2016-17 MVP Discussion Thread Pt 2

[K_chile22]

Am I the only Rockets fan that thinks Curry deserved the 2015 MVP? lolI obviously didn't at the time, because I am a biased fan, but immediately after the season (and subconsciously the whole time) I knew it was rightfully Curry's

[Gil]

Harden was easily the 14/15. Most of the players he played with that year are either out of the League or the 10th man on other teams. He absolutely dragged a putrid supporting cast where the two best players missed significant gametime to the 2nd seed. That was a miraculous season for him.

If he wasn't one of the most hated players in the League because people don't "like" his playing style he would've won. The fact people are even somehow talking Co-MVP this year when Harden has a 47% chance to win according to B-Ball Reference's historical voting proves my point.

[ocelot17]

So it turns out Steven Adams only has 1 defensive rebound in the past 3 games.

[CnG]

Bleurgh, some Rocket fans are unbearable, even as someone that thinks Harden should be MVP.

Harden isn't "easily" the MVP this year, nor was he in 2015.

[TMU]

Am I the only Rockets fan that thinks Curry deserved the 2015 MVP? lolI obviously didn't at the time, because I am a biased fan, but immediately after the season (and subconsciously the whole time) I knew it was rightfully Curry's

Based on the combined historic context of the award and his individual numbers, Curry is rightfully the MVP in 2015. By the same context, Harden has a legitimate case or in fact win the MVP this year. The problem is how people make one argument to support one player but then uses another argument to support another player.

[Screwston]

I think I'm at a point where I'm only arguing for Co-MVP winners with Harden and Westbrook, or just Harden winning. From my point of view, the biggest travesty that could happen with the MVP Award is Harden not winning it for the second season where he should have been the favorite.

It's sad is that harden could potentially lose the MVP again for two completely opposite reasons.

It's sad the way Rockets fans are using the same argument now that they opposed 2 years ago. If you changed your mind, it's fine. Everybody makes mistakes. But at least don't bring up Harden being more deserving of the 2014-15 ever again.

Nope, we're just sayin if the narrative in 2015 was best player on the better team, then stick to it, don't use the same narrative against Harden this year. So if you were lookin at the record in 2015 Harden vs Curry, then look at the record Harden vs Wb (them 2 are clearly having the best seasons, with no allstar or former all star help).

So in other words Harden just can't win? Carries "nobodies" to the 2nd seed, well Curry is the mvp bc he's the best player on a better team, n then this year well WB is the mvp bc Harden has more help. Which one is it?

[ken6199]

Am I the only Rockets fan that thinks Curry deserved the 2015 MVP? lolI obviously didn't at the time, because I am a biased fan, but immediately after the season (and subconsciously the whole time) I knew it was rightfully Curry's

I think Curry totally deserved it in 14-15, just to be crystal clear on that first.

Some of us brought up the 14-15 race to counter the generalization view from the other side: 14-15 Curry over Harden should be applied to 16-17 Harden over Westbrook. That's not entirely true.

- 14-15 Warriors got 67W. Because they had 73W the year after, people simply forgot how great of an achievement of that 14-15 Warriors team to reach 67. They forgot what the expectation was before that season, with a new coach, after a 1st round playoff exit (though they took a full Clippers squad to game 7 without Bogut, and a bench led by Harrison Barnes). Curry was the driving force behind that 67W.

- On the flip side, 14-15 Rockets got to 56W with a half depleted squad. They also had Kevin McHale as their coach, who pretty much plays no system so it's Harden 'dribble dribble and create for everyone'. People trying to use that either to give extra points to 16-17 Westbrook because of the inferior OKC supporting cast, or goes back use it against 14-15 Harden with 'Hey if you think Westbrook shouldn't be the MVP this year then neither should Harden in 14-15'. These are two different things. As I said above, considering injuries, 14-15 Rockets supporting cast were worse than 16-17 OKC, and Harden gave them a dozen more wins. So this 'lets apply the 14-15 rule on 16-17' wont fly either way, whether you want to discredit 14-15 Harden &16-17 Westbrook, or credit both.

After all, if we can recognize the MVP race is super close this year between Harden and Westbrook, it was equally close back in 14-15 season as well.

[Doctor MJ]

Just to throw this out there, I hope we're not in a time where the opinion of media members are more valuable than NBA players when it concerns who the real MVP of a season is.

You think 99% of NBA players are on BBRef comparing advanced stats down to the decimal just to conjure who was the MVP of the league is rather than comparing how they played and contributed to wins?

