RealGM

JordansBulls wrote:2006 yes, but 2005 hell no.

TAI8 wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:2006 yes, but 2005 hell no.

Why would you say that?

TAI8 wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:2006 yes, but 2005 hell no.

Why would you say that?

Laimbeer wrote:Do you think Nash deserved the MVPs he won in 2005 and 2006?

Jimmy76 wrote:you're on a Nash thread crusade

JordansBulls wrote:

TAI8 wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:2006 yes, but 2005 hell no.

Why would you say that?

He was the 3rd most productive player on his team overall that year.

Kobe8Player wrote:No. Shaq in 2005 and Kobe in 2006. I thought he had his best year in 2007 and it was only year he actually was MVP in my eyes.

bastillon wrote:in '05 there was the closest MVP race in the last decade. Nash had 34 points more(or 3.2%)or 7 1st place votes than Shaq, but I think it was a fair MVP. people were seriously overrating impact of Stoudemire whose buckets should be accounted to Nash in most cases and on the other hand, Dwyane Wade was underrated, because he was just a sophomore and Shaq was 32 and all. the next MVP for Nash was proving they made the right decision in '05.

Jimmy76 wrote:Im gonna tackle this question one year at a time and from the standpoint of winning as opposed to individual statistics also note i am a suns fan so i am obviously biased in his favor

2005
To understand why Steve Nash got the MVP this year you have to look at the 2004 Suns and see how the Suns went from a lottery team to a championship contender. The 2004 Suns went 29-53 and were ranked 21st offensively and 29th defensively. Now remember the only major roster change from 2004 to 2005 is replacing Nash with Marbury (this is pre-Knicks marbury).

The Suns go from 29-53 to 62-20 and Nash is the only new player. The offence goes from 21st to 1st in the league and the defence goes from 29th to 17th in the league(Nash is not a good defender but if he were as bad as some say your D would not skyrocket 12 places by making him your starting point guard). Some of this can be accounted for by improvements in other Suns players but much of the improvement in the other players is also accounted for by Nash.

Amare goes from 21ppg on 54% TS to 26ppg on 62% TS. Marion goes from 17ppg on 51% TS to 20ppg on 55% TS. The system had not changed Dantoni was still coach the increase in production is mostly thanks to Nash. Notice how EVERY SINGLE player that joins the Suns sees their efficiency shoot up and every player that leaves the Suns sees their efficiency drop through a hole even post Dantoni.

In short:the Suns improve by 31 wins and Nash is the only new guy in town.

2006
Amare is out for the year. Joe Johnson is gone. The only real contributors from last year left are Nash and Marion. Everyone expects the Suns to do terribly compared to their former selves. This doesnt happen. Despite losing two of their most important players Phoenix still wins 54 games and goes from 1st offense in the league to 2nd and 17th defense in the league to 16th(contrary to popular belief these suns teams were ok at defense). Johnson is replaced by Raja Bell (good player but in no way comparable) and Amare is replaced by Diaw (who went from playing 18 minutes a game as a forward in atlanta to 36 minutes a game as our starting center).

So the question is how are the Suns still a top 2 offensive team without 2 of their top 3 scorers? And who is responsible for all these wins? The answer is pretty clearly Nash. Marion obviously contributes a lot but he is a player who relies completely on the creation of others for scoring since he can only finish and having Nash create for him is his ideal situation. We have seen how Marion's offense dropped radically once he left Phoenix (even within the same year playing in Miami and one year of aging does not explain a decline that radical). Diaw has a career year (which happens to a lot of players who play next to Nash) but career year for Diaw is 13/7. Name one other player who takes Marion+roleplayers and makes them contenders. Im sure you can name a few and I bet they are all MVP canidates.

The Suns manage to make the semi-finals and lose in 6 games. Nash claims the vast majority of the success of a team which was composed of two all-stars and minor pieces other teams didnt see much value in. This team was about as far from stacked as you can get and still go 6 games into the semi-finals.



Saying there was another player that year that had a good argument for MVP isnt wrong at all but saying Nash didnt deserve either of these MVPs at all is ridiculous and based on nothing but a perception that has no grounding in reality. Nash made the Suns into winners both years. In 2005 he improved the efficiency of all the players on the team and added 31 wins. In 2006 he managed to take a team that had only one other serious contributor and make them into a contender. Nash deserved his MVPs and doesnt deserve the blind uninformed criticism he often receives.

DONT BOTHER RESPONDING IF YOU DONT READ THE POST

and those who do read it please tell me your thoughts

NYK 455 wrote:Steve Nash had a strong case for MVP in 05, 06, and 07. In 2005, he joined a losing team with no real expectations and turned it into a 62 win team, and a contender. In 2006, the Suns lost Amare and Joe Johnson, and despite having the reigning MVP on the team, most people expected the Suns to either not make the playoffs, or be a low seed and not make much noise. Nash led them to 54 wins and took them to the Western Conference Finals, along the way coming back from a 3-1 deficit against Kobe Bryant and the LA Lakers. In 2007, he led the Suns to 61 wins and had career highs in assists and Field Goal %, probably his best statistical year in the NBA. He took them to the Western Conference Finals, and in my opinion would have led them to a Championship if not for the suspensions to Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw.