<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Or what about Stockton or Isiah -- point guards far beyond Nash in stature and quality -- who were never given any serious consideration for the award? Two more names that are quite arguable for, at least, the top 20 all-time. If era is going to be used as the excuse, then we might as well admit right now that the NBA's relative talent is MIA compared to what it was a mere ten years ago. I guess this is a hard slap of reality -- the golden days have come and gone. </div> Even though Steve Nash has not had an overall career like John Stockton or Isiah Thomas, in these past two years he's been every bit as good as the two. As for comparing today's talent with the talent of the 80's and the 90's, I agree that the talent at the very top is a lot weaker. Between 1979 and 1998, you saw the three greatest players to ever play the game: Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson. With those three dominating the 80's and 90's, how could a player like Stockton win the MVP with anything short of a superhuman effort? I think once you take those three out of the equation though, the talent level's not that different. The 80's and 90's had more quality big men, but I think the late 90's and early 00's have brought us a lot better perimeter players. So with that said, I'm more troubled by Jason Kidd not winning the MVP in '01-02. That seems a lot more hypocritical and inconsistent than Stockton and Thomas never winning it. Kidd was in the same situation as Nash, Thomas, and Stockton; he didn't have the best statistical year, but he was everything to his team, completely turning around their season and creating everything for them on offense. However, unlike Thomas and Stockton, he was just competing with the only of Duncan and McGrady for the award, so you can't really fall back on the excuse that there was just more deserving talent that season like you can with Thomas and Stockton. I think the NBA needs to establish a set of guidelines for MVP. It seems like no one can agree on whether it's for the player who means the most to his team, the player with the most impressive stats, or the best player from the best team. I think the voters are just as confused by the whole process as we are.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">Even though Steve Nash has not had an overall career like John Stockton or Isiah Thomas, in these past two years he's been every bit as good as the two.</div> If you think that, then I must conclude that you never watched either play in their primes.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting pumpfake:</div><div class="quote_post">If you think that, then I must conclude that you never watched either play in their primes.</div> I was a season ticket holder for the bad boys, so I've probably seen more Thomas than you actually. But aside from that, would you like to actually support your thought?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">I was a season ticket holder for the bad boys, so I've probably seen more Thomas than you actually. But aside from that, would you like to actually support your thought?</div> I know its become so cool for people to just throw out names and pretend like they what their talking about. What i've seen from Nash in the past 2 seasons does rank up there with what john stocton has done or better.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dj_premium_plus:</div><div class="quote_post">good job as always shape </div> I'm back "In da Club" . I can't believe I got suspended for a week. Seriously, you're mod and admin should realize that this is in the middle of a playoff moment and should have taken that into account, and suspend me for 1 or 2 days at max. Even a player committing a dirty foul only received a 1-2 games suspension. Beside I absolutely have no intension of calling the guy an "idiot". It was basically the way I expressed myself toward his post, I don't see anything wrong in it. NO disrespect but the rule has gone a bit too far especially during a playoff time right now. Anyway, Nash is a fake MVP. Kobe will send you and your sorry fake MVP back to canada real soon.
