|
On March 19 2011 13:51 BalliSLife wrote:
And maybe his individual stats are slightly lower not because he doesn't produce that much but it's because he has a good team as everyone else is stating. Honestly, there are too many factors in determining who is MVP, it just depends on which one everyone chooses to talk about. But I'm still going to ask this, has there ever been an MVP who's team didn't have the best record in the regular season?
Even if this was true, which I don't think it is, this line of argument would be contradictory to "Rose carried his team," no?
|
Just because I disagree with you means I don't understand that there is a gap between MVP guys and very good players? Give me a break man. We disagree, I'm gonna leave it at that. Neither of us is going to convince the other. There isn't anything I can say thats going to make you think Rose leads his team to wins and there isn't anything you can say to convince me otherwise.
Historically the best player on the best teams is always in the discussion for MVP and thats the biggest reason why Rose is there this year. He is arguably the best PG in the game, makes his teammates better, and keeping his team at the top when they are missing pieces.
And the reason that none of the Spurs are getting MVP mention is because none of the players are really separating themselves from each other. They need to play together to be this good, just like Boston needs too.
EDIT: Allen Iverson won MVP in 2001 when he lead the 76ers to the best record in the East and was less efficient than what Rose is doing this year.
Numbers aren't everything, please realize this.
|
On March 19 2011 13:51 BalliSLife wrote:
And maybe his individual stats are slightly lower not because he doesn't produce that much but it's because he has a good team as everyone else is stating. Honestly, there are too many factors in determining who is MVP, it just depends on which one everyone chooses to talk about. But I'm still going to ask this, has there ever been an MVP who's team didn't have the best record in the regular season?
His individual stats just might be but do realize it isn't at such a small level that it's comparable. Those other guys absolutely dominate in some way. He doesn't. The difference in skill between everyone else and Derrick Rose is monstrous. Put it like this:
2012 Olympics. Let's say everyone has to try out and they can only carry 2 point guards - Derrick Rose isn't making the cut.
Let's say instead of just Point Guards we'll say All guards. We give you 5 slots to fill them out:
Rose might barely make it. Wade, CP3, and D-Will are all going to be picked ahead of him. Depending on whats going on maybe Kobe will too. Westbrook might make it, John Wall mi - wait just kidding.
Ok ok let's put it like this. We've got 10 spots. The 10 best players go and we ignore who fits where and all of that. Just the best guys.
Rose doesn't make it.
|
On March 19 2011 13:55 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 13:51 BalliSLife wrote:
And maybe his individual stats are slightly lower not because he doesn't produce that much but it's because he has a good team as everyone else is stating. Honestly, there are too many factors in determining who is MVP, it just depends on which one everyone chooses to talk about. But I'm still going to ask this, has there ever been an MVP who's team didn't have the best record in the regular season? Even if this was true, which I don't think it is, this line of argument would be contradictory to "Rose carried his team," no?
Not really, it can be motivational factors or actually having a good team as this is what the MVP usually has. Unless there has been an MVP who's team had a shitty record leading to the playoffs, this is still the answer I'm trying to look for.
|
On March 19 2011 13:48 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 13:30 BalliSLife wrote:
What about the fact that Chicago didn't have boozer early and Noah later on during the season? I think that's what counts in terms of carrying the team to the #1 spot in the East. I think a better question would be has there ever been an MVP who didn't have the number one team in either West or East conf? People are overlooking that fact quite a bit and its one of the biggest arguments for Rose. Which is probably why it is being overlooked. And defense starts at the point guard position. If your point guard isn't good on defense then other teams will have a field day because the opposing point will break your defense down so fast its not even funny. I've seen it with my Pacers all season long. Collison is a bad defender and it causes everyone to over help leaving someone open. You cannot be a good defensive team with a bad defender at the point, so yes Rose has been a huge reason the Bulls defense is so good this year.
You can have a PG that is terrible defensively, but have elite wing defenders, great bigs, or play in a scheme to minimize the damage. Look at Miami. Look at the Lakers. Even Cleveland survived Mo Williams defensive lapses at PG.
|
I think going strictly by stats is misleading. In the celtics first and second year you can clearly see that KG is the man on that team (even though Pierce is a close second) but he only averages like 15ppg and maybe 9-10 rebounds so hell never win it. Just having a dominating stat sheet shouldn't be the only metric for winning the thing.
|
On March 19 2011 13:58 BalliSLife wrote:
Not really, it can be motivational factors or actually having a good team as this is what the MVP usually has. Unless there has been an MVP who's team had a shitty record leading to the playoffs, this is still the answer I'm trying to look for.
Ugh..the dreaded "leadership" factor. Fine. But if you look at that list of yours, team record was one of the driving forces behind the poor decisions. I think the MVP isn't really all that important, but it's worth arguing about, especially when we KNOW that Rose would be as bad or worse than the '06 Nash MVP.
@Ace: I was wondering who you'd comp Rose to. I see a lot of Starbury in his game - I don't mean that in a bad way.
|
On March 19 2011 14:02 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 13:58 BalliSLife wrote:
Not really, it can be motivational factors or actually having a good team as this is what the MVP usually has. Unless there has been an MVP who's team had a shitty record leading to the playoffs, this is still the answer I'm trying to look for. Ugh..the dreaded "leadership" factor. Fine. But if you look at that list of yours, team record was one of the driving forces behind the poor decisions. I think the MVP isn't really all that important, but it's worth arguing about, especially when we KNOW that Rose would be as bad or worse than the '06 Nash MVP. @Ace: I was wondering who you'd comp Rose to. I see a lot of Starbury in his game - I don't mean that in a bad way.
Thats completely bogus. While Marbury was probably underrated until he went crazy he cant hold a candle to Derrick Rose.
|
On March 19 2011 13:58 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 13:51 BalliSLife wrote:
And maybe his individual stats are slightly lower not because he doesn't produce that much but it's because he has a good team as everyone else is stating. Honestly, there are too many factors in determining who is MVP, it just depends on which one everyone chooses to talk about. But I'm still going to ask this, has there ever been an MVP who's team didn't have the best record in the regular season? His individual stats just might be but do realize it isn't at such a small level that it's comparable. Those other guys absolutely dominate in some way. He doesn't. The difference in skill between everyone else and Derrick Rose is monstrous. Put it like this: 2012 Olympics. Let's say everyone has to try out and they can only carry 2 point guards - Derrick Rose isn't making the cut. Let's say instead of just Point Guards we'll say All guards. We give you 5 slots to fill them out: Rose might barely make it. Wade, CP3, and D-Will are all going to be picked ahead of him. Depending on whats going on maybe Kobe will too. Westbrook might make it, John Wall mi - wait just kidding. Ok ok let's put it like this. We've got 10 spots. The 10 best players go and we ignore who fits where and all of that. Just the best guys. Rose doesn't make it.
This is the MVP award, it isn't who is the best player in the league. It isn't the 2012 Olympic team. It isn't a top 10 in the league. It's MVP.
|
I think going strictly by stats is misleading. In the celtics first and second year you can clearly see that KG is the man on that team (even though Pierce is a close second) but he only averages like 15ppg and maybe 9-10 rebounds so hell never win it. Just having a dominating stat sheet shouldn't be the only metric for winning the thing.
If you have the time, Sadist, read this by Joe Posnanski, one of the best sportswriters in America
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/03/inspiration-and-perspiration.html
Thats completely bogus. While Marbury was probably underrated until he went crazy he cant hold a candle to Derrick Rose.
That's my comp. I understand the reaction, but their game is strikingly similar. At least young Suns/Timberwolves Starbury.
|
From reading the last 2 pages, I now conclude that the person that wins the MVP is the person who made his teammates better. It's unfair to say that the MVP won because he had good teammates when it's most likely the MVP that made them better. Plus the fact that the Heat lose to elite teams and shits on crap teams (everyone does) doesn't really help them. One more time though, has there been an MVP who's team had the shitty record?
|
I actually compare Rose to a young Tony Parker except at this point I think there career paths will diverge.
Both of them are speedy, score first but able passing PGs. They both also shoot 3s and try to break down defenses by dribbling into the paint and sticking around as long as possible if need be. Neither are elite defenders but aren't as bad as people try to make them out to be. Rose is the far better scorer but Parker is the better shooter. Both of them are playing with defensively loaded teams.
The reason I won't compare him to Steph is that while he was also a scoring PG Marbury gutted his team with selfishness. While it was sometimes overblown there is a major difference in what they do: Rose even when having to take over a game actually looks for his teammates. God forbid Kevin Garnett is in the post 1 on 1 and Marbury hosts a game winning 3 up.
|
On March 19 2011 14:09 Ace wrote:
I actually compare Rose to a young Tony Parker except at this point I think there career paths will diverge.
