Espn.com is reporting Dirk will be named NBA MVP

[strike-3]

Not a bad consolation prize for losing to an #8 seed.

[UKMustangFan]

He doesn't deserve it...

[HOMELESS CAMEL]

Nope, he doesn't. Didn't do it when it mattered most.

 

Actually the MVP award belongs to every member of the Pistons. Cause the Bulls are making them look like the Celtic teams of the 60's. lol

[UKMustangFan]

^I agree....I hate how they do the voting before the playoffs....He's a fraud.

[TheDeuce]

What a joke...He was pretty valuable in Round 1, wasn't he?

[halfback20]

He was the best player...during the regular season.

[TheDeuce]

And the post-season is part of the season as a whole...The voting should be done AFTER the playoffs, and Dirk's playoff performance was not deserving of the MVP.

[dolamite]

Not going to argue this because Dirk is one of a few others who could have won the MVP and still been deserving. I don't know the exact criteria that the commitee basis their selection on, and no one really does except those behind the closed doors, but the NBA's officials have always done a terrific job at crowning the MVP to someone who really deserves it. College Football falls into the trap constantly to pretty much giving the Heisman to the best player on the best team. I for one have truely had a problem with this for a while. I mean don't get me wrong, but Troy Smith certainly wasn't the best player in college football last season. Still he wins the award because he played for a number one team, and the same could be said of the selection of Jason White, Eric Crouch, etc. So even though the NBA does tend to crown their MVP from one of the leagues top team, they don't make as poor choices as college football (being the award goes to the "best" player, or most valuable to their team).

 

Okay so with that said, other than looking at the caliber of team a player is on, and how they faured during the season, what else goes into account. Of course they say how important the player is to the teams overall sucess. You know, Most Valuable, but it seems that the NBA rarely goes the extra mile to actually give it to someone who means life or death to a team. Again, they seem to let the winning percentage of the team steal from a decision that should have nothing to do with a teams accolade. But as in almost every sport and in every most valuable award it happens. Certainly Dirk is important to the Mavs, I mean this was evident when he virtually was a no show in the opening round series against the Warriors and then ultimately the Mavs got run out of Cali. But, during the season, if Dirk did go down for a stretch, they still have enough talent to win ball games. Even though it would be a huge blow by missing Dirk, the Mavs could clearly still get by based on their talent alone. This is why I don't think the award should be given based on an opinion of best player on the best team, but rather who is truely the most valuable asset to the team.

 

Look at Kobe, look at Gilbert, look at Lebron. See the difference? All three guys outstanding seasons. Great stats, but, all of which didn't have as good as record as lets say the Mavs or Sun (Steve Nash). However, you take any of those three from their teams and their teams would be lucky to win 15 games in an entire season. Minus Dirk, the Mavs could probably still throw up 45-50 wins no problem. It's things like this that drives me crazy about MVP voting? Like said, you cannot argue or disagree with Dirk, but you also cannot help but think the commitee just took the easy way out by giving it to the guy whose team is in first place. But if the award is Most Valuable Player, then who is really more valuable? Dirk? Kobe? Lebron? Nash? Arenas?

 

 

 

I know I've done a lot of useless rambling in all of this but I was only trying to prove a point. Again congrats to Dirk, I have no problems with him winning.........BUT. When will we see the NBA go outside the box and give the award to someone who is not on a top 5 team? When will we see them give it to a true "Most Valuable" player, in regards to what shape their team would be like without them? It's so predictable, every year, every sport. If a guy is putting up numbers close to the top and his team is winning more ball games then anyone else, then go ahead and bet on them winning MVP honors. It's basically an exact science.

 

So even though they will always please you with their choice, when will they finally start to really please you?

[HammerTime]

^^^ I couldn't agree more. Well said.

[dolamite]

^^^ I couldn't agree more. Well said.

 

:thumb:

 

Thanks Hammer, I put a lot of tender loving care into that post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriosuly though Hammer, insightful post, or are you just giving me some props because I snuck Kobe in there???????????.:sssh: :sssh: :sssh:

 

 

Just kidding, nothing but love Hammer. :thumb:

[HammerTime]

I'm not that much of a homer.

[mcpapa]

I don't see anything wrong with deciding the MVP as a result of performance during the regular season. If you're going to be swayed by first-round exits, then Dirk is out, Kobe is out, Gilbert is out, etc. Lebron is still in and Nash is still in.

 

And suppose Tayshaun Prince catches fire during the playoffs - not exactly out of the realm of possibility. Does that make him the league MVP?

 

There's a subtle difference between "MVP" and "POY". The best player isn't necessarily the most valuable player.

 

Where you really see dolamite's philosophy play out is in "coach of the year" results. Almost always comes from a team who has, in the voter's eyes, overachieved - instead of the team with the best record.

[Italian Stallion]

Look at Kobe, look at Gilbert, look at Lebron. See the difference? All three guys outstanding seasons. Great stats, but, all of which didn't have as good as record as lets say the Mavs or Sun (Steve Nash). However, you take any of those three from their teams and their teams would be lucky to win 15 games in an entire season. Minus Dirk, the Mavs could probably still throw up 45-50 wins no problem. It's things like this that drives me crazy about MVP voting? Like said, you cannot argue or disagree with Dirk, but you also cannot help but think the commitee just took the easy way out by giving it to the guy whose team is in first place. But if the award is Most Valuable Player, then who is really more valuable? Dirk? Kobe? Lebron? Nash? Arenas?

 

 

Beautiful post and I agree with everything that has to go with your criteria of the MVP, but in this paragraph you hint that Nash has been given the same deal a Dirk got this year, and was only the best player on the best team. I understand the Suns are a great team, and Steve Nash could be considered the best player on that team, but I don't think that team would be as well off without Nash as the Mav's would without Dirk. You are correct in everything you say about Dirk, but Nash is much much more valuable to his team. His MVP's were legit IMO.

[dolamite]

Beautiful post and I agree with everything that has to go with your criteria of the MVP, but in this paragraph you hint that Nash has been given the same deal a Dirk got this year, and was only the best player on the best team. I understand the Suns are a great team, and Steve Nash could be considered the best player on that team, but I don't think that team would be as well off without Nash as the Mav's would without Dirk. You are correct in everything you say about Dirk, but Nash is much much more valuable to his team. His MVP's were legit IMO.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, the Sun's (without Nash) aren't as well off as the Mavericks are, but this boils down to the fact Nash is their PG and leader. He controls everything they do and runs the team. So they would take a hit. BUT, with that, they could still plug in Leandro Barbossa and eventually learn how to play with each other without Nash and still be a playoff team. Could that be said of the Wizards (minus Gilby), the Cavs (minus the King), and Lakers (minus Kobe)?

 

I definately get whay your saying, and your right that losing Nash would be a huge blow for the Suns, however, I just had him around the same category as Dirk being the above. :thumb:

 

 

 

 

 

 

And on a side note, I think the past two seasons when Nash was crowned MVP was the best decision the NBA commitee has made in the last few years. Because of Nash, the Suns are the team they are now. This year though, even though a strong arguement could be made for his third in a row, you still have to argue the other three as well.

[bugatti]

I have always had a problem with MVP voting because too much weight is given to players on the best teams.

 

I can understand the rational behind giving the MVP trophy for only the regular season; if not, there would never be a winner (or first team all NBA selection) that does not make it to the second round of the playoffs.

 

Without Dirk, the Mavs lose a few more games, no doubt... but they are not falling off the map. Kobe, for the ball hog that he is, I am not sure the Lakers would have won 25 games without him. Phoenix without Nash, would have been around or just above the .500 mark, imo.