RealGM

Hitachi77 wrote:

JustBuzzin wrote:

SkyBill40 wrote:PPG output isn't all that relevant. There's a LOT more to the game than just scoring and the award takes that into account. Scoring has it's own award.

Sent from my [Samsung Z4 Fold] using RealGM mobile app

So why did Nash win MVP because of his assist?

He played no defense. So he wasn't a scorer and he played no defense. His passing is what won him the MVP.

Chris Paul led the league in assists for years not 1 MVP on his resume.

I just need some answers because nobody has given me a reason as to why Nash won 2 straight MVPs.

In 04-05 he won because he led the team to ~40 more wins than the year prior and the best record in the league. In 05-06 he took an entirely different roster of mostly unproven players (only starter that returned was Marion) and still won 54 games and the 2 seed. Most of his competition for MVP that second year won a lot less games. The only one who won more (Dirk) was considered to have a much better supporting cast.

Chris Paul had arguments for MVP some years, like in 2008, but that’s when Kobe won more games. There’s luck in this and every year has to be viewed differently. You can’t just say BS, Shaq and Kobe should have more MVPs and Nash should have less without giving concrete examples that make sense.

So the MVP is the best record in the league award? That's basically what you just said.

That can't be your main excuse when history has shown that MVP is not the best record in the league. This all comes down to his STATS!

His stats aren't lining up with every other MVP. We have had pass first pgs in this league. Magic was the last MVP to win the award as a pass first. Magic was a complete PG he had assist, rebounds, and he played defense. The total package!

The bar was set very low for Nash to win it. His stats for that season didn't warrant him winning a back to back mvp. I think Nash definitely deserved the 05 mvp but 06 was kobes mvp that season. Kobe carried one of the worst assembled rosters to the playoffs while avg 35 6 6 for the regular season. He had alot of incredible moments that season that also tie into the mvp narrative. If i recall correctly the media was never too fond of kobe even in his heyday and that was always going to be an uphill battle for him to garner the support like say MJ or LeBron to win multiple mvps. Lebron is great but he's also a huge byproduct of the media hype machine and espn constantly covering him and thus we can clearly see this in effect today with the past 5-6 years of his massive all star voting popularity.

Yoshun wrote:The Lakers made the playoffs that year and took the Suns to 7 games with a starting lineup of Kobe, Smush Parker, Brian Cook, Lamar Odom and alternating Chris Mihm and Kwame Brown.

I'm not going to say Kobe got robbed, I don't like using that word because I think any of those guys were good choices. They were all deserving. However, Kobe has the worst supporting cast. I think that should count for something. The Cavs were pretty bad too, but That is probably the worst team in the league at the time without Kobe.

At the time, the supporting cast argument wasn't that strong because a lot of other rosters weren't perceived as strong either but won more games.

This is how the other MVP candidates rosters were perceived in 2006.

Nash's Suns
Amar'e is out for the season and Joe Johnson is gone. Shawn Marion is not only the only star player there, he's the only established starter-level guy outside of an age-33 Kurt Thomas. Diaw looked like a bust in Atlanta, Barbosa hadn't done anything at that point, and Raja Bell just broke out as a part-time starter for a 26-win Jazz team the season before. The Suns looked decimated so Nash was perceived as "lifting" everyone. They'd pick up guys like Tim Thomas off the junk heap and they'd thrive in PHoenix's offense. There was a strong narrative that Nash made guys better and Kobe did not. We know now that Diaw and Barbosa were just flat out good. But we didn't know that in 2006. They also played basically the whole season without any bigs before smallball was invented. 54 wins. They also went on to make the WCF but that didn't factor into the MVP debate.

Lebron's Cavs
Big Z and Drew Gooden were the main running mates. Larry Hughes got hurt. Late career vets like Eric Snow and Donyell Marshall were playing huge roles and Flip Murray got signed to a 10-day and immediately became their second option. 50 wins.

Dirk's Mavs
Jason Terry was still shedding the inefficient chucker label, and after him we to guys like Josh Howard and Marquis Daniels being important starters. Erick Dampier and Desagana Diop manning the center position. Washed up vets filling in the gaps (Keith Van Horn, Adrian Griffin, Jerry Stackhouse). 60 wins and they made the finals.

Kobe's roster was still the worst, but when you look at those rosters it wasn't like the other guys were drowning in talent. None of them had a second star that was way better than Odom. They all had better depth.

Because Kobe fans are delusional.

Kobe was clearly the best player that season, or at least the most dominant scorer, but the team around him was abysmal and they didn’t win enough games.