Way to kick off your comeback Clearly this series has shown that Kobe's teammates were slightly underrated for most of the year. And Nash didn't have as much depth as some people would have you believe. Maybe now that the Lakers understand how to play under Jackson, they can gear up for Kobe's 2007 MVP run. There going to be consistent throughout the year, but I would have less of a problem with him winning it next year than this.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">I was a season ticket holder for the bad boys, so I've probably seen more Thomas than you actually. But aside from that, would you like to actually support your thought?</div> How about you? What have you proven? Oh, nothing. You made the assertion that Nash's last two seasons have been as good as anything Stock or Zeke put together, but I haven't seen a thing to back that up. Considering how much you seem to treasure evidence, why is that? Or does the standard only apply to those you disagree with? Rather convenient. It's amazing how you seem to think that your opinions and avowals are so obviously true in this case that they should not be challenged to begin with -- as if anybody challenging you is just a Nash hater -- even though you've brought forth nothing to underpin those same statements. From what I can see and have seen on the court, as well as on multiple statistical analysis pages, reality stands against you, and through that the evidence of the given case. Here's a John Hollinger article that supports my stance through statistical datum: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Ever done something out of habit even though you know it doesn't make any sense? You're not alone. NBA execs do it, too. For a good example, consider how they evaluate point guards. Coaches and personnel people almost instinctively look to a player's assist/turnover ratio to check how he's doing. But ask them why they look at assist/turnover ratio, and you'll get lots of blank stares and convoluted answers. Probe further, asking if they think Reggie Miller would make a better point guard than Steve Nash, and you'll quickly get a series of guffaws. But guess who had the better assist/turnover ratio last year? Yet, in spite of the logical disconnect of a name like Miller's showing up near the top of the list, some still insist on using assist/turnover ratio to gauge point guards. They're getting some confusing information. For instance, this year's leader, for a second straight season, isn't Nash. It isn't Jason Kidd or Baron Davis or Brevin Knight, either. It's (drumroll, please) … Antonio Daniels. Does that mean Daniels is really better than those guys at running a team? Of course not. What it really means is almost nothing, because assist/turnover ratio is a flawed stat. The problem isn't with "assist" or "turnover," it's with the "ratio." Using a ratio is faulty for two reasons. First, it assumes assists and turnovers are equal, when in fact a turnover is more costly than an assist is helpful. Second, it equates very different amounts of productivity. If Player A just sits in the corner all season and finishes with three assists and one turnover, while Player B directs the offense all year and has 300 assists and 101 turnovers, then according to assist/turnover ratio, we should assume that Player A is "better" at running the offense. Fortunately, there's an easy way to fix assist/turnover ratio. It's a stat I call Pure Point Rating, and it mends the two flaws I mentioned. First, it adjusts for the fact that assists do less good than turnovers do harm by multiplying assists by two-thirds. There's a factual basis in this. As I noted in a recent column, of the three acts of creating the basket (getting open, making the pass and making the shot), the passer does one. So we give him one-third of the credit of a 2-point basket, or about two-thirds of a point. Since turnovers cost almost exactly one point (teams average about 1.02 points per possession), we needn't make any adjustments to that part of the equation. The second adjustment is measuring productivity, to avoid the Player A vs. Player B situation above. The way to do this is to sum a player's accomplishments on a per-minute basis, then adjust them for his team's pace. Finally, multiply the end result by 100 to make the numbers more user-friendly. The final equation is: Pure Point Rating = 100 x (League Pace / Team Pace) x ([(Assists x 2/3) - Turnovers] / Minutes) Using Pure Point Rating instead of assist/turnover ratio yields vastly more believable results. The Reggie Millers and Antonio Danielses disappear, replaced by some names we're used to seeing in discussions of the game's best "pure" point guards. Pure Point Rating (2004-05 Leaders) Player Team PPR Steve Nash Phoenix Suns 12.18 Brevin Knight Charlotte Bobcats 12.05 Rick Brunson Los Angeles Clippers 8.03 Marko Jaric Los Angeles Clippers 7.39 Jason Kidd New Jersey Nets 7.23 Jason Hart Charlotte Bobcats 7.12 As we can see, Nash and Knight are miles ahead of the pack in Pure Point Rating, with Nash leading the way. Considering the lead Nash and Knight have on the rest of the pack, it's reasonable to ask where their seasons rank in historical terms. This is where things get really interesting, because both are in exalted territory in terms of Pure Point Rating. Let's look at some other notable seasons from the past decade, adjusting the pace of each of the previous years to 2004-05 levels. Top Pure Point Rating 1996-2005 (Min. 1,000 minutes) Player Year PPR John Stockton 1995-96 12.63 Mark Jackson 1997-98 12.49 Steve Nash 2004-05 12.18 John Stockton 1999-2000 12.08 Brevin Knight 2004-05 12.05 Mark Jackson 1998-99 11.98 In terms of Pure Point Rating, only John Stockton and Mark Jackson match what Nash and Knight are doing. However, including Jackson and Knight in the comparison is a bit unfair to Nash. Though infinitely better than assist/turnover ratio, Pure Point Rating does have one fly in the ointment: Because it measures only assists and turnovers, it gives an advantage to non-scorers such as Jackson and Knight. Guards can make turnovers going for their own shots just as easily as they can passing it to somebody else, so those who aren't looking to score will benefit from this measure. If we limit the discussion to guards who have taken on some kind of an offensive burden – those who average at least 15 points per 40 minutes – then we see how rare Nash's performance has been. It's the best Pure Point Rating by an offensive-minded point guard since Stockton in 1995-96. Based on that, you might wonder whether it's fair to compare Nash to Stockton. After all, both are West Coast Conference products who grew up in the Pacific Northwest, albeit with slightly different grooming habits. But once we include Stockton's prime years, Nash doesn't measure up. I expanded the chart to go back another decade, showing how much work Nash has to do to make the comparison stick. Pure Point Rating Offensive-Minded Players 1986-2005 (Min. 1,000 minutes) Player Year PPR John Stockton 1989-90 15.56 John Stockton 1987-88 15.52 John Stockton 1990-91 14.59 John Stockton 1990-91 14.54 John Stockton 1994-95 13.86 John Stockton 1993-94 13.76 John Stockton 1992-93 12.83 John Stockton 1988-89 12.69 John Stockton 1995-96 12.63 Steve Nash 2004-05 12.18 When people say Stockton is the best pure point guard ever to play the game, this is what they're talking about. As you can see in the chart, Nash's season, as great as it has been, barely cracks Stockton's top 10. The Man from Spokane remains in a class by himself. However, we shouldn't let the Stockton comparison blind us to the genius of Nash's play this year. While it's true he can't touch Stockton's best years, it's equally true that no other scoring point guard can touch what Nash is doing. But the really incredible part is that all of that information is invisible if we rely on assist/turnover ratio, because it spits out misleading data that makes us think Daniels is better than Nash at running an offense. Thus, out of all the amazing numbers put up by Nash this year – or by Stockton in the two preceding decades – the most telling stat is this: Stockton never led the league in assist/turnover ratio.</div> Stockton's the only player in history with multiple 1,000 assist seasons -- seven, to be exact. He nearly averaged 15 assists a game one season. 14 twice. Over 13 five times. This is important, because it's an unmatched peak attained -- therefore going against your statements as Nash's relative peak value -- for far longer than Nash's own peak so far. Off of that, what is Nash's single best season assist average? 11.5 -- Stockton averaged better than that eight times. What Nash averaged in assists this season is Stockton's career average. How the hell can you argue Nash's peak as a PG to be as high considering base stats stand so blatantly against such a call? Watching the two play, until last year nobody thought Nash was a great floor general. Certainly not one of the best passers of all time. And he still isn't, really. There are two players I consider in contention for The Greatest Passer Award: Magic and Stockton. That's it. On the floor I haven't seen anybody else come close. There's no way Nash has the court vision or arms/hands of Stockton when it comes to manipulating an offense -- the only way to "prove" this is to analyze game tape or be aware of their respective abilities, and I'm giving you my verdict; just as you gave me yours earlier. Certainly my stance is not counter to known statistical standards -- it instead is quite agreeable. Can you say the same for your side of this argument? Broadly, it stands selfsame on argumentation in Zeke's favor as well; though there's less longevity as compared to Stockton, he was definitely better than Nash at their respective bests. I have stats right in front of me that speak to a higher peak than Nash has achieved. In addendum, I'd say this rather eviscerates any aspersions as to my lack of factual basis so far as conclusions made. Put more simply, the facts agree with me.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brasco:</div><div class="quote_post">I know its become so cool for people to just throw out names and pretend like they what their talking about. What i've seen from Nash in the past 2 seasons does rank up there with what john stocton has done or better.