It is supposedly given to the best player in the game and yet you have Nash (2 MVPS) and Dirk (1 MVP) have never won the Finals and both played together and never got out of the West. "Player who does the most with the least" is that really a true measure of how good a player is? Isn't it an individual award that team record should factor only slightly into?
If it really was supposed to be given to the best player in the game, Lebron would be winning every year for a long time and Jordan would have won more but it's not that award.
Its an award to measure the best player during the regular season not for what they accomplish in the playoffs. An award given to a player that if taken off the team, there pretty much will be no hope for that team.
What does MVP stand for? Most Valuable Player, so that should answer your question. It's not the Best Player in the League Award.
It's the best player on the team most likely to win it all and that's usually based on regular season record. That's why Kobe only has one and why Nash won it twice. It's why now Rose is very likely to win, unless Chicago has a late collapse and drops out of the top 3 spots in the east. If the spurs big 3 werent so balanced, one of them would easily win it. One might still win it.
MVP OF THE LEAGUE not TEAM. All other sports you don't see this definition where "he who does the most with the least" definition. One of the biggest BS definitions I've ever heard
MVP of the league? I don't even know what that means. You think MVP should refer to the player that makes the league the most money? IMO, the MVP should go to the player who does the most (in the regular season) to push his team into contender status. If the team is not a legit contender, then that should effectively disqualify any of their players from being an MVP.
MVP of the league would be Yao Ming since he brings so many viewers in from China and helped globalize the game. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
so the current criteria is accurate then? Then what exactly is an award for the best player in the game?
anybody remember the IBM award? IBM used an actual formula to determine the winner of each season: (Player points-FGA+REB+AST+STL+BLK-PF-TO+(team wins x 10) x 250)/ (Team points-FGA+REB+AST+STL+BLK-PF-TO) the award was discontinued in 2002 but is this formula still relevant enough that we can use it today? anybody want to do the number crunching on the MVP candidates thus far this year?
Individual awards in team sports is one of the most ridiculous things ever. It is of no significance and least important of all the awards.
I do think the term MVP is taken too literally. If it were really meant for a player who was more important to his particular team than any other player, Magic Johnson would've never won an MVP. I guess for 2 of his MVPs, you could use the argument that the award should go to the best player on the best team, but if that were the criteria, then Isaiah Thomas should have won the award instead of Magic in '89. Using that criteria penalizes players who happen to have good supporting casts. I mean, Kobe in LA could never be as important to his team as Lebron was in Cleveland. So I guess we should take Kobe's MVP and give it to Lebron. And I guess Lebron can never be as important to Miami as Rose is in Chicago or Howard is in Orlando. So he can forget about any MVPs in the next 6 years. And there is no "player of the year" award in the NBA. I'm of the opinion that the MVP should be given to the best player in the league that season, period.
FWIW, I don't think it matters or is really worth arguing about aside from giving your opinion. As far as I know, the league doesn't issue any sort of criteria to voters. Each voter therefore is free to interpret what "MVP" means. Some will vote for the best player, some will vote for the player most integral to their teams success, and some will vote for the best player on the best team. So it's pointless to argue about what the criteria actually is when no single method is being used. Arguing about what the criteria SHOULD be on the other hand . . .
