RealGM

Round 4.

Edit: Links to previous threads:

Link for Part 1

Link for Part 2

Link for Part 3

On comparing MJ, Kobe, CP3 stats to determine best player and MVP:

I think it's a trick question. It's impossible to make those determinations with any semblance of accuracy without watching the games. Frankly, it's ridiculous to think otherwise.

SA37 wrote:Assuming that the Bulls played in the weak East of today and won 60 games --while taking into account they won 69 the season before -- my vote would go to Paul.

Jordan's numbers would be down and his team would have won less games in a conference that got weaker. Bryant would have a solid claim, as he does now, but I think Paul is the MVP for the reasons I have stated in this thread.

It would be very close between Bryant and Jordan for the best player.

Assuming the Bulls played in the West and won 60 also? I imagine your vote would still go to CP.

My points through this exercise are such:

1. If 08Kobe/98 MJ are both better players than CP, then why are you propping up CP's stats so as to say that the stats tell you who the better player is? There's an obvious gap between statistics and true individual performance. In MJ's 2nd 3-peat years, he was an obviously better basketball player than when he was dominating the league statistically in the early 90's. Why can the same concept not be applied to Kobe Bryant? Much like MJ, Kobe has gotten better even though his numbers may not be his best. If it's not hard to believe with MJ, why is it hard to believe with Kobe?

2. So basically, you're conceding that CP is not as good player as Bryant/MJ is, but should be the MVP anyway despite having the same team record. If everyone has the team record, why is the tiebreaker going to individual statistics as opposed to individual performance? But even we change the hypothetical, and the Bulls are a 65 win team, the Hornets and Lakers are 60 win teams, and you give the MVP to MJ--Why? Your whole argument before was that CP's crew is not that good, so getting them to a top seed was more impressive than Kobe getting a top seed with a good cast. Why does that same argument not apply against MJ?

3. Did everyone notice how things changed once I added MJ into the equation? There was a noticeable discomfort by SA37 when he was forced between the basketball Jesus and CP. He started saying all these things about the Bulls and conferences when those things weren't mentioned nor were they really pertinent to the hypothetical. Earlier in this thread, SA37 wouldn't concede that Kobe was better overall player than CP. But once I juxtaposed Kobe against 98MJ, he finally conceded it. What took so long? Everything Laker Fans are saying about Kobe this year, could be said about MJ (he's a better teamplayer, stats don't show it all, etc etc). But no1 could nor want to believe it. Add MJ into the mix? Oh, it makes sense all of a sudden.

What this shows is that Kobe doesn't lack the individual statistics, he doesn't lack the intangibles, he doesn't lack the team record. What's going against him is simply the fact that he's Kobe.


LJ4MVP: Just because Kobe's teammates can be self-sufficient when he's on the bench, doesn't mean they don't rely on when he's in the game. When MJ retired, his "supporting cast" go deep into the playoffs, but at no point did people question that he didn't make his teammates better.

eFG% is not a stat that you can debate upon and considering that Kobe stays on the floor 85% of the time unless its a blow out, there isn't even considerable sample size to make an argument over it.

MVP Watch aka Who's teammates are crappier?, episode 4. I expect some hilarious threads.

MVP Candidates

1-Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul( Almost same record, Both putting up great shows night and out, Amazing individual numbers, and of course who's teammates are worse?)

2-Kevin Garnett(bla bla bla)

3-LeBron James(Outstanding performance whole season. I wish he can lead his team to a 50 win and make the race even more exciting), Dwight Howard(show some respect to the Magic )

[quote="eatyourchildren"][/quote]

Awesome. Especially point three. Simply juxtaposing Jordan's name over Kobe's stats makes people view the whole thing differently. The Kobe-hate is strong here.

it doesn't matter who the mvp is this season... Paul, Kobe... if their team makes it to the finals, then they will be swept quickly by the celtics .

Chris435 wrote:it doesn't matter who the mvp is this season... Paul, Kobe... if their team makes it to the finals, then they will be swept quickly by the celtics .

