Great post. Not sure I agree with the last part (I don't mind pointing out individual achievement), but the NBA is insistent on not defining the criteria, so as to get mugs like me to blather on about it for weeks on message boards and in pubs. Myself and two other friends had a good 7/8-long email discussion about LAST year's award just this afternoon.
Better scorer yes, better game no, better teammate HELL NO!, better contributor and play maker absolutely NOT!!! Overall, Kobe is NOT a better player than MJ PERIOD!!!
i think there's almost no chance that dirk doesn't win it. i really don't have a problem with that either.
just reading scoop jackson's article on if nash should win a 3rd w/o a ring, he said nash locked up the awards with phoenix's last 2 sunday abc games (dallas and LA). my perception has been that dirk has it wrapped up b/c the media herd got on that track at some point and they don't like to stray. but since i'm not actually a voter and don't interact with them, i don't know how they actually feel. i still think it's going to dirk just b/c of dallas' season, and can't see that changing. as for what i want to happen, in reverse order: 1. nash wins the mvp, suns win the title - this would suck. it wouldn't mean nash deserved the mvp, but the nash supporters would be much more annoying. 2. dirk wins the mvp - no nash 3rd mvp to worry about. 3. nash wins the mvp - suns lose in finals or wcf. nash gets a 3rd and still doesn't have a ring, looks kinda ridiculous. 4. nash wins the mvp - suns lose in 2nd round to spurs. nash pretty much has to make a public apology for winning 3 straight and has to give back all the trophies b/c of how ridiculous it would look for them to not even beat duncan's team, when no one even talks about him. while 4 would be the best, with my luck somehow 1 will happen. hopefully, dirk just wins it so i don't have to worry about 1.
It's a toss-up between Dirk and Nash. Is there such a thing as a Co-MVP award? That would be interesting.
I hate it when there is no criteria or definitions of an award. Even if they said it outright the MVP IS the BEST player period, it would have had enough subjective arguments there. But at least we would know what we were arguing about. I think the title "Most Valuable Player" just sucks. "Valuable" in what and to whom? If your team has no one who can score, Kobe would obviously be the most valuable player. But if you have a team full of great 3 pt shooters, Yao would be more valuable than Kobe. If you have a run and gun team, Nash is more valuable than Yao. If you have a deep team with different players capable of scoring in a variety of ways, Dirk would be more valuable. And of course, if you have the NBA refs on your team, Wade is the most valuable by far. Why don't they just call it Player of the Year, which would plainly mean the best player. It would still have a lot of ambiguities because you have to balance your individual skills and the impact on your team. BTW, I agree with people who say that team records should not be a criteria. But impact on your team should definitely a factor, although it would be subjective. Is it more difficult to improve a 30-win team to 50-win than to improve a 45-win team to 65-win? Let's say the Rockets would be a 30-win team without TMac, the Lakers would be a 25-win team without Kobe, and Dallas would be a 45-win team without Dirk. Who has more impact to his team?
who cares, the mvp voting system is r****ded. If it was legit, the mvp race would include t-mac and duncan in serious consideration.
2 different points here. One person was trying to say "completeness" is critical to an MVP. That is why I brought up Bird, Magic and Barkley--not known for their individual defense. I pointed out a phenom offensive player in terms of efficiency, playmaking and getting others involved is simply more rare and more valuable than completeness. This was been well recognized in previous MVP voting as the players I outlines, and I think it is correct (see above examples). The second issue is who is the most effective and consistently unstoppable offensive player in the league and the one who most gets his teammates involved and leads them on top, and that probably is Steve Nash (though I am not sure it isn't D Wade when healthy). I don't have any problem with Nash getting the award as long as he at least can keep Phx in the 2nd spot. Then again Nitwitski is just about as phenomenally efficient and the Mavs have been by far the best team in the league. The Mavs talent is good around him, but lets not kid ourselves that team is anything more than a borderline playoff team without him. In addition to being their top scorer he is by far the most efficient offensive player of the Mavs top scorers--he also is their #1 rebounder, #1 foul drawer and though not excellent, he is top 3 in many other categories (APG, BPG). The Mavs with him are the best team in the league, by far, this year. Could they be with Kobe or Nash or Lebron or Wade instead, maybe, but when in doubt go with what is known, and that we know the one great team this regular season is Nitwitski's AND he has awefully impressive numbers and efficiency (subtantially ahead of Nash and Kobe in +/1, Roland, etc) backing him up.
Probably Dirk. Very generally, I'd say the more wins a team already has, the more "value" should be given to additional wins.
It is pretty obvious to me that the meaning of value cannot have an unequivocal meaning. Moreover, to impose certain criteria in the selection process, seems to smack certain intellectual arrogance, and a hint of certitude. So as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with the lack of standard in these MVP processes. After all, Basketball wouldn't be much fun without endless hours "heated" arguments over a pint of beer. However, I would cringe at a sight of Steve Nash winning his third trophy in a row. By now, it is blatanly cleer that the MVP selection is not so much about "proving" who is the best player in the world, but rather disproving Steve Nash credibility to such extent as to show he doesnt deserve the award. How can you argue that Steve Nash deserves the award because this year's stats are better than his two previous MVP winning years? So should Steve Nash win the MVP simply by the virtue of stupidity of awarding him one in the first place? If MVP is going to be awarded on the basis of other criterion involved than being the best, I am fine with that. But in that case don't use the award as a measure of player's individual greatness. Alas, I have yet to seen a Nash supporter who fails to mention those two "MVP" awards as a mark of greatness. Sorry you can't have both ways. My preference would surely be 4 out of francis 4 prez options. But that means our dear Rockets won't be competiting in the Finals, and I have to bear the possibility of annoying Nash supporters singing about his greatness all summer, I will glady take option 5, which is that Suns get knocked out in the first round, and Rockets win it all.
option 4 is just the spurs beating the suns. we will whoop the jazz and then mavs in the 2nd round and then face the spurs in the wcf, win, and then win the title. it's all very simple and perfect.
