[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Nash MVP
Forum Index  ›  NBA Forum
Page 4 of 8 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
VDesai
Posts: 42802
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
5/9/2005  5:56 PM
You can make a case that Nash was the weakest MVP ever...and by some Margin. Just take a look at this list of MVP's and their stats and teams...

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

Honestly, based on past criteria for the MVP, you could make a very solid case for Shaq, Nowitzki or Iverson being far more worthy this year than Nash. But it just seems like the writers changed what they felt was worthy of the MVP this year. In past years, the writers almost always stayed away from PG's and stuck with big men. This year is quite an anamoly from that perspective, and it will be interesting if voters stay consistent with this. But as I said earlier, if they valued what PG's did the same as they did big men, Stockton would've won the award 3+ times with his 14+ assists seasons with 50% shooting and tough defense.

it's ok for voters to change their minds and their theories behind voting, but as I said before, let's just hope they stay consistent with it. Otherwise things were very fishy this year.
AUTOADVERT
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
5/9/2005  7:03 PM
Posted by TheloniusMonk:
Try really really really really hard to think of an MVP who did not play defense like Steve "one end of the court" Nash.

Charles Barkley
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
5/9/2005  7:05 PM
Posted by jazz74:

but there is also one more person who should have been above nash in the mvp voting: ray allen. he has been clutch as the leader of his team leading them to a good record. he took basically the same team from last year and made them better. he did it all: defense, shoot took it to the hole and pass. whereas nash had a very healthy squad with quenton richardson to run up and down the floor with.

I am so with you on Ray.
MaTT4281
Posts: 34909
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #538
USA
5/9/2005  7:07 PM
It's always great to see Knick fans judging other players for not playing defense...
I mean I agree with all of you, but it's still entertaining.
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
5/9/2005  7:13 PM
The MVP vote is always quirky. Even moreso this year since there was no clear standout.

Remember when the voters tired of giving it to MJ every year? Seemed like they had to prove they were more "expert" than to give it to the obvious choice every year. Therefore, we had Malone and Barkley as MVP's over MJ. GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!!

Personally I don't have any problem with Nash winning it this year. He's as worthy as any other candidate. Ray's a better choice in my eyes, but the Seattle Supersonics are hardly a sexy story like the Phoenix Suns. Shaq didn't have the awesome numbers; neither did Duncan. AI and Lebron didn't have the win-loss record.

White push on the voting for Nash? Probably. But I still don't see such an obvious choice for anyone else this year - any one of the aforementioned could have won it and I wouldn't have complained.
Nalod
Posts: 71312
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
5/10/2005  8:59 AM
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by Killa4luv:

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.
I made the case for AI.

NALOD,

You are crazyu if you are saying that PHX doesn't win 42 or more games without Nash. Thats is pure craziness. They have a very good player at every position, there is no way that without Nash they fall under 42 games. I would go as far to say that they still win 50 games with their squad minus Nash.

THe year before they won 29 games with basically the same core except for Richardson. Yes, Joe Johnsonna and amare matured, but there record with nash was out was not very good.

Its all a good argument, all good points. I just think this suns team is more than sexy story this year, they plain just had the best record, was strong for most of the year, Nash did not break down, and They don't do "THAT GREAT" without him.

Up until the last 3 weeks of the season I had Shaq picked as MVP. Having the best record does mean somthing. ANd this is how rookie, Coach, MVP, 6 man, etc is picked. IT should be seasons end. Say Igundala becomes Mike JOrdan in the playoffs and the Sixers win it all, this kid still does not get rookie of the year.

I think if Heat finish with best record, Shaq is MVP. Good for Shaq for making playoffs his top priority, and I think they made the right choice, but MVP must be a black and white (no pun) thing.

IMHO
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
5/10/2005  10:17 AM
Posted by Bobby:
not so fast tom, kidd, single handedly took nets record to a 52-30 season compared to duncan's 53-29. poor choice?....i dont think so.

And what did Kidd single handedly do against the Lakers and the Spurs in consecutive Finals? Kidd was great for the Nets (much more of an impact than Nash on this year's Suns, IMO), but he still just doesn't have the impact of a Duncan or a Shaq. In 2000, Shaq had a 29.7 PER, for crying out loud. It was one of the all-time best seasons in NBA history.

