Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not know if Steve Nash won those MVP awards because he was white(and who cares really if he did) but I do know that he didn't deserve them, and whoever voted for him, must have been intoxicated. Were those awards during the time Kobe was going through his rape case?
Kobe's Denver problem was 2003. It hurt him no doubt but probably no more than his Shaq feud and the fact that the Lakers were mediocre the year Nash won the 2nd one.
Nash won 2005 & 2006 (was close 2007)
2005 Kobe was still 2nd Banana and feuding with Shaq. Pheonix finished with 62 wins, no other team with >59 so that's what won the award for Nash. Period. No further explanation needed.
2006 Lakers only won 47 games or so...that will NEVER win you an MVP. PHX won 54games and Detroit (no single star), Spurs (Duncan hurt) and Mavs won more games.
I think Nash won by vote splitting that year and this link shows it....Kobe, Lebron, Dirk and Billups split it. (Duncan was hurt)
It's a team award handed to an individual. <shrug>
P.S. Kobe won in in 2008 (57 wins). Chris Paul finished 2nd with almost as many points as Nash got in 2006....definitely Nash just kinda snuck in there that year with the vote splitting.
Russell Westbrook is considered a point guard. He's a great athlete and a good basketball player, but a lousy PG. Why? Because he's not a good ball handler and a terrible passer with a low BBIQ. He's a score-first and score-second kind of guy, and that's more suited for a two-guard than a one-guard.
He's thus a better basketball player than many other "PG"s but not a better "PG", as the metrics to determine a good PG are far different from other positions.
Westbrook's an unpolished product. Even though he's natrually a 2, he's never played off-the-ball, he's always been a ball-dominant player (essentially a 0-guard), so I wouldn't classify his lack of handles as not being a prototypical 1, just that the kid's 25, 1's need more time than the other positions.
His facilitating and intelligence are alright, and only getting better. I remember seeing Kevin Johnson struggling with some of the same issues, and eventually he turned into the best 1 in the league when he was healthy and in his prime. He has some maturity and character issues he's still fostering, and has his mistakes, but no PG is perfect. The way he plays, is partly due to the needs of the team, and coaching. Scott Brooks in my mind takes some of the blame for how Russell's developed so far, as it's mainly just iso-ball with Kevin and Russell, with Westbrook's talent, he's asked to score a lot, especially when Durant is passive at times, and with the lack of offensive weapons they have in the starting 5. Durant's not playing off the ball as much as he used to, so that congests their offense at times.
My bottom line being, PGs are floor generals at the end of the day, and are a/the leaders of their teams. No, Westbrook's game isn't like a "traditional" 1, but as an overall package, he gives you the best chance to win, over someone like Nash. Being a "pure" 1 like Chris Paul is cool and all, but historically, Batman scoring is the ultimate premium in a PG, this is even more true today, this is why guys like Cousy, Robertson, Parker, and Thomas have titles, and weaklings like Nash and Stockton don't, and this post-injury Chris Paul won't acquire any titles in a lead role. PGs like the former give you the best chance at winning a title with a PG as your best or 2nd best player; I know Malone would've loved to have a Tony Parker at his side, he'd have a ring, I have no doubt in my mind
this is why guys like Cousy, Robertson, Parker, and Thomas have titles, and weaklings like Nash and Stockton don't, and this post-injury Chris Paul won't acquire any titles in a lead role. PGs like the former give you the best chance at winning a title with a PG as your best or 2nd best player; I know Malone would've loved to have a Tony Parker at his side, he'd have a ring, I have no doubt in my mind
Two words.
Rajon Rondo.
Two more words.
Jason Kidd.
Mario Chalmers isn't a scorer, either. Your Rose-Curry-Westbrick template scoring PG's just don't cut it in this generation if your goal is to win a ring.
I only like Jason Kidd. I think he's the obvious #1 anyway. The rest (a) Steve Nash--overrated, he did NOT deserve MVP in 2005, Shaq did; (b) Chris Paul--my own personal bias, he played for Wake Forest and I hate them (c) Tony Parker--I hate the San Antonio Spurs, I'd pull for North Korea first (d) Rajon Rondo--too mercurial. (I admit with b & c that is my bias talking, their accomplishments and numbers qualify them, I just don't want to SAY it.)
On a side note, Jason Kidd should've won MVP in 2002. Before him, the Nets were nothing; once he arrived, they're playing in the Finals. His arrival wasn't the only reason, but I'd say it was at least 85% of it.
Mario Chalmers isn't a scorer, either. Your Rose-Curry-Westbrick template scoring PG's just don't cut it in this generation if your goal is to win a ring.
I'm speaking of PG's in a Batman-Robin role. And yes, when you have a PG like Kidd that can defend and rebound like he can, it makes up for lack of scoring, however PGs like him are statistical anomalies. Rondo was a very young role player when he won his title, and hasn't been the HOF player he was in over a year and a half. You may not believe PG's can be the best player, or 1A/1b in winning a title, however I do, and believe Curry has a chance to if his ankles hold up, and that roster remains healthy. Same with Russell
I only like Jason Kidd. I think he's the obvious #1 anyway. The rest (a) Steve Nash--overrated, he did NOT deserve MVP in 2005, Shaq did; (b) Chris Paul--my own personal bias, he played for Wake Forest and I hate them (c) Tony Parker--I hate the San Antonio Spurs, I'd pull for North Korea first (d) Rajon Rondo--too mercurial. (I admit with b & c that is my bias talking, their accomplishments and numbers qualify them, I just don't want to SAY it.)
On a side note, Jason Kidd should've won MVP in 2002. Before him, the Nets were nothing; once he arrived, they're playing in the Finals. His arrival wasn't the only reason, but I'd say it was at least 85% of it.
So you think Nash deserved it in '06? Two things on that:
1) Moses Malone and Alcindor have won the award with worse records; what Bean did that year was incredible, and was the best player in the league
2) If we're gonna go by the team record, then Chauncey Billups was the better choice than Nash
On the bolded: no. There were many circumstances in play, regarding Jersey's record the previous year, injuries, new additions to the roster, experience, Kidd gets way too much credit for those things outside of his control. 85% is cutting it a lil' too high imo, I personally think 60% is more fair. There's no metric out there in which Kidd bested Duncan-- better statistically, better on both ends of the floor, more wins in a tougher conference, less playoff choke jobs
So you think Nash deserved it in '06? Two things on that:
1) Moses Malone and Alcindor have won the award with worse records; what Bean did that year was incredible, and was the best player in the league
2) If we're gonna go by the team record, then Chauncey Billups was the better choice than Nash
On the bolded: no. There were many circumstances in play, regarding Jersey's record the previous year, injuries, new additions to the roster, experience, Kidd gets way too much credit for those things outside of his control. 85% is cutting it a lil' too high imo, I personally think 60% is more fair. There's no metric out there in which Kidd bested Duncan-- better statistically, better on both ends of the floor, more wins in a tougher conference, less playoff choke jobs
1) The MVP award has changed over the years from a "best player" type award to a best player on a very winning team award. Look over the past 20+ years.
2) I have mentioned around here many times that Nash has one of Kobe's MVP trophies on his mantle. I personally feel that a bunch of voters stuck it to him for running Shaq off the Lakers and also the fact that they won only 45 games (I'm not sure where I saw the 47 thing before but that's wrong).
Really, let's be honest....you don't win MVP in this day and age with 45 wins and the 7th seed.
Let's not lose focus of the key point which is that MVP awards are not what they once were and in no way indicate that Nash was better...which would be laughable. I personally feel that it should be more of a best player award but *shrug* who really cares...anyone citing MVP's as proof of greatness has a weak argument.
P.S. Waiting for the hordes of Laker and Kobe fanboys to now show up and yell at me...calling me a Laker hater like they do when I say something they don't like....lol.
- He was a poor shooter for most of his prime and useless in the half court offense. This is the reason his offenses were either medicore or sucked
- did nothing in the western conference as a franchise player, he then went to a horrible eastern conference were he played bad teams to get to the finals.
Neither of those guys were point guards. Dwayne Wade never, Iverson only briefly in the very beginning of his career.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
