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.
Okay, I just looked up the efficiencies of past MVP's and where they ranked. All but 2 of the last 22 MVP's have finished in the top 7 in efficiency in the league. The only 2 were rather recent guys, and both are guards: Nash last season, and Iverson back in 00/01. In 18 of those 22 years, the MVP finished in the top 4 in the league in efficiency. Top 8 in efficiency this season along with the rankings of other possible MVP canidates:
1. Elton Brand
2. Kevin Garnett
3. LeBron James
4. Shawn Marion
5. Kobe Bryant
6. Dwyane Wade
7. Allen Iverson
8. Dirk Nowitzki
11. Tim Duncan
12. Steve Nash
24. Chauncey Billups
Chauncey Billups is the odd ball using the efficiency trend.
MVP to me is a player whose playing a very high level(Top 10 at the very least in the league), and whose presence on the team lifts them into a GOOD team. Team's winning % should be AT least .600. And w/o him the team shouldn't be all that close to what they are w/ him.
__________________ The easiest job in the nba is to be Shaq's teammate.
"Best player on the best team" is not how the MVP has been determined, that's just the way it usually came out because coincidentally the players who have won MVP have usually been top 5 players in the league in addition to being on a top team. It wasn't just the fact that they were the best player on one of the best teams. They were one of the best players in the league, period. We just don't have as many elite players playing on elite teams these days. For example:
Kobe: average team
KG: underachieving team
LeBron: streaky team
Whereas when MJ, Magic, Bird, Malone, Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Duncan, etc. won MVP, yes, they were on a top team in the league. But they were also unarguably a top 3 player in the league -- which is why we can't point to past trends regarding the MVP right now. The circumstances are different.
The way I think of the MVP is this: what player's absence would result in the largest dropoff by his team?
"Best player on the best team" is not how the MVP has been determined, that's just the way it usually came out because coincidentally the players who have won MVP have usually been top 5 players in the league in addition to being on a top team. It wasn't just the fact that they were the best player on one of the best teams. They were one of the best players in the league, period. We just don't have as many elite players playing on elite teams these days. For example:
Kobe: average team
KG: underachieving team
LeBron: streaky team
Whereas when MJ, Magic, Bird, Malone, Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Duncan, etc. won MVP, yes, they were on a top team in the league. But they were also unarguably a top 3 player in the league -- which is why we can't point to past trends regarding the MVP right now. The circumstances are different.
The way I think of the MVP is this: what player's absence would result in the largest dropoff by his team?
Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Steve Nash...these don't count as elite players on elite teams?
I wasn't saying that "The best player on the best team" automatically gets the MVP award, but that is usually how it works. Maybe not always the best player on the very best team, but the best player on one of the very best teams is about right.
Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Steve Nash...these don't count as elite players on elite teams?
I wasn't saying that "The best player on the best team" automatically gets the MVP award, but that is usually how it works. Maybe not always the best player on the very best team, but the best player on one of the very best teams is about right.
I'm saying there's more to it than that. Best player on one of the best teams while also being a top 3-5 player in the league.
Duncan and Nash are the only clear-cut top 5 players on an elite team, IMO. However, Duncan is having an average season by his standards, and the Spurs have been meeting expectations. Circumstance isn't in his favor. Dirk is on an elite team, but he's arguably a top 5 player, not clear-cut. LBJ and Wade are not on teams with elite records, and it can be argued that Wade isn't a top 5 player.
It was easy to consider the players on top teams for MVP in the past, because they were also usually one of top 3 players in the league. Either Magic, Bird, or MJ won the MVP 9 years in a row -- they were on top teams while also being a top 3 player in the league. Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Malone -- when they won MVP, same thing. It's more complicated than that today, because a lot of the elite players are not on teams with elite records (Kobe, LBJ, KG), and a lot of the elite teams don't have a clear-cut top 5 player (Dirk/Mavs, Pistons/Billups).
Nash is both a top player in the league and on one of the top teams in the league, while missing a huge part of last year's Suns in Amare. The circumstances are in his favor at this point, which is why Nash has my vote for MVP.
Helping your team win is the only standard I use to evaluate any player.If you can't help your team win then you have no value.Obviously I think the MVP should be the player who does the most to help his team win,but I don't pretend that this is easy to quantify.I know the question,but the answer isn't obvious to me just yet.To me the frontrunners are Dirk Nowitzki,Elton Brand and Steve Nash in no particular order.
It seems to me that the voters have shared the same idea that I have,but have been too lazy to figure out the answer to that question.Instead of doing their homework they look at the standings and vote for the best player on the team with the best record.
The player with the most positive impact on winning, all things considered, otherwise known as the "best player" for the season.
If the undisputed best player in the league is on a team full of high school players, and they only win 1 game, I think he should win MVP still, because he is the most valuable player. And trust me, there isn't a player in NBA history who could win even one game out of 82 if they had all high school players as teammates.
The most valuable player shouldn't have to do with what other players are around you. It's an individual player award, so surrounding factors are irrelevant to me.
__________________
The Bulls are back in business.
MVP-player who carried their team to the postseason with amazing stats
MVP-has to be a great player, not just the best player on the best team
MVP- Lebron james
__________________ CAVALIERS... All for one. One for all.
Cavs:21-12 Browns: 4-12 Indians:0-0 Ohio State football:12-0 Ohio State bball:13-2
Define what the MVP should be...
CAVALIERS... All for one. One for all.