</div> Stockton was far better, no matter the season, as far as the following: decision making, passing and defense. He was also the better shooter. Not just on consistency (though certainly 52% for a career of 19 years is better than 47% through 10), but also as far as a single season's FG% -- I've never seen another jump shooting backcourt player average nearly 60% on field goal accuracy over the course of an NBA campaign. Stockton's late 80s/early 90s peak was far better than what Nash is doing right now, and the stats support that. 1987-88: 14.7 ppg, 13.8 apg, 2.9 rpg, 3.0 spg, 57.4 fg% 1988-89: 17.1 ppg, 13.6 apg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 spg, 53.8 fg% 1989-90: 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 2.6 rpg, 2.7 spg, 51.4 fg% 1990-91: 17.2 ppg, 14.2 apg, 2.9 rpg, 2.6 spg, 50.7 fg% 1991-92: 15.8 ppg, 13.7 apg, 3.3 rpg, 3.0 spg, 48.2 fg% Going through the stats up to 96/97, Nash's MVP seasons are below-par Stockton prime years. And these numbers don't really take into account how much better Stockton was than Nash defensively -- just as Hollinger's don't, unfortunately. Another article that supports what I'm saying on Stockton's greatness over Nash, from the 88 season: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/ <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">John Stockton (Utah Jazz): A year ago, Stockton wasn't on anyone's top ten list of point guards. Now, there is no doubt he deserves a spot with the best. Stockton takes over for Magic (temporarily) as the Point Guard of the Future. No 6'9" point guards have come out of college in the last eight years, so we have to look at a player of a more traditional stature to be the next premier point guard. Stockton's style is different than Magic's because of the height difference, but he is as good a passer as Magic. He might actually be better because he has to find openings where Magic can go over people. Stockton was fourth in the league in field goal percentage, so he hits the open jump shots with the best. He's no asset as a rebounder, but his defense is top notch. Try to watch Stockton's hands for a while and count the number of times they're going to fast for your eyes to follow. Bet it's pretty high. Stockton's individual floor % of .654 last year is the highest I have ever seen. In '86-87, Magic had a floor % of .628, which is the second best I've found, but is quite a distant second. Stockton broke the old record for assists in a season, set by Isiah Thomas in '84-85, but Thomas' floor % of .593 wasn't nearly as high as Stockton's. It's amazing that Utah's team floor % was only .531 and its adjusted points per game was only 107.1, both lower than league averages. This is true because none of his teammates are particularly efficient scorers, either because they turned the ball over or shot poorly. Mark Eaton's .402 floor % was a big offensive problem. Karl Malone's league leading 325 turnovers weren't helpful either. Can you imagine this guy with the Blazers? Can you say 'dynamite'? [...] Before the series started, everyone in L.A. was saying that the Lakers would sweep the Jazz or, at worst, take them in five games. I had just gotten the season NBA stats and calculated offensive and defensive ratings for the teams and found out how good the Jazz defense was. What the stats were telling me was that the Jazz would really push the Lakers, taking them to at least six games. Somehow, I got into a modest argument with a stranger at the supermarket over how the series would go. He insisted that the Lakers would sweep; it took me forever just to get him to concede that the Lakers could lose one game. After the first game in the series, which the Lakers completely dominated, I heard louder than ever, "The Lakers are going to stomp 'em!" When the series went seven games with the Lakers barely coming out on top, the critics were converted to Jazz believers. People were actually calling the Jazz the second best team in the league. My research had been duly tested and did well. That series was a fun one in L.A. After the first game all the newspaper columnists were wondering if the Jazz was going to roll over and play dead for the Lakers so that Magic and Worthy could rest their aching ailing bodies. The optimism of the columnists was blaringly obvious as they could see little in the way of the Lakers making good on Riley's guarantee to repeat. I missed most of the second game because I had to go to work - real work, work that pays by the hour. When I got back home, Laker radio man Chick Hearn was saying something he would repeat over and over throughout the series: "Stockton is playing real well tonight! He's outplaying Magic!" The Lakers were behind and they would stay behind for the rest of the night. They put in a few three pointers to stay close, but when