MVP
Steve Nash won the MVP in a narrow margin over Shaq on Sunday, and in doing so sparked a nationwide controversy, into which Skip Bayless, the B-Slant's favorite whipping boy poked his weasely little nose. Now, the question here is not which player is more dominant? That is obvious, Shaq is the most dominant force is sports. The question is who is more valuable? That is debatable and both players would have been deserving winners. So why did Skippy's article manage to raise my ire so quickly, you mean besides the condescending way in which he writes everything? (For example Nash, "...the league's Most Valuable Player? That's more laughable than Shaquille O'Neal's many hilarious one-liners.") It bugged me because it invoked all that is wrong with sports journalism, the need to be the dissenting opinion, which Skippy is guilty of everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Read the article on Page 2, it's self evident.
His beginning statement that Shaq's maturity contributed to his MVP status as much as his numbers is ridiculous. What kind of maturity does it take to catch on the block and shoot a baby hook all the while surrounded by a solid supporting cast? It takes much more maturity and leadership to manage the controlled fury of one of the youngest and most athletic offenses in the NBA. Not to mention the fact that he always has the ball compared to Shaq who merely catches and gets fouled. Skippy then points to the fact that the Lakers without Shaq this season, fell to 11 games out of the playoffs. That is true, but Shaq was not involved with that team in any way! You cannot make a comparative argument about the value of a player in a given season based on the failure of his former team, that is, "more laughable than Shaquille O'Neal's many hilarious one-liners." You can only argue that his current team is better with him, an argument which further tips the scales in Nash's favor.
As proof, I will now use Skippy's own stats against him. With Nash the Suns were the first team EVER to follow a 50 loss season with a 60 win season. That alone is enough of a statement as to Nash's value, but Bayless continues to argue that Dallas is "a little better" without him. One problem Skippy, THEY LOST MORE GAMES. I don't know how exactly you quantify "better" but by my crazy math going 60-22 in '03 is better than 58-24 this season. That is not to take anything away from Shaq's role in improving the Heat, of course they were substantially better with him, but the Suns with Nash completed a never before seen turn around.
As he continues Bayless makes his only valid point, that Nash is a liability on defense. But Nash's defensive woes can be helped by his teammates. Shaq's free throw shooting is a liability with no weak side rotation, unless of course he bricks one so badly that it comes back to him. So at best for Shaq this is a wash, at worst his greatest weakness in comparison with Nash's greatest weakness clearly comes out as more glaring.
Skippy then veers completely off course by trying to debunk Nash's numbers, 15.5 pts to go with his NBA leading 11.5 assists, by suggesting that half of his assists came from easy fast break points or spot up 3 on 1 three pointers. What an asinine argument. Do you think this blow hole in a suit sat in a video room and watched Nash's games, counting the number of assists that came on uncontested shots? I don't. Not to mention, what does he know about throwing an alley-oop to a charging Stoudamire? It's not as easy as say, a dunk after bowling over a player whom you outweigh by 75 pounds. And if Nash didn't make those spectacular behind the back passes to his super-athlete teammates how much of the Suns offensive output would be lost? Since speculation on percentages is a sign of ignorance I won't emulate our beloved Skippy.
The last 1/3 of his piece is just full of hilarity. He says that Wade is not the best player on the Heat because Shaq taught him how to win, suggests that Shaq's interview skills make him more valuable, and that there is a "Giant Bias" in the voting. I guess Skippy just really ran out of steam towards the end here. Maybe the voters didn't vote for Shaq for a valid giant bias. Maybe being big and taking up space is important, but not as important as being the catalyst on the team with the best offense and the best record in the NBA.
As if his condescending tone throughout wasn't enough Skippy tosses this little nugget in at the end just to chap my ass a little more. "So when a delightful little overachiever overachieved to the max, some voters thought, 'Hey, why not someone new and different?'" Did he just refer to the man the collective NBA media, the "experts", the guys who are paid specifically to watch and comment on the NBA, chose as their MVP as a "delightful little overachiever"? Has their ever been a more arrogant and misguided statement, he just insulted the best basketball writers in America, and challenged their integrity in an internationally observed forum. Skip Bayless, a guy who regularly gets pistol whipped by another moron Woody Paige on "1st and 10" had the gall to call into question the validity of a vote cast by the most qualified observers of the game? What an insult to the voting process and the sports journalism field as a whole. The only thing delightful about this Skippy, is that you are not respected enough to have an MVP or Hall of Fame vote in baketball or any other sport as far as I know.
Of course he finished his article by saying that the MVP voting has given Shaq more motivation to win another championship, immediately following his statement that Shaq didn't seem to care about not receiving the award. Hey you self-contradicting hypocrite, how can it be extra motivation if it doesn't matter to him that he lost in the first place?
Here's the thing. Shaq could have won the MVP but he didn't deserve it, and it's refreshing to see the basketball media paying some homage to a truly valuable player without huge scoring stats. Nash has been the engine of the fastest moving highest scoring machine in the NBA and without him Phoenix went into the tank, so to even think that his contributions to that team were not MVP worthy is ridiculous and he is 100% deserving of this award. The fact that it was a close vote only shows the respect that both players garnered from the media and that in every campaign of 32 teams there are going to be multiple players who have spectacular seasons. It just depends on what you put the most emphasis, this year it was passing and assisting. Case closed.
Keep on writing Skippy, blasting you is going to keep me well stocked with comments to spare for years to come.
2 comments:
I don't like Skip Bayless either, but I believe the MVP award indicates who's the Most Valuable in the League, not to their respective team. To paraphrase: who would you want on your team the most or who would you pay the most money for. And to that I would say Shaq. Aside from the fact that he had a year in which the media finally began to lay off him, Shaquille O'Neal also showed how important his playing skills and leadership can be (just look at the Lakers, no stats needed, just look, it's nauseating). Not to mention the fact that he's at an age where all great centers turn into Robert Parrish.
As I personally hate Nash for being Canadian, greasy, and a pacifist, and I hate Shaq for being a guy who replaces fundamentals with bodyweight, I choose Lebron James for MVP cause he's fun to watch, but deep down I hate him too for not going to college and valuing an education. On second thought, fuck the whole NBA.
Sidenote: You should be ashamed of Paul Pierce for his makeshift toothache head bandage that he wore to the news conference following game 6(?).
Actually, the MVP is and should be awarded to the most valuable player to his team. That eliminates the possibility that a player on a 22-60 team who leads the NBA in scoring and rebounding could win, thereby potentially receiving a reward for self serving, team-second type play. The thought process being, how valuable can a player be if his value cannot make his team competitive?
If you want to give the award to the guy who puts up 30 a game and fills arenas then it isn't an Most Valuable Player award it's a Most Viable Product, which is something that the writers seemed to be avoiding with this vote, and something that has smothered the NBA's image since Jordan. Had those been the parameters Lebron would have won in a landslide.
When it comes down to it the game is about wins and losses and Nash's play had one of the most positive team impacts in NBA histoy with a 33 game turnaround and the best record in the league. Ergo MVP
(I'm real ashamed of Pierce and everything invovled in the Celtics right now, especially the fact that they made $170 off of the two tickets I bought for game 7.)
Post a Comment