NBA MVP

skinsfano28 · Post by **skinsfano28** » Sun May 07, 2006 7:57 pm

am i the only one who thinks kobe should have gotten it this year?

no offense to steve nash, but he's not near the impact player that kobe is. the whole talk about nash winning it stems from the fact that he "had to play without amare stoudemire" for almost the entire season. please, kobe has no one near as athletic or talented as stoudemire on his team to even look forward to playing with at any point during the season, nor does he have a consistent 20 point 10 rebound guy next to him like shawn marion. furthermore, there are no role players on the lakers like on the suns, what with leandro barbosa and boris diaw coming off the bench and giving about 30 and change a game combined. then there's tim thomas, who is a beast in his own right and is an underrated player in the league because of his little attitude problem. Nash played well this season like he always does, but was he surrounded by mediocre talent? no. was he the leading anything in the NBA? no. did he singlehandedly destroy teams? no. did he lead a bunch of scrubs to the playoffs. no.

did kobe do all these things.

yes.

that's why kobe deserves mvp, imho.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sun May 07, 2006 8:27 pm

Hmm who won the series between the two?? Kobe is the better player. Nash makes his team better making him more valuble.

skinsfano28 · Post by **skinsfano28** » Sun May 07, 2006 11:34 pm

kobe makes his team better by helping them win games...and it doesnt matter who won the series DE, this is regular season MVP, not postseason.

without kobe, the lakers wouldn't have won 20-25 of the games they won. phoenix has enough talent to win games without nash.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Mon May 08, 2006 7:58 am

skinsfano28 wrote:kobe makes his team better by helping them win games...and it doesnt matter who won the series DE, this is regular season MVP, not postseason.

without kobe, the lakers wouldn't have won 20-25 of the games they won. phoenix has enough talent to win games without nash.

I respect that but I don't think the Suns would be as good as you think without Nash. Yes Kobe is good enough to get the lakers into the playoffs but he will never get a ring untill he gets some help. Nash takes his team to the next level yes he has more help but even without Stoudmire they're the second seed and are advancing in the playoffs. Remember even MJ didn't win until Horrace and Scottie showed up.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:55 am

Yes but MJ played defense, Nash is a defensive liability to put it lightly. I love Steve Nash, I love his style of play but he simply did not deserve back-to-back MVPs. LeBron, Kobe and Dirk were all more deserving this year. The Cavs would have stuggled to win 20 games without LeBron.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Mon May 08, 2006 12:45 pm

Fios wrote:Yes but MJ played defense, Nash is a defensive liability to put it lightly. I love Steve Nash, I love his style of play but he simply did not deserve back-to-back MVPs. LeBron, Kobe and Dirk were all more deserving this year. The Cavs would have stuggled to win 20 games without LeBron.

I believe a case could be made for all four, I think Lebron, Kobe and Dirk are just as deserving...of the four I believe history and rings will show Lebron was the best. The NBA needs these guys...I have lost interest in the NBA the past few years...Would be great to see a Kobe vs. Lebron final!!

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Mon May 08, 2006 6:32 pm

1. Kobe Bryant
2. LeBron James
3. Steve Nash

Here's how I think of it, if the NBA issued a 50 Man 1-1 Tournament, Kobe Bryant would win, so he would be MVP. (I know this has NOTHING to do with what makes a player MVP, but it sounds cool)

See, unlike all the other scorers in the NBA (Vince Carter, TMac...) Kobe Bryant is the only one who plays defense. Like Fios said, Nash doesn't even know how to play defense...

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:12 pm

I would have said James, everyone says Kobe has no supporting cast, well to me that is his fault. If he wanted to he would have had Shaq on his team but he pushed him out. So I don't feel sorry for him in that aspect.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:14 pm

air_hog wrote:1. Kobe Bryant
2. LeBron James
3. Steve Nash

Here's how I think of it, if the NBA issued a 50 Man 1-1 Tournament, Kobe Bryant would win, so he would be MVP. (I know this has NOTHING to do with what makes a player MVP, but it sounds cool)

See, unlike all the other scorers in the NBA (Vince Carter, TMac...) Kobe Bryant is the only one who plays defense. Like Fios said, Nash doesn't even know how to play defense...

The game isn't about one on one its about 5-5. Passing isn't needed in one on one. Tracy Mcgrady would beat Jason Kidd one on one but is he better? No.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Tue May 09, 2006 8:07 am

John Manfreda wrote:
air_hog wrote:1. Kobe Bryant
2. LeBron James
3. Steve Nash

Here's how I think of it, if the NBA issued a 50 Man 1-1 Tournament, Kobe Bryant would win, so he would be MVP. (I know this has NOTHING to do with what makes a player MVP, but it sounds cool)

See, unlike all the other scorers in the NBA (Vince Carter, TMac...) Kobe Bryant is the only one who plays defense. Like Fios said, Nash doesn't even know how to play defense...

The game isn't about one on one its about 5-5. Passing isn't needed in one on one. Tracy Mcgrady would beat Jason Kidd one on one but is he better? No.

But 5-on-5 means 5-on-5 on both sides of the floor, Nash's weak (and I'm being kind) defense means he only contributes to the offensive side of that equation. Kobe is more valuable to his team because he excels on both ends. If you replaced Kobe with an average two-guard, the Lakers would have struggled mightily. If you replaced Nash with an average PG, the impact on the Suns would not have been as severe.
And, right now, removing the questions about his health, I would take McGrady over Kidd 100 times out of 100.

skinsRin · Post by **skinsRin** » Tue May 09, 2006 10:06 am

Kobie should be the MVP, without him they would of won 5 games all year. The Suns would still be decent and a playoff team without Nash, so in my eys it has to be Kobie.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Tue May 09, 2006 5:30 pm

Fios wrote:
John Manfreda wrote:
air_hog wrote:1. Kobe Bryant
2. LeBron James
3. Steve Nash

Here's how I think of it, if the NBA issued a 50 Man 1-1 Tournament, Kobe Bryant would win, so he would be MVP. (I know this has NOTHING to do with what makes a player MVP, but it sounds cool)

See, unlike all the other scorers in the NBA (Vince Carter, TMac...) Kobe Bryant is the only one who plays defense. Like Fios said, Nash doesn't even know how to play defense...

The game isn't about one on one its about 5-5. Passing isn't needed in one on one. Tracy Mcgrady would beat Jason Kidd one on one but is he better? No.

But 5-on-5 means 5-on-5 on both sides of the floor, Nash's weak (and I'm being kind) defense means he only contributes to the offensive side of that equation. Kobe is more valuable to his team because he excels on both ends. If you replaced Kobe with an average two-guard, the Lakers would have struggled mightily. If you replaced Nash with an average PG, the impact on the Suns would not have been as severe.
And, right now, removing the questions about his health, I would take McGrady over Kidd 100 times out of 100.

I never said Nash should have been the MVP I think it should have been Lebron and MVP is also about being a team player, would Kobe be willing to take less shots to win, no. Remember the Suns weren't that good before Nash. You would take Mcardy over Kidd r u seris. Kidd makes guys around him better, Kidd makes his players around him better and wins. Mcgrady hasn't won jack. Stats don't always tell the whole story. Statistically Wilt is the best player of all time. second ever in scoring average, best rebounding stats of all time and if they counted shot blocking back than he would lead in that and never fouled out. Rarely got injured but u know what he isn't.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Tue May 09, 2006 5:45 pm

The reason the Lakers have a weak supporting cast is because Kobe wants to take 50 shoots a game, no one good wants to play with him. Why do you think Shaq left (actually he was forced out). Lamar Odom is a great team guy, he has played hard and is willing to take few shoots to play with Kobe. He is a lot better than his numbers but isn't getting good stats because he is playing with Kobe. Kobe makes players around him wrose see Caron Butler, compare last year to this year, that is why I wouldn't make him the MVP. Like Shaq he isn't great anymore but he makes players around him better still, I wouldn't say he made Dwayne Wade better but because of Shaq he is getting plenty of oppurtunities because Shaq attractes players away from Wade and these no names like Haslem r starting to do well except in game one agianst the bulls, but that is why I wouldn't give Kobe the MVP he makes players around him wrose and a MVP does not do that. Gilbert he makes players around him better look at Larry Hughes this year and last year he got hurt but look at his averages there a lot better last year, Nash does, Lebron does, I would give Lebron MVP because I think he is a better player than Nash. Look at Donyell Marshallhe wouldn't be able to jack up 20 points playing on any other team, but Lebron knows how to make other players better. Illguskas resurrected his carrer because of Lebron. Lebron not only scored but he made players around him better and he did play D, maybe he wasn't great but he wasn't a liability. Talent wise Kobe is the best all around, but this is most valuable not best player. There are more than just stats that go into most valuable. U can lead the league in scoring and not be the best player, no one thinks this because there so use to Jordan, by the way made players around him better like Kukoc, Kerr, Armstrong, Grant, it goes on forever.

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:29 am

For what it is worth, 7 Suns had career years in scoring.

Darth

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:34 am

Here's another one:

The Suns are 2-8 without Nash since he returned to Phoenix in 2004 (0-3 this season).

Darth

gus · Post by **gus** » Wed May 10, 2006 1:34 pm

It is very sad to see Nash get back to back MVPs. Koby got 80 pts in one game for Christ sake!!!!!!! Koby alone was the reason for the Lakers making the playoffs and even having the Suns on the edge of elimination.

Nash's team was 0-8 in regular season games that finished with a difference of 3 pts or less. How can an MVP not get the clutch points to make his team win close games? In my book, this reason alone is enogh not to give a guy MVP honors.

HaiL,

Gus

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed May 10, 2006 2:28 pm

The MVP debate isn't about most likeable, it's about answering the question who was the most valuable (which in my mind equates to best) player in the league for the season? I don't see how you can answer that question with Steve Nash.
And, bear in mind, I said AT THIS POINT I'd take McGrady over Nash, I'd much rather have an explosive forward with tremendous upside than a PG who is on the downside of his career.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:08 pm

Ok guys. Here's someone's opinion thats on the west coast. Shaq left because he wanted something like 30mil a year. He's old, was fat, and has bad knees. Not to mention the distraction that he was causing in the locker room. Now Kobe didn't help the situation but he was entertaining offers from other teams b/c if I remember correctly his contract was up. Anyway, if Kobe really distructed the Laker dynasty then why is Phill back? Thats b/c he got a bad wrap. Everyone in the NBA just takes Shaq's version and b/c Kobe is quiet and doesn't speak out then he's got to be in the wrong.

Kobe should have won the MVP. He only shot the ball so much because no one else was stepping up to help them win. At the end of the season, Kwami and Lamar stepped up and we saw good games from guys like Luke Walton but most importantly there was a supporting cast. It will be an interesting offseason to see what they do in free agency.

I also think that Sam Cassell's name should have been brought up. He does everything that isn't statistically measured. Every team he plays for becomes good.

skinsfano28 · Post by **skinsfano28** » Wed May 10, 2006 11:35 pm

frankcal, you said what i was thinking when i started this thread. thank you.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Sun May 14, 2006 1:31 am

For those who said Nash isn't clutch obviously you didn't check out game 3.

John Manfreda · Post by **John Manfreda** » Sun May 14, 2006 1:33 am

Fios wrote:The MVP debate isn't about most likeable, it's about answering the question who was the most valuable (which in my mind equates to best) player in the league for the season? I don't see how you can answer that question with Steve Nash.
And, bear in mind, I said AT THIS POINT I'd take McGrady over Nash, I'd much rather have an explosive forward with tremendous upside than a PG who is on the downside of his career.

Don't ever bring up character and needing it to win for the Redskins if u want Mcgrady on your team. That guy has none, he never wins is not a team player. Nash is better than Mcgrady ever will be.