The Lakers are the 7th seed, so they're suppose to get past the Lakers. If Nash carries them into the Finals (like Jason Kidd did with the Nets a few years back), then I'll agree he's the MVP. Is Nash, who will be a two-time league MVP, really better than John Stockton or Isiah Thomas? I don't think so.
I wonder what would happen if you switched nash and kobe. Maybe he makes the lakers scrubs look like what he has done with scrubs in phx. I mean his team won more games and they lost their best player.
I think it depends solely on what qualities you think the MVP should have. I think for 1, the MVP is someone who's team could not function well without him. Both Nash and Kobe apply to this category. We have seen what happens to the Suns when Nash is injured or doesn't play, sometimes even when he goes to the bench. The Lakers without Kobe? Hahahaha, that's a joke. They're so bad without him it's not even funny. Or maybe it is? Secondly, the MVP should have an outstanding individual game (statistics, intangibles, everything) as well as good team leadership and play. I think Kobe definitely has better numbers than Nash, but I think Nash gets the teamplay part. I think Nash truly makes his team better. As for supporting casts? Nash has the better one in my opinion, but a lot of that talent is his doing and the way Phoenix plays. And finally, the MVP has to be from a good team. Nash is, Kobe isn't. I think that was truly the deciding factor this season. Their both the leaders of their respective teams, yet the Suns are in 2nd and the Lakers are in 7th. I don't think the supporting cast have THAT much difference in the teams skill. In fact, didn't 2nd place go to LeBron? Who Nash just edged out? LeBron would make more sense to me than Kobe for MVP for the same reasons above. Why Chauncey and Dirk didn't get it? Their supporting casts makes them look better than they are hyped up to be, I guess?
Umm..how about how good the team is when they do play? A player's measure of success shouldn't be based on how good they are when they aren't playing. That makes no sense. What I agree with is comparing the Suns pre-Nash to the Suns post-Nash. Not the 7-12 mpg he doesn't play but is still on the team. That's like measuring what I've done with my life by the 1/3 of it that I spend sleeping. It is a small sample given that it represents a extreme minority of each game played. I like 82games.com and how it attempts to quantify player impact. Unfortunately, it isn't a be all end all tool. Intangible perfectly describes the impact Steve Nash has on his team. Inevitably, this becomes opinion based. In mine (take it for what its worth), Kobe's on court persona hurts his team as often as it helps it. I could just as easily argue that the reason Kobe's on-court/off-court differential is so high is because the Lakers have absolutely no idea HOW to play when he is off the court, not because the players can't play. I guess you could argue that this means Kobe's impact on his team is greater...just not in a good way. The Suns would give the Rockets and Lakers runs for their money without Nash. They are 2-8 without him since he went back. It's not enormously pretty. Regardless, imo, Nash is undoubtedly the most impactful player on his team. My opinion. I guess the Lakers completely collapse when Kobe isn't on the court. I take that as a bad case for Kobe, though.
