2016-17 MVP Discussion Thread

[K_chile22]

See the link I edited in.

Harden's teammates shoot 46.9%, Westbrook's 46.1%.

Off potential assists, Harden's jump to 52.91, but Westbrook's to 54.4.

FG% here means very little to me. You can jump from the 60s at the rim to the 80s on dump off passes. On 3s you probably won't shoot over 50% no matter how open you are and you start in the low 40s. But the change in impact may be bigger because the extra point. If theres a significant difference in eFG% I'll consider this relevant. As is its just the effect of how they get their assists

So you seem to not want to give credit to what is showing Westbrook a superior passer, works for me.

Edit: Sorry if that sounded harsh, but at this point I know there's no way anyone even thinks Westbrook has a shot, which is amazing given what he's doing. Harden's having a fantastic season, but Westbrook's is just as good.

He's superior at interior passing and turns the ball over less, sure. I told you if eFG% repeats the sentiment I'll buy it. FG% is bad. The difference between % on open threes and regular threes is much smaller that between regular layups and open layups, which is a nearly automatic shot, I don't think that's Debatable at all.

[K_chile22]

5 turnovers outweigh the 40+ points they both create every night? OK.

If other stars and MVPs can keep their turnovers down, why can't they? No one has ever won MVP and turned the ball over that many times. 5 turnovers can give the other team up to 15 points back.

Yeah, but nobody else has dominated the ball to the extend they do and used as many possessions as them to try to score or create. IIRC Westbrook is on pace to break the record for both usage percentage and assist percentage in the same season which is nuts.

They also both have lower TO% than MVP Nash iirc. People just see the big number 5 and freak out, not considering usage and pace.

[bondom34]

FG% here means very little to me. You can jump from the 60s at the rim to the 80s on dump off passes. On 3s you probably won't shoot over 50% no matter how open you are and you start in the low 40s. But the change in impact may be bigger because the extra point. If theres a significant difference in eFG% I'll consider this relevant. As is its just the effect of how they get their assists

So you seem to not want to give credit to what is showing Westbrook a superior passer, works for me.

Edit: Sorry if that sounded harsh, but at this point I know there's no way anyone even thinks Westbrook has a shot, which is amazing given what he's doing. Harden's having a fantastic season, but Westbrook's is just as good.

He's superior at interior passing and turns the ball over less, sure. I told you if eFG% repeats the sentiment I'll buy it. FG% is bad. The difference between % on open threes and regular threes is much smaller that regular layups and open layups, I don't think that's Debatable at all.

Why though? Because there's no data available using eFG, so going off this seems better than nothing. And given Westbrook's ability to run an offense at the same level while having better overall plus/minus numbers, he's being dismissed as not as good a player, when in fact he's been just as good, and better since Harden started January. The only difference thus far is team success, which hands Harden the award.

[K_chile22]

So you seem to not want to give credit to what is showing Westbrook a superior passer, works for me.

Edit: Sorry if that sounded harsh, but at this point I know there's no way anyone even thinks Westbrook has a shot, which is amazing given what he's doing. Harden's having a fantastic season, but Westbrook's is just as good.

He's superior at interior passing and turns the ball over less, sure. I told you if eFG% repeats the sentiment I'll buy it. FG% is bad. The difference between % on open threes and regular threes is much smaller that regular layups and open layups, I don't think that's Debatable at all.

Why though? Because there's no data available using eFG, so going off this seems better than nothing. And given Westbrook's ability to run an offense at the same level while having better overall plus/minus numbers, he's being dismissed as not as good a player, when in fact he's been just as good, and better since Harden started January. The only difference thus far is team success, which hands Harden the award.

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

[bondom34]

He's superior at interior passing and turns the ball over less, sure. I told you if eFG% repeats the sentiment I'll buy it. FG% is bad. The difference between % on open threes and regular threes is much smaller that regular layups and open layups, I don't think that's Debatable at all.

Why though? Because there's no data available using eFG, so going off this seems better than nothing. And given Westbrook's ability to run an offense at the same level while having better overall plus/minus numbers, he's being dismissed as not as good a player, when in fact he's been just as good, and better since Harden started January. The only difference thus far is team success, which hands Harden the award.

