I explained this in another thread but ill make a much clearer attempt this time. Ill give you in detail the way the team is structured, and how it is different then other teams in the NBA.
Scenario 1: Take the Lakers without anyone on their team and they have $50mil to spend on players. They use $40mil on 2 superstar players, then $10mil on the rest of the team. In this case you have the entire team dependant on 2 players while the rest are just role players. Before anything let me go further into detail exactly what role players are. Fisher is the PG, and he averages 3apg throughout his career with the Lakers. An aspect that is lower then that of many centers. Their PF (Horry) averages just over 5rpg throughout his career. Do you guys think this is good? It has constantly been said that Iverson and McGrady "Single-Handedly" carry their team, and that’s why they should win it. Is this really true? Iverson has a PF that averages 17ppg and 8rpg through out his career, a PG who averages over 7apg and 10ppg. McKie averages 9 and 4, Thomas 9 and 7. When they went to the finals they had a center who is a 4 time defensive player of the year. These are truly positioned players. Now who really has “no one" on their team. Kobe is picking up the slack where these players lack, which is what is needed when you situate a team like this. Should the fact that this team is carried by two players, who can’t win without each other really effect their chances that much? Maybe they should be more recognized for how they do with what they have. The fact they this team can win a title with these two players should only be more reason that they both be considered MVP candidates.
The Good: When healthy the team does great, as you can see back to back to back titles was the outcome.
The Bad: One of the 2 superstars gets injured, the team cannot make up for it.
Weather or not each player can win without the other should have do effect on weather or not they are the MVP. Could Duncan in place of SHAQ win without Kobe? Absolutely not, but he is your MVP last year and a good chance this year. Now this leads me to the second scenario.
Scenario 2: Take the Sacramento Kings. Although it looks as if they are filled with a bunch of superstars, they are not. The spread there money around and purchased a bunch of solid players such as Bibby, Webber, Peja, Jackson, Christie and should I say Divac?
The Good: The absence of a single one of these players would not affect the team to great. It might put a damper in there post season run, but as far as how they play during the regular season (the basis of MVP voting) they are not greatly affected. For example, I showed you that the Kings actually played well without Webber.
The Bad: In order for this team (in the post season) to be successful, they ALL have to play good in a single game. If Webber and Peja have off nights, strike an L in the books. They are not dependant on each other; rather the team is dependant on the starting 5, and even some bench players in order to win.
As the Kings have a good record without Webber (with the exception of a few games this year) does this completely dismiss him from the MVP voting? Do you think the Kings would make it to the playoffs without Webber? I do, and you should know they would.
In conclusion, can you really leave out these players from MVP just because they are the two players that carry this team, and one can’t win without the other? The fact they one can’t win without the other only shows you how more valuable they actually are. I believe it falls under the category of common sense.
