It's official

[Guest alfdogg]

Tim Duncan.  They just announced it on TNT.

 

Thoughts?

[Guest EI Cubano]

Just ridiculous, Tim Duncan simply isn't as important to his team as Jason Kidd. The Spurs are the last team to rule the west before the Lakers and consistenly play great ball. The Nets pulled a tremendous turnaround when JK came into the mix and his value to the organization this season was greater than anyone else in the league. A better arguement could be made for KG and Shaq than it could for Duncan in my opinion.

[Guest starvenger]

I'd like to have seen Kidd win it, and he's without a doubt the MVP of the East, but Duncan does deserve it for carrying the Spurs to where they are now.

 

Mark my words though, if Kidd does the exact same thing next year, he'll get the MVP award.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Man, first Kidd gets screwed out of winning Rookie of the Year (he had to share it with Grant Hill), now this.

 

And I wonder why I don't take these stupid awards seriously...

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

Fuck that! Kidd is the People's MVP.

[Guest Redhawk]

The Spurs are the last team to rule the west before the Lakers and consistenly play great ball.

Maybe Duncan has something to do with that...

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

Answer me this: if Byron Scott isn't coach of the year, why isn't Jason Kidd MVP? I think at least one of those awards should have a home in NJ.

[Guest goodhelmet]

Wah Wah Waah!!!!!

 

Fuck, the main man, TiMVP, played in a more difficult conference, had career high stats, improved to 80% free throws, his team had a better record than Kidd's and he carried the team on his back! If you doubt this, look at Game 4 of the first round AND he's playing through the playoffs immediately after the death of his father. PLUS he's a great NBA representative (no wife beating going on here) and an all around nice guy!

 

I am happier than a pig in shit for Tim Duncan and the award is MUCH deserved. What kidd did in NJ was great. he turned the team around but no NBA player has been better than Tim Duncan this year.

[Guest What?!]

Yes! I picked TD and he did win. I think the weak Eastern Confernce also helped Tim in the voting.

 

Kidd had Kenyon Martin, a healthy Van Horn, a healthy Kittles, a newly signed Todd MacCulloch. He had a better supporting cast IMO than Duncan, but Duncan got his team a better record in the better conference and dominated games.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Man, first Kidd gets screwed out of winning Rookie of the Year (he had to share it with Grant Hill), now this.

 

And I wonder why I don't take these stupid awards seriously...

Is it really that terrible that Duncan won the MVP?

[Guest Choken One]

either way, Both men were worth the MVP award. I don't see the out rage here? It's not like when Karl Malone won the award over Duncan in 1999.

 

Maybe they oughta have an award for each conference like Baseball does? If so, Karl Malone, John Stockon, Charles Barkley and others would have gotten one during the MJ years. (Here's a question that has bugged me,Who won the 1995 mvp? My friend says Ewing, I say O'Neal...It might be Hakeem but I thought he won in 1994).

[Guest Ripper]

David Robinson won it in 95...I think. It was the year that Scottie Pippen deserved it but David won.

 

 

"Fuck, the main man, TiMVP, played in a more difficult conference, had career high stats, improved to 80% free throws, his team had a better record than Kidd's and he carried the team on his back!"

 

The Spurs had a worst year than last year, Traded a young Derek Anderson for a veteren (and arguabley better player) in Steve Smith, picked up Veteren Danny Ferry, a defensive stopper in Bruce Bowen, Still have a hall of famer at center, and picked up a rookie point guard that is onw of the best in the world, and Malik Rose and Antoinio Parker are having career seasons...No, Duncan had no help at all.  PLUS The west coast is the weaker conference.  

 

Yes, thats right, the West is weaker.  The west is 4-5 teams deep.  After that you have the Grizzles, Golden State, Rockets, nuggets, that are just 3-4 wins each that you can pad your win collum.  Then there are the Seattle's, Timberwolves, Clippers that are pretty much push overs if you catch them at the right time.  The East is deep from 1-10 (you all know that the Bucks and Heat can beat the hell out of most teams in the league on any given night.) Then there are teams like the Hawks and Cavs that can take a chunk out of a great team on any given night...Then of course you have the Bulls, but you get the point.  

 

The West might have the more dominate teams 1-4 but the East is overall a better confrense.

 

 

 

I just don't get how people can try and over look the fact that the Nets went from near last to first place! Duncan led playoff vets into the playoffs...Kidd led a bunch of rookies and guys that never even have been over .500 to the first place in the East.  Kittles might not have been healthy last year, but Martin and Vanhorn played more than 60 games together...and the team sucked.  This year they got Kittles back and Added McCullah(who was hurt alot and doesn't even play that many minutes) and they are the number one team.  What is the only thing that really changed?? Jason Kidd.  I don't see how you can truley make a argument for Duncan here.  We have to guess where the Spurs would be without Duncan(I still think they would have had a better record than Utah and would've made the playoffs.) but we KNOW where the Nets would be without Kidd.  They can't even win a quarter without him.  

 

And am I nuts, or didn't the spurs only win 1-2 more games than the nets anyway.  And the Nets didn't get to beat up on the Rockets, Warriors, Nuggets, Grizzles and Clippers 3-4 time each.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Man, this is getting pathetic. If you put Kidd on the Nets squad from last year, they'd have STILL been a lottery team. There are so many factors that most people seem to ignore when it comes to the Nets drastic turnaround from last year. Most of the imporant players this year were either hurt(Kittles, Van Horn at times, and Martin) or weren't even there at all(Kidd). The way I see it, Jason was just a product of the system. He doesn't carry his team on his back like Duncan or Garnett do, so to me, Duncan was by the better candidate for the MVP than Kidd was.

 

Oh, and before it even gets started, I NEVER said Kidd was a shitty player, but he DOES benefit from having his important teammates not being out with various injuries for any real length of time.

[Guest goodhelmet]

"David Robinson won it in 95...I think. It was the year that Scottie Pippen deserved it but David won."

 

robinson did win the award and being a Spurs fan, he should not have gotten it. Hakeem deserved it. He absolutely schooled Robinson in the WCF. Pippen, if I'm not mistaken, proved he is no winner without Mike and remember his little tantrum on the sidelines. He couldn't deal with being the go-to-guy. He's a role player who rode Jordan's coattails and that year proved it.

 

"Yes, thats right, the West is weaker.  The west is 4-5 teams deep.  After that you have the Grizzles, Golden State, Rockets, nuggets, that are just 3-4 wins each that you can pad your win collum.  Then there are the Seattle's, Timberwolves, Clippers that are pretty much push overs if you catch them at the right time.  The East is deep from 1-10 (you all know that the Bucks and Heat can beat the hell out of most teams in the league on any given night.) Then there are teams like the Hawks and Cavs that can take a chunk out of a great team on any given night...Then of course you have the Bulls, but you get the point."

 

Um...no

There's a reason the Western Conference teams have better records then the Eastern Confernece teams. It's because they destroyed the East. New Jersey, who had the East's best record was 9 games behind Sacramento and if inserted in the West would not have even been a contender. Maybe, they would have won 40 games..maybe. As it stands, the Nets would be in the 5th seed in the West. If you put any of the West teams in the bottom tier (minn, Seat, Port, Utah), they would have won 50+ games running away. The top 4 west teams would have probably shattered NBA records for most wins in a season. The East is so much more weaker than the West it's not even funny

 

"And am I nuts, or didn't the spurs only win 1-2 more games than the nets anyway.  And the Nets didn't get to beat up on the Rockets, Warriors, Nuggets, Grizzles and Clippers 3-4 time each."

 

yeah, they got to beat up on Chicago, Cleveland and the Knicks who all suck as hard as any team in the West despite your delusional thinking that they are all tough teams. And the Spurs won 6 more games than the Nets.

 

 

"The Spurs had a worst year than last year, Traded a young Derek Anderson for a veteren (and arguabley better player) in Steve Smith, picked up Veteren Danny Ferry, a defensive stopper in Bruce Bowen, Still have a hall of famer at center, and picked up a rookie point guard that is onw of the best in the world, and Malik Rose and Antoinio Parker are having career seasons...No, Duncan had no help at all. "

 

Duncan had help and I'm not arguing this but without him, the Spurs are the Bulls or Warriors or whatever bottom-feeder you want to pick. Danny Ferry was on the team last year. Robinson has been hurt ALL year long and is at the end of his rope and the other guys are great role players, but that's just it, they are role players, as Duncan goes so the team goes. 9 new players have been installed in this team and almost any coach or player in the league will tell you it is extremely difficult to gel players that quickly. Give Duncan his due. Without him, the Spurs are nothing.

 

And we don't want to compare stats, because on stats alone, Duncan had career highs in several different categories. And did I mention 80% free throw shooting?

