NBA MVP

[Bulldog]

Hi, I lead the NBA in scoring, assists, minutes, and I'm second in steals. After tonight, I'll have my very young team back in the playoffs. Yet no one wants to talk about me as MVP.

[Joe826]

that's because your team sucks.

[Schneids]

Hi AI, sorry but you don't lead the league in assists, Nash has you covered by a wide margin.

[istewart]

I made this thread awhile back. I don't think there's anyone who carries his team more than Iverson, despite all the negatives surrounding his play and such.

[Joe826]

Yes, he carries his team and they still suck. That's why it's called MVP. How valuable is a player if he can't even get their team to the playoffs? MVP is about making others better in addition to preforming individually. That's why Nash and Shaq are the two leading candidates. Shaq's numbers are actually a bit down this year, but basically all of his teammate's numbers are up.

[istewart]

I'm not sure you know where the Sixers would be without Iverson. They'd be out of contention after two months. He is the entire team. I'm not saying that Shaq or Nash don't deserve consideration also, but look at the supporting casts.

You say "how valuable is a player if he can't carry his team into the playoffs?"

They're not out of it yet dude, and he has 35 PPG and 10 APG in the last 4 games.

[Joe826]

AI is definetly a great player, i'm just saying there is much more to MVP than individual stats. Otherwise we'd have to consider Kobe as well right? For the record I hope they do get into the playoffs, I like watching them. Too bad that whole Webber thing isn't working out..

[istewart]

Webber has been so useless, lol.

[Dead]

I think that Iverson should be considered. MJ won it in 1988 when he carried his Bulls into the playoffs.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Iverson should be considered. MJ won it in 1988 when he carried his Bulls into the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea. That's a great comparison.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Iverson should be considered. MJ won it in 1988 when he carried his Bulls into the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one can shake up a thread with a ridiculous comment like you, Dead.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he carries his team and they still suck. That's why it's called MVP. How valuable is a player if he can't even get their team to the playoffs? MVP is about making others better in addition to preforming individually. That's why Nash and Shaq are the two leading candidates. Shaq's numbers are actually a bit down this year, but basically all of his teammate's numbers are up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you replaced Steve Nash with Allen Iverson, JKidd (healthy) or Bibby, the Suns would be just as good. Iverson can be a fantastic point guard when surrounded by talent, as evidenced by his superior play in all-star games (and yes, I know there is no defense in all-star games, but it's the only time he ever has talent around him).

However, if you replaced Iverson with Nash, the sixers would be no where near where they are now.

Nash is getting a ton of credit for simply playing point guard. News flash: that's how you're supposed to play point guard, a position that has completely died over the last decade or so. He is a solid player who deserves to be an all-star, but he isn't really that special.

Shaq is still the MVP, but AI > Nash in my opinion, and it's not really that close.

[lucas9000]

marcus camby.

[sam h]

I agree with this entire post.

[jesusarenque]

Manute Bol.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi AI, sorry but you don't lead the league in assists, Nash has you covered by a wide margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. AI is third in assists and fifth in assists per game. My bad.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
Nash is getting a ton of credit for simply playing point guard. News flash: that's how you're supposed to play point guard, a position that has completely died over the last decade or so. He is a solid player who deserves to be an all-star, but he isn't really that special.

[/ QUOTE ]


RECAP

- Playing point guard the right way as died out over the last decade

- Nash plays point guard the right way

- Nash isn't doing anything that special



Seems logically incoherant to me... what am I missing?

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this entire post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Note that I wasn't saying AI should be MVP, but he should get consideration. Especially with his late push:

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif38 points, 9 assists, and 6 steals in a big win at Boston

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif48 points, 8 assists, and 7 rebounds in a win over Charlotte

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif23 points, 16 assists, 7 rebounds, and 5 steals in a huge win over Cleveland

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif28, 11, and 4 steals in a loss to Boston

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif38 and 16 in a huge OT win over Miami

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif43 and 7 in another big win in Indiana

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif33 and 8 in a loss to the Nets yesterday

I'd be curious to know the last time a player averaged 35 points and 10 assists over a seven-game stretch. The only guys in the last 20 years capable of this are Magic, MJ, Isiah, AI, and maybe LeBron.

[tbach24]

I don't think there is a clear winner to the award this year. IMO Shaq and Nash are about equal. The Suns couldn't win without Nash (as evidenced by their skid w/o him). Shaq has elevated the Heat from a good team, to the best in the East. And it's not close. Those two are about equal.

