Is Nash the worst defender ever to win a MVP?

[Mr. Jabbar]

Dude should seriously give those stolen trophies to Kobe, how tainted is this award?

[bdreason]

Worst defender, or worst player?


He may be both.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Worst defender, or worst player?


He may be both.

Tempted to say rose as player, but considering both ends of the floor hes actually better than nash

[Breezy]

There's a list of bad MVP defenders Nash is right up there with em.

Dirk
Nash
Rose
Iverson
Shaq
Magic
Barkley.

Take your pick. The Rockets could score 150 against a team made up of those MVP's

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

There's a list of bad MVP defenders Nash is right up there with em.

Dirk
Nash
Rose
Iverson
Shaq
Magic
Barkley.

Take your pick. The Rockets could score 150 against a team made up of those MVP's

Actually, when Shaq won MVP, he was one of the BEST defenders in the league.

[Mr. Jabbar]

There's a list of bad MVP defenders Nash is right up there with em.

Dirk
Nash
Rose
Iverson
Shaq
Magic
Barkley.

Take your pick. The Rockets could score 150 against a team made up of those MVP's

I seriously think Nash takes the cake, and thats saying alot given some names on that list...

[Breezy]

Actually, when Shaq won MVP, he was one of the BEST defenders in the league.

It might be said that he locked down the pain because he was an immovable object the size of godzilla but he put 0 effort into defending. Especially defending the pick and roll... Shaq might have been the worst pick and roll defender of all time.

[Mr. Jabbar]

There's a list of bad MVP defenders Nash is right up there with em.

Dirk
Nash
Rose
Iverson
Shaq
Magic
Barkley.

Take your pick. The Rockets could score 150 against a team made up of those MVP's

Every bad defender has a secured spot as a TV analyst upon retirement :eek:

[Figlo]

Your man crush Kobe is up there...

[Breezy]

Your man crush Kobe is up there...

In Kobe's prime he was a lockdown Defender. He was a little lacking in help defense, but man to man there were very few players better.

[ILLsmak]

There's a list of bad MVP defenders Nash is right up there with em.

Dirk
Nash
Rose
Iverson
Shaq
Magic
Barkley.

Take your pick. The Rockets could score 150 against a team made up of those MVP's

None of those players are anywhere close to as bad as Nash. They are all "average" at worst.

-Smak

[willds09]

yea nash definitely should give up his 2006 mvp at least and hand it to kobe:facepalm

[miller-time]

Good thing it isn't a defensive player of the year award. Otherwise this thread would have some value.

[Sharmer]

Shaq and Barkley were great defenders in there prime.

[Nevaeh]

yea nash definitely should give up his 2006 mvp at least and hand it to kobe " I'm purposefully not gonna play any defense this year" Bryant:facepalm

Yeah, that N!gga....

[Human Error]

Worst defender, or worst player?


He may be both.
This.

[Shepseskaf]

The perception shift, over time, on this topic is really refreshing. Back in 2005-06, anyone who made a negative comment on ISH about Nash's MVPs would literally get jumped on by multiple posters.

I was one of the few at the time who said that: (1) He didn't deserve either MVP, and (2) his "winning" them would devalue the award for years to come.

Thankfully, the second item seems to have resolved itself in recent times, and hopefully the standards will remain acceptably high for future winners.

[Bigsmoke]

Shaq and Barkley were great defenders in there prime.

I was too young to watch all of Barkley games but he was undersized and lazy on defense from what I've remembered. Not sure if thats a good combination

[dh144498]

Yeah, that N!gga....

what does this year have to do with 2006? :no:

[DMAVS41]

There's a list of bad MVP defenders Nash is right up there with em.

Dirk
Nash
Rose
Iverson
Shaq
Magic
Barkley.

Take your pick. The Rockets could score 150 against a team made up of those MVP's

Nash is easily the worst defender out of that group. Nash is historically bad on defense...the other guys just aren't great defenders. There is a difference between actually being a huge negative defensively like Nash and just not being a huge positive defensively.

[PJR]

Nash winning back to back MVP's is one of the biggest disgraces in NBA history. Winning them by virtue of a feel good narrative. The great white hope. :facepalm

Shaq was completly robbed in 2005. And LeBron deserved in 2006.

[DMAVS41]

Nash winning back to back MVP's is one of the biggest disgraces in NBA history. Winning them by virtue of a feel good narrative. The great white hope. :facepalm

Shaq was completly robbed in 2005. And LeBron deserved in 2006.

Don't forget Dirk in 06 as well. Fit just about every criteria. Great regular season numbers....27/9/3 59% TS...and led his team to 60 wins. Close to a 50/40/90 season with 48/41/90 splits.

That regular season goes way undervalued because of the Nash narrative.

[Whoah10115]

Nash's defense is epically exaggerated. He's the least talented defender of the bunch but he's smart enough and hard-working enough to make up for it. Dirk had improved as a defender by the time he won, but he was never good. He's actually better the last few years, as he's a good team defender and decent in the post. But early on, Dirk was atrocious and worse than Nash was...especially considering all the slurp here that big men get for their defense. Nash always hustled and made up for a lot of it.



Nash winning back to back MVP's is one of the biggest disgraces in NBA history. Winning them by virtue of a feel good narrative. The great white hope. :facepalm

Shaq was completly robbed in 2005. And LeBron deserved in 2006.


Sure he was. It sounds great to say otherwise. Both your choices are stupid.

[Just2McFly]

Nash's defense is epically exaggerated. He's the least talented defender of the bunch but he's smart enough and hard-working enough to make up for it. Dirk had improved as a defender by the time he won, but he was never good. He's actually better the last few years, as he's a good team defender and decent in the post. But early on, Dirk was atrocious and worse than Nash was...especially considering all the slurp here that big men get for their defense. Nash always hustled and made up for a lot of it.





Sure he was. It sounds great to say otherwise. Both your choices are stupid.
His choices make sense to me, even though I would choose kobe in 06

[DMAVS41]

Nash's defense is epically exaggerated. He's the least talented defender of the bunch but he's smart enough and hard-working enough to make up for it. Dirk had improved as a defender by the time he won, but he was never good. He's actually better the last few years, as he's a good team defender and decent in the post. But early on, Dirk was atrocious and worse than Nash was...especially considering all the slurp here that big men get for their defense. Nash always hustled and made up for a lot of it.





Sure he was. It sounds great to say otherwise. Both your choices are stupid.

When you say "early on"...are you referring to like his first few seasons before he became an elite player while being coached by a coach that didn't want defense and didn't care about it? And Dirk's man to man defense has always been quite good....it's been his inability to show on high pick and rolls and recover...and rim protection that were his weaknesses. Dirk has also always been an excellent defensive rebounder for a pf.

