3 Worst MVP Selections?

[pipfan]

This is which picks were the worst, not which were the worst players to win an MVP, for the last 25 years?
Vote for 3 please

[Owly]

This is which picks were the worst, not which were the worst players to win an MVP, for the last 25 years?
Vote for 3 please

Depends what you think MVP is/should be.

Since it's worst pick does MOV/vote distribution matter?

And related
Say, if you think there's only a 17% chance that player X was the legit best player or should have been MVP but there's 4 or 5 (depending if/how much you want to leave room for the rest of the field) similar level players, maybe a couple you like slightly better...
is that better or worse than
an instance you think there's a 20% chance player Y was indeed the deserving MVP, but think there's circa 75% chance it was someone else.

For X you think they're less deserving ... but the Y might make less sense in that you're pretty confident you know the manner in which it's wrong and it's less understandable how it got there. Both can be interesting convos, but they are (and so IRL instances could be) different I think.

[Statlanta]

Iverson and Rose stand out the most. Everyone else was deserving.

I probably would go Harden > Giannis or Harden > Westbrook for the last MVP.

[Kingdibs19]

Both of Nash’s easily and it’s not even close.

[Ambrose]

Westbrook, Rose, and Iverson. I wouldn't even consider another option on the list.

[AEnigma]

Iverson’s is awful. At least you could say Rose was the best point guard in his own conference…

1999 Karl Malone is pretty weak — although it was generally a weaker MVP year — but Mourning would be my pick for the regular season rather than Duncan.

Moses’s 1979 and 1982 are quite soft. Could have been Bird or Erving in 1982, and could have been Kareem or Gervin in 1979. 1979 looks worse to me by virtue of Kareem being positionally better, but 1982 is also rough with the Celtics winning 17 more games; at least in 1979 all the teams were clustered.

[Narigo]

Cowens over Kareem easily.

Cowens arguably wasnt the best player on his team


Edit:Modern wise, I go with Iverson as Kobe, Carter and Allen was better that year at their position. Plus he had no case over Shaq or Duncan

[70sFan]

All things concerned, I think 1973 is the worst, given that Kareem was clearly the best player in the league. Second would be Rose or Iverson to me. I don't love Westbrook choice either.

[AEnigma]

All things concerned, I think 1973 is the worst, given that Kareem was clearly the best player in the league. Second would be Rose or Iverson to me. I don't love Westbrook choice either.

Gap between Kareem and Cowens for “quality” that year is larger than most other picks excepting that notorious Iverson/Rose/Westbrook trio… However, Kareem won 54 games to Cowens’ 68, and the Bucks went 6-0 without Kareem (who had a slightly lesser year than the preceding two). Best player in the league, absolutely, but I am pretty sure a negative fourteen-win disparity between the winner and anyone else in the top five has never happened. In 2017, Steph came sixth because of the Durant addition, and third place Kawhi similarly to Kareem won 54 games while his team went 7-1 without him. And in 1982, which I initially thought would be the sole exception, Bird’s team went 5-0 without him, cutting his individual wins lead down to a mere twelve over Moses.

[OhayoKD]

Both of Nash’s easily and it’s not even close.

the 22 to 60+ win turnaround spearheaded by the greatest(relative to era) offense ever?

[Jaivl]

WB, Rose and especially Iverson were bad, yes, but a hypothetical 05 Shaq over Nash would probably be even worse.

[Magneto89]

Nash in 06

Kobe deserved it more for carrying that weak squad into the playoffs

[AEnigma]

Nash, Lebron, Dirk, and Wade all also brought teams to the playoffs which may well have missed without them. Three of those players finished higher in MVP voting, and the fourth lead the league in on/off and RAPM and ended up winning Finals MVP.

The idea that Kobe was “robbed” will never stop being goofy, even if you happen to believe that leading the Lakers to 46 wins is more impressive than Nash leading the Suns to 54 wins after replacing Amar’e, Joe Johnson, and Quentin Richardson with Diaw, Bell, and the Thomases. And being more justified than those advocating against 2005 is not much of a bonus either.

[Narigo]

The idea that Kobe was “robbed” will never stop being goofy, even if you happen to believe that leading the Lakers to 46 wins is more impressive than Nash leading the Suns to 54 wins after replacing Amar’e, Joe Johnson, and Quentin Richardson with Diaw, Bell, and the Thomases. And being more justified than those advocating against 2005 is not much of a bonus either.

Tbf Kobe didn't have anyone has good as Shawn Marion on his team

[coastalmarker99]

1962 Russell over Wilt as it makes zero sense when you consider the context.

During the 1959-1960 regular season, Wilt shattered the scoring record with a 37.6 ppg mark.


And he shattered Russell's rebounding record with 27.0 RPG.

His FG% was a career-low 46.1, which was the only time he failed to shoot at least 50% in his career, but it was still way ahead of the league average of .41.0.

He also led his team to a 49 and 26 record.




Meanwhile, Russell averaged 18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career-best .46.7 from the field.

Russell's Celtics, as usual, had the best record in the league, at 59-16.

Who won the MVP? Chamberlain (as well as the ROY.)


In the 61-62 season, Chamberlain put up what an ESPN panel labelled as the single greatest individual season in NBA history.

As he averaged 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .50.6 from the field while leading his team to a 49 and 31 record.


Meanwhile, Russell averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .45.7 from the field (in a league that shot .42.6 while leading his team to a 60 and 20 record.

Now, Russell did have a 4.5 to a 2.4 APG edge over Wilt, but that was it.


Yet with Chamberlain putting up even better numbers, and with Russell putting up the same numbers that he did in his '60 season...it was Russell winning the MVP????




Furthermore what I really find interesting is Chamberlain's 71-72 season.

Wilt led a Laker team, that had finished with a 48-34 record the year before, to a 69-13 mark in 71-72.

He only scored 14.8 ppg, but he led the league in rebounding and shot blocking (as he nearly always did), and led the NBA in FG% by a large margin at .64.9.

He was also first-team all-defence and had the DPOY award existed back then, he would have won it easily.

Meanwhile, Kareem's Bucks, who had won the title in 70-71 with a 66-16 record, dropped slightly to a 63-19 mark.

He did lead the league in scoring, at 34.8 ppg, but that mark was way less than Wilt's 61-62 season.


yet Kareem goes on to win the MVP.

What exactly changed in the voter's criteria?

[prolific passer]

Man. Everybody missing the most obvious one that happened in the late 70s.

[SpreeS]

1st Kobe over Paul
2nd Malone over MJ
3rd Iverson over O'Neal

[Dutchball97]

Man. Everybody missing the most obvious one that happened in the late 70s.

OP should've put it in the title probably but everybody missing that he said last 25 years.

[Gooner]

I don't understand these opinions about Rose. He led his team to 62 wins which was the best record in the league. His individual performances were outstanding and he didn't have a super team or another superstar playing with him. His season is a good example for MVP imo.

[SpreeS]

I have no problems with MVP's with less stats but the highest team record, but i dont like Kobe/Paul case in 2008 where teams records are identical and Paul kills Kobe with all adv and impact stats and did it with less talent.