by the way, i pick LeBron as MVP.


and the narrative is what bugs me. i keep hearing about how Derrick Rose has carried an injured Bulls team. really? they've had two big players with injuries, i'll give them that. one of them, to Boozer, took the first 15 games or so. the Bulls went 9-6 in those first 15, not 14-1. and he's been back since then other than a few games here and there (Boozer being a legit top 6 PF and would-be all-star keeps getting lost in the "Rose has carried the team" stories). and the other to Noah, whom they found an excellent replacement for in Kurt Thomas. i mean, its legit to some extent. but its not like Boozer has been out half the season or they had nobody to back up Noah when he went down.

Looks like Denver is winning the title (oh they don't have a star).

Yes. Followed by Lebron, then Rose, then Dirk, then Kobe. I would have said Kobe over Rose but he's cooling off down the stretch where the voting usually gets done (the Lakers are playing better because their defense has kicked into a whole different level).

The problem with the Rose logic is that they are a middling offensive team. Their defense is what wins games for them and while Rose has played better on defense that is down to their second unit and Thibs much more than Rose. Speaking of which Thibs should be coach of the year no question.

blazers beat the mavs, nice

See this is what I don't get about the MVP, everyone has a different "rule" for it. Is it what you said? or the guy that does the most with less? Or the best player on the best team? Or is it literally the player who's most valuable? I tend to shy away from your rule because if that were the case then Kobe should just get it every year, when there's other people having better seasons. Isn't that why Dirk won in '07? He was playing great on a great team and people thought "he might as well have it"? Looking at the MVP historically doesn't do much good because its given out for this specific year. It doesn't matter how many championships someone's team won in the past or what their legacy will be. We could just as easily give it to Kobe, look back and say "Kobe only got it because he was Kobe."

For the record, Dwight would get my vote at this point, but I do think you're short selling Rose a bit. He's the best player on the #1 team in the East, and is clearly the flint that starts his team's fire (sorry for the metaphor). His defense isn't as terrible as you're saying it is. Obviously he's much better at offense but if you're going off the Hollinger stuff against Rose's defense, those stats are misleading. Also they are very average offensively but that has little to do with Rose, he's responsible for 45.1% of the Bulls points (scoring or passing) and that's most in the NBA (I believe).

Yeah, to me the Bulls' average offense makes Rose that much more important.

Also, he won't win, but LaMarcus Aldridge deserves to be in the conversation as well.

using Dirk as an example is not going to win me over. (note: sorry corrections, this is going to hurt). Dirk is a classic example of "best player on team with best record" logic, and it led to one of the most awkward mvps ever as the first round came along and everyone realized "oh yeah, thats why Dirk isnt the best player in the league. cause he just fell apart against an 8 seed". im not saying Dirk isn't great. but i want Jordan/Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan type MVPs. LeBron, even if he fails at winning a title, is a lock for the second round at least every year. is D Rose? i dont know, cause he's barely old enough to drink and hasn't proven anything yet.

i see three clear historical parallels to his situation. 1969, the year that Chamberlain, West, and Baylor joined forces (sounds familiar eh?). so three of the 5 best players were on one team so they got counted out. Russell was "past him prime" apparently (Kobe parallel). so Wes Unseld, a young player who really wasn't a top 5 player who led his team to the top record, ended up winning the award. so where's the problem? well, the problem is we now look back at that as a huge mistake that should have never happened and was based on "in the moment" logic, where people let a certain narrative take over and all the sudden something dumb happens.

the next one is 1975. that year, the best forward in the league was on a top team in a peak year, talking about Rick Barry (LeBron parallel). the problem was, the people voting hated him. so they forgot he was the best player and true MVP and went in a different direction. the Celtics had the top record (Spurs this year) but had too much of a team concept with Havlicek/Cowens (Ginobili/Duncan).so the voters picked a young player (McAdoo) who provided a ton of offense for a solid-but-not-great team in Buffalo that faced some injury problems in the season. whats the problem? yet again, a huge mistake that should have never happened.

