I also think that in fairness to Nash's selection there hasn't been a clearly dominant candidate that he's been up against the last 2 years. The guys who have great individual stats have not been playing on great teams. When Kidd and Stockton weren't winning the award, I think they tended to be up against players in that situation. If Philly, Cleveland or LA had outstanding records this season, then I think you'd see AI, Lebron or Kobe win it.

Posted by Marv:

I also think that in fairness to Nash's selection there hasn't been a clearly dominant candidate that he's been up against the last 2 years. The guys who have great individual stats have not been playing on great teams. When Kidd and Stockton weren't winning the award, I think they tended to be up against players in that situation. If Philly, Cleveland or LA had outstanding records this season, then I think you'd see AI, Lebron or Kobe win it.

But if Philly, Cleveland, or LA had outstanding records this season, it wouldn't be because AI, LeBron, or Kobe were playing much better than the very high level they're at now-- it'd be because they'd be playing on better constructed teams, with better or more suitable players surrounding them.

This is a pet peeve of mine in MVP discussions-- presumably we are talking about the most valuable *players*, but often it just becomes a discussion of the most valuable players who, by fortuitous circumstance, just happen to have high quality teammates and good coaches surrounding them. Since it's an individual award, IMO context should be controlled for so we can compare players on an even keel, rather than acting as if we can attribute that entire context to the players themselves. Put Nash from last season playing at exactly the same level on the Bobcats, and he would never have sniffed the award. In fact, even worse, it works both ways-- Nash won last year largely by virtue of being on the right team, rather than purely by virtue of his individual virtues as a player. If Nash had stayed with Dallas, he likely wouldn't have garnered even one MVP vote in that circumstance either. I cannot fathom how people think this is a good system for judging individual players.

[Edited by - tomverve on 03-24-2006 4:14 PM]

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by Marv:

I also think that in fairness to Nash's selection there hasn't been a clearly dominant candidate that he's been up against the last 2 years. The guys who have great individual stats have not been playing on great teams. When Kidd and Stockton weren't winning the award, I think they tended to be up against players in that situation. If Philly, Cleveland or LA had outstanding records this season, then I think you'd see AI, Lebron or Kobe win it.

But if Philly, Cleveland, or LA had outstanding records this season, it wouldn't be because AI, LeBron, or Kobe were playing much better than the very high level they're at now-- it'd be because they'd be playing on better constructed teams, with better or more suitable players surrounding them.

This is a pet peeve of mine in MVP discussions-- presumably we are talking about the most valuable *players*, but often it just becomes a discussion of the most valuable players who, by fortuitous circumstance, just happen to have high quality teammates and good coaches surrounding them. Since it's an individual award, IMO context should be controlled for so we can compare players on an even keel, rather than acting as if we can attribute that entire context to the players themselves. Put Nash from last season playing at exactly the same level on the Bobcats, and he would never have sniffed the award. In fact, even worse, it works both ways-- Nash won last year largely by virtue of being on the right team, rather than purely by virtue of his individual virtues as a player. If Nash had stayed with Dallas, he likely wouldn't have garnered even one MVP vote in that circumstance either. I cannot fathom how people think this is a good system for judging individual players.

[Edited by - tomverve on 03-24-2006 4:14 PM]

I think you're right. And I think the view of the MVP award goes through shifts during different eras.

I remember during the 60's and 70's it seemed like the big men had a lock on the award. Wilt and Russell would trade it off. Then even if Kareem's team stunk, which it did when he was an early Laker, he'd get it. If not him, the next best center, Unseld, Cowens, somebody. Then it seemed like the logjam got broken with Magic and Bird. Suddently it became fashionable to give the award to the most exciting wingman on the best team - Bird, Magic, Doctor J . . . and of course Michael.

Now it seems like the award goes to whoever took their team during the regular seson to a better place than would have been anticipated. So even though AI, Kobe and Lebron have done all they possibly could, you're not getting that MVP if your record doesn't exceed expectations. Man, think about what a shoo-in Arenas would be if Washington had a great record!

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by Marv:

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by Marv:

I also think that in fairness to Nash's selection there hasn't been a clearly dominant candidate that he's been up against the last 2 years. The guys who have great individual stats have not been playing on great teams. When Kidd and Stockton weren't winning the award, I think they tended to be up against players in that situation. If Philly, Cleveland or LA had outstanding records this season, then I think you'd see AI, Lebron or Kobe win it.

But if Philly, Cleveland, or LA had outstanding records this season, it wouldn't be because AI, LeBron, or Kobe were playing much better than the very high level they're at now-- it'd be because they'd be playing on better constructed teams, with better or more suitable players surrounding them.

