<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">A player's value shouldn't be determined by how good his team is, but rather how much better his team is with him versus without him.</div> We don't know how bad a team is without their star player though. I would imagine the Suns without Nash and Amare (since he didnt play last year) would be as bad as the Lakers without Kobe and yet with only Nash they were an elite team. Should McGrady have won a few years ago when he was with Orlando and gave the Pistons a scare in the playoffs? Should Bosh have won last year since without him the raptors would have been much worse? It seems ridiculous, to me, to give the award to the most valuable player of a decent team as opposed to the most valuable player of a legit championship contender or at least a conference contender. The MVP is an individual award but in NBA history it's been a reward to those who have been the most valuable player on great teams during their era, not an award for great players on decent teams. It's comparable to when people take into account the number of championship rings a player has when deciding who is the greater all-time player. Karl Malone and KG are/were great but they'll probably go down as 2nd/3rd all-time PFs because Duncan has 3 rings.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">Maybe. I think LeBron miight also have a case. Wade I'm less sure of ... but he'd be up there as well.</div>LeBron at least had a rather solid supporting cast. Outside of Odom, no one for the Lakers gave anything consistently til the last month and a half, and even he was very sporadic in his output. LeBron had Gooden who was pretty much a lock for about 10/8 or better every night. Donyell Marshall was good for about 10ppg off the bench. Big Z was good for about 15/8. Damon Jones, while rather inconsistent last year, was good for around 8ppg or so when he was finding the range. And with Wade, he had a hell of a cast around him, with a bunch of all stars or former all stars in Shaq, Walker, and Zo. Beyond that, JWill was a great addition to that team, and Haslem was as consistent as they came for the most part.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Run BJM:</div><div class="quote_post"> It seems ridiculous, to me, to give the award to the most valuable player of a decent team as opposed to the most valuable player of a legit championship contender or at least a conference contender. The MVP is an individual award but in NBA history it's been a reward to those who have been the most valuable player on great teams during their era, not an award for great players on decent teams. It's comparable to when people take into account the number of championship rings a player has when deciding who is the greater all-time player. Karl Malone and KG are/were great but they'll probably go down as 2nd/3rd all-time PFs because Duncan has 3 rings.</div> Well that is why the MVP is a worthless award.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">LeBron at least had a rather solid supporting cast. Outside of Odom, no one for the Lakers gave anything consistently til the last month and a half, and even he was very sporadic in his output. LeBron had Gooden who was pretty much a lock for about 10/8 or better every night. Donyell Marshall was good for about 10ppg off the bench. Big Z was good for about 15/8. Damon Jones, while rather inconsistent last year, was good for around 8ppg or so when he was finding the range. And with Wade, he had a hell of a cast around him, with a bunch of all stars or former all stars in Shaq, Walker, and Zo. Beyond that, JWill was a great addition to that team, and Haslem was as consistent as they came for the most part.</div> If LeBron wasn't on the team, I think they would have been a 30 win team. The Heat might have won 35-40 games without Wade. The Lakers with Kobe? Probably a 25-30 win team.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Run BJM:</div><div class="quote_post">We don't know how bad a team is without their star player though.</div> You can make an educated guess. If we knew this, then there wouldn't even be a need for an MVP vote. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I would imagine the Suns without Nash and Amare (since he didnt play last year) would be as bad as the Lakers without Kobe and yet with only Nash they were an elite team. Should McGrady have won a few years ago when he was with Orlando and gave the Pistons a scare in the playoffs? Should Bosh have won last year since without him the raptors would have been much worse?</div> Well McGrady did get MVP votes that year, and it wasn't completely unjustified. As for Bosh, how many extra wins do you think he added to the team? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It seems ridiculous, to me, to give the award to the most valuable player of a decent team as opposed to the most valuable player of a legit championship contender or at least a conference contender.</div> You should give it to the most valuable player, period. That's what the award is called, after all. It's not called "MVPOAGT" (MVP on a great team). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The MVP is an individual award but in NBA history it's been a reward to those who have been the most valuable player on great teams during their era, not an award for great players on decent teams. It's comparable to when people take into account the number of championship rings a player has when deciding who is the greater all-time player. Karl Malone and KG are/were great but they'll probably go down as 2nd/3rd all-time PFs because Duncan has 3 rings.</div> Ok. I don't agree with the championship thing either.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">LeBron at least had a rather solid supporting cast.</div> Solid? I'd say decent at best. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">LeBron had Gooden who was pretty much a lock for about 10/8 or better every night. Donyell Marshall was good for about 10ppg off the bench. Big Z was good for about 15/8. Damon Jones, while rather inconsistent last year, was good for around 8ppg or so when he was finding the range.</div> Just look at the playoffs. The Lakers' main role players stepped up. Lamar averaged 19/11/5, Kwame averaged 13/6, better than anybody on the Cavs. Drew Gooden averaged 8/7, down from the 10/8 he averaged in the regular season. Flip Murray averaged 8 PPG on 33% shooting, down from 13.5 PPG on 44% shooting. Big Z averaged 15/7 on 50% shooting in the regular season, and then just dissappeared in the playoffs averaging 10/6 on 45% shooting. Larry Hughes was just downright awful for the Cavs this year in the regular season and the playoffs. I could go on, but you get my point.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">Well McGrady did get MVP votes that year, and it wasn't completely unjustified. As for Bosh, how many extra wins do you think he added to the team? </div> 25. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">You should give it to the most valuable player, period. That's what the award is called, after all. It's not called "MVPOAGT" (MVP on a great team).</div> That's a bit naive. The reason this concept was probably implemented in the first place, is because of how easy it is for good players to put up great stats on a bad team. It's much more difficult for a great player to put up stats and still play within the system of a winning team. A player may put up worse stats while on a contending team, but he could still have played better the entire season.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post"> That's a bit naive. The reason this concept was probably implemented in the first place, is because of how easy it is for good players to put up great stats on a bad team. It's much more difficult for a great player to put up stats and still play within the system of a winning team. A player may put up worse stats while on a contending team, but he could still have played better the entire season.</div> You might be right that it's easy for a good player to put up great stats on a bad team. But guess what. A good player will be more valuable on a mediocre team than on a great team. Michael Jordan's value to the Chicago Bulls in the 80s was far, far greater than it was to the Dream Team. MVP isn't the same as the best, most skilled player. The value of a player has a lot to do with the quality of teammates around him. Also, if you're saying that Chris Bosh added 25 extra wins to the Raptors, that means you think they would have only won 2 games all season without him. That's a little overboard. The Raptors ended up winning 27 games. When Bosh was out, they went 1-11. Ok, obviouly they would have stunk without Bosh the whole season ... they probably wouldn't have managed 20 wins. If I had to guess, I think Bosh's presence probably added 10-15 wins to the team.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Bobcats:</div><div class="quote_post">Just look at the playoffs. The Lakers' main role players stepped up. Lamar averaged 19/11/5, Kwame averaged 13/6, better than anybody on the Cavs. Drew Gooden averaged 8/7, down from the 10/8 he averaged in the regular season. Flip Murray averaged 8 PPG on 33% shooting, down from 13.5 PPG on 44% shooting. Big Z averaged 15/7 on 50% shooting in the regular season, and then just dissappeared in the playoffs averaging 10/6 on 45% shooting. Larry Hughes was just downright awful for the Cavs this year in the regular season and the playoffs. I could go on, but you get my point.</div>The playoffs.....ok. Here's a thought, they only showed up really for the first few games. After that, they disappeared. The only reason the Lakers even made it to seven games was because of Kobe's heroics. If he wouldn't have taken over in game 4, they probably would have been done in 6. If it wasn't for his 50 point outburst in game six, they'd have been blown out. Smush was awful. Kwame was nonexistent in game 7 when they needed a big game out him, getting only 8/6 on 2/10 shooting. Odom disappeared as well, going for only 12/5/2 on 5/14 shooting. Those two disappeared when the Lakers needed production out of them more than at any other point during the series.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting the GOAT34:</div><div class="quote_post">This year it will be paul pierce.</div>Not a chance in hell. The Celtics won't be good enough for him to get it. Personally, I don't think this team will be winning too many more than 35 games, and that won't be enough to make the playoffs, and if they're not in the playoffs, PP won't be an MVP.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">You might be right that it's easy for a good player to put up great stats on a bad team. But guess what. A good player will be more valuable on a mediocre team than on a great team. Michael Jordan's value to the Chicago Bulls in the 80s was far, far greater than it was to the Dream Team. MVP isn't the same as the best, most skilled player. The value of a player has a lot to do with the quality of teammates around him. Also, if you're saying that Chris Bosh added 25 extra wins to the Raptors, that means you think they would have only won 2 games all season without him. That's a little overboard. The Raptors ended up winning 27 games. When Bosh was out, they went 1-11. Ok, obviouly they would have stunk without Bosh the whole season ... they probably wouldn't have managed 20 wins. If I had to guess, I think Bosh's presence probably added 10-15 wins to the team.</div> Whereas one extreme is to simply give the MVP to the best player on the best team, I think you've taken the other extreme by not considering a team's record enough. If you're going to strictly follow the term valuable, then the MVP will always go to a player like Bosh. Let's say he only does add 10-15 wins: that's still over 50% of that team's wins. How valuable a player is to a team only matters if that team is in contention. And following that logic, a player's value would obviously increase as the team's record improves. Now, I'm not saying we have to cling solely to a team's record (eg: giving Duncan the MVP, because he played for the league-leading Spurs), because it would become ridiculous. But, you can't overlook a player who has lesser stats while leading a championship team in favour of a player with great stats on a team that looks destined for a first-round exit.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Whereas one extreme is to simply give the MVP to the best player on the best team, I think you've taken the other extreme by not considering a team's record enough.</div> Taking MVP to mean "most valuable player" is an extreme? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">If you're going to strictly follow the term valuable, then the MVP will always go to a player like Bosh. Let's say he only does add 10-15 wins: that's still over 50% of that team's wins.</div> How are you defining value? If Bosh makes his team "15-wins" better, while Dirk or Duncan makes his team "20-wins" better, then I'd favor giving the MVP to them. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How valuable a player is to a team only matters if that team is in contention. And following that logic, a player's value would obviously increase as the team's record improves.</div> I don't follow that logic. Does that mean that $100 dollars has no value to a poor family, and it only has value to a rich family? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Now, I'm not saying we have to cling solely to a team's record (eg: giving Duncan the MVP, because he played for the league-leading Spurs), because it would become ridiculous. But, you can't overlook a player who has lesser stats while leading a championship team in favour of a player with great stats on a team that looks destined for a first-round exit.</div> Don't know what you mean by lesser stats. But if he's not helping his team as much, I will overlook him. The main "currency" in the game of basketball is wins. And a player's value corresponds to the number of wins he gives his team. Hence, the most valuable player is the one who added the most wins to his team. That's pretty straightfoward, and in my opinion makes a lot of sense. How are you defining a player's value?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">The playoffs.....ok. Here's a thought, they only showed up really for the first few games. After that, they disappeared. The only reason the Lakers even made it to seven games was because of Kobe's heroics. If he wouldn't have taken over in game 4, they probably would have been done in 6. If it wasn't for his 50 point outburst in game six, they'd have been blown out. Smush was awful. Kwame was nonexistent in game 7 when they needed a big game out him, getting only 8/6 on 2/10 shooting. Odom disappeared as well, going for only 12/5/2 on 5/14 shooting. Those two disappeared when the Lakers needed production out of them more than at any other point during the series.</div> How about LeBron's supporting cast when he needed them the most? Game 7: Flip Murray: 2 points on 1-4 shooting. Big Z: 8 points on 3-8 shooting. Drew Gooden: 2 points on 0-4 shooting. Damon Jones: 0 points on 0-5 shooting. Donyell Marshall: 2 points on 0-5 shooting. Larry Hughes: 10 points on 2-6 shooting.
How about the defense they were playing? Realize that they got shut down by one of the best defenses in all of basketball. The Laker supporting cast couldn't score against an undersized and outmanned Phoenix defense. The defenses there don't even compare. Phoenix plays no defense, Detroit plays great defense.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">How about the defense they were playing? Realize that they got shut down by one of the best defenses in all of basketball. The Laker supporting cast couldn't score against an undersized and outmanned Phoenix defense. The defenses there don't even compare. Phoenix plays no defense, Detroit plays great defense.</div> LeBron's teammates didn't show up against Washington either, though.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AnimeFANatic:</div><div class="quote_post">I agree that Nash shouldn't have won it but c'mon, your argument is incorrect. He didn't win it because he led the league in assists, I have no idea where you got that from. They don't base MVP off assists, much like how Kobe had most ppg but didn't win it. They thought the Suns were gonna suck without JJ and Amare, but Nash made his new team mates do great and they clinched the division title, hence they gave him the award. NOT because he got most assists per game. Baron Davis was second in apg, if he got more assists than Nash would he have won? No.</div> And for that reason, I think Nash does deserve the MVP award last year. I am gonna pick some1 like Dirk for MVP this coming season.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">How about the defense they were playing? Realize that they got shut down by one of the best defenses in all of basketball. The Laker supporting cast couldn't score against an undersized and outmanned Phoenix defense. The defenses there don't even compare. Phoenix plays no defense, Detroit plays great defense.</div> How about the Washington series? Larry Hughes averaged 12.3 PPG on 31% shooting. Big Z averaged 9/6 on 42% shooting, the 2 role players he needed the most didn't show up. His supporting cast played better in the regular season then in the playoffs. It's amazing LeBron was able to lead them as far as he did.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Bobcats:</div><div class="quote_post">How about the Washington series? Larry Hughes averaged 12.3 PPG on 31% shooting. Big Z averaged 9/6 on 42% shooting, the 2 role players he needed the most didn't show up. His supporting cast played better in the regular season then in the playoffs. It's amazing LeBron was able to lead them as far as he did.</div> The Wizards still aren't that great of a team and barely above 500 playing in the East.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">The Wizards still aren't that great of a team and barely above 500 playing in the East.</div> Which proves my point that LeBron's cast is pretty weak considering they couldn't play well against a poor defensive team like Washington.