[Guest Ripper]

But if you really look at the east the Hawks(one of the worst teams) had wins over almost all of west playoff teams.  Clevand beat quite a few of them too.  Chicago swept the laker(ok, this was a fluke, Chicago sucks every night) The bucks were 9th in the east and beat all and swept some of the west playoff teams.  As did the Celtics and Nets and Pistons and so on and so forth.  The dominating teams in the west(Lakers, Spurs, Mavs and Kings) are better than the top teams in the east...true, but from top to bottom, the East has a much tougher conference..(since when does having the tougher conference mean you get more wins?? Shouldn't a tougher conference equal more close games and closer gap between top and lower teams?  it Think everyone has it backwards.

 

 

You are right...(wait..9...they don't have 9 new players.  that would only mean that 3 are back from last year.  Daniels, Porter, Robinson, Sealy, Bryant, and Ferry were all on the team last year, they didn't go throught THAT many changes."  but maybe they put together a better team.  The Nets have basically the same team and are + 26 wins.  lets see...With Jason Kidd= 52 wins  without Jason Kidd= 26 wins.  That equals MVP to ME!!!!

 

Lets apply that application out west:

 

without Tim Duncan=we don't know with Tim Duncan=56 wins.  THERES A HOLE IN THE EQUATION.  we KNOW how important Jason Kidd is to the team...We have no idea about Duncan( I maintain that without him, they still would have won 41-42 games.) We know they would be worst, but we don't know how bad.

[Guest goodhelmet]

By your rating standards for MVP then whoever the most valuable player to the most improved team should get the MVP. this is simply not the case. If it were then Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, or whoever would never have been MVP. It's the best player in the league combined with his value to his team combined with his stats combined with the intangibles. Tim is the total package.

 

As for the 9 new players, you have to remember there are actually 15 roster spots. Not 12.

[Guest Ripper]

Oh come on...you can't count the suit for 82 games wearing dudes that are on the injured list with a "sprained toenail" and a headace.  

 

 

The MVP isn't about the best player.  It is about who is of the Most Value to thier sucessful teams.  I think that Kidd is more Valueble to the Nets than Duncan is to the Spurs.  Let me say it like this.  If a Duncanless Spurs played a Kiddless Nets...who would you think will win more times than naught.  

 

comeon now.  Smith vs Kittles?? Parker vs. Anthony Johnson?? Robinson vs. Mcullah.  Sealy Vs VanHorn...wait..Ok the Nets win there... Martin vs...um....  YOU SEE MY POINT!!!!

 

I am just bitter because it all reminds me of when Kevin Johnson got robbed of his MVP because They wanted Jordan to win another.

[Guest goodhelmet]

I understand your points but it is a combination of all the things I have mentioned above. hell, I would have been perfectly happy with co-MVP's and I really think that the Nets would run over the Spurs if Duncan and Kidd did not play for their respective teams. And I can empathize with your bitterness. Remember, Duncan was robbed in '99 but Duncan's accomplishments this year leave litttle room for debate.

 

TiMVP, TiMVP!!!!

[Guest Ripper]

He definately deserved it in '99...but I just can't slight Kidd this year.  And whats messed up, if the Nets do the same thing nest year, he won't get it because they will be expected to be number one in the east after they go to the finals.  I truely think this might have been his only chance and the NBA is making up for Screwing Duncan(and Iverson who should have been second that year in 99)so they could give the MVP to Malone.

[Guest Redhawk]

Man, first Kidd gets screwed out of winning Rookie of the Year (he had to share it with Grant Hill), now this.

 

And I wonder why I don't take these stupid awards seriously...

Was Kidd really THAT much better than Grant Hill? In fact, Kidd was the surprise choice that year, as Hill was supposed to be a lock.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

Kidd had Kenyon Martin, a healthy Van Horn, a healthy Kittles, a newly signed Todd MacCulloch. He had a better supporting cast IMO than Duncan, but Duncan got his team a better record in the better conference and dominated games.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Let's not say things that we can't take back.  Now, I agree with you that the supporting cast was a great help in Kidd's stellar season in New Jersey, but to say that Kidd's supporting cast is better than Duncan's is jumping a little too quickly at a burgeoning bandwagon.  I love Derek Anderson as a player, but Tony Parker's play this year upgraded the point guard position.  And an aging David Robinson is still a better post presence than Todd MacCullough, on any given day - plus Malik Rose is a scrappy guy who gives high-quality minutes off the bench.  The rest of the guys may not be great ballplayers, but they all can shoot the three and defend.

 

Most of the imporant players this year were either hurt(Kittles, Van Horn at times, and Martin) or weren't even there at all(Kidd). The way I see it, Jason was just a product of the system. He doesn't carry his team on his back like Duncan or Garnett do, so to me, Duncan was by the better candidate for the MVP than Kidd was.

