2016-17 MVP Discussion Thread

[PeptoKlepto]

The logic isn't inconsistent and the comparisons to that MVP race are way off.

1) Rocket's fans not only argued that Curry had significantly more help than Harden, but that he arguably had the most talented roster in basketball helping him win that many games. Even if you want to argue that Harden has more help than Westbrook, it wouldn't be a significant upgrade and nowhere near one of the most talented supporting casts in basketball.

2) Harden still led the Rockets to one of the best records in basketball that season.

That's nothing like this year. The supporting talent gap between the two teams is not major, and one guy isn't leading his team to one of the best records in basketball.

Revisionist history. The year prior the Warriors were a low-seeded playoff team, but in the '14-'15 they had the unequivocal best roster in the NBA? No, what happened was that all of the these players (as well as the offense) developed organically around Curry and evolved a symbiotic relationship with each other within Kerr's offense - the same exact thing that's happening with the Rockets, Harden and D'Antoni this year. Same principles apply here, whether you think that Warriors team was better than this Rockets team or not.

You don't get to say the that Harden should've won the MVP over Curry (who also had him beat in almost every significant advanced stat) b/c Harden had it harder. Guess what? Westbrook has it harder than Harden this year - why aren't Rockets fans clamoring to give him the MVP?

Don't think Harden should've won, but to play devils advocate: that Rockets team won 56 games and was the 2 seed. Thunder probably won't hit 50 and definitely won't have home court. Team success between the two is pretty large, it's not like that Rockets team didn't have a great record, like the Thunder this year

And the Warriors won 67 games that year and had an all-time type of season - largely because of Curry. 11 win difference between the Warriors/Rockets that year is probably around what the difference will be between the Rockets/OKC this year give or take a few wins.

Enough with the mental gymnastics and nit-picking. The same principle applies to both circumstances, despite the differences you two are attempting to exaggerate.

[kingmalaki]

Revisionist history. The year prior the Warriors were a low-seeded playoff team, but in the '14-'15 they had the unequivocal best roster in the NBA?

Yes. The 2014 team didn't have Barbosa, Livingston or Ezeli. Those are major bench improvements. Green and Barnes were also rookies in 2014 and had improvements in their games the following season, especially Green, who transformed into one of the best and most versatile players in basketball. And it's really his presence and defensive versatility that allows the GS system to work. Someone has revisionist history but it's not me.

You don't get to say the that Harden should've won the MVP over Curry (who also had him beat in almost every significant advanced stat) b/c Harden had it harder. Guess what? Westbrook has it harder than Harden this year - why aren't Rockets fans clamoring to give him the MVP?

Harden does not have significantly more help than Westbrook (like Curry had over him) and Harden led his team to a top record in basketball (Westbrook hasn't at this point). The comparison is a really poor one.

[cdubbz]

Harden and Westbrook def favorites for MVP but man both have huge flaws compared to last MVPs. Lack of defense, turnovers, Westbrook is on a bottom playoff team etc

[PeptoKlepto]

Revisionist history. The year prior the Warriors were a low-seeded playoff team, but in the '14-'15 they had the unequivocal best roster in the NBA?

Yes. The 2014 team didn't have Barbosa, Livingston or Ezeli. Those are major bench improvements. Green and Barnes were also rookies in 2014 and had improvements in their games the following season, especially Green, who transformed into one of the best and most versatile players in basketball. And it's really his presence and defensive versatility that allows the GS system to work. Someone has revisionist history but it's not me.

You don't get to say the that Harden should've won the MVP over Curry (who also had him beat in almost every significant advanced stat) b/c Harden had it harder. Guess what? Westbrook has it harder than Harden this year - why aren't Rockets fans clamoring to give him the MVP?

Harden does not have significantly more help than Westbrook (like Curry had over him) and Harden led his team to a top record in basketball (Westbrook hasn't at this point). The comparison is a really poor one.

You should open up a deli shop with all that bologna.

[Bergmaniac]

Harden does not have significantly more help than Westbrook

How do you explain that when Harden is on the bench, the Rockets have a +4.1 Net Rating, while when Westbrook is on the bench, the Thunder have a -10.9 Net rating?

[PeptoKlepto]

Harden does not have significantly more help than Westbrook

How do you explain that when Harden is on the bench, the Rockets have a +4.1 Net Rating, while when Westbrook is on the bench, the Thunder have a -10.9 Net rating?

Leandro Barbosa.

oh wait.

[MrCheerios]

Revisionist history. The year prior the Warriors were a low-seeded playoff team, but in the '14-'15 they had the unequivocal best roster in the NBA? No, what happened was that all of the these players (as well as the offense) developed organically around Curry and evolved a symbiotic relationship with each other within Kerr's offense - the same exact thing that's happening with the Rockets, Harden and D'Antoni this year. Same principles apply here, whether you think that Warriors team was better than this Rockets team or not.

You don't get to say the that Harden should've won the MVP over Curry (who also had him beat in almost every significant advanced stat) b/c Harden had it harder. Guess what? Westbrook has it harder than Harden this year - why aren't Rockets fans clamoring to give him the MVP?

Don't think Harden should've won, but to play devils advocate: that Rockets team won 56 games and was the 2 seed. Thunder probably won't hit 50 and definitely won't have home court. Team success between the two is pretty large, it's not like that Rockets team didn't have a great record, like the Thunder this year

And the Warriors won 67 games that year and had an all-time type of season - largely because of Curry. 11 win difference between the Warriors/Rockets that year is probably around what the difference will be between the Rockets/OKC this year give or take a few wins.

Enough with the mental gymnastics and nit-picking. The same principle applies to both circumstances, despite the differences you two are attempting to exaggerate.

The circumstances are not the same, whether you admit it or not. Curry had two all-stars teammates in 14-15, while Harden had none. The only other player with any start power on Houston, Dwight, missed half the season. Golden State's bench was greatly improved over the year prior and universally regarded as better than Houston's. Houston's bench featured Jason Terry, Corey Brewer, and Josh Smith, the latter two being midseason acquisitions. Unless you think Steph Curry's performance was so personally badass that he dragged two teammates to the all-star game, he had much more help than Harden. With hindsight it's clear how much more help Curry had.

Harden will still be Houston's only all-star game this year, same with Westbrook and the Thunder. And considering they have a 7.5 game lead over OKC right now halfway through the season, it wouldn't be surprising to see a bigger than 11 game gap between the two teams by season's end. Personally, I don't think Westbrook will deserve MVP if his team is a 45-46 win, 7th seed team. If they win 55+ and are a homecourt team, give him the nod over Harden.

[K_chile22]

Revisionist history. The year prior the Warriors were a low-seeded playoff team, but in the '14-'15 they had the unequivocal best roster in the NBA? No, what happened was that all of the these players (as well as the offense) developed organically around Curry and evolved a symbiotic relationship with each other within Kerr's offense - the same exact thing that's happening with the Rockets, Harden and D'Antoni this year. Same principles apply here, whether you think that Warriors team was better than this Rockets team or not.

You don't get to say the that Harden should've won the MVP over Curry (who also had him beat in almost every significant advanced stat) b/c Harden had it harder. Guess what? Westbrook has it harder than Harden this year - why aren't Rockets fans clamoring to give him the MVP?

Don't think Harden should've won, but to play devils advocate: that Rockets team won 56 games and was the 2 seed. Thunder probably won't hit 50 and definitely won't have home court. Team success between the two is pretty large, it's not like that Rockets team didn't have a great record, like the Thunder this year

And the Warriors won 67 games that year and had an all-time type of season - largely because of Curry. 11 win difference between the Warriors/Rockets that year is probably around what the difference will be between the Rockets/OKC this year give or take a few wins.

Enough with the mental gymnastics and nit-picking. The same principle applies to both circumstances, despite the differences you two are attempting to exaggerate.

My point was more about how there hasn't been an MVP with under 50 wins since 82, while 56 wins has won some guys MVP (though not a whole lot) , than it was about the gap

[PeptoKlepto]

Don't think Harden should've won, but to play devils advocate: that Rockets team won 56 games and was the 2 seed. Thunder probably won't hit 50 and definitely won't have home court. Team success between the two is pretty large, it's not like that Rockets team didn't have a great record, like the Thunder this year

And the Warriors won 67 games that year and had an all-time type of season - largely because of Curry. 11 win difference between the Warriors/Rockets that year is probably around what the difference will be between the Rockets/OKC this year give or take a few wins.

Enough with the mental gymnastics and nit-picking. The same principle applies to both circumstances, despite the differences you two are attempting to exaggerate.

The circumstances are not the same, whether you admit it or not. Curry had two all-stars teammates in 14-15, while Harden had none. The only other player with any start power on Houston, Dwight, missed half the season. Golden State's bench was greatly improved over the year prior and universally regarded as better than Houston's. Houston's bench featured Jason Terry, Corey Brewer, and Josh Smith, the latter two being midseason acquisitions. Unless you think Steph Curry's performance was so personally badass that he dragged two teammates to the all-star game, he had much more help than Harden. With hindsight it's clear how much more help Curry had.

Harden will still be Houston's only all-star game this year, same with Westbrook and the Thunder. And considering they have a 7.5 game lead over OKC right now halfway through the season, it wouldn't be surprising to see a bigger than 11 game gap between the two teams by season's end. Personally, I don't think Westbrook will deserve MVP if his team is a 45-46 win, 7th seed team. If they win 55+ and are a homecourt team, give him the nod over Harden.

Wait, I'm confused. Who were the two all stars Curry had during the 14-15 season?

He had Klay, who was a glorified 3+D player at the point in his career.

Net Rating:

Harden: +8.8
Curry: +17.8

Not even close.

[Vator]

Harden does not have significantly more help than Westbrook

How do you explain that when Harden is on the bench, the Rockets have a +4.1 Net Rating, while when Westbrook is on the bench, the Thunder have a -10.9 Net rating?

Coaching. The difference is coaching. Mike D is doing a great job. He's gotten the team to buy in to his philosophy.

Look at the Rockets' roster top to bottom and convince me that's a 60 win team. Before the season, I think outside of Wetbrook and Harden most people would have said Adams, Oladipo, and Kanter were the next three best players on either roster. I think all three of those guys would look great on the Rockets and flourish. The Rockets are coming off the bench with Eric Gordon, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, Corey Brewer, and Nene. Before the season, does that look like a good bench? The coach has them playing hard and running a good system.

[PeptoKlepto]

Don't think Harden should've won, but to play devils advocate: that Rockets team won 56 games and was the 2 seed. Thunder probably won't hit 50 and definitely won't have home court. Team success between the two is pretty large, it's not like that Rockets team didn't have a great record, like the Thunder this year

And the Warriors won 67 games that year and had an all-time type of season - largely because of Curry. 11 win difference between the Warriors/Rockets that year is probably around what the difference will be between the Rockets/OKC this year give or take a few wins.

Enough with the mental gymnastics and nit-picking. The same principle applies to both circumstances, despite the differences you two are attempting to exaggerate.

My point was more about how there hasn't been an MVP with under 50 wins since 82, while 56 wins has won some guys MVP (though not a whole lot) , than it was about the gap

I said I agree with you about Harden being the MVP - but don't act like there isn't a hole the underlying logic here. If Harden should've been the MVP back in '14 bcause he had less help than Curry, why shouldn't Westbrook get the MVP over Harden because he has less help than him today?

You guys can try and exaggerate/nitpick the differences all you want, but the point still stands.

[PeptoKlepto]

Harden does not have significantly more help than Westbrook

How do you explain that when Harden is on the bench, the Rockets have a +4.1 Net Rating, while when Westbrook is on the bench, the Thunder have a -10.9 Net rating?

Coaching. The difference is coaching. Mike D is doing a great job. He's gotten the team to buy in to his philosophy.

Look at the Rockets' roster top to bottom and convince me that's a 60 win team. Before the season, I think outside of Wetbrook and Harden most people would have said Adams, Oladipo, and Kanter were the next three best players on either roster. I think all three of those guys would look great on the Rockets and flourish. The Rockets are coming off the bench with Eric Gordon, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, Corey Brewer, and Nene. Before the season, does that look like a good bench? The coach has them playing hard and running a good system.

Nobody thought the 14-15 Warriors would come near 67 wins, either, based on the roster. Sometimes players organically develop around a superstar. That's what happened around Curry back then, and it's happening around Harden now. They just needed a coaching/philosophy change, the same way the Warriors did when they canned Jackson for Kerr.

[bondom34]

How do you explain that when Harden is on the bench, the Rockets have a +4.1 Net Rating, while when Westbrook is on the bench, the Thunder have a -10.9 Net rating?

Coaching. The difference is coaching. Mike D is doing a great job. He's gotten the team to buy in to his philosophy.

Look at the Rockets' roster top to bottom and convince me that's a 60 win team. Before the season, I think outside of Wetbrook and Harden most people would have said Adams, Oladipo, and Kanter were the next three best players on either roster. I think all three of those guys would look great on the Rockets and flourish. The Rockets are coming off the bench with Eric Gordon, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, Corey Brewer, and Nene. Before the season, does that look like a good bench? The coach has them playing hard and running a good system.

Nobody thought the 14-15 Warriors would come near 67 wins, either, based on the roster. Sometimes players organically develop around a superstar. That's what happened around Curry back then, and it's happening around Harden now. They just needed a coaching/philosophy change, the same way the Warriors did when they canned Jackson for Kerr.

I'll say this again. Houston always had this talent, there were 2 questions:
1. Could they stay healthy? Gordon and Anderson haven't in about 3 years. They're both totally healthy this year.

2. Could they play defense? They've been winning since Beverly returned and the defense made a leap. Before that they were floating at .500 the first few weeks.

We all knew the offense would be amazing if those guys stayed healthy, but didn't think they would. Give Westbrook Houston's shooting and bench and yeah, he's doing the same thing. He's got zero spacing to work with.

[Vator]

How do you explain that when Harden is on the bench, the Rockets have a +4.1 Net Rating, while when Westbrook is on the bench, the Thunder have a -10.9 Net rating?

Coaching. The difference is coaching. Mike D is doing a great job. He's gotten the team to buy in to his philosophy.

Look at the Rockets' roster top to bottom and convince me that's a 60 win team. Before the season, I think outside of Wetbrook and Harden most people would have said Adams, Oladipo, and Kanter were the next three best players on either roster. I think all three of those guys would look great on the Rockets and flourish. The Rockets are coming off the bench with Eric Gordon, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, Corey Brewer, and Nene. Before the season, does that look like a good bench? The coach has them playing hard and running a good system.

Nobody thought the 14-15 Warriors would come near 67 wins, either, based on the roster. Sometimes players organically develop around a superstar. That's what happened around Curry back then, and it's happening around Harden now. They just needed a coaching/philosophy change, the same way the Warriors did when they canned Jackson for Kerr.

I completely agree with this. At least I hope that is what is happening. It would be special. I remember thinking what the heck is going on with the Warriors. They were so fun to watch.

My point was only to point out that there isn't some huge talent gap. I think if you swap coaches, the Thunder would be better than the Rockets right now. I really believe that. The Thunder have talent and they are limited in some areas, but the Rockets have limitations as well. Mike D just so happens to accentuate the things that they are good at offensively so it covers up the deficiencies a little better.

[Vator]

Coaching. The difference is coaching. Mike D is doing a great job. He's gotten the team to buy in to his philosophy.

Look at the Rockets' roster top to bottom and convince me that's a 60 win team. Before the season, I think outside of Wetbrook and Harden most people would have said Adams, Oladipo, and Kanter were the next three best players on either roster. I think all three of those guys would look great on the Rockets and flourish. The Rockets are coming off the bench with Eric Gordon, Sam Dekker, Montrezl Harrell, Corey Brewer, and Nene. Before the season, does that look like a good bench? The coach has them playing hard and running a good system.

Nobody thought the 14-15 Warriors would come near 67 wins, either, based on the roster. Sometimes players organically develop around a superstar. That's what happened around Curry back then, and it's happening around Harden now. They just needed a coaching/philosophy change, the same way the Warriors did when they canned Jackson for Kerr.

I'll say this again. Houston always had this talent, there were 2 questions:
1. Could they stay healthy? Gordon and Anderson haven't in about 3 years. They're both totally healthy this year.

2. Could they play defense? They've been winning since Beverly returned and the defense made a leap. Before that they were floating at .500 the first few weeks.

We all knew the offense would be amazing if those guys stayed healthy, but didn't think they would. Give Westbrook Houston's shooting and bench and yeah, he's doing the same thing. He's got zero spacing to work with.

Serious question...do you think the Thunder would be a better team right now if Mike D was your coach?

I do...just wondering.

[bondom34]

Nobody thought the 14-15 Warriors would come near 67 wins, either, based on the roster. Sometimes players organically develop around a superstar. That's what happened around Curry back then, and it's happening around Harden now. They just needed a coaching/philosophy change, the same way the Warriors did when they canned Jackson for Kerr.

I'll say this again. Houston always had this talent, there were 2 questions:
1. Could they stay healthy? Gordon and Anderson haven't in about 3 years. They're both totally healthy this year.

2. Could they play defense? They've been winning since Beverly returned and the defense made a leap. Before that they were floating at .500 the first few weeks.

We all knew the offense would be amazing if those guys stayed healthy, but didn't think they would. Give Westbrook Houston's shooting and bench and yeah, he's doing the same thing. He's got zero spacing to work with.

Serious question...do you think the Thunder would be a better team right now if Mike D was your coach?

I do...just wondering.

I think they'd still need shooters, but I don't think Donovan's a great coach so probably yeah. Donovan hasn't done anything Brooks didn't do prior. MDA would at least probably have a system of some sort offensively.

Edit: I mean, at the same time Gordon is literally shooting better than Curry, so that helps too, but MDA would help offensively most likely.

[kingmalaki]

Nobody thought the 14-15 Warriors would come near 67 wins, either, based on the roster.
Sometimes players organically develop around a superstar. That's what happened around Curry back then, and it's happening around Harden now. They just needed a coaching/philosophy change, the same way the Warriors did when they canned Jackson for Kerr.

That's because no one knew Green was arguably a top 20 player in all of basketball his rookie year, if not higher. Having one player that good can make all the difference in the world. GS discovered one from no where, and had a 2nd rookie develop into a very good player (Barnes). Plus the bench acquisitions.

It was obvious to anyone watching basketball how talented that team was. It's obvious to anyone watching basketball how starless the Rockets were in 2015 AND now. Presti wouldn't trade Kanter, Adams or Oladipo for any current Rocket not named Harden. You overstate the talent difference today and understate it in 2015.

[Vator]

I'll say this again. Houston always had this talent, there were 2 questions:
1. Could they stay healthy? Gordon and Anderson haven't in about 3 years. They're both totally healthy this year.

2. Could they play defense? They've been winning since Beverly returned and the defense made a leap. Before that they were floating at .500 the first few weeks.

We all knew the offense would be amazing if those guys stayed healthy, but didn't think they would. Give Westbrook Houston's shooting and bench and yeah, he's doing the same thing. He's got zero spacing to work with.

Serious question...do you think the Thunder would be a better team right now if Mike D was your coach?

I do...just wondering.

I think they'd still need shooters, but I don't think Donovan's a great coach so probably yeah. Donovan hasn't done anything Brooks didn't do prior. MDA would at least probably have a system of some sort offensively.

Edit: I mean, at the same time Gordon is literally shooting better than Curry, so that helps too, but MDA would help offensively most likely.

See, but Mike is an offensive genius when he gets the buy in from his players and the green light to run his offense the way he wants. I mean Gordon has never shot like this before. Ryan Anderson is in a year long shooting slump at home and is still nailing a career high in attempts, makes, and percentage. You actually do have some shooters on your team. He would play them and sometimes they might play out of position, but they would get easier shots. He would have kept Illyasova most definitely. Why even trade that guy? Sabonis can shoot, Morrow, Abrines. You have shooters. He would deploy them and your bigs would be even more dominant. Montrezl freaking Harrell is 6'7 and a 2nd round draft pick playing center and playing well. It's crazy to watch. Last night this dude get 12 points, 8 rebounds, 4 assists, and 5 blocks in 27 minutes against the Bucks. Mike D basically said he didn't even know who he was when he took the job, but he recognizes things in players and puts them in positions to be successful.

[bondom34]

See, but Mike is an offensive genius when he gets the buy in from his players and the green light to run his offense the way he wants. I mean Gordon has never shot like this before. Ryan Anderson is in a shooting slump at home shooting and is still nailing a career high in attempts, makes, and percentage. You have some shooters on your team. He would play them and sometimes they might play out of position, but they would get easier shots. He would have kept Illyasova most definitely. Why even trade that guy? Sabonis can shoot, Morrow, Abrines. You have shooters. He would deploy them and your bigs would be even more dominant. Montrezl freaking Harrell is 6'7 and a 2nd round draft pick playing center and playing well. It's crazy to watch. Last night this dude get 12 points, 8 rebounds, 4 assists, and 5 blocks in 27 minutes. Mike D basically said he didn't even know who he was when he took the job, but he recognizes things in players and puts them in positions to be successful.

I'd disagree a bit here. Morrow and Abrines are spot players, that's been their role career long for Morrow (Abrines is a rook), while Gordon's always been the superior player. Ryno's also been a better shooter than anyone else on OKC as far as that goes. There's a reason netiehr of the 2 on OKC have ever been more than 20ish mpg players while Anderson and Gordon have been capable starters. They're definitely more talented, they're better coached as well.

[Vator]

See, but Mike is an offensive genius when he gets the buy in from his players and the green light to run his offense the way he wants. I mean Gordon has never shot like this before. Ryan Anderson is in a shooting slump at home shooting and is still nailing a career high in attempts, makes, and percentage. You have some shooters on your team. He would play them and sometimes they might play out of position, but they would get easier shots. He would have kept Illyasova most definitely. Why even trade that guy? Sabonis can shoot, Morrow, Abrines. You have shooters. He would deploy them and your bigs would be even more dominant. Montrezl freaking Harrell is 6'7 and a 2nd round draft pick playing center and playing well. It's crazy to watch. Last night this dude get 12 points, 8 rebounds, 4 assists, and 5 blocks in 27 minutes. Mike D basically said he didn't even know who he was when he took the job, but he recognizes things in players and puts them in positions to be successful.

I'd disagree a bit here. Morrow and Abrines are spot players, that's been their role career long for Morrow (Abrines is a rook), while Gordon's always been the superior player. Ryno's also been a better shooter than anyone else on OKC as far as that goes. There's a reason netiehr of the 2 on OKC have ever been more than 20ish mpg players while Anderson and Gordon have been capable starters. They're definitely more talented, they're better coached as well.

But you did have Illyasova who was pretty much Ryan Anderson light. He got traded away because of the frontcourt logjam. Mike D would have kept him and played him. Not traded him for another guy that can't shoot. Maybe some Sabonis at center too to open things up even more. Just a difference in philosophy here I suppose. What to do with either Kanter or Adams? Trade one for a better perimeter player? I don't know. This is the way Presti chose to construct the roster. Big, physical, athletic guys that can play above the rim and a few spot shooters that play limited minutes. They are talented though. I watch OKC all the time and Kanter and Adams are good with Russ on pick and rolls while Dipo can attack the basket better than any player on the Rockets outside of you know who. They just aren't an overall good shooting team. You're right. It didn't have to be that way though.