Nash is the MVP

[NCaliSpurs]

But then, you're such a preening ass, what else should I expect.?!

You didn't even touch this thread until your boy Nash escapes an embarrassment of a series.

You should expect me to call you out.

I did.

[JMarkJohns]

You didn't even touch this thread until your boy Nash escapes an embarrassment of a series.

You should expect me to call you out.

I did.

What? I didn't have to post my criticism of him in this thread. I posted it in the actual game threads. I was very critical of him during game 4.

Get over yourself.

You've got 280-something posts and I'd bet half of them are about Nash, or bashing Nash.

No, you have no agenda...

I don't post here for you, but it was you (and a few others) who chose to bill the Lakers V Suns series as the Kobe V Nash MVP series. For the first four games, Kobe was on top. I never denied it. In fact, I was critical of Nash like an objective fan would be. For the next three games, Nash proved his worth, leading the Suns to a series win.

Even in that, I didn't reserect this thread. I merely added the sole comment I'd said all along. it being "a postseason series had no bearing on a regular season honor"...

Since you're such the authority on the subject, whom was your MVP?

LeBron?
Kobe?
Duncan?

of those three, two failed miserably in their last games and the third wasn't even the best player on his team all season.

If you're going to base the awards analysis on a short-sided series, then LeBron and Kobe... YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!!!

If you're going to claim value is best player with best season, then Duncan... YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!!!

Fact is, I admitted that the Suns were going to struggle if not struggle mightily in the first round. I critcized Nash, Marion and Bell during these playoffs while complimenting (and eating my own words on) Tim Thomas, who I called this season's Walter McCarty.

I'm far from afraid of my own mistakes. I'm far from uncritical. I'm far from the idiot you like to pretend I am and you're FAAARRR from the everlasting know-it-all you think yourself to be.

You're a preening jackass who, on more than one occasion, has singled me out for a post, like that's your job on this board.

We disagree on the MVP, oh well...

You, my friend, are as meaningless to this board's importance as your fandom is in reguards to the Spurs success. You being here adds nothing, by and large, because you're just one post... you're as wrong as you are right and are such in more than just this poster's eyes.

You are a hypocrite and worse off, an ignorant one at that.

Again, get over yourself and move on.

[mike detroit]

it's amazing how on every board on the internet, compelling arguement for why nash winning mvp is being made be residents of phoenix. last i checked, your metro area is pretty small, you have an amazing amount of rep on the internet.

[greyforest]

Nash is the MP3

[spurschamp2005]

Althoug nash is important to phoniex outcome result....i dn think he is as valuable to the suns compared to kobe is to lakers....Kobe should get the mVp......Nash gt a much better team then kobe......it is nash team-mate who make him look so valuable....that y he gt the MVP

[NCaliSpurs]

What? I didn't have to post my criticism of him in this thread. I posted it in the actual game threads. I was very critical of him during game 4.

You are one the most vocal of Nash's supporters on this board.

You ignored this thread until after the Suns barely escape the Lakers, and then swoop in on it (oh, suddenly we notice it) with heaping of "as I maintained all along".

Bull .

What I add to this board? Who cares? I post here for fun.

I think all 3 of the players you mentioned are just as good as candidates, if not better, than Nash.

Lebron led his team to 4 less victories than Steve Nash, with much better individual statistics, and much less talent around him. Yeah, he got trounced by the Pistons in game 1. But the Suns would get swept as well, so it isn't that strong of an argument.

Kobe also had a great individual season, better than Nash's, and was able to lead his team to a playoffs with MUCH MUCH less talent than that on the Suns.

Duncan is the best player on his team. His efficiency is a fraction less than Steve Nash's, even though he wasn't playing at 100% all season. Still he led his team to 63 wins, 9 more than the Suns and 1 more win than the Spurs franchise record. Take him off the Spurs this past season and they aren't even in the playoffs.

But what makes me really enjoy your post is your analysis of me. Since I am so preening, a word you enjoy hearing yourself say (how preening), it gives me no greater pleasure than to see you get so flustered over little ol' me.

