Author Topic: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?  (Read 12249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2014, 10:40:48 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Russell, Wilt, and Kareem were amazing for their time, but the 90s certainly rejuvenated the big man dominance. Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, and even Mourning and Mutombo were the faces of the NBA outside of Jordan (and Malone). I get it, the other three are in the best ever category, but I loved the 90s era of big men and there hasn't been anything even close to that since.

As for Bird, I totally agree. His presence brought upon one of the greatest turn-arounds in the history of sports. That is the definition of Most Valuable Player.

Really?  The 80s had better big men.  Parish, Moses, Kareem, Lanier, Sampson, Hakeem, Sikma, Ewing.  Am I forgetting anyone?  That decade was the best period of basketball.  Ever.

Plus, how were the 90s about big men when it was Jordan who was winning it almost every year?

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2014, 10:49:05 PM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
Kareem was still at his peak and yes, he deserved it.
I've said it before, but I still find it amazing that Russell and Wilt played at the same time with Kareem just following them.  There has been no one since that has reached their level.  It's not because the game has changed.  I truly believe that it was a unique coincidence that these three were born so close apart. All three would dominate the game today.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree.  The year before, with virtually the same roster, the Lakers sucked.  It was Magic who made that team function as well as it did.

And Pippen helped Jordan win.  Although in this case Kareem passed the torch to Magic... at some point.

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2014, 10:51:41 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5945
  • Tommy Points: 4586
Bird should have at least 1 more season MVP trophy....but that was an AMAZING decade---talent-wise....Kareem...Magic...Jordan...Moses...Bird...Barkley...Isiah...McHale...Dominique....etc.

I know that Isiah rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his comments about Bird in 87, but he should have won it in 88-89, imo.  He was the best player on the best team that year.  How did Jordan win in 87-88?  Yeah, his stats were great, but Chicago wasn't even in the top 2, record-wise.  What a joke.  There's no way that he should have won it that year, imo.  It should have been Magic.

You seem to be all over the place.

Bird deserves the MVP over Kareem and Dr. J because he lead his team to an improved record.  It doesn't seem to matter that Kareem and Dr. J had better seasons.

But now in '88, Jordan who improved his teams win total by 10, the biggest improvement in the whole NBA that season, and had a better statistical season than anybody doesn't deserve the MVP? He basically won 50 games by himself.  But established guys like Bird and Magic, both surrounded by several HOFers deserve the award even though their teams actually got worse from the year before?

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2014, 10:58:32 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Kareem was still at his peak and yes, he deserved it.
I've said it before, but I still find it amazing that Russell and Wilt played at the same time with Kareem just following them.  There has been no one since that has reached their level.  It's not because the game has changed.  I truly believe that it was a unique coincidence that these three were born so close apart. All three would dominate the game today.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree.  The year before, with virtually the same roster, the Lakers sucked.  It was Magic who made that team function as well as it did.

And Pippen helped Jordan win.  Although in this case Kareem passed the torch to Magic... at some point.

In 86-87, to be precise.

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2014, 11:04:24 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Really?  The 80s had better big men.  Parish, Moses, Kareem, Lanier, Sampson, Hakeem, Sikma, Ewing.  Am I forgetting anyone?  That decade was the best period of basketball.  Ever.

That's reductive.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2014, 11:05:46 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Bird should have at least 1 more season MVP trophy....but that was an AMAZING decade---talent-wise....Kareem...Magic...Jordan...Moses...Bird...Barkley...Isiah...McHale...Dominique....etc.

I know that Isiah rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his comments about Bird in 87, but he should have won it in 88-89, imo.  He was the best player on the best team that year.  How did Jordan win in 87-88?  Yeah, his stats were great, but Chicago wasn't even in the top 2, record-wise.  What a joke.  There's no way that he should have won it that year, imo.  It should have been Magic.

You seem to be all over the place.

Bird deserves the MVP over Kareem and Dr. J because he lead his team to an improved record.  It doesn't seem to matter that Kareem and Dr. J had better seasons.

But now in '88, Jordan who improved his teams win total by 10, the biggest improvement in the whole NBA that season, and had a better statistical season than anybody doesn't deserve the MVP? He basically won 50 games by himself.  But established guys like Bird and Magic, both surrounded by several HOFers deserve the award even though their teams actually got worse from the year before?

No, it doesn't in this case, because the impact that they had on their respective teams wasn't nearly as dramatic as Bird's was. 

As for Jordan, look, I'll be the first to admit that I hate the guy.  He ruined the game, imo, but that's not the issue here (although I'm sure that now my opinion means even less after such a comment.  Sigh.).  The MVP is supposed to go to the best player on the best team, is it not?  The Lakers had the best record that year (again), but you could also make the argument that Bird deserved it that year as well, for carrying Boston without McHale and averaging 29.9 ppg.  At 31! :o  I think Bill Simmons put it perfectly in the book of basketball, though, when he said that by that time everyone was tired of voting for Larry, haha, which is a shame.

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2014, 12:12:38 AM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5945
  • Tommy Points: 4586
Bird should have at least 1 more season MVP trophy....but that was an AMAZING decade---talent-wise....Kareem...Magic...Jordan...Moses...Bird...Barkley...Isiah...McHale...Dominique....etc.

I know that Isiah rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his comments about Bird in 87, but he should have won it in 88-89, imo.  He was the best player on the best team that year.  How did Jordan win in 87-88?  Yeah, his stats were great, but Chicago wasn't even in the top 2, record-wise.  What a joke.  There's no way that he should have won it that year, imo.  It should have been Magic.

You seem to be all over the place.

Bird deserves the MVP over Kareem and Dr. J because he lead his team to an improved record.  It doesn't seem to matter that Kareem and Dr. J had better seasons.

But now in '88, Jordan who improved his teams win total by 10, the biggest improvement in the whole NBA that season, and had a better statistical season than anybody doesn't deserve the MVP? He basically won 50 games by himself.  But established guys like Bird and Magic, both surrounded by several HOFers deserve the award even though their teams actually got worse from the year before?

No, it doesn't in this case, because the impact that they had on their respective teams wasn't nearly as dramatic as Bird's was. 

As for Jordan, look, I'll be the first to admit that I hate the guy.  He ruined the game, imo, but that's not the issue here (although I'm sure that now my opinion means even less after such a comment.  Sigh.).  The MVP is supposed to go to the best player on the best team, is it not?  The Lakers had the best record that year (again), but you could also make the argument that Bird deserved it that year as well, for carrying Boston without McHale and averaging 29.9 ppg.  At 31! :o  I think Bill Simmons put it perfectly in the book of basketball, though, when he said that by that time everyone was tired of voting for Larry, haha, which is a shame.

A lot of different people have a lot of different definitions for MVP, but for me it's definitely not the best player on the best team, it's just the player who played the best that season (though many times, that will be the best player on the best team). (Also for me best player is synonymous with most valuable player).

And for your definition, for arguments sake, what makes the '80 Celtics the best team?  Their 61 wins is neck and neck with LA's 60 and Philly's 59.  If anything, didn't the playoffs show both Philly and LA as better teams than the Celtics that year? 

Also for your definition (best player, best team), doesn't that mean Celtics turnaround shouldn't factor in?  I mean if Kareem or Dr. J sat out a season, then came back, Philly and LA would have seen huge turnarounds too, and again if turnaround does factor in, why wouldn't it factor in for Jordan who in '88 when the Bulls improved a league best +10 in the win column?

And you could even argue Bird wasn't even the best player on his team, just look at Max's win share compared to Bird's, also look at how Max was the Final's MVP in '81 over Bird. (To be clear, not saying Max was ever better than Bird, just that me have been playing better on the Celtics at the time).

Bird for MVP is just not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. 

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2014, 12:23:45 AM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7638
  • Tommy Points: 441
Kareem was still at his peak and yes, he deserved it.
I've said it before, but I still find it amazing that Russell and Wilt played at the same time with Kareem just following them.  There has been no one since that has reached their level.  It's not because the game has changed.  I truly believe that it was a unique coincidence that these three were born so close apart. All three would dominate the game today.
Put Hakeem, Shaq, and David Robinson in the 60's and they would be pretty dominant themselves.

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2014, 12:39:29 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
Kareem was still at his peak and yes, he deserved it.
I've said it before, but I still find it amazing that Russell and Wilt played at the same time with Kareem just following them.  There has been no one since that has reached their level.  It's not because the game has changed.  I truly believe that it was a unique coincidence that these three were born so close apart. All three would dominate the game today.
Put Hakeem, Shaq, and David Robinson in the 60's and they would be pretty dominant themselves.

Definitely, but I think there would still be a noticeable difference between them and the three I mentioned.  Russell was a shade over 6'9" barefoot which would put him at 6'11" today with long arms and he was a world class high jumper.  He was about the same size as Dwight Howard.  Do you think any of those guys could do this?


I may be an old man homer, but I don't think any of those guys could handle Kareem's jump hook.  Only Shaq could have a chance of matching up physically with Wilt, but even Shaq would struggle with his strength and not come close to his athleticism.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 12:54:54 AM by knuckleballer »

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2014, 01:00:29 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Kareem was still at his peak and yes, he deserved it.
I've said it before, but I still find it amazing that Russell and Wilt played at the same time with Kareem just following them.  There has been no one since that has reached their level.  It's not because the game has changed.  I truly believe that it was a unique coincidence that these three were born so close apart. All three would dominate the game today.
Put Hakeem, Shaq, and David Robinson in the 60's and they would be pretty dominant themselves.

Definitely, but I think there would still be a noticeable difference between them and the three I mentioned.  Russell was a shade over 6'9" barefoot which would put him at 6'11" today with long arms and he was a world class high jumper.  He was about the same size as Dwight Howard.  Do you think any of those guys could do this?


I may be an old man homer, but I don't think any of those guys could handle Kareem's jump hook.  Only Shaq could have a chance of matching up physically with Wilt, but even Shaq would struggle with his strength and not come close to his athleticism.

Um, Kareem had the skyhook, not a jump hook.

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2014, 01:02:44 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Really?  The 80s had better big men.  Parish, Moses, Kareem, Lanier, Sampson, Hakeem, Sikma, Ewing.  Am I forgetting anyone?  That decade was the best period of basketball.  Ever.

That's reductive.

How so?

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2014, 01:04:34 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
Kareem was still at his peak and yes, he deserved it.
I've said it before, but I still find it amazing that Russell and Wilt played at the same time with Kareem just following them.  There has been no one since that has reached their level.  It's not because the game has changed.  I truly believe that it was a unique coincidence that these three were born so close apart. All three would dominate the game today.
Put Hakeem, Shaq, and David Robinson in the 60's and they would be pretty dominant themselves.

Definitely, but I think there would still be a noticeable difference between them and the three I mentioned.  Russell was a shade over 6'9" barefoot which would put him at 6'11" today with long arms and he was a world class high jumper.  He was about the same size as Dwight Howard.  Do you think any of those guys could do this?


I may be an old man homer, but I don't think any of those guys could handle Kareem's jump hook.  Only Shaq could have a chance of matching up physically with Wilt, but even Shaq would struggle with his strength and not come close to his athleticism.

Um, Kareem had the skyhook, not a jump hook.

You're right.  It was an incredible shot.  Almost unblockable.
This gave him difficulty though  :)


« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 01:10:04 AM by knuckleballer »

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2014, 01:58:12 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Bird should have at least 1 more season MVP trophy....but that was an AMAZING decade---talent-wise....Kareem...Magic...Jordan...Moses...Bird...Barkley...Isiah...McHale...Dominique....etc.

I know that Isiah rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his comments about Bird in 87, but he should have won it in 88-89, imo.  He was the best player on the best team that year.  How did Jordan win in 87-88?  Yeah, his stats were great, but Chicago wasn't even in the top 2, record-wise.  What a joke.  There's no way that he should have won it that year, imo.  It should have been Magic.