the Jazz needed clutch shooting or passing or defense, someone would step up. That someone was usually John Stockton. John Stockton became a star bigger than Jack Nicholson that night. The press was asking, "Who is this guy?" They immediately pulled out his season stats and found that he had out-assisted everyone in history from Oscar Robertson to Kevin Porter to Isiah Thomas to Magic Johnson. The fact that L.A. had just 'discovered' such a bright new star obscured how he was in the way of the great Laker guarantee. As the series progressed, L.A. seemed to fall more in love with the point guard named John who was out-Magicking Magic Johnson. Later on, L.A. Times' columnist Scott Ostler decided that "Stockton is a man desperately in need of a nickname. Nobody this good should be running around being called just plain John." [...] The Jazz promptly went back to the Salt Palace and romped over the Lakers in Game Six as badly as the Lakers have ever been beaten. Some reported that Chick Hearn put the game in the refrigerator (said it was over) the earliest he ever has for the Lakers. Another chapter in the L.A.-Stockton love story was written when Hearn said, "No matter who wins this series, John Stockton's got to be the MVP." A lot of Laker fans just nodded their heads.</div> Nash is not a comparable player to Stockton at his peak, unless you consider Nash's best to be as good or better than Magic Johnson so far as leadership abilities and statistical highs that demonstrate those abilities. How insane are we going to get here? There's no way I believe that either version of the Steve Nash Suns would push the Magic Johnson Lakers to the limit, with Steve being hailed as the best player on the court in the series. Both the Jazz and Pistons pushed the dynasty Lakers to the edge in 88, and Stockton and Isiah were far and away the best their teams had to offer -- very arguably the best there was on the floor altogether. If anything, much like the myopic press itself, there seems to be great overestimation of what Nash has done these past two years relative to history. I can handle the argument -- though I'd disagree -- that Nash is the best candidate in a weakened era, but I can't believe or stand for people saying his best is as good as two of the top five PGs to ever play the game. And the evidence is equal and agreeable to my disbelief.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting pumpfake:</div><div class="quote_post">Stockton was far better, no matter the season, as far as the following: decision making, passing and defense. He was also the better shooter. Not just on consistency (though certainly 52% for a career of 19 years is better than 47% through 10), but also as far as a single season's FG% -- I've never seen another jump shooting backcourt player average nearly 60% on field goal accuracy over the course of an NBA campaign. Stockton's late 80s/early 90s peak was far better than what Nash is doing right now, and the stats support that. 1987-88: 14.7 ppg, 13.8 apg, 2.9 rpg, 3.0 spg, 57.4 fg% 1988-89: 17.1 ppg, 13.6 apg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 spg, 53.8 fg% 1989-90: 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 2.6 rpg, 2.7 spg, 51.4 fg% 1990-91: 17.2 ppg, 14.2 apg, 2.9 rpg, 2.6 spg, 50.7 fg% 1991-92: 15.8 ppg, 13.7 apg, 3.3 rpg, 3.0 spg, 48.2 fg% Going through the stats up to 96/97, Nash's MVP seasons are below-par Stockton prime years. And these numbers don't really take into account how much better Stockton was than Nash defensively -- just as Hollinger's don't, unfortunately. Another article that supports what I'm saying on Stockton's greatness over Nash, from the 88 season: http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/ Nash is not a comparable player to Stockton at his peak, unless you consider Nash's best to be as good or better than Magic Johnson so far as leadership abilities and statistical highs that demonstrate those abilities. How insane are we going to get here? There's no way I believe that either version of the Steve Nash Suns would push the Magic Johnson Lakers to the limit, with Steve being hailed as the best player on the court in the series. Both the Jazz and Pistons pushed the dynasty Lakers to the edge in 88, and Stockton and Isiah were far and away the best their teams had to offer -- very arguably the best there was on the floor altogether. If anything, much like the myopic press itself, there seems to be great overestimation of what Nash has done these past two years relative to history. I can handle the argument -- though I'd disagree -- that Nash is the best candidate in a weakened era, but I can't believe or stand for people saying his best is as good as two of the top five PGs to ever play the game. And the evidence is equal and agreeable to my disbelief.