I haven't changed the argument. The award goes to the best player, on the team everyone is most surprised by. It should go to the best player in the league. I've been saying that the whole time.
no, it goes to the player who is most valuable to his team. anything else is symptomatic.
no, it goes to the player who is most valuable to his team. anything else is symptomatic.
1) That is not who always gets the award. I can give you tons of examples of this, if you want.
2) It shouldn't go to that person, it should go to the best player in the league
3) even according to your criteria, rose isn't that. I'm not saying rose isn't great, but If you take rose off the bulls, they aren't going to fall off the map, like say, The mavericks did when dirk was out this year. They would still be a playoff team with a league average point guard.
Here's an clip from an excellent dan lebatard story about this issue..
Quote:
Through Saturday, Player X has averaged 22.1 points on .444 shooting with 4.8 rebounds, 7.1 assists and 1.5 steals. He has been his conference’s player of the week four times.
Player Y has averaged 24.9 points on .439 shooting with 4.2 rebounds, 7.9 assists and 1.0 steals. He has been his conference’s player of the week twice.
They are essentially the same player, in other words. Player X is more efficient and a better rebounder and thief, but Player Y scores one more basket per game. Yet Player X isn’t even considered the most valuable player on his own team. And Player Y is about to be named the most valuable player of the entire league.
Player X is Russell Westbrook and player y is derrick rose.
yeah i started writing out a tldr reply to you, then i realized im not a fucking loser like you, so just enjoy being wrong about this and thinking you are right
you can take stats, and yes, then rose doesn't stand a chance. if for no other reason than it doesn't even come up among basketball fans/media, it's pretty clear that basketball stats don't really matter when talking about players at this level.
it's also obvious that rose isn't the best player in the league - lebron is clearly better (though rose is pretty much the same player minus size). also, if you had to start a franchise, there are at least 2 players that i'd take before him, probably 3. lebron and howard 100% unarguable, prolly durant, too.
but as far as value to his team, it's really not close. the bulls have been ravaged by injuries the entire season, rose's star has risen. theyve been challenged in close games all season, taken to the brink of defeat, rose's star has risen. he started off the season being bitchmade, in terms of league notoriety, yet rose's star has risen. overall, he started the year as a soft-spoken bitch with talent and a new squad, and despite that, rose's star has risen.
the mvp is generally a bullshit award in all leagues, and it's different in all of them. but it's pretty clear that he's an unquestionable mvp in the nba this year. the heat would be a decent playoff team without lebron. the magic are pretty much inconceivable without howard (and he's easily the 2nd mvp), but they would have been an ok team without him if they had some sort of golem in the middle. it's pretty much the same with dirk-ins-dallas, though the golem wouldve needed a bit more litheness.
rose crushes souls in the clutch like nobody in the game. his roster has been crippled by all reasonable standards. he went from being a low-level allstar to a dominant superstar.
for this regular season, he's peerless. and (im not certain, but im pretty sure) the league mvp is based on the regular season.
I think one large part of rose's value to the team, is his salary. He's one of the elite players in the league, but he's paid on a rookie salary, which allows the bulls to be much deeper than the heat ( and thus be able to survive injuries to Noah and boozer). If Lebron had blown out his knee at the start of the season, I really don't think the heat would be a nice playoff team. They are so dreadful beyond wade and bosh. I they they would be a playoff team, but a playoff team like the knicks, with two studs and a bunch of duds, struggling to make it. If you would say, use lebron's salary and spread it out to make complementary players, then yes the heat would be better. But again, that's a salary cap management issue, not a "who's the best player in the league issue" and I don't think that salary cap management should come into effect when making individual awards.
well then, should we discount mj for earning $30mil per year during his last years with the bulls, or should he have been the de facto mvp (which he was but somehow didn't get the award, hos award that it is)?
should lebron get the award because he happened to be up for a contract and went to a team where he got more publicity than he did in cleveland, despite it compromising his skills? or should his "mvp stock" be sold short?
taken independently, salary should really hold no sway in the debate.
but, even we somehow determine a way to demerit rose for the value of his salary against the cap, how does that translate to the value of how he is on the court? seems infeasible.
and even if were able to figure that out, how are we able to cross-reference value-in-terms-of-salary vs. value-in-terms-of-team/league-performance-relative-to-all-others? there are no sabermetrics in basketball, or if there are, they aren't on par with baseball's.
i guess if we try to couch the debate in these terms, it's reducible to a similar impasse we find in comparing across eras, as it's pretty much pointless.
well then, should we discount mj for earning $30mil per year during his last years with the bulls, or should he have been the de facto mvp (which he was but somehow didn't get the award, hos award that it is)?
There was no salary cap when MJ was making 30 million, so what he made was irrelevant. But yes, he should have been MVP that year, and every year.
Quote:
should lebron get the award because he happened to be up for a contract and went to a team where he got more publicity than he did in cleveland, despite it compromising his skills? or should his "mvp stock" be sold short?
No, he should get it because he's the best player in the league. He shouldn't be punished for the fact that his team is really shallow because of his salary ( and that of bosh and wade) and rose shouldn't be given bonus points because he's having success on the deepest team in the league, when that team has injuries to key players and still succeeds. Part of that reason for their success is Rose's salary, and I don't think that should factor into the award.
