Nash with a b2b MVP (?)

[SirChaz]

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?

To me the MVP is the player that is most instrumental to their team's success in a given season.

Pistons are a successful team so they have an MVP candidate.

To me Billups falls short because he is not as instrumental to his teams success as other players are to theirs. i.e. his teammates are too good.

Kobe falls short this year because his team was not successful enough.

IMHO of course.

[Tanya]

I used to be confused about the difference between MVP and best player. Now I am pretty sure they are the same thing. If Kobe is the best player, why isn't he the most valuable? Nash definitely makes his teammates much better, but does that mean they are the champion material? It's not only about making the teammates better, it's all about winning come to the end. I believe Chauncey, Dirk and Kobe(with a better supporting cast) are more capable than Nash to accomplish that goal -- to win a champ.

[SirChaz]

I used to be confused about the difference between MVP and best player. Now I am pretty sure they are the same thing. If Kobe is the best player, why isn't he the most valuable? Nash definitely makes his teammates much better, but does that mean they are the champion material? It's not only about making the teammates better, it's all about winning come to the end. I believe Chauncey, Dirk and Kobe(with a better supporting cast) are more capable than Nash to accomplish that goal -- to win a champ.

Except the MVP is a regular season award.

[Obstructed_View]

Good question.

It's not a good question if you don't answer it. Your just gets weaker and weaker. It doesn't matter; you've pretty much said that you know Nash doesn't deserve MVP, and that's as much as anyone can expect from you, considering that you can't see past the name on the front of his jersey.

[Darrin]

Good question.

Because two other guards have won multiple MVPs - Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson, and Johnson was 6-9!

Michael Jordan - 6 NBA Championships.
Magic Johnson - 5 NBA Championships.
Steve Nash - 0 NBA Championships.

Is that company most people would put Steve Nash with? No.

We're having this conversation because his assists fell off by a full assist a game, the Suns lost 8 more games than last season.

We're having this conversation because the top 3 teams in the league set franchise marks for wins in a season.

Because Kobe Bryant had 60+ wins twice this season, including the highest scoring game since Wilt Chamberlain in 1962. His scoring season was top-8 all-time and only Rick Barry joins him in not having an MVP on that list.

Because Lebron James just wrapped up a career season of 31, 7, and 7 while leading the Cavaliers to their first playoff appearance since 1998, and their first 50-win season since 1992-93.

[Obstructed_View]

To me Billups falls short because he is not as instrumental to his teams success as other players are to theirs. i.e. his teammates are too good.

Then Nash shouldn't have won last year. Billups has exactly the same starting lineup as he did last year. If Billups isn't MVP, then Flip should have been coach of the year. Doesn't someone deserve credit for the Pistons' improvement? Nash wins MVP for losing MORE games and having FEWER assists than the previous year. Nowitzki is a candidate with LOWER numbers and only TWO more wins, yet Kobe and LeBron get to the playoffs with terrible teammates, and Billups improves the team with the same teammates. I don't understand this at all.

It must just be a conspiracy by the white media.

[SirChaz]

It's not a good question if you don't answer it. Your just gets weaker and weaker. It doesn't matter; you've pretty much said that you know Nash doesn't deserve MVP, and that's as much as anyone can expect from you, considering that you can't see past the name on the front of his jersey.

Didn't realize we are talking about last season.

Under the criteria I posted a couple of posts ago there is a case for Nash last year. He was most instrumental to his teams success. They brought in Nash and Richardson and they went from 29 wins to 62. I think Nash was pretty instrumental to that teams success and the most valuable of any team in the league.

As far as Nash deserving or not deserving MVP this year I think he is top three candidates this season at minimum. I can understand why people would vote for someone else for all the reason stated over and over.

I think any number of players could win it from year to year and it is largely based on opinion not only about the value of the player but about the criteria for selecting the MVP. To me it part of what makes the MVP an interesting award.

[Obstructed_View]

Under the criteria I posted a couple of posts ago there is a case for Nash last year. He was most instrumental to his teams success. They brought in Nash and Richardson and they went from 29 wins to 62. I think Nash was pretty instrumental to that teams success and the most valuable of any team in the league.