</div> Statistics aren't everything, nash and stocton played in different systems and in different eras. i will say that nash is a better offensive player then stocton and he hasn't had the bennefits of playing with a karl malone. No one is arguing that nash is better than magic or stocton just that his MVP years were somewhat comparable.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Brasco:</div><div class="quote_post">Statistics aren't everything,</div> That's interesting since a post back you were acting as if my statements were counter to or devoid of the facts. Now, apparently, those same facts don't matter -- since they don't match up with your bias towards Nash, that is. Yes, let's throw out statistical datum -- facts -- since these things are now proving inconvenient. Right? That's a great answer for any argument: "eh, facts? They don't mean much." I guess that rather sums up how one could arrive at some of these outlandish conclusions about Nash's peak value. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">nash and stocton played in different systems</div> Stockton played in a more halfcourt-dominated system that created slower pace and thus fewer scoring opportunities, as opposed to Nash who plays in a faster system that inflates his stats. Yet Stockton's stats are still easily discerned as superior. Great point. Thanks for bringing it up. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">and in different eras.</div> The previous era was far more physical so far as what was and wasn't called -- you had to be tough and durable because you'd get hacked or knocked on your ass without a call made as often as not. The games are far tighter now from an officiating standpoint (bumping and grinding is far more of a no-no, and handchecking is plain MIA), thus favoring guard play. This isn't helping Nash's case. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">i will say that nash is a better offensive player</div> Based on what? Statistically it doesn't wash. Nor logically. Unless we're to believe that Nash can dominate tempo, pass, shoot and overall run an offense better than Stockton. Frankly, that's laughable. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">No one is arguing that nash is better than magic or stocton </div> Really? Odd, since a sentence back you were arguing that Nash was a better offensive player than a guy who is top four in field goal percentage all-time at guard and averaged more assists than any other player in history by a vast margin. It appears that you disagree with yourself. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">just that his MVP years were somewhat comparable.</div> I'm flabbergasted. You apparently think that what Nash is doing today can be considered on the same level as John or, now, Magic. For God's sake. You think Nash is "somewhat comparable" to Magic Johnson and John Stockton (who, according to you, is a lesser point guard than Nash as far as offensive skill set) at their respective peaks. Ugh. We're talking about two guys that did things at point guard -- at their best, not just as far as overall career numbers -- that it can quite literally be said nobody else has ever done. And Nash is somehow on the same level as them at this moment? As I asked before: based on what? The hype around Nash is more and more becoming a separate entity from reality.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting kobe4life:</div><div class="quote_post"> Anyway, Nash is a fake MVP. Kobe will send you and your sorry fake MVP back to canada real soon. </div> Actually you were only suspended for 2 or 3 days. Immature comments like the one above aren't welcomed here. If you don't like the strict guidelines and can't respect the members of the site you will permanantly lose your ability to post.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Anyway, Nash is a fake MVP. Kobe will send you and your sorry fake MVP back to canada real soon </div> Sorry but Lakers/Kobe fans like you are what make the rest of us look bad. Grow up, dude.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting kobe4life:</div><div class="quote_post">Anyway, Nash is a fake MVP. Kobe will send you and your sorry fake MVP back to canada real soon. </div> And you wonder why you got suspended?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">Actually you were only suspended for 2 or 3 days. Immature comments like the one above aren't welcomed here. If you don't like the strict guidelines and can't respect the members of the site you will permanantly lose your ability to post.</div> What? Are you sure? because I did try to post on my 3rd suspension day but I couldn't. It said I got suspended for disrespecting a member...Allright, I got what you mean. I'll follow the rule, thank and I suggest next time, if you suspend someone, at least, pm that person or tell that person how many days he/she get suspended. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Sorry but Lakers/Kobe fans like you are what make the rest of us look bad. Grow up, dude.</div> Wait, actually please exclude the word "us" because it obviously doesn't include you in that "us' group. A true Lakers/Kobe fans will fight through the end. The guy (forgot his username) but he's a canadian, so there's a reason why he picks Nash for MVP. Most haters didn't give the Lakers a chance in the playoff, didn't give Kobe a chance for the MVP (he was 4th or 5th in the MVP ranking candidate, which is extremly disrespectful to Kobe), and I"m going to back him up no matter what. And these haters will never give Kobe the credit simply because of his personal outside problem. It got nothing to do with basketball, and thats what it bugging me the most. I'm sure you're not a true Lakers' fan so you probably don't understand what I'm talking about. It's just fun seeing Kobe and the Lakers shutting up all these haters and doubters. I'm like Kobe, you either hate me or love me. No in between! <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And you wonder why you got suspended?</div> Actually I didn't said I don't deserved to be suspended but a week (I thought) was a little too harsh considering it's a playoff time right now. Last year, Nash deserved to be MVP simply because after the arrival of Steve Nash, the Suns, all of a sudden, became an elite team with the best record in the league. But this year? give me a break. Kobe was carrying the team thoroughout the season. MVP means for "Most Valueble Player" and the keyword in there is "valueble". If you take Nash out of the Phoenix Suns team, take Billups out of the Detroit Pistons, take Lebron out of the Caveliers, take Dirk out of the Mavs, take Wade out of the Heats, and take Kobe out of the Lakers and put all of these teams in 1 separate league. I bet you, in the end, the Lakers will end up with the worse record in that league. That explain why Kobe is undoubtly the most "valueble" player.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting kobe4life:</div><div class="quote_post">Last year, Nash deserved to be MVP simply because after the arrival of Steve Nash, the Suns, all of a sudden, became an elite team with the best record in the league. But this year? give me a break. Kobe was carrying the team thoroughout the season. MVP means for "Most Valueble Player" and the keyword in there is "valueble". If you take Nash out of the Phoenix Suns team, take Billups out of the Detroit Pistons, take Lebron out of the Caveliers, take Dirk out of the Mavs, take Wade out of the Heats, and take Kobe out of the Lakers and put all of these teams in 1 separate league. I bet you, in the end, the Lakers will end up with the worse record in that league. That explain why Kobe is undoubtly the most "valueble" player.</div> If that's so, why has the Lakers bench and supporting cast dominated the Suns in their playoff series? I know its hard to believe, but in my mind, a bigger shock and steal would have been if Kobe had won MVP. He just didn't follow the criteria of past winners.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">If that's so, why has the Lakers bench and supporting cast dominated the Suns in their playoff series? I know its hard to believe, but in my mind, a bigger shock and steal would have been if Kobe had won MVP. He just didn't follow the criteria of past winners.</div> The reason Lakers are playing better now is because they finally understand how to run the triangle offense. At the beginning of the season, the only 3 guys know how to run the Triangle Offense is Luke, George, and Kobe. Lamar, Kwame, Smush, Mihm, absolutely have no freaken idea what a triangle offense is, which explain why Odom is struggling at both end of the floor. Now, you see a huge improvement on the Lakers in the playoff due to their knowledge in the triangle and of course the gameplan is perfect. I can't believe someone is asking such a lame question as why the current Lakers are better than the Lakers at the beginining of the season. No clue You need to watch more basketball, especially the Lakers.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting kobe4life:</div><div class="quote_post">The reason Lakers are playing better now is because they finally understand how to run the triangle offense. At the beginning of the season, the only 3 guys know how to run the Triangle Offense is Luke, George, and Kobe. Lamar, Kwame, Smush, Mihm, absolutely have no freaken idea what a triangle offense is, which explain why Odom is struggling at both end of the floor. Now, you see a huge improvement on the Lakers in the playoff due to their knowledge in the triangle and of course the gameplan is perfect. I can't believe someone is asking such a lame question as why the current Lakers are better than the Lakers at the beginining of the season. No clue You need to watch more basketball, especially the Lakers.</div> Actually, according to ESPN Hollinger, the difference for the Lakers in this series hasn't been better offense, but rather better defense. They're offensive efficiency (points scored per possession) is actually down from what it was in the regular season. Yeah, other players are stepping up , but not enough to overcome the reduction in Kobe's offensive output. What they have done, though, is carried over their defense from the end of the regular season into the playoffs. Specifically, they've dominated the defensive boards against Phoenix.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting kobe4life:</div><div class="quote_post">The reason Lakers are playing better now is because they finally understand how to run the triangle offense. At the beginning of the season, the only 3 guys know how to run the Triangle Offense is Luke, George, and Kobe. Lamar, Kwame, Smush, Mihm, absolutely have no freaken idea what a triangle offense is, which explain why Odom is struggling at both end of the floor. Now, you see a huge improvement on the Lakers in the playoff due to their knowledge in the triangle and of course the gameplan is perfect. I can't believe someone is asking such a lame question as why the current Lakers are better than the Lakers at the beginining of the season. No clue You need to watch more basketball, especially the Lakers.</div> Dude, you're ridiculously arrogant for a n00b. Back to the point though. The fact that they improved shows that Kobe's surrounding cast isn't as crappy as you keep describing. If they were that much worse than the Suns', than they wouldn't have been able to function so well within Jackson's offense. The offense doesn't simply turn crappy players into productive ones.
First of all, you're so biased and ignorant, it makes me laugh. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> A true Lakers/Kobe fans will fight through the end. </div> A true basketball fan would know where to draw the line and actually think before he speaks and makes ridiculous comments while putting down others in the process. It's not the fact that you attempt to big up yourself by putting others down that makes me laugh, but the fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge Nash's importance or admit that although Kobe didn't win it, Nash is just as deserving of the award. A true Laker fan would be able to give Nash his props, just ask Shape <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> The guy (forgot his username) but he's a canadian, so there's a reason why he picks Nash for MVP. </div> What a ridiculous thing to assume. So, can't he just say to you that the only reason you picked Kobe was cause you're a Lakers fan?? You're thought process bafffles me. By the way, I'm Canadian, and I'm a Lakers fan, I don't know how exactly you define a "true Lakers fan" or whether or not I am one, but you're definetly not one in my eyes because of your sheer ignorance on topics you obviously don't know much about. If being a "true Lakers fan" means promoting ignorance and making the rest of "true Laker fans" look bad, then I think you and a handful of others can continue to claim that role. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Most haters didn't give the Lakers a chance in the playoffs </div> Just because people didn't think Lakers would win didn't mean they were haters, get that through your head. Pheonix was the logical choice at the beggnining of the series, hence why people picked them. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> And these haters will never give Kobe the credit simply because of his personal outside problem. It got nothing to do with basketball, and thats what it bugging me the most. I'm sure you're not a true Lakers' fan so you probably don't understand what I'm talking about. </div> If Kobe doesnt get credit, what does that have to do with being a LAKERS fan?? Kobe is a person, Lakers are a team, I thought you of all people would be aware of that. By the way, I do understand what you're talking about, but putting others down just because Kobe is tasting sucess isn't the smartest thing to do. I want Kobe and the Lakers to suceed as well (I specifically wanna see Lakers keep winning with Kobe sharing the ball) because this whole series has felt surreal to me so far. But atleast I respect other's opinions. Once again: Grow up, dude. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I can't believe someone is asking such a lame question as why the current Lakers are better than the Lakers at the beginining of the season. No clue You need to watch more basketball, especially the Lakers. </div> HAHAHAHA sorry mods but I have to laugh at that. And you wonder why you got suspended????
