Rose is the more "exciting" case for MVP since he's younger and flashier and just a cool kid but people tend to ignore Dwight's play because it what is expected of him. They expect him to be dominant all the time. His FG% is consistently great, he's improved his offensive arsenal and his D as usual is outstanding. Don't ignore it people.
I supported that then, and I still do. Nash transformed the Phoenix offense. 31 win improvement. And he didn't average 14/11. I take a literal interpretation of MVP. Nash wasn't necessarily the best player, but he was the most valuable player in the league when he joined the Suns.
You can't look only at stats. Nash took the Suns from a 29 win team to a 62 win team (best record in the league). You seriously don't think that's worthy of the MVP?
i think allen iverson began to change that "interpretation" of the MVP. and it's not right. to be an MVP, you HAVE to be at least a top 4-5 player while also being on a top 3-4 team. i look at the list from the last 20 years, steve nash name pops out.
Ummm. Now you are agreeing with me. You just showed it's their defense that makes them successful instead of their success that makes them defensive.
So in 04-05, who was more deserving than Nash in your opinion? I don't think you truly appreciate the turnaround Phoenix had after getting Nash.
you don't think the growth of amare had anything to do with it? amare averaged 26 and 9 that same year. and we all know steve nash had nothing to do with amare's success since he's been even better this year as the clear-cut #1 guy. i know people overlook amare before b/c he never played without steve nash and everyone always said amare isn't as great of a player without steve nash. he was getting more credit than he should. amare had just as much of an impact on that team as nash did. 26 and 9 on 56% shooting. are you kidding me? ultimately, you need production. i checked his stats again and nash averaged 16 and 11.5. those still aren't MVP-numbers. jkidd to the nets to the finals 2 straight years and never got an MVP. and nash got it TWICE.
i thought shaq should have won it. 22.9ppg, 10.4rpg, 58%fg, 2.5bpg. and like i said before, amare's growth as a player had NOTHING to do with the suns' turnaround. amare has proven his growth as a player had nothing to do with nash. he was a great player in his own right back then.
Yes, Amare averaged 26/9 in 2005. However, he also averaged 21/9 in 2004....when the Suns won 29 games. Amare did play w/o Nash in 2004..... Impact is more important than production. Hence the phrase "most valuable player". MVP has nothing to do with the playoffs.
jkidd's nets had a top 2 reg season records in the east when they went to the finals. so like i said, the nets went from being from the bottom to 2 straight finals. after the first finals appearance, you think jkidd would win one next year when he put up 19 and 9.
1) amare played only in 53 games that year. they won 41 games with him as a rookie and "stabury.' so if amare was fully healthy that year, i doubt they would only win 29 games. just to put that fact out there. 2) a 5 point per game improvement is HUGE in the NBA. it's like going from a 20ppg to a 25ppg. that's taking your game to the next level. so like i said, amare had a lot to do with the suns' success. 3) if impact is greater than production, why did jordan win all of those MVPs? he took a year off and the bulls still had a top 2 record in the east? PRODUCTION COUNTS. no one puts up #s like MJ did. or magic did. or a lot of the MVPs did. and you do remember MJ won the MVP once with his team having a mediocre record right in 87-88 right? back in the day, production did matter. like i said, allen iverson changed the interpretation of the MVP.
he dominated on both ends, and was vastly more efficient. and in his first year with the heat, he drew most of the double teams. wade didn't take over the heat's #1 man role until midway in 05-06. kobe led the lakers in scoring a few years, didnt' take away the fact that shaq was the #1 guy. we're talking about being the #1 guy on a team with a top 3-4 record while putting up top 5 production. for that year, shaq put up top 5 production.
MVP takes into account both conferences. It's irrelevant that the Nets had a top-2 record in the east if the western teams are crushing them. And a few posts earlier, you said the MVP should come from a top 3-4 team. In 02-03, the Nets had 49 wins. That puts them at #8. Leading the Nets to the 8th best record in the league is MVP-worthy?
Its arguable, but I think Nash met those requirements in his MVP years. Iverson was different -- more comparable to Rose this year. His 76ers when they made the Finals were a great defensive team (not because of him) and a middling offensive team. They were great because of their defense. The Suns were great because of their offense, and there is no question that Nash was a phenomenal offensive player. Adjusted +/- thinks that Nash was the best offensive player over the last several seasons, and that finding is also supported by the superb consistency of his team's offensive rating, his historically great efficiency numbers, and the subjective opinion of coaches/scouts around the league.
