Your opinion of the value regular season MVPs?

[fpliii]

Some people on this board consider being awarded MVP to be a career-defining accomplishment, others consider it to be a highly flawed piece of hardware that has as much to do with the media's opinion of a player as with his actual performances over a year. Which camp do you fall into, and why?

There's another portion of NBA fans who feel the award once meant something, but at some point 'jumped the shark' so to speak. If this describes you, when did this happen? When players stopped voting for the award? When certain players were supposedly named MVPs to break up extended runs by certain individuals? When voters decided to push a story instead of picking the signature player of a given season? Some other reason?

No agenda here (or even bias...I'm currently undecided as to how to value MVPs), I'm just trying to get a good idea of the overall board climate with respect to this award.

[DaSeba5]

To me, the MVP is very important in ranking players. There's a correlation between the great players' rankings and their number of MVPs. Steve Nash has 2 MVPs. If he wins a ring, he jumps ahead of a lot of people because of his MVPs, no?

EDIT: What I mean is that it can be a major factor in ranking players. MVPs alone doesn't mean top 5, but it's an important thing to have.

[SpecialQue]

To me, the MVP is very important in ranking players. There's a correlation between the great players and their number of MVPs. Steve Nash has 2 MVPs. If he wins a ring, he jumps ahead of a lot of people because of his MVPs, no?

And what about Shaq?

[TylerOO]

They mean a lot. If you have no MVPs it hurts your ranking. Sucks for Wade, he will never get one

[magictricked]

I think any award like that is going to have flaws. This one even more, it's like a floating target, from year to year the cirteria seems to vary. It's not the best player in the league but sometimes it is, it's not the most valuable player to his team most the time. It seems to be awarded more often than not to the best player on the best team or one of the best teams which to me isn't a true MVP

[fpliii]

They mean a lot. If you have no MVPs it hurts your ranking. Sucks for Wade, he will never get one

true that, but he wins almost every other season...LeBron just had an all-time great year in 09

[DaSeba5]

They mean a lot. If you have no MVPs it hurts your ranking. Sucks for Wade, he will never get one

I really wish he won in 09. I knew LeBron would win it, but that one hurt.

[bdreason]

I don't place much value in MVP's when ranking great players against other great players. It's a media driven award, and while it certainly takes a great player to win the award, it doesn't distinguish them over other great players IMO.

[TylerOO]

true that, but he wins almost every other season...LeBron just had an all-time great year in 09
Yea wade was always in the discussion but ten years from now I'm not sure if people will remember that.

[SpecialQue]

Take the consensus top 10 all time players and tell me how many MVPs each player has. I'm interested in knowing this. I believe Hakeem also just has one?

[Droid101]

Meh. It's a popularity contest.

You still have to be pretty damn good to win one though.

FMVP means nothing, though. Anyone can get hot for five games. Especially back when the East was way weaker than the West... FMVP meant nothing. It should be Playoff MVP or "toughest series" MVP or something, when the two teams with the top records play that's when they give the award.

[Odinn]

They mean a lot but you need to put some serious weight to career mvp shares and 1st place votes.

[fpliii]

Meh. It's a popularity contest.

You still have to be pretty damn good to win one though.

FMVP means nothing, though. Anyone can get hot for five games. Especially back when the East was way weaker than the West... FMVP meant nothing. It should be Playoff MVP or "toughest series" MVP or something, when the two teams with the top records play that's when they give the award.

when did this become the case? has it always been one?


Take the consensus top 10 all time players and tell me how many MVPs each player has. I'm interested in knowing this. I believe Hakeem also just has one?

Abdul-Jabbar: 6
Jordan, Russell: 5
Chamberlain: 4
Bird, Johnson: 3
Duncan: 2
Bryant, O'Neal, Olajuwon: 1

[DaSeba5]

Kareem has 6

Russell and Jordan have 5

Wilt has 4

Malone, Bird, Magic, and LeBron have 3

Pettit, Malone, Duncan, and Nash have 2

Kobe, Shaq, Robinson, Erving, Barkley, Hakeem, Dirk have 1

[LakersReign]

Meh. It's a popularity contest.

You still have to be pretty damn good to win one though.

FMVP means nothing, though. Anyone can get hot for five games. Especially back when the East was way weaker than the West... FMVP meant nothing. It should be Playoff MVP or "toughest series" MVP or something, when the two teams with the top records play that's when they give the award.

Since it's all media driven now, I see it that way too.

[kennethgriffin]

it has some value in the terms of being named an MVP. but not in terms of how many you have

i think of it like a club. if you're truly great. you'l more than likely get atleast 1 mvp

but the media tends to boycott those whom they dont like verry much after that first mvp... or absolutely wait till the last second to give them one

like kobe/shaq/hakeem etc...

and theyel hand it out multiple times to people they just like personally...

i.e nash

shaq or duncan should have been mvp in 2005
kobe or dirk should have been mvp in 2006

my opinion is that a finals mvp is worthless without a season mvp. and a season mvp is worthless without a finals mvp

period. you need both to be a legend

[kurt_rambis]

And what about Shaq?
shaq was always injured.....he only played 7 seasons of +70 games. i think the only guy who has ever won without playing at least 70 games is bill walton. 2001 was really the only year he was 'robbed'

[fpliii]

And what about Shaq?

Shaq's a weird case...here are his career finishes (games played in parentheses)

93: 7th (81)
94: 4th (81)
95: 2nd (79)
96: 9th (54) ***
97: 9th (51) ***
98: 4th (60) **
99: 6th (49)
00: 1st (79)
01: 3rd (74)
02: 3rd (67) *
03: 5th (67) *
04: 6th (67) *
05: 2nd (73) *
06: --- (59) **
07: 12th (40) *****
08: --- (61) **
09: --- (75)
10: --- (53) ***
11: --- (37) *****

the number of asterisks corresponds to how many tenths of the season he missed (i.e. he missed 10%, one *, 20%, two **, etc.)

interestingly enough, the two other seasons I'd give him the award, the winners didn't play significantly more games than he did (01 AI - 71, 05 Nash - 75), so other things had to have come into play (in those two seasons, perhaps the emergence of Kobe and Wade respectively played a part in the voting)



it has some value in the terms of being named an MVP. but not in terms of how many you have

i think of it like a club. if you're truly great. you'l more than likely get atleast 1 mvp

but the media tends to boycott those whom they dont like verry much after that first mvp... or absolutely wait till the last second to give them one

like kobe/shaq/hakeem etc...

and theyel hand it out multiple times to people they just like personally...

i.e nash

shaq or duncan should have been mvp in 2005
kobe or dirk should have been mvp in 2006

my opinion is that a finals mvp is worthless without a season mvp. and a season mvp is worthless without a finals mvp

period. you need both to be a legend

griff - what's your specific, objective reasoning for the two bolded claims?

