Nash was great ... but Bryant was better

By Sam Amico

April 27, 2006

Last year, I didn’t have a problem with Steve Nash being named MVP.

He proved to be the premier point guard in the NBA, leading Phoenix’s breathtaking brand of basketball, which was all run-and-gun and loads of fun. The Suns finished with the league’s best record and set the franchise mark for wins. Plus, we all witnessed how awful the Suns were without him.

But this season, the selection of Nash just doesn’t seem right.

Anyone who follows the game closely knows that the award should have come down to Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. And I choose Bryant.

He scored 81 points in one game! He had 62 in another -- in just three quarters. Mostly, he led the league in scoring while becoming a team player in the truest sense.

How else do you explain an otherwise average Lakers team reaching the playoffs?

There were plenty of times this season when Bryant deferred to his young teammates, placing the Lakers on his back only when they were desperate -- which was often the case. Yet here the Lakers are, in the playoffs, tied 1-1 in their series with Nash’s Suns.

And of Bryant, James, and Nash, Bryant is clearly the best defender. It’s not even close.

Or as coach Phil Jackson said after the Lakers’ 99-93 Game 2 victory, in which Bryant scored 29 points on an icy 12-of-24 shooting, "He stayed very well inside of what we're trying to do."

That’s been the story of Bryant all season. He has been a team player while having his best all-around season as an individual. That may not sound like much -- but it’s not easy to do.

In fact, as a guy who has been following the pro game for two decades, I can honestly say Bryant has put together one of the most impressive performances -- ever. That includes anything I witnessed from basketball’s holy trinity of Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, and Larry Bird.

Nash and James are truly great players, and are unquestionably worthy of MVP consideration. But that just goes to show how spectacular Bryant has truly been. And anyone who really knows basketball knows that he’s the best player in the NBA.

When you think about it, that is really all that matters.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">From now on, you have to post the link with this article, and quote the first 2-3 paragraphs.
__________________</div>

<font color="red">Content out of line</font>

Anyhow- EVERYONE on TNT last night was saying over and over Kobe is the best player in the NBA, even Charles admitted it! No one said Kobe got robbed but Sam Amico made a good point- we all know who the best is and that's all that matters.

 

A lot of these arguments seem to be saying the same thing, with the exact same arguments. Of course Kobe's arguably the best player in the League. But that's not the same thing as an MVP.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">A lot of these arguments seem to be saying the same thing, with the exact same arguments. Of course Kobe's arguably the best player in the League. But that's not the same thing as an MVP.</div>

I would have said the same thing if I was from Canada.

 

People need to relax, we're winning, you should be enjoying it instead of getting involved in all this crap.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting LO7:</div><div class="quote_post">I would have said the same thing if I was from Canada.</div>
Well you gotta give me a break. In between playing hockey, hunting beavers, and chugging maple syrup, I don't have enough time to censor my opinion to please Lakers fans.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">A lot of these arguments seem to be saying the same thing, with the exact same arguments. Of course Kobe's arguably the best player in the League. But that's not the same thing as an MVP.</div>

Its damn near close. Has everyone forgotten what MVP means? Most Valuable Player so the best player in the league is the MVP!

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">Its damn near close. Has everyone forgotten what MVP means? Most Valuable Player so the best player in the league is the MVP!</div>
How does that prove anything? Worst attempt at logic ever.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How does that prove anything? Worst attempt at logic ever.</div>

I'm not going to even acknowledge this garbage.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Of course Kobe's arguably the best player in the League. But that's not the same thing as an MVP.</div>
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Valuable - of great importance or use or service</div>
A definition of valuable.

To say that someone is the best player in the league how can he not be the MVP? He is after all the best player in the league....right? If he didn't get MVP then that means that he isn't the best player in the league and Nash....is? I really don't see Nash as the greatest player in the league atm.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm not going to even acknowledge this garbage.



A definition of valuable.

To say that someone is the best player in the league how can he not be the MVP? He is after all the best player in the league....right? If he didn't get MVP then that means that he isn't the best player in the league and Nash....is? I really don't see Nash as the greatest player in the league atm.</div>


MVP = Most Valuable Player. There's nothing in there that says best. By that logic MJ should have won it every year but did he?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Valuable - of great importance or use or service</div>
A definition of valuable.

To say that someone is the best player in the league how can he not be the MVP? He is after all the best player in the league....right? If he didn't get MVP then that means that he isn't the best player in the league and Nash....is? I really don't see Nash as the greatest player in the league atm.</div>
Again you're showing me two different definitions and failing to connect them together. Valuable means of great importance. Since when did important mean best? The same bad logic of your previous post, but with more words.