If they won 55+ games there would have been no debate over the MVP award that season.

2 seasons later, once Kobe got paired up w Gasol, Odom etc, they won the chip.

RoyceDa59 wrote:Kobe was clearly the best player that season, or at least the most dominant scorer, but the team around him was abysmal and they didn’t win enough games.

If they won 55+ games there would have been no debate over the MVP award that season.

2 seasons later, once Kobe got paired up w Gasol, Odom etc, they won the chip.

In what way was he "clearly" better than Lebron, Dirk, or Wade?

JustBuzzin wrote:Steve Nash the biggest MVP fraud of all-time.

Those PHX teams were never a real threat to win a championship. They had regular season success but come playoff time they ran out of gas.

Also Nash was putting up 16ppg what MVP puts up those kind of numbers. You can look at who won MVP and you will notice Nash stats are very subpar to everyone else.

Nash was a big reason why the Suns went from a 29 win team to 62 wins.

So I guess we should remove Embiid's mvp since he has far less playoff success than even fraud Nash.

Try to be consistent.

There is obviously a range of criteria used when awarding a MVP award. Statistical dominance, team record, narrative all play a big role. As does expectations and how enjoyable a player / team is to watch. Expecting some sort of consistency over time with regards to the award is unreasonable.

The expectations surrounding the Suns and Lakers entering the 2005-06 season weren't that different. The over/under for the Suns was 43.5 wins and for the Lakers 41.5 wins. Neither team was expected to be great.

The Suns exceeded those expectations considerably. Despite losing A'mare to injury, with Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson leaving for other teams, they went on to have a 54-28 record. They lost three of their top five guys and Nash was the glue that made the system work. He was considerably better than the previous season.

It's also not clear collectively whether the Suns that season had more talent top-to-bottom than the Lakers did. The fundamental different was that Nash made everyone he played with better and a bunch of guys that season had career years in large part because of Nash's playing.

And to be honest I'm fine with the result. Kobe had a historic scoring season with a handful of all-time performances. Nash fundamentally changed the trajectory of the entire NBA over the course of his two MVP seasons. Outside of the Suns that period was bleak from an NBA standpoint, full of superstars that had a me-first attitude and teams playing some of the dreariest basketball in the history of the league. Nash and the Suns were a breath of fresh air and I don't find it remotely surprising that he was rewarded for that by those who vote on the MVP.

JustBuzzin wrote:Steve Nash the biggest MVP fraud of all-time.

Those PHX teams were never a real threat to win a championship. They had regular season success but come playoff time they ran out of gas.

Also Nash was putting up 16ppg what MVP puts up those kind of numbers. You can look at who won MVP and you will notice Nash stats are very subpar to everyone else.

This is no surprise coming from you

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

Answer below for OP.

(1) Carried historically talentless team into the playoffs in the stacked west (3rd team option was Luke Walton).
(2) Was one of the greatest offensive weapons of all time (high scoring over double and triple teams, every night, with efficiency).

You're welcome.

Woodsanity wrote:

JustBuzzin wrote:Steve Nash the biggest MVP fraud of all-time.

Those PHX teams were never a real threat to win a championship. They had regular season success but come playoff time they ran out of gas.

Also Nash was putting up 16ppg what MVP puts up those kind of numbers. You can look at who won MVP and you will notice Nash stats are very subpar to everyone else.

Nash was a big reason why the Suns went from a 29 win team to 62 wins.

So I guess we should remove Embiid's mvp since he has far less playoff success than even fraud Nash.

Try to be consistent.

I can tell you read nothing I said.

My entire argument are about his STATS!

Read next time buddy!

Lawyershawn wrote:Answer below for OP.

(1) Carried historically talentless team into the playoffs in the stacked west (3rd team option was Luke Walton).
(2) Was one of the greatest offensive weapons of all time (high scoring over double and triple teams, every night, with efficiency).

You're welcome.

People don't seem to grasp the bold, and it's more than just that. He carried a historically talentless team to the 8th best offense in the league playing at an average pace (15th in the league). That is insane when you look at what he had around him.

Odom, while being a valuable player, never made an all-star team and was by far the 2nd best player on the team. The rest of the team was quite literally G-League talent. Smush Parker. Kwame Brown. Chris Mihm. Brian Cook. These were Kobe's other starters... and they were a Tim Thomas 3 away from taking out the MVP in the playoffs. Sometimes I wonder what Kobe's legacy would have looked like if Tim Thomas missed that shot.

cupcakesnake wrote:

Yoshun wrote:The Lakers made the playoffs that year and took the Suns to 7 games with a starting lineup of Kobe, Smush Parker, Brian Cook, Lamar Odom and alternating Chris Mihm and Kwame Brown.

