What are the main reasons Shaq & Kobe only won 1 MVP?

[Cyrusman122000]

Two of the best players of their era, and two of the top players to ever play the game. Top 15 at worst for both of them. Both guys had multiple seasons in which their teams were very good, yet each of them only won one MVP each. We've seen players who aren't as high as them on the all time list, or as dominant as them win multiple MVPs.

What hurt Shaq and Kobe from winning more mvps?

[Goudelock]

For Kobe, I've heard that narratives had a lot to do with why he didn't win an MVP from 2005-07 (and before someone brings up advanced statistics, I didn't think that advanced stats were widely used for at least a couple more years after this). He was seen as a ballhog and a bad teammate by the media.

Another good question is: Why didn't Tim Duncan win a single DPoY award?

[Bush4Ever]

In a rational world, to the degree that people care about MVPs, they should care more about MVP shares than simple MVPs.

You can get into some strangeness when you move a non-binary construct to a binary one (i.e.-getting a MVP or not).

That process benefits someone like Nash, who manage to sneak over the number 1 line twice, had another great year (2007, finishing second), but otherwise was a relative nonfactor in the vote.

It hurt Shaq, who sneaked over the number 1 line only once, but was continually in the top chunk of the vote.

Shaq is 7th in all-time MVP shares. Kobe is 10th.
Nash is 22nd. Rose is 42nd.

[Dajadeed]

Steve Nash won back to back MVPs after the whole dress code being put in and the Malace in the Palace aftermath with the league wanting to clean up it's image.

Kobe should have at least 2 and Shaq should have at least 3.

[Dajadeed]

Steve Nash won back to back MVPs after the whole dress code being put in and the Malace in the Palace aftermath with the league wanting to clean up it's image.

Kobe should have at least 2 and Shaq should have at least 3.

Btw, the fact that they played togther also hurt them.

[NyKnicks1714]

For Kobe, I've heard that narratives had a lot to do with why he didn't win an MVP from 2005-07 (and before someone brings up advanced statistics, I didn't think that advanced stats were widely used for at least a couple more years after this). He was seen as a ballhog and a bad teammate by the media.

In 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07 the Lakers won 34, 45, and 42 games, respectively. He didn't deserve it any of those years.

[doozyj]

Kobes rape trial tarnished his image during those years. He easily should of had those 2 Nash won.

[BarneyGumble]

Shaq deserved one of his over Nash, but aside from that....the rest of the seasons are fair. Kobe never earned or deserved more than 1, Shaq probably deserved 2 but earned 1.

[RoyceDa59]

Shaq deserved at least 3 during the early 2000's. He was the most dominant player in the world by a long shot.

[Patches Perry]

Shaq was over 300 pounds most of his career. He couldn't really physically afford to put in the kind of effort required in the regular season to win a bunch of MVP awards.

Kobe had great longevity and was consistently a top 3-5 player, but was never the downright best player in the league hands down. Steve Nash certainly shouldn't have more MVP awards than Kobe, but I don't know that it's a great injustice that Kobe only has 1.

[The4thHorseman]

For Kobe, I've heard that narratives had a lot to do with why he didn't win an MVP from 2005-07 (and before someone brings up advanced statistics, I didn't think that advanced stats were widely used for at least a couple more years after this). He was seen as a ballhog and a bad teammate by the media.

Another good question is: Why didn't Tim Duncan win a single DPoY award?

One of the main criteria's for MVP always has been leading your team to 50+ wins. That didn't happen in 2005-07 (05 he missed some games due to injury)

[ReaLiez]

Shaq was so dominant he should have at least 2-3 MVPs

Kobe with 1 makes sense to me - he played with Shaq when he was entering his prime/peak - His team struggled when he was going HAM on the NBA - LBJ came up by the time he and his team was dominating again.

[montestewart]

In a rational world, to the degree that people care about MVPs, they should care more about MVP shares than simple MVPs.

You can get into some strangeness when you move a non-binary construct to a binary one (i.e.-getting a MVP or not).

That process benefits someone like Nash, who manage to sneak over the number 1 line twice, had another great year (2007, finishing second), but otherwise was a relative nonfactor in the vote.

It hurt Shaq, who sneaked over the number 1 line only once, but was continually in the top chunk of the vote.

Shaq is 7th in all-time MVP shares. Kobe is 10th.
Nash is 22nd. Rose is 42nd.

Good point, especially regarding Shaq, who finished pretty high in seasons where he missed games but still had a large impact, in those seasons where he fell short in the voting, the outcome generally seemed fair, more or less, and he had quite a few of those seasons.

In baseball, Dale Murphy has two MVPs yet still is not in the HOF, maybe viewed similarly to Nash the NBA.

[Cavsfansince84]

3 main reasons:
1. They played together so split some votes and other voters prob held it against them
2. Shaq's health worked against him. A guy who misses 20 games isn't as valuable as one who plays 80.
3. Most of Kobe's true peaks years came on bad teams

[Danny11]

In a rational world, to the degree that people care about MVPs, they should care more about MVP shares than simple MVPs.

You can get into some strangeness when you move a non-binary construct to a binary one (i.e.-getting a MVP or not).

That process benefits someone like Nash, who manage to sneak over the number 1 line twice, had another great year (2007, finishing second), but otherwise was a relative nonfactor in the vote.

It hurt Shaq, who sneaked over the number 1 line only once, but was continually in the top chunk of the vote.

Shaq is 7th in all-time MVP shares. Kobe is 10th.
Nash is 22nd. Rose is 42nd.

Same issue with Titles.
Lebron is 143-73 in the playoffs. Also, all-time leader in playoff Win-shares (45.84) by a considerable margin over the next highest (Jordan, Duncan, Kareem)

Of course context matters due to lack of competition in the East, but what is he supposed to do? It's not like he didn't play against talented players (Big 3, Rose, Melo, PG13, Howard) and he has probably had tougher Finals Matchups than anyone in history.

[PaKii94]

In a rational world, to the degree that people care about MVPs, they should care more about MVP shares than simple MVPs.

You can get into some strangeness when you move a non-binary construct to a binary one (i.e.-getting a MVP or not).

That process benefits someone like Nash, who manage to sneak over the number 1 line twice, had another great year (2007, finishing second), but otherwise was a relative nonfactor in the vote.

It hurt Shaq, who sneaked over the number 1 line only once, but was continually in the top chunk of the vote.

Shaq is 7th in all-time MVP shares. Kobe is 10th.
Nash is 22nd. Rose is 42nd.

Where did you get the "MVP shares" values?

[Bush4Ever]

Where did you get the "MVP shares" values?

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/nba_mvp_shares.html

I believe BR also tracks them individually in the "awards" section of each player, where applicable.

[Danny11]

In a rational world, to the degree that people care about MVPs, they should care more about MVP shares than simple MVPs.

You can get into some strangeness when you move a non-binary construct to a binary one (i.e.-getting a MVP or not).

That process benefits someone like Nash, who manage to sneak over the number 1 line twice, had another great year (2007, finishing second), but otherwise was a relative nonfactor in the vote.

It hurt Shaq, who sneaked over the number 1 line only once, but was continually in the top chunk of the vote.

Shaq is 7th in all-time MVP shares. Kobe is 10th.
Nash is 22nd. Rose is 42nd.

Where did you get the "MVP shares" values?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award_share
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/nba_mvp_shares.html

[jaypo]

In a rational world, to the degree that people care about MVPs, they should care more about MVP shares than simple MVPs.

You can get into some strangeness when you move a non-binary construct to a binary one (i.e.-getting a MVP or not).

That process benefits someone like Nash, who manage to sneak over the number 1 line twice, had another great year (2007, finishing second), but otherwise was a relative nonfactor in the vote.

It hurt Shaq, who sneaked over the number 1 line only once, but was continually in the top chunk of the vote.

Shaq is 7th in all-time MVP shares. Kobe is 10th.
Nash is 22nd. Rose is 42nd.

Good point, especially regarding Shaq, who finished pretty high in seasons where he missed games but still had a large impact, in those seasons where he fell short in the voting, the outcome generally seemed fair, more or less, and he had quite a few of those seasons.

In baseball, Dale Murphy has two MVPs yet still is not in the HOF, maybe viewed similarly to Nash the NBA.

The Murph! My favorite player of all time! My BB number was always 3!

[Dupp]

Kobe - Not good enough

Shaq - Didn't set out to be dominant regular season player