I don't necessarily want to, as I find that every year people make too much of a deal out of postseason awards, and predicting postseason awards, and just repeating what everybody else says about players because they've lost capacity to generate independent thought. I generally can't stand sports radio because most times they don't even talk about sports.
A popular local sports radio show is the "Isaac and Big Suke" show. A typical discussion on this show goes like this:
Isaac: Well, before we get started talking about the MVP, we have to define what it means.
Big Suke: You're right. Does it go to the best player in the league, or the best player on the best team?
Isaac: Good question. Nobody ever asks that. I say best player in the league. If you're the best player in the league, you're the MVP. That's how it goes. Bottom line.
Big Suke: I don't think so. It should go to the best player on the best team. They're the best team because they have the best player. Case closed.
Isaac: You know, something that nobody seems to realize is that the league's definition of the term "MVP" is purposefully vague. You're supposed to make up your own mind.
Big Suke: Wow, that's deep. You're like, operating on another level of consciousness.
Isaac: That's what she said.
This short dialogue contains the three necessary elements of a successful sports radio show:
1. Touching on a broad sports topic to demonstrate your supposed knowledge of sports.
2. Using big words to fool the audience you are smarter than you actually are.
3. Bad jokes, and/or declarative statements that are supposed to be jokes, judging by the speaker's tone, but can't technically be classified as such, as determined by the bad timing or complete nonsensical content.
I feel, though, that if I ever want to get paid for writing about basketball, which I've determined that I'd be okay with, I guess, I'd probably have to bite the bullet and write about things that I don't necessarily want to write about. What a glowing intro to my MVP column, by the way. OK, here goes.
There's only four MVP candidates worth mentioning, and the media has slowly narrowed it down with such precision that voting for somebody that might be deserving, like Hedo Turkoglu, would be just out of the question, because he hasn't been "recognized" as a bona fide candidate. I'm not saying Turkoglu should be the MVP; I'm merely expressing that voting for sports awards shouldn't be like politics. It is, though; you have a limited amount of candidates, and you have to pick one.
Your MVP candidates:
Kevin Garnett, Boston Celtics
Garnett was the early season favorite as his Celtics zoomed off to an early league lead. But I think people slowly realized that his team has three all-stars, so he's not exactly bearing the brunt of the load by himself. He probably leads the league in excitability, passion, love of the game, and unselfishness, but that stuff can't be quantified. He might get a sympathy vote or two, because Garnett's a great guy who tried to tough it out in Minnesota, and his loyalty was repaid by years of mishandling of the team's roster by management.
Garnett's still lucky, though. He ended up in Boston, a perfect situation for him in a city packed with latent basketball obsession. Boston was expected to kick ass this season, and they have. They're the odds-on favorite to win the championship, and the biggest reason is probably Kevin Garnett. But he's not the MVP, and he might not even be the MVP of his own team, as Paul Pierce is quietly having one of the best years of his career.
Kobe Bryant, LA Lakers
Kobe, seen here wearing one of my granddad's old fishing hats, will probably win it, but he doesn't deserve it. He's never won before, and a popular theory is that he's too good to have never won an MVP. He needs an MVP to cement his status as one of the greatest players of all time, which he obviously is to even any casual observer. People who hand out sports awards are alot like people who hand out movie awards. I've long stopped paying attention to anything that goes on in the movie/entertainment industry, but from what I remember, it seemed like actors or directors would be given Oscars as a reward for their career, rather than for whatever movie they're nominated for. That's why Michael Jordan didn't win ten MVPs. Jordan was probably the most valuable player in every sense of the word ten years, but he only won five. He only won back-to-back MVPs once, which is criminal considering his stature and total domination of the game. Writers who didn't vote for Jordan would actually go on record saying stuff like, "Well, we can't just give it to Jordan every single year."
On the plus side, Kobe's become much more likeable this season. His team is winning, and he's adopted this underdog persona that makes him one of the most intriguing athletes of all time. It's hard to watch him and not be captivated by his presence on the court, especially when they play a team like the Spurs, who might be the most genuinely unlikeable basketball team of all time. Nevertheless, I look at the Lakers, and I wonder how good they would be without Kobe. With Phil Jackson running the show, and Gasol, Fisher, Odom, and Bynum, they'd still be pretty damn good. Also, you can't ignore Kobe's whining during the offseason. I still think it was warranted, and it might have been what propelled Kupchak to finally pull the trigger on the Gasol deal, but judging by Kobe's play in the first ten games of the season, he had every intention of mailing in the whole year, until it was evident that this team could get deep into the playoffs - and even that was when they still had Kwame Brown!
LeBron James, Cleveland Cavaliers
First things first - LeBron is no Kobe. At least not yet. He's close, but he's not as good defensively, and his outside shot is still a bit shaky, and I have a feeling he isn't as obsessed with basketball as he needs to be if he really wants to play at Kobe's level. He's busy with his "business ventures", whatever that means, and well on his way to his stated goal of being the most wealthy, most powerful man on the planet. I'm serious - he actually said that. He almost singlehandedly brought his team to the NBA Finals last year, and this year his new-look Cavs wouldn't be near the playoff race without him. Yes, even in the East.
The problem is that his team's performance has been positively unimpressive during the regular season. They can't win big games against the league's best teams; their coach still doesn't know how to utilize LeBron in the half court game; they're still having chemistry issues (which is excuseable considering the magnitude of the trade); and they fade down the stretch. LeBron's been great, and he's put together another amazing season, but there's no way he's more valuable than...
Chris Paul, New Orleans Hornets
The main reason why Chris Paul won't win the MVP is because of his name. He doesn't have a flashy, recognizable name. Garnett, Kobe, LeBron... Chris?
The Hornets have been playing out of their minds all season, but to be quite honest, I haven't been that impressed with what I've seen from Paul. Granted, I've only seen the Hornets play three times all season, but I just wasn't convinced. I thought the talk about possibly signing Paul as a free agent in the summer of '09 was foolhardy. He would come in and expect to have the same type of free reign, I reasoned, that he had with the Hornets. It couldn't possibly work with our system, with pieces like Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Fernandez, and Outlaw all needing points to satisfy their egos.
I was wrong. Big surprise. Now, I look at what the team's done this season, and it might be one of the most unexpectedly great seasons from a team... ever. If New Orleans wins their last six games (which is probable at this point), they will finish with 60 (!) wins. This from a team that missed the playoffs last season and had every intention of missing them again, if you were to listen to anybody with their finger on the pulse of the league, the Hornets weren't on anybody's radar. Except Kevin, who apparently is inching closer to omniscience.
Chris Paul leads the league in assists and steals, and is 17th in the league in scoring (the 2nd highest scoring point guard in the league). Oh yeah, he also shoots 50% from the field, and has had one of the best seasons ever at the point. He is picking up where Steve Nash (remember him?) left off, completely dominating his contemporaries and proving that people like me are idiots for ever doubting him.
And, in case you're wondering:
Yes, the Blazers could have had him.
TJH
0 comments:
Post a Comment