Isnt the discrimination against MVP point guards apparent?

[inclinerator]

cp3 shuld have at least one

[navy]

I think so. People seem to be ignoring the profound impact point guards do for their team.

That said, Curry, Nash, and Rose werent the best players in the nba in their respective years and you would be silly to argue that they were. However outside of Nash in 06 noone won an award that was head scratching. And no Kobe with his 45 wasnt the best candidate despite being the best player.

Revisionist history goes on though. When these guys dont win it all or come close really people will say I told you so despite the regular season votes not really being disputed when they happened.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Kobe has an argument in 06, Dirk has one in 05.

Shaq has no argument over Nash in either year.

I disagree with those that question Nash's value but those are the arguments I've seen, fair or otherwise.

[GimmeThat]

cp3 shuld have at least one

It says something about players who can only win it once, players who've won it multiple time, and nba championship caliber player winning it once.

Is the first statement and the third statement re-done done? GM polls and coaches poll will vary from agent polls and player polls.


And that is why there are winners.

[red1]

curry>rose

[LoneyROY7]

It's ironic that the most deserving PG (CP in '08) didn't actually win the award.

[Smoke117]

It's ironic that the most deserving PG (CP in '08) didn't actually win the award.

Indeed.

[LoneyROY7]

Indeed.

And what's crazy is his numbers were even better the next year, but he only got 5th in the voting b/c of insane years from Bron, Wade, etc.

[Eric Cartman]

I disagree with those that question Nash's value but those are the arguments I've seen, fair or otherwise.

Sounds good

[hawksdogsbraves]

It says something about players who can only win it once, players who've won it multiple time, and nba championship caliber player winning it once.

Is the first statement and the third statement re-done done? GM polls and coaches poll will vary from agent polls and player polls.


And that is why there are winners.

[Ne 1]

oh so Kobe has an argument in 2006 but Dirk doesn't? Dirk's case in 2006 is much better than in 2005, you just don't like to see Kobe losing out.

Well the only MVP with the traditional amount of wins would be Dirk that year. Personally, I give it to Kobe, but if someone wants to give it to Dirk for his 27/9/3 season with 60 wins, I'm fine with that.

[outbreak]

I actually think Rose deserved it. People look at what he's done since and use it to confirm that him getting the award was a joke. It wasn't.

I think Dirk Should have gotten Nash's second MVP.

As much as I hate him I think Howard deserved it much more than Rose, people said Rose didn't deserve it WHEN HE WON IT not after.

[Mrofir]

1996-97 -- Karl Malone

92-93 -- Charles Barkley


In these years, a guy named Michael Jordan was playing basketball, and he won championships in both years. Yet very few people had a problem with those MVPs and I don't see a big wave of outrage today either.


Shaq's 13th best individual season when he was CLEARLY the 2nd best player on his team doesn't qualify in 2006. Maybe Dirk. Nash's first was clear cut, one of the most dramatic single season turnarounds in nba history, indisputably Nash was the difference, and Nash proved it wasn't a fluke by carrying the Suns to big Ws and title contention the next bunch of seasons, even with meager rosters. The 2010 run was a run ONLY STEVE NASH could have piloted. Prime Michael Jordan could not have gone farther with that roster than Nash in 2010. Nash deserves to be considered one of the goat PGs, and his MVPs are just fine.

Everyone stop it.

The Rose year was a change up year. Rose's MVP is weaker than either of Nash's in my book, primarily because the team could win without him. But I still don't have a problem with it.

[Pointguard]

I think it's a case of hindsight being 20/20; now that you can look back and see that neither Rose nor Nash even made the finals, it's easy to say they 'didn't deserve it'.

If Curry and the Warriors go on to win a championship, you'll never hear another peep about him not deserving the MVP.

Beyond that, Rose gets hit extra hard because he's not been close to an MVP caliber player since he won, (due to injuries).

Nash gets hit extra hard because he probably didn't deserve either award in reality.

Dirk in '07???

[Pointguard]

You can tell who has never played ball here.

What Rose did was much harder than what Nash and Curry did. They had great offensive weapons, great finishers, great shooters, very good scorers, great athletes, seasoned players, got a lot of easy baskets, great offensive coach, ran a ton of cuts, moved a lot off of the ball, and a great system vs Rose that didn't have much of that at all. Rose had to deal with major injuries and over 20 different starting line-ups. Second best offensive player didn't know the very few plays they ran at the end of the season. They had to flip a lot of games in the 4th quarter on Rose's back in a half court slow game. Its a point guard's nightmare. What Rose did was crazy for a point guard because all ten of those qualities mentioned above make the job much easier and are critical for PG's to look good and perform well.

Yet they had the best record in the league with veteran teams, super talented teams, continuity with coaches and teammates teams, SA, much older teams, etc.