PDA

View Full Version : Giannis wins MVP



beasted86
06-25-2019, 07:59 AM
The NBA needs to do something about the awards ceremony. It's no longer newsworthy or really talked about putting it after the season is over.

Congratulations. Youngest MVP in the last 40 years.

IndyRealist
06-25-2019, 08:30 AM
I think everyone saw this coming since December, except maybe Rockets fans.

Guy deserves it. What he can do is unreal.

More-Than-Most
06-25-2019, 09:08 AM
I think everyone saw this coming since December, except maybe Rockets fans.

Guy deserves it. What he can do is unreal.

its not hard to be great when the perfect team is built around you and covers up strictly for your weakness... Harden deserved this by quite a bit. Without him rockets are crap... without giannis bucks are a playoff team

mightybosstone
06-25-2019, 11:06 AM
I think everyone saw this coming since December, except maybe Rockets fans.

Guy deserves it. What he can do is unreal.

I saw it coming. I still don't agree with it. But the media narrative always wins out in these awards, and the media were all over Giannis from early in the season. I don't think history will look especially fondly on this one, though. Harden's numbers last year were absurd.

I know this will sound petty, but I honestly think there's an anti-Harden/anti-Rockets sentiment in the media and among fans right now that will make Harden ever winning this award again very difficult.

Edit: And for the record, I do think Giannis had a phenomenal season and would deserve the award in most years. But I find it completely ridiculous how often the media changes their minds on what they deem to be the most important factor(s) in MVP voting and how often those factors happen to align with guys who aren't James Harden. Two years ago, it was Westbrook's numbers, and nobody cared that the Thunder won 47 games and were a 6 seed. This despite the fact that Harden's numbers were clearly better, and the Rockets won eight more games than OKC.

This season, Harden puts up even more absurd numbers, and the Rockets win 53 games, but everyone goes with the guy on the better team (despite playing a much, much easier schedule in an easier conference).

Bottom line, I think we're going to continue to see Harden put up video game numbers, and the media continue to find different criteria to judge the award on that conveniently happen to favor a player other than James. He and the Rockets will have to have another season like they had in 2017-18 for him to have a chance at the award again.

NYKnickFanatic
06-25-2019, 11:53 AM
Agreed that they need to do something about the awards. For me personally, there was no excitement at all.

kobebabe
06-25-2019, 12:41 PM
I agree the timing is way off. No one is quite as interested anymore with basketball after finals. This time of the year is all about free agency. They gotta do it just before playoffs because it’s an all season awards ceremony with finals not included. So it only make sense to time it that way.

Giannis deserved the award much like Harden but I do think Harden’s style of play has to do with why he didn’t win imho.

beasted86
06-25-2019, 01:20 PM
Sorry meant to write 3rd youngest MVP.

Lakers + Giants
06-25-2019, 01:41 PM
I saw it coming. I still don't agree with it. But the media narrative always wins out in these awards, and the media were all over Giannis from early in the season. I don't think history will look especially fondly on this one, though. Harden's numbers last year were absurd.

I know this will sound petty, but I honestly think there's an anti-Harden/anti-Rockets sentiment in the media and among fans right now that will make Harden ever winning this award again very difficult.

Edit: And for the record, I do think Giannis had a phenomenal season and would deserve the award in most years. But I find it completely ridiculous how often the media changes their minds on what they deem to be the most important factor(s) in MVP voting and how often those factors happen to align with guys who aren't James Harden. Two years ago, it was Westbrook's numbers, and nobody cared that the Thunder won 47 games and were a 6 seed. This despite the fact that Harden's numbers were clearly better, and the Rockets won eight more games than OKC.

This season, Harden puts up even more absurd numbers, and the Rockets win 53 games, but everyone goes with the guy on the better team (despite playing a much, much easier schedule in an easier conference).

Bottom line, I think we're going to continue to see Harden put up video game numbers, and the media continue to find different criteria to judge the award on that conveniently happen to favor a player other than James. He and the Rockets will have to have another season like they had in 2017-18 for him to have a chance at the award again.

We felt the same way about Kobe like 2x

GREATNESS ONE
06-25-2019, 01:59 PM
We felt the same way about Kobe like 2x

:nod:

nastynice
06-25-2019, 02:07 PM
I saw it coming. I still don't agree with it. But the media narrative always wins out in these awards, and the media were all over Giannis from early in the season. I don't think history will look especially fondly on this one, though. Harden's numbers last year were absurd.

I know this will sound petty, but I honestly think there's an anti-Harden/anti-Rockets sentiment in the media and among fans right now that will make Harden ever winning this award again very difficult.

Edit: And for the record, I do think Giannis had a phenomenal season and would deserve the award in most years. But I find it completely ridiculous how often the media changes their minds on what they deem to be the most important factor(s) in MVP voting and how often those factors happen to align with guys who aren't James Harden. Two years ago, it was Westbrook's numbers, and nobody cared that the Thunder won 47 games and were a 6 seed. This despite the fact that Harden's numbers were clearly better, and the Rockets won eight more games than OKC.

This season, Harden puts up even more absurd numbers, and the Rockets win 53 games, but everyone goes with the guy on the better team (despite playing a much, much easier schedule in an easier conference).

Bottom line, I think we're going to continue to see Harden put up video game numbers, and the media continue to find different criteria to judge the award on that conveniently happen to favor a player other than James. He and the Rockets will have to have another season like they had in 2017-18 for him to have a chance at the award again.

Yea, there's a bias against him, I think it's because if his playing style and how he draws fouls.people just don't like watching that.

He's always a top contender and he also won.i wouldn't say he got robbed any given year.just missed out close races.

Curry and the dynasty and 73 wins, Westbrook's triple double, Giannis a new breed of unstoppable.

I wouldn't say he ever got robbed. Just lost out tight races

nastynice
06-25-2019, 02:08 PM
We felt the same way about Kobe like 2x

Media bias against kobe??

crewfan13
06-25-2019, 02:56 PM
I saw it coming. I still don't agree with it. But the media narrative always wins out in these awards, and the media were all over Giannis from early in the season. I don't think history will look especially fondly on this one, though. Harden's numbers last year were absurd.

I know this will sound petty, but I honestly think there's an anti-Harden/anti-Rockets sentiment in the media and among fans right now that will make Harden ever winning this award again very difficult.

Edit: And for the record, I do think Giannis had a phenomenal season and would deserve the award in most years. But I find it completely ridiculous how often the media changes their minds on what they deem to be the most important factor(s) in MVP voting and how often those factors happen to align with guys who aren't James Harden. Two years ago, it was Westbrook's numbers, and nobody cared that the Thunder won 47 games and were a 6 seed. This despite the fact that Harden's numbers were clearly better, and the Rockets won eight more games than OKC.

This season, Harden puts up even more absurd numbers, and the Rockets win 53 games, but everyone goes with the guy on the better team (despite playing a much, much easier schedule in an easier conference).

Bottom line, I think we're going to continue to see Harden put up video game numbers, and the media continue to find different criteria to judge the award on that conveniently happen to favor a player other than James. He and the Rockets will have to have another season like they had in 2017-18 for him to have a chance at the award again.

There's never a set criteria. But outside of Westbrook year, every mvp since 2000 I think (maybe there's 1 other) has come from a team that finished top 2 in their conference.

And before you cry moving goalposts on Westbrook, he hit basically what was considered at the time the statistical holy grail for season long stat lines when he averaged a triple double.

So really, if you were building criteria, take the top 2 teams in each conference and pick the guy who had the best year. That guy almost always wins. That's pretty much what happened this year. If Houston was a top 2 team, it would have made for an interesting arguement, but I don't see this voting as moving the goalposts to not vote harden, it's pretty much par for the course for the last 20 years.

mightybosstone
06-25-2019, 03:29 PM
Yea, there's a bias against him, I think it's because if his playing style and how he draws fouls.people just don't like watching that.

He's always a top contender and he also won.i wouldn't say he got robbed any given year.just missed out close races.

Curry and the dynasty and 73 wins, Westbrook's triple double, Giannis a new breed of unstoppable.

I wouldn't say he ever got robbed. Just lost out tight races
Despite Harden having a good case the year Curry won it, I don't actually think James deserved it that year. Curry was legitimately better. But James absolutely deserved to win it against Westbrook and that garbage Thunder team two years ago with his overrated triple double numbers. And Harden deserved to win it this season.

If you took Harden's name off his statistical box score and threw out those numbers (both advanced and basic) out there, people who would have gone ******* over them. If Lebron had done what Harden did this season, and the Lakers had won 53 games in the West and earned a top 4 seed, I have zero doubt in my mind that Lebron wins the MVP this season.


There's never a set criteria. But outside of Westbrook year, every mvp since 2000 I think (maybe there's 1 other) has come from a team that finished top 2 in their conference.
So then you agree with me that the media conveniently changed their criteria for Westbrook then?


And before you cry moving goalposts on Westbrook, he hit basically what was considered at the time the statistical holy grail for season long stat lines when he averaged a triple double.
Yes, but should it have been the holy grail? The stats were ultimately empty stats, and oohing and ahhing over his triple double completely ignored what Harden did—which was put up clearly superior statistics with vastly superior scoring efficiency on an obviously superior basketball team.

The triple double thing was fool's gold. People who voted for him because of that were idiots.


So really, if you were building criteria, take the top 2 teams in each conference and pick the guy who had the best year. That guy almost always wins. That's pretty much what happened this year. If Houston was a top 2 team, it would have made for an interesting arguement, but I don't see this voting as moving the goalposts to not vote harden, it's pretty much par for the course for the last 20 years.
The Rockets literally finished one bad quarter away from getting the 2 seed in the West. If they beat OKC and the Thunder don't have that absurdly lucky end to that last game of the season, the Rockets would have finished 2nd, and it still wouldn't have mattered. It didn't matter that Harden was topping 50+ points every other week or that he pulled them from the bottom of the conference to middle of the playoff pack early in season when Paul went down and it looked like their season was over.

Harden had a much, much, much tougher job to do this season. He put up absurd, historical numbers that topped Giannis' in most statistical categories. And he still lost to Giannis because Giannis was a much easier pick for the media and fans to swallow.

Vee-Rex
06-25-2019, 03:52 PM
I liked Giannis's stats better than Harden's, but that's just my opinion.

Lakers + Giants
06-25-2019, 05:00 PM
Media bias against kobe??

Kobe wasn't liked by the media. He was a dick, and hated after the Colorado incident up until he became a team player once Pau joined.

mightybosstone
06-25-2019, 06:04 PM
I liked Giannis's stats better than Harden's, but that's just my opinion.

Giannis was a more efficient scorer, but at a far lesser usage rate and with far fewer FGA. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue Giannis had a superior offensive season. He obviously rebounds and blocks shots at a higher rate, but consider he's got half a foot on Harden and a far longer wingspan, I'm not sure those stats are really fair to compare.

I mean, yeah, his PER and WS/48 are higher. But he's asked to do far, far less than Harden was this season. I mean, the guy scored 36 points per game with a 62% TS%. That's absurd. In Jordan's two 35+ PPG seasons, he wasn't that efficient. Kobe's 35-point season in '06 was one of his more efficient seasons of his career, and he was a full 6 percentage points below Harden's number.

I'm not saying Giannis' numbers aren't impressive. They're out of this world. But the level of scoring Harden achieved this season is something we haven't seen in three decades, and it's not something we've seen at this level of volume and efficiency since Wilt.

SiteWolf
06-25-2019, 07:40 PM
its not hard to be great when the perfect team is built around you and covers up strictly for your weakness... Harden deserved this by quite a bit. Without him rockets are crap... without giannis bucks are a playoff team

and you typed that with a straight face?

crewfan13
06-25-2019, 07:58 PM
Giannis was a more efficient scorer, but at a far lesser usage rate and with far fewer FGA. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue Giannis had a superior offensive season. He obviously rebounds and blocks shots at a higher rate, but consider he's got half a foot on Harden and a far longer wingspan, I'm not sure those stats are really fair to compare.

I mean, yeah, his PER and WS/48 are higher. But he's asked to do far, far less than Harden was this season. I mean, the guy scored 36 points per game with a 62% TS%. That's absurd. In Jordan's two 35+ PPG seasons, he wasn't that efficient. Kobe's 35-point season in '06 was one of his more efficient seasons of his career, and he was a full 6 percentage points below Harden's number.

I'm not saying Giannis' numbers aren't impressive. They're out of this world. But the level of scoring Harden achieved this season is something we haven't seen in three decades, and it's not something we've seen at this level of volume and efficiency since Wilt.

I love that you conveniently dismiss the stuff giannis does better. Sure, he actually plays defense and rebounds and stuff. But that stuff shouldnt matter because my candidate doesn't do that stuff. Sure, harden was wildly efficient in taking absurd numbers of shots. But he also lead the nba in turnovers, which is why some of the other efficiency numbers, like per, favor giannis. That and defense and rebounding and all that.

Giannis put up incredible offensive numbers while legitimately being a defensive player of the year candidate. He also pulled his team up from 7th in a weak east to the best record in basketball in a stronger east and their only additions were brook lopez, who no one wanted and half a season of george Hill.

This isn't an offensive player of the year award. Giannis and harden were relatively close statistically and giannis was on the better team. That's essentially the formula for the mvp voting.

crewfan13
06-25-2019, 08:20 PM
and you typed that with a straight face?

He says this stuff all the time. The way he talks, he must think the bucks supporting cast around giannis is full of all nba players.

And to act like giannis is the only player in the nba that has good fit guys around him is insane. The exact other player in the discussion is allowed to run an offense where he pounds the ball all day and accounts for insane amounts of each possession.

c.c.
06-25-2019, 09:28 PM
Hold up, didn’t Westbrook average a triple double again? Why he didn’t win mvp this year since it was so amazing a couple of season ago.

D-Leethal
06-25-2019, 09:39 PM
MVP that can't even get a shot off against a set half court defense.

SiteWolf
06-25-2019, 10:19 PM
He says this stuff all the time. The way he talks, he must think the bucks supporting cast around giannis is full of all nba players.

And to act like giannis is the only player in the nba that has good fit guys around him is insane. The exact other player in the discussion is allowed to run an offense where he pounds the ball all day and accounts for insane amounts of each possession.

not to mention being worse on defense than I am...and I haven't played in 20 years

crewfan13
06-25-2019, 10:20 PM
Hold up, didn’t Westbrook average a triple double again? Why he didn’t win mvp this year since it was so amazing a couple of season ago.

Don't be obtuse, but I realize this is psd so that's impossible. Averaging a triple double was a major statistical oddity that at the time when Westbrook first did it was viewed as nearly impossible. It hadn't been done in 50 years. After Westbrook normalized it, we started to look at what the impact of it was. But anyone complaining about that now is just a diehard harden fan or intentionally being obtuse.

crewfan13
06-25-2019, 10:28 PM
Giannis was a more efficient scorer, but at a far lesser usage rate and with far fewer FGA. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue Giannis had a superior offensive season. He obviously rebounds and blocks shots at a higher rate, but consider he's got half a foot on Harden and a far longer wingspan, I'm not sure those stats are really fair to compare.

I mean, yeah, his PER and WS/48 are higher. But he's asked to do far, far less than Harden was this season. I mean, the guy scored 36 points per game with a 62% TS%. That's absurd. In Jordan's two 35+ PPG seasons, he wasn't that efficient. Kobe's 35-point season in '06 was one of his more efficient seasons of his career, and he was a full 6 percentage points below Harden's number.

I'm not saying Giannis' numbers aren't impressive. They're out of this world. But the level of scoring Harden achieved this season is something we haven't seen in three decades, and it's not something we've seen at this level of volume and efficiency since Wilt.

Also, in the 2nd season that Jordan averaged over 35, he had a higher win share, win share per 48 and made the all defensive team. The first time harden had a higher per but Jordan won on win shares and win shares per 48.

Again, no one is refuting that harden had a legendary offensive season. But this isn't strictly an offensive award. If another player has a very good offensive year while also being a legit defensive player of the year candidate, that person absolutely deserves to be in the conversation.

mightybosstone
06-26-2019, 10:55 AM
First off, why did you respond to the same post twice? :confused:


I love that you conveniently dismiss the stuff giannis does better. Sure, he actually plays defense and rebounds and stuff. But that stuff shouldnt matter because my candidate doesn't do that stuff.
I'm not going to get into an argument about Harden's defense, because I've been in too many of those on PSD, and I know how that will end. The guy's not a terrible defender, and there are a number of stats that back that up. As someone who watches 60-70 Rockets games a year, plus the playoffs, I think I've got a better sample size of his defense as well than the average fan who watches "highlights" of a few blown assignments or poor transition defense, which is what 90%+ of fans do in that argument.

Is he Giannis as a defender? Not remotely. But the guy's average or close to average overall (decent man defender, bad transition defender, great post defender).


Sure, harden was wildly efficient in taking absurd numbers of shots. But he also lead the nba in turnovers, which is why some of the other efficiency numbers, like per, favor giannis. That and defense and rebounding and all that.

Here's a fun stat: Which player boasted the higher TO% last season?
Harden: 14.5%
Giannis: 14.8%

So while Harden might have more turnovers, Giannis turned the ball over more frequently with the ball in his hands.


Giannis put up incredible offensive numbers while legitimately being a defensive player of the year candidate. He also pulled his team up from 7th in a weak east to the best record in basketball in a stronger east and their only additions were brook lopez, who no one wanted and half a season of george Hill.
And the Rockets won 53 games in a vastly more talented, challenging conference despite starting 11-14 and missing Paul, Capela and Gordon a combined 53 games. They each have their own narratives.


This isn't an offensive player of the year award. Giannis and harden were relatively close statistically and giannis was on the better team. That's essentially the formula for the mvp voting.
Again, my problem isn't with that line of thinking. My problem is that the voters don't consistently stick with that line of thinking. Two years ago, they completely ignored that argument with Harden and Westbrook. Now they conveniently went back to it again. I don't think that's by coincidence.


Also, in the 2nd season that Jordan averaged over 35, he had a higher win share, win share per 48 and made the all defensive team. The first time harden had a higher per but Jordan won on win shares and win shares per 48.
Primarily because of his defensive prowess and fewer turnovers. But I'm not trying to argue that Harden was a better all-around player than Jordan. That would be COMPLETELY absurd. Not the biggest Rockets homer would attempt to make that argument.

My argument is that Harden's season was arguably the single most dominant offensive performance in over 30 years, and you could make a case it was the single greatest since Wilt in the 60s.


Again, no one is refuting that harden had a legendary offensive season. But this isn't strictly an offensive award. If another player has a very good offensive year while also being a legit defensive player of the year candidate, that person absolutely deserves to be in the conversation.
Look, I'm not trying to say Giannis isn't deserving. Dude had a phenomenal year, and I can understand the reasoning for why voters would gravitate toward them. I also think that if you attach Harden's numbers this season and overall narrative to almost any other player in the league, that player would almost certainly have been the MVP.

The media just generally doesn't like Harden and the Rockets. I think it's fairly obvious at this point, and I think most objective fans (even those outside of Houston) would probably agree with that sentiment. And unless the guy has a stellar season AND the Rockets have an outrageous year AND he's got far and away the best numbers in the league, he's just not going to win the award again. Call it voter fatigue or media bias or whatever you want, but they just don't want to vote for the guy...

Jamiecballer
06-26-2019, 11:05 AM
Giannis was a more efficient scorer, but at a far lesser usage rate and with far fewer FGA. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue Giannis had a superior offensive season. He obviously rebounds and blocks shots at a higher rate, but consider he's got half a foot on Harden and a far longer wingspan, I'm not sure those stats are really fair to compare.

I mean, yeah, his PER and WS/48 are higher. But he's asked to do far, far less than Harden was this season. I mean, the guy scored 36 points per game with a 62% TS%. That's absurd. In Jordan's two 35+ PPG seasons, he wasn't that efficient. Kobe's 35-point season in '06 was one of his more efficient seasons of his career, and he was a full 6 percentage points below Harden's number.

I'm not saying Giannis' numbers aren't impressive. They're out of this world. But the level of scoring Harden achieved this season is something we haven't seen in three decades, and it's not something we've seen at this level of volume and efficiency since Wilt.His numbers bear a fairly striking resemblance to Steph's numbers in the finals this year so I can see why Giannis got more support. Watching guys take a ton of shots, and make a solid but not great much less spectacular percent of them just doesnt excite voters like it once did.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
06-26-2019, 11:07 AM
and you typed that with a straight face?I find his description was equally applicable to both sides - minus the making the playoffs part at the end. I think that part is ridiculous.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
06-26-2019, 12:04 PM
His numbers bear a fairly striking resemblance to Steph's numbers in the finals this year so I can see why Giannis got more support. Watching guys take a ton of shots, and make a solid but not great much less spectacular percent of them just doesnt excite voters like it once did.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Huh? Who are you talking about? Steph's finals numbers aren't remotely close to Harden's numbers:

Harden: 36/8/7/2 on 44/37/88 shooting percentages
Curry's finals: 31/6/5 on 41/34/95 shooting percentages

What's "strikingly" similar about those?

beasted86
06-26-2019, 01:24 PM
I saw it coming. I still don't agree with it. But the media narrative always wins out in these awards, and the media were all over Giannis from early in the season. I don't think history will look especially fondly on this one, though. Harden's numbers last year were absurd.

I know this will sound petty, but I honestly think there's an anti-Harden/anti-Rockets sentiment in the media and among fans right now that will make Harden ever winning this award again very difficult.

Edit: And for the record, I do think Giannis had a phenomenal season and would deserve the award in most years. But I find it completely ridiculous how often the media changes their minds on what they deem to be the most important factor(s) in MVP voting and how often those factors happen to align with guys who aren't James Harden. Two years ago, it was Westbrook's numbers, and nobody cared that the Thunder won 47 games and were a 6 seed. This despite the fact that Harden's numbers were clearly better, and the Rockets won eight more games than OKC.

This season, Harden puts up even more absurd numbers, and the Rockets win 53 games, but everyone goes with the guy on the better team (despite playing a much, much easier schedule in an easier conference).

Bottom line, I think we're going to continue to see Harden put up video game numbers, and the media continue to find different criteria to judge the award on that conveniently happen to favor a player other than James. He and the Rockets will have to have another season like they had in 2017-18 for him to have a chance at the award again.


On a scale of 1-10 if Harden just had a perfect 10 offensive season, what was Giannis' rating for offensive impact? 7?8?

Now do the same thing for defensive impact for both players. Add the two numbers together and let's discuss who has the higher score and why.

mightybosstone
06-26-2019, 01:33 PM
On a scale of 1-10 if Harden just had a perfect 10 offensive season, what was Giannis' rating for offensive impact? 7?8?

Now do the same thing for defensive impact for both players. Add the two numbers together and let's discuss who has the higher score and why.

You can't judge players that way. Nobody does. If they did, they'd be idiots. Offensive impact > defensive impact 9 times out of 10, especially with guards and perimeter players. If we were talking centers, maybe I'd feel differently, but we're not.

For example, let's take a defensive specialist with a well-rounded offensive game like Andre Iguodala and compare him with an offensive monster in his peak in Steve Nash.