AI has been amazing lately and all season. He leads the NBA in scoring, and is dishing the ball well as well. To say that there is no one around him though is false. Dalembert has been a solid contributer (52.4%, 1.7 BPG), Korver has shot well (40.7%) and Iguodala has been solid. However, without AI, I doubt that Dalembert or Korver would shoot as well as he does. AI brings pressure from opposing teams to himself, then dishes it off to Dalembert inside or Korver outside. Before seeing him play, I would say he was overated. However, after seeing him play a couple times, I can confidently say that, besides MJ, I've never seen anyone take over a game like that. He does more for his team that anyone can imagine. He shoots a decent 41.7% from the field and 76.9% from the line, but his numbers can't begin to describe him. This isn't baseball, players can't be measured by numbers so much. He is the MVP IMO.

Saying that you could replace Nash with AI is absurd though. No one plays defense in the all-star game and therefore it isn't a great example. Marion, Stoudemire (sp?), and Johnson would go nuts. They wouldn't get the ball as much as they need. That team wouldn't be that great. That isn't to take away from AI, but more to say that he couldn't fit there.

AI for MVP.

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that Iverson should be considered. MJ won it in 1988 when he carried his Bulls into the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea. That's a great comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%. Although I am a Philly honk so I am biased.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that Iverson should be considered. MJ won it in 1988 when he carried his Bulls into the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea. That's a great comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%. Although I am a Philly honk so I am biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was being sarcastic.

[tpir90036]

I suppose I missed the sarcasm. I usually rely on the smilies to help fill in the context gaps. For exmaple: You are an idiot.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
AI has been amazing lately and all season. He leads the NBA in scoring, and is dishing the ball well as well. To say that there is no one around him though is false. Dalembert has been a solid contributer (52.4%, 1.7 BPG), Korver has shot well (40.7%) and Iguodala has been solid.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say there was no one around him, I just said they were very young. But since you brought it up:

Stoudemire > Webber
Marion > Dalembert
Richardson > Korver
Johnson > Jackson

[solid]

[ QUOTE ]
Johnson > Jackson

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an odd comparison. A more apt one would be Igoudala and Johnson, and I'd say maybe Joe's a little better than Andre at this point.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you know where the Sixers would be without Iverson. They'd be out of contention after two months. He is the entire team. I'm not saying that Shaq or Nash don't deserve consideration also, but look at the supporting casts.

You say "how valuable is a player if he can't carry his team into the playoffs?"

They're not out of it yet dude, and he has 35 PPG and 10 APG in the last 4 games.

[/ QUOTE ]
if the nets lost kidd, they would be the worst team in the nba. hes more of an mvp than iverson.

[istewart]

Not true.

[morello]

Still gotta go with Shaq. Throw in the fact that he's "due", and he'll likely win by a large-ish margin.

Iverson is a big no, as much as I hate to say it, Nash is overrated, Duncan missed a few too many games, and hasn't done anything different than previous years. Lebron's team hasn't been very good. I would definitely vote for Lebron over AI though.

[holeplug]

1)Shaq
2)AI
3)Nash
4)Lebron

I just think the way the Lakers imploded and Miami went from a decent team to the best in the east in one season means Shaq should get it. Iverson's had his best season as a pro, even better than when he won the MVP in 2000. His team this year though has NO talent at all around him. The Weber trade ain't working out this season but thats a whole other discussion. I've never thought Nash was an MVP candidate since he plays no defense at all and Bibby and Kidd are just better players than he is. Plus that team is loaded with talent so I think a half dozen PG's could win 55 games with that talent easily. Half way through the season Lebron woulda been my MVP but his team has just imploded down the stretch and its sad to see. Like AI though, that team has no talent at all and their whole organization is just a mess right now.

[ThaSaltCracka]

AI for MVP, and not even close. Igoudala should get consideration for ROTY too.

[Vince Young]

Am I the only person who thinks the MVP should be a combination of the best player and the actual "MVP?" I don't think Nash should be in the top 5.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I am a big Shaq fan, always have been, always will, but he doesn't deserve MVP simply because he hasn't been playing as well as he did 2-3 years ago, he has missed his fair share of games, AND HE PLAYS WITH ONE OF THE MOST TALENTED YOUNG PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE.

[Popinjay]

Another name that should be considered is Dirk Nowitzki

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
he doesn't deserve MVP simply because he hasn't been playing as well as he did 2-3 years ago,


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...right, this has nothing to do with how valuable he has been *this* season.

[ QUOTE ]

he has missed his fair share of games,


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, as long as he's played enough to be valuable, he should certainly be in the discussion. While missing games surely affects how valuable he is, it only does so to a point (for instance, Barry Bonds misses games the last few years but has been a clear MVP time and time again).

[ QUOTE ]

AND HE PLAYS WITH ONE OF THE MOST TALENTED YOUNG PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not sure what that has to do with *him* being valuable or not.

I assume your position is AI defeats Shaq due to these three points. The thing is, Shaq's team has done *much* better than the Sixers. This is how Shaq can play with more talent than AI and still be more valuable. The reason Shaq is more valuable (and the most valuable basically every year the past several years) is because *he* is the biggest single difference maker in the NBA.

The last half a dozen years, he's had the most say of any one individual player of who wins the 'ship (and it's all about the 'ship). Not Kobe, not Kidd, not AI, not even Timmy D have the control and stranglehold on the league that Shaq does. It's truly a testament to how good he was that he is *still* the MVP even though he isn't putting up past numbers and/or displaying his dominance as much as he used to on a night in night out basis.

I'm not going to get roped into an argument about Nash (and I think Nash has helped the Suns tremendously)....there's simply no way he is the MVP.

Yugoslav

[istewart]

Shaq is worth considering, but so is Wade. Therefore Shaq cannot be MVP.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this entire post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Note that I wasn't saying AI should be MVP, but he should get consideration. Especially with his late push:

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif38 points, 9 assists, and 6 steals in a big win at Boston

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif48 points, 8 assists, and 7 rebounds in a win over Charlotte

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif23 points, 16 assists, 7 rebounds, and 5 steals in a huge win over Cleveland

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif28, 11, and 4 steals in a loss to Boston

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif38 and 16 in a huge OT win over Miami

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif43 and 7 in another big win in Indiana

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif33 and 8 in a loss to the Nets yesterday

I'd be curious to know the last time a player averaged 35 points and 10 assists over a seven-game stretch. The only guys in the last 20 years capable of this are Magic, MJ, Isiah, AI, and maybe LeBron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only 26 points and 8 assists tonight.

.
.
.
.

Oops, it's only halftime.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Johnson > Jackson

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an odd comparison. A more apt one would be Igoudala and Johnson, and I'd say maybe Joe's a little better than Andre at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed on both. I had Jackson and Igoudala both listed, and as I was plugging in names and formatting, I made a mistake. It should be

Johnson > Igoudala

I wanted to work both Jacksons (Marc and Jim) in, but couldn't make it make sense.

[Terrabon98]

Ron Artest.

[blindu]

[ QUOTE ]


Nash is getting a ton of credit for simply playing point guard. News flash: that's how you're supposed to play point guard, a position that has completely died over the last decade or so. He is a solid player who deserves to be an all-star, but he isn't really that special.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely ridiculous. all of you that are saying AI should get MVP are either biased east-coasters are simply misinformed. The MVP gages how much of an impact you have on your team AND how much that impact is. Steve Nash and Shaq have 1. the most impact and 2. have very good teams. the 76'rs were questionable to even MAKE THE PLAYOFFS until recently. Sure, Iverson is getting amazing numbers. Unfortunately, numbers isnt all what the MVP asks for.

The case that Nash should be MVP (my choice) is proven because if you look at his supporting cast, yeah their good, but as much as i hate to say it, Dwayne Wade helps his team win more ball games than Amare. Without Shaq, Miami is still able to succeed on a marginal level. Without Steve Nash this year, we are 2-4. There you go.

Allen Iverson is simply a heightened Lebron: He has amazing talents that will get him to the Hall of Fame, but his team sucks. Look at what is happening with Cleveland now. That team is most probably not going to the playoffs, even though Lebron is playing amazing basketball. Iverson simply has a better supporting cast that has enabled them to get the 7 or 8 spot in the East.

Dirk is also on my ballot, even though he has a good supporting cast, hes easily the most versatile player in the NBA. Shawn Marion being second, though.

If you dont think my pick for MVP is right, dont take my word for it, take Marc Stein's: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2037877

1. Nash
2. Shaq
3. Iverson
4. Dirk
5. Lebron

[istewart]

You're arguing that "Iverson simply has the better supporting cast (than the Cavs)" when explaining the reasons why they're barely making the playoffs.

LOOK AT NASH'S TEAM. IT IS STACKED.

[Joe826]

you guys are missing the point. nash has the best hair = MVP.

[blindu]

you misunderstand. im saying that in the comparison between why 76'rs are going to playoffs, and cavaliers are not, 76'rs have a slightly better supporting cast.

seperately, im saying that no matter how good iverson is, no matter how good or bad his supporting cast is, their still the 7'th or 8'th seed in the East and WILL lose in the 1'st round in any case.

and the reason that stoudamire, marion, richardson, johnson are having their career years is BECAUSE OF NASH.

he will become the first players since john stockton to average 11 assists at the end of the year.

where do you think those assists go? stoudamire...marion...richardson...johnson.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Not true.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes it is

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Shaq is worth considering, but so is Wade. Therefore Shaq cannot be MVP.

[/ QUOTE ]

That argument is both unsound and invalid.

I feel let down...

Yugoslav

[SCfuji]

ai is a workaholic. hes also burdened with a light frame and gets banged up yet manages to play game after game and put up numbers.

go lakers

[ClassicBob]

When talking about Nash for MVP, supporters like to point to the four game losing streak the Suns had while he was injured. One thing that is often missed is that Leandro Barbosa was missing too. They had no one at all to run the offense. A few games later, when Nash was injured again but Barbosa was back, the Suns offense was fine.

That, and Nash can't play a lick of defense.

My ballot:
1. Nowitzki
2. Shaq
3. Nash

[blindu]

actually; while leandro barbosa was back-up for the season, and he was out for those games, joe johnson was playing point. if you weren't aware, joe johnson played point last year, and even with barbosa back, has filled in for his role. joe johnson is a better point guard than barbosa. the only reason johnson plays the 2 is because hes better at it.

[disjunction]

What would happen to the two teams if you traded Shaq for Nash?

[blindu]

unfathomable. we have stoudamire. they have wade.

[PokerFink]

This is going to be fun.

[ QUOTE ]
This is absolutely ridiculous. all of you that are saying AI should get MVP are either biased east-coasters are simply misinformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you accuse me of being biased even though you are a suns fan voting for Steve Nash.

[ QUOTE ]
The MVP gages how much of an impact you have on your team AND how much that impact is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very redundant and makes very little sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, Iverson is getting amazing numbers. Unfortunately, numbers isnt all what the MVP asks for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. One reason why AI's argument for MVP is that his performance is BETTER than his numbers. He is forced, game in and game out, to carry a mediocre team. As anyone who has ever watched a sixers game can attest, AI gives more effort than anyone, and can take over a game like no one else in the league.

[ QUOTE ]
The case that Nash should be MVP (my choice) is proven because if you look at his supporting cast, yeah their good, but as much as i hate to say it, Dwayne Wade helps his team win more ball games than Amare. Without Shaq, Miami is still able to succeed on a marginal level. Without Steve Nash this year, we are 2-4.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using your own argument against you, once again you have proven that AI is more deserving of the MVP award. By your arugment, Nash > Shaq because Shaq gets more help from his teamates. Therefore, AI > Nash since Nash gets more help from his teamates.

[ QUOTE ]
Allen Iverson is simply a heightened Lebron: He has amazing talents that will get him to the Hall of Fame, but his team sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really know where this came from. The sixers don't suck by any means, but they have far less talent than the Suns. Furthermore, AI deserves extra credit for pulling together what was basically a brand-new team this year. Iguoala is a rookie, Dalembert is getting extended playing time for the first time in his career, and AI is basically playing point because the sixers got rid of Eric Snow. Not to mention some late trades that mixed things up again. And a new coach.

[ QUOTE ]
Iverson simply has a better supporting cast that has enabled them to get the 7 or 8 spot in the East.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just contradicted yourself, see the above quote.

And finally, I could care less what Marc Stein wrote. ESPN talking heads are not the know-it-all experts that ESPN would like us to believe, as evidenced by footballoutsiders Aaron Shatz (spelling?), who is a real expert, consistantly making the ESPN football talking heads look like morons with his fantastic insights this past year. Furthermore, i'm sure there are plenty of "AI for MVP" articles posted across the web.

[mikeyvegas]

[ QUOTE ]
You're arguing that "Iverson simply has the better supporting cast (than the Cavs)" when explaining the reasons why they're barely making the playoffs.

LOOK AT NASH'S TEAM. IT IS STACKED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same team last year without him(and Q) didnt even make the playoffs. Now they have the best record in the league. The only completition to nash is Shaq, and he's leading a team in the Eastern conference to 3rd best record. Think about it.

[mikeyvegas]

[ QUOTE ]
What would happen to the two teams if you traded Shaq for Nash?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both teams would barely make the playoffs.

[PokerFink]

The Suns' improvements may be due to their nucleus of young players improving, as well as Nash. Of course, the same can be said for the Sixers (mainly Dalembert and getting Iguodala) and the Heat (mainly Wade who is now a superstar).

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
you misunderstand. im saying that in the comparison between why 76'rs are going to playoffs, and cavaliers are not, 76'rs have a slightly better supporting cast.

seperately, im saying that no matter how good iverson is, no matter how good or bad his supporting cast is, their still the 7'th or 8'th seed in the East and WILL lose in the 1'st round in any case.

and the reason that stoudamire, marion, richardson, johnson are having their career years is BECAUSE OF NASH.

he will become the first players since john stockton to average 11 assists at the end of the year.

where do you think those assists go? stoudamire...marion...richardson...johnson.

[/ QUOTE ]

those guys are having carreer years because they're young and improving. i wouldn't be surprised if most of them had better years next year.

[blindu]

as earlier stated then, igoudala and dalenbear are also improving. same with korver. every young squad is going to make improvements.

here's the main arguement: when we compare all 3; nash, shaq, and iverson, we see some key differences. all 3 had squads that improved.
you can make arguements that nash's supporting cast is better, or worse, or anything, but ric bucher gives a good point. the MVP is awarded with your cast. it is incorporated with your tasks. meaning; you have to see who makes their team better, and how good that team is. as good as iverson is, and as much impact he has, that impact is not better than a 7'th seed. remember, these guys are hitting the pistons on sat. or sunday. that means a verrry probably loss. so as hard as iverson works, as much as he does, his team is still most probably only going to play a maximum of 7 games in the playoffs.
without nash, we dont make the playoffs. with nash, we are 62-19, with a game left and are heavy favorites to win the WCF
without iverson, 76'rs dont make playoffs. with iverson, they make it to playoffs...barely...clinching with 2 games left...and will be eliminated by the pistons.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
without nash, we dont make the playoffs. with nash, we are 62-19, with a game left and are heavy favorites to win the WCF
without iverson, 76'rs dont make playoffs. with iverson, they make it to playoffs...barely...clinching with 2 games left...and will be eliminated by the pistons.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no way of proving any of this as fact. First of all, the Suns improving young nucleus combined with the setbacks of a few WC teams (read: Lakers, Wolves) means that the Suns may have reached the playoffs without Nash. Second, you may be surprised by the Sixers in the first round. I'm not predicting an upset, but the Sixers blew the Pistons out less than a month ago. What you said is opinion, not fact.

Furthermore, you prove your own bias towards the Suns and your lack of knowledge about the NBA by saying that the Suns are "heavy favorites to win the WCF" when the Suns are not the gambling favorites to win the west, let alone "heavy favorites". The Suns are 2-1, while the Spurs are 1.3-1.

LINK (http://205.134.167.60/lines/lines.cgi?device=browser&site=sbcom2&sport=583)

[blindu]

odds aside, they have a better chance of doing anything what so ever than the 76'rs. the 76'rs may have "blew out" the pistons a month ago, but they got "blown out" recently to the pistons.
im asking for you to give me a reason outside of statistics why iverson should be mvp.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
odds aside, they have a better chance of doing anything what so ever than the 76'rs. the 76'rs may have "blew out" the pistons a month ago, but they got "blown out" recently to the pistons.
im asking for you to give me a reason outside of statistics why iverson should be mvp.

[/ QUOTE ]


As for reasons why Iverson is a better MVP candidate than Nash, I already have in my first response to you. But lets put it this way: Iverson is completely irreplacable on the Sixers. I don't think there is another player in the league that could play guard on the Sixers and lead them to the playoffs.

There are, however, a few players that could play point for the Suns and have them right where they are, mainly Bibby and a healthy JKidd. Maybe even Iverson himself.

Oh, Nash doesn't play a lick of defense, while Iverson does.

[morello]

Here's the thing with Nash.

You swap JKidd, Wade, Lebron, etc on his team, and the Suns are still a top seed.

You swap Nash for one of those guys, and their team either stays the same or gets a lot worse.

How can he be the most valuable player?

Again, I think it needs to go to Shaq. Good argument can be made for a few other guys too, but none of them bring what Shaq does to the table: instant playoff contenders, even on the crappiest of teams. Seriously, stick Shaq on the Hawks and you don't think they aren't making the playoffs?

Also, Shaq has been ignored in recent years (As MJ was in his prime) so he'll probably pick up a few extra "sympathy" votes.

[blindu]

[ QUOTE ]



Iverson is completely irreplacable on the Sixers. I don't think there is another player in the league that could play guard on the Sixers and lead them to the playoffs.


[/ QUOTE ]

wrong. as much as i hate him, kobe bryant. him and iverson play the same style.

bibby is a shooting point guard. he doesnt anywhere near the amount of APG's as nash.
jkidd is the same.
they both are shooting point guards. meaning that they do dish out assits. but they shoot first. pass second.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
wrong. as much as i hate him, kobe bryant. him and iverson play the same style.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say Iverson played a unique style, I said he was irreplacable. The sixers would be consideribly worse with Bryant vs. Iverson, if nothing else for the intangables (Iverson is a leader who makes his teamates better, Bryant's teamates basically hate him). Iverson also has 8APG vs 6.1APG for Bryant.

[ QUOTE ]
bibby is a shooting point guard. he doesnt anywhere near the amount of APG's as nash.
jkidd is the same.
they both are shooting point guards. meaning that they do dish out assits. but they shoot first. pass second.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason Kidd: Point Guard, 14.7PPG, 9.3APG (1.58-1 Ratio)
Steve Nash: Point Guard, 12.8PPG, 6.7APG (1.91-1 Ratio)
Mike Bibby: Point Guard, 16.0PPG, 6.6APG (2.42-1 Ratio)

All three are listed as point guards, and I think these career numbers dispell what you just said quite nicely.

In fact, check this out.

Jason Kidd, Phoenix Suns, 97-98: 11.6PPG, 9.1APG (1.27-1 Ratio)
Jason Kidd, Phoenix Suns, 98-99: 16.9PPG, 10.8APG (1.56-1 Ratio)
Jason Kidd, Phoenix Suns, 99-00: 14.3PPG, 10.1APG (1.41-1 Ratio)
Jason Kidd, Phoenix Suns, 00-01: 16.9PPG, 9.8APG (1.72-1 Ratio)
Steve Nash, Phoenix Suns, 04-05: 15.6PPG, 11.5APG (1.35-1 Ratio)

I'd say Kidd compares pretty well to Nash, especially considering Nash has a much, much better supporting cast (meaning more assists, less pressure to score) than Kidd ever had in Phoenix.

I think I'm done with you.

[ethan]

The MVP is Shaq.

The MVP is always Shaq. Until he retires.

Other people get votes because the voters think "well, we can't _always_ give it to Shaq. That wouldn't be 'fair'."

I say this not having ever been a fan of any of his teams, nor of the man himself. But he's the MVP. Every year. Once someone dominates the game anywhere near as much as Shaq does, I'm willing to give him consideration.

This year Shaq's been injured, not playing as many minutes, and he's still dominating. I find choosing anyone else somewhat ridiculous.

[Popinjay]

He's also playing in the East now too.

[[censored]]

Shaq is the MVP. However AI is having an awesome season (again) and is really being overlooked. AI is also the only one of the big three (Shaq, Nash, AI) without a stud 2nd guy.

[DougOzzzz]

I find it surprising that so many people actually think Iverson deserves to be MVP.

A few points

1) Going from .300 to .500 is MUCH easier (and less valuable) than going from .500 to .700.

2) Everyone here SAYS the Sixers suck without Iverson. But, consider the following:

When AI is on the court, the Sixers have been outscored by 0.3 points per 100 possessions. When he is off the court, they've been outscored by 4.7 PP/100. That's a difference of 4.4 points/100 poss.

In other words, the 76ers are roughly 4 PPG better with Iverson than without. Last year, they were less than 1 PPG better with him on the court.

Other players +/- Ratings:

Nash: On Court: +12.0, Off Court: -2.4. Difference: +14.4
Nowitzki: On Court: +8.9. Off Court: -7.5. Difference: +16.4
Shaq: On Court: +9.2. Off Court: +2.2. Difference: +7.0

Iverson has had a much smaller impact than either of these 3 players. These ratings aren't perfect though - they fail to adjust for quality of backups, etc. But nobody is telling me that Iverson's backup is that much better than Nash's.

More importantly, Nash/Dirk/Shaq have shown they can contribute greatly on very GOOD teams. Iverson has just shown he can make a crappy team somewhat competitive. I think AI would actually hurt some of the top teams out there if he played on them.
You think Stoudemire, Marion, Johnson et al. are going to be happy if AI arrives and suddenly starts hoisting 25 shots a game up?

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it surprising that so many people actually think Iverson deserves to be MVP.

A few points

1) Going from .300 to .500 is MUCH easier (and less valuable) than going from .500 to .700.



[/ QUOTE ]

I find it surprising so many people want to give Steve Nash the primary credit for the Suns' win increase. IT'S THE MATURATION OF AMARE STOUDEMIRE!

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would happen to the two teams if you traded Shaq for Nash?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both teams would barely make the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumbest post of the thread. Do you really think a lineup of:

Joe Johnson
Quentin Richardson
Shawn Marion
Amare Stoudemire
Shaquille O'Neal

would barely make the playoffs?

[Zoelef]

It's close, but I'd vote for the Shaqbino. Beyond the reasons listed above in his support, he fully removes the "Worst Conference in American Sports" from the NBA East and gives it back to the NFL's NFC.

[holeplug]

[ QUOTE ]
bibby is a shooting point guard. he doesnt anywhere near the amount of APG's as nash.
jkidd is the same.
they both are shooting point guards. meaning that they do dish out assits. but they shoot first. pass second.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhhh wtf?

[PokerFink]

While your statistics are very intriguing, and prove a nice point, I have to disagree with the following.

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, Nash/Dirk/Shaq have shown they can contribute greatly on very GOOD teams. Iverson has just shown he can make a crappy team somewhat competitive. I think AI would actually hurt some of the top teams out there if he played on them.
You think Stoudemire, Marion, Johnson et al. are going to be happy if AI arrives and suddenly starts hoisting 25 shots a game up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I remember Iverson and the Sixers getting to the finals and playing a very competitive five-game series against the Lakers a few years back. He was also the league MVP. So much for being unable to produce on a good team.

Furthermore, if you put Iverson in Nash's place, I have little doubt that he would not be putting up 25+ shots a game, and would play a great point guard.
Don't fault Iverson for putting up so many shots, the Sixers' system is built for him to do that. If you put him into a system where he is looking to pass more, he could do that.

I can see Iverson averaging 15 and 11 on the Suns pretty easily playing point. Plus he would play defense, which Nash doesn't. (See: Any time he has played an all-star game or international game at the point.)

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
While your statistics are very intriguing, and prove a nice point, I have to disagree with the following.

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, Nash/Dirk/Shaq have shown they can contribute greatly on very GOOD teams. Iverson has just shown he can make a crappy team somewhat competitive. I think AI would actually hurt some of the top teams out there if he played on them.
You think Stoudemire, Marion, Johnson et al. are going to be happy if AI arrives and suddenly starts hoisting 25 shots a game up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I remember Iverson and the Sixers getting to the finals and playing a very competitive five-game series against the Lakers a few years back. He was also the league MVP. So much for being unable to produce on a good team.

Furthermore, if you put Iverson in Nash's place, I have little doubt that he would not be putting up 25+ shots a game, and would play a great point guard.
Don't fault Iverson for putting up so many shots, the Sixers' system is built for him to do that. If you put him into a system where he is looking to pass more, he could do that.

I can see Iverson averaging 15 and 11 on the Suns pretty easily playing point. Plus he would play defense, which Nash doesn't. (See: Any time he has played an all-star game or international game at the point.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have any defense to the fact that Philadelphia is barely any better with Iverson on the court as opposed to off the court? And that that's been the case the last THREE years? That he hasn't even cracked the Top 50 in the league each season?

Yeah, his traditional stats are nice and pretty - but unlike baseball, stats don't necessarily tell you how much you help your team win.

[holeplug]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While your statistics are very intriguing, and prove a nice point, I have to disagree with the following.

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, Nash/Dirk/Shaq have shown they can contribute greatly on very GOOD teams. Iverson has just shown he can make a crappy team somewhat competitive. I think AI would actually hurt some of the top teams out there if he played on them.
You think Stoudemire, Marion, Johnson et al. are going to be happy if AI arrives and suddenly starts hoisting 25 shots a game up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I remember Iverson and the Sixers getting to the finals and playing a very competitive five-game series against the Lakers a few years back. He was also the league MVP. So much for being unable to produce on a good team.

Furthermore, if you put Iverson in Nash's place, I have little doubt that he would not be putting up 25+ shots a game, and would play a great point guard.
Don't fault Iverson for putting up so many shots, the Sixers' system is built for him to do that. If you put him into a system where he is looking to pass more, he could do that.

I can see Iverson averaging 15 and 11 on the Suns pretty easily playing point. Plus he would play defense, which Nash doesn't. (See: Any time he has played an all-star game or international game at the point.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have any defense to the fact that Philadelphia is barely any better with Iverson on the court as opposed to off the court? And that that's been the case the last THREE years? That he hasn't even cracked the Top 50 in the league each season?

Yeah, his traditional stats are nice and pretty - but unlike baseball, stats don't necessarily tell you how much you help your team win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to say that if you took AI off the Sixers that they would have more than 42 wins this season?

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see Iverson averaging 15 and 11 on the Suns pretty easily playing point.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is only the fourth player ever to win four scoring titles, and you've got him giving up half his points for a couple extra assists?

I could see him averaging 24 and 12, or maybe 20 and 13-14.

[Lottery Larry]

" I have little doubt that he would not be putting up 25+ shots a game, and would play a great point guard"

You don't know much about AI, do you? He's taking his shots, no matter how many assists he's dishing out.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While your statistics are very intriguing, and prove a nice point, I have to disagree with the following.

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, Nash/Dirk/Shaq have shown they can contribute greatly on very GOOD teams. Iverson has just shown he can make a crappy team somewhat competitive. I think AI would actually hurt some of the top teams out there if he played on them.
You think Stoudemire, Marion, Johnson et al. are going to be happy if AI arrives and suddenly starts hoisting 25 shots a game up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I remember Iverson and the Sixers getting to the finals and playing a very competitive five-game series against the Lakers a few years back. He was also the league MVP. So much for being unable to produce on a good team.

Furthermore, if you put Iverson in Nash's place, I have little doubt that he would not be putting up 25+ shots a game, and would play a great point guard.
Don't fault Iverson for putting up so many shots, the Sixers' system is built for him to do that. If you put him into a system where he is looking to pass more, he could do that.

I can see Iverson averaging 15 and 11 on the Suns pretty easily playing point. Plus he would play defense, which Nash doesn't. (See: Any time he has played an all-star game or international game at the point.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have any defense to the fact that Philadelphia is barely any better with Iverson on the court as opposed to off the court? And that that's been the case the last THREE years? That he hasn't even cracked the Top 50 in the league each season?

Yeah, his traditional stats are nice and pretty - but unlike baseball, stats don't necessarily tell you how much you help your team win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to say that if you took AI off the Sixers that they would have more than 42 wins this season?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I said they were only marginally better with him on the court instead of off the court this season. Same as the last 2 years (he was actually better this year, but still well behind the leaders). I'm not making this up. Visit 82 games (http://www.82games.com).

[mikeyvegas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would happen to the two teams if you traded Shaq for Nash?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both teams would barely make the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumbest post of the thread. Do you really think a lineup of:

Joe Johnson
Quentin Richardson
Shawn Marion
Amare Stoudemire
Shaquille O'Neal

would barely make the playoffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, i do. The reason all of the Sun's players are having career years is because of nash. Watch next year when Joe Johnson gets a huge contract and is a huge letdown. Have you seen Amare play when Nash isn't in the game, he is just plain lost. And Q and Marion wouldn't have 1/2 as many open looks from 3. How many Suns games have you watched this year? I really don't beleive you understand just have valuable Nash is to the core players on this team. And how well would Shaq fit with a team that's built to run the floor?

Now tell me why you think the Heat would be such a dominent team with Nash at the point?

You need to think more about what you saying before you post it.

[blindu]

[ QUOTE ]

He is only the fourth player ever to win four scoring titles, and you've got him giving up half his points for a couple extra assists?

I could see him averaging 24 and 12, or maybe 20 and 13-14.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think people understand.
numbers arn't the main thing to look for, unlike baseball. iverson won the mvp in 2001 (or 2000?), and that was because his team GOT to the finals.

sure, the 76'rs might not win 42 games without iverson. however, they will win more than 35.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]

iverson won the mvp in 2001 (or 2000?), and that was because his team GOT to the finals.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was at the game AI got his MVP award. It was before the finals. The voting happens at the end of the regular season. The Sixers getting to the finals had nothing to do with his MVP award.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would happen to the two teams if you traded Shaq for Nash?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both teams would barely make the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumbest post of the thread. Do you really think a lineup of:

Joe Johnson
Quentin Richardson
Shawn Marion
Amare Stoudemire
Shaquille O'Neal

would barely make the playoffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, i do. The reason all of the Sun's players are having career years is because of nash. Watch next year when Joe Johnson gets a huge contract and is a huge letdown. Have you seen Amare play when Nash isn't in the game, he is just plain lost. And Q and Marion wouldn't have 1/2 as many open looks from 3. How many Suns games have you watched this year? I really don't beleive you understand just have valuable Nash is to the core players on this team. And how well would Shaq fit with a team that's built to run the floor?

Now tell me why you think the Heat would be such a dominent team with Nash at the point?

You need to think more about what you saying before you post it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say the Heat would be dominant with Nash at the point. You said if Nash and Shaq were swapped, both teams would barely make the playoffs. I only disagreed with the assertion that the Suns would barely make the playoffs if you swapped the two. I submit that they would win 60 games easily.

And the final word, as it should be, from the Sports Guy:

If Steve Nash was really the 2005 MVP, then why did his old team win six more games this year than they did last year? Seems a little curious, no?

full article (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050422&num=0)