NBA MVP: Shaq or Nash? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

blakngold4 · 05-07-2005, 09:13 AM

oh, and whether you agree with nimble's analysis or not, the point stands: at least 5 guys in the league could do nash's job. shaq is irreplaceable.

sixate · 05-07-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle_el

would you happen to remember that big guy... i think he wore #32... finished 2nd in all time scoring list... what was his name... karl malone!!! damn dude, it's not as if stockton carried that team alone with a bunch of "who dats".

That's exactly right. He had Malone, and a bunch of role players or as you call them "who dats", and Stockton was never an MVP candidate because he wasn't even the best player on his own squad. That was my point exactly. I'm so glad you recognized it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle_el

people didn't think much of nash going to phoenix. the team went from no playoffs to best record in the nba. to think that it was due to anything other than nash is silly.

Where to start. Q being on that team now. Amare not being hurt and progressing as a player, and having one of the most versatile players in the league(Marion). Come to think of it, Nash is the third best player on his own fucking team! Nash is a catalyst to the Suns success. Certainly not the MVP of the league. I'll eat my words if the Suns win a championship and Nash is named MVP of the finals.

People act as though Nash made Q, Marion, and Johnson better players. Look at their stats and they're identical to last years. Only Amare averaged more points, but less rebounds.

Put a healthy Jason Kidd on this Suns team, and they woulda been even better than what they are.

dylanmarsh · 05-07-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixate

Nash is a catalyst to the Suns success. Certainly not the MVP of the league. I'll eat my words if the Suns win a championship and Nash is named MVP of the finals.

So noted. I'll do the same if Shaq can somehow win the championship.

maximusveritas · 05-07-2005, 12:24 PM

What does winning a championship have to do with who is MVP?
I fully expect the Suns to win the championship, but I still don't think Nash is the MVP.

aswo · 05-07-2005, 03:51 PM

I still find the argument of MVP Amusing, its an award based solely on opinion when nash was out with an injury the suns lost, when stephon marbury was the point gaurd of the suns which where almost the same team minus Q and some other role players, they lost in the first round. Shaq has been great for the heat but he was not that effective in the heats first round blowout of the nets to show just how complete the heat really are with or without him.

Nimbletoe · 05-07-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle_el

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?!?!?

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.

matteo101 · 05-09-2005, 07:15 AM

Sixate, have you watched an entire suns game this year? If you have, than did you not notice the energy Nash put onto the court. I am not saying that this means he deserves the MVP, but i do think that he is the best point guard in the game right now.

uncle_el · 05-09-2005, 08:34 AM

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.

maximusveritas · 05-09-2005, 10:31 AM

To confuse things even more, apparently Mike D'Antoni has won Coach of the Year. I don't see how that can be justified.
Sure, his team ended up with the best record, but they also had among the best talent in the league. They had the league MVP, 2 other all-stars, and two other great wingmen.
I think Carlisle, McMillan, Skiles, or even Jordan deserved it more than him.

sixate · 05-09-2005, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matteo101

Sixate, have you watched an entire suns game this year? If you have, than did you not notice the energy Nash put onto the court. I am not saying that this means he deserves the MVP, but i do think that he is the best point guard in the game right now.

Yes, I have. And I think that what nearly everyone is confusing here is just because Nash is a catalyst to the Suns success that doesn't make him the MVP of the league. C'mon people. Listen to what you're saying: Steve Nash is the MVP, best player in the league that impacts the game and changes defenses like no other..... He does not impact the game like Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, LeBron, Iverson, Ray Allen, Amare, T-Mac, or Dirk Nowitzki. If I thought a little more I'm sure a few other names would pop into my head, but it doesn't really matter. Nash had such a great year because of all the great athletes around him, and the fact that they all stayed healthy.

Personally, I would take Kidd and Arenas over Nash. If Hinrich or Bibby were on that team I think they would see just as much and probably more success than Nash. If LeBron were on that Suns team running the point he would be way better than Nash. Hell, LeBron is better than Nash now, and he averaged for a season what has only been done by a few other players. Nash did nothing special this year, and that's a fact. Nash is a great player, but not the greatest, and he didn't have a better year than everyone else in the NBA.

blakngold4 · 05-09-2005, 08:56 PM

uncle el...you're damn right you should use that theory to say richardson isn't a factor....in the mvp balloting. he can make a useful, positive contribution to a team as a new addition, but if his absence doesn't even affect his old team, and he left for nothing, there's a point to be made that he's not that big a deal as far as league mvp goes.

oh, and i figured out where this debate basically boils down, and why i don't like steve nash: jason varitek. i'm a big sox fan, and i maintain he was their mvp last year. that doesn't make him a candidate for AL mvp. manny and papi? yeah, mvp candidates. v'tek? not so much, but he's still the team mvp. nash is that varitek guy who's the "glue" for everything. amare's the david ortiz ripping homers to right field.

dylanmarsh · 05-12-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Thursday, May 12, 2005
Race still can rock the vote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jason Whitlock
Special to Page 2

Dan Le Batard's column in the Miami Herald won't go away. And former NBA player and current TNT analyst Rex Chapman fanned its flames even further the other night.