It is not my job to single you out, but some things you are willing to do for free.

Have a nice day.

[Obstructed_View]

Steve Nash sucks. I think he put it best when, holding the trophy, said "I'm not giving it back." Good for him. I don't think he deseves it either, but I'll fight to keep him from having to give it back.

[cheguevara]

Steve Nash owned everybody when he got the backtoback MVP. This year it could have gone to anyone. The NBA just selected Nash 'cause he is a team player and improves his teamates games. It's clear. I don't know why ppl keep ing.

[JMarkJohns]

You are one the most vocal of Nash's supporters on this board.

Frankly, you're such a know-nothing , I stopped reading after this...

Get out more, or at least, read more non-Nash-hating threads...

From November...

Coming straight from a Suns fan, past the stats, nothing in Nash's play says he deserves an All-Star bid. Marion yes, but no one else thus far.

I like Duncan, Ginobili and Parker from the Spurs.

From November...

Better question.

Will Duncan and Manu need to touch the ball with the driving lanes Nash will likely make available to Parker and Van Exel?

Damon Stoudamire was shooting 29% on the year and was one game from being benched in favor of Bobby Jackson, then had the luck to play Nash next and looked like Damon ala 1999.

Then these more recently...

Agreed. This is my one gripe and it has nothing to do with the officials.

I was too busy being disappointed in Nash's incompetance to notice any officials wrongdoing.

Suns (and Nash particular) had the game ball in their hands and two times allowed the Lakers to strip it from them.

Nash should know you can't receive an imbounds pass in the frontcourt where you're only an arms reach from a sideline and backcourt line. That's called a trap Steve, it's an angle designed to force turnovers and you fell for it twice.

Come on... I complain about him as much as I give him props.

Also, you make it seem like I said the MVP was Nash's and no one else deserved consideration. Please, go back and read my posts. I said any of the three players of Nash, Kobe or Dirk all deserved the award with LeBron and Brand fourth and fifth.

My defense was of Nash, because folks like yourself were just bashing him.

Not that you care. Not that you will comprehend the fact that your lame ass is ignorant of the facts here. I'm not a Suns homer and am pissed that know-nothings like you keep insisting such. It's your insistance, followed by my own defense that might make it seem as such, but a quick read of my recent posts finds me criticizing the Suns (for their defense, lack of heart late in the season, lack of rebounding) Nash (for early season play/game 4), Marion (for playoff performances/some comments about the Suns running game), Bell (for his constant talking about Kobe/ the hard foul), D'Antoni (for not running more plays down the stretch/ not playing bigger), Suns execs (for allowing the Sarvar/Colangelo fued to overshadow team needs at the trade deadline/ for the handling of Amare) and Sarvar ( for just about everything including JJ, Amare, BC).

Not something traditionally done by a homer, you schmuck.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't know why ppl keep ing.

There's a debate on the Dan Patrick show right now whether Nash is a better point guard than Jason Kidd. THAT'S why people are ing. Skip Bayless has been using "two-time MVP" as an argument for Nash to be getting more calls and more respect. THAT'S why people are ing.

[NCaliSpurs]

Frankly, you're such a know-nothing , I stopped reading after this...

So I am preening? Yet you're the one who only reads his own posts!



Keep 'em coming.

Mr. "The NBA lays out the rules for the MVP": a statement which you could not support in any way.

I really don't have a problem with you calling me names every time you touch the keyboard, so feel free. But you seem kind of worked up over it all. Remember, this is entertainment!

As far as you not being a Nash supporter, and aren't we defensive about being called so, you wrote about 4,000 words on his behalf. Please forgive me for misjudging your actions.

- - - NOTE: This is a LONG reply...



You're making my argument for me. It's because he's a superstar with no near-equal that makes him so valuable. To try and use this as an argument against Nash is very odd.




What? You mean like when a team loses their 6-10, 250, top-10 overall post player? He's gone and Nash has kept the team as competative as a short, wing-oriented team possibly can be.

