Nowitzki to be named 2006-07 NBA MVP

[Superman]

Mavs' Nowitzki will receive MVP trophy next week


It appears that the worst-kept secret in the NBA will be out in the open by early next week.

Dallas Mavericks forward Dirk Nowitzki, whose coronation as the first European-born Most Valuable Player in NBA history has been expected for weeks, is scheduled to officially receive the MVP trophy news conference on Tuesday in Dallas, ESPN.com has learned.

The NBA has handed out its past three MVPs -- two straight to Phoenix's Steve Nash after Minnesota's Kevin Garnett won in 2004 -- at the start of the second round. But it's believed the league opted to put some distance between Nowitzki's ceremony and the Mavericks' stunning first-round exit against Golden State.
By the time Nowitzki collects his award, nearly two weeks will have elapsed since the 67-win Mavs became the just the third No. 1 seed in NBA history to lose to a No. 8 seed. The previous two No. 1 seeds to lose so quickly, however, suffered five-game exits as opposed to losing a seven-game series: Seattle in 1994 to Denver and Miami in 1999 to New York.

(more in link)

 

[Bricklayer]

So our rewards season goes something like:

MVP -- out in the first round amidst a humiliating collapse, by himself in particular
Coach of the Year -- out in first round amidst public questioning of his decisions
Most Improved -- playing for Cinderella darlings, but playing like crap and largely benched
DPOY -- out in the first round


The sad thing for Dirk, or maybe fortuitous thing, is that he has now been hung with a giant choker label and will never, NEVER be in the running for another MVP. Nobody will dare vote for him again -- what if he embarrasses again? May need more than one title to wash the stink off, and given his performance and general lack of true MVP level game anyway, have my doubts whether he will get them.

 

[Ryle]

I thought Nowitzki had a "normal" season for him and I'm not sure why he is winning the MVP this year....other than being the best player on the best team in the league in the regular season. If you go by stats alone his season was really no better than any other season he has had. Without him in the line-up this year the Mavs were 3-1.

For my vote it's Nash all the way. Without him I don't think the Suns are more than a .500 team. Suns were 2-4 this year without him.

 

[Jerryaki]

for me, i'd go with kobe. if the suns become a .500 team without nash, the lakers become a YMCA pick-up team without kobe. but then again, it's hard not to pick nash because he is statistically better this year than in his two previous MVP years.

just...not a whole lot of rhyme or reason to the selection.

 

[VF21]

So our rewards season goes something like:

MVP -- out in the first round amidst a humiliating collapse, by himself in particular
Coach of the Year -- out in first round amidst public questioning of his decisions
Most Improved -- playing for Cinderella darlings, but playing like crap and largely benched
DPOY -- out in the first round


The sad thing for Dirk, or maybe fortuitous thing, is that he has now been hung with a giant choker label and will never, NEVER be in the running for another MVP. Nobody will dare vote for him again -- what if he embarrasses again? May need more than one title to wash the stink off, and given his performance and general lack of true MVP level game anyway, have my doubts whether he will get them.

This whole thing makes it clear these awards should all be announced before the playoffs, to prevent the awkwardness that is sure to follow Nowitzki's selection.

I actually considered possibly trying to feel just a tad sorry for Dirk, but really couldn't do it...

But it's believed the league opted to put some distance between Nowitzki's ceremony and the Mavericks' stunning first-round exit against Golden State.

Some distance? Sports fans and acerbic sports writers have very, very long memories. I can almost picture the cartoons now - one that immediately comes to mind is Dirk, dressed as a ship captain, receiving an award on the bridge of the S.S. Maverick as it hits an iceberg and sinks. If anyone sees that cartoon anywhere, let me know because I'm claiming first credit for thinking of it.

 

[kennadog]

just...not a whole lot of rhyme or reason to the selection.

Mainly because there's no generally accepted definition and the voters get to vote based on their own personal definition of MVP.

 

[nbrans]

Debatable about whether Dirk earned it in the first place, but as we've seen, that Dallas team is a house of cards and Dirk is the guy propping them up. They have no passers, average playmakers at best, but Dirk made everything happen for them. Their entire offense hinged on Dirk and his ability to get defenses to key on him and on his very underrated passing. Dirk's as crucial to Dallas' offense as Nash is to Phoenix's. So, I guess he earned it, but he sure picked the wrong series to lay an egg.

 

[Bricklayer]

Mainly because there's no generally accepted definition and the voters get to vote based on their own personal definition of MVP.

But that definition is very consistent.

This is another one of those things that people constantly fight for no apparent reason -- given all the various definitions of MVP there COULD be out there, its actually a good thing that one has largely come to define the award:

Best player on an elite team.

Could probably even reduce it to a rough equation -- something along the lines of: (player talent - talent of 2nd best player on team) * number of wins by team + anticipated falloff in game if player left team.

In any case, Dirk's selection was far from random: totally predictable, with Nash the only serious competitor. Its the same way the award has been chosen every eyar for the last 25 years at least. People who cliam its random just aren't looking at the historical context -- the definition is quite clear, if unspoken, and the winners have always been consistent with that.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

My vote would be for LeBron

Without King James, the Cavs are the Trail Blazers (some good players, need one more to get to .500 and beyond). With him, they're on the verge of making the Eastern Finals, and Detroit will have their hands full.

And he's, what, 22?

 

[Jerryaki]

Best player on an elite team.

...the definition is quite clear, if unspoken, and the winners have always been consistent with that.

true, but that's a dumb (albeit consistent) definition. as ryle pointed out, not much is distinguishing 2007 nowitzki from the other previous seasons; his cast got better from the mavericks of the nash-finley-dirk era, but he didn't single-handedly make them better. it's the same team as last year!

"An elite team" is still, to me, too fuzzy. the whole award is fuzzy. i thought it's meant to point out someone who's actually accomplished something, but a large part of it is merely rewarding a beneficiary who was on the right team at the right time.

 

[Bricklayer]

Its awarding winners, as opposed to stats hounds on bad/mediocre teams, and thereby distinguishes itself between "best player in the league".

In any case, its quite consistent. People who claim its not are normally just hoping to substitute their own definition or player for the one who actually wins it.

And it should be noted that even before the debacle, Dirk was set up to be one of the weakest MVPs in memory. I would very much agree that Dirk's game hasn;t changed much -- at least with Nash (another weak MVP) he clearly seemed to take his game, and team, to a whole new level. But Dirk is just Dirk. A great player, but a step behind the Great players. If Kobe wins 50+ this year, I think the award goes to him, with a sigh of relief. As is, Nash was fighting the fact that many many far better players have played before him and never won three in a row, Kobe only made his team mediocre, LeBron had a stagnant year, the Heat underacheived, Duncan is not what he once was, and of course the Mavs just won so damn many games it was hard to ignore. Not impossible -- similar to the Pistons of last year, but the Mavs have a better player than any individual Piston.

P.S. Elite is pretty clearly 54-55+ wins, Top 5 in the league. 50+ will get you into the conversation, but that's just a good team, and I don't recall anyone at that level actually getting the MVP. Has to be next level up -- the true title contenders.

 

[Superman]

Its awarding winners, as opposed to stats hounds on bad/mediocre teams, and thereby distinguishes itself between "best player in the league".

In any case, its quite consistent. People who claim its not are normally just hoping to substitute their own definition or player for the one who actually wins it.

Well, I think it should be distinguished even further, and the "equation" you posted earlier is a good example of how to do that. What MVP can you remove from his team and still argue that they'd make the playoffs? The MVP should be a player that makes his team relevant, when they otherwise wouldn't be. If one candidate plays for a contender and another doesn't, then it's pretty clear who you vote for.

And it should be noted that even before the debacle, Dirk was set up to be one of the weakest MVPs in memory. I would very much agree that Dirk's game hasn;t changed much -- at least with Nash (another weak MVP) he clearly seemed to take his game, and team, to a whole new level. But Dirk is just Dirk. A great player, but a step behind the Great players. If Kobe wins 50+ this year, I think the award goes to him, with a sigh of relief. As is, Nash was fighting the fact that many many far better players have played before him and never won three in a row, Kobe only made his team mediocre, LeBron had a stagnant year, the Heat underacheived, Duncan is not what he once was, and of course the Mavs just won so damn many games it was hard to ignore. Not impossible -- similar to the Pistons of last year, but the Mavs have a better player than any individual Piston.

This is actually the only year Nash would have gotten my vote. Two years ago I would have voted for Duncan, and last year I would have voted for either Kobe or LeBron. Nash clearly took his play to another level this season, and actually looked like an MVP all year. The previous two years, he was simply the most important player on a team that was suddenly one of the best in the Western conference, but I wouldn't have been comfortable saying that he was more valuable to his team than Duncan, Bryant or James the past two seasons.

Either way, I think it's clear that the MVP award is always sort of, I don't know, whimsical, if not random. It's like that in every major sport. Some people want to vote for the best player on the best team, some vote for the stat machine (especially in the NFL and MLB; A-Rod should never have been MVP for the Yankees, and I don't think LT and Shaun Alexander should have been MVPs the past two seasons), and some vote for the guy who is holding his team together. I think Nash was a nice mix of those three this season, but history was against him. If he hadn't been awarded for being a nice feel-good story the past two seasons, his award this year would have been meaningful to more fans.

Dirk should never get MVP.

P.S. Elite is pretty clearly 54-55+ wins, Top 5 in the league. 50+ will get you into the conversation, but that's just a good team, and I don't recall anyone at that level actually getting the MVP. Has to be next level up -- the true title contenders.

I can understand that, but I don't think that should be a rule. I think it's clear that Kobe is more important to his team than Dirk is to his. If you were to do a pie chart on how much Kobe contributes to the Lakers vs. how much Dirk contributes to the Mavs, I think Kobe would be somewhere around 60% and Dirk around 45%.

 

[Gargamel]

....other than being the best player on the best team in the league in the regular season.

The media are doin the votin. They spread the award around.

 

[kennadog]

But that definition is very consistent.

This is another one of those things that people constantly fight for no apparent reason -- given all the various definitions of MVP there COULD be out there, its actually a good thing that one has largely come to define the award:

Best player on an elite team.

Could probably even reduce it to a rough equation -- something along the lines of: (player talent - talent of 2nd best player on team) * number of wins by team + anticipated falloff in game if player left team.

In any case, Dirk's selection was far from random: totally predictable, with Nash the only serious competitor. Its the same way the award has been chosen every eyar for the last 25 years at least. People who cliam its random just aren't looking at the historical context -- the definition is quite clear, if unspoken, and the winners have always been consistent with that.

It may end up that way, but I've sure listened to plenty of sportwriters/commentators every year arguing ad naseum with each other over their personal definition of what constitutes MVP. Each one sure their criteria are the right ones. The kind of utimately boring debates they are repeated over and over and over and over.........[insert yawning emoticon here].

 

[Widowmaker2k]

Just a little food for thought:
1961-1962 NBA Season:
Wilt Chamberlain averages 50.4 points, 25.7 rebounds, and 48.5 minutes per game. This is the year he had his 100 point game, in regulation (Warriors beat the Knick 169-147).

Oscar Robertson becomes the only player in history to average a triple-double for an entire season, finishing with 30.8 points, 11.4 assists, and 12.5 rebounds per game.

Bill Russell wins the MVP. (Averaging 18.9 points and 23.6 rebounds per game. The Celtics won the championship.)

 

[4cwebb]

Just a little food for thought:
1961-1962 NBA Season:
Wilt Chamberlain averages 50.4 points, 25.7 rebounds, and 48.5 minutes per game. This is the year he had his 100 point game, in regulation (Warriors beat the Knick 169-147).

Oscar Robertson becomes the only player in history to average a triple-double for an entire season, finishing with 30.8 points, 11.4 assists, and 12.5 rebounds per game.

Bill Russell wins the MVP. (Averaging 18.9 points and 23.6 rebounds per game. The Celtics won the championship.)

Just to add more background, Russell's team was 60-20 during the regular season (I think), Wilt's team was 49-31, and the Big O's team was 43-37. I hadn't realized the winning team concept carried so much weight in the past...

 

[Gargamel]

The players voted for MVPs back then.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I think this is the one year Nash actually deserved the MVP.

 

[jon e]

I think this is the one year Nash actually deserved the MVP.

i agree but i dont think people were ready to put him into the mv3 category

 

[Gargamel]

I think this is the one year Nash actually deserved the MVP.

Don't worry, he'll probably win it next year regardless of anything Dirk does. Unless Kobe cracks 50 wins or Bron cracks 55-60.

 

[midnightlove1998]

Just a little food for thought:
1961-1962 NBA Season:
Wilt Chamberlain averages 50.4 points, 25.7 rebounds, and 48.5 minutes per game. This is the year he had his 100 point game, in regulation (Warriors beat the Knick 169-147).

Oscar Robertson becomes the only player in history to average a triple-double for an entire season, finishing with 30.8 points, 11.4 assists, and 12.5 rebounds per game.

Bill Russell wins the MVP. (Averaging 18.9 points and 23.6 rebounds per game. The Celtics won the championship.)

If they had kept blocked shots as an official stat, Big O wouldn't have been the only one to avg. a triple dub. He prolly woulda been joined by Wilt and Russ.