Who is the worst player to win NBA MVP?

[penbeast0]

Wes Unseld

Won rookie of the year and MVP and didnt deserve either.

Unseld took a team that had been the worst in the East led by Earl Monroe and Kevin Loughery and with no major personnel changes turned it into the best record in the NBA despite getting only half a season out of the team's second best player, HOF Gus Johnson -- that's better than Russell's Celtics, Wilt with the Lakers, Reed's Knicks, Thurmond's Warriors, anyone.

People quite reasonably thought that creating a winning team was the most valuable thing a player could do . . . and it would be a bit silly to then say, yes, this player was the most valuable in the league as a rookie but we are going to call another rookie with flashier stats but less impact on wins the better rookie. It's about winning . . . Unseld as a rookie did the best job in the league for the regular season of creating wins for his team (and the voting was only regular season so the Bullet's playoff collapse didn't affect it). Who would you have voted for BASED ON JUST REGULAR SEASON?

Wilt who had the biggest numbers but led a team with Baylor and West to a lesser record than Unseld with half a season of Gus Johnson and the flashy but not particularly efficient Earl Monroe (at this point in his career)? Russell whose Celtics were sagging badly? Hayes who put up monster numbers but fought publicly with his coach on a losing Rockets team? Someone from Detroit? Tell us.

[bastillon]

Interesting reads. But again it isn't anything I don't give him credit for. But I just think Shaq going to a team that lost its 2nd and 3rd best players and turning them into a contender was more impressive than Nash joining a team with 3 all-stars and doing the same. And in the following year, what Kobe did with that cast of players is nearly unheralded. I've watched a lot of really, really great players. I can think of very very few players who could have replicated what Kobe did.

You talk about anchoring great offensive teams, but Kobe's efficiency or lackthereof undersells what he was doing for those teams...he was turning a team with little to no offensive talent into a top 10 offensive team by going one-on-five and shooting a lot.

I also don't think you understand how much the touch rules and moving-screen officiating impacted Nash on the micro level and your team on the macro level, but whatever. We're going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to your boy.

read this thread, arguments for Shaq have been crushed here:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1062895

as far as Nash, to me all Marion, JJ and Amare were overrated. they weren't legit all-stars. if they were, the team would've been great regardless of Nash's presence... which was NOT the case here. they sucked without Nash pretty badly, and in 04's last 31 games with all of the "big three" healthy, they went 11-20, while being coached by D'Antoni.

Marion is a great role player, JJ was still work in progress and Amare... you can see his value this year - Knicks are better when he's off the court. honestly it was a pretty bad team outside of Nash, but because he made their lives so much easier and their numbers went up so high, suddenly people started to think of them as all-stars. they'd win maybe 40 games with an average PG in Nash's place... not a guarantee either. there's some considerable amount of data to prove this as well.

there's really no case for Shaq if you look in depth at that situation. keep in mind that Miami was 6-3 without Shaq in 05, Suns were like 2-7 w/o Nash (don't remember). either way it was pretty clear that Shaq had some epic help in D-Wade who was arguably more important to his team. Nash was singlehandedly taking that team to playoff contention. you could replace Amare with Kurt Thomas and still have a 60W team. you could replace Marion with a legit PF and they'd still win 60 games. you could replace JJ with a spot-up shooter who plays defense and they're still legit contenders. D'Antoni has always been one of the worst coaches in the league, not even worth mentioning. the one element you COULDNT replace was Nash. whenever he missed games, they fell off a cliff.

[Andrewchos]

Many people including top sports casters and opinion maker's felt Shaq deserved the MVP that year and came within a single vote of actually winning it, just because you dislike the dude doesn't mean he didn't deserve it.

[bastillon]

Many people including top sports casters and opinion maker's felt Shaq deserved the MVP that year and came within a single vote of actually winning it, just because you dislike the dude doesn't mean he didn't deserve it.

my dislike has nothing to do with this. read the thread I gave the link to.

[Andrewchos]

I did, and I don't think it proved that Shaq shouldn't have been the MVP that year.

[TAI8]

LOL why are Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki on the poll?

[bastillon]

I did, and I don't think it proved that Shaq shouldn't have been the MVP that year.

what makes you think he should have ?