I agree with that to an extent.  I think Kidd is a product of the system, and a product of the people around him.  Unfortunately for anyone trying to use the talent around him to discredit Kidd, New Jersey's system this year was "get a great point guard and let him make great passes to guys who finish."  That system starts and ends with Kidd.  No Kidd there, the Nets struggle big-time with that system.  Guys like Van Horn, Kittles, Martin, and MacCullough are all really good at finishing off plays around the basket, and Jason Kidd is the perfect point guard to give the guys the ball in a good position to finish.  However, you take Kidd of that team, and they have huge problems on the offensive end.  Hell, they struggle NOW in a half-court set.  Know why?  Because none of those guys (Kidd included) is somebody who can figure out how to get their own shots consistently.  It's why New Jersey sputtered with Marbury - because Marbury was looking to finish first, and when that didn't happen, he passed out to a covered player who can't get open by himself.  That's why Jason Kidd was my choice for MVP - because I still believe in the whole "most valuable" thing, and to me, there's no point guard better suited for that team than Jason Kidd.  You put C-Webb, Nowitzki or even Malone in San Antone, and they still win 55 games.

 

Yes, thats right, the West is weaker. The west is 4-5 teams deep. After that you have the Grizzles, Golden State, Rockets, nuggets, that are just 3-4 wins each that you can pad your win collum. Then there are the Seattle's, Timberwolves, Clippers that are pretty much push overs if you catch them at the right time. The East is deep from 1-10 (you all know that the Bucks and Heat can beat the hell out of most teams in the league on any given night.) Then there are teams like the Hawks and Cavs that can take a chunk out of a great team on any given night...Then of course you have the Bulls, but you get the point.

Oh boy.  It seems as though the West is only 4 or 5 teams deep, doesn't it?  That's because it is.  Of course, you take those four out of the West and put them in the East, and now the West is a wide-open mess of a conference and the East is only 4 teams deep.  That's how much better Dallas, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Antonio are than the rest of the league.  Yeah, the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the West have some holes, but it's not as though they're any worse than the Bulls, Cavs, and Knicks (who were ATROCIOUS this year and show no signs as a franchise of snapping out of it).  Don't include the Heat in that statement about the East (it's not happy time at the old folks' home, after all), and I agree - those nine teams are all very closely matched.  But they're not better than any of the top 4 teams in the West, by any means.  Nowhere NEAR, in fact.  Seattle, Minnesota, and the Clippers are all good teams, built more Eastern than Western (in that they don't rely as much on post-up play), but you can't hold it against the conference that they're not the Lakers or Spurs or Mavs or Kings.  Nobody else is that good.  By the way, those three teams that are "pretty much pushovers" are a combined 56-34 (.622) against the Eastern Conference.

 

And the Nets didn't get to beat up on the Rockets, Warriors, Nuggets, Grizzles and Clippers 3-4 time each.

Nope, but they got to feast on the Eastern Conference's lowly teams like the Bulls, Cavs, Knicks, and Hawks.  There are bottom-dwellers in both leagues.  It's not like there's an NL East or NL West-type division lurking in the NBA right now.

 

Fuck, the main man, TiMVP, played in a more difficult conference, had career high stats, improved to 80% free throws, his team had a better record than Kidd's and he carried the team on his back! If you doubt this, look at Game 4 of the first round AND he's playing through the playoffs immediately after the death of his father. PLUS he's a great NBA representative (no wife beating going on here) and an all around nice guy!

That's not a biased opinion, is it?    Tim-MAY! did have a great season, and had tons of really high statistics that everyone loves to use when giving out the awards.  Of course, like I said before I'm still one of those "outstanding doesn't being with a V, valuable does" guys, who like to look at impact more than stats when giving out MVP awards.

 

LUNATIC

Yeah, I felt like killing yet another long thread.  It's what I do around here.

[Guest goodhelmet]

"That's not a biased opinion, is it?    Tim-MAY! did have a great season, and had tons of really high statistics that everyone loves to use when giving out the awards.  Of course, like I said before I'm still one of those "outstanding doesn't being with a V, valuable does" guys, who like to look at impact more than stats when giving out MVP awards."

 

Of coursed it's biased!!!! And I'm not a huge believer that the MVP should have the best statistics. If that were the case, Larry Bird or Bill Russell would never have been MVP. But it helps support the case in that tim not only had great stats but also improved in his categories. Plus, if you look at the value to his team, Duncan did win the IBM computer award which is calculated by that player's worth to their team.

