The Killer Crossover 3.20.08: The Real MVP Criteria

Posted by Todd Spehr on 03.20.2008

Every year there are many names thrown into the MVP mix, but as 411's Todd Spehr explains, there are only few truly worthy of the NBA's highest individual honor. How does he know? He has come up with the criteria to prove it

This needs to be settled.

Just in the past week alone, I've read "Player X for MVP" stories on four different guys not named LeBron James. The reason I single out LBJ is because it was I who stated his MVP case last month. Premature, I know, but he hasn't done anything in the interim that has swung me away, so I guess there are actually five guys out there with a shot.

While it's extremely healthy for the league to have multiple (meaning more than three) candidates for MVP, it's usually clear that there are probably only three, maybe four, guys who are actually worthy each year. It just so happens that usually that many guys truly stand above the rest - Just look at last year: Could it have gone to anyone but Nowitzki, Nash or Kobe? It couldn't have. Shouldn't have. Wouldn't have. Yet, when discussion starts just after the All-Star break, like it does every year, suddenly there are "Flavor of the Month" nominees.

And that's where the problems start. The discussions.

First of all, no disrespect to Tracy McGrady, he and his Rockets have taken advantage of a beautiful quirk in the sked (15 home games and seven road; six good teams, including Dallas w/o Nowitzki, and 12 not-so-good teams) to launch 22 wins in a row. Yes, that is amazing, and as someone wrote late last week, it would be hard to beat Miami 22 times in a row. Really, it would. But my point here is that while McGrady is indeed the top Rocket during this streak, the last 22 games doesn't automatically make him a candidate for the league's best player. Sorry, but it doesn't. Does this run totally eliminate the previous three months of hoops, when McGrady was nowhere to be found among discussion for the ultimate individual prize?

Basically, he's not a candidate. Which is why a strict criteria needs to be at least considered. Of course, I must point out that this will never happen. The bickering among fans that comes with this award is good, I guess, and the cases presented by different media outlets can be compelling. However, while it's cute to say "Kevin Garnett for MVP" it only makes sense or holds validity if it's conceivable.

So now that you and I both understand that there will never be logic with this award, let's pretend for a moment that there is, and lets look at some criteria that would at least help identify who really is worthy of MVP:


YOU CAN'T USE THE "BEST PLAYER ON THE BEST TEAM" ARGUMENT

Throw this one out right now.

The best example was in 2006 when Chauncey Billups was thrown into the MVP mix while his Pistons were just tearing through the league en route to a 64-win season. Yes, Billups is a stud, he's a big-game player, one of the top-five at his position, is now a perennial All-Star and even once held Jason Kidd scoreless in a Game 7. The guy is good, don't get me wrong, but he's not a MVP-type guy.

At the time, he was the best player on his team, one that happened to be on a record-setting pace (they were the annual "Will they win 70?" team that year) and Billups was the ringleader. He actually received 15 first-place votes in '06, one fewer than James, six fewer than Bryant, and more than Nowitzki, Brand, Duncan, to name but a few.

The point is that Billups, while the best player on a darn good team, wasn't a legitimate MVP candidate. Do we even really know if he's the best Piston? Sure, he's ended plenty of games by himself with one shot, but he doesn't have that Kobe attitude of get-me-the-ball-every-time-in-the-last-five-minutes, nor can he control a game like Nash, or can he kill you every conceivable way like James.

Are we done here?


YEAR-LONG PRODUCTION IS A "MUST"

Now, this can be tricky.

Without sounding like I'm going at McGrady here, let's be honest, can you win an 82-game award for 22 brilliant games? Actually, there is statistical proof that he hasn't even been the best Rocket during the streak, but that's beside the point. Two months ago his name wouldn't have been mentioned in maybe the top 15, so you can't throw his name into the hat based on 50 days of basketball bliss.

And don't forget LeBron basically didn't try the first half of the '07 and, what do you know, he didn't get a single first-place vote last year.

It has also been noted by some that Kobe Bryant hasn't put in a full term this year. For example, he hit for 45 on opening night but it wasn't until two days before Christmas that he hit for more than 35 again. That's not our Kobe.

And I shouldn't define him by points – what Kobe? Never! – but you could make a case that his little pouting session over summer may have crept into the beginning of this season. However, I don't think you can hold that against him in this instance. Why? By referring to Larry Bird, circa '86, who spent basically the first two months of that season laboring with a bad back before turning to super overdrive over the final four months of the year. He was still Larry early on, but he upped the stakes big-time after Christmas Day.

Same deal with Bryant. He had his moments early on – he was still averaging 26/6/5 – but it wasn't until the turn of the new year, when his team got steadily better, grew more confident, even stole a player, that Kobe really became, well, more of the Kobe that we expect. Keep in mind that 80% of his season will be considered top-level Kobe… I think we can swing with that.

Having said that…


YOU CAN'T GIVE IT TO A GUY "BECAUSE HE'S DUE"

This is an annoying argument.

How can you give a guy the MVP just because he hasn't won it before? And don't automatically think I'm directing this at Bryant either, but just as a note in general. Heck, I still get nauseous thinking about the '97 season when Karl Malone, he of endless supply of amazing seasons, was awarded the MVP because a) They were sick of giving it to MJ and b) For some reason everyone felt that Malone was as good as ever; yes, better because "it felt right," that he had actually improved over his gaudy statistical compilations of the previous 12 years.

And this holds as true today as it did then. You can't just award Bryant the MVP because he's leading a decent supporting cast "by himself" for the first time ever, nor can you say he is any better than he was, say, two years ago. You need more than "Well, he's due to win it one of these days." OK, yeah sure, I'll accept that, but deserving it and getting the award based on how you play that particular year supersedes everything. Everything.


HOW THE PARTICULAR PLAYER'S TEAM FARES

OK, this seems to be the only one that perhaps is applied today.

It's been 32 years since a player won MVP without making the playoffs. As a matter of fact, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar went out of his way to win it in a year in which his team not only missed the playoffs, but won less than half their games To clarify: This was when the players voted for the MVP, so in reality, since the media has been behind the wheel no player has won it from a losing team.

And to be honest, that's the right call. I mean, sure, a guy can carry his team a long way but his team's record actually determines his fate. I've been wracking my brain to think of a decent example, so here goes: MJ in '87. He was at 37 per, but his team stunk, winning just 40. You couldn't have given him MVP over Magic (24/6/12 on a 65-win team) or Bird (28/9/7 on a 59-win team) even though the Bulls may not have reached double-figure wins without him, and that isn't to disrespect Granville Waiters or Brad Sellers (OK, maybe it is), but it happens to be true.

Finally…


ONE DEFINING QUALITY

Check the MVP winners every year prior to the last five years (just to throw a number out there; it probably coincides with the point in time when MVP criteria really became an unknown entity) and you see guys who were, at that particular time, the best in the game. To just sample: O'Neal in 2000, MJ in '96, Olajuwon in '94, Bird in '84, Moses Malone in '83, Abdul-Jabbar in '80 or Chamberlain in '67.

Look at those names and look at the years besides them. There was no dispute, they were the best. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's just how it was. Was the media drinking decaffeinated coffee back then? Were they not prepared to at least challenge or argue over these guys? Was there disputing any of them? The reason I chose those particular names is simple: They stood out to me, from the list that I saw, as a sample of what I call "Clear-cut winners." These don't exist anymore.

Is it a case of parity among the best now (glass half-full) or lack of one truly stand-above-the-rest, dominant player (glass half-empty)? Because it's one or the other (or both), the upper echelon needs to remove themselves, and seriously, what better way than with a defining quality?

Now look at the guys today, who has a defining quality? There aren't many. James, for starters, is the best all-around player right now, the only one capable of getting 40-plus with a triple-double. Kobe's one defining quality is his ability to be totally in control of games. Chris Paul is playing his position perhaps as well as it has been played by someone his age. As for previous winners: Nash redefined excellence at his position. Ditto for Duncan. For Iverson, for some reason a non-factor in the MVP race this year, his quality was to play at his best no matter his physical condition. Garnett has a competitive nature that is borderline insanity.

This is what I'm talking about.

What's McGrady's defining quality? Nowitzki? Billups? And don't read this wrong, all are All-Stars, all are in the top percentile in the world for Roundball, but just understand: We're trying to separate the best from the best here. You have to picky. Cruel, I know, but still justifiable.

(I have to point this out, but this was one reason I had beef with Nowitzki winning it last year. And honestly, I don't have a problem with him personally, but there were times last year when you honestly wondered about his resiliency or fortitude, like that double-OT game with the Suns in March or the Golden State series as a whole. This is our MVP? This guy? Great scorer, a unique player, best Maverick ever, all of the above, but MVP he ain't.)


There you have it, and now that I have that all off my chest, and I do feel better. Really. And honestly, have I really made things any clearer? Hey, at least I tried. Oddly enough, I've wasted roughly 2000 words on something that will never become reality. It just won't. The NBA probably needs the barbershop arguments, the media back-and-forth, the constant speculation. They like it that way. They like us, the fan, not knowing what in the hell it is that makes an MVP. Sure, we can have opinions (I believe I just expressed mine), but in the end, the media has a vote, and someone will be crowned. Not everyone will be pleased. But I tell you this: If the 2008 NBA MVP goes to a guy that ticks all my criteria, then I'll live with it.


You can read Todd Spehr's NBA column every Wednesday at 411mania.com. To read more of his stuff, check out his recently launched blog, "Runnin' The Point," the only online blog devoted exclusively to NBA point guards.