2005 NBA MVP Should Have Been?

[tobynosker]

I deem this NBA season as an off-year, which made it much harder to decide who should be NBA MVP. Kevin Garnett and the Minnesota Timberwolves failed to reach the playoffs. Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers failed to reach the playoffs. LeBron James and the Cleveland Caviliers failed to reach the playoffs. Allen Iverson has an outstanding year, yet his team struggles. Jermaine O'Neal gets suspended, shattering his MVP hopes. I believe the top four candidates were Steve Nash, Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki. And I believe the voters got it right, when the decision came down to Nash or Shaq.

The arguement over how bad the Phoenix Suns were this season without Steve Nash in the starting lineup isn't irrelevant, because the Miami Heat's record without Shaquille O'Neal was probably better than what should have been expected. Phoenix went 2-5 this season without Nash, while Miami went 6-3 without O'Neal.

And the arguement over the team's repective turnarounds isn't irrelevant, but needs to be placed into context. Miami was a playoff-team last year, and had a seventeen game improvement this season. Phoenix on the other hand, had a thirty-three game turnaround, and finished with the best record in the NBA (The Miami Heat and San Antonio Spurs tied for the second-best record). Was Nash the only reason? Probably not. Amare Stoudemire did improve, Shawn Marion certainly found a comfort-zone, and Quentin Richardson got a chance to showcase his talents. But did all three of these things happen because Nash was in the line-up? Probably.

Shaquille O'Neal's numbers were down all across the board. He played the least amount of minutes per game in his thirteen year career. His free-throw percentage was the lowest it's been in his thirteen year career. His rebounds per game were the lowest they have been in his thirteen year career. His assists per game were the lowest they have been since the 1998-1999 season. His steals per game were the lowest they have been since the 1999-2000 season. His blocks per game were the lowest they have been in the last three years. His personal fouls per game increased to the second-highest total in his thirteen year career. And his points per game were the second-lowest total in his thirteen year career.

And while the postseason shouldn't be a factor in deciding an MVP candidate, his points per game, blocks per game, steals per game, assists per game, rebounds per game and field-goal percentage all were down in the first round playoff series. Plus, the amount of turnovers and personal fouls per game went up. And while the Miami Heat won comfortably yesterday against the Washington Wizards, O'Neal fouled out, played only 26 minutes, and continues to show a tremendous weakness from the foul-line (38% against Washington on Sunday).

Steve Nash averaged a double-double, averaging 15.5 points per game and 11.5 assists per game. While leading the league in assists, Nash also finished in the top ten in assists to turnover ratio, averaging close to 4 assists per turnover. He averages 34.3 minutes per game, rarely is in foul trouble (1.8 personal fouls per game), shoots over fifty percent from the field (.502), over fourty percent from beyond the arc (.431), and close to ninety percent from the foul-line (.887). While I agree that Phoenix has one of the strongest starting fives in the league, Nash is the leader and controls the action for the Suns. He's third in the league in double-doubles, seventh in the league in triple-doubles, and ranks in the top ten in both free-throw percentage and three-point field goal percentage. His minutes per game were the second-highest of his career, his field-goal percentage was the highest of his career, his three-point field-goal percentage was the second-highest of his career, his rebounds per game were the highest of his career, his assists per game were the highest of his career, his steals per game were the third highest of his career, his blocks per game were the second highest of his career and his personal fouls were the third lowest of his career. And in the playoffs, his statistics have reamined consistent to what they were during the regular season. The only major difference was his field-goal percentage dropped from 50% to 44%.

I truly believe it's an off-year for the league, when a guy like Shaquille O'Neal has one of his worst years to date statistically, and is still favored for the Most Valuable Player Award. But, I believe the arguement between these two came down to deciding over a career-low for one player, or a career-high for another.

While Steve Nash and Shaquille O'Neal deserve it more this season, I still believe Tim Duncan is the Most Valuable Player to his team. While his numbers were down this season, he still averaged a double-double (20.3 ppg and 11.1 rpg), shot just under fifty percent a game (.496) and ranked second in the NBA in efficiency ranking per 48 minutes (behind Minnesota's Kevin Garnett). Plus, the San Antonio Spurs tied-for the second best finish this season. Yet, his team didn't feature the multiple-game turnaround, and feature a marquee player in a change of scenery. Tony Parker has become a solid NBA point guard, Bruce Bowen is relentless on defense, and Manu Ginobli is strong on both sides of the ball, but take away Tim Duncan from San Antonio and see how valuable of a team the Spurs would then become.

[Billy D]

Toby, seems like you've approached this (through your logic, especially regarding Nash) as if the vote were for "Best Player" instead of "Most Valuable". Thus I disagree with your picks.

My MVP vote:
1. Shaquille O'Neal
Utterly irreplaceable and dominant. Down from previous years? Maybe. But he should really have 5 MVPs right now, so that doesn't say much about him relative to other players. Miami would be a sub-.500 team without him and nobody else in the NBA could've filled his shoes this season in Miami. The Lakers and Heat's records this year compared to last are very compelling evidence for the effect Shaq has had. (6-3 without him was nice, but could not have been maintained IMO)

2. Allen Iverson
Best argument against Iverson is that his team barely made the playoffs. But without him, they would've been lucky to win 25 games. Probably irreplaceable in the Sixers' system. Dominant offensively on a team that had little other offense. Also an improved team attitude this year (and in recent years).

3. LeBron James
Ditto Iverson logic. Heavily relied upon by the Cavs.

Beyond these three, I suppose Nowitzki, Nash, Duncan, and Ray Allen are the leading candidates. Nowitzki gives the Mavs unique big man talents, but I feel like they could've won nearly as many games relying more on their guards and SFs for scoring. Nash, as has been suggested by others, played extremely well offensively as a PG on a team that sorely needed a true PG, but several other players could've filled those shoes. Duncan missed too much time for me to strongly consider him. Ray Ray is very important to his team, but not as dominant as Shaq/Iverson/LeBron, so I can't put him in my Top 3.

[Shawndo]

I would have to agree with Billy D, for the most part.

The League's 'most valuable player' would be THE player that any coach would want on their team, if they could only choose one, and I'll bet if you polled the coaches, you'd get a damn near unanimous "I'll take Shaq". I think he's been robbed to receive the award only once in his career.

That being said, Nash was a very close second IMO, so I don't really have much of a problem with the outcome.
It's just too bad that AI doesn't have a better surround cast... he certainly gave quite a performance this year!
This may sound crazy, but I would LOVE to see Iverson and Garnett on the same team someday.. I think that would be a dynamite combination.

[buckeyefan78]

I agree with Toby in only one regard: a healthy Duncan is MVP this year ( and has been every year since 99 except Shaq's 2000 year).

His whole breakdown is flawed in the fact it doesn't take a historic perspective into account when deciding MVP. The award, when given to a point guard, had been given with an OVERWHELMING burden of proof that the man getting the award was truly MVP ( only Magic and Cousy). The point guard position was, and I'd like to think still is even in today's weak era with egos, the most important position on the floor SPIRITUALLY for an NBA team. By giving the award to Nash, we've trampled that value. An MVP is more than stats. His heart and soul must lead that team. Sure, stats are needed, but it is a combo of the two. As far as energy and heart, I could name 10 guys off the top of my head who exemplify that more than Nash, including Shaq. We've now got our 4th MVP (Barkley, Iverson, KG, Nash) in the last dozen years that has no chance in hell of ever winning a ring, but managed to dazzle voters with media hype, better-than-career average stats, and increased win totals. The fact is simple: Since 1990, if MJ had on a uniform, he was MVP. If he didn't, it was Duncan with the only exception being 2000: the year of Shaq. The banners bear this out.