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

Well if that's your issue with it, I'm out. I wouldn't say that at all. I just get annoyed when people dismiss what Westbrook is doing to prop up Harden. They're having similar seasons individually and the award is an individual award based partially off team success. I'm not trying to belittle Harden at all.

[K_chile22]

Why though? Because there's no data available using eFG, so going off this seems better than nothing. And given Westbrook's ability to run an offense at the same level while having better overall plus/minus numbers, he's being dismissed as not as good a player, when in fact he's been just as good, and better since Harden started January. The only difference thus far is team success, which hands Harden the award.

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

Well if that's your issue with it, I'm out. I wouldn't say that at all. I just get annoyed when people dismiss what Westbrook is doing to prop up Harden. They're having similar seasons individually and the award is an individual award based partially off team success. I'm not trying to belittle Harden at all.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing. I'm saying that's what some are doing.
Was saying that was the point of my original post.

[bondom34]

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

Well if that's your issue with it, I'm out. I wouldn't say that at all. I just get annoyed when people dismiss what Westbrook is doing to prop up Harden. They're having similar seasons individually and the award is an individual award based partially off team success. I'm not trying to belittle Harden at all.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing. I'm saying that's what some are doing.
Was saying that was the point of my original post.

That was kinda the point of mine too.

[ken6199]

but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden.

What a familiar line, and I am literally disgruntled, angry, and mad while reading this.

Oh well, this is how it works I guess, and because of that I really care little about this award now.

(might as well give it to KD as a FU to the other two bros)

[K_chile22]

but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden.

What a familiar line, and I am literally disgruntled, angry, and mad while reading this.

Oh well, this is how it works I guess, and because of that I really care little about this award now.

(might as well give it to KD as a FU to the other two bros)

Well I didn't mean team success exclusively. Harden and Westbrook are extremely close individualy and it could go either way, so it's going to go to the guy on the better team

[mtron929]

A thought on the potential triple double season...

Few people on this are comparing the feat of averaging a triple double to some of the other incredible feats in other sports (e.g. batting .400 over a year, hitting 70+ home runs). I would like to point out that there are slight differences between these other achievements versus averaging a triple double for the season.

When it comes to something like batting .400 over a year, no one can successfully do it even if they make it their goal to do it. It is that much difficult. However, in terms of averaging a triple double, I would strongly suspect that for someone like young Lebron, if you had offered him 1 billion dollars if he averaged a triple double for the year, he would have averaged a triple double over the year. For quite a few players, it IS doable. It is just that the player and the team just choose to not focus on this because it is a pretty weird thing to focus on and might not necessarily align with optimal strategy. I am not implying that it is the goal of the Thunder to have Westbrook average a triple double, but he is rather put in the optimal situation to average a triple double.

So yes, I do agree that averaging a triple double is impressive. However, it is not as unthinkable as some would like to make it and guys like Lebron and even Jason Kidd could have done it if that was the primary goal of the player.

[QRich3]

He's superior at interior passing and turns the ball over less, sure. I told you if eFG% repeats the sentiment I'll buy it. FG% is bad. The difference between % on open threes and regular threes is much smaller that regular layups and open layups, I don't think that's Debatable at all.

Why though? Because there's no data available using eFG, so going off this seems better than nothing. And given Westbrook's ability to run an offense at the same level while having better overall plus/minus numbers, he's being dismissed as not as good a player, when in fact he's been just as good, and better since Harden started January. The only difference thus far is team success, which hands Harden the award.

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

Well no, Houston's success is greatly influenced by Harden's awesome play, it's not entirely because of him, or anything close to that. You don't need to keep that sort of hyperbole going for Harden to be MVP, he's comfortably on the driver's seat as is, but it just seems too weird to dismiss the way his supporting cast is playing, or the way the coaching staff has adapted, just to unnecessarily prop him up.

I mean, if you're a Rockets fan, you have to be ecstatic with the way guys like EJ, Anderson and Ariza are playing, not putting them down because people at the start of the season didn't rate them and that must help Harden's MVP case, or some weird storyline like that.

[Goodfellaz]

Cle has almost TWICE as many losses as GS. Took me by quite surprise when I noticed that this morning, especially since the word is GS isn't even playing that great.

[K_chile22]

Why though? Because there's no data available using eFG, so going off this seems better than nothing. And given Westbrook's ability to run an offense at the same level while having better overall plus/minus numbers, he's being dismissed as not as good a player, when in fact he's been just as good, and better since Harden started January. The only difference thus far is team success, which hands Harden the award.

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

Well no, Houston's success is greatly influenced by Harden's awesome play, it's not entirely because of him, or anything close to that. You don't need to keep that sort of hyperbole going for Harden to be MVP, he's comfortably on the driver's seat as is, but it just seems too weird to dismiss the way his supporting cast is playing, or the way the coaching staff has adapted, just to unnecessarily prop him up.

I mean, if you're a Rockets fan, you have to be ecstatic with the way guys like EJ, Anderson and Ariza are playing, not putting them down because people at the start of the season didn't rate them and that must help Harden's MVP case, or some weird storyline like that.

I'm not doing that, those guys are good offensive players, But they are playing better than they ever had at age 28 and 29. Harden has a big hand in that, and MDA has a hand in how good Harden has been, but I don't think that takes away from MVP votes

[Andre Roberstan]

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

Well no, Houston's success is greatly influenced by Harden's awesome play, it's not entirely because of him, or anything close to that. You don't need to keep that sort of hyperbole going for Harden to be MVP, he's comfortably on the driver's seat as is, but it just seems too weird to dismiss the way his supporting cast is playing, or the way the coaching staff has adapted, just to unnecessarily prop him up.

I mean, if you're a Rockets fan, you have to be ecstatic with the way guys like EJ, Anderson and Ariza are playing, not putting them down because people at the start of the season didn't rate them and that must help Harden's MVP case, or some weird storyline like that.

I'm not doing that, those guys are good offensive players, But they are playing better than they ever had at age 28 and 29. Harden has a big hand in that, and MDA has a hand in how good Harden has been, but I don't think that takes away from MVP votes

Gordon played like this in 2014-15.

[PeptoKlepto]

He's superior at interior passing and turns the ball over less, sure. I told you if eFG% repeats the sentiment I'll buy it. FG% is bad. The difference between % on open threes and regular threes is much smaller that regular layups and open layups, I don't think that's Debatable at all.

Why though? Because there's no data available using eFG, so going off this seems better than nothing. And given Westbrook's ability to run an offense at the same level while having better overall plus/minus numbers, he's being dismissed as not as good a player, when in fact he's been just as good, and better since Harden started January. The only difference thus far is team success, which hands Harden the award.

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

Interesting that you say that now, when most Rockets fans were livid Curry won the MVP over Harden, despite the fact hat Curry had better advanced stats across the board AND was the best player on a league-leading 67 win team.

Narratives change quickly, huh?

[K_chile22]

Well no, Houston's success is greatly influenced by Harden's awesome play, it's not entirely because of him, or anything close to that. You don't need to keep that sort of hyperbole going for Harden to be MVP, he's comfortably on the driver's seat as is, but it just seems too weird to dismiss the way his supporting cast is playing, or the way the coaching staff has adapted, just to unnecessarily prop him up.

I mean, if you're a Rockets fan, you have to be ecstatic with the way guys like EJ, Anderson and Ariza are playing, not putting them down because people at the start of the season didn't rate them and that must help Harden's MVP case, or some weird storyline like that.

I'm not doing that, those guys are good offensive players, But they are playing better than they ever had at age 28 and 29. Harden has a big hand in that, and MDA has a hand in how good Harden has been, but I don't think that takes away from MVP votes

Gordon played like this in 2014-15.

He scored about 4 points less in more minutes with a much lower eFG% (51.2 vs 56.7), TS% (54.4 vs 59.3), PER (12.7 vs 16.1), already surpassed that 60 game season for him in OWS, and has doubled his OBMP from that year. He most definitely was not this good, or particularly close. Sure, he shot better on 3s but on what will end up being a MUCH smaller volume (shot 315 through 61 games, has shot 370 through 41 this year)

Didn't get into defensive improvement because that's not attributable to Harden, thus irrelevant here.

[K_chile22]

Why though? Because there's no data available using eFG, so going off this seems better than nothing. And given Westbrook's ability to run an offense at the same level while having better overall plus/minus numbers, he's being dismissed as not as good a player, when in fact he's been just as good, and better since Harden started January. The only difference thus far is team success, which hands Harden the award.

Better than nothing does not make it good. And Westbrook is great, I have no problem with people saying he's been slightly better than Harden or vise versa, but it's Harden's MVP because of team success, which is because of Harden. People trying to belittle what Harden is doing because he's got better than talent when he's making that talent perform over their heads is asinine.

Interesting that you say that now, when most Rockets fans were livid Curry won the MVP over Harden, despite the fact hat Curry had better advanced stats across the board AND was the best player on a league-leading 67 win team.

Narratives change quickly, huh?

If you read the rest of the board you would see that I wasn't that fan and don't think that Harden should've won. But sure, all Rockets fans are the same. Assumptions are fun.

[QRich3]

Well no, Houston's success is greatly influenced by Harden's awesome play, it's not entirely because of him, or anything close to that. You don't need to keep that sort of hyperbole going for Harden to be MVP, he's comfortably on the driver's seat as is, but it just seems too weird to dismiss the way his supporting cast is playing, or the way the coaching staff has adapted, just to unnecessarily prop him up.

I mean, if you're a Rockets fan, you have to be ecstatic with the way guys like EJ, Anderson and Ariza are playing, not putting them down because people at the start of the season didn't rate them and that must help Harden's MVP case, or some weird storyline like that.

I'm not doing that, those guys are good offensive players, But they are playing better than they ever had at age 28 and 29. Harden has a big hand in that, and MDA has a hand in how good Harden has been, but I don't think that takes away from MVP votes

Gordon played like this in 2014-15.

And he played like a younger, fastest, higher usage version of this in LA too. Anderson's peak years were also in Orlando, not now, and there's a case to be made for Ariza having several better seasons than this. It's still remarkable that they are all playing well at the same time when it could seem their careers were trending the other way, but if anything, it's more of D'Antoni's merit for recognizing everyone's strengths than Harden magically making everyone better because of assists. And again, Harden deserves some merit, but not all of it, or close to it.

[ken6199]

Gordon played like this in 2014-15.

Gordon's 3PA per36 in 14-15 was 5.6, this season being 10.6. Almost doubled. He got tons more open looks because of the gravity of Harden.

Here is the thing. We can go back to that narrative of 14-15 MVP discussion where GS fans repeated claimed: Curry's teammates were great because Curry made them great, not because Curry had a better supporting cast to start with. Yes and No, and at least to me, that's a thing very hard to measure. Same goes for Harden this season, were Anderson/Gordon/Ariza this good before this season or Harden made them this good?

One thing I know is, no matter how good Anderson and Gordon's shooting are, they will never be considered as one of the best shooters in NBA history like Klay, who is a given shooting 3s at 40% clip every single season throughout his career. And no matter how good Ariza is, he will never be considered as a DPOY candidate like Draymond green has been for multiple season, let alone Green's rebounding, assist, screens, handle, passing etc. Capela, no matter how fast he develops, he is not at the same level of 14-16 Bogut in getting shooters open look by his screens in the flow of their offense. Beverly, as tough a defender as he is, will never get the FMVP award like Iguodala, nor he will play the role of Livingston orchestrating the Warriors offense while Curry sits (and also capable of scoring for himself too with that 6'7 frame). These are the indisputable facts that Harden wasn't given a good supporting cast to begin with and he made them much, much better.

MDA, that I admit, if he can keep this level of offense going throughout the season, his positive impact over JBB is as much as Kerr over Mark Jackson.

My point is, it's just an endless argument between 'does he benefit from a good supporting cast' vs 'does he make them a good supporting cast'. It's a hard thing to measure, but at least Harden has a much stronger case this year in 'he made them better', compared to Curry's 14-15 season.

[K_chile22]

I'm not doing that, those guys are good offensive players, But they are playing better than they ever had at age 28 and 29. Harden has a big hand in that, and MDA has a hand in how good Harden has been, but I don't think that takes away from MVP votes

Gordon played like this in 2014-15.

And he played like a younger, fastest, higher usage version of this in LA too. Anderson's peak years were also in Orlando, not now, and there's a case to be made for Ariza having several better seasons than this. It's still remarkable that they are all playing well at the same time when it could seem their careers were trending the other way, but if anything, it's more of D'Antoni's merit for recognizing everyone's strengths than Harden magically making everyone better because of assists. And again, Harden deserves some merit, but not all of it, or close to it.

Gordon and Ariza are having the most efficient seasons from the floor (eFG%) of their entire careers. Anderson having his second most.