http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/n...-settle-westbrook-harden-lebron-kawhi-debate/ Here are 17 more questions to consider, hope that helps. LOL. A good 20 min read, I like to see the data for each question though.
I'm fascinated that Westbrook is still being talked about as a legitimate MVP candidate given the Thunder's record. I was curious to see if there were any MVP winners that weren't on a team that was either a bonafide contender, or a top 2 team in their conference. I did find this link that provide some good details: Spoiler Looks like the Jazz in 1999 were a 3rd seed, but actually tied for best record in the league...I guess there was 3-way tie in the west that year. Next was Michael Jordan in 1988, when the Bulls were a 52-win 3rd seed. The point is, I would say even Harden winning the MVP this year would be highly unusual if we're taking team success into account. It will have been about 30 years since there was an MVP from a team like the 2016-2017 Rockets. Chew on that for a second. Now, imagine a team an entire tier or two below the Rockets also having a player who is talked about as a serious MVP candidate. This is just so many miles away from the NBA norm of the past 30+ years that I can't help but conclude that Westbrook is a false MVP candidate, and that will be reflected when the actual voting happens.
Yeah, but using that logic the other way around: Nash only had 3rd best record in his 2nd MVP year. That was when seeding rules were different. Dallas had 6 more wins (for 60) and got 4th seed, because Division winners got automatic better seeds. btw: To make WB look even worse, he is on track to have fewest Wins since the ABA dissolved...even less Wins than the Moses years. And only he and Moses have Won less than 50 since 1980.
Yes, because in using conference seeding you have to use a judgement call about how the two conferences relate to one another. You yourself said that Harden in the East would be more valuable and LeBron in the West would be less valuable, yet in the formula you're using: "17 - *playoff seed*" as a variable. How is 17 - playoff seed, a more precise measurement than ranking by overall win/loss? The Eastern #1 is the overall #4, yet gets the same computational benefit as the team having won 9 more games than them. This strategy would make sense if there were an Eastern MVP and Western MVP, but that is not the case. _____________ Look at how much different the outcome is using the two: Playoff Seeding Method: Westbrook: 11 * 41.7% = 4.59 James: 16 * 32.8% = 5.25 Harden: 14 * 28.5% = 3.99 Leonard: 15 * 22.4% = 3.36 Overall Win % Method Westbrook: 16 *.567 * 41.7% = 3.78 James: 16*.667 * 32.8% = 3.50 Harden: 16*.687 * 28.5% = 3.13 Leonard: 16*.788 * 22.4% = 2.82
Harden doesn't deserve the MVP. He is not averaging a triple double, AKA the criteria of 2016-2017. Maybe next year Harden will average a triple double, but will that be the criteria for 2017-2018? We'll see.
Criteria next year will be how many Wins the team increased vs previous year -- so Anthony Davis will win.
Correct. I could also see the criteria being "just the flat out best player in the NBA, regardless of stats", therefore one last final MVP push for Lebron.
To be honest I'm pretty sure it's between Westbrook and Leonard. Westbrook as the Media conspiracy vote (ESPN/Nike/triple double) and Leonard as the Media conspiracy vote (Not Harden/Nike/top seed). The only reason why I want Harden to have it is for him to put it behind him, just focus on the team winning instead of all the other bullshit.
It's not between Westbrook and Leonard, c'mon now. Very many people (probably the vast majority) have Harden in their top 2. The conversation has been between Westbrook and Harden the entire year with some Lebron talk sprinkled in here and there. Leonard literally came on the scene like 2 weeks ago as a serious candidate. Harden only helped his case even further by ballin out against Cleveland on national TV.
You guys are both wrong. This year and next year's MVP winner will be based on ESPN's highlight reel. Two will do.
If the pass is for a 3pter, the % is bound to be lower. So the correct way to measure assist is to see how many points are generated by the assists.
I disagree with the "Worst argument" part. When Rockets fans hear about Harden having "too much help" all season, despite zero all stars outside of Harden and a roster universally considered to be a 7-8 seed at best, yet Curry didn't have "too much help" in 2015 with a much better supporting cast, it isn't a bad argument, it just shows a double standard that the media doesn't want to admit that they're holding Harden too, even if they are. Would it be the main argument I'd use for Harden? No. But it certainly is worth pointing out.
This whole sportscenter sc6 with Michael and Jemele is arguably the worst idea ESPN has ever had and they have a lot of **** programming.
Who are the 12 b****es who voted for Westbrook as per poll results? They need to be crushed and then BANNED ASAP
I thought Harden had a firm grasp on the MVP but I'm beginning to think that this media bias is going to really **** him over. Also the fact that most people are lazy and dumb. There are more than a few pundits who readily admit they would vote for Westbrook if he gets a triple double but would not if he averages 9.9 assists. This is pure dumbass logic. It also doesn't help that Westbrook gets non stop coverage and his teams' results make absolutely no difference.
I'm hoping that all of this love for Westbrook is coming from a vocal minority while Harden's supporters are just chilling in silence. Wins are very important when it comes to who gets awarded the MVP, it's mainly these ESPN fools/media talking heads on TV who are disregarding Westbrook's record and playoff seed.
They just regurgitated my 2 rebounds vs. 10 wins argument on 10 before tip damn near word for word. I want a check heathens!!
