Question of the Day...
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!
posted by Anonymous @ 9.11.06
4 comments
4 Comments:
I have conflicting feelings on this. Most valuable to his team? Or most valuable as in best overall? Steve Nash is not the best player in the league by a long shot. However, the Suns are run and gun and without Nash they are next to nothing. If everything is about winning, what is the win/loss differential of the major players in the league with respect to their teams. I think not having Nash makes a bigger impact to his team (win/loss) than not having Kobe, etc. That is how I view the awarding of MVP to Nash.
That being said, an MVP feels like he should be able to come through for his team in the clutch and be the ultimate difference maker. Just like A-Rod!! Shouldn't he be the best player overall? But how do you measure that? You can be the best and still be in last place. Just like A-Rod. But does that mean you are valuable? Especially if that player leaves town and that bad team starts winning like crazy. Just like A-Rod!!
It seems like they change the definition each year for each sport. Sometimes its the best player statistically. Othertimes its the best player on the best team. And sometimes its the most popular or the player who gets hot at the right time.
I think at the end of the day, anyone starting a team from scratch would pick Lebron, Wade, etc. first. Nash wouldn't come into the conversation for a long time. But if you take a bad team that needs to play up tempo to compete, then Nash could be more valuable than anyone. That is, if you measure value in total wins and losses. If you measure value in championships and pulling through in the clutch, Nash is a joke.
I think it is a combination of all of that. I also think you should just be able to know if someone is MVP worthy by watching them play. When you watch Calvin Johnson play, you KNOW he is something special. You don't need stats to back it up. I just dont get that feeling when I watch Nash.
But I guess when Kobe, Lebron and others play Me first ball and miss a ton of shots, it makes a little white guy who is a team player in a run and gun offense seem a lot better.
Damn, that hater-ade must have been on discount at the store.
Sometimes the most valuable player is the guy who makes his teammates better than they'll ever be without him. And sometimes ghoulishly ugly guys pull fine wool like Elizabeth Hurley (i.e. James Blunt and Petra Nemcova).
I believe Nash deserved the MVP the first year, but thought he probably should have been 4th at best last year.
Side note: Apparently Lebron thinks the game is only 47 mins and 50 seconds. Steven A. Smith thinks that's quite alright and he'll tell you about it - even if he's dead wrong.
.... and welcome back Mike.
I forgot to mention that he couldn't gaurd your mom. Mediocre D = no MVP. To me.
Post a Comment
<< Home