Originally Posted by knickscity
I don't see them winning it all, but that was some pure hate by Barkley. MVP is based on where your team would be without you. In Barkley time Jordan should have won MVP every single year since 1991. Barkley's MVP was a joke. They may have had the best record, but Kevin Johnson was the glue to that team. Who would have had the worst record if they werent reprsented by their star? The Bulls or Suns? KJ even showed it in the playoffs that year with all that scoring in the finals, to which Bark was a virtual no-show.
Just to retort your comment, MVP is not based on where your team would be without you, until Steve Nash won it. When he won it, the definition of the award changed. While the title is Most Valuable Player, the award has never really been given to a player who truly exemplifies that definition, until Nash. Year in and year out, the MVP has gone to the best player whose team achieves the most success. Looking at past winners, Bird, Johnson, Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, etc, all of those guys were the best players in the league, and their teams were constantly winning titles. Steve Nash is not the best player in the league, and his teams have yet to win a title.
When they gave the 1st MVP to Nash, the writers placed themselves in a difficult situation, because they set a precedent. Nash's #'s during his 1st MVP were 15 and 11, as someone said, not worthy of MVP. The reason he won the award is because he of Phoenix's remarkable turnaround in record, which is warranted. I didn't have a major problem with Nash winning his 1st MVP, because he was the central factor in turning around the Phoenix franchise. However, he did 100% not even close to deserve MVP last season, Dirk did.
I'm not a biased Mavericks fan who felt like my favorite player was robbed, but let's face it, he was. Nash won the MVP because of one thing: situations. He went to team with a poor record that didn't necessarily reflect their talent and capability if they could find the right chemistry, which they did with Nash and D'Antoni's run and gun system, and they found success. Was he the only reason, absolutely not, as he did have Stoudemire, Marion, Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson around him. In my opinion, he should have won the fictional Missing Piece Award, not the MVP award. But as I said, I don't have a major problem with him winning, as he is my 2nd favorite player/but also most hated adversary(see game tying 3-pt over Jason Terry as reason why).
Continuing, as far as last year, again he wins the award due to a situtation. Amare goes down with an injury and immediately the writers assume (foolishly) that Phoenix season was doomed. It wasn't, Phoenix had built a team of shooters and runners that would have no problem winning during the regular season (Bell, Barbosa, House, Jones, Thomas). Because the writers foolishly assumed that Phoenix would decline and they didn't, they had to give the award to Nash, not to mention his #'s had increased from his 1st MVP season, so the writers didn't want to appear hypocritical for giving him the 1st MVP and then not granting him the award with improved #'s and no Amare. Dirk had an unbelievable statistical season last year, and his team won 60 games (3rd best in the NBA behind Detroit and SA). If any of the Pistons players had phenomenal statistical seasons that were comparable to Nowitzki, I would say they deserved the award. However, Duncan had an off year stats wise, and Billups had a great year, but not a better one than Dirk.
So if you are a truly intelligent, objective NBA fan, you know that Dirk deserved it last year. My last point to any pro-Nash fans that believe he deserved both MVP's is this: How come John Stockton never won an MVP award? He averaged virtually the same amount of points and shooting %'s, more assists and A LOT MORE STEALS (Stockton was a great defender, Nash is a defensive liability), not to mention, Stockton played in 2 NBA Finals, Nash = 0.