NBA: Top 3 Most undeserved MVP in the last 3 18 years.

[da_suns_fan]

Well then your argument works against his 2005 MVP (which I remember in the past you agreed he didn't deserve).

I dont remember saying that, ever. I might have.

I dont really care, Shaq was worthy of it in 05 but Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first and were leading the league in scoring by margin of around 7 points.

[resistanze]

I dont remember saying that, ever. I might have.

I dont really care, Shaq was worthy of it in 05 but Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first and were leading the league in scoring by margin of around 7 points.

Yeah you said Shaq deserved it over Nash. But either way, 'player of the year' is no less ambiguous than 'MVP'. If you're saying Russell Westbrook deserved it despite his lack of team success, why didn't Kobe or LeBron win it in 2006? They completely destroyed Nash for by traditional or advanced statistical measure, and LeBron's team even won 50 games.

Rk	Player	Season	Age	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	2P	2PA	2P%	eFG%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
1	Kobe Bryant	2005-06	27	80	80	3277	978	2173	.450	180	518	.347	798	1655	.482	.491	696	819	.850	71	354	425	360	147	30	250	233	2832
2	LeBron James	2005-06	21	79	79	3361	875	1823	.480	127	379	.335	748	1444	.518	.515	601	814	.738	75	481	556	521	123	66	260	181	2478
3	Steve Nash	2005-06	31	79	79	2796	541	1056	.512	150	342	.439	391	714	.548	.583	257	279	.921	47	286	333	826	61	12	276	120	1489

Rk	Player	Season	Age	G	MP	PER	TS%	3PAr	FTr	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	AST%	STL%	BLK%	TOV%	USG%	 	OWS	DWS	WS	WS/48	 	OBPM	DBPM	BPM	VORP
1	Kobe Bryant	2005-06	27	80	3277	28.0	.559	.238	.377	2.6	12.7	7.6	24.1	2.4	0.7	9.0	38.7		11.6	3.7	15.3	.224		7.3	-1.5	5.8	6.5
2	LeBron James	2005-06	21	79	3361	28.1	.568	.208	.447	2.6	17.1	9.8	32.8	2.0	1.5	10.7	33.6		12.0	4.3	16.3	.232		7.9	1.4	9.3	9.5
3	Steve Nash	2005-06	31	79	2796	23.3	.632	.324	.264	1.9	11.1	6.6	44.4	1.1	0.3	19.0	23.3		10.3	2.1	12.4	.212		5.4	-1.6	3.7	4.0

[Spurtacular]

1) MVP is always "player of the year".

Where did you find this new information?

[Spurtacular]

You guys are forgetting a couple of key details

1) MVP is always "player of the year". You can use any stat metric bull you want but it always goes to "player of the year". I tried explaining that to Asian kid I work with. Russ Westbrook was guaranteed to win despite the low seed because he was, far and away, the player of the year.

I dont remember saying that, ever. I might have.

I dont really care, Shaq was worthy of it in 05 but Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first and were leading the league in scoring by margin of around 7 points.

So, for one, "player of the year" isn't based on team success; and for the other, "player of the year" is based on team success. Did you explain to your "friend" while you were at it that you're an idiot. No need, he probably figured it out.

[Clipper Nation]

da_suns_ getting destroyed per par

[140]

da_suns_ getting destroyed per par

[da_suns_fan]

Yeah you said Shaq deserved it over Nash. But either way, 'player of the year' is no less ambiguous than 'MVP'. If you're saying Russell Westbrook deserved it despite his lack of team success, why didn't Kobe or LeBron win it in 2006? They completely destroyed Nash for by traditional or advanced statistical measure, and LeBron's team even won 50 games.

Rk	Player	Season	Age	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	2P	2PA	2P%	eFG%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
1	Kobe Bryant	2005-06	27	80	80	3277	978	2173	.450	180	518	.347	798	1655	.482	.491	696	819	.850	71	354	425	360	147	30	250	233	2832
2	LeBron James	2005-06	21	79	79	3361	875	1823	.480	127	379	.335	748	1444	.518	.515	601	814	.738	75	481	556	521	123	66	260	181	2478
3	Steve Nash	2005-06	31	79	79	2796	541	1056	.512	150	342	.439	391	714	.548	.583	257	279	.921	47	286	333	826	61	12	276	120	1489

Rk	Player	Season	Age	G	MP	PER	TS%	3PAr	FTr	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	AST%	STL%	BLK%	TOV%	USG%	 	OWS	DWS	WS	WS/48	 	OBPM	DBPM	BPM	VORP
1	Kobe Bryant	2005-06	27	80	3277	28.0	.559	.238	.377	2.6	12.7	7.6	24.1	2.4	0.7	9.0	38.7		11.6	3.7	15.3	.224		7.3	-1.5	5.8	6.5
2	LeBron James	2005-06	21	79	3361	28.1	.568	.208	.447	2.6	17.1	9.8	32.8	2.0	1.5	10.7	33.6		12.0	4.3	16.3	.232		7.9	1.4	9.3	9.5
3	Steve Nash	2005-06	31	79	2796	23.3	.632	.324	.264	1.9	11.1	6.6	44.4	1.1	0.3	19.0	23.3		10.3	2.1	12.4	.212		5.4	-1.6	3.7	4.0

Because, for the first time ever, a player averaged a triple double. He was the talk of the league/media because of it.

That is why he was player of the year.

[da_suns_fan]

So, for one, "player of the year" isn't based on team success; and for the other, "player of the year" is based on team success. Did you explain to your "friend" while you were at it that you're an idiot. No need, he probably figured it out.

ing Idiots on Spurstalk. I forget just how stupid most people on this forum are.

When did I say MVP was based on individual vs team success? I said it was "player of the year". That can happen for either individual or team success. If youre credited for turning a team around and make them successful you could be MVP even other players have better statistics. If you have a ridiculous season with stats never achieved before you could be MVP even if your team was mediocre. Depends on the other candidates.

Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first by adding him. The previous year they had same coach, same Amare, same Marion. Nash was correctly given all of the media attention because going to worst to first rarely happens.

In Westbrook's case, he became first player to average a triple double. Again, he gets all the media attention because, not only is he the first to do it, most would have said averaging a triple double would be impossible in the modern era.

Spurstacular, when you pull your head out of your ass, please show me where I said MVP was based on either individual vs team success. Or just admit youre a ing moron.

[Clipper Nation]

Nash was "player of the year" because of old white North American media members voting for the white North American player. That's it and that's all.

[apalisoc_9]

Yeah you said Shaq deserved it over Nash. But either way, 'player of the year' is no less ambiguous than 'MVP'. If you're saying Russell Westbrook deserved it despite his lack of team success, why didn't Kobe or LeBron win it in 2006? They completely destroyed Nash for by traditional or advanced statistical measure, and LeBron's team even won 50 games.

Rk	Player	Season	Age	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	2P	2PA	2P%	eFG%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
1	Kobe Bryant	2005-06	27	80	80	3277	978	2173	.450	180	518	.347	798	1655	.482	.491	696	819	.850	71	354	425	360	147	30	250	233	2832
2	LeBron James	2005-06	21	79	79	3361	875	1823	.480	127	379	.335	748	1444	.518	.515	601	814	.738	75	481	556	521	123	66	260	181	2478
3	Steve Nash	2005-06	31	79	79	2796	541	1056	.512	150	342	.439	391	714	.548	.583	257	279	.921	47	286	333	826	61	12	276	120	1489

Rk	Player	Season	Age	G	MP	PER	TS%	3PAr	FTr	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	AST%	STL%	BLK%	TOV%	USG%	 	OWS	DWS	WS	WS/48	 	OBPM	DBPM	BPM	VORP
1	Kobe Bryant	2005-06	27	80	3277	28.0	.559	.238	.377	2.6	12.7	7.6	24.1	2.4	0.7	9.0	38.7		11.6	3.7	15.3	.224		7.3	-1.5	5.8	6.5
2	LeBron James	2005-06	21	79	3361	28.1	.568	.208	.447	2.6	17.1	9.8	32.8	2.0	1.5	10.7	33.6		12.0	4.3	16.3	.232		7.9	1.4	9.3	9.5
3	Steve Nash	2005-06	31	79	2796	23.3	.632	.324	.264	1.9	11.1	6.6	44.4	1.1	0.3	19.0	23.3		10.3	2.1	12.4	.212		5.4	-1.6	3.7	4.0

Boom..

