Can you really be an MVP if you are not the go-to guy in the clutch?
I ask because I watched the Spurs vs. Suns game last night.
[For those of you not fortunate enough to see the Spurs win this overtime thriller, Fabricio Oberto was 11-for-11 from the field. Impressive, but really not that close to Wilt's record 18-for-18 in '67. Oberto's performance prompted Pops' quote after the game: "He's the ugliest productive player I've ever been around." Backhanded? Also, is any NBA team better at finding these players than the Spurs? Probably not.]OK. Back to the Question...
Several times in the final minutes of regulation and then in overtime, the Suns obviously needed a bucket. Several times, Steve Nash handed the rock to one of his teammates to take the critical shot. I couldn't stop thinking of Arenas, James, Bryant, and Wade in the playoffs last year. When the game was on the line, these guys had the ball and they certainly weren't dishing to Leandro Barbosa.
So then I began to consider other sports. In baseball, the MVP award almost always goes to the player you would want at the plate when you need a hit and the CY Young goes to the pitcher that gets the ball when it's win or go home. In hockey, wait who cares about hockey? In the NFL, the MVP is similar to the Cy Young - the guy you would give the ball to in a must win situation.
Steve Nash certainly deserves a pat on the back for being a wonderful point gaurd and credit for the statistical improvement of his teammates. However, does Steve Nash deserve the MVP if you can't count on him to win the game in the clutch?
By the way, Nash has been in the league for 10 years now and has failed to guide his team to the NBA Finals, although the Mavs did reach the finals without him in 2006. Give me Wade (ring), Bryant (rings), or Lebron (future rings) all day.
Man, that hater-aid went great with breakfast. At least Nash looks fly with the new bob!