floppymoose wrote:When the top RPM player is also on the team with the best record, then there isn't much doubt about actual mvp. Harden, Davis, and Westbrook are certainly deserving of being in the discussion, but until either their team is better than GS, or their impact over the season is more than Curry's, they will be fighting for 2nd.
I'm pretty sympathetic to this way of thinking but I'll tweak it:
If a player is on the best team and he's having more lift on that team than anyone else in the league is, he should be the MVP. I don't expect everyone to agree that this is the case for Curry, but I'd hope most would agree on the theoretical premise at least.
i was just listening to a Zach Lowe podcast, and I love the dude, but I do get frustrated at the way he substitutes productivity for actual impact. He uses impact stats, but has shown a consistent resistance to be believe that someone other than the top PER guy is actually having the most impact. If someone like him can't entirely get on board, no way we'll get everyone.
In this particular race, it seems clear at this point that +/- metrics are split between Curry and Harden in a way they weren't earlier in the season. This may make it interesting for me. I've been on the Curry side all year and still am at the moment, however if Harden ends up with a major edge on this front, particularly if it is due to Harden's numbers rising rather than Curry's falling during meaningless games, that may flip me.
I'll also note that I've been mentioning as a minor point that Curry's game is considerably more proven for elite teams and for playoff settings. That factor is something, and I won't ignore it, but I've been thinking more about Harden's brilliance in OKC in an entirely different role. He definitely isn't just some unchanging volume scorer.
Regardless, two amazing players who to me are by far the top 2 MVP candidates right now. Other mentions of Westbrook, LeBron, or even AD (who people know I love) just seem like cardinal violations of the principle mentioned above. It's fine to question the candidacy of guys leading elite teams, but where there's actual evidence of massive lift of a team of Win% X, I don't see serious consideration for guys lifting worse teams lesser amounts.
