PDA

View Full Version : Bill Simmons with MAJOR Suns Love...


Pages : [1] 2

jthig32
01-17-2007, 03:01 PM
I've really been looking forward to the next Bill Simmons article. I have to say, this is NOT what I was expecting.

I have so, SO many problems with this article....

Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070117)


Since I haven't written an NBA column in five weeks, thousands of frustrated basketball fans have been flooding me with e-mails and demanding their hoops fix. All right, maybe it hasn't been thousands, more like hundreds. Or maybe it was just six readers, my buddy House and Marc Stein. But still, it FELT like thousands of readers. That's the important thing.

Just know that I haven't been ignoring the NBA. I'm just a little depressed because the Celtics stink again. Fortunately, we stink to the point that we're now the leading contenders for the Kevin Durant-Greg Oden Sweepstakes. (Yeah, I know I put Durant first even though Oden is the consensus No. 1. Just know that I factored in the upcoming March Madness tournament when Durant averages a 35-13 for two straight weeks and nearly wins the national title by himself, followed by three straight months of, "Wait, this guy is a rich man's KG, he might be better than Oden!" stories and features. If you don't believe me, watch Durant for a few games. He's going to be very, VERY famous some day. You can say you knew him when.) Now I'm openly rooting against the Celtics and TiVo-ing every game involving everyone on Chad Ford's top 350.
Anyway, since I'm trapped in Celtics Hell, I needed something to carry me through the dregs of the NBA regular season. And you know what's kept me going?

The Phoenix Suns.

I watch all of their games. I rewind plays to see what they're doing and how they're doing it. I learn about basketball from them. I revel in their splendidry, and I don't even think splendidry is a word. They're the most consistently entertaining basketball team in 20 years. They have a chance to be historically good. You could be bouncing your grandkids on your lap someday and telling them that you watched the 2007 Suns.
Naturally, nobody's talking about them. Everyone's tired of hearing about Nash at this point, and since they don't have the best record in the league, there isn't any urgency to make a fuss about them. But if you care about basketball at all, if the sport has ever meant anything to you, if you remember the Magic-Bird Era fondly in any way, if you're remotely interested in watching a professional sports team peak ... then you need to follow the Suns. They're sniffing at true greatness. I'm not saying it will happen, just that it could. You never imagined that an NBA team could score 111 points a game, shoot 51 percent from the field, shoot 81 percent from the line, make 40 percent of its 3s, double as the best transition team since the Showtime Lakers and still manage to be half-decent defensively, right?

Well, it's happening. And it's an exceedingly relevant development for two reasons:
1. We're in a weird time in sports right now. There isn't a dominant football, baseball, basketball or hockey player. There isn't a dominant boxer. Our two transcendent athletes are a tennis player (Roger Federer) and a golfer (Tiger Woods). We haven't seen a dominant team since the Patriots rolled off 31 of 33 victories during their last two Super Bowl seasons ... and as much I loved that team, there was never a point where you could have definitively said, "That team is playing on a higher plane than everyone else." Ever since MJ retired (the second time) and the Yankees got old, there's been a greatness drought with team sports.
2. The last great basketball teams were the Lakers and Celtics from the mid-'80s. Both were blessed with selfless superduperstars (Bird and Magic), genuine Hall of Famers (McHale and Parish for Boston; Worthy and Kareem for the Lakers) and valuable role players (DJ, Ainge and Walton for Boston; Cooper, Scott and Green for the Lakers). And both teams reached heights that haven't been approached since. They were the last two teams that dominated in a competitive league and routinely submitted those occasional "not only are we winning this game by 25 points, just send the tape to Springfield after it's over" games.
In a related story, the Suns are 26-2 in their last 28 games. Here were their two losses:

Dec. 22: They lose to the Wizards in OT (144-139) in a game that Arenas tied with a 3-point play in regulation, then Nash missed a wide-open 3 that could have ended it.
Dec. 28: They lose in Dallas by two (101-99) when Nowitzki made a jumper with 0.1 seconds left.

With two reasonable breaks (Nash making the 3-pointer, Nowitzki missing the jumper), the Suns could be working on a 28-game winning streak right now. I've mentioned that to three people over the last 48 hours and all of them said the same thing: "Wait a second ... whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????"
It's true. You can look it up.

I didn't see this one coming. When the Suns were limping along to a 1-5 mark in early November, I wrote that Amare Stoudemire's up-and-down comeback was screwing them up. Seeing them in person against the Clippers that week, they looked about as happy as the family from "Little Miss Sunshine." How can you not have fun when you're playing with Steve Nash???? It's almost un-American. Umm, un-North American.

Just when things were looking bleak enough that a major trade seemed possible, four things happened that turned Phoenix's season around. First, the Suns stopped bringing Stoudemire off the bench, started him at center and rolled the dice with his "sore" knee. And guess what? He stopped sulking and started busting his butt on both ends. (Note: Stoudemire even admitted as much in Jack McCallum's story in Sports Illustrated a few weeks ago.) Second, they won a memorable triple-OT game in Jersey that kicked them into another gear. Every season has a defining game that gets a great team going -- for the '86 Celtics, it was the Christmas Day game when they blew a 25-point lead to the Knicks on national TV, spent two days sulking about it, then went on the NBA version of a cross-country killing spree (winning 20 of their next 22, including both Lakers games). The 161-157 game did that for the Suns. Third, Mike D'Antoni buried Marcus Banks (an indefensibly bad free-agent signing) and made Barbosa the backup point, which enabled the Suns to play quality guards at all times. And fourth, Diaw and Marion conceded the high post (and all those high screens with Nash) to Stoudemire and figured out other ways to get their stats.

If there's a potential land mine, it's the Marion-Stoudemire rivalry, an ongoing problem (as McCallum described in his book about the Suns) because of Stoudemire's enormous ego and Marion's insecurities about his underappreciated career (even though his talents are indisputably essential to everything the Suns do). If this were a rock band, Marion would be the drummer -- the guy who's killing himself every night and resigning himself to a couple of solos per concert. In fact, one of the reasons I couldn't endorse Nash's previous MVP candidacies was because no Phoenix star could be more "valuable" than any other Phoenix star; such a premise belittled the contributions of Stoudemire two years ago and Marion last season. Without Marion, the Suns wouldn't be the Suns.

Anyway, the Stoudemire-Marion issue could have killed this team -- hell, it still might -- but something funny happened while they were sorting everything out: Phoenix couldn't stop winning. After the 3-6 start, the Suns won an astonishing 15 straight, dropped two of three, then won another 10 straight (and counting). Once they started rolling over everybody, Marion accepted his new role as the drummer. For now. Let's see how he feels in five months. But as long as he's happy, Phoenix's top six players surpass anything we've seen since Magic-Kareem-Worthy-Cooper-Scott-Thompson/Green or Bird-Parish-McHale-Johnson-Ainge-Walton. Just look at these guys. It's insane.

Barbosa: He'd be the best guard on more than half the teams in the league right now ... unstoppable off the dribble and a first-team member of the Streak Scorer All-Stars ... learned to run the offense just competently enough that they could bury Banks ... they'll even run plays for him in crunch time (like the 3 that beat the Bulls) ... I think he's one of the best 40 players in the league, a slightly more efficient version of Ben Gordon ... by the way, he's their sixth man.

Diaw: Killed them in the first few weeks by showing up out of shape, now he's fine ... plays three positions and guards the best opposing low-post player, doubles as the second-best passer on the team (5.5 assists a game!), doesn't care about shots, moved to the wing for Stoudemire's sake and remained just as effective ... one of the most underrated back-to-the-basket guys in either conference, although the Suns rarely go to him in the low post ... also one of the only people I've ever liked from France ... shooting an eye-opening 54 percent this season ... I think he's one of the best 45-50 players in the league ... somewhere, Steve Belkin is reading this and saying to himself, "See, I told you Diaw and two No. 1s was too much!"

Bell: Doesn't care about shots, nails open 3s (42 percent) and covers the best opposing scorer every game (although his defense is slightly overrated -- quicker guys like Gordon give him problems) ... he's also their fiercest competitor ... if they don't need his defense in crunch time, they'll play Barbosa over him and he won't complain about it ... I once wrote that he played like Bruce Bowen after four drinks -- I'd like to revise that to "Bowen after two shots of tequila and a slap to the face" ... and if that's not enough, he clearly aggravates Kobe, which counts for something.

Marion: If you had to pick one forward in the NBA to run the floor with Nash, this would be the guy ... as long as he's happy, playing hard and feeling even mildly appreciated, the 2007 Suns are unstoppable ... I think he's one of the best 20 players in the league ... by the way, did you ever think that Shawn Marion would go down as the greatest UNLV player in NBA history?

Stoudemire: I'd say he's about 87 percent back, which makes him the second-best center alive (behind Yao and tied with Dwight Howard) and a top-20 player ... totally attuned with Nash on those pick-and-rolls ... improved his team defense and became an asset as a shot-blocker ... averaging a 20-10 over the past six weeks and starting to show "force of nature" signs again ... living proof that you CAN come back from microfracture surgery (although I still wouldn't recommend it).

Nash: I wouldn't have voted him MVP the past two years (when he did win), but I'd absolutely vote for him this year (when he won't win because nobody's prepared for a world where Steve Nash is a three-time NBA MVP). Here's the case for Nash in three parts:
A. When the Suns were threatening to implode early in the season, by all accounts, he kept them together almost singlehandedly (on and off the court). There isn't a more authentic leader in the league. He's the anti-Zach Randolph.
B. The more he plays with the same teammates, the better he gets. Now he's starting to resemble Gretzky during his Edmonton days -- not only does he keep finding guys for layups, dunks and wide-open 3s, he's finding them at consistently impossible angles. I have never, ever, EVER seen anyone run the point guard position like this on a day-to-day basis. Not even Magic and Isiah. If we ever kept track of assists that directly created a layup or dunk for a teammate, he'd be heading toward an all-time record.
C. Two months ago, I joked that Deron Williams looked like he went to John Stockton Summer Camp ... then it turned out that he actually DID spend the summer being tutored by Stockton. Now I'm wondering if Nash went as well. He rarely smiles and he barks at the refs more than he ever did. He gets testy with opposing players and teammates. Just like Stockton, he sets moving picks and trips defenders coming off screens (most famously to set up Barbosa's 3 that won the Chicago game). I don't want to say he's going to the dark side like Danny LaRusso during the Terry Silva Era, but there's definitely a nasty edge to his game that I can't remember seeing before.

Here's what happened: When Dallas eliminated Phoenix last spring, Nash probably spent a few weeks mulling over his career and everything that happened. He thought about the two MVP awards, realized he couldn't accomplish anything more other than winning a title, then thought long and hard about how to do it, ultimately cutting off his hair (feel the symbolism, baby!) and getting in the best shape of his life (remember, he wore down the last two springs). Then he showed up for training camp, realized the Marion-Stoudemire soap opera would be an ongoing problem, realized Diaw was woefully out of shape, realized Banks wasn't going to help at all ... and something snapped inside him. Exit, nice Steve Nash. Enter, icy Steve Nash. And he's been playing pissed off ever since. Eventually, everyone else fell in line.
Well, guess what? THAT'S AN MVP! That's what I'm looking for! Finally!

It's been a virtuoso season for him. Borrowing the same tactic that once worked so well for Magic, Isiah and Stockton, Nash uses the first 40-42 minutes to get everyone else going, then takes over in crunch time and looks for his own offense if the Suns need it. Sometimes he'll defer to a scorching-hot Barbosa, sometimes he'll feed Amare on those high screens, sometimes he'll post Diaw if there's a mismatch to be exploited, sometimes he'll slash-and-kick to Bell or Marion, but if he can get his own shot, and it's a good one, he's taking it. Over anything else, that subtle change in Nash's mind-set -- basically, a complete refusal to accept anything less than a championship, even if it means some occasional selfishness -- kicked this Phoenix team into another gear. Remember when Nash scored 48 in the playoff loss to Dallas two years ago? He was horrified and even a little embarrassed afterward, right?
Now, he'd probably be pissed that he didn't get 50.


That's the biggest difference between the 2006 Suns and the 2007 Suns, with Nash's haircut symbolizing everything -- they play with a chip on their shoulder. They want to run teams off the floor. They want to break their will. For instance, Cleveland came to Phoenix last Thursday for a nationally televised game, and since the Cavs had been playing well and showing signs of running away with the East, it looked like a good test for the cruising Suns. Instead, it turned into a nonstop layup line. By the end of the first half, Phoenix was winning by 26. And I learned three things from that game:

1. The Suns dismantled Cleveland effortlessly, like they were plucking wings off a butterfly or something. I don't even think they shifted past third gear the entire game. That was truly scary -- not for me but for everyone else in the league.

2. The Cavs were demolished to the degree that they can't be taken seriously for the rest of the season. This game was more one-sided than the Awvee Storey-Martynas Andriuskevicius fight.

3. There was one moment when everything kicked into a higher gear for the Suns and they started rolling off easy basket after easy basket -- really, it was breathtaking to watch -- and eventually, their fans stood up and just kept cheering and cheering, even during a break in the action, just to profusely thank the players for what was happening. And I was sitting on my sofa thinking, "During the Bird Era, this happened ALL THE TIME. They'd get it going, great things would happen, and we'd stand up and cheer and cheer because we couldn't think of another way to adequately express how fortunate we were other than to just start throwing money on the court. And now, it's happening in Phoenix and I'm jealous as hell."
Which brings me to my main point ...

It's nearly impossible to compare players and teams from different eras because the game continues to evolve in ways that nobody ever imagined. Tuesday night, I watched a triple-OT game between Texas and Oklahoma State where a 6-foot-11, 190-pound forward (the outrageously talented Durant, my current basketball obsession other than the Suns) scored 37 points on an eclectic mix of 25-footers, spin moves, jump hooks and drives to either side. He did everything facing the basket. He looked like a 6-foot-11 Tracy McGrady. Trust me when I tell you this: We've never seen anyone remotely resembling Kevin Durant on a basketball court before. If you stuck him in a time machine and transported him back to the Russell-Chamberlain Era, he'd probably average 55 points a game. Just the mere thought of his putting on a Celtics jersey makes me want to start sobbing with joy.

Anyway, because the game keeps evolving and improving, you can only compare the impact of players and teams relative to the time in which they played. Would the '86 Celtics have beaten the '96 Bulls in a seven-game series? Too difficult to say. For instance, Pippen would have guarded Bird in that series, and there wasn't anyone remotely resembling Scottie Pippen in 1986. So how could you know? Compare their relative impacts and it's a different story. The '86 Celtics were greater than the '96 Bulls because they excelled against tougher competition, they were invincible at home (50-1 at home if you include playoff games) and their top-six was better than Chicago's top-six. You will never convince me otherwise. But the one thing that separated those mid-'80s Celtics and Lakers teams from everyone after them was that sixth gear: You never knew when they would throw together one of those four-minute stretches, turn the game into a layup line and blow somebody off the court.
(In fact, that Celtics team was so loaded that they screwed around during games, almost like musicians jamming near the end of a song. During a recent NBA TV interview with Bird for the Legend's 50th birthday, Bill Walton and Bird reminisced about the time Bird set goals for their West Coast trip, decided he would average 42 points a game for the trip, then got bored midway through and decided to shoot all left-handed shots in Portland. And he did just that. This actually happened.)

Now the Suns are approaching that hallowed level and I never thought we'd see something like that again -- not with 29 teams, not with a salary cap, not with the lottery system, not when teams are so much smarter about not giving away future lottery picks for the likes of Don Ford and Gerald Henderson. If the Suns stay healthy, they should win 67-70 games and nobody should touch them in the playoffs except for Dallas, the one contender that can dictate a specific tempo and force its opponents to abide by it.

Still, I can't imagine the Suns blowing a seven-game series -- not with their style of play (impossible to stop), not with the way they shoot free throws (everyone in the top six is over 80 percent except for Diaw), not with everyone they can throw at Nowitzki, not with Nash's new and improved killer instinct. Even their team defense has improved to the point that Barkley doesn't dismiss them anymore. They're a juggernaut with a terrific coach and no real holes other than a thin bench.

Of course, the Suns can guarantee immortality with one move: Thanks to the Diaw-Johnson trade, they own Atlanta's 2007 No. 1 pick unless it falls in the top three. Say they packaged that pick with Kurt Thomas' expiring contract and/or Banks' contract for one more blue-chipper. What would happen if they added Rashard Lewis or Mike Miller, gave one of them James Jones' minutes (20-25 a game), then went seven-deep the rest of the way? Starting Nash, Stoudemire, Diaw, Bell and Marion, with Miller/Lewis and Barbosa coming off the bench, nobody would play more than 38 minutes or less than 25, and there wouldn't be a bad shooter or a bad all-around player in the bunch. Five of the seven players would be shooting over 40 percent from 3-pointers. They could go small, they could go big, they could play fast or slow, they could do anything they wanted. They'd be the Dirk Diggler of NBA teams.

Look, my NBA life is in complete shambles. My beloved Celtics might be the worst team in the league and I spend far too much time thinking about an 18-year-old kid in Austin who could save them some day. The Clippers are playing such uninspired, mediocre basketball that it's not even fun to attend their games, even as an unbiased observer. My favorite commissioner has endured some rare misfires and was recently pulled over for being drunk with power. The whole season has been a disaster. Other than Gilbert Arenas screaming "Hibachi!" and Isiah making one last boneheaded trade, all I have to look forward until next June's draft are the Suns and their quest for greatness.
So for my sake, make one more move, Phoenix. You owe it to Nash, you owe it to D'Antoni and the Suns fans, you owe it to me, and you owe it to every other diehard basketball fan who loves this game and never imagined we would see another invincible team. All 19 of us.

jthig32
01-17-2007, 03:31 PM
I sent an email in response to this garbage. It read as follows.:

This article you just wrote was on of the most forced, awkward, and just plain horrible pieces if journalism I've ever read. You're doing exactly what moronic MVP voters have done the past two years, which is to get sucked into the glamour and prettiness of Suns basketball.

Your newfound attraction to the team is blinding you to reality. I mean, did you REALLY just make the case that Steve Nash is the MVP of the league when he plays with two players who join him in the top 20 club in the NBA, has a 6th man that's one of the 40 best players in basketball (according to you), and STILL doesn't have his team atop the NBA? Really? Did you?

Did you REALLY just write a column talking about the Suns as the first great dynasty since the mid 80's Lakers and Celtics, and apaprantly better than the mid 90's Bulls, when they don't even own the best record in their conference, and have been feasting on the horrible East all season?

A few stats for you today: The Mavs are currently 22-6 against the West. The Suns? 13-7. Notice a disparity there?

Against the other top 7 teams in the West, Dallas is 10-4, Phoenix is...1-6. Whoops!

If you like the Suns, think they're fun to watch, fine. But to anoint Nash the MVP, and talk about them like they're they next NBA dynasty is beyond silly, and bordering on moronic.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 03:35 PM
anyone have his email address? I want to email him a few things. I have several problems with this article.

1. No one is talking about them. Really? does he not watch his own network? they get much more talk than the mavs do. I mean tim legler doesnt even take the time to wipe the nut off his face in between slurping steve nash and the suns.

2. Nash for mvp case. Despite making a case for nash for MVP in this case, he accidently makes the case against nash. Nash has all of this ridiculous talent around him that he points out. However, the mavs have a better record. If he is taking a more talented team to a lesser record with similar to lesser individual stats how is he the mvp? Seriously how does this never get addressed? Im just curious. Everyone loves to point out how he makes his teammates better. Hes a great pg nothing more nothing less. He isnt iconic, he isnt an all time great, hes just not what he has been made out to be now. Also he lost me when he made the Magic comparison. Magic was without question better at running an offense than nash.

