Suns Lose to Hawks. Polish the MVP Trophy for Nash

blah blah blah blah
so what should be the process?
great hate it, so since you are so adverse, what is the way to do it?
that statement is a cliche to those who find nash winning the MVP ANNOYING

Winning and losing is the point!!!! all your philisophical mojo doesn't take away from the main idea, winning in the league

 

looks like the SUNS are going to lose to the BULLS again...

i wish we had nash....

imagine yao & nash, lol...

 

I wonder how many of the voters will feel uncomfortable with the idea that Steve Nash might accumulate three times as many MVPs as Shaq won his entire career in just three seasons?

 

Nash's PER and Roland Rating are very high, among hte highest in the league and the highest on his team. Why is this being held against him?

 

Is age finally going to catch up with Nash and Sun finally goin to set?

 

as great a team as the suns are with nash, they are mediocre at best w/o him. they have zero depth.

they will fade as usual in the playoffs this year.

 

They are NOT mediocre, they are below average without Nash.

DD

 

It's hilarious to see Amare tried to create his own shots only to get TO after TO in the paint.

 

its the point in time when Nash is winning the MVPs.
He wouldnt win it with Jordan, Dream, Barkley, Magic, etc playing at the same time.

 

You know I love Nash, he trully shows that skills you achieve through repetive practice and hard work can make up the ground given by god given athleticism. However, I pull my hair out everytime some one says if we pair Yao with Nash (or Kidd a couple years ago) we will win a championship or something.

Their game does not compliment each other, Yao isn't Amare and Marion, whose abillities are utillize to the fullest with a guy like Nash on the court. Yao is not a run and gun player, especially with his current fatigue issues in the Rockets slow it down system. Yao is a half court player and if you put him on the current Suns team, he'll average 25 min a game and when he is on the court, Nash would not be able to be Nash (as the offense will have to change).

 

no one said they weren't high, just not as high as guys like wade and dirk and duncan and garnett. he's basically tied for 5th with kobe and someone else in PER. mvp's should be top 2 or 3 in those not 5th and whatever in roland ratings (edit: 7th), and certainly not as low in Net Production (13 or so). no one said nash isn't good (or at least i didn't), just not mvp worthy. i don't think i'm being crazy to take those stats into account and, while they may not be perfect, there are very few "WTF" moments in looking at them, in that you won't see chuck hayes leading yao ming or something. they take quite a bit into account (not saying you said they didn't) and, if anything, PER should be a nash stat since it's offensively slanted. Net Production, while i don't know how they calculate it, accounts for the guys who do great themselves but don't stop their counterpart. so combining all 3 shouldn't be a bad metric. and nash comes out well, 7th, but not MVP well. wade, dirk, and duncan come out MVP. and if we're going to discount wade and duncan b/c they haven't won enough, then dirk would be the obvious answer. better player, better stats, better team. by any normal mvp discussion based on past votes he would be the winner.


but if the criteria for mvp is whatever criteria make nash first, then i guess he'll always win. best player on best team the first year. best player on overachieving team even if they really didn't overachieve that much the next year. best player on team that plays .500 ball when they don't play vs .800 when they do this year i guess. i just never see any consistent criteria. it's almost like we start the year with nash as mvp and then we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone else should get it or nash gets it again. like if the suns win at least 54 games and nash averages 10+ assist, then no season by any player or any team can be considered better.

dirk being the only all-star on a 60 win team couldn't get it done last year. kobe being only the 4th ever to score 35 on a team that did better than most thought they would wasn't enough, lebron being the 4th ever to do 30/7/6 on a team that did better than most thought that couldn't do it. dwade maybe being better than them all on the eventual champion couldn't do it. nothing gets it done.


someone mentioned the past 30 years of voting as reason nash should win. but past trends would say nash would've never one and would've stopped at 1 at the best.

usually mvp is awarded based on about 3 things.

1. a top 2 or 3 player in the nba on a top 2 or 3 team.

2. a great player who posts a career-type year while his team has a great year.

3. voters like to spread the wealth.

#1 is how jordan won all 5 of his and he could've won 3 or 4 more if not for #3.

#2 with a touch of #3 is how barkley, hakeem, drob, karla (the first time), shaq, iverson, and garnett got their mvp's.

with nash he wasn't a top 2 or 3 player the first time but the suns were a top 2 or 3 team. but since all the best candidates were either injured too much, had down years, or were on crappy teams, we had to choose between nash and shaq who had a mediocre 22/10 campaign and wasn't even the mvp of his own team. but we gave it to nash because it seemed fun and we all agreed it was the worst mvp ever and wouldn't be repeated.

then the suns had a good but not great season and all the rules were forgotten. nash was again not a top 2 or 3 player, the suns now weren't even a top 2 or 3 team, and the voters didn't even wanna spread the wealth. and we had kobe and dirk fulfilling rule #2 but they couldn't get it.

now this year it's just being talked of as if nash already has it again, and if he doesn't, it's just so he doesn't win a 3rd in a row. as if dirk isn't all over rule #1 (best on best team) and that the award hasn't had a history of looking for anyone else but a former winner to win it. now we look for any reason we can to give it to former winner nash. i just don't get how the criteria always change to suit whatever is needed for nash to be #1, even if he isn't #1 by those criteria (wade has a bigger W/L impact easily).


as for tonight's game, the suns somehow hummed along for 3 quarters then collapsed in the 4th. certainly nash would've helped and they probably would've won, there's no doubt he's important and they should be worse when he doesn't play. but diaw didn't play either and the suns had to go 7 deep and one of the 7 was freakin' pat burke, who played just about like you would think pat burke would play. hell, they scored more against the bulls than they did last time, but for the second straight game their D sucked balls again. maybe it's bizarro world and he somehow makes their D better without affecting the O all that much and that's why he's so valuable.

