Steve Nash is the worst choice for a NBA MVP ever and would not have won the award without the aid of ESPN (which will be referred to as the Certain Four Letter Network or CFLN, because they don’t need any more publicity). So, do I have your attention? Good. Before we go into why Nash is maybe the most over-rated player in the NBA, let’s talk about what the MVP award has become. When I was growing up, the MVP was reserved for the player having the best season in their given sport. Now, it is whichever player the CFLN deems is most deserving of the MVP. Have you noticed how they often ask two very different questions when deciding who will win the MVP award? Basically they pick which player they like and say something like this…
The MVP award should go to:
1. The best player in the league.
This line of reasoning is usually supported more by stats than opinion and usually goes to the best player on one of the best teams in the league. Biggest problem: if this reason was used consistently, then Kobe should have won several more MVPs. His name is always the first one mentioned when asked who the best player in the league is. The Chosen One is being mentioned more and more, but I will get to that later.
2. The “most valuable player” to his team. (This is how Nash won both of his awards)
Now when you hear someone say this, it means they are going to tell you their opinion. They will often support this opinion by saying something like: “If you took player A off their team, then their team would be one of the worst teams in the league.” Biggest problem: Player A…IS on that team! And if they were not, most likely another great player would be there instead. Most of the time, a great player is acquired through a very high draft pick or free agency. So let’s say the Cavs had picked Carmelo Anthony instead of the Chosen One. Would they really be one of the worst teams in the league? Not likely.
Now I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t actually think the CFLN has meetings to determine who will win the award, but I do think they influence the award to a great degree. And I don’t like how they pick which question to ask depending on who they want to support. I don’t mind if they use these as secondary questions to help them ask the main question of: “Who is having the best season?” Since this question does not always match Steven A. Smith’s agenda…I’m going to take you in reverse order, starting with last year and going back to Nash’s first MVP season, to answer three things: what question was asked in order to give out the award; who would have won if the other question was asked instead; and finally who should have won the award.
2008 Kobe Bryant
The question that prevailed this year was number 1. Kobe was indeed the best player in the league, but what if the 2nd line of reasoning were used? Your MVP would have been…Chris Paul! The other members of his starting five: Tyson Chandler, Mo Pete, Peja, and David West (who should not have been an all star this year). Let’s go ahead and set the over under on wins last year without CP3 at 31. Anyone taking the over? Who should have won? Kevin Garnett. KG was phenomenal all last year. He transformed the Celtics from an awful team to the unquestioned best team in the league. You had to actually watch the games (which I’m convinced no one on CFLN does) to quantify his presence on defensive end (anyone else notice how much they struggled this last month without him on defense). In short Kobe was great, but KG was better.
2007 Dirk Nowitzki
Dirk is the most deserving MVP of these four I will go over. He had a great year (in the regular season), his team was great because of him (in the regular season), and he was rewarded for it by getting beat down by Golden State (in the playoffs). If question 1 were asked Kobe would have won his first MVP this year. There is no valid argument that he was not the best player in the league. If question 2 were asked; how about Tracy McGrady? Yao missed 34 games that year, and T Mac led the Rockets to the playoffs and home court advantage in the first round. Keep in mind that the MVP is a regular season award; otherwise, T Mac would be disqualified from it every year. They got it right this time. Dirk definitely had the best season.
2006 Steve Nash
Kobe is the answer for number 1 (again) as he was the best player in the league, toiling on a sub par Lakers team. He is also the answer for number 2 in 2006, because that Lakers team was awful outside of him, and still made the playoffs (Smush Parker, Luke Walton, Devean George and Kwame Brown were all regular starters), although people argued otherwise because they thought that no other point guard could possibly be plugged into D’Antoni’s system and do as well as Nash. (Chris Duhon is averaging almost twice as many assists as he did last year, hmm…) I believe 2006 was the year Kobe should have won the MVP; as it was his best season, all things considered.
2005 Steve Nash
Kobe and Shaq were both the answer to number 1 (if they had stayed together they would have no less than 7 rings right now). And if number 2 were used properly, then Shaq would be the answer. Here is the basic timeline of events: Miami stinks, Shaq shows up, Miami is a top team in the league. Simply, Shaq should have won the MVP this year.
But wait! I’ve not told you why Nash should NOT have won either one of his MVPs…come back Friday for that and more! (Including my prediction for who the CFLN is positioning to win it this year)
Oh, and if you disagree with any of this, leave a comment and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.
Just kidding...but seriously, you're wrong
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Listen sports guy, clearly you have left out a huge part of the discussion concerning why Steve Nash should have won those MVPs. Beneath all the stats and mumbo-jumbo, there is a deep seeded underlying issue at hand. This issue that changes the whole discussion is: Steve Nash is Canadian. The importance of this is obvious, but because your puny brain is not on the same intellectual level as mine, ill explain it to you. Canada has very little going for it; sure it is a huge land mass, but much of it is so cold and rural that it is nearly uninhabitable. And yes they produce more solid hockey players than any other country, but really: who watches hockey? Thats right, Canadians; and only Canadians. So once a millenia a Canadian athlete like Steve Nash comes along and is really good at a sport other than hockey. When that happens, we need to throw a bone to Canada. Sure Steve Nash may not have been the best player in the league in 05 or 06, but he is Canadian. Allow me to blow your mind by putting it this way, while Kobe was prancing around in France getting to play in his warm gyms and developing his game, Steve Nash was forced to brave the fierce climate of Canada wearing nothing but a parka and having to burn seal blubber in order to stay warm enough to survive. I wonder how Kobe and would have played in 05 and 06 if he was having to give Kwame Brown a picky-back ride whenever he was in the game. Common knowledge suggests that being Canadian is at least an equal if not a greater handicap than having a 275lb man riding of your back while trying to play basketball. It is a scientific fact that if Steve Nash didn't have those disadvantages going against him (all of these disadvantages being symptoms of being Canadian), he would have averaged 50 points, 25 assists, 13 steals, and 8 rebounds a game in 05 and 06. Now that you have been enlightened, surely you will concede that Steve Nash deserved the MVP award in 05 and 06 and every other year he has played in the NBA.
ReplyDeleteLol, Wow! I must retract everything i said! One thing though, Kobe grew up in Italy not France.
ReplyDeleteBut besides that your comment definitely opened my eyes to the truth!
Your blog sucks, all you do is repeat what other commentators have already said. Why do I want read some dumb jock crap that's been repeated ?
ReplyDelete