3. How do you ignore the mavs 32-4 run while pointing this out? Also how do you ignore that they have beaten the suns in their one meeting during both of thems hot run and the fact that despite all of the people they have to throw at dirk, he torches them everytime the mavs play the suns? The problem is that they dont have a shot blocker as shaq waiting for dirk so even though marion might seem like someone who could give dirk trouble, it doesnt really work in practicality because when dirk gets past him he can still finish(no amare isnt that good of a shotblocker)

4. Why right an article about a team being all time great when they dont have the best record in the nba and have been beaten twice by the team above them in the standings? WHY? He rags on everyone else for falling in love with the colts because of his patriots homerdom but then he does the exact same thing to the suns. This smacks of the USC is the best college football team of all time talk before they lost to UT, though at least that USC team was coming off of a championship.

5. He complains that no one is talking about them because they dont have the best record in the nba.(i know i sort of mentioned this) Guess what, they dont have the best record. Why in the heck would anyone else mention them being an all time great team when they have yet to make a finals and they dont have the best record?

6. they are winning 67-70 games. taking the low end of that, they need to go 38 and 7 from here on out. Doable but by no means the sure thing he makes it seem. this is a better record than they have thus far this year.

jthig32
01-17-2007, 03:37 PM
There's a link to email him on this page (http://sports.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=bill_simmons&rT=sports).

dirno2000
01-17-2007, 03:54 PM
Good points by both of you. I'd be interested to see his response if you get one. Or maybe he'll combine them and put them in the next mailbag.

Windmill360
01-17-2007, 04:05 PM
Against the other top 7 teams in the West, Dallas is 10-4, Phoenix is...1-6. Whoops! This one is my favorite of them all.

jthig32
01-17-2007, 04:07 PM
This one is my favorite of them all.

If he responds, he'll point out that the majority of those losses came to open the season, when they weren't playing well.

But, to me, that begs the question: Did they start playing better, or did they find easier opponents.

And for the record, I respect the Suns. I think they're easily our best competition this year. They're a great team. But, to write an article like this, right now, is just silly.

Windmill360
01-17-2007, 04:10 PM
But, to me, that begs the question: Did they start playing better, or did they find easier opponents.

And for the record, I respect the Suns. I think they're easily our best competition this year. They're a great team. But, to write an article like this, right now, is just silly.

Yea that's a good point.

Hopefully they lose to houston tonight and make it 1-7.

Flacolaco
01-17-2007, 04:11 PM
A few stats for you today: The Mavs are currently 22-6 against the West. The Suns? 13-7. Notice a disparity there?

Against the other top 7 teams in the West, Dallas is 10-4, Phoenix is...1-6. Whoops!

Brilliant.

This is why the Suns are not going all the way this year, or ever, until they change their ridiculous circus style play. Have fun with you regular season success phx.

jthig32
01-17-2007, 04:12 PM
Yea that's a good point.

Hopefully they lose to houston tonight and make it 1-7.

I was just talking to a Buddy of mine about that. I would LOVE for the Suns to lose tonight right after this article. It would be classic.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 04:14 PM
i seriously doubt they lose to houston with tmac having a sore back and them being on the second night of a back to back. if phoenix is anything, they are the worst team to play on the second night of a back to back. Plus mutumbo is practically useless against them.

jthig32
01-17-2007, 04:16 PM
i seriously doubt they lose to houston with tmac having a sore back and them being on the second night of a back to back. if phoenix is anything, they are the worst team to play on the second night of a back to back. Plus mutumbo is practically useless against them.

Yeah, unfortunately it is a longshot.

But it would be sweet.

Windmill360
01-17-2007, 04:16 PM
i seriously doubt they lose to houston with tmac having a sore back and them being on the second night of a back to back. if phoenix is anything, they are the worst team to play on the second night of a back to back. Plus mutumbo is practically useless against them.
I don't know about that one... I mean Gundy DID pull him out with 2 minutes to go in last nights game... that SHOULD be enough resting time, right? http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/images/icons/icon10.gif

sike
01-17-2007, 04:23 PM
just for the record, I really like and respect all the posters who have posted in this thread thus far...great points made...and thiggy....your response to Simmons is genius. I love you.

sike
01-17-2007, 04:27 PM
From thiggy: "did you REALLY just make the case that Steve Nash is the MVP of the league when he plays with two players who join him in the top 20 club in the NBA, has a 6th man that's one of the 40 best players in basketball (according to you), and STILL doesn't have his team atop the NBA? Really? Did you?"

this has been my major case all along...how can a the league select an MVP when his team is loaded with 3 of the top 25 players in THE LEAGUE? It doesn't take much to "carry" a team when all you have to do is run down the court (forgetting defense altogether) and throw it up to Shawn or Amare...is Nash the greatest offensive point guard I've seen...yes...is he a complete player...not even close. Should an incomplete player with such a rediculously talented cast be so highly praised? Not a chance.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 04:32 PM
something to mention in the 28-3 run, the suns western conference opponents with winning records are utah, which they lost, houston which they won, dallas-loss. thats it. Those are the only western conference teams with winning records that they have played in the last 31 games. So they are 1-2 against western teams with winning records during that stretch.

They have done well against eastern playoff teams but the east just sucks. that said expanding it to winning teams overall, orlando which they won, the wiz which they lost, detroit which they won, chicago which they won, cleveland which they won and orlando which they won. that makes them 5-1 against the easten winning teams. great if they were in the east.

lets contrast that with the mavs in there 32-4 run. against west winning teams, Phoenix Win, SA win, minny win, denver win, utah Loss, lakers win, phoenix win, denver win, SA win, lakers loss, utah win, houston win. that is 10-2 as opposed to 1-2. That is a HUGE difference. now expand theirs to include the east, wins-chicago, wiz, indy, indy, losses-detroit and wiz. This leads to a 4-2 record against east winning teams which is a game worse than the suns. however in both teams hot runs, the mavs are 14-4 against winning teams and 10-2 against the west winning teams which are better. while the suns are 6-3 overall and a pretty pathetic 1-2 against the west.

When i began looking at this i had no idea just how scary bad the suns schedule has been during this run. 3 games against the 8 western conference teams with winning records in a 31 game stretch? How is that possible? I still think the suns are a great team but they are more than just a little a product of an incredibly weak schedule.

jthig32
01-17-2007, 04:37 PM
something to mention in the 28-3 run, the suns western conference opponents with winning records are utah, which they lost, houston which they won, dallas-loss. thats it. Those are the only western conference teams with winning records that they have played in the last 31 games. So they are 1-2 against western teams with winning records during that stretch.

They have done well against eastern playoff teams but the east just sucks. that said expanding it to winning teams overall, orlando which they won, the wiz which they lost, detroit which they won, chicago which they won, cleveland which they won and orlando which they won. that makes them 5-1 against the easten winning teams. great if they were in the east.

lets contrast that with the mavs in there 32-4 run. against west winning teams, Phoenix Win, SA win, minny win, denver win, utah Loss, lakers win, phoenix win, denver win, SA win, lakers loss, utah win, houston win. that is 10-2 as opposed to 1-2. That is a HUGE difference. now expand theirs to include the east, wins-chicago, wiz, indy, indy, losses-detroit and wiz. This leads to a 4-2 record against east winning teams which is a game worse than the suns. however in both teams hot runs, the mavs are 14-4 against winning teams and 10-2 against the west winning teams which are better. while the suns are 6-3 overall and a pretty pathetic 1-2 against the west.

When i began looking at this i had no idea just how scary bad the suns schedule has been during this run. 3 games against the 8 western conference teams with winning records in a 31 game stretch? How is that possible? I still think the suns are a great team but they are more than just a little a product of an incredibly weak schedule.

Yup. As I posted earlier, 1-6 against the other top 7 teams in the West according to record. I'm not sure what's more disturbing in that stat, the fact they've only won one game, or the fact that they've only played 7 total, litereally half of the games the Mavs have played against the top teams.

V2M
01-17-2007, 04:54 PM
Nash winning it a 3rd time has to be the ultimate insult for Marion & Amare...

dirno2000
01-17-2007, 05:01 PM
Nash winning it a 3rd time has to be the ultimate insult for Marion & Amare...

I'm reading "7 seconds or less"...don't think this fact is lost on Marion.

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 05:29 PM
Nash winning it a 3rd time has to be the ultimate insult for Marion & Amare...

I think it's more of an insult to me, as a basketball fan. Doubly so as a Mavs fan. This will be the third year in a row that Nash wins the trophy that rightfully belongs to Dirk.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 05:47 PM
ive sent simmons 3 emails that i think deserve responses. Hopefully one of them ends up in the next mailbag. he does what 1 every week or two? im not from dallas but i just went ahead and put that so if you see one from matt from dallas, tx, its from me most likely.

as for the mvp, dirk receiving almost no consideration two years ago when he put up 26.1 9.7 3.1 1.5 1.2 on a team with a second year josh howard and a 12 ppg jason terry as sidekicks is one of the great travesties in recent sports memory. Not to mention hes led the league in win shares each of the last two years. its actually this email that i think he will end up posting because he likes new ways to look at stuff and ive never seen him mention basketball win shares which he loves in baseball so i wonder if he has ever actually seen them.

aexchange
01-17-2007, 06:02 PM
simmons, marc stein, and steve nash just need to go into a room and get it over with already.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 06:13 PM
simmons, marc stein, and steve nash just need to go into a room and get it over with already.
tim legler would commit suicide if they left him out. thats a pretty good reason not to include him...

capitalcity
01-17-2007, 06:16 PM
Except that piece of shit article, nothing but good stuff in this thread.

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 06:51 PM
The Suns' schedule to date has really been quite amazing. I don't remember any time in recent history that one team had such a cream-puff schedule.

November
Wed 01 vs LA Clippers W 112-104
Fri 03 vs Utah L 104-108
Sat 04 @ LA Clippers L 108-114
Wed 08 @ San Antonio L 106-111
Thu 09 vs Dallas L 112-119
Sat 11 vs Memphis W 96-87
Fri 17 vs Philadelphia W 106-94
Sat 18 @ Utah L 117-120
Mon 20 @ Golden State W 113-110
Wed 22 vs New Orleans W 92-83
Fri 24 vs New Jersey W 99-93
Sun 26 @ Portland W 119-101
Wed 29 vs Houston W 102-91
December
Fri 01 vs Milwaukee W 122-116
Tue 05 vs Sacramento W 127-102
Thu 07 @ New Jersey W 161-157
Fri 08 @ Boston W 116-111
Sun 10 @ Charlotte W 114-84
Mon 11 @ Orlando W 103-89
Wed 13 @ Miami W 99-89
Fri 15 vs Golden State W 105-101
Sat 16 @ Sacramento W 105-98
Tue 19 vs Toronto W 115-98
Fri 22 vs Washington L 139-144
Tue 26 vs Portland W 110-87
Thu 28 @ Dallas L 99-101
Fri 29 vs New York W 108-86
Sun 31 @ Detroit W 108-101
January
Tue 02 @ Chicago W 97-96
Wed 03 @ Toronto W 100-98
Fri 05 vs Miami W 108-80
Sun 07 vs Golden State W 128-105
Tue 09 vs Seattle W 113-102
Thu 11 vs Cleveland W 109-90
Sat 13 vs Orlando W 107-101
Mon 15 @ Memphis W 137-122

And tonight, a T-Mac-less, Yao-less Houston team that played the Mavs last night.

MVP! MVP!

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 07:01 PM
The Suns' schedule to date has really been quite amazing. I don't remember any time in recent history that one team had such a cream-puff schedule.

November
Wed 01 vs LA Clippers W 112-104
Fri 03 vs Utah L 104-108
Sat 04 @ LA Clippers L 108-114
Wed 08 @ San Antonio L 106-111
Thu 09 vs Dallas L 112-119
Sat 11 vs Memphis W 96-87
Fri 17 vs Philadelphia W 106-94
Sat 18 @ Utah L 117-120
Mon 20 @ Golden State W 113-110
Wed 22 vs New Orleans W 92-83
Fri 24 vs New Jersey W 99-93
Sun 26 @ Portland W 119-101
Wed 29 vs Houston W 102-91
December
Fri 01 vs Milwaukee W 122-116
Tue 05 vs Sacramento W 127-102
Thu 07 @ New Jersey W 161-157
Fri 08 @ Boston W 116-111
Sun 10 @ Charlotte W 114-84
Mon 11 @ Orlando W 103-89
Wed 13 @ Miami W 99-89
Fri 15 vs Golden State W 105-101
Sat 16 @ Sacramento W 105-98
Tue 19 vs Toronto W 115-98
Fri 22 vs Washington L 139-144
Tue 26 vs Portland W 110-87
Thu 28 @ Dallas L 99-101
Fri 29 vs New York W 108-86
Sun 31 @ Detroit W 108-101
January
Tue 02 @ Chicago W 97-96
Wed 03 @ Toronto W 100-98
Fri 05 vs Miami W 108-80
Sun 07 vs Golden State W 128-105
Tue 09 vs Seattle W 113-102
Thu 11 vs Cleveland W 109-90
Sat 13 vs Orlando W 107-101
Mon 15 @ Memphis W 137-122

And tonight, a T-Mac-less, Yao-less Houston team that played the Mavs last night.

MVP! MVP!
tmacs not playing? really? i knew he was a little dinged but i didnt know he wasnt playing.

TheBlueVan
01-17-2007, 07:16 PM
i was wondering how it was possible for us to finish of our last road trip and have played four more games over the course of the season than they had

we were 31-8 and the suns were 27-8. we're nearly equal now but looking at the quality of competition AND schedule, i think its even easier to say the mavs had it harder

nashtymavsfan13
01-17-2007, 08:30 PM
I think it's more of an insult to me, as a basketball fan. Doubly so as a Mavs fan. This will be the third year in a row that Nash wins the trophy that rightfully belongs to Dirk.

I was talking to my friend today (he's a Lakers fan, really likes Kobe and hates the Mavs because of me liking them) and even he said that if the season ended today Dirk should win the MVP. If a guy who never gives Dirk props, and loves to hate on the Mavs can see that Dirk deserves it, why can't the voters?

Hitman
01-17-2007, 08:43 PM
A couple of points in response to this article, and this thread:

1. Dirk should have been the MVP last year, and probably should have the MVP the year before that (ahead of Nash both years.)
2. Dirk should be the front runner for MVP this year.
3. The Mavs should be considered front runners to win it all this year.
4. I think they are the front runners.

However...

If you don't appreciate the way Nash (and the Suns) are playing, then you are not a basketball fan. If you don't think that he is playing at at insane level this year, then your are in denial (or you haven't been watching. Or both. Even if you don't think he should have won MVP the last 2 years, you can't deny that he is playing at an insane MVP caliber this year. Simmons' Gretzky comparisons are dead on.)

And, if you don't think they have a real, legitimate, chance at the NBA title, then you are kidding yourself.

Finally...if you think that Bill Simmons considers himself a "journalist," then you haven't been paying attention. He is a fan who has his own opinions...who happens to write for ESPN.com. But he is not, nor does he consider himself, a journalist.

He is a writer and a fan, and at least he actually is passionate about the game. I love the sportsguy.

Remember, he was the guy electing Dirk to the pantheon last spring. Simmons, while I may not always agree with him, is definitely the most entertaining NBA writer out there.

And he has a passion for the game.

dirno2000
01-17-2007, 09:11 PM
You won't find a bigger Bill Simmons fan than me. I read everything he writes, even if I have no interest in the topic. Same for 5-0 and j-thig.

I'd also admit that for the first time in 3 years, Nash actually should be in the MVP race this season.

But he's comparing the Suns with the 86 Celtics and, by extension, the 96 Bulls. Even for an emotional fan, that's going way overboard. Those teams had not only been to the Finals, they'd won titles. They were championship teams building on previously established greatness. The Suns have been to the WCF twice but that's only because of the leagues ridiculous seeding system.

I'm all for the emotional fan angle...it's part of what makes him great. At the same time, it wouldn't kill him to have a little perspective. He's so desperate to see another dominant NBA team that he's trying to create one.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 09:14 PM
Your newfound attraction to the team is blinding you to reality. I mean, did you REALLY just make the case that Steve Nash is the MVP of the league when he plays with two players who join him in the top 20 club in the NBA, has a 6th man that's one of the 40 best players in basketball (according to you), and STILL doesn't have his team atop the NBA? Really? Did you?Would you diminish Magic's MVP's because he had a former MVP himself, Kareem, on the team--not to mention Worthy, Scott, and Cooper? Would you diminish Bird's MVP's because he played with Parish and McHale? Would you diminish Shaq's because he played with Kobe?

This is a weak line of argument.

And so is the "they don't even have the best record!" one. Their record is more than good enough. And they aren't much removed from the one team ahead of them.

If you want to take on Simmons, my guess is that you are going to have to bring better than this dreck.

jthig32
01-17-2007, 09:35 PM
Would you diminish Magic's MVP's because he had a former MVP himself, Kareem, on the team--not to mention Worthy, Scott, and Cooper? Would you diminish Bird's MVP's because he played with Parish and McHale? Would you diminish Shaq's because he played with Kobe?

This is a weak line of argument.

And so is the "they don't even have the best record!" one. Their record is more than good enough. And they aren't much removed from the one team ahead of them.

If you want to take on Simmons, my guess is that you are going to have to bring better than this dreck.

"Dreck"...nice.

He didn't deserve the MVP last year, and he didn't deserve it the year before that. Simmons' arguments both of those years was that it was hard to tell who was even most valuable to that team. You could EASILY make the case that Marion was more valuable to that team last year than Nash.

This year, I agree that he should be up for consideration. But when merely comparing him to Dirk, there isn't a person alive that wouldn't take Nash's supporting cast over Dirk's, and yet the Mavs currently have a better record than the Suns, and in my opinion they will end the season with a better one.

Oh, and comparing Nash to Magic and Bird? Laughable.

jthig32
01-17-2007, 09:36 PM
You won't find a bigger Bill Simmons fan than me. I read everything he writes, even if I have no interest in the topic. Same for 5-0 and j-thig.

I'd also admit that for the first time in 3 years, Nash actually should be in the MVP race this season.

But he's comparing the Suns with the 86 Celtics and, by extension, the 96 Bulls. Even for an emotional fan, that's going way overboard. Those teams had not only been to the Finals, they'd won titles. They were championship teams building on previously established greatness. The Suns have been to the WCF twice but that's only because of the leagues ridiculous seeding system.

I'm all for the emotional fan angle...it's part of what makes him great. At the same time, it wouldn't kill him to have a little perspective. He's so desperate to see another dominant NBA team that he's trying to create one.

What he said.

Trust me, you can't tell me anything about Simmons I don't already know. I go back and read from his archives all the time. Notice I said at the top "I've been looking forward to Simmons' next basketball article for a long time".

I realize what his angle is, and I realize he's more about emotional reaction than logical analysis, but this crossed the line.

Hitman
01-17-2007, 09:40 PM
I'd also admit that for the first time in 3 years, Nash actually should be in the MVP race this season.

But he's comparing the Suns with the 86 Celtics and, by extension, the 96 Bulls. Even for an emotional fan, that's going way overboard.

You may think that Nash shouldn't have the MVP the last two years, but to claim that he "shouldn't have been in the discussion" is ridiculous. He most certainly deserved to be in the discussion both years. This year, he happens to have a stronger case.

It may seem to "going overboard" to compare the 07 Suns to the 86 Celtics, or the 96 Bulls.

But, if they win 65+ games, and win the NBA title (and they have a legitimate shot at both,) then the comparision won't seem so ridiculous when this season is all said and done.

Plus, it is Simmons' job to get boards like this all worked up. And he has certainly fulfilled his job duties here.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 09:45 PM
Oh, and comparing Nash to Magic and Bird? Laughable.Explain to me why it is laughable to compare Magic's first MVP to Nash's. Please.

dirno2000
01-17-2007, 10:03 PM
Explain to me why it is laughable to compare Magic's first MVP to Nash's. Please.

You probably couldn't have replaced Magic with Jason Terry and not missed a beat...among other things.

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 10:06 PM
Explain to me why it is laughable to compare Magic's first MVP to Nash's. Please.

Chum, when Steve Nash starts at center for the injured Amare Stoudemire, and carries his team to victory over a legitimate opponent in the finals, then we'll compare him to Magic.

dirno2000
01-17-2007, 10:13 PM
You may think that Nash shouldn't have the MVP the last two years, but to claim that he "shouldn't have been in the discussion" is ridiculous. He most certainly deserved to be in the discussion both years. This year, he happens to have a stronger case.

I'll give you 2005 but I honestly don't think he should have been a serious player last year. He won it because he was a feel good story. That probably had something to do with him beating out Shaq the previous year too.

It may seem to "going overboard" to compare the 07 Suns to the 86 Celtics, or the 96 Bulls.

But, if they win 65+ games, and win the NBA title (and they have a legitimate shot at both,) then the comparision won't seem so ridiculous when this season is all said and done.

He picked the best year of two dynasties. 65 wins and a title won't do it.

Plus there's a huge difference between 65 wins and 72 wins. I wouldn't put the 86 Celtics in the 96 Bulls' class but he's on record saying that was his favorite team of all time.

Plus, it is Simmons' job to get boards like this all worked up. And he has certainly fulfilled his job duties here.

I don't believe this. That may be a by product of what he does but I believe that he writes what he feels. Like I said, this is just a little too much.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 10:14 PM
Chum, when Steve Nash starts at center for the injured Amare Stoudemire, and carries his team to victory over a legitimate opponent in the finals, then we'll compare him to Magic.Thank you, but I am looking for legitimate answers. Magic hadn't done that yet. I'm talking about MVP voting here.

Please, a legitimate answer to my question.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 10:16 PM
You probably couldn't have replaced Magic with Jason Terry and not missed a beat...among other things.Boy, am I ever sick and tired of this logical fallacy. Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--knows that the Mavs missed more than one beat when Harris and then Terry took over from Nash at point guard. They managed to improve in other areas, to be sure, but they took a major blow at PG at the time.

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 10:21 PM
Thank you, but I am looking for legitimate answers. Magic hadn't done that yet. I'm talking about MVP voting here.

Please, a legitimate answer to my question.

Well fuck your question, because you dodged his argument with that question. Nothing was said of MVP seasons.

"Oh, and comparing Nash to Magic and Bird? Laughable."

That's the quote from jthig you were responding to.

And "Magic hadn't done that yet?" Huh? Are you talking about his first MVP, or his superhuman performance in the '80 finals? Because that was his rookie season when he was 20 years old.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 10:27 PM
Thig said that in response to a post of mine, in which I did nothing near compare Nash to Magic. I'm just talking about MVP voting here.

Fair enough point, that Magic had already won titles before he won his first MVP. Is that the extent of your argument?

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 10:31 PM
Boy, am I ever sick and tired of this logical fallacy. Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--knows that the Mavs missed more than one beat when Harris and then Terry took over from Nash at point guard. They managed to improve in other areas, to be sure, but they took a major blow at PG at the time.

How do you define "skipping a beat" then? Because for me, "skipping a beat" usually doesn't include... well... getting better.

That, to me, is probably the single biggest argument against Nash, at least in 04-05.

If you mean that ball movement became a major problem for the Mavs, then yes. But honestly, tell me this. Can you remember any time in NBA history before Steve Nash, when a guy left a team, won 3 consecutive MVP's (he will win the award again this year, nothing will stop that), while his previous team enjoyed the greatest success in its history? Don't teams usually... like... suck... when a player of such caliber leaves?

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 10:34 PM
I guess you could start by telling me which teams meet your criteria, so I can research them. Which teams let a three-time MVP walk? I will go look them up, after you tell me.

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 10:38 PM
Thig said that in response to a post of mine, in which I did nothing near compare Nash to Magic. I'm just talking about MVP voting here.

Fair enough point, that Magic had already won titles before he won his first MVP. Is that the extent of your argument?

No, my argument is merely that Nash and Magic are such radically different players that it's just not valid in any way, shape, or form. It has even less relevance to the Bird/Dirk comparison.

Steve Nash is a special player in today's NBA. But he's really a prototypical point guard, defensive abilities notwithstanding. Magic, on the other hand, was a freak of nature that will probably never be seen again.

It's not a knock on Nash. My point really had nothing to do with titles. It was the fact that Magic filled in for Kareem. It was the fact that the dude could play any position, 1 to 5, and play any of them as well as anybody.

It's just not a valid comparison. If you're just comparing numbers, fine. But otherwise, it's like comparing Allen Iverson to Moses Malone.

Captain Disaster
01-17-2007, 10:43 PM
My problem with this article is that it is WAY TOO EARLY for all of this (even for the Mavs). How many times have we seen teams do well up to the all star break, or even to the end of the regular season, and then fizzle in the playoffs? Injuries will play a big part, schedules, etc... AND many teams are not at full strength in the west. Everybody is writing off the Spurs; what about the Rockets at full strength; Denver; the Lakers; Mavs; how about the Jazz; even Minnesota; the Heat with Shaq. Unless the NBA has somehow exempted the Suns from playing all of these teams, let's not anoint the Suns (or anyone else for that matter) just yet. Comparing them to the greatest teams of all time! C'mon, get real! IF, the Suns roll off three or four CHAMPIONSHIPS, THEN we can talk!!

What utter stupidity!

dirno2000
01-17-2007, 10:44 PM
Boy, am I ever sick and tired of this logical fallacy. Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--knows that the Mavs missed more than one beat when Harris and then Terry took over from Nash at point guard. They managed to improve in other areas, to be sure, but they took a major blow at PG at the time.

What other areas did they improve on to cover for the loss of a Magic Johnson like player? I mean they signed Damp but he sucks.

Honestly, there's no way in the hell you replace Magic with a non-all star player and improve as a team. But the fact that gets overlooked is that Nash was no longer an all-star in dallas himself. He was a good player and nothing more.

To compare him to Magic is blasphemy.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 10:44 PM
No, my argument is merely that Nash and Magic are such radically different players that it's just not valid in any way, shape, or form. It has even less relevance to the Bird/Dirk comparison.

Steve Nash is a special player in today's NBA. But he's really a prototypical point guard, defensive abilities notwithstanding. Magic, on the other hand, was a freak of nature that will probably never be seen again.

It's not a knock on Nash. My point really had nothing to do with titles. It was the fact that Magic filled in for Kareem. It was the fact that the dude could play any position, 1 to 5, and play any of them as well as anybody.

It's just not a valid comparison. If you're just comparing numbers, fine. But otherwise, it's like comparing Allen Iverson to Moses Malone.
That's fine. I don't disagree. But still and all, Magic *was* the guy that made that (incredible) offense run. In that regard, I think it's fair to compare the two.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 10:47 PM
What other areas did they improve on to cover for the loss of a Magic Johnson like player? I mean they signed Damp but he sucks.

Honestly, there's no way in the hell you replace Magic with a non-all star player and improve as a team. But the fact that gets overlooked is that Nash was no longer an all-star in dallas himself. He was a good player and nothing more.

To compare him to Magic is blasphemy.They completely changed their offensive style when Nash left. Harris/Terry weren't anywhere NEAR as big a part of the offense as Nash was when he was here (perhaps excepting the ill-fated '04 season). They become an iso offense, and if it weren't for Dirk Nowitzki they would probably have been terrible.

FINtastic
01-17-2007, 10:51 PM
Would you diminish Magic's MVP's because he had a former MVP himself, Kareem, on the team--not to mention Worthy, Scott, and Cooper? Would you diminish Bird's MVP's because he played with Parish and McHale? Would you diminish Shaq's because he played with Kobe?

This is a weak line of argument.

Bird had a great supporting cast in 1985-86. Hard to debate that one. But he also played on one of the greatest teams of all time in 1985-86. Phoenix won't be in that category at the end of this season, when it's all said and done. By the time Magic was winning MVPs (which began with the 1986-87 season), Kareem was a shell of his former self. Kareem wasn't even close to the level he was at when he was winning MVPs. Big Game James was in the prime of his career, but the other players weren't anything more than really, really good role players. And as far as Shaq's help? Kobe was young, probably providing no better than what Shawn Marion provides currently. And in fact considering how selfish Kobe was in the beginning of his career, I'm guessing most coaches would have taken the present Shawn Marion over the Kobe from Shaq's MVP year. Shaq flat out dominated the entire league that year. Dominated. Are you really, really trying to say little Stevie belongs in the same category? To even provide Shaq as counterevidence is laughable really. Oh and despite a run of 3-4 years where he was easily the most dominant player in the league and won three rings, he has one MVP trophy to show for it. And Stevie has two MVP trophies, and people for some reason think he deserves another.

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 10:51 PM
I guess you could start by telling me which teams meet your criteria, so I can research them. Which teams let a three-time MVP walk? I will go look them up, after you tell me.

Did the Lakers get better when Shaq went to Miami? Did the Celtics get better when Bird retired? Do you think the Spurs get better if Duncan left?

You just proved my point, Chum.

Three time MVP, two time MVP, one time, no time.... It just doesn't matter anymore. It's meaningless.

The 05 vote, I was ok with. Didn't agree with it, but I was ok with it. Last year? A travesty. And this year? Honestly, he does deserve to be in the discussion, maybe even the frontrunner. But that just doesn't fucking matter. It just doesn't fucking matter. He'd win it anyway. It doesn't matter how good or bad the team does without him, or how good or the rest of his team is, or how many games they win. They could finish at .500 and he'd probably still have more votes than Dirk.

It's just the Steve Nash mystique. The Steve Nash myth. It's a powerful, powerful thing. So powerful that it has the idiots at TNT and ESPN saying that Phoenix is proving the words "Defense wins championships" no longer applies in todays NBA, despite not only having not reached the finals, but in fact not having one single significant win this season. Not one.

I'm in awe. Simply in awe.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 10:53 PM
i dont really see how having in 05 changes anything in this discussion. Remind me again of the transaction that brought in dirk in between the 04 and 05 season or the season ending injury he was coming off of. I seem to remember a tall blonde german guy on the 04 team too(and every other mav team nash was on)...

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 10:55 PM
Did the Lakers get better when Shaq went to Miami? Did the Celtics get better when Bird retired? Do you think the Spurs get better if Duncan left?

You just proved my point, Chum.

Three time MVP, two time MVP, one time, no time.... It just doesn't matter anymore. It's meaningless.

The 05 vote, I was ok with. Didn't agree with it, but I was ok with it. Last year? A travesty. And this year? Honestly, he does deserve to be in the discussion, maybe even the frontrunner. But that just doesn't fucking matter. It just doesn't fucking matter. He'd win it anyway. It doesn't matter how good or bad the team does without him, or how good or the rest of his team is, or how many games they win. They could finish at .500 and he'd probably still have more votes than Dirk.

It's just the Steve Nash mystique. The Steve Nash myth. It's a powerful, powerful thing. So powerful that it has the idiots at TNT and ESPN saying that Phoenix is proving the words "Defense wins championships" no longer applies in todays NBA, despite not only having not reached the finals, but in fact not having one single significant win this season. Not one.

I'm in awe. Simply in awe.
now spiral, they did just beat the rockets tonight to raise their record to 2-6 against the west playoff teams... whats that you say? the rockets didnt have yao? well they were a solid team without him anyway. Mcgrady was carrying them. Whats that you say? the rockets didnt have Mcgrady either? Well ummmm, they did get bonzi wells back tonight....

FINtastic
01-17-2007, 10:55 PM
They completely changed their offensive style when Nash left. Harris/Terry weren't anywhere NEAR as big a part of the offense as Nash was when he was here (perhaps excepting the ill-fated '04 season). They become an iso offense, and if it weren't for Dirk Nowitzki they would probably have been terrible.

And yet they won as many games as they ever won when Stevie was here, with the exception of the 2002-03 season. And they were only behind that season by 2 wins. I mean 58 wins ain't nothing to sneeze at. So it looks like you just made the argument for us that Nash didn't deserve the MVP in 2004-05. You see when you make the argument that the Mavericks were that much worse without Stevie but still won 58 games, you really paint yourself in a corner because it makes Dirk look that much better.

dirno2000
01-17-2007, 11:03 PM
They completely changed their offensive style when Nash left. Harris/Terry weren't anywhere NEAR as big a part of the offense as Nash was when he was here (perhaps excepting the ill-fated '04 season). They become an iso offense, and if it weren't for Dirk Nowitzki they would probably have been terrible.

So Nash not dominating the ball allowed Dirk to have his best season to date?

I wonder if we would have seen a similar effect had magic left the Lakers for say Derick Harper.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 11:04 PM
the mavs didnt miss any beats without steve. They won 58, 60 and they are winning 60+ this year barring injuries.

BTW on the three time mvp thing i would mention wilt chamberlain off the top of my head. I have no clue how they did after he left though. Shaq has one but he is unquestionably a better player than steve nash and the lakers got alot worse without him.

Moving right along, what was the difference between nash and magic when he won his first mvp? you do realize that magic averaged 24-12-6-.5-2 right? That utterly dwarfs anything steve nash has ever thought about doing. they went 65-17.

FINtastic
01-17-2007, 11:05 PM
Did the Lakers get better when Shaq went to Miami?

And heck, the Lakers got some talent in return with Lamar Odom and Caron Butler. Lamar Odom has always been a top 30-40 player, and Caron Butler has always been talented. And of course they still had Kobe (who a lot of pundits said was better than Dirk at the time of the Shaq trade). Yet they completely fell apart without Shaq. Of course Shaq wasn't worthy enough to win 3 MVPs like Stevie.

capitalcity
01-17-2007, 11:09 PM
Steve Nash hates apple pie.
Steve Nash hates puppies.
Steve Nash hates Jesus.

MavKikiNYC
01-17-2007, 11:16 PM
the mavs didnt miss any beats without steve. They won 58, 60 and they are winning 60+ this year barring injuries.

BTW on the three time mvp thing i would mention wilt chamberlain off the top of my head. I have no clue how they did after he left though. Shaq has one but he is unquestionably a better player than steve nash and the lakers got alot worse without him.

Moving right along, what was the difference between nash and magic when he won his first mvp? you do realize that magic averaged 24-12-6-.5-2 right? That utterly dwarfs anything steve nash has ever thought about doing. they went 65-17.

Maybe Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with the Bucks?

Of course, Nash wasn't even on anyone's MVP radar when the Mavericks correctly decided not to re-sign him, let alone in position to be considered for a third MVP.

Why does this have to be zero-sum anyway? The Mavericks got better overall after Nash left, and Nash himself got into a better situation by leaving the Mavs. It was win-win. Why is that so hard for some peopel to accept?

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 11:18 PM
They completely changed their offensive style when Nash left. Harris/Terry weren't anywhere NEAR as big a part of the offense as Nash was when he was here (perhaps excepting the ill-fated '04 season). They become an iso offense, and if it weren't for Dirk Nowitzki they would probably have been terrible.

Couldn't agree more, Chum. Sounds to me like Dirk Nowitzki was the most valuble player that year. I guess they changed the criteria for the award and didn't tell anybody about it.

I know one thing though. If Nash had stayed with the Mavericks, and put up the exact same numbers he's put up in Phoenix, and the Mavs won the same amount of games... that is, if Nash did EVERYTHING in Dallas that he's done in Phoenix, he not only wouldn't have won the MVP, I'd wager he wouldn't even have made the All-NBA first team. When Nash came and the team turned around, he became the most overrated player in the league, maybe in any sport... hell, maybe in the history of sports. It didn't matter that the team was a melting pot of offensive talent that had played the previous year with no point guard at all. It didn't matter what Dirk Nowitzki did for his team.

It's just incredible. I've never seen anything quite like it. The Steve Nash mystique has actually surpassed and eclipsed the Shaquille O'Neal mystique. At least most people can acknowledge that Shaq is no longer the "most dominant" center in the league. But Steve Nash? As far as the world is concerned, he's Larry Bird. He's Magic Johnson. He's Michael Jordan. He's the three-time... hell... four... five time MVP. Phoenix is nothing and nowhere without Steve Nash. Without him... Shawn Marion is just another guy. Steve Nash... the straw that stirs the drink... God's gift to basketball.

You know what? I believe it now.. It's so powerful, he's convinced me.

Dirk? Well, he's played well... But you know, being the best player on the best team just isn't enough. He just doesn't have it where it counts. He doesn't make his teammates better, or something.

FINtastic
01-17-2007, 11:19 PM
So Nash not dominating the ball allowed Dirk to have his best season to date?

I wonder if we would have seen a similar effect had magic left the Lakers for say Derick Harper.

Well, when Magic was forced to retire because of HIV the Lakers went from a 58 win team that made the NBA Finals year before (and had won/played in 4 of the previous 5 NBA Finals) to a 43 win team that got eliminated in the first round. In the five years between Magic's retirement and Shaq's arrival, the Lakers made it to the second round of the playoffs once.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 11:20 PM
ok well finish the nash/magic comparison since you asked chum
Magic-nash
Ppg 23.9 - 15.5
rpg 6.3-3.3
apg 12.2-11.5
bpg-0.5-0.1
spg-1.7-1.0


now do you really need to ask what was different?

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 11:22 PM
Maybe Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with the Bucks?

Of course, Nash wasn't even on anyone's MVP radar when the Mavericks correctly decided not to re-sign him, let alone in position to be considered for a third MVP.

Why does this have to be zero-sum anyway? The Mavericks got better overall after Nash left, and Nash himself got into a better situation by leaving the Mavs. It was win-win. Why is that so hard for some peopel to accept?
i agree with this the only problem is that in order to make that argument you have to agree that the suns system benefits nash just like it benefits boris diaw and that it is that system and not steve nash that makes that team work. You cant give a system an mvp though...

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 11:34 PM
Couldn't agree more, Chum. Sounds to me like Dirk Nowitzki was the most valuble player that year. I guess they changed the criteria for the award and didn't tell anybody about it.

I know one thing though. If Nash had stayed with the Mavericks, and put up the exact same numbers he's put up in Phoenix, and the Mavs won the same amount of games... that is, if Nash did EVERYTHING in Dallas that he's done in Phoenix, he not only wouldn't have won the MVP, I'd wager he wouldn't even have made the All-NBA first team. When Nash came and the team turned around, he became the most overrated player in the league, maybe in any sport... hell, maybe in the history of sports. It didn't matter that the team was a melting pot of offensive talent that had played the previous year with no point guard at all. It didn't matter what Dirk Nowitzki did for his team.

It's just incredible. I've never seen anything quite like it. The Steve Nash mystique has actually surpassed and eclipsed the Shaquille O'Neal mystique. At least most people can acknowledge that Shaq is no longer the "most dominant" center in the league. But Steve Nash? As far as the world is concerned, he's Larry Bird. He's Magic Johnson. He's Michael Jordan. He's the three-time... hell... four... five time MVP. Phoenix is nothing and nowhere without Steve Nash. Without him... Shawn Marion is just another guy. Steve Nash... the straw that stirs the drink... God's gift to basketball.

You know what? I believe it now.. It's so powerful, he's convinced me.

Dirk? Well, he's played well... But you know, being the best player on the best team just isn't enough. He just doesn't have it where it counts. He doesn't make his teammates better, or something.Dirk Nowitzki was definitely the Most Valuable Player for the MAVS that year (and every year since).

We are talking, though, about the MVP of the *league*.

