2014-2015 NBA MVP Discussion

[Doctor MJ]

This^^ just because Curry plays 32 MIN and Harden plays 36-40 MIN should not hurt curry.

Why shouldn't it hurt Curry?

Think through the logic.

Curry isn't limited to 32 minutes because he can't play more, he plays that little because that's all his team needs.
If Curry sucked more, his team would need more and he'd have enough minutes you wouldn't have that as an argument.

There should never be a time when a player playing particularly well gets used against him.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc, I'm not some blind raw On/Off follower. I know it's limitations and I know there are much better ways to measure offensive impact through advanced metrics. But I was responding to someone who was trying to use raw On/Off as a pro-Curry point, I just took it the other way and showed how it could be a plus for Harden.

Rarely is a team's offense completely tied into one player like it is with the Rockets this year. And the raw On/Off just backs it up which is why I mentioned it. Just look at that post I made, Harden has a +16 ORtg and there's not a single teammate of his who played significant minutes who has more than a +1.5 ORtg difference when it comes to On/Off. When the On/Off is THAT obvious, it absolutely belongs in the discussion.

What Harden is doing this year with Bev/Ariza/oldmanTerry as his backcourt support is incredible. He IS his team's offense in a way that we haven't seen since first term Cleveland LeBron.

Also, the 40W-to-60W Curry and 30W-to-50W Harden comment was definitely a ballpark statement.

You're absolutely right that raising a 40 win team to 60 wins is more impressive than raising a 30 win team to a 50 win team. Those extra wins from 50-60 have huge value in "Championship Probability". So even though both raised their teams win totals by 20, the 20 is more impressive the higher the final win total.

But let's say Harden raised his teams raw win total by more? Let's say 25 vs. 20 instead of 20 vs. 20. Would you still give the edge to Curry because his team had the higher record?

Fair enough about the stuff that led up to what I responded. I'll acknowledge that your post was part of what I've been reading, but it's only part of a larger trend. It seems quite clear that if Harden wins the MVP, it will be based on the old "they wouldn't win a game without him" argument. Harden's a great player and a worthy MVP if Curry wasn't there, but that type of argument is basically never right. And I'm not just calling out the hyperbole here, I honestly can't recall a time I've heard that argument used for an MVP candidate where that player in question actually has order-of-magnitude better +/- than the other candidates.

On to the meat of the matter:

1st, the raw number differences in Houston you've noted are possible largely because of the injuries Houston has faced. If a team is healthy, then a starter playing next to a megastar is going to have strong raw +/- as there's no way to shake him. None of this means you can't use the fact that Harden has carried an injured crew as part of the argument for him, but it makes it very problematic to use those raw numbers to compare Harden to Curry. This is in other words, a textbook example of precisely why people should be using some form of Adjusted Plus Minus.

2nd, I'll not that with your used of the raw offensive +/-, you aren't simply using un-adjusted data, you're specifically ignoring the defensive side of the ball. Houston's defense has done considerably better with Harden off the floor. There's literally no reason at all to be pushing this to the side that I can think of.

There's also the matter of saying "He is his team's offense" when the defense is the team's bigger competitive advantage and the offense is mediocre. Doesn't mean it's not true, but being a one-man band raising an offense to mediocrity is something that can be done by a guy who is utterly incapable of leading an elite offense. Not saying that's what Harden is, but it has to be stated how little this whole claim means on the face of it given how much its weighing on you.

What I will say though is this: The injuries in Houston "inflate" the raw +/- edge he shows over his teammates from one perspective, but they also give us more sample size with him functioning with a wider variety of teammates. As such, while all the advanced metrics still have Curry coming out ahead, it is not utterly crazy to say, "I think the team would fair better without Curry if they missed him for an extended period of time than Houston would do without Harden". It is understandable to be more persuaded of Harden's status as absolute keystone

Re: How big of a lift would Harden need to surpass Curry given Curry plays on a better team? I'm with you, no debate here as to the point you're driving at. Obviously Curry can't win this only because he's on the better team. A big enough lift from Harden, and he'd surpass Curry. I don't have a specific number in my mind for this - I don't use these stats quite that literally. My point really is that by all advanced +/- metrics I know of, Curry has the better lift AND does so on a much better team. To see that happen and have people talking about him like he's just a lucky guy with a badass supporting cast is frustrating.