I'm not going to say Kobe got robbed, I don't like using that word because I think any of those guys were good choices. They were all deserving. However, Kobe has the worst supporting cast. I think that should count for something. The Cavs were pretty bad too, but That is probably the worst team in the league at the time without Kobe.

At the time, the supporting cast argument wasn't that strong because a lot of other rosters weren't perceived as strong either but won more games.

This is how the other MVP candidates rosters were perceived in 2006.

Nash's Suns
Amar'e is out for the season and Joe Johnson is gone. Shawn Marion is not only the only star player there, he's the only established starter-level guy outside of an age-33 Kurt Thomas. Diaw looked like a bust in Atlanta, Barbosa hadn't done anything at that point, and Raja Bell just broke out as a part-time starter for a 26-win Jazz team the season before. The Suns looked decimated so Nash was perceived as "lifting" everyone. They'd pick up guys like Tim Thomas off the junk heap and they'd thrive in PHoenix's offense. There was a strong narrative that Nash made guys better and Kobe did not. We know now that Diaw and Barbosa were just flat out good. But we didn't know that in 2006. They also played basically the whole season without any bigs before smallball was invented. 54 wins. They also went on to make the WCF but that didn't factor into the MVP debate.

Lebron's Cavs
Big Z and Drew Gooden were the main running mates. Larry Hughes got hurt. Late career vets like Eric Snow and Donyell Marshall were playing huge roles and Flip Murray got signed to a 10-day and immediately became their second option. 50 wins.

Dirk's Mavs
Jason Terry was still shedding the inefficient chucker label, and after him we to guys like Josh Howard and Marquis Daniels being important starters. Erick Dampier and Desagana Diop manning the center position. Washed up vets filling in the gaps (Keith Van Horn, Adrian Griffin, Jerry Stackhouse). 60 wins and they made the finals.

Kobe's roster was still the worst, but when you look at those rosters it wasn't like the other guys were drowning in talent. None of them had a second star that was way better than Odom. They all had better depth.

I agree, people don't talk about Dirk's supporting cast all that often, it typically wasn't great, save for a few seasons in his career.

LeBron's gets talked about a lot, then people throw in that he was in the East, which is somewhat valid. What he did for years with those teams was pretty incredible though.

Nash had a great year, no doubt about that. I don't mean to take anything away from him.

People seem to get a little crazy when they talk about MVP. Really, anyone who gets a significant number of votes is deserving. Dirk, LeBron, Kobe, and Nash all "deserved" it that year. Personally, I thought it was Kobe's year, more so than '08. He put up 35ppg, on efficient numbers for a 2 guard at the time. He also played 41 minutes and 80 games. That team was really bad, Smush and Kwame isn't something I'd wish on any player. He didn't get "robbed," though.

JustBuzzin wrote:

SkyBill40 wrote:

JustBuzzin wrote: Bro he was great at setting his teammates up. I already know this.

You keep telling he was much more yet you're not providing anything.

It's more to basketball than assist. Great leader yes he was. What else?

Not really my job to defend Nash. Your job, as burden of proof would dictate, is to support your claim with evidence and not subjectivity or bias. You can't do that and it's apparent. You're just angry and feel the award was undeserved as is your allowable opinion.

You also fail to understand that the award is a regular season award yet found the need to go on about the lack of post season success as of that's some kind of factor. It isn't.

Sent from my [Samsung Z4 Fold] using RealGM mobile app

Not angry at all. Nash is a HOF player.

Just saying he didn't deserve those MVPs based on the type of players who have been winning the award. You can't even explain why his stats look so much different than any other winner of MVP.

If Nash has a MVP there is no reason why guys like Chris Paul shouldn't have at least one considering he was a better PG.

My beef is not with Nash it's with his stats.

It doesn't look right when you check the stats and this guy has stats that aren't really eye popping like everyone else.


Understand now?

I can explain just fine; the fact of the matter is that there's really little point in it as your mind is firmly decided on Nash not being worthy. Nothing I say is going to change that, so just accept it for what it is and be good.

And what you deem as "looking right" is YOUR eye test and not that of those who are responsible for making the election for the award.

Lastly, better is subjective. Just in the same who say that James, Bryant, or whoever is "better" than Jordan. Is what it is, dude. He has it twice, you don't agree, and nothing is moving the needle one way or another.