 

"I think Kidd is a product of the system, and a product of the people around him.  Unfortunately for anyone trying to use the talent around him to discredit Kidd, New Jersey's system this year was "get a great point guard and let him make great passes to guys who finish."  That system starts and ends with Kidd.  No Kidd there, the Nets struggle big-time with that system."

 

The same could be said of the Spurs system. they dump it into Tim. He either creates his shot or passes it back out where they swing it around to get the open three or easy jump shot. Without him being double and triple teamed, because one on one, no one can contain him save for Shaq, then the Spurs don't get the open looks and the shooters everyone praises for being so good are basically useless. If you doubt this, witness game 4 of the 1st round against the Sonics. Only Malik played with any heart. Tim is just as valuable to his team or moreso than Jason Kidd. And the only reason the Spurs are head and shoulders above the Eastern teams is because of Duncan.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

Saying that a player is a product of his system is a bunch of malarkey. If you have a superstar, you implement a system that utilizes his talents. Jason Kidd is the bombshit point guard, so they give him the ball and let him get triple doubles every night. Tim Duncan can keep the damn MVP trophy, sit at home and watch the rest of the playoffs after the Lakers eliminate the Spurs.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

To Vern: It's not "that" terrible in the grand scheme of things that Duncan won over Kidd. Actually, I really don't care. However, I do think Kidd should have gotten the MVP. <<shrugs shoulders>>

 

 

To Redhawk: IMO, Kidd wasn't THAT much better than Hill, but Kidd should have gotten the ROTY award. The NBA was banking on Hill to be the next mega-star and he was a lock at the start of the season to win that award but Kidd surprised everybody.

 

All in all, I have been able to sleep at night knowing that Duncan won the MVP award over Kidd.

[Guest Ripper]

Somebody is proving they should have gotten it, and Somebody is proving that maybe they shouldn't have.  

 

 

That is all.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

One team is playing like a bunch of pussies in the fourth quarter, the other team is going to the Finals.

[Guest ErekT2k]

LOL! You are *the* man, Pinnacle.

 

Btw, I've heard around that the Nets, in some people's opinions, look like the Showtime Lakers. I've heard of the Showtime Lakers but didn't see them play cuz I was too young. Can anyone bring any clarification to this claim? Are the Nets playing like the Showtime Lakers?

[Guest bravesfan]

What was it, 30+ points and 20+ rebounds in a critical game in which ONLY TIM AND MALIK SHOWED UP against the Lake Show?

 

TIM DUNCAN= MVP

 

Want proof? Check Game 4 against the Sonics, with Duncan out. (Honestly, Robinson would not've made a difference in that game, maybe the same with Ferry)...

 

THE SPURS GOT RAPED.

 

And that'll happen over and over if Duncan leaves for another team.

 

Also, use the conference comparison  for the "no-Duncan, no-Kidd" teams.

 

1.)Where would the Nets be without Kidd in the East?

 

Averaging about 30-35 wins, considering there are the Chicago High-Schoolers, Knicks, oft-crippled Hawks, Andre Miller and Wizards. In all possibilities, a little out of the playoff race. Kittles, when healthy, is awesome, Van Horn is an up-and-comer and all that Kenyon Martin needed was a healthy year and a chance...AND KIDD GOT ALL OF THAT THIS YEAR!

 

2.)Where would the Spurs be without Duncan in the West?

 

There are 2 BAD teams in the West...Warriors and Grizzle (maybe Phoenix)...and the Spurs would be stuck fighting in the dumps with these guys if wasn't for Duncan. Think about it...All that either the Warriors or Grizzlies need is a Duncan-type leader...Without Duncan, Golden State and Memphis will just have a bunch of young role-players, and the same goes with the Spurs, only their role-players are often hurt considering age (C. Smith, Porter, Ferry, D. Rob, Bryant) or that they disappear in the play-offs (Daniels, S. Smith for one).

 

Ehh, either one as MVP would've kept me happy, but Kidd's accomplishments are just OVERSHADOWED by the fact that the East, in overall after the top 5 teams and the Pacers, SUCK.

[Guest RicFlairGlory]

He definately deserved it in '99...but I just can't slight Kidd this year.  And whats messed up, if the Nets do the same thing nest year, he won't get it because they will be expected to be number one in the east after they go to the finals.  I truely think this might have been his only chance and the NBA is making up for Screwing Duncan(and Iverson who should have been second that year in 99)so they could give the MVP to Malone.

IF they make the Finals...

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

The Spurs didn't get raped by the Lakers though, they bent over and let the Lakers have their way with them in the waning moments of each game.