I really dislike the way the MVP and other awards are handed out. Without even getting into arguments about advanced statistics, I'll just say that the award should be given to the player that the voters honestly believe to be the best. It should be that simple. In reality, it's a vague, faulty, and extremely subjective thought process, that wavers between "best player on team with the best record," "player without whom his team is absolutely screwed," or "lifetime achievement award/best story." The idea that someone else may be better, but less "valuable" to his team because he has good teammates is just stupid. No one argues that $4 million dollar mansion is less valuable than some trailer home, just because the trailer home is inhabited by a poverty-stricken family who can't afford any better. If the two were traded straight up, the less fortunate family would benefit. Only in sports do you get analysis and awards that defy logic like this.
Just how I read it. What player is the most valuable to their team? If that is what it is about, it should be called Player of the Year, not MVP.
Get this, since 1992, covering 19 MVPs....the MVP winner already owned a ring only 5 times. Jordan twice Duncan twice Kobe once Out of the remaining 14 MVPs, nine of them were given to a none title winner in the same year a previous MVP and title winner won the title again and was Finals MVP What does that mean?
that's how i feel. to me the best player is the most valuable player. and the most valuable player is the best player. and i think in terms of absolute value, not relative value. playing with a bunch of nbdl players doesn't suddenly make you more valuable. i would pretend you are a gm with the 1st pick in a league wide draft. you have to build a team that will win the most games over a season and the players you pick will perform as they did this past season. whose season would you pick first to build around, knowing nothing about who you will be able to pick later.
I agree with this. Player who is most valuable to their specific team. Naturally, this team has to be one of the top teams in the league. So we won't see any Love's getting it.
When Lebron won 2 in a row, he was basically on a team of d-leaguers -apparent by the Cavs competing for worst team in NBA history last year. He does not have this same sole impact on the Heat as he did on the Cavs. If he is out, you still have 2 (yes 2...) all stars on your team. The Heat would still be competitive. The same thing goes for TP really, if he is out, the spurs are still very good. I think part of the difficulty is that NBA teams will score 80-100 points a game over a season. Those points have to be scored by someone, so if you have a Lebron or a Dirk or a Kobe miss a game(s), their teammates will pick up the slack. Bynum will put up 25 and 15, Wade or Bosh will put up 30, or Duncan turns into 2002 Duncan and gives you 25 13 and 4 blocks. All the sudden the team gets an addition 15-20 shots distributed, and an additional 20-30% of ball time / usage rate to distribute etc.. All those additional touches are opportunities and either bring one player up to "single game/small time period" MVP status or bring the whole team up - i.e. the Nuggets. All of this is what leads me to think that the MVP award actually has more weight placed on the players image or recognizability (perhaps even marketability) to a global market. After that side of the award is determine I think they go into the stats.
