Steve Nash

[Jwaksman]

I just looked through the NBA thread and saw nothing about the Nash MVP vote. I'm really surprised this didn't come up. What do you guys think about that?



In my opinion, he would never have won this award if he wasn't a white, scraggly looking guy. I don't mean to sound like TD, but let me give a few pieces of evidence for this idea:


1) He doesn't play defense. How can someone be the "most valuable" player if he's such a burden on one end of the floor?

2) This thing about how much the Phoenix record improved this year is kind of a fraud. 2 years ago Phoenix was an up and coming young team that won 44 games and took the Spurs (probably the best team in the league that year) to 6 games in the playoffs. Last year they were awful cause Amare Stoudamire was hurt. Now all those young guys are more mature. They could still have had Stephan Marbury at point and won 55 games this year.

3) Dallas lost Nash during the offseason, added Erik Dampier, and had a better record. What does that say about Nash's value?


Now, I do think that true point guards are vastly underrated. BUT, no true point guard has won MVP in about 20 years. You're telling me he's better than John Stockton or Jason Kidd in their primes??? Not even close.



Nash is simply in a perfect system. He has so many good players around him (I think Stoudamire is the best player on that team, not Nash), and they push so much, that I could put on a Phoenix uniform and get 7 assists per game. It's like Kurt Warner on the Rams. Yeah, Warner put up great stats, but then he gets injured one game and Trent Green comes in and throws for 350 yards and 3 touchdowns. It was the system - not Warner.



Now, Nash is the kind of guy that people want to like. He's the underdog - the scrappy, tiny white guy with un-combed hair. He doesn't look like a thug. He hasn't raped any women or had 12 children with 6 different women.


Unfortunately, there were too many valuable people this year. Some people who were more valuable this year:

1) Lebron. He was that entire team. They won like 37 or 38 games this year. His second best player was Zadrunas Igauskas (I know I spelled it wrong, but I don't want to look it up...). That team would have won 10 games without him.

2) Garnett. Again, he was that entire team. Think they would have been even close to the playoffs without him? Also, he had to control so many huge egos, he was basically the coach of that team as well.

3) Shaq. Obvious reasons.

4) Nowitzki. He loses Nash (supposedly the MVP), and makes his team better? He definitely was the center of the team with (I think) the 5th best record in the league.

Unfortunately, none of those guys are lovable, scraggly white guys. Nowitzki is white, but he's European, so it doesn't count :D


The way the MVP vote should have been:

1) Lebron
2) Shaq
3) Garnett
4) Nowitzki
5) Duncan
6) Iverson
7) Nash
8) McGrady
9) Kidd
10) Wade

[Dyenimator]

Check the Playground.

[king99]

Nash was HUGE difference maker on a team that was directionless..run and gunners.

he makes them legit, and if you think Dirk is all that, and he pretty much is, with Nash you might be seeing their revamped team in finals.

Shaq IS the biggest difference maker in the league..as much as i do not like his game..when you have him you get to finals or close. They let him bump and knock guys out of the way, which I hate, but he is the most dominant guy for maybe another year , two max.

[Cocca]

I'm actually mildly surprised Shaq did not win the MVP this year. The reason being is because I think that many people seem to forget how good shaq is, it is almost like he might get under appreciated because everyone expects Shaq to be a dominant force and with this year having Shaq going from LA to Miami and seeing how LA jsut imploded and how Miami thrived would have higlighted his importance to a team. And to anyone who says it is because of his size that he is so dominant, then why don't they just recuit some athletic linemen or linebackers and have them play center.

[mzungu]

the argument about the dallas mavericks is based on selective evidence. dallas lost nash and gained not only eriq dampier, but also jerry stackhouse, jason terry (just scored 30), and keith van horn. josh howard was also improved in his, i believe, second year in the league. meanwhile, no one on phoenix could get 7 assists in a game OTHER than steve nash--no one before nash got there in the marbury-nash interregnum and no one when nash was injured. nash is a perfect fit with the suns. he is the straw that stirs the drink and he made joe johnson better and amare stoudemire and shawn marion. it is not that nash is himself the greatest nba player by any stretch of the imagination. but add him to the suns, and you get 62 wins, plus the transition was incredible in wins--when phoenix had health last year they didn't win a high percentage of their games. In my view, shaq is always the mvp, but his numbers were down this year and we can see just how good dwyane wade is. wade led the team to the sweep with shaq out the last two games. top ten players in the league don't include nash, but when you build a team, there is probably only one other real point guard you'd put ahead of him this year.

[Jwaksman]

I'm not questioning whether he's a good player (he certainly is). But if he's not one of the 10 best players, or even the best at what he does (being a pure point guard) how can you call him the most valuable player?


Adding Erick Dampier and Jason Terry is not as much as adding a healthy Amare Stoudamire (putting up double the numbers he did on the 44-win Phoenix team of 2 years ago) as well as Quentin Richardson.


With a healthy Stoudamire and Richardson added to the 44-win team of two years ago (not to mention the added maturity of players like Johnson & Marion) there's no way that you could suggest that this Suns team was going to win less than 50 or 55 games even with a horrid point guard. So, what did Nash add? 5? 10 wins? Don't you think that someone like Lebron James or Kevin Garnett or Shaq added more than 10 wins to their team?

When an MVP leaves a team, he should leave a crater (like Shaq did to LA and Lebron will do if he ever leaves Cleveland). Nash did not leave a crater at Dallas. Shaq was traded for Lamar Odom, Brian Grant, and atleast one other decent player, and his team won 20 less games. When Nash gets (effectively) traded for Erick Dampier, Jason Terry & Jerry Stackhouse, his team should not get better...

[king99]

again..jwaks..I get what you are saying..

BUT..with NO Nash..that team would be a bunch of Code Red Street ball types running around(oh they would win many games by the way dunking wildly) directionless..I think MOST agree with this..

and at this point Dwayne Wade is as good a player overall as I see IN the league..and he carried team for WAYYYYYY multiple stretches.

[Jwaksman]

But it seems like what you're arguing is that Nash is an important part of a very good team. I'm not arguing with that. What I'm saying is that there are a bunch of other players like that. And when you are talking about the Most Valuable Player you have to look at all of those.


Would Phoenix have won 55 games with Stephan Marbury as their point guard? Probably. Would Cleveland have won 20 games with Marbury in there instead of Lebron? Probably not. That makes Lebron more valuable than Nash. It doesn't mean that Nash isn't valuable, just that he isn't the most valuable.

[Sweat]

I say Nash deserves it. But that would mean John Stockton deserved it too when he played, they are very similar in my opinion. Shaq deserved more than just 1 MVP award through his career so far though.

I like Nash though and he deserved it. I would have voted McGrady though (obviously).

[jrun]

BUT..with NO Nash..that team would be a bunch of Code Red Street ball types


What's that, now?!! Code red? Is that a king99-ism? ha. I like it.

[Cocca]

again..jwaks..I get what you are saying..

