Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nimbletoe
What do the CLIPPERS have to do with anything? The clippers are better this year, therefore Nash is MVP? What in the world?
Oh, and for you people saying they were the same team minus Nash a year and two years ago, wake up. Amare is leaps and bounds better than he was in the past, plus he stayed healthy. Adding someone like Q who adds 15 points a game is a definite factor, plus Joe Johnson stepped up his game bigtime, since he could now play in his natural position.
Besides, neither of these guy's teams are going to win the championship. One word: Repeat. |
i never said that nash should be mvp because the clippers are better. people are saying that the mavs, nash's old team, was better without him, and thus, amongst other reasons, he shouldn't be the mvp. amongst other reasons for nash not to be mvp, you wrote:
Quote:
|
Are we forgetting about the acquisition of Richardson?
|
quentin richardson had better stats as a clipper (17ppg, 2 apg, 6 rpg his last year in l.a. versus 14.9ppg, 2 apg, 6 rpg this year in phoenix), yet his team never made the playoffs. he averages less points, yet the team he's now on makes the playoffs. i was being somewhat facetious in saying that richardson shouldn't be considered as a factor when i stated:
Quote:
|
quentin richardson wasn't helping the clippers to win a ton of games. should we use the same analogyy that was used in nash's case and say the clippers finished with a better record this year without richardson, so richardson obviously isn't a factor?!?!?
|
... i guess i'm confused as to how we shouldn't consider nash a factor for the suns playing better, yet we're supposed to consider richardson a factor for the suns playing better? nash's old team did better, quentin's old team did better... i don't think the fact that their old teams did better devalues them as players currently, just as a player's old team doing worse doesn't increase a player's current value. there are so many variables to take into account:
lakers did worse... was it shaq's leaving? la never won a championship from 99 to now without him., and his team made the playoffs this year..
or was it robert horry? la never won a championship without him either. his team (spurs) made the playoffs...
or was it gary payton? he was the point guard last year, and his team this year made the playoffs...
or was it phil jackson? he was the head coach for the recent la championships...
or was it the combination of shaq and kobe? shaq never won an nba championship without kobe...
so, did the lakers really do worse because shaq left, or are their a whole host of reasons? i think it's the latter, while recognizing the former is a part of it as well...
the mavs did better this year:
antoine walker was on last year's team, and not on this years team. his newest team (boston) made the playoffs, but his team immediately after the mavs (atlanta) didn't...
antoine jamison was on the team last year. his new team (wizards) made the playoffs...
jason terry wasn't on the team last year, and his old team (atlanta) did worse without him... but then again, atlanta was a pretty bad team anyway...
nowitzki averaged 5 more points per game this year than last...
keith van horn wasn't on last year's team, his old team (milwaukee) didn't make the playoffs...
did the mavs do better because they didn't have nash, or could it be something else?
there are so many variables to look at evaluating a players old team. again, i don't think a player's old team doing well devalues his current worth, just as a player's old team doing poorly doesn't increase his current worth.