Anyway, I'm past that now. I still find it hard to believe that a guy who plays no defense can win not one but two MVP Awards, but whatever. A couple of quotes caught me eye today:
First, from the Daily Quickie, while not exactly a sports "expert", there was something there that I found true, but odd:
LeBron's runner-up finish, meanwhile, should make him the prohibitive favorite for next season, as voters develop "Nash fatigue."
No matter what Nash's stats are next year, voters won't want to give any player three MVPs in a row.
Even Jordan didn't get that treatment.
Then, from Marc Stein's chat:
Bruce (Montpelier, VT): I still can't come to grips with the concept of 2 Nash MVPs compared to 1 for Shaq. Should we pencil in number 3 for Nash given that he will have Amare back?
SportsNation Marc Stein: I hear that one a lot. Nash shouldn't have been MVP because someone like Shaq hasn't won more than one. Or that Nash can't go back-to-back because he isn't as legendary as the other eight back-to-backers. As a voter, I'm not comparing Nash's season to a Magic season or Jordan season from the past. I'm assessing where he falls based on the competition of the current season.
SportsNation Marc Stein: As for your first question, no, I wouldn't worry about Nash winning three in a row.
My question is... why not?
Marc Stein says that he is just comparing Nash's one season to other players, nothing else. Then, he seems to imply (to me at least) that there's no way Nash would win 3 in a row. The Daily Quickie says it more explicitly. I can't understand this way of thinking.
If Nash is the best player in the NBA next year (which, in the voter's eyes, means he's at least top 5), then why wouldn't you vote for him? It's this way of thinking that is why Shaq only has one MVP or that Jordan doesn't have more - they were so dominant that the voters just didn't give it to them. That's a shame.
Am I off base here? Do you see what I'm saying?