If LBJ doesn't win MVP....

[Check my Stats]

Will it be the biggest robbery since Steve Nash robbed Kobe Bryant?

[kingfish]

Not really. His all around numbers arent as good as they have been in years past. Durant and Melo are both having great seasons, and their teams are doing better. And oh yeah, theres still that 34 year old leading the league in scoring.

[Nitro]

Kobe wasn't robbed of the MVP in 2006. Nash led an Amare-less Suns to the 2nd best record in the West, while Kobe's team was only at 45 wins. 45 wins just don't cut it in the MVP discussion.

 

The biggest robbery in recent memory is Rose over LeBron in 2011, though. And before that, AI over a few players back in 2001.

 

Anyway, I think so far Durant has been MVP. They have like the best record in the league and Durant is putting up ridiculous numbers. LeBron is the better player, but their seasons aren't too far apart.

[Cleveland's Finest]

Why this year in particular? I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the running, but Kevin Durant has made all-around improvement to his game, and Melo has broken out. Also, Kobe's scoring for his age makes him a candidate for sure. Even Duncan deserves consideration with his resurgence.

 

There are definitely worthy candidates, this isn't a one man race.

[Real Deal]

LeBron would get the MVP with a team under 50 wins, so I'm confident in that.

 

But it all falls on Durant's shoulders, really. If the Thunder rack up 60+ wins, and Miami continues to be a bad defensive team, Durant gets it.

 

LeBron is the best player in the league, but that's just how it works.

[fish7718]

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/2500489/20121001_gav_aw8_010.0_standard_730.0.jpg

[Nitro]

LeBron would get the MVP with a team under 50 wins, so I'm confident in that.

 

No, he wouldn't. If that were the case, he would have won in 2011 as the best player in the league on a team with like 55 wins. Or in 2006 when he averaged like 32/7/7 on a team that I believe won 49 games.

[Real Deal]

No, he wouldn't. If that were the case, he would have won in 2011 as the best player in the league on a team with like 55 wins. Or in 2006 when he averaged like 32/7/7 on a team that I believe won 49 games.

In the second part of my post, I point out that a 60+ win Durant-led Thunder team would knock him off, just like Rose's Bulls (62 wins).

 

I have no explanation for Steve Nash. His system, the perfect players and coach for it. We can talk about Nash putting up Kevin Johnson numbers, and John Stockton numbers, but he also was a pretty bad defensive player in a season where Kobe put up the greatest scoring season since MJ's 37 PPG (and I could argue better, based on certain monthly average records he set and consecutive 50's, along with the 81 and the 62-61 Dallas game).

 

In 2005, while Nash did incredibly well distributing the ball, it also helped that he had the shooters to knock down shots. That specific team was ranked 1st all across the board anything relating to threes, second in overall FG%, first in points, and without Nash's help, first in rebounds. They ALSO never sent anyone to the line...first in opponent FT shots attempted.

 

Best player in the NBA has never meant anything anyway. Some voters base it on who has the best record, some base it on the name of the player, some look at what top team needs their star the most, and some ask themselves who best player in the NBA is. Four different ways to look at it.

 

And when you consider those four different ways, LeBron wins out based on the name and being the best in the league, so I don't see how anyone is going to stand in his way, unless the Thunder go off and steal the best record in the league AND Durant keeps his averages (and wins the scoring title in the process).

[Nitro]

In the second part of my post, I point out that a 60+ win Durant-led Thunder team would knock him off, just like Rose's Bulls (62 wins).

 

If he was at under 50 wins, Durant would win it, even if Durant only won around 55 games.

 

I have no explanation for Steve Nash. His system, the perfect players and coach for it. We can talk about Nash putting up Kevin Johnson numbers, and John Stockton numbers, but he also was a pretty bad defensive player in a season where Kobe put up the greatest scoring season since MJ's 37 PPG (and I could argue better, based on certain monthly average records he set and consecutive 50's, along with the 81 and the 62-61 Dallas game).

 

In 2005, while Nash did incredibly well distributing the ball, it also helped that he had the shooters to knock down shots. That specific team was ranked 1st all across the board anything relating to threes, second in overall FG%, first in points, and without Nash's help, first in rebounds. They ALSO never sent anyone to the line...first in opponent FT shots attempted.

 

Without Nash, that team falls apart. He averaged 19/11, leading the league in assists, running the best offense in the NBA, and putting up historic efficiency...he led the league with a TS% of .632, and was well over the 50/40/90 categories.

 

He had some shooters, but let's not act like they were stacked. Marion was always a borderline all-star comparable to Lamar Odom basically his entire career, they started a SF at C (Diaw), Bell was a castoff who never made a big impact on any other team in his career, Barbosa completely fed off Nash and did nothing besides score...and who was the rest of the team? Career journey man Eddie House? Tim Thomas?

 

It was a team of role players who had little versatility in what they offered. Their two biggest threats from the previous season, and legit All-Stars in Amare and Johnson, were gone. Nash made it all work, and despite the losses and ridiculous lineups, they still were 2nd in the West and got to the WCF.

 

Kobe had an amazing season, though I'd argue 06-07 Kobe was better. He broke scoring records, but is what he did that season extremely different than what LeBron did that same season? Or T-Mac in 02-03? Or Wade in 2009? No. He led a crap team to a low playoff seed with crazy production. That doesn't get you MVP.

 

And when you consider those four different ways, LeBron wins out based on the name and being the best in the league, so I don't see how anyone is going to stand in his way, unless the Thunder go off and steal the best record in the league AND Durant keeps his averages (and wins the scoring title in the process).