Both of them are speedy, score first but able passing PGs. They both also shoot 3s and try to break down defenses by dribbling into the paint and sticking around as long as possible if need be. Neither are elite defenders but aren't as bad as people try to make them out to be. Rose is the far better scorer but Parker is the better shooter. Both of them are playing with defensively loaded teams.
The reason I won't compare him to Steph is that while he was also a scoring PG Marbury gutted his team with selfishness. While it was sometimes overblown there is a major difference in what they do: Rose even when having to take over a game actually looks for his teammates. God forbid Kevin Garnett is in the post 1 on 1 and Marbury hosts a game winning 3 up.
I feel like Rose is already a better shooter, or much improved. While Tony Parker rarely misses that little floater or a wide open three, he's still not much of a shooter. I see more potential in Rose and I think he has a good personality so I'll call him...Starbury Mach 2. Like Deron Williams is like Baron Davis Mach 2 - 5 inches of Vert.
|
Ya i dunno what this criticism of Rose's jumper is about. His midrange game is MILES better than when he entered the NBA and ill say hes quite good. Combine that with his athletic ability and hes a nightmare to guard.
|
On March 19 2011 14:15 Sadist wrote:
Ya i dunno what this criticism of Rose's jumper is about. His midrange game is MILES better than when he entered the NBA and ill say hes quite good. Combine that with his athletic ability and hes a nightmare to guard.
I don't think anyone here is saying Rose is not good. I think he's a total baller, has undeniable grace in the air and finishes like a stud - he's Wade like. And I'm not saying he won't improve and deserve an MVP soon but this is completely not the year.
|
On March 19 2011 14:05 jmbthirteen wrote:
This is the MVP award, it isn't who is the best player in the league. It isn't the 2012 Olympic team. It isn't a top 10 in the league. It's MVP.
And once again you're wrong. The MVP has always been one of the best player/top 10 even top 5 in the league. Stop trying to fit who the award is actually given to so it applies to Derrick Rose.
Steve Nash - I understand got the MVP that year because Phoenix was on an absolute tear and no one had seen that style of play before. Arguable if he was really at the top ranks in the league.
Is there any other time in MVP history that the award did not go to one of the top players in the league? Do you have evidence to back this up?
On March 19 2011 14:15 Sadist wrote:
Ya i dunno what this criticism of Rose's jumper is about. His midrange game is MILES better than when he entered the NBA and ill say hes quite good. Combine that with his athletic ability and hes a nightmare to guard.
His midrange game was actually better last year. Probably due to the focus of him determined to hit more 3 pointers and not having the time to put it all together yet.
|
I'm kinda sick of MVP talk. Anyone have any thoughts on the draft? It's a terrible year and I'm very glad that the Clippers traded their pick to unload B-Diddy's fat ass. What do you guys think? Any gems or favorite players?
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On March 19 2011 13:47 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 13:46 testpat wrote:
A bigger reason Wade wasn't considered for MVP in his 2nd and 3rd year is shaq. Hard to give the MVP to the 2nd best player on his team. Shaq didn't even play 82 games that full season and Wade was by far the #1 on that team. Shaq being there wasn't the reason Wade wasn't mentioned. It had to do with what was going on that year plus the fact that Miami isn't a large market to begin with. @clutz: Thanks for posting that. I know "logic" doesn't make sense in an MVP debate but I still like to try.
You mean the 21 games Shaq missed and Wade was the best player on a 9-12 team?
|
I don't even pay attention to NCAA. College basketball makes it really hard to know who's really good 
|
On March 19 2011 14:24 testpat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 13:47 Ace wrote:On March 19 2011 13:46 testpat wrote:
A bigger reason Wade wasn't considered for MVP in his 2nd and 3rd year is shaq. Hard to give the MVP to the 2nd best player on his team. Shaq didn't even play 82 games that full season and Wade was by far the #1 on that team. Shaq being there wasn't the reason Wade wasn't mentioned. It had to do with what was going on that year plus the fact that Miami isn't a large market to begin with. @clutz: Thanks for posting that. I know "logic" doesn't make sense in an MVP debate but I still like to try. You mean the 21 games Shaq missed and Wade was the best player on a 9-12 team?
Yea that same team that with a brand new GP, 2nd year Haslem and Zo that Wade just elevated in the 04-05 playoffs then just destroyed the 05-06 playoffs and killed the league that year. He also ended up being the best player on that 52-30 team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
