The term MVP gets thrown around far too loosely. Every single year.

[Orlando Magic]

The MVP should only really change once every 5 to 10 years. All of this nonsense about choosing a new MVP every year or two really needs to stop. Of course, exceptions do happen and there are certain years... but generally speaking when a guy becomes the actual best and thus most valuable player in the league he stays that way for at least half of his career if not more. Jordan should have probably gotten 10 MVPs, Shaq should have gotten 6 or 7, etc, etc...

The question always boils down to this... if you had to assemble a team to win the title THIS YEAR ONLY, would you start from the ground up with LeBron? Westbrook? Harden? Curry? What one guy do you think can get you the furthest with the most wins regardless of his cast, coach, franchise and system? Answer that and you have your actual MVP and the answer is still quite obvious and it has been quite obvious since about 2008 and no, it still hasn't changed. It might soon... within the next year or two, but this year, it was still the same guy.

[UK2K]

Well the Cavs did start a franchise with one guy, and you see where that's gotten them.

So... I think your logic is flawed.

[Orlando Magic]

Well the Cavs did start a franchise with one guy, and you see where that's gotten them.

So... I think your logic is flawed.

What? When did they support him with a cast that was title worthy? I never said one guy could win it all because he can't. That guy doesn't exist. It takes an entire team. But one guy certainly can get you far and generate a lot of wins by himself and there is still one guy that is head and shoulders above EVERYONE in that department.

[RedBlackAttack]

Well the Cavs did start a franchise with one guy, and you see where that's gotten them.

So... I think your logic is flawed.
No. 2 seed?

And, what do you mean "start a franchise with one guy"? Doesn't even make sense.

[SouBeachTalents]

I just hate how there's a top record requirement for winning MVP, that punishes players like Kobe in '06 and Wade in '09 who had to have insane games night in and night out just to lead their terrible teams to the playoffs

[Giaodollo]

No. 2 seed?

And, what do you mean "start a franchise with one guy"? Doesn't even make sense.

I think what he wanted to say is if you are starting a franchise and looking to win now, you are picking LeBron to anchor that team.

I am inclined to agree, not only with his choice but also that MVP always goes to a player that has a story narrative. I have looked at a lot of the media members that has a vote and I don't understand it. So many trolls and casual fans. Give the power to the coaches or GMs and they can't be allowed to vote on a player that is present on their team.

[RedBlackAttack]

I think what he wanted to say is if you are starting a franchise and looking to win now, you are picking LeBron to anchor that team.

I am inclined to agree, not only with his choice but also that MVP always goes to a player that has a story narrative. I have looked at a lot of the media members that has a vote and I don't understand it. So many trolls and casual fans. Give the power to the coaches or GMs and they can't be allowed to vote on a player that is present on their team.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but his post made it sound as if the Cavs have failed in "selecting" LeBron to build around. That's setting aside the fact that Kyrie Irving was actually the first guy to sign on the dotted line over the summer, not LeBron. But whatever... Point is, the Cavs are in a pretty good place currently.


The Internet has really turned the MVP award into something that I don't remember it being when I first really started following the NBA. No one really cared all that much back in the day.

I remember the years Barkley and Malone won it over Jordan. They had great years and it was cool to see someone else win, but everyone also knew that Jordan was the best player in the league.

I try not to get too far into the MVP debates, because I really don't think it means all that much in the grand scheme. Sure, if you have a guy winning 3+ MVPs, it is a pretty good indicator that he is probably an all-timer, but outside of that?

It'll give you a pretty good idea of which teams were really good that year and who the consensus best player on that team was. That's pretty much it. I really don't know why people attempt to invest any more in it than that.

[UK2K]

No. 2 seed?

And, what do you mean "start a franchise with one guy"? Doesn't even make sense.
10 games out of 1st and a half game out of 5th.

In the butt conference.

[RedBlackAttack]

10 games out of 1st and a half game out of 5th.

In the butt conference.
20-4 since mid-January... best record in the league over that stretch. Certainly going to surpass 50+ wins. Playoffs looming. :confusedshrug:

[Kblaze8855]

The question always boils down to this... if you had to assemble a team to win the title THIS YEAR ONLY, would you start from the ground up with LeBron? Westbrook? Harden? Curry? What one guy do you think can get you the furthest with the most wins regardless of his cast, coach, franchise and system? Answer that and you have your actual MVP

Not really though....because you want to mix best player with most likely to get a team to perform well. And they just arent the same.

As piece by piece basketball players Wilt destroys Bill Russell.

But Bill Russell would probably get more out of the same players because players will do more...for him. Dude was just maniacal about winning...respected the hell outta his teammates...did what he had to to make them better...not just play better..be better people and players. You hear guys talking about how they were personally ashamed to take a play off because they didnt live up to their end while Bill was ready to die for every rebound.

He simply....motivates those around him.

And your attitude and approach DO impact the performance of your teammates.

Which may be why the players voted him MVP 5 times over guys with a more complete skillset considering offense.

I dont think anyone in Bills place gets more out of his teams...from back to back national titles after back to back state titles....a gold medal...and 11 rings...

I dont think anyone you could list as better at the game...is going to get better results. How could you? Aside from one finals loss with a broken ankle....he lost one elimination game of any kind from age 16 to 35.

Someone gonna just sweep every title for life? He won 55 straight and 2 national titles in college on a team that barely existed before him and had like 2 good years in the 60 years since.

Russell might not be the "best" player...but the way you judged it...

Best and most valuable arent the same thing.

That dude just won...and I dont see how anyone could win more in his place.

[UK2K]

20-4 since mid-January... best record in the league over that stretch. Certainly going to surpass 50+ wins. Playoffs looming. :confusedshrug:
I would hope so, since they dismantled their whole team and reassembled it to Lebrons approval.

50 wins for the greatest?

[christian1923]

I wouldn't give LeBron MVP but id give him GM of the year. He recruits better then Coach K.

[Giaodollo]

I would hope so, since they dismantled their whole team and reassembled it to Lebrons approval.

50 wins for the greatest?

I know MVP goes to regular season performance but let us wait until the playoffs until we judge them. I don't think LeBron is too keen to waste more energy then needed on RS games.

[chazzy]

What if that guy requires a 2 week break?

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Stopped reading at Shaq. Dude missed way too many games season to season and was just overall really lazy when it came to the regular season for him to rack up a ton of MVP's. You're talking about a guy who would use the regular season to get in shape, each game as a sort of exercise routine. He didn't take the regular season serious for much of his career and because of that, he only has one MVP. He may have beasted in the play offs, but MVP is not a post-season award.

[imdaman99]

If I wanted to get out of the Eastern Conference, sure I'd pick Lebron. If I wanted to get out of the West I'd pick one of the other 3.

[The Macho Man]

Lol at lebron being better than westbrook

[Orlando Magic]

Not really though....because you want to mix best player with most likely to get a team to perform well. And they just arent the same.

As piece by piece basketball players Wilt destroys Bill Russell.

But Bill Russell would probably get more out of the same players because players will do more...for him. Dude was just maniacal about winning...respected the hell outta his teammates...did what he had to to make them better...not just play better..be better people and players. You hear guys talking about how they were personally ashamed to take a play off because they didnt live up to their end while Bill was ready to die for every rebound.

He simply....motivates those around him.

And your attitude and approach DO impact the performance of your teammates.

Which may be why the players voted him MVP 5 times over guys with a more complete skillset considering offense.

I dont think anyone in Bills place gets more out of his teams...from back to back national titles after back to back state titles....a gold medal...and 11 rings...

I dont think anyone you could list as better at the game...is going to get better results. How could you? Aside from one finals loss with a broken ankle....he lost one elimination game of any kind from age 16 to 35.

Someone gonna just sweep every title for life? He won 55 straight and 2 national titles in college on a team that barely existed before him and had like 2 good years in the 60 years since.

Russell might not be the "best" player...but the way you judged it...

Best and most valuable arent the same thing.

That dude just won...and I dont see how anyone could win more in his place.

Actually they are the same. Basketball is a team sport. Not a 1 on 1 tournament or 5 on 1 competition. Thus the impact you have on raising your teammates game matters... And it matters more than anything.

There are few guys in history that were great individuals that also genuinely raised the level of their teammates. We only have one guy in the NBA that meets that criteria right now which is why he is so clearly above the rest.

And I don't disagree really with you about Bill's impact which is why I'd take him over wilt 90 percent of the time despite what made wilt "appear" to be"better".

[Kblaze8855]

Actually they are the same. Basketball is a team sport. Not a 1 on 1 tournament or 5 on 1 competition. Thus the impact you have on raising your teammates game matters... And it matters more than anything.

There are few guys in history that were great individuals that also genuinely raised the level of their teammates. We only have one guy in the NBA that meets that criteria right now which is why he is so clearly above the rest.

And I don't disagree really with you about Bill's impact which is why I'd take him over wilt 90 percent of the time despite what made wilt "appear" to be"better".


Nah...they are not the same. Plenty of players have taken more talent than a worse player had...and won less with it. A lot of it comes down to personality and things you simply cant "All things being equal..." away. Mostly because the idea of all things being equal is absurd.

Things arent equal...and much of that is because teams dont build the same way around different kinds of players.

You add complimentary pieces....and the talent is never gonna match up down the line.

If you could actually copy a team totally...exact duplicates...team and staff...and have them play a game...you still get a winner and a loser. The best player on one didnt prove to be better than his....identical counterpart.

Teams win and teams lose. And they do so for reasons that go well beyond the best players individual talent.

Im not sure how you say:


Basketball is a team sport. Not a 1 on 1 tournament or 5 on 1 competition.

And also believe:



What one guy do you think can get you the furthest with the most wins regardless of his cast, coach, franchise and system? Answer that and you have your actual MVP


That one guy...whoever it is...isnt gonna get you shit.

A lot more factors in than how good he is.

Realistically I dont see how anyone ever.....gets more of a lifetime of teams than Bill Russell. I dont care if its Jordan...and he scores 90 points a game...you just arent gonna do much better than....winning all but one elimination game in your life(one broken ankle game aside).

If you think someone is better than Russell...that means that in his place he would sweep life?

It cant just boil down to wins and losses in a wildly unrealistic hypothetical situation.

[Joyner82reload]

Does this mean Kobe was the MVP until 2012?

[LAL]

The game evolves and players become better. No as much easy choices like in the early days.

My opinion.

[Orlando Magic]

Nah...they are not the same. Plenty of players have taken more talent than a worse player had...and won less with it. A lot of it comes down to personality and things you simply cant "All things being equal..." away. Mostly because the idea of all things being equal is absurd.

Things arent equal...and much of that is because teams dont build the same way around different kinds of players.

You add complimentary pieces....and the talent is never gonna match up down the line.

If you could actually copy a team totally...exact duplicates...team and staff...and have them play a game...you still get a winner and a loser. The best player on one didnt prove to be better than his....identical counterpart.

Teams win and teams lose. And they do so for reasons that go well beyond the best players individual talent.

Im not sure how you say:



And also believe:





That one guy...whoever it is...isnt gonna get you shit.

A lot more factors in than how good he is.

Realistically I dont see how anyone ever.....gets more of a lifetime of teams than Bill Russell. I dont care if its Jordan...and he scores 90 points a game...you just arent gonna do much better than....winning all but one elimination game in your life(one broken ankle game aside).

If you think someone is better than Russell...that means that in his place he would sweep life?

It cant just boil down to wins and losses in a wildly unrealistic hypothetical situation.

Maybe Russell is the goat. Didn't say he wasn't. In fact the only reason we can't say for sure is because of the difference in eras. That's not to say it's impossible to identify that players of certain eras were better than players of other eras but when you're talking goat discussion you have to potentially start splitting hairs and thus era makes it difficult.

Winning is the only thing that matters. I fully understand that different players have different supporting casts and that can fully effect someone's legacy and it's not super simplistic to analyze and that different pieces have dramatic impacts on how well any given team functions but some guys are simply good enough that you could almost throw anyone around them and they're going to the playoffs at the very least just about no matter what. LeBron is one of those guys and wet don't have anyone else in the league that can say the same IMO.

[DatAsh]

The question always boils down to this... if you had to assemble a team to win the title THIS YEAR ONLY, would you start from the ground up with LeBron? Westbrook? Harden? Curry? What one guy do you think can get you the furthest with the most wins regardless of his cast, coach, franchise and system? Answer that and you have your actual MVP.

Is that really the question though? I don't think people agree on the question, and that's part of the problem.

Who adds the most to their current team?
Who adds the most to the average team?
Who adds the most to the average (MVP included)contending team?

I'd say all 3 are valid questions to ask if you're trying to measure value.

[Marchesk]

Durant was more valuable last year.