PDA

View Full Version : The Eight Most Controversial MVP Wins of All Time



amos1er
09-19-2012, 01:41 AM
The Eight Most Controversial MVP Wins of All Time
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/573923-the-eight-most-controversial-nba-mvp-wins-of-all-time/page/2


8. 1997: Karl Malone
Should Have Been: Michael Jordan

The general opinion across the NBA when Karl Malone beat out Michael Jordan for MVP in 1997 was: "Oh, so the voters decided to give it to someone other than Jordan." This may seem like a slight to Malone, and in truth Malone had a phenomenal season in 1997, but Jordan should have won the award.

Malone averaged 27.4 ppg and 10 rpg. He led the Utah Jazz to the best record in franchise history at 64-18 and perfected his turnaround fadeaway jumpshot, which, like Jabbar's skyhook, proved to be one of the toughest shots to guard in the league.

Jordan, as usual, had a great season: 29.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, and 4.3 apg. Jordan led the Bulls to an incredible 69-13 season (tied for second best of all-time) despite losing starting center Luc Longley and sixth man of the year Toni Kukoc for around 25 games apiece due to injuries.

Certainly Karl Malone had a spectacular year, and he led them with one of the best seasons statistically of his career. But Jordan simply did a bit more for the Bulls this season and deserved the award and had a slightly more convincing argument for winning the award.

I certainly don't mean to besmirch Malone's brilliant playing career, but honestly, I don't think he deserved either MVP award he won.

7. 2006: Steve Nash
Should have been: Kobe Bryant

The first time, we could chalk it up to an NBA that was simply looking to shed its image in the recent wake of the "Malice in the Palice" and clean up the league by highlighting more agreeable faces to spotlight the game. But by the second time, it was getting serious.

Steve Nash is the only repeat MVP winner that has never appeared in an NBA Finals game. Nash received credit for leading the Suns to a solid 54-28 record despite playing without his All-Star big Amare Stoudemire for most of the season. And his numbers were improved from the previous year: 18.8 ppg and 10.5 apg.

But when considering the select company of repeat MVP winners, Nash stood with LeBron James, Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, and the players that only won once in Shaq, David Robinson, and Hakeem Olajuwon, or never won in Isiah Thomas, Jerry West.

Did Nash really belong in that distinguished company?

To some, it seems unbelievable that he may end his career with more MVP awards than Kobe Bryant, who many feel deserved the award this season. Granted, the Lakers were only a 7th seed this season and won 47 games to make the playoffs after missing them the previous year. But Kobe Bryant was just sensational this season, posting 35.4 ppg (first in the league), 5.3 rpg, and 4.5 apg.

Many argue that the Lakers would have been a lottery team without Kobe in 2006, and one glance at the roster appears to back that claim up: Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, Kwami Brown. Ouch. Although Lamar Odom was on the team, he has always served the Lakers best off the bench rather than a second option.

This was also the year of Kobe's great 81 point game.


6. 2005: Steve Nash
Should Have Been: Shaquille O'Neal

Upon winning the 2005 NBA MVP, there were plenty of audible gasps from around the league. Certainly Steve Nash had a good year and led the Phoenix Suns to the best record in the league that year at 62-20.

But his numbers: 15.5 ppg and 11.5 apg seemed awfully meager for the league's most valuable player. Could it have been possible that Amare Stoudemire's stronger 26.9 ppg and 8.9 rpg could have played a larger part in the teams success?

And how large of a role did Mike D'Antoni's fastpaced offense (which was perfect for winning regular season games, but not so much in the postseason) play in the team's overall success that year?

Meanwhile, Shaq—playing in his first season with the Miami Heat—led the team to the top seed in the conference and a 59-23 record. He averaged 22.9 ppg and 10.4 rpg. It represented a 16 game improvement for the team over the previous season.

Now, this is not to say that Nash's impact on the Suns was not felt. He transformed the team into a legitimate contender this season. But he had one of the least impressive stat lines of any MVP winner in recent memory, and that is why his victory was so hotly debated.


5. 1990: Magic Johnson
Should have been: Charles Barkley

The 1990 MVP race would prove to be one of the closest in league history as Magic Johnson edged out "Sir Charles" by a mere 22 votes. Curiously, even though Magic Johnson won the award and Johnson's team won a league best 63 games (the league's only 60-win team that year) and Barkley's club only won 53 games, Barkley received more first place votes (38-27).

Magic Johnson had a spectacular year in 1990. It was his first full season without Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and he maintained a sustained level of excellence for the Lakers despite the retirement of the team's hall-of-fame center. It also benefited Johnson that he added a new weapon to his arsenal this season (3-point shooting), which the voters appreciated.

But the knock against Johnson this season, similarly to those leveled at the Big Three in Miami this year, he still had more help than Barkley. Can he be the most valuable player if his team has more talent and experience than the team of another MVP contender?

Johnson was without Jabbar, but he still had James Worthy, A.C. Green, Byron Scott and a young Vlade Divac. That's not that bad a supporting cast. Barkley, on the other hand, won only 10 fewer games than Magic with teammates like Mike Gminski, Johnny Dawkins, Ron Anderson and Derek Smith. No, I never heard of them either. Hersey Hawkins provided a bit of scoring, but Barkley clearly had less talent to work with.

Stats-wise Johnson and Barkley's numbers were both very strong: Barkley averaged 25.2 ppg, 11.5 rpg, while Johnson averaged 22.3 ppg and 11.5 apg. But since the evaluation is "most valuable player" rather than best player (which Jordan had on lockdown with his 33.6 ppg and 2.77 steals, both tops in the NBA), one could say that Barkley's team wouldn't have even made the playoffs without him.


4. 2011: Derrick Rose
Should Have Been: LeBron James or Dwight Howard

Granted, Derrick Rose has not actually won the award yet, but the general consensus around the league appears to be that you're more likely to see the Mayor of Cleveland declare "LeBron James day" in the city than for Rose not to win the award.

For the record, I think Rose is very deserving of the award. The Bulls have secured the top seed in the league and Rose has become the unquestioned leader of the team. But one question I have is: Is his win a manifestation of the LeBron James-hate brigade, or would he have won regardless of the controversial "Decision" broadcast that turned the entire voting poll against James this year?

When critics defend Rose they will acknowledge that his statistics are technically not better than James', and they won't argue that he is as dominant a force as Dwight Howard. But they say that he led his team to the East's top seed despite injuries to two "All-Star Caliber" bigs, while the Heat wound up only the second seed, and Howard's Magic were fourth.

These things are true, but in defense of Howard and James, both players had to make bigger adjustments and sacrifices to their games throughout the regular season than Rose did. James was playing for a different team, in a new role with half the country rooting for him to fail. No one expected him to secure stats that look remarkably similar to those of the previous year with better teammates.

He came into the league with the most pressure to preform and did so admirably as the Heat led the East in road wins, despite every game having a playoff atmosphere. It was a testament to James' great play.

As for Howard, he started the season with one team and would end the season with a totally different team. Yet, he has proven time-and-time again that he can make the team a playoff contender and top defensive team just by his mere presence. Not too many teams can have their supporting cast change early in the season, yet still maintain their defensive identity despite the turnover. That equates to a valuable player in my book.