Nash: 9 (offense) + 3 (defense) = 12
Iguodala: 6 (offense) + 8 (defense) = 14

Do you think Iggy was a better player historically than Nash? Did Iggy make more money than Nash in his career? If you were starting a team tomorrow and you had to pick one of these guys to build a contender around, would you pick Iggy over Nash? No, no and no. And if you'd answer "yes" to any of those questions, I'd have serious doubts about your competency as an NBA fan.

There's a reason why guys who put up 20+ points a game every night make way more money than elite perimeter defenders.

tredigs
06-26-2019, 01:58 PM
Giannis was clearly the MVP. He edged Curry for the season lead in PIPM while also falling #1 in WS/48 and PER as a top 5 offensive player in the league and a top 3 defensive player in the league. His team vastly outperformed expectations and landed as the NBA 1 seed (the Rockets net difference with Harden on/off being +4.5, the Bucks being a +9.7 with Giannis on rather than off).

Despite Harden owning the narrative during his PPG streak and seemingly 100% of the national sports media TV time, Giannis never gave an inch all season. And as both arguably the best player for the best team, he was the clear MVP. That's why the vote wasn't close.

In the Harden/Westbrook season A) neither team was a top 2 seed so that narrative was out (Harden's squad being far, far better mind you) and B) it was a tight race all year with Westbrook not just having the first triple-double since O (something that was a massive/crazy narrative at the time), but he was legitimately excellent that year. He led the league in PPG, PER (obviously not my favorite but the most widely used advanced stat of the time), BPM and VORP as well ahead of Harden in RPM (tho' neither were particularly impressive at 9 and 13, and neither were the actual best player). With the race being close and it coming down to the final 10 days or so, Westbrook stepped up and had massive performances (the the cherry being a 50 point triple-double that included a game winning 3 at the buzzer) while Harden did not. Westbrook earned that MVP.

Pathetic display by the Rockets on social media to tweet out their displeasure with the vote after Giannis won and gave that MVP speech by the way. Talk about a blinding lack of awareness and just begging to be hated.

beasted86
06-26-2019, 02:00 PM
You can't judge players that way. Nobody does. If they did, they'd be idiots. Offensive impact > defensive impact 9 times out of 10, especially with guards and perimeter players. If we were talking centers, maybe I'd feel differently, but we're not.

For example, let's take a defensive specialist with a well-rounded offensive game like Andre Iguodala and compare him with an offensive monster in his peak in Steve Nash.

Nash: 9 (offense) + 3 (defense) = 12
Iguodala: 6 (offense) + 8 (defense) = 14

Do you think Iggy was a better player historically than Nash? Did Iggy make more money than Nash in his career? If you were starting a team tomorrow and you had to pick one of these guys to build a contender around, would you pick Iggy over Nash? No, no and no. And if you'd answer "yes" to any of those questions, I'd have serious doubts about your competency as an NBA fan.

There's a reason why guys who put up 20+ points a game every night make way more money than elite perimeter defenders.

Without even looking it up I'm sure Igoudala never even finished top 3 for DPOY and may not even have a 1st team selection. He was constantly cooked by Dwayne Wade over the years of Iggy's prime having all time games against him. I always felt he was overrated. That was a horrible comparison, and a poor analysis of offensive impact. Nash at prime was a 10. The engine that made his offense go. Iggy at his prime was a rich man's Justise Winslow. He was the Philly Evan Turner before Evan Turner, putting up empty stats.

Giannis was the catalyst behind Milwaukee being the number 1 defense. I honestly don't consider any of the other players above average defensively except Bledsoe. Middleton has slipped a lot after his injury a few years ago and is just average.

You're right offense is always more important than defense, but being that Harden is a lazy bum on defense, and the other was 2nd for DPOY it counts for something.

mightybosstone
06-26-2019, 02:24 PM
Without even looking it up I'm sure Igoudala never even finished top 3 for DPOY and may not even have a 1st team selection. He was constantly cooked by Dwayne Wade over the years of Iggy's prime having all time games against him.
He actually was all-defensive twice. Also, perimeter players very, very rarely ever win defensive player of the year, especially role players. The award is almost always given to a center or a defensive-minded star player. There's a reason why Kobe was making all-defensive teams years after he was a great defensive player.


I always felt he was overrated. That was a horrible comparison, and a poor analysis of offensive impact. Nash at prime was a 10. The engine that made his offense go. Iggy at his prime was a rich man's Justise Winslow. He was the Philly Evan Turner before Evan Turner, putting up empty stats.
First off, that's "Philly Evan Turner" might be the worst description of Andre Iguodala's game I've ever heard. Dude was the best player on some Philly teams that made the playoffs a number of years as well as that super well-rounded Denver team from a few years back. Evan Turner is the best nothing...

Secondly, you're COMPLETELY missing my point. Swap out Iggy with whatever defensive specialist you want. How about Tony Allen or Bruce Bowen? It doesn't matter. Take a perimeter player who is a 10 on defense and a minus on offense and compare him to a perimeter player who is a 10 on offense but similarly terrible on defense. Who's the more valuable guy? It's unquestionably the offensive player.

(Side note, but notice I also gave Iggy an 8, not a 10. That seems more than fair for a guy who went all-defensive twice.)


Giannis was the catalyst behind Milwaukee being the number 1 defense. I honestly don't consider any of the other players above average defensively except Bledsoe. Middleton has slipped a lot after his injury a few years ago and is just average.
I think you're underrating the quality of the defenders around him. You already admitted Bledsoe and Middleton are above average, but I'd consider Brogdon and Lopez above average as well. That's a damn good defensive starting five you're underrating.


You're right offense is always more important than defense, but being that Harden is a lazy bum on defense, and the other was 2nd for DPOY it counts for something.
Again, I'm not going to get into a discussion on his defense, because the casual fan doesn't have a freaking clue what they're talking about on that end. They watch the occasional highlight of poor transition D and proceed to tell me (who watches more Rockets basketball in a season than they have in their entire lives) why he's a terrible defender.

tredigs
06-26-2019, 02:33 PM
Don't be obtuse, but I realize this is psd so that's impossible. Averaging a triple double was a major statistical oddity that at the time when Westbrook first did it was viewed as nearly impossible. It hadn't been done in 50 years. After Westbrook normalized it, we started to look at what the impact of it was. But anyone complaining about that now is just a diehard harden fan or intentionally being obtuse.

Well, that and his Triple-Double MVP season was SIGNIFICANTLY better than the past 2, particularly this season.

Jamiecballer
06-26-2019, 03:34 PM
Huh? Who are you talking about? Steph's finals numbers aren't remotely close to Harden's numbers:

Harden: 36/8/7/2 on 44/37/88 shooting percentages
Curry's finals: 31/6/5 on 41/34/95 shooting percentages

What's "strikingly" similar about those?It shouldn't require explanation since I did in the original post, but also right down to being buoyed by free throws of almost 10 per

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
06-26-2019, 04:00 PM
It shouldn't require explanation since I did in the original post, but also right down to being buoyed by free throws of almost 10 per

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Yeah, I see that argument a lot, too. Here's a fun stat. Between Harden and Giannis, one of them averages 10.5 FTA per 36 minutes and the other averages 10.8. Which one is which is irrelevant, but clearly Giannis is getting to the free throw line at a nearly identical clip as Harden. The only difference is Harden actually shoots an elite percentage from the line.

And in terms of your "original post," I have no clue what you're referring to. So, yeah, I do think you should have to defend yourself when you compare Harden's numbers to Steph's inefficient, mediocre finals numbers.

beasted86
06-26-2019, 04:21 PM
He actually was all-defensive twice. Also, perimeter players very, very rarely ever win defensive player of the year, especially role players. The award is almost always given to a center or a defensive-minded star player. There's a reason why Kobe was making all-defensive teams years after he was a great defensive player.


First off, that's "Philly Evan Turner" might be the worst description of Andre Iguodala's game I've ever heard. Dude was the best player on some Philly teams that made the playoffs a number of years as well as that super well-rounded Denver team from a few years back. Evan Turner is the best nothing...

Secondly, you're COMPLETELY missing my point. Swap out Iggy with whatever defensive specialist you want. How about Tony Allen or Bruce Bowen? It doesn't matter. Take a perimeter player who is a 10 on defense and a minus on offense and compare him to a perimeter player who is a 10 on offense but similarly terrible on defense. Who's the more valuable guy? It's unquestionably the offensive player.

(Side note, but notice I also gave Iggy an 8, not a 10. That seems more than fair for a guy who went all-defensive twice.)


I think you're underrating the quality of the defenders around him. You already admitted Bledsoe and Middleton are above average, but I'd consider Brogdon and Lopez above average as well. That's a damn good defensive starting five you're underrating.


Again, I'm not going to get into a discussion on his defense, because the casual fan doesn't have a freaking clue what they're talking about on that end. They watch the occasional highlight of poor transition D and proceed to tell me (who watches more Rockets basketball in a season than they have in their entire lives) why he's a terrible defender.

Harden spends at least 5 possessions complaining while the opponent is running in transition. He spends another 5 possessions on the ground because he tried to flop and is selling that he's in pain/injured. Then for the times he's in actual defensive position he's horrible defending cuts or off ball movement and I've never in my life seem Harden do a proper cross court close out to another teammates opponent to contest a wide open corner 3. He's lazy.

Because he plays strong in the post and against bigger opponents and has good hands does not make him any more than a terrible defender. Keep drinking your homer Kool-Aid or pointing to arbitrary metrics to try and make a point otherwise. Harden is "hidden" on defense and he still does a craptastic job.

Chronz
06-26-2019, 05:15 PM
its not hard to be great when the perfect team is built around you and covers up strictly for your weakness... Harden deserved this by quite a bit. Without him rockets are crap... without giannis bucks are a playoff team

Not sold on any of this and aren't you the guy blaming Embiids struggles on his teammates? This roster aint even talented and falls apart without the MVP.

mightybosstone
06-26-2019, 05:19 PM
Harden spends at least 5 possessions complaining while the opponent is running in transition. He spends another 5 possessions on the ground because he tried to flop and is selling that he's in pain/injured. Then for the times he's in actual defensive position he's horrible defending cuts or off ball movement and I've never in my life seem Harden do a proper cross court close out to another teammates opponent to contest a wide open corner 3. He's lazy.

Because he plays strong in the post and against bigger opponents and has good hands does not make him any more than a terrible defender. Keep drinking your homer Kool-Aid or pointing to arbitrary metrics to try and make a point otherwise. Harden is "hidden" on defense and he still does a craptastic job.
Again, I'm not going to get into this with you, because I don't enjoy slamming my head against brick walls and I know where this conversation is going. If you think James Harden is a garbage defender, there's nothing I can say, no data I can produce and no article I can site that is going to convince you otherwise.

I acknowledge that he's a terrible transition defender, that he's not great at helping and that he takes the occasional possession off (which happens when you're scoring 36 freaking points per game!). But when it comes to on-ball defense, contesting shots in isolation, switching on larger players and playing the passing the lanes, the dude is pretty damn good and can be a useful player on that end fo the floor.

Based on your overly simplistic view of player values, I'd give him a 4-5 on defense. That's all I'm going to say about that, but please continue to rant about all his flopping and the many highlights you see of him getting torched in transition that justifies your opinion that he's one of the worst defenders in the league. I don't care to continue that debate.

Chronz
06-26-2019, 05:20 PM
The award isn't that close tbh, I think there have been far closer races and definitely bigger "screw jobs"

mightybosstone
06-26-2019, 05:24 PM
The award isn't that close tbh, I think there have been far closer races and definitely bigger "screw jobs"

I don't think it's a screw job, not in the same way that Derrick Rose winning over Lebron was, for example. I'd say it was close to a coin flip (with Harden probably deserving it slightly more) that was heavily voted a particular way due in large part to a little media bias.

Like I said, I don't think history will look that fondly upon this vote. But it's still probably not going to crack the top 10 of worst MVP votes ever. There have been a LOT of bad MVP awards given over the history of the award.

Chronz
06-26-2019, 05:54 PM
I don't think it's a screw job, not in the same way that Derrick Rose winning over Lebron was, for example. I'd say it was close to a coin flip (with Harden probably deserving it slightly more) that was heavily voted a particular way due in large part to a little media bias.

Like I said, I don't think history will look that fondly upon this vote. But it's still probably not going to crack the top 10 of worst MVP votes ever. There have been a LOT of bad MVP awards given over the history of the award.

I'd say D-Rose won it over Dwight that year but thats me. This year we took the games most productive 2-way player who happened to spearhead the leagues best team in the RS. Its pretty consistent historically IMO.

Jamiecballer
06-26-2019, 07:01 PM
Huh? Who are you talking about? Steph's finals numbers aren't remotely close to Harden's numbers:

Harden: 36/8/7/2 on 44/37/88 shooting percentages
Curry's finals: 31/6/5 on 41/34/95 shooting percentages

What's "strikingly" similar about those?You dont see a similar offensive profile here

Fga - 24.5/21.3
Fg% - .414/.442
3pa - 13.2/11.2
3pt% - .368/.343
Ast - 7.5/6.0
FT - 11/9.5

Hardens may be better but the huge fga per game with enormous 3pt attempts and plenty of free throws are quite similar. A season like this imo runs away with the award 15 years ago.



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

JAZZNC
06-26-2019, 07:22 PM
You can't judge players that way. Nobody does. If they did, they'd be idiots. Offensive impact > defensive impact 9 times out of 10, especially with guards and perimeter players. If we were talking centers, maybe I'd feel differently, but we're not.

For example, let's take a defensive specialist with a well-rounded offensive game like Andre Iguodala and compare him with an offensive monster in his peak in Steve Nash.

Nash: 9 (offense) + 3 (defense) = 12
Iguodala: 6 (offense) + 8 (defense) = 14

Do you think Iggy was a better player historically than Nash? Did Iggy make more money than Nash in his career? If you were starting a team tomorrow and you had to pick one of these guys to build a contender around, would you pick Iggy over Nash? No, no and no. And if you'd answer "yes" to any of those questions, I'd have serious doubts about your competency as an NBA fan.

There's a reason why guys who put up 20+ points a game every night make way more money than elite perimeter defenders.

But that's a complete garbage comparison. I mean you just discussed a guy who was a fringe type All-Star or a super 6 man to a 2 time MVP in his prime. We are talking about 2 ELITE scorers one of which also happens to be a DPOY candidate while the other is basically a sieve. That absolutely matters and it matters a lot. We aren't talking about a guy with a "well rounded offensive game" we are talking about a wing who just scored the most points in the paint since Shaq, that is ridiculous and if we have to discredit Giannis for rebounds and blocks because he's taller shouldn't Harden get discounted in the assist department?

I dunno, I can see it being reasonably close this year but Giannis anchored the best regular season team as the best offensive and defensive player on the team. He should have been the MVP this season. It does suck because there are always going to be deserving people who get left out when there is only one winner. And Harden won last year so...

More-Than-Most
06-26-2019, 10:24 PM
Not sold on any of this and aren't you the guy blaming Embiids struggles on his teammates? This roster aint even talented and falls apart without the MVP.

yup but i am the one that has jokic ahead of embiid even with having to cover up for ben... embiid is forced outside because of bens lack of shooting but he still needs to be smarter... let me ask you this... who do you think wins more games without their top player... bucks or sixers? giannis had a better season than joel by the numbers but there isnt a person on this planet that should believe giannis is more important to the bucks then joel is to the sixers... if embiid isnt there we stink. The best player is normally the most valuable and giannis is the best player but he is the best player because they covered up for his 1 glaring weakness. Amazing season but i feel like the rockets rely way more on harden and what he does for them in the regular season with his lack of help is nuts.

crewfan13
06-27-2019, 12:15 AM
First off, why did you respond to the same post twice? :confused:


I'm not going to get into an argument about Harden's defense, because I've been in too many of those on PSD, and I know how that will end. The guy's not a terrible defender, and there are a number of stats that back that up. As someone who watches 60-70 Rockets games a year, plus the playoffs, I think I've got a better sample size of his defense as well than the average fan who watches "highlights" of a few blown assignments or poor transition defense, which is what 90%+ of fans do in that argument.

Is he Giannis as a defender? Not remotely. But the guy's average or close to average overall (decent man defender, bad transition defender, great post defender).


Here's a fun stat: Which player boasted the higher TO% last season?
Harden: 14.5%
Giannis: 14.8%

So while Harden might have more turnovers, Giannis turned the ball over more frequently with the ball in his hands.


And the Rockets won 53 games in a vastly more talented, challenging conference despite starting 11-14 and missing Paul, Capela and Gordon a combined 53 games. They each have their own narratives.


Again, my problem isn't with that line of thinking. My problem is that the voters don't consistently stick with that line of thinking. Two years ago, they completely ignored that argument with Harden and Westbrook. Now they conveniently went back to it again. I don't think that's by coincidence.


Primarily because of his defensive prowess and fewer turnovers. But I'm not trying to argue that Harden was a better all-around player than Jordan. That would be COMPLETELY absurd. Not the biggest Rockets homer would attempt to make that argument.

My argument is that Harden's season was arguably the single most dominant offensive performance in over 30 years, and you could make a case it was the single greatest since Wilt in the 60s.


Look, I'm not trying to say Giannis isn't deserving. Dude had a phenomenal year, and I can understand the reasoning for why voters would gravitate toward them. I also think that if you attach Harden's numbers this season and overall narrative to almost any other player in the league, that player would almost certainly have been the MVP.

The media just generally doesn't like Harden and the Rockets. I think it's fairly obvious at this point, and I think most objective fans (even those outside of Houston) would probably agree with that sentiment. And unless the guy has a stellar season AND the Rockets have an outrageous year AND he's got far and away the best numbers in the league, he's just not going to win the award again. Call it voter fatigue or media bias or whatever you want, but they just don't want to vote for the guy...

Literally 1 time since 2000 has the MVP come from someone who wasn't the best player on one of the top 2 teams either conference. So get outta here with your inconsistency argument that it's all harden bias. That logic was applied again this year doesn't matter if one result could have changed that for Houston or not. The fact is, basically every year besides the first time someone averaged a triple double in 50 years, the mvp fits that criteria. And thats what happened.

And your arguments about helping the team around him. Harden gets credit for battling back after an 11-14 start. But why not ding him for the 11-14 start? Would giannis have deserved more credit if his team sucked early in the year? And the easy vs west argument is weak. The bottom of the west is still better than the east. But the top to middle is no where near the descrepancy it used to be. A healthy GS was still the best team, but Milwaukee, Toronto, Philly and Boston are just as good as teams like Portland, Denver, Utah and the rest of the top of the west.

Giannis was just as good as harden. Stats like per and ws/48 spell that out. Harden had some other stats favor him, like total win shares, partially because he played a few more games and minutes. Which is great for harden. But without just heavily biasing offense and ignoring defense, which you seem to love to do, you can't objectively sya harden was clearly better. And when that's the case, it's always going to the guy on the better team. And in this case, it's also the guy on the team that over achieved more when you look at preseason expectations.

More-Than-Most
06-27-2019, 06:17 AM
Literally 1 time since 2000 has the MVP come from someone who wasn't the best player on one of the top 2 teams either conference. So get outta here with your inconsistency argument that it's all harden bias. That logic was applied again this year doesn't matter if one result could have changed that for Houston or not. The fact is, basically every year besides the first time someone averaged a triple double in 50 years, the mvp fits that criteria. And thats what happened.

And your arguments about helping the team around him. Harden gets credit for battling back after an 11-14 start. But why not ding him for the 11-14 start? Would giannis have deserved more credit if his team sucked early in the year? And the easy vs west argument is weak. The bottom of the west is still better than the east. But the top to middle is no where near the descrepancy it used to be. A healthy GS was still the best team, but Milwaukee, Toronto, Philly and Boston are just as good as teams like Portland, Denver, Utah and the rest of the top of the west.

Giannis was just as good as harden. Stats like per and ws/48 spell that out. Harden had some other stats favor him, like total win shares, partially because he played a few more games and minutes. Which is great for harden. But without just heavily biasing offense and ignoring defense, which you seem to love to do, you can't objectively sya harden was clearly better. And when that's the case, it's always going to the guy on the better team. And in this case, it's also the guy on the team that over achieved more when you look at preseason expectations.

did giannis play without his 2 best players on his team for 40 games? Harden did.

crewfan13
06-27-2019, 09:41 AM
did giannis play without his 2 best players on his team for 40 games? Harden did.

That's not the point. The point is Harden is credited with carrying a bad team into the playoffs around injuries. But giannis is given very little credit for a massive turn around in Milwaukee. Vegas over unders had the bucks as 5th in the east prior to the year. In this forum, the preseason predictions had 1 person with the bucks as 2nd in the east, 2 with them at 3rd and virtually everyone else had them 4th-6th with a 7th or two.

No one had the bucks being this good. They made one real trade for George Hill, who was actually pretty mediocre during the regular season. They also got mirotic, who barely played in the regular season. Giannis took a roster that most people had as the middle of a weak east and finished with the best record in basketball.

I'm not implying that that should be the only criteria for the MVP by any means. But crediting harden for carrying an injured team completely discounts that giannis carried a mediocre team to the top of the east. It's easy to write revisionist history and day the bucks should have always been good, but that's not really true. Giannis is a big part of the reason some guys had career years.

More-Than-Most
06-27-2019, 09:58 AM
That's not the point. The point is Harden is credited with carrying a bad team into the playoffs around injuries. But giannis is given very little credit for a massive turn around in Milwaukee. Vegas over unders had the bucks as 5th in the east prior to the year. In this forum, the preseason predictions had 1 person with the bucks as 2nd in the east, 2 with them at 3rd and virtually everyone else had them 4th-6th with a 7th or two.

No one had the bucks being this good. They made one real trade for George Hill, who was actually pretty mediocre during the regular season. They also got mirotic, who barely played in the regular season. Giannis took a roster that most people had as the middle of a weak east and finished with the best record in basketball.

I'm not implying that that should be the only criteria for the MVP by any means. But crediting harden for carrying an injured team completely discounts that giannis carried a mediocre team to the top of the east. It's easy to write revisionist history and day the bucks should have always been good, but that's not really true. Giannis is a big part of the reason some guys had career years.

Giannis is def a big part of the reason guys were good and the bucks were great BUT HE HAD NOTHING BUT SHOOTERS AROUND HIM to cover up for a glaring weakness... You put harden on the bucks and giannis on the rockets and hardens team would have more wins every time... Giannis is def the better defender but he is much easier to game plan for if both guys are put on a neutral team.

Jamiecballer
06-27-2019, 11:02 AM
Giannis is def the better defender but he is much easier to game plan for if both guys are put on a neutral team.
you sure about that? i think we are discrediting the Raptors a bit here. it seemed like a pretty bulletproof strategy for the first 100 games or so.

the raptors have Leonard, Gasol, Siakam and Ibaka - that's a pretty rare mix of length and basketball iq.

i don't think you will see any change in Milwaukee's approach next season and as long as they come out of free agency without being weakened too much i anticipate it to be just as effective next season.

beasted86
06-27-2019, 11:37 AM
yup but i am the one that has jokic ahead of embiid even with having to cover up for ben... embiid is forced outside because of bens lack of shooting but he still needs to be smarter... let me ask you this... who do you think wins more games without their top player... bucks or sixers? giannis had a better season than joel by the numbers but there isnt a person on this planet that should believe giannis is more important to the bucks then joel is to the sixers... if embiid isnt there we stink. The best player is normally the most valuable and giannis is the best player but he is the best player because they covered up for his 1 glaring weakness. Amazing season but i feel like the rockets rely way more on harden and what he does for them in the regular season with his lack of help is nuts.

Ummm... What? Bucks would be a dumpster fire without Giannis. He IS the Bucks. I'd bet 90% of the Bucks defensive scouting report talks about Giannis.

crewfan13
06-27-2019, 12:15 PM
Giannis is def a big part of the reason guys were good and the bucks were great BUT HE HAD NOTHING BUT SHOOTERS AROUND HIM to cover up for a glaring weakness... You put harden on the bucks and giannis on the rockets and hardens team would have more wins every time... Giannis is def the better defender but he is much easier to game plan for if both guys are put on a neutral team.

Giannis is the defensive system for the bucks. Swap out giannis for harden and the bucks are no where near a top top 5 defensive team like they were.

And you also constantly over rate the bucks shooting. Sure, the bucks don't have any or many very poor shooters. And they take a ton of 3s, but the team as a whole was 16th in 3pt%. It's not like they're some record setting team by percentage.

They didn't have any starters besides giannis shoot under bledoses 32.9%, but they also only had 1 regular over 40%. And you act like teams didnt still pack it in vs giannis. Sure, lopez pulls the center out further than other centers would, but it's not like teams were conceding giannis dunks just so Eric Bledsoe and brook lopez wouldn't get open looks from 3.

You have this wierd narrative in your head, and have for awhile, about how giannis is basically only good because he has shooters around him. And I know it's your way of justifying why you think embiid is better than giannis despite giannis being more successful with a less talented team. But it's such a tired narrative that giannis is basically the only player in the nba in your head who benefits from the players around him and that the relationship isnt the other way, that guys had career years because giannis got them so many open looks.

JAZZNC
06-27-2019, 01:20 PM
Giannis is the defensive system for the bucks. Swap out giannis for harden and the bucks are no where near a top top 5 defensive team like they were.

And you also constantly over rate the bucks shooting. Sure, the bucks don't have any or many very poor shooters. And they take a ton of 3s, but the team as a whole was 16th in 3pt%. It's not like they're some record setting team by percentage.

They didn't have any starters besides giannis shoot under bledoses 32.9%, but they also only had 1 regular over 40%. And you act like teams didnt still pack it in vs giannis. Sure, lopez pulls the center out further than other centers would, but it's not like teams were conceding giannis dunks just so Eric Bledsoe and brook lopez wouldn't get open looks from 3.

You have this wierd narrative in your head, and have for awhile, about how giannis is basically only good because he has shooters around him. And I know it's your way of justifying why you think embiid is better than giannis despite giannis being more successful with a less talented team. But it's such a tired narrative that giannis is basically the only player in the nba in your head who benefits from the players around him and that the relationship isnt the other way, that guys had career years because giannis got them so many open looks.

This.

mightybosstone
06-27-2019, 02:03 PM
Giannis is the defensive system for the bucks. Swap out giannis for harden and the bucks are no where near a top top 5 defensive team like they were.
Swap out Giannis for Harden and the Rockets' offensive system is nowhere near a top 5 offense. That door swings both ways.


And you also constantly over rate the bucks shooting. Sure, the bucks don't have any or many very poor shooters. And they take a ton of 3s, but the team as a whole was 16th in 3pt%. It's not like they're some record setting team by percentage.

They didn't have any starters besides giannis shoot under bledoses 32.9%, but they also only had 1 regular over 40%. And you act like teams didnt still pack it in vs giannis. Sure, lopez pulls the center out further than other centers would, but it's not like teams were conceding giannis dunks just so Eric Bledsoe and brook lopez wouldn't get open looks from 3.

You have this wierd narrative in your head, and have for awhile, about how giannis is basically only good because he has shooters around him. And I know it's your way of justifying why you think embiid is better than giannis despite giannis being more successful with a less talented team. But it's such a tired narrative that giannis is basically the only player in the nba in your head who benefits from the players around him and that the relationship isnt the other way, that guys had career years because giannis got them so many open looks.
I agree with all this. I'm actually deeply concerned that MTM and I are on the same side in this argument—that's usually not a good sign... :ohno:

JAZZNC
06-27-2019, 02:14 PM
Swap out Giannis for Harden and the Rockets' offensive system is nowhere near a top 5 offense. That door swings both ways.


I agree with all this. I'm actually deeply concerned that MTM and I are on the same side in this argument—that's usually not a good sign... :ohno:

Well I think we can all agree that because the two players are sooooo vastly different that it is quite obvious the teams are constructed differently to maximize their best players abilities (therefore a swap is gonna be a **** show for both teams).


And to your last point, that's not so bad. There are worse guys to be in agreeance with haha! If you find yourself agreeing with Rocco or Buckalis than you need to seek immediate professional help.

mightybosstone
06-27-2019, 02:19 PM
Literally 1 time since 2000 has the MVP come from someone who wasn't the best player on one of the top 2 teams either conference. So get outta here with your inconsistency argument that it's all harden bias. That logic was applied again this year doesn't matter if one result could have changed that for Houston or not. The fact is, basically every year besides the first time someone averaged a triple double in 50 years, the mvp fits that criteria. And thats what happened.
Again, though, I'll repeat myself a bit here, but you're kind of making my points for me.

1. The one time they did break from the "best player on a top 2 team" strategy was Westbrook over Harden two years ago. Harden puts up better, even more eye-popping numbers this season, and that same methodology no longer seems to apply.

2. The Rockets were a top 2 team in the West by literally every single barometer other than record, and they’ll were literally one bad quarter away from being the 2 seed on the last game of the season.


And your arguments about helping the team around him. Harden gets credit for battling back after an 11-14 start. But why not ding him for the 11-14 start? Would giannis have deserved more credit if his team sucked early in the year?
My argument is less about the 11-14 start and more about the fact that Paul went down shortly after that abysmal start right as the Rockets hit their hardest 10-game stretch of the entire season. Harden's exceptional play during that run (which was at the start of his absurd 30-point game stretch) is the primary reason the Rockets' season wasn't completely over after Paul's injury.


And the easy vs west argument is weak. The bottom of the west is still better than the east. But the top to middle is no where near the descrepancy it used to be. A healthy GS was still the best team, but Milwaukee, Toronto, Philly and Boston are just as good as teams like Portland, Denver, Utah and the rest of the top of the west.
It's literally not weak at all—it's fact. The Rockets' strength of schedule was literally significantly harder than the Bucks because the West overall is a harder conference. The East had only two teams with an SRS over 4.0 last season and only five teams with an SRS over 1.0 compared to five teams and eight teams, respectively, in the West. The East had only four teams with at least 48 wins compared to eight teams in the West. And even the teams at the bottom of the West are superior—only one team in the conference lost fewer than 50 games compared to five in the East.

The top four in the East might be comparable to the top squads in the West, but top to bottom, the West is still a far deeper, far harder conference to play in. I'm not sure how you could possibly make the case otherwise.


Giannis was just as good as harden. Stats like per and ws/48 spell that out. Harden had some other stats favor him, like total win shares, partially because he played a few more games and minutes. Which is great for harden.
Also BPM and VORP. But let's completely ignore those, right?


But without just heavily biasing offense and ignoring defense, which you seem to love to do, you can't objectively sya harden was clearly better. And when that's the case, it's always going to the guy on the better team. And in this case, it's also the guy on the team that over achieved more when you look at preseason expectations.
Harden's season was more eye-popping and generally spectacular overall. It's the kind of season people will look back on in 20 years and go "Holy crap! Harden averaged 36 freaking points per game in 2018-19 !?!?!? He scored 50+ points nine times!?!?! He scored 30+ in 32 straight games!?!?!? What a monster season he must have had!!!!!"

I think when you factor in defensive prowess, this was a coin flip. That's pretty much what I've said throughout this thread, and what I've generally believed all along. And I'm not mad that voters went with Giannis—I knew they would. I'm frustrated because I honestly think people overlooked Harden's spectacular accomplishments this year because of who he is and the fact that they don't like the guy. This vote should have been close, and it wasn't. And if you took his stats and attached them to almost any other superstar, that guy almost certainly would have won it this year—or it at least would have been a damn close race.

JAZZNC
06-27-2019, 02:58 PM
Again, though, I'll repeat myself a bit here, but you're kind of making my points for me.

1. The one time they did break from the "best player on a top 2 team" strategy was Westbrook over Harden two years ago. Harden puts up better, even more eye-popping numbers this season, and that same methodology no longer seems to apply.

2. The Rockets were a top 2 team in the West by literally every single barometer other than record, and they’ll were literally one bad quarter away from being the 2 seed on the last game of the season.


My argument is less about the 11-14 start and more about the fact that Paul went down shortly after that abysmal start right as the Rockets hit their hardest 10-game stretch of the entire season. Harden's exceptional play during that run (which was at the start of his absurd 30-point game stretch) is the primary reason the Rockets' season wasn't completely over after Paul's injury.


It's literally not weak at all—it's fact. The Rockets' strength of schedule was literally significantly harder than the Bucks because the West overall is a harder conference. The East had only two teams with an SRS over 4.0 last season and only five teams with an SRS over 1.0 compared to five teams and eight teams, respectively, in the West. The East had only four teams with at least 48 wins compared to eight teams in the West. And even the teams at the bottom of the West are superior—only one team in the conference lost fewer than 50 games compared to five in the East.

The top four in the East might be comparable to the top squads in the West, but top to bottom, the West is still a far deeper, far harder conference to play in. I'm not sure how you could possibly make the case otherwise.


Also BPM and VORP. But let's completely ignore those, right?


Harden's season was more eye-popping and generally spectacular overall. It's the kind of season people will look back on in 20 years and go "Holy crap! Harden averaged 36 freaking points per game in 2018-19 !?!?!? He scored 50+ points nine times!?!?! He scored 30+ in 32 straight games!?!?!? What a monster season he must have had!!!!!"

I think when you factor in defensive prowess, this was a coin flip. That's pretty much what I've said throughout this thread, and what I've generally believed all along. And I'm not mad that voters went with Giannis—I knew they would. I'm frustrated because I honestly think people overlooked Harden's spectacular accomplishments this year because of who he is and the fact that they don't like the guy. This vote should have been close, and it wasn't. And if you took his stats and attached them to almost any other superstar, that guy almost certainly would have won it this year—or it at least would have been a damn close race.

What are your thoughts on Harden winning this year if he hadn't won last year? I personally think that would have made it the coin flip decision.

mightybosstone
06-27-2019, 03:09 PM
What are your thoughts on Harden winning this year if he hadn't won last year? I personally think that would have made it the coin flip decision.

I think that makes a difference for sure. In the same way that voters didn't like giving it to Jordan and Lebron every year, voter fatigue is definitely a factor in MVP voting. Had he finished runner up again last year, I think more voters would have acknowledged his season (begrudgingly) and given it to him.

nastynice
06-27-2019, 04:09 PM
I think this is the 5th straight year harden was 1 or 2 in mvp voting. It sucks he only got 1, but that's still pretty impressive. He legitimately could have won every one of them outside of 73 win curry.

crewfan13
06-28-2019, 09:34 AM
Again, though, I'll repeat myself a bit here, but you're kind of making my points for me.

1. The one time they did break from the "best player on a top 2 team" strategy was Westbrook over Harden two years ago. Harden puts up better, even more eye-popping numbers this season, and that same methodology no longer seems to apply.

2. The Rockets were a top 2 team in the West by literally every single barometer other than record, and they’ll were literally one bad quarter away from being the 2 seed on the last game of the season.


My argument is less about the 11-14 start and more about the fact that Paul went down shortly after that abysmal start right as the Rockets hit their hardest 10-game stretch of the entire season. Harden's exceptional play during that run (which was at the start of his absurd 30-point game stretch) is the primary reason the Rockets' season wasn't completely over after Paul's injury.


It's literally not weak at all—it's fact. The Rockets' strength of schedule was literally significantly harder than the Bucks because the West overall is a harder conference. The East had only two teams with an SRS over 4.0 last season and only five teams with an SRS over 1.0 compared to five teams and eight teams, respectively, in the West. The East had only four teams with at least 48 wins compared to eight teams in the West. And even the teams at the bottom of the West are superior—only one team in the conference lost fewer than 50 games compared to five in the East.

The top four in the East might be comparable to the top squads in the West, but top to bottom, the West is still a far deeper, far harder conference to play in. I'm not sure how you could possibly make the case otherwise.


Also BPM and VORP. But let's completely ignore those, right?


Harden's season was more eye-popping and generally spectacular overall. It's the kind of season people will look back on in 20 years and go "Holy crap! Harden averaged 36 freaking points per game in 2018-19 !?!?!? He scored 50+ points nine times!?!?! He scored 30+ in 32 straight games!?!?!? What a monster season he must have had!!!!!"

I think when you factor in defensive prowess, this was a coin flip. That's pretty much what I've said throughout this thread, and what I've generally believed all along. And I'm not mad that voters went with Giannis—I knew they would. I'm frustrated because I honestly think people overlooked Harden's spectacular accomplishments this year because of who he is and the fact that they don't like the guy. This vote should have been close, and it wasn't. And if you took his stats and attached them to almost any other superstar, that guy almost certainly would have won it this year—or it at least would have been a damn close race.

The whole Westbrook thing revolves around him putting up the round numbers of averaging a tripe double. We can look back using revisionist history and try to debunk they, but if you asked any person before that season "if someone averages a triple double, will they win mvp?" and virtually every person would have said yes. I'm not saying the criteria is good or anything, but there was 1 exception and that exception had everything to do with a hitting historic round number milestones. It's not crazy to understand why that happened and it had nothing to do with harden bias.

And you are discounting the 11-14 start if you're giving him credit for digging his team out of a hole that he helped create. It would be like me punching someone in the face and wanting credit for handing them an ice pack.

And like you've said. The stats are close. Sure, give harden VORP credit. I really don't care because the point remains the same. By the advanced metrics, they are close. In that case, it's always going to go to the guy with the better record. I agree voter fatigue probably played a part. But as I've said, the vast majority of the time it's a player on one of the top 2 teams. Doesn't matter how close harden was to a top 2 team. He wasn't on a top 2 team. And even if he was, the bucks were the best regular season team in basketball. Even without voter fatigue, harden would have liekly needed to be head and shoulders better than giannis to win the award. And by your own admission, he wasn't.

The moral of the story is two players had phenomenal years. By most advanced metrics, they were close. Some advanced metrics preferred giannis and some preferred harden, but both were near the top of all those metrics. So it's close to a wash there. One's team had the best record in the nba, and that team was expected to be somewhere between the 8th and 12th bear record coming into the season. The other was on a team tied for the 5th best record and was expected to be the 2nd or 3rd best team in the nba. And that team did have a bunch of injuries, so he deserves credit for that, but looking at it that way, the mvp voting is going to favor the first guy almost every single time.

ewing
06-28-2019, 03:45 PM
Have fans ever cared so little about MVP?

nastynice
06-28-2019, 10:55 PM
It's the timing. Completely wack.