Who Is Your Choice for 2016-2017 NBA MVP?

[Phantom255x]

Who should be getting the MVP (not just now, but last 5 years)? Lebron James.

But that's not how it works in the league.

At this point, especially if he takes the triple double record for good, it HAS to go to Westbrook. He's also come up clutch recently.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Who should be getting the MVP (not just now, but last 5 years)? Lebron James.

But that's not how it works in the league.

At this point, especially if he takes the triple double record for good, it HAS to go to Westbrook. He's also come up clutch recently.

Perhaps the NBA is different in this respect, but Mark McGwire didn't even come close to winning MVP the season he crushed Roger Maris's home run record (70 v. 61), which was one of the most hallowed records in all of sports.

[PhoSita]

Who should be getting the MVP (not just now, but last 5 years)? Lebron James.

The "should" here depends on how you see the award.

Is it a recognition of who had the most impressive regular season performance on an individual basis?  Is it a reward for being the best player on the best team?

Or is it about signaling which player everybody agrees is the "alpha dog" of the league in this era of the NBA, regardless of how that player or his team did in the regular season relative to other top players and teams?


I think the choices here are actually pretty instructive for the different ways of looking at the award:


Best player on the best team = Stephen Curry

League "alpha dog" = LeBron James

Best individual performance (offensive stats only) = Russell Westbrook

Combination of performance + team success = James Harden

Best individual performance (if you care about defense) = Kawhi Leonard


By the way, the reason Steph Curry made sense as the unanimous MVP last season is that he checked off all of these boxes, even arguably the last one considering he led the league in steals and his team was 4th in the league in defensive efficiency.

[celticsclay]

Who should be getting the MVP (not just now, but last 5 years)? Lebron James.

The "should" here depends on how you see the award.

Is it a recognition of who had the most impressive regular season performance on an individual basis?  Is it a reward for being the best player on the best team?

Or is it about signaling which player everybody agrees is the "alpha dog" of the league in this era of the NBA, regardless of how that player or his team did in the regular season relative to other top players and teams?


I think the choices here are actually pretty instructive for the different ways of looking at the award:


Best player on the best team = Stephen Curry

League "alpha dog" = LeBron James

Best individual performance (offensive stats only) = Russell Westbrook

Combination of performance + team success = James Harden

Best individual performance (if you care about defense) = Kawhi Leonard


By the way, the reason Steph Curry made sense as the unanimous MVP last season is that he checked off all of these boxes, even arguably the last one considering he led the league in steals and his team was 4th in the league in defensive efficiency.

I think the design of the award is this, with team success factored in as a tie breaker of sorts. The idea that you give the award to guys cause you believe when they try their hardest in the biggest games they are the best does not make any sense. If that was the case why even bother?

Do people realize the Rockets have a better record than the Cavs right now? It is kind of insane when you compare the talent on the two rosters that that is the case.

[PhoSita]

When you look at the history of the award, it's pretty clear that team record is more than just a tie-breaker.  It's more of a qualification to be seriously considered. 

Very few players have ever won MVP when their team doesn't have one of the best records in the league (i.e. 55+ wins).  Moses Malone is the only really good example I can find.

[Moranis]

Tell me which of the following things you disagree with:

1) The Warriors, Spurs, and Rockets have all been better than the Cavaliers in this regular season.

2) Kyrie, Love, and Thompson are a more talented supporting cast than Aldridge / Pau / Parker or Gordon / Ariza / Anderson.

3) James Harden has more offensive responsibility for the Rockets than LeBron has for the Cavs. 

4) James Harden is playing closer to his maximum potential on a nightly basis than LeBron is for the Cavs.

5) James Harden and Kawhi Leonard are both more productive scorers than LeBron this season, and their scoring efficiency is about the same. 

6) Stephen Curry is scoring more than LeBron and almost as much as Harden, and is the most efficient of this whole group.

7) Kawhi Leonard is playing the best defense of any of the plausible MVP candidates.

8 ) The Rockets are better than you expected them to be during this regular season; the Cavs are not as good as you expected them to be during this regular season.



From your response above I take it that your basic position on this is that the Cavs are really just not a very good team without LeBron, whereas the Rockets or Spurs might be at least competitive (and well coached) without Harden or Kawhi.

I don't necessarily disagree with those [parts here and there] but the metrics also do the lie.  When Lebron James isnt on the court the Cavs are basically the worst team in the league.  His on Court vs. Off Court numbers are by far the largest discrepancy among any of the top candidates.  There are in fact multiple games that the Cavs lost this year that James played and had + of over 15 in the game and yet they still lost the game.  It is pretty hard to have more value than that.  Plus the Cavs have had some pretty significant injuries more so than most of the other too mvp contender teams.  And it isn't like Irving or Love are actually quality defenders either. Very talented offensively but don't do much defensively.  Both the offense and the defense of the Cavs is entirely centered on James.  He carries the Cavs on both sides of the floor more than any other player this year especially.

I'm not of the belief that the award should go to the best player. Last year I would have voted for Curry. I thought he clearly had the best season.  This year I just happen to think James has had the best overall season especially when considering value to his team.

[Who]

TRIPLE-DOUBLES = WINS FOR OKC

Westbrook has been asked a number of times why he thinks the Thunder typically win when he hits the triple-double bar. The truth might be in the assists -- when Westbrook records 10 dimes, the Thunder are 36-12. When he shoots 25 or more times, they're 17-18.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19075849/nba-russell-westbrook-averages-triple-double-entire-season

[PhoSita]

TRIPLE-DOUBLES = WINS FOR OKC

Westbrook has been asked a number of times why he thinks the Thunder typically win when he hits the triple-double bar. The truth might be in the assists -- when Westbrook records 10 dimes, the Thunder are 36-12. When he shoots 25 or more times, they're 17-18.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19075849/nba-russell-westbrook-averages-triple-double-entire-season

How much of that has to do with him picking up the necessary stats (to complete the TD) toward the end of a game that's already decided?

[PhoSita]

Tell me which of the following things you disagree with:

1) The Warriors, Spurs, and Rockets have all been better than the Cavaliers in this regular season.

2) Kyrie, Love, and Thompson are a more talented supporting cast than Aldridge / Pau / Parker or Gordon / Ariza / Anderson.

3) James Harden has more offensive responsibility for the Rockets than LeBron has for the Cavs. 

4) James Harden is playing closer to his maximum potential on a nightly basis than LeBron is for the Cavs.

5) James Harden and Kawhi Leonard are both more productive scorers than LeBron this season, and their scoring efficiency is about the same. 

6) Stephen Curry is scoring more than LeBron and almost as much as Harden, and is the most efficient of this whole group.

7) Kawhi Leonard is playing the best defense of any of the plausible MVP candidates.

8 ) The Rockets are better than you expected them to be during this regular season; the Cavs are not as good as you expected them to be during this regular season.



From your response above I take it that your basic position on this is that the Cavs are really just not a very good team without LeBron, whereas the Rockets or Spurs might be at least competitive (and well coached) without Harden or Kawhi.

I don't necessarily disagree with those [parts here and there] but the metrics also do the lie.  When Lebron James isnt on the court the Cavs are basically the worst team in the league.  His on Court vs. Off Court numbers are by far the largest discrepancy among any of the top candidates.  There are in fact multiple games that the Cavs lost this year that James played and had + of over 15 in the game and yet they still lost the game.  It is pretty hard to have more value than that.  Plus the Cavs have had some pretty significant injuries more so than most of the other too mvp contender teams.  And it isn't like Irving or Love are actually quality defenders either. Very talented offensively but don't do much defensively.  Both the offense and the defense of the Cavs is entirely centered on James.  He carries the Cavs on both sides of the floor more than any other player this year especially.

I'm not of the belief that the award should go to the best player. Last year I would have voted for Curry. I thought he clearly had the best season.  This year I just happen to think James has had the best overall season especially when considering value to his team.

Alright, I can respect where you're coming from on this.  I just disagree.

Here's the bottom line, for me.


1) The Rockets and Spurs are better.

2) The Rockets and Spurs have, on balance, less talent, even considering injuries, which is a legit point.

3) The Cavs haven't been as good as I think they could have been.

4) The Rockets and Spurs have outperformed their rosters, in my opinion.

5) Harden is having an even more impressive season from a pure offensive numbers and overall impact perspective, in my opinion, than LeBron.  Kawhi is arguably having at least as impressive a season as LeBron, when you take defense into consideration.

6) As well as LeBron has played this season, I think it's clear he's choosing his spots, especially defensively.  Whereas Harden IS the Rockets, and Kawhi is a robot that performs its programmed function night in and night out.


If the Cavs had a top 2 record in the league, I'd be more amenable to the LeBron-for-MVP argument.  As it stands, I don't think the regular season is really what he's playing for these days.  How we remember this season for LeBron will be decided by what happens in the playoffs.  Given that, I'm looking elsewhere for MVP, which is a regular season award.

[Boris Badenov]

TRIPLE-DOUBLES = WINS FOR OKC

Westbrook has been asked a number of times why he thinks the Thunder typically win when he hits the triple-double bar. The truth might be in the assists -- when Westbrook records 10 dimes, the Thunder are 36-12. When he shoots 25 or more times, they're 17-18.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19075849/nba-russell-westbrook-averages-triple-double-entire-season

How much of that has to do with him picking up the necessary stats (to complete the TD) toward the end of a game that's already decided?

He averages 11.8 assists in wins and 8.6 assists in losses.

That category seems less "pad-able" than the others. Your teammates can give you the ball. They can get out of the way on missed shots and FTs. But they can't just decide to make more shots when you need an assist.

I suppose WB could be passing the ball all the time in 4th quarter, when they're winning and he needs another assist, but (a) that doesn't fit with his overall shooting rate which ticks up in the 4th, and (b) would only be possible in blowout wins, not close games (Westbrook will shoot when the game's close, we know this).

It seems like the more likely explanation is that when Westbrook's teammates are having good nights, he gets more assists because they shoot better, and OKC wins. Westbrook himself shoots much better in wins as well. The Thunder overall just average more assists in wins (22.9 vs. 18.5).

Rebounds are easier to game, but even there the Thunder average 4 more boards a game in wins. So, there are just more of both rebounds and assists to go around. So, you get more triple-doubles.

Not to say there isn't the odd stat-padding here and there, but overall team performance can explain the overall pattern without too much trouble.

(Edit: and note that my story still goes against the narrative, which is that somehow triple-doubles have a distinct causal effect on wins. The more natural explanation is that playing good basketball begets both wins and TDs, so they're correlated.)

[PhoSita]

TRIPLE-DOUBLES = WINS FOR OKC

Westbrook has been asked a number of times why he thinks the Thunder typically win when he hits the triple-double bar. The truth might be in the assists -- when Westbrook records 10 dimes, the Thunder are 36-12. When he shoots 25 or more times, they're 17-18.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19075849/nba-russell-westbrook-averages-triple-double-entire-season

How much of that has to do with him picking up the necessary stats (to complete the TD) toward the end of a game that's already decided?

He averages 11.8 assists in wins and 8.6 assists in losses.

That category seems less "pad-able" than the others. Your teammates can give you the ball. They can get out of the way on missed shots and FTs. But they can't just decide to make more shots when you need an assist.

I suppose WB could be passing the ball all the time in 4th quarter, when they're winning and he needs another assist, but (a) that doesn't fit with his overall shooting rate which ticks up in the 4th, and (b) would only be possible in blowout wins, not close games (Westbrook will shoot when the game's close, we know this).

It seems like the more likely explanation is that when Westbrook's teammates are having good nights, he gets more assists because they shoot better, and OKC wins. Westbrook himself shoots much better in wins as well. The Thunder overall just average more assists in wins (22.9 vs. 18.5).

Rebounds are easier to game, but even there the Thunder average 4 more boards a game in wins. So, there are just more of both rebounds and assists to go around. So, you get more triple-doubles.

Not to say there isn't the odd stat-padding here and there, but overall team performance can explain the overall pattern without too much trouble.

(Edit: and note that my story still goes against the narrative, which is that somehow triple-doubles have a distinct causal effect on wins. The more natural explanation is that playing good basketball begets both wins and TDs, so they're correlated.)

All of that makes sense.


I guess my feeling is that

- The Thunder are built around one guy getting his numbers.

- When that one guy has a good night getting his numbers, they tend to win, and the guy tends to get a triple double.


I struggle with the chicken and egg thing with this Thunder team.  Are they so limited without Russ because they are a bad team without Russ?  Or are they limited without Russ because their entire roster and gameplan is built around Russ doing whatever he wants whenever he's on the floor?


My main disagreements with the narrative surrounding the Thunder and Westbrook's MVP candidacy are the notions that the talent around him is below average and that they are as good as they could possibly be thanks to what Westbrook is doing.

I don't believe that the Thunder couldn't be an even better team if they were built around a "make others better" kind of guy as opposed to a "what's good for me is good for the team guy."

Nor do I believe, for an instant, that they would be a bottom-feeder if they had a league average starting point guard in Russ's spot.  Put Jeff Teague or Dennis Schroder in his place and I think they'd be a run of the mill mediocre team.

Steven Adams is a really good big man.  Oladipo is a really nice player.  Roberson is an excellent defender.  Kanter is a phenomenal bench weapon.  Gibson and McDermott were perfect mid-season additions, both good at filling their role.

Yes, that roster has holes, but it's not like Russ has taken a roster on par with the Sixers and carried them to 45ish wins.  That they are above average has at least as much to do with how good they are at defending and cleaning the glass as it does with Russell's insane usage rate.

[Boris Badenov]

Those are all fair questions Pho (and it would be interesting to ask them about Houston too), but I doubt they will be discussed at length in the next few weeks.

I think now that the mainstream media is picking up on this story, it will become more superficial, not deeper.

Interesting to note thought that most major betting sites still have Harden as the favorite. I wonder whether that will change.

Personally, I'd probably rate the race as too close to call.

I also think that if all Lebron ends up with is 4 MVPs, history will not regard this period as the high point of MVP voting. It's ridiculous.

[PhoSita]

I'll say this, I think Russ wants to win MVP more than anybody else.  Man possessed!

It's super duper impressive even if I can't help disliking it on philosophical grounds (i.e. the beauty of the sport is in team play).  He's a force of nature.



Regarding the LeBron "only 4 MVPs" thing, the time for him to win more was earlier in his career when he went hard all the time.

He really ought to have won in 2011, but just like this year with the Warriors, media members don't give MVP awards to players on recently formed superteams.


It's not like the guys who won over him in recent years didn't deserve it.  Curry was the the clear cut best player in the league in 2016, and the best player on the best team in 2015.  In 2014, Durant's numbers were amazing and his team was significantly better than Bron's.