The sign of a bad sports talk host is to show an inability to formulate a strong opinion. 99 percent of the time, that inability is bred out of sheer laziness. But once in a while, there's an issue which doesn't come equipped with a rubber-stamped answer. Such as the rightful winner of the 2008 NBA Most Valuable Player.
I'm largely on the side of changing the Most Valuable Player to the Most Outstanding Player. Because, normally, there is no scientific way to calculate who had the greatest impact on their team. How can you definitively say that a superstar on a 55-win team INDIVIDUALLY delivered more victories through their presence than someone on a 40-win team. But of course, the old curmudgeons that cast their ballots usually don't concur with that analysis.
I'm largely on the side of changing the Most Valuable Player to the Most Outstanding Player. Because, normally, there is no scientific way to calculate who had the greatest impact on their team. How can you definitively say that a superstar on a 55-win team INDIVIDUALLY delivered more victories through their presence than someone on a 40-win team. But of course, the old curmudgeons that cast their ballots usually don't concur with that analysis.
Based on that idea, LeBron James was the most outstanding player because he led the NBA in scoring, and has every single shred of that offense run through him. Plus, King James took an otherwise horrible Cleveland team to the NBA Finals, and with Danny Ferry poisoning the team by being Danny Ferry, it's amazing some are picking Cleveland to beat Chicago.
Then there is Chris Paul, who carries all of the qualities that most define an MVP by. Incredible statistical season(21 pts, 11.6 ast, nearly 5/1 assist to turnover ratio, led NBA in PER), and lifted an OK supporting cast to the West's No. 2 seed, while carrying the New Orleans story with him. Of course, some of his credentials are a product of his point guard position, but make no mistake, 2007-2008 may be defined by CP3.
Kevin Garnett's numbers weren't as shoddy(19 pts, 9 rbs) and he missed 11 games, but Bill Simmons article documents how Garnett is one of the rare players that ACTUALLY bring intangibles, and transcends statistics. He was the reason the Celtics went from having Don Nelson architect the defensive gameplan, to having five Bruce Bowen's on the court at all times. And this is when the other two stars(Pierce and Ray Allen) are at best, mediocre defensive players. KG changes the mindset of practice, and even small things like blocking shots after the whistle alter the culture in Beantown.
And of course, there is the man who's about to win his first MVP, Kobe Bryant. Was this his most dominant season? No, the Jordan like 05-06 campaign was his most dominant. But this was Bryant's most complete season, and led L.A. to a No. 1 seed out West with the similar cast of characters, save 35 games from a more dominant Andrew Bynum, and 27 from Pau Gasol. And while the idea of a "Lifetime Achievement Award" leaves a sour taste, it's washed out from the scenario that the best player in the game needs at least one MVP mantle.
Gun to my head, I'm giving the award to Garnett since this is one of the rare distinguishable years to separate Most Valuable from Most Outstanding. But how can you come up with a tangible argument any of the four?
No comments:
Post a Comment