2016-17 MVP Discussion Thread

[nbafan38]

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.

Westbrook continuing to get triple doubles and his team playing .500 during their toughest month while Hardens team is coming back to the pack a bit is bringing Westbrook back into this race. I agree if they end up close in the standings Westbrook will probably win, especially after being snubbed in the all star game he's now everyones darling even more.

[RaptorsLife]

okc is closer to rockets wins wise than rockets are too the spurs. so wins are becoming less and less important in the westbrook and harden contest. westbrook is probably in the lead. durant and kawhi next up

[enko]

At this moment, Westbrook is my leading MVP candidate.

[mihail_petkov]

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.

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...

Warriors won 4-1 vs Rockets, Curry played in 2 of the wins. Overall 2-1 vs Rockets without Curry, both wins were at home for Warriors.
Curry came back vs Portland when the series was 2-1 and they almost lost Game 4 until he killed Blazers by himself. Without Curry most probably 2-2.
Warriors didn't win a game away in the playoffs without Curry. Curry also had the highest on/off of all time last year I think. And you understand that there is a difference between playoffs and regular season? Regular season is much more tough because you have to be consistent every single game, play good on 10+ b2b games and etc... But yeah, they would have won 62+, maybe even 72+. Maybe even they were better without him

[Triples333]

Bears mentioning that some of the media are now promoting a revisionist history for Westbrook and the Thunder. They are now pimping the concept that OKC was supposed to be a struggling Sub .500 non playoff team this season (obviously not true, they were projected better than Houston across the board in fact). JVG brought this up in the Warriors game while they brought up his triple double in the middle of their broadcast. No mention of the ~30% shooting or 8 turnovers or that he was the only starter with a negative +/-. Just, "Westbrook does it again! And this is a team that many thought would be 19-27 right now!". Westbrook has been great, but It's funny to watch the reticence to say anything negative about him at any time. He's clearly a favorite of many media members (the only ones who matter for MVP voting).

[bondom34]

Bears mentioning that some of the media are now promoting a revisionist history for Westbrook and the Thunder. They are now pimping the concept that OKC was supposed to be a struggling Sub .500 non playoff team this season (obviously not true, they were projected better than Houston across the board in fact). JVG brought this up in the Warriors game while they brought up his triple double in the middle of their broadcast. No mention of the ~30% shooting or 8 turnovers or that he was the only starter with a negative +/-. Just, "Westbrook does it again! And this is a team that many thought would be 19-27 right now!". Westbrook has been great, but It's funny to watch the reticence to say anything negative about him at any time. He's clearly a favorite of many media members (the only ones who matter for MVP voting).

Not everywhere. Quite a few thought OKC would struggle.

[bondom34]

3 of 5 on CBSsports.com had Houston ahead.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2016-17-nba-expert-predictions-each-teams-win-total-can-warriors-top-73/

[QRich3]

Westbrook has been great, but It's funny to watch the reticence to say anything negative about him at any time.

I guess it depends from which side you want to look at it from, but I don't think that's anywhere near what I see. So many people still think you can't be a great offensive player if you don't have great shooting efficiency, and that's been pushing narratives against him pretty much since he's been in the league.

[Triples333]

3 of 5 on CBSsports.com had Houston ahead.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2016-17-nba-expert-predictions-each-teams-win-total-can-warriors-top-73/

Isn't that 3-5 having OKC ahead? Including the Vegas over-under having OKC ahead? By "across the board" I'm saying that the general consensus and Sportsbook rankings had OKC better than Houston as a mid to high 40 win team, so essentially where they are at. Comments like "and many thought they would be 19-27 right now" like we heard from JVG on the Warriors National broadcast last night are just more examples of the revisionist history going on. What IS true is that nobody thought the Rockets would be where they are at as a 55-60 win team.

[bondom34]

3 of 5 on CBSsports.com had Houston ahead.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2016-17-nba-expert-predictions-each-teams-win-total-can-warriors-top-73/

Isn't that 3-5 having OKC ahead? Including the Vegas over-under having OKC ahead? By "across the board" I'm saying that the general consensus and Sportsbook rankings had OKC better than Houston as a mid to high 40 win team, so essentially where they are at. Comments like "and many thought they would be 19-27 right now" like we heard from JVG on the Warriors National broadcast last night are just more examples of the revisionist history going on. What IS true is that nobody thought the Rockets would be where they are at as a 55-60 win team.

