Steve Nash won MVP twice, yet the Phoenix system played a major role in that He might nove have been the best individual player, but the most valuable in terms of being important to the team
Point 3 "Most Irreplaceable player (team suffers the most when he is gone)" Like Harden on the Rockets, or Anthony Davis on the Pelicans, is the MVP of THEIR TEAMS Not the MVP of the League. see the difference?
The best player in the league is the most valuable player in the league. Everything else is semantics. You shouldn't penalize the best player because he happens to play for a team that would be good without him.
Not true, otherwise they should just call it "Player of the Year" award. Similar to Rookie of the Year where anyone can get it regardless of team record. Btw, "Value" is semantics because that can mean number of win shares, impact on team's performance, impact on league's revenues, most efficient contract. Most people would say win shares or impact on team's performance (provided the team also is a strong team) is the biggest factor, which is why the best player, whether it be LeBron, Durant, Davis, Westbrook can still be perceived as less valuable to those factors than a guy like Steph Curry.
Pretty clear to me Curry was the right choice this year, yet I'm seeing more MVP debate/question threads than ever before for some reason. Weird.
that's because James is the real MVP more than ever. Take away Curry, and GSW still wins the title. Take away Harden, and we're the 76ers. Or worse. We probably don't win a game at all this year.
It's a subjective award.. since the media votes for it. I think it has to be subjective, because there aren't many available stats to really paint the full picture of what a team is like with a player, and what it would be like without the player. Golden State's play without Curry has really soured me on him as the "unanimous" MVP. I would rather see MVP go to a player who really puts his sweat and tears into a 50 win team that would be a 10 win team without him, as opposed to a guy who skates around chucking up shots on a stacked roster. I guess what it comes down to is this: The MVP should be to the guy who willed his team to victory more than anyone else.
League MVP != Team MVP. This award is the league MVP and should be treated as such. This year though, it doesn't matter since Curry should be the League and Team MVP. Green is a very close 2nd in Team MVP though.
Doesn't make that player valuable to that team if they are still last. Player has to be one of the best that season and really relied on by his team to win games. Also should be one of the best teams in the league. How valuable is a player if your not winning?
Every great player "wills" their team to a certain number of victories over the baseline that their team could accomplish. Harden "wills" us from maybe 30 wins to 41. Curry "wills" his team from maybe 53 wins to 73 wins. Acting like Harden (or whomever is your standard-bearer for "real MVP") is responsible for willing his team to every single one of their victories while Curry is responsible for nothing is silly. Every player simply adds on to whatever the rest of their teammates can already accomplish...you can start with a good supporting cast and still add the most wins. And win shares suggests Curry easily adds the most wins.
The "irreplaceable" criterion is just not that meaningful. Almost every team has a player or two that is "irreplaceable" without whom the team would suffer a lot of downside. If you are a D-league player on a team of a bunch of high school kids, you are VERY irreplaceable but that doesn't mean much. Basically, being irreplaceable is just a measure of how much you are better than your teammates, not how much you are better than the rest of the league.
i say its the best player. the best player is the most valuable player and vice versa. and i don't consider it to be just the most valuable to your own team, because that can get into all sorts of team construction variables that can help/hurt certain people. it should be the person whose season all the people in the nba would have most wanted to have on their team. essentially, the person whose season wouldn't be traded for any other person's season. if win shares was a perfect stat that could somehow perfectly isolate a player's contribution to wins, then basically the person with the highest win shares. if that's a guy on philadelphia, then it's a guy on philadelphia. this season it just happens to be the best player on the best team also.
Personally, I don't think there should be any individual award for a team sports, because there are less players but are just as valuable to their teams success, e.g., Green vs. Curry debate. If you have to give out the award, since this is a league-wide award, so the best player from one of the top teams should be the one win this. Since GSW was far away the best team in regular season, so Curry is hand-down the winner.
Theoretically, the best player should be the MVP. But since there is no one single way to measure objectively who is the "best" player in a team sport, "the best player on the best team" is probably the most clear cut way to pick the MVP.
I'd expect the rookie with the most impact to his team's wins, yes. What is more valuable, contribution to team wins or contribution to personal stats?
