Nash: Players Shouldn't Be Judged On Titles

[CoolD]

Parker is not the greatest defender, but he hasn't won one single regular season MVP award, so why should I be so hard on Parker, if Parker would of won two regular season MVP's, I might have brought it up that he is not worthy because he is not a complete player.

Billups makes his team better, does it mean I give him 2 MVP's. You have to be the ultimate player, this award before Nash use to carry some weight, now is a joke.

[pillwenney]

Let me get this straight. So Nash supposedly coming in an making Phoenix better is important, but him leaving an making Dallas better at the same time is not important.
Also you could make a case for Mo Williams being last years MVP if you use the Nash logic, the year the add him Cavs made the jump into the best regular season team. So the fact that Mo Williams just like Nash is not even the most efficient player of his own team, but the fact he fitted well to a team that is coming along well and the team makes the jump.

Ofcourse is 82 game MVP, but answer why the year Detroit and even Boston had the best record, why none of those teams had the MVP of the league.
Detroit no one thought none of the players were worthy.
Boston the big three took some votes from each other.
Funny part is the reason why the big three take votes from each other, because they are efficient.
Nash was behind Marion and Amare time after time in efficiency. But the media for some reason ignore this, and acted like he was LeBron carrying a team. And the most amazing thing, they did it twice. Sometimes they make the mistake one year, but next year the correct it. Nash has been the total exception. Fraud.

Absolutely. What happened with Nash in Dallas is absolutely, completely irrelevant.

And no, you can't make the case for Mo Williams for 2 reasons:
1) The jump Cleveland made still isn't really close to the jump Phoenix made with Nash.
2) The much more important reason - Lebron is clearly the key to everything on Cleveland, like Nash was clearly the key to everything on Phoenix. You continue to ignore this point over and over. The Suns have completely and totally relied on Nash. All of their players were worse off without him. Nash was absolutely a good fit in Phoenix--but that's also irrelevant to whether or not he was valuable. I don't care if a guy averaged 9/4 before he came to a team. If, when on that team, he is more valuable to them than any other player in the league is to their team, he deserves the MVP award. That is what the MVP award is.

And again, you can't just keep pointing to efficiency when Marion and especially Amare owe their great efficiency in large part to Nash. He took on any playmaking responsibility they would have otherwise had (and likely had trouble with). They get the ball in excellent positions to score, and were both put in great positions to utilize their talents--positions they wouldn't have been in without Nash. Again, sometimes, you just have to watch the game. Watching the game will reveal to just about anyone that Nash was the key to what Phoenix did. You should know that as well as anyone, being a Heat fan. Look at the difference in Marion's scoring efficiency--there is a significant drop off there.

The team went from elite to almost elite when they lost Amare--that was the drop off.

And again, I have discussed comparisons with other teams. There was no one player in Boston, for instance, that was as important to the team's functioning as Nash--not one player who, if they lost him, they would totally fall off the map.

Don't get me wrong, Marion and Amare would both be very nice players without Nash. Amare would still get his points, and he'd still be a good scorer. But he wouldn't be nearly as efficient without Nash. Marion would still be (and has been) an outstanding rebounder for his size, and a good off-the-ball defender who can finish plays and hit open shots. But he wouldn't have nearly as many plays to finish or as many open shots without Nash.

And more importantly, the team simply would not have worked as well without a great playmaker. Amare is great at being a finisher, but without somebody to start a play, the whole team is going to be much less effective and efficient.

[mike_miller]

why are people acthing like amare didnt get mvp consideration?

efficiency is relative..a player whos going to have to throw up bad shots in broken pocessions will always take a hit because of it, usually your best shooter, which is what nash, kobe, lbj, ai always get killed for and some ahole throws out shane battier as more "effecient" player

wasnt joe johnson the same exact player for the suns as for the hawks? he just shoots 2-3 more times per and aves 4-5 pts more because of it...

and dallas won a few more games the next year..not really an indictment of nash..jason terry isnt exaclty a scrub.

[Johnny Firpo]

They changed the whole criteria for Nash, because he is white.

Oh dear... Anyway, the criteria is really not that hard to understand. If somebody on a bad team can't average triple doubles in the whole season, they look at the elite team's elite players. It's really not rocket science. Nash was a great choice, the Suns won the regular season, and he was their most important player, without a doubt. I really don't want to inply anything, but what do you think about Dirk's MVP trophy? Do you think he won it just because he's white too?

