How to interpret MVP?

Sorry, but Lakers with Kobe...not a championship contender...Lakers without Kobe, not a championship contender...not much difference, huh???

Now...take off Timmy from the Spurs ...or Nash from the Suns ...or even Dirk off the Mavs...

Much different results to the same equation...

The equation for MVP...Kobe just doesn't add up...hell, he's no where near it...

 

<font color=""Blue"">This is obvious baiting. Try to contribute to the thread when posting.

- Swish</font>

 

<div class="quote_poster">djdiggydiggy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Sorry, but Lakers with Kobe...not a championship contender...Lakers without Kobe, not a championship contender...not much difference, huh???

Now...take off Timmy from the Spurs ...or Nash from the Suns ...or even Dirk off the Mavs...

Much different results to the same equation...

The equation for MVP...Kobe just doesn't add up...hell, he's no where near it...</div>

Thats like saying take Dirk or Nash of their teams and they are still a playoff team take Kobe off Lakers and they are a lottery team, does not tell you much other then Dirk and Nash have a better supporting cast.

 

Lol, Kobe fanboy arguments..."let's switch the places of the players and see how well the Spurs, Suns, and Mavs do"

Sorry, not how it works.

How "valuable" are you if, despite your presence on the team, the team is not a title contender??? Please. Let's just let that one marinate for a bit...

That's all I'm saying. Like in previous posts, I'm not denying Kobe anything. Unstoppable offensive force??? Check. Lockdown D when he wants??? Check. Best all-around game in the league??? No doubt. But most valuable??? I beg to differ.

 

How many wins does that "would have" or "could have" get you?!?

With some more wins, Kobe would have won the MVP...

 

<div class="quote_poster">djdiggydiggy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">How many wins does that "would have" or "could have" get you?!?

With some more wins, Kobe would have won the MVP...</div>

I think you're missing the point. Kobe is not the MVP this season, but his season definetly would have been different had the Lakers not lost so many of thier core players to injuries for an extended period of time. To put it into perspective; if Amare, Bell, and Marion (core players) had injuries and missed the amount of games that Odom, Walton, Brown (and to an extent, Vlad) did, would the Suns have won as many games? Not likely. The Suns are ovbiously a much more talented team than the Lakers, no one's denying that, but injuries play a big part in not only performance on the court, but also team chemistry.

 

Karma, I do understand the point, and it is very valid. Injuries do play a large role. I will even go so far as to say that injuries play a larger role on the Lakers than pretty much any other team. The triangle offense is difficult to grasp, and when you are constantly interchanging pieces, chemistry is hard to come by.

I just do not see how it makes Kobe's campaign for MVP any stronger, yet people always throw that argument in. Or some variation, such as "his team sucks" or "what if so and so did not play". Well guess what??? His team does suck, and so and so did play. That's the way it is. Plenty of time left for Kobe to get his, I just don't see how he is deserving of it this year.

When I consider MVP, I consider team wins and losses, stats comparable to other stars in the NBA, and importance upon team's success. By success, I mean competing for the championship. With that requirement, Kobe doesn't even meet it whatsoever. Is it his fault??? Nope. But you've gotta fill out all three of the boxes, and Kobe only has one and a half of them full. Now can he turn in his ballot and tell me about his extenuating circumstances??? Sure. Injuries, bad chemistry, bad team. I understand all of it. But you still only have one and a half boxes filled out.

Tell me this. You go to your professor, and half your test is filled out. You have all the questions right, display knowledge of all the curriculum, but only half the questions are filled out. You explain to him that you obviously understand everything, that you know all the information, but because your roommate interrupted your studying, or your girlfriend breaking up with you, or you caught the flu that you couldn't finish your test. Now tell me what grade does he give you??? Does he take all that into consideration and grade you only on what you completed, giving you an A, or does he grade the entire test still, give you your 50%, and fail you???

I do not believe it is I who is not understanding the point so much as others not willing to accept that this just didn't work out to be Kobe's year.

 

Shapecity, my point was not that the teams would be title contenders without their stars, but that with their stars, they are title contenders for this year. I am trying to say that with the teams presently constituted as they are, the Lakers are not in the list of top five title contenders.

It is not a double standard at all, just an observation that yes, indeed, Kobe does have a bad team, and that even with his enormous skill and ability, they are still not contenders.

Kobe with a healthy squad would indeed be a dark horse. If Lamar played consistently for a 20 game stretch, I don't know of too many teams that would like to face them in a series. Now, next year, with perhaps a veteran point guard, some luck with health, and a scorer or two off the bench, Kobe would be my front runner for MVP, and the Lakers would be pretty darn scary.

I'm just saying that this year, with what I consider as MVP requirements, Kobe just can't stack up with the big three of Duncan, Nash, and Nowitzski...

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Way to overexaggerate the circumstances. Let's take Amare and Marion off the Suns roster for extended amount of games and see how fast their win total drops. Let's also take away Josh Howard and Jason Terry from the Mavs and see how Dirk does. And finally let's take away Parker and Ginobili from Tim Duncan and see how the Spurs do.

The Lakers were in the mix for a top 3 seed prior to injuries to three starters (Kwame, Odom, and Walton.)</div>
Well last year, the Suns 9 players they were going to use in their rotation,

but didn't get Amare back except for 3 games. So he missed 78 games, about Kwame and Odom's total combined. (41 +26 = 67)

Kurt Thomas was out for 29 games (about the same as Vlad Radmonovic (27))

Barbosa was out for 25 games (Luke Walton's 22)

Nash was out for 3 games (Kobe's 5)

Pat Burke missed 40 games (Mihm missed 42), the Mihm one is obviously a stretch as Mihm when given minutes can produce, Burke can't.

 

<div class="quote_poster">djdiggydiggy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">

Tell me this. You go to your professor, and half your test is filled out. You have all the questions right, display knowledge of all the curriculum, but only half the questions are filled out. You explain to him that you obviously understand everything, that you know all the information, but because your roommate interrupted your studying, or your girlfriend breaking up with you, or you caught the flu that you couldn't finish your test. Now tell me what grade does he give you??? Does he take all that into consideration and grade you only on what you completed, giving you an A, or does he grade the entire test still, give you your 50%, and fail you???</div>


Well if it were to be compared to a test, would you be able to take all your studymates into the test with you and give a combined effort. I do believe MVP stands for most valuable player, not most valuable group of players. Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitski wouldnt be scoring 100% in their tests if they didnt have their supporting casts.

 

I was talking to some dude the other day. If Magic and Bird could win multiple MVPs with their HOF supporting cast, why not Nash and Dirk?

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Based on your definition, I'd probably vote for Shaq or Duncan every year for the MVP award. I think they are the only two players in the league you could surround 11 guys with regardless of talent and still make the playoffs.</div>

That's why they call 'em perrineal MVP candidates.

 

<div class="quote_poster">rip-city Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well if it were to be compared to a test, would you be able to take all your studymates into the test with you and give a combined effort. I do believe MVP stands for most valuable player, not most valuable group of players. Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitski wouldnt be scoring 100% in their tests if they didnt have their supporting casts.</div>

Dude, do a bit of reading, and maybe take a comprehension test or two. My statement explains how the excuses you just used, i.e. injuries, insufficient supporting casts, etc., are deemed invalid. C'MON MAN, bring something to the discussion. Don't quote me if you don't even understand what I'm saying to you. Ridiculous.

 

MVP sounds like something you come up through some economic formula, so there are some interesting ideas of mathematically trying to decide it like the original post of this thread attempted to do.

I find it compelling how the NCAA has a MOP award or Most Outstanding Player award. If there was a MOP award in the NBA then clearly that would go to Kobe Bryant.

Back to MVP, I think an interesting stat to look at is what the record of the team is when X player is away. It would actually be better if the voters looked at how good the team is with X, and how good is the team without X. Looking at the situation this way, you then start getting new names outside of the MOP like Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, LeBron James, Yao Ming, Shaq, Duncan, etc. However this would penalize players who were healthy the whole season, so that clearly isn't a primary way to go, but only secondary if that high.

I am not really giving much of an answer to how to judge who deserves the MVP award. However I think adding something like a MOP could help to award players like Kobe Bryant or Kevin Garnett (from the past) or whomever has an outstanding season but for some reason may not be the MVP because of the team's record or what have you. The MOP can be added to go along with the NBA all league team, which would distinguish one player out of all positions in the whole NBA rather than how the NBA all-league is just by position; or where the MVP is dependent on team records/supporting cast, and what have you. Making a MOP will be easier to judge like deciding who should win Rookie of the Year which is based solely on performance rather than other criteria, which usually makes it easier to judge besides some specific cases like Amare vs Yao which doesn't happen very often.

But seriously if there is a MVP award given out, it should probably go to Shaq or Duncan every year. I don't know any player that gets more valuable than those two, outside of Nash the past couple of seasons. Maybe LeBron joins this group soon, but we'll have to wait and see for that.

 

A lot of people always try to play the "switch up" game. You can't just trade players and let the result determine how good or how important the player is or was. Each team has a different system, usually built around their star players. Put Kobe on the Spurs and you won't really be looking at a contender at all. Why? Because they're built around a dominant post presence.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Clear It Out Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">A lot of people always try to play the "switch up" game. You can't just trade players and let the result determine how good or how important the player is or was. Each team has a different system, usually built around their star players. Put Kobe on the Spurs and you won't really be looking at a contender at all. Why? Because they're built around a dominant post presence.</div>

Great point.