We take a quick break from the insanity of some of those on the Right in defending torture to bring you a discussion related to Basketball, namely, the MVP of the league.
Now, the MVP is basically a PR stunt (literally, the first MVP was sponsored by a carmaker - Ty Cobb in baseball won), but some people have attached meaning to it. Here's what I would consider in voting for MVP: did he make his team better? Better in this sense is not "Did we win more games," but rather "Because of (my) presence, did we perform as a more cohesive unit that (usually) translated to wins that we otherwise might not have found a way to win?" In other words, did the team become a better TEAM solely because you were there?
Last year I went on record as saying I didn't think Kobe Bryant should have won the MVP - I didn't think he was the reason the Lakers were better than they had been in years past. I still believe that. They won because of other additions to the team that assisted Kobe, and those additions are there now - Kobe is the best player on the team, and his absence would definitely be felt in the win column, but they were going to the playoffs already with him there. It was the addition of the other players that developed the steadiness that made them the favorites. I thought Chris Paul should have won last year.
This year, I firmly believe that Chauncey Billups should be voted MVP. This is not a knock on Kobe or LeBron, who are both phenomenal players, but they've both been winning quite a bit already. The Nuggets, however, completely gelled with the addition of Chauncey Billups. He is the glue that made them a top 3 team in the west. His teammates are better because of his presence, and THAT is what determines who is most valuable.