PDA

View Full Version : Can the 3rd best player on the team be the teams/league MVP?



Chronz
07-19-2012, 09:55 PM
Im not talking about the award, just the literal definition of "Value".


Lets say the teams best player was the games most heralded player and its greatest scorer, the 2nd best player was the leagues most versatile player and lets say the teams 3rd best player was so unique that what he brought to the table was indispensable. Essentially you could replace the scorer more easily than the player who brought a very specialized/dominant skillset.

Could you convince yourself that hes the teams most vital player,as in if you were to subtract one of them or have to trade one of them, that the team would suffer more without the perceived 3rd best player?

If no, why not. If yes, whats preventing you from saying hes actually the teams best player? Just a philosophical question I have been wondering about lately.

CavsYanksDuke
07-19-2012, 10:02 PM
Team maybe league no

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 10:11 PM
If the Knicks finished with one of the best records in the league next season and this hinges solely on their D which is anchored by Tyson Chandler I can see why someone would say this.

Honestly it may not be as impossible as one may think.

xxplayerxx23
07-19-2012, 10:13 PM
I agree with Swash. If the Knicks were to finish the top seed, Melo at his normal 25 amare at 18-22 range and chandler there changing the defense(to the same top 5 as last year) I can see how he would be considered most valuable

rhino17
07-19-2012, 10:16 PM
If the THIRD best was the most valuable player, he would the most valuable player. Under no circumstance is the 3rd best player more valuable than the best, it makes no sense

Aust
07-19-2012, 10:18 PM
I personally think so even though that's not the way it works.

The MVP is a misleading name. Alot of the time the player isn't picked because he's the most valuable, he's picked because he's been the best player

AWC713
07-19-2012, 10:25 PM
only guy i can think of that could pull this off would be chandler, IF the knicks locked down a 1 seed AND it was because of INSANE D...

coudl have been Tony Parker this year though

Ebbs
07-19-2012, 10:26 PM
Are we talking about Nash being the Lakers third best player if they sign Dwight?

When I saw this thread I initially thought hell no. But in the right situation I could see it. Let's say Lakers win 60+ games next year and Nash puts up 13-12 type numbers with good efficiency I think it's hard not to consider.

Bishnoff
07-19-2012, 10:37 PM
Yeah sure. Nash can win another MVP :D

STL Don
07-19-2012, 10:40 PM
Or how bout' the 4th option..Pau:D:D

rhino17
07-19-2012, 11:25 PM
Are we talking about Nash being the Lakers third best player if they sign Dwight?

When I saw this thread I initially thought hell no. But in the right situation I could see it. Let's say Lakers win 60+ games next year and Nash puts up 13-12 type numbers with good efficiency I think it's hard not to consider.

This is still flawed logic because Nash only accounted for a handful of wins (maybe 6-10). Take Nash off the team and they still win 50+ games. Take Kobe or Howard off the team and that team wins 30+ games.

Same with the Chandler scenario. Chandler is never going to account for more than 10 wins. But if there is no Carmelo, a Knicks team of Amare and Chandler isn't winning 30 games

b@llhog24
07-19-2012, 11:31 PM
The 3rd best player would probably have to provide a HUGE intangible effect. Say if the Blazers trio would've stayed healthy, Roy and LMA would've been seen as Option 1 and 2. But Oden would probably have the biggest IMPACT on the game. Also maybe Ben Wallace from the Pistons could fit this criteria as well.

Bishnoff
07-20-2012, 12:20 AM
This is still flawed logic because Nash only accounted for a handful of wins (maybe 6-10). Take Nash off the team and they still win 50+ games. Take Kobe or Howard off the team and that team wins 30+ games.

Same with the Chandler scenario. Chandler is never going to account for more than 10 wins. But if there is no Carmelo, a Knicks team of Amare and Chandler isn't winning 30 games

Can't agree with any of this. The Suns won 33 games last season (in a shortened season mine you) with Nash and a bunch of role players. A combination of Nash/Gasol/Bynum, or Nash/Kobe/Gasol, or Nash/Kobe/Bynum, or Nash/Gasol/Howard would easily win over 40 regular season games, if not 50+.

I’ve often thought that the Knicks would win more games without Melo. Both your arguments are severely flawed IMO.

Chronz
07-20-2012, 12:42 AM
Team maybe league no

What if I were to tell you that no other team was capable of finding a player who could contribute at a superstar level without even dominating the ball. That basically, he was the only guy in the league who could be a teams 3rd best player but still produce at an elite level. Would that make him more valuable than a player who thrives with the ball, given the fact that lots of players could produce in his role....?

Chronz
07-20-2012, 12:43 AM
If the THIRD best was the most valuable player, he would the most valuable player. Under no circumstance is the 3rd best player more valuable than the best, it makes no sense

So you would consider the most valuable player the best player then, your dead set on this? What did you make of the years when the Rockets were capable of taking the hit and play without Yao but when Tmac wasnt around, the team was rudderless....

Yao was the teams most productive player, but the team influence seemed to favor Tmac. I personally believed this was because Yao was replaced by an adequate backup, while Luther Head replaced Tmac. This is an example of replacement value, now imagine expanding that value across the league. By most measures, the teams best player would be the one who garners the most accolades/recognition and basic production, but would you consider him the best if the (perceived) third best player had a great team impact?

Chronz
07-20-2012, 12:48 AM
The 3rd best player would probably have to provide a HUGE intangible effect. Say if the Blazers trio would've stayed healthy, Roy and LMA would've been seen as Option 1 and 2. But Oden would probably have the biggest IMPACT on the game. Also maybe Ben Wallace from the Pistons could fit this criteria as well.

Solid example and hints at the kind of player I had in mind.

IKnowHoops
07-20-2012, 02:02 AM
If the THIRD best was the most valuable player, he would the most valuable player. Under no circumstance is the 3rd best player more valuable than the best, it makes no sense

James Worthy was finals MVP on a team with Magic, and I believe Kareem was still there. He was the third best player although the year he won that he was balling so hard in those finals putting up Lebron numbers. But hey he was the third best.

hugepatsfan
07-20-2012, 02:07 AM
Rondo I think kind of fit this description a few years ago. Pierce and KG were still clearly better players, but Rondo's ability to create for others was something no one else on the team could do and they desperately needed it.

rhino17
07-20-2012, 02:44 AM
So you would consider the most valuable player the best player then, your dead set on this? What did you make of the years when the Rockets were capable of taking the hit and play without Yao but when Tmac wasnt around, the team was rudderless....

Yao was the teams most productive player, but the team influence seemed to favor Tmac. I personally believed this was because Yao was replaced by an adequate backup, while Luther Head replaced Tmac. This is an example of replacement value, now imagine expanding that value across the league. By most measures, the teams best player would be the one who garners the most accolades/recognition and basic production, but would you consider him the best if the (perceived) third best player had a great team impact?

When tmac was healthy, he was the #1 player for Houston, Yao was always #2. So I disagree with your premise

Chronz
07-20-2012, 06:15 PM
When tmac was healthy, he was the #1 player for Houston, Yao was always #2. So I disagree with your premise

Really? But you would argue they are close right? Yet despite being within proximity of each other ability wise (Even with Yao being superior statistically), there was a vast difference with the Rockets inability to win games without Tmac.

Kyle N.
07-20-2012, 06:31 PM
This is silly. If your best player is so easily replaceable with others and other players on your team are actually the ones that make you win, then I don't think that person is actually your best player!

ink
07-20-2012, 07:49 PM
I could totally see this happening. We saw how Miami struggled until Bosh got back in the playoffs last year. Obviously Bosh is not the best or even second best player on his team but his VALUE was never higher than when he returned. I don't think Bosh actually ended up being MVP or anything but a slightly better player could easily be most indispensable. There have been times when Tim Duncan has been overshadowed by Parker and Ginobili but I'd still regard him as their most valuable.

ManningToTyree
07-20-2012, 07:58 PM
If the Knicks finished with one of the best records in the league next season and this hinges solely on their D which is anchored by Tyson Chandler I can see why someone would say this.

Honestly it may not be as impossible as one may think.

this

jpagemn
07-20-2012, 08:18 PM
I think your original thought diminishes scoring and versitility by neccesarily excluding them from the indispensible category. While that may be true of the average to above average, the truly exceptional (and thus MVP and game changing worthy) are far harder to replace, as such voiding the premise.

njnets
07-20-2012, 08:20 PM
In today's nba, only a really good defensive center or maybe a really good pg can get this. The pg one is a stretch. Great defensive centers are dying out. Only a few in the league. Not underrating scorers, but how many great 7 foot guys are there compared to scorers at all heights?

Usually that 7 footer would be a top 1/2 player but not necessarily on both ends. Could be a one way player that drastically effects the game.

jpagemn
07-20-2012, 08:24 PM
In today's nba, only a really good defensive center or maybe a really good pg can get this. The pg one is a stretch. Great defensive centers are dying out. Only a few in the league. Not underrating scorers, but how many great 7 foot guys are there compared to scorers at all heights?

Usually that 7 footer would be a top 1/2 player but not necessarily on both ends. Could be a one way player that drastically effects the game.

But, because of the lack of true talent at the positiion, the loss of top talent, at least defensively, hurts less as well. That is to say, as there are fewer and fewer people who dominate, there are fewer and fewer times when you need to be dominating to win the match up.

Further, "scoring" is a misleading category, as PPG tells a story with a limited scope. Lebron and Melo might only average 2-3 ppg difference, but how they score those points mean a whole lot, don't they?

IndyRealist
07-20-2012, 09:22 PM
Depends on how "best" is defined. If by best player you mean the team's top scorer, or leader, or defensive anchor, then yes the 3rd best player can be the most valuable. But I would think "best" would mean most valuable.

BUT, it's worth noting in addition to Ben Wallace previously mentioned, Tony Parker was Finals MVP, even though overall he's the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team.

jp611
07-20-2012, 09:25 PM
I mean I find Chris Bosh to be REALLY valuable to the Heat, I know that Wade and Lebron are the better players but he just provides them with that size that they need... Bosh really is key to that team's success... I still think Lebron is the most valuable player on that team just because he's the best player in the world and is just insanely good, but I definitely think Bosh is the 2nd most important player on that team

MTar786
07-20-2012, 09:28 PM
02 kings webber was the best player but peja and maybe even bibby were more valuable to them as a better team

07 spurs duncan and ginobli were the best but parker was more valuable but not throughout the full season

08 celtics garnett was the best but pierce was more valuable

11 heat lebron was the best but wade was far more valuable in the finals atleast

12 knicks melo and stat were the best but lin was by far most valuable for like 25 games

ohreally
07-20-2012, 09:28 PM
The question is all twisted up in itself. Best players are obviously based on offensive statistics if you're possibly going to say a third best player could be not just the team's, but the league MVP.

Obviously, to an increasing degree, offensive production is the key by which most everybody ranks players. If that wasn't the case there would be no way in h---l that Westbrook could ever be ranked above Rondo, or Rose for that matter. The fame and the money come with scoring, and the MVP, as it works to a similar increasing degree, is a popularity contest.

If you're really going to choose an MVP, you have to imagine each and every player in possible consideration moves to every other team, and then consider how many of those teams would clearly be greatly improved by replacing the best player at the moved player's position. So, if a player could possibly be construed as a team's third best player, all told, there is absolutely no way he could be the player that would most profoundly affect the fortunes of the greatest number of teams.

That player may be the key that makes a particular team work, but that's because of the makeup of that particular team.

In other words you have to be a very dominant player in a clearly demonstrable way, offensively, defensively, or with a curious blend of both, to be in the running.

ohreally
07-20-2012, 09:37 PM
Depends on how "best" is defined. If by best player you mean the team's top scorer, or leader, or defensive anchor, then yes the 3rd best player can be the most valuable. But I would think "best" would mean most valuable.

BUT, it's worth noting in addition to Ben Wallace previously mentioned, Tony Parker was Finals MVP, even though overall he's the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team.

Finals MVP is a completely different proposition. You pretty much have to be on the winning team, and you had to have had a noticeable affect on the most games in that series.

Chronz
07-21-2012, 12:45 AM
I like the Bosh comparison for the Heat just not in terms of league value, but what do I know.

JasonJohnHorn
07-21-2012, 12:47 AM
Yes. I think Nash proved that already.

ohreally
07-21-2012, 01:03 AM
Yes. I think Nash proved that already.

Steve Nash was not the third best player on those teams. That's just ridiculous. Are you saying amare was better than Nash???? That's a weird wy of rating "best."

I guess Bill Russell was the third best guy on the team at least half th time he won MVP. Not to compare the two players, just the logic.

Hellcrooner
07-21-2012, 01:09 AM
well this year if the dwight trade happens it may actually happen that the FOURth best is the most valuable on a team Kobe/Dwight/Pau/Nash

Kyle N.
07-21-2012, 09:19 AM
Oh god. Just because a player scores a lot doesn't mean they're the best. If you'll admit that another player is more valuable than I attest that that player is actually the better player if their so valuable to winning. The best players are those who help their team win. If they don't help their team win and the media calls them the best than the media is wrong!

JordansBulls
07-21-2012, 09:24 AM
So you would consider the most valuable player the best player then, your dead set on this? What did you make of the years when the Rockets were capable of taking the hit and play without Yao but when Tmac wasnt around, the team was rudderless....

Yao was the teams most productive player, but the team influence seemed to favor Tmac. I personally believed this was because Yao was replaced by an adequate backup, while Luther Head replaced Tmac. This is an example of replacement value, now imagine expanding that value across the league. By most measures, the teams best player would be the one who garners the most accolades/recognition and basic production, but would you consider him the best if the (perceived) third best player had a great team impact?
Man I want to see that combo again.

kingjaymes23
07-21-2012, 09:36 AM
A good example of this would be UNC basketball this past season. The best players were Zeller, then Barnes, then Henson, but the most valuable player by far was Marshall. So it has happened

ballpd05
07-21-2012, 09:58 AM
No, the third best player cannot be the MVP. But in some cases it can be argued if the player was the best player or not.

Take Kentucky this past year. Anthony Davis won player of the year and, I think, he was 4th or 5th in shot attempts. But what he brought to the table on offense with the dunks (mostly assisted on) and the impact of the floor he had on defense made him indispensable.

Hawkeye15
07-21-2012, 02:39 PM
depends on how you define MVP. If it's the guy with the numbers, and has the offense running through him, it's impossible to unseat them. However, some great examples have been mentioned here on why if you believe the MVP is the most valuable to a teams success, then yes, a 3rd option may hold more value to a specific team then the 1st option.

Raph12
07-21-2012, 03:14 PM
Can he be the most valuable? Sure, but it depends on your definition of "most valuable" though... The Finals MVP has gone to the leading scorer over the last two decades plus, so that should tell you what most people believe "most valuable" means.

JasonJohnHorn
07-21-2012, 04:34 PM
If the THIRD best was the most valuable player, he would the most valuable player. Under no circumstance is the 3rd best player more valuable than the best, it makes no sense

Yes it does. Think outside the box. In this case, the box score.

JasonJohnHorn
07-21-2012, 04:43 PM
Steve Nash was not the third best player on those teams. That's just ridiculous. Are you saying amare was better than Nash???? That's a weird wy of rating "best."

I guess Bill Russell was the third best guy on the team at least half th time he won MVP. Not to compare the two players, just the logic.

Amare and Marion were both 20/10 players and it could be argued that at the time, they were putting up better numbers than Nash. Now this is obviously subjective, but yes, many people who criticized Nash getting the MVP that first season said he wasn't even the best player on his team, let alone the best player in the league. Nash brought out Amare and Marion's full potential, and when those two are playing at their best, they are better than Nash, but not more valuable, because they wouldnt have been playing at as high a level as they would without Nash. We've seen it in their productivety after they left Nash.

Marion, IS a far better defender than Nash ever was, so there goes half of the game that Marion is better than Nash at. Marion was also a better scorer, and a FAR better rebounder. So it could be argued that Marion was better than Nash.

Amare was the team's leading scorer, and the bottom line is, you have to out score the other team. Coupled with his rebounding numbers, there is also an arguement that Amare is better than Nash.

Hell, some could even argue that Joe Johnson was better than Nash. Johnson scored more, was a better rebounder, is a better defender, got as many steals, less turnovers and more blocks than Nash, while posting a better 3pt% than Nash.

So it COULD be argued that Nash was the fourth best player on his team and still the most valuable.

So yes... I would say the third best player, even the fourth best player on a team could be the MVP of the team AND of the league.

knickfan33
07-21-2012, 04:54 PM
If the THIRD best was the most valuable player, he would the most valuable player. Under no circumstance is the 3rd best player more valuable than the best, it makes no sense

lol was thinking the same thing.... i can understand the veiw of tyson chandler though, cause hes the heart of the team. but still in the eyes of fans nd voters the mvp is always gonna be the guy who scores the points.

Lake_Show2416
07-21-2012, 04:55 PM
Nash was not the 3rd best when he won his 2 MVP's, he was the best player on that team that made both Amare's & Marion's offensive game, Nash probably has the best chance of being the 3rd best player on the team & receiving a MVP this year, obviously highly doubtful

JasonJohnHorn
07-21-2012, 05:05 PM
Nash was not the 3rd best when he won his 2 MVP's, he was the best player on that team that made both Amare's & Marion's offensive game, Nash probably has the best chance of being the 3rd best player on the team & receiving a MVP this year, obviously highly doubtful

Marion, Amare and Johnson all scored more, got more rebounds and were better defenders than Nash. To pretend like their isn't an argument that Nash wasn't the best player on that team is to completely ignore the subjectivety of the nature of this conversation. There is an argument that Nash was the 4th best player on that team, and still the most valuable.

TheNumber37
07-21-2012, 05:25 PM
Rondo was there for a while. Being not as good as KG or Pierce, but maybe the most important at times.
If Defense is something you win on then guys like Chandler or Shumpert could be extremely valuable especially if they are scoring.

ohreally
07-21-2012, 05:38 PM
Amare and Marion were both 20/10 players and it could be argued that at the time, they were putting up better numbers than Nash. Now this is obviously subjective, but yes, many people who criticized Nash getting the MVP that first season said he wasn't even the best player on his team, let alone the best player in the league. Nash brought out Amare and Marion's full potential, and when those two are playing at their best, they are better than Nash, but not more valuable, because they wouldnt have been playing at as high a level as they would without Nash. We've seen it in their productivety after they left Nash.

Marion, IS a far better defender than Nash ever was, so there goes half of the game that Marion is better than Nash at. Marion was also a better scorer, and a FAR better rebounder. So it could be argued that Marion was better than Nash.

Amare was the team's leading scorer, and the bottom line is, you have to out score the other team. Coupled with his rebounding numbers, there is also an arguement that Amare is better than Nash.

Hell, some could even argue that Joe Johnson was better than Nash. Johnson scored more, was a better rebounder, is a better defender, got as many steals, less turnovers and more blocks than Nash, while posting a better 3pt% than Nash.

So it COULD be argued that Nash was the fourth best player on his team and still the most valuable.

So yes... I would say the third best player, even the fourth best player on a team could be the MVP of the team AND of the league.

But Nash would have been much closer to the same impact player no matter what team he was playing for, and that certainly isn't true for Amare or Marion and only arguable for Johnson (but I think a poor argument). So obviously, Nash was the better player.

How you can argue that guys that are reliant on the exceptional skills of a teammate for stats that you then argue makes them better is beyond me. Obviously, everybody has some skills that are better or worse than other guys, but it's the total package and the overall impact that makes a guy better as in more valuable.

