bondom34 wrote:HotRocks34 wrote:bondom34 wrote:So much this. Its over unless Lebron goes for 50 the next 9 games and OKC loses out.
It's not "this." Perhaps if you guys knew the history of the award better, you might feel differently.
Let me repeat things I have said throughout this thread, and I'll use the 2007-08 award as the example.
- In 2008, Chris Paul had substantially better stats than Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant won the award. So stats are not always the deciding factor. Record matters, winning your conference matters
- Stats can sometimes trump records, as they did for Jordan in, I think, 1987-88. But Jordan had an overwhelming advantage in PPG, PER, and WS/48 I believe
- In 2007-08, Kevin Garnett (3rd in MVP) had a better record than Kobe Bryant and won his conference. Kobe also won his conference. Kobe won the award
So, do I favor Durant? Of course. Is it a done deal? No, unless the voters themselves feel it is. Again, I said this exact scenario could happen several weeks ago in this very thread. I could dig it up, but it's not a big deal.
The goal of the regular season is the get the best record and win your conference. It's important. The early narrative for Durant was "Without Westbrook." I already discussed that above. The current narratives are "better record," "better stats" and "MJ Streak." Those are probably enough, should everything hold up. But Miami taking the lead in the Eastern Conference matters, or has mattered in MVP races past. I'm not trying to disturb anyone's bubble here, I'm just going off of what I've observed in the past involving MVP races.
If you asked me to put money down today, would I favor Durant? Of course I would. But Miami taking #1 in the East -- while OKC is still 2nd in the West -- changes the dynamic.
Anyone who tells you there is a set formula for MVP is lying. It has been voted different ways in different years, and what matters is what the voters care about in the particular year.
Understood, but what you're not mentioning is that though Miami may have a higher seed, the record is worse and in a historically weak conference. To top it off, Durant has the 25 point streak "narrative" as well as the fact that the story for the 1 seed to Miami is that Indy choked it up to them, where the Spurs went on an 18 game win streak to get it in the West. To top off the better record in a better conference with a better narrative, Durant has better stats. Paul/Kobe is different in that they were in the same conference. Here's a comp for MVP candidates on BBR, and it shows these numbers including team records in a table w/ other candidates:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/mvp.cgi
This debate is basically over for almost everyone.
I am aware of the MJ streak, which is why I mentioned it in my post.
The "historically weak East" argument does not hold up, as I have said already, because of the Heat's record against the West. I think they have a better record against the West than the East.
How the Heat get to #1 in the East may not be the most important factor as getting to #1 in the East.
Look, I understand that many of the people who have issues with what I'm saying appear to be OKC fans. That's ok. I don't have a vote, so my voice is basically meaningless here. I'm just expressing my opinion from having watched many MVP races before.
Now, as PaulieWal says, if the voters minds are made up, then they're made up. But there are a host of criteria the voters can choose from should they want to.
That said, Durant has had a historic season and his winning the award is likely and deserved. I have NO problem with that at all, I'm just giving the case for the other side.