You said

[quote="Triples333" They are now pimping the concept that OKC was supposed to be a struggling Sub .500 non playoff team this season (obviously not true, they were projected better than Houston across the board in fact). .[/quote]
1. I haven't heard anyone ever say they were supposed to be sub .500.
2. I just showed they weren't projected ahead across the board.

Nobody thought Houston would be this good, but again that's not because of this but because nobody thought Gordon or Anderson could stay healthy, or they could defend.

Many didn't think OKC would be this good either.

[nbafan38]

3 of 5 on CBSsports.com had Houston ahead.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/2016-17-nba-expert-predictions-each-teams-win-total-can-warriors-top-73/

Isn't that 3-5 having OKC ahead? Including the Vegas over-under having OKC ahead? By "across the board" I'm saying that the general consensus and Sportsbook rankings had OKC better than Houston as a mid to high 40 win team, so essentially where they are at. Comments like "and many thought they would be 19-27 right now" like we heard from JVG on the Warriors National broadcast last night are just more examples of the revisionist history going on. What IS true is that nobody thought the Rockets would be where they are at as a 55-60 win team.

I think most people had OKC around 45 wins or so, right now their on pace to win upper 40s so their overachieving a little but not significantly. If the Thunder can get to 50 wins and/or the 4 seed which is not impossible with all the clippers injuries Westbrook would be almost a lock for MVP.

[nbafan38]

There def were people on here questioning if OKC and Houston would even make the playoffs but nobody expected Portland to fall off so much this year.

[Triples333]

@Bon, You showed me a link where the majority thought OKC would be ahead (despite your claim otherwise), that included the Vegas over-under with OKC ahead. If you have not been hearing the noise that OKC is now significantly outperforming their preseason expectations, I'd recommend opening your ears up to it. Last night was the most recent example, and followed the same sentiment from The Ringer NBA pod I listened to days prior. It's becoming part of his MVP narrative in media circles, despite it not being true. Between their b2b tonight and road games @Cle and @SAS up next, I expect them to have the sub .500 month I projected and finish the month right on pace for their ~46 win preseason projection. Meanwhile health or otherwise, nobody had even a best case scenario where Houston was pushing a 60 win pace.

[bondom34]

@Bon, You showed me a link where the majority thought OKC would be ahead (despite your claim otherwise), that included the Vegas over-under with OKC ahead. If you have not been hearing the noise that OKC is now significantly outperforming their preseason expectations, I'd recommend opening your ears up to it. Last night was the most recent example, and followed the same sentiment from The Ringer NBA pod I listened to days prior. It's becoming part of his MVP narrative in media circles, despite it not being true. Between their b2b tonight and road games @Cle and @SAS up next, I expect them to have the sub .500 month I projected and finish the month right on pace for their ~46 win preseason projection. Meanwhile health or otherwise, nobody had even a best case scenario where Houston was pushing a 60 win pace.

You claimed

they were projected better than Houston across the board

Which is not true. As well, there were quite a few who didn't think OKC would make the playoffs. Harden's got his own weird narrative too, despite his team winning mostly because of reasons nobody foresaw that have nothing to do with him.

I didn't hear anything last night because I don't know what game JVG was calling, it wasn't the OKC game.

And most of the CBS panel I just showed had them under that 46 wins I believe. So again, far from "across the board".

[Triples333]

@Bon, You showed me a link where the majority thought OKC would be ahead (despite your claim otherwise), that included the Vegas over-under with OKC ahead. If you have not been hearing the noise that OKC is now significantly outperforming their preseason expectations, I'd recommend opening your ears up to it. Last night was the most recent example, and followed the same sentiment from The Ringer NBA pod I listened to days prior. It's becoming part of his MVP narrative in media circles, despite it not being true. Between their b2b tonight and road games @Cle and @SAS up next, I expect them to have the sub .500 month I projected and finish the month right on pace for their ~46 win preseason projection. Meanwhile health or otherwise, nobody had even a best case scenario where Houston was pushing a 60 win pace.

You claimed

they were projected better than Houston across the board

Which is not true. As well, there were quite a few who didn't think OKC would make the playoffs. Harden's got his own weird narrative too, despite his team winning mostly because of reasons nobody foresaw that have nothing to do with him.

I didn't hear anything last night because I don't know what game JVG was calling, it wasn't the OKC game.

And most of the CBS panel I just showed had them under that 46 wins I believe. So again, far from "across the board".

Really digging your feet in on "across the board" meaning every person everywhere in all places. Come on, no need to be a semantics soldier. Read it as "by and large" or "the clear majority" if it allows you to see my point better. Even in your own link that you improperly quoted, you showed us that OKC was projected ahead of Houston. Here's ESPN's panel where OKC is projected as a ~44-38 6 seed. In reality they're closer to a 48 win 6 seed. So pretty well in line with their thinking (especially if they lose the 2 of their next 3 I expect they will) http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17131591/2016-summer-forecast-west-standings. Houston they have as a 41-41 8 seed who claw into the playoffs by 1 game over the 9 seed.

What's telling to me is that a significant amount of NBA media voters when tasked to pick their preseason favorite for MVP chose either LBJ or Westbrook. http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17155333/2016-summer-forecast-most-valuable-player. Very few (any?) had Harden at the top spot, and these are many of the same voters we are hearing from right now who in fact have votes on the actual MVP. People are proud, and it would not shock me in the slightest if they don't mind pushing the narrative of their actual preseason pick being a front-runner. At the very least, it certainly is not hurting his case.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate this see-saw debate all day. Just had an observation on the Warriors nationally televised ESPN game last night (that they interrupted via the sideline reporter to talk about Westbrook and OKC) where OKC was regarded as a significantly overachieving team by JVG (and agreed with) as a 6 seed. The same 6 seed their own network had them projected as in the preseason. Not the first time I've heard it, and likely not the last.

[bondom34]

@Bon, You showed me a link where the majority thought OKC would be ahead (despite your claim otherwise), that included the Vegas over-under with OKC ahead. If you have not been hearing the noise that OKC is now significantly outperforming their preseason expectations, I'd recommend opening your ears up to it. Last night was the most recent example, and followed the same sentiment from The Ringer NBA pod I listened to days prior. It's becoming part of his MVP narrative in media circles, despite it not being true. Between their b2b tonight and road games @Cle and @SAS up next, I expect them to have the sub .500 month I projected and finish the month right on pace for their ~46 win preseason projection. Meanwhile health or otherwise, nobody had even a best case scenario where Houston was pushing a 60 win pace.

You claimed

they were projected better than Houston across the board

Which is not true. As well, there were quite a few who didn't think OKC would make the playoffs. Harden's got his own weird narrative too, despite his team winning mostly because of reasons nobody foresaw that have nothing to do with him.

I didn't hear anything last night because I don't know what game JVG was calling, it wasn't the OKC game.

And most of the CBS panel I just showed had them under that 46 wins I believe. So again, far from "across the board".

Really digging your feet in on "across the board" meaning every person everywhere in all places. Come on, no need to be a semantics soldier. Read it as "by and large" or "the clear majority" if it allows you to see my point better. Even in your own link that you improperly quoted, you showed us that OKC was projected ahead of Houston. Here's ESPN's panel where OKC is projected as a ~44-38 6 seed. In reality they're closer to a 48 win 6 seed. So pretty well in line with their thinking (especially if they lose the 2 of their next 3 I expect they will) http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17131591/2016-summer-forecast-west-standings. Houston they have as a 41-41 8 seed who claw into the playoffs by 1 game over the 9 seed.

What's telling to me is that a significant amount of NBA media voters when tasked to pick their preseason favorite for MVP chose either LBJ or Westbrook. http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17155333/2016-summer-forecast-most-valuable-player. Very few (any?) had Harden at the top spot, and these are many of the same voters we are hearing from right now who in fact have votes on the actual MVP. People are proud, and it would not shock me in the slightest if they don't mind pushing the narrative of their actual preseason pick being a front-runner. At the very least, it certainly is not hurting his case.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate this see-saw debate all day. Just had an observation on the Warriors nationally televised ESPN game last night (that they interrupted via the sideline reporter to talk about Westbrook and OKC) where OKC was regarded as a significantly overachieving team by JVG (and agreed with) as a 6 seed. The same 6 seed their own network had them projected as in the preseason. Not the first time I've heard it, and likely not the last.

OK, I didn't watch that game, but again I'd say the Rockets success has been because of not just Harden but the other factors mentioned that nobody saw coming, and Harden has no control over. Again, his team has been better w/ him on the bench since December. And some did definitely pick Houston over OKC, and OKC out of the playoffs.

And if you go to this board's predicitons, Houston was projected barely behind OKC:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1462460&hilit=west+prediction&start=240#p49531582

[Fico92]

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.

