Bball-reference's MVP share gives a good all time ranking

[Derivative]

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s178/toyotamotors/QQ622A56FE20130906235119_zpsa354db95.jpg

-Asides from Karl Malone at 8th rest of the list looks pretty accurate

-Consensus states that MJ should of received 8 MVPs(89, 90, 97), and on this list it shows MJ has 8.13 MVP shares, which is also accurate.

-Larry Bird's greatness is reflected through this meassure

-Lebron James is already top 5 all time purely on his talent and dominance, and this list recognizes that

-Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant are very close, both have roughly 4 MVP shares, this is consistent with popular opinion.

[noob cake]

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s178/toyotamotors/QQ622A56FE20130906235119_zpsa354db95.jpg

-Asides from Karl Malone at 8th rest of the list looks pretty accurate

-Consensus states that MJ should of received 8 MVPs(89, 90, 97), and on this list it shows MJ has 8.13 MVP shares, which is also accurate.

-Larry Bird's greatness is reflected through this meassure

-Lebron James is already top 5 all time purely on his talent and dominance, and this list recognizes that

-Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant are very close, both have roughly 4 MVP shares, this is consistent with popular opinion.


:coleman:

Stealth Kobestan argument within. No one thinks that Kobe's 1 MVP should really be 4. He is helped by longevity, just like Malone.

[jlip]

I have no idea how MVP shares work, but how does Bill Russell have fewer MVP shares (4.827) than actual MVPs (5)?

[kNicKz]

I have no idea how MVP shares work, but how does Bill Russell have fewer MVP shares (4.827) than actual MVPs (5)?

It's an award voted on by Skip Bayless :roll:

[SamuraiSWISH]

I have no idea how MVP shares work, but how does Bill Russell have fewer MVP shares (4.827) than actual MVPs (5)?
Maybe because players like Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Sam Jones were on his teams? Otherwise, pretty solid list IMO. With the exception of Karl Malone.

[Trollsmasher]

I have no idea how MVP shares work, but how does Bill Russell have fewer MVP shares (4.827) than actual MVPs (5)?
1 full point is for an unanimous decision. LeBron this year for example had 0,998.

[TheReturn]

Lebron should be surpassing MJ..

[I<3NBA]

goddamn. MJ is so far ahead he has 2 full points ahead of KAJ

[Marchesk]

Replace Malone with Magic and that's a pretty good list.

[gts]

I have no idea how MVP shares work, but how does Bill Russell have fewer MVP shares (4.827) than actual MVPs (5)?

Because the voting changed from the players to the media in 1980-81 season

example in, 1980 there were 221 voters total, the following year after the change there were 69 total voters.

in 1980 votes were only cast for a single player, they didn't vote for a who's second and 3rd best on the ballot, it was strictly who is the mvp, in 1981 the media added 2nd and 3rd place votes. that's why in 1980 there were only 9 players receiving votes but the following year roughly 30 players received a vote on some level.

So you can't easily compare the eras using the chart posted because the format changed so radically.

[jlip]

I have no idea how MVP shares work, but how does Bill Russell have fewer MVP shares (4.827) than actual MVPs (5)?


Because the voting changed from the players to the media in 1980-81 season

example in, 1980 there were 221 voters total, the following year after the change there were 69 total voters.

in 1980 votes were only cast for a single player, they didn't vote for a who's second and 3rd best on the ballot, it was strictly who is the mvp, in 1981 the media added 2nd and 3rd place votes. that's why in 1980 there were only 9 players receiving votes but the following year roughly 30 players received a vote on some level.

So you can't easily compare the eras using the chart posted because the format changed so radically.

:applause:

What does it mean to win multiple MVPs?

Russell: I've got a distorted view of the MVP, and I'll tell you why. When I was a player, all the MVPs I won were voted by the players. I was voted MVP by my contemporaries. I'm very proud of the fact that when I won MVP, it was always voted by my competition. You could not vote for your own teammate. I got that five times, and I appreciate that.


Link (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2013/05/05/lebron-james-mvp-bill-russell-kareem-abdul-jabbar-karl-malone-moses-malone-bob-pettit/2136567/)

[Myth]

Replace Malone with Magic and that's a pretty good list.

Magic is already on that list. Replace Malone with Hakeem and it is a solid list.

[Odinn]

Actually it's not that bad. But you should put more weight to 1st place votes. When Kareem winning his mvps, there was no share as for 2nd and 3rd places in the voting system. If you're mvp imo, you'll get my vote and that's it. There was no 2nd mvp.


I didn't calculate the number of available 1st place votes during their career but here is the list;

1. Kareem - 762
2. Jordan - 531
3. LeBron - 451
4. Wilt - 345
5. Russell - 289
6. Bird - 271
7. Moses - 236
8. Shaq - 220
9. Garnett - 178
10. Magic - 169
11. Duncan - 166
12. West - 146
13. Oscar - 139
13. Pettit - 139
15. Kobe - 120

Number of MVPs, and its story. Also mvp shares and 1st place votes. Now that's a good way to make an adjustment. All alone, they mean nothing.

[gts]

Another problem with ranking by number of first place votes received is is the number of media members that vote fluctuates, this past season 120 media members voted

In 1995 113 voted

In 1989, 70


So Lebron on paper looks like he's closing the gap on Jordan and has bypassed Magic but in truth he's doing so only because there's more voters casting votes

[Marchesk]

Magic is already on that list. Replace Malone with Hakeem and it is a solid list.

Oh, whoops. I didn't see his name for some reason. Hakeem works.

[Marchesk]

:applause:

What does it mean to win multiple MVPs?

Russell: I've got a distorted view of the MVP, and I'll tell you why. When I was a player, all the MVPs I won were voted by the players. I was voted MVP by my contemporaries. I'm very proud of the fact that when I won MVP, it was always voted by my competition. You could not vote for your own teammate. I got that five times, and I appreciate that.


Link (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2013/05/05/lebron-james-mvp-bill-russell-kareem-abdul-jabbar-karl-malone-moses-malone-bob-pettit/2136567/)

He should be proud. He beat out Wilt for MVP in Wilt's 50/25 season.

[Derivative]

jordan is undisputedly the goat

[fpliii]

jordan is arguably the goat

True.

[L.Kizzle]

Wait, why is the list accurate except for Karl Malone? Can't have it both ways, Malone is terribly underrated, that's what 'm getting.

[Derivative]

Wait, why is the list accurate except for Karl Malone? Can't have it both ways, Malone is terribly underrated, that's what 'm getting.


MVP share is based on regular season alone. Karl Malone is a horrible playoff performer

[yobore]

Another problem with ranking by number of first place votes received is is the number of media members that vote fluctuates, this past season 120 media members voted

In 1995 113 voted

In 1989, 70


So Lebron on paper looks like he's closing the gap on Jordan and has bypassed Magic but in truth he's doing so only because there's more voters casting votes
I'm not sure you understand fractions

[BoutPractice]

MVP share is based on regular season alone. Karl Malone is a horrible playoff performer
Although his FG% went down significantly, Karl Malone still averaged 25 and 11 in the playoffs over more than 193 games. In his deepest runs as the main guy on his team (so his 2 Finals and 4 Conference Finals appearances with the Jazz, I'm not counting the Lakers run), his averages are 29 and 11, 27 and 12, 26 and 12, 26 and 10, 26 and 11, and still 26 and 11.

In the Finals against the Bulls he averaged 24 points (more than LeBron's Finals averages so far), 10 rebounds, and over 3 assists on 44% shooting. If that's "horrible", I'm interested to see what greatness looks like.

The problem with ranking Karl Malone in the top 10 is not that he was a choker, in my opinion, but how difficult it is to separate his contribution to that of John Stockton.

[Psileas]

jordan is undisputedly the goat

Yeah, we definitely couldn't see this coming from you and that this was the reason you made the thread...

It's a bad list, anyway: Bird is too high, LeBron is too high, Russell too low, Malone too high, Wilt too low, Duncan and Kobe somewhat low.

MVP shares is such an inaccurate thing to measure, it's like comparing movies of different eras according to the number of Oscars they have won: Different criteria from era to era, different kinds of voters (started with players voting, then changed), different numbers of votes available (some seasons you could only cast ONE VOTE), much higher player bias in older eras - the idea of a player winning almost unanimously like so many have in the last seasons was almost unthinkable.
Look at it this way: Wilt and the Sixers in 1967 were as dominant as ever, yet, Wilt only had a 0.846 share, with 25 voting for someone else (and, no, they mostly didn't vote for Russell, so the reason wasn't that Wilt hadn't yet won a title). In 1977, 14 different players received at least an MVP vote - that's right, not a top-5 vote, but a #1 vote, and this was the only vote available. And Kareem, the winner, ended up with only a 0.644 share.
In 1998, Karl Malone finished a distant 2nd for that season's MVP, getting 20 of the 116 votes, yet he got a 0.726 share, better than many MVP figures.

I hope I don't have to explain further why MVP shares mean so little to me.

[LAZERUSS]

He should be proud. He beat out Wilt for MVP in Wilt's 50/25 season.

Quite possibly the worst voting in NBA history.

True, the players voted. But, with Chamberlain routinely hanging 50-60 point games, and just trashing the league night-in and night-out, I suspect that there was a great deal of resentment towards Chamberlain.

Now, here's the deal. Take a look at Russell and Wilt's individual numbers, and then their team records, in that 61-62 season. Next, compare their individual numbers, and their team records with those of the 59-60 season.

