James Harden is gonna get screwed over again in MVP Voting

Correct. If you arbitrarily emphasize round numbers, it is, indeed, historic.

 

How many times players have averaged 29,11,8? Westbrook won't do it this season (Doesn't have the assist numbers)...let me give you a clue his initial are O.R.

Oscar Robertson is the only player to ever average Harden's average, so this bullshit about Oscar Robertson can also be applied to Harden but it won't because it's not a nice round number.

Now, Westbrook looks likely to break his record for the number of triple doubles in a season and good for him, but Harden has already made history, he become the first player in NBA history to score 2000 and assist on 2000 pts, Harden is also on pace to have the most productive season of all time with the most points produced through scoring and assists with crazy efficiency (Beating Wilt and Tiny Archibald). People like you are brainwashed to believe the triple double stat is amazing without actually thinking about how he got it, and when the upcoming young stars only care about stat chasing it'll be because of people like you.

 

It's not arbitrary. It's a benchmark that's evolved with the game of basketball itself. I'm sure at some point, double doubles were considered impressive, but as they became more common, they lost their luster.

 

Explain how it is not an arbitrary cut-off mark in terms of what is or is not historic in your mind, since you are literally saying 30/10/9.9 would NOT be considered historic since it would NOT be a triple double.

 

That's how stat/percentage based benchmarks work. They're set at a level where few people are able to achieve them. However, as more and more people reach that level, the level gets raised. In that sense, they aren't arbitrary b/c the benchmarks aren't random. They're fluid and predictable.

 

By that logic, every player would be a special snowflake if you cherry pick enough stats to make him one of a kind.

For instance, how many players have ever averaged 30 points, 7 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game? Only Dwyane Wade. Does that mean he had a historic season?

Averaging a triple double is amazing. That's why it's only been done once in NBA history, and never in the modern era. Also, I'm well aware of how he got it. High usage and playing for stats. But the fact remains that he still got it. How many players, if they put their minds to it, could do that?

 

I think prime J Kidd, LeBron if he didn't care about winning in his prime, and a few others come to mind if you adjust pacing in the late 90s-mid 2000s to what it is today.

I think your argument is lacking in one glaringly obvious way. Even when Oscar averaged his triple double, he did not win the MVP. His team was towards the bottom of the race. Same exact scenario with Westbrook today, so why should things be any different, especially given that the guy on the 3rd best team in the NBA is also putting up historic numbers?

 

I really don't want to argue with you, as you seem like you're very erect for Westbrook. But how is this cherry picking? You said it's historic that westbrook is averaging a triple double 30/10/10 that has ever only been done by one player in the history of the league (Oscar Robertson) and not the modern NBA.

I was just pointing out to you, that if you use Harden's average 29/11/8 (same categories - no blocks or steals or whatever) the same argument could be used for him, it has only been done by one player is the history of the league (Oscar Robertson) and not in the modern NBA.

Also you do know the Westbrook leads the league in uncontested rebounds, his only guard in the top 10 with a crazy 8.6 a game. Harden has 6.4, so if Harden was given the luxury of his teammates boxing out for him and getting those rebounds (especially those free throw gimmes), he'd also average a triple-double.

I no longer want to continue this conversation as it's drowning out more important information like this (see graph below: credit to HP), so please refrain from responding to me.

 

Oh, I don't think Westbrook should win the MVP, but I do think that averaging a triple double is an amazing accomplishment.

 

It's cherry picking b/c you're choosing your criteria based on Harden's stats.

Except for free throw rebounds, his teammates aren't letting him have rebounds. He's legitimately beating them to the ball. Think about how fast the game moves. There's no way that his teammates are keeping tabs on his location at all times.

I'm going to respond to whomever I want. If you don't want to read my responses, then put me on your ignore list.

 

Yeah, I meant team employed like Worrell. That's why I think it's wrong to just remove them all. I think they also assume that you have to be employed by a team to be a homer. Skip Bayless is from Oklahoma City and he is undoubtedly voting for Westbrook...or that people may vote because a guy went to UCLA or whatever.

Ahh yeah, I wasn't saying you thought that. I was just responding to what you linked.

It will definitely have an effect since they've always been able to vote. Whether that favors Harden or not though who knows.

 

If Harden doesn't get it, and Westbrook does....is that really all that important?

They are both having statistically great seasons.....

Either one is deserving.

DD

 

I think my objection(and I don't believe I'm alone on this) is that suddenly in this season, the team's record is meaningless. It was what put Curry over the top in 2015, yet this time around, Harden may not benefit at all from the Rockets finishing way ahead of the Thunder in the standings.

 

Bill Worell and Clyde lost their votes

 

Why is the NBA trying to make all these changes? 1st the awards show and now this?

 

McGwire broke (first) and set the HR record, Sosa won MVP. Voters (including ESPN) should be reminded of this. Also, the HR record was way older and more prestigious than averaging a triple double which really isn't a record.

 

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/04/04...idates/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

At the very end, you cannot allow yourself to have paralysis by analysis. Use the eye test. The eye test tells me that Russell Westbrook is a me-first ballhog who is only interested in passing the ball if he knows it's going to lead to an assist, and has no inclination or desire to make his teammates better. James Harden, on the other hand, allows the ball to move freely in the offense, and isn't worried about how his movements on the court will show up on the stat sheet. That right there is the difference between a middling 45-win team, and a 55+ win team that's Top 3 in the league.

 

1) Assuming the Rockets could play at a 51 win pace without Harden based off about 10 minutes per game against mostly backups is one of the more laughable notions I have heard regarding this MVP debate

2) I fail to understand why what the team does when the candidate is on the bench is relevant to the MVP race. Is the MVP race a pity party for Russell Westbrook because Sam Presti did a worse job than Daryl Morey? If it is...then I guess congrats to Westbrook.

 

Westbrook's accomplishments don't need to be put down to boost Harden's campaign. I understand it feels like we need to do that because the media hype is so heavily skewed toward the triple double, but it is quite fantastic. It's definitely a historical feat. It's also completely arbitrary. It doesn't make those 2 rebounds he averages more than Harden turn into 40 rebounds more. It also apparently means more than winning which is just silly.

A vote for Westbrook is a vote against the precedent set by every single MVP winner in the past 40 years. Harden is statistically on equal footing and on a significantly better team. Westbrook should be acknowledged for doing something amazing but he's not the MVP. It's not even close.