MVP

Talk about any other sports here.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:18 am
#32 wrote:Gilbert Arenas likes to think he makes his teammates better, but he's just in denial. He's Allen Iverson with more size.



Jamison and Butler both had a great season. Jamison needs a guard to give him the ball and Arenas was that guard.

Arenas certainly makes his teammates better than Kobe!
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:40 am
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:Please justify why A is close to as good as B. And btw, you commented that the suns only won two more games but they had a pythagorean of winning 8 more games andplayed in the far tougher conference.


It depends on how you see those rosters. The way I do, Miami has the worse one, player by player, except Wade and Shaq. Mourning and Payton are not the players they once were, and Walker is a question mark in any game. Oh, and J Williams is the worst starting pg of the playoffs...

About the difference in games... well, it's a fact, Miami won 52 for 54 of Phoenix. And I don't think the west is far tougher, not anymore. To me, there are only 4 title contenders, 2 for each conference (Miami, Detroit, Dallas and San Antonio). Phoenix would be a contender with Stoudemire, but without him, I don't think they can get past any of those teams. And the rest of the conferences are pretty balanced. Most of the playoffs teams in the east would be contenders for the playoffs, too, if they were playing in the west.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 11:10 am
TMC wrote:
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:Please justify why A is close to as good as B. And btw, you commented that the suns only won two more games but they had a pythagorean of winning 8 more games andplayed in the far tougher conference.


It depends on how you see those rosters. The way I do, Miami has the worse one, player by player, except Wade and Shaq. Mourning and Payton are not the players they once were, and Walker is a question mark in any game. Oh, and J Williams is the worst starting pg of the playoffs...

About the difference in games... well, it's a fact, Miami won 52 for 54 of Phoenix. And I don't think the west is far tougher, not anymore. To me, there are only 4 title contenders, 2 for each conference (Miami, Detroit, Dallas and San Antonio). Phoenix would be a contender with Stoudemire, but without him, I don't think they can get past any of those teams. And the rest of the conferences are pretty balanced. Most of the playoffs teams in the east would be contenders for the playoffs, too, if they were playing in the west.

But the difference is that Nash is the reason that his supporting cast looks better. marion, bell, and thomas are the only guys on his team who had ever gotten much playing time before this year. Wade does not make his teammates better, when you look at his stats it's what you see is what you get. Miami has the talent of a 60+ win team. Phoenix has the talent of a 45 win team at best. Half of phoenix would still be languishing on the bench if they were back with their old teams. House, Jones, Barbosa, and Diaw went from benchwarmers to integral parts in one year because of nash. Tim Thomas and Kurt Thomas are actually hustling for the first times in their career because of nash. He constantly gets them all wide open shots.

On the other hand, Wade has such a star studded supporting cast that many predicted them to win it all. Shaq is still the best center in the league. Zo is still a top six center in the league. Payton and Williams were supposed to be a phenomenal backcourt. Toine was playing like an allstar last year and was expected to do so this year. etc. This team was actually built to play phoenix style basketball and instead played rileyball.

And as for the records, you seem to not get the concept that it's a regular season MVP. Having more wins does matter because it's a regular season MVP.
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 11:45 am
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:But the difference is that Nash is the reason that his supporting cast looks better. marion, bell, and thomas are the only guys on his team who had ever gotten much playing time before this year. Wade does not make his teammates better, when you look at his stats it's what you see is what you get. Miami has the talent of a 60+ win team. Phoenix has the talent of a 45 win team at best. Half of phoenix would still be languishing on the bench if they were back with their old teams. House, Jones, Barbosa, and Diaw went from benchwarmers to integral parts in one year because of nash. Tim Thomas and Kurt Thomas are actually hustling for the first times in their career because of nash. He constantly gets them all wide open shots.

On the other hand, Wade has such a star studded supporting cast that many predicted them to win it all. Shaq is still the best center in the league. Zo is still a top six center in the league. Payton and Williams were supposed to be a phenomenal backcourt. Toine was playing like an allstar last year and was expected to do so this year. etc. This team was actually built to play phoenix style basketball and instead played rileyball.


Then Miami is vastly overrated. I picked them to win it all, but for Wade and Shaq, not because the roster, as a whole, were good. In fact, I think they were better last year.

tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:And as for the records, you seem to not get the concept that it's a regular season MVP. Having more wins does matter because it's a regular season MVP.


Two games do not matter at all. I would agree that a MVP has to, at least, be able to make the playoffs (that's why Kobe is my pick as MVP), but two more wins doesn't matter. Or shouldn't matter.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 12:11 pm
TMC wrote:
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:But the difference is that Nash is the reason that his supporting cast looks better. marion, bell, and thomas are the only guys on his team who had ever gotten much playing time before this year. Wade does not make his teammates better, when you look at his stats it's what you see is what you get. Miami has the talent of a 60+ win team. Phoenix has the talent of a 45 win team at best. Half of phoenix would still be languishing on the bench if they were back with their old teams. House, Jones, Barbosa, and Diaw went from benchwarmers to integral parts in one year because of nash. Tim Thomas and Kurt Thomas are actually hustling for the first times in their career because of nash. He constantly gets them all wide open shots.

On the other hand, Wade has such a star studded supporting cast that many predicted them to win it all. Shaq is still the best center in the league. Zo is still a top six center in the league. Payton and Williams were supposed to be a phenomenal backcourt. Toine was playing like an allstar last year and was expected to do so this year. etc. This team was actually built to play phoenix style basketball and instead played rileyball.


Then Miami is vastly overrated. I picked them to win it all, but for Wade and Shaq, not because the roster, as a whole, were good. In fact, I think they were better last year.

tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:And as for the records, you seem to not get the concept that it's a regular season MVP. Having more wins does matter because it's a regular season MVP.


Two games do not matter at all. I would agree that a MVP has to, at least, be able to make the playoffs (that's why Kobe is my pick as MVP), but two more wins doesn't matter. Or shouldn't matter.

First of all, they won four games more by the pythagorean theorem of basketball which says how many wins a team should have gotten based on win margin. The suns lost a lot of close games so their win total was lower than it should have been this year.

I don't know if you knew this but overwhelmingly often the MVP comes from an elite team. Nash is only the second player in the last 26 years to be named MVP on a team that is not one of the top two teams in the league (the other one was jordan). The MVP has traditionally been "the best player on one of the two best teams" but since detroit and san antonio are so balanced, you have to dip to the next couple not as good but still elite teams. Kobe being named the MVP would be like when they named Abdul Jabbar the MVP when his team won 44 games because a certain number of voters are always going to pull a musburger and simply vote for the best player. The MVP award has been defined as a player on an elite team and voted for like that for the past 50+ years with few enough exceptions that they could be counted on one hand. Plus, if you're going to give the MVP to a player like kobe then why not LeBron? He did everything kobe did and better.
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 12:35 pm
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:First of all, they won four games more by the pythagorean theorem of basketball which says how many wins a team should have gotten based on win margin. The suns lost a lot of close games so their win total was lower than it should have been this year.


Then that stat is misleading. Facts are facts. They won two more games. That's all.

tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:Kobe being named the MVP would be like when they named Abdul Jabbar the MVP when his team won 44 games because a certain number of voters are always going to pull a musburger and simply vote for the best player. The MVP award has been defined as a player on an elite team and voted for like that for the past 50+ years with few enough exceptions that they could be counted on one hand. Plus, if you're going to give the MVP to a player like kobe then why not LeBron? He did everything kobe did and better.


Because Kobe is on the Lakers and Lebron on the Cavs. What I mean is that the Lakers without Kobe would be worse than, say, the Blazers, while the Cavs, even out of the playoffs without Lebron, would still win 10-15 more games than the Lakers without Kobe. But Lebron would be my second pick as MVP, it's too close.

Also, I don't use stats to choose who deserves the MVP. I just go with my feelings watching games. So it's only my opinion, not based on anything else.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:29 pm
TMC wrote:
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:First of all, they won four games more by the pythagorean theorem of basketball which says how many wins a team should have gotten based on win margin. The suns lost a lot of close games so their win total was lower than it should have been this year.