In that 59-60 season, Russell's individual numbers, and team record, were nearly identical to his 61-62 marks. Wilt's team record in 59-60 was nearly identiacl to his team record in 61-62. However, Wilt's individual numbers, which were spectacular in 59-60, were unfathomable in 61-62. Chamberlain did far more, on his own, in 61-62 than what he did in 59-60.

And, in that 59-60 season, Chamberlain ran away with the MVP award (as well as the ROY.) So, just what changed in the criteria of the voting between '60 and '62?

It was a downright disgraceful vote. I have seen "expert" opinion polls which have not only labeled Wilt's '62 season, as the greatest in NBA history, but the greatest in professional team sports history.

Was there an anti-Wilt bias in the player voting? How about the very next season, when Chamberlain again shelled the league, but his team only went 31-49? Wilt finsihed seventh! Which was bad enough, but he finished behind players like Red Kerr, whom he outscored, on average, by a 43-19 margin (with games of differentials of 60-21 and 70-14.) He even had fewer first place votes than Terry Dischinger, who played on a team with a worse record!

Then, in the following season, Chamberlain single-handedly carries that same roster to a 48-32 mark, and again, with dominating numbers. Yet, he finishes behind Oscar, who had a stacked team that only improved slightly from the year before.

And, in the 68-69 season, Wilt was nowhere to be found in the voting, and finished behind players like Unseld, Reed, and Russell...all of whom he just blew away in H2H's that year. Not only that, but his Lakers went 3-3 against Unseld's Bullets; 4-2 against Russell's Celtics; and 5-1 against Reed's Knicks. Furthermore, only Unseld played on a team with a better record. Wilt just buried Russell that year, and his team just blew up Boston (winning a road game against the Celtics in a nationally televised game by a 108-73 margin.) And keep in mind that Jerry West missed 21 games that year, as well. Wilt's numbers were considerably better across the board, than Unseld's, Reed's, and Russell's, as well. But I guess a 21-21-5 .583 season was considered a bad one for Wilt.

Then, in the 71-72 season, Wilt led a team that had gone 48-34 the year before, to a 69-13 mark. His overall numbers just blew away Russell's in Russell's 61-62 season...and yet, the high-scoring Kareem, playing on a team that declined from the year before...wins the award. Again...what criteria was used in 61-62, that was different in 71-72?

Of course, everyone knew who the real best player in the NBA was in the 60's. Chamberlain was not only winning run-away MVPs three straight seasons in the mid-60's...he was outvoting Russell in all-first team selections by a 7-2 margin over the course of the entire decade.

[kshutts1]

True.
I always thought you were my "tiered system" buddy. What's with this "indisputable GOAT" comment? That is akin to a list system.

[Owl]

I always thought you were my "tiered system" buddy. What's with this "indisputable GOAT" comment? That is akin to a list system.
He changed the "quote" to arguably.

[ProfessorMurder]

Although his FG% went down significantly, Karl Malone still averaged 25 and 11 in the playoffs over more than 193 games. In his deepest runs as the main guy on his team (so his 2 Finals and 4 Conference Finals appearances with the Jazz, I'm not counting the Lakers run), his averages are 29 and 11, 27 and 12, 26 and 12, 26 and 10, 26 and 11, and still 26 and 11.

In the Finals against the Bulls he averaged 24 points (more than LeBron's Finals averages so far), 10 rebounds, and over 3 assists on 44% shooting. If that's "horrible", I'm interested to see what greatness looks like.

The problem with ranking Karl Malone in the top 10 is not that he was a choker, in my opinion, but how difficult it is to separate his contribution to that of John Stockton.

Great points. Ewing and Karl Malone will always be underrated, especially on ISH. People act like they're massive chokers just because they didn't win a championship. Basketball is a team sport and outside of Stockton and an ancient Hornacek on one knee, Malone's finals teams weren't stacked. Ewing had Starks.

It sucks that they won't get their due praise. Malone was unreal, and continued elite production for a 19 year career... And he's still at his playing weight at 50.

[Owl]

Great points. Ewing and Karl Malone will always be underrated, especially on ISH. People act like they're massive chokers just because they didn't win a championship. Basketball is a team sport and outside of Stockton and an ancient Hornacek on one knee, Malone's finals teams weren't stacked. Ewing had Starks.

It sucks that they won't get their due praise. Malone was unreal, and continued elite production for a 19 year career... And he's still at his playing weight at 50.
Agree that "didn't win a title" is a poor argument. Agree with the gist. Disagree with the implication that Ewing just had Starks. The mid-90s Knicks team was amongst the best defensive teams ever and that's because there a lot of very good defensive players on that roster.

[ProfessorMurder]

Agree that "didn't win a title" is a poor argument. Agree with the gist. Disagree with the implication that Ewing just had Starks. The mid-90s Knicks team was amongst the best defensive teams ever and that's because there a lot of very good defensive players on that roster.

