Exactly my point, Westbrook may be the best player out of the 3 players, but we all know Westbrook isn't going to win the MVP. It's between Curry & Harden. All these homers jumping on Curry having a bad game. Curry shot the ball only 9 times (being doubled constantly)and he made the right plays. That was the most important part. Not forcing his shots,running the offense, not just TRYING to get the assist but made the right pass for the "hockey" assist.
This isn't about Curry having a bad game, this is about his value to the team given that he had a bad game and they still blew the clippers out. How valuable can you really be when you can suck and your team blows the 6th best record out? It defies rationality to account wins in a situation like that.
The supporting cast/strength of the team around a player is ABSOLUTELY relevant to how to accurately gauge how valuable that single player is relative to the rest of the team. There isn't a formula for finding the MVP but factors such as what the player is doing to contribute to the success of the on overall team is essentially WHAT the MVP is about.
If Curry got hurt I could very much still see the Warriors rolling like they are. Klay and Draymond could pick up the slack. You could say Curry is invaluable to that Warriors team. If Harden went down (God forbid) the Rockets would lose a significant (like 1/3rd) of their offensive effectiveness.
ESPN's current upcoming story reads "Curry, Warriors drop Clippers". You would think Curry had a big game or something, but no, just ESPN pushing the Curry narrative some more. Harden needs to tell his agent to up that marketing for him.
Curry's team would win 55 games without him. Harden's? You're probably looking at 27-45, praying for the right pinball to come up in June.
The Warriors lost the only game Curry missed this year to the lowly Pacers. And they shot 38% that game. I don't know how you can make that assumption. Because they look good when he plays, they must look good when he doesn't? Both the Warriors and Rockets wouldn't be the team that they are without Curry or Harden. Curry is their best scorer AND shooter AND playmaker.
I doubt they would have a chance to make the playoffs without Curry, or even if he missed half a season. I think they'd be like the Rockets without Yao in those days when TMac had lost a step, solid but not more. You don't just lose possibly the best offensive player in the league that your whole offense is based around and win 55 games.
What we need to happen for Harden to be MVP: Harden pushes his game to a god level these last 19 games Rockets finish the season strongly, something like 15-4 Rockets win all the remaining games on national TV Atlanta finishes with the best record in the NBA Rockets finish with the 3rd best record in the NBA OKC does not move beyond the 8th seed The above is actually somewhat likely (except perhaps for a 15-4 finish). It is clear that if voting was today, the winner would be Curry... So Harden has to get even better. If that is even possible.
Let's be realistic: the MVP goes to the best player in the NBA, not the most valuable to his team. If the MVP went to the most valuable player to his team, then it would be called the MRVP (Most Relative Valuable Player) . . .
I think the whole premise of this thread is flawed. Historically, they haven't given the MVP to the player that's most valuable to the team but the player who is the overall best player for the year and call me a homer but I think that Harden has proven to be that player this year. Now if you want to argue with me about semantics and say that its the Most VALUABLE Player award then I can tell you this: It means not the most valuable player not to his own team but to the entire league; the whole NBA and if you want to use that as the metric for who to give the award to it would be the most popular player as he brings the most exposure, makes the most revenue, etc. A lot of times that's who gets the award but in the truest sense of the word it should be the best player in the league and that isn't diminished by having a stacked team.
Lebron has been the best player in the nba for several years, he still is He hasn't won it every year It's really odd to suggest that if the most valuable player award went to the most valuable player and not the best player they would call it something else. Saying to his team is just unnecessary rhetoric, of course it's to his team, who else is said player going to be adding value to?
Got to be Moses and Rockets in '82, 6th in the West and 9th overall. But that's just from glancing through the list of names, I'm likely missing someone. Overall it's rare for an MVP to come from less than 2nd seed in a conference.
Was Michael Jordan not really that valuable since the Bulls won 50+ games without him the years he was out?
You guys can come up with all the theories you want but at the end of the day Curry has the MVP on lock. Best player on the best team in the league shooting incredible percentages, assisting great and keeping the TO's down. His team record is much better than the Rockets and not to forget Curry and the GSW gave the Harden and the Rockets a 4-0 head to head bashing. You can talk all about supporting cast etc. but the voters wouldn't care much for that. Curry has the overall team record and the head to head team record on NATIONAL TV
Nah, it's even simpler than that: he's the most popular player in the NBA today. I'm not discounting his contribution, but let's not act like that doesn't factor in either.