[CoolD]

If today any top player, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Dwight, and Chris Paul would leave their teams, something tells me, their teams wouldn't get signifantly better with their loss.
So is Jason Terry a MVP?
Fact is, the system is even more important than Nash. Everyone stats get better, he plays in a loaded team, but a true MVP is usually above his peers.
Scottie was good, but never did he come close to being as dominant as Jordan. MVP's stand out, they are complete players.
Going by the Nash standard of a guy that has a key role and does it well. Ben Wallace could of been MVP with the same logic. Has no offensive game, just like Nash has no defense whatsoever. Both are one sided players, but because Detroit had a top defense, and he was the catalyst, like supposedly Nash is to their offense which is debateable with D'Antoni as the coach anyhow, Ben Wallace should of been MVP. Both incomplete players that play one side of the court only, but because if you are the supposed key piece, MVP for you. Lets hand out like is candy in Halloween.


And to that kid, Dirk Nowitzki is top 10 in efficiency yearly in the NBA, he is the most efficient player of his team, their is no doubt he is the best player of his team. Dirk is European, American media also has something against European players, so no, he doesn't get the Nash treatment, Nash is Canadian, but most people see him as American anyhow. They are different cases

[pillwenney]

If today any top player, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Dwight, and Chris Paul would leave their teams, something tells me, their teams wouldn't get signifantly better with their loss.
So is Jason Terry a MVP?
Fact is, the system is even more important than Nash. Everyone stats get better, he plays in a loaded team, but a true MVP is usually above his peers.
Scottie was good, but never did he come close to being as dominant as Jordan. MVP's stand out, they are complete players.
Going by the Nash standard of a guy that has a key role and does it well. Ben Wallace could of been MVP with the same logic. Has no offensive game, just like Nash has no defense whatsoever. Both are one sided players, but because Detroit had a top defense, and he was the catalyst, like supposedly Nash is to their offense which is debateable with D'Antoni as the coach anyhow, Ben Wallace should of been MVP. Both incomplete players that play one side of the court only, but because if you are the supposed key piece, MVP for you. Lets hand out like is candy in Halloween.

You still don't get that that's irrelevant.

MVP is not about being considered an all time great player. It is about being the more valuable to your team in a given season than any other player in the league.

Ben probably would have had an argument, if not for the fact that the defense didn't fall apart without him. The Pistons' D definitely got worse, but it could still function without him. The Suns offense would comparatively be a mess without Nash (in those years). It was clear whenever he was subbed out.

Pippen never won the MVP for one main, obvious reason--he had one year in his entire career career where he was clearly the most valuable player on his team--and in that year, he put up an MVP-like performance. But he clearly wasn't as valuable as a prime Olajuwon. It's not because Olajuwon had some kind of x-factor, it's because he was a better, more valuable player.

And you can talk about the system all you want--that's also irrelevant, because Nash was the key to the system. He filled a role very few other players could successfully, and he was the main guy the team clearly couldn't survive without. Thus he was by far, their most valuable player, and could fairly be considered the league's most valuable player.

When they change the title of the award from "Most Valuable Player" to "Guy who will later on be considered an all-time great along with other players I like that makes every team he is on better even though this award only applies to this year", you'll have an argument. But until then, arguing about his time in Dallas, or these other arbitrary criteria you're using is so completely irrelevant to whether or not he was the league's most valuable player in the given years.

[CoolD]

First I don't buy that Phoenix couldn't dominate wihtout Nash.
Flip him just for Mo Williams, Jason Terry, Tony Parker, solid players, but not All NBA first team players.

Give any solid semi descent P.G
Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson
And with D'Antoni as his coach. you get really good results.

Insert
Bibby, Billups, Mo Williams, Jason Terry, Tony Parker into a D'Antoni system, with the likes of Amare and Marion,
That was why Nash leaving Dallas had no impact, he was replaceable.

Again why hasn't Billups won one.
Been part of the best team, makes his teammates better, oh yeah, he actually is pretty good in defense unlike Nash.

He actually even fits the proflie better, but still he is not good enough.
Only thing one is white, the other is black.
Their seems to be higher standards for black players, I guess.
And I also have high standards too. That is why I wouldn't just hand out a MVP to solid players in good teams, I hand them to the best players in the league.

[pillwenney]

First I don't buy that Phoenix couldn't dominate wihtout Nash.
Flip him just for Mo Williams, Jason Terry, Tony Parker, solid players, but not All NBA first team players.

Give any solid semi descent P.G
Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson
And with D'Antoni as his coach. you get really good results.

Insert
Bibby, Billups, Mo Williams, Jason Terry, Tony Parker into a D'Antoni system, with the likes of Amare and Marion,
That was why Nash leaving Dallas had no impact, he was replaceable.

