MBH
Acrobat
It is being reported widely that Tim Duncan will win the NBA's coveted MVP award, leaving a much-deserving Jason Kidd behind in 2nd place.
To those intelligent fans who follow the NBA, you must realize that this is one of the biggest travesties to come along in some time. Not only did Jason Kidd reserect a moribund franchise almost single-handedly, he enbabled those players around him to improve their game. The Nets nearly doubled their win total from last year, won a first round series for the first time in over a decade, caught the attention of NY-area fans, garnered national attention for a team that is usually ignored and did so with a mediocre supporting cast.
Don't get me wrong: Tim Duncan is a great player and I would love to have him on my team. However, the Spurs consistently win 50 games every year while Stephon Marbury led the Nets to 26-wins last year before Kidd stepped in to provide astronomical improvements.
Personally, I can't think of any logical reasons why the sportswriters chose Duncan over Kidd. Here are some trivial, ridiculous reasons that I have come up with:
1. Duncan has a better reputation than Kidd (Kidd smacked his wife last year and gave the finger to the Suns crowd this year after a game)
2. San Antonio Spurs are more reknowned throughout the league and the Nets have to earn their respect before being awarded with an MVP winner
3. The Spurs have more credibility as a franchise than the Nets and are more popular
4. Duncan is a proven winner('99) while Kidd is still showing that he can lead a team
That is all I can think of, and like I said, none of these reasons change the fact that Kidd deserved to win the MVP. BTW, the voting is done strictly based on the regular season(playoff performances do not count).
If anyone can provide any intelligent, factual evidence as to why Duncan should win this award, please feel free to do so.
[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-07-2002).]
To those intelligent fans who follow the NBA, you must realize that this is one of the biggest travesties to come along in some time. Not only did Jason Kidd reserect a moribund franchise almost single-handedly, he enbabled those players around him to improve their game. The Nets nearly doubled their win total from last year, won a first round series for the first time in over a decade, caught the attention of NY-area fans, garnered national attention for a team that is usually ignored and did so with a mediocre supporting cast.
Don't get me wrong: Tim Duncan is a great player and I would love to have him on my team. However, the Spurs consistently win 50 games every year while Stephon Marbury led the Nets to 26-wins last year before Kidd stepped in to provide astronomical improvements.
Personally, I can't think of any logical reasons why the sportswriters chose Duncan over Kidd. Here are some trivial, ridiculous reasons that I have come up with:
1. Duncan has a better reputation than Kidd (Kidd smacked his wife last year and gave the finger to the Suns crowd this year after a game)
2. San Antonio Spurs are more reknowned throughout the league and the Nets have to earn their respect before being awarded with an MVP winner
3. The Spurs have more credibility as a franchise than the Nets and are more popular
4. Duncan is a proven winner('99) while Kidd is still showing that he can lead a team
That is all I can think of, and like I said, none of these reasons change the fact that Kidd deserved to win the MVP. BTW, the voting is done strictly based on the regular season(playoff performances do not count).
If anyone can provide any intelligent, factual evidence as to why Duncan should win this award, please feel free to do so.
[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-07-2002).]