Looking at Results, Nash Is the Pick

Discussion in 'Phoenix Suns' started by Shapecity, Apr 17, 2006.

  1. Shapecity

    Shapecity S2/JBB Teamster Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    45,018
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">This falls under the category of unintended consequences. In the process of clinching a playoff berth for themselves, the Lakers strengthened the case for Steve Nash as the league's most valuable player.

    With Nash sitting on the Phoenix Suns' bench wearing a jeans-and-sports-coat combo, the Suns were a mess. The Lakers made them look like a lottery-bound squad instead of the Pacific Division champions. Phoenix played without a sense of purpose, had no team identity. It was like watching the "Sopranos" crew while Tony was laid up in the hospital.

    Nash's impact is so big that his absence even hurt Kobe Bryant's MVP candidacy. Since the Steve-less Suns couldn't keep the game close, Bryant (43 points) sat out the final six minutes and didn't get the chance to post another, potentially influential, 50-point performance. Instead of hearing chants of "M-V-P" in the waning moments, any voting media member who tuned in heard "We want tacos."

    Because the Lakers held the Suns below 90 points in the 109-89 victory, public address announcer Lawrence Tanter told the fans they'd receive two free tacos at a fast-food restaurant.

    That took priority over the fact the Lakers had just secured a spot in the playoffs. Maybe it's because the opening round feels like it will be a quick drive-through instead of the first course of the lavish postseason meals we used to feast on here. There wasn't too much exuberance in the Laker locker room. This is a franchise that doesn't celebrate the ordinary.

    "It's a step in the right direction," Bryant said.

    And Bryant made a leap back into the good side of the sporting public's opinion. However, good first steps are not the stuff of MVP awards. Best player? Bryant established himself as that. But in the history of the league there have probably been as many times when the best player did not win the MVP as when he did.

    What's the difference? How should we define an MVP?

    I liked Phil Jackson's take.

    "I think the most valuable player has to bring his team to a certain sense of excellence," Jackson said.

    And it usually involves bringing a team a division championship, at the very least.

    At its simplest, basketball is about creating better shot opportunities for yourself than your opponents, which gives your team a better chance to win. That's reflected in field goal percentage and victories. The magic number for MVPs is 50. Fifty victories, 50% shooting.

    Since the Magic-Bird era began in 1979-80 ? which I mark as the start of the superstar-oriented NBA ? the last 26 MVPs have reached at least one of those numbers (victories pro-rated for the lockout-shortened 1999 season). Seventeen of them have hit both.

    Bryant is shooting 45% and the Lakers can get 45 victories if they beat the Hornets on Tuesday. For all that he's done, it's not enough to overcome a quarter-century of history.

    Bryant's 35-points-per-game season, in which he has six 50-point games, evokes comparisons to Michael Jordan's 1986-87 season, when Jordan hit the 50 mark eight times and averaged 37.1 points per game. But the Bulls had a 40-42 record that season and Magic Johnson won the MVP award by averaging 23.9 points, 12.2 assists and 6.3 rebounds while leading the Lakers to a 65-17 record.

    After Sunday's game, I asked Hubie Brown to recap the MVP analysis he did for ABC's broadcast. Yeah, I could have TiVo'd it, but there's nothing better than getting a Hubie Brown Breakdown in person.

    "Me ? just me ? I'm picking Steve Nash," Brown said. "The reason, I said, they have seven new guys, six of them in their top eight scoring, seven guys have had career years. I said he's answered the bell.

    "He shot 50% [from the field], 40% [on three-pointers] and 92% [from the free-throw line]. Only three other guys in the history of the game have done that: Bird, Reggie Miller and Mark Price. So I said: You have to understand what he's doing. The team won 62 games last year, they won 52 already this year and they still have not had Kurt Thomas [for 27 games] or [Amare] Stoudemire" for 77 games.

    I spent Sunday morning going over this confusing race and arrived at Nash as well.

