MVP of the season so far?

[lilteapot]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

I don't like the "did more with less" argument especially when the person the argument is used in favor for (in this case Harden) didn't experience more success than the person the argument is used against (Curry). We should look at what they did on the floor, and Curry is the biggest reason that team is a 67 win team.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

I like the strides that Klay and Draymond have made in their games this season, but neither one of those dudes are ready still to carry a team as lead dogs in the western conference. A lot of people underestimate the pressure taken off of those guys by having Steph there who you HAVE to pay attention to. Who gets them the ball in spots that they're comfortable making plays from, etc. We'll never know, but I don't see them winning 50 games without Steph, I just don't.

[ProfessaPackMan]

MVP of the season so far?

Full Results..

Here’s the full voting with player, team (first-place votes, second-place votes, third-place votes, fourth-place votes, fifth-place votes, points):

Stephen Curry, Golden State (100-26-3-0-1-1,198)
James Harden, Houston (25-87-13-4-0-936)
LeBron James, Cleveland (5-12-62-32-12-552)
Russell Westbrook, Oklahoma City (0-5-33-41-29-352)
Anthony Davis, New Orleans (0-0-9-35-53-203)
Chris Paul, L.A. (0-0-10-15-29-124)
LaMarcus Aldridge, Portland (0-0-0-1-3-6)
Marc Gasol, Memphis (0-0-0-1-0-3)
Blake Griffin, L.A. Clippers (0-0-0-1-0-3)
Tim Duncan, San Antonio (0-0-0-0-1-1)
Kawhi Leonard, San Antonio (0-0-0-0-1-1)
Klay Thompson, Golden State (0-0-0-0-1-1)

[wwharton]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

Curry definitely deserved it, but Harden carried his team all season. Golden State could have rolled out lineups without Steph and still lock down a 6 seed. Without Harden, Houston is a lottery squad.

Still, congrats to Steph. Best shooter of all-time..

I never understood why this mattered. The Warriors are the favorites to win the championship. If you want to base it on what would happen if you lose the guy (which is already flawed bc there is no way to actually know), then I'd say going from a championship favorite to maybe a 6th seed is a big enough drop to justify their value.

[JazzMan]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

I never understood why this mattered. The Warriors are the favorites to win the championship. If you want to base it on what would happen if you lose the guy (which is already flawed bc there is no way to actually know), then I'd say going from a championship favorite to maybe a 6th seed is a big enough drop to justify their value.

And going from a 2-seed with Harden to the lottery without him isn't a bigger drop?

[wwharton]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

And going from a 2-seed with Harden to the lottery without him isn't a bigger drop?

If we are saying we know exactly how many games would be lost without either player (which is impossible) then it still isn't, no.

GS won 67 games... they would've had to win I believe 55 games or less to have a sixth seed, right?

HOU won 56 games... they would've had to win 45 games or less to be an 8th seed or miss the playoffs.

That's ignoring the fact that it makes no sense to give an award based on an assumption of the number of wins either team would have if their best player was missing, and the fact that GS actually won 11 more games than HOU anyway (and 7 more than anybody).

As I said before, I would've had no problem with either of them winning the award. But the hypothetical thought of how much a team would win without a player or what each player would do if they swapped teams or any other "what if" scenario has no place in individual awards.

[JODYE]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

Again, we're just going to ignore the fact that Harden missed arguably his 2nd and 3rd best players for over half the season, and had the 21st worst supporting cast statistically in the entire league and still pretend like dragging that team to 56 wins isn't more impressive than being the best player (albeit not by a large margin) on a team that runs 11 deep and doing what was expected of them which was win their division and contend for the conference.

Curry had pretty much the same season he did last year, but he's the reason now that somehow they had this astronomically incredible season? Umm, no.

Could it have had anything to do with their bench going from the 7th worst in the entire league to Top 8? Or Klay Thompson taking that next step on both ends of the floor? I'd say those two reasons were waaaay more instrumental than Curry being the exact same player he was last season.

[wwharton]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

Again, we're just going to ignore the fact that Harden missed arguably his 2nd and 3rd best players for over half the season, and had the 21st worst supporting cast statistically in the entire league and still pretend like dragging that team to 56 wins isn't more impressive than being the best player (albeit not by a large margin) on a team that runs 11 deep and doing what was expected of them which was win their division and contend for the conference.

Curry had pretty much the same season he did last year, but he's the reason now that somehow they had this astronomically incredible season? Umm, no.

Could it have had anything to do with their bench going from the 7th worst in the entire league to Top 8? Or Klay Thompson taking that next step on both ends of the floor? I'd say those two reasons were waaaay more instrumental than Curry being the exact same player he was last season.

Who's we? I didn't ignore anything. The question was "And going from a 2-seed with Harden to the lottery without him isn't a bigger drop?"

The answer is no based on the records that would put them in these mythical spots.

But even if the answer was yes, it wouldn't matter because we have no idea what GS or HOU would've done if forced to play without either player. If either coach would've decided to just plug in the next guard on the roster and continue the same approach, then they would deserve to be fired immediately. Adjustments would be made... the results of the adjustments are an unknown. It makes no sense to vote for someone for any award based on what would happen if they WEREN'T there rather than based on what they actually did.

BTW, comparing numbers to last year makes even less sense. It's not the most improved award.

[JODYE]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

Then I don't understand how the "best player on the best team" argument can be used legitimately if you can't objectively assess how a team got to that point, which would involve looking at the previous season in some regard.

Even if you just isolate this season, ignore team record, and look at individual team impact and ignore all other contributing context, Harden was superior.

[wwharton]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

Then I don't understand how the "best player on the best team" argument can be used legitimately if you can't objectively assess how a team got to that point, which would involve looking at the previous season in some regard.

Even if you just isolate this season, ignore team record, and look at individual team impact and ignore all other contributing context, Harden was superior.

The best player on the best team shouldn't be used as an argument for the only reason someone should win either. For example, if the Hawks had found a way to have the best record you wouldn't automatically give the award to one of them.

But I'm not following your argument about including last season. Last season Curry may have averaged 30 mpg out of necessity because of injury, not being completely given the keys, whatever (I'm not saying this is true, just giving a hypothetical)... this season he plays 30 mpg because they blew so many teams out that he sat almost 20 4th qtrs of 82 games. There's just too much context missing.

And most importantly, you have to factor in all of the other MVP candidates from last year and what they were doing to be considered. If we took their numbers, team success and "eye tests" from last year and said they did the exact same thing this year, would Curry or Harden even be in the conversation? Who knows. As is, there are too many "what if" variables and bringing up last year increases that number exponentially.

[JODYE]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

The argument is, the "best player on the best team" reasoning gives the implication that said player is the reason that that team is the best soley because of this players play. My point is, if record does hold weight, isn't it fair to ask why a team had that particular record? Especially in an instance where their best player is only the "best" by a minute statistical margin.

You can't say, ignore context like, Harden was missing key contributors but then turn around and reward Curry for having his, which voters are doing by giving it to "the best player on the best team".

[wwharton]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

The argument is, the "best player on the best team" reasoning gives the implication that said player is the reason that that team is the best soley because of this players play. My point is, if record does hold weight, isn't it fair to ask why a team had that particular record? Especially in an instance where their best player is only the "best" by a minute statistical margin.

You can't say, ignore context like, Harden was missing key contributors but then turn around and reward Curry for having his, which voters are doing by giving it to "the best player on the best team".

You are saying voters are just giving it to the best player on the best team. I doubt anyone would deny that it's a factor but if you try to point at any one thing 100% you'll find huge flaws... which is why it's not all based on one thing.

But even based on your first sentence, that's not a flawed statement. That player IS the reason that team is "the best"... not successful, but the best. You bring up stats again but then ignore the minutes per game which, if increased likely would've increased his stats across the board. The minutes were down because they could afford to keep them down, which wasn't the case for Harden. One could argue that we don't know what Curry would've done with the extra minutes just like one could argue we don't know how different HOU's record would be with D12 most of the year. I don't know the formula or if all voters use the same formula. All I know is there are plenty of factors worth voting Curry MVP, and plenty of factors worth voting Harden MVP. The people with the votes felt Curry had more factors.

Personally, I don't really care if anyone is up in arms about it. I don't get it, but I'm not telling anyone to not argue either. I only got in this bc many have been saying what GS's record would be without Curry and what HOU would be without Harden, when there is absolutely know way of knowing either. Jazzman followed my post with a specific question that I answered. No less, no more. If it helps I didn't have a problem with Rose or Nash winning it either.

[JODYE]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

You are saying voters are just giving it to the best player on the best team. I doubt anyone would deny that it's a factor but if you try to point at any one thing 100% you'll find huge flaws... which is why it's not all based on one thing.

But even based on your first sentence, that's not a flawed statement. That player IS the reason that team is "the best"... not successful, but the best. You bring up stats again but then ignore the minutes per game which, if increased likely would've increased his stats across the board. The minutes were down because they could afford to keep them down, which wasn't the case for Harden. One could argue that we don't know what Curry would've done with the extra minutes just like one could argue we don't know how different HOU's record would be with D12 most of the year. I don't know the formula or if all voters use the same formula. All I know is there are plenty of factors worth voting Curry MVP, and plenty of factors worth voting Harden MVP. The people with the votes felt Curry had more factors.

Personally, I don't really care if anyone is up in arms about it. I don't get it, but I'm not telling anyone to not argue either. I only got in this bc many have been saying what GS's record would be without Curry and what HOU would be without Harden, when there is absolutely know way of knowing either. Jazzman followed my post with a specific question that I answered. No less, no more. If it helps I didn't have a problem with Rose or Nash winning it either.

This sentence, is my point almost to a T.

If Curry was indeed THAT valuable as a whole to the entire team, would he not be needed more when it matters? If his team is assisting him in affording the luxury to be on the bench when closing games, how can that player possibly be the most valuable player to his team across the league? You can't say that he is, because then you are creating a hypothetical statement implying that Curry was the entire reason that they were up by so much in the first place and that is impossible to do.

Just as you can't play the if/then game with removing those players, you can't play the if/then game with minutes played when discussing Curry. He didn't play. Harden did, because they needed him to, and we know the results that came because of it. Even when using Per 36 or per 100 Poss to adjust Curry's stats, Harden is superior.

That argument is also flawed because even in those reduced minutes, Curry touched the ball more in the front court over the course of the year than Harden did, so that point is moot.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

This sentence, is my point almost to a T.

If Curry was indeed THAT valuable as a whole to the entire team, would he not be needed more when it matters? If his team is assisting him in affording the luxury to be on the bench when closing games, how can that player possibly be the most valuable player to his team across the league? You can't say that he is, because then you are creating a hypothetical statement implying that Curry was the entire reason that they were up by so much in the first place and that is impossible to do.

Just as you can't play the if/then game with removing those players, you can't play the if/then game with minutes played when discussing Curry. He didn't play. Harden did, because they needed him to, and we know the results that came because of it. Even when using Per 36 or per 100 Poss to adjust Curry's stats, Harden is superior.

That argument is also flawed because even in those reduced minutes, Curry touched the ball more in the front court over the course of the year than Harden did, so that point is moot.

So your argument is that your team has to suck to be valuable to it? Okay then.

[Hockeynut99]

Re: MVP of the season so far?

That looks like a land slide in the voting. The voters must have different criteria than all of you guys that think Harden should have won it. I don't care either way. Being a Warriors fan it is nice to see Steph get some love by the Eastcoast writers.