Dwight Howard - "Kevin Durant is MVP"

[BasX]

He pulled the third or fourth worst team last season into the a tightly contested playoff picture. He's on a young team that is under the stress of moving up and down the standings almost daily and face 11 teams that could do some serious damage in the East. Of course they're going to lose those games.

 

Thunder are 24-8 (75%) against Lebron James' East. Compare that to...

 

Cavaliers: 38-14 (73%)

Magic: 39-13 (75%)

Hawks: 32-20 (61%)

Celtics: 33-19 (63%)

Cavs were 38-9 versus the east with LeBron. Missed 6 games, 1-5 without him, beat San Antonio.

Edited April 29, 2010 by BasX

[Clutch]

if you wanna talk about "take this person off the team and they dont make the playoffs"

 

take wade off the team and they make the new jersey nets look good...thats the man who should've won last year and this year lol

[Cleveland's Finest]

if you wanna talk about "take this person off the team and they dont make the playoffs"

 

take wade off the team and they make the new jersey nets look good...thats the man who should've won last year and this year lol

 

Heat beat the Nets without Wade this year.

 

It's who's the best player, not how good the team is without them.

[Real Deal]

Smh.

I don't know why. It's been proven true over and over again on this site.

 

Real talk, the definition of an MVP changes every single year. Who's the best player in the NBA today, this very minute? LeBron. When I asked who the best player in the NBA was in 2007, everyone was saying that it didn't matter, and that the award was asking for most valuable to his team.

 

Then I heard that certain players weren't winning the award because they weren't a 50-win team.

 

Well, now, 50 wins doesn't mean anything because it's a bottom seed in the West.

 

A few years back, Steve Nash won his MVP because he basically did everything without Amare Stoudemire. Nash wasn't the best overall player in the NBA, nor did he have the best team in the league...but he had lesser teammates.

 

Today, everything is thrown out the window, and the definition of an MVP is changed once again...best player in the NBA. Funny story, nonetheless...and not a single person on this site can disagree with this post.

[Cleveland's Finest]

But since 2001-02, the MVP has come from a team with 57 or more wins. One exception being Nash on a 54 win team. For almost ten years the MVP has been chosen from a top team. I'm sure that extends itself too if you look at even more past MVP's.

 

I think you need to be in the top five players. Then of those top 5, which would you choose if you needed to pick a guy for one game that mattered. Based on his singular success and what he's done from this season with his team.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Cleveland's Finest

[Real Deal]

Then of those top 5, which would you choose if you needed to pick a guy for one game that mattered. Based on his singular success and what he's done from this season with his team.

In other words, of the top five, choose #1...which is the best player in the NBA.

 

Just curious...why didn't Kobe and Shaq win more than just one MVP? At one point, not a single player in the league could stop Shaq, and the same goes for Kobe for about 6-7 seasons.

 

Like I said, the definition changes multiple times. Do you really think Dwight Howard has a chance at winning this award, ever?

 

Explain to me why a team has to win over 55 games for their superstar to be the most valuable player to his team. Sounds kind of weird once you repeat that, right?

 

Assume LeBron goes to LA with Kobe and Gasol, for some crazy reason. They win 72 games. Do you think the MVP will come from that team? Yes, it would...but would LeBron (or Kobe) really, really be the most "valuable" player to his team, seeing the extra help they have?

 

Lots of questions, no answers. Give LeBron the award, and maybe we'll change the definition of an MVP next season.

[Cleveland's Finest]

 

 

Lots of questions, no answers. Give LeBron the award, and maybe we'll change the definition of an MVP next season.

 

 

I just showed you that in the past ten years specifically, a top three team had the MVP. More than 50 wins is a definite requirement.

 

And Durant has 50 wins. He's got Westbrook and plenty of talent. I know LeBron has more talent, that's a given. But just look at their stats. Clearly LeBron's better.

 

I'm saying this for this year. Durant could easily emerge as the best player because he's grown up so quickly. But this year, it has to be LeBron. Last year Kobe or LeBron or even Dwight were possible. It was like 50/50 Kobe/Bron at one point.

 

This year, there's a clear one. Like when Dirk won it because the Mavs almost had 70 wins. Clear cut.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Cleveland's Finest

[Real Deal]

I just showed you that in the past ten years specifically, a top three team had the MVP. More than 50 wins is a definite requirement.

 

And Durant has 50 wins. He's got Westbrook and plenty of talent. I know LeBron has more talent, that's a given. But just look at their stats. Clearly LeBron's better.

 

I'm saying this for this year. Durant could easily emerge as the best player because he's grown up so quickly. But this year, it has to be LeBron. Last year Kobe or LeBron or even Dwight were possible. It was like 50/50 Kobe/Bron at one point.

 

This year, there's a clear one. Like when Dirk won it because the Mavs almost had 70 wins. Clear cut.

So why didn't Garnett or Pierce win it in 2008, when Boston had 66 wins? Lakers only had 57.