That assumes the Celts make it past the Cavs and Wizards, which I'm not totally sure they do. They're a better team for sure but so were the Pistons last year and Lebron took them out with some awesome performances.

MY top 4 mvp candidates are

1. Kobe
2. CP3
3. Lebron
4. KG

Bgil wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Awesome. Especially point three. Simply juxtaposing Jordan's name over Kobe's stats makes people view the whole thing differently. The Kobe-hate is strong here.

Yeah, I mean, here's the thing: Everyone accepts the MJ Gospel right? In the Old Testament, MJ dominates statistically, but doesn't have the necessary team to win and get MVP. In the New Testament MJ is older, wiser, and makes his team better while sacrificing his individual statistics. They win, and he's an MVP.

But somehow, this same arc doesn't apply to Kobe despite similarities in stat development, game development, team development, etc etc etc.?

I'm not saying Kobe is as good as MJ. But the things we accept about MJ's development isn't being trusted when being applied to Kobe, and I ask why?

MJ made his teammates better, his teammates didn't just get better on their own. Why does this not apply to Kobe?

MJ became a better overall player even though his statistics regressed. Why does this not apply to Kobe?

MJ affected things not only on the offensive end but on the defensive end, often guarding the opposing teams best wing, one of his most significant contributions. Why does this not apply to Kobe?

Bgil wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



That assumes the Celts make it past the Cavs and Wizards, which I'm not totally sure they do. They're a better team for sure but so were the Pistons last year and Lebron took them out with some awesome performances.

I was shocked they lost twice to the Wizards. It doesn't matter though, the playoffs simply aren't the Wizards playground!

Whether the Cavs can defeat the Celtics or not depends entirely on how LBJ plays.

Anyways, my pick is Kobe for MVP. The arguments against him this year don't really make any sense and I don't even like Kobe. It's difficult to actually make a case against him, especially with everything that's happened this season.

CP3 is right behind him though. This guy is 6 ft and putting up 20 ppg on 49.7% shooting with over 10 apg. That's just incredible for someone of his height. He improved drastically since his first two seasons in the league. IMO, that's on par with what Kobe has done this season.

eatyourchildren wrote:
My points through this exercise are such:

1. If 08Kobe/98 MJ are both better players than CP, then why are you propping up CP's stats so as to say that the stats tell you who the better player is?

The MVP award is not given to the best player in the league. When you understand that, you'll understand my argument for Paul that much better.

The MVP does not have to be the best player in the league. Kobe has probably been the best player in the NBA over the last 4-5 years, but we've watched Nash, Garnett, and Nowitzki win the award over him.

There's an obvious gap between statistics and true individual performance. In MJ's 2nd 3-peat years, he was an obviously better basketball player than when he was dominating the league statistically in the early 90's. Why can the same concept not be applied to Kobe Bryant? Much like MJ, Kobe has gotten better even though his numbers may not be his best. If it's not hard to believe with MJ, why is it hard to believe with Kobe?

1. Kobe Bryant isn't Michael Jordan.

2. I don't buy that '91-'93 MJ was worse than '96-'98 MJ.

3. Let me point out that, despite all of MJs dominance, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley were able to win MVPs over him. Like I said, this idea you seem to have that the MVP goes to the best player in the league is false.

2. So basically, you're conceding that CP is not as good player as Bryant/MJ is, but should be the MVP anyway despite having the same team record. If everyone has the team record, why is the tiebreaker going to individual statistics as opposed to individual performance?

Update: statistics are a way of measuring a players average output over game, thus being a representation of individual performance.

But even we change the hypothetical, and the Bulls are a 65 win team, the Hornets and Lakers are 60 win teams, and you give the MVP to MJ--Why? Your whole argument before was that CP's crew is not that good, so getting them to a top seed was more impressive than Kobe getting a top seed with a good cast. Why does that same argument not apply against MJ?

I think all 3 teams have a good supporting cast. I do think L.A. has a deeper team, but that doesn't mean Paul doesn't have good players alongside him.

My main argument for Paul being my MVP has been that his individual improvement has been so great that, should the Lakers and Hornets finish with similar records, my vote goes to Paul because his individual performance has improved in a greater way than Bryant's.

3. Did everyone notice how things changed once I added MJ into the equation? There was a noticeable discomfort by SA37 when he was forced between the basketball Jesus and CP. He started saying all these things about the Bulls and conferences when those things weren't mentioned nor were they really pertinent to the hypothetical. Earlier in this thread, SA37 wouldn't concede that Kobe was better overall player than CP. But once I juxtaposed Kobe against 98MJ, he finally conceded it. What took so long? Everything Laker Fans are saying about Kobe this year, could be said about MJ (he's a better teamplayer, stats don't show it all, etc etc). But no1 could nor want to believe it. Add MJ into the mix? Oh, it makes sense all of a sudden.

What on earth are you on about.

You can't compare 2 eras and just go, 'yeah, that'll do." There needs to be context.

If the Bulls play in this era, they're going to win 65-70 being in the current Eastern Conference. How on earth is that not pertinent? Haven't we been saying team wins makes a difference?

To close the gap, you presumed all teams to win 60 games. Both the Lakers and Hornets would have to win all but 1 game the rest of the way to accomplish that. What is more likely is both teams will finish closer to the mid-50s.

So you tried to fix things to help your argument. What is the more likely scenario is the Hornets and Lakers finish around the mid-50s in wins. And if the Bulls played in this era, they would probably be in the 65-70 win range. (Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that they'd finish with less than the 62 wins they had in '97-'98.)

We'd be talking about something in the 10-game range of difference. That makes it pretty clear in my book. Jordan would be the MVP.

What this shows is that Kobe doesn't lack the individual statistics, he doesn't lack the intangibles, he doesn't lack the team record. What's going against him is simply the fact that he's Kobe.

And Paul doesn't lack the individual statistics, the intangibles, or the team record. What's going against him is he isn't the best player in basketball, which I've already shown you is not a requirement to win the MVP award.

To put it in a way you may understand better: If Jordan, who was in the midst of 2 different 3-peats, can lose an MVP award he had a great case for, then why can't the same happen to Kobe?

Bgil wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Awesome. Especially point three. Simply juxtaposing Jordan's name over Kobe's stats makes people view the whole thing differently. The Kobe-hate is strong here.

But only if we assume, somehow, that the Bulls win less games in this era than they did in the era they actually played in...oh yeah, and the newest twist was they also play in the West

Jordan's team, in '97-'98 won 62 games, which was tied for the league lead. The Lakers could just as easily finish at the top of the West as they could the 7th seed, depending how the last 15 games or so finish out. It is almost a lock they will not finish with the best record in the league. Right now, they'd have to go 9-5, have every West team play worse than that, have Boston go 0-14 and Detroit go 6-8, to have the best record in the league.

You just can't compare the two eras that easily.

SA37 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


I want you or any other poster on here who wants to dismiss Paul's statistical improvement in favor of Kobe's "doesn't show up in the box score" improvement to answer me this: If Kobe Bryant had upped his numbers at the same rate as Paul has this year, would you be willing to accept the same argument for another MVP candidate?


My main argument for Paul being my MVP has been that his individual improvement has been so great that, should the Lakers and Hornets finish with similar records, my vote goes to Paul because his individual performance has improved in a greater way than Bryant's

SA37 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


The MVP award is not given to the best player in the league. When you understand that, you'll understand my argument for Paul that much better.

I think you are confused. This isn't the thread for Most IMPROVED Player. It's the Most Valuable Player thread. Last year has nothing to do with this year. When you realize that then your arguments will have more merit.

.........

cp3

SA37 wrote:The MVP award is not given to the best player in the league. When you understand that, you'll understand my argument for Paul that much better.The MVP does not have to be the best player in the league. Kobe has probably been the best player in the NBA over the last 4-5 years, but we've watched Nash, Garnett, and Nowitzki win the award over him...My main argument for Paul being my MVP has been that his individual improvement has been so great that, should the Lakers and Hornets finish with similar records, my vote goes to Paul because his individual performance has improved in a greater way than Bryant's.

The MVP most definitely does not have to be the best player. But if two teams have comparable records, shouldn't that be the tiebreaker? I really question your choice of a tiebreaker--using CP's improvement over last year. It's like I and others have said--there's another award for that, the MIP. Otherwise it's penalizing Kobe for sustained excellence. The relationship between an MVP and improved statistics, as opposed to between an MVP and best performance/player, is too attenuated.

SA37 wrote:1. Kobe Bryant isn't Michael Jordan.
3. Let me point out that, despite all of MJs dominance, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley were able to win MVPs over him. Like I said, this idea you seem to have that the MVP goes to the best player in the league is false.

1. Kobe Bryant isn't Michael Jordan, but it doesn't make my arguments any less valid. In fact, it helps me make precisely the points I made. Because Kobe is Kobe, and not MJ, arguments that were accepted at face value for MJ aren't even being given a second's worth of consideration by the anti-Kobe population.
3. The fact that Karl and Charles were able to win MVP's over MJ also helps my argument. Why were they given awards? Weren't they given as quasi-lifetime achievement awards? So not only does Kobe have the MJ-parallels working for him, he has the Malone-parallels working for him too. Sweet!

SA37 wrote:2. I don't buy that '91-'93 MJ was worse than '96-'98 MJ.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? Someone get a Jordan follower in here QUICK!

SA37 wrote:Update: statistics are a way of measuring a players average output over game, thus being a representation of individual performance.

I'm sorry, but you're in a CLEAR minority of people who feel that 96-98 MJ was not better than 91-93 MJ. His stats fell, but EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE, saw that he was a better player. So even though stats are a representation of individual performance, they are a flawed and limited representation of such. This is isn't Baseball.

SA37 wrote:If the Bulls play in this era, they're going to win 65-70 being in the current Eastern Conference. How on earth is that not pertinent? Haven't we been saying team wins makes a difference? ...
So you tried to fix things to help your argument. What is the more likely scenario is the Hornets and Lakers finish around the mid-50s in wins. And if the Bulls played in this era, they would probably be in the 65-70 win range. (Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that they'd finish with less than the 62 wins they had in '97-'98.)

Sorry, I have to call you out on this one. You're being wildly inconsistent here.
Your arguments are this: A) Team Record, B) Individual STATS, C) Improvement over last year
A) If your argument is that something close to 10 wins above everyone else is what would win it for MJ in your version of my hypothetical, then you should be clearly advocating for KG. But you're not. Strike one.
B) Your unwillingness to acknowledge that a player can improve while his stats regress is clearly an attempt to remain consistent, despite a CLEAR example to the contrary (96 MJ v. 92 MJ). Strike two.
C) Your tiebreaking criterion is clearly covered by another award--the MIP. Strike three.[/b]

SA37 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



But only if we assume, somehow, that the Bulls win less games in this era than they did in the era they actually played in...oh yeah, and the newest twist was they also play in the West

Jordan's team, in '97-'98 won 62 games, which was tied for the league lead. The Lakers could just as easily finish at the top of the West as they could the 7th seed, depending how the last 15 games or so finish out. It is almost a lock they will not finish with the best record in the league. Right now, they'd have to go 9-5, have every West team play worse than that, have Boston go 0-14 and Detroit go 6-8, to have the best record in the league.

You just can't compare the two eras that easily.

By the way, do you know what the point of a hypothetical is? It's to find out what the dispositive issue/criterion is in a line of reasoning. To ferret out a point of consistency/inconsistency.

It's the same thing as having a control group in a lab experiment to isolate a variable.

Your dismissal/ridicule of this form argumentation isn't exactly shedding a kind light on your ability to argue a point.

eatyourchildren wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



By the way, do you know what the point of a hypothetical is? It's to find out what the dispositive issue/criterion is in a line of reasoning. To ferret out a point of consistency/inconsistency.

It's the same thing as having a control group in a lab experiment to isolate a variable.

Your dismissal/ridicule of this form argumentation isn't exactly shedding a kind light on your ability to argue a point.

Just stop it eatyourchildren, leave that guy alone lol. He meant no harm. It's just too easy for you