Photo via Carlos Porto on Flickr

The MVP race. Yup, that ole bit.

It’s been a while since the MVP debate has been an enjoyable conversational topic for NBA enthusiasts. For the past two years, Lebron James has rendered the entire affair meaningless, what with his 31+ PER here, and his 29-7-8 per game numbers there, and the 60 wins, and the Cleveland, and the what not.

This year, however, Lebron finally gave us enough of a reason to completely discredit his candidacy – be it by playing at only 95% of his previous world-best capacity while adjusting to new a completely new set of teammates (how dare he!), or choosing where he’d like to continue his career (no, seriously, how dare he!). Sadly, the ensuing blabbering has turned into such a wild mess of Derrick Rose hating and Dwight Howard knocking and advanced stats this and watch the games that it has been grating at best, sickening at worst, and generally about as fun as an NCAA title game.

Of course, if this isn’t the first NBA piece you’ve ever read then, you know this. If it is, I’d like to introduce myself: I am Noam Schiller, 15 time NBA MVP winner, and have won 20 titles with the best team to ever play in the NBA, the Noamsville Noams.

For the sake of this piece, though, I will be working under the assumption that you recognize me as no more than a punk who just happens to have a keyboard. Given this assumption, nothing that I might happen to write here can change your opinion on this monstrosity of an award show. Whether you’re pro-Rose, pro-Howard, still think that being the best player in basketball should be rewarded even if Lebron happened to piss some dudes off this summer, are part of a Kobe Bryant campaign that is suddenly gaining momentum which I can’t for the life of me explain, like Kevin Durant’s beautiful face too much to give it to anybody else, or are behind some mysterious candidate X (Pooh Jeter Pooh Jeter Pooh Jeter), you’re staying in your camp after reading this.

Now, unlike most of the internet these days, I’m cool with that. I’m all for pluralism. It has enhanced the way we consume basketball and live our everyday lives in unmeasurable ways. Whenever something remotely interesting happens, we have millions of marvelous minds working towards instantly providing us with analysis and perspective and sometimes just plain humorous snark through a handful of mediums. And while the occasional flash of idiotism may rear its ugly head more often once we provide more voices with the necessary microphones, this is a small price to pay for what can only be described as a blossoming fountain of knowledge.

That knowledge, however, is key. That sharing of mindsets through which we strengthen each other, even when the other side doesn’t agree with us. When that knowledge is absent – or even worse, present yet ignored – pluralism crosses the line from a melting pot of opinions and intellectual tools to a random assortment of statements, each more dogmatic than the other. And unless you’re Kevin Smith’s career, Dogma never gets you anywhere.

And yet, when this dogmatism is contested, those who dare stand up to it are called haters. Those who provide statistical analysis suddenly don’t watch the games – this despite the fact that NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would spend the time glossing over sheets of numbers without actually being interested in whatever it is that the numbers represent. And the saddest thing is, you don’t even have to contest an opinion to be caught in the crossfire. All one has to do is ask “why?”, even if it’s just out of curiosity, before he is buried in a flurry of capitalized letters and exclamation points.

Well, I’ll ask it anyway. Why?

How can we excuse not using data when it’s staring us in the faces? Because we didn’t like math in high school? Because we’re too manly to sit down in front of a sheet, put on the reading glasses that we don’t want people to know we have, and let our minds out for a jog? Because we want to feel closer to the people who did it in the old days? Let me tell you a secret – the old days were awful. We’re much better than them. This isn’t “hating” – it’s evolution.

Take your “advanced stats”. Bill Simmons recently wrotethat Rose is “The guy whose MVP candidacy got crapped on by the entire blogosphere because his plus/minus and true shooting percentage weren’t quite good enough”. Well, aren’t those valid concerns? It’s not like basketballvalue.com draws random numbers and inserts them into their plus/minus tables – this is data that describes things that are happening on the court, in games. Ditto for TS%, or rebound rate, or Synergy numbers, or even pretentious tell-all numbers like PER or Win Shares. I agree that one always must use caveats, always use context, never take these numbers for their face value without checking and double checking, but to ignore them completely? To discredit their value while putting one’s entire weight on ambiguous statements like “value to the team” or “where would they be without him”?

This writing may (will) be seen as a specific indictment towards those on the Rose side of this MVP debate. Though I will not deny that I am opposed to the Rose movement, I promise you, besmirching it is not my intention. All other MVP candidates have major flaws to their campaigns, all of them well documented basically everywhere, and Rose has had a mind-boggling season for a thrilling team.

But it just so happens that Rose’s specific flaws, like Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson before him, are the flaws of a player whose statistical pedigree lacks in respect to the success of his team, his ability to pass the eye test, and his ridiculously passionate fan base. And while the latter two are not bad things – the eye test is ultimately the reason we watch sports, and passionate fan bases are to be encouraged – ignoring statistics when they are right there just because they don’t support my premise is just that: ignorant.

If you do decide that those flaws Rose represents aren’t as condemning as Dwight Howard’s inability to provide a go-to option on offense down the stretch or Lebron James’ failure to lead a team to the amount of wins they were supposed to win on paper because our paper got it wrong – then that’s fine. But you need to back it up. And yes, I expect there to be some statistical data there. And no, “this is what my eyes tell me” doesn’t cut it. Because all I need to do is send you to the nearest M.C. Escher painting to show you how easily eyes can be deceived. And even if your eyes are absolutely, positively, completely perfect in every single way (otherwise known as being Paul George) – could it possibly hurt to use your other senses too? To gain the ability to use another useful tool? To check and double check, if for no other reason, just to set an example for those damn “stat guys”?

This stands not only for those defending their arguments, but for those attacking others. Valid points may be concocted in places other than your own mind, because there are millions of fantastic minds out there. Including yours. Respect those other minds by reading what they say, contemplating their points, carefully building your counter. If I tweet about Derrick Rose’s defense, and you immediately respond by talking about his carrying the offense in crunch time, then you have failed. You arrived at a boxing match with a baseball bat. Sure, that bat may help you in bludgeoning me to death, but that’s not what we’re here for.

A final, hypothetical argument.

Lets say that you support Derrick Rose for MVP. Since it seems like the majority of the NBA community does at this point, you probably do. Now, say that I come up to you and say “you know what? Rose has been great this year, but looking at how great Blake Griffin has been playing, and how he’s been a beacon of hope for a moribund franchise going nowhere I think he’s the most valuable player. Because that’s how I define VALUE.”

You, being the rational and intelligent reader that you are, start laughing. Perhaps you call me a funny name, or toss a beverage at me. But I’m a persistent little bugger. I show you ratings and attendance numbers for the Clippers, providing indisputable proof that Blake has single-handedly made the team relevant again. I hand you a 70 foot billboard covered in a fantastically crafted collage of tweets going insane about the former Oklahoma star. I point out how Baron Davis – BARON DAVIS – bothered to get into shape (albeit two months late) for the guy. I call Clipper Darrell, ask him what he thinks about Blake Griffin, record the ensuing rant, and play it to you in it’s entirety with unicorns frolicking around us and bubble gum raining from the sky. I can’t convince you – not when my premise is so foolish – but you can’t convince me either. MVP is subjective, that’s how I define it, and you have to live with that.

Or, instead, we can live in a society where foolishness is unacceptable and opinions, even if they are just opinions, lead to people being held accountable. I like that better. But hey, what do I know – I think Dwight Howard is the MVP.

Photo via IraGelb on Flickr

See the players’ confidence building. See players developing right before your eyes. That is what a rebuild is all about. A new big three has announced its arrival – Wall, Crawford and Blatche. Big minutes – big productivity – big results. And wins, too. We are short-handed and so players are getting bigger minutes to show the world what they can do. We have two first round draft picks next off season. We have cap space. We are young. We have upside. We are becoming an exciting team to watch. The sun is shining out today.

via Learning to Win, by Ted Leonsis, Ted’s Take

Optimism is an intoxicating thing. We surrender to this siren and let ourselves be led down whatever path our imagination may manifest itself into without regard for the limitations of reality. It’s the same drug that led Washington Wizards fans to believe that a 4-2 stretch in the closing weeks of the 2009-10 regular season was a possible sign of bigger things to come. We know how that reality has played out.

So why is a subsequent 4-2 run as 2011 comes to a close different?

The paradox of the Wizards is their struggles have reached such an extreme degree that otherwise inconsequential events – their recent three-game winning streak – lead to an outpouring of confidence for the future. But unlike last years run, spearheaded by the presence of veterans Mike Miller and Shaun Livingston, Washington fans can extol the growth of the (perhaps prematurely named) new big three.

Defining John Wall as the building block of the future is extraneous. His self actualization as a basketball player seems at once assured and already unfolding in the conclusion of his rookie season. From his realization of the fruitless nature of the race to catch Blake Griffin for post-season accolades, to the very clear improvements he has made in his ability to direct and run the pick-and-roll, his future is bright, even if it is currently overshadowed by a surplus of elite point guards.

Jordan Crawford’s distinctive game, flush with brilliant shooting displays and damning turnover spells perhaps serves as the perfect microcosm view of his team – showing promise within a litany of failures. The burgeoning guard plays with an infectious fervor, one that has left many questioning the mere presence of Nick Young’s scoring singularity on the roster. For those ready to hail the dual playmaker combination of Wall and Crawford as the backcourt of the future, perhaps the high ceiling that was set for Wall, Arenas and Hinrich trio will be enough to create some pause – but what do they have to lose?

Of course the “sage veteran” of the organization, Andray Blatche, has proven if nothing else that you can count on him to frustrate to the point of exhaustion. His most recent four-game run of 27.5 points and 14 rebounds per night only raises the bar further for next season as the 24-year-old is suddenly attacking the rim with a fervor rarely seen in his five-year career. Is it the latest aberration for a power forward who despite steadily improving season after season has seemingly always left something on the floor? Or has the maturing process finally manifested itself in on-the-court production?

JaVale McGee might be the closest thing the NBA has to a pandora’s box. It’s a shame his two-basket, two-ball dunk during All-Star weekend was overshadowed by the Blake Griffin show, as the third-year pro may be the only human being on the planet capable of accomplishing such a physical feat. It’s also telling that to this point, McGee’s potential has been summarized by a series of highlights and individual games rather than days and weeks of performance. He like Crawford accurately depicts the larger frustration of the Wizards organizations, able to reach the peaks with some degree of regularity, but never able to sustain the high.

There’s Trevor Booker, Kevin Seraphin, the two-first round picks in a draft classified as weak but with no discernible certainties and a developing core about as young as we can expect from an NBA team. There’s a laundry list of reasons why this team will never develop beyond the perception of team on the rise – chained to a future as a lesser version of what the Atlanta Hawks once represented, while fans still pine or the hopes of a product more akin to the Oklahoma City model. Yet collectively all of these factors – big and small – culminate in the current state of the Wizards, that hope is a better reality than answers to the endless questions that surround the organization.

Optimism is abound in our nation’s capital – let youth be served.

Discussing the NBA is without a doubt one of my favorite pastimes. Anywhere, at anytime, I’m up for an interesting, relevant conversation about my favorite sport. My recent discovery of Twitter allows for some of the most productive debates among other members of the NBA blogging community. The thing about Twitter is that it acts as an exclusive club. While virtually everybody has access to it, I have the luxury of following and responding to whom I please. I surround myself with knowledgeable people with highly developed opinions and while this leads to levelheaded discussion, it hardly represents the vast majority of NBA fans. This majority is better represented on ESPN’s Daily Dime Live chat.

Daily Dime Live, or DDL for short, is one of the ways that I occupy myself on weeknights when I am ignoring the substantial workload given by my university. While the DDL is a moderated chat, it is open to any and all NBA fans. I do not get to select whose opinions come through to my screen and am therefore am exposed to views that I may not have considered otherwise. Before I delve into the main topic of this article, I want to establish how much I appreciate DDL as a running commentary and chatroom for the nightly NBA action. It provides a great environment for engaging in some of the best debates of both current and historical importance.

That being said, DDL and other similar discussion boards are not exclusive clubs. You will be exposed to opinions that differ from your own and in a perfect world; everybody would consider these new viewpoints with an open mind. After all, they are just opinions and believe it or not, every person is entitled to their own. Unfortunately it is a well-known fact that not every fan takes this approach. If you are bold enough to make a claim as outrageous as saying that Derrick Rose is not the MVP, you should be prepared to answer the question “Why do you hate D-Rose?” Before I continue, allow me to point out that if you think this is a reasonable follow-up question then you probably aren’t going to like where I am going with this post.

While my experiences in this chat are only one example of the entire NBA community, they seem to be prevalent in any NBA debate outside those of only the most knowledgeable basketball minds. If you claim that one player is superior to another, people assume you are discounting any accomplishment of the initial player. Can you praise one player without tearing down another? Of course you can, but many fans don’t see it that way. If you think that Dwight Howard has been more valuable to the Magic than Rose has been to the Bulls, that makes you a Rose-hater. Just because the factors that I hold as most important point to Howard as this season’s MVP, does not mean that I think Rose is the worst player in the league. Conversely, I enjoy watching Rose play more than Howard. I think Rose is an amazing player, one of the most entertaining and athletic guards we have seen in years. The Rose bandwagon has simply run out of control. It has become harder to appreciate Rose’s talents when you constantly have to remind Bulls fans that Rose is not the greatest point guard since Magic Johnson. Heck, he hasn’t even seized the title of best point guard in the league from Chris Paul yet. That being said, I think he is a very legitimate MVP candidate. I simply do not believe that he should be viewed as a runaway recipient of the award. Therein lies the problem.

Since I do not wholeheartedly endorse the Rose for MVP campaign, I am dubbed a hater. Imagine if this “logic” applied to everyday life. You drink Coke, so you must despise Pepsi. You enjoy McDonald’s, so naturally you think Burger King is the worst. This notion of jumping to extreme conclusions greatly hinders intelligent discourse. I love Derrick Rose as a player; I just think Howard has been better this year. I love omelets as a breakfast food; I just think bacon is a better choice this morning.

Too often people assume that because their own opinions are dripping with preconceived bias, others’ must be as well. I don’t mean to use the MVP debate as the only evidence for this phenomena but it is the most recent and topical example of it. Other instances can easily be found. I think the Nuggets cannot win the NBA Finals not because I hate the state of Colorado, but because I think they’re team lacks the superstar needed to succeed in the playoffs. Note that I didn’t conclude that Denver is a terrible team or that they will get swept in the first round, but rather that I don’t think they have what it takes to pull off a miracle run and win it all. I don’t hate the Knicks, I just can’t get on board with the idea that the combination of Carmelo Anthony and Amare Stoudemire will win a championship anytime soon. I know that living in New York fuels your love for the Knicks, but don’t assume that my living in Boston means that I am unfairly critical of them. These opinions are backed up by statistics and trends throughout the history of the league, not simple, arbitrary preferences.

By talking about the flaws of a particular player or team, you get accused of hating or knit picking. I agree we should appreciate their talents and focus on how spectacular these top echelon players have been this year, but what’s wrong with pointing out weaknesses? If you want to say that Rose has been a dominant offensive player are we then not allowed to cite his relatively low TS% of 54.4 or 3P% of 33.4? What Rose enthusiasts call “hating” has literally been done to every player in the history of basketball. Kobe Bryant is an all-time great, but what about his performance in the clutch? LeBron James is an athletic freak, but his shot selection is questionable and why does he refuse to post up more often? Dwight Howard obviously struggles at the free throw line and is therefore an ineffective go-to option with the game on the line. Being in the spotlight is great, but eventually that spotlight turns into a microscope. So no matter how much it may seem that experts and analysts are only picking apart your favorite player, I assure you that every player is criticized. It’s important to remember that no player is or ever will be perfect, not even Michael Jordan.

I am hesitant to bring race into the discussion; however, I think there is a point to be made regarding Jimmer Fredette. ESPN’s Rick Reilly recently published his stance on Fredette’s prospective NBA career and was blasted by many readers in response. Among many other things, I’m sure that Reilly was called a hater. This is a perfect example of fans getting caught up in what they believe to be somebody’s reasoning and ignoring what evidence is actually being offered. Reilly isn’t saying that Fredette will not succeed in the NBA because he is white or because he is Mormon.  Reilly is saying that Fredette plays virtually no defense and is probably not athletic enough. Whether I agree or disagree with Reilly’s stance on Fredette is irrelevant. However, I at least do my best to identify how he comes to his conclusion. Unfortunately for Reilly, it appears he is thrusting a racial stereotype onto Fredette because he just so happens to be white.

I urge you to consider what factors are actually contributing to a judgment before you throw the “hater” label on someone. Is the person actually allowing bias to shape their opinion or are you just being overly sensitive about your favorite player? Spend time discussing the league with people that think differently from you. If those who share your viewpoint are constantly reinforcing your love for someone, it will naturally be blown out of proportion.

At this point, I recognize that this entire piece has been nothing short of an extended rant about something that is unlikely to ever change. There always has been and always will be unreasonable fans with unrealistic perceptions. I simply hope to offer some sort of guidelines for being a tolerable fan, even if I did not touch upon anything new or unique. Now don’t criticize this article, because that would make you a hater.