[kennethgriffin]

shaq was always injured.....he only played 7 seasons of +70 games. i think the only guy who has ever won without playing at least 70 games is bill walton. 2001 was really the only year he was 'robbed'


shaq diserved mvp in 1999, 2001, 2005

kobe diserved mvp in 2006, 2007 and maybe 2009 ( considering 65 wins in the west at the time vs 67 wins in the east are two completely different things. )

[Lebron23]

Shaq should have been a 4x NBA MVP. (1995, 2001, and 2005).

[fpliii]

shaq was always injured.....he only played 7 seasons of +70 games. i think the only guy who has ever won without playing at least 70 games is bill walton. 2001 was really the only year he was 'robbed'

in the two seasons (01 and 05) when he should have won in the eyes of most, the winners didn't play many more games (74 vs 71 in 01, 73 vs 75 in 05), so something else had to make the difference in the eyes of voters

[jlip]

IMO, in a vacuum, the regular season MVP would be the single most valuable individual accomplishment. Having said that, like all other awards, accolades, and stats it's equally important to understand the context and story surrounding the player winning the MVP. The context provides the variables which determine the ultimate value of any awards.

[raid09]

I would say that the value of winning the award means less than who was in the running for the award. Player X could be the most dominant player of his generation, and have 0-1 MVPs for whatever reasons - mostly media ... Shaq, Kobe, etc. But, if that player is finishing top-5 in MVP voting every healthy year for a decade, you know he is a generational talent.

[fpliii]

shaq diserved mvp in 1999, 2001, 2005

kobe diserved mvp in 2006, 2007 and maybe 2009 ( considering 65 wins in the west at the time vs 67 wins in the east are two completely different things. )


Shaq should have been a 4x NBA MVP. (1995, 2001, and 2005).

01 and 05 I agree with and hear all the time, but why 99 and 95 respectively from you two guys?

btw griff, respond to my other post first

[kurt_rambis]

in the two seasons (01 and 05) when he should have won in the eyes of most, the winners didn't play many more games (74 vs 71 in 01, 73 vs 75 in 05), so something else had to make the difference in the eyes of voters
2005 it was a really close race. nash barely pulled it out

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2005.html#mvp

shaq didn't put up huge 'shaq' like numbers that year...he obviously had a strong case but i don't think you can say he clearly deserved it over nash, or even dirk, who also had a great season

[Lebron23]

01 and 05 I agree with and hear all the time, but why 99 and 95 respectively from you two guys?

btw griff, respond to my other post first

Shaq had a monster stats in the 1995 NBA Season. Spurs won more games than Orlando that's why they gave it to the Admiral.

[Hands of Iron]

I would say that the value of winning the award means less than who was in the running for the award. Player X could be the most dominant player of his generation, and have 0-1 MVPs for whatever reasons - mostly media ... Shaq, Kobe, etc. But, if that player is finishing top-5 in MVP voting every healthy year for a decade, you know he is a generational talent.

Sure.

1980: 4th (Rookie Season)
1981: 2nd
1982: 2nd
1983: 2nd
1984: WON
1985: WON
1986: WON
1987: 3rd
1988: 2nd
1989: Misses 76 games due to career-threatening back injuries. Never the same player again.
1990: 10th
1991: 9th


All-Time NBA MVP Winners

6x - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar [1971, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1980]
5x - Michael Jordan [1988, 1991, 1992, 1996, 1998]
5x - Bill Russell [1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965]
4x - Wilt Chamberlain [1960, 1966, 1967, 1968]
3x - Larry Bird [1984, 1985, 1986]
3x - Magic Johnson [1987, 1989, 1990]
3x - Lebron James [2009, 2010, 2012]

All-Time MVP Voting Shares, Career

1) Michael Jordan, 8.138
2) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 6.203
3) Larry Bird, 5.693
4) Magic Johnson, 5.129
5) Bill Russell, 4.827
6) Lebron James, 4.389
7) Shaquille O'Neal 4.380

[Dictator]

Kind of a joke.

[Owl]

Some people on this board consider being awarded MVP to be a career-defining accomplishment, others consider it to be a highly flawed piece of hardware that has as much to do with the media's opinion of a player as with his actual performances over a year. Which camp do you fall into, and why?

There's another portion of NBA fans who feel the award once meant something, but at some point 'jumped the shark' so to speak. If this describes you, when did this happen? When players stopped voting for the award? When certain players were supposedly named MVPs to break up extended runs by certain individuals? When voters decided to push a story instead of picking the signature player of a given season? Some other reason?

No agenda here (or even bias...I'm currently undecided as to how to value MVPs), I'm just trying to get a good idea of the overall board climate with respect to this award.
I don't think it "jumped the shark", I'm probably in the middle-ish as to how it should be valued (with a sceptical leaning).

Saying Shaq is worse than Steve Nash because he has less MVPs is plain dumb. So just counting them without attention to context is a bad idea. Some years MVPs seem to be given to the best story. No GM would have traded LeBron James for Derrick Rose in 2010-11 even those Rose is younger. Certainly every GM would rather have LeBron's season rather than Rose's.

But LeBron winning the MVP for a third consecutive year, after the decision, with lower numbers than the previous year was a bad story. The overachiving versus media expectations Bulls were a great story. And so it suited voters to pick the Bull's star even if the real reason for the Bull's exceptional record was defense, depth and coaching. In 1963 Wilt Chamberlain got less MVP votes than Johnny Kerr

So I wouldn't set my stall by a single year's MVP voting. But on the whole it gives a good idea general idea of who was the best and when. The 4 players with most (NBA) MVPs are
Kareem (6)
Jordan (5)
Russell (5)
Chamberlain (4)
So if you've got a lot of MVPs that means something. But it's better if people know that those players were great and so think that they're worthy MVP winners, rather than thinking that they were great because they were MVP winners.
It's a similar story with MVP Shares, certainly imperfect, but useful. For example, if someone is much higher, or especially much lower than they are rated in GOAT type lists, it makes you wonder how good they really were. People could be higher on the MVP share list because they were a good story one year. But if a guy was never in MVP contention it suggests they were probably never elite (again context and competition should be considered).

