I want to be upset about this, but the Warriors record was so much better than the Rockets that I think it made it a wash. 11 more wins is quite significant and someone deserved to be rewarded for that level of domination in probably the the toughest single season NBA conference of all time.
I think there's a lot of groupthink here. In their writing and commenting, these guys have reinforced a narrative with one another that Curry will edge out Harden, so they voted them in that order. Harden cleaned up on the second-place voting. I am surprised that Westbrook got no first place votes despite the storylines saying his late surge made him a dark horse in the race. He ends up getting beat by Lebron, whom people never mentioned in the race except to say that "he's the MVP every year" -- which strikes me as a sort of consolation prize for not getting one's vote. I would have also expected Davis to fare a little better. I bet he blows up in a big way in the voting next year.
I don't know why you should be. It's not like Curry did "not deserve it. And his team is historically great. I know there are homers, but if Harden had a historic season like a Lebron or Durant, then the fans would have more reason to be upset. A lot of things come into play for MVP. It's a hard award. Again, in the past decade, the only times fans didn't really argue much was when Lebron or Durant won pretty much b/c they put up historic numbers.
I think the ambiguity is on purpose, so that voters define for themselves what they mean by it as they vote. They could easily define the race better by calling it the Best Player, Best Season, or whatever.
It's been like this for years. I don't know why it's an issue now. Again, if a player REALLY wants to cement the MVP, put up numbers nobody can match. Look at Durant last year. You simply can't argue with those numbers. And his team success. Otherwise, records will usually win out.
Because Harden's 2014-2015 season is an exceedingly rare example of a single superstar leading a team of role players to such an impressive level of success. It doesn't happen very often for a reason Most teams at or near the the top have 2-3 all stars/superstars, because that's what it takes. *Before it's mentioned, obviously I am not counting Howard's oft-hobbled half season as a superstar partner for Harden. But I suppose that can be argued.
Curry definitely deserved it. For Hardens sake, I hope he uses this as motivation in this series. If theres anything to fuel a fire, this has to be it.
Curry did it all by himself. GSW year round health, Klay, Kerr, no one them really contributed. It was all Curry and for that he deserves the MVP.
Agreed. Everyone else's contributions were purely cosmetic. Curry heroically willed his team to 67 wins.
Particularly impressive was the mind control he used on the Warriors players for the roughly 1,300 minutes he was not on the court this year.
It's amusing to see people argue that Harden's teammates all suck and thus he was deserving of the MVP for doing it all himself and simultaneously argue that Morey did a great job putting a team together and thus deserved the GM of the Year award.
Not sure I see the same people doing that, but: (A) that's what being a sports fan is all about, if you're doing it right. It's not a poncy, academic exercise. (B) your two oppositions are not necessarily oppositions. Part of the great roster: was injured most of the year, or joined mid-season. We really did lead the league, as I understand it, in missed starter's games. EDIT: I would actually love to know of an NBA team that had this many of its starters missing so many games and winning as many games as we did. That would be an interesting and probably very small list.
If Rockets were the #1 seed with 67 wins (rather than #2 seed with 56 wins), I wonder what the argument would be for Harden then? We would want the Steve Nash rule invoked. Best player on best team. That's the truth.
If harden led this team to 67 wins there would be no need to argue, because there would be no controversy.
I want to give a big congrats to all of the BAY AREA "national media writers" (Ethan Sherwood Stauss, Sam Amick, Marc Spears et all) for their "Steph Curry for MVP" articles that were written over the last month (seen in national publications USA Today, ESPN The Magazine etc). Your "doubling down" on Steph's "very improved defense narrative" (to set him apart from Harden) has apparently worked. (nevermind he is a product of the GS "team defense" as Bob Voulgaris has said many times.) You did a fine job of pushing YOUR GUY to the national media scribes and as influencers, your narratives combined with "twitter groupthink" clearly has convinced national media sportswriters, FOUR TO ONE, that Curry is most deserving over Harden. I disagree.
well deserved. Harden had a great year & was the only other deserving candidate, but unfortunately you cant ignore Curry leading his team to 67 wins, leading the league in winshares per 48, RPM, VORP, Box +/-.
Ehh. I guess some just come out and say the rest of the team sucks, but I don't think that's the way the majority of the group you are talking about sees it. It would be hard to argue Harden had equal help when you consider the teammates that were healthy and available. Actually fairly obvious with all the injuries he had much less help. You also have to consider that Brewer, Smith and Prigs were not here the entire season. Had we had the roster we ended the season with the whole year, I think we're looking at a better record even with the same injuries. So I would argue Harden did it with less help because of injury AND Morey deserves some love in the GM of the year award for the moves made in season.
