He`s on a playoff team and he`s going to break the Triple,double record.
No Brainer IMO.
No Brainer IMO.
its funny how much debate goes into who is MVP, yet there is no consensus metric upon what makes someone the MVP. They need to just call it most outstanding player and give it to the guy who people thought had the best year. Would take a lot of subjectivity out of it.
I think having to be on an elite team is over though, that's just one of those old sportswriter axioms that is fading in relevance.
Yep, this is exactly the problem.
You have some who see it just as you described, and others who see it as the guy who's most valuable to their team & wouldn't be as successful without him.
Out of those 2 options, i agree with your example in being it should be most outstanding player each year.
Everyone in their right mind knows that would be Westbrook this year.
Unfortunately, i think Harden is going to get it because I've heard 2 boneheads (one just this morning) who i believe cast votes, on Mike & Mike sports show, who gave their argument for James Harden...
That very subjectivity drives the discussion which dominates the airwaves if you think about it. More guys can win when you say it is most "valuable" rather than "outstanding"
If it's just best player then Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, MJ win like 80% of the MVP's over the last 25 years and there isn't a ton to talk about. People like us wouldn't have threads like this. So that is a big reason they keep it that way IMO.
But with "valuable" you can give it to guys like Barkley, Malone, Iverson, Nash, D Rose. Getting that award helps those guys a lot in terms of reputation.
NFL kinda same thing. As good as a year as Matt Ryan had, if the award was most outstanding then giving it to him over Aaron Rodgers just kinda is a stretch. Matt Ryan needs MVP more than Aaron Rodgers. Almost like a UFC/boxer needs the belt more than another guy to establish himself as legit.
So then more guys win MVP which creates more marketable stars which is generally good for the leagues.
If it's just best player then Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, MJ win like 80% of the MVP's over the last 25 years and there isn't a ton to talk about. People like us wouldn't have threads like this. So that is a big reason they keep it that way IMO.
But with "valuable" you can give it to guys like Barkley, Malone, Iverson, Nash, D Rose. Getting that award helps those guys a lot in terms of reputation.
NFL kinda same thing. As good as a year as Matt Ryan had, if the award was most outstanding then giving it to him over Aaron Rodgers just kinda is a stretch. Matt Ryan needs MVP more than Aaron Rodgers. Almost like a UFC/boxer needs the belt more than another guy to establish himself as legit.
So then more guys win MVP which creates more marketable stars which is generally good for the leagues.
I've heard every nba analyst say Harden. But this was two days ago before what westbrook did last night. Stephen A smith was adamant about harden being the mvp. Stephen a smith is also the biggest idiot in sports media
Most valuable player to their team. That's what I always treated it as. It's not your fault what your teammates do.
Harden is having an MVP-like year but he doesn't play defense. He doesn't need to be an elite defender (Nash wasn't) but a little defense should be a prerequisite. It's why a fulltime DH doesn't win AL MVP.
I think there is still consideration to "best player on best team" theory, but it's not like the Rockets are even a superior team to OKC. They're better, but I wouldn't say superior. You take Westbrook off the Thunder and you're looking at the Nets.
And for the fifth time this season...KICKING myself for not taking Westbrook for MVP at 18-1 (or whatever it was) prior to season like I wanted to.
I think there is still consideration to "best player on best team" theory, but it's not like the Rockets are even a superior team to OKC. They're better, but I wouldn't say superior. You take Westbrook off the Thunder and you're looking at the Nets.
And for the fifth time this season...KICKING myself for not taking Westbrook for MVP at 18-1 (or whatever it was) prior to season like I wanted to.
Oh...and he's been getting shit lately for "chasing" the triple double with padded stats. Seriously? Triple-double for the season is triple-double for the season. Can anybody tell me Oscar didn't "pad" his stats with a couple unneeded assists or teammate giving up a rebound to him at the end of a game.
Like when Cabrera won the fucking Triple Crown couple years ago and the sabermetric guys were still saying Trout should be MVP. Maybe...but the Triple Crown is still pretty damn impressive no matter how meaningless an RBI this century. Give the man who averaged a Triple-damn-Double the MVP.
Like when Cabrera won the fucking Triple Crown couple years ago and the sabermetric guys were still saying Trout should be MVP. Maybe...but the Triple Crown is still pretty damn impressive no matter how meaningless an RBI this century. Give the man who averaged a Triple-damn-Double the MVP.
Rockets aren't significantly more talented than OKC across the board, but their personnel/style is way more conducive to having a really good regular season than OKC's is. Tough for teams to bring the defensive intensity to stop a barrage of 3's like that on a nightly basis in the regular season and almost everyone in their lineup can getup like 6-10 3's a game. That D'Antoni style is just a bitch to deal with in the regular season, and the Rockets have that style on steroids. There hasn't even been a team that's just basically said "screw it, we're going to shoot 45 3's a game" before
So some of Harden's #'s are inflated because of that. I think if they switched teams OKC would clearly be worse and Houston a little better.
Could see the award going either way though.
So some of Harden's #'s are inflated because of that. I think if they switched teams OKC would clearly be worse and Houston a little better.
Could see the award going either way though.
