The Most Undeserving Reg. Season MVP of this Decade?

[truethat23]

Who do you all think is the most undeserving regular season MVP of this decade? 2000-2009.

Shaquille O'Neal, 1999-2000
Allen Iverson, 2000-2001
Tim Duncan, 2001-2002, 2002-2003
Kevin Garnett, 2003-2004
Steve Nash, 2004-2005, 2005-2006
Dirk Nowintzki, 2006-2007
Kobe Bryant, 2007-2008
Lebron James, 2008-2009


For me I have to go with Dirk Nowintzki. This guy didn't even get his team out of the first round of the playoffs that year. They got beat by Golden State. If you are MVP of the league in the regular season, it has to at least carry over into the post season to a certain extent. If you are MVP, you at least have to take you team to the conference finals.

What do you all think? Who was the most underserving?

[GMW]

Has to be Nash for me.

[EvinWizzle]

steve nash first mvp

[The Magic Man]

Nash 05/06. There really is no comparison when it comes to :wtf: awards.

[The Magic Man]

Check the times of the last 3 posts. Lol, great.

[VCMVP1551]

That's tough. It's between Iverson and Nash. Shaq was the clear MVP in 2001 and 2005 while I would have given it to Dirk or Lebron in 2006.

[Fatal9]

Allen Iverson over Shaq in '01 was the most undeserving...

[Bush4Ever]

Under the general methods and rules for selecting an MVP, all of the choices are somewhat legit.

MVP does not equal best player. That isn't the purpose of the award.

But to answer your question, Iverson's was probably the most undeserving, given his team padded their record against the absolutely pathetic East that year. Against the West, the 76ers won at a 47 win pace. Against the East? 60 win pace.

Duncan could have won in 2001, and if not him Shaq should have won. In fact, Shaq should have been the favorite most likely. But Iverson was a clear third place in my eyes.

22/12/2.3 blocks/All-NBA defense for a 58 win team IN THE WEST (Tim)
29/13/2.8 blocks/All-NBA defense for a 56 win team IN THE WEST (Shaq)

Iverson's team won 56 games in the EAST, and Iverson irrefutably had a worse individual season in my eyes than both of them.

[depletedW]

Who do you all think is the most undeserving regular season MVP of this decade? 2000-2009.

Shaquille O'Neal, 1999-2000
Allen Iverson, 2000-2001
Tim Duncan, 2001-2002, 2002-2003
Kevin Garnett, 2003-2004
Steve Nash, 2004-2005, 2005-2006
Dirk Nowintzki, 2006-2007
Kobe Bryant, 2007-2008
Lebron James, 2008-2009


For me I have to go with Dirk Nowintzki. This guy didn't even get his team out of the first round of the playoffs that year. They got beat by Golden State. If you are MVP of the league in the regular season, it has to at least carry over into the post season to a certain extent. If you are MVP, you at least have to take you team to the conference finals.

What do you all think? Who was the most underserving?
Dirk is an MVP player. Yes he had a bad series that year vs. a bad matchup in GS, but was also let down by his teammates. But he has evolved into such a force in this league, and has put this team on his back numerous times in the regular season as well as the playoffs throughout his career.

I would have to go with Nash. Two MVP's? Come on.

[truethat23]

Dirk is an MVP player. Yes he had a bad series that year vs. a bad matchup in GS, but was also let down by his teammates. But he has evolved into such a force in this league, and has put this team on his back numerous times in the regular season as well as the playoffs throughout his career.

I would have to go with Nash. Two MVP's? Come on.


I'd rather the NBA gave the MVP to Duncan a third time then to give it to Dirk that year. If you wanna talk about guys carrying their teams on their backs in the reg season, then I think Kobe or Lebron should of gotten it before Dirk. Not saying that Dirk isn't a great player, because he is, but I just don't think he was MVP material that year. I can live with Nash having two.

[crisoner]

Iverson was great in 01 but come on we all know Shaq SHOULD of had two which comes to my next point...STEVE NASH TWO MVP'S WTF?????

That just ruined the award for me.

For real it's a crime that Shaq did not have at least two.

Most deserving is Duncan's two.

[Meticode]

I don't know. Steve Nash or Allen Iverson to me.

[VCMVP1551]

I'd rather the NBA gave the MVP to Duncan a third time then to give it to Dirk that year. If you wanna talk about guys carrying their teams on their backs in the reg season, then I think Kobe or Lebron should of gotten it before Dirk. Not saying that Dirk isn't a great player, because he is, but I just don't think he was MVP material that year. I can live with Nash having two.

Dirk led Dallas to 67 wins in the West while averaging 25 and 9 along with a rare 50/40/90 shooting % line. He deserved it.

[KenneBell]

Nash.

[Bush4Ever]

D
I would have to go with Nash. Two MVP's? Come on.

MVP does not equal best player. The general criteria for the award is...

1. Being on a elite team by rank (usually within the top 3 spots)
2. Within those teams, whomever has the best statistical outputs

Bonus: If one goes to a team fresh, and that team experiences a turnaround in win total, it really helps (see KG in 2008, very modest statistics but was 3rd in the vote).

[crisoner]

Bonus: If one goes to a team fresh, and that team experiences a turnaround in win total, it really helps (see KG in 2008, very modest statistics but was 3rd in the vote).


A fresh team reloaded with three All Stars and sure first ballot Hall of Famers???
Not exactly the HUGE turnaround everybody thinks.

[WoGiTaLiA1]

Steve Nash by a long way and it happened twice. Nash is without a doubt the worst player to win an MVP in 30 years, at least. He is a guy who is not even a HOF level talent yet almost has to get in because of two bogus awards. I have seen at least 10 PGs that were better players than Steve Nash in my 15 or so years watching the game, that should really put in perspective how undeserving he was.

Iverson would be the next, not so much because he didn't deserve it or wasn't a good player but because Shaq deserved it so much more. Sort of like all those guys that won MVP's over Jordan.

[Bush4Ever]

A fresh team reloaded with three All Stars and sure first ballot Hall of Famers???
Not exactly the HUGE turnaround everybody thinks.

I'm just telling you how voters think and what the patterns are. It's probably why Nash won one of his.

The Celtics won a title because of their defense, and KG was the anchor of that defense. He had the best Roland Rating and the best defensive +/- (actually I think he had the best offensive one as well).

With that said, he averaged 19 points and 9 rebounds a game. He isn't that close to the MVP award in 2008, if the Celtics don't experience a huge turnaround in wins, a turnaround he was most influential in compared to any other individual player.

[indiefan23]

Who do you all think is the most undeserving regular season MVP of this decade? 2000-2009.

Shaquille O'Neal, 1999-2000
Allen Iverson, 2000-2001
Tim Duncan, 2001-2002, 2002-2003
Kevin Garnett, 2003-2004
Steve Nash, 2004-2005, 2005-2006
Dirk Nowintzki, 2006-2007
Kobe Bryant, 2007-2008
Lebron James, 2008-2009


For me I have to go with Dirk Nowintzki. This guy didn't even get his team out of the first round of the playoffs that year. They got beat by Golden State. If you are MVP of the league in the regular season, it has to at least carry over into the post season to a certain extent. If you are MVP, you at least have to take you team to the conference finals.

What do you all think? Who was the most underserving?

It can't be Dirk for losing in the playoffs. Its a regular season award. three things. 1. The Warriors were no normal 8'th place team. They went on a crazy winning streak and were the league's hottest team going into the playoffs. 2. They matched up with Dallas and had won all 4 regular season meetings just like Detroit matched up with Orlando well, but got creamed by the cavs, who Orlando beat. 3. The Warriors came within a few shots of beating Utah and playing in the conference finals. Dirk lost to a great team that matched up really well with them. Its not really his fault.

Anyway...

I think its got to be Kobe for winning only 12 more games after adding the franchise player from a 3 50 win team (with 0 stars) to the franchise player of another team, and winning a paltry 1 more game then Chris Paul (with 0 stars) in a conference that was absolutely at it's weakest it had been that decade. Pau could have won 57 games without Kobe if he had a guy like Odom on his team and role players instead of Kobe. It can't be stressed enough. Kobe's MVP was a lifetime achievement award at best, and a Chris Paul rip off at face value.

[truethat23]

I think the reason why Iverson got it over Shaq back in 2001 was because at the time, the Lakers were the most intimidating team in the NBA. Shaq had Kobe, a young Fisher, Horry, and Fox. Iverson just had a younger more mobile Mutumbo and he was still able to get his team to the best record in the East and also all the way to the NBA Finals. AI did what the Lakers did that season, but with less (as far as reaching the finals is concerned).Surprised so many people believe AI didn't deserve it. Shocking...

[truethat23]

I think its got to be Kobe for winning only 12 more games after adding the franchise player from a 3 50 win team (with 0 stars) to the franchise player of another team, and winning a paltry 1 more game then Chris Paul (with 0 stars) in a conference that was absolutely at it's weakest it had been that decade. Pau could have won 57 games without Kobe if he had a guy like Odom on his team and role players instead of Kobe. It can't be stressed enough. Kobe's MVP was a lifetime achievement award at best, and a Chris Paul rip off at face value.

Wow! Really...

[depletedW]

I'd rather the NBA gave the MVP to Duncan a third time then to give it to Dirk that year. If you wanna talk about guys carrying their teams on their backs in the reg season, then I think Kobe or Lebron should of gotten it before Dirk. Not saying that Dirk isn't a great player, because he is, but I just don't think he was MVP material that year. I can live with Nash having two.
The MVP award sometimes seems stupid to me, mainly because there is no set criteria for it. Does it go to the best player in the league? Does it go to the best player on the best team? Does it go to the player who means the most to his team? Then again, how can you measure a player's value to his team?

Regardless, it is a regular season award, and Dirk deserved it that season.

[MK2V1GP]

Tim Duncan's 02-03 MVP was crap. That award belonged to KG. It should've been KG who got back to back MVPs. I even remember when it was announced, even the "expert" analysts on ESPN said KG deserved it. He had the better year that year but somehow Duncan won it.

[indiefan23]

Steve Nash by a long way and it happened twice. Nash is without a doubt the worst player to win an MVP in 30 years, at least. He is a guy who is not even a HOF level talent yet almost has to get in because of two bogus awards. I have seen at least 10 PGs that were better players than Steve Nash in my 15 or so years watching the game, that should really put in perspective how undeserving he was.

Iverson would be the next, not so much because he didn't deserve it or wasn't a good player but because Shaq deserved it so much more. Sort of like all those guys that won MVP's over Jordan.

Heh, I've heard that one before. Nash is without a doubt the worst player in the last 30 years to win an MVP? Explain why he's put in the best playoff series since Michael Jordan then. Here's a post I wrote a while ago. I'll just leave it the way I wrote it so excuse some of the extraneous stuff about the guys argument regarding the mavs. Enjoy being wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikaiel
So let me get this right : You can evaluate his impact by looking at how his new team performed without him the previous year but it's not ok to look at how his old team did without him after he left ?

You're getting closer. Except I'm looking at his new team before he left and after they lost their best scorer and defender. But lets play by your rules and use pre-mvp Nash... lets do it.

You say Nash made them do worse. Except what happened was Cuban destroyed the team's chemistry by forcing stupid moves. Two years before Nash left the Mavs won 60 games and showed a real jump to the next level. They lost a tight west finals to the Spurs and Cuban got rid of Raja Bell, Abdul Wahad, Adrian Griffen, Lafrentz, and Nick Van Exel. Avery Johnson played that year too. Van Exel was a huge loss as was everyone else who were key contributors as well.

Cuban replaced them with career chucker Antoine Walker, and career chucker and reason Reggie Miller is not the only player to beat MJ in a prime series, ultra crap, fall in love with the contested pull up 3 Travis Best.

My hate list of players is as follows. Kobe Bryant. Karl Malone. Travis Best. Travis Best is why Reggie has no rings. I'll never be convinced otherwise.

Back on track. That core of solid players was replaced with three jackers 1 and 2, and the "I'm so bad I deserve a title in quotes between my first and last name" all stars. They would be:

Danny "I average 8.6 fouls per 36 mintues" Forston.
Shawn "I'm a walking corpse" Bradley.
35 year old Scott "yes, I'm that guy who backed up MJ on the first bulls championships and played no minutes" Williams
Tony "I've played for 9 teams" Delk
Antawn "I'm actually really good, but have no place on a team built like this" Jamison

Then there was Daniels and Howard who were raw rookies. Now that year the Mavs pushed the eventual champion Spurs harder then any team in the playoffs. The mavs turned a corner, it was obvious, but Cuban was patient. He blew up the team and put in crappy players. The mavs were tied for the best record in the league, the number 1 offense and the number 9 defense. After Cuban's moves they went to 6'th best record in the league and the 26'th defense because Cuban has no idea how to build a team. But whats that? You took away good offensive players? Oh my, the Mavs still had the number one offense in the league.

Why is that? Its because Cuban's team was carried by an MVP point guard just as he was peaking and lost him because he didn't know how to say thanks for saving my ass, I effed up. Instead he insulted him and implied that it was Nash's fault for losing. I mean, you do know that Mavs did better in their 3 previous seasons the the one when Nash left, right? 60, 57 and 53 wins.

Quote:
You said "Dirk improved, they got a new coach, bla bla bla", but you can do the exact same thing for Phoenix. Amare improved. Joe Johnson too.

Yes, thats why Nash proved he was no fluke the next year when both Amare AND Johnson were not there and Nash produced the same results.

Quote:
BTW, your MJ argument is stupid. The Bulls only lost 2 more games but they didn't even get to the Finals. But the Mavs without Nash actually got better both in the regular season and in the playoffs.

And I'm sure they wouldn't have so successful if they had kept Nash. Nash can't play basketball the right way. He would not have worked in Avery Johnson's system. He's only good when his team can play garbage basketball, the kind that gets you attention and exposure on Sportscenter, but that doesn't win sh!t.
[/quote]

Its not stupid. We are discussing a regular season award. Dallas was better in the playoffs?

Okay, let me just advise you before I start, you brought up the playoffs, not me, but since you've brought it up I'm going there.

You've just soundly lost this argument. Observe.

Nash promptly destroyed Dallas the year he got to PHX in the playoffs. It went like this:

Nash makes it look easy
14 dimes, win by 25.

Dirk pretends he can hang
13 dimes. 23 points. Pride win by Dallas by 2.

Back to Dallas
17 dimes. 27 points. 57% shooting. Fu@k you Cuban, I was your best player. Win by 18.

Don't fould jump shooters!
everyone got into foul trouble so Nash carried them with 48 god damned points on 71%/66% from 3 holy crap my god he's the best player on the planet and its not even close shooting and we let him go for nothing. Lost by 10.

