So LeBron James has been named the MVP for this season, eh? While its tough to argue against the best player on the best team getting the award for what is essentially the best player, the media missed out on an opportunity to crown the true most VALUABLE player from this season: Dwyane Wade.
Wade averaged 30 points, 7.5 assists and 5 rebounds per game (while shooting a higher FG% than Bron), but the argument for D-Wade goes beyond the scope of basic statistics. Take a step back and look at what Wade and LeBron accomplished this season.
Wade- took a team that was embarrassingly bad and pulled them into the playoffs as a 5 seed, despite a trade at the all-star break that took away his best teammate and forced him to adjust his style of play. His teammates can't carry his jock (which according to his ex-wife, may not be such a bad thing) but that also means they can't lift him up on an off night.
LeBron- Led the Cavs to the best overall record in the NBA, including 39-1 at home (not counting the last game when they rested James and 3 other starters). He had help with capable outside shooters (Delonte West and Mo Williams), as well as an inside presence that while by no means dominant, was at least respectable.
Now granted, the Cavs won 23 more games than the Heat did this year, but ask this hypothetical: how many would each have won without their stars? Take LeBron off the Cavs (say he got hurt the first minute of the first game) and you still have a three legged dog. Maybe not the most agile creature, but still a lovable family pet that you keep around. With the surrounding talent, they could still manage to win 45 games—consider the Hawks, who won 47, as the barometer.
But the Heat without D-Wade? Yikes. Old Yeller territory. The NBA comparison leans towards Washington— and that is giving a fair amount of credit to a team that doesn’t have anyone like Antawn Jamison or maybe even Caron Butler… DC won just 19 games.
So you’re looking at LeBron being worth about 20 wins for the Cavs, while Wade is worth about 25 for the Heat. Isn’t that more value? And I hate to take anything away from James, because he is legitimately fantastic. But Wade's accomplishments simply make him more valuable to Miami than James' do to Cleveland.
As for Kobe-- great player, and probably the best clutch scorer in the league. But the Lakers have the most depth of any team left in the playoffs, and the best talent in LA since Jenna Jameson retired. So the old arguments that worked for Kobe fans in the past no longer hold water. Talented player, but #3 on the ballot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I agree with your reasoning here. First of all, I think you are overestimating the rest of the Cavs...I think a Cavs team as it stands now minus LeBron James is losing more than 20 games less than the current team.
ReplyDeleteSecond of all, while I do agree that Wade was amazing this year and deserved to be in the MVP conversation, I think your definition of what qualifies as an MVP doesn't coincide with who the trophy historically goes to. While the literal definition of the MVP is the Most VALUABLE Player, the definition of "valuable" is up to interpretation. I think it has to be someone who not only has an amazing season personally, but also clearly makes his teammates better and who is on a team with a great record. Not necessarily the best record, but I don't think a team 4 games over .500 (the Heat were 43-39) qualifies. I know 50 is kind of an arbitrary number, but I think an MVP has to come from a team that wins at least 50 games...a team that is relavent. This isn't the Baseball MVP (are you going to tell me A-Rod really deserved the MVP for a team 20 games under .500 in 2003...oh, and he was on roids then, but that's another story), the MVP needs to be on a great team.
For example, the 2005-2006 Los Angeles Lakers had a better record than the Miami Heat this year (45 wins vs 43 wins), and the Lakers played in considerably harder conference. Take Kobe off that team and I am positive they don't win more than 15-20 games. Based on your argument above, Kobe should have been clear and away the MVP that year. Instead that year it went to Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns who was teamed up with Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Shawn Marion, Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas, and others. Are you telling me that was the wrong choice?
On a side note, I would like to point out that even prior to the Gasol trade last year the Lakers were tied for the best record in the West, despite playing with many of the same players from that forgettable 2005-2006 season (Bynum, Kwame Brown, Sasha Vujacic, Luke Walton, Lamar Odom, Chris Mihm, and Ronny Turiaf). The fact that they went from that 06 team to the 08 team (again, with the best record prior to the gasol trade) is a testament to the ability of the Lakers to either recognize talent that isn't there yet and/or develop players to reach their full potential. Of course, prior to the Gasol trade, the biggest roster change between the two Lakers teams was the addition of Derek Fisher, and I know how much you value him. So clearly Bryant deserved the MVP trophy last year. Does the addition of Gasol, Ariza, and the further development of the same core of players knock him out of the MVP discussion this year? I guess according to you it does...