I think the system is fundamentally flawed if coaches are voting for any player on the court. If half a player's potential votes are coming from the same man (his coach) then that coach has a massive bearing on the overall result. For instance, a case could be made that both Farley and Rychart would poll similarly from opposing coaches, but if Phil prefers Rychart for whatever reason and consistantly gives him votes ahead of Willie then one man (Phil) could effectively decide the result.
Also each coach's system of allocation may differ. For instance if Rillie has an absolute blinder but Newly and Rose also play well he may go 3,2,2 with 3 for the opposition, while Phil may have gone 5,1,1 if Dusty, WIllie and Brett had an equivalent game. When this is applied over the entire regular season it's obvious how much impact one coach can have.
I think a better system would be if coaches were allocated 5 points to distribute to the opposing team and an impartial observer (ref, media, whoever) allocated 10 points to players from any team. This way the system cannot be influenced so heavily by an individual, yet the coaches still have an impact on the decision.
I know there's no perfect system, but I think this one is terribly flawed. But that said, I think it may just work for Dusty as he's the type of no nonsense player coach's notice and want to recognise. If Wethers gets 30 an opposition coach may just see him as selfish and only give him a handful of votes, but if Dusty gets 30 you know coaches from both sides will respect that.
