Dr. Jack Ramsay of ESPN, a legendary coach and commentator, voted Keith Bogans the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year. This fact actually made its way around the web the last couple weeks as ESPN presented its writers' ballots and Ramsay claimed a Bogans vote on Chicago radio. But there it was on the NBA's results release: one first-place vote for 18-minutes-per-game Bogans. (No one else voted for Bogans for so much as third place.)
We don't know who left Dwight Howard off the ballot entirely, but someone did. (It could have been Ramsay.) Some 114 of the 120 voters thought Howard was the best defender in the NBA; one of the 120 voters thought at least three players were better. So which vote is more ridiculous?
To me, Bogans is the more ridiculous vote. Even if you could argue Bogans were the defensive equal of Howard, Kevin Garnett, Andre Iguodala, his own teammates Luol Deng and Joakim Noah, Tyson Chandler -- you can't argue this, by the way; Bogans is a great defender in reputation at this point -- he plays just 18 minutes a game, roughly half of what the others play. He'd basically need to be twice the defender of some like Iguodala to make the same impact. It's impossible.
Howard, in my mind, is clearly the most impactful defender in the NBA, though I could see a case for Garnett, Iguodala or Deng being made. And that's just it, in terms of the Bogans vote being more ridiculous: you can make a case that three other players make a bigger defensive impact than Howard. The case can be made. You cannot make a reasonable case that Bogans was the best defender in the NBA. It's full of holes, top to bottom to top again. It's absurd, totally.
(That said, I get excited listening to commute time basketball with Ramsay as the commentator. I'm glad he's still a part of the game. Maybe we could throw an asterisk on his ballot or something, though.)