Shaq only has 1 MVP???!!!

[KG5MVP]

Wow I just learned that Shaq has only won 1 MVP, this is insane BS because he was the best player from 1998-2003, and he's possibly the best center in history of NBA.

Wow.

[KingKobe]

:facepalm u just learned that?

but yea someone as dominant as shaq should have won many MVPs. I personally think he should have won in 2001 and 2005

[MeLO MvP 15]

I always thought he had 2, but ESPN just showed a graphic saying he had one.

[KG5MVP]

:facepalm u just learned that?

but yea someone as dominant as shaq should have won many MVPs. I personally think he should have won in 2001 and 2005

I thought Shaq had 2 MVPs

[mashbelly]

Wow I just learned that Shaq has only won 1 MVP, this is insane BS because he was the best player from 1998-2003, and he's possibly the best center in history of NBA.

Wow.

...and you say you know the NBA

[LakerDefense8]

He should have won another one in 2001. I don't know about 2005 though, but he definitely deserves more than 1 MVP.

[gengiskhan]

If Shaq ever had half of Kobe's work ethics & discipline.

Shaq would've had

3 Reg Sea MVPs
4 Finals MVPs
2 back to back NBA DPOYs

& Lakers becames the 1st team to 4-peat since Minniapolis days easily

But Shaq was such a slob & lazy hollywood wannabe.

He would've bettered Hakeem's legacy but unfortunately such an underachiever.

[GOBB]

Have another red box on me. The fact you just leanred this is pathetic.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

If Shaq ever had half of Kobe's work ethics & discipline.

Shaq would've had

3 Reg Sea MVPs
4 Finals MVPs
2 back to back NBA DPOYs

& Lakers becames the 1st team to 4-peat since Minniapolis days easily

But Shaq was such a slob & lazy hollywood wannabe.

He would've bettered Hakeem's legacy but unfortunately such an underachiever.If Shaq had better work ethic he would've been a GOAT candidate, but underachiever? Calm down.

[bdreason]

Nash > Shaq

[tommy3]

WOW Shaq has only 1 mVP FIRST TIME i read about this WTF?!

[DWRIGHTWAY]

who cares he got RINGS

[2LeTTeRS]

Shaq's talent definitely deserves more accolades, but 2 there were 2 huge reasons why Shaq didn't more MVPs between 99-05 1) he regularly missed somewhere between 8-16 regular season games each season, and 2) he played with so much talent that his team was able to be average or above without him.

That made hit hard to vote him over guys like KG and Tim Duncan who were doing a lot more with less while not missing games.

[IN-PAX-WE-TRUST]

Shaq should probably have 5-6 MVPs. He's arguably the most dominant player in the history of the game.

[Batz]

Wow I just learned that Shaq has only won 1 MVP, this is insane BS because he was the best player from 1998-2003, and he's possibly the best center in history of NBA.

Wow.
:roll:

Anyways, MVPs mean a different thing in todays game.

[jlauber]

Shaq may have only had one MVP, but he was the best player in the NBA for the majority of those seasons from 98-05. I can safely say that had there been a general draft in those years, that Shaq would have been the #1 pick in virtually every one of them.

Not to turn this into a Wilt thread, but as great a TEAM player as Russell was, IMHO, Chamberlain was the best player in the league in EVERY season of the decade of the 60's.

And, the same could probably be said for MJ in almost every year in which he played. Furthermore, while Nash may have deserved his MVP's, and Nowitzki probably deserved his, had there been a draft in those years, neither would have been selected ahead of Kobe.

So, I personally take MVP awards with a certain amount of skepticism.

[Sarcastic]

:roll:

Anyways, MVPs mean a different thing in todays game.

What the hell does that mean?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq's talent definitely deserves more accolades, but 2 there were 2 huge reasons why Shaq didn't more MVPs between 99-05 1) he regularly missed somewhere between 8-16 regular season games each season, and 2) he played with so much talent that his team was able to be average or above without him.

That made hit hard to vote him over guys like KG and Tim Duncan who were doing a lot more with less while not missing games.

From 2000-2003, the Lakers were 18-23 without him, they definitely weren't above average teams without him. I doubt any of those teams would have made the playoffs without him. Some of his other teams were more talented, though, oddly enough, he's had many teams more talented than the ones that he's actually won titles with.

Missed games certainly did hurt Shaq as far as MVPs, particularly in '98 and '02.

But in 2001, he played more games than Iverson who they gave the award to and in 2005, Nash only played 2 more games.

The 2005 MVP is hard to determine. Duncan missed 16 games and KG missed the playoffs while Shaq played with Wade and Nash played with Amare and Marion.

I thought he was the clear choice in 2001 to be honest. He could've won in '95, but Robinson's numbers were almost as good and he won 5 more games so no complaints there.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Yea there are a few players who you would think should have more MVPs. Shaq is one of them

[Sarcastic]

From 2000-2003, the Lakers were 18-23 without him, they definitely weren't above average teams without him. I doubt any of those teams would have made the playoffs without him. Some of his other teams were more talented, though, oddly enough, he's had many teams more talented than the ones that he's actually won titles with.

Missed games certainly did hurt Shaq as far as MVPs, particularly in '98 and '02.

But in 2001, he played more games than Iverson who they gave the award to and in 2005, Nash only played 2 more games.

The 2005 MVP is hard to determine. Duncan missed 16 games and KG missed the playoffs while Shaq played with Wade and Nash played with Amare and Marion.

I thought he was the clear choice in 2001 to be honest. He could've won in '95, but Robinson's numbers were almost as good and he won 5 more games so no complaints there.

I thought Shaq should have gotten the MVP in 05/06 over Nash too. I would have actually given it to Lebron over Nash that year as well. I think he was too young to win the award, but his season was amazing. 31.4 ppg, 7 reb, and 6.6 asts is better than Nash's 19 ppg and 10.5 asts.

Everyone gives constant praise to Wade for winning the title in 06, which he definitely deserves. But he would never would have gotten the opportunity to do so if he didn't play with Shaq. Having an elite center completely opened up the floor for him, and Shaq never gets enough credit for that.

[NastaMaverick]

Finals MVP>>>>

[Sarcastic]

Finals MVP>>>>

Nope

[GiveItToBurrito]

Wow I just learned that Shaq has only won 1 MVP, this is insane BS because he was the best player from 1998-2003, and he's possibly the best center in history of NBA.

Wow.

This is why it's pointless to use MVPs (or all-defense or all-star picks) as arguments for or against someone when comparing players. Iverson, Malone, and Barkley all won it when there were guys in the league who were clearly better (usually MJ or Shaq) but who weren't playing on surprisingly successful teams. These awards are chosen by writers who like a good story more than they like to reward people who genuinely deserve the award.

[GOBB]

This is why it's pointless to use MVPs (or all-defense or all-star picks) as arguments for or against someone when comparing players. Iverson, Malone, and Barkley all won it when there were guys in the league who were clearly better (usually MJ or Shaq) but who weren't playing on surprisingly successful teams. These awards are chosen by writers who like a good story more than they like to reward people who genuinely deserve the award.

I guess you forgot to add Steve Nash.

[KingKobe]

I guess you forgot to add Steve Nash.
yea kobe should have won it over nash :cry:

[KevinNYC]

Wow I just learned that Shaq has only won 1 MVP,
There was an old SNL skit about this.

Host: Hi, It's the 20th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination and our guests will talk about where they were that day.
Guest 1: Well I was a freshman in college at the time
Host: Wait a minute, how old are you?
Guest 1: 29
Host: You were a freshman in college when you were 9 years old?
Guest 1: No I was 18.
Host: You didn't know President Kennedy was dead for 9 years?
.....
Host: OK, how about you?
Guest 2: Well this is embarrasing, but he (Guest 1) told me in the green room.
........

Guest 3: President Kennedy? Has something happened?

[Micku]

I thought Shaq should have gotten the MVP in 05/06 over Nash too. I would have actually given it to Lebron over Nash that year as well. I think he was too young to win the award, but his season was amazing. 31.4 ppg, 7 reb, and 6.6 asts is better than Nash's 19 ppg and 10.5 asts.

Everyone gives constant praise to Wade for winning the title in 06, which he definitely deserves. But he would never would have gotten the opportunity to do so if he didn't play with Shaq. Having an elite center completely opened up the floor for him, and Shaq never gets enough credit for that.

He took too many games off to win it. But he was very significant. If he would've played more, then he would a be a top contender.

I don't mind that he didn't win in 04-05, but I won't disagree with people who say that he should've won it. Nash impact on the Suns team was very worthy of MVP. But so was Shaq, and his team might've went to the Finals if Wade didn't get hurt.

