When Steve Nash won the NBA's MVP award two years ago, he broke down a barrier. Prior to Nash's 2005 campaign, a point guard hadn't won the award since Magic Johnson did it way back in 1990. After Nash captured the award again last season, he joined Magic on an elite list, as one of only nine players in NBA history to win consecutive MVPs.

Now it's 2007 and Nash is putting up even better numbers than he has the last two years. He may be well on his way to a third MVP in as many years, a feat only three players (Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Larry Bird) have ever achieved.

Despite being on the verge of this monumental accomplishment, many fans and critics alike are still surprised Nash managed to win the award even once. Considering the award has historically been given to dominant scorers and/or big men, he was as unlikely a candidate as ever.

Between Magic's final MVP and Nash's 2005 season, every recipient of the award posted either double-digit averages in rebounding or scored over 30 points per game (the only exceptions being Karl Malone who averaged a shade under 10 rebounds per game in his MVP seasons, and Michael Jordan who put up a mere 28.7 points per game in his final MVP season).

Nash is neither a dominant scorer nor an elite rebounder. He has never come close to averaging 30 points or 10 rebounds per game  In fact, he's never even averaged 20 and 5.

Yet Nash was rewarded for being the spark plug on a team that enjoyed a dramatic turnaround under his leadership. When he signed with Phoenix, the Suns had won only 29 games the year before. Under Nash, the Suns implemented an exciting fast-break offense, and a team with the same core players as the previous season (Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson) was transformed into a 62 win team and the No. 1 seed in the Western Conference. 

It seemed as if Nash, the catalyst of the offense, and the only major addition to the team (with all due respect to Quentin Richardson) had single-handedly turned Phoenix into an overnight success. He may not have averaged anywhere near 30 points or 10 rebounds, but he did lead the league in assists, and he clearly possessed a quality that doesn't show up in the stat sheets: the ability to make his teammates better.  Nash was voted the league's MVP, and deservedly so.

The whole situation seemed very familiar, at least to New Jersey Nets fans. Nash may have finally broken down the barrier for point guards, but three years earlier Jason Kidd of the Nets did a lot of the dirty work for him.

It's almost as if Nash used Kidd's first season with the Nets in 2002 as a template. The similarities are striking.

When Kidd arrived in New Jersey, the Nets too had been a joke. The previous year they had won only 26 games. But Kidd provided them with a spark and molded the Nets into an exciting fast-break team. Suddenly, a team with the same core players as the season before (Kenyon Martin, Keith Van Horn, Kerry Kittles) was now a 52 win team and the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference.

The difference was clearly Kidd, as he single-handedly turned New Jersey into an overnight success. He may not have averaged anywhere near 30 points or 10 rebounds, but his ability to make his teammates better was immeasurable and invaluable.

Told you it sounded familiar.

Kidd's '02 season compares very favorably with Nash's '05 effort. The argument could be made that Kidd's season was actually even better than Nash's. The numbers stack up like this:

Jason Kidd, 2002:  82 G, 14.7 PPG, 9.9 APG, 7.3 RPG, 2.1 SPG
Steve Nash, 2005:  75 G, 15.5 PPG, 11.5 APG, 3.3 RPG, 1.0 SPG

Nash may have had a slight edge in points and assists, but Kidd had far more rebounds, and led the league in steals, while Nash isn't exactly known for his defense. Kidd did fall short of the assists title in '02 (Andre Miller won it), whereas Nash led the league in that category in '05.

However, beyond those numbers, consider that Nash had the luxury of playing alongside a legitimate scorer in Stoudemire ( 26.0 PPG) and a legitimate rebounder in Marion (11.3 RPG). Nash finished fourth on his team in scoring average, and sixth in rebounding. Kidd, on the other hand, was a one-man show for the Nets. He finished with a scoring average of 14.7 points per game, but actually led the team in total points scored. Van Horn (14.8 PPG) and Martin ( 14.9 PPG) just barely posted better scoring averages.

Even more amazingly, Kidd's 7.3 rebounds per game were almost enough for the team lead. Van Horn averaged 7.5. So Kidd was just 0.2 points per game and 0.2 rebounds per game from leading his team in every major category. How could any player in the league possibly have been more valuable to his team?

Kidd did more or less the same thing for the Nets in 2002 that Nash did for the Suns in 2005. Their seasons were so similar, in fact, that they actually happened to be replacing the same player with their new teams – Stephon Marbury, perhaps considered by some to be the league's anti-MVP, had run the point for both the lowly 2001 Nets and 2004 Suns. The only difference at all between Nash's 2005 and Kidd's 2002 was that Nash's accomplishments were recognized by the league when he won the MVP award. Kidd, however, was snubbed.

Kidd finished second in the MVP voting in '02 to Tim Duncan. The remaining first place votes went to more traditional candidates in the form of scorers. Shaquille O'Neal (27.2 PPG), Kobe Bryant (25.2 PPG), and Tracy McGrady (25.6 PPG) all received first place votes.

It's difficult to compile a case against Duncan as the MVP. He had a phenomenal season, as always, finishing with averages of 25.5 points and 12.7 rebounds per game for a 58 win team. He had a traditional MVP-type season.

Still, Kidd was just as worthy, even if his numbers didn't look as impressive on paper. Just because Kidd didn't have prototypical MVP numbers doesn't mean his special season didn't warrant the MVP award. That may have been true at the time, but it wasn't until Nash's 2005 season that voters finally came to that realization.

Kidd may not have broken through and captured the award in '02, but he did make enough progress to the point that he may have eventually helped Nash win it with a similar season. In 2002, many voters appeared reluctant to award the MVP to a point guard, but Kidd forced them to at least consider the notion.

In the long run, that may have contributed to their willingness to properly acknowledge Nash in '05. After all, Nash didn't post typical MVP numbers, but it was clear that he made something special happen in Phoenix, and the voters rewarded him for doing so. 

Now Nash has two MVP awards. After following up his stellar 2005 season with a nearly identical performance in 2006, it almost would have been hypocritical for the voters not to reward him again. Now that he's putting up even better numbers this season, and the Suns look to have their strongest team yet, Nash has to be considered the favorite to win a third MVP at the end of 2007. There is no question that Nash deserves all the accolades he receives. In a league traditionally dominated by scorers and big men, he's fortunate that he's being recognized for his accomplishments. 

But one can't help but wonder, was Kidd the pioneer and Nash the ultimate beneficiary? If Kidd hadn't had such a similar season in 2002, would the voters have ever been open-minded enough to select Nash as the MVP three years later? Or, would Nash in '05 have played the role of Kidd in '02? Would he have simply put a dent into the voters' logic instead of walking away with the award himself? Would he have simply paved the way for a similar type of player to win the MVP a few years down the line? 

There's no way to definitively answer those questions, but as the old saying goes, progress doesn't happen overnight. Unless, of course, Jason Kidd or Steve Nash come to town to play point guard.