2016-17 MVP Discussion Thread

[yoyoboy]

Prior to every season, the guys who will put up "monster numbers" on middling-late seed playoff teams always get overrated and never end up finishing as high as people think...

It's not all about raw box-score numbers. When has it ever been that way? This isn't the ROTY voting. Heck, Harden's last year didn't even get him on an All-NBA team and he put up 29/7.5/6..

Generally the best player on one of the 2-3 best teams in the league tends to win the award, and that usually goes along with being the best player in the league per not only the box-score but also impact stats. Sure you have exceptions like 2011 Rose, but people seem to think that LeBron not winning that year was entirely due to the narrative that had developed against him. Make no mistake LeBron's numbers were good enough to win, but the record disparity between the Bulls and the Heat was what really made it hard for him to win. Now back then advanced stats weren't as readily available and accepted so not only did people see Rose's raw numbers which upon first glance stood up well next to LeBron's, but they looked at the Bulls' +4 advantage in the win column and their 3-0 record against the Heat during RS matchups, and determined Rose was the best, most impactful player on the year, especially considering he led his team to a better record without any player as good as a guy like Wade on it. (Note: That doesn't mean I think Rose deserved it. RAPM, BPM, and other stats make it hard to argue Rose over LeBron, but I'm just analyzing it from the voters' perspective.)

Harden and Westbrook could put up big numbers, but if they're not on very good teams, no one's going to care what they're doing. The actual impact has to be there and that will be reflected in the win column in the voters' eyes. If either one of Durant or Curry has a great season while leading a team 10-15 wins above the next closest one in the league, I firmly believe one of them will win the award. If the Heat didn't "only" put up 58 wins, I think LeBron would've won in 2011, too. Also if LeBron leads the Cavs to 60+ wins (and the Dubs get around 67) while having an MVP-worthy year, he will have a very good case himself. But no middling playoff teams will not have this season's MVP on it, and you can quote me on that.

[dautjazz]

Prior to every season, the guys who will put up "monster numbers" on middling-late seed playoff teams always get overrated and never end up finishing as high as people think...

It's not all about raw box-score numbers. When has it ever been that way? This isn't the ROTY voting. Heck, Harden's last year didn't even get him on an All-NBA team and he put up 29/7.5/6..

Generally the best player on the one of the 2-3 best teams in the league tends to win the award, and that usually goes along with being the best player in the league per not only the box-score but also impact stats. Sure you have exceptions like 2011 Rose, but people seem to think that LeBron not winning bat year was entirely due to the narrative that had developed against him. Make no mistake LeBron's numbers were good enough to win, but the record disparity between the Bulls and the Heat was what really made it hard for him to win. Now back then advanced stats weren't as readily available and accepted so not only did people see Rose's raw numbers which upon first glance stood up well next to LeBron's, but they looked at the Bulls' +4 advantage in the win column and their 3-0 record against the Heat during RS matchups, and determined Rose was the best, most impactful player on the year, especially considering he led his team to a better record without any player as good as a guy like Wade on it. (Note: That doesn't mean I think Rose deserved it. RAPM, BPM, and other stats make it hard to argue Rose over LeBron, but I'm just analyzing it from the voters' perspective.)

Harden and Westbrook could put up big numbers, but if they're not on very good teams, no one's going to care what they're doing. The actual impact has to be there and that will be reflected in the win column in the voters' eyes. If either one of Durant or Curry has a great season while leading a team 10-15 wins above the next closest one in the league, I firmly believe one of them will win the award. If the Heat didn't "only" put up 58 wins, I think LeBron would've won in 2011, too. Also if LeBron leads the Cavs to 60+ wins (an the Dubs get around 67) while having an MVP-worthy year, he will have a very good case himself. But no middling playoff teams will not have this season's MVP on it, and you can quote me on that.

Agreed. To me the only realistic choices for MVP are really Lebron, Leonard, and Curry/Durant. Lets say that the Cleveland, San Antonio, and GS are all above 60 wins, how does Harden make a case for himself? I DOUBT he gets anywhere near 50 wins, I mean they were 41-41 and they really haven't improved this summer. OKC still has a pretty good team, but they were at 55 wins last year, that's more or less the number you would expect to have a serious MVP candidate in Westbrook. While OKC was better IMO than a 55 win team last year, I still have a hard time seeing them winning much more than 50. I mean those numbers have to be MONSTROUS and efficient to beat the others out.