As little as I respect the opinions of the media here, they do a better job than the players.

Players are great at scouting, but there's just a lot of abstract analysis required in assessing actual player value, and players typically reject this idea entirely because they have no scientific or intellectual background.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[BallerTalk]

I think Curry was deserving in 2015.

I also think Harden should have won.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[HotTubMike]

Just to throw this out there, I hope we're not in a time where the opinion of media members are more valuable than NBA players when it concerns who the real MVP of a season is.

You think 99% of NBA players are on BBRef comparing advanced stats down to the decimal just to conjure who was the MVP of the league is rather than comparing how they played and contributed to wins?

As little as I respect the opinions of the media here, they do a better job than the players.

Players are great at scouting, but there's just a lot of abstract analysis required in assessing actual player value, and players typically reject this idea entirely because they have no scientific or intellectual background.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I don't know why you assume all media members do this. Some media voters do.... some assuredly don't.

[Pablo Novi]

Just to throw this out there, I hope we're not in a time where the opinion of media members are more valuable than NBA players when it concerns who the real MVP of a season is.

You think 99% of NBA players are on BBRef comparing advanced stats down to the decimal just to conjure who was the MVP of the league is rather than comparing how they played and contributed to wins?

As little as I respect the opinions of the media here, they do a better job than the players.

Players are great at scouting, but there's just a lot of abstract analysis required in assessing actual player value, and players typically reject this idea entirely because they have no scientific or intellectual background.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

PABLO'S 3-4 MVP-AWARDS COMPLAINTS:
Of all the MVP awards, there are THREE that REALLY PISS ME OFF (and one more I don't agree with, but can "live with").
1) 1962 Wilt was WAY THE BLEEP better (and more valuable) than Russell - this is THE greatest individual-award travesty in all of NBL-NBA-ABA history, imo. Heck, I had the Big "O" ahead of Russell that year (with his amazing triple-double).

2) 1961 Wilt WAS clearly better (and more valuable to his team) this year; (just as in 1962, in 1961 Wilt beat Russell in the ALL-NBA voting - THEY got it right, the MVP voters got it wrong!)

3) 1973 Dave Cowens beat out KAJ for MVP. I find that vote unacceptable too. Sure, Cowens played out of his head (and WAY bigger than his height and size); but KAJ was just a good deal better (again, as "proven" by KAJ beating Cowens out for ALL-NBA 1st Team).

4) 1958 I don't agree with the Russell over Pettit 1958 MVP vote either - but don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the above 3. In the other three, earlier cases, I closely followed both players that year; this was not yet the case in 1958.

One can notice a pattern in this: a Boston Celtic beat out a non-Celtic in each year. I attribute this to two factors:
a) The C's had more influence on the voters then did any other team;
b) In Wilt's case, the PLAYERS just couldn't accept how dominant he was; and went with a "more-acceptable" Russell.

[HotTubMike]

Just to throw this out there, I hope we're not in a time where the opinion of media members are more valuable than NBA players when it concerns who the real MVP of a season is.

You think 99% of NBA players are on BBRef comparing advanced stats down to the decimal just to conjure who was the MVP of the league is rather than comparing how they played and contributed to wins?

As little as I respect the opinions of the media here, they do a better job than the players.

Players are great at scouting, but there's just a lot of abstract analysis required in assessing actual player value, and players typically reject this idea entirely because they have no scientific or intellectual background.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

PABLO'S 3-4 MVP-AWARDS COMPLAINTS:
Of all the MVP awards, there are THREE that REALLY PISS ME OFF (and one more I don't agree with, but can "live with").
1) 1962 Wilt was WAY THE BLEEP better (and more valuable) than Russell - this is THE greatest individual-award travesty in all of NBL-NBA-ABA history, imo. Heck, I had the Big "O" ahead of Russell that year (with his amazing triple-double).

2) 1961 Wilt WAS clearly better (and more valuable to his team) this year; (just as in 1962, in 1961 Wilt beat Russell in the ALL-NBA voting - THEY got it right, the MVP voters got it wrong!)

3) 1973 Dave Cowens beat out KAJ for MVP. I find that vote unacceptable too. Sure, Cowens played out of his head (and WAY bigger than his height and size); but KAJ was just a good deal better (again, as "proven" by KAJ beating Cowens out for ALL-NBA 1st Team).

4) 1958 I don't agree with the Russell over Pettit 1958 MVP vote either - but don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the above 3. In the other three, earlier cases, I closely followed both players that year; this was not yet the case in 1958.