I think we all agree that Dirk is an improved player over the guy he was four years ago. (No arguments, right?)

I think we also agree that the Mavs squad the last couple years is deeper and more dangerous than it was back in 2003. (No arguments there, either, right?)

How amazing is it that the Mavs won 60 back then, then? Steve Nash was ALWAYS the guy that led that team. He was, as they said, the straw that stirred the drink.

People want to say that Nash kinda came out of nowhere and lucked into a spot in Phoenix where he could win the MVP. Hell, he should have been the MVP in 2003!

Oh, but we "rightfully" decided not to re-sign him. HA!

I don't know what else you want out of Nash. He is MOST CERTAINLY a generational player. He's as good as it gets at what he does. Any mystique he has is rightfully earned.

Dirk is, without question, the MVP of the Mavs these days. Nash was, when Dirk was still cutting his teeth. Now Nash is the MVP of the Suns. You stack them up and decide which one you want. No big deal. They are both generational players, and they are both among the small handful of best players in the game. Nash has been doing it a little longer, but I'm sure Dirk will keep it up a bit longer after Nash's best days are done.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 11:35 PM
moses malone changed teams too. On wilt it took 5 years before they won 50 again. dont know about the others.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 11:41 PM
Dirk Nowitzki was definitely the Most Valuable Player for the MAVS that year (and every year since).

We are talking, though, about the MVP of the *league*.

I think we all agree that Dirk is an improved player over the guy he was four years ago. (No arguments, right?)

I think we also agree that the Mavs squad the last couple years is deeper and more dangerous than it was back in 2003. (No arguments there, either, right?)

How amazing is it that the Mavs won 60 back then, then? Steve Nash was ALWAYS the guy that led that team. He was, as they said, the straw that stirred the drink.

People want to say that Nash kinda came out of nowhere and lucked into a spot in Phoenix where he could win the MVP. Hell, he should have been the MVP in 2003!

Oh, but we "rightfully" decided not to re-sign him. HA!

I don't know what else you want out of Nash. He is MOST CERTAINLY a generational player. He's as good as it gets at what he does. Any mystique he has is rightfully earned.

Dirk is, without question, the MVP of the Mavs these days. Nash was, when Dirk was still cutting his teeth. Now Nash is the MVP of the Suns. You stack them up and decide which one you want. No big deal. They are both generational players, and they are both among the small handful of best players in the game. Nash has been doing it a little longer, but I'm sure Dirk will keep it up a bit longer after Nash's best days are done.
chum you have utterly lost your damn mind if you think nash was the mvp in 03. also no in 05 i dont think we had a deeper or more dangerous team. we had dirk and not a hell of alot else.

Have you even thought about what you are saying? Nash was the mvp in 03? Wake the hell up. You have to be close to the best player/mvp of your own team first.

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 11:43 PM
Dirk Nowitzki was definitely the Most Valuable Player for the MAVS that year (and every year since).

We are talking, though, about the MVP of the *league*.

I think we all agree that Dirk is an improved player over the guy he was four years ago. (No arguments, right?)

I think we also agree that the Mavs squad the last couple years is deeper and more dangerous than it was back in 2003. (No arguments there, either, right?)

How amazing is it that the Mavs won 60 back then, then? Steve Nash was ALWAYS the guy that led that team. He was, as they said, the straw that stirred the drink.

People want to say that Nash kinda came out of nowhere and lucked into a spot in Phoenix where he could win the MVP. Hell, he should have been the MVP in 2003!

Oh, but we "rightfully" decided not to re-sign him. HA!

I don't know what else you want out of Nash. He is MOST CERTAINLY a generational player. He's as good as it gets at what he does. Any mystique he has is rightfully earned.

Dirk is, without question, the MVP of the Mavs these days. Nash was, when Dirk was still cutting his teeth. Now Nash is the MVP of the Suns. You stack them up and decide which one you want. No big deal. They are both generational players, and they are both among the small handful of best players in the game. Nash has been doing it a little longer, but I'm sure Dirk will keep it up a bit longer after Nash's best days are done.

Of course Steve Nash is the MVP of the league, Chum. He could spend an entire NBA season playing soccer and he'd still be the MVP. It's like Vince Carter making the All-Star team, or movie stars not liking a Republican president. It's just the way things are. Doesn't much matter why.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 11:45 PM
chum you have utterly lost your damn mind if you think nash was the mvp in 03. also no in 05 i dont think we had a deeper or more dangerous team. we had dirk and not a hell of alot else.

Have you even thought about what you are saying? Nash was the mvp in 03? Wake the hell up. You have to be close to the best player/mvp of your own team first.His team won 60 in 2003. With Bradley and Raef and Walt Williams and all the rest.

Do you recognize how hard it is to win 60 games?

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 11:49 PM
His team won 60 in 2003. With Bradley and Raef and Walt Williams and all the rest.

Do you recognize how hard it is to win 60 games?
do you recognize it wasnt his team? do you recognize they had dirk and a still very good michael finley then? there is a very legit argument to be made that he was the third best player on his team.

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 11:52 PM
Since we all like clever little arguments, how about this:

Nash managed to lose Nowitzki...and get better.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 11:54 PM
dirk beat nash in every category but assists that year where nash beat him 7.7-3.0 that includes steals. Im sorry but there is absolutely no argument that nash was the best or most valuable player on that team. actually this proves my point about nash. people said the same shit then about him being the guy who made everything go and how the team would fall apart without him.

Five-ofan
01-17-2007, 11:55 PM
Since we all like clever little arguments, how about this:

Nash managed to lose Nowitzki...and get better.
he however gained shawn marion, amare stoudamire, joe johnson, and qrich. Dirk gained erick dampier jason terry stack and a rookie devin harris. Now you tell me which is more impressive?

Thespiralgoeson
01-17-2007, 11:57 PM
Since we all like clever little arguments, how about this:

Nash managed to lose Nowitzki...and get better.

Yeah, but he didn't just lose Nowitzki did he? He gained Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, the latter of whom is a better fit with Nash than Dirk ever was. Throw Boris Diaw and a bunch of shooters into the mix and you've got a pretty decent trade on Nash's end.

Dirk? He got Jason Terry and Erick Dampier.

Captain Disaster
01-17-2007, 11:57 PM
This thread is ridiculous. The whole Simmons article and perception of the Mavs around the league is one of grudging acceptance (and the Mavs have to keep it up or everyone will kick them to the curb with all due speed). Maybe it's Cuban or Dirk's style, or Dirk's ethnicity, or that we don't have any nasty players except maybe for Stack. Who knows? It is patently absurd and unfair, but it is the NBA. You didn't really think that the way we were treated in last year's finals was an accident did you? Maybe we didn't follow the script; maybe we made it because of Ginobli's mistake; maybe Dirk is too spastic or effeminate? Who knows what these people think? The bias is there, however, and it won't leave unless we start kicking the crap out of everyone else in the league, with regularity, for a looong time. If only we had won last year... We would STILL be disrespected by nut jobs like Legler,etc..

chumdawg
01-17-2007, 11:59 PM
dirk beat nash in every category but assists that year where nash beat him 7.7-3.0 that includes steals. Im sorry but there is absolutely no argument that nash was the best or most valuable player on that team. actually this proves my point about nash. people said the same shit then about him being the guy who made everything go and how the team would fall apart without him.Maybe it's time for you to consider the body of evidence in front of you and rethink your skewed perception of Steve Nash.

I mean, did it in Dallas with a young Dirk and a fading Finley and nobody else...did it in Phoenix with an entirely new team, one coming off a poor season...again, what other evidence do you need?

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:06 AM
Yeah, but he didn't just lose Nowitzki did he? He gained Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, the latter of whom is a better fit with Nash than Dirk ever was. Throw Boris Diaw and a bunch of shooters into the mix and you've got a pretty decent trade on Nash's end.

Dirk? He got Jason Terry and Erick Dampier.What about Howard and Harris and Diop and Stackhouse? I thought we loved those guys!

birdsanctuary
01-18-2007, 12:08 AM
Suns - Nash = Lottery

birdsanctuary
01-18-2007, 12:10 AM
This thread is ridiculous. The whole Simmons article and perception of the Mavs around the league is one of grudging acceptance (and the Mavs have to keep it up or everyone will kick them to the curb with all due speed). Maybe it's Cuban or Dirk's style, or Dirk's ethnicity, or that we don't have any nasty players except maybe for Stack. Who knows? It is patently absurd and unfair, but it is the NBA. You didn't really think that the way we were treated in last year's finals was an accident did you? Maybe we didn't follow the script; maybe we made it because of Ginobli's mistake; maybe Dirk is too spastic or effeminate? Who knows what these people think? The bias is there, however, and it won't leave unless we start kicking the crap out of everyone else in the league, with regularity, for a looong time. If only we had won last year... We would STILL be disrespected by nut jobs like Legler,etc..

The Mavs will always be losers until they win it all.... that is when the NBA allows them to win it all...:mad:

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 12:14 AM
Maybe it's time for you to consider the body of evidence in front of you and rethink your skewed perception of Steve Nash.

I mean, did it in Dallas with a young Dirk and a fading Finley and nobody else...did it in Phoenix with an entirely new team, one coming off a poor season...again, what other evidence do you need?
that "young" dirk was a damn 25 and 10 and 3 a night guy. no you cant give nash all the credit for it. You know why? because in the seasons without nash he has been 26 and 10, 27 and 9 and 25 and 10(numbers are rounded) That fading finley was also still a 19 a night guy. Good effing god chum. People accuse me of dismissing the talent on the mavs to make arguments for dirk but hell you act like dirk nowitzki,a still solid michael finley, shawn marion, amare stoudamire, and joe johnson are trash. Do you even watch basketball anymore.

Do you even believe what you argue anymore? I would almost pay to see you answer all these questions about nash and the people he has played with while connected to a lie detector. I just dont believe its possible for someone to truthfully believe all this bull shit.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 12:14 AM
Suns - Nash = Lottery

Is this one of those Borat "Not" jokes?

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 12:17 AM
How amazing is it that the Mavs won 60 back then, then? Steve Nash was ALWAYS the guy that led that team. He was, as they said, the straw that stirred the drink.

People want to say that Nash kinda came out of nowhere and lucked into a spot in Phoenix where he could win the MVP. Hell, he should have been the MVP in 2003!

You've lost all credibility on this issue.

You know what? He's a point guard. It's his job to make the offense run well!!! It's like giving an MVP to a center because he blocks a lot of shots. Just because he's pretty good at making the team's offense run well, doesn't automatically grant him an MVP. Why not just give an MVP to a point guard every year.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:26 AM
He's a point guard...it's like a center blocking shots...

And *I* have lost credibility?

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 12:32 AM
His team won 60 in 2003. With Bradley and Raef and Walt Williams and all the rest.

Do you recognize how hard it is to win 60 games?

And what about NVE? If it wasn't for him, your beloved 2002-03 team would have been sitting at home watching a Kings-Spurs WCF. Heck without NVE, they may have been watching a Kings-Trailblazers second round series because Nick had a mighty fine Game 7 of the Portland Series. And as far as Finley being a decling player? The dude narrowly missed the all-star game and could still had the ability to take over a game. Remember Game 5 of the WCF? If it wasn't for Finley trading buckets with the Spurs in the third quarter, there would be no Game 6. You sure do seem throw all facts out the window when it comest to a good Nash droolfest.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 12:32 AM
He's a point guard...it's like a center blocking shots...

And *I* have lost credibility?
yes chum. he is doing his job. his job is to run an offense. hes the best pg in the nba. if we were arguing who is the best pg in the nba you would have a valid argument, the problem is that being the best pg in the nba does not make you the mvp.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 12:33 AM
He's a point guard...it's like a center blocking shots...

And *I* have lost credibility?

What's so unclear here? A center is supposed to block shots and control the paint. A point guard is supposed to run his offense. What's so hard to understand here, chum?

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:34 AM
that "young" dirk was a damn 25 and 10 and 3 a night guy. no you cant give nash all the credit for it. You know why? because in the seasons without nash he has been 26 and 10, 27 and 9 and 25 and 10(numbers are rounded) That fading finley was also still a 19 a night guy. Good effing god chum. People accuse me of dismissing the talent on the mavs to make arguments for dirk but hell you act like dirk nowitzki,a still solid michael finley, shawn marion, amare stoudamire, and joe johnson are trash. Do you even watch basketball anymore.

Do you even believe what you argue anymore? I would almost pay to see you answer all these questions about nash and the people he has played with while connected to a lie detector. I just dont believe its possible for someone to truthfully believe all this bull shit.You are right, Dirk was great even then. And as the voters saw it, Dirk got more MVP votes than Nash did that year. (Nash only got one, but hey, he still got one!)

But think about it. Both Nash and Dirk got votes that year because the team was so damned good. And their greatness was most readily evident on offense. I know they were a good defensive team, too, but they made their name on offense. And hey, neither Nash nor Dirk were known for their defense at that time.

So you have Nash and Dirk, both great offensive players in 2003, and both garnering MVP votes. And then you have 2004, and neither of them getting any consideration (because the team was such a dreadful disaster that year).

But, riddle me this. Why does Nash seem to get the "blame" for that year? As in, they lost Nash and they "got better"? Well, Dirk was part of that "worse" team, too. 2004 was just fucked!

In 2005 the Mavs got back to about where they were in 2003. Not quite, as their disgraceful exit in the playoffs would prove. But, they were getting there. And the next year, they would in fact get there.

Meanwhile, Nash is moving west and *immediately* getting right back to where he was. WCF in '03, failed experiment in '04, back to WCF in '05.

There is a LOT of evidence that Nash was the MVP of that Mavericks squad. Hook me to a lie detector, brutha. I'm not afraid to recognize singular greatness when I see it.

And I see it in both Nash and Dirk. I think they are two of the three best players in the NBA right now (Kobe being the third).

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:37 AM
What's so unclear here? A center is supposed to block shots and control the paint. A point guard is supposed to run his offense. What's so hard to understand here, chum?Run...an...offense.... That's like controlling the paint?

Please, man.

EDIT: Evidently some of you think that offense is something that just happens while you are doing other basketball-related things.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 12:37 AM
There is a LOT of evidence that Nash was the MVP of that Mavericks squad. Hook me to a lie detector, brutha. I'm not afraid to recognize singular greatness when I see it.

There isn't a shred of evidence that he was more deserving than Duncan that year, though.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 12:38 AM
You are right, Dirk was great even then. And as the voters saw it, Dirk got more MVP votes than Nash did that year. (Nash only got one, but hey, he still got one!)

But think about it. Both Nash and Dirk got votes that year because the team was so damned good. And their greatness was most readily evident on offense. I know they were a good defensive team, too, but they made their name on offense. And hey, neither Nash nor Dirk were known for their defense at that time.

So you have Nash and Dirk, both great offensive players in 2003, and both garnering MVP votes. And then you have 2004, and neither of them getting any consideration (because the team was such a dreadful disaster that year).

But, riddle me this. Why does Nash seem to get the "blame" for that year? As in, they lost Nash and they "got better"? Well, Dirk was part of that "worse" team, too. 2004 was just fucked!

In 2005 the Mavs got back to about where they were in 2003. Not quite, as their disgraceful exit in the playoffs would prove. But, they were getting there. And the next year, they would in fact get there.

Meanwhile, Nash is moving west and *immediately* getting right back to where he was. WCF in '03, failed experiment in '04, back to WCF in '05.

There is a LOT of evidence that Nash was the MVP of that Mavericks squad. Hook me to a lie detector, brutha. I'm not afraid to recognize singular greatness when I see it.

And I see it in both Nash and Dirk. I think they are two of the three best players in the NBA right now (Kobe being the third).
few things, first off i didnt blame nash for the 04 season, i just said what actually happened.

Both guys didnt get voteS in 03, dirk got votes, nash got a vote. Hell in 05 pj brown got a vote, doesnt mean the hornets should have been reluctant to trade him after the following season. I know you think comparing pj brown and nash is disgraceful. it is. about as disgraceful as comparing nash to magic...

also what evidence is there that he was the mvp of those teams? If he was doesnt that sort of prove Spirals point?

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 12:41 AM
Run...an...offense.... That's like controlling the paint?

Please, man.

Sure, how many teams have won a trophy without an MVP candidate point guard? Those teams didn't seem to need someone exceptional to run the offense. But a lot of those teams did have some amazing post players roaming the paint.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:47 AM
few things, first off i didnt blame nash for the 04 season, i just said what actually happened.

Both guys didnt get voteS in 03, dirk got votes, nash got a vote. Hell in 05 pj brown got a vote, doesnt mean the hornets should have been reluctant to trade him after the following season. I know you think comparing pj brown and nash is disgraceful. it is. about as disgraceful as comparing nash to magic...

also what evidence is there that he was the mvp of those teams? If he was doesnt that sort of prove Spirals point?That's fine. As long as you recognize that the fair-haired German was, in fact, on the team in 2004, too. It does cut both ways, you know.

Fact is that the next year Nash went to the WCF while Dirk was watching at home--at the hands of Nash, no less.

I don't like to mention to that, because I know that it's just one blip on the radar. But OH, how fast people are to mention that the Mavs went to the NBA Finals the next year, and Nash didn't.

So, I'd like to quit hearing all this shit about how the Mavs got better by jettisoning Nash. The facts of the matter are that Nash went further than they did the following year, dismissed of his old team in the process, and won an MVP in the offing.

Who got better, again?

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:49 AM
Sure, how many teams have won a trophy without an MVP candidate point guard? Those teams didn't seem to need someone exceptional to run the offense. But a lot of those teams did have some amazing post players roaming the paint.I guess you need to wake up from five years ago, then, and recognize the new NBA. It's a guard's game these days. You know about the rule changes. And you can witness last year's NBA Finals for Exhibit A.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 12:52 AM
So, I'd like to quit hearing all this shit about how the Mavs got better by jettisoning Nash.

Did they get better by jettisoning Nash. No it was more related to getting rid of the logjam at the power forward position (i.e. getting rid of Walker and to a lesser extent, Jamison). But did they get any worse without Nash? It's hard to argue that they were any worse without him when they came within two wins of the franchise record. Not to mention they also had to endure a midseason coaching switch (to a coach you argue is greatly inferior).

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 12:52 AM
I guess you need to wake up from five years ago, then, and recognize the new NBA. It's a guard's game these days. You know about the rule changes. And you can witness last year's NBA Finals for Exhibit A.
and the nba champions started jason williams at pg, your not helping your case...

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 12:53 AM
That's fine. As long as you recognize that the fair-haired German was, in fact, on the team in 2004, too. It does cut both ways, you know.

Fact is that the next year Nash went to the WCF while Dirk was watching at home--at the hands of Nash, no less.

I don't like to mention to that, because I know that it's just one blip on the radar. But OH, how fast people are to mention that the Mavs went to the NBA Finals the next year, and Nash didn't.

So, I'd like to quit hearing all this shit about how the Mavs got better by jettisoning Nash. The facts of the matter are that Nash went further than they did the following year, dismissed of his old team in the process, and won an MVP in the offing.

Who got better, again?
and he was still the 3rd best player on that team that got to the conference finals... Hell he might have even been the 4th best player.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 12:55 AM
I guess you need to wake up from five years ago, then, and recognize the new NBA. It's a guard's game these days. You know about the rule changes. And you can witness last year's NBA Finals for Exhibit A.

Tim Duncan won the Finals the same year Nash won his first MVP. The rule changes also happened after Nash won his first MVP. Your point?

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:56 AM
and he was still the 3rd best player on that team that got to the conference finals... Hell he might have even been the 4th best player.If you believe that, Matt, then you are simply not a person who can discuss an issue like this with any objectivity. I'm sorry, but you aren't. There are things that you just don't appreciate.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:57 AM
Tim Duncan won the Finals the same year Nash won his first MVP. The rule changes also happened after Nash won his first MVP. Your point?Duncan won it? By himself? What about Parker and Ginobli?

