NBA MVP

So I know I spent much of a post last week complaining about how Corey Maggette's injury had cost me a chance at finishing in the money in my NBA fantasy league, but thanks to Shaq taking most of the last month off and a few other developments, I moved past Rob in rebounds last night (by 10 rebounds for the whole season) and finished in a 3-way tie for 2nd place.  woo hoo!   Not bad for a first year owner who doesn't really follow the NBA, didn't prepare for the draft, and didn't get to protect anybody from the previous year's team (unlike every other team in my league, who kept 2 players each).  With a share of the 2nd place money and from winning the Free Throw and Steals category (thank you Iverson), I stand to make a nice chunk of cash from the season.  Of course, I'm still waiting to get paid from winning the Masters pool (Dan?), so I'm not sure when I'll get it.  And with all due respect to the great seasons by Paul Pierce, Vince Carter (after leaving Toronto), Elton Brand, and Chris Bosh, my team MVP was clearly Allen Iverson, who led "Orange Nation" in steals, assists, free throws, and of course, points - which is fully half of our categories.   And he led the Sixers (my favorite NBA team) back into the playoffs (where they will get swept by Detroit - but that's ok). 

So what about the debate over the league MVP, which was a topic du jour on all the sports talk shows I listened to while spending 7 hours in the car on Tuesday driving back and forth from Hartford, CT, accompanied by the most annoying human being on the planet.  The rock that chipped the windshield of my still-new car was the highlight of the day.  Let's just move on. 

So who should be the 2005 league MVP?  The serious contenders are Shaq, AI, Lebron, and Nowitski, but I think it comes down to Shaq and AI, and the determining factor will be exactly what is meant by "MVP".  And that's the problem with MVP voting.  What it means to each individual voter varies by each individual voter - some place a lot of weight on team record, some go more by statistics, some emphasize how a player "helps" his teammates, etc.  This debate is usually much more pronounced in baseball, as NBA MVPs are often more obvious (i.e.  just give it to Jordan), and I have had long heated debates about how baseball MVPs should be decided, that I won't get into now.  But basically I can't stand how the media (who are the ones who vote for MVP - at least in baseball) will change their definitions of the MVP from year to year just to pick the person who makes the best "story".  Miggy Tejada has a few "clutch" home runs on national television in September?  Well sure he's the MVP over players at the same position who had significantly better statistical seasons than him (A-Rod and Nomar in 2002).  Shannon Stewart's trade to Minnesota happened to coincide with their pitchers getting hot in 2003?  Well, let's pick him even though he's not one of the top 40 hitters in the league, is a bad fielder, and his statistics didn't change one bit from when he was on Toronto -  a 4th place team (he finished 4th in MVP voting in 2003 and received 3 first place votes. unbelievable).  Anyway as you can see, the inanity and lack of coherence in MVP voting by media members really aggravates me.  So I'm bringing that baggage into my NBA MVP discussion.

What is an MVP?  Everyone tries to force the word "valuable" to equal what he or she or the media thinks is the player who should win the award that season (again - the best "story").  But who is more valuable than the best player?  No one.  It's that simple.  Michael Jordan should have won the MVP every year he was in the league.  Alex Rodriguez should have at least 4 MVP trophies.  Barry Bonds should have more than his 7.   How in the world is the best player not the MVP?  Because his teammates weren't good enough - or because his teammates were too good - or because he wasn't in a pennant race - or because he didn't have enough undefinable leadership qualities - it's all a bunch of crap.  It's the best fucking player.  He's the most valuable.  End of story.

At least in baseball.  In basketball, I can kind of see an argument where the team's record is a factor, but only because basketball is a much more team oriented sport.  In baseball, how many home runs you hit has no effect on whether or not your third baseman boots a ball in the 9th inning and costs your team a win.  In basketball, it's different.  Kobe scored a ton of points but his poor shooting, turnovers, and ball-hogging didn't help the team make the playoffs.  So that can be a factor.  So even if Iverson was the best player, is he the MVP? 

I love Iverson - he's my favorite NBA player (with the possible exception of Carmelo Anthony - go Cuse!) and he led the league in scoring at 30.7 PPG, free throws made, and was 2nd in steals and 5th in assists.  He certainly helped his team more than Kobe, and the Sixers had a better record to show for it, but he also led the league in turnovers and shot worse than Kobe (42.4%).  In the meantime, Shaq absolutely dominated offensively and defensively, shooting 60.1% for season on his way to 22.9 PPG, 10.4 Reb, and 2.3 Blocks.  Miami was the best team in the East, if that is a factor - and I think in the NBA it should be (again, team sport here).  On the downside, he missed 9 games due to "injury" (Iverson missed 7, but played injured more often than not - something Shaq rarely does in the regular season), and he also had a bunch of turnovers (2.8 per game, high for a center).  LeBron has a very good case as well, with 27.2 PPG, 7.4 Reb, and 7.2 assists, while shooting over 47% from the field.  My winner?  Shaq in a squeaker - the way he dominates games on both ends of the court cannot be overstated.  I hope Iverson wins, but I think Shaq deserves it more.

As for other choices, I've heard Chris Russo and others spend much of the season touting Steve Nash as the league MVP, due mainly (or solely) to the fact that they went from 20-something wins without him to the best record in the league.  In a complete and utter "Shannon Stewart" redux, Russo is choosing Nash because Phoenix is the best story of the year and the his free agent arrival coincided strongly with the team's rise.  This is perhaps the dumbest argument I've ever heard.  Steve Nash led the league in assists (by a good margin) at 11.5 per game.  He also shot 50% while scoring 15.5 PPG.  A very good season, no doubt.  MVP?  No chance.  First of all, he doesn't play defense.  At all. He's one of the worst defenders in the league.  Second of all, Iverson only averaged 3.5 less assists while scoring 15 more points than him.  Again, it's not even close.  But third of all - and most of all - if you say that the team record is so very important that it has to go to a Phoenix Sun - well, then your MVP is Amare Stoudemire.  Amare is - by far - the best player on Phoenix.  How in the world can Steve Nash win MVP of the league, when he's not the best player on his OWN TEAM, Russo?  That's just idiotic.  I'd venture to say that All-Star Shawn Marion (19.4 PPG, 11.3 Rebounds, 2 Steals, 1.5 blocks) had a better season and is a better player than Nash.  Again, same team.  Nash isn't even the 2nd best player on the Suns.  "Yeah, but they were horrible with Amare and Marion last year and with Nash they were great."   Well I don't follow basketball that much and even I know Phoenix tanked last season to try to clear cap space and makeover the team around Stoudemire.  And it worked.  A new system was installed, a point guard and 3 point shooter (Quentin Richardson) were brought in, and Amare improved in his 3rd season to become one of the best players in the league.  Did Nash help him?  Sure, but Amare's the one that became one of the best players in the league - not Nash!  The lesson?  As always, Russo is an idiot.  And if Steve Nash is anywhere near the top of the MVP standings, everyone who voted is an idiot as well.

Comments

[rider]

Dude, why were you in Hartford with Rudnick?

[Bill]

A good assumption Rider, but alas, Rudnick is only the 2nd most annoying person on the planet.