I'll admit it: I don't know pro basketball that well. You make a fantastic argument and your article is well-written. Kobe and Lebron are making fantastic arguments with their play in the postseason as well (remember everybody, it's a regular season award). Looking back on the season, this had to be the closest MVP race in history (I don't know how the actual voting went). Maybe it had something to do with expectations. When Stoudemire got hurt at the beginning of the year, combined with losing Quentin Richardson and Joe Johnson, many diminished the Suns' playoff chances. Nash had another great season, and the Suns finished second in the West. I agree, they underrated the Suns' talent. I don't agree that the loss of Stoudemire was irrelevant. Losing an All-Star for the season is not something to be brushed aside, and the players they brought in performed above expectations. Right or wrong, they believed that Nash made the team better.

Kobe had a fantastic year, no doubting that. Lebron James did as well. It can't be argued that any of their three respective teams would be anywhere close to what they were without them. I honestly think it was a dead heat when it came down to these three, and the voters just went back to their initial preseason predictions and took Nash, based on what was originally expected.

I'm not saying this was the right way to go. I just believe this is how they came to the ultimate decision.