2016-17 MVP Discussion Thread Pt 2

[Teckon]

i saw some posters keep using the +/- related statistic that the Harden's team is still winning when he sits while Westbrook's team lost whrn he sits. However, many did not mention Harden plays the most minutes among all MVP candidates.

Harden 36.5 min 2704 min so far
Weatbrook 34.8 min 2572 min so far

if Harden's team is winning when he sit, why does Harden has to play so many minutes? Rockets need Harden to play this many minutes to get more wins. In Westbrook's case, if his team is losing when he sit. why isnt he playing more minutes then?

+/- related statistic depends a lot on the coach's ability to put out an effective lineup at the right time and when to sit their superstar. The coach inability to find an effective lineup when westbrook sit should not be used against Harden or the rest of Westbrook team. To argue Westbrook's case by putting down the effort of his team mates is not something i can agree with.

[scrabbarista]

I hope that whoever wins between Harden and Westbrook, people can recognize that it is no injustice. Both deserve it about equally. It is one thing to favor one over the other, its another to not acknowledge that it's a tossup basically. Very debatable.

This pretty much describes the situation as I saw it between Harden and Curry in 2015, with my personal choice (and the players', I'll remind everyone) being Harden, so when the results came in and Curry had 80% of the first place votes, you can imagine I saw bias. (I did.) This year I don't consider it close, however, and the longer the season has gone, the more I've felt it should be Harden and then everyone else. I just think you can only be so "valuable" if your team isn't a contender. A contender, for me (and it's a loose definition, I'll grant), means a .600 winning percentage. If Westbrook's team doesn't get there, I don't consider him a legitimate candidate.

But what I really don't consider legitimate is the MVP award itself. The voters only seem to get it right about 50% of the time historically, so I'm not really going to sweat it if Harden walks away empty-handed again.

[Patches Perry]

I hope that whoever wins between Harden and Westbrook, people can recognize that it is no injustice. Both deserve it about equally. It is one thing to favor one over the other, its another to not acknowledge that it's a tossup basically. Very debatable.

This pretty much describes the situation as I saw it between Harden and Curry in 2015, with my personal choice (and the players', I'll remind everyone) being Harden, so when the results came in and Curry had 80% of the first place votes, you can imagine I saw bias. (I did.) This year I don't consider it close, however, and the longer the season has gone, the more I've felt it should be Harden and then everyone else. I just think you can only be so "valuable" if your team isn't a contender. A contender, for me (and it's a loose definition, I'll grant), means a .600 winning percentage. If Westbrook's team doesn't get there, I don't consider him a legitimate candidate.

But what I really don't consider legitimate is the MVP award itself. The voters only seem to get it right about 50% of the time historically, so I'm not really going to sweat it if Harden walks away empty-handed again.

Everyone has their own criteria. For me, the team success stuff is all or nothing. Either make the award the best player on the best team (Curry again), or don't factor team success at all. Anything in between is arbitrary. If Harden over Westbrook for that reason, why not Leonard over Harden, and taken to its logical conclusion you end up just giving it to the best player on the best team. Even your 60% number is arbitrary. Why not 55%, or 50%? It's a most outstanding individual award. It's not accurate to factor external circumstances (teammates, coaching, etc). That's my view anyways. I'd vote for Westbrook, but I think Harden has a great case that doesn't need to even reference team records.

[QPR]

Whether Houston were rated as having a superior roster or not in pre-season seems to be an arbitrary point.

[michaelm]

Whether Houston were rated as having a superior roster or not in pre-season seems to be an arbitrary point.

Sure, the whole thing is arbitrary as many are saying.

The pre-season rating comes onto it for me because one of the things which does come into it for me is the possibility that it is significantly down to Harden that his coach and supporting cast look better.

[scrabbarista]

I hope that whoever wins between Harden and Westbrook, people can recognize that it is no injustice. Both deserve it about equally. It is one thing to favor one over the other, its another to not acknowledge that it's a tossup basically. Very debatable.

This pretty much describes the situation as I saw it between Harden and Curry in 2015, with my personal choice (and the players', I'll remind everyone) being Harden, so when the results came in and Curry had 80% of the first place votes, you can imagine I saw bias. (I did.) This year I don't consider it close, however, and the longer the season has gone, the more I've felt it should be Harden and then everyone else. I just think you can only be so "valuable" if your team isn't a contender. A contender, for me (and it's a loose definition, I'll grant), means a .600 winning percentage. If Westbrook's team doesn't get there, I don't consider him a legitimate candidate.

But what I really don't consider legitimate is the MVP award itself. The voters only seem to get it right about 50% of the time historically, so I'm not really going to sweat it if Harden walks away empty-handed again.

Everyone has their own criteria. For me, the team success stuff is all or nothing. Either make the award the best player on the best team (Curry again), or don't factor team success at all. Anything in between is arbitrary. If Harden over Westbrook for that reason, why not Leonard over Harden, and taken to its logical conclusion you end up just giving it to the best player on the best team. Even your 60% number is arbitrary. Why not 55%, or 50%? It's a most outstanding individual award. It's not accurate to factor external circumstances (teammates, coaching, etc). That's my view anyways. I'd vote for Westbrook, but I think Harden has a great case that doesn't need to even reference team records.

Any criteria anyone chooses for the award is arbitrary. But my trifecta of win percentage, win shares, and PER is at least concrete and not subject to my personal whims on a yearly basis.

.600 because that's what I deem to be the outside range of who is a contender.

I don't give win percentage a certain "weight," per se. Rather, I look at all the teams over .600 and ask who has the most Win Shares. That's my MVP. If it's close or clarification is needed, I'll look at PER.

As for external circumstances, they're unavoidable: all individual statistics exist in balance with the other four players on the court and the other eleven players on the active roster. That goes for much more than just wins (which are merely another statistic). The people who claim objectivity by touting "pure numbers," then forget the most important number of all, the number that quantifies the very objective of the game, are in my opinion misguided at best.

[Fico92]

Whether Houston were rated as having a superior roster or not in pre-season seems to be an arbitrary point.

Sure, the whole thing is arbitrary as many are saying.

The pre-season rating comes onto it for me because one of the things which does come into it for me is the possibility that it is significantly down to Harden that his coach and supporting cast look better.

That would be true if he didn't have a coach who is notorious for being a PG's coach. Look back at how many people still think Nash deserved his MVPs

[QPR]

Whether Houston were rated as having a superior roster or not in pre-season seems to be an arbitrary point.

Sure, the whole thing is arbitrary as many are saying.

The pre-season rating comes onto it for me because one of the things which does come into it for me is the possibility that it is significantly down to Harden that his coach and supporting cast look better.

That would be true if he didn't have a coach who is notorious for being a PG's coach. Look back at how many people still think Nash deserved his MVPs

Well I think it's also important people don't go too far the other way and suggest it's all down to D'Antoni, as obviously Harden is the heart and soul of the team. But comparing the OKC and Houston rosters around their stars, I'm not sure anyone should be surprised Houston are a better team collectively. There is a theme to their roster and it fits in with the coach.

[michaelm]

Sure, the whole thing is arbitrary as many are saying.

The pre-season rating comes onto it for me because one of the things which does come into it for me is the possibility that it is significantly down to Harden that his coach and supporting cast look better.

That would be true if he didn't have a coach who is notorious for being a PG's coach. Look back at how many people still think Nash deserved his MVPs

Well I think it's also important people don't go too far the other way and suggest it's all down to D'Antoni, as obviously Harden is the heart and soul of the team. But comparing the OKC and Houston rosters around their stars, I'm not sure anyone should be surprised Houston are a better team collectively. There is a theme to their roster and it fits in with the coach.

Harden was also probably not regarded as a genuine point guard prior to this season, and many including me were surprised he could play a main PG role so well.

[TMU]

It's going to be a huge shame that one of Westbrook and Harden wont win MVP. The things those two are doing this season is unreal, making the extraordinary seem ordinary.

Harden is averaging 29 points, 11 assists, 8 rebounds. Only two rebounds shy of a triple double. Plus rockets have the third best record in the league.

I think it's a travesty if Westbrook wins because he's averaging only 2 more rebounds.

He's also doing more with less, and isn't playing in a system that capitalizes on his strengths like Harden is. Westbrook IS his team's system. Also, he's averaging almost 3 ppg more in fewer minutes per game, and also averaging fewer turnovers. The only knock on WB is that his shooting %s are a slight bit lower, and that his team hasn't won as many games.

What you're describing here is what PER is for. Based on that and what you're insinuating, McGrady should have won MVP in '02-'03 but he didn't.

[StepBackCrack]

Quite funny to see the argument against Harden being his coach and roaster. As if former MVP winners were not on good teams. If there is any consistency and fairness with MVP voters, Harden should win the MVP this season. He has the strongest argument. Period.

[Patches Perry]

This pretty much describes the situation as I saw it between Harden and Curry in 2015, with my personal choice (and the players', I'll remind everyone) being Harden, so when the results came in and Curry had 80% of the first place votes, you can imagine I saw bias. (I did.) This year I don't consider it close, however, and the longer the season has gone, the more I've felt it should be Harden and then everyone else. I just think you can only be so "valuable" if your team isn't a contender. A contender, for me (and it's a loose definition, I'll grant), means a .600 winning percentage. If Westbrook's team doesn't get there, I don't consider him a legitimate candidate.

But what I really don't consider legitimate is the MVP award itself. The voters only seem to get it right about 50% of the time historically, so I'm not really going to sweat it if Harden walks away empty-handed again.