Under the criteria you posted a couple of posts ago you said that Billups didn't deserve it because his teammates are too good, yet you credit Nash for the improvement of the team when you completely fail to mention that Amare was injured for 30 games in the 29 win season and Nash was replacing Stephon "teamkilla" Marbury as the point guard. The main case for Nash as MVP last year was when he was out for a couple of games and the team struggled. Nash should have therefore won the "most valuable to our system because we don't have an adequate backup or guys who can create their own shot" award.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

No OV. Nash won it last year because the Suns had the best record in the league. This year? No clue. I have him at 5 for MVP. Kobe, LeBron, Dirk, and Billups are ahead of him...

[SirChaz]

Under the criteria you posted a couple of posts ago you said that Billups didn't deserve it because his teammates are too good, yet you credit Nash for the improvement of the team when you completely fail to mention that Amare was injured for 30 games in the 29 win season and Nash was replacing Stephon "teamkilla" Marbury as the point guard. The main case for Nash as MVP last year was when he was out for a couple of games and the team struggled. Nash should have therefore won the "most valuable to our system because we don't have an adequate backup or guys who can create their own shot" award.

Is Billups most instrumental to his teams success this year? Significantly more so than any of the starting 5?
If you have a good argument for that maybe you could convince me that Billups deserves it this year.



To me this is a crazy argument. I am not even sure what the point is anymore.

You don't think Nash deserves the MVP this year or last. Did I get that right?

[conqueso]

Didn't realize we are talking about last season.

Under the criteria I posted a couple of posts ago there is a case for Nash last year. He was most instrumental to his teams success. They brought in Nash and Richardson and they went from 29 wins to 62. I think Nash was pretty instrumental to that teams success and the most valuable of any team in the league.

As far as Nash deserving or not deserving MVP this year I think he is top three candidates this season at minimum. I can understand why people would vote for someone else for all the reason stated over and over.

I think any number of players could win it from year to year and it is opinion not only about the value of the player but about the criteria for selecting the MVP. To me it part of what makes the MVP an interesting award.

After all is said and done, I agree with your criteria. I do believe the MVP should be determined by balancing team success with individual responsibility for that success. But even if that is the case, I agree with Darrin and O_V: Nash's' team was not the most successful in the NBA, and Nash was not the player most instrumental to their particular team's success.

There were three teams this year more successful than the Suns (Pistons, Spurs, Mavs).

There were several players more important to their team's success than Nash (Kobe and LeBron unquestionably, Dirk arguably).

In order to choose Nash over Dirk (the only person who fulfills both criteria of top-three team success and top-three individual responsibility), you have to weight individual responsibility way more than team success. I guess I just disagree with how you've weighted the two factors. I think they should be taken on more equal footing. Take the top teams in the league, then take the top important players, and see where the two overlap. Last year, they overlapped in Phoenix. But this year, they did not.

I think Nash wins this award because a) he won it last year and b) everyone predicted the Suns would suck without Amare. In order for the voters to lend credibility to their votes from last year and explain away their horrific errors in predicting the Suns' performance they have voted for him again. It's kind of an ego thing...they don't want to admit that they were wrong, so they find the one excuse that will make it okay, deluding themselves into thinking "Nash had a better year this year than last, and that's the reason why Phoenix stayed afloat in the Western Conference." But as others have pointed out, Nash didn't have a better year, and his team didn't do as well, and there was much stiffer compe ion. The ego factor is the only thing that explains this award.

On a side note, I appreciate that you haven't been sucked into a flame war with any of us SirChaz...a few of us (myself included) have said some pretty derogatory things about you and your boy Steve Nash.

[Trainwreck2100]

To me the MVP is the player that is most instrumental to their team's success in a given season.

.

Then why didn't Jordan win it every year?

[Darrin]

Didn't realize we are talking about last season.

Under the criteria I posted a couple of posts ago there is a case for Nash last year. He was most instrumental to his teams success. They brought in Nash and Richardson and they went from 29 wins to 62. I think Nash was pretty instrumental to that teams success and the most valuable of any team in the league.

As far as Nash deserving or not deserving MVP this year I think he is top three candidates this season at minimum. I can understand why people would vote for someone else for all the reason stated over and over.

I think any number of players could win it from year to year and it is largely based on opinion not only about the value of the player but about the criteria for selecting the MVP. To me it part of what makes the MVP an interesting award.

That's great to say, but there isn't a single MVP winner that isn't in the Basketball Hall of Fame. Crediting Nash for all the success last season is great, even though Marion, Johnson, Barbosa, and D'Antoni were starting their season together, and all they needed was point guard who could distribute to go fro 29 games to 50.

He had an amazing season, and I don't think there was a slam-dunk winner last year, so it's okay. This is like if John Stockton had won over Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Michael Jordan in 1987. There are plenty of viable candidates, and he doesn't deserve it. He had a better scoring season, but he didn't have a better season.

People should just nut up and say they like watching a team that can score 107.0 ppg.

[SirChaz]

After all is said and done, I agree with your criteria. I do believe the MVP should be determined by balancing team success with individual responsibility for that success. But even if that is the case, I agree with Darrin and O_V: Nash's' team was not the most successful in the NBA, and Nash was not the player most instrumental to their particular team's success.

There were three teams this year more successful than the Suns (Pistons, Spurs, Mavs).

There were several players more important to their team's success than Nash (Kobe and LeBron unquestionably, Dirk arguably).

In order to choose Nash over Dirk (the only person who fulfills both criteria of top-three team success and top-three individual responsibility), you have to weight individual responsibility way more than team success. I guess I just disagree with how you've weighted the two factors. I think they should be taken on more equal footing. Take the top teams in the league, then take the top important players, and see where the two overlap. Last year, they overlapped in Phoenix. But this year, they did not.

I think Nash wins this award because a) he won it last year and b) everyone predicted the Suns would suck without Amare. In order for the voters to lend credibility to their votes from last year and explain away their horrific errors in predicting the Suns' performance they have voted for him again. It's kind of an ego thing...they don't want to admit that they were wrong, so they find the one excuse that will make it okay, deluding themselves into thinking "Nash had a better year this year than last, and that's the reason why Phoenix stayed afloat in the Western Conference." But as others have pointed out, Nash didn't have a better year, and his team didn't do as well, and there was much stiffer compe ion. The ego factor is the only thing that explains this award.

On a side note, I appreciate that you haven't been sucked into a flame war with any of us SirChaz...a few of us (myself included) have said some pretty derogatory things about you and your boy Steve Nash.

Excellent post.

Your theory may have some merit. I am not really sure and it is hard to generalize with a large group of voters.

Hubie Brown made the case for Nash on the broadcast the other day in that 7 players on his team are having career years, it is a new team, and his percentages are at an elite level etc.

I know there are some excellent arguments for other players over Nash and I don't blame anyone for thinking that. It is their opinion.

I agree that LeBron and Dirk have very good arguments over Nash but I don't think that Kobe had enough team success. Some would say that just making the playoffs with that team is enough but I disagree.


As far as the derogotory statements I am somewhat used to it on this board and my skin is not that thin.

[SirChaz]

Then why didn't Jordan win it every year?

Good question. Maybe he should have.

I didn't have a vote.

[SirChaz]

People should just nut up and say they like watching a team that can score 107.0 ppg.

I know I do.

[Trainwreck2100]

Good question. Maybe he should have.

I didn't have a vote.

He didn't get it cause the media basically rewarded the player that wasn't him, they should have taken the same road here

[JMarkJohns]

Please note, thee above quote was edited for excessive ing...


NCali... Wake me when you're the final authority on the matter. Until then, your opinion is no better than mine, except that mine adheres to the description and definition of the award (as given by the NBA), while yours wonders off into the notion of League importance, postseason accomplishment and overall legacy...

The NBA laid out the guidelines. Think they are wrong? Then take your session to the League office ala one Mr. Mark Cuban... Oh wait, you probably have issues when he, a non-Spur, does that. You probably call him a whiner and a baby... Maybe even a pussy or tool...

Facts are, this is a regular season award. Not past, not future, not postseason... regular season. All your ing won't change this. If you don't like it, tough. It is also awarded to the one player deemed to have the most importance to his team and its success. Sometimes record factors in, sometimes standing, but it shouldn't be the only determining factors, neither should said player standing amongst the current top-5 players, or all-time greats.

As I said... It's an award for a specific player's importance, in a specific system for a specific team in that specific season. That's it. Nothing more needs to be factored in.

Sorry you don't agree. Obviously as opposing fans we're not always going to.


Obviously there are exceptions, but holding the exceptions up as the rule is insane. Maybe, in the broad scheme of things, voters have awarded the MVP based upon previous seasons a total of 10 times (bet not even that many). Maybe, sometimes the award goes to the best player on the best team, but that, again, is debatable and probably only happened around 10 times.

This year was a tough race. It was almost a lose/lose for the voters.

Pick Nash and the Billups, Kobe, Dirk, LeBron camps are all up in arms.
Pick Dirk and the Billups, Kobe, LeBron, Nash camps are all up in arms.
Pick Kobe and the Billups, Dirk, LeBron, Nash camps are all up in arms.
Pick LeBron and the Billups, Dirk, Kobe, Nash camps are all up in arms.
Pick Billups and the Dirk, Kobe, LeBron, Nash camps are all up in arms.

There's no equation that will make every fan, everyone happy, just as there's no real right or wrong choice. Each player has a great argument for themselves.

Bryant is the best player.
Billups is the best player on the best team.
Dirk is the best player who's team had great sucess.
LeBron is the most talented player.
Nash is the reigning MVP who's had a statistically better season than his MVP year of last season, had an even greater responsibility with his team, has the largest turnover of any contending team this season, suffered the most injury, the most setbacks and still won 54 games.

Here's an idea that might shut you up.

Find a dart and a dart board. Label board with those five names (or others if you so desire since this award is all about you, your opinions and your overall happiness), distance yourself 15 feet from the board, close your eyes and throw the dart.

Happy now?

[Obstructed_View]

No OV. Nash won it last year because the Suns had the best record in the league.

Wrong. The historical argument against point guards or guys who can't play defense had legs until Nash got hurt in the middle of the season and the Suns dropped three straight. They also lost the game in which he got hurt, the game prior to that and got pelted by the Spurs when he came back, so the perception was that they lost six games in a row due directly to Nash's absence. Once the Suns had the best record, it was easy to start beating the "Best player on the best team" drum again, but without that stretch in the middle Shaq would have won MVP, because prior to last year, one dimensional smalls didn't win MVP.

[Obstructed_View]

Is Billups most instrumental to his teams success this year? Significantly more so than any of the starting 5?
If you have a good argument for that maybe you could convince me that Billups deserves it this year.

Here's the Nash argument for Billups, with Detroit stats dropped in:

He's the best player on the best team. He's the point guard, and the guy who makes them go. His PPG was up by 2 and his APG was up by 3. His team record improved by ten games in a season that they not only lost their hall of fame coach, but had the exact same starting lineup as the previous year.

[Obstructed_View]

You don't think Nash deserves the MVP this year or last. Did I get that right?

Yes. I don't think Nash deserves to be in the top three of MVP either this year or last.

[SirChaz]

Yes. I don't think Nash deserves to be in the top three of MVP either this year or last.

Do you agree with the criteria or do you base that on something else?

[Obstructed_View]

Do you agree with the criteria or do you base that on something else?

The criteria that he was most instrumental to his team's success? He was the most instrumental person to his team's success -on his own team. This is pretty definite for both of his seasons in Phoenix.

Now, let's say that the Cavs had played this entire season with Lebron James on the injured list. With Larry Hughes also injured for part of the season, would the Cavs be in the playoffs? No way. Orlando would have a better record.

The same case could be made for Kobe Bryant, but it's not as strong because Lamar Odom is hugely under-utilized and could be a Pippen to Kobe's Jordan. The fact that he's good enough to keep them treading water in Kobe's absence skews the whole thing. This is one reason that the best player on a bad team is typically NOT rewarded with MVP. If he is just taking away stats from his teammates, the record will reflect that. That said, Kobe is still more instrumental to his team's success than Nash IMHO.

[Darrin]

I know I do.

And the only problem with that is if you look historically over the best scoring teams in NBA history, they won as many games as the Suns, and none of them garnered the stature Steve Nash did. Kiki Vandeweghe, Dan Issel, and Alex English never got an MVP. Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, and Peja Stojakovic never got an MVP.

My question after almost every post on this is "Why is the criteria different for Nash?" Because I can name 8 or 9 scenarios for almost every justification of his winning this award.

Boris Diaw is the MIP because he came out of nowhere while playing with nobody. Steve Nash is the MVP because he came to the team and they started winning. Instead of people say "Hey, we thought they didn't have anybody, but Boris Diaw was there. Shawn Marion was there," they seem to think Nash is responsible for it all.

I don't get it, and I don't think I ever will.

[Darrin]

All this has done has made me a hardcore Lakers for this series.