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

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

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

Normally I wouldn't even bother responding to foolishness like this but this time I decided to respond just to tell you why I don't respond to this type of post.

You aren't adding anything to the discussion. You were just sonned and your response is the proof. You have no comeback so you come with this lame garbage.

If you have something to refute what I say then bring it. Otherwise, stop showing us your p*ssy because we don't care to see it.

 

[Bilz]

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...



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

The voting was the same as it has always been though. A bunch of old white men who write about sports place a vote about who was the best player on one of the best teams. Magic won it over Jordan in similar circumstances. The difference was that the best player on the Suns team wasn't the typical 25-30 ppg scorer.

Nash doesn't get the same criticism as the others and that is probably partially because of his skin color but I think it's mostly because point guards aren't expected to win titles. When you try to compare Nash to all of the great point guards the NBA has seen, how many of them even have a ring? It has always been a big man's league. Unless a guard received Jordan comparisons, he's never going to be held to those standards of needing a ring to validate greatness.

 

[rapbeats]

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?

sure you should. but ask yourself this question. before nash got there marbury took them to the first round with the kid versions of these guys. amare, barbosa, and joe johnson. amare wasnt even a 20 pt guy yet.

nash didnt make these dudes better. they got better with age and experience.

and thats not knocking nash for being a darn good disher. and shooter.

 

[Bilz]

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.

"Almost" The Lakers almost stung the Suns just like Kobe almost won the MVP. Neither happened and 6 years should have been ample time to get over it.

 

[MoneyTron]

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?

Kobe really doesn't take as many shots as people think. In his prime he's averaging about 20-22 shots a game. You still don't get it though. You don't just "jack up more shots" at that scoring level. The ability to score that much that takes a very high level of conditioning and skill. Just to get that amount of shots off every game is hard to do.

In the modern era, few seasons have come close to that one in terms of share of offense, especially considering the pace and total points scored of which the Lakers scored.

He basically was the offense. Now you could argue the same for Nash in the same year but with his supporting cast and style of offense, it could be argued that it was easier to do. Hard to compare also because it was a different way of controlling an offense.

Had the Lakers won 50 games, I think he should've been the MVP considering the supporting cast.

 

[YBE]

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?

NBA should just call it the "best player on the best team" award because that's what it is.


The whole basis of the MVP award is the most valuable player in the league, best performing player in the league. Placing such emphasis on team records without accounting for variances in supporting cast across the league is flawed. Comparing a nikka playing with Smush, Kwame, Mihm & Devon George to a PG facilitating to Amare, Marion, Bell, Diaw & Barbosa is Relatively speaking, he was more valuable. The Lakers were below .500 in 2006 but, if Kobe wasn't there, they would've went 10-72.



The nikka scored 50 points 4 games in a row & there was a question on whether or not he was the most valuable to his team?

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Kobe really doesn't take as many shots as people think. In his prime he's averaging about 20-22 shots a game. You still don't get it though. You don't just "jack up more shots" at that scoring level. The ability to score that much that takes a very high level of conditioning and skill. Just to get that amount of shots off every game is hard to do.

In the modern era, few seasons have come close to that one in terms of share of offense, especially considering the pace and total points scored of which the Lakers scored.

He basically was the offense. Now you could argue the same for Nash in the same year but with his supporting cast and style of offense, it could be argued that it was easier to do. Hard to compare also because it was a different way of controlling an offense.

Had the Lakers won 50 games, I think he should've been the MVP considering the supporting cast.

But Kobe's shooting numbers have always been . In 05-06 they were on par with his career percentages, but still .

I could see if he was shooting 50% and was able to maintain that. But when your percentages are already not so great, I'm not giving you props for maintaining that level of not-so-greatness, as opposed to really not so great.

Jordan averaged 35 on 54% shooting. Kobe averaged 35 on 45% shooting.



And then at the end you say "had they won..." They didn't.

How about "had Kobe not been jacking more than usual..."

 

[ghostwriterx]

sure you should. but ask yourself this question. before nash got there marbury took them to the first round with the kid versions of these guys. amare, barbosa, and joe johnson. amare wasnt even a 20 pt guy yet.

nash didnt make these dudes better. they got better with age and experience.

and thats not knocking nash for being a darn good disher. and shooter.

2004 w/Starbury
Shooting %
Marion 44%
Johnson 43%
Barbosa 44%
Amare 47%


2005 w/Nash
Shooting %
Marion 47%
Johnson 46% 47% from 3 (hasn't shot better than 38% since)
Barbosa 47%
Amare 55% (never worse than 54% w/Nash, barely cracked 50% once w/o him)

 

[MoneyTron]

But Kobe's shooting numbers have always been . In 05-06 they were on par with his career percentages, but still .

I could see if he was shooting 50% and was able to maintain that. But when your percentages are already not so great, I'm not giving you props for maintaining that level of not-so-greatness, as opposed to really not so great.

Jordan averaged 35 on 54% shooting. Kobe averaged 35 on 45% shooting.

Jordan shot 54% but it was mostly 2 pointers. Dude shot 13% from 3 that year. At that stage in his career, Kobe wasn't going to the hole like that. That's why you have to take into account 3 point shooting and at the volume Kobe did it at that season, it counts for a lot. FG% doesn't tell the entire story. If that were the case, a lot of 3 point specialists would be considered shytty shooters.

Not to mention, that comparing across eras is very hard to do. Players from that era didn't have super high FG%'s just because they were better shooters.