Additionally, there is a question over whether the Bulls success derives more from Tom Thibodeau's system or Rose's play. If you put Deron Williams on the Bulls instead of Derrick Rose could they win 60-games under Thibs defensive philosophy? Maybe.

Can you put any other center in the league on the Magic and have a No. 4 seed considering the struggles of everyone on the team? Unlikely. If you take James off and replace him with any other small forward in the game, could they get the same intangibles they get from James? No.

So while I acknowledge that I agree with the pick of Rose, I don't think it is as open and shut as has been reported.


3. 1975: Bob McAdoo
Should Have been: Rick Barry

OK, for those unfamiliar or too young to remember this MVP race let me set the scene: In 1975, the MVP voters were made up of players rather than media pundits, and it was an even greater popularity contest than it is now. Rick Barry was not a particularly popular player around the NBA. Meanwhile, McAdoo was fairly well liked across the NBA.

This popularity skewed the results against Barry, as he would finish a distant fourth in the voting behind McAdoo, Dave Cowens, and Elvin Hayes.

First of all, I find it a bit curious the fact that Berry finished behind Cowens in MVP voting, yet Cowens didn't even make the All-NBA First Team that year while Berry did.

McAdoo led the league in scoring this season with 34.5 ppg and that played a large role in his win, but his scoring was only slightly higher than Berry's 30.6 ppg. McAdoo's Buffalo Braves (later to become the Los Angeles Clippers) won 49 games in his MVP year, which was good for only the third best record in the conference.

Meanwhile, Barry's team, while winning the same number of games, led Golden State to the best record in the West. Berry also led the league in steals at 2.85 per game and free throw percentage at (.904).

Of course, the benefit of hindsight would cast judgement on the decision as Barry would advance to the finals and win a title in one of the greatest upsets in finals history, while McAdoo would lose in the second round of the playoffs.


2. 2002: Tim Duncan
The Winner should have been: Jason Kidd

Perhaps it was because voters felt that they snubbed Tim Duncan for MVP in 1999, or it was because Jason Kidd's arrest for spousal abuse in 2001 just biased them against him, but many believed that Tim Duncan did not deserve the MVP award in 2002.

Jason Kidd, despite his off the court issues, led the New Jersey Nets to one of the greatest turnarounds in league history in his first year with the Nets, as the team experienced turning a 26-win team into a 52-win team by basically adding Kidd.

Kidd's numbers were also special that year, as he averaged 14.7 ppg, 9.9 apg and 7.3 rpg. He also contributed many intangibles to the team as well, such as his defensive tenacity and his incredible will to win, eventually leading the Nets to its first ever trip to the finals.

Duncan, to be sure, had a great year. He averaged 25.5ppg, 12.7 rpg, and 2.5 bpg. However, these numbers aren't vastly different from his numbers the previous year when he averaged 22.2 ppg, 12.2 rpg and 2.2 bpg.

But if the measure of an MVP is leading one's team to regular season success, it was hard to make the case that Duncan did. His Spurs won 58 games, the same as they'd won the previous year. But at least in 2001 the Spurs were the conferences top seed. In 2002, they were only third.

Kidd should have won the award that year. He had all the ingredients to secure the award, except a clear public image.


1. 1999: Karl Malone
Should have been: Tim Duncan or Alonzo Mourning

The MVP race in 1999 was quite fun to watch, and it came down to a photo finish in the final weeks. Although, if the race was won by a nose, the MVP voters completely misread the evidence on the photo.

Mourning had the best season of his career in 1999. He averaged 20.1 ppg and 11.0 rpg, while leading the Miami Heat to the No. 1 seed in the East for the first time in franchise history. Tim Duncan led his Spurs to the best record in the West (by virtue of a tie-breaker with the Utah Jazz) and Duncan performed brilliantly, posting 21.7 ppg and 11.4 rpg. His Spurs began the season a disappointing 6-8, but since their rough start he led them to a 31-5 record afterward and established himself as the leader of the Spurs, despite David Robinson's presence.

The Utah Jazz were tied with the Spurs for the best record, but they led the league in wins for most of the season before slumping in the final month. Generally, slumps by teams heading into the playoffs hurt MVP candidates, but it did not effect Malone's candidacy in the minds of voters.

To be sure, Malone had a great season. He posted 23.8 ppg and 9.4 rpg, while leading his team to a tie for the league's best record. But as strong as those number may seem, they represent one of Malone's worst statistical seasons since his rookie year. Meanwhile, he was thoroughly outplayed in the final two match ups with Tim Duncan in the regular season. Many sportswriters argued that these match ups would "decide the MVP race," but ultimately voters went with the safe bet in Malone.

Mourning never really had a chance. Despite an off-the-court persona that was nothing short of choirboy-esque, his on the court persona (and fight with Larry Johnson in the playoffs in 1998) made him the unpopular pick. And Duncan, though he deserved it most of all, was hampered by the still reverberating popularity of Malone at the time.

Nevertheless, Duncan wound up winning the title while Malone lost in the second round.

Agree or disagree?

John Walls Era
09-19-2012, 01:49 AM
I agree with 2. If Jason Kidd wasn't a wife beater, he would've had a good chance to winning it. The NBA just couldn't have Kidd being the MVP and face of that regular season.

amos1er
09-19-2012, 01:51 AM
I agree with 2. If Jason Kidd wasn't a wife beater, he would've had a good chance to winning it. The NBA just couldn't have Kidd being the MVP and face of that regular season.

The way I heard it his wife was beating him.

NYtilIdie
09-19-2012, 01:54 AM
I strongly agree with the Derrick Rose part. I still remember those intense arguments in the MVP threads.

JLynn943
09-19-2012, 02:47 AM
Kind of surprised to not see Iverson's on that list. I think he was deserving, but clearly so was Shaq.

abe_froman
09-19-2012, 03:08 AM
ai winning in 01 is such a glaring omission it almost discredits the list,and 87 magic over mj is another yet less one,also in 03 there was a bit of dust up about timmy over tmac...though that seems to have faded with time

ink
09-19-2012, 11:27 AM
Coulda woulda shoulda. Those MVPs are part of league history. I don't think anyone got ripped off, not when you consider the subjectivity, the circumstances of each year, the role of the player and the difficulty comparing his importance to the team, the difficulty of even defining what MVP even means.

I laughed out loud when I saw mention of Kobe's 81 point game. :laugh2: That record came against a putrid Raptors squad. Let's see what kind of point totals Kobe could roll up against the best of the D League and then get all excited because he scored 81 points because that would be an apt comparison.

Chronz
09-19-2012, 11:46 AM
It started off decently but taking Kidd over Duncan is and always will be insane, its a disgrace that Kidd came so close to stealing it in the first place.


Look at the inconsistencies in this dudes argument.

He wants us to take Shaq over Nash but he wants us to take Kidd over Duncan?

Zo as an MVP is interesting tho, most of the league was out of shape but you could always count on Zo to be in tip top shape, and he really had his finest year.


The years Nash won MVP I would have given them to Shaq then Dirk and the year Dirk won I would have given to Nash.

