Retro POY '04-05 (Voting Complete)

[mysticbb]

Let's be honest: the reason Nash was the MVP that year and the reason he's garnering attention in this POY vote is because of the Suns' huge turnaround. If they were 41-41 that year, he'd be on no one's list. So the prior season is extremely apt. It's the entire crux of the Nash argument.

What kind of argument is that? Of course he wouldn't be MVP, nobody would be MVP with that kind of record. And Nash's impact made it possible that they went 62-20 that season and not 41-41. ;)

[Gongxi]

And that's the point- we're looking at the year prior and identifying other causes for the turn around aside from Nash.

[Sedale Threatt]

Stoudemire and Nowitzki, circa 04/05 are basically a pick 'em for me. So I go LeBron, for the youth and long-term potential.

No, I mean for that specific season, just for 04/05, no long term plan. You would really choose Stoudemire over Nowitzki or James to build a team around? Even with the knowledge that you will need the 3rd best player in your ranking to see Stoudemire play as efficient as he played in that year?

FYI: Stoudemire in games without Nash in 04/05 was 22.4 ppg, 7.4 rpg on 56.3 ts% and 13.3 turnover rate. The team went 2-5 in those games. In comparison Stoudemire in games with Steve Nash: 26.1 ppg, 9.1 rpg on 62.2 ts% and 9.1 turnover rate, 58-15 record (Suns were 2-0 without Stoudemire and with Nash).

Would you really pick a worse rebounding 2009/10 David Lee as your center piece of your championship contender team for that specific season?

I guess I didn't realize we were picking guys based on their qualifications as franchise centerpieces. In that case, I wouldn't have either Nash or O'Neal on my list, either.

[mysticbb]

I guess I didn't realize we were picking guys based on their qualifications as franchise centerpieces. In that case, I wouldn't have either Nash or O'Neal on my list, either.

No, I just asked a simple question. That didn't answer my question.

You are basically saying Stoudemire was as good as Nowitzki or James. Well, going by boxscore stats that is probably right, but the +/- numbers have Nowitzki and James at the top and Stoudemire way below them. Do you think that Stoudemire impacted the game as much as Nowitzki or James that season? Or what is the reason for your choice?

[lorak]

Well, I think that when choices are as controversial as Cowens MVP or Nash’s MVPs or Iverson’s MVP then it’s some kind of warning for us, information that something was wrong with the voting.

Only under the assumption that the voting got it right in all other years.

.

Yes, but we can see some patterns in other years. You know – what I said earlier, that you can’t became MVP in one summer, made leap from 3rd-4th player at your position to MVP in one summer. Of course theoretically you can, but in most cases pattern is different. So when something unusual happens, something different than normal pattern, like Cowens/Iverson/Nash, then it’s suspicious, shady.

[Sedale Threatt]

Or what is the reason for your choice?

I thought he had a great season. I thought he had a major hand in his team's success. I was highly impressed with what he did against Duncan in the WCFs.

[Gongxi]

So, if we're saying that Nash prior to Phoenix was playing at the same level, and it wasn't the system that helped catapult him to MVPdom, it wasn't the team success based upon a healthier roster, et al...I'll expect him to receive some serious votes for top 5 in the next few polls. Ya know, for consistency's sake.

[mysticbb]

Yes, but we can see some patterns in other years. You know – what I said earlier, that you can’t became MVP in one summer, made leap from 3rd-4th player at your position to MVP in one summer. Of course theoretically you can, but in most cases pattern is different. So when something unusual happens, something different than normal pattern, like Cowens/Iverson/Nash, then it’s suspicious, shady.

I don't think so. MVP is about the most valuable player in the league, that means imho which player has the biggest impact to help his team winning as much as possible. Nash's Suns won 62 games, in the season before a very similar team won 29 games. Nash played a significant role in that turnaround, he improved as a player, which brought him from being an All-NBA 3rd type player to an All-NBA 1st type player (which means from being a top 6 guard to be a top2 guard), which isn't THAT spectacular in the first place. And as my example with Stockton showed, Nash isn't the first point guard with great passing abilities and great shooting in great shape who was doing that in his age.
And it is not like you can't see Nash's impact nowhere. I showed the difference in the stats for Amare Stoudemire, Nash has the highest +/- numbers on that team too. The team clearly played better with him on the court than without him. With Nash that team was a 121.7 to 108.4 points per 100 possession team (87.1 win% or 71.4 wins), without him on the court they were 104.1 to 106.3 (41.5 win% or 34 wins). That is a significant difference here. And today we all know that Nash can't easily be replaced by any other point guard, look how D'Antoni's system is working on the Knicks. And look how Nash is performing on the Suns without D'Antoni. Really, that kind of argumentation worked probably back in 2005, but today?

It is also rather odd that you think a MVP must have had another MVP caliber season before to be eligible as a MVP.

[mysticbb]

I thought he had a great season. I thought he had a major hand in his team's success. I was highly impressed with what he did against Duncan in the WCFs.

Uh, ok then ...

[Gongxi]

It is also rather odd that you think a MVP must have had another MVP caliber season before to be eligible as a MVP.

It's not that odd. It just means he's looking to other factors to explain it rather than just a huge improvement in gameplay.

[mysticbb]

So, if we're saying that Nash prior to Phoenix was playing at the same level, and it wasn't the system that helped catapult him to MVPdom, it wasn't the team success based upon a healthier roster, et al...I'll expect him to receive some serious votes for top 5 in the next few polls. Ya know, for consistency's sake.

Nobody said that Nash played on the same level, but not that much worse on the Mavericks in a system which hold him back (which wasn't a bad thing at all, because those Mavericks had still the best offense in the league and even the best offense of All-Time in 2003/04).
You can have Nash in the Top10 in those prior season (2002 and 2003), that doesn't stop someone to put him into the Top5 later.

And please, the system? How does that "system" work in New York without Nash? Without Nash that kind of system is worthless, and with Nash it is highly successful. Probably good enough to give the Suns another WCF appearance in a season a lot of people could even see them not making the playoffs (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview20 ... s0910-Suns). That "system"-argument gets old. I'm suprised that people are still using it in 2010.

[Gongxi]

So you're saying you need to have a good point guard to run that system?

And please, if a 'system' can hold a guy back...yeah, he's probably not a transcendent superstar, and probably not the best player in the game for any given year (that's what we're voting on, right?). You guys seem to want to have your cake and eat it too with regards to Nash. I mean, we want him to be worth 30+ wins from one season to another, but...we don't want to look at the Mavs record after he left though, right? Somehow one is telling where the other is not.

My point is when his whole claim in this thing is the turnaround he worked with the Suns, things like prior seasons, the Mavs without him, team health, etc etc all get called into play. But it seems people only want to look to those things that favor him and ignore those that do not.

For me he's clearly an All-NBA player and probably the best PG of these mid 2000 years. But the best player in the game? No, not for me.

[mysticbb]

It is also rather odd that you think a MVP must have had another MVP caliber season before to be eligible as a MVP.

It's not that odd. It just means he's looking to other factors to explain it rather than just a huge improvement in gameplay.

What? Instead of giving the MVP award to the deserving player, it should go to someone who was already considered in previous seasons? What kind of logic is that?

[mysticbb]

So you're saying you need to have a good point guard to run that system?

Ok, then, Nash is just a good point guard, got it.

And please, if a 'system' can hold a guy back...yeah, he's probably not a transcendent star.

Holding back in terms of racking up big time assist numbers. Nash was an All-Star and All-NBA player in Dallas while playing next to another MVP caliber player. Most people just didn't realised it until both played on seperate teams.

[Gongxi]

We've already established that previous seasons have a lot to do with why we're considering Nash, didn't we?

[Gongxi]

So you're saying you need to have a good point guard to run that system?

Ok, then, Nash is just a good point guard, got it.

Are you saying he's not a good PG?

And please, if a 'system' can hold a guy back...yeah, he's probably not a transcendent star.

Holding back in terms of racking up big time assist numbers. Nash was an All-Star and All-NBA player in Dallas while playing next to another MVP caliber player. Most people just didn't realised it until both played on seperate teams.

Well, I hope he's in your top 5 for a few previous years as well, to be intellectually honest about it.

[mysticbb]

My point is when his whole claim in this thing is the turnaround he worked with the Suns, things like prior seasons, the Mavs without him, team health, etc etc all get called into play. But it seems people only want to look to those things that favor him and ignore those that do not.

How so? I pointed out how the Suns played when Nash was on the court during the 04/05 season and how they played without him. THAT IS THE RESULT, THAT IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON THE COURT!

[lorak]

Nash's Suns won 62 games, in the season before a very similar team won 29 games.

Oh, good you remind me that. Nash supporters often talk about that but it’s not true. First, many injuries. Second, 2004 Suns were without PG. They had Marbury for some time, but then their starting “point guard” was Barbosa or young JJ who isn’t point guard at all… I mean, take away your starting PG from any team and all PG from the bench, let some undersized SG to be your playmaker and what you think results will be?

Nash played a significant role in that turnaround,

Of course, I agree. But was he better player that year than Duncan, KG, Shaq, Dirk or even Wade, TMac or Kobe and LeBron?

he improved as a player, which brought him from being an All-NBA 3rd type player to an All-NBA 1st type player (which means from being a top 6 guard to be a top2 guard),

In fact in 2004 he didn’t make any All NBA Team and get zero votes in MVP voting. He was consider not much better than Marbury (according to all NBA votes). And then in one summer he became MVP. That’s odd

which isn't THAT spectacular in the first place. And as my example with Stockton showed, Nash isn't the first point guard with great passing abilities and great shooting in great shape who was doing that in his age.

Well, Stockton didn’t improved as a player, Nash did. That’s odd that at age of 30 you became much better. Besides, Stockton annually was in All NBA Teams before 1994 and was consider as second (behind Magic) or third best PG in the league.

And today we all know that Nash can't easily be replaced by any other point guard,

Unfortunately we don’t know that. I wish we would be able to put Paul or Deron or even Kidd to 2005-2010 Suns and check how different result these teams would have.

look how D'Antoni's system is working on the Knicks. And look how Nash is performing on the Suns without D'Antoni. Really, that kind of argumentation worked probably back in 2005, but today?

First, I didn’t use “D’Antoni system” argument. I think it’s rather silly, or in best case it have not much value. Second, give Knicks great PG (Deron, Paul) and then we can compare that team with Nash’s Suns. But compare team with Duhon or Nate Robinson as playmakers with Nash and Suns….? It doesn’t make sense.

It is also rather odd that you think a MVP must have had another MVP caliber season before to be eligible as a MVP.

Well, that’s the way it usually works, that’s the pattern! And it’s rather “you are recognized as one of the top players for season or several and then won MVP” than “you have had MVP caliber season before”.

[mysticbb]

Are you saying he's not a good PG?

I would use the term great ...

Well, I hope he's in your top 5 for a few previous years as well, to be intellectually honest about it.

What? What kind of argument is that? If I have him as a Top10 player in 2002 or 2003, I can't have him as a Top5 player? Especially when I pointed out that Nash IMPROVED in clutch situations, worked on his conditioning and played better in nearly every aspect of the game, even if the improvement in most parts isn't really big in comparison to his last 3 years? When I think that other candidates from the 2002 or 2003 season like Shaquille O'Neal, Jason Kidd or Tracy McGrady slipped out of the Top5 ranks for me?
Really, you're argumentation is seriously flawed. You don't look into context, all you are doing is something you can spin to make the argument of the other look weird. But in fact it is your lack of logic in that case.

To make it simple: Nash 02-04 Top10 to Top15 -Improvement-> Nash 05-10 Top5 player

We are not talking about about a player who was barely Top100 prior to 2005.

[lorak]

To make it simple: Nash 02-04 Top10 to Top15 -Improvement-> Nash 05-10 Top5 player
.

In 2004 he wasn’t top 15.
In MVP voting he got zero votes so he was outside of top 16. According to All NBA votes he was at 16th place. So I think it’s safe to say that he was outside of top 15, but probably in top 20.

And that’s only the general perception of him. If we look at advanced stats I suppose he will be even lower. For example according to WS he was 29th and in Roland Rating he was outside of top 50.