Is it Time to Revisit What the MVP Actually Means?

[illoquent aka dsk]

Dude that voted for Melo was dead wrong and from reading his article, I get the feeling he didn't watch as many NBA games this year as the rest of us. Don't care what your criteria is...the award belonged to Raymone and that was abundantly clear for months.

That being said...this is just another dumb *** hyped up "story" for his international groupie squad to come to his defense. You would think he had to share co-MVP honors or some **** the way folks are acting and talking about this.

At the risk of getting hit with the homer/hater alarm, does anyone remember the single voter who kept Tom Brady from having unanimous MVP selection in '07? I don't either. Some guy voted for Brett Favre and folks gave it little attention (just as it deserves) then we all moved on. I also don't remember there being as much of a witch hunt about that **** as there is today. Got ****** on seek-and-destroy missions targeting anyone who utters disagreeing words about their King. Dan Le Batard's troll job was a perfect display of how the media & fans go nuts when it comes to this guy.

What made it even better is it came from a Miami homer but he's actually one of the few out there who "gets it".

 

[jhova718]

No one in baseball history has made the hall of fame with 100% voting.

That's a bigger deal than this.

 

[kdawg0508]

It's not like the one vote made him second place. He still won in a landslide. People should be more outraged he didn't win dpoy

 

[illoquent aka dsk]

People should be more outraged he didn't win dpoy

Nah.

 

[kb8 3qwick]

The criteria is changed every year to benefit whoever the media has a crush on for that year. They actually made the correct pick this year though.

 

[moiety]

at Mike's statline in 92-93, how he didnt win (let alone came in 3rd) is ridiculous. (Kobe had a similar stat-line in both the 2005-06 and 2006-07 seasons where Steve Nash won it with an 18 and 10 per game average and then to Dirk in the following season)

Go look at Mike's stats in the 86-87 season, might be the worst snub ever and Magic is my dude.

Also the reason I think the MVP voting is kinda skewed is Shaquille O'Neal only winning one? Makes no damn sense to me.

Don't get me wrong I'm not mad nor hating on Lebron winning it this year, but I do think the criteria for voting should be revised.

 

[shoegoon77]

I agree with most of the points OP addressed, the MVP award has been a joke over the years for the most part.  It needs to be changed to most outstanding player or something.  

 

[dipsetgeneral]

What I don't like is people saying MVP means "The best player in the league for that year" Thats not what it means. It means one player being the reason the 1st or second best record in the NBA.

With that said the NBA has never messed up with picking an MVP.

 

[al3xis]

If you go by that logic then Shaq should have won at least 3. The MVP is "most popular player amongst the media currently whose team has a good record." It is a joke award.

If you go by that logic then Kobe should have gotten the 2009 MVP. Lebron's team was only a game ahead of the Lakers. The only reason those cavs teams were
ahead of the Lakers is cause they played in the east and were beating on the garbage teams. It was clear which team was the best team that year. It was clear who was the best player on the best team. The cavs were not even the second best team. The Celtics were.

However, that year the definition used was "turning a mediocre team into a good one." Same with 2010.

Now you are telling me that the "best player on the best team" definition should be used? It seems to me the definition is changed so as to make a preferred player (Lebron) win. Even Jordan was not given such a privilege, i.e. slurping.

If you go by both definitions as the media does with Lebron then Jordan should have about 10 MVP's.

In 2011-2012, Lebron's team did not have the best record yet he won MVP. If you go by 2010 or 2009 logic then Durant or Parker should have won it.

How about the definition be changed to "whichever definition that can be used so as to make Jabron win."

I'm not telling you anything other than that there is no metric, logic, reasoning, number, hate-driven conclusion to come to that doesn't result in LeBron James being MVP.

Did I say it's only the best player on best team? NO. I'm arguing he is as valuable as Carmelo Anthony if you play the take him off team X angle.

I can make a case for LeBron James in 2009 based on his production or team success or this stupid value angle. You can not do that with Carmelo Freaking Anthony in 2013.


LeBron James 2009:

66 Wins
On court : +13.7/off court -7.3
28/7/7 with the highest PER in the league.

Do you know that Cleveland was 26-4 against the almighty West that you always manage to bring up even if there's no evidence to suggest the Cavs would have struggled playing in it? And the Lakers were worse against the East than the West that year. 44-8 in conference, 21-9 vs East.

