Jun 1, 2011, 4:57 PM EDT
When asked if the MVP award should be handed out at some point during or after the postseason at a press conference before Game 1 of the NBA Finals, David Stern said “It’s an idea that should get some traction. I have no particular opinion on it one way or the other. And the worst answer I can give you is the truth — it’s always been done this way. That doesn’t mean it’s the best way to do it.”
Interesting. In my opinion, making the MVP a regular-season award is the right way to do things, and the way things should remain, even after something like LeBron handily outplaying Rose in the Eastern Conference Finals happens. (By the way, Dwight Howard, who was eliminated in the first round, was the runner-up to the award, not LeBron.)
The MVP is an individual award, given out after teams play 82 games against more or less the same opponents. If it’s given after or during the playoffs, the playoffs will inevitably be given more emphasis than the regular season, decreasing the amount of games that are being judged from 82 to around 15. On top of that, teams are playing radically different opponents, which makes individual statistics almost irrelevant — how much value would you add to LeBron James‘ numbers after he played the two best defenses in the league in the conference semifinals and conference finals?
Winning in the playoffs has its own set of rewards — you get to stay alive in the playoffs and get that much closer to a championship and a Finals MVP. The regular season MVP awards regular-season excellence, and that’s the way things should stay.
- PBT Extra: How ’bout them Wizards? 7
- Phil Jackson wants Carmelo Anthony to take less money to re-sign with Knicks 40
- Report: Frank Vogel “coaching for his job” in wake of team’s slide 17
- Phoenix’s Goran Dragic runs away with Most Improved Player 13
- Report: James Dolan meddles into Phil Jackson’s attempts to fire Knicks employees 52