BUT..with NO Nash..that team would be a bunch of Code Red Street ball types running around(oh they would win many games by the way dunking wildly) directionless..I think MOST agree with this..

Well the code red team does have the professor :p (For all the people that have actually seen them a few times)

[king99]

very good analogy..too funny!! :D

[mzungu]

see, when people say it's racism or at least a low key preference for white guys, and objectors to this argument nonetheless comment that the suns without nash would be playing streetball like the guys on tv, AND then someone comments that code red DOES have the professor, who just HAPPENS to be the only white guy on the street ball crew, and Nash is the only white guy among the top nine players on the suns, then you just lend credence to the race arguments. Also, when you say that you like nash, that again supports the belief that personal liking, which seems to be correlated with race to a certain extent, is behind this, not MVP-criteria.

rex chapman said, "What mainly lends it credence, gives it some merit, is the MVP voting was close. You know, I grew up in a place (Owensboro, Ky.) where racism is an epidemic. I'm not talking about 20 years ago. I'm talking to this day. Drive through the South. But it's not just the South. [It's] other parts of this country, rural areas – hell, in the cities. It doesn't take but just a handful [to swing the vote]."

On the other side, however, it has to be said that jwaksman is dealing with selective evidence EVEN AFTER I POINTED OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DALLAS ADDED. He says that dallas only added dampier, and I point out that they added dampier, terry, stackhouse, and van horn; then, he says that dallas added dampier and terry. Well, to give a fair argument, you have to acknowledge the FOUR major players they brought in. and i didn't even mention the rookie devin harris, who provided some bench support. Phoenix with Marbury would win 55 games? I don't know. Marbury has never come close to 55 since he left KG. Stoudemire is improved and you know what? Nash is a big part of his improvement, plus Nash won the assist title easily this year, while being a much better shooter than Jason Kidd, and Nash did just score 48 against the Mavericks. In other words, I think that there is a strong case to be made for Nash for MVP.
1. The winner is probably legitimately someone whose team gets into the playoffs and usually is among the top four in victories.
2. The winner plays 70 games or more usually (shaq did not, i believe)
3. The winner leads the league in at least one major category (often points and/or rebounds, assists seems legitimate--shaq won in fg%, which is a key category)
4. The winner improves his team a lot by his presence (phoenix improved by 33 games, their record wasn't very good when nash was out, and they weren't that good when healthy the previous year).

That said, I'd take Shaq, Wade, KG, Duncan, and many other people over Nash as a player, including Amare Stoudemire.

[king99]

Ohh come on ..seriously race has nothing to do with it..

The guy made a funny analogy after I said something about the WAY the Suns play..NOT each and every GUY

Before Nash, this team was directionless..I don't care if Nash is white or NOT..

Has zero bearing oin anything..I am not sure he IS the MVP.all I said and I totally disaagree with someone else..who said they would win 55 without Nash? Is that Nash makes them that much better.

They already had a shoot first, pass second guy in Marbury..look where that took them?

Ohh wait a minute..now I am a racist becuase Marbury is black?

Nope, Nash is just a player who makes others better, anyone and everyone acknowledges this who knows the game.

If you want to know how importatnt Nash is..all you have to do is pick up certain nuances in how players on his team treat him.

Whn any guy gets a rebound..OR are on perimter..they immediately..almost force feed the ball to Nash to get something going..watch how many times they will "hand off" outside the top of the circle, even with as low as 12-14 seconds on shot clock when things look bleak.

Race? Not involved in my hoops , ever ..never. Sorry my good man!! :D

[Jwaksman]

What do you mean this team was directionless? 2 years ago this team was up and coming - by the end of the year they were probably one of the 10 best teams in the league and almost everyone was young. Since then, players like Stoudemire and Marion have matured, while they've added players like Quentin Richardson. Last year was an anomaly - it's what happens when the team's best player (Amare Stoudemire) was injured.

[king99]

10 best? since when would that ever be a standard of excellence..once again..you have to be kidding with this?

[mzungu]

nash's triple double with 34/13/12 the other night--pretty impressive for a guy who was supposed to be a good passer and mediocre scorer. i'd love to watch phoenix play, if only ABC would decide to show some of their games. :(

[Jwaksman]

Phoenix was red hot at the end of their 44-win season, and took San Antonio to 6 games in the playoffs - when the West conference dominated the east and San Antonio was one of the 2 best teams in the NBA.


I quote Bill Simmons, who I completely agree with on this topic:


Issue No. 1: 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.

Well, that's wrong. You can't compare this year's Suns team to last year's team – Amare Stoudemire missed half the season, they traded Stephon Marbury at the midway point for prospects and picks and they didn't have Quentin Richardson or their revamped bench. That's why the 2004 Suns won 29 games. You have to compare them to the 2003 team that won 44 games and gave the Spurs everything they could handle in Round 1.

Both teams had Marion, although he's much more effective as a power forward because it keeps him near the basket. Both teams had Stoudemire and Joe Johnson, although they're twice as good as they were in 2003. Only the 2005 team had Q, a dramatic upgrade over the 2003 platoon of Penny Hardaway and Casey Jacobsen. Nash was obviously a better fit than Marbury in 2003, but Marbury played his best basketball in 2003 (22.3 ppg, 8.1 apg, 44 percent from the floor). So take that 44-win team from two years ago, make Stoudemire and Johnson twice as good, give them Q, give them the brainstorm to play Stoudemire and Marion as their bigs, give them a better bench, let them keep Marbury … and they probably win 55-60 games in the West. They would have been at least as good as the Mavs, right? That's why the whole, "They won 33 more games because of Nash!" argument was so patently absurd.

Now throw this in: Everyone assumes that Nash was the sole reason the Suns can play this fast-break style. Actually, it's a group effort. You can't play that style without Stoudemire (at the five) and Marion (at the four) surviving defensively one position above their natural positions. You also need lights-out 3-point shooters at the two or three spots, as we found out in Game 4 of the Dallas series (when Dallas realized that they only needed to double-team Stoudemire and leave Johnson's replacement open at all times). And you need athletic players who can handle the ball (with Johnson being the most underrated guy in this department – few people realize how many little things he did for that team, although they're starting to figure it out now that he's gone). So to credit Nash alone for Phoenix's style is absurd. He's not playing any different than he did in Dallas. He just has a better supporting cast. In fact, Phoenix probably has four of the best 30 guys in the league, and Richardson is the best fifth starter other than Tayshaun Prince.

Again, how does this not factor into Nash's success? Just looking at this logically: He's a 30-year-old guy who made two All-Star teams in his entire career. At no point was he ever considered one of the best 20 guys in the league. Last summer, his team decided that he was replaceable enough that the most financially reckless owner in the league allowed him to leave with no compensation. So he signs with Phoenix and thrives offensively with a team more suited to his style, although it's not like the statistical leap was staggering or anything (he went from 14.5 to 15.5 ppg, 8.8 to 11.5 apg, 47 percent to 50 percent shooting, and his turnovers actually jumped from 209 to 245). Is that a career year, or a logical jump for someone who's playing with a better team?

Phoenix has four of the best 30 guys in the league. Dallas has one. Which team would you rather play for?

[mzungu]

or better fit for his style?

[decastella]

i love that your first critique on nash is that he doesn't play defense and then your first choice for who the mvp should have been was lebron... yeah, because he sure does play hard on the defensive end of the floor --

i hate the nba -- grew up watching dr. j, then magic and bird kept me watching -- then jordan kept my attention -- once he left for baseball, the league has never been the same -- it's athleticism at its best, there's no doubt about it, but it's not the type of basketball that i like -- but i don't mind watching how nash plays --

the other night on espn greg anthony was comparing nash, kidd and marbury and he broke it down pretty well -- basically he said that nash's major weakness is his lack of rebounding -- so what did nash do the next night? a triple double with 12 rebounds --

and i also heard this one -- he went 40 and then 37 in the playoffs - the only other people to have achieved that back to back? think it was jordan and chamberlain...

[Sweat]

Dampier is a joke.

[Dyenimator]

No one has proven to me that Ridnour, Hinrich, Parker or Bibby couldn't do the same job as Nash is with the Suns.

[jrun]

No one has proven to me that Ridnour, Hinrich, Parker or Bibby couldn't do the same job as Nash is with the Suns.

Heck....prove I couldn't...

[jrun]

No one has proven to me that Ridnour, Hinrich, Parker or Bibby couldn't do the same job as Nash is with the Suns.

But seriously...Ridnour is good, but not in the caliber of the other players you mentioned yet. Only a 2nd year guy with room for improvement.

Parker is too lackadaisical to run a team like the Suns. Settles for 15-18ft jump shots way too often and isn't as quick as Nash off the dribble.

Hinrich is really good. The closest in your list to Nash in overall ability. He's got the handles, shot, and passing ability. Plus he's a surprisingly decent defender against bigger guards (at least to me when I saw him guarding Arenas, for example, in the playoffs).

Bibby is not in Nash's mold. Not a pass first guard. However, he's of the more underrated guys in the league. I believe he's never made an All-Star team (though obvioulsy there have been plenty of great guards in the West).

----

Nash deserves a lot of credit for the Suns' success. The guy rarely takes stupid shots and almost always finds the open guy. Read Paul Shirley's blog.

[mzungu]

the moron marc stein of espn.com maybe had it right in saying that nash just had one of the best playoff series ever, 30ppg/55%fg, double-figures in assists. he had consecutive games of 48, 34/13/12, 39/9/11. nash is much more CONSISTENT than parker, a much better assist guy than bibby, better in all respects than ridnour, and let's not talk about hinrich, who is developing into a good player but still shoots a low percentage. now, the phoenix suns DID NOT win 44 games two years ago. they went 43-39. they lost in 6 games to the #1 seed san antonio, winning the first in overtime just barely, losing by 8 and 13, i think, winning a two point game and then losing the last two. It was a very good performance, but then the team was 8-11 in 2003-2004 when amare got injured (he was averaging 15/9). He ended up playing 55 games in the season, Marbury got traded in late December, and the team went 29-53. You cannot tell me that that team would have won near 60 this year.
on this 2003-2004 game log, which seemed to be missing one game where amare played (no log for parts of december that he missed), the suns were 21-34 in games amare played, and they were under .500 in games BOTH HE AND MARBURY played, which is probably why the suns traded starbury. However, I don't really know what the Suns had in mind, other than getting under the cap, because they did not get much at all for marbury, only an injured antonio mcdyess, young players and not very valuable draft picks so far (unless they have a knicks #1 this year, thanks to marbury putting his 'stamp' on the team--i.e. losing). the suns with marbury and stoudemire were off to a slow start. so, it's still credible to say that nash hugely improved this team.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/gamelog?statsId=3607&sYear=2004&sType=2

[Jwaksman]

One final obvious argument that Nash is not all he's cracked up to be. Until this year, he was never mentioned as one of the best 20 players in the league. Ever. He only made two all-star teams.


Now, at age 30, he's suddenly gotten so good overnight that he's put on "one of the greatest performances in playoff history"??? Come on. That simply does not happen. If that's not over-hype, then I don't know what is.


If life was all about numbers then Allen Iverson would have won a lot more MVPs. But, then again, Allen Iverson is a thug with disgusting rap albums. And Steve Nash is a lovable, floppy, scrawny leftwinger. With equal seasons, who do you think would get the MVP? Obviously Nash.

[MoMo]

But jwack, on the political threads you constantly tell us that life is all about numbers!

[Jwaksman]

I always appreciate the personal, snarky comments, MoMo. But if you actually ever read my posts you'd see that I find numbers important as a first step. From there, one has to put some logic into it. I chastise you guys for making up numbers, without sources, and then coming to the wrong logical decisions.


30 points sounds great off the bat. But then when you realize that he spent the whole game going 1-on-1 against a 7-footer because his opposition was focused on stopping the best player on his team (Stoudamire), then that is where you logic has to come in.

[jrun]

If life was all about numbers then Allen Iverson would have won a lot more MVPs. But, then again, Allen Iverson is a thug with disgusting rap albums. And Steve Nash is a lovable, floppy, scrawny leftwinger. With equal seasons, who do you think would get the MVP? Obviously Nash.

Actually Mr. Jwaksman, the reason 'you' (or the general public) did not recognize Nash's talent until this season and playoffs is because of his lack of numbers, or non-number seeking attitude; meaning the guy doesn't care about them. With Dallas, Nash was smart enough to recognize all the talent around him (the main one being Nowitzki, a guy who blossomed into a SUPERSTAR playing with Nash) and acquiesced. He knew that he did not have to do the scoring. Even this season with Phoenix, Nash knew that he did not have to score 20+ to win. He just had to be a set-up man. Now, in the playoffs when a team like Dallas is trying to force Nash to beat them, he can do just that and do it well. The guy has very good dribbling ability with both hands, quickness, great shot, is able to shoot from multiple positions, is a good penetrator, and is a great free throw shooter.

If he wanted, he probably could do Iverson numbers. A lot of guys in the NBA could do Iverson numbers. But Nash isn't that player and doesn't need to be for his team.

[Jwaksman]

You're telling me that Nash could put up 30 points and 10 assists if he got tripled teamed everytime up the floor because his best teammate was Andre Iguodala??? Not a chance...


Here's the question that I always ask. How many more games would a team lose if that player was not there. Imagine if Iverson wasn't on Philly. They'd probably have lost 10 more games this year, atleast. Ditto for Lebron, Shaq, Garnett & Duncan. Can you say that about Nash? Not really, I don't think anyone really questions that this team with Starbury playing the point instead of Nash would still have won 55+ games this year.

[Dyenimator]

Lost 10 more? Maybe won 10, period.

