Steve Nash Didn't Deserve the MVP?
Apparently, Nash didn't deserve the award... I always felt Nash might've been the weakest winner of the award in recent memory. Thoughts?
Nice quote: "During any given season during Nash’s career, if you asked “Who are the top five players in the NBA today?”, Steve Nash would never make the cut. He is the only player in NBA history who has been the Most Valuable Player of the league, who can’t say he was ever one of the five best active players in any season of his career. I think that speaks volumes."
Nash in his peak was an outstanding player - I would hate to imagine what the phoenix suns record would of been without him
that awkward moment when you start writing a reply only to change your mind midreply because you get lazy
that awkward moment when you read your last post just to see how ironic it is
First of all, of course Steve Nash was one of the top 5 players through 2004-2006 (name your top 5 for those years), and he totally deserved the MVP award for both years.
In 2004-2005 he lead his team to 62 wins for the best record in the league. Shaq on the other hand had only 59 wins, while the Suns were in a tougher conference(Spurs, Mavs, Rockets, Supersonics as opposed to Pistons and Celtics who were 3rd place with 45 wins!) Furthermore, the Heat had reached the 2nd round of the playoffs the previous year and had one of the more promising players in the league in Dwayne Wade while the Suns were coming off a 29 win year, so you could see Nash made his team MUCH better whereas you cant say the same thing for Shaq. and dont forget that nash had replaced Stephon Marbury (reguarded a very good PG at the time), meaning that it was special that he was capable of making them so good. Nash also had 11.5 apg, which was 2.5(!) better than 2nd place, while shooting incredible percentages for a guard (50, 43, 87). Shaq did have a good year with 23, 11 and 2 bpg, but that is not amazing and he didnt even lead his team in scoring.
As for 2005-2006:
"The best way to show relevance is to play the old “switch-a-roo” game. The Suns would be better, as they still would have a solid foundation with a healthy Amare Stoudemire and a young Shawn Marion to share the court with Bryant. Case closed"
Well guess what, Stoudemire played 3 games that whole year dumbass!!! If he wasnt injured and woulda played healthy like you said, the Suns had probly won the 'ship. You say all Kobe had to work with was Smush Parker, Chris Mihm and Kwame Brown, and he still lead them to the playoffs.(Only 7th place). Well first of all you're forgetting Lamar Odom, one of the most versatile players in the league. Let's see who played the most minutes (from most to least) for the suns that year; Marion, Raja Bell, Diaw(was a nobody be4 nash), Barbosa and Kurt Thomas. How much better is that than Kobe's helpers, if at all?
Yet the suns were 2nd place and lost in 6 games in the Conference finals while the lakers were only 7th and got knocked out (by the Suns!) in the first round.
So much hate for posting a link. Anyway, I think Nash is a great player and is deserving of the MVP award. It just seems odd to me that he has two MVP awards to Shaq's one and Kobe's one; that I agree with since in my opinion, both Kobe and Shaq are far superior players than Nash.
Jesus, we need this lockout to be over. People are writing articles on whether a player deserved an MVP 5 and 6 years ago, thats reaching for material.
Also, Jewboy, good info and insight, man. It's like I'm talking to Steve Nash himself lol
We can't change it now... It's already written in the history books regardless what arguments they have to say... Steve Nash is the 2005 and 2006 MVP... Period... I'm going to bed and hope for this lockout to be over... (sigh)
The MVP process is totally flawed, everyone knows it. In part it is because nobody can figure out what the award is supposed to be about. Is it "best player in the league?" If it is, then how many games your team wins should be irrelevant. So it isn't that award. Is it, :how important are you to your team?" Then it doesn't matter if you are the top player if your team is already stacked (see Shaq and Wade and now Lebron and Wade).
Also, does it matter if you've won the award before and is there some inclination by voters to kind of share it around? I think there is, which is one reason why a few great players haven't won it multiple times.
Nash was well deserving of his award the first time he won. Then the year after that he put up better numbers, he lead a worse team to a great performance, and basically everyone who voted for him the first time decided that since he was even better the next year he had to win. So I guess he was deserving of it the second time.
