Did Anyone **** On Steve Nash Over The Years More Than Kobe Bryant Fans?

[god shamgod]

Your train of logic is terrible.

Kobe Bryant met all the official criteria needed to be considered the MVP, which is all that matters.

My train of thought is the criteria that mvp's are awarded

Your train of thought is irrelevant

The writers voted nash mvp in 05 and 06 that's all that really matters

 

[Bilz]

Kobe or lakers fans weren't the only folks that didn't buy into the overhyping of Nash, but we definitely were amongst their ranks...and nothing about Nash leaving phoenix in the twilight of his career having not ever won even a goddamned conference championship to ring chase with the lakers disproves what was our primary assertion all along: that steve nash was never a legitimate mvp caliber player, that no team with.him as their best player would ever win a chip, and when judged by the same high standards of actual mvp level players he was a complete failure...because quite frankly he was never on that level of players

Nash skating to LA just confirms what we've said all along...lakers fans happy to have an actual good.point guard doesn't conflict with that

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

He punted Kobe out of the playoffs in his 2nd MVP year and did it again the next year for good measure. It's a regular season award anyway, it doesn't matter what he does in the playoffs. There's a Finals MVP award that covers that shyt.

 

[Long Live The Kane]

He punted Kobe out of the playoffs in his 2nd MVP year and did it again the next year for good measure. It's a regular season award anyway, it doesn't matter what he does in the playoffs. There's a Finals MVP award that covers that shyt.

That has jack shyt to do with my post...he was never a mvp level player...you guys talk so much about the "historical precedent" of team wins and who is unofficially "eligible" based on it....but nash winning is a way bigger historical anomaly than if kobe wouldve won in '05....the mvp has traditionally been reserved for players that are tier one best players in the game level guys...the best.of the best who had the best season...nash was never one of those dudes..he won back to back mvps because he became a media darling to Certain Astutely Conservative writers who fell.in love with the narrative of the affable scrappy canadian point guard saving the league from the divas with his amazing style of play

When we judge Steve Nash using the same standards we judge all the other mvps or even players on that level that never actually won it, he just doesn't measure up historically...and prolly stands out the worst mvp in at least the modern era of the league, worst multiple.winner by an almost absurd margin

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bilz]

That has jack shyt to do with my post...he was never a mvp level player...you guys talk so much about the "historical precedent" of team wins and who is unofficially "eligible" based on it....but nash winning is a way bigger historical anomaly than if kobe wouldve won in '05....the mvp has traditionally been reserved for players that are tier one best players in the game level guys...the best.of the best who had the best season...nash was never one of those dudes..he won back to back mvps because he became a media darling to Certain Astutely Conservative writers who fell.in love with the narrative of the affable scrappy canadian point guard saving the league from the divas with his amazing style of play

When we judge Steve Nash using the same standards we judge all the other mvps or even players on that level that never actually won it, he just doesn't measure up historically...and prolly stands out the worst mvp in at least the modern era of the league, worst multiple.winner by an almost absurd margin

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

Well does team success matter or does it not? Because Nash's punted Kobe's team out of the playoffs in that season in question. Sure he didn't win a ring that year but he was a lot closer than Kobe was. Should Kobe have been considered more valuable in 2006 because of reputation? Or rings he won 3-4 years before/after?

I know what you are saying about Nash and I know he won the awards in ways that were different than what we are used to but if Nash didn't deserve the MVP that year, I don't know why the guy that lost to him would.

 

[Long Live The Kane]

Well does team success matter or does it not? Because Nash's punted Kobe's team out of the playoffs in that season in question. Sure he didn't win a ring that year but he was a lot closer than Kobe was. Should Kobe have been considered more valuable in 2006 because of reputation? Or rings he won 3-4 years before/after?

