Bleeding Blue wrote:Schwabby wrote:Bleeding Blue wrote:I just put emphasis on MVP's bc they are individual and compare you to to your peers...which is a better metric over time vs stats.
I really don't mean to offend you when I say this, but that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
No offense taken, but please explain.
I understand that MVPs are chosen in a vote against their peers, but that doesn't mean the best player always wins. It means that the "most valuable" player does. Maybe I'm putting more stock into the literal meaning of the award (I always have for any sport when a clear cut "best" doesn't separate themselves from the pack), but I don't think the number of MVPs won by a player automatically makes them the best of their position of all-time.
I mean, Mark Moseley won an MVP in the 80s, but I bet you can't guess what position he played, let alone for what team.