PDA

View Full Version : Should there be a consistent MVP criteria?



Chronz
07-17-2013, 02:06 PM
Can it even be accomplished?

Would a player on a .500 team be a viable winner? Is it more important to get the 1 seed than be a better individual player? Should before and after arguments (see Nash or even D-Rose) spearhead the discussion?


How would the MVP list have changed with a consistent criteria?

D-Leethal
07-17-2013, 02:27 PM
I think its pretty consistent:

Best player out of the 4-5 legitimate title contenders each year. Exceptions occur when the 'sexy' surprise team comes in and takes the league by storm with a rising star/new face leading the charge. When those sexy teams come up out of nowhere and become part of the pack of 4-5 legitimate title contenders, the MVP no longer needs to be the best player out of those 4-5. He can be the worst of those 4-5, or in the middle of those 4-5, and win MVP as long as he's on the newfound surprise team.

SportsFanatic10
07-17-2013, 02:31 PM
i think if you've had the undisputed best season out of everyone in the league, as long as you got your team into the playoffs you should win it. now if its close like splitting hairs with the stats, give it to the player whose team had the better record.

PhillyFaninLA
07-17-2013, 02:39 PM
Most Valuable Player to me is the most important player (not necessarily best) on a playoff team. Who was most responisible for their team making the playoffs.

MonroeFAN
07-17-2013, 02:43 PM
I think it should be the best performing player per season, every season. A great coach should be valued as much as if not more than a good supporting cast.

D-Leethal
07-17-2013, 02:50 PM
Most Valuable Player to me is the most important player (not necessarily best) on a playoff team. Who was most responisible for their team making the playoffs.

Even if that guy is significantly worse than better players who have the fortune of playing with better supporting casts?

Should guys really be rewarded with "best player" awards for being on crappy teams?

Hawkeye15
07-17-2013, 03:21 PM
Most Valuable Player to me is the most important player (not necessarily best) on a playoff team. Who was most responisible for their team making the playoffs.

that is so difficult though, because now the term "valuable" becomes wildly subjective.

More-Than-Most
07-17-2013, 03:22 PM
Yes. The best player in the world brings the most value thus he should be MVP. Nothing else should honestly matter.

Example- James. Nobody comes close to bringing the value he brings so how is he not an mvp every year? Someone like a rose coming back leading the bulls past where they gotten last year should not equate to him being MVP when James is by far more valuable to his said team and a more valuable player to any team he is on. Lebron should win it every year. If he has an off year durant is the next logical answer. Those 2 guys are head and shoulders above the rest of the league.

2-ONE-5
07-17-2013, 03:25 PM
i have been having this argument in the MLB forum the last few days. Mainly on the A-Rod 2003 MVP when he won it despite the Rangers finishing in dead last. I thought that was an outrage and everyone else was ok with it bcuz he put up the best numbers abd he shouldnt be penalized for his team being crappy. My argument was that it doesnt matter how great of a season he had bcuz he wasnt valuable to his team seeing how they still finish in last without him.

the MVP (in all leagues) should go the the player who is the most valuable to his teams success. That does not mean the best player on the best team but most times that is the most valuable anyway.

abe_froman
07-17-2013, 03:37 PM
i have been having this argument in the MLB forum the last few days. Mainly on the A-Rod 2003 MVP when he won it despite the Rangers finishing in dead last. I thought that was an outrage and everyone else was ok with it bcuz he put up the best numbers abd he shouldnt be penalized for his team being crappy. My argument was that it doesnt matter how great of a season he had bcuz he wasnt valuable to his team seeing how they still finish in last without him.

the MVP (in all leagues) should go the the player who is the most valuable to his teams success. That does not mean the best player on the best team but most times that is the most valuable anyway.
the impact of a baseball player is very limited though.your example of arod,he as great as he was,he only went to bat every 9th time,so you can be great but of the other 8 suck there is nothing you can do about it and your team will lose.lebron james can take 90%+ of every shot for he heat,he has has infinitely more control over team success.so the criteria must be different in all sports ,because all sports and a single player's control on winning are so vastly different in each of them

valade16
07-17-2013, 03:40 PM
Yes. The best player in the world brings the most value thus he should be MVP. Nothing else should honestly matter.

Example- James. Nobody comes close to bringing the value he brings so how is he not an mvp every year? Someone like a rose coming back leading the bulls past where they gotten last year should not equate to him being MVP when James is by far more valuable to his said team and a more valuable player to any team he is on. Lebron should win it every year. If he has an off year durant is the next logical answer. Those 2 guys are head and shoulders above the rest of the league.

The question then is: If James' value is so astronomically higher than everyone elses, how could he and by extension the Heat have possibly lost the 2011 Finals to the Mavs?

I don't think anyone could argue that one supporting cast was markedly superior to the others between the Mavs and Heat yet Dirk and the Mavs beat Bron and the Heat, despite the fact Bron was clearly the best player on the planet.

So yes, there is a difference between best player and most valuable. A guy like LeBron, while insanely valuable, might not be the most valuable player in the league for his respective team. Although I agree this is highly subjective and in no way helps to narrow down what a consistent criteria should be, just pointing it out.

I mean, if we're just going by "best" player in the world that season then 90% of all MVPs since 1990 should have been won by Jordan, Shaq, and Bron...

PhillyFaninLA
07-17-2013, 03:44 PM
Even if that guy is significantly worse than better players who have the fortune of playing with better supporting casts?

Should guys really be rewarded with "best player" awards for being on crappy teams?

Its most valuable and not best...I don't understand your point or see how it relates to what you are quoting

BklynKnicks3
07-17-2013, 03:45 PM
Yes I really hope this system gets fixed even if u have to have a best player award and the mvp award as 2 diff awards. Its a Disgrace to give the award to guys who play on all star teams. Like Lebron. To me last year the 2 mvps where Melo and harden

IKnowHoops
07-17-2013, 03:49 PM
The question then is: If James' value is so astronomically higher than everyone elses, how could he and by extension the Heat have possibly lost the 2011 Finals to the Mavs?

I don't think anyone could argue that one supporting cast was markedly superior to the others between the Mavs and Heat yet Dirk and the Mavs beat Bron and the Heat, despite the fact Bron was clearly the best player on the planet.

So yes, there is a difference between best player and most valuable. A guy like LeBron, while insanely valuable, might not be the most valuable player in the league for his respective team. Although I agree this is highly subjective and in no way helps to narrow down what a consistent criteria should be, just pointing it out.

I mean, if we're just going by "best" player in the world that season then 90% of all MVPs since 1990 should have been won by Jordan, Shaq, and Bron...

You can be the best in the world and play horrible still and loose. Thats what happened. MVP/best player in the world tore through the playoffs, then had the worst series of his life by chance and lost. Period Same way Payton Manning has won MVP's deserved them, and then played horrible in one playoff game and lost. It happens. Being the best still isn't perfect.

JordansBulls
07-17-2013, 03:49 PM
i have been having this argument in the MLB forum the last few days. Mainly on the A-Rod 2003 MVP when he won it despite the Rangers finishing in dead last. I thought that was an outrage and everyone else was ok with it bcuz he put up the best numbers abd he shouldnt be penalized for his team being crappy. My argument was that it doesnt matter how great of a season he had bcuz he wasnt valuable to his team seeing how they still finish in last without him.

the MVP (in all leagues) should go the the player who is the most valuable to his teams success. That does not mean the best player on the best team but most times that is the most valuable anyway.

Baseball is different because for one you only get a turn every 9 at bats. Basketball if you wanted to you can shoot on every possession. Also you can't play everywhere on the field. If you play left field and the ball is hit right field you can't make it over there in time. Also I think Baseball the person who has the greatest impact is the pitcher.

valade16
07-17-2013, 04:07 PM
You can be the best in the world and play horrible still and lose. Thats what happened. MVP/best player in the world tore through the playoffs, then had the worst series of his life by chance and lost. Period Same way Payton Manning has won MVP's deserved them, and then played horrible in one playoff game and lost. It happens. Being the best still isn't perfect.

This might be on a tangent from the thread but when people say this for the reason Bron didn't do good in that series it makes me mad. It wasn't all random. The Mavericks had a great gameplan and LeBron couldn't adjust. You make it seem like the reason he did bad had nothing to do with him; but it did.

2-ONE-5
07-17-2013, 04:09 PM
Baseball is different because for one you only get a turn every 9 at bats. Basketball if you wanted to you can shoot on every possession. Also you can't play everywhere on the field. If you play left field and the ball is hit right field you can't make it over there in time. Also I think Baseball the person who has the greatest impact is the pitcher.

my main point was that for someone like A-Rod that season tehre are numerous awards for being the best whatever he can win but not the MVP. Also a pitcher goes once every 5 days that dont have the greatest impact.

You are riht a player can shoot everytime down and put up 25 a game but if they are doing it i a losing effort they have 0 shot at MVP. I mean its not their fault they cant cover the other 4 guys on the court or make their teammates hit open shots. It works the same for all sports.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-17-2013, 04:15 PM
The question then is: If James' value is so astronomically higher than everyone elses, how could he and by extension the Heat have possibly lost the 2011 Finals to the Mavs?


That's all in hindsight though. The MVP, as are all the other awards in other professional league, is awarded for regular season performance. That year Rose won the MVP though.

JerseyPalahniuk
07-17-2013, 04:24 PM
my main point was that for someone like A-Rod that season tehre are numerous awards for being the best whatever he can win but not the MVP. Also a pitcher goes once every 5 days that dont have the greatest impact.

His point is still completely valid though. The impact of ONE player in basketball is 10x more significant than ONE player in baseball. The comparison does not make sense. I don't know where you're going with the pitcher example but they shouldn't win the MVP for baseball for the very reason you stated.




You are riht a player can shoot everytime down and put up 25 a game but if they are doing it i a losing effort they have 0 shot at MVP. I mean its not their fault they cant cover the other 4 guys on the court or make their teammates hit open shots. It works the same for all sports.

Wrong. In Basketball, ONE player can significantly affect the play of his teammates and impact the overall score by creating shots for them (assists), creating extra possesions to score (rebounds/blocks/steals) and cover for their teammates when a lapse in defense occurs (team defense). Sometimes, it IS a player's fault if his teammates can't hit shots if he keeps shooting every possesion/being a ball hog/passing in terrible places on the court. That's why a point guard exists. Team defense is HUGE. Players (if athletically and mentally capable) can guard all 5 positions. In baseball, it takes a significant adjustment period to switch from just OF to shortstop. Let alone something more complicated like being a catcher. In baseball, whether you strike out or get a hit doesn't affect the percentages of the next batter. Sure he might get an RBI if you get on base but there's no equivalent in baseball to a perfect pass. An MVP in basketball is not comparable at all to a baseball's MVP.

2-ONE-5
07-17-2013, 04:34 PM
His point is still completely valid though. The impact of ONE player in basketball is 10x more significant than ONE player in baseball. The comparison does not make sense. I don't know where you're going with the pitcher example but they shouldn't win the MVP for baseball for the very reason you stated.

Wrong. In Basketball, ONE player can significantly affect the play of his teammates and impact the overall score by creating shots for them (assists), creating extra possesions to score (rebounds/blocks/steals) and cover for their teammates when a lapse in defense occurs (team defense). Sometimes, it IS a player's fault if his teammates can't hit shots if he keeps shooting every possesion/being a ball hog/passing in terrible places on the court. That's why a point guard exists. Team defense is HUGE. Players (if athletically and mentally capable) can guard all 5 positions. In baseball, it takes a significant adjustment period to switch from just OF to shortstop. Let alone something more complicated like being a catcher. In baseball, whether you strike out or get a hit doesn't affect the percentages of the next batter. Sure he might get an RBI if you get on base but there's no equivalent in baseball to a perfect pass. An MVP in basketball is not comparable at all to a baseball's MVP.

i didnt just compare the NBA to MLB i was comparing all 3 other sports to MLB where you dont see a bad team have an MVP in the NFL, NBA, or NHL. In the NBA players on crap teams have great seasons all the time and never even get 3rd team all league or an all star nod. Yes obviously basketball one player impacts the game the most but say James did his usualy thing and his team finished 7-8 seed he wouldnt win the MVP.

Matthew Stafford put up some insane number for the 4 win Lions last year but he was never considered for MVP. He cant control his defense being god awful but he will never win the MVP on a non playoff team

JerseyPalahniuk
07-17-2013, 04:40 PM
i didnt just compare the NBA to MLB i was comparing all 3 other sports to MLB where you dont see a bad team have an MVP in the NFL, NBA, or NHL. In the NBA players on crap teams have great seasons all the time and never even get 3rd team all league or an all star nod. Yes obviously basketball one player impacts the game the most but say James did his usualy thing and his team finished 7-8 seed he wouldnt win the MVP.

Matthew Stafford put up some insane number for the 4 win Lions last year but he was never considered for MVP. He cant control his defense being god awful but he will never win the MVP on a non playoff team

Well duh. Never argued about the winning thing at all. Just saying MLB was a bad comparison to start out with. I can see why a good player on a bad team would win the MVP (Arod 2003) - individual player is not nearly as significant in baseball than the sum of the parts. I can see a valid argument for the people you were arguin with in the MLB forum on this issue. I can't see a similar situation happening in the NBA in any form as you mentioned.

IndyRealist
07-17-2013, 04:53 PM
As long as it is a vote by the media, it will not be consistent. There is a tendency to "get bored" with voting for the same person every year, hence why one person voted for someone other than Lebron this year. It will only be worse next year, despite Lebron's utter dominance of the league. It's the nature of media, they don't want to drag out the same news over and over, they want something new. How much press did that ONE guy get for not voting for Lebron? A lot more than Lebron did for winning MVP twice in a row.

It wasn't always this way. Players used to vote for MVP, and in my opinion it was much more accurate then.

