1Hollinger's article is a piece of junk.
Nobody wins MVP purely due to stats. MVP is not an award to stats. It is
an award to winning, beating expectation, and contribution in winning.
Most of cases, MVP winner leads his team to conference #1 in regular
season. In all 2000s years, the only exception is 2006 Nash, which is
one of the most controversial voting.
If your team is not conference #1, your team must be at least 55 wins
with division title (still, the only exception is 2006 Nash with 54 wins
and division title), and what is more important, beats the expectation
All the team factors are the preconditions. Necessary, but not
Then among those teams, find one guy, with superstar image, contributes
hugely to the success of the team. Better you are the obvious #1 option.
If you team up with Shaq or Duncan, no matter how well your stat is, how
you are actually the #1 option, nobody cares. If you are one of big 3,
big 4, and all the bigs contribute evenly, forget about MVP.
These two, and only these two, single handed determines MVP.
And a small bonus is: if you miss a few games, and your team somehow
sucks, that is surely a big bonus. Ex: 2005 Nash, missed 3, suns lost 3.
That 3 loses shuts down all debate who is the #1 in the team. Amare is
forever labeled #2 in suns.
All MVP award winners are pretty easy to tell from the 2 standards.
In 2006, the hardest case, Nobody satisfies both, so they have to pick
Nash, who is the closest to meeting both.