Diamondback Jay
Psalms 23:1
As a columnist, I have a GREAT deal of respect for his talents and his opinions often times make sense.. However, in his words regarding the MVP selection, it not only made zero sense, it was borderline assnine.
Read for yourself..
The link can be found Here however you have to register to view. I will save you the aggrevation and post his column.
Posted on Sun, May. 08, 2005
Unprecedented choice for MVP begs question
DAN LE BATARD
[email protected]
How much of this has to do with race?
A lot?
A little?
Or ''zero,'' as Miami Heat president Pat Riley said before the little white guy beat the big black guy for MVP?
I don't pretend to know these answers. There is no good way to do these measurements with science or math. And I, too, am tired of seeing racism thrown like a Molotov cocktail into discussions where racism doesn't exist.
But don't you have to ask these questions when confronted with something unprecedented?
Or do we just continue laughing and making noise at our playoff cocktail party while ignoring the pinkish elephant standing in the middle of the room in a Nash jersey?
No one who looks or plays like Steve Nash has ever been basketball's MVP. Ever. In the history of the award, a tiny, one-dimensional point guard who plays no defense and averages fewer than 16 points a game never has won it. But Nash just stole Shaquille O'Neal's trophy, even though O'Neal had much better numbers than Nash in just about every individual statistical measurement except assists, so it begs the question:
Is this as black and white as the boxscores that usually decide these things?
Nobody is suggesting voters made their selection while wearing Klan hoods. Today's racism rarely is that overt. It tends to be hidden better than that, as it is with the NBA's proposed age restriction, a rule that would ostensibly affect all creeds and colors but really affects only one.
Does that mean commissioner David Stern is racist? Of course not. But, in that age restriction, he is proposing something that basically affects only black people until the age of 20.
And you can see why blacks might see the prejudice in that, just like Jews might object if there was suddenly a $2,000 tax placed on all flights to Israel.
The rule might apply to everyone flying to Israel, but one group is more likely to see and feel the anti-Semitism in it more than others.
Does it mean that a prejudice exists? Maybe. Maybe not. There are usually other valid explanations, too. But if only one group feels it, it might as well exist. And that's where this MVP discussion gets tricky:
Voters might have simply chosen Nash because he was different and the underdog. And being white is part of what made him those things.
DIFFERENT CHOICE
The book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, explores how these measurements aren't made by a conscious part of our brain. Very few people would admit to themselves or others that, yes, as the puppets sing happily in the Broadway show Avenue Q, ''everyone's a little bit racist.'' We don't like what it says about us, or makes us feel. But Blink gives example after scientific example of, say, car dealers in Chicago giving a worse deal to black buyers even though A) white men and women were sent in to the same dealers dressed the same way and giving the same background information and, B) every car dealer in Chicago probably isn't racist.
The car salesmen weren't doing this with a conscious part of their brain any more than the MVP voters might have been. But if you need a tiebreaker (and Shaq and Nash could have certainly been co-MVPs), ''different'' and ''underdog'' might work for you as a rationalization better than, ``I'll take the white guy.''
Who is to say that, given the same stats as Nash, 5-5 Earl Boykins, who is black, may not have gotten the MVP vote, too, because he is so tiny? Or that being white helped Nash no more than being Canadian? But, again, there is no precedent, none, for any of the black guys who have put up Nash's numbers during the years -- and there have been plenty -- winning the MVP.
PLENTY TO ARGUE
There are reasonable arguments to be made on Nash's behalf beyond race. His team jumped from 29 victories to a league-leading 62. Phoenix started 31-4 and, when Nash missed the next five games, it was not only 31-9 but lost. And, for all Miami's winning, this has been the worst statistical year of an O'Neal career that has won him only one MVP.
The argument Stan Van Gundy makes on behalf of O'Neal -- that Dallas improved in Nash's absence and the Lakers collapsed without Shaq -- is a flawed one. We are arguing about value this season, about the value of Shaq and Nash to these teams. And Miami played respectably enough without Shaq while Phoenix, in a smaller sample size, crumbled without Nash. Nash's team won three more games than Shaq's and, if you must use last season, Nash's present franchise improved more from one season to the next than Shaq's did.
I would have voted for Shaq, but I understand the argument of those who didn't.
A vote for Nash is a vote for the little guy, the underdog, the point guard, the assist, unselfishness and Phoenix's breathtaking style of play.
And, by coincidence or not, the white guy, too.
And this is an issue Dan exactly WHY?
Here's the simple facts..
Last year, prior to Nash's re-arrival in the Valley of the Sun, Phoenix won 29 games.. 29.. Lottery Bound.. El Stinko.. Call it whatever you want to call it, the Suns were on the bottom of the NBA barrell.
Fast forward 12 months.. The Suns, now WITH Nash won 61 games.. A 32 game improvement.. A true worst-to-first story.
Not only are they not in the lottery, but they (gasp, gasp) have the BEST RECORD IN BASKETBALL.. Even BETTER than your beloved Heat.
Yes, you take Shaq off Miami and you have Dewayne Wade and a bunch of mid-level talents. Yes, Phoenix has more talent in their starting 5 than Miami does. However, who's the straw that stirred the drink? Just like the Revolutionary Army wouldn't have gelled without Washington as general in the Revolutionary War, the Suns wouldn't have gelled as well as they did without Nash leading the charge. This isn't to say the Suns don't have talent, far from it. I'll put that starting five against ANYONE's.. However, if it was just a matter of talent, Phoenix would have won it all last year with Marbury and Barbosa at the starting PG slot.
Frankly, it's crap like this that stirs the pot and causes uneasy feelings throughout America.. I'd like to believe that we've moved beyond the ill feelings of the 60s and the vile crap fest known as segregagation where people are judged by the color of their skin. I'd tend to believe that the NBA moved past that nonsense in the late 50s/60s.
Trust me, this isn't a racially motivated post.. Not by a long shot.. This isn't a race thing, a color thing an anything thing.. Had Shaq won the MVP award, I certainly wouldn't have argued the fact. In all honesty, if I had my way, I'd have given the award to BOTH men because you really can't do any justice giving it to just one.
So yes, maybe Shaq's accomplisments in the 2004-05 season were "ignored" as the powers that be instead chose to give the award to Nash.. However, to call the decision racially motivated, or to even insinuate it was, really is not only unfounded but it's outright rediculous and quite assnine. Why make this something it's not? Why not just state you feel Shaq deserved it more and give totals/reasons why rather than digging up bad bones that don't need to be unearthed??
Read for yourself..
The link can be found Here however you have to register to view. I will save you the aggrevation and post his column.
Posted on Sun, May. 08, 2005
Unprecedented choice for MVP begs question
DAN LE BATARD
[email protected]
How much of this has to do with race?
A lot?
A little?
Or ''zero,'' as Miami Heat president Pat Riley said before the little white guy beat the big black guy for MVP?
I don't pretend to know these answers. There is no good way to do these measurements with science or math. And I, too, am tired of seeing racism thrown like a Molotov cocktail into discussions where racism doesn't exist.
But don't you have to ask these questions when confronted with something unprecedented?
Or do we just continue laughing and making noise at our playoff cocktail party while ignoring the pinkish elephant standing in the middle of the room in a Nash jersey?
No one who looks or plays like Steve Nash has ever been basketball's MVP. Ever. In the history of the award, a tiny, one-dimensional point guard who plays no defense and averages fewer than 16 points a game never has won it. But Nash just stole Shaquille O'Neal's trophy, even though O'Neal had much better numbers than Nash in just about every individual statistical measurement except assists, so it begs the question:
Is this as black and white as the boxscores that usually decide these things?
Nobody is suggesting voters made their selection while wearing Klan hoods. Today's racism rarely is that overt. It tends to be hidden better than that, as it is with the NBA's proposed age restriction, a rule that would ostensibly affect all creeds and colors but really affects only one.
Does that mean commissioner David Stern is racist? Of course not. But, in that age restriction, he is proposing something that basically affects only black people until the age of 20.
And you can see why blacks might see the prejudice in that, just like Jews might object if there was suddenly a $2,000 tax placed on all flights to Israel.
The rule might apply to everyone flying to Israel, but one group is more likely to see and feel the anti-Semitism in it more than others.
Does it mean that a prejudice exists? Maybe. Maybe not. There are usually other valid explanations, too. But if only one group feels it, it might as well exist. And that's where this MVP discussion gets tricky:
Voters might have simply chosen Nash because he was different and the underdog. And being white is part of what made him those things.
DIFFERENT CHOICE
The book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, explores how these measurements aren't made by a conscious part of our brain. Very few people would admit to themselves or others that, yes, as the puppets sing happily in the Broadway show Avenue Q, ''everyone's a little bit racist.'' We don't like what it says about us, or makes us feel. But Blink gives example after scientific example of, say, car dealers in Chicago giving a worse deal to black buyers even though A) white men and women were sent in to the same dealers dressed the same way and giving the same background information and, B) every car dealer in Chicago probably isn't racist.
The car salesmen weren't doing this with a conscious part of their brain any more than the MVP voters might have been. But if you need a tiebreaker (and Shaq and Nash could have certainly been co-MVPs), ''different'' and ''underdog'' might work for you as a rationalization better than, ``I'll take the white guy.''
Who is to say that, given the same stats as Nash, 5-5 Earl Boykins, who is black, may not have gotten the MVP vote, too, because he is so tiny? Or that being white helped Nash no more than being Canadian? But, again, there is no precedent, none, for any of the black guys who have put up Nash's numbers during the years -- and there have been plenty -- winning the MVP.
PLENTY TO ARGUE
There are reasonable arguments to be made on Nash's behalf beyond race. His team jumped from 29 victories to a league-leading 62. Phoenix started 31-4 and, when Nash missed the next five games, it was not only 31-9 but lost. And, for all Miami's winning, this has been the worst statistical year of an O'Neal career that has won him only one MVP.
The argument Stan Van Gundy makes on behalf of O'Neal -- that Dallas improved in Nash's absence and the Lakers collapsed without Shaq -- is a flawed one. We are arguing about value this season, about the value of Shaq and Nash to these teams. And Miami played respectably enough without Shaq while Phoenix, in a smaller sample size, crumbled without Nash. Nash's team won three more games than Shaq's and, if you must use last season, Nash's present franchise improved more from one season to the next than Shaq's did.
I would have voted for Shaq, but I understand the argument of those who didn't.
A vote for Nash is a vote for the little guy, the underdog, the point guard, the assist, unselfishness and Phoenix's breathtaking style of play.
And, by coincidence or not, the white guy, too.
And this is an issue Dan exactly WHY?
Here's the simple facts..
Last year, prior to Nash's re-arrival in the Valley of the Sun, Phoenix won 29 games.. 29.. Lottery Bound.. El Stinko.. Call it whatever you want to call it, the Suns were on the bottom of the NBA barrell.
Fast forward 12 months.. The Suns, now WITH Nash won 61 games.. A 32 game improvement.. A true worst-to-first story.
Not only are they not in the lottery, but they (gasp, gasp) have the BEST RECORD IN BASKETBALL.. Even BETTER than your beloved Heat.
Yes, you take Shaq off Miami and you have Dewayne Wade and a bunch of mid-level talents. Yes, Phoenix has more talent in their starting 5 than Miami does. However, who's the straw that stirred the drink? Just like the Revolutionary Army wouldn't have gelled without Washington as general in the Revolutionary War, the Suns wouldn't have gelled as well as they did without Nash leading the charge. This isn't to say the Suns don't have talent, far from it. I'll put that starting five against ANYONE's.. However, if it was just a matter of talent, Phoenix would have won it all last year with Marbury and Barbosa at the starting PG slot.
Frankly, it's crap like this that stirs the pot and causes uneasy feelings throughout America.. I'd like to believe that we've moved beyond the ill feelings of the 60s and the vile crap fest known as segregagation where people are judged by the color of their skin. I'd tend to believe that the NBA moved past that nonsense in the late 50s/60s.
Trust me, this isn't a racially motivated post.. Not by a long shot.. This isn't a race thing, a color thing an anything thing.. Had Shaq won the MVP award, I certainly wouldn't have argued the fact. In all honesty, if I had my way, I'd have given the award to BOTH men because you really can't do any justice giving it to just one.
So yes, maybe Shaq's accomplisments in the 2004-05 season were "ignored" as the powers that be instead chose to give the award to Nash.. However, to call the decision racially motivated, or to even insinuate it was, really is not only unfounded but it's outright rediculous and quite assnine. Why make this something it's not? Why not just state you feel Shaq deserved it more and give totals/reasons why rather than digging up bad bones that don't need to be unearthed??
