O'Neal Calls Nash's MVPs 'Tainted'

[resistanze]

Robinson's rookie season, the Spurs had a 35-game improvement, Duncan's rookie season (with DRob returning from injury), the Spurs had a 36-game improvement.
Neither Robinson nor Duncan won the MVPs in those years.
There is nothing wrong with people who does not agree with Nash being the MVP that year, some may point to Shaq, others to Duncan.
I also do not believe a player like Duncan should be penalized by being consistently excellent with the same team, and does not create dramatic turnarounds.
But after all this talk, I believe Nash should have won the MVP in 2005 due to the weak crop of MVP candidates that year. In 2006, I believe it should have been somebody else, such as LeBron James.

I agree with your overall point. I didn't have too much of a problem with Nash winning it in 2005, but the reasons they gave in 2006 were so absurd. How can Amare's absence be a strong enough reason to negate the fact that they lost 8 more games and a kid that averaged 31/7/7 on a 50 win team? After all, it was Nash, not Amare, who was the MVP the previous year.

He's the MVP when he's playing.
He's the MVP when he's not playing.
He's the MVP when someone else isn't playing.
He's the MVP when they win more games than before.
He's the MVP when they lose more games, but less than someone expected.

WTF? Even as a Canadian I grew tried of the bandwagon.

[Leetonidas]

Oh, well where's Tim Duncan's MVP for his rookie year? The Spurs went from 20-62 to 56-26, an improvement of 36 wins. If you don't have to take into account a mid season coaching change or decimating team injuries, I don't either. The Suns were as much a 30 win team as the Spurs were a 20 win team. The Spurs also didn't trade away their best player (and only decent point guard) in the middle of the 20-win campaign.

How about the fact that the Mavericks improved by six games the first season without Nash even in a tougher division? Since you can put forth bull disguised as evidence can I do it, too?

Rookies very rarely win MVPs, like someone said, and only Wilt did it. But also in 1997, not only did the Spurs get Duncan, but Robinson came back from injury, so it's not like the Spurs gained only one player and won 30+ more games. Nash took a team that didn't appear to be going anywhere and put them at the top of the West, a tough West nonetheless. The Suns have always been a good team, it's just their coach was dumb and did not understand the system to put them in and Marbury could not run the system they needed. D'Antoni knew the system to put them in and got them the best player for it, and this is why he was the MVP.

Personally I think the Heat would've won the same amount of games or a few less with Caron and Lamar still on the team, along with the emergence of Wade. Shaq did in no way deserve the MVP that year. However, I don't think Nash deserved the MVP last year. Yes, Amare went down, but they got Bell, Thomas, Diaw, etc, to back him up.

[RonMexico]

Rookies very rarely win MVPs, like someone said, and only Wilt did it. But also in 1997, not only did the Spurs get Duncan, but Robinson came back from injury, so it's not like the Spurs gained only one player and won 30+ more games. Nash took a team that didn't appear to be going anywhere and put them at the top of the West, a tough West nonetheless. The Suns have always been a good team, it's just their coach was dumb and did not understand the system to put them in and Marbury could not run the system they needed. D'Antoni knew the system to put them in and got them the best player for it, and this is why he was the MVP.

Personally I think the Heat would've won the same amount of games or a few less with Caron and Lamar still on the team, along with the emergence of Wade. Shaq did in no way deserve the MVP that year. However, I don't think Nash deserved the MVP last year. Yes, Amare went down, but they got Bell, Thomas, Diaw, etc, to back him up.

That's a pretty good point. The 2006 MVP was a shock for me, but to say I wasn't happy would be a lie.

[ambchang]

Rookies very rarely win MVPs, like someone said, and only Wilt did it.

I believe Wes Unseld also won MVP as a rookie, based on the exact reason why they selected Nash.
The Bullets (back then, inner-city crime wasn't as sensitive a subject as of today, in fact, back then, the supernatural subjects were more sensitive a subject than inner-city crime) won more games than people expect, and the "only" significant change was Wes Unseld, and the list of MVP-candidates was relatively weak (OK, Wilt and Russell were still around, but it was weak compared to other years), thus MVP for Unseld.

But also in 1997, not only did the Spurs get Duncan, but Robinson came back from injury, so it's not like the Spurs gained only one player and won 30+ more games. Nash took a team that didn't appear to be going anywhere and put them at the top of the West, a tough West nonetheless. The Suns have always been a good team, it's just their coach was dumb and did not understand the system to put them in and Marbury could not run the system they needed. D'Antoni knew the system to put them in and got them the best player for it, and this is why he was the MVP.

