Mid-Season MVP
Nick: I don't think that there's any question that it's a two horse race at this point. I'm going with LeBron James. I think that he's depended on a little more, and I think that - even with some of the questions about his long range shooting - he's still playing the best basketball of his career. He's stepped up his defense and really taken responsibility on that end of the floor, especially in transition and in weak-side blocks. Almost 28, 8, and 8? I'm giving him the edge.
Dave: I would have no problem with LeBron. To be honest, it's tough for me to make a choice between the top two, but if I have to do it I've gotta go with Kobe. When LeBron has it going, he is more of a force than Kobe, but Kobe still has a more complete and polished skill set. He's playing even better this year than he was the year before. By the way, my choice has absolutely nothing to do with the Lakers-Cavs head-to-head matchups. Anyone who thinks an MVP can be "clinched" in a game or two doesn't know what they are talking about.
Nick: I have a huge problem with the reactionaries that say things like "He just won the MVP with that game." Or, "That game proves why he should be an All-Star." Because that isn't the way it works.
Dave: As if there aren't dozens of variables affecting what happens in each game...
Nick: Exactly; one of which has been the extra attention to LeBron - forcing him to take (or allowing him to fire up) long range jumpers instead of attacking the hoop. He's struggled in games that seemed to have that "Playoff atmosphere" in the last few weeks.
Dave: I think that is where Kobe Bryant benefits from playing under a Phil Jackson. Don't get me wrong, I think Mike Brown is an excellent coach and he doesn't get enough credit for helping build a hard-nosed defense-oriented team in Cleveland. But I think Kobe plays in an offense which allows him to maximize his talents. LeBron can do so much that we don't really see in the offense Cleveland runs.
Mid-Season Coach of the Year
Dave: I am going to depart from the coventional criteria that the real voters appear to use for coach of the year (namely, coach of the year goes to whoever does the most with the least). I'm going with Phil Jackson. Phil continues to get the most out of his players. The Lakers are talented, but probably not as talented as their record would have one believe. The Lakers have the best record in the NBA, and Phil Jackson is a huge part of it. So that's why he's my coach of the year so far.
Nick: I'm caught between two, Stan Van Gundy is taking that Magic team to new heights. Defensively, he has them closing out the perimeter, and funneling the drives towards Dwight Howard, and they're doing it in a way that has him altering shots and avoiding fouls which is extremely tough to do. And that, with the evolution of Jameer Nelson is very impressive. But gun to my head, I'm going with Greg Poppovich. Nobody consistently finds - and then coaches up - players that not only "fit in the system" but blossom in his system. George Hill and Roger Mason are the two most recent examples. This team has been missing Parker and/or Ginobili for over 20 games this season, and they're now playing with Matt Bonner in their starting lineup. They've won 15 out of their last 20, and just beat Boston in convincing fashion.
Dave: Popovich is always high on my list. What I find interesting is the way he has been experimenting this season. I think he realized during the playoffs last year that the Spurs needed more firepower. So instead of playing his best defensive unit, which includes two offensive liabilities in Bruce Bowen and Fabricio Oberto, he's been playing Roger Mason and Matt Bonner a lot. The Spurs defensive stats (especially defensive field goal percentage) are easily the worst they have been in the Tim Duncan era. But the Spurs clearly have a more potent offense with Bonner and Mason spreading the floor. Even with their defense having a down year, they are on pace to win 55-60 games, just like they always do. I think Pop wants to see if the new guys can be adequate enough defensively to justify playing time once the playoffs begin. It will be interesting to see which unit Popovich goes with during crucial postseason games.
Nick: It will be, but I've always liked the fact that Popovich makes adjustments, and he's armed himself with a far more varied assortment of talent this year.
Mid-Season Defensive Player of the Year
Nick: Can we just concede that it's Dwight Howard and save time... or do you want to make a fruitless argument for somebody else?
Dave: I concede. Dwight is a monster.
Mid-Season Rookie of the Year and Sixth Man of the Year
Dave: Rookie of the year is Derrick Rose. I didn't think he'd be so good so soon. I feel bad for him being trapped on that Bulls team. Sixth Man is Manu Ginobili. He's the modern John Havlicek, in more ways than one.
Nick: Rose is my rookie of the year as well, his speed and quickness is out-and-out shocking to watch in person, and he's a better playmaker than advertised. My runner-up is Russell Westbrook, and NOT O.J. Mayo, because of how much Westbrook brings defensively (top 5 on the perimeter) and how much better he is than expected. My sixth man of the year is Nate Robinson, because I no longer consider Manu a sixth man, his starting on the bench is a formality - whereas Nate really does come off the bench when they need a spark and his energy is tangible. Plus as of right now, he's playing better than Manu.
