MVP

Talk about any other sports here.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21212
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 25
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 7:44 am
TMC wrote: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...



Don't forget that Stockton and the Jazz played in a slower half court style game for a good 20 years. Nash is better in full court style (though a great PG like him can do well in half court also) but a player is judged on his accomplishments, regardless what style his team plays in. Nash's success with the Suns shows his importance and efficiency.

Bell was a starter for the Jazz don't forget and he is now much better in the Suns. The Suns without Nash would be labelled mediocre and lost, much like they were three seasons ago when they finished out of the playoffs
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 9:01 am
migya wrote:Bell was a starter for the Jazz


Without Stockton. He had already retired when Bell signed with them. It's no surprise he looks better in Phoenix.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:08 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 am under the belief that without stockton, malone would not have been an MVP and stockton may have deserved that MVP.
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:10 am
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:
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: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:07 pm
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:I am under the belief that without stockton, malone would not have been an MVP and stockton may have deserved that MVP.


I think so, too.

tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:was george washington the best team in the NCAA this year?


And I thought that was over. You won't convince me that that stat has any meaning. If you lose, you lose. Every team is where their record says at the end of the season.

That theory is wrong. The basic idea is that the more you outscore your opponents over the course of the season, the more games you should win, and that's a fallacy. If you outscore your oponent by 30 points one game and lose the next five by a combined 5 points, you'll be +25 on points, but your record would be 1-5. The theory works most of the time (after all, it's based on stats), but not for every team and every situation.

What that theory shows is what should have happened in an ideal situation, but that's different from anything that happens in real competition.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:42 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:16 pm
TMC wrote: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...

have to differ, bro. Nash would transform the Houston team into one actually worth watching. If Nash is on Houston with TMAC and Yao, MIGOD that could be a 70 win team. I watched Stockton his whole career and no doubt he was a great, if utterly predictable point guard, who probably ran the best pick and roll ever with malone. However, what sets Nash apart is his incredible creativity and ability, like magic, to instantly read and adjust, like a great jazz soloist. There is no doubt that both Nash and Stockton make their teammates better, but Nash plays with a joy and elan and generosity of spirit, pure happiness in making his teammates succeed, that one rarely sees -perhaps the most since Magic...too many athletes are humorless, meglomaniacal and one-dimensional, and there is an entertainment aspect to the game.
To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

President Barack Hussein Obama - America chose Hope over Fear
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: Sun May 14, 2006 1:55 pm
I just think that Van Gundy wouldn't let him be himself. With a different coach, sure, but not as it is. Coaches matter more than most think. It's true that the players are the ones that perform, but the coach has to develop a system in which they all fit, and not every player fits into each system. If the coach doesn't allow him to show his creativity, half of Nash's game would be lost.

And I agree with your comments about his style. He's certainly a joy to watch.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:59 pm
I think that a healthy houston rockets is already a 50+ win team. Keep in mind that Yao has never had a decent distributing PG on his team and houston hasn't had one in a long time. If they had even a brevin knight or speedy claxton they'd become a contender and with nash they'd be an unstoppable killing machine. Yao's screen and rolls would finally start working and who would you double? I'd see a nash, yao, mcgrady three headed monster winning 65+ games no matter who the coach is.
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21212
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 25
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 6:13 pm
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:Bell was a starter for the Jazz


Without Stockton. He had already retired when Bell signed with them. It's no surprise he looks better in Phoenix.



My mistake, I thought he played one season with Stockton
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:20 pm
TMC wrote: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.

A)Joe Johnson is the first option on a bad team this year. Last year he was the fourth option on the best team.
B) You expect a 23 year old to improve
C) His three point % dropped 12% and his FG% dropped too.
D) He's averaging 3 ppg more taking 2.5 shots more and playing more minutes
E) He has doubled his turnovers

And the only phoenix player who would probably start for the jazz would be marion. Would you rather have diaw than mailman? bell than hornacek? In fact, nobody on phoenix except thomas and nash could play in sloans system at all.
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21212
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 25
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:48 pm
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:
TMC wrote: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.

A)Joe Johnson is the first option on a bad team this year. Last year he was the fourth option on the best team.
B) You expect a 23 year old to improve
C) His three point % dropped 12% and his FG% dropped too.
D) He's averaging 3 ppg more taking 2.5 shots more and playing more minutes
E) He has doubled his turnovers

And the only phoenix player who would probably start for the jazz would be marion. Would you rather have diaw than mailman? bell than hornacek? In fact, nobody on phoenix except thomas and nash could play in sloans system at all.