[tobynosker]

I agree with everyone that Steve Nash is not technically the league's most valuable player, especially from a marketing standpoint. But that is why the league doesn't get to decide, and instead leaves it up to the voters. And I agree that more team's and general managers would rather have Shaquille O'Neal as their team's leader as opposed to Nash. But that is not what the Most Valuable Player of the Year Award is for? The award is for the most valuable player to his team during the course of one year. And nobody has presented an arguement that anybody was more valuable than Steve Nash. Whether the Miami Heat would have sustained the record in which they did with Shaq out of the lineup is irrelevant, because they did sustain an above .500 record and were a playoff team this season before without him.

Nobody believes Steve Nash is on the same-level as "Magic" Johnson, Bob Cousy or even Allen Iverson. And while players like Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan would rank just as high (and for some I'm sure even higher) as a top player choice for list of teams and owners, they didn't have their best performances and deliver beyond expectations. They suffered injuries and failed to overcome on-court and off-court issues surrounding their team.

Steve Nash did. He had a career-season, and contrary to what buckeye would like for us to believe, his heart and soul did lead this team to the best finish of any NBA team in the regular season. He had a lot of help, but he was the guiding force. And while I continue to agree that stats don't mean everything, they mean a lot. And an 83% winning percentage with Nash in the line-up, compared to a 29% winning percentage with him out of it says something (and don't forget those games included Quentin Richardson, Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson and Shawn Marion).

I don't believe Steve Nash is a top ten player in this league, a top five player at his position, or the best player on his team. But I believe, he is the Most Valuable Player of the Year (far different from best player). I feel Allen Iverson is probably the most valuable to his team, because no other team would tank as bad as the Philadelphia 76ers would if you took away their top star. But unfortunately, being successful and leading your team beyond expectations means something. That's why a guy like Iverson or LeBron James, both very valuable to their teams, should be taken out of consideration. And that's why Steve Nash should be considered.

And there might be ten guys who exemplify more heart and soul and leadership for their teams than Nash, but none of these players exemplified it and had a year that exceeded everyone's expectations. Let's face it: there isn't one person on this board who last November thought Steve Nash would be a top candidate for league MVP. The fact that he is MVP says enough about his season.

And whether or not you should win the Most Valuable Player of the Year Award based on whether your team has a shot at winning the championship at the end of the year is ridiculous. Peyton Manning has won the NFL MVP award for two-consecutive years, each year improving upon the previous and establishing his value to his team. Yet, nobody thought Indianoplis was the favorite to win the Super Bowl. Vladimir Guerrero of Anaheim won the MLB American League MVP Award last season, yet nobody expected Anaheim to pull of another surprise playoff run and defeat the New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, or a talented Minnesota Twins team. Alex Rodriguez didn't stand a chance the previous season, when he won the award playing for Texas.

This isn't an award that is to be given to the Player Most Likely To Win The NBA Championship This Season. Or else I would say the hell with Steve Nash or Shaquille O'Neal. That honor should go to Tim Duncan or Tayshaun Prince.

[Billy D]

Originally posted by tobynosker
This isn't an award that is to be given to the Player Most Likely To Win The NBA Championship This Season. Or else I would say the hell with Steve Nash or Shaquille O'Neal. That honor should go to Tim Duncan or Tayshaun Prince.
...or Nazr Mohommad and Darko Milicic. Why not?!!

Seriously though, I'm glad you brought the other stuff up because I've got several more lines of logic on my side.

First of all, I'd like a clarification: If the award is for the player most valuable to his team, why is your vote not for Allen Iverson? If it's for the player who has most defied expectations, then how did Jordan ever win an MVP?

It sounds as if you are voting for the player who combines those qualities, plus plays on a winning team-- to me, that's arbitrary and not what the MVP's about.

Also, the fact that Nash is replaceable by any quality true PG continues to be difficult to dispute. I'd wager that Luke Ridnour would've averaged 10 assists on this team.

Beyond that, I'd like to trot out some facts:

From 03-04 to 04-05, the Miami Heat lost two of their top three scorers yet improved their record by 17 games. Hmmmm.

From 03-04 to 04-05, the LA Lakers lost Shaq, Payton, Malone, and Fisher (two of those probably being addition by subtraction) and got worse by 22 games. Hmmmm.

From 03-04 to 04-05, the Suns added Steve Nash, Jim Jackson, Quentin Richardson, and 26 games more of Amare Stoudamire (a pretty good player) and won an extra 33 games. You can judge who had the biggest impact there.

The Suns lost Marbury during the 03-04 season, so he was partially responsible for the wins they got, but his absence also left a huge hole. No Amare or Marbury for the last 25 games or so-- that's why they tanked so badly.

In 02-03, the Suns won 44 games with a full season of Marbury and a very, very raw Amare. In other words, the pre-Nash Suns weren't so bad, and their only big loss was Marbury.

With the Heat this season, Udonis Haslem averaged nearly a double-double. Udonis Haslem!!

[tobynosker]

It sounds as if you are voting for the player who combines those qualities, plus plays on a winning team-- to me, that's arbitrary and not what the MVP's about.

Everyone wants to point out history for those who are selected as the Most Valuable Player of the Year. Here's a little bit of history:

2005 - Steve Nash - Phoenix finished with the best record in the Western Conference
2004 - Kevin Garnett - Minnesota finished with the best record in the Western Conference
2003 - Tim Duncan - San Antonio finished with the best record in the Western Conference
2002 - Tim Duncan - San Antonio finished with the second best record in the Western Conference
2001 - Allen Iverson - Philadelphia finished with the best record in the Eastern Conference
2000 - Shaquille O'Neal - Los Angeles finished with the best record in the Western Conference
1999 - Karl Malone - Utah finished with the third best record in the Western Conference
1998 - Michael Jordan - Chicago finished with the best record in the Eastern Conference
1997 - Karl Malone - Utah finished with the best record in the Western Conference
1996 - Michael Jordan - Chicago finished with the best record in the Eastern Conference

So eight of the last ten MVP winners were members of team's that finished with the best records in their respective conferences. And all ten were the most valuable player to his team, that excelled to new heights, and played for winning ballclubs. Arbitrary or not...winning means something.

Also, the fact that Nash is replaceable by any quality true PG continues to be difficult to dispute. I'd wager that Luke Ridnour would've averaged 10 assists on this team.

You want to talk about an arguement that is arbitrary. The possibilities that players like Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Tony Parker or possibly even Luke Ridnour could have done just as much or more with the Phoenix Suns this season than Steve Nash did, does not dispute what Steve Nash accomplished. Would Ridnour be averaging 10 or more assists per game like Nash did this season? Would Ridnour average a double-double like Nash did this season? Would Ridnour average close to four assists per turnover like Nash did this season? Would Ridnour shot over fifty-percent from the field like Nash did this season? All of this is up for debate.

But would the Miami Heat have won seventeen more games this season compared to last year had they had Yao Ming or Brad Miller or Dirk Nowitzki or Tim Duncan or Amare Stoudemire or Jermaine O'Neal or Zydranus Ilgauskas or Ben Wallace in place of Shaquille O'Neal? I agree, before anybody tries to shoot down my arguement for comparing Ilguaskas to O'Neal, that none of these guys are at the level of Shaquille O'Neal. But would the Miami Heat have had the chance of winning as many games this season with these guys as they did with Shaq?

The Miami Heat lost two of their top three scorers yet improved their record by 17 games...the Suns added Steve Nash, Jim Jackson, Quentin Richardson, and 26 games more of Amare Stoudamire and won an extra 33 games. You can judge who had the biggest impact there.

Actually, two of Miami's top three scorers from last season are still members of the team; Eddie Jones led the team in scoring and Dwayne Wade was third. Udonis Haslem getting more minutes per game (an extra 10.8 minutes per game) is the reason for his near double-double, because he wasn't too far off last season (he averaged over seven points and six boards a game behind Lamar Odom).

The Miami Heat won 67% of the games they played without Shaquille O'Neal in their line-up this season. The Phoenix Suns won 29% of their games they played without Steve Nash in their line-up this season. Judge that impact.

The Suns won 44 games with a full season of Marbury and a very, very raw Amare. In other words, the pre-Nash Suns weren't so bad, and their only big loss was Marbury.

The Miami Heat went 42-40 last season, and advanced to the second round of the playoffs, so the pre-Shaq Heat weren't so bad either. Sure they lost Odom, Caron Butler, Rafer Alston and Brian Grant in the offseason. But as I said above Haslem got the chance to improve and see more floor time, Dwayne Wade became a complete, all-around player, they signed a couple of decent off-the bench free-agents in Damon Jones and Keyon Dooling, and were also helped by a healthy Alonzo Mourning.

Plus they play in the same division as the two worst teams in the NBA, and the second place finisher in the division made the playoffs for the first time in eight years. The played in a weaker conference than Nash and the Phoenix Suns did, and I am still not too confident that the Miami Heat will be able to beat the Detroit Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals in a best-of-seven series (although if Detroit blows a first quarter lead like they did last night, anything's possible).

Shaquille O'Neal is certainly a deserving candidate every year (much like Michael Jordan was, although Malone and Charles Barkley picked up MVP honors), but this year his numbers were down all across the board. Can you tell me how you can justify not giving him an MVP trophy during his peak years, and then giving him an MVP trophy during one of the two weakest years in his career?

Steve Nash is a deserving candidate, and his numbers were career-highs. He's not the best player, but this year he is the Most Valuable Player of the Year.

[Billy D]

Looks like I stopped in at just the right time...
Originally posted by tobynosker
Everyone wants to point out history for those who are selected as the Most Valuable Player of the Year. Here's a little bit of history:

....(list of MVP winners)...

So eight of the last ten MVP winners were members of team's that finished with the best records in their respective conferences. And all ten were the most valuable player to his team, that excelled to new heights, and played for winning ballclubs. Arbitrary or not...winning means something
This logic, combined with picking the guy who defies expectations, is what drives many of the MVP votes. This is why the voting sucks.


Originally posted by tobynosker
But would the Miami Heat have won seventeen more games this season compared to last year had they had Yao Ming or Brad Miller or Dirk Nowitzki or Tim Duncan or Amare Stoudemire or Jermaine O'Neal or Zydranus Ilgauskas or Ben Wallace in place of Shaquille O'Neal? I agree, before anybody tries to shoot down my arguement for comparing Ilguaskas to O'Neal, that none of these guys are at the level of Shaquille O'Neal. But would the Miami Heat have had the chance of winning as many games this season with these guys as they did with Shaq?
No. (that's an easy one)


Originally posted by tobynosker
Actually, two of Miami's top three scorers from last season are still members of the team; Eddie Jones led the team in scoring and Dwayne Wade was third. Udonis Haslem getting more minutes per game (an extra 10.8 minutes per game) is the reason for his near double-double, because he wasn't too far off last season (he averaged over seven points and six boards a game behind Lamar Odom).
Sorry, I meant to say three best players, not three top scorers-- good catch.


Originally posted by tobynosker
Shaquille O'Neal is certainly a deserving candidate every year... but this year his numbers were down all across the board. Can you tell me how you can justify not giving him an MVP trophy during his peak years, and then giving him an MVP trophy during one of the two weakest years in his career?
Uh, I would've given him several more MVPs in his peak years. I can't fix the past.

[Billy D]

Originally posted by tobynosker
You want to talk about an arguement that is arbitrary. The possibilities that players like Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Tony Parker or possibly even Luke Ridnour could have done just as much or more with the Phoenix Suns this season than Steve Nash did, does not dispute what Steve Nash accomplished. Would Ridnour be averaging 10 or more assists per game like Nash did this season? Would Ridnour average a double-double like Nash did this season? Would Ridnour average close to four assists per turnover like Nash did this season? Would Ridnour shot over fifty-percent from the field like Nash did this season? All of this is up for debate.
Well, here's where the argument is clinched for me. Nash had great stats because of his team, but didn't play much better than Mike Bibby or Tony Parker. If you're replaceable, then you're not valuable. Nash is pretty much replaceable. Thus, he's not the MVP in my mind.

[tobynosker]

This logic (winning), combined with picking the guy who defies expectations, is what drives many of the MVP votes. This is why the voting sucks.

Steve Nash may be replaceable (and I agree he is), but again he had a better year, exceeded everyone's expectations and lead his team to a thirty-three game turnaround (remember, a twenty-nine perecent winning percentage without him) and the best record in the NBA, while playing in the toughest Conference. I haven't heard one arguement against him.

All I have heard is speculation that Nash is replaceable, but while you think it sucks to vote based on performance, winning and excelling, I think it sucks to vote based on speculation.

And my point is Shaquille O'Neal is replaceable as well, and shouldn't be the Most Valuable Player of the Year because of it. And again, I am not saying O'Neal is not the most dominate player in the game, because there is two other guys I would rather have on my team; Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. And that mostly has to with age at this point, because neither are at O'Neal's level at his peak.

But the Miami Heat have now won 70% of the games they have played without O'Neal in the line-up, including a second-round playoff victory on the road. How valuable is he to your team when you can win 70% of your games without him, including on the road in the playoffs?

And for a team that has won 70% of their games without him (and won 72% of their games all season), how can you tell me that the Miami Heat wouldn't have done just as well with Yao Ming, Tim Duncan, Amare Stoudemire, Jermaine O'Neal or Ben Wallace in place of Shaquille O'Neal?

[Marc]

Just look at how the Heat are manhandling with Wizards without Shaq. The Suns have struggled without Nash. You can be hypothetical and say it's the other Suns players getting better around Nash, but if you look at the actual results and evidence, it has to go Nash, with Shaq a close second.

[Billy D]

Friendly reminder about playoff matchups: the Mavs are much, much better than the Wizards (despite the loss of that one shaggy-haired PG guy they had last year)... besides that, i think i've made my arguments pretty clear and i believe they still stand.

I haven't been this fired up about an NBA MVP vote since that darn trucker dude won it...

[HibachiDG]

Billy D, where were you at last week??? I could have used you.

Marc, your argument flies out the window because the Suns don't have a reliable backup point guard, so they're obviously not going to win games with that offense without a reliable point guard.

Everyone agrees that that Suns offense needs a point guard to distribute the basketball to finishers. If you don't have anyone to distribute then the finishers aren't going to finish.

I love how people point that part of the argument out without realizing that the Suns being unsuccessful without Nash actually hurts their argument. If the Suns had a reliable drop back from Nash and they still lost...then yes...you would have a good argument that Nash should be the MVP.

But as it is, pointing out that the Suns lose games without Nash is just pointing out numbers without stopping to look at logic and reasoning.

[tobynosker]

The Suns don't have a reliable backup point guard, so they're obviously not going to win games with that offense without a reliable point guard. Everyone agrees that that Suns offense needs a point guard to distribute the basketball to finishers. If you don't have anyone to distribute then the finishers aren't going to finish...pointing out that the Suns lose games without Nash is just pointing out numbers without stopping to look at logic and reasoning.

I'm sorry I fail to follow logic and reasoning, but I have a hard time understanding how Nash is not the Most Valuable Player when the team that finished with the best record in the league fails to win games without him.

They don't have a reliable backup point guard, so that means Nash's value is probably higher than it should be. But again we have someone who is basing their arguement on speculation of what this team could do with a reliable backup point guard. The logic and reasoning in voting based on speculation is more flawed than anything. Instead of arguing against what he was able to accomplish, you argue for what somebody else might have been able to do. Without a reliable backup point guard, Steve Nash becomes the Most Valuable Player on his team, which finished with the best record in the league.

If everyone agrees that the Suns offense needs a point guard to win ballgames, again Nash becomes the Most Valuable Player on his team. So Steve Nash is the Most Valuable Player to a team that finished with the best record in the league and had the biggest turnaround of any club from last season. That to me sounds like a Most Valuable Player of the Year winner.

But the Miami Heat have an underrated starting five, and reliable backups that prove they can win ballgames without Shaquille O'Neal. So maybe I should change my vote, and we should probably award the Most Valuable Player of the Year to a guy who is easily replaced in the lineup and his team manages to still win 70% of the games he's not on the floor for.

Or we could easily argue Shaquille O'Neal isn't the Most Valuable Player to his own team, because in my own speculation, I believe the Miami Heat would have struggled in a road playoff game against Washington without Dwayne Wade rather than without Shaq. You're right, that sounds so much more valuable.

[doublee]

I am with toby I fail to follow that logic as well. Wouldn't the fact that they don't have a reliable backup make the player that much more valuable to the success of his team given the fact that they take a large step backwards performance-wise when he is not on the floor.

The success of the Heat without Shaq just goes to show that this is Wade's squad and not Shaq's. Shaq is the dominant personality, but the Heat clearly win or lose with Dwayne Wade, but I guess he is not as valuable as Shaq because they have 'Zo backing him up and they don't really have anyone worthwhile backing up Wade or he would have gotten a significant rest last game.

Toby is probably right when he says that the Heat are likely just as good, if not better, with more athletic guys like Amare and TD out there than when Shaq is on the floor.

[trayhezy]

The problem with MVP voting in the NBA is that it is more subjective than in other sports. Each voter (and fan for that matter) uses different criteria to make a choice as evidenced in this thread.

I personally don't give much credence to offensive stats if they don't translate into a decent (55%) win percentage so I had to toss out Kobe, AI, KG and Lebron who had great years stat wise.

I also dont think about who might be a title contender cause the playoffs are a different animal and there is an award for championship MVP. IMO only three teams have a chance to win the title: Detroit, Miami, SA, and with that focus it can hinder an MVP candidate so that lessens Duncan candidacy to me.



I like to judge it based on these lines:

1) Impact on his team based on improvement in the standings--Shaq and Nash took their teams to the top of the standings when they finished no where near the previous year, but the Suns made the biggest jump--slight edge to Nash

2) If player was a new acquisition, what happen to the old team--example: Barkley in 93, his new team became a title contender his old team fell to the lottery. Dallas is playing in the second round of the playoffs which is better than where they finished with Nash last year, on the other hand we won't mentioned how the Lakers did without Shaq.--Big edge to Shaq

3)How the team did without the player--The Heat minus Shaq, and the Spurs minus Duncan managed to win big games while the Suns without Nash fell off by over 12 PPG--Edge to Nash.

4)Ablity to keep MVP perfomance throughout the regular season--This is a regular season award and there is a reason that Shaq has only won one. Shaq is focused foremost on the playoffs. Wade can carry this team through the season and a few playoff games but for the Heat to win it all it starts and ends with the big guy. It's been at least five years since Shaq did not conserve himself during the year. Nash on the other hand had to play at a high level night in and night out because his young team could not sustain a high level of play without him.--Edge to Nash

Which leaves me with Steve Nash as MVP.

[HibachiDG]

Here it is, summed up, I wrote more, but it's this in more words than needed...

If everyone agrees that the Suns offense needs a point guard to win ballgames, again Nash becomes the Most Valuable Player on his team.

The point guard POSITION is needed to win. Not Steve Nash. I can't help you see the difference between the two.

One is a position which CAN NOT be replaced. The other is someone who you can fit into the part that can not be replaced.

Steve Nash is not VALUABLE because he can be replaced with a TON of guards.

The point on when Nash is out just goes to show you need a reliable guard in that system. The position and not the person is the thing of value and the reason why you can't give the award to Nash.

[tobynosker]

Toby, seems like you've approached this (through your logic, especially regarding Nash) as if the vote were for "Best Player" instead of "Most Valuable".

No, it seems to me everyone else has decided Shaquille O'Neal should win the award because he's the best player. I've said before, Steve Nash isn't one of the top ten players in the league, top five at his position, or even the best player on his team. But the award is not for the best player, it is for the Most Valuable Player in the 2004-2005 NBA Regular Season only.

The League's 'most valuable player' would be THE player that any coach would want on their team, if they could only choose one, and I'll bet if you polled the coaches, you'd get a damn near unanimous "I'll take Shaq".

Everyone wants to base their vote on speculation, and this is a prime example of that. What is the criteria that coaches would use when selecting their player? Are they only choosing for one season? Then maybe Shaquille O'Neal wouldn't be a bad choice. Are they choosing a player for the next five years? I'd then pass over O'Neal, and go with Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett. Are they deciding based on marketability? LeBron James would probably be number one on my list. Are they basing their choice on the player with the most potential? I'd put my money on Dwayne Wade.

The award, when given to a point guard, had been given with an OVERWHELMING burden of proof that the man getting the award was truly MVP ( only Magic and Cousy).

I understand. We shouldn't award Nash the MVP Award because Steve Nash isn't the future hall-of-famer like Bob Cousy or "Magic" Johnson were during their MVP days. It makes much more sense to forget what he was able to accomplish this season (that I have only seen argued by speculation), and only award players who had a career-lows this season, but are destined for the hall of fame. Because Most Valuable Player of the Year should really be renamed the Future Hall of Famer With An Outstanding Career Award. With this kind of logic, how would we decide the Most Improved Player of the Year?

Just look at how the Heat are manhandling with Wizards without Shaq. The Suns have struggled without Nash. You can be hypothetical and say it's the other Suns players getting better around Nash, but if you look at the actual results and evidence, it has to go Nash, with Shaq a close second.

Good arguement, but it will be tough to find people that look at the actual results and evidence. And even if the other Suns players are getting better around Nash, they are not performing without him. He must be somewhat valuable.

If the Suns had a reliable drop back from Nash and they still lost...then yes...you would have a good argument that Nash should be the MVP.

And how would we decide that the backup point guard is reliable if they still couldn't win? They can't win with the backup they've got, yet they are going to bring in a reliable backup and still not win? Where does the situation arise where he becomes reliable?

IMO only three teams have a chance to win the title: Detroit, Miami, SA, and with that focus it can hinder an MVP candidate so that lessens Duncan candidacy to me.

I wish I knew what was said here, but I don't. While I think Detroit, Miami, San Antonio and even Indiana have a better shot at winning the NBA Title this season, what makes the Phoenix Suns so easy to write off? I know they are terrible on defense, but they figured out how to win more games thany anybody else this season. O'Neal is struggling with injuries in the playoffs, and I know he would play if the series was close, but that is a question mark for Miami. Detroit is still my favorite to win for the second straight season, but after watching them blow a big first quarter lead to Indiana at home, and then losing two straight to fall behind in the series, the Pistons could have some trouble advancing to the Conference finals. San Antonio is my other favorite to advance, but they have shown that when they are struggling hitting shots in a game, it's tough for them to turn it around.

The Suns should still be considered a contender. Take a look at recent history: the New England Patroit upsetting the St. Louis Rams to win their first of three Super Bowls in the last four years. The Arizona Diamondbacks, the Anaheim Angels and the Florida Marlins pulling off major upsets to win the World Series. The Detroit Pistons upsetting the Los Angeles Lakers, with four hall of famers (come to think of it, they should have been giving the Most Valuable Player of the Year award for all being hall of famers on the same team) in five games.

I believe Phoenix has the least chance of anyone, but they still have a chance.

Steve Nash is not VALUABLE because he can be replaced with a TON of guards.

From now on I will start voting based on speculation as opposed to performance, because some believe it to be a better gauge. But it's already been proven throughout the regular season and in the playoffs that Shaquille O'Neal is easily replaceable not only by top centers in the league, but players on his own bench. So instead of knocking on Nash being easily replaceable, instead argue a player who deserves to be an MVP candidate more than Nash?

[Tarkus]

This argument is too subjective for me but I will point out one thing that is an intangible & not mentioned unless I missed it...

What Shaq has done for the Heat isn't as shallow as when he's on the floor but how he's helped his teammates raise the level of their play. An MVP doesn't make his teammates better when he's there only to fall on their face when he's not.

