NBA: Top 3 Most undeserved MVP in the last 3 18 years.

[ambchang]

Duncan's turnaround is overrated tbh, Robinson missed most of the 96/97 season.

Bird did have an impressive impact though, and before you bring up Cowens, Maravich and Nate, they were TOSBs at this point

Oh of course. It was to make fun of his re edness.

[resistanze]

Interesting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...ards_2006.html

As I said, Nash won in 06 because he got a lot of positive attention for winning with new cast and there werent any other worthy candidates. He only got 57 of the first place votes but the rest were split up evenly amongst five different players. Nash got less first place votes in 06 than he did in 05 yet won the vote by a greater total margin.

You should sort that year and others by Win Shares, you'll see a funny trend

1990-00: Shaq (1st in WS)
2000-01: Iverson (8th)
2001-02: Duncan (1st)
2002-03: Duncan (1st)
2003-04: Garnett (1st)
2004-05: Nash (11th)
2005-06: Nash (8th)
2006-07: Dirk (1st)
2007-08: Kobe (4th)
2008-09: Lebron (1st)
2009-10: Lebron (1st)
2010-11: Rose (4th)
2011-12: Lebron (1st)
2012-13: Lebron (1st)
2013-14: Durant (1st)
2014-15: Curry (3rd)
2015-16: Curry (1st)
2016-17: Westbrook (3rd)

It's interesting that the most controversial winners that people commonly talk about have WS nowhere near top 3 (if not first, like most winners).

[Arcadian]

2002 MVP voting.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...ards_2002.html

Kidd. Was. Robbed.

That link you posted shows Duncan with a WS/48 of .257, compared to Nash with .140.

'02 was arguably Duncan's best individual regular season, so we're talking about the best season by the best player of his generation. With a terrible supporting cast. He deserved it.

[lefty]

Oh of course. It was to make fun of his re edness.

[Spurtacular]

You should sort that year and others by Win Shares, you'll see a funny trend

1990-00: Shaq (1st in WS)
2000-01: Iverson (8th)
2001-02: Duncan (1st)
2002-03: Duncan (1st)
2003-04: Garnett (1st)
2004-05: Nash (11th)
2005-06: Nash (8th)
2006-07: Dirk (1st)
2007-08: Kobe (4th)
2008-09: Lebron (1st)
2009-10: Lebron (1st)
2010-11: Rose (4th)
2011-12: Lebron (1st)
2012-13: Lebron (1st)
2013-14: Durant (1st)
2014-15: Curry (3rd)
2015-16: Curry (1st)
2016-17: Westbrook (3rd)

It's interesting that the most controversial winners that people commonly talk about have WS nowhere near top 3 (if not first, like most winners).

For me, the controversy is that wins shares is not a real stat.

[AlexJones]

Nash deserved it in 2006.

[AlexJones]

For me, the controversy is that wins shares is not a real stat.

Win Shares is overrated but not useless.

[AlexJones]

ESPN's RPM is the single most valuable statistic in predicting how many wins a given player adds to his team.

[Spurtacular]

Win Shares is overrated but not useless.

Agreed, I take it as an indicator; but not as an absolute.

[apalisoc_9]

11th.

[Clipper Nation]

Nash deserved it in 2006.

[da_suns_fan]

You should sort that year and others by Win Shares, you'll see a funny trend

1990-00: Shaq (1st in WS)
2000-01: Iverson (8th)
2001-02: Duncan (1st)
2002-03: Duncan (1st)
2003-04: Garnett (1st)
2004-05: Nash (11th)
2005-06: Nash (8th)
2006-07: Dirk (1st)
2007-08: Kobe (4th)
2008-09: Lebron (1st)
2009-10: Lebron (1st)
2010-11: Rose (4th)
2011-12: Lebron (1st)
2012-13: Lebron (1st)
2013-14: Durant (1st)
2014-15: Curry (3rd)
2015-16: Curry (1st)
2016-17: Westbrook (3rd)

It's interesting that the most controversial winners that people commonly talk about have WS nowhere near top 3 (if not first, like most winners).

That link you posted shows Duncan with a WS/48 of .257, compared to Nash with .140.

'02 was arguably Duncan's best individual regular season, so we're talking about the best season by the best player of his generation. With a terrible supporting cast. He deserved it.

EVERYONE in Texas, must be ing stupid. Or maybe its just everyone on this board.

I could say twenty times that win shares, PER etc dont matter and Spurs fan will come back with "Look at his win shares, how can you say he deserves it?!". What is it that YOU THINK I am arguing?

That. Doesnt. Matter.

Look at the table above. #1 in Win shares doesnt mean youre going to win MVP. Steve Nash won it twice without cracking the top five, so win shares cant be an indicator of who is going to win the MVP.

As I've said, the player who gets the most positive media attention (OR PLAYER OF THE YEAR) is going to get it every ing year.

Now, Ive said this, yet ing morons will come back with different advanced stats indicating why Steve Nash was an inferior player to someone else. I. Dont. Care.

If you think the media narrative surrounding Steve Nash was overblown, thats your opinion. But if you want to know who is going to win MVP, theyre going to give it to the player of the year almost every ing year. The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

And to answer another poster, Duncan didnt get it in 98 because Spurs turnaround was attributed to both and he and Robinson. I dont care if you think thats true or not or if you think Nash was incorrectly given all the credit for Suns turnaround. Im just telling you what happened.

ing moronic responses in 3...2...1...

[da_suns_fan]

Duncan's turnaround is overrated tbh, Robinson missed most of the 96/97 season.

Bird did have an impressive impact though, and before you bring up Cowens, Maravich and Nate, they were TOSBs at this point

Oh of course. It was to make fun of his re edness.

No, Lefty just pointed out why neither was player of the year which just made my point.

Thanks!

- DSF out

[StrengthAndHonor]

EVERYONE in Texas, must be ing stupid. Or maybe its just everyone on this board.

I could say twenty times that win shares, PER etc dont matter and Spurs fan will come back with "Look at his win shares, how can you say he deserves it?!". What is it that YOU THINK I am arguing?

That. Doesnt. Matter.

Look at the table above. #1 in Win shares doesnt mean youre going to win MVP. Steve Nash won it twice without cracking the top five, so win shares cant be an indicator of who is going to win the MVP.

As I've said, the player who gets the most positive media attention (OR PLAYER OF THE YEAR) is going to get it every ing year.

Now, Ive said this, yet ing morons will come back with different advanced stats indicating why Steve Nash was an inferior player to someone else. I. Dont. Care.

If you think the media narrative surrounding Steve Nash was overblown, thats your opinion. But if you want to know who is going to win MVP, theyre going to give it to the player of the year almost every ing year. The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

And to answer another poster, Duncan didnt get it in 98 because Spurs turnaround was attributed to both and he and Robinson. I dont care if you think thats true or not or if you think Nash was incorrectly given all the credit for Suns turnaround. Im just telling you what happened.

ing moronic responses in 3...2...1...

Exactly.

[da_suns_fan]

Exactly.

Holy . Someone finally gets it.

[Spurtacular]

Exactly.

He also said this in the same quote, The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

Dude shot 39 FG and was under 15/10 and is stacked up against one of TD's best years.

[resistanze]

EVERYONE in Texas, must be ing stupid. Or maybe its just everyone on this board.

I could say twenty times that win shares, PER etc dont matter and Spurs fan will come back with "Look at his win shares, how can you say he deserves it?!". What is it that YOU THINK I am arguing?

That. Doesnt. Matter.

Look at the table above. #1 in Win shares doesnt mean youre going to win MVP. Steve Nash won it twice without cracking the top five, so win shares cant be an indicator of who is going to win the MVP.

As I've said, the player who gets the most positive media attention (OR PLAYER OF THE YEAR) is going to get it every ing year.

Now, Ive said this, yet ing morons will come back with different advanced stats indicating why Steve Nash was an inferior player to someone else. I. Dont. Care.

If you think the media narrative surrounding Steve Nash was overblown, thats your opinion. But if you want to know who is going to win MVP, theyre going to give it to the player of the year almost every ing year. The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

And to answer another poster, Duncan didnt get it in 98 because Spurs turnaround was attributed to both and he and Robinson. I dont care if you think thats true or not or if you think Nash was incorrectly given all the credit for Suns turnaround. Im just telling you what happened.

ing moronic responses in 3...2...1...

But yet you've also simultaneously argued in this very thread Duncan didn't deserve to be the MVP in 2003. And again, I could find you stating Shaq was deserving in 2005.

You seemed to have regressed significantly over the last decade, some must've happen bad IRL, tbh. You maybe you were always this re ed, can't tell.

[ambchang]

No, Lefty just pointed out why neither was player of the year which just made my point.

Thanks!

- DSF out

It's about the narrative and turnaround, except when it's not.

It's about popularity, but then the Spurs shouldn't win because they are boring.

[da_suns_fan]

But yet you've also simultaneously argued in this very thread Duncan didn't deserve to be the MVP in 2003. And again, I could find you stating Shaq was deserving in 2005.

You seemed to have regressed significantly over the last decade, some must've happen bad IRL, tbh. You maybe you were always this re ed, can't tell.

No, I said he should have lost to Kidd in 2002.

I can say for it the twenty first time but you guys just dont get it. Too ing stupid.

[da_suns_fan]

He also said this in the same quote, The only player that was truly "robbed" was Jason Kidd in 02.

Dude shot 39 FG and was under 15/10 and is stacked up against one of TD's best years.

it. You dont get it. You are too dumb.

Sorry.

[da_suns_fan]

It's about the narrative and turnaround , except when it's not.

It's about popularity, but then the Spurs shouldn't win because they are boring.

Yes, its all about narrative but I never said it has to specifically be a turnaround.

Youre pretending that I said theres a certain way to be "player of the year" because you realize that I am right. I usually am.

You can be player of the year for stats, turnaround, team accomplishments etc. Obviously it depends on what was expected, what other players that year did etc. Which player stood out that season.

I was right when I said there was no way the media wasnt going to give it to Westbrook. Didnt matter his team was low seed. A player averaging a triple double is too big of a story.

Let me try a different way, idiot Spurs fans:

Whatever logic/criteria you use for "Coach of the year", "Sixth man of the year", "Rookie of the year" etc, apply it to all players in the league. Thats who wins MVP.

[Arcadian]

<stupid nonsense>

I'm not arguing who the media will arbitrarily view as "player of the year"; I'm arguing who actually deserved to be MVP. Those are dissociable concepts.

You're also contradicting yourself. On one hand, you use your own criterion to argue "Nash deserved it because he was player of the year. See? My criterion is predictive." On the other hand, you argue "Kidd deserved to win because he was player of the year. He got robbed!"

Thus, we can conclude one of two things: either you have to admit that Duncan was the player of the year in '02, or your criterion is wrong.

If you think the media was wrong in '02, why do you assume they were obviously correct in '05 and/or '06? Obviously they can be wrong. The truth is, they were right in '02 and wrong in '06.

The funny thing is, I'm not even arguing against Nash here. I liked Nash. I was simply refuting your claim that Duncan didn't deserve it in '02. Granted, you're a notorious irrational Duncan hater, so your opinion is worthless. But even you should be able to deduce that the best player of his generation in his best individual season deserved to be MVP. And he was.

[Spurtacular]

<Stupid Nonsense 2>

If you had any doubt about whether Kidd was "robbed in 02," The 03 Finals should've put those doubts to bed.

[ambchang]

Exactly.

Holy . Someone finally gets it.

Well, duh! Because the media votes on it. But then the le isn't about who really got it, the point of the thread is about who didn't deserve it.

[ambchang]

Yes, its all about narrative but I never said it has to specifically be a turnaround.

Youre pretending that I said theres a certain way to be "player of the year" because you realize that I am right. I usually am.

You can be player of the year for stats, turnaround, team accomplishments etc. Obviously it depends on what was expected, what other players that year did etc. Which player stood out that season.

I was right when I said there was no way the media wasnt going to give it to Westbrook. Didnt matter his team was low seed. A player averaging a triple double is too big of a story.

Let me try a different way, idiot Spurs fans:

Whatever logic/criteria you use for "Coach of the year", "Sixth man of the year", "Rookie of the year" etc, apply it to all players in the league. Thats who wins MVP.

In other words, your whole point is that the media gets to decide who gets it or not, which we all already know. But then that's not the topic of discussion, you just haven't figured that part out yet.