Award Winners You Disagreed With

[ChrisKreager]

When it comes to NBA awards- MVP, coach of year, Finals MVP- there are some instances where we will say that the right decision was made and there was a more worthy candidate.

What are some that jump out to you?

A few I disagreed with:

1990 Coach of the Year- Larry Brown, who was coaching Spurs in David Robinson's rookie season, pulled off what was- at the time- the biggest single-season turnaround in NBA history at the time. Given where they were the past few years- below .500, a terrible team in the standings before Robinson came on the scene- I think he should have gotten the award that year over Pat Riley. Brown did more with less than Riley that year.

2004 Coach of the Year- Hubie Brown did a fine job with Memphis, but I think a better case could have made for Miami's Stan Van Gundy, who got Miami to make the playoffs in a year little was expected of them (they got off to a horrendous start) and they snatched a 4-seed in D-Wade's rookie year. Aside from Wade and Odom, it was close to the same cast that had missed the playoffs two years running.

[Rnbizzle]

Inb4:

Rose's MVP last year.
Kobe's FMVPs belonging to Pau.

[G-train]

DPOY and all defensive teams are screwed.
MVP is pretty pathetic too. Anything voted by the media sucks pretty much. Most of them dont even understand the game, they just are writers with knowledge of players and teams, but little to no understanding of bball.

[Deuce Bigalow]

2010 FMVP, Kobe was carried by the Great Pau Gasol :bowdown:

[Faptastrophe]

2007 MVP -Nash deserved it, had the best season of his career. Dirk had the 7th best season of his career. Give me a break. It doesn't even make sense.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

2010 FMVP, Kobe was carried by the Great Pau Gasol :bowdown:

Glad to see you finally come around. :applause:

[ChrisKreager]

2007 MVP -Nash deserved it, had the best season of his career. Dirk had the 7th best season of his career. Give me a break. It doesn't even make sense.

Dirk would have been more deserving of the previous year's MVP.

Instead of Nash in '06 and Dirk in '07, I think it would have been a lot better had they flip-flopped.

[Whoah10115]

2007 MVP -Nash deserved it, had the best season of his career. Dirk had the 7th best season of his career. Give me a break. It doesn't even make sense.


7th best season is a huge stretch, but yes Nash should have won it.



Not much of an argument for Dirk the previous year either.




Malone MVP 96-97. That should have gone to Jordan.


Jordan MVP 97-98. That should have gone to Malone.

[MK2V1GP]

Tim Duncan, MVP, 2002-03 season


I felt that KG did more with less that year and should've won it

Duncan: 23.3 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 3.9 apg, .7 spg, 2.9 bpg, SA was 60-20
Garnett: 23 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.7 bpg, Min was 51-31

They went 2-2 that year.

Duncan won the voting by less than 100 points, 962-871.

You can definitely argue that it was one of those instances where either player could've won it, but to me, especially that year, KG was much more VALUABLE to his team than Duncan was. Just look at who they had surrounding them that season.


KG was stuck with the likes of Peeler, Hudson, Szczerbiak, Gill, Nesterovic, Trent, Wilks, Slater, Joe Smith, Loren Woods, Igor Rakocevic.
Duncan had Robinson, Bowen, Ginobili, Parker, Stephen Jackson, Kerr, Claxton, Willis, Steve Smith, Malik Rose, Ferry.

[swi7ch]

DRose as MVP.

LBJ should have won but the media was angry at him.

[Faptastrophe]

DRose as MVP.

LBJ should have won but the media was angry at him.
I would have voted for Lebron James if I had a vote, but I completely understand why Rose won it. I don't think you could ever find a sane person that would say Rose is better than Lebron, but I get why Rose won MVP. Lebron James is/has been far better than Rose. But the season Chicago had. Rose's impact on a team that won 41 games (09/10), and the hype to go with it really made it an obvious choice for most of the voters. I don't agree with it, but I get it. And i'm fine with Rose getting MVP.

[Eric Cartman]

Kobe should have 3 MVP's as we speak.

[Lebron23]

2006 NBA MVP LeBron James - LBJ actually finished 2nd in the MVP Voting. 31/7/7 at age of 21.

[Maniak]

inb4 Both of Steve Nash's MVPs.

Personally, I go with the time Sam Mitchell won CoTY, mainly because he just got fired shortly after anyways :lol

[dunksby]

Durant's two scoring titles.

[bwink23]

Kobe's First team all-defensive last year was complete trash.

[ShaqAttack3234]

There are MVPs for example that seem kind of off to me early on, but without having seen those seasons, I'll exclude them. I have seen the following series for Finals MVP that I list, though.

I also won't list awards where I simply disagree with the winner, but haven't chosen who I think should have won instead.

1980 Finals MVP- Kareem dominated the first 5 games, I completely disagree with Magic winning the award based on one game, especially when Kareem's game 5 was more impressive than Magic's game 6 to me. I simply don't buy that you should be finals MVP when you have a teammate who was better than you in all of the other games(and wins) except for one.

1981 Finals MVP- No way was Cedric Maxwell more valuable than Bird. Yes, Bird shot poorly, but he hit big shots, made tons of hustle plays, grabbed an incredible amount of rebounds and had a huge impact on his teammates with his passing.

1994 Coach Of The Year- Phil Jackson deserved this one. For the Bulls to still win 55 games without MJ was amazing, and they did so by running the triangle better than ever before and with better defense. All of this despite Pippen and Grant missing more games than the previous season.

1997 MVP- Malone got the award because they were tired of giving it to Jordan and because Malone campaigned for it. Jordan was simply a better player and on a team that won 5 more games.

2000 Coach Of The Year- Clearly should've gone to Phil Jackson again. The Lakers going 67-15(and a shot at 69-13 had they cared about the last 2 games) is improbable for many reasons. 1 being that they had to adjust to the triangle offense, which took time, but they won early with defense, which fill was responsible for quite a bit of. In fact, they were the best defensive team in the league. They also did this with Kobe missing the first 15 games, and while having a big weakness at PF as well as 2 starters who weren't offensive threats at all(Harper and Green). He also helped motivate Shaq to play up to his potential. I'd have expected 55-60 wins.

2001 MVP- Shaq was simply on a different level than anyone else at this point and Iverson was no exception. As far as value....where would the Lakers have been in a Western Conference where 7 of 8 playoff teams won 50+ and none fewer than 47? Had Shaq not stepped up and led LA to an 11-3 record without Kobe, would the Lakers playoff run have been remotely possible? There was a massive difference between the East and West

2004 Coach Of The Year- What Hubie did with Memphis was impressive, but how the hell did Jerry Sloan get that team to a 42-40 record? Who did they have besides AK-47? Carlos Arroyo? Matt Harpring for part of the season?

2006 MVP- Nash was great, but Kobe deserved this one more, imo. He really put his team on his back and they overachieved. He was also the best player in the game and clearly better than Nash.

2008 Coach Of The Year- Rick Adelman. Houston won whether Yao or T-Mac was out, and T-Mac was a shell of his former self by this point. The fact that half of their 22 game winning streak came without Yao is extremely impressive as is the fact that they won 55 in a West where every playoff team won at least 50.

2011 MVP- Dwight deserved it more than Rose, imo, I just don't think their impact was similar. How much would Orlando suffer without Howard? We can only imagine considering he made them a top 3 defensive team and averaged 23/14 despite nobody else on the team averaging 15 other than Vince Carter who played their for 22 games.

[GS1905]

2009,2010, and 2011 MVPs.

Neither Lebrick nor Chucker Rose deserved their MVP awards.

[Scholar]

Kobe should have won the 2005-06 Season MVP title. Nobody can ever replicate even 1/4 of what Kobe accomplished with the scrubs he played with on that squad. Nash was definitely phenomenal that year, but Kobe was the best player that year.

[rodman91]

MVPs are usually more about wins and player's share in them. So last year Rose deserved more than Lebron.

It's like statement to all superstars.Success > Stats.

[RRR3]

Kobe should have won the 2005-06 Season MVP title. Nobody can ever replicate even 1/4 of what Kobe accomplished with the scrubs he played with on that squad. Nash was definitely phenomenal that year, but Kobe was the best player that year.
http://www.05news.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Lebron-James.jpg
http://cdn2.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/208/426/582/orlando-magic-1-tracy-mcgrady-white-916fa.jpg
http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/images/tattoo/allen_iverson_tattoos.jpg


You lose.

[97 bulls]

Phil Jackson should've won the coach of the year award in 94. Its also an insult that he only has one.

Scottie Pippen should've won the dpoy award in 95 over mutombo. Mutombo led the league in blocks, and was all nba defense first team, but I believe his team was ranked 14th in defense and won 42 games.

Pippen led the league in stls, defensive rating, was all-nba first team, led the league in all-nba defense votes, avg a block a game as a SF, his team was ranked number 2 in team defense and he was their best defender, help defender, full court press defender , man defender, and he helped defend the paint. And the bulls finished with a better record than the nuggets. Pippen had far more responsibilities on defense with the bulls than mutombo with the nuggets

Pippen wa robbed

[G-train]

Nash is an fantastic offensive player but be deserved neither MVP, it was a total media hype up BS.
05 was clearly Shaq, and 06 was clearly Kobe. Disturbingly pathetic that Nash got them.

[G-train]

Phil Jackson should've won the coach of the year award in 94. Its also an insult that he only has one.

Scottie Pippen should've won the dpoy award in 95 over mutombo. Mutombo led the league in blocks, and was all nba defense first team, but I believe his team was ranked 14th in defense and won 42 games.

Pippen led the league in stls, defensive rating, was all-nba first team, led the league in all-nba defense votes, avg a block a game as a SF, his team was ranked number 2 in team defense and he was their best defender, help defender, full court press defender , man defender, and he helped defend the paint. And the bulls finished with a better record than the nuggets. Pippen had far more responsibilities on defense with the bulls than mutombo with the nuggets

Pippen wa robbed

Pippen should have 3 DPOYs. Probably the greatest wing defender ever. He mastered everything Jordan showed him, except he was bigger than Jordan.

[rmt]

IMO, it's undeserving that Marcus Camby has a DPOY award and neither Bowen nor Duncan has one.

[rodman91]

Nash is an fantastic offensive player but be deserved neither MVP, it was a total media hype up BS.
05 was clearly Shaq, and 06 was clearly Kobe. Disturbingly pathetic that Nash got them.

In 05, they had similar stats and team success but Nash was having great season for his career.It was Shaq's worst or second worst season though. That might effect votes.

In 06, Kobe led scoring with 35 ppg .But Nash led assists and scored almost 20 ppg with much better FG%. Nash had 54-32 record without Amare. Kobe had 45-37. Suns were best team and Lakers were third in same division.

Also James might deserved as well, 31 7 7 season with 50-32 record.

[magnax1]

04 Coach of the year. Whoever didn't vote for Jerry Sloan was probably addicted to some sort of hardcore drug.
11 MVP-Give it to Dwight for obvious reasons.
07 MVP-Nash deserved it. Dirk was pretty great, but he got the award for his record and not for his level of play which I thought was clearly less impactful then Nash.
06 MVP-Kobe probably deserved it. Nash's team over achieved, but not nearly to the level of the Lakers, and Kobe had a pretty historic season that year.
There are some more further back, and probably some DPOTYs I'd change, but nothing as big as those recently.

[Scholar]

http://www.05news.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Lebron-James.jpg
http://cdn2.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/208/426/582/orlando-magic-1-tracy-mcgrady-white-916fa.jpg
http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/images/tattoo/allen_iverson_tattoos.jpg


You lose.

81 points

62 points in 3 quarters to outscore the (at the time) soon-to-be Western Conference champs Dallas Mavericks

40 ppg average for an entire month

Twenty-one 40+ point games & six 50+ point games





You lose.

[bwink23]

81 points

62 points in 3 quarters to outscore the (at the time) soon-to-be Western Conference champs Dallas Mavericks

40 ppg average for an entire month

Twenty-one 40+ point games & six 50+ point games







You lose.



Some people place those who actually win games and make their teammates better over just individual scoring accomplishments....MVP's usually lead their team to at least 50 wins....

[rodman91]

Jordan couldn't win with 37.1 ppg (%48) 5.2 rpg 4.6 apg 2.9 spg 1.5 bpg.
couldn't win with 32 ppg (%54) 8.0 rpg 8.0 apg 2.9 spg
couldn't win with 33.6 (%53) 6.9 rpg 6.3 apg 2.8 spg

:lol

But Magic were great too in those years. Similar to Nash vs Kobe.

[ChrisKreager]

1995 NBA MVP- everyone talks about Robinson and Hakeem, but I'd have given it to Shaq.

For all I hear about Hakeem, he wasn't as good as the year before and the Rockets had a worse record. Just because he was great in the playoffs and for some stretches here and there doesn't mean the Rockets' mediocre stretches should be dismissed.

[I.R.Beast]

DRose as MVP.

LBJ should have won but the media was angry at him.
LMAO..really...u Do realize that wade's numbers was almost identical to lebron right?..and bosh threw in 19 points too. So please explain how James should be MVP with that type of support surrounding him.

[jlauber]

Russell beating Wilt out for the MVP in the 61-62 season.

[32Dayz]

2010 FMVP = Pau Gasol.

2008 MVP = CP3.
2006 MVP = Kobe.

Hmm...

98 + 01 and 02 MVP = Shaq

[alenleomessi]

Kobe's MVP belongs to CP3

[MMM]

Kobe's MVP belongs to CP3

Agreed i also think KG should been 2nd in the mvp that year but people used the fact that the C's were 7-2 without him against him. However, looking back at it we now know justt how valuable a healthy KG was for the Celtics as it was the differences between a title and being a good team.

With that being said I think it is a joke that Shaq doesn't have more MVPs with 2005 being one he deserved over Nash. As for the argument for Kobe in 06 I'm not sure I buy into it because Nash's value made his team a contender for a Title while Kobe's value took a terrible team into fringe playoff position. I always would prefer the players who's value put his team in a position to win it all would win a MVP over a player having a great statistical year on a terrible team.

[32Dayz]

With that being said I think it is a joke that Shaq doesn't have more MVPs with 2005 being one he deserved over Nash.

This!

Shaq without any argument was the best player in the league in 01 and 02.

The fact that he didn't win it those years is one of the biggest jokes.

You can also make a strong argument for him for 98, 05 and even 95 (imo).

[chazzy]

This!

Shaq without any argument was the best player in the league in 01 and 02.

The fact that he didn't win it those years is one of the biggest jokes.

Shaq missed 16 games in 02 vs Duncan's full 82 and the Spurs won as many games. Duncan winning it that year wasn't a joke at all

[32Dayz]

Shaq missed 16 games in 02 vs Duncan's full 82 and the Spurs won as many games. Duncan winning it that year wasn't a joke at all

16 games is not a good enough excuse.

Shaq was clearly better then Duncan that year and deserved the award.

Not saying Duncan wasn't deserving only that Shaq was more deserving.

[HighFlyer23]

2008 MVP should've went to Chris Paul and not Kobe
1995 MVP belonged to Hakeem and not D Rob
2006 MVP belonged to Kobe

Shaq not having more MVPs is a joke ... Nash being a multiple MVP winner is a joke ... 2003 MVP also belongs to Kobe IMO ... he was other worldly that season, better than Duncan

[jlauber]

2008 MVP should've went to Chris Paul and not Kobe
1995 MVP belonged to Hakeem and not D Rob
2006 MVP belonged to Kobe

Shaq not having more MVPs is a joke ... Nash being a multiple MVP winner is a joke ... 2003 MVP also belongs to Kobe IMO ... he was other worldly that season, better than Duncan

Hakeem finished FIFTH in the MVP balloting in the 94-95 season, and with ONE first-place vote. He was well behind Robinson, Shaq, and Malone, as well as being considerably behind Ewing.

[HighFlyer23]

Hakeem finished FIFTH in the MVP balloting in the 94-95 season, and with ONE first-place vote. He was well behind Robinson, Shaq, and Malone, as well as being considerably behind Ewing.

He's better than Wilt who wouldn't even be an NBA starter in the modern NBA era

u mad?

[32Dayz]

Hakeem finished FIFTH in the MVP balloting in the 94-95 season, and with ONE first-place vote. He was well behind Robinson, Shaq, and Malone, as well as being considerably behind Ewing.

I actually thought Shaq deserved the 95 MVP... but being such a fan of his I may be biased.

I think that was a very close race though, it wasn't really wrong to give it to DRob and it wouldn't have been wrong to give it to Shaq or Hakeem either.

Amazing how many talented Centers we had in the 90's... so much different from todays watered down era.

[Pointguard]

In 06, Kobe led scoring with 35 ppg .But Nash led assists and scored almost 20 ppg with much better FG%. Nash had 54-32 record without Amare. Kobe had 45-37. Suns were best team and Lakers were third in same division.

Also James might deserved as well, 31 7 7 season with 50-32 record.
I believe Kobe got a consolation prize that year on the first team, all defensive team - I think they had one extra person that year. He got in supposedly on a recount. Kobe didn't even put in the effort. The voters felt bad about not giving Kobe MVP, but don't make a joke out of other awards. Lebron had the formula to win it that year, tho.

[Pointguard]

Russell beating Wilt out for the MVP in the 61-62 season.

Yeah this. As I've said before, I believe we don't see films from those days to hide the craziness.

[GoSpursGo1984]

2010 FMVP = Pau Gasol.

2008 MVP = CP3.
2006 MVP = Kobe.

Hmm...

98 + 01 and 02 MVP = Shaq

If you think Gasol was the most valuable player for the Lakers you must not have watched that series.How are you going to give the MVP to a player who scored 12 and 13 points in games?

[jlauber]

Yeah this. As I've said before, I believe we don't see films from those days to hide the craziness.

Yeah...I have often wondered what the criteria was for that kind of voting. In Wilt's rookie season, he took what had been a last-place team the year before, to a 49-26 record. In the process, he averaged 37.6 ppg (just shattering the previous scoring record of 29.2 ppg), 27.0 rpg, and shot .461 (which was a career low, and the only time he shot below .506 in his career.)

Russell led the Celtics, and their seven HOFers, to a 59-16 record. En route he averaged 18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career high .467 from the floor.

Wilt not only won the ROY, he also won the MVP award that season.

Now, jump to the 61-62 season. Russell and his six other HOF teammates go 60-20, and Russell averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457. Meanwhile, Chamberlain took the same basic roster to a 49-31 record, and in the process, he obliterated his own scoring record, averaging 50.4 ppg, to go along with 25.7 rpg, and a .506 FG%. He even averaged 39.6 ppg against Russell in their 10 H2H's (as well as a staggering 52.7 ppg against 6-11 Walt Bellamy in their 10 H2H's.)

Yet, Russell won the MVP in that 61-62 season. Just what in the hell changed from the 59-60 season? Russell and his Celtics basically played the exact same way, while Wilt DRAMATICALLY elevated his play over his 59-60 performance.

Of course, there was a very suspicious "anti-Wilt" bias in the league at the time (and for nearly the rest of his career, until his final two years, in which Kareem became the new "villain.") In any case, while Chamberlain finished second in the MVP balloting, he was voted first-team all-league over Russell.

[D-Wade316]

Some:
Derrick Rose's 2010-2011 MVP award(Dwight)
Kobe Bryant's 2007-2008 MVP award(CP3)
Steve Nash's 2005-2006 MVP award(Dirk)
Allen Iverson's 2000-2001 MVP award(Shaq)
Kobe's All-Defensive teams
Ron Artest's 2003-2004 DPOY award(Duncan)
Dirk Nowitzki's 2010-2011 FMVP award(Wade)
Tony Parker's 2006-2007 FMVP award(Duncan)
James Worthy's 1987-1988 FMVP award(Magic)
Magic Johnson's 1979-1980 FMVP award(Kareem)

[brisbaneman]

2007 MVP -Nash deserved it, had the best season of his career. Dirk had the 7th best season of his career. Give me a break. It doesn't even make sense.

Dirk took a shit team to 67 wins, he was the most obvious MVP in a long time.

[D-Wade316]

Dirk took a shit team to 67 wins, he was the most obvious MVP in a long time.
They were a great team, until the Playoffs. But still, Dirk deserved the award.

[brisbaneman]

They were a great team, until the Playoffs. But still, Dirk deserved the award.

his 2nd option was either jason terry or josh howard and he got 67 wins out of that team with pretty routine domination in the regular season. i still think it was like dirk's 5th or 6th best season but he was pretty obviously the MVP by all current metrics.

[32Dayz]

If you think Gasol was the most valuable player for the Lakers you must not have watched that series.How are you going to give the MVP to a player who scored 12 and 13 points in games?

Because you're stupidly focusing on games they lost instead of the games they won.
Also one of those two games Gasol had 12/12 and only scored less because Kobe was playing outside of the offense and ballhogging.
Plus Kobe was horrible in G2 and cost them that Game so you can go both ways in terms of blaming one of the two for losses.

Gasol was clearly better then Kobe in 3 of the 4 games they won in the Finals and thus was the biggest reason LA won that series.

He deserved the 2010 FMVP.
It was only given to Kobe because the league makes more money by pushing a profitable star with a huge fanbase then by giving it to some European who is incomparably less popular.

[D-Wade316]

his 2nd option was either jason terry or josh howard and he got 67 wins out of that team with pretty routine domination in the regular season.
You can't call a team shitty if they went to the Finals the previous season, then won more games the following season.

i still think it was like dirk's 5th or 6th best season but he was pretty obviously the MVP by all current metrics.
Yeah. Kobe and Duncan were close, but his team wins puts him over.

[Aussie Dunker]

81 points

62 points in 3 quarters to outscore the (at the time) soon-to-be Western Conference champs Dallas Mavericks

40 ppg average for an entire month

Twenty-one 40+ point games & six 50+ point games





You lose.

Finished as the 7th seed dude, how is that valuable?.... MVP not gonna happen :no:

Lebron the next year had an even worse cast and finished as the 2nd seed and won the conference, that is more value, right?...

Iverson again had a worse team than Kobe, but finished as the top seed in the East and wen't through to the finals. He may not have had "twenty one" 40 point games, but he showed more value than kobe did in their respective seasons, did he not?...

[Whoah10115]

05 was clearly Shaq, and 06 was clearly Kobe. Disturbingly pathetic that Nash got them.



I'm straight up comin at you. On what grounds did the 2nd best player on the Heat deserve the MVP over Steve Nash? On what grounds? Did he PLAY better? He didn't even play as well as he did the year before.



In the EAST, his team had 17 game turnaround and Steve Nash had a 33 game turnaround...THIRTY-THREE...in the WEST. The Heat were a team with home-court advantage in the first round the year prior. They pushed the best record in the NBA (who did their shit against the Western Conference) to 6 games in the 2nd round. Means they won a playoff series. The Suns had the biggest turnaround ever. And you're not gonna tell me he played basketball at a higher level than Nash. He was the 2nd best player on his own team. Wade was well ahead of him that season. Let Shaq miss time, like he did the next season, and it won't cost the Heat nearly as much as losing Steve Nash. You wanna give me AI (who I usually think is overrated, then I'm damn good with that. But Shaq had no business being in the discussion.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

In 2006 Kobe was 4th in the MVP voting so Nash didin't steal anything from him
if somebody else should've won it it was LeBron

[32Dayz]

I'm straight up comin at you. On what grounds did the 2nd best player on the Heat deserve the MVP over Steve Nash? On what grounds? Did he PLAY better? He didn't even play as well as he did the year before.



In the EAST, his team had 17 game turnaround and Steve Nash had a 33 game turnaround...THIRTY-THREE...in the WEST. The Heat were a team with home-court advantage in the first round the year prior. They pushed the best record in the NBA (who did their shit against the Western Conference) to 6 games in the 2nd round. Means they won a playoff series. The Suns had the biggest turnaround ever. And you're not gonna tell me he played basketball at a higher level than Nash. He was the 2nd best player on his own team. Wade was well ahead of him that season. Let Shaq miss time, like he did the next season, and it won't cost the Heat nearly as much as losing Steve Nash. You wanna give me AI (who I usually think is overrated, then I'm damn good with that. But Shaq had no business being in the discussion.

Shaq was beasting in 2005 and turned the Heat into true contenders while LA was a joke without him.
He was easily the MVP of the 05 Regular season.

Even in 2006 he was one of the MVPlayers in the league although Wade had surpassed him at that point.

2005 Shaq > 2005 Wade/Kobe

[FKAri]

Coach of the Year is usually the dumbest spur of the moment award in the NBA.

[Whoah10115]

Shaq was beasting in 2005 and turned the Heat into true contenders while LA was a joke without him.
He was easily the MVP of the 05 Regular season.

Even in 2006 he was one of the MVPlayers in the league although Wade had surpassed him at that point.

2005 Shaq > 2005 Wade/Kobe



You didn't say anything other than he was better. What are you actually saying? He was the 2nd best player on his team. The Heat pushed the Pacers to 6 games in the 2nd round the year before. The Suns won 29 games, then jumped to 62 in the West, 3 better than the Heat in the East.



Wade was a lot more important to the Heat. Didn't Shaq miss 25 games the next year? They won 52 games, with a lesser team and with Shaq missing that much time. How much did Shaq really deteriorate over that year? None. He was the Heat's 2nd best player from the beginning. He didn't beast or do anything. His stats were relatively low for his standards, playing in a weaker conference with even fewer guys to stop him. And the reason was he was disinterested. Maybe if he was in as good a shape during the season as he was during the VMA's, he would have deserved the award. As it was, he was the 2nd best player on his team.


I don't know what Kobe has to do with this argument either. If it makes you feel better, I think it's ridiculous that Kobe made the 3rd team that year.

[32Dayz]

Playoff PER

A's (Main Star) :
Shaq (00-02) : 29
Jordan (91-93 + 96-98) : 28.53

B's (Side-Kicks) :
Kobe (00-02) : 21
Pippen (91-93 + 96-98) : 19.5


02 finals mvp-kobe
01, 02 mvp - kobe

bean was robbed. its like carrying shaq wasnt enough for those fools to give him the award:facepalm

http://necolebitchie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/shaq-and-hoopz-laughing.jpg

[Duncan21formvp]

Tim Duncan, MVP, 2002-03 season


I felt that KG did more with less that year and should've won it

Duncan: 23.3 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 3.9 apg, .7 spg, 2.9 bpg, SA was 60-20
Garnett: 23 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.7 bpg, Min was 51-31

They went 2-2 that year.

Duncan won the voting by less than 100 points, 962-871.

You can definitely argue that it was one of those instances where either player could've won it, but to me, especially that year, KG was much more VALUABLE to his team than Duncan was. Just look at who they had surrounding them that season.


KG was stuck with the likes of Peeler, Hudson, Szczerbiak, Gill, Nesterovic, Trent, Wilks, Slater, Joe Smith, Loren Woods, Igor Rakocevic.
Duncan had Robinson, Bowen, Ginobili, Parker, Stephen Jackson, Kerr, Claxton, Willis, Steve Smith, Malik Rose, Ferry.

Duncan won the most games in the league as the only allstar and won finals mvp, he clearly deserved mvp.

[JMT]

At least 2 of the 5 All Defense First Teamers in any given year.

[Apocalyptic0n3]

I always felt that Jermaine O'Neal was deserving of an MVP somewhere between 2002 and 2004, but it's hard to pick him over Duncan or Garnett.

[Kyle_korver]

Kobe MVP .. Cp3 was the most dominate pg since magic Johnson that year and overachieved with the terrible hornet .. I don't anyone is gonna repeat what he did .. Assist leader steal leader with 20+ points

[blablabla]

Some:
Derrick Rose's 2010-2011 MVP award(Dwight)
Kobe Bryant's 2007-2008 MVP award(CP3)
Steve Nash's 2005-2006 MVP award(Dirk)
Allen Iverson's 2000-2001 MVP award(Shaq)
Kobe's All-Defensive teams
Ron Artest's 2003-2004 DPOY award(Duncan)
Dirk Nowitzki's 2010-2011 FMVP award(Wade)
Tony Parker's 2006-2007 FMVP award(Duncan)
James Worthy's 1987-1988 FMVP award(Magic)
Magic Johnson's 1979-1980 FMVP award(Kareem)
what the hell are u smocking

[glidedrxlr22]

The last couple of first team all defense for Kobe were undeserved....he should've been a second teamer AT BEST.

[32Dayz]

The last couple of first team all defense for Kobe were undeserved....he should've been a second teamer AT BEST.

Has hasn't deserved any All-D teams since 04 and beyond if not earlier.

[HighFlyer23]

rick adelman not having a COY award is also a joke

[jlip]

At least 2 of the 5 All Defense First Teamers in any given year.

^This^

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

I believe Kobe got a consolation prize that year on the first team, all defensive team - I think they had one extra person that year. He got in supposedly on a recount. Kobe didn't even put in the effort. The voters felt bad about not giving Kobe MVP, but don't make a joke out of other awards. Lebron had the formula to win it that year, tho.

Well he didn't put in effort like he did in previous years or in 2008 because of the tremendous load he had to carry on offense. But even then, his defense was actually good in comparison to the load he had to carry.

[32Dayz]

Well he didn't put in effort like he did in previous years or in 2008 because of the tremendous load he had to carry on offense. But even then, his defense was actually good in comparison to the load he had to carry.

The GM of the Lakers and PJ called Kobe out for his lazy and matador defense that year.

Like you said he put most of his effort in on the offensive end that season.

He did not deserve to be on the All-D team that year.

[Shade8780]

2002 Lakers Western Conference Championship.

[KingLeBronJames]

1997 Finals MVP, Scottie Pippen
1998 Finals MVP, Dennis Rodman

[It's A VC3!!!]

Tim Duncan, MVP, 2002-03 season


I felt that KG did more with less that year and should've won it

Duncan: 23.3 ppg, 12.9 rpg, 3.9 apg, .7 spg, 2.9 bpg, SA was 60-20
Garnett: 23 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.7 bpg, Min was 51-31



Those stats are crazy. There are rarely, if any any big men who can achieve those stat lines in the NBA these days. :(

[Pointguard]

Yeah...I have often wondered what the criteria was for that kind of voting. In Wilt's rookie season, he took what had been a last-place team the year before, to a 49-26 record. In the process, he averaged 37.6 ppg (just shattering the previous scoring record of 29.2 ppg), 27.0 rpg, and shot .461 (which was a career low, and the only time he shot below .506 in his career.)

Russell led the Celtics, and their seven HOFers, to a 59-16 record. En route he averaged 18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career high .467 from the floor.

Wilt not only won the ROY, he also won the MVP award that season.

Now, jump to the 61-62 season. Russell and his six other HOF teammates go 60-20, and Russell averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457. Meanwhile, Chamberlain took the same basic roster to a 49-31 record, and in the process, he obliterated his own scoring record, averaging 50.4 ppg, to go along with 25.7 rpg, and a .506 FG%. He even averaged 39.6 ppg against Russell in their 10 H2H's (as well as a staggering 52.7 ppg against 6-11 Walt Bellamy in their 10 H2H's.)

Yet, Russell won the MVP in that 61-62 season. Just what in the hell changed from the 59-60 season? Russell and his Celtics basically played the exact same way, while Wilt DRAMATICALLY elevated his play over his 59-60 performance.

Of course, there was a very suspicious "anti-Wilt" bias in the league at the time (and for nearly the rest of his career, until his final two years, in which Kareem became the new "villain.") In any case, while Chamberlain finished second in the MVP balloting, he was voted first-team all-league over Russell.
Players voted for MVP's back then and they obviously resented Wilt, coming into town with a 60 and 25 game or a 50 and 30 game along with the prettiest woman to boot. Players back then basically looked at boxscores to see how other players did. So they saw the game pretty much saw the year like we do - outside of the game they actually played against said player. Being that Wilt outscored the MVP by 30 ppg and had a 3 rebound per game, along with the .50% FG lead as well, they must have taken it for granted that Russell blocked 20 more shots per game.

If other players thought that much of defense, why were the centers the only players really into it? It wasn't about basketball.

[HurricaneKid]

02 finals mvp-kobe
01, 02, 03, 06, 07 mvp - kobe

bean was robbed. its like carrying shaq wasnt enough for those fools to give him the award:facepalm

Thank god negs are back.

[Deuce Bigalow]

2000-01 All NBA 1st Team - (Jason Kidd) Kobe Bryant
2005-06 NBA MVP - (Steve Nash) Kobe Bryant
2010-11 All NBA 1st Team - (Kobe Bryant) Dwyane Wade
2010-11 All Defensive 1st Team - (Kobe Bryant) Dwyane Wade

[SuperPippen]

Based upon some research, the only consensus "stolen" MVP awards I could discern were Willis Reed's '70 MVP - which many believe belonged to Jerry West - and Dave Cowens' '73 MVP - which many believe belonged to Kareem.



Any older, more informed NBA fans have any opinions to share?

[97 bulls]

Based upon some research, the only consensus "stolen" MVP awards I could discern were Willis Reed's '70 MVP - which many believe belonged to Jerry West - and Dave Cowens' '73 MVP - which many believe belonged to Kareem.



Any older, more informed NBA fans have any opinions to share?
What do you think about pippen not winning the dpoy award in 95?

[Owl]

When it comes to NBA awards- MVP, coach of year, Finals MVP- there are some instances where we will say that the right decision was made and there was a more worthy candidate.

What are some that jump out to you?

A few I disagreed with:

1990 Coach of the Year- Larry Brown, who was coaching Spurs in David Robinson's rookie season, pulled off what was- at the time- the biggest single-season turnaround in NBA history at the time. Given where they were the past few years- below .500, a terrible team in the standings before Robinson came on the scene- I think he should have gotten the award that year over Pat Riley. Brown did more with less than Riley that year.

2004 Coach of the Year- Hubie Brown did a fine job with Memphis, but I think a better case could have made for Miami's Stan Van Gundy, who got Miami to make the playoffs in a year little was expected of them (they got off to a horrendous start) and they snatched a 4-seed in D-Wade's rookie year. Aside from Wade and Odom, it was close to the same cast that had missed the playoffs two years running.
Coach of the year is a bad award. It's basically, which team overachieved the most, relative to media expectations. Except those expectations might be skewed, and the reason for "overachieving" might relate to team fit, locker room chemistry, luck, injuries (the lack thereof), player development (not necessarily related to head coach) etc. The media then expect this higher standard of team performance, the luck turns and the coach gets fired.I suspect coaching quality for individuals doesn't vary that much year to year, the good coaches stay good, the mediocre ones remain mediocre. I also wouldn't think that the media are in the best place to know who has influenced what.
Most Improved Player is a nice idea but it is too ambiguous what it means. Should I 2nd or 3rd year player who is expected to improve be able to win it? Does it just mean improvement in per game numbers for guys who were already impressive in limited minutes too.
There have been some All Defensive Team votes that seem to go basically by reputation too so whether (team) reporters see enough of all teams defense might be called into question.

[La Frescobaldi]

how did 1970 FMVP not go to Walt Frazier

how did 1962 MVP go to Bill Russell

how did Kareem get '76 MVP over John Havlicek <---------------- '73 also but Hondo down with separated shoulder was deciding factor. Havlicek is unbelievably underrated by everyone and I include everyone

how did Karl Malone get MVP, ever

how did Nash win 2 MVP over Kobe Bryant

how did they ever in 5 billion light years let fans decide All-Star teams

[LJJ]

COY almost every season. Reading the Coach of the Year winners is like reading a list of the hack coaches in the league.

Winners in the last seasons:
Thibodeau
Scott Brooks
Mike Brown
Byron Scott
Sam Mitchell
Avery Johnson
Mike Dantoni

Not only are all of them NOT the best coach in the league by a long shot, some of them are complete hacks who have no business coaching professional basketball period. And those guys are winning while Pop is merely a one time winner, PJ is merely a one time winner and Jerry Sloan never won it at all.

[Whoah10115]

2002 Lakers Western Conference Championship.


:roll: :roll:
:applause:

[jlauber]

how did 1970 FMVP not go to Walt Frazier

how did 1962 MVP go to Bill Russell

how did Kareem get '76 MVP over John Havlicek <---------------- '73 also but Hondo down with separated shoulder was deciding factor. Havlicek is unbelievably underrated by everyone and I include everyone

how did Karl Malone get MVP, ever

how did Nash win 2 MVP over Kobe Bryant

how did they ever in 5 billion light years let fans decide All-Star teams

I have mentioned it before, but it was interesting on how the CRITERIA seemed to always change AGAINST Wilt in the MVP balloting.

I already addressed his 61-62 season. Russell and his Celtics basically played the exact same way as they did in the 59-60 season, when Chamberlain won the MVP. However, in the 61-62 season, while Wilt's teammates continued a downward slide, Chamberlain played even greater than he did in '60, when he won the award, and his team finished with essentially the same record. How could ANYONE have voted Russell ahead of Wilt (and by a considerable margin I might add), given those circumstances?

And, later in Wilt's career, in his 71-72 season, when he led the Lakers to a then best-ever record of 69-13, he came in third behind Kareem, and teammate West. Yet, Chamberlain played essentially the same role as Russell, only more dominant and more efficient, while Kareem had the ppg...and Kareem wins the MVP.

How about Kareem winning the MVP in 75-76, on a LOSING team? It was certainly not a great season by Kareem, either. In fact, given the circumstances...playing on a below average roster, Kareem actually was a disappointment. He only averaged 27.7 ppg, and on .529 shooting, and in 41.2 mpg. In his MVP '72 season, and on a team that had a +11.1 ppg differential (incidently, Wilt's 71-72 Lakers had a +12.3 differential). Kareem played 44.2 mpg, averaged 34.8 ppg, and shot .574. Here again, playing on a team that desperately needed Kareem to step up, he actually had a decline.

Then, compare Kareem's major shrinkage, with what Chamberlain did in his 62-63 season. There is no question that no other player ever did more, on a losing team, than what Wilt did on that HORRIBLE roster (16 different players, many of whom were unknowns.) Wilt LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of the 22 statistical categories, and ran away with the scoring crown (by +10.8 over Baylor.) He even LED the NBA in Win Shares, and his PER of 31.8 is stil an all-time record. Furthermore, he POUNDED MVP Russell in their eight H2H games, outrebounding him, and outscoring him by a 38 ppg to 14 ppg margin in those eight games. BTW, he also averaged 43.7 ppg against HOFer Walt Bellamy. With all of that, Wilt finished SEVENTH in the MVP balloting! Players like Red Kerr finished ahead of him, and even Terry Dischinger, playing on a team with a worse record, had more first-place votes.

Ok, so Wilt didn't win the MVP on that 62-63 team. Then how in the hell did he not win it the very next season, when he once again took that same basic cast of clowns to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals. Once again, he statistically dominated the NBA, but this time, he dramatically led a huge tunr-around, and STILL did not win the award.

And perhaps Wilt did not deserve to win the 68-69 MVP, but to not even finish in the Top-9???? He led the Lakers to a then, best-ever record. Teammate West missed his usual 20 games, too. Not only, but H2H, Chamberlain wiped out MVP winner Wes Unseld. In one game against Unseld, he outscored him, 25-4, and outrebounded him, 38-9. And how did Russell finish ahead of Wilt in that season's voting? Wilt led the Lakers to a better overall record. He also led LA to a 4-2 record against Russell's Celtics. And H2H, he blew Russell away. In one game he poured in 35 points against Russell, and in another, he outrebounded Russell, 42-18. He outscored Russell in all six games, and went 5-0-1 in the rebounding H2H's.

I have long maintained that their was a very suspicious "anti-Wilt" campaign in the MVP balloting, and the above seems to confirm it. In their ten years in the league together, Wilt and Russell each won four MVP's. However, there is no doubt that Wilt SHOULD have won in '62. And if Wilt didn't win the award in '63, because he played on a losing team, he SHOULD have then won it in '64, when he took that pathetic cast of characters to a 48-32 record. I'm sorry, but Wilt should have had at least a 6-3 margin over Russell in those ten seasons. And he should have finished higher in the voting in '69.

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

2005 MVP: Steve Nash
This award was Shaqs. Shaqs transition from LA-Miami made Miami a league powerhouse and LA a lottery team. They were in the Finals the previoius year and lost him via trade(meaning they got assets for him.) The Heat probably would have won the title that year had Miami been healthy. That Heat team was considerably better than the 2006 team that ended up winning it all. Meanwhile Nash changed the culture in Phoenix, but Dallas actually ended up IMPROVING despite losing him for NOTHING. Nash was doing what Lin is doing now. Good player, but greatly benefitting from the D'Antoni point guard system.

2006 MVP: Steve Nash
Kobe Bryant should have won this despite being on a shit lakers team. When anyone thinks of the 2006 season they will think of Kobe carrying a Lakers team into the playoffs scoring 35 PPG(first person since Jordan in the 80s), and scored his famous 81 point game during this time. There is no question Kobe was the best in the league at this time.

2011 MVP: Derrick Rose
LeBron James was clearly the better player this year. The only reason Rose won it is because he did the same thing Nash did and caught the league by storm. Wasn't better than LeBron at all and was definetly not a top 5 player in the NBA. LeBron was penalized just because of Wade while Rose's team still finds ways to win games without him. Just look at the playoff series to see LeBron single handly RAPE him. Similar to Hakeem owning Robinson in the 95 or whatever year it was, but I Wasn't watching basketball at the time.

These are just for MVPs since I've been watching the game. DPOY is another joke. Ben Wallace earned a lot of his final ones strictly on reputation and still funny that Camby won one for those Nuggets. Kobe Bryant on the all defensive team as recently as last year too is also another joke. Not even going to get into that.

As for Final MVPs I think Gasol should have won it over Kobe in 2010 and Duncan over Parker in 2007.

[ChrisKreager]

2006 MVP: Steve Nash was better the year before and after.

Dirk should have won in '06, Nash should have won in '07.

Before anyone mentioned Kobe in '06, when was the last time an NBA MVP won on a team with a less-than-stellar record?

They barely finished over .500.

Dirk had a better season in '06 than '07- highest ppg of his career.

[jlitt]

How does wilt avg 50 pts and 25 rebounds and not win mvp?

How does Sloan not win coy once?

How does Shaq only have one mvp?--probably the greatest travesty that nash has two and shaq has 1.

Also the 90 mvp voting was rigged. Barkley had the most first place votes by a considerable margin and was left off the ballot that year by sportswriters who said that his behavior was why they left him off the ballot. Magic and Michael said during the course of the year that Barkley was the mvp that year.

[Mr Know It All]

Dirk Nowitzki was first in PER and Win Shares in both the 06 and 07 seasons. He deserved to win both MVPs, Nash's win in 2006 is actually one of the biggest disgraces I've seen in my time watching the NBA. There were literally 4-5 guys who were more deserving. Lebron, Kobe, Dirk, Duncan, Wade. Nash was a product of unbelievable hype from journalists who were jizzing themselves over a little white guy playing so well, in addition to that the league needed to change its image after the brawl. The fact that Nash is in the same company as guys like Bird, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, etc is disgusting and anyone who voted for him should be ashamed of themselves.

Kobe's MVP win in 08 was quite a sham. The guy spent the offseason whining and wanting out because his team hadn't been good for 3 years (God forbid he has to spend time on a bad team for awhile like other superstars) and was given the gift of Gasol which made the Lakers much better. Chris Paul and Lebron were far better options.

[ThaRegul8r]

How does wilt avg 50 pts and 25 rebounds and not win mvp?

In the history of the NBA only two men have posted the equivalent in their era—Michael Jordan in 1986-87 and Kobe Bryant in 2005-06. Neither of them won MVP during their respective seasons either.

EDIT: I suppose, before someone says it, I should be clear and specify I'm talking about the era-equivalent of 50 points a game and not 25 rebounds.

[Sarcastic]

Every MVP from 1987-1998 that didn't go to Jordan.

[knickswin]

I think Pulp Fiction should have gotten best picture in 1994 over Forest Gump.

[Heavincent]

I think Pulp Fiction should have gotten best picture in 1994 over Forest Gump.

:applause: You're right on the money.

[Coffee Black]

I think Pulp Fiction should have gotten best picture in 1994 over Forest Gump.
^+1

[Pointguard]

In the history of the NBA only two men have posted the equivalent in their era—Michael Jordan in 1986-87 and Kobe Bryant in 2005-06. Neither of them won MVP during their respective seasons either.

EDIT: I suppose, before someone says it, I should be clear and specify I'm talking about the era-equivalent of 50 points a game and not 25 rebounds.

At least Magic and Nash were worth a very similar amount of points as those two. They were more efficient shooters and far more effective with leading the team offensively.

Russell scored a remarkable 30 less ppg and 3 less rebounds and was far less efficient shooting wise to Chamberlain. Chamberlain had a 20ppg advantage on the next highest scorer. And the distance in rebounding was 3 boards per game. The one more assist per game doesn't factor much. And while you year a lot about Russell's great defense you won't read that he definitely blocked more shots that year either.

[D-Wade316]

1974 Finals MVP should have been to Kareem.

[No.23]

Every MVP from 1987-1998 that didn't go to Jordan.

This.

[ThaRegul8r]

I think Pulp Fiction should have gotten best picture in 1994 over Forest Gump.

This is a sentiment I can agree with.

[Whoah10115]

I always laugh when people claim that the 2005 MVP belonged to Shaq and then have the nerve to suggest his impact was greater.



Before he got there, 4th seed, won a playoff series, pushed the best record in the league to 6 games.


He got there there, they won 17 more games, an extra playoff series, lost in a Game 7.


Absolutely, top notch, great job Shaq.



Nash:


Before he got there, 29 wins. That means 53 losses.


He got there, 62 wins, best record in the NBA, in the WEST, biggest single-season turnaround...EVER. Also got to the Conference Finals, did it in the West. They got beat in 5, not 7, but the year before the had the 13 fewer wins than the Heat. This year, they had 3 more wins than the Heat. Did it in the West. Amare made a jump, Wade made a much bigger jump. Amare was ahead of Wade the year before, Nash maxxed him. Wade was way ahead of Amare by the next year.



Now, if we wanna look past the surface and actually examine how they played. Then there's no way that Shaq played better than Steve Nash.




Shaq has 0 claim to a single vote that season. If you wanna argue against Nash, argue for Iverson. That's the best he ever played.

[ThaRegul8r]

[QUOTE=Pointguard][QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]In the history of the NBA only two men have posted the equivalent in their era

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

I always laugh when people claim that the 2005 MVP belonged to Shaq and then have the nerve to suggest his impact was greater.



Before he got there, 4th seed, won a playoff series, pushed the best record in the league to 6 games.


He got there there, they won 17 more games, an extra playoff series, lost in a Game 7.


Absolutely, top notch, great job Shaq.



Nash:


Before he got there, 29 wins. That means 53 losses.


He got there, 62 wins, best record in the NBA, in the WEST, biggest single-season turnaround...EVER. Also got to the Conference Finals, did it in the West. They got beat in 5, not 7, but the year before the had the 13 fewer wins than the Heat. This year, they had 3 more wins than the Heat. Did it in the West. Amare made a jump, Wade made a much bigger jump. Amare was ahead of Wade the year before, Nash maxxed him. Wade was way ahead of Amare by the next year.



Now, if we wanna look past the surface and actually examine how they played. Then there's no way that Shaq played better than Steve Nash.




Shaq has 0 claim to a single vote that season. If you wanna argue against Nash, argue for Iverson. That's the best he ever played.

Looks like we got another baby dick that doesn't understand the impact of dominant bigmen. Yeah Miami was a 4th seed that year, but they were still a pretending team. Out West that team doesn't even make the playoffs. In the East it was all about the Pistons/Pacers at the time. Shaq put Miami in that category and the hardest thing in the NBA is becoming legitimate contenders. Did you even watch the playoffs that year? Shaq has a ****ed up thigh during the playoffs which limited his impact there and then Wade gets hurt, DOESNT EVEN PLAY in Game 6 where Miami had a 3-2 lead and then played less than stellar. Had just Wade not even been hurt Miami beats Detroit and has a strong chance at the title. Shaq not hurt? Yeah then it wouldn't even be close.

Yeah Phoenix was always a regular season team because they had a lot of contributers and were a high powered offense. In the playoffs that shit doesn't work as we can all see and laugh at how those "powerhouse teams" have a combined 0 Finals appearances in that era.

Nash was partly a product of that season. Stick any pass first PG(*** anyone not named Marbury) in there and Phoenix wins a shit load of games with that offense. Lets check how Shaq and Nash's old teams did with them compared to without them.
Dallas with Nash: 52-30 lose in first round
Dallas without Nash: 58-24 loss in semifinals

LMFAO so his old team got BETTER when he left. Lost him for NOTHING and just threw Jason Terry in his spot and they IMPROVED. Some ****ing MVP. Meanwhile Shaqs old team misses the playoffs and has everyone talking about the power shifting from the West to the East just because of him. Yeah alright babydick.

And Iverson? LOL the only first round and out player ever deserving of MVP is Kobe just because of how crazy he was in 2006.

[FindingTim]

Nash is an fantastic offensive player but be deserved neither MVP, it was a total media hype up BS.
05 was clearly Shaq, and 06 was clearly Kobe. Disturbingly pathetic that Nash got them.

on the contrary, Steve Nash turned a crummy Suns team into a perennial championship contender. I've got no problem with him being an MVP.

[La Frescobaldi]

1974 Finals MVP should have been to Kareem.

sorry my friend we must disagree on this one. Hondo owned that series. That last play, one-on-one against Kareem in the open court, Hondo just bombed Jabbar... he showed who was truly playing for the chips and who was not.

********************

I really think this board doesn't quite get what John Havlicek was all about.

He literally ran guys into the ground. I don't remember anybody being able to guard Havlicek for an entire game. Maybe the last couple years of his career.

He would just run, and run.... and run.....
back in the 60s he would just grind up Chet Walker. Chet was the Jet all right, but he was walking by the 4th quarter when he had to play both ends against Havlicek.... but Havlicek could also run Wali Jones down to a frazzle in the same game, playing guard. Rick Barry generally had lower numbers against the Celtics due to Hondo

Nah Havlicek is Top 50 for reasons forgotten to most... even great knowledgeable ISH guys like dwade316 !!!

[Whoah10115]

Looks like we got another baby dick that doesn't understand the impact of dominant bigmen. Yeah Miami was a 4th seed that year, but they were still a pretending team. Out West that team doesn't even make the playoffs. In the East it was all about the Pistons/Pacers at the time. Shaq put Miami in that category and the hardest thing in the NBA is becoming legitimate contenders. Did you even watch the playoffs that year? Shaq has a ****ed up thigh during the playoffs which limited his impact there and then Wade gets hurt, DOESNT EVEN PLAY in Game 6 where Miami had a 3-2 lead and then played less than stellar. Had just Wade not even been hurt Miami beats Detroit and has a strong chance at the title. Shaq not hurt? Yeah then it wouldn't even be close.

Yeah Phoenix was always a regular season team because they had a lot of contributers and were a high powered offense. In the playoffs that shit doesn't work as we can all see and laugh at how those "powerhouse teams" have a combined 0 Finals appearances in that era.

Nash was partly a product of that season. Stick any pass first PG(*** anyone not named Marbury) in there and Phoenix wins a shit load of games with that offense. Lets check how Shaq and Nash's old teams did with them compared to without them.
Dallas with Nash: 52-30 lose in first round
Dallas without Nash: 58-24 loss in semifinals

LMFAO so his old team got BETTER when he left. Lost him for NOTHING and just threw Jason Terry in his spot and they IMPROVED. Some ****ing MVP. Meanwhile Shaqs old team misses the playoffs and has everyone talking about the power shifting from the West to the East just because of him. Yeah alright babydick.

And Iverson? LOL the only first round and out player ever deserving of MVP is Kobe just because of how crazy he was in 2006.



What part of 29-62 do you not get? How is 42-59 the same impact? Much less to do it in the East. And as a sophomore Dwyane Wade became elite.



It's a regular season award, so what that has to do with impact in the playoffs, I don't know. But even if we consider that, the Suns, who were 17 games out of the playoffs the year before, made it just as far as the Heat did. They were in the WCF's. The differences being they got beat in 5 and not 7, and they got thru the West. They also lost to the team that won the title.



The early portion of the season there were people who were surprised at how Shaq wasn't dominating as much as he was expected to, especially with him being in the Eastern Conference. He was too busy being in shape for the VMA's and being fat again when the season started. He was a better player for Miami that year than Dwyane Wade was? Absolutely not. It's funny, because after the next year most people wouldn't consider Shaq for their top 10. And he really wasn't that much slower in his 2nd year than in his 1st year. The difference was that the presumed impact hype had passed.




The Dallas Mavericks are a perennial 50 win team. In his last season there, Dirk played the season as a center. He had, arguably, his best season the year that Nash left. Measuring his worth by looking at Dallas makes 0 sense. In Dallas, Steve Nash was an all-star, borderline 3rd Team All-NBA. If he played at that level for 7 more years, he wouldn't be going into the Hall-of-Fame. He has played on a completely different level since going to Phoenix.



It's like looking at a guy who hit .280 and knocked in 85 runs, leaving a team and they get better. He goes somewhere and hits .333 and knocks in 130 runs...not the same thing.

[EricGordon23]

2007-08 should have gone to CP3 over Kobe. Also the year Dwade came back after getting help from grover he should have got that one. Last eyar Dwight should have won

[La Frescobaldi]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Hmm. So it's okay so long as it isn't Wilt. Interesting. (And ironically, Jordan was Chamberlain and Magic was Russell, only on the offensive side of the ball instead of the defensive side of the ball. But, of course, the masses only care about offense, so that's okay. But I digress.)

I reiterate, three men in the history of the league have scored at that volume adjusted for the respective eras they played in, and none of them won MVP. Which is why it's ridiculous when people act like there was some conspiracy or anti-Wilt bias when in every time it has occurred in history the voting has been consistent. Now if people gave Jordan and Kobe the MVP when Wilt did the same thing and did it first and didn't get it, then there might be some basis, and I could understand. But that's not the case. It's not like the case of Walt Frazier, where there's a clear double-standard, when Magic won Finals MVP in 1980 for being in the exact same situation Frazier was in ten years prior and didn't win

[Sarcastic]

I think Pulp Fiction should have gotten best picture in 1994 over Forest Gump.

Sam Jackson certainly deserved best supporting actor, to say the least.

[FindingTim]

Rollins over Holliday-- complete bullshit

[Fuhrer Hubbs]

What part of 29-62 do you not get? How is 42-59 the same impact? Much less to do it in the East. And as a sophomore Dwyane Wade became elite.

It's a regular season award, so what that has to do with impact in the playoffs, I don't know. But even if we consider that, the Suns, who were 17 games out of the playoffs the year before, made it just as far as the Heat did. They were in the WCF's. The differences being they got beat in 5 and not 7, and they got thru the West. They also lost to the team that won the title.

The early portion of the season there were people who were surprised at how Shaq wasn't dominating as much as he was expected to, especially with him being in the Eastern Conference. He was too busy being in shape for the VMA's and being fat again when the season started. He was a better player for Miami that year than Dwyane Wade was? Absolutely not. It's funny, because after the next year most people wouldn't consider Shaq for their top 10. And he really wasn't that much slower in his 2nd year than in his 1st year. The difference was that the presumed impact hype had passed.

The Dallas Mavericks are a perennial 50 win team. In his last season there, Dirk played the season as a center. He had, arguably, his best season the year that Nash left. Measuring his worth by looking at Dallas makes 0 sense. In Dallas, Steve Nash was an all-star, borderline 3rd Team All-NBA. If he played at that level for 7 more years, he wouldn't be going into the Hall-of-Fame. He has played on a completely different level since going to Phoenix.

It's like looking at a guy who hit .280 and knocked in 85 runs, leaving a team and they get better. He goes somewhere and hits .333 and knocks in 130 runs...not the same thing.

More impact, because Shaq will ultimately lead to champions more than Steve Nash because of his style of play. The MVP is a regular season award, but I judge player importance/dominance in the playoffs which exposes the lesser players.

If you think those teams were equally built for the playoffs your an idiot. The Heat lost in Game 7 of the ECF with an injured Shaq averaging 7 RPG for the playoffs and with Wade who broke his rib in Game 5. The Heat win and probably win the Finals. They won the following year with a healthy Heat team. Meanwhile Nash watches the Finals from his living room while jerking off to pornhub.

Shaq was easily the best player for Miami that season. The playoffs were another story as he was limited due to his injury, but like you said regular season MVP brah. Shaq was much superior in 2005 to 2006 regular season. 2005 was the last year he averaged 20-10(still holds the record for most consecutive 20-10 seasons in NBA History) and he missed a lot of time due to injury that second year as well. The first year he was relatively healthy and was the unquestioned best bigman in the game. He also helped Wades development just as he had done with Kobe Bryant and Penny Hardaway. Shaq makes the game easier for everyone with the insane amount of attention he recieves. It was general consensus among NBA coaches in that era that they gameplaned for Shaq twice as much as any other player.



The Dallas Mavericks are a perennial 50 win team. In his last season there, Dirk played the season as a center. He had, arguably, his best season the year that Nash left. Measuring his worth by looking at Dallas makes 0 sense. In Dallas, Steve Nash was an all-star, borderline 3rd Team All-NBA. If he played at that level for 7 more years, he wouldn't be going into the Hall-of-Fame. He has played on a completely different level since going to Phoenix.

When teams lose "superstars" they don't get better. Look at every NBA trade in the history of the league and any team trading away their star became considerably worse. Wilts Sixers, Barkleys Sixers, Shaqs Lakers, KGs timberwovlves, Kareems bucks, Chris Pauls hornets, etc. You get the point. Point is that Nash isn't in any of these guys categories and is not a "superstar" despite what his MVPs tell you.

Nash did nothing for the development of Dirk Nowitzki. He held him back if anything as Dirk emerged as a real superstar following his departure. Nash dominates the basketball. Nash flourished because that system caters to point guards with that style of play, the same reason Lin has been dominating the last week, but will do nothing come playoff time.

I forgot to add that Steve Nash is also the only person to win MVP while making not a single contribution on the defensive end of the floor. Guy plays half of the game for ****s sake.

[jlauber]

Hmm. So it's okay so long as it isn't Wilt. Interesting. (And ironically, Jordan was Chamberlain and Magic was Russell, only on the offensive side of the ball instead of the defensive side of the ball. But, of course, the masses only care about offense, so that's okay. But I digress.)

I reiterate, three men in the history of the league have scored at that volume adjusted for the respective eras they played in, and none of them won MVP. Which is why it's ridiculous when people act like there was some conspiracy or anti-Wilt bias when in every time it has occurred in history the voting has been consistent. Now if people gave Jordan and Kobe the MVP when Wilt did the same thing and did it first and didn't get it, then there might be some basis, and I could understand. But that's not the case. It's not like the case of Walt Frazier, where there's a clear double-standard, when Magic won Finals MVP in 1980 for being in the exact same situation Frazier was in ten years prior and didn't win—both point guards who lost their league MVP center in the fifth game of the Finals, only Frazier had to play great for three games, and didn't have the luxury of another game left had his team lost. :rant

Jordan won his scoring title by +8.1 ppg over his next rival, was nowhere to be found on the rebounding and FG% lists, and played on a 40-42 team. Kobe won his scoring title by +2.4 ppg, was nowhere to be found on the rebounding or FG% lists, and played on a 45-37 team.

Chamberlain won his scoring title, over a player who averaged 31.6 ppg... by +18.8 ppg. He also led the league in rebounding, and by two per game, over Russell. And he came in second in FG%, at .506 (just behind Bellamy's .519), and in a league that shot .426. He even came in second to Russell in Defensive Win Shares, 11.6 to 6.0 And in TOTAL Win Shares, he blew the league away, with a 23.1 mark (Russell was 4th at 15.5.) And for those who are interested, Wilt also had a PER of 31.8 which he equaled thed very next season, and which is the highest recorded in NBA history. Even in FTs Chamberlain had a remarkable season. His 835 MADE in is the second greatest season ever, behind West's 840 in '65. All on a team that went 49-31.

In their ten H2H games, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 39.7 ppg to 18.5 ppg, and outrebounded him per game, 26.1 rpg to 22.3 rpg. And, while we don't have Russell's FG% in those games, Chamberlain shot .471 against him (once again, in a league that shot .426 overall.)

But aside from all of the above...how did Wilt win the MVP award in '60, then? Russell and his Celtics essentially played the same exact way in both '60 and '62. Wilt's teammates played worse, but because of Wilt, who played substantially better than he did in '60, they had the same basic record. What changed in the criteria over the course of those two seasons?

I think there was a definite "anti-Wilt" bias in the MVP voting, and not just in '62, but throughout his career. When he did play like Russell, only more dominant and efficient, as he did in '72, in leading his team to the best record in the league (and the best ever at the time), he STILL didn't win the MVP.

And I have already covered some of Wilt's other seasons, as well. SEVENTH in '63? Wilt's performance, on a losing team, was by far-and-away, the greatest ever under those conditions. My god, Kerr beat him out in the voting. And Terry Dischinger, playing on a team with a worse record, had more first place votes.

Then, Wilt took that same basic roster to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals the very next season, and came in second. Despite a considerably larger margin of team improvement than Oscar's Royals.

And in the 68-69 season, it was bad enough that Wilt didn't win the award...but to not finish in the Top-9? Even though he outplayed MVP Wes Unseld H2H? Even though he essentially replaced THREE players on that Laker team (All-Star Archie Clark, journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, and HOF guard Gail Goodrich)? And he also finished behind Russell, whom he outscored H2H in every game, and with one game of 35; and held a 5-0-1 mark in H2H rebounding, including one game by a 42-18 margin. And whom he led to a 4-2 record against, as well as a better record overall.

Something looks very fishy in all of those scenerios.

[Pointguard]

Hmm. So it's okay so long as it isn't Wilt. Interesting. (And ironically, Jordan was Chamberlain and Magic was Russell, only on the offensive side of the ball instead of the defensive side of the ball. But, of course, the masses only care about offense, so that's okay. But I digress.)

Let's be real here. 1962 was the greatest offensive season ever. Forget the masses, why value what one team emphasized? The players, the coaches, the game, the fans, the official stats, were all about offense. Outside of Russell, all of the other people in question here, emphasized their offensive games those years and their teams were basically offensive teams except in Russell's case (but the league was). We know that Wilt too, had a very good defensive game at this time, tho.


I reiterate, three men in the history of the league have scored at that volume adjusted for the respective eras they played in, and none of them won MVP. Which is why it's ridiculous when people act like there was some conspiracy or anti-Wilt bias when in every time it has occurred in history the voting has been consistent.
If you look at the number bare I see what you are saying. Magic and Nash's offensive games were just flat out more influential on the outcome of the game, more versatile and more team oriented than Jordan's and Kobe's those years. Nash and Magic had a whole other level to their offensive game. Nevermind, being very close in total points (assisted points and PPG). Wilt's year is tremendous because the separation (50/25 is the smaller part of that year's significance) he had those years is greater than anything in team sports. Nothing is close.

The conspiracy would be predicated on any sport in the nation that had a guy score 60% more than the MVP Russell and with significantly better efficiency. On top of that Wilt was better than Russell in his only other quantifiable strong suite by a pretty big margin. There is no other example in team sports because it would be considered a humongous joke. And when Wilt's team has the best record ever and plays great defense, and naturally scores more while being way more efficient than Russell ever was, he doesn't win MVP

If the league thought defense was worth it, they would have cared about defensive stats. And maybe more than one team would have played it. The conspiracy also rest on the next year having six players ranked higher (MVP wise) than Chamberlain the next year when Wilt went crazy again. With a couple of the guys being complete jokes.

[OmniStrife]

I think Pulp Fiction should have gotten best picture in 1994 over Forest Gump.
Yes.

I'd even dare say that Shawshank is better than Gump.

[I.R.Beast]

Yes.

I'd even dare say that Shawshank is better than Gump.

shawshank redemption is the greatest movie ever made...i've wateched it ober 20 times and i watch anytime i see it on tv....great movie

[ThaRegul8r]

^ None of the stats is anything I didn't already know, and I always find it tiresome when you lecture me, of all people, like I'm some Johnny-come-lately who doesn't know anything about the era when I've been talking about it since the internet started.

I've already said that in my opinion Wilt was the '71-72 MVP, but as I've also already said, Wilt and West split the LA votes which enabled Kareem to benefit. I believe the wrong Laker came out with the most votes of the two, but I've already explained it.

Nonsense of an "anti-Wilt bias" is ridiculous, baseless and conjecture. If there was an "anti-Wilt bias," he never would have won three in a row to begin with. Someone like Rick Barry on the other hand, was unpopular, disliked, and was robbed of the 1974-75 MVP because of it. This is a case that actually isn't fanboyism or stannery, but facts. Barry was disliked, and so he never won MVP. Players have admitted it. Don't have the quotes on hand, but I remember them saying it at the time. Claiming bias against a guy who is one of only four players in the history of the league to win four MVPs is ridiculous. You think there's a bias because you idolized the guy. That's your business so long as it doesn't come through in discussion. I'm uninterested in personal feelings. Too many people let it get in the way.

And I've also explained that no one in the history of the game ever played 48.5 minutes before. It's impossible for that to ever occur again. No one will ever allow anyone to play literally every single minute a team plays (I already know Wilt was ejected in a game, and thus didn't actually play every minute) in a season again

[ThaRegul8r]

Let's be real here. 1962 was the greatest offensive season ever. Forget the masses, why value what one team emphasized?

Really? I dunno, because that one team dominated like no one else has ever dominated any sport? This question is utterly baffling when that one team so happens to be dominating like no one else ever had. At this point they had won four of the last five NBA titles and three in a row. If you don't know what anyone should value what this one team emphasized then I don't know what to tell you. Other than that argumentum ad numerum has always been a poor stance to take.


The players, the coaches, the game, the fans, the official stats, were all about offense. Outside of Russell, all of the other people in question here, emphasized their offensive games those years and their teams were basically offensive teams except in Russell's case (but the league was).

Yep. Appeal to the numbers.

And those people who emphasized their offensive games that you speak of won nothing.

Wilt won nothing when he was setting scoring records.

Baylor won nothing when he was setting scoring records.

West won nothing when he was scoring a lot of points.

Oscar won nothing when he was scoring a lot of points.

All the teams who were about offense won nothing.

The greatest dynasty in NBA history was the greatest defensive dynasty in NBA history.

The greatest winner in the history of American sports is the greatest defensive player in the history of his sport.

This is not a coincidence.

Even if you look since then:

Rick Barry won nothing when he was scoring 35 a game.

Kareem won nothing when he was scoring 35 a game.

Bob McAdoo won nothing when he was scoring 35 a game.

Jordan won nothing when he was scoring 37 a game.

Kobe won nothing when he was scoring 35 a game.

Look at the list of highest single-season scoring averages in NBA history.

Look at the top 10.

The one thing they all have in common is that they won nothing.

Look at the next 10.

They still won nothing.

That makes oh-for-the-top 20.

Look at the next ten and you finally have Jordan in '93 and '91 and Kareem in '71. That's 3 in the top 30, 10%. Look at the next ten and they won nothing. Look at 40-50 and none of them won anything. That's 3 in the top 50, 6%. 50-60 you have Jordan in '96. 60-70 Jordan in '92. 70-80 '00 Shaq and '97 Jordan. At this point there are no more 30 ppg scorers. #63 was the last 30-point scorer. 80-90 zero. 90-100 '98 Jordan, '01 Shaq, '01 Kobe. So that's 10 of 100, 10%.

Credit to Russell for being a visionary and seeing what no one else saw. It takes a special person to be the only one to see something even when everyone else is too dense to understand. It's not a coincidence he led his college team to the longest winning streak in history at the time or that he led his Olympic team to the largest margin of victory in Olympic history (which still stands to this today) before he ever became a Celtic. But as far as no one else appreciating defense:

[QUOTE]According to one of pro-basketball

[ShaqAttack3234]

Russell scored a remarkable 30 less ppg and 3 less rebounds and was far less efficient shooting wise to Chamberlain. Chamberlain had a 20ppg advantage on the next highest scorer. And the distance in rebounding was 3 boards per game. The one more assist per game doesn't factor much. And while you year a lot about Russell's great defense you won't read that he definitely blocked more shots that year either.

As far as how many shots they blocked, well, I have no idea who blocked more shots, but I do know that Russell was widely regarded as the superior defensive center regardless. Tom Meschery criticized Wilt's defense at that point(though he did credit him with improving that throughout his career and becoming a great defender later).

Wilt didn't average 20 ppg more than the next highest scorer. He averaged 12 more than Baylor who averaged 38. However, Wilt did have a huge lead over the next highest scorer in total points, which is how scoring titles were awarded until the '68-'69 season.

And if it the scoring title were given out by ppg like it is today, Baylor would qualify for 2nd as the requirement is either 70+ games or 1400 points and Baylor easily topped 1400 points.

Wilt didn't average 3 more boards per game than Russell either, he averaged 2.1 more than Russell. but Wilt also played 48.5 mpg while Russell played 45.2. In fact, their rebounds per minute were almost identical.

Regarding who deserved it, well it's tough for me to say considering I've seen a total of 0 games from that regular season, but I see no reason to doubt that Russell was deserving. It's easy to see why he won considering the Celtics had the best record in the league by far at 60-20, and they went 0-4 without Russell. Plus, if those in the league at the time who saw these guys thought Russell was deserving, their opinion is better than mine because as I said, I did not watch basketball in '62 and wasn't even born until more than 2 decades later.


I always laugh when people claim that the 2005 MVP belonged to Shaq and then have the nerve to suggest his impact was greater.



Before he got there, 4th seed, won a playoff series, pushed the best record in the league to 6 games.


He got there there, they won 17 more games, an extra playoff series, lost in a Game 7.


Absolutely, top notch, great job Shaq.



Nash:


Before he got there, 29 wins. That means 53 losses.


He got there, 62 wins, best record in the NBA, in the WEST, biggest single-season turnaround...EVER. Also got to the Conference Finals, did it in the West. They got beat in 5, not 7, but the year before the had the 13 fewer wins than the Heat. This year, they had 3 more wins than the Heat. Did it in the West. Amare made a jump, Wade made a much bigger jump. Amare was ahead of Wade the year before, Nash maxxed him. Wade was way ahead of Amare by the next year.



Now, if we wanna look past the surface and actually examine how they played. Then there's no way that Shaq played better than Steve Nash

First, let me say that I do agree that Nash deserved the '05 MVP. I didn't think so at the time, partially because I was kind of caught off guard from Nash making such a big leap that late, and partially because I wanted Shaq to win it because I had felt he deserved more than 1. But in hindsight, he was the correct choice.

However, this is not a fair way of comparing their impact.

Nash signed with Phoenix, while Miami had to trade to get Shaq. They traded away 3 starters from the '04 team to aquire Shaq(Odom, Caron Butler and Brian Grant). So in reality, Shaq wasn't joining a 42 win team.

There was also more to the Suns improvement than just Nash.

Amare had played in just 55 games the previous season, but he played in 80 during the '05 season. In fairness, Wade also played in just 61 games the previous season and 77 during the '05 season. But that's still 25 extra games of Amare vs 16 extra games of Wade, so the difference was bigger.

And the '04 Suns also traded away their best player midseason so they could clear cap space. Mike D'Antoni also took over in the middle of the '03-'04 season.

So just by having a stable roster from training camp throughout the season, Amare healthy as well as their coach there from training camp and an effort to play for that season rather than clear cap space would suggest an improvement.

Context is important with these type of things.

[Harison]

What annoys me:

1. When award goes "for the story", and not the player: Rose '11, Nash, etc.

2. When FMVP is given to a sidekick for the scoring streaks, instead of actual FMVP: Parker over Duncan, Pierce over KG, etc.

3. When DPOY is given for "blocks" and almost exclusively for the "vertical" defense, "horizontal" defense is ignored. Its a travesty Duncan has no DPOY, or KG just one, or Dream only two.

[PTB Fan]

For some reasons, i had problems posting my post with details because i wasn't being logged even though i clearly logged on before.

Anyway.. here are my choices.

61-62: Elgin Baylor (simply because of the season he had)

69-70: Jerry West

'70 Finals MVP: Walt Frazier

71-72: Wilt Chamberlain

72-73: John Havlicek

74-75: Rick Barry

79-80 Finals MVP: Kareem

98-99: Tim Duncan

01-02: Shaquille O'Neal

02-03:Jason Kidd

05-06: Kobe Bryant

06-07: Steve Nash

07-08: Chris Paul

I'd also add that Tim Duncan and Scottie Pippen not winning a DPOY is a huge surprise.

[HurricaneKid]

2. When FMVP is given to a sidekick for the scoring streaks, instead of actual FMVP: Parker over Duncan, Pierce over KG, etc.

3. When DPOY is given for "blocks" and almost exclusively for the "vertical" defense, "horizontal" defense is ignored. Its a travesty Duncan has no DPOY, or KG just one, or Dream only two.

Ummm... Parker was absolutely more deserving than Duncan. It really wasn't that close.

Couldn't possibly agree more. We are talking about Russell and the impact of defense but the only thing people want to vote with is Steams and Blocks? We have to be better than that by now.

[Whoah10115]

First, let me say that I do agree that Nash deserved the '05 MVP. I didn't think so at the time, partially because I was kind of caught off guard from Nash making such a big leap that late, and partially because I wanted Shaq to win it because I had felt he deserved more than 1. But in hindsight, he was the correct choice.

However, this is not a fair way of comparing their impact.

Nash signed with Phoenix, while Miami had to trade to get Shaq. They traded away 3 starters from the '04 team to aquire Shaq(Odom, Caron Butler and Brian Grant). So in reality, Shaq wasn't joining a 42 win team.

There was also more to the Suns improvement than just Nash.

Amare had played in just 55 games the previous season, but he played in 80 during the '05 season. In fairness, Wade also played in just 61 games the previous season and 77 during the '05 season. But that's still 25 extra games of Amare vs 16 extra games of Wade, so the difference was bigger.

And the '04 Suns also traded away their best player midseason so they could clear cap space. Mike D'Antoni also took over in the middle of the '03-'04 season.

So just by having a stable roster from training camp throughout the season, Amare healthy as well as their coach there from training camp and an effort to play for that season rather than clear cap space would suggest an improvement.

Context is important with these type of things.



Absolutely, and I should have mentioned that Odom and Butler were traded for O'Neal.


But the context of East vs. West is apparent for those who remember the league a few years ago. And it's difficult to gage just how much better Dwyane Wade was in his 2nd season. He was elite and I'd say was easily more important to the Heat.



Big men are often a greater piece defensively, because of where they play and how they're supposed to be responsible for the defensive shape as a whole. Shaq has always been lazy and I he wasn't any less so that season. Even taking into consideration big man defense and paying it the mind that a lot of others do, Wade was their best defensive player. Wade was the leading scorer and did it as the main orchestrator in the offense. When the team needed buckets it was Wade who got it. If Shaq's name was not Shaq, would he have netted so many MVP votes in 2005?

[caliman]

Both MVP's that Nash won. 2005 should have went to Shaq. 2006 should have been between LeBron and Kobe.

[Pointguard]

Really? I dunno, because that one team dominated like no one else has ever dominated any sport?

It is a joke to compare the Celtics of that time to the Yankee's dynasty. A humongous big joke. And the Yankess were an offensive juggernaut in a much bigger sport that was getting headlines on the front pages across the nation at this very same time.


I dunno, because that one team dominated like no one else has ever dominated any sport?
This question is utterly baffling when that one team so happens to be dominating like no one else ever had.

Really??? So the Lakers, who were a bigger dynasty at this point (1962 which I very obviously emphasized), and in the same sport with equal domination just didn't exist??? And you're baffled?


There are international sports fans who have disagreed. They have commented on American ignorance and how they seem to regard everything they aren't aware of as insignificant. Though it reiterates what I myself have railed against, making overarching statements without having all the requisite knowledge. Please refer to your lack of knowledge of an American sport that was by far the biggest sport in the nation. And then refer again to your lack of knowledge on the Lakers only a few years previous to the Celtics in the same sport! At least I can say that American contact with cricket is nearly absolutely null and void. But I was referring to the major team sports that have mass followings and exposure to Americans. I mean, why not just include hide and seek? :lol




At this point they had won four of the last five NBA titles and three in a row. If you don't know what anyone should value what this one team emphasized then I don't know what to tell you. Other than that argumentum ad numerum has always been a poor stance to take.

Boston won at that time because they were concieved better than other teams. Don't pretend like Boston was an outstanding defensive dynasty at that time. I know that you know better than that, or do you? Boston won most of their titles at this point with their strong offense. The title two years before (1960) they were a middle of the pack defensive team - far behind the Hawks and very obviously an offensive team. The previous year, or three years before '62 (1959)they were just an offensive oriented team, below the middle of the pack defensively. Now in 1961 we see that their defense is right there at the top but not separated from the Lakers. In 1962 the whole league went offensive minded. Don't pretend like that the league was mesmerized by defense and thought it was the only way to win. They thought it had value and did indeed play it but they went ahead and sought out offensive minded players. When they voted for MVP in 1962, most of the winning teams historically won with good offensive players - even that Celtic dynasty subscribed to that at this point.



And those people who emphasized their offensive games that you speak of won nothing.
MVP voting and seasonal awards are done before winning it all happens. If your team had a very good record then your point is moot. In this case your point is mute.

Look at the next ten and you finally have Jordan in '93 and '91 and Kareem in '71. That's 3 in the top 30, 10%. Look at the next ten and they won nothing. Look at 40-50 and none of them won anything. That's 3 in the top 50, 6%. 50-60 you have Jordan in '96. 60-70 Jordan in '92. 70-80 '00 Shaq and '97 Jordan. At this point there are no more 30 ppg scorers. #63 was the last 30-point scorer. 80-90 zero. 90-100 '98 Jordan, '01 Shaq, '01 Kobe. So that's 10 of 100, 10%.

a good distraction but sorry, not pertinent. Winning it all happens after MVP voting. Jordan and Kobe teams were medicore teams. Chamberlains team had a very good record that year (49 and 31). 50 and 25 was great because nobody was in the same hemisphere. And it was way ahead of his time. It was untouchable. Landmarks that weren't conceivable with a very solid winning record.


Credit to Russell for being a visionary and seeing what no one else saw. It takes a special person to be the only one to see something even when everyone else is too dense to understand. It's not a coincidence he led his college team to the longest winning streak in history at the time or that he led his Olympic team to the largest margin of victory in Olympic history (which still stands to this today) before he ever became a Celtic. But as far as no one else appreciating defense:

When defense became more in vogue - Wilt had one of the greatest defensive years - even Russell said this - along with the most dominant winning season ever - at that point. Wilt doesn't win it.



So to say that other people around the league didn't know what was going on is false. But Boston was the only team that had Russell. Everyone else had to make due with what they had. I can't blame you though, because you couldn't be expected to know. The NBA does a bad job when it comes to making their fans aware of their history, and it's not like people nowadays care about anything that came before their entrance into this planet.
Ok, then lets get really raw. If guys really thought defense was the trump card why weren't they stopping Chamberlain? You think when they saw the boxscores and seen Chamberlain dominating Russell with equal opportunity, they realized that Russell's great defense was nowhere near or close to equalizing him with Chamberlain? When greatness meets greatness and domination is the outcome, a natural pecking order is pressumed. Everybody in competitive sports - knows that deal. Were you one of the those guys that thought Ben Wallace was better than Shaq after '05???


And Russell's defensive game was just flat our more influential on the outcome of the game, more versatile and more team oriented than Wilt's in those years. Russell had a whole other level to his defensive game. The same applies if you look at defense. Again, I suppose you can't be faulted, as you've grown up under one paradigm and thus can't imagine a different paradigm. Russell was the most atypical superstar in NBA history, and the one hardest for people now to understand. I've watched the change in public perception as time has passed, and it's been interesting how different the opinion is of people who have come after the fact versus those who were there. What happened to the paradigm when Wilt employed it??? Russell's impact on the game was barely two or three years old and it was fast forgotten. That paradigm was never there. As time passed I've yet to see the center who said he wanted to be like moreso like Russell than Chamberlain. That's the real measure of influence. I'ms sure there is a player but its at a like 20 to 1 ratio.
[quote]
Cincinnati Royals Coach, Jack McMahon: [i]The Celtics and Bill Russell have changed the whole concept of the pro game with their defense. After what I saw in this series, I

[Deuce Bigalow]

Every MVP from 1987-1998 that didn't go to Jordan.
right, his team won 55 games without him in 1993-94

[97 bulls]

right, his team won 55 games without him in 1993-94
This isn't an indictment on jordan. He played with a great team. Just think, he joined them and took them from what was essentially a 55 win team to a 72 win team. Rodman joined too, but he replaced a solid player in horace grant. Taking a 55 win team to 72 wins is much more impressive than joining a 30 win team and making them a 50+ win team.

[Pointguard]

As far as how many shots they blocked, well, I have no idea who blocked more shots, but I do know that Russell was widely regarded as the superior defensive center regardless. Tom Meschery criticized Wilt's defense at that point(though he did credit him with improving that throughout his career and becoming a great defender later).

Wilt didn't average 20 ppg more than the next highest scorer. He averaged 12 more than Baylor who averaged 38. However, Wilt did have a huge lead over the next highest scorer in total points, which is how scoring titles were awarded until the '68-'69 season.

And if it the scoring title were given out by ppg like it is today, Baylor would qualify for 2nd as the requirement is either 70+ games or 1400 points and Baylor easily topped 1400 points.
Baylor is not in the books as such. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1962.html And you can't put him in the books. He was a part-timer. Wilt could get 1400 in a third of a season so that wouldn't have been fair. And Wilt could have paced himself differently and perhaps averaged 60ppg part time and 30 rebounds. The record book would be a complete joke. So they got it right in not having Baylor there.

Wilt didn't average 3 more boards per game than Russell either, he averaged 2.1 more than Russell. but Wilt also played 48.5 mpg while Russell played 45.2. In fact, their rebounds per minute were almost identical.
My bad on that one - it was 2 and not 3. Not that it makes Russell his equal. Wilt was the better rebounder and pulled rank when they played each other. On top of that he doubled Russell's scoring efforts as well. He did this on the regular I might add. No excuses made on Wilt having more endurance. More rebounds is more rebounds. It was rare for Russell to outrebound Wilt in their careers. Wilt was letting him know. You get 55 rebounds on a guy and that's his strong suite, its rank and file. Trust me, other players (the voters in this case) are fully aware things like this.

Regarding who deserved it, well it's tough for me to say considering I've seen a total of 0 games from that regular season, but I see no reason to doubt that Russell was deserving. It's easy to see why he won considering the Celtics had the best record in the league by far at 60-20, and they went 0-4 without Russell. Plus, if those in the league at the time who saw these guys thought Russell was deserving, their opinion is better than mine because as I said, I did not watch basketball in '62 and wasn't even born until more than 2 decades later.

I find this funny because Derrick Rose's team had a very similar edge (strikingly similar) on DH's team winning wise last year and you definitely didn't feel that way despite Rose being an infinitely better leader than DH and having had a totally random year of team abnormalties. And Derrick Rose strong suit was 4th quarters and scoring. It wasn't like DH was better than him or could pull rank on Derrick Rose in those categories. It wouldn't even be a surprise if Rose had scored more points in the paint than DH in H2H combats. So really, which way do you feel about this?

[ShaqAttack3234]

But the context of East vs. West is apparent for those who remember the league a few years ago.

That's certainly true, though my point wasn't to argue Nash's value vs Shaq's, just the win increase. But if we're talking about win totals, well, I think you could argue that Phoenix had more talent overall around Nash, here were their rotations.

Miami
Wade(38.6 mpg)
Eddie Jones(35.5 mpg)
Shaq(34.1 mpg)
Haslem(33.4 mpg)
Damon Jones(31.4 mpg)
Rasual Butler(18.5 mpg)
Shandon Anderson(17.7 mpg)
Keyon Dooling(16 mpg)

Phoenix
Joe Johnson(39.5 mpg)
Marion(38.8 mpg)
Amare(36.1 mpg)
Quentin Richardson(35.1 mpg)
Nash(34.9 mpg)
Jim Jackson(24.9 mpg)..only played 40 games with the team
Leandro Barbosa(17.3 mpg)
Steven Hunter(13.8 mpg)

Didn't include some others who played very limited games and not significant minutes during those games such as Zo(around 12 mpg in 19 games with Miami)

It's very subjective. Wade was better than Amare, imo, but there's a bigger gap between their 3rd best players(prime Marion vs a rapidly declining Eddie Jones) and then Joe Johnson vs Haslem and Q-Rich vs Damon Jones. Though Miami did have more depth. However, I remember D'Antoni stating that he preferred shorter rotations.

In fairness, I'd say that Nash's own style and ability elevated his teammates more so comparing talent on paper is subjective as the team really suffered to create without Nash, though there's the other side to that which is Nash having complementary players and a system that suited his style so well.

Though that's not to downplay Shaq's cast either, which I think was quite good. While I don't think the '05 Heat were the most talented cast he had during his elite years, that honor would go either the '96 Magic or '98 Lakers, it may have been the best cast he had considering he had another star for an inside/outside combo, strong 3 point shooting and some solid defenders. Rivaled by the '01 Lakers for "best" cast, at least when that team was firing on all cylinders in the playoffs.

And while the West was certainly the superior conference without question, it wasn't quite the same as previous seasons or '08 or '09. The West itself was top-heavy with a fairly big drop off after the Spurs, Suns and Mavs. This was due to the Lakers falling off dramatically as well as Sacramento, both of which were 2 of the powerhouses of the early 00's. Which is probably why a team like Seattle was able to exceed expectations so much.



And it's difficult to gage just how much better Dwyane Wade was in his 2nd season. He was elite and I'd say was easily more important to the Heat.

I agree that Wade was elite, but disagree that he was more important than Shaq. I think he surpassed Shaq in the '05 playoffs with Shaq banged up and missing playoff games for the first time in his career, and Wade certainly surpassed Shaq in '06, but in the '05 regular season, I'd take Shaq without thinking too hard.


Big men are often a greater piece defensively, because of where they play and how they're supposed to be responsible for the defensive shape as a whole. Shaq has always been lazy and I he wasn't any less so that season. Even taking into consideration big man defense and paying it the mind that a lot of others do, Wade was their best defensive player. Wade was the leading scorer and did it as the main orchestrator in the offense. When the team needed buckets it was Wade who got it.

Shaq was lazy quite often defensively, though that year was far from his laziest defensively. He came into camp lighter than he'd been since the 90's and was more active defensively.

And really where Shaq's laziness came into play defensively was comparing him to elite defensive big men. He's below the Duncan's, Robinson's, Mourning's, Hakeem's and Ben Wallace's of the NBA. But made a bigger impact defensively than the vast majority of perimeter players. I definitely think he was a better player defensively than Wade, even if that was mostly due to their positions.

Wade was their leading scorer, but not by a big margin as Wade averaged 1.2 more ppg and did so less efficiently in 4.5 more mpg.

Wade also had a couple of weaknesses for a perimeter player that make me hesitant to take him in his 2nd year over Shaq at that same time. 1 being his perimeter shot, he worked on that, and we saw it improve, more in the '06 playoffs, but for the most part, Wade was going to look for lay up/dunk or a floater. it's a good mentality, but he became a better player when he was a more reliable jump shooter. The other being that Wade was very turnover prone(4.2 per game).

While '05 Shaq wasn't what he was in 2000 or 2001, he was still the best low post scorer, the biggest mismatch 1 on 1, one of the best passing big men, a very good rebounder and shot blocker.

Wade made numerous comments like this throughout their 2005 season.


"Everyone is focused on him," Wade said. "I've never seen anyone get the attention he does. When Shaq's on the floor, thing open up for me. It's been a little easier for me to pick and choose my spots. The attention that he draws makes things a lot easier when he's on the floor."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=1915767

And we saw the impact that even '06 Shaq had when he was out of the lineup for an extended period of time. The Heat went just 10-13(10-11 not including the 2 games Wade also missed) and that was with a very good backup center to fill in as Alonzo Mourning averaged about 12/9 with almost 4 bpg as a starter in 30 mpg, yet even with him filling in for Shaq, they were mediocre in 2006. By comparison, the Heat were 42-17 when Shaq played. Wade's own shooting percentage almost improved dramatically with Shaq in the lineup as he shot 51.6% in 54 games with Shaq and just 44.7% in 21 games without him, which is an example of what Wade was talking about in the quote I posted above.


If Shaq's name was not Shaq, would he have netted so many MVP votes in 2005?

Well, that's tough to say, if you look at some of the other players outside of Shaq and Nash, it gets pretty thin.

Duncan was the best player in the league, but he missed 16 games
KG was probably a top 2 player, but he missed the playoffs
Kobe had a down year, his team won only 34 games and he missed 16 games

Those were the 3 guys you'd expect, but they were taken out of consideration due to those factors.

Then I guess Dirk who had a great season on a 58 win team.

So other than Nash and Shaq, you have Dirk, but he doesn't stand out over Shaq to me. A guy I think deserved more consideration than he got was T-Mac, though 51 wins are a bit on the low side for the award.


He's not in the books as such. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1962.html

That's basketball-reference, which is not the official NBA record books. They list many advanced stats as well which the NBA doesn't recognize as official stats so I don't see the point in including that.

The fact is that Baylor would qualify under today's criteria now that it's awarded by scoring average since he easily topped 1400 points.

He played his team's first 41 games, and then played just 7 games after that, and those 7 games came without regular practice time.

Here are his numbers during those 7 games.

38 points and 19 rebounds
39 points
36 points and 23 rebounds
38 points
45 points and 20 rebounds
37 points

38.3 in 48 regular season games and 38.6 in 13 playoff games. This was no fluke.

btw, Wilt's scoring season was more impressive than Baylor's, but it's annoying to act as if Baylor's season didn't happen.


No excuses made on Wilt having more endurance. More rebounds is more rebounds.

It's not about endurance. Russell himself was playing about as many minutes as any player could possibly need to. Wilt playing 48.5 per game was unnecessary. He was playing every minute in numerous blowouts, whether it was by 20, 30, 40 or even a 50 point blowout that season. I'm sure that had a lot to do with it.


I find this funny because Derrick Rose's team had a very similar edge (strikingly similar) on DH's team winning wise last year and you definitely didn't feel that way despite Rose being an infinitely better leader than DH and having had a totally random year of team abnormalties. And Derrick Rose strong suit was 4th quarters and scoring. It wasn't like DH was better than him or could pull rank on Derrick Rose in those categories. It wouldn't even be a surprise if Rose had scored more points in the paint than DH in H2H combats. So really, which way do you feel about this?

Completely irrelevant because I watched both players and saw clearly with my own 2 eyes that Howard was the superior player. And I don't agree with you giving Rose a huge leadership edge for the 2011 season(before Dwight's trade demands). So you're not going to just have me acknowledge your opinions as facts.

As I said above, I didn't watch basketball in 1962 and wasn't even born, so I can't truly say who deserved it, but that I have no reason to doubt Russell deserved it.

And a big part of your post doesn't make sense. Head to head? Dwight is a center and Rose is a point guard...they don't guard each other, and how is 3 or 4 games that big over an 82 game season?

But we've been over this many times. I think Dwight was significantly better and more valuable than Rose. I don't feel like going over this with you for the 100th time, especially not when we were discussing Russell vs Wilt.

[NumberSix]

right, his team won 55 games without him in 1993-94
Yeah, and all he did after rejoining that team was lead them to the best record any team has ever achieved.

[jlauber]

That's basketball-reference, which is not the official NBA record books. They list many advanced stats as well which the NBA doesn't recognize as official stats so I don't see the point in including that.

The fact is that Baylor would qualify under today's criteria now that it's awarded by scoring average since he easily topped 1400 points.

He played his team's first 41 games, and then played just 7 games after that, and those 7 games came without regular practice time.

Here are his numbers during those 7 games.

38 points and 19 rebounds
39 points
36 points and 23 rebounds
38 points
45 points and 20 rebounds
37 points

38.3 in 48 regular season games and 38.6 in 13 playoff games. This was no fluke.

btw, Wilt's scoring season was more impressive than Baylor's, but it's annoying to act as if Baylor's season didn't happen.



Baylor played in essentially HALF of the season. His playoff production obviously benefitted as well.

Had he played the ENTIRE season, as Wilt did, it is very much in doubt as to what he would have finished with.

And take Wilt's 62-63 season, for instance. In his first 16 games, he was averaging 53.8 ppg. In his first 20 he was still at 52.3 ppg. He finished at 44.8 ppg. So, we can speculate all we want, but it is clearly not fair to compare a part-time players production to that of a full-timer. BTW, Baylor playing in 80 games, came in a distant second, at 34.0 ppg. In Baylor's '61 season, when he played 73 games, he was at 34.8 ppg. I don't see any reason to believe that Baylor would have been at 38.3 ppg over the course of a full season. And, who knows, he might have been injured as he was OFTEN in his career.

In any case, in Chamberlain's two best scoring seasons, he averaged a combined 47.5 ppg on about .515 shooting. Baylor, in his two highest scoring seasons, including his part-time season, was at 36.1 ppg (again, in only 121 games, while Wilt was at 160 games), and on .429 shooting. In fact, Baylor barely scored more points, in those TWO seasons, with a total of 4374, as Wilt did in his historic '62 season alone, with 4029.

No matter how you look at it, Chamberlain's '62 season was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his nearest competitor. And, given the fact that he had TWO separate strings of 14 game streaks with 40+ points in each game, and averaged 53 and 54 ppg in each, and given the fact that later in the season, he had a run of 351 points over the course of five games (70.1 ppg!), clearly, he could have, and probably should have, scored more.

BTW, Baylor had FOUR 60+ games in his career. Chamberlain had 32.

[jlauber]

Wilt didn't average 3 more boards per game than Russell either, he averaged 2.1 more than Russell. but Wilt also played 48.5 mpg while Russell played 45.2. In fact, their rebounds per minute were almost identical.

Regarding who deserved it, well it's tough for me to say considering I've seen a total of 0 games from that regular season, but I see no reason to doubt that Russell was deserving. It's easy to see why he won considering the Celtics had the best record in the league by far at 60-20, and they went 0-4 without Russell. Plus, if those in the league at the time who saw these guys thought Russell was deserving, their opinion is better than mine because as I said, I did not watch basketball in '62 and wasn't even born until more than 2 decades later.


H2H, Chamberlain not only outscored Russell, per game (in their 10 H2H games) by a 39.7 ppg to 18.5 ppg margin, he outrebounded him, as well, by a 26.1 rpg to 22.3 rpg. And while I don't have Russell's FG% against Chamberlain, we know that Wilt shot .471 against Russell (again, in a league that .426.) Furthermore, in their 10 known regular season H2H games in the '60 season (they played 11), Wilt outshot Russell by a .465 to .398 margin, and that was in a season in which Russell shot his career high of .467, while Chamberlain actually shot higher against Russell, than he did against the entire league (.461...which was by far his worst season in that regard.)

And in the 61-62 ECF's, Wilt not only only heavily outscored Russell, he outshot him by a .468 to .420 margin (estimated...Russell shot .500 in his seven game Finals, and .458 overall, with his other seven games against Wilt.)

In fact, in their known H2H's, Wilt almost always outshot Russell, and usually by a considerable margin, and in some cases by HUGE margins.

So, I don't believe for one instance that Wilt was not a defensive anchor. It was a well known fact that he held Bellamy scoreless in the first half of their first encounter (and outscored him , 51-14 in the game.)

And Meschery commented following their seven game, two point loss, against the Celtics in the '62 ECF's, that Wilt was THE reason why the Warriors got as far as they did. He said that Boston, player-for-player, was better than Philadelphia. Clearly, how in the hell did Chamberlain take a rag-tag group that collectively shot .354 in the '62 post-season, thru the first round against Syracuse, and then a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SEVEN HOFers?

[ChrisKreager]

2003 NBA Coach of the Year- the Spurs went from 58 wins to 60. Not exactly worthy of coach of year for Popovich.

If anyone deserved coach of the year, it would have been Portland's Maurice Cheeks- he got 50 wins out of the volatile Portland Trail Blazers and nearlt got them home-court advantage in a year they were expected to take a step back.

[jlauber]

Even if you look since then:

Rick Barry won nothing when he was scoring 35 a game.

Kareem won nothing when he was scoring 35 a game.

Bob McAdoo won nothing when he was scoring 35 a game.

Jordan won nothing when he was scoring 37 a game.

Kobe won nothing when he was scoring 35 a game.

Look at the list of highest single-season scoring averages in NBA history.

Look at the top 10.

The one thing they all have in common is that they won nothing.

Look at the next 10.

They still won nothing.

That makes oh-for-the-top 20.

Look at the next ten and you finally have Jordan in '93 and '91 and Kareem in '71. That's 3 in the top 30, 10%. Look at the next ten and they won nothing. Look at 40-50 and none of them won anything. That's 3 in the top 50, 6%. 50-60 you have Jordan in '96. 60-70 Jordan in '92. 70-80 '00 Shaq and '97 Jordan. At this point there are no more 30 ppg scorers. #63 was the last 30-point scorer. 80-90 zero. 90-100 '98 Jordan, '01 Shaq, '01 Kobe. So that's 10 of 100, 10%.


First of all, the MVP is a REGULAR season award. To say those that had high scoring seasons won "nothing" is simply not true. But even beyond that, how about this?

Barry, with his 35.6 ppg average, played in the Finals in his '67 season. He won a ring in the '75 season with a 30.6 ppg average.

Kareem won a ring averaging 31.7 ppg. He played in a game seven in the Finals with a 27.0 ppg average just three years later. He also played in the WCF's, with a 63-19 team, in the '72 season, in a year in which he averaged 34.8 ppg. In fact, Kareem averaged 30+ ppg on three teams that went 66-16, 63-19, and 60-22, and yet only won one title.

Jordan didn't win a title at 37.1 ppg, but he won a ring averaging 32.6 ppg (and five other's in which he averaged 28.7 ppg to 30.5 ppg.) And he won an MVP the very next season after his 37.1 ppg season, when he averaged 35.0 ppg (on a team that went 50-32, and still had nowhere near the best record in the league.

Chamberlain won an MVP, in his very first season, on a team that went 49-26, all while averaging 37.6 ppg, which, of course, is the highest scoring MVP season of all-time. He also won an MVP in his 65-66 season, when he led the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg, (as well as rebounding, at 24.6 rpg, and by setting a then-record mark of .540 from the floor), on the team that had the BEST record in the league. Furthermore, his numbers in that post-season were nearly identical to his regular season numbers, BUT, his TEAMMATES play was awful. What changed?

As great as Russell was, he was drafted (or actually traded for) by a team that had gone 39-33 the year before. And, he was joined in that rookie season by ROY and HOFer Tom Heinsohn. A year later the Celts drafted Sam Jones. And each year they added players...like Havlicek in 62-63. Meanwhile, Chamberlain was drafted in high school, and joined a LAST PLACE team. And that roster got older and worse each season. And he still carried thoat crappy roster to within an eyelash of beating Boston in '62.

In any case, how did Wilt win the MVP in '60, and not in '62, when Russell and the Celtics played essentially the same in both seasons, while Wilt's teammates were considerably worse in '62 than they were in '60...and yet, they still finished with a near identical record...with, of course Chamberlain having a MONSTER season?

The bottom line, though, is that there has never been a consistent CRITERIA in the voting, and certainly not in the Wilt-era. If the award should have merely gone to the best player on the best team, then Russell should have won it every year from '60 thru '65. And he should not have finished ahead of Wilt in the '69 voting, either.

But this is a TEAM game, and great players can only control so much of their surrounding environment. Wilt did everything humanly possible (hell, godly possible) to carry his team in that '62 season. He played nearly every minute of every game. He was a defensive stalwart (he came in second in Defensive Win Shares, at 6.0.) And, as much as he scored, he probably should have shot much more. While Chamberlain shot .506 that season, his teammates collectively shot .402 (and again, in the post-season, they dramatically declined to .354.) He led the league in rebounding, too. No other player ever single-handedly carried a team as far as Chamberlain did. And before someone mentions that it is a team game...the team that Wilt joined in '60 was a LAST PLACE roster.

[jlauber]

It's not about endurance. Russell himself was playing about as many minutes as any player could possibly need to. Wilt playing 48.5 per game was unnecessary. He was playing every minute in numerous blowouts, whether it was by 20, 30, 40 or even a 50 point blowout that season. I'm sure that had a lot to do with it.



I get so tired of reading this. How about Wilt in his very next season, then, when he averaged 47.6 mpg, and averaged 44.8 ppg, on .528 shooting? His team played in EIGHT games, out of 80, in which the outcome was 20+ points (and they went 4-4 in them.) Hell, his team, a cast of clowns that couldn't beat a group of rookies and scrubs in a pre-season scrimmage the very next season, lost 35 games by single digits, and their total differential was -2.1 ppg.

The fact was, Wilt played nearly every minute of every game throughout his career. In his very LAST season, he averaged 43.2 ppg, and then, in 17 post-season games, averaged 47.1 mpg (which, BTW, was LOWER than his career post-season average of 47.2 mpg.)

And for those that attempt to "punish" Wilt because of his mpg...just how much more EFFICIENT would Chamberlain have been had he "only" played 40-42 mpg in his career? How much fresher would he have been in games 40, 50, 60, and 80 in a season? And then multiply that by 14 seasons. He was already LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers in terms of efficiency.

And, of course, move into the decade of the 80's, when EVERYONE was shooting 50%, and he probably would have had multiple 30-20 .600 seasons (maybe even .700 seasons.)

[ShaqAttack3234]

Baylor played in essentially HALF of the season. His playoff production obviously benefitted as well.

Maybe my math is wrong, but last I checked, 48 is a lot more than half of 80.

And no his playoff production didn't "obviously" benefit. He averaged 38+ in the playoffs the year before as well. You can believe it benefited in '62, but that's not a fact.


Had he played the ENTIRE season, as Wilt did, it is very much in doubt as to what he would have finished with.

That's cool, I happen to disagree, but my point isn't what he would've averaged in '62 under different circumstances, my point is what he did average.

There's still a big margin between Wilt and Baylor's scoring, you don't have to get insecure about it. I'm not arguing that Baylor was as good as Wilt, I'm just tired of seeing people act like that season didn't occur.


I don't see any reason to believe that Baylor would have been at 38.3 ppg over the course of a full season. And, who knows, he might have been injured as he was OFTEN in his career.

There's plenty of reason to believe he would've finished close to 38. At worst, probably 36-37 ppg. But considering he played the first 42 games, then still managed to put up 35-40 each of the limited chances he got after that despite not being able to play basketball regularly, and then he goes on to continue his consistency with almost 39 ppg in 13 playoff games.

We know that he was able to average 38+ over 61 games that season, and was able to it without being able to concentrate fully on basketball, so if he's able to do it for 61 games, why is there no reason to believe he could do it for 82?

His 38 ppg season actually makes perfect sense compared to his '61 season and '63.

1961- 34.8 ppg, 29.7 FGA
1962- 38.3 ppg, 33.1 FGA
1963- 34 ppg, 28.4 FGA

Makes perfect sense, he shot considerably more in '62 compared to '61 and '63. Also, if you look at Baylor's scoring from '62 and '63, his team attempted 103.9 shots per game in '62, but just 99.4 in '63. Chances are, if you put '63 Elgin on the '62 team, he's going to average more.



No matter how you look at it, Chamberlain's '62 season was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his nearest competitor.

I'm not disagreeing with that as far as scoring. Just acknowledging Baylor's own remarkable season.


So, I don't believe for one instance that Wilt was not a defensive anchor. It was a well known fact that he held Bellamy scoreless in the first half of their first encounter (and outscored him , 51-14 in the game.)

And what about Wilt's games vs Bellamy after that?

Second meeting- Bellamy had 27
Third meeting- Bellamy had 39
Fourth meeting- Bellamy had 33
Fifth meeting- Bellamy had 45
Sixth meeting- Bellamy had 35
Seventh meeting- Bellamy had 47
Eighth meeting- Bellamy had 44
Ninth meeting- Bellamy had 25
Tenth meeting- Bellamy had 38

I'm not hiding the fact that Wilt outscored Bellamy in 9 of their 10 match ups and by an average of 52.7 ppg to 34.7 ppg. But that's not the relevant point. Wilt was a much, much better player than Bellamy. However you used Bellamy as an example of Wilt's defense, and it doesn't back up your point. Bellamy topped his season scoring average in 7 out of their 10 games.


And Meschery commented following their seven game, two point loss, against the Celtics in the '62 ECF's, that Wilt was THE reason why the Warriors got as far as they did. He said that Boston, player-for-player, was better than Philadelphia.

I wasn't using Meschery's statement to say that Wilt was anything less than a great player. I was just talking about defense, particularly compared to Russell.

I'm not trying to trash Wilt's defense either. Just keeping things in perspective. Wilt himself acknowledged that he had to focus less on defense because he was scoring so much.



I get so tired of reading this. How about Wilt in his very next season, then, when he averaged 47.6 mpg, and averaged 44.8 ppg, on .528 shooting? His team played in EIGHT games, out of 80, in which the outcome was 20+ points (and they went 4-4 in them.) Hell, his team, a cast of clowns that couldn't beat a group of rookies and scrubs in a pre-season scrimmage the very next season, lost 35 games by single digits, and their total differential was -2.1 ppg.

You're missing the point again. I was saying that Russell played plenty of minutes himself(45+), there was no reason for Russell to play every minute of games that were out of reach. Why should it be implied that Russell played less simply because of endurance when Wilt played every minute in games with the following scores during the '61-'62 season.

132-95 win vs Knicks
151-108 win vs Syracuse
148-130 loss @ Syracuse
134-102 win vs Chicago
138-117 win @ Los Angeles
122-105 win @ New York
135-113 win vs Chicago
132-109 win vs Detroit
117-102 win vs Detroit
134-116 win vs St. Louis
137-112 loss @ St. Louis
145-128 loss @ Cincinnati
135-117 win vs Chicago
151-133 loss @ Cincinnati
123-107 win vs Detroit
136-110 win vs St. Louis
131-106 win vs Boston
130-109 win vs Cincinnati
134-112 loss @ Syracuse
136-120 win @ New York
152-132 loss @ Cincinnati
150-109 loss @ Syracuse
139-121 win vs St. Louis
109-86 loss vs Boston
169-147 win vs New York
153-102 loss @ Boston
148-130 loss @ Syracuse

So yes, I think it's unfair to just look at rebounding totals and penalize Russell for that. Statistically, they're a toss up to me when it comes to rebounding, except for potential factors like Russell's team being better defensively and more missed shots available to rebound, but Wilt's team also playing at by far the fastest pace in the league.

So those are variables that some may be better equipped to answer.

Then there's the non-statistical debate depending on whether it's more impressive to you that Wilt was able to rebound like Russell while carrying a much heavier scoring load, or that Russell was able to rebound like Wilt while being a lot more active defensively.

That could be argued either way.

[sillyrbbt_11]

surprised at the amount of ppl say Shaq shoulda won A.I.'s MVP

[TheMan]

MJ should've won the MVP from 1987 to 1998 with the exception of the first retirement years:applause:

[Pointguard]

That's basketball-reference, which is not the official NBA record books. They list many advanced stats as well which the NBA doesn't recognize as official stats so I don't see the point in including that.

The fact is that Baylor would qualify under today's criteria now that it's awarded by scoring average since he easily topped 1400 points.

He played his team's first 41 games, and then played just 7 games after that, and those 7 games came without regular practice time.

Here are his numbers during those 7 games.

38 points and 19 rebounds
39 points
36 points and 23 rebounds
38 points
45 points and 20 rebounds
37 points

38.3 in 48 regular season games and 38.6 in 13 playoff games. This was no fluke.

btw, Wilt's scoring season was more impressive than Baylor's, but it's annoying to act as if Baylor's season didn't happen.

It was part-time. Back then the season's were brutal and at a faster pace. Look at this season, which is nowhere near the '62 season and add to that, that Wilt is carrying a team. You telling me a guy only playing weekends say this year doesn't have an advantage. Look at the injury report for this year.



It's not about endurance. Russell himself was playing about as many minutes as any player could possibly need to. Wilt playing 48.5 per game was unnecessary. He was playing every minute in numerous blowouts, whether it was by 20, 30, 40 or even a 50 point blowout that season. I'm sure that had a lot to do with it.

So Wilt plays 48.5 minutes with an activity level that seems to drawf any other player ever and its not about endurance? The guy just has endurance. Its wild that he can't even get respect for that. I bet you the full time players this year, the ones that play hard every game, will fade before the end of the season. If Wilt could do it and avaerage 60ppg the second to last week in the season then its not an issue with him. He was a freak.



Completely irrelevant because I watched both players and saw clearly with my own 2 eyes that Howard was the superior player. And I don't agree with you giving Rose a huge leadership edge for the 2011 season(before Dwight's trade demands). So you're not going to just have me acknowledge your opinions as facts.
Aparently very few people felt like you. Did you see the voting? And the voting on here was a landslide. Howard was weak the last two months of the season when they were right on Chicago's tail. He was getting himself suspended. Disappeared when it mattered most. Is just now claiming that he wants to be a finisher is being compared to a guy whose team went through craziness and was the game's most impactful player in the fourth quarter. But yeah, you saw it differently. Which is OK. But you are ready to believe that a guy that scored 30 more ppg than the next guy and statisically was better, and much better, in nearly every category with the practically the same record differential as Chicago and Orlando.


As I said above, I didn't watch basketball in 1962 and wasn't even born, so I can't truly say who deserved it, but that I have no reason to doubt Russell deserved it.
50.4ppg>>>>>>>18.9ppg, 25.7>>23.6, 506%>>457%, Wilt was a better free throw shooter that year as well (Russell did have an assist lead of 2 a game, sobeit with far better shooters on his team.) There were no other raw stats. The scoring difference is so big that you can't make a comparison the last five years from the scoring leader to a guy that played one second the whole year. Durants best year wouldn't be enough to cover it. And there is no reason to doubt?

Then when they played head to head, as Jlauder produced above, it wasn't like Russells great defense made them equal by any measure of the stick. In fact, the rebounding advantage nearly doubled and he doubled Russell's point production in h2h competition. And there is no reason to doubt?


And a big part of your post doesn't make sense. Head to head? Dwight is a center and Rose is a point guard...they don't guard each other, and how is 3 or 4 games that big over an 82 game season?

Seeding was at stake and Rose was taking more shots in the paint than Dwight which is why I brought it up. Dwight took eight shots (I think he made all of them tho) with seeding at stake. And then caught a suspension. So Rose ends up taking more shots in the paint than DH in one game than DH does in two with seeding playing a big role. It was the beginning of the Magic dwonward spiral and Dwight not having much impact at all the rest of the year. And they were only like a three games behind the Bulls at this point. http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=310304019

I brought this up because you acted like the record was good enough for Russell to win the MVP despite just totally being outclassed statiscally. The record was very similar to Chicago/Orlando. And Rose is a closer and a better scorer than DH and it definitely wasn't a statistical domination by any measure of the stick.

[Pointguard]

And take Wilt's 62-63 season, for instance. In his first 16 games, he was averaging 53.8 ppg. In his first 20 he was still at 52.3 ppg. He finished at 44.8 ppg. So, we can speculate all we want, but it is clearly not fair to compare a part-time players production to that of a full-timer. BTW, Baylor playing in 80 games, came in a distant second, at 34.0 ppg. In Baylor's '61 season, when he played 73 games, he was at 34.8 ppg. I don't see any reason to believe that Baylor would have been at 38.3 ppg over the course of a full season. And, who knows, he might have been injured as he was OFTEN in his career.

In any case, in Chamberlain's two best scoring seasons, he averaged a combined 47.5 ppg on about .515 shooting. Baylor, in his two highest scoring seasons, including his part-time season, was at 36.1 ppg (again, in only 121 games, while Wilt was at 160 games), and on .429 shooting. In fact, Baylor barely scored more points, in those TWO seasons, with a total of 4374, as Wilt did in his historic '62 season alone, with 4029.

No matter how you look at it, Chamberlain's '62 season was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his nearest competitor. And, given the fact that he had TWO separate strings of 14 game streaks with 40+ points in each game, and averaged 53 and 54 ppg in each, and given the fact that later in the season, he had a run of 351 points over the course of five games (70.1 ppg!), clearly, he could have, and probably should have, scored more.

BTW, Baylor had FOUR 60+ games in his career. Chamberlain had 32.
Assuming Wilt paced himself, which we have to believe that he did, and let him only play on weekends... you have to believe that he probably could maintain a 60/30 year if he went all out on weekends. The reference point would be that he's had 5 game stretches of that type of scoring and a year at 27 rebounds a year. Its a bit of a stretch but not totally crazy at all.

[Pointguard]

So yes, I think it's unfair to just look at rebounding totals and penalize Russell for that. Statistically, they're a toss up to me when it comes to rebounding, except for potential factors like Russell's team being better defensively and more missed shots available to rebound, but Wilt's team also playing at by far the fastest pace in the league.
I think they were close rebounding wise. But in the early years it wasn't close. Wilt's first two years '60 and '61 Wilt averaged 27 rebounds per game and Russell was at 24 per game those two years.

However, if you are a competitor, as the voters were, you are very aware of players in H2H competition. Very different if Russell was out-rebounding Wilt 49% of the time or even 40 or 30% in a large sample size then you would say its equal. Wilt had something to prove so you imagine the first two years it was more than the 4 rebounds per game in H2H advantage he had in 1962. It is very likely that Wilt outrebounded him in 80% of the games with a very real chance he flat out didn't let Russell outrebound him in the first two years, maybe even three. Players know when another player pulls rank.

Overall in their careers, in H2H competition I would be shocked if Russell outrebounded Wilt in 20% of the games. That number would seem very high to me. I've seen about 70 of their games quoted and only twice do I recall Russell having outrebounded him.

[TheNaturalWR]

Disagreed with LeBron winning the MVP in 09 over Wade but understand it considering his team reached 60 wins.

[Derka]

Jethro Tull winning Best Hard Rock/Metal in 1988. That shit was ridiculous.