Husker2555's Blog
    There are many things that can spark heated debate among sports fans. Steroids, who should be in the Hall of Fame, what trades your team should make, why you are smarter than your General manager. But nothing causes more contrevorsey than when it comes time to give out a leagues Most Valuable Player award. This is an especially relevant matter now, since the NBA's award is announced Tuesday ( it has been leaked that Dirk Nowitzki has won). But what gets fans really going about this matter is not who wins it, but rather why they win it.

    In any given league, there are thirty players that, depending on the criteria you choose to use, I could make a convincing case for them to win the MVP. It all depends on how you look at the award. To some, the most valuable player is the one who can lead his team to the championship. To others, it's the one who is the best player on the best team in the regular season. To still others it is the player who can carry a bad team to the top, while some look to the player who had the most impact on taking his team to the next level.

    However, all of these methods have one simple flaw. They exclude a large percentage of players from being considered. If you will only vote for someone who can lead his team to a pennant, you will exclude the players who are on bad teams, or even the players on teams that get stuck in the playoffs first round. Witness Vladimir Guerrero. While stuck in the National League's basement, Montreal, Vladimir never got recognized as one of the elite players in league. Taken to a contender in Los Angeles, he became on of baseball's biggest stars. 

    The other methods of picking the MVP discriminate in similar ways. If you vote for the best player on the best team, a player with no supporting cast, like Kevin Garnett, can never win. If it is the player who can carry the bad team to the top, them the great players on great teams, like Dirk Nowitzki, will never be considered. The same applies to the player who had the most impact on taking their team to the next level, since if you are surrounded by good players then your team will already be there.

    All this and more is why I propose a radical way to decide the MVP. Give it to the league's best player. Give it to the player who has the statistics to show he is better than anyone else. It is only logical to do so. The player who is the best will be the one who adds the most to his team, thus making him the most valuable. You would also pay the best player the most money, once again making him the most valuable.

    I can see no better way to decide the MVP award. It takes the debate away from why you should choose someone to who should be chosen. As it should be.

    By the way, my NBA MVP pick - Steve Nash. 


Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.

Start Your Own Blog

Start Now

Truth & Rumors


  1. 1
    Woodson's next job
  2. 2
    'Melo wants to be wooed (like, Howard wooed)
  3. 3
    Lee on the Yankees' radar (Burnett, too)
  4. 4
    Farrell defends Fenway's 'sleep room'
  5. 5
    Rangers pegged as unsportsmanlike divers

SI Photos