[AMW27]

I see LeBron having another 25+ppg 6+RPG, 6+apg season. He may not win MVP though.

[DeezRaptors]

Lebron is gonna stroll and take it easy then turn it on during the playoffs. I think Leonard will have a beast season. But I can see Durant or curry winning it. If the thunder overachieve and get a high seed, I can see Westbrook getting it.

Paul George has a good team on paper but they don't exactly fit well. The need more spacing, but I can see George have a good statline

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[PaulGeorgeHill]

1. Myles Turner

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Mr. E]

1. Westbrook

2. Harden

3. LeBron


Harden will have stellar stats & a very good team record. LeBron will be LeBron. Angry Hulk Westbrook is going God-mode this season.

I don't mean to be an ass, but how can you be that optimistic? I mean, during the Ty Corbin years of the Jazz, I was real, I knew are team was going to be at best mediocre, but we didn't really have a great situation. What do you define as very good record? I would say 50+ wins. To me the Rockets ceiling is around 41 wins. Anything higher than that and to me they overachieved.

I clearly see a higher ceiling than you. The biggest thing that will work against the Rockets is health (like every other team); but from everything we are seeing so far this is going to be an impressive offensive system, which will more than make up for an average defense. I think that my prediction for the Rockets this season was between 47-52 wins.

[Edrees]

Personally, I think it's silly to vote for anyone other than Lebron unless that players team wins more games. It makes sense to vote for "best player on best team" but there's honestly zero arguement why a player like westbrook or harden is better than Lebron in any given situation, unless those players can win more games than Lebron which they can't. Even "coasting" Lebron is guaranteed 55 wins this year. Only Durant, Curry and Kawhi's teams will win more games than Lebron.

Best player on best team -----> Winner is Durant, Curry or Kawhi, or a dark horse candidate like CP3 etc.
Best actual player ---> Winner is Lebron
Player who produces most wins with the least --> Lebron

No matter what your selection process is, I see no argument for Harden of Westbrook as being the favorite.

[hodgy#11]

1 - Anthony Davis
2 - Kawhi Leonard
3 - Russell Westbrook

[DickGrayson]

Melo.


real talk tho

1. Harden
2. James/Durant
3. Curry/Westbrook

D'Antoni going to make Harden look like Nash on steroids.

[dautjazz]

1 - Anthony Davis
2 - Kawhi Leonard
3 - Russell Westbrook

How will Anthony Davis be the MVP? I don't even see him in the top 7 honestly. At a minimum I have Lebron, Leonard, Durant, and Curry over him. Westbrook and Harden will likely be on better teams, and they can post up just as impressive stats. CP3 probably wont post the volume of stats of the rest, but he'll probably be the best player for the Clippers who will likely finish with a top 5 record as well. How does Davis knock out any of these guys?

[HardenTime]

Prior to every season, the guys who will put up "monster numbers" on middling-late seed playoff teams always get overrated and never end up finishing as high as people think...

It's not all about raw box-score numbers. When has it ever been that way? This isn't the ROTY voting. Heck, Harden's last year didn't even get him on an All-NBA team and he put up 29/7.5/6..

Generally the best player on one of the 2-3 best teams in the league tends to win the award, and that usually goes along with being the best player in the league per not only the box-score but also impact stats. Sure you have exceptions like 2011 Rose, but people seem to think that LeBron not winning that year was entirely due to the narrative that had developed against him. Make no mistake LeBron's numbers were good enough to win, but the record disparity between the Bulls and the Heat was what really made it hard for him to win. Now back then advanced stats weren't as readily available and accepted so not only did people see Rose's raw numbers which upon first glance stood up well next to LeBron's, but they looked at the Bulls' +4 advantage in the win column and their 3-0 record against the Heat during RS matchups, and determined Rose was the best, most impactful player on the year, especially considering he led his team to a better record without any player as good as a guy like Wade on it. (Note: That doesn't mean I think Rose deserved it. RAPM, BPM, and other stats make it hard to argue Rose over LeBron, but I'm just analyzing it from the voters' perspective.)

Harden and Westbrook could put up big numbers, but if they're not on very good teams, no one's going to care what they're doing. The actual impact has to be there and that will be reflected in the win column in the voters' eyes. If either one of Durant or Curry has a great season while leading a team 10-15 wins above the next closest one in the league, I firmly believe one of them will win the award. If the Heat didn't "only" put up 58 wins, I think LeBron would've won in 2011, too. Also if LeBron leads the Cavs to 60+ wins (and the Dubs get around 67) while having an MVP-worthy year, he will have a very good case himself. But no middling playoff teams will not have this season's MVP on it, and you can quote me on that.

and thats one of the main reasons nobody outside of diehards, kids, and rappers go hard for the nba. The voting process in the nba is a joke, their hall of fame sucks, considering they let almost everyone and their mom in it. The league while being fun to watch takes 2nd to no one when it comes to how their voting process on who wins what awards feel like. More NBA voters play favorites than the more deserving guy winning. I'll give you a recent example. We all know Cam Newton is NOT the most well liked of NFL players, but when it came time to hand out MVP and other awards, the voters wouldnt just give it to carson palmer because they hate cam. thats the difference, That happens a LOT in the NBA, LeBron should have long been unaimous MVP before Curry

[HardenTime]

Personally, I think it's silly to vote for anyone other than Lebron unless that players team wins more games. It makes sense to vote for "best player on best team" but there's honestly zero arguement why a player like westbrook or harden is better than Lebron in any given situation, unless those players can win more games than Lebron which they can't. Even "coasting" Lebron is guaranteed 55 wins this year. Only Durant, Curry and Kawhi's teams will win more games than Lebron.

Best player on best team -----> Winner is Durant, Curry or Kawhi, or a dark horse candidate like CP3 etc.
Best actual player ---> Winner is Lebron
Player who produces most wins with the least --> Lebron

No matter what your selection process is, I see no argument for Harden of Westbrook as being the favorite.

that would have to be harden, nobody does more with less than harden.. lebron maybe when he was younger, but not anymore the cavs are stacked

[LloydFree]

Harden, Westbrook, James. I think Houston has underrated talent and will win more games than OKC, so that will separate Harden from Westbrook. Harden will average 30 pts and 10 assists playing PG for D'antoni.

[E-Balla]

1. Westbrook
2. GOATbrook
3. Muscle Flexbrook

If he's healthy and averages 25/7/10 ish on a 50 win team its his.

[Impuniti]

They're out because unlses the Warriors are better than last year, the narrative won't be there. The best player/best team doesn't matter if the best team is expected to entirely demolish everyone, especially if they don't have a story line to go with it. And if they win under last year's total, there's no story. To add you could remove either of them and still have the best team in the league, so there's no way either is really most valuable. If that's the case,Lebron wins.

That's a nice imaginary narrative you have that isn't the truth. How many occasions do we not have the clear best player from the clearly best team not win MVP? Lets see how that stacks up with the other occasions when they do. Lebron will win if he plays better than everyone else, which I definitely find as a possibility this upcoming season. Last year, that clearly wasn't the case in RS.

Derrick Rose 2012. Durant when he won in 2014. Curry won the last 2. So there's 2 of the last 4 years.

I'd bet anything neither of those 2 have a shot unless they break 73. You can pretend it doesn't matter, but reality disagrees.

Curry was arguably the best player in 2015 or at the very least second best. He was also part of the best team in the league then. OKC was 2nd where Durant won it and he was definitely the best player in the league that year. I'm pretty sure Chicago was first then when Rose was arguably the best. So.. thanks for proving my point? Not really sure where you were going with it.

[Impuniti]

Personally, I think it's silly to vote for anyone other than Lebron unless that players team wins more games. It makes sense to vote for "best player on best team" but there's honestly zero arguement why a player like westbrook or harden is better than Lebron in any given situation, unless those players can win more games than Lebron which they can't. Even "coasting" Lebron is guaranteed 55 wins this year. Only Durant, Curry and Kawhi's teams will win more games than Lebron.

