Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-celica!fredrickson From: fredrickson@celica.DEC Newsgroups: net.sport.hoops Subject: Re: MVP Message-ID: <1501@decwrl.DEC.COM> Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 16:27:13 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.1501 Posted: Tue Mar 4 16:27:13 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Mar-86 04:48:37 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 103 Some thoughts on the NBA's MVP, which I believe is becoming as much an annual lock for Larry Bird as the NHL's is for Wayne Gretzky. This is why I was so surprised to see the recent speculation in this newsgroup. I found the lack of respect for Bird appalling, but I know there are many Celtic haters out there. The criteria for choosing MVPs has always been controversial. The idea of singlehandedly causing a team's improvement is very credible, but it penalizes a great player for being on a great team. Leading a team to a championship is a nice idea, but it penalizes great players who are on lousy teams. Statistics can be convenient, but we all know they can lie. Intangibles like leadership and intensity and durability should count for something, shouldn't they? The answer, of course, is to mix all of these considerations. Looking back through the MVP selections in the major sports over the years, most MVPs are from top teams. When there is a premium placed on winning, then leading a team to a title is an important criterion for an MVP. My favorite example is Zoilo Versailles of the '66 Twins. He was a .260 or .270-hitting shortstop but his team won the flag and he was the AL MVP. The year Ted Williams hit .406 (1941), Joe DiMaggio was the MVP for two reasons: his 56-game hitting streak and the Yankees' pennant. I believe DiMag also beat out Williams for MVP in one of Ted's triple crown years, again because the Yanks won it (the writers supposedly hated Williams as well). Isn't it hard to imagine a triple-crown winner not being MVP? How about asking the question, "How many fewer wins would the team have without this guy?" Again, it penalizes the guys on deep teams, but I still believe Bird would fare well under this theory. I don't care how many great players the Celtics have, they'd be a good 10-15 games lower in the standings without Bird. In his rookie year (when he wasn't nearly as good as he is now), Bird joined a team that had been terrible for 2-3 years and they went 61-21, the best regular-season record in the league. The only other new guy of significance on that team (1979-80) was 6th-man M.L. Carr. A year later they added McHale and Parish, then DJ and so on, so Bird's impact can now be argued because of these other outstanding players. As for Dominique Wilkins, he is certainly a great player who is largely responsible for his team's rebirth. But an MVP? No way. His defense is worse than Bird's and he can't pass to save his life. People love to pick on Bird's D. First of all, he is one of the greatest defensive-rebounding forwards ever, and if that doesn't count towards being a good defensive player, I don't know what does. Secondly, being born a slow-footed white guy who can't jump does limit you in certain facets of basketball, including one-on-one defense away from the basket. And thirdly, how many guys in NBA history who did everything at the offensive end could ever put the energy into guarding the opponent with 100% fervor? At least Bird works at defense, which is far more than you can ever say about Mr. Jabbar (a 7-foot-2 center who averages 5 rebounds as MVP? Ha!). The biggest reason the Celts try to avoid having Bird guard the opponent's best forward is fatigue, not ability. They want him fresh at the other end. The suggestion of Isiah Thomas as MVP is another joke. Like Wilkins, he is a great talent who tries to do too much himself. Unlike Wilkins, though, Isiah has quite a few able teammates. I realize his assist totals are proof that he gives the ball up and creates opportunities for others, but when you handle the ball 70% of the time on every possession, you're going to get some assists. He looked like a fool down the stretch Sunday in Boston, driving the lane umpteen times when it just wasn't there and getting stuffed or stripped on several occasions when Tripucka or Laimbeer were standing 12 feet from the basket wide open. Thomas is a charismatic, exciting, talented player who is certainly among the four best point guards in the game. But an MVP? No way. And please don't tell me about the Pistons' recent 10-game winning streak, achieved against a list of miserable opponents. The Detroit players admitted they played better Sunday than in any game during the streak, and they lost by 20! As for Akeem, has anyone noticed the Rockets' record since he got hurt? I believe Moses Malone is the closest thing to an MVP after Bird. And despite Jabbar's defensive shortcomings, he is still the glue that holds the flaky Lakers together, not Magic. No one is even close to Bird. If you want to use statistics, he is in the top 15 in six of eight individual categories. Olajuwon, Thomas and Barkley each appear in four categories; Jabbar, Nance and Sampson three. If you want to use intangibles -- leadership, intensity, etc. -- Bird is an even clearer choice. It's no coincidence that the careers of Parish, DJ and Walton were all reborn after they got to Boston. So my MVP ballot goes like this: 1. Bird 2. Malone 3. Jabbar 4. Olajuwon 5. Wilkins