One can notice a pattern in this: a Boston Celtic beat out a non-Celtic in each year. I attribute this to two factors:
a) The C's had more influence on the voters then did any other team;
b) In Wilt's case, the PLAYERS just couldn't accept how dominant he was; and went with a "more-acceptable" Russell.

are you 100 years old or something? This is an unnecessary, non substance, inappropriate post. Please refrain from these types of posts going forward.

[StepBackCrack]

There is absolutely no need to discredit Curry's 2015 MVP in order to say that Harden is the most deserving of the MVP this season. I don't even get why people need to bring that discussion up to justify Harden's case for this season. That said, MVP race in 2015 was close and Steph winning it was deserved. This season however, I don't think it's close between Harden and Westbrook. Harden is clearly winning it and he would be the most deserving. Saying that Harden winning it over Westbrook this season is like Curry winning it over Harden in 2015 is BS imo. 2 different cases.

[bwgood77]

As little as I respect the opinions of the media here, they do a better job than the players.

Players are great at scouting, but there's just a lot of abstract analysis required in assessing actual player value, and players typically reject this idea entirely because they have no scientific or intellectual background.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

PABLO'S 3-4 MVP-AWARDS COMPLAINTS:
Of all the MVP awards, there are THREE that REALLY PISS ME OFF (and one more I don't agree with, but can "live with").
1) 1962 Wilt was WAY THE BLEEP better (and more valuable) than Russell - this is THE greatest individual-award travesty in all of NBL-NBA-ABA history, imo. Heck, I had the Big "O" ahead of Russell that year (with his amazing triple-double).

2) 1961 Wilt WAS clearly better (and more valuable to his team) this year; (just as in 1962, in 1961 Wilt beat Russell in the ALL-NBA voting - THEY got it right, the MVP voters got it wrong!)

3) 1973 Dave Cowens beat out KAJ for MVP. I find that vote unacceptable too. Sure, Cowens played out of his head (and WAY bigger than his height and size); but KAJ was just a good deal better (again, as "proven" by KAJ beating Cowens out for ALL-NBA 1st Team).

4) 1958 I don't agree with the Russell over Pettit 1958 MVP vote either - but don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the above 3. In the other three, earlier cases, I closely followed both players that year; this was not yet the case in 1958.

One can notice a pattern in this: a Boston Celtic beat out a non-Celtic in each year. I attribute this to two factors:
a) The C's had more influence on the voters then did any other team;
b) In Wilt's case, the PLAYERS just couldn't accept how dominant he was; and went with a "more-acceptable" Russell.

are you 100 years old or something?

Please do not bait if you'd like to keep posting here.

[HotTubMike]

PABLO'S 3-4 MVP-AWARDS COMPLAINTS:
Of all the MVP awards, there are THREE that REALLY PISS ME OFF (and one more I don't agree with, but can "live with").
1) 1962 Wilt was WAY THE BLEEP better (and more valuable) than Russell - this is THE greatest individual-award travesty in all of NBL-NBA-ABA history, imo. Heck, I had the Big "O" ahead of Russell that year (with his amazing triple-double).

2) 1961 Wilt WAS clearly better (and more valuable to his team) this year; (just as in 1962, in 1961 Wilt beat Russell in the ALL-NBA voting - THEY got it right, the MVP voters got it wrong!)

3) 1973 Dave Cowens beat out KAJ for MVP. I find that vote unacceptable too. Sure, Cowens played out of his head (and WAY bigger than his height and size); but KAJ was just a good deal better (again, as "proven" by KAJ beating Cowens out for ALL-NBA 1st Team).

4) 1958 I don't agree with the Russell over Pettit 1958 MVP vote either - but don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the above 3. In the other three, earlier cases, I closely followed both players that year; this was not yet the case in 1958.

One can notice a pattern in this: a Boston Celtic beat out a non-Celtic in each year. I attribute this to two factors:
a) The C's had more influence on the voters then did any other team;
b) In Wilt's case, the PLAYERS just couldn't accept how dominant he was; and went with a "more-acceptable" Russell.

are you 100 years old or something?

Please do not bait if you'd like to keep posting here.

Just a joke man... all these things happened like 50 years ago.

[bwgood77]

are you 100 years old or something?

Please do not bait if you'd like to keep posting here.

Just a joke man... all these things happened like 50 years ago.

Well, joking about someone's age isn't appropriate. The person may not be older, but a student of basketball, or if they are somewhat older, it isn't relevant anyway, and they may take offense.

[Doctor MJ]

Just to throw this out there, I hope we're not in a time where the opinion of media members are more valuable than NBA players when it concerns who the real MVP of a season is.

You think 99% of NBA players are on BBRef comparing advanced stats down to the decimal just to conjure who was the MVP of the league is rather than comparing how they played and contributed to wins?

As little as I respect the opinions of the media here, they do a better job than the players.

Players are great at scouting, but there's just a lot of abstract analysis required in assessing actual player value, and players typically reject this idea entirely because they have no scientific or intellectual background.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I don't know why you assume all media members do this. Some media voters do.... some assuredly don't.

Do what? It was a statement about the players.

[Doctor MJ]

Just to throw this out there, I hope we're not in a time where the opinion of media members are more valuable than NBA players when it concerns who the real MVP of a season is.

You think 99% of NBA players are on BBRef comparing advanced stats down to the decimal just to conjure who was the MVP of the league is rather than comparing how they played and contributed to wins?

As little as I respect the opinions of the media here, they do a better job than the players.

Players are great at scouting, but there's just a lot of abstract analysis required in assessing actual player value, and players typically reject this idea entirely because they have no scientific or intellectual background.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

PABLO'S 3-4 MVP-AWARDS COMPLAINTS:
Of all the MVP awards, there are THREE that REALLY PISS ME OFF (and one more I don't agree with, but can "live with").
1) 1962 Wilt was WAY THE BLEEP better (and more valuable) than Russell - this is THE greatest individual-award travesty in all of NBL-NBA-ABA history, imo. Heck, I had the Big "O" ahead of Russell that year (with his amazing triple-double).

2) 1961 Wilt WAS clearly better (and more valuable to his team) this year; (just as in 1962, in 1961 Wilt beat Russell in the ALL-NBA voting - THEY got it right, the MVP voters got it wrong!)

3) 1973 Dave Cowens beat out KAJ for MVP. I find that vote unacceptable too. Sure, Cowens played out of his head (and WAY bigger than his height and size); but KAJ was just a good deal better (again, as "proven" by KAJ beating Cowens out for ALL-NBA 1st Team).

4) 1958 I don't agree with the Russell over Pettit 1958 MVP vote either - but don't feel nearly as strongly about it as the above 3. In the other three, earlier cases, I closely followed both players that year; this was not yet the case in 1958.

One can notice a pattern in this: a Boston Celtic beat out a non-Celtic in each year. I attribute this to two factors:
a) The C's had more influence on the voters then did any other team;
b) In Wilt's case, the PLAYERS just couldn't accept how dominant he was; and went with a "more-acceptable" Russell.

ftr, I consider Russell easily the superior player to Wilt in most years.

Statistical production and actual impact are not the same thing at all.

[Tritodian]

The one part that doesn't get enough attention is that maybe the Rockets have a better roster because it is easier to build around James Harden. I've actually heard this argument with regards to Curry - which I have to admit, is pretty compelling one - that what kind of player you choose to have as the cornerstone of your franchise also determines what kind of role players you're going to pursue and attract. I think Curry (great shooter with excellent off-the-ball movement) and Harden (a great play-maker as well as an efficient scorer) each has qualities that makes it easier to build around a winning team compared to Westbrook (an athletic point guard.)

I mean, I still to this day can't think of an ideal supporting cast for Westbrook. Shooters? Look at what happened with Durant and Ibaka. Bigs and defensive minded role players? Well, that's what WB has now. So how do you build around Westbrook, exactly? And should Harden be punished for having a style that works better with other players, and thus leading to having better teammates?

The way Harden and Westbrook each get their assists is also telling. Harden usually gets his dime by setting-up his teammates, or finding an open man. WB, on the other hand, usually gets his by creating a schism in defense by his sheer force alone, and when the defense breaks down he dishes out.

Westbrook's style of play is great for getting stats, but I'm not sure how it would fit in a more elaborate system. But one thing is for certain : Popovich would definitely prefer Harden over WB.

[Starboy]

Harden was easily the 14/15. Most of the players he played with that year are either out of the League or the 10th man on other teams. He absolutely dragged a putrid supporting cast where the two best players missed significant gametime to the 2nd seed. That was a miraculous season for him.

If he wasn't one of the most hated players in the League because people don't "like" his playing style he would've won. The fact people are even somehow talking Co-MVP this year when Harden has a 47% chance to win according to B-Ball Reference's historical voting proves my point.

Curry was better in basically every way imaginable that season. Statistically or not.


He also was better vs Rockets in playoffs than Harden vs Warriors.