Team record should have no bearing on who gets the MVP

[SillyRabbit]

The MVP is an individual award.

Deciding who gets it based on a team stat is completely idiotic.

Put the 10th place team in the West into the Eastern Conference and they would be a top 2 seed.

It's pathetic that the three best players in the NBA this season:

Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
Russell Westbrook

will have no legitimate chance to win the award despite the fact that their teams are lottery teams without them and they have been the best players in the NBA hands down.

I refuse to live in a world where James Harden or Steph Curry is the league's MVP.

They are world class players, but MVP's they are not.

[Lebron23]

Tell that to 2006 Kobe and 2006 Lebron, 2008 Lebron, 2009 Wade. Harden will win his first MVP award, and lead Houston to the NBA Finals.

[theaussieguy]

its a totally flawed concept

[pauk]

Individual play must translate towards team success, thats just how it is.... Kevin Durant however if he was healthy/been there all season he would be the #1 MVP on the race, very easily..... and Lebron would be that to if he was healthy/in top form, he said he has been bothered by the knee entire season, lots of wear n tear on that guy, father time is catching up...

Harden & Curry? Screw that, how about Lowry & Marc? Those are equally strong MVP candidates imo..... some more arguably aswell, Lillard? Wall? lol

[Nuff Said]

The MVP is an individual award.

Deciding who gets it based on a team stat is completely idiotic.

Put the 10th place team in the West into the Eastern Conference and they would be a top 2 seed.

It's pathetic that the three best players in the NBA this season:

Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
Russell Westbrook

will have no legitimate chance to win the award despite the fact that their teams are lottery teams without them and they have been the best players in the NBA hands down.

I refuse to live in a world where James Harden or Steph Curry is the league's MVP.

They are world class players, but MVP's they are not.

Are you gonna commit suicide?

[SpanishACB]

The MVP is an individual award.

Deciding who gets it based on a team stat is completely idiotic.

Put the 10th place team in the West into the Eastern Conference and they would be a top 2 seed.

It's pathetic that the three best players in the NBA this season:

Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
Russell Westbrook

will have no legitimate chance to win the award despite the fact that their teams are lottery teams without them and they have been the best players in the NBA hands down.

I refuse to live in a world where James Harden or Steph Curry is the league's MVP.

They are world class players, but MVP's they are not.

you're missing the point

apparently good individual performances if they don't account for winning they don't account for nothing.

[Done_And_Done]

Individual play must translate towards team success, thats just how it is.... Kevin Durant however if he was healthy/been there all season he would be the #1 MVP on the race, very easily..... and Lebron would be that to if he was healthy/in top form, he said he has been bothered by the knee entire season, lots of wear n tear on that guy, father time is catching up...

Harden & Curry? Screw that, how about Lowry & Marc? Those are equally strong MVP candidates imo..... some more arguably aswell, Lillard? Wall? lol

I like where you're going with this :rockon:

[Nowitness]

Kobe would have never won if this were the case.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Harden will win his first MVP award, and lead Houston to the NBA Finals.

:coleman:

[Done_And_Done]

And yes it is an individual achievement but the team success criteria is necessary and should remain a deciding factor. It's not very often the best player in the league isn't playing on a playoff bound team. The MVP should be one who wills his team to a certain degree of victory. Rewarding somebody who puts up 30 a game on a 12th place team just doesn't seem right to me.

[L.Kizzle]

The MVP is an individual award.

Deciding who gets it based on a team stat is completely idiotic.

Put the 10th place team in the West into the Eastern Conference and they would be a top 2 seed.

It's pathetic that the three best players in the NBA this season:

Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
Russell Westbrook

will have no legitimate chance to win the award despite the fact that their teams are lottery teams without them and they have been the best players in the NBA hands down.

I refuse to live in a world where James Harden or Steph Curry is the league's MVP.

They are world class players, but MVP's they are not.
So a team with a 22-60 records, but the star player is avg 36 points / 9 rebounds and 7 assist on 52% from the field should get MVP over these players:

Player A: 25/12/3 on a 50-32 record?
Player B: 28/4/4 on a 58-24 record?
Player C: 19/6/14 on a 56-26 record?
Player D: 27/6/8 on a 52-30 record?

[SillyRabbit]

Considering the staggering disparity of difficulty in each conference, taking team records into account is severely flawed.

OKC is 10th in the West. They would be a top 2 seed in the East.

New Orleans would easily be top 6 in the East.

Davis, Durant and Westbrook have played better than anyone else in the NBA and it is translating into wins.

Just not as many wins as a team in the East would get, because the West is historically stacked.

[Lebron23]

Durant only had one great game this season.

[Done_And_Done]

Considering the staggering disparity of difficulty in each conference, taking team records into account is severely flawed.

OKC is 10th in the West. They would be a top 2 seed in the East.

New Orleans would easily be top 6 in the East.

Davis, Durant and Westbrook have played better than anyone else in the NBA and it is translating into wins.

Just not as many wins as a team in the East would get, because the West is historically stacked.

Nobody said the system was perfect. It's just the way it is my man. Votes can't be rewarded based on hypotheticals.

[Done_And_Done]

And if Durant plays a major part in OKC making the playoffs, he'll receive consideration.

[navy]

I refuse to live in a world where James Harden or Steph Curry is the league's MVP.

They are world class players, but MVP's they are not.
What is this nonsense?

[Eric Cartman]

James Harden has been great this year.

Without him, rockets might be worst in the west.

[mehyaM24]

im all for that, just as long as "the mvp" gets his team into the playoffs.

the arbitrary barometer "50 wins" was created to spite past players, i am sure.

[Magic 32]

Kobe would have never won if this were the case.

He would have 3.

Steve Nash and Dirk would have zero.

[Dr.J4ever]

So if team record will not be a factor in determining MVP, then what should we use? Individual stats?:facepalm

Stats aren't produced in a vacuum. Numbers aren't be-all, end-all figures that stand forever. They are a function of opportunity, team structure, and team philosophy. A player producing 26/13 for a bottom echelon team will suddenly go 17/10 for a supposed contender. (See Kevin Love)

The only reason any player produces stats is for the sole purpose of his team winning, or at least it should be. If you don't produce stats in enough winning or clutch moments and don't help make your teammates better, then how can you be MVP?

[Done_And_Done]

So if team record will not be a factor in determining MVP, then what should we use? Individual stats?:facepalm

Stats aren't produced in a vacuum. Numbers aren't be-all, end-all figures that stand forever. They are a function of opportunity, team structure, and team philosophy. A player producing 26/13 for a bottom echelon team will suddenly go 17/10 for a supposed contender. (See Kevin Love)

The only reason any player produces stats is for the sole purpose of his team winning, or at least it should be. If you don't produce stats in enough winning or clutch moments and don't help make your teammates better, then how can you be MVP?

Rep worthy post.

[stanlove1111]

All players should only ever be judged on is value to a team. If you put the best player in the league on a team that would win maybe 20 games without him but they win 50 with him then he can be more valuable then another great player who on a team that would win 50 without him but win 64 with him and win the title. It shouldn't go to best player on best team, that's ridiculous..The award should be player of the year anywhat not MVP.

[Bay Area Baller]

Whats wrong with Steph Curry as a candidate. Hes the leader of the best team in the NBA.:rockon: Not to pick on other former MVPs but he deserves the MVP because he makes his team and players better, doesn't just start chucking but defers to his other you know teamates on the court. And no it doesn't always come down to stats via Rose MVP.

[GimmeThat]

you know what it's like to get those extra wins?

home-court no home-court.
how seeding plays out generally as it should in the playoffs

should not necessarily surprise someone

[rmt]

I think that MVP should go to one of the top players in the league, but that team record also needs to be considered. I disagree with Tony Parker even being considered a MVP candidate in recent years just because the Spurs had the best/near the best record - TP is not a MVP-caliber player.

[kshutts1]

Should have a "Most Outstanding Player" award and also a "Most Valuable Player" award.
Give set criteria for each award, that are publicly known.
Then vote on how well players meet said criteria, crown the overall leader the winner of whichever award.

It's honestly not that hard, but the NBA, and every other professional league, continue to mess it up.

[GimmeThat]

Should have a "Most Outstanding Player" award and also a "Most Valuable Player" award.
Give set criteria for each award, that are publicly known.
Then vote on how well players meet said criteria, crown the overall leader the winner of whichever award.

It's honestly not that hard, but the NBA, and every other professional league, continue to mess it up.


well. all they have to do is make the basketball court in the middle of a stadium. where even the closest observer only gets to watch the screen, or just a tiny fraction of how the game is going on.

and this will certainly make a lot of sense.

[Rooster]

They should just renamed it Player of the Year. When Kareem won it, it was players voting on it. When they changed it to media, Bird got 3 before Magic even got 1. Not that he does not deserved it, it seems to me if guys like Nash and Dirk has a strong case, it's automatic.

[Roundball_Rock]

Considering the staggering disparity of difficulty in each conference, taking team records into account is severely flawed.

OKC is 10th in the West. They would be a top 2 seed in the East.

New Orleans would easily be top 6 in the East.

Davis, Durant and Westbrook have played better than anyone else in the NBA and it is translating into wins.

Just not as many wins as a team in the East would get, because the West is historically stacked.

The top 4 teams in the East are legitimate and the Cavs are respectable, at least when LeBron plays. OKC, given the injuries suffered by Durant and Westbrook, would not be a top 2 team in terms of record in the East right now. People are assuming the East is as weak as it was last year--and that was largely due to injuries.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Nope, team record should bear a lot on who wins MVP. The art of winning is more sophisticated than just putting up good stats. The value of a player is beyond his numbers, it also includes impact on the floor. If you cant lead your team to victories, then what does the number you put up even mean? To sell tickets and jerseys?
:rolleyes:

[lilteapot]

No, it should. If you're playing well and your team stinks then how valuable are you, really?

[HurricaneKid]

Durant has been top 3 this year? He has literally played well his last game and a half. In a sea of dumb OP appears to lead the race to the iceburg.

[bigt]

How valuable is a guy if he can't bring his team wins. That's what these players are hired, to win games. So if they can't lift their team towards the upper echelon of the NBA, then can they truly be the 'most valuable'? In saying that, if the Pelicans can make the playoffs, Anthony Davis will be in the running for MVP. He has both the media and public backing, he just needs to get production out of that Pelicans lineup.

One of the posters here made a good point though, given the strength of the East it is kind of unfair that Davis might not be considered for MVP if the Peli's don't make the playoffs despite the fact their record would get him there in the East

[DMAVS41]

It definitely should matter...just probably not as much as it does.

[NZStreetBaller]

you should atleast be a top four seed in your conference.... what if somebody in the bottom seed had 30/9/8 58fg% and was such a likeable guy but didnt win a single game........

If you dont help your team win games atleast enough to make the 4th seed then your not much of an asset.

[edrick]

How dumb are some of you, seriously? How can anyone on a losing team be Most Valuable Player? MVP of what? Losing?

[Joyner82reload]

Durant has been top 3 this year? He has literally played well his last game and a half. In a sea of dumb OP appears to lead the race to the iceburg.

LOL @ this garbage.

He's averaging 25/6/4 on 54/44/90 shooting in ONLY 29 MPG. Adjust his numbers to his normal minutes, 39 MPG, and he's averaging
32.6 ppg 7.2 rpg 4.9 apg

Ya ok buddy. Just 1 1/2 good games.

[INDI]

So a team with a 22-60 records, but the star player is avg 36 points / 9 rebounds and 7 assist on 52% from the field should get MVP over these players:

Player A: 25/12/3 on a 50-32 record?
Player B: 28/4/4 on a 58-24 record?
Player C: 19/6/14 on a 56-26 record?
Player D: 27/6/8 on a 52-30 record?


Yes!

Why is Rookie of the year not based upon record? Most Improved player??

let's take a look at the All NBA teams to prove this way of thinking is flawed. With having the best player on a good team always considered the front runner, we can have a year where the MVP is not even first team all NBA. Or even worse not on any of the all NBA teams (yes Longshot but yet it is a possibility with this logic)

Would that not look utterly ridiculous to have a MVP and he's not even an all NBA player???

[SamuraiSWISH]

I don't know what they're like defensively, or FG% but ranking ...

1) Player D: 27/6/8 on a 52-30 record
2) Player C: 19/6/14 on a 56-26 record
3) Player A: 25/12/3 on a 50-32 record
4) Player B: 28/4/4 on a 58-24 record

[LAZERUSS]

The MVP is not necessarily the best player. There have been many times, in all three of the major U.S. team sports, where the best player in the league didn't win the MVP.

I remember Zoilio Versalles winning the AL MVP in 1965. I seriously doubt that he would have been taken in the Top-50 in a general draft following that season. Paul Hornung not only won an undeserving Heisman, he later won an MVP on a Packer team in which he was only their third best offensive player, and if you included defense, probably not even a Top-10 player on that team. How valuable was he REALLY to those Packer teams? He was suspended a full season a couple of years later, and the Pack went 11-2-1. He was basically worthless after that, and they won three more titles.

How about Wilt, in his 62-63 season? He put up an unfathomable individual season, but his teammates were probably the worst collection in NBA history, and the team went 31-49 (albeit, they lost a ton of close games that year...and with basically the same cast, they went 48-32 the very next year.) Chamberlain finished SEVENTH in the MVP balloting. Hell, he finished behind Johnny Kerr...whom he absolutely demolished in their H2H's...including games in which he outscored Kerr by 61-20, and 70-14. Does anyone in their right mind think that a GM would have taken Kerr over Wilt in a draft after that season?

Shaq should have won at least a couple of more MVPs, and clearly, no GM, including Philly's, would have taken Iverson over Shaq in a draft following the '00-01 season. In fact, I can't recall all the results now, but GM's actually had some kind of poll at the end of each season, and I believe Shaq was ranked #1 for something like five straight years, even in a league with Duncan.

The MVP is a "feel good" award, that is usually given to the best player, on the best team. It is a "nice" award, but the reality is, most everyone knows who the real best player in the league is each season...and quite often, that guy doesn't win the award.

[gts]

It definitely should matter...just probably not as much as it does.


This.....

Media/voters seem completely incapable of actually breaking down who the Most Valuable Player is so they rely on the teams record to justify the vote

I'm not saying you want guys from teams with horrible records winning it, the teams season does have it's place and should definitely be considered but the thought that you have a guy like A Davis playing incredible ball and he probably won't even get a thorough looking over by the voters is a crime

[SillyRabbit]

This.....

Media/voters seem completely incapable of actually breaking down who the Most Valuable Player is so they rely on the teams record to justify the vote

I'm not saying you want guys from teams with horrible records winning it, the teams season does have it's place and should definitely be considered but the thought that you have a guy like A Davis playing incredible ball and he probably won't even get a thorough looking over by the voters is a crime

Exactly.

Is it really that hard to see that Davis, Durant, Westbrook etc are playing much better basketball than Curry or Harden?

This is the whole Steve Nash / Derrick Rose travesty all over again.