nba mvp?

[antidan444]

The "valuable" debate is the reason, as a sportswriter, I wish these awards were most _outstanding_ player awards instead. Maybe then it becomes a little less subjective with regards to what "valuable" means. (Although I'm sure we'd all debate what "outstanding" means, too, so it's possible the change in terminology would not matter.)

I think it's inherently unfair to disqualify a great player from winning his league's top award when it's not his fault the players around him stink. I felt real strongly about this when A-Rod was in Texas putting up the greatest years by a shortstop ever while toiling for a gawdawful team, and in regards to the NBA, I've felt the same for both Kobe and Iverson in recent years. Yet that's what happens because of the term "valuable."

Edit: Before someone makes the inevitable reply, yes, I suppose A-Rod and his $252M contract had something to do with the other Rangers around him stinking. I blame Rangers management, not A-Rod.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The "valuable" debate is the reason, as a sportswriter, I wish these awards were most _outstanding_ player awards instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

Part of the problem is that the MOP is also the MVP much more often than people seem to realize.

[Jack of Arcades]

Elton Brand.

(or Chauncey)

[TomHimself]

AI

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Pierce of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha are you saying that because you know im a boston homer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. In seriousness, I think Dirk is the favorite to win right now. As for who should win, strangely enough I didn't think Nash should have won last year when he did win, but I do think he deserves it this year when he probably won't.

[roundmound]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I definitely do not see Duncan winning it. He's having a down year. He probably won't even be in the top 3 in voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a down year? The glue and dominant player on the best team in the deepest conference? We are splitting hairs over his scoring being down by 1.5ppg? Down year for Duncan still can = MVP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single stat is down off of his career numbers. He is by far having the worst season of his pro career at a time when his team is battling for home court. I think MVP's should have their great seasons when it matters, not when they have the division wrapped up by 6 games.

[tuq]

MVP seems to be more of a career accomplishment for great players, I am surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, unless it's implicit. Barkley, Magic, and likely many others have won recently when they really weren't the best that year.

That being said, if you were voting for Nash last year, how could you not vote for him this year? I really don't think he'll win it again per the above, but the results often seems to invalidate the point of the award...

I get a crack (no pun intended) out of how the "comeback player of the year" award, clearly my favorite, was abandoned like twenty years ago, possibly for the "most improved player", because it kept going to guys who had gotten tired/busted snorting blow off of the asses of hookers.

[MightyMouse2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Pierce of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha are you saying that because you know im a boston homer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. In seriousness, I think Dirk is the favorite to win right now. As for who should win, strangely enough I didn't think Nash should have won last year when he did win, but I do think he deserves it this year when he probably won't.

[/ QUOTE ]


yea its a shame the celtics dont get more national attention. the one game on national tv paul dropped 39 including the game winner against the lakers in LA. He's playing amazing ball, with numbers similar to dwyane wade, and this is while playing with the likes or brian scalabrine, raef lafrentz, and orien greene. i dont think hes mvp, however, i think hes a top 6-7 player in the league, rather than 14-16 where most would have him.

[LBJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I personally think if you're looking at a team with two players that could be mentioned in the Top 5 for NBA MVP, then neither of them should be considered. Does anyone else agree/see where I'm coming from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. See other sports: Warner/Faulk, Bonds/Kent, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was centering only on the NBA. In basketball, it's a lot easier for a team's star player just to dominate, solely by taking the ball every possession. With only 5 players at a time it's also less likely to find a lot of superstars on the same team.

So keeping with just the NBA I really believe the above.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
it's also less likely to find a lot of superstars on the same team.


[/ QUOTE ]

But not impossible. And when it happens, that shouldn't disqualify them from consideration. I think that Marion/Nash this year is a good example.