But then why did Robinson not win one in his rookie season? Or Kidd with the Nets? Nash replaced Marbury, who himself is worth probably 20 losses a season by himself, it is a case where the coach fits the players in the right system to produce wins, and the coach was awarded for it (CoY). Again, I thought Nash was the best MVP candidate that year, but strictly because it was a weak year.
So in other words, Nash probably won the MVP in 2005 due to a weak class, and last year was very arguable.

Personally I think the Heat would've won the same amount of games or a few less with Caron and Lamar still on the team, along with the emergence of Wade. Shaq did in no way deserve the MVP that year. However, I don't think Nash deserved the MVP last year. Yes, Amare went down, but they got Bell, Thomas, Diaw, etc, to back him up.

This we agree.

[AZLouis]

. However, I don't think Nash deserved the MVP last year. Yes, Amare went down, but they got Bell, Thomas, Diaw, etc, to back him up.

Valiant points except KT missed half or more of the season, Barbosa missed 20+, and James Jones missed a handful.

[ShoogarBear]

I agree with your overall point. I didn't have too much of a problem with Nash winning it in 2005, but the reasons they gave in 2006 were so absurd. How can Amare's absence be a strong enough reason to negate the fact that they lost 8 more games and a kid that averaged 31/7/7 on a 50 win team? After all, it was Nash, not Amare, who was the MVP the previous year.

He's the MVP when he's playing.
He's the MVP when he's not playing.
He's the MVP when someone else isn't playing.
He's the MVP when they win more games than before.
He's the MVP when they lose more games, but less than someone expected.

WTF? Even as a Canadian I grew tried of the bandwagon.

Basically, they will contstruct a series of convoluted arguments which can be used to prove that Steve Nash is the MVP every year no matter what.

[Obstructed_View]

not only did the Spurs get Duncan, but Robinson came back from injury, so it's not like the Spurs gained only one player and won 30+ more games.

The Suns got Amare back from injury the previous year, they also got Joe Johnson moved to his natural position and signed Q Richardson and Jimmy Jackson. Implying that the Suns only gained one player and won 30+ more games is just as ridiculous. The only difference is that the experts weren't stupid enough to predict that the 1998 Spurs would finish at the bottom of their division.

Nash

...and Q Rich and Amare and Jim Jackson, all healthy for the entire season with the coaching staff intact for the entire season and making no mid-season trades of all their players, nor having to shuffle personnel in and out to fill the roster...

took a team that didn't appear to be going anywhere

...by the very experts that were surprised enough by their emergence to give all the credit to the only true point guard on the roster...

and put them at the top of the West, a tough West nonetheless.

By two games in the regular season, before being blown out in the playoffs.

The Suns have always been a good team, it's just their coach was dumb and did not understand the system to put them in and Marbury could not run the system they needed. D'Antoni knew the system to put them in and got them the best player for it, and this is why he was the MVP.

That's a moving case for D'Antoni to be MVP, but he was named coach of the year. If he did such a great job, doesn't that mean there were a half dozen point guards that could run his system just as well as Nash? Phoenix overpaid for Nash because they desperately needed a good point guard to run D'Antoni's system, and if they couldn't get Nash they had the likes of Rafer Alston, Charlie Ward or Derek Fisher to choose from. The proof of their desperation is the ineptness of the system when Nash is out. It only makes him valuable from the standpoint that the Suns don't have a backup capable of running the system. In no way does it suggest that any upper-eschelon point guard couldn't have run it. If you recall it was Marbury's DUI and jail sentence that was the reason he was traded to New York the previous season; D'Antoni's system had nothing to do with it.

Personally I think the Heat would've won the same amount of games or a few less with Caron and Lamar still on the team, along with the emergence of Wade.

So the Heat would have just magically won 17 more games than they had the previous season even with the exact same roster? Why would you give so much credit to Wade's assumed development but almost zero to the development of players like Amare Stoudamire, Joe Johnson, Quentin Richardson and Leandro Barbosa?

Shaq did in no way deserve the MVP that year.

So it has nothing to do with numbers, defense, or team improvement? I guess it's the player with the gaudiest stats on the team with the best regular season record. If that's your belief then of course neither did Duncan, who was in the running. Nor I suppose would Duncan be deserving of the 2002 MVP because the Kings won more games or the 2003 MVP because Dirk averaged more points.

I guss Dirk should have been runner up for the 2005 MVP for leading a team to 58 wins a year after losing the greatest point guard in the history of the game.

[JMarkJohns]

I still maintain that Shaq deserved the MVP in 2005, for many of the reasons already mentioned by Obstructed View, but that Nash clearly deserved the award in 2006, though he wasn't the only deserving player.

I think last and this year Nash deserves it. However, I think because he's already won his back-to-back, that there's almost no chance he wins a third this year. It'll go to Dirk, no question in my mind.