<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post">Well, what is the definition of an MVP? Seriously. Does it not stand for Most Valuable Player? What does that mean exactly? If it means having great stats, well then, KG pretty much cleans that up. Does it mean the player most valuable to their team? An Iverson-less 76ers are worse than a Garnett-less Wolves. The reason there is so much debate is bec. there is no 'clear cut' definition on what a MVP is. If it truly means 'most valuable player,' than how could Kidd not have earned it 2 years ago? The problem is.....there is no definition.</div> Garnett accomplishes both of them. Some damn recognition for the L would be great for once.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting purehoops:</div><div class="quote_post">Garnett accomplishes both of them. Some damn recognition for the L would be great for once.</div> No, it means Iverson is more important bec. the 76ers are WORSE w/o him than the Wolves would be w/o Garnett.
Alright, but even with that argument you can't make a clear case for Iverson over Garnett, or vice versa. Garnett's team with him is better than Iverson's. I don't think comparing records that are fairly even with stars and which would be fairly even without them is a good indicator of the MVP. At some point you have to just look at the raw stats, their improvements, etc. In that regard, Garnett should be the clear case for MVP, because although Iverson(and Duncan) are putting up some nice numbers, they're nothing they haven't done before, whereas with Garnett his numbers have gone up, and when you watch him, you can tell why.
It helps when you have scores like Cassell and Sprewell in the back-court to take the pressure off you.Garnett is a great player.Always will put up great stats.Right now he is a worthy pick for MVP.However I will add another name into the hat Paul Pierce He has been playing crazy basketball.He has improved his overall game with not much scoring help.Now with Davis his team record should improve and get the Celtics to a higher place in the standings.If that happens PP has to be considered as an MVP contender along with Garnett,Duncan e.t.c.Pierce is one guy you feel safe giving the ball to at the end of games.He has also gotten his team far in the playoffs when everyone has counted them out.He is a true warrior. Just seen he was 1 rebound away from another triple double tonight.To get 11 assists with a short-handed team is impressive.
Count on Ricky to help a teams record? I would not go that far. Thats giving him too much credit. PP is a worthy name though.
I agree w/ Sandman, Paul Pierce is an MVP candidate ,although i don't think that he will win, he is a candidate.Especially if the Celts play like this all year
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting starman85:</div><div class="quote_post">Alright, but even with that argument you can't make a clear case for Iverson over Garnett, or vice versa. Garnett's team with him is better than Iverson's. I don't think comparing records that are fairly even with stars and which would be fairly even without them is a good indicator of the MVP. At some point you have to just look at the raw stats, their improvements, etc. In that regard, Garnett should be the clear case for MVP, because although Iverson(and Duncan) are putting up some nice numbers, they're nothing they haven't done before, whereas with Garnett his numbers have gone up, and when you watch him, you can tell why.</div> I am not making a point for one over the other. If you read what I wrote, you would understand that. I was responding to purehoops' reply to my post. He read into what I said incorrectly. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post"> Well, what is the definition of an MVP? Seriously. Does it not stand for Most Valuable Player? What does that mean exactly? If it means having great stats, well then, KG pretty much cleans that up. Does it mean the player most valuable to their team? An Iverson-less 76ers are worse than a Garnett-less Wolves. The reason there is so much debate is bec. there is no 'clear cut' definition on what a MVP is. If it truly means 'most valuable player,' than how could Kidd not have earned it 2 years ago? The problem is.....there is no definition. </div> <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Purehoops:</div><div class="quote_post"> Garnett accomplishes both of them. Some damn recognition for the L would be great for once. </div> No, Garnett doesn't accomplish both. He accomplished the first one. Most valuable........A 76ers team w/o Iverson is horrendous. A Wolves team w/o Garnett is decent. In that sense, Iverson is more valuable to his team. Note(Disclaimer)- I am not saying Iverson is better, should be, or will be the MVP. Nor am I saying KG is better, should be, or will be the MVP. My whole point is it depends on what you consider MVP to mean. Best stats? KG is your MVP. Most Valuable? Pierce, Iverson deserve great recognition.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sandman:</div><div class="quote_post">Count on Ricky to help a teams record? I would not go that far. Thats giving him too much credit. PP is a worthy name though.</div> New setting,new coach,new team-mates and overall a different atmosphere.Trades like these can do wonders for players who may have been problems in the past.All Ricky has to do is give PP some added points while being the 2nd man on offense.Pierce can win games on his own as he has proven this season.All Davis has to do is take some pressure off Pierce.As we know this season he has gotten plenty of double and even triple teams at times. Now with the trade Pierce won't feel worried if this happens as he knows he can rely on a good slasher who can score to help him out.I'm not saying Celtics record will be great and that RD will take their team around as he won't.Just good enough for Pierce to be in the running for MVP.As at the end of the day these days you need to have a decent enough record to be considered for the award.Not matter what your stats are.More so him being in the east.Your team has to be that extra bit good for you to get the award over a guy out west.
This is silly, PP is not an MVP candidate. MVP's help their teams win games. I realize that his team is tied for 1st place, but they are stil hovering around .500. Western teams have an advantage because there records are better. Right now the MVP would be in the west.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">This is silly, PP is not an MVP candidate. MVP's help their teams win games. I realize that his team is tied for 1st place, but they are stil hovering around .500. Western teams have an advantage because there records are better. Right now the MVP would be in the west.</div> Do you watch Paul Pierce often? He is averaging 25 7 and 5.While leading his team on his back and I truely mean that.It is crazy to say he isn't even a candidate.If Mcgrady was last year when his team was at around 500 Pierce should be as well.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">This is silly, PP is not an MVP candidate. MVP's help their teams win games. I realize that his team is tied for 1st place, but they are stil hovering around .500. Western teams have an advantage because there records are better. Right now the MVP would be in the west.</div> A team starting Mike James, (MVP candidate), Jiri Welsch, Vin Baker, and Mark Blount is supposed to win games? I dont care who you fill in for PP, that team wont do much.... Yet, PP has his team tied for 1st in the Atlantic Division........
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting allnet:</div><div class="quote_post">Do you watch Paul Pierce often? He is averaging 25 7 and 5.While leading his team on his back and I truely mean that.It is crazy to say he isn't even a candidate.If Mcgrady was last year when his team was at around 500 Pierce should be as well.</div> Tmac was a candidate, but was he a serious one? No, and he admitted that it was because his team didn't win enough games. Ross Perot was a presidential CANDIDATE, but it was clear that he had no chance of winning. That's all I'm saying. It's unrealistic to think that a team with the Celtics record has the MVP on it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Trail_Blazer76:</div><div class="quote_post">Tmac was a candidate, but was he a serious one? No, and he admitted that it was because his team didn't win enough games. Ross Perot was a presidential CANDIDATE, but it was clear that he had no chance of winning. That's all I'm saying. It's unrealistic to think that a team with the Celtics record has the MVP on it.</div> Actually Mcgrady was around 3rd or 4th in the MVP votings so he had a good chance to get it.You said Pierce isn't a candidate.That is what bothered me.I never said he would win it in my post.He is right up there so far though.Celtics should be able to get a decent record come end of the season.Not a great one but It should be decent for him to be considered.
TMac wasn't really in the race last year because of all-around play, he was in it because he had it and also avged 32 points per. That is a fact. PP has an all around game and averages close to 25 points per. Big difference. Or at least, big enough difference. I'm not saying PSquared isn't one of the top players in the league, but you're not a real candidate unless you're top five, and that Pierce is not. Earlier, I gave a top ten of candidates, and most of the bottom five were laughable, since after the top five you come in with a lot of quantifiers: games won, stats, etc. The top five MVP candidates are the only real candidates, and right now they'd have to be KG, Duncan, AI, BDiddy, and Stojakovic, with JO a close 6th. Pierce may be 7th, but I wouldn't say he's close enough to be considered a legitimate 'candidate'.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting starman85:</div><div class="quote_post">TMac wasn't really in the race last year because of all-around play, he was in it because he had it and also avged 32 points per. That is a fact. PP has an all around game and averages close to 25 points per. Big difference. Or at least, big enough difference. I'm not saying PSquared isn't one of the top players in the league, but you're not a real candidate unless you're top five, and that Pierce is not. Earlier, I gave a top ten of candidates, and most of the bottom five were laughable, since after the top five you come in with a lot of quantifiers: games won, stats, etc. The top five MVP candidates are the only real candidates, and right now they'd have to be KG, Duncan, AI, BDiddy, and Stojakovic, with JO a close 6th. Pierce may be 7th, but I wouldn't say he's close enough to be considered a legitimate 'candidate'.</div> Pierce is easily a top 10 player.I would rank at around 6th or 7th.However that doesn't mean he won't have a good shot at the award.Kobe won't be in the running.He has other players to score and he is off a somewhat off year.Shaq likely won't be ahead of guys like Duncan,KG e.t.c because of the same reason Kobe isn't.So using "He isn't top 5 so he is not a candidate" So a load of bull to me.Mcgrady was in the hunt because of how well he scored yes but would he of been rated so highly for it if his rebounds and assists were down by alot? no he wouldn't.It was his amazing all-round numbers that got people's attention to go along with the points. Baron Davis has fallen off quite abit lately.Don't expect him to be in the running.AI team is in the same kind of state as Boston.JO is playing well but not at good as Pierce.Having Artest playing great while having a great coach is a big reason why Pacers are winning games.