Nash vs Rose: Worst MVP in NBA history?

[bastillon]

1. w.unseld
2. b.cousy
3. a.iverson

nash and rose have at least legit arguments.

good call on Cousy, that pick was preposterous, as if Jason Williams won MVP over Charles Barkley. with Russell and Pettit being in that league and Cousy leading Cs to bad offensive results while posting disgracefully inefficient statline that was maybe even worse pick than Unseld.

[G35]

Are we talking worst in terms of production, or worst in terms of whether or not they deserved it?


Neither is the worst, but semantics change the answer.

Good question because that makes a lot of what bastillion wrote (TL/DR) moot......

[Rerisen]

especially now, when we see how Bulls "struggle" without Rose. it's clear to me they're just deep and talented,

Last year =/= This year.

Last year the Bulls offense *was* a joke without Rose. Both when he was off the floor, or if you could get the ball out of his hands and swarm him like Miami did. Boozer stunk for the last 50 games of the season and playoffs, due to lingering injuries. The team had no #2 option. Bogans was one of the worst offensive starters in the league.

This year Boozer has been healthy, and others are contributing, like Watson and Brewer with an improved jumper. Most of all though, Richard Hamilton is worlds better than Keith Bogans, both in facilitating offense off the ball, but also with passing, and obviously as a 17 PPG career scorer himself.

So last years Bulls team would not be winning all these games without Derrick, and starting Keith.

Judging by that MVP is almost always limited to a top 3 team, and by the historical 'how good would they be without him' definition of valuable, Rose was a fine choice. Dirk would have been fine too (missing 9 games might have hurt a bit). Choosing Howard would have been an anomaly vs history in relation to team record of the MVP, as Orlando was 8th overall in record.

If we are to say such traditional criteria is dumb, such as penalizing James for playing on a team with Wade and Bosh, that could win a lot without him, then just give it to LeBron every year. But even MJ didn't have that happen.

[Rapcity_11]

Are we talking worst in terms of production, or worst in terms of whether or not they deserved it?


Neither is the worst, but semantics change the answer.

Good question because that makes a lot of what bastillion wrote (TL/DR) moot......

Maybe you should actually try reading some posts?

As far as the topic, neither is the worst as most people have pointed out.

[Sebastian]

Dirk is such a revisionist answer -- no one had him anywhere near the top 3 until the postseason, where he excelled and Rose was woefully inconsistent. Ridiculous. Had Rose led the Bulls to a title, this thread wouldn't exist. Also ridiculous since it's a regular season award we're talking about.

I'm shocked at how poorly people misunderstand what happened last year. Every single candidate who could presumably be put above Rose either did not have a truly standout statistical line, played for a team that underachieved, or both. Rose, on the other hand, was far and away the best player on the league's best RS team -- a team that did not even have a real #2 guy. Do you know how many teams in NBA history have won 62 games with one star and a bunch of role players? It virtually never happens. That's why he won the damn award.

Rose and Thibs deserve all the praise and accolades they received last season. Obviously this year is different. The Bulls appear to be much stronger than last year and less reliant on Rose, largely due to Rip's presence, the health and resurgence of Boozer, and a bounce-back year from Watson.

[Rapcity_11]

Dirk is such a revisionist answer -- no one had him anywhere near the top 3 until the postseason,

I had him as my MVP basically the entire year. Many others agreed with me as well. You're clearly way off base.

where he excelled and Rose was woefully inconsistent. Ridiculous. Had Rose led the Bulls to a title, this thread wouldn't exist. Also ridiculous since it's a regular season award we're talking about.

Since the MVP is a regular season award, (as you pointed out) anyone with a brain could distinguish between the RS and PS.

[Krodis]

Dirk was arguably the MVP favorite until he went down with an injury and missed 9 games.

[ahonui06]

Rose

[ahonui06]

[quote="Sebastian"]Dirk is such a revisionist answer -- no one had him anywhere near the top 3 until the postseason, where he excelled and Rose was woefully inconsistent.[quote]

Actually, DIRK was the favorite at the beginning of the season, but he sprained his knee and missed 9 games so Rose leapfrogged him.

[Rapcity_11]

Dirk was arguably the MVP favorite until he went down with an injury and missed 9 games.

This I don't understand.

I mean I get that if a player misses too many games they shouldn't be considered. But considering it was only 9 games and the Mavs struggled badly without him, I don't see how that should punish Dirk?

[Rapcity_11]

Dirk was arguably the MVP favorite until he went down with an injury and missed 9 games.

This I don't understand.

I mean I get that if a player misses too many games they shouldn't be considered. But considering it was only 9 games and the Mavs struggled badly without him, I don't see how that should punish Dirk?

[SideshowBob]

Dirk was arguably the MVP favorite until he went down with an injury and missed 9 games.

This I don't understand.

I mean I get that if a player misses too many games they shouldn't be considered. But considering it was only 9 games and the Mavs struggled badly without him, I don't see how that should punish Dirk?

It's nonsensical. I think they did the same for Shaq in his prime when he missed a bunch of games and they struggled. He wasn't bringing value to the team because he wasn't playing, despite the fact that him not playing clearly showed that he was the most valuable.

It's always the narrative. Last year, it was that Rose was a smooth, underdog type player that had a humble personality and was a big part of the Bulls winning 62 games. In Shaq's time, he was Goliath. No one roots for Goliath; he was expected to be dominant, so why give it to him when we can once again, give it to the scrappy little guy that portrays the "Us against the world" mentality

[Dr Positivity]

Bob Cousy is the worst MVP ever. It was basically an honorary award. After that I would say Unseld, Reed, Cowens, Iverson, Rose are all in the next group, all below Nash

[magicman1978]

If Dirk deserves it over Rose last year, was he equally deserving over Nash in 06?

[bastillon]

Nash's MVP were actually pretty strong. he led his team to great records with amazing team impact. 05 turnaround was what, 2nd or 3rd greatest in league's history ? in 06 he missed 3 starters and played to the same level until Kurt's injury. then in 07 Suns were incredibly strong again and he could've won over Dirk that year as well. if you're looking for bad MVPs, look at 70s. don't get me wrong, Kareem was a great player, but he wouldn't be in the conversation under different circumstances. as it was, Kareem was playing on 50W teams and kept winning trophies, that virtually never happens.

70 - Knicks have a great team and Reed is a good player, but there's no way he could win any MVP in modern era, basically team award
73 - Cowens wins MVP because his team dominated inferior competition, but A-Train is more impressive MVP even considering ABA's weaknesses; another team award
76 - Kareem misses playoffs and wins MVP - ridiculous
77 - Kareem wins MVP on 50W team, same here
78 - Walton wins MVP despite having a season ending injury 50 games into the season

you put a guy like Duncan in that era, posting roughly 25/14/3/4 and leading his team to 60 wins every year and I honestly think he could win MVP every year. at least guys like Iverson or Rose led their teams to aprox 60 wins while posting great boxscore stats. Walton posted ok boxscore stats and anchored great team but couldn't stay healthy. Kareem posted godly stats but couldn't lead his team to MVP-worthy record. those are really the ones we should be looking into. the nature of MVP voting is that if you put any guy on a bad team and he makes this team win 20-30 more games, he's gonna be a strong MVP candidate so Nash would definitely be a strong contender in any era with that kind of impact. conversely, putting any player on a team that wins 45-50 wins means very poor chance of winning that award no matter how good he is. Kareem with his 70s track record should be getting similar MVP recognition as KG on early 00s Wolves if he had normal competition.

[Ice Man]

In 2008 Kobe Bryant went 28/6/5, 46% shooting percentage, for a team that had the 3rd best record in basketball. In 2011 Derrick Rose went 25/4/8, 44.5% shooting percentage, for a team that had the best record in basketball.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[JordansBulls]

Nash had two guys on his team who outproduces him on his first mvp in Amare and Marion. Both had more win shares and Amare had a much better PER than Nash did. Rose led his team in all 3.

[rrravenred]

You sincerely believe Amare and Marion were better players than Nash on that team, JB?

[colts18]

You sincerely believe Amare and Marion were better players than Nash on that team, JB?

At this point, I think Jordanbulls is either a troll or a 13 years old who actually was born right after MJ stopped playing (Wizards years never existed).

[rrravenred]

No, I think he's just firmly wedded to his particular view of the world (HCA, WS). I'm just trying to feel out how strongly he's committed to that view.