Does Steve Nash deserve MVP consideration?

[Guest_Randy]

YEAR G GS MIN FG FG% 3P 3P% FT FT% STL BLK TO PF OFF DEF TOT AST PTS
  2004-2005 37 37 33.9 5.8-11.3 .516 1.2-3.2 .385 2.5-2.7 .910 1.05 0.0 3.1 2.0 0.5 2.6 3.1 10.9 15.3

Here are his stats:

    34 MPG; 51.6% FG%; 38.5% 3pt%; 91% FT%; 1 Stl; 10.9 Ass; 3.1 TO;
         3.1 Reb; and 15.3 PPG.  

#1 in APG
#7 in FT%
#10 in FG% (as a PG -- pretty amazing, IMO)
#7 in A/TO Ratio

What's more?  The Suns have looked incredible as a team, for the most part, until Nash went down.  Without Nash, this team looks like it would struggle to make the playoffs.

Do you have a better MVP?

[Wolverine]

I agree.  In my opinion, Nash is this year's MVP thus far.  I could see an argument for AK-47 being just as VALUABLE to his team, but he hasn't played nearly enough to warrant serious consideration.

[Joe Vancil]

Given my definition of MVP, there are only a few strong candidates for it this year:  Nash, Amare Stoudemire, Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, Shaquille O'Neal, Dwyane Wade, Larry Hughes, Steve Francis, and Tim Duncan.

Right now, my pick would be Nash.  But Nash may very well suffer from the fate of having a good second choice - Amare Stoudemire - on his team.  Figure Duncan and O'Neal to be the leading two candidates, with strong showings from Nash, Allen, and Stoudemire.

 

[Guest_Randy]

Joe,

I don't agree with you about Ray Allen -- why?  The difference in the Sonics this year isn't Ray Allen -- it's defense (attribute this to Fortson and Daniels -- to name two -- more than Allen) rather than offense.  Another reason is that Allen isn't doing any better in ANY category than he has in the past -- none of his categories are career (and some of them are less than impressive -- check out FG%).  I DO think that Seattle could win without Allen (although I doubt that they will do it consistently) -- so far, Phoenix is showing it can't win without Nash.

Also, if you take away Nash because of Amare, how can you consider Shaq who is playing less minutes and has Wade?

Last, I don't see how ANYONE can count TD in this year's MVP hunt.  While TD is the best player in the NBA, IMO, that isn't what the MVP award is all about.  And SA has PROVEN they don't need Timmy to win this year!  Obviously, they aren't going to win it all without TD but they CAN win without him -- that alone takes him out of the MVP hunt, IMO.

[westkoast]

Given my definition of MVP, there are only a few strong candidates for it this year:  Nash, Amare Stoudemire, Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis, Shaquille O'Neal, Dwyane Wade, Larry Hughes, Steve Francis, and Tim Duncan.

Right now, my pick would be Nash.  But Nash may very well suffer from the fate of having a good second choice - Amare Stoudemire - on his team.  Figure Duncan and O'Neal to be the leading two candidates, with strong showings from Nash, Allen, and Stoudemire.

Wouldnt Shaq be in that same category with Wade?  Honestly Wade is pulling more than his fair share of weight on that team.  Id even go as far to say that Shaq is actually benefitting from it because he has lost a step since 2-3 years ago.

My vote goes to Nash right now with Duncan at a close second.  Really KG would be at the top of my list also but his team is playing below average for the amount of talent they have, injuries or not.

[WayOutWest]

The only one's worth talking about in the MVP race are Nash and Shaq, I'd give the edge to Nash at this point but come playoff time it may turn into a one diesel pony race.  

P.S. I know the time frame of the MVP voting.

[Joe Vancil]

The reason I say Shaq and Duncan are probably the front-runners isn't because I think they're the best candidates, but because I think they're the candidates that will garner support as top players on top teams that are doing well.

I disagree that San An is showing they can win without Duncan, simply because Duncan is there every freakin' game.  His numbers are down in a lot of blowout games, but make no mistake - San An is still Duncan, Duncan, Duncan, and the rest of the Spurs.  He's a legitimate MVP candidate.

I think there'll be some votes for Shaq stolen by Dwyane Wade.  And if you asked me to pick who I *THINK* the voters will give the MVP - regardless of whether or not I think it's the right choice - I'd pick Duncan, who won't be dividing votes with anyone.

