Stephen Curry and LeBron James (Photo : Reuters)
Steph Curry won his second Most Valuable Player award and he was the first to win it unanimously.
The last part raised some eyebrows as players like Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James among others had dominating seasons as well but they never got a full nod from all of the voters. But no one is questioning whether Curry deserved a unanimous vote-Jordan, Shaq and LeBron did, too but they just didn't get it because there are some "contrarian" votes.
Setting that issue aside, LeBron James did have a valid question that has quietly nagged the basketball world? What exactly does it mean to be "valuable?"
In an ESPN piece, LeBron shared his thoughts on the nature of the award itself, careful not to be misinterpreted as a sore loser.
"I think sometimes the word 'valuable' or best player of the year you can have different results," said James. "You know, that's not taking anything from anyone that's ever won the award."
James definitely won't belittle the past winners of the award-he himself won it four times.
"Look at Steph's numbers," he said. "He averaged 30, he led the league in steals, he was 90-50-40 [shooting percentages from the free throw line, field and beyond the 3-point line], and they won 73 [games]. So, I don't -- do you have any debate over that, really, when it comes to that award? But when you talk about most 'valuable,' then you can have a different conversation. So take nothing away from him. He's definitely deserving of that award, for sure."
It should be clear that LeBron's point is valid and for the sake of settling tireless debates, the award should be more objective or at least renamed to "best player" or "most outstanding player of the season." However, it may arouse curiosity that LeBron didn't ask those questions in the four seasons that he was the recipient.
In most leagues, the MVP award was given to the most outstanding player although sometimes there are minimum benchmarks for the team-like the awardee should be a player from a team that reached the semifinals, etc.
There are no clear-cut rules like that in the NBA which only leads to more confusion. It seems like there's an unwritten rule among the voters that the MVP should not come from a team that did not reach the playoffs. It implies that team success is a factor for the "value" of a player.
There are some who interpret the MVP as the best player on the best team and for this season (and also the last) that would be Curry.
But Colin Cowherd's argument in this video is also valid, reasoning that Curry can't be the most valuable when his team can manage without him. That's also a valid point.
As a counterpoint, should Curry's outstanding performance diminish in value simply because he has excellent teammates that other players don't have? That would also not be fair.
In the end, Curry is the best player in the NBA this season, if that's what the award wants to say. No one, not even LeBron James would argue with that.