Nash is far worse defensively than anyone on that list. He has no redeeming qualities defensively. He can't guard other pg's, he's too small to guard any sg's, he's too weak to fight through screens...etc.

Nash is of course a great player and a future HOF...but his defense was and has been historically bad. It's a testament to his skill and offensive greatness that he's been this good for so long.

[fpliii]

Nash winning back to back MVP's is one of the biggest disgraces in NBA history. Winning them by virtue of a feel good narrative. The great white hope. :facepalm

Shaq was completly robbed in 2005. And LeBron deserved in 2006.

Not that I agree/disagree with you, but your picks mesh with the players' vote for the Sporting News MVP:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/tsn_mvp.html

Shaq won in 05, and LeBron/Nash split the award in 06.

[JtotheIzzo]

7 years on and people still want to hate. Even Shepskaf made a post, his google alerts must have went off that a Nash thread was made.


well earned!

[Shepseskaf]

Sure he was. It sounds great to say otherwise. Both your choices are stupid.
No, both choices are correct. You could substitute Kobe '06, as already stated.

[PJR]

Don't forget Dirk in 06 as well. Fit just about every criteria. Great regular season numbers....27/9/3 59% TS...and led his team to 60 wins. Close to a 50/40/90 season with 48/41/90 splits.

That regular season goes way undervalued because of the Nash narrative.

Dirk was a fine candidate as well.

But Shaq in 2005 was totally robbed. You're traded for 3 players, and team goes .500 ish 4th seed to the best record in the conference, legit title contender. And you give a guy who averaged 15/10 the MVP? :facepalm

[Shepseskaf]

7 years on and people still want to hate. Even Shepskaf made a post, his google alerts must have went off that a Nash thread was made.
Calling someone a "hater" is one of the laziest ways to avoid a genuine debate.

If someone disagrees with Nash "winning" an MVP, then that person automatically "hates" him. :rolleyes:

This is a stupid and completely unnecessary tactic.

For the record: I don't think that Nash deserved either the '05 or '06 MVP, and I don't hate him.

[JtotheIzzo]

Dirk was a fine candidate as well.

But Shaq in 2005 was totally robbed. You're traded for 3 players, and team goes .500 ish 4th seed to the best record in the conference, legit title contender. And you give a guy who averaged 15/10 the MVP? :facepalm

and that differs from Nash how?

Oh yeah, Nash's team dropped an All Star point guard, put him in and went from 29 wins to 62 wins.

Funny how that metric works with Shaq but not with Nash.

:no:

Biased

[Shepseskaf]

and that differs from Nash how?

Oh yeah, Nash's team dropped an All Star point guard, put him in and went from 29 wins to 62 wins.

Funny how that metric works with Shaq but not with Nash.

:no:

Biased
No one is biased. He's speaking the truth.

The answer to your question lies in taking a deeper look into the Suns' 29-win season. That's what anyone who justifies Nash's '05 MVP points to.

The fact is that the 2003-04 Suns went through a year of internal turmoil and injury. A coach got fired in-season and Amar'e got hurt. The bottom line is that the team was actually much better than 29 wins.

Even if Nash hadn't joined, a healthy Amar'e and a stable coaching situation would have resulted in a big jump in team wins during the 2004-05 season.

Nash was a big part of the resurgence, but not nearly enough -- given his individual stats -- to be given the MVP over a legend like Shaq. It never should have happened -- and wouldn't have, if not for PR reasons.

[scm5]

Worst defender, or worst player?


He may be both.

Iverson is right there with him in terms of worst player to win MVP.

Nash got 16/3/12 on 50% in 05' and 19/4/11 on 51%FG... 50/40/90 year in 06'.

Iverson's 31/4/5 on 42% shooting is horrible. Especially considering 26FGA/10FTA per game... he just might be the worst out of the bunch to me.

Let's consider that 2FTA = 1 possession. That's 31 possessions to score 31 points. That's ridiculous!

Overall, Iverson was the worst MVP. In terms of defense, Nash is the worst defender to win MVP.

[PJR]

and that differs from Nash how?

Oh yeah, Nash's team dropped an All Star point guard, put him in and went from 29 wins to 62 wins.

Funny how that metric works with Shaq but not with Nash.

:no:

Biased

Nash averaged 15/10!

15/10 is MVP-esque dominance? :roll:

It was a complete JOKE. Shaq was the best player in the league, showing flashes of prime Shaq, and averaged 23/10/2.7apg/2.8bpg.

Straight up joke.

[chazzy]

People put too much stock in PG defense. And it shouldn't be shocking Nash won in 06 because he lost Amare and Joe Johnson from the previous year and the Suns were still an offensive juggernaut and #2 seed.. MVP is heavily influenced by narratives.

It's just that in the bigger picture, Nash's level of play doesn't match the other players who have multiple MVPs.. and it's even worse when you look at all the players who have 1 or 0 MVPS. That's why I don't need to put heavy stock in this award for the seasons I've seen, I can determine for myself who the best players of each year were.

[Just2McFly]

Iverson is right there with him in terms of worst player to win MVP.

Nash got 16/3/12 on 50% in 05' and 19/4/11 on 51%FG... 50/40/90 year in 06'.

Iverson's 31/4/5 on 42% shooting is horrible. Especially considering 26FGA/10FTA per game... he just might be the worst out of the bunch to me.

Let's consider that 2FTA = 1 possession. That's 31 possessions to score 31 points. That's ridiculous!

Overall, Iverson was the worst MVP. In terms of defense, Nash is the worst defender to win MVP.
Let's compare the 01 Sixers to the 05 and 06 Suns. Stop being stupid, Iverson's impact was otherworldly.

[Shepseskaf]

Iverson is right there with him in terms of worst player to win MVP.
You should be banned for comparing Iverson with Nash.

Did Nash ever put a team on his back and take them to the Finals? No.

Did he ever singlehandedly defeat one of the best playoff teams ever in the Finals. No.

I like Nash, but he and Iverson are on totally different tiers as players.

[JtotheIzzo]

No one is biased. He's speaking the truth.

The answer to your question lies in taking a deeper look into the Suns' 29-win season. That's what anyone who justifies Nash's '05 MVP points to.

The fact is that the 2003-04 Suns went through a year of internal turmoil and injury. A coach got fired in-season and Amar'e got hurt. The bottom line is that the team was actually much better than 29 wins.

Even if Nash hadn't joined, a healthy Amar'e and a stable coaching situation would have resulted in a big jump in team wins during the 2004-05 season.

Nash was a big part of the resurgence, but not nearly enough -- given his individual stats -- to be given the MVP over a legend like Shaq. It never should have happened -- and wouldn't have, if not for PR reasons.

It was debatable whether Shaq or D Wade was the best player on their team, so acting like Shaq saved Miami is a bit of a stretch, they made some noise in the playoffs the year before he got there.

Reality is Shaq only got em one round deeper in the playoffs. Nash took a 29 win team and made them a 62 win team.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know you guys aren't biased or anything, those two situations are basically the same.

:facepalm

[fpliii]

People put too much stock in PG defense. And it shouldn't be shocking Nash won in 06 because he lost Amare and Joe Johnson from the previous year and the Suns were still an offensive juggernaut and #2 seed.. MVP is heavily influenced by narratives.

It's just that in the bigger picture, Nash's level of play doesn't match the other players who have multiple MVPs.. and it's even worse when you look at all the players who have 1 or 0 MVPS. That's why I don't need to put heavy stock in this award for the seasons I've seen, I can determine for myself who the best players of each year were.

:applause:

In general, if your PG is your best perimeter defender, your team is probably in trouble on that end. Don't get me wrong, I don't want my guy being a complete liability, but his team-level offensive contributions are much, much, more important IMO.

[chazzy]

Nash averaged 15/10!

15/10 is MVP-esque dominance? :roll:

It was a complete JOKE. Shaq was the best player in the league, showing flashes of prime Shaq averaged 23/10/2.7apg/2.8bpg.

Straight up joke.
Nash's impact goes beyond his raw numbers. Look at the Suns' offensive jump from 04 to 05 and the amount of player retention there was.

@Shep - Wade breaking out had a big impact as well if you're going to use Amare

[JtotheIzzo]

You should be banned for comparing Iverson with Nash.

Did Nash ever put a team on his back and take them to the Finals? No.

Did he ever singlehandedly defeat one of the best playoff teams ever in the Finals. No.

I like Nash, but he and Iverson are on totally different tiers as players.

Your grandmother and her friends could have made their way through that Eastern conference, f*ckin hell, Vince Carter was a quarter inch away from knocking out the Sixers, don't act like what he did was special, they would have been first round fodder in the West.

[DMAVS41]

Dirk was a fine candidate as well.

But Shaq in 2005 was totally robbed. You're traded for 3 players, and team goes .500 ish 4th seed to the best record in the conference, legit title contender. And you give a guy who averaged 15/10 the MVP? :facepalm

I was talking about the 06 season...not 05.

[JtotheIzzo]

Nash averaged 15/10!

15/10 is MVP-esque dominance? :roll:

It was a complete JOKE. Shaq was the best player in the league, showing flashes of prime Shaq averaged 23/10/2.7apg/2.8bpg.

Straight up joke.

Why did Wade lead the Heat in scoring and take all the big shots if Shaq was so dominant, why did he only get them one round further in the playoffs if he was so dominant that season?

I can continue to put aside all your nonsense, and you can keep coming back yelling and claiming no bias.

Its trollish though.

[Nick Young]

AI was worse.

But yeh, Nash's 2 MVPs belong to the mamba

[PJR]

Nash's impact goes beyond his raw numbers. Look at the Suns' offensive jump from 04 to 05 and the amount of player retention there was.

@Shep - Wade breaking out had a big impact as well if you're going to use Amare

I don't deny Nash's on court impact on that team.

But the MVP isn't an intanigbles award. Individual statistical dominance matters.

If Nash put up 2008 Chris Paul type numbers, I wouldn't have much of a problem. But 15/10? To go with porous defense? It's a disgrace.

[fpliii]

AI was worse.

But yeh, Nash's 2 MVPs belong to the mamba

Kobe's your 05 MVP?

[Shepseskaf]

Your grandmother and her friends could have made their way through that Eastern conference, f*ckin hell, Vince Carter was a quarter inch away from knocking out the Sixers, don't act like what he did was special, they would have been first round fodder in the West.
:facepalm

Don't post stupidity.

[Whoah10115]

When you say "early on"...are you referring to like his first few seasons before he became an elite player while being coached by a coach that didn't want defense and didn't care about it? And Dirk's man to man defense has always been quite good....it's been his inability to show on high pick and rolls and recover...and rim protection that were his weaknesses. Dirk has also always been an excellent defensive rebounder for a pf.

Nash is far worse defensively than anyone on that list. He has no redeeming qualities defensively. He can't guard other pg's, he's too small to guard any sg's, he's too weak to fight through screens...etc.

Nash is of course a great player and a future HOF...but his defense was and has been historically bad. It's a testament to his skill and offensive greatness that he's been this good for so long.


No. I mean the Dirk that played with Nash, up until Nash's last season.

Dirk was always a decent shot-blocker and has very good hands. You leave him at the rim and he's atrocious. His man defense was not good and he was awful in and with space. He'd give guys room to cut around him and guys who had space between would literally fly at him and he'd be off-balance. That's not only not having Tyson Chandler but it's also bad defense. His defense at the rim was noticeably bad, even when Chandler was there. I'm not expecting him to guard guards but if a guard is driving and Dirk is in the pain he was so far on his heels that he'd never do the basic thing and put his hands up.

[DMAVS41]

No. I mean the Dirk that played with Nash, up until Nash's last season.

Dirk was always a decent shot-blocker and has very good hands. You leave him at the rim and he's atrocious. His man defense was not good and he was awful in and with space. He'd give guys room to cut around him and guys who had space between would literally fly at him and he'd be off-balance. That's not only not having Tyson Chandler but it's also bad defense. His defense at the rim was noticeably bad, even when Chandler was there. I'm not expecting him to guard guards but if a guard is driving and Dirk is in the pain he was so far on his heels that he'd never do the basic thing and put his hands up.

Yes, but the point is that even that Dirk wasn't a negative the way Nash was. And again, those run and gun teams did not play defense.

But yes, Dirk as a rim protector is not good. Why should he be? He doesn't play center and he doesn't have the lateral quickness or jumping ability. His a forward...remember.

But actually, Dirk's man to man defense has always been decent...and really has frankly been quite good post 2005 (although the last couple years it has slipped noticeably...age/injury)

I am not arguing for Dirk as a great defender or something, but the truth is that ever since he played for a team that actually defended, he's been quite good and certainly not a negative to the average player. Only a negative to the better defenders. And you must not ignore his defensive rebounding...which has been excellent most of his career regardless of standards. That alone separates him from a guy like Nash...who has no redeeming qualities on that end of the floor.

[Whoah10115]

Dirk was a fine candidate as well.

But Shaq in 2005 was totally robbed. You're traded for 3 players, and team goes .500 ish 4th seed to the best record in the conference, legit title contender. And you give a guy who averaged 15/10 the MVP? :facepalm


15.5 and 11.5.


I like your idea tho. Trade 3 guys for Shaq and win 17 more games but disregard a great rookie in Wade jumping into the top 10.


What about going from 29 wins to the best record in the NBA, in the West, and (up until the Celtics 3 years later) the biggest single-season jump in NBA history?

I love that people just skip over that. Yea, the Heat won 17 more games and that is very impressive. The Suns won 33 more games lol. That's the Lakers' winning streak. That's more than double what they won the year before. That's one game shy of double the Heat's jump. And this happened in the Western Conference.


If you want to argue for O'Neal then you should be arguing his basketball, how he improved the team, the things he did...with some sort of detail. From the moment he ended up in Miami this guy was all but given the MVP for the turnaround. You can't give him the award on that basis...not when the guy he lost to has a much better version of the same story.


His choices make sense to me, even though I would choose kobe in 06


LeBron was terrific in 2005/06, tho I would take Wade over him. That's arguable tho. But LeBron wasn't (as you already said) as good as Kobe was. And truth is that he wasn't as good as Dirk either, despite the stats.


BTW I would give the award to Bryant. Nash would be my runner-up.

[DMAVS41]

Neither MVP was a disgrace in my opinion.

I just thought there were better candidates at the time. People also often forget that in 06...Marion put up 22/12/2 with 2 steals and 2 blocks on 53% shooting...all while providing some of the best defense in the league.

Objectively, if you gave Kobe or Lebron or Dirk a 2nd banana like that they would have won more than 54 games. I'm of course somewhat biased, but 27/9/3 with almost a 50/40/90 season while leading a team without a legit 2nd star to 60 wins trumps what Nash did.

[chazzy]

I don't deny Nash's on court impact on that team.

But the MVP isn't an intanigbles award. Individual statistical dominance matters.

If Nash put up 2008 Chris Paul type numbers, I wouldn't have much of a problem. But 15/10? To go with porous defense? It's a disgrace.
Yeah the numbers don't pop out at you. Similar to CP3's this year though and he's a legit MVP candidate (if he wasn't competing against one of the best reg seasons ever by Lebron) lol. Ultimately I don't have a huge problem with him winning because it was a bit of a down year in terms of star play, and his individual impact was a huge reason for their turn around and offensive dominance.

[Whoah10115]

Yes, but the point is that even that Dirk wasn't a negative the way Nash was. And again, those run and gun teams did not play defense.

But yes, Dirk as a rim protector is not good. Why should he be? He doesn't play center and he doesn't have the lateral quickness or jumping ability. His a forward...remember.

But actually, Dirk's man to man defense has always been decent...and really has frankly been quite good post 2005 (although the last couple years it has slipped noticeably...age/injury)

I am not arguing for Dirk as a great defender or something, but the truth is that ever since he played for a team that actually defended, he's been quite good and certainly not a negative to the average player. Only a negative to the better defenders. And you must not ignore his defensive rebounding...which has been excellent most of his career regardless of standards. That alone separates him from a guy like Nash...who has no redeeming qualities on that end of the floor.


I can't see Dirk as more than average as a defender. This season he actually looks good, considering time missed and injury. The title year was his best. So I don't see how it's slipped in the last few years.


But I don't agree that his man defense has always been decent. I never understood how Nash was a worse defender on the Mavericks. His ability was less but his effort was more and I don't think he was anywhere near the negative that people suggest. I don't think he was that negative. As you said, those teams did not play much defense. And Nash is diving on the floor. He made up for a lot with the hustle. In Phoenix they didn't play much defense either. But his hustle was still there and, with Raja, he was much less exposed.


I'm not holding it against Dirk that he isn't a good rim protector. But as a PF he sometimes has to cover the rim and he was bad at it. In transition, if he was the last guy back and waited under the rim, then he should have been conceding the jumpshot. Guards passed up the conceded shot and would go at him at lot and he'd give up the basket, sometimes with a foul.

[DMAVS41]

I can't see Dirk as more than average as a defender. This season he actually looks good, considering time missed and injury. The title year was his best. So I don't see how it's slipped in the last few years.


But I don't agree that his man defense has always been decent. I never understood how Nash was a worse defender on the Mavericks. His ability was less but his effort was more and I don't think he was anywhere near the negative that people suggest. I don't think he was that negative. As you said, those teams did not play much defense. And Nash is diving on the floor. He made up for a lot with the hustle. In Phoenix they didn't play much defense either. But his hustle was still there and, with Raja, he was much less exposed.


I'm not holding it against Dirk that he isn't a good rim protector. But as a PF he sometimes has to cover the rim and he was bad at it. In transition, if he was the last guy back and waited under the rim, then he should have been conceding the jumpshot. Guards passed up the conceded shot and would go at him at lot and he'd give up the basket, sometimes with a foul.

Dirk has been nothing more than an average defender. At times he's played better than average, but overall I think that is a fair assessment.

You lose me when you consider Nash average. Not at all. He's historically bad. Now, you could argue his defense at the pg position doesn't matter that much...but that would only be true if you play a run and gun style like the suns. Put him in a slowed down half court playoff style game and it would become a real problem.

Dirk and most of the other guys on that list were average to good.
Nash is bad to historically bad.

[Whoah10115]

Neither MVP was a disgrace in my opinion.

I just thought there were better candidates at the time. People also often forget that in 06...Marion put up 22/12/2 with 2 steals and 2 blocks on 53% shooting...all while providing some of the best defense in the league.

Objectively, if you gave Kobe or Lebron or Dirk a 2nd banana like that they would have won more than 54 games. I'm of course somewhat biased, but 27/9/3 with almost a 50/40/90 season while leading a team without a legit 2nd star to 60 wins trumps what Nash did.


OK...what if you gave Shawn Marion to Dirk and then took away the rest of the team? Outside of Marion, the Mavericks had a better roster. The Suns were still a good team. They had Diaw and they had a little Barbosa. But they had a massive hole at the center position and they didn't have the top to bottom that the Mavericks did. So I don't agree with that line of thinking. Nash is a guy who runs a team. His game is better served with more solid guys than with a standout 2nd player.

And while you said that about LeBron, I think it's crazy not to mention that he was in the Eastern Conference. You think that a 3rd year LeBron was taking on that competition and still winning as many games as they did? You think that if you give him Shawn Marion at the 4 and throw them to the West that they won 54 games? I don't see that.

[Shepseskaf]

The Suns won 33 more games lol. That's the Lakers' winning streak. That's more than double what they won the year before. That's one game shy of double the Heat's jump. And this happened in the Western Conference.

Posted earlier in this thread:

The answer to your question lies in taking a deeper look into the Suns' 29-win season. That's what anyone who justifies Nash's '05 MVP points to.

The fact is that the 2003-04 Suns went through a year of internal turmoil and injury. A coach got fired in-season and Amar'e got hurt. The bottom line is that the team was actually much better than 29 wins.

Even if Nash hadn't joined, a healthy Amar'e and a stable coaching situation would have resulted in a big jump in team wins during the 2004-05 season.

Nash was a big part of the resurgence, but not nearly enough -- given his individual stats -- to be given the MVP over a legend like Shaq. It never should have happened -- and wouldn't have, if not for PR reasons.

[PJR]

How do you win the MVP when you are the fourth best scorer on your own team? :oldlol:

Winning an MVP off intangibles and a feel good narrative. Pathetic.

[Maniak]

this is my favorite topic that kobe/shaq/whoever fans always bring up because you can never change that nash was a 2 time back to back mvp. all that you'll ever do is get angrier and angrier about it.

[Whoah10115]

You lose me when you consider Nash average. Not at all. He's historically bad.



I never said Nash was average. I am saying that he isn't nearly as bad or as people suggest. I think the historically bad is off the mark and I think he was far less negative than people say. I never said he was average tho.

[DMAVS41]

I never said Nash was average. I am saying that he isn't nearly as bad or as people suggest. I think the historically bad is off the mark and I think he was far less negative than people say. I never said he was average tho.

Well, that is where we disagree.

[chazzy]

I think criticizing PG defense is similar to complaining about centers who aren't good passers or can't shoot. Those would be great traits to have, but they won't ultimately hurt your team as much as they would if those traits were missing from other positions.

[tpols]

I think criticizing PG defense is similar to complaining about centers who aren't good passers or can't shoot. Those would be great traits to have, but they won't ultimately hurt your team as much as they would if those traits were missing from other positions.
In todays era of pick and rolls every play and insane PG depth?

Bad pg defense allows PGs to open up the whole offense. You can see the whole defense disintegrating as it happens.

Then I flip to the Heat game and see hedges and traps out to halfcourt, steals, and Lebron slams. It makes a huge difference.

[PJR]

this is my favorite topic that kobe/shaq/whoever fans always bring up because you can never change that nash was a 2 time back to back mvp. all that you'll ever do is get angrier and angrier about it.

True.

But dudes can always make fun of the fact that he's the only back to back MVP winner to never make an NBA Finals apperance.

Despite playing with Prime Dirk, Prime Michael Finley, Prime Amare, Prime Shawn Marion, Joe Johnson, Shaq, Kobe, Dwight Howard etc etc. :oldlol:

[PJR]

:oldlol: Yea, I'm perplexed as to how anyone can insinuate that point guard defense isn't of important significance?

A guy like Nash who allows as many blow blies as he does? That forces your entire defense to collpase? How is that not important?

[Thorpesaurous]

I think criticizing PG defense is similar to complaining about centers who aren't good passers or can't shoot. Those would be great traits to have, but they won't ultimately hurt your team as much as they would if those traits were missing from other positions.


This is a really valid point. In a vacuum, maybe he's the worst MVP ever on defense, but you can make a case for Barkley, and his playing PF makes his limitations much more egregious in my mind.

I personally would pick Barkley. And honestly I feel like his defensive limitations are a full blown achilles heel that in a lot of ways prevents him from joining the truely elite players of all time. Dirk is similarly limited, but at least he has length that occupies space, which gives him an inherent value beyond Charles even when he's not actively producing back there.

Iverson was also extremely limited defensively, but he did have specific skills in diving passing lanes.

[Whoah10115]

Posted earlier in this thread:


Fair.


First thing I take issue with is "a legend like Shaq". I'm not gonna tell you what you think but that garbage is a big reason why people argue for O'Neal. He wasn't even as dominant as he was the year before. Now, I give him credit, as that's the one season he really made others better. His passing was better utilized than ever before. But him being a legend doesn't have anything to do with his play that season, but it played a part in his hype and status.

Butler did not have a good year in 03/04. He had injuries and fell back hard. Worst season of his career. Haslem was also going into his 2nd year and, like Amare, naturally improved. He averaged almost a double-double. Wade went from great rookie to an elite player. They pushed the Pacers to a tough 6 games the year before. They were due for much more improvement than that Suns team.


D'Antoni did an amazing job with that team. Amare naturally improved and Marion started to peak. But not only did Amare score a lot more and improve efficiency, but it shot way up and it happened with him playing center exclusively. You say that the Suns had turmoil the year before...they won 44 games the year before that. They were no juggernaut. And the big talent at the center of both the turmoil and the success was gone. He was replaced by someone who took made them 18 games better than they were when he was there. That team is not getting away with Amare at center without Nash there. Not like that.


And lastly, Joe Johnson...his 09-10 season in Atlanta is his best season but his last season in Phoenix is his best season after that and the Joe Johnson that I'd take. He was traded to Phoenix in the middle of the 01-02 season and then had two full seasons in Phoenix before Nash got there. Statistically, he hardly changed from 03/04 to 04/05, but Nash made him a much better player. Led him to his strengths. Johnson put up solid numbers before Nash got there but he had little positive impact. Suddenly, he was a borderline all-star with Nash there.

[DMAVS41]

I think criticizing PG defense is similar to complaining about centers who aren't good passers or can't shoot. Those would be great traits to have, but they won't ultimately hurt your team as much as they would if those traits were missing from other positions.

I have to disagree. It might not matter all that much in the regular season playing up tempo, but in the playoffs...especially at the end of hard fought games in the half court?

A PG's ability to fight through screens and contest shots in one on one late clock situations...etc. That matters.

And the problem with Nash is that the second he gets switched up...your team is in big trouble as well.

I watched it in Dallas for a few years and we've all seen it since.

[chazzy]

In todays era of pick and rolls every play and insane PG depth?

Bad pg defense allows PGs to open up the whole offense. You can see the whole defense disintegrating as it happens.

Then I flip to the Heat game and see hedges and traps out to halfcourt, steals, and Lebron slams. It makes a huge difference.
Actually in today's era, PGs can't even be as impactful because of their inability to use their hands to stay in front of players. Your hedging big man and the rotations behind him are important because most guys get blown by anyway without a good team scheme. The hedges and traps you mention are a result of good defensive schemes involving athletic wings and bigs as well. Most PGs are too small to defend other positions so they're ultimately stuck at their position, and there is too much an offensive PG can do for a defender to impact him much individually. How often do we see PGs locking each other up?

It matters, but I just feel that people are inaccurately rating the impact of defense from all positions equally. To me, it's far more important that my big man can defend and my PG can run an offense/score. The worst fallacy I see here at times is that a player's overall impact is 50% offense and 50% defense since "defense is half the game." :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Actually in today's era, PGs can't even be as impactful because of their inability to use their hands to stay in front of players. Your hedging big man and the rotations behind him are important because most guys get blown by anyway without a good team scheme. The hedges and traps you mention are a result of good defensive schemes involving athletic wings and bigs as well. Most PGs are too small to defend other positions so they're ultimately stuck at their position, and there is too much an offensive PG can do for a defender to impact him much individually. How often do we see PGs locking each other up?

It matters, but I just feel that people are inaccurately rating the impact of defense from all positions equally. To me, it's far more important that my big man can defend and my PG can run an offense/score.

Of course it's more important to have a big man that can hedge and recover and protect the rim.

And if Nash was an average defending pg...this wouldn't be much of an issue. He's not average though...he's quite awful really.

And I do think you are under valuing the impact (both good and bad) a pg can have defensively.

[Whoah10115]

This is a really valid point. In a vacuum, maybe he's the worst MVP ever on defense, but you can make a case for Barkley, and his playing PF makes his limitations much more egregious in my mind.

I personally would pick Barkley. And honestly I feel like his defensive limitations are a full blown achilles heel that in a lot of ways prevents him from joining the truely elite players of all time. Dirk is similarly limited, but at least he has length that occupies space, which gives him an inherent value beyond Charles even when he's not actively producing back there.

Iverson was also extremely limited defensively, but he did have specific skills in diving passing lanes.


The more I watch old Barkley games the more perplexed I am at this thought and the more I think to some of the playground conversations I've had, with oldheads telling me about how Barkley played defense when he was in Philly...and in his first year at Phoenix.

Barkley was not a bad defender. In fact, he was a good one. Not of note, but a good one overall. Great floor game, on both sides of the ball. Strong team defender who was very good at protecting on the rim on his rotations. Defended well in the post, did well when a guy went out on the wing on him. He was limited on switches, getting stuck on a small guy, being unable to make the right switches. He didn't play the pick n' roll and he could get caught on not rotating out to the 3 if he got switched on. But he wasn't a negative defender. Along with all the good things I said, he made plays on defense. Played the passing lanes, was physical, hit you when he needed to, and he got on the defensive glass...not only did he board but opposing teams doubled him on the glass, taking themselves out of offense and giving room to his teammates to get on the glass.

[tpols]

Actually in today's era, PGs can't even be as impactful because of their inability to use their hands to stay in front of players. Your hedging big man and the rotations behind him are important because most guys get blown by anyway without a good team scheme. The hedges and traps you mention are a result of good defensive schemes involving athletic wings and bigs as well. Most PGs are too small to defend other positions so they're ultimately stuck at their position, and there is too much an offensive PG can do for a defender to impact him much individually. How often do we see PGs locking each other up?

It matters, but I just feel that people are inaccurately rating the impact of defense from all positions equally. To me, it's far more important that my big man can defend and my PG can run an offense/score.
How does that not matter then? I remember it back with Fisher as well.. They cant keep up.

There are great defensive PGs and guys the size of PGs like tony allen and avery bradley that have made a living not using their hands to slow you down, but using pure positioning, speed, and bodying to alter your motion.

Stopping penetration or at least limiting it is so important in todays slashing league of no post play. Schemes are needed for good defense.. of course. But if you dont have the personell for those schemes it really doesnt mean anything.

Put Nash on the heat instead of chalmers. PGs will be getting wide open looks.. they will be creating havoc on the PnR.. He doesnt have the quickness, strength or low enough center of gravity to properly contest a shot, and at the same time stay grounded in case its a pump fake. He doesnt have the quickness or strength to stay in front, the most basic of defensive capabilities.

[tpols]

Its not 50 offense and 50 defense, but the worst thing a defense can do is give an offense an exploit to just keep going at and going at. It leaves the whole team totally helpless.

Remember Chris Paul in 2011 what he did to Fisher and how they would always switch him so Bynum or Gasol would get pulled out? An 'athletic pg' like avery bradley wouldve caught up to Paul so that wouldve never happened. It collapses the whole defense.

[DMAVS41]

How does that not matter then? I remember it back with Fisher as well.. They cant keep up.

There are great defensive PGs and guys the size of PGs like tony allen and avery bradley that have made a living not using their hands to slow you down, but using pure positioning, speed, and bodying to alter your motion.

Stopping penetration or at least limiting it is so important in todays slashing league of no post play. Schemes are needed for good defense.. of course. But if you dont have the personell for those schemes it really doesnt mean anything.

Put Nash on the heat instead of chalmers. PGs will be getting wide open looks.. they will be creating havoc on the PnR.. He doesnt have the quickness, strength or low enough center of gravity to properly contest a shot, and at the same time stay grounded in case its a pump fake. He doesnt have the quickness or strength to stay in front, the most basic of defensive capabilities.

Yea, the difference between Nash and Chalmers defensively for the Heat would be substantial.

[Whoah10115]

:applause:

In general, if your PG is your best perimeter defender, your team is probably in trouble on that end. Don't get me wrong, I don't want my guy being a complete liability, but his team-level offensive contributions are much, much, more important IMO.


I agree and I don't agree. "In general", as you said, is very important here.

It's the baseball example I use. Up until like three years ago, the 3 GG's given out to outfielders were given out to any 3 outfielders. Now, the GG is given out to one CF, one LF, one RF. So 97 and 98 in the AL (and other years), where Griffey, Bernie, Edmonds all won...that can't happen anymore. People use to downplay Bonds when they compared him to Mays and the standout argument was that Mays is probably the best CF ever and Bonds plays LF. If Bonds is so good then he should have been playing CF, as he was obviously an elite athlete. Bonds had 8 GG's. He didn't beat out a LF 8 times. He beat out, at WORST, all but two outfielders in the NL every year that he won a GG. Look back and you'll see at least 2 CF's chosen in most years, in either league.

Now, let's say I'm the best hitter in baseball but I am an awful defender and play in the NL. You're gonna try to hide me in the OF...do you wanna hide me CF? No. That would be suicide. You hide me in the corner. Now, the corners could have GG guys playing there and those guys are better than many of the great defensive CF's...but you can get away with me sucking there. Doesn't mean that the CF is your best defensive OF. But you can hide less there.

Gary Payton has a shout for DPOTY in two different seasons: the one he won (tho I would go with David Robinson) and Dikembe's 3rd, in 97/98. He's one of the best ever and it can't be downplayed over his position. At the same time, I could get away with a crappy defender at one of the two guard spots...better than I can anywhere else.

[Shepseskaf]

Fair.


First thing I take issue with is "a legend like Shaq". I'm not gonna tell you what you think but that garbage is a big reason why people argue for O'Neal. He wasn't even as dominant as he was the year before. Now, I give him credit, as that's the one season he really made others better. His passing was better utilized than ever before. But him being a legend doesn't have anything to do with his play that season, but it played a part in his hype and status.

Butler did not have a good year in 03/04. He had injuries and fell back hard. Worst season of his career. Haslem was also going into his 2nd year and, like Amare, naturally improved. He averaged almost a double-double. Wade went from great rookie to an elite player. They pushed the Pacers to a tough 6 games the year before. They were due for much more improvement than that Suns team.


D'Antoni did an amazing job with that team. Amare naturally improved and Marion started to peak. But not only did Amare score a lot more and improve efficiency, but it shot way up and it happened with him playing center exclusively. You say that the Suns had turmoil the year before...they won 44 games the year before that. They were no juggernaut. And the big talent at the center of both the turmoil and the success was gone. He was replaced by someone who took made them 18 games better than they were when he was there. That team is not getting away with Amare at center without Nash there. Not like that.


And lastly, Joe Johnson...his 09-10 season in Atlanta is his best season but his last season in Phoenix is his best season after that and the Joe Johnson that I'd take. He was traded to Phoenix in the middle of the 01-02 season and then had two full seasons in Phoenix before Nash got there. Statistically, he hardly changed from 03/04 to 04/05, but Nash made him a much better player. Led him to his strengths. Johnson put up solid numbers before Nash got there but he had little positive impact. Suddenly, he was a borderline all-star with Nash there.
Nice post.

I agree with a good % of it, but we differ on the bolded portion. Shaq was a legend and his stats for the 2004-05 did trump Nash's. Previous to that season, no one would say that Nash was an MVP-level player. That obviously wasn't the case with Shaq.

Last point: if the 2003-04 Suns team had been able to maintain a 40+ win level, then the gain to the next year would have been much less dramatic.

[fpliii]

I agree and I don't agree. "In general", as you said, is very important here.

It's the baseball example I use. Up until like three years ago, the 3 GG's given out to outfielders were given out to any 3 outfielders. Now, the GG is given out to one CF, one LF, one RF. So 97 and 98 in the AL (and other years), where Griffey, Bernie, Edmonds all won...that can't happen anymore. People use to downplay Bonds when they compared him to Mays and the standout argument was that Mays is probably the best CF ever and Bonds plays LF. If Bonds is so good then he should have been playing CF, as he was obviously an elite athlete. Bonds had 8 GG's. He didn't beat out a LF 8 times. He beat out, at WORST, all but two outfielders in the NL every year that he won a GG. Look back and you'll see at least 2 CF's chosen in most years, in either league.

Now, let's say I'm the best hitter in baseball but I am an awful defender and play in the NL. You're gonna try to hide me in the OF...do you wanna hide me CF? No. That would be suicide. You hide me in the corner. Now, the corners could have GG guys playing there and those guys are better than many of the great defensive CF's...but you can get away with me sucking there. Doesn't mean that the CF is your best defensive OF. But you can hide less there.

Gary Payton has a shout for DPOTY in two different seasons: the one he won (tho I would go with David Robinson) and Dikembe's 3rd, in 97/98. He's one of the best ever and it can't be downplayed over his position. At the same time, I could get away with a crappy defender at one of the two guard spots...better than I can anywhere else.

Great post. What other PGs stand out to you defensively (Harper has to up there for me, though I like what I've seen from Westbrook/CP3 recently, and Rose was improving defensively before going down; Stock was a nuisance for sure, and we have to mention Kidd)?

[Whoah10115]

Nice post.

I agree with a good % of it, but we differ on the bolded portion. Shaq was a legend and his stats for the 2004-05 did trump Nash's. Previous to that season, no one would say that Nash was an MVP-level player. That obviously wasn't the case with Shaq.

Last point: if the 2003-04 Suns team had been able to maintain a 40+ win level, then the gain to the next year would have been much less dramatic.


The next year would have been much less dramatic but the jump would still have been bigger (assuming they repeat with 44 wins)...not that much more but more and in the West.


And I disagree even more after reading your first line...I get what you're saying. You're taking into account the likelihood of the system and how it served Nash's game, whereas O'Neal showed up and just had straight impact. I just disagree. I don't think you'd argue that O'Neal should win because he's Shaq. You think he was better and you point to Nash's late peak and it seems clear that you think Nash was a beneficiary almost as much as he was the benefactor.

[Whoah10115]

Great post. What other PGs stand out to you defensively (Harper has to up there for me, though I like what I've seen from Westbrook/CP3 recently, and Rose was improving defensively before going down; Stock was a nuisance for sure, and we have to mention Kidd)?



Well, Kidd became my favorite player when he was on the Nets...He's definitely top 3, behind Payton and Walt...tho, to be honest, I'm taking Kidd's defensive game over Frazier's...but that's a long discussion and I could maybe be swayed if I watched more old Knick games (haven't in a while).


Harper was a great defender and I was pissed that the Knicks let him go for Chris Childs. Hell, I still am...getting a younger guy and more pass-oriented PG made sense, but not Chris Childs.


I think Westbrook plays terrific on-ball defense. His switches suck tho and he's a little dumb...which is why I'd rather see him guard SG's (this goes back to me wanting to see him play the 2). Especially scorers. He did an awesome job on Kobe last year and guys like that bring out the best in him, which I respect. Chris Paul is also an awesome on-ball defender and his intelligence is thru the roof. His hands are as good anyone's in the league today. My problem with him is he spends too much time barking at teammates and waiting to get the ball back. He slags off when his man doesn't have the ball. I think he'd struggle if he got to the Finals vs. Miami...unless he made a conscious effort to not make that mistake. And I think he should improve his fitness and conditioning. Would help if they had a better defender at the 3 (tho Butler is still decent).


Rose plays some very good man D, but he's not even paying attention when his guy doesn't have the ball. He slacks a lot on D. He improved last year but not enough. George Hill is a great defender but the best of all of them is Mike Conley. Besides the steals, he's a pest and a great team defender. And Kyle Lowry...if he can stay healthy for the whole year and be a little less pudgy.


The guy I dig is Ricky Rubio. His ability is better than all of them. His man defense is ridiculous and his hands are amazing...even more amazing are his arms. He must be annoying as hell to play against. Plus, his barking on defense is underrated. Bradley is not a PG and obviously neither is Allen. Shump isn't either. Rondo is but he's slacked the last year and a half...but even when Rondo gets back to his best (and I hope he does, because I love his defense) I think that Rubio will be the best defensive PG in the league. If not next year then by the year after. But these 5 guards, along with Conley and maybe Bledsoe, are the ones I take, in the entire league, from next year on. Based on just right now (and PG's), I'd probably rank: Rondo, Conley, Lowry, Paul, Hill, Westbrook.

[Odinn]

I know OP is one of the uncontrolled Kobe-stans and on my ignore list. And he started this thread to bash to Nash. Kobe's supporting casts haven't been good enough for him. Otherwise Kobe should have 10 rings and would have been the goat.:oldlol:


But this time thread title has a point. Nash is the worst MVP in history as defensively. And he has a strong case to be called the worst MVP in history also.

[fpliii]

Well, Kidd became my favorite player when he was on the Nets...He's definitely top 3, behind Payton and Walt...tho, to be honest, I'm taking Kidd's defensive game over Frazier's...but that's a long discussion and I could maybe be swayed if I watched more old Knick games (haven't in a while).


Harper was a great defender and I was pissed that the Knicks let him go for Chris Childs. Hell, I still am...getting a younger guy and more pass-oriented PG made sense, but not Chris Childs.


I think Westbrook plays terrific on-ball defense. His switches suck tho and he's a little dumb...which is why I'd rather see him guard SG's (this goes back to me wanting to see him play the 2). Especially scorers. He did an awesome job on Kobe last year and guys like that bring out the best in him, which I respect. Chris Paul is also an awesome on-ball defender and his intelligence is thru the roof. His hands are as good anyone's in the league today. My problem with him is he spends too much time barking at teammates and waiting to get the ball back. He slags off when his man doesn't have the ball. I think he'd struggle if he got to the Finals vs. Miami...unless he made a conscious effort to not make that mistake. And I think he should improve his fitness and conditioning. Would help if they had a better defender at the 3 (tho Butler is still decent).


Rose plays some very good man D, but he's not even paying attention when his guy doesn't have the ball. He slacks a lot on D. He improved last year but not enough. George Hill is a great defender but the best of all of them is Mike Conley. Besides the steals, he's a pest and a great team defender. And Kyle Lowry...if he can stay healthy for the whole year and be a little less pudgy.


The guy I dig is Ricky Rubio. His ability is better than all of them. His man defense is ridiculous and his hands are amazing...even more amazing are his arms. He must be annoying as hell to play against. Plus, his barking on defense is underrated. Bradley is not a PG and obviously neither is Allen. Shump isn't either. Rondo is but he's slacked the last year and a half...but even when Rondo gets back to his best (and I hope he does, because I love his defense) I think that Rubio will be the best defensive PG in the league. If not next year then by the year after. But these 5 guards, along with Conley and maybe Bledsoe, are the ones I take, in the entire league, from next year on. Based on just right now (and PG's), I'd probably rank: Rondo, Conley, Lowry, Paul, Hill, Westbrook.

I'll give a more detailed response when I have a chance, but the Frazier omission is just because I didn't have a chance to watch him live (definitely one of the all-time greats). I think Mo Cheeks and DJ would also have to be up there.

Rubio, Conley, Rondo are great as well for current guys.

EDIT: KC Jones, Lenny Wilkens and Wali Jones need to be mentioned as well (and obviously West if we consider him a PG, which he probably was at least when Sharman was coach).

[fos]

I'll make two points about Steve Nash's bad defense (and it was/is bad)

1. When he won his MVPs he wasn't near as bad as he is now.
2. He never was a huge minutes guy so he was playing bad defense less than a lot of other MVPs who sucked at defense.



PS: I actually thought he deserved the second MVP. I would have gave his first one to Dirk, Shaq, or Kobe in that order.

[DMAVS41]

I'll make two points about Steve Nash's bad defense (and it was/is bad)

1. When he won his MVPs he wasn't near as bad as he is now.
2. He never was a huge minutes guy so he was playing bad defense less than a lot of other MVPs who sucked at defense.



PS: I actually thought he deserved the second MVP. I would have gave his first one to Dirk, Shaq, or Kobe in that order.

On what planet did Kobe deserve MVP over Nash in 05?

[fos]

On what planet did Kobe deserve MVP over Nash in 05?

Because he raped a woman and got away with that. That's the definition of MVP in my book.

[TheBigVeto]

No. The answer is Kobe.
/thread

http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh600/Rodman2124/kobeclutch.gif

[pauk]

Ever heard of Bob Cousy?

[La Frescobaldi]

There's a list of bad MVP defenders Nash is right up there with em.

Dirk
Nash
Rose
Iverson
Shaq
Magic
Barkley.

Take your pick. The Rockets could score 150 against a team made up of those MVP's
dang he said 150 on them bad boys lol

[DetroitPistonFan]

No. It's not Steve Nash. It's Magic Johnson.

[DetroitPistonFan]

No. The answer is Kobe.
/thread

http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh600/Rodman2124/kobeclutch.gif
Prime Kobe was a great defender.

[Djahjaga]

It might be said that he locked down the pain because he was an immovable object the size of godzilla but he put 0 effort into defending. Especially defending the pick and roll... Shaq might have been the worst pick and roll defender of all time.

That year PJax actually convinced him to give a f*ck on D. He played pretty inspired on the defensive end at times. But my memory is hazy. Most of my actual basketball knowledge from Shaq's prime comes from games watched later.

But I definitely wouldn't say he belongs on a list with Nash as one of the worst defenders to win MVP.

[JtotheIzzo]

People are still butthurt after all these years, and the Kobe stan (like the OP), what a rare breed they are, whenever Kobe chucks his way to a Lakers L they feel the ned to tear down one of his teammates, regardless of the relevance. Nash's MVPs were a completely different chapter in his career, not sure why whinging about it after an embarrassing loss to Golden State is a top priority.

Must defend the Mamba!

[Whoah10115]

No. It's not Steve Nash. It's Magic Johnson.



:oldlol:

[nashwade]

you don't have to be a good defender to win MVP

just like you don't need to shoot 80% FT or be a great dunker to win one

[Breezy]

Ever heard of Bob Cousy? Thought about throwing his name on the list because of my suspicion that he was a bad defender but I really have no idea weather he was or not. I KNOW all of the other guys sucked defensive balls.

Cousy had Russell to clean up after him so maybe his defense was skewed... I really have no Idea.