i was talking to a friend of mine and we talked about who will be MVP: we didn'"t know who it would be. We thought about a few people. we thought: Nowitzki (dallas is playeing great) Kidd (nets have made a great turnaround) Bryant (lakers are still great) garnett (minesota is winning) duncan (is having great numbers) maybe somebody from the kings but who, not stojacovic. or somebody else? I hope Nowitzki let us know
Nowitzki (dallas is playeing great) Yeah, but they've got too many other good players on that team. Someone could probably argue that Steve Nash is the most important player on the team. Kidd (nets have made a great turnaround) If they finish #1 in the East, then he'll definitely win it. But I don't think he'll deserve it. Bryant (lakers are still great) The Kobe/Shaq combo cancel each other out. garnett (minesota is winning) I think KG should win it if the Twovles finish in the top 2, unless the Spurs finish #1, then Duncan should get it. duncan (is having great numbers) Same thing as KG, but vice versa. I think he and Duncan are the two most valuable players to their team in the entire NBA. Well, maybe MJ. maybe somebody from the kings but who, not stojacovic. or somebody else? Kings are too loaded unfortunately. I wouldn't give it to anyone on their team. But if the Wizards somehow manage to finish in the top 2 in the East, it would be pretty tough not to give it to Jordan. In my opinion the MVP should be able to lead their team to at least 2nd place in their conference.
Eh, so DCkid... you'd give it to the Best Player on a Mediocre Team? That's essentially what you're doing. I don't think it's fair to penalize guys who happen to have good teammates. By your standard, Michael Jordan would never have won an MVP. That team was damned good without him.
No, the MVP wouldn't be on a mediocre team. I specifically said I would only give it to a team that is #2 or #1 in their conference. The bulls without Michael Jordan were probably not even one of the five best teams in the eastern conference. With Jordan they were the best team in the NBA. Tell me how did they do the two seasons when Jordan was gone? The thing is its the Most Valuable Player Award, not the Best Player Award. If it was the Best Player Award it would be easy. Its Shaq!! He's the most dominant player in the NBA. But I wouldn't say he has more value to his team right now than Michael Jordan or Kevin Garnett. If Michael can bring the Wizards to the top of the eastern conference, or if Kevin Garnett can bring the Twolves to the top of the western conference, I say that's more of a feat than Shaq bringing the Lakers to the top. The way I would figure it, is you take the top four teams in the NBA, two in each conference. And then out of those four teams, try and determine which player if removed from their team, do you believe would cause the team to fall the furthest back. If the season was to end right now, I would probably have to say Jason Kidd, eventhough its hard for me to give it to a guy who shoots around 37% from the field. The Nets are still good without him, but I think they drop a lot more than the Mavs without Dirk or the Kings without Peja. And I think there is something to be said for Paul Pierce. Its pretty impressive to me that the Celtics are #two in the eastern conference. But this all just my opinion. However, in reality when the voting is actually done, I think players are penalized for having good teamates. Who would you pick for MVP, and what criteria would you use?
and the nominees (in my opinion) are.... Jason Kidd Michael Jordan Kevin Garnett Tim Duncan No particular order. I have no trouble with any of those players winning.....
I don't see how you <b>can't</b> give it to Jason Kidd. The Nets were absolutely horrible last year, but after a simple point guard swap, they're suddenly championship contenders. Jason Kidd is the difference. He should definitely be MVP, no question.
Michael Jordan is the MVP, not Jason Kidd. Kidd's good, but you have to remember this is the first time in a long while the Nets have been healthy. Kittles is playing for the first time in two years. Kenyon Martin doesn't have a broken leg. KVH is fully healthy, and you can add in Richard Jefferson, Todd Maccullough, and Jason Collins to the mix. I have a hard time believing that Marbury wouldn't have the team doing well if he had that supporting cast. What Michael has done in Washington has been phenomenal. This is essentially the same cast of characters that stumbled to a 19-63 record last year. Yes, some will argue that Richard Hamilton has improved, but I think a large part of his improvement is due to Jordan's presence on the floor to attract double teams and his presence on the practice court. MJ certainly has a precedent for it. Look at Scottie Pippen, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Dennis Rodman, Luc Longley, etc. when they were alongside Jordan. All were considered either stars or very quality role players. Compare their results with Jordan compared to without, and you'll see how much he makes the players around him better. That's the story of the Wizards this season. Not only has Jordan's game brought the Wizards from doormat to winning team, but his winning mentality and ability to make the players around him better has made them one of the better teams in the East. Even when Hamilton went out for a couple of months, the Wizards managed to keep their head above water and play nearly as well. Kidd's doing a damn nice job, but the Nets have a very nice talent pool when fully healthy. The problem in recent years, though, is that they could never come close to being healthy. The Wizards still aren't a very talented team, but Jordan has turned them into a winner by his presence on the floor and his effect on the players around him. That's the MVP.
