Suns Lose to Hawks. Polish the MVP Trophy for Nash

I already explained how I think the MVP should be determined. Agree on a statistical metric (hopefully a good one and not the crappy "Efficiency" rating on NBA.com, getting input from leading figures in the stats community wouldn't hurt), then give the award to the player who comes out on top based on the numbers. Make it clear that that's JUST what the numbers say, and that while you're confident in the quality of the system, it's possible (and probable) that it doesn't account for everything.

If sometime later you discover flaws in the system or come up with a better metric, then don't be afraid to implement the new system and to publicize how things would have been had this new system been in place before.

Yeah, that does take some of the power out of the "Most Valuable Player" award. But IMO, that would only be right. I've seen way too many fans on way too many forums saying "Player X is better than Player Y because he has more MVPs." Past MVP winners are regarded as basketball gods by revisionist historians whether they deserved the award or not. People shouldn't put so much undeserved authority into an award voted on by subjective methods.

 

that is why it is hard to have a "strict" objective view. then you have to keep on adding and adding until when? in this system, someone would win one year but ten years down the line with more advanced stats, it shows someone else was actually better, and then one is supposed to put an asterisk besides the player who originally won?

there would still be some amount of "subjectivity." which leaves some amount of space for debate and opinions. i'm not sure people will always get it right.

baseball for example. adam everett had a great year, vizquel still beat him for the gold glove. the stats were in his favor, he still lost, vizquel has won it over and over again. everett had a better year though. baseball's stats are great, but still subjectivity is there. and who votes for gold glove? coaches do.

people will make mistakes, and they can be off, writers, coaches players. its not a perfect system, and i cannot imagine it ever will be.

 

if you come up with those stats as a way to prove it, it just means you don't really know how they work.
They can give you valuable information, but they have too many flaws to be used to compare players in different teams, who play different roles and who are close enough in the ratings.
You can use all the stats you want, but a uinque answer can't and won't exist: you can make good arguments for several players, but you're in denial if you don't think Nash is as good of a candidate as anyone else, even just checking the stats:
- he's the leader and best player on a team that is winning big
- his +/- numbers are impressive, 'cause the Suns advertised offence become istantly mediocre when he's out
- he might be the clutchest player in the league
- he's a threat from anywhere on the court
- this combination of super efficient volume scoring while leading the league in assist per game by a wide margin is unprecedented

Seriously, if you think Dirk is the MVP it's fine. If you take anyone else, once factoring team success, I will strongly disagree. But if you think that Nash is not a MVP caliber at this point I suspect you're biased for some reason.

 

So? How's that any different than what's already been happening for decades, only with the rules and stats? The comparability of player stats and win-loss records from before to current day data is questionable given rules changes like the addition of the shot clock, the widening of the lane, how fouls are called, the allowance of zone defense, the addition of the 3pt arc, etc. It's been happening forever, only people didn't bother putting in the asterisks.

They should still try to improve the system.

 

There is no clear criteria for MVP and that is what makes it interesting and fun to argue.

If we were to go purely on the guy with the best stats - then there would be no need for voting.

The other extreme is the whole "make your teammates better" criteria which essentially means that the best player on second best team is less worthy than the 12th man on the best team.

Actually it's a combination of those 2 extremes. It's definitely NOT about who would win in a 1 on 1.

It is pretty clear that Nash is extremely valuable to his team and a worthy choice and his stats are good enough to compete with the big boys. Would I vote for him? Probably not this year. But I can see why some people would.

Would I trade Nash for Kobe or Wade? Not sure about that one. While Nash would be a great player in any system, his effectiveness may be curbed in a "slow" tempo offense.

All I can say is if the Suns wind up going 1-6 without him (and 60-15 with him), it will be extremely hard to pick someone else.

 

Why does the MVP always have to be the most important player. Just make it the best freaking player that has a playoff caliber team!

