PDA

View Full Version : ROY and MVP should be determined similarly.



JordansBulls
12-01-2008, 10:20 PM
A lot of people know that in order to win MVP in the league you need to push your team to a top 3-4 seed and 50 wins. While I believe that is a good way to win it unless your numbers are completely better than anyone else's, I feel in a similar way that ROY should be based in a similar fashion. It seems that ROY is based simply on numbers. I think an increase in wins for your respective team should also be taken into consideration and if your team made the playoffs or were in contention for it.
Obviously it is different if you have a player better than you on the team while you are a rookie or a player just as good, because you will get a good record if that is the case, hence the reason someone like Horford didnt get ROY last year.

But look at some of these players that have won ROY and you tell me if they deserved it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2000.html#roy

Elton Brand in 1999-2000 averaged 20 and 10 and 1.6 bpg but the Bulls went 17-65 for a winning % of 26.2%. The year before the Bulls were 13-37 for a winning % of 35.1%. So essentially the Bulls won 4 more games and lost 28 more due to the lockout and ended up with a lower winning %.


Iverson won ROY in 1996-1997 and his team went 22-60 when they were 18-64 the year before.

Last year Kevin Durant won ROY and the team went 20-62.

How could ROY be determined like that?

DreamShaker
12-01-2008, 10:25 PM
Because a rookie can't lead a team to greatness....the Thunder have 3 players worth anything....3 players....they are all under the age of 22.....Al Hortford shouldn't have won because he had a better team around him that he was the 4th best player on....

Lakers4ItAll
12-01-2008, 10:41 PM
Horford should have deff won it last year IMO

dre1990
12-01-2008, 10:56 PM
Horford should have deff won it last year IMO

yeahbut not cause his team was better. when he played he was mpre impressive then KD IMAO

innovator
12-01-2008, 11:06 PM
its about stats and hype thats why lebron won it

innovator
12-01-2008, 11:07 PM
then mark madsen should be the ROY cuz the lakers had one of the best records in his rookie year

jetsfan28
12-01-2008, 11:07 PM
Because a rookie can't lead a team to greatness....the Thunder have 3 players worth anything....3 players....they are all under the age of 22.....Al Hortford shouldn't have won because he had a better team around him that he was the 4th best player on....

Pretty much summed it up. Rarely does a rookie have a large enough impact on a team to make that the criteria.

unwantedplayer
12-01-2008, 11:09 PM
^^ I agree. The rookie that had the biggest impact on their team, a good team, was Rodney Stuckey IMO.

kswissdaf
12-01-2008, 11:19 PM
^ stuckey really?????

Lakers4ItAll
12-01-2008, 11:25 PM
In a way thats true. Lebron won ROY the day he got drafted I would have bet any amount of $$ on that.


its about stats and hype thats why lebron won it

superkegger
12-01-2008, 11:27 PM
Yeah, there's a reason that those teams with high picks have high picks (more often that not anyway), and its because they're bad. So a lot of good rookie players go to bad teams. They simply don't have the talent around them to bring their team to the next level, nor is that expected of many (if any) rookies when they're rookies.

JordansBulls
12-01-2008, 11:59 PM
then mark madsen should be the ROY cuz the lakers had one of the best records in his rookie year

You know what we are talking about. We are talking about actual good players/great players not guys who barely can make a roster.

NYMetros
12-02-2008, 12:03 AM
A lot of people know that in order to win MVP in the league you need to push your team to a top 3-4 seed and 50 wins. While I believe that is a good way to win it unless your numbers are completely better than anyone else's, I feel in a similar way that ROY should be based in a similar fashion. It seems that ROY is based simply on numbers. I think an increase in wins for your respective team should also be taken into consideration and if your team made the playoffs or were in contention for it.
Obviously it is different if you have a player better than you on the team while you are a rookie or a player just as good, because you will get a good record if that is the case, hence the reason someone like Horford didnt get ROY last year.

But look at some of these players that have won ROY and you tell me if they deserved it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2000.html#roy

Elton Brand in 1999-2000 averaged 20 and 10 and 1.6 bpg but the Bulls went 17-65 for a winning % of 26.2%. The year before the Bulls were 13-37 for a winning % of 35.1%. So essentially the Bulls won 4 more games and lost 28 more due to the lockout and ended up with a lower winning %.


Iverson won ROY in 1996-1997 and his team went 22-60 when they were 18-64 the year before.

Last year Kevin Durant won ROY and the team went 20-62.

How could ROY be determined like that?

Eh, this is one of the few times I disagree with you JB. IMO the team that usually has a ROY candidate on it is a team that had a top draft pick the year before. Most of the time that means that that team was terrible. It's hard for a player - especially a rookie, to lead his team to victory. IMO you can't ask a rookie to do anything more than put up good numbers.

djeller1139
12-02-2008, 01:17 AM
The best rookies are (usually) drafted by one of the worst teams, meaning that if were judging ROY on a team that does well, then its going to be someone random from the middle of the draft that possibly cracked a roster due to injury or loss of another player.

ROY should be given to the best Rookie in the league, not the rookie who gets on a good team and happens to contribute.

Horford was deserving - possibly more so than Durant - but not because his team was in the playoffs, but because of how he played.

rosesbulls
12-02-2008, 02:03 AM
In a way thats true. Lebron won ROY the day he got drafted I would have bet any amount of $$ on that.

that could be true but he did have the best stats that season

Only thing Melo beat him in was points and that was by .1 and it was mostly a 2 man race that season.

Chronz
12-02-2008, 03:37 AM
You guys have to realize there is no set criteria for any of the leagues awards, they simply base them off of the best stories that developed that year or create them, which is why the Sixers won so many of them that year.

The kind of logic your asking for has already been used, that was one of the many reasons why they gave
the ROY to Amare when Yao that and his ESPN caliber dunks

SteveNash
12-02-2008, 03:51 AM
Horford's team went 37-45 and Atlanta did have a lot of pieces in place.

Durant's team went into rebuliding mode and let go of their two best players in Allen and Lewis.

I wouldn't give either of them credit for leading their team to any kind of greatness.

Brand beat out Odom and Andre Miller to end up with a tie with Francis, all on ****** teams.

AI beat out Marbury, SAR, 'Toine, and Kerry Kittles.

The best players are usually at the top of the draft. The worse teams usually have the top draft picks.

And when a team has a high impact player that actually turns a team around, they usually win the award. Duncan, Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, etc. Hakeem was the only one that didn't win the award that should have in terms of turning a team around and making them a winner.

TMAC94
12-02-2008, 04:03 AM
lets say,
a roookie had 24 points 7 rebounds 6 assits in his rookie season, won ROY could he win MVP too?

SteveNash
12-02-2008, 04:05 AM
lets say,
a roookie had 24 points 7 rebounds 6 assits in his rookie season, won ROY could he win MVP too?

Nope the rules state that it's impossible to win both awards at the same time.

TMAC94
12-02-2008, 04:12 AM
^ what if in a really weirrd situation 2 rookies play better than rest of the nba;

30 points 7 assits 3 rebounds 2 steals

25 points 12 rebounds 2 assits 4 blocks

lets say tat happnd if one got ROY could the other one get MVP?

Chronz
12-02-2008, 04:13 AM
Nope the rules state that it's impossible to win both awards at the same time.

:rimshot:

Bringing that trophico style to PSD arent you

abe_froman
12-02-2008, 04:40 AM
Nope the rules state that it's impossible to win both awards at the same time.

i have no idea what made you think that

JordansBulls
12-02-2008, 10:52 AM
Nope the rules state that it's impossible to win both awards at the same time.

Maybe you need to go check the history books on that one.

CELTICS4LYFE
12-02-2008, 11:07 AM
well u cant really say that the roy has to lead his team to a good record bcuz usually the best rookies go to the worst teams duh

lakers4sho
12-02-2008, 11:12 AM
You guys have to realize there is no set criteria for any of the leagues awards, they simply base them off of the best stories that developed that year or create them, which is why the Sixers won so many of them that year.

The kind of logic your asking for has already been used, that was one of the many reasons why they gave
the ROY to Amare when Yao that and his ESPN caliber dunks

deff agree

GregOden#1
12-02-2008, 01:25 PM
lets say,
a roookie had 24 points 7 rebounds 6 assits in his rookie season, won ROY could he win MVP too?

No, swingmen are automatically the weakest position and have the least impact on their teams, those are swingman stats so I'd say no. It's possible for a center averaging say 16/14 to win the award, but he'd have to be an anchor and he'd have to turn the entire team around. Like Wes Unseld did in his ROY/MVP season. Shooting guards and small forwards just dont have the impact on their team that a center can have, no exceptions.

Hawkeye15
12-02-2008, 02:45 PM
Rookies will only put up great stats when they are given 35 mpg right off the bat, and that isn't happening on a good team. Therein lies the problem. And MVP needs to be renamed, best player on the best team already. One award is all stats, the other is all team success. Both are wrong

MylesKong
12-02-2008, 03:17 PM
^^ I agree. The rookie that had the biggest impact on their team, a good team, was Rodney Stuckey IMO.

THAD-DE-US!!! The more time he got, the more games the Sixers won.

Really it was Horford.

scandaless2
12-02-2008, 03:17 PM
Rookies will only put up great stats when they are given 35 mpg right off the bat, and that isn't happening on a good team. Therein lies the problem. And MVP needs to be renamed, best player on the best team already. One award is all stats, the other is all team success. Both are wrong


True dat, true dat :nod:

Lost Art
12-02-2008, 05:41 PM
The problem is that no rookie LEADS a team to a top 3-4 record. Rookies on teams that are that good rarely get much playing time, if any at all.

........but yeah, I agree that putting up big #'s on a 60 loss team means absolutely squat! Most players in the league are capable of putting up some pretty big numbers if they have the green light and big minutes........its the players that do it while running the team effectively that are truly special. Give Smush Parker 40mpg and the green light to shoot every time and he could probably put up 20+ppg.........but he'd run his team into the ground while doing so.

daleja424
12-02-2008, 05:48 PM
Pretty much summed it up. Rarely does a rookie have a large enough impact on a team to make that the criteria.

Wade took his team from a lottery team to the second round of the playoffs his rookie year

jetsfan28
12-02-2008, 06:04 PM
Wade took his team from a lottery team to the second round of the playoffs his rookie year

No. Lamar Odom, Rafer Alston, Udonis Haslem, Stan Van Gundy, AND Dwyane Wade did that.

And anyway, I said rarely, not never.

Lost Art
12-02-2008, 06:09 PM
Wade took his team from a lottery team to the second round of the playoffs his rookie year

LO and Eddie Jones were the leaders of that team..........Wade did take over in the playoffs though.

Hawkeye15
12-02-2008, 08:09 PM
The problem is that no rookie LEADS a team to a top 3-4 record. Rookies on teams that are that good rarely get much playing time, if any at all.

........but yeah, I agree that putting up big #'s on a 60 loss team means absolutely squat! Most players in the league are capable of putting up some pretty big numbers if they have the green light and big minutes........its the players that do it while running the team effectively that are truly special. Give Smush Parker 40mpg and the green light to shoot every time and he could probably put up 20+ppg.........but he'd run his team into the ground while doing so.

I disagree with the second statement. You have to be a star to put up great numbers in the NBA, regardless of how good/bad your team is. But you need to be a superstar to put up great numbers on an elite team. That is why there are only a handful of actual superstars, then a bunch of second tier stars.