[Owl]

Shaq had a monster stats in the 1995 NBA Season. Spurs won more games than Orlando that's why they gave it to the Admiral.
And Robinson didn't?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01.html

[Odinn]

Shaq had a monster stats in the 1995 NBA Season. Spurs won more games than Orlando that's why they gave it to the Admiral.
DRob vs. Shaq in 1995
PPG: 27.6 - 29.3
RPG: 10.8 - 11.4
APG: 2.9 - 2.7
SPG: 1.7 - 0.9
BPG: 3.2 - 2.4
FG%: .530 - .583
FT%: .774 - .533

DRob had bigger ORtg-DRtg difference and won 5 more games for his team.

Just stop with "Shaq should have been the MVP in 1995".

[SilkkTheShocker]

Extremely important when ranking players.

[Hands of Iron]

DRob vs. Shaq in 1995
PPG: 27.6 - 29.3
RPG: 10.8 - 11.4
APG: 2.9 - 2.7
SPG: 1.7 - 0.9
BPG: 3.2 - 2.4
FG%: .530 - .583
FT%: .774 - .533

DRob had bigger ORtg-DRtg difference and won 5 more games for his team.

Just stop with "Shaq should have been the MVP in 1995".

Hakeem beat them both in the same playoff run. :applause:

[Freedom Kid7]

MVPs are nice, but you have to consider a couple of things. For instance, do you consider the MVP to go to the statistically most impressive or the guy who led his team to the most wins? Sometimes they switch off when they do that. And other times the winners and 2nd place guy can be heavily debated. I mean, I still think Kidd should have got the MVP in '02 and you can debate if Nash was a legit MVP. They do help in terms of legacies and all, but you have to consider the circumstances of the competition at the time, the team record, etc.

[kennethgriffin]

Extremely important when ranking players.


well... being an mvp is important

but number of rings by mvp winners is the standard of which most are judged

not the other way around

otherwise moses malone's 3 mvps, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of hakeem, kobe, shaq etc..


but hes not. # of mvps is just a popularity vote. if the media doesnt like you. goodluck winning more than 1

but theres nothing the media can do to stop an mvp winner from winning multiple titles

[Odinn]

Hakeem beat them both in the same playoff run. :applause:
Yeah. But it's truly sad for DRob imo. He got his MVP and his legacy got destroyed by Hakeem in only a playoff series in the same year.

[fpliii]

well... being an mvp is important

but number of rings by mvp winners is the standard of which most are judged

not the other way around

otherwise moses malone's 3 mvps, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of hakeem, kobe, shaq etc..


but hes not. # of mvps is just a popularity vote. if the media doesnt like you. goodluck winning more than 1

but theres nothing the media can do to stop an mvp winner from winning multiple titles

griff, I still need responses from you with regards to two of your claims on the previous page, thanks

[guy]

well... being an mvp is important

but number of rings by mvp winners is the standard of which most are judged

not the other way around

otherwise moses malone's 3 mvps, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of hakeem, kobe, shaq etc..


but hes not. # of mvps is just a popularity vote. if the media doesnt like you. goodluck winning more than 1

but theres nothing the media can do to stop an mvp winner from winning multiple titles

To add to this and be more specific, the standard that results in Kobe Bryant being as high as possible is the standard that most are judged.

[DUP]

there have been some players in recent years who didnt even deserve it yet won it. so the respect value for it has diminished. there have been years where 2 players deserved it, but obviously only 1 gets it. so even if you judge by MVPs, u can still be off

[AK47DR91]

Regular season MVPs represent a player's peek, the best season or seasons if he wins multiple. It can validate that the player was a Top 10 player during his prime.

But to be in discussion as the absolute best player(s)/top 3 of a generation, a player needs both MVP and Finals MVP within a 5 year frame. Major bonus points for repeats.

That's why only Shaq, Duncan and Kobe can claim to be the best of their generation(1999-2010). Shaq's 2000 MVP, 2001 and 2002 Finals MVP. Kobe's 2008 MVP, 2009 and 2010 Finals MVP. Duncan's 2002 and 2003 MVP, 1999, 2003 and 2005 Finals MVP.

I believe that's what every player aim for. Championships and being the best of their generation. The All-Time list, Top 10/Top 20, and so forth are more for fans, writers and critics to debate and discuss about. All-Time greats don't usually diss other All-Time greats from different eras.

[imnew09]

Hall Of Fame.

[RazorBaLade]

you need 1, but anything over 1 and under 5 isnt really a big deal.. i think once you get like 4 or 5 mvps its pretty crazy

ultimately tho once youre a t3 ish player in the league, its just about the situation youre in.

[General]

Wish they just gave it to the best player. Derrick Rose and Nash wouldn't have any and Kobe and Lebron would have more.

[BaņkShot]

Wish they just gave it to the best player. Derrick Rose and Nash wouldn't have any and Kobe and Lebron would have more.
:applause:

[LakersReign]

well... being an mvp is important

but number of rings by mvp winners is the standard of which most are judged

not the other way around

otherwise moses malone's 3 mvps, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of hakeem, kobe, shaq etc..


but hes not. # of mvps is just a popularity vote. if the media doesnt like you. goodluck winning more than 1

but theres nothing the media can do to stop an mvp winner from winning multiple titles

Which is exactly why Kobe only has one, while Steve Nash and Tim Duncan both have 2, and Lebron has 3

[caliman]

2005 it was a really close race. nash barely pulled it out

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2005.html#mvp

shaq didn't put up huge 'shaq' like numbers that year...he obviously had a strong case but i don't think you can say he clearly deserved it over nash, or even dirk, who also had a great season


While not putting up "Shaq like" numbers, he still put up 23/10/3 and 2 blocks while shooting 60% from the field. And the reason that he should have won is that he absolutely tilted the balance of power from the West to the East. Miami won 17 games than the year before, and the Lakers fell by 22 wins. Thats almost a 40 game swing. That is value right there.

