One of the worst kept secrets known to man was finally officially revealed yesterday when Chicago's Derrick Rose was named the NBA MVP, making him the youngest winner of the League's highest honour. This, of course, came as a shock to no one as Rose seemingly was given the award in the media months ago. You can't really argue too hard with this choice (although I voted for Dwight Howard in our awards spectacular), as Rose was the best player on the League's best team. What can be argued, however, is whether or not Rose is even the best player at his own position in the NBA.
The best player in the NBA doesn't always win the MVP award, that is nothing new. If that wasn't the case, Michael Jordan would have a hell of a lot more hardware sitting around his mansions. However, a player winning MVP that isn't even the best player at his position is a rarer thing. Power forwards Dirk Nowitzki and Kevin Garnett won MVPs a few years back while fellow "power forward" extraordinaire Tim Duncan was still at the height of his powers, so it does happen on occasion, but rarely. And I think this year is one of those rare occasions, as Rose probably isn't the best - or even the next best - point guard in the NBA.
For my money, Chris Paul is, and has been for a few years, the best point guard in the NBA. While Rose might score more points, there really isn't much else on the court that he does better than Paul. And if you're into advanced stats, Paul actually had a better season in 2010/11 than Rose did (Paul ranks higher in Win Shares, Win Shares Per 48 Minutes and Player Efficiency Rating than Rose). Other than Paul, I'd probably take Deron Williams over Rose also, Steve Nash too (but that one is harder to argue for) and perhaps Rajon Rondo and Russell Westbrook. Westbrook is actually an interesting player to compare Rose to, as their age and stats are real similar. While Rose is a better scorer (not by much), Westbrook is a better rebounder, playmaker and (arguably) defender. Yet, Westbrook isn't even considered the best player on his team, while Rose is considered (by MVP voters) as the best player in the League. Or the "Most Valuable" player in the League, whatever that means (or is worth).
You are absolutely ridiculous for even entertaining the thought that D Rose is any worse than the second best point guard in the league. In reality if we are under the asumption that Chris Paul is the best 1A, then you can't put Rose any farther behind than 1B. If you ask NBA executives I can guarantee you over 80% of them would pick D Rose over CP3 to start a franchise with right now, and the reason wouldnt be because he is just over 3 years younger. There is a reason that Deron Williams has never went anywhere in the playoffs, and that is because he is not a franchise player that can carry a team on his back like D Rose so for you to say he is better is down right insulting. Williams had Boozer when he was more explosive, had a solid All Star in Okur, a good backup in Paul Milsap, and a very good defender in Andrei Kirilenko. When these players went down with injurys they were barely above %500, while D Rose led his team to the best record in the Conference when his team was decimated by injury after injury. You made a good point with Chris Paul and a debate for who is a better point guard, but after you compared him to the other 4 guys who Rose is clearly miles ahead of you lost all credibility in my eyes. It was a good article, just wish you used facts to back up your theory.
I think that winning MVP is a synergy of winning, being "That guy" on your team, and elevating the play around you. I think stats has a hard time extracting that kind of impact. While the stats need to be there I think it is based more heavily on the "eye test".
@flogg186 Very true - it is more of an "eye test" or "feeling" type of thing. That kind of devalues the importance of the award when it is based on things like that, though. I think the MVP should go to the League's best player every season.