Nash doesn't "deserve" to be a two timer if you come at it like that and compare him to other multi-mvp winners. But it happened. It has to do partly with his competition during those years. And the article ignores some really important facts. Kobe for MVP? The guy was barely done with his rape trial in 2006. That is going to hurt you in the voting booth. So he had a monster 81 point game. You don't win MVP off of one game. And as someone says above squeeking into the 7th spot in the playoffs is not that impressive an achievement.
Basically, this is a terrible article.
I had made this list obviously in 2009, but I was actually fine with both the MVP choices of 2009 and 2010. However, while I agreed with the notion of Kobe Bryant should have won the MVP in 2005-06, I believe Nash probably should have won the year Dirk Nowitzki claimed the award. While I believe that Dirk is the better player of the two, Steve Nash probably had his best season as a pro, and I believe was more valuable. Dirk's team finished with a fantastic record, but it was not his best season. In 2006-07, I believe it was Nash's best season as a pro and his value to his team was even more present than the two years prior.
I tried to remove emotion from this list as much as possible, as I feel that the media really fuels the vote with it. I dislike giving a player a make-up award or a lifetime achievement trophy. While my list took MVP's from some incredibly great players, I think that for the most part, I tried to show who truly was the MVP of said season. I have Michael Jordan winning 6 MVP's in a row and 9 overall (though I think it is possible he could have also won in 1986-87 over Magic). There is no way he could have won 8 in the 90's, as he only played 7 full seasons during that time period. He technically could have won 8, but I guess we will never know.
As great as Karl Malone was, I do not having him winning the MVP in my list. I agree that Michael Jordan should have won Karl Malone's first award. Also, I believe that Tim Duncan, all of 22 years old in 1998-99, deserved the award in the lockout shortened season. I have rationale behind every award I handed out, but I remembered that season in particular due to the way it turned out. The Spurs were 28-12 taking on the 32-8 Utah Jazz. Tim Duncan lead the Spurs to a 83-69 victory. Than, with the Spurs at 34-13 and the Jazz at 36-12, the Spurs again bested the Jazz, with both PF's grabbing 14 boards, but Duncan outscoring Malone 26-24. The Spurs won the game 84-78.
Sure, these were only two games. But, as the Spurs and Jazz finished with identical 37-13 records, the Spurs claimed homecourt advantage for the Play-offs. The Spurs ended the season as champions, while the Jazz lost in the second round to Portland. Even being 14 at the time this was happening, I remember feeling as though Malone should not have won the award. The torch had clearly been passed and I felt Duncan was the rightful MVP of that season. From everything I remember, the word was that the MVP votes were mailed in before the season was even over. It was a very strange year, not only being lockout shortened, but supposedly they had decided the MVP before these two games that proved to be pivotal. So, while I feel that Karl Malone was an incredible basketball player, I feel that there were two players more deserving of the MVP's he won.
There are others that may be controversial in my list, but I have my reasons behind it. I feel that while Allen Iverson had a fantastic 2000-01 where he won his only MVP, Shaq was still the league's most dominant force bar none. In 2004-05, Iverson carried a dreadful 76ers team to the play-offs. I believe had he not been on the team, they very well would have been the worst team in the league, much like Kobe's Lakers team that next season. To me, those two showed their value with incredibly little supporting cast and help. I do not believe that is always the formula for winning the award, but in the 2004-05 and 2005-06 season, I think the league was in a major reconstruction period.
While I was for Shaq winning MVP in 2004-05 at the time, and definitely had a hard time believing Nash deserved the award, Iverson was all his team really had. I think that while he had seasons with higher scoring averages, he was at his best during this particular season (while he lead the league in scoring average 4 times, it was also the only season he lead the league in total points. He also averaged 7.9 assists, the highest number in his career and 3.3 more per game than in 2000-01). Even with Shaq obviously providing a major turnaround for the Heat, and Nash doing the same for the Suns, they had two players who were incredibly valuable themselves in Dwyane Wade and Amare Stoudemire. Wade and Stoudemire lead both teams in scoring, and they both were arguably more effective in their play-off runs. Yes, the MVP is a regular season award, but I think Iverson's regular season performance was the reason I see 2004-05 as the year he should have claimed MVP. Look at the 76ers roster from that year, and you may agree as well. Just wanted to share this and maybe give a different perspective. Any questions, I would be glad to answer them.
2010-11: Derrick Rose
2009-10: LeBron James
2008-09: LeBron James
2007-08: Kobe Bryant
2006-07: Steve Nash
2005-06: Kobe Bryant
2004-05: Allen Iverson
2003-04: Kevin Garnett
2002-03: Tim Duncan
2001-02: Tim Duncan
2000-01: Shaquille O’Neal
1999-00: Shaquille O’Neal
1998-99: Tim Duncan
1997-98: Michael Jordan
1996-97: Michael Jordan
1995-96: Michael Jordan
1994-95: Shaquille O’Neal
1993-94: Hakeem Olajuwon
1992-93: Michael Jordan
1991-92: Michael Jordan
1990-91: Michael Jordan
1989-90: Michael Jordan
1988-89: Michael Jordan
1987-88: Michael Jordan
1986-87: Magic Johnson
1985-86: Larry Bird
1984-85: Larry Bird
1983-84: Larry Bird
1982-83: Moses Malone
1981-82: Moses Malone
1980-81: Julius Erving
1979-80: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
1978-79: Moses Malone
1977-78: Bill Walton
1976-77: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
1975-76: Bob McAdoo
1974-75: Bob McAdoo
1973-74: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
1972-73: Dave Cowens
1971-72: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
1970-71: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
1969-70: Willis Reed
1968-69: Wes Unseld
1967-68: Wilt Chamberlain
1966-67: Wilt Chamberlain
1965-66: Wilt Chamberlain
1964-65: Oscar Robertson
1963-64: Oscar Robertson
1962-63: Bill Russell
1961-62: Wilt Chamberlain
1960-61: Bill Russell
1959-60: Wilt Chamberlain
1958-59: Bob Pettit
1957-58: Bill Russell
1956-57: Bob Cousy
1955-56: Bob Pettit
Michael Jordan: 9
Wilt Chamberlain: 5
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 5
Bill Russell: 3
Moses Malone: 3
Larry Bird: 3
Shaquille O’Neal: 3
Tim Duncan: 3
Bob Pettit: 2
Oscar Robertson: 2
Bob McAdoo: 2
Kobe Bryant: 2
LeBron James: 2
Bob Cousy: 1
Wes Unseld: 1
Willis Reed: 1
Dave Cowens: 1
Bill Walton: 1
Julius Erving: 1
Magic Johnson: 1
Hakeem Olajuwon: 1
Kevin Garnett: 1
Allen Iverson: 1
Steve Nash: 1
Derrick Rose: 1
@JoeWolf: I wrote mine while their was still a NBA season......
Not sure what difference the lockout would have made in any of this. I understand your distress though, and I would like it to end as well.
The MVP award has become a joke. Means nothing other than who is having a good year. Because they still dont have the seasons guys like Kobe,LBJ,Wade have.
Kobe conceded to this notion long ago by not giving a damn about regular season MVP's, only worrying about the one thing that matters, Finals MVP.
Nash actually had his best year in 2006-2007. A year in which I think he deserved to finish 1st, arguably 2nd to Dirk.
A HUGE part of the reason Nash won the award is the change in style of the team. It was a very drastic change and everyone loved those Suns teams. Nash clearly contributed more to that teams success than statistics could possibly show. However, I still don't think he was MVP in 04-05 or 05-06. Not over 04-05: Dirk, KG 05-06 Dirk, Lebron, KG, Kobe.
I think race played a small, VERY small part in it as well. From a mediea perspective, it was exciting to make an arguement for a small white guy as the leagues best player.
Anyway, we all know the MVP award is mush. see allen iverson 2000-2001 over shaq.
Similar to what is being discussed here, bleacherreport.com made a top 50 list of players who have never won an MVP. Some of them are stupid, like Kevin Durant and Dwight Howard (since they'll probably win one before their careers end), but the majority of the list is pretty solid. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/929070-50-best-nba-players-to-never-w...
Look, Kobe should have won, but that doesn't mean that Nash wasn't deserving. He had a fantastic season, and I don't think it was a complete outrage that he won the award, but I still believe that Kobe should have won in 06.