 

Spurs had 63 wins, Mavericks 60, when Nash won his second MVP award.

 

I never said LeBron shouldn't win the MVP, by the way. I said he should. I'm also saying that he's getting it because he's the best player in the NBA, and that's a much different MVP than we've seen in recent years (Dirk, Nash, Garnett), and actually, four consecutive years.

[YugoRocketsFan]

So why didn't Garnett or Pierce win it in 2008, when Boston had 66 wins? Lakers only had 57.

 

Spurs had 63 wins, Mavericks 60, when Nash won his second MVP award.

 

I never said LeBron shouldn't win the MVP, by the way. I said he should. I'm also saying that he's getting it because he's the best player in the NBA, and that's a much different MVP than we've seen in recent years (Dirk, Nash, Garnett), and actually, four consecutive years.

 

Different situations brah.

 

The Celtics team had 3 all-stars, Suns did TERRIBLE with Nash not on the team, LeBron gets it because he lead the Cavs to first and is really the only all-star on that team and just performed great this season and had 30 ppg and 8.5 APG.

[Cleveland's Finest]

There was no true MVP on the Celtics. All three of them were just great all-stars. Would you take Pierce over Kobe that year for one game? Kobe was killer that year. In a great conference, Kobe got them to the top and made the Gasol trade mid-season without Bynum work out, a very tough task. The Celtics had three all stars all equal in talent at the tim imo.

 

As I said, the Mavs almost won 70 games that one year. Dirk had to win that. That team dominated the league and it was up to their star to keep them that way.

 

Nash, Dirk, or Duncan could've won it when all three were great teams a few years ago. It came down to who was the best player.

 

You keep saying that the MVP requirements change every year. That doesn't mean a guy like D-Wade with 45 wins can win MVP.

 

You need a team in the mid-50's win count or higher, meaning they are a contending team. The MVP should come from a good team because that means their play is paying off.

[Real Deal]

In other words, a player's value is based on his teammates?

 

So a GM will look at Paul Pierce in 2008 and say, "Nah, I don't want him on the Sacramento Kings, because his value is lower than it was three years ago, when he was by himself."

 

Believe it or not, the MVP award is supposed to be given to the most valuable player in the NBA. That's right, the one that all GM's would love to have, over everyone else...the one that's worth the most money, the one that can provide the most for any team he's on.

 

And guess what? That should be synonymous with the best player in the NBA, but it's not.

 

Why? Because, of course, the definition changes every season. That player didn't have the support the other guy did? Ah hell, he's more valuable to his team! Now wait, that player is better than the rest of the league? Well, damn, he's the MVP! All coaches and GM's would want him! But okay...this guy just led a team to 69 wins? Geez, that's crazy...give him the MVP, regardless of his teammates!

 

Still not seeing any proof of this not happening. A player's teammates should not have a positive OR a negative effect on his value TO THE LEAGUE, as an individual, among coaches and GM's. Because this is a league award, I guess we have a bunch of hypocrites giving it out.

[Check my Stats]

Any way you slice it LBJ is the MVP dude so I am not sure why you guys are still arguing or whatever you are doing. Stats LBJ has it, wins LBJ has it, success relative to the cast around you LBJ has it..... there is no way I can think of that rationalizes Durant as the MVP.

 

EDIT: Well actually I can, people want him to win it for the 'surprise factor', no one expected Thunder to do what they did. Also people want him to win it just so LBJ doesn't.

Edited April 30, 2010 by travesy3

[Real Deal]

LOL, yes, I want Durant to win it because I just despise LeBron James so much, and it kills me to say he deserves it.

 

 

I said he deserves it, and I said he would win it. He did, and I don't even care. But Durant needs a lot of consideration as well.

 

The MVP should ALWAYS be given to the best player in the game, because the best player is obviously the most valuable. This BS about who does what without who, or how many all-star teammates he has, or how many wins...it's pretty lame...but again, it's been that way for years, and the award will always change definition, no matter how anyone spins it.

[YugoRocketsFan]

LOL, yes, I want Durant to win it because I just despise LeBron James so much, and it kills me to say he deserves it.

 

 

I said he deserves it, and I said he would win it. He did, and I don't even care. But Durant needs a lot of consideration as well.

 

The MVP should ALWAYS be given to the best player in the game, because the best player is obviously the most valuable. This BS about who does what without who, or how many all-star teammates he has, or how many wins...it's pretty lame...but again, it's been that way for years, and the award will always change definition, no matter how anyone spins it.

 

I dont agree with that, i think MVP should be given to the most valuable person, if that one player was injured for an entire season, it would impact the team heavily.

[Real Deal]

I dont agree with that, i think MVP should be given to the most valuable person, if that one player was injured for an entire season, it would impact the team heavily.

So, again, in other words...a player's value is heavily affected by his teammates? It's a league-wide award.

 

Basically, if that's true, the MVP award means much less than it did when Jordan, Magic and Bird were winning it.