Or low. If it were just relative to expectations, Shane Battier should be MVP. You knew our Friend from Argentina would bring it, but who would've expected Battier to put up 14 and 16 points in Games 3 and 4?
What's your expectation for our friend from Argentina then? I certainly expect him to rebound well, and to shoot better than 2/6 from the free throw line.
It is stupid to say that since someone voted for player 'A' in an online poll that means they hate player 'B'.
What about his stellar FG% and ppg? All above season avg. Are you bashing him because he almost has as many votes as Yao in a poll that means nothing?
Those are definitely merits for consideration. But did you ignore the other categories? "Bashing" is a loaded word, the right one is "evaluate."
He improved statistically in 5 categories, and did worse in 4. He definitely played well, and provided good defense.
It was written tongue-in-cheek. I meant Scola's offense wasn't surprising because you knew the guy had it in him. But considering our low expectations for Battier's offense, his sudden transformation into an offensive juggernaut - at least for those two games - probably even shocked his teammates. Hence, he gets the MVP for overachievement. BTW if you're going to point out Scola's going 2/6 from the free-throw line for that one game, you should probably mention he went 13/16 in the other five games.
Wouldn't it be called overachievement award or most improved player award? But bad free throw shooting was one of the biggest reasons we lost in Game 2. If Yao missed a free throw in a tight game, he would be equally scrutinized -- the Houston-Dallas series come to mind.
What award are you talking about. This is just a poll of people's opinions, and for some reason, you have something against people thinking Scola was the MVP of the series.
I counted 10 and am pretty sure Yao did similarly (in terms of number of categories in which he improved). BTW I see a lot Scola voters keep throwing the term "consistency" around when they are praising their man, could you care to explain, semi-statistically if you can, what does it mean?
Oh boy, don't get into what blender and I are discussing. "Against people" is another one you should avoid using.
As aways, whoever can get more points is the MVP. That's why Yao is less important than Tmac, Scola and Brooks in fans' eyes.
Whatever floats your boat, my friend. I'm saying since this is about overall performance in a series, don't point out just one bad game to support your argument while not giving Scola credit for his other games. That's like talking about Yao's field-goal percentage and saying we almost lost Game 3 because Yao shot 2/7 (28.6%), while neglecting to mention that he went 39/57 (68.4%) in the other five games.
What does MVP mean? If it counts the ratio of the salary with contribution, Scholar is MVP of the team. If it just counts the contribution (importance), blind people will select other player instead of Yao.
If we lost Game 3, Yao's poor FG% is certainly going to be under the magnifying glass. Overall performance is fine, but game-wise stats are more important. An analogy is if Rockets blew out Blazers by 30 points in one game, but ended up losing other 4 by 1 or 2 points, you can't really say we are the better team since we outscore our opponents by more than 20 points in the series.
And just to clarify, wnes, I was just joking about Battier and his offensive prowess, because personally, I think it's kind of silly to talk about MVPs for first round series. And as I wrote before, if you asked anyone on the team, I think there would be no argument as to who the most valuable player of the Rockets is, and how he has been performing.
you got it. MVP means value. if we don't have Yao, everything would be different and more difficult. but without Scola, we would probably lose one more game, that's it. this is MVP means.