And then at the end you say "had they won..." They didn't.

How about "had Kobe not been jacking more than usual..."

No amount of playmaking was saving that team. Kobe tried that in '06-'07, then had to go ballistic the second half of the season to keep the team from collapsing.

He came into '07-'08 with the same mindset he started the previous year with, and with an improved supporting cast, they won many more games.

 

[YBE]

Normally I wouldn't even bother responding to foolishness like this but this time I decided to respond just to tell you why I don't respond to this type of post.

You aren't adding anything to the discussion. You were just sonned and your response is the proof. You have no comeback so you come with this lame garbage.

If you have something to refute what I say then bring it. Otherwise, stop showing us your p*ssy because we don't care to see it.

Says the moron attempting to discount one of the best scoring seasons IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT.


"But but Kobe just took alot of shots"



"But but anybody could do that taking 40 shots"



"But but Kobe's fg% was still the same"



"But but Lebron could've did that too"


"But but"



Get mad Get furious Get irate

Lebron will never do what Kobe did back then. Nobody besides Jordan or Wilt could and nothing your bytch ass says about it will change that fact. Chump

 

[ghostwriterx]

NBA should just call it the "best player on the best team" award because that's what it is.


The whole basis of the MVP award is the most valuable player in the league, best performing player in the league. Placing such emphasis on team records without accounting for variances in supporting cast across the league is flawed. Comparing a nikka playing with Smush, Kwame, Mihm & Devon George to a PG facilitating to Amare, Marion, Bell, Diaw & Barbosa is Relatively speaking, he was more valuable. The Lakers were below .500 in 2006 but, if Kobe wasn't there, they would've went 10-72.



The nikka scored 50 points 4 games in a row & there was a question on whether or not he was the most valuable to his team?

This is how its always been in Basketball, Football and Hockey for that matter. The first criteria is always team success then they start to look at individual performances. That's how the voters historically measure "value". It's not like baseball where it can go to the "best" player or most most impressive performance. If your team doesn't win at a high level you're not sniffing MVP.

Besides, Lebron should've won in 06 he avg 31 7 and 6 on a 50 win team that started Drew Gooden and Eric Snow 80 times.

 

[YBE]

This is how its always been in Basketball, Football and Hockey for that matter. The first criteria is always team success then they start to look at individual performances. That's how the voters historically measure "value". It's not like baseball where it can go to the "best" player or most most impressive performance. If your team doesn't win at a high level you're not sniffing MVP.

Besides, Lebron should've won in 06 he avg 31 7 and 6 on a 50 win team that started Drew Gooden and Eric Snow 80 times.

Either way, Bron or Kobe....it was bullshyt that Nash got it.

 

[Texas2step]

He deserved all of the hate because he was being called one the GOAT pure point guards and he had allstar players on his squad but he couldn't win anything

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Says the moron attempting to discount one of the best scoring seasons IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT.


"But but Kobe just took alot of shots"

Watch All of Kobe's 81 Points in 3 Minutes - YouTube

"But but anybody could do that taking 40 shots"

Kobe Bryant greatest games: 62pts in 3 quarters vs Dallas - YouTube

"But but Kobe's fg% was still the same"

Kobe Bryant 60 points vs Grizzlies 2006-07 50+ point streak - YouTube

"But but Lebron could've did that too"
Kobe Bryant 65 points vs Blazers 2006-07 Baseline 3, GT shot - YouTube

"But but"

Kobe Bryant 43 points vs Warriors 2006-07 (2nd time) - YouTube

Get mad Get furious Get irate

Lebron will never do what Kobe did back then. Nobody besides Jordan or Wilt could and nothing your bytch ass says about it will change that fact. Chump

Who said anything about LeBron?

Talk about insecure.

All that chucking got them where? A first round exit. Kobe's season was over by the time they announced MVP.

You sounding like a real butt hurt fakkit right now.

LeBron? This thread is about Nash, homie.

Thanks for letting us know how you feel though.

 

[YBE]

Armchair sports analysts. Hate em. If Kobe is a poor shooter, half the nikkas who played professional basketball are poor shooters and this is with 5 minute search. Lord knows how many other players I could find

Kobe Bryant - 45.3%fg
Ray Allen - 45.2fg%
Reggie Miller - 47.1%fg
Isiah Thomas - 45.2%fg
Dominique Wilkins - 46.2%fg
Joe Dumars - 46.0%fg
Elgin Baylor - 43.1%fg
Rick Barry - 45.6%fg
Pete Maravich - 44.1%fg
Tim Hardaway - 43.1%fg
Penny Hardaway - 45.8%fg
Brandon Roy - 46.0%fg
Monta Ellis - 46.4%fg
Stephon Marbury - 43.4%fg
John Wall - 41.6%fg
Sam Cassell - 45.4%fg
Rudy Gay - 45.6%fg
OJ Mayo - 43.3%fg
Latrell Sprewell - 42.5%fg
Eric Gordon - 45.2%fg
Gary Payton - 46.6%fg
Deron Williams - 45.5%fg
Derrick Rose - 46.4%fg
Russell Westbrook - 43.0%fg
Tracy McGrady - 43.0%fg
Paul Pierce - 44.8%fg
Carmello Anthony - 45.6%fg
Vince Carter - 44.4%fg
Steve Francis - 42.9%fg
Chauncey Billups - 41.9%fg