Originally posted by Nalod
I don't think if PHX turaround (second most improved of all time) is not as pronounced, he gets it.

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by VDesai:

IMO, Nash as MVP is a joke. I agree he might not have even been the MVP of his own team. If this was an MVP year, I'm not sure how John Stockton doesn't have 3 trophies right now.

Absolutely. Nash put up phenomenal passing and shooting numbers this year, but for Stockton it would have been just another year at the office. Nash didn't do anything this season that Stockton didn't for about a decade. By way of comparison, Stockton only got one first place MVP vote in his entire career.

And to make matters worse, Stockton was a far superior defender. Nash put up a Stockton-type effort on one end of the floor, but on the other he was a seive whereas Stockton was strong.

Here's a list of some guys I'd definitely rank above Nash:
Shaq (should have won it)
Duncan
Garnett
LeBron
Nowitzki
Stoudemire
Marion

And a second tier of guys I'd also consider ranking above Nash:
Iverson
Wade
McGrady
Ginobili
Kobe

Posted by manilaballer:

They couldn't win when Marbury was there. I dunno bout Earl Watson though...

Posted by Marv:

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.

Posted by Nalod:

I think Duncan and Shaq are always more valuable.

Im just looking at the logic THIS YEAR in the voting.

With Stockton, Malone was more dominant than Amare or Marion. Malone was a MVP candidate most years.

I don't think they look at the reasons why the PHX supporting cast grew, only that they really clicked with Nash.

It makes Mark Cuban look bad for letting him go. Writers do **** like that.

Shaq and Duncan amost cancel themeselves out as they had equal records, and are the cornerstones of the franchise's.

Lebron's team fell apart the last 3rd of the season. Really bad. He is superstar, but not MVP this year. AI team did ok, but I don't think any team that is not top 4 record wise should field an MVP candidate.

Top rookie is less subjective IMHO. Usually, top rookies are on losing teams (lotto picks)and since they get run right away, get a chance to prove themselves. If they can turn a franchise around, they are MVP candidates as well as ROY.

Nalod you miss the point entirely. Nash's stats are horrible for MVP considerations. He ranked 40th in ppg. He was only 3 apg ahead of the next guy not 6, 8, or 10. He only had 11 apg. What everyone is going crazy over is when did the criteria for MVP changed. Look at Stockton's stats at ppg in a much better era for superior players and you wouldn't be able to defend Nash's MVP. So you have to start to include this crap about the Suns turn around. Like that makes sense. Like I mentioned why not include Q Richardson as a choice in MVP voting. He arrived and they start to win. Besides, their loses for the 03-04 season is skewed by the fact that traded Marbury for injured players and Lampe about a month before the trading deadline. That team was trying to tank outright. That's like giving the MVP award to Duncan in his rookie season because the Spurs were healthy and not tanking games no more.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by Nalod:

I think Duncan and Shaq are always more valuable.

Im just looking at the logic THIS YEAR in the voting.

With Stockton, Malone was more dominant than Amare or Marion. Malone was a MVP candidate most years.

I don't think they look at the reasons why the PHX supporting cast grew, only that they really clicked with Nash.

It makes Mark Cuban look bad for letting him go. Writers do **** like that.

Shaq and Duncan amost cancel themeselves out as they had equal records, and are the cornerstones of the franchise's.

Lebron's team fell apart the last 3rd of the season. Really bad. He is superstar, but not MVP this year. AI team did ok, but I don't think any team that is not top 4 record wise should field an MVP candidate.

Top rookie is less subjective IMHO. Usually, top rookies are on losing teams (lotto picks)and since they get run right away, get a chance to prove themselves. If they can turn a franchise around, they are MVP candidates as well as ROY.

Nalod you miss the point entirely. Nash's stats are horrible for MVP considerations. He ranked 40th in ppg. He was only 3 apg ahead of the next guy not 6, 8, or 10. He only had 11 apg. What everyone is going crazy over is when did the criteria for MVP changed. Look at Stockton's stats at ppg in a much better era for superior players and you wouldn't be able to defend Nash's MVP. So you have to start to include this crap about the Suns turn around. Like that makes sense. Like I mentioned why not include Q Richardson as a choice in MVP voting. He arrived and they start to win. Besides, their loses for the 03-04 season is skewed by the fact that traded Marbury for injured players and Lampe about a month before the trading deadline. That team was trying to tank outright. That's like giving the MVP award to Duncan in his rookie season because the Spurs were healthy and not tanking games no more.

I think I get the point entirely. First off, he has the MVP sitting on his mantle and in my mind I understand why.

As I said, its subjective, and thus Stats are not as important as you might think it does.

Maybe if Jordan was not around, Stockton might have won a MVP, and perhaps a ring.

Thats the thing, its combination of things that make an MVP season. Sometimes its the lack of another clear cut winner.

IN my mind, and obvisously in the writers, the Suns were the best team in the toughest division. So the 3 games more than the HEat won were deemed tougher, or higher quality wins. Who was the most important player for WHAT EVER REASON on the Suns? Nash!

It was a close vote, the closest ever. So really, saying Shaq is more deserving is a reasonable arguement. I stated my reasons that I THINK tipped the balance ever so slightly.

I think also Nash got some gratuitous votes, but gained momentum with writers at the very end. It was a fluke.

IM not even saying I agree with it, "but I understand".

Posted by franco12:

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by manilaballer:

They couldn't win when Marbury was there. I dunno bout Earl Watson though...

They won 44 games with Marbury there, when
1) Stoudemire was still a green 18/19 year old who averaged 13.5 ppg,
2) Joe Johnson was likewise a green 21 year old rookie who only played 29 games with Phoenix after being traded from Boston (for Tony Delk and Rodney Rodgers, ouch!), and was still struggling to find his shot (42fg%, 33 3fg%),
3) there was no Q to provide secondary offense from the perimeter, only a broken down Penny,
4) instead of getting 36 monster mpg at center from Amare, they played scrubs like Jake Voskuhl and Scott Williams

Basically, that whole team was just Marbury and Marion, with a dash of Amare and a bunch of role players. Now you want to tell me if Marbury had an infinitely more mature 21 year old Stoudemire playing hugely productive minutes at center, a genuine sharpshooter like Joe Johnson has become, plus an incredible 4th or 5th option like Q in the starting lineup, he couldn't guide them to 55+ wins? Is the natural improvement of Amare and Johnson, the addition of Q, and the innovative Amare at C/Marion at PF lineup not enough to generate 11 more wins in your eyes?

I don't think phoenix wins as many games this year if you swapped in Marbury for Nash. Likewise any pg.

but your point about their record vs last year not being all its made up to be I agree with.

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by manilaballer:

They couldn't win when Marbury was there. I dunno bout Earl Watson though...

They won 44 games with Marbury there, when
1) Stoudemire was still a green 18/19 year old who averaged 13.5 ppg,
2) Joe Johnson was likewise a green 21 year old rookie who only played 29 games with Phoenix after being traded from Boston (for Tony Delk and Rodney Rodgers, ouch!), and was still struggling to find his shot (42fg%, 33 3fg%),
3) there was no Q to provide secondary offense from the perimeter, only a broken down Penny,
4) instead of getting 36 monster mpg at center from Amare, they played scrubs like Jake Voskuhl and Scott Williams

Basically, that whole team was just Marbury and Marion, with a dash of Amare and a bunch of role players. Now you want to tell me if Marbury had an infinitely more mature 21 year old Stoudemire playing hugely productive minutes at center, a genuine sharpshooter like Joe Johnson has become, plus an incredible 4th or 5th option like Q in the starting lineup, he couldn't guide them to 55+ wins? Is the natural improvement of Amare and Johnson, the addition of Q, and the innovative Amare at C/Marion at PF lineup not enough to generate 11 more wins in your eyes?

Posted by Nalod:

I think if nash wanted to score more, he could.

There are many times Marbs does not pass. He assumes he is better and who better to take the shot. THis is an ok confidence thing, but guys won't run thru walls for you. There are many times marbs goes in for shot, gets fouled, but could have dished it off.

Nash always put his players before him. Marbs gets garbage time (Why,I don't know?) and he pads his p0ints.

My conclusion is Nash plays to win in a way thats different than Marbs, and stats don't tell the whole story. There are just a handful of players I have seen that run and pass like nash. He not just finds lanes, he creates them also.

Now my conspiricy theory is the league and writers are tired of dominante physical specimans being worshiped for athleticism but not fundamentals. since Timmy did not have his better season, and shaq is not the poster boy for fundamentals, they had a good argument in Nash, and went for it. Im not saying I agree with that statement, but its slightly plausable. Nash plays a DIFFERENT game, and the league wants to honor it.

I conclude that his scoring is inhibited by his unselfish play, and that makes him more valuable to get others to score.

How many MVPs were on top record teams? Or at least top two?