As I said: I really have always liked Harden, but this comparison isn't close for me right now.

[olive_triangurl]

This^^ just because Curry plays 32 MIN and Harden plays 36-40 MIN should not hurt curry.

Why shouldn't it hurt Curry?

Think through the logic.

Curry isn't limited to 32 minutes because he can't play more, he plays that little because that's all his team needs.
If Curry sucked more, his team would need more and he'd have enough minutes you wouldn't have that as an argument.

There should never be a time when a player playing particularly well gets used against him.

Curry is limited to 32 minutes because his team is so great, but they aren't great solely because of him.
Klay Thompson is an even better shooter than Curry.

[Doctor MJ]

Why shouldn't it hurt Curry?

Think through the logic.

Curry isn't limited to 32 minutes because he can't play more, he plays that little because that's all his team needs.
If Curry sucked more, his team would need more and he'd have enough minutes you wouldn't have that as an argument.

There should never be a time when a player playing particularly well gets used against him.

Curry is limited to 32 minutes because his team is so great, but they aren't great solely because of him.
Klay Thompson is an even better shooter than Curry.

My previous response is also the rebuttal to your point. You need to think through how you judge players is an argument you use against a player would be rendered moot if he himself played worse.

Also, when you say Thompson is a better shooter than Curry you're clearly not understanding why Curry is so jaw dropping. The evolution of the game around the 3 pointer is based primarily on the realization that off-ball players who are prepared to take 3's do quite well at them. The result is that on-ball scoring has become less important, and that volume scoring has decreased, all based on the fact that doing what Thompson does isn't that hard. Thompson's particularly good at it, and I'm happy with him as an all-star, but every team has guys doing this to one degree or another.

The contrast to that is that it's difficult to shoot on-ball. Guys who tend to do it don't actually shoot very well when they shoot from distance. Curry's been the mind blowing exception to this. And the reason is because of how he shoots more than simply how good he shoots. Curry can go from dribble to shot with consistent motion incredibly quickly which keeps defenders from altering his shot. Other players who try to do this either have to alter their shot, or have inconsistencies in their rushed motion.

Golden State's offense is utterly dependent on Curry - fall off a cliff without him - and it's not because he's a floor general for the ages, it's because the normal rules for how you can guard the ball handler just don't apply to Curry.

We sometimes talk about the best "pure" shooter in the game, and typically we mean the guy who can hit shots best if he gets a decent look. That's not Curry, nor is it Thompson, it's Korver.

However the most dangerous shooter in the game, the guy who wreaks the most havoc with his threat to shoot from range, is Curry. And frankly I can't think of anyone in history who can top him. Maybe Bird could have gotten to that point, but he played in an era where they weren't making use of 3's the same way.

[Hero]

curry winning mvp will just prove how useless the award has become. Derrick rose mvp 2.0.

yeah because a guy averaging 23.6ppg, 4.7rpg. 7apg & 2.1spg on the best team in the West (by a significant margin over nearest MVP competitor) is not justifiable at all.

It would be much more deserving than the Rose mvp. That was one of the weakest MVPs in recent years. Curry has been playing quite well but the one thing which helps Harden is that he has nowhere near the level of teammates. He is truly carrying his team similar to what LBJ did. The media loves a good story like that.

[TaylorMonkey]

Why shouldn't it hurt Curry?

Think through the logic.

Curry isn't limited to 32 minutes because he can't play more, he plays that little because that's all his team needs.
If Curry sucked more, his team would need more and he'd have enough minutes you wouldn't have that as an argument.

There should never be a time when a player playing particularly well gets used against him.

