2016-17 MVP Discussion Thread

[red96]

Let's get real here. Unless they change the name of the award, this will always be LeBron. Might as well just exclude him from the debate. I personally think highly of Kyrie, but a lot of people posting in here do not. If you're one of the people that do not think highly of him, you should be screaming from the rooftops that LeBron is the MVP.

Why on earth would LBJ be MVP this year? His team is 4th in the league. He's not he best player on the best team, nor is he doing the most with lesser talent. What James has done in the past is irrelevant.

[mihail_petkov]

Spurs are good because Pop, not because Leonard. Also his defense this year is worse than previous years. Most probably because they replaced Duncan with Gasol.

Spurs without Leonard:
2016-2017: 3-0
2015-2016: 7-3

Spurs are good because they have a DPOY who averages 26ppg.

Also, try applying some context...they are 3-0 without him when facing Phoenix,Portland, Brooklyn...aka 2 of the bottom 3 teams in the entire NBA, and a non-playoff team in Portland.

Sure, what about tonight? Already 4-0 without Leonard, a win @Raptors. Maybe Raptors are bad too?

[K_chile22]

Idk how much is Kawhi being awesome, which he is, or Pop just working the regular season.

Feel like Pop would have the Kings near 50. He just has the regular season figured out man

[Fico92]

Spurs are good because Pop, not because Leonard. Also his defense this year is worse than previous years. Most probably because they replaced Duncan with Gasol.

Spurs without Leonard:
2016-2017: 3-0
2015-2016: 7-3

Spurs are good because they have a DPOY who averages 26ppg.

Also, try applying some context...they are 3-0 without him when facing Phoenix,Portland, Brooklyn...aka 2 of the bottom 3 teams in the entire NBA, and a non-playoff team in Portland.

Sure, what about tonight? Already 4-0 without Leonard, a win @Raptors. Maybe Raptors are bad too?

So, 1 of their 4 wins was vs a good team?

The Warriors won 6(?) games in the PLAYOFFS without Curry last year...does that mean they aren't good because of him?

[mihail_petkov]

Spurs are good because they have a DPOY who averages 26ppg.

Also, try applying some context...they are 3-0 without him when facing Phoenix,Portland, Brooklyn...aka 2 of the bottom 3 teams in the entire NBA, and a non-playoff team in Portland.

Sure, what about tonight? Already 4-0 without Leonard, a win @Raptors. Maybe Raptors are bad too?

So, 1 of their 4 wins was vs a good team?

The Warriors won 6(?) games in the PLAYOFFS without Curry last year...does that mean they aren't good because of him?

Curry was the difference between 50-55 wins team and 73 wins team. We all saw how bad were the 73 wins Warriors vs Portland, OKC and Cavs in the games where Curry was bad.
Remove Kawhi from Spurs and they will still win 55-60 every season. In fact they do it in the latest 20 years because they have the GOAT coach playing great team ball.

[Fico92]

Sure, what about tonight? Already 4-0 without Leonard, a win @Raptors. Maybe Raptors are bad too?

So, 1 of their 4 wins was vs a good team?

The Warriors won 6(?) games in the PLAYOFFS without Curry last year...does that mean they aren't good because of him?

Curry was the difference between 50-55 wins team and 73 wins team. We all saw how bad were the 73 wins Warriors vs Portland, OKC and Cavs in the games where Curry was bad.
Remove Kawhi from Spurs and they will still win 55-60 every season. In fact they do it in the latest 20 years because they have the GOAT coach playing great team ball.

Remove Curry from the 73 win Warriors and they win 62+...remove him this year and they're still probably good enough to win it all.

Remove Kawhi and they lose in the first round. Sure, they win 50 games, because they can beat up bad teams on a nightly basis and if they win some vs top 8 teams that'll get them there. But let's be real here - they're first round fodder without him.

[mihail_petkov]

So, 1 of their 4 wins was vs a good team?

The Warriors won 6(?) games in the PLAYOFFS without Curry last year...does that mean they aren't good because of him?

Curry was the difference between 50-55 wins team and 73 wins team. We all saw how bad were the 73 wins Warriors vs Portland, OKC and Cavs in the games where Curry was bad.
Remove Kawhi from Spurs and they will still win 55-60 every season. In fact they do it in the latest 20 years because they have the GOAT coach playing great team ball.

Remove Curry from the 73 win Warriors and they win 62+...remove him this year and they're still probably good enough to win it all.

Remove Kawhi and they lose in the first round. Sure, they win 50 games, because they can beat up bad teams on a nightly basis and if they win some vs top 8 teams that'll get them there. But let's be real here - they're first round fodder without him.

I don't believe Warriors win 62+ without Curry. He had maybe the GOAT RS last year. Saying they would have won 62+ without him is absurd.
When Kawhi was the main guy Spurs lost in first round in 2015 and second round in 2016. Without Kawhi they are still a first round exit. The difference is not too big.

[CnG]

So, 1 of their 4 wins was vs a good team?

The Warriors won 6(?) games in the PLAYOFFS without Curry last year...does that mean they aren't good because of him?

Curry was the difference between 50-55 wins team and 73 wins team. We all saw how bad were the 73 wins Warriors vs Portland, OKC and Cavs in the games where Curry was bad.
Remove Kawhi from Spurs and they will still win 55-60 every season. In fact they do it in the latest 20 years because they have the GOAT coach playing great team ball.

Remove Curry from the 73 win Warriors and they win 62+...remove him this year and they're still probably good enough to win it all.

Remove Kawhi and they lose in the first round. Sure, they win 50 games, because they can beat up bad teams on a nightly basis and if they win some vs top 8 teams that'll get them there. But let's be real here - they're first round fodder without him.

Lol you can stop pretending you watched Curry at all last year.

[bmurph128]

Let's get real here. Unless they change the name of the award, this will always be LeBron. Might as well just exclude him from the debate. I personally think highly of Kyrie, but a lot of people posting in here do not. If you're one of the people that do not think highly of him, you should be screaming from the rooftops that LeBron is the MVP.

Why on earth would LBJ be MVP this year? His team is 4th in the league. He's not he best player on the best team, nor is he doing the most with lesser talent. What James has done in the past is irrelevant.

Because he's by far the most valuable player in the NBA. He's not having the best season, but that's why I said "unless they change the name of the award" - if it's the "best season award", then you're right, he wouldn't get it.

And when you say 4th best team, that's not really accurate. The Cavs are the 2nd best team in the NBA, with the 3rd best record (in terms of losses). If you want to go by record for determining who the top teams are, that's fine...so 3rd best team. And there isn't anyone on the Warriors or Spurs that are more deserving of MVP than LeBron....and on top of that, to hear people on this board talk about Kyrie and Love, LeBron's supporting cast is pretty weak.

[ken6199]

Let's get real here. Unless they change the name of the award, this will always be LeBron. Might as well just exclude him from the debate. I personally think highly of Kyrie, but a lot of people posting in here do not. If you're one of the people that do not think highly of him, you should be screaming from the rooftops that LeBron is the MVP.

Why on earth would LBJ be MVP this year? His team is 4th in the league. He's not he best player on the best team, nor is he doing the most with lesser talent. What James has done in the past is irrelevant.

Because he's by far the most valuable player in the NBA. He's not having the best season, but that's why I said "unless they change the name of the award" - if it's the "best season award", then you're right, he wouldn't get it.

And when you say 4th best team, that's not really accurate. The Cavs are the 2nd best team in the NBA, with the 3rd best record (in terms of losses). If you want to go by record for determining who the top teams are, that's fine...so 3rd best team. And there isn't anyone on the Warriors or Spurs that are more deserving of MVP than LeBron....and on top of that, to hear people on this board talk about Kyrie and Love, LeBron's supporting cast is pretty weak.

I am not gonna comment what's LBJ's ranking in the MVP ranking, just wanted to point out your fact listing is false and misleading.

Cavs have the 4th best record in the league (I don't know what '3rd best record in terms of losses' means). They are 5th in SRS behind GS, SA, HOU, TOR, and barely above the 6th LAC who have been playing without Griffin and Paul for big stretches, in a tougher conference. Cavs are 5th in ORtg, 14th in DRtg.

When we talk about best team - we don't just look at talent on paper or the number of all stars, or their stats. We look at how they play as a team together with coaching and the system they ran. To say they are the 4th best team is not an overstatement, once the Clippers get full healthy they might be a better team than the Cavs with a superior bench. That's my criteria for 'xth best team'.

My statement above actually helps and hurts LeBron's MVP case at the same time. You can say he took them to where they are with a 4th best team, or you can say he is only good enough to take them to the 4th best team. This is the most difficult thing to argue on not only for LeBron, but also for Curry, Harden, Westbrook etc.

[bmurph128]

Why on earth would LBJ be MVP this year? His team is 4th in the league. He's not he best player on the best team, nor is he doing the most with lesser talent. What James has done in the past is irrelevant.

Because he's by far the most valuable player in the NBA. He's not having the best season, but that's why I said "unless they change the name of the award" - if it's the "best season award", then you're right, he wouldn't get it.

And when you say 4th best team, that's not really accurate. The Cavs are the 2nd best team in the NBA, with the 3rd best record (in terms of losses). If you want to go by record for determining who the top teams are, that's fine...so 3rd best team. And there isn't anyone on the Warriors or Spurs that are more deserving of MVP than LeBron....and on top of that, to hear people on this board talk about Kyrie and Love, LeBron's supporting cast is pretty weak.

I am not gonna comment what's LBJ's ranking in the MVP ranking, just wanted to point out your fact listing is false and misleading.

Cavs have the 4th best record in the league (I don't know what '3rd best record in terms of losses' means). They are 5th in SRS behind GS, SA, HOU, TOR, and barely above the 6th LAC who have been playing without Griffin and Paul for big stretches, in a tougher conference. Cavs are 5th in ORtg, 14th in DRtg.

When we talk about best team - we don't just look at talent on paper or the number of all stars, or their stats. We look at how they play as a team together with coaching and the system they ran. To say they are the 4th best team is not an overstatement, once the Clippers get full healthy they might be a better team than the Cavs with a superior bench. That's my criteria for 'xth best team'.

My statement above actually helps and hurts LeBron's MVP case at the same time. You can say he took them to where they are with a 4th best team, or you can say he is only good enough to take them to the 4th best team. This is the most difficult thing to argue on not only for LeBron, but also for Curry, Harden, Westbrook etc.

Well, for one thing, it doesn't make sense to me to look at where a team's record is right now and use that to essentially rank the teams - where does it start? If you look at teams being ranked in this manner, you will probably find a different top 5 every 10 games or so until the end of the year. Teams also havent played the same number of games, so if we are going to look at record in any capacity, it makes more sense to me to look at losses. When talking about good teams, it's much harder to catch a team in the loss column than it is the win column. Right now the Rockets have one more loss than the Cavs, so even though they have a higher win percentage, ranking them by record I am still going to put a team with less losses above a team with more losses and a higher win percentage.

But I don't even like doing that. The Cavs are the 2nd best team in the NBA IMO. They haven't played like it yet, but then there are often times when a better team ends up with a worse record. The Cavs are a great example of this - we had better records than the Magic and Celtics LeBron's last two years his first go round - but we were clearly an inferior team to them.

Also want to note that I didn't start the "best team/4th best team" comment - that was a poster that replied to my initial statement that until the change the name of the award, it belongs to LeBron. My response was that the Cavs are the 2nd best team IMO, regardless of record right now.

[ken6199]

Well, for one thing, it doesn't make sense to me to look at where a team's record is right now and use that to essentially rank the teams - where does it start? If you look at teams being ranked in this manner, you will probably find a different top 5 every 10 games or so until the end of the year. Teams also havent played the same number of games, so if we are going to look at record in any capacity, it makes more sense to me to look at losses. When talking about good teams, it's much harder to catch a team in the loss column than it is the win column. Right now the Rockets have one more loss than the Cavs, so even though they have a higher win percentage, ranking them by record I am still going to put a team with less losses above a team with more losses and a higher win percentage.

