Gooner wrote: HeartBreakKid wrote:
I know there was gonna be someone comparing Jordan's era to this era that way, but it's simply not true. Athleticism, strength and skill was on the same level in the 90's as it is now. Some aspects of the game are better now, some were better than, but the biggest myth is that today's league is much more athletic.
It's as much as a myth as saying players in 1988 are more athletic than players in 1969. There were players who aren't that athletic by today's standards in both the 60s and 90s, your criticism isn't that sound - Steve Kerr is closer to a 60s athlete than a 10s athlete.
There are so many MVP's who don't have a title, but most of the guys who led their teams to championships have a MVP.
There are way more great players who do not have MVPs than titles. Kevin McHale was a great player, he was never that close to winning an MVP. Chris Bosh was a great player, he was never that close to winning an MVP. John Stockton was a great player, he was significantly closer to winning a title than an MVP. Not just Pippens (who never would have gotten an MVP even if Jordan wasn't there), but studs like Wade, Havilcek, Frazier.
Leading to a team isn't relevant in your example, because you said Kobe Bryant has more rings than Lebron James, that isn't true unless you are counting the rings he won when he wasn't the leader of his team.
Kobe was a co-leader of that team. He was certianly the closer and Shq needed him, as dominant as he was. The point is not really about if there is more great players with MVP or a title, even though it's a legitimate question still. The point is that the title is more difficult to get. Westbrrok has an MVP, but he couldn't win a title with Durant.
22 year old Rose has an MVP, Iverson has an MVP, even though he clearly wasn't a championship caliber player, like Westbrook. Nash has 2 MVP's, no title...
Saying MVP is harder to get than a title is pretty objective. Allen Iverson getting an MVP but no title isn't proof that it is easier to obtain an MVP, for every Allen Iverson there are two Gasols (literally). Two Mournings. Two Pierces. Two Allens. Two Greens. Two Thompsons. Two Ginobilis. Two Parkers.
As for the bold, you have to acknowledge that the inverse is true. Kevin Durant won an MVP but no title despite playing with Russell Westbrook. He then got two NBA titles and did it pretty easily - why is that? Did Durant become way better, or did he just join a team with more great players?
Again, this is an objective thing. MVP can only be won by one player every year, and if the media isn't bored they will give it to the same great players. Championships are won by teams
, and championship teams
consist of many great players
. Almost every year two or three hall of fame caliber players win titles, not MVPs.
It is also easier for a player to win multiple
titles than it is multiple MVPs
- you are only taking into account people who have done each feat one time. When you realize that teams tend to repeat and there isn't media fatigue involved in winning a title, it is easier to collect 2 or 3 rings when you have made a championship team.
Kawhi Leonard will be fortunate to ever win an MVP, and if he does - he will have ended up winning more rings than MVPs 100% guaranteed.
It is a tremendous feat to get MVP two times because the media will be heavily bias toward doing that.