I see what you're saying, the games he's missed should be disregarded, but then that means team record shouldn't factor in to the MVP discussion and that's fine. Each person has their own criteria. If Harden missed ten games and Steph kept up his current level and played out the season then I wouldn't have an issue with Steph getting MVP. As sucky as it would be. Even if the Rockets going 0-10 proved his candidacy more. Though I can be quite the homer, so ask me again if that actually happens. Right now, Anthony Davis and Westbrook are in the same camp to me. Two players putting up crazy numbers on teams that have identical records, and they've played roughly the same amount of games. Davis has around 4-5 more, I think. They'll get consideration but I think the games played and their place in the standings (Should things hold...) will work against them. Again, it all comes down to each persons criteria since nothing official has been set. I guess it comes down to that magic number of games required... I think carrying this team, that isn't as talented as GS or Cleveland to a top 4 finish in the most brutal Western Conference most of us have seen, and doing it all season has to get Harden the MVP. We weren't even supposed to make the playoffs this season according to most in the media.
I could never trust that organization. If you will toss away a future MVP over money, you have no future.
Don't worry dudes, at his pace, he will get a hurt really soon. His game is exactly like Rose. No finesse just balls to the wall until something gives. Like a knee usually. Don't wish it on him. Look at how Rose has been trying to turn in up this last stretch... got hurt. I'm just looking at history of these two guys.
The guy is the best player in the NBA right now along with Davis. If all current NBA player are put in a draft, I'm taking Anthony Davis #1 overall followed by GOATbrook at #2
I'm guessing you finally got it all out after two attempts or do you need to quote the same thing one more time to be sure? You are saying I'm an idiot for thinking that something called "Player Efficiency Rating" actually rates a players efficiency? What's next? Are you going to tell us all how dumb we are for thinking that a "jump shot" is a shot taken while jumping? Or maybe you'll reveal to us that the stat for "field goal attempts" doesn't actually measure how many times a player attempts a field goal. I expect nothing but pure unintentional comedy gold, so be sure you bring your A game. Responding to another poster who was trying to build a case with advanced stats, I said that you could look at Westbrook's PER as a measure of his efficiency. Here is the little nugget you dropped: Short and simple as it is, it is still so comically daft a comment to make. It is worth repeating that you just said that a statistic called "Player Efficiency Rating" has "nothing to do with efficiency whatsoever". I cannot stress enough how disconnected that makes you seem from, well, pretty much any level of cognitive thinking that would normally be reserved for someone that can figure out how to use a mouse and a keyboard. Per game statistics are nearly purely measures of productivity. I say "nearly", because players still have a cap as to how much time they can take to get in their production. Still, though, you can't fully compare the per game stats of a guy playing 35 minutes per game to a guy playing 30 minutes a game. One is getting 5 extra minutes each night to get a couple extra points, rebounds, assists, etc. Metrics that normalize all stats on a fixed "per ___ minutes" basis are absolutely about measuring efficiency. That is why a guy like Hassan Whiteside, who only plays 22 minutes per game, puts up 11 points per game (remember this ppg figure, we're going to revisit) and 10 rebounds per game can be 4th in PER. His overall productivity isn't that high (not top-10 in rebounds and outside of the top-100 in scoring), but he is mighty efficient while he is in. Taken down to a roslolian level of understanding, PER gives credit for doing good things (scoring, rebounding, assists, etc.) then takes away credit for doing bad things (missing shots, turnovers, etc.) and normalizes it to give a relatively fair comparison between players, regardless of how many minutes per game they play. In case you still haven't figured it out, yet, this is a measurement of efficiency (you know, the second word in "Player Efficiency Rating"). PER isn't the end all, be all for how good a player is (I think we can agree that Whiteside isn't the 4th best player in the league), but it is a fine tool for providing a little context to per game stats. Another point you tried to make was that Westbrook's PER was propped up by him scoring more points. At the time of that posting, Westbrook was scoring 0.1 more points per game than Harden. Are you honestly trying to attribute Westbrook's PER to the fact that he scores 0.1 more points per game than Harden? Why do Anthony Davis, Steph Curry, and Hassan Whiteside have higher PERs, then? On second thought, don't answer that. You'll just make our collective heads hurt even more. Hey numbnuts, those stats are used solely for shooting efficiency. At no point was I speaking about shooting efficiency. Westbrook's recent run (and season as a whole) has been remarkable not just because he has been scoring in bunches, but because he is also putting up stout rebounding and assist numbers to go with it. Christ, you're just not that attentive. It's like you walked in to a room, blindly threw a punch, and ended up hitting yourself in the dick. I wasn't trying to make a prediction of who would win a 7 game series, just pointing out the obvious (to most) fact that the Denver Nuggets are pretty ****ing awful. Is this really where you want to draw a line in the sand? That it is okay to struggle against the Nuggets, but not the 76ers? Yeesh.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Is Russell Westbrook putting up big numbers a good thing for the Thunder? <a href="http://t.co/GEcOh9A3ej">pic.twitter.com/GEcOh9A3ej</a></p>— ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/status/575000731717013504">March 9, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Agree. He'll either get hurt or burn out by the time playoffs heat up. There's a reason why veterans like TD and Lebron cruise throughout the regular season.
Team record matters to me, but I don't factor in games in which an MVP candidate didn't play. I disagree with you, if Harden missed the next ten games and the Rockets went 0-10 it would only reinforce that he singlehandedly makes the team elite. I would be livid if he didn't win the MVP in that case. Why reward Curry for having a stacked team? I love Anthony Davis' game too, but his team went on a four game winning streak after he went down. It's not the same situation as Westbrook, where the team is terrible without him and pretty amazing with him.
Why are people putting Westbrook above Harden? I'm genuinely curious. I think if Harden took 30 shots a game he would have comparable, if not better, stats.
Agreed, I've watch those games where Westbrook went beast mode. He is literally killing his own body for those stats. He is just relying on pure athleticism right now and it is a recipe for disaster
He is playing incredibly well and his ability to push himself to that level is admirable. I'm just wondering if I'm not seeing something. He's definitely in the MVP conversation, I just think Harden is playing at least equally well.
I just brought up the fact that Harden has done it longer because historically the more games that are played the harder it is to sustain those crazy stats. Harden has done what he has longer but what Westbrook has is better
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Could the Thunder actually consider trading Kevin Durant? It may not be as crazy as you think. <a href="http://t.co/ueaM7hZPWo">http://t.co/ueaM7hZPWo</a> <a href="http://t.co/xX16y4edO7">pic.twitter.com/xX16y4edO7</a></p>— NBA on ESPN (@ESPNNBA) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNNBA/status/575088093486837761">March 10, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I don't know whether they trade Durant or not (highly doubt it), but I think this Westbrook stretch makes it a near-certainty that one of them will be gone in the next two years. Westbrook is seeing what it's like now that he's the top guy and not 2nd fiddle to Durant. I think it's completely unlikely he agrees to stay in that role at this point. Either Durant is gone in 2016, or Durant re-signs with OKC and Westbrook bounces in 2017.
I've been thinking the same thing too. That this taste of dominance by Westbrook may tempt him to go elsewhere. Have his own team so that he could do something crazy like try and average a triple double.