Well, then why are we having this thread? Close it already and start a new one a week before the MVP award. We rank teams on the fly. If you want to rank best 123 teams there are threads in the PC board.

But I don't even like doing that. The Cavs are the 2nd best team in the NBA IMO. They haven't played like it yet, but then there are often times when a better team ends up with a worse record. The Cavs are a great example of this - we had better records than the Magic and Celtics LeBron's last two years his first go round - but we were clearly an inferior team to them.

Forget about Cavs. If tomorrow GS 5 starting players all pull their ACL, I say they are a bottom 10 teams. Or if Curry all of sudden starts hating everyone and decides to heave a 50ft in each possession, 'on no they are the best team they just not playing like one'. Would that fly?

Also want to note that I didn't start the "best team/4th best team" comment - that was a poster that replied to my initial statement that until the change the name of the award, it belongs to LeBron. My response was that the Cavs are the 2nd best team IMO, regardless of record right now.

You are going too far with your last sentence. I looks like you focus more on talent comparison rather than the actual fluctuation of MVP candidates performances, week by week. I don't disagree with you, but I think you are in the wrong thread.

[PeptoKlepto]

So, 1 of their 4 wins was vs a good team?

The Warriors won 6(?) games in the PLAYOFFS without Curry last year...does that mean they aren't good because of him?

Curry was the difference between 50-55 wins team and 73 wins team. We all saw how bad were the 73 wins Warriors vs Portland, OKC and Cavs in the games where Curry was bad.
Remove Kawhi from Spurs and they will still win 55-60 every season. In fact they do it in the latest 20 years because they have the GOAT coach playing great team ball.

Remove Curry from the 73 win Warriors and they win 62+...remove him this year and they're still probably good enough to win it all.

Remove Kawhi and they lose in the first round. Sure, they win 50 games, because they can beat up bad teams on a nightly basis and if they win some vs top 8 teams that'll get them there. But let's be real here - they're first round fodder without him.

Lol...Warriors are not even coming close to 60 wins last year without Curry.

[bmurph128]

Well, for one thing, it doesn't make sense to me to look at where a team's record is right now and use that to essentially rank the teams - where does it start? If you look at teams being ranked in this manner, you will probably find a different top 5 every 10 games or so until the end of the year. Teams also havent played the same number of games, so if we are going to look at record in any capacity, it makes more sense to me to look at losses. When talking about good teams, it's much harder to catch a team in the loss column than it is the win column. Right now the Rockets have one more loss than the Cavs, so even though they have a higher win percentage, ranking them by record I am still going to put a team with less losses above a team with more losses and a higher win percentage.

Well, then why are we having this thread? Close it already and start a new one a week before the MVP award. We rank teams on the fly. If you want to rank best 123 teams there are threads in the PC board.

But I don't even like doing that. The Cavs are the 2nd best team in the NBA IMO. They haven't played like it yet, but then there are often times when a better team ends up with a worse record. The Cavs are a great example of this - we had better records than the Magic and Celtics LeBron's last two years his first go round - but we were clearly an inferior team to them.

Forget about Cavs. If tomorrow GS 5 starting players all pull their ACL, I say they are a bottom 10 teams. Or if Curry all of sudden starts hating everyone and decides to heave a 50ft in each possession, 'on no they are the best team they just not playing like one'. Would that fly?

Also want to note that I didn't start the "best team/4th best team" comment - that was a poster that replied to my initial statement that until the change the name of the award, it belongs to LeBron. My response was that the Cavs are the 2nd best team IMO, regardless of record right now.

You are going too far with your last sentence. I looks like you focus more on talent comparison rather than the actual fluctuation of MVP candidates performances, week by week. I don't disagree with you, but I think you are in the wrong thread.

Yea, the argument got away from me there. LeBron is still in the conversation though IMO. He's more valuable on both ends of the floor than Westbrook, Harden and even Kawhi. Some of his advanced stats favor him, some don't.

[Fico92]

Curry was the difference between 50-55 wins team and 73 wins team. We all saw how bad were the 73 wins Warriors vs Portland, OKC and Cavs in the games where Curry was bad.
Remove Kawhi from Spurs and they will still win 55-60 every season. In fact they do it in the latest 20 years because they have the GOAT coach playing great team ball.