00-01, I think Iverson had a MVP worthy too. His team was nothing in comparison to the Lakers. The Lakers did deal with injuries that year, but Philly had the same record as the Lakers.

---

But in hindsight, Shaq was probably the best for years. MVP does not mean that you are the best player in the league. Sometimes there is no such thing as the best player either.

[ShaqAttack3234]

00-01, I think Iverson had a MVP worthy too. His team was nothing in comparison to the Lakers. The Lakers did deal with injuries that year, but Philly had the same record as the Lakers.

In terms of regular season wins, I definitely don't think Iverson was at a disadvantage. First, consider the difference in conferences. The West was ridiculously competitive that year, kind of like what we saw in '08, while the East wasn't that strong.

He was also on a great defensive team. The Sixers started off 12-2 in the first month with Iverson averaging just 22.1 ppg, 4.6 rpg and 4.9 apg on 37.8% shooting in that month so it's not like he had to go off every night for Philly to win.

As great as Kobe was, and I think he was a top 3 player that year due to his unbelievable playoff run, he hurt the Lakers, IMO early by going for personal goals(teammates claimed he told them he was trying for a scoring title and MVP) and a GM also claimed that he asked to be traded to that team so he could achieve those goals. In fact, early in the 2000-2001 season Phil said about Kobe "If we had a little better defensive speed, quickness, I'd probably bench him."

And after Kobe, Shaq's cast was not impressive during the regular season, however, he led them to an 11-3 record without Kobe.

This isn't to be confused with what we saw out of Shaq's cast in the playoffs, though, that was a completely different team despite pretty much the same personnel with the exception of Fisher being around for the playoffs after missing 3/4 of the regular season and cancer Isaiah Rider being left off the playoff roster(addition by subtraction). His cast in the playoffs played great. Kobe let the game come to him more, made his teammates better and produced more than he did in the regular season while the offense ran a lot more smoothly, Fisher shot much better than he usually did and Grant played solid post defense against the all-star PF in the West.

Can you make the case that Iverson was AS important to Philly's success as Shaq was to LA's success the way the team was built? Yes, you can make that case, but I don't see an argument for him being more important and if you call that way, then I think you have to look at who was better, and that was easily Shaq, IMO.

Had Iverson's 2001 season come in '99, '05 or '06, I may have supported him for MVP, but I can't pick him over '01 Shaq.

[LakerDefense8]

Nope
The MVP is more prestigious towards your individual accomplishments, but Finals MVP is better towards your all-time rankings.

[Batz]

What the hell does that mean?
Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash.

[Pointguard]

He was also on a great defensive team. The Sixers started off 12-2 in the first month with Iverson averaging just 22.1 ppg, 4.6 rpg and 4.9 apg on 37.8% shooting in that month so it's not like he had to go off every night for Philly to win.

As great as Kobe was, and I think he was a top 3 player that year due to his unbelievable playoff run, he hurt the Lakers, IMO early by going for personal goals(teammates claimed he told them he was trying for a scoring title and MVP) and a GM also claimed that he asked to be traded to that team so he could achieve those goals. In fact, early in the 2000-2001 season Phil said about Kobe "If we had a little better defensive speed, quickness, I'd probably bench him."

I hear you but if Iverson averaged 20ppg their record would have been 2-12. They had little margin for era and were able to win because teams didn't have their offensive schemes set. Iverson had the whole weight of offense on him - I never seen an offensive burden as big Iverson's that year. And he didn't shoot high percentage but he kept teams on their heels. Shaq was dominant but I think Kobe was coming into his own and human nature is always going to focus on the wave that is coming in. That, and a small guy doing big work is also another advantage Iverson had.

[DuMa]

shaq never really cared about the regular season all that much. thus why shaq never reached his potential.

[D.J.]

Shaq was the type to coast through the regular season. In his defense, he had cases for MVP in '95, '01, and '05.

[josh99]

They only give one out a year...

[ShaqAttack3234]

I hear you but if Iverson averaged 20ppg their record would have been 2-12. They had little margin for era and were able to win because teams didn't have their offensive schemes set. Iverson had the whole weight of offense on him - I never seen an offensive burden as big Iverson's that year. And he didn't shoot high percentage but he kept teams on their heels. Shaq was dominant but I think Kobe was coming into his own and human nature is always going to focus on the wave that is coming in. That, and a small guy doing big work is also another advantage Iverson had.

I know the factors that caused people to vote for Iverson. He was kind of a real life Rocky Balboa story, the underdog silencing critics.

