Stop it with the Amar'e MVP talk...please

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Well, the real issue is that the NBA already established that Steve Nash was fully responsible for the success of Amare on those Suns teams...so he can't be in the discussion, because that might mean that, actually, Nash had really good teammates during his MVP years and actually wasn't fully responsible for making them better. It doesn't fit the narrative.

No one is fully responsible for their team's success, but in Nash's MVP years, people focused on how the team looked with Nash on the floor and with Nash off the floor. Their offense was all about Nash controlling tempo, their team was all about their offense, and their team was very successful.

Nash's MVP is based on qualitative judgments with the assumption that not all player contributions can be gleaned from points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks.

Let's also not pretend that Amare hasn't improved over the years. Amare worked hard to extend his range a few years ago. I don't see how Amare's performance this season says anything conclusive about Nash's performance during his MVP years.

Point being...for arbitrary reasons, the majority of people seem to search out extra reasons why Nash should be MVP to legitimize their desire to see him be MVP while the majority of people search for extra reasons Amare shouldn't even be considered MVP  to legitimize their desire to not see him be MVP.

There is a clear non-arbitrary reason why Amare should not yet be considered. His team's record.

You need to be on a top regular season team to be considered for MVP. Until the Knicks are a top team, the discussion can be tabled. That's just how things work in the NBA.

Well, if as stodgy and out of touch a group as the MLB professional writers can find it in themselves to give the Cy Young Award to Greinke and Hernandez the last two years perhaps there is hope that things can change for The NBA.

Also, to say that stats had nothing to do with Nash's MVP votes is a little misleading. His inflated points and assists, as a result of playing in the seven seconds or less D'Antoni offense, surely bolstered his case with voters (of course one can say the same could/should apply to Amar'e). The point about Amar'e/Nash revelations is that perhaps A.S's play on The Knicks is showing just the amount of puffing up Amar'e did for Nash when the accepted wisdom of MVP voters was often the other way around.

[guava_wrench]

Well, the real issue is that the NBA already established that Steve Nash was fully responsible for the success of Amare on those Suns teams...so he can't be in the discussion, because that might mean that, actually, Nash had really good teammates during his MVP years and actually wasn't fully responsible for making them better. It doesn't fit the narrative.

No one is fully responsible for their team's success, but in Nash's MVP years, people focused on how the team looked with Nash on the floor and with Nash off the floor. Their offense was all about Nash controlling tempo, their team was all about their offense, and their team was very successful.

Nash's MVP is based on qualitative judgments with the assumption that not all player contributions can be gleaned from points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks.

Let's also not pretend that Amare hasn't improved over the years. Amare worked hard to extend his range a few years ago. I don't see how Amare's performance this season says anything conclusive about Nash's performance during his MVP years.

Point being...for arbitrary reasons, the majority of people seem to search out extra reasons why Nash should be MVP to legitimize their desire to see him be MVP while the majority of people search for extra reasons Amare shouldn't even be considered MVP  to legitimize their desire to not see him be MVP.

There is a clear non-arbitrary reason why Amare should not yet be considered. His team's record.

You need to be on a top regular season team to be considered for MVP. Until the Knicks are a top team, the discussion can be tabled. That's just how things work in the NBA.

Well, if as stodgy and out of touch a group as the MLB professional writers can find it in themselves to give the Cy Young Award to Greinke and Hernandez the last two years perhaps there is hope that things can change for The NBA.

Also, to say that stats had nothing to do with Nash's MVP votes is a little misleading. His inflated points and assists, as a result of playing in the seven seconds or less D'Antoni offense, surely bolstered his case with voters (of course one can say the same could/should apply to Amar'e). The point about Amar'e/Nash revelations is that perhaps A.S's play on The Knicks is showing just the amount of puffing up Amar'e did for Nash when the accepted wisdom of MVP voters was often the other way around.

Did anyone say that stats had nothing to do with Nash being voted? I agree with you that the D'Antoni system adds assists. Felton is a great example of this, though we can see watching Felton that he is no where near the passer that Nash is. This doesn't change the reality that D'Antoni's schemes were problematic when Nash was not on the floor. That is what got Nash many of his votes.

