Good Article on the MVP Race

[Covert Rain]

No time like the present

By Marty Burns

Don't penalize Nash for winning previous MVP awards

The MVP award is always good for some spirited debate, and this year is no exception. While it appears to be a two-man race between Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash, there is no shortage of supporters on both sides.

Some believe Nowitzki deserves it because he is the best player on the best team. Moreover, his Mavs have racked up one of the best regular-season records in NBA history.

Others prefer Nash for his clever playmaking, deadeye shooting and overall ability to make his teammates better. The Suns are one of the top teams in the league, and Nash orchestrates their attack like a maestro.
I'm voting for Nash, but I can see the argument for Nowitzki.
When it comes to this year's MVP debate, reasonable minds can disagree.
But what is not reasonable is voting against Nash because he happened to win the award the past two seasons.

This argument is just plain silly.

Why should the past have anything to do with this season?
Even more ridiculous is the argument that Nash should not win MVP for historical reasons. These adherents point out that the only players in NBA history to win three in a row are Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Larry Bird. That trio of basketball royalty has a combined 16 rings. Nash has never even been to the Finals.

Does Nash, they ask, deserve to be in that select company?
The answer, of course, is no. He doesn't. At least not yet.
But he's the most deserving MVP candidate this season, and that's all that matters.

The NBA does not provide much guidance in the way of criteria for the award. The ballot says simply, "You have been chosen by the National Basketball Association to serve on a committee to vote for the NBA Most Valuable Player Award for the 2006-07 season. The winner of this award receives the Maurice Podoloff Trophy, named after the first Commissioner of the NBA." That's it. No specifics.

But it does say clearly on the ballot that the award is for the 2006-07 season.

Nash deserves it because, as stated above, he got the best out of guys like Raja Bell, Boris Diaw and Leandro Barbosa. He was also more indispensable to his team. Take Nowitzki off the Mavs, and they would still be pretty good. Take Nash off the Suns, and they're like a Ferrari that suddenly blows a tire.

Yes, Phoenix boasts two other All-Stars in Shawn Marion and Amaré Stoudemire. But those guys would not have been in Las Vegas this season without Nash's ability to get them the ball for easy baskets. Besides, Nowitzki has Josh Howard and a deep cast around him too.
Nash's ability to deliver in the clutch also stands out in my mind. It just seems like the little magician finds a way to hit the big shot or make the key play, something the Mavs know all too well. In their March 14 double-OT classic at Dallas, Nowitzki missed a key free throw late that could have iced the game. Nash (who scored 10 points in the final minute of regulation) came down and drilled a three-pointer to tie it.
When it comes to the MVP, that's the only kind of history that should matter.

If you want to argue against Nash for MVP, go ahead and say that he's not a great defender. Or that his Suns are slumping a bit down the stretch.

Those are valid reasons. But don't reject him because he's already got two trophies on his mantle. That makes about as much sense as saying he doesn't deserve it because of his haircut.

 

[Scot1]

I think this article makes a valid point, though it's easy to ignore it. Getting the award a third time in a row does not mean you're one of the 4 greatest (or most valuable) players ever--after all, perhaps the best player ever (MJ and Wilt are hard to rank, for me) is not on the list. [Perhaps MJ was most valuable, too, though there was that one year when his supporting cast went to the ECF without him.] It just means that for 3 years in a row, you happened to be more valuable than any current player that year. But sloppy thinking abounds in basketball, as elsewhere.

 

[HooverDam]

I could see it going to Dirk or Nash this year, I'm not sure, itll be very close. As amazing as Dirk is too watch, a 7 footer who makes insane shots all the time, his game is incredibly one dimensional. He stinks on defense, he doesn't rack up assists, he doesn't get a lot of steals or blocks, and he's not a great rebounder (he gets about 9 a game, but I wonder how many of those just fall into his lap). I don't think I've ever seen a 7 footer who can shoot as good as Dirk though (I'd have to think about it).

But Nash....I've never seen anyone do anything like Nash in my lifetime. I've seen old footage of Pete Maravich, and his passing is reminiscent of Nash's, but I don't know if he was as good of a shooter. When I watch Nash there are at least 3 plays a game that leave me completely stunned and amazed, I usually just start laughing because I can't believe what I saw. I just wish Nash wasn't a complete liability on defense w/ wandering feet, because I think then he'd get a lot more respect.

One final thing I find funny...some people who are saying 'dont give it to Nash, he already has 2" also didn't want Nash to win the last 2 years. Barkley comes to mind, I think he thought Shaq should win last year right? And I forget who he was hoping for 2 years ago. I think there are certain voters who for whatever reason, just don't like the idea of Nash being even the 1 time MVP, much less 3 time.

 

[ActingWild]

I could see it going to Dirk or Nash this year, I'm not sure, itll be very close. As amazing as Dirk is too watch, a 7 footer who makes insane shots all the time, his game is incredibly one dimensional. He stinks on defense, he doesn't rack up assists, he doesn't get a lot of steals or blocks, and he's not a great rebounder (he gets about 9 a game, but I wonder how many of those just fall into his lap). I don't think I've ever seen a 7 footer who can shoot as good as Dirk though (I'd have to think about it).

I couldn't agree more. Dirk is darn near unstoppable on offense because he's 7 foot and has a dead on fall away jumper so it's almost impossible to block.

However, that's about all he's got. For an a 7 footer, he's not a great rebounder or defender. He can put the ball on the floor, but he doesn't use that ability to help create open shots for his teammates.

Shaq was similar in that he was impossible to stop under the basket because he was so big. But he didn't win an MVP for just his scoring, he dominated the glass and dominated defensively.

Speaking of D, Nash gets bashed for his defense, but when's the last time you heard a commentator say that the Mavericks can play aggressive D because they know they've got Dirk back there guarding the basket? A 7 footer with that atheletic ability should have way more blocks and rebounds than he does. But he doesn't because he spends most of his time away from the basket taking fade away jumpers.

Historically, MVP's have at least been dominate in 2 categories. Jordan was obviously scoring, but he was also one of the best defenders to play the game. Malone and Barkley scored and dominated the glass. Shaq (as mentioned) and Duncan did that plus D. Bird, Magic and Nash could score at will and were clutch scorers but also could to set up their team with assists to make their teammates better and demoralize opponents.

What does Dirk dominate in besides scoring?

 

[azirish]

Dirk is a much better all round offensive threat than in past years and has always been a very good rebounder (career 11.1 rpg). Dirk's 3.3 assists per game is really pretty good considering how he's used in their offense (not a lot of two man game like Ducan).

But if Dirk has a problem, it is that he's a below averaged defender. Perhaps the same could be said about Nash, but it's a bigger problem for an inside guy because if means the Mavs can not ever go small. This means the Mavs must have weak offensive player like Dampier or Diop on the floor at all time and cannot afford to get into an up tempo game.

Dirk's offense is awfully important to the Mavs (just under 25% of their scoring), because this is not really a great offensive team, 100.6 ppg with a 46.8% shooting percentage compared to the Suns 49.4% average and 110.26 ppg. It is notable that Jason Terry averages just 5.2 assists per game on a team that is ranked 24th in assists; so this is a team loaded with one on one guys. Dirk is part of that style, which works for them but should open up questions as well.

 

[PetryJr]

Dirk is a much better all round offensive threat than in past years and has always been a very good rebounder (career 11.1 rpg)

Huh? Dirk never averaged more than 9.9 rpg in a season. His career average is 8.6 rpg. In playoff games, he averages 11.1 rpg, but that stat is meaningless considering the discussion is about the regular season MVP.

 

[azirish]

Huh? Dirk never averaged more than 9.9 rpg in a season. His career average is 8.6 rpg. In playoff games, he averages 11.1 rpg, but that stat is meaningless considering the discussion is about the regular season MVP.

Sorry, it was the playoff figures I was talking about.

 

[mathbzh]

Nash deserves it because, as stated above, he got the best out of guys like Raja Bell, Boris Diaw and Leandro Barbosa. He was also more indispensable to his team. Take Nowitzki off the Mavs, and they would still be pretty good. Take Nash off the Suns, and they're like a Ferrari that suddenly blows a tire.

I am a Nash fan and I would be happy if he is MVP again.

But I don't buy into the "when Nash is out our team collapse so Nash is the MVP" argument.
This is true only because this team isn't built to be able to play without Nash. We don't have a good enough backup to keep our game style effective when Nash is out. Moreover, we don't have the players to stop running and go big when Nash is out. It only shows a Suns weakness.

Actually I don't believe the MVP title is meaningfull. I can't compare a PG to a PF or a SG. Even comparing Dirk to Duncan isn't easy. Dirk maybe the best on the offensive end and a matchup nightmare but Duncan is a defensive force.

 

[azirish]

Actually I don't believe the MVP title is meaningfull. I can't compare a PG to a PF or a SG. Even comparing Dirk to Duncan isn't easy. Dirk maybe the best on the offensive end and a matchup nightmare but Duncan is a defensive force.

Very true.

Nash has revolutionized the ward by getting people to realize that there is more to basketball than shooting stats. Two years ago he helped a team jump from 28 to 62 wins, which was impressive enough. Last year he led them to 54 wins on a roster devastated by injuries. This year he's got better statistics and another 60 plus season.

How

 

[azirish]

Actually I don't believe the MVP title is meaningfull. I can't compare a PG to a PF or a SG. Even comparing Dirk to Duncan isn't easy. Dirk maybe the best on the offensive end and a matchup nightmare but Duncan is a defensive force.

Very true.

Nash has revolutionized the ward by getting people to realize that there is more to basketball than shooting stats. Two years ago he helped a team jump from 28 to 62 wins, which was impressive enough. Last year he led them to 54 wins on a roster devastated by injuries. This year he's got better statistics and another 60 plus season.

How do

 

[azirish]

Actually I don't believe the MVP title is meaningfull. I can't compare a PG to a PF or a SG. Even comparing Dirk to Duncan isn't easy. Dirk maybe the best on the offensive end and a matchup nightmare but Duncan is a defensive force.

Very true.

Nash has revolutionized the ward by getting people to realize that there is more to basketball than shooting stats. Two years ago he helped a team jump from 28 to 62 wins, which was impressive enough. Last year he led them to 54 wins on a roster devastated by injuries. This year he's got better statistics and another 60 plus season.

How do you compare that to a major offensive threat who has been a major offensive threat for a long time? It's depends on what you think is important.

 

[sunsfn]

I wonder what George is going to add in his fourth post.....

George, I think you can go back and delete those first two.

 

[Covert Rain]

I wonder what George is going to add in his fourth post.....

George, I think you can go back and delete those first two.

 

[Lorenzo]

I think the two are very close. You can't say dirk isn't a great rebounder because he doesn't have a higher rebounding avg. He gets almost 10 a game which is better than most around the league. You also have to account for the fact that the mavs a great rebounding team with dampier, diop, howard, and others who constantly battle for rebounds. and as someone said his playoff rebounding is higher because typically in big games dirk rebounds the ball better. dirk is the toughest matchup in the nba according to most nba coaches. His game is at another level offensively because of his ability to set up other players. Dirk's defense is better than it ever was. He actually did a decent job guarding duncan the other day. Having said that neither of these two will win the mvp because of their defense. The only thing that clearly seperates the two is the record season that the mavs are having. And at the end of the day i think many voters will take that into consideration when looking at the season as a whole.