Late in the fourth quarter of San Antonio's victory over Seattle, Chapman and co-commentator John Thompson debated the merits of Le Batard's contention that race might have played a role in Steve Nash winning the NBA MVP award over Shaq.

Chapman, a white former NBA player who considers Nash one of his closest friends, backed Le Batard's assertion, saying that race is "the elephant in the room" and we're naive if we believe that at least a few voters didn't take Nash's white skin into account when they cast their ballots.

"There's plenty of things in this world that I don't feel strongly about, that I'd be politically correct about, but race and racism is really not one," Chapman told me. "From an early age, I saw it. I experienced it. You can stick your head in the sand and not acknowledge the elephant in the room, but it's there … I probably didn't do it justice [Tuesday night on the air]. I brought it up when it can't really be talked about in much detail."

Well, it's being talked about in significant detail in a lot of places this week. Thompson, who is black, criticized Le Batard during the TNT broadcast, claiming it does a disservice to Nash's fine season to bring race into the debate.

Monday night, Charles Barkley ripped Le Batard on TNT's postgame show, calling the column "asinine." Tuesday morning, respected columnists across the country were ridiculing Le Batard in print. Wednesday morning, when I logged on, I was greeted by a rip of Le Batard and a defense of Nash on AOL's homepage.

One man shouts racism in a crowded building and an unruly mob flogs him publicly. Le Batard didn't shout. He suggested that race might have combined with several other factors – Nash's size, America's love for the underdog, Phoenix's 33-game turnaround, Phoenix's poor record without Nash, the voters' desire to avoid the obvious choice – to hand Nash an award Shaq deserved.

Chapman, who is director of basketball operations for the Suns, agrees with me. Nash earned the MVP. His selection is not an injustice to Shaq. But it's foolish to dismiss Le Batard's assertions.

"I know [Le Batard]. I played in Miami for a year," said Chapman, a 12-year NBA vet and an All-American at Kentucky. "He's in Miami covering the Heat. They'll throw the 'homer' tag on him. Other journalists might say he just wants the shock value. I don't know Dan well enough to know what his motives are. But when I heard it, the first thing that went through my mind was, 'Damn right.'

"What mainly lends it credence, gives it some merit, is the MVP voting was close. You know, I grew up in a place (Owensboro, Ky.) where racism is an epidemic. I'm not talking about 20 years ago. I'm talking to this day. Drive through the South. But it's not just the South. [It's] other parts of this country, rural areas – hell, in the cities. It doesn't take but just a handful [to swing the vote].

"It was silly to dismiss Le Batard's article as nonsense. Of course, race could have been a motivating factor in some people's vote."

In my view, if there were 10 factors that swung the vote in Nash's favor, his skin color cracked the bottom of the top 10. Race was a factor. In this case, I just don't happen to believe it was a determining factor.

Nope. This is nothing like the Heisman Trophy voting that has handed college football's top individual prize to five straight white quarterbacks, most of whom were undeserving. Did you really believe that Jason White, Eric Crouch and Chris Weinke were the most outstanding players in college football? If you did, you probably thought Danny Wuerffel, Gino Torretta and Ty Detmer also deserved the Heismans that voters stole for them during the 1990s.

Rather than put any thought into rewarding college football's most outstanding player, Heisman voters simply identify the quarterback of the nation's top-ranked team and make him their Heisman front-runner in mid-October. Television broadcasters do the rest, relentlessly hyping the QB. Quarterback still is primarily a white position, which is the main reason the position is valued significantly more than running back is, when running back is a make-or-break job at least as important as QB.

Elite-level college football, just like the NFL and the NBA, is dominated by black athletes. And college football is truly dominated by black running backs. But – just by coincidence? – voters have figured out a way to tab Matt Leinart, White, Carson Palmer, Crouch and Weinke as college football's most outstanding players over the last five years.

Seriously, do you think anyone ever watched an Oklahoma game or practice and concluded that White was the Sooners' most outstanding player? Last season, the man shared the same backfield with the most breathtaking, perfectly put-together running back since Bo Jackson, and yet somehow White still received more first-place Heisman votes than Adrian Peterson did. White was so outstanding in his six years of college action that an NFL team invited him to walk on just last week.

My point?

Le Batard might have chosen the wrong example to make his case, but there's no reason for us to act like race doesn't play a significant role when Americans step into the voting booth. Remember Willie Horton and all the other racial props that get used in campaigns.

Sports journalists – black and white – are not immune to carrying their racial biases and preferences into the voting booth. In fact, I believe we're more prone to do it than people in other professions. Our industry seethes with racial tension. Forgive me for the generalization, but many white sports writers feel like they're being passed over for jobs by unqualified, minority candidates, or they have a friend who was passed over by a less qualified minority or woman. Black sports writers, surveying near-lily-white press boxes, feel like they don't get an opportunity to advance.

Both perceptions are unrealistic, but the perceptions and constant whining about discrimination and reverse discrimination create the atmosphere that makes Le Batard and anyone else with common sense suspicious of the role of race when we vote.

Chapman said white sports writers who covered him in high school, college and the pros never made a secret of the delight they took in his athletic exploits.

"I would hear things all the time, things I would probably object to today, but at the time, I wouldn't say anything," Chapman said. "It would be stuff like, 'Boy, it's good to see one of my own out there showing them boys how to do it.' Hell, they didn't hide it …

"I can't tell you the number of people in my life, be it reporters or everyday white people, who I spent a day or so around and thought they were good people, and then all of a sudden they open their mouth about somebody or something pertaining to race and completely show themselves. And at that point, I've completely written them off. Maybe I should be a little more understanding, because I know where it comes from. Most of these people don't have a choice. It's every bit as ingrained in them as is religion."

Chapman was particularly bothered by his belief that sports writers in Kentucky didn't hype high school stars such as Derek Anderson and Allan Houston the way he was hyped as a prep. Chapman was known as the greatest high school player the state of Kentucky ever produced.

"I ended up going to [the University of] Kentucky, and on the one hand, I was the Great White Hope and had 24,000 people cheering for me every day and every night," Chapman said. "Off the court, then I'd hear the whispers that I was a n----- lover. It was just asinine and ugly. That was part of the reason I left school early."

Chapman dated a wide variety of women while he was at Kentucky, including black women. He said his color-blind dating habits were frowned upon by Charlotte Hornets owner George Shinn, who selected Chapman with the eighth pick of the 1988 draft. Chapman said the first time he met Shinn, the owner had just one question – and it had nothing to do with the purpose of the meeting, which was to end Chapman's weeklong rookie holdout for $25,000.

"He asked me if I ever dated black girls," Chapman said. "I told him that I wasn't right now, but that I probably would. My contract was done 20 minutes later. To this day, I believe he thought I might go to the press. [Shinn] started, 'Well, I guess, what I'm saying, you know we live down here in the Bible Belt. I'm just saying be careful.' "

Chapman said the NBA, like the rest of society, is filled with just-below-the-surface racial tension. That's what frustrated him about the knee-jerk reaction to Le Batard's column.

"Look, our game is dominated by black players. But the last two guys on the roster, half of them are white," Chapman explained. "Those are business decisions for the white customer to come to the game."

The same people ripping Le Batard won't touch that.

Le Batard's column is being evaluated in an unsophisticated manner. He didn't state (or even suggest) that Nash won the MVP award because there were a small number of closet KKK members among the voters. He said (or insinuated) that there were compelling arguments for both candidates – Shaq's was the strongest in Le Batard's mind – and the vote might have swung in Nash's direction because some voters wanted to reward Nash for dominating a game dominated by blacks.

Do you think if the PGA Tour was covered predominately by black journalists, the exact same thing wouldn't happen if Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson both had terrific years?

I rooted for Willie T. Ribbs in auto racing. Why wouldn't a white guy root for somebody who looked like him in basketball? It's natural. And it's not a problem until someone is denied a reward they deserve. In my opinion, that didn't happen with Nash and Shaq.

But all the name-calling of Le Batard needs to stop. And all of the people ranting about the evils of the "race card" need to get a grip. There are 52 cards in the deck, along with a couple of wild cards. One relatively harmless card that creates momentary guilt doesn't swing the game in the favor of people who didn't create America's version of the game.

Le Batard's column needed to be written. The discussion needed to take place. We – black people and white people – take so much pride in telling everyone how we're free of prejudice that we never free ourselves of our obvious prejudices. You can't combat an issue you ignore.

"Steve earned the MVP," Chapman repeated. "But in my mind, all it takes is a handful [of bigoted voters], and Steve gave them an opportunity to vote for him. I'll go a step further. I have another best friend, Jason Kidd. He left Phoenix and went to a team [New Jersey] that had been in the toilet for years and took them to the NBA Finals. Part of me wonders if Jason wasn't just half-white and had floppy hair flying around, what that MVP vote would've been. And Tim Duncan earned that MVP."

Link

And so it continues. I like Whitlock's unfounded epiphany about Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, it's just too bad that Tiger isn't black.

Cross-Over · 05-12-2005, 05:24 PM

I didn't even bother reading Whitlock's article; I have read some of his other garbage in the past. One in particular, he personally attacked Kobe Bryant as a person. I'm not a Kobe fan either, I actually root against him. Regardless, that Kobe article was just real extreme, with no true sports substance. It definitely seems like Whitlock tries too hard to form this controversial persona, because on the Sports Reporters, he doesn’t stand out and act like a jerk to separate himself from Lupica and some of the other "opinionated" journalists.

Nimbletoe · 05-13-2005, 06:16 AM

We'll see if MVP Nash can carry his team without Joe Johnson. BTW, we were ALL wrong. Flash should have been MVP, that guy is sick. Fucking Detroit passed on him for Darko 9283749yefi9naoidsnfvakl

maximusveritas · 05-14-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimbletoe

We'll see if MVP Nash can carry his team without Joe Johnson.

We saw it alright to the tune of 27 points and 17 assists. He saw that JJ was gonna be out and took his game to another level.
Even if some of us think Shaq deserved it a little more, there is little doubt that Nash is a worthy recipient of the MVP.

Nimbletoe · 05-15-2005, 09:14 PM

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the Suns were up 2-0 when JJ went out, and the series is now tied?

dylanmarsh · 05-15-2005, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimbletoe

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the Suns were up 2-0 when JJ went out, and the series is now tied?

Yes, you are wrong.

The series was 1-1 after JJ went down. The Suns won game 3 in Dallas.

edit: btw, Miami is now 8-3 without Shaq in the line-up.

05-07-2005, 03:51 PM	#45 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	I still find the argument of MVP Amusing, its an award based solely on opinion when nash was out with an injury the suns lost, when stephon marbury was the point gaurd of the suns which where almost the same team minus Q and some other role players, they lost in the first round. Shaq has been great for the heat but he was not that effective in the heats first round blowout of the nets to show just how complete the heat really are with or without him. __________________ People who love people

05-09-2005, 07:15 AM	#47 (permalink)
matteo101 In transition Location: north, no south abit, over to the right, getting warmer...there!	Sixate, have you watched an entire suns game this year? If you have, than did you not notice the energy Nash put onto the court. I am not saying that this means he deserves the MVP, but i do think that he is the best point guard in the game right now. Last edited by matteo101; 05-09-2005 at 07:25 AM..

05-13-2005, 06:16 AM	#54 (permalink)
Nimbletoe Junkie Location: Michigan	We'll see if MVP Nash can carry his team without Joe Johnson. BTW, we were ALL wrong. Flash should have been MVP, that guy is sick. Fucking Detroit passed on him for Darko 9283749yefi9naoidsnfvakl __________________ Go Pistons!

05-15-2005, 09:14 PM	#56 (permalink)
Nimbletoe Junkie Location: Michigan	Correct me if i'm wrong, but the Suns were up 2-0 when JJ went out, and the series is now tied? __________________ Go Pistons!

05-07-2005, 09:13 AM	#41 (permalink)
blakngold4 Upright	oh, and whether you agree with nimble's analysis or not, the point stands: at least 5 guys in the league could do nash's job. shaq is irreplaceable.

05-07-2005, 12:24 PM	#44 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	What does winning a championship have to do with who is MVP? I fully expect the Suns to win the championship, but I still don't think Nash is the MVP.

05-09-2005, 10:31 AM	#49 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	To confuse things even more, apparently Mike D'Antoni has won Coach of the Year. I don't see how that can be justified. Sure, his team ended up with the best record, but they also had among the best talent in the league. They had the league MVP, 2 other all-stars, and two other great wingmen. I think Carlisle, McMillan, Skiles, or even Jordan deserved it more than him.

05-09-2005, 08:56 PM	#51 (permalink)
blakngold4 Upright	uncle el...you're damn right you should use that theory to say richardson isn't a factor....in the mvp balloting. he can make a useful, positive contribution to a team as a new addition, but if his absence doesn't even affect his old team, and he left for nothing, there's a point to be made that he's not that big a deal as far as league mvp goes. oh, and i figured out where this debate basically boils down, and why i don't like steve nash: jason varitek. i'm a big sox fan, and i maintain he was their mvp last year. that doesn't make him a candidate for AL mvp. manny and papi? yeah, mvp candidates. v'tek? not so much, but he's still the team mvp. nash is that varitek guy who's the "glue" for everything. amare's the david ortiz ripping homers to right field.

05-12-2005, 05:24 PM	#53 (permalink)
Cross-Over Psycho	I didn't even bother reading Whitlock's article; I have read some of his other garbage in the past. One in particular, he personally attacked Kobe Bryant as a person. I'm not a Kobe fan either, I actually root against him. Regardless, that Kobe article was just real extreme, with no true sports substance. It definitely seems like Whitlock tries too hard to form this controversial persona, because on the Sports Reporters, he doesn’t stand out and act like a jerk to separate himself from Lupica and some of the other "opinionated" journalists.