Source: Nash to be MVP - Page 4 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Five-ofan · 04-27-2006, 02:53 PM

Woah, tap the breaks. Im all aboard the nash isnt the mvp bandwagon, hell ill drive but he is the second best pg in the nba right now at worst(billups) with a very legit argument as to him being the best pg in the nba. To say chris paul is better than him is a joke. Parker too. Kidd was but he isnt now. As for the last ten years I would say Billups now, kidd In the early 2000s and Payton in the mid to late 90s would all have something to say about that. That said being top 10-20 all time at your position isnt bad. Hes had a great career. I obviously dont think he is the mvp and that he is overrated right now but you are going too far the other way.

sixeightmkw · 04-27-2006, 02:55 PM

Chris Paul = Better than Nash, plain and simple.

madape · 04-27-2006, 02:58 PM

ridiculous

Five-ofan · 04-27-2006, 03:00 PM

Chris paul is not better than steve nash. IF you want to argue that he will be eventually fine i can see that argument since he is alot better than nash was when he was young but right now the only pg with any kind of an argument as to being better than nash is billups.

kg_veteran · 04-27-2006, 03:05 PM

Yeah, gotta gree with 5-0. Tap the breaks there. Nash is the best PG in the NBA right now. Maybe Paul is better in the future, but not now.

Scoobay · 04-27-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.weidner

What greatness are we witnessing exactly? A 54-wins-season and a possible first round exit, by a team with 2 MVP contenders? i see...

If I were to choose a PG of the last decade in his prime, to build a team around. I would
take Stockton or Kidd. I certainly would not take Nash. Heck, I would have a hard time taking Nash over Payton.
Funny that of these 4 players Nash is the only one who's got an MVP award, I mean two of course.

too true, too true... how quickly we forget GP's greatness in his prime. Maybe not as good as a passer, but the Glove's defense... no doubt about that.

sixeightmkw · 04-27-2006, 03:09 PM

Chris Paul, rated in the top 15, pretty much, in every statistical category in the NBA as a rookie.
Ranks #7 in the NBA in Assists Per Game(7.8) Ranks #17 in the NBA in Free-Throw Percentage(0.847)
Ranks #3 in the NBA in Steals Per Game(2.24) Ranks #17 in the NBA in Free Throws(394.0)
Ranks #5 in the NBA in Assists(611.0) Ranks #1 in the NBA in Steals(175.0)
Ranks #6 in the NBA in Assists Per Turnover(3.34) Ranks #7 in the NBA in Steals Per Turnover(0.96)
Ranks #16 in the NBA in Free Throws Per 48 Minutes(6.74) Ranks #6 in the NBA in Assists Per 48 Minutes(10.4)
Ranks #2 in the NBA in Steals Per 48 Minutes(2.99) Ranks #15 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes(28.31)

Five-ofan · 04-27-2006, 03:10 PM

Just let it go. You look worse trying to defend it.

sixeightmkw · 04-27-2006, 03:11 PM

Nash's line

Ranks #1 in the NBA in Assists Per Game(10.5) Ranks #16 in the NBA in Field-Goal Percentage(0.512)
Ranks #6 in the NBA in Three-Point Field-Goal Percentage(0.439) Ranks #1 in the NBA in Free-Throw Percentage(0.921)
Ranks #16 in the NBA in Three-Point Field Goals Made(150.0) Ranks #1 in the NBA in Assists(826.0)
Ranks #10 in the NBA in Assists Per Turnover(2.99) Ranks #1 in the NBA in Assists Per 48 Minutes(14.2)
Ranks #2 in the NBA in Total Turnovers(276.0) Ranks #10 in the NBA in Total Efficiency Points(1908.0)
Ranks #12 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking(24.15) Ranks #7 in the NBA in Efficiency Ranking Per 48 Minutes(32.76)
Ranks #3 in the NBA in Turnovers Per Game(3.49) Ranks #1 in the NBA in Turnovers Per 48 Minutes(4.74)

Stranger · 04-27-2006, 03:13 PM

Nash is definitely the best point in the NBA right now. He has entered into the conversation--alongside Stockton, Payton, and Kidd--for the best of the last ten years. Bill Simmons top points of all time is a very good ranking in my opinion:

1. Magic
2. Oscar
3. Cousy
4. Isiah
5. Stockton
6. Payton
7. Frazier
8. Kidd
9. Nash
10. Archibald

Here's what he said about Nash:

