Did Nash deserve his two MVPs?

[Reasonable Fan]

Yes. Nash was a good choice for both years (though I remember being annoyed Shaq missed out in 05, he was the runaway choice for 06).

[therealbig3]

Wasn't Phoenix a playoff team the year before they won 29 games...with Marbury at the helm? Weren't they injured the year before Nash got there, which is the reason why they won 29 games? Nash made a huge impact sure, but I think people are being intellectually dishonest when they point to Miami not being the same team and with Wade being just as good, and they discount the fact that Nash went to a team that, when healthy, had a playoff-calibre supporting cast in place.

Personally, I think Shaq was the MVP in 05, and although Kobe was the best player imo in 06, he didn't deserve MVP, because his team wasn't very good (unfortunate and unfair, maybe, but that's how it goes). But I probably would've gone with Nowitzki or maybe Duncan in 06, as they were just as important for their teams, and their teams were better, but Nash in 06 is valid, so I think he deserves that one.

[Jimmy76]

even going back two years you're looking at a 44 win team headed by a star point guard if Nash's value is star point guard +18 wins that's definitely MVP worthy

[therealbig3]

even going back two years you're looking at a 44 win team headed by a star point guard if Nash's value is star point guard +18 wins that's definitely MVP worthy

Right, which is why he was rightfully in the conversation...but I think he won it over Shaq because people thought he was worth +33 wins, when that really wasn't the case, considering the injuries. And the run 'n gun counted for something; I know many people don't believe that the system made Nash, but I think it certainly made Amare's, Marion's, and the shooters' numbers look prettier, and the philosophy of just trying to outscore people played a major part in those victories imo, as that style works very well in the regular season.

[Jimmy76]

even going back two years you're looking at a 44 win team headed by a star point guard if Nash's value is star point guard +18 wins that's definitely MVP worthy

Right, which is why he was rightfully in the conversation...but I think he won it over Shaq because people thought he was worth +33 wins, when that really wasn't the case, considering the injuries. And the run 'n gun counted for something; I know many people don't believe that the system made Nash, but I think it certainly made Amare's, Marion's, and the shooters' numbers look prettier, and the philosophy of just trying to outscore people played a major part in those victories imo, as that style works very well in the regular season.

I'd put forward the thesis it was Nash more than the system helping Marion, Amare, and the shooters

Hence why you've seen so many mediocre offenses in new york despite the same system

but who knows maybe the Knicks turn into a similarly awesome offense this year we'll see but I'm on the skeptical side

[Rapcity_11]

Good post about the numbers Nash put up against Dallas. But do you account for the points that he allows to be scored? I have a very hard time giving an MVP trophy to a player that only plays 1 end of the court. And you say that Shaq had DWade so he didn't deserve it? Well, Nash had some guy by the name of Amare to feed the ball to. And a guy named Marion covering his matador defense.

Plain and simple- the Heat went from a 500 ballclub to the ECF and would have made it to the finals if Wade's rib didnt' get hurt in the ECF when they were up 3-2. And Shaq's production was arguably better than Wade's in 05 based on numbers and efficiency. You say Wade jumped from 16 ppg to 24? No coincidence that when a dominant big man gets paired with him, his production goes up. And the team becomes a title contender. The next year, they won the friggin title! Sure, Wade was great and he blossomed. But Shaq put up good numbers and powered them, literally thru Detroit. They don't sniff the finals without Shaq.

So you can look at "well, Nash got that team to 62 wins", or whatever you would like to say. I look at the fact that in 05 and 06, barring 1 freak injury to Wade in the ECF, Shaq being added to that team took them from a 500 ballclub (more or less) to a championship, and probably 2.

Plain and simple: Nash took a 29-53 team, transformed them into a 62-20 team, and led them to the WCF.

Joe Johnson left. Quentin Richardson left. Amare Stoudemire got injured.