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting allnet:</div><div class="quote_post">Pierce is easily a top 10 player.I would rank at around 6th or 7th.However that doesn't mean he won't have a good shot at the award.Kobe won't be in the running.He has other players to score and he is off a somewhat off year.Shaq likely won't be ahead of guys like Duncan,KG e.t.c because of the same reason Kobe isn't.So using "He isn't top 5 so he is not a candidate" So a load of bull to me.</div> Load of bull? Not quite. I never said 'is not a candidate', I said 'is not a real candidate'. You can mention any guy doing ok on an ok team and they're a 'candidate'. But the 'real candidates' are the guys who could either win it or dark horse it. I wouldn't say Pierce is in either category. I never said Shaq and Kobe were real candidates: in my opinion there are over a dozen i'd put ahead of Kobe, and I put Pierce ahead of either of them. Right now, the 'real candidates' who can win it are KG, Duncan and AI, while the immediate Dark Horses are Baron, Peja and JO. Also, I agreed that Pierce was top ten, since I said he was 7th, like you just did. So we agree there. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting allnet:</div><div class="quote_post"> Baron Davis has fallen off quite abit lately.Don't expect him to be in the running.AI team is in the same kind of state as Boston.JO is playing well but not at good as Pierce.Having Artest playing great while having a great coach is a big reason why Pacers are winning games.</div> I'd say if Baron keeps over 21 points and 8 assists, he'll be just as high a candidate as a Pierce avging 25, 7 rebounds and 5 assists, since Baron's team will be higher in the standings than Pierce, because of Baron's play. And although AI's team is in the same state as Pierce's team, AI's stats are better(his scoring average is almost 4 ppg higher) so he's more of a candidate. And I also never said JO was playing as well as Pierce. But he's the biggest reason his team, tops in the East, not Atlantic, is winning. So that fact, paired with his 20-10, puts him ahead of Pierce. But again, I already agreed that Pierce was a great player and perhaps 7th in MVP consideration. But seriously, the people who finish 6th, 7th and 8th were never picked to win the whole thing. Same with Pierce. You can mention his name as a 'candidate,' but not as a 'real candidate' who has a serious chance to win it. Not that that can't change btwn now and the end of the season...
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And although AI's team is in the same state as Pierce's team, AI's stats are better(his scoring average is almost 4 ppg higher) so he's more of a candidate.</div> So averaging 4 more points means he is more of a candidate than Pierce is? even when they basically have the same record.While Pierce is averaging more rebounds,assists along with leading his team with less talent.You can make a case that Sixers have been struggling with injuries which they have.However I would take the Sixers role players over Boston's.
PP is definetley a candidate. His team is only 12-12, but like someone said, he is literally carrying this team on his back. The numbers are there, total combined stats are (583-180-132), I would guess the closest person putting up those all around numbers is Baron Davis. Pierce had an incredible week, leading his team to a 5 game W streak, 4 of those are against teams highly contending for a playoff spot, and just so he wouldn't run out of gas, Ricky Davis is a great addition to this team. Pierce needs another guy who can bring in 20 a game, with this trade, I would have to say Boston is the best in the Atlantic, look for Pierce to continue his trend of playing amazing basketball, while leading his team to victories. Next 4 games aren't going to be easy for Boston, playing the Mavs, Jazz, Sixers, and the Hornets, this will be the Celts real test to see how good they really are. My pick is still Garnett for now, but allnet did a nice job of adding Pierce to the mix.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post">No, Garnett doesn't accomplish both. He accomplished the first one. Most valuable........A 76ers team w/o Iverson is horrendous. A Wolves team w/o Garnett is decent. In that sense, Iverson is more valuable to his team. Note(Disclaimer)- I am not saying Iverson is better, should be, or will be the MVP. Nor am I saying KG is better, should be, or will be the MVP. My whole point is it depends on what you consider MVP to mean. Best stats? KG is your MVP. Most Valuable? Pierce, Iverson deserve great recognition.</div> I didnt know I had to spell out every word for you especially... A Garnett-less team LAST SEASON would have EASILY been in lottery land. This year his stats are up (except steals/assists) ... when everyone questioned would his stats go down if he got some help.
