How the MVP should be awarded?

[Poe]

What are your thoughts on how the MVP award should be given?

 

Should it go to the best player of the best team, or should it go to the player that is needed the most on their team?

 

Should the number of wins even play a factor? Should it be purely based on statistics? Perhaps a mix of both, or neither?

 

 

So basically, if you could make a set requirement for how the MVP award was given, what would they be?

[Big Penny]

imo it should go to whoever has had the best INDIVIDUAL season. wins shouldn't affect it very much, it should be mainly down to who was the best player throughout the season.

[Real Deal]

Best player, hands down. A player's teammates shouldn't have a positive or a negative effect on his value.

 

I worked with three other people at my last job, and they were terrible. That didn't mean I was less valuable, and a future employer wouldn't look at who I worked with and judge me based on their performances as well.

[Cleveland's Finest]

A great leader?

Best stats in the league?

Best team in the league?

Most valuable for the best team?

 

LeBron fulfilled all and that's why he was the consensus number one.

[Riot]

I always assumed it was the player who is most valuable to their team, not just the best player overall. That doesn't make sense to me, then it would just be LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Durant winning it every year. Team record should definitely play a part.

 

For this year's MVP, I look at it like this. If you take Durant off the Thunder, they'd probably win around 20 games. They won 50 with him this year so that's a difference of about 30 wins, give or take a couple.

 

Ok, so you if take LeBron off the Cavs, I'd say they win around 35 games. And if Lebron wouldve played the last 4 games they would've ended up with maybe 64 wins. That's a difference of about 30 games as well. So it was close for me.

[Poe]

For this year's MVP, I look at it like this. If you take Durant off the Thunder, they'd probably win around 20 games. They won 50 with him this year so that's a difference of about 30 wins, give or take a couple.

 

Ok, so you if take LeBron off the Cavs, I'd say they win around 35 games. And if Lebron wouldve played the last 4 games they would've ended up with maybe 64 wins. That's a difference of about 30 games as well. So it was close for me.

I understand what you are saying here, and I've thought this way myself for a while. The problem is that you are only assuming these win differentials. There's no statistic that can truly prove how many less wins each team will have without their best player.

 

Overall, this argument simply doesn't work until you can prove the specific number of wins that each player affects.

[Check my Stats]

The way they award it now is fine. People need to get over the fact Durant is not the MVP.

[Poe]

The way they award it now is fine. People need to get over the fact Durant is not the MVP.

Personally, I did feel LeBron deserved it this year, though last year I felt Wade deserved more when he averaged 30 points, 7.5 assists, 5 rebounds, 2.2 steals, and 1.3 blocks at the guard position. He led a previous 15 win team when he was injured, to a 5th seed playoff team. That's an MVP year.

 

Also, Kobe deserved it over Nash back in '06. He averaged 35.4 points, 4.5 assists, 5.3 rebounds, and 1.8 steals to lead the Lakers into the playoffs. Not to mention, the Lakers had a starting line up that including three current bench players (Lamar Odom, Luke Walton, Kwame Brown), and a player who isn't even in the league anymore due to his inability to play basketball (Smush Parker). That's an MVP year, while Steve Nash had a dynamic team including a young 20 ppg Shaun Marion, a defensive stopper in Raja Bell, an underrated all around player in Boris Diaw, and very solid role players who fit well in D'Antoni's system. Though Nash had a strong year and deserved consideration, Kobe was much more deserving of the award.

 

 

There are other examples. I think it's safe to say that there is at least an argument that the most deserving players aren't always the ones who actually win the award.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Poe

[Erick Blasco]

I've written a piece on this.

 

Picking an NBA MVP is always difficult due to the undefined subject of what constitutes an MVP. An MVP should be a dominant player that is the driving force of his team's greatness. An MVP should be able to enforce his skills against even the most skilled of opponents.

 

An MVP shouldn't just be a player who plays at a high level, but one who has his team play at a high level because of him.

 

An MVP should only play for a team that has matched or exceeded expectations as MVP's don't disappoint.

 

MVP's should be able to dominate weaker teams because of their presence, and should be able to beat elite teams because of their tremendously talented and clutch play in close games.

 

Numbers should not matter in determining an MVP. Players are great on basketball courts, not stat sheets.

 

 

 

The best individual season criteria isn't strong enough, as it assumes a player's goal is to produce stats and not wins.

 

The best player doesn't even work, because what is the point of being the best if it doesn't translate to wins? There becomes no value in being a great player. A team could be mediocre or worse with anyone on its roster.

 

The Most valuable to any team criteria could reward horrendous teams with one good player that provides all that team's success. Under that criteria, it could be argued that Brook Lopez is this year's MVP.

 

Best player on best team doesn't work because being the best team (having the best record) over the regular season isn't an accomplishment in itself. The goal of the regular season is to be the most prepared for the playoffs. Sometimes the most prepared team isn't the team with the best record.

 

Two regular seasons ago, I looked at the Celtics as being the only elite team in the league. Paul Pierce was their go-to guy, he was an elite defender, he performed against elite opponents, he was incredibly clutch---I voted him as my MVP.

 

Last year, I believed their were only two elite teams, the Cavs and Lakers, and believed LeBron performed better according to my criteria last year than Kobe did.

 

This year, I look at the Cavs as the clear cut elite team, and LeBron is LeBron.

 

People voting for Durant have to realize they are playing for a team too young to know how to win in the playoffs, and a player with much more serious flaws compared to LeBron. Fortunately, history has a way of course correcting, as seen with the results of Dirk's bogus MVP, Durant being second this year, etc.