[Hands of Iron]

To add to this and be more specific, the standard that results in Kobe Bryant being as high as possible is the standard that most are judged.

Yeah, that's fairly obvious with some of them. Of course, Kobe fans don't regard the MVP highly; He won it only once. What irks a little bit is that most of them will say Kareem and not Jordan is the GOAT and one their first absolute first points of reference are his 6 regular season MVP Awards.

:confusedshrug:

[plowking]

The regular season MVP is the most prestigious award. It always has been and always will be. In fact, in almost every sport, it is the award that separates a player from his peers.

[Dictator]

Yeah, that's fairly obvious with some of them. Of course, Kobe fans don't regard the MVP highly; He won it only once. What irks a little bit is that most of them will say Kareem and not Jordan is the GOAT and one their first absolute first points of reference are his 6 regular season MVP Awards.

:confusedshrug:

Nash > Shaq :facepalm

[Hands of Iron]

Nash > Shaq :facepalm

That's one year?

Shaq had many more impressive seasons than '05 and improved the Heat from 42-40 to 59-23 and budding star Dwyane Wade had plenty to do with it. The Suns went from 29-53 to 62-20. Then won 54 games the following year with Amare Stoudemire out basically the entire season. Nash's offensive potency far outweighs whatever defensive liability he brings to the table considering it's probably least important position on the floor on the defensive end.

Since when do you guys rate Shaq, anyway? :confusedshrug:

[BoutPractice]

In retrospect, Nash probably deserved those MVPs. There was no clear cut best player in the league who fit the usual criteria in the mid 00s. The value of MVPs depend on the shape of competition.

It was probably Duncan in 05 due to the championship run, though the regular season stats weren't awe-inspiring compared to his peak (the usual boring 20/10) explaining why he didn't get the MVP.
Kobe, as good as he was individually missed the playoffs altogether in 05, he had a case in 06 for best player but his team wasn't going anywhere with him scoring 35 a game.
Besides, three other players had a solid case in 06: Dwade (being paired with Shaq hurt his chances to get voted MVP), Dirk (European) and Nash.
Shaq was declining. LeBron was too young and wasn't winning anything.

[The Iron Fist]

While not putting up "Shaq like" numbers, he still put up 23/10/3 and 2 blocks while shooting 60% from the field. And the reason that he should have won is that he absolutely tilted the balance of power from the West to the East. Miami won 17 games than the year before, and the Lakers fell by 22 wins. Thats almost a 40 game swing. That is value right there.
The Lakers fell 22 games because the entire roster was overhauled. Shaq wasnt the only starter or pllayer who left.

[swi7ch]

DRose MVP = destroyed by LBJ
David Robinson MVP = destroyed by Hakeem
Malone MVP = destroyed by Jordan
Many more example.

I put 10% value in being the regular season MVP.

[plowking]

DRose MVP = destroyed by LBJ
David Robinson MVP = destroyed by Hakeem
Malone MVP = destroyed by Jordan
Many more example.

I put 10% value in being the regular season MVP.

All those MVP's led their teams to more wins. What is the problem? They led their team to a better regular season. Its a regular season award.
It is the highest honor you can achieve as a player in the league.

[Hands of Iron]

All those MVP's led their teams to more wins. What is the problem? They led their team to a better regular season. Its a regular season award.

It is the highest honor you can achieve as a player in the league.

And nobody is saying it's the only measure by which to judge a player's career or greatness FFS. I never understand the "So Nash > Shaq????" stuff. As if that immediately invalidates the Award. Uh, no. See the first sentence. People are dense as hell.

[ShaqAttack3234]

They're not a factor to me since it's a subjective award, and while the media has probably gotten it right more often than not, imo, I think they've made enough mistakes that I certainly won't factor it into how I rank a player.

And even if I thought they've gotten every MVP right, why should it impact how I rank a player?

It's still just an award decided on by the media, not actually something a player does on the court. It makes a lot more sense to judge players based on how well they play on the court rather than how many votes they got from sportswriters for a particular award.

I'm also bothered by some of the media's tendencies when voting on MVP. They clearly not only factor in past seasons in certain cases, for example, a player's season can be penalized for not matching a previous season instead of purely focusing on that player's season vs his peers in that particular season. or if the player has been voted MVP several times before, there are cases when the media clearly favors someone who they haven't voted for before. And they clearly factor in who has the best story, which doesn't surprise me because they're sportswriters and look for stories to write for their profession. But this should absolutely not be a consideration, imo if the award is supposed to have any credibility as "Most Valuable Player" NOT "Best Story Of The Year".

And what goes hand in hand with that is the media favoring player's whose team exceeds expectations. This is flawed for 2 reasons. Most importantly, it doesn't make a player any more valuable to his team's success if his team isn't expected to contend and they do vs a player who has established himself as great and his team as great and they live up to their expectations. For example, guys like Duncan who contend for over a decade aren't less valuable to their teams than guys who appear and have 1 or 2 contending seasons. If you took Duncan off those same Spurs teams in any of his prime years, you'd see them suffer as much as pretty much any team without their elite player.

One of the examples for why the voters factor in the "story" WAY too much(actually factoring in at all is too much) is Kidd in '02 and '03.

Kidd went from finishing 2nd to Duncan in one of the closest votes ever in '02 with many claiming Kidd got robbed(though I personally thought Duncan was clearly more deserving) to finishing 9th in '03 without a single 1st place vote.

Is it team success? No, Kidd's Nets had a similar record each year at 52-30 in '02 and 49-33 in '03 despite probably having a less talented roster in '03. Is it level of play? No, Kidd got BETTER in '03 maintaining his rebounding, passing, leadership, defense and things that always made Kidd great while improving his jump shot and stepping up his scoring a lot. Was it numbers? Nope. Kidd's numbers went from 15/7/10, 39 FG%, 32 3P% in '02 to 19/6/9, 2.2 spg, 41 FG%, 34 3P% in '03.

I'll tell you what it is, despite Kidd being better in '03, the story of the Nets turnaround was no longer fresh like it was in '02. And by the way, as great as Kidd was and I don't want to sound like I'm discrediting him because he's my favorite point guard of the last 10, 15 years if not 20....that turnaround included A LOT more factors than just Kidd being better than Marbury.

Another example of the story deciding how the voting went is '97.

Jordan's Bulls won 69 games in '97 and Michael put up 30/6/4, 49 FG% to lead the league in scoring again, had Chicago not won 72 games the previous year, the '97 Bulls would have tied a record. The previous year, Jordan had averaged roughly the same numbers at 30/7/4, 50 FG% getting all but 4 first place votes.

In '97, Malone campaigns to get voted MVP and the media gives it to him. Here's an obvious problem that proves they're not just going by who they think is the most valuable player or has the biggest impact on a basketball court. Had the Bulls 72 win season never happened, Jordan would have been a lock in '97 because it now becomes a record-tying season. We'd be looking at a landslide similar to the '97 voting. Would that have made him any more or less valuable in '97? Of course not, but that's how these things go.

Also, whenever there is a surprise team, it's also almost always assumed that it's their best player who is the reason they exceed expectations. It seems to never be considered that the supporting cast may have been better than most guessed they would be.

While some will disagree, and this is where everyone's definition of value and interpretation of the award, I do believe that the award should at least factor in more who the best player in the league is. And I believe this because it use to more consistently reflect the best, or at least a guy in the conversation, and also because it's the closest thing the NBA has to the best player award and some people speak about it as if it were that.

By the way, I will repeat that FWIW, I think they've gotten it right more often than not. In my opinion, 23 of the 32 players who have been voted MVP since the media started voting on the award have been ones I agree with. Though I am unsure on 2-3 of them.

Although for the reasons I've stated, the fact that a player doesn't have the control over it, because it's subjective and because even getting that percentage of them wrong(in my eyes at least). I don't see them as significant anymore, and certainly would never use the award when ranking a player.


That's one year?

Shaq had many more impressive seasons than '05 and improved the Heat from 42-40 to 59-23 and budding star Dwyane Wade had plenty to do with it. The Suns went from 29-53 to 62-20. Then won 54 games the following year with Amare Stoudemire out basically the entire season. Nash's offensive potency far outweighs whatever defensive liability he brings to the table considering it's probably least important position on the floor on the defensive end.

Since when do you guys rate Shaq, anyway? :confusedshrug:

First, let me say that I'm fine with Nash's '05 MVP now, in fact, I lean towards him as my '05 MVP the last couple of years despite being one of those who thought Shaq was "robbed" at the time(probably had more to do with the fact that him only being voting MVP once was ridiculous to me at the time...and still is).

But there's more that goes in to the win/loss improvement.

While Miami's improvement did have a lot to do with Wade becoming a star in his second year, Dwyane himself talked about how Shaq's presence the defensive attention he drew helped him. And I still believe to this day that Shaq going there and being the focus helped Wade's development in the long run.

But more importantly, Miami minus Shaq in '05 was not the same 42-40 team they were in '04. Don't forget that they traded for Shaq while Phoenix signed Nash. Miami traded their best player from their surprise 42-40 season in Lamar Odom who had a breakout year with Miami and many felt deserved an all-star selection in addition to Caron Butler and Brian Grant.

Phoenix like Miami also had a young rising star in Stoudemire who not only had a breakout year like Wade, but also went from playing in just 55 games in '04 to 80 games in '05. Phoenix also signed Quentin Richardson in the offseason. Not a great player, but we can't dismiss a 15 ppg scorer who was a big part of their 3 point attack making 3 per game to lead the league in 3s made. While Richardson like the other Suns benefited from Nash, imo. Quentin was also coming off a 17 ppg season before joining Phoenix.

I don't think Phoenix would have been very good without Nash in '05 anyway because despite their talent, their system depended on him and their player's skillsets were taken to another level by his passing. But a greatly improved Amare playing in 25 more games than '04 as well as the addition of another 15+ ppg scorer makes it so we can't call them that same 29 win team either.

[Smoke117]

While not putting up "Shaq like" numbers, he still put up 23/10/3 and 2 blocks while shooting 60% from the field. And the reason that he should have won is that he absolutely tilted the balance of power from the West to the East. Miami won 17 games than the year before, and the Lakers fell by 22 wins. Thats almost a 40 game swing. That is value right there.


Yeah, but Dwyane Wade went from 16.2ppg 4.0rpg 4.5apg 1.4spg 0.6bpg .530%ts in 04 to 24.1ppg 5.2rpg 6.8apg 1.6spg 1.1bpg .561%ts in 05. That surely did not help Shaq's case for the MVP with Wade's rise to a legit star.

[Hands of Iron]

First, let me say that I'm fine with Nash's '05 MVP now, in fact, I lean towards him as my '05 MVP the last couple of years despite being one of those who thought Shaq was "robbed" at the time(probably had more to do with the fact that him only being voting MVP once was ridiculous to me at the time...and still is).

But there's more that goes in to the win/loss improvement.

While Miami's improvement did have a lot to do with Wade becoming a star in his second year, Dwyane himself talked about how Shaq's presence the defensive attention he drew helped him. And I still believe to this day that Shaq going there and being the focus helped Wade's development in the long run.

But more importantly, Miami minus Shaq in '05 was not the same 42-40 team they were in '04. Don't forget that they traded for Shaq while Phoenix signed Nash. Miami traded their best player from their surprise 42-40 season in Lamar Odom who had a breakout year with Miami and many felt deserved an all-star selection in addition to Caron Butler and Brian Grant.

Phoenix like Miami also had a young rising star in Stoudemire who not only had a breakout year like Wade, but also went from playing in just 55 games in '04 to 80 games in '05. Phoenix also signed Quentin Richardson in the offseason. Not a great player, but we can't dismiss a 15 ppg scorer who was a big part of their 3 point attack making 3 per game to lead the league in 3s made. While Richardson like the other Suns benefited from Nash, imo. Quentin was also coming off a 17 ppg season before joining Phoenix.

I don't think Phoenix would have been very good without Nash in '05 anyway because despite their talent, their system depended on him and their player's skillsets were taken to another level by his passing. But a greatly improved Amare playing in 25 more games than '04 as well as the addition of another 15+ ppg scorer makes it so we can't call them that same 29 win team either.

Heh, good stuff. I don't disagree with any of it, really. In fact, I'd of had him winning it in 2005 and consider 2001 one of the worst shams in there's ever been. What's really puzzling to me though is looking at how disregarded he was through most of his career in regards to the voting. Almost as if there was an agenda at play or some sort of prejudice against him for being able to manhandle teams around the basket. I don't know though man. I consider him a Top 1-3 player from 1994 to 2005 in terms of his impact. I won't bother to break it down year-by-year, that's just what it is from my perspective and a lot of those years he was probably the flat out best. He was also much more nimble and quick than people give him credit for today. He had good footwork and some really nice fakes down there. Not just power, although you're liable to get your shit pushed in any time he had the ball. He's one of the Top 3 or 4 guys I'd choose to build a team around along with Olajuwon, Bird and Jordan.

[Gifted Mind]

If the MVP was awarded at the end of the entire season rather than regular season, it would be a much more respected award.

I actually made a thread about how the award would go if it was awarded at the end of the year:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=272861

The results far better portray history. Nash would have 0, O'Neal 3, and so on. In fact, the only players to win it multiple times would be:

Russell
Jordan
Kareem
Kobe
Magic
Bird
Hakeem
Duncan
Shaq
Wilt


Does that look like the consensus Top 10 anyone?

[riseagainst]

MVP is just another award voted on by the media. Judge/compare players by actually watching them play.

[Bigsmoke]

i like it

being the best player for 82 games cant be easy

[DatAsh]

They're not a factor to me since it's a subjective award, and while the media has probably gotten it right more often than not, imo, I think they've made enough mistakes that I certainly won't factor it into how I rank a player.


...
...
...


I don't think Phoenix would have been very good without Nash in '05 anyway because despite their talent, their system depended on him and their player's skillsets were taken to another level by his passing. But a greatly improved Amare playing in 25 more games than '04 as well as the addition of another 15+ ppg scorer makes it so we can't call them that same 29 win team either.

An MVP is without a doubt, no questions asked, nothing else even comes close, the single most reliable "real" award for determining a player's greatness. But, just like any single award it's not all the great, for many of the reasons you mentioned.

It would hold a lot more value in my eyes if they just gave it to the best player every year, story line be damned. Giving the award after the post season conclusion might help as well, though I'm inclined to think players who's teams made it to the finals would be heavily favored, essentially making it a glorified finals MVP.

I'm not even sure I like the name of the award. Most valuable player, while certainly a prestigious honor(assuming it was given to truly the most valuable player) has a somewhat different meaning (and perhaps one that's somewhat less meaningful as well) than best player.

For instance, 2012 Lebron is a better player than any other version of Lebron(in my opinion), but Cleveland Lebron was easily more valuable to his team. 1990-1993 Jordan was better than 86-89 Jordan, but 86-89 Jordan was easily more valuable to his team. 66-67 Wilt was better than 64-65 Wilt, but 64-65 Wilt was easily more valuable( that team wouldn't even have won a single game without him). I could go on, but my point is clear. There needs to be a clear distinction as to what the award actually means. If we take the literal interpretation, i.e. the leagues most valuable player, that's fine, but the leagues best player would be a better and more meaningful award to most people.

That said, I will say that multiple MVPs are quite a bit more valuable than single MVPs in my eyes. The multiple MVP club tends to weed out the "story line" winners and lends more legitimacy to the notion that a particular player was in fact the best player in the league when he won the award. There are certainly exceptions to the rule, like always, but on the whole, the "story line" guys have a much tougher time racking up multiple MVPs. Even still, you have guys like Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan that were clearly the best player in the league for more than one season, yet for some reason or another only came up with one.

If I were voting for the award, I'd give it to who I thought was the best player that year, post-season included. The award would be completely independent of the FMVP to account for the fact that the best player doesn't always have the personnel around him to compete for a title, unless the FMVP was also the best player that year.

You'd have a much smaller list of names in general(without the story line guys), but you'd have an award that's much more indicative of player's overall impact/skill/talent.

Kareem would probably have 9 or 10(though a lot of that is due to the competition at the time)

Jordan would have 8 or 9 depending on whether or not you think 88 Jordan was better than 88 Magic.

Shaq would have 3-4

Duncan would have 2-4

Kobe would have 2-3

Lebron would have 3-4

[guy]

you need 1, but anything over 1 and under 5 isnt really a big deal.. i think once you get like 4 or 5 mvps its pretty crazy

ultimately tho once youre a t3 ish player in the league, its just about the situation youre in.

Huh? Are you saying there's not a big difference between 1 and 4 MVPs?

[RRR3]

Which is exactly why Kobe only has one, while Steve Nash and Tim Duncan both have 2, and Lebron has 3
LeBron deserved all 3 of his MVPs

[riseagainst]

do MVPs even imply being the best player in the league? I thought it meant being the most valuable player to your team, on one of the top teams in the league. Hence why D.Rose won it in 2011, because he definitely was not the best player in the league. Same with Nash in his 2 MVPs.

[Hands of Iron]

LeBron deserved all 3 of his MVPs

And Bird didn't? He got his team to the Finals all three years he was MVP and won it twice. Finals MVP both times. The '85 Lakers were pretty damn good. :facepalm

[Owl]

If the MVP was awarded at the end of the entire season rather than regular season, it would be a much more respected award.

I actually made a thread about how the award would go if it was awarded at the end of the year:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=272861

The results far better portray history. Nash would have 0, O'Neal 3, and so on. In fact, the only players to win it multiple times would be:

Russell
Jordan
Kareem
Kobe
Magic
Bird
Hakeem
Duncan
Shaq
Wilt


Does that look like the consensus Top 10 anyone?
Maybe the consensus for this site, Oscar has been in the top ten of every published list I've seen (1 exception, Heroes of the Hardcourt was done by a rather unconventional formula which I think loved titles too much which had him 19th below Tommy Heinsohn).

And if that's the order then Russell over Jordan, Kobe at 4 and Wilt at 10 and even Hakeem over Shaq are distinctly minority opinions.

