2012 OKC Thunder vs. 1996 Seattle SuperSonics

To the dismay of people like me, the OKC Thunder clinched a spot in the NBA Finals by beating the San Antonio Spurs today. While I have to give them credit for playing efficient team basketball, anyone who was a die-hard Sonic fan is probably weeping on the inside. That was our team; Seattle's team.

While I don't recognize Seattle SuperSonic history as part of the Thunder franchise, I thought it would be interesting to compare this year's first NBA finalist with an NBA finalist in Sonic history. Since the Thunder aren't NBA champs yet, I didn't want to compare them to the 1978-79 Seattle SuperSonics who 33 years ago last Friday won the league title. Instead, I'll take a look at how they would match-up against the 1995-96 Seattle SuperSonics; the team that took the all-time winningest team in league history to 6 games.

Simple question: Who would win if the two teams played in a 7-game series? (Seattle has home-court since they had a higher winning percentage)

Point Guard: Gary Payton (SEA) vs. Russell Westbrook (OKC)
With his speed and athleticism, Westbrook is one of the hardest players to guard in the NBA. However, if there's anyone who could stop him, it's Payton, who won Defensive Player of the Year in the 1996 season (the only point guard ever to have done so), and forced Michael Jordan to 37% shooting from the field when they were matched-up in games 4-6. Westbrook probably would struggle a lot against Payton, but Payton would have his difficulties too. At 6'3, Westbrook only gives up an inch on Payton, giving "The Glove" less of an advantage in the post. As well, Westbrook is a pretty good defensive player himself. Don't expect extraordinary stats from either of the two.
Edge: Seattle

Shooting Guard: Hersey Hawkins (SEA) vs. Thabo Sefolosha (OKC)
Sefolosha is a terrific defensive player and can make the three-point shot. That would mean more if it weren't for the fact that Hawkins can do the same thing too, while scoring 15 points a game compared to Sefolosha's 5.
Edge: Seattle


Small Forward: Detlef Schrempf (SEA) vs. Kevin Durant (OKC)
As anyone who watched Game 6 of the SAS-OKC series, or as a matter of fact any game of the play-offs featuring the Thunder, Durant is very, very, very hard to guard. While Schrempf wasn't known as an extraordinary defender, I actually think he would give Durant some issues. Schrempf has the length and the versatility that could keep Durant a little more at bay, that I still think Durant would score an awful lot of points.
Edge: OKC

PF: Shawn Kemp (SEA) vs. Serge Ibaka (OKC)

The power forward match-up is a very intriguing match-up as you see two incredibly athletic big men. Kemp was one of the most explosive scorers at his position in 1996, while Ibaka is one of the best defensive players currently in the NBA. Ibaka's athleticism seemingly makes him a great player to defend against the likes of Kemp, but all may not be what it seems. In the 1996 season, Kemp shot 63% against the Denver Nuggets. What's so important about Denver? That team's defense was anchored by Dikembe Mutombo, a player very similar to Ibaka. I don't think Kemp should have too much of a problem.
Edge: Seattle

C: Ervin Johnson (SEA) vs. Kendrick Perkins (OKC)
The center match-up is kind of a wash. Perkins means very little on the offensive end, so Johnson has the advantage there. Perkins is the better defensive player, except his defensive abilities is devalued because Johnson isn't that great of an offensive player himself.
Edge: Doesn't matter (maybe OKC, because Johnson didn't play as much during the playoffs)


Bench: Sam Perkins, Nate McMillan, Vincent Askew (SEA) vs. James Harden, Derek Fisher, Nick Collison (OKC) 
I tend to feel that the best player off the bench usually determines the quality of the bench. Here, James Harden is easily the best bench player of the all whom I've listed. Fisher and Collison, though possessing unimpressive numbers, both do the little things that keep a team contending. Perkins, while good, was not a borderline All-Star like Harden is. McMillan had health issues throughout the season, and Askew was rather forgettable.
Edge: OKC


Coach: George Karl (SEA) vs. Scott Brooks (OKC)
Brooks has done a good job getting the best out of his young team, and he may someday go down as one of the greatest coaches in NBA history. However, George Karl was a great coach back in 1996, and in retrospect, is one of the greatest coaches in NBA history.
Edge: SEA


Conclusion
I think this series could go either way, as both teams consist of a "Big 3" and several solid bench players. However, what I think it'll come to is Seattle's defense. I'd expect Westbrook to struggle a lot against Payton, and Hawkins is a very competent defensive player against Harden. While Schrempf is merely an average defender, he does have the versatility to combat Durant, and as a team, the Sonics were ranked 2nd in the league in defense and should be able to slow Durant down. In this scenario, Seattle's 2nd ranked defense trumps OKC's 2nd ranked offense. On the other hand, OKC has a good, but not great, defense, and this relies a lot on Ibaka's defense. As I stated above, I don't expect Kemp to have much issue against Ibaka, so this negates the latter's one-on-one defense.

Adding to that, having a post players on the offensive end matters in a best-of-seven series. It's the big guys who you can count on to make shots on a more consistent basis, as sometimes jump shots just don't fall in. In Kemp, Schrempf, and Perkins, Seattle had three different guys who can create out of the post. On the other end, the Thunder have essentially no one. While Oklahoma City's offense and athleticism makes them a tough out, Seattle's defense and versatility made them a tough score.
Verdict: Seattle in 7

Credit: Mark Harrison, SeattleTimes

33rd Anniversary of Seattle's Only Championship

Conference Finals Prediction

After several weeks, here we are, finally down to the last four. I think we've got two really fun match-ups, both which can be described in the same way. These match-ups are between the teams who are on the rise but have yet to reach the promised land, versus the teams who have been there and won a ring, and are trying to get one more. Will age and experience pay off, are will youth and energy prevail?

(1) San Antonio Spurs vs. (2) Oklahoma City Thunder

Credit: Ronald Martinz, Harry How/Getty Images.

Why the Spurs Will Win: The San Antonio Spurs have just looked downright unbeatable. They haven't lost a single game in the playoffs, and going back to the regular season, they've won 18 in a row and 29 out of their last 31. Another thing to note is that only two of their eight games in the postseason have been decided by single digits, and they've had a +13.8 point differential so far.

Though we consider San Antonio an old team, they're actually not too old. They have a nice blend of championship experience in their Big 3, while also possessing talented young role players. One could also make a strong argument that the San Antonio Big 3 of Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker, is actually superior to the OKC Big 3 of Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden. 

Aside from looking at the Big 3 head to head, San Antonio has advantages elsewhere. First off, they've got championship experience, with Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili having hoisted three trophies together. Also, in my opinion, San Antonio has more talent and depth among their role and bench players. In the conference finals, playing the X's and O's could mean the difference between a win and a loss, and this is where having a coach like Gregg Popovich matters. Finally, with two teams so evenly matched, home-court advantage matters, and that goes to San Antonio.

Why the Thunder Will Win: I think most people would agree that the Oklahoma City Thunder are the sexier pick to make it to the NBA Finals. They're the team on the rise that seems to be attracting on the bandwagon fans. Oklahoma City hasn't been as dominant as San Antonio has been, but at the end of the day, OKC has only lost once in the playoffs so far. While San Antonio swept two teams that didn't even make the playoffs last year, Oklahoma City went 8-1 against the last two NBA Champions. They've blown their opponents out, while also showing their ability to win close games.

Usually when picking a match-up where I feel it's basically a toss up, I go with the team that has the best player because they're the one who is going to carry the team in crunch time. There are a lot of star players in this series, but the best one is definitely Kevin Durant. The NBA's leading scorer and MVP runner-up has looked great in the playoffs, averaging 26.7 PPG while shooting 48.8% from the field. Especially important is how Durant has played with the game on the line. According to Basketball-Reference, in the postseason, with 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter or overtime, and the no time up by more than five points, Durant has made 7 field goals on 58.3% shooting. Basically, if the game is on the line, you can bet on Durant winning the game for OKC.

Key Match-Up: In the playoffs, series tend to be decided by the play down low, but here we could have the battle of the point guards. I think that Westbrook is a better player than Parker is, but I think if we look at this year, Parker has been the better of the two. However, Westbrook has definitely stepped it up in the playoffs, while Parker has kind of stayed steady compared to how he was in the regular season. If either one plays significantly better than the other, then their team will win.

Verdict: In 1993, the Seattle SuperSonics were one game away from the NBA Finals. They wouldn't actually make it to the finals until three years later. This just shows that teams don't always go one step at a time from year to year. This San Antonio-OKC match-up is going to be a close one, but I think two things will end up tipping it for the Spurs. One, championship teams need great bigs, and Tim Duncan has played like the Duncan of old so far in the postseason. OKC just doesn't have any post players at Duncan's level. Two, I can't imagine either team losing at home, and that's where home-court comes in handy.

Prediction: San Antonio in 7

Credit: Mark J. Terrill, AP.

(2) Miami Heat vs. (4) Boston Celtics

Credit: Mike Ehrmann, Getty Images North America.

Why the Heat Will Win: Miami hasn't looked unstoppable in the playoffs, but they've definitely looked great. They easily dismantled a New York Knicks team that was 18-6 under new coach Mike Woodson, and once they adjusted to playing without Chris Bosh, Indiana stood no chance against them. Another way to think about it is that in games with Bosh, Miami outscored Indiana by a margin of +6.0, and Indiana has a better record than Boston does. 

Similar to what I said about OKC, as we progress towards the NBA Finals, the team with the best player tends to be the team that moves forward. In this case, not only does Miami easily have the best player in the series, they easily have the two best players in the series. Actually, they have two of the top 5 players in the entire NBA. The series against Indiana shows how dominant LeBron James and Dwyane Wade can be, and how the play of those two alone can carry their teams. In the last three games against Indiana, James and Wade combined for point totals of 70, 58, and 69. 

Why Boston Will Win: Somehow, someway, Boston always seems to make it back to the Eastern Conference Finals. Still, Boston really doesn't have the same level of dominance in the postseason that any of the other teams left have. Another way of thinking about it is that Boston has lost more games in the playoffs than Miami, OKC, and San Antonio have lost combined. On the bright side, Boston is 6-1 at home in the postseason, and that one lost was by one point.

To be honest, not a lot says that Boston will win this series, but without Bosh, Boston's chances definitely went up. While Miami has the two best players in this series, the next five best players all belong to Boston, in the form of Kevin Garnett, Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Brandon Bass. In terms of depth, I feel the advantage is definitely in Boston's favor, though the absence of Bosh does give Heat role players a chance to step up. As well, if the saying that defense wins championships is true, Boston should feel good about themselves because they do have the number one defense in the league. 

During the regular season, Boston beat Miami three times in the month of April, though the last of the three was a game where the coaches sat their star players. In the first two April wins, Bosh really struggled, and that allowed Boston to win the game. Possibly that's indicative of how Boston will be able to play against Miami without Bosh with them. And if championship teams require great post players, this definitely gives the edge to Boston with Garnett, than it does to Miami with Haslem or Anthony.

Key Match-Up: Watching the Boston-Philadelphia game yesterday, one of the NBA analysts said that if Rajon Rondo is the best player, Boston would win the game. I think that kind of rings true for this series too. Rondo vs. Mario Chalmers will be key to how far Miami can go. If Rondo gathers a couple triple-doubles, Boston has the chance of pulling the upset. On the other hand, if Chalmers excels and steps up as the third scorer on the Heat, then Miami should be able to win.

Verdict: Not having Bosh play, or play effectively, really hurts Miami against Boston, as evident by their regular season match-ups. However, Miami's ability to take care of Indiana without Bosh, and Boston's inability to take care of an average Philadelphia team makes me confident this is Miami's series to win. I think how Garnett plays against the Miami frontcourt will determine whether this game goes to 5 or 6.

Prediction: Miami in 6

Credit: Brian Spurlock, US Presswire.

Top 10 Former SuperSonics of 2012

I figured that since this site is called Saving SuperSonics History, I should probably actually start talking about the team more. Therefore, I'm going to publish the first annual list ranking the best players in the NBA who used to play for Seattle. The way I feel, this last can lasts about 15 more years, which is about when Kevin Durant will be retiring.

Didn't Qualify (500 minutes): Chris Wilcox, Mikki Moore


Honorable Mention: Damien Wilkins

Reggie Evans. Credit: Stephen Dunn, Getty Images.

10. Reggie Evans (LAC)-Make no mistake, he is an excellent rebounder. This makes him a good role player, but when talking about skill, we have to look at the entire game. Aside from rebounding, Evans doesn't really do anything else and is a big detriment on offense.
Main Stats: 13.8 MPG, 1.9 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 0.3 APG

9. Rashard Lewis (WAS)-For the second highest paid player in the NBA, he doesn't even average double figure points per game (7.8). For a 6'10 forward, he only averaged 5.4 rebounds...per 36 minutes. For a guy who can basically shoot over everyone he plays, he shoots a mediocre 24% from three. At least he makes his free throws.
Main Stats: 26.0 MPG, 7.8 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.0 APG

8. Johan Petro (NJN)-He never reached his potential in Seattle, but at least he didn't annoy us by breaking out elsewhere. One thing we can say about him is that he has been consistent throughout his career...consistently mediocre. Petro's a solid rebounder and doesn't hurt his team too much in other ways.
Main Stats: 15.6 MPG, 4.2 PPG, 3.8 RPG. 0.8 APG

7. Kurt Thomas (POR)-At his age, it's a feat just to still be playing in the NBA. He doesn't really do anything eye-popping anymore, but he still contributes in the little ways such as rebounding, setting screens, providing leadership, etc.
Main Stats: 15.2 MPG, 3.0 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 0.9 APG

6. Earl Watson (UTA)-In just over 20 minutes per game, he averages a measly 3 points on a devastatingly bad 33.8% shooting from the field, and 19.2% from three. The only reason he makes it this high is because he has shown good, though not great, passing abilities.
Main Stats: 20.7 MPG, 3.0 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 4.3 APG

5. Vladimir Radmanovic (ATL)-Unlike, the other players mentioned so far on this list, Radmanovic is different in that he can be a direct game changer (Evans' rebounding and Thomas' miscellaneous little things are what I would call indirect game changers). Simply, put he is a threat from long distance, making about a three a game, on a solid 37% shooting.
Main Stats: 15.4 MPG, 4.5 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.1 APG

Nick Collison. Credit: Chris Landsberger, The Oklahoman.

4.  Nick Collison (OKC)-FINALLY we get to some respectable players! These are players who I know for sure will have a job in the NBA next season. Collison doesn't have overwhelming stats, but he knows that he's not a superstar and doesn't try to do too much. He's an outstanding role player who does the little things like rebound, sets screens, play defense, and shoot a high percentage.
Main Stats: 20.7 MPG, 4.5 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 1.3 APG

3. Luke Ridnour (MIN)-With Ridnour, this lists has its first full-time starter. Starting in 53 games for Minnesota, he put up very respectable numbers of 12.1 PPG and 4.8 APG, while knocking down his free throws at an 89% clip. Unlike the other players on this list, his skill hasn't deteriorated too much from his time in Seattle.
Main Stats: 33.0 MPG, 12.1 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 4.8 APG

Ray Allen. Credit: Greg Cooper, US Presswire.

2. Ray Allen (BOS)-He's no longer a star player, but this guy still has a lot of game. He shot 45.8% from the field and 91.5% from the line, both of which are above his career average. More impressively, he was nearly unstoppable from three, shooting a career high 45.3% from behind the arc. At any time, Walter Ray can break out and play like a super star.
Main Stats: 34.0 MPG, 14.2 PPG, 3.1 RPG, 2.4 APG

1. Kevin Durant (OKC)-Duh.
Main Stats: 38.6 MPG, 28.0 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 3.5 APG

The Seattle SuperSonics ARE NOT the Oklahoma City Thunder

The TNT guys speak the truth.

The Most Unexpected Conference Finals of the Past 20 Years

With the Oklahoma City Thunder beating the LA Lakers yesterday (as much as I hated to see the Oklahoma fans celebrate, the team played fantastic), the Western Conference Finals are set. On the other side of the bracket, though, there's still much left to be decided. I bet 95% of sports fan predicted Miami and Chicago to battle it out for a trip to the Finals, but that's not going to be the case. In fact, with the injury of Bosh, there's a very good possibility of seeing either an Indiana/Boston match-up, or an Indiana/Philadelphia one. Either way, there's a very strong possibility that the Eastern Conference Finals will pit two teams that we didn't expect to see at this stage in the postseason when the playoffs began. With that being said, I want to present what I think are the 5 most unexpected conference finals of the past 20 years.

5. 1994 Eastern Conference Finals
Match-up: (2) New York Knicks (57-25) vs. (5) Indiana Pacers (47-35)


To be honest, finding a fifth match-up was kind of difficult. While the New York Knicks, being a number two seed, were probably not a surprise to make it to the conference finals, the Indiana Pacers probably weren't that much of a long shot either. They ended the season on an eight game winning streak, including winning their last two games by margins of 45 and 33.

Still, Indiana had started the season 3-8, and having to go against the No. 1 seed Atlanta Hawks in the first round probably made it a surprise that they had gotten to the final four. As well, New York in the Eastern Conference Finals was no guarantee, as they had a second round date against the defending champion, thought Michael Jordan-less, Chicago Bulls.

4. 2010 Eastern Conference Finals
Match-up: (2) Orlando Magic (59-23) vs. (4) Boston Celtics (50-32)


Despite Boston having been two years removed from winning the NBA championship, people left them for dead. We thought they were old and dead, but somehow (kind of like this year), they managed to keep advancing. Though they started off great, Boston ended the season 5-8, ending up with a solid, but not great, 50-32 record and a number four seed.

Their first round opponent were the Miami Heat, who unlike Boston, were scorching and had ended the season only losing once in their last 13 games. Most people expected a close series, and the consensus was generally split over who would win. Imagine people's surprise when it only took Boston 5 games to vanquish their foe! Though they could beat the Heat, they probably would not have beat the Cleveland Cavaliers, they of who led the league with 61 wins, right? Wrong. Boston dispatched Cleveland on their way to a match-up against the expected Orlando Magic.

3. 2011 Western Conference Finals
Match-up: (3) Dallas Mavericks (57-25) vs. (4) Oklahoma City Thunder


On paper, this match-up doesn't look to unexpected, but if we remember from last year, it kind of was. First off, Oklahoma City wasn't a complete shock to make the Western Conference Finals. In fact, they were expected to beat the San Antonio Spurs, if only San Antonio had made it to the second round. Still, the prospect of having to go against the team with the best record out West did not make for easy nights.

The real surprise in the Western Conference Finals were the Dallas Mavericks. Despite having a splendid 57-25 record, which was the same as the no. 2 seed and title favorite LA Lakers, Dallas was given no shot of making it to the finals. In fact, people deemed that their match-up with Portland in the first round did not suit them well, and a good portion of ESPN experts actually thought they would lose then. When they made it to the second round, there was not a analyst, expert, or site on the web that I could find that had Dallas beating the LA Lakers. The fact that the sweeped LA made it even more shocking.

2. 2007 Western Conference Finals
Match-up: (3) San Antonio Spurs (58-24) vs. (4) Utah Jazz (51-31)


With a 58-24 record, there's no reason to think that the Spurs wouldn't have made the conference finals. However, there were two things that could've made people a little hesitant to pick the San Antonio. For one,  they had lost the very first game of the playoffs to the Denver Nuggets. Though San Antonio did bounce back to win four in a row, that did give people a little scare. Second, they were going against a 61-win Phoenix Suns team, who they had never beat in Phoenix that season (though to be fair, they only played once in Phoenix).


Where this finals was unexpected was almost all because of Utah. To start off with, Utah hadn't even made the playoffs in the last three years, so they were a relatively inexperienced postseason team. Then, in the first round, they were matched-up with a Houston Rocket team that 1) Had a better record then them and thus home-court, 2) Had taken three of four games against them in the regular season, and 3) Had taken the first two games of the series. Somehow, Utah managed to regroup and win the series. However, there was absolutely no one they were going to beat a Dallas Mavericks team with one of the best records in NBA History, right? Right? Well, they didn't even have to go against Dallas! They were luck to go against the No. 8 seed Golden State Warriors, who honestly, only made it to the next round due to having a good match-up, rather than being a good team. If you had asked me before the 2007 playoffs started what the chances were that Utah would be in the conference finals, I would have said about 2%.

1. 1999 Eastern Conference Finals
Match-up: (2) Indiana Pacers (33-17) vs. (8) New York Knicks (27-23)


I guess it's only appropriate that the number one finals on this last came when the NBA last had a lockout. As has been the case for most of this last, what makes the match-up unexpected has usually been just the result of one team making it in that we didn't think would. This match-up is no different. Indiana, as a No. 2 seed, was a favorite to make it to the conference finals. The only thing stopping them were the No. 3 Orlando Magic, who had taken them two of three from them in the regular season. Lucky for them, Orlando bowed out in the first round, leaving Indiana to go against a Philadelphia team that they would sweep.

Whereas Indiana probably had a 95% chance of being in the conference finals, New York probably was at around 1%. For one, they were a No. 8 seed, and only one time in NBA history had a No. 8 beat a No. 1 (I hate thinking about that...). Second, their second round opponent were the Atlanta Hawks, who had taken two out of three from them in the regular season. Aside from that, there really isn't much to say except a No. 8 seed in the Eastern Conference Finals was never to be expected.

NBA Awards Review and Opinion II (Sixth, ROY, MVP)

Sixth Man of the Year


Official Results: 1) James Harden, 2) Louis Williams, 3) Jason Terry

How I Would've Voted: 1) James Harden, 2) Louis Williams, 3) Al Harrington

 (Sue Ogrocki / Associated…)

For most of the year, James Harden was the favorite for the Sixth Man of the Year Award. Last week, sportswriters and broadcasters cemented Harden's name in history as he ran away with the award. Though he wasn't unanimously picked for this honor, Harden did come away with 115 of a possible 118 first place votes.

I completely agree with James Harden being named the Sixth Man of the Year. In my opinion, he was the best player who regularly came off the bench this past season (I'm not including Ginobili since he missed his fair share of games). Not only did he post up really good numbers of 16.8 PPG, 4.1 RPG, and 3.7 APG, while playing with the second unit, but he did so with great efficiency. Harden became one of the most difficult players to guard as he proved to be a threat from outside, shooting 39.0% from three, while also being capable of penetrating to the basket, attempting 6 free throws a game while knocking down 84.6% of them. For the season, Harden shot a fantastic 49.1% from the field, and was constantly referred to as the Thunder's best passer. Harden's elevation from being a solid guard to becoming a borderline All Star and offensive demon is why the Thunder ranked second in the league in offense, and had the second best record in the West.

While I do agree with James Harden being the best sixth man, I thought the race was closer than most people felt it was. I want to recognize and give credit to Louis Williams of the Philadelphia 76ers for having a fantastic year. I've always considered Williams as one who's kind of gone under the radar, but this year, with the early success of the Sixers, he kind of started being pushed into the spotlight. While his numbers aren't impressive as Harden (and he's not as good as Harden), he posted very solid line of 14.9 PPG, 2.4 RPG, and 3.5 APG, while playing just 26.3 MPG. In fact, at the All Star break, I had Williams making the Eastern Conference team, while leaving out Harden from the West. This, though, had a lot to do with Philadelphia's blistering start, and the fact that they didn't really have any superstars. Either way, Williams and Harden were both terrific borderline All Stars who were great Sixth Men for their respective teams.

Rookie of the Year


Official Results: 1) Kyrie Irving, 2) Ricky Rubio, 3) Kenneth Faried

How I Would've Voted: 1) Kyrie Irving, 2) Kenneth Faried, 3) Isaiah Thomas

Soobum Im, US Presswire

This was perhaps the easiest award to pick for the 2011-12 season. How does this sound? 18.5 PPG, 3.7 RPG, and 5.4 APG in ONLY 30 minutes a game. And for a rookie, how about a shooting line of .469/.399/.872.  In my mind, Irving is not a star of the future; he's a star now. The only question is going to be just how good this guy will be. I personally had him on my ballot (I think I did at least) for an Eastern Conference All Star this year.

Aside from Irving, I think we can agree that Kenneth Faried had a great year for the Denver Nuggets. I love his energy, and he has continued his reputation from college as an elite rebounder. I think we can all agree that he was one of the best three rookies this year. The question now is what about Ricky Rubio? The Spaniard had a phenomenal, showing himself to be one of the most creative passers in the league. He ranked sixth in the league 8.2 assists per game, and Minnesota was actually 21-20 in games Rubio played. As well, Rubio showed himself to be a great ball hawk, averaging over two steals a game.

What works against Rubio, though, is that aside from his passing ability, he didn't really have much going from him. He was a poor scorer, averaging just over 10 points in 34.2 minutes per game, and he shot a dreadful 35.7% from the field. Despite his strong steal numbers, Rubio also wasn't known as that great of a defensive player. Also, it doesn't help that the guard missed over a third of the season due to injury/ Overall, Rubio's had a good rookie year, but he wasn't good enough and missed too many games for me to put him on my ballot as top 3 rookie.

Aside from Irving. Rubio, and Faried, it was hard to really pick anyone who stood out too much. After thinking hard about it, I finally decided to give my hypothetical third place vote to Isaiah Thomas of the Sacramento Kings. And no, this is not because we're both Washington Huskies. Thomas played in all but one game for the Kings, and managed to average double figures for the measly team. What really solidified Thomas as one of the best rookies was how he ended the season. Thomas worked his way into the starting line-up before the season's halfway point, and as a starter, averaged 14.7 PPG and 5.4 APG, while shooting over 40% from three. Being in the starting five allowed fans to see what Thomas was capable of, and he was able to capture two Rookie of the Month Awards.

Most Valuable Player


Official Results: 1) LeBron James, 2) Kevin Durant, 3) Chris Paul, 4) Kobe Bryant, 5) Tony Parker

How I Would've Voted: Same as above

Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

The voters got it right here. If I had a ballot to vote for MVP, it would have gone in the exact same order as the results.

Now, I would've been fine with either LeBron James or Kevin Durant as MVP, but I think James was the right choice. Some people may say I might be a little bias because as a life-long Sonic fan, I don't want to see a Thunder become MVP. Well, let me just say, I'm not a big fan of James at all. While I do feel resentment towards the Oklahoma City Thunder and its players, LeBron James is perhaps my least favorite player currently in the league. As much as I, or anyone, dislikes James, it's hard to deny that he's a heck of a player.

My reasoning for picking James as MVP simply has to do with the fact that he is easily the best player in the NBA. It's a little bit difficult to define what "most valuable" exactly means, and the definition does kind of vary from person to person, but a basic way of thinking about it is, if you are better, you are more valuable. Now, that's not always true because there are different contexts and situations, but when you're in James' case (meaning best player in the league playing for a team that had the fourth best record in the league), then you're the most valuable.

James led the Miami Heat and was third in the NBA in scoring, averaging about 27 a game. He had the best shooting year of his career, with career highs from the field (.531) and behind the arc (.362). With per-game averages of 7.9 rebounds and 6.2 assists, James was always a triple-double waiting to happen. He excelled on the defensive end as well, and was in contention for Defensive Player of the Year. James also showed himself more capable at taking over at the end of games, at least compared to last season, though how people view James' ability to perform in the clutch will mostly be determined by how far the Heat go in the playoffs. For the regular season, though, James was basically unstoppable, and early on, some people wondered if he was having one of the greatest years ever.

Kevin Durant turned in possibly the finest year of his young career, topping the league in scoring for the third straight year, while leading a Thunder team that held the number one seed out west for most of the year. I don't think anyone doubts that Durant will win an MVP in the future, and is probably James' biggest challenger for  best player in the league.

While it was clear that James and Durant were probably the top two contenders for MVP, it was also pretty clear that Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, and Tony Parker were in the top 5. I put Parker at 5 because he played a lot less minutes than the other two, and I also felt that if you take Parker out of the Spurs, they still have enough depth to manage for some time. In the case of Bryant vs. Paul, I thought they both led teams that slightly underachieved, but I put Paul third because I felt he had a better year than Bryant.