MVP award: Is it a heavy factor to determine player all time ranking?

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Clearly, the elite of the NBA are the ones that win the MVP. This topic is directly related to the Bill Russell. Overrated? thread linked in my signature. Here's a post I made in that thread discussing the first 21 MVP awards.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4717593&postcount=121

The pattern seems to be the criteria for the award is find the best team by regular season record, then pick the best player on that team. 14 of them went to a player whose team had the best regular season record, 4 times it went to a player with the second best team record. A glance at the rest of the MVP awards shows this pattern seems to continue to date. Example, Bird won 3 MVP's in a row while Boston had best league record in each season. I didn't research much beyond 1976, I am sure the votes and winners after then will tell quite a lot more.

MVP award winners here, and you can click the (V) link each year to see voting results.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/mvp.html

In the early years, Russell, Chamberlain, and Robertson continued to put up constant and dominating stats. All of Russell's MVP's came in seasons Boston had the best record. Except for Wilt's rookie year, where he won ROY and MVP, Wilt didn't start collecting MVP's until his team got the best record. In fact, when Wilt had bad teams, his votes went way down! Robertson won in a season his team improved from 42-38 to 55-25.

Indications are the MVP is a team award first, then it goes to the best player on that team. Example, if Wilt's teammates had stepped up and won enough games every season, Wilt might have had Russell's last 4 MVP's. Clearly Wilt's team playing better has nothing to do with what Russell was doing. Both Wilt and Russell are still the same player. No matter how you divide those MVP's, they are still the same player. Russell still bats Wilt in the playoffs, even if Wilt's teams somehow got better records and Wilt had all the MVPs. I can't buy the argument someone made his team better and thus deserved the award more. Basketball is a team game and if you don't have the full team, you don't win. You can't rate or blame a superstar for their great help or lack thereof. When Kareem won in 1976, about the only positive I can say is he was in his prime and took a team that had won 30 games the year before and had traded it's core to get him to 42 wins.Without Kareem, that Lakers team may have won fewer than 20. Yet this flies in the face of the few votes Wilt got when his San Francisco Warrior team sucked.

If a player wins an MVP as a 2nd best or lower player, that could be a feather in his cap.

Taking this trend to who could win the 2011 MVP, let's look at the early records. Bryant, CP3, and Rondo are the early frontrunners. Durant is playing catch up. James and Wade are arguably just as valuable, but playing together will cause a split in votes; See 1972 voting, Kareem had 1 more first place vote than Chamberlain and West combined. The latter two were teammates.

For Bryant to win, getting a better record than any team other than Miami could do it. For CP3, Rondo, or Durant to get it, a better record than LA may be needed, or some monster numbers that can't be ignored.

Again, getting an MVP (or votes) is great. Being consistent as an individual player in a career is better. At least in my opinion. It gets tricky proving a player makes his teammates better, thus increasing his value. So far, a regular season record is the only proof a player makes his teammates better and the MVP award validates that. Poor proof IMO. A teammate is good, or he isn't.

What's your take?

[Giuseppe]

It's heavey enough for a doorstop, but, aside from that I wouldn't have it in the house.

[Jose Canseco]

I think it's a consideration but not a heavy factor. Context is important. There have been weak seasons in the history of the NBA in terms of having great, great individual players who were also on winning teams to be named MVP. I look first and foremost at Willis Reed's MVP. While he's certainly HOF worthy and an all time great, he's rarely viewed as a top 10 player, probably only arguably a top 20 player depending what you look at. But, it's extremely important to note that Reed won his League MVP the season after Russell retired and in the same season where Wilt got injured early in the season and missed most of it, where he was very clearly the favorite to win MVP. You do need context.

And in more recent years, the League MVP has had its share of controversial winners. The most damning fact that the MVP's value in terms of determining greatness is that Shaquille O'Neal has only 1 MVP where he was either the best or the most dominant player in the league for several seasons over a stretch of almost or around a decade. For all his warts, Shaq deserves more than 1 League MVP on his resume.

In the past, you could argue having multiple MVPs was a sure factor in determining all time ranking for the greatest players. But I believe with Nash's back-to-back League MVPs (to a certain extent you can say the same for Karl Malone's 2 League MVPs), that's also a debate. Whether Nash deserved either or both has been discussed plenty of times before, but I think even those who feel Nash deserved both wouldn't put Nash in the top 10 players all time ahead of several players who have only won 1 League MVP.

The League MVP is a consideration. Championship success still trumps it. How many players who have never won a title are widely considered in the top 10 all time? You'd be hard pressed to argue any.

[Chieflion]

Most of the top players in league history lead their teams to a good record (at least 53 wins in a 82 game season) and win an MVP or 2, keyword being lead. Some players were able to win the MVP award despite an average team record because of their overwhelming dominance compared to their peers (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar).

Then there are some players who win the award in a controversial fashion (some people think so) because of weak competition like Nash in 2006, because the Suns won 54 games without Stoudemire (injury) and Johnson (to the Hawks). Nash won it due to an increase in scoring by 3.3 points a game while increasing his efficiency at the same time and the only season in his career where he exceeded 4 rebounds a game, although he did drop off by 1 measly assist per game still having 10.5 assists per game. Although his team did not have a top 2 record, Nash deserved the MVP that year, with his competition being LeBron James (who finished 2nd) and Dirk Nowitzki (3rd). Either one of these guys could have won it. Nash wasn't the best player in the league, but with the special situation and improvement in stats plus his previous MVP, he got the MVP again.

Another criterion would be that the player has to have played almost the full season, at least 70 games (at least for me in a 82 game season), to be eligible for the award. If you play, you are more valuable than you don't. It is a simple and clear cut criterion. Yet, in the 1978 season, Bill Walton, who only played 58 games, won the MVP award, playing for the Portland Trail Blazers. Coincidentally, his team also won 58 games (leads the league). However, I fully disagree that Bill Walton should have been awarded the MVP award, because he didn't play enough games to show that he was Most Valuable. Julius Erving, whose team won 55 games that season, could have very well been awarded the MVP award (played 74 games). To be fair, there was not an obvious MVP leading candidate that year in my mind, yet because Julius Erving was just in the NBA for his 2nd season after his career in the ABA and that Bill Walton's Blazers won the NBA championship the previous season, they gave it to Walton. I don't think this is fair.

[Giuseppe]

This shit & calf tats and you f'ers have your day started.

:rolleyes

[Jose Canseco]

If I'm not mistaken, when Bill Walton went down in his MVP season of 1977-78, the Blazers were 50-10. They ended the season after he went down 8-14. Bill Walton didn't put up the monster numbers we saw from a lot of MVP winners in that era, but look at that. 50-10 and 8-14. They were on pace for 68 wins if Walton stayed healthy. And it was very apparent that he was the key to their success.

He missed a lot of games, but he was every bit worthy of the MVP that season.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Jose, Chief, thanks for the input. Clearly Duncan is the MVP of the Spurs in every season he played (I think), but he only has 2 MVP's, and we all know the Spurs record has been at the top throughout his career. I didn't check his votes, but his all NBA team selections make up for the lack of MVP's.

Coaching is another factor. A great coach can win a lot of games as well. He would be more important than making players better than the MVP of the team.

[Giuseppe]

and we all know the Spurs record has been at the top throughout his career.

It's like 13 years straight of 50 victories.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Also, one factor that could help CP3, Rondo, or Durant this year is big improvement on last year's poor won/loss records. If any of those teams win 60, they probably steal the MVP.

[Chieflion]

If I'm not mistaken, when Bill Walton went down in his MVP season of 1977-78, the Blazers were 50-10. They ended the season after he went down 8-14. Bill Walton didn't put up the monster numbers we saw from a lot of MVP winners in that era, but look at that. 50-10 and 8-14. They were on pace for 68 wins if Walton stayed healthy. And it was very apparent that he was the key to their success.

He missed a lot of games, but he was every bit worthy of the MVP that season.

Even so, the controversy surrounding that MVP award that year was insane. Bill Walton is the only NBA player in league history to have won the MVP award playing less than 60 games. We know he was the best player (Kareem not withstanding) in the league that year, but missing so many games would have destroyed a player's chance of winning MVP.

Imagine a scenario where LeBron James in the 2009-2010 season, his team goes 50-12, all of a sudden, he misses the rest of the season and his team goes 6-14 and the Cavs end the season 56-26. What do you think of the chances of him winning MVP? I would say it is highly unlikely.

[21_Blessings]

Rondo,

Haha, no.

Other two you mentioned will get plenty of MVP consideration regardless.

[Jose Canseco]

You just mentioned above there was no clear cut MVP winner that season.

Funny thing is that Bill Walton missing all those games actually helped demonstrate how valuable he was. Had he stayed healthy and the Blazers won 65-68 games, which they were on pace for, it would have been a no-brainer that he should win. The fact that Blazers went 8-14 after he went down when they were 50-10 before it makes an extremely strong MVP argument for him. Had there been another player in the league that year on a 60+ win team putting up crazy numbers, I'd understand it more. Dr. J's Sixers had the next best record at 55 wins. And it wasn't like Dr. J was putting up unbelievably dominating numbers himself.

For every "rule" there is an exception. Bill Walton's MVP season is such a case.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Consider this:

Miami 66 wins
Lakers 63 wins
on of Celtics/Hornets/Thunder 60 wins.

LeBron and Wade put up killer stats
Kobe puts up normal stats, therefore favored over LeBron and Wade; their votes get split.
Rondo/CP3/Durant have career years. the one that plays for the 60 win team gets the award, even if one of the other 3 has better stats.

Thus that 60 win team steals the award from Miami and LA (best records, split votes) and also steals it from one of the other players who did better but didn't win 60 games.

Between Rondo, CP3 and Durant, which team is most likely to win 60 games? Vegas odds on MVP's might be a wise wager for all of them.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Haha, no.

Other two you mentioned will get plenty of MVP consideration regardless.

hah, I am not sold on him either, but his stats so far are legit, his team is 4-1, and based on voting history, he's a candidate. No one is going to vote for the other Celtics, they are too old.

[21_Blessings]

Even if Boston wins 60, Dwight's 55ish wins will still look more impressive. Rondo haven't a chance IMO. Especially with Pierce still being considered the Alpha out there.

[Jose Canseco]

Even if Rondo is already the best player on the Celtics, which one could easily argue, I think he'll have a hard time collecting too many MVP votes while he's playing with Pierce, KG, and Ray Allen, regardless how much each of them has regressed. He could get a couple of votes by either Boston slappies who have votes or a few who are just trying to be different and/or sick of voting for LeBron/Kobe. But I find it hard to believe enough would vote for Rondo to give him even a slim chance at winning it.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Jose, I looked at the votes. The only time any player arguably took a lot of votes from Shaq when he was dominant was Jason Kidd in 2002 for reviving the Nets. Duncan still won easily in spite of I believe the third best record. CWebb with Sac was 7th, and they had the best record.

Anyway, when the MVP topic gets clarified later in the season and comes back, let's see how this thread compares.

[diego]

as far as the award goes, I don't know enough about past winners to comment. certainly, being a press voted award, perceptions are important.

Regardless of all that, in my mind players definitely can make each other better, for example:

1) A shooter pg with a bad handle who can anticipate on D, can be made much better by a super star SG who can handle the rock, slash, and play good man defense. In other words, some players complement other players skill sets. IMO it is easier to find players that complement, say Duncan's skill set than Dirk's. But in this sense, you can always argue that part of the merit is the coach/FO in finding and pairing the right players.

2) A player who is a strong leader, with a good work ethic, sets the tone for his teammates. A player who non chalantly drops 30 points then goes out to party doesnt help his teammates become better the way that a leader can. To me, this was the difference between say kobe and tmac (back in the early 00 when Tmac looked like one of the best on earth). (note: I dont know if Tmac was out partying, but you could tell he wasnt that kind of leader). There are many more like that.

And there are cases like Shaq, who was great at making his teammates better in the 1st sense, but terrible in the 2nd. But like I said definitely a player can make his teammates better. If I were in charge of the MVP award, I wouldn't worry so much about team record, but definitely look at how much the MVP candidate's skills and leadership define the rest of the squads roles and performance. Its not a coincidence that some players look like all stars next to some guys, and dog shit next to others.

[Kobe Bean Bryant]

MVP should have 0 impact on all time rankings.

[LRMR]

We at LRMR Marketing are working hard with Commissioner David Stern and the NBA Front Office on officially changing the name of the NBA MVP award to the "LeBron James MVP Trophy." We feel that LeBron's beautifully sculpted and shirtless body immortalized in bronze would make for the perfect embodiment of what the NBA stands for. Because of LeBron's already storied legacy, we believe wherever LeBron James is seen is where amazing happens.

When Commissioner Stern eventually signs the proposed agreement, LRMR is prepared to write a check in the value of $250.00 (American dollars) that will be given and evenly distributed to all Nike sweatshops in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Cambodia. Such a generous gift will substantially raise the hourly rates paid to the sweatshop gooks by .00015% of one American cent. We also plan to celebrate this momentous event by hosting a party on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Louisiana where tickets will be a mere $5,000.00 (dinner and drinks not included). 1% of ticket proceeds will go to the New Orleans community action group, "Let Weezy Go Freezy," who diligently wrote letters to Lil Wayne while he was incarcerated at Rikers Island. The money will reimburse all the money they spent on stamps. Swoosh we say!

What should we do? Whatever we do, we do it for the fucking sweatshop kids.