A comment I made on a blog post quoting myself with other knowledgeable analysts, who happen to be Bulls fans, denying that it's so "self-evident" that Derrick Rose is the NBA MVP.
Ricky O'Donnell edits the fine Tremendous Upside Potential blog and posted comments of mine, "Blog-a-Bull" editor "Your Friendly Bulls Blogger," and "Ball Don't Lie" editor Kelly Dwyer stating Derrick Rose either is definitely not this season's MVP to this point or -- in Dwyer's case -- shouldn't really be considered a serious candidate.
I've already written that the history of the MVP award shows almost a template to which players win the award and that Rose isn't one of them, regardless of my or anyone else's opinion. Also, I shared a study that reasonably argues that other teams would be worse without their stars in the win-loss column than the Bulls without Rose. All of that said, I shared another study that points to Rose's extreme volume and express this should be a significant factor in the "conversation." This post is very different.
O'Donnell was posting the views of those in conflict with the "Fanboy Army," including my response to Doug Thonus. Someone said there were six more deserving than Derrick Rose of he MVP, which Thonus called "insane." Not sure if I agree it's insane, but I responded that it isn't far fetched. That, off the top of my head, in that moment, "stellar arguments" can be made for four other players over Rose -- LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowitzki, and maybe Kevin Durant, in no particular order.
What strikes me about the topic is that discussions are futile with people applying homer-logic. I'm not accusing Thonus of this, nor did I intend to. There's a subjective element to the "conversation" that is just so passionate for some people that their explanation of why Rose -- or even fans of Howard, Dirk, Durant, and LeBron -- is so off the wall that they don't ever intend to reasonably express a justification for their conclusion.
There's nothing wrong with this. The topic of discussion isn't the future of education, the validity of religion, or sexual integrity. It's sports and there is a fine line between a fan and a analyst. There isn't any real virtue in being either. The issue comes when obvious homer-logic is peddled as analysis, I wrote: