This is the best argument I have seen why Shaq O'Neal not Steve Nash is the 2005 NBA MVP. Now I know that Nash is the popular pick. Why I have no idea. But in my mind there is no doubt who the MVP is.
From ESPN's Page 2's Bill Simmons. (I do not agree with him most of the time, but this I do agree with.....)
Steve Nash
Put it this way: If Nash won the MVP, it would be ...
A. The first time a table-setter won the award.
B. The first time a non-franchise player won the award.
C. The first time a complete liability on the defensive end won the award.
I know he's been immensely fun to watch, and he's making everyone who ever cared about the point guard position proud. But an MVP? You're telling me that Bibby or Kidd wouldn't have been just as successful with Stoudemire, Marion, Johnson and Q on their team? Does anyone else find it depressing that the point guard position has fallen so dramatically over the years, it's practically cause for celebration when someone plays it correctly? I have a variety of methods for determining my MVP choice every year, and here's one: "If this were a pickup game, based on how everyone's playing this season, who would get picked first?"
(And while we're on the subject, the late Ralph Wiley would have brought up the "Would everyone be making this big of a deal about Steve Nash if he were black?" card about three months ago. And had fun with it.)
Shaquille O'Neal
Try to follow this equation:
A. The Lakers won 57 games last year ... they're headed for 35 wins this year.
B. The Heat won 42 games last year ... they're headed for 62 wins this year.
I'm no John Hollinger, but even I can add that up: That's a 42-game swing, not to mention the balance of power shifting to the East. And yes, that should have been enough to win Shaq another MVP. But this year has been special in the sense that people get him now – he's had a breakout season, only in the personality sense. Now there isn't a more beloved, charismatic, entertaining athlete in any sport. When I think of the 2004-2005 season, I'm going to think of Shaq first ... and that's the very definition of an MVP. At least to me.
From ESPN's Page 2's Bill Simmons. (I do not agree with him most of the time, but this I do agree with.....)
Steve Nash
Put it this way: If Nash won the MVP, it would be ...
A. The first time a table-setter won the award.
B. The first time a non-franchise player won the award.
C. The first time a complete liability on the defensive end won the award.
I know he's been immensely fun to watch, and he's making everyone who ever cared about the point guard position proud. But an MVP? You're telling me that Bibby or Kidd wouldn't have been just as successful with Stoudemire, Marion, Johnson and Q on their team? Does anyone else find it depressing that the point guard position has fallen so dramatically over the years, it's practically cause for celebration when someone plays it correctly? I have a variety of methods for determining my MVP choice every year, and here's one: "If this were a pickup game, based on how everyone's playing this season, who would get picked first?"
(And while we're on the subject, the late Ralph Wiley would have brought up the "Would everyone be making this big of a deal about Steve Nash if he were black?" card about three months ago. And had fun with it.)
Shaquille O'Neal
Try to follow this equation:
A. The Lakers won 57 games last year ... they're headed for 35 wins this year.
B. The Heat won 42 games last year ... they're headed for 62 wins this year.
I'm no John Hollinger, but even I can add that up: That's a 42-game swing, not to mention the balance of power shifting to the East. And yes, that should have been enough to win Shaq another MVP. But this year has been special in the sense that people get him now – he's had a breakout season, only in the personality sense. Now there isn't a more beloved, charismatic, entertaining athlete in any sport. When I think of the 2004-2005 season, I'm going to think of Shaq first ... and that's the very definition of an MVP. At least to me.
