Wait a minute - two years ago, Phoenix was a team based on Nash, Amare, Joe Johnson, Quentin Richardson, and Marion. They lost 3 of their 5 stars the following year (Johnson, Richardson, Amare) and replaced them with relative scrubs at the time - Leandro Barbosa? Boris Diaw? Raja Bell? Kurt Thomas? Look back at the beginning of last season - everyone thought Phoenix was going to be a joke and got ripped apart in the offseason. They didn't miss a beat - and that was entirely due to Nash helping make those players into successful NBA players and semi-stars.
Dirk and his Mavs have had a tremendous season so far, so I do give him a slight edge this year for the MVP. Honestly, you can't go wrong with either Nash or Dirk or even Duncan (yup, believe it or not, the Spurs are sneaking up on the Suns, although they won't have enough time to overtake them). What I do resent, however, is how some of you guys feel obligated to belittle one of the candidates to make a case for your pick; that is not necessary and it only makes your argument seem a little 'shaky'.
wait, what? that's exactly what happened. in his last season they went 52-30 and lost in the first round. the very next year they went 58-24 and lost in the semis, then 60-22 and lost in the finals. and now will have a win total in the high 60's. not only did they not skip a beat, they improved. significantly. exactly, if he was on any other team than the one with the most offensive talent in the league, no one would give him consideration. should he get the mvp just b/c he's the lucky one who gets the perfect supporting cast around him? i don't get the analogy, magic was just plain better. it's not like me or anyone arguing against nash is saying scoring is all there is. but it's not like nash plays any defense or grabs any rebounds or gets any steals either. he plays only one side of the court and has the most talent of anyone to make him look good on that side.
An issue with the phrasing, and the idea that somebody can make someone "better." Brilliant players can find other players when they're open, deliver them the ball when and where they need it (some better than others, as you mentioned -- Magic, Dream, Nash); but they aren't making these players "better." Shawn Marion isn't dunking, running, or shooting any "better" with Nash around; but he is getting more chances in that increased pace and with Nash's amazing knack for finding players in transition (compared with Marbury walking it up court and waiting for a screen). But he isn't "better." And if he is a little bit better than from five years ago, it's because he's entered and flourishing within his prime. I'm glad it's not wasted with a chump (or average, or even All-Star level) point guard ... Nash is obviously better than all three levels. Same with Dirk. He's much "better" than he was four years ago, but Jason Terry isn't making him "better." He's in his prime now -- to say nothing of the fact that he gets to dominate the ball now with Terry on board. Just the craziest thing -- Michael Jordan somehow couldn't make a 22-year old Scottie Pippen "better," but, somehow, he was able to make a 27-year old Scottie Pippen "better." It's bollocks. These players are growing on their own, and learning how to play. Nash is just getting them the ball (in a manner unmatched but by a few others in NBA history, I might add). It's like the difference between the Mark Jackson that played with the Denver Nuggets in 1996-97, and the one who played with the Pacers later that year. Somehow, the same player, WAS making that crap Denver team better, but WASN'T making those Pacers better? It had nothing to do with the fact that Denver was a better finishing (inside and out) offensive team?
first off, richardson wasn't exactly a huge loss. he's an average to slightly below average player who, for that season, jacked up a bunch of 3's at a reasonable 35.8% clip. now joe johnson and amare were big losses. but how are bell and thomas scrubs? thomas is a long-proven pf who averaged a double-double the season before and who has a shot that is money out to about 18 feet. the rockets would kill for that skillset at pf. bell is a defensive specialist who also shot 40% on 3's and averaged 12 ppg in utah the season before. he's not all that different in phoenix. barbosa was a 22 year old going on 23 who showed relatively the same per miinute improvement as he did the season before. he just played 60% more minutes. diaw was also 22 going on 23. while his per minute improvements were greater than b/t seasons 1 and 2 of his career, the things that made him a 6.9 rebound, 6.2 assist guy weren't caused by nash. unless he was seeing people open and then throwing it to diaw and telling him who was open just to give diaw an assist. nor was he the reason for diaw's excellent post up ability against smaller players that just killed people in the playoffs. it turns out diaw's just a really versatile guy who was coming into his own and being used improperly, shockingly enough by the atlanta hawks. if he went to another team he wouldn't just forget how to play. and on top of all that, they added tim thomas, another guy who shot over 40% on 3's the season before, just in time for the playoffs. should nash get credit for integrating it all? yes, certainly. should the system get at least some of the credit as well? yes also. and finally, after subtracting 2 big stars and adding a bevy of solid role players, they still lost 8 extra games. it's not like they just won the exact same amount or something. i'd considering all the additions and subtractions, 8 less wins wasn't exactly a monumental achievement. overachieving? i guess. but no more so than the lakers winning 45 or whatever they won or cleveland getting to 50 wins. and the whole making the conf finals again is of course a little disingenuous b/c had the seedings been correct like they are now, they would have had to have faced one of the actual 2 top teams in the west, SA or dallas instead of the 6th seeded clippers, in the 2nd round and lost.
You can't credit Phoenix for playing the way they should have and proven morons even more moronic. I mean, Shane Battier has been awesome this year. But he's not twice as awesome just because I (I, moron) wondered if he was going to be able to fit in on the wing next to T-Mac. Joe Johnson was/is a good scorer with a solid jumper who is at his best when he has the ball -- replacing him with another guy who will cede touches to Nash/Marion/Amare (and was already a proven 40 percent three-point shooter) in Bell and a project in Diaw (to say nothing of the picks and salary relief) was a no-brainer. Losing Q hurt because of his defense and shooting -- but he was replaced by a better defender and shooter (Bell), while adding a spacing-creatin' big guy who could defend.
And using the word "lame?" Lame. My bad, and going right with my unfortunate m.o. on this board (dickish, dismissive). Call it the result of spending years having to hear this argument used against great players, and used to build up already-great players who could have been "built up" in a hundred different ways.
Dirk is the most deserving...stop hating 'cause he's playing on the Mavs If he doesn't win it this year there's really something wrong!
Its more complicated than that. The Dirk-Nash-Finley team that lost in the WCF to the Spurs was certainly better than the team following losing Nash--and was maybe the best Mavs team so far (this one can change that with a title of course). That was a 60 win team in a much deeper and stronger WC. At that team there was a Spurs team near their peak, a Lakers team coming off 3 titles, loaded Sac team, etc. They might have easily won the title on top of their 60 win season had they not gotten injuries in the WCF versus the Spurs. Now the year after that was worse, but if I recall that is when Nash's back trouble started and the Mavs went crazy with trades of ill fitting pieces considering they already had Dirk at the 4 spot (Walker, Jamison, etc.). So maybe this year, 2+ years since Nash left, the Mavs are better (but lets see what they do in the playoffs). Of course since then they had a near all-star SF develop (Howard), signed a near all-star who has found a role (Terry), got a sweetheart lotto pick turn into another PG (Harris), and add other better fitting pieces. So they Mavs have been up and down, and have a lot fo other factors. Further, it isn't like Dirk is any much different than he was back in 02-03--he is slightly more offensively efficient but slightly down in most other stats--Dirk is basically the same guy he was 5 years ago, not that this is a knock on him. Meanwhile the Suns have been drammatically better with acquiring Steve Nash, despite a lot of coming and goings of role players during that period. Also, unlike Dirk, Nash's stats are significantly better than they were prior--Nash is significantly better than we he was the co-leader with Dirk on the very outstanding 02-03 Mavs team. Because if you subbed Kobe or Arenas in for Nash they IMO could not get the Suns (or Mavs) playing at the level they are with Nash (to either team) or with Dirk to the Mavs. Like I said IMO MVP's should go more to guys that get solid teams great (Nash, Dirk) than terrible teams respectable (Kobe). If you want someone in between (a sligtly better than respectable team where he is the only star in any form) right now go with Lebron. I have to disagree with Kelly's perspective there isn't a difference between one player's impact on his teammates than another. I do think some guys are better able to get their teammates involved, have a knack for getting their teammates balls in effective spots and get their teammates behind them (leadership). There is a reason Kobe and a young Tmac never got out of the 1st round despite major series leads and Nash took a rag tag outfit (with the exception of Marion, remember Amare was injured and Joe J was traded) of journeyman to the WCF last year, Nash didn't need great players to excell, just players who can shoot. Magic was a great rebounder for a guard but that was about the end of his defensive reputation. Barkley and Bird were not known for defense either. There is a long list of MVPs who were ordinary on defense at best--the bottom line is if you can orchistrate an entire offense into a high efficiency one this is a far more rare gift in baskteball than being an outstanding all-around player or even an phenom individual scorer (Kobe, young Tmac, Nique Wilkens), you almost always can cover up a single poor individual defender.
I'm not going that far, though I can see from the muddled line of thinking in my posts where you can get that. There's a huge, 30-win difference between someone like Nash or Magic and your typical point guard: they can make plays (passes) that no other player can. Nash, in differing from Magic, puts more pressure on a defense than anyone in the NBA (Kobe, Dirk included) because of his ability to square his shoulders and hit half his jumpers in a nanosecond. He's an impossible guard, surrounded by some of the best finishers in the game. It's just that Dirk's help-side/rotation defense has been so good this year, he takes away so much guard penetration with his length and feints toward the ball. Throw in his rebounding and the fact that he's kept it up all year (where Nash has had the odd bum week or three, especially since the beginning of the calender year), and that makes up for Nash's overall potency on offense.
Hey guys, I am the one from Dallas-Mavs who 'bashed' clutch at the dallas forum. I am not about to go into the whole thing again, but I will say this, that there are threads at clutch, just like this, that make some of you guys look really good. I enjoyed it a lot.
