Source: Nash to be MVP

i thought tupac was dead. ah, hell, no such luck.

when did kg make his teammates seem better? hassell, hudson, rasho, griffin, even wally to an extent. Who is to say that malone did not concurrently make john stockton seem better? You know whats bullshit criteria? basing the mvp entirely on a ppg average. I'm tired of this praise for kobe because he can run the floor and take a shot. Isn't that what all shooting guards are supposed to do? just because kobe has more value to his shit team doesn't mean he's the most valuable player in the league. If you're hiring someone for a job would you hire the valedictorian of a shit community college or a harvard graduate.

Let me remind you that KG, who was arguably overdue for an MVP, had Sprewell and Cassell on his team that year. Wally was hurt with injuries. Rasho and Griffin weren't even on that team.

I say that Malone didn't make Stockton look better. I actually watched them play. Stockton was the motor to that team. Trust me, Malone was the prime beneficiary.

And your analogy makes absolutely no sense. Kobe's the valedictorian for the entire fucking NBA. You realize that every team in the NBA is set on stopping Kobe when they face the Lakers. During the regular season, their gameplan was obvious but unstoppable so often. Nash and the Suns' efficiency relied much more heavily on the other four players on the floor.

And yao ming is the most dominant centre since shaq. whats your point?

You were implying that Kobe Bryant has yet to put himself up there with the all-time greats. That would be wrong. Despite having two MVPs, there are atleast three point guards over the past ten years who I'd choose over Nash. Kobe deserves to be on that list of MVPs much more than Nash does, as the MVP award has an implication of greatness, something Kobe has attained and Nash has yet to do.

magius, = dickface

I say that Malone didn't make Stockton look better. I actually watched them play. Stockton was the motor to that team. Trust me, Malone was the prime beneficiary.

do you think you are the only person who watched basketball in the 90s? get off your high horse. If you can't make an argument without resorting to backhanded insults, then please stop. Even if malone had been the primary beneficary (which is purely subjective, no other pf could set a pick as well as the mailman and hit that midrange shot as dangerously) are you telling me that malone didn't also make stock look better? Thats ridiculous, of course he did.

And your analogy makes absolutely no sense. Kobe's the valedictorian for the entire fucking NBA. You realize that every team in the NBA is set on stopping Kobe when they face the Lakers. During the regular season, their gameplan was obvious but unstoppable so often. Nash and the Suns' efficiency relied much more heavily on the other four players on the floor.

my analogy doesn't make sense only if you believe kobe is the mvp. I don't. I don't even think he's top 3. so it makes completes sense. Every team in the nba is set on winning. They couldn't care less about kobe. If winning means doubling kobe or letting him play one on one so be it. You don't think iverson hasn't gotten the same attention over his ENTIRE career? how about shaq? how about kg? the list goes on and on and on. The focus opposing teams are or aren't willing to place on a star player says nothing about the star, but more about this teammates. Even if the focus is placed on one player because of below average teammates it doesnt mean their stats should go down, if anything it means up. Look at tmac, look at jj.

You don't think iverson hasn't gotten the same attention over his ENTIRE career? how about shaq? how about kg? the list goes on and on and on.

The fact is though that none of them has achieved what Kobe has achieved this season. Kobe has scored more points than them, got a higher average, scored 62 in three quarters while outscoring an entire team, scored 81 in one game, scored twenty something games over 40, and this is all with the same ammount of pressure, if not more, than the guys you previously mentioned, who are all MVP winners. Oh yeah and he also lead his team, which is weaker than the previously mentioned player's teams, to the playoffs winning 45 games.
I don't think anyone has achieved as much as Kobe this season, which is why he should be the MVP.

do you think you are the only person who watched basketball in the 90s? get off your high horse. If you can't make an argument without resorting to backhanded insults, then please stop. Even if malone had been the primary beneficary (which is purely subjective, no other pf could set a pick as well as the mailman and hit that midrange shot as dangerously) are you telling me that malone didn't also make stock look better? Thats ridiculous, of course he did.

