Steve Nash must be taking lessons from David Copperfield. Because Nash winning the MVP this year is like Copperfield dating Claudia Schiffer.
It's slight of hand and trickery-I just don't see how Nash became a two-time MVP. I can't help but feel like we've been duped as NBA fans.
Because Steve Nash as a two-time MVP is a farce.
This isn't about Kobe, LeBron and Dirk anymore and if they should have won. It isn't about personal attacks or who's a better person. It isn't about the merit of their seasons, what makes a team better, how much individual stats hold against team success, etc.
This is about the absurd notion forming that Steve Nash is one of, if not the best, point guards ever.
And if you don't think that's what's happening, you need to realize that by Nash winning his second MVP Award, he just joined Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Tim Duncan as the only players to have won more than one MVP.
Nash has somehow done this without leading his team in scoring or being a game-altering threat to take over in the 4th quarter. He's not even a lock to take the last shot in a tight game. Plus, he looks like Kelly Leak from the original Bad News Bears.
The strange thing is I like Steve Nash. I think he's done wonders to change the pace and face of the NBA the past few seasons, reverting teams back to the 1980's and early 90's style of fast-tempo basketball. It's what the NBA needed.
But Nash is no better than a handful of other NBA point guards who have been good, impressive and great-but never got to that level.
In a comparison provided by the good people at Basketball Reference.com, Nash is in a select company of solid and dependable point guards-but hardly the best ever. In fact, according to the website, Nash has only slightly better than a fifty percent chance to make the Hall of Fame. No other MVP has averaged fewer points since Wes Unseld in 1969. Yet he also became the only other point guard beside Magic Johnson to win back-to-back MVP's.
Look at this group of point guards and their best seasons:
Steve Nash2005: 15.5 points, 11.5 assists, 3.3 rebounds per game. He led the league in assists and shot 88.7% from the foul line.
2006: 18 points, 10.5 assists, 4.2 rebounds. He shot 92% from the free throw line and 43% from three point range, and led the league in assists.
John Stockton 1990: 17.2 points, 14.5 assists, 2.7 steals, 2.6 rebounds per game. Stockton led the NBA in assists from 1988-1996-but was never MVP, even though the Jazz routinely won and appeared in the playoffs. In '90,
Kevin Johnson1990: 23.9 points, 12.2 assists, 3.9 rebounds per game. Johnson shot 50% from the field that season. He routinely averaged a double-double in points and assists, basically from 1989-1996.
During that 1990 season, Johnson didn't even get a vote for MVP; Stockton finished 9th to Magic Johnson. Nash is basically doing exactly what all point guards used to do-score and distribute. Heck, on occasion, some of them would even play defense.
The MLB A.L. MVP debate last year focused on the fact that David Ortiz was merely a hitter, while A-Rod played both parts of the game. While its obvious basketball and baseball are different sports; we also apparently have different basic criteria for MVP's in general, because Nash doesn't play any defense. Had Smush Parker not gone 7-37 over the last four games of the Lakers-Suns series, a national audience might have seen that Nash couldn't guard a slow motion Ace Ventura when he's pretending to play football at the asylum.
Here were the other candidates for MVP this season, who share similarities with MVP's of the past:
Kobe Bryant, 2006: 35.4 points, 4.5 assists, 5.1 rebounds, 1.8 steals. Bryant won the scoring title.
Allen Iverson, 2001: 31.1 points, 4.6 assists, 3.8 rebounds, 2.5 steals per game. Iverson won the scoring title.
LeBron James, 2006: 31.4 points, 6.6 assists, 7.0 rebounds, 1.6 steals per game.
Michael Jordan, 1992: 30.1 points, 6.1 assists, 6.4 rebounds, 2.3 steals per game.
Obviously, throwing out all these stats isn't going to change the outcome, and doesn't prove or disprove anything.
But I can't shake it-Nash is a current day John Stockton, Kevin Johnson, Isiah Thomas or Tim Hardaway who just joined a list of nine of the greatest players in NBA history.
The same guy who, at times during Phoenix's Game 7 win over the Lakers Saturday, wasn't even the most valuable guard on his own team, with Leandro Barbosa making us question why Nash had such a hard time earlier in the series. The same guy who has a two year scoring average of 16.7 points and plays some of the worst defense in the league. The same guy who is now in the same breath as Jordan, Bird and Magic.
I just don't see it-but maybe you can.
