Stein Line picks NBA Awards

[goldseraph]

And how does most of that paragraph NOT apply to Steve Nash?

- Chaplin

It doesn't apply to Nash because

- Phoenix is not one other good player and a bunch of scrubs. All 5 Phoenix starters could be 20 ppg scorers.

- Nash doesn't dominate both ends of the floor. In fact, he is a defensive liability.



For the criticisms of McGrady not having single-handedly led a team deep into the playoffs - I just have to say look at his Orlando teams. Besides him they were pitiful. If you take McGrady off any of the last 3 Magic teams they would be in the bottom 5 of the league. Kobe had Shaq, Jordan had Pippen, Magic had Kareem and Worthy. Those title teams also had lots of excellent roleplayers and coaching.

McGrady had new scrub teammates shuffled in every year because the Magic were so cap-stricken from the Grant Hill disaster. He also had 3 or 4 coaches, none of whom have accomplished a deep title run. I'm not saying he doesn't have flaws, but I think you guys are being too critical of a guy who is only 25 and has never been in a good situation.

 

[Chaplin]

- Chaplin

It doesn't apply to Nash because

- Phoenix is not one other good player and a bunch of scrubs. All 5 Phoenix starters could be 20 ppg scorers.

- Nash doesn't dominate both ends of the floor. In fact, he is a defensive liability.

That same old arguement? Come on, you can come up with something better than that #2, can't you? When has Steve Nash's defense become a liability in our 19 losses? Off the top of my head, I can say twice: once against Tony Parker and another time against Chauncey Billups. Other than that, Nash's defensive "liabilities" haven't hurt this team one bit.

 

[elindholm]

But, what exactly has T-Mac done in regards to single-handidly leading his team deep in the playoffs? Not saying that Marion has, but in order for T-Mac to reap the praise worthy of a superstar... he's going to have to show he can do this.

I was specifically avoiding any "superstar" talk, because it's pointless to debate a category when no one can agree on its definition. We might as well argue about whether McGrady is a "gargelfluk."

McGrady has shown that he can be a first-option player on a good (not a great) team. I think some of his teams in Orlando went to the playoffs, didn't they? (I can't remember for sure, so this is an honest question.) And in any case, he's the first option in Houston now -- the Rockets struggled early in the year when they tried to insist on Yao as a first option, but once they went to McGrady, they started to play much better.

Marion has shown that he can't be a first option. Last season after the trade, whenever Stoudemire sat, the Suns' offense was terrible. Even this season, generally Nash or Stoudemire has to be on the floor for much of anything to happen. Even when's he's surrounded by other talented scorers, Marion has shown that he just doesn't have the offensive talent to do well when the defense is keying on him. He needs the defense to be partially distracted by even greater threats.

As far as McGrady's long-term health is concerned, I thought you were talking about now. If you're talking about making a commitment to someone for five years, then I agree the question is more complicated.

 

[goldseraph]

It's the same old argument because there is truth to it. I think even most of the Suns fans here would admit as much. If you watched the Mavs last few playoff runs, you'd see Steve getting burned by all the of the top PG's in the west. I'm not saying he doesn't try hard on defense, he just doesn't have the physical athleticism, length, or lateral quickness to be a solid defender. Shaq blocks nearly 3 shots a game, can grab 10-15 rebounds on any given night, and is a huge obstacle down in the paint. This ability combined with his dominant offensive game have made every team he's been on a title contender. I think he deserves MVP this year because he's better than Nash, and he has had just as much success as Phoenix with only one other excellent player.

 

[Evil Ash]

It's the same old argument because there is truth to it. I think even most of the Suns fans here would admit as much. If you watched the Mavs last few playoff runs, you'd see Steve getting burned by all the of the top PG's in the west. I'm not saying he doesn't try hard on defense, he just doesn't have the physical athleticism, length, or lateral quickness to be a solid defender. Shaq blocks nearly 3 shots a game, can grab 10-15 rebounds on any given night, and is a huge obstacle down in the paint. This ability combined with his dominant offensive game have made every team he's been on a title contender. I think he deserves MVP this year because he's better than Nash, and he has had just as much success as Phoenix with only one other excellent player.

Am I the only one that actually remembers that the Heat were in the playoffs last year? Yes the Heat have improved but its not as much of an improvement as everyone makes it out to be.

The Suns have made the 2nd greatest improvement in NBA history and that is a direct result of the acquisition of Steve Nash. Thats not to mention that he is directly reponsible for about 40 pts a game sometimes more (its difficult to tell how many of his assists directly lead to 3 pointers off the top of my head). His avg assist per game this year is greater than any player has had in OVER A DECADE!!

I'm sorry but I don't really see that great of an argument for Shaq as MVP this season especially over Nash. He's been a great player but his hype gets so massively overblown its not even funny

BTW when you are making an argument on this years MVP ... its not very convincing when on 1 hand you mention the past against the player (and not what they've done this year) and on the other hand you only mention what the other candidate has done this year without bringing out the faults of his past seasons.

 

[George O'Brien]

Last summer there was a lot of support for trading Marion AND Johnson for T-Mac. At this point, it sounds pretty absurd. Nothing against T-Mac, but both Marion and JJ are having vastly better seasons than a year ago.

Now the question is whether you'd trade Marion for T-Mac straight up. Probably, but it is hardly a sure thing. Not because of any problems with T-Mac, but because they are such vastly different kinds of players on vastly different kinds of teams. You can't substitute T-Mac into the Suns lineup because he is not going to rebound and block shots like Marion does. T-Mac gives you more scoring, but that isn't actually the Suns main problem.

Asking "who would you like to have the ball with 30 seconds left" is fine, but not really the point. The real question is who best fits the needs of the team for the entire game. Right now Marion is that guy for the Suns.

 

[goldseraph]

Ash - how does not bringing up Shaq's past faults diminish my argument?

Shaq has been to 5 NBA Finals and won 3. He was the Finals MVP every time
they won. Nash has gotten to the playoffs, but only once to the Western Conference finals. His playoff performances have been sporadic. This lends credence to my first point - that Shaq is the better player.

The citing of Nash's past defensive woes was just one particularly glaring
example of what could be coming this postseason. I don't believe his defense
has improved any with the Suns, so this example is still valid in criticising his overall defensive skills.

 

[elindholm]

The MVP is based on the current regular season. Past success or failure is not relevant, and neither is predicted playoff performance.

 

[Chaplin]

Ash - how does not bringing up Shaq's past faults diminish my argument?

Shaq has been to 5 NBA Finals and won 3. He was the Finals MVP every time
they won. Nash has gotten to the playoffs, but only once to the Western Conference finals. His playoff performances have been sporadic. This lends credence to my first point - that Shaq is the better player.

The citing of Nash's past defensive woes was just one particularly glaring
example of what could be coming this postseason. I don't believe his defense
has improved any with the Suns, so this example is still valid in criticising his overall defensive skills.

Playoff past is irrelevant when talking about the MVP.

EDIT: Oops, Eric said the same thing.

 

[George O'Brien]

Maybe the NBA needs a category like in the Oscars Lifetime Achievement with a "Career Achievement Award" that takes into account prior year's performances, playoffs, Olympics, All Star teams, etc. Considering how screwed up the basketball Hall of Fame is (Wilkins doesn't make it but college coaches do?), this would be a way to recognize a kind of career MVP. But once the guy wins, he can't repeat.

 

[Cheesebeef]

people can talk about Steve Nash's defensive liabilities all they want - and they're right - BUT - it's not like Shaq has bullet proof armor and you know why - HE IS AN OFFENSIVE LIABILITY IN THE FOURTH QUARTER - always was... always has been - plain and simple. A player who can't touch the ball in a close game with 5 minutes to go also has a liability - couple that with the fact that the Heat are EXACTLY where everyone thought they would be - the best team in the East... THE EAST - which still sucks and the Suns... HAVE THE BEST RECORD IN THE LEAGUE goes to show who has been the most valuable player of the regular season. That is what the award is for - the Most Valuable Player of the REGULAR SEASON.

Now... considering that we weren't even predicted to make the playoffs, and were a a lottery team last year (as opposed to the Heat who took Indiana to 6 games int he second round of the playoffs last year) and now are staring at the BEST RECORD IN THE LEAGUE - coming out of the much tougher Western Conference, there is absolutely zero credibility in saying a guy who has zero offensive impact (and actually has negative offensive impact) at the end of games is the MVP because the other challenger is a defensive liability.

Nash is the MVP of the regular season - plain and simple. There's another award for the player who leads their team to a title - and it'll be obvious who that is once the Finals are over. If Shaq wins the title - give him his due then - until then, don't just simply give it to him because of what happened in the past and what people THINK will happen this year. Vote based on what has ACTUALLY happened - and that is Steve Nash being the key piece added to a team that basically went from worst to first in the West.

 

[goldseraph]

Ok guys, well I think that even irregardless of the past Shaq deserves the nod. Nash would be my #2 choice - he HAS had a great impact. I don't think Shaq is an offensive liability at the end of games. People have tried hack-a-shaq and it doesn't work. Even if he makes 50% you're giving them free points and fouling out your big men.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

The heat are 4-3 without Shaq. The Suns are 2-4 without Nash.

While Shaq has a large presence for the Heat with his ability to draw double teams and leave shooters open - he isn't the only person on his team capable of doing it. Dwayne Wade is probably top 3 in getting to the hoop. Defenses collapse on him nearly everytime, allowing spot up shooters to take aim.

In fact, in games without Shaq, the Heat have shot 35% from 3. Their season average is just over 37%. That isn't that big of a drop off for loosing your primary offensive threat.

Basically what I am saying is it is hard enough to say Shaq is the Heat's MVP over Wade this season. How can he be so clear cut for league MVP?

 

[cly2tw]

The way Wade has been blossoming, the Heats would have won 50 games had they not made the trade for Shaq. Now, give me another player starting at 8mil to replace Nash, what'd be your estimation of how many wins the Suns would have now? I guess about at least 15 wins less and struggle for qualifying for playoff. And nobody would say that Marion and JJ were second coming of who and who.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

The way Wade has been blossoming, the Heats would have won 50 games had they not made the trade for Shaq. N

Exactly. Miami won 42 games last season. While I don't think that they would have finished with the 57-59 wins they have now, I think they would have hit the 50 plateu. Shaq might have helped DWade's game, but I think he would be near this level regardless.

Before the trade there was a very solid cast with Odom and Butler there.

Obtaining Shaq probably earned the heat 10 more wins, at most, then they would have had without him.

Obtaining Nash (albeit they didnt loose pieces like the Heat did), probably earned us 20-25 more wins.

 

[George O'Brien]

I think Nash deserves the MVP, but this comparison is not reasonable. Nash was a free agent while Shaq came in a trade. Adding Shaq to last year's Heat team with Odom and Butler would have created an incredible team.

 

[Joe Mama]

I think Nash deserves the MVP, but this comparison is not reasonable. Nash was a free agent while Shaq came in a trade. Adding Shaq to last year's Heat team with Odom and Butler would have created an incredible team.

I agree. It's really impossible to compare the two situations. There are so many differences.

1. Miami plays in the Eastern conference while Phoenix is in the West. If we are going to compare the two teams records we should really subtract about 5 victories from Miami. There's no way the win 57-59 games playing in the Western Conference.

2. As George already pointed out Shaquille O'Neal was acquired by Miami in a trade where they had to give up some of the main contributors from last year's Miami Heat. Steve Nash was acquired in free agency along with Q. The only real contributor the Phoenix Suns lost from last year's roster was Antonio McDyess.

If the Phoenix Suns had been able to ink Shaquille O'Neal and Q instead of Nash and Q, how good would they be right now? My guess is that they would probably be every single person's favorite for the championship regardless of whether they had 55 victories or 62.

3. I hate the whole "it's ridiculous that Shaq has only one MVP trophy". It's not ridiculous at all. He only has one of them because for lease the last several years there has always been at least one person who was more valuable to his team and played better during the regular season than Shaq. You put Tim Duncan on those Lakers teams instead of Shaq, and I think they still probably win the championships. I wouldn't say the same thing about those the San Antonio teams with Shaq instead of Duncan.

What does all this mean? I have no idea. I'm not sure who I would vote for if I was a media member who got to have a say in the MVP award.

I also have a few things to say about this entire Shawn Marion versus Tracy McGrady argument. I've read repeatedly in this thread that Shawn Marion is superior to Tracy McGrady in every area other than scoring. What about assists? McGrady is much better than Shawn Marion in that category. He averages 5.7 assists to Marion's 1.9. That's three times as many assists.

Btw - Shawn Marion averages 2.01 steals per game, but McGrady gets 1.7 for himself. Is .27 steals per game a significant difference? I would say probably not.

Everyone also talks about how Shawn Marion guards power forwards so well, but those same people forget to mention that most of the time he is receiving help from double teams which definitely weaken the rest of the defense.

Now it sounds like I'm picking on Shawn Marion. I'm not. I'm just pointing out things that have been conveniently overlooked in this thread. Honestly I would say that his play this year has been almost as important as Steve Nash's. In fact I would say he is more important to this current squad than Amare Stoudemire. Marion is a perfect fit for Mike D'Antoni's coaching style.

Sidenote: I think it's funny that someone (can't remember who) says that Tracy McGrady is not a top 10 player because all he does is score, yet you have Amare Stoudemire at something like #7 on that list. Amare does not play defense any better than McGrady. He's not a particularly strong rebounder, and he certainly isn't the distributor that McGrady is.