Being the third scoring option on a team does not make you the third best player.

Kyle N.
07-21-2012, 07:44 PM
Amare and Marion were both 20/10 players and it could be argued that at the time, they were putting up better numbers than Nash. Now this is obviously subjective, but yes, many people who criticized Nash getting the MVP that first season said he wasn't even the best player on his team, let alone the best player in the league. Nash brought out Amare and Marion's full potential, and when those two are playing at their best, they are better than Nash, but not more valuable, because they wouldnt have been playing at as high a level as they would without Nash. We've seen it in their productivety after they left Nash.

Marion, IS a far better defender than Nash ever was, so there goes half of the game that Marion is better than Nash at. Marion was also a better scorer, and a FAR better rebounder. So it could be argued that Marion was better than Nash.

Amare was the team's leading scorer, and the bottom line is, you have to out score the other team. Coupled with his rebounding numbers, there is also an arguement that Amare is better than Nash.

Hell, some could even argue that Joe Johnson was better than Nash. Johnson scored more, was a better rebounder, is a better defender, got as many steals, less turnovers and more blocks than Nash, while posting a better 3pt% than Nash.

So it COULD be argued that Nash was the fourth best player on his team and still the most valuable.

So yes... I would say the third best player, even the fourth best player on a team could be the MVP of the team AND of the league.

I'm not sure I agree with this logic. If these players are only as good with Nash on the team than that makes me think Nash is the better player. Just because these players can get more stats in other areas other than Nash doesn't mean they couldn't be replaced with similar players to do the same. I would say the player on the team that is the "best" is the one that is helping the team win the most. If Nash's contributions are helping the team win the most because he causes others to play better then I would call him the best player. If other players could come in and contribute similarly then maybe they aren't as good as we think. I'm not saying Nash definitely deserved the MVP award that year but I think we should call the best players on the team those who help the team win the most. Whether that was Nash or not I won't argue but if he's really not as good as those other players then I guess the MVP award is a joke.

Chronz
07-22-2012, 12:23 AM
The question is all twisted up in itself. Best players are obviously based on offensive statistics if you're possibly going to say a third best player could be not just the team's, but the league MVP.

Obviously, to an increasing degree, offensive production is the key by which most everybody ranks players. If that wasn't the case there would be no way in h---l that Westbrook could ever be ranked above Rondo, or Rose for that matter. The fame and the money come with scoring, and the MVP, as it works to a similar increasing degree, is a popularity contest.

If you're really going to choose an MVP, you have to imagine each and every player in possible consideration moves to every other team, and then consider how many of those teams would clearly be greatly improved by replacing the best player at the moved player's position. So, if a player could possibly be construed as a team's third best player, all told, there is absolutely no way he could be the player that would most profoundly affect the fortunes of the greatest number of teams.

That player may be the key that makes a particular team work, but that's because of the makeup of that particular team.

In other words you have to be a very dominant player in a clearly demonstrable way, offensively, defensively, or with a curious blend of both, to be in the running.

Good point.

Let me word it differently.

Lets say their best player was worth 10 wins but you could find someone who could approximate that total with 7 or 8 wins. Then lets say the 3rd best player was only worth 7 but nobody else in the league could replicate his value in such a limited role. Anyone else in his role would only net you a maximum of 2-3 wins. Would you find him to be more valuable than the better player?

Kashmir13579
07-22-2012, 12:30 AM
Manu Ginobili.

rhino17
07-22-2012, 12:36 AM
Just because you are an "x-factor" does not make you the most valuable player on a team. I think a ton of people here are confusing that. There is no scenario where Tyson Chandler, Chris Bosh, Marion, Manu Ginobili, etc are the most valuable players on the team. Their team may NEED them to contribute at a high rate to play effectively, but if any of those teams are missing Melo, Lebron, Nash or Duncan, they are not competing to begin with.

Swashcuff
07-22-2012, 09:27 AM
Manu Ginobili.

When Manu was the 3rd best player on the Spurs he was never their MVP that was always TD.