Kobe didn't have the wins, but unlike westbrook he trully did have an atrocious supporting cast.

Westbrook Supporting cast is acutally quite decent defensively and they had certain skill sets that helped him achieve his numbers.

[Spurtacular]

When did I say MVP was based on individual vs team success? I said it was "player of the year". That can happen for either individual or team success. If youre credited for turning a team around and make them successful you could be MVP even other players have better statistics. If you have a ridiculous season with stats never achieved before you could be MVP even if your team was mediocre. Depends on the other candidates.

So, team success counts except when it doesn't. Got it.

[Spurtacular]

In Westbrook's case, he became first player to average a triple double. Again, he gets all the media attention because, not only is he the first to do it, most would have said averaging a triple double would be impossible in the modern era.

Actually, Westbrook showed just how easy it is to stat pad for a triple double with the right cuck teammates. Clearing space so he could get rebounds. Allowing him to chuck all game long and be ready to bail him out to pad his assist numbers. If you think about it, a pairing or trio o players will get 30-11-10 every game. Just let a guy ball hog and he can make up the difference given a minimum level of talent. How many games worse was OKC than the year prior? And I'd say they were only at 47 because the company men saw the writing on the wall and did their thing.

[da_suns_fan]

Boom..

Kobe didn't have the wins, but unlike westbrook he trully did have an atrocious supporting cast.

Westbrook Supporting cast is acutally quite decent defensively and they had certain skill sets that helped him achieve his numbers.

He just proved is that individual stats dont necessarily equal MVP. I never said they did.

Russell is MVP because he averaged a triple double and got a ton of media attention for it. His accomplishment made him stand out this season.

Kobe got a lot of attention in 2006, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Peeps laughed that the Lakers were struggling to make playoffs while Shaq was competing for a le in Miami. Likewise they said he shot the ball too much and didnt trust his teammates enough blah blah blah. It didnt matter that he averaged 35 a game. Meanwhile, Nash has far worse numbers but was credited for taking an almost whole new team and still winning the pacific and got a lot of positive attention for it.

Now what did they say about Westbrook this year? Were they blaming him for KD leaving and saying he doesnt trust his teammates enough? No, they were saying someone could "ACTUALLY" average a triple double for a season.

Again, its not "Team accomplishments" vs "individual accomplishments". Its which player stood out. Thats what "player of the year" is and who they almost always give the MVP to.

The league loves that every year peeps argue over what makes a player "valuable". They choose to call the award "most valuable player" over "player of the year" because its more ambiguous and they WANT everyone to debate and talk about it. But go back through the winner's history and tell me you dont remember why a player won it for a given year. Its pretty easy because they give it to the guy who stood out that year.

If you want to know the most "underserved MVP", its Duncan in 2002. Jason Kidd was player of the year that season and I seem to remember Shaq calling him "The real MVP" that year in the finals. He was right. Kidd was robbed.

[da_suns_fan]

2002 MVP voting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...ards_2002.html

Kidd. Was. Robbed.

[da_suns_fan]

Interesting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...ards_2006.html

As I said, Nash won in 06 because he got a lot of positive attention for winning with new cast and there werent any other worthy candidates. He only got 57 of the first place votes but the rest were split up evenly amongst five different players. Nash got less first place votes in 06 than he did in 05 yet won the vote by a greater total margin.

[Spurtacular]

Russell is MVP because he averaged a triple double and got a ton of media attention for it. His accomplishment made him stand out this season.

What Westbrook did is what every kid playing 2K does; just do a all out player-centric offense while not playing defense. If the Spurs had done the same thing with Kawhi, his numbers would have been even better (and their wins down). The media rewarded selfishness, not VALUE.

[Clipper Nation]

da_suns_ still trying to justify Nash's white privilege awards

[Spurtacular]

2002 MVP voting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...ards_2002.html

Kidd. Was. Robbed.

A guy at 14-9 and 39 FG was robbed?

Frankly, second place was quite generous. I'd argue him for 13th place behind old Jordan before I would MVP, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

da_suns_ still trying to justify Nash's white privilege awards

There's way more black privilege than white privilege in the NBA, son.

[resistanze]

Boom..

Kobe didn't have the wins, but unlike westbrook he trully did have an atrocious supporting cast.

Westbrook Supporting cast is acutally quite decent defensively and they had certain skill sets that helped him achieve his numbers.

When Kobe beats you in advanced stats you know its bad

[resistanze]

Nash was "player of the year" because the Suns went from worst to first by adding him. The previous year they had same coach, same Amare, same Marion. Nash was correctly given all of the media attention because going to worst to first rarely happens.

Well that's just historically inaccurate. The previous year the Suns:

- Fired their coach during the season
- Lost Amare for more than 1/3 of the season due to injury (averaging 20/9)
- Had a blockbuster trade mid season, which included losing Marbury
- Hardaway and Gugliotta missing significant time with injuries
- Didn't have Quentin Richardson

To say Nash alone led to the turnaround is ludicrous. Amare averaged 26/10 and led the team in Win Shares, PER, TS% and second to Marion in BPM. Nash was 3rd on his own team in win shares, 5th in BPM, 3rd in PER . His MVP campaign alone predicated on fat sports writers repeating 'MAKES HIS TEAM BETTER!'

It was a terrible decision then and even worst from a historical perspective.

[Clipper Nation]

If Nash made his teammates better, why was Dirk so much better without him?

[da_suns_fan]

A guy at 14-9 and 39 FG was robbed?

Frankly, second place was quite generous. I'd argue him for 13th place behind old Jordan before I would MVP, tbh.

You still dont get it.

Jason Kidd was player of the year in 2002. YES, his numbers werent that great. YES, it was in the east (at its lowest point). But he took the NETS from worst to first which was the big story that season. That is why Duncan, who had far better numbers, BARELY beat Kidd in voting. No one remembers one ing thing Duncan did in 2002. Kidd was the one who was getting all of the attention.

This is why KG won the 04 MVP in a landslide despite posting the exact same numbers in 03. Its why Kobe won the MVP in 08 despite putting up much weaker numbers than he did in 06. Its why Barkley won in 93 despite Jordan being in the league and putting up weaker numbers than he did in 91. Its why Westbrook won despite his team being a low seed.

You guys argue over advanced stats and what the word "valuable" means completely clueless that it doesnt ing matter. Theyre gonna give it to player of the year.

[ambchang]

You still dont get it.

Jason Kidd was player of the year in 2002. YES, his numbers werent that great. YES, it was in the east (at its lowest point). But he took the NETS from worst to first which was the big story that season. That is why Duncan, who had far better numbers, BARELY beat Kidd in voting. No one remembers one ing thing Duncan did in 2002. Kidd was the one who was getting all of the attention.

This is why KG won the 04 MVP in a landslide despite posting the exact same numbers in 03. Its why Kobe won the MVP in 08 despite putting up much weaker numbers than he did in 06. Its why Barkley won in 93 despite Jordan being in the league and putting up weaker numbers than he did in 91. Its why Westbrook won despite his team being a low seed.

You guys argue over advanced stats and what the word "valuable" means completely clueless that it doesnt ing matter. Theyre gonna give it to player of the year.

Duncan and Robinson should have been MVPs in their rookie years then. 35 and 36 game turnarounds.

And as if player of the year isn't even more ambiguous

[lefty]

Duncan's turnaround is overrated tbh, Robinson missed most of the 96/97 season.

Bird did have an impressive impact though, and before you bring up Cowens, Maravich and Nate, they were TOSBs at this point