MVP Watch

I'll just post mine

1. KG
2. LBJ
3. Kobe
4. Chris Paul
5. Ginobili (the spurs won without duncan, without parker, but lost 3 in a row without manu)

No one will ever get penalized or awarded for the quality of their teammates. Players don't play individually in a vacuum. When other players are playing well beside you, it has something to do with how well you are playing. Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Bill Russell, etc. won MVPs playing besides some of the the best supporting casts/players. I doubt KG would get penalized for playing beside Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.

What makes Pierce and Allen so great anyways? Pierce on a good team is another Josh Howard. Ray Allen isn't even contributing anywhere near Tony Parker/Manu Ginobili. 18-4-3 in 38 mpg isn't that great considering his overall efficiency. On a good team, he isn't more effective than Ginobili or Josh Howard.

Just because Pierce and Allen have played as 1st options in the past and put up gaudy numbers (not to mention, their teams didn't get anywhere), they don't disqualify KG from winning the MVP.

Has anyone noticed that Dallas is number one in the west again since yesterday?
There's something really special about Nowitzki that keeps getting the team to the top. He has also been to the finals, gotten dwhistled there, as well as being in the NBA first team the last 2 or 3 consecutive years.
His numbers in january have been awsome.

Somehow the NBA does everything in their power to not feature Nowitzki this season, there isn't even a mention on nba.com about the Mavs taking the top spot in the west yesterday.

Anyhow, being number 1 in the west once again is more than reason enough to include Nowitzki in a serious MVP discussion.

In the discussion about the best powerforwards of all time, Nowitzki is also often not included, so let me ask if that many other guys were able to lead their teams to this many seasons of greatness in a row.
The Mavs have been one of the best teams in the league for an eternity, and even been better after the big MVP Nash left them.

Earlier in the season, I'd put KG at the top of the MVP list. I think he (KG) is still on top of many of the media and talking heads' lists.

However, for now, I want to revise and extend my comments to put Kobe at the top of the MVP list.

Kobe is doing for the Lakers what LeTravel cannot. Willfully pushing a hob-nob assembled roster toward to top of the conference standings. Basketball is still a team game and wins/losses are what matters.

For now, given what he has to work with on the floor - Kobe is the guy who's most responsible for helping a winning team be that winning team.

(I reserve the right to change my mind over and over again throughout the season).

Well, the team's been good in past years, and they don't have old stars, why wouldn't they be good again this year?

As far as Dirk's MVP candidacy, I'll expound on my beliefs there. He was my MVP last year, based on him being a superstar on a team that was vastly more successful than any other team. They proceeded to show in the playoffs that that record was at least partially a mirage, as it really seems like a team that has the chance to focus on them can make them play far worse, and specifically make Dirk play far worse. What does that mean for this year with Dirk and the MVP. I take him more with a grain of salt. I'm not going to move him ahead superstars simply because he's got a significantly better record, because I have no confidence that that really means that when it matters the record differential will hold.

Now what does that mean practically? Well I've got him in my top 10 right now. I don't have a problem with him in that range. However I really don't know what he'd have to do to move ahead of someone on a 50+ win pace that I see as playing at a top notch superstar level. For him to win the MVP, he'd basically have to have a quantum leap compared to what he was last year so that I have the confidence that what I see will translate in the playoffs.

Is my line of reasoning fair? I'm not sure. I don't think one should give regular season award simply based on what they think will happen in the playoffs. However I do think it's fair to say that if there is a difference between regular season and playoff performance due not to injuries or focus but to opponents effectively only playing to 100% capacity in the playoffs, it is the playoff performance that is the true gauge of ability. And when giving honors meant to be for the best player, I want to measure in terms of true ability, not an illusion based of an idiosyncrasy of the regular season schedule.

Last, how will my opinion change if Dirk leads a team to the title this year? It will change drastically and my prejudice against him will be once again nonexistent.

Dirk has gotten farther in the playoffs than Nash

seekNdestroy wrote:

Dirk has gotten farther in the playoffs than Nash

That's really not the point. The point is the disappointment. The closest thing to an upset Nash's Suns have experienced was last year's loss to the Spurs, and even there it was a neck and neck battle against a team with a slightly worse regular season record. So I say that bashing Nash's MVP candidacy based on playoff disappointment is absurd. He's done fine team wise in the playoffs, and actually shown individual improvement in the playoffs. Note though this doesn't mean you have to name him MVP, and in fact I wish he hadn't gotten that 2nd MVP in '05-06 because I think others deserved it more.