I'm sure you will recognize that the rules changes have made it a guard's league these days.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 12:57 AM
If you believe that, Matt, then you are simply not a person who can discuss an issue like this with any objectivity. I'm sorry, but you aren't. There are things that you just don't appreciate.
how? Amare was clearly better. Marion was better. Joe johnson is the one i cant make up my mind on. Nothing that has happened since has changed my mind on any of those fronts.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 12:58 AM
and the nba champions started jason williams at pg, your not helping your case...The NBA champions completely emascualted Dirk Nowitzki and the style of offense the Mavs ran. Disagree?

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 12:59 AM
Duncan won it? By himself? What about Parker and Ginobli?

I'm sure you will recognize that the rules changes have made it a guard's league these days.
now you want to mention the other people on a team? NOW? After you have ignored dirk and fin on the mavs with nash and amare marion and JJ on the suns with nash? Come on man. This is more than a little effing ridiculous. Dirk and fin>parker and gino. Amare marion and jj>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gino and parker.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:00 AM
how? Amare was clearly better. Marion was better. Joe johnson is the one i cant make up my mind on. Nothing that has happened since has changed my mind on any of those fronts.Wow. I can only imagine that clusterfuck with someone like Marcus Banks running the point.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:00 AM
The NBA champions completely emascualted Dirk Nowitzki and the style of offense the Mavs ran. Disagree?
and steve nash wouldnt have changed that.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:01 AM
Wow. I can only imagine that clusterfuck with someone like Marcus Banks running the point.
so we have to go from the best pg in the nba to the worst? can you imagine the mavs with austin croshere as our main pf? Hell that would be fun.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:03 AM
im not gonna edit it but yes nash would have changed the offense in the finals IF the mavs had made the finals, something that i doubt seriously we would have.

Rhylan
01-18-2007, 01:04 AM
I don't want to jump into this thread wholeheartedly, but somewhere along the line, 2003 Dirk was described as "a young Dirk."

Sure, he was a young man. He's still a young man, he ain't joining AARP anytime soon. But he sure as hell wasn't wet behind the ears. Lest we forget, Dirk arrived in 2001 with only the second 45-15-5 steal playoff game EVER, and in 2002 as the second guy to average 30-15 for three straight playoff games EVER.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:04 AM
so we have to go from the best pg in the nba to the worst? can you imagine the mavs with austin croshere as our main pf? Hell that would be fun.Plug one in, then. I tell you what! Let's plug Jason Terry in!!!

dirno2000
01-18-2007, 01:05 AM
and he was still the 3rd best player on that team that got to the conference finals... Hell he might have even been the 4th best player.

He was definitly no better than 4th best in the first round of the 2003 playoffs. He played most of the Portland series with his hand around his neck. Especially when they shifted the pressure to us.

He averaged 14ppg and shot 40% while Dirk averaged 30 and shot 52%. And as I recall, he was pretty much a non-factor in game 7.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:05 AM
Plug one in, then. I tell you what! Let's plug Jason Terry in!!!
they still beat the mavs and probably lose to the spurs. your point?

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:09 AM
I don't want to jump into this thread wholeheartedly, but somewhere along the line, 2003 Dirk was described as "a young Dirk."

Sure, he was a young man. He's still a young man, he ain't joining AARP anytime soon. But he sure as hell wasn't wet behind the ears. Lest we forget, Dirk arrived in 2001 with only the second 45-15-5 steal playoff game EVER, and in 2002 as the second guy to average 30-15 for three straight playoff games EVER.I was the one who described him as a "young Dirk." And though it was for a different reason that I said that, the truth remains that Dirk at that time--well, especially, in the '01 and '02 seasons--was very much a "young Dirk."

He did rip off some incredible performances, but he wasn't accounted for at that time like he is accounted for now. 45 and 15 and 5 seems otherworldly now, given the amount of attention he will get. It is, I suppose, a bit like McGrady a couple years ago. He went absolutely OFF against us in the first round. These days, he wouldn't get such a wide berth.

I still maintain that the Dirk of those years was a different Dirk than the Dirk of today. And really, I'd be surprised if you argued with that.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:11 AM
He was definitly no better than 4th best in the first round of the 2003 playoffs. He played most of the Portland series with his hand around his neck. Especially when they shifted the pressure to us.

He averaged 14ppg and shot 40% while Dirk averaged 30 and shot 52%. And as I recall, he was pretty much a non-factor in game 7.That's fair.

But how did he fare against Sacramento?

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 01:12 AM
Duncan won it? By himself? What about Parker and Ginobli?

I'm sure you will recognize that the rules changes have made it a guard's league these days.

Hey Nash seems to be solely responsible for any success that any of his teams have (including the Mavs apparently). You can't argue without a straight face that at the very least, Duncan isn't the most important part of the Spurs' success.

And yes it is a guards' game these days, but your argument precedes the time these rule changes took place. And you seem to think that a big man that controls the paint wasn't a big deal. In fact, you made it out to be a ludicrous point. And it simply wasn't so.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:16 AM
nash was the 4th leading scorer for the mavs in the conference finals run. dirk was first, nve second and fin 3rd.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 01:17 AM
Wow. I can only imagine that clusterfuck with someone like Marcus Banks running the point.

Why Marcus Banks? What about Barbosa?

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:25 AM
And as I recall, he was pretty much a non-factor in game 7.Actually--21, 7, and 6, on 9 of 19. I wouldn't call that a non-factor. In fact, I'd call it kinda salty.

DubOverdose
01-18-2007, 01:26 AM
Suns - Nash = Lottery
I don't know how to say this any other way but...NO! They would still have Amare, Marion, Barbosa. That core alone is good enough to make the post season. That's still a 2 all-star team, one being an MVP candidate. That's no lottery team sir, that's a 5-6th seed ala Houston Rockets.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:28 AM
Hey Nash seems to be solely responsible for any success that any of his teams have (including the Mavs apparently). You can't argue without a straight face that at the very least, Duncan isn't the most important part of the Spurs' success.

And yes it is a guards' game these days, but your argument precedes the time these rule changes took place. And you seem to think that a big man that controls the paint wasn't a big deal. In fact, you made it out to be a ludicrous point. And it simply wasn't so.A big man can't dictate the whole game like a guard can.

I would have thought that this was obvious, what with Nash's exploits and Kobe's shenanigans and all...

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:30 AM
A big man can't dictate the whole game like a guard can.

I would have thought that this was obvious, what with Nash's exploits and Kobe's shenanigans and all...
and who has more rings? Nash or duncan?

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 01:34 AM
A big man can't dictate the whole game like a guard can.

I would have thought that this was obvious, what with Nash's exploits and Kobe's shenanigans and all...

Apparently you've never heard of George Mikan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Shaquille O'Neal. Apparently you haven't even seen Tim Duncan play either. It's too bad, you missed out on some great players over the years.

sike
01-18-2007, 01:35 AM
I can 100% respect Nash's offensive game...but has there ever been an MVP who only plays one side of the ball? Nash is a trick pony with an amazing trick…he is the greatest offesive point I've seen...but has there been an even "one time MVP" so limited on the other side of the ball?

nashtymavsfan13
01-18-2007, 01:37 AM
Apparently you've never heard of George Mikan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Shaquille O'Neal. Apparently you haven't even seen Tim Duncan play either. It's too bad, you missed out on some great players over the years.

Ouch, nice comeback :o

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:39 AM
I can 100% respect Nash's offensive game...but has there ever been an MVP who only plays one side of the ball? Nash is a trick pony with an amazing trick…he is the greatest offesive point I've seen...but has there been an even "one time MVP" so limited on the other side of the ball?
did you not watch bball in the 80s? im just curious about this. there is no way in hades he is better than magic offensively. Im not sure he is better than KJ at his peak was offensively to be honest though kjs shooting kills him there. As for the question, bob mcadoo did win an mvp and the next guy he guards will be the first... same for charles barkley though barkleys rebounding did help alot defensively.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:40 AM
Apparently you've never heard of George Mikan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Shaquille O'Neal. Apparently you haven't even seen Tim Duncan play either. It's too bad, you missed out on some great players over the years.Heard of Dwayne Wade?

Thespiralgoeson
01-18-2007, 01:42 AM
I'm terribly bored of this debate. Nash has already won the award. This thread might as well be closed.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:42 AM
did you not watch bball in the 80s? im just curious about this. there is no way in hades he is better than magic offensively. Im not sure he is better than KJ at his peak was offensively to be honest though kjs shooting kills him there. As for the question, bob mcadoo did win an mvp and the next guy he guards will be the first... same for charles barkley though barkleys rebounding did help alot defensively.McAdoo won an MVP?

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:43 AM
Apparently you've never heard of George Mikan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Shaquille O'Neal. Apparently you haven't even seen Tim Duncan play either. It's too bad, you missed out on some great players over the years.
you missed Kareem, moses, and hakeem... He got that argument completely and totally backwards. The only teams that have won titles with a guard as their best player/driving force off the top of my head are the showtime lakers and the bulls and the heat last year. the lakers are a bit of an anomaly because they also had a top 5 center of all time and their 'guard' could play center if he felt like it. and wade did still have shaq.

i guess you could include the chauncey billups pistons too and maybe the knicks though again they had reed and DD. So in the course of the nba, we have had 5 guards that have led their teams to titles. yep theres no way a big can dominate like a guard....

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:43 AM
I'm terribly bored of this debate. Nash has already won the award. This thread might as well be closed.It does come to that, doesn't it?

No matter how enthusiastic you are...some things you can't get around.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:45 AM
McAdoo won an MVP?
in 74-75 when he put up 34.5 and 14.1

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 01:45 AM
Heard of Dwayne Wade?

Do you wanna compare ring counts there? And sorry, Dwyane had a good playoffs run, but he hasn't begun to put himself in the same league as those guys. A better comeback would have been Jordan. But Jordan is a total freak. There aren't a whole lot teams that base their team around a dominant guard to win a title. They are out there, but there is a reason Jordan got drafted behind two centers when he came out. It's because most teams figure they have a better shot building around a dominant center.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:45 AM
It does come to that, doesn't it?

No matter how enthusiastic you are...some things you can't get around.
i think he means this year too which he is probably right about.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:46 AM
Do you wanna compare ring counts there? And sorry, Dwyane had a good playoffs run, but he hasn't begun to put himself in the same league as those guys. A better comeback would have been Jordan. But Jordan is a total freak. There aren't a whole lot teams that base their team around a dominant guard to win a title. They are out there, but there is a reason Jordan got drafted behind two centers when he came out. It's because most teams figure they have a better shot building around a dominant center.
the guards that had multiple title teams built around them are magic johnson and mj. Thats it. the bigs who had multiple title teams built around them are mikan, russell, wilt, kareem, hakeem, shaq and duncan off the top of my head. you tell me which route has been more successful.(im not counting a guy like bird)

Thespiralgoeson
01-18-2007, 01:49 AM
It does come to that, doesn't it?

No matter how enthusiastic you are...some things you can't get around.

Indeed. OJ is innocent, George W. Bush is the personification of everything that's wrong with world, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and Steve Nash is the MVP.

sike
01-18-2007, 01:49 AM
did you not watch bball in the 80s? im just curious about this. there is no way in hades he is better than magic offensively. Im not sure he is better than KJ at his peak was offensively to be honest though kjs shooting kills him there. As for the question, bob mcadoo did win an mvp and the next guy he guards will be the first... same for charles barkley though barkleys rebounding did help alot defensively.
It is so hard to compare players from different eras...espcially the high scoring 80s when defense was a rumor with the game of today.

The Nash I am thinking of is of course not the playoff choker of a few mavs series...but the one of the past 2 years...

Magic and Nash passing: push (you can't get better than either one of them)

Magic and Nash shooting: Nash (hands down)

Magic and Nash running of an O: push (you can't get better than either one of them)

Magic and Nash scoring: Magic (Size being the main difference here)

Magic and Nash ability to make your teammates better: push (can't get better than these two)

Am I missing any obvious offensive point guard category? It's late...and this is obviously off the top of my head...

Magic was such a freak and there will not be another...the right game and the right time...

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:52 AM
you missed Kareem, moses, and hakeem... He got that argument completely and totally backwards. The only teams that have won titles with a guard as their best player/driving force off the top of my head are the showtime lakers and the bulls and the heat last year. the lakers are a bit of an anomaly because they also had a top 5 center of all time and their 'guard' could play center if he felt like it. and wade did still have shaq.

i guess you could include the chauncey billups pistons too and maybe the knicks though again they had reed and DD. So in the course of the nba, we have had 5 guards that have led their teams to titles. yep theres no way a big can dominate like a guard....You are illustrating the fundamental shift that is occuring right before our eyes. The league is changing from one that valued big men among all others to one that values guards. It's a function of the rule changes, which is a function of how the NBA wants to market the game.

It's not a Dwight Howard league. It's a Dwayne Wade league, or a Kobe Bryant league. The tide has most definitely turned.

Now, how a guy like James or Nash figures into that is our best guess. But it is definitely not a big man's league anymore. I don't imagining Yao Ming will win the MVP anytime soon? No way. It's all guards now, baby.

Dirk could still win it, because he has an outside game. But it's a guard's game now.

Thespiralgoeson
01-18-2007, 01:53 AM
i think he means this year too which he is probably right about.

That is what I meant.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, Chum. I should've said "Nash has already won the award this year."

It doesn't matter how Nash and the Suns finish. The outcome of the vote is predetermined. Steve Nash has already won a third consecutive MVP. He'll probably get it next year too.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 01:54 AM
Indeed. OJ is innocent, George W. Bush is the personification of everything that's wrong with world, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and Steve Nash is the MVP.Just stop contributing if you are that beaten.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:56 AM
You are illustrating the fundamental shift that is occuring right before our eyes. The league is changing from one that valued big men among all others to one that values guards. It's a function of the rule changes, which is a function of how the NBA wants to market the game.

It's not a Dwight Howard league. It's a Dwayne Wade league, or a Kobe Bryant league. The tide has most definitely turned.

Now, how a guy like James or Nash figures into that is our best guess. But it is definitely not a big man's league anymore. I don't imagining Yao Ming will win the MVP anytime soon? No way. It's all guards now, baby.

Dirk could still win it, because he has an outside game. But it's a guard's game now.
whats more important, who shitheads like jay mariotti or skip bayliss vote as the mvp or who wins rings? 7 of the last 8 nba champions have had either tim duncan or shaquille oneal on them and the other team had ben and sheed wallace. Hrmmm. Seems like bigs still win rings to me... Speaking of which, what happened to steve nash when he last played tim duncan in the playoffs? James isnt a guard so no he doesnt count in your argument.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 01:57 AM
You are illustrating the fundamental shift that is occuring right before our eyes. The league is changing from one that valued big men among all others to one that values guards. It's a function of the rule changes, which is a function of how the NBA wants to market the game.

It's not a Dwight Howard league. It's a Dwayne Wade league, or a Kobe Bryant league. The tide has most definitely turned.

Now, how a guy like James or Nash figures into that is our best guess. But it is definitely not a big man's league anymore. I don't imagining Yao Ming will win the MVP anytime soon? No way. It's all guards now, baby.

Dirk could still win it, because he has an outside game. But it's a guard's game now.

How do you know it's not a Dwight Howard league? The kid is 20, maybe 21 years old. If you thought the Dirk of 2002-03 was young, then Dwight Howard is a fetus. And heck, Orlando is having a decent season with Dwight Howard leading the way. The league is kind of in a transitional phase right now as far as big men. But let's see what we are saying in a few years when Greg Oden, Amare Stoudemire, and Dwight Howard all hit their prime. And heck, Yao wasn't looking all that bad before he got injured. Surely you can't think that one or two years is enough evidence to signify that an absolute shift in power has occurred?

Thespiralgoeson
01-18-2007, 01:58 AM
Now, how a guy like James or Nash figures into that is our best guess. But it is definitely not a big man's league anymore. I don't imagining Yao Ming will win the MVP anytime soon? No way. It's all guards now, baby.


Yao won't win it as long as his team sucks, no...

Chum, I see what you're saying. It is becoming a guard's game, but tap the breaks just a little here. Until recently, it's always been a big man's game, but that didn't stop guys like MJ, Magic, and Bird from dominating. Truly great players transcend their positions. Yeah, the Wades and Kobes have an advantage, but c'mon... guys like Dwight Howard and Yao are every bit as effective as they ever were.

I'll be SHOCKED if neither one of them wins the MVP by the time they retire.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 02:00 AM
whats more important, who shitheads like jay mariotti or skip bayliss vote as the mvp or who wins rings? 7 of the last 8 nba champions have had either tim duncan or shaquille oneal on them and the other team had ben and sheed wallace. Hrmmm. Seems like bigs still win rings to me... Speaking of which, what happened to steve nash when he last played tim duncan in the playoffs? James isnt a guard so no he doesnt count in your argument.Duncan doesn't win without sterling play from Parker and Ginobli, the Pistons don't win without Billups and Prince, and the Heat don't win without Wade.

Guards are winning out, these days.

rabbitproof
01-18-2007, 02:01 AM
This thread is the awesome.

I'm sick and tired of the Nash the ex-Mav debate but this is a slightly different spin with a Nash vs Dirk, Nash vs Magic, point vs big man and probably the best MVP discussion we've had on the forum.

Bravo to all.

Thespiralgoeson
01-18-2007, 02:01 AM
Just stop contributing if you are that beaten.

It's tempting. I dunno though... Part of me still has a taste for this thing I keep hearing about called justice.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:04 AM
Duncan doesn't win without sterling play from Parker and Ginobli, the Pistons don't win without Billups and Prince, and the Heat don't win without Wade.

Guards are winning out, these days.
so are you saying that parker and gino outplayed nash?

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 02:04 AM
Duncan doesn't win without sterling play from Parker and Ginobli, the Pistons don't win without Billups and Prince, and the Heat don't win without Wade.

Guards are winning out, these days.

San Antonio wouldn't have made the playoffs without Duncan in 2002-03. Besides, Ginobili was coming off the bench that year, and Parker was spotty in the finals. And it's iffy if they would have made it two years ago, but they certainly wouldn't have made it past the Lakers without a guy like Duncan. It goes both ways. But if you are trying to argue the guards were more important than Duncan, you are out of your mind. Duncan won a ring without them, and another ring with them at a VERY early stage in their career. The last ring he needed more help from them, but there's no question who made that train go choo-choo.

The Pistons relied on Wallace and Wallace every bit as much as they relied on Billups and Hamilton. In fact, it was the move for Rasheed that put them over the top.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 02:06 AM
so are you saying that parker and gino outplayed nash?I guess they did. The proof is, as we well know, in the pudding.

Same reason I know that Wade outplayed Nowitzki, though he had an easier time of it with the rule changes.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:07 AM
chum i have a question, if guard play is the end all be all as you make it sound and nash hasnt ever won a title, doesnt that mean that hes never been the best guard? if hes never been the best guard how does he have mvps? Or are you saying hes the best guard in the regular season but not the playoffs? If thats the case I cant believe you would accuse your boy nash of being such a choker...

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 02:08 AM
San Antonio wouldn't have made the playoffs without Duncan in 2002-03. Besides, Ginobili was coming off the bench that year, and Parker was spotty in the finals. And it's iffy if they would have made it two years ago, but they certainly wouldn't have made it past the Lakers without a guy like Duncan. It goes both ways. But if you are trying to argue the guards were more important than Duncan, you are out of your mind. Duncan won a ring without them, and another ring with them at a VERY early stage in their career. The last ring he needed more help from them, but there's no question who made that train go choo-choo.

The Pistons relied on Wallace and Wallace every bit as much as they relied on Billups and Hamilton. In fact, it was the move for Rasheed that put them over the top.That's your conjecture that the bigs put them over the top. What about Prince blocking Miller on that layup? Maybe they never GET to the finals!

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:08 AM
I guess they did. The proof is, as we well know, in the pudding.

Same reason I know that Wade outplayed Nowitzki, though he had an easier time of it with the rule changes.
so did jason terry outplay Nash? Dirk isnt a guard and as you so eloquently said, this is a guards league. So dirk doesnt count per your arguments especially since he didnt when you were touting nashs mvp candidacy in 03.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:09 AM
That's your conjecture that the bigs put them over the top. What about Prince blocking Miller on that layup? Maybe they never GET to the finals!
if a frog had wings he wouldnt bump his ass on the ground... what if doesnt matter.

Thespiralgoeson
01-18-2007, 02:10 AM
Duncan doesn't win without sterling play from Parker and Ginobli, the Pistons don't win without Billups and Prince, and the Heat don't win without Wade.

Guards are winning out, these days.

Is it that guards are winning out? Or is it that there's just a lack of quality big men in the league?

I'm leaning towards the latter. If anything, that makes players like Howard and Yao that much more special, and gives them that much more of an advantage. Honestly, Yao scares me more than any other one player in the league.

I remember a debate we had a while ago, Chum. Pretty much the same debate. You kept telling me that the center position is effectively disappearing, and how were gonna see more and more smaller, athletic guys at the 5.

And I still say that if that's true, then Yao, or someone like him is going to dominate the league in a way that hasn't been seen since the likes of Wilt, and remind everyone that you just can't stop a guy from scoring, or battle him for rebounds, when he's twice your size and has skills.

I get what you're saying Chum. It's a guard's game... But you seem to be telling me big men are losing value. I can't say I agree.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 02:14 AM
That's your conjecture that the bigs put them over the top. What about Prince blocking Miller on that layup? Maybe they never GET to the finals!

Btw, Prince is 6'9" with an 80 foot wingspan. He's not exactly a guard. He's a small forward.

And sure it's conjecture. Just like it's conjecture that Nash is what singlehandedly caused the turnaround of the Suns, and not the maturation of players like Stoudemire, Marion, and Johnson or the coaching of D'Antoni.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 02:17 AM
chum i have a question, if guard play is the end all be all as you make it sound and nash hasnt ever won a title, doesnt that mean that hes never been the best guard? if hes never been the best guard how does he have mvps? Or are you saying hes the best guard in the regular season but not the playoffs? If thats the case I cant believe you would accuse your boy nash of being such a choker...No, and you make a good point here. It doesn't mean he's not the best guard, because CLEARLY he has been the best pont guard in the conference for the last five years now.

When he went to Phoenix in 2005, he was absolutely terrific. He put his team in playoff position, and he very near singlehandedly beat his old team, the Mavericks, in the second round. In the conference finals, he led a team that gave the Spurs all they wanted and then some.

If you will look back at that series, all but one of the games (by my recollection) were within a possession with two minutes to go. It wasn't a seven-game series, no, but it was highly competitive. Nash carried that team a long way.

They bowed out to the Mavs last year, but as we all know, they were injured. The Mavs got even.

I expect a lot of fur to fly this post-season. May the best team win!

But I'm here to tell you...you dismiss Nash at your own peril. The guy is the best point guard on the planet, and he's probably forgotten more about offensive basketball than all our guys know.

rabbitproof
01-18-2007, 02:21 AM
This I agree and disagree with. Let 'em come as they have clearly emerged as the only true competitor to our league-wrecking crew. However, the only fur flying will be coming from the limp bodies of the Phoenix Suns as their carcasses are dragged around by the mouths of the mighty Dallas Mavericks between Arizona and Tejas.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 02:21 AM
Is it that guards are winning out? Or is it that there's just a lack of quality big men in the league?Yes, it's that exactly. And the NBA marketing gurus are adjusting accordingly.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:25 AM
No, and you make a good point here. It doesn't mean he's not the best guard, because CLEARLY he has been the best pont guard in the conference for the last five years now.

When he went to Phoenix in 2005, he was absolutely terrific. He put his team in playoff position, and he very near singlehandedly beat his old team, the Mavericks, in the second round. In the conference finals, he led a team that gave the Spurs all they wanted and then some.

If you will look back at that series, all but one of the games (by my recollection) were within a possession with two minutes to go. It wasn't a seven-game series, no, but it was highly competitive. Nash carried that team a long way.

They bowed out to the Mavs last year, but as we all know, they were injured. The Mavs got even.

I expect a lot of fur to fly this post-season. May the best team win!

But I'm here to tell you...you dismiss Nash at your own peril. The guy is the best point guard on the planet, and he's probably forgotten more about offensive basketball than all our guys know.
one i dont dismiss them, i think the mavs are better but they are a threat. 2. how was he the best pg in 04? he didnt even make the damn all star game. Hes been the best pg the last 2 years(plus this one) and probably in 03. So going by your logic, Gino and parker were better two years ago and jason terry was better last year?


What injury are you talking about? Amare? He doesnt count. As you pointed out he almost single handedly beat the mavs the year before. if that is the case then it shouldnt matter if amare was injured. i mean its all steve nash just making guys better right? If thats the case then why does it matter that amare got hurt? Could it be that amare was actually a stud that had a huge impact on games? But wait hes a big guy. that completely goes against your argument....

By your logic, nash was healthy in 06 so the suns should have won because he could "almost single-handedly" beat the mavs. if thats the case, boris diaw and shawn marion did plenty for it not to be considered single handedly. Also a 5 game series no matter how competitive the games are isnt a close series.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 02:32 AM
I'm not sure what you are getting at, 5-0. Seriously, I'm not.

But I know that when Nash goes 8-for-10 with 14 assists, the Suns beat the Rockets.

The guy is very, very, VERY good.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 02:37 AM
And heck if we are going to talk about how Nash shouldn't be held accountable for the disappointing 2003-04 season, let's go both ways. Some of those same losers who Nash turned into winners had actually made the playoffs before Nash arrived in Phoenix. Amare and Marion were actually part of a core that made it to the playoffs in the 2002-03 season, where they were eliminated by a Spurs team that won it all that year. In fact, the Suns got a game further that year against the Spurs than they did in the highly competitive series WCF in 2004-05. So I guess you could say that team 2002-03 Suns team gave them an "ultra-competitive" series. But nonetheless, the Suns obviously were an above-average team that year. Why did they flat-out suck the next year? I imagine like the 2003-04 Mavericks, the Suns had their own problems that went beyond the talent level. One reason was probably some of the injuries suffered that year - I know Amare missed a good chunk of time, and I think Marion or Johnson might have as well. There may have been some chemistry problems as well. But whatever the reason, it wasn't because of a lack of players.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:40 AM
I'm not sure what you are getting at, 5-0. Seriously, I'm not.

But I know that when Nash goes 8-for-10 with 14 assists, the Suns beat the Rockets.

The guy is very, very, VERY good.
with no tmac and no yao? My point was simply that you cant act like the talent around him doesnt matter and then use an injury to one of the studs around him as an excuse for losing. If it really is him that makes amare so good, why couldnt he do the same for someone else?

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 02:41 AM
I'm not sure what you are getting at, 5-0. Seriously, I'm not.

But I know that when Nash goes 8-for-10 with 14 assists, the Suns beat the Rockets.

The guy is very, very, VERY good.

I'll admit that Nash has a very good case this year for MVP (unlike in like in the years past). But this is not really a selling point for that case. There have been a lot of point guards over the past two years who have been able to beat the Rockets when they had T-Mac and Yao sitting out. This isn't some exclusive club that Nash just joined tonight.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:42 AM
And heck if we are going to talk about how Nash shouldn't be held accountable for the disappointing 2003-04 season, let's go both ways. Some of those same losers who Nash turned into winners had actually made the playoffs before Nash arrived in Phoenix. Amare and Marion were actually part of a core that made it to the playoffs in the 2002-03 season, where they were eliminated by a Spurs team that won it all that year. In fact, the Suns got a game further that year against the Spurs than they did in the highly competitive series WCF in 2004-05. So I guess you could say that team 2002-03 Suns team gave them an "ultra-competitive" series. But nonetheless, the Suns obviously were an above-average team that year. Why did they flat-out suck the next year? I imagine like the 2003-04 Mavericks, the Suns had their own problems that went beyond the talent level. One reason was probably some of the injuries suffered that year - I know Amare missed a good chunk of time, and I think Marion or Johnson might have as well. There may have been some chemistry problems as well. But whatever the reason, it wasn't because of a lack of players.
his name is stephon marbury. yes amare missed alot of games. marion didn i dont think. they didnt have dantoni yet for the full season either.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 02:43 AM
You could probably list on one hand the guys who could go for 21 and 14 in a single game. Much less on 8-for-10.

Look, I love Dirk. He is as good as they get.

So is Nash.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 02:51 AM
You could probably list on one hand the guys who could go for 21 and 14 in a single game. Much less on 8-for-10.

Look, I love Dirk. He is as good as they get.

So is Nash.

Chris Paul, Raymond Felton, Deron Williams, Jason Kidd, Chauncey Billups, and Steve Nash - I'm pretty sure all of them have had games this year around the 21 and 14 mark. And all of them are probably capable of beating the Rockets without T-Mac and Yao. I have no problem though admitting that Nash is better than all five of the other guys though. I also have no problem admitting that at this point in time, he's probably the best point guard in the league. That still doesn't make him the MVP.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 02:53 AM
I also have no problem admitting that at this point in time, he's probably the best point guard in the league. That still doesn't make him the MVP.Where would you place the best PG in the MVP race?

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:53 AM
You could probably list on one hand the guys who could go for 21 and 14 in a single game. Much less on 8-for-10.

Look, I love Dirk. He is as good as they get.

So is Nash.
really? the 8-10 thing is more narrowing though for one game all of these people are capable of going for 21-14

Chris paul
Jason Kidd
Chauncey Billups
Andre miller
Stephon marbury
Deron williams
baron davis
wade
tj ford
felton
iverson
arenas
tmac
kirk hinrich
lebron


all of those people plus a couple of other are "capable" without looking it up i feel fairly confident that at least 8-10 of those guys have actually done it before.(the 21-14 part)

Drbio
01-18-2007, 02:54 AM
Where would you place the best PG in the MVP race?

It would depend on the other players in the list. The MVP isn't awarded to the best PG in the league (it isn't the MVPG after all). The question is stupid.

GP
01-18-2007, 02:58 AM
I've got to say that reading this thread gave me a splitting headache. Too many strangely contrived arguments for my taste. Arguments that are exceptionally weak, manipulative, and dishonest due to false choices and omissions of fact.

I think Nash was very deserving of the MVP trophy the last two years though I would have preferred it to go to Nowitzki. I think both probably deserve the honor this year as well. I really thought that Nash was just about the best player on the Mavs his last couple of seasons though I can see the argument for Nowitzki. Both played together very well. I thought of them as a tandem. Nash was great for the Mavs. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar and an idiot. However, he has improved tremendously over the last 3 years. Mainly, because he is in better physical condition probably attributable for multivariate reasons but having a wife who is a physical trainer and nutritionist can't hurt. Also, being a father most likely straightened out his priorities.

Basketball is a team game. MVP consideration is really meaningless and futile. If every player doesn't doesn't fulfill their specific role on the team as envisioned by the Head Coach then you do not have a successful team. The perfect example of that is the Phoenix Suns when Marbury was running the point. They had all those wonderful players and were an absolutely dreadful team. Enter Nash & the talent gets used correctly because the PG can orchestrate the team like the coach wants it and the team wins and wins and wins. That is why he was the MVP. That is why he deserved it.

I thought that Nowitzki deserved it last year, but the choice between Nash and Nowitzki is like choosing between super hot identical twin sisters. In other words, choosing between 1 and 1A. Both are great players. Both put team over individual stats or glory. Both compete exceptionally hard. Both are integral to their teams success.

Really, people could always vote in Gilbert Arenas this year. Outside of Ron Artest probably the worst team player in the NBA. Hey, he puts up big stats. Even brags about hitting the game winning shot before he does it (of course since he never passes the ball and he shoots so damned much is it surprising when he occassionally gets it right?). If he wins it then he will be the worst MVP in the history of the sport.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 02:59 AM
Where would you place the best PG in the MVP race?

Well, it kind of depends. Behind Dirk for all three years. Behind Kobe possibly this year and the last. Behind LeBron last year. Look if Nash won MVP one time in these last three years, I wouldn't mind all that much. I would disagree, but I wouldn't be all that outraged. But Nash is looking at his 3rd MVP at this point. There have been too many other great players the last three years to say that Nash dominated this period. And that's what 3 straight MVPs says, that the player dominated the period in question. Nash simply hasn't done that.

Look, being the best point guard in the league doesn't make you the best player. At least it didn't for guys like Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, and John Stockton back in the day.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 03:04 AM
really? the 8-10 thing is more narrowing though for one game all of these people are capable of going for 21-14

Chris paul
Jason Kidd
Chauncey Billups
Andre miller
Stephon marbury
Deron williams
baron davis
wade
tj ford
felton
iverson
arenas
tmac
kirk hinrich
lebron


all of those people plus a couple of other are "capable" without looking it up i feel fairly confident that at least 8-10 of those guys have actually done it before.(the 21-14 part)I don't care who's "capable," like on a career night. I care who does it a matter of course, like our boy Nash.

GP
01-18-2007, 03:09 AM
Well, it kind of depends. Behind Dirk for all three years. Behind Kobe possibly this year and the last. Behind LeBron last year. Look if Nash won MVP one time in these last three years, I wouldn't mind all that much. I would disagree, but I wouldn't be all that outraged. But Nash is looking at his 3rd MVP at this point. There have been too many other great players the last three years to say that Nash dominated this period. And that's what 3 straight MVPs says, that the player dominated the period in question. Nash simply hasn't done that.

Look, being the best point guard in the league doesn't make you the best player. At least it didn't for guys like Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, and John Stockton back in the day.

Strange argument. Those guys all played in their primes during the Michael Jordan era. Nobody should have won the MVP except him. The fact that a couple of guys were able to win sympathy votes and steal an MVP from Jordan is superfluous to what is happening now. If Nash finishes the season as the most impactful or dominant player then he should in fact win the award. If not, then then whoever was should win the award. Hopefully, it will be Dirk. But I've got to tell you, I've watched a couple of games recently and Nash is playing unbelievably well. He is a very, very, very good player.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 03:11 AM
Really, people could always vote in Gilbert Arenas this year. Outside of Ron Artest probably the worst team player in the NBA. Hey, he puts up big stats. Even brags about hitting the game winning shot before he does it (of course since he never passes the ball and he shoots so damned much is it surprising when he occassionally gets it right?). If he wins it then he will be the worst MVP in the history of the sport.

His teammates (Butler and Jamison) don't consider him selfish. He averages 6 assists a game. And so what if he tells people he is going to hit the game-winning shot? You don't think the Michael Jordan or Larry Bird ever told their opponents they were going to hit game-winning shots over them? Those two were some of the biggest trash-talkers alive! Not the he would be my MVP candidate, but why all the Gilbert Arenas hatin?

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 03:11 AM
I don't care who's "capable," like on a career night. I care who does it a matter of course, like our boy Nash.
well then maybe you shouldnt say capable... also its not like nash does 20 and 14 every night. that would be like me pointing to dirks 30-10-6 against houston and saying who does that every night. the answer is no one and that includes dirk just like nash doesnt do 21 and 14 either...

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 03:12 AM
Well, it kind of depends. Behind Dirk for all three years. Behind Kobe possibly this year and the last. Behind LeBron last year. Look if Nash won MVP one time in these last three years, I wouldn't mind all that much. I would disagree, but I wouldn't be all that outraged. But Nash is looking at his 3rd MVP at this point. There have been too many other great players the last three years to say that Nash dominated this period. And that's what 3 straight MVPs says, that the player dominated the period in question. Nash simply hasn't done that.

Look, being the best point guard in the league doesn't make you the best player. At least it didn't for guys like Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, and John Stockton back in the day.But , Fin, what if he IS the best player?

It's entirely possible. How could you prove otherwise?

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 03:16 AM
But , Fin, what if he IS the best player?

It's entirely possible. How could you prove otherwise?
because he is the worst defensive player among those in the argument, he is the worst individual scorer among those in question(though he could score if he wanted too) because he is the worst rebounder among those in question... Thats a good place to start. being better at passing and worse at everything else doesnt make you the best player.

rabbitproof
01-18-2007, 03:17 AM
While I agree best PG doesn't automatically translate into best or most valuable player in the league, I do think of a PG as a quarterback and quarterbacks do generate a little more media love and MVP votes.

Dirk is LDT though.

EDIT: To continue the lines of the football analogy, Nash is kind of like Peyton Manning.

GP
01-18-2007, 03:19 AM
His teammates (Butler and Jamison) don't consider him selfish. He averages 6 assists a game. And so what if he tells people he is going to hit the game-winning shot? You don't think the Michael Jordan or Larry Bird ever told their opponents they were going to hit game-winning shots over them? Those two were some of the biggest trash-talkers alive! Not the he would be my MVP candidate, but why all the Gilbert Arenas hatin?

I watched a couple of Washingtons games this year and Arenas may be a great shooter but he takes the absolute worst shots. He is the most selfish player in the game. I think he'd rather take a heavily guarded 35 foot shot and lose than pass to a wide open teammate for the win. Marbury and Iverson have always racked up big assist numbers. However, that doesn't make them any less selfish and those guys never took the sheer volume of bad shots that Arenas does. I think Arenas is the re-incarnation of Bernard King or Adrian Dantley. Really good players who have absolutely no concept of team ball. I think Washington has a decent record right now, but it is a fluke and will change.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 03:20 AM
And at the same time, 5-0, no one comes NEAR to what he does to an offense.

Oh, and he can get his shot off every bit as much as a LeBron James. Don't give me that.

He can play a little defense, too. If there is a Steve Nash "myth," it's that he doesn't play defense. The dude came up with soccer, for goodness' sakes. He knows how to move his feet.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 03:21 AM
Strange argument. Those guys all played in their primes during the Michael Jordan era. Nobody should have won the MVP except him. The fact that a couple of guys were able to win sympathy votes and steal an MVP from Jordan is superfluous to what is happening now. If Nash finishes the season as the most impactful or dominant player then he should in fact win the award. If not, then then whoever was should win the award. Hopefully, it will be Dirk. But I've got to tell you, I've watched a couple of games recently and Nash is playing unbelievably well. He is a very, very, very good player.

Strange argument? Huh? You've watched "a couple" of games and you consider yourself the expert? I never said he wasn't playing well, and I honestly would not have been all that upset to see him win the MVP this year if he didn't win it the last two years when he didn't really deserve it. You obviously haven't paid attention to the precedent set by voters. There has been a very clear trend of not always giving it to the most deserving person because they've won it too often or other strange reasons. You cite the Jordan example (which kind of hurts your original point that my argument is strange). I can also cite Shaq as an example. Heck, Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell could be examples. Heck, Tim Duncan probably deserves more than two MVPs looking back on everything. All of those guys should have if we were going on who was truly the best players. But voters don't like to do that. They don't like Heck, one of the arguments against LeBron that some people used last year was that he is going to win plenty of MVPs in the next 10 years. But if Shaq was one of the most dominant players of all time (and he was), why does he only have one MVP trophy to show for it? Because voters don't like giving it to the same guy over and over. Which is why it confuses the heck out of me why Nash is on his way to his third MVP. But I guess it goes back to what Spiral says, the media always wants some cute story. They've got a really cute one with Nash right now that allows them to constantly pile MVP trophies on Nash's lap. God forbid if he ever ends up with as many MVP trophies as MJ. At this rate it looks like he may.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 03:24 AM
He can play a little defense, too. If there is a Steve Nash "myth," it's that he doesn't play defense. The dude came up with soccer, for goodness' sakes. He knows how to move his feet.

Heck, let's sign Ronaldinho then to be our defensive stopper. If that LA team was able to bring Beckham to the US, Cubes might be able to get this done!

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 03:26 AM
Maybe what you think is a "cute story" is in fact a reckoning of the situation how it is.

Did you ever think, as counter to the stream as you evidently run, that maybe it is *you* who is out of the ordinary?

Dirkadirkastan
01-18-2007, 03:27 AM
They'd be the Dirk Diggler of NBA teams.

This line pissed me off the most.

That is all.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 03:33 AM
Maybe what you think is a "cute story" is in fact a reckoning of the situation how it is.

Did you ever think, as counter to the stream as you evidently run, that maybe it is *you* who is out of the ordinary?

Nope, not when I compare him to all the other three time MVP winners. I just can't see a guy who has two top 15 players on his team and has never made the NBA Finals as a guy who is worthy of three MVPs. One possibly but not three. Especially when a good chunk of these guys wouldn't have put him in their top 20 lists when he was with the Mavericks. And when I consider that a lot of these writers probably watch as much basketball as me, I'm not really sure why they would be any more qualified. Heck, I wonder if some of these guys even watch basketball. I'm beginning to think they just hear what a few other guys say, and they start repeating it. Soon you have everyone saying the same thing.

Regardless, I'm done with this argument for the night. I've gotta get some sleep.

Drbio
01-18-2007, 03:35 AM
Nash sucking at defense a myth? Laughable.


Mr. swinging gate at the top of the perimeter is average on his best day.


I guess love is blind.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 03:36 AM
And at the same time, 5-0, no one comes NEAR to what he does to an offense.

Oh, and he can get his shot off every bit as much as a LeBron James. Don't give me that.

He can play a little defense, too. If there is a Steve Nash "myth," it's that he doesn't play defense. The dude came up with soccer, for goodness' sakes. He knows how to move his feet.
lebron averaged 31 points on solid shooting last year. if steve nash put his mind to it he still couldnt do that. Being effecient scoring 19 a game and being effecient scoring 31 are entirely different animals. Not that he needs to but please dont feed me this nash can score with lebron bs. Nash can score more than he does but cant score like lebron or kobe or dirk for that matter. No one does what he does. You are right about that. then again neither does anyone do what kobe does. Or Dirk. Or well you get the idea...

GP
01-18-2007, 03:37 AM
Strange argument? Huh? You've watched "a couple" of games and you consider yourself the expert? I never said he wasn't playing well, and I honestly would not have been all that upset to see him win the MVP this year if he didn't win it the last two years when he didn't really deserve it. You obviously haven't paid attention to the precedent set by voters. There has been a very clear trend of not always giving it to the most deserving person because they've won it too often or other strange reasons. You cite the Jordan example (which kind of hurts your original point that my argument is strange). I can also cite Shaq as an example. Heck, Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell could be examples. Heck, Tim Duncan probably deserves more than two MVPs looking back on everything. All of those guys should have if we were going on who was truly the best players. But voters don't like to do that. They don't like Heck, one of the arguments against LeBron that some people used last year was that he is going to win plenty of MVPs in the next 10 years. But if Shaq was one of the most dominant players of all time (and he was), why does he only have one MVP trophy to show for it? Because voters don't like giving it to the same guy over and over. Which is why it confuses the heck out of me why Nash is on his way to his third MVP. But I guess it goes back to what Spiral says, the media always wants some cute story. They've got a really cute one with Nash right now that allows them to constantly pile MVP trophies on Nash's lap. God forbid if he ever ends up with as many MVP trophies as MJ. At this rate it looks like he may.

Don't try to suck me into one of those straw-man arguments or whatever the hell they are called. If Nash deserves the MVP then he absolutely should win it. Nothing confusing about fairness and equity. If Nowitzki deserves it then he should win it. All other political BS needs to be factored out. I don't care how many MVP's Nash wins or Nowitzki or anyone else for that matter. It is a team sport. The purpose is to win the championship not take individual honors. That is what both Nowitkzi and Nash are playing for and consequently that is why both are very serious MVP candidates. When MJ was early in his career he wasn't winning MVP's because Magic and Bird were. MJ may have scored more points than those but Chicago wasn't seriously competing. Once they turned the corner MJ started getting MVP's like crazy. Like I said earlier, just because MJ got ripped off doesn't mean that Nash or anyone else should because of some silly precedent or weird bias. Frankly, I don't think MJ ever cared one bit about winning an MVP. He cared about winning the championship which is why he has 6 to his name and why he won a bunch of MVP's. Guys that put of big numbers never get seriously considered for MVP because they think that numbers are more important than winning.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 03:41 AM
Don't try to suck me into one of those straw-man arguments or whatever the hell they are called. If Nash deserves the MVP then he absolutely should win it. Nothing confusing about fairness and equity. If Nowitzki deserves it then he should win it. All other political BS needs to be factored out. I don't care how many MVP's Nash wins or Nowitzki or anyone else for that matter. It is a team sport. The purpose is to win the championship not take individual honors. That is what both Nowitkzi and Nash are playing for and consequently that is why both are very serious MVP candidates. When MJ was early in his career he wasn't winning MVP's because Magic and Bird were. MJ may have scored more points than those but Chicago wasn't seriously competing. Once they turned the corner MJ started getting MVP's like crazy. Like I said earlier, just because MJ got ripped off doesn't mean that Nash or anyone else should because of some silly precedent or weird bias. Frankly, I don't think MJ ever cared one bit about winning an MVP. He cared about winning the championship which is why he has 6 to his name and why he won a bunch of MVP's. Guys that put of big numbers never get seriously considered for MVP because they think that numbers are more important than winning.
actually jordan won his first mvp with a fairly pedestrian team and no matter what you say i think the fact that dirk has deserved both of the last two mvp awards more than nash does need to be factored in a little bit.

that team was 50-32, not unlike lebron james cavs last year...

GP
01-18-2007, 03:41 AM
Nope, not when I compare him to all the other three time MVP winners. I just can't see a guy who has two top 15 players on his team and has never made the NBA Finals as a guy who is worthy of three MVPs. One possibly but not three. Especially when a good chunk of these guys wouldn't have put him in their top 20 lists when he was with the Mavericks. And when I consider that a lot of these writers probably watch as much basketball as me, I'm not really sure why they would be any more qualified. Heck, I wonder if some of these guys even watch basketball. I'm beginning to think they just hear what a few other guys say, and they start repeating it. Soon you have everyone saying the same thing.

Regardless, I'm done with this argument for the night. I've gotta get some sleep.

How good would Marion or Stoudemire look on a basketball court if they still had someone like Marbury throwing them passes where they couldn't catch it or make an easy layup or dunk? No one would be considering these guys as top 15 players. Sure, they'd still be really good but would they be elite?

Drbio
01-18-2007, 03:42 AM
Marion and Amare would likely be top 15 players if YOU were hurling up bricks for them to catch.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 03:45 AM
Don't try to suck me into one of those straw-man arguments or whatever the hell they are called. If Nash deserves the MVP then he absolutely should win it. Nothing confusing about fairness and equity. If Nowitzki deserves it then he should win it. All other political BS needs to be factored out. I don't care how many MVP's Nash wins or Nowitzki or anyone else for that matter. It is a team sport. The purpose is to win the championship not take individual honors. That is what both Nowitkzi and Nash are playing for and consequently that is why both are very serious MVP candidates. When MJ was early in his career he wasn't winning MVP's because Magic and Bird were. MJ may have scored more points than those but Chicago wasn't seriously competing. Once they turned the corner MJ started getting MVP's like crazy. Like I said earlier, just because MJ got ripped off doesn't mean that Nash or anyone else should because of some silly precedent or weird bias. Frankly, I don't think MJ ever cared one bit about winning an MVP. He cared about winning the championship which is why he has 6 to his name and why he won a bunch of MVP's. Guys that put of big numbers never get seriously considered for MVP because they think that numbers are more important than winning.

How the heck is Nash's campaign not political? Is Nash the outright most dominant player in the NBA? No, especially not the last two years when he won it. He sure didn't will the Suns to a championship either despite some of the impressive talent they had (and make no mistake, they had talent). The whole "he makes is teammates" better argument is so subjective, that it's ALL about politics and certain media members going to bat for him. So you've already destroyed your point. And that's what this whole thread is about. The Anti-Nash faction believes politics has gotten in the way too much during the last two years, that the truly deserving parties haven't won it.

GP
01-18-2007, 03:45 AM
actually jordan won his first mvp with a fairly pedestrian team and no matter what you say i think the fact that dirk has deserved both of the last two mvp awards more than nash does need to be factored in a little bit.

that team was 50-32, not unlike lebron james cavs last year...

Actully, I think I said that I thought Dirk deserved the MVP last year. I also think that Nash was deserving as well. The actual phrase I used was like choosing between two super hot identical twin sisters.

As for this year I don't know yet. There is a hell of a lot of basketball to be played. I think that anyone who is voting for the MVP should be looking primarily at either Nowitzki or Nash. Right now, no one else makes any sense at all.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 03:46 AM
How good would Marion or Stoudemire look on a basketball court if they still had someone like Marbury throwing them passes where they couldn't catch it or make an easy layup or dunk? No one would be considering these guys as top 15 players. Sure, they'd still be really good but would they be elite?
shawn marion was an all star before he ever met steve nash. Amare was on the path(well he had probably met them but you get the idea) Marion put up 21.2-9.5-2.4-2.3-1.1 with that very marbury you mention in 03 on a team that made the playoffs... hell a 22 year old marion put up 17.3-10.7. I have no clue where this retarded ass rumor that marion is a creation of nash comes from but it has no basis in reality.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 03:50 AM
btw, i will fully admit im not an objective observer on this. I am about as big of a dirk fan as you will find. if you havent figured that out from my posts you could always click on the link to my myspace in my sig and my background would probably give you some clue... That said dirk is still the mvp and no nash wasnt deserving last year. the suns still had as much talent as the mavs and his stats didnt warrant mvp on a team with a fairly average record.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 03:50 AM
How good would Marion or Stoudemire look on a basketball court if they still had someone like Marbury throwing them passes where they couldn't catch it or make an easy layup or dunk? No one would be considering these guys as top 15 players. Sure, they'd still be really good but would they be elite?

If you don't think NBA GMs would choose a healthy Stoudemire and Marion among the top 15, you are blind. Heck after the 2004-05 playoffs, there were a ton of people saying Amare was a top 5 player. Injuries have set him back, but he's getting darn close to top 15 status again. Stoudemire was right out of high school when he played with Marbury. You can't honestly give Nash all the credit for his development. That's laughable. Marion has always been highly underrated. But the guy posts stats across the board, and is as versatile as any player in the league.

GP
01-18-2007, 03:53 AM
How the heck is Nash's campaign not political? Is Nash the outright most dominant player in the NBA? No, especially not the last two years when he won it. He sure didn't will the Suns to a championship either despite some of the impressive talent they had (and make no mistake, they had talent). The whole "he makes is teammates" better argument is so subjective, that it's ALL about politics and certain media members going to bat for him. So you've already destroyed your point. And that's what this whole thread is about. The Anti-Nash faction believes politics has gotten in the way too much during the last two years, that the truly deserving parties haven't won it.

Not trying to get personal here but are you having reading comprehension problems? I said that whoever is the most deserving should win the damned MVP trophy. Take all politics out of it and give it to the most deserving player or abolish the damned award. It is afterall a team game and naming an MVP is counterproductive. I never said that Nash makes his teammates better though he does give them the ball where they can do something with it. It frees them up to be who they are. No player can make other players better. They can make it easier for them by helping them play to their strengths and masking their weaknesses. Nash does this better than anybody.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 03:55 AM
Not trying to get personal here but are you having reading comprehension problems? I said that whoever is the most deserving should win the damned MVP trophy. Take all politics out of it and give it to the most deserving player or abolish the damned award. It is afterall a team game and naming an MVP is counterproductive. I never said that Nash makes his teammates better though he does give them the ball where they can do something with it. It frees them up to be who they are. No player can make other players better. They can make it easier for them by helping them play to their strengths and masking their weaknesses. Nash does this better than anybody.
nash does it as well as anyone. its not clear cut that he does it better than anyone. if he did, the suns would run away with the best record in the nba.

GP
01-18-2007, 03:58 AM
shawn marion was an all star before he ever met steve nash. Amare was on the path(well he had probably met them but you get the idea) Marion put up 21.2-9.5-2.4-2.3-1.1 with that very marbury you mention in 03 on a team that made the playoffs... hell a 22 year old marion put up 17.3-10.7. I have no clue where this retarded ass rumor that marion is a creation of nash comes from but it has no basis in reality.

And the same reading comprehension affliction has affected you as well. Great. Marion was and is a very good NBA player. Never said he wasn't. By the way, thanks guys for sucking me into a really stupid argument with a couple of half-wits. You guys continually take things out of context and read only what you want. Your arguments are disingenuous and flawed. I am done with both of you guys today because I actually have a life and have to get up and participate in the real world. Adios.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 03:58 AM
Nash sucking at defense a myth? Laughable.


Mr. swinging gate at the top of the perimeter is average on his best day.


I guess love is blind.Son, these are men talking serious basketball points here. Go Photoshop something in the lounge. Run along, now.

Drbio
01-18-2007, 04:01 AM
If you would stop sucking Nash's nuts you would understand how stupid you constantly look.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 04:05 AM
And the same reading comprehension affliction has affected you as well. Great. Marion was and is a very good NBA player. Never said he wasn't. By the way, thanks guys for sucking me into a really stupid argument with a couple of half-wits. You guys continually take things out of context and read only what you want. Your arguments are disingenuous and flawed. I am done with both of you guys today because I actually have a life and have to get up and participate in the real world. Adios.
you specifically said would these guys be considered top 15 with marbury throwing them passes. I simply pointed out what happened when he did have marbury throwing him passes. I know it doesnt fit your perfect little steve nash makes everyone better world but its the truth. Everyone said dirk wouldnt be able to score without nash. See how that turned out? If you can finish in the nba you can finish. Thats all there is to it. Its just that for some reason when it comes to nash the applause has been lauded on the guy who throws the alley oop rather than the guy who finishes it. Who was considered the mvp of stockton and malone?

Its not my fault your arguments are shit. Come up with some new ones dont run away. anyway moving on, as to contrived arguments, yes i did have some contrived arguments in this thread. they were made specifically to refute other arguments made by our resident contrarian.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 04:06 AM
Son, these are men talking serious basketball points here. Go Photoshop something in the lounge. Run along, now.
you do know that rafer alston scored 27 on nash tonight right? He did shoot way too much but when rafer alston is putting up 27 on you, you probably arent very good defensively...

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 04:08 AM
If you don't think NBA GMs would choose a healthy Stoudemire and Marion among the top 15, you are blind. Heck after the 2004-05 playoffs, there were a ton of people saying Amare was a top 5 player. Injuries have set him back, but he's getting darn close to top 15 status again. Stoudemire was right out of high school when he played with Marbury. You can't honestly give Nash all the credit for his development. That's laughable. Marion has always been highly underrated. But the guy posts stats across the board, and is as versatile as any player in the league.Wow, dudes. You managed to piss GP off. That's hard to do!

If you would quit with your unconscionable ragging on Nash, we might be able to move forward.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 04:10 AM
you do know that rafer alston scored 27 on nash tonight right? He did shoot way too much but when rafer alston is putting up 27 on you, you probably arent very good defensively...Let me know the final score, before I respond.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 04:10 AM
Wow, dudes. You managed to piss GP off. That's hard to do!

If you would quit with your unconscionable ragging on Nash, we might be able to move forward.
so its now unconscionable ragging on nash to say that marion is a top 15 guy without him? Really? Wow it seems like a hell of alot more unconscionable ragging on marion to say that he is just a creation of nash.

It was really nice of nash to help him out so much when nash was still on the mavs and marion was on the suns...

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 04:11 AM
Let me know the final score, before I respond.
did i say alston was better? did i say the yao less, mcgradyless rockets were better? No. I just said that the player that this underrated defender was guarding went for a career high 27.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 04:16 AM
If you would stop sucking Nash's nuts you would understand how stupid you constantly look.

You probably should try to not talk with your mouth full.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g194/drbio/nashsafety.jpgAnd here I thought I told you about that...

The deal was this. If you will stop with the awkward Photoshops, I won't mention anything about the unfortunate pictures of you and the Bayor swim team.

Now, ask yourself, do you really want to open this can of worms?

Drbio
01-18-2007, 04:17 AM
Got defensive efficiency numbers on Nash?

They can't possibly be good. The guy is average on his best day. It's a fact.

Drbio
01-18-2007, 04:18 AM
chum- you do realize that the fine university in Waco, TX does not field a swim team right? you really are a shill at this point. Nothing more. Sad really. I guess all that Nash ball sweat you have consumed over the years has finally gotten to you.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 04:22 AM
doc seeing your sig has got another idea for a big debate we need to have. Why cant nba players throw a damn punch?

Drbio
01-18-2007, 04:25 AM
Good question. I've seen better punches thrown by librarians.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 04:40 AM
chum- you do realize that the fine university in Waco, TX does not field a swim team right? you really are a shill at this point. Nothing more. Sad really. I guess all that Nash ball sweat you have consumed over the years has finally gotten to you.I didn't know that. Where do you do your trolling?

Drbio
01-18-2007, 04:41 AM
Not surprised. You don't seem to know much.

chumdawg
01-18-2007, 04:43 AM
Thank God I don't.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 08:16 AM
Wow, dudes. You managed to piss GP off. That's hard to do!

If you would quit with your unconscionable ragging on Nash, we might be able to move forward.

I don't even know who this GP fella is. Do you know who he is? Does anyone here know who he is? For all both of us know, he could just be a really fiery dude. He must be if he's getting pissed off and resorting to personal attacks this easily.

Anyways, if the dude can't respond without making personal attacks, I don't feel a huge need to respond to his stuff. I'm not going to get into an internet pissing match.

MavsX
01-18-2007, 08:26 AM
yeah that article about the suns love is freaking annoying...such bullshit

DevinHarriswillstart
01-18-2007, 08:43 AM
Wow, what a dumb point, if it weren't for blah blah blah the Suns would have a 28 game winning streak. Did you know too if the the Suns played defense, they might have gone to the Finals. Wow. What insight.

If I had gills, I could breath underwater. Awesome.

aexchange
01-18-2007, 09:03 AM
Boy, am I ever sick and tired of this logical fallacy. Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--knows that the Mavs missed more than one beat when Harris and then Terry took over from Nash at point guard. They managed to improve in other areas, to be sure, but they took a major blow at PG at the time.

at the time they did. but do you really think the mavs would be that much better right now with nash as the starting PG instead of devin harris?

i love nash, and he's invaluable to the suns b/c of how he makes their offense go, but i would say harris is equally invaluable to the mavs on the defensive end in his ability to guard perimeter players and keep them from scoring. nash wouldn't be able to do that here and i think the mavs offense is pretty efficient and by all accounts pretty explosive as it is without steve. as it stands, nash is still in the bottom 5% of all players in the league on the defensive end.

i'm just tired of all this nash love. its been 3 years, he's doing well. great. let's move on with this nonsense already. the mavs are better without him and the suns are better with him.

capitalcity
01-18-2007, 09:12 AM
Steve Nash hates Christmas.
Steve Nash hates Mary Lou Retton.
Steve Nash hates Leukemia... patients.

jthig32
01-18-2007, 09:26 AM
This was a great thread until Chum got a hold of it. I enjoyed some of the debate, but in the end it always feels like beating your head against a brick wall.

