Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do agree there, a healthy Wade and Bosh without Lebron, and the Heat would still be one of the top teams. I also agree that the Thunder would fall far down the standings without Durant. Like I said, I think if Durant wins the MVP, he's more than deserving of it. The same could be said for Lebron though.
Of course he is, I've never said Lebron isn't deserving. You also have to factor in how the media views MVP voting. Lebron has already won two, so it could be a matter of the voters deciding that Durant has paid enough dues, has the stats, has the team performance to warrant being given the award. Really it comes down to the definition of MVP. If you agree that the Thunder are worse off than the Heat if you removed Durant versus removing Lebron, it's logical to argue that Durant's more valuable to his team's success, despite Lebron's statistical/overall superiority.
But the Heat do have one of the best records in the game, and LeBrons stats are way better than Durants. LeBron is having a career year so far.
LeBron's stats
37.4 minutes per game, 29.1 ppg, 8 rebounds per game, 7.1 assists per game, 54.5% FG percentage, 40.7% on his 3s (and he hasn't been taking as many), 74.7% on his FTs, 2.1 steals per game, .80 blocks, 3.9 turnovers per game, PER(Player Efficiency Rating) of 33.55
Kevin Durant's stats
36.4 minutes per game, 25.7 ppg, 7.2 rebounds per game, 3.3 assists per game, 50.8% FG percentage, 32.5% 3 point percentage, 82.2% FT percentage, 1.3 steals per game, 1.2 blocks per game, 3.7 turnovers per game, PER of 26.54
Kobe Bryant's stats
38.2 minutes per game, 30.2 ppg, 5.7 rebounds per game, 5.6 assists per game, 45.4% FG percentage, 26.8% 3 point percentage, 84% FT percentage, 1.2 steals per game, .40 blocks per game, 3.8 turnovers per game, PER of 26.44
LeBron is better than both in rebounding, passing, FG percentage, 3 point percentage, steals, and PER.
Durant is better than both only in blocks. He's better than Kobe in FG percentage and 3 point percentage, rebounding, steals, blocks, and PER.
Kobe is better than both in points per game and FT shooting.
Durant turns the ball over more than he gets an assist.
Durant's team has the best record, but Lebron and Kobe's teams both have over .500 records. The Heat and Lakers Strength of Schedule's have been tougher than the Thunder's, and the Heats Margin of victory is better than that of the Thunder. In the Laker's case, it's been way tougher.
Don't get me wrong, I think any of the three would be deserving. LeBron's stats are just way better though.
I understand your points but that's not how the award is given out.
Consider this:
-In the past 13 years the award has gone to.....11 first seeds and 2 second seeds in their respective conference.
-8 of the 13 teams had the best record in the entire NBA, 3 of them had the 2nd best. Kobe won his as the #1 seed with 3rd best record. Nash won his 2nd one as the #2 seed with 4th best record which IMO is clearly the biggest split-vote fluke win in the history of the award.
So essentially, your team HAS to be a 1-2 seed and in 8 of the 13 last seasons it went to the team with the best ending record.
Pretty much bet the house that rules out Kobe and Dirk.
Lebron will get votes, but so will Wade and Rose as those teams will be the ECF 1-2 seeds. That will leave OKC in the west with likely the top record and no vote splitting....and a player that hasn't won it and a new franchise to a city.
P.S. I didn't use 13 years as an arbitrary timeline, that's just how far I went back. (Karl Malone won the shortened season). Besides prior to that was heavily Bulls\Jordan and I know off the top of my head that they were perennial top 1-2 seeds and often had one of if not the best reg. season record. Feel free to go back further if you want.
The 2006 Nash award is pretty much the odd scenario in the past umpteen years. The media's logic in this case: How can you not vote for Nash when his 2006 stats exceeded his 2005 MVP stats, they lose Stoudamire for most of the year, and the Suns still win 54 games. That was the rationale behind that one.
Of course he is, I've never said Lebron isn't deserving. You also have to factor in how the media views MVP voting. Lebron has already won two, so it could be a matter of the voters deciding that Durant has paid enough dues, has the stats, has the team performance to warrant being given the award. Really it comes down to the definition of MVP. If you agree that the Thunder are worse off than the Heat if you removed Durant versus removing Lebron, it's logical to argue that Durant's more valuable to his team's success, despite Lebron's statistical/overall superiority.
It's not even that, I think everyone is giving wayyyy too much analytical credit to the voters.
It's which teams had the best records and did they have an identifiable stud player. This hurts Lebron because of Wade\Bosh....where D Rose has no one on his team near his level and Westbrook isn't in Durants league.
Pretty much if OKC finishes with the best record in the NBA this season, the award goes to Durant. This is exactly why Rose was a lock last year.
Heck, 4 of the last 5 years the award has gone to the team with the best regular season record. Kobe being the exception but even that year they were the #1 seed in the west.
None of us have really talked about Rose much. If he gets on a roll, with what the Bulls have done so far, its entirely possible he could win another MVP. Though, with Lebron in the same conference that will hurt his votes. I do understand what your saying with Durant Greg, in that Durant has very good stats and his team has the best record in the conference.
The 2006 Nash award is pretty much the odd scenario in the past umpteen years. The media's logic in this case: How can you not vote for Nash when his 2006 stats exceeded his 2005 MVP stats, they lose Stoudamire for most of the year, and the Suns still win 54 games. That was the rationale behind that one.
I'm not so sure I agree.
That year you had the Spurs and Pistons as the #1 seeds with better records.
Now check out the voting.
Dirk and Kobe split a lot of votes but this was only a few years after kobes Denver bad publicity so that hurt him.
Billups and Lebron got a lot of votes too.
Spurs were so balanced that Parker, Duncan etc. didn't get the nod.
It was a rare year where the top teams had no CLEARLY best player and were balanced. So, it essentially turned into a free for all.
Want to see something even scarier? 2006-07 NBA Awards Voting | Basketball-Reference.com
Nash narrowly lost to Dirk even though Dallas had the best record in the league that year. Nash actually got more points than in 2006 when he won.
Keep in mind, this would have been Nash's 3rd MVP in a row AND after he'd been raped the previous years in the playoffs by Parker.
All I can say is that Nash got a whole bunch of votes from the writers etc. that LOVED how the NBA had opened up the flow of the game and the scoring and completely overlooked Nash's horrid defense.
If you look at the list of repeat MVP winners Nash sticks out like a sore thumb so the award is quite often about luck and timing of a single regular season.
None of us have really talked about Rose much. If he gets on a roll, with what the Bulls have done so far, its entirely possible he could win another MVP. Though, with Lebron in the same conference that will hurt his votes. I do understand what your saying with Durant Greg, in that Durant has very good stats and his team has the best record in the conference.
You make a good point that if the Bulls finish with the top record, Rose may very well repeat. The writers LOVE Rose, he is a humble, hard-working, kid and gives no one a reason to vote against him so to speak.
Lebron finished 3rd, I think it will be years for some writers to forgive him over "the decision"...also vote splitting like we saw with the Pistons and Spurs teams historically is a big problem for him going forward with Wade.
I'm just giving the nod to Durant over the fact that Rose won the last year and Durant and the OKC franchise are a great story.
Now check out the voting.
Dirk and Kobe split a lot of votes but this was only a few years after kobes Denver bad publicity so that hurt him.
Billups and Lebron got a lot of votes too.
Spurs were so balanced that Parker, Duncan etc. didn't get the nod.
It was a rare year where the top teams had no CLEARLY best player and were balanced. So, it essentially turned into a free for all.
Want to see something even scarier? 2006-07 NBA Awards Voting | Basketball-Reference.com
Nash narrowly lost to Dirk even though Dallas had the best record in the league that year. Nash actually got more points than in 2006 when he won.
Keep in mind, this would have been Nash's 3rd MVP in a row AND after he'd been raped the previous years in the playoffs by Parker.
All I can say is that Nash got a whole bunch of votes from the writers etc. that LOVED how the NBA had opened up the flow of the game and the scoring and completely overlooked Nash's horrid defense.
If you look at the list of repeat MVP winners Nash sticks out like a sore thumb so the award is quite often about luck and timing of a single regular season.
I'm not suggesting that I agree with the logic, only that this was the logic used by the media. Look at it this way, Nash neither had the best stats in 2006, nor was his team a top 1/2 team record-wise. With that in hand, what was the voting criteria? Compared to just about every other MVP the last what, 20 years, his selection was an anomaly.
I'm not suggesting that I agree with the logic, only that this was the logic used by the media. Look at it this way, Nash neither had the best stats in 2006, nor was his team a top 1/2 team record-wise. With that in hand, what was the voting criteria? Compared to just about every other MVP the last what, 20 years, his selection was an anomaly.
I totally agree, obviously there is going to be a mixture of reasons since there are many many different voters.
I think that the 3rd year where he almost beat Dirk despite Dallas having the best record in the NBA is indicative that the writers had an unnaturally high opinion of Nash.
Can you imagine Nash beating Dirk that year? Cuban would have gone ballistic and I would have too. It would have been about as glaring as the Obama Nobel Peace prize...a truly WTH moment.
The writers LOVE Rose, he is a humble, hard-working, kid and gives no one a reason to vote against him so to speak.
That's just it, sub in Rose with Durant and the same thing applies. If the Bulls and Thunder have even remotely comparable records by season's end, and if Durant's stats are looked at as superior, and the fact that Rose won it last year, Durant will get it.
I'm still of the opinion that 50% of the MVP vote should come from the players themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
