Printable View
Based on the criteria that the voters use, Rose was the MVP. It's that simple. There really should be a seperate award for "Most Outstanding Player" or something along those lines that is based strictly on individual performance rather than team success.
[QUOTE=DaSeba5]The MVP goes to the most valuable player. It doesn't always go to the best player. That is why people say LeBron does not deserve to win the last two MVPs because if you take LeBron off the Heat they are still a great team. However, his FG% continued to improve every year, things like that 6 game streak with 30 points and 60%, and all of his clutch plays for the team were too good to pass. It will be difficult for LeBron to win the MVP this year because it will be hard to top what he did last year. They look for new faces, but besides in 2011, there really wasn't any legitimate argument of picking somebody else over Lebron.[/QUOTE]
I don't hold MVP's in high regard when it comes to a players legacy. Not all MVP's go on to win championships, or become the best player in the league.
I would much rather see an end of season MVP award. An accumulation of the whole season including the playoffs. So change it from a regular season MVP to a full season MVP where you can see a player's full body of work. Perhaps there can be a criteria where a player can only be awarded an MVP if they MAKE the playoffs.
Just an idea, won't happen though I don't think...
Rose deserved it in 2011, deal with it. If the MVP were given to the best player in the NBA, Jordan would have 10 MVPs and Shaq would have 5 or 6...
[QUOTE=poido123]I don't hold MVP's in high regard when it comes to a players legacy. Not all MVP's go on to win championships, or become the best player in the league.
I would much rather see an end of season MVP award. An accumulation of the whole season including the playoffs. So change it from a regular season MVP to a full season MVP where you can see a player's full body of work. Perhaps there can be a criteria where a player can only be awarded an MVP if they MAKE the playoffs.
Just an idea, won't happen though I don't think...[/QUOTE]
I agree.
[QUOTE=bdreason][B]It's not a "best player in the NBA" award anymore [/B](not that it ever really was), so there are probably 8-10 players in the NBA capable of winning the award. Rose is certainly in that group of capable candidates if the Bulls perform well, and I wasn't surprised one bit that he won the award in 2011.[/QUOTE]
No, it's the "best player of the season award"
People misunderstand the meaning of "best player". It means who was the best player of that 1 season. Thats all. LeBron is the best player in general, but another player could have a better season. That would be the "best player" for that season.
[QUOTE=NumberSix]Yeah, but Rose and Iverson are also the only MVPs ever who shot under 45%.
Rose and Nash are the only MVPs to not even be top 10 in player efficiency-that season.
There seems to only be 1 single argument for rose to be the MVP and its that the Bulls had the best record. Pretty weak reasoning.[/QUOTE]
He also improved his 3 point range and bumped his 3pt percentage up from .267 the previous year, to .332 in his MVP year. His 3 pt attempts also went up from .8 attempts to 4.8 attempts which translates to an affected FG%. That is 4 extra shots a game shooting at .332. His previous years he was .475 and .489 purely because he was attempting less 3 point shots.
[QUOTE]Yeah, but Rose and Iverson are also the only MVPs ever who shot under 45%.
Rose and Nash are the only MVPs to not even be top 10 in player efficiency-that season. [/QUOTE]
Neither of those are true.
[QUOTE] There seems to only be 1 single argument for rose to be the MVP and its that the Bulls had the best record. Pretty weak reasoning.[/QUOTE]
It isnt that they had the better record. Its why.
For all the claims of coaching and defense....
64 win pace with Rose.
45 without.
It is not by chance.
He won for the same reason a lot of MVPs won.
Story means nothing without the results.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]So people not having a problem with it had a less clear and objective view seeing it live than people looking back 20 years with the knowledge of how it would play out?
Naaaaaaaah.
Ive been a bulls fan since Reggie theus. Ive never had s problem with 93.
97? yes.
93?
Made sense. what happened in the finals has nothing to do with it. Few thought Barkley was better than Jordan before the finals anyway. Wasnt really the issue.
Bulls had an off year and MJ didnt look his best. Scored his ass off in a lot of unusually tough wins and ugly losses. I think that was the year he took 50 shots to score 64 and lose to the Magic. Wasnt the peak of the dynasty days.
He deserved all he won...plus 97. Ive never been mad about others. could argue him in the late 80s some of those years but really? Nobody got snubbed.[/QUOTE]
Maybe had a more clear view, but definitely less objective. People tend to get wrapped up in the moment oR in the narrative as it is happening. Later on, they look at things objectively, and that's when one can say things such as:
How the heck did Nash get two MVPs?
I agree that Barkley was a reasonable choice, i just try to look at MVPs as "best player on a winning team", because the definition is shady..
Anyways, thanks for discussing things in a reasonable manner. :cheers:
It was between him or Dwight. In my opinion Dwight had a better overall impact on the team, but Rose had all the media hype and a much better regular season record. Bulls also improved a lot too.
I wasnt that mad at the 06 nash MVP. Once amare was gone they didnt have that good a team. He stepped it out. In 05 I didnt get the Shaq snub because he turned his team around too. From ok to contender. Nash...the Suns won 29 in a throwaway season having traded Marbury for I think Penny Hardaway and playing youngsters to tank and let them improve.
I always felt it was overblown how big the turnaround was. Marbury had the same core in the playoffs.
06 though?
Eh. Kobe isnt getting MVP on a 42 or whatever win team. Dirk I thought would have been ok both years.
[QUOTE=DaSeba5]The MVP goes to the most valuable player. It doesn't always go to the best player. That is why people say LeBron does not deserve to win the last two MVPs because if you take LeBron off the Heat they are still a great team. However, his FG% continued to improve every year, things like that 6 game streak with 30 points and 60%, and all of his clutch plays for the team were too good to pass. It will be difficult for LeBron to win the MVP this year because it will be hard to top what he did last year. They look for new faces, but besides in 2011, there really wasn't any legitimate argument of picking somebody else over Lebron.[/QUOTE]
The best player of the season IS the most valuable.
26.7/7.5/7 on 51% is more valuable than 25/4.1/7.7 on 44.5% no matter which may you slice it. That doesn't even take defense into account.
LeBrons production is more valuable than Rose's.
And if you want to use the dumb team success thing, being that even with LeBron's superior production the heat won less games, its clear than the Heat needed LeBron's production even more than Chicago needed Roses.
There's no way around it. LeBron was better (more valuable) than rose.
[QUOTE=poido123]He also improved his 3 point range and bumped his 3pt percentage up from .267 the previous year, to .332 in his MVP year. His 3 pt attempts also went up from .8 attempts to 4.8 attempts which translates to an affected FG%. That is 4 extra shots a game shooting at .332. His previous years he was .475 and .489 purely because he was attempting less 3 point shots.[/QUOTE]
It's not the most improved 3 point shooting award.
Anyways, his 3 point shooting didn't hurt his efficiency. It upgraded it. His .332 is the equivalent of 50% efficiency wise. So it didn't harm him in anyway in the efficiency metrics.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Neither of those are true. [/QUOTE]
Righhhhhhhhttttt. Facts aren't true because a kid on the Internet guesses that they aren't.
Just to be EXTRA clear. Iverson and rose are the only MVPs in the last 47 years to shoot under 45%.
Rose and Nash are the only players in the last 39 years to win MVP without being top 10 in player efficiency.
Facts, or shut the fcuk up.
MVP has been given to a player shooting under .45% nine times, and to a player shooting under .50% over 20 times. FG% is not the end all be all. There are bigger rarities in the history of the award. For instance, only three times since 1956 has an MVP averaged less than 2.0 assists per game, so even in big men voters look for a certain amount of production.
[QUOTE=SCdac][B]MVP has been given to a player shooting under .45% nine times[/B], and to a player shooting under .50% over 20 times. FG% is not the end all be all. There are bigger rarities in the history of the award. For instance, only three times since 1956 has an MVP averaged less than 2.0 assists per game, so even in big men voters look for a certain amount of production.[/QUOTE]
Not in the last 47 years.
Can't compare 1950s players to this conversation.
[QUOTE=NumberSix]Not in the last 47 years.[/QUOTE]
Yet, it happened just 10 years prior (from AI in 01 to Rose in 11) and as mentioned, there are bigger rarities. FG% obviously isn't the end-all be all compared to other statistical categories (if we're going that route). Rose and Lebron are the best candidates that season IMO, and I completely understand why Rose got it. He killed it all season.
[QUOTE=SCdac]Yet, it happened just 10 years prior (from AI in 01 to Rose in 11) and as mentioned, there are bigger rarities. FG% obviously isn't the end-all be all compared to other statistical categories (if we're going that route). Rose and Lebron are the best candidates that season IMO, and I completely understand why Rose got it. He killed it all season.[/QUOTE]
Rose was the Trent dilfer of the bulls.
Saying they only won 45 games without Rose is deceiving because of all the injuries. They would have been a easy 50+ win team without with good health.
Derrick rose is a glorified role player.
[COLOR="White"]Lol. Ok, now I'm trolling. [/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Jacks3]Saying they only won 45 games without Rose is deceiving because of all the injuries. They would have been a easy 50+ win team without with good health.[/QUOTE]
So how did they win 60+ with him and his frontline missing like 70 games and was playing injured even when they cane back?
[QUOTE=NumberSix]Derrick rose is a glorified role player.
[COLOR="White"]Lol. Ok, now I'm trolling. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Role player makes a team a 60+ win team?
because he's a vag. and we all know vags don't deserve MVPs.
[QUOTE=juju151111]So how did they win 60+ with him and his frontline missing like 70 games and was playing injured even when they cane back?[/QUOTE]
Maybe we should give Keith Bogans all the credit. Why is it automatically all due to Rose?
MVP's are overrated. FMVP is where it's at. Come on now. Kobe has only 1. I think he should have at least 3. Dude was dropping 40+ points a game every night and still didn't win. That right there is enough for me to not care about it.
[QUOTE=ihoopallday]MVP's are overrated. FMVP is where it's at. Come on now. Kobe has only 1. I think he should have at least 3. Dude was dropping 40+ points a game every night and still didn't win. That right there is enough for me to not care about it.[/QUOTE]
FMVP requires the rest of the players on your team to be good enough to win a championship. I don't judge a guy based on how good other people are. I don't penalize a doctor because his brother is an idiot. I don't like my mom less because her brother is a scumbag.
[QUOTE=NumberSix]FMVP requires the rest of the players on your team to be good enough to win a championship. I don't judge a guy based on how good other people are. I don't penalize a doctor because his brother is an idiot. I don't like my mom less because her brother is a scumbag.[/QUOTE]
:lol Can't disagree with that. I guess I just don't think players like LeBron should be judged by MVP's. They're too good for all that.
[QUOTE=NumberSix]It's not the most improved 3 point shooting award.
Anyways, his 3 point shooting didn't hurt his efficiency. It upgraded it. His .332 is the equivalent of 50% efficiency wise. So it didn't harm him in anyway in the efficiency metrics.[/QUOTE]
:biggums:
Don't know exactly what you're talking about.
The point I was making was, Rose would easily be above 45% FG if he took less threes. In his two previous years he was way above 45%, it would be foolish of you to overlook that. We are not looking at a small rise in 3 point attempts but 4 extra shots that were 3s averaging .332 which directly affects his FG%. If you are using FG% as your argument as to why Rose didn't deserve it, I accuse you of being a boxscore warrior and not actually watching the games in which he clearly improved.
Now, the reason AI and Rose were awarded the MVP's, was not based on their stats or FG%, it was based on MVP criteria that every winner of the MVP has met with few exceptions...
idiots.
both joakim and boozer missed half of that season. dwight had a great year, be he also did a disservice to his team when the offense ran through him. the magic were a better team when they moved the ball, but dwight demanded the ball therefore they turned into a half court team.
why u think they got bounced in the first round against the hawks? that was enough proof to me that he didn't deserve it.
assholes wanna bring up the bulls success this past season. what about last playoffs when rose went down? did the bulls advance? we see what they can do without rose, now we have to see if rose can take them to the top. rose has no excuse about having inferior talent. team got heart - thats all u need
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]idiots.
both joakim and boozer missed half of that season. dwight had a great year, be he also did a disservice to his team when the offense ran through him. the magic were a better team when they moved the ball, but dwight demanded the ball therefore they turned into a half court team.
why u think they got bounced in the first round against the hawks? that was enough proof to me that he didn't deserve it.[/QUOTE]
:pimp:
Ask Rose if he felt like he was the MVP after LeBron ended his career in the ECF.
If it's not LeBron Dirk would have been a good pick as well. To knowledgeable basketball fans Dirks playoff run wasn't that big of a surprise. He was great all year and EXTREMELY valuable to his team.
Dallas's Record with Dirk: 55-18([B].753[/B])
Dallas Record w/o Dirk: 2-7([B].222)[/B]
With Dirk in the lineup, Dallas would have been on pace for the 1st seed in the West. It's obvious being a 3rd seed hurt him. San Antonio was the 1st seed with a 61-21([B].744[/B]) record.
Dirk just wasn't a sexy pick. In 2011 all anyone cared about was the Heat, and the Bulls having a better record/beating them in meaningless regular season game was enough to fuel the media hype machine.
Theres a reason people routinely call Rose one of if not the worst winner of the MVP award in the history of the league.
