Steve Nash wins MVP

[ThunderingHERD]

Boo.

By Marc Stein
ESPN.com

Phoenix Suns guard Steve Nash will be awarded the NBA's Most Valuable Player on Sunday, sources say.

Nash has edged Miami center Shaquille O'Neal to become just the third point guard in 40-plus years to win the league's highest individual honor, according to sources familiar with the results. The others are Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson.

The official announcement will come at halftime of ABC's 3 p.m. ET playoff game.

O'Neal, three times an NBA Finals MVP, has won the regular-season MVP trophy just once in his 13 seasons. Apparently tipping this vote in Nash's favor was the Suns' 33-game improvement -- from 29 wins to a league-leading 62 wins -- after signing Nash away from the Dallas Mavericks in the offseason.

Nash's previous best MVP showing was 14th place in 2002.

With Nash flanked by the athletic finishing of fellow All-Stars Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion, Phoenix became just the second team in NBA annals to win at least 60 games after a 50-loss season. The first? The Boston Celtics in Larry Bird's rookie season of 1979-80.

But Nash is defying history to beat out O'Neal, and not simply because he had only one scholarship offer from a Division I university -- Santa Clara -- as a slight Canadian teen-ager in British Columbia.

Allen Iverson, the NBA's 2001 MVP as a shooting guard, is the only player shorter than 6-foot-6 in the past four decades to win the award. Nash also becomes the first MVP since Portland's Bill Walton in 1978 to average less than 20 points per game. His 15.5-point scoring average for the Suns is the third-lowest all-time for an MVP, ahead of only Washington's Wes Unseld (13.8 ppg in 1969) and Boston's Bill Russell (14.1 ppg in 1965).

Nash, though, did lead the league in assists (11.5 apg) by a wide margin for a Suns team that averaged a league-leading 110 points per game.

Phoenix swept Memphis 4-0 in a first-round series and awaits the Dallas-Houston winner in the second round, raising the possibility of an emotional series against the team he left last summer.

[Joe]

they got this one right.

[DeToxRox]

Shaq was screwed.

The Mavs lost the MVP and are probably better then last year.
The Lakers lost the guy who should've been MVP and didn't make the playoffs.

Meanwhile, what Nash and Shaq did this year was pretty close to the same, but look at what happened to their prior teams and it should've easily determined the MVP.

[Wolfpack]

That may be, but what Phoenix did compared to expectations was probably what pushed Nash ahead. Miami with Shaq was supposed to be a force in the East. Phoenix wasn't supposed to be a title contender by just adding Nash. Put another way, everyone knew Shaq could carry Miami into the playoffs and potentially to the title. Did anyone think Nash could?

[primelord]

I don't think Nash deserves the MVP either. He is a fine player has been a huge part of the Suns success, but you could have replaced him with a number of different point guards in the league and the Suns still would have been a great team. He is a perfect fit for that team because he pushes the ball well and he allows them to get out and run, but there are quite a few guys who could have done that.

On the other hand you could not have replaced Shaq with any other center in the league and had Miami be just as good.

[Karlifornia]

You know, it's funny.. Nash was drafted by Phoenix with what I think was the 15th pick in the draft. I saw him back when he played for Santa Clara. He made the rest of the WCC look like jokers.

[DeToxRox]

That may be, but what Phoenix did compared to expectations was probably what pushed Nash ahead. Miami with Shaq was supposed to be a force in the East. Phoenix wasn't supposed to be a title contender by just adding Nash. Put another way, everyone knew Shaq could carry Miami into the playoffs and potentially to the title. Did anyone think Nash could?

I call BS.

The Heat with just Dwayne Wade would not be the #1 seed, and probably wouldn't have any Home Court Advantage at all.

Nash alone didn't carry the Suns. They also had Richardson, and had another year of development from Stoudamire. Nash came into a better situation with far superior talent to what the Heat had.

[DeToxRox]

Oh and Steve Nash does not play defense. When it comes down to play a team like the Spurs or even Pistons (If the matchups present themselves) Nash will be grinded down the entire series and then Parker or Billups will just out power him and send him back.

Shaq not only gets his, but he also makes his team (whos Defense is pathetic besides him) look damn good.

[ThunderingHERD]

For a little perspective, In 1993 John Stockton averaged 15.1 pts, 12 ast, 2.4 stl and he wasn't even first team all-NBA, much less an MVP candidate. (Nash: 15.5/11.5/0.95)

[cmp]

Shaq is the real MVP of the league. Without him Miami is nothing, without Nash Phoenix still would have a good team.

What starting lineup would you rather have after taking out Shaq and Nash.

Miami:
D. Wade
D. Jones
E. Jones
U. Haslem

Phx:
J. Johnson
Q. Richardson
S. Marion
A. Stoudemire


Nash has much more talent surrounding him.

[st.cronin]

Shaq is the real MVP of the league. Without him Miami is nothing, without Nash Phoenix still would have a good team.

Ditto, but it seems the NBA tries very hard to give the MVP to somebody who doesn't deserve it.

[Qwikshot]

If that is the case, what about Iverson...without him the Sixers are a lottery team.

[bbor]

I don't think Nash deserves the MVP either. He is a fine player has been a huge part of the Suns success, but you could have replaced him with a number of different point guards in the league and the Suns still would have been a great team. He is a perfect fit for that team because he pushes the ball well and he allows them to get out and run, but there are quite a few guys who could have done that.

.


Who?

[lighthousekeeper]

playing the race card in 3..2..1..

[Daimyo]

If it was a "true" MVP wouldn't Shaq have like 6-7+ of them by now? I think people always like to look for new guys to reward and take someone like Shaq for granted since he does it every season.

[ThunderingHERD]

The NBA is just trying to appease their alienated white fan base.

[Joe]

Shaq is the real MVP of the league. Without him Miami is nothing, without Nash Phoenix still would have a good team.

What starting lineup would you rather have after taking out Shaq and Nash.

Miami:
D. Wade
D. Jones
E. Jones
U. Haslem

Phx:
J. Johnson
Q. Richardson
S. Marion
A. Stoudemire


Nash has much more talent surrounding him.


did you see Phoenix when Nash was injured? they were horrible. maybe another pg could come in and lead them, but without him and their team as is, they aren't remotely close to the same team.

[Arles]

Miami went from 42 to 59 wins by adding Shaq (net +17).

Phoenix went from 29 to 62 wins by adding Nash and Richardson (net +33).

If you are wondering how much of the impact goes to Nash, just look at Phoenix with or without Nash in 04-05:

With Nash:
60-14
111.5 scored per game
102.7 allowed per game
+8.8 net per game

Without Nash:
2-6
100.5 scored per game
108.4 allowed per game
-7.9 net per game

It seems pretty clear to me that Nash is the main difference between a 29 win team in 03-04 and a 62 win team in 04-05. That said, I wouldn't have had a big problem with Shaq winning, but I think the right choice was made.

[DeToxRox]

Miami went from 42 to 59 wins by adding Shaq (net +17).

Phoenix went from 29 to 62 wins by adding Nash and Richardson (net +33).

If you are wondering how much of the impact goes to Nash, just look at Phoenix with or without Nash in 04-05:

With Nash:
60-14
111.5 scored per game
102.7 allowed per game
+8.8 net per game

Without Nash:
2-6
100.5 scored per game
108.4 allowed per game
-7.9 net per game

It seems pretty clear to me that Nash is the main difference between a 29 win team in 03-04 and a 62 win team in 04-05. That said, I wouldn't have had a big problem with Shaq winning, but I think the right choice was made.

But like I am saying. Dallas lost the MVP and didn't lose a stride. Can't say the same for the Lake Show.

[JeeberD]

Shoulda been Dirk...

[Arles]

But like I am saying. Dallas lost the MVP and didn't lose a stride. Can't say the same for the Lake Show.
But Dallas added Jason Terry, Dampier, Stackhouse, Keith Van Horne and Devin Harris, while losing Nash, Walker and Jamison (bench player in 03-04).

LA added Odem, Brian Grant, Caron Butler and Chris Mihm, while losing Malone, Payton, Derek Fisher, Kobe for 16 games and Vlade (Shaq's replacement) for 67 games.

I think it's pretty obvious as to which team of Dallas and LA had the more talented roster in 04-05.

[ThunderingHERD]

With Nash:
60-14
111.5 scored per game
102.7 allowed per game
+8.8 net per game

Without Nash:
2-6
100.5 scored per game
108.4 allowed per game
-7.9 net per game

It seems pretty clear to me that Nash is the main difference between a 29 win team in 03-04 and a 62 win team in 04-05. That said, I wouldn't have had a big problem with Shaq winning, but I think the right choice was made.

I hardly think 8 games is a large enough sample size to make such a conclusion. Also, the winning % of their opponents in those 8 games was .582. Then factor in that Phoenix has something of a vacuum for a backup PG, Leandro Barbosa, and it's not all that impressive.

[Arles]

I hardly think 8 games is a large enough sample size to make such a conclusion.
How about the 82 game sample from the prior season then? When Phoenix had Johnson, Marion and Stoudamire on the team. The reality is that Phoenix won 33 more games after essentially adding two guys. Given Q is more of an outside shooter than a playmaker, I think it's safe to say that Nash had a pretty big impact on the team.

Then factor in that Phoenix has something of a vacuum for a backup PG, Leandro Barbosa, and it's not all that impressive.
Yeah, well Michael Doleac isn't exactly a prize either. It's hard to get top dollar backups for expensive stars.

Miami was a .500 team without Shaq, so they fact they won their division with him isn't a big shocker to me. But Phoenix went from the lottery to the best record in the league by adding Nash. That's the reason he won.

[primelord]

Who?
Jason Kidd
Jason Williams
Tony Parker
Brevin Knight (They actually had him for a few games last year. They should have kept him)

The problem for the Suns last year was they didn't have a guy that fit their team well. Marbury was not the right kind of PG for that team and after he was gone they didn't really have anyone to run the show for them.

Nash is a perfect fit for that team. He plays the PG position the way it is supposed to be played and is a fine player. I am not even saying he isn't better than the names posted above, but if you put Jason Williams on this same team they still win 50+ games. If you put Kidd on this team they probably make a run at 70 and Kidd puts Nash's numbers to shame.

[Arles]

I hardly think 8 games is a large enough sample size to make such a conclusion. Also, the winning % of their opponents in those 8 games was .582.
Against those 8 teams with Nash, Phoenix was 12-3 (16-3 if you count playoffs).

So, with Nash, they are 16-3. Without Nash against the same competition, they are 2-6.

[Arles]

Jason Kidd
Jason Williams
Tony Parker
Brevin Knight (They actually had him for a few games last year. They should have kept him)
Knight does not have the outside shooting that Nash does to open the middle. Not only is Williams not the shooter Nash is (32% from 3 to Nash at 43%), but he doesn't have the unselfishness of Nash. Parker wasn't nearly as consistent a passer, had a much lower Assist/turnover ratio and hit only 27% of his 3s. Kidd is probably the closest, but his outside shot is akin to Williams' and Marion wasn't half the player with Kidd as he is with Nash.

Phoenix needs someone that can work the pick-and-roll with Amare or Shawn, hit the open three and thread the needle in passing. I don't see any of the above having the total package on these skills to be able to replace Nash.

The problem for the Suns last year was they didn't have a guy that fit their team well. Marbury was not the right kind of PG for that team and after he was gone they didn't really have anyone to run the show for them.
The team was 12-22 when Marbury got traded (.350 winning %). They finished at 29-53 (.353 winning %). So, the team was just as bad with or without Marbury.

Nash is a perfect fit for that team. He plays the PG position the way it is supposed to be played and is a fine player. I am not even saying he isn't better than the names posted above, but if you put Jason Williams on this same team they still win 50+ games. If you put Kidd on this team they probably make a run at 70 and Kidd puts Nash's numbers to shame.
Williams is inconsistent and can't even get legit star minutes from Earl Watson in Memphis. Phoenix needs a calming influence at PG with all their young guys and Williams would be Marbury part 2 if he was here. Kidd can't hit a three and without that ability, teams will just double Amare or Shawn on the pick-and-roll - which was Phoenix's staple on offense this season. I could see this game winning 40 games with Williams and 45-50 games with Kidd. But they would still be a far cry from the team they are now.

[primelord]

You kind of made my point about Marbury. I said he was not the right guy for them and after he was traded they didn't replace him with anyone who was. They were bad because they needed a guy who could run the show.

I think Williams would fit VERY well in Phoenix. He is asked to be a different type of PG in Memphis. He is a much better shooter when he can just distribute the ball and take shots as they come within the game as opposed to having to create shots.

As for Kidd. I don't think that is a fair statement to say Marion wasn't as good with Kidd as he was with Nash. First of all Marion was a young more inexperienced player in his first two years when Kidd was there. And those Phoenix teams were nowhere near as good overall as this one. From a stats standpoint Marion was actually better with Marbury than with either Kidd or Nash, but I don't think you are going to tell me Marbury was a better fit.

As for Parker and Knight again I was not even saying that any of these PGs are better than Nash. Well I am saying Kidd is, but I still think the Suns win 50+ games with Williams, Parker, or Knight. And to me that says Nash isn;t the MVP. He is replaceable. Shaq isn't.

[Groundhog]

Good to see Knight getting some love... I've been a big fan of this since his college days at Stanford, and everytime he gets a chance to get some court time he performs.

[k0ruptr]

right choice. i figured they wouldnt get this one right.

[Crapshoot]

Ditto, but it seems the NBA tries very hard to give the MVP to somebody who doesn't deserve it.

^^^^
What he said. Its the "most surprising player" as opposed ot the best one. Garnett and Duncan were deserving - Nash ? A guy who doesnt play defense ?

[VPI97]

Shaq didn't get it? Do they hire morons to vote on this thing?

[k0ruptr]

^^^^
What he said. Its the "most surprising player" as opposed ot the best one. Garnett and Duncan were deserving - Nash ? A guy who doesnt play defense ?


actually i see it differently... its MVP - most valuable player. not the best player. otherwise iverson should of got it. Arles has very very valid points , and it makes more sense for steve nash to get this award. he is clearly not the best player, but definetly the most valuable this season.

[primelord]

Shaq didn't get it? Do they hire morons to vote on this thing?
Exactly.

[Arles]

It's not "least replaceable" or "most dominating", it's most valuable. You can take the exact same logic used on Nash with Shaq and say if the Heat would have simply signed a decent center (a la Dampier), they probably would have won 50 games given the development of guys like Jones, Haslem and Wade. Maybe if Phoenix would have had Kidd, they may also have won 50 games. Then again, they may have won just 40 or 45 like they did in the numerous seasons Kidd was here in the valley.

The point is all this is conjecture and cannot be proven either way. Here are the facts that we know:

By adding Shaq, Miami improved by about 17 games. In games that he was out, they were a .500 team (4-4). With Shaq in the lineup against those same teams, they were 8-4.

By adding Nash, Phoenix improve by over 30 games and in games Nash didn't play, they were a woeful 2-6. Against those exact same group of teams, they were 16-3 when Nash did play.

Based on what you can track, Nash had the bigger impact and was missed more than Shaq to his team. That, IMO, makes him the "more valuable" to his team. And given Phoenix was the best team in the league, it make sense that he gets the award.

[tucker342]

Nash had a great season but there's no doubt in my mind that Shaq should've been MVP

[Galaxy]

I agree with Arles. I believe that Miami would of been just as close to its record being in a much weaker conference and division. Miami would of won the division if they signed just a quality center-when you got Orlando, Charlotte, Atlanta and Washington, wasn't much of a division, and Washington was more a suprise.

[Havok]

It's not "least replaceable" or "most dominating", it's most valuable. You can take the exact same logic used on Nash with Shaq and say if the Heat would have simply signed a decent center (a la Dampier), they probably would have won 50 games given the development of guys like Jones, Haslem and Wade. Maybe if Phoenix would have had Kidd, they may also have won 50 games. Then again, they may have won just 40 or 45 like they did in the numerous seasons Kidd was here in the valley.

The point is all this is conjecture and cannot be proven either way. Here are the facts that we know:

By adding Shaq, Miami improved by about 17 games. In games that he was out, they were a .500 team (4-4). With Shaq in the lineup against those same teams, they were 8-4.

By adding Nash, Phoenix improve by over 30 games and in games Nash didn't play, they were a woeful 2-6. Against those exact same group of teams, they were 16-3 when Nash did play.

Based on what you can track, Nash had the bigger impact and was missed more than Shaq to his team. That, IMO, makes him the "more valuable" to his team. And given Phoenix was the best team in the league, it make sense that he gets the award.


How come i keep agreeing with Arles in every sports thread i look at lately?

[Havok]

~dola~

oh... and i think i'd put Shaq at third place in the MVP voting this season if Duncan didn't get injuried for awhile. What he does for San Antonio is amazing.

[st.cronin]

My ballot would have been

1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. Garnett (not his fault the team fell apart - he was still great)
4. Amare
5. Dirk

[Gary Gorski]

I call BS too on this one - my vote would be Iverson - have you ever watched Philly play? Do you think Ashton Kutcher would get off any shots without Iverson drawing two or three defenders when he drives? Do you think Dalembert would ever actually score a basket without his man having to leave to help on Iverson? Ditto for C-Webb who doesn't move any closer than the free throw line and waits for Iverson to draw a double team and pass to him.

Without Iverson Philly not only doesn't make the playoffs but is probably as bad as Atlanta and Charlotte and the like. Iverson single handedly kept the series even remotely competitive against Detroit. You take Nash off the Suns and there is still a good team.

[Easy Mac]

And you take Shaq off the Heat, and they're still a good team. Heck, Wade only got better this year (and looked poised for a breakout year even without Shaq). You can use the "take away this player" argument for almost all teams. Take away Dirk, and Dallas is an average team. Take away Yao, and Houston is an average team. Take away Walker, and Boston is an average team. There wasn't a singular player who "dominated" the league this year. I think Wade is a better player than Shaq is right now. He carried that team far more. There really wasn't a clear-cut MVP this season.

[Arles]

I call BS too on this one - my vote would be Iverson - have you ever watched Philly play? Do you think Ashton Kutcher would get off any shots without Iverson drawing two or three defenders when he drives?
The problem with Iverson is that he is an "island" player. You put him with a decent player and three scrubs - and Philly wins 38 games. You put him with three good complementary players - and Philly wins 45 games. He has never made anyone that played with him better. Look at the list of Philly guys that have gone on to thrive in different environments (Hughes, Van Horne, ..). The best examples are guys like Harpering (averaged 11 PPG in 31 Min for Philly, then went to Utah and averaged 17 in 32 Min) and Webber (21 P-9 R- 5.5 As with Sac to 15-7-3 for Philly).

I have a hard time voting for someone known in the league as one of the two worst players to play with (with Kobe) as the MVP. Sure, he's valuable, because that's the only way he can thrive is if he controls everthing (as well as most of the shots) on offense. Now, if I was starting the Charlotte Bobcats, I would love to have Iverson as he is a one-man wrecking crew that can make you an immediate threat. But, there's a reason why his teams have only broken 49 wins once in his career and averages about 35 a season (despite having one of the best coaches in basketball history with him). It's because there's a limit to the amount of success a team can have with a player like Iverson. You look at both Shaq and Nash and you see guys that continually make guys they play with better players.

Plus, Philly won 43 games in a division where the top team won 45 (worst in the NBA by 7 games). In order to be the MVP, you have to be the reason your team had a successful season. 43 wins in a crappy division in the East is not a success.

Do you think Dalembert would ever actually score a basket without his man having to leave to help on Iverson? Ditto for C-Webb who doesn't move any closer than the free throw line and waits for Iverson to draw a double team and pass to him.
People said the same thing about Harpering as you are about Dalembert. Then he went to Utah with the great Howard Isley and improved his scoring by 6 points. C-Webb was a 21-point scorer and 6 assist guy playing with Bibby. He goes to Philly with Iverson and he's a 15-3 guy. If Dalembert ends up leaving Philly as a RFA, I would bet good money he increases his production by atleast 5 PPG. It's hard to be a high scorer when the offense only allows you to shoot 6 times a game. I think Iverson is the only player in the league that could make Amare Stoudamire into an average scorer.

Without Iverson Philly not only doesn't make the playoffs but is probably as bad as Atlanta and Charlotte and the like.
But that fact is also Iverson's weakness when put on a better team. Because he can't change his "black hole" style of play, he has never been able to get the most out of the guys he plays with.

Iverson single handedly kept the series even remotely competitive against Detroit. You take Nash off the Suns and there is still a good team.
Again, in order to be the MVP of the league, your team has to win more than 43 games. How valuable (in the grand scope) is Iverson if the best he can do with Philly is make them a 7-seed in a shallow eastern conference (despite having guys with him like Webber and Dalembert)?

[oykib]

I think we're getting toa time when that whole "most valuable not best player" argument has to go the way of the dinosaurs.

It's bullshit. Although it's harder to do in basketball than baseball, we can quantify how valuable players are.

Value equates to helping your team win.

Phoenix was a team in disarray last year. They traded their marquee player halfway through the season and never found their identity in a tough conference. Their core players are all young, and it can be surmised that they have improved given an extra year of playing time. There are plenty of reasons that the team improved so much.

But we can argue that nonsense back and forth all day.

ANY team that had Shaq would've done remarkably better. Put Nash in any other situation and no one's talking about him for MVP. His numbers don't justify it. Magic and Oscar Robertson rebounded and scored as well as dished. Nash does neither particularly well. He's on a high-flying team and gets a lot of assissts. But he doesn't put up Stockton numbers and he doesn't play D.

Shaq's an MVP candidate no matter where he's playing. The same is true for Garnett, LeBron, and Duncan. Nash is just as much a product of system as ability.

[k0ruptr]

fuck it, next time im voting for earl boykins

[Gary Gorski]

The problem with Iverson is that he is an "island" player. You put him with a decent player and three scrubs - and Philly wins 38 games. You put him with three good complementary players - and Philly wins 45 games. He has never made anyone that played with him better.

You're confusing the old Iverson with the player he has become. What alot of people don't want to admit and see is that in the past season especially Iverson has grown up. He's an "island" player on Philly because without him their roster (excluding the crippled Webber) has got to be the sorriest excuse for a professional roster in the league. Kyle Korver is a starter? Mark Jackson, Willie Green, Aaron McKie seeing significant minutes. Was Iverson a black hole during the Olympics? He takes 25 shots a game simply because the rest of the team blows. You take him off the team and Philly doesn't win ten games even in the East.

Look at the list of Philly guys that have gone on to thrive in different environments (Hughes, Van Horne, ..). The best examples are guys like Harpering (averaged 11 PPG in 31 Min for Philly, then went to Utah and averaged 17 in 32 Min) and Webber (21 P-9 R- 5.5 As with Sac to 15-7-3 for Philly).

I'll give you Hughes (which was also a maturity thing) but Van Horn? Van Horn is a bench player for Dallas and his production has never been as high as it was in his 2nd season in NJ. After that its been a steady decline with Philly, New York, Milwauke and Dallas (in the span of 3 seasons - nobody who is valuable gets traded to 4 teams in three years). Webber was injured with the Sixers. Don't forget Webber had people in Sacramento that actually had to be guarded like Peja, Bibby and Brad Miller so he got lots of one on one play and wide open jumpers - he's the #2 option in Philly and hobbled at that.

I have a hard time voting for someone known in the league as one of the two worst players to play with (with Kobe) as the MVP. Sure, he's valuable, because that's the only way he can thrive is if he controls everthing (as well as most of the shots) on offense. Now, if I was starting the Charlotte Bobcats, I would love to have Iverson as he is a one-man wrecking crew that can make you an immediate threat. But, there's a reason why his teams have only broken 49 wins once in his career and averages about 35 a season (despite having one of the best coaches in basketball history with him). It's because there's a limit to the amount of success a team can have with a player like Iverson. You look at both Shaq and Nash and you see guys that continually make guys they play with better players.

I think that's the stereotype on Iverson and to be honest its well deserved for what his career has been. But if you watched him this season, especially during the Detroit series, his concern was his team and that they didn't just roll over for Detroit. Shaq makes players better simply because he's the most dominant player in the game. Of course Damon Jones is going to be a better threat with Shaq because nobody cares about guarding him when they have to double Shaq and sometimes double Wade. If Nash makes players so much better then why did guys like Nowitzki and Howard have better years this year without him?

Phoenix improved because they brought in somebody who could push the basketball up the court and pass. I agree with others who said you could take a Brevin Knight, Jason Williams or Andre Miller and have the same success with Phoenix. The reason Phoenix sucked with this roster last year is the same reason New York sucked this year - Stephon Marbury. You take two very, very good players in Stoudamire and Marion add in another great scorer like Richardson and a guy who is willing to pass the ball like Nash and of course you're going to improve. If you were to switch Nash and Iverson I say Phoenix does just as well while Philly misses the playoffs by a long shot.

Plus, Philly won 43 games in a division where the top team won 45 (worst in the NBA by 7 games). In order to be the MVP, you have to be the reason your team had a successful season. 43 wins in a crappy division in the East is not a success.

The Pacific Division was hardly a dominant division - with the Kobes, Clippers and Warriors. Even Sacramento was not that good as they showed in their laughable playoff performance.

C-Webb was a 21-point scorer and 6 assist guy playing with Bibby. He goes to Philly with Iverson and he's a 15-3 guy.

Sacramento plays a more uptempo pace - they average 3 shots more a game than Philly does which makes sense because if you have alot of weapons like Bibby, Peja, Miller and a healthy Webber you want to push the ball. If there was no 24 second shot clock Philly would be best served to try and play a 2-0 game with their roster. Also Webber was the man in Sacramento - he's the #2 man in Philly and rightfully so so I would expect his points and touches in general to go down.

If Dalembert ends up leaving Philly as a RFA, I would bet good money he increases his production by atleast 5 PPG. It's hard to be a high scorer when the offense only allows you to shoot 6 times a game. I think Iverson is the only player in the league that could make Amare Stoudamire into an average scorer.

Dalembert is not going to score 13 PPG anywhere next season unless its Atlanta or someone equally as bad. The only reason Dalembert gets the points he does now is because all five guys need to go guard Iverson. Dalembert is the next Theo Ratliff of the league - he's a good shot blocker but he won't be much else. And look at Iguodala - 9th in the league in scoring for rookies. I don't think him or Korver have the success they have without Iverson.

But that fact is also Iverson's weakness when put on a better team. Because he can't change his "black hole" style of play, he has never been able to get the most out of the guys he plays with.

I think you have to look no further than Kyle Korver to see that Iverson makes people better. Korver jumped from 4.5 PPG to 11.5 PPG and led the league in 3 pointers made. The ONLY reason Korver scores is because of Iverson. Korver cannot get himself open and he cannot create a shot off the dribble - his only offense is stand behind the arc and wait for his man to help on Iverson.

Look at the team Iverson took to the finals a couple years back. His starting teammates were McKie, Tyrone Hill, Jumane Jones and Mutombo. With renowned stars like Eric Snow, Matt Geiger and Raja Bell coming in off the bench. This year's team really wasn't much better especially since Webber was playing injured in his short stint with the team.

Iverson won 43 games with no talent whatsoever around him (a 10 game improvement from last season) - The Suns won 62 with Nash having Marion, Stoudamire, Johnson and Richardson. Also last season Dallas was 52-30 with Nash and this year 58-24 without him. They got 6 games better without him. I can see the argument for Shaq because the Lakers were 22 games worse without him but Nash just was the right fit for a very, very talented team who needed the anti-Marbury and that's what Nash is. A very good PG but not the league MVP.

[korme]

SHAQ got hosed. When was the last time an MVP winner (NASH) wasn't even the best player (AMARE) on his team?

[k0ruptr]

well there is a valid case that shaq wasnt even the best player on his team as well.. look at wade.

[DeToxRox]

well there is a valid case that shaq wasnt even the best player on his team as well.. look at wade.

Not even close. Wade is very good, but the guy lead the league in turnovers.

[k0ruptr]

and shaq shot 46% from the foul line

[jeff061]

It's not all about the numbers. Shaq is the MVP of the league every year, and will probably continue to be until he retires.

[k0ruptr]

lol. jeff you just made the best point ive ever read.

[Noop]

Shaq got screwed.... well as long as he wins finals mvp and a championship for Miami then all will be forgiven.

[JeeberD]

Fuck Shaq

[Arles]

You're confusing the old Iverson with the player he has become. What alot of people don't want to admit and see is that in the past season especially Iverson has grown up. He's an "island" player on Philly because without him their roster (excluding the crippled Webber)
That "crippled Webber" had been having All-Star type season for the Kings before he got traded. The best way to look at this is check out his last 15 games for Sac and first 15 for Philly (when he was actually more healthy):
Sac - 23 PPG
Philly - 15.7 PPG

Nothing saps the life out of a player like playing with AI.

has got to be the sorriest excuse for a professional roster in the league. Kyle Korver is a starter? Mark Jackson, Willie Green, Aaron McKie seeing significant minutes.
A lineup of AI, Iguodala, Korver, Webber and Dalembert with Jackson, McKie and Rodney Rodgers coming off the bench is about average in talent for the East. It's a better group than atleast 6 of the 15 Eastern teams (Toronto, New York, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Charlotte and Atlanta). The fact they finished above 8 does not help AI's case.

Webber was injured with the Sixers.
He missed 6 of his final 21 games with the Kings due to injury, yet still put up 23 a game. He was actually more healthy on Philly than Sacramento.

I think that's the stereotype on Iverson and to be honest its well deserved for what his career has been. But if you watched him this season, especially during the Detroit series, his concern was his team and that they didn't just roll over for Detroit.
For the season, Philly finished 2-7 against Detroit. I would garner than most above average shooting guards could have managed that record against Piston's with Philly's team. And while Iverson averaged 30 PPG in those contests, he also averaged 25 shots a game. I think the Detroit series is a perfect example of AI. Takes a lot of shots, has to be the center of every offensive set, yet consistently gets beaten by the better teams. Not exactly characteristics of a league MVP.

Shaq makes players better simply because he's the most dominant player in the game. Of course Damon Jones is going to be a better threat with Shaq because nobody cares about guarding him when they have to double Shaq and sometimes double Wade. If Nash makes players so much better then why did guys like Nowitzki and Howard have better years this year without him?
Because Dallas spent big bucks on replacing Nash with three pretty decent Point guards in Terry, Marquis Daniels and the No. 5 overall pick (Harris). That's a total of $12.1 million on two players a top 5 pick for the other. You need only look the play of Stoudamire, Q, Joe Johnson and Marion to see the positive impact that going from a guy like Marbury to one like Nash can do.

I agree with others who said you could take a Brevin Knight, Jason Williams or Andre Miller and have the same success with Phoenix.
And I think if you put Jason Kidd or Mike Bibby in Philly, they can win 40 games. Or if you put Eric Dampier or Ben Wallace with Miami they can win 50. I fail to see what this proves?

The reason Phoenix sucked with this roster last year is the same reason New York sucked this year - Stephon Marbury.
Who is as close to a parallel to Iverson that you will find in the NBA:
AI - 30.7 PPG, 7.9 APG, 2.4 SPG, 24.2 shots/game
Steph - 21.7 PPG, 8.1 APG, 1.5 SPG, 16.0 shots/game

You give Marbury AI's 24 shots a game and he puts up almost identical numbers.

You take two very, very good players in Stoudamire and Marion add in another great scorer like Richardson and a guy who is willing to pass the ball like Nash and of course you're going to improve. If you were to switch Nash and Iverson I say Phoenix does just as well while Philly misses the playoffs by a long shot.
Nash takes 11 shots a game, AI takes 24. How in the heck is Phoenix going to be just as good a team if 13 shots are taken from a very talented team and handed to Iverson - who hits at a much lower rate? You think guys like Amare, Johnson and Marion are going to be just as happy and just as involved in the flow of the game if they lose 4 shots each per game to a guy that hits a significantly lower rate? Plus, we have no clue if Iverson can even play a smart, low turnover, high possession quality game at Phoenix's tempo. He's never done it before.

The Pacific Division was hardly a dominant division - with the Kobes, Clippers and Warriors. Even Sacramento was not that good as they showed in their laughable playoff performance.
As opposed to the dominating performance by Philly? Teams in the Atlantic averaged 39 wins whereas teams in the Pacific averaged 43 wins and have the top seed in the West left (no one is left from the Atlantic). Only one division in the NBA (Southwest) had more wins than the Pacific. And, of course, the Suns had to play significantly more games against the Southwest than Philly.

Dalembert is not going to score 13 PPG anywhere next season unless its Atlanta or someone equally as bad. The only reason Dalembert gets the points he does now is because all five guys need to go guard Iverson. Dalembert is the next Theo Ratliff of the league - he's a good shot blocker but he won't be much else.
You do realize that Dalembert hit 52.5% of his shots during the season and 55.3% in the postseason against Detroit, right? You put him in an offense where he can get more than 6 shots a game and he could easily put up 13-15 PPG.

And look at Iguodala - 9th in the league in scoring for rookies. I don't think him or Korver have the success they have without Iverson.
Iguodala averaged 9 point a game on a little over 6 shots. You put him on a team like Sacramento, Dallas or Phoenix were starters actually get 12-15 shots a game and you would see him easily hit the 13-15 PPG range. Iverson takes 30% of the shots by Philly, it's hard to know how any of these guys would do if they were on a team were the best player only takes around 20%.

I think you have to look no further than Kyle Korver to see that Iverson makes people better. Korver jumped from 4.5 PPG to 11.5 PPG and led the league in 3 pointers made. The ONLY reason Korver scores is because of Iverson. Korver cannot get himself open and he cannot create a shot off the dribble.
Most NBA teams have guys that can suck the defense in and kick out. Guys like Kidd, Nash, Bibby, Miller, Wade, Knight and Parker offer that similar ability. And none need the 24 shots that Iverson does to go along with it. If Korver played with a guard that actually allowed him to take double digits in shots a game, he could probably do even better. But it's hard to get more than 11-12 points a game when you can only take 9 shots.

The reason Korver went from 4.5 to 11.5 PPG is because his minutes tripled (11.9 - 32.5). He was just as good a 3-point shooter in 04 (39%) as he was in 05 (40%), he just didn't get the minutes.

Iverson won 43 games with no talent whatsoever around him (a 10 game improvement from last season)
There's a little hyperbole here and Webber alone should account for the 10 game improvement. Webber and Dalembert are better talents at the second and third option than many teams have in the East. Look at the 2nd and 3rd options on the Bucks, Hawks, Bobcats, Caveliers, and Raptors. Michael Redd and Lebron would love to trade in what they have for Webber, Dalembert and Corver.

The Suns won 62 with Nash having Marion, Stoudamire, Johnson and Richardson. Also last season Dallas was 52-30 with Nash and this year 58-24 without him.
Again, look at the money and picks they spent to replace him. If Philly went out and spent $12 million plus a top 5 pick to replace Iverson, I would hope they got comparable results.

I can see the argument for Shaq because the Lakers were 22 games worse without him
I don't buy this logic. Dallas goes out spends the farm to bring in Terry, Harris, Stackhouse, Dampier, Van Horne, ... While the Lakers sign next to no one new and lose fellow starters Payton, Malone, Fisher, Divac (injured) and Kobe is out for 17 games. If Dallas lost Nash + tall that and didn't spend much to replace them, then the team would have also suffered.

Nash just was the right fit for a very, very talented team who needed the anti-Marbury and that's what Nash is.
Yet this somehow disqualifies him for MVP? Why do I have the feeling that most people here would have trouble voting for an MVP that is less than 7 feet or doesn't shot 20 shots a game? Phoenix has had some "talented" teams with other very good point guards (Kidd and Marbury), but none could hold a candle to this team. And the reason is that Nash is one of the only PGs in the league that can run the tempo Phoenix excels at without turning the ball over a million times or taking bad shots/possessions. That is evident on how the team turns to dog crap when he doesn't play.

[st.cronin]

It's not all about the numbers. Shaq is the MVP of the league every year, and will probably continue to be until he retires.

That about sums it up.

[jbmagic]

Nash improve Phoenix by +33 games from last year.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

He got what he seserved.

[oykib]

He got what he seserved.

Nonsense.

You can make the MVP argument for any league very simple. If you knew that every player in the league would exactly duplicate his performance for the season, which player would you take for a dispersal draft next year.

I have to think that it's a no-brainer that Shaq, Lebron, Garnett, and Duncan go before Nash.

Situational things like winning, team improvement, and clutch performance are worth something. They determine who the winner is among players who are evenly matched. But I'm guessing that most of you can see that these four players, at the very least, are head and shoulders above Nash by this reasoning.

Edit -- Dirk'd go before him, too.

[Arles]

Most valuable player means that the player has to be the main reason for a team's successful season. Lebron is one of the best player's in the league, but his team finished in the lottery. They could have done that if you put any decent SG in his spot, so how valuable was he? Same goes for Garnett. For Iverson, the 76ers finished with the 7th spot and got beat 4-1 in the first round. That's just a small step above the lottery. IMO, if your team doesn't finish in the top 4 in either league, how valuable were you? Sure, you may have made the team more competitive, but in the end they were just first round fodder (or lottery bound) after your efforts.

[st.cronin]

Steve Nash does have a case, but I think his argument is undone by his defense, and the Mav's improvement with Devin Harris (!) running the point.

[oykib]

Most valuable player means that the player has to be the main reason for a team's successful season. Lebron is one of the best player's in the league, but his team finished in the lottery. They could have done that if you put any decent SG in his spot, so how valuable was he? Same goes for Garnett. For Iverson, the 76ers finished with the 7th spot and got beat 4-1 in the first round. That's just a small step above the lottery. IMO, if your team doesn't finish in the top 4 in either league, how valuable were you? Sure, you may have made the team more competitive, but in the end they were just first round fodder (or lottery bound) after your efforts.

What's more valuable, your dollar or Bill Gates'?

Neither one, by itself, can buy a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

That tired "How valuable could you have possibly been if your team wasn't a contender?" argument doesn't hold water. MVP is an individual award-- not a team one. There were a group of players whose individual performances were clearly better than Nash's this season. Therefore, he was clearly not the most valuable.

Just because those criteria have been used in the past doesn't make them correct. We know better now-- or, at least, we should. That system of awarding MVPs is arbitrary and foolish.

[JeeberD]

Steve Nash does have a case, but I think his argument is undone by his defense, and the Mav's improvement with Devin Harris (!) running the point.

Just an FYI, but Harris only started 19 games this year. Jason Terry started the majority of the Mavs games (56)...

[Arles]

What's more valuable, your dollar or Bill Gates'?

Neither one, by itself, can buy a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

That tired "How valuable could you have possibly been if your team wasn't a contender?" argument doesn't hold water. MVP is an individual award-- not a team one.
No, but it's based on overall team success. There have been plenty of great players on lottery teams (Iverson in the 30-win seasons, Lebron, Garnett this season) - yet none ever finish in the top 5 in voting. The reason is pretty simple. The "value" you provide is measured against what an average player in your position would do. Any average player can have his team end up in the lottery. So, there are many team aspects at play for MVP. You not only have to be the MVP of your team, the team also actually has to have accomplished something of note (ie, make the playoffs). Otherwise, how much better off was your team for having you?

There were a group of players whose individual performances were clearly better than Nash's this season. Therefore, he was clearly not the most valuable.
Possibly, but this is not the "most dominating" - it's the most valuable. If you average 30 points and 20 rebounds a game, but your team wins 30 games - how much "value" do you really have?

Also, when looking at Nash's numbers, one thing you have to focus on is how he ran the offense. Phoenix made the most field goals in the NBA by over 150. Yet, despite all the shots they took and possessions they had, they finished 15th in turnovers, 3rd in assists/TO, 2nd in field goal %, 1st in 3point %, 2nd in point differential and were 2nd in the league in points per shot. So, while Nash might not be the best defensive player, he significantly increased the number of possessions the team had while also improving the quality of the each possession. In other words, by his ability to push the tempo without suffering the quality of each opportunity, it put significantly more pressure on opponents to be just as efficient on each of there possessions at a tempo most teams weren't comfortable playing. That's why Phoenix had the 2nd best point differential (+7.1) and why Nash was arguably much more valuable than a normal PG that plays great defense. He forced other teams to play close to error free ball at a much quicker pace. If you, as an opposing point guard, couldn't get your team to put up 110 against the Suns on most nights, you were going to lose.

Averaging over 110 PPG with a net over 7 was basically unheard of since the 80s in the NBA. Steve Nash's ability to run this Phoenix offense has changed the entire landscape of the NBA. No other PG accomplished what he did from an offense standpoint in over a decade. Plus, the fact that he has made the NBA actually watchable again by bringing back the concept of team basketball at a fast tempo is enough in itself to make him the MVP of the league.

[oykib]

You are still missing the point. It doesn't matter whether Bill gates has 50 billion more dollars in the bank-- if you've got thirty bucks in your pocket and he's got twenty, then you've got more spending power than he does.

Value equates to winning-- yes. But it's stupid to punish guys because their teammates are not up to snuff.

Take Lebron. His team missed out on the playoffs. But is that his fault. He was 27, 7, and 7 with two steals per game. These weren't garbage points either. He shot 47% from the floor.

Are you telling me that had you put Nash on his team, they'd have been better?

Then would you argue that the Suns wouldn't have won 50+ with LeBron.

I'll agree that Nash was the perfect fit for that squad. But that doesn't make him the most valuable player. It just puts him in a favorable context.

It's like pitching in Dodger Stadium or hitting at Coors.

I can see winning being a tie-breaker. That's why I would give it to Shaq or Duncan over Lebron or Garnett.

But MVP is an individual award. You can't make your disqualifying criteria team performance.

If the team wins thirty-five games and you were the deciding factor for most of them, you might just be more valubale than a player on a sixty-win team that was primarily responsible for only a third of those.

[Arles]

But MVP is an individual award. You can't make your disqualifying criteria team performance.
Then why is it that no MVP in recent memory has come from a team that didn't make the playoffs?

What Nash did is akin to a catcher that hit .300 with 30 HRs (certainly better statistical performances), but also presided over the best pitching staff in the past 10 years. When, with a different catcher in 04 or games where the backup played in 05, the same pitching staff severly struggled. It's hard to quantify that ability with a "stat", but people that watched him play (and his teammates) certainly understand his impact.

People can say "any decent PG" could have done what Nash did this season on Phoenix. But the reality is that no PG in the last decade has come even close to tempo (110 PPG, 1st in FGM by over 150) and efficiency (+7 NET PPG, 2nd in PPshot and FG %, 3rd in A/T) that Nash accomplished as a leader of this offense. But, again, because that leadership is not reflected in the box score, Nash often gets little credit for it by his critics.

[Gary Gorski]

That "crippled Webber" had been having All-Star type season for the Kings before he got traded. He was actually more healthy on Philly than Sacramento.

Webber may have missed a fewer % of games with Philly but he was playing injured down the stretch and in the playoffs which basically turned him into a standaround shooter.


I think the Detroit series is a perfect example of AI. Takes a lot of shots, has to be the center of every offensive set, yet consistently gets beaten by the better teams. Not exactly characteristics of a league MVP.

Iverson takes alot of shots because he has to. Who else is going to get shots on that team? And the reason they consistently lose to better teams is not because Iverson shoots 25 times a game - its because the Sixers suck. The only reason they aren't in the basement of the East is because Iverson single handedly wins games for them both offensively and defensively.


You need only look the play of Stoudamire, Q, Joe Johnson and Marion to see the positive impact that going from a guy like Marbury to one like Nash can do.

Yes, and it would be the same impact if you traded out Nash for any other pass first point guard who does a decent job taking care of the ball.


And I think if you put Jason Kidd or Mike Bibby in Philly, they can win 40 games.

There is no way that swapping out AI for Kidd or Bibby makes Philly even a playoff team. Look at New Jersey without Jefferson and before Vince - they sucked - that's what you would be looking at with Philly. Kidd and Bibby cannot take over a game and score 40 points if needed which is what is needed with Phillys roster.

{Marbury} is as close to a parallel to Iverson that you will find in the NBA

No, there's a huge difference between the two. Marbury is a guy that cares nothing about his team or winning games. Iverson USED to be that guy - but unlike Marbury, Iverson would be willing to take fewer shots if he could. Marbury has had the luxury of playing around guys like a Marion or Stoudamire - who has Iverson ever played with that was any good at the time they were on his team? He's never had a team that could contend for anything yet he has gotten them into the playoffs and even so far as the Finals.

You do realize that Dalembert hit 52.5% of his shots during the season and 55.3% in the postseason against Detroit, right? You put him in an offense where he can get more than 6 shots a game and he could easily put up 13-15 PPG.

You also realize that most of his shots are dunks either off a missed Iverson shot because everyone left him alone to help on Iverson or off an Iverson pass when his man doubles Iverson as he drives. You put Dalembert in an offense where he has to create his own shots and he's not going to score 13-15 a night unless he takes far, far more shots.

Iguodala averaged 9 point a game on a little over 6 shots. You put him on a team like Sacramento, Dallas or Phoenix were starters actually get 12-15 shots a game and you would see him easily hit the 13-15 PPG range. Iverson takes 30% of the shots by Philly, it's hard to know how any of these guys would do if they were on a team were the best player only takes around 20%.

Igoudala will increase his scoring to the 13-15 PPG range next season playing with Iverson. Also Sacramento, Dallas and Phoenix are all teams that play up tempo basketball - partly because they have alot of players who can score and need shots - so there are more shots to go around. And all of those teams have the luxury for the best player of having other players around them who can score on a consistent basis.

Most NBA teams have guys that can suck the defense in and kick out. Guys like Kidd, Nash, Bibby, Miller, Wade, Knight and Parker offer that similar ability. And none need the 24 shots that Iverson does to go along with it. If Korver played with a guard that actually allowed him to take double digits in shots a game, he could probably do even better. But it's hard to get more than 11-12 points a game when you can only take 9 shots.

None need 24 shots a game because they play with Jefferson/Carter, Stoudamire/Marion/Richardson/Johnson, Peja/Miller, Melo/Martin/Camby, Shaq, Gasol, and Duncan/Ginobili respectively. There's also a difference in how they affect the defense. When Jason Kidd or Steve Nash has the ball the entire defense is not concerned with preventing him from getting to the basket. When Iverson has the ball the entire defense has to be aware because he is so quick that no one guy can stay with him so a guy like Iverson is going to create more shot attempts for a Korver than someone the defense doesn't respect in the half court like Kidd or Nash. Those guys excel at pushing the ball up the floor - not in the half court set.

The reason Korver doesn't get more shots is because Ashton can't move his feet or get a step on anyone with his dribble. No matter who Korver plays with until he can do something other than shoot a wide open jumper he'll never get more shots.

There's a little hyperbole here and Webber alone should account for the 10 game improvement. Webber and Dalembert are better talents at the second and third option than many teams have in the East. Look at the 2nd and 3rd options on the Bucks, Hawks, Bobcats, Caveliers, and Raptors. Michael Redd and Lebron would love to trade in what they have for Webber, Dalembert and Corver.

You're confusing Webber right now for a great player. I don't know if it was his injury or his age but he became even less of a post player for Philly than he was in Sacramento - its hard to rebound when you're 15 feet from the basket consistently. But I would easily take Ilgauskas from Cleveland over Dalembert. But really Philly's roster is just as sorry as Milwakuee, Cleveland, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Toronto yet Iverson carried his team to the playoffs whereas Redd and LeBron did not.


I don't buy this logic. Dallas goes out spends the farm to bring in Terry, Harris, Stackhouse, Dampier, Van Horne, ... While the Lakers sign next to no one new and lose fellow starters Payton, Malone, Fisher, Divac (injured) and Kobe is out for 17 games. If Dallas lost Nash + tall that and didn't spend much to replace them, then the team would have also suffered.

Dallas also traded away Antoine Walker and Antawn Jamsion in order to free up the room to sign some of those guys or bring them in as part of the deals so its not like they only lost Nash and replaced him with 5 new guys. Same for the Lakers - they got Odom, Caron Butler and Briant Grant from Miami for Shaq and replaced Fisher with Chucky Atkins.

Why do I have the feeling that most people here would have trouble voting for an MVP that is less than 7 feet or doesn't shot 20 shots a game? Phoenix has had some "talented" teams with other very good point guards (Kidd and Marbury), but none could hold a candle to this team. And the reason is that Nash is one of the only PGs in the league that can run the tempo Phoenix excels at without turning the ball over a million times or taking bad shots/possessions. That is evident on how the team turns to dog crap when he doesn't play.

Ok, answer this. How can you be the MVP when you aren't even the best or second best player on your own team? You described exactly what made the Suns a winning team this year (the fact that Amare didn't miss half the season again helps too) - they found the right part to put into the system. Nash is the round peg that goes in the round hole. What he does makes him valuable to the Suns but he is not the most valuable player in the league. You can replace Steve Nash with any other point guard who is capable of pushing the ball, making a low amount of turnovers and being able to make open shots - which is a handful of guys. Insert a Knight, Hinrich, Miller etc and you will get the same result.

Nash isn't special - he just fits his role perfectly. So does Ben Wallace but he's not an MVP either. Take Nash, Shaq and Iverson - take them all off their teams and put them one at a time on Charlotte's roster. Does Charlotte make the playoffs with Nash? No, because they already have their Steve Nash in Brevin Knight and that was good for an 18-64 finish. But with Iverson they at least have a shot and with Shaq they definitely make the playoffs. The MVP should be decided on who is the best player in the league that season and there is no way that Steve Nash is the best player in the league.

[oykib]

Then why is it that no MVP in recent memory has come from a team that didn't make the playoffs?



That's because the idiot voters insist on picking clearly inferior ballplayers because of that tired "he wasn't on a contender...so..." argument.

Again, if you knew that all of these MVP candidates would duplicate their performances exactly next season and you had the first pick in a dispersal draft, who would you take?

It sure as hell wouldn't be Nash.

And are you really arguing that MVP is not an individual's award? That would be asinine.

[Arles]

Webber may have missed a fewer % of games with Philly but he was playing injured down the stretch and in the playoffs which basically turned him into a standaround shooter.
Uh, that's all Webber's been for the past 4 seasons. He was that same guy in Sacramento. The difference is that Webber is one of the better passing big men and he can do a great job at finding the cutting player in his elder years. With the Kings, he got consistent offensive touches and often found the open man (hence the larger number of assists). With Philly, he will routinely go numerous possessions without getting valuable touches which limits his effectiveness.

Iverson takes alot of shots because he has to.
But how do we know that? Has AI ever tried to work in guys like Webber, Korver, Dalembert, Iguodala, ... more into the offense? For all we know they could be even more successful if AI got his teammates more involved. Korver hit 40% of his 3s, Iguodala and Dalembert hit 50% of their shots from the field and Webber hit 45% of his shots in Sacramento when he was more involved in the team's offense. You get these four guys more touches in the offense and there's a good chance Philly is even more effective. Korver, Dalembert, Iguodala and Webber have shown themselves to be effective NBA shooters and each could have Matt Harpering-type production increases if they were able to take 10-12 shots a game instead of the 6-9 they get now.

If Iverson took a page our of Bibby or Nash's book and used the defense's focus on him to be even a bigger distributer, all four of these guys could be double-digit scorers and more involved. The problem with Iverson is the "Barry Sanders factor" where he goes 1 on 4 at times to try and win the game single-handed. His teammates routines talk about how they have a tendency to "stand and watch" Iverson at times because of these issues. I would garner to state that teammates of Bibby, Kidd and Nash don't have the same tendency. Joe Johnson and Q Richardson didn't suddenly develop a better shot this year, they just had a guy who could get them consistent open looks in Nash. If AI did the same, he would find guys like Iguodala and Korver would be much more involved in games and probably blossum into better players on both ends.

they consistently lose to better teams is not because Iverson shoots 25 times a game - its because the Sixers suck.
That mentality is why they lose. Everyone thought the Sixers sucked when they had Harpering and Hughes. Then both guys went on to be 17-20 point scorers as 2nd and third options on other teams. I see the same thing happening for a guy like Iguodala, Dalembert or Korver. Until you allow your teammates to show what they can do, you don't know how effective they will be. Right now we don't know how good any of these three guys can be because they rarely get more than 6-9 opportunities to score a game - much like was the issue with Hughes and Harpering.

The only reason they aren't in the basement of the East is because Iverson single handedly wins games for them both offensively and defensively.
And they could bring in a group of all stars and Iverson would play in the same manner and those all-stars would suddenly "suck" as well. You could have quite a good NBA team full of guys that "sucked" with Iverson but have excelled in different systems.

Yes, and it would be the same impact if you traded out Nash for any other pass first point guard who does a decent job taking care of the ball.
That's quite a leap of faith as no NBA PG has played at the pace Nash did (110 PPG) and the efficiency (2nd in points per shot and NET scoring) in over a decade. Could it have happened? Sure, but guys like Kidd, Marbury, Bibby, J Williams and others haven't done it on teams with similar talent levels.

There is no way that swapping out AI for Kidd or Bibby makes Philly even a playoff team. Look at New Jersey without Jefferson and before Vince - they sucked - that's what you would be looking at with Philly.
Webber, Korver and Dalembert are better than anyone on New Jersey during that time with no Jefferson or Carter. The best guy on that team after Kidd was Eric Williams - give me a break. If you want to go down the hypotheticals - You put Kidd with Webber, Korver and Dalembert and it's very possible that he does just as well as AI did. But, as with your comparisons with Nash, we will never know. What we do know is that what Nash's Suns offense did in 04-05 is revolutionary over the past decade in the NBA.

Kidd and Bibby cannot take over a game and score 40 points if needed which is what is needed with Phillys roster.
But is that type of effort really needed given the talent in Philly? Or is it just needed because AI is going to have around 25 shots a night and if he doesn't put up 30-40 the team will not score enough point to win. The "we need AI to score 40" mentaility in Philly is more of a self-inflicted ailment than one necessitated by the talent, IMO.

No, there's a huge difference between the two. Marbury is a guy that cares nothing about his team or winning games. Iverson USED to be that guy - but unlike Marbury, Iverson would be willing to take fewer shots if he could.
How do you know that? He's never done that in his career as he took 25-27 shots on even the more talented Philly teams. The reality is that Philly can't afford to change their offense to one that involves other players more because of the fear that Iverson will no longer be as effective. That's why Hughes and Harpering wanted out of town ASAP and why guys like Iguodala and Dalembert will probably be following suit in the next few seasons. It's also why big-name FAs have avoided Philly like the plague.

Marbury has had the luxury of playing around guys like a Marion or Stoudamire - who has Iverson ever played with that was any good at the time they were on his team?
We will never know because they weren't able to take more than 9-10 shots a game. Again, it's hard to be a star in this league when you don't get opportunities to score.

You also realize that most of his shots are dunks either off a missed Iverson shot because everyone left him alone to help on Iverson or off an Iverson pass when his man doubles Iverson as he drives. You put Dalembert in an offense where he has to create his own shots and he's not going to score 13-15 a night unless he takes far, far more shots.
No one is going to put a 6-11, 250 pound guy in an offense where he "has to create his own shots". They are going to use a pick and roll, drive and kick or other screens to get open looks for him. Things that Iverson should be doing right now instead of relegating him to offensive rebounds for most of his point opportunities.

Igoudala will increase his scoring to the 13-15 PPG range next season playing with Iverson.
Any logic behind that? He played over 30 minutes a game this season and only got 9 shots. Unless Dalembert or Webber leave, there are not enough shots in the Philly offense for Andre to get 15 points unless he shoots 70%. That is, unless Iverson would actually be willing to take fewer than 20 shots for the first time in 8 seasons.

Also Sacramento, Dallas and Phoenix are all teams that play up tempo basketball - partly because they have alot of players who can score and need shots - so there are more shots to go around.
Phoenix and Sacramento took an average of 3 more shots a game than Philly. That's not "a lot more to go around" overall. There are a lot more to go around because the top player takes 15-17 instead of almost 25.

And all of those teams have the luxury for the best player of having other players around them who can score on a consistent basis.
And, again, how do we know that Webber, Iguodala, Dalembert or Korver couldn't be similar consistent scorers? Webber did it for years with the Kings and the others have shot a very high % when given the opportunity.

There's also a difference in how they affect the defense. When Jason Kidd or Steve Nash has the ball the entire defense is not concerned with preventing him from getting to the basket.
You must not have been watching Nash play then. The reason guys like Johnson, Richardson and Amare get wide open looks on the perimeter is because teams collapse on Nash when he drives to the hoop. The pick-and-roll Phoenix runs is the closest thing to Utah's the NBA has seen and it's effective because Nash hits (as a guard) over 50% of his shots. Many of those shots are tough perimeter jumpers or drives in the lane against much bigger players. Nash averaged 15.5 PPG on only 11 shots a game. When he decides to shoot, he is one of the more deadly accurate guys in the NBA. To put it in perspective, he gets over half as many points as Iverson with less than half of the shots AI takes. If two guys were going to the basket or shooting, %s would tell you to cover Nash before AI.

When Iverson has the ball the entire defense has to be aware because he is so quick that no one guy can stay with him so a guy like Iverson is going to create more shot attempts for a Korver than someone the defense doesn't respect in the half court like Kidd or Nash. Those guys excel at pushing the ball up the floor - not in the half court set.
OK, it's obvious you did not watch any Suns game all season. Phoenix's half court game was often devastating precisely because of the pick-and-roll with Nash (50% shooter) and Stoudamire/Marion (56% and 48% shooters). Nash would drive to the hoop and almost every time leave on of Phoenix's other four shooters wide open for a three or outside jumper. There's a reason Phoenix led the league in threes, yet only got a small percentage of their points from the fast break. It's because Nash got his teammates numerous wide open jumpers.


Dallas also traded away Antoine Walker and Antawn Jamsion in order to free up the room to sign some of those guys or bring them in as part of the deals so its not like they only lost Nash and replaced him with 5 new guys.
OK, so they lost Walker, Jamison and Nash - replacing them with Terry, Devin Harris, Stackhouse, Dampier and Van Horne. Given they had Dirk, Walker and Jamison were redundant and it made more sense to go with Stackhouse and Dampier than stick with three PFs.

Same for the Lakers - they got Odom, Caron Butler and Briant Grant from Miami for Shaq and replaced Fisher with Chucky Atkins.
So, you would trade Fisher, Payton, Malone and Shaq for Odom, Buter, Brian Grant and Atkins? Even if you remove the best two on each end (Shaq and Odom), it's a lobsided deal. Then you add in Kobe missing 17 games and it's not a surprise the team lose 20 more games than in 04. You give the team a healthy Kobe, decent center (not Chris Mihm) and they certainly would have been in the hunt for a playoff spot.

Ok, answer this. How can you be the MVP when you aren't even the best or second best player on your own team?
It's all relative. If you base it solely on stats, Stoudamire and Marion are better. If you base it on "value", everyone on Phoenix will state Nash is the most valuable. Again, Nash's role on the team is to manage an offense - and, outside of assists and taking good shots, there are not many stats you get by doing that.

You described exactly what made the Suns a winning team this year (the fact that Amare didn't miss half the season again helps too) - they found the right part to put into the system.
Last season, the trio of Amare, Marion and Joe Johnson were 22-33 when all three were healthy. In 05, they were 60-19. I'd say Nash was quite a difference maker.

Nash is the round peg that goes in the round hole. What he does makes him valuable to the Suns but he is not the most valuable player in the league. You can replace Steve Nash with any other point guard who is capable of pushing the ball, making a low amount of turnovers and being able to make open shots - which is a handful of guys. Insert a Knight, Hinrich, Miller etc and you will get the same result.
This comparison is not only conjecture, it's silly. There's no way to prove it. Plenty of top PGs have worked with similar talent to what Phoenix has and have not managed the efficiency that Nash did. I'd be interesting in finding one player in the NBA that has dished out 10-11 assists a game, shot 50% from the field and scored over 15 points a game on just 11 shots. Nash is not "just like any point guard" in those areas.

Take Nash, Shaq and Iverson - take them all off their teams and put them one at a time on Charlotte's roster. Does Charlotte make the playoffs with Nash? No, because they already have their Steve Nash in Brevin Knight and that was good for an 18-64 finish. But with Iverson they at least have a shot and with Shaq they definitely make the playoffs. The MVP should be decided on who is the best player in the league that season and there is no way that Steve Nash is the best player in the league.
The MVP has never been about the most dominating player. If that was the case, Shaq would win it every season. It's about which player has the biggest impact on a top team. This season, that guy is Nash.

[Gary Gorski]

But how do we know that? Has AI ever tried to work in guys like Webber, Korver, Dalembert, Iguodala, ... more into the offense? For all we know they could be even more successful if AI got his teammates more involved. Korver hit 40% of his 3s, Iguodala and Dalembert hit 50% of their shots from the field and Webber hit 45% of his shots in Sacramento when he was more involved in the team's offense. You get these four guys more touches in the offense and there's a good chance Philly is even more effective. Korver, Dalembert, Iguodala and Webber have shown themselves to be effective NBA shooters and each could have Matt Harpering-type production increases if they were able to take 10-12 shots a game instead of the 6-9 they get now.

Did you happen to see the end of the game in the Sixers/Pistons series where Korver, rather than attempting to hand the ball to Iverson, decided to shoot a leaning three pointer with 7 seconds left that hit nothing but backboard? Korver also was 1-11 in the final two games of the series and only scored two points in game one on 1-4 shooting. Granted 15 shots in 3 games isnt much but when you make 2 of them what do you want? Like I said, Iguodala will get more next year - he needed to gain Iverson's trust. The problem with guys like Korver and Webber is that they can't create their own shot. Yeah Webber is a good passer but unless Korver's man leaves him he never gets open. Dalembert is not strong offensively in the post which leaves Iverson and Iguodala to pass to. In Sacramento, Webber had the luxury of passing to people who could cut and score.

If Iverson took a page our of Bibby or Nash's book and used the defense's focus on him to be even a bigger distributer, all four of these guys could be double-digit scorers and more involved.

Iverson's team lost 4-1 to the defending champs and Iverson averaged 10 APG. Bibby's team lost 4-1 to a team that will get bounced in round two and did so with Bibby averaging barely over 6 APG. In the Suns sweep Nash averaged 11.3 APG. Nash only averaged a little better than one more assist per game and had Stoudamire, Marion, Richardson and Johnson to pass to. Iverson had Igoudala, Korver, Webber and Dalembert. And to top it off Iverson got those assists while scoring 31 PPG on his own and we know Nash didn't do that. Which group is it going to be tougher to get baskets for? If Iverson got 10 APG for those guys you don't think he could easily get 12-15 having four guys who can play around him?

And they could bring in a group of all stars and Iverson would play in the same manner and those all-stars would suddenly "suck" as well. You could have quite a good NBA team full of guys that "sucked" with Iverson but have excelled in different systems.

How can you say that though? The only times Iverson has been in a situation where he had all-stars on his team has been the All-Star game and the Olympics. During the 2005 ASG Iverson led all players with 9 assists and for the Olympic team he was second on the team in APG. As much as you say he's holding back guys like Korver and Dalembert how do you know what he would do with players like Stoudamire and Marion. And BTW, Iverson did lead his team in assists with almost 8 per game (good for 5th in the league). You're telling me he couldn't improve on that with some players around him?

You put Kidd with Webber, Korver and Dalembert and it's very possible that he does just as well as AI did.

Actually I don't think its possible because Kidd shoots worse from the field than even Iverson and Philly only had Webber for 21 games so 75% of Iverson's season was spent without C-Webb.

That's why Hughes and Harpering wanted out of town ASAP and why guys like Iguodala and Dalembert will probably be following suit in the next few seasons. It's also why big-name FAs have avoided Philly like the plague.

Big name FAs have avoided Philly because up until this season Iverson has been about Iverson. It was always about him - him not wanting to practice, him not wanting to follow the dress code, him working on a rap album - it may have taken him until now to grow up but he has. And Dalembert has said that it was Iverson who took him under his wing when he was a scared kid, drafted and not ready for the NBA. If it weren't for Iverson, Dalembert would be in the D-League by now. Dalembert and Igoudala would be wise to stick by Iverson as he makes things much easier for them on the offensive end. They may be giving up 2-4 shots a game to play with him but the looks they do get are usually much better than what they would have to create for themselves which Dalembert simply cannot do.

No one is going to put a 6-11, 250 pound guy in an offense where he "has to create his own shots". They are going to use a pick and roll, drive and kick or other screens to get open looks for him. Things that Iverson should be doing right now instead of relegating him to offensive rebounds for most of his point opportunities.

I checked his bio, Duncan is 6-11, 260 and he's pretty darn good at being able to get open in the post and also play away from the basket. And the driving and stuff...how do you think Dalembert gets the points he does now? Dalembert cannot get position in the post and make a solid move to score like Duncan or Shaq can and he can't step out and hit a jumper either. The baskets he gets are because Iverson does those things to draw the defense and Iverson draws two or three defenders, not just one.

Any logic behind that? He played over 30 minutes a game this season and only got 9 shots. Unless Dalembert or Webber leave, there are not enough shots in the Philly offense for Andre to get 15 points unless he shoots 70%. That is, unless Iverson would actually be willing to take fewer than 20 shots for the first time in 8 seasons.

Yeah, he's going to get more shots. He's had an entire season to prove himself to Iverson and I think Iverson will be happy to have a viable scoring option along side him in the backcourt. If Webber heals and comes back strong I definitely can see Iverson shooting less simply because he will have two guys playing with him that can help out significantly on offense and Korver will be there to get the wide open threes when nobody guards him and Dalembert will be there to clean up the misses.

If two guys were going to the basket or shooting, %s would tell you to cover Nash before AI.

If my choice is double Nash and leave Stoudamire, Marion, Johnson or Richardson open as opposed to leaving Webber, Korver, Igoudala or Dalembert open to double Iverson I double Iverson every time.

Phoenix's half court game was often devastating precisely because of the pick-and-roll with Nash (50% shooter) and Stoudamire/Marion (56% and 48% shooters). Nash would drive to the hoop and almost every time leave on of Phoenix's other four shooters wide open for a three or outside jumper.

Amazing how well that works when you're passing to two ALL STARS and two other guys who would be solid #2 and 3 options on most any team let alone 4th and 5th options.

So, you would trade Fisher, Payton, Malone and Shaq for Odom, Buter, Brian Grant and Atkins? Even if you remove the best two on each end (Shaq and Odom), it's a lobsided deal. Then you add in Kobe missing 17 games and it's not a surprise the team lose 20 more games than in 04. You give the team a healthy Kobe, decent center (not Chris Mihm) and they certainly would have been in the hunt for a playoff spot.

I wouldn't trade Shaq no matter what you offered me - he's the most dominant player in the league. If I was picking a team for one season I would pick Shaq first in the draft 100% of the time. Kobe playing 66 games is not an excuse for them losing 20 more games - he only played in 65 the year before. The fact that he didn't have Shaq is what accounted for them losing 20 more games.

It's all relative. If you base it solely on stats, Stoudamire and Marion are better. If you base it on "value", everyone on Phoenix will state Nash is the most valuable. Again, Nash's role on the team is to manage an offense - and, outside of assists and taking good shots, there are not many stats you get by doing that.

Exactly, its relative to the situation which is why I said put them both on Charlotte - will Charlotte win more games with the Iverson/Okafor combo or the Nash/Okafor combo? There's no way you could tell me that Charlotte would win more games with Nash as opposed to Iverson. So you think the MVP award should be given to the player that happens to excel given his situation - I think it should be given to the best player in the league.

Iverson lead the league in scoring, was second in steals and fifth in assists. Nash was first in assists, sixth in A/TO ratio and top 5/6 in FT% and 3P%. Nash may have extremely high value to HIS TEAM but compared to all other players in the league he is not a more valuable player than a handful of players including Iverson and Shaq.

Steve Nash is a very good player - and he is the perfect player for PG in Phoenix. He's exactly what that team needed, there's no denying that. But he's not the most valuable player in the league. If you have a team that has plenty of scorers and good defensive players already who do you want Nash or Iverson? Easy - you want Nash. But if you don't have a team full of good offensive and/or defensive players would you really pick Nash over Iverson (or Shaq)? I highly doubt it.

Nash winning MVP is like Phil Jackson winning coach of the year for coaching Jordan/Pippen or Shaq/Kobe. You know he had something to do with it but you also know that you also look a lot better when the talent is there around you to make you look good. Its just odd that never before has Steve Nash even been mentioned for MVP talk yet he gets to a team that has all the parts except for a PG who can pass the ball and not turn it over and now he's the MVP. Maybe Phoenix couldn't win without him - maybe Kobe and Shaq couldn't have won without Phil but that doesn't mean you are the best of the best in the league.

[Arles]

Here's what I find interesting involving Nash:

Dallas shooting %s:
Finley:
Last 5 seasons with Nash - ave of .450
04-05 w/o Nash: .427

Dirk:
Last 5 seasons with Nash - ave of .469
04-05 w/o Nash: .459

Phoenix shooting %s:
Joe Johnson
Last 2 seasons before Nash (had real low # his rookie season do didn't use) - ave of 0.420
04-05 with Nash: .461

Shawn Marion:
Last 4 seasons before Nash (including time with Kidd) - ave of .458
04-05 with Nash: .476

Amare:
2 seasons before Nash - ave of .473
04-05 with Nash: .559

If you look at the biggest 5 "stars" to play with Nash in both Dallas and Phoenix, everyone had a much better shooting performance in their time with Nash than without him - across the board.

The guy just has a knack of making players around him more efficient and that ability is main reason why guys like Amare, Shawn and JJ were considered All-Stars this season when they were not in years past. The flip side goes for Finley. Dirk is simply an elite player in the league and will do well in any situation (like a Duncan or Garnett - but not Dalembert ;) ).

[st.cronin]

By the way, does Steve Nash EVER pick up his dribble?

[NAIWF]

I'm rooting for Dallas to roll the Suns right out of the playoffs in 5 or 6 games so the undeserving MVP can enjoy watching Shaq play in the next round on TV.

[Neon_Chaos]

By the way, does Steve Nash EVER pick up his dribble?

Hah. I noticed this too. I don't think it's in his system to ever pick up his dribble. :)

[Young Drachma]

For the price they paid for him, I'd still sign someone else over Steve Nash. But I think for Phoenix, their system and the team they had..he was a great fit. I think that said, he had a great season and deserved the award.

I doubt Shaq cares much.

[Schmidty]

Who fucking cares who the MVP is? The Pistons are the best team in the league and will be the champions again at the end of the season. You guys can argue "point-by-point" (which is extremely annoying and unreadable, BTW), but the good guys will hold the Big Prize at the end again.

[st.cronin]

Hah. I noticed this too. I don't think it's in his system to ever pick up his dribble. :)

Seriously - I mean I think I've seen him bring the ball up, drive to the goal, realize he hasn't got a shot, take it back out to the wing, roll up top, take it to the other wing, weave around the entire other team... it's silly.

[KeyserSoze]

For an European perspective. Both of them are dominating players. For me both of them deserves the title. I´m very happy about them.

But saying that players like B. Knight, M. Bibby or A. Iverson, J. Williams could replace Nash, IMO is absurd. In NBA there are just another good pure point guard (J. Kidd), and 2 suspects (B. Davis and T. Parker).

The most part of NBA PG are the kind of "me-first" and later I pass. Iverson, Marbury, Bibby. They shoot or penetrate and then make a pass when they have 3 defenders. That´s ok. But they have a limited game. They don´t get involved everyone. They are SG for me. Hell Jasikevicius is a far better PG (not athlete, but pure PG) than more than the half of NBA PGs.

Also IMO, the way the NBA counts the assists is a bit odd. I give the ball somebody, he creates his own basket,and it counts like an assist for me....

If NBA doesn´t work in PG that creates and SG that shoots, the american basket won´t dominate again.