And MY POINT was you guys were debating who was undeserving of MVP without knowing what the MVP actually is. ALL IT IS is a player of the year award. If I ask for an instant/blink reaction to the question "which player stood out this season", THATS who they give the award to.
Having said that, the answer to the question "who was most undeserving of winning", the answer is obviously Tim Duncan in 2002 who edged out the true "player of the year" Jason Kidd by narrowest of margins.
No, my whole point was you guys dont understand what the award is and thus, who is undeserving.
We have a coach of the year, rookie of the year, sixth man of the year etc. So WHY does the league call its"player of the year" award "most valuable player"? Because they know bags like yourself will take it so ing seriously and debate on what the word "valuable" means, who had best advanced stats etc.
There was only one player undeserving and that was in 02.
And I wont do that. Its pointless. Youre falling into the leagues trap of taking something more seriously than it deserves.
They dont give the award to the "most valuable player", they give it to the player of the year. KG won in 04 in a LANDSLIDE but didnt even finish in the top 10 in voting the very next season despite playing all 82 games with the same numbers. Did KG suddenly become less "valuable"? No, it just wasnt his year.
Game. Set. Match.
- DSF out
Of course your feeble brain couldn't grasp the fact that this is called the most VALUABLE player, and despite your pleas for this to be "player of the year", which would make the award even more confusing, it is still the most VALUABLE player award. Is it being voted as the player with the best narrative award now? Sure, but that would make some more deserving than others, because if it was actually voted as most VALUABLE award, every person who won the most VALUABLE award would be deserving, and there would be no point having this thread. Get it?
No, we all understand it, it's that you don't. You have difficulty understanding the difference between intent and reality. If there is a delta between the two, then there would be issues of people being undeserving of the award.
It doesn't matter what they name the other awards, fact is they named this the most VALUABLE player, and didn't call it player of the year. The fact is, the media votes for it, so a question was posed a while back to the media member on what would impact their choice of an MVP: http://www.nba.com/article/2017/04/1...g-mvp-decision
There were 8 responses, and while this doesn't totally represent all voting members, it does provide a glimpse. Unfortunately for you, 7 of the 8 responses talk about excellence, value to the team, and impact to the team winning. Only one person talked about narrative (have I seen this before). We have a good guidance from advanced stats nowadays to determine the value of a player to the team, and Nash simply didn't make the cut in most of those advanced stats.
And if you advocate for a player of the year award as you have defined it, then there would be no undeserving winners, because the MEDIA decides who is "stood out this season" based on their articles throughout the year and the MEDIA votes on it, so there would be no delta between the two, and there would be no undeserving winners. And then you go out and said 02 Duncan was undeserving, which contradicted with your entire premise of player of the year.
Except the entire premise of this thread is that who is not deserving at certain years, which opens up the possibly of the wrote guy being voted in, or in your example, not being voted in the top10.
However, your definition doesn't allow for that, because the voters determined who stood out in the year. Did Garnett not stand out in 05?
I think it's clear he's had some type of traumatic brain injury
We have "coach of the year". Is that too confusing for you?
Youre grasping at straws now because you realize that Im correct.
Holy , this was pathetic.
KG was not player of the year in 05 because the wolves had a drop off and thus got a lot less positive media attention than he did the previous year despite playing great basketball in both years.
Game. Set. Match.
Next?
Ambchang ting on da_suns_re
Amb
We are talking about two different awards, is that too confusing for you?
But then again, why would there every be anyone being undeserving using your criteria? If the criteria is how much attention the media gives, and we know that it was the media that votes on the award, why would there ever be a disconnect between the two, creating a situation where there would be an undeserving winner? It's essentially saying the criteria is that the media says so for someone to win the MVP, and then the same media voted for that award, and a idiotic 3rd party comes along and says 02 was wrong because I don't like Tim Duncan.
KG was very valuable in 05, he got stiffed. Which actually makes sense using the logic of everybody else other than you, and that the media gets things wrong. But your interpretation is that the award is always deserving, except when it goes to Duncan, because Duncan just managed to destroy your entire franchise over the last two decades.
Nonsense. Close votes means that there was more than one player who stood out. For example Nash/shaq in 05 and Duncan/Kidd in 02. The media can get it wrong when they start to overthink etc. And as I said, no one remembers a thing Tim Duncan did in 02. Sorry.
So 02 was undeserving and the evidence was a close vote, but that doesn't apply to 05?
Why would the media get the wrong? Your criteria is about what the media thinks the best story of the year is, and then the media votes on it, they can't be wrong by definition. If the definition of the better nut is which one a squirrel prefers, the one the squirrel chose will always be the better nut. There's no ambiguity.
Also, you just remembered what Duncan did in 02, and that happened 15 years ago.
Shaq leaving the Lakers and leading Miami to best record in East was a big story, especially because the Lakers didnt make the playoffs in his absence. In the end, I think Nash stood out more because of the dramatic change in style of play. The Suns average 110 and the next highest was 103-104.
Kidd going to the Nets was a huge story in 2002. Most expect the Nets would stay bad and "no kidd-ing", the Nets were good. I dont even remember how many times I saw that pun. Plus media bought the idea that he had turned his life around after spousal abuse etc.
What the did Tim Duncan do in 2002? I looked at the standings and they only won 58 games which wasnt even tops in the West. I think Media was reluctant to give it to Kidd because of his low individual stats and the fact he was in the East (where 52 wins got top seed).
Kidd was robbed.
So why did you bring up close votes?
shaq was good that year he was newly motivated ... but if anyone deserved mvp outside of Nash it was LeBron, not Shaq..
Because that obviously meant that "player of the year" was a toss up between two guys. There were two players who stood out that year equally (or close to equally) in the eyes of the media.
In hindsight, we can see whose year it truly was by asking what we still remember from that season. Maybe its not fair considering we now know what happened in the playoffs (and voters didnt) which also affects our memories etc. If the Spurs would have won the le in 2002, maybe we would actually remember something, ANYTHING from Tim Duncan's season. All I remember is that the Spurs won one game against the Lakers that year in the playoffs.
I can call off the top of my head that Kidd got traded to Nets and took them from worst to first, best record in the east and all the way to the finals. Kidd owned 2002. It was his year.
Kidd got robbed.
Duncan's 2002 season was one of the best MVP seasons of all time, got
https://airalamo.com/2012/08/23/tim-...p-10-all-time/
We all know the real reason why you've come up with this narrative that Kidd was "robbed" in '02. You hate the Spurs, and Duncan won. You defend losers, and Kidd lost. That's it and that's all.
Yet he BARELY beat Jason Kidd in voting. Strange.Duncan's 2002 season was one of the best MVP seasons of all time, got
https://airalamo.com/2012/08/23/tim-...p-10-all-time/
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/...ticle-1.482029When NBA commissioner David Stern announced that O'Neal had won the MVP, the partisan Nets crowd mostly cheered. O'Neal then won the building over by first thanking Jason Kidd and calling him "the real MVP of the regular season".
I remember THAT!
Yet he won the MVP. Guess he was the "player of the year" after all.
Kidd was robbed!After word of Duncan's selection got out Monday, Nets coach Byron Scott and O'Neal protested that the wrong player won. Kidd himself was more gracious, saying he was happy for Duncan....In a USA TODAY survey of players, coaches and trainers last month, Kidd won with 60% of the vote. O'Neal got 18% and Duncan 10%.
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...duncan-mvp.htm
Wow, you mean to tell me that a player who was always salty towards Duncan and the coach of Kidd's team both thought Kidd was robbed of the MVP? Shocker!
The media voted for the player of the year and the media decides who is the story of the year. Nobody was robbed using that definition
Karl Malone in 1999.
No, the question why would the media decide not to vote for the obvious player of the year. Well, it doesn't help when the player of the year is coming off getting traded for spousal abuse. That hurt Kidd a lot.
But he was still robbed. The Spurs won the exact amount of games in 02 than they did in 01. They were tied for second place in the west. Big ing deal.
Not a single spurs fan can name a single thing he Duncan did that year that was special.
That pretty much sums up Duncan though, huh? Or maybe just Spurs fan. Whatever, you've been enlightened and now you know.
- DSF out
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote