What is your Criteria for MVP

[CitySushi]

Since this was brought in another thread, I thought I'd pose the question to the board. What is it that YOU consider to be defining characterstics of an MVP season?

For me in no order:
1) Team Success/Record
2) Level of Dominance as a lead player
3) Statistical output, obviously

Outlier Factors:
4) Transcendent season
5) Overachievement based on expectations

The above are all qualifiers for me to merit someone being considered an MVP candidate. For the most part the first 3 are always factors, whereas the last two are more subjective. In order to be considered for 4 and 5 to be factored in you have to do something completely crazy like Russ averaging the first triple double in a season since Oscar. Or Derrick Rose in 2011 where his team the previous year went from 36-46 to 61-21 with him leading the way.


So not just to make this about Steph, but IMO, based on my qualifiers above he does NOT qualify for the MVP. His season is amazing, but he doesn't touch nearly the amount of categories for me to consider him worthy of an MVP.

What are your thoughts on how would you determine an MVP?

 

[dtgold88]

I think 2 comes before 1. I could give it to a guy with 2 and less of 1, but not the other way around. I think the rest was spot on.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Since this was brought in another thread, I thought I'd pose the question to the board. What is it that YOU consider to be defining characterstics of an MVP season?

For me in no order:
1) Team Success/Record
2) Level of Dominance as a lead player
3) Statistical output, obviously

Outlier Factors:
4) Transcendent season
5) Overachievement based on expectations

The above are all qualifiers for me to merit someone being considered an MVP candidate. For the most part the first 3 are always factors, whereas the last two are more subjective. In order to be considered for 4 and 5 to be factored in you have to do something completely crazy like Russ averaging the first triple double in a season since Oscar. Or Derrick Rose in 2011 where his team the previous year went from 36-46 to 61-21 with him leading the way.


So not just to make this about Steph, but IMO, based on my qualifiers above he does NOT qualify for the MVP. His season is amazing, but he doesn't touch nearly the amount of categories for me to consider him worthy of an MVP.

What are your thoughts on how would you determine an MVP?

I think the most important thing is the effect that you have on your team- like you said with Derek Rose. When a player clearly makes his own team better and without him the team would not be near as good record wise.

Its why I am critical to a certain extent of the Steve Nash MVP's. It is why I think Giannis earned his MVP's- when he really did not have a ton of high-high end talent around him and still was a statistical monster, and led his team to a ton of wins.

 

[CitySushi]

I think 2 comes before 1. I could give it to a guy with 2 and less of 1, but not the other way around. I think the rest was spot on.

1-3 had no order for me. They were just all primary factors.

 

[CitySushi]

I think the most important thing is the effect that you have on your team- like you said with Derek Rose. When a player clearly makes his own team better and without him the team would not be near as good record wise.

Its why I am critical to a certain extent of the Steve Nash MVP's. It is why I think Giannis earned his MVP's- when he really did not have a ton of high-high end talent around him and still was a statistical monster, and led his team to a ton of wins.

Steve Nash was the head of an offensive Juggernaut. But I also agree with you in that he wasn't "dominant" by any stretch.

Steph's MVP's were a bit different IMO in that he was actually dominant in his role. His statistical production was also down because of how many 4th quarters he didn't even play in. Had he played, his numbers would be even more inflated. If you took Steph off that 73 win team that year, that Warriors squad barely makes the playoffs.

Typically we've seen MVP's have utter dominance in their respective years. They may not have always been the best players, but the impact, statistical production and win rate all were at the very top. The MVP award is not the best player, otherwise Jordan would have them all. Same with Lebron. But it is what it is.

 

[trojanfan12]

I really wish the league would go to 2 awards. One for the most valuable and one for the most outstanding.

The most valuable player would be like @WiggyRuss described...the player who means the most to his team. CP3 on the Suns this year would have a good case.

Then you would have the Most Outstanding Player for the player having the best season or who is considered the best player in the league.

Whatever happens, I wish they'd at least come up with some consistent guidelines.

 

[msgkings322]

I really wish the league would go to 2 awards. One for the most valuable and one for the most outstanding.

The most valuable player would be like @WiggyRuss described...the player who means the most to his team. CP3 on the Suns this year would have a good case.

Then you would have the Most Outstanding Player for the player having the best season or who is considered the best player in the league.

Whatever happens, I wish they'd at least come up with some consistent guidelines.

While this is a good idea, I think it'd dilute the value and impact of the award. Every sport has one MVP. That's the big award, that all the players covet.

Plus how does a crowd decide whether to chat "M V P! M V P!" or "M O P! M O P!"....it's a mess LOL

 

[trojanfan12]

While this is a good idea, I think it'd dilute the value and impact of the award. Every sport has one MVP. That's the big award, that all the players covet.

Plus how does a crowd decide whether to chat "M V P! M V P!" or "M O P! M O P!"....it's a mess LOL

Yeah, it could take some getting used to. I just think it would be a way to for example, acknowledge Russell Westbrook's triple double season without giving him an MVP award that he probably didn't really deserve.

 

[msgkings322]

Yeah, it could take some getting used to. I just think it would be a way to for example, acknowledge Russell Westbrook's triple double season without giving him an MVP award that he probably didn't really deserve.

Of course, it's a clever idea but I think too odd to ever happen. Part of the fun of sports is arguing over this stuff anyway. Amirite @dtgold88 ?

 

[fightinfunbags]

My criteria is solely fan boy: Joel Embiid has been the best player in the league this year.
But also...give it to Jokic to piss off Embiid for playoffs.

 

[Wamu]

My only criteria for MVP is they shouldn't be Lakers.

 

[thunderc]

1. Don’t be a wuss and take games off if you can play. Not asking anyone to risk long term health but shit has gotten stupid.
2. Act like you give a shit on and off the court.
3. Be dominant night in and night out.

It’s Embiid this year in my opinion.

 

[SJ76]

1. Don’t be a wuss and take games off if you can play. Not asking anyone to risk long term health but shit has gotten stupid.
2. Act like you give a shit on and off the court.
3. Be dominant night in and night out.

It’s Embiid this year in my opinion.

Simple. Truth. I like it

 

[tlance]

1. Don’t be a wuss and take games off if you can play. Not asking anyone to risk long term health but shit has gotten stupid.
2. Act like you give a shit on and off the court.
3. Be dominant night in and night out.

It’s Embiid this year in my opinion.

By your own criteria it is Jokic without a doubt.

He has played all 57 games for his team. Their team records are very similar.

Embiid has missed 10 games and the 6ers are 7-3 without him.

Jokic all day.

 

[broncosmitty]

While this is a good idea, I think it'd dilute the value and impact of the award. Every sport has one MVP. That's the big award, that all the players covet.

Plus how does a crowd decide whether to chat "M V P! M V P!" or "M O P! M O P!"....it's a mess LOL

They’re different things.

Baseball fucks it up more than anyone. You aren’t value able if your team isn’t playing for something.

Outstanding is a different thing.

Bothers me.

 

[broncosmitty]

By your own criteria it is Jokic without a doubt.

He has played all 57 games for his team. Their team records are very similar.

Embiid has missed 10 games and the 6ers are 7-3 without him.

Jokic all day.

Okay by me.

Assuming they get home court.

 

[broncosmitty]

Fuck Joel Embiid btw.

 

[ill]

Curry has been an absolute beast as of late. Without him, he doesn't beat the Sixers last night and I am sure that isn't the only game.

Also, he is just fire from behind the line.

and I am a Embiid fanboy...it's hard to say that Joel doesn't deserve it.

 

[thunderc]

By your own criteria it is Jokic without a doubt.

He has played all 57 games for his team. Their team records are very similar.

Embiid has missed 10 games and the 6ers are 7-3 without him.

Jokic all day.

Embiid missed games because he had a real injury, he wasn’t load managing. I guess it’s one of the two but I think Embiid has earned it. I want to see the changes in his game rewarded. He shoots fewer threes and plays like a old school center a lot. It would be great if he won.

 

[shopson67]

Since value is such a difficult thing to measure, I typically view the award as MDP, or most dominant player. Missing a lot of games hurts the odds though, so my front-runner right now is Jokic.

I'm not a fan of voter fatigue, ie a lesser player winning the award because the writers are bored of voting for the obvious choice. In retrospect, it doesn't reflect what the state of the league really was for those who weren't around to see it. Kids will think that Steve Nash really was the best player in the league at one time, which he was never close to being IMO.