Posted by rojasmas:

Nash's team was 26 games over .500, Kobe's team was 6 games over .500. Value = wins. That's why you play the games. Kobe made no one better, except maybe Kwame Brown. Nash made everyone better, including Raja Bell and yes, Tim Thomas. Lamar Odom is every bit as good as Sean Marion, just look at the series that just ended. Odom outplayed him. Who are the next "bigtime" players on Phoenix? Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, James Jones? Come on. Nash singlehandedly made that team what it is. Again, no Amare this year. Kobe is the most outstanding player and the best player, just not the most valuable. Value = wins. Enjoy your summer Kobe. Watch the MVP Nash move on.

If that's going to be your agruement then Dirk should win MVP...Look at at his supporting cast...He has won 38 games over .500..
This is the second consecutive year he has push this team into the playoffs after losing Nash and Findley...Dallas is a better team
than PNX...Jason Terry is not the two guy behind Dirk the way Matrix is behind Nash....


I can honestly make a better case for Le Bron and Dirk than I can for Nash...Very close though...I side with Dirk because he gets
no love whatsoever and the agruements I can make for Nash, I can make for Dirk...Not only that, his team is a ligit contender..Too bad
they have to face the Spurs in the second round...I can't get over Dirk's team winning 60 games...If thats not valuable, I don't know what
is.....

Posted by oohah:

It's just not as altruistic as everyone else is making it out to be, it's just the way basketball works. When you are a great player, there is a fine line between being great and making your teammates better, and being branded selfish.

oohah

and i think attitude and personality are big reasons that seperate greatness and selfishness.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Nalod:

Killa,

Maybe you should take up a new hobby.

It ain't that important.

I love how you want to make this about me. I made an argument, disagree or argree, if you have nothing to add to the thread, heres a novel idea: Stay the **** out of it.

I love a guy with 7000 posts on a knick message board telling me about new hobbies and whats important. Thats priceless.

Wow, I am approaching 7k posts.

Focus Nalod. Focus.

I must really think think this thru.

Ok, hows about this.

Kobe and Lebron are better players, and players whom the franchise has built around.

The Suns never built the team around Little white Canadian boy Pluto Nash, but freaky thing happened, Nash leaves the ultra talented Mavs and the Mavs never fall apart, but Nash replaces StarBury and Bada bing, the team just comes to life and wins big!

Then, the best player on the team goes down, the franchise player, and they bring in a few role players and boom, 3 or 4 players having career years and they win 55 games!

It would be like if Kobe or lebron went down and the point guard kept the team basically going on without them.

No doubt Kobe, DIrk or lebron are better players and are most important to there respective teams, but this Nash dude is special.

I found a new hobby, its here!

Posted by Solace:

It's all about team play. Nash elevates the play of his teammates. Kobe detracts from it. Odom had a poor year because of Kobe's selfishness. Sorry. No dice.

Let alone the fact that the Lakers just didn't win enough games for Kobe to really qualify.

[Edited by - Solace on 05-07-2006 10:30 PM]

Actually the MVP is total opposite of what you said it is. It has never been about making your teammates better. Ewing constantly finished 3rd, and 4th in MVP votes each year and mostly every sports writer can agreed that they never thought he made his teammates betters. Last year was the first year that the MVP was described as an award that you get for making your teammates better. Usually the award goes to the most selfish style of play that cause you to win x amount of games. Just see David Robinson's, Hakeem's, Malone's, AI's, Barkley's, and oh yeah Jordan's MVP years. And those are only recent ones.
I said it last year and stand firmly behind it, there is a conspriacy to elevate Nash's status. I heard voters say that they didn't consider Lebron because they were confident that he will get plently in his career? Just look at the season that Dirk and Lebron had and look at their team last year. Both guys put their respective teams on their backs and carried them most nights. That is what the MVP award has always been about carrying a team on your back. If you go down then you know your team will lose for sure. The problem with Nash is that is not true of his team. Look at the Lakers series where he was horrible they had their best success.

[Edited by - pharzeone on 05-08-2006 08:08 AM]

Posted by McK1:

Nash being out there is critical to this team even if he isn't having a good statistical game. He still directs the offense.

Look at Phoenix record and production the past 2 seasons whe Nash doesn't play then get back to me on your lose for sure theory.

[Edited by - McK1 on 05-08-2006 08:32 AM]

Your theory doesn't hold any water. MVP vote has never been about intangibles up until last year. It has been viewed as the selfish award. About pure stats and game winning shots and plays. If you really want to get so techincal about then Lebron for your very reason should have won the award in a landslide. Imagine James not on that Cavs team. Take him out of the lineup. When he was most of Cleveland and the National sport writers were having fits that he has to get back in the lineup for that team to be successful. With Nash they said they flow better when he is in the lineup a big difference.

Posted by crzymdups:

Nalod, do you give the credit to Nash for those role players succeeding? or do you give it to D'antoni's system?

I long believe Point guards are the extension of the coach. So Nash is executing D'antonis system. THey were made for each other.

HOw many point guards could step in and execute it as well? Maybe Kidd?

Lets measure this way, if Kobe went out do you think the lakers would drop as much statistically than if Nash did not play?

Every year there are 3-4 candidates and the award is very subjective. Anytime a point guard wins it its going to be controversial. Especially if its a little white canadian boy.

Posted by Marv:

Hey we want to talk valuable, how about Big Ben? Where would they be without his game-altering prsence in the middle? He changes about every other possession of their opposition. Would they be relying on Sheed in the middle? Would they have had to go with Darko? BB was pretty incredibly valuable to a 60+ win team, wouldn't you say?

Absolutely, he anchors their defense, but they would still be an elite team without him, imo.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by McK1:

huh...unreal?

You truly believe Robinson Malone or Barkley won the award for being selfish and having great stats or for leading their teams to 60 wins and a conference crown?

Its a LEADERRSHIP award. If it was what you say it was, MJ would've won it every year.

While I don't think Malone or Barkley were selfish, I don't think they 'made their teammates better'.

MJ should have won it every year, its just that no one wants to keep voting for the same player every year. The year Malone won it, they easily could have given MJ another award. Same with Shaq, what does he have 2 MVPs? He should easily have about 5 or 6, but no one wants to give it to the same person so many time in a row.

Phoenix that year had no KJ, I think Frank Johnson was the point and Ceballos was injured alot.

AC Green Oliver Miller Richard Dumas Danny Ainge and Dan Marjele were the supporting cast and they went on to win 60.

And Shaq has the right number of MVP's.

Kobe had a "most valuable Kobe" season. Kobe was a point scorer and had a hell of a statistic season.

Mike was the leader of a winning team. Kobe made point history but that makes him very valuable, just not the mostest valuable.

One might make a good argument about Tony parker, Gilbert Arenas, Billups, and kirk Heinrich.

All very valuable, but are guards.

Is KG any less valuable than Kobe, or Lebron?