KD will probably win it this year - still bugs me the year the Rose won it - Lebron could have made history with what 4-5 in a row? As it stands I wish LeBron gets his 5th this year and wins 3 in a row, but if anyone can dethrone the king its KD and I have no problem with KD winning it - he will be more justified in being the MVP this year compared to the year Rose won it which was really a "all us media all hate lebron for going to miami so we're gonna give it to someone else' type deal
I've made my peace with the MVP being a meaningless award after Iverson won over Shaq. Season win shares leader, PER leader, etc mean more to me than MVP as career accomplishments. Since 2000, of the 13 MVP's I consider 5 of them to be EGREGIOUSLY wrong, not just arguable, just plain wrong. Can you guess the 5?
He's up in the 30's PER wise- only LeBron has done that recently, and even he isn't hitting that this year. Of course, he's gotta sustain it for another 40 games.
What's wrong with Iverson winning over Shaq? Given their supporting casts and team records, I don't have a problem with Iverson getting it.
Iverson's teams were good because they had awesome defenses, which he contributed very little to (mostly because he's a 5'10" guard) besides steals. He had ridiculous per game numbers but were very inefficient. He was 7th in PER and 10th in win shares. Shaq was 1st by a wide margin in both PER and win shares that year and both teams had identical records and the Lakers achieved that in a much tougher conference.
Hakeem 1993-94: 41 mpg, 27.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.6 spg, 3.7 bpg, 56.5 TS%, 25.3 PER, .210 WS/48, 58 wins Robinson 1993-94: 40.5 mpg, 29.8 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 4.8 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.3 bpg, 57.7 TS%, 30.7 PER, .296 WS/48, 55 wins Robinson should have won it, he top 5 regular season performer ever, but was in the same boat as Wilt, his scoring and efficiency went down in playoffs mainly because he had no go-to move.
The MVP doesn't give bonus points for conferences, but it does take a player's supporting cast into consideration. Shaq had Kobe. Iverson had......Eric Snow? Aaron McKie?
The MVP doesn't give "bonus points" to anything nor does it really have any real reasoning behind the votes besides going with the best story for that year. So the MVP should always go to who has the worse cast? Maybe that should be a consideration if it's they're somewhat statistically in the same ball park but Iverson was no where near Shaq. Would you have given Rose a second MVP in '12 because he didn't have the supporting cast as Lebron?
The MVP definitely considers supporting cast. That's the reason Nash won his 2nd MVP. Also, you're not considering how having an inferior supporting cast impacts a player's stats. Rose didn't play enough games in 2012 to merit consideration for the MVP.
The MVP has no set guidelines, you can't just claim that they do anything with any rhyme or reason. It's just writers who vote for the best stories every year. If it was perfectly objective, Nash should never have won those two, Rose should never have one, Kobe should not have won in '08, and Iverson FOR SURE should not have won. This is why I don't consider MVP's to measure players' legacy. There is too much BS year to year. BTW, Nash had great supporting cast. Amare was a legit top 10 player in the league those years. Marion was also a very very good player.
Actually, if you look at the MVP winners over the years, you'll see a pattern. The only MVP I remember that doesn't fit the established criteria would be Jordan's 1988 MVP. When Nash won his 2nd MVP, Amare missed the entire season.
He still had Marion, and very good role players like Diaw and Barbosa. Look, you're not going to convince me there is any pattern or convincing reasoning behind the MVP award, especially terrible selections like Iverson, Rose, and Nash. There literally is cannot be any criteria by the nature of how they select them - voting. Everyone has a different agenda and criteria and it always ends up being "the best story of the year award". I realize this is the case for almost any award in any sport, which is why I only rely on objective statistical data and my own eyes to form my opinions on players' performance. I don't need a group of people telling me that freaking Derrick Rose was more valuable than Lebron or Craig Biggio doesn't belong in the HOF.
At the time, Diaw and Barbosa weren't considered good role players. 05-06 was Nash's 2nd MVP. Look at the stats for Barbosa/Diaw for the 04-05 season. Underwhelming. The 05-06 Suns lost their leading scorer from the prior season, and Nash still led them to the 4th best record in the league. That's why he won. That's cool. If you insist on being close-minded, that's your choice.
The way KD is going he will need to be average for the second half of the season and the Thunders going out in the first round of the playoffs to miss MVP.
Marion was a better player than Nash on the same team. He had more win shares and a higher PER while being a fantastic defender that can guard multiple positions. Nash wasn't even MVP of the Suns. What does 04-05 season have anything to do with Nash's '05 MVP? I don't see how I'm being close-minded. Because I don't agree with the MVP awards? Is disagreeing with the normal convention being "close-minded"?