    While Bryant has the advantage of willpower, he also has the luxury of volume; he's taken almost 300 more shots this season compared to runner-up Allen Iverson. (Iverson's 42% shooting in 2000-01 is the only MVP since 1980 to shoot lower than Bryant's number this season.) </div>

    Source
     
  2. ilive4ball

    ilive4ball JBB JustBBall Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">While Bryant has the advantage of willpower</div>

    I don't think you can call this an advantage, it's not like somebody said here Kobe- "you have the power to discourage all of your opponents" while Nash got the shaft and didn't get will power.
     
  3. Coville

    Coville BBW Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    When considering the MVP, there are multiple factors. I mean you can't just say this team lost without Nash. So did the Lakers, twice in a row when Kobe was suspended.

    I mean you can't judge MVP by how the team performs without them...I mean sure take Kobe out of the lakers they win 15 games, probably the same with the Suns. The thing is tho you have to look at how they effect their team and the game.

    I mean who do you think is the better player?

    Who do you think would have more impact on a ballclub?

    Those are question you have to think of?

    If you put Nash on the Lakers? Would they better or worse? Or vice versa.

    I mean selecting MVP is hard, I think Nash OR Kobe are both viable candidates and really drive their teams...
     
  4. unbeliever

    unbeliever JBB JustBBall Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    <div class="quote_poster">Quoting tix_:</div><div class="quote_post">When considering the MVP, there are multiple factors. I mean you can't just say this team lost without Nash. So did the Lakers, twice in a row when Kobe was suspended.

    I mean you can't judge MVP by how the team performs without them...I mean sure take Kobe out of the lakers they win 15 games, probably the same with the Suns. The thing is tho you have to look at how they effect their team and the game.

    I mean who do you think is the better player?

    Who do you think would have more impact on a ballclub?

    Those are question you have to think of?

    If you put Nash on the Lakers? Would they better or worse? Or vice versa.

    I mean selecting MVP is hard, I think Nash OR Kobe are both viable candidates and really drive their teams...</div>

    You make a good point, but I think it needs to be taken a step further. If you brought Kobe to any other team, what would he bring? He would bring production and that's pretty much it. In the form of points and other stats. That is all that you would really expect of him. Wheras with Nash, if you put him on pretty much any other team you'd naturally get his production but you'd also get leadership, confidence, experience and that indefinable "thing" that makes the people around him play harder and better.

    That's an MVP.
     
  5. shor_T15

    shor_T15 JBB JustBBall Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    <div class="quote_poster">Quoting unbeliever:</div><div class="quote_post">You make a good point, but I think it needs to be taken a step further. If you brought Kobe to any other team, what would he bring? He would bring production and that's pretty much it. In the form of points and other stats. That is all that you would really expect of him. Wheras with Nash, if you put him on pretty much any other team you'd naturally get his production but you'd also get leadership, confidence, experience and that indefinable "thing" that makes the people around him play harder and better.

    That's an MVP.</div>


    I agree 100% Steve Nash brings more to a team than Kobe does. Kobe only brings stats. But Nash brings Stats, Confidence, Leadership, Energy, Etc.. Steve Nash is the MVP once again
     
  6. Coville

    Coville BBW Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    <div class="quote_poster">Quoting shor_T15:</div><div class="quote_post">I agree 100% Steve Nash brings more to a team than Kobe does. Kobe only brings stats. But Nash brings Stats, Confidence, Leadership, Energy, Etc.. Steve Nash is the MVP once again</div>

    Just want to throw this out there, but why didn't he thrive in Dallas and really become this on the court leader he has become in Phoenix...

    Me personally I think he just found the system and set of players that compliment him and he compliments also, think of him as a key and them as a lock, only 1 key to that lock. Hard to say if he as a player would have success like he did on other teams...
     
  7. shor_T15

    shor_T15 JBB JustBBall Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    He would be great on any other team. He was good in Dallas. I don't know what you are talking about. He just stepped his game up in Phoenix and he loves playing in Phoenix. If he wanted to have the best points per game in the NBA instead of Assists per game he definitely could. He can get to the rim at any time and he can shoot the long ball. You can't ask much more from and MVP candidate.
     

Share This Page