Source: Nash to be MVP

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.

Basically he is saying you're a whining bitch. Lakers could've won the first game if it weren't for the refs and then Phoenix would've been swept. Would you like that more???

I think it sends a big message to the dumbasses who voted nash as MVP if he gets elimated by the real MVP. That message is "you're a dumbass"

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.

The last MVP to go out in the first round was Moses Malone in 1982, as a member of the Houston Rockets. Karl Malone came close in 1999 but the Jazz prevailed 3-2 over the Kings.

its true, phoenix fans should get over the non-call. Was it the right call? who knows. but it was the call made, and it is what it is - nothing will change that.

funny though that laker fans keep telling phoenix fans to shut up and stop whining - when all the while they themselves are whining just the same about their so called "real" mvp. shut up, get over it. steve nash is the real mvp. steve nash is the real mvp. steve nash is the real mvp. pound it into your brains. You believing kobe is the mvp isn't going to change the fact that he isnt, just like suns fans believing the miscall was blatant isn't going to change that it was called. Its as simple as that.

Now do I believe nash should've gotten it? No. But I do believe between him and bryant he is the less worse choice.

and again, playoff performance has absolutely nothing to do with the mvp. In that case the mvp would always go to the star player of the championship team.

Is there any qualifications of a MVP candidate online? at NBA.com? I'd like to know what the official criterias are.

no... at least i dont think so. I guess we just use the past as criteria. That and common sense.

So they basically can name anyone that matches their marketing needs *sigh*

this is really unusual situation to have an MVP about to be knocked out of the playoffs....this is due to the fact that most MVP's come from winning teams that usually advance to the Conference Finals....I'll stand by my original nomination for Dirk Nowitzki (best player on one of best 3 teams in the league, clutch, career year, improved in most categories, etc, etc) to win MVP....

maybe this fiasco will make the league provide tighter voting guidelines &/or introduce a different sort of MVP award....I'd love to see a 'MVP Award' & a 'Best International Player Award'

So they basically can name anyone that matches their marketing needs *sigh*

Not really, it's various members of the media that vote.

I like repeating myself so.

Criteria? Psch. Lacy Banks voted for Jermaine O'Neal for MVP over Kevin Garnett because Jermaine was nicer in interviews. And this was a guy who actually got a ballot, not like any of those silly ESPN guys.

The awards have been a joke since 1980, the team beat writers and announcers go for the "story" and half the time don't even know who to vote for, look at how many people they give votes to for the MIP and 6th Man awards. And then they still give MIP to people who didn't improve.

So they basically can name anyone that matches their marketing needs *sigh*

actually if that were the case then it would be lebron.

I like repeating myself so.

Criteria? Psch. Lacy Banks voted for Jermaine O'Neal for MVP over Kevin Garnett because Jermaine was nicer in interviews. And this was a guy who actually got a ballot, not like any of those silly ESPN guys.

The awards have been a joke since 1980, the team beat writers and announcers go for the "story" and half the time don't even know who to vote for, look at how many people they give votes to for the MIP and 6th Man awards. And then they still give MIP to people who didn't improve.

Knowing that one voter is a bias idiot when voting isn't sufficient to knowing they all are. I think the vast majority of mvp choices have been the right choices, and that we just like to linger on the controversial ones.

Team beat writers and announcers vote. Of course they're all biased, their job orbits around one team.

Who cares if the MVP choices have been the right ones? Of course a majority is going to pick KG in 2004 or Shaq in 2000.

The point is, all the awards are is the conclusion, whether logical, illogical or insane, of 150 people. The award doesn't mean Nash was the most valuable player this year, it means a plurality of 150 people think he is.

Awards mean as much as Chad Ford's hanging out with seven foot tall Serbians.

Team beat writers and announcers vote. Of course they're all biased, their job orbits around one team.

In that case who isn't bias? We are all bias. What you're asking for is impossible. A completely impartial vote? Never going to happen.

Who cares if the MVP choices have been the right ones? Of course a majority is going to pick KG in 2004 or Shaq in 2000.

Anyone who thinks that their opinion is the only one that matters is blinded by that very pride. Majority is the basis of almost every scientific discovery... ever.

The point is, all the awards are is the conclusion, whether logical, illogical or insane, of 150 people. The award doesn't mean Nash was the most valuable player this year, it means a plurality of 150 people think he is.

Awards mean as much as Chad Ford's hanging out with seven foot tall Serbians.

What would you rather have? Every single person in the world given a ballot to vote with? Or how about voting based on statistics? But then who is going to judge which statistic to vote on? Efficiency rating? Who is going to decide which efficiency rating to use? Who is going to decide which statistic is more or less important? Probably, say, a jury of 150 people.

Then you say at least find 150 people who are legitimate authorities on basketball. Two problems: one, who is going to pick those people? two, most of those people are in one way or another affiliated, to more of a degree than any reporter, a basketball team. Which of course will inevitably lead you back to the fact that the award is bias and inconsequential. In which case we shouldn't vote for anything. What a convinient excuse to throw around whenever a majority opinion goes against yours; oh, its bias. Understand there is no system of voting that is perfect, and of course majority doesn't always dictate what is actually true, but we shouldn't discount it because of that. Can it be wrong? Yes. But take into consideration that you, or I, also can be wrong.

In that case who isn't bias? We are all bias.

Yes, yes, I'm aware. My teaching peers show me firsthand.

In that case who isn't bias? We are all bias. What you're asking for is impossible.

What am I asking for?

A completely impartial vote? Never going to happen.

Which is why I'm not asking for it.

Majority is the basis of almost every scientific discovery... ever.

Um. What?

Then you say at least find 150 people who are legitimate authorities on basketball.

No, I didn't?

Understand there is no system of voting that is perfect, and of course majority doesn't always dictate what is actually true, but we shouldn't discount it because of that. Can it be wrong? Yes. But take into consideration that you, or I, also can be wrong.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Maybe I don't see what your point is? That because 150 people think Steve Nash is the most valuable player then he was the most valuable player last season? And I'm not saying that means he won the award. I'm saying that he actually was the most valuable player, something we do not know and can argue over until the end of time.

The point is people love to point to awards to prove their point. It means no more than their own subjective opinions.

That's all I'm asking for, is to people to not say "he's the best because he won this award" but instead "these 150 people say he was the player most deserving of this award."

I'm not crying "bias!" or "shoddy voting by incompetent hacks!" because people don't agree with me. I never expect any of the award voters to vote with me. I was simply lamenting the meaninglessness of the awards in response to people's various comments over Nash/Kobe/etc.

If you want understanding, perhaps you should understand there may be less to something than you think there is. Maybe there's nothing under the surface, irregardless of if you want there to be or not.

Yes, yes, I'm aware. My teaching peers show me firsthand.

so if we're all bias, how can you possible judge someone on being bias?

Which is why I'm not asking for it.

Then what are you asking for? Or are you just whining without giving a possible solution about something you percieve as a problem or wrong?

Um. What?

Aside from a very few universal truths, truth is deciphered by means of falsification. That is I may not know what is true, but I know what is false. Meaning what is true is simply less false than the next best option. To figure this out you test or ask a question as many times as you can. The best percentage, or majority, decides. Like I said its fallible, but its all we have.

No, I didn't?

I was just covering the basis. I should've added "would." sorry, didnt mean to put words into your mouth.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Maybe I don't see what your point is? That because 150 people think Steve Nash is the most valuable player then he was the most valuable player last season? And I'm not saying that means he won the award. I'm saying that he actually was the most valuable player, something we do not know and can argue over until the end of time.

The point is people love to point to awards to prove their point. It means no more than their own subjective opinions.

That's all I'm asking for, is to people to not say "he's the best because he won this award" but instead "these 150 people say he was the player most deserving of this award."

I'm not crying "bias!" or "shoddy voting by incompetent hacks!" because people don't agree with me. I never expect any of the award voters to vote with me. I was simply lamenting the meaninglessness of the awards in response to people's various comments over Nash/Kobe/etc.

My point is that awards do matter. Not to say that one can just point to an award and say "look he's the best because he has that award," but because one can point to the award and the reasoning behind it and use the authority of it to back his own reasoning.

people should say "these 150 peple say he was the player most deserving of this award?" A bit wordy don't you think? That is what is always implied within every statement. No one can definitely say a certain medicine works, but they can say that the medicine works because 150 doctors said it does, or because 150 patients have tried it.

What peeves me is saying that the award is a sham. It is no more or less a sham then any efficiency index in my honest opinion.

If you want understanding, perhaps you should understand there may be less to something than you think there is. Maybe there's nothing under the surface, irregardless of if you want there to be or not.

Its possible. Look, I don't think nash should've been mvp, BUT i don't discount the possiblity that perhaps there is more to something than I think there is. Just because something doesn't coincide with my beliefs, I'm not going to disregard it as shallow or irrelevant.

Oh shit...it's a quote war with people two people who love to debate. /me sits back and watches.

Nash got his award.

oh god that's clever, ahahahaha, damn you're killin me... shouldn't the words "most valuable player" on his trophy be changed though?

<3 Magius. Continue, please

Nash got his award.

that pic should be on a banner somewhere...it's that good.

great image

hahahah Looks like Nash has found another "ball" to grab

hahahah, try to keep the gay references out of your posts, we've got ammo against your girl... er... boy, kobe.


anyhoo, Nash with a strong 32-13. how many assists, kobe? 5? c'mon. Nash had 18 less points, but 8 more assists. Also 4 less TOs.

hey don't try to change the subject! I still want to keep laughing at the retarted looking Nash holding the Posterization Victim of the Year - trophy.

Hahahaha! great picture

hahahah, try to keep the gay references out of your posts, we've got ammo against your girl... er... boy, kobe.


anyhoo, Nash with a strong 32-13. how many assists, kobe? 5? c'mon. Nash had 18 less points, but 8 more assists. Also 4 less TOs.

Adios Douche.