MVP?

           What is it that makes us root for an underdog?  What is it that causes us to root against dynasties?  There seems to be something ingrained in us, as sports fans, that disallows us from wanting any one person, or team, to win too much.  We like to see first time winners, while we detest victors who are supposed to win often, and follow through.

            When a no name backup quarterback led the underdog Patriots to their first Superbowl win, they became national darlings.  Six years and two more rings later, the Patriots became a hated team most fans didn’t want to see go undefeated leading fans to root for a Giants team led by another unassuming, Cinderella story quarterback; Eli Manning.

            When Nick Saban led Alabama back to national prominence, college football fans cheered there recovery from obscurity.  But after winning 3 championships in four years they became a team people wanted to see go away.  We just don’t like to see anyone we don’t root for, win too often.

 

            I understand team allegiance.  I understand the desire for parity.  But there has been a trend, especially in the NBA, that shows such a great bias for newcomers and underdogs that really should be addressed.  The main culprit in the NBA is the MVP award.

            The MVP award is named such obviously because it is given to the most valuable player to their team, in the league.  Most of the time, this means the best player in the league for that given season.

            There have been several occasions, however, where the best player did not win.  Voters determined that a player, while not being the overall best, was simply more valuable to his team.  While this can stay in cohesion with the name, it also waters down what it means.

            Let me ask you this question; how could a player, who is considered the best player, not be the most valuable to his team?

            I have heard the argument that players with lesser talent around them have to do more for their team.  But, if they are doing it so well, why aren’t they considered the best player?  Are we really going to punish great players just because they have a decent teammate or two?

            Let me give you an example.  At the end of the 2010-2011 season, the NBA voters named Derrick Rose the MVP for the year.  Several voters later said that they didn’t think he was the best player, that was clearly LeBron James, but that Rose meant the most to his team because the Bulls would be bad without him.  A trophy that is supposed to reward the best, was given to someone they acknowledged was not the best because Rose was, they argued, just more valuable (or in other words, his teammates are garbage and LeBron plays with Dwyane Wade).

            But again I pose the question; how could a player who is considered the best player, not be considered the most valuable?

 

            This leads me back to my original thought.  We love an underdog.  We love someone who leads a team out of nowhere into title contention.  We love them more than the people who are expected to be great.

            In 1993, after winning back to back NBA titles and NBA MVP’s, Michael Jordan put up, statistically, the 21^st greatest season in the NBA…….ever.  Jordan put up 32.6 points, 6.7 rebounds, 5.5 assists, and 2.8 steals.  Numbers that were better than his previous season, in which he won the MVP.  Charles Barkley, not Jordan, was named the MVP of that season, however.  And while Barkley did have a career year (25ppg, 12rpg, 5apg), was it really better than Michael’s?  You just get the sense that when two players have great years, they give the award to the guy who hasn’t won one yet.  Why?  Because we love an underdog and we don’t like to reward guys who are expected to be great, and then are.

 

            I hope that this trend does not continue this year.  LeBron James is widely considered the best player in the world.  He is again putting up historical numbers that put him in very hallowed company.  And yet, the chatter for early season MVP usually centers around Paul George and Kevin Love.  And while these two are having great years, let’s not punish LeBron for being as good as we expect him to be.  Give the MVP award to the season’s best player regardless of MVP history and preconceived expectations.

 

 

Other Notes:

•  Of the top 11 statistical seasons in NBA history, LeBron James has 4, Michael Jordan has 4, and Wilt Chamberlain has 3.

• There have been a number of weird MVP votes throughout the years.  In 1962, Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game (50!) and 23.1 Win Shares, and didn’t win the MVP.  In 1997, Karl Malone won the MVP of the league when, statistically, he wasn’t even the best player on his own team.  And in 1993 David Robinson had the 12^th best statistical season in NBA history, and didn’t win the MVP.