Originally Posted by Clippersfan86
So let me verify. CP3 was 3rd in the MVP race all year long.. misses 12 games and now Parker>>>>>>CP3 in the MVP race with CP3 having zero case just because he missed games, although he's still eligible?
... just making sure I'm not misunderstanding you. Using Kenny and Charles as your argument is about the most ignorant thing you can do considering they don't know shit about basketball. Everything they say is outdated and wrong for the most part and you should know that by now.
This isn't mentioning that the Clippers were a .500 team without CP3 and a 32-9 team WITH CP3 at the top of the NBA. What does "most valuable" mean in terms of sports to you? Define it.
Honestly, you just killed yourself this entire post.
First thing, so that we don't have to go back to it. You said you haven't heard anyone argue for Parker. I mentioned two guys. And you're stupid if you think they don't know shit about basketball. There are no analysts who know the game any better. And that's for fact. Don't be salty because of the Clipper skepticism. I'm not and I'm a Knicks fan.
Now, getting to it. The reason you're killing yourself here is because I didn't say any of that. Paul has not been #3 all year. Melo was up there for much of the year and you know that. More importantly, I have never had Paul at #3. I'd take him over any Western Conference guy but he hasn't been one of the 3 best players in the league this season, at any point. At least not for me. Wrong or not, I've never argued him that high. You don't know where I had him ranked or how high I had Parker ranked. The way you're talking, you would think I had Paul at #3 and Parker at #10 and then flipped.
Then you say that Paul misses 12 games and suddenly Parker is better...you say misses 12 games as if you're saying he missed 12 shots. 12 is a big enough number to affect, at this point in the season, the guy's MVP stock (or at least my personal opinion of it).
I thought Parker was better for most of the year. Then Paul missed a lot of games. I have no problem ranking Parker ahead of Paul for the year, even without missed games. With them, it's not even close to me. If you think Paul has been better then that's fine, but the impact of 12 games warrants attention. We're not talking about value, in essence. You know very well that level of play and time actually on the court (not in terms of minutes but games) are obviously important.