To me, team success should only factor into mvp discussions on relative terms...if two or more players are having relative equally outstanding seasons individually, then the one with the better team record should obviously have the advantage ...in both of Nash's MVP seasons, team success accounted for nearly all of his case for MVP....statistically, he doesn't come close to matching what is normally considered a MVP if we adhere to some strict historical precedence like seems to be the case with team record

I bring up the fact that Nash has never once in his 16 year career even won a conference finals not on some "If you don't win a championship the year you win a mvp, than your MVP is null and void" shyt (that he was named MVP soley because of team success only to fail to make the finals with them just speaks to how overhyped those times were)...but rather judging him the same way everybody judges players we genuinely feel are MVP caliber players...guys like Lebron ane Dirk were dragged through the mud every year for not winning a ring till they finally got one...kobe has 5, but gets shytted on like the biggest failure on earth every summer he doesn't...guys like Barkley and Malone get caveats put on their greatness every time their names are mentioned in a historical sense because they never brought home the trophy...Nash doesn't get anywhere near that level of scrutiny or criticism for never winning except from a small cabal of us "nash haters"...because honestly deep down, no one really has the same level of expectation for him because everyone really knows he's not REALLY...and has never been, even during those 2 years...in the same of players are all other MVP guys...

I know what you are saying about Nash and I know he won the awards in ways that were different than what we are used to but if Nash didn't deserve the MVP that year, I don't know why the guy that lost to him would.

Thing is I'm not even making the argument that Kobe should have won that year...just that it was ridiculous that Nash did...Lebron could've won that year and I wouldn't doubt it's legitimacy at all...the suns beating the lakers in the playoffs that year didn't prove anything but that the suns were better than the smush/kwame era lakers...which we already knew

 

[rapbeats]

To be honest, Laker fans were about the only people shytting on Steve Nash, so they got that for them.

yep we were the ones calling him out for what he was. an uptempo offensive guy that plays zero defense. nothing has changed. except we see he is still dishing the dimes in a slower more half court centric offense now then in the past. and he's doing so with less talent.

what we complained about is that he won 2 mvps. still a travesty. while kobe is sitting on 1. just cause he's a point guard and his job is to pass the ball. so people LIKE him better. that turned the MVP award into a I LIKE HIM award rather then anything else. as good as nash is. ask yourself this question. with all those dimes. could nash have taken brian cook, luke walton, kwame brown, lamar odom to the 1st round in the western conf and almost beat the 2 team in the west? I say HECK NO.

and for that. it means he wasnt the most valuable. not more so then kobe. when you win 2 mvps and have never smelled the finals popcorn. something is wrong with the voting process.

so truthfully we were never hating on nash's abilities on offense. we were hating on what he stud for. it was that "we will give anyone the MVP as long as it aint ya boy KOBE"

 

[rapbeats]

He punted Kobe out of the playoffs in his 2nd MVP year and did it again the next year for good measure. It's a regular season award anyway, it doesn't matter what he does in the playoffs. There's a Finals MVP award that covers that shyt.

he punted kobe out of the offs. LOL. dont lie to yourself.

lets look at the teams.

marion-allstar
amare-superstar
nash-superstar
barbosa-six man of the year one of those years.
kurt thomas-vet

vs

kobe-mega star
odom-darn good role player
Summer Camp Fodder-kwame brown, smush parker, brian cook, luke walton, etc.

kwame brown is only in the league for his man to man defense on bigs. nothing else. he isnt a shot blocker he just has good position defense. thats it. smush parker is playing street ball some where. brian cook? was like the 12 guy on the clippers roster. luke walton is rotting away in a cavs jersey.

yet this group almost STUNG the suns that first year.

 

[rapbeats]

My train of thought is the criteria that mvp's are awarded

Your train of thought is irrelevant

The writers voted nash mvp in 05 and 06 that's all that really matters

you dont realize how ridiculous it was one of those years. some or a couple of dumb writers didnt even give kobe a top 3 vote. no first ,2nd or 3rd place. how INSANE is that? thats blind hate. not objectivity.

 

[YBE]

The mvp is a individual award based off your Teams success

Thats why an mvp was never handed to a guy who's team won less than 50 games or lower than a 4 seed which is why nash deserved both of them over kobe

It's contradictory. MVP = Most Valuable Player. It's supposed to be relative. Not absolute.


Let's say one player puts up 30ppg on 45%, 8rebs & 5asts and leads his team to 60 wins. He has 2 more all stars on his team to shoulder the load.

The other player puts up 35ppg on 50%, 8rebs & 6asts and leads his team to 45 wins. His team is full of bums & journeymen.


The first player has the better record, but the second player is more important to his team's success, as his team is complete asscheeks.

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Kobe's 05-06 season wasn't really that great. He just took more shots than usual. All his percentages were pretty much on par with his career numbers. He did nothing extraordinary that year except for take an extraordinary amount of shots.

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

It's contradictory. MVP = Most Valuable Player. It's supposed to be relative. Not absolute.


Let's say one player puts up 30ppg on 45%, 8rebs & 5asts and leads his team to 60 wins. He has 2 more all stars on his team to shoulder the load.

The other player puts up 35ppg on 50%, 8rebs & 6asts and leads his team to 45 wins. His team is full of bums & journeymen.


The first player has the better record, but the second player is more important to his team's success, as his team is complete asscheeks.

This sounds good but Kobe didn't shoot a better percentage than Nash nor did he have more assists than Nash so your example doesn't really relate.

BTW, how much success did they have? They barely made the offs and got bounced in round 1.... by Nash and co.

Let's be reality, Kobe was just chucking that year. He wasn't the MVP.

 

[MoneyTron]

Kobe's 05-06 season wasn't really that great. He just took more shots than usual. All his percentages were pretty much on par with his career numbers. He did nothing extraordinary that year except for take an extraordinary amount of shots.

This is a pretty flawed concept of that season.

The fact the Kobe kept his %'s close to his average while shooting at an extremely high volume is ridiculous. Most players become less and less efficient the more shots they put up due to offenses keying in on them, conditioning, and lack of skill and athleticism. That explains many of Kobe shooting woes in the past season(conditioning and athleticism).

There's only a few players in history that could have replicated that season. MJ's 37 and 35ppg seasons were impressive for that reason as well. Similar efficiency to his normal while shooting a extremely high volume of shots.

 

[YBE]

Kobe's 05-06 season wasn't really that great. He just took more shots than usual. All his percentages were pretty much on par with his career numbers. He did nothing extraordinary that year except for take an extraordinary amount of shots.

You're tired breh. go take a nap. wash your face. eat some soup then come back when you're feeling less stupid

 

[ghostwriterx]

It's contradictory. MVP = Most Valuable Player. It's supposed to be relative. Not absolute.


Let's say one player puts up 30ppg on 45%, 8rebs & 5asts and leads his team to 60 wins. He has 2 more all stars on his team to shoulder the load.

The other player puts up 35ppg on 50%, 8rebs & 6asts and leads his team to 45 wins. His team is full of bums & journeymen.


The first player has the better record, but the second player is more important to his team's success, as his team is complete asscheeks.

So the team's success is relevant right? Better record=more success right? Should we not account for a player's importance to a greater success?

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

This is a pretty flawed concept of that season.

The fact the Kobe kept his %'s close to his average while shooting at an extremely high volume is ridiculous. Most players become less and less efficient the more shots they put up due to offenses keying in on them, conditioning, and lack of skill. That explains many of Kobe shooting woes in the past season.

There's only a few players in history that could have replicated that season. MJ's 37 and 35ppg seasons were impressive for that reason as well. Similar efficiency to his normal while shooting a extremely high volume of shots.

But Kobe has always been a volume shooter. He's always taken an insane amount of bad shots. That's nothing new.

The fact that he can jack up even more bad shots than usual means he was the MVP?