 

Is that really unrealistic? I don't see his numbers swaying much, and OKC having the better record is probably more likely than Miami.

 

LeBron hasn't even turned it on yet. At this point, I'd give Durant MVP, but if LeBron turns it on he'll get it.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Nitro

[JYD]

You could make a case for Durant and Carmelo over LeBron.

 

It's the most valuable player award, not the best player award.

[Real Deal]

By now, I think it's safe to say that a team of players benefit an all-star more than individual players. We know this by looking at LA this season.

 

You saying that Nash had imperfections for teammates, is like me denying LeBron didn't have a team perfectly built for him back in Cleveland. There was really nothing wrong with a few of those teams, aside from not having another guy to come in and drop a D-Wade 25-point game whenever LeBron needed it...but to substitute for that, he had a team that played crazy good on defense + on the glass, and that 2007 team was very good at running people off of the three and/or forcing long misses (that was basically the not-so-talked-about key to their Finals run). They didn't need Big Z to average 20 that year, and LeBron didn't need to drop 35 a night, because they were holding opponents to damn near 90 every game (not the exact number, I'm sure, but it was low 90's).

 

The funny thing about the MVP award is that it runs into contradictions when it's explained through the media. Yeah, we want to find one of the best teams in the NBA, to encourage winning...yet, supposedly, the MVP (which stands for Most Valuable Player, of course) is supposed to be the most valuable for his team...not necessarily the league (even though it's a league award). So, who's to say a 45-win squad, that makes the playoffs as a lower seed, isn't going to be a 15-win lottery squad without that particular player?

 

The fact that Steve Nash has two, and Kobe and Shaq have a combined two, is staggering. He's a very good offensive player, incredibly good...the best shooter I can name at the PG position in league history...but defensively, he's one of the worst defensive all-star PG's in memory, and a man that has never, in his life, seen the NBA Finals...regardless of the situation (because after all, it's all about winning, I guess).

[SRV]

I doubt Lebron will win it this year...he seems content with cruising to 25ppg, 7 rpg, 6 apg. That's not a bad stat line, but Durant will probably end up with some ridiculous scoring average and wins. Plus, Lebron has already won 3 times, I am sure the people who decided this will want to give someone else a chance.

[EastCoastNiner]

LeGoat has yet to score less than 20 points in a single game this year.

[Nitro]

You saying that Nash had imperfections for teammates, is like me denying LeBron didn't have a team perfectly built for him back in Cleveland. There was really nothing wrong with a few of those teams, aside from not having another guy to come in and drop a D-Wade 25-point game whenever LeBron needed it...but to substitute for that, he had a team that played crazy good on defense + on the glass, and that 2007 team was very good at running people off of the three and/or forcing long misses (that was basically the not-so-talked-about key to their Finals run). They didn't need Big Z to average 20 that year, and LeBron didn't need to drop 35 a night, because they were holding opponents to damn near 90 every game (not the exact number, I'm sure, but it was low 90's).

 

Not having that #2 guy is what destroyed those Cavs team. The 2007 team was plain bad and many fronts, and the 09/10 editions had a one-dimensional 6th man as their 2nd scorer and playmaker. LeBron averaged 38/8/8 in the 09 ECF and they lost in 6, with 1 of their wins being a buzzer beating 3 pointers by LeBron...if that team was built perfectly around LeBron, they shouldn't have lost that series to a pretty flawed Magic team.

 

The funny thing about the MVP award is that it runs into contradictions when it's explained through the media. Yeah, we want to find one of the best teams in the NBA, to encourage winning...yet, supposedly, the MVP (which stands for Most Valuable Player, of course) is supposed to be the most valuable for his team...not necessarily the league (even though it's a league award). So, who's to say a 45-win squad, that makes the playoffs as a lower seed, isn't going to be a 15-win lottery squad without that particular player?

 

Kidd brought a bottom-feeding Nets team to the Finals in one season, and yet Duncan won the MVP that year despite his team being a lot more capable without him than the Nets would have been without Kidd.

 

There is no doubt Kobe was probably the most valuable player to his team that season...well, it was between he, LeBron (who was ridiculous that season as well and got his team to 49 wins I believe), and Nash. Nash's team won about 10 more games, though, he had an incredible season, and he had the storyline of leading his team that far without his 2nd option/fellow superstar by his side, and losing his 3rd option to FA (and QRich as well, who had a terrific 04-05 campaign).

 

The fact that Steve Nash has two, and Kobe and Shaq have a combined two, is staggering. He's a very good offensive player, incredibly good...the best shooter I can name at the PG position in league history...but defensively, he's one of the worst defensive all-star PG's in memory, and a man that has never, in his life, seen the NBA Finals...regardless of the situation (because after all, it's all about winning, I guess).

 

It's all circumstantial. Kobe had his best seasons on mid-level teams, and Shaq missed 15-20 games most of his best seasons, and had to compete with some insanely top-heavy talent...prime Jordan, Malone, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, T-Mac, AI, KG, Dirk, Kidd, VC, etc... Nash got his MVP's when Duncan and Shaq started declining, Wade and LeBron were still on the come-up, Kobe/AI/T-Mac were stuck on mediocre squads, etc... The narrative was also there for Nash...the first season he won he brought a lotto team to 60 wins with some crazy stats, and the 2nd season he lost his 2nd and 3rd options and still brought them to 55 wins with even better stats than his first MVP.