Will Derek Rose Go Down As One of the Worst MVPs Of All Time

[ballinhun8]

What I don't get is why people respond to the OP when he's an obvious troll.

[Shepseskaf]

Nash didn't have Amare at all in 2006 to deliver to the ball to and that season was almost no different than 2005. It was Nash who made that team go no matter who was around him. He was truly D'Antoni's "system".

What does this have to do with anything at all? So, Nash had essentially the same numbers in consecutive years. He shouldn't have "won" the MVP in either of them.

Making the team go is a typical function of a point guard. Nash did a very good job of facilitating. The effort was simply not enough to vault him up to the MVP level. The numbers don't lie.

[Whoah10115]

What does this have to do with anything at all? So, Nash had essentially the same numbers in consecutive years. He shouldn't have "won" the MVP in either of them.

Making the team go is a typical function of a point guard. Nash did a very good job of facilitating. The effort was simply not enough to vault him up to the MVP level. The numbers don't lie.

The numbers lie. You take out Nash and they're unlikely to be at .500. You take out Shaq and they're a 44-45 win team. It's just ridiculous. His impact was greater than Shaq's and it's remarkably obvious. If you were giving me some intricate stuff that I wasn't considering then OK, but you're not. All the obvious stuff is on Nash's side. His team was way worse and they ended up better the next year, in the tougher conference. If you take him out, they clearly lose more than Miami does. Shaq brought 14 wins and Nash brought 33. Nash is not the only ingredient, but Shaq was hardly the only thing that happened to Miami that year.

[vinsane01]

Nash didn't have Amare at all in 2006 to deliver to the ball to and that season was almost no different than 2005. It was Nash who made that team go no matter who was around him. He was truly D'Antoni's "system".

Agree with this. I think nash deserved his 1st mvp. He made that suns team an instant contender. His play making skills and leadership made others around him maximize their potential. His second is debatable though.

[Whoah10115]

What kind of stupid logic is this? In the long tradition of the MVP, numbers have always mattered a great deal.

In short, not only was the winner supposed to be from one of the best teams in a given year, he also was statistically dominant.

Unfortunately for your argument, numbers do matter -- and 15.5/11.5 don't even come close to cutting it, in light of previous and later winners of the award.

As to the rest of your post -- blah, blah, blah -- typing words, but saying nothing.

I'm only talking the truth. You look at numbers and that won't give you any answers. You watch the season and you see who the best player was.

[hitmanyr2k]

What does this have to do with anything at all? So, Nash had essentially the same numbers in consecutive years. He shouldn't have "won" the MVP in either of them.

Making the team go is a typical function of a point guard. Nash did a very good job of facilitating. The effort was simply not enough to vault him up to the MVP level. The numbers don't lie.

His numbers didn't stay the same. They simply got better across the board Scoring average went up by 3 points while assists stayed the same and he was more efficient in all aspects (higher FG%, 3pt%, and FT%) even with the increased load. When you lose Amare to a season ending injury and Joe Johnson to free agency and they're replaced by nobodies your team shouldn't be one of the top seeds in the West and finding their way back to the WCF on top of that. That's why he got MVP.

[Shepseskaf]

I'm only talking the truth. You look at numbers and that won't give you any answers. You watch the season and you see who the best player was.

That was abysmal. You have to do better.

By that logic, every subjective fan -- many with agendas -- should be able to "watch the season" and see who the best player was?

That idiotic methodology would produce many "best players" for any season, and hardly be the basis for the objective selection of an MVP.

That's why numbers matter.

[FKAri]

What does this have to do with anything at all? So, Nash had essentially the same numbers in consecutive years. He shouldn't have "won" the MVP in either of them.

Making the team go is a typical function of a point guard. Nash did a very good job of facilitating. The effort was simply not enough to vault him up to the MVP level. The numbers don't lie.

Nash deserved at least one of those MVP's. You either didn't watch those Suns teams or have some kind of bias to say otherwise. The first season he won MVP was a similar storyline to Rose where it was just such a great turnaround for which he was the catalyst. He was even better in the 2nd MVP season, where it was hard not to give him the award since the earlier season had already set a precedent. Steve Nash on the Suns was in many ways the definition of an MVP. That team was built maybe to a fault entirely around him. It was like Allen Iverson on the Sixers in terms of how much it depended on one player carrying the team. When Steve Nash didn't play the team would fall apart.

The way MVP is defined is strange imo and it shouldn't be this way. I think it should be the player that is the most valuable asset in the league. Which is (approximately but not exactly the same as), the best player in the league.

[Whoah10115]

That was abysmal. You have to do better.

By that logic, every subjective fan -- many with agendas -- should be able to "watch the season" and see who the best player was?

That idiotic methodology would produce many "best players" for any season, and hardly be the basis for the objective selection of an MVP.

That's why numbers matter.

Umm, no. You're the one who clearly has to do better. I was trusting that I wasn't asking a moron to watch.


Yeah, when you're evaluating who you think is better, you should actually WATCH and make your own decision, instead of relying on stats to tell you. You can reference stats and they play a part, but if what I just said is too much for you then you just conceded the argument.


I'm not talking to you like you're stupid. Assuming you aren't, then yes my way is the way to judge.

[Shepseskaf]

His numbers didn't stay the same. They simply got better across the board

No, they didn't. His assists dropped from 11.5 to 10.5.

Still a nice number, but 18.8/10.5 is the second weakest set of MVP numbers in the modern era -- only eclipsed by the previous year.

[Shepseskaf]

Umm, no. You're the one who clearly has to do better. I was trusting that I wasn't asking a moron to watch.


Yeah, when you're evaluating who you think is better, you should actually WATCH and make your own decision, instead of relying on stats to tell you. You can reference stats and they play a part, but if what I just said is too much for you then you just conceded the argument.


I'm not talking to you like you're stupid. Assuming you aren't, then yes my way is the way to judge.

A true moron calling someone else "stupid". Don't that beat all?

I watch games, and have for a long time. I understand that the subjective and the objective have to both be considered when award time comes around.

In Nash's case, the subjective was given far too much weight, while the objective (stats) were pushed to the side.

Sad.

[Shepseskaf]

Nash deserved at least one of those MVP's. You either didn't watch those Suns teams or have some kind of bias to say otherwise.

Yes, I did watch the Suns that season. I thoroughly enjoyed doing so, but I understood that Nash's part in the situation -- while certainly noteworthy -- did not engender the awarding of one MVP, never mind two.

[Bigsmoke]

so 2011 Derrick Rose was worst that 1999 Karl Malone?

whatever.

[hitmanyr2k]

If numbers mattered so much then Jason Kidd wouldn't have been a serious contender for the award in 2002 with these numbers 14.7ppg (39% shooting) 9.9 assists, and 7.3 rebounds on a 52 win team when he finished #2 in voting behind Duncan. He was a liability shooting the ball but sometimes leadership and impact account for more than numbers.

[FKAri]

Yes, I did watch the Suns that season. I thoroughly enjoyed doing so, but I understood that Nash's part in the situation -- while certainly noteworthy -- did not engender the awarding of one MVP, never mind two.

At no point was Steve Nash the best player in the NBA. But the way MVP is defined he was certainly a very strong MVP candidate for several years.