[rocketeer]

Originally Posted by Omega

all speculation.. playing what if is not how the MVP should be determined. thats just silly.

garnett's team is better than paul's, so he should win the mvp using your standards of paul being over lebron because of team record. and kobe should be ahead of paul because his team is also better(and had injuries in the same conference).

saying that one player deserves mvp over another because his team has a better record is silly.

[DaRizzle]

Originally Posted by Geaux Tigers

I don't think you can use the black and white "take the player off the team" method to determine worth. MVP isn't like that IMO

Thats pretty much the opposite of my opinion. Thats why Kobe is deserving this year because while the team on paper is good it was not with the multitude of injuries this year. Sure the Cavs would REALLY suck if Lebron wasnt there but could you imagine how bad the Lakers would have been if the same injuries had happenend all year and there was no Kobe....in the WEST!

Just another thought.. considering how good the Lakers roster will be next year (healthy, knock on wood) this could be the last chance for Kobe to win a MVP

[Geaux Tigers]

Originally Posted by DaRizzle

Thats pretty much the opposite of my opinion. Thats why Kobe is deserving this year because while the team on paper is good it was not with the multitude of injuries this year. Sure the Cavs would REALLY suck if Lebron wasnt there but could you imagine how bad the Lakers would have been if the same injuries had happenend all year and there was no Kobe....in the WEST!

Just another thought.. considering how good the Lakers roster will be next year (healthy, knock on wood) this could be the last chance for Kobe to win a MVP

There's just to many unknowns to even try and go down that road. You shouldn't have to rely on hypothetical scenarios so much to determine the MVP.

[rocketeer]

Originally Posted by Geaux Tigers

There's just to many unknowns to even try and go down that road. You shouldn't have to rely on hypothetical scenarios so much to determine the MVP.

what should you rely on? just whatever favors chris paul?

[Omega]

Originally Posted by rocketeer

garnett's team is better than paul's, so he should win the mvp using your standards of paul being over lebron because of team record. and kobe should be ahead of paul because his team is also better(and had injuries in the same conference).

saying that one player deserves mvp over another because his team has a better record is silly.

your right it is silly. its all silly. the MVP is silly. we are both silly for even debating the criteria to win it. its changes every damn year. thats why the award is a joke. and honestly no one should really care who wins it at this point.

[DaRizzle]

You know...there should be an actual definition of what the NBA MVP is. I googled it...nothing

"Most Valuable Player" doesnt cut it!

[DaRizzle]

^somebody rep me for that...that is a serious issue right there and why all of us are complaining to each other!

[Omega]

Originally Posted by DaRizzle

You know...there should be an actual definition of what the NBA MVP is. I googled it...nothing

"Most Valubale Player" doesnt cut it!

if they did that then theyd actually have to give it to the most deserving person.. not just the flavor of the season.

[Geaux Tigers]

Originally Posted by rocketeer

what should you rely on? just whatever favors chris paul?

I really dont think I've been a homer on this issue at all actually.

It's a mixture of team success but ONLY what percentage he contributes to that success, stats, level of play in regards to his potential, and consistency throughout the season.

[lessthanjake]

The argument that someone should get the MVP award based on where their team would be without them is a fallacy. Firstly, that is NOT reality, and something that did not occur should not determine who wins an award which is based on what DID occur. Secondly, determining how a team would do without someone on the team is based purely on speculation, something that will be different depending on the person evaluating it.

For instance, one can play the speculation game to give the MVP award to Paul too. No one expected Paul to have such a transcendent season this year, and as a result very few expected them to make the playoffs. Not only did they make it but they were the 2nd seed and won 56 games. If Paul had not upped his game so incredibly, then the Hornets wouldve done as most expected and not made the playoffs. And certainly, if Paul were an average point guard, that team would NOT be in the playoffs.

That fact is beared out in the only statistic that even vaguely measures this how-a-team-would-be-without-a-certain-player idea: which is win shares above average. Paul's 22.5 win shares above average this year leads the league. A win share is worth one-third of a win and thus statistically replacing Paul with an average player would result in 7.5 less wins this year. Rounding that to 8 means that the Hornets would NOT make the playoffs with an average player this year. It is interesting to note that out of the 4 top candidates for MVP (Paul, Kobe, Lebron, and KG), Paul is the ONLY one for which this is true; statistically, replacing any of those other candidates with an average player would still result in their team being in the playoffs.