Kashmir13579
09-19-2012, 11:56 AM
There is no argument for Kidd over Duncan that year. Laugh worthy.

nickdymez
09-19-2012, 12:01 PM
Coulda woulda shoulda. Those MVPs are part of league history. I don't think anyone got ripped off, not when you consider the subjectivity, the circumstances of each year, the role of the player and the difficulty comparing his importance to the team, the difficulty of even defining what MVP even means.

I laughed out loud when I saw mention of Kobe's 81 point game. :laugh2: That record came against a putrid Raptors squad. Let's see what kind of point totals Kobe could roll up against the best of the D League and then get all excited because he scored 81 points because that would be an apt comparison.

Here we go :facepalm:

ink
09-19-2012, 12:06 PM
Here we go :facepalm:

No real reason to. Just a laugh, that's all. Not meant to throw things OT.

In all fairness, Wilt's 100 point game was against the second worst team in the league in 1962, so the point is not to bring these ******** point scoring records up as evidence of supremacy. I watched that Raptors game and they put up the white flag. It was an ugly display from a very bad team. Who knows, maybe the 62 Knicks did the same.

HouRealCoach
09-19-2012, 12:09 PM
Whoever made this list hates Steve Nash.. He even said Amare played a larger part in the team's success in 2005 lol

sp1derm00
09-19-2012, 12:11 PM
I don't think Kobe should have won in 06' solely based on past history that the MVP is selected from a team with one of the top records in the NBA.

He did have a fantastic season though and not many players could have done the same with that roster.

Thegame187
09-19-2012, 12:14 PM
I already have url filters in place to block bleacher report, please don't copy that cr*p over to here.

ink
09-19-2012, 12:22 PM
I already have url filters in place to block bleacher report, please don't copy that cr*p over to here.

I agree.

cuttydoesit6
09-19-2012, 12:31 PM
agree completely kobe should have won the award over nash by a long shot, dude was redic that season. without kobe that laker team would've been the '11-12 bobcats lol

disagree with drose. he willed his team to the best record n was uncoverable. led his team to the ecf for the first time since the jordan era. tough shoes to fill. he earned that trophy

ClearSoulForce
09-19-2012, 12:31 PM
Nash is a HOF but him winning 2 and almost 3 MVP's is very laughable.

C_Mund
09-19-2012, 12:49 PM
I don't think Kobe should have won in 06' solely based on past history that the MVP is selected from a team with one of the top records in the NBA.

He did have a fantastic season though and not many players could have done the same with that roster.

I agree with this. I'm not always a fan of "best player on one of the best teams" winning MVP, but that's generally the way it is. No reason Nash should have to take a back seat while others win the award for putting up stats on a team with the best record.

Hotone1401
09-19-2012, 03:59 PM
Coulda woulda shoulda. Those MVPs are part of league history. I don't think anyone got ripped off, not when you consider the subjectivity, the circumstances of each year, the role of the player and the difficulty comparing his importance to the team, the difficulty of even defining what MVP even means.

I laughed out loud when I saw mention of Kobe's 81 point game. :laugh2: That record came against a putrid Raptors squad. Let's see what kind of point totals Kobe could roll up against the best of the D League and then get all excited because he scored 81 points because that would be an apt comparison.

Name one other person who could score 81 pts? You like to make it sound as if it's just something anybody could do but disagree. To have a scoring night like that takes a combination of ridiculous skill and one hell of a hot streak shooting. Kobe was in crazy zone that night and he didn't even get rolling really until the second half.

ink
09-19-2012, 04:24 PM
Name one other person who could score 81 pts? You like to make it sound as if it's just something anybody could do but disagree. To have a scoring night like that takes a combination of ridiculous skill and one hell of a hot streak shooting. Kobe was in crazy zone that night and he didn't even get rolling really until the second half.

You could hardly call it a game. It was a collapse.

I could turn it around: name one other team as spineless as the Raptors were that night who gave up so thoroughly and let a player go off on them like that.

dnewguy
09-19-2012, 04:29 PM
Kobe 06 should have been D Wade. Life sucks, deal with it.

Ill21
09-19-2012, 04:40 PM
Steve Nash should have never won an MVP

JordansBulls
09-19-2012, 05:53 PM
There is no argument for Kidd over Duncan that year. Laugh worthy.

Wouldn't say it isn't an argument for him, but he certainly didn't have a greater case. And no 1990 the MVP should not have been Barkley it should have been MJ if anyone. And Rose deserved his MVP in 2011. But then again the article is from bleacherreport.

JasonJohnHorn
09-19-2012, 05:58 PM
Well... I remember back in the day being really upset that Barkley didn't get it. He is the only player to get the most #1 votes and NOT get the MVP award. The thing with Barkley was he was a lightning rod back then. either you loved him and what he brought to the table, you you hated his attitude and didn't like him as a player because of that. It was hit or miss. So the people who voted for him, put him up top, but the people who didn't vote for him, they didn't vote for him at all.

That said, Magic pushed that Lakers team to the best record and many though they were done as a contender without Kareem in the middle.

The Steve Nash MVPs I agree with, and to be honest, I thought the season that Nash MOST deserved the MVP was 07.

As for Kobe deserving it for leading a team to 45 wins... I'm not sure I buy that. Phil Jackson deserved coach of theyear for pulling out that many wins with that roster, but we all saw what Kobe did with the same players the year before. Did they make the playoffs because Jackson was back? Or because Kobe willed them to those wins. I'd say, judging from the previous season performance, that it was more about coaching than Kobe.

Kidd over Duncan? The Nets did have a big improvement, just as the Suns did (funny thing, both Kidd and Nash were taking over teams that Marbury was the PG for... tells you something about score-first PGs, no?). Kidd was deserving that season, but I mean, look at Duncan's numbers and where the Spurs finished up. Kidd took them from the lottery to the finals. That is impressive. But Duncan also posted over 25 points and almost 13 boards to go along with almost 4 assists. Kidd's inabilty to shoot at the time hurt him a lot in the MVP voting. I mean, do you feel comfortable voting for a guy for MVP when he isn't even a good shooter? It'd be like Rondo winning MVP. Kidd can shoot the ball now, but then?

As for Malone winning in 97... well... he was a monster on the boards that year and he scored a lot. Not as much as Jordan, but I think by that time people saw the Bulls as a great TEAM with Jordan, the best scorer in the league, Rodman, the best rebounder in the league, JAckson, the best coach in the league and Pippen, the best SF in the league. It was a combination of people getting bored voting for Jordan and also recognizing that Jordan had some very talented players around him. And Malone was the second pick that season. Same thing when Barkely won it. Yes the Suns had a big turnaround with Charles, but they also had A LOT of talent on that roster. Going into the regular season people were talking about that Suns team the way people are talking about the Lakers now, or the Heat after they signs LBJ, Bosh and Wade. But people were bored of voting for jordan. Just like they got bored of voting for LBJ. Barkely deserved it? Yes. Rose deserved it? Yes. But in both instances Jordan and LBJ were better players that season.

Should Shaq have gotten it in 05? I don't think so. His numbers were his worst in year. Miami had a big turnaround, but they also had Wade and Haslem that were developping into really good players and picked up a couple other guys.

in 1999... I think the fact Duncan had a prime Robinson playing beside him took some votes away from him... I also think that Mourning was seen as a limited offensive player and Malone won it as much based on his reputation as his performance that season, which though not as impressive as his number from three or four season's prior, were still MVP numbers that year. Webber also put up some pretty impressive numbers that year. Iverson was the points leader that season (the the 76ers didn't do much that year). Then there was Shaq... 26 points and 10 boards a game.... there were a lot of players that could have won MVP that year. Malone was as good as choice as any.

The thing with MVP voting is I find it ignores certain players altogether. I remember one year Ben Wallace got a few votes, but I mean, he REALLY was an MVP when he hit his prime in Detroit. He got a team that had been in the lottery to the ECF (though admittedly in a very weak eastern conference). Without Wallace that squad wouldn't have even been in the playoffs let alone three rounds into the playoffs. But his had a very limited offensive game. Rodman never got that kind of resepct. I mean, look at the impact he had on the Bulls... they went from getting knocked out before the conference finals to winning the NBA title and walking there way to it. I mean, the Bulls only lost 3 games in that post season, two series were sweeps and one was over in five game. The season before the Bulls had to fight and claw to get their way to the conferenc-semi finals and once they got there were embaraced by the Magic. Rodman lead the league in rebounds for a RECORD SEVEN SEASONS!!!!! IF there was a guy who lead the league in scoring that many seasons, he'd also win half the MVPs in the span, but a guy who dominates defence and who dominates the glass, which are just as important as putting points on the board, gets NO MVP VOTES let alone and MVP award.

Rodman and Ben Wallace never got the kind of respect from MVP voters that they deserved.

And one other man who never got respect from MVP voters, and this pi$$e$ me off more than anything: JOHN MUTHAHFAWKING STOCKTON!!!!! This guy was the best passer in the history of the league. Stockton lead the league in assists for a record NINE SEASONS!!!! WITH ASSIST TOTALS THAT WERE NEVER DONE BEFORE AND NEVER WILL BE DONE AGAIN!!!!! And how many first place MVP votes does he get? ZERO. Well... he did get some votes (though never a single first-place vote), but he NEVER finished higher thatn 7th in the MVP voting. Terry Porter in fact, with 4 or 5 less assists a game and only 2 or 3 more points finished ahead of Stockton several times. Glen Rice even finished higher than Strockton. If anybody ever dominated the league scoring numbers the way Stockton dominated the assists numbers, that guy would win and MVP EVERY season.... but Stockton never finished higher than 7, which he only did once, and it was hard for him to even finish in the top 10.


So yeah... the MVP award... every year there are a few guys who deserve it... so every year there is reason to be like: So and so should have got it. But every year a deserving player DOES win it. I've never seen a player who DIDN'T deserve it get the award, though admittedly, every year there are at least one or two players who deserve it that DIDN'T get it. Case in point this year with Durant and CP3. CP3 lead the Clippers to a huge turnaround.... when Nash did that, he got and MVP... CP3 does... he finishes third.... and hardly anybdoy is crying about that. And obviously Durant was a deserving candidate.


But the tragic thing is that a lot of times there are guys like Stockton, or Rodman, or Wallace, who do so much for their teams and who are so important to them reaching their goals and they simply don't get any love, and THAT for me, is far more frustrating than seeing LBJ finish second to Rose when he won for the two prior years and would win it again the following year.

Trust me... voters get bored voting for the same guy every year. It's why Dwight had no chance of winning the DPOY award when the season started. It's why Jordan doesn't have 10 MVPs.

topdog
09-19-2012, 06:18 PM
I feel like Nash gets no respect. People want to write off the fact that in '05 he elevated a team's winning percentage by 40% (from 35% to 75%) for the best record in the league. That is impressive.

In '06, Amaré was out so he made Boris Diaw look like Amaré. The issue is that people only appreciate alpha-dog scorers nowadays and discount the 20pts. represented by averaging 10 assists a game. Steve Nash certainly has his flaws, but his decision-making and offensive ability has the makings of a legend.

topdog
09-19-2012, 06:23 PM
Steve Nash should have never won an MVP

Why? Increasing a team's winning percentage by 40% isn't impressive enough? Dishing 11.5 assists per game isn't impressive enough? Shooting 50-43-88 isn't impressive enough?

On the simple stat of points produced (pts + ast), Nash was responsible for creating 38.5 points per game!

Ebbs
09-19-2012, 06:28 PM
Very glad Dirk MVP wasn't mentioned would have lost my mind.

ink
09-19-2012, 06:43 PM
Why? Increasing a team's winning percentage by 40% isn't impressive enough? Dishing 11.5 assists per game isn't impressive enough? Shooting 50-43-88 isn't impressive enough?

On the simple stat of points produced (pts + ast), Nash was responsible for creating 38.5 points per game!

I have no doubts whatsoever that Nash was MVP-worthy during that period.

Hawkeye15
09-19-2012, 07:52 PM
I mean, I have a gripe with a ton of MVP awards over the years, but that is because I think it should go to best player, regardless.

LA_Raiders
09-19-2012, 08:01 PM
Too much hate for Kobe... He should have won...

Rose was well deserved, Hell of a season, and made an average team a great team...

More-Than-Most
09-19-2012, 08:12 PM
Nash might have got the call for the 2nd one I believe but he deserved the first and he deserved the 3rd that he never got if we are being honest.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
09-19-2012, 08:46 PM
Kinda surprised to not see the 2008 MVP up there. Should have been CP3's.

LaLa_Land
09-19-2012, 09:10 PM
I still to this day cannot believe that 35,5,4 (kobe) was beaten out by 15,11 (nash) - with only a 7 game difference in the records.

There is NO chance in hell that the lakers win more than 20-25 games that year without Kob.

ink
09-19-2012, 09:27 PM
I still to this day cannot believe that 35,5,4 (kobe) was beaten out by 15,11 (nash) - with only a 7 game difference in the records.

There is NO chance in hell that the lakers win more than 20-25 games that year without Kob.

Like it or not you're ignoring the unrehabilitated reputation Kobe was carrying around with him at the time. He was seen as a player with major character issues by the people who were voting for MVP. It wasn't everything obviously in the voting, but it is no coincidence that an ultra team player was picked over him. In fact, it was a message, which he received loud and clear.

The interesting thing should be seeing these once polar opposites line up together this year.

amos1er
09-19-2012, 10:27 PM
I don't think Kobe should have won in 06' solely based on past history that the MVP is selected from a team with one of the top records in the NBA.

He did have a fantastic season though and not many players could have done the same with that roster.

They don't always select from a team with one of the top records. In 76 Kareem won MVP despite only leading the Lakers to 40 wins and missing the post season.

Ebbs
09-19-2012, 10:33 PM
I think over my time as an NBA fan, Roses was the one that bothered me the most.

HouRealCoach
09-19-2012, 10:45 PM
They don't always select from a team with one of the top records. In 76 Kareem won MVP despite only leading the Lakers to 40 wins and missing the post season.

In this era you have to lead your team to a top seed... The last 30 years the MVP has come from a top seed

topdog
09-19-2012, 11:06 PM
I still to this day cannot believe that 35,5,4 (kobe) was beaten out by 15,11 (nash) - with only a 7 game difference in the records.

There is NO chance in hell that the lakers win more than 20-25 games that year without Kob.

Kobe took 27 shots to get his 35 and played 40+ minutes with a 38.7 usage percentage. Voters are always going to respect the star that makes his team go versus the star that is his team because of the inflation argument. Nash played less than 36 minutes and had a usage percentage in the 20s while shooting 50%. He's only helping his team there.

As a Minnesota fan, let me put it this way: KG was the team. He put up amazing numbers and provided wins that the rest of his team wouldn't have been able to touch without him and yet he wasn't MVP until Cassel and Spree came. Kevin Love? He's supposedly a "stat padder." Tell me how many stat padders went for 30-30 and the win.

Losoway
09-20-2012, 01:40 AM
very good post. i agree with all

steve nash won mvp both times because he was popular and i feel like the nba wanted someone white to win

Quinnsanity
09-20-2012, 01:47 AM
Magic over Barkley never made any sense to me. I mean the award is MOST valuable player, not second most valuable player. More people voted Barkley as the MOST valuable player, I don't care how the rest of the votes break down. You don't vote for a runner up and a third place president, why should you for MVP?

SugeKnight
09-20-2012, 01:56 AM
Kobe over CP3

bootsy
09-20-2012, 03:03 PM
ai winning in 01 is such a glaring omission it almost discredits the list,and 87 magic over mj is another yet less one,also in 03 there was a bit of dust up about timmy over tmac...though that seems to have faded with time

AI deserved it, shutup. Who else deserved it that year. BTW if you think Shaq deserved it he didn't even finish 2nd in the voting. He finished 3rd behind Duncan.

nickdymez
09-20-2012, 04:06 PM
very good post. i agree with all

steve nash won mvp both times because he was popular and i feel like the nba wanted someone white to win

Why not Dirk then?

SteveNash
09-20-2012, 04:16 PM
Remove Kidd's bid and replace it with Iverson and it becomes decent.

dh144498
09-21-2012, 11:36 AM
Coulda woulda shoulda. Those MVPs are part of league history. I don't think anyone got ripped off, not when you consider the subjectivity, the circumstances of each year, the role of the player and the difficulty comparing his importance to the team, the difficulty of even defining what MVP even means.

I laughed out loud when I saw mention of Kobe's 81 point game. :laugh2: That record came against a putrid Raptors squad. Let's see what kind of point totals Kobe could roll up against the best of the D League and then get all excited because he scored 81 points because that would be an apt comparison.

here we go again. :facepalm:
turning a solid discussion thread into a kobe-hating thread.

Heatcheck
09-21-2012, 01:36 PM
I still to this day cannot believe that 35,5,4 (kobe) was beaten out by 15,11 (nash) - with only a 7 game difference in the records.

There is NO chance in hell that the lakers win more than 20-25 games that year without Kob.

the absurd part of that is that everyone main argument was how nash turned the crappy suns around, when they were a playoff team the year before last and didnt make it the year prior because marbury got hurt. That was already a talented team, he just made them entertaining.

Heatcheck
09-21-2012, 01:38 PM
AI deserved it, shutup. Who else deserved it that year. BTW if you think Shaq deserved it he didn't even finish 2nd in the voting. He finished 3rd behind Duncan.

He could have finished 97th he was still by faaaar the best player in the league that year.

Aust
09-21-2012, 01:40 PM
Some of those are legit

ink
09-21-2012, 01:42 PM
the absurd part of that is that everyone main argument was how nash turned the crappy suns around, when they were a playoff team the year before last and didnt make it the year prior because marbury got hurt. That was already a talented team, he just made them entertaining.

Some of what you say might be true but they were also a very dysfuctional team that needed a true facilitator. He did his job and he did it at an extremely high level. He didn't just turn around the team. Everyone, especially his teammates, coach, and GM saw that he re-made the team. It played completely differently. Too bad people can't give credit where it is due.

In fact, adding him to the roster may have made both D'Antoni's and Bryan Colangelo's reputations for them. Neither has really had that much success since then without him.

Heatcheck
09-21-2012, 02:07 PM
Some of what you say might be true but they were also a very dysfuctional team that needed a true facilitator. He did his job and he did it at an extremely high level. He didn't just turn around the team. Everyone, especially his teammates, coach, and GM saw that he re-made the team. It played completely differently. Too bad people can't give credit where it is due.

In fact, adding him to the roster may have made both D'Antoni's and Bryan Colangelo's reputations for them. Neither has really had that much success since then without him.

100% true, and i give him credit. but he didnt turn water into wine either. they were a decent team. Kobe produced more and got a team full of cartoon misfits to the playoffs. plus he was much much much more effective defensively.

Nash was up there, and was the most important to his teams success, but wasnt the most valuable player in the league.

topdog
09-21-2012, 02:11 PM
very good post. i agree with all

steve nash won mvp both times because he was popular and i feel like the nba wanted someone white to win

That's just silly. You can have your feelings an' all, but at least give the man some credit. We are talking about a point guard who is a career 49-43-90 shooter and the league leader in assists for half of the last decade.

I feel like people base their MVP opinions on that scoring column too much. Nash led to team to 40% more wins from the year before and 20% from 2 years prior. They were the best team in the league! But Nash only put up 15 points... so the fact that he averaged over 11 assists and ran the offense that ran people out of the gym means nothing :rolleyes:

TheNumber37
09-21-2012, 02:13 PM
Allen Iverson was the most valuable player to their respective teams in 2001. Sixers would have fallen from number 1 with AI, to about 10th without him. Sans shaq, those Lakers still make the playoffs.

SteBO
09-21-2012, 02:15 PM
That's just silly. You can have your feelings an' all, but at least give the man some credit. We are talking about a point guard who is a career 49-43-90 shooter and the league leader in assists for half of the last decade.

I feel like people base their MVP opinions on that scoring column too much. Nash led to team to 40% more wins from the year before and 20% from 2 years prior. They were the best team in the league! But Nash only put up 15 points... so the fact that he averaged over 11 assists and ran the offense that ran people out of the gym means nothing :rolleyes:
Wholeheartedly agree. And what people also fail to remember is that in 2006, the Suns were missing their top scorer in Amare Stoudemire for basically the whole year. Yet, Nash led Phoenix to the West's 2nd seed behind Dallas and went to the WCF. I think Nash without question was deserving that year in particular. 2005 is a little debatable between him and Shaq, but I don't think it was blasphemus then in any way either.

Heatcheck
09-21-2012, 02:23 PM
Allen Iverson was the most valuable player to their respective teams in 2001. Sixers would have fallen from number 1 with AI, to about 10th without him. Sans shaq, those Lakers still make the playoffs.

That means his team is crap, not that he played better than shaq.

And besides, they built that team around him, they knew he wasnt going to pass the ball and surrounded him with role players, scrappy defenders, and rebounders. Maybe if he didnt take 27 shots a night, they could have worked larry hughes in there and theyd have another 20pt scorer with him.

ink
09-21-2012, 02:33 PM
100% true, and i give him credit. but he didnt turn water into wine either. they were a decent team. Kobe produced more and got a team full of cartoon misfits to the playoffs. plus he was much much much more effective defensively.

Nash was up there, and was the most important to his teams success, but wasnt the most valuable player in the league.

There seem to be two levels of thinking to MVP voting: 1. how far the team gets, and 2. how VALUABLE the player is. Let's agree for the sake of argument that #2 is a draw (because we could argue over this point and it would only be subjective anyway). Nash gets a lot of credit for getting his team farther so #1 is his. As SteBO says, the Suns were without their star forward and most important scorer when Amare was out. So, it's not like he was in the position he is in today with a completely star-studded roster to play with.

Another thing is that 2006 was the year when MVP voters made the point that "making your teammates better" was better than blaming your "cartoonish misfit" teammates. Part of Kobe's image rehab was that he learned to lead and stopped making excuses or blaming.

ink
09-21-2012, 02:36 PM
Wholeheartedly agree. And what people also fail to remember is that in 2006, the Suns were missing their top scorer in Amare Stoudemire for basically the whole year. Yet, Nash led Phoenix to the West's 2nd seed behind Dallas and went to the WCF. I think Nash without question was deserving that year in particular. 2005 is a little debatable between him and Shaq, but I don't think it was blasphemus then in any way either.

Agreed. From 2005-07 he deserved 2 out of 3 of those MVPs. Could have been 06/07 MVPs just as easily. Some fierce competition in those years.

bearadonisdna
09-21-2012, 03:16 PM
I think over my time as an NBA fan, Roses was the one that bothered me the most.

What was there to be bothered about.?

He played great and won a lot and beat the would be competitors head to head.

Rockice_8
09-21-2012, 03:31 PM
#2 was such a disgrace. Little guards almost never won the award cause there was always a big with 20/10 to take the award and they just gave it to Duncan. There wasn't anyone in the league more important to his team then Kidd (MVP "most valuable player"). Taking a 26 win team to 50+ and the NBA finals was one of the best turn arounds in NBA history and doing it while playing All NBA defense while average near triple double numbers was MVP worthy.

SteBO
09-21-2012, 03:38 PM
What was there to be bothered about.?

He played great and won a lot and beat the would be competitors head to head.
Not only that, but his team really exceeded expectations that year and that was with injuries to key guys.

TheIlladelph16
09-21-2012, 03:55 PM
That means his team is crap, not that he played better than shaq.

And besides, they built that team around him, they knew he wasnt going to pass the ball and surrounded him with role players, scrappy defenders, and rebounders. Maybe if he didnt take 27 shots a night, they could have worked larry hughes in there and theyd have another 20pt scorer with him.

I'm pretty sure they didn't build the team with thought process of "Well AI isn't going to pass so lets just get guys who suck on offense but are really good defenders". Your defense of this thinking is Larry Hughes... a guy who wasn't even on the roster the year AI won and has cracked 20+ ppg exactly 2 times.

AI absolutely deserved that award. You can make are argument that Shaq was just as deserving and I'd honestly agree with you, but your just flat out wrong if you say AI didn't too.

bootsy
09-22-2012, 12:37 AM
He could have finished 97th he was still by faaaar the best player in the league that year.

The bottom line Shaq wasn't more valuable and wasn't a better player than AI in 2001. And it doesn't matter anyway because there's nothing you can do about it.

Chronz
09-22-2012, 12:41 AM
The bottom line Shaq wasn't more valuable and wasn't a better player than AI in 2001. And it doesn't matter anyway because there's nothing you can do about it.

Bottom line is he was both.

Chronz
09-22-2012, 12:42 AM
Allen Iverson was the most valuable player to their respective teams in 2001. Sixers would have fallen from number 1 with AI, to about 10th without him. Sans shaq, those Lakers still make the playoffs.
Prove it

Andrew32
09-22-2012, 01:01 AM
Allen Iverson was the most valuable player to their respective teams in 2001. Sixers would have fallen from number 1 with AI, to about 10th without him. Sans shaq, those Lakers still make the playoffs.
I dunno if they would have even made the playoffs without Shaq that year.
That team was pretty thin.
Just a low level All-Star in Kobe + some roleplayers.

The fact that they won 67+ games is pretty amazing considering the roster Shaq had and how strong the West was in the early 00's.

Even with an improved Kobe in future years LAL struggled to stay above .500 without Shaq.

amos1er
09-22-2012, 03:15 AM
Bottom line is he was both.

Yup...we agree here for sure.

Pretty funny how AI got it over Shaq that year. MVP is truly a popularity contest. AI shot 42% in the regular season and was absolutely terrible on defense. Shaq dwarfed AI in nearly every statistical category. Not that I'm a stats guy or anything, but when there is that much of a disparity its pretty ridiculous. Shaq was also waaay more valuable to the Lakers in 2000 and 2001 than any other player in the league was to their team with out a doubt.

amos1er
09-22-2012, 03:21 AM
I dunno if they would have even made the playoffs without Shaq that year.
That team was pretty thin.
Just a low level All-Star in Kobe + some roleplayers.

The fact that they won 67+ games is pretty amazing considering the roster Shaq had and how strong the West was in the early 00's.

Even with an improved Kobe in future years LAL struggled to stay above .500 without Shaq.

That statement is just ridiculous. You talk as if they had the exact same roster minus Shaq in those "future years" you are referring to. It was a whole new team from Lakers dynasty years and Kobe had probably the worst roster in the league 2-15 from 2005 through 2007.

I do agree that the Lakers minus Shaq in 2001 would be lucky to make it past the first round. Shaq was truly the MVP in 2001.

Oh ya maybe you need to go watch some tape or look at some numbers or something because if you think Kobe was just a "low level" all-star in 2001 you really don't know basketball. Fact is Kobe out played AI throughout the entire 2001 playoffs. Shaq called him the best in the game on route to a record breaking 15-1 title run.

NBA-GMaster
09-22-2012, 08:06 AM
Agree on 2,4,6 & 7

nickdymez
09-22-2012, 11:28 AM
Yup...we agree here for sure.

Pretty funny how AI got it over Shaq that year. MVP is truly a popularity contest. AI shot 42% in the regular season and was absolutely terrible on defense. Shaq dwarfed AI in nearly every statistical category. Not that I'm a stats guy or anything, but when there is that much of a disparity its pretty ridiculous. Shaq was also waaay more valuable to the Lakers in 2000 and 2001 than any other player in the league was to their team with out a doubt.

Thats why i put no credence in it at all.

Heatcheck
09-22-2012, 03:28 PM
I'm pretty sure they didn't build the team with thought process of "Well AI isn't going to pass so lets just get guys who suck on offense but are really good defenders". Your defense of this thinking is Larry Hughes... a guy who wasn't even on the roster the year AI won and has cracked 20+ ppg exactly 2 times.

AI absolutely deserved that award. You can make are argument that Shaq was just as deserving and I'd honestly agree with you, but your just flat out wrong if you say AI didn't too.

Thats exactly how it happened. they built a team that could get iverson as many shots as possible. I give him credit, you have to be an absurdly talented offensive player for a team to decide to do that but it was their best option.

And say what you like about larry hughes, ive never been his biggest supporter either, but the fact remains he was a dynamic enough scorer to avg 20ppg 2, on teams with other 20ppg scorers, he could create his own shot, and would have helped to lighten the load on AI which was very needed. he never got to develop because the ball stops at iverson.

He scored 31 ppg on 27 FGA per game, thats ****ing disgraceful as far as superstars go. you would have given shaq 27 fga i guaran-****in-tee he's putting up 40 a game.

Heatcheck
09-22-2012, 03:31 PM
The bottom line Shaq wasn't more valuable and wasn't a better player than AI in 2001. And it doesn't matter anyway because there's nothing you can do about it.

Yeah, i can see you have a great understanding of the game.

Pluvious
09-22-2012, 05:21 PM
Whoever made this list hates Steve Nash.. He even said Amare played a larger part in the team's success in 2005 lol

Yeah, many people forget early that season it was all talk of Amare. No one really believed it was the little Canadian that was the driving force. But then Nash went down with injury (when the Suns were like 30-5 or something crazy) and the Suns went 1-5 (I think) in the games without Nash. Then he comes back and they go on winning. After that the Amare talk was out and it was all about Nash.

Also no talk of efficiency #'s in any of these arguments. Just points, rebounds, and assists. No advanced stats to me means its just another uninformed opinion.

Pluvious
09-22-2012, 05:36 PM
100% true, and i give him credit. but he didnt turn water into wine either. they were a decent team. Kobe produced more and got a team full of cartoon misfits to the playoffs. plus he was much much much more effective defensively.

Nash was up there, and was the most important to his teams success, but wasnt the most valuable player in the league.

YOu realize if Nash didn't get injured for a short stretch the Suns would have a good chance to win 67+ games? That's not just a fun team to watch. That team people were scared of most of the season. After awhile people did start to realize how good Nash was with the ball though and started to get the ball out of his hands or make him shoot the ball everytime....with limited success. And I say limited because before the Suns couldn't even be slowed down at all. But after that you could slow them down a "little". And then you beat them by taking advantage of their defense and rebounding.

In the playoffs Dallas tried to make Nash shoot. He put up historic #'s in the playoffs. They also swept Memphis in the first round. Only the Spurs and their combination great defense and offense was able to beat the Suns that year (Suns still scored at a high clip but they could not stop SA). A really amazing team that gets overlooked. Its kind of like OKC this year. They say "Nash never won a ring". You know...he would have but the organization kepts getting rid of all the players. The first year Joe Johnson was gone that summer. Every year another important player or more left.

theheatles
09-22-2012, 05:43 PM
I agree with 1,4,6,7 and 8

Andrew32
09-22-2012, 06:32 PM
Oh ya maybe you need to go watch some tape or look at some numbers or something because if you think Kobe was just a "low level" all-star in 2001 you really don't know basketball. Fact is Kobe out played AI throughout the entire 2001 playoffs. Shaq called him the best in the game on route to a record breaking 15-1 title run.
I was clearly referring only to the 2000 season when I called him a low level All-Star.

In 2001 Kobe played like a Super-Star.

In 2002 his play dropped off and he played more like a low/mid-high level All-Star.

amos1er
09-22-2012, 06:51 PM
Thats exactly how it happened. they built a team that could get iverson as many shots as possible. I give him credit, you have to be an absurdly talented offensive player for a team to decide to do that but it was their best option.

And say what you like about larry hughes, ive never been his biggest supporter either, but the fact remains he was a dynamic enough scorer to avg 20ppg 2, on teams with other 20ppg scorers, he could create his own shot, and would have helped to lighten the load on AI which was very needed. he never got to develop because the ball stops at iverson.

He scored 31 ppg on 27 FGA per game, thats ****ing disgraceful as far as superstars go. you would have given shaq 27 fga i guaran-****in-tee he's putting up 40 a game.

Not necessarily. A lot of what goes into taking that many fg attempts comes from the ability to create your own shot. Shaq did not have that ability...he was just dominant as hell. If opposing teams knew that Shaq was going to take 27 fga per game, they would have either double or triple teamed him or made him shoot free throws. Therefore, he would not have been able to get off 27 fga effectively. Iverson could create his own shot and shoot free throws well, and thats why he could take 27 fga and still win the majority of games for his team.

Unfortunately, thats also not the best way to win. Shaq was able to be way more dominant by shooting less. He also had a great wing man in Kobe to take the pressure off him when needed. Shaq did have a better team than Iverson, but was still more valuable to his team when all is said and done. Iverson was horrible on the defensive end and needed to have possession of the ball a lot to be effective. Shaq could get you 25-30 ppg on on a ts% of 60 as well has be the defensive anchor of the team and rebound the ball. He didn't need to shoot a lot for him to be effective either...you could just throw the ball to him in the post on a non set play and he could basically score at will.

So basically, its not like if you just have one player shoot more that they could necessarily score more at the same clip of efficiency. There are other factors that weigh in to an offensive strategy. Thats why a coach wouldn't just give the ball to Shaq on every play. If what you were saying was true, they might as well have.

Andrew32
09-22-2012, 07:07 PM
So basically, its not like if you just have one player shoot more that they could necessarily score more at the same clip of efficiency. There are other factors that weigh in to an offensive strategy. Thats why a coach wouldn't just give the ball to Shaq on every play. If what you were saying was true, they might as well have.

Shaq 2000 Finals : 38ppg on 26-FGA / 61%-FG
Shaq could score 40ppg if he wanted but he was an unselfish player and more focused on teamplay.

Also one player alone cannot win it all.
Teams in the late 90's would just shutdown all of Shaq's supporting players and let him get his 30-40 and the Lakers would still lose.

Kobe's ability to provide some 2ndary scoring is why he was finally able to start contending because Kobe was good enough not to get shutdown easily most of the time.

amos1er
09-22-2012, 07:36 PM
Shaq 2000 Finals : 38ppg on 26-FGA / 61%-FG
Shaq could score 40ppg if he wanted but he was an unselfish player and more focused on teamplay.

Also one player alone cannot win it all.
Teams in the late 90's would just shutdown all of Shaq's supporting players and let him get his 30-40 and the Lakers would still lose.

Kobe's ability to provide some 2ndary scoring is why he was finally able to start contending because Kobe was good enough not to get shutdown easily most of the time.

If thats true, then why didn't Phil Jackson just dump the ball into Shaq every single play if that would increase the chances of winning for the team. Do you actually believe that Shaq wouldn't do that if it was the best way for the team to win simply because he doesn't want to be perceived as "selfish"? Come on now...you can't really believe that. You have to know more about basketball than that don't you?

It all depends on match ups. If Shaq had a good match up and the opposing team didn't know how to adjust properly than he would capitalize (i.e the 2000 finals). In other situations teams adjusted and put him to the line if the Lakers dumped the ball into him frequently and they couldn't deal with him through the conventional double and tripple teams (Hack a Shaq). Look at the logic you are using here bro. You are basically saying that the only reason Shaq didn't average 50 ppg is because he didn't want to be perceived as selfish. Don't you think if Shaq averaging 50 ppg was the best option offensively for the team and gave them the best chance to win that Phil wouldn't be making sure that he got 40+ attempts per game? Obviously it wasn't best for the team for Shaq to get a ton of fg attempts thats why he didn't shoot 27-30 times per game...not because he didn't want to be perceived as selfish. Phil Jackson did have some say in the matter after all.

amos1er
09-22-2012, 08:13 PM
I was clearly referring only to the 2000 season when I called him a low level All-Star.

In 2001 Kobe played like a Super-Star.

In 2002 his play dropped off and he played more like a low/mid-high level All-Star.

You really need to do more research before making such claims.

in 2000 Kobe averaged 23 ppg, 6 rpg, 5 apg on as ts% of 55%. He was a second team All NBA member and a All NBA defensive first team member. Does that sound like a low level All-Star to you? He was a starter in the All-Star game. To me a low level All-Star would be an All-Star bench player. Kobe was clearly the best sg in the west at the time making him a legit All-Star.

In 2002 Kobe was a top five player in the NBA. He averaged 25 ppg, 6 apg, 6 rpg on a ts% of 54%. He was again an All-Star starter in the west and was the best sg in the west and the NBA. He was an All-NBA first team member and an All-NBA second team defensive member. Does that sound like a low/mid-high level All-Star to you? Oh and I forgot to mention that he was teh MVP of the All-Star game. lol How can a low/mid-high level All-Star be the MVP of the All-Star game itself?

Andrew32
09-22-2012, 08:18 PM
Kobe in 2000 averaged 21ppg / 4.5apg on .517%TS in the playoffs.
Does that look like Super-Star production/impact to you?

He wasn't even a Top 10 player in 2000.

Making the All-Star team is about popularity and making the All-NBA 1st team doesn't automatically mean you are a Super-Star.
What was his competition at his position that year...?

Like I said he was a low level All-Star that year.
That is just my opinion obviously but I feel the facts support it.

In 2002 he averaged 26 / 4.5apg on 51%TS in the playoffs (48%TS prior to the Finals)
That is low-middling All-Star production... at best.

-Don't think he was a Top 5 player that year btw.

This is also ignoring the fact that he was playing with Peak Shaq.
Without Shaq his efficiency would have not been nearly as good.
When Shaq was out his efficiency plummeted.
Shaq made him look better then he was.

Heatcheck
09-23-2012, 12:11 PM
YOu realize if Nash didn't get injured for a short stretch the Suns would have a good chance to win 67+ games? That's not just a fun team to watch. That team people were scared of most of the season. After awhile people did start to realize how good Nash was with the ball though and started to get the ball out of his hands or make him shoot the ball everytime....with limited success. And I say limited because before the Suns couldn't even be slowed down at all. But after that you could slow them down a "little". And then you beat them by taking advantage of their defense and rebounding.

In the playoffs Dallas tried to make Nash shoot. He put up historic #'s in the playoffs. They also swept Memphis in the first round. Only the Spurs and their combination great defense and offense was able to beat the Suns that year (Suns still scored at a high clip but they could not stop SA). A really amazing team that gets overlooked. Its kind of like OKC this year. They say "Nash never won a ring". You know...he would have but the organization kepts getting rid of all the players. The first year Joe Johnson was gone that summer. Every year another important player or more left.

Very true. But all that, is Regular season ball. Dallas has always been a team with poor defensive personnel (until they got chandler).

you can get away with outscoring everyone to death in the regular season, especially with such a small rotation. The suns depended on blowing teams out to rest their players. Its very difficult to keep that system in the playoffs, where defense is key. its hard to score at that rate when your facing the same team (who like most successful nba teams, plays very good D, and can make regular adjustments.) those teams in my opinion, have a "chance" to win it all, but dont really have a chance, if you understand what i mean (i.e. orlando relying on streaky 3pt shooting and Dwight getting all the rebounds and playing all the D)

Again, i dont want to be too down on Nash, because i recognize his offensive genius, but its hard to ignore the fact that he's a liability on D and the system of basketball that brings the best out of him, just cant bring you a title.

Pluvious
09-23-2012, 01:37 PM
Very true. But all that, is Regular season ball. Dallas has always been a team with poor defensive personnel (until they got chandler).

you can get away with outscoring everyone to death in the regular season, especially with such a small rotation. The suns depended on blowing teams out to rest their players. Its very difficult to keep that system in the playoffs, where defense is key. its hard to score at that rate when your facing the same team (who like most successful nba teams, plays very good D, and can make regular adjustments.) those teams in my opinion, have a "chance" to win it all, but dont really have a chance, if you understand what i mean (i.e. orlando relying on streaky 3pt shooting and Dwight getting all the rebounds and playing all the D)

Again, i dont want to be too down on Nash, because i recognize his offensive genius, but its hard to ignore the fact that he's a liability on D and the system of basketball that brings the best out of him, just cant bring you a title.

That Suns team and the 2007 Suns team was right there. Joe Johnson was also injured in the Spurs series as well. Johnson was such a huge loss in the playoffs and the next season...but it is not talked about that much. He was the other guy that could break down the defense and create for the Suns besides Nash. And he was an athlete and knock down shooter.

If they don't break up that team that year the Suns are the favorites every year going forward. They lacked experience that first year vs San Antonio. And the bench was thin. Sure, defense/rebounding was an issue but it should have been "tweaked" and not had the main players removed.

Its still about who scores the most and that team would have won. Also, Nash was not the big weak link on defense. The honor goes to Amare. The big on the pick and roll is the key defensive player (like you mention Chandler) and Amare is likely the worst in the league at pick and roll defense. Nash is actually a smart defensive player that moves his feet well. But he is not great at fighting through screens.

Pluvious
09-23-2012, 01:43 PM
Very true. But all that, is Regular season ball. Dallas has always been a team with poor defensive personnel (until they got chandler).

you can get away with outscoring everyone to death in the regular season, especially with such a small rotation. The suns depended on blowing teams out to rest their players. Its very difficult to keep that system in the playoffs, where defense is key. its hard to score at that rate when your facing the same team (who like most successful nba teams, plays very good D, and can make regular adjustments.) those teams in my opinion, have a "chance" to win it all, but dont really have a chance, if you understand what i mean (i.e. orlando relying on streaky 3pt shooting and Dwight getting all the rebounds and playing all the D)

Again, i dont want to be too down on Nash, because i recognize his offensive genius, but its hard to ignore the fact that he's a liability on D and the system of basketball that brings the best out of him, just cant bring you a title.

Also, as far as your "playoff" comment. My point was that was their first year together and they made the western conference finals and lost to one of the great all time teams (that was back when the Spurs played great defense). But instead of moving forward every year the Suns would get rid of key players. Joe Johnson that summer! Then Amare got injured, then Marion traded, etc.

They always stayed a top team but that first year they had all the "main pieces". But they got rid of the exact type of player they needed to play with Nash (Johnson). They did start getting a much better bench though in later years.

BoshsTalons
09-23-2012, 01:49 PM
Not sure how Kobe Bryant's MVP isn't on there. He never deserved that MVP. It was like a lifetime achievement award for him. Complete joke.

Vinny642
09-23-2012, 05:43 PM
No Kobe over CP3 in the 07-08 season, im definitely surprised