What does MVP mean?

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 10:21 AM MDT in Suns News

Every year it comes down to this question doesn't it. There is rarely a consensus player that stands out so far above the others that the debate avoids each person's understanding of "Most Valuable".

Perhaps my Google skills aren't up to par, but I couldn't find the official answer. There's lots of opinions out there though.

In the comments on this site ZonaFlash says its the guy you pick first on the playground.

If you could draft one player for your imaginary team's playoff run, based on the regular season, who would it be. Imagine the playground, and you pick the team first, who do you pick to win?

Sorry ZF, but I disagree. That limits the discussion to basically the best player and ignores what the player did with the team his personal diety and GM provided.

The best description I found in my Googling was this one by Erick Blasco:

Picking an NBA MVP is always difficult due to the undefined subject of what constitutes an MVP.

An MVP should be a dominant player that is the driving force of his team's greatness. An MVP should be able to enforce his skills against even the most skilled of opponents.

An MVP shouldn't just be a player who plays at a high level, but one who has his team play at a high level because of him.

An MVP should only play for a team that has matched or exceeded expectations as MVP's don't disappoint.

MVP's should be able to dominate weaker teams because of their presence, and should be able to beat elite teams because of their tremendously talented and clutch play in close games.

Numbers should not matter in determining an MVP. Players are great on basketball courts, not stat sheets.

Erick's definitions are as good as any I have seen and I tend to agree with them.

But this vote isn't about criteria. Any set of criteria you could come up with in a year like this with several exceptional candidates would just end up with multiple answers. So the debate just ends up with those inclined to support one player pushing for criteria that supports their pre-exisiting choice. Hate Kobe? Then you clearly are going to argue that PER is important since he's ranked 8th this year.

If the league wanted to establish specific criteria than I am sure they would have by now. The fact is that its left up to the media voters. It is purposely meant to be their opinion.

So, in my world of no criteria, structure or direction then my opinion is clear.

Kobe Flippen Bryant. For his entire body of work; his fourth quarter clutchiness; his team's exceeding expectations; and yes his on and off the floor leadership to move past this summer's silliness and get a team full of young guys confident and playing well. Who would have guessed the league would fear Sasha Vujacic? That alone is worthy of the MVP.

0 recs | Comment 66 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I actually think you said this best earlier.

We give it to him so we don't have to hear about it again!

by ZonaFlash on Mar 31, 2008 10:28 AM MDT 0 recs

Yes - that too!

Phx - where riding Diaw happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 10:32 AM MDT up 0 recs

It's simple to me

Kobe has great players on his team again, Paul doesn't have the same great players. Just one other great player. I think CP should get it easily. And I don't even like Paul, but its obvious by the normal judging of how your team does and why. To be fair though, I haven't seen the Lakers play a lot this year, so I don't know.

Nothing in this Verse can stop us!

by jasonsuns1 on Mar 31, 2008 10:46 AM MDT 0 recs

Great players?

I'm not sure that the numbers justify this:

The Lakers' "others":

Odom: 14.0 ppg, 10.6 reb, 3.6 ast. 1 steal
Gasol: 18.9 ppg, 8.5 reb, 3.1 ast, 1.5 blocks
Bynum: 13.1 ppg, 10.2 reb, 2.1 blks

The Hornets' "others":

West: 20.4 ppg, 9.0 reb, 2.3 ast, 1.3 blks
Chandler: 11.7 ppg, 12.1 reb, 1.4 blks
Peja: 16.3 ppg, 4.3 reb, 46 percent on 3's

The Lakers' others may be better than the Hornets' but not significantly so. In fact, the only aspect they seem to clearly better the Hornets' trio on is name recognition.

But even if it were true that the Lakers' trio were clearly better, you have to remember they've never played together. Never. Not one game. And, collectively, they've missed 93 games. On the other hand, the Hornets trio has missed only 14 and played together 60 times.

There are many good arguments for Chris Paul being the MVP, but strength of teammates is not one of them.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 11:35 AM MDT up 0 recs

good points

I was thinking more potential. The potential for Gasol / Bynum and Kobe in my opinion (not based on stats but based on Bynum's emergence into one of the top 5-10 players in the league, and Kobe already there, and Gasol being a great role player, I don't think N.O. matches this.

But to be fair, I'm more familiar with the lakers. And of any team in the west, it's N.O. I fear the most (as a Suns fan). Lakers will probably get eliminated due to injuries, etc, lack of playing together, etc.

Nothing in this Verse can stop us!

by jasonsuns1 on Mar 31, 2008 7:42 PM MDT up 0 recs

but if the lakers had another season of playing

together, healthy, then I'd be more worried against that matchup... Both great teams.

Nothing in this Verse can stop us!

by jasonsuns1 on Mar 31, 2008 7:44 PM MDT up 0 recs

They need a full preseason to gell

but the Olympics are on this summer. Not certain whether they will have enough time in the preseason to figure out how to get Bynum, Gasol, Lamar, Fish and Kobe in sync.

The new-look Suns also need a preseason, imho. I don't think we've scratched the surface of what this team is capable of doing.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 7:56 PM MDT up 0 recs

It's a tough call...

Kobe has been great, no doubt about it. But CP3 has a strong case also. He is putting up some great numbers, just like Nash did when he won it twice.

I'd give it to him. He has better numbers than Kobe, His team is first in the west and nobody expected that.

He makes his team better and didn't need a gift (Gasol) to be at the top of the standings and be happy with his team.

An MVP doesn't bash his players, An MVP does not think twice when deciding if going to the hole or giving a teammate a pass.

About Sasha and Farmar playing well?? They are professionals...they are getting paid, It's their job to get better and help their team. Phil Jackson is playing them more and giving them the confidence to take big shots, not Kobe.

At least that's my opinion.

by PanamaSun on Mar 31, 2008 11:15 AM MDT 0 recs

Kobe for Executive of the Year?

Yes, Kobe has been awesome this season. Yes, he deserves to be the MVP (I just think CP3 deserves it even more). Yes, he's one of the greatest ever, and it's a shame the league doesn't have a means to adequately honor that until the player retires.

However... The Lakers are a better team as much or as more because Andrew Bynum improved by leaps and bounds (OK, Kobe's calling him out, while inexcusably rude, probably did play a huge role in that, so score one for Kobe in the leadership category). They acquired Derek Fisher and Pau Gasol in what was essentially addition by subtraction twice (first Smush then Kwame) and addition by multiplication! Take Kobe off the team now, and they are still very, very good. But Kobe IS the main reason this team improved. His griping in the offseason forced the front office's hand. So I say, nominate him for Executive of the Year.

by TexSUN on Mar 31, 2008 11:39 AM MDT 0 recs

Just say no to Kobe

The reason Kobe gets so much dap is because he's the closest player we have to Jordan in the game today, and the reasoning goes that since Mike was the GOAT, therefore Kobe should get the award. Since I don't think Mike was the GOAT (that honor belongs to either Bill Russell, who changed the game completely; or Wilt, who was the game's greatest ever individual contributor), then Kobe doesn't deserve consideration on that basis.

There are just too many Lakers fans masquerading as sports commentators in the media, if you ask me. If Kobe played outside of a major market, specifically outside of LA, imho he'd be Mitch Richmond (who was really good, btw). Basically, you just can't treat seriously fans of a player who voted him onto the all-star team as a bench playing rookie. If he wasn't good enough to start....

The MVP candidates this year are: Garnett, Paul, LeBron, and Kobe, in that order. Of course, any true consideration of MVP (ie the players that matter most to their teams, regardless of statistical contributions), would have Duncan and Nash at the top.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 11:44 AM MDT 0 recs

Mitch Richmond?

