<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Looks like Shaq looked through the dictionary and learned a new word. What a dumbass.</div> Definitely word of the day toilet paper.
Well Dallas still hasn't lost much since Nash left and have even done better without him, while the Lakers had to rebuild after Shaq left.
Dallas fell off a little the season after he left, but recovered pretty quickly by trading for Jason Terry, drafting Devin Harris, and seeing the natural progression of players like Josh Howard and Dirk Nowitzki. But either way, that point doesn't prove anything and is irrelevant.
That just shows that Nash was easily replaced while the Lakers have been lacking a dominant inside presence since Shaq left.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">He won an MVP with Phoenix, not Dallas.</div> I think he's trying to say Nash's production can be easily replaced, while Shaq's presence cannot.
It doesn't matter. He's arguing that by pointing to the teams that neither player is on anymore. They were in the MVP race on Miami and Phoenix, respectively, and the question should be was Shaq more valuable to the Heat than Nash was valuable to the Suns?
Well I know that when Nash left, they got Jason Terry and Devin Harris. As well they also got a real center who can bang some instead of using Antoine Walker, Dirk, or whoever.
It's true that big man presence really outweighs the value of a good point guard in this league, but if that were the case MVP's could never be point guards or any other smaller position like Allen Iverson's. Shaq had his moment and will be HoF for sure, but he's not in his prime anymore while Nash seems to be getting a lot better with age. Nash's got new career highs while Shaq seems to be on the downswing of his career. I think MVPs should have an unselfish player be rewarded. The best candidate is Nash. It's very hard to achieve such high %'s at a small position, yet he does it.
<div class="quote_poster">custodianrules2 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It's true that big man presence really outweighs the value of a good point guard in this league, but if that were the case MVP's could never be point guards or any other smaller position like Allen Iverson's. Shaq had his moment and will be HoF for sure, but he's not in his prime anymore while Nash seems to be getting a lot better with age. Nash's got new career highs while Shaq seems to be on the downswing of his career. I think MVPs should have an unselfish player be rewarded. The best candidate is Nash. It's very hard to achieve such high %'s at a small position, yet he does it.</div> Whether he's had a high % or not, that still hasn't made him the most qualified MVP candidate statistically, the last couple of years.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Whether he's had a high % or not, that still hasn't made him the most qualified MVP candidate statistically, the last couple of years.</div> More than Shaq. I'm not talking about anybody outside those two players. Just Shaq and Nash. Point Guard and Center are the two most important building block positions for most franchises IMO. Of course if Shaq were younger and less injury prone, he'd be MVP all the way. Dominant big man center > Jkidd/Nash type point guard. You can say with Shaq, the chances of winning a championship are very high as long as there's a decent outside threat to pass out to or to dribble drive and dish off to Shaq.
