2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

[wwharton]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

I read them both but I'm not talking about either of them I'm talking about in terms of your MVP voting logic. You can't say his team shouldn't have any effect on an individual award and then say that his team's success should.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're trying to simplify what I'm saying. Your interpretation is why it doesn't make sense to you.

1. I'm with everyone else who says the award shouldn't automatically go to the best player on the best team (like it has seemed at times in the past). Team success is not the end all, be all. But, it absolutely should play a role since winning games is the point. Basketball, more than any other major sport, individual players can work to get stats without helping the team win... sometimes hurting the teams chances. So the player with the most "stats" shouldn't automatically get the award any more than the best player on the team with the most wins.

2. The team should not decide an individual award ABSENT the individuals in contention. In short, saying player X should win over player Y because the team is worse when player X is off the court than player Y's team when he's off the court is not a valid criterion. It doesn't measure player X or player Y at all. It's an attempt to eliminate variables to compare the two, but the great flaw is that it eliminates the most important factors and, instead, compares one of the variables.

Separately (and to the quote mentioned), saying player X's season is more impressive than player Y because the team around him is worse is LESS flawed than the situation above, but flawed still when the systems that each player is in are so different. OKC's system is built to make the players around RWB look worse. So it's not a question of which team around them is worse, but can we really tell?

So if I'm thinking about who should be MVP, I 1st think of if either significantly trump the other statistically? No... triple doubles sound cool but the truth is both have had incredible statistical seasons.

Next, who's contribution has resulted in more team success. This is a tough one because that's where all these variables come into play. But we do know their records, and watching we see Harden's insane numbers coming more efficiently (not speaking of things like shooting percentage but more in the flow of the offense rather than just going HAM and ignoring everyone else on the floor), which generally leads to more team success.

Talking about bad teammates or RWB getting tired from having to do too much are just excuses for flaws in his resume for the award.

[ojandpizza]

2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

1.) The team should not decide an individual award ABSENT the individuals in contention. In short, saying player X should win over player Y because the team is worse when player X is off the court than player Y's team when he's off the court is not a valid criterion. It doesn't measure player X or player Y at all. It's an attempt to eliminate variables to compare the two, but the great flaw is that it eliminates the most important factors and, instead, compares one of the variables.



2.) OKC's system is built to make the players around RWB look worse. So it's not a question of which team around them is worse, but can we really tell?



3.) So if I'm thinking about who should be MVP, I 1st think of if either significantly trump the other statistically? No... triple doubles sound cool but the truth is both have had incredible statistical seasons.







4.) Talking about bad teammates or RWB getting tired from having to do too much are just excuses for flaws in his resume for the award.

1.) lol dude, if you can judge the teams wins as a big factor and the players direct on court performance with his teammates then you absolutely have to factor in how they perform with him off the court. Otherwise you can't adequately even come remotely close to judging the impact the MVP candidate himself has on his team/teammates. Sure there are flaws to it, just as their is with every stat, but ignoring it all together and saying basically "well my eyes tell me this" just adds more bias and less reasoning.

2.) that could 100% be true. But if you are going to use that as part of the discussion you also have to use that Houston's system makes everything around Harden easier and better. Which plays a role in the win argument you want to use. You keep wanting to ignore one side and use the other. It's got to be both or none.

Likewise, the system does make those around him look worse.. but that also means OKC needs him to do more. So if they need him to do more, and he is in fact doing more, how can you say Harden or any other player gives more value to their team? You're admitting that Westbrook is in the position where he has to do more so what's the argument to say that another player does more for his team than him?

3.) Just because the triple double is all you want to look at on the surface doesn't mean Westbrook hasn't been statically better. He's broken handfuls of records and leads the league in almost all of the advanced overall stat categories, and historically ranks amongst the best years from plenty of all time greats. I've typed pages and pages on this already so I'm not doing it again. But just because you want to ignore all that doesn't mean that people with an actual MVP vote should. And judging by the results we already know of, it's apparent they aren't. Harden has had a great year too, not saying he hasn't but it's not Westbrook's year. And it's just as far apart as the 8 wins or whatever better the team finished.

