http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/sports/basketball/08hoops.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin Some more interesting quotes in the article, move this to GARM if you want.
What is the definition of MVP? Best player on the best team? Best player in the league? Most dominant (whatever that means) player in the league? The player who makes the most difference to his team? Most VALUABLE Player, "valuable" to whom?
The best definition of MVP is -- Most Valuable Player. As in, brings the most value to his team. I think the best way to look at it is which player improves his team's chances of winning a championship the most (compared to if you replaced him with just an "average" player). That pretty much eliminates all players on non-contenders from discussion, and I think that's appropriate. Considering that the Lakers have virtually no chance of winning a championship this year, I don't think Kobe should be seriously considered for MVP. Kobe increases the Lakers chances of winning a championship from 0% to maybe 5% (optimistic). Dirk increases the Mav's chances of winning a championship maybe from 5% to 25%. For Nash, it's like 3% to 20%. That's how I look at it. Very subjective, of course.
I hope Dirk doesn't get it simply because he isn't that much different than he was every other year. Most of Dallas' success has to do with Avery's pestering motivation and Josh Howard's rise to near elite. I'm going with Steve Nash because if he won the MVP those last two years doing what he did, he's far superior this year and also Phoenix absolutely lives and dies with Nash running their game. He is irreplaceable through any other player in the league including Jason Kidd. You can replace Kobe with T-Mac, Lebron, Wade, Carmelo, Pierce and most other star guards and the Lakers would be fighting for 7th as they are now. But no player can replace Nash.
Dirk and Nash, it should be limited to those two. Kobe might be the best individual talent in the league, but something has to be said for team success. I think you replace Kobe with McGrady, Lebron, or Wade and they would still be roughly where they are. An argument could be made that with Yao out, the Rockets' roster was about as impressive as the Lakers', although the best player on either team would be Odom. Still, McGrady led his team to an impressive record without arguably the league's MVP up to that point; Kobe's Lakers struggled mightily in the absence of Luke Walton (that was when they had that free-fall in the standings). There is something to be said for doing more than just scoring the ball.
If I had a vote, my vote would be: 1. Dirk (if I could bring myself to do it) 2. Nash 3. McGrady 4. Kobe 5. LeBron
Tmac has already said that Kobe is the best couple years ago, and who can argue, you could even make a strong point saying that Kobe is even better than Jordan at the same age.
Tmac just said that because he wants to do Dirk dirty in the playoffs like Hakeem did to Robinson when Robinson won the MVP.
but why? and this goes for everyone else saying the same thing. why has this morphed into the most valuable team award instead of the most valuable player? we already have a most valuable team award. it's called the nba championship. we recognize team success every single year from mid-april to late june in the playoffs. not having one of the 2 or 3 best supporting casts in the league already means you have to go home without a championship that year, why does it also mean you have to be precluded from individual awards as well? so replace him with 3 other mvp quality players and they're about the same? yeah, that seems to be about right. us w/o yao vs the fully healthy lakers is somewhat close. the lakers would definitely have more offensive talent, but have virtually no defensive talent, whereas the rockets had deke, battier, and chuck helping to make us a very good defensive team. the other problem is that what offensive talent we had fit tmac (or most any superstar) perfectly, in that they could all shoot from the perimeter. head, battier, alston, and howard could take advantage of any double team of tmac (just don't let rafer inside the 3 point line). they're perfect complementary, dependent role players. meaning they depend on a creator like tmac to get them shots. whereas odom, the lakers best offense outside kobe, is a much better individual player and their supporting cast could beat tmac's supporting cast in a game, they're less complementary, independent role players. meaning they can do stuff with the ball themselves. the independed cast would typically perform better on its own than a dependent cast, but throw in the superstar, and the dependent cast is fully utilized. an independent cast is not, as you now have several players who are best with the ball, and thus they can never be fully utilized. that's not to say even flawed the lakers didn't have more offensive talent around kobe, just that the value or our role players jumps with a star while their's only goes up a little. (for an even better example look at dirk and nash and dallas and phoenix. on the whole, dallas has an independent cast, phoenix a dependent one. you take the star off dallas, they just move terry, howard, stackhouse, harris up in the pecking order and play on. take the star of phoenix, everything changes. but put the stars on the respective teams (no matter who the star is), and the phoenix cast suddenly gains a lot more value than the mavs. the mavs are just so good that even with a smaller jump they still win more games.)