He took newcomers Kurt Thomas, Eddie House, Atlanta's backup point guard Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, and perennial reject Tim Thomas one game FURTHER the next year.

That previous seasons record is deceiving, the team suffered many injuries that year, Marbury was traded and their head coach was fired.

As for the thread, he had as good a case as anyone at the very least, so definitely deserved. I felt Shaq may have deserved it more in 2005, but can't go wrong with Nash that year. The year following, no Amare or JJ, still a talented team, but only an 8 games drop off from the year before, which is damn impressive, pretty well deserved.

People have a problem with Nash winning it mostly because he isn't the prototypical star and his years with Dallas, which were good, but not MVP good. People like to label him as a "product of the system", I use to, but you have to have somebody pretty damn good to run that system, just ask New York and D'Antoni.

The Suns with Amare-Marion-JJ-Barbosa healthy went 11-20 in the final 31 games of 03/04. So that argument you used sucks.

[RocketPower23]

When you're team that trades their starting point guard, for lesser parts, brings in a new coach midseason, with an entirely new system and philosophy, has a major player come back after missing most of the season, you're not going to be very good. Johnson was still a young player and that was Barbosa's second year. But you're right, they did have a healthy Marion.

I don't even know why you have a problem with what I said, I wasn't discrediting Nash, I providing context as to why they performed so poorly that season. They won 40+ plus games the year before and took the eventual champion Spurs to 6 games, with Amare as a rookie. That team healthy and intact would have managed to win more than 29 games.

[Reasonable Fan]

I can see everyone is nailing you on most of this stuff, so I'm going to limit myself to briefly mentioning the 2003 Suns. To be honest, this team got very lucky, and sort of caught fire at the right time (who could forget that ridiculous fluke 3 from Marbury to beat us in game 1 of the 2003 playoffs?) All in all though, the Suns were never a realistic shot to beat the Spurs, and the Spurs beat themselves in those 2 games with inconsistent play from guys like 2nd year Parker (who at that point in his career couldn't guard guys like Marbury to save his life). It certainly shouldn't be used to artificially amp up the Suns that year (plenty of teams draw out playoff series longer than they should go).

Looking at the NBA in 2003, and the NBA in 2005, I don't think the 2003 Suns would have any shot at the playoffs. The West was deeper (it was more top heavy too, but try not to get distracted with arguments that belong in the Tim Duncan v.s Kobe thread), and the East was somewhat more pitiful (though this was a lesser factor). In 2003 the Suns won 44 games. In 2005 the KG/Cassell/Spree Wolves won 44 games, and missed the playoffs. I doubt the Suns in 2003 would even beat out the 2005 Clippers to be honest.

[Doctor MJ]

That previous seasons record is deceiving, the team suffered many injuries that year, Marbury was traded and their head coach was fired.

Is the causality really that hard to keep straight?

Cause: The team sucked

Effects: The coach got fired and Marbury got traded

I'd think this was pretty clear cut - if a GM can't realistically use something as an excuse, then it's probably an effect. As in, "Y'know if I hadn't fired the coach, we would have done better. Remind me why I did that again?"

[RocketPower23]

That previous seasons record is deceiving, the team suffered many injuries that year, Marbury was traded and their head coach was fired.

Is the causality really that hard to keep straight?

Cause: The team sucked

Effects: The coach got fired and Marbury got traded

I'd think this was pretty clear cut - if a GM can't realistically use something as an excuse, then it's probably an effect. As in, "Y'know if I hadn't fired the coach, we would have done better. Remind me why I did that again?"

Amare was injured for the first 30 games or so. With Amare and Marbury in the same lineup, they went 8-11, not impressive, but nothing to suggest 29 wins. I didn't say that with the team 100% intact that they would be a 50 win team, but they would not have won 29 games. Either way, Nash transformed and much credit is due.

