MVP discussion thread

[mopper8]

Early in the season, there's always mention of other names, but by season's end, it's always just one that rises to the top. The award is Lebron's to lose. He's yet to turn up the wick, and he's already head and shoulder above the rest. He can't be denied, unless it's voter fatigue, and I don't believe that's happening yet. You don't get tired of witnessing this level of greatness.

Well if you are fan of the Heat like yourself of course you don't get tired of seeing it, but I would argue if this were true Michael Jordan would have a lot more MVP trophies.

Jordan won 5, he could have won 7 if not for voter fatigue. You can argue he deserved even more, but he wasn't losing in the earlier years due to voter fatigue.

So it was a real thing, but it wasn't something happening left and right, and I think the effect has gotten weaker over time. In the age of the internet, it's an embarrassment to side against the best player and to have to justify it years down the road.

None of this I think stops a '93 Barkley-like thing from happening, where Jordan's team didn't actually have the best record.

A '97 Malone-like thing though, that's tougher. It probably only happened in '97 in the first place out of nostalgia for Malone never before winning an MVP, and still it's an embarassment.

In short, as long as LeBron remains seen as the best player in the league, he's healthy all season, and his team has the best record of the MVP candidates, I expect him to keep winning the award.

So who can stop him this year?

Well, the Spurs could have the better record, but nobody there can win the MVP.

The Thunder aren't likely to have the better record I think, but if they do, voters will absolutely want to give it to Durant.

And then there's the Pacers and Paul George. I personally think voters would be very reluctant to "Derrick Rose" Paul George, meaning trumpet George in his first truly top tier season. Short of something happening that truly looks LeBron's season look incomplete, I expect LeBron gets the nod over George.

I agree that only 2 years are candidates for MJ "voter fatigue," but I don't even think those years were real travesties. For Malone, Jordan's team had the crazy 69 wins and was prohibitive favorite, but the Jazz were an SRS 8, 64-win team, which is to say, they were title-worthy most years. Malone had a better statistical season than MJ did, 27/10/5 on 60 TS%, leading the league in PER (not that that was a thing back then, but still a testament to how productive he was). This was when old Jordan was starting to look a lot like Kobe--lots of midrange Js and post stuff, high 40s fg%, mid-50s TS%, good finisher but no longer transcendent. Still amazing of course, and its reflected in the numbers, and still the best player in the game, but maybe not the guy with the best season.

And then 93, Mike was clearly the best player but I don't think the Bulls had that unbeatable sense about them. Both the Knicks and Suns finished with better records, and Charles had a really great year. It actually reminds me some of the Derrick Rose MVP in that Lebron was the best player but his team wasn't blowing people out of the water (6.2 SRS) and some other guys had a great narrative and really strong stats. In this case though Charles was a lot more established as an elite player.

[mademan]

I honestly think only Chris Paul or Kevin Durant can beat LeBron at this point, and they will only be able to do that if their teams have a significantly better record, because its very unlikely their stats will be more impressive.

As much as I like Paul George, I doubt his stats will be gaudy enough at the end of the year to edge out LeBron, even if the Pacers finish the year with a better record.

MVP is basically determined by stats, record/seeding, and media hype/story. PG is probably 4th in hype and will probably be 4th in stats by seasons end.

Rose didn't have better stats than Lebron. In fact, they were worse, and he won it because his team was in first.

That was also a down year for Lebron though.

[Hero]

I would say more that it was a transition year for the Heat since they were trying to figure out how to make things work. They have gotten a lot better as a team and Spo is utilizing his players much better as well. Thibs was the major reason the Bulls had such a good record but Rose had a good story so he ended up with MVP.

[Doctor MJ]

I agree that only 2 years are candidates for MJ "voter fatigue," but I don't even think those years were real travesties. For Malone, Jordan's team had the crazy 69 wins and was prohibitive favorite, but the Jazz were an SRS 8, 64-win team, which is to say, they were title-worthy most years. Malone had a better statistical season than MJ did, 27/10/5 on 60 TS%, leading the league in PER (not that that was a thing back then, but still a testament to how productive he was). This was when old Jordan was starting to look a lot like Kobe--lots of midrange Js and post stuff, high 40s fg%, mid-50s TS%, good finisher but no longer transcendent. Still amazing of course, and its reflected in the numbers, and still the best player in the game, but maybe not the guy with the best season.

And then 93, Mike was clearly the best player but I don't think the Bulls had that unbeatable sense about them. Both the Knicks and Suns finished with better records, and Charles had a really great year. It actually reminds me some of the Derrick Rose MVP in that Lebron was the best player but his team wasn't blowing people out of the water (6.2 SRS) and some other guys had a great narrative and really strong stats. In this case though Charles was a lot more established as an elite player.

I personally find the Malone MVP offensive from a "fatigue" perspective because a 69 win season is GOAT territory. So we're literally in "What more could you possibly want from the guy?" territory. I mean if someone was glaringly statistically superior that would be one thing, but all Malone was was debatably superior statistically. To my mind, any kind of "tie" here should go to the defending champ if that team still looks like the champ. Instead the voters essentially chose to penalize Jordan for those thing - as that's what fatigue means.

It's wrong, and the voters should be embarrassed about it.

The Barkley MVP though always made sense to me, and it's also important to recognize context.

This was the season after the Dream Team where Charles Barkley was right there playing with Jordan and very clearly the superior player. He was also moving to a new team in Phoenix that year. All eyes were therefore on Barkley going into the year: Had he truly surpassed Jordan?

What happened? The Suns took the league by storm. They not only ended up with the best record, they coasted at the end because HCA wasn't in jeopardy.

It made no sense in a season like that to give Jordan the MVP based on a "defending champ" perspective. One can still argue of course whether Barkley was valuable enough to his team to deserve the title, but if anyone fits the "what more do you want from the guy?" criteria in 1993, it's Barkley.

[Doctor MJ]

Rose didn't have better stats than Lebron. In fact, they were worse, and he won it because his team was in first.

That was also a down year for Lebron though.

And not just down, VERY down. He had nothing like the impact that first year in Miami that we've seen him have in the years surrounding it.

[MisterWestside]

Rose didn't have better stats than Lebron. In fact, they were worse, and he won it because his team was in first.

Rose won it because he was the more valuable player, though. James went to a brand new team that he had to fit in with; Rose was at the center of a properly-constructed squad that won 66 games and was more dependent on his talents at the time.

Was James still the superior basketball player? Would I still take him before Rose if starting a team? Yes and yes. But that's not what the MVP is for, fair or not.

[aquaadverse]

Rose didn't have better stats than Lebron. In fact, they were worse, and he won it because his team was in first.

Rose won it because he was the more valuable player, though. James went to a brand new team that he had to fit in with; Rose was at the center of a properly-constructed squad that won 66 games and was more dependent on his talents at the time.

Was James still the superior basketball player? Would I still take him before Rose if starting a team? Yes and yes. But that's not what the MVP is for, fair or not.

Yeah, I had no problem with his MVP using the "clearly most dominate player at an elite level on the team with the best regular season record" criteria. Which is far different from the "whose team sucks worse without them" school of thought.

[Pacerlive]

To the stats point I think its relatively different for certain positions and styles. Statistically post up players should dominate with higher percentage shots and that threat creates for others in the form of double teams much like a pnr point guard creates off of pick and rolls. Which one do I respect more? I would say the one that requires less of my team to help me be an effective player. Lebron is different since he can do both but a point guards stats come harder than a point forward imo and certainly health is major factor as well. Physically its easier for Lebron than say Drose to produce at a high level but there are so few point forwards in history that Lebron really stands out from the rest.

[Doctor MJ]

To the stats point I think its relatively different for certain positions and styles. Statistically post up players should dominate with higher percentage shots and that threat creates for others in the form of double teams much like a pnr point guard creates off of pick and rolls. Which one do I respect more? I would say the one that requires less of my team to help me be an effective player. Lebron is different since he can do both but a point guards stats come harder than a point forward imo and certainly health is major factor as well. Physically its easier for Lebron than say Drose to produce at a high level but there are so few point forwards in history that Lebron really stands out from the rest.

A "point forward" is simply a guy in a bigger body with the brain do what point guards are supposed to do. There are so few of them because it's rare to have that combination of talents.

Also, while I would agree with you that in general true point guards are underrated by box score stats, that's not what Derrick Rose is. Rose is a combo guard, and like most combo guards he's in the league primarily because of his athleticism, which is why this type of player is actually overrated by box score stats typically.

[Kayjay]

Rose is a combo guard, and like most combo guards he's in the league primarily because of his athleticism, which is why this type of player is actually overrated by box score stats typically.

this sentence is a complete non-sequitur

[Doctor MJ]

Rose is a combo guard, and like most combo guards he's in the league primarily because of his athleticism, which is why this type of player is actually overrated by box score stats typically.

this sentence is a complete non-sequitur

Sorry, the assumed bit of that sentence I didn't explicitly write before:

Box score overrates the physical and underrates the mental.

[xMADEinDADEx]

Hey if guys like frenchie and cp3 can put up solid stats, so can rose.

Although I see both sides of the argument.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Hero]

Durant's 3 point percentage has dropped considerably this year. Anyone have an explanation? I imagine part of it is due to the loss of Kevin Martin but still..

[fallacy]

Durant's 3 point percentage has dropped considerably this year. Anyone have an explanation? I imagine part of it is due to the loss of Kevin Martin but still..

he's shooting 37% from 3 this year. He's a career 37% three point shooter

[mademan]

Durant's been struggling with his shooting in general. I've seen him miss so many shots that used to be automatic for him.

[therealbig3]

I would say it's still LeBron's award to lose. Not including tonight's games:

LeBron: 26.0 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 6.6 apg, 3.8 TOpg, 70.0% TS, 124 ORating

Paul: 19.3 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 12.5 apg, 2.9 TOpg, 58.5% TS, 125 ORating

George: 24.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.8 TOpg, 59.6% TS, 113 ORating

Durant: 28.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 5.2 apg, 3.8 TOpg, 62.4% TS, 120 ORating

I would say LeBron is putting up the most impressive offensive numbers, and is the best overall defender as well. And his team is better than anyone else's outside of George's, by only 2 games. Meanwhile, LeBron is clearly the most dominant player in the game today.


Who else deserves consideration? None of the teams in the East are really any good outside of Indiana and Miami...the 3rd best team is at .500 right now.

Looking at the teams that are off to hot starts in the West, you have Portland and SA. But they're both winning because of great team efforts right now, there's no clear "man" that's carrying those teams. I guess you could argue for guys like Parker and Aldridge, but the whole matter of "how much of SA's success is due to Popovich as opposed to Parker" comes up, which is actually a legit debate imo. And in Portland...it's arguable whether or not Aldridge is better than Lillard, and both Batum and Matthews have been fantastic. Like I said, Portland is winning based on great effort all-around, not mainly because of one guy. Ditto in SA.

[MisterWestside]

Like I said, Portland is winning based on great effort all-around, not mainly because of one guy. Ditto in SA.

Well, Miami is winning with great effort all-around too, not just because of LeBron

I see what you're saying though. Parker and Lillard are playing terrific basketball, but they're just a level below the four players you mentioned.

[therealbig3]

From what I've come to accept about Jordan's MVPs is that although he was robbed in 97...you could make a very strong case that Malone was robbed in 98 and that Jordan's missed MVP was made up for in that sense. And if we accept Barkley in 93 to be an acceptable winner...then I don't think Jordan missed out on any MVP awards. 5 seems fair.

Can we honestly say he was more deserving of the MVP award than Magic/Bird from 85-87? I don't think so.

This brings us to the 88-90 stretch where he only won once. But let's look at 88, the year he won. Why should he have won over Bird and Magic, especially if we use traditional criteria? They both had monster statistical production as well, and their teams were better. They were the more established stars at that point as well. You could argue that Jordan won an undeserved MVP that year.

89 and 90, Magic won. Bird is injured and isn't as effective anymore. So it's really between Magic and Jordan at this point (actually Barkley finished ahead of Jordan in 90, which is also fair, because he had a monster year as well). The Bulls weren't that good in 89 and 90, while Magic's Lakers were, and again, Magic is still putting up monster production himself, and he was doing this WITHOUT Kareem. I definitely think he deserved the awards in those years.

So I'm ok with Jordan only winning in 88, and even that was debatable. The only years you could really say he was robbed would be 97, and he got another debatable MVP award in 98. So max, Jordan should have won 6 MVPs as opposed to 5, but you could also make the case that he should only have 4 MVPs as well, if you give him 97, but take away 88 and 98.

I think the whole "Jordan was robbed of MVPs and should have a lot more" argument is really overstated if you actually analyze the years in question.

[mopper8]

From what I've come to accept about Jordan's MVPs is that although he was robbed in 97...you could make a very strong case that Malone was robbed in 98 and that Jordan's missed MVP was made up for in that sense. And if we accept Barkley in 93 to be an acceptable winner...then I don't think Jordan missed out on any MVP awards. 5 seems fair.

Can we honestly say he was more deserving of the MVP award than Magic/Bird from 85-87? I don't think so.

This brings us to the 88-90 stretch where he only won once. But let's look at 88, the year he won. Why should he have won over Bird and Magic, especially if we use traditional criteria? They both had monster statistical production as well, and their teams were better. They were the more established stars at that point as well. You could argue that Jordan won an undeserved MVP that year.

89 and 90, Magic won. Bird is injured and isn't as effective anymore. So it's really between Magic and Jordan at this point (actually Barkley finished ahead of Jordan in 90, which is also fair, because he had a monster year as well). The Bulls weren't that good in 89 and 90, while Magic's Lakers were, and again, Magic is still putting up monster production himself, and he was doing this WITHOUT Kareem. I definitely think he deserved the awards in those years.

So I'm ok with Jordan only winning in 88, and even that was debatable. The only years you could really say he was robbed would be 97, and he got another debatable MVP award in 98. So max, Jordan should have won 6 MVPs as opposed to 5, but you could also make the case that he should only have 4 MVPs as well, if you give him 97, but take away 88 and 98.

I think the whole "Jordan was robbed of MVPs and should have a lot more" argument is really overstated if you actually analyze the years in question.

Yeah, there is a sense that Jordan was the clear-cut best player in the NBA for 11 straight years and so 5 MVPs seems low. But he played baseball for 1.5 of those seasons so really you're talking max 9, and he was competing with a peak Magic on a better team early. It's not crazy that he lost a few to Magic, Barkley, and Malone. 5 seems about right.

[kingkirk]

Well Kevin Love is officially out of the race now that the Wolves are under .500.