MVP Shouldn’t Even be a Discussion

It's not hypothetical. I don't care what Westbrook would be doing if he was playing exactly 36 minutes. That's not the point. The point is to assess what the player does per unit time they are on the floor. It could have been per 10 minutes, per 20 minutes, per 36 minutes, or per 48 minutes.

 

Giannis doesn't even play 36 minutes per game, so that kind of stat--per 1.1 games for Giannis--seems a bit arbitrary.

 

I thought I was clear that per minute numbers capture what would have been visually clear to them (or anyone else) when watching Westbrook on the floor. He was just way more active and doing "more stuff" while on the court than any other player in a really long time. I didn't say that they were specifically citing per-minute numbers (though, in fact, some did refer to advanced stats that are, ultimately, per-minute or per-possession metrics).

 

Change it to per 25 minutes. Again, the point is to describe how active/productive the player is each minute they are on the floor. It's not about projecting performance if they both played 36 minutes a game. This is just a confusion of what per-minute stats is supposed to convey. It's like when people used to cite per-48 minutes stats and some people would counter "well, no one plays 48 minutes, so that's dumb". Again, totally misses the point.

 

I didn't say it was dumb, did I.
If you're looking at production per minute, why not use "per minute" then?
Oh, because something about the minutes themselves is important. In fact 36 is not so arbitrary: it's supposed to be near the average minutes per game. Giannis just doesn't get used 36 minutes per game. Last year he played 36.7 minutes, this year 33.0. Does that reflect on him? No, it reflects on the coach or team? But the good stuff doesn't reflect on the coach or team: it reflects on him? Even though everyone keeps mentioning team wins as a justification?
Just go for "per minute" stats if you want to "describe how active/productive the player is each minute."

 

So to be clear, because the East is nothing more than a glorified “church league” a slight step above the G League, no one should ever win MVP there? I mean let’s just disqualify them from the discussion? Narrow the field to only those who play in the West? This is such a weak argument to cling to and relies on hyperbole that makes us as fans look bad. We can have intelligent conversation that uses facts to lift Harden, rather than relying on emotion to put down Giannis. We don’t even have to reach that much. I personally would vote for Harden and think he has more than enough to get there. But Giannis is absolutely a deserving candidate and it’ll be a close race. I think Harden needs the 3 seed and the Bucks need to stumble a bit (Suns loss helped) for this to be a fight.

 

People should consider who is on the better team but not who is in the better conference?

 

Because per 36 minutes is readily available off basketball-reference.com. I don't see the point in taking the trouble to multiply each stat by a constant factor. Feel free to do it on your own. The information is exactly the same, either way.

 

Well, if you don't care enough about it, OK.
Giannis' 33.0 minutes per game is not very impressive to me.

 

I understand. And that's a fair point to make in favor of Harden. A player accrues value by playing more minutes for his team.

 

per Minute stuff comparing JH/WB that yr is lazy and doesn't add much to the discussion at all, imo. For instance, Harden's assists were more difficult for the shooter to complete (yet more effective), because there was much more 3pt shots. This is illustrated in a very simple manner by comparing Total Pts Created that year, where Harden was 1pt away from breaking the NBA record. But that stat isn't as sexy as a trip dub.

Further, when comparing two PGs to each other like Harden and WB, I would also suggest using stats that somehow get Usage into play. A usage-based scoring comparison can illustrate FGAs/FTs/TOV efficiency (their ball-hogging effectiveness) while getting minutes into the formula. The formula pulls the assists out of the equation such that you can compare scoring when they "use the play" themself (the literal definition of Usage). You can then also get AST% into a USG% based formula to see how much they simply always had the ball in their hand.

(fwiw: I don't think Usage comparisons of a PG to a player like Durant or Giannis is as useful, but it was for Harden v WB that year. They had a significant difference in 2017 (more than MPG), and this year, Harden is still not at WB's usage for 2017.)

bottomline for me wrt 2017, Harden was better in many ways in stats that year, and had significantly more wins. WB didn't convincingly win the Stats comparison. He just had a triple double...that's all. And this year, we are seeing how the Triple Double probably won't even get him 1 first place vote. In retrospect, the voters made a glaring mistake giving too much value to the trip dub. WB's ballhogs antics are also evident in how unused Oladipo was. It was simply a mistake vote via cultural fascination with the number 10.​

 

I’m typing this on a phone so I can’t really look. But what players in the past have put up the numbers that Giannis is putting up this year?

 

I honestly wouldn't be mad if Giannis wins MVP, first in WS and WS/48, first in DRTG, DWS, and DBPM, on a team projected to win 61 games. Harden leads the league in BPM, OBPM, OWS, and VORP, which gives him a very strong argument for MVP, it wouldn't be a robbery if either wins IMO. Harden's offensive game goes beyond convention in insane volume (#1 all time in points per 75/100 possessions) combined with elite efficiency (most efficient 35+ PPG season relative to the league ever). But Giannis very well might be the best perimeter defender and an elite rim protector and an elite playmaker, all while posting an elite sixty-three percent TS%. You can argue that Harden "deserves" the MVP more since Giannis is only 24 and James is 29, but that same BS argument got Kobe an MVP over 22 year old CP3. Which turned out to be CP3s only year he deserved the MVP, as LeBron pumped out the greatest 5 year run since Kareem the next year.

BTW: If Harden averages 38.3 PPG for the rest of the season (he's averaged 41.5 since falling to 11-14), he passes MJ for highest scoring non-wilt season in history.

 

That's only true if the bucks hold the 1 seed. Another possibility to consider is if the Raptors pass them.

 

And keep in mind, MJ didn't even have a winning record in his 37ppg year, so had zero chance to win MVP. The following year he won MVP with less ppg than Harden this year, and likely less wins (only 50) and maybe same seed (tied for 3rd).

So, if historical precedence should play a big role in MVP, let's compare Harden to that first MJ, low-win MVP year, when Bird had a 30/9/6 (50-40-90 club) on 57 wins and 1st seed...(and 4 less FTA/gm than MJ. )

I remember that year thinking they just didn't want to give Bird his 4th MVP...wanting new blood.

 

Colin Cowherd just said James Harden would be his 5th choice for MVP. Thanks goodness he doesn't have a vote. I think he has the worst NBA takes (real or fake) of any of the talking heads.

He says Paul George is by far the best player in the league because of his defense, then backs that up with the fact that PG13 leads the league in steals, completely ignoring the fact that Harden is second in steals....

Then goes on to say Curry is a better defender than Harden. What a joke.

 

I will always believe that the Triple Double narrative is what won Westbrook the MVP that year.

BUT, when that is brought up, I have seen push back from those voters that it wasn't the TD, but the "clutch scoring" for OKC to propel them to wins. While that is part of it...I feel that is their cop out.

I DO however feel the Westbrook Denver & Orlando games in MARCH that season, where he won those games LATE / on last shots, were BIG. They were "moment games." The kind of things that SWAY people that are on the fence.

 

Clearly he saved that take for a day that Morey would not be on the program.

 

>"Paul George is the best player in the NBA because of his all around game"
>Ignores Giannis who averages the same amount of points, on better TS%, while playing the best defense in the NBA, while leading his team to more wins

0/10 see me after class

Imma guess his top 5: PG, Giannis (who's better than PG) , Leonard (who's also better than PG + extremely clutch in playoffs) , James (Despite a losing record), Harden (nO dEfeNCe!!!)?