And if Westbrook simply ignores everyone on the court to just go HAM, how does he have the 2nd greatest assist % of all time on a team that was literally the league worst in shooting? I mean we can all go find Harden's worst moments on the season and make the same arguments against him.

4.) nobody has even said either of those things though. I said he got gassed the other night in the 4th, and he did he also made terrible decisions. But the MVP isn't based on one quarter of a playoff game lol. People need to stop acting like that's all he did all season long, because that's less true and more misleading then any of the "takes" people want to make fun of from BSPN. Pack called this a couple weeks ago. As soon as the playoffs started people were going to act like whatever good/bad happened between the two of them was going to be what happened all year long and decide the MVP vote.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

How did Kawhi only have 11 shots?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

How did Kawhi only have 11 shots?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

San Antonio was lacking aggression at the offensive end for a big chunk of the 2nd half. Memphis was doing a really good job on him, but he wasn't making those quick decisive decisions that had gotten him so many good looks during the 1st game and 1st half either. A lot of their starters didn't play all that many minutes either. So most of their work was in the first half.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vni]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

Kawhi 2 points on 2 attempts in the second half. Wtf?

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

50% shooting. Even when he sucks he does it efficiently. Boring.

[wwharton]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

1.) lol dude, if you can judge the teams wins as a big factor and the players direct on court performance with his teammates then you absolutely have to factor in how they perform with him off the court. Otherwise you can't adequately even come remotely close to judging the impact the MVP candidate himself has on his team/teammates. Sure there are flaws to it, just as their is with every stat, but ignoring it all together and saying basically "well my eyes tell me this" just adds more bias and less reasoning.

2.) that could 100% be true. But if you are going to use that as part of the discussion you also have to use that Houston's system makes everything around Harden easier and better. Which plays a role in the win argument you want to use. You keep wanting to ignore one side and use the other. It's got to be both or none.

Likewise, the system does make those around him look worse.. but that also means OKC needs him to do more. So if they need him to do more, and he is in fact doing more, how can you say Harden or any other player gives more value to their team? You're admitting that Westbrook is in the position where he has to do more so what's the argument to say that another player does more for his team than him?

3.) Just because the triple double is all you want to look at on the surface doesn't mean Westbrook hasn't been statically better. He's broken handfuls of records and leads the league in almost all of the advanced overall stat categories, and historically ranks amongst the best years from plenty of all time greats. I've typed pages and pages on this already so I'm not doing it again. But just because you want to ignore all that doesn't mean that people with an actual MVP vote should. And judging by the results we already know of, it's apparent they aren't. Harden has had a great year too, not saying he hasn't but it's not Westbrook's year. And it's just as far apart as the 8 wins or whatever better the team finished.

And if Westbrook simply ignores everyone on the court to just go HAM, how does he have the 2nd greatest assist % of all time on a team that was literally the league worst in shooting? I mean we can all go find Harden's worst moments on the season and make the same arguments against him.

4.) nobody has even said either of those things though. I said he got gassed the other night in the 4th, and he did he also made terrible decisions. But the MVP isn't based on one quarter of a playoff game lol. People need to stop acting like that's all he did all season long, because that's less true and more misleading then any of the "takes" people want to make fun of from BSPN. Pack called this a couple weeks ago. As soon as the playoffs started people were going to act like whatever good/bad happened between the two of them was going to be what happened all year long and decide the MVP vote.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do me a favor... please keep the whole quote and highlight what you want with bold or whatever. I don't think it's your intent, but deleting large chunks and only commenting on what's left is the definition of cherry picking.

Honestly, your approach (in this case) is the source of a lot of confusion. It's not an itemized list that each part can be responded to. It's an entire argument/opinion with things to explain the whole. Not that you shouldn't provide counter points to individual things, but each one having an individual conclusion does not total a whole argument against mine.

1. This goes in circles. If you disagree, just leave it at that. My stance, again, is that it's not valid or reliable to evaluate a player based on his absence... this is for any sport. That's basically saying that if they trade to get a Jamal Crawford and Lou Williams (guys that can shoot and create their own shot) to man the 2nd team, that makes Westbrook a worse MVP candidate. Even less far-fetched, if the coaches had taught them to run a traditional offense when RWB is out, he's a worse MVP candidate.

In short, do things to make the team better when you're out makes you a worse MVP candidate if you don't change anything about how you play or what you did.

2. This is the biggest issue with "cherry picking". My point here is that we don't really know (it's even in the part you quoted). So 1) It's implied that it's talking about both teams and 2) It doesn't say Harden or any other player gives more value... it literally says we can't really tell.

3. I mentioned triple double to LITERALLY say it just sounds good, BUT I'm looking at overall numbers instead of made up milestones. In no way did I short change what Westbrook did... instead I'm looking at actual stats instead of that BS.

With that said, I think you are shortchanging Harden. I don't see his stats being the level down from RWB as you're saying. If we itemized everything, I'd assume RWB would be ahead but I don't think it's that big of a difference.

4. Nobody has talked about him having bad teammates? Nobody??? Two of the bullets in this discussion is literally about his teammates.

As for him getting tired, you make it seem like I'm using that as an argument against him but I'm not. I'm looking at the discussion of the Thunder not winning as much with him playing like he does, despite him putting up numbers like he is. The response has literally been things like his teammates or he has to do so much, he can't always for an entire game. I could've picked others but they are examples of the excuses, not in any way used by me to present a case against him.

RWB playing that style, with that team, and that coach produced those results.

Harden playing that style, with that team, and that coach produced his results.

I think Harden's results of more team wins and a better chance at a championship holds more weight.

You think RWB's results of more stats holds more weight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the end of the day, it's that simple.

[TheShizNo1]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

If y'all don't start putting these thesis debates in spoilers....

[Streets]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

People need to stop acting like that's all he did all season long, because that's less true and more misleading then any of the "takes" people want to make fun of from BSPN. Pack called this a couple weeks ago. As soon as the playoffs started people were going to act like whatever good/bad happened between the two of them was going to be what happened all year long and decide the MVP vote.

Let's not act like this whole good Russ/ bad Russ thing is brand new. He's been the same player since he and Durant arrived on the scene. It's not fair to say people are using two games or one bad quarter or whatever to label him. Unless you just started watching ball you know this is who Russ is. In fact, I heard on some show (forget which) and thought it was so true: the same thing fans and media HATED Westbrook for a year ago (when he had Durant) they are praising him for now. Ballhogging, refusing to defer, playing outside the team, etc. The same things people criticized him for they now not only make excuses for, but are awarding him MVP for. It really is an amazing thing to watch. Usually it's winning that changes people's narratives (such as with Harden) but they haven't won more.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

If y'all don't start putting these thesis debates in spoilers....

Surprised y'all haven't played the "Take this to the appropriate thread where it belongs"card yet. Wwharton usually throws that out with the quickness any other time.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

I'm not sure if this is entertaining or nauseating.

We're at the nexus. Good OS/Bad OS.

[wwharton]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

If y'all don't start putting these thesis debates in spoilers....

I forget about you Tapatalk guys.

Surprised y'all haven't played the "Take this to the appropriate thread where it belongs"card yet. Wwharton usually throws that out with the quickness any other time.

Yeah, I'm running around work today, heading in here during breaks so didn't even notice. It is bad clogging the game thread with this, sorry.

I'm not sure if this is entertaining or nauseating.

We're at the nexus. Good OS/Bad OS.

Me and OJ typing back and forth? Yeah that's a good description ha ha.

OJ just needs to come to Baltimore and we can do this over a couple of beers.

[TheShizNo1]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

Surprised y'all haven't played the "Take this to the appropriate thread where it belongs"card yet. Wwharton usually throws that out with the quickness any other time.

What you mean, "y'all", bruh?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[SoonerCrazy84]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

great start by the Thunder.....now just sustain it please.

Sent from my SGH-T999L using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

Taj and Anderson finally showed up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: 2017 Western Conference Playoffs - 1st Round Discussion Thread

All playoff crowds need to be like OKC and Utah. Toronto has it down pat but everyone else needs to get on those team's level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk