Your post is proof to the fact that you didn't even read the whole article before commenting. Actually you didn't read any of it since Hollinger barely even mentioned PER.
I usually like Hollinger's articles, but I think there are a lot of problems with this one. For one thing, just because a player wins an MVP one year then has an even better season later doesn't mean he should again be MVP. He's not competing against past MVPs for the award, he's competing against the field for that season. Second, his take on Nash is just ridiculous. In Dallas, Nash had a great season as the second-best player on his team and they tied for first in the conference. Two years later, he was far-and-away the best player on his team in Phoenix. He was the undisputed leader. And you can talk about "the story" all you want, but he turned a 29-win team into a 60+ win team with no other significant change in roster or coaching staff. Maybe it was just because everybody's play was elevated because they were having so much fun playing with Nash instead of Marbury. Regardless, he was definitely worth the MVP that year. About Iverson: who cares if he statistically outperformed his MVP season in 2004-05 and 2005-06. His team freaking sucked both seasons! You can't be all that "valuable" if the team wouldn't be much worse without you. I don't think he should have been the MVP in 2001, but at least you could make a better case because his team was good. Having said that, I think he's right about Howard deserving the MVP this year.
Love the concept of replacing each player with the next best at their position. That should be a requirement when considering MVP.
Hollinger watches thousands and thousands of hours of basketball games to scout players. I bet he watches more basketball than anyone on the ESPN staff. He writes up a scouting report for EVERY SINGLE PLAYER every year, not just including statistics but shooting form, defense, etc.
Story is always a part of it, and the MVP is basically a popularity contest. I've pretty much accepted that there's a good chance the real MVP won't win it.
hollinger is basically the same things i've said for a long time. the bulls are a deeper than anyone thinks (they have the best bench) and arguably the best defensive and rebounding team in the L.
the media often ignores the real MVPs when there is a really good story (rose this year) or they have the voter fatigue itch (don't want to give it to lebron every year like with MJ or shaq). it's good that more statistical analyses are coming out recently to breakdown rose's legitimacy as an MVP. but this is also a great chance for people to see how deep chicago is and the real reasons they are winning: defense and rebounding.
Hollinger is full of crap. Even in the Sports analytic conference, you could see all the owners and GMs who had panels with him basically saying how statistics like his are helpful, but they just don't consider enough factors and determine enough. You don't take into question what system he plays with, the other personell on the team, the way the coach likes to use a certain player so on. And beyond that , you just can't quantify some certain skill sets and capabilities. Hollinger has made stats that kobe and carmelo are inefficient and it would be better if they shot less,can he really quantify with those players in attack mode means to keeping defense on the heels and their teammates being able to attack more without beign focused on since d is on guard of kobe and melo always being able to create a shot, even if they miss or have a bad game theres just too much to overlook that you can't quantify in what makes a player valuable. He goes onto say it was absurd that kidd almost got mvp while shooting such a low percentage that year. Kidd was clearly a candidate and I think he got robbed, he was the leader and the engine of that team that went to the finals twice where he was pputting up triple doubles and just running the show and impacting every facet of the game regardless of if he wasn't an efficeint scorer, that was not what made him great. Only thing I agree is that it is a popularity contest with a bunch of biases. He is a prime example, when Kobe averaged 35 ppg dominated the league single handedly getting a team with kwame, mush, luke walton in the ;layoffs in the tough west, Hollinger said great stats but only a mediocre team, so he put him at 4th. the next year kobe was no 1 in wins, and lebron was not on a top 10 team, but hollinger said his stats are just too good to over look and put him at no 1. Now he likes to compare in that above article about how players did in other years to say they did or did not deserve it. Well, lebron has gone down on points, assists, steals, blocks, fg, and turnovers(went up), and he has 2 superstar teammates, but his wins have gone down from next year, yet he feels lebron is no 1 and deserving of one even as he has said in many articles this year. I do agree that Dwight is the most irreplaceable, but so is rose. Even if Bulls bread and butter is defense, you can't overlook that you need to score the ball to win and match stopping the ball and he is the anchor of the offense. He creates even when he doesn't score or eget an assists bc of how dangerous he is and how he can create a space when not many other players could find it.
Rose is leading the bulls to the #1 seed in the east while Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer have missed a ton of games. And if I'm correct their starting SG is keith bogans?
As Hollinger pointed out, D. Howard has played the entire season without Noah and Boozer. Put Howard on the Bulls and Rose in the Magic and I'm sure you won't see much of a dropoff in Chicago, while Orlando will become a lottery team. Honestly there's a reason why the past dozen or so championships featured elite big men: they're more valuable than perimeter players. You can replace Rose with other elite pgs like Westbrook, CP3 and D-Will. Even our own Kyle Lowry can do a pretty good job in Rose's shoes. There's nobody in the league that can fill Howard's shoes in Orlando.
Dwight Howard is leading a team that will win 50+ games this season. They are one of the top five defensive teams in the league, even though they play a bunch of soft perimeter guys who've never even heard of defense. On top of that, Howard is one of the top two rebounders in the league, scores almost as much as Rose, and gets the other team in foul trouble early in every quarter, making life much easier for his teammates on the offensive end as well.
Yeah, but most people have become "disillusioned" already about Howard. He has tried to lead his team to the Eastern finals and failed (miserably). Derrick Rose is the new great hope of a game-changer. For media, he's the next great story.
Hollinger has stated repeatedly he wasn't trying to belittle Rose, he was trying to say DH is the both the better player and more valuable to his respective team. A lot of the stuff you say about Rose applies even more to DH, and unlike Rose DH is also the defensive pillar of Orlando.
I love watching rose play, its amazing what he does on the court but at the article mentioned you can replace him with any other elite scoring pg and there would be a minimal if any drop off. Lets take lebron as an example, since he has won the last two years. If you take him out of the equation and add the next best player in the league that team would drop off significantly. Plus he was a statistical monster when he played for the cavs. IMO Howard deserved it he does the most for his team on both ends of the floor and he is irreplaceable. He has also gotten better offensively this year and the magic will be a 50 win team. The last big man to win it was KG in 2003-2004, and just like Howards case you could not replace him that year. Even if he was replaced by Duncan that year i do not think they would have been as successful.
