Quote Originally Posted by JasonJohnHorn View Post
Being an MVP candidate is a lot about perception and not always about who the better player is. I honeslty believe that had Parker gone down with an injury last season and George Hill played in his place, the team would have still been able to win 50 games. If Duncan had likewise gone down with an injury, the team would not have been able to compensate and there is no way they would have hit 50 wins.
But George Hill isnt on the team. Why not look at the players they have on their team to figure out whos most VALUABLE when discussing the MVP?

If you meant to say Neal then I will have to disagree with you. I think the voters got the value part right by ranking TP above TD.

And Nash has proved that you can win MVP and not be the best player on the team. Many people would argue that Amar'e was the best player on that Phoenix team, but at the same time that Nash was more valuable.
Yea but Nash was so valuable for that team that him being the best player was easily defensible. He wasn't too shabby by individual metrics either.

That, and people's perception about what is valuable are not always right. As an example, John Stockton never finished higher than Karl Malone in the MVP voting, but I think most people will agree that he was just as important to Utah's success as Malone. Why then has Stockton never won an MVP award? That said, I think Duncan is, and has been, the MVP of the Spurs since he was a rookie.
Stockton and Malone is a good comparison. Malone was playing more minutes like TP too.