Again why hasn't Billups won one.
Been part of the best team, makes his teammates better, oh yeah, he actually is pretty good in defense unlike Nash.

He actually even fits the proflie better, but still he is not good enough.
Only thing one is white, the other is black.
Their seems to be higher standards for black players, I guess.
And I also have high standards too. That is why I wouldn't just hand out a MVP to solid players in good teams, I hand them to the best players in the league.

None of those PGs could replace Nash. Billups would keep the Suns very good, but not with the same system as before--they would be in a situation where they were considerably less reliant on him. None of them could come close to replacing Nash's playmaking. Not even close. None have showed that kind of ability with any kind of consistency.

Nash was flat out, just not a very good fit with Dallas and Dirk in particular, because Dirk doesn't need anybody to set him up the way Amare and Marion do. Nash's talents were largely wasted there. With guys like Marion and Amare--who are much more reliant on others setting them up for their points--Nash is much, much, much more valuable. Nash was in a good situation--he was surrounded with guys who were much better scorers with a great playmaker (as opposed to the Duncans, Dirks and KGs of the world). But because of the situation, he was very valuable to the team. Parker isn't an MVP candidate because Duncan isn't really at all less effective without him. Another example of a good MVP candidate, however, is Chris Paul--because the Hornets would be a mess without him.

Try to find how many people would really agree with you--that the Suns would have been just as good with any of those guys.

I addressed the Billups point earlier--but what the hell--I've already repeated myself about a million times in this thread. Why not keep on going?
Billups simply wasn't as important to those Detroit teams He just wasn't. The team was (and has proven to be) considerably worse without him, but they can at least function. The Suns were entirely reliant on Nash. Thus Nash is more valuable to his team's success.

I guess it was only a matter of time before the race card was played. I guess there is a bias toward white players--you know, since the last white guy to win an MVP before Nash was Bird nearly 2 decades prior. Yeah, I'm sure the media felt it was overdo for some racism.

It boils down to--the Suns were a top regular season team that relied on an up and down style that was most effectively run with an elite playmaker. Without an elite playmaker, the system wouldn't work. That was why D' Antoni went 20-41 in the prior year. When Nash was added, everything else fell into place. And without him the team would have been sunk. The teams success clearly wasn't as predicated on any of the the other players--not even close. You certainly can't argue for Amare. The team didn't drop off that much without him. Same goes for JJ. You could try to argue for Marion since he was there both years, but let's face it--his rebounding and finishing is a hell of a lot more replaceable than the guy that makes plays for the entire team.

[CoolD]

Nash in Dallas around 7 assist.
Had one season over 8.
So why the drastic change.
He had Dirk and Finley.
Is the fact D'Antoni's system,
At the fact people act like Amare and Joe Johnson need someone for them to score.
Playmaking is not just assist.
All the other guys I mention, are also quicker, besides Billups and Bibby, they also are good scorers.
Amare is a more explosive scorer than Tim Duncan, you are so comical, is like the Shaq makes Kobe so much better B.S. this dudes are straight talented. No one makes them better, just give them a descent P.G, they are going to get busy.
Shawn Marion used to scored 20 points per game even before Nash came into Phoenix.

Like I said, D'Antoni deserved coach of the year, but that is about the extent of the awards Phoenix should of received.

[raptorforlife88]

Nash in Dallas around 7 assist.
Had one season over 8.
So why the drastic change.
He had Dirk and Finley.
Is the fact D'Antoni's system,
At the fact people act like Amare and Joe Johnson need someone for them to score.
Playmaking is not just assist.
All the other guys I mention, are also quicker, besides Billups and Bibby, they also are good scorers.
Amare is a more explosive scorer than Tim Duncan, you are so comical, is like the Shaq makes Kobe so much better B.S. this dudes are straight talented. No one makes them better, just give them a descent P.G, they are going to get busy.
Shawn Marion used to scored 20 points per game even before Nash came into Phoenix..

Holy crap. I think this has been pointed out to you 15 times now, BUT IT IS BECAUSE HE BECAME THE MAIN PLAYER IN THE OFFENSE. In Dallas Dirk had the ball the majority of the time. It's why Joe Johnson became a star. Because he had the ball in his hands in Atlanta. Stop repeating it. That is why there is a drastic change. When you allow a player to become the main component of the offense obviously if they are talented enough there stats will rise.

Yeah playmaking is not just an assist, which is why Nash is great, he's one of the most creative passers of all time. Not one of the players you have listed create as much as Nash. Nash assists on average about 45% of the possessions while he's on the floor. Meaning he creates about half of his teams offense while he's on the floor. And that doesn't account for his scoring.

As for Shawn Marion. He scored, but he scored much more inefficiently.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... osh01.html

Do you notice the four seasons he plays with Nash that his ORTG rises from around 110 to around 118. And what's this when he leaves Nash his ORTG drops like a rock. I wonder why?

[CoolD]

Why did the Knicks squad this season turn into one of the top offensive teams in the league.
Did they sign Nash and D'Antoni.
Why couldn't Nash and Shaq work, because he wasn't running.

[raptorforlife88]

Why did the Knicks squad this season turn into one of the top offensive teams in the league.
Did they sign Nash and D'Antoni.
Why couldn't Nash and Shaq work, because he wasn't running.

Seriously? Now you're just being dense on purpose. The Knicks were below average this year offensively. They were 17th in the league offensively. Also nice job of refusing to address points.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/2009.html

[CoolD]

The score around 106 points per game.
Now with gimmick stats they say is 96 points per game.
So lets see what I read.
If the take away 9 points away because of pace.
Then Nash stats have to also be ajusted do to pace.

Meaning Nash stats are inflated, just like the Knicks stats are, thanks for playing.

But they are still scoring 106 points per game.

[pillwenney]

Thanks for taking over raptorforlife. It was getting pretty tiring explaining the same things over and over.

I would just add, that like I said before, Amare would still be a good scorer without Nash--just not nearly as good. He is reliant on Nash because he is weaker in isolation than Duncan and Dirk, and is thus more reliant on a playmaker.

[CoolD]

He would be a good scorer with any descent P.G and D'Antoni as the coach. Good players are good players, Amare is extremely talented.

Now give the Knicks
Amare, Shawn Marion, and Tony Parker.
Inflated or not, this team would score a lot with D'Antoni, and be top team.

[raptorforlife88]

The score around 108 points per game.
Now with gimmick stats they say is 96 points per game.
So lets see what I read.
If the take away 12 points away because of pace.
Then Nash stats have to also be ajusted do to pace.

Meaning Nash stats are inflated, just like the Knicks stats are, thanks for playing.

But they are still scoring 108 points per game.

If you don't adjust for pace, than the Denver Nuggets are the greatest offensive team of all time. So not adjusting for pace is what would be a gimmick. Funny that.

Adjusting for pace with Nash would still make him an elite player. He's still one of the most offensively efficient players in the game. He still creates his own shot at a ridiculous level (Only other PG that does at the same level is Chris Paul) and he's still assists on half of his teams possessions.

Oh and again you have not even acknowledged the post on Marion, because you can't actually refute it. And everything else in that post. Arguments generally consist of people actually addressing the others persons points.

Also I did not point out what Mitch pointed out, that unlike the Knicks, pace adjusted the Suns were the most offensively efficient team for two years and have always ranked around the top with Nash.

[pillwenney]

The score around 106 points per game.
Now with gimmick stats they say is 96 points per game.
So lets see what I read.
If the take away 9 points away because of pace.
Then Nash stats have to also be ajusted do to pace.

Meaning Nash stats are inflated, just like the Knicks stats are, thanks for playing.

But they are still scoring 106 points per game.

Yeah, pace plays into a huge part of it--instead you have to look at things with pace adjusted.

Of course Nash's stats are inflated. I haven't brought up his stats once in this entire thread. All I said was that he was the key to what was a very effective offense in Phoenix. And it was very effective, even when you account for pace. Their offensive efficiency was tops in the league in both 04-05 and 05-06 by far. In 05-06 that was the team with the highest offensive efficiency with a starting 5 of Nash/Bell/Thomas/Marion/Diaw, and they were still nearly an elite team. I'd say the guy that ran the offense was well deserving of the MVP.

[pillwenney]

He would be a good scorer with any descent P.G and D'Antoni as the coach. Good players are good players, Amare is extremely talented.

Now give the Knicks
Amare, Shawn Marion, and Tony Parker.
Inflated or not, this team would score a lot with D'Antoni, and be top team.

Sure they would be a good team--that's some good talent. But they wouldn't be nearly as effective as Nash's suns because Nash has much, much better court vision than Parker, and would be much better at running the system. That's the difference you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

[CoolD]

But also Phoenix defense is bad do to Nash.
He helps you score, but he is going to help you give it all back.
That is why complete players usually win multiple MVP's.

[pillwenney]

But also Phoenix defense is bad do to Nash.
He helps you score, but he is going to help you give it all back.
That is why complete players usually win multiple MVP's.

Sure--Nash, among many other players on the Suns. That doesn't change the fact that they were an elite regular season team mostly because of his brilliance. They were an elite regular season team, and without him, they would have been flat out bad.