Listen to yourself. You're contradicting yourself just to win an argument. Since the Stockton-Nash comparison is certainly valid, don't you think it's possible that it's Nash's teammates that make him look better, just like you claim that Malone made Stockton look better? I mean, Nash's teammates hit the open shots, just like Malone did while playing with Stockton.

Either way, it's absurd to think that Malone heavily relied on Stockton, as his offensive repetoire went outisde the pick-and-roll. He just happened to have ridiculous stats during a time where it was the general conensus that MJ was the best and most valuable player in the league, but constantly giving him the award would raise eyebrowns. Much like from 1999-2004, where Shaq was the most dominant and valuable player, yet he only has one MVP.

BTW, how wrong is it knowing that Nash has more MVPs than Shaq?

my analogy doesn't make sense only if you believe kobe is the mvp. I don't. I don't even think he's top 3. so it makes completes sense. Every team in the nba is set on winning. They couldn't care less about kobe. If winning means doubling kobe or letting him play one on one so be it. You don't think iverson hasn't gotten the same attention over his ENTIRE career? how about shaq? how about kg? the list goes on and on and on. The focus opposing teams are or aren't willing to place on a star player says nothing about the star, but more about this teammates. Even if the focus is placed on one player because of below average teammates it doesnt mean their stats should go down, if anything it means up. Look at tmac, look at jj.

Your analogy doesn't make sense if you actually look at the facts placed in front of you. Oh, and you realize that the three players you mentioned -- KG, Shaq, and Iverson -- have all been MVPs.

Look at the percentages. As the game gets harder, the percentages go down. I'm willing to admit that your PPG should rise if you're the star player with poor teammates, but the fact is, his FG% and 3PT% have risen, despite him being the focus of the opponent's defenses.

Every team has a limit. If you really believe that Kobe Bryant could have gotten more out of what was given to him, then please share your argument. If you believe that his stats are less impressive than anyone's in this league, please share your argument. If you believe that he has not elevated his game in order to win more games, please share your argument.

Kobe never chose to be on a poor team. Domination is domination. You do all that you can, and hope to win. Sometimes, it's necessary to defer to your teammates, and that leads to more wins. But on a team like Kobe's, that is not possible.

like i said before, i wasn't commenting on them being a bad team. I was commenting on the fact that kobe's teammates aren't all that good. Crap team without kobe, average team with him.

Oh I wasn't refering to you individually, I've heard it alot in the various threads we've had about the MVP award. Sort of like what dadamafia said, listening to people sometimes you'd think they won 15-20 games.

Listen to yourself. You're contradicting yourself just to win an argument. Since the Stockton-Nash comparison is certainly valid, don't you think it's possible that it's Nash's teammates that make him look better, just like you claim that Malone made Stockton look better? I mean, Nash's teammates hit the open shots, just like Malone did while playing with Stockton.

Yes the stock-nash comparison is to a certain point valid.

I'm not saying that malone makes stock look more better than stock did karl or vice versa. I'm just saying that he did. Now, what you are telling me is that since karl won the mvp over stock in 97 (we'll disregard 99, because that is not arguable), kobe should win the mvp over nash this year; and concurrently, I'll assume by that logic amare should've won it over nash last year. There are a couple of major differences in each scenario.

Now for the kobe-malone argument: in 97 both malone and stock were on a good utah team, a serious contender. The lakers are not a serious contender this year, if they were I'd be okay with giving the mvp to kobe. But they're not. If kobe and nash were on the same team AND both averaged the same numbers they are averaging this season AND that team was winning - I would give it to kobe. But they're not.

That said, do I believe malone deserved it over stock in 97? yes. Just like shaq deserved it every year over kobe while they played together.

Now for the overwhelming question, if malone won it over stock in 97, well, why didnt amare win it over nash last year? Well, part of the answer is we have to keep in mind the situation. Karl and stock played their entire (or in the case of karl, a majority) of their careers together. We never saw one without another in their prime. We never saw how much stock actually affected karl. In the case of nash and amare we see fairly blatanlty the difference between amare without nash and amare with nash. Not to mention that, statistically, nash in 05 was slightly better than stock, and malone a fair bit better than amare. Also keep in mind that malone dominated the ball far more than amare did; that is in terms of playmaking and creating his own shot. You could say that nash has no defense relative to stock (I don't think he's a bad defender, just an average one), but concurrently amare has no defense relative to malone in that stage of his career.

Either way, it's absurd to think that Malone heavily relied on Stockton, as his offensive repetoire went outisde the pick-and-roll. He just happened to have ridiculous stats during a time where it was the general conensus that MJ was the best and most valuable player in the league, but constantly giving him the award would raise eyebrowns. Much like from 1999-2004, where Shaq was the most dominant and valuable player, yet he only has one MVP.

shaq only deserved the mvp in 2000 and arguably 2001. in 2002 and 2003 duncan deserved the award hands down. Shaq may have been the most dominant over that period, but he only played 67 games in 03-04. To be the most valuable you have to actually play. In 02 duncan deserved the mvp over shaq even if he had played a full 82.

Your analogy doesn't make sense if you actually look at the facts placed in front of you. Oh, and you realize that the three players you mentioned -- KG, Shaq, and Iverson -- have all been MVPs.

But it does. Are you telling me you think kobe's teammates are on par with nash's teammates? I admit I may have exaggerated it, but it makes sense.

Yes I realize kg, shaq, iverson are all former mvps. I also realize that each season any of them won the mvp award their team placed first in their respective conference.

Look at the percentages. As the game gets harder, the percentages go down. I'm willing to admit that your PPG should rise if you're the star player with poor teammates, but the fact is, his FG% and 3PT% have risen, despite him being the focus of the opponent's defenses.

The fact is a .450 field goal percentage is nothing to call home about. It's decent, yes, but not spectacular. The only percentage that is sure to go down playing with poor teammates is your winning percentage. Shooting percentage does not neccesarrily go down, because the more you're allowed to shoot the higher the chance of getting into rythm; and a superstar in rythm is unstoppable, regardless of the defense. For example, mcgrady had career shooting percentages 2003. Pierce has had one if not the worst supporting casts of his career this year - and the highest shooting percentages too. While it is logical, and generally more probably that shooting percentage SHOULD go down - it is not a rule.

Every team has a limit. If you really believe that Kobe Bryant could have gotten more out of what was given to him, then please share your argument.

I don't believe he could've gotten more out of his teammates. And I agree every team has a limit. But the fact is matching or exceeding expectations is simply not enough to be a league mvp in my book.

If you believe that his stats are less impressive than anyone's in this league, please share your argument.

Based on statistics alone I believe lebron's stats are far more impressive then kobes.

31.4 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 6.6 apg, .480 fg%
35.4 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, .450 fg%

Since you asked if I thought someone else's stats were more impressive - well, based on stats alone, which would you honestly take?

Not to mention we also have iverson who's shooting .447 averaging 2.5ppg less, but 3apg more. And then theres wade and dirk who are simply more efficient while posting impressive stats.

If you believe that he has not elevated his game in order to win more games, please share your argument.

theres another award for that - its called the most improved player.

you're right he has made them seem better. That said, not to the same extent as past mvp's have their teammates.

Wow. Do you actually know who they are?

wow fuck nash wut about kg or t-mac or iverson or even fuckin big ben he should have gotten an MVP award!

lol...you should've stayed dead 2pac..cause it's obvious you dont know wtf you're talking about.

wow bailey jus cause nash has the most asists in the nba does not mean he deserves please tell me wut else he does xcept for pass the ball o btw kobe fuckin owned him in that game with the dunk!

wow bailey jus cause nash has the most asists in the nba does not mean he deserves please tell me wut else he does xcept for pass the ball o btw kobe fuckin owned him in that game with the dunk!

I thought this guy was banned?

