBA as I used to; maybe 5 regular season games a year, plus a few playoff games and the Finals (if the matchups don't seem too lopsided)

Ah, an "NBA is rigged" fan. Rather than debate my points, you just put up a big billboard that says, "I don't know enough to have a discussion with you about this."

Nothing more to say here, then.

[lefty]

Ah, an "NBA is rigged" fan. Rather than debate my points, you just put up a big billboard that says, "I don't know enough to have a discussion with you about this."

Nothing more to say here, then.

Did you read my previous post, or did you ignore it on purpose?
Or are you just stupid?

Anyway, it looks like you are short of arguments, so you your only defense is pretending that you know more than I do.


Pretty lame

[Cry Havoc]

That's because no team played physical defense until the 90s. Handchecking was fine because it compensated for a complete lack of defensive cohesion in the pre-Bad Boys era of basketball. Why do you think Detroit started to dominate when they played like that? Because even though they weren't tackling players every play, they were the first team to play hard-nosed 5 man attacking defense.



You're right, Duncan playing through a Finals game on two bad legs and still putting up crazy numbers and Kobe playing an entire game with a busted finger means players are less like "big tough men" nowadays.

Or maybe it's that every injury is publicized to the point of a player who's got a pulled groin and goes out and puts up 8 and 5 instead of 14 and 8 is going to be ridiculed for stepping on the court when he costs his team a game in the waning moments with some missed rebounds or bad possessions.



Wasn't the entire 90s part of the David Stern area, when the NBA was supposedly at it's peak along with the mid 80s?



So your argument that a top 10 player all time would still get his today is a reason that the 80s were superior? If I recall, Bird destroyed THEN too, even though apparently everyone had crazy fundamentals and played physical defense.

I've challenged several people on this board to go back and watch the NBA Finals from the 1980s. Take off your rose tinted glasses about players being checked into the second row as an example of "Good defense" and go watch.

It's no wonder that players had good offensive fundamentals back then. 18 foot jumpshots are given with regularity, in the FINALS. Corner shots are essentially gimmes. Bruce Bowen would have averaged 5 threes a game for his career or more just camped out in his spot over there. There are entire possessions where there is not one aggressive defensive maneuver made, or where players just opt not to cover their man when they catch the ball at the free throw line extended.

Yes, there were harder fouls back then, but just because you can knock a guy on his ass when he's going up for a layup doesn't make you a good defensive player. In fact, I see it as hard fouls being given because no team was defensively sound enough on D without heavy body contact when they needed a stop. It was a compensating factor, not a determinant one. The defensive schemes today vastly outstrip anything we have ever seen in the NBA. You leave a player open on more than one possession and you're going to be grabbing some pine and getting yelled at by the coach... and this is in the regular season, to say nothing of the intensity of the Finals.

Fundamentals are infinitely easier to express when you don't have a defender playing 3 inches off your hip, shadowing every step you make.

Well, the rigging wasnt necessary back then; the NBA was successful thanks to Magic, Bird, Jordan,Kareem, Isiah, Wilkins, Benard King, Olajuwon, Barkley, etc,,,

It was the golden era of the NBA


But when MJ retired, people started to lose interest; the league needed a new dynasty, a successor to MJ and a classic, renewed rivalry, and this is when the Sternism started to to take off.
So, let's break it down:

- Forced new Jordan: Kobe
- forced dyansty: Lakers 3 peat (Sacramento series*)
- forced renewed rivalry: Lakers-Celtics 2008 (collusions trades, Garnett and Gasol)


And since Stern cares more about the $$$$ than the game itself (and that comment has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Jewish lawyer)...

Did you read my previous post, or did you ignore it on purpose?
Or are you just stupid?

Anyway, it looks like you are short of arguments, so you your only defense is pretending that you know more than I do.


Pretty lame

I've quoted my post, and the next post you made.

Who is not responding to who?

[lefty]

I've quoted my post, and the next post you made.

Who is not responding to who?

I responded to you

[TheMACHINE]

You idiot, I started watching less games in 2009/2010

I dont think the league has changed a lot between 2009 and 2010

hey idiot..look at your post. You made it seem like you've only watched the NBA 5 times a year for the past few years. Next time say "This past season" instead of making it look like youve been doing this for years.

Not my fault youre backpeddling. Stick to one-liners.

[lefty]

hey idiot..look at your post. You made it seem like you've only watched the NBA 5 times a year for the past few years. Next time say "This past season" instead of making it look like youve been doing this for years.

