Tweet
Iverson, Duncan, Stoudemire Also Took First-Place Votes From O'Neal
By STEVE ASCHBURNER, AOL
Some thoughts on the NBA's Most Valuable Player balloting, while waiting for that whining Miami columnist to explain the first-place votes cast for Allen Iverson, Tim Duncan and Amare Stoudemire...
I went to bed the other night thinking I simply had voted for the second-place finisher in the MVP race.
I woke up to learn that I was racially enlightened. That was the good news. The bad news? I must have a beef with Canucks.
If, as it has been so astutely alleged in south Florida, a vote for Phoenix guard Steve Nash for MVP was a vote in favor of a white guy, then I can only deduce that a vote for Miami center Shaquille O'Neal came from some dark corner of my heart that doesn't like Canadians. Or guys with stringy hair. Or shorties.
See, it's still not even clear which prejudice I must, necessarily, harbor, as judged from the outside by someone who doesn't know me. There was a long list of reasons to vote for O'Neal as the NBA's most pivotal performer this season: His impact on the Heat's won-lost record the way his talents have rubbed off on and enhanced teammates; the fresh air his arrival breathed into the Miami franchise; his blending of games with next-big-thing Dwyane Wade, and the relative depth of his team's roster vs. the Suns' (i.e., how much help he gets compared to Nash). There also was a long list of intangibles and even biases that stacked up in the big man's favor: The Lakers' nosedive without him; the way this all must irritate Kobe Bryant; the glaring shortage of MVP trophies (just one) across the career of the most dominating player since Wilt Chamberlain; even a sense that O'Neal gets taken for granted because of his size.
Similarly, there was lengthy list of reasons to write in Nash's name: Phoenix's jaw-dropping turnaround, from primordial lottery slime to the league's best record; the impact he had as a table-setter for dynamic (but already in place) performers such as Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion; his assists and shooting percentage stats, and the inventiveness he brings nightly.
Nash also had intangibles and baggage on his side: He thrived after saying goodbye to occasionally annoying Dallas owner Mark Cuban; he truly is an underdog, barely 6-feet tall and almost frail; Nash triggered a style of play in Phoenix that has boosted the league's point totals and entertainment quotient; the appeal of a player who can dictate a game while barely scoring, and the nagging sense that O'Neal only lost weight and got serious because he feared being embarrassed, leaving L.A. the way he did.
Given all those assorted and conflicting reasons, how was it that one guy in Miami brushed them aside and determined that, of the 69 writers and broadcasters who did not name O'Neal first on their MVP ballots, a whole bunch of them were simply rooting for a white guy?
Where is the lack of credibility more likely to lie? With nearly six dozen, largely independent voters, opting for legitimate candidates such as Nash, Duncan, Iverson or even Stoudemire? Or with Dan Le Batard, a Miami Herald columnist who routinely stumps for athletes in general and south Florida's finest in particular?
We're supposed to accept his assertion that all those people, in all those markets, share one particularly nasty prejudice. Yet LeBatard probably would be offended by a suspicion that, maybe, the Miami guy had an ax to grind in favor of the other Miami guy.
Of course, I'm in the clear because I voted for Shaq.
Now all I've got to do is explain to the Italian-American Anti-Defamation League why I picked George Karl as my Coach of the Year.
By STEVE ASCHBURNER, AOL
Some thoughts on the NBA's Most Valuable Player balloting, while waiting for that whining Miami columnist to explain the first-place votes cast for Allen Iverson, Tim Duncan and Amare Stoudemire...
I went to bed the other night thinking I simply had voted for the second-place finisher in the MVP race.
I woke up to learn that I was racially enlightened. That was the good news. The bad news? I must have a beef with Canucks.
If, as it has been so astutely alleged in south Florida, a vote for Phoenix guard Steve Nash for MVP was a vote in favor of a white guy, then I can only deduce that a vote for Miami center Shaquille O'Neal came from some dark corner of my heart that doesn't like Canadians. Or guys with stringy hair. Or shorties.
See, it's still not even clear which prejudice I must, necessarily, harbor, as judged from the outside by someone who doesn't know me. There was a long list of reasons to vote for O'Neal as the NBA's most pivotal performer this season: His impact on the Heat's won-lost record the way his talents have rubbed off on and enhanced teammates; the fresh air his arrival breathed into the Miami franchise; his blending of games with next-big-thing Dwyane Wade, and the relative depth of his team's roster vs. the Suns' (i.e., how much help he gets compared to Nash). There also was a long list of intangibles and even biases that stacked up in the big man's favor: The Lakers' nosedive without him; the way this all must irritate Kobe Bryant; the glaring shortage of MVP trophies (just one) across the career of the most dominating player since Wilt Chamberlain; even a sense that O'Neal gets taken for granted because of his size.
Similarly, there was lengthy list of reasons to write in Nash's name: Phoenix's jaw-dropping turnaround, from primordial lottery slime to the league's best record; the impact he had as a table-setter for dynamic (but already in place) performers such as Amare Stoudemire and Shawn Marion; his assists and shooting percentage stats, and the inventiveness he brings nightly.
Nash also had intangibles and baggage on his side: He thrived after saying goodbye to occasionally annoying Dallas owner Mark Cuban; he truly is an underdog, barely 6-feet tall and almost frail; Nash triggered a style of play in Phoenix that has boosted the league's point totals and entertainment quotient; the appeal of a player who can dictate a game while barely scoring, and the nagging sense that O'Neal only lost weight and got serious because he feared being embarrassed, leaving L.A. the way he did.
Given all those assorted and conflicting reasons, how was it that one guy in Miami brushed them aside and determined that, of the 69 writers and broadcasters who did not name O'Neal first on their MVP ballots, a whole bunch of them were simply rooting for a white guy?
Where is the lack of credibility more likely to lie? With nearly six dozen, largely independent voters, opting for legitimate candidates such as Nash, Duncan, Iverson or even Stoudemire? Or with Dan Le Batard, a Miami Herald columnist who routinely stumps for athletes in general and south Florida's finest in particular?
We're supposed to accept his assertion that all those people, in all those markets, share one particularly nasty prejudice. Yet LeBatard probably would be offended by a suspicion that, maybe, the Miami guy had an ax to grind in favor of the other Miami guy.
Of course, I'm in the clear because I voted for Shaq.
Now all I've got to do is explain to the Italian-American Anti-Defamation League why I picked George Karl as my Coach of the Year.