 

I dont see the "problem" in this. If he deserves it in a season, he should get it.

I think older folks will always trash the players of today and say they're nothing compared to the old timers. I dont think it really matters all that much in the end

 

my ignorant friend just stated that "I think the suns could make it to the finals even without nash" W...T....F. I really thought about slapping the mess out of him but i gave him some grace because he does not watch much basketball. at the same time, however, i think a lot of people still do not give nash the credit that he deserves, even those douche bags on espn. to say that the nash-less suns are any more than an average team is proposterous. put any of those guys on any other team and i guarantee they are not putting up those types of numbers. in my opinion, amare is not even that good. i mean seriously when was the last time that you saw him score without dunking? nash is mvp by far no one even remotely close. he makes everyone on his team better, yes, even amare, and without him they are lost on the court, as made obvious by their recent play.

 

NO but JIM says there IS a criteria and his is the RIGHT way.

 

so? you aren't as objective as you think you are.
when people decide to disagree with you, don't whine and complain as if you have "special" knowledge

 

I've seen way too many fans on way too many forums saying "Player X is better than Player Y because he has more MVPs." Past MVP winners are regarded as basketball gods by revisionist historians whether they deserved the award or not.

so you are upset at the MVP because of these reasons? so for example which player x is better than player y?

which past mvp winner has been regarded as a bball god but in your opinion was not?

I sense a lot of frustration, but i'm not exactly sure why, and why the death grasp on "objectivity", or stats as THE thing.

are you upset about other things other than the MVP?

in any case, i am sure that you are pleased with a guy like morey coming in to the fold. more objectivity than the naked eye level of looking at talent

 

Suns are playing like shxt w/o Nash. Sonics are beating Suns easily tonight. LOL.

 

because nash isn't the best player in the league. He isn't a more valuable player than say duncan, or kobe, dirk, or wade. if those guys also had a good cast around them, and winning just as much as the suns are now, they would be considered an mvp, which is RIDICULOUS.

this isn't about team record, but who you are as a basketball player. nash is lucky to play with people who fit his style, so he gets bonus points. not saying he won't average those same numbers elsewhere, but he's just lucky to be in that system so people see that. BUT he is clearly not the best player in the league, and that is an objective fact from PER, roland, Hollinger. The MVP needs to be based on purely objective facts to prove that they are the best player. Stats are objective facts to show these things, not comments like such and such player makes another team better. this is just opinion, and CANNOT be verified. win loss is totally irrelevant to what the MVP should be.

if nash wins this award, its a joke, because he isn't more valuable in himself than say wade, or dirk, etc.

 

when a team implodes like Phoenix did against Seattle tonight, you should be able to see how Valuable Nash is to them. The award is Most VALUABLE Player. I wavered when he won the first one and I shook my head with disbelief when he won the 2nd one, but if a team like Phoenix can't get it together when they have 2 All-Stars in Marion and Stoudamire, then I don't know what to say. And Nash isn't exactly putting up pedestrian numbers either.

 

he's not the best though is he?

go look at per, on my count, there are 5 players better than nash.

nash is lucky, the MVP should be objective, and by objective, verifiable that they are the best player in the league. the mvp in my opinion has become an absolute joke, voters are too lazy to look at the stats and choose accordingly.

 

to say nash is the most valuble player is to see that his team is the most dependant. that sounds about right to me. everyones fg%'s are down. amare is exposed yet again. how can he possibly be considered a better center than yao? what a joke.

 

well there's that gray area. do you look at stats and team record or do you look at the intangibles and team record?

I mean, I do agree with you. Statistically, he's not the best player. But he's up there and no team needs more from one player than the Suns do. If Dirk goes out, I don't see them putting their tails between their legs because they got Terry, Stackhouse, and Howard to pick up the slack.

I think that, by default and default alone, Nash is the most valuable player in terms of the success of a team because we all know it's him, not D'Antoni, that's making things happen for that team.