Baseball gives the MVP and CY Young to the guys with the best stats. That makes sense in baseball because stats of individual players are more independent of other players' performance and a single player can't carry a team in baseball. The best example is pitchers with really low ERAs but few wins. They did their part and you really can't blame them for the lack of wins because they have no part in scoring runs. Add to that the fact they they have a part in only 20% of the games.

An individual player has more of an impact on team success in basketball. This is part of the reason people dismiss great stats on mediocre teams, especially since there are always candidates on top teams.

The big problem with this Nash-Amare line of reasoning is that the Knicks have success like the Suns despite the face that Amare is a considerably better player now than he was in Nash's MVP years. Also, I think this discussion is anachronistic. I remember the debate at the time centering on Marion, not Amare. Marion felt under-appreciated and the general opinion was that he was only all-star caliber due to Nash setting him up. What has Marion done offensively post-Nash?

In fact, Amare played only 3 games in one of Nash's MVP seasons! How did Amare help Nash get the MVP when he played only 3 games? Actually, the second MVP was mostly a product of being more impressive than the first season he won, especially with Amare hurt - thought the team won only 54 games.

The arguments about Amare arose later as trade talk increased regarding Amare and especially when Amare neared free agency.

Feel free to correct me if my memory is wrong.

[Cman]

I don't get all the NY Knicks and Amare hate.
I mean, this is a team that has sucked for so long, and looked rudderless after losing out on LeBron. But they've been playing better than anyone thought, and Amare is one reason why.  MVP?  No, but ... i just don't get why everyone loves to hate on them.  I mean, they're like the runty stepchild of the Atlantic -- they wont win, so we shouldn't act so threatened by them.

So you're trying to say we shouldn't hate the Knicks?

 

Yeah, it's like hating the Clippers when they play well.  Its the Clippers, you know it won't last.  SImilarly, its the Knicks, you know they'll mess it up somehow.

[Fafnir]

I don't get all the NY Knicks and Amare hate.
I mean, this is a team that has sucked for so long, and looked rudderless after losing out on LeBron. But they've been playing better than anyone thought, and Amare is one reason why.  MVP?  No, but ... i just don't get why everyone loves to hate on them.  I mean, they're like the runty stepchild of the Atlantic -- they wont win, so we shouldn't act so threatened by them.

So you're trying to say we shouldn't hate the Knicks?

 

Yeah, it's like hating the Clippers when they play well.  Its the Clippers, you know it won't last.  SImilarly, its the Knicks, you know they'll mess it up somehow.

The Knicks and Celtics battled plenty, and the Knicks have had a lot more success than the Clippers. (I mean the Knicks were a top tier team for most of the 90s!)

They're not the Clippers they deserve our scorn.

[makaveli]

I don't get all the NY Knicks and Amare hate.
I mean, this is a team that has sucked for so long, and looked rudderless after losing out on LeBron. But they've been playing better than anyone thought, and Amare is one reason why.  MVP?  No, but ... i just don't get why everyone loves to hate on them.  I mean, they're like the runty stepchild of the Atlantic -- they wont win, so we shouldn't act so threatened by them.

I love Amare, and I don't hate the Knicks since Quentin Richardson left...

[greenpride32]

Everyone has a different defintion of "MVP".  Sometimes it's just the player who had the best overall season, or just the best player, or best player on the best team.  Since everyone has a different defintion to begin with, everyone will have a different answer.  In the case of Stat, he has transformed NYK into a playoff team.  Obviousy they don't have the depth to be considered a serious contender, but Stat has at least gotten them to the next level and deserves some credit for that.

This year it's difficult because I would say all the top teams are LOADED with talent.  In years past you could say LBJ carried CLE; which is very clear if there was ever any doubt.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Well, the real issue is that the NBA already established that Steve Nash was fully responsible for the success of Amare on those Suns teams...so he can't be in the discussion, because that might mean that, actually, Nash had really good teammates during his MVP years and actually wasn't fully responsible for making them better. It doesn't fit the narrative.

No one is fully responsible for their team's success, but in Nash's MVP years, people focused on how the team looked with Nash on the floor and with Nash off the floor. Their offense was all about Nash controlling tempo, their team was all about their offense, and their team was very successful.

