View Full Version : Why does the MVP always need to go to someone on a top team?
midatlantic09
03-23-2015, 12:01 PM
I really never understood this and have no idea why it's almost essential for a player to be on a top 5 team to have a strong chance of winning the MVP award.
The MVP should only be about one metric: How many less wins would the player's team have without that player?
For example, without Anthony Davis, how many wins would New Orleans have right now? If you believe he has contributed more wins to his team than a guy like Steph Curry, Davis should be ahead of Curry in the MVP race despite Curry being on the top team in the league. The award is "Most Valuable Player," and shouldn't always have to be "Most Valuable Player on one of the top 5 teams in the league."
MP.Trey
03-23-2015, 12:06 PM
Because that's how it's always been and people are afraid to break the mold.
iamgine
03-23-2015, 12:10 PM
Why must your criteria be the deciding factor?
It's a completely subjective award. The voters have their own criteria.
if your team isn't winning how can you be considered more valuable than a guy who is leading his team at the top of the league?
how far down the line do we go? Ed Davis is leading the lakers in win shares, he should be in the argument i guess
midatlantic09
03-23-2015, 12:16 PM
Why must your criteria be the deciding factor?
It's a completely subjective award. The voters have their own criteria.
That's the problem. The award shouldn't be subjective, it should be objective. Remove politics and emotions and focus on the objective facts regarding a player's definitive contribution to his team.
MVP is an individual award, NOT a team award.
midatlantic09
03-23-2015, 12:20 PM
if your team isn't winning how can you be considered more valuable than a guy who is leading his team at the top of the league?
how far down the line do we go? Ed Davis is leading the lakers in win shares, he should be in the argument i guess
Are you kidding me?? It's all about how many wins has a certain player contributed regardless of what the overall record is, NOT how many wins the team simply happens to have. For example, without Anthony Davis, would New Orleans have a 37-33 record right now? Heck no! They'd probably be something like 20-50. On the flip side, without Steph Curry, Golden State would probably still be above 45 wins. Therefore, Davis is likely more valuable.
Btw, Ed Davis shouldn't be in the running simply because he's not a dominate player and because his win shares, although they may be the highest on the Lakers, probably aren't even top 20 in the NBA.
iamgine
03-23-2015, 12:22 PM
That's the problem. The award shouldn't be subjective, it should be objective. Remove politics and emotions and focus on the objective facts regarding a player's definitive contribution to his team.
MVP is an individual award, NOT a team award.
It can't be objective because there's no agreement to define what being most valuable is. It can mean the best player or most valuable to their team or most valuable to the league, etc. Thus, it has to be subjective.
midatlantic09
03-23-2015, 12:26 PM
It can't be objective because there's no agreement to define what being most valuable is. It can mean the best player or most valuable to their team or most valuable to the league, etc. Thus, it has to be subjective.
Most Valuable to the league isn't really a basketball award, but rather a basketball/politics/public relations/good guy in the community award. It should only be about basketball and which player has enhanced his team's record the most.
iamgine
03-23-2015, 12:36 PM
Most Valuable to the league isn't really a basketball award, but rather a basketball/politics/public relations award. It should only be about basketball and which player has enhanced his team's record the most.
So says you, but others may disagree. Why team record? What if a player's contribution doesn't result in wins because his teammates is just that weak or tanking?
Either way, it's still highly subjective. You can't measure hypothetical wins vs if another player (or multiple players) is in their place.
Akrazotile
03-23-2015, 12:42 PM
if your team isn't winning how can you be considered more valuable than a guy who is leading his team at the top of the league?
how far down the line do we go? Ed Davis is leading the lakers in win shares, he should be in the argument i guess
It's not about value to your own team, it's about league wide value. Whose level of play makes them the most coveted player across the league for that year?
Team circumstance should have nothing to do with it. But the writers dont want to do their job and actually watch all of the teams and players in the league, so they simplify the formula to be able to determine a winner without even having to watch ANY games. "Best player on the best team!" Going by that formula, my mom could figure out who the MVP is just by reading the newspaper on a random day near the end of the season.
Like most cliches in sports, the mvp logic is about making things extremely simple and digestible for the masses.
ralph_i_el
03-23-2015, 12:45 PM
I agree. Most valuable player should go to the player responsible for the most win on a team that has a realistic shot of making the finals. All 8 teams that make the playoffs in the West should be considered for MVP candidates
midatlantic09
03-23-2015, 12:46 PM
It's not about value to your own team, it's about league wide value. Whose level of play makes them the most coveted player across the league for that year?
If that's the case, why is Steph Curry even in the running?
ATL_Bball_King
03-23-2015, 12:48 PM
Because without curry, Warriors would not be number 1 in the hard west...Or be ahead by so many games.
Even if they had anythony davis for every single game, they would not be close to number 1 spot, they would still be fighting for 8th spot.
And obviously any team wouldnt be top 5 team in the league without there best player...Would you rather be in Top five team or not make the playoffs? Theres no value in anything if you don't even make the playoffs
r0drig0lac
03-23-2015, 01:32 PM
I agree ... Davis is the real MVP, but Harden will win the prize
midatlantic09
03-23-2015, 01:35 PM
Because without curry, Warriors would not be number 1 in the hard west...Or be ahead by so many games.
Even if they had anythony davis for every single game, they would not be close to number 1 spot, they would still be fighting for 8th spot.
And obviously any team wouldnt be top 5 team in the league without there best player...Would you rather be in Top five team or not make the playoffs? Theres no value in anything if you don't even make the playoffs
Now you're just being silly.
midatlantic09
03-23-2015, 01:36 PM
Why must your criteria be the deciding factor?
It's a completely subjective award. The voters have their own criteria.
Why let it be subjective? If that's the case, I vote Jeff Teague as MVP (lol)
I like that only winning teams get MVPs. You know why? So the players themselves will care about winning. I like that winning RINGS is such a big deal, because then the players themselves will care about winning rings. As fans, isn't that what we want them to want? Not just collecting giant contracts and putting up numbers?
Why should we reward players who are on losing teams? Yeah, it might not be their fault, but so what? That gives them incentive to get on a winning team. It gives them incentive to pester management to sign better players, to demand a trade if they are not given the right pieces. To improve their own game, and try to be better leaders on their team.
I don't want losing teams to be praised. I don't want losing players to be praised. I don't want scoring 30+ points while getting blown out to be commendable. Get on a winning team, play smart basketball, and the accolades will be waiting.
I<3NBA
03-23-2015, 01:49 PM
to remove subjectivity from the award, the NBA first has to define what "valuable" means.
then and and only then can a criteria be established to determine what Most "Valuable" Player means.
It's not about value to your own team, it's about league wide value. Whose level of play makes them the most coveted player across the league for that year?
Team circumstance should have nothing to do with it. But the writers dont want to do their job and actually watch all of the teams and players in the league, so they simplify the formula to be able to determine a winner without even having to watch ANY games. "Best player on the best team!" Going by that formula, my mom could figure out who the MVP is just by reading the newspaper on a random day near the end of the season.
Like most cliches in sports, the mvp logic is about making things extremely simple and digestible for the masses.
I was being sarcastic... :lol
I'm trying to point out if you start trying to subscribe to a formula that somewhat ignores the wins of a team or tries to place a value on wins depending on each players situation or something else you open up a whole other realm of discussion that i don't think takes the award in the right direction, basically the award goes from being given to a player that's truly valuable to his team (and the league as you mentioned) to a player that plays great basketball on a somewhat sucky team.. the award becomes the award given to the guy who plays the best basketball on a bad team
as in the OPs example, boiled down he's basically saying you can't give it to Curry because he has good teammates... if you start saying Davis is better because his team would really suck without him whereas the warriors wouldn't take as big a hit with Curry gone how far down the list do we go?
do we limit it to only playoff teams? do we now have to open up the debate to the value of the said players teammates and the impact they had on the team? how about the conference they play in, should we somewhat dismiss everyone in the eastern conference because honestly it's nowhere near as competitive as the west?
you think folks gripe about it now wait until you try to actually start trying to find the leagues truly most valuable player :lol
Dragonyeuw
03-23-2015, 02:10 PM
MVP is tricky, there's been times when the MVP award and the player considered the best player in the league are one and the same( MJ, Lebron,Shaq,etc) and then there are MVP awards when the winner isn't considered the best player( i.e Nash). More often than not the MVP is also the 'best' player period, but not always, which leads to the subjectivity surrounding the voting.
OP is wrong with his assumption.
do you know who the regular season MVP was in 1988??
some bald guy who played on a chicago team that went 50-32, which was only 8th best in the league for that season. NOWHERE near being the top team.
bald guy was averaging 35-6-6 and 3 steals over 82 games
lilteapot
03-23-2015, 02:17 PM
New orleans was like 9-2 or had a winning record when AD was out. OP has no idea what he's talking about
game3524
03-23-2015, 02:23 PM
OP is wrong with his assumption.
do you know who the regular season MVP was in 1988??
some bald guy who played on a chicago team that went 50-32, which was only 8th best in the league for that season. NOWHERE near being the top team.
bald guy was averaging 35-6-6 and 3 steals over 82 games
Bald guy shouldn't have been MVP(Bird should have won).
Bald guy shouldn't have been MVP(Bird should have won).
why??
because celtics had a better record??
if you go by simple records, then you're wrong too.
the celtics won 56 that year, but the lakers won 62, the best record in the league.
if that's the simple criteria, then magic should had been mvp, not bird.
game3524
03-23-2015, 02:41 PM
why??
because celtics had a better record??
if you go by simple records, then you're wrong too.
the celtics won 56 that year, but the lakers won 62, the best record in the league.
if that's the simple criteria, then magic should had been mvp, not bird.
Bird's impact was on par with Jordan and his team won a shit ton more games. Hell, MJ only won MVP because Bird and most of the starters sat out the final matchup which allowed the Bulls to win 50.
Bird's impact was on par with Jordan and his team won a shit ton more games. Hell, MJ only won MVP because Bird and most of the starters sat out the final matchup which allowed the Bulls to win 50.
if you call 6 games as "shit ton more games," then magic won a shit ton more games than bird.
62 > 56
62 was also best in the league.
There are a few players who have really great years, but the goal is to win so how can an important award be given to a player barely making the playoffs over another worthy player who plays on a team that's at the top of the league. It's like no matter how great a player is, no matter how dominant his stats, if he doesn't win, he'll never be considered top 10 GOAT because others are also deserving and HAVE WON.
game3524
03-23-2015, 02:49 PM
if you call 6 games as "shit ton more games," then magic won a shit ton more games than bird.
62 > 56
62 was also best in the league.
The difference is Magic's impact in 1988 was a tier below Bird and Jordan.
The difference is Magic's impact in 1988 was a tier below Bird and Jordan.
and jordan's impact was also greater than bird's in 1988.
bald guy was also DPOY in '88
killing it in offense AND defense
game3524
03-23-2015, 03:01 PM
and jordan's impact was also greater than bird's in 1988.
bald guy was also DPOY in '88
killing it in offense AND defense
No, it wasn't.
MJ also shouldn't have won DPOY.(Hakeem was the best defender in the league.). Hell, MJ was a far better defender 1990-1997 then he ever was in 1988.
No, it wasn't.
MJ also shouldn't have won DPOY.(Hakeem was the best defender in the league.). Hell, MJ was a far better defender 1990-1997 then he ever was in 1988.
i agree with the akeem statement.
but we're not comparing olajuwon.
we're comparing bird to that guy.
the impact of that guy on the defensive floor was much higher than bird's. like several tiers higher.
Bigsmoke
03-23-2015, 05:11 PM
Winning is not easy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.