Looking at the thread it looks a lot like the best player on the title winner (with exceptions where that guy would be really silly e.g. Billups or whichever Piston, Sikma/DJ/Williams), which is very different from being the best player.

[Kovach]

Which is exactly why Kobe only has one, while Steve Nash and Tim Duncan both have 2, and Lebron has 3
Or why Thomas wasn't even top 10 in the voting after his comments regarding Larry Bird.

[alleykat]

i think it is fine as long as people realize what it really means....

people confuse MVP with being the best player in the league when it doesn't mean that...

the media has an opinion, just like any one of you guys, yet it still is bias. If kobe were to have an amazing season, you think any haters would vote for kobe to have an MVP? no....

same goes if lebron has an amazing season. people who hate will cherry pick on anything they can find without looking at the whole picture.

MVP is ambiguous every season. Maybe the person made his teammates better, or were an offensive threat, or were an all around player. There is no set criteria, therefore leaving it all to speculation and front running. In a sense most awards are subjective to the person and how they view who wins it. Of course, if someone who might be recognized as an MVP plays for your team you're gonna make a case for them either way.

[28renyoy]

It doesn't mean as much because they have a hell of a lot to do with the era you played in.

For instance if you put Larry Bird starting his career at the exact same time Jordan started his, he probably wins 0 MVP's.

The same with Derrick Rose winning one in 2011. He was the youngest MVP in league history, but both LeBron and Durant were better at an earlier age(21) yet they finished 2nd in the MVP because it was a much stronger field in those years.

MVP's have so much to do with era played in. LeBron really only has one competitor for the MVP right now and that's a pre-prime 23 year old kid in Kevin Durant. Yet people in the early 2000's had to deal with Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Iverson, McGrady, etc.

Winning the most MVP's out of players you played with during your career means you were the best of your era during your prime.

For instance, LeBron will likely be the best player from 2003-2018~ or whenever he retires. But does that mean he was better than Shaq who played 1992-2011? Nope, Shaq was in his prime at a different point in time. Same with Kobe whose prime was ending as LeBron entered his.

[IGOTGAME]

It doesn't mean as much because they have a hell of a lot to do with the era you played in.

For instance if you put Larry Bird starting his career at the exact same time Jordan started his, he probably wins 0 MVP's.

The same with Derrick Rose winning one in 2011. He was the youngest MVP in league history, but both LeBron and Durant were better at an earlier age(21) yet they finished 2nd in the MVP because it was a much stronger field in those years.

MVP's have so much to do with era played in. LeBron really only has one competitor for the MVP right now and that's a pre-prime 23 year old kid in Kevin Durant. Yet people in the early 2000's had to deal with Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Iverson, McGrady, etc.

wow...had to stop after that. the disrespect...

[28renyoy]

wow...had to stop after that. the disrespect...

How the hell is that disrespect? What year was Bird better than Jordan going rookie season vs rookie season and so on?

Bird is in my top 5-6 all time but he was never better than Jordan at the same age.

He might win one in year 2 when Jordan was injured, or when Jordan retired.

[alleykat]

wow...had to stop after that. the disrespect...

he might be right, depending on how and what criteria the MVP is given that year. Again, the MVP is ambiguous, nobody really knows what it's really given for.

[jrong]

It should mean very little unless the prerogative to determine it is taken away from voters. The same goes with MVP shares. If certain players are undervalued by the press one year, it's likely to be that way every year. And giving the coaches the votes instead wouldn't be any better, based on some of the awful defensive team votes they collectively submit each year.

Perhaps the players themselves would do better if they were given the votes, but even then I have my doubts. I would prefer to see the winner automatically determined by a formula that incorporates team wins and individual stats. If there's a close margin between the players with the top results, then you can hold a vote as a final determinant.

Using such a formula to standardize the MVP award would eliminate "feel-good winners"/ "voting for the story". But, in many years, the result would be the same as the voted MVP. LeBron's three, for instance, would have gone to him whether they were mathematically computed or balloted.

Another way to look at this, and I guess what i'm saying, is that the only way MVPs should carry any weight in ranking players is if they are justifiable according to wins/ stats. LeBron's were. Others' have not been.

[Kblaze8855]

People talk a lot about it being a media award...but you look at the results from when the players voted...its about the same. Storyline MVPs(Unseld). Absurd numbers not winning due to bad team(Wilt not winning while doing 50/27).

Last 12 years or so...maybe 06 changes if its a player vote. Im thinking thats the only one. 01 would be close. But players were behind AI.

I dont think it much matters who votes most years.

[Hands of Iron]

Or why Thomas wasn't even top 10 in the voting after his comments regarding Larry Bird.

Yeah, what a stupid little c-u-n-t. Says that shit after Bird puts 37/9/9 on his team in Game 7 and off the season in which he becomes the only player in history to put up 25+ PPG on 50/40/90 percentages across the board, at 28.1 PPG. Did it again the following season, only that time at 30 PPG. Nobody's come close to doing it at that volume before or since. But yeah, he'd be just another player if he wasn't white. Jesus Christ. :oldlol:


How the hell is that disrespect? What year was Bird better than Jordan going rookie season vs rookie season and so on?

Bird is in my top 5-6 all time but he was never better than Jordan at the same age.

He might win one in year 2 when Jordan was injured, or when Jordan retired.

It's absolutely disrespect. Bird was pretty damn great in Years 5-9:

5th: 24/10/7 on 49/25/89
6th: 29/11/7 on 52/43/88
7th: 26/10/7 on 50/42/90
8th: 28/9/8 on 53/40/91
9th: 30/9/6 on 53/41/92

He's superior as far as shooting, rebounding, passing/playmaking, court vision in addition to being an elite scorer himself and every bit as clutch. Interesting that both Jordan and Bird missed the season following Year 9 (Bird due to injury) after going 57-25 with their teams. The Bulls win two fewer games and the Celtics drop to 42-40. He also joined a team that had won 29 and 32 games respectively the previous two seasons and then miraculously jump to 61-21 but I suppose he didn't have anything to do with that either. :oldlol: These things aren't earned on simply a team record or stat sheet as it's preferable you take in an acceptable number of games to see what a player does to impact and help his team win games. Bird's is irrefutable. Zero MVPs? Just like that.. C'mon man.

[Owl]

Or why Thomas wasn't even top 10 in the voting after his comments regarding Larry Bird.
Isiah's comments came after being eliminated in the conference finals in 7 games in 1987. Surely the vote had been concluded by then. Also Isiah finished 8th that year. So perhaps you mean never again would he finish in the top 10. But thats hardly surprising because at best he finished 5th (gathering a single 1st place vote in 1984, which he followed up with consecutive 9th place finishes) and his numbers were sliding (towards the end of the 80s his %s fell, his assists fell, only his turnovers stayed at around his career average). Isiah wasn't suddenly snubbed by the media, he was just never that good, certainly in regular season.

[Gifted Mind]

Maybe the consensus for this site, Oscar has been in the top ten of every published list I've seen (1 exception, Heroes of the Hardcourt was done by a rather unconventional formula which I think loved titles too much which had him 19th below Tommy Heinsohn).

He may have been Top 10 a few years go, how recent are your published lists?




And if that's the order then Russell over Jordan, Kobe at 4 and Wilt at 10 and even Hakeem over Shaq are distinctly minority opinions.


That was in no order



Looking at the thread it looks a lot like the best player on the title winner (with exceptions where that guy would be really silly e.g. Billups or whichever Piston, Sikma/DJ/Williams), which is very different from being the best player.

You may have misunderstood. That thread was directed at the MVP of the regular season + playoffs. The MVP itself is not given to the best player, but rather the most successful player.

If you want to look at best player:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102569

[Owl]

He may have been Top 10 a few years go, how recent are your published lists?





That was in no order



You may have misunderstood. That thread was directed at the MVP of the regular season + playoffs. The MVP itself is not given to the best player, but rather the most successful player.

If you want to look at best player:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102569
The first list is from 1987, then 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 99, 03, 03, 05, 09, 09, 10, 10 (if counting 2nd edition of the Book of Basketball) 11. And only he, Shaq, Wilt and MJ have topped a list, Oscar twice, Wilt and Shaq once each. So of the recent or semi-recent possible entries to the top 10 (Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe), there have been a good number which have at least had the entireity of Hakeem's career and the balance of Shaq's to make a decision. Shaq for the most part is in, Hakeem isn't. The highest Hakeem gets is a 10 in The Book of Basketball's first edition. He gets shunted down to 11 in the paperback due to Kobe's ascent. Duncan has been in all but one top 10 since 2003 and that hasn't stopped Robertson being in. In the 2 (recent) lists that Kobe made the top 10 in neither case has he pushed Oscar out of it.

Glad it wasn't in order, I saw it didn't correlate with the number of "most successful seasons because for example Mikan wasn't in there.

I got that the thread was about "most successful" but I'm not sure that that is what the MVP is. I certainly don't think it should be. If you gave after the season like that then you'd just be artificially boosting the stock of players on good teams even more so than MVPs do at their worst presently. Giving Moses' '82 MVP to Magic seems to me to be ludicrous. To be clear here I'm not saying it's a bad thread I'm saying "successful seasons" with a high value on your team winning the playoffs would be a very bad way to distribute MVPs. It might plausibly have allowed a post-peak Isiah to sneak off with a couple of MVP trophies.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

The people that vote for the regualr season MVP are sportswriters and broadcasters. These are people that I have zero respect for and therefore I don't value the award much. Coincidentally it seems that the regular season MVP usually has a feel good narrative to go with it. F**king sportswriters.

Does anyone here really believe that Derrick Rose was more valuable than Lebron?

[Graviton]

The people that vote for the regualr season MVP are sportswriters and broadcasters. These are people that I have zero respect for and therefore I don't value the award much. Coincidentally it seems that the regular season MVP usually has a feel good narrative to go with it. F**king sportswriters.

Does anyone here really believe that Derrick Rose was more valuable than Lebron?
To his team, he was. He averaged like 27 PPG vs the top teams, and he closed a lot of games for them. That year he lead the Bulls to the best record with no other allstars. Even in this past season with all the injuries he still had 3 game winners and continued his dominance over other elite PGs. Him and Lebron were also the only ones to completely destroy Spurs defense. People put CP3 in the Top 5, Rose is just as good. People like to say Rose gets carried by Bulls D to discredit him, but we saw what happened in the 1st round. The pressure he puts on opposing defenses is matched only by Lebron.

[swag2011]

It should be renamed. Sometimes the "most valuable player" doesn't get it. Alot of times it goes to the most "outstanding" player. It seems like criteria changes year to year. Plus, if you dont' have the media on your side, chances are you wont get it.

It's too based on team success too. They probably should have one that's most valuable, and one that's most outstanding. Like for instance, if Nash got the Suns to the playoffs this past year (came down to last game) i could see him winning the MVP cause he was valuable to even getting them to that point. But someone like Lebron/Durant could be most outstanding for putting up the pretty stats, ya know what i mean? You could argue their value level to their team, but they both are playing with other stars, unlike Nash was.

IDK, i just think it would be better for 2 separate awards.

[pauk]

Individually it is the highest reward you can get.... Championship is just an icing on top of that cake...

Anybody can get a championship (and even FMVP somewhat as it is based only on 4-7 games between 2 teams, watch cedric, jojo, billups and so on) as it is a team accomplishment, but you cant say the same about the MVP

[guy]

How the hell is that disrespect? What year was Bird better than Jordan going rookie season vs rookie season and so on?

Bird is in my top 5-6 all time but he was never better than Jordan at the same age.

He might win one in year 2 when Jordan was injured, or when Jordan retired.

Bird won MVP in his 5th, 6th, and 7th season. Jordan didn't win MVP in his 5th and 6th season and then won in his 7th. So its absoluetly possible that Bird would've still won MVPs.

[Hands of Iron]

Bird won MVP in his 5th, 6th, and 7th season. Jordan didn't win MVP in his 5th and 6th season and then won in his 7th. So its absoluetly possible that Bird would've still won MVPs.

:applause:

Bird is actually one of the few who can hold his own next to Jordan peak-for-peak over a 4-5 year period. He took his game to another level from 1984-88 in years 5-9 and was even arguably better the two years following a run of three-consecutive MVPs as those seasons have historical significance as well. As crazy as ren is about 'efficiency' I'm surprised this could go unnoticed.