Nash's MVP is based on qualitative judgments with the assumption that not all player contributions can be gleaned from points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks.

Let's also not pretend that Amare hasn't improved over the years. Amare worked hard to extend his range a few years ago. I don't see how Amare's performance this season says anything conclusive about Nash's performance during his MVP years.

Point being...for arbitrary reasons, the majority of people seem to search out extra reasons why Nash should be MVP to legitimize their desire to see him be MVP while the majority of people search for extra reasons Amare shouldn't even be considered MVP  to legitimize their desire to not see him be MVP.

There is a clear non-arbitrary reason why Amare should not yet be considered. His team's record.

You need to be on a top regular season team to be considered for MVP. Until the Knicks are a top team, the discussion can be tabled. That's just how things work in the NBA.

Well, if as stodgy and out of touch a group as the MLB professional writers can find it in themselves to give the Cy Young Award to Greinke and Hernandez the last two years perhaps there is hope that things can change for The NBA.

Also, to say that stats had nothing to do with Nash's MVP votes is a little misleading. His inflated points and assists, as a result of playing in the seven seconds or less D'Antoni offense, surely bolstered his case with voters (of course one can say the same could/should apply to Amar'e). The point about Amar'e/Nash revelations is that perhaps A.S's play on The Knicks is showing just the amount of puffing up Amar'e did for Nash when the accepted wisdom of MVP voters was often the other way around.

Did anyone say that stats had nothing to do with Nash being voted? I agree with you that the D'Antoni system adds assists. Felton is a great example of this, though we can see watching Felton that he is no where near the passer that Nash is. This doesn't change the reality that D'Antoni's schemes were problematic when Nash was not on the floor. That is what got Nash many of his votes.

Baseball gives the MVP and CY Young to the guys with the best stats. That makes sense in baseball because stats of individual players are more independent of other players' performance and a single player can't carry a team in baseball. The best example is pitchers with really low ERAs but few wins. They did their part and you really can't blame them for the lack of wins because they have no part in scoring runs. Add to that the fact they they have a part in only 20% of the games.

An individual player has more of an impact on team success in basketball. This is part of the reason people dismiss great stats on mediocre teams, especially since there are always candidates on top teams.

The big problem with this Nash-Amare line of reasoning is that the Knicks have success like the Suns despite the face that Amare is a considerably better player now than he was in Nash's MVP years. Also, I think this discussion is anachronistic. I remember the debate at the time centering on Marion, not Amare. Marion felt under-appreciated and the general opinion was that he was only all-star caliber due to Nash setting him up. What has Marion done offensively post-Nash?

In fact, Amare played only 3 games in one of Nash's MVP seasons! How did Amare help Nash get the MVP when he played only 3 games? Actually, the second MVP was mostly a product of being more impressive than the first season he won, especially with Amare hurt - thought the team won only 54 games.

The arguments about Amare arose later as trade talk increased regarding Amare and especially when Amare neared free agency.

Feel free to correct me if my memory is wrong.

Ok, I admittedly exaggerated a little about stats re: Nash. But the inflated stats of Phoenix did have a large effect on the voting in this guys eyes. I do think we largely agree in this discussion.

Yes, baseball is largely based on stats but it is what stats are used. The inflation of the importance of wins has long held sway with baseball writers and my point was it is only in the last two years that the dominance of foolish logic, of using foolish stats, has been the tempered a bit. Sabathia still got a ton of votes for Cy Young this past year when any one with a passing knowledge of Sabermetrics could tell you he wasn’t even close to the pitcher Felix Hernandez was.

And I wasn’t dismissing Nash’s (offensive) contributions, merely pointing out that the recent Amar’e play has hopefully made some realize that Nash sure had some help and was not the be all end all some made him out to be (and it wasn‘t just Amar‘e as you wisely point out. Marion, Diaw, Johnson, Richardson, etc etc). Obviously Nash is a tremendous offensive player, no denying that. Just that the picture of those Suns teams was a little cloudier than the media/writers/voters made it out to be.
I still maintain that Nash’s horrid defense should have been made a much larger deal than it was and taken away from any belief that he was a legitimate MVP.

TP for the good conversation!