So obviously the interpretation of how MVP should be awarded is always a heavily debated topic. Should it be the most outstanding player? The best player on the best team? A player whose team would take the biggest hit without him? There are instances that reflect all of these. Alex Rodriguez has won MVP on a team that didn't even make the playoffs. There were certainly basketball players that had a better year last year than Derrick Rose, but he was the best player on the best team. But if you interpret the word "VALUABLE" literally, it's more along the lines of which team (usually successful) would have the biggest dropoff without him (thus the most "VALUE" provided). So if that's the case, technically shouldn't the quality of your backup be taken into account. For example, if the Packers played this year without Aaron Rodgers, they'd still likely win at the very least 10 games, as Matt Flynn has shown to be a good quarterback. But if the Saints played this year without Drew Brees, they'd be lucky to win 5 games with Chase Daniel. Say New Orleans finishes 12-4 and Green Bay finishes 15-1, Rodgers' presence in essence adds 4-5 wins to his team while Brees' likely adds at least 7. The better the backup, technically, the less valuable the starter, and vice versa, no? Just food for thought.
Also, what do you guys think about how NBA Finals and World Series MVP should be awarded? Most of the time, they award it to the guy that played the best/had the best #'s over the course of the entire series. But I think this is flawed. I think only performance in wins should be relevant. For example, if a team wins the World Series in 7 games and in the 3 losses a particular player combines to have like 8 hits and 4 homers and 8 RBI while going hitless in the 4 wins, he probably will wind up having the best cumulative stats of any player on the team, but there's no way he's the most VALUABLE player of that series because they could have replaced him with me or you and still won the World Series (due to a lack of any production in the wins). Same thing in basketball. If a player puts up 35 points on 60% shooting, 10 rebounds, 7 assists, and locks down the guy he's guarding in each of the 3 losses, but goes for 12 points on 30% shooting, 4 rebounds, 2 assists, and the guy he's guarding lights him up in the 4 wins, should he be NBA Finals MVP just because his cumulative stats are the best? I say no because he had nothing to do with the team winning it all. So IIRC, the Finals MVP's perhaps should have been different in 2010 (Kobe was very subpar in the Lakers' wins) and 2005 (I believe Manu was lights out in their wins), and probably some others. Long story short, I think performance/stats in wins should be all that matter. Padding your stats in losses is irrelevant.