Thursday, March 30, 2017

The utter folly of NBA co-MVPs

Strike another blow for Wimpy Nation USA, sometimes loosely referred to as the "politically correct" movement. It has become quite apparent that in modern times one is no longer allowed to criticize anyone else, lest they be labeled all sorts of nasty things themselves. Actually it's quite ironic, not to mention more than a little hypocritical how that has worked out. We must not under any circumstances possibly hurt the precious feelings and sensitivities of another, regardless of how big an incompetent nincompoop they may be in their field. Heaven forbid.

Oh no. It's praise only these days. Everybody has to get a trophy, a medal, an award of some manner, or, when all else fails, at least a promotion and a hefty raise. Amazingly enough, the rules of physics have changed. Much like no longer is there an equal and opposing force to any original one, there are no such things as losers any more. Only winners. Unless one happens to be a hetero male caucasian, then the same new rules no longer apply. That beleaguered species still very much remains fair game to get ripped every which way.

And now we have those that would advocate the NBA MVP should be co-awarded. Both Russell Westbrook of the Okla City Thunder and James Hardin of the Houston Rockets are deserving candidates. Remember the limp-wristed mantra. Thou shalt not -- horrors!! -- disappoint either of these fine gentlemen by denying them such an honor.

All of which is total hogwash, of course. Not only does it run directly contrary to decades of precedent in the wide world of sports, it flies in the face of logic and common sense themselves. The phrase "most valuable", by very definition, is a superlative. Somebody has to be voted the best, and there can be only one.

One needn't look further than our recent Presidential election. The choices were Hill, Don, and other. You didn't have the option of selecting two or more. You got one vote, for one person. Period. Pretty simple. Maybe you didn't like the options. Fair enough. You could abstain and not vote for anybody. But one of them was going to be a winner and the rest losers. Period.

On that note, millions wound up being outraged because their candidates eventually lost. Hey, tough. That's the way it goes. So why should it be any different in MVP voting?

Like high-stakes political races, the MVP voters have to decide which rich person will get an award. Along the campaign trails, hordes of pundits, pollsters, and partisans will jump into the fray with their two-cents worth trying to sway opinions, but in the end it all comes down to the voters.

Somebody has to win -- and somebody has to lose. Or at least should.

So spare me the ludicrous premise that both Westbrook and Hardin should be co-MVPs, because if either of them is, gasp, allowed to lose, they would be crushed. Poor things. I'm pretty sure such already uber-rich guys would get along just fine without another big trophy and pile of money that accompanied it.

Pick one, only one, tally up the votes, and live with it, dammit. What's the big deal?

Besides, in the opinion of yours truly, Kawhi Leonard of the San Antonion Spurs is a more deserving candidate than either of these guys.

He can actually play some serious defense as well.

Which is pretty much the position old-schoolers like myself sometimes find themselves in when we continue to mock the wimpy legions of politically correct nation.

And I believe that's where I came in......

No comments:

Post a Comment