Again, not sure what any of this really means. They are basically just a bunch of random thoughts I had while reading through this thread.

Have fun with it.

Joe Mama

 

[arthurracoon]

Good stuff Joe

 

[elindholm]

If the Phoenix Suns had been able to ink Shaquille O'Neal and Q instead of Nash and Q, how good would they be right now? My guess is that they would probably be every single person's favorite for the championship regardless of whether they had 55 victories or 62.

I'm trying to figure out whether you really meant this. In my opinion, the Suns would not be better with O'Neal instead of Nash. I'm not saying that one or the other is a better player. But O'Neal would eliminate the running game, neutralize what Stoudemire brings to the offense, and generally clog things up. For that matter, the Suns wouldn't have a point guard -- or anyone, really -- who could break the defense down off the dribble. Of course the Suns would be better defensively, but I don't think they'd be a better team overall.

 

[PhxGametime]

My list:

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Dwyane Wade
LeBron James
Amare Stoudemire
Shaquille O'Neal
Steve Nash
Tracy McGrady
Kobe Bryant
Shawn Marion


NEXT 10:

Allen Iverson, Baron Davis, Dirk Nowitzki, Jermaine O'Neal, Ray Allen, Joe Johnson , Mike Bibby, Gilbert Arenas, Yao Ming, and (oh what the heck) Quentin Richardson hehe - Richard Jefferson would be on list if not injured, which means not only are the Suns the team with the most members but UofA with 3, OWN THE COMPETITION. OWN IT!


I'm probably forgetting someone. I'd rather have Shawn Marion but McGrady puts up decent numbers across board. Although Marion lead the Suns in scoring 1 year and team got to Playoffs (although Kidd was close in scoring), but he can score, every bit as much as McGrady has an all-around game. Kidd was labeled a superstar and he's the last PG in League I want shooting and he really doesn't create much offensively in halfcourt. Marion has proven he can be the #2 guy on court and team make the Playoffs,...

Shaquille O'Neal is just as bit of liability on defense as Nash is and an liability in the 4th quarter offensively. Actually everytime he gets fouled. O'Neal can block shots though and might be a better defender... but that could be what gets him award, every bit as much as why I'd prefer to have Marion than McGrady. McGrady's assists is why though, he might get more love from GM's. As for O'Neal only getting 1 MVP, Jordan didn't get it every year - losing it to Malone was a joke... Barkley obviously deserved it better that 1 year though.

 

[Joe Mama]

If the Phoenix Suns had been able to ink Shaquille O'Neal and Q instead of Nash and Q, how good would they be right now? My guess is that they would probably be every single person's favorite for the championship regardless of whether they had 55 victories or 62.

I'm trying to figure out whether you really meant this. In my opinion, the Suns would not be better with O'Neal instead of Nash. I'm not saying that one or the other is a better player. But O'Neal would eliminate the running game, neutralize what Stoudemire brings to the offense, and generally clog things up. For that matter, the Suns wouldn't have a point guard -- or anyone, really -- who could break the defense down off the dribble. Of course the Suns would be better defensively, but I don't think they'd be a better team overall.

well, first of all I disagree that Shaquille O'Neal would "eliminate" the running game. Obviously I don't think they would be able to run the ball as well without Steve Nash pushing it, but Shaq would free Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire to release down the court early almost every time. They take off early now quite often, but it results in a lot of offensive rebounds for the opponent.

To say that the team would be better defensively is an understatement. They would be significantly better. First of all they would have either Barbosa or JJ defending the other team's point guard. I love Steve Nash, but I'll either of those guys is a better defender. Shaquille O'Neal and Amare Stoudemire would be a very good shot blocking duo. Shaq, Amare, Marion, JJ, and Q would probably be the best rebounding starting five in the NBA.

Now I didn't say that the Phoenix Suns would necessarily be better with Shaquille O'Neal. I said that they would be everybody's favorites to win the championship. Most of the media is sure that the Suns will not be a will to make it to a championship because things will slow down in their defensive weaknesses will be exposed. With Shaq in the middle that would not be the case.

Frankly I wouldn't want to see this Phoenix Suns team with Shaq instead of Steve Nash. As great as he is Shaquille O'Neal plays possibly the ugliest style of basketball in NBA history. I would also feel like a hypocrite cheering for him every time he plowed over a defender to the basket.

Like I said earlier, with Shaq instead of Steve Nash, the Phoenix Suns might not have the best record. They might not have quite the explosive offense, but they would have the type of team that has been successful in the playoffs the last 5-10 years.

Joe Mama