I'm thinking we're done here.

Sent from my [Samsung Z4 Fold] using RealGM mobile app

Yoshun wrote:

cupcakesnake wrote:

Yoshun wrote:The Lakers made the playoffs that year and took the Suns to 7 games with a starting lineup of Kobe, Smush Parker, Brian Cook, Lamar Odom and alternating Chris Mihm and Kwame Brown.

I'm not going to say Kobe got robbed, I don't like using that word because I think any of those guys were good choices. They were all deserving. However, Kobe has the worst supporting cast. I think that should count for something. The Cavs were pretty bad too, but That is probably the worst team in the league at the time without Kobe.

At the time, the supporting cast argument wasn't that strong because a lot of other rosters weren't perceived as strong either but won more games.

This is how the other MVP candidates rosters were perceived in 2006.

Nash's Suns
Amar'e is out for the season and Joe Johnson is gone. Shawn Marion is not only the only star player there, he's the only established starter-level guy outside of an age-33 Kurt Thomas. Diaw looked like a bust in Atlanta, Barbosa hadn't done anything at that point, and Raja Bell just broke out as a part-time starter for a 26-win Jazz team the season before. The Suns looked decimated so Nash was perceived as "lifting" everyone. They'd pick up guys like Tim Thomas off the junk heap and they'd thrive in PHoenix's offense. There was a strong narrative that Nash made guys better and Kobe did not. We know now that Diaw and Barbosa were just flat out good. But we didn't know that in 2006. They also played basically the whole season without any bigs before smallball was invented. 54 wins. They also went on to make the WCF but that didn't factor into the MVP debate.

Lebron's Cavs
Big Z and Drew Gooden were the main running mates. Larry Hughes got hurt. Late career vets like Eric Snow and Donyell Marshall were playing huge roles and Flip Murray got signed to a 10-day and immediately became their second option. 50 wins.

Dirk's Mavs
Jason Terry was still shedding the inefficient chucker label, and after him we to guys like Josh Howard and Marquis Daniels being important starters. Erick Dampier and Desagana Diop manning the center position. Washed up vets filling in the gaps (Keith Van Horn, Adrian Griffin, Jerry Stackhouse). 60 wins and they made the finals.

Kobe's roster was still the worst, but when you look at those rosters it wasn't like the other guys were drowning in talent. None of them had a second star that was way better than Odom. They all had better depth.

I agree, people don't talk about Dirk's supporting cast all that often, it typically wasn't great, save for a few seasons in his career.

LeBron's gets talked about a lot, then people throw in that he was in the East, which is somewhat valid. What he did for years with those teams was pretty incredible though.

Nash had a great year, no doubt about that. I don't mean to take anything away from him.

People seem to get a little crazy when they talk about MVP. Really, anyone who gets a significant number of votes is deserving. Dirk, LeBron, Kobe, and Nash all "deserved" it that year. Personally, I thought it was Kobe's year, more so than '08. He put up 35ppg, on efficient numbers for a 2 guard at the time. He also played 41 minutes and 80 games. That team was really bad, Smush and Kwame isn't something I'd wish on any player. He didn't get "robbed," though.

Yeah that's a good measured take. I don't think anyone who voted for Kobe was wrong for doing so. 35ppg (on +2% true shooting) and 47 wins with that roster is MVP-level stuff.

I strongly feel that between 2004-2010, there wasn't an obvious best player in the NBA. Duncan, Kobe, Nash, Dirk, KG, CP3, Wade, and Lebron all had a case for chunks of time. Kobe fans insist it was Kobe and his fan base is/was considerably larger than any other of those players (especially at the time when Bron's fanbase was still building).

SkyBill40 wrote:

JustBuzzin wrote:

SkyBill40 wrote:Not really my job to defend Nash. Your job, as burden of proof would dictate, is to support your claim with evidence and not subjectivity or bias. You can't do that and it's apparent. You're just angry and feel the award was undeserved as is your allowable opinion.

You also fail to understand that the award is a regular season award yet found the need to go on about the lack of post season success as of that's some kind of factor. It isn't.

Sent from my [Samsung Z4 Fold] using RealGM mobile app

Not angry at all. Nash is a HOF player.

Just saying he didn't deserve those MVPs based on the type of players who have been winning the award. You can't even explain why his stats look so much different than any other winner of MVP.

If Nash has a MVP there is no reason why guys like Chris Paul shouldn't have at least one considering he was a better PG.

My beef is not with Nash it's with his stats.

It doesn't look right when you check the stats and this guy has stats that aren't really eye popping like everyone else.


Understand now?

I can explain just fine; the fact of the matter is that there's really little point in it as your mind is firmly decided on Nash not being worthy. Nothing I say is going to change that, so just accept it for what it is and be good.

And what you deem as "looking right" is YOUR eye test and not that of those who are responsible for making the election for the award.

Lastly, better is subjective. Just in the same who say that James, Bryant, or whoever is "better" than Jordan. Is what it is, dude. He has it twice, you don't agree, and nothing is moving the needle one way or another.

I'm thinking we're done here.

Sent from my [Samsung Z4 Fold] using RealGM mobile app

Yeah we can agree to disagree. See you around.

JustBuzzin wrote:

Masigond wrote:

JustBuzzin wrote:Steve Nash the biggest MVP fraud of all-time.

Those PHX teams were never a real threat to win a championship. They had regular season success but come playoff time they ran out of gas.

Also Nash was putting up 16ppg what MVP puts up those kind of numbers. You can look at who won MVP and you will notice Nash stats are very subpar to everyone else.

No. This was a great team competing in a tough conference while having to deal with some injuries before losing to healthier and arguably better teams like the Mavs or Spurs (who really might have needed that Robert Horry foul and the subsequent suspensions for Stoudemire and Diaw to win that series).

Claiming that the Suns ran out of gas is simply wrong. For at least three years (and two of those were Nash's MVP years) they gave their opponents very much to handle.

See how y'all move the goalpost for certain players?

All I hear about Embiid is that he doesn't get it done in the playoffs. He needs to win a championship.

Nash on the other hand didn't win either but he gets a pass.


Cmon y'all have to stop hating on certain players. If you have the same energy for Embiid you should have had the same energy for Nash. Once you win MVP the expectation is you should be contending for championships. MVP are the elite of the elite. Go win.

I have never written anything about Embiid. Don't mix me up with other users' arguments or narratives. I just responded to your absurd claim that the Suns of that era ran out of gas in the playoffs and by no means did I move any goalposts. Straw man argument.

JustBuzzin wrote:

Hitachi77 wrote:

JustBuzzin wrote:So why did Nash win MVP because of his assist?

He played no defense. So he wasn't a scorer and he played no defense. His passing is what won him the MVP.

Chris Paul led the league in assists for years not 1 MVP on his resume.

I just need some answers because nobody has given me a reason as to why Nash won 2 straight MVPs.

In 04-05 he won because he led the team to ~40 more wins than the year prior and the best record in the league. In 05-06 he took an entirely different roster of mostly unproven players (only starter that returned was Marion) and still won 54 games and the 2 seed. Most of his competition for MVP that second year won a lot less games. The only one who won more (Dirk) was considered to have a much better supporting cast.

Chris Paul had arguments for MVP some years, like in 2008, but that’s when Kobe won more games. There’s luck in this and every year has to be viewed differently. You can’t just say BS, Shaq and Kobe should have more MVPs and Nash should have less without giving concrete examples that make sense.

So the MVP is the best record in the league award? That's basically what you just said.

That can't be your main excuse when history has shown that MVP is not the best record in the league. This all comes down to his STATS!

His stats aren't lining up with every other MVP. We have had pass first pgs in this league. Magic was the last MVP to win the award as a pass first. Magic was a complete PG he had assist, rebounds, and he played defense. The total package!

Sorry brah. Winning has been a huge part of the award since forever. Kobe’s team was the 7 seed in 06, which basically never had an mvp up to that point. Nash was the main reason the teams won so much. Sorry that you can only see stats.

Hitachi77 wrote:

Hornet Mania wrote:Kobe fans were arguing most passionately in his favor, naturally, but it was understood at the time that historical factors were working against him.

No player from a 6th seed was going to win MVP in 2006, the award had only been given to the best player on a championship contender for many years leading up to that point. That standard has somewhat loosened up by now, Westbrook won in 2017 as a 4th seed for his triple double average and Jokic won in 2022 as 6th seed, but back then it was essentially iron-clad. Kobe had zero shot at winning the award given the standards of the era.

There were quite a few people at the time, even ones who were not Kobe fans, who said he had the best campaign of the 2006 season. They mostly agreed he couldn't win due to being on such a bad team, regardless of how statistically impressive his campaign had been. Add in that a lot of voters still held the 2004 rape allegations against him and he simply wasn't going to win MVP that year.

By 2008 he had the #1 seed in the his conference and the rape charges were further in the rear view mirror, plus the narrative of how he 'would have won' in 06 if not for his team being so bad was strong, which carried him to the trophy.

This pretty much sums it up. Yet we see dozens of threads every year with the same tired arguments. Basically taking the Westbrook and Jokic MVP criteria and applying it to those prior years. Also there is more parity now, more contenders than there used to be.

You can say the criteria for MVP sucks, and both Lebron and MJ should have 8+, but based on the criteria which has been used, there have been very few if any “robberies”. It has been pretty consistent.

i mean I've seen your argument many times before as well. Does that also mean its the same tired argument?

Jokic averages a triple double in 2022-2023 and didn't win the MVP. And instead of a 6th seed, he was a ONE seed.

So Westbrook won MVP as a 6th seed for doing something that the awards people clearly didn't think by itself was worth of awarding winning an MVP trophy. So it still is a mystery why Westbrook even was deserving of MVP despite not being a top seed.

It may feel like Kobe was robbed for not being a top seed because they gave one to westbrook despite also not being one, but I think just because Westbrook was not deserving at all doesn't mean Kobe should have won one as a 7th seed as well.

Jokic, triple double average and ONE seed --- NO MVP
Westbrook, triple double average and SIX seed --> MVP

The MVP award is so inconsistent that you really shouldn't blame anyone for feeling anyone was robbed. You can name any top 5 player in any given year and make a legitamate argument they were robbed by comparing past award winners and losers and using it to make a case. Lets please not pretend otherwise. I don't care what player you support, we need to all acknowledge how inconsistent the criteria are for the award and be honest with ourselves.

Edrees wrote:

Hitachi77 wrote:

Hornet Mania wrote:Kobe fans were arguing most passionately in his favor, naturally, but it was understood at the time that historical factors were working against him.

No player from a 6th seed was going to win MVP in 2006, the award had only been given to the best player on a championship contender for many years leading up to that point. That standard has somewhat loosened up by now, Westbrook won in 2017 as a 4th seed for his triple double average and Jokic won in 2022 as 6th seed, but back then it was essentially iron-clad. Kobe had zero shot at winning the award given the standards of the era.

There were quite a few people at the time, even ones who were not Kobe fans, who said he had the best campaign of the 2006 season. They mostly agreed he couldn't win due to being on such a bad team, regardless of how statistically impressive his campaign had been. Add in that a lot of voters still held the 2004 rape allegations against him and he simply wasn't going to win MVP that year.

By 2008 he had the #1 seed in the his conference and the rape charges were further in the rear view mirror, plus the narrative of how he 'would have won' in 06 if not for his team being so bad was strong, which carried him to the trophy.

This pretty much sums it up. Yet we see dozens of threads every year with the same tired arguments. Basically taking the Westbrook and Jokic MVP criteria and applying it to those prior years. Also there is more parity now, more contenders than there used to be.

You can say the criteria for MVP sucks, and both Lebron and MJ should have 8+, but based on the criteria which has been used, there have been very few if any “robberies”. It has been pretty consistent.

i mean I've seen your argument many times before as well. Does that also mean its the same tired argument?

Jokic averages a triple double in 2022-2023 and didn't win the MVP. And instead of a 6th seed, he was a ONE seed.

So Westbrook won MVP as a 6th seed for doing something that the awards people clearly didn't think by itself was worth of awarding winning an MVP trophy. So it still is a mystery why Westbrook even was deserving of MVP despite not being a top seed.

It may feel like Kobe was robbed for not being a top seed because they gave one to westbrook despite also not being one, but I think just because Westbrook was not deserving at all doesn't mean Kobe should have won one as a 7th seed as well.

Jokic, triple double average and ONE seed --- NO MVP
Westbrook, triple double average and SIX seed --> MVP

The MVP award is so inconsistent that you really shouldn't blame anyone for feeling anyone was robbed. You can name any top 5 player in any given year and make a legitamate argument they were robbed by comparing past award winners and losers and using it to make a case. Lets please not pretend otherwise. I don't care what player you support, we need to all acknowledge how inconsistent the criteria are for the award and be honest with ourselves.

I mean, you can see the original posted I quoted. The criteria has indeed loosened up. Although I still view Westbrook and Jokic as exceptions a bit. And yea, for Jokics 3rd straight the bar probably raised a lot, and he had to stand out even more, and the 76ers actually did end up winning more games than the Nuggets.

If you can come up with multiple mvps from a 6 seed or lower, prior to 2006, without going back to like 1972, then I stand corrected.