I thought I'd get a jump on this this year before the debate begins thread by thread about how one player is more deserved than another by means of X, Y, and Z statistical categories or by means of "on court impact" (the 'feel' argument) etc... My thought this year is different from most years previous and really stems from last years D. Rose selection. I think "MVP" will from now on relate more to the impact the player has on the NBA as a whole. This does not just mean wins or PPG or FIC or any one in-game / in-season stat. It means all of those things in accordance with articles written about, airtime, big game moments, highlight reels produced, fan reaction etc.. Kind of a culmination between the "stat" people and the "feel" people. Yes this sounds like stating the obvious, but I still hear all the "best player on best team" arguments (Tony Parker maybe?), and the scoring title arguments (Kobe / Durant?) and the best stat line (LeBron?) arguments. Last year was really a [best player on best team (regular season record)] + [Best Image for the NBA] = Derrick Rose. Thoughts?
I think it simply means who's the best player on a upper echelon team, not necessarily the "best" team. A guy that puts up monster numbers on a crummy team isn't likely to get it. I think Lebron has it locked up this year though.
How it is selected is by ESPN hype and stats. I really feel Parker deserves it this year. I for one thought the Spurs would be fighting for the 8th this season, but he and Pops made me look stupid.
Best player on the team most likely to win the ring. /thread. Any other way would make the NBA look bad.
consider the team that would decrease the most in wins and performance based on removing one player from that team. that player should be mvp, if they are on a contender
No, you could ask the same thing about any of the NBA awards, thats what makes it something worth talking about in my opinion. DPOY, COY, All-NBA Teams on and on MVP is interesting though when you bring in the dynamic of regular season MVP vs. Finals MVP and how each is chosen. I think the Finals MVP is based purely on performance in a condensed amount of games (which is easier or more apparent to see), which is not always how the regular season MVP is chosen. How often do you debate Finals MVP?
Lebron is a much better player and has had a much better season than TP and the teams are comparable.
I personally look at it like this as well. Otherwise rename the award to something more appropriate. Of course, this is assuming "valuable" means "essential to winning" not something else like "selling most merchandise". The criteria are sort of vague, however. I think only a single "award" has a definite rule and that is for All-Defensive First team: "Must have Kobe on it".
Maybe it's just me. I really don't care much about the awards exactly because there are no objective criteria. That means it's just by the whims of whoever are casting the votes.
Top 3 player on a top 3 team. Every year, a top 3 player resides on a top team. But the NBA/media often tends to go for the "story" rather than a player that was actually dominant and contributes a ton to that team. That's why it's VERY refreshing this year that the game's 3 best players this year (LBJ/KD/CP3) are the top 3 candidates. That's not a logical reasoning. People gave Rose the award last year b/c they used that logic. Now this year Rose missed basically half a season and the Bulls still have the best record in the East. You're "assuming" if you take away that player and "predicting" how a team would respond. Great coaching can help overcome those kinds of things (Thibs/Pop). You shouldn't give the MVP based on that premise. You should give the MVP to a player who dominates 90-95% of that season for his team and as a result, his team is one of the best in the league.
So, for example Tony Parker? I just can't see him ever getting an regular season MVP, doesn't matter how dominant he is I just don't see that happening because the Spurs are not dramatic or vocal about being a contender. Having been paired up with 2 perennial all stars doesn't seem to help your chances either.
It is and will always be intentionally vague to allow the best story to win it. People don't like to see the best player or guy who contributes most to wins win it because that could be the same guy for a long time.
While true that voters sometimes get voter fatigue by voting for one player all the time. You could argue Shaq/Jordan could win it every year. But when Jordan lost some of the MVPs, the guys who won it were actually a top 2-3 player himself and put up historic stats also. Jordan lost to Magic/Malone/Barkley and those guys had career years to win their MVPs. It's not like Magic put up 15/11 like Nash did. In 87-88 when Jordan put up 32/8/8 and lost the MVP, Magic put up 22/8/12. Or when Shaq lost it in 98-99, Malone put up 24/10/4. I have a problem when voters use a "storyline" to justify their picks rather than explaining why the guy is so dominant in his team's success. There's no storyline to Lebron winning it this year. He's going to win the MVP b/c he's just so damn good, and as a result his team is a top 2 in the East. No need for assumptions of "what if you take him out" blah blah. That's what the MVP should be about: decorating a player's DOMINANCE/GREATNESS in his team's success. It used to be that way, except for many instances in the past decade.
Storyline or the player who presents the best image for the NBA is the absolute worst. I will settle for combination for who is purely the best (and most skilled)player in the league/best record and who has the right feel. Honestly, Tony Parker is a good candidate for NBA MVP, but he would easily be one of the worst MVPs ever. His statistics are too weak for a traditional MVP, 18 ppg and only 7.7 assist per game. He's been great for the Spurs, this year, but you cannot tell me that the rest of team has been on his shoulders. That team has been playing outstanding overall. Also, I honestly do not think he has helped the Spurs as much LeBron, KD, or Kobe has helped their teams win. Moreover, when it comes to LeBron and KD, I do not think Parker brings that same kind of intensity on defense. In past, I always thought it meant who was the best player overall in that season, but I guess that wasn't good enough for some writers and fans. There had to be a measure where people wanted to see new faces win the MVP, which I think is disingenuous.
The voting takes place immediately after the season, so Dirk actually won it before being eliminated. It was presented later in the playoffs.
Active all-stars are from season to season: because on that we could disqualify Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Moses Malone, Bill Russell, and Steve Nash from their MVPs. That's not a very good rule.