[QUOTE=TonyMontana]Ask Rose if he felt like he was the MVP after LeBron ended his career in the ECF.
If it's not LeBron Dirk would have been a good pick as well. To knowledgeable basketball fans Dirks playoff run wasn't that big of a surprise. He was great all year and EXTREMELY valuable to his team.
Dallas's Record with Dirk: 55-18([B].753[/B])
Dallas Record w/o Dirk: 2-7([B].222)[/B]
With Dirk in the lineup, Dallas would have been on pace for the 1st seed in the West. It's obvious being a 3rd seed hurt him. San Antonio was the 1st seed with a 61-21([B].744[/B]) record.
Dirk just wasn't a sexy pick. In 2011 all anyone cared about was the Heat, and the Bulls having a better record/beating them in meaningless regular season game was enough to fuel the media hype machine.
[B]Theres a reason people routinely call Rose one of if not the worst winner of the MVP award in the history of the league.[/B][/QUOTE]
Hmm, you, Numbersix and a couple of known Rose haters are the people you are referring to. Sounds like solid evidence to me :lol
[QUOTE=poido123]Hmm, you, Numbersix and a couple of known Rose haters are the people you are referring to. Sounds like solid evidence to me :lol[/QUOTE]
How am I a "Rose hater"? :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=NumberSix]How am I a "Rose hater"? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
You don't have much nice things to say about a guy who has done little wrong..
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cpnM2WY.jpg[/IMG]
"Saying they only won 45 games without Rose is
deceiving because of all the injuries. They would
have been a easy 50+ win team without with
good health."
Perhaps it would be if they were not more injured when they won 62.
They were running with Kurt Thomas for a while there. Won at a 63 win place without Noah. Great without boozer too.
Three defense was there. Coach. Nosh.
Rose not being there was the difference between number one and being the nets.
Wasn't one season either. They won at a 68 win pace with him in 2012 too.
And i suspect they go back to the 60 win range this year. And i bet people will act like it's just by chance
[QUOTE=Heavincent]Put up 25/8/4 and led his team to the best record in the East. How is that not MVP worthy? If not him, then who? It was debatable as to who the best player on the 2011 Heat even was, and they had an inferior record, so you can't give it to Lebron or Wade. Out west, you had Durant or Dirk maybe? I guess those guys had cases, but neither were quite as good in the regular season as Rose was imo.
I just see a lot of revisionist history from people (mainly Lebron homers). They act like it was a controversial MVP award or something, even though Rose was pretty much the consensus MVP by about March or so.[/QUOTE]
1. Lebron
If you think it was unclear who Miami's best player was, you are an idiot.
2. Dwight
The best defensive player in the game who also happened to be the most efficient scorer in the paint.
Rose was given wat too much credit, the real reason that the Bulls overachieved at that season was the team defense designed and installed by a new coach.
Lol idiots are saying because Miami would still be a good team without Lebron, Lebron is not that important to be the MVP?
Give me a break. He is the team's best scorer, rebounder, passer, ball handler and defender. And his team is the best team in the league. Oh yeah what an unimportant player who could be replaced rather easily.
Maybe Miami could win 50 games and make the playoffs without Lebron, but the difference between a 66 win eventual champion and a 50 win team would be much bigger than that of a 50 win team and 30 win team.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855].....[/QUOTE]
How bad do you think the magic would have been without Dwight? Dwight was a better offensive player than rose IMO, but that's arguable. What is inarguable is that he was playing a different game entirely defensively.
There is no question in my mind whatsoever that Dwight deserved it over rose, and that rose only won cause of media love.
[QUOTE=poido123]It doesn't mean Rose doesn't deserve it or meet the criteria for an MVP, Rose had a team percentage over .610 which is what every MVP has had since 83'.
It is arguable that Rose was the best player, what you believe to be different is not FACT.[/QUOTE]
It's also arguable that the sky is pink. Just because you say it doesn't make it a good argument.
1. Rose deserved it.
2. Lebron annhilated Rose in the playoffs and showed the world what he thought of the 'MVP'.
2 years later.
1. Rose to return from ACL and skills/athleticism questionable
2. Lebron 2FMVP and 2MVP added to his cabinet
Hope Rose the best btw, but if you pay attention to his play style its too much lateral side to side fast movement and then he pops and explodes vertically. Its not the sort of playstyle you can come back and utilize after an ACL. He either has to adapt to a new playstyle or that ACL is going to tear again real quick. Lebron on the other hand..well 'he got no worries'