When it comes to sports and gambling, we're a fickle crowd. We like predictions, like being told who's going to win and lose, not just in the big games, but game eleven of the regular season as well. It's funny-we love the World Series of Poker, "The Gambler", White Men Can't Jump and everything in between-as long as it doesn't involve real athletes and sports that we care about.
Fans, well we're allowed to gamble. As betters, we don't have favorites. We have winners and losers-and we respect them equally because they put money in our pockets. We can place bets on the teams, the winner, the loser, what the total points scored by both teams is, how many points, hits or touchdowns a player will have. We bet on everything down to the length of the game.
But we sure are funny-if not a bunch of hypocrites.
See, it's ok for us to bet on sports, to put money down on something, anything-but it's not ok for athletes themselves-even if they don't play the sport they're betting on or are retired from professional sports all together. It raises more eyebrows than antes.
We can bet on college sports like the USC-Texas Rose Bowl or the NCAA Tournament-and do it online at every major sports site, but Charles Barkley is viewed negatively for telling us he threw thousands and thousands of dollars away at some table in Vegas?
Here's what I don't understand: why do we care? Aside from crossing the line of fixing games to meet the outcome that the bookies want (which is wrong and has no place in sports, obviously), where else is gambling someone else's concern?
Would you care if I went out and blew all my money in Vegas, then came home with nothing and my family ended up on the street? Probably not.
It's like watching Austin Powers gamble-if I'm a dumb gambler and don't know a thing about cards or casinos or betting and lose-then call me stupid and irresponsible with money. Maybe worry for my family for having to rely on me to provide for them.
Barkley can do whatever he wants with his money, because it's his.
This isn't steroids; it isn't drugs or performance enhancers that affect (except in cases of fixed games) the purity of the game or score fixing. When you bet, you are always at risk to lose-the more you could lose. These are the rules, they've always been the rules and you know that going in.
When Daly and Barkley go out and confess to having a "gambling problem", I don't feel sorry for them or hold them in contempt-I laugh. Because anyone who has taken a math class can tell you it's quite a risk to put a large sum of money on the probability that the event you're betting on will occur.
Daly isn't stealing money from me-he's throwing it away in bunches, which is silly, but none of my concern. If it was an athlete that wasn't playing hard and was getting criticized for it, I can see that debate.
But Barkley isn't playing for his lunch money; he isn't a person of high power in a public setting that has a problem which would affect his leadership abilities.
(Though, if Chuckles did run for Governor of Alabama, I wouldn't want to hear his economic improvement strategy: "Let's just take all last year's taxes and put in on Red 19-we'll triple our state income!")
A lot of what we think about the topic depends on who it is: Pete Rose is considered a baseball pariah-even though it was never proven he bet on baseball as a player, which is what keeps him out of the Hall of Fame.
Michael Jordan heavily gambled (there's even been that gossip-like rumor that Jordan was forced to retire from basketball in 1993 because of gambling problems)-but we don't let that affect our judgment of His Airness.
In fact, we don't let anything affect our opinion of Jordan. It's taking on mythic proportions at this point. He's turned into Bill Brasky from the SNL skits with Will Ferrell.
Let's hope Kobe Bryant doesn't start gambling away money at a blackjack table-he'll never be allowed on the basketball court again.
We sure are funny sports fans. We hate the gamblers, but we love the lines. In that spirit, here are the odds for some upcoming sporting events:
10:1-Odds that Kobe Bryant and Raja Bell participate in a "No Holds Barred" match after Game 7, with Luke Walton and Lakers assistant Kurt Rambis as Kobe's manager.
Hilarious: Riveting-Odds that Bill Walton will call Game 7 of Lakers-Suns Saturday and act like he doesn't know or acknowledge Luke Walton.
Over/Under on how many days until Paris Hilton moves on to Vince Young or Jay Cutler: 62:1-Odds that Barry Bonds uses his recent head injury to plead that amnesia caused him to forget whether or not he knowingly took steroids. Looks like now we'll never know.
EVEN-The winner of NASCAR's Crown Royal 250 must take 250 shots of Crown to prove he's the champ.
1,000,000:1-Odds that Jeff Gordon is that man.
If you had told me at any point in the past ten years that the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Clippers would meet in the playoffs during any postseason, I would have spit out my beer and laughed uncontrollably, like the New Orleans Saints front office probably did after the Houston Texans didn't take Reggie Bush in the NFL Draft last Saturday.
So here we are, dealing with the improbable, but very possible-a series between two franchises who share the same arena, but distinctly different histories. If this wasn't the Lakers and the Clippers, the focus would be on the goofy notion that neither team will leave their home court; they'll just alternate locker rooms. The biggest thing either has to deal with is the change in the paint color scheme on the court.
Here's what's most troubling: who would get dibs on the front row seats, Jack Nicholson or Billy Crystal?-because Lord knows there isn't room for both in Staples.
While the focus in this upcoming series should be on the Clippers, a Caddyshack like Cinderella story of the bumbling franchise that all of the sudden turned into a viable playoff contender (with Donald Sterling staring as Judge Smails)-it won't be.
The Lakers are the most intriguing playoff story going, for two reasons: Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant.
Though he's tied with Red Auerbach with most NBA titles won by a coach, the knock on Phil Jackson has always been he had all the talent while winning titles with the Bulls and Lakers. And until recently, maybe that was true.
But after this impressive season-long coaching clinic, when will Phil get the recognition he deserves as Greatest Coach of All-Time? Because there's nothing left now to discuss with his latest turn in L.A.-and maybe that's why he came back. How do you top winning championships with Michael and Scottie, Shaq and Kobe? How about turning a team that everyone laughed at for two seasons and making them a Western Conference semi-finalist.
We should have seen this coming-shouldn't have we assumed that Jackson would out-coach Mike D'Antoni?
Maybe this was Phil's plan all along. Think about it: if you were Jackson, how would you go about winning games during the regular season in the West? Team ball? No way. Sure, maybe you can count on this collection of misfits to step up in the playoff spotlight like they have, but night after night, over the course of 82 games? Not a chance.
So you put the ball into the hands of one of the league's most dynamic players and basically let him try to get the team into the playoffs. While Kobe's doing his thing, Jackson was molding the likes of Lamar Odom, Luke Walton, Smush Parker and Kwame Brown into believing in their roles.
(Can you actually believe we're talking about Kwame Brown and Luke Walton as a viable basketball players? Me neither.) One unmistakable fact about Jackson: he's an excellent motivator and can sell basketball like Big Tom Callahan sold auto-parts.
Then, there's Kobe. I remember watching Jordan's "Flue-Game" against the Jazz in '97 and the Game 6 winner over Russell in '98, with a bunch of my friends. And it was...anti-climatic. We'd come to expect the 50 point games and last second heroics. He was Air Jordan for crying out loud.
But with Kobe, well, it's unfair to compare him to Jordan, because he's really not. He's actually the anti-Jordan.
He wasn't cut in seventh grade, his father wasn't killed tragically and for all of his smiling, he doesn't have Jordan's off-court likeability (not to mention the whole Shaq divorce). Jordan was endearing because of those all his quirks. Bryant speaks multiple languages, has openly admitted to cheating on his wife and has an ego the size of Jackson's Montana ranch getaway. Bryant is less than likeable because of these things.
So as Kobe hit the game tying lay-up and subsequent overtime winner, I was thoroughly impressed because unlike Jordan, everyone who isn't a Laker fan is rooting for Kobe to miss those shots. Most of us want to see him fail because, frankly, we don't like him as a person.
And that's fine-we don't have to like him. But we have to recognize what Bryant's doing on the basketball court. In the past 86 games, he's gone from selfish and self-serving, to 62 points in three quarters (where he was berated for not going for the non-Wilt record, to scoring 81 (where he was berated for actually doing it), to leading a group of players who wouldn't see the court on most NBA rosters into the playoffs.
If there's one Jordan comparison that works, maybe it's this one: he massages his team mates' confidence the same way MJ did. Did you see the way he talked to Parker after that game-tying lay-up?
And did you see the way his team mates mobbed him like Jimmy Chitwood after the Game 4 OT winner? They love him.
But somehow, we still don't.
In a short five game span, Kobe's played the role designed by his coach. He became a team leader and a team mate, making the Lakers into a fun-loving, all-for-one NCAA Tournament style playoff Cinderella.
And yet, we still discredit the performance. We still call him self-serving and egotistical. Make no mistake-he's probably still all those things. But when will we start acting like the fictional Yankees fans did in For Love of the Game and just applaud this? A legend is forming in front of our eyes, but our dislike for Bryant's personality blinds us.
After Game 4, a fan said that they hadn't heard the Staples Center that loud since the 2000 Western Conference Finals comeback win over Portland. Sure, Smush Parker made a steal, Luke Walton forced a jump ball-but the success of this team can be credited to Phil and Kobe. They still haven't won this series or anything else this year-and maybe they never will again.
But for this odd couple, maybe that's the plan.
In the last 96 hours, I've become a father, fought step throat, dealt with crazy neighbors and through it all did my best to get my sports fix. On Thursday, I became a father to a beautiful baby girl that my wife and I named Brielle (thankfully, she looks a lot like my wife). We also have a four year old son, Cole. I tell you this because the last four days have been, well, a little crazy.
Hello, my name is Bri. I'm a sports addict. This is the story of how I blended sports into the weekend my daughter was born.
Thursday, April 27, 2006My wife was induced for labor at 7:00 a.m., which meant we had to get up at 5:30. After some general proceedings, the doctor informed us we had a couple hours before the show really began. Thanks to the posh luxury hospital we choose, we had a flat screen TV with a DVD player in a room bigger than Donald Trump's vault. Thanks to my father-in-law, we had the Billy Bob Thorton remake of Bad News Bears .
Is there anyone more qualified than Thorton to assume the role of Buttermaker? That movie so wrong, you can't help but laugh.
Halfway through the movie, my wife grabbed her bed and my hand so hard I have a small scar from my wedding ring being gouged into my fingers. Um, nurse, we're ready for the epidural.
One short hour later, our baby was here-and my life was forever changed.
Fast forward through the whirlwind family visits and we were relatively calm in the post-delivery room, still posh and complete with internet access. As my wife and daughter went off to sleep, I thought it would be a good time to check out the NBA Playoffs. Bad idea.
When I finally wore down near midnight, I shut off the TV and settled into my less than cozy chair.
Twenty minutes into dreamland, my daughter gave me my first wake-up call. First lesson-sleep when the baby sleeps.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Day one with our new daughter produced more whirlwind family visits and our son Cole getting strep throat. As my wife and I tried to get the hang of things, I secretly kept checking playoff scores and NFL Draft prognostications.
This time, I learned my lesson. I slept when they slept. But since they were awake, I was able to watch the Lakers take a 2 games-to-one lead over the Phoenix Suns.
So here's my take: if the argument surrounding Kobe Bryant not being MVP was that he didn't make his team mates better, what does his performance in this series do to that? 17 points and 7 assists, with all other Laker starters in double figures. Certainly seems MVP-esque.
MVP is an objectionable prize, broken down by not just stats, but intangibles. We want and ask for certain things from the front-runners, but we still manipulate the facts and figures to our liking. I don't know the answer to the MVP questions, but I do know that Kobe's made a point-and with that posterizing dunk on Nash in Wednesday's Game 2, a very big point.
How about a little credit to Phil Jackson? Sure, Jackson always has the best players to win his titles with, but how about the 1994 season without Michael Jordan? Or this Zen-like approach to the Suns in these playoffs? Let's hope P-Jax writes a book about it.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
We got to leave the hospital with our little bundle of joy, but not until mid-afternoon. Which meant my daughter and I had some quality time watching the NFL Draft together. Naturally, she slept. It won't be the last time she gets bored and falls asleep with daddy watching sports.
I'll share this with her someday, that she got her first taste of the NFL by sleeping through the Texans making one of the biggest draft day mistakes in recent history. As I enjoyed her resting comfortably on my chest, I sat stunned and intrigued that Houston actually picked Mario Williams first, letting Bush go to the Saints at number 2.
Has the NFL become so self-involved and over-analyzing that teams really create flaws in players deemed too good to be true? What was once questionable about Vince Young was his ability to escape would-be tacklers at the professional level. With time that passed. But I actually heard people say this was something Bush would have trouble doing in the NFL as well.
Of course, we can't know until we see Bush play-the same could be said about Young-but Bush has the ability to play no less than four positions in the NFL, and play each now. Then there's the fact that for the better part of two seasons at USC, no one could lay a hand on him.
It made me sick. Well, not really-but I did get strep throat late Saturday night.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
My wife and I are in the midst of buying a house-a process that can't end fast enough. We have, to my knowledge, the worst neighbors in the history of apartment life. It's like their entire existence is spent listening to weird music at obscene levels at all hours of the night.
Naturally, they choose Saturday night to have some fun with the speakers. My wife couldn't sleep because the baby is hungry ALL THE TIME. Seriously, newborns should come with a warning label. The baby is like LenDale White in the off-season.
After a morning trip to the local sick-bay where I acquired some much needed anti-biotics and the obligatory "get some rest" prescription, I settled in for an afternoon of NBA Playoffs. The wife was fine with this, I didn't even ask. Well, maybe because she was sleeping.
I take what I can get. Welcome to the world, Brielle. And welcome to the sports world your daddy lives in.
With the way the NBA playoffs have started, what with the Clippers winning their first playoff game since 1993 and taking a 2-0 lead in it's series over the Nuggets, we've started the playoffs a little differently than normal. In addition to that, the Pacers, Wizards and Lakers are all playing each of their series tight. It looks like we've got some crashers on our hands. And if you're going to crash something, you've got to have rules-we learned that from Wedding Crashers last summer.
Using that as a guide, here's a list of rules for prospective Playoff Crashers.
Rule #1-"Never leave a fellow crasher behind."
Typically, the best two teams meet in the NBA Finals. It's hard to crash the playoffs, only a few have taken it as far as John Beckwith did: in 1999 the Knicks were only the second team to beat a 1-seed as an 8-seed (the Nuggets were the first in 1994 over the Sonics). The Knicks made the Finals, but fell to the Spurs in five games.
The point of a playoff crasher is to get in and have your fun-but when other crashers start to fall, you usually bow out gracefully. Non-biased fans want to see the best teams in the Finals, kind of like the NCAA Tournament.
Rule #6-"Do not sit in the corner and sulk. It draws attention in a negative way. Draw attention to yourself-but on your own terms."
So many teams oblige the higher seeds by bowing out early-usually by not playing very hard and then complaining about "officiating". Here's a note for these offenders: the officiating is terrible in the playoffs every year, in every sport-get used to it. Give us something we can use, an excuse like you were more focused on your college graduation ceremony or something.
A good Playoff Crasher will mold itself after some of the legends. The 1995 Rockets could be considered the Chazz Reingold of Playoff Crashers. That year the Rockets were defending champions (Sam Cassell, currently manning the Clippers, was the point guard on that team, too) but the sixth seed in the Western Conference. They beat the Jazz (60-22 overall) three games to two in the first round; then beat the Suns (59-23) four games to three and followed that up in the Western Finals by beating the Spurs (62-20 with league MVP David Robinson) in six games. They were 5-0 in elimination games that year. Rule #7-"Blend in by standing out" also applies here. Rule #20-"The older the better, the younger the better."
If you are a potential Playoff Crasher, it's best to be a veteran laden team or have a key veteran player that knows what to do in certain key situations. As previously mentioned, Sam Cassell's been to the playoffs with the Rockets, Nets, Timberwolves and Clippers. That's the player I want leading a group of guys like Elton Brand, Shaun Livingston, Chris Wilcox and Chris Kaman-playoff first-timers who, without proper guidance and support, would be making vacation plans in a week.
Robert Horry is always a good luck charm and I'm convinced that some team will hire him as an assistant coach in a few years, just in case. These veterans are here to remind everyone else that it's a long two months to the Larry O'Brien Trophy and they shouldn't get so excited so early-like Sack Lodge was to go quail hunting; don't be overly aggressive.
A young team-like the '95 Orlando Magic-can also work as a Playoff Crasher under this rule. The Magic were built for speed and comfort. A young Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway, supplemented by 3-D (Dennis Scott) and Nick Anderson made a run through the Eastern Conferences Michael Jordan-less Bulls, Knicks and upstart Indiana Pacers. The Magic ran out, you could say, in the Finals. Orlando's Nick Anderson couldn't close out Game 1 from the foul line, and after missing four free throws, Kenny Smith of the Rockets hit a three and sent the game to overtime. Anderson and the Magic were never the same-he broke Rule #22 of Playoff Crashing: "You have regulation to seal the deal. Period. No overtime. "
Rule #29-"Always be a team player. Everyone needs a little help now and again."
This applies to everyone in the playoffs-even Kobe Bryant. Most superstars need a little bit of help from their friends. They need a Vince Vaughn's Jeremy to play the role and take one for the team; be the big guy, the Babaganoosh. Michael had Scottie, but he also had a big shot from John Paxson or Steve Kerr. Clyde Drexler couldn't do it alone against Jordan and the Bulls in '92, but helped out Olajuwon in '95 with the Rockets. David Robinson needed Tim Duncan. Everybody's needed Robert Horry.
Rule #33-"Never go back your place".
As a Playoff Crasher, this rule becomes vastly important as the playoffs go on. Don't let it get to a seventh game against a team that should have already beaten you. They will do so in Game 7. The Pacers never learned this against the Bulls in the late 90's. The Kings forgot it against the Lakers in the 2003 Western Finals. Once you've got a team down 3-1 or 3-2, you better close it out.
So, Playoff Crashers-those are the rules, break them and you'll be outed at the reception. Good luck, and remember Rule #76-"No excuses. Play like a champion!"
Send Message
Add Friend
Block User
Invite to Group
Report User 
Because Steve Nash as a two-time MVP is a farce.
This isn't about Kobe, LeBron and Dirk anymore and if they should have won. It isn't about personal attacks or who's a better person. It isn't about the merit of their seasons, what makes a team better, how much individual stats hold against team success, etc.
This is about the absurd notion forming that Steve Nash is one of, if not the best, point guards ever.
And if you don't think that's what's happening, you need to realize that by Nash winning his second MVP Award, he just joined Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Tim Duncan as the only players to have won more than one MVP.
Nash has somehow done this without leading his team in scoring or being a game-altering threat to take over in the 4th quarter. He's not even a lock to take the last shot in a tight game. Plus, he looks like Kelly Leak from the original Bad News Bears.
The strange thing is I like Steve Nash. I think he's done wonders to change the pace and face of the NBA the past few seasons, reverting teams back to the 1980's and early 90's style of fast-tempo basketball. It's what the NBA needed.
But Nash is no better than a handful of other NBA point guards who have been good, impressive and great-but never got to that level.
In a comparison provided by the good people at Basketball Reference.com, Nash is in a select company of solid and dependable point guards-but hardly the best ever. In fact, according to the website, Nash has only slightly better than a fifty percent chance to make the Hall of Fame. No other MVP has averaged fewer points since Wes Unseld in 1969. Yet he also became the only other point guard beside Magic Johnson to win back-to-back MVP's.
Look at this group of point guards and their best seasons:
Steve Nash
2005: 15.5 points, 11.5 assists, 3.3 rebounds per game. He led the league in assists and shot 88.7% from the foul line.
2006: 18 points, 10.5 assists, 4.2 rebounds. He shot 92% from the free throw line and 43% from three point range, and led the league in assists.
John Stockton
1990: 17.2 points, 14.5 assists, 2.7 steals, 2.6 rebounds per game. Stockton led the NBA in assists from 1988-1996-but was never MVP, even though the Jazz routinely won and appeared in the playoffs. In '90,
Kevin Johnson
1990: 23.9 points, 12.2 assists, 3.9 rebounds per game. Johnson shot 50% from the field that season. He routinely averaged a double-double in points and assists, basically from 1989-1996.
During that 1990 season, Johnson didn't even get a vote for MVP; Stockton finished 9th to Magic Johnson. Nash is basically doing exactly what all point guards used to do-score and distribute. Heck, on occasion, some of them would even play defense.
The MLB A.L. MVP debate last year focused on the fact that David Ortiz was merely a hitter, while A-Rod played both parts of the game. While its obvious basketball and baseball are different sports; we also apparently have different basic criteria for MVP's in general, because Nash doesn't play any defense. Had Smush Parker not gone 7-37 over the last four games of the Lakers-Suns series, a national audience might have seen that Nash couldn't guard a slow motion Ace Ventura when he's pretending to play football at the asylum.
Here were the other candidates for MVP this season, who share similarities with MVP's of the past:
Kobe Bryant, 2006: 35.4 points, 4.5 assists, 5.1 rebounds, 1.8 steals. Bryant won the scoring title.
Allen Iverson, 2001: 31.1 points, 4.6 assists, 3.8 rebounds, 2.5 steals per game. Iverson won the scoring title.
LeBron James, 2006: 31.4 points, 6.6 assists, 7.0 rebounds, 1.6 steals per game.
Michael Jordan, 1992: 30.1 points, 6.1 assists, 6.4 rebounds, 2.3 steals per game.
Obviously, throwing out all these stats isn't going to change the outcome, and doesn't prove or disprove anything.
But I can't shake it-Nash is a current day John Stockton, Kevin Johnson, Isiah Thomas or Tim Hardaway who just joined a list of nine of the greatest players in NBA history.
The same guy who, at times during Phoenix's Game 7 win over the Lakers Saturday, wasn't even the most valuable guard on his own team, with Leandro Barbosa making us question why Nash had such a hard time earlier in the series. The same guy who has a two year scoring average of 16.7 points and plays some of the worst defense in the league. The same guy who is now in the same breath as Jordan, Bird and Magic.
I just don't see it-but maybe you can.