Quote:
and even if were able to figure that out, how are we able to cross-reference value-in-terms-of-salary vs. value-in-terms-of-team/league-performance-relative-to-all-others? there are no sabermetrics in basketball, or if there are, they aren't on par with baseball's.
i guess if we try to couch the debate in these terms, it's reducible to a similar impasse we find in comparing across eras, as it's pretty much pointless.
Well, I think PER is an excellent stat for MVP debates, one in which Lebron is first and rose is 11th ( behind westbrook, amongst others). I agree that the NBA is a harder league to determine value statistically than baseball ( though there are ways, but currently teams are hording those ways, like the rockets). I myself, as I've said before, would chose the MVP based on who I think would be taken over all in a draft of players in the league, if you wanted to win for just one season (obviously starting a franchise beyond one season is irrelevant, because it's a one year award) and I would take Lebron first, without question. The whole " most valuable for that particular team" Thing I think is much harder to define, much more based on intangibles, and things beyond a player's direct performance ( Like the bull's record, which is due a large part to the bulls defensive performance, and Rose is the least valuable bulls defender).
mj point was related to comparing eras given the best player in basketball.
lebron point was asking if he was more deserving of the award on his rookie contract given his salary, despite his (well, in our eyes) indisputable standing as the best player in basketball.
per is a very good metric for basketball, but because it's basketball (obscenely team-dependent in every statistical conception) it's really not a stat that indicates an individual's true value like war or even something like whip.
like i said, id take lebron and howard, maybe durant, over rose (in that order), in any sort of draft. as far as the "intangibles," things like "least valuable defender" are again statistical, so if we remove them, it pretty much devolves into anecdotal "WELL I SEEN DROSE DUNK ON DRAGIC" vs "LEBRON DONE MADE KOBE HIS BITCH" type of stuff.
this is exactly why the mvp is a bullshit award, because even though lebron has pretty much been the best player in the league for 5 years (and should be for at least 5 more), much like mj was for 10-12 (-2), the award isn't the given to the best player. how it is given is up for debate, though to say that it's just the best player on the most surprising team is oversimplifying, and is inherently flawed. that being said, from what ive seen of the award and what i (more or less intuitively) understand it to be in the nba, he's the mvp.
edit: for this year, presumably the last, id take kobe over rose on a one-year thing.
Last edited by jiveturkeysuckafool; 03-28-2011 at 10:24 AM.
mj point was related to comparing eras given the best player in basketball.
Yeah, but it is irrelevant. My point isn't that Rose deserves to be paid more or less, or anything like that. My point is the practical effect that having an elite player at a replacement player price has on a team. It allows you to spend that money on other good players, and makes your team better. Part of the bulls success this season is in part because rose is so cheap. People are saying " oh, look what the bulls have done, with all their injuries, Rose deserves credit for that!" And he deserves some. But he doesn't deserve credit for the bulls being the deepest team in the east because his contract is so low. And the bulls bench depth is a large part why they have weathered their storms this season.
Quote:
lebron point was asking if he was more deserving of the award on his rookie contract given his salary, despite his (well, in our eyes) indisputable standing as the best player in basketball.
No, I was making the opposite point. That you need to judge players on who is better, not on contracts and their effect on a teams depth. Also, cleveland did fuck all with the extra space they had while lebron was under his rookie contract.
Quote:
per is a very good metric for basketball, but because it's basketball (obscenely team-dependent in every statistical conception) it's really not a stat that indicates an individual's true value like war or even something like whip.
I don't agree. I don't think it's a perfect stat justing a player's true value, but I don't think whip is either, when it comes down to it. I do think it does a good ( but certainly not perfect) job of quantifying greatness of a player though. And I think Lebron having the number 1 per, and Rose having the 11 is meaningful in considering their relative greatness.
Quote:
like i said, id take lebron and howard, maybe durant, over rose (in that order), in any sort of draft. as far as the "intangibles," things like "least valuable defender" are again statistical, so if we remove them, it pretty much devolves into anecdotal "WELL I SEEN DROSE DUNK ON DRAGIC" vs "LEBRON DONE MADE KOBE HIS BITCH" type of stuff.
as opposed to speculative " what would the heat be if Lebron wasn't on them vs what would the bulls be if he wasn't on them"? because it's pure conjecture. The only things we KNOW in that regard is 1) The Mavericks are a terrible team without dirk this year. Not a good team, not a playoff team, a terrible team 2) teh cavs are close to a historically bad team without lebron, and the league's best record with him. That should suggest his something of his value. This nonsense about value TO his team, I just can't make sense of. I don't think Lebron should be punished because the heat were poorly put together, and I don't think rose should get this award because the bulls were well put together. Lebron is a better player, and I think that makes him more valuable.
Quote:
this is exactly why the mvp is a bullshit award, because even though lebron has pretty much been the best player in the league for 5 years (and should be for at least 5 more), much like mj was for 10-12 (-2), the award isn't the given to the best player. how it is given is up for debate, though to say that it's just the best player on the most surprising team is oversimplifying, and is inherently flawed. that being said, from what ive seen of the award and what i (more or less intuitively) understand it to be in the nba, he's the mvp.
Linear Mode
