Will Derek Rose Go Down As One of the Worst MVPs Of All Time

[RoundMoundOfReb]

honestly i would prefer a most outstanding player award rather than most valuable player.

[fpliii]

honestly i would prefer a most outstanding player award rather than most valuable player.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/tsn_mvp.html

They called it Player of the Year for some time. Though I don't know if player voting continued after the 89 season (that's the last season for which I've found votes).

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Best player on the best team in the league (statistically). Pretty straight forward.

What's there to discuss?

[SilkkTheShocker]

honestly i would prefer a most outstanding player award rather than most valuable player.

This.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Do you know how to read, boy? I also mentioned Dirk, Wade, and Dwight in my first post. It just isn't LeBron. There were better players

What did Dirk & Wade do that year in the regular season that made them more deserving than Rose?

The year prior to Rose winning MVP (09-10) the Bulls had won 41 games.. The next year they won 62 games with Rose leading the team in scoring and assist with 25 & 8. The Bulls finished with the best record in the NBA



The year prior to Rose winning MVP (09-10) The HEAT won 47 games..The next year after adding Lebron & Chris Bosh they won 58 games with Lebron (not wade) leading the team in scoring.

So Wade gets 2 superstars added to his team, doesn't lead his team in scoring or assist and doesn't finish above Rose's team in the standings and yet he deserves MVP more than rose?

Dirk had a great year but was down statistically from the year before (25 & 8 down to 23 & 7) and his team finished 2nd in his division. How many times has a player won MVP with his stats down and his team finishing 2nd in his division? Also, DIrk had a much more well rounded team and better supporting cast than rose.

So please, tell me how Dirk & Wade were more deserving than Rose?

[bdreason]

MVP's are difficult to look back on because they happen in a vacuum. A lot of it has to do with who is playing well towards the end of the season, and who the media is choosing to highlight.

Let's not forget that MVP does not mean best player. MVP typically goes to a top 10 player, playing for a top 5 team, who happens to get hot/popular at the end of the year.

[Ne 1]

I usually agree with you. But Iverson definitely deserved MVP in 01.

He didn't clearly deserve it. Shaq deserved it (or even Duncan would have been a better choice in 2001 over AI), but Iverson did deserve consideration though.

Kobe was a much worse MVP, he basically got it as a career achievement award.

Paul should have definitely gotten MVP in 08. That MVP was a friggin joke.

The Lakers were 25-11 early at the time of Bynum's injury, Kobe kept them going until they got Gasol, then Gasol was injured and he kept them going and they ended up with the best record in one of the most competitive conferences ever. Kobe's balance between getting his teammates involved early and taking over later was reminiscent of Jordan that season. He was a great playmaker, a deadly scorer who did play unselfishly for the most part, he rebounded very well for a guard and he had his best defensive season since the 3peat.

Kobe deserved the 2008 MVP.


Chris Paul wasn't going to get the MVP in 2008 is how the end of the season played out. The Hornets lost 4 of their last 5 games and lost HCA in the west by 1 game. That includes a game where Kobe outplayed Paul. I feel like to be an MVP, you should be able to play well when in matters. Kobe raised his game when it mattered and Paul sort of dropped of

[Whoah10115]

The only thing that was annoying about Rose's MVP was how absolute people were in picking him. It was like no one else should have bothered to play basketball that year. The hype was annoying. And also, I do think it's quite clear that Howard was the best player in the league in 2011.


Lebron, I'm sorry...there is no argument for James that year. He showed all his quality but over the full course of the season did not have the impact that Rose had. The Bulls had the better coach and were very well built, but they didn't have the a player on that team as good as Bosh, much less one as good as Wade. Wade was every bit the player that Lebron was that season. Neither of them had an argument for MVP.

[HylianNightmare]

nash

[Ikill]

Rose wasn't a terrible choice Dwight was more deserving Durant would of been a good choice too. Lebron and Wade didn't really have a case Dirk missed too many games and his stats weren't all that great. Rose was deserving but he still might be one of the worst players to ever win an MVP.

[pnyozzzoo]

A lot cases can be made against Rose:

1. He is too young, so not sure about his leadership.

2. He took advantage of a REAL deep team following a REAL good coach. That team proven last year without rose their still at the top of the east.

3. The team structure, Rose did not make everyone better, everyone plays hard defense and team ball while rose being the only elite scorer and he took most of the FGA he wanted.

4. The team's identity was defense, and Rose was not the best defender on that team, actually he is not even top 3.

5.Most importantly, Lebron like always should won that year, he is the better player and his team has similar record. But he cannot win due to "The Decision".

6.The league kinda want to get a new superstar, rose has an ok case and Stern jumped on it fast. Then injury and stuff takes an unexpected turn.

Rose's Mvp number is not that great, Harden's number as of now is similar if not better. So he kinda like AI, team play defense I play offense in a weak eastern conference.

With all that said, I still feel Rose deserved his MVP as when health he is one of the most impactful player in the league. Think about it when Westbrook wreck havoc in the Final everyone praises him and call him a top 10 player.
When Rose is healthy he is a more efficient and less dumb Westbrook. He is a top 5 player and best PG. A Wrecking machine is always better than a passive passing CP3 or Rondo.

[Shepseskaf]

Either him, Nash, or Iverson. And out of those three it, probably him or Iverson. And out of those two it's probably Rose.

AI isn't even part of this discussion.

Of the remaining two, Rose is a better player, Nash is a better facilitator. The fact that Nash somehow was given two MVPs makes him the worst, in my book.

2005 MVP -- belonged to Shaq
2006 MVP -- should have been Kobe or LeBron

[Whoah10115]

Rose wasn't a terrible choice Dwight was more deserving Durant would of been a good choice too. Lebron and Wade didn't really have a case Dirk missed too many games and his stats weren't all that great. Rose was deserving but he still might be one of the worst players to ever win an MVP.

The only thing Durant had on Dirk was that he didn't missed 5 fewer games. Dirk, in all actuality, played better that season. Durant played more minutes and a few more games.

[Whoah10115]

AI isn't even part of this discussion.

Of the remaining two, Rose is a better player, Nash is a better facilitator. The fact that Nash somehow was given two MVPs makes him the worst, in my book.

2005 MVP -- belonged to Shaq
2006 MVP -- should have been Kobe or LeBron

The Shaq argument is more tiring everything I see it. Shaq, my ass.

[Shepseskaf]

The Shaq argument is more tiring everything I see it. Shaq, my ass.

Really, who the hell cares how "tired" you are? Shaq should have been named the MVP for that year.

How much of a travesty is it that Shaq has one MVP and Nash has two?