I also think that Shaq's 2000 season kind of worked against him because it's almost impossible to follow up a season like that, and even though it has very little to do with how valuable he was in '01, stuff like that enters voters minds, just like in '97 when people said Jordan wasn't awarded the MVP because voters were tired of voting for him.

Regarding the first point, well Philly did win by an average of 7.3 ppg that first month.

Nothing against AI, I genuinley like the guy and hope he returns to the NBA and can finish his career on a better note, but 2001 is the one year I take issue with Shaq not winning.

[Sarcastic]

The MVP is more prestigious towards your individual accomplishments, but Finals MVP is better towards your all-time rankings.

Not really. You can fluke your way to a Finals MVP, while the regular season MVP is reserved for only elite players. Guys like Tony Parker, Cedric Maxwell, JoJo White, and Joe Dumars would never have a chance of winning a regular season MVP.

[sh0wtime]

Wow I just learned that Shaq has only won 1 MVP, this is insane BS because he was the best player from 1998-2003, and he's possibly the best center in history of NBA.

Wow.

Once again people need to learn that the MVP is not about who was the best player that year, the MVP is about the player who did fit best for the required MVP requirements and those requirements are:

1. Must have one of 2-3 best team records in the NBA, 4th best team record is an absolute minimum. Nobody in NBA history has won the MVP trophy by being ranked lower than 4 on the team record standings, you could average a 50 point quadruple double for all they care you still wont get the MVP if you dont have one of the best team records.

2. You have to have been the most impactfull/durable/consistant player on your team, have one of the best stats in the NBA. Playing alongside another very good all-star/superstar hurts your MVP chanses that way unless you can prove you still have the best impact when you are playing and that the team takes a huge downfall when you are not playing.

[Lebron23]

Shaq should have won the MVP Award in 1995.

[Artillery]

Shaq should have won the MVP Award in 1995.

Robinson deserved the '95 MVP more than Iverson deserved the '01 MVP.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Once again people need to learn that the MVP is not about who was the best player that year, the MVP is about the player who did fit best for the required MVP requirements and those requirements are:

Shaq fit every single part of your criteria in 2001 so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.


1. Must have one of 2-3 best team records in the NBA, 4th best team record is an absolute minimum. Nobody in NBA history has won the MVP trophy by being ranked lower than 4 on the team record standings, you could average a 50 point quadruple double for all they care you still wont get the MVP if you dont have one of the best team records.

Shaq's Lakers had the 2nd best record in the NBA.


2. You have to have been the most impactfull/durable/consistant player on your team

Yep, he played 6 more games than his team's second best player and nobody in the game at the time impacted a game like Shaq circa 2001, and it's not particularly close.


have one of the best stats in the NBA.

Shaq crushed everyone else in the league statistically.

29/13/4/3, 57 FG%, 57 TS%. 1st in FG%, 3rd in scoring and rebounding, 4th in blocks, 8th in TS%

And for you advanced stat nerds out there, his PER was 30.2, the next best was Vince Carter(25.0). :oldlol: And I'll even throw in my least favorite advanced stat out there, he led the league in win shares.


Playing alongside another very good all-star/superstar hurts your MVP chanses that way unless you can prove you still have the best impact when you are playing and that the team takes a huge downfall when you are not playing.

Yep, he got a chance to showcase this with Kobe out when he led the Lakers to an 11-3 record.

[crisoner]

Ummmm that's been comon knowledge OP for a long time on these boards.

Any how it is only proof besides the fact Nash has two of them that the MVP is a joke at times.

Waiting for some jackass now to bring up Kobe's one....

[caliman]

It will be absolutely criminal to look back in 10 years and see that Steve Nash has as many MVP's as Shaq and Kobe combined.

[game385]

No Disrespect to Steve Nash but he has 1 of Shaq's MVPs and 1 of Kobe's.

[catch24]

Should have back to backs in 2000/2001 and finally 2005 - still not sure how he didn't win that year. :oldlol:

[crisoner]

Should have back to backs in 2000/2001 and finally 2005 - still not sure how he didn't win that year. :oldlol:


He should of had three in a row......oh well who cares. The best player on the best team will win the Finals.

[sh0wtime]

Shaq fit every single part of your criteria in 2001 so I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.