I was painting with broad strokes in that post, the early/mid 90s Knicks are some of my favorite teams ever. Amazing defensively, but offensively, not so much.

Malone had Stockton who was better than anyone Ewing played significant time with, and Ewing had better defenders. Neither guy had a stacked team like the Threepeat Lakers, Big 3 Celtics, Miami Heat, etc.

[secund2nun]

Kobe at 11 is a joke. He is not even top 20.

[Marchesk]

Wait, since when did the MVP award or shares of it have anything to do with the playoffs? It's a regular season award. Playoffs are 100% irrelevant to this particular discussion.

[L.Kizzle]

MVP share is based on regular season alone. Karl Malone is a horrible playoff performer
I wouldn't call him horrible.

[RedBlackAttack]

I wouldn't call him horrible.
He only averaged 25 points and 11 rebounds over his career in the playoffs. Horrible.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Wait, since when did the MVP award or shares of it have anything to do with the playoffs? It's a regular season award. Playoffs are 100% irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Which IMO is one of the major flaws of the award. The MVP of a season should represent the best player for it's entirety. Pre-SEASON, Regular Season, and Post-SEASON are all parts of the entire package.

Especially considering it's easier to dominate the regular season than it is the playoffs when teams can game plan for you better, play harder, defend better, give different looks, generally are better prepared. And it takes better abilities to still come out looking like the best player in the league when playoff performance is included.

If the MVP encompassed all aspects of that year's NBA, it would give a much more accurate picture. And don't give me the excuse of not all players make it to the playoffs, if you're truly MVP quality ... your team will be in the dance. Hell, most MVPs have to win 50 or more games, and at least get to the second round. All except you know, Dirk in 2007.

Here is a more accurate gauge of the season's REAL MVP if playoffs are included. Just having an MVP of the Finals series doesn't pay respect to the three difficult rounds one has to lead his team through to advance.

'89: MJ
'90: MJ
'91: MJ
'92: MJ
'93: MJ
'94: Hakeem
'95: Hakeem
'96: MJ
'97: MJ
'98: MJ
'99: Duncan
2k: Shaq
2k1: Shaq
2k2: Shaq
2k3: Duncan
2k4: Shaq
2k5: Duncan
2k6: Wade
2k7: Duncan
2k8: Kobe
2k9: LeBron
'10: Kobe
'11: Dirk
'12: LeBron
'13: LeBron

MJ - 8x MVP
Shaq - 4x MVP
Duncan - 4x MVP
LeBron - 3x MVP
Kobe - 2x MVP
Hakeem - 2x MVP
Dirk - MVP
Wade - MVP

To me, with playoffs included, this is a much more accurate representation of league wide dominance by these various legends and transcendant players. Everyone who should have an MVP, deserved it. No fugazy regular season MVPs, proven in the playoffs to be legit. Players who deserved multiple MVPs, got them.

In some rare cases, players who may not have took their team to the Finals in a given year due to subpar supporting casts, but put up HISTORIC playoff performances and averages get a nod in a given year even without a championship. The numbers and performances just too hard to deny it:

'89 MJ
'90 MJ
2008 Kobe
2009 LeBron

[magnax1]

Wait, why is the list accurate except for Karl Malone? Can't have it both ways, Malone is terribly underrated, that's what 'm getting.
In some ways he is. There just isnt another guy with his longevity. Even Kareem really doesnt compare. Malone had a season at 36 that was arguably better than his season at 26.
However there are a lot of things the stats dont really show when you look at his career. The longevity wouldn't happen without stockton and Sloan, and he really doesnt have the scoring skillset of most guys who score 25-30 ppg, and that was a problem in the playoffs quite often.

[CeltsGarlic]

Ow, wow, awesome now we have a hypothetical list that means absolutely nothing. Thanks internet!

Bunch of morons.

[brain drain]

This is all sorts of crazy.

Malone ahead of Duncan?
KG in front of Hakeem?
Nash above Nowitzki?

ok...

[Derivative]

bump

[AirBonner]

bump
No one cares about your old useless threads.

[Derivative]

No one cares about your old useless threads.

apparently u care enough to reply

[AirBonner]

apparently u care enough to reply
Because the entire first page is your useless dribble

[SexSymbol]

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s178/toyotamotors/QQ622A56FE20130906235119_zpsa354db95.jpg

-Asides from Karl Malone at 8th rest of the list looks pretty accurate

-Consensus states that MJ should of received 8 MVPs(89, 90, 97), and on this list it shows MJ has 8.13 MVP shares, which is also accurate.

-Larry Bird's greatness is reflected through this meassure

-Lebron James is already top 5 all time purely on his talent and dominance, and this list recognizes that

-Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant are very close, both have roughly 4 MVP shares, this is consistent with popular opinion.
:biggums: