I think Nash is the most important player in the league. That being said, Dirk or Nash winning is ok with me, they are both great team players, and leaders of great teams. Nash has won 2 in a row, probably Dirk's turn. DD
Because of the vote last year, I have zero respect for the voting community at large. That should have been the closest four-way vote in years. Instead, the sheep gave the fifth-place guy the MVP in a landslide. Nothing that crew of fogeys could do would surprise me at this point. Obviously, I'm voting for Dirk ... probably because he's been the best basketball player this year. That's what we're still playing, I'm assuming. Not, "what would Odom be like on the Mavs if Kobe played in Phoenix and Josh Howard had to run the point for the Lakers while shooting 35 times."
I agree. I think Nash is one of the MVPs this season just as Dirk. But for me the reasons Dirk deserves him this year, is because nah already won it 2 times and he is not that dominant over other players to win it 3 times in a row. And Dirks numbers are amazing.
Nobody likes watching Nash more than me. But I'm no dummy. And if you want to do away with the individual part and deal more with the team game, fine: where would Nash be without that crew of finishers? No player in the NBA runs the floor like Marion, no player in the NBA finishes better in the lane than Amare (Howard is getting close, but Amare has more finger rolls, etc), and the lineup is filled with 40 percent three point shooters. (guys who were 40 percent three-point shooters BEFORE they came to Phoenix, by the way) The whole, "he makes them better" argument is so lame. Nash makes these guys better? Nash taught Marion how to run? Nash taught these guys how to shoot? Nash taught these guys how to finish? Nash provides them with an atmosphere in which they are allowed to create, and for that, he deserves NBA sainthood in my eyes. But he doesn't make anyone "better." (and, again, I'm not taking into consideration any of the last few years when voting. If the best player in the NBA was the best player in the NBA five years in a row, then give him the MVP five times. Nash shouldn't be denied an MVP because "Steve Nash, three-time MVP" doesn't sound right. He should be denied because he's not the best basketball player in this basketball league)
As stated earlier, I think it should be Dirk's year. But as a major Steve Nash fan, I don't think you give him enough credit. Several times each game he makes passes to Amare, Marion & Co that nobody else would make. His interior passing is the best in the NBA by far. While the other Suns are very good players in their own right, and while Amare is very capable of creating his own shot sometimes, every game he gets 2-3 incredibly easy baskets because Nash is their PG. He does make the other Suns more efficient than they otherwise would be. We disagree on that one. On last year's MVP vote, I see your point. I don't remember how lopsided it was but it shouldn't have been. IIRC, Wade tailed off with some bad games late in the regular season; otherwise it might have been a closer vote.
I would trade T-mac for Kobe. Kobe, would work perfectly in the system. Remember Shaq and Kobe? It was basically two stars plus scrubs that won them 3 championships. Kobe knows how to play with a big man, and also knows when to take over. T-mac still hasn't the feintest idea of when to defer and when to take over. T-mac's version of deferring is to take jump shots.
I tend to treat post all-star game with greater value. (the first few month is more of a testing phase And to build chemisty) Is not how you start, but how you end.
I guess that's why the NBA weights those wins with a 1.5 win per game post-ASG category, where as the pre-Suimsuit Issue weight is only .5. Now that KG is starting to lose it, Steve Nash is still my favorite basketball player A3. I wish I didn't have to denigrate him so much to make my points, but I guess I just have a case of the Mon-days.
I too think it's Dirk's turn. They won't give Nash 3 MVPs in a row. If it was last year, they had more choices, but this year, it has to be Dirk. If they gave that to Kobe, it's a slap to the team sport. Actually, it's a great year to win the MVP due to all the balance people will have in mind. If, a big if, Yao didn't broke his leg, and continued with his pre-injury play, he could seriously get some consideration. I am not going to vote this year, simply because I don't like big guys shying away from low post, shooting jumper and crying for fouls. Similar reason, I prefer TD more than KG, even KG is a great player. But Yao's not consistent enough for me to vote him MVP this year. I'll just save it for the next year.
I'm curious about something, and how you'll answer this. You lambasted some posters earlier - "lame" is what you called it -- when they mentioned that Nash "makes his teammates better". I'm wondering if it's a matter of semantics in the phrasing or if you disagree with the notion that any player can enhance the play of any other player, period? Obviously - in the Suns' case - Amare and Matrix are talented finishers and Nash does not make them so. So maybe "making them better" is inaccurate. But don't you think that great players "enhance" their teammates' ability to utilize their natural talents by creating more situations where they can succeed? Let me think of a possible example or two off the top of my head. The "Showtime" Lakers. Guys like Michael Cooper, Byron Scott, and Mychel Thompson were talented in their own right. But don't you think Magic Johnson was able to create situations on the court to "free up" Cooper for a more-wide-open-than-usual three-pointer? Or get the ball up the court, draw the defense, and hit a wide open Byron Scott who was filling the lane? Or create situations by penetrating into the lane and drawing so much defensive attention while having the presence of mind to find a wide-open Mychel Thompson underneath for an easy layup? So while the great players don't necessarily make their teammates "better", I think it's reasonable to assert that they create more situations during the nuanced flow of the game that better utilizes their teammates' natural abilities and increases their chances for success. The same way Hakeem was said to "make his teammates better" by drawing defenses and allowing Maxwell, Kenny, and Horry to have "more-wide-open-than-if-Granville Waiters-were-playing-the-5 spot" shots. In the same way Nash has nothing directly to do with how Marion finishes, Hakeem had nothing directly to do with the way Horry shot three's. But I think all great players, in their own right, create more situations for good things to happen than not. And I think that is what some of the previous posters mean when they say Nash makes his teammates "better".
I'd vote Nash, but it is hard to argue with Dirk either. How crummy the Suns play w/o Nash (and how ordinary to crummy a team they were before him--even with Marion and Amare) does weigh on me. Either of these two when you consider how outstanding their teams are and how important they are to their teams success seems reasonable. I don't get the Kobe votes. His team is so ordinary. Yes he is the best pure scorer, and yes he has been the best finnisher this year, but you can only finish if you keep your team close enough in the 1st place. Seems to be Lebron has almost as good as case. His team is better and his team is #2 in the East, and for 4 PPG he has less than Kobe he edges him in FG%, assists, rebounds, steals, blocks. And before you start arguing support cast remember he doesn't have a Marion, Amare, Howard, Terry or Lamar Odom quality player on his side. Now I don't think Lebron deserves it, but for his all around lines he should be in the mix if Kobe is. Personally I think if you team is a lower playoff seed/barely playoff team you better have a cumulative statistical line so far ahead of the rest to get MVP consideration. Examples of that are Jordan's 1st award and some of Mo Malone's--and Kobe does not have that kind of seperation from guys who have lead their teams to much better success. In the end I'd say Nash, Dirk, Kobe, Lebron--but I wouldn't care if the 1st two are switched or the last two are switched.
but didn't the team he left (in free agency, not even a trade to get something in return) get better after he left? didn't the mavs go to the finals and aren't they on pace for 68 or 69 wins right now? shouldn't a team be slightly more devastated when an mvp-caliber player just up and leaves them? doesn't it seem weird to everyone that nash was just a really nice point guard, and then right around the time he went to a team with 6 or 7 amazing finishers (either through athleticism and cutting to the basket or with 3 pointers) and a system and coach that fully exploits those things that everyone suddenly started thinking he was the most valuable player ever? doesn't that seem like a little bit too much of a coincidence? if he played anywhere other than this team, no one would think of him as the best or most valuable player, and everyone knows it. the same isn't true for guys like wade, kobe, lebron, dirk, duncan, etc. not that kobe should or shouldn't be the mvp, but why does this matter to people so much? isn't value just value no matter what? if nash played on charlotte and they won 35 games this year (i don't even know how many wins they have, just throwing a number out there) does he suddenly go from having the most value to very little? if tim duncan played on memphis and they barely cracked .500, is he just a nice player, or still amazingly valuable? if your value is just raising a team from 20 to 45 wins, isn't that still more valuable than someone who makes a 50 win team a 60 win team? and shouldn't your value be universal? as in not just because you're on a particular team that makes you look valuable? i mean look how we refer to rafer's value to the rockets. he makes the offense run and it often goes to crap when he's out, but that's b/c he's the only one on the team who can do it, not because he's that great at it. so his value, based on the rockets team dynamics, seems pretty high, even though he really isn't all that great or wouldn't be that great to most teams with a half decent backup pg or a pg who could drain shots.
It goes to Steve Nash. His overall numbers are up this year from his two previous MVP seasons. He has beaten Dirk and his merry band of Mavericks that last two showings on national television. The very essence of the Phoenix Suns is Steve Nash, you take him out of the lineup and the team may still make the playoffs but in the lower half of the tree. If Nash hadn't missed thos handful of games with the shoulder the Suns wouls be neck and neck with the Mavericks. Nash will join the ranks of the great ones with a three-peat! ......and he deserves it
Phx hadn't got to the WC finals at all between the Barkley era and the Nash era. That included Jason Kidd in his prime teams that had Marion and other major talent. The years after Kidd was traded and before they signed Nash, they were bad to mediocre as well. Yes the finishers were there, but the leader to get them fully utilized was not. Also, Dallas's best year until last year had Nash, Dirk and Finley. It took Dallas a couple of years, including adding a near all-star in Terry, the developing of a near all-star in Howard, and the addition of other better fitting pieces for them to recover for the Nash loss. It wasn't like Nash left and they didn't skip a beat. Finally, Nash isn't the same player he was at Dallas. He is better. His scoring, assists and efficiency are all up. Dirk is pretty much doing what he has been doing for like 5 years--not that it isn't very impressive. Also, had Nash been with Dallas today yes I very much think he would be getting MVP considertion. Now if he was with a team that couldn't shoot, no he wouldn't, but then that team unlike the team he is currently on couldn't fully utlize his talents. So Steve Nash wouldn't be the best guy to put on a cruddy team to make them respectable. Kobe Bryant probably is. But Steve Nash very well might be the best player in the league to put on a good team. And I would rather vote for an MVP who makes an above average team great than a crummy one respectable. You could also make this analogy why I think Magic was better than say Nique Wilkens despite the latter scoring a lot more during their primes. Nash isn't quite Magic Johnson, but in terms of enhacing his teammates he is at the top of the next tier.