Remove Curry from the 73 win Warriors and they win 62+...remove him this year and they're still probably good enough to win it all.

Remove Kawhi and they lose in the first round. Sure, they win 50 games, because they can beat up bad teams on a nightly basis and if they win some vs top 8 teams that'll get them there. But let's be real here - they're first round fodder without him.

Lol you can stop pretending you watched Curry at all last year.

Remind me how they did without him in the playoffs last year? Better winning % than with him, no? Same argument he's using vs Kawhi in the REGULAR SEASON vs scrub teams can be applied to Curry in the PLAYOFFS vs actual winning teams...

[Fico92]

Curry was the difference between 50-55 wins team and 73 wins team. We all saw how bad were the 73 wins Warriors vs Portland, OKC and Cavs in the games where Curry was bad.
Remove Kawhi from Spurs and they will still win 55-60 every season. In fact they do it in the latest 20 years because they have the GOAT coach playing great team ball.

Remove Curry from the 73 win Warriors and they win 62+...remove him this year and they're still probably good enough to win it all.

Remove Kawhi and they lose in the first round. Sure, they win 50 games, because they can beat up bad teams on a nightly basis and if they win some vs top 8 teams that'll get them there. But let's be real here - they're first round fodder without him.

Lol...Warriors are not even coming close to 60 wins last year without Curry.

Lol they absolutely are. They were able to dominate playoff teams in the West without him. Let's say they lose 2 vs Spurs, both vs Cavs, all vs Thunder, couple vs Clips. Where else do 12 losses come from, keeping in mind the Warriors dominated a couple WC playoff teams without him.

[PeptoKlepto]

Remove Curry from the 73 win Warriors and they win 62+...remove him this year and they're still probably good enough to win it all.

Remove Kawhi and they lose in the first round. Sure, they win 50 games, because they can beat up bad teams on a nightly basis and if they win some vs top 8 teams that'll get them there. But let's be real here - they're first round fodder without him.

Lol...Warriors are not even coming close to 60 wins last year without Curry.

Lol they absolutely are. They were able to dominate playoff teams in the West without him. Let's say they lose 2 vs Spurs, both vs Cavs, all vs Thunder, couple vs Clips. Where else do 12 losses come from, keeping in mind the Warriors dominated a couple WC playoff teams without him.

Yea...you mean Curry's historic +22 On/Off rating? Warriors were a whopping -4.3 with him on the bench.

Cool story though I really enjoyed it.

[K_chile22]

Remove Curry from the 73 win Warriors and they win 62+...remove him this year and they're still probably good enough to win it all.

Remove Kawhi and they lose in the first round. Sure, they win 50 games, because they can beat up bad teams on a nightly basis and if they win some vs top 8 teams that'll get them there. But let's be real here - they're first round fodder without him.

Lol you can stop pretending you watched Curry at all last year.

Remind me how they did without him in the playoffs last year? Better winning % than with him, no? Same argument he's using vs Kawhi in the REGULAR SEASON vs scrub teams can be applied to Curry in the PLAYOFFS vs actual winning teams...

I get the regular vs post season thing, but the Raptors are so much better than last year's Blazers and especially last year's Rockets

[jangles86]

John Wall would have to be moving well into top 10 MVP ratings by now.

[Edrees]

the MVP race is going to be hotly contested. For awhile harden looked like a runaway winner, but if he ends up wining 10 games less than Leonard's team and 20 games less than durant, it's going to be very close. Westbrook can still catch up in wins now too.

The media clearly favors westbrook as he still got more all star votes than harden from the media, and that was when harden had a huge lead on wins. and if they end up being close to each other win wins I can gaurantee you Westbrook will win MVP. (if they within 2-3 games of each other)

My prediction, if Houston continues to slide a bit into the 4th seed or 3rd seed that is way below 2nd, is either westbrook or Durant. If you look at media votes they also are giving durant a lot of love. Steph curry only had 6 votes. The whole "you can't give it to durant because of curry" might not work out because the media isn't giving love to steph this year. It's being seen as Durant's team.