Okafor. 1st) he has the most impressive stat line when you weigh them all. 2nd) I do think the Bobcats have overachieved. When the season started they had Okafor and a bunch of throw aways from the rest of the league. The way the league resticted them and given their long term strategy, it looked like the team had a serious capability to threaten the Mavs run. Yet they are better than Atlanta and right with New Orleans. 3rd) Oakfor is clearly his team's best player. Howard most defintely isn't and benefits tremendously in things like shooting percentage because Francis and Hill are on his team. Gordan isn't clearly the most important of Chicago's two first year guards and only plays 24 MPG. Does anyone think the Bobcats would have won more games had they had Gordon or Howard instead of Okafor, not a chance. And I am pretty sure Orlando would have been better right now with Okafor. For Chicago, it is hard to say given their team composition but they would have done things differently (perhaps kept Crawford) had they gotten Okafor. Honstely I don't think it is that close. Not nearly as close as the last 2 years.
If Steve Nash is going to be awarded the MVP, then Gordan should win for the same reason Nash is. Nash, like Gordan, is surrounded by more talent than any of the other MVP candidates. Both players are competing against players that are better individual talents (Shaq, Okafor). But both players are also the glue to their teams. Without Gordan, Chicago would be down the crapper. He's doing something that players like Brand, Ron Artest, Brad Miller, etc. were incapable of doing. He's made Chicago a winner.
I would, but considering the end of tight games ALWAYS comes down to free-throw shooting, which in turn takes rebounding out of the picture for the most part anyway, then no. Guard or big man, there is a reason the call it a free throw. It's free. And being able to make it keeps you inthe game int he 4th quarter. ROY, MVP, 6th man of the year, etc. At the end of the day, EVERYTHING in the NBA is about winning. Short of a not having an impact rookie on a winning team, then you go with someone like Okafor. But Gordon is that impact rookie on a winning team. As I and others have mentioned, without Gordon, the Bulls haven't won nearly as many games. I certainly agree that Okafor is the more talented player. He does have compelling stats. But none as compelling as Gordon's 4th quarter statistics, and none that really impact the Bobcats from a win-loss percentage. His mpg is low, but on par with what Duhon is getting and only 6 mpg less than what Yao is getting.
This part of your logic is spot on. Nash will NOT get league MVP and Gordon will NOT get rookie of the year. There are more accomplished and dominant players to choose from. I disagree here. The MVP is always on an elite, winning team, but not so much the other awards. It is "rookie of the year", not "most valuable rookie on a winning team" award. Awards like rookie of the year, defensive player of the year, 6th man of the year, they go to the individuals most impressive in those categories. Most often they are on winning teams, but the degree the team wins is a much smaller contributing factor than the individual's overall performance. It is why Lebron won over Anthony and Wade despite Lebron being the onlt one on a losing, non-playoff bound, team. (In fact there was much less individual performance distinction between Lebron and these guys than Okafor from his comp) He is the better individual player, with substantially better stats than the competition. For this award he should not be punished because his teammates are league castaways. Despite this (being surrounded by primarily undrafted fylers and journeymen) he made his team a number of games better than another NBA team and almost better than another (New Orleans).
If this was NBA Live.. Okafor would get it... but in reality i think Gordon is the true ROY. Emeka is a better overall player than Gordon, but Gordon is an X-factor of his winning team.