[jrun]

You're telling me that Nash could put up 30 points and 10 assists if he got tripled teamed everytime up the floor because his best teammate was Andre Iguodala??? Not a chance...


Here's the question that I always ask. How many more games would a team lose if that player was not there. Imagine if Iverson wasn't on Philly. They'd probably have lost 10 more games this year, atleast. Ditto for Lebron, Shaq, Garnett & Duncan. Can you say that about Nash? Not really, I don't think anyone really questions that this team with Starbury playing the point instead of Nash would still have won 55+ games this year.

I would venture to say the Suns would not have been as successful without Nash...no. And more to my point about Dirk with Nash...who's to say the Amare Stoudemire we all know now would be the same Amare Stoudemire playing with a guy like Marbury. Stoudemire is another guy who developed into an All-star playing with Nash because Nash goes out of his way to set this guy up for easy buckets. A guy like Marbury demoralizes your team at times because of a shoot-first attitude.

[king99]

anyone who doubts Nash's greatness, either needs to go back and learn the game from scratch.

Or really be objective.

It was BY far the greatest 3 game stretch of complete play I have seen by 6 foot guy ever.

I said complete..not jack it up 35 times score 45 points stuff.

[Jwaksman]

When he puts up those numbers while being double-teamed by a team with good defense, then we'll talk.

I could have put up 25 points and 10 assists against a Dallas team that prefered to guard my teammates than to guard me.

[king99]

That statement alone just killed your credibility with me..

No other 6 foot player puts up the overall numbers he did being double and triple teamed

You want to give me Iverson? Fine..go show me three games where he was double double and almost double triple in one.

In fact show me a three game strecth where AI got 40 plus without shoouting at least 30 times.

AI is what you call a VOLUME scorer..

He needs a BILLION shots to get more than 35 points.

Nash?H eneeds only 24 (14-24)shots in 39 point 12 assist and 9 board beauty on Friday night

Needed "only" 28 shots to get 48!! a ridiculous 20-28 from floor

Anything you say from here on will be construed as nonsense by at least me.

I could care less about Suns OR Nash..


BUT it is what it is!!

[Jwaksman]

Dallas played that series with the theory that the only way that they could win was to let Nash go wild and just stop the rest of his team. You don't do that for the best player in the league. Just watch some Philly games and you'll see Iverson constantly getting covered and knocked down. You never see him getting an open shot. You almost never saw Nash not get an open shot.


No one ever said, "Let's just let Michael Jordan get open shots whenever he wants - but whatever happens, don't let him pass to Bill Wennington!"

[exjersey1]

No one ever said, "Let's just let Michael Jordan get open shots whenever he wants - but whatever happens, don't let him pass to Bill Wennington!"

Actually, many teams (other than Chuck Daly's Pistons) specifically played the Bulls using the theory of making Jordan take literally every shot.

[Dyenimator]

Iverson's teammates: Iguodala, Korver, Webber, Dalembert
Nash's teammates: Q, Johnson/Jackson, Marion, Stoudamire

Take your pick. As for natural PG's, Nash is better. The better player is Iverson.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/gamelog?statsId=3094

You gonna tell me 38 & 10 sucks?

[mzungu]

it's actually very common to respond to a team's star by letting him shoot and trying to shut down everyone else, since one guy's not going to score 100 points and you're not going to shut down the star no matter what you do, but if you double-team the star, shots are going to be open to all the other players. Now, the suns beat the mavericks in the series, despite the loss of joe johnson, so you can't really say that the strategy worked.

Yesterday was the first time I got to see the Suns play this year and I was very impressed by the fact that Nash was able to get a completely open shot on every single possession by working with a screen and keeping his dribble. He is not that fast on the break. It was not as if other players couldn't keep up with him on the break. But he is very quick in changing directions and creating space for his shot. He ended up with something like 29 points and 12 or more assists. The problem for his game specifically is that aside from one play when he moved his feet and got a soft charge from Parker, Nash played matador defense, the Toni Kukoc style defense. That is unacceptable against Parker, who scored 29 points. In the fourth quarter, the suns allowed 43 points, a playoff record, and Nash's defense was a big part of this. Nevertheless, in explaining the Spurs' victory, you have to point out that 1) Joe Johnson was out, 2) Marion and Richardson combined for 9 or 10 points, 3) the Suns did not rotate quickly out to the 3 point shooters in the fourth quarter, and 4) Brent Barry is not going to go 5-5 on 3's again, even if he again has a long time to shoot. The Suns have a shot at this thing, but the Spurs are just an incredibly deep team and in any given game you might get Parker or Ginobili to light it up.

[mzungu]

jwaksman, after all that, you don't even comment on the specific analysis of the 2003-2004 season, which is the one you've been explaining away as insignificant because of injuries and the trade:

"the team was 8-11 in 2003-2004 when amare got injured (he was averaging 15/9). He ended up playing 55 games in the season, Marbury got traded in late December, and the team went 29-53. You cannot tell me that that team would have won near 60 this year.
on this 2003-2004 game log, which seemed to be missing one game where amare played (no log for parts of december that he missed), the suns were 21-34 in games amare played, and they were under .500 in games BOTH HE AND MARBURY played, which is probably why the suns traded starbury."

The reason that Nash was being defended by a 7 footer was that he had beaten his man! When he gets into the lane, surrounded by five guys, and gets his own shot, that's hardly because the other team doesn't concentrate on him. It should be said that he makes Amare better, but Amare is already a great player in his own right. When Nash was out, Amare was getting his own shot, and Amare has terrific range for a 6'10" 22 year old.

[jrun]

Iverson's teammates: Iguodala, Korver, Webber, Dalembert
Nash's teammates: Q, Johnson/Jackson, Marion, Stoudamire

Take your pick. As for natural PG's, Nash is better. The better player is Iverson.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/gamelog?statsId=3094

You gonna tell me 38 & 10 sucks?


Some of you guys serioulsy don't think Nash made some of his teammates to look better than they are? Guys like Johnson and Richardson getting open 3s?

Look at Miami with Shaq. Is Damon Jones THAT good or is any body in the NBA able to knock down open 3s @ 40% with NOBODY GUARDING THEM?

[mzungu]

king's right about iverson v. nash. iverson shoots a ton and he would kill his team if he didn't get to the line so often, because he shoots a bad percentage. iverson's career fg% is .418 and he was at .424 this year.
nash's career fg% is .470 and he was at .502 this year, which is positively stocktonesque for a point guard. nash also shot over 40% on 3's this year, whereas Iverson shot in the low 30%. I wouldn't double-team iverson at all; I'd lay off him and let him shoot as much as he wants, especially from outside. Just don't foul him. In any case, Nash's team won 62 this year and Iverson's team has never won 60. Now, why is that? Is it because he's never had a very talented supporting cast? Well, if so, whose fault is that? He has never been able to co-exist with anyone, whether Stackhouse, Van Horn, Webber, or others.

[exjersey1]

The history of The Shaq Factor.

Stats (http://www.basketballdraft.com/2005/writers/chris_ballard/05/10/shaq/)

[Jwaksman]

Okay, arguing that the Suns wouldn't be an excellent team without Nash is just silly. They had a young team that won 44 games - all those young players are better AND they added Richardson. If that's not good for 11 more wins, it's good for close. You simply cannot argue that this isn't an excellent team.


And Nash didn't get all of those shots against Dallas by "beating his man." All you had to do was watch the last few games. 3 of his teammates would spread out on the 3 point line. Amare would come out and set a pick on Nash's man. Nash would dribble past the pick while Nowitzki picked him up. Nash would dribble around for a second or two and then drive and try to beat Nowitzki. If that was Iverson the defense would collapse when he drove. But they couldn't collapse on Nash because Phoenix has so many excellent outside shooters.


Also, Nash doesn't only take away from his team with his atrocious defense. He's also been pretty careless with the ball. He has this horrible move that he does all the time where he drives along the baseline and gets under the net and then just jumps - hoping to find an open man while he's in the air. It worked against Dallas most of the time, cause their defense is so horrid. But against a good team, it leads to a lot of turnovers (6 turnovers last night against San Antonio, for example).



Besides, we still have to get back to the defense thing. Guys like Jordan, Duncan & Kobe (to name a few) were/are all excellent defenders. Let's imagine that a guy like Edgar Martinez (I know that he's retired, but just an example) hit .380 with 55 home runs one year. Would he get the MVP? Nope. Cause he doesn't play defense. No DH has even ever made it into the hall of fame (although Martinez has a good shot). If a baseball player can't get in who doesn't play defense, how can Nash?

[Dyenimator]

king's right about iverson v. nash. iverson shoots a ton and he would kill his team if he didn't get to the line so often, because he shoots a bad percentage. iverson's career fg% is .418 and he was at .424 this year.
nash's career fg% is .470 and he was at .502 this year, which is positively stocktonesque for a point guard. nash also shot over 40% on 3's this year, whereas Iverson shot in the low 30%. I wouldn't double-team iverson at all; I'd lay off him and let him shoot as much as he wants, especially from outside. Just don't foul him. In any case, Nash's team won 62 this year and Iverson's team has never won 60. Now, why is that? Is it because he's never had a very talented supporting cast? Well, if so, whose fault is that? He has never been able to co-exist with anyone, whether Stackhouse, Van Horn, Webber, or others.

Iverson's team has made the NBA Finals, Nash's hasn't. Now why is that?

[Jwaksman]

This is off-topic, but Alonzo Mourning is pissing me off. I used to hate him cause I'm a Knicks fan. Then, with the kidney thing, I got to respect him for coming back. But he's such a dirty player. Just watch him during the game tonight. He's absolutely mugging Detroit players while he's on defense. Then he whines anytime any call goes against Miami - even obvious out-of-bounds calls. On offense, he just flops anytime someone breathes on his neck. And he tops it all off with trash-talking whenever one of the Wallaces comes over to tell him to stop mugging them.


I'm now officially rooting against the Heat.

[king99]

jwaks...Nash has the ball the whole GAME,,you know how many tunrovers he had in game that mattered when he had 3? 4

he has the ball 70% of the seconds on the shot clock chart it..I did..

when I was ANTI Nash and I was..believe it or not, up until this year,,I was, you may argue its selective choice I am okay with that

he is an atrocious ON the ball defender..I agree,,but what he does as mzungu said ..he COULD get a shot at 6 foot in thisi league any time anywhere he wants,,That I am convinced of after wathching him shoot fades in the paint from 12..bomb from 23..get layups..he is that good at least right now

the Knicks for example would be much better with him right now..and i see them quite a bit

[exjersey1]

Besides, we still have to get back to the defense thing. ......... If a baseball player can't get in who doesn't play defense, how can Nash?

????????????????

OK, so Larry Bird, Bob McAdoo, George Gervin, Gail Goodrich, Alex English, Pete Maravich, James Worthy, and David Thompson aren't really in the Basketball HOF? And Reggie Miller has no shot at ever being voted in either?


(Naismith HOF) (http://www.insidehoops.com/basketball-hall-of-fame.shtml)


And dyenimator, while I'm an admitted Iverson fan, think back to the Philly/LA finals. Which was the easier path, through the East or through the West?

[Dyenimator]

MR. BIG SHOT!

[Dyenimator]

One more thing... The ball don't lie.

[Jwaksman]

None of those players are as bad at defense as Nash.


Look, what's obvious was that Nash was the big bandwagon pick this year. A few guys pushed hard for Nash as MVP and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon. I bet that by next year people will stop screaming Michael Jordan everytime Nash makes a layup and he'll fall behind Amare in mvp voting, like he should.

[Dyenimator]

LeBron's going to be the MVP next year, barring injury.

[jrun]

Iverson's team has made the NBA Finals, Nash's hasn't. Now why is that?

Maybe a guy named Larry Brown rings a bell?

And Jwaksman…to a certain extent, the MVP vote is arbitrary (yes, startling revelation). If Nash falls behind Stoudemire next year it wouldn't be that big of a surprise because it would be one year after people recognized Nash's CLEAR positive impact on the team. Stoudemire will probably go on to continue to up his PPG and other numbers. Nash will continue being Nash, if that makes any sense. This year it was clear to everyone, maybe except you, how much of an impact Nash had on Phoenix (obviously Shaq did the same with Miami and either player was deserving in my view [despicable how Shaq couldn't get one during the Lakers' championship run]).

[exjersey1]

None of those players are as bad at defense as Nash.




With the possible exception of Bird, they were all worse!!

Except of course for Goodrich, Maravich, and English who never even made the pretense of attempting to play D at all.

You should either stick with physics, or at least just man up and say "I don't like Nash and can't believe anyone else does." Because you're not even close here with what you're presenting.

[king99]

first of all I wonder how many of you even ever saw maravich or goodrich..I doubt any of you..

[exjersey1]

first of all I wonder how many of you even ever saw maravich or goodrich..I doubt any of you..

SSSSSHHHHH.

Some of us even remember watching the Pistol play for his dad at LSU.

[king99]

well there is a guy after my own heart then..My favortie college player growing up..I even wore winter socks the floppy grey ones..with low black Cons.. ala Pistol

Most kids I dount realize that with NO three point like and playing only 3 years (no frosh allowed)

Pete scored OVER 4000 points for old LSU.

man he shot a lot..and man did he take ssome bad ones..BUT man was he exciting

[jrun]

A ridiculous 44.2 ppg for his career at LSU without the 3line as you said.

Who could even come close to that now?

[exjersey1]

well there is a guy after my own heart then..My favortie college player growing up..I even wore winter socks the floppy grey ones..with low black Cons.. ala Pistol

Most kids I dount realize that with NO three point like and playing only 3 years (no frosh allowed)

Pete scored OVER 4000 points for old LSU.

man he shot a lot..and man did he take ssome bad ones..BUT man was he exciting


Yup...

I wonder how many points someone like Austin Carr or Rick Mount would have scored with the 3-pointer?

[king99]

Not as many as pete..and Mount more than Carr who I saw play a bit..he was mid range scorer..shot long some times.. but not as often as guys like Mount who made their whole living on the perimeter

[exjersey1]

Not as many as pete..and Mount more than Carr who I saw play a bit..he was mid range scorer..shot long some times.. but not as often as guys like Mount who made their whole living on the perimeter

Maravich started loading up as soon as he crossed mid-court. I can't even fathom what his totals might have been with the 3.

I saw Carr more than Mount (ND played in MSG more than Purdue I guess), but I remember Carr having ridiculous range. When he was on he had no conscience at all.


I'll have to look it up, but I thought Carr was still 2d in scoring behind Maravich.

[mzungu]

again, the suns won 43, not 44 two years ago, just barely over .500. again, they were under .500 last year with amare and marbury, when amare went down. again, they were 21-34 when amare played last year. they were 62-20 this year.

why did ai go to the finals? the east was incredibly weak that year, he had some talent around him that year, and he was coached by larry brown.

AI turns the ball over much more than Nash, so don't even bring that up. Nash rarely misses, whereas AI misses constantly. Here are Nash's last four games:
20-28 shooting, 48 points
34/13/12
39/9/11
29/13/4

way over 50% fg for all those games.

[Dyenimator]

If I had Amare, Marion, and Q around me, I would be averaging 20 & 8.

The only reason AI misses so many shots is the fact that people aren't keying on Andre Iguodala to score. They're not worried about Kyle Korver penetrating. They're not worried about Dalembert's post up moves.

AI hasn't had a Dirk, a Finley, Amare, and Marion to play. Are you going to sit there and tell me that those guys have not created open jumpers for Stevie? Are you going to tell me that AI doesn't have to work harder and take more difficult shots than Nash?

AI is quicker, a better ball handler, just as equal of a passer, and a better defender. The only category that Nash has him beat is the jump shot.

All you do is rattle off all these stats. Do you even know anything about the game?

[mzungu]

virtually every star in the game is keyed on by the defense and allen iverson is typically the worst-shooting of all of them, by far. you never saw michael jordan complain about it and he shot over 50% for almost his entire career. tim duncan is keyed on by everyone and shoots 50%. shaq is triple-teamed and shot .601 this year. stockton was one of two focuses on utah all those years and shot over 50%. face it: ai cannot shoot.

nash's last five games:
48
34/12/13
39/11/9
29/13/4
29/15/5

only MJ and Oscar Robertson had ever had at least 25 points and 10 assists in three straight playoff games and now nash owns the NBA record with four straight.

[king99]

AI, is the greatest playground 6 foot guard of all time in the NBA..

Ask anyone that absolutely knows the game and ask them if they would take AI as the first guard picked to start a team and NONE would say yes

I think he is a GREAT scorer..BUT he has to shoot 25 times to get 20+ points all the time..

yeah he is tough..but guess what? on some of the shots he takes ,YOU should get knocked down..let alone take them to begin with.

The defensive pressure on AI is WAYYYY over exxagerrated, in fact I doubt ANY good team even bothers to pay that much attention to him

They say: let him shoot 30 times score 30? They still have to fins 60 other points and AI ain;t helpin those guys, with hsi 6 assists and 3.9 tunovers per game, you CAN look that up.

Not a fan, never been...I do acknowledge his talent level ..for sure.

[Dyenimator]

virtually every star in the game is keyed on by the defense and allen iverson is typically the worst-shooting of all of them, by far. you never saw michael jordan complain about it and he shot over 50% for almost his entire career. tim duncan is keyed on by everyone and shoots 50%. shaq is triple-teamed and shot .601 this year. stockton was one of two focuses on utah all those years and shot over 50%. face it: ai cannot shoot.

nash's last five games:
48
34/12/13
39/11/9
29/13/4
29/15/5

only MJ and Oscar Robertson had ever had at least 25 points and 10 assists in three straight playoff games and now nash owns the NBA record with four straight.

Scottie Pippen, David Robinson, Dwayne Wade, and Karl Malone.

What teammates does THE ANSWER have?

[mzungu]

robinson, wade, pippen, and malone all shot high percentages too!

[Dyenimator]

And which one of Iverson's teammates is as good as those players I mentioned? I hope you don't say Webber.

[king99]

and Dyenimator, with all due respect that is the rub on AI, he has trouble or would playing with any other guys that need 17-20 shots..he takes them all.

He is NOT a guy sought after by any team that is serious about contending, if you don;t see that, by now your judegemtn is severely clouded.

He IS a player sought by a team with lagging attendance and/or No identity

Honestly, if you think I am an AI basher , it may seem that way, but the same is said by me about Marbury, he had a great stat stuffer year, which team along the way did he vastly improve or win big with?

The year AI made it to finals was weakest year in East at the time in a while, so it is fair to come back at me on that, but be objective. There IS a reason other than coaching that NO big name guys IN ther prime want to come to Philly now

[mzungu]

ai has mediocre teammates because he cannot coexist with any stars. he drives them all away. webber ALREADY said he can't play with ai, and stackhouse and larry hughes and van horn and big dog and DC in the past did the same thing.

[king99]

Mzungu..the faster folks see this the easier the rest of comparisons get.. :D

This is sooo true it is scary.

At the end of the day..he is a distraction in team room , or has been ..you can't undo what he already did, and while guys may see him and smile at All Star games, you do not see any quotes saying"Man I would do anything to get to play along with AI"

No Way No How

[mzungu]

you're absolutely right, king99. you get a lot of coverage of the 76ers in your area, so you know what i'm talking about. iverson has improved in his character over the years, though i don't know if he has ever decided to practice or to do weight training so that he wouldn't get injured as often, and i don't know whether he practices his shooting. he has improved his assist totals recently. he's tough, no question. he's fast, no question. but the fact is that he has serious problems in his game (low shooting percentage, many, many 4-25 games, high turnovers) and in his ability to coexist with other players of his stature. i just cannot see comparisons of ai to dwyane wade or shaq or duncan or THIS YEAR to nash even.

[king99]

The bottom line is , as you said.There is absolutely NO demand for him in a winning system , a team built to win with good guys on it, no one would pay. Even less want to coach him. end of story.

[jrun]

This is off-topic, but Alonzo Mourning is pissing me off.

Agreed. Though at the same time I'm liking the intensity he's bringing for the Heat.

So in summary, his whining is getting to me but I like the passion being brought to the team. It’s undeniable that he’s a major spark.

[mzungu]

did anyone else watch that game that abc deigned to broadcast last night?
how about amare stoudemire? in a few years, people will be looking at every promising young pf as the next amare stoudemire. he has incredible range for his age and size, can get his own shot against tim duncan any time he wants, seems to be a good ft shooter, an excellent defender, extremely smart, terrific touch around the basket, an improving rebounder, and just 22.
i know that this is stating the obvious, but the guy is great. very nice game from joe johnson last night and finally the real shawn marion shows up. if the suns had johnson totally healthy for the whole series, it might have gone 7 (with the spurs winning anyway).

[Jwaksman]

Amare's been like that all playoffs, and I assume all season (though I didn't watch too many Suns games during the regular season). During the early 4th quarter of game 3 against the Spurs, the Suns went on an 11-0 run entirely on the back of Amare - Nash was sitting on the bench. Of course, none of the sportscasters would ever mention that because they're too busy trying to convince the rest of the world that Nash is the greatest basketball player of all time.

[mzungu]

that's hyperbole, but it's correct that they virtually ignored amare until the very end. the fact is that nash is having an incredible playoffs. nash had some incredible feeds of amare, but both those guys can score on their own at will, at least against san antonio. amare's scored over 30 in every game against the spurs this year.

[Dyenimator]

Didn't watch the game, but I heard that even the refs were rooting for the Suns... is that true?

[Jwaksman]

I wouldn't say that. While refs sometimes give preferential treatment to their stars (didn't Jordan go like 10 years without fouling out of a game?), I don't believe that they would ever purposely be unfair to one team or the other. It's no different from baseball, where the star pitchers often get the benefit of the doubt on the edges of the strikezone.

[exjersey1]

Didn't watch the game, but I heard that even the refs were rooting for the Suns... is that true?

I really didn't get that impression last night. Now game 2 in Phoenix I thought it was pretty clear that the refs had "chosen a side" based on what they were calling against the Suns and ignoring from the Spurs.

[Jwaksman]

So you guys are arguing that during the game in Phoenix the refs were being unfair towards San Antonio and that during the game in San Antonio the refs were being unfair towards Phoenix? Make up your mind... :rolleyes:

[exjersey1]

So you guys are arguing that during the game in Phoenix the refs were being unfair towards San Antonio and that during the game in San Antonio the refs were being unfair towards Phoenix? Make up your mind... :rolleyes:

I didn't see anything in last night's game that made me feel that the game was being called one-sided. I definitely did in game 2 in Phoenix, and was quite confused about why the home team seemed to be getting the short end; very un-NBA-like.

And San Antonio can be a difficult team to officiate given the way that the rules of the game are applied in the NBA. You've got Duncan getting the normal superstar protection, plus Ginobili flopping all over the place. And Popovich pisses and moans about EVERY SINGLE FREAKING CALL.

And exactly when did the NBA become the league where everyone gets to question the ref about every damned foul? I used to rag on guys like Webber & Bryant about it, but 3/4 of the league does it. You don't see that in MLB or in the NFL.

[king99]

Two things jump out at me from last nights game:


ONE, is that no matter what anyone says the Suns will NEVER EVER win any semi final playoff series with the defense or lack of that they play.
It is not the total points scored against, that was reasonable, it is the ease with which teams are able to score. The players play poor preimter..and even Stoudamire who will get better, horrbile post defense.

It is matador at the highest level.

TWO, how are you ever going to win playing that up and down style , playing ONLY 7 guys?

[mzungu]

stoudamire scored 42, averaged 37 ppg, a record for a first timer in a conference finals, nash had 21/10/4 (9-20 fg, ai wishes he could shoot 9-20 more than once or twice a week), and the other three Phoenix starters combined for 22 points (14 from johnson, 0 from richardson) on very poor shooting. so, phoenix could have won that game with a decent game from marion closer to his regular season numbers. hunter's going to be better next year, but they obviously need some more depth and defense.

[Jwaksman]

That game was even at the half, and then Nash was totally shut down. He had 3 points in the second half on about 1 of 7 shooting. Amare was just amazing. He was unstoppable - even if his patented spin-and-dunk move is really a travel :p .


The biggest mistake Phoenix could make would be to grab a big center so Amare could play power forward. The fact that Amare and Marion were playing a position too high is the reason that they could run 'n gun. What they need to do is stick with the system that they have, and pick up some defenders. Someone needs to teach Amare some defense over the summer - he's young enough that he can learn. You can deal with Nash's horrid defense. But some of the other players need to be replaced with better defenders, without having to make the team larger.

[mzungu]

i think that steven hunter will be that center. he is athletic and already has good post moves. hubie brown, who knows this kind of thing, was raving about hunter's skills and promise. with amare at center, they have a tremendous advantage, however, because they then have an edge over the opposition at most positions on most nights, and they cover center with a great player. it's easier to get a good pf, and in fact they have a very good one in shawn marion, 19/11 this year. marion had a terrible spurs series, however. nash did nothing much in the second half, but his first half was better than parker's entire game.

[king99]

I do agree with jawaks on one thing, the reason the Suns Are so effective is the same thing that kills them in tight play off games. You cannot simply run the ball up every time looking for alley oops or 3 balls. If you play Amare at center you create a mismatch almost every time if not all games. If they want to be good they actually need a real cover up guard to play on ball defense against other teams "A" guards, Nash either can;t or won;t play good D that I ageee with.

But make no other bones about it ,the reason AI gets all defense recog, is because he gets OVER rated steals stat which never or hardly ever comes off hisown man.and he leaves them as much as he guards them. Walt Frazier in the old days could do it either way, strip his own guy ..or get steals off other peoples guys!

Jawaks said:

" You can deal with Nash's horrid defense. But some of the other players need to be replaced with better defenders, without having to make the team larger"

I do so agree with this.

[TrackDaddy]

Nash is a good player but struggles defensively.

A good argument was made for him this season in getting the MVP. And he played like it against the MAVs in the playoffs. :(

But if Shaq makes the NBA finals this year, I think that will mean that he's made it to the finals in half of his 12 NBA seasons.

6 of out 12.

Nash of course...never has.

But they have the same number of MVP's.

[king99]

Ought to tell you something then TD..

No one ever thought Shaq was best player on his own team?

By the way I am no Shaq fan(but I do agree he was more valuable than Kobe) but he is NOT the best on his own team now..no one sane would argue that, he is a mere shell of his former self..still good enough and more in NBA league devoid of true centers..eveyone is a 4 really playing in the middle witha couple exceptions

You are right Shaq has been in finals half the time..

and in those years he played with arguably either the Number 1 player or top 3

and no one would argue that Wade is NOT a top 6

and lakers chose to get rid of him instead of Kobe

I know you are big Shaq guy, but it is what it is.

[jrun]

Ought to tell you something then TD..

No one ever thought Shaq was best player on his own team?

By the way I am no Shaq fan(but I do agree he was more valuable than Kobe) but he is NOT the best on his own team now..no one sane would argue that, he is a mere shell of his former self..still good enough and more in NBA league devoid of true centers..eveyone is a 4 really playing in the middle witha couple exceptions

You are right Shaq has been in finals half the time..

and in those years he played with arguably either the Number 1 player or top 3

and no one would argue that Wade is NOT a top 6

and lakers chose to get rid of him instead of Kobe

I know you are big Shaq guy, but it is what it is.


king99? You’re not honestly arguing that Shaq is the player who gets dragged to the Finals and championships? Seriously, what were Kobe’s and Wade’s career before Shaq. Kobe, a 6th man with no discernable MVP-type ability. Wade—16.3ppg last year, 23+ this year and close to 30 in the playoffs? Coincidence? Shaq has been on winning squads his whole career for a reason and it ain’t due to being overly fortunate to play with good people like Robert Horry.

No one ever thought Shaq was best player on own squad? Maybe two years--year Kobe averaged 29+ and had monstrous two weeks of 40+ and this year with Wade. Shaq MADE the Magic. Almost 20 game turnaround first year and into Finals within first three years in league. Shaq has never missed the playoffs.

[king99]

Not arguiing with you one bit on this. All I am saying is if he only won one MVP, what the voters are saying is that he was not the MVP those years.

I am not saying he got dragged to anything , either. The facts are he played with AllTimers or soon to be All Timers in his finals appearances. Nothing more.

[Jwaksman]

king, I have heard a lot of people making the argument that it's absurd that Shaq only won one MVP award. But I remember some guy on espn.com recently breaking down every year of his career, and there isn't really a single case where you can say "he really shouldn't have lost this year". Every year, someone just came out and was better. I'd say of all the years that he deserved it more and didn't get, this year was the worst.

[TrackDaddy]

Not arguiing with you one bit on this. All I am saying is if he only won one MVP, what the voters are saying is that he was not the MVP those years.

I am not saying he got dragged to anything , either. The facts are he played with AllTimers or soon to be All Timers in his finals appearances. Nothing more.The truth is that the MVP award is one of those recognitions were people are always looking to give it to anyone but the obvious.

They try to devise reasons why someone is better than a Jordan (K. Malone) or a Shaq (Nash).

But the truth is that Jordan won like 5 when he could've won 8. In Jordan's second year in the league I believe, Magic Johnson himself said..."first there's Michael Jordan...then there's us."

Notice this from NBA.com...Even contemporaneous superstars recognized the unparalleled position of Jordan.

Magic Johnson said, "There's Michael Jordan and then there is the rest of us." Larry Bird, following a playoff game where Jordan dropped 63 points on the Boston Celtics in just his second season, appraisal of the young player was: "God disguised as Michael Jordan.

Shaq has spent nearly half his career in the NBA finals and king your bias won't let you see that HE'S the reason the teams were there.

Amazing.

The voters aren't saying that he wasn't MVP, they're saying they didn't want him to be.

Everybody loves David (Nash).

But nobody loves Goliath.

[Dyenimator]

Not arguiing with you one bit on this. All I am saying is if he only won one MVP, what the voters are saying is that he was not the MVP those years.

I am not saying he got dragged to anything , either. The facts are he played with AllTimers or soon to be All Timers in his finals appearances. Nothing more.

Penny Hardaway and Nick Anderson... all timers?

[Jwaksman]

Penny Hardaway used to be really good. You might not remember how big of a trade it was when he was drafted, and the Magic traded Chris Webber for him straight up, and then most people figured that Orlando got the best of that deal. He sucks now, but there's a reason he still has one of the top 10 salaries in the league (although I'm sure Isiah "The Worst GM Ever" Thomas will resign him to an even bigger deal when this one runs out).

[Dyenimator]

He averaged about 20 & 7. Not HoF stats.

[jrun]

Penny Hardaway used to be really good. You might not remember how big of a trade it was when he was drafted, and the Magic traded Chris Webber for him straight up, and then most people figured that Orlando got the best of that deal. He sucks now, but there's a reason he still has one of the top 10 salaries in the league (although I'm sure Isiah "The Worst GM Ever" Thomas will resign him to an even bigger deal when this one runs out).

Penny was a good player. Not Kobe or T-Mac. Couldn't lead his own team. Just a nice little player. Shaq helped elevate his numbers.

He should now pick up his paycheck with a hoody, ski mask and a gun.

[TrackDaddy]

Penny was a good player. Not Kobe or T-Mac. Couldn't lead his own team. Just a nice little player. Shaq helped elevate his numbers.

He should now pick up his paycheck with a hoody, ski mask and a gun.LOL

[Dyenimator]

"I mean if you're not gonna recover Tayshaun Prince. If you're just gonna let him drive by ya. If you're gonna let him catch the ball outside the 3 second lane and drive all the way in here without one guy challenging him, then I'm leaving and you ****ing guys will run until you can't even suffer! I'm tired of this ****! I'm sick and ****ing tired of being down 0-2 to the Spurs! I'm ****ing tired of losing to San Antonio! I'm not here to **** around today! Now you may be, but I'm not. Now I'm gonna ****ing guarantee ya, that we if don't play up there Tuesday night, you won't believe the next ****ing day! Now I am not here to get my ass beat on Tuesday! Now you better ****ing understand that right now! This is absolute ****ing bull****! Now I'll ****ing run your ass in the ****ing ground! Now I'll ****ing run ya, you'll think last night was a ****ing picnic! I had to sit around in front of the media down 0-2 in the ****ing press conference. And I mean you will not put me in that ****ing position again or you will goddamn pay for it like you can't ****ing believe! Now you better get your head out of your ass!"

We need some Bobby Knight.

[fentonfreshman]

That was badass Dye. They need some energy because right now they're playing like any other NBA team.

[mzungu]

tayshaun prince not exactly distinguishing himself with a 1 for 7 outing.

wade was arguably the MVP on this year's miami team. it was a down year for shaq. but you cannot say that shaq when healthy has not been the most dominant player pretty much every year since jordan retired. penny hardaway was much trumpeted when he came in the league but he never reached greatness and then most of his career has been a lot worse than that. shaq had a good team with orlando, but no other all-timers. grant was good and so was penny, and nick anderson and dennis scott were decent. shaq had one all-timer with l.a. most years, but not that much aside from kobe. look at shaq's career record--his presence alone makes a team win 50 or more games. when karl malone took it over jordan that was also a travesty.

[TrackDaddy]

tayshaun prince not exactly distinguishing himself with a 1 for 7 outing.

wade was arguably the MVP on this year's miami team. it was a down year for shaq. but you cannot say that shaq when healthy has not been the most dominant player pretty much every year since jordan retired. penny hardaway was much trumpeted when he came in the league but he never reached greatness and then most of his career has been a lot worse than that. shaq had a good team with orlando, but no other all-timers. grant was good and so was penny, and nick anderson and dennis scott were decent. shaq had one all-timer with l.a. most years, but not that much aside from kobe. look at shaq's career record--his presence alone makes a team win 50 or more games. when karl malone took it over jordan that was also a travesty.I concur.