Why is it Shaq and Kobe were penalized for playing with each other, but Nash isn't, with him having two other All-Stars, and Nowitzki isn't, with him having All-Stars and former All-Stars? Seems to me that the whole MVP race took on a new definition from back in the past
2007-04-18 16:35:12 · 3 answers · asked by jonblazze2003 2 in Sports ➔ Basketball
Shaq won the MVP in 2000. I don't think there was any penalty.
As for Nash, I think his first win was a novelty. There was no truly dominant player on a great team that year, and there had been a paucity of great point guards to that point. The next year, Phoenix lost Amare without skipping a beat, which seemed to make it obvious, even though I think Wade deserved the award.
This year, Nash has done much more to deserve the award and HE will be punished for having a great supporting cast.
Nowitzki, to me, doesn't have a great supporting cast. Howard is a borderline all-star, and the rest are role-players. He has carried this team, and has been a perennial contender.
2007-04-18 17:17:52 · answer #1 · answered by kevin s 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that your team has to have one of the best records for a guy to be an MVP candidate is right. I think the mark should be 50 games, if you lead your team to 50 wins, you should have equal voting with others. 2 years ago, I thought Lebron should have won it over Nash, there was also that year that Jason Kidd should have won it over Tim Duncan. I think the meaning of an MVP has gotten lost over the last few years.
2007-04-18 16:45:01 · answer #2 · answered by WestCoastin4Life 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah! Kobe should be the MVP! Well he is for his team anyway!
2007-04-18 17:09:52 · answer #3 · answered by maestrosantana 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