[Andrewchos]

The effect he had on the Heat, the fact that he turned them into instant contenders, the fact that if not for DWade's injury they probably would have made the Final's. His effect on the team was far more then just his number's which is why they proceeded to win the chip the year after. All of that including his very good numbers are enough for me to say he deserved MVP and with voter's pretty much agreeing with me I can stay confident in my opinion.

Also the fact that he allowed DWade to go from a good player to a super star, just like he did for mr. Beans.

[semi-sentient]

I remember thinking at the time that Shaq deserved it (slightly), largely because I thought Nash had a lot of help and wasn't the main reason behind the Suns success. After what he did in 05-06 though, it confirmed that he was the right choice.

[Andrewchos]

Also I didn't think Nash was a poor choice for MVP that year I just felt Shaq deserved it slightly more.

[Rapcity_11]

The effect he had on the Heat, the fact that he turned them into instant contenders, the fact that if not for DWade's injury they probably would have made the Final's. His effect on the team was far more then just his number's which is why they proceeded to win the chip the year after. All of that including his very good numbers are enough for me to say he deserved MVP and with voter's pretty much agreeing with me I can stay confident in my opinion.

Also the fact that he allowed DWade to go from a good player to a super star, just like he did for mr. Beans.

You really can't be reasoned with, can you?

[bastillon]

Also I didn't think Nash was a poor choice for MVP that year I just felt Shaq deserved it slightly more.

good response for saying why Shaq deserved to be a candidate. but why did he deserve it more than Nash ? again, monstrous +/-, Suns performing poorly without him, Suns > Heat when both MVPs were playing, Nash even led them to bigger turnaround. why did Shaq deserve more ?

[Weems]

Iverson was an albatross.

[Alex_De_Large]

Kobe Bryant.

[semi-sentient]

Kobe Bryant.

[glowsticks]

Probably Kobe

[nonemus]

Kobe Bryant.

lol....

[Father Time]

Kobe easily.

[mysticbb]

the value of Steve Nash:
http://www.82games.com/pelton15.htm

An article which a lot of people should read before they want to claim Nash isn't the reason for the Suns success. The guy is doing it again with a Hakim Warrick. Warrick is a career 56 ts% player while he has right now 68.5 ts% this season so far. Or let us take a look at Stoudemire's numbers. Isn't that so surprising that Stoudemire isn't performing that well? Stoudemire played 20 games on the Suns from 2004/05 to 2009/10 without Nash: 22.3/8.4 on 56.4 ts% and a 13.9 To-R, the Suns lost 13 of those games. Now on the Knicks Stoudemire has 20.8/8.1 on 53.5 ts% and a 15.9 To-R. The minutes are about the same (34.4 mpg vs. 34.5 mpg) and the Knicks are playing even on a higher pace than the average Suns team from 2004/05 to 2009/10 (98.7 vs. 95.9). Stoudemire performs close to how he performed in Suns' games without Steve Nash. Now compare that to the 23.6/9.1 on 63.3 ts% and a 11.1 To-R Stoudemire had in Suns' games with Steve Nash. The scoring efficiency is clearly higher, the turnover rate is clearly lower.
I said that in the RPOY thread for the 2007/08 season in which someone gave a vote to Amare Stoudemire that he is not more than an overhyped David Lee. Heck, David Lee at least tries to rebound the ball. Stoudemire can send 35% of his current contract to Nash, because without Nash Stoudemire wouldn't have got more than the 65m David Lee gets for the next 5 years. Instead Stoudemire got a 100/5 deal. Incredible.

This has to be Allen Iverson. With Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan there were at least two clear-cut better choices that season. The 76ers won their games due to their defense. That team hat the COY, DPOY and the SMOY while Iverson winning the MVP. With that kind of accolades for a team we must assume it has to be the greatest team of All-Time. But in fact Iverson's MVP award was completely undeserved. The guy was an inefficient chucker whos defensive lapses were covered by Eric Snow and Aaron McKie. The biggest strength of the 76ers were their defense and Iverson for sure wasn't the reason.

[Malinhion]

Exactly. What kind of MVP puts up 16 points per game?

lol this is getting so old man.

Sigh...haters gonna hate.