PDA

View Full Version : If an MVP criteria was set, who would be your 15-16 MVP?



CHANGO
05-10-2016, 11:35 PM
Let's say the NBA released a criteria for the voters to vote on who's the MVP of the league. Not letting the voters set a criteria for their decisions.

As we know there's always a debate about what should mean the MVP award. It is best player of the league, best player on the best team, beast player on a surprising team, best player on the team with the best story, etc...,?

Now the NBA realeses that the criteria is: the MVP is the guy who means more for his team, in other words, the Most Valuable Player to his team; who would be your MVP for this season.

Mine would be Lillard, I think you remove Lillard out of that team and they are a lottery team.

HandsOnTheWheel
05-10-2016, 11:58 PM
Lillards a good one but I'd say Lebron. Cavs would be a joke without him.

Curry is a good choice too but I think that Warriors still win 55-60+ games without him just based on how deep they are.

Bostonjorge
05-11-2016, 12:19 AM
I agree without James Cavs are a joke but still the best team in the east.

HandsOnTheWheel
05-11-2016, 12:32 AM
The whole East would be a joke if the Cavs didn't have Lebron and no they wouldn't be the best team.

WaDe03
05-11-2016, 01:27 AM
East isn't that weak. If the Heat had everyone they would definitely be a huge threat to the Cavs. We match up with them very well.

As to answer this question I say Lillard as well. Without him they're a bottom 5 or close to bottom 5 team. Warriors are still very good without Curry, they're stacked and the Cavs would be a playoff team in the range of being a 5-8 seed in my opinion.

More-Than-Most
05-11-2016, 01:35 AM
Its James... He stills does more than just about anyone and makes everyone much much better.

HandsOnTheWheel
05-11-2016, 01:52 AM
East isn't that weak. If the Heat had everyone they would definitely be a huge threat to the Cavs. We match up with them very well.

As to answer this question I say Lillard as well. Without him they're a bottom 5 or close to bottom 5 team. Warriors are still very good without Curry, they're stacked and the Cavs would be a playoff team in the range of being a 5-8 seed in my opinion.

Heat aren't healthy, although I agree we do match up well with the Cavs hypothetically.

WaDe03
05-11-2016, 02:01 AM
Heat aren't healthy, although I agree we do match up well with the Cavs hypothetically.

That's why I said if they had everybody lol.

Saddletramp
05-11-2016, 04:12 AM
I think it would just always go to the best player in the world, regardless of system/coach/teammates. For the past decade it's been Lebron. ........Magic-MJ-Shaq-Kobe-Lebron. Or thereabouts.

ghettosean
05-11-2016, 05:09 AM
Chris Paul... Without him they are nothing IMO. If he was still in the line up it would be clippers vs Golden State right now and the series wouldn't be 3-1 for Golden State I can tell you that much.

SAS said it best... Lol... Without Chris Paul Deandre Jordan is Dikembe Mutombo!

ghettosean
05-11-2016, 05:10 AM
I think it would just always go to the best player in the world, regardless of system/coach/teammates. For the past decade it's been Lebron. ........Magic-MJ-Shaq-Kobe-Lebron. Or thereabouts.

This would probably hold true in the end.

nastynice
05-11-2016, 02:01 PM
It's still a confusing criteria, lol.

I mean, let's take curry for example, take him off the 73 win Warriors and they are probably comparable to the 53 win clippers , so a diff of about 20. Take lebron off the 57 win cavs and they'll still make the playoffs in the east meaning at LEAST 44 wins, prob more like 48 or so. Take Dame off the 44 win Blazers and they're prob comparable to the nuggets or pels, about 31 wins.

So curry probably has the biggest impact as far as what record a team ends up with. But then it's like, they go from a championship contender (maybe even favorite) to still being an outside contender expected to still make at least the 2nd round. Cavs go fromthe east favorites to probably the same as Warriors (w/o curry). Blazers go from being a 2nd rd playoff team to a lottery team.

It's still a confusing criteria

nastynice
05-11-2016, 02:04 PM
Chris Paul... Without him they are nothing IMO. If he was still in the line up it would be clippers vs Golden State right now and the series wouldn't be 3-1 for Golden State I can tell you that much.

SAS said it best... Lol... Without Chris Paul Deandre Jordan is Dikembe Mutombo!

I don't know about the rest of the post, lol, but I agree w the first sentence, Paul is HUGE for the clippers

nastynice
05-11-2016, 02:14 PM
I think it would just always go to the best player in the world, regardless of system/coach/teammates. For the past decade it's been Lebron. ........Magic-MJ-Shaq-Kobe-Lebron. Or thereabouts.

Close, but not quite. I'd say it goes to best player of THAT season. Lebron is still the best player in the league, but curry has had now 2 seasons in which he was the better player. I feel KD arguably had the best season a couple yrs back, even tho I don't think at any point in time he got to hold the title of best player in the world. Same with kg that year he took the wolves to the WCF.

mudvayne387
05-11-2016, 03:20 PM
Honestly, they need to just change the name of the award to most outstanding player. Then again, MOP doesn't have a very snazzy ring to it.

AllBall
05-11-2016, 03:29 PM
The whole "most valuable player to his team" argument is weak.

If you remove such player and the team is crap without him, that's just an indictment on the team.

It means the team has subpar balance and talent. That would be the fault of the management and coaching for constructing such a garbage team.

JWO35
05-11-2016, 03:35 PM
W/O Curry the Warriors don't get to 73 wins....so Curry still da real MVP 👏🏾

maddBat
05-11-2016, 03:52 PM
has to go to the team that beat the record for most wins in the nba. who runs it? still curry brahhh

ManRam
05-11-2016, 04:01 PM
I'd rather the criteria be "who is the best player (regardless of team success)" than anything else. That's the simplest. That way you don't get Iversons, Roses, Nashes, etc. winning because their teams seemingly overachieved and we doled all of the credit on them. Just give it to the best player. Simple enough. You don't have to think in any hypothetical or convoluted way.

I think there are other teams that would suffer more by losing their best player than the Warriors would losing Curry, but he was the best player in the NBA and by virtue his impact on any hypothetical team is going to be greater than anyone else's. If the criteria were set up to prevent a guy like him winning then the criteria is making things worse.

Scoots
05-11-2016, 05:43 PM
I'd rather the criteria be "who is the best player (regardless of team success)" than anything else. That's the simplest. That way you don't get Iversons, Roses, Nashes, etc. winning because their teams seemingly overachieved and we doled all of the credit on them. Just give it to the best player. Simple enough. You don't have to think in any hypothetical or convoluted way.

I think there are other teams that would suffer more by losing their best player than the Warriors would losing Curry, but he was the best player in the NBA and by virtue his impact on any hypothetical team is going to be greater than anyone else's. If the criteria were set up to prevent a guy like him winning then the criteria is making things worse.

Part of the issue I suppose is that even "best player" is subjective. We can't even agree on PARTS of a players game. Best player at shooting? Easy, this one pretty much agrees on now. Best player at defense? MUCH more difficult. Best player by court vision? Best player by gravity?

ManRam
05-11-2016, 07:21 PM
Part of the issue I suppose is that even "best player" is subjective. We can't even agree on PARTS of a players game. Best player at shooting? Easy, this one pretty much agrees on now. Best player at defense? MUCH more difficult. Best player by court vision? Best player by gravity?

It is subjective, but "best player" is less subjective and involves fewer hypotheticals than trying to nail down any interpretation of "most valuable". :shrug:

Scoots
05-11-2016, 11:49 PM
It is subjective, but "best player" is less subjective and involves fewer hypotheticals than trying to nail down any interpretation of "most valuable". :shrug:

How is it less subjective? Harden is clearly the best offensive SG in the NBA so he's the best player at that position right? But Klay and Butler play MUCH better D. So which is the "best player" among those three? Open it up between positions and it gets even harder because we don't have any kind of definitive objective measure of "best".

ManRam
05-12-2016, 11:53 AM
How is it less subjective? Harden is clearly the best offensive SG in the NBA so he's the best player at that position right? But Klay and Butler play MUCH better D. So which is the "best player" among those three? Open it up between positions and it gets even harder because we don't have any kind of definitive objective measure of "best".

I'm not saying we can perfectly rate players. I'm saying it's easier to do that than to add in all the silly stuff that comes into play when we get caught up on "most valuable"...or even more so with "most valuable to his team".

When you're arguing over "best player" all you have to do is compare the players directly with each other. There's less noise and no hypotheticals. Yes, perfectly evaluating players is impossible, but we're continually learning how to do that better than early periods of time.

When you start talking about "means more to his team" you have to start including more extraneous elements that have nothing to do with that individual player's individual greatness. You start worrying about teammates. Worrying about how good they'd do without said player. Compare supporting casts. So on and so forth. I'm sure everyone's mind jumps to "if you swapped Player A and Player B's team then Team A would be worse off than Team B" and hypotheticals like that. Those all add noise to the argument that I could live without.

It's the Mike Trout thing. He was losing out on MVPs because his team wasn't great. His team not being as good as others had nothing to do with him. It's much simpler to just award the best player the award and not worry about the other crap.



For your example, I don't know who the third player you're talking about, but yeah...I think James Harden is the better overall player. Klay's defense has been overrated in recent years, and Harden's impact offensively is significantly greater. The metrics probably all support this, and these metrics are solid.

And with that argument all I'm worrying about is the two players themselves...and that's why I prefer this approach to MVPs than the current and EXTREMELY vague and convoluted definition of it...or lack there of.

Scoots
05-12-2016, 01:06 PM
I'm not saying we can perfectly rate players. I'm saying it's easier to do that than to add in all the silly stuff that comes into play when we get caught up on "most valuable"...or even more so with "most valuable to his team".

When you're arguing over "best player" all you have to do is compare the players directly with each other. There's less noise and no hypotheticals. Yes, perfectly evaluating players is impossible, but we're continually learning how to do that better than early periods of time.

When you start talking about "means more to his team" you have to start including more extraneous elements that have nothing to do with that individual player's individual greatness. You start worrying about teammates. Worrying about how good they'd do without said player. Compare supporting casts. So on and so forth. I'm sure everyone's mind jumps to "if you swapped Player A and Player B's team then Team A would be worse off than Team B" and hypotheticals like that. Those all add noise to the argument that I could live without.

It's the Mike Trout thing. He was losing out on MVPs because his team wasn't great. His team not being as good as others had nothing to do with him. It's much simpler to just award the best player the award and not worry about the other crap.



For your example, I don't know who the third player you're talking about, but yeah...I think James Harden is the better overall player. Klay's defense has been overrated in recent years, and Harden's impact offensively is significantly greater. The metrics probably all support this, and these metrics are solid.

And with that argument all I'm worrying about is the two players themselves...and that's why I prefer this approach to MVPs than the current and EXTREMELY vague and convoluted definition of it...or lack there of.

Okay, I can buy that it's easier when we remove variables. The part that confused me was your "less subjective" :)

JasonJohnHorn
05-12-2016, 02:07 PM
I think Lillard would be a great selection. I think other guys would include LBJ and CP3, as I mentioned in another thread, and I think there is a case to be made for Lowry.

If you take any of those guys off those teams, they miss the playoffs. I think most people would agree about Lillard and CP3 straight off, but people may take issue with the notion that the Cavs miss the playoffs without LBJ. My reasoning is that Kyrie missed pretty much half the season, and when he came back, he wasn't playing well for about a month, and is just now hitting his stride. They would have been too far behind the gun before his return to make a comeback.

I think Lowry is pretty clear case to. You remove him, and what you got is an inefficient first option, and nobody to distribute the ball effectively to the surrounding players.

Now if you remove each of those players and replace them with a decent starter at their position, things would look decent for Toronto, but I think the other three teams still miss the playoffs.

With that said, it becomes a matter of which team is ranked the highest. Portland was only a 6th seed, so they don't really dip as much to enter the lottery as the Cavs or the Raps, or even the Clippers.

So I'd go with LBJ, then CP3. But I couldn't possibly bring myself to have Curry any lower than 3rd in my voting, because even though that is still a 50-win team, having him put them not only from a second-round knock-out, to a legendary team. Though first to fourth doesn't sound like as big a drop as first to tenth (as would likely be the case with the Cavs), a team facing second-round elimination, vs. a historic team that send the NBA's gold standard IS A huge difference.


Curry is as deserving of this award as anybody has ever been. No doubt. I do, however, feel that there should have been a few votes going in the direction of CP3 and LBJ, and you have a great point: Lillard should have gotten more votes. I think Lillard got as many as he should have. It was nice to see him on the list.

prodigy
05-14-2016, 12:57 AM
Im not a big Lebron guy but clearly he is the MVP. No player in this league can do what he does. Curry cannot carry teams like Lebron has. Lebron can dominate Scoring, Passing, Rebounds and defense. Curry can shoot a bunch of 3's. I'm not trying to hate but we gotta be real here. Take away Curry and Lebron. Which team makes the playoffs?

Bostonjorge
05-14-2016, 01:07 AM
Im not a big Lebron guy but clearly he is the MVP. No player in this league can do what he does. Curry cannot carry teams like Lebron has. Lebron can dominate Scoring, Passing, Rebounds and defense. Curry can shoot a bunch of 3's. I'm not trying to hate but we gotta be real here. Take away Curry and Lebron. Which team makes the playoffs?
You take away both and Cavs still have a shot at making it to the finals. Warriors would have a zero perecent chance of making it to the finals.

prodigy
05-14-2016, 04:39 AM
You take away both and Cavs still have a shot at making it to the finals. Warriors would have a zero perecent chance of making it to the finals.

cavs were 1-5 without Lebron...

jason
05-14-2016, 05:30 AM
Im not a big Lebron guy but clearly he is the MVP. No player in this league can do what he does. Curry cannot carry teams like Lebron has. Lebron can dominate Scoring, Passing, Rebounds and defense. Curry can shoot a bunch of 3's. I'm not trying to hate but we gotta be real here. Take away Curry and Lebron. Which team makes the playoffs?

You can say the same with Curry nobody in the league can do what be does.. 50/40/90 with 30ppg.. somebody that doesn't know what they're talking about especially when it comes to Curry is where they say all does he does is shoot 3s.. He has the passing, assists, handles, drive and efficiency.

lamzoka
05-14-2016, 09:59 AM
Most Valuable Player to the League

Scoots
05-14-2016, 01:19 PM
cavs were 1-5 without Lebron...

But that 1-5 was against top competition and the Cavs are built, because of LeBron, to be a team that doesn't work without him.

prodigy
05-15-2016, 01:45 AM
You can say the same with Curry nobody in the league can do what be does.. 50/40/90 with 30ppg.. somebody that doesn't know what they're talking about especially when it comes to Curry is where they say all does he does is shoot 3s.. He has the passing, assists, handles, drive and efficiency.

Curry is mainly a 3pt shooter nobody can deny that. when u think of Curry u think of 3's. Yes he is a very good finisher around the rim when he does drive. He can pass. he can play the passing lanes. But he does not dominate the game like LeBron. That's not debatable. Curry, JR smith, Jefferson, Love, Moz would not be a finals starting 5. sorry. Curry, Eric snow, Ira Newble, Gooden, Z would not be a finals team sorry. But they were finals teams with Lebron.

Everyone has own opinions and that's great. I respect everyone's opinion.

prodigy
05-15-2016, 01:46 AM
But that 1-5 was against top competition and the Cavs are built, because of LeBron, to be a team that doesn't work without him.

Warriors great record without Curry was in the playoffs lol

mrblisterdundee
05-15-2016, 04:24 PM
Now the NBA releases that the criteria is: the MVP is the guy who means more for his team, in other words, the Most Valuable Player to his team; who would be your MVP for this season.
Mine would be Lillard, I think you remove Lillard out of that team and they are a lottery team.

That's ironic, considering the Blazers beat the Cavs in Cleveland without Lillard. The Blazers definitely wouldn't be as good, but I also don't think they'd fall off quite as high a cliff than if LeBron James left the Cavaliers. I also think the Spurs would fall off quite a but without Kawhi Leonard.
My choice is Leonard, who provides a creaky old Spurs team with their only real elite athleticism. They'd get run out of the gym without him.

jason
05-15-2016, 05:13 PM
Curry is mainly a 3pt shooter nobody can deny that. when u think of Curry u think of 3's. Yes he is a very good finisher around the rim when he does drive. He can pass. he can play the passing lanes. But he does not dominate the game like LeBron. That's not debatable. Curry, JR smith, Jefferson, Love, Moz would not be a finals starting 5. sorry. Curry, Eric snow, Ira Newble, Gooden, Z would not be a finals team sorry. But they were finals teams with Lebron.

Everyone has own opinions and that's great. I respect everyone's opinion.

I like how you say what's not debatable.. Curry is the best player in the league now and Warriors are much better than the Cavs. That's not debatable.. See I could do that too

CHANGO
05-15-2016, 06:41 PM
That's ironic, considering the Blazers beat the Cavs in Cleveland without Lillard. The Blazers definitely wouldn't be as good, but I also don't think they'd fall off quite as high a cliff than if LeBron James left the Cavaliers. I also think the Spurs would fall off quite a but without Kawhi Leonard.
My choice is Leonard, who provides a creaky old Spurs team with their only real elite athleticism. They'd get run out of the gym without him.

That's not ironic, that's just one game where the Cavs played really bad.

You as a Blazers fan should be more aware than anyone about Lillard's value to that team.