You are right, to an extent. But, the reasoning behind him winning the MVP award was SO stupid. Statistically, he had a better season than the year before and it was definitely impressive that Phoenix still won 54 games without Amare Stoudemire. Even so, they won fewer games than the year before and they had added some new key pieces who worked out VERY well. They lost Quentin Richardson and Joe Johnson, but they got some more size in Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw, who fit the system incredibly well. They brought in Raja Bell and had mad scoring from Leandro Barbosa, James Jones and Eddie House. Sure, these are not necessarily superstars, but they fit the system incredibly well and could shoot the lights out.
Steve Nash averaged 18.8 and 10.5 for the 54-48 Suns, who lost only 8 fewer games than the year before. The crazy thing was, and here is the stupid part, they made it seem like the Suns had actually been the second best team in the conference. They did get the second seed in the play-offs, but the Spurs were 63-19 and the Mavs were 60-22. Something did not add up. The NBA at the time, had this incredibly insane rule that gave the winner of each division the 1, 2 and 3 seeds. Which meant that rather than the Mavs being #2, which they should have been, they were #4. As insane as all of this was, I feel that had effect with voters.
The thing to me is, yes, Steve Nash did not have Amare Stoudemire. But, Kobe Bryant had NOTHING. Calling Lamar Odom nothing may be a tad extreme, but a guy like Lamar, playing 40 minutes and averaging 15 per game, that is not who you want as a second banana. Kobe did not just have that 81 point game, which, by the way, WAS INSANE! Super incredible, I could literally not believe it when I heard about it, amazing. But, beyond that, Kobe averaged 35.4 points per game, which to me is just mental. When Michael averaged 37.1, his team went 40-42, Kobe's went 45-37. This would have been 5th seed in the East, but was only 7th in the West.
Kobe also got to play Phoenix in the 1st round. Granted, the MVP is a regular season award, but Kobe was pretty damn fantastic. Nash's Phoenix team won the series 4-3, even escaping from a 3-1 hole. But, there was NO question who the most valuable player of these two teams was. Kobe carried this team on his back and was on a different level from anyone playing the game at this point. He finished 4th (!) in MVP voting because his team finished 45-37, which was just shocking. Even my friends (most of whom, as I went to college in Oregon, had a strong distaste for Kobe and the Lakers) knew Kobe should have been the MVP. Nash had a good season, but to me, 2006 does stand out as far as MVP injustice goes.
I agree that this dudes article could use improvement, but I think that 2005-06 was the year of Kobe Bryant, even with amazing seasons from Nash, LeBron James (2nd in MVP voting in his 3rd season, which people seem to forget, lol) and Dirk Nowitzki (3rd). Yes, 81 was just one game (though he had SO many incredible games that year) and it was against a horrible Raptors team (that they were down by 20 to until Kobe went bat$hit and turned things around). But, if you want to see a Kobe performance that season against a really good team, look at this one:
62 points in 33 minutes. He did not play the 4th quarter! Didn't have to, lol. This was against Dallas, who while not known for their defense, could score points with the best of them. If you torched them that badly that they basically throw in the towel, that was insane. Kobe Bryant in 2005-06 might not have been Kobe at his absolute best as far as an All-Around player, but it is clearly his most incredible statistical season and I feel he was underrated by the voters. The rape allegations were pretty long gone by this point (happened in the summer of 2003), and peoples distaste for Kobe was pretty ridiculous (remind you of anyone else people love to hate). I will not say Nash was not deserving, but if I had to choose between he and Kobe in 2005-06........
kobe deserved it when he dropped 80 something points (i watched that whole game) but nash deserved it the year after
Agree with mikeyv, it wasn't JUST the 81 pt game, 62 in three quarters when the Mavs as a team had 61, string of 50 point games unmatched by ANYONE including Mike, and an unimaginable amount 40 point games. By the time playoffs rolled around, Kwame Brown had become the 3rd option for crying out loud. If Kobe had a better support cast in his true prime between 05-07, there is no doubt in my mind that he could have had titles then. But instead he had one of the worst I've ever seen put together. EVER. The Cavs have a better squad than those Lakers teams did. I remember during the 05-06 season actually being kinda let down when I'd see Kobe dropped 30 points in a game because how common and often it had become to see him dropping 40 and 50 point games left and right.