Return home tied. Nash responds to pressure with triple double despite being 6'1" and under 200 lbs he gets 34 points, 12 dimes, 13 boards. 50% shooting. Win by 6.

"Stick a fork in my old team, they're done and I'm finished ripping their hearts out, in fact, I'm going to go into my house, because I have two stadiums fully in my ownership now, and rip out the hearts of my old team on my old floor, which is still my floor, and hold it in front of Mark Cuban beating letting him know everything he lost, so every Mavs fan in the building knows the one person responsible for why I'm doing this to you instead of for you with my best friend... game."

One board shy of a triple double. 39 points. 12 assists. 9 rebounds. 58% shooting. 62.5% from 3. Win by 4.

Entire series. Missed one free throw.

That's called taking over a series with out of this world MVP play. One other player has played like that in the last 20 years. His first name starts with Michael. His last name ends with Jordan. Third? Its not even close. Steve Nash played the best series in the NBA since Michael Jordan yet for some reason he's at the very bottom of everyone's MVP list when only him and Duncan have two.

The thing is, I know you know I'm right. There's nothing to argue about. He scored 48 points on 71% shooting when his team could not put it together. He ended the series on two triple doubles scoring 39 and 34 points in the building that rejected him. People claimed it was other player's so he did the exact same thing the next year without those players. The year after he got robbed of a third straight MVP when he unquestionably had the best team in basketball built more around him. It took 3 games worth of league/ref gifts and blatant cheating for San Antonio to squeak by them in 7 games to become the least deservering NBA champions since the Lakers had a series fixed for them.

I'm not sure if you're going to find some little crack to wriggle out of or just admit that you're stuck... because you are. That was an all time performance ranking among the very best of every series any player in this league has ever had. There's no other way to look at it because Nash played perfect basketball. Its a fact that can't be changed without falsifying stats. The only people with a comparable series are GOAT candidates.

The truly ironic thing about the MVPs is how guys like yourself are actually responsible for them. Nash took a team of malcontents who's careers had been poisoned by the selfish play of Stephon Marbury and showed them in almost 0 time what it meant to be part of something bigger then yourself. In doing so he created the most cohesive young team in history that flew in the face of their youth. It was unique and special.

But that's not ironic. A legion of Kobe fans (and some others) spearheaded this massive campaign against that special thing. Sports media was saturated with reasons Nash's MVP was a joke. I'm sure you were probably on the front lines of that charge too. It made such noise the main thrust became accepted as a fact. How was Nash the MVP when he wasn't even the best player on his team? Nash won MVP because players like Joe Johnson and Amare improved. Nash was the most disrespected MVP in history and it became accepted that his selection was a huge mistake.

Then the next season came. Kobe was obviously intending this year to be the one he won MVP as he set out to score 35.5 PPG. He put himself before his team as his assists dropped significantly. The season started and the ironic thing happened.

The hype created to discredit Nash's MVP lowered expectations after Johnson was traded for scraps and Amare was hurt. Those same haters jeered and claimed the suns would not even make the playoffs in the stacked west now. With a revamped team Nash took those replacement scrubs did a repeat performance. Seven other players had career years on one team and without 2 of their top 3 players.

If the reason Nash was so undeserving was Amare/Johnson and those players were gone yet the same elite team was fielded it was obvious then who was behind it. People who know basketball knew all along but everyone who had been fooled by the ruse stood up and took notice of something truly all time and unique happening in sports. An ego less mild mannered athlete silenced all his doubters by unequivocally proving them more wrong every game of the season.

In story book fashion Nash beat Kobe for MVP by using team play to make those around him instead of himself better. The high scoring average and conceutive games scoring 50 points were seen as the agenda driven attempts they were and Nash got his name into legitimate all time conversations by becoming the shortest (by far) and only the second point to win back to back MVPs.

The suns beat the Lakers and their complaining fans that someone had won MVP with teamwork instead of volume shooting and Phoenix got closer to the finals then they (or Nash) ever had pushing San Antonio more then any other team that year.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you can possibly pull out of your hat now. I think its done. Nash quietly became one of the best offensive players ever and unleashed it on the league on a perfect team for him in Phoenix. You can call it garbage ball but you're wrong. It pushed the best teams of the current era and had Sarver not been so cheap and kept Joe Johnson, didn't sell Rajon Rondo, not sold Kurt Thomas for cash, not traded for shaq or had traded Amare for KG Nash would be a champion now... not that it would make much of a difference to you.

Its okay. Steve Nash layed down the biggest f@ck you series performance since Michael Jordan vs the Detroit Pistons or Lakers on a great team 100% built around him as the focal point. I know its all time and MVP caliber work. Anyone who's honest about the game knows it too.

[ProfessorMurder]

Anyway...

I think its got to be Kobe for winning only 12 more games after adding the franchise player from a 3 50 win team (with 0 stars) to the franchise player of another team, and winning a paltry 1 more game then Chris Paul (with 0 stars) in a conference that was absolutely at it's weakest it had been that decade. Pau could have won 57 games without Kobe if he had a guy like Odom on his team and role players instead of Kobe. It can't be stressed enough. Kobe's MVP was a lifetime achievement award at best, and a Chris Paul rip off at face value.

I'm glad someone said it. I honestly don't believe Kobe deserved it last year. Although he deserved to win at least one in his career, this was more like 'you haven't won yet so here.'

Nash didn't deserve 2. 1? Sure. But not 2.

I do believe Iverson deserved his. Shaq was incredible, but Iverson and his 6ers were stomping ass. They were a great team that year. In addition, Mutombo was awesome as usual :no:

[indiefan23]

Tim Duncan's 02-03 MVP was crap. That award belonged to KG. It should've been KG who got back to back MVPs. I even remember when it was announced, even the "expert" analysts on ESPN said KG deserved it. He had the better year that year but somehow Duncan won it.

Yep, I totally remember that. Even though Duncan has a monster season too. I think what people don't realize is that MVP is a very politicized award. Its voted on by the press who are incredibly intimate with the league. A player can get an edge for MVP by the way he interacts with those in the media and the repore that is built with them. Then when there's a chance to give it to a darling, they will.

If you're an older player having a decent year vs a younger guy having a better year and the media loves you then the older guy wins every time. Its a 'thanks for the memories' award. Charles/Malone both won their's that way. I think KG intimidates people in the media. He's a polarizing guy and it probably affected his chances that year.

[VCMVP1551]

I think the reason why Iverson got it over Shaq back in 2001 was because at the time, the Lakers were the most intimidating team in the NBA. Shaq had Kobe, a young Fisher, Horry, and Fox. Iverson just had a younger more mobile Mutumbo and he was still able to get his team to the best record in the East and also all the way to the NBA Finals. AI did what the Lakers did that season, but with less (as far as reaching the finals is concerned).Surprised so many people believe AI didn't deserve it. Shocking...

Fisher missed 62 games and Horry and Fox were good role players, Iverson had a ton of those. Mutombo was the defensive player of the year who led the league in rebounding and finished 5th in blocks per game.

Kobe missed 14 games by the way and in the games that Kobe missed and Shaq played, The Lakers were 11-2. That included winning 4 out of a critical 8 game winning streak to end the season and get them a good seed plus momentum setting up their record 15-1 playoff run. The East was as weak as it's ever been and The West was as strong as it's ever been so the Lakers 56 wins are far more impressive than the 76ers.

Do I need to go on about why Shaq was the clear MVP?


Tim Duncan's 02-03 MVP was crap. That award belonged to KG. It should've been KG who got back to back MVPs. I even remember when it was announced, even the "expert" analysts on ESPN said KG deserved it. He had the better year that year but somehow Duncan won it.

Duncan won it because he led an average team to 60 wins(9 more than Garnett). Duncan also made a bigger impact because of his more dominant interior defense and his superior low post game.

[Bush4Ever]

I do believe Iverson deserved his. Shaq was incredible, but Iverson and his 6ers were stomping ass. They were a great team that year. In addition, Mutombo was awesome as usual :no:

On what basis did Iverson deserve it OVER Shaq? Or for that matter, Duncan?

Iverson played on a team in the EASIER conference (by a long shot, as the East was historically bad and the West historically good), and still won fewer games than Duncan and the same as Shaq.

Shaq and Duncan each had better stats, in spades. Duncan anchored the highest rated defense that year.

[shok]

It's a tough question. During the regular season, both Nash and Nowitzki in their respective years were playing extremely well.

Considering the question narrows it down to the "reg. season mvp", I'd say that faulting Nowitzki for not defeating GSW is not a fair assessment of him being undeserving of the regular season MVP.

I might have to say that Shaq was snubbed in '01--he was monstrous. But AI did his thing too.

Ok--I just debated with myself.

[Myth]

Nash was the worst MVP in my opinion, but Iverson over Shaq in 2001 was the worst MVP selection.

[Bush4Ever]

Duncan won it because he led an average team to 60 wins(9 more than Garnett). Duncan also made a bigger impact because of his more dominant interior defense and his superior low post game.

Agreed. KG would have been an okay choice, but Duncan was easily deserving of the award.

People need to keep in mind that the 2003 Spurs were absolutely not a talented team. Robinson was on his last legs, Manu was making the "foreign player to the NBA" transition, Parker was not the effective guard he would later become, Stephen Jackson being nothing more than a mediocre outside shooter,etc...

During the regular season, it was basically Duncan, a small bit of Tony Parker, and a bunch of role players (albeit tough ones like Malek Rose and David Robinson).

[GUUS]

Steve Nash, he's the reason Shaq only has 1 MVP, and btw Steve Nash has more MVPs than Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal, it is such a joke

[indiefan23]

Nash didn't deserve 2. 1? Sure. But not 2.


I somewhat agree. But on the other hand I thought he was the MVP his third year in PHX the year Dirk won it. He played better then his other two seasons.

Anyway, I do somewhat agree, but I don't see how you don't give the MVP to a guy who was the only change on a team that won 33 more games when the team obviously changed their whole game plan to function off his talents.

It gets really ironic though. The Kobe Faithfull were barking so loud when Nash won about how Kobe got ripped off "how can he be the MVP when he's not even the best player on his team?" was repeated continuously. Then Amare was out for the season and Joe Johnson was gone. So the Suns lost their best offensive AND defensive player. They replaced them with Atlanta's 11'th or 12 man, a 30 win team, and Tim Thomas who's been a garbage player his entire career. 7 players had career years and they won 54 games.

Nash had taken so much heat about the year before about how he had gotten an MVP on Amare's coat tails. NO ONE expected them to be elite when he got hurt. Nash proved everyone so unbelieveably wrong who slammed him I think they voted for him as a 'sorry we bashed you for a year, you're amazing'. In the playoffs they made the West finals and came within two games of the finals.

I dunno, if MVP goes to the player most important to a team winning, I'm not sure how Nash is not the MVP any of those years he won and I'm not sure how its not vindicated by makeing the west finals two years in a row. The second after replacing his best offensive and defensive players with role players.

I think the people who claim he was the worst MVP of the decade (there are many) or of the last 30 years just imagineer some totally different season from happening then what actually did.

[indiefan23]

Steve Nash, he's the reason Shaq only has 1 MVP, and btw Steve Nash has more MVPs than Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal, it is such a joke

I know, Barkley and Malone don't even deserve their MVPs, at all. Shaq does though.

[indiefan23]

Agreed. KG would have been an okay choice, but Duncan was easily deserving of the award.

People need to keep in mind that the 2003 Spurs were absolutely not a talented team. Robinson was on his last legs, Manu was making the "foreign player to the NBA" transition, Parker was not the effective guard he would later become, Stephen Jackson being nothing more than a mediocre outside shooter,etc...

During the regular season, it was basically Duncan, a small bit of Tony Parker, and a bunch of role players (albeit tough ones like Malek Rose and David Robinson).

Agree totally, but not about Manu. He was that team's toughness and heart. I remember watching the spurs entire rodeo trip that year. They played every single one of the best teams in the entire league on it and were undefeated. Manu just came into his own more and more every game. Its one of my most vivid memories in ball that trip. Its rare you get to see an all timeish/dynasticish (don't want to hype the spurs too much) team totally discover that its dominant and realize you're watching it at the time. That was when the Spurs became the Spurs. It was cool.

[indiefan23]

I'm just telling you how voters think and what the patterns are. It's probably why Nash won one of his.

The Celtics won a title because of their defense, and KG was the anchor of that defense. He had the best Roland Rating and the best defensive +/- (actually I think he had the best offensive one as well).

With that said, he averaged 19 points and 9 rebounds a game. He isn't that close to the MVP award in 2008, if the Celtics don't experience a huge turnaround in wins, a turnaround he was most influential in compared to any other individual player.

I thought the 'reality' based MVP race that year was absolutely between Chris Paul and KG. I think what happened is the reality demographic's vote was split between them so they both lost.

[Bush4Ever]

Agree totally, but not about Manu. He was that team's toughness and heart. I remember watching the spurs entire rodeo trip that year. They played every single one of the best teams in the entire league on it and were undefeated. Manu just came into his own more and more every game. Its one of my most vivid memories in ball that trip. Its rare you get to see an all timeish/dynasticish (don't want to hype the spurs too much) team totally discover that its dominant and realize you're watching it at the time. That was when the Spurs became the Spurs. It was cool.

Manu stepped up at times in the playoffs, but during the regular season he averaged 7 and 2 on 44 percent shooting. That's not much of a contribution, no matter how you slice it (especially considering Manu wasn't a defensive standout or anything like that).

He had some nice moments against the Lakers in the playoffs, but reverted back to form in the Finals, with averages of 9 and 2, shooting 35 percent from the floor, and 21 percent from downtown.

[indiefan23]

Wow! Really...

Kind of. I mean, its most valuable player. How is a guy with two other elite players on his team more valuable then a player with 0 other elite players when their team's matched performances?

The real flaw is that MVP is awarded for too many things... its both an award for team and individual success. What is needed is two awards.

1. Most outstanding player.
2. Most valuable player.

Its been needed forever.

[Bush4Ever]

I thought the 'reality' based MVP race that year was absolutely between Chris Paul and KG. I think what happened is the reality demographic's vote was split between them so they both lost.

Why?

The Lakers were an elite team in 2008, so Kobe was rightfully in the mix of players.

Kobe's statistical outputs were absolutely on par with Paul's and much better than KG's. Combine that with the yearly overrating of Kobe's defense and you have it.

If anything, Kobe's lack of MVP combined with his long career might have influenced voters to give it to him in the event of an otherwise close race, but Kobe IMO was the rightful MVP of 2008.

[indiefan23]

Manu stepped up at times in the playoffs, but during the regular season he averaged 7 and 2 on 44 percent shooting. That's not much of a contribution, no matter how you slice it (especially considering Manu wasn't a defensive standout or anything like that).

He had some nice moments against the Lakers in the playoffs, but reverted back to form in the Finals, with averages of 9 and 2, shooting 35 percent from the floor, and 21 percent from downtown.

Again I think you have to look at Manu before and after that road trip. Its not really something that shows up in the stats. Every time the Spurs were on the ropes on that trip Manu would gut out wins. I said he'd be an all star after that 'n got ridiculed that I said it and people brought up his weak stats. You could see it though... he was their toughest player and the team would feed off of him. I wonder what his stats on the trip were like. Hmm...

[WoGiTaLiA1]

Heh, I've heard that one before. Nash is without a doubt the worst player in the last 30 years to win an MVP? Explain why he's put in the best playoff series since Michael Jordan then. Here's a post I wrote a while ago. I'll just leave it the way I wrote it so excuse some of the extraneous stuff about the guys argument regarding the mavs. Enjoy being wrong.

Let me get it straight, because that is far too long to read at this time of night, you are arguing that an above average PG deserved to win 2 MVPs because he had a couple of good playoff series? You are doing the old trick of taking a statline and saying only a couple of people have done it. You are leaving out that Nash was an absolute sieve at the other end and didn't play a lick of defense as his teams went home time after time after time.

That's the thing, Nash wasn't just a poor defender, he was one of the worst in the league and his complete lack of interest in playing defense meant that every team he has been on and been the leader on has been horrendous on defense. Why should the scrubs bother if the star doesn't?

The only thing that Nash did on a historical level was play bad defense.

But aside from that, what did he actually do that makes him an MVP? He was a good solid PG. Chris Paul has already had 2 seasons undoubtedly better. Deron Williams is at 1 and half and counting. Stockton was better for 20 years. Price was better for 5. Kidd was better for a decade. Billups was every bit as good for the same period. Terrell Brandon was better for a couple of years. Nash's performance was something that 2 or 3 guys do in the average year, it just happened that PG play was really struggling and that he was fun to watch. That would be like giving Nique an MVP in the late 80s. He was a damn good SF, one of the better, he was fun, he didn't care all that much about defense and he sure as hell wasn't an MVP. That is Nash.

Nash had two solid seasons and got 2 MVPs. He is a solid player but if you look at the MVP winners for the last 30 years, he is the worst player by a fair distance. Only guys close to him are Iverson and Dirk and both were better players. Hell you can go back 35 before you hit anyone that even creates the element of doubt. You shouldn't get an MVP for playing on a fun team, which is why he won them, period.

[indiefan23]

Manu stepped up at times in the playoffs, but during the regular season he averaged 7 and 2 on 44 percent shooting. That's not much of a contribution, no matter how you slice it (especially considering Manu wasn't a defensive standout or anything like that).
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3109081
He had some nice moments against the Lakers in the playoffs, but reverted back to form in the Finals, with averages of 9 and 2, shooting 35 percent from the floor, and 21 percent from downtown.

You also have to consider that he was playing 20 minutes a game. Per 36 he was scoring 13/4/3.5 with 2.5 steals. Not shabby for a rookie season. Like most players those #'s went up when he got more minutes too.

[Bush4Ever]

Again I think you have to look at Manu before and after that road trip. Its not really something that shows up in the stats. Every time the Spurs were on the ropes on that trip Manu would gut out wins. I said he'd be an all star after that 'n got ridiculed that I said it and people brought up his weak stats. You could see it though... he was their toughest player and the team would feed off of him. I wonder what his stats on the trip were like. Hmm...

Playing well in a 5-10 game stretch does not a season make.

After the all-star break, Manu averaged 10 points and 3 assists a game, although he closed out the year very nicely.

But the MVP award is based on the full 82 game regular season. So the full 82 game season needs to be considered when discussing players. And over the full 82 game season, Manu's contributions were rather trivial.

That isn't too say that Manu didn't improve over the course of the year (in fact, most foreign players do exactly that after getting acclimated to the NBA), but that fact is irrelevant when discussing teammate contributions to the MVP, because the award is based on the full season, so every game counts.

He was awesome at times against the Lakers though, hitting outside shots and getting to the line. That was when I personally got on board with Manu :rockon:

[WoGiTaLiA1]

Anyway, I do somewhat agree, but I don't see how you don't give the MVP to a guy who was the only change on a team that won 33 more games when the team obviously changed their whole game plan to function off his talents.

Yeah because they didn't get Amare back from injury. Thats the thing, that Phoenix team closed the previous year hot, they won 8 of 16 to close the season once Amare returned. Nash joined a team with an up and coming Amare, Joe Johnson and Barbosa and a prime Marion. Also got a new coach who had far more to do with it.

Nash is the Duncan of that team. Sure you can credit him if you want, but that team is winning 50 games without him. Just like the Spurs with a rookie Duncan, they win 45 games without Duncan, Duncan is actually only worth 10 or so.

[Bush4Ever]

You also have to consider that he was playing 20 minutes a game. Per 36 he was scoring 13/4/3.5 with 2.5 steals. Not shabby for a rookie season. Like most players those #'s went up when he got more minutes too.

If he is only playing 20 minutes a game, than his contributions would necessarily be minimal.

That fits directly into my point.

None of this is a slam against Manu, just an opinion that over the full length of the season (which is what the MVP is based on) in sum, his contributions were trivial. That isn't to say his contributions in every game were trivial. They weren't.

[Bush4Ever]

Nash is the Duncan of that team. Sure you can credit him if you want, but that team is winning 50 games without him. Just like the Spurs with a rookie Duncan, they win 45 games without Duncan, Duncan is actually only worth 10 or so.

I think you are woefully underestimating the degree to which Duncan impacts the defensive side of the floor.

In 2003, the Spurs gave up 98 points per 100 possessions without Duncan. With Duncan? 89 points.
http://www.82games.com/02SAS12D.HTM

In 2005, the Spurs gave up 105 points per 100 possessions without Duncan. With Duncan? 96 points.
http://www.82games.com/04SAS14D.HTM

In 2007, the Spurs gave up 106 points per 100 possessions without Duncan. With Duncan? 99 points.
http://www.82games.com/0607/06SAS13D.HTM

Duncan was the backbone of arguably the best defensive team ever, the 1999 Spurs.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1999.html

If one places stock in win shares, Duncan was worth about 13-17 wins a game in his prime.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Additionally, taking away Duncan and reducing the Spurs teams by the much defensively would leave a huge impact on the PLAYOFF chances of the Spurs, given that in the playoffs, defense is even more important than during the regular season.

[indiefan23]

Let me get it straight, because that is far too long to read at this time of night, you are arguing that an above average PG deserved to win 2 MVPs because he had a couple of good playoff series? You are doing the old trick of taking a statline and saying only a couple of people have done it. You are leaving out that Nash was an absolute sieve at the other end and didn't play a lick of defense as his teams went home time after time after time.

No, I'm arguing that he's not the worst player in 30 years to win. The defensive short comnig on the suns was Amare Stoudamire who did not even try to be an anchor at all. Nash's defensive is not hardly as bad as the hype. He's regularly among the leaders in drawn charges and plays fine team d. The true defensive sieve on the suns was Robert Sarver who let the team's best defender go 4 times (if you include Rondo) for money.


That's the thing, Nash wasn't just a poor defender, he was one of the worst in the league and his complete lack of interest in playing defense meant that every team he has been on and been the leader on has been horrendous on defense. Why should the scrubs bother if the star doesn't?

If he wasn't interested in playing D he's not one of the top guys's drawing charges. He's a poor on ball defender, but not a horrible defensive player. The Suns were not horrendous on defense eitehr. They were regularly above average defensively. I'm not making it up or being a crazy fanboy either. In 06 per 100 possessions they allowed one more basket then the Pistons, sorry to tell you.


The only thing that Nash did on a historical level was play bad defense.

Absolutely false. Historically bad defensive players don't lead the league in defensive categories.


But aside from that, what did he actually do that makes him an MVP? He was a good solid PG. Chris Paul has already had 2 seasons undoubtedly better. Deron Williams is at 1 and half and counting. Stockton was better for 20 years. Price was better for 5. Kidd was better for a decade. Billups was every bit as good for the same period. Terrell Brandon was better for a couple of years. Nash's performance was something that 2 or 3 guys do in the average year, it just happened that PG play was really struggling and that he was fun to watch. That would be like giving Nique an MVP in the late 80s. He was a damn good SF, one of the better, he was fun, he didn't care all that much about defense and he sure as hell wasn't an MVP. That is Nash.

Nash proved that you could win playing small ball. No one had really made it work before. Now everyone does it. None of the teams you mentioned played like the Suns. The way they fed off of Nash and shared the ball was absolutely unique. Beyond that his arrival changed the entire culture of a team from losing horribly to winning beautifully and taught his knuckle head child teammates to play together by example. Everyone you mentioned had vets on their team to keep the ship running. Nash was it.


Nash had two solid seasons and got 2 MVPs. He is a solid player but if you look at the MVP winners for the last 30 years, he is the worst player by a fair distance. Only guys close to him are Iverson and Dirk and both were better players. Hell you can go back 35 before you hit anyone that even creates the element of doubt. You shouldn't get an MVP for playing on a fun team, which is why he won them, period.

Two solid seasons? More like 10 solid seasons and 4 elite ones. He was special and won by making others better rather then trying to do everything himself. He did have the best playoff series since Michael Jordan. He was a dominant player and no one else really compared. It didn't matter who you put with him: he would make them perform better and the team would win. He would have multiple championships if the team was managed better. The guy has been the motor of 9 straight 50 win teams that made the west finals 3 years in a row and half the years of that whole stretch. It would have been 3 straight 60 win teams if Amare was not hurt in PHX.

[indiefan23]

If he is only playing 20 minutes a game, than his contributions would necessarily be minimal.

That fits directly into my point.

None of this is a slam against Manu, just an opinion that over the full length of the season (which is what the MVP is based on) in sum, his contributions were trivial. That isn't to say his contributions in every game were trivial. They weren't.

Naw, I know what you're saying. He wasn't consistent whether it was because he didn't get minutes or not. Honestly, I'm in no way dissuading from Duncan's MVP with the Manu stuff, I'm more just talking about how cool it was to see Manu find himself that season and see the Spurs realize how special he was. He won huge games and you could almost see them saying "we didn't expect this!"

[indiefan23]

Why?

The Lakers were an elite team in 2008, so Kobe was rightfully in the mix of players.

Kobe's statistical outputs were absolutely on par with Paul's and much better than KG's. Combine that with the yearly overrating of Kobe's defense and you have it.

If anything, Kobe's lack of MVP combined with his long career might have influenced voters to give it to him in the event of an otherwise close race, but Kobe IMO was the rightful MVP of 2008.

I like you Bush, I think you know hoop.

Kobe's team was elite but his team was also stacked. Paul's team was not stacked, at all. They were starting Morris Peterson for a good chunk of the season and I think that's all that has to be said. Except that they went to Janero Pargo at the end of games. Chandler was only good cuz of Paul's perfect oop passes.

Their stats were by no means equal either.

Kobe:28.3/ 5.3/6.4/1.8 stls/3.1 TO
CP3 :21.1/11.6/4.0/2.7 stls/2.5 TO

Paul kind of owns Kobe in everything but points. More then twice the dimes makes up for that. If you look at point production dimes*2 + points its:

K: 38.9/6.4/1.8 stls/3.1 TO
C: 44.3/4.0/2.7 stls/2.5 TO

Statistically Kobe is no where near Chris Paul and their teams did the same results wise. You can argue that Kobe was on a better team and that helped Paul's stats, and I'd agree with you because Chris Paul was more valuable to his team's success meaning he deserved the award. Without Paul that team probably wins in the mid 30's. Without Kobe they still win in the 50's. I just don't see how a case could really be made for him at all. The media 'wanted' to give it to Kobe instead of the MVP so they did. That's what happened.

[indiefan23]

I think you are woefully underestimating the degree to which Duncan impacts the defensive side of the floor.

In 2003, the Spurs gave up 98 points per 100 possessions without Duncan. With Duncan? 89 points.
http://www.82games.com/02SAS12D.HTM

In 2005, the Spurs gave up 105 points per 100 possessions without Duncan. With Duncan? 96 points.
http://www.82games.com/04SAS14D.HTM

In 2007, the Spurs gave up 106 points per 100 possessions without Duncan. With Duncan? 99 points.
http://www.82games.com/0607/06SAS13D.HTM

Duncan was the backbone of arguably the best defensive team ever, the 1999 Spurs.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1999.html

If one places stock in win shares, Duncan was worth about 13-17 wins a game in his prime.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Additionally, taking away Duncan and reducing the Spurs teams by the much defensively would leave a huge impact on the PLAYOFF chances of the Spurs, given that in the playoffs, defense is even more important than during the regular season.

Uh, Yep! Duncan was a BEAST! He deserves everything except his last championship... and you can't even blame him for that.

[truethat23]

Kind of. I mean, its most valuable player. How is a guy with two other elite players on his team more valuable then a player with 0 other elite players when their team's matched performances?

The real flaw is that MVP is awarded for too many things... its both an award for team and individual success. What is needed is two awards.

1. Most outstanding player.
2. Most valuable player.

Its been needed forever.

I can agree that the NBA should consider having a M.O.P award, but to say Kobe wasn't the most valuable to his team that year to me is just disrespectul to Kobe or anyone else in history who may have had one or two other elite players on his team. Guys like Magic, Michael, Bird, Barkley, Malone. All of those guys where in the same situation almost as Kobe.

[truethat23]

Do I need to go on about why Shaq was the clear MVP.

No. There is a very legit argument for Shaq being MVP that year and I wouldn't of minded if he got it. I was just saying that maybe thats what came into people's brains when they decided to go for Iverson.

[Bush4Ever]

Kobe's team was elite but his team was also stacked. Paul's team was not stacked, at all. They were starting Morris Peterson for a good chunk of the season and I think that's all that has to be said. Except that they went to Janero Pargo at the end of games. Chandler was only good cuz of Paul's perfect oop passes.


None of that is relevant with how the media has traditionally voted for the award. The final win total counts, and the talent surrounding the player is MUCH less important.

It's why (for example, there are others) Bird won the MVP over Bernard King in 1984, Magic in 1987 over someone like Nique, or Jordan over Dream in 1993. In all of those cases, the gaps in talent between the two players were much greater than between Paul and Kobe.
[/QUOTE]


Their stats were by no means equal either.

Kobe:28.3/ 5.3/6.4/1.8 stls/3.1 TO
CP3 :21.1/11.6/4.0/2.7 stls/2.5 TO

Paul kind of owns Kobe in everything but points. More then twice the dimes makes up for that. If you look at point production dimes*2 + points its:

K: 38.9/6.4/1.8 stls/3.1 TO
C: 44.3/4.0/2.7 stls/2.5 TO

Statistically Kobe is no where near Chris Paul and their teams did the same results wise. You can argue that Kobe was on a better team and that helped Paul's stats, and I'd agree with you because Chris Paul was more valuable to his team's success meaning he deserved the award. Without Paul that team probably wins in the mid 30's. Without Kobe they still win in the 50's. I just don't see how a case could really be made for him at all. The media 'wanted' to give it to Kobe instead of the MVP so they did. That's what happened.

There is something to this, but I would say that....

1. The volume statistics were extremely driven by the offensive system of the Hornets, in that Paul had the ball in his hands way more than Kobe, pounded the ball more than Kobe, etc...

2. Kobe (despite steals) probably had the edge defensively. While Kobe is usually overrated defensively, Paul was probably even more overrated at that point in time.

3. Kobe had more rebounds per game.


Despite the team's overall records being close...

1. The Lakers thrived over the last month of the season, going 7-1 in April, while the Hornets faded, going 6-4 in April and losing the number one seeding.

2. Kobe himself thrived over the last month of the season, while Paul faded somewhat. Over the last month of games:

Kobe 26/7/6 on 46 percent shooting and 46 percent three-point shooting (7-1 team record)

Paul 18/5/13 on 43 percent shooting and 32 percent three-point shooting (6-4 team record)

The voters are like any other human, in that what has most recently occurred in time is most likely to influence decisions, ergo Paul got degraded and Kobe brought up by this effect.

That combined with Kobe being an elite level player for 8+ years and never winning an MVP, combined with getting the first seed from the team perspective, is IMO what sealed it for Kobe.

[indiefan23]

Yeah because they didn't get Amare back from injury. Thats the thing, that Phoenix team closed the previous year hot, they won 8 of 16 to close the season once Amare returned. Nash joined a team with an up and coming Amare, Joe Johnson and Barbosa and a prime Marion. Also got a new coach who had far more to do with it.

Nash is the Duncan of that team. Sure you can credit him if you want, but that team is winning 50 games without him. Just like the Spurs with a rookie Duncan, they win 45 games without Duncan, Duncan is actually only worth 10 or so.

This is rich.

Nash is the Tim Duncan of the Suns? We can agree there, cuz Duncan is the unquestioned leader and cornerstone of one of the most elite teams of this decade.

What??? You call 8 of 16, .500 ball, hot? Now, lets filter out the truth. Amare missed games in December and January, not before the end of the season. When he got hurt they were playing 500 ball at best and never had .500 for more then a game. Love how you start counting their 16 game stretch right after a 8, then 4 game game losing streak that Amare was totally present for.

Anyway, lets count it your way. They beat:
wins/games over .500
Washington: 25/-16
Houston: 45/4
Bucks: 41/0
Cavs: 35/-6
Hornets: 41/0
Kings: 55/14 (but the kings were banged up, it was the year they lost Chris Webber, so he was still hurt, and they were in the middle of a 6-10 finishing kick themselves, also they were resting players for the playoffs)
Memphis: 50/9 (memphis played that game without Pau Gasol, 1 starter played 1 minutes over 30,playoff rest)
Utah: 42/1 (4 starters played under 20 minutes for playoff rest)

In that 'streak' you're talking about they also lost to the 28 win Clippers. TWICE!!!!!!! If you lose to the clippers, and specifically that Clippers team, you suck. There is no quality to your team. You suck. Its the Clippers.

Anyway, so you're wrong there. They sucked the year before Nash and Amare did crap to make them great at all. Nash showed up and they went from 29 wins to 62, presto changeo.

Does not matter though, cuz when you take Amare/Johnson away and replace them with Atlanta's 12'th man and Tim Thomas what happens? The same fu@king thing, and you need to STFU.

[craiye]

It can't be Dirk for losing in the playoffs. Its a regular season award. three things. 1. The Warriors were no normal 8'th place team. They went on a crazy winning streak and were the league's hottest team going into the playoffs. 2. They matched up with Dallas and had won all 4 regular season meetings just like Detroit matched up with Orlando well, but got creamed by the cavs, who Orlando beat. 3. The Warriors came within a few shots of beating Utah and playing in the conference finals. Dirk lost to a great team that matched up really well with them. Its not really his fault.


How exactly does a team come within " a few shots" of beating another team when they lose a 7 game series in 5 games? Seriously, I'm curious - let me know.

Back to the subject at hand...

I'll agree with those saying that Shaq/Duncan had a big edge over AI the year he won it. Nash is a player who really isn't on the same level as others, but who else do you give it to those years? No one really had a problem with his first MVP when it happened, then he basically replicated the same success without 2 of the top 4 players on the team. Who else deserved it over him? Kobe put up numbers, but his team didn't go anywhere. Same with Lebron.

You can make an argument for Shaq over Nash for his first, and Lebron over Nash for his second but I don't really think it's a travesty. He shouldn't have two, but looking at things in context it makes SENSE why he won the award each year. Just odd that it ended up being a repeat with a player of his level.

[indiefan23]

None of that is relevant with how the media has traditionally voted for the award. The final win total counts, and the talent surrounding the player is MUCH less important.

The media is stupid. This is the point I'm making. If you don't have your head up your ass like most sports reporters/writers and have the ability to think logically the award of who is the most 'valuable' to a team, and make that an elite team if you want, has nothing to do with 1 more win. 1 win can be a blown call or a player getting bad gas in the middle of a game. One win means nothing, and being on a stacked team vs the only elite player on your team means everything towards you being more important to your team's success. I know the media doesn't like to think when it votes. That's why he was robbed.


It's why (for example, there are others) Bird won the MVP over Bernard King in 1984, Magic in 1987 over someone like Nique, or Jordan over Dream in 1993. In all of those cases, the gaps in talent between the two players were much greater than between Paul and Kobe.


Uh, thats not the same at all. Games won tipped all those races. Bird's team won 15 more games then King's. And Bird was flat out better. Magic's team won 6 more then Larry's and 8 more then 'Nique's in 87. In 93 Barkley won, not Jordan, and his team had 7 more wins then Dream's.

The Lakers won '1' more game then the Hornets. 1. If Kobe's team performed at some kind of ultra high level beyond Paul's, I understand. But they won 1 more game with 0 stars other then Chris Paul, who posted one of the best PG seasons in league history. Its arguably the best, save for this season's. The guy was robbed.



There is something to this, but I would say that....

1. The volume statistics were extremely driven by the offensive system of the Hornets, in that Paul had the ball in his hands way more than Kobe, pounded the ball more than Kobe, etc...

Making him more valuable to wins.


2. Kobe (despite steals) probably had the edge defensively. While Kobe is usually overrated defensively, Paul was probably even more overrated at that point in time.

Hmm... I disagree. But that's totally subjective. Paul totally shut down opposing points and played his guts out on d every night. I wish we had defensive stats.


3. Kobe had more rebounds per game.

2 more? 2 boards a game, especially when comparing a 2 to a point, is nothing.


Despite the team's overall records being close...

1. The Lakers thrived over the last month of the season, going 7-1 in April, while the Hornets faded, going 6-4 in April and losing the number one seeding.

Granted, but lots of that has to do with schedule.


2. Kobe himself thrived over the last month of the season, while Paul faded somewhat. Over the last month of games:

Kobe 26/7/6 on 46 percent shooting and 46 percent three-point shooting (7-1 team record)

Paul 18/5/13 on 43 percent shooting and 32 percent three-point shooting (6-4 team record)

The voters are like any other human, in that what has most recently occurred in time is most likely to influence decisions, ergo Paul got degraded and Kobe brought up by this effect.

That combined with Kobe being an elite level player for 8+ years and never winning an MVP, combined with getting the first seed from the team perspective, is IMO what sealed it for Kobe.

Menh, I don't think its an excuse. You're voting for a major award and you can't even do a cursory review to see what you're doing?

And I don't think its a case of whats happened most recently at all. Point taken about that season finish BTW, but I think its a case of what happened least recently. By christmas a whole bunch of people had their MVP already picked out. No one expected the Hornets to win anywhere near enough games for him to be in contention so his superior play was not mentioned. Kobe's people started to launch into a bunch of leadership propaganda when in reality it was the same year he was demanding trades and ****ting on Bynum via cell phone videos.

Anyway, people had Kobe picked out for the award as soon as they started winning games. Then they got Pau and they went crazy for the new team. All the while Paul was out playing him soundly. Then when the Hornets peaked on top of the West people noticed (we'll call them the so-so smart for realizing it at this point, people who follow things closely already knew Paul was destorying everyone) and suddenly all the guys who were forming their careers around blowing up Kobe, the MVP, were stuck between being 'experts' on the league while being totally wrong about something right in front of their face that they had decided on before the season was half over. Kobe won 1 more game and they had their excuse and Kobe gets a BS award that was given to him, not earned.

I honestly can't think of another winner who had such a weak case to be MVP. He started his season by demanding a trade. Instead of a two week stretch Paul massively out performed Kobe for an entire season. I think its what appealed to enough stupid reporters but it didn't seal it. What sealed it was that there's a group of people chosen arbitrarily who vote for something with 0 instructions or guidelines on how they should vote about something lots of them are not actually very good at thinking about. Its almost as bad as the oscars sometimes... seriously.

[RocketGreatness]

Nash's 2nd MVP or Allen Iverson's. The sad thing is they both got it over Shaq. :ohwell:. Well Not Nash's 2nd one, Nash's 1st one was however.

I really don't remember the 05-06 season too well. But Nash was not the MVP. I probably could've argued Elton Brand was more deserving than Nash or Kobe Bryant was. I wish they gave the MVP like they did in the 80s and 90s. I hate how the MVP works now.

[magi]

Most deserving is Shaq; least deserving is Nash.

[indiefan23]

How exactly does a team come within " a few shots" of beating another team when they lose a 7 game series in 5 games? Seriously, I'm curious - let me know.

The first 2 games were incredibly close. Did you watch them? If they hit one shot in game 1 they win it. If they hit one shot in game 2 they win it (it went to OT). They won game 3 by 20 points. No team has ever come back from a 3-0 series deficit. That's how. That series was MUCH closer then 4-1.


Back to the subject at hand...

I'll agree with those saying that Shaq/Duncan had a big edge over AI the year he won it. Nash is a player who really isn't on the same level as others, but who else do you give it to those years? No one really had a problem with his first MVP when it happened, then he basically replicated the same success without 2 of the top 4 players on the team. Who else deserved it over him? Kobe put up numbers, but his team didn't go anywhere. Same with Lebron.

Agreed, but I think Nash was playing on a level absolutely no one was touching his first 3 years in PHX. And I think lots of people had issues with his first MVP. People were totally polarized and he was already being called the worst MVP of all time.


You can make an argument for Shaq over Nash for his first, and Lebron over Nash for his second but I don't really think it's a travesty. He shouldn't have two, but looking at things in context it makes SENSE why he won the award each year. Just odd that it ended up being a repeat with a player of his level.

Again, his level was totally elite. He ran one of the most efficient offensive teams in history and quite arguably the most efficient. The entire team was built to play off of his specific skills and he had a direct hand in almost every single scoring play. Its subjective but you just don't play point guard at a higher level then he did there. Once you get to that point the difference is just style, not quality.

Shaq: I think Miami was Wade's team. Shaq was it's second best player. Thats why Detroit handled them easily once Wade was playing at less then 100% after he hurt his shoulder.

Lebron: Quite arguable. Cept the East was still incredibly weak at that point and he didn't really elevate his team out of the pack given that environment.

[magi]

Kobe is clearly a better defensive player then Paul, a better scorer and is obviously a better rebounder. His team fought with Chris Paul for first place and whooped his ****ing ass last year, Kobe clearly outplayed the so called MVP. Therefore don't sit and tell me that Kobe wasn't a deserving winner of the MVP award in 2008.

I think Paul is EXTREMELY overrated; dude is James #2, everything goes through him and people simply can't see past his statistics. Guy is a gambler defensively and is by no means a great defenders.

I don't even think he is clearly better then Deron Williams, I fear D-Will more then I fear Paul to be honest.

[indiefan23]

Nash's 2nd MVP or Allen Iverson's. The sad thing is they both got it over Shaq. :ohwell:. Well Not Nash's 2nd one, Nash's 1st one was however.

Shaq didn't win cuz Miami was Wade's team, not his. Iverson's maybe, but Shaq's team was loaded and Iverson was starting with Eric Snow.


I really don't remember the 05-06 season too well. But Nash was not the MVP. I probably could've argued Elton Brand was more deserving than Nash or Kobe Bryant was. I wish they gave the MVP like they did in the 80s and 90s. I hate how the MVP works now.

Nash joined the team, they changed everything to work off of him and had the ball in his hands on every possession, and the team won 33 more games. Then he did the same with minus the team's best offensive and defensive player and 0 stars save Shawn Marion. How can you besmirch a 33 game improvement and no drop off after losing your best 2 other players and causing 7 people to have career years at the same time, on the same team??

I don't get it, is it just cuz he didn't score 30 a game? Nash's case for MVP is one of the most solid ever and people just slam him for doing every single thing a point guard should.

[indiefan23]

I can agree that the NBA should consider having a M.O.P award, but to say Kobe wasn't the most valuable to his team that year to me is just disrespectul to Kobe or anyone else in history who may have had one or two other elite players on his team. Guys like Magic, Michael, Bird, Barkley, Malone. All of those guys where in the same situation almost as Kobe.

Pau, in a much, much stronger West conference, with lesser role players and 0 stars, won 50 games three years in a row. Without Pau, with stars and better role players they won 41 games. Its just not the same at all.

[indiefan23]

[QUOTE=magi

[Shepseskaf]

Let me get it straight, because that is far too long to read at this time of night, you are arguing that an above average PG deserved to win 2 MVPs because he had a couple of good playoff series? You are doing the old trick of taking a statline and saying only a couple of people have done it. You are leaving out that Nash was an absolute sieve at the other end and didn't play a lick of defense as his teams went home time after time after time.

That's the thing, Nash wasn't just a poor defender, he was one of the worst in the league and his complete lack of interest in playing defense meant that every team he has been on and been the leader on has been horrendous on defense. Why should the scrubs bother if the star doesn't?

The only thing that Nash did on a historical level was play bad defense.

But aside from that, what did he actually do that makes him an MVP? He was a good solid PG. Chris Paul has already had 2 seasons undoubtedly better. Deron Williams is at 1 and half and counting. Stockton was better for 20 years. Price was better for 5. Kidd was better for a decade. Billups was every bit as good for the same period. Terrell Brandon was better for a couple of years. Nash's performance was something that 2 or 3 guys do in the average year, it just happened that PG play was really struggling and that he was fun to watch. That would be like giving Nique an MVP in the late 80s. He was a damn good SF, one of the better, he was fun, he didn't care all that much about defense and he sure as hell wasn't an MVP. That is Nash.

Nash had two solid seasons and got 2 MVPs. He is a solid player but if you look at the MVP winners for the last 30 years, he is the worst player by a fair distance. Only guys close to him are Iverson and Dirk and both were better players. Hell you can go back 35 before you hit anyone that even creates the element of doubt. You shouldn't get an MVP for playing on a fun team, which is why he won them, period.
:applause: :applause:
I couldn't have said it better myself. But I will take it a step further and put out a theory as to why such an obviously undeserving player was the recipient of not one, but two MVPs.

It all goes back to that lovely evening on Nov. 19, 2004 when Ben Wallace took exception to a hard foul by Ron Artest and proceeded to set a series of actions in motion that would end up in the notorious "Malice at the Palace" incident.

For those of you not involved in international news, as I am, its impossible to overstate what an image nightmare it was for the NBA to have big black players climbing into the stands to beat the crap out of white fans. I'll venture to say that it was a bigger "black eye" for the league than even the drug years of the '70's. The newsreel of Artest and other Pacers fighting with fans ran ad nauseum on the international media. It was Dictator Stern's biggest and worst dream, bar none.

So, about three months after the incident, I was reading a news account where Stern went over the top to praise the job that Nash was doing for the Suns. Then I read something else touting Nash as a potential MVP. At the time, I just laughed out loud, thinking "who in the world would vote Nash in for MVP?" The idea was ridiculous, but it kept gathering strength, being repeated over and over until it actually became feasible and 'mainstream.'

What Stern needed, in the aftermath of The Brawl was a "new face" for the NBA; an inoffensive player who was as far from a thug as possible. Enter: Steve Nash. He was an exciting player, a team player, and someone that you had to work real hard to hate.

So, Nash -- with his 15.5ppg -- was named the 2005 MVP over the much more deserving Shaq. Not that Shaq was having a banner year, but as a legendary player and one of the best of all-time at his position, you'd think that he would get preference over a clearly inferior player like Nash. And, in all probability, he would have, had the activities of Nov. 19 never happened.

Then, the voters were stuck. Nash had a better year in 2006, and the prevailing thought was, "well, he got the award last year, and he did better this year, so we have to give it to him again." And so it went.

The NBA needed an inoffensive, "team-guy", non-thug face, and it was Nash. He never deserved to get either MVP, which becomes clearer and clearer with time.

[indiefan23]

So, Nash -- with his 15.5ppg -- was named the 2005 MVP over the much more deserving Shaq. Not that Shaq was having a banner year


Not that Shaq was the best player on his team and 20/10 is really not that impressive. Its what a good center does. Par for the course. That's why he didn't win.

[Shepseskaf]

Not that Shaq was the best player on his team and 20/10 is really not that impressive. Its what a good center does. Par for the course. That's why he didn't win.
Are you out of your mind? That's your rationale? That "20/10 is what a good center does?" I won't even bother to refute such stupidity.

So how about a guard who plays no defense and is averaging 15ppg? How is such a player more "deserving" than Shaq?

I've read all of your dissertations on this topic, but it just doesn't wash. Nash did not deserve the 2005 MVP over Shaq, and if he didn't get it in '05, he damn sure wouldn't have gotten it in '06.

[magi]

Kobe had better teammates then Paul, and that's about it. If he was so much better, since he's got a way better team around him, he should have been able to win more then a single game over Paul. Just weak.



Heh, yes, everything goes through him which makes him more VALUABLE. Thats the point. He had more to do with his team being elite then Kobe did. That is the point of the award. Thanks for showing why I'm right! ./thread.

Kobe did not have better teammates before Pau Gasol was acquired and he still led his team to #1 seed in the west.

Your post had zero substance outside of confirming to me that I should ignore you.
Here's a little enlightenment for you dick head, since you can't seem grasp it.
Paul is a POINT guard playing in an offensive scheme revolving around HIM. Kobe plays under TEX WINTER triangle offense which has never been implemented around one specific player. It's is not because Chris Paul is more valuable to his team, it is because of coaching strategies.

[Ruslan`]

Fisher
Kobe
Fox
Grant
Shaq

vs

Snow
Iverson
Lynch
Hill
Mutombo

So how exactly did Shaq deserve it more when both of their teams had 56 wins even thought difference in talent level was huge?

[Disaprine]

nashs 2005-2006 mvp and tim duncans 2002-2003 mvp, kevin garnett clearly deserved that season.

[VCMVP1551]

I know, Barkley and Malone don't even deserve their MVPs, at all. Shaq does though.

That's correct. Hakeem Olajuwon was the real MVP in the 1992-1993 NBA regular season. Jordan was second.

Jordan was the real 1997 MVP and Duncan was the 1999 MVP. Alonzo Mourning also could have finished ahead of Malone in voting.


Shaq didn't win cuz Miami was Wade's team, not his. Iverson's maybe, but Shaq's team was loaded and Iverson was starting with Eric Snow.


Miami was not Wade's team in 2004-2005. Miami went from 42 wins to 59 wins. And that was with them trading Lamar Odom(17, 10 and 4) as well as Caron Butler and Brian Grant to aquire O'Neal. Shaq averaged 22.9 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.3 bpg and a league leading 60.1 FG% in 34.1 mpg.

Shaq made a bigger impact than Wade on both ends. He drew more double teams which got shots for shooters like Damon Jones and Eddie Jones, Shaq was more reliable for getting easy baskets(for obvious reasons) and Shaq's shot blocking and intimidation scared players away from the basket.

As far as Shaq having a loaded team in 2001. What league were you watching? It was Shaq, Kobe, a few role players and some scrubs to fill out the team. Their starting point guard Derek Fisher missed 62 games, Kobe missed 14 games(Shaq led the Lakers to a 11-2 record in the 13 of those games that he played). Aside from that they didn't have another double digit scorer.

[phoenix18]

Nash in 05-06. Iverson in 01 was not that bad. He really had a great year and also add on the All-Star game perfomance with Marbury.

[big baller]

Nash and Iverson


Why do they allow media to vote, why not let the teams coach's pick, but cannot pick their own players. Most fair to me, imo.

[godofgods]

Kobe Bryant. Anyone who says Nash or Nowitzki is racist.

[ChrisKreager]

Steve Nash by a long way and it happened twice. Nash is without a doubt the worst player to win an MVP in 30 years, at least. He is a guy who is not even a HOF level talent yet almost has to get in because of two bogus awards. I have seen at least 10 PGs that were better players than Steve Nash in my 15 or so years watching the game, that should really put in perspective how undeserving he was.

:wtf: :wtf: :violin: :violin: :rant :rant :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wtf: :eek:

You apparently don't understand the meaning of value.

Nash deserved both awards.

2005- took a terrible Suns team to the top of the league

2006- got Phoenix to the Conference Finals in spite of a season-long knee injury to Amare.

He made the Suns a better team than the sum of their parts were.

To me, an MVP is not a popularity contest. It's a case of, "What did he do to make his team better?"

[ChrisKreager]

Nash wasn't just a poor defender, he was one of the worst in the league and his complete lack of interest in playing defense meant that every team he has been on and been the leader on has been horrendous on defense. Why should the scrubs bother if the star doesn't?

The only thing that Nash did on a historical level was play bad defense.

But aside from that, what did he actually do that makes him an MVP?

Let's see:

1. Made a mediocre Suns team into a powerhouse

2. Made D'Antoni look like a genius

3. Set up his teammates to score. After all, as a passer, your objective is to MAKE SURE THE OTHER GUY SCORES!

[No_Look604]

Steve Nash first year like others have pointed out.


this is coming from a British Columbian so it's the truth.

[Al Thornton]

Nash MVP number 2.

[WoGiTaLiA1]

1. Made a mediocre Suns team into a powerhouse

Oh yeah, that no defense team was a real powerhouse, remind me how many times they even made the finals? What he did was make them entertaining as hell.



2. Made D'Antoni look like a genius

That's kind of rich, given that D'Antoni gave him the freedom to play how he did, didn't try and get them to play defense, just embraced the whole fun idea and ran with it. Worth noting the job that D'Antoni did with the Knicks this year was as impressive as the Suns turnaround, so he is clearly not a scrub of a coach.


3. Set up his teammates to score. After all, as a passer, your objective is to MAKE SURE THE OTHER GUY SCORES!

Wow, so he played PG? Awesome, give the MVP to a PG then. He did his job on offense. He did it at a solid level, his two seasons don't make a top 20 seasons by a PG, dont even sniff it. John Stockton had at least 10 seasons where he was better, he never won an MVP. Magic never had a season at the level of Nash, he was never that average. Nash isn't even in the top 10 PGs that I have seen and I don't even count Magic in that group.


2006- got Phoenix to the Conference Finals in spite of a season-long knee injury to Amare.

Where the **** is Mike Bibby's MVP for being the PG on a talented as hell team that made it to the conference finals without Webber? Oh thats right, Bibby got the credit he deserved, not overrated.


2005- took a terrible Suns team to the top of the league

So let me get this straight, a team with Amare, Joe Johnson and Marion is terrible. Amare and Joe both were young players improving, Marion was in his prime. Phoenix were good the 2 years before Nash arrived with a rookie Amare and no JJ. Next season Marbury led a meltdown, after they got rid of him they were solid, when Amare played they were better. Next year JJ improved(nothing to do with Nash), they add QRich and get Amare back healthy. Nash was the final piece who for some reason copped all of the credit. Oh yeah, he is white, harmless and fun, he is a media darling, the kind of guy that Stern and the media want at the top.

Don't get me wrong, Nash is a good player, I enjoy watching him. He has never been MVP good, not even close and historically he is the worst MVP in 35 years. Nash is the worst kind of defender, the kind who could be good if he tried but just has no interest in it, it isnt a co-incidence that every team he has been on has been a poor defensive team.

Nash is just the worst player to win an MVP. The fact he won it over guys like Duncan and Shaq just makes it worse. Sure it's nice if you help your team win but that isnt an MVP, take Nash away and replace him with a good 5 other players at PG alone and they are just as good. I just hate that the media manufactured a harmless MVP because really all it does is take away from Nash, sure he gets the trophies but he knows he doesn't deserve them, everyone who knows anything about basketball knows that and to me, that is just a slight on Nash as a person, to insult him like that for financial reasons.

[ChrisKreager]

What he did was make them entertaining as hell.

And that's a bad thing?

[blacknapalm]

i'll agree with a couple other posters with 2nd year nash.

he's always been an elite 3 point shooter. i do think kobe was in the running but nash had a tremendous season.
to shoot 3 pointers at +43% with the rate he does is pretty impressive. you can't leave him open.

this year, he went 8.9 assists for the first half and in the second half averaged 10.4 assists without amare for the most part.

this era's best PG's:
1) jason kidd
2) steve nash
3) chris paul (with ability to surpass)

[Mrofir]

Sigh.. I have to endure an awful game 1 to the finals, and now this thread...

if you're going to pick on Nash, do me two favors:

1) Don't make yourself look foolish and pick MVP year #2. He had less to work with that year and put up ridiculous numbers, better than year 1.

2) Suggest a substitute MVP for that season. Here are the mvp tallies and some background info on that candidate's season.



04-05
nash, 1066 votes, 15.5, 11.5 (#1), great shooting %, 62-20, (33 win turnaround), lost in wcf... playoff averages 23.9, 11.3, 4.8 rebs
shaq, 1032 votes, 22.9, 10.4, great shooting %, 59-23, lost in ecf, first yr with wade...playoff averages 19.4, 7.8
Nowitski, 349 votes, 26.1, 9.7, 58-24, lost in 2nd round to suns

Allen Iverson led the league in scoring that year.
Spurs won it all.

Maybe Shaq instead of Nash? Or would that just go down as the weakest Shaq MVP and another weak overall MVP? Was there a strong MVP this season? The argument against Nash is often made with stats. The above are the stats. If you start talking about the intangibles -- being a good teammate, being a leader, being a playoff performer and a clutch performer, that strengthens the case for Nash. If you compare Nash's stats to Jordan of 92-93, obvious things will happen. Comparing Nash to other MVP winners for other reasons is fine. But was Nash undeserving of his MVP? Someone had to win it that year. I think he had a better case than Shaq by a little bit and his playoff performance backed up his selection.

05-06
Nash, 924 votes, 18.8, 10.5, insane shooting %, 54-28, 20.4, 10.2 playoffs. wcf loss.
Lebron, 688 votes, 31.4, 7rpb, 6.6 apg, 50-32, 30.1, 8.1, 5.8 playoffs.. 2nd round loss.
Dirk, 544 votes, bla bla bla, finals loss.

Again just not a terribly compelling mvp race. Had Amare played, this would have been the Suns' 1st ring. Where is Nash's all-star cast? Marion, Diaw, Barbosa, Bell and crew came oh so close with Nash running the show. Think about that. Lebron certainly had great numbers, but his team just wasn't quite relevant that year and it didn't feel right. But you can give it to Lebron. Or Dirk.

Nash may not make the All MVP 1st team, but he was deserving of his awards, and both years he backed up the selection with great playoff play. He continued his stride in 06-07, playing perhaps his best playoffs. He really was a great player for those years, in the right system, running it in a way nobody else could have. You can argue for Shaq or Lebron, but they would have also been considered the "undeserving" MVP winners by youuuuu peooople.

:cheers:

[White Chocolate]

For the whole decade, it has to be '06 Nash. Absolutely pathetic. The other years had other candidates that were deserving:


'01- Shaq
'02- Kidd
'03- T-Mac/Kobe
'05- Shaq
'06- Kobe
'07- LeBron
'08- CP3

[bdreason]

This topic has been done to death.

It always just turns into people hating and defending Nash.


I'll just say this; a 6' PG who plays no defense will never be the most valuable player in the league. I don't care if he averages 20 assists a game.

Personally, I have a problem with ANY wing player winning the award. It's a bigman's game. Bigmen win championships, not wing players (outside of MJ).

[Manute for Ever!]

Who do you all think is the most undeserving regular season MVP of this decade? 2000-2009.

