The Smush Parker Project

This past weekend, LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers was named the Most Valuable Player in the NBA for the 2009-10 season. 

My personal bias aside, this was not a surprising pick by any means: James received 116 of 122 possible votes from NBA writers, with the 117th vote coming from the fans on NBA.com. 

The Cavs' forward received 94 percent of the total first place votes, and recorded 1205 total points, with 10 points awarded for a first-place vote, seven for second place, five for third, three for fourth and one for fifth. 

The next highest point total belonged to Oklahoma City Thunder forward Kevin Durant.

The 596-point margin between James and Durant was the second highest ever. James' victory in the MVP race was emphatic and never in doubt. 

Having said all of that, the fact that LeBron James did not win the MVP award unanimously is an absolute joke. 

From the Cavs notching the top record in the NBA, to LeBron's filthy stats, to his ability to simply dominate games on both ends of the floor, this was pretty much a no-brainer. 

Even if you are one of the few who try to wiggle their way out of making a logical vote by saying that the award should go to the "most valuable" player and not the "best" player, how is LeBron not more valuable to his team than any other player? 

As someone who watched every Cavs game this year, including the pathetic contests when LeBron sat and rested, I can say that as the best player in the league, LeBron is also far-and-away the most valuable.

Without LeBron, the Cavs are probably not a playoff team, even in the weak Eastern Conference. 

Again, I am admittedly biased, but I'm not alone in voicing this sentiment: Matt Moore and Ira Winderman of NBC's Pro Basketball Talk blog, Howard Beck of the New York Times' "Off the Dribble" blog and the ubiquitous Bill Simmons of ESPN.com all have voiced their displeasure in recent days with not only the results of the voting, but also the nature of the voting process. 

Though ballots are not officially made public, many NBA bloggers have determined that the four first-place votes that went to Durant all came from writers who either cover the Thunder or people employed by the Thunder, including various radio or television play-by-play men. 

Similarly, the three first-place votes for Orlando Magic center Dwight Howard all came from those who either cover the Magic or work for the organization. 

In addition, James actually received two third-place votes, a laughable travesty that many speculate probably came from the Orlando area. Aside from James, someone gave a fifth-place vote to Charlotte Bobcats forward Stephen Jackson, a player who is not even the most valuable player on his own team (that would be Gerald Wallace). 

The poor voting extends to the award for Defensive Player of the Year, for which Howard was the runaway winner: someone gave a third-place vote to David Lee, a player who has been criticized for actually being a pretty terrible defender. 

Two things must be done to amend this trend.

All ballots for NBA awards should be public, and those who vote for award should not be employed by any team.

Instead, let some of the NBA bloggers, who typically watch more basketball, are more knowledgeable and are more objective than the average NBA beat writer, have some votes.

The United States Congress, whose decisions actually affect the daily lives of American citizens, have a public voting record. Further, the Baseball Writers Association of America, who run the MLB's end-of-season awards, make voting records public, as does the Associated Press for the NFL's awards. 

Why, then are the NBA votes hidden? If a writer is going to make a homer pick, he should have to answer to the fans and to other writers. 

Now, some writers aren't necessarily so nefarious with their intent: they simply don't know any better. 

Many NBA beat writers and broadcasters who work for a specific team simply do not watch much basketball outside of the team for which they work. 

Some do not have the time, while others simply do not care. 

Naturally, then, they will make some outlandish picks from time-to-time, since they do not know any better. This is not right.