There are 69 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

MVP award in sports, in general

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Its all in good fun bro. I hope my message didnt come off as me talking down or something. Just trying to have a fun sports debate with you.

not at all.
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 15,176
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Ah yes. The good old "you must not watch the games" assumption, coupled with the "only looking at stats" assumption. Nicely done.

He had a great season. I agree.

He was the primary scorer and ball handler on a 60 win team. I agree.

But how do either of those two sentences make him more deserving than a player who had a great season, was the primary scorer and ball handler on a team that won a couple of less games?

Are you a Giants fan Jcool? Only reason I ask is because I assume you think that Lincecum deserved his two Cy Youngs right? Well if baseball voters use the same logic as basketball voters do, Timmy would have zero CYs. Felix wouldnt have his either. An I really dont understand your Alex Rodriguez issue. He was clearly the best player in all of baseball when he won his MVP. It makes ZERO sense that someones lack of a good team could prevent a player from winning an MVP. Much like it makes no sense that an MVP award is given out based on team success (like the NBA does).

Who exactly was a player who had a great season and was the primary ball handler? LeBron wasnt, Howard wasnt, Dirk wasnt, Kobe wasnt. And I guess since you had to try to debunk me with the first sentence clearly shows you don't watch the games. Its okay you seem to be a baseball guy anyway. And since your good at assuming things I will assume your an Oakland A's fan since they helped to popularize sabermetric's, which is clearly the type of statics you like. Also A-Rod was not the best player.... Bonds and Pujols were much better players.
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Ah yes. The good old "you must not watch the games" assumption, coupled with the "only looking at stats" assumption. Nicely done.

He had a great season. I agree.

He was the primary scorer and ball handler on a 60 win team. I agree.

But how do either of those two sentences make him more deserving than a player who had a great season, was the primary scorer and ball handler on a team that won a couple of less games?

Are you a Giants fan Jcool? Only reason I ask is because I assume you think that Lincecum deserved his two Cy Youngs right? Well if baseball voters use the same logic as basketball voters do, Timmy would have zero CYs. Felix wouldnt have his either. An I really dont understand your Alex Rodriguez issue. He was clearly the best player in all of baseball when he won his MVP. It makes ZERO sense that someones lack of a good team could prevent a player from winning an MVP. Much like it makes no sense that an MVP award is given out based on team success (like the NBA does).

Who exactly was a player who had a great season and was the primary ball handler? LeBron wasnt, Howard wasnt, Dirk wasnt, Kobe wasnt. And I guess since you had to try to debunk me with the first sentence clearly shows you don't watch the games. Its okay you seem to be a baseball guy anyway. And since your good at assuming things I will assume your an Oakland A's fan since they helped to popularize sabermetric's, which is clearly the type of statics you like. Also A-Rod was not the best player.... Bonds and Pujols were much better players.

Honestly, what you just wrote is the exact reason I didnt want to get into this. Resorting to insults. SMH.

Who had a great season and was the primary ball hander? LeBron and Kobe both fall into this category. So did Westbrook (I only include him because his statistics were eerily similar to Rose's last year). The fact that you said Kobe wasnt shows you dont know what you are talking about (highest usage rates in the league).

Keep saying I dont watch the games. Its pretty much the only thing you can say since you havent really successfully made any valid points that argue against anything that I wrote a few posts ago. And I am not an A's fan. I root for them because they are local, but I honestly wouldnt care if the team was contracted. You are right, ARod was not the best player in the league.....just the best in the American League (which is why he won the MVP).

Would you like to get back to the topic, or would you like to continue with the baseless assumptions and ignoring pretty much everything I post, minus maybe a sentence per post?
[ Edited by 80sbaby24 on Dec 25, 2011 at 3:30 PM ]
Derrick Rose

/thread
MVP stands for Most Valuable Player. I believe the BEST player in his league is also the most valuable player, regardless of what his production meant to his team.

I think this award in general was created to be given to the very best player. too many voters take the context of "valuable" too literal and vote for players based on where their team would be without them. If you want to create a "whos team would suck the most without them" award, fine by me, but leave the MVP award to the very best player.
  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 15,176
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Honestly, what you just wrote is the exact reason I didnt want to get into this. Resorting to insults. SMH.

Who had a great season and was the primary ball hander? LeBron and Kobe both fall into this category. So did Westbrook (I only include him because his statistics were eerily similar to Rose's last year). The fact that you said Kobe wasnt shows you dont know what you are talking about (highest usage rates in the league).

Keep saying I dont watch the games. Its pretty much the only thing you can say since you havent really successfully made any valid points that argue against anything that I wrote a few posts ago. And I am not an A's fan. I root for them because they are local, but I honestly wouldnt care if the team was contracted. You are right, ARod was not the best player in the league.....just the best in the American League (which is why he won the MVP).

Would you like to get back to the topic, or would you like to continue with the baseless assumptions and ignoring pretty much everything I post, minus maybe a sentence per post?

That would be you. I gave you valid reasons why Derrick Rose was the MVP and you came back at me that it was "Sports Center" knowledge, trying to marginalize everything I was saying. And clearly the NBA isnt like the MLB. Going on stats alone isnt going to give you the complete picture of a player. If you did watch games you wouldn't have to come back at me each time saying how its the only thing I have, you would of just said you watch games. Its okay that your a baseball guy, I like baseball myself. But I also know not to equate what happens in baseball to the NBA. Advance stats work great in baseball, it helps me in my fantasy league. It does not work so great in other sports, just doesn't always translate.
So basically what you are saying is advanced stats should be ignored. Alright fine, thats your opinion.

But what about the basic stats I posted? Those stats dont scream MVP either. But we should just ignore those too.

As far as watching the games go, again, you can assume I didnt watch the games, and thats fine (although untrue). But based on the whole "watch the games" idea, what exactly sets Derek Rose's season apart from the other worthy candidates, based purly on just what you see? The reason I use regular stats and advanced stats to break down people's seasons is because that question I just asked is impossible to answer objectively.
It hasto go to Rogers
Originally posted by HarryPeterson:
It hasto go to Rogers

I likely agree, but the devil's advocate argument that the Packers would win a helluva lot more games without Rodgers than the Saints would sans Brees is a strong one.
[ Edited by andes14 on Dec 30, 2011 at 12:43 PM ]
Originally posted by andes14:
I likely agree, but the devil's advocate argument that the Packers would win a helluva lot more games without Rodgers than the Saints would sans Brees is a strong one.

Im sorry bro, but this argument is completely baseless and impossible to prove. Regardless of what your stance is on who the MVP is, you cannot base it on a statement such as that one.
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Im sorry bro, but this argument is completely baseless and impossible to prove. Regardless of what your stance is on who the MVP is, you cannot base it on a statement such as that one.

Just because it can't be PROVEN doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. If you have 3 points in a line - call them A, B, and C. You can't PROVE that the distance from A to B + the distance from B to C is equal to the distance from A to C (it's a postulate), but that doesn't mean you can't accept it as true. Just because it can't be proven, I think we would both still agree that the Packers with Matt Flynn would win probably at least twice as many games as the Saints with Chase Daniel.
[ Edited by andes14 on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:15 PM ]
Originally posted by HarryPeterson:
It hasto go to Rogers