Posted by Marv:
Personally I don't have any problem with Nash winning it this year. He's as worthy as any other candidate.

That's the point... he's not. He's clearly second tier.
Posted by Marv:
Shaq didn't have the awesome numbers; neither did Duncan.

Shaq and Duncan both had 27 PERs, which is most definitely an awesome number. It easily ousts Nash's 22 PER. 27 is MVP caliber, 22 is just All-Star level.
Posted by Marv:
AI and Lebron didn't have the win-loss record.

This is such a terrible line of argument, I can't fathom why everyone seems to fall for it. Win-loss is a function of entire teams. If the Sixers and Cavs didn't win a lot, that does not automatically reflect poorly on any one player on their rosters; it reflects poorly on the team as a whole. Or do you really think Steve Nash could have gone very far with Big Z and Drew Gooden in the paint and Ira Newble and Jeff McInnis on the wings? Give me a break!

[Edited by - tomverve on 05/10/2005 10:18:43]
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
5/10/2005  10:33 AM
Tom,
I really look at the MVP as something different from a "best player" award. I think a player could have a significantly lower PER than another but play a more valuable role in the team's success. For example, if Chicago or Denver had had incredible records this year and a high percntage of their wins were due to 4th quarter heroics of Gordon or Boykins I'd have no problem considering them strong candidates for the award even though they're 6th men with less than dominating all-over stats. And that's my point about record too. I think it does figure into who's a worthy candidate. If you were extremely valuable to a team reaching a so-so record it's just not as impressive to me about how valuable of a season you had. Again, it's an impression award, "most valuable," not best stats or best season.

You still totally disagree? It's cool of course if you do, you present your pionts very well, we're just responding differently to the spirit of the award, IMO.
tomverve
Posts: 21407
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/4/2005
Member: #878
5/10/2005  11:22 AM
I hear you, Marv, but I still think total win-loss record is the wrong thing to look at. Suppose player A's team wins 40 games, and that if A had been replaced by an average player at his position, his team would have only won 20 games. Suppose player B's team wins 60 games, and that if B had been replaced by an average player at his position, his team would have won 50 games. B's team wins a lot more than A's, but that's just because B's teammates are so much better. Is B really more valuable than A?

Replace Nash with an average PG, and I still see the Suns winning about 55 games. (Barbosa has been a below average PG this season.) Their offense is going to be dominant no matter who they trot out at PG (as long as he's competent) with horses like Amare, Marion, Johnson and Q in the starting lineup. On the other hand, replace Amare with an average center, and they'd be lucky to win 50-- they'd be a poor man's Sonics. Replace Shaq with an average center, and the Heat wind up doing worse than they did last season with Odom and Butler, when they won 42, even factoring in Wade's improvement for his sophomore season. Replace Duncan with an average player, and I see the Spurs plummeting to the 42-47 range.

Those are all just guestimates. Still, it's pretty obvious that the quality of the four starters surrounding Nash is through the roof. (Is there any starting player on any other team surrounded by such a good quartet?) And it's also obvious that the quality of the four starters surrounding LeBron is toilet-bowl worthy, and likewise for Garnett this season (but not last). That makes such a huge difference in the total team wins that team wins is just not a good stat by which to judge individual players.
help treat disease with your spare computing power : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
fishmike
Posts: 53863
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
5/10/2005  11:56 AM
The Nets were 5-15 in 20 games Todd MAc missed that year. If not for that I think Kidd would have won the MVP.

Nash never carried his team, doesnt play D and is surrounded by incredible talent.

If I had a vote it would have been for AI who for the last month of the season litterally carried the 76ers to the playoffs. Not only that but without AI thats a 15-20 win team. To me, nobody was more valuable to their team than AI first. Lebron 2nd and Shaq 3rd. Those 3 are super close and easily interchangable. Shaq probably is #1 because he elevated his team to a higher level than anyone else, but I would go AI because IMO nobody did more to will their team to win every night.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
5/10/2005  12:39 PM
Posted by fishmike:

The Nets were 5-15 in 20 games Todd MAc missed that year. If not for that I think Kidd would have won the MVP.

Nash never carried his team, doesnt play D and is surrounded by incredible talent.

If I had a vote it would have been for AI who for the last month of the season litterally carried the 76ers to the playoffs. Not only that but without AI thats a 15-20 win team. To me, nobody was more valuable to their team than AI first. Lebron 2nd and Shaq 3rd. Those 3 are super close and easily interchangable. Shaq probably is #1 because he elevated his team to a higher level than anyone else, but I would go AI because IMO nobody did more to will their team to win every night.

fish good post, and first of all, I would like to go back and agree with you about the thread we had awhile ago on AI. that guy is one of the most incredible players I have seen in a while, he proved it to me this season ,especially down the stretch.. what heart and talent.. Now as far as the MVP voting goes.. I like nash, but as tom put it, he is second tier.. I could argue that Ray allen had the same effect if not more on a less talented Sonics team, Lebron took a cleveland team that was a mess and still got them to 42 wins. My question is if Nash were on the heat would they make the playoffs? How about cleveland? would the nets be better with nash than kidd? I highly doubt it, but if we took shaq, put him on most teams in the league they instantly become contenders, that right there is huge, that is impact.. The same goes with AI and Lebron, if they leave their teams the face of that team changes completely, I think you could replace nash with a competent PG as tom put it and the drop off would not be that severe....

Nash is a nice sentimental choice IMO , he had a great season with the suns, but NO MVP type.... Not over shaq, and not over lebron or AI if you ask me..
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
5/10/2005  2:19 PM
I disagree with the notion that the suns would have been nearly as good with any other point guard.

The suns are playing great team ball- the way basketball should be played.

And yes they have a ton of talent- but, Nash is the key part that makes it all work.

System, yes. But we knick fans saw Lenny's system work first hand, or rather not.

You can talk about stats, but there are things players do that don't get picked up on the stat sheet that lead to winning basketball- like an extra pass or knowing where and when to get the ball to a team mate.

They don't give out assists on those kinds of things, but it makes your team mates better.
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
5/10/2005  3:04 PM
Posted by franco12:

I disagree with the notion that the suns would have been nearly as good with any other point guard.

The suns are playing great team ball- the way basketball should be played.

And yes they have a ton of talent- but, Nash is the key part that makes it all work.

System, yes. But we knick fans saw Lenny's system work first hand, or rather not.

You can talk about stats, but there are things players do that don't get picked up on the stat sheet that lead to winning basketball- like an extra pass or knowing where and when to get the ball to a team mate.

They don't give out assists on those kinds of things, but it makes your team mates better.

I think that term is a bit overused. I mean why didn't nash make Bradley better? why didn't he make Todd Macullough better in the olympics when they lost to dreadfull france? Why didn't he make barbosa better this year? that term is a bit overused.. Nash didn't make anyone on the suns better IMO...
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
5/10/2005  3:41 PM
Posted by tkf:

I think that term is a bit overused. I mean why didn't nash make Bradley better? why didn't he make Todd Macullough better in the olympics when they lost to dreadfull france? Why didn't he make barbosa better this year? that term is a bit overused.. Nash didn't make anyone on the suns better IMO...

I don't know - I gotta tell you this, I watched the game last night and IMHO Nash absolutely has made Amare a better player because he gets him great looks, leads him perfectly, knows his game and how to maximize it. It's like Jason Kidd with Kenyon Martin. KMart didn't seem nearly the same player playing with Miller that he did with Kidd.
Nalod
Posts: 71312
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
5/10/2005  3:57 PM
Lebron, AI, Shaq, KG, Timmy, etc are all VVP's: Very Valuable Players.

WIth no lebron, they still don't make the post season.

AI, Great season, primary scorer. Top scorer not enough to get MVP. Won-Loss record just not there.

KG, great player, bad team. Still bad with him.

Shaq, great great season. No doubt Nash and Shaq are top two.

I don't think there is a stat that can make one over the other.

I don't think if PHX turaround (second most improved of all time) is not as pronounced, he gets it. Also top record, he don't get it.

Its a total fluke of season and Nash just in the right place, to do the right job, at the precise right time. NO way he ever wins this again given the reasons I think he was given this award.

ANd remember, he was given it, not a statistical benchmark. Its subjective as whom the writers THINK was most valuable. These guys see at least 82 games, all talk amung themselves and argue the same stuff we do. They might be full of bull in their writing, but they see more hoop and have dam good seats! They hear things, they see the leadership up close.

If the suns win it all, then its quite valid. If heat win, Shaq or Wade are MVP of series, it becomes an even better argument, but its a playoff thing!
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
5/10/2005  4:02 PM
Dear Mr. Nalod -

YES!
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
5/10/2005  4:20 PM
A lot of people here have said- the suns play no defense, they're not winning it all.

I didn't watch last nights game, but they are a serious team & they might just win it all.
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
5/10/2005  4:23 PM
Posted by franco12:

A lot of people here have said- the suns play no defense, they're not winning it all.

I didn't watch last nights game, but they are a serious team & they might just win it all.

Can't see them beating San Antonio or Detroit. They'd be a very interesting matchup with Miami.
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/10/2005  5:45 PM
Posted by Nalod:

THe year before they won 29 games with basically the same core except for Richardson. Yes, Joe Johnsonna and amare matured, but there record with nash was out was not very good.
Nash only missed 7 games and i can't figure out what they were or what the record was, but being out for a game in the system they play is different than not having him for a season. If they have a different point for a season, that team is still very very good, and would still have a good season. The same thing cannot be said about the heat.
Its all a good argument, all good points. I just think this suns team is more than sexy story this year, they plain just had the best record, was strong for most of the year, Nash did not break down, and They don't do "THAT GREAT" without him.
This 'break down' argument is totally invalid. Nash missed 7 games and Shaq missed 9. If Shaq broke down, Nash broke down too.
Up until the last 3 weeks of the season I had Shaq picked as MVP. Having the best record does mean somthing. ANd this is how rookie, Coach, MVP, 6 man, etc is picked. IT should be seasons end. Say Igundala becomes Mike JOrdan in the playoffs and the Sixers win it all, this kid still does not get rookie of the year.
I don't get it, Emeka was rookie of the year on 1 of the worst teams in basketball. Its somewhat of a minor point, I do primarily agree with you here. Winning does account for something.
I think if Heat finish with best record, Shaq is MVP. Good for Shaq for making playoffs his top priority, and I think they made the right choice, but MVP must be a black and white (no pun) thing.
The heat won 3 less games than the suns, I really don't se how those 3 games mean so much. The Heat were tied with SA for 2nd place in the league, I don't think thats enough for him to win it. e isn't even the best player on his team, he is the engine, but he isn't the leagues most valuable player. He just isn't. He should have gotten all the praise he got this year, and he should have been second, but there is no way based on any of the stats or arguments being made, he should have won over shaq. On top of that he plays zero defense.


[Edited by - Killa4luv on 05/10/2005 17:50:29]
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
5/10/2005  5:48 PM
Posted by VDesai:

You can make a case that Nash was the weakest MVP ever...and by some Margin. Just take a look at this list of MVP's and their stats and teams...

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

Honestly, based on past criteria for the MVP, you could make a very solid case for Shaq, Nowitzki or Iverson being far more worthy this year than Nash. But it just seems like the writers changed what they felt was worthy of the MVP this year. In past years, the writers almost always stayed away from PG's and stuck with big men. This year is quite an anamoly from that perspective, and it will be interesting if voters stay consistent with this. But as I said earlier, if they valued what PG's did the same as they did big men, Stockton would've won the award 3+ times with his 14+ assists seasons with 50% shooting and tough defense.

it's ok for voters to change their minds and their theories behind voting, but as I said before, let's just hope they stay consistent with it. Otherwise things were very fishy this year.

And when you discuss how this has changed and why it changed, I think you must say race was some part of that equation. If the criteria hadn't changed, there is no way Nash wins it. Why change it?

Dantoni should have gotten coach of the year and Nash should have won second place in the votes and thats it.
Page 4 of 8 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Nash MVP
Forum Index  ›  NBA Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy