If voting was to be looked at into the playoffs, Dirk would have easily lost this to Nash.

Dirk should have lost to Nash anyway. Id hate to immortalize Nash as the only (if im correct) 3-time-consecutive MVP winner, but he deserved it again. I doubt the Suns make the playoffs without him, at best they look like the Lakers minus a superstar.

The Suns are a playoff team without Nash, as long as they have something resembling an actual PG playing for them. The Lakers are lucky to break 20 wins without Kobe.

What gets me is the "best player on the best team in the regular season" crap that's being spewed, which would explain why Nash got it last year when the best player on the best regular season team was Chauncey.

Oh well...

It's always nice when the league is embarrassed of their MVP choice.

The Suns are a playoff team without Nash, as long as they have something resembling an actual PG playing for them.
I totally disagree with ya for once Mxy. Barbosa has his moments in spurts, but when they dont have nash, their overall record hasn't resembled "playoff team" level in any way. But the last time I brought this up, i got attacked and adamantly told how Marion(who is on a serious hot seat) was a bigger piece than him. So I'll just leave it at "I disagree". I think people just hate Nash. Well I do too. But I think he is an MVP caliber player for Phoenix and their style of basketball.

Barbosa is lousy at PG. That's why their backup PG when Nash is off the court is Diaw. When Nash was out sick this year, Diaw was out too, and that's when their motor stopped working. Give the Suns a Brevin Knight and they still make it in the playoffs with 40-odd wins. I don't hate Nash, but I don't think he's the only reason for the Suns success by any stretch. The Suns without Nash made it to the playoffs with a half-court offense under Me-bury coached by Frank Johnson.

But as for Dirk as MVP, there were lots of older MVPs defeated in the first round of the playoffs they played in -- Moses Malone twice, Bob McAdoo, Bill Walton, Wes Unseld, Wilt in '66, Bob Pettit in '59. It happens.

I dont think Dirk didn't deserve it because they were bounced in the first round, I understand it is a regular season award. But over the last two seasons, arent the Suns something like 2-5 when Nash is out? 60 wins a season when he is in. It shouldn't be about best player on the team with the most wins, it should be about 'if we take this one player out how much does this team suffer?'

Mxy I get your point about Chauncey, sad that he wasn't even talked about this year. Wasn't he in the top 5 last year though?

They were 2-4 with Nash out this year, but Diaw was also out for 3 of those games, all losses. When Barbosa is starting at PG, they shit on themselves with great regularity. That's why they signed Marcus Banks to that silly contract. We suck without Chauncey, but that's because most of our backup PG options are even iffier than Barbosa or Banks.

2-5, 2-4, splitting hairs lol. Thanks for the research though Mxy. Point being, like I said it should be 'which team suffers most without x player?' It should never be given to a player on a losing team except maybe an extreme exception, but the whole 'best player on best team' is bullshit. Im not going to rack my brain too hard, had too long of a day, but Nash and Billups are definitely among the tops as far as good teams who suffer without them. Among that list you could easily (hate to say it) include Kobe and Lebron. Their teams are battling Memphis for those bingo balls without them, so would Minny without Garnett although they are almost on that list anyway. On another note, to address a very good player... even with Duncan out, the Spurs arent title contenders but are still decent.

I could go on with the list but you get my point.

i agree with that assesment uxka BUT dirk did improve his game. i think the nba should make some criteria for this, one being the 'which team suffers most without x player?'

Well this speech is going to be aaaaawwwkwaaaaarrrrd.

The guy drafted right after Dirk was Paul Pierce who, in my estimation, is a stud. He's hot-headed, but delivers at both ends of the court. This is the first year that he's really had an injury since his rookie season (except of course when he was stabbed 11 times in offseason training came and still didn't miss a game).

This year's Celtics were 20-27 (43%) with Paul Pierce, 4-31 (11%) without. Paul Pierce missed 35 games and still led his team in points scored. Over the course of the season, had he stayed healthy, he would've taken the Celtics from a ~10-win season to a ~35-win season -- 25 wins. Most anyone knows that the Celtics suck without Pierce, and knew that last year, and the year before, etc. So why hasn't the dude gotten any all-NBA nods or MVP votes for the past few years? Is it Pierce's fault that Doc fucking Rivers can't get fuck-all out of seemingly decent young kids? Should a real MVP get his coach fired, like Magic did? Could a Steve Nash or particularly a Dirk Nowitzki have turned these Celtics (young and moldable with so many needs everywhere) into a 40+ win team for a full season?

Nowitzki made it clear that he is still upset with the way he played against the Warriors in the postseason. He averaged 19.7 points on just 38 percent shooting and took most of the blame for the Mavericks' unexpected exit.

"I was disappointed for myself and I don't need some fat guy on sports radio telling me I didn't do well. I can see that for myself," he said in a teleconference call with the European media. "I try and handle it the way I always handle disappointment, by being by myself, being around my family and friends and hopefully just come back stronger the next year."

Just get rid of the fucking award.

I did laugh my ass off at Mark Cuban tearing up at the conference professing his love for Irk though.

i know im overly empathetic, but i felt bad for dirk. agree or not, getting the nba mvp is an amazing accomplishment that should be a great moment in dirk's life. and the probably one and only time he wins it he has to go through humiliation to get it. why dont they release the awards earlier? its not there isnt a million opportunities after the season and during the first round to give this out.

The guy drafted right after Dirk was Paul Pierce who, in my estimation, is a stud. He's hot-headed, but delivers at both ends of the court. This is the first year that he's really had an injury since his rookie season (except of course when he was stabbed 11 times in offseason training came and still didn't miss a game).

This year's Celtics were 20-27 (43%) with Paul Pierce, 4-31 (11%) without. Paul Pierce missed 35 games and still led his team in points scored. Over the course of the season, had he stayed healthy, he would've taken the Celtics from a ~10-win season to a ~35-win season -- 25 wins. Most anyone knows that the Celtics suck without Pierce, and knew that last year, and the year before, etc. So why hasn't the dude gotten any all-NBA nods or MVP votes for the past few years? Is it Pierce's fault that Doc fucking Rivers can't get fuck-all out of seemingly decent young kids? Should a real MVP get his coach fired, like Magic did? Could a Steve Nash or particularly a Dirk Nowitzki have turned these Celtics (young and moldable with so many needs everywhere) into a 40+ win team for a full season?
being the best player on a shitty team doesn't help you get votes. your team actually has to go somewhere. now if Pierce can get his team to get into playoffs with a respectable record, then throw him in the mix. but even on that front, Kobe's light years ahead of Pierce imo.

My lasting Paul Pierce playoff memory: http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2005/05/06/selfish_act_could_have_been_teams_technical_ko/

Also, welcome bangsta.

We've been waiting for you.

thanks. i know you've been Glen. i just took the long way here. ;)

being the best player on a shitty team doesn't help you get votes. your team actually has to go somewhere. now if Pierce can get his team to get into playoffs with a respectable record, then throw him in the mix. but even on that front, Kobe's light years ahead of Pierce imo.
The Lakers went 3-2 without Kobe.
The Celtics went 4-31 without Pierce.

Not that I think the Lakers are a 60% team without Kobe by any stretch, but the Lakers aren't as bad as the Celtics, who don't have a decent coach and don't have second banana who can poke his head out and be primary banana like Odom. My point was -- take out Pierce and replace with any of the top MVP candidates. If they don't make the team better than Pierce, they're overrated.