And bringing in a dictionary definition was pointless in the first place. The NBA's interpretation of valuable is unique, in that it equates value with wins. Tell me the last MVP who played for a 7th place team.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Again you're showing me two different definitions and failing to connect them together. Valuable means of great importance. Since when did important mean best? The same bad logic of your previous post, but with more words.</div>

<font color=""Red"">DON'T USE PROFANITY!</font>

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The NBA's interpretation of valuable is unique, in that it equates value with wins.</div>
And your calling my logic flawed? Using your "brilliant" logic, Billups, Parker, or anyone with a better record should have won it.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Tell me the last MVP who played for a 7th place team.</div>
It has been done before, just ask durvasa, that guy knows everything about Bball.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">You know what I mean and your just being either a dick or a smartass. Also in the definition it was of great use or service.


And your calling my logic flawed? Using your "brilliant" logic, Billups, Parker, or anyone with a better record should have won it.


It has been done before, just ask durvasa, that guy knows everything about Bball.</div>

Has it been done recently? NO. Kobe is a great player yes, probably the most talented player in the league. That doesn't equal valuable though. Nash took a bad supporting cast without Amare(seriously other than Marion, who else had you heard of?) to the 4th best record in the entire NBA. Most people had the Lakers ranked higher than the Suns in the preseason and said that the Suns only chance was if Amare came back strong, guess what Amare didn't come back and they are still there. I'm not trying to take anything away from Kobe, he had one of the best individual seasons in recent memory, but Nash was more valuable to his teams success this year.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">You know what I mean and your just being either a dick or a smartass. Also in the definition it was of great use or service.</div>
No, honestly, I'm still trying to understand how you think valuable and best are the same thing. Both times you showed what they both meant and said something like "how can they not be the same?" How am I expected to agree with you if you don't show the connection? A person doesn't have to be the best to be the most valuable. And of course, the NBA interprets it in its own way as well (I'll get to that in the next part).

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">And your calling my logic flawed? Using your "brilliant" logic, Billups, Parker, or anyone with a better record should have won it.</div>
I didn't say it was my logic. Thats the way the NBA interprets it. Don't you agree? Would players like Billups or Nash even be in consideration if the award wasn't so heavily reliant on wins? Its a fact of the matter. Whether or not you agree, it's still the reality of the MVP.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">It has been done before, just ask durvasa, that guy knows everything about Bball.</div>
I didn't say it hasn't been done before. I was just referring to the rarity of it. Looking at past MVP awards, there's a steady pattern of finding the player with the best balance between stats and team wins. A lot of the times, that hasn't been the best player. And Nash fits that pattern pretty well.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm still trying to understand how you think valuable and best are the same thing. </div>

Are you serious?
Usually when something is the best its valuable.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I didn't say it was my logic. Thats the way the NBA interprets it. Don't you agree? Would players like Billups or Nash even be in consideration if the award wasn't so heavily reliant on wins? Its a fact of the matter. Whether or not you agree, it's still the reality of the MVP.</div>
Actually they don't only look at it that way, they also see who has the biggest impact on their team.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Would players like Billups or Nash even be in consideration if the award wasn't so heavily reliant on wins? </div>
Then Nash shouldn't be in the talk since there are already like 3 teams with 60 win records. Using the "NBA's" logic then someone on those teams should get the MVP award.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">Are you serious?
Usually when something is the best its valuable.</div>
The player that makes the biggest impact on a team, doesn't necessarily have to be the best. And in terms of the MVP award, the best player doesn't necessarily lead his teams to more wins. Now the quality of his teammates must be acknowledged, but its not that big a factor. And besides, their current playoff series seems to suggest that the Lakers had the ability to be a 50 win team.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">Actually they don't only look at it that way, they also see who has the biggest impact on their team.</div>
Yes, and they measure a player's impact on their team by the number of wins.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">Then Nash shouldn't be in the talk since there are already like 3 teams with 60 win records. Using the "NBA's" logic then someone on those teams should get the MVP award.</div>
I think you misinterpreted it. I said : <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Looking at past MVP awards, there's a steady pattern of finding the player with the best balance between stats and team wins. </div> Sure, Duncan's Spurs had a much better record, but his stats aren't as good as Nash's. Kobe's the exact opposite. His stats are much better than Nash's, but his team's record is far worse. The NBA always follows this pattern of finding a happy medium. That's why Kobe wasn't as deserving of the MVP as everyone thought.