These Aren't the MVP Candidates You're Looking For

The NBA MVP race is all but wrapped up. But should it be? Rhombus Magazine editor Steve Pierce recently tweeted a link to a this comparison of likely MVP Derrick Rose with Oklahoma City point guard Russell Westbrook. Their stats are scary similar. So why is it that Rose is far and away the MVP leader, while other contenders aren't getting much love (i.e. Westbrook, Dwight Howard, LeBron James, etc.)?

Well, it's an interesting question that can't be answered definitely. But could part of the answer, at least, be that sportwriters (who vote on the award) want Derrick Rose to be the MVP? You have to admit, it makes a heck of a story. The Bulls are in first place, he's revamped his outside shot and become a threat from anywhere on the court, and he can finish better than anyone in the game right now. This provides an almost inexhaustible highlight reel of circus shots in traffic. On top of that, during the whole free agency debacle that left egg on ESPN's face (two words: "The" and "Decision."), Derrick Rose felt spurned when neither Dwyane Wade nor LeBron returned his phone calls. So his renaissance is a desire to beat the guys that so callously dissed him. Great narrative.

So what's going on here? It kind of seems like that scene from the original Star Wars, where Obi-Wan gets past the storm troopers with his Jedi powers, persuading them that C-3P0 and R2-D2 weren't, in fact, the droids they were looking for. Which of course they were.

And in the search for the league's most valuable player, fans searching for other viable candidates are being told "these aren't the MVP candidates you're looking for."

Now the catch: Derrick Rose is a fine choice for MVP--one that wouldn't give rise to any complaints from me. But the question is not whether he deserves it. Rather, are our opinions being influenced by the very people who vote on the award--the media? An example:

Steve Nash was the league MVP in 2004-2005. His stat line: 15.5 PPG; 11.5 APG; 3.3 RPG; .502 FG %; 1.0 Steals; 3.3 TOs.

This year: 15.5 PPG; 11.4 APG; 3.6 RPG; .497 FG %; .6 Steals; 3.6 TOs.

So why isn't Nash in the discussion this year, when he's performing at an identical level? Well the Suns are going to miss the playoffs and aren't a premiere team in the league. And in 2005, the narrative was better--he'd turned the Suns around, they were a contender, he was someone other than Shaq or Tim Duncan, and he was a point guard who wasn't the prototypical NBA player. Writers ate this up with a spoon and asked for seconds. (Literally. He was voted MVP the following year as well).

Of course, Steve Nash is a fantastic basketball player and a deserving choice. But he's a deserving choice every year. And he's fortunate that his success made a great story for a couple years or it's likely he wouldn't have been considered.

Now a thought experiment. Suppose someone kidnaps you, and locks you in that weird fish tank thing The Others put Jack in for the first half of LOST Season 3. And they force you to watch every single game of the NBA season. (This is coincidentally Ben Wagner's dream job, if there's anyone out there who does this. Send him an email.) During this forced viewing, you are not allowed to read any media of any kind. No commentary will be audible during the broadcasts. Would Derrick Rose be your MVP choice? Perhaps.

But would it be such a landslide? Something to think about.