My Picks for NBA Awards: 2004-2005
Tags:
MVP: Allen Iverson No, seriously. His numbers are an unreal 30.5 ppg 7.9 apg 4.0 rpg and 2.5 spg. He's carried an awful team into the playoffs (unlike LeBron James). He plays harder than anyone in the NBA. Shaq and Dwayne Wade can't singularly take credit for the Heat's success. Steve Nash can't play defense. Kevin Garnett's team should be doing better. Jason Kidd's Nets suck. Tim Duncan missed 1/4 of the season.
Coach: Nate McMillan The Sonics got over 50 wins in a very tough conference. How the fuck did that happen?
Rookie: Emeka Okafor You can't really ask for more than 15.3 ppg 10.9 rpg and 1.7 bpg in a guy's first season.
Defensive MVP: Ben Wallace or Tim Duncan I really can't decide. It's a toss-up.
Sixth Man: Ben Gordon Especially the way he's been playing lately. He gives them an average of 15 ppg but often much more.
Most Improved: Bobby Simmons Went from 7.8 ppg to 16.5 ppg on a team that isn't been short on high-scoring forwards. Also, his FG% went from 39.4 to 46.8.
Iverson must have made a huge effort to shed his bad-boy image. He's overlooked whenever the MVP debate happens. Good look Joe.
McMillan or Skiles? Toss-up in my opinion.
Okafor wins it by default. I think voters are going to give the 6th man to Gordon, and don't want a rookie to win 2 awards, so they'll give ROY to Okafor.
I was going to suggest considering Shaq, but he averages less boards than both Duncan and Wallace and less blocks than Duncan. Although Shaq has played more games this year than both of the other two.
I think Simmons is a lock for Most Improved.
Posted by: Daffy on April 13, 2005 1:26 PM | permalinkEven though Simmons might win, the real most improved player is Dwayne Wade, who went beyond potentially great to downright great this year.
Posted by: ChuckJerry on April 13, 2005 4:39 PM | permalinkI agree with Chuck, re: most improved. It's a very subjective award though. Why not give it to Samuel Dalembert? He's at least twice as good as last year.
It's like when Bart got a D- on the Simpsons and Homer hung his test on the refrigerator, and Lisa said, "But I get A's all the time!" Could a truly terrible player go from terrible to decent and win most improved? Should it be reserved for guys like this? Or should it be reserved for gies like Dwayne Wade or Damon Jones or even Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki? Dirk is miles better ("better" = "more well-rounded") this year than he was last year.
I think with MVP voting, you have to consider the "drop-off" factor. If that team did not have that gie, what would happen to their team?
I think, given that fact, even though Simmons (ESPN) makes the case for Shaq being MVP, and Joe's argument for Iverson is also very compelling, I think that it has to be either Duncan or Nash. I think they are both helped by the fact that when they've been hurt this year, their teams look like sub .500 teams and with them, they have two of the best records in the league. I think that because Iverson hasn't missed a bunch of time, we haven't really seen how truly terrible the Sixers would be without Iverson. Also, the Sixers are barely over .500, aren't they? So they could drop 20 or 30 games w/o Iverson whereas the Suns or Spurs could drop even more without their stars.
I bet Nash wins it, though I think Duncan deserves it.
Posted by: Max on April 13, 2005 6:23 PM | permalinkPlease keep it on-topic. Don't spam or advertise. Don't pretend to be someone else. Anonymity is OK, but less credible.
HTML tags are automatically stripped out of your comments for security reasons. If you want to put a link to something, just enter the URL. We'll figure it out.
