Typical basketball game highlights on SportsCenter:
“Your favorite basketball player had 30 points, 8 rebounds, and 4 assists in tonight’s game. It was a tremendous showcase of his all-around skills. He demonstrated again why he’s considered by many to be the best in the game. He shot well from the perimeter, converting on 4 of 6 3-pointers. It was a great game. Oh yeah, his team lost 97-92…”
Now, it might not go exactly like that… but I’m convinced that we’ve become too stat-driven in sports… especially when it comes to individual accolades. I put this blame on the media coverage and attention given to individual performances.
Danny Granger was just named the NBA’s Most Improved Player of the Year. Granger had a great season (statistically). This was also his first all-star season. NBA.com reported, “In his fourth year, Granger was the league's fifth leading scorer, averaging a career-high 25.8 points -- 6.2 points higher than 2007-08 (19.6 ppg).” Well done, Danny. Well done. What the article excluded however, was the fact that his team, the Indiana Pacers, finished with a record of 36-46, 10 games below .500. (This was the exact same record they had the previous year – NO IMPROVEMENT)
What’s even more troubling about the voting was the trend of non-playoff team players receiving votes extended to the 2nd place finisher (Devin Harris) and the 3nd place finisher (Kevin Durant). Their teams finished 14 games and 36 games below .500, respectively. And in a day and age where there is exhaustive, over-the-top coverage and analysis of the smallest topics in sports (i.e. Glen “Big Baby” Davis nudging a kid after his game-winning shot in game 4, to the kid’s father making an idiot of himself for calling Davis a “raging animal”, to Davis eventually apologizing for the incident, to a breakdown on whether the apology was necessary), I haven’t seen ANY debates on “PTI” or “Around The Horn” in regards to the following question… How does an individual award go to a player on a non-playoff team? Have we forgotten that they “play to win the game?”
Other than Rookie of the Year (which went to a playoff participant), there should be NO individual awards given to members of non-playoff teams.
The person who deserves this award is Rajon Rondo (and those who know me personally KNOW that me giving this guy ANY credit is a HUGE change from what I’ve been saying his entire career - which, in one way, strongly validates the moniker “most improved”). He still needs to shoot 500 jump shots/day this offseason (as Reggie Miller suggested during game 5 of the Eastern Conference Semifinals), but he has drastically improved his game. This improved performance has been magnified with the absence of the Celtics’ unanimous leader, Kevin Garnett, during this postseason. While nobody gave the Celtics a shot this postseason because of KG’s injury, they are currently one win away from a showdown with the Cleveland Cavaliers in the Eastern Conference Finals.
You may be thinking, “The award is based on what’s done in the regular season.” I could use statistical data from the regular season to validate this selection as well, but instead, I’ll share with you a visual reminder of why they play.
And even though the Lakers will more than likely reclaim the NBA title and another ring this year, Boston and Rondo are still alive. Granger? Well, as the TNT guys would say… He had “gone fishing” on the last day of the regular season.
LIVE TO WIN!!!
(If you would like statistical evidence as to why Rondo is a better choice for Most Improved Player than Granger, be sure to leave a comment and I’ll post that as well)
7 comments:
B-
After 2 solid years of unfounded hatery it's good to see you give Rondiggity his due. However, I have some food for thought for you.
If the award is "Most Improved Player of the Year," why would it be such a stretch to see individuals on underperforming teams win this award? Of course, everyone plays to win and the effort of the entire team can be a criterion. However, it should not be the main criterion as the award is not a team-based award.
By your logic a player could improve himself in every conceivable category and because the supporting cast does not produce a pre-determined number of wins, he is automatically out of the running for the award. To me this is undue punishment for those who happen to be on lesser teams - especially when there is already a financial bias towards the larger market teams i.e. your precious Lakers/Kobians.
Summation - this is an individual award given to the player that has demonstrated the most improvement from one year to the next. Team performance should be relegated to a tie-breaker at best between competing candidates. The only real team award is the championship you depicted in your post. You can tell it is the only team award because everyone on the team actually gets something for the achievement. [see ring above]
Rif-raf
very good points, but let me ask you a question, "Rif-raf". Would you be okay with the M.V.P. coming from a losing team?
wins=relevance
P.S. LMAO @ Kobians!!
So we went there? It's a good thing I didn't see this one coming [w/ eyes rolling]
These are two very different awards, hence the two different names. The Most Valuable Player has often had an inferred measure of linkage to the success of the team. The thought is that this individual is able to maximize the abilities of those around him to affect "the W column." While I agree in principal, this is often hard to quantify/measure. So then, where do you draw the line??
To answer your question, frankly, yes. I would be "okay" with the MVP coming from a losing team. I am of the belief that any person is eligible to receive an individual award regardless of their home court. However, I will concede that the MVP award is a dynamic honor - meaning the likelihood of someone being able to outshine similarly talented/qualified individuals from higher performing teams is, and should be, a rarity. This is a check and balance in my opinion to urge those with the most talent to either seek to make their team better or seek greener pastures and keep the rosters juggling.
The MVP award, in my opinion, is performance as well as marketing based. The performance you can easily tally. The marketing is more subjective and lends to the amount of dollars the individual brings to their market and the NBA on the whole. While a superstar may perform well on a bad team, that does not necessarily translate into wins which ultimately leads to less butts in seats, which leads to less revenue. Less revenue means those games will not be broadcast nationwide nearly as much, so those who vote will have less exposure to this person's greatness. This is the more in-depth explanation as to why, covertly, it is harder for a person on a bad team to win the award. If someone is able to impress people to the extent that he overcomes these obstacles, then by all means crown that fool.
Rif-raf
where do you draw the line? that's easy... you draw the line at the #8 seed of each conference at the end of the season!
Besides that one stipulation, there shouldn't be any other requirements/rules... some people say for example, that the MVP award goes to the best player on the best team. Some say it should be based purely on statistics. There's no cut and dry formula that would work the best.
Everyone is entitled to their own point of view, I just know that I wouldn't give my vote to a member of a team that won't even compete for a championship.
If we draw the line as you suggest, then what happens when a player who is on a playoff-bound team to begin the year gets traded at the trade deadline to a team that is not playoff-bound? Is this person automatically out of the running?
Or perhaps we take the scenario of a person being on a team that wins 13 games in season one. In season two the team wins 33 games. By your logic no one on this team will be eligible to win the most improved player award even though there were no other teams in the league that realized a 20 game addition to the W column.
The most improved player award should be based on the most improvement demonstrated by a player from one year to the next. Obviously, making others around you better will ultimately help articulate someone's worth, but making it mandatory that this award have a team component is rather contradictory.
I understand your frustration. I also understand the commitment you have to this position, as your team is notoriously mediocre (Golden State Warriors), and have advance dibs on a seat at the NBA Draft Lottery every single year.
Ah-ha, so your affinity for uppercuts to the meat and two veg has made an appearance. I am not sure where the line between the GS-Dubs and this particular comment can be drawn. Unless this is an example of an anti-logic demonstration commonly adopted by those who ride the wagon.
Post a Comment