Nash with a b2b MVP (?)

[baseline bum]

I don't think a player deserves MVP if they only play one part of the nba game, all Nash does is O, he plays 0 D

Magic and Bird sucked defensively too, although I would never put them at Nash's level of defensive inep ude. Seriously though, Nash makes his teammates great, the same way Duncan always has (although even moreso for the Canadian).

Nash is such a great player the Spurs used to throw everything they had to stopping HIM in Dallas, even to the point of switching AJ or Tony onto Nowitzki on the pick and roll every time, because he was that devastating when he got into the paint. I remember one game in the 2001 playoffs where Dirk put up like 42 on post-up isos against Avery off screens because Pop was so scared to give Nash the lane or the 3.

[baseline bum]

Obviously there are people at least on this messageboard that would answer that question YES.

I would be one of them. I think you have to think historical relevance when giving out the League MVP.

I hate when people let anything other than who had the best season factor into MVP voting. It was the reason Jordan didn't win it every year when he pretty much deserved it every season he played from 87 to 98, save 93 when the Bulls underachieved in the regular season and 95 when he played like 30 games. They got sick of giving it to MJ. Similar thing with Shaq. His numbers were ridiculous in 00-01, but everyone came to expect it from him after his performance in 00, and AI was the popular guy. Malone had no business winning in 99 after the nosedive he led the Jazz on the final 15 games or so of the season. He didn't deserve it in 97 either... not when MJ leads his team to the second-greatest record in NBA history (69-13).

[SirChaz]

Obviously there are people at least on this messageboard that would answer that question YES.

I would be one of them. I think you have to think historical relevance when giving out the League MVP.

Why? It is the the MVP award for 2005-2006 isn't it?

Doesn't that hurt the integrity of the award more than a player like Nash winning it against some arbitrary historical criteria?


I just have a hard time agreeing that Nash being B2B MVP hurts the award more than dismissing worthy candidates because we have some preconcieved notion of what a B2B winner is or should be.

[JamStone]

I also believe that LeBron or Kobe were more deserving of the MVP award than Nash. So, even just basing it on the 2005-06 season, I don't think Nash should have won the award.

But, adding to that the historical significance, it makes it a no-brainer not to give it to Nash.

It's just my opinion.

[conqueso]

I hate when people let anything other than who had the best season factor into MVP voting. It was the reason Jordan didn't win it every year when he pretty much deserved it every season he played from 87 to 98, save 93 when the Bulls underachieved in the regular season and 95 when he played like 30 games. They got sick of giving it to MJ. Similar thing with Shaq. His numbers were ridiculous in 00-01, but everyone came to expect it from him after his performance in 00, and AI was the popular guy. Malone had no business winning in 99 after the nosedive he led the Jazz on the final 15 games or so of the season. He didn't deserve it in 97 either... not when MJ leads his team to the second-greatest record in NBA history (69-13).

I agree with the emphasized statement, but all of those situations you just mentioned are different from this one; in those cases, the MVP was given to the wrong person because of some interest in "spreading the wealth." With Nash, you have (arguably) the right person winning the award despite consequences (i.e. HoF, mention with the other 8) that have an negative impact on NBA lore.

Why? It is the the MVP award for 2005-2006 isn't it?

Doesn't that hurt the integrity of the award more than a player like Nash winning it against some arbitrary historical criteria?


I just have a hard time agreeing that Nash being B2B MVP hurts the award more than dismissing worthy candidates because we have some preconcieved notion of what a B2B winner is or should be.

That historical criteria is not arbitrary in any way. When Duncan won his second MVP, people mentioned his name along with the other seven and it symbolized his arrival in the annals of NBA elite. When people mention Nash's named along with the other seven, the integrity of the game is hurt because he does not belong with them. It unfairly decreases the magnitude of the accomplishment of winning two straight when someone much much MUCH less talented achieves the same thing. People should consider that when they vote.

Looking at anything in a vacuum is a close-minded and short-sighted way of considering things. If you think the MVP means only about the season it's awarded for Sir Chaz, you should never be allowed to call Nash the two-time MVP.

[SirChaz]

That historical criteria is not arbitrary in any way. When Duncan won his second MVP, people mentioned his name along with the other seven and it symbolized his arrival in the annals of NBA elite. When people mention Nash's named along with the other seven, the integrity of the game is hurt because he does not belong with them. It unfairly decreases the magnitude of the accomplishment of winning two straight when someone much much MUCH less talented achieves the same thing. People should consider that when they vote.

Looking at anything in a vacuum is a close-minded and short-sighted way of considering things. If you think the MVP means only about the season it's awarded for Sir Chaz, you should never be allowed to call Nash the two-time MVP.

But that is your opinion which is by definition arbitrary. THe MVP in itself is arbitrary because often people cannot even agree on what the exact criteria are.

Nash may not be very tall or strong but he is very talented and effective at what he does.


Like I said in the other thread I don't know that I would vote for him if I had a vote but he deserves consideration whether or not he won last year.

[Obstructed_View]

Magic and Bird sucked defensively too.

Sorry, I have to take issue with this comment.

Magic was a 6'9" point guard who, despite either having to defend quicker smaller guys or the other team's 4 or 5, probably averaged two steals a game for his career. I know he led the league in steals at least twice because he did it back to back.

I had to look this one up, but there were years that Bird averaged 8 defensive boards, two steals and a block per game. Some of his most memorable plays were on the defensive end.

Both guys managed to get steals without shooting gaps and freelancing like Iverson does. Anyone that watched them would have to agree that they both played excellent team defense. Jordan wasn't the best individual defender on his own team, either.

There's a big difference between not being a great defender and being an outright liability on defense. Considering the era in which they played, Bird and Magic didn't "suck" at anything.

[Vashner]

Nash is a dirtbag. If you harvest the grease in his hair you can sold this countries oil problem.

[NCaliSpurs]

Maybe you could make that argument for Duncan over Garnett in 2003, but in 2002 Duncan was far and away the greatest player in the game. His numbers blew everyone away that year, and he took them to a division le with his weakest supporting cast of the TP era.

Don't you remember the Jason Kidd conspiracy?

One writer even wrote that he would change their votes if he could, and only voted for Duncan because he didn't want him to NEVER to get an MVP.

[NCaliSpurs]

Bottom line is that he wasn't the best player on the best team.

Last year, that was a valid argument.

As far as value is concerned is Lebron James less valuable than Nash?

Kobe Bryant is less valuable than Nash?

Dirk, the best player and the leader of a 60 win team, is less valuable than Nash?

I have great respect for Steve Nash. But he is neither the best, nor the most valuable player in the NBA.

But hey, a million fools can't be wrong, eh?

[jochhejaam]

!9 and 10 are not MVP numbers. He's not a very good defender.

Lebron 30/7/7 is more deserving.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Kobe was robbed

[ALVAREZ6]

WTF... Nash.



I needed Kobe to win that .

[rayray2k8]

damn. there goes my vBookie $$$.

Damnit, I guess my Kobe vote got ed..

[NCaliSpurs]

It is hard to justify giving Nash the MVP by any objective measure.

[SirChaz]

Bottom line is that he wasn't the best player on the best team.

I don't think that is the criteria for the MVP.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't think that is the criteria for the MVP.

It was last year.

[SirChaz]

It was last year.

For some people maybe.

I have never thought so.

[TDMVPDPOY]

if thenba doesnt award it to the best player in the game, like jordan for example how he didnt win many durin his prime cose they dont want viewers to get bored with the same player winnin it again, then wtf does nash get it with a 50win team? theres a guy name dirk who is in a 60win team who should get sum consideration. Thats why its a joke with the award. what has nash basically done to get b2b mvps? he hasnt even raise the bar of his game, how about try and play defense of sum . dirk has improve his game more than nash and doesnt get and still labled as a no defense player.

they are basically the same team from last season the suns, dont tell me due to nash n suns system, guyz like TT had a breakout game, dude had talent just that he didnt use them, wattabout diaw who was a scrub on the hawks, yep he showed he had game on teh france team, hawks didnt see it. raja bell he was already distinguish defensive player, its not nash that made these players who they are today.

nash is the worst b2b mvp in the league.

[conqueso]

But that is your opinion which is by definition arbitrary. THe MVP in itself is arbitrary because often people cannot even agree on what the exact criteria are.

Nash may not be very tall or strong but he is very talented and effective at what he does.


Like I said in the other thread I don't know that I would vote for him if I had a vote but he deserves consideration whether or not he won last year.

