Beating a Dead Horse

I swore before that I wouldn't write about this anymore, but I'm going to try one more time to explain how absolutely stupid it is to award the MVP to Steve Nash.

Shown below are the stat lines of three players, who shall be nameless for the time being.

W-L....ppg....apg...fp%...mpg...spg...to...3p%
60-22... 18... 7.... 47..... 33..... 1.5.... 3.4.. 41 (A)
62-20... 16... 12... 50.... 34..... 1...... 3.3... 43 (B)
64-18... 14... 11... 55.... 35..... 3....... 4..... 42 (C)

Now, from those stats, can you tell me which one is the MVP, and which two finished out of the top 10? Really? What number jumps out at you as the glaring example of why that player, more than anyone else, deserves to be MVP?

There isn't a number, because it's all a load of crap. As you would never have guessed, player (A) is Nash from 2003, (B) is Nash this year, and (C) is John Stockton in 1997. You'll be interested to find out that Nash finished 11th in the voting in '03.

Stockton?

He wound up 15th, with less than half as many votes as Anthony Mason, and two votes ahead of Tom Gugliotta and Steve Smith.

Folks, this is a simple case of the Emperor's new clothes. Rather than question the premise of Nash's candidacy, the media has swallowed this nonsense without debate.

Crazier still, O'Neal will once again fall short of the award he so richly deserves. The man who has been unquestionably the most dominant player of the past decade has all of one MVP trophy. Ridiculous.