Well, it's looking great for the newest NBA Legend, Steve Nash with his Suns down 3-1 against the crap team Lakers with Kobe Bryant who shouldn't even be in the top 5 for MVP.

I think if Kobe played like this during the regular season, he'd have more consideration for MVP. He's sharing the ball, taking over when it matters, and has his teammates responding. That is MVP basketball.

I think the general perception--among those who support Nash--is that Kobe played too much of an individual game, and while it's true that he carried his team during the regular season (by shooting out of necessity), Steve Nash also carried his team--the Suns were absolutely lost without Nash, a point that even the harshest Nash critics would concede.

All things being equal, it comes down to who won more games and Suns won more games. It's not like they had an All-Star roster: Diaw, Bell, House, Barbosa, most guys who, if they didn't play on the Suns this year, would be playing in the NBDL.

Credit the Suns system, if you want, but then you'd have to credit the Lakers' triangle offense and Phil Jackson just as much (oh, and the Lakers did not run the triangle until after Rudy Tomjanovic left--they ran isolations for Kobe and Odom, and that was it).

The most compelling argument against Nash should be that he may not be the most dominant player at his position--he's just as likely to be out-played by Jason Kidd or Chauncey Billups or even Tony Parker, and that certainly has a lot to do with his defensive deficiencies. And if you consider the past MVPs, you couldn't find one that wasn't the most dominant player at his position in that season. By that argument, Kobe Bryant has a great edge; there isn't a single player in the league that could consistently out-play Kobe Bryant.

But to me, that is still too individual-oriented for a team-sport. And while I know that individual dominance is an essential part of basketball and NBA basketball especially, I still feel that to be considered an MVP in what is, at its core, a team sport, you have to be successful in the team game, and I feel Nash has done a better job.

And the way Kobe Bryant is playing right now is in a weird way proving my point. The Lakers are a far better team now that Kobe is playing unselfish basketball and insistently looking for his teammates. They could have conceivably broken the 50-win mark with Kobe playing like this. Then, the MVP race wouldn't even be a question--Kobe would have been the MVP.

But that makes it less likely for Kobe to have scored 81 points, or averaged 35.4 ppg--outstanding but ultimately individual stats that everyone seems hung up on.

So, given the two choices, Nash or Kobe, I'd have to pick Nash as the regular season MVP, if only because he's starting a paradigm of passing and fast breaking that's been missing in the NBA for so long.

But that's only as far as my definition of MVP goes--a player who's been crucial to the team success and played team basketball.

We'll have this discussion again and again until the NBA or somebody finally decides to define what MVP is and sets a criteria by which all players are measured.

And the way Kobe Bryant is playing right now is in a weird way proving my point. The Lakers are a far better team now that Kobe is playing unselfish basketball and insistently looking for his teammates. They could have conceivably broken the 50-win mark with Kobe playing like this. Then, the MVP race wouldn't even be a question--Kobe would have been the MVP.

Completely and utterly disagree. They are playing the way they have to play in order to beat the Phoenix Suns. Do you really think pounding the ball inside to Kwame Brown is going to be good enough against Detroit, San Antonio... hell, even Houston?

No, definitely not what I meant. I meant Kobe consistently looking for his teammates, not just Kwame Brown. Odom, Walton, Parker, Vujacic are all far more involved in the offense than in the regular season. The greatest proof of Kobe playing within the offense and sharing the ball probably came in today's game when Kobe only played 10 minutes in the first half and they were tied at half. The Lakers are, as a team, self-reliant, not Kobe-reliant. They ran their offense, they stayed in the game without having to heavily rely on Kobe. I'd take that as a good sign.

Do you really think the Lakers would not have been a better team if Kobe had played like this in the beginning?

I agree with you that playing this way is key to beating the Suns, but against the Spurs or the Pistons, it's not going to matter how Kobe plays. But then again, what teams have had consistent success against those two teams anyway?

But the real question I want to ask is, Jae, do you agree with my overall point, that playoff-Kobe is far more MVP-worthy than regular-season-Kobe?

Taking of the regular season, did you see how inconsistent LO was? Did you see how Walton cant make a shot to save his life? Did you realise when Brown missed like half of his layups? Did you see how the scouting report stated Vujacic as a guard from Europe who has yet to shoot like a Eurpean guard in the NBA?

But the real question I want to ask is, Jae, do you agree with my overall point, that playoff-Kobe is far more MVP-worthy than regular-season-Kobe?

I think the question becomes are you rewarding his actual play, or are you rewarding the fact that he can deviate so much from his natural game (i.e scoring stacks of points) at the right time of the season. He's averaging 23ppg, 6rpg, 6apg, 4.5 turnovers on 44% shooting... even as a Kobe fan, that isn't impressive.

Looking beyond the stats, more credit has to be given to the likes of Walton, Odom, Kwame and Smush because they are the guys stepping up, hitting their shots, crashing the boards etc... all things they didn't do enough of during the regular season. So to answer the question, no I don't think this Kobe is more MVP worthy. As far as executing a game plan and being a great team player, this Kobe wins by far and away, but regular season Kobe is the one who carried this team to the play-offs in the first place.

The guys around him wouldn't play like this all season, taking into account inconsistancy/injuries etc I would be shocked if this current gameplan won them 40 games in the regular season.

That being said, I can completely understand why you and whoever else has knocks on Kobe for his regular season play would be more impressed with this version of him. As a Laker fan though I've got too much appreciation and respect for what he did for the team during the regular season to ignore all of that just because his team mates are finally playing like NBA players.

For all I know they may carry this into next season and completely prove me wrong, I would hope they do but I can't really put any real faith into the likes of Walton, Kwame and Smush just yet.

The fact that these guys are stepping up in the playoffs where the pressure is far greater than in the regular season suggests to me that they had the potential to consistently perform on a higher level than they did.

But I understand your point, too, that Kwame and Smush and Walton all had their moments of ineptitude, and Kobe did carry this team to the playoffs.

I guess part of this is because I've seen too many Lakers games in which Kobe put too much pressure on himself to score and the Lakers became too dependent on Kobe. It's like a 24-year old still living off his parent's money. It's more satisfying to watch Kobe letting his teammates carry the load (and I believe Kobe played the way he did in the regular season, not because of selfishness, but because he felt that it was ALL his responsibility to win or lose games) and play within the team concept.

As much as Kobe killed himself to carry this team to the playoffs--and he did, I'm not denying that--his teammates killed themselves so Kobe could do that. It's about making sacrifices. While Kobe's stats are taking a hit right now, the payoff is greater: they're up 3-1 on the 2-seed in the West. I consider this type of performance to be MVP worthy, not only in terms of stats, but in the impact he has on the team and the growth of the younger players.

I do think this team would have won 50 games if Kobe played this way from the start. He would have had more gas in the tank down the stretch of games and the season, and his teammates would have come along quicker. If you disagree, that's fine, I see your points, too. This one just comes down to a difference in opinion because we don' t know what would have happened.

But, in my mind, this stays true--the way Kobe is playing in this series, and I mean all parts of it, is how an MVP should play, win or lose.

So to answer your question: I'm absolutely rewarding Kobe's actual play, not just because it's different.

question...
has an MVP gotten eliminated in the first round before??
mj, malone, duncan, hakeem, AI ( in sixers finals run), KG ( the 1 yr lol), Shaq are the MVPs of the past 10 years or so and i don't think they got elimated in first round.

If the Lakers beat the Suns, which now seems likely, I'm very very disappointed if Nash gets the MVP. It seems that he can't "elevate the level of the players around him" enough, while Bryant shares the ball more than ever this year and keeps winning.

wish he could elevate the ref skills

so now Nash needs the refs to get the MVP? get over it. if phoenix was good enough to win they would win, but.... it seems they aren't.

no, i didn't say he needed the refs to win MVP, look at my post. it had absolutely nothing to do with the MVP, merely a response to your last post.

Well he needs the refs to win games in the playoffs.