What Aex said is reality. It's fact that the Mavs have become a better team since Nash left. No one in their right mind would argue against that.

Also, Nash has become a better player, due to recomitting himself to baskeball, and finding a team that fit him better. Because of this, the Suns have become better.

So, both teams got better, and Nash himself got better. Wins all the way around.

And btw, just one response. Saying Nash has been the best PG in the West for the last 5 years? Asinine.

DevinHarriswillstart
01-18-2007, 09:58 AM
at the time they did. but do you really think the mavs would be that much better right now with nash as the starting PG instead of devin harris?

i love nash, and he's invaluable to the suns b/c of how he makes their offense go, but i would say harris is equally invaluable to the mavs on the defensive end in his ability to guard perimeter players and keep them from scoring. nash wouldn't be able to do that here and i think the mavs offense is pretty efficient and by all accounts pretty explosive as it is without steve. as it stands, nash is still in the bottom 5% of all players in the league on the defensive end.

i'm just tired of all this nash love. its been 3 years, he's doing well. great. let's move on with this nonsense already. the mavs are better without him and the suns are better with him.

I think what is so annoying is that people are finding any excuse to love Nash. What is even more annoying is why he never got ANY love here from outside sources, Bill Walton being the exception. He is NOT better then he was on our team, if Nelson wanted the Mavs to score 130 a game, we would have, but Cuban wanted defense and I and everyone else agreed with him. He averages a few more assists a game because of D'Antoni's system, the end. Other then lob passes to ridiculously athletic forwards, he hasn't done ONE thing that I didn't see him do for us....he Still breaks down in the playoffs as evidence of last year so who the hell cares? Legler has to find some ridiuculous fact about how Nash double teams well. DOUBLE TEAMS!!! Are you kidding me? Anyone who thinks Nash is MVP obviously are thinking this is football where you can win MVP just playing offense. Its the most prestigious single-player award in the league and you don't deserve it playing 50% of the game. You just simply don't.

Let them love him, people watch American Idol so there are worse things. Just a shame the reasoning behind it.

jthig32
01-18-2007, 10:16 AM
I think what is so annoying is that people are finding any excuse to love Nash. What is even more annoying is why he never got ANY love here from outside sources, Bill Walton being the exception. He is NOT better then he was on our team, if Nelson wanted the Mavs to score 130 a game, we would have, but Cuban wanted defense and I and everyone else agreed with him. He averages a few more assists a game because of D'Antoni's system, the end. Other then lob passes to ridiculously athletic forwards, he hasn't done ONE thing that I didn't see him do for us....he Still breaks down in the playoffs as evidence of last year so who the hell cares? Legler has to find some ridiuculous fact about how Nash double teams well. DOUBLE TEAMS!!! Are you kidding me? Anyone who thinks Nash is MVP obviously are thinking this is football where you can win MVP just playing offense. Its the most prestigious single-player award in the league and you don't deserve it playing 50% of the game. You just simply don't.

Let them love him, people watch American Idol so there are worse things. Just a shame the reasoning behind it.

Well, I can't say I agree with you here. He is most certainly playing at a higher level than he did while he was here. One look at his FG% will show that.

I think he got himself in better shape because he was insulted we didn't match the Suns' offer. Also, he's playing in a system better suited for him.

But I don't think there's any question he's playing better basketball with the Suns, especially compared to that last season with us. But he's not the MVP.

Drbio
01-18-2007, 10:35 AM
Nice post Aex
Nice post capcity
Nice post Thig
Nice post DevinHarrisWillStartBecauseHeisBadderThanChuckNorr is :)

DHWS- we once gave you some grief for that nickname but I like it now. Way to stick to your guns. ;)

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 10:52 AM
doc your sig still makes me laugh. if you are a grown man and you get a free shot to a guys chin and throat how do you not do enough to make him at least pause?

Drbio
01-18-2007, 11:01 AM
Looks like two noogies into the neck. I'm surprised showbe couldn't avoid them. I thought him a better athlete than that. ;)

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 11:14 AM
Looks like two noogies into the neck. I'm surprised showbe couldn't avoid them. I thought him a better athlete than that. ;)
the first one hes going for the sucker punch to the chin he just misses, which is also just sad. i mean honestly, ive seen 8 year old girls have more punishing fights than the majority of nba fights. im sorry but if you get a clear shot to someones chin and they dont go down, (assuming they arent a professional fighter of some kind) you cant throw a punch and should turn in your guy card.

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 11:16 AM
the first one hes going for the sucker punch to the chin he just misses, which is also just sad. i mean honestly, ive seen 8 year old girls have more punishing fights than the majority of nba fights. im sorry but if you get a clear shot to someones chin and they dont go down, (assuming they arent a professional fighter of some kind) you cant throw a punch and should turn in your guy card.

Which player are we talking about here? Both sides look like they could use some Karate lessons.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 11:21 AM
Which player are we talking about here? Both sides look like they could use some Karate lessons.
qrich(i think thats qrich) is mostly who im talking about though kobe doesnt exactly look like chuck liddell with the counter punches...

FINtastic
01-18-2007, 11:23 AM
qrich(i think thats qrich) is mostly who im talking about though kobe doesnt exactly look like chuck liddell with the counter punches...

Yeah, it looked like Kobe whiffed pretty bad himself with his counter.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 11:28 AM
Yeah, it looked like Kobe whiffed pretty bad himself with his counter.
you know what a fight like that is called? its called a "hey we both make millions so lets not do anything that could possibly hurt each other" fight. Kind of a long title though.

vjz
01-18-2007, 11:42 AM
What he said.

Trust me, you can't tell me anything about Simmons I don't already know. I go back and read from his archives all the time. Notice I said at the top "I've been looking forward to Simmons' next basketball article for a long time".

I realize what his angle is, and I realize he's more about emotional reaction than logical analysis, but this crossed the line.

Plus Simmons also tends to knee-jerk quite a bit. It looks like he'd just finished seeing a Suns game, and then just poured it into the article.

DevinHarriswillstart
01-18-2007, 11:49 AM
Well, I can't say I agree with you here. He is most certainly playing at a higher level than he did while he was here. One look at his FG% will show that.

I think he got himself in better shape because he was insulted we didn't match the Suns' offer. Also, he's playing in a system better suited for him.

But I don't think there's any question he's playing better basketball with the Suns, especially compared to that last season with us. But he's not the MVP.

I think you hit it home, the system. Remember the rules changed that summer too. Ok fg% but everyone on that team shoots out of their mind beacuse of the system. Nash also probably gets a lot of open looks with the talent around him getting attention. However, have you seen any play from him that you thought "wow he never did that for us"....I haven't, every hi-lite I see of him I've seen him do with us (other than lob dunks). Also, the pgs just aren't that great in the west either. Who is the next best pg in the west after Nash? Parker? Harris? Deron? Its a fairly big drop off after Nash so its easy to get attention on him. Just like its a fairly big drop off after the "who's the best team in the league" talk :).

This all comes down to defense. If the suns don't win it with all offense, then all of those mvps are for not because it will prove offense by itself is overrated. The Mavericks already proved that all offense and no defense is overrated. Wizards, Toronto, NJ, Detroit, GS, etc etc all have offensive systems and don't play much D. Whoopie, so much easier to find offensive players then the defensive ones. Hell, you can even say Nash isn't the best pg in the league with Arenas, where as Dirk is by far the best forward now.

kg_veteran
01-18-2007, 12:34 PM
Before this thread was hijacked and devolved into just another Nash thread, I thought there were some really good posts explaining how fallacious Simmons' premise is. What was the basic premise?

But as long as he's happy, Phoenix's top six players surpass anything we've seen since Magic-Kareem-Worthy-Cooper-Scott-Thompson/Green or Bird-Parish-McHale-Johnson-Ainge-Walton. Just look at these guys. It's insane.


Rather than the usual debate (which has been done so many times before) about Nash, would anyone care to defend Simmons' premise here? Chum? Anyone?

I don't think you have to look that far at all to disprove this premise. I'm pretty certain that the Phoenix unit in 04-05 that had Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson was better than this unit that has Diaw and Bell, and that's without looking at any of a number of other teams in the past few years that had better rotations than Phoenix's current rotation, much less looking at all-time great teams like those Celtic and Lakers squads to which Simmons refers.

jthig32
01-18-2007, 12:37 PM
It's absolutely indefensible.

I honestly just can't understand what he was thinking when he set out to write this article. It baffles me.

rabbitproof
01-18-2007, 01:08 PM
It was the awesome. Now, it is round #8327426815.

Grammaton Cleric
01-18-2007, 01:12 PM
Wow...nice debate guys. I'm only chiming in because I've been thinking about this whole Nash vs the All Time Greats argument. I constantly hear that "making Nash a 3-time MVP devalues the award". But I disagree, because I don't think that anyone currently playing in the NBA is on the same tier as Bird/Magic/Jordan.

At the risk of sounding like a geek, Let me use "X-Men" as an example.

The most powerful characters in the movies were all class 4 mutants. I guess that someone had a rating system - go figure. So anyway, in the 3rd movie a class 5 mutant is revealed - and no one else even comes close to matching this person in terms of power.

Nash, Nowitzki, Kobe, LeBron, Wade - these are all "class 4" superstars. All are awesome players, all bring their respective teams to a level that wouldn't be at without them.

Now, players like Bird, Magic, Jordan (and perhaps Shaq in his prime) are class 5's. I don't believe that even the most fervent Mavs fan believes that Dirk > Bird. Likewise, no Suns fan who experienced Showtime will ever claim that Nash is better than Magic. It's just not so.

The class 5 players were just all-galaxy in terms of their all-around games, ability to come through in the clutch and their knack for turning otherwise above-average teams into unstoppable juggernauts. Oftentimes they made choosing the MVP a no-brainer. I truly believe that right now, there is no one in the NBA who is playing at a level comparable to them. A guy like LeBron is close, but he's not there yet.

So, given the total absence of players of this caliber, voters must choose from the current slate of class 4's. So if Nash wins, he deserves it. It's not his fault that there's no clear-cut superstud standing in his way. As good as Dirk is, he isn't the de facto MVP. Neither is Nash. But for whatever reason, voters saw fit to give it to him.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:19 PM
Wow...nice debate guys. I'm only chiming in because I've been thinking about this whole Nash vs the All Time Greats argument. I constantly hear that "making Nash a 3-time MVP devalues the award". But I disagree, because I don't think that anyone currently playing in the NBA is on the same tier as Bird/Magic/Jordan.

At the risk of sounding like a geek, Let me use "X-Men" as an example.

The most powerful characters in the movies were all class 4 mutants. I guess that someone had a rating system - go figure. So anyway, in the 3rd movie a class 5 mutant is revealed - and no one else even comes close to matching this person in terms of power.

Nash, Nowitzki, Kobe, LeBron, Wade - these are all "class 4" superstars. All are awesome players, all bring their respective teams to a level that wouldn't be at without them.

Now, players like Bird, Magic, Jordan (and perhaps Shaq in his prime) are class 5's. I don't believe that even the most fervent Mavs fan believes that Dirk > Bird. Likewise, no Suns fan who experienced Showtime will ever claim that Nash is better than Magic. It's just not so.

The class 5 players were just all-galaxy in terms of their all-around games, ability to come through in the clutch and their knack for turning otherwise above-average teams into unstoppable juggernauts. Oftentimes they made choosing the MVP a no-brainer. I truly believe that right now, there is no one in the NBA who is playing at a level comparable to them. A guy like LeBron is close, but he's not there yet.

So, given the total absence of players of this caliber, voters must choose from the current slate of class 4's. So if Nash wins, he deserves it. It's not his fault that there's no clear-cut superstud standing in his way. As good as Dirk is, he isn't the de facto MVP. Neither is Nash. But for whatever reason, voters saw fit to give it to him.
the problem is that when their careers are over kobe, lebron, wade, and dirk are all going to be all time greats on a different level than steve nash. Charles barkley and karl malone won while jordan was in his prime. Dirk is definitely on their level.

the other problem with this is that the reason that those players arent already elevated is because they dont have mvps and in order to argue that nash deserves mvp, you have to argue that its an incredibly weak nba which is just untrue.

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 01:22 PM
btw bayliss just made his argument against dirk and it was "josh howards going to be an all star and jason terry is pretty good..." Well skip that might be a valid point if nash didnt play with 2 all stars and diaw and bell and barbosa who are all pretty good...

rabbitproof
01-18-2007, 01:23 PM
Phoenix jock property value is rapidly becoming a scarce commodity for ESPN.commers - Hollinger joins the dick ride....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

TheBlueVan
01-18-2007, 01:38 PM
yeah i just saw that and came running back to this thread. ok, so let me get this straight, a team of 3 all-stars was two losses away from a 28 game winstreak and a team of ONE all-star was one freak vujacic show away from a 19 game win streak, and this one all-star team has also played more games overall and against the west.

whatever, we'll just beat em in the playoffs, if someone else doesnt beat us to it!

Grammaton Cleric
01-18-2007, 02:03 PM
the problem is that when their careers are over kobe, lebron, wade, and dirk are all going to be all time greats on a different level than steve nash.

I disagree about Dirk and Kobe. I think with those two, what you see is what you're going to get for the rest of their careers. LeBron could potentially get there as I said, and perhaps even Wade, but they're only getting the benefit of the doubt because of their youth.

Charles barkley and karl malone won while jordan was in his prime. Dirk is definitely on their level.

But Barkley and Malone are class 4's, because clearly, Bird and Magic > Barkley and Malone. I know it sounds stupid to keep using that rating system, but it's undeniable that there is a tier above players like Karl Malone, Barkley, Wade, Arenas etc. What exactly that difference is, is hard to say. I guess it might be summed up by saying that, when a class 5 is on the floor and it's all on the line, everyone just knows that his team is going to win. Can you honestly say that about Dirk?

the other problem with this is that the reason that those players arent already elevated is because they dont have mvps and in order to argue that nash deserves mvp, you have to argue that its an incredibly weak nba which is just untrue.

Well, not "incredibly weak", but certainly devoid of class 5's. Being the MVP doesn't make you a class 5, but when there aren't any of 'em around, then a class 4 is naturally going to win it.

alexamenos
01-18-2007, 02:08 PM
I've been looking desperately for some reason to dismiss the Pheonix Suns. Notwithstanding their rather poor showing this far v. Western Conference playoff teams thus far, I can't find it.

They're very talented, they're very hungry, and they seem to have great chemistry. 28-2 versus Saint Mary's School of Blind Midgets is nothing to sneeze at--what they did to the Cleveland the other night was kind of scarey.

Dismiss this team at your own peril....

Five-ofan
01-18-2007, 02:12 PM
I disagree about Dirk and Kobe. I think with those two, what you see is what you're going to get for the rest of their careers. LeBron could potentially get there as I said, and perhaps even Wade, but they're only getting the benefit of the doubt because of their youth.



But Barkley and Malone are class 4's, because clearly, Bird and Magic > Barkley and Malone. I know it sounds stupid to keep using that rating system, but it's undeniable that there is a tier above players like Karl Malone, Barkley, Wade, Arenas etc. What exactly that difference is, is hard to say. I guess it might be summed up by saying that, when a class 5 is on the floor and it's all on the line, everyone just knows that his team is going to win. Can you honestly say that about Dirk?


Well, not "incredibly weak", but certainly devoid of class 5's. Being the MVP doesn't make you a class 5, but when there aren't any of 'em around, then a class 4 is naturally going to win it.
kobe has a scoring title(i think he has 2 but im not sure) and 3 rings. He has won exactly the same number of rings as lary bird did. Yeah he had shaq. Bird had mchale and parrish and dj and walton... As for dirk if he wins 2 rings which i fully feel he is going to do then yes he is right there with bird. The thing that kills these guys in all time arguments is that they dont have mvps which is the point of the entire argument.

jthig32
01-18-2007, 02:19 PM
I've been looking desperately for some reason to dismiss the Pheonix Suns. Notwithstanding their rather poor showing this far v. Western Conference playoff teams thus far, I can't find it.

They're very talented, they're very hungry, and they seem to have great chemistry. 28-2 versus Saint Mary's School of Blind Midgets is nothing to sneeze at--what they did to the Cleveland the other night was kind of scarey.

Dismiss this team at your own peril....

Read the thread. Most of the people in the discussion are not dismissing them. We're arguing against an article that is comparing them to two of the greatest dynasties of all time.

Windmill360
01-18-2007, 02:19 PM
What I don't understand is how the media rides the Phoenix jock while back a few years ago, when the mavs played the exact same way, everyone flamed the mavs for not playing a lick of defense and that they would never get past the second round.

Ashholes.

Dirkadirkastan
01-18-2007, 02:24 PM
What I don't understand is how the media rides the Phoenix jock while back a few years ago, when the mavs played the exact same way, everyone flamed the mavs for not playing a lick of defense and that they would never get past the second round.

Ashholes.

Let's face it: the Suns are "marketable".

kg_veteran
01-18-2007, 02:28 PM
Rather than the usual debate (which has been done so many times before) about Nash, would anyone care to defend Simmons' premise here? Chum? Anyone?

I guess the answer is, nobody wants to defend Simmons' ridiculous premise.

MFFL
01-18-2007, 02:30 PM
Phoenix jock property value is rapidly becoming a scarce commodity for ESPN.commers - Hollinger joins the dick ride....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

I would love to read the Hollinger article explaining his system but I'm not an Insider.

jthig32
01-18-2007, 02:35 PM
I would love to read the Hollinger article explaining his system but I'm not an Insider.

This is supposedly a free preview (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro)

jthig32
01-18-2007, 02:36 PM
I guess the answer is, nobody wants to defend Simmons' ridiculous premise.

Pretty much. Chum is only interested in the angle that involves Nash and him starting an argument.

kg_veteran
01-18-2007, 02:39 PM
Pretty much. Chum is only interested in the angle that involves Nash and him starting an argument.

If we hadn't done the Nash thing 147 times before, I might have some interest in it. But, since this thread was about the Simmons article, I thought perhaps THAT might be an appropriate subject of debate.

Novel idea, I know.

kg_veteran
01-18-2007, 02:43 PM
I would love to read the Hollinger article explaining his system but I'm not an Insider.

Although it incorporates some different factors, this seems to me to be Hollinger's attempt to imitate the Sagarin ratings. I like Hollinger for the most part, but I'll stick with the Sagarin ratings.

Grammaton Cleric
01-18-2007, 02:44 PM
kobe has a scoring title(i think he has 2 but im not sure) and 3 rings. He has won exactly the same number of rings as lary bird did. Yeah he had shaq. Bird had mchale and parrish and dj and walton... As for dirk if he wins 2 rings which i fully feel he is going to do then yes he is right there with bird. The thing that kills these guys in all time arguments is that they dont have mvps which is the point of the entire argument.

Yeah, but I'm talking about something more than just big stats and rings. Kobe's close, but there's something missing there - an intimidation factor perhaps. Kobe's confident and brash, but he doesn't have that "I sold my soul to the devil" bravado that Jordan had. Jordan just KNEW he was going to kick your ass. What's more, YOU knew it too. Kobe doesn't have that. Neither does Dirk.

That's actually one of things that tells me that Dirk is a notch below the Legends - his humility. Dirk is just too humble to be a class 5. Bird, Magic and Jordan were big-time trash talkers, but they also backed it up. Hell, Bird toyed with his opponents.

Dirk has a swagger about him - and who with his skills wouldn't - but he'll never go on the court and tell someone to prepare for an ass whoopin' and then deliver it single-handedly. It's just not his style.