Maybe it's because he blames Harden's bromance with Bobby Brown as the reason for GP2 being in the D League. He's sour and this is his only outlet.
In terms of basketball skills, it's hard to improve much more at age 27. So in that regard, Harden didn't magically gain some new skills. The crossover, the shooting, the foul drawing, the passing were all there in the previous years. But, two things have happened this year 1) Mike D has designed a system to use Harden's skills in combination, not in isolation like previous years. So he is no longer holding the ball trying to do one of the above and if he can't get it he will try passing for a bail-out. Now, he is constantly gauging the defense and mastermind the play by using his skills. This makes a huge difference. This has to be attributed to Mike D and the coaching staff for figuring it out. They are not just telling Harden to make it happen, take us home, but giving him some guides on how to approach the game. Clearly you can tell Harden is learning to control the pace of the game, learning to set his teammates first before get his, learning when to take it over and when to trust his teammates. 2) related to 1, Harden has evolved because he is such a willing learner and smart basketball player. This attributes to him. He's bought in. He can put up huge numbers every game if he is truly interested in doing that. But he is not. He is willing to be in a role to use his skills to contribute to team's success even if that means he will get 15 points 10 assists on some nights - not bad, but not sexy, and not on the NBA nightly notables whenever he plays. He is capable of putting up a show every night but that's not his goal. That's credit to him. So I would argue, it's not because we are winning, he all of sudden gets the credit. Rater, because he has evolved and thrived in a system that maximizes his skills, we are winning and he should get the credit.
I did hear him say put Lebron on the Rockets and they would have an even better record. That's a non-falsifiable argument, plus as we've seen especially after last year, chemistry amongst players is of the utmost importance.
His entire argument is stupid and based on a flawed premise. It essentially boils down to this: -MVP should go to the best player in the league regardless of whether they have the best year or even play -The way you determine best player in the league is decide who gives his team the best chance to win a title -The way you determine who gives his team the best chance to win a title is see who actually won the title -Lebron won the title last year which means he's the best player in the league -Therefore Lebron is the MVP -This proves that Lebron is the best player and he should win MVP every year It's a head spinner.
Kellerman is a really bright guy. He has to take this argument because the show he is on. He has to be adversarial to get ratings. I don't think that he even believes in his argument.
I'm sympathetic to Kellerman's take. I believe LeBron is the biggest difference maker in the game. No player matches his ability to take an otherwise bad or mediocre team and elevate them to legitimate title contender. From that standpoint, he is the rightful MVP. But historically that's not the criteria people have used for an MVP vote, as sensible as it is. Jordan would have won 8 or 9 MVPs on that basis. The guy who's made a significant leap forward in terms of production and team success always gets extra credit.
I think nobody disagrees that LeBron can take subpar talent and take them to the Playoffs, so can Harden though and he has shown it, even before this season. I forgot what exactly was said in a video I watched - but it went something like this: if the Rockets maintain the pace they are on and win some 60+ games, James Harden will be the first player ever to have a team win at that clip with no other All-Stars on the team (includes All-Star appearances in previous seasons). Also a point many seem to dismiss - LeBron plays in the East. Put this Rockets squad in the East and right now they probably are the #1 seed. Put the Cavs in the West they might be worse than the Rockets record-wise (not saying the Rockets are a better team than the Cavs - but they sure as hell couldn't afford to rest Kyrie, Love or LeBron every other night)
That's actually a perfectly fine take except actual performance has to matter. Would you say that if Lebron missed the entire year he is still the MVP? If not, you acknowledge that the actual performance in the year matters.
My late grandfather had a cowherd on his ranch in East Texas. I've got pictures and everything. There may even be a dried cow patty from that herd somewhere in my garage, stuck on the bottom of an old boot, a fond reminder of Grandpa's old place, now passed into history. Is this thread related to cows and herds and stuff, or am I lost in the GARM again? Hey, that could be made into a song: I'm lost in the cowherd again Lost in the cowherd again I thought that the GARM was my friend, But I'm lost in the cowherd again.
I like how Eric Gordon having hype in high school means he's better than anyone OKC has. Let's be honest, if you swapped Gordon and Anderson for Oladipo and Adams, which two players get better and which two get worse? It's crazy how some think Anderson and Gordon are all of the sudden world beaters.
i believe that he criticized the Thunders for not able to keep the 3-stars (Westbrook, KD and Harden) together,
I'm listening to this interview while watching the Hornets game. One guy in the crew says, "Harden gets his guys such easy shots", and as I'm watching the game, Harden throws an impossible to miss alleyoop to Nene. Yup, he gets his guys really easy shots. They're right about that.
And Kanter, Andrew Robertson is a very good defensive specialist. The argument for Westbrook has been he has an inferior supporting cast than ours. Well ... I just don't see how Westbrook would slow it down at the key and pass around the perimeter. We do have more shooters but that doesn't mean Wes can work equally well as Harden. You put EG and Ryno on that team, he is going to use them sproadically because he doesn't have the mindset to get people involved. For crying out loud, he had KEVIN DURANT. I just shake my head for lazy argument like that. On the other end, let's say we get Ole and give them EG (there is just no such a thing that we have to give up all of our shooters, that's not a realistic argument), we probably figure out a different way to win. This can be seen from today's game against Hornets. With Ole being able to drive and create, we will have more space for Bev, Ariza and Ryno to shoot threes. Bev is not shooting nearly enough IMO. So we would be ok. OTOH, EG on that OKC squad would be reduced to another Anthony Morrow.
Cowherd is just another dude with an opinion, I don't think he's particularly strong with the NBA and College Football