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle


My opinion is not arbitrary just because it's my opinion. I have provided rational reasons and stated widely-held principles which all stand for the two following propositions:

1. Steve Nash has not been, is not now, and probably never will be anywhere near as great of a player as Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan or Tim Duncan. If you think he deserves recognition with them you are not being either objective or impartial. Mother er is 32...he hasn't ever played in an NBA Finals, and likely isn't going to play in one this year. His window of opportunity is closing fast, and he doesn't have very much time to prove that he belongs in such elite company.

2. There is at least some harm done to the reputations of those past winners and to the game of basketball by Nash repeating as MVP. Most of it is for posterity's sake. 8 years from now when LeBron wins his second MVP in a row, kids are going to hear those nine names and be like "Steve Nash...what the ? How the did some no-defense-playing who never won a le manage to claim two straight MVPs." 20 years from now when someone else repeats, our children are going to ask us "Daddy/Mommy, I've heard of all these other guys...they're all on the Top 10 Players of All Time...but who is this Steve Nash guy?"

I agree with you that he deserves consideration regardless of whether or not he won last year. But the fact that he did win last year is one factor (of many) that should influence MVP voters. And it's clear that some of the same morons who voted for AI have ed up again because they don't understand the game of basketball. ing media.

[SirChaz]

ar·bi·trar·y
adj.

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

definition #2
Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary


I think it is close between Nash and Dirk personally.

And if I was voting I would probably argee with you somewhat and vote for Dirk.

I don't think it somehow damages the award or the league if Nash wins it B2B.

[Darrin]

Consecutive MVPs:

Russell (3): '61-'63
Chamberlain (3): '66-'68
Abdul-Jabbar (2): '71-'72, '76-'77
Malone (2): '82-'83
Bird (3): '84-'86
Johnson (2): '89-'90
Jordan (2): '91-'92
Duncan (2): '02-'03

Question:

Does Steve Nash deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, nay, the same paragraph, as any of these other players who have won consecutive MVPs?

Comments:

I don't want to focus on whether or not Steve Nash deserved to win the MVP either this year or last...we'll obviously have plenty of time to debate that issue. My problem is that I don't believe Nash deserves the accolade of back-to-back MVPs. Winning again this year puts him in a class of players to which he does not belong. I think that honor is reserved for only the very best players to ever play. Look at that list...Nash's name does not deserve to be up there with Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, Larry, Magic, Michael and Duncan. I think voters should take into account the historical significance of their vote instead of just looking at the current season in a vacuum.

Maybe I'm attaching too much importance to winning consecutive MVPs. But look at the people on that list...each one of them is at least top 3 all-time at their position. I don't think anyone, not even the most diehard Suns fan, would reasonably claim that Steve ing Nash is a top 3 all-time PG. I still think there is a question of whether he's in the top 10. , there are plenty of people who don't even think he is the best PG in the league right now.

If I were an MVP voter (which I'm not), and even if I believed Nash deserved to win the award this year (which I don't), I still would not have voted for him because of the historical significance of winning two straight MVPs.

Anyone agree with me?

Totally. It is amazingly hard for a guard to win this thing, and just look at the list.

Bob Cousy
Oscar Robertson
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Steve Nash.

That's all the guard to ever win an MVP.

Nate Archibald
Rick Barry
Dave Bing
Clyde Drexler
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Sam Jones
Pete Maravich
Earl Monroe
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkens

That's the list of players on the NBA's 50 Greatest NEVER to win an MVP. Steve Nash has two.

I don't think he deserves two over Jason Kidd or Gary Payton in today's game. Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, or Dirk Nowitzki. That's the top 3 in MVP voting with Nash probably 5th. He's winning in comparison to his season last year, not compared to his peers or to the annauls of NBA history. People like watching the Suns and they score a lot of points. That's why he won and no other reason.

[Obstructed_View]

For some people maybe.

I have never thought so.

If you don't believe that then there's no way to make a case for Nash as MVP last year. Without Nash being MVP last year, there's no way to make a case for him as MVP this year. From a historical perspective, back to back MVP awards suddenly throw nash into the realm of the hall of famers. If Nash plays two more seasons at his current level he'll come close to catching Muggsy Bogues on the all-time assists list. Why are we even having this conversation?

[Darrin]

I don't think that is the criteria for the MVP.

It isn't? Isn't the argument against Bryant that his team lost too many games? The same with Lebron? Do you think that Chauncey Billups would be in this discussion if the Pistons hadn't won 64 games?

[SirChaz]

Why are we even having this conversation?

Good question.