I have a case any which way. So yeah, I can fit any criteria into LeBron James being MVP in 2009, 2010, 2012 or 2013. He's that good.

 

[mez 0ne]

What I don't like is people saying MVP means "The best player in the league for that league." Thats not what it means. It means one player being the reason the 1st or second best record in the NBA.

With that said the NBA has never messed up with picking an MVP.

Pretty strong statement, read below.

at Mike's statline in 92-93, how he didnt win (let alone came in 3rd) is ridiculous. (Kobe had a similar stat-line in both the 2005-06 and 2006-07 seasons where Steve Nash won it with an 18 and 10 per game average and then to Dirk in the following season)

Go look at Mike's stats in the 86-87 season, might be the worst snub ever and Magic is my dude.

Also the reason I think the MVP voting is kinda skewed is Shaquille O'Neal only winning one? Makes no damn sense to me..

 

[dland24]

What I don't like is people saying MVP means "The best player in the league for that league." Thats not what it means. It means one player being the reason the 1st or second best record in the NBA.

With that said the NBA has never messed up with picking an MVP.

Its almost never ONE player being the reason for the 1st or 2nd best record in the NBA though.

 

[Maximus Meridius]

With that said the NBA has never messed up with picking an MVP.

This. Even when Nash won his 2 I thought it was the right choice. The only time I've ever really disagreed was in 02 when Duncan won it. I thought JKidd shoulda got it that year.

 

[donmega]

With that said the NBA has never messed up with picking an MVP.

This. Even when Nash won his 2 I thought it was the right choice. The only time I've ever really disagreed was in 02 when Duncan won it. I thought JKidd shoulda got it that year.

Kidd was really special that year.

 

[doyung9]

Well in that case, a certain bald headed shooting guard should have won 9 MVPs.

MVP voting is a joke to me.

Finals MVP > Regular Season MVP.

 

[antidope]

[h1] [/h1]

[h1]UNANIMOUS ANIMUS: THE LEBRON JAMES MVP VOTE AND DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF 'VALUE'[/h1]
By  Zach Lowe  on

May 6, 2013 3:56 PM ET  

Issac Baldizon/NBAE/Getty Images

The mystery is solved: Gary Washburn, the very fine Celtics and NBA beat reporter for the Boston Globe, a skilled veteran of this business, has outed himself as the lone voter to select someone other than LeBron James as this season’s Most Valuable Player. Washburn voted for Carmelo Anthony, and he explains his reasoning today in the Globe. I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, since Washburn found out Sunday he’s a lone outlier, and since the Globe  deserves your clicks and your subscriptions after its outstanding coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing. But the crux of Washburn’s reasoning appears in these three paragraphs:

Anthony led the league in scoring average and basically carried an old Knicks team to the No. 2 seed in the Eastern Conference. Amar’e Stoudemire missed most of the season with knee issues, Raymond Felton missed six weeks, and Tyson Chandler dealt with nagging injuries, leaving Anthony, J.R. Smith, and a bunch of lottery picks from the mid-1990s to win 54 games and beat the Miami Heat three times.

And:

So my vote had more to do with Anthony and less to do with the dominance of LeBron. If you were to take Anthony off the Knicks, they are a lottery team. James plays with two other All-Stars, the league’s all-time 3-point leader, a defensive stalwart, and a fearless point guard. The Heat are loaded.

If LeBron was taken away from the Heat, they still would be a fifth or sixth seed. He is the best player of this generation, a multifaceted superstar with the physical prowess of Adonis, but I chose to reward a player who has lifted his team to new heights.

This gets back to the word “valuable,” an amorphous concept that encourages voters to dig deep into roster context, team identity, and other team-by-team quirks that often make a star player more valuable because of the particular realities in which he functions. As a reminder, I don’t have an awards ballot, though I gave James my fake MVP  and argued last month that he deserved the award unanimously. I won’t reiterate the pro-LeBron argument here.

But I will take issue with three points: one Washburn did not mention, and the two that are the key pieces of his pro-Melo argument.

1. Anthony missed 15 games this season.

That amounts to nearly 20 percent of the season, and represents the most games missed by any realistic MVP candidate. Only Chris Paul, who missed 12 games, is really close. James missed just six games, and most of those came at the end of the season, after Miami had already clinched the league’s best overall record.

You can’t make a case for Anthony without at least acknowledging this gap in his candidacy. When you’re choosing between the very best players in the league, every factor counts, including missed games. Only one player has ever won the MVP playing in so low a percentage of his team’s games: Bill Walton, who played just 58 of 82 games for the 1977-78 Blazers.

2. “If you were to take Anthony off the Knicks, they are a lottery team.”

You have to prove this statement, or at least try to. It does not simply become true when written. It took a measly 38 wins to make the playoffs this season in the Eastern Conference. The Knicks outscored opponents by 6.2 points per 100 possessions with Anthony on the court this season and 3.2 points per 100 possessions with Anthony on the bench, per NBA.com.

That’s a very meaningful gap. Anthony had a very good season, and I ranked him at no. 4 on my fake ballot — behind James, Kevin Durant, and Chris Paul. (I’d encourage you to read that if you, crazed New York fan, are taking this as some anti-Melo screed. I go on and on about Melo’s newfound efficiency and his foundational importance to New York’s small-ball identity.) But that plus-3.2 figure would still have ranked 10th among all NBA teams, and behind only Miami and Indiana in the Eastern Conference. It is the point differential of a very strong playoff team.

That alone does not disprove Washburn’s claim that New York would be in the lottery without Anthony. A good chunk of the non-Melo New York minutes, when the Knicks maintained that strong plus-3.2 scoring margin, came against opposing second units (or at least mixed starter/bench units), and it’s very possible New York would have suffered much more than these numbers indicate had Melo missed considerable time. Anthony’s longest continuous absences came in two three-game stretches during March, and the Knicks went 3-3 over those six games, with a one-point loss to the Thunder among the defeats.

Various iterations of the Knicks over the two seasons before this one showed they could survive at a .500 or better level without Anthony by shifting into a spread pick-and-roll attack. The Linsanity era coincided with Melo’s longest injury-related absence of his New York career, and the Knicks were famously 28-26 behind the Raymond Felton/Amar’e Stoudemire pick-and-roll before New York dealt for Anthony ahead of the 2011 trade deadline. That was among Stoudemire’s finest half-seasons, and it’s tempting to argue that the Knicks of today could not win that way with Stoudemire missing most of the season due to injuries. But these Knicks also have Tyson Chandler, one of the league’s very best pick-and-roll finishers, a dunk machine who sucks in opposing defenses and opens up perimeter looks for his shooters.

All of this gets into the realm of hypotheticals, and that’s sort of the point. We have no clue if New York would be a lottery team sans Anthony, and if you are going to posit they would be, you have to marshal at least some evidence. And the evidence we do have indicates they may well have been a solid no. 7 or no. 8 seed without him.

3. “If LeBron was taken away from the Heat, they still would be a fifth or sixth seed.”

Problem no. 1: We have no idea if this is actually true, in either direction. But get this: Miami outscored opponents by 14.1 points per 100 possessions with James on the floor and had a negative scoring margin when James hit the bench. That’s right: The mighty Heat got outscored when the world’s best player hit the bench.

This isn’t necessarily conclusive of anything, including that Miami would be an also-ran without James. Swap out James, and Miami would use its cap flexibility to snag an average player in his place, rejigger its rotation to include more Dwyane Wade/Chris Bosh minutes, and redesign its entire offense. But James is of bedrock importance to Miami in the same way Anthony is to New York, only he’s rather clearly better at every single aspect of basketball. Both enable their teams to play powerful small-ball lineups, but James is light years ahead of Melo as a passer and a defender.

Problem no. 2: Even if Miami would finish as a midtier playoff team without James, and not in the lottery, that is not evidence that James is somehow undeserving of the MVP. This is where the murky concept of value goes awry. Winning 66 games is extraordinarily difficult; only 13 teams have pulled it off in league history. Pushing a 48-win team to that historically elite level might be more difficult, and thus more valuable, than pushing a 40-win team to 50-plus wins. (The same might be true, by the way, for someone who pushes a 15-win team to 35 wins, even though said player would get zero consideration for the MVP.)

On a very basic level, the gap between the Heat and the no. 5 or no. 6 seed — the gap Washburn cites — was larger than the gap between the no. 2-seeded Knicks and the lottery. Miami won 21 more games than the fifth-seeded Bulls, and 22 more than the sixth-seeded Hawks, and they did so even while coasting through the last 10 games of the season. New York won “only” 16 games more than the eighth-seeded Bucks. The distance between “great” and “blah” may well be greater in this season, and in others, than the distance between “solid playoff team” and “lottery team.” Adding wins on the high end should count for just as much as adding wins on the low end, and if you care about such things, James led the league in every “wins”-related advanced stat I could find — win shares on Basketball-Reference.com, and both Value Added and Estimated Wins Added among the advanced John Hollinger stats.

Look, it’s no big deal in the scheme of life that James didn’t win unanimously. But I’ve yet to read any convincing evidence that he shouldn’t have done so.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...mes-mvp-vote-and-debunking-the-myths-of-value

 

[dmxfury]

This info was discussed early this morning about the writer. He was all praise for Lebron

 

[dipsetgeneral]

What I don't like is people saying MVP means "The best player in the league for that year" Thats not what it means. It means one player being the reason the 1st or second best record in the NBA.

With that said the NBA has never messed up with picking an MVP.

Pretty strong statement, read below.

I gotta check Mikey's stats for those years.

Its almost never ONE player being the reason for the 1st or 2nd best record in the NBA though.

True.

This. Even when Nash won his 2 I thought it was the right choice. The only time I've ever really disagreed was in 02 when Duncan won it. I thought JKidd shoulda got it that year.

Exactly.

 

[buc em]

a little dramatic with the title although that boston sportswriter was kind of ridiculous for going against the grain just cause

Agreed.

This same thing happened in 2000 with Iverson getting one vote over Shaq. So maybe Melo gets his due next year

 

[airjordan jb23]

At the end of the day, he still won the MVP, so I think this story is getting too much attention Yea, it should have been unanimous, most people would agree. But again, he still won.

The criteria for that one vote (& it was the same case used back when AI got a vote instead of Shaq), is something that should be addressed though. MVP should go to the most dominant player in the league during that season, not the most valuable to his team. You can look any team & take their best player off, & that team will struggle without him... Every star player holds value to their team. MVP should just be looking at the most dominant player in the league, which is why LeBron deserved the unanimous vote.

& on the subject of MVP talk, I still feel Kidd should've won in '02 Yes im still salty

 

[knightngale]

I'm not telling you anything other than that there is no metric, logic, reasoning, number, hate-driven conclusion to come to that doesn't result in LeBron James being MVP.

Did I say it's only the best player on best team? NO. I'm arguing he is as valuable as Carmelo Anthony if you play the take him off team X angle.

I can make a case for LeBron James in 2009 based on his production or team success or this stupid value angle. You can not do that with Carmelo Freaking Anthony in 2013.


LeBron James 2009:

66 Wins
On court : +13.7/off court -7.3
28/7/7 with the highest PER in the league.

Do you know that Cleveland was 26-4 against the almighty West that you always manage to bring up even if there's no evidence to suggest the Cavs would have struggled playing in it? And the Lakers were worse against the East than the West that year. 44-8 in conference, 21-9 vs East.

I have a case any which way. So yeah, I can fit any criteria into LeBron James being MVP in 2009, 2010, 2012 or 2013. He's that good.

That is why my definition is "whichever definition that can be used so as to make Jabron win."

There are many players that can be argued for that were snubbed or should have won more MVPs NOT JUST JABRON. There are many players that are THAT GOOD or BETTER than this dude. You will see if you take your stan glasses off.

Just look at Oscar Robertson and his ridiculous numbers. They **** on Lebron's numbers. He took ****** teams to the playoffs as well. Dude only won 1 MVP. He was THAT good. Better than your Lebron. Sorry.

There are so many stans and white knights for this dude that it is ridiculous. The worst part is that most of the media is made up of Lebron stans and keep spewing ridiculous stuff about him and stans drink it up like kool aid. Where was the outrage in 2000 with shaq when he did not win unanimous mvp? Cause did not have that many ridiculous riders in the media or as fans.

 

[black entourage inc]

That is why my definition is "whichever definition that can be used so as to make Jabron win."

There are many players that can be argued for that were snubbed or should have won more MVPs NOT JUST JABRON. There are many players that are THAT GOOD or BETTER than this dude. You will see if you take your stan glasses off.

Just look at Oscar Robertson and his ridiculous numbers. They **** on Lebron's numbers. He took ****** teams to the playoffs as well. Dude only won 1 MVP. He was THAT good. Better than your Lebron. Sorry. .

There are so many stans and white knights for this dude that it is ridiculous. The worst part is that most of the media is made up of Lebron stans and keep spewing ridiculous stuff about him and stans drink it up like kool aid. Where was the outrage in 2000 with shaq when he did not win unanimous mvp? Cause did not have that many ridiculous riders in the media or as fans.

You have to remember back then (before 1979-80 season) NBA Players voted for MVP's, not media.Whoever won the MVP was someone who truly was respected by their peers. Having said that I don't think that Oscar deserved any other MVP's over Wilt/Russell at the time.

I truly wonder would the voting be much different if it went back to players voting for MVP's instead of media. I can think of a few MVP races that would have ended differently

 

[al3xis]

That is why my definition is "whichever definition that can be used so as to make Jabron win."

There are many players that can be argued for that were snubbed or should have won more MVPs NOT JUST JABRON. There are many players that are THAT GOOD or BETTER than this dude. You will see if you take your stan glasses off.

Just look at Oscar Robertson and his ridiculous numbers. They **** on Lebron's numbers. He took ****** teams to the playoffs as well. Dude only won 1 MVP. He was THAT good. Better than your Lebron. Sorry.

There are so many stans and white knights for this dude that it is ridiculous. The worst part is that most of the media is made up of Lebron stans and keep spewing ridiculous stuff about him and stans drink it up like kool aid. Where was the outrage in 2000 with shaq when he did not win unanimous mvp? Cause did not have that many ridiculous riders in the media or as fans.

You're really taking this Kobe downfall harder than I thought you would. Keep your chin up, right on Kobe's nutsack.

The hell do I care about Oscar Robertson when discussing MVP awards in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013. Oscar won 50 games ONCE in his career before he went onto being a 2nd option behind Kareem in MIL. And you know what? HE WON MVP THAT YEAR. Maybe if he won more games, he'd have more MVP's????

2009:
Best individual season based on evidence- check. Highest PER of his career and of any perimiter player since Jordan. Really, Any number or metric you want to find.
Best value based on evidence - Wade can have a case made here - not as high of on/off rating, but actually had a greater off court number but Miami was a far worse team and didn't have better indv numbers or record.
Best record: Check. Lakers right there, but Kobe didn't have as good of a season or as drastic on/off numbers with his team.

2010:
Best individual season based on evidence - check. Any metric or number you want to use. Highest PER etc etc.
Best value based on evidence - More drastic off court #'s than Kobe but not as Durant. Durant not a better season or record.
Best record - check

2012:
Best individual season based on evidence - check. Highest PER, most win shares. 27, 8 and 6.
Best value based on evidence - Better +/- numbers than Durant, but not as good as Paul. Still better season and record than Paul.
Best record - No, but not MVP candidates on Chicago or SA. OKC 1 win better, but trumps Durant in other 2 departments.

2013:
Best individual season - check. PER, win shares, FG%, whatever. Historic year.
Best value based on evidence - check. Better +/- #'s than Durant, Carmelo or Paul.
Best record - check


So, like I said I can make a case that out-favors any other candidate in these 4 years. Wins, individual numbers, 'value'. He comes out with 2/3 or 3/3 on his side each year.

If you don't think LeBron is deserving of each one - let me know which one(s) you think and who he robbed of it? If not, then I don't know what the hell your point is.

 

[onetrust]

You're really taking this Kobe downfall harder than I thought you would. Keep your chin up, right on Kobe's nutsack.

Lol, seriously, dude is hella fuming right now

 

[gllahone84]

Out of all the great season's Mike had, it still is a shocker dude never won the MVP unanimously. 

Especially for the supposed GOAT.

 

[mez 0ne]

Out of all the great season's Mike had, it still is a shocker dude never won the MVP unanimously. 

Especially for the supposed GOAT.

MJ should've won MVP 9 times

He averaged 32.5PPG, 8 Reb, 8 assists and didn't win

Oscar Robertson would've won more if tripe doubles were an actual "stat", even had more impressive statistical seasons than Lebron did.