Explain to me why Rose didn't deserve the 2011 MVP

[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?