2016-17 MVP Discussion Thread

[Gibson22]

No order podium LBJ JH RW.
Kd
another no order trio curry cp3 kawhi
a lot of other people, marc, giannis, klove, lowry and derozan.
But that's the podium

[pipfan]

I think the tiers should be clear by now
RW/JH
LBJ

KD
Leonard/CP3

[nbafan38]

I know they've had an easy schedule but if the Thunder somehow ended up top 4 in the west Westbrook would definitely win MVP with the triple double thing and the whole storyline.

Look at this slate coming up for OKC until Jan 31st (this is where I think Harden separates himself from him):

Dec 29: @ Mem
Dec 31: LAC
Jan 2: @MIL
Jan 4: @CHA
Jan 5: @HOU (road b2b)
Jan 7: DEN
Jan 9: @CHI
Jan 11: MEM
Jan 13: @MIN
Jan 15: @SAC
Jan 16: @LAC (road b2b)
Jan 18: @OAK
Jan 23: @UTH
Jan 25: @NOL
Jan 26: DAL (b2b)
Jan 29: @CLE
Jan 31: @SAS

17 games. 13 on the road. All the top teams of the west + Cleveland (all on the road). If they're in HCA position on Feb 1st or if the Rox have slipped to a similar record, he's very likely my MVP.

Could see OKC going at least 10-7 in that stretch. They're a lot better than people give them credit for. Westbrook doing his thing, Adams a 'silent' second-best player / partner-in-crime.

Not convinced about them being a top-4 seed, they would obviously need one of the top-4 seeds falling down and then outpacing teams like Utah and Memphis who I rank higher than them if ever healthy.

I also don't see them as the 4th seed which is exactly why if they ended up a 4 seed I think Westbrook should be a lock for mvp given how big of an accomplishment it would be with their roster. They haven't played that well against good teams this year but have been without Oladipu for a while now. Right now probably it's Hardens award given that Houston is shocking everyone at 3rd in the west but I think if OKC ends up 4th in the west Westbrook will get it since he's everyones darling this year.

[walk with me]

1. Russ
2. Harden
3. CP3
4. Kawhi
5. LBJ
6. KD

extra points for being on a team with no superstars for me

[scrabbarista]

Now please explain how LBJ isn't even in your top five?!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My MVP criteria is pretty simple:

1. Is your team winning 60% of its games? If not, you're out of the running.
2. Where do you rank in win shares?
3. Where do you rank in PER? (win shares being more important)

That's it. I might be willing to look at RPM as well, maybe swap it with PER, but basically, as long as we're talking about an 82 game season, I'd have no problem with just giving the MVP to the guy who has the most WS (and his team wins 60%, or 50 games in an 82 game season). In any case, it would be more fair than the actual voting results tend to be (see Korzemba's recent YouTube vid for ten examples of injustice in the voting).

I'd still take Lebron if I needed to win a playoff series, of course. Nobody has taken that from him yet. But the MVP, for me, is all about regular season production, pure and simple.

[mrmsix6]

My MVP criteria is pretty simple:

1. Is your team winning 60% of its games? If not, you're out of the running.
2. Where do you rank in win shares?
3. Where do you rank in PER? (win shares being more important)

That's it. I might be willing to look at RPM as well, maybe swap it with PER, but basically, as long as we're talking about an 82 game season, I'd have no problem with just giving the MVP to the guy who has the most WS (and his team wins 60%, or 50 games in an 82 game season). In any case, it would be more fair than the actual voting results tend to be (see Korzemba's recent YouTube vid for ten examples of injustice in the voting).

I'd still take Lebron if I needed to win a playoff series, of course. Nobody has taken that from him yet. But the MVP, for me, is all about regular season production, pure and simple.

Damn.

Must be nice to be able to determine an MVP without watching a single game. What a time!

[Boarder Patrol]

Would be pretty stunned if Harden or Westbrook didn't win it if all things remain the same.

We may be headed for a very competitive vote though which adds a lot of intrigue. In most years past it's been very obvious. Westbrook and Harden will certainly get a lot of votes, and LeBron/CP3/Kawhi/Durant will pick some up.

[Boarder Patrol]

1. Russ
2. Harden
3. CP3
4. Kawhi
5. LBJ
6. KD

extra points for being on a team with no superstars for me

I'd swap Russ and Harden because Harden's team is over-performing more IMO but agree with the rest of this entirely.

[DK-All Day]

Westbrook may be the first MVP since Dirk to be presented with the MVP while their team is eliminated from the playoffs.

[scrabbarista]

Damn.

Must be nice to be able to determine an MVP without watching a single game. What a time!

Good point, but I'll say two things.
First, as someone who does watch a lot of games, I believe my method produces much more just results than those given to us (over the last 60-ish years) by the current method.
Second, it seems to me that more often than not, people just use the eye test and narratives as a way to mitigate the truth of the numbers in favor of whatever personal bias they hold. Or, they'll choose different numbers, different narratives, and different analyses in different seasons, again, to bolster whatever player their heart wants them to choose. Not everyone does this, but too many do.
I believe the best way to guard against this kind of bias (clearly rampant in the actual voting, imo), is to choose concrete, measurable criteria before the season and stick to it.

