Duncan To Receive MVP = Travesty!!!

[MBH]

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).]

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

As crazy as it sounds Jason Kidd actually had a better supporting cast this year than Duncan did. Who would you rather have?
Kenyon Martin, Keith Van Horn, Kittles, MacCulloch etc or an often injured and rarely effective David Robinson and Danny Ferry and a rookie point guard from France?
Kidd also plays in the weaker Western conference. Duncan had to go to war on a near daily basis with the likes of Nowitski, Webber, Malone and Garnett. Despite a weaker supporting cast and a tougher conference to play in Duncan and the Spurs won five more games than Kidd and the Nets. Duncan was fifth in scoring, second in rebounding, 3rd in blocks, first in double-doubles.
Duncan's not a bad choice at all.

MAP

 

[The Wanderer]

I think it was basically a toss-up, and in such a case, Duncan wins the tie-breaker because he is a media-favorite (media members vote for the award) and he's already proven how great he is by winning a championship, but the Nets had all-star point guard Stephon Marbury last year, and wone 26 games, they bring in Kidd and win 52

but I think the bigger travesty is Byron Scott not winning Coach of the Year, and even though that one is very close, Detroit made the playoffs 5 of the last 7 years, including two years ago, they had talent to win, Carlisle brought it back out, but c'mon, the Nets are always awful and the won the Eastern Conference this year, and if Kidd wasn't the MVP, than Scott must have had a lot to do with the team's great success, but I keep hearing that it wasn't Scott, that it was Kidd who made them so good, so then why no MVP???

I think the media made the wrong choices, but there certainly is no disgrace in the choices the made, they were extremely close calls




[This message has been edited by The Wanderer (edited 05-07-2002).]

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
As crazy as it sounds Jason Kidd actually had a better supporting cast this year than Duncan did. Who would you rather have?
Kenyon Martin, Keith Van Horn, Kittles, MacCulloch etc or an often injured and rarely effective David Robinson and Danny Ferry and a rookie point guard from France?
Kidd also plays in the weaker Western conference. Duncan had to go to war on a near daily basis with the likes of Nowitski, Webber, Malone and Garnett. Despite a weaker supporting cast and a tougher conference to play in Duncan and the Spurs won five more games than Kidd and the Nets. Duncan was fifth in scoring, second in rebounding, 3rd in blocks, first in double-doubles.
Duncan's not a bad choice at all.

MAP

How've you been 2000Man? Haven't heard from yo in awhile....

Duncan is not a bad choice; he is the WRONG choice.

The award is called the Most Valuable Player, not necessarily the Best Player.

The Nets have wallowed in obscurity for years prior to Kidd's arrival, whereas the Spurs were good b4 Duncan got there. Kidd's #'s were not as dominant as Duncan's, but he was certainly more VALUABLE to his team than Duncan was. The win totals from last year to this year speaks volumes for my support regarding this issue.

Look forward to your reply....MBH


[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-08-2002).]

 

[RufusYoungblood]

Originally posted by MBH:
The award is called the Most Valuable Player, not necessarily the Best Player.

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 05-08-2002).]

That must be Shaq. Surely the most valuable.

 

[The Wanderer]

Shaq? I like how he doesn't even guard Tim Duncan in the playoffs, Kobe is slowly taking over that team

 

[gvox]

Well look at the bright side, if he does get it, at least he'll have to wake up long enough to accept it...

ok that was cheap...

East rules!

Well, not really. But anyways.