2011 NBA MVP Thread

[651akathepaul]

Originally Posted by ilikethemds

Not rose, hes too new and although he's upcoming he doesn't deserve it just like he didn't deserve memphis

  

 

[gregzzy23]

Did Amare fall off that bad that hes not even considered top 10? The f?

 

[gregzzy23]

Did Amare fall off that bad that hes not even considered top 10? The f?

 

[kobefan23]

I think Rose's candidacy is fairly overhyped at this point.

17 of the last 20 MVP's have been guys whose teams have been top 2 in the NBA. I suppose we can say this year is different with BOS and SA both lacking viable MVP candidates. If we go outside the top 2, we're left with Dallas or Miami, with CHI, LA, and ORL right behind them.

I don't see how LeBron is not the clear winner here, especially if MIA stays ahead of CHI in the standings. Even if they pull even, LeBron across the board is having a better year than Rose (nonetheless being a flat out better player). 26/8/7/49% shooting beats 25/4/8/44% shooting. Bron is the superior defender, has a higher PER, and Rose's efficiency and assist to turnover ratio is rather weak for such an elite player/PG. I think Howard has a legitimate case over Rose averaging 23/14 while being the best defensive big in the game if ORL can catch CHI in the standings.

The hypothetical situation of how good would ___ team be without Player X is useless. It unfairly prejudices guys on great teams. It involves way too many variables to factor in. (Ex. certain teams will play better without star players b/c of the system/offense). Even if we were to use such a metric, LeBron would have the best "hypothetical" case of anyone because we can firsthand what happened with CLE.

The player whose team had the "worst" record in the last 20 years to win MVP was Nash when the Suns were the 4th best overall. Many believe that was a poor choice. Either way, with the Bulls currently being the 5th best team, I don't think a point guard averaging 25/8 on 44% shooting is the ultimate exception to a 20+ year rule/way of voting. Unfortunately, the voters will probably make him the ultimate exception because of voter fatigue and backlash against LeBron, as well as the undervaluing of Howard's defense.

 

[kobefan23]

I think Rose's candidacy is fairly overhyped at this point.

17 of the last 20 MVP's have been guys whose teams have been top 2 in the NBA. I suppose we can say this year is different with BOS and SA both lacking viable MVP candidates. If we go outside the top 2, we're left with Dallas or Miami, with CHI, LA, and ORL right behind them.

I don't see how LeBron is not the clear winner here, especially if MIA stays ahead of CHI in the standings. Even if they pull even, LeBron across the board is having a better year than Rose (nonetheless being a flat out better player). 26/8/7/49% shooting beats 25/4/8/44% shooting. Bron is the superior defender, has a higher PER, and Rose's efficiency and assist to turnover ratio is rather weak for such an elite player/PG. I think Howard has a legitimate case over Rose averaging 23/14 while being the best defensive big in the game if ORL can catch CHI in the standings.

The hypothetical situation of how good would ___ team be without Player X is useless. It unfairly prejudices guys on great teams. It involves way too many variables to factor in. (Ex. certain teams will play better without star players b/c of the system/offense). Even if we were to use such a metric, LeBron would have the best "hypothetical" case of anyone because we can firsthand what happened with CLE.

The player whose team had the "worst" record in the last 20 years to win MVP was Nash when the Suns were the 4th best overall. Many believe that was a poor choice. Either way, with the Bulls currently being the 5th best team, I don't think a point guard averaging 25/8 on 44% shooting is the ultimate exception to a 20+ year rule/way of voting. Unfortunately, the voters will probably make him the ultimate exception because of voter fatigue and backlash against LeBron, as well as the undervaluing of Howard's defense.

 

[JD617]

Originally Posted by Kobefan23

I think Rose's candidacy is fairly overhyped at this point.

17 of the last 20 MVP's have been guys whose teams have been top 2 in the NBA. I suppose we can say this year is different with BOS and SA both lacking viable MVP candidates. If we go outside the top 2, we're left with Dallas or Miami, with CHI, LA, and ORL right behind them.

I don't see how LeBron is not the clear winner here, especially if MIA stays ahead of CHI in the standings. Even if they pull even, LeBron across the board is having a better year than Rose (nonetheless being a flat out better player). 26/8/7/49% shooting beats 25/4/8/44% shooting. Bron is the superior defender, has a higher PER, and Rose's efficiency and assist to turnover ratio is rather weak for such an elite player/PG. I think Howard has a legitimate case over Rose averaging 23/14 while being the best defensive big in the game if ORL can catch CHI in the standings.

The hypothetical situation of how good would ___ team be without Player X is useless. It unfairly prejudices guys on great teams. It involves way too many variables to factor in. (Ex. certain teams will play better without star players b/c of the system/offense). Even if we were to use such a metric, LeBron would have the best "hypothetical" case of anyone because we can firsthand what happened with CLE.

The player whose team had the "worst" record in the last 20 years to win MVP was Nash when the Suns were the 4th best overall. Many believe that was a poor choice. Either way, with the Bulls currently being the 5th best team, I don't think a point guard averaging 25/8 on 44% shooting is the ultimate exception to a 20+ year rule/way of voting. Unfortunately, the voters will probably make him the ultimate exception because of voter fatigue and backlash against LeBron, as well as the undervaluing of Howard's defense.

 at this coming from a Bulls fan.

But seriously, A+ post.

 

[JD617]

Originally Posted by Kobefan23

I think Rose's candidacy is fairly overhyped at this point.

17 of the last 20 MVP's have been guys whose teams have been top 2 in the NBA. I suppose we can say this year is different with BOS and SA both lacking viable MVP candidates. If we go outside the top 2, we're left with Dallas or Miami, with CHI, LA, and ORL right behind them.

I don't see how LeBron is not the clear winner here, especially if MIA stays ahead of CHI in the standings. Even if they pull even, LeBron across the board is having a better year than Rose (nonetheless being a flat out better player). 26/8/7/49% shooting beats 25/4/8/44% shooting. Bron is the superior defender, has a higher PER, and Rose's efficiency and assist to turnover ratio is rather weak for such an elite player/PG. I think Howard has a legitimate case over Rose averaging 23/14 while being the best defensive big in the game if ORL can catch CHI in the standings.

The hypothetical situation of how good would ___ team be without Player X is useless. It unfairly prejudices guys on great teams. It involves way too many variables to factor in. (Ex. certain teams will play better without star players b/c of the system/offense). Even if we were to use such a metric, LeBron would have the best "hypothetical" case of anyone because we can firsthand what happened with CLE.

The player whose team had the "worst" record in the last 20 years to win MVP was Nash when the Suns were the 4th best overall. Many believe that was a poor choice. Either way, with the Bulls currently being the 5th best team, I don't think a point guard averaging 25/8 on 44% shooting is the ultimate exception to a 20+ year rule/way of voting. Unfortunately, the voters will probably make him the ultimate exception because of voter fatigue and backlash against LeBron, as well as the undervaluing of Howard's defense.

 at this coming from a Bulls fan.

But seriously, A+ post.

 

[abovelegit1]

And a Kobe fan, no less.

I kid.

But seriously, nice post. Agreed for the most part, but I think Dwight is right there with LeBron as the leading candidate. He exceeds LeBron in win shares, and the chasm in terms of overall defensive impact between the two is somewhat profound. Regardless, they are 1 and 2 in whatever order.

 

[abovelegit1]

And a Kobe fan, no less.

I kid.

But seriously, nice post. Agreed for the most part, but I think Dwight is right there with LeBron as the leading candidate. He exceeds LeBron in win shares, and the chasm in terms of overall defensive impact between the two is somewhat profound. Regardless, they are 1 and 2 in whatever order.

 

[airmaxpenny1]

I think lebrons been the second best defender in the leagueafter dwight this year though...

And you can call me a rose hater, but that don't mean I'm not right about him not deserving mvp.

 

[airmaxpenny1]

I think lebrons been the second best defender in the leagueafter dwight this year though...

And you can call me a rose hater, but that don't mean I'm not right about him not deserving mvp.

 

[abovelegit1]

You can't compare the defensive impact of an elite center to an elite wing, so my point stands. Besides, there are comparable perimeter defenders to LeBron, such as Ronnie Brewer, Ron Artest, Andre Iguodola, etc.

 

[abovelegit1]

You can't compare the defensive impact of an elite center to an elite wing, so my point stands. Besides, there are comparable perimeter defenders to LeBron, such as Ronnie Brewer, Ron Artest, Andre Iguodola, etc.

 

[kobefan23]

Originally Posted by JD617

Originally Posted by Kobefan23

I think Rose's candidacy is fairly overhyped at this point.

17 of the last 20 MVP's have been guys whose teams have been top 2 in the NBA. I suppose we can say this year is different with BOS and SA both lacking viable MVP candidates. If we go outside the top 2, we're left with Dallas or Miami, with CHI, LA, and ORL right behind them.

I don't see how LeBron is not the clear winner here, especially if MIA stays ahead of CHI in the standings. Even if they pull even, LeBron across the board is having a better year than Rose (nonetheless being a flat out better player). 26/8/7/49% shooting beats 25/4/8/44% shooting. Bron is the superior defender, has a higher PER, and Rose's efficiency and assist to turnover ratio is rather weak for such an elite player/PG. I think Howard has a legitimate case over Rose averaging 23/14 while being the best defensive big in the game if ORL can catch CHI in the standings.

The hypothetical situation of how good would ___ team be without Player X is useless. It unfairly prejudices guys on great teams. It involves way too many variables to factor in. (Ex. certain teams will play better without star players b/c of the system/offense). Even if we were to use such a metric, LeBron would have the best "hypothetical" case of anyone because we can firsthand what happened with CLE.

The player whose team had the "worst" record in the last 20 years to win MVP was Nash when the Suns were the 4th best overall. Many believe that was a poor choice. Either way, with the Bulls currently being the 5th best team, I don't think a point guard averaging 25/8 on 44% shooting is the ultimate exception to a 20+ year rule/way of voting. Unfortunately, the voters will probably make him the ultimate exception because of voter fatigue and backlash against LeBron, as well as the undervaluing of Howard's defense.

 at this coming from a Bulls fan.

But seriously, A+ post.

Thanks.

I'm a fan of the game of basketball more than any one team or player. I've never understood how being a "fan" of a team must consist of being incredibly biased/subjective and always looking at things through team-colored glasses. So yeah, I'm a lifelong Bulls fan, my two favorite players are Kobe/Rondo, and I think LeBron should win his 3rd straight MVP. Figure out those contradictions.

 

[kobefan23]

Originally Posted by JD617

Originally Posted by Kobefan23

I think Rose's candidacy is fairly overhyped at this point.

17 of the last 20 MVP's have been guys whose teams have been top 2 in the NBA. I suppose we can say this year is different with BOS and SA both lacking viable MVP candidates. If we go outside the top 2, we're left with Dallas or Miami, with CHI, LA, and ORL right behind them.

I don't see how LeBron is not the clear winner here, especially if MIA stays ahead of CHI in the standings. Even if they pull even, LeBron across the board is having a better year than Rose (nonetheless being a flat out better player). 26/8/7/49% shooting beats 25/4/8/44% shooting. Bron is the superior defender, has a higher PER, and Rose's efficiency and assist to turnover ratio is rather weak for such an elite player/PG. I think Howard has a legitimate case over Rose averaging 23/14 while being the best defensive big in the game if ORL can catch CHI in the standings.

The hypothetical situation of how good would ___ team be without Player X is useless. It unfairly prejudices guys on great teams. It involves way too many variables to factor in. (Ex. certain teams will play better without star players b/c of the system/offense). Even if we were to use such a metric, LeBron would have the best "hypothetical" case of anyone because we can firsthand what happened with CLE.

The player whose team had the "worst" record in the last 20 years to win MVP was Nash when the Suns were the 4th best overall. Many believe that was a poor choice. Either way, with the Bulls currently being the 5th best team, I don't think a point guard averaging 25/8 on 44% shooting is the ultimate exception to a 20+ year rule/way of voting. Unfortunately, the voters will probably make him the ultimate exception because of voter fatigue and backlash against LeBron, as well as the undervaluing of Howard's defense.

 at this coming from a Bulls fan.

But seriously, A+ post.

Thanks.

I'm a fan of the game of basketball more than any one team or player. I've never understood how being a "fan" of a team must consist of being incredibly biased/subjective and always looking at things through team-colored glasses. So yeah, I'm a lifelong Bulls fan, my two favorite players are Kobe/Rondo, and I think LeBron should win his 3rd straight MVP. Figure out those contradictions.

 

[GaBeGRaMz]

Originally Posted by gregzzy23

Did Amare fall off that bad that hes not even considered top 10? The f?

The overall team performance fell off and we were in a slump for a while. Our record isn't good enough.

 

[GaBeGRaMz]

Originally Posted by gregzzy23

Did Amare fall off that bad that hes not even considered top 10? The f?

The overall team performance fell off and we were in a slump for a while. Our record isn't good enough.