Good points but the Suns are more talented than the Jazz teams ever were BUT not that more talented.

This season Nash had less to work with than many ever had
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:34 pm
migya wrote:
tHe_dIsEaSe wrote:
TMC wrote: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.

A)Joe Johnson is the first option on a bad team this year. Last year he was the fourth option on the best team.
B) You expect a 23 year old to improve
C) His three point % dropped 12% and his FG% dropped too.
D) He's averaging 3 ppg more taking 2.5 shots more and playing more minutes
E) He has doubled his turnovers

And the only phoenix player who would probably start for the jazz would be marion. Would you rather have diaw than mailman? bell than hornacek? In fact, nobody on phoenix except thomas and nash could play in sloans system at all.



Good points but the Suns are more talented than the Jazz teams ever were BUT not that more talented.

This season Nash had less to work with than many ever had

Maybe, BUT that doesn't change the facts that those two comments by TMC were completely erroneous (sp?).
ImageImage
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:42 pm
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:20 pm
TMC wrote:I just think that Van Gundy wouldn't let him be himself. With a different coach, sure, but not as it is. Coaches matter more than most think. It's true that the players are the ones that perform, but the coach has to develop a system in which they all fit, and not every player fits into each system. If the coach doesn't allow him to show his creativity, half of Nash's game would be lost.

And I agree with your comments about his style. He's certainly a joy to watch.

God...you might be right about van gundy, he certainly sucks the joy out of the game. What an ugly brand of bball he preaches...did you hear he thinks players should be allowed unlimited fouls? As if the game doesn's stop enough already...BTW, the whole series between Suns and Clippers is a joy to watch. Cassell is another player who makes it fun and Christ do the clippers have a lot of talent! Check out Shaun Livingston...this series doesn;t have the kobe-nash (the anti-Kobe) angle, but other than the blow out, it is damned entertaining. Still trying to figure out how Suns got within one point today...
To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

President Barack Hussein Obama - America chose Hope over Fear
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: Mon May 15, 2006 2:27 am
coltraning wrote:God...you might be right about van gundy, he certainly sucks the joy out of the game. What an ugly brand of bball he preaches...did you hear he thinks players should be allowed unlimited fouls? As if the game doesn's stop enough already...


That's what I'm talking about. Never underestimate the ability some coaches have to kill their teams. Van Gundy is a great defensive coach (and that's why his teams are always competitive) but his offense, both in NY and Houston, is dreadful. He's the kind of coach that makes a top notch assistant, but doesn't qualify as a head coach. Just like Eddie Jordan, who is a great offensive coach but whose teams always lack defense.

And, tHe_dIsEaSe, those stats about Joe Johnson are also misleading. They reflect what happened in court, but what they do not reflect is that he played more than half the season out of position, playing PG. I'm sure that, if Atlanta gets a real PG, his numbers will be better next year (not in points, but with less turnovers. Probably around the same %, tho, as he'll be the first option, and thus will be closely guarded)

Finally, about that Jazz team, Hornacek, Stockton and Malone would have been starters about any player in Phoenix, but the other two starting spots and the whole bench would have been players from this Phoenix team. That's 9 players out of 12. That Jazz team had two top 10 players and a very good player in Hornacek, but no depth at all. The rest of the team were scrubs just enjoying the ride. And still went to two finals.

I have to admit I may be somewhat biased against teams like Phoenix. I just hate teams that play no defense. Almost as much as I hate teams that play no offense. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21212
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 25
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 6:46 am
coltraning wrote:
TMC wrote: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...

have to differ, bro. Nash would transform the Houston team into one actually worth watching. If Nash is on Houston with TMAC and Yao, MIGOD that could be a 70 win team. I watched Stockton his whole career and no doubt he was a great, if utterly predictable point guard, who probably ran the best pick and roll ever with malone. However, what sets Nash apart is his incredible creativity and ability, like magic, to instantly read and adjust, like a great jazz soloist. There is no doubt that both Nash and Stockton make their teammates better, but Nash plays with a joy and elan and generosity of spirit, pure happiness in making his teammates succeed, that one rarely sees -perhaps the most since Magic...too many athletes are humorless, meglomaniacal and one-dimensional, and there is an entertainment aspect to the game.



This is very true!

Nash is a one of a kind right now and that makes him an altime special
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
PreviousNext

Return to Sports Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest