Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
The "best player on the best team" should only be used as a TIE BREAKER (like when you can't decide between Dirk and Kobe), it shouldn't automatically qualify somebody for an MVP award - if so, what's the point in voting?
He was anointed by the media off the bat, whereas every other MVP in the last 30 years got snubbed time and time again before they eventually earned it.
It's a damn shame that Rose already has as many MVP awards as Kobe when he hasn't proven ANYTHING in the NBA yet (take these playoffs for example) - no battle scars, no war stories, no victories, but the kid has already been titled "the best in the NBA" because he plays in the same city as "the best in NBA history" - it's a damn shame... |
But that's not what the MVP award is. The MVP isn't a "lifetime achievement" award. If it was, I'm pretty sure Steve Nash wouldn't have twice as many of them as Shaquille O'Neal. It's an award that's completely self contained and limited to one single regular season. Anything that happened in a player's career before the season began is completely irrelevant. If you want to make the argument that someone else was a better choice THIS SEASON, then that's one thing. But to say Rose doesn't deserve it because he "hasn't proven anything" and doesn't have "battle scars" or whatever, that just doesn't work. That's not the criteria for the award, never has been.