There has been a movement for Nash to win it, but I don't know why. First, I don't think Nash is even the most important player on his team (I agree with ESPN.com's Page 2 writer Bill Simmons that Amare Stoudamire is.)
Don't get me wrong; this was no doubt Nash's best year. He led the NBA in assists (11.5 a game) and is one of the few guards to ever shoot over 50% for a season. He also made 94 3-pointers this year. No doubt that's hard to do. But when you think of an MVP, you think of an outright leader. It's the player that the opposing team points to and says "he's the one we have to stop in order to win". I don't see Steve Nash as being that player, especially when he only averages 15.5 pts a game.
Contrast Nash with Jason Kidd. Jason Kidd doesn't score a lot of points either, but everyone knows who led that team. When Kidd signed with the Nets, there was a very good reason why people were yelling "MVP!" towards the end of the season. Everything on offense started and went through him. He was the playmaker, he was occasionally grabbing rebounds, he was drawing fouls, and most importantly he was making everyone look better. When anyone asked how the Nets got into the Finals three straight seasons, everyone pointed to Jason Kidd.
There's no question that Nash has made Phoenix a better team this year, but how better? Phoenix was in the playoffs last year, albeit they were trashed in the first round by the Spurs. But even this year it's still questionable whether they'll be a Finals contending team. If they face the Mavericks, they'll have to play with a team that can place as many points on the board as they can, and I don't think there's anyone on that team that can defend Yao Ming and T-Mac on that Suns roster. Memphis was a walkover. The real playoffs start on Monday.
Here's probably the biggest argument against Steve Nash as MVP:
One critical difference, Miami coach Stan Van Gundy argued, was seeing how O'Neal's and Nash's former teams fared in their absence.It'll be interesting to hear the arguments from sportswriters as to why Steve Nash is more deserving of MVP than Shaq. Even with Shaq's injuries you can't deny the fact that Miami is where it is because of him. Shaq left Los Angeles in shambles. Can Phoenix say the same with Nash, especially if Dallas advances tonight and wins the series against Phoenix?
With O'Neal, the Los Angeles Lakers were Western Conference champions in 2004; they were 34-48 and finished 11 games out of a playoff spot this year. Meanwhile, Nash's former team, Dallas, improved its record without him, going from 52 wins to 58.
``Steve Nash left and Dallas got better. The Lakers did not get better,'' Van Gundy said. ``I think that's the difference between the two of them when you come down to the voting. And I'm certainly a great admirer of Steve Nash.''
