We've always been close bc I don't think Curry is a slam dunk MVP winner... but I don't see the gap between our opinions closing either.
You may not realize it but you are still putting everything on stats. You're separating the individual stats from the team success by basically saying the player with the best stats on a successful team should win. The reality is there is no statistical measure to determine the impact a player has on team success. But you're ignoring anything that can't be recorded all together. The Warriors are a great team, but the record they have AND the success other players on the team are having, are both related to Curry's play (and Nash's play on those Suns teams... we can throw in Rose too if you want).
In a vacuum I could agree that the best player on the best team should not win the award by default, but looking at it on an individual basis, I personally have never felt it was just given to anyone. And if Curry wins it I won't feel that way this year either. I think it's like QBs winning MVP in the NFL. It's possible for other players to win it but 9 times out of 10 it is the QB bc of the nature of the position in that sport. In this case, the nature of the role of the best player on a team gives them a better opportunity to win the MVP if his team has an incredible level of success in an offense built around him.
It's subjective... which is why we'll always have these discussions. Very hard to be cut and dry.
Comment