Suns Lose to Hawks. Polish the MVP Trophy for Nash

Watch it there ***hole. I didn't insult you personally, so don't come to me starting this crap.

BTW I don't understand this post because your grammar is lousy.

Go back and read the thread. You were the first one to insist that Nash is not merely good, he's great. I just asked you how you defined "great."

My posts haven't even been about whether or not Nash is "great." They've been about the stupidity of the MVP selection process, and explaining how the Suns aren't being solely carried by Nash. I would refrain from even using terms like "great" to describe a player (as someone distinct from merely a "good" All-Star), because it's subjective without any clear definition.

YOU have come to me repeatedly trying to turn the tables, asking ME to define "great" for you. I don't see what the hell that has to do anything.

 

Beautiful reply. Agree 100.

 

noone is insulting you, so i'm not watching dick

you're out of your freaking mind.
"Yet the MVP award seems to confuse a great player with someone who's a good player on a good team"


if this is nash and this is the suns, who the hell is a great team, and who the hell is a great PG?

so go back and read your first post in the thread

you are completely clueless as to what you want to say, everything is subjective now, but then you say this "The voters have no objective criteria, and they don't even TRY to make their decision objectively."

what in the hell are you trying to say?

 

let me simplify it for you, you are full of it

 

MVP = Most Valuable Player = Player who wins game for his team + who makes his team better
It's Dirk vs. Nash

 

you don't penalize a player for being in the right system at the right time.

if you were to put KG anywhere he would be good, or wade, or whoever superstar there is in this league they would be the same and they would make any type of team better regardless of who is around them?

you try and put the type of players that matches your best ones. and no, if td or garnett or wade or kobe were here, the rockets wouldn't be a great team, they would be a fantasy bball team which most of this board is comprised of. so the argument is not putting nash in for the rox trash, but putting nash in just because he would be a great fit for the rox.

and to put it this way to say that any player should be voted to the mvp based on their own stats alone is crazy. no player lives on his own island. kobe tried to do that he hasn't done crap. as if wade has done everything by himself.

the mavs have done well because they have an athletic freak in howard, a scoring 6th man, athletic bench, and nowitzki. and you say having nash didn't do anything? is it possible that having him there last year they could have actually won it? is it possible that in 2004 they could have beaten the spurs because not only would nash have gotten more time to gel with his teammates, but also howard was starting to come into his own.

 

YES. The Wolves are mediocre because everyone else is a mediocre or bad player. Look what happened when Garnett finally got help in 2003-2004.

So you think the MVP should be given to the guy who's lucky enough to be on a good team with good players?

Of course Dirk has good players around him, that's why the Mavs are a good team. But are they as good as Nash's? Nope.

 

I was describing the thought process in the MVP voters' minds. Which, I'll clarify, goes like this:

"Those other All-Stars may be good, but they don't make their teammates better. See that other guy there? He's fortunate enough to be a star player on a team with other star players. He's better than good, he's great. Give him the MVP award."

Yes, in my mind I think that's what happened to Nash. And I don't think he's super duper great because numerous statistical measurements say he's no better than a number of star players in the league. But that statement did NOT require me to nail down a precise definition of great, because I was describing how other people's minds were working.

I was NOT going into stupid ass subjective semantics and trying to call Nash not "great," or say that the Suns weren't merely "good" and other BS the way you're making it out to be. You know what, you're sounding like some Suns FANBOY whose indignant about me not heaping on the best possible praise words on to Nash and the Suns.

 

with dirk playing a minimal role (18/5/2), mavs still win... i dont think dirk will win it this year.

 

I hate it when sportswriters treat single games (or several games) as proof of how critical someone is to the team. Have they ever heard of something called sample sizes? But we all know games like this can change their opinions on a player.

 

Everyone can make arguments for Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Tim, KG etc but to me Nash seems to hit a sweet spot with the voters in the last 2 years which is all that matters.

 

...T-MAC FOR MVP!

But seriously, I think Nash is a lock so far. With or without a 3rd MVP though I still think you have to put Nash in the "one of the greatest players of all time" catagory.

 

I pretty much agree Nash is likely the front-runner, but some bad things that can be said is that he has a high amount of turnovers (common though for a PG) and gets very few steals for being the elite PG he is. His insane amount of assists makes up for those numbers though. Only other person who really comes close #'s wise is Wade. And believe or not, Shawn Marion has just as impressive numbers as Nash (which says a lot about the PHX team)

 

Bottom Line...

Nash and Suns are overrated. Nash should thank the rule changes 2 years ago.

In 20yrs... Nash will be forgotten.

 

hes merely a gd baller in an era lacking MPV-caliber players

 

To all people trowing stats like PER or Roland Rating, do you even understand how they work? Even their creators stated multiple times how they can provide nothing more than some useful information, still too many people seem to base 99% of their "analysis" on them.
Then, people need to once for all realize that team record is a huge factor in MVP rankings, that's why usually only guys playing for a top team stand a chance, unless someone really makes his team overachieve.
I'll say it again, "make his team overachieve": collecting big numbers means nothing if it doesn't lead to wins.

You don't like it? Fine, but that's the way it has been working for like 30 years, and voters has been pretty consistent so far.

 

In the defence of JimRaynor55, what he complains is the process , or rather lack of, in determining the MVP. The argument is not about ontological statement of whether stats like PER or Roland Rating is a true reflection of the best player in the league.

Obviously, there are many aspects of the game which can be objectively measured and taken into account. In this respect, peer review is just as influential as the statistical outlook. But the matter of fact is, most of the writer such as Stein have never played a game of NBA and they never will. Moreover, I highly doubt whether he possess any "insights" on the game, which highly knowledgable members of this board doesn't (which they plenty).

The matter of fact is sports writers (1) don't get to see every game in the NBA (but who does?) and (2) have to write in a manner that sells papers. This means that there is imbedded bias towards favoring players from better performing teams, because (1) the rhetoric Team Result works with the majority of readers and (2) they have relatively little basis to judge players like Garnett than say Nash who gets aired frequently.

Beside, even if one admit statistical measures are incomplete, on what basis should we order players? What Jim is saying is that cliches like "Nash makes his team-mates better isn't suitable basis for such ordering - the statemen which I find hardly controversial. Beside, the very effect to establish such statement on sounder logical founder itself will be bound to bring up certain statistical conceptions as A_3P0 bringing up win-loss column. I am sure nobody is going to argue here win-loss column is a better indication of players ability than PER or Roland Ratings.

Of course sheer dogmatism on statistical inference is no way to proceed the debate. But favoring empty statement over "hard" statistical evidence seems awfully irrational to me. I find Jim's set of arguments to be extremely valid.