2007-2008 NBA MVP

[IrishHand]

The MVP award is a function of team performance - and it should be. How valuable a player can you be if your team is 30-52? To me, it's an untenable argument to say "this player is the best player in the NBA for this season despite his team's poor W/L record." "Most Valuable" for a given season needs to bear some positive relationship to regular-season wins (since the MVP award is voted on before the playoffs). In the NBA, a lot of players put up gaudy numbers to the detriment of their team (Iverson much of his career, Kobe in the soon-post-Shaq era).

If you put Duncan on the Cavs instead of LeBron, they win more games. There isn't a doubt in my mind. You put Duncan on any team in the NBA in place of their "best" player and I would argue the same point - at least for this season.

It's closer with Nash but I suspect the same would be true - CLE would be a better regular-season team. He's a more efficient scorer and he dictates how a game is player to a much greater extent than LeBron...and he does a far better job improving his teammates.

Hughes is a really poor fit in Cleveland, but that's mostly because they have an awful coach. He's got a lot of talent when healthy - Hughes' "poor" Cleveland years (15/4/4) are Luke Walton's ceiling.