ITT: State for the record HOW you make your MVP choice

[FultzNationRISE]

It’s obvious most people decide first which player they WANT to win it, and then adapt their criteria to favor that candidate. The media does it, the fans do it, we all know that. The same individual may change their own criteria year after year after year just to keep justifying their preconceived choice.

Lets see if people are willing to state only their criteria, on the record, not which player they wan to win, so it can be referenced in subsequent years to see if it aligns with the guy theyre pumping each year.

For me it’s simple: Which player’s overall level was highest in a given year, such that he is the most valuable player to have on a team that begins from scratch and competes in this season only. If you were adding a 31st team to compete only in 2023-2024, which player would you choose strictly for his on-court impact.

I know many others invoke things like how good a player’s teammates were, or how his GTV% score was a ~7.2* which is off the charts! Or you “cant win x amount of mvp’s until you wonned a finals.”

So whatever system you use, state it here, NOW.

And we’ll hold you to it.

[elementally morale]

I have very similar criteria. I'd word it differently. Which team suffers most if you take a given player away. Everything else is the same. Win totals and stats are secondary to me.

Now our methods sound nice, both yours and mine. However: we just don't know. If we want a player to play many games (and to be valuable you have to) than we just don't really know how the team would do without that player. We mostly imagine. Here goes my criterion. As for yours: that's even more speculative. You have to imagine each player in a vacuum. So while both our criteria seem 'unbiased' we lack evidence. Box +/- and VORP help my case a bit.

[FultzNationRISE]

I have very similar criteria. I'd word it differently. Which team suffers most if you take a given player away. Everything else is the same. Win totals and stats are secondary to me.

Now our methods sound nice, both yours and mine. However: we just don't know. If we want a player to play many games (and to be valuable you have to) than we just don't really know how the team would do without that player. We mostly imagine. Here goes my criterion. As for yours: that's even more speculative. You have to imagine each player in a vacuum. So while both our criteria seem 'unbiased' we lack evidence. Box +/- and VORP help my case a bit.

Thats fine. Your criterion does to some extent take into account the quality of a player’s teammates, in particularly his backup/s, which is something I prefer to avoid because he cannot control that. But theres no right or wrong answer. We just need people to know how we’re deciding so there can be some expectation of consistency.

[SouBeachTalents]

I just write down LeBron James like I have been for 20 straight years.

[FultzNationRISE]

I just write down LeBron James like I have been for 20 straight years.

So, this explains WHY you kept getting the answer right. But it still doesnt answer how you kept getting it right.

[elementally morale]

Thats fine. Your criterion does to some extent take into account the quality of a player’s teammates, in particularly his backup/s, which is something I prefer to avoid because he cannot control that. But theres no right or wrong answer. We just need people to know how we’re deciding so there can be some expectation of consistency.

Well, it's most valuable and not 'best'. In most valuable I'm looking for 'most valuable for his team'. You basically are saying you are looking for the best player, i.e.: the one that should have the most value for a new franchise/owner -- if they go for winning. This is the reason I'm saying it's hypothetical. A new owner could be in it for revenue, in which case you may have a different answer to 'most valuable'.

Anyway: I think you say most valuable is totally individual and it should have nothing to do with so-called 'existing teams'. Just the player you think you could build the best team around. While I say most valuable is also the ability to play with current teammates and adding the most value to a team that is already there.

[FultzNationRISE]

Well, it's most valuable and not 'best'. In most valuable I'm looking for 'most valuable for his team'. You basically are saying you are looking for the best player, i.e.: the one that should have the most value for a new franchise/owner -- if they go for winning. This is the reason I'm saying it's hypothetical. A new owner could be in it for revenue, in which case you may have a different answer to 'most valuable'.

Anyway: I think you say most valuable is totally individual and it should have nothing to do with so-called 'existing teams'. Just the player you think you could build the best team around. While I say most valuable is also the ability to play with current teammates and adding the most value to a team that is already there.

Yep, I agree our definitions have a slight difference, and thats totally fine. Just wanna see people state their reasons on the record.

[elementally morale]

Yep, I agree our definitions have a slight difference, and thats totally fine. Just wanna see people state their reasons on the record.

Sure. It is the vacuum part I find the hardest with your approach. You really have to imagine a player and assign a value to that player based on a situation that doesn't exist and never has. All the players we observe we do so while they play on certain teams. We may have an idea as to what they could do 'on their own' but they are never on their own in any game - that's the whole point. So then another aspect comes into play: how well do we think a given player can play with others as the starting member of a new team.

Which brings us to exactly what I have in mind: the proven ability to play with others... see my criterion.

[j3lademaster]

They need to win around 50 games or more. I can’t imagine very many squads winning less than 50 with a prime Lebron, Duncan, or Jokic.

They have to pass the eye test WITH advanced stats that support it. Eye test without the adv stats in the right context to back it up is just arguing who has the bigger imaginary friend.

Basically the last ~15 years should have been all Lebron, Jokic and maybe some years of Giannis and Durant sprinkled in. But if I was auditioning for a job at espn, you best believe I’m voting for Ant this year… “And let me tell you why…”