So francis 4 prez, do you think McGrady should have earned it when he scored 32ppg with Orlando that one season? It's pretty much the same situation.
aside from the fact kidd would thrive in an offense like this (if he gets 9+ assists on new jersey, what would he do on phoenix?), and that guys like paul and deron williams would do great in phoenix, we'll assume none could make everything run quite so well as nash. but you could replace nash with duncan or kg or lebron or kobe or tmac or dirk and phoenix would still be really really good. just b/c they wouldn't run and gun the same doesn't mean they wouldn't win just the same. imagine a frontline of duncan, amare, and marion with bell, barbosa, and jones on the perimeter and diaw and kurt thomas coming off the bench. have fun scoring against duncan, marion, and bell. have fun guarding duncan with jones, bell, and barbosa hitting 40% of their 3's on the outside, amare destroying you when you double team and on the offensive glass, and marion being marion and doing a little of everything. you're telling me that's not a 60+ win team just like the suns are now? they would be a very good halfcourt offense with a much much improved defense. unless you just don't think duncan is a winner. and replace nash with any of those others, and yeah the suns change, but they would still be quite unguardable and the defense would be better in essentially every case. just b/c there isn't a better point guard doesn't mean there aren't better players.
That's the whole point of the MVP award. There is absolutely no criteria for it, the NBA deliberately wants an ongoing debate year after year. Whether voters vote for Kobe or Dirk it doesn't really matter, it sort of shows how ridiculous individual awards in team sports are.
i can't say i followed mvp talk (or the orlando magic) nearly as much back then and i don't know where he finished, but i don't see why i wouldn't think he should be way up there if that season was playing out right now. anyone who puts up 32/6.5/5.5 on a good shooting percentage, leads the league in PER, and somehow wins 42 games with a supporting cast where the 5 highest total minutes guys were pat garrity, darrell armstrong, mike miller (who only played 49 games), shawn kemp and jacque vaughn (shawn kemp and jacque vaughn!!) definitely deserves heavy consideration. i'm not even saying kobe should win it this year, just that i don't see why guys like kobe (or tmac on orlando) automatically get eliminated b/c their teams aren't awesome. i just don't see how a guy's value improves just b/c his teammates do. if player X has inferior supporting cast A and wins 40 games, is he less valuable than if he has superior supporting cast B and wins 60 games, even if nothing about him has changed?
Durvasa, interesting way to put it. But your odds of those teams winning IMO are too high without Nash and Dirk (assuming those players were not available for the whole playoff). I say the Mavs are probably 40% with Dirk and everyone else, 2% without Dirk. The Suns are maybe 20% with Nash, < 1% without. Spurs maybe 20% with Duncan, 1% without (if SA catches the Suns for the 2nd record, I'd say the Suns at 15%, Spurs at 25%). Next comes Detroit, maybe 8% (take away any starter, 2%). Then comes the Rockets, maybe 4% with Tmac or Yao, <1% without either. I say next is Mia and Chi at 3% and the rest of the field at 2%. The Lakers with Kobe are <1%, without him it is just < .01%. Looking at it this way Dirk is the strong #1, Nash the strong #2, Duncan probably #3. And I think it might not be off. If you subbed Kobe for Duncan for instance would the Spurs be better? I don't think they would be. Would the Lakers be a better team with Duncan instead of Kobe--I think they might. In all fairness Kobe has a locked claim for being the 3rd greatest guard to play for the Lakers. % to maybe 5% (optimistic). Dirk increases the Mav's chances of winning a championship maybe from 5% to 25%. For Nash, it's like 3% to 20%. Agreed. But for the record the Kobe has a lot more talent and skill to work with than Tmac does once you have taken Yao out. (well with Bonzi not available too, and he hasn't been for Tmac)
He finished 4th in MVP voting that year. Don't forget that Mike Miller's replacement was none other than Jeryl Sasser(JERYL SASSER!!!!) IMO he should be in the Hall of Fame for that.
f4p, All valid points, and I am not really disagreeing with you in principle. However, I think even you have to acknowledge that the MVP award has morphed into an award for the best players on winning teams. Over the past years that has become more or less THE criterion for winning the award. I understand what you're saying, but right now that's what people vote based on. I don't think they will ever again give it to a player on .500 team, it will always be the best players on front-running teams. I am not saying I agree with that entirely although I DO believe that you have to factor 'winning' into the formula somehow or the award would lose credibility (Would you consider Allen Iverson on a Philly team that can't even win 30 games, even if AI was averaging 32ppg/8 ast? I think the answer has to be no). That's the 'trend' the MVP voting now follows.