I'll leave on this note with one example...

When has Eddie Jones, who has failed to reach his projected potential thru-out his career, start hitting big shots routinely & playing IMO the best D of his career??

That one example can be directly traced to the confidence & passion instilled by Shaq IMO as with the rest of the Heat.....

[190 Octane]

The problem with Shaq as MVP - and before I go on, let me say if I was an NBA GM Shaq would or Duncan would be the one guy I'd most want - how can you give MVP to a guy who was arguably second-best on his own team?
I am of the opinion Dwayne Wade was a better all-around player than Diesel this season, so the fact that O'Neal finished second in the MVP voting should be chalked up as a major win for the big fella.

[Tarkus]

I wouldn't want (or have the energy..lol) to go 'round on that but just like having Shaq allowed Kobe the opportunity to jell, Shaq has given that same opportunity to Wade.

Wade would be getting better without Shaq but not at this rate IMO. It was known before that Wade was the key to the pre-Shaq Heat but without Shaq this year, teams would have overplayed him & I doubt that his maturity in his shot selection would have been the same.

Shaqs presence alone opens up opportunities & instills the swagger that I'm convinced would not have been there this year without him. If that alone was added to the MVP mix, in such a close race, Shaq would have got the nod.

Without Shaq, the Heat would have been in the playoffs but no way would they be amped to the point of not only winning the first 2 series but definitely not sweeping them. Hell, he's even got Mourning to come back to life & I thought that he was DOA.

& while the playoffs don't come into play in the regular season voting, this is the proof of making your teammates better IMO....

[doublee]

It is the TO factor. Shaq did for the Heat this year what TO did for the Eagles. Shaq came in larger than life with the NBA media's eyes focused on him and took all of the pressure off of Wade letting him do his thing without having reporters hounding him at every turn the way they do with Shaq.

[Tarkus]

Dead on & very true, Doublee...

I expect the phrase...TO factor...to come into many a sports discussion as a comparison type term in the up coming year. It definitely covers this one to a T (O)....lol

[tobynosker]

When has Eddie Jones, who has failed to reach his projected potential thru-out his career, start hitting big shots routinely & playing IMO the best D of his career??

I agree that this has been Eddie Jones' best season to date, although his first season in Miami in 2000-2001 was far more productive. Jones finally got to fall in more of a role player position, becoming the third person to look for on offense, as opposed to the first. Look at how his numbers have jumped from last year's playoffs, to this year's. Last year he averaged 13.2 ppg, 3.61 rpg, shot 30% from three-point range and 80% from the foul line. This year, 16.3 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 49% from three-point range and 65% from the foul line. Last year in the playoffs, he tried to do too much. Miami took a very good team in Indiana to a Game 6 in last year's Eastern Conference Semifinals, and Jones went 6 for 21 from the field in the loss to the Pacers.

His turnaround this season can be attributed to Shaquille O'Neal's arrival, but only because it takes less pressure off of Jones on offense. But Dwayne Wade does the same exact thing. Jones has been Miami's leading scorer for the previous four seasons, and definitely had to learn to adjust to not being the go-to-guy anymore. His first twenty-games this season, Jones averaged 10 points on 33.5% shooting. He finished the season with 12.7 ppg on 42.8% shooting. Playing with Shaquille O'Neal doesn't hurt, but everybody knew Jones would be a much better player and more comfortable with his abilities as a second or third offensive option.

It was known before that Wade was the key to the pre-Shaq Heat but without Shaq this year, teams would have overplayed him & I doubt that his maturity in his shot selection would have been the same.

I don't neccesarily disagree with your opinion, but watching him in these last two playoff games against the Washington Wizards (who, if they would have played to their potential, have one of the best backcourts in the NBA), I have a tough time believing Dwayne Wade wouldn't have been at this level with or without Shaquille O'Neal. The fact that in his rookie season, he was able to carry a Miami Heat team with veterans like Eddie Jones and Lamar Odom struggling, and take them to a Game 6 with a very good Indiana Pacers team in last year's playoffs proves he was a player ready to break out. If the Shaq trade never happened, and Odom and Carron Butler were still on this team, and Jones learned to adjust like he did this year, the Heat still would have been pretty tough to beat. No doubt Shaquille O'Neal is a huge plus (I always feel like I am posting anti-Shaq comments, when I truly like the guy), but I believe this Heat team would have matured and still made a strong run in the postseason.

Shaqs presence alone opens up opportunities & instills the swagger (in Dwayne Wade) that I'm convinced would not have been there this year without him. If that alone was added to the MVP mix, in such a close race, Shaq would have got the nod.

But again, this why I am happy that people don't vote based on speculation, and instead base on it performance. Dwayne Wade became a better player, possibly because of Shaquille O'Neal, but it's tough to award O'Neal an MVP Trophy when his numbers go down and Wade's numbers go up. Steve Nash helped contribute to Amare Stoudemire's numbers going up, while also increasing his own.

Shaq came in larger than life with the NBA media's eyes focused on him and took all of the pressure off of Wade letting him do his thing without having reporters hounding him at every turn the way they do with Shaq.

You could look at this another way though, and say the rest of the Miami Heat players became better because they learned to adjust their style of play to fit that of O'Neals. They could have crumbled under the pressure that was placed on them last offseason, but they were determined just as much as Shaquille to prove that they were every bit as good, if not better, than what people were predicting. To have a team like the Detroit Pistons, who defeated a Shaquille O'Neal led team in the NBA Finals last year, picked to lose to you in this year's Eastern Conference Finals because you now have O'Neal, seems like it would be a lot of pressure. Especially for inexperienced guys like Wade, Damon Jones or Udonis Haslem. But they elevated their game and seemed like a hungry team. I don't know if O'Neal took the pressure off of these players, or now that he is injured and having a down-year, put more pressure on them to perform at a high-level.

It is the TO factor. Shaq did for the Heat this year what TO did for the Eagles.

The Terrell Owens analogy doesn't work with me, because he came into a situation where the Philadelphia Eagles were only one win away from advancing to th Super Bowl for three consecutive years. Plus, I believe that the addition of Javonne Kearse on defense had just as much to do, if not more with the Philadelphia Eagles finally reaching the Super Bowl than Terrell Owens.

Another big difference though between T.O. and Shaq, is Terrell Owens improved on his stats from the previous season, while Shaquille O'Neal did not.

And it's tough to say a player makes the other guys around him that much better, when he's not on the floor or the field for the big playoff games. O'Neal misses two playoff games, and the Heat still win (Miami has now won 73% of the games that Shaq hasn't played in) two big road playoff games. T.O. misses the first three rounds of the NFL playoffs and the Eagles still manage to get over the hump that had alluded them for three consecutive seasons. It's a tough call to make, and it could easily be argued that Donavon McNabb or Dwayne Wade are just as important on their respective teams, if not more, than Owens or O'Neal.

[Shawndo]

Originally posted by Tarkus
This argument is too subjective for me

Agreed. :sleepy:

[Tarkus]

Toby, ya just gotta lay off the Wheaties. Don't you have any posts under 500 words??? :lol:

I personally don't rely on just stats since stats by themselves can be misleading at times. Of course they have a place but in most cases, they can be viewed & explained from different takes to bolster that opinion. I think that's why the MVP is as hard as any to get a clear cut "winner", if you will, since it's so subjective.

Yes, Jones is more suited as a 3rd option. Yes, Jones is playing better in this years playoffs. Yes, he came on strong the 2nd half of the season. However, just like I pointed out that stats can be used to bolster an opinion, I can see using them much differently than you have. I think the resurgence of Jones as an example is exactly what Shaq has brought. Yes, one of the things Shaqs presence has done is take away the spotlight & pressures that go along with it. That's what MVPs bring. It's not just on the floor but the whole package.

The Heat BELIEVE they can win the Title cuz they have the Diesel while I don't get that same feeling from the Suns that they BELIEVE they can win the Title cuz they have Nash. & while Nash makes the Suns click, I wouldn't expect anything less from the equivalent of a QB on the floor in the PG position. When Shaq is out, he's still on the bench which is still impacting his teammates. Plus were not talking about him being out a lot of games this year with him playing just 2 games less than Nash.

Somehow with the last Finals loss, I hear more & more how it's the downside of Shaqs career to the point that it seems the Mighty have fallen in a lot of peoples minds. I don't see the young Shaq out there but still THE only player in the league that is larger than life, still arguably the most dominant player in the league, & still the one player that can change the mentality & psyche of a team.

As far as the MVP, Shaq deferring to Wade while still garnering the oppositions first defense mentality isn't something I look at as his production's down but as a seasoned superstar who knows what it takes to win & will do just that. After going thru the Bryant fiasco & realizing how being at odds with Bryant cost the Lakers, he made sure to do the smart thing & before even checking into town, said publicly that he was coming to Wades team to help win a Title.

You attribute his presence as being helpful while I see it being essential to what they've accomplished so far. There's a big difference in being "tough to beat" & running the table so far. There are some who give Bryant more credit in the Title years but while his play was critical at times, the bottom line was what Shaq brought to the team that allowed those situations. Some forget that while their eyes are glued to what a Bryant or a Wade are doing with the ball, meanwhile the defense is predicated on not giving a career 57% (+/-) monster in the middle a chance for the pass & has offered up opportunities that aren't there otherwise. That's what an MVP does.

You call that speculation while I call it part of the criteria. Using a handful of games as a measuring stick just doesn't impress me much. Using those limited #s to quote a "73%" winning trend without Shaq just doesn't do it for me.

On top of all this, you yourself speculate that the Heat success this year would have come anyway (at least mostly) is exactly what you say is good that people don't do. I don't speculate on any player/teams success on potential. I need to see it proved to me & the Heat never gave the feel last year they were going to be something special & by their play were going to be tough & a playoff type team this year.

I personally never viewed nor heard that the MVP was just a stat sheet award & even then Shaqs #s are better overall tho you seem to penalize him cuz they weren't what he used to post in previous years. Isn't that voting with a skewed take with more than just this years totals in mind???

Winning breeds unity, confidence, & instills a Championship mentality which Shaq has brought to the Heat. I guess I just don't discount one of the last true superstars in the league with a wave of the hand & a "He did alright this year as a second scoring option". I still believe that Nash did a Helluva job this year & should be right up there but in 2nd place, not first...

2004-2005 Heat Regular Statistics



PLAYER AVERAGES
REBOUNDS
Player G GS MPG FG% 3p% FT% OFF DEF TOT APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG

Shaquille O'Neal 73 73 34.1 .601 .000 .461 3.50 6.90 10.40 2.7 .49 2.34 2.78 3.60 22.9

Steve Nash 75 75 34.3 .502 .431 .887 .80 2.60 3.30 11.5 .99 .08 3.27 1.80 15.5

On stats alone, Nash would seem to be in 2nd no matter how one looks at it IMO. So that leaves us with what?? Speculation...which is everyones interpretation of what else they bring to their team. I respect that you think Nash deserved it but I respectfully disagree.

Sorry this post is so disjointed. I had to do other things & came back to it repeatedly. I don't have your stamina, I guess...:D

[Billy D]

Interesting posts by several of you, this has really exploded again. I'd like to address them individually, but it'd take too long... so...

I'm finding it interesting that people seem to agree that the Heat (especially Wade) benefitted from a larger than life personality who happened to be a dominant #1 scoring option, while the Suns benefitted from a PG who can run the break. Hmmm... which do you think is easier to find?

Another point, I think speculation is necessary for picking the MVP unless you go solely on stats... in which case neither Nash nor Shaq would be your winner. Actually, based on stats, they probably wouldn't be the top votegetters from their own teams. Value (as in "Valuable") is subjective and requires speculation unless you put way too much value on the 8-10 games that each star missed and pay no attention whatsoever to off-the-court intangibles.

And finally, the logic that Nash is MVP because he doesn't have an adequate backup sounds more like a "no" vote for Suns GM as executive of the year than a "yes" vote for Nash as MVP. Am I wrong?

[Billy D]

Originally posted by Tarkus
The Heat BELIEVE they can win the Title cuz they have the Diesel while I don't get that same feeling from the Suns that they BELIEVE they can win the Title cuz they have Nash. & while Nash makes the Suns click, I wouldn't expect anything less from the equivalent of a QB on the floor in the PG position. When Shaq is out, he's still on the bench which is still impacting his teammates. I think this logic is great too-- i had completely ignored it. Great points.

[buckeyefan78]

Mr. MVP had a buncha points last night, which is exactly what Dallas wanted so they could win.

Mr. MVP FAILED to get his team involved on offense ( confidence on O leads to energy on D, where PHX lost the game last night).

Mr. MVP had 3 or 4 assists and 9 turnovers. OUTSTANDING !

Mr. MVP had his team roughed up by the Mavs...ummm...yeah...the Mavs...when Joe Johnson went to the ER. Then, the Suns ( and Nash should do it himself or give out the order) fail to put a Maverick in the hosptial ( shades of Magic lowering the boom on Isiah dance in my head). Yeah, I know the Joe Johnson play isn't dirty at all in replay, but the fact is there is a Sun out for the series.

Oh yeah, this guy is good :rolleyes:

Shaq allows Wade to control the game (more shades of Kareem handing the team over to Magic) and some guys (namely toby) jump all over stats or other issues, while ignoring the bigger picture (the ring).

I need 30 and 15 from Nash next game while getting his team to play at both ends of the floor as well as Maverick on a stretcher (thinking Josh Howard by last night's performance, he went where he wanted, when he wanted).

I know, I know...it's not the regular seaon before anyone cries about that. Problem is, anyone with understanding of how the game works would be able to predict this outcome based on the regular season performances of Nash, Shaq, and Duncan (btw who needs to lay Ray Allen out if you ask me). MVP used to be about that. It's why in 1990, Barkley almost got it over Magic ( 11 more first place votes). People could see he was at a point where he was going to take his team far in the playoffs (although Magic won it and deserved it).

MVP was kind of a predicting vice back then, kinda like in 88 when Jordan won it. Although the media was wrong ( so was I,back then I thought the Bulls had as good a chance as Detroit to beat Boston) about Jordan being ready to win, all indications in the regular season pointed to just that.

Now that was Jordan and Barkley in my two examples. Anyone here honestly think Phoenix has a chance in hell of winning the Finals? God, I hope not.

[Brad O.]

This is the same old Chamberlain or Russell (or maybe Big O) argument the NBA had decades ago.

If you go by stats, it's Shaq. Or if it's the best player, you take Shaq ahead of Nash, even if you don't think he's #1 overall. The more subjective you get, the more likely you are to go with Nash. The fact is -- and everyone here (except Doug) seems to be acknowledging this, although most of the media won't -- that compelling arguments can be made for both players.

I don't have an opinion on this year's MVP, but I will say I think Wilt and Kareem got robbed of quite a few MVP awards.

[tobynosker]

I hate to continue to argue about this, because I know neither of us are planning on budging on our stance. And we shouldn't for that matter. But, the Most Valuable Player of the Year should be awarded to a player for overall contributions to his team's success. I agree that it is more than just stats. And in my personal opinion, Steve Nash's overall contributions to his team's success was greater than Shaquille O'Neal's contributions to his team's success.

O'Neal made Dwayne Wade a better and more confident player, and Eddie Jones has benefited from having Shaq in the lineup. But Amare Stoudemire benefited from having Nash in the lineup. So did Quentin Richardson and Shawn Marion. Proof of that is shown in how they play without him. Phoenix's offense does need a strong point guard, and regardless of whether it's the position or the player that's more important, the value of what Nash brought to this team is undeniable.

And Nash is the leader of this ballclub. Phoenix probably doesn't have the best shot at winning a championship, but the Most Valuable Player of the Year shouldn't necessarily be awarded to someone who does. The Most Valuable Player of the Year should be awarded to someone who does give their team the best possible shot at winning in the playoffs. The Suns earned a number one overall seed and home-court throughout the playoffs, thanks to Nash. And you can't tell me that Phoenix wouldn't have had any easy go of it with New Jersey and Washington in the playoffs. And you can't tell me that Miami would have had an easy go of it against Dallas in the second round. Because I don't believe it.

I know stats mean very little to everyone else, but a thirty-three game turnaround, the best finish in the league, winning less than thirty percent of the games that you are not in the lineup, and putting up career numbers ought to be part of a player's value. O'Neal was certainly valuable to the Miami Heat, but the Heat would have been a playoff team with or without Shaq. And where would Miami be if Shaquille was in the lineup and he wasn't putting up the second lowest totals of his career?

Phoenix got more than they had hoped for with Nash. He became a leader, turned them into a contender (regardless of what others may say, they are in contention), brought them not only back to the playoffs, but to the top of the league. That's value. Miami got the most dominate player in the game, who failed to exceed expectations.

If anything, O'Neal should be named the Team Player of the Year, because that is what everybody is basing their opinion on. He was a leader, unselfish and made everyone else around him better. But Nash was also a leader, unselfish and made everyone else around him better. Beyond that, stats start to become a variable. O'Neal dropped consistently across the board, while Nash consistently jumped. That shows some value. One team plays just fine without the other, while another struggles. That shows some value. And although Nash's team still lacks respect in the playoffs (hey...I don't see them advancing past this round), he is the driving force for a team that exceeded everyone's expectations and did all they could to insure them the best possible route to a championship. That is how I base value.

Shaq allows Wade to control the game and some guys (namely toby) jump all over stats or other issues, while ignoring the bigger picture (the ring).

Yes, because O'Neal and Wade have so many championship trophies together...

I guess we all missed the bigger picture last year when deciding the MVP because I'm sure nobody had Ben Wallace as their pick. Or how about Chauncey Billups. Or Tayshaun Prince. Yes, the ring should decide everything in sports.

We should now award the Most Valuable Player of the Year to the guy who was the most valuable player on the championship team. We should now award the Coach of the Year to the guy who was the coach on the championship team. We should now award Rookie of the Year to the best rookie on the championship team. We should now award the Most Improve Player of the Year to the most improved player on the championship team. Or the Defensive Player of the Year to the best defensive player on the championship team. Because after all, the ring should decide everything.

I think it would hurt the league in the long run though, considering only seven different organizations have won championships in the last twenty-five years. What do the rest of the NBA fans have to look forward to, considering their team stands no chance at a title, therefore receives no accolades? Remember, I am a Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs fan. I know how easy it is to look forward to nothing when the postseason rolls around.

Yes, Nash has made a couple of poor decisions so far, but he is involved in a playoff series with a strong Dallas team that he has a lot of history with. O'Neal fouling out of one game against the Wizards and then sitting out the next two isn't necessarily benefitting his team either. Luckily for Miami, they have proven to be a good team without him on the floor.

Tell me buckeye, what more could Steve Nash have done to get his team in the best possible position to make a run for the title? Because, I personally don't think he could have done much more.

[Billy D]

Toby, i wish you had quit that last post halfway through-- i think we've knocked you off your rocker. So i'll ignore the second half of the post. But as for the first half...
Originally posted by tobynosker
Phoenix got more than they had hoped for with Nash. He became a leader, turned them into a contender (regardless of what others may say, they are in contention), brought them not only back to the playoffs, but to the top of the league. That's value. Miami got the most dominate player in the game, who failed to exceed expectations.

[...] And although Nash's team still lacks respect in the playoffs (hey...I don't see them advancing past this round), he is the driving force for a team that exceeded everyone's expectations and did all they could to insure them the best possible route to a championship. That is how I base value.
I have to wonder why you chose Nash as MVP rather than Ray Allen or Kirk Hinrich or Larry Hughes. Talk about teams that exceeded expectations! And players that had career years to boot (the last two anyway). (Seriously, look at your last 10 posts, replace "Nash" with "Hinrich" and "Suns" with "Bulls". This is like that old Dark Side of the Moon/Wizard of Oz thing-- the coincidence is amazing.)

But, alas, i know you're only looking at the top 3-4 teams in the NBA, then deciding which one most exceeded expectations, then deciding which player on that team most exceeded expectations. This is how the MVP is chosen, you layed this out before and you are right. But it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong. How did Jordan ever win an MVP? He rarely exceeded expectations-- they were so high!

And everybody, please, leave the playoffs out of it. Can we agree (i thought we did) that the playoffs are not part of the MVP logic?

[Billy D]

Okay, this doesn't make me any more right (or wrong) but this is the first time i've seen a member of the media not from Philly say Iverson was more valuable than Nash. He also says Shaq should've won over Nash with some of my reasoning (as well as some I don't agree with). Interesting reading from Bill Simmons:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/cowbell/blog
(it's a blog, so after a few days the op-eds i'm referring to will be buried-- read now!)

[buckeyefan78]

toby...

So since only 7 organizations have won a title in the last 25 years, they should be exempt from the individual awards? Makes no sense.

No clue what the history of Nash with Dallas has to do with his poor play. Fill me in there.

Luckily for Miami, they have proven to be a good team without him on the floor? Yeah, that's right. Builds confidence. Only put them at "good" level, not great. I'm not saying Shaq getting injuried was planned, but building confidence by the role players is going to benefit Miami in the long run.

What could Steve Nash have done to make his team better you ask? NOTHING. Mediocre players with no ability to lead take their teams no where, exactly where Phoenix is going. Just when you think Shaq could do no more, or when Duncan could do no more, or when MJ could do no more, THEY DID. Nash has one gear, not another higher one like the real MVP's of this league.

The playoffs are part of the MVP logic, or just to be. Like I said before, it was a predicting device of sorts.

[tobynosker]

So since only 7 organizations have won a title in the last 25 years, they should be exempt from the individual awards? Makes no sense.

No it doesn't make sense, and that's not what I said. You said...

Shaq allows Wade to control the game and some guys (namely toby) jump all over stats or other issues, while ignoring the bigger picture (the ring).

The big picture in your mind should not be the reason to decide the MVP. That's why I said what does the rest of the NBA fans have to look forward to, considering their team stands no chance at a title, therefore receives no accolades. And what does a player like Steve Nash have to do to not be dismissed so quickly even though he had a career year and improved his team to take them to the top of the Western Conference?

And we also shouldn't use the MVP award to predict who will win in the playoffs, because again why wouldn't Tim Duncan or Tayshaun Prince have won the award? Because I'm still not convinced that San Antonio and Detroit won't meet up in the finals.

What could Steve Nash have done to make his team better you ask? NOTHING. Mediocre players with no ability to lead take their teams no where, exactly where Phoenix is going. Just when you think Shaq could do no more, or when Duncan could do no more, or when MJ could do no more, THEY DID. Nash has one gear, not another higher one like the real MVP's of this league.

Let's see: Nash led his team to the best record in the Western Conference, and in the NBA, insuring the Phoenix Suns homecourt advantage throughout the entire playoffs. He is averaging 7.1 more points per game from the regular season to the playoffs, and also has more assists and rebounds per game. He is shooting better from the field in the playoffs, and continues to shoot over 90% from the foul-line. He is picking up the slack with Joe Johnson out of the lineup, and posted a triple-double last night in a come-from-behind victory over Dallas to put them one game out of the Western Conference Finals. I say he has done all he could, and has proven to be the leader of this ballclub. Tell me who is more valuable to his team so far in the playoffs: Nash or Shaq?

On to Bill Simmons' article.

The main reason people voted for Nash was a fundamentally flawed premise: The Suns won 29 games last year, they won 62 games this year, and because their fast-break offense revolves around Nash, and they struggled without him, that makes him the MVP.

I agree that their were a lot of factors in the turnaround from last year's Phoenix Suns tean to this year's Phoenix Suns team. Amare Stoudemire was injured. They traded away Stephon Marbury. They didn't have a bench that could provide quality minutes when needed. I agree with all of that. But...

Both teams had Stoudemire and Joe Johnson, although they're twice as good as they were in 2003...Phoenix has four of the best 30 guys in the league. Dallas has one. Which team would you rather play for?

So Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion and Quentin Richardson are four of the top 30 guys in the league? Stoudemire and Johnson became twice as good this season? Simmons also acknowledge that Marion became more effective, and somehow none of this correlates with the signing of Steve Nash? Nash had no part in making Amare or Joe better or more comfortable in their role? Nor did he have the same effect with Marion? And considering two of these guys were apparently twice as bad last season, and the team was far removed from the playoffs at the end of last year, give me one reason to choose Phoenix over Dallas last June.

Again, I know they were lots of factors that went into Phoenix becoming a competitve team, but most of those factors are fueled by having Steve Nash.

How can someone so dominant end up winning one MVP over the past 13 years? You don't think there has been a bias against Shaq over the years?

I agree with Bill Simmons that every year at the beginning of the season the MVP Award is either Shaquille O'Neal's to win or lose based on the type of season he has. The same case happened with Michael Jordan during the height of his career, and that's why we have seen the Tim Duncans, the Kevin Garnetts, the Karl Malones and the Charles Barkleys win MVP Awards while most would argue the dominance of Jordan or O'Neal far exceeds these players.

Also, Damon Jones wouldn't have signed there, and there's no way Dooling, Anderson, Laettner and Mourning would have taken massive paycuts. Why doesn't Shaq get credit for these things?

Because this sounds more like a front office award to me. Everyone knows players (besides maybe Kobe) would love to play alongside of Shaq, and that's why the front office made the move to bring him in. They knew by trading for O'Neal, they would immediately become the favorite in the Eastern Conference, would establish an inside game they have been lacking, would provide a veteran who could help bring Dwayne Wade to the top-tier in the league, move Eddie Jones to the third offensive option bettering his game, and probably get some decent free-agents willing to play with him. Does O'Neal deserve credit for these things? Yeah. Gary Payton and Karl Malone took paycuts to play alongside O'Neal in their quest for a championship. Phil Jackson decided to coach the Los Angeles Lakers because he thought they had a great crop of talent that could win. Does O'Neal deserve credit for these things? Certainly. Why didn't he earn Most Valuable Player when these things took place? Because while it shows his value, it also hurts his value. Now you get great coaches, now you get decent backups, now you find role players fitting into a system and a young talent who is ready to breakout with some guidance. You find people determined to succeed regardless of the amount of money they are being payed. These are things that help this team win when O'Neal is out of the lineup, decreasing his value although most of it took place because he came into the system. This sounds like more of a front-office move, and could be argued in a case for Executive of the Year.

And none of these things appear in Simmons' philosophy on how to define an NBA MVP. But how he does define an MVP isn't any better. Who was the most dominate player in the league is not the same as the most valuable player in the league. Dominance and value mean two entirely different things. Steve Nash wasn't even the most dominate player on his team, but you would be hardpressed to argue he wasn't the most valuable player to the Phoenix Suns.

As far as what player had the biggest all-around impact on his team, Simmons felt without Shaquille O'Neal the Miami Heat would have been a below .500 team, while Phoenix probably would have been above .500 without Nash. And while most seem to disagree with this notion, I'll continue to go back to it. Miami has won 73% of their games without O'Neal in the lineup, while Phoenix has won 29% of their games without Nash in the lineup. Would Miami have sustained that winning percentage, or would Phoenix have found other ways to win? That's up for debate. This is why I feel the award should rely more on the facts as they are presented. We have proof of a player's value as far as winning ballgames is concerned. Why debate about what didn't happen?

And some other arguements of his that hold very little validity with me include which guy will stand out 10 years from now, only future Hall of Famers should win the MVP Award, and who we would most want as the captain of our team in a pickup game. This isn't the award for the Most Valuable Player over the course of a decade, nor is it the Most Valuable Player likely to make it to the Hall of Fame. It's the Most Valuable Player of the Year. It should be decided on only one year of performance. Just one.

With the 2005 Suns, Nash's unselfishness raised everyone else's games, and it's something you can't measure with statistics.

And this is the point I tried to make earlier, but Bill Simmons did a much better job of making it for me. Nash made everyone else around him better, much like O'Neal did this season. That's one part of the voting criteria on how I decide an MVP. Both guys improved their respective teams from where they were a season ago. That's another part of the voting criteria. Both guys did the best they could to get their respective teams in the best possible position to make a run for the title. That should be another part of the voting criteria. But only one guy raised his stats from last season (even though Simmons doesn't see it as a big enough jump to be noted), while another dipped to the second lowest of his career. And only one guy exceeded expectations, while the other didn't play to the potential he has provided to his teams in past seasons. Those two things I also consider when selecting my MVP choice, and that's how I arrive at Steve Nash with Shaquille O'Neal finishing second.

How did Jordan ever win an MVP? He rarely exceeded expectations

No, but he meets the rest of my criteria. He made everyone else around him better, continued to keep his team at the top of the Eastern Conference and did the best he could to put his team in the best possible position to win. He is in the same boat as O'Neal, and everyone once in a while a Barkley or Malone comes along and meets the rest of the criteria and grabs the award. We can admit Barkley and Malone are not better than Jordan, but this is how I feel the won their MVP Awards.

I have to wonder why you chose Nash as MVP rather than Ray Allen or Kirk Hinrich or Larry Hughes. Talk about teams that exceeded expectations!

All of these guys had fantastic years as well, but didn't meet all of the criteria I just presented above. And some consideration should also be giving to winning (hence the giving their team the best shot scenario), and teams like Chicago and Washington didn't necessarily give their team the best shot to win, as opposed to teams like Cleveland and Philadelphia and New Jersey struggling to keep their seasons alive. And with teams like Indiana struggling early on, and the Eastern Conference being the weaker of the two conferences, the door of opportunity opened for other clubs. Ray Allen didn't necessarily exceed expectations, just the team as a whole did. Nash exceeded expectations in everyone's eyes, whether they want to admit it or not, because he is an MVP candidate. Even Bill Simmons argued with himself in his article enough to award the guy a third place finish by the end of the column.

[Billy D]

Well, Tobynosker, I'm glad you pointed out some things we agree on so that i can give this a happy ending (for me) and stop getting my panties in a bunch... for this topic.

We agree that the MVP has nothing to do with the "most dominant" player, has nothing to do with how they'll be remembered 10 years from now, should not be used to predict playoff success, and should take into account factors other than stats, especially the way they make teammates better. We agree on some more peripheral stuff as well. That's good.

However, to avoid so much arguing next year, i'd like a ruling from David Stern on a few disputed items (he reads this board, right?).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Commissioner Stern:

1) A player who is unreplaceable is valuable. Which is a more important way to judge replaceability: how replaceable the player is on his own roster, or how replaceable he is by other players in the league? (Toby said own roster, I say the whole league)

2) Does "exceeding expectations" have anything to do with a player's value to their team? (I say no, Toby said yes)

3) Should players on the top teams in each conference get first dibs on the MVP award? (e.g., a lynchpin player on the #1 seed is more valuable than the key player on a #8 seed if they're equally important to their teams) (I say no, Toby implied yes)

Thank you for your assistance, sir. We'll be in touch.

Billy D
Sports Central Message Board User

[Billy D]

Mr. Stern? Paging David Stern...

Not to stir the pot, but those interested in my oft-stated claim that Shaq should've won more MVP awards in the past got some nice ammo, thanks to David Schoenfeld's research:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=schoenfield/050518&num=0

By the way, he hasn't totally convinced me. Nice arguements though.