|
Define what the MVP should be...
There always seems to be debates on what the MVP means and who should win it, and God knows that eveyone seems to have a different interpretation over it. So, maybe we can all come closer to a universal definition of the ever so popular "MVP." Let's all work together and maybe we can all get close to something. With Steve Nash winning it last year and with people debating about Kobe, Chauncey Billups, etc, I think it's time we all try to get together on the same page, because it seems like no two people have the same definition on what the MVP should be or should accomplish.
First off, let's look at some universal things that past MVP's have all shared. There's one blatantly obvious thing that all past MVP's have in common dating back to almost the last 2 decades or so: Every single MVP for the last 17 years played for a team with at least 56 wins (With the exception of Karl Malone winning the strike shortened season). That streak dates back to 87-88 in which Michael Jordan won it on a 50 win team. So if recent history is any indication, to win the MVP you have to be on one of the very best teams in the league, and have to be on a team with at least 55-56 wins. Of course, applying that to this season, Kobe's MVP chances don't look all that great. The question is, just how good of a performance does an individual have to have to look past this modern MVP qualification? Going back to Jordan of 87-88, his Bulls won 50 games, and MJ put up 35/6/5, plus throw in 3+ steals per game, over 1 and a half blocks per game, and nearly 54% shooting from the floor. As good of numbers as Kobe is putting up, he's not going to finish with numbers that top those, plus the Lakers are not looking like even a 50 win team at this point. We all have our own methods of defining "MVP" and just who and who shouldn't win it, but if we follow the patterns and trends of past MVP's, we can make a better determination. Looking at the past trends and patterns, Kobe doesn't appear to be a front runner, and guys like Chauncey Billups, Tim Duncan, and Dirk Nowtizki do appear to be front runners.
I would like to go on longer, but I don't want to make this an absurdly long post. Add your thoughts and observations on past MVP's, because I think we should be looking at the past trends and standards for MVP's instead of us each trying to make our own. I know that some people don't like the "Best player on the best team" theory for the MVP, but if you glance at the past that's basically how the MVP is determined. I'll do some further research on past MVP's and what they have all shared individually and team wise, and I'll post it on here.
|