That said, I have no issue with the rationale from the Boston Globe reporter, who was the lone writer out of 121 not to vote for James. Gary Washburn said he voted for Carmelo Anthony because "meant more to his team" this season. I disagree, but it's not an outrageous reason. Melo led the Knicks to their first division title in nearly 20 years and made basketball at Madison Square Garden relevant again.
But the King is the King, and in my mind, has no equal.
It goes to the age-old question we have here on a local level when selecting the Freeman's top players after the football, basketball and baseball/softball seasons of whether you're picking an MVP or a Player of the Year. The two selections could be completely different.
If memory serves me correctly (and I am getting up there in age), years ago we picked an MVP. But how do you quantify an MVP
What criteria goes to selecting an MVP?
Can you have an MVP on a team below .500?
If you take the Globe/Carmelo example and apply it locally, does a player whose team has been the doormat of whatever league it is competing in, have a great season and lead the team back to respectability deserve as much/more/or less consideration than the best player in the league who's part of a talented team that wins year after year.
That's what makes picking an MVP so difficult and why we pick Player(s) of the Year.
In the history of the NBA, there has never been a unanimous MVP selection and I bet that won't change.
Maybe the league should consider switching to Player of the Year. A unanimous pick would probably come the first year.