 

[futuristic]

Originally Posted by gregzzy23

Did Amare fall off that bad that hes not even considered top 10? The f?

The Knicks are 3 games over .500

 

[futuristic]

Originally Posted by gregzzy23

Did Amare fall off that bad that hes not even considered top 10? The f?

The Knicks are 3 games over .500

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by JD617

Originally Posted by Kobefan23

I think Rose's candidacy is fairly overhyped at this point.

17 of the last 20 MVP's have been guys whose teams have been top 2 in the NBA. I suppose we can say this year is different with BOS and SA both lacking viable MVP candidates. If we go outside the top 2, we're left with Dallas or Miami, with CHI, LA, and ORL right behind them.

I don't see how LeBron is not the clear winner here, especially if MIA stays ahead of CHI in the standings. Even if they pull even, LeBron across the board is having a better year than Rose (nonetheless being a flat out better player). 26/8/7/49% shooting beats 25/4/8/44% shooting. Bron is the superior defender, has a higher PER, and Rose's efficiency and assist to turnover ratio is rather weak for such an elite player/PG. I think Howard has a legitimate case over Rose averaging 23/14 while being the best defensive big in the game if ORL can catch CHI in the standings.

The hypothetical situation of how good would ___ team be without Player X is useless. It unfairly prejudices guys on great teams. It involves way too many variables to factor in. (Ex. certain teams will play better without star players b/c of the system/offense). Even if we were to use such a metric, LeBron would have the best "hypothetical" case of anyone because we can firsthand what happened with CLE.

The player whose team had the "worst" record in the last 20 years to win MVP was Nash when the Suns were the 4th best overall. Many believe that was a poor choice. Either way, with the Bulls currently being the 5th best team, I don't think a point guard averaging 25/8 on 44% shooting is the ultimate exception to a 20+ year rule/way of voting. Unfortunately, the voters will probably make him the ultimate exception because of voter fatigue and backlash against LeBron, as well as the undervaluing of Howard's defense.

 at this coming from a Bulls fan.

But seriously, A+ post.

HankMoody wrote:

Has to be Bron or Rose at this point. I'm a Bulls fan but I would give to Bron because he is the best player in the L by a good margin. However, Rose might be the candidate the media is looking to crown so he might win. If the Bulls win 58-60 games and he stays with 25/8 numbers, it's his imo.

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by JD617

Originally Posted by Kobefan23

I think Rose's candidacy is fairly overhyped at this point.

17 of the last 20 MVP's have been guys whose teams have been top 2 in the NBA. I suppose we can say this year is different with BOS and SA both lacking viable MVP candidates. If we go outside the top 2, we're left with Dallas or Miami, with CHI, LA, and ORL right behind them.

I don't see how LeBron is not the clear winner here, especially if MIA stays ahead of CHI in the standings. Even if they pull even, LeBron across the board is having a better year than Rose (nonetheless being a flat out better player). 26/8/7/49% shooting beats 25/4/8/44% shooting. Bron is the superior defender, has a higher PER, and Rose's efficiency and assist to turnover ratio is rather weak for such an elite player/PG. I think Howard has a legitimate case over Rose averaging 23/14 while being the best defensive big in the game if ORL can catch CHI in the standings.

The hypothetical situation of how good would ___ team be without Player X is useless. It unfairly prejudices guys on great teams. It involves way too many variables to factor in. (Ex. certain teams will play better without star players b/c of the system/offense). Even if we were to use such a metric, LeBron would have the best "hypothetical" case of anyone because we can firsthand what happened with CLE.

The player whose team had the "worst" record in the last 20 years to win MVP was Nash when the Suns were the 4th best overall. Many believe that was a poor choice. Either way, with the Bulls currently being the 5th best team, I don't think a point guard averaging 25/8 on 44% shooting is the ultimate exception to a 20+ year rule/way of voting. Unfortunately, the voters will probably make him the ultimate exception because of voter fatigue and backlash against LeBron, as well as the undervaluing of Howard's defense.

 at this coming from a Bulls fan.

But seriously, A+ post.

HankMoody wrote:

Has to be Bron or Rose at this point. I'm a Bulls fan but I would give to Bron because he is the best player in the L by a good margin. However, Rose might be the candidate the media is looking to crown so he might win. If the Bulls win 58-60 games and he stays with 25/8 numbers, it's his imo.

 

[nermindee]

rose

 

[nermindee]

rose

 

[freshbottoms]

No love for love?

 

[freshbottoms]

No love for love?