[RocketPower23]

I can see everyone is nailing you on most of this stuff, so I'm going to limit myself to briefly mentioning the 2003 Suns. To be honest, this team got very lucky, and sort of caught fire at the right time (who could forget that ridiculous fluke 3 from Marbury to beat us in game 1 of the 2003 playoffs?) All in all though, the Suns were never a realistic shot to beat the Spurs, and the Spurs beat themselves in those 2 games with inconsistent play from guys like 2nd year Parker (who at that point in his career couldn't guard guys like Marbury to save his life). It certainly shouldn't be used to artificially amp up the Suns that year (plenty of teams draw out playoff series longer than they should go).

Looking at the NBA in 2003, and the NBA in 2005, I don't think the 2003 Suns would have any shot at the playoffs. The West was deeper (it was more top heavy too, but try not to get distracted with arguments that belong in the Tim Duncan v.s Kobe thread), and the East was somewhat more pitiful (though this was a lesser factor). In 2003 the Suns won 44 games. In 2005 the KG/Cassell/Spree Wolves won 44 games, and missed the playoffs. I doubt the Suns in 2003 would even beat out the 2005 Clippers to be honest.

Marbury was once an elite point guard in this league, I'd be surprised if any version of Tony Parker could guard a prime Marbury.

I never once stated or suggested that the Suns could have or even had the slightest chance of beating the Spurs, but nonetheless it was a feather in their cap. Would it please you more if I said they'd be a fringe playoff team at best? That with an emerging player like Amare, perhaps we would have seen some more internal improvement from the team. Maybe they would have won more than 29 games?

[Reasonable Fan]

Yawn. "Elite PG"... way too generous, though he was v.good... and no, Tony isn't famed for his D, but we wouldn't have been getting burnt anywhere near as much with 2005 Parker there... 2003 Parker was so inconsistent and bad on D at times he lost playoff minutes to Speedy Claxton.

Sure, they'd have won more than 29, but under Nash they won over 60, and were the second best regular season team in the NBA that year (Spurs seemed like a stronger team, just coasting a little... absolutely killed the Suns in their first match up that year, because the Suns were getting so much hype, and after that most non-Suns fans thought the Spurs had their number, and in the playoffs they'd nail them, which they did). I'm not sure you understand what a huge difference that is between even the 2003 Marbury Suns (who wouldn't have made the playoffs in 05) and the 2005 Suns (who were the top seed)

[RocketPower23]

I'm talking win discrepancy. There is a huge difference between 29 wins and a team capable of winning between 39-45 games. Would a Marbury led Sun team ever reach the heights that Nash took them to, no, but that's not what I'm saying. A poster included the fact that they won 29 games without Nash the previous season, to which I stated that the team Nash took over for was not a genuine 29 win team. A disingenuous comment if you will, which I'm sure you are familiar with. I fully credit Nash for what he did and the turnaround he did with the team, so you're posts aren't telling me something that I didn't already know.

And yes, Marbury was a handful in his prime playing days, a difficult offensive player to stop. Tony Parker wouldn’t have the strength to keep a guy like Marbury out of the paint, but thankfully, he has Tim Duncan patrolling the paint, so no big deal.

[Reasonable Fan]

No, Nash did not make the team 33 wins better... that's Tim Duncan, Kareem, Bird territory, and Nash isn't those guys... but there's a gigantic difference between a team who probably wouldn't be better than the Clippers in 2005 (37 wins), and a team who finishes first in the NBA (62 wins).

[RocketPower23]

No, Nash did not make the team 33 wins better... that's Tim Duncan, Kareem, Bird territory, and Nash isn't those guys... but there's a gigantic difference between a team who probably wouldn't be better than the Clippers in 2005 (37 wins), and a team who finishes first in the NBA (62 wins).

While I disagree with the amount of wins you'd given to the Suns, I agree with the central point of your post. So what are we discussing here again....

[Reasonable Fan]

Nothing, since a discussion implies a conversation between equals, and you've yet to even apologise for your embarrassing misrepresentation of my post on your (ex)sig

This is more like everyone taking turns to tell you why you're wrong.

[RocketPower23]

So basically you realized you were yammering about nothing, trying to make yourself sound smarter than you actually are. Cool stuff.

[Wavy Q]

God damn you are condescending.

[Reasonable Fan]

God damn you are condescending.

Respect is for posters who deserve it.

[bastillon]

lol@people still mentioning Shaq for 2005 MVP. now THAT would've been a robbery.

Heat were a great team outside of Shaq and if it hadn't been for the injuries in 2004, they would've won over 50 games easily, as Elgee's recent post showed:

This is good stuff - i had actually forgotten about their poor start. To break it down further:

Caron Butler missed the first 20 games of the season. The Heat went 5-15. They trotted out rookie Wade with Odom, Eddie Jones, undrafted rookie Udonis Haslem and on his last legs, Brian Grant.

Wade missed the 4th and 5th game of the year. Miami started 0-7.

When the starting lineup was intact with Butler's return, Miami went 7-2.

More injuries set in...Miami stayed afloat and sat at 25-36. With the starting lineup mostly intact, they closed 17-4. For the season, that lineup played 33 healthy games and went 23-10 (a 57-win pace). Wade, as a rookie, progressed as the season grew and was established as The Man by the postseason. Odom played extremely well (and it's a testament to his value that they did so well).

They beat New Orleans in the first round, and lost a competitive series to the 61-win Pacers in the second round. So while they were clearly improved the following year (and a legitimate championship contender), a lot of that had to do with Wade's jump (Haslem improved as well).

improvement wasn't all that big either, as this post shows. consider also:

Miami also didn't improve all that much from 04 to 05. they were 6-game ECSF team in 04 and 7-game ECF team in 05. 04 Heat would also easily run through Nets and Wizzards. 04 had a better competition, that Pacers team, still healthy in the ECSF, was a top-notch contender in 04 and at the very least as good as Pistons 05.

east had only 1 respectable playoff team outside of Miami. it wasn't really hard to get to the ECFs.

their individual impact can be seen in +/-:

so Shaq took them from .500 to championship contention. Nash took them from deep lottery to championship contention. see my point ? this argument - team improvement - is clearly in Nash's favour.

+/- numbers strongly back-up this argument:
Miami was +3.9 without Shaq, +10.1 with him
Suns were -2.2 without Nash, +13.2 with him

sample size was big enough. both played approx 2500 mins and missed about 1400-1500. Nash had a lot more impact on his team than Shaq made on his.

Shaq was +6. Nash was +15. no contest here.

other interesting thing to note is that Suns were actually a better team with Nash than Miami:

championship contention. Spurs won with 7.84 SRS. Pistons had 3.31 SRS but they were coasting throughout RS. Suns had 7.08 SRS, which was good enough for #2 in the league. Heat were 4th with 5.76, right after Dallas' 5.85. I'm not sure how Suns weren't championship contenders. they lost to the best team in the league, beat Dallas despite injury to key player (that cost them Spurs series btw). you provided no evidence for this ridiculous claim. at least Suns beat some serious competition in the playoffs, unlike Miami beating up inferior .500 Wizzards and Nets that had no business being in the playoffs in the first place.

Heat record misrepresents their value because they were playing in the terrible EC. Suns were 24-6 against east, 38-14 against west. Heat were 41-11 against east, 18-12 against west. there's no question Heat couldn't duplicate their record in the west.

let's see pt differential: Suns +10.2 against east, +5.3 against west. Heat +8.6 against east, +3.0 against west.

it's clear that Suns were much more of a championship contender than Heat based on 2005 data. not to mention that Suns were 60-15 when Nash played (66W pace), while Heat were 53-20 when Shaq played (59W). there's some major disagreement between what you said and what really happened.

it's not even that clear whether Shaq was the best player on Miami. Wade became unstoppable with rules changes.