You can't possibly justify your final statement. They are 2-7 the past two season without Nash. Nash can't be punished because he didn't miss longer to really pound home his value, but his absense can be blamed for many problems the Suns have. When he's out of the game, the Suns offense isn't nearly as effective. When he's not playing in a game, the Suns generally lose.




Yes, yes, but if you recall, the Suns were a mere .500 team against division leaders last season. This year? A mere .500. That's what I'm basing this on. This team has had so many injuries other than Amare that at times, they didn't have a bench or frontcourt. Those are bound to add up to a loss here and there. Last season, the Suns had near-perfect health throughout until JJ's injury in the second round.




Let's just say that last year's team had three All-Stars (Nash, Amare, Marion), a wing capable of 20 points, 6 rebounds and 6 assists any given game (JJ), a 3-point champion (Richardson), a great veteran off the bench (Jackson) and a quality big for defense and rebounding (Hunter).

This year's team has but two All-Stars (one fewer), a wing capable of 20-6-6 any given game, but because of injuries, has missed Barbosa for half the season, Jones, for roughly a third, Thomas for a third, Grant for two-thirds and while Bell has been a great addition, he doesn't equal Richardson and Jackson.

With everybody healthy, then yes, this team has more talent, but you can't just look at the names and say they are more talented when this year's team is missing a top-10 player and four or five quality role players for 20+ games throughout the year.




He won for all that and for the fact that his addition certainly helped the Suns get off to the great start. Maybe he wasn't the only reason, but who is? Shaq had Wade. Duncan had Ginobili and Parker. After Duncan and Shaq, the MVP race wasn't very close. Maybe James, but his team missed the playoffs. Iverson, close to the same as James.

While several reason contributed to the 2003-04 season's record, that team still had Johnson, Marion and Amare for 50 games. In them they were well below .500. With Nash, they exploded. You can't just write that off as coincidense. You can't. His style of play perfectly complimented them and maximized those skills to the extent that they weren't just talents any longer, but great players. Take him off and that same core was 2-6.

Nash was largely responsible for the Suns style of play, which aided certain Suns to career years, which directly led to the Suns fast start. Take Nash out of that equation and it doesn't matter the names. Not only did they go 2-6 last season, but the PPG dropped from 110 with Nash, to 85 without.

Are you still arguing that Nash wasn't largely responsible? Please.... if you do, it's just plain bone-headed ignorance or bias. Without Nash, that team was mediocre in every facet of the game. With him, they advanced to the Western Conference Finals.

So now to be an MVP you must pass some "All-time great" type of litmus test? That's so freakin' rediculous you should be laughed out of this thread.

Maybe Nash's career wasn't in their league, but the award isn't for career. It's for that one season. If having the best year of your career while being the guiding force on a Western Conference Championship team isn't good enough to qualify, then Robinson sure as better hand his over. Same with Garnett. And you could even argue that if the litmus test is All-Time greats who've led their teams to les, then goodbye Barkley, goodbye Malone, good bye Iverson.



The bolded line belongs nowhere near an MVP debate as the award is a regular season acknowledgement. They have a Finals MVP to recognize the most valuable champion. So shut the eff up already.

Nash is averaging 20 points, 11 assists on great shooting while guiding an undersized team to a top-4 record in the League. No one can stop him from doing so. You make him a scorer, he beats you (see Mavs series). You make him pass, he beats you (see everything else). If that's not domination, then you have a warped sense of the word.

As for comparing Nash to those names above, no one is. None but you, anyways. Are you going to say that San Antonio maybe doesn't deserve their three les because they weren't won as dominantly as the Lakers three? , the Lakers swept the Nets, the Spurs merely beat them in six. That since the Spurs didn't dominate, they aren't worthy to be called Champions because they don't measure up to what's been done int he past?

Seriously. Are you so blinded by your bias that you can't see how absurd that is?

That was an example... the following is literally what you are arguing, only the names have been changed.

That Duncan isn't as dominant as Shaq, but Shaq only has one MVP award while Duncan has two?

Really... is this what you are trying to use to devalue Nash's seasons?

Enough already.

[JMarkJohns]

So I am preening? Yet you're the one who only reads his own posts!



Keep 'em coming.

Mr. "The NBA lays out the rules for the MVP": a statement which you could not support in any way.

I really don't have a problem with you calling me names every time you touch the keyboard, so feel free. But you seem kind of worked up over it all. Remember, this is entertainment!

As far as you not being a Nash supporter, and aren't we defensive about being called so, you wrote about 4,000 words on his behalf. Please forgive me for misjudging your actions.

What exactly did you above post prove?

That I like Nash? Of course I do, he's a Sun.
That I think Nash is the catalyst for their offense? Of course, since a Nash-led offense has now lead the League in scoring for five straight years.
That I think Nash is the most important person to the team? Of course, which is why I am so critical of him in game posts, because he is their most important player and when he does well, so do they.

The only thing you've proved is my own arguments.

1. by attacking me as a poster, you've allowed me to drudge up posts that illustrate my unbias as a poster. I'm not limited to "He's a Sun, so I like him without ciriticism" or "He's not a Sun, so I dislike him with much criticism"
2. by attacking my posts, you've actually become the device for my line of thought to be passed through. Had you left my thoughts alone, I'd have only posted once, but because I and my posts were attacked, the message got out to more people, more times.
3. in all this, you've shown that a. You loathe Nash and b. you loathe anyone who opposes your right to loathe Nash.

You've done nothing but say that Nash isn't among the NBA's elite. I've done nothing but agree. You then claim that because of this, he doesn't deserve an honor for the 05-06 regular season. I say that's absurd and a very limited and warped way to judge for the honor. You take offense, single me out, label me a homer, a tool and then claim that I ran from this thread.

Ok....

When in reality, I'm not a homer, may be a tool, but certainly am not afraid of criticizing Nash, as shown in my above quotes.

Yes, you are a preening jackass.

I can live with the fact that I can come off as condescending. I can and I can see why you would feel such. I'm not one who's going to give up on a line of thought until proven wrong. So far, I've not been proven wrong and that, coupled with Kobe's inability to put the nail in the "Nash is overrated and this Lakers series will prove it" speak has gotten your goat.

Now all you do is call me out.

In my first post here I didn't reference or quote you. I didn't single you out. I merely said something that I'd said in quite a few of the other "I hate Nash" "Nash is white, so he's not worthy" "Nash is an undeserving bum" threads.

Forgive me for not posting in all of them. If it makes you feel any better, I don't post in every game thread either. Only the ones where I've got something to add.

I guess it's time to agree to disagree, extend the proverbial handshake and go to our separate corners.

I'm not going to back down from my points and I've proven that I'm unlike your inferences or claims of me.

I may be a tool sometimes, but that's about all you got on me.

Besides, stick and stone and

Hope to do it again next year... 'cause that'll mean Nash has had another great season which should lend to some great success for Phoenix.

If you'd like to get the las word, please... just quote the following.


Last word!

[RonMexico]

it's amazing how on every board on the internet, compelling arguement for why nash winning mvp is being made be residents of phoenix. last i checked, your metro area is pretty small, you have an amazing amount of rep on the internet.

Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the nation by population (top 4: Houston, LA, Chicago, NYC) and I believe 2nd or 3rd in terms of land area (I believe Houston and LA are the top 2)... Last I checked, your metro area was not on those lists (based on the latest census data), is chock full of petty thieves, and the site of numerous riots since Tigers World Series victory in the 70s (not to mention the worst brawl in NBA history)... Ironic that Chauncey seems to get so much support from the Great Lakes area too and people like to bring up 2 head-to-head matchups between Billups and Nash this season as prime examples of why he should be MVP... I thought this award concerned the whole season, not just two games where Chauncey could use his size as an advantage over Nash, but it was definitely the "intangibles" of team defense that kept Nash in check - not Billups one-on-one against him.

God, you're such a jackass and probably the dumbest person I've ever seen post on the internet besides TPark.

[RonMexico]

You are one the most vocal of Nash's supporters on this board.

You ignored this thread until after the Suns barely escape the Lakers, and then swoop in on it (oh, suddenly we notice it) with heaping of "as I maintained all along".

Bull .