the next one was 1993. Michael Jordan had won it twice and people were sick of voting for him (LeBron). Hakeem was the best center in the league on a team that had a good-but-not-great record (Howard). and Barkley was a all-offense-no-defense star for a number 1 seed who was fun to watch (Rose). Barkley won, because they were sick of MJ and Dream was overlooked. so we had two of the top 10 players in history at the peak of their career and didn't win. no offense to Barkley, who i LOVE, but he shouldn't have won that award (and he was at least a top 3 player in the league... which Rose isn't). mistake that never should have happened.


the "why not?" logic has led to every NBA MVP mistake in history. i just don't like it. there is no reason that Rose should be MVP over LeBron or Kobe or Howard. it doesn't make any sense. he DOES have other all-stars on his team (Boozer). he probably at best is the 8th best player in the league (LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Howard, Dirk, Durant, Paul, Rose).

i don't see how postseason success (or lack thereof) should influence the MVP voting - which looks at regular season accomplishments. there's a reason they give out a separate MVP after the playoff finals. and yes, some players tend to step up during the postseason while others flounder.
my definition of MVP is vague but it's basically who is the most dominant player during the regular season. the reason Howard is the prime candidate is because of the extent of his dominance on both ends of the floor. Rose dominates only on one end (the rest of his team does it on the other end). Howard is surrounded by crap, relatively speaking, yet his presence along makes the magic an elite defensive club. offensively Rose may get the slightest of edges over Howard but it's nothing compared to the difference in defensive impact between the two. Bron and Wade, as i've said, kind of cancel each other out, but i'd still rank both in the top 5. but while one could make an argument for LeBron as the greatest basketball player in the world (and Wade second, as i would), one could argue Wade has been the better teammate this season than LeBron and is every bit as responsible for their record as him.
btw why don't you (pave) and corrections go work for espn? you're smarter than most of the analysts they have.

Pretty much agreed, George. When Dirk won, he won because he was statistically the best player in the league during the regular season, AND throw in the fact that he was the star on a team that won 67 games. I'd say that's a well-deserved award.

the underrated pick in '07 was Tim Duncan. 4th in PER (Dirk was 2nd... Wade and Yao were the other two and both were hurt during the season). but his defense (first team) was far superior to Dirk. in fact, Duncan in '07 is a good parallel to Kobe this year, where we've talked ourselves in to this "past him prime" narrative that doesn't reflect the stats. Kobe will probably finish fourth just like Duncan did that year.

No. Kobe is the greatest basketball player currently playing but he isn't the best basketball player on the planet. Dirk won in 2007 because he had the best year that year.

Now on to Rose. Thibs is the guy that starts the teams fire and their terrific defense is what is making them a contender not their offense. And Rose has the worst defensive plus/minus splits on the team (even worse than Boozer) so while he is improved he is the weak link still. And the fact of the matter is any case you make for Rose on the "look where the team would be without him" is entirely trumped by the fact that Dirk is even more valuable by that logic (since the Mavs were awful without him and with him the whole year they'd probably be challenging San Antonio for seeding). Second it plays far more in Lebron's favor because Cleveland is legitimately terrible without him. But I don't even think that is the best logic to go by. Who is having the best season is all it should be (obviously winning matters some in this equation because it is tough to have the best season on a non playoff team but in general just best season). I go Howard because of his absolutely game changing D and improved offensive game. I also take Lebron and changing my mind Dirk over Rose. I would have taken Kobe over Rose too before his late season slump/coast job.

Dirk should have won the year before (or Kobe, or Lebron) but criminally Nash won that year because of "oh look Stoudemire's out and they have about the same record so look what he did" even though the team didn't play nearly as well. And they bowed out against Golden St. because Dirk had one of only two bad playoff series in his career against a bad matchup. He's fixed those specific holes in his game. So I don't begrudge Dirk the 2007 MVP because he should have won in 2006.

In PER? He's about to drop out of the top 10. Or did you mean MVP voting? I think the voting will be Rose, Howard, Dirk, Lebron (because of voter fatigue), Kobe.

i meant voting. and yeah, Kobe will be 5th. but i think LeBron will end up being 2nd. probably 3rd in first place votes, but i can see a lot of Rose-LeBron-Howard voters and a lot of Howard-LeBron-Rose voters and i think he'll end up taking second over Howard. Rose will probably win.