Personally, I've always found the league MVP award to be a bit of a misnomer, only because of how it's been presented to the viewing public in the modern (read: TV) era of basketball. Back in the 1980s, when David Stern took over the reins of the league, and the league MVP award began to take on more national significance in the public eye, it tended to coincide with the mass recognition (positively and negatively) of both Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Both players have been routinely cited as the defining factors in the league's surge of popularity in the 1980s, and anything seen as beneficial to the league was automatically plastered to one or both of them as a matter of course. Both Magic and Bird were the quintessence of "team player", and their individual and collective approach to the game (among other factors) saved the NBA from the malaise it suffered from during the 1970s (the league's darkest period of popularity and viability—the NBA/ABA merger was as much a need to rekindle interest in the NBA as it was a financial manuever)... ...the fact that both the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics, the two most winningest and storied franchises in league history, happened to be in the middle of that renaissance was just that much more fantastic a tale to tell. Bird and Magic were both tremendous individual and team players. And Stern saw the need to capitalize on the popularity of both players, as well as the east coast/west coast rivalry that the teams' media regional power bases constructed as a result. Remember that the 1980s were mostly defined by the Lakers/Celtics rivalry (and while there were the occasional upstarts, the Lakers and Celtics met routinely for the league championship), and at the forefront of those encounters were the consummate professionals, team players and individual performers—Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. In David Stern's reckoning, the best players on the best team HAD to be considered the leagues' most valuable players...the thinking, I imagine, being that the winning (at a championship level) had to follow the biggest "stars". And that tends to be true, more often than not. The best players are often on the winning teams. Where the biggest problems have tended to arise, from my perspective, have come from a separation of the "stars" from the winning. Most players came to be anointed as "stars" or "superstars" without any meaningful winning being done beforehand, as was the case with Bird and Magic. David Stern, for his part, did little (if anything) to stem this tide. The marketing of the league "stars" (most evident with the league's marketing of Michael Jordan before his title runs—and redoubled after he became a Finals fixture) took precedence over the very thing Bird and Magic reestablished—great TEAM play, spearheaded by great individual performances, was the calling card of the NBA. Kobe Bryant, in my opinion, should have been the league MVP in 2006. He had a tremendous individual year himself, but the Lakers would not have been a playoff team at all without him. Steve Nash's Phoenix Suns would have been able to qualify for the postseason even without Nash's superlative individual year. That's the difference for me. If you're talking about an MVP (most valuable player)...you're talking about a player who means the most to your TEAM's prospects of winning. All things being equal, equal teams have an equal chance at being average..but any team that would generally fall below that standard without one player would almost automatically qualify that player to be invaluable to his club. But by Stern's own mandate, you couldn't give an individual award to a player on a TEAM that could not realistically compete without him. Kobe Bryant was the league MVP in 2006 (much like I felt that Jason Kidd should have been the league MVP in 2004 over Tim Duncan)... ...but because the Lakers were a poor team, it would have been counter to the league's supposed proffering of "team" over individual—despite everything else suggesting the exact opposite, to give Bryant the MVP award under those circumstances.... ...at the end of the day, I always set aside individual accolades in the NBA, in particular, and see how they factor into a TEAM's performance for the year... ...because whether anybody admits it or not, TEAMS win a lot more often than one player does.
I would scratch out the formula and not consider the input of players. Coaches/GMs and media, with the coaches/GMS input weighted double. It should also be made clear that MVP is a regular season award and it should go to the player who's done the most to make his team really good in that season.
I agree, this year hollinger says rose doesn't deseve it because his defense. But Nash and Dirk have 3 between them. He says love doesn't deserve first or 2nd team nba bc of defense, but dirk deserves first team. He said back when bryant turned in big stats with a normal team that it has to be from one of the top teams otherwise stats just don't cut it. Then the next year he said lebron deserved mvp bc his stats were just that amazing(even though his team wasn't in the top 10 in the NBA even) Nash has 2 when Stockton did what he did at a higher level for years and was never even considered for MVP Its all subjective and these media people have their biases like any of us so the definition of an MVP changes and just in this it is not very legitimate and it shouldn't be the media voting
I'm surprised you don't want the formula (or maybe a better variation of it with other types of stats into the formula). Why not?
I don't think Hollinger ever agreed with Nash's MVPs. But in any case, the argument against Rose is that he's not an impact defensive player and the Bulls' improvement is mostly on the defensive end. When Nash won the MVPs, the Suns were one of the best offensive teams in the league mostly because of him. Same with Dirk (who, when he won the MVP, was also an underrated performer on the defensive end).
Individual voters can consider various formulas, but I don't think that any formula should be officially considered. In the public eye, it would make the voting process less legitimate which wouldn't be fair to whoever wins it.
But wouldn't you want those voters' various formulas to be known to the public, so that you can critique their decision making process, or you're good with giving them the benefit of the doubt? Personally I'd want more accountability in the MVP awarding system, be it having a formula tied in or having the voters' decision making made public.
the most valuable player to their team, dirk and nash most certainly deserve it, without them those teams would be nothing, but they were able to carry them to the finals and wcf respectively, that's an accomplishment, not to mention the award is for the regular season
Its impossible to peer into a voter's mind and scrutinize everything that went into his decision, and I don't think it should be necessary. You have to trust that most voters will come to their decision in a sensible way.
Said in another recent thread, MVP like in most leagues has an understood "dispersal" mechanism worked in so its not ALWAYS the same guy. Everyone knows Michael Jordan was undoubtedly the best player in the league since '90. Jordan coulda almost conceivably swept the award every complete year he played in the 90's. Shaquille O'Neal only has 1 MVP award. Karl Malone has TWO MVP awards "Valuable" is variable. "Value" is broad, can include a lot of factors. So its probably best left vague like it is. You can say impressing voters and promotion is as much a skill as the on-court ones, you have to play the game and play the voters. Cuz if you're an *******, that COULD count against you.
And witthout Rose they would be last in offense. You really think they could win many game being last?
Lol - Dirk deserved the MVP the year his team won it. His team won ~67 games and he was putting up 24/9 on 50/40/90...
how would you know that? i know this is just one game, but CJ watson scored 33 points in his only game rose sat out this year. players have stepped up all year for teh bulls. what makes you think somehow someway other bulls don't step up offensively?
I don't understand why you underrate D-Rose's defense. Did you see the defense he played on Williams? Or the games where he played well against PGs? I've seen quite a few, Derrick Rose is not a bad defender like you're making him out to be. Chicago is winning with defense, that part is true. But you can't play with just defense. Look at the Houston Rockets coached by JVG. Great defense, horrible offense. Guess who did all the scoring back then? Except this time the guy doing the scoring is Rose and the team they're on is the bulls.
Deron Williams has been playing with an injured wrist, including the Bulls game, stop bringing that up. Their is a high possibility he will be out for the remainder of the season now since it's been getting worse.
MVP is part popularity contest, part best player into the league, part best statistical player in the league and part player doing the most with the least award. The NBA designed it to be ambiguous, simply because it'll generate more hype, debate and discussion if everyone doesn't know what it really means. I have no problems with Nash winning his rings, he deserved because PHX turned from sad-sack lottery team into instant contender and the only difference was that they got rid of starbury and acquired him. Dirk's is a little questionable IMHO, however as a player he's one of the true superstars in the league so I don't complain about it too much. As for Nash and Dirk not winning any rings, for all intents and purposes the MVP only covers the regular season. No player has ever won the MVP by winning a ring in the history of the league. That's what the finals MVP is for.
I've been a huge LBJ backer for his third MVP award, however I'm slowly jumping on the Rose or Howard bandwagon. LBJ has done nothing to elevate the play of his team, while Rose's bulls keep winning despite missing Joakim Noah and having Boozer the Loozer on the squad. If you ranked the teams in the preseason, the Bulls would probably come 4th behind the Magic, Celts and Miami. The fact that they're the best in the East is a testament to how good Thibs and Rose really are.
If Chicago was scoring 91.3 points per game, which would tie them with Milwaukee for last in the league, they would still have a positive point differential on the season, so they'd be expected to be slightly better than .500.
I personally would like to see dwight win it. But honestly..if there's not a rocket at least in contention for the award I don't normally follow it to closely. Our last two mvp competitors are falling apart anyway.
