Flawed Thinking
Three or four years from now, chances are one hundred percent that I will no longer care about this particular issue. But right now the decision by sports journalists across the country to pick Steve Nash as the NBA's Most Valuable Player. Giving Nash the MVP last year was bad enough, but to do it for the second time in as many years is mind-boggling. In no way am I trying to imply Nash is not a superb player, but there is simply no way he deserves the be called the most valuable player in the league. Unless LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, or Dwyane Wade were ruled ineligible for the award, Nash should not have been able to garner enough votes to walk away with his second MVP trophy.
One line of reasoning for giving Nash the MVP award exemplifies the retarded mental state with which sports journalists approach the sports world. It goes something like this. Since Nash won the MVP last year and he had a better season statistically speaking this year, well then, he must have been more valuable to his team. This is the sort of logic I would expect from a four-year-old child who thinks that four nickels are worth more than three dimes because four is greater than three and nickels are bigger than dimes. Not from sports journalists who are paid to analyze sports.
Another rationale, which is no less flawed, has to deal with Nash's teammates. Anyone who foolishly voted for Nash will probably tell you that he was the best choice because three of his teammates are having career highs in points (Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, and Leandro Barbosa). While the career high part is true, maybe the real reason these three players are averaging career highs in points is because they are also average career highs in minutes this season. Or should we give credit to Nash for their increased playing time, too? And their increased field goal attempts?
But what do I know? I'm just some blogger and these are full-grown sports analysts I'm disagreeing with. Maybe Nash is so valuable to the Phoenix Suns that they lost eight more games this year than last.
One line of reasoning for giving Nash the MVP award exemplifies the retarded mental state with which sports journalists approach the sports world. It goes something like this. Since Nash won the MVP last year and he had a better season statistically speaking this year, well then, he must have been more valuable to his team. This is the sort of logic I would expect from a four-year-old child who thinks that four nickels are worth more than three dimes because four is greater than three and nickels are bigger than dimes. Not from sports journalists who are paid to analyze sports.
Another rationale, which is no less flawed, has to deal with Nash's teammates. Anyone who foolishly voted for Nash will probably tell you that he was the best choice because three of his teammates are having career highs in points (Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, and Leandro Barbosa). While the career high part is true, maybe the real reason these three players are averaging career highs in points is because they are also average career highs in minutes this season. Or should we give credit to Nash for their increased playing time, too? And their increased field goal attempts?
But what do I know? I'm just some blogger and these are full-grown sports analysts I'm disagreeing with. Maybe Nash is so valuable to the Phoenix Suns that they lost eight more games this year than last.
posted by David at
10:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home