This is a pet peeve of mine in MVP discussions-- presumably we are talking about the most valuable *players*, but often it just becomes a discussion of the most valuable players who, by fortuitous circumstance, just happen to have high quality teammates and good coaches surrounding them. Since it's an individual award, IMO context should be controlled for so we can compare players on an even keel, rather than acting as if we can attribute that entire context to the players themselves. Put Nash from last season playing at exactly the same level on the Bobcats, and he would never have sniffed the award. In fact, even worse, it works both ways-- Nash won last year largely by virtue of being on the right team, rather than purely by virtue of his individual virtues as a player. If Nash had stayed with Dallas, he likely wouldn't have garnered even one MVP vote in that circumstance either. I cannot fathom how people think this is a good system for judging individual players.

[Edited by - tomverve on 03-24-2006 4:14 PM]

I think you're right. And I think the view of the MVP award goes through shifts during different eras.

I remember during the 60's and 70's it seemed like the big men had a lock on the award. Wilt and Russell would trade it off. Then even if Kareem's team stunk, which it did when he was an early Laker, he'd get it. If not him, the next best center, Unseld, Cowens, somebody. Then it seemed like the logjam got broken with Magic and Bird. Suddently it became fashionable to give the award to the most exciting wingman on the best team - Bird, Magic, Doctor J . . . and of course Michael.

Now it seems like the award goes to whoever took their team during the regular seson to a better place than would have been anticipated. So even though AI, Kobe and Lebron have done all they possibly could, you're not getting that MVP if your record doesn't exceed expectations. Man, think about what a shoo-in Arenas would be if Washington had a great record!

Or Marbury if the Knicks had a great record!

first of all Bonn, you have to be the MVP of your own team before u can be considered for MVP of the league... let's just leave it at that.

Marv, isn't the whole point of the MVP award to show which player has brought his team to the highest level from where they were before he got there? how can you award a player for putting up stats on a horrible team simply because he's the best player on that team? that goes against the whole purpose of awarding the MVP in the first place.

first of all Bonn, you have to be the MVP of your own team before u can be considered for MVP of the league... let's just leave it at that.

I didn't think anyone would actually take my tongue in cheek remark as a serious comment about Marbury's status on the team

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Marv:

Posted by TMS:

Marv, isn't the whole point of the MVP award to show which player has brought his team to the highest level from where they were before he got there? how can you award a player for putting up stats on a horrible team simply because he's the best player on that team? that goes against the whole purpose of awarding the MVP in the first place.

Well I think it's a judgment call and highly open to interpretation. Personally, I don't have a problem with awarding it to a player who brought incredible value to his team but whose team wasn't good enough to be elite. For example, I'd have no problem with Lebron getting it this year. The thinking would be that he didn't have a very good squad around him, he busted it every night and impacted every facet of the game with his 32/7/7/2/1, or whatever it is, and with the thought that this team probably would have won 20 fewer games without him.

how much better are they with Lebron is the question you should be using to judge whether or not he's worthy of the award... the #'s he puts up is phenomenal, & i'd have no problem w/him winning it IF you can prove that they were that much better for having him on the team... this is the rule of thumb i try to use anyway... & that's why i give Nash all the props in the world for what he's been able to do in Phoenix... you can stick another talented PG on that team & you may not achieve nearly the same results.

[Edited by - TMS on 03-25-2006 4:30 PM]

Well you know you can't prove how bad Cleveland would be without Lebron but I sure do think it

And btw I give Nash the same level of props you do and have no problem with him winning it.

Funny that no one's mentioning Dirk. Wonder what their record would be without him.

Or Miami's without Wade.

Posted by Marv:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Marv:

Posted by TMS:

Marv, isn't the whole point of the MVP award to show which player has brought his team to the highest level from where they were before he got there? how can you award a player for putting up stats on a horrible team simply because he's the best player on that team? that goes against the whole purpose of awarding the MVP in the first place.

Well I think it's a judgment call and highly open to interpretation. Personally, I don't have a problem with awarding it to a player who brought incredible value to his team but whose team wasn't good enough to be elite. For example, I'd have no problem with Lebron getting it this year. The thinking would be that he didn't have a very good squad around him, he busted it every night and impacted every facet of the game with his 32/7/7/2/1, or whatever it is, and with the thought that this team probably would have won 20 fewer games without him.

how much better are they with Lebron is the question you should be using to judge whether or not he's worthy of the award... the #'s he puts up is phenomenal, & i'd have no problem w/him winning it IF you can prove that they were that much better for having him on the team... this is the rule of thumb i try to use anyway... & that's why i give Nash all the props in the world for what he's been able to do in Phoenix... you can stick another talented PG on that team & you may not achieve nearly the same results.

[Edited by - TMS on 03-25-2006 4:30 PM]

Well you know you can't prove how bad Cleveland would be without Lebron but I sure do think it

And btw I give Nash the same level of props you do and have no problem with him winning it.

Funny that no one's mentioning Dirk. Wonder what their record would be without him.

Or Miami's without Wade.

I was one of the very few who thought Wade should have gotten it last year. He had much less talent around him than Nash had and took his team to almost as good a record. Wade does *everything* except pass better than Nash. Although Shaq played great last year and deserved a lot of credit, I thought he got slightly too much credit and Wade slightly too little credit for their team's success.