Not my fault youre backpeddling. Stick to one-liners.

Potatoes, potatoes

[TheMACHINE]

Potatoes, potatoes

right on cue

[lefty]

right on cue

[dunkman]

I hate the argument that this is a weak era of basketball. Statistically yes, the center position has eroded, but we have better wings and guards now, more athletic 6'5"-6'8" guys than have ever existed before in the NBA. If that's the basis of someone's argument for Kobe only winning 1, they don't have a leg to stand on. Right now IMO is the strongest the NBA has ever been, as far as talent depth. There are players riding the bench right now that would have been insane in the 80s just based on pure athleticism.

Basically what I'm saying is that James White would have averaged 40 PPG and a triple double in the 80s.

I think the opposite. It was much more difficult to get away from the defender using hand checking, help defense was much more effective without the defensive 3 seconds, contesting a shot was allowed and hard fouls were the norm.

Wing players were more skilled and able to score with contact.

[JamStone]

Truth is usually somewhere in between, but I think Cry Havoc makes some great points.

Just because more physical play was allowed in the 1980s and just because really hard fouls were delivered much more frequently, it doesn't mean the defenses were tougher or better. Look at the league averages for scoring and shooting percentages:

1980s: 109 PPG, 48.5 FG%
1990s: 101 PPG, 46.3 FG%
2000s: 97 PPG, 45.0 FG%

Defenses have gotten better, not worse. More intricate schemes. Players train harder to be good defenders on how to use their feet and lateral quickness instead of hand checking. Hand checking helped in the 80s. But it was also a product of players not having great defensive technique.

Truth is somewhere in the middle. But I don't think just because there were harder fouls and more physical contact allowed that the defenses were better in the 1980s.

And Kobe could easily play in the 1980s. His vocal flopping and his whining at officials would be quickly put to an end by veterans on his team. Think of a guy like Charles Oakley being his teammate and how he would handle Kobe in the lockeroom when Kobe's act started to get old. Kobe has the skill and athleticism to play in any era. And he might be a whiny sometimes, but he's a tough player and tough enough to play in the 80s.

[Cry Havoc]

Truth is usually somewhere in between, but I think Cry Havoc makes some great points.

Just because more physical play was allowed in the 1980s and just because really hard fouls were delivered much more frequently, it doesn't mean the defenses were tougher or better. Look at the league averages for scoring and shooting percentages:

1980s: 109 PPG, 48.5 FG%
1990s: 101 PPG, 46.3 FG%
2000s: 97 PPG, 45.0 FG%

I understand it's more qualitative than quan ative, but I'm really an advocate of watching 1980s era NBA Playoff games. Yes, harder fouls were given and allowed, but a hard foul doesn't mean you're playing good defense any more than an 70 yard pass that goes 10 yards out of bounds to the waterboy suddenly means a guy is the next Joe Montana. If you go back and watch the games, you see a very common theme -- one of lazy defense, right up until the fourth quarter. This is one reason the fast breaks of the past eras were so lethal -- because they would take advantage of the fact that players running back on defense didn't know how (or didn't want to) to turn their hips and get their feet set to move better laterally, combined with simplistic defensive schemes that were easy to read, especially for players like Magic and Bird. So a fast break or bringing the ball up quickly while the defense was still scrambling to set up meant guaranteed points.

Defenses have gotten better, not worse. More intricate schemes. Players train harder to be good defenders on how to use their feet and lateral quickness instead of hand checking. Hand checking helped in the 80s. But it was also a product of players not having great defensive technique.

Truth is somewhere in the middle. But I don't think just because there were harder fouls and more physical contact allowed that the defenses were better in the 1980s.

The very reason that hand-checking isn't allowed anymore might be because of teams who play D like the Spurs. Can you imagine what players would shoot today if hand-checking were allowed? Defenses are so good now that you'd see most teams average in the 80s if rough defense weren't whistled with regularity.

And Kobe could easily play in the 1980s. His vocal flopping and his whining at officials would be quickly put to an end by veterans on his team. Think of a guy like Charles Oakley being his teammate and how he would handle Kobe in the lockeroom when Kobe's act started to get old. Kobe has the skill and athleticism to play in any era. And he might be a whiny sometimes, but he's a tough player and tough enough to play in the 80s.

Part of this fact is that the NBA has completely taken the ability of a player to react in a volatile manner away. Swing at another player, and you're done for at least a game. Get into a big brawl, and you can kiss a significant part of your season good-bye. That costs teams more than just pride, it can be a playoff spot. So players have to to officials when they get hit, as they have no other recourse, especially after the incident at the Palace. In the past, differences were settled during play, but the NBA has (perhaps wisely) taken steps to prevent that. So players are now going to exploit the officiating to give their team an edge, the same as it happens in football when a receiver gets clipped and goes down like a ton of bricks, or a punter gets touched and acts like he's been shot.

[HarlemHeat37]

The 80s is by far the most overrated era of basketball..the "physical play" is exaggerated and most people don't seem to understand how defense was actually played at that time..

IMO, comparing any era without considering all the cir stances is ridiculous either way..you have to account for all the factors, and it's much easier to compare players within their era/how a certain player dominated his era, as opposed to comparing players from different eras and putting them in hypothetical situations..

Fans of the 80s love to overrate their era, just like today's fan loves to overrate today's athleticism, while ignoring all the advantages today's player has from an equipment/training standpoint..

I've never understood why it was so awful that Steve Nash won the MVP in 2006. The guy loses Amare Stoudemire to injury for the year. Loses Joe Johnson to free agency. That's about 45 freakin points out the window right there. Their replacements? A career journeyman in Raja Bell and some no-name guy called Boris Diaw. I was here when the Spurs fans were cackling and saying bye bye to Phoenix that year. I remember everyone saying Nash would be absolutely nothing without Amare Stoudemire to pass to...and even I thought the guy was gonna fall on his face. Phoenix's frontcourt was so bad I can't even remember who they were. Kurt Thomas maybe? I don't know. And with that rag tag bunch and all of the new faces Nash still had that team as the 3rd seed in a tough Western Conference. I thought he more than deserved that MVP and this is coming from a guy that generally can't stand one-way players.

I completely agree with this..

I don't know whether Nash deserved it over Kobe, I picked Nash, but I could see it going either way..however, I always laugh when people seem shocked or act like it was a complete travesty that Nash won MVP..

Leading that team to 54 wins, without Amare, while leading the NBA in assists by a massive margin, AND being the most efficient shooter in the NBA with a historic TS% of 63%..

[JamStone]

My criticism is that part of Steve Nash winning in 2006 was the fact that he won it in 2005. If Nash doesn't win the first one, then a voter can't say, "well he won it last year and he played even better without Amare, he must deserve it this year too." That wouldn't even have been a consideration.

I believe Shaq deserved it in 2004-05.

Shaq: 22.9 PPG, 10.4 RPG, 2.7 APG, 2.3 BPG, 2.8 TO, 60.1% FG, 46.1% FT (Heat improve by 17 wins)
Nash: 15.5 PPG, 11.5 APG, 3.3 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 3.3 TO, 50.2% FG, 43.1% 3PT (Suns improve by 33 wins)

Nash got the edge because the Suns improved as a team so dramatically. But, the Heat in the Eastern Conference weren't as bad the year before. They jumped from 42 wins to 59 wins, whereas the Suns jumped from 29 wins to 62 wins. Suns had the best record in the league, but the Heat had the best record in the Eastern Conference, tied for the second best in the league.

I'd also add that while the Suns were a surprisingly good team without Amare in 2005-06, at least part of it was a facade. The league was still in transition a few years after Shaq left the Lakers. Teams were maneuvering to get better to take over now that the Spurs and Pistons were the main le contenders and seemingly more beatable than the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. The league was weak. The Phoenix Suns record against teams that ended up with winning records in 2005-06 was 17-20. Against Dallas, San Antonio, and Detroit (the 3 60 game winning teams that year), their record was 3-7. Good for Nash and the Suns for still being one of the better teams without Amare. The record is a bit deceiving.

I think Nash's first MVP is more debatable because Shaq had a very strong argument for it based on what each player did individually. For 2005-06, I think it should have been more of a race between Kobe and LeBron rather than Nash getting his second in a row. I do think if the Lakers could have won 50 games that year, Kobe could have won it.

[Killakobe81]

Personally none of this has me "butthurt" ...like Jam said even though it was an obvious and weak troll attempt I only attacked the issue of using the BS MVP award as a criteria for greatness. So many discount rings ...because it's a team award, but the MVP Almost always goes to a top player on a team with a top 2 conference record since 1980 ...isnt that also a TEAM accomplishment?

As for the obviously or why you are posting in a toll thread stuff... who cares? If a troll brings up something I want to post on great. If not, I don't.

[Jt.ONE]

steve nash back2back MVP is worth more of a discussion imo