|
What is the Most Valuable Player award for? ESPN keeps having these debates every week about who the MVP of the NBA is. Greg Anthony and Tim Legler get to do their little top five lists and talk about who has been the best player in the leauge so far. Those two seem to get it. They seem to have identified five main candidates (Paul, James, Bryant, Howard, Wade), but what is the criteria for the award? I have always been confused by this. MVP stands for most valuable player, so does that mean most valuable to his team or best player in the league? Who gives a crap about who is most valuable to his team? That just leads to a bunch of "if" arguments. "If" LeBron weren't on the Cavs they wouldn't be undefeated at home. "If" Dwight Howard got injured Orlando would fade. As the great Jim Rome would say, "if" my aunt had a package she'd be my uncle. This stupid argument should not apply to the MVP award.
The fact that Steve Nash has two MVP awards shows what a crock the MVP voting is. Seriously? Steve Nash was the league MVP? How on earth has Steve Nash won two MVPs, but John Stockton and Isiah Thomas have zero? The answer is that they used to do it right - the MVP should go to the best player in the league. They should change it to the Most Outstanding Player or something to avoid the stupid discussion I hear every year. Tim Legler and Jamal Mashburn were arguing about this the other night. One of them was saying that the recent Hornets-Blazers game proves that Chris Paul is the league MVP because he is so valuable to his team. In that game, the Hornets were up 72-55 with 1:30 left in the third period. Paul went down with an injury and did not return. With Paul out of the game, the Blazers outscored the Hornets 42-17 and won the game. The Hornets are clearly a different team without Chris Paul, there is no denying that. Paul is amazing. Therefore, he should be the league MVP according to Monster Mash.
The criteria of being valuable to your team is stupid. How do you think the Cavs would have fared last night without LeBron's 52, 11, and 11? How would the Lakers have done without Kobe going for 61 in MSG earlier this week? Who cares? They don't have to fare without LeBron or Kobe and they are both killing people this year. Here comes my bias as a semi-Lakers fan, but take 2000-2001 for instance. Allen Iverson won the league MVP because he was so valuable to the Sixers. Not that Iverson wasn't awesome that year, but the Diesel deserved that award. Shaq finished in the top 4 in points, boards, blocks, FG%, and double-doubles. Iverson lead the league in scoring and steals, and finished 5th in turnovers. Oh, and he didn't finish in the top 50 in FG%. Shaq even finished only ten spots lower than AI in assists (32 to 42). You can't look me in the eye and tell me that Iverson was the best player in the NBA that year. Nor can you do it with Nash for either of his MVP seasons. But they were apparently the most valuable... Please just give the hardware to the best player in the league. Goodbye.
|