Curry is limited to 32 minutes because his team is so great, but they aren't great solely because of him.
Klay Thompson is an even better shooter than Curry.

No Thompson isn't. Which is just the beginning of why that analysis is flawed. Curry has been a better shooter in every sense except for this half season, possibly due to his increased defensive effort. Thompson has improved but he (and the rest of the team) continues to get great spot up and assisted looks because of Curry's gravity and selflessness, who's liable to take a ridiculous unassisted off the dribble shot at any time.

Everybody shoots better with Curry. Everybody.

Curry isn't "limited" to 32 because his team's great. Curry makes his team so good in 32 minutes that they can afford to play bench mob lineups up 15-20 the rest of the way on a regular basis.

When they fail him they bring Curry back in.

[devinbrady]

Why shouldn't it hurt Curry?

Think through the logic.

Curry isn't limited to 32 minutes because he can't play more, he plays that little because that's all his team needs.
If Curry sucked more, his team would need more and he'd have enough minutes you wouldn't have that as an argument.

There should never be a time when a player playing particularly well gets used against him.

Curry is limited to 32 minutes because his team is so great, but they aren't great solely because of him.
Klay Thompson is an even better shooter than Curry.

I think a big reason Curry is able to play only 32 min a game is because their bench is so good. It reminds me of the Clippers last year that could count on their bench to increase the lead or give a spark to change the momentum of the game. Problem is the bench isn't going to help much in the playoffs.
As much as it pains me to give the MVP nod to a below average defender Harden is the front runner.

[stayeduptolate]

With the media on his side and peoples love for curry I dont think he will lose MVP unless Rockets finish with a 1 or 2 seed....

[tweet]https://twitter.com/samcmlaird/status/565932096791654400[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Rusty_SFChron/status/565943335287005185[/tweet]

[gmoney411]

Think through the logic.

Curry isn't limited to 32 minutes because he can't play more, he plays that little because that's all his team needs.
If Curry sucked more, his team would need more and he'd have enough minutes you wouldn't have that as an argument.

There should never be a time when a player playing particularly well gets used against him.

Curry is limited to 32 minutes because his team is so great, but they aren't great solely because of him.
Klay Thompson is an even better shooter than Curry.

No Thompson isn't. Which is just the beginning of why that analysis is flawed. Curry has been a better shooter in every sense except for this half season, possibly due to his increased defensive effort. Thompson has improved but he (and the rest of the team) continues to get great spot up and assisted looks because of Curry's gravity and selflessness, who's liable to take a ridiculous unassisted off the dribble shot at any time.

Everybody shoots better with Curry. Everybody.

Curry isn't "limited" to 32 because his team's great. Curry makes his team so good in 32 minutes that they can afford to play bench mob lineups up 15-20 the rest of the way on a regular basis.

When they fail him they bring Curry back in.

It takes a really talented team to survive 15-20 minutes a game without their best player on a regular basis. I don't watch enough Warriors games though so maybe Curry is consistently leaving his team with 20-30 point leads on a nightly basis.

[Dubeta]

mvp has really lost it's value. It used to be the player who was most valuable, or a player which a team needed almost every minute, every game. Guess its been the best player on the best team, how sad.

[Doctor MJ]

It takes a really talented team to survive 15-20 minutes a game without their best player on a regular basis. I don't watch enough Warriors games though so maybe Curry is consistently leaving his team with 20-30 point leads on a nightly basis.

You've got things exaggerated in your mind. A superstar playing 36 MPG is entirely normal - and is what Curry did last year. Curry's playing 33.2 MPG right now. So what we're saying is that Golden State playing as well as they have has allowed Curry to play about 3 minutes less per game.

A couple other related points:

-I'm not strictly saying this is due to blowouts. That's part of it, but part of it also is that when you have a big lead in the standings you don't go into games looking to win or die trying. Whatever combination it actually is, I think that's where everyone should be looking to start their analysis rather than assuming that Curry all of a sudden lost his stamina at the exact time he became clearly better than he's ever been before and his team's done better than it's ever done before.

-You quote the number "20-30 point lead". Just for perspective, when Curry is on the floor Golden State outscores opponents by +16.4 points per 100 possessions which is why he's on pace to end up with a better raw +/- when he's on the floor than anyone since Jordan. So yeah, if what you're asking is "Are the Warriors really that strong with Curry out there?", the answer is: Yup, this is WAY outlier stuff here.

[Doctor MJ]

I think a big reason Curry is able to play only 32 min a game is because their bench is so good. It reminds me of the Clippers last year that could count on their bench to increase the lead or give a spark to change the momentum of the game. Problem is the bench isn't going to help much in the playoffs.
As much as it pains me to give the MVP nod to a below average defender Harden is the front runner.

This is a weird post.

So, as I just said the Warriors are +16.4 with Curry out there. That's an insane number that if you're at all sensitive to noticing how well teams are doing should leave your primary takeaway of a Warrior game being: Wow, they're killing it with the starters on the floor.

Incidentally this was also true last year when the Top 5 guys in the entire league by raw +/- were all either starters on the Warriors or the Clippers, which makes them about the last two teams in recent history where it makes sense to look at them who thrives similarly no matter who they put out there.

Not saying guys on these benches can't get some credit, but this is absolutely not a situation where it makes sense to imply there's something remotely weak about the stars of the team.

Sorry if I'm coming off with a bit of attitude here, but you seem to be basing your MVP opinion on a relatively subtle thing others may not notice...and then being totally turned around on that thing. It's the type of thing that others might simply assume you're right about and use as an important point in their own thinking, and so it's a real problem when the statements are made without research.

[Doctor MJ]

mvp has really lost it's value. It used to be the player who was most valuable, or a player which a team needed almost every minute, every game. Guess its been the best player on the best team, how sad.

Every year someone comes in and says this.

Folks, two words: Wes Unseld. If me saying that doesn't make you instantly say "Exactly" or "Oh whoa, how could I have forgotten...", then you need to stop talking about "the good old days" and start learning NBA history in depth.

[cdubbz]

curry is the mvp. lock this thread.

[gmoney411]

It takes a really talented team to survive 15-20 minutes a game without their best player on a regular basis. I don't watch enough Warriors games though so maybe Curry is consistently leaving his team with 20-30 point leads on a nightly basis.

You've got things exaggerated in your mind. A superstar playing 36 MPG is entirely normal - and is what Curry did last year. Curry's playing 33.2 MPG right now. So what we're saying is that Golden State playing as well as they have has allowed Curry to play about 3 minutes less per game.

A couple other related points:

-I'm not strictly saying this is due to blowouts. That's part of it, but part of it also is that when you have a big lead in the standings you don't go into games looking to win or die trying. Whatever combination it actually is, I think that's where everyone should be looking to start their analysis rather than assuming that Curry all of a sudden lost his stamina at the exact time he became clearly better than he's ever been before and his team's done better than it's ever done before.

-You quote the number "20-30 point lead". Just for perspective, when Curry is on the floor Golden State outscores opponents by +16.4 points per 100 possessions which is why he's on pace to end up with a better raw +/- when he's on the floor than anyone since Jordan. So yeah, if what you're asking is "Are the Warriors really that strong with Curry out there?", the answer is: Yup, this is WAY outlier stuff here.

I got the 15-20 minutes a game from someone else. But it's still rare for a star carrying a team to sit that many minutes.

I don't think anybody is saying Curry has lost stamina. I think the argument is that his team is so good that he doesn't have to play heavy minutes. He has a +16.4 but Klay is +15.2. Stats like that tend to be very team dependent.

Real plus minus is currently led by Harden BTW.

[Doctor MJ]

It takes a really talented team to survive 15-20 minutes a game without their best player on a regular basis. I don't watch enough Warriors games though so maybe Curry is consistently leaving his team with 20-30 point leads on a nightly basis.

You've got things exaggerated in your mind. A superstar playing 36 MPG is entirely normal - and is what Curry did last year. Curry's playing 33.2 MPG right now. So what we're saying is that Golden State playing as well as they have has allowed Curry to play about 3 minutes less per game.

A couple other related points:

-I'm not strictly saying this is due to blowouts. That's part of it, but part of it also is that when you have a big lead in the standings you don't go into games looking to win or die trying. Whatever combination it actually is, I think that's where everyone should be looking to start their analysis rather than assuming that Curry all of a sudden lost his stamina at the exact time he became clearly better than he's ever been before and his team's done better than it's ever done before.

-You quote the number "20-30 point lead". Just for perspective, when Curry is on the floor Golden State outscores opponents by +16.4 points per 100 possessions which is why he's on pace to end up with a better raw +/- when he's on the floor than anyone since Jordan. So yeah, if what you're asking is "Are the Warriors really that strong with Curry out there?", the answer is: Yup, this is WAY outlier stuff here.

I got the 15-20 minutes a game from someone else. But it's still rare for a star carrying a team to sit that many minutes.

I don't think anybody is saying Curry has lost stamina. I think the argument is that his team is so good that he doesn't have to play heavy minutes. He has a +16.4 but Klay is +15.2. Stats like that tend to be very team dependent.

Real plus minus is currently led by Harden BTW.

You say "the team is so good" like it's a mark against him though, as if it's an assumption that he's getting lucky, when it fact he's got everything to do with why the team is so good. As I keep saying: There should never be a part of your analysis wherein a player would look more impressive to you if he were in fact playing worse than he is.

It's fine to say you give Harden the edge based on relative supporting casts - though in a debate you'd need to go into more detail - but the citing of Curry's minutes like they are an issue is not something people should be doing really at all given what the +/- data tells us about what's happening with Curry on the floor.

And no, Harden does not have the lead in Real Plus Minus looking at the page right now. Such wouldn't make me by itself switch my vote for a variety of reasons, but Curry has the lead there, and even has the lead in the RPM + minutes played metric WAR where Curry's getting penalized for the minutes stuff we're talking about.

[TaylorMonkey]

Real plus minus is currently led by Harden BTW.

Nope.

Curry - 8.27
Harden - 7.40

That is not a small difference. And Curry's lead most if not all of the year, so I'm sure where you might've gotten that information.

[gmoney411]

You've got things exaggerated in your mind. A superstar playing 36 MPG is entirely normal - and is what Curry did last year. Curry's playing 33.2 MPG right now. So what we're saying is that Golden State playing as well as they have has allowed Curry to play about 3 minutes less per game.

A couple other related points:

-I'm not strictly saying this is due to blowouts. That's part of it, but part of it also is that when you have a big lead in the standings you don't go into games looking to win or die trying. Whatever combination it actually is, I think that's where everyone should be looking to start their analysis rather than assuming that Curry all of a sudden lost his stamina at the exact time he became clearly better than he's ever been before and his team's done better than it's ever done before.

-You quote the number "20-30 point lead". Just for perspective, when Curry is on the floor Golden State outscores opponents by +16.4 points per 100 possessions which is why he's on pace to end up with a better raw +/- when he's on the floor than anyone since Jordan. So yeah, if what you're asking is "Are the Warriors really that strong with Curry out there?", the answer is: Yup, this is WAY outlier stuff here.

I got the 15-20 minutes a game from someone else. But it's still rare for a star carrying a team to sit that many minutes.

I don't think anybody is saying Curry has lost stamina. I think the argument is that his team is so good that he doesn't have to play heavy minutes. He has a +16.4 but Klay is +15.2. Stats like that tend to be very team dependent.

Real plus minus is currently led by Harden BTW.

You say "the team is so good" like it's a mark against him though, as if it's an assumption that he's getting lucky, when it fact he's got everything to do with why the team is so good. As I keep saying: There should never be a part of your analysis wherein a player would look more impressive to you if he were in fact playing worse than he is.

It's fine to say you give Harden the edge based on relative supporting casts - though in a debate you'd need to go into more detail - but the citing of Curry's minutes like they are an issue is not something people should be doing really at all given what the +/- data tells us about what's happening with Curry on the floor.

And no, Harden does not have the lead in Real Plus Minus looking at the page right now. Such wouldn't make me by itself switch my vote for a variety of reasons, but Curry has the lead there, and even has the lead in the RPM + minutes played metric WAR where Curry's getting penalized for the minutes stuff we're talking about.

I said the team is so good is the argument. I didn't say that was my argument. Nor does that mean or imply he is getting lucky. And I don't really understand the part that you say you've been repeatedly saying.

If you are using the off rtg of +16.4 I am going to continually say that that stat is very team based.

I think I had it sorted by ORPM when I was looking the other night. My mistake. Curry still has the lead overall. Although I would argue that DRPM appears to be less accurate than ORPM when you look at the rankings. But maybe that's just buying into the hype of certain players defense.

[Doctor MJ]

You say "the team is so good" like it's a mark against him though, as if it's an assumption that he's getting lucky, when it fact he's got everything to do with why the team is so good. As I keep saying: There should never be a part of your analysis wherein a player would look more impressive to you if he were in fact playing worse than he is.

It's fine to say you give Harden the edge based on relative supporting casts - though in a debate you'd need to go into more detail - but the citing of Curry's minutes like they are an issue is not something people should be doing really at all given what the +/- data tells us about what's happening with Curry on the floor.

And no, Harden does not have the lead in Real Plus Minus looking at the page right now. Such wouldn't make me by itself switch my vote for a variety of reasons, but Curry has the lead there, and even has the lead in the RPM + minutes played metric WAR where Curry's getting penalized for the minutes stuff we're talking about.

I said the team is so good is the argument. I didn't say that was my argument. Nor does that mean or imply he is getting lucky. And I don't really understand the part that you say you've been repeatedly saying.

If you are using the off rtg of +16.4 I am going to continually say that that stat is very team based.

I think I had it sorted by ORPM when I was looking the other night. My mistake. Curry still has the lead overall. Although I would argue that DRPM appears to be less accurate than ORPM when you look at the rankings. But maybe that's just buying into the hype of certain players defense.

Well let me apologize where I've conflated your words with the words of others.

What I'm seeing is a whack-a-mole situation where when I keep feeling the need to say the same stuff over and over.

To me the bottom line is this: People have brought up Curry's low minutes here while talking up his supporting cast, and while the negative implication of that is clear, no one's actually made a specific point demonstrating what the issue would be with Curry's candidacy based on that.

It's not that people haven't tried. People talked up the Warrior bench and argued for Harden based on how much the team would drop off without the Beard. But the noteworthy thing about the Warriors starters vs bench has been that the starters do ridiculously well, and in terms of actual dropoff Curry's the one whose team is missed more according to the data I see.

Yes that still leaves room to say "but the other Warrior starters are good too!", and then you mention Thompson's raw +/- rate. But I'm only using raw +/- to try to communicate with folks who aren't use to more advanced, and hence more abstract stuff. Curry leads the league in Real Plus Minus with 8.27, Thompson only has a 3.65. They aren't at all in the same ballpark. Why? Because despite the fact they largely play together, the small amount of time they has shown much more team success with Curry than Thompson.

Now what I will say: The "small amount of time" means that the data itself could conceivably change quickly. This goes back to what I've said about Houston's injuries allowing their to be a vantage point where one does believe more in Harden's impact than Curry. What I've been saying isn't that that vantage point doesn't exist, it's just that I see no one actually expressing it except me. Translate the words of Harden supporters and it's quite clear that if they are right Harden should have a massive lead in things like Real Plus Minus, but of course he doesn't. Curry does.

[pipfan]

Curry and Harden are the only two choices at the moment.

And Rose was the MVP that year, the only other player with an argument was Howard. LBJ was not even the leader of his team, much less MVP.