What I add to this board? Who cares? I post here for fun.

I think all 3 of the players you mentioned are just as good as candidates, if not better, than Nash.

Lebron led his team to 4 less victories than Steve Nash, with much better individual statistics, and much less talent around him. Yeah, he got trounced by the Pistons in game 1. But the Suns would get swept as well, so it isn't that strong of an argument.

Kobe also had a great individual season, better than Nash's, and was able to lead his team to a playoffs with MUCH MUCH less talent than that on the Suns.

Duncan is the best player on his team. His efficiency is a fraction less than Steve Nash's, even though he wasn't playing at 100% all season. Still he led his team to 63 wins, 9 more than the Suns and 1 more win than the Spurs franchise record. Take him off the Spurs this past season and they aren't even in the playoffs.

But what makes me really enjoy your post is your analysis of me. Since I am so preening, a word you enjoy hearing yourself say (how preening), it gives me no greater pleasure than to see you get so flustered over little ol' me.

It is not my job to single you out, but some things you are willing to do for free.

Have a nice day.

Nash is rarely at 100% for the whole season, much less the playoffs and the Spurs have the deepest bench in the league according to many NBA analysts so your comments about Duncan are irrelevant... LeBron also led his team to 4 less victories than the Suns in the much easier and frankly, piss-poor Eastern Conference... Nash's teammates make him better and he makes them all better (which is why the argument that he has a better team around him than Kobe makes no sense because none of those 7 Suns that scored career highs this year would have had breakout or successful seasons if they played around Kobe).

[Darrin]

Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the nation by population (top 4: Houston, LA, Chicago, NYC) and I believe 2nd or 3rd in terms of land area (I believe Houston and LA are the top 2)... Last I checked, your metro area was not on those lists (based on the latest census data), is chock full of petty thieves, and the site of numerous riots since Tigers World Series victory in the 70s (not to mention the worst brawl in NBA history)... Ironic that Chauncey seems to get so much support from the Great Lakes area too and people like to bring up 2 head-to-head matchups between Billups and Nash this season as prime examples of why he should be MVP... I thought this award concerned the whole season, not just two games where Chauncey could use his size as an advantage over Nash, but it was definitely the "intangibles" of team defense that kept Nash in check - not Billups one-on-one against him.

God, you're such a jackass and probably the dumbest person I've ever seen post on the internet besides TPark.

In argument 6,856,945, against Nash getting this award, I brought up the head to head matchup. Physical gifts don't mean a player is disqualifed from the MVP race, or maybe Steve Nash should wear "corrective" goggles so he doesn't have an unfair advantage at seeing the floor.

The argument for Billups is that he was on a 64-win team. He had a better assist-to-turnover ratio than Steve Nash. He had a better 3-point shot than Steve Nash. He scored as many points as Nash did, and passed on a similar, more efficent plane.

The argument isn't that Chauncey Billups deserved to be the MVP, the argument is that if Steve Nash's criteria is applied to everyone else around the league, Billups deserves the award over Nash. I don't see Nash being punished for having Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson Quentin Richardson, and Shawn Marion in his starting lineup last season. Why should the Pistons get punished for having Ben and Rasheed Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, and Rip Hamilton? All those guys were there last season and they won 54 games. Only Billups made a significant jump in his numbers, and they improve by 10 wins.

The arguments for Steve Nash for MVP are so flimsy that if applied to any other candidate, they win over him immesurably. Preseason predictions are not a reason to give someone the MVP. I didn't see Jerry Stackhouse winning the MVP when the Pistons improved by 18 wins from 2001 (32) to 2002 (50) and the fortune-tellers said they would be lucky to win 15 games. Nor should he.

Jason Kidd didn't get an MVP for taking the Nets from 26 wins to a franchise-record 52.

This isn't the Chauncey Billups for MVP campaign. This is "applying the logic used for Steve Nash getting the award to the other candidates..."

As for your cheap shots at Detroit: get some new material. You brought up an incident that happened when I was 8 months old. Believe me when I tell you we have had a chance to celebrate since then, and there have been no incidents.