But make no mistake:  I think Nash is the real MVP.

(And he's a Polar Bear!)
 

[Guest_Randy]

The reason I say Shaq and Duncan are probably the front-runners isn't because I think they're the best candidates, but because I think they're the candidates that will garner support as top players on top teams that are doing well.

I disagree that San An is showing they can win without Duncan, simply because Duncan is there every freakin' game.  His numbers are down in a lot of blowout games, but make no mistake - San An is still Duncan, Duncan, Duncan, and the rest of the Spurs.  He's a legitimate MVP candidate.

I think there'll be some votes for Shaq stolen by Dwyane Wade.  And if you asked me to pick who I *THINK* the voters will give the MVP - regardless of whether or not I think it's the right choice - I'd pick Duncan, who won't be dividing votes with anyone.

But make no mistake:  I think Nash is the real MVP.

(And he's a Polar Bear!)

MVP, IMO, means most valuable player to the TEAM they play for.  There is no doubting that TD is vital to the success of the Spurs -- just as any true superstar is -- Shaq, KG, Kobe, Dirk, etc.

However, I still believe that the Spurs are a better team without TD than the Suns are without Nash -- and that's why I believe that Nash is the better candidate for MVP.  Phoenix has the best record in the NBA right now -- and when you consider their record with Nash in the line-up it's mind-boggling.  And they are doing it with LESS talent than the Spurs have in their line-up, IMO.  I think when you factor all of this in -- Nash is the obvious winner.

Two reasons why I don't think Nash will win:
1)  MVP's go to big men -- not small men in the NBA.
2)  The MVP award is also a popularity contest -- and Nash will lose to TD, Shaq or KG in that kind of a vote.

[westkoast]

2)  The MVP award is also a popularity contest -- and Nash will lose to TD, Shaq or KG in that kind of a vote.

Yup...which is why Vince Carter has enough votes to be a starting forward for the East.

Nash has to finish the second half of the season very strong.  If his play drops off in the second half, which Mark Cuban is prediciting, then it will be chalked up as a fluke.  KG, Tim Duncan, Shaq could all post much lower numbers in the 2nd half of the season and still have enough popularity to get votes for the mp3.

[rickortreat]

How can you pick Nash over Iverson?

Nash is a better shooter, but Iverson does much more for his team than Nash does for the Suns.  

The games the Sixers have played without AI this year have been awful.  The offense doesn't work, and the defense suffers because the offense doesn't work.  The issue is magnified because the Sixers don't have anyone else who's ready to play point.

Even so, when other teams play the Sixers, the one guy they cannot handle is AI.

Scores nearly 2X as much as Nash per game.  

Outrebounds Nash by 1 per game.

Nash has more assists, but he has more players to finish than the Sixers, and AI is 5th in assists.  7.3 a game.

Averages over a steal a game more than Nash.

Nash is clearly one of the better points in the league, but c'mon!



 

[Joe Vancil]

And Philly has what to show for all that Iverson does for them?

Take Garnett out of Minnesota this season, and you're talking truly pathetic.  But because Minnesota isn't winning that much WITH Garnett, that devalues his stock as an MVP candidate.

If Philadelphia were running away with the division (which ought not to be all that tough, consider their competitors there are all under .500), and was a top team in the conference, then Iverson would deserve to be a candidate.  As it stands, though, Philadelphia is under .500, and isn't one of the top teams in anything other than its division.

If Phoenix was under .500, we wouldn't be discussing Nash as a possibility for MVP.  Team achievement is a big factor.


 

[rickortreat]

Well that IS a problem.  But does an MVP candidate have to play on a winning team to qualify?  It isn't Iverson's fault that Philly has been in transition for the past few years, or that they've added a lot of young, inexperienced players to the roster.

For all the criticism he used to recieve, he should be given credit for- willingness to learn a new position, not crying for a trade, and being a true leader.  For years people ripped this guy for all sorts of things, and he's becoming a poster child for an NBA player.  At least he showed up for the Olympics which is more than could be said for a lot of the selfish jerks who are considered stars in the NBA.  When you compare him with backdoor man Kobe, he's starting to look pretty good!

But if you're going to restrict it to winning teams or ones who are competing for a championship, right now Philly isn't in that class.  They may very well win their division, but they're not anywhere near being an elite team and probably won't be for a while.  IMO, they have the talent, and are becomming a much better team as time goes on, but they're short a big inside power player and another solid point guard.  

I wish they could get somebody to help Andre Igoudala become more agressive on the offensive end.  He's got all the talent, but doesn't look for his shot enough.  It's hard for a player like that to assert himself when Iverson is on the court, but that would move the Sixers way up if Andre could become a consitent 15-18 ppg. player.

 

[Guest_Randy]

While I agree that AI IS the Sixers, I don't agree that AI deserves consideration for MVP.  While having a GREAT year at PG, I don't believe he makes his teammates better -- he simply IS the team.  Nash HAS made the Sixers contenders and his absence from the floor leaves them as a team who has little postseason aspirations.  With Nash, this team DOES have postseason aspirations.

Also, the Sixers have made a TON of dumb moves -- main trades being trading away Ratliff (and signing Dikembe), trading for Big Dog, etc.  AI is a VERY difficult player to find suitable teammates for -- while he is playing the best "team" ball that I have ever seen him play, he is still a one-on-one player whose play often doesn't encorporate teammates or a system but rather discourages such.  

The Sixers DO have some young talent -- they need to focus on that young talent and do whatever they can to dump players like Robinson and then they need to not put themselves in the situation by making those kinds of decisions again.  

AI needs players who will hustle, rebound and move without the ball -- he REALLY needs an offensive system that discourages his poor shooting selection.  Personally, I'm glad that AI and the Sixers are where they are at -- because he is on my FNBA team and it means that he is always going to put up GREAT numbers -- even when the Sixers lose.  Finding teammates to play with AI and make them a GREAT ballclub is going to be tough, IMO.  The Sixers did it before -- with defense and rebounding -- but that only works if you are substantially better than your opponent in those areas -- and the Sixers will never do that unless they have a big man like Shaq or TD (and it doesn't look like that's going to happen).  AI CAN fit very well into a top defensive team -- I don't believe that he will ever fit into a top offensive team -- and I believe that is deterimined by his play.

[rickortreat]

Pretty good points there, Randy!

Particularly the point about him being a one on one player.  But the real problem with the Sixers is that the young players don't know how to move without the ball, so AI can collect more assists and get help scoring.  He creates a lot of opportunites by drawing the defenses attention, and some of the players, like Kenny Thomas are getting the idea.  

With O'Brien as a coach, they're going to be more offensively minded, and they should be able to outscore most teams as they learn to use their talents to best advantage.  When they made the trade for Big Dog, I thought that would be a big improvement to the team.  With him shooting outside and Iverson slashing, they'd have teams comming and going.  But Robinson is hurt.  Everytime he practices his ankles swell up.  Not a bad trade but bad luck.

Since Brown has gone, King has done a better job of bringing in good players.  The only one they got rid of that I hoped they would keep was Larry Hughes and at the time Larry was full of himself and unwilling to play the point.  Tim Thomas turned out to be a second rate player.  The Ratliff deal was forced, the team was on a tear and he got injured, trading for Mutumbo was a gamble, and it did get them to the finals.   Sad to see Snow go, but he's slow and old now, eventually one of the guards, Green or Salmons will become a more valuable player.  But look at all the Centers that the Sixers have lost prematurely Matt Geiger, Todd MacCullough...just bad luck in a town associated with it when it comes to the sports teams.  

I don't think they'll ever be the defensive team they were under Brown.  To tell you the truth, that's fine with me.  The Sixers were always a free-flowing offensive squad that just flat out played when they won.  Defense is an important component to a winning squad but I like teams that fill it up.  With some better rebounding, they have enough young players to run teams into the ground.  

[Guest_Randy]

Rick, where I would disagree is that Robinson is a shooter -- he is a scorer.  The Big Dog can knock down an open shot but he isn't a catch and shoot player -- never has been -- he likes to create and while he is a good shooter in mid range that doesn't give AI spacing and Robinson needs the rock in his hand to get into rhythm to shoot (again, doesn't compliment AI).  

Besides, I don't think that Robinson would be playing for the Sixers even if he WERE healthy!