Dave: You can't be serious. Manu was slow coming back from his surgery, but he has returned to form over the past few weeks. Nate averages more minutes per game than Manu does, so I'm not sure why one counts and the other doesn't.
Nick: I think that in my mind, your sixth man doesn't finish games for you, because I believe you finish with your best five - which your 6th man shouldn't be a part of. That's just how I see it, and Nate's shooting has won a bunch of games for a Knick team that has been dying to give games away all season... like I said though, it's just my take.
Dave: I agree with you on Westbrook. Like many people, I thought he was drafted way too high. But he has surprised me and I think we are looking at a real pro.
Looking ahead, what injuries do you see as the worst, and what is and/or should be in the immediate future for the teams affected?
Dave: The Lakers are good enough to win a championship even with Andrew Bynum sidelined. One of the reasons is Lamar Odom flourishes with an increased role. The improvement in Odom's production substantially mitigates the blow that Bynum's injury has dealt the team. Overall, the Lakers are not too far behind the team they are with Bynum. Their win-loss record in the long run won't be affected very much. Where Bynum's injury could be felt the most is in particular matchups. For instance, I think Bynum really gave the Lakers a big edge against the Spurs. With Bynum, Gasol and Odom all healthy, the Lakers are just too big, long, and athletic inside for the Spurs. Without Bynum, a Lakers-Spurs matchup is much more of a toss-up.
Also, it's tough to see the Magic recovering to the level they were at prior to Nelson's injury. It more or less guarantees that Orlando will be at a level below Boston and Cleveland. We’ll see what Rafer Alston will bring to the table.
How about the Hornets? Tyson Chandler, David West, and now Chris Paul have all been battling injuries
Nick: The Hornets’ most frightening aspect is that they look like a team that's sliding, NOT gaining steam, even with players healing. The body language is bad over there right now, Tyson is a mess, Peja has been boom or bust literally from game to game and David West seems to have gone from a young guy on the rise to a flash in the pan... And on top of all of that, they look under-coached. If I'm buying stock in the second half of different teams' seasons, I'm far more comfortable purchasing stock in say, Utah with Deron Williams, than the Chris Paul-led Hornets.
Dave: I agree. Chandler in particular has really regressed. It may turn out that last year was the perfect storm for the Hornets. Many people were surprised by how good they were last year, and perhaps they were all right to be surprised.
All-Star weekend. How would you improve it?
Nick: I'm not sure much more can be done, that's actually realistic. I'd get rid of the skills challenge, give players X amount of time rather than a certain amount of attempts in the dunk contest, and then call it a night. I'm always going to want better players/athletes/names in the dunk contest, but it just doesn't have the allure it used to have. I mean, I'm a full-on Rudy Fernandez groupie, but he's in the dunk contest? What it needs is a champ that is willing to go out on a limb and talk trash, somebody like Dwight Howard or Josh Smith saying things like "I'm the best dunker in the NBA, and I wish somebody had the balls to try to prove me wrong." Maybe that would get some of the bigger stars to dust of the kicks for one night.
What about you? Anything pressing that you think should be changed, other than Deron Williams always being on the Western Conference team?
Dave: I agree with you regarding the dunk contest. It has become too gimmicky in recent years, and the lack of big names involved is largely responsible for the waning interest. Stars are what made past slam dunk contests memorable. Think of the Michael Jordan-Dominique Wilkins showdown. Or go back to the very first slam dunk contest which featured the biggest names in the ABA: David Thompson, George Gervin, Artist Glimore, Larry Kenon, and, of course, Julius Erving. No one wants to see a bunch of benchwarmers. If, say, LeBron, Kobe, and Wade were in the dunk contest, it would be huge. These are the guys that are on TV all the time, and naturally fans wonder what these guys could do if they pushed to the limits of their physical abilities. It's not just the quality of the dunk, but the desire to fully experience what the best players have to offer in a unique setting.
As for other changes, I think a revival of the old-timers game would be very fun to watch. I'd also like some type of substantial prize to go to the winners of the all-star game (basically, anything to get them to play as competitively as possible).
One last thing: a one-on-one contest. Only players of comparable size could play each other. Nothing else would capture the interest of the fans more than something like this. Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan were trying to have a one-on-one game around 1990, but the league wouldn't allow. I still wonder what would have happened. I'd be thrilled to see Kobe and Wade go at it, or Chris Paul and Deron Williams. The bragging rights that would go along with a one-on-one contest, as well as the drama leading up to it would be great.
