ESPN.com
Do I think Shaq should be the unanimous MVP? It's a bit like asking if I think everyone should like the same flavor ice cream that I do. Of course they shouldn't, everyone should have their own opinion. My opinion is that Shaq should be MVP, which he is. But should he be a unanimous choice? No, I think each voter should choose who he thinks is most deserving. As long as Fred Hickman made his choice because he thought Allen Iverson was the most valuable player in the league this year, and not because he wanted to make waves or because he's an Iverson fan, then he did the right thing. Anyway, at least we can all agree that vanilla is the best ice cream flavor. Matthew Wakefield Jamestown, NY Shaq as unanimous MVP??? You have GOT to be kidding. Shaq (or the big Aristotle, as he humbly called himself in his 'touching' acceptance speech) isn't even my MVP at all. I agree with Fred Hickman's selection criteria: who would create the biggest difference if he was removed from his team. Seattle without Payton would get demolished by a Shaqless Lakers team. Where would the T-Wolves be without Garnett? Duncan has raised the Spurs from a middle of the pack playoff team to reigning NBA champions. However, my choice for MVP is Sacramento's Chris Webber. Chris has lifted the Kings from perennial also-ran to one of the league's most exciting and competitive teams, and he does it with consistent performance across all statistical categories. He scores without needing to boost his ego at the expense of his teammates -- can you hear me Allen Iverson? Against the rest of the league he was top five in scoring AND rebounding, plus averaged 4.4 assists, 1.7 blocks and 1.6 steals a game -- playing on Sacramento, no less! His all-around game is surpassed only by his value as a leader and a winner. And he has provided the substance and credible play behind the more heralded bench mob and erratic White Chocolate at the point. Webber is humble, and the man can flat out PLAY! Its about time he started getting some better ink and respect around the league. Slider Toronto I don't understand why anyone should care one way or the other about one sportswriter's vote. Who are we to say he "should" have a certain opinion or not? His point about Iverson making his team so much better is entirely valid. The whole MVP issue, thanks to people like you, has been blown ridiculously out of proportion. You guys are just contributing to the "me first, team second" attitude that is killing professional sports. Beautiful journalism. Jon Cicconi Charlottesville, Va. I too think that Shaq should have gotten the MVP award, but not all of the votes. I believe that there isn't enough credit given to guys who are their whole team, such as Kevin Garnett and Allen Iverson. Without KG the T-Wolves would have been a very average team, who probably wouldn't even have made the playoffs. KG averaged 20 pts, 10 rebs, and 5 assts. Those are some pretty impressive numbers, wouldn't you say? Give credit where credit is due. Eddie George Minneapolis, Minn. Shaq was easily the best player, and on the most dominant team in the NBA this year, and deserves the MVP. However, he did not single-handedly carry his team as Allen Iverson or Kevin Garnett did. With Kobe and Glen Rice, the Lakers would be a very good team without Shaq, but neither the Sixers or Timberwolves would have even made the playoffs without Iverson or Garnett. If you place your vote on who was the most valuable player on his team as opposed to the most outstanding player in the NBA, you might not vote for Shaq. Besides, individual accolades are great, but the Lakers should be more concerned with winning the championship. Tim Porter Boston Shaq should have received all the votes! Mr. Hickman's thinking is flawed. Yes, the Lakers have a very good team without Shaq. But, put Shaq on any team and that team is immediately a playoff team. Only Shaq can stop Shaq. I like Iverson, but put him on another team, and you still need something. That's how the MVP should be decided! Mike O'Neil Washington, D.C. I agree with Fred Hickman. If you take Iverson away from the Sixers, they are not a playoff team. If you take Shaq away from the Lakers, they still make the playoffs and contend for the finals in the West. The Sixers are a very good team, but Iverson is the key. He's played with injuries most of the second half of the season. Injuries that would have no doubt sidelined O'Neal and just about everyone else who plays in the NBA. This certainly helped motivate his team and elevate their game to a higher level. I think the biggest difference between the two is that while Shaq is on TV at least four times a week no matter where you live, the only time that you see Iverson is when the Sixers play large market franchises or during highlight shows on weekends. I guess that we can blame the networks (NBC) for not allowing equal coverage for both players. In any event, Shaq certainly doesn't deserve to be a unanimous pick for MVP. I'm just glad that the other vote didn't go to Karl Malone. Brian Artis Newport News, Va. I think that Shaq was the best player in the league this year, but I can also see why Fred Hickman voted for Iverson. You have to look at the wording of the award: Most Valuable Player (to his team). I Interpret that to mean, if we didn't have this person, we wouldn't be where we are now. Without Shaq, the Lakers still have a talented squad that would probably be led by Kobe and Glen Rice. They might not win as many games, but they would probably make it to the playoffs. The Sixers without Iverson, however, are another story. They go NOWHERE without him. So basically I think they should have two different awards: one for MVP for the league (which goes to the best overall player for this year, Shaquille O'Neal), and one for MVP to his team (in which case I could agree with Iverson). The NBA should differentiate between the best player of the year and the one whose team would not be where it was if it weren't for him. Sometimes, it's one and the same. Sometimes, it's not. Jason Seales Mary Esther, Fla. Well, I agree that Shaq was the dominating player in the NBA this season; however, that does not make him the unanimous MVP. The MVP award is for contribution to your team and Allen Iverson and Alonzo Mourning are just as valuable to their teams as Shaq is the Lakers. So I agree he should win the award, but the fact that the voting is near unanimous just demonstrates the weakness of the talent pool in the NBA. Michael Jordan only got 96 percent of the vote and he was better than Shaq as far as player and contributor to his team. David Blackwell Hattiesburg, Miss. In all likelihood this won't get posted. Regardless, I don't see how Iverson got voted, even by only one individual, as NBA 1999-2000 MVP. I'm not sure if Shaq was deserving of all the votes (he probably was), and I'm not sure if his play this season is all that dominating (OK, it is). But what I can't figure is how Iverson got the one vote to break O'Neal's possible sweep of the votes. I've seen him play on at least 12 occasions, and of those, and without exaggeration, he was less then spectacular -- sometimes deplorable -- in more then half those games (remember Lakers vs. 76ers, Kobe, 'nough said). If someone was to break Shaq's unanimous MVP status, I can think of at least half a dozen more people more deserving then Iverson this season. Leonard Los Angeles I think Shaq deserved all of the votes. Yes, the Lakers are good, but they are a different team without Shaq. A great example is the game against the Spurs. You may argue that the Spurs needed the win more than the Lakers, but you can't hide that fact that the Spurs exploited the lane because Shaq wasn't there. It is clear to me that without the new Shaq, the Lakers wouldn't be where they are now. Plus, Shaq could not be stopped. He was always a presence, but Iverson could be stopped. Kobe did it. Because of his domination of the league, Shaq should have received all of the votes. Hiroyuki Okano San Jose, Calif. | ||||
Copyright ©2000 ESPN Internet Ventures. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and Safety Information are applicable to this site. |
| |
