MVP award in sports, in general

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.

so yeah, Dominic Rhodes should have been MVP of the Colts win

Originally posted by zillabeast:
so yeah, Dominic Rhodes should have been MVP of the Colts win

Super Bowl MVP is a whole different story since it's just 1 game and not a series. Most of the time unless someone else had an OUTSTANDING game or a game WAY better game than the QB, it usually goes to the QB as a default (in basketball and baseball, no position is really more vital than another like QB is in football...all the fielders get their turn to bat and PG/SG/SF/PF/C all get their opportunities to make an equal imprint on the game...it's not like a right guard is gonna make or break a game the way a QB can). Case in point - neither Manning lit it up during their SB wins but both got MVP. And ya, I think absolutely you can make the argument that Rhodes should have been MVP of the Colts' win.

Michael Jordan was the best player in the league on the best team most of his career and he won only won 5 MVPs.

Baseball voters get it right more often than other sports, specifically much more than basketball voters.

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Baseball voters get it right more often than other sports, specifically much more than basketball voters.

Yup. I hate the way the NBA MVP is given out. It seems too much like a popularity contest and give it to somebody who is "due" (like when Kobe won it a couple years ago).

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:

Baseball voters get it right more often than other sports, specifically much more than basketball voters.

Yup. I hate the way the NBA MVP is given out. It seems too much like a popularity contest and give it to somebody who is "due" (like when Kobe won it a couple years ago).

That's the flaw in it all. He probably didn't deserve to win it that year, but the previous 2 or 3 years he really deserved to win it.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Baseball voters get it right more often than other sports, specifically much more than basketball voters.

Yup. I hate the way the NBA MVP is given out. It seems too much like a popularity contest and give it to somebody who is "due" (like when Kobe won it a couple years ago).

That's the flaw in it all. He probably didn't deserve to win it that year, but the previous 2 or 3 years he really deserved to win it.

Ya, that is true.

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Baseball voters get it right more often than other sports, specifically much more than basketball voters.

Yup. I hate the way the NBA MVP is given out. It seems too much like a popularity contest and give it to somebody who is "due" (like when Kobe won it a couple years ago).

That's the flaw in it all. He probably didn't deserve to win it that year, but the previous 2 or 3 years he really deserved to win it.

Ya, that is true.

If Nowitzki were to not have gotten it the year before (for his team winning 67 games), it certainly should have been Nash. 18.6 and 11.6 on 53% shooting and 45.5% from 3 point land + leading team to 61 wins is bonkers. In '06 they got it right. Nash led a Stoudemireless Suns team to 54 wins (10 more in playoffs). Other than Shawn Marion, that team was nothing but journeymen (Bell, Diaw, Tim Thomas, Eddie House, James Jones, etc.)...and even Marion has proven to be not nearly the player without Nash compared to with him (irrelevant in Miami and Toronto and a role player in Dallas). And in '05 the Lakers lost nearly 50 games, 'nuff said. Even in '08 when Kobe did win it, KG, CP3, and LBJ all likely deserved it. I don't understand how Kobe really deserved to win it the 2 or 3 years prior.

guess D.Rose was handed his?

Originally posted by Negrodamus:
guess D.Rose was handed his?

Yes, he absolutely was!!! In fact, I would go as far as saying his MVP was the most undeserved award in the past decade.

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:

Originally posted by Negrodamus:
guess D.Rose was handed his?

Yes, he absolutely was!!! In fact, I would go as far as saying his MVP was the most undeserved award in the past decade.

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Yes, he absolutely was!!! In fact, I would go as far as saying his MVP was the most undeserved award in the past decade.

You guys can laugh or facepalm me all you want. Wont change my opinion.

If you want, I can list regular statistics, advanced statistics and other bits of information that can back my opinion. I am willing to do so, if you are willing to read them objectively. If not, I wont waste my time.

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
You guys can laugh or facepalm me all you want. Wont change my opinion.

If you want, I can list regular statistics, advanced statistics and other bits of information that can back my opinion. I am willing to do so, if you are willing to read them objectively. If not, I wont waste my time.

Ok, whatcha got?