I agree with the Cat in this case, and I would like to add that unlike Jordan, Kidd can not be relied upon to do any scoring. His 37 percent shooting percentage will catch up to him in the playoffs. Jordan is the MVP. The guy is amazing.
Even if the Wizards finish fifth or sixth, you'd still give it to Jordan? Obviously, its incredible how he's turned that team around, but if at the end of the season all you can say is that Mike did a good job barely getting the Wizards in the playoffs, I don't think he would desreve it. You gotta bring your team to the top to be the MVP. However, I think its possible that the Wizards could finish at the top of the eastern conference. And if that's the case, then I'll definitely be one of the fans at MCI Center screaming "MVP" at the Wizards final game of the season against the Knicks.
MVP's find ways to beat the Atlanta Hawks on their home floor, especially if a player named Ira Newble is starting for the Hawks. I know the Lakers were missing Shaq, but MVP's don't lose to the Bulls and Hawks on consecutive home court appearances. You've got to find a way to win easy games like those, especially if you're in it down the stretch.
"maybe somebody from the kings but who, not stojacovic" Why not Stojakovic? I happen to think peja deserves the MVP as much as anyone. He has lead the Kings to the best record in the NBA without cwebb for nearly half of those games. The guy is right now in my top 5 to 10 players. 1. Shaq 2. KG 3. Tmac 4. Kobe 5. Peja 6. Duncan And of those players, peja has done more to secure his team the best record. Shaq has kobe and vice versa. Shaq has also played in 37 games as opposed to 26 for cwebb, yet the kings hold a 3 game advantage on the lakers; and make no mistake the lakers do need home court; it is important despite what some may think. Tmac and Iverson can be dismissed simply because their teams seem unable to compete with the west. Kidd could win the MVP on the fact that take him away the Nets suck bad, but come on the guy can't shoot the ball at all. How can an MVP have a below 40 field goal percentage. Duncan has great numbers but no one outside of The Cat thinks he can lead the spurs to the next level. Peja is therefore the obvious choice, and if he don't win MVP, then I'm sure that his nationality has something to do with it. The NBA has a way of honoring their own.
Duncan has great numbers but no one outside of The Cat thinks he can lead the spurs to the next level. He's already done that... he has a championship.
<B>Kidd's good, but you have to remember this is the first time in a long while the Nets have been healthy. Kittles is playing for the first time in two years. Kenyon Martin doesn't have a broken leg. KVH is fully healthy, and you can add in Richard Jefferson, Todd Maccullough, and Jason Collins to the mix. </B> Granted, NJ is healthy, but are they really that talented, compared to, for example, the current Rockets? MacCullough - Cato Martin - Thomas KVH - Griffin Kittles - Mobley Kidd - Francis Jefferson/Collins - Torres/Willis I think they have the advantage at some positions, and we have it at others, but none of those matchups are terribly one-sided. I think their playing so well is a testament to their playing team basketball, and that's a result of Byron Scott and Jason Kidd, in my opinion.
New Jersey has 4 lottery picks in their starting lineup, all with experience, with another lottery pick in Richard Jefferson coming off the bench. Macullough is underrated as a center (I'll take his 10 and 6 over Cato, who is a complete product of our guards) and is worth his once thought overpriced contract imo. Luscious Harris and Aaron Williams are both quality role players coming off the bench. The only weakness that team has is the lack of a quality back up point guard. I'd say they're a top 10 team in the league talent-wise. As far as the Kidd-Jordan MVP debate, I think Jordan has the stronger argument. He's made bad/average players good; Kidd's made good players consistent.