You seem to be all over the place.

Bird deserves the MVP over Kareem and Dr. J because he lead his team to an improved record.  It doesn't seem to matter that Kareem and Dr. J had better seasons.

But now in '88, Jordan who improved his teams win total by 10, the biggest improvement in the whole NBA that season, and had a better statistical season than anybody doesn't deserve the MVP? He basically won 50 games by himself.  But established guys like Bird and Magic, both surrounded by several HOFers deserve the award even though their teams actually got worse from the year before?

No, it doesn't in this case, because the impact that they had on their respective teams wasn't nearly as dramatic as Bird's was. 

As for Jordan, look, I'll be the first to admit that I hate the guy.  He ruined the game, imo, but that's not the issue here (although I'm sure that now my opinion means even less after such a comment.  Sigh.).  The MVP is supposed to go to the best player on the best team, is it not?  The Lakers had the best record that year (again), but you could also make the argument that Bird deserved it that year as well, for carrying Boston without McHale and averaging 29.9 ppg.  At 31! :o  I think Bill Simmons put it perfectly in the book of basketball, though, when he said that by that time everyone was tired of voting for Larry, haha, which is a shame.

A lot of different people have a lot of different definitions for MVP, but for me it's definitely not the best player on the best team, it's just the player who played the best that season (though many times, that will be the best player on the best team). (Also for me best player is synonymous with most valuable player).

And for your definition, for arguments sake, what makes the '80 Celtics the best team?  Their 61 wins is neck and neck with LA's 60 and Philly's 59.  If anything, didn't the playoffs show both Philly and LA as better teams than the Celtics that year? 

Also for your definition (best player, best team), doesn't that mean Celtics turnaround shouldn't factor in?  I mean if Kareem or Dr. J sat out a season, then came back, Philly and LA would have seen huge turnarounds too, and again if turnaround does factor in, why wouldn't it factor in for Jordan who in '88 when the Bulls improved a league best +10 in the win column?

And you could even argue Bird wasn't even the best player on his team, just look at Max's win share compared to Bird's, also look at how Max was the Final's MVP in '81 over Bird. (To be clear, not saying Max was ever better than Bird, just that me have been playing better on the Celtics at the time).

Bird for MVP is just not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

I agree that everyone differs on what an mvp is, but I never said that I agreed that it should always be the best player on the best team, it's just that, 88 Jordan and 08 Kobe aside, that's the typical way in which the mvp has been decided over history.  I don't know how Kobe won that award, when it was clearly Garnett's, but whatever.  We all know about the tremendous impact he had on our franchise from day one :)

Now, what made the 80 Celtics the best team?  Um, their record.  That single season turnaround should obviously factor in - how could it not (in this argument)?  Saying that Kareem and Dr J would have netted the same results after sitting out a year is absurd, because players don't just retire for a year and then come back, aside from Dave Cowens, haha, so I really don't know why you brought that up.  Why not say that for the best player on every team throughout history, then, and see what might have happened?  You're missing the point - Bird was a rookie, and he took the Celtics from the basement to the top of the league in his first year, so by your standard of greatest impact, which I agree with, it's not even a debate.  Bird should have had that MVP.

As for factoring in postseason success, the last time I checked, the MVP isn't chosen based on what happens in the playoffs, so that point has no merit, imo.  I'm not trying to be nasty or argumentative, but that's why they had, in those days, a playoff MVP, instead of a Finals MVP, in addition to the regular season MVP award.  Yes, the 76ers and Lakers were better in the postseason, but again, the year before, the Celtics hadn't even made the playoffs, so to make it to the ecf is even more of an incredible achievement, imo.  Bird had the biggest impact on his team and was their best player, so how is Kareem more deserving?  The year prior, with that same roster, the Lakers were 47-35, but then Magic shows up and really made all of the pieces fit, and they improved by 13 games, so you could make the argument that Magic was more valuable to the Lakers than Kareem was.  However, even with all of that factored in, neither of them had the impact that Larry had on the Celtics in year 1 of his career.  It's not even close.

I've also read how Fitch said that Bird was robbed of the 1981 playoff MVP, so that's where that came from.  I know that Max was an integral part of that team, but he wasn't the one hitting the game winning jumper off the glass in game 7 vs the 76ers, or was the guy who led the Celtics from 3-1 down to win that series with 32, 25, and 23 points in the final three games of that ecf; and when you compare their respective stats for the 81 postseason, it's not even close.  Max averaged 16.1 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 2.7 apg, 0.7 spg, and 0.9 bpg, to Bird's 21.9 ppg, 14 rpg, 6 apg, 2.3 spg, and 1 bpg.  I'm assuming at that time that the 'playoff MVP' was decided upon a player's total postseason contributions and not just what he did in the finals, right? 

Last point - I've seen the win shares stat, but I'm not familiar with how it works, so you'll have to explain that to me, but that's still a relatively-new statistic anyway.  It wasn't even around at the time, so using it now to justify Max's winning of that particular award doesn't really add much to the conversation, imo.

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2014, 03:31:13 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
I don't get why so many people (and the league,  it seems)  find it so difficult to come to terms with what the MVP award means.

MVP stands for "most valuable player ".  I think that meaning is pretty self explanatory.   

It Does not mean "the best player on the best team ".  The best tab could be stacked with a whole bunch of solid players,  workout one player really standing out with superstar status - this year's Spurs is the perfect example.

It does not mean the player with the best stats...otherwise you would just give it to the player with the highest per each season.

It means the player who was, individually,  most valuable to his team.   The player who,  when on the court,  he's more positive impact than any other player.   The one player who of you took him from the team,  would watch his teams win record suffer the most.

A perfect example of this was Chris Paul in his first season with the Clippers.   He joined that team and almost single handedly transformed that team from a league-wide joke to a legit playoff threat.

KG in Boston,  2008, would be another.   Boston experienced the biggest single season turn around in NBA history from 07 to 08.  Ray Allen certainly had a big impact on that,  but without KG I assure you that team would have probably been a first round knock out., maybe second round..

Much as I hate to admit it,  LeBron in his first season with Miami is another example.  I don't think anybody impacted their team more individually than LeBron impacted Miami.

That,  to me,  is what the MVP award should be all about. Unfortunately sometimes the league forgets that, gets lazy,  and just gives it to the best player on the best team (e.g. Derek Rose - his team record barely worsened when he got injured).

Re: How did Bird not win the MVP in 1979-80?
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2014, 01:57:53 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
I don't get why so many people (and the league,  it seems)  find it so difficult to come to terms with what the MVP award means.

MVP stands for "most valuable player ".  I think that meaning is pretty self explanatory.   

It Does not mean "the best player on the best team ".  The best tab could be stacked with a whole bunch of solid players,  workout one player really standing out with superstar status - this year's Spurs is the perfect example.

It does not mean the player with the best stats...otherwise you would just give it to the player with the highest per each season.

It means the player who was, individually,  most valuable to his team.   The player who,  when on the court,  he's more positive impact than any other player.   The one player who of you took him from the team,  would watch his teams win record suffer the most.

A perfect example of this was Chris Paul in his first season with the Clippers.   He joined that team and almost single handedly transformed that team from a league-wide joke to a legit playoff threat.

KG in Boston,  2008, would be another.   Boston experienced the biggest single season turn around in NBA history from 07 to 08.  Ray Allen certainly had a big impact on that,  but without KG I assure you that team would have probably been a first round knock out., maybe second round..

Much as I hate to admit it,  LeBron in his first season with Miami is another example.  I don't think anybody impacted their team more individually than LeBron impacted Miami.

That,  to me,  is what the MVP award should be all about. Unfortunately sometimes the league forgets that, gets lazy,  and just gives it to the best player on the best team (e.g. Derek Rose - his team record barely worsened when he got injured).

I completely agree, but let me say that I was happy that Rose won the award in 2011.  Not because I thought that he deserved it, but because it kept Lebron from winning 3 MVP's in a row.  Same thing with Durant.  A big thank you to both of you ;D