Yea...do I really need to explain to you how On/Off is a flawed stat? At the end of the day, they won 5 games in the Playoffs without him. In the PLAYOFFS. Show me one other MVP who went out and his team actually had a better playoff winning % without him than with him (over a 5+ game sample size). Hell, actually, let's take out the MVP qualifier...show me one team that did better with their best player out (doesn't have to be MVP).

I'll wait bruh.

[PeptoKlepto]

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.

Yea...do I really need to explain to you how On/Off is a flawed stat? At the end of the day, they won 5 games in the Playoffs without him. In the PLAYOFFS. Show me one other MVP who went out and his team actually had a better playoff winning % without him than with him (over a 5+ game sample size). Hell, actually, let's take out the MVP qualifier...show me one team that did better with their best player out (doesn't have to be MVP).

I'll wait bruh.

Yes, please do explain. Tell me how the Warriors, with Curry on the court were a +17 and when he's off they were a -4.3. Clearly it has nothing to do with Curry, right?

And the Warriors went 4-2 without Curry, and were on the verge of going 4-3 if it weren't Steph's record breaking 17 point OT. That game Steph was coming off the bench and was on minutes restriction...before he even stepped on the court the Warriors were down 16 points in Portland.

Warriors going 4-3 in the playoffs is supposed to convince us that they would've won over 60 games over the course of a long season w/o Curry? Hysterical.

[Starboy]

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.

Yea...do I really need to explain to you how On/Off is a flawed stat? At the end of the day, they won 5 games in the Playoffs without him. In the PLAYOFFS. Show me one other MVP who went out and his team actually had a better playoff winning % without him than with him (over a 5+ game sample size). Hell, actually, let's take out the MVP qualifier...show me one team that did better with their best player out (doesn't have to be MVP).

I'll wait bruh.

Do you even watch basketball? That Rockets team was absolutely terrible and barely scraped by at the end of the year.. The only reason that Portland was even in that position were the injuries to TWO of Clippers' best players. If Clippers make the secound round, I doubt Warriors would even last long enough for Curry to come back. Porland was probably an even worse team than Rockets last year.

[Fico92]

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.

Yea...do I really need to explain to you how On/Off is a flawed stat? At the end of the day, they won 5 games in the Playoffs without him. In the PLAYOFFS. Show me one other MVP who went out and his team actually had a better playoff winning % without him than with him (over a 5+ game sample size). Hell, actually, let's take out the MVP qualifier...show me one team that did better with their best player out (doesn't have to be MVP).

I'll wait bruh.

Yes, please do explain. Tell me how the Warriors, with Curry on the court were a +17 and when he's off they were a -4.3. Clearly it has nothing to do with Curry, right?

And the Warriors went 4-2 without Curry, and were on the verge of going 4-3 if it weren't Steph's record breaking 17 point OT. That game Steph was coming off the bench and was on minutes restriction...before he even stepped on the court the Warriors were down 16 points in Portland.

Warriors going 4-3 in the playoffs is supposed to convince us that they would've won over 60 games over the course of a long season w/o Curry? Hysterical.

LOL @ the mental gymnastics...let me practice some too!

Game 2 vs. Rockets - Curry played 0 mins - outcome? W by 9
Game 3 vs. Rockets - Curry played 0 mins - outcome? L by 1
Game 4 vs. Rockets - Curry played 18 mins, went 2-9 with 5 turnovers, injured. Outcome? W by 25, with a +- of 0 for Steph (you love this stat right?)
Game 5 vs. Rockets - Curry played 0 mins - outcome? W by 33

If you want to give Curry credit for the W in Game 4, it invalidates your godly +- stat. After all, that stat shows a 2-9 player with 5 turnovers as having no negative/positive impact...so they are 3-1 without any impact from Curry there, no? Or is your +- a flawed stat as I stated?

Game 1 vs. Blazers - Curry played 0 mins - outcome? W by 12
Game 2 vs. Blazers - Curry played 0 mins - outcome? W by 11
Game 3 vs. Blazers - Curry played 0 mins - outcome? L by 12

2-1 in this series without Curry...

If you can claim they would have gone 4-3 without him, I can claim they would have gone 5-1 without him (he had ZERO impact in Game 4 vs. Rockets).

Now imagine if the Warriors had a whole offseason, preseason, and season to prepare knowing they had no Curry...and not have to adjust to a freak injury in the playoffs? Or do you think so little of the great players on your team, and the great coach you have? Put down the other players to prop up your fave huh? Those players would adjust and the offense would adjust too, if given time. Easily a 60 win team.