Hawkeye15
07-17-2013, 05:30 PM
Yes. The best player in the world brings the most value thus he should be MVP. Nothing else should honestly matter.

Example- James. Nobody comes close to bringing the value he brings so how is he not an mvp every year? Someone like a rose coming back leading the bulls past where they gotten last year should not equate to him being MVP when James is by far more valuable to his said team and a more valuable player to any team he is on. Lebron should win it every year. If he has an off year durant is the next logical answer. Those 2 guys are head and shoulders above the rest of the league.

there have been years in which there is no clear cut best player though, and I think that is where criteria needs to set in. I agree, James should have 5 MVP's at this point, and Shaq should have had more, Jordan as well.

Hawkeye15
07-17-2013, 05:32 PM
As long as it is a vote by the media, it will not be consistent. There is a tendency to "get bored" with voting for the same person every year, hence why one person voted for someone other than Lebron this year. It will only be worse next year, despite Lebron's utter dominance of the league. It's the nature of media, they don't want to drag out the same news over and over, they want something new. How much press did that ONE guy get for not voting for Lebron? A lot more than Lebron did for winning MVP twice in a row.

It wasn't always this way. Players used to vote for MVP, and in my opinion it was much more accurate then.

That is why the OP is asking for thoughts on criteria, for the exact reasons you stated in your first couple of sentences. This year, we were having Durant forced down our throats in the MVP discussion until 35 games in, when everyone realized LeBron was simply taking a crap on everyone else. That process will never stop. "Who's next"

LeperMessiah
07-17-2013, 05:33 PM
Yes. The best player in the world brings the most value thus he should be MVP. Nothing else should honestly matter.

Example- James. Nobody comes close to bringing the value he brings so how is he not an mvp every year? Someone like a rose coming back leading the bulls past where they gotten last year should not equate to him being MVP when James is by far more valuable to his said team and a more valuable player to any team he is on. Lebron should win it every year. If he has an off year durant is the next logical answer. Those 2 guys are head and shoulders above the rest of the league.

Bingo.

IndyRealist
07-17-2013, 05:37 PM
That is why the OP is asking for thoughts on criteria, for the exact reasons you stated in your first couple of sentences. This year, we were having Durant forced down our throats in the MVP discussion until 35 games in, when everyone realized LeBron was simply taking a crap on everyone else. That process will never stop. "Who's next"

My criteria would be to remove it from media voting, and return it to player voting. The question should be simple, "what single player do you hate playing against, the most?" That's your MVP.

LongIslandIcedZ
07-17-2013, 05:38 PM
The way I look at it, if you take the player off the team and replace him with Joe Schmo, how would that impact the team. Thats why I dont love the term "valuable." I think it should just be best player. I think the Knicks without Melo, would have been much worse than the Heat without Lebron, all else equal. Everything is eliminated if the award just becomes "Player of the year." That makes it obviously Lebron.

D-Leethal
07-17-2013, 05:44 PM
Its most valuable and not best...I don't understand your point or see how it relates to what you are quoting

Because you can be most valuable to your team, just for the fact that your on a crappy team with no help. You can be 10x the player of that guy on the crappy team, but have great teammates who would win close to 50 games without you, but win 65 with you.

And is most valuable player really supposed to mean most valuable to your team? It could mean most valuable to the league as well.

You can be most valuable to your team and not even be an all star for the fact that your team is awful and would win 12 games without you. Than you have guys whose team could hit 48-50 wins without them, but win 66 with them, and they are clearly the superior player.

Hawkeye15
07-17-2013, 05:53 PM
My criteria would be to remove it from media voting, and return it to player voting. The question should be simple, "what single player do you hate playing against, the most?" That's your MVP.

eh, maybe. Players can be biased as well. I get your notion however. But for instance, 3 years ago, before LeBron won anything, how many rookie players, or young guys, are voting for Kobe still because he is still elite, and they have so much respect for his career, when LeBron was clearly the better player?

Just an example, but players are biased as well.

JasonJohnHorn
07-17-2013, 08:17 PM
I think Kareem won it playing for a lottery team once...

You put up crazy enough numbers, you'll win it no matter what.

The current trend seems to be the best player on the best team. My view is that if should go to the team who relies most on that player.... but that is not the only way to look at it, and even if it were, that is always a matter for debate.

IndyRealist
07-18-2013, 12:01 AM
eh, maybe. Players can be biased as well. I get your notion however. But for instance, 3 years ago, before LeBron won anything, how many rookie players, or young guys, are voting for Kobe still because he is still elite, and they have so much respect for his career, when LeBron was clearly the better player?

Just an example, but players are biased as well.
Point taken. I just feel like asking media to vote for MVP is like asking the cashier at KFC what the secret recipe is. Just because he's around it all the time doesn't mean he knows squat.