How much do you value/weigh an MVP?

[Wade's Rings]

Does an MVP move a guy 1-3 spots up your All-Time list or 5-6?

A few examples are; If CP3 won MVP in 08 and Kobe lost where would you rank them? If Shaq won in 01 and AI lost where would you rank them?

[Genaro]

Not much. Playoffs are all what matters to me. Plenty of RS warriors (no pun intended) out there who doesn't show up in the playoffs.

[OnFire]

To me they are an ancillary award. I mean, any award where people just don't feel like voting for the same guy every year so they don't is flawed. Any award based on only the regular season, a regular season where I don't know maybe 99.9% of people think means nothing is flawed.

Tell me who took their team to a title thats all I want to know about.

[JellyBean]

Very little. It looks good on the resume and when you are showing people your trophy room . But I don't put too much stock on the MVP award and where I rank players on my all-time list.

[Ca$H]

Does an MVP move a guy 1-3 spots up your All-Time list or 5-6?

A few examples are; If CP3 won MVP in 08 and Kobe lost where would you rank them? If Shaq won in 01 and AI lost where would you rank them?

Nash -2

Shaq- 1

Kobe - 1

It's a media popularity contest award. It has very little credibility.

[Quickening]

Some mean more than others, like some championships, some final mvp mean more than others... but there are retards who struggle to differentiate, and purely look at numbers.

[KG215]

It just depends. There are players who never won MVP that I would pick in an all-time draft over guys with an MVP award.

[smoovegittar]

The award is more for the fans. But if the player goes on to win it all with his team, it's a nice kudo.

[Dr Hawk]

I value more the level of play than the MVP. For instance, there is no way I would take Iverson over O'Neal in 2001. Had O'Neal won the MVP, it wouldn't affect his all-time ranking for me, he had a great season regardless and that is what I value

[jimmybball]

MVP does give somebody validity, but it doesn't guarantee they are better than a non-MVP, and counting MVPs will get you nowhere in comparing all-time greats.

[Ca$H]

I value more the level of play than the MVP. For instance, there is no way I would take Iverson over O'Neal in 2001. Had O'Neal won the MVP, it wouldn't affect his all-time ranking for me, he had a great season regardless and that is what I value

Nobody would take AI over Shaq in 2001.

[Dr Hawk]

Nobody would take AI over Shaq in 2001.

Never say never

[TheMarkMadsen]

it's pretty much the consensus on ISH that Shaq was the "MDE"

well that most dominant period ever resulted in only 1 MVP award

that should tell you how much stock ISH puts into MVP, if they really believe that Shaq was the "MDE".. but of course it changes when it's time to discredit some player they don't like..

for all of Shaq's dominance if we look at MVP's 05-06 Nash was twice as dominant but of course we know this isn't true

[dubeta]

If you never won an MVP you can't be considered a great. Sorry OP

[JebronLames]

It's worth more than a sidekick ring.

[gts]

Does an MVP move a guy 1-3 spots up your All-Time list or 5-6?

A few examples are; If CP3 won MVP in 08 and Kobe lost where would you rank them? If Shaq won in 01 and AI lost where would you rank them?it's a piece of the puzzle... but that's it

i'm a big "W" guy. get the wins... all the rest is meaningless if you're not winning.

if you're winning then we can start to sort out where you belong with all the evidence

[dubeta]

it's a piece of the puzzle... but that's it

i'm a big "W" guy. get the wins... all the rest is meaningless if you're not winning.

if you're winning then we can start to sort out where you belong with all the evidence

Where do you rank Horry/Fisher/Kerr?

[TheMarkMadsen]

Where do you rank Horry/Fisher/Kerr?

probably not as high as the all nba players putting up 30 points per game

[kennethgriffin]

Well


Steve nash 2
Derrick rose 1
Stephy curry 1
Allen iverson 1



Kobe bryant 1
Shaquille oneal 1
Hakeem olajuwon 1
Oscar robertson 1




Theres obviously something wrong with the award

[Ne 1]

Number of MVPs isn't really all that significant. I think of MVP winners as more like a club... if you're truly great, you'll more than likely get at least 1 MVP but it's not really about how many you win. Not to mention the media tends to boycott those whom they don't like very much after that first MVP... or absolutely wait until the last second to give them one...and they will hand it out multiple times to people they just like personally i.e. Steve Nash. Shaq, Kobe and Hakeem all only have 1 MVP but have multiple rings which is part of why they're considered to be top 10 players in NBA history, while Moses Malone isn't despite having 3 MVPs he only has 1 ring. Being an MVP winner + number of rings is what get's you recognition.

So while being an MVP is important, number of rings by MVP winners is the standard of which most are judged, not the other way around. Otherwise Moses's 3 MVPs, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq and on par with Magic and Bird. But he's not. In all number of MVPs is just pretty much a popularity vote. If the media doesn't like you, good luck winning more than 1. But there is nothing the media can do to stop an MVP winner from winning multiple championships.

[kennethgriffin]

Number of MVPs isn't really all that significant. I think of MVP winners as more like a club... if you're truly great, you'll more than likely get at least 1 MVP but it's not really about how many you win. Not to mention the media tends to boycott those whom they don't like very much after that first MVP... or absolutely wait until the last second to give them one...and they will hand it out multiple times to people they just like personally i.e. Steve Nash. Shaq, Kobe and Hakeem all only have 1 MVP but have multiple rings which is part of why they're considered to be top 10 players in NBA history, while Moses Malone isn't despite having 3 MVPs he only has 1 ring. Being an MVP winner + number of rings is what get's you recognition.

So while being an MVP is important, number of rings by MVP winners is the standard of which most are judged, not the other way around. Otherwise Moses's 3 MVPs, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq and on par with Magic and Bird. But he's not. In all number of MVPs is just pretty much a popularity vote. If the media doesn't like you, good luck winning more than 1. But there is nothing the media can do to stop an MVP winner from winning multiple championships.



I swear youre swag jackin the fu*k outa me

[bballnoob1192]

MVP awards have diminishing returns IMO. I really don't care if lebron have 4 MVP or 2 MVP awards. To me after getting two MVPs the third one is just kind of whatever and doesn't really affect my judgment of the player. The first MVP is important, and a second MVP is even more important because you prove that you're really an MVP player and not a fluke winning it one season because of the league's landscape and certain circumstances.

[ClipperRevival]

Of course it carries a lot of weight. It means that for that one season, you were the best player/most valueable over 82 games at the highest level. You look at MVP winners and they are almost all all-time greats. It solidies a player's resume.

And when judging a player's legacy, you obviously want to look at the whole picture. But I can tell you right now that only a handful of people have ever won MVP and FMVP. A second fiddle player like Pippen or Worthy or Gasol, etc were never great enough to carry a team on their own and win MVPs. And that award sort of separates the alpha dogs from second fiddle dogs. And when we are talking about the best players ever, you want to see MVPs and FMVPs.

[kennethgriffin]

the* most valued* players in the nba are as fallows


2000 - shaq
2001 - shaq
2002 - shaq
2003 - duncan
2004 - duncan
2005 - duncan
2006 - kobe
2007 - kobe
2008 - kobe
2009 - kobe
2010 - kobe
2011 - lebron
2012 - lebron
2013 - lebron
2014 - lebron
2015 - davis
2016 - will be davis
2017 - will be davis
2018 - will be davis
2019 - will be wiggins
2020 - will be wiggins
2021 - will be wiggins
2022 - will be wiggins



period... you can argue 1 or 2 years when who stopped or started. but these were/are/will be the only real mvps

[dubeta]

the* most valued* players in the nba are as fallows


2000 - shaq
2001 - shaq
2002 - shaq
2003 - duncan
2004 - duncan
2005 - duncan
2006 - kobe
2007 - kobe
2008 - kobe
2009 - kobe
2010 - kobe
2011 - lebron
2012 - lebron
2013 - lebron
2014 - lebron
2015 - davis
2016 - will be davis
2017 - will be davis
2018 - will be davis
2019 - will be wiggins
2020 - will be wiggins
2021 - will be wiggins
2022 - will be wiggins



period... you can argue 1 or 2 years when who stopped or started. but these were/are/will be the only real mvps

:facepalm

[Round Mound]

Depends on the level of competition and superstars of that era. For example Chucks 1993 MVP (should have been 1990 MVP too, robery) is worth 3 times than todays NBA, he won it over Jordan-Pippen-Grant and Phil Jackson.