Best player on best team -----> Winner is Durant, Curry or Kawhi, or a dark horse candidate like CP3 etc.
Best actual player ---> Winner is Lebron
Player who produces most wins with the least --> Lebron

No matter what your selection process is, I see no argument for Harden of Westbrook as being the favorite.

Well the point is that you have to show up instead of coast. If Lebron isn't playing as good as he did in the playoffs, it makes no sense to give it him because of what he might do in the playoffs. Though I have no idea why you're making the Cavs seem like bottom barrel that Lebron has to carry.

[BoomBap]

My favorites are Harden or Westbrook

[bondom34]

That's a nice imaginary narrative you have that isn't the truth. How many occasions do we not have the clear best player from the clearly best team not win MVP? Lets see how that stacks up with the other occasions when they do. Lebron will win if he plays better than everyone else, which I definitely find as a possibility this upcoming season. Last year, that clearly wasn't the case in RS.

Derrick Rose 2012. Durant when he won in 2014. Curry won the last 2. So there's 2 of the last 4 years.

I'd bet anything neither of those 2 have a shot unless they break 73. You can pretend it doesn't matter, but reality disagrees.

Curry was arguably the best player in 2015 or at the very least second best. He was also part of the best team in the league then. OKC was 2nd where Durant won it and he was definitely the best player in the league that year. I'm pretty sure Chicago was first then when Rose was arguably the best. So.. thanks for proving my point? Not really sure where you were going with it.

Rose wasnt' the best player. At all. That was the point.
But hey live in a world you believe in. I'll again take any sig bet you'd like if you want to feel this confident. Unless they win 73, neither gets MVP. I'll call it now, because if you don't think this is narrative driven you've apparently missed the last 20 years of history.

[Impuniti]

Derrick Rose 2012. Durant when he won in 2014. Curry won the last 2. So there's 2 of the last 4 years.

I'd bet anything neither of those 2 have a shot unless they break 73. You can pretend it doesn't matter, but reality disagrees.

Curry was arguably the best player in 2015 or at the very least second best. He was also part of the best team in the league then. OKC was 2nd where Durant won it and he was definitely the best player in the league that year. I'm pretty sure Chicago was first then when Rose was arguably the best. So.. thanks for proving my point? Not really sure where you were going with it.

Rose wasnt' the best player. At all. That was the point.
But hey live in a world you believe in. I'll again take any sig bet you'd like if you want to feel this confident. Unless they win 73, neither gets MVP. I'll call it now, because if you don't think this is narrative driven you've apparently missed the last 20 years of history.

Bulls were number 1 in their conference that year. It goes with my point, best player in the best team a lot of the time wins. Or best player overall in top 2 teams in a conference. You haven't been able to list any proper examples. Rose was def top 3 that year.

I don't mind the sig bet but it has to be something substantial. If they win 59 games and finish first, I could see someone else winning it. 67+ wins with Warriors in first place, then yeah they likely win.

[bondom34]

Curry was arguably the best player in 2015 or at the very least second best. He was also part of the best team in the league then. OKC was 2nd where Durant won it and he was definitely the best player in the league that year. I'm pretty sure Chicago was first then when Rose was arguably the best. So.. thanks for proving my point? Not really sure where you were going with it.

Rose wasnt' the best player. At all. That was the point.
But hey live in a world you believe in. I'll again take any sig bet you'd like if you want to feel this confident. Unless they win 73, neither gets MVP. I'll call it now, because if you don't think this is narrative driven you've apparently missed the last 20 years of history.

Bulls were number 1 in their conference that year. It goes with my point, best player in the best team a lot of the time wins. Or best player overall in top 2 teams in a conference. You haven't been able to list any proper examples. Rose was def top 3 that year.

I don't mind the sig bet but it has to be something substantial. If they win 59 games and finish first, I could see someone else winning it. 67+ wins with Warriors in first place, then yeah they likely win.

That's not what I said.

I said if they win under 73, neither gets MVP. If they win over it all bets are off.

But again, you can go back to Nash winning it, or multiple other examples. Its called voter fatigue and having a narrative, something neither of these two have, and neither are nearly as valuable to the team as a bunch of other players. To add, not sure why you decided to target me on this when most of the people itt agree on this point. When you've added a top 5-10 player to the best team ever, you don't win MVP. Sorry if that hurts but its reality.