Now, if you want to make the point "Dirk's team has only been upset like that once, it's wrong to imply it always happens." that's valid. However my point isn't that I'd guarantee his team will get upset, but that I have a lack of confidence in them and Dirk specifically that makes it difficult to lift him above other players simply because his team has a better record.

richboy_07 wrote:

seekNdestroy wrote:

Dirk has gotten farther in the playoffs than Nash

That's really not the point. The point is the disappointment. The closest thing to an upset Nash's Suns have experienced was last year's loss to the Spurs, and even there it was a neck and neck battle against a team with a slightly worse regular season record. So I say that bashing Nash's MVP candidacy based on playoff disappointment is absurd. He's done fine team wise in the playoffs, and actually shown individual improvement in the playoffs. Note though this doesn't mean you have to name him MVP, and in fact I wish he hadn't gotten that 2nd MVP in '05-06 because I think others deserved it more.

Now, if you want to make the point "Dirk's team has only been upset like that once, it's wrong to imply it always happens." that's valid. However my point isn't that I'd guarantee his team will get upset, but that I have a lack of confidence in them and Dirk specifically that makes it difficult to lift him above other players simply because his team has a better record.

No, I disagree. Even though MVP is a regular season award, I believe if you've been rewarded for leading a team to a good record in the regular season multiple times, but don't have the post season success with that same team over a number of years, you shouldn't get MVP again. And each of Nash's MVP seasons, the Suns have publicly stated that anything less than a title would be a failure.

Nash has two all stars + arguably the best bench player + an All NBA 1st team defender and still didn't get to the finals.

I'm not bashing Nash's previous MVPs, I just don't think he should get another until he gets some post season success (finals or title). I don't think my standard is any more absurd than stating that Dirk needs to win a title before your bias against him will be non-existent.

Screw what the team said about their expectations, they aren't trying to be objective.

In '04-05 the Suns had the best record, but the Spurs only fell significantly behind them when Duncan went down. Nash won the MVP, but quite possibly only because of Duncan's injury. Then they played in the playoffs with a healthy Duncan, and a Suns team hurt by injuries. There wasn't a soul who favored the Suns in that series. Not underachievement.

In '05-06 the Suns lost to a team with a much better record, and managed to win 2 games off of them despite losing their last big man and rendering them much less effective. Not underachievement.

I've already mentioned '06-07, if you want to call that a slight underachievement okay, but it is very slight.

Knocking a guy in future MVP voting because of major playoff underachievement makes sense. Knocking a guy in future MVP voting for failing to overachieve in the playoffs compared to the regular season makes no sense, and people who knock Nash for not winning a title are doing just that.

This isn't to say you can't knock Nash for not winning a title, because obviously a superior player in similar circumstance would have, and again, if you just don't think Nash has deserved MVPs that's fine, but while people've been trying to say "Yeah but the Suns will only work in the regular season" since Nash got there, there is no track record of them falling off significantly in all that time. Stay off that argument, and focus on what your core issues with Nash are.

mike41485c wrote:

Screw what the team said about their expectations, they aren't trying to be objective.

In '04-05 the Suns had the best record, but the Spurs only fell significantly behind them when Duncan went down. Nash won the MVP, but quite possibly only because of Duncan's injury. Then they played in the playoffs with a healthy Duncan, and a Suns team hurt by injuries. There wasn't a soul who favored the Suns in that series. Not underachievement.

In '05-06 the Suns lost to a team with a much better record, and managed to win 2 games off of them despite losing their last big man and rendering them much less effective. Not underachievement.

I've already mentioned '06-07, if you want to call that a slight underachievement okay, but it is very slight.

Knocking a guy in future MVP voting because of major playoff underachievement makes sense. Knocking a guy in future MVP voting for failing to overachieve in the playoffs compared to the regular season makes no sense, and people who knock Nash for not winning a title are doing just that.

This isn't to say you can't knock Nash for not winning a title, because obviously a superior player in similar circumstance would have, and again, if you just don't think Nash has deserved MVPs that's fine, but while people've been trying to say "Yeah but the Suns will only work in the regular season" since Nash got there, there is no track record of them falling off significantly in all that time. Stay off that argument, and focus on what your core issues with Nash are.

And they were beaten by a multiple time MVP and DPOY in Duncan, and two all stars in Ginobili and Parker, and the clutchest player in all time in Horry, and THE BEST defender in the game in Bowen...What's your point? The Suns were in it until the suspensions.

You really can't ask for more.

I think you're being slightly unfair to Dirk, but I understand where you're coming from.

Nash is a multiple MVP
Amare is a star
Marion is a star
Bell = Bowen defensively if not slightly better (at least last season)

and lol at Horry being the clutchest player of all time - as if that even mattered in the series.

Not a knock on Doc or you or any Suns fans...but Nash comes in every season, averages 10, 11 assists, makes a bunch of spectacular passes and people say he's the MVP. Then when it comes time to really prove how valuable he s, he can't get his team over the hump. He plays virtually no defense and every year its some excuse.

jsia, but I understand your point too, Doc. I see what you're saying. But a MVP on a championship caliber team should bring a championship. If he doesn't after a number of years, I question his true value in relation to players who were able to lead their teams to championships and am very reluctant to give them the award again particularly when they've won it multiple times.

chris paul and brandon roy have certainly caught my eye

I'd say you tend to look at this stuff in terms of general principles while I'm trying to look at specifics. When a team loses a series they are supposed to lose, that's not an upset. To say a player didn't actually deserve the MVP because he underachieved in the playoffs is one thing, but you have to make sure he really underachieved to say that coherently.

With Nash what we've got as far as a track record in Phoenix is his team losing to 3 really good teams in the playoffs, 2 of which were led by an undoubtedly superior player in Duncan, and 1 of which occurred in a year where it was basically insane to think they should have even been contenders. You want to give credit for Duncan in a comparison between Duncan and Nash? Great, makes perfect sense. You want to give credit to any of the other players in the league who themselves failed to win the title in that time because the Suns didn't win it? Ridiculous.

guidedbyvance wrote:

chris paul and brandon roy have certainly caught my eye

Has a 2nd year player ever won MVP?


Kobe is doing a helluva job leading LA... 3rd in the west right now after many thought he would be a distraction and Lakers would miss the playoffs...

Dirk has overachieved, and knocked out the Spurs before too though, so crucifying him for one horrible series is a bit drastic IMO.

dirk is garbage

who is gonna actually have the wins to challenge garnett as mvp come seasons end?

no one in the west is going seperate themselves from the pack far enough to get attention

LeBron simply cannot get it inless his team gets in the top 3 .. even then its not assured dont forget Jordan is the only player to recieve one for having the 3rd best record in the conference And no one has ever recieved for a lower record .. Also if what kobe Acheived last year didnt get him it then what makes you think LeBron This year will get it ... i doubt they get in the top 2 of the east

Your suggestion that the game slows down while Kobe is out actually boosts his PER not lowers it as it gives the team a lower overall pace than it actually has while he's on the court. i.e. he has more opportunity to do something per minute played than the team's pace would indicate.

His playing fewer minutes also weights late game play higher in his overall PER calulation as it is also adjusted for minutes played. Thus his late game minutes are a higher percentage of his overall minutes, and both guys do more late in games. If you make all of the adjustments you are complaining about, the gap between LeBron and Kobe will grow, not shrink.

In addition, the cap in PER is about 25%, the gap in minutes played is about 10%.

And you can't just scale 36 minute output to 48 minute output. For one, they don't get more late game minutes playing longer. For another, fatigue becomes a factor.

Finally, the assumption in any argument I'm making for LeBron as MVP this year is that they continue to win the way they win when he's on the court and not the way they lost when he was out injured. That puts them at least the 3 seed, and they have a reasonable chance of taking the 2nd seed if they stay healthy.

Also, the gap between the lakers and cavs record right now is 5 1/2 games, exactly the number of games LeBron was out injured.

Week 10

1. Kobe Bryant (1)
2. Chris Paul (2)
3. Kevin Garnett (3)
4. Steve Nash (5)
5. Dwight Howard (4)
6. LeBron James (9)
7. Dirk Nowitzki (6)
8. Allen Iverson (
9. Brandon Roy (7)
t-10. Chauncey Billups (NR)
t-10. Caron Butler (NR)

Falling off:
Tim Duncan (10)

Honorable mention:
Baron Davis

I just can't leave off Butler after those Boston games, but there are 10 others I think should make it as well.

LeBron is on the rise, and if he keeps this up, he'll enter the top 5 shortly.

No changes at the top, though I could easily see changes if one of them has a bad week.

it is deeply flawed to suggest that using the Cavs records vs the West from last year and this year to make a case that they would fare just fine in the West; but yet you think it is pretty sound logic to use the East vs West record as a whole to say that an Eastern team wouldnt have as strong of a record.. right? I actually would be interested in hearing your explanation of why you think that.

CoachPopabich wrote:

it is deeply flawed to suggest that using the Cavs records vs the West from last year and this year to make a case that they would fare just fine in the West; but yet you think it is pretty sound logic to use the East vs West record as a whole to say that an Eastern team wouldnt have as strong of a record.. right? I actually would be interested in hearing your explanation of why you think that.

I'd love to hear it too. The sample size of cavs vs west games is large enough over the past season and a half that you can project what their record would be if they were in the west - and they project out to a better record than they do as an eastern conference team.