I think Allen Iverson deserves some serious considreration as well.

Ranks #1 in the NBA in Points Per Game(30.7)
Ranks #5 in the NBA in Assists Per Game(7.9)
Ranks #2 in the NBA in Steals Per Game(2.4)
Ranks #2 in the NBA in Minutes Per Game(42.3)
Ranks #2 in the NBA in Field Goals Made(771.0)
Ranks #1 in the NBA in Free Throws(656.0)
Ranks #2 in the NBA in Free Throw Attempts(786.0)
Ranks #1 in the NBA in Steals(180.0)

I mean couuld they mention his name at least? His team is in the playoffs and he is the reason. Without him they are easily one of the worst teams in the league.


Steph should be all the more determined next year. I hope this inspires him to elevate his game to superstar status.

Not to mention Jason Kidd had a better season 2 years ago and his team went to the finals twice!!!!!

18.7 ppg
8.9 apg
6.3 rpg
2.24 spg


This is ludicrous!! And yes race is a factor. Jason Kidd did the same thing better and he did it twice and he didn't win MVP!! And his teams were nowhere near as good as Phoenix's team!

AND Nash isn't going to the finals!!!!!!

my barometer was jason kidd. if he didn't win the MVP his first year with NJ - a season where he took a perennial losing franchise into the finals - then there's NO WAY in hell nash should win.

i believe race does play somewhat a factor (as it does in almost everything) but if you throw that all out the window - you can replace nash with kidd and the results are the same. you can't say the same about shaq.

I don't think race has anything to do with it at all. Nash probably won where Kidd didn't because Phoenix's offense this year has been one of the best of all time (yes, much more dominant than NJ's), in an era where defense and slow paced ball has historically been the dominant style of play. Phoenix also had a massive jump in wins compared to last season. These factors combine to make for a big eye-popping effect. I can sort of understand why Nash was chosen, although I think the choice is ridiculous, just like I can sort of understand how an urban-starved country bumpkin might think Las Vegas is the greatest city in the world, although that would be a ridiculous judgment.

On top of that eye-popping effect, we have a severe failure of reason to discriminate what's really behind it. The Suns' huge improvement and impressive season is not due to just Nash's arrival.

First of all, they performed so poorly last season because of injuries to start the season, and the Marbury trade left them short of a whole team for the latter stages. A fairer comparison for how much better this edition of the Suns is would be the Suns team of two seasons ago, which won 44 games. An 18 game improvement is fantastic, but not nearly as drastic as a 33 game improvement.

Secondly, while Nash had a big hand in that improvement, he was not by any stretch the only major reason for it. They also added Quentin Richardson, another potent gunner on the perimeter. But the real coup was coach D'Antoni's unorthodox starting 5, with Amare at C and Marion at PF. That lineup causes huge mismatches for the opposition, because Stoudemire and Marion respectively are so much faster, quicker, and more athletic than Cs and PFs they match up with. Basically, almost every night they have a huge mismatch at the two frontcourt spots, with Marion taking opposing PFs out on the perimeter and driving past them for dunks, and Amare eating the traditional plodding centers for lunch. Combine that with two devestating perimeter players-- Johnson, the deadly accurate sniper and Richardson, the Starks-esque streaky volume scorer-- and really, any competent pass-first PG who can run a bit could have guided that team to 55+ wins. Contrariwise, had D'Antoni gone with a more conventional lineup with a scrub like Jake Voskuhl at center, Amare at PF, Marion at SF, and Q off the bench, the team would have been significantly less successful, even with Nash-- probably much closer to a 55 win team than a 62 win team.

And really, the key that makes it all work is Marion's ability to so ably handle the PF spot with his D and boardwork. Replace Marion with TT, for instance, and that gameplan does not work. So Amare, Marion, and D'Antoni should get a huge share of recognition for the 18 game improvement-- at least as much as Nash himself. And once we recognize all this (which is really not all that hard to recognize, but never put anything past public opinion), Nash is not looking so good anymore. Still excellent, of course, but nowhere near MVP material. He's only a piece in the larger puzzle that has created these eye-popping numbers for Phoenix.

As for Kidd, arguing that he should have won the MVP in 2002 is just as bad. Some fellow by the name of Tim Duncan rightfully won it that year, averaging 25.5 ppg on 50.8 FG% and 79.9 FT%, 12.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, and 2.5 bpg. Or, more succinctly, a dominant 27.0 PER. By comparison, Kidd put up a relatively modest 19.1 PER, largely due to his absolutely terrible shooting accuracy. And really, while Duncan was much more deserving than Kidd, Shaq probably should have taken the MVP that year with his monsterous 29.7 PER. (A PER around 30 is pretty close to what Jordan did in his prime.)

As a side note, Nash's PER this season is a very good 22.5, but that's only good for 15th in the NBA. Not to say that the MVP should be decided by PER, but it's shocking that a guy with a PER so low down the charts could win it. The top 6 are way ahead of Nash-- Garnett (28.8), Duncan (27.6), Shaq (27.5), Amare (27.2), Dirk (26.7), and LeBron (26.3). The next highest is Kobe at 23.8, which makes for a pretty clear demarcation for the truly top flight, first tier players-- an elite club with only 6 members this season. Nash is somewhere in the second tier.

that's right, nash is second tier but his image is first rate. imho image is somehow finding its way more into the awards. and with the demise of air canada moving south, canadian supporters need not to fret because the nba has just awarded one of their most favorite sons.

similar conclusion can be drawn with j.kidd first year to nets going to the finals and losing the mvp to timmy duncan

since duncan and nash do not rock the boat, they may favor higher balloting.

what i find interesting is shaq being the most dominating player in his era, and how many mvps does he have?

travesty... I hate to even bring it up but the racial overtones here are very clear. Was Nash really more valuable than Shaq? This vote is for crap. If Earl Watson was PG of that team this season they still would have won 50 games.

Lebron
Iverson
Shaq
Garnett

Those are my 1,2,3 based on that playes VALUE to their team. I think without KG,Bron and AI Phili, Min and Cle are 25 win teams.

It looks like I am in the minority here. I think Nash certainly did deserve it. I think Shaq deserved it just as much, but I would say it was a 2 way between those guys. I also have to say that I disagree with the race issue, and find it to be a bit thoughtless (No disrespect to all), b/c if this were the case, then Jason Kidd (Bi-racial) would have beaten Tim Duncan big time for the MVP a few years ago. I still think he deserved it then.

I think it's more of a case of how the writers liked the story of how the Suns suddenly rose from the dead and became the ghosts of the NBA that nobody could seem to solve in the regular season and Steve Nash was the leader of of the destruction. And without Nash, the Suns always seemed to crumble. That's at least why I would have chosen Nash.

Again, I think Shaq deserved it equally, but I think Wade could have at least carried the Heat in the playoffs in the weak East (making HIM a contender). Just my opinion.

I agree with you 100%, but I am just saying that I think Nash deserved it equally to Shaq b/c he is the exact PG the Suns need (Only Kidd would be better) and b/c of him, the Suns became what they are now. Yes, Amare, Joe Johnson and Marion are great, but Nash is the glue, just like how I think Shaq is the glue for Miami. Without that glue, both teams fall apart. And with the Suns, they are great pieces, but they don't come together.

Like I said, I don't think you could have gone wrong with choosing either player. I just happen to really like the story of the Suns this year, and I am rooting for them the most in the playoffs.

When I say race is a factor and people say "playing the race card" it sounds stupid to me. Unfortunately, for black and latino people, race isn't a 'card' that is ever 'played' that gives us an advantage at anything. The whole idea is stupid, and is actually racist: The idea that blacks and latinos can somehow use their non-whiteness to their advantage in society. Its like turning the world on it's head, where does this ever happen? Please let me know so I can hurry up and cash in on my blackness, since its such an advantage.

2nd, race played a factor, I didn't say it was the only or most important, but I believe it played a role. Steve Nash is arguably, not even the most valuable player on his team!! At best he and Amare are tied, but more realistically I would say they are no where near as good with Steven Hunter at C and Amare not on that squad. Without Nash, and a decent PG, they still would win at least 50 games with that team and make the playoffs.

Nash is not hands down his teams MVP, how can he be the leagues MVP?
David Stern wanted a player, with a very palatable image, and its even better that hes an international player, the NBA will probably be more popular in Canada now.

Do you think that the KIDD vs DUNCAN MVP race had anything to do with Nash getting landing MVP. It might have not been the main reason but do you think it had a part???

What I'm doing? Suppressing? I'm just saying you have no proof for your accusations and that it's irresponsible to accuse someone of racism without that. I'm very willing to discuss it and most people are I beleive, but too often it's just used to smear innocent people whom others don't agree with. Usually in these cases, they have nothing to back up their claims..kinda like you right now. In this case, I don't think I'm suppressing anything..and I would love hear how I am.


[I believe that "race issues" will continue to go on as long as people do what you're doing. Surpressing any talk of it. Is there racism in the world? Yes. But usually if people bring it up (mainly black and/or Latino) so many people take the stance that you're taking....dismiss it automatically. That is how problems continue to repeat themselves. No one wants to discuss it.

" Used by slavers and white supremacists up through the first half of the 20th century to propagate their hate and help people like themselves and now used primarily by African American and Latinos to do the same."

Why hate? If a group a person (or group of people) get the short end of the stick more often than not it's moreso about tapping into the conscience of the offender. This IS the NBA and not half as important and much more serious issues that plague the world (this nation in particular).

So since this IS an NBA message board, my vote goes to Tim Duncan. This guy constantly plays well at both ends of the floor. Not to mention that I still believe that he and the Spurs will find a way to get it done this year. Don't quote me now, but I'm leaning towards a Maimi vs. San Antonio finals and it will all come down to the health of the two big men.

Nash, I like him. But I've seen him play on other teams (namely the Mavs) whp run and gun and play no defense. Only question I have is, who would you want on your team if you're up by one point with 10 seconds left and you need that one stop.....Nash, Duncan or Shaq? What if Pheonix is up with 10 seconds on the clock and Nash has to stop Wade, Parker or Billups out on the perimeter? What then?

Tim Duncan MVP



Id love to see the racial breakdown of these so-called panelists. It's unbelievable that sportswriters are allowed even 1 vote anyway. Most of these guys haven't even played hoop at a higher level than intremural HS. Steve Nash was great, absolutley, but a blind frog would know that Shaq was the MVP, no questions asked. You just hate to see this kind of racial snub, and that is what it is. It's gross negligence, stupid and sets time back, what else can you say?
[/quote]