Everyone has their own criteria. For me, the team success stuff is all or nothing. Either make the award the best player on the best team (Curry again), or don't factor team success at all. Anything in between is arbitrary. If Harden over Westbrook for that reason, why not Leonard over Harden, and taken to its logical conclusion you end up just giving it to the best player on the best team. Even your 60% number is arbitrary. Why not 55%, or 50%? It's a most outstanding individual award. It's not accurate to factor external circumstances (teammates, coaching, etc). That's my view anyways. I'd vote for Westbrook, but I think Harden has a great case that doesn't need to even reference team records.

Any criteria anyone chooses for the award is arbitrary. But my trifecta of win percentage, win shares, and PER is at least concrete and not subject to my personal whims on a yearly basis.

.600 because that's what I deem to be the outside range of who is a contender.

I don't give win percentage a certain "weight," per se. Rather, I look at all the teams over .600 and ask who has the most Win Shares. That's my MVP. If it's close or clarification is needed, I'll look at PER.

As for external circumstances, they're unavoidable: all individual statistics exist in balance with the other four players on the court and the other eleven players on the active roster. That goes for much more than just wins (which are merely another statistic). The people who claim objectivity by touting "pure numbers," then forget the most important number of all, the number that quantifies the very objective of the game, are in my opinion misguided at best.

Fair - I'm not saying my criteria is less (or more) arbitrary than yours. All of us are making our arguments on arbitrary measures we happened to like more. It's fun to discuss for a bit, but it's a very subjective process. As long as the winner has some kind of argument based on some meaningful criteria, then I'm not fussy, even if those arguments do not align with my personal criteria. As I see it, that's Westbrook, Harden and even Leonard I'd be OK with.

[Krodis]

Harden's wrist injury may cost him MVP at this point.

Sent from my SM-N910V using RealGM mobile app

[laika]

Harden's wrist injury may cost him MVP at this point.

I highly doubt that Harden has a significant injury, considering that he shot 30 times and was handling the ball the whole time.

What would hurt Harden the most is if the Warriors blow the Rockets out tonight. Harden's primary advantage is wins. No one really cares about scoring efficiency. I think Westbrook couldn't care less about the playoffs. He is going to go all out to try to win the MVP.
So worst case scenario for Harden- Combined with tough games and resting due to their seed locked in, the Rockets only win 54. Westbrook goes insane and the Thunder somehow win 49 or 50. With the difference this small Westbrook might barely edge out Harden in the MVP race.

Of course both have the big advantage that the best player on the best team is completely ineligible this year(and to a lesser extent Kawhi by ignoring wins).

[Dadouv47]

I'm obviously rooting for Westbrook but this thread is ridiculous right now. Everyone pointing his own arguments and denying the other side. It's easy to make 10+ arguments for each of them.

At this point the race is so close that those ''Westbrook is the clear MVP'' or ''Harden is the clear MVP'' is ridiculous.

[Shock Defeat]

Harden should be taking it easy (along with the rest of the team) right now. The only reason he is playing through injury is cause the MVP race. I believe this is detrimental to the team because everyone knows that they are only really playing to get Harden the MVP. Houston has nothing to play for right now. My bet is that they are losing their edge by this sideshow.

[Doctor MJ]

Whether Houston were rated as having a superior roster or not in pre-season seems to be an arbitrary point.

To me the real point relating to that is in recognizing how drastically variable role player performance is based on context. When a team drastically outperforms expectations with everyone on the court looking extraordinarily capable even off the bench, it's probably not about those guys being en masse underrated previously. It's probably about a healthy context.

I think it's fine for someone to argue that Houston's success is more about D'Antoni than Harden, and to use that to argue for someone else as MVP, but crediting these players all as vastly better than previously thought is naive.

[Goodfellaz]

Updated odds. Westbrook inching closer.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[The Box Office]

Screw this. There is no debate with me. Westbrook wins this.

Harden fans are bringing up a "measly 2 rebound" difference, which is big in my book that tips it over to Russ. There's a huge difference between "getting" 2 rebounds and "averaging" 2 rebounds more. Also, Russ is leading the league in scoring at 31.8. Russ is getting most of the buzz and headlines.

Harden stats can be replicated. A player replicating Russ' production comes around once in a lifetime at his size of 6'3". MJ, Kobe, Wilt, LeBron, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and Hakeem can't do what Russ is doing. That's MVP hype. For Harden fans, you can keep your advanced metrics because most people in the media will ignore them anyway.

Bring up the 2 rebounds for Harden. I bring up Russ being the league leading scorer. If Harden is better than Russ then why isn't he leading the scoring? The Rockets are also just the 3rd best team record wise. That's not something for me to brag about. Why isn't the Rockets number one? If they were number one then yes, James Harden wins it.

Russ is that dude. What a season. Huge props.

[RightToCensor]

Look at all the players in league history that have replicated a 29/11/8 season. Clearly not impressive.