9. Steve Nash
Positives: Has an excellent chance to win back-to-back MVP's, a sentence that looks so unbelievable in print, my eyeballs just popped out of my head Allan Ray-style ... exceptionally fun to watch on the offensive end ... helped bring back three dying art forms this decade: passing, fast breaks and crappy hair ... following the Janet Jones betting scandal, replaced Wayne Gretzky as the most popular athlete in Canada ... this ranking could go up or down depending on how the next few years pan out, but the bottom line is this: not only are Cousy, Oscar, Magic and Nash the only point guards that ever won MVP's, but Bird, Magic, MJ, Russell, Wilt, Duncan, Moses and Kareem were the only ones that went back-to-back. Yikes.

Negatives: Only made two third-team All-NBAs and two All-Star teams before last season ... struggled with injuries for his first five years (missing 73 games) ... an atrocious, ATROCIOUS defensive player ... looks like Jackie Earle Haley and James Blunt ... everyone forgets this now, but the Suns were ridiculed by nearly everyone (not me) for spending $60 million two summers ago on a guy with a bad back who couldn't play D ... definitely lucked out by peaking for consecutive seasons without a true dominant player in the league.

sixeightmkw · 04-27-2006, 03:13 PM

actaully, I think I just proved my point. Paul has almost identical stats without all of the turnovers. Not to mention the turnaround the Hornets had from last season. We can attribute that to Paul.

Get over the Nash homerism.

MavKikiNYC · 04-27-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

1. Magic--definitely.
2. Oscar--yes.
3. Cousy--maybe.
4. Isiah--absolutely not.
5. Stockton--yes.
6. Payton--no.
7. Frazier--no.
8. Kidd--should be #3.
9. Nash--Top 10? Fine. But not 2006 MVP.
10. Archibald--should be #6.

Where the hell is Maurice Cheeks?

Five-ofan · 04-27-2006, 03:29 PM

Where the hell is KJ? Isiah should most definitely be on that list as as player. His excellence as a player almost matched his horribleness as an exec. No i dont think horribleness is a word either.

Arne · 04-27-2006, 03:30 PM

The original point was "best point guard of the last and the coming decade". Is just not right.

Nash had two excellent years. During the last decade there were guys like Kidd, Payton, etc. who were better during that decade, since they just put up more seasons like the two that Nash just had.

And there's no doubt in my mind that Chris Paul will be better from next year on. At least he will become the better point guard in the next three years and therefore be more likely to be the point guard of the next decade.

Steve Nash has profited a lot from his new coach who created a system that was perfectly fitted for Nash, from Shawn Marion, who is the best moving player off the ball.

In both years one of his teammates was an MVP candidate, as well. It's just ridiculous that he will enter a elite circle of players who have won this trophy two times.

The only thing that keeps my spirit up is that he'll never ever be a finals MVP.

sixeightmkw · 04-27-2006, 03:32 PM

agree completely Arne.

FINtastic · 04-27-2006, 03:44 PM

Heck, it probably won't be too long before Raymond Felton passes up Nash as well.

orangedays · 04-27-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arne

Steve Nash has profited a lot from his new coach who created a system that was perfectly fitted for Nash, from Shawn Marion, who is the best moving player off the ball.

And most importantly, and this cannot be re-emphasized enough, Steve Nash has profited from playing in a league without a DOMINANT, high-profile, marketable, WINNING player. Now, in my opinion, only two of those criterion really matter - individual dominance and wins. Those are the best two quantifiable measures of success, no? If your stats are good, well hell you must be a good player. If your team is one of the winningest in the league and you are the best player (by far) on that team, well hell that must mean you are a GREAT player.

In the current amalgamation of the league, we have players who fit one, maybe two of those categories - LeBron and Kobe are dominant and marketable, but neither the Lakers nor the Cavaliers are an elite team in the NBA (and without signficant overhauls, they never will be). Dwayne Wade is high-profile and marketable, but it's arguable whether or not he's even the most important player on the Heat (and with all that talent, where's the dominance? They can't even bang out a respectable record aganst the league's top-4 teams). Chauncey is a winner, but he's not dominant and many dismiss him as being simply another cog on the well-oiled Pistons - perhaps with good reason, considering that the Pistons didn't start winning until they added Rasheed. Elton Brand? Not enough wins.

Set Nash aside (I think his candidacy has been dissected enough in this thread) - let's look at our homeboy, Dirk. First - he is, without a doubt, one of the top offensive forces in the league - #1 in PER; .480 FG%, .515 eFG%, 58.9% TS% (as a freakin' JUMPSHOOTER!!!); 26.6 ppg (look at the 6 players ahead of him in this category and tell me that those six players aren't taking greater than 30% of their teams' shots)...I could go on but Dirk's resume is long and you guys know what I'm talking about - Dirk is, in a word, dominant. Second - the Mavericks had the third best record in the league and 60 wins, a full 6 games ahead of the next best team (the Suns). So, individual dominance - check. Top-3 winningest team this season - check. I don't get it. A legitimate argument does not exist against Dirk unless it is laden with hypocrisy. Too much talent on the Mavs? Look at the Suns last year, g'bye Chauncey. No defense? Wrong, but if you insist...Steve-flippin'-Nash! The biggest knocks against Dirk? He's a Euro, he's quiet, he's not a high-flyer, he's not high-profile, he's not in-your-face, and he's not marketable - all of the things that, you know, help a team win championships.

And to steal a bit from the LeBron commercial: We are all witnesses? We are all witnesses to the travesty that is NBA MVP voting. These guys are voting for bicycle-alley-oop slam dunks, 20 ESPN top-10 slamma-jammas and 20 three-pointers a night, zero defense, and a closet full of trophies at the end of the year but not a single one that really matters. F*ck.

And a note:

Am I the only one who is not convinced that this year's version of the Suns is all that great? Is it just me or are they 9 games behind the Spurs for best record in the West? Is it just me or did they drop a game, AT HOME, to the Los Angeles Kobes the other night? This is not the same Suns team that steamrolled through the playoffs last year, sweeping the Grizz and beating the Mavericks in 6. I realize it's all conjecture at this point, but wait and see - this Suns team is going to get bounced sooner rather than later and Nash's ill-gotten back-to-back MVPs will be little consolation.

blahblehblah · 04-27-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangedays

And most importantly, and this cannot be re-emphasized enough, Steve Nash has profited from playing in a league without a DOMINANT, high-profile, marketable, WINNING player. Now, in my opinion, only two of those criterion really matter - individual dominance and wins. Those are the best two quantifiable measures of success, no? If your stats are good, well hell you must be a good player. If your team is one of the winningest in the league and you are the best player (by far) on that team, well hell that must mean you are a GREAT player.

In the current amalgamation of the league, we have players who fit one, maybe two of those categories - LeBron and Kobe are dominant and marketable, but neither the Lakers nor the Cavaliers are an elite team in the NBA (and without signficant overhauls, they never will be). Dwayne Wade is high-profile and marketable, but it's arguable whether or not he's even the most important player on the Heat (and with all that talent, where's the dominance? They can't even bang out a respectable record aganst the league's top-4 teams). Chauncey is a winner, but he's not dominant and many dismiss him as being simply another cog on the well-oiled Pistons - perhaps with good reason, considering that the Pistons didn't start winning until they added Rasheed. Elton Brand? Not enough wins.

Set Nash aside (I think his candidacy has been dissected enough in this thread) - let's look at our homeboy, Dirk. First - he is, without a doubt, one of the top offensive forces in the league - #1 in PER; .480 FG%, .515 eFG%, 58.9% TS% (as a freakin' JUMPSHOOTER!!!); 26.6 ppg (look at the 6 players ahead of him in this category and tell me that those six players aren't taking greater than 30% of their teams' shots)...I could go on but Dirk's resume is long and you guys know what I'm talking about - Dirk is, in a word, dominant. Second - the Mavericks had the third best record in the league and 60 wins, a full 6 games ahead of the next best team (the Suns). So, individual dominance - check. Top-3 winningest team this season - check. I don't get it. A legitimate argument does not exist against Dirk unless it is laden with hypocrisy. Too much talent on the Mavs? Look at the Suns last year, g'bye Chauncey. No defense? Wrong, but if you insist...Steve-flippin'-Nash! The biggest knocks against Dirk? He's a Euro, he's quiet, he's not a high-flyer, he's not high-profile, he's not in-your-face, and he's not marketable - all of the things that, you know, help a team win championships.

And to steal a bit from the LeBron commercial: We are all witnesses? We are all witnesses to the travesty that is NBA MVP voting. These guys are voting for bicycle-alley-oop slam dunks, 20 ESPN top-10 slamma-jammas and 20 three-pointers a night, zero defense, and a closet full of trophies at the end of the year but not a single one that really matters. F*ck.

And a note:

Am I the only one who is not convinced that this year's version of the Suns is all that great? Is it just me or are they 9 games behind the Spurs for best record in the West? Is it just me or did they drop a game, AT HOME, to the Los Angeles Kobes the other night? This is not the same Suns team that steamrolled through the playoffs last year, sweeping the Grizz and beating the Mavericks in 6. I realize it's all conjecture at this point, but wait and see - this Suns team is going to get bounced sooner rather than later and Nash's ill-gotten back-to-back MVPs will be little consolation.

great post orange day but as much as I agree with you about Dirk I also have to disagree with the contention that people who are voting/believing Nash or in fact Lebron & even Kobe for MVP are doing so because of "epsn, dunks, highlights etc." While I do beleive Dirk was the most deserving, a good argument can be made for the other candidates as well. IT IS NOT a travesty that dirk didnt win... Nash winning DOES not make the mvp award meaningless AND voting or thinking Nash/Lebron was the mvp etc is not a ridiculous
outlandish position held only by those who knows nothing about basketball or are somehow swayed by highlights and espn. I'm not saying you said all this OD just noting that its been one constantly stated on this board. I mean I'm not sure how ppl can make think this when many great basketball minds such as Hubie Brown, Larry Brown, jerry West, John Thompson & countless others have Nash or Lebron are all DESERVING of the MVP. Are all of them also baseing their votes, opinions on things that dont matter such as alleyoops and dunks etc? Are all of them in the pockets of the Sun's organization or are all of them suddenly in need of a basketball for dummies book as they have a differing opinion on who is the MVP?

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 07:56 PM

I know now that it's fruitless to debate the Nash MVP award. All I want to say is whoever is claiming that the win is "ridiculous" needs to get their head examined.

dude1394 · 04-27-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madape

I assume you're being sarcastic, but I do beleive that this MVP makes Nash a shoe-in for the HOF. Whether he will be considered to be one of the super-elite players in NBA history will be determined, I think, by his playoff success over the next couple of years. If he wins a title, I think you have to put him above Stockton, if he's not there already.

My guess is that among point guards, he'll end up being a consensus top 5.. behind guys like Magic and Isaiah.. maybe around Cousy, Frazier, Archibald, etc..

Yes but only to a small extent. He's obviously a first-round ballot (if they have that) to the hall of fame. He's been honored as one of the 20 best players to have ever played the game of basketball. Ever. The second best point guard to have ever played the game.

There's just no getting around it, the scoreboard says so. I expect Dirk will have to wait much longer to get in (if he does). He'll have to win a few more 1st round all-NBA votings and maybe get a championship to do so but he's no lock. Nash is a lock.

And obviously the mavs should have sent dirk away for Shaq or someone else and kept nash and nellie. Because how could you not keep one of the 20th best players of all time.

I mean I don't think that's true but who am I? I'm not the folks who vote on HOF's, the folks who think Nash is one of the top 20 of all time do. So he must be.

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 10:32 PM

Two-time MVP.. the dude is going to make the Hall of Fame without a doubt, whether everybody on here likes it or not.

orangedays · 04-27-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

Two-time MVP.. the dude is going to make the Hall of Fame without a doubt, whether everybody on here likes it or not.

And whether he deserves it or not! Preach it spreedom! Shout it from the rooftops!

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangedays

And whether he deserves it or not! Preach it spreedom! Shout it from the rooftops!

Neither you no anybody else can objectively determine whether he "deserves" it or not. If you don't think he deserves it, I support your right to have an opinion.. but you and I both know that a two-time MVP is going to make the Hall of Fame. I personally like him very much both as a player and a former Mav, and I can't wait to watch his induction.

orangedays · 04-27-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

Neither you no anybody else can objectively determine whether he "deserves" it or not. If you don't think he deserves it, I support your right to have an opinion.. but you and I both know that a two-time MVP is going to make the Hall of Fame. I personally like him very much both as a player and a former Mav, and I can't wait to watch his induction.

A person who is predicting the future by stating that Nash will, "make the Hall of Fame without a doubt", is attempting to give me a lesson on objectivity? Interesting.

Perhaps you would like to reword your post to say, "a two-time MVP should make the Hall of Fame"?

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 10:51 PM

Now you're just being argumentative.. are you honestly telling me that Nash isn't going to make the Hall of Fame?

orangedays · 04-27-2006, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

Now you're just being argumentative.. are you honestly telling me that Nash isn't going to make the Hall of Fame?

I'm not being argumentative - this isn't a simple matter of semantics, friend. And this has nothing to do with whether or not Nash will make the Hall of Fame. The fact of that particular matter is we do not know, truth? Therefore, it is facetious to state that he will be inducted into the HoF, "without a doubt". That is, in fact, an opinion.

Is it not a tad sanctimonious of you to chastise me for my lack of objectivity when it appears that the trait has escaped you as well?

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangedays

I'm not being argumentative - this isn't a simple matter of semantics, friend. And this has nothing to do with whether or not Nash will make the Hall of Fame. The fact of that particular matter is we do not know, truth? Therefore, it is facetious to state that he will be inducted into the HoF, "without a doubt". That is, in fact, an opinion.

Is it not a tad sanctimonious of you to chastise me for my lack of objectivity when it appears that the trait has escaped you as well?

You won't scare me away with big words...

Well, maybe not. I just don't agree at all with your assertion that Nash doesn't deserve to make the Hall of Fame. I suppose Dirk does?

blahblehblah · 04-27-2006, 11:16 PM

I'm not too sure about the critera requirements for induction into the basketball hall of fame... but if this was the equivalent of the MLB hall of fame in terms of selectivity and difficulty I would bet against Nash being a sure fire no doubt 1st ballot hall of famer. Of course I'd might be incline to take an even odds bet tho. =p

Umm spree... I dont think OD ever argued or asserted that Nash doesnt deserve the HOF. He merely stated the question.

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblehblah

I'm not too sure about the critera requirements for induction into the basketball hall of fame... but if this was the equivalent of the MLB hall of fame in terms of selectivity and difficulty I would bet against Nash being a sure fire no doubt 1st ballot hall of famer. Of course I'd might be incline to take an even odds bet tho. =p

The baseball hall of fame is stupid.. there are too many deserving players that won't ever get in..

orangedays · 04-27-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

You won't scare me away with big words...

Well, maybe not. I just don't agree at all with your assertion that Nash doesn't deserve to make the Hall of Fame. I suppose Dirk does?

Big words?

Seriously? No need to be intimidated, it's just how I write.

You don't have to agree with any assertion. I don't give a damn. You, yourself, stated that opinions are not to be trifled with - something I wholeheartedly agree with. We will see whether or not Nash makes it into the Hall of Fame, until that time, your opinion is as good as mine.

And you're avoiding my point - well, I say my point but in reality it is the crux of your original point. I'll answer my question for you: Yes, it is silly of you to bring up objectivity when you lack it yourself. It's what we call hypocrisy.

And what does Dirk have to do with anything?

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangedays

Big words?

Seriously? No need to be intimidated, it's just how I write.

You don't have to agree with any assertion. I don't give a damn. You, yourself, stated that opinions are not to be trifled with - something I wholeheartedly agree with. We will see whether or not Nash makes it into the Hall of Fame, until that time, your opinion is as good as mine.

And you're avoiding my point - well, I say my point but in reality it is the crux of your original point. I'll answer my question for you: Yes, it is silly of you to bring up objectivity when you lack it yourself. It's what we call hypocrisy.

And what does Dirk have to do with anything?

The homerism on this forum for Dirk is mind-boggling.. and he's my favorite player too! But there is a zero percent chance that I can be convinced that Dirk is a more worthwhile MVP candidate than Steve Nash, and moreover a more worthy Hall of Fame candidate. Just for what that's worth.

And I never told you that it is a concrete fact that Nash will make the Hall of Fame. I just challenged you to say you honestly think he won't.

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger

Nash is definitely the best point in the NBA right now. He has entered into the conversation--alongside Stockton, Payton, and Kidd--for the best of the last ten years. Bill Simmons top points of all time is a very good ranking in my opinion:

1. Magic
2. Oscar
3. Cousy
4. Isiah
5. Stockton
6. Payton
7. Frazier
8. Kidd
9. Nash
10. Archibald

For what it's worth, I'd probably put Frazier up at either 3 or 4.. and Kidd probably second.

orangedays · 04-27-2006, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

The homerism on this forum for Dirk is mind-boggling.. and he's my favorite player too! But there is a zero percent chance that I can be convinced that Dirk is a more worthwhile MVP candidate than Steve Nash, and moreover a more worthy Hall of Fame candidate. Just for what that's worth.

Fair enough, not clear why you would bring that up because we never talked about it but thanks for putting your opinion on the table...again.

Quote:

And I never told you that it is a concrete fact that Nash will make the Hall of Fame. I just challenged you to say you honestly think he won't.

Here's me -->

Here's me calling you out:

Post #141

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

...the dude (Steve Nash) is going to make the Hall of Fame without a doubt.

And for sh*ts and giggles...

Post #143

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

...and I can't wait to watch his (Steve Nash's) induction.

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangedays

Fair enough, not clear why you would bring that up because we never talked about it but thanks for putting your opinion on the table...again.

Here's me -->

Here's me calling you out:

Post #141

And for sh*ts and giggles...

Post #143

Sorry if those came across as me presenting them as facts, but that's not how they were intended; that's how they were interpreted. It's more exaggeration for me used to express the strong opinion I have that Nash will make the hall of fame.

orangedays · 04-27-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

Sorry if those came across as me presenting them as facts, but that's not how they were intended; that's how they were interpreted. It's more exaggeration for me used to express the strong opinion I have that Nash will make the hall of fame.

No problem.

In the end, it comes down to this:

I don't believe Nash deserves his MVP awards. I believe that the only reason why Nash has won the MVP not once but (possibly) twice is because there is no individually dominant, winning player in the current NBA. I believe that Dirk is the closest thing to an individually dominant, winning player and therefore, Dirk deserves the MVP over Nash. This holds especially this year because Nash is neither individually dominating nor particularly winning.

However, all of those things remain my beliefs. Unfortunately, the majority of NBA beat writers (and you) do not agree with me.

*shrug*

The O'Brien Trophy will make everything better.

spreedom · 04-27-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangedays

No problem.

In the end, it comes down to this:

I don't believe Nash deserves his MVP awards. I believe that the only reason why Nash has won the MVP not once but (possibly) twice is because there is no individually dominant, winning player in the current NBA. I believe that Dirk is the closest thing to an individually dominant, winning player and therefore, Dirk deserves the MVP over Nash. This holds especially this year because Nash is neither individually dominating nor particularly winning.

However, all of those things remain my beliefs. Unfortunately, the majority of NBA beat writers (and you) do not agree with me.

*shrug*

The O'Brien Trophy will make everything better.

I don't get how Dirk is more individually dominating than say, Tim Duncan or even Kobe (who I believe has made the playoffs every year of his career except last year) especially when he's a pretty average-at-best defender..

dude1394 · 04-27-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

I don't get how Dirk is more individually dominating than say, Tim Duncan or even Kobe (who I believe has made the playoffs every year of his career except last year) especially when he's a pretty average-at-best defender..

Funny that you bring this up when nash is an atrocious defender?

I think folks have different views of mvp, I know I do. I count wins more than points, more than stats. To be honest I expect the MVP to come from the top 4 teams each year. Now I don't really have a problem with steve winning it. I do have a problem with him winning it twice, he's just not that good imo.

orangedays · 04-28-2006, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

I don't get how Dirk is more individually dominating than say, Tim Duncan or even Kobe (who I believe has made the playoffs every year of his career except last year) especially when he's a pretty average-at-best defender..

As a Steve Nash-proponent, do you really want to bring defense into the equation? No, I didn't think so.

A cursory glance at the stats will reveal that Dirk had a FAR...FARRRRR superior statistical year when compared to Duncan.

And compared to Kobe? Well, Dirk's eFG%, TS%, FG%, FT%, etc. are all higher. Not to mentioned that his PER is higher...but shucks let's not talk about that. Perhaps you mistook my two criteria for one. Let me list them again for you, in no particular order:

(1) individual dominance
(2) winning team

Where is Kobe's team in the standings?

spreedom · 04-28-2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Funny that you bring this up when nash is an atrocious defender?

I think folks have different views of mvp, I know I do. I count wins more than points, more than stats. To be honest I expect the MVP to come from the top 4 teams each year. Now I don't really have a problem with steve winning it. I do have a problem with him winning it twice, he's just not that good imo.

I don't believe Nash is any more individually dominating than Dirk is.. I think he's every bit the offensive player that Dirk is, however.

dude1394 · 04-28-2006, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spreedom

I don't believe Nash is any more individually dominating than Dirk is.. I think he's every bit the offensive player that Dirk is, however.

I guess so, he's a wonderful distributor. I think if he had to be the single scoring person like kobe/dirk he would suffer quite a bit.