 

duncan is better than barkley and he can't top nash. dirk, kobe, lebron, wade, and garnett are no slouches themselves. it's not about talent. it's about perception.

 

i don't think that you basing your argument on three hypothetical "MVP criteria" will help you in any way. you can't just give three rules in your opinion are what decides MVP's and then make an argument.

eh but then again the MVP award is given to the best player in the media's opinion. so i guess nothing is out of bounds here. nevermind. haha

 

hehe sorry, can't edit my posts

 

good post

nash winning it last year has to do in part with amare not being there, and the suns STILL being able to maintain a high level, albeit not the best, but high and i think voters didn't expect the suns to be anything serious.

dirk not winning it last year and possibly this year is due in part that the mavs are an incredible team top to bottom.

nash winning it these years is something new and different, and you are right, none of us have seen it before. But also, since the suns are such a dynamic team, not only in the high flying dunks, but the high powered offense that noone has seen in 20 years, and them seemingly making everyone adjust to their style of play, which the league has implemented through no contact, has accounted for the votes. they have made everyone think, we need more athleticism to win. i think it has to do with more of a paradigm shift in the league and the suns leading that shift and nash being the top player of that team is the leader of the league. so criteria has been damned, because something else has happened

 

Winning has a lot to do than being a superior player by yourself. It amazes to a great degree that you have absolutely no idea on the subtleties of life. No serious man would ever dare to suggest individual should be wholly responsible for the result of the team, which you are implying in your post. Jim goes to more or less summarizes what I want to say with regards to Win-Loss Column so I am going to bother going in there.

Moreover, I have nothing against Nash, or at least initially. But it seems clear to me that MVP debate has become, as francis 4 prez, said to a extent of whether one can prove significantly Nash doesn't deserve it. Of course, it is extremely difficult to that because Nash by all accounts is a terrific player and one of the very best in the league, for the same reason you can't discount Dirk, KG, Wade and Kobe. That is what makes MVP annoying; precisely because people are constantly changing their criteria to fit Nash into their argument. Suppose that Nash was leading those indicators. I am sure you would be first one to point these individual "stats" as a prime reason as to why Nash deserve MVP. But since he is clearly not amongst top 2-3 in this categories, you are necessarily invoking semantics and cliches to make your point whilst dismissing metrics like PER, Roland rating to irrelevant or secondary to W/L column.

So stop trying make people like Jim and myself are absolutely opposed to Nash winning MVP on all accounts. I, for one, and I am sure JimRaynor would too, take Nash and usual cliches in to consideration, if he was ranked sufficiently high enough in these indicators. But he doesn't, so I won't. At the end of day, I feel I am more open to the other possibilites than yourself.

As for the selection process is concerned, well, I think it can include players, coaches, and fans to the current method of voting. But the real issue is whether writers or these matters fans take exerts a degree of rational in their argument, of which they do not.

 

The inherent problem with the MVP award is that it's a regular season award, when everybody knows that the regular season doesn't mean squat in the NBA. Just look at last year. Dwyane Wade didn't even place in the top five in MVP voting, because everybody kept mentioning how poorly the Heat played when Shaq missed a big chunk of games at the beginning of last season. After he single handedly dismantled the Mavs, however, it was clear he was the MVP of that team, and probably should have placed at least second in MVP voting, if not won it.

If I had a vote, I would vote for Agent 0 for MVP. The Wizards are almost a direct reflection of Arenas. When he plays well, they play well. He's played like crap the last five games, and the team has played like crap the last five games. Arenas isn't a media darling like Nash is, though, so he will probably never win an MVP award, just like Kobe.

Don't hate the player, hate the award...

 

Nash getting 3 mvps is ridiculous. even 2 was maybe 2 too much. look at what Stockton did. he was the main reason why Utah was the team it was. Malone didn't deserve that MVP. Stockton's taken his team to 2 Finals and got nothing. Nash getting all this MVP talk is just mind boggling.

yea, i guess it was b/c of Jordan. still, Jordan's never had 3 straight MVPs. talk about travesty.

 

Winning has a lot to do than being a superior player by yourself. i didn't understand this. i'm assuming that you mean winning and being a superstar player yourself are 2 seperate things. sure, but this is the mvp, not most stellar player award. and i'm not even sure what YOUR criteria is for the MVP. I can wholly agree with what francis for prez outlined as far as what those objectives are, but you don't make your ideas clear and expect me to respect your position, why? i'm assuming that you agree with the voting process of how the mvp is usually done outlined by francis for prez. if so, i don't disagree.

noone is discounting per or roland or whatever stat, however, as francis 4 prez has stated, usually voters vote for those who are high in PER but also on winning teams. so if a said player is the highest on per, but has a team that goes 22-60, he's not going to have a chance to win, but this is where I am unclear as to what you an Jim think because it may seem obvious to you what you think is objective, but it's not as if ESP is common. from what I am assuming right or wrong, if a person has the highest rating, he should win regradless of team record. if so, then you have a different view of things then what francis 4 prez has. and in that case, what is the right objective view, which comes back to my point, which isn't about nash wnning this or not, that was a tangent, what is objective?

my whole point to jim was, you seem to have THE objective view, what is it, and why should that be the objective view. and neither you or jim have the balls to state EXPLICITLY what you mean. maybe because you don't want to be labeled as IRRATIONAL?

SO for the nth time, what the hell is OBJECTIVE VOTING....