[RonMexico]

In argument 6,856,945, against Nash getting this award, I brought up the head to head matchup. Physical gifts don't mean a player is disqualifed from the MVP race, or maybe Steve Nash should wear "corrective" goggles so he doesn't have an unfair advantage at seeing the floor.

The argument for Billups is that he was on a 64-win team. He had a better assist-to-turnover ratio than Steve Nash. He had a better 3-point shot than Steve Nash. He scored as many points as Nash did, and passed on a similar, more efficent plane.

The argument isn't that Chauncey Billups deserved to be the MVP, the argument is that if Steve Nash's criteria is applied to everyone else around the league, Billups deserves the award over Nash. I don't see Nash being punished for having Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson Quentin Richardson, and Shawn Marion in his starting lineup last season. Why should the Pistons get punished for having Ben and Rasheed Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, and Rip Hamilton? All those guys were there last season and they won 54 games. Only Billups made a significant jump in his numbers, and they improve by 10 wins.

The arguments for Steve Nash for MVP are so flimsy that if applied to any other candidate, they win over him immesurably. Preseason predictions are not a reason to give someone the MVP. I didn't see Jerry Stackhouse winning the MVP when the Pistons improved by 18 wins from 2001 (32) to 2002 (50) and the fortune-tellers said they would be lucky to win 15 games. Nor should he.

Jason Kidd didn't get an MVP for taking the Nets from 26 wins to a franchise-record 52.

This isn't the Chauncey Billups for MVP campaign. This is "applying the logic used for Steve Nash getting the award to the other candidates..."

As for your cheap shots at Detroit: get some new material. You brought up an incident that happened when I was 8 months old. Believe me when I tell you we have had a chance to celebrate since then, and there have been no incidents.

My cheap shots? I was just responding to your boy Mike who seems to know nothing about demographics oustide the Auburn Hills area (and the closest thing Phoenix has had to a riot was the recent 'million illegal march' and I do recall some form of rioting after the MSU tourney championship in 2000... although I guess you're going to say that was in Lansing).

Again, no one is discrediting Chauncey for bumping his stats up and leading the Pistons to 10 more wins than the Suns. However, you say your argument is that "by applying the same logic used for Steve Nash..." Let's try to dig a little deeper... You reference Jason Kidd when he lost that extremely tight MVP race to Tim Duncan and further explain that he took the Nets from 26 wins the previous year to 52 in the next. Many people complained that Tim Duncan won the back-to-back MVP that year by doing pretty much the same thing that he did in the previous season and that Kidd deserved it for what he did in turning around the Nets. Well, Nash took the 04-05 Suns (last season) from 29 wins the previous season to an NBA-best (not just franchise-best) 62 wins in his first season with the team. I guess one could assume that the MVP voters remembered a little bit of the criticism from Kidd/Duncan race and Nash narrowly edged out Shaq last season for MVP. Considering that both races were tight and that people around the league enjoyed the Suns throwback to the exciting "Showtime" days of basketball, I feel that's a logical possibility.

Therefore, it wasn't that Nash was the beneficiary of having a good starting line-up (and practically no bench) around him that led to some amazing statistical year (15 ppg and 11 apg is in no way "staggering") and a 62-game season; it was because he was the newest member on a team that was relatively unchanged (except for Richardson, who I guess one could argue that he took over Penny Hardaway's spot) and that team had the 2nd best turnaround in NBA history (2nd only to the Spurs during former MVP Tim Duncan's rookie season... should we discount that because he had David Robinson next to him?) Likewise, it was Mike D'Antoni's first full season at the reigns and his up-tempo offensive style could be employed from the get-go, not at mid-season when he replaced Frank Johnson.

Fast forward to this season - in "applying the same logic..." Nash's bread and butter (Amare Stoudemire) is out for the entire season, so that makes Shawn Marion the only hold-over from the previous year in the starting line-up. Not to mention, the entire roster was revamped and a whole new group of guys was brought in to run with Nash. What did little Stevie do? He improved his ppg from 15 to 19, and he only lost 1 apg (11.5 to 10.5), while becoming only the 3rd player in NBA history to shoot 50% from the field, 40% from 3pt and 90% from the free throw line (as a 6'3" point guard, as well). He also helped the team weather early season frustrations (starting 3-5 - with close losses to Dallas and Detroit) and chemistry issues to lead them to a 54-win season, which would have been the 2nd best record in the Eastern Conference (I'm not even going to mention the well-known fact that the West is generally stronger than the East, so I wonder what the Suns' record would have been if they were in the Atlantic Division...).

Let's continue to "apply the same logic" and move on to Chauncey. Like I said, he does have better numbers in some areas than Nash and is a wonderful clutch performer (assist-to-turnover is most important because I think Nash does turn the ball over a little too much, but he does have more of a flair for the dramatic, I suppose). However, he has the same team around him that he had when they WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP in 2003 and got to the Finals last season! He has played with the same group of guys during extremely successful times and since they are all very talented, the chemistry and teamwork are almost to peak levels. The only difference is that this season, Chauncey benefitted from a coaching change that employed Flip Saunders's offensive prowess and desire to have a more free-flowing offensive game. Those years with Larry Brown honed the defensive skills of this team and made them a very tough team in that regard. However, Brown was much more constricting on the overall flow of the game and on his players, especially on the offensive end. Chauncey himself admitted early in the season that the change in style rejuvenated the whole team and made basketball fun for them.

So you see, it's difficult to apply any kind of similar logic, as you claim, because Nash has the advantage of winning the MVP last year and his performance this year has been even more impressive, so there are few reasons for the voters not to give it to him this year. Last year, Nash had the advantage of a new coach who emphasized offense and a fast-paced open-style of play... Chauncey received the same benefit this year. However, Nash accomplished these tasks with practically 2 separate groups of teammates in consecutive years and Chauncey just got to go out there and have fun with guys he's played with for a few successful seasons now. I'm not discrediting either player's performance, but I think that similar to the Olympics, Nash's "degree of difficulty" to perform in each season was higher and I'm sure that was a factor they considered in MVP voting (oh, btw, did you see how much he slaughtered the rest of the compe ion?).

[Darrin]

You make a compelling argument for the greatness of Steve Nash. And when talking about Nash, please do not confuse how I feel about him - he's a good player. But he is not the league's best player. He is, in fact, the Most Valuable Player of the Phoenix Suns. Those things do not go hand-in-hand.

The League's MVP does not mean "Offensive Player of the Year." It's not a consolation prize for players who don't have a chance at an NBA Championship. It means, who is head-and-shoulders above everyone else? If you had to transplant a player to another era, who could be the ambassador from the 2005-06 season? For me, that is not Steve Nash - it's Kobe Bryant. It can be Lebron James, Dirk Nowitzki, and then maybe Steve Nash.

I have respect for what he does off the playing surface, but again, we have awards for that - all interview team, Sportsmanship Award, Community Assist, etc. He's a great ambassador for this game but that is not what the Most Valuable Player award is about.

His game is not well-rounded. He is not doing anything that is unprecedented. There's no argument for him over Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Dirk Nowitizki that doesn't involve winning the award last season, preseason expectations for his team, and Mike D'Antoni's system.

What bothers me the most is that this can happen again. We've opened up the floodgates, in my opinion, for the voters to pick whoever the they like to watch and think is a nice guy, as long as they are the team's MVP.

The NBA's regular season awards took a lot of hit in credibility with me this season. Not because I feel burned that someone got robbed - I thought at the time KG got robbed for MVP in 2002-03, Charles Barkley is a common pick for "robbed" and his 1988-89 season. But the NBA picked perhaps the 8th player on my list. I didn't even bother to respond to posts and pre-game chatter about him winning another MVP. I thought it was a polite nod in his direction to let people know he had a damn good season. That's how far off my radar he was. I didn't hear people speak about him like he's the best player in the game. I heard "wide-open race."

[1Parker1]

You make a compelling argument for the greatness of Steve Nash. And when talking about Nash, please do not confuse how I feel about him - he's a good player. But he is not the league's best player. He is, in fact, the Most Valuable Player of the Phoenix Suns. Those things do not go hand-in-hand.

The League's MVP does not mean "Offensive Player of the Year." It's not a consolation prize for players who don't have a chance at an NBA Championship. It means, who is head-and-shoulders above everyone else? If you had to transplant a player to another era, who could be the ambassador from the 2005-06 season? For me, that is not Steve Nash - it's Kobe Bryant. It can be Lebron James, Dirk Nowitzki, and then maybe Steve Nash.

I have respect for what he does off the playing surface, but again, we have awards for that - all interview team, Sportsmanship Award, Community Assist, etc. He's a great ambassador for this game but that is not what the Most Valuable Player award is about.

His game is not well-rounded. He is not doing anything that is unprecedented. There's no argument for him over Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Dirk Nowitizki that doesn't involve winning the award last season, preseason expectations for his team, and Mike D'Antoni's system.

What bothers me the most is that this can happen again. We've opened up the floodgates, in my opinion, for the voters to pick whoever the they like to watch and think is a nice guy, as long as they are the team's MVP.

The NBA's regular season awards took a lot of hit in credibility with me this season. Not because I feel burned that someone got robbed - I thought at the time KG got robbed for MVP in 2002-03, Charles Barkley is a common pick for "robbed" and his 1988-89 season. But the NBA picked perhaps the 8th player on my list. I didn't even bother to respond to posts and pre-game chatter about him winning another MVP. I thought it was a polite nod in his direction to let people know he had a damn good season. That's how far off my radar he was. I didn't hear people speak about him like he's the best player in the game. I heard "wide-open race."

100% true.

[MikeSchafer]

I'm might get some sh*t for this and start controvery, but he probably won it because he's white.

[Darrin]

I'm might get some sh*t for this and start controvery, but he probably won it because he's white.

I'm sure that his race did play into it. Let's also remember that in the global NBA, he's Canadian. He's the first player not born in US territory to ever win the MVP.

I see Steve Nash as a marketer's dream. He's clean-cut (grooming aside), he's white, he has broad appeal across the world. But I see him as the white Allen Iverson - incredibly overhyped to appeal to a certain section of NBA fans.

Was that the deciding factor or the only reason Steve Nash was considered? Absolutely not. But we would have to be deaf, dumb, and stupid to not realize that he's the first caucasian winner of this award since Larry Bird.

[jochhejaam]

I'm might get some sh*t for this and start controvery, but he probably won it because he's white.

He might have got some votes from those who like Larry Bird believe the NBA needs a white superstar.
It hurt Lebron because I think some believe he's too young and needs to pay his dues. If he had been in the league for a few more years he probably would have won it.
Kobe lost votes because he has an overall image problem.
Dirk lost votes to the "other white guy".
Chauncey had a great year but not enough to propel him past the other great players in the league.

No clear cut winner made it a tough year for the voters.

[RonMexico]

He might have got some votes from those who like Larry Bird believe the NBA needs a white superstar.
It hurt Lebron because I think some believe he's too young and needs to pay his dues. If he had been in the league for a few more years he probably would have won it.
Kobe lost votes because he has an overall image problem.
Dirk lost votes to the "other white guy".
Chauncey had a great year but not enough to propel him past the other great players in the league.

No clear cut winner made it a tough year for the voters.

Good point. Voters probably sat there and looked at the list thinking, "man, this is a really tough decision - let's just go with the guy from last year." I could see that happening, and that is also why I think players like Chauncey didn't get more votes, because there wasn't enough to distinguish them from the rest of the compe ion (much less the former MVP that had a better statistical year than when he won it a season ago).

[747]

I would be more inclined to listen to those of you who say that Nash really isnt an MVP if it was only the writers who voted him as the MVP.

However, according to NBA.com, the leagues GM's voted Nash MVP in a GM survey after the season.

Plus, The Sporting News, who sends ballots to NBA teams to have their coach, GM, assistant GM and player personel directors vote on the MVP had Nash as the co-winner alongside Lebron.

So we have writers, coaches, GM's plus others (in the know) all in agreement that Nash is the 05-06 NBA MVP. I say he deserves the trophy, again.