Mitch Richmond never scored more than 25.9 ppg. He never got more than 4.0 boards per game. He never got more than 5.1 apg. He never got more than 1.6 steals per game. He never even made an All defense second team.

Kobe's highs: 35.4 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.2 steals. 5 time All-NBA defense 1st team. 2 time second team.

This is ridiculous. Mitch was good. Kobe is great.

Also: if we're going by importance to team, the award clearly goes to Lebron unless you think the Duncan-less Spurs and Nash-less Suns aren't better than the Lebron-less Cavs.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 11:54 AM MDT up 0 recs

Lebronless Cavs = Bobcats

Phx - where riding Diaw happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 12:00 PM MDT up 0 recs

Hey, let's not insult the Bobcats.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 12:01 PM MDT up 0 recs

Nash and Duncan

I think the reason Nash and Duncan are no longer in the thick of it (even on my list) is that they have too much help these days. Up until this season, Nash was someone the Suns absolutely, positively could not do without. They looked like Miami when he had to miss a game, which was inexplicable given that Amare and Marion aren't exactly...OK, I won't go there. Anyway, point is, whether it made sense or not, the Suns were Steve Nash. They looked like an entirely different team without him.

But... Is that still true today? I don't think so. Obviously, we won't know for sure until he has to miss a game, but I really think that Nash has (willingly, most likely) has moved into more of a role-player position, and is allowing guys like Shaq, Grant Hill, and yes, even Amare to run more of the show. That doesn't mean that he's not still great. He is. But the Suns don't need him to be their all-everything anymore, and that's good because it means the "shut down Nash and watch the rest crumble" defensive plan won't work now. That said, I still think he's the Suns' "MIP" (Most Important Player). The Suns might not fall completely apart without him now, but they're a much better team with him, to a degree that I'm not even sure can be said about Amare (yet).

Duncan's in kind of the same boat. Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili muddy the waters, even though everybody knows that TD is really the reason the Spurs keep winning championships. But I bet he'd rather have all those rings than be at the top of the MVP list every year.

by TexSUN on Mar 31, 2008 12:02 PM MDT up 0 recs

What I really mean...

When evaluating players, you really have to take into account off-the-ball contributions, like making sure you move to places that spread the defense, or being in a position to make an intermediary pass.

Maybe it's an old-school white-boy Charlie Rosen perspective, but imho there's more to the game than dunking the ball, making a flashy pass or even manning up on 1-on-1 defense. The point of the game is for my team to beat the other team. That's it.

So when I mention Duncan and Nash, in the context of MVP, I don't really mean they should win the award, because they are clearly not having either consensus MVP type years from a statistical or team wins point of view. But I do think that what these guys do shouldn't go unnoticed.

IMHO, the reason we had difficulty in integrating Shaq is precisely because of Steve Nash: a combination of figuring out tactics, preferences and tendencies, recalibrating team timing, and Steves injuries. If Steve had been healthy, and the schedule a little more favorable, the team might have been back on track in 6 games, rather than the 10 or 11 it actually took.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 12:31 PM MDT up 0 recs

You're clearly missing the point..

Kobe is overrated, mostly because he plays for the Lakers. Doesn't mean he isn't very good, or even borderline great. In fact, I hold him in very high esteem, and love to watch him play. But he only figured out this season, that he has a team, and that its better to play real basketball instead of stunt basketball.

That little epiphany, however welcome, does not, in my mind, make him worthy of this year's MVP. He may yet become worthy.

And yes, I should have included LeBron in the list of importance to team, but since I mentioned him before, and because I don't like to repeat myself, I didn't.

And btw, I'd bet you never really watched Mitch Richmond play. He was considered, in his time in Sacramento, to be the 2nd best shooting guard in the league after Mike, by his peers and many other knowledgeable people.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 12:17 PM MDT 0 recs

Overrated

Three of Kobe's best years:

30.0 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 5.9 apg, 2.2 steals
35.4 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.8 steals
31.6 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 5.4 apg, 1.4 steals.

I'm pretty sure the only way you can overrate those years is if you call him Jesus. So unless you're making the claim that playing in Los Angeles actually makes Kobe so dominant, I don't see your point. Those are wonktacular years.

About Richmond: Man, I was down with Run-TMC from the beginning. I loved him. But he isn't Kobe.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 12:32 PM MDT up 0 recs

Of course....

Don't care about individual stats, because the only things that matter are team wins and stats, and team playoff wins and stats, and one's overall contribution to that. For crying out aloud, Allen Iverson used to score a boatload of points when he was with the Sixers, and they always used to lose badly against the west. Gaudy stats on a losing team are almost meaningless.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but if you're shooting 45%, and your team is shooting 48%, then you're a detriment to your team, from an offensive point of view, because you're reducing your team's efficiency. If you play great 1-on-1 defense against one opposing player, but then relax against other players, or don't play any team defense, then you're not helping your team to win.

It's how Bill Russell used to beat Wilt all the time: force Wilt to take all the shots, and make him less efficient, so while his individual stats look superficially good, his team loses.

Scoring 81 points in a game, doesn't make you the greatest scorer of all time. By that reasoning, Scoot Skiles, who owns the assist record, btw, would be the greatest point guard of all time, no disrespect to Magic, Oscar, Cousy or Stockton intended.

Like I said, I love to watch Kobe play, and this year he has matured on the floor. Until this year, his focus was on individual approbation, but he figured it out: he's scoring less, but his team is winning more. Mike did the same, btw. Russell never had to.

When I was 14 I also used to love the then equivalent of speed metal. But as I've grown up, my tastes in Basketball and Music have also matured.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 12:58 PM MDT up 0 recs

Scoring less; winning more?

Okay, so you're saying that if Kobe had scored less in 05-06, a team that actually had the preferred starting lineup of Smush Parker, Kobe, Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown, and Chris Mihm, would have been a contender?

That team went 45-37 and got a seven seed in the playoffs, which is right about where it should have been. If you think Kobe should have toned down his pursuit of "individual approbation," to allow Smush and Kwame more opportunities because that would have led to more victories...um...well...yeah. Smush Parker got cut by the Heat.

The reason Kobe is winning more this year is because , he has a better team around him. Sasha, Farmar, and Bynum all took huge steps this year, which may in some part have had to do with Kobe's reduced role but also, as should be plainly obvious, has more to do with the fact that young players develop. They don't sit around static waiting for Kobe to recognize their inner bloom. Furthermore, they added Gasol and Fisher, both of whom they've now lost, and well, the Lakers are playing .500 ball again, aren't they? Maybe Kobe should shoot less.

Last, if Kobe is a detriment to his team this year because he's shooting .458 and the Lakers are shooting .475, then you would have to admit that he was better for his team in 05-06 (35 ppg, nine zillion shots) when he shot .450 and the Lakers shot .453. Yet you say this is the year Kobe figured it out. By your own measurement though, he was a lot better for the team when he was scoring more. Peculiar.

Btw: in case you weren't aware, Russell's Celtic's had a wee bit more talent the Chamberlain's Warriors/Sixers.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 1:24 PM MDT up 0 recs

Maybe not a true contender, but closer.

As I seem to recall, and it's a somewhat painful memory, the Lakers were on the verge of knocking out the Suns in the first round that year. A team that had no size up front.

I also seem to remember that in the 3rd game Smush scored 9/16, Luke 8/19 and Kwame 5/8. Kobe shot 6/18 but had 7 assists. Kwame had a string of good games during that series, btw.

In the sixth game of that series, which the Lakers lost, Kobe got 50. In the 7th game, he famously pouted the whole of the last quarter.

What I'm saying is that if Kobe passes the ball more, and adjusts his game so that he's making more assists to positions where his teammates can do something useful with the ball, making the opposing team defend all your players, and improving the flow of the ball, the Lakers tend to win. That observation is valid now, and it was patently valid then. But neither Kobe, nor the Laker Nation (with the exception of Phil Jackson) seemed to be aware of that particular truth.

And Kobe is such a willful person, that he couldn't be told this, and had to figure it out for himself. Now, he does get it.

Oh and wrt Wilt, I'm just going by what Bill Russell actually said about defending Wilt, and his theories on defense in general. You know, making people think they're playing well, when they're actually playing poorly.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 2:26 PM MDT up 0 recs

Examination

I suppose you could say Lakers lost by 8 in game six because Kobe scored 50. You could say that.

Or you could say the Lakers lost that game because Phoenix shot 57% as opposed to 42% in game 2, 43% in game 3, 44% in game 4 (you know, the games the Lakers won).

But that'd be like saying the Lakers are better now because their young players have significantly improved (especially Bynum), and they added an All-Star power forward and a solid veteran PG, when we all know that it's clearly Kobe's passing.

And that's why the Lakers have gone 10-11 without Bynum or Gasol in the lineup and 40-13 when one of them are. Because Kobe's passing is making them better.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 3:17 PM MDT up 0 recs

Lemme get this straight

Well, hold on!

You were the one suggesting that the reason Kobe is so great is because of his superior stats. Are you now saying that Kobe is not the main reason the Lakers are in 1st in the Pacific? Hmm.

Welcome to my world. Enjoy the stay, and tip the waitresses generously.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 4:15 PM MDT up 0 recs

No

What I said what Kobe is not overrated, and he's much better than Mitch Richmond. The stats were evidence of that.

I never argued that Kobe is the main reason they have moved from a fringe playoff team to a genuine contender.

On the contrary, I repeatedly said it had nothing to do with Kobe. Instead, it had to do with the talent around him.

Note the following examples:

"But that'd be like saying the Lakers are better now because their young players have significantly improved (especially Bynum), and they added an All-Star power forward and a solid veteran PG, when we all know that it's clearly Kobe's passing." (irony)

"The reason Kobe is winning more this year is because he has a better team around him."

"I'm pretty sure the only way you can overrate those years is if you call him Jesus."

"This is ridiculous. Mitch was good. Kobe is great."

I thought I was being clear.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 4:30 PM MDT up 0 recs

Richmond v Bryant

I'm not sure that the stats are the truth in the matter. The NBA game was quite a bit slower for the bulk of Richmond's playing career. Despite the Run-TMC nickname, I would be surprised to find that team had as many posessions as most teams have had since roughly the 99-2000 season.

by KJ7 on Mar 31, 2008 4:34 PM MDT up 0 recs

Average PPG and FGA per game.

Average PPG for an NBA team in 1996-1997 when Mitch went for 25.9: 96.9

Average PPG for an NBA team in 2005-2006 when Kobe went for 35 ppg: 97.0

Average number of shots taken per game by an NBA team in 96-97: 79.3

Average number of shots taken per game by an NBA team in 05-06: 78.9

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 4:57 PM MDT up 0 recs

About Run-TMC:

In the great "beat the Spurs" Run-TMC year of 1990-1991, the NBA average ppg was 106.3 and the "despite their name" Run-TMC Warriors were throwing up 116 a game.

To compare, last year the average NBA ppg: 98.7 and the Suns led all with 110 ppg.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 5:03 PM MDT up 0 recs

Richmond

Only spent 3 seasons with the Warriors (88-91), then 7 seasons with the Kings, wasted away in Washington from 98-01 (3 seasons) and spent an obligatory year with the hated Lakers. Those Warriors teams were the best he was - at least while he was a major contributor. In all but 1-2 of those seasons he was a starter on teams that routinely scored sub-100's/game (per www.databasebasketball.com).

Anyhow, that's enough of the stat-mongering debate for me. He was a great player. MVP worthy in his day? No. But a stellar performer nonetheless.

by KJ7 on Apr 1, 2008 10:48 AM MDT up 0 recs

If the Lakers improvement..

had nothing to do with Kobe, then by definition he cannot be considered great :)

Actually, I do think Kobe is borderline great, but not because of any statistical contributions, but because when he decides to play a team game he's extremely good, and improves the play of his teammates on both sides of the ball.

I've watched Stones Bynum a lot this year, and while some of his improvement has come from working with Kareem, much of it has come from his improved on-court interaction with Kobe, to whom one has to give credit. Kobe (and Lamar too), are giving him the ball in the right place at the right time.

Anyway, my point wrt Mitch Richmond, which I'm sure you understood, but I'm going to repeat for the hell of it, is that Mitch Richmond was in fact a truly great player, who toiled away in obscurity, on a bad team, appreciated only by his fellow NBA colleagues, and chronically underrated by fans.

Kobes' stardom, imho, is simply due to playing in the #2 market in the USA, and were he to have played, say, on the Kings team Mitch played for, he wouldn't rate any comment wrt a candidacy for MVP, and his individual stats would probably have suffered too.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 4:57 PM MDT up 0 recs

Exercise in false logic #373

Because Kobe did not make the Lakers improve does not mean that he is not great. The reason they can be title contenders now is because Kobe had already kept them at a level fringe contention because of his own abilities. So the fact that he is responsible for the first eight steps but not the last two doesn't mean he isn't great or primarily responsible for the overall greatness of the team.

It means only that he isn't responsible for cream on top.

Or if you like numbers think of it this way:

06-07 Lakers operated at 70% greatness of which Kobe was 55% responsible.

07-08 Lakers operate at 85% greatness of which Kobe is 45% responsible.

He didn't cause the increase, because he was part of the principle to be increased. And he is still the greatest piece of the team. No other piece is as valuable, but that does not mean the team isn't as a whole more valuable if all the pieces are together.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 5:17 PM MDT up 0 recs

wonktacular?

I digg it!

by ZonaFlash on Mar 31, 2008 4:47 PM MDT up 0 recs

Thanks

I prefer new words to uncommon words. They add flavor.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 5:19 PM MDT up 0 recs

Richmond was the truth!

He is now vastly underrated and was quickly forgotten after he retired because he played by himself in Sacramento before they got serious about winning there. Had he played in a major market, or ever gotten any help, he'd be considered at the same level as Clyde Drexler, Joe Dumars, Chris Mullin, and all those other 2-guards from the 90's who were always lined up behind MJ. There was a time when the Sacramento Kings were a worse franchise than the Clippers, and Richmond basically spent his entire career there during that era.

by SoCalSun on Mar 31, 2008 12:42 PM MDT up 0 recs

CP3 by a hair...

When I think about the MVP, I think about a player who wills his team to victory, about whom the "gatorade cooler" talk consistently revolves around the day after they play, and without whom the team they play for would not be so successful. During Nash's two MVP years (and even last year), he was the guy people were blown away by, game after game. I'm not seeing that same guy this year--close, but not quite.

Kobe is probably the closest thing we've got to MJ these days, but I find it interesting that what it really took for his team to succeed was him suppressing his talents. When your best player needs to be less dominant for the team to win, I'm not sure that makes him the most valuable. I think he might win it this year, but some of that is a "lifetime achievement award."

Chris Paul is just killing all comers this year, just as Nash was doing his first two back in Phoenix. He is totally dominating teams at both ends of the floor, putting up all-around numbers that haven't been seen in a loooong time, and basically just forcing his way into the MVP discussion.

by SoCalSun on Mar 31, 2008 12:32 PM MDT 0 recs

MJ had to suppress

MJ had to suppress too. When they were winning championships, he wasn't scoring 37 or 35 ppg anymore.

It's just that when he suppressed his game was still higher than Kobe's suppressed game, because Jordan is better (but not way better) than Kobe.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 12:37 PM MDT up 0 recs

I know its not fair

but I just can't "vote" for Paul for the simple reason that its his first MVP-like year.

In fact, I have to go with LeBron over Paul this year too.

I want to see Paul have a solid playoff performance and come back and put up these kind of numbers again.

That's not to say he hasn't been awesome and perhaps most impressive on defense which is what puts him at the top of the list of PG's imho.

Phx - where riding Diaw happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 12:38 PM MDT up 0 recs

So does that mean...

...you didn't think Nash deserved his first MVP either? Just wondering....

by TexSUN on Mar 31, 2008 12:43 PM MDT up 0 recs

The competition

that year wasn't as feirce and Nash wasn't exactly new to the league in 04-05

Phx - where riding Diaw happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 12:56 PM MDT up 0 recs

That said

Paul 07-08 > Nash 04-05 but not > Kobe or LeBron 07-08

math again...

Phx - where riding Diaw happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 12:57 PM MDT up 0 recs

Nail on the head

I'm sure it's not what you meant, but the increased competition in the West is exactly why CP3's brilliant season isn't standing out from the crowd more. In any other season, if the Hornets(!) were doing what they are, don't you think CP3 would be getting the kind of press Nash was getting the past three years?

Instead the story has been "Wow, the Lakers are back! Hurray for the good old days! Kobe is the greatest!".

by TexSUN on Mar 31, 2008 1:09 PM MDT up 0 recs

The MVP is not a career award

Who is having the most impact this year, that's what matters.
Don't get sentimental.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 1:03 PM MDT up 0 recs

Stan, Stan....

Nothing says in order to be an MVP, you have to have had more than one MVP-type year. That is highly illogical. Put it in a music context. For many great acts, their first album is one of their best. So they're inelligible for Album of the Year?

It is not the Most Valuable Player Because He Was Able to Duplicate his First Most Valuable Player Performance award.

For instance, last year's Most Valuable Player was Tim Donaghy. He had never had a MVP-type performance before. It was the first year he made a difference.(tongue-in-cheek)

'07-'08 Suns: It's clobberin' time!

by Hawk42 on Mar 31, 2008 1:10 PM MDT up 0 recs

Hawk Hawk

My point in this post is that there are no criteria so in the absence of such I choose in making my opinion to consider the "entire body" as the tie-breaker.

For example, I am giving LeBron credit for his AMAZING performance in beating the Pistons in the playoffs last year. The fact that these guys - Kobe and LeBron - have delivered when it matters most even if it isn't technically this season separates them from Paul.

And like TexSun just said - in any other year Paul would be it.

Good thing they don't have rules for this thing.

Phx - where riding Diaw happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 1:23 PM MDT up 0 recs

I'm with Stan on this

The MVP is a silly award without criteria. Use what you want.

Vote Stephen Jackson.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 1:26 PM MDT up 0 recs

Or Monta Ellis

or Baron Davis for that matter

Phx - where riding Diaw happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 1:28 PM MDT up 0 recs

Antoine Walker?

by ZonaFlash on Mar 31, 2008 1:30 PM MDT up 0 recs

That dude

is way under appreciated!

Phx - where riding Diaw happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 1:51 PM MDT up 0 recs

dude

now its way over-appreciated. thanks a lot. grimaces

by ZonaFlash on Mar 31, 2008 4:44 PM MDT up 0 recs

Criteria for MVP

XXXX - year for which performance was given
Most - the highest, greatest, largest number
Valuable - quality that contributes in the greatest way to team success on the court, defined as winning games
Player - team member that performs on the court

Of these three, only the word Valuable is the least bit nebulous

Since we all agree this is a regular season award, I think we can define success in degrees.

I prefer these statemants:

Minimum, the team must qualify for the playoffs for the team to be considered a success. Beyond that, we should apply a sliding scale, meaning more weight should be given to a member of a #1 seed as opposed to a #8 seed. This does require a certain ammount of subjectivity. That's why there is a vote instead of Stern naming an MVP.

However ---- There are a few things it is clear should NOT be factors in determining an MVP:

Performance in prior years (Should never be a factor)
Playoff performance (this is why Dirk got his MVP)
Whether this player has received the award multiple times already (Nash's season was better than his MVP years, and he was just as valuable last year, yet somehow he did not get the same consideration from som who felt to give him three straight was an honor reserved for the likes of Magic, Jordan, Kareem, and Bird.

So when you say there is no criteria, you are most certainly in error. The criteria is somewhat objective, but not all subjective. I think you mean when you say there is no crieria that there is no complete criteria. In other words, we can all debate the word Valuable.

For example, as I said in one thread, I don't give it to Kobe, since he has a habit of pouting on the court. He will withdraw from the action, sometimes when his team needs him most such as in the Memphis game over the weekend. I have NEVER once seen Amare, Steve, LBJ, or KG do that. So in my book, Kobe cannot be most valuable, unless all players 'check out' from time to time. Did Michael ever do that? Now Pippen did, which is why I opposed his inclusion in the 50 greatest list.

Someone else might give him a pass for that. I cannot. That is part of my subjectivity. You cannot remove all subjectivity from the discussion, since the criteria are not spelled out for every consideration. But you cannot say there is no criteria.

'07-'08 Suns: It's clobberin' time!

by Hawk42 on Mar 31, 2008 3:41 PM MDT up 0 recs

Fair enough

So there is criteria:

MVP = The player with the most value this regular season and only this regular season.

Great. Now we're only limited to the 360+ players who played this regular season. Awesome.

I guess when I said "without criteria" I should have said without helpful criteria.

PS I've always thought the idea that an MVP should make the playoffs is silly. If somebody throws up 50 ppg again, I don't care if his team goes 0-82: he's my MVP.

by rosewood on Mar 31, 2008 4:01 PM MDT up 0 recs

Wait a minute

Not that that comparison would ever happen, but what did that 50 ppg get you as a team if you did not win any games? Value is not value unless it translates to benefit.

'07-'08 Suns: It's clobberin' time!

by Hawk42 on Apr 1, 2008 6:27 AM MDT up 0 recs

Think of it this way

A player's current value is determined by all of his experience.

So, its not that his numbers from previous years "count" as much as the overall impact it has on his "legend".

Oh forget the logic. Kobe is the MVP becuae IMHO he is.

Until they come up w/ a scorecard that measures and ranks qualitative and quantitative metrics for all players with some degree of unbiased certainty then I am going to just stick w/ my gut. Fair or not.

So there.

Phx - where greek mythology happens

by Phoenix Stan on Mar 31, 2008 4:24 PM MDT up 0 recs

Question

If Kobe is your MVP, how do you explain what he did in the Memphis game? Perhaps you are willing to accept a certain amount of quit in your MVP?

'07-'08 Suns: It's clobberin' time!

by Hawk42 on Apr 1, 2008 6:29 AM MDT up 0 recs

Kobe is not surpressing his talents.

What he has done is changed his game and, dare I say it, is playing more Nash-like basketball:
He's invloving his teammates, and passing the ball more to them in position where they can do something useful with the ball. He's playing off teammates (Lamar, Fish, Luke..) more coherently, and playing off the ball much better than before.

Because of Fish being there, he's reigning in his natural tendency of "Announcing his presence with authority", playing a higher and more subtle level of ball, and sporadically playing team defense.

Most importantly, he is showing some leadership, not because of the parking lot incident, but because he assumes responsibility for team lapses, and is working to ensure that the team doesn't repeat those mistakes.

by Pliny the Elder on Mar 31, 2008 1:33 PM MDT up 0 recs