Steve Nash for MVP?

Look, we all feel bad for Canada right now.

Without hockey, there’s a lot less to be happy about up north. Those 12-month winters just last longer when there’s no Stanley Cup up for grabs. It’s not all doom and gloom, of course-Canadians supposedly have some ridiculous prescription drug hook-up, which has got to be great news for the 75-and-over crowd, and some citizens can avoid polar bear maulings for days at a time.

But no hockey leaves a huge sporting void.

I mean, imagine if our national pastime went away for a year. Oh, wait, that’s right, nobody would care. Aside from which I don’t think Congress would let it happen. But if the NFL, our real national sport, cancelled the season, it would take the meaning out of the lives of millions of Americans, most notably myself.

There’s a good way to help Canada, and there’s a bad way.

The obvious solution is for NHL owners to stop investing tens of millions of dollars in guys with mullets and for said players to accept the fistfuls of cash billionaires are trying to hand them.

The bad solution is suggested by those Americans who are the bane of my existence. That would be sports announcers. Their idea for cheering up our neighbors is to hand the NBA’s Most Valuable Player trophy to a Canadian, an idea which, as nearly as I can tell, has no rational basis.

Seriously, you can’t watch any pro hoops this year without some idiot on a mic extolling the virtues of the Phoenix Suns’ crafty point guard, Steve Nash. At first glance, it’s not so crazy-the addition of Nash has helped propel said Suns into the rarified air of the league’s elite clubs, in a three-way race for the league’s top record with the Miami Heat and San Antonio Spurs. He’s got shooting range from all over the court and tops the league’s assist leaders.

But there are a few problems with that simplistic kind of analysis.

First, I’m not seeing any difference between Nash this year and Nash in the past. His shooting numbers are up slightly and he’s got those assists, but performance-wise, he’s pretty much the same guy he was in Dallas. In other words, he’s still not exactly Scottie Pippen on defense.

Second, I’m not even sure Nash is the best player on his team. Give me Shawn Marion, the athletic jack-of-all-trades who scores, rebounds, blocks shots and forces turnovers.

Of course, I’d rather watch Nash go about his business than Marion, whose shooting form is about as easy on the eyes as a BYU coed. But you can’t argue with the Matrix’s across-the-board production.

Basically, the main difference in watching Nash this year instead of in the past is that he’s on a new team. The uniform change is a good way to get noticed-I mean, that was pretty much the crux of Jason Kidd’s argument for the award three years ago, wasn’t it? Yet if Nash was so great, Dallas wouldn’t have let him go.

So what is an MVP anyway?

First, an MVP is obviously going to be a great player on at least a pretty good team. While I don’t think statistics tell the whole story, I do think they tell a lot of it, so an MVP will almost necessarily have impressive numbers. More importantly, the league’s MVP needs to be a good team player who lifts those around him, at least in terms of team success.

This doesn’t get mentioned much, but I think a serious MVP candidate also needs to play in pretty much every game. Say a player misses 20 games. Even if his team goes 0-20 in those contests, I think the fact that he didn’t play should count against him. Above all, versatility is huge-an MVP should score, pass, defend, and rebound well.

I don’t buy that an MVP is always the best player on the best team-that’s a little uninspired, though it’s also a good start. I also reject the argument that an MVP is the player who would be missed most if he wasn’t on his team, which inspires some sportswriters to start comparing the relative quality of two superstars’ backups. That’s ridiculous-I don’t think a player should be rewarded or penalized because his GM is a blithering idiot, or, on rare occasion, actually competent.

Last but not least, an MVP has to be, if not the best player in the league, at least the best player on his team, which is why Kobe Bryant never had a chance with Shaq on his team.

So if Nash hasn’t done enough to warrant serious MVP consideration, who has?

A lot of players more deserving than Nash will get little or no consideration because of their teams’ seasons compared to preseason expectations. This includes LeBron James, whose Cavaliers are desperately clinging to the East’s No. 5 seed. Allen Iverson might be having the best season of his career, but he still can’t overcome the presence of Chris Webber and will probably miss the postseason. Ditto last year’s MVP, Kevin Garnett, who got sent up the river by selfish teammates before the season was even really underway.

In addition, Dirk Nowitzki (too soft) and Jermaine O’Neal (second-tier star) won’t be able to overcome their respective reputations, and O’Neal missed too many games anyway (though I forget why).

That leaves the league with three legitimate contenders for MVP honors. The first is Tim Duncan, who is clearly the league’s greatest player. Duncan has had his usual fantastic season and, like Jordan in his prime, is a threat to win this award each season.

Although he’s down from his career numbers, Duncan’s performance has been MVP-caliber. Unfortunately, he’s got the major hurdle of his severely sprained ankle. If he’s really out for the rest of the season, as early reports suggest, he shouldn’t win the award. Even if he comes back in a few weeks, he’ll have missed a lot of games.

If he does make a quick comeback, he should probably win the award. But even if he doesn't, he'll just have to console himself with the championship the Spurs are probably headed towards.

The other main championship contender this far out has to be the Heat, which has not one but two players in the race.

The first is Dwyane Wade, and my first posting of this article recommended him for the award before I came to my senses. (In fact, editing it was so much fun, I'm going to have to go back and fix the confusing wording that suggested I thought Wake Forest and Syracuse would make the Final Four.) He's had a fantastic and very consistent campaign, posting big numbers and performing down the stretch of nearly every Heat game I've seen. Outside of his turnovers, he's been nearly perfect.

But the favorite for the award has to be Shaquille O’Neal, who is benefiting from the same change-of-address bias that’s helped Nash get so much ink. Like Duncan, his numbers are lower than his career averages, but that’s not really relevant-he should be competing with everyone else this year for the award, not with the ghost of his past dominance.

Besides, he’s still averaging 22.7 points per game, putting opposing big men in foul trouble and finding the open man regularly. And his presence on the court is unmatched; he allows teammates like Udonis Haslem and Damon Jones to focus only on those things they do best.

Shaq's clearly motivated this year to show that he's still the league's best player (even if he's not). It's shown in his rejuvenated defense and aggressive rebounding. And he's been a great team player in his new digs.

Kind of makes you wonder why he's on a new team in the first place.

Can you believe L.A. thought they were better off with that shoot-first egomaniac Bryant than with Shaq? Really, the Lakers were going to flounder with Kobe jacking it up every time he touched the ball? And O'Neal was going to win the battle on the court and the PR war off it? Wow. The outcome of that trade was about as predictable as a Colts-Patriots playoff game.

And the Lakers' nosedive just further demonstrates his value.

Shaq's all-around impact makes him the top candidate for this year's MVP award.

Maybe the Lakers should have kept him around instead of Kobe, eh?