Why is "playing in the Finals" the litmus test for contention? That gives the Hawks and Cavs an unfair advantage. The Rockets and a few other Western teams have as good or better of a chance to win the title as those two teams. The Spurs have never won a title w/o HCA in the first round so not sure how they're such a sure thing either. Besides that, it's a regular season award. Playoff chances have nothing to do with it.
You know what's funny? When a guy puts up big numbers on a bad team, people say that's just inflated numbers. Now people use the same thing to argue the opposite, saying that putting up good numbers on a worse team is more impressive than on a better team. What gives?
It's not really one or the other. It's a combination of numbers, supporting cast, team success, etc. That's kinda why this MVP debate is fun. Many different situations/factors at play.
What gives is Curry, his coach, and his team are obnoxious, smug, a-holes. Especially that dirty d-bag Bogut.
The only truly objective definition of contender is "a team that is playoff-bound or has not yet been eliminated in the playoffs". By such a definition, there are perhaps 20 teams who are still "contenders". A more reasonable definition is "a team that is considered to have a significant chance of winning a championship." The stat you pointed out would be a good basis for deciding who is not a contender; not who is a contender. It seems to me that an MVP will rarely come from a team that isn't considered to have a decent chance of winning the championship. One would probably have to go back to Jordan winning an MVP in the 80s during the Lakers/Celtics era to find an example of this, and he was just ridiculous that year.
Curry is going to win the award. Best team record and he has the better stats. That doesn't mean Harden can't use that for extra motivation.
It's not like Harden's putting up great numbers on a lottery team. The Rockets are currently 2nd in the West. That's a far stretch from being a bad team. So you have two good teams, and one guy's team has had a bunch more injuries and required him to lift a heavier load, where the other has helped put together the best record in the league. Both players are great, but Curry gets to sit during the 4th quarter on a semi-regular basis. When Harden sits for more than a few minutes, the Rockets tend to turn double digit leads into 1-2 possession games. That as much as anything shows his value.
Though it is a regular season award, I think voters will be hesitant to give it to a player who they don't consider to have a good chance of making it to the final stage of the playoffs. The exceptions I can think of are only for players who have had individual numbers that just dwarf the rest of the competition and Steve Nash's second MVP campaign when the media seemed to think he had attained some legendary Magic/Bird level.
How is a meaningless definition more reasonable? Define significant chance If it includes people's opinions, it doesn't mean much Would that 98.5% of champions come from the top 3 seeds be a definition?
Since i already explained this once, here let me try again with something new Stop including the defensive numbers, they are white noise for these two players