He did, but another player fit the criteria better (by a small edge), namely Allen Iverson. You honestly dont know why i brought this up? After you read thru this you will see why i brought this up, you will have a full understanding to why the MVP went to Allen Iverson that specific year, even though it was very close (Shaq got alot of #1 votes aswell, just not enough) and even though you might not agree with the MVP going to AI (take it you are a Shaq fan) you will still deep down inside understand why it went to Allen Iverson instead that year, you will understand that AI diserved the MVP more (not by a super big margin).


Shaq's Lakers had the 2nd best record in the NBA.

So did Allen Iversons Sixers.


Yep, he played 6 more games than his team's second best player and nobody in the game at the time impacted a game like Shaq circa 2001, and it's not particularly close.

There is no doubt Shaq was the man on that team, but can you honestly tell me that he impacted his team more than Allen Iverson? There was nobody in the league that year who impacted his team more than what AI did, Shaq was still close, despite playing alongside Kobe Bryant (AI sure had no such player), but lets compare the teams? Compared to what Shaq worked with AI worked with a bunch of scrubs, they were absolutely terrible without him. But Lakers without Shaq were not equally terrible as Sixers without AI.


Shaq crushed everyone else in the league statistically. 29/13/4/3, 57 FG%, 57 TS%. 1st in FG%, 3rd in scoring and rebounding, 4th in blocks, 8th in TS%

And for you advanced stat nerds out there, his PER was 30.2, the next best was Vince Carter(25.0). :oldlol: And I'll even throw in my least favorite advanced stat out there, he led the league in win shares.

Sure, but the criteria of biggest impact compared to any other player is much higher on the requirements for MVP than simply stats. A criteria which Allen Iverson dominated over Shaq. What AI did that year is what Lebron did last year (but even with a worse team, but somewhat less stats) in terms of doing the most with the least and his clutchness, leadership that year was amazing (something which didnt show up on the statsheet).


Yep, he got a chance to showcase this with Kobe out when he led the Lakers to an 11-3 record.

How were the Lakers without Shaq that year? 4-2
During those 6 games Kobe averaged a whopping 34 ppg, 9 rpg, 4 apg including some nice clutch shots.

How were the Sixers without AI? 5-6

So lets see, Allen Iverson compared to Shaq had worse teammates, his teammates struggled more without him, he had more impact on his team more than Shaq had on Lakers and AI didnt had to shabby stats either especially for a 6'0" guy, all this while having the best team record in the EAST and the 2nd best in the NBA (alongside Lakers).

Its still close, but you must agree its easy to see why it went to AI?

Once again the 2 main requirements for MVP remains, the thing which i brought up which you were not sure why i brought up. :P
Basically i brought it up because if you go by those criterias and do a thorough research on why somebody got the MVP over Shaq any specific year, you would understand why somebody else got the MVP and why Shaq has only 1 MVP! If you still wouldnt understand, then i would have been happy to elaborate more thoroughly.

PS: Thanks for the neg though (whoever it was).

[KenneBell]

It will be absolutely criminal to look back in 10 years and see that Steve Nash has as many MVP's as Shaq and Kobe combined.
It will stand as one of the most ridiculous facts in NBA history. Two top-10 players of all-time, both 2nd all-time at their positions(IMO), and only two MVPs between them.

What's funny is that Nash beat Shaq for the '05 award and Kobe for the '06 one. :oldlol:

[nycelt84]

Not really. You can fluke your way to a Finals MVP, while the regular season MVP is reserved for only elite players. Guys like Tony Parker, Cedric Maxwell, JoJo White, and Joe Dumars would never have a chance of winning a regular season MVP.

How the hell can you have a fluke during the most important games of the season? The Finals are not a 1 game event where you can possibly reason this as possible even though it would still be a terrible assertion to make and every one of the guys that you named were excellent in multiple finals series especially Maxwell in '81 and '84.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He did, but another player fit the criteria better (by a small edge), namely Allen Iverson. You honestly dont know why i brought this up? After you read thru this you will see why i brought this up, you will have a full understanding to why the MVP went to Allen Iverson that specific year, even though it was very close (Shaq got alot of #1 votes aswell, just not enough) and even though you might not agree with the MVP going to AI (take it you are a Shaq fan) you will still deep down inside understand why it went to Allen Iverson instead that year, you will understand that AI diserved the MVP more (not by a super big margin).

No, I watched the NBA that year and my opinion remains the same after 10 years.


So did Allen Iversons Sixers.

In a much weaker conference.


There is no doubt Shaq was the man on that team, but can you honestly tell me that he impacted his team more than Allen Iverson? There was nobody in the league that year who impacted his team more than what AI did, Shaq was still close, despite playing alongside Kobe Bryant (AI sure had no such player), but lets compare the teams? Compared to what Shaq worked with AI worked with a bunch of scrubs, they were absolutely terrible without him. But Lakers without Shaq were not equally terrible as Sixers without AI.

Iverson did not work with a bunch of scrubs, the Sixers were a top 5 defensive team and it certainly wasn't because of Iverson who was the weakest Sixer defender out of the starters.


Sure, but the criteria of biggest impact compared to any other player is much higher on the requirements for MVP than simply stats. A criteria which Allen Iverson dominated over Shaq. What AI did that year is what Lebron did last year (but even with a worse team, but somewhat less stats) in terms of doing the most with the least and his clutchness, leadership that year was amazing (something which didnt show up on the statsheet).

The team that Shaq went 11-3 with when Kobe was out was easily worse than Iverson's team, it's not as simple as looking at names on paper and certainly not as simple as "one player played with a superstar so his cast must be much better".

Impact? How about big, efficient scoring nights regularly. How about drawing more double teams than anyone in the league? How about wearing down opponents physically and getting entire teams into foul trouble? How about blocking shots and rebounding?


How were the Lakers without Shaq that year? 4-2
During those 6 games Kobe averaged a whopping 34 ppg, 9 rpg, 4 apg including some nice clutch shots.

How were the Sixers without AI? 5-6

Wrong, the Lakers were 5-3 without Shaq and the Sixers were 6-5 without Iverson. Kobe also averaged 32 ppg on 43% shooting in those games not 34 ppg.


So lets see, Allen Iverson compared to Shaq had worse teammates, his teammates struggled more without him, he had more impact on his team more than Shaq had on Lakers and AI didnt had to shabby stats either especially for a 6'0" guy, all this while having the best team record in the EAST and the 2nd best in the NBA (alongside Lakers).

Him being 6'0" has nothing to do with his value to his team. You're severely overrating what Shaq had to work with in the regular season and underrating Iverson's cast. A top 5 defensive team is extremely valuable, why else do you think the Sixers started off 12-2 with Iverson averaging over 22/5/5 on 38% shooting?


Its still close, but you must agree its easy to see why it went to AI?

Nope. Iverson's cast was better than you're giving them credit for and there's a reason why they could win when Iverson was struggling with his shooting.

[Round Mound]

Iverson getting an MVP over Shaq is hilarious...he was and is a bigger ball hog than Bryant and Jordan put together and he shot 41% FG or something like that taking over 20 FGAs PG.

He should have learned from Stockton 1st create then shoot, he would have been a better Guard by playing more similar to a Point Guard.

[jrong]

Voters never consider the historical ramifications of what it means to win an MVP. And in years when they fall subject to group-think infatuation with a "story" or a "feel-good candidate" (that one doesn't apply to Iverson obviously), these are the types of consequences that ultimately result.

[Lebron23]

He should have won the Maurice Podoloff trophy in 1995, 2001, and 2005.

[DKLaker]

It will stand as one of the most ridiculous facts in NBA history. Two top-10 players of all-time, both 2nd all-time at their positions(IMO), and only two MVPs between them.

What's funny is that Nash beat Shaq for the '05 award and Kobe for the '06 one. :oldlol:

And it's the only things that Nash will ever win!!!!!

[ballashotcalla]

MVP awards are given to top players that win on a team and go above their best year by a good margin.

Shaq was just so dominant that he was taken for granted and only given one.

[Flamboyant]

In all seriousness, Nash may not be in the same tier with Shaq as far as all-time rankings, but he more than deserved the 2005 MVP. Iverson deserved it more than Shaq, too.
IMO Shaq had a really good case in 2001, but Iverson was not that far behind, and it wasn't shocking that he ended up winning. Maybe 10 years after Shaq is (rightfully) regarded as the much better player, but AI was viewed as more "valuable," plus as Shaqattack pointed out, being last years winner usually hurts your chances.
MVPs are overrated to begin with, so I don't know why should people care?

[longtime lurker]

It will stand as one of the most ridiculous facts in NBA history. Two top-10 players of all-time, both 2nd all-time at their positions(IMO), and only two MVPs between them.

What's funny is that Nash beat Shaq for the '05 award and Kobe for the '06 one. :oldlol:

This is exactly why the media should not be voting for the MVP awards.