Then that stat is misleading. Facts are facts. They won two more games. That's all.

That stat tells that they played as well as your average 58 win team. I don't see the trouble you have with grasping that. Almost every single close game could go the other way so wins don't tell the old story. Was George Washington the best team in the NCAA this year?
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:52 pm
About wins, there's no such thing as should have won x games more. You either win them or not.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 2:47 pm
TMC wrote:About wins, there's no such thing as should have won x games more. You either win them or not.

was george washington the best team in the NCAA this year?
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 3:30 pm
I stand by my point. Unless it's due to bad officiating, you get what you deserve in each game.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 9:35 pm
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:
TMC wrote:About wins, there's no such thing as should have won x games more. You either win them or not.

was george washington the best team in the NCAA this year?
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 5:46 am
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:But the difference is that Nash is the reason that his supporting cast looks better. marion, bell, and thomas are the only guys on his team who had ever gotten much playing time before this year. Wade does not make his teammates better, when you look at his stats it's what you see is what you get. Miami has the talent of a 60+ win team. Phoenix has the talent of a 45 win team at best. Half of phoenix would still be languishing on the bench if they were back with their old teams. House, Jones, Barbosa, and Diaw went from benchwarmers to integral parts in one year because of nash. Tim Thomas and Kurt Thomas are actually hustling for the first times in their career because of nash. He constantly gets them all wide open shots.



This is what makes Nash a better MVP than most in history! Unlikely that he would be, but it is true!

Nash is not the best athlete ever, the strongest or the fastest ever. He also does not really have the abilty to score 50 points and bring his team to victory by his own scoring. He also is not a great defender.

WHAT HE DOES DO IS MAKE HIS TEAMMATES FAR BETTER THAN WHAT THEY WOULD BE WITHOUT HIM!

That is the definition of MVP and Nash does that better than anyone I've ever seen
Last edited by migya on Sun May 14, 2006 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 5:50 am
migya wrote:WHAT HE DOES DO IS MAKE HIS TEAMMATES FAR BETTER THAN WHAT THEY WOULD BE WITHOUT HIM!

That is the definition of MVP and Nash does that better than anyone I've ever seen


Stockton... Nash is a shadow of what Stockton was. And never won the MVP.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21382
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:32 am
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:WHAT HE DOES DO IS MAKE HIS TEAMMATES FAR BETTER THAN WHAT THEY WOULD BE WITHOUT HIM!

That is the definition of MVP and Nash does that better than anyone I've ever seen


Stockton... Nash is a shadow of what Stockton was. And never won the MVP.



I respect and like John Stockton and he did make players like Bryon Russell, Eaton and Ostertag better than what they ever were but he also had Karl Malone, the superstar, facilitating him. Ostertag and Eaton could focus on rebouding and shot blocking because of Malone's presence inside and because of the fact that defenses were always geared towards stopping him.

Nash made more players better than Stockton did and it has only been two seasons! QRich, Marion, Diaw, Barbosa and Bell are clearly better with Nash than what they have ever been. It can also be stated that Joe Johnson and Amare Stoudemire were also better with Nash than without him. This season, Nash did not have Amare and he still pulled the Suns to being the third best team in the West.

Steve Nash has been more valuable than Stockton was. Take Stockton away and the Jazz are quite bad but take Nash away and the Suns are quite bad also. Nash is also more of a scorer than Stockton was, though Stockton was a better defender. What makes Nash more valuable is the fact that he made at least 4 to 6 players very good, where they are quite average.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:48 am
I don't agree. Joe Johnson has been better this year without Nash than with him. And most of those players on Phoenix would have been starters for the Jazz. It's true that Stock had Malone as a sidekick (and what a sidekick) and that Nash is a better scorer, but most of the other players he has played with have been crap (except Hornacek).

Nash simply looks better because the team plays to his strenghts. He would be just average playing in a team like, say, Houston, that plays a slow tempo offense and emphasizes defense.

Of course, it's only my opinion...
PreviousNext

Return to Sports Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests