Shoals Unlimited: MVP Award Is About More Than Recognizing the Season’s Best Player

The NBA is an oligarchy. Unlike the NFL, where “any given Sunday” might as well be “any given season,” a small number of teams have won the lion’s share of the titles. The same applied to the MVP during Michael Jordan’s career. No matter how you wanted to interpret the award -- best player on best team, best player, best elite player whose team won -- Jordan was the no-brainer for much of his grown-up period.↵
↵
↵However, the voters chose to take pity on Charles Barkley in 1992-93 and give him something of a lifetime achievement award; you could view Karl Malone in 1996-97, as well as his post-Jordan MVP of 1998-99, as about more than just that season. Or, to be cynical about it, you couldn’t give the award to Jordan every year. That’s usually the explanation given for Shaquille O’Neal ‘s lone MVP, in 1999-00 -- a head-scratcher that might have contributed to his “doesn’t bring it in the regular season” rep. Steve Nash missed out on a third straight in 2006-07 despite having the best season yet and his Suns enjoying greater team success than 2005-06. ↵
↵
↵This year, LeBron James walked away with the trophy. But throughout the season, there was a quasi-legitimate (if media-stoked) debate raging over whether Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade didn’t have just as strong a case on their side. It’s fitting that, in a season that was dominated by the post-Beijing performances of these three franchise talents, we never even bothered to consider another name. And that -- once the whole world wised up to just how outrageous Wade’s game had gotten -- these three were considered head and shoulders above any other players in the league. ↵
↵
↵

Not to broach the whole next Jordan question, but with regard to the MVP, could we be entering a period of multiple Jordans? If this is the case, is the job of voters even more complicated than that annual attempt to untangle the meaning of the MVP? Instead, they’re entrusted with making sure history gets written the right way. ↵
↵
↵As much as celebrating particular seasons, the MVP can -- as with Barkley or Malone -- acknowledge prominence in an era, even if the timing is somewhat arbitrary. If multiple All-Star appearances are the first stepping stone to historical legitimacy, then having an MVP comes next (of course, being the star on a championship team is the ultimate addition to an individual resume). Bird and Magic got theirs before Jordan really took flight; Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson benefitted from MJ’s first retirement. It’s hard to say that this was purely intentional, and I certainly don’t mean to suggest yet another NBA conspiracy theory. Still, it’s funny how things turned out just right. ↵
↵
↵There are certainly players in this new generation who deserve to win an MVP at some point. Chris Paul leads the pack; with the point guard position enjoying a renaissance, and Paul not only leading that charge but having some of the best PG seasons ever, it’s got to happen. Many people, myself included, thought he deserved it over Kobe in 2007-08. When Dwight Howard reaches his peak, and that team figures out exactly what to do with him, he could be averaging 20/20 for a contender. If Howard is the big man of the future, what about some love for Yao Ming, a dinosaur from a bygone era but even bigger who has emerged as a flat-out dominant force. And if the Blazers continue their ascent, and Brandon Roy continues to play like Wade-lite, then he’ll deserve one -- if nothing else, to make for the oversight of a certain other Portland guard. ↵
↵
↵Putting the voters in the role of curators, whose job it is to make sure history reads right, is far from ideal. It’s all so much easier when everything falls into place on its own, like when Allen Iverson got his 2001 MVP or Kevin Garnett got the award in 2004. These were great players enjoying career seasons with no one to stand in their way. But seeing as career seasons in the NBA are usually about team accomplishments -- once they’ve arrived, players tend to produce consistently -- and it’s usually the same group of elite athletes in the running, the Bron/Kobe/Wade troika demand activist voters. ↵
↵
↵Maybe this casts the entire MVP award in a phony or unfavorable light; personally, I find this take on it a lot more credible than the usual “human error and ambiguity” excuse made for a questionable selection. What’s more, there is a sense that the MVP is making a statement about more than just that season -- remember, Nash didn’t get a third not because he or the Suns weren’t fantastic, but because the point had been made by giving him two already. When a player’s moment has passed, they lose their luster in the eyes of voters. Maybe it’s time we also acknowledge that sometimes, the voters go and make a moment where they feel there should be one.↵