MVP's in the NBA

[dland24]

Why is it that NBA MVP's are typically awarded to the best player on the best team? What makes basketball MVP awards more reliant on team success thanbaseball or football? If a running back has 25 touchdowns, but his team is average, there is a very good chance he will win the MVP. If a baseball player hits50 homeruns and bats .330, but his team is average, there is a very good chance he will win the MVP. But if an NBA player has the best season out of any otherplayer, and his team is the 8 seed of the playoffs, he has little to no chance to win the MVP.

Before you say it, I understand that this is pretty much how its always been. But why? Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player'steam doing great more so than any other sport?

 

[badboyf0life420]

coz the media sucks.

 

[JD617]

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?
Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter howgood you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ballyou play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by JD617

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.
Bingo.

 

[jaygoodie08]

Originally Posted by JD617

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.
^^^^^
This is an excellent point

 

[blaxoid]

Originally Posted by JD617

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.

Couldn't this argument be used to prove the exact opposite point thou??
Since in basketball a player can alter the game so much, his team record should be even less relevant because he can dominate the game on both ends. This willmake him stand out far more for his INDIVIDUAL performances as opposed to his performances combined with team record.

 

[vsano]

Being an MVP in bball must be evident in your individuality as a player & your effect in the team itself. It's a win-win situation. Everybody'shappy.

 

[hanzie23]

Originally Posted by JD617

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.
exactly

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by blaxoid

Originally Posted by JD617

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.

Couldn't this argument be used to prove the exact opposite point thou??
Since in basketball a player can alter the game so much, his team record should be even less relevant because he can dominate the game on both ends. This will make him stand out far more for his INDIVIDUAL performances as opposed to his performances combined with team record.

 

[lamarownsem]

Technically speaking, the award should go to the player who is most valuable to his team. That is, the player whose team would worsen most if he was not on it.

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by JD617

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.

/thread

 

[supafly122]

However you wanna put it, Kobe still deserved Nashs second MVP

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by blaxoid

Originally Posted by JD617

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.

Couldn't this argument be used to prove the exact opposite point thou??
Since in basketball a player can alter the game so much, his team record should be even less relevant because he can dominate the game on both ends. This will make him stand out far more for his INDIVIDUAL performances as opposed to his performances combined with team record.

Yep

 

[iminchucks5]

Originally Posted by Supafly122

However you wanna put it, Kobe still deserved Nashs second MVP

cosign..take kobe off that squad and you have a lineup of

smush/farmar
sasha/mckie
luke/evans
odom/cook
kwame/bynum

really? thats not even at 10 win team

 

[dako akong otin]

Originally Posted by JD617

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.
as much as i hate on agreeing with someone with a Boston avatar.... this is an excellent point

 

[92]

can you even name an NBA MVP worthy player that was on a losing team?!?!
No?
mvp caliber players almost always put up stats & win games too.
and on top of that the award is for the Most Valuable Player, so the player must be indispensable to his team, meaningthat they wouldn't be able to succeed/compete at the same level without him.
hypothetically, if the clippers from last year had some ridiculously good player putting up insane stats. but not winning any games, that star playerwouldn't be indispensable to his team. That player could be removed, and the outcome of the clippers' games would be exactly the same.
The clippers in this hypothetical case would the same w/ or w/o that star player, thus making him Dispensable, and therefore not valuable.

 

[clutchshooter]

my opinion is tha..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[three6mafia2007]

Originally Posted by imINchucks5

Originally Posted by Supafly122

However you wanna put it, Kobe still deserved Nashs second MVP

cosign..take kobe off that squad and you have a lineup of

smush/farmar
sasha/mckie
luke/evans
odom/cook
kwame/bynum

really? thats not even at 10 win team

I watched that team play almost every game that season. trust me, that squad w/o kobe would be

 

[dland24]

Originally Posted by 92

can you even name an NBA MVP worthy player that was on a losing team?!?!
No?
mvp caliber players almost always put up stats & win games too.
and on top of that the award is for the Most Valuable Player, so the player must be indispensable to his team, meaning that they wouldn't be able to succeed/compete at the same level without him.
hypothetically, if the clippers from last year had some ridiculously good player putting up insane stats. but not winning any games, that star player wouldn't be indispensable to his team. That player could be removed, and the outcome of the clippers' games would be exactly the same.
The clippers in this hypothetical case would the same w/ or w/o that star player, thus making him Dispensable, and therefore not valuable.

First of all, I never said an MVP can come from a losing team. I was just questioning why it always has to come from the best team. You say without the player,they wouldnt be able to succeed at the same level without him. But there are different levels that teams compete at. Take the Heat of last year. They were anaverage eastern conference team. Dwyane Wade put up RIDICULOUS stats. Without him, they are a 15 win team. With him, they were a 43 win team. That makes himpretty indispensable in my eyes.

Yet in baseball, Ryan Howard won an MVP when his team was an 85 win team which didnt make the playoffs. This would be unheard of to have a situation like thisin the NBA. But why? I dont buy that its because a basketball player can dominate a game more than a baseball player. Does anyone have any other reason why itsonly like this in basketball?

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by Three6mafia2007

Originally Posted by imINchucks5

Originally Posted by Supafly122

However you wanna put it, Kobe still deserved Nashs second MVP

cosign..take kobe off that squad and you have a lineup of

smush/farmar
sasha/mckie
luke/evans
odom/cook
kwame/bynum

really? thats not even at 10 win team

I watched that team play almost every game that season. trust me, that squad w/o kobe would be

that was the 05-06 team farmar and evans weren't there yet. jim jackson wore 24 that year late in the season. that team won 45 games and caught onlate. they played very solid basketball from mid march into the playoffs.

i would have gave kobe the 06 mvp for making that team relevant and meaning the most to his team and putting all my laker fan and kobe fanness to the side i would have gave chris paul mvp in 2008 because of how much better he made that hornets team and the guys on it.

 

[youngtriz]

wade should have won MVP this year...

 

[goldmember]

Originally Posted by Three6mafia2007

Originally Posted by imINchucks5

Originally Posted by Supafly122

However you wanna put it, Kobe still deserved Nashs second MVP

cosign..take kobe off that squad and you have a lineup of

smush/farmar
sasha/mckie
luke/evans
odom/cook
kwame/bynum

really? thats not even at 10 win team

I watched that team play almost every game that season. trust me, that squad w/o kobe would be

There was a time when Kobe sprained his ankle.. and i have to watched chucky freakin atkins as our first damn option on offense.. that was the worst 2 weeks ofmy life..

 

[jules300]

I could of swore Mister NBA logo won MVP on a losing team( yes i kno it was finals mvp)

 

[RyGuy45]

Why is it that NBA MVP's are typically awarded to the best player on the best team? What makes basketball MVP awards more reliant on team success than baseball or football? If a running back has 25 touchdowns, but his team is average, there is a very good chance he will win the MVP. If a baseball player hits 50 homeruns and bats .330, but his team is average, there is a very good chance he will win the MVP. But if an NBA player has the best season out of any other player, and his team is the 8 seed of the playoffs, he has little to no chance to win the MVP.

Before you say it, I understand that this is pretty much how its always been. But why? Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?
Sports are all different and you cannot always compare them equally. And I think u are over exagerrating here. Let's look at the NFL. We knowthat basically voters are only going to give the MVP award to a QB or a RB. (Every MVP has gone to one of those two positions since 1986). That eliminatesbasically the rest of the league. Now with that said let's take a look at the last eight AP NFL MVPs.

2008 - Manning (12-4)
2007 - Brady (16-0)
2006 - Tomlinson (14-2)
2005 - Alexander (13-3)
2004 - Manning (12-4)
2003 - Manning (12-4), McNair (12-4)
2002 - Gannon (11-5)
2001 - Warner (14-2)

Seems like basically top player on top teams to me. Obviously if you score 25 TDs you may be right up there and win it......because you are breaking a hugerecord (or close to it). However you can also can look at a year like 1997.......where Barry Sanders rushed for 2,053 yards and blew up the league on a crappyLions team. Yet he had to share the award with Brett Favre....because Favre's team went 13-3 and Sanders' Lions only went 9-7.

Now we move to MLB. Again, another league that's a little different than NBA not only because of the way the game is set up (most individual sport of themain four) but because you have double the MVPs (AL and NL) which might give you more a chance for uncommon MVPs. The typical MLB MVPs are first looked to begiven out to the player with the best numbers of the four playoff teams in each league. That's been pretty standard for years. If no one has great numbersthey then move to players with monster seasons on other teams. And you are going to have years where the playoff teams all have good TEAMS and not monsterinvidual seasons. In those cases you might see an Arod who puts up 60 HRs for a crappy team win the award, or Bonds' roided up years. Because their numbersabsolutely dwarf any other players.

Here are the AL and NL MVPs the past 10 years followed by their team's record:

AL
2008 - Pedroia (95-67, playoffs)
2007 - Rodriguez (94-68, playoffs)
2006 - Morneau (96-66, playoffs)
2005 - Rodriguez (95-67, playoffs)
2004 - Guerrero (92-70, playoffs)
2003 - Rodriguez (71-91, no playoffs)
2002 - Tejada (103-59, playoffs)
2001 - Ichiro (116-46, playoffs)
2000 - Giambi (91-70, playoffs)
1999 - I Rodriguez (95-67, playoffs)
1998 - Gonzalez (88-74, playoffs)

NL
2008 - Pujols (86-76, no playoffs)
2007 - Rollins (89-73, playoffs)
2006 - Howard (85-77, no playoffs)
2005 - Pujols (100-62, playoffs)
2004 - Bonds (91-71, no playoffs)
2003 - Bonds (100-61, playoffs)
2002 - Bonds (95-66, playoffs)
2001 - Bonds (90-72, no playoffs)
2000 - Kent (97-65, playoffs)
1999 - C Jones (103-59, playoffs)
1998 - S Sosa (90-73, playoffs)

So 10 out of last 11 AL MVPs have come from top teams. And 7 of the last 11 NL MVPs have come from top teams. You can look at that however you'd like, andyou can also factor in steroid era which really made things confusing (i.e. do you start giving out awards to guys because they are hitting 60 bombs which wasunheard of the past 40 years).

But to answer the original question....why do NBA MVPs typically come from top teams? Because that's the tradition. Not a fun answer obviously. The NFLalso has it. The MLB sorta has it. And for me personally I have no problem with NBA voters giving awards to top players on top teams because that to me is morevaluable than "leading" your team to a 7th or 8th seed. If this was titled "Player of the Year" award it would be different.

 

[5am6oody72]

Originally Posted by blaxoid

Originally Posted by JD617

Why does is the awarding of the NBA MVP so dependent on the player's team doing great more so than any other sport?

Because one player can have far more of an impact on team success in basketball than in any other sport. In baseball, it doesn't matter how good you are, you're still only coming up 1 out of every 9 times, or pitching 1 out of every 5 days. In football, you can only control the side of the ball you play on. You can't really dominate a game in those sports like you can in basketball.

Couldn't this argument be used to prove the exact opposite point thou??
Since in basketball a player can alter the game so much, his team record should be even less relevant because he can dominate the game on both ends. This will make him stand out far more for his INDIVIDUAL performances as opposed to his performances combined with team record.



I have read this like 10 times and it still seems completely backwards from a logical standpoint; I don't get it. Could somebody reword this? Two peoplehave cosigned it and I'm sitting here like, "Uh no, that's backwards."