Shaquille O'Neal, 1999-2000
Allen Iverson, 2000-2001
Tim Duncan, 2001-2002, 2002-2003
Kevin Garnett, 2003-2004
Steve Nash, 2004-2005, 2005-2006
Dirk Nowintzki, 2006-2007
Kobe Bryant, 2007-2008
Lebron James, 2008-2009


For me I have to go with Dirk Nowintzki. This guy didn't even get his team out of the first round of the playoffs that year. They got beat by Golden State. If you are MVP of the league in the regular season, it has to at least carry over into the post season to a certain extent. If you are MVP, you at least have to take you team to the conference finals.

What do you all think? Who was the most underserving?

I haven't read the whole thread, just wanted to add my two cents so appologies if this has been mentioned. MVP is a regular season award has nothing to do with a teams playoff performance, so saying Dirk is ridiculous.
I pick Kobe, not saying he was so much 'undeserving' more that it was given to him because he didn't have one, a lifetime achievement award. It should have been Chris Pauls that year.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sbz7q1XWyZg/RksXCtjYD2I/AAAAAAAAA40/fjvlAsyI4WA/s400/TheTwoCentsHunterKesey.jpg

[iamgine]

What people fail to remember is that MVP does not equal best player and it is based on regular season.

[Lebron23]

I think LeBron deserved the MVP Award in the 2005-06 NBA Season after he averaged 31 ppg, 7 rebounds, 6 assists, and led the Cavaliers to 50 wins in the Regular Season.

[Mikaiel]

The above are the stats. If you start talking about the intangibles -- being a good teammate, being a leader, being a playoff performer and a clutch performer, that strengthens the case for Nash.

Being a leader --> Only on the offensive end. How good of a leader are you if your man blows by you every single time and you leave your team scrambling on D ?

Being a playoff performer --> Like when it took 7 games to beat the Lakers ? Or like when he never could get his team past San Antonio despite having a more talented team ?

Clutch perfomer --> Only on offense.

[stephanieg]

AI by a decent margin. Wes Unseld and AI should get together sometime, maybe throw a barbecue.

[TMacYaoRockets]

Nash's 1st MVP and Dirk's MVP.

[plowking]

Definately Kobe's or Lebron's. Will be interesting to see if anyone falls for this.

[Shepseskaf]

05-06
Nash, 924 votes, 18.8, 10.5, insane shooting %, 54-28, 20.4, 10.2 playoffs. wcf loss.
Lebron, 688 votes, 31.4, 7rpb, 6.6 apg, 50-32, 30.1, 8.1, 5.8 playoffs..
This is surreal. The Nash kool-aid drinkers aren't even paying attention to their own arguments.

Its conclusive that Nash didn't even deserve to be close to the award in '04-'05. The MVP should have gone to Shaq, no question.

Now, the idiotic argument goes, if Nash didn't get it in '05, then surely he would have the next years. Except for one thing -- if the '05 award never happened, he never would have been in the discussion for the next year.

The bottom line is that Nash isn't an MVP-type player, and the selection was all about politics, and not basketball ability.

In the '05-'06 season, LeBron averaged 31/7/7 and Kobe averaged 35 ppg, and you give the award to Nash, who had a marginally better year, but still at less than 20 ppg?

Kobe, a vastly better player, had a undeniably better season, yet ended up 4th in the MVP voting, more than 400 points behind Nash?!? WTF!! If you don't think something is clearly wrong here, then your head needs to be examined.

The MVP awards should have been:
'04-'05 -- Shaq
'05-'06 -- LeBron or Kobe - either would have been a preferable selection.

I don't see why this is even a matter of debate. The voting numbers clearly show that something was very wrong with the selection process in both of these years, yet many continue to pretend that Nash "deserved" the awards.

[Mamba]

u cant forget nash only had like 53 wins that year 3 more then lebron 8 more then kobe, which is uddest bull****(btw im drunk atm so if i spell wrong corrent me).

he won the award basically becasuse amare wasn't on the team, and was injured.

lebron had to play without larry hughes (who did have some big games earlier in the season when he was originally signed) for 50 games, thats the amount of games the cavs had won!!

also kobe had an 81 point game that season.

but of course the white man (steve nash) provailed in winning that MVP contest.

**** the nba, and its politics.

[NBASTATMAN]

Nash 05/06. There really is no comparison when it comes to :wtf: awards.


I think he deserved that award.. The 04-05 year he avg like 15 pts and won the award.. That is the year SHAQ deserved it...

[White Chocolate]

Nash's 2nd MVP was much more undeserving than his 1st. At least he has an argument for his 1st one. Absolutely nothing justifies his 2nd one.

[dn41]

sorry but anybody who says Dirks MVP was undeserved has absolutely no clue

[White Chocolate]

sorry but anybody who says Dirks MVP was undeserved has absolutely no clue


If you're only counting regular season, then he did deserve it. But, 67 win teams are not supposed to lose to .500 teams. True stars don't allow that to happen. There's no way in hell LeBron or Kobe would allow their teams to lose to a .500 team in round 1.

[KubiliusF]

u cant forget nash only had like 53 wins that year 3 more then lebron 8 more then kobe, which is uddest bull****(btw im drunk atm so if i spell wrong corrent me).

he won the award basically becasuse amare wasn't on the team, and was injured.

lebron had to play without larry hughes (who did have some big games earlier in the season when he was originally signed) for 50 games, thats the amount of games the cavs had won!!

also kobe had an 81 point game that season.

but of course the white man (steve nash) provailed in winning that MVP contest.

**** the nba, and its politics.


Seriously. U are racist.

[Mrofir]

Being a leader --> Only on the offensive end. How good of a leader are you if your man blows by you every single time and you leave your team scrambling on D ?

Being a playoff performer --> Like when it took 7 games to beat the Lakers ? Or like when he never could get his team past San Antonio despite having a more talented team ?

Clutch perfomer --> Only on offense.

I'd like to respond to your points because they are actually intelligent. But I just have to say, otherwise I've seen arguments based on ppg. What about Allen Iverson in 04-05? I've seen race arguments. Politics and conspiracy. No distinct reference to either season, no recollection of those season's distinct footprint.. nothing. As a Suns fan, I remember those seasons quite well league-wide.. it's obvious when I read comments that are based on your own personal theology about Kobe vs Nash, Lebron vs Nash.. and have NO basis in the actual seasons in question.. the point of my post was kind of to draw attention that way.

Now, Mikaiel. First point. He's not a great defender. Never was. Pretty awful this past season. But I'll go far enough to say he was a 5\10, that is to say strictly average defender in his MVP seasons. PG is not a shutdown position for the most part, and PGs have to rely on their help D, which the Suns have never had in like, the history of the franchise. Point is anyway, from an emotional/intellectual perspective, Nash had his team's attention. I don't think his defensive difficulties diminished the respect he had earned from coaches\teammates\etc.

Being a playoff performer -- That's your much weaker point... I don't have to remind you that the Suns came back from 3-1 to stun the Lakers in that series, with Nash leading the way, without Amare Stoudemire.

The Spurs...

All I can say is, yes the Suns never got past the Spurs. But I don't think this year's Lakers (MVP winner), Cavs (MVP winner), Nuggets, or Magic could beat those Spurs teams either. The Spurs were the most talented team in fact. Manu, TD, TP, Michael Finley, Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, etc.

The clutch performer only on offense goes over the subject a bit.. name a clutch defensive performer. I've seen threads lamenting on how clutch performance is strictly an offense-oriented label. It's too bad.

I still think Nash deserved both his MVPs -- one can make reasonable arguments for Shaq or Lebron, but if your wording includes "no-brainer", "white", "politics", "ppg", or "conspiracy", or "media", it doesn't count.

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I think basically they all "deserved" their MVPs, but I will say Dirk notably shrinked in light of the award. And he also never appeared to me to have the same identity effect on his team as some other MVPs.. ie the Lakers are Kobe's team, the Suns were Nash's team, the Cavs are Lebron's team.
Dirk is the Mavs best player. But he had a fantastic season and they went 102-8, so.. let's talk about Nash some more.

[Mikaiel]

Now, Mikaiel. First point. He's not a great defender. Never was. Pretty awful this past season. But I'll go far enough to say he was a 5\10, that is to say strictly average defender in his MVP seasons.

An MVP should never be a liability on defense. An MVP should not get abused night after night. That's it


Being a playoff performer -- That's your much weaker point... I don't have to remind you that the Suns came back from 3-1 to stun the Lakers in that series, with Nash leading the way, without Amare Stoudemire.

Yeah he came back, but that Laker team had no business taking it to 7 games. And I'm not saying Nash is a poor performer in the playoffs. He played good, sometimes great basketball, well on offense at least. But when you say his playoff perfomances strengthen his case for his MVPs, I don't see how he was a better performer than Kobe, LeBron or Shaq.


I still think Nash deserved both his MVPs -- one can make reasonable arguments for Shaq or Lebron, but if your wording includes "no-brainer", "white", "politics", "ppg", or "conspiracy", or "media", it doesn't count.

Well, you could reasonably include politics in that argument. The US were horrible in the Olympics the year before, the team was a mess and it was embarassing. And the next year, a team-first PG gets the MVP. Coincidence ?

[dn41]

If you're only counting regular season, then he did deserve it. But, 67 win teams are not supposed to lose to .500 teams. True stars don't allow that to happen. There's no way in hell LeBron or Kobe would allow their teams to lose to a .500 team in round 1.

but the MVP award is for the regular season. If the playoff performance was included than i would agree, because Dirk was horrible in that series. And btw your "true stars" have a history of choking as well, so i wouldn't be so sure.

[Butters]

Ai.

I would have liked for Wade to have gotten it this year but alas,leBron is LeBron.

[Big#50]

Nash.

[stephanieg]

The way some people talk here they'd just give the MVP to the scoring champ every year. We still have a lot of work to do.

[NotYetGreat]

I think AI has to be it. Shaq or someone else could've gotten it.

[indiefan23]

Nash's 2nd MVP was much more undeserving than his 1st. At least he has an argument for his 1st one. Absolutely nothing justifies his 2nd one.

White Chocolate? How can you be serious? I don't understand how taking away a team's best scorer and best defender but the team remaining in the top 3 in the league can't be considered anything but a pretty spectacular acomplishment. Unless you think Tim Thomas/Diaw are legitimate replacements for Amare and Joe Johnson.

I mean, think about it. If you took parker and Bowen away from the spurs, do you think they're a top 3 team? What if you took Gasol and Ariza away from the Lakers... do they finish top 3 with Odom being their second option? They never did before, and Kobe is that team's best scorer. The only team you could possibly say that about is Lebron and the Cavs (cuz he doesn't get the help) and Lebron won the MVP, so...

[indiefan23]

If you're only counting regular season, then he did deserve it. But, 67 win teams are not supposed to lose to .500 teams. True stars don't allow that to happen. There's no way in hell LeBron or Kobe would allow their teams to lose to a .500 team in round 1.

Well, 1. MVP is only counting the regular season.

2. The warriors were absolutely not a .500 team. That was their record, but they were easily one of the hottest teams ending the season on a huge streak. They closed out 9-1, and 16-4 for their last 20 games.

Their core of Jason Richardson, Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington didn't play in a combined 174 games that season. They got Jackson/Harrington in a mid-season deal totally changing the team for the better.

That's before you consider that the Warriors matched up really well with Dallas who didn't beat them once in the regular season. And before you consider that the Warriors had one of the most crazed, frenzied best home court fans who affected games... in how long? 20 years? They were special. They also came within a few shots of the West finals and were awfully close to beating Utah. That series was much less of an upset then its percieved. I bet on the warriors and won mad cash. It was kind of the most obvious all time upset I can even come close to thinking of.

It wasn't even a collapse. The Warriors were just the better team once the match ups came into play. To say Dirk does not deserve his MVP because he lost a series he should have lost is ridiculous. GSW was closer to a 2 seed then an 8 and they shouldn't have even seen them till the conference finals. I don't get why people hate on the Nash/Dirk combo so much. Part of me thinks its cuz they're white, another part of me thinks its cuz they're not sports center superstars who dunk on everyone. Who knows, but the amount of heat they get is so disproportionately distributed. Its just silly.

[indiefan23]

Seriously. U are racist.

I'm starting to think it is a race thing... the NBA is a black league so when a white guy wins he just takes heat for it. Shaq was the second best player on a team built around Dwayne Wade. Kobe's team was 3 games over .500 and he was obviously playing for his stats to prove something about Shaq after he left. Nash's team won 33 more games, then virtually did the same thing without their best defender and scorer, and Dirk's team won more games then anyone since MJ's Bulls. They both did that at a time when the West was stronger then any time in decades. How can those cases be argued against?

More over, how can they be argued more so then Allen Iverson's MVP? He won 56 games in one of the weakest conferences in history over Shaq who won the same # of games in the incredibly stronger west averaging 29/13/3/3.7. Honestly, I give a LOT of extra credit for not having help, and LA was stacked, so I think Iverson deserved it that year. But the arguments against Nash are way more effective when you apply them to AI. Nash doesn't dunk on people's heads though, and he's not black, so he gets more heat. Is that true? Its sad if it is.

[Butters]

Nash hate is kind of weird in this thread.

[indiefan23]

Are you out of your mind? That's your rationale? That "20/10 is what a good center does?" I won't even bother to refute such stupidity.

So how about a guard who plays no defense and is averaging 15ppg? How is such a player more "deserving" than Shaq?

I've read all of your dissertations on this topic, but it just doesn't wash. Nash did not deserve the 2005 MVP over Shaq, and if he didn't get it in '05, he damn sure wouldn't have gotten it in '06.

The team was built around Nash. Shaq's was built around Wade and Shaq was visibly at the end of his prime. Nash averaged 15.5 a game but was a key to every single offensive play because he collapsed defenses every time they went down the floor. You seriously look at a guy like Steve Nash and think his offensive output is 15 PPG? Seriously????? Nash's penetration facilitated every single scorer on that team.

I really don't get it. Lifetime achievement maybe, but Shaq was averaging WAY less then his career numbers, shooting a career low from the line and was clearly not the go to guy on his team. And did he really make them that signifigantly better?

The year before Wade and Butler couldn't start in 26 games each. When they got back they closed out their previous season going 17-3. It was obvious that Haslem had made huge strides. They got to the second round pushed the eventual finalist pacers to 6 games. It was Wade's rookie year, he proved beyond any doubt he was the real deal and it was obvious their team was going to be way better next year. Did the Shaq trade even get them more wins? Its pretty clear they would have been well into the mid 50's if the trade didn't happen so maybe Shaq gave them 4 or 5 wins, but then again maybe not.

And yes, 20/10 is good for a center, but its not fantastic. Antoine Walker and Chris Webber on Philly were in that vicinity and were not even playing center. Its really good, but its not this guy is obviously the MVP numbers.

[TheSlimViper]

Nash. People got robbed that year.

[indiefan23]

The bottom line is that Nash isn't an MVP-type player, and the selection was all about politics, and not basketball ability.


Nash had the best individual playoff series since Michael Jordan, and I beleve that's MJ in 93, not MJ in the second 3 peat years. You can pretend to be too tired to read what I wrote again, but he did do it, and no one has 'ever' presented me with someone having a better series, only excuses and lame 'so he's good because of one series' remarks. Yes, if you can play like MJ in one 7 games series, you're really ****ing good and that's enough evidence to prove it. No, he's been spectacular every year he's been in Phoenix. He's absolutely an MVP caliber player.

[Mikaiel]

Nash had the best individual playoff series since Michael Jordan

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[TheSlimViper]

Nash had the best individual playoff series since Michael Jordan, and I beleve that's MJ in 93, not MJ in the second 3 peat years. You can pretend to be too tired to read what I wrote again, but he did do it, and no one has 'ever' presented me with someone having a better series, only excuses and lame 'so he's good because of one series' remarks. Yes, if you can play like MJ in one 7 games series, you're really ****ing good and that's enough evidence to prove it. No, he's been spectacular every year he's been in Phoenix. He's absolutely an MVP caliber player.

You know, I'd agree with you if you weren't entirely wrong.

[indiefan23]

An MVP should never be a liability on defense. An MVP should not get abused night after night. That's it

All your arguments are garbage Mikaiel. They all just take the fact that Nash is a fantastic player and diminish it because he played on a middling to above average defensive team which is directly because of the front office selling their good defenders, not Nash. Its was not a blow by every time Nash was on the court at all. Mind you, once PHX let it's best defenders go its a little hard to play defense as a team.

The poor defender on his team was Amare who never even tried to protect the rim. When does a team's defense 'start at the point'??? ;0 Defense is anchored at the 5, not the 1, and plenty of mediocre on ball defenders are part of fantastic defensive teams. Tony Parker has won three rings without being a great on ball defender and his team's ranked #1 in defense 3 straight years.

Beyond that, Nash is a decent team defender. Yea, he's small and needs help, but that's the nature of being a small quick point guard on a team with lazy players protecting the rim. You act as if Nash just didn't care on D and never tried. Which is just such bias garbage. You know its not true because its been pointed out to you before but you keep on harping.

Nash averages right around a steal a game which is a bit lower then his effectiveness because he almost never gambles for steals. Nash is regularly among the league leaders in drawn charges for sacrificing his body on DEFENSE so the other team can't score and their fouls add up. Lazy defenders who don't give a crap like you say don't lead leagues in major defensive statistical categories.

I'm so sick of people pretending they know something by harping on defense continuously. Defense is really important but it's become so obtusely over rated that people think its the only thing that matters and those same people think the only way to play good defense is by getting right into someone's jock and forcing a steal. Christ.

Your entire argument is based on one line "Steve Nash is a terrible defender!!!!!" That's really all you say when he's actually not terrible at all. You're lucky there are virtually 0 defensive stats. Your hater foolishness would not have a leg to stand on.

[indiefan23]

You know, I'd agree with you if you weren't entirely wrong.

I'm entirely right. Point out a better one. Waiting.

[TheSlimViper]

I'm entirely right. Point out a better one. Waiting.

The burden of proof is not on me, I am not the one making the outrageous claim.

[wang4three]

Steve Nash in '05. It should've been Shaq. I'm quite all right with his '06 trophy. There was atleast an argument for it then..but '05 it was clearly Shaq.

Also as much as I want to say Kidd in '02, Duncan's stats that year was too ridiculous to overlook.

[Maniak]

Dirks, probably.

[VCMVP1551]

Also as much as I want to say Kidd in '02, Duncan's stats that year was too ridiculous to overlook.

Yeah, that's the problem with Kidd's prime. I feel like he should have an MVP award, but the 2 seasons when he had the best case, Duncan was playing at an all-time great level. In fairness Duncan was the MVP those 2 years, but it's a shame that Kidd doesn't have one considering how good he was, how unselfish he was and how he transformed that Nets team. Steve Nash has never been near the player that Kidd was.

[White Chocolate]

White Chocolate? How can you be serious? I don't understand how taking away a team's best scorer and best defender but the team remaining in the top 3 in the league can't be considered anything but a pretty spectacular acomplishment. Unless you think Tim Thomas/Diaw are legitimate replacements for Amare and Joe Johnson.

I mean, think about it. If you took parker and Bowen away from the spurs, do you think they're a top 3 team? What if you took Gasol and Ariza away from the Lakers... do they finish top 3 with Odom being their second option? They never did before, and Kobe is that team's best scorer. The only team you could possibly say that about is Lebron and the Cavs (cuz he doesn't get the help) and Lebron won the MVP, so...


LeBron and Kobe were both more deserving than Nash in '06. Their supporting casts were even worse than Nash's.

[Jordandunk23]

I'll probably say Nash... i mean his two MVP years were close races but he should have never won two and definitely not back to back years...

[ppierce34]

Part of the reason the Sixers were on a 47 win pace against the West was a late season 5 game west coast trip that they went 0-5 on without Iverson. I believe the team's record minus AI(12 games) was terrible that season, another reason that Iverson was considered so heavily for MVP. People that bring up Deke, need to also take into play that he only played about 25 games for the Sixers that season. Not that Ratliff was a slouch either, he was very good, Sixers record was actually better with him, but Deke is the better player.

Did AI deserve it, yes. Did Shaq deserve it more, yes IMO.

Don't know who the least deserving is, though.

[EvinWizzle]

Part of the reason the Sixers were on a 47 win pace against the West was a late season 5 game west coast trip that they went 0-5 on without Iverson. I believe the team's record minus AI(12 games) was terrible that season, another reason that Iverson was considered so heavily for MVP. People that bring up Deke, need to also take into play that he only played about 25 games for the Sixers that season. Not that Ratliff was a slouch either, he was very good, Sixers record was actually better with him, but Deke is the better player.

Did AI deserve it, yes. Did Shaq deserve it more, yes IMO.

Don't know who the least deserving is, though.
:applause: :applause: :applause:

[indiefan23]

The burden of proof is not on me, I am not the one making the outrageous claim.

Its not outrageous at all. If it is it should be simple for you to come up with one, right? Like, you want me to compare it to every other series performance or something to 'prove it'. You only have to come up with one. I've already detailed why it was so spectacular and Jordanesque so if you wanna say its wrong, that's on you. Otherwise, STFU.

[indiefan23]

Steve Nash in '05. It should've been Shaq. I'm quite all right with his '06 trophy. There was atleast an argument for it then..but '05 it was clearly Shaq.

Also as much as I want to say Kidd in '02, Duncan's stats that year was too ridiculous to overlook.

Again, what is the argument against Nash or for Shaq in 05? The suns won 33 more games and Nash was the only addition. How can 29 to 62 wins be downplayed?

[indiefan23]

I'll probably say Nash... i mean his two MVP years were close races but he should have never won two and definitely not back to back years...

Again why not? Its a yearly award. Even though it does play into it, what you do in other seasons should not count for anything.

[VCMVP1551]

Again, what is the argument against Nash or for Shaq in 05? The suns won 33 more games and Nash was the only addition. How can 29 to 62 wins be downplayed?

Amare missed 27 games in 2003-2004 and he played 80 games in 2004-2005. Phoenix also added Quentin Richardson who averaged 15 and 6 while making nearly three 3's per game.

Miami won 17 more games despite trading Lamar Odom(17, 10, 4), Caron Butler AND Brian Grant for Shaq.

[tastystaci]

Amare missed 27 games in 2003-2004 and he played 80 games in 2004-2005. Phoenix also added Quentin Richardson who averaged 15 and 6 while making nearly three 3's per game.

Miami won 17 more games despite trading Lamar Odom(17, 10, 4), Caron Butler AND Brian Grant for Shaq.

:roll: That's right. They added Q and we know how good he is. :roll: All you Nash haters are epic tools. This is why Nash won TWO MVP's. He made guys like Q-rich and Tim Thomas look like F*ckin all stars.

[Rekindled]

Amare missed 27 games in 2003-2004 and he played 80 games in 2004-2005. Phoenix also added Quentin Richardson who averaged 15 and 6 while making nearly three 3's per game.

Miami won 17 more games despite trading Lamar Odom(17, 10, 4), Caron Butler AND Brian Grant for Shaq.

even scrubs(which qrich is ) can averages good stats with nash as point guard.

[indiefan23]

Amare missed 27 games in 2003-2004 and he played 80 games in 2004-2005. Phoenix also added Quentin Richardson who averaged 15 and 6 while making nearly three 3's per game.

I already responded to this. Go find it and realize the team sucked all year long and got beaten by the Clippers twice, with Amare.


Miami won 17 more games despite trading Lamar Odom(17, 10, 4), Caron Butler AND Brian Grant for Shaq.

It was Wade's rookie season. HE wasn't able to start for 30 games and neither was Caron Butler. They finished 17-3 and did very well in the playoffs. The heat were easily a 55 win team playing in a lower seed because of that. Shaq got them mabye 4 wins. You've gotten like, 4 losses in this thread alone cuz you merely ignore points and repeat things that are totally false.

You're almost as bad as Barney the dinosaur who talks big but gets really quiet when he can't back it up

[indiefan23]

even scrubs(which qrich is ) can averages good stats with nash as point guard.

Yep, Nash is so good he makes anyone and everyone he plays with play to their potential. Who remembers Shaq before he left Miami? Dead. Corpse.

Who just made the all star team again this year with a crazy dance with the jabberwokeez. Nash might be the best teammate of all time and for that the guy deserves his props.

[VCMVP1551]

:roll: That's right. They added Q and we know how good he is. :roll: All you Nash haters are epic tools. This is why Nash won TWO MVP's. He made guys like Q-rich and Tim Thomas look like F*ckin all stars.

Quentin Richardson averaged 17 and 6 the year before he joined Phoenix. :roll:


I already responded to this. Go find it and realize the team sucked all year long and got beaten by the Clippers twice, with Amare.

It's kind of hard to have a good team when you trade your franchise PG(Marbury) 1/3 into the season and shuffle the lineup due to Amare missing 27 games. Leandro Barbosa in his rookie year was the point guard after Marbury left. :roll:


It was Wade's rookie season. HE wasn't able to start for 30 games and neither was Caron Butler.

Once again, Amare missed 27 games! Wade missed 21.


They finished 17-3 and did very well in the playoffs. The heat were easily a 55 win team playing in a lower seed because of that.

You're a moron. Easily a 55 win team? No, a 42 win team isn't easily a 55 win period. That's just speculation. A lot of teams get hot. That Heat was not even a 50 win team, much less "easily a 55 win team".


Shaq got them mabye 4 wins. You've gotten like, 4 losses in this thread alone cuz you merely ignore points and repeat things that are totally false.

I don't ignore points. You're just a complete retard. All I have to do is repeat some of your past statements, one of them being "Dwight Howard is the most dominant center in NBA history". :roll:

[Cool Guy]

I personally think Nash's 2nd MVP should've gone to Kobe. He led a team of scrubs to the Playoffs man!

That right there is deserving of an MVP.

2001 year is a toss up.

[tastystaci]

Quentin Richardson averaged 17 and 6 the year before he joined Phoenix. :roll:



Yeah, with the Clippers :roll: And what he average AFTER he left the Suns? I'll help you out. 8 and 4. :roll: You fail sir.

[Twiens]

Amare missed 27 games in 2003-2004 and he played 80 games in 2004-2005. Phoenix also added Quentin Richardson who averaged 15 and 6 while making nearly three 3's per game.

Miami won 17 more games despite trading Lamar Odom(17, 10, 4), Caron Butler AND Brian Grant for Shaq.

Nash made Qrich, he's been nothing since then without Stevie...

[Bigsmoke]

For me I have to go with Dirk Nowintzki. This guy didn't even get his team out of the first round of the playoffs that year. They got beat by Golden State. If you are MVP of the league in the regular season, it has to at least carry over into the post season to a certain extent. If you are MVP, you at least have to take you team to the conference finals.

What do you all think? Who was the most underserving?

did u see the Golden State's roster. That team was stacked.

[VCMVP1551]

Yeah, with the Clippers :roll: And what he average AFTER he left the Suns? I'll help you out. 8 and 4. :roll: You fail sir.

"You fail"? How old are you, 12? And I don't care what he did after or what team he averaged 17 and 6 on. He had a 13.3 ppg season playing exclusively off the bench in his second NBA second in just 26.6 mpg.

And the season he averaged 8 and 4, he played just 26 mpg and that was on that Larry Brown coached Knicks team that was a mess in general. The next season with Brown gone his stats jumped back up to 13 and 7 while playing at a much slower pace than that 2004-2005 Suns team did.

Looks like I just proved you wrong again. That wasn't too difficult.

[dafunkphenom]

Nash only deserved to win 1 MVP.
Kobe and Lebron were light years ahead of Dirk Nowitzki when Dirk got the award. It's out of these 2 guys. Pick your choice. But because I thought Nash deserved 1 MVP I'll pick Jirk Nochipski as the one most undeserving.

[tastystaci]

"You fail"? How old are you, 12? And I don't care what he did after or what team he averaged 17 and 6 on. He had a 13.3 ppg season playing exclusively off the bench in his second NBA second in just 26.6 mpg.

And the season he averaged 8 and 4, he played just 26 mpg and that was on that Larry Brown coached Knicks team that was a mess in general. The next season with Brown gone his stats jumped back up to 13 and 7 while playing at a much slower pace than that 2004-2005 Suns team did.

Looks like I just proved you wrong again. That wasn't too difficult.

Oh, I see. It's ok to bring up the numbers he put up playing for the Clippers, but when I bring up his numbers directly AFTER he left Phoenix, then all of a sudden you don't care. :roll: Q-rich sucks, Tim Thomas sucks, James Jones sucks, Boris Diaw sucks, etc, etc. They look like all-stars when playing with Steve Nash. Notice a trend? A man who takes jobless guys sitting on couches and makes them all-stars is a God amongst men in my book. :bowdown: Steve Nash. I wish I could've played with him, I might be a millionaire riding the Bulls bench. Oh wait, that's the Tim Thomas story. :lol You sir, fail beyond comprehension.

[VCMVP1551]

Oh, I see. It's ok to bring up the numbers he put up playing for the Clippers, but when I bring up his numbers directly AFTER he left Phoenix, then all of a sudden you don't care. :roll: Q-rich sucks, Tim Thomas sucks, James Jones sucks, Boris Diaw sucks, etc, etc. They look like all-stars when playing with Steve Nash. Notice a trend? A man who takes jobless guys sitting on couches and makes them all-stars is a God amongst men in my book. :bowdown: Steve Nash. I wish I could've played with him, I might be a millionaire riding the Bulls bench. Oh wait, that's the Tim Thomas story. :lol You sir, fail beyond comprehension.

Of course it's ok to post seasons before. You were claiming that Nash made Q-Rich and posting seasons where Q-Rich produced at a comparable clip proves that to be incorrect.

You posted a season when the Knicks were a mess, nobody bought in to Larry Brown's system and everyone's stats were lower. Richardson's minutes were way down as well due to the Knicks being overloaded with perimeter players. I posted seasons before and after that showed Q-Rich producing at a comparable clip. Nash makes his teammates better, but he did not make Q-Rich.

[KoolKat]

did u see the Golden State's roster. That team was stacked.

yeah, with Pietrus and Jax defending Nowitzki.

So stacked, they were eaten alive by the Jazz :roll:

[ChrisKreager]

This is surreal. The Nash kool-aid drinkers aren't even paying attention to their own arguments.

Its conclusive that Nash didn't even deserve to be close to the award in '04-'05. The MVP should have gone to Shaq, no question.

Puh-lease. If Shaq had won in 2005, it would have been because of who he was, not what he did.

[ChrisKreager]

Steve Nash won the 2006 MVP because he was a team player that made his TEAM more valuable.

Kobe winning in 2006 would have been a joke- I'd rather have given it to the guy who made his TEAM better than the individual ballhog who only cared about his personal stats.

[White Chocolate]

Steve Nash won the 2006 MVP because he was a team player that made his TEAM more valuable.

Kobe winning in 2006 would have been a joke- I'd rather have given it to the guy who made his TEAM better than the individual ballhog who only cared about his personal stats.


Kobe singlehandedly got his team to the playoffs. The Lakers that year were sh!t outside of Kobe. Chris Mihm was playing fairly well, but went down with that ankle injury and didn't come back. After Mihm, LA's best players were Lamar Odom(over 40 MPG) and Smush Parker(34 MPG). The Lakers were so bad that they needed 40-41 MPG from Odom and 34 MPG from Smush Parker.

[indiefan23]

Man, I don't want to be mean to you, but how simple can it get?


Quentin Richardson averaged 17 and 6 the year before he joined Phoenix. :roll:

Yea, padding his stats on the GD 28 win clippers. Do you realize how much of your argument is based on ignoring the inherent horrbile terrible mediocrity of the Los Angelos Clippers? Does that not say something to you?



It's kind of hard to have a good team when you trade your franchise PG(Marbury) 1/3 into the season and shuffle the lineup due to Amare missing 27 games. Leandro Barbosa in his rookie year was the point guard after Marbury left. :roll:

Really, you mean that stellar out put of 8-10 with Amare before he got hurt with almost 0 quality wins and losing to Atlanta who were easily close to the worst team in the league? Or are you refering to the < .500 ball they played to close out the season with Amare when they had 0 quality wins and lost twice to the Clippers. In your world, are those suns actually a great team, and thats why you rate Q-Rich so highly?

Heh, like, seriously. With Marbury the year before they were 3 games over .500. Its tough to win without a point, first good point you've made actually and ironically. That's why adding Steve Nash was the reason they went from 29 to 62 wins.


Once again, Amare missed 27 games! Wade missed 21.

Wade's team finished 17-3 beating good team after good team, had a winning record, made the second round and came close to making the east finals.


You're a moron. Easily a 55 win team? No, a 42 win team isn't easily a 55 win period. That's just speculation. A lot of teams get hot. That Heat was not even a 50 win team, much less "easily a 55 win team".

Ha, dude. Okay. Kobe AND Pau go down for 25 games each this season and the Lakers are starting Eddie Jones's corpse and Rafer Alston in their place. How many games does LA win? Any team that loses two of their best players for a third of the season is going to lose games as well. Not every team is going to go 17-3 once they get back. Wade was a rookie and obviously had made a huge leap in the playoffs. Amare did not make a huge leap. They were at .500 for one game all season and lost twice to the Clippers at the end during your so called 'hot' streak of .500 ball playing the worst teams in the NBA, or the best team's benches.


I don't ignore points. You're just a complete retard. All I have to do is repeat some of your past statements, one of them being "Dwight Howard is the most dominant center in NBA history". :roll:

Well, you do ignore points, don't you? As I pointed out a million times about my article, dominance is a measure of how you are compared to your peers. Dwight is dominant because the rest of the centers in the league kind of suck. Shaq played during a period when they were all kind of awesome GOAT types. I said this directly to you then and you ignored it. I even said I think Shaq was better in his prime then Dwight and you ignored it and brought it up here.

How much more wrong can you be? You're dumping on Nash claiming BS about how great the Suns were before Nash, except they were not. This was pointed out to you and you fell back on "Amare was hurt early, they were good then" and they were not. The only good point you made was that not playing with Marbury hurt the team's w's, which is try, which is specifically why adding Steve Nash put them from 29 wins to 62 wins. You can even take it from their 44 wins if you want. I don't care if its an 18 game jump. They went from being a middling to horrible team to the best record in the league by adding Steve Nash who single handedly changed the culture of the entire franchise by leading the a team of crazy young players by example.

Ignore more, its significant and I'm just going to arrogantly tell you you're wrong. You're tied the Clippers and for accepting such a fate, you just accept that you're wrong.

[White Chocolate]

did u see the Golden State's roster. That team was stacked.


.500 teams are not stacked. They were a loss or two from not making the playoffs at all. The only reason they beat Dallas is because Don Nelson knew that team like the back of his hand and Avery Johnson did nothing to adjust.

[indiefan23]

Kobe singlehandedly got his team to the playoffs. The Lakers that year were sh!t outside of Kobe. Chris Mihm was playing fairly well, but went down with that ankle injury and didn't come back. After Mihm, LA's best players were Lamar Odom(over 40 MPG) and Smush Parker(34 MPG). The Lakers were so bad that they needed 40-41 MPG from Odom and 34 MPG from Smush Parker.

Umm... Odom is a really, really good player. Slam Smush all you want, he was athletic as anything. Deaven George was a solid role player who fit the system really well and played in it forever. Kobe singlehandedly, with help from another great player in his prime, played .500 ball to get in the playoffs ahead of a that totally banged up denver team led by a sophmore player and Kings team that would have been ahead of them had they traded for Ron Artest sooner rather then later.

And Smush? Smush had a career year. He shot 45% and 37% from 3. If he continued playing at that level he'd still easily be in the league. Guess who shot the same FG% and a worse % from 3? Hint: your nose is firmly in his rectum.

[indiefan23]

.500 teams are not stacked. They were a loss or two from not making the playoffs at all. The only reason they beat Dallas is because Don Nelson knew that team like the back of his hand and Avery Johnson did nothing to adjust.

Stop only looking at the record. Christ... it takes you two seconds to look at games played and see what happened. Or you know, you could actually read the reply to your previous post where you incorrectly said they were a .500 team.

They traded Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy, two players who didn't fit their team, for Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington, two players who fit the team perfectly, got Baron Davis back from injury and went on to demolish the league as the official hottest team entering the playoffs. They went 16-4 over their last 20 games and 9-1 over their last 10. They matched up incredibly well with Dallas who didn't beat them once in the regular season. The team Dallas played was not a .500 team at all. Had that team played all season they would have easily been a 2 or 3 seed and Dallas wouldn't be looking at them till the west finals which GSW came within a shot or two of making. STFU.

[White Chocolate]

Umm... Odom is a really, really good player. Slam Smush all you want, he was athletic as anything. Deaven George was a solid role player who fit the system really well and played in it forever. Kobe singlehandedly, with help from another great player in his prime, played .500 ball to get in the playoffs ahead of a that totally banged up denver team led by a sophmore player and Kings team that would have been ahead of them had they traded for Ron Artest sooner rather then later.

And Smush? Smush had a career year. He shot 45% and 37% from 3. If he continued playing at that level he'd still easily be in the league. Guess who shot the same FG% and a worse % from 3? Hint: your nose is firmly in his rectum.


Odom is good, but not great. His greatest asset is he can play almost all positions. Smush Parker may have had a career year and put up decent numbers, but don't let numbers fool you. He has an extremely low ball IQ.

[CarpeDiemKJ]

Nash's second MVP was not deserved. I would've given it to D. Wade, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James.

[White Chocolate]

Or you know, you could actually read the reply to your previous post where you incorrectly said they were a .500 team.


Oh I'm sorry. They were a .512 team. :rolleyes:



They traded Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy, two players who didn't fit their team, for Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington, two players who fit the team perfectly, got Baron Davis back from injury and went on to demolish the league as the official hottest team entering the playoffs. They went 16-4 over their last 20 games and 9-1 over their last 10.


That doesn't make them a great team. It means they got hot at the right time.



They matched up incredibly well with Dallas who didn't beat them once in the regular season. The team Dallas played was not a .500 team at all. Had that team played all season they would have easily been a 2 or 3 seed and Dallas wouldn't be looking at them till the west finals which GSW came within a shot or two of making. STFU.


They matched up with Dallas incredibly well because Don Nelson knew that team inside and out. Avery Johnson knew that and did NOTHING to compensate. And Golden State being a 2nd or 3rd seed? GTFO. Just because they had a hot 20 game stretch, doesn't mean they're continuing at that pace. You think that team is winning 55 games? Hell no.

[indiefan23]

yeah, with Pietrus and Jax defending Nowitzki.

So stacked, they were eaten alive by the Jazz :roll:

Eaten alive by the Jazz? They came within two shots of beating the Jazz. Seriously, is everyone on ISH really this incapable of remembering/looking up anything about what happened at all when they talk their smack?

Watch, I'm going to do it now and time it. 20 seconds.

game 1: 112-116. I recall they almost stealing the first game. Missed a shots and Utah hit their FTs to jack up the score.

Game 2: overtime game. One shot and GSW wins it.

Game 3: Beat Utah by 20 points at home

They hit a shot or two in their first two games thats a 3-0 lead no team has ever come back from. And I recall at least one call robbing them of a game. I don't think its difficult, you just look at things like results and presto, you can talk about things that happened instead of just making it up.

[indiefan23]

Oh I'm sorry. They were a .512 team. :rolleyes:

That doesn't make them a great team. It means they got hot at the right time.

They matched up with Dallas incredibly well because Don Nelson knew that team inside and out. Avery Johnson knew that and did NOTHING to compensate. And Golden State being a 2nd or 3rd seed? GTFO. Just because they had a hot 20 game stretch, doesn't mean they're continuing at that pace. You think that team is winning 55 games? Hell no.

Uh, hell yes. They traded for key players. One of them became their team captain and led the team. They played totally differently after the trade. Avery Johnson did to much to try and compensate and changed his starting line up for the very first game of the series which messed with their chemistry and let GSW steal the first game. Like, did you even watch?

And the next year, in a West with absolutely improved Houston/Portland/Lakers/Kings teams they won 48 games. Why couldn't they win 5-7 more games in a crappier conference?

[indiefan23]

Nash only deserved to win 1 MVP.
Kobe and Lebron were light years ahead of Dirk Nowitzki when Dirk got the award. It's out of these 2 guys. Pick your choice. But because I thought Nash deserved 1 MVP I'll pick Jirk Nochipski as the one most undeserving.

Uh, I'm all about people on lesser teams getting credit, but Dirk won 17 more games then Lebron in a still weaker east and 25 more then Kobe. Your team has to be elite to win MVP. I honestly thought Nash should have won that year. It was easily his best but he had won 2 so u know, the media likes to pass it around. Nash had his so Kudos to Dirk.

[Mikaiel]

The poor defender on his team was Amare who never even tried to protect the rim.

Weird. Nash is a great leader and makes his teammates so much better. Why doesn't it work with Amar'e ?


When does a team's defense 'start at the point'???

Hmm, I don't know, every time ? Since the opposing PG will have the ball at the beginning of virtually every single possession. But Nash can't even put pressure on the ball or anything, instead the PG will just set up the offense without being worried about Nash's D. Putting ball pressure on the PG is critical because if you don't, the other team will be in its comfort zone.


Beyond that, Nash is a decent team defender.

Do you even know what team defense is ? The guy has problems with rotations and he's really poor at closing out on a shooter. And that my friend is team defense. And he's still below average in that category.

[indiefan23]

Weird. Nash is a great leader and makes his teammates so much better. Why doesn't it work with Amar'e ?

Hmm... he went from 20 ppg to 26 and his FG % went up almost 10 percent. How's that not working?


Hmm, I don't know, every time ? Since the opposing PG will have the ball at the beginning of virtually every single possession. But Nash can't even put pressure on the ball or anything, instead the PG will just set up the offense without being worried about Nash's D. Putting ball pressure on the PG is critical because if you don't, the other team will be in its comfort zone.

Such BS. You know the point I was making is that the strength of a defense rests on the shoulders of the center. Points funnel mismatches into them. The entire Suns system focused on solid transition defense and not slowing the game down because at a fast pace teams played in the Suns comfort zone.


Do you even know what team defense is ? The guy has problems with rotations and he's really poor at closing out on a shooter. And that my friend is team defense. And he's still below average in that category.

Team defense is playing defense as a team to reduce the efficiency of your opponents offense. He's poor at closing out on shooters because like every 6'1" guy he can be easily shot over. Problems with rotations? You're just making up BS. Nash was every bit the defender that Tony Parker was on the top ranked defense for 3 straight years except he drew way me charges then Parker. Nash has played on above average defensive teams.

In 06 and 07 they allowed one measly basket more per 100 possessions more then the Detroit Pistons. In 08 they allowed one more basket a game game then the cavs. This perception that they didn't play any defense is just this thing people hold onto who are actually just too lazy to research what they're saying. Who's good and bad at defense in this league is really such an arbitrary perception.

How about this for Nash teams?

01/02: above average defense. .2 points worse then the Jazz.

02/03: above average defense. allow roughly 1 basket more then pistons and spurs

As stated after this Cuban screwed with the team instead of letting them gel. Then Nash went to PHX where his teams typcially played above average defense that was quite comparable to the Pistons of the day.

The problem is the only defense you've probably ever seen is slow the game to a crawl style Spurs/Pistons 90's D. You can still play defense and play at a fast pace. It does not look the same but its still defense when the opposing teams efficiency goes down when they play you.

By all means, the suns were better offensive teams then defensive ones, but stating that they "didn't play defense" or that Nash was incapable of being on a decent defensive team is just factually wrong. Not that you pay attention to facts I spose. So just parrot whatever sports broadcasters read from their teleprompters and what people shooting their mouths off on ISH say. Its incorrect and you 'should' know better by now.