First argument:
"Shaq is a better player."
Yeah. So?
MSNBC's Mike Celizic argues that
for the 12th time in Shaq's 13 Hall-of-Fame seasons, someone other than the most dominant player in the game is the most valuable player in pro basketball.
OK....so by this definition, Michael Jordan should have won the MVP for every year he was in the league, since he was the most dominant/best/greatest player in the league at the time. Not Magic, not Bird, not Duncan, not Shaq.
Next argument:
"If you take Shaq off Miami and Nash off Phoenix, you'll see how valuable Shaq is."
Oh? Let's see:
Miami with Shaq, 2004-05: 59-23, made playoffs, 17-game improvement
over previous season
Shaq missed 9 games (Heat went 6-3)
Pre-Shaq
Miami without Shaq, 2003-04: 42-40, made playoffs
------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix with Nash, 2004-05: 62-20, made playoffs, 33-game improvement
over previous season
Nash missed 7 games (Suns went splat!)
Pre-Nash
Phoenix without Nash, 2003-04: 29-53, did not make playoffs
Hm. Seems like someone had a little more impact.
"Statistics don't lie. Shaq scored more - he had a better season."
Apples and oranges. One's a point guard who's paid to distribute (11.5 apg, league leader). The other is a big 'ol center who's paid to hit shots from two feet away from the basket (60.1 fg%, 1st in the league, and 22.9 ppg, 12th in scoring - behind Dwayne Wade. In other words, Shaq wasn't even the leading scorer on his own team, though he certainly was the most accurate. Oh, you say there are more important things than scoring? Bzz. You just disproved your own point.)
"Defense"
No argument there. Shaq's a better defender. I don't think Nash has discovered the word "defense" yet.
Let's face it - would I rather have Shaq over Nash if I had to pick first when making my team from scratch? Sure. Just as Wilt dominated the league, Shaq does the same thing now. But does that mean Shaq automatically gets the MVP vote? Nope.
No comments:
Post a Comment