Re: MVP Voting
The entire process feels completely arbitrary. The media seemingly annoints the MVP according to its whims.
Take the last 2 MVP's. Two years ago, Marc Stein was saying crap like "only X players in NBA history have ever gone 50/40/90" to support his Nash-for-MVP argument. The year after that, Dirk was chosen for the same reason (in addition to the flawed "best player on the best team" argument). It's a cute argument, but Jose Calderon is on pace for 50/40/90 this year, and no one is saying he should be MVP. The reason why? Because he's Jose freakin' Calderon! Basically, it looks like the writers in the media chose who they were voting for midseason, decided to stick with their votes no matter what, and tailored silly arguments in order to support their pre-determined voting decisions.
Really, the problem with the process is the word "valuable." Most of the confusion surrounding the MVP voting is a result of people not knowing how the hell to quantify what is/isn't "valuable" in their calculations. It's because of this confusion that people have to make stupid hypothetical-based considerations: "well, the Lakers would still be a 50-win team if Kobe were gone, but the Cavs wouldn't even be a 20-win team!" Really, who the hell knows how a team will do without its star? Gil Arenas was a top 5 MVP candidate last year, and his team's arguably doing better without him. I disagree with RedBlack in this sense: you can only go on what you see. The "take him off the team" argument shouldn't be a consideration.
I'm 90% sure Kobe will win it this year, based on the overwhelming support he's getting on ESPN. If he does, it will be an absolute joke. He's the same amazing player-- his team's just gotten better (and before anyone tries to argue that his hissy fit was what "inspired" Bynum et al. to become better...please don't. Credibility is easy to lose, but hard to earn). Can anyone really argue that his play this year has been any better than the previous two years', when he wasn't even in the top 5 in many voters' ballots? Same thing with Garnett: has he suddenly become a better player than the 20/14/4/2 (or better) beast of the past 5 seasons? He's arguably a worse player right now than the All-NBA 3rd teamer (!) he was last season.
IMO, the award should be changed to the MOP (most oustanding player). This award is an INDIVIDUAL accomplishment, given to a single player--team success should not have such a heavy bearing on who gets the award. I think there should be exceptions for those players who ONLY put up great stats because they're on horrible teams (e.g., the Shareef Abdur Raheems of the world), but that should be about as far as the consideration goes--no one in his right mind would ever believe Lebron wouldn't be putting up great stats if he were on the Spurs or Lakers, right?
Simply put, the system needs to be changed, and it should start with the name of the award itself. It's been more than 50 years since the award was first given, and people still can't seem to agree on the criteria, mostly due to the "valuable" element of the award.
Wow, I suck at writing. This was supposed to be a one-paragraph post.
Last edited by Frank Foley : 03-09-2008 at 03:55 PM.