No No NOOOO! Dirk has carried the Mavs throughout the playoffs...he's the MVP of the postseason...though the way Kobe and LeBron are both playing, they could make a good case for it...
In Steve Nash's final year in Dallas, the Maverivcks won 52 games. The following two seasons - when Nash was in Phoenix - the Mavs won 58 and 60 games. If you replaced Kobe Bryant with Jason Terry, where would they be now? Think about it. Scott, in no way would I presume to know more about basketball than you, but that reasoning is hardly indicative of the relative value of any player, let alone Nash or Kobe. By the same hand - the Suns last year, with Amare Stoudamire won 62 games. This year, with Boris Diaw, they won 54. Does that mean that Stoudamire is basically the equal of Diaw - a difference of 8 games? No, of course not. They may play the same position, but they are different players. The fact is, Kobe wasn't in Dallas and Terry wasn't in LA. What's left are the facts. The rest is just so much speculation.
In Steve Nash's final year in Dallas, the Maverivcks won 52 games. The following two seasons - when Nash was in Phoenix - the Mavs won 58 and 60 games. That's a bit of a red herring. Looking at how a team performs when a player leaves is not an indication of the quality of the player that left. If anything, it should be an indication of the quality of the management, coaches and the other players for adapting. It's the same silly logic that tries to prove that ARod is a negative influence on a team's chances of winning because Seattle and Texas both had more wins the year AFTER he left. To think that ARod (or Nash) were COSTING their previous teams wins is a bit ridiculous. Only truly bad players can cost a team a win (like T.Womack or C.Guzman in MLB). Players that put up league-leading stats don't hurt their team. It also ignores the fact that Phoenix went from 29 wins in 2003-04 to 62 wins in 2004-05 and 54 wins in 2005-06 (even when they were missing a key component).
*High-fives grum*
that means kwame brown is worth 11 wins!
My point certainly isn't definitive, but it's worth considering. And comparing baseball to basketball is ludicrous by any standard. Nash is the best offensive player in the NBA, but his defence is atrocious. Kobe is the second-best offensive player in the NBA, and is also one of the best perimeter defenders. If we're going to be honest with ourselves, defending Nash as the MVP is either based on Canadian patriotism or simply the fact that he's an eminently likable guy. Nash is the ideal point guard for the particular system that Mike D'Antoni runs in Phoenix. As I have written elsewhere, if Nash is truly worthy of back-to-back MVPs, then John Stockton should have finished higher than seventh in MVP voting at some point in his career.
As I have written elsewhere, if Nash is truly worthy of back-to-back MVPs, then John Stockton should have finished higher than seventh in MVP voting at some point in his career. If you were going to draw conclusions from MVP voting results, wouldn't the one viable conclusion be it's a popularity contest?
Again, Scott, I just don't trust that reasoning. Because John Stockton (who played in Jordan's era - during which time, unfathomably Olajuwon and Malone managed to win MVPs) didn't win or place higher than seventh, Steve Nash shouldn't have any consideration? That kind of logic holds no water. Maybe Stockston should have finished higher than seventh - but he didn't - it should have no bearing on Nash's candidacy as these events are distinct and separate. I think there are many valid reasons for picking Kobe over Nash. His actual value, his obvious superior play compared to the league and his peers, and his defense, but none of this should be bouyed by such speculative reasoning as "If player A was on this team instead of the reality" or "because past player X didn't recieve due consideration that means that player Y should be equally valued/shunned." I think that's a terrible way of determining value.
