Steve Nash surprised everyone in the basketball world two years ago when he was name the most valuable player of the NBA. It came as an ever bigger surprise that this skinny, unathletic, white guy from Canada repeated that feat last year, joining a short list of players who have accomplished that feat. And, guess what, he's got a chance to win the MVP for a third straight year, joining an even smaller list of players. Three, in fact: Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, and Bill Russell.
There have been many people who have been mulling over who is the NBA's MVP for the 2006-07 season, Nash, or his former Dallas teammate Dirk Nowitzki. Either player is deserving and I'm not sure too many people would have much of a problem if one won over the other. But, I've been reading that one of the reasons why voters might not pick Nash for MVP is because of his place in history, whether or not his name belongs with Bird, Chamberlain, and Russell. All of those NBA legends have won NBA titles; Nash hasn't even to been to a Finals, coming close the last two years. That's pretty stupid thinking. What he has done in the past or what he hasn't been able to do should have no bearing on whether he should be named the MVP for this season.
The writers should forget that he's won back to back MVPs already and just simply concentrate on his numbers for this year. If the numbers suggest he should be the most valuable player, then he should be named the most valuable player.