[Impuniti]

1. Russ
2. Harden
3. CP3
4. Kawhi
5. LBJ
6. KD

extra points for being on a team with no superstars for me

I'd swap Russ and Harden because Harden's team is over-performing more IMO but agree with the rest of this entirely.

In what solar system has CP3 been the 3rd best player in the league, because it definitely it isn't in this one.

[Young_Star11]

Still finding Westbrook MVP hard to fathom, at least over Harden. Suppose I would say that, being a Houston fan.

[kabstah]

Damn.

Must be nice to be able to determine an MVP without watching a single game. What a time!

Good point, but I'll say two things.
First, as someone who does watch a lot of games, I believe this method would produce much more just results than those given to us (over the last 60-ish years) by the current method.
Second, it seems to me that more often than not, people just use the eye test and narratives as a way to mitigate the truth of the numbers in favor of whatever personal bias they hold. Or, they'll choose different numbers, different narratives, and different analyses in different seasons, again, to bolster whatever player their heart wants them to choose. Not everyone does this, but too many do.
I believe the best way to guard against this kind of bias (clearly rampant in the actual voting, imo), is to choose concrete, measurable criteria before the season and stick to it.

Winning just 60% of games is way too low a bar for MVP. You'd have to go back to 1988 Jordan to find an MVP candidate that had such a low winning % and even then they were 3rd in their conference.

I think a far more realistic minimum barrier is 70% wins and 2nd in the conference. Every MVP since 1988 Jordan has met either one or both of those team criteria, with an asterisk for 2006 Steve Nash, whose Phoenix team was 2nd seed but 3rd best record in conference.

[ken6199]

My MVP criteria is pretty simple:

1. Is your team winning 60% of its games? If not, you're out of the running.
2. Where do you rank in win shares?
3. Where do you rank in PER? (win shares being more important)

That's it. I might be willing to look at RPM as well, maybe swap it with PER, but basically, as long as we're talking about an 82 game season, I'd have no problem with just giving the MVP to the guy who has the most WS (and his team wins 60%, or 50 games in an 82 game season). In any case, it would be more fair than the actual voting results tend to be (see Korzemba's recent YouTube vid for ten examples of injustice in the voting).

I'd still take Lebron if I needed to win a playoff series, of course. Nobody has taken that from him yet. But the MVP, for me, is all about regular season production, pure and simple.

Damn.

Must be nice to be able to determine an MVP without watching a single game. What a time!

That's a weird comment. He could be also watching all the games and wanted to use some advanced stats to measure MVP candidacy rather than using pure eye test.

[scrabbarista]

Winning just 60% of games is way too low a bar for MVP. You'd have to go back to 1988 Jordan to find an MVP candidate that had such a low winning % and even then they were 3rd in their conference.

I think a far more realistic minimum barrier is 70% wins and 2nd in the conference. Every MVP since 1988 Jordan has met either one or both of those team criteria, with an asterisk for 2006 Steve Nash, whose Phoenix team was 2nd seed but 3rd best record in conference.

Reading comprehension, geez. I wasn't merely stating how voters seem to vote, which any NBA fan with the internet should know by now.

Rather, I was offering an alternative to it: my own criteria.

[bakesale]

1. Harden
2. Westbrook
3. LBJ
4. KD
5. Kawhi

[RCM88x]

Harden just makes it look so easy, its just mind boggling. Still the front runner for me, with Westbrook and LBJ in a distant tie for second.

[Baz]

I 100% hate James Harden with all my heart.. but offensively he's looking unstoppable so it's hard to overlook him. Still a long way to go though.

[Jadoogar]

My MVP criteria is pretty simple:

1. Is your team winning 60% of its games? If not, you're out of the running.
2. Where do you rank in win shares?
3. Where do you rank in PER? (win shares being more important)

That's it. I might be willing to look at RPM as well, maybe swap it with PER, but basically, as long as we're talking about an 82 game season, I'd have no problem with just giving the MVP to the guy who has the most WS (and his team wins 60%, or 50 games in an 82 game season). In any case, it would be more fair than the actual voting results tend to be (see Korzemba's recent YouTube vid for ten examples of injustice in the voting).

I'd still take Lebron if I needed to win a playoff series, of course. Nobody has taken that from him yet. But the MVP, for me, is all about regular season production, pure and simple.

Damn.

Must be nice to be able to determine an MVP without watching a single game. What a time!

That's a weird comment. He could be also watching all the games and wanted to use some advanced stats to measure MVP candidacy rather than using pure eye test.

So Lebron James shouldn't be in the top 5 of MVP voting? His team is number 1 in the conference, his team stinks without him and he still controls a game better than anyone i've ever seen.

[MarcusBrody]

Whether or not their teams finish in the top two this year, I'd put Harden and Westbrook 1-2 with a decent gap after them. I like MVP to be more an award for who played the best basketball in a given year rather than a best player on best team award. Now obviously there is the question about how a player could be playing the best basketball if the team isn't winning, but in the Harden-Westbrook cases, I think it's fairly clear that if you replaced them with anyone else in the league, their teams wouldn't be better with maybe one exception.

The one thing I'm not excited about if Westbrook or Harden wins it while not (as expected) making the Finals is that we don't get to see Playoff Lebron going against someone who has the crown that he thinks is rightfully his. That's made from some great moments in the past.