With all this discussion on who is deserving this year to get the mvp, who is automatically out (despite having great statistical years) and questioning what the mvp means (best offensive player, best player in the nba, biggest reason to a teams success, best story) I find that no matter how you cut it, the system that is in place is flawed. It is flawed because of a lack of objectivity and no such unifying ground rules. So looking at some of the past mvps, and considering this year and years to come, i came up with some "parameters" or steps can and should be utilized when choosing the mvp now and for the future generations.
I perhaps missed some variables, or didnt look at every angle, so go ahead and voice your thoughts and critiques as always. After the jump is my system....First the NBA chooses its candidates on these parameters-
-The player must be on a winning team (i considered playoffs, but in the future a conference can become weak and one conference can have teams in the playoffs that are below 500, which shouldn't be rewarded)
-The player must be in the top 10 in at least 3 box-score categories, not including +-
-The player can not be winning the MVP award for his 3rd consecutive year, i say this because the last time someone won this award 3 times was Larry Bird in 85. Apparently the media doesn't like a player getting the MVP for 3 straight seasons, they get bored (see: Michael Jordan)
-This compiles a nice list of deserving players in a pretty objective light.
-Now you have coaches, and only coaches in the NBA choose who they think should be MVP, except they cannot vote for their own players. (edit:for some reason i originally wrote "except they cannot vote for who they think should be mvp" ....wtf?)
-The vote is on a point system, so coaches choose a first place vote, a second place vote, and a third place vote. 1st place votes are given 5 pts, second place are given 3, and 3rd place are given 1pt.
-Those votes are handed in, points are tallied, and the information is released along with the MVP award.
The reason for doing this is because the players in the pool arent chosen to be in the "discussion" due to some foolish abstract reasoning, and players arent excluded for the same. Instead the pool is created rather objectively. Then instead of having stupid media heads, has been players who are bound to be a bit bat shit crazy, or rich executives, you allow coaches, who's job is to scout and plan around teams and players in the league, to vote for who they think deserve the MVP. The point system helps to find a more objective pattern.
While this system isn't without argument or debate, it severely limits them and also gives the award a nice difficulty and prestige which it seems at times to dissipate for marketing reasons.
I considered adding that the boxscore stats used should be at least one defensive category (blocks, steals, def rebounds) but then decided to omit it mainly because I think Steve Nash deserved at least one MVP award (although maybe not the years that he actually got them) although he would never be a top 10 in any defensive category.