@Tequilla, I don't have a problem with Harden over Westbrook. Harden had a great season for a team that played above expectations.
LeBron should probably win the award every year. He's older now though and championships are all he cares about (rightfully so), so he paces himself much more than Harden, Westbrook, or even Curry last year.
I do think stats are playing too important of a role in your opinion that Westbrook is not efficient. The Thunder need him to do what he does. The misses at the rim and pull up jumpers are part of their offense so Adams and Kanter can hit the glass.
And the fact that the Thunder are really fucking bad when he sits tells it all. They are a 20-30 win team without him. That's the definition of valuable.
Leonard was helped immensely by getting drafted by the Spurs. He didn't come into the league as a great offensive player, but at this point he is one. If you placed him on a shitty team like Detroit or Dallas, I think he could average 30.
The Spurs system makes it harder to put up huge scoring numbers. And I get why you are saying about his playmaking abilities, but that's just not really his game, though he is improving as you said.
Pop doesn't play guys huge minutes (Leonard is 39th), they move the ball around, they rank 27th in pace for play. The fact that the Spurs let Leonard put up 25 and Pop lets him go iso regularly speaks volumes to how good he is.
I'm not shocked that you (and others) would disagree with me ... but numbers only mean so much to me.
Warning: Stat Geek Deep Dive ... But I Love Basketball so FUCK OFF if you can't handle it.
Regarding Leonard, the reason that I say that he isn't "elite" offensively is because when I look at him, I see a guy that is great offensively within the system. I don't see him as a guy that does a tremendous job of creating opportunities for others (averaging 3.5 assists per game - although I will give him credit for improvement in this area). And again, while he's gotten better, he's not a guy that I see as someone that you just clear the ball out for and ask him to get you a bucket in a critical spot. The guys that I consider that are elite offensively are guys that when everybody knows that they are going to have the ball in their hand you feel really good about their ability to either get a good look for themselves or to create an opportunity for someone else. I don't have an issue with anybody that thinks that Leonard is elite offensively and can definitely make good arguments for why he could or should be considered elite.
Regarding Westbrook, the raw numbers are massive. But I'm not going to take his triple double numbers and look at that as some sign that he deserves the MVP. He's probably one of the most difficult MVP candidates that I've ever seen because so much of his stats are tied to an all-time insane usage rates. His increase in scoring is tied to an increase in shot attempts ... not because he was more efficient with his career low 42.5% FG% (inline with his shooting % 2 years prior when he increased his shooting). His assist rate is inline with last year's totals ... so what it basically tells me is that without Durant he had the ball in his hands more. Does dominating the ball make a player the MVP? Getting a few extra rebounds a game doesn't make a MVP for me. And the turnover numbers and how insane they are also really strikes a hard spot to me not necessarily because of the number but because so many of the turnovers are careless and out of control. It's hard for me to say that the MVP of the league is a player on a team that was 47-35 ... particularly if you feel that that team has some decent talent.
Regarding Harden, I have a lot of the same issues with him that I do Westbrook. The turnovers are disturbing. The 44% FG% shooting isn't great but it is noted that it comes on almost 9 3's per game (2 more per game than Westbrook). But, let's compare Harden to Westbrook ...
Westbrook scored 2.5 points more per game on an additional 5 shot per game ... Westbrook averaged 2.5 rebounds more per game ... Harden averaged 0.8 assists more per game ... Westbrook is a better defensive player ... although not as big as the gap used to be Harden's team was the 3rd best in the NBA at 55-27 ... Westbrook's team was the 10th best team at 47-35
That's not much of a difference between the two ... Westbrook perhaps gets an edge because of his rebounding but Harden gets the nod in assists and leading his team to better results.
One of the things I like to look at with elite players is how efficient they are. I always look at a truly efficient game being an offensive player that is able to average 1.5 points per shot attempt (almost impossible to do for a full season ... 1.35 to 1.45 being an elite range) and then looking at effective FG%. So looking at the 3 leading contenders, the numbers are actually interesting:
Leonard: 1.44 points per shot attempt, 54.1% effective FG % Westbrook: 1.32 points per shot attempt, 47.6% effective FG % Harden: 1.54 points per shot attempt, 52.5% effective FG %
The reality is that Westbrook just isn't efficient. He's a volume player. Leonard's efficiency is very good and supports the argument that he's more elite than I give him credit for (and perhaps I should reconsider my position a bit here). Harden's overall efficiency when it comes to getting to the free throw line is not only elite in today's game, but elite in terms of all-time players. It's hard to compare eras because the utilization of the 3 point shot has changed the game versus the 80's and early 90's (and obviously any time before the line was in place). A sampling of some of the guys that I look at as being truly efficient scorers and some of their best seasons:
Michael Jordan (86-87): 1.33 points per attempt, 48.4% effective FG % Michael Jordan (87-88): 1.44 points per attempt, 54.6% effective FG % Michael Jordan (88-89): 1.47 points per attempt, 55.3% effective FG % Michael Jordan (89-90): 1.40 points per attempt, 54.8% effective FG % Michael Jordan (90-91): 1.40 points per attempt, 55.1% effective FG %
Larry Bird (83-84): 1.24 points per attempt, 49.7% effective FG % Larry Bird (84-85): 1.30 points per attempt, 53.8% effective FG % Larry Bird (85-86): 1.32 points per attempt, 52.1% effective FG % Larry Bird (86-87): 1.39 points per attempt, 55.5% effective FG % Larry Bird (87-88): 1.36 points per attempt, 55.6% effective FG %
LeBron's obviously an offensive monster and if you strip away his first 2 years, he's always averaged over 1.32 points per shot attempt per game and an effective FG % over 50%. A few of his most efficient years:
LeBron James (12-13): 1.50 points per attempt, 60.3% effective FG % LeBron James (13-14): 1.54 points per attempt, 61.0% effective FG % LeBron James (16-17): 1.45 points per attempt, 59.4% effective FG %
LeBron's actually an interesting case here because he's in between in terms of his game between the old school way of shooting minimal 3's and the new generation of jacking 3's left and right. There's likely an inflation rate that needs to be applied to Jordan/Bird to get them inline with today's game but the effective FG % speaks to general efficiency. James is an absolute monster when it comes to being the most devastating penetrator in the history of the game. His numbers if he could shoot free throws at a high level his numbers would be even more insane.
But when you look at these kind of players and then compare back to Westbrook, the numbers really don't add up relative to Harden and Leonard. So then the question to me comes down to Harden and Leonard. Leonard had the better record. He's definitely a better defensive player. It's why to me they are the 2 top candidates. I tend to value winning more than probably others and that's why I favor Leonard. But to back either Leonard or Harden doesn't mean that doing so is trying to slight Westbrook. There's actually a lot of reasons to see Westbrook as a close 3rd in a 3 horse race ... and honestly if the Cavs had a more consistent year you could make a really good argument for LeBron as this has been one of his most efficient seasons.
LeBron's the best player in the league when everybody is playing at their top level ... he's on the short list of guys that were massive matchup problems for the opposition for one reason or another. When you match great skills with winning the genetic lottery that's amazing.
As for Westbrook, I understand the argument that you are making. If a voter is going to support him, I absolutely agree that that's the logic that you use. What I have a hard time reconciling is the fact that when Westbrook has played without Durant the team has gone downhill in a hurry. The fact that Durant checked out of OKC by basically having a belief that he'd never be able to win a title with Westbrook doesn't help his reputation. He's the hardest MVP candidate that I can remember at least since mid-2000s Kobe in a similar situation. The biggest difference is that wasn't a year where there were Harden/Leonard caliber performances to go with it.
The Spurs I think are a really interesting team at this point. They were 61-21 this year with a team that I have a hard time deciding if the surrounding talent is good or not. Aldridge I think it's fair to say is starting the decline phase of his career at the age of 31 and just had his worst season since 2010. Parker's 34 at this point and you have no clue what you are getting out of him on a nightly basis ... same with Ginobili at 39. If I asked what Danny Green averaged per game and set the over/under at 10 points a game ... wouldn't most take the over? He's averaged 7 points per game each of the last 2 years (that's Bruce Bowen territory). It's part of the reason that earlier in the season I looked at Pau as being one of their primary offensive options at the end of the game. It's just when you look at the surrounding talent and compare to either Houston or OKC, while the names are bigger on the Spurs at this point, they are all aging and the core as a whole just isn't that impressive ... I mean Patty Mills is probably one of their 4-5 most important players now ... just crazy. No doubt that Pop gets as much out of that team as possible ... and it is difficult to figure out how much of that falls on Pop versus Leonard on the court.
So I guess the question that I have is that is the MVP of the league someone that moves the needle enough to take a team out of the lottery and into a playoff team without home court advantage that will likely lose in 5 in the 1st round? Or is the MVP a player that resides on a Top 3 team in the league?
I have a lot more respect to anybody that makes a vote for Westbrook based on the idea tied to making his team better whether it is plus/minus or whatnot than just blindly looking at the triple double and drawing the line there. But at the same time, I don't think a vote other than Westbrook is indefensible at all ... it's really one of the more compelling MVP votes in any sport that I can remember in a long time.
I'm not shocked that you (and others) would disagree with me ... but numbers only mean so much to me.
Warning: Stat Geek Deep Dive ... But I Love Basketball so FUCK OFF if you can't handle it.
Regarding Leonard, the reason that I say that he isn't "elite" offensively is because when I look at him, I see a guy that is great offensively within the system. I don't see him as a guy that does a tremendous job of creating opportunities for others (averaging 3.5 assists per game - although I will give him credit for improvement in this area). And again, while he's gotten better, he's not a guy that I see as someone that you just clear the ball out for and ask him to get you a bucket in a critical spot. The guys that I consider that are elite offensively are guys that when everybody knows that they are going to have the ball in their hand you feel really good about their ability to either get a good look for themselves or to create an opportunity for someone else. I don't have an issue with anybody that thinks that Leonard is elite offensively and can definitely make good arguments for why he could or should be considered elite.
Regarding Westbrook, the raw numbers are massive. But I'm not going to take his triple double numbers and look at that as some sign that he deserves the MVP. He's probably one of the most difficult MVP candidates that I've ever seen because so much of his stats are tied to an all-time insane usage rates. His increase in scoring is tied to an increase in shot attempts ... not because he was more efficient with his career low 42.5% FG% (inline with his shooting % 2 years prior when he increased his shooting). His assist rate is inline with last year's totals ... so what it basically tells me is that without Durant he had the ball in his hands more. Does dominating the ball make a player the MVP? Getting a few extra rebounds a game doesn't make a MVP for me. And the turnover numbers and how insane they are also really strikes a hard spot to me not necessarily because of the number but because so many of the turnovers are careless and out of control. It's hard for me to say that the MVP of the league is a player on a team that was 47-35 ... particularly if you feel that that team has some decent talent.
Regarding Harden, I have a lot of the same issues with him that I do Westbrook. The turnovers are disturbing. The 44% FG% shooting isn't great but it is noted that it comes on almost 9 3's per game (2 more per game than Westbrook). But, let's compare Harden to Westbrook ...
Westbrook scored 2.5 points more per game on an additional 5 shot per game ... Westbrook averaged 2.5 rebounds more per game ... Harden averaged 0.8 assists more per game ... Westbrook is a better defensive player ... although not as big as the gap used to be Harden's team was the 3rd best in the NBA at 55-27 ... Westbrook's team was the 10th best team at 47-35
That's not much of a difference between the two ... Westbrook perhaps gets an edge because of his rebounding but Harden gets the nod in assists and leading his team to better results.
One of the things I like to look at with elite players is how efficient they are. I always look at a truly efficient game being an offensive player that is able to average 1.5 points per shot attempt (almost impossible to do for a full season ... 1.35 to 1.45 being an elite range) and then looking at effective FG%. So looking at the 3 leading contenders, the numbers are actually interesting:
Leonard: 1.44 points per shot attempt, 54.1% effective FG % Westbrook: 1.32 points per shot attempt, 47.6% effective FG % Harden: 1.54 points per shot attempt, 52.5% effective FG %
The reality is that Westbrook just isn't efficient. He's a volume player. Leonard's efficiency is very good and supports the argument that he's more elite than I give him credit for (and perhaps I should reconsider my position a bit here). Harden's overall efficiency when it comes to getting to the free throw line is not only elite in today's game, but elite in terms of all-time players. It's hard to compare eras because the utilization of the 3 point shot has changed the game versus the 80's and early 90's (and obviously any time before the line was in place). A sampling of some of the guys that I look at as being truly efficient scorers and some of their best seasons:
Michael Jordan (86-87): 1.33 points per attempt, 48.4% effective FG % Michael Jordan (87-88): 1.44 points per attempt, 54.6% effective FG % Michael Jordan (88-89): 1.47 points per attempt, 55.3% effective FG % Michael Jordan (89-90): 1.40 points per attempt, 54.8% effective FG % Michael Jordan (90-91): 1.40 points per attempt, 55.1% effective FG %
Larry Bird (83-84): 1.24 points per attempt, 49.7% effective FG % Larry Bird (84-85): 1.30 points per attempt, 53.8% effective FG % Larry Bird (85-86): 1.32 points per attempt, 52.1% effective FG % Larry Bird (86-87): 1.39 points per attempt, 55.5% effective FG % Larry Bird (87-88): 1.36 points per attempt, 55.6% effective FG %
LeBron's obviously an offensive monster and if you strip away his first 2 years, he's always averaged over 1.32 points per shot attempt per game and an effective FG % over 50%. A few of his most efficient years:
LeBron James (12-13): 1.50 points per attempt, 60.3% effective FG % LeBron James (13-14): 1.54 points per attempt, 61.0% effective FG % LeBron James (16-17): 1.45 points per attempt, 59.4% effective FG %
LeBron's actually an interesting case here because he's in between in terms of his game between the old school way of shooting minimal 3's and the new generation of jacking 3's left and right. There's likely an inflation rate that needs to be applied to Jordan/Bird to get them inline with today's game but the effective FG % speaks to general efficiency. James is an absolute monster when it comes to being the most devastating penetrator in the history of the game. His numbers if he could shoot free throws at a high level his numbers would be even more insane.
But when you look at these kind of players and then compare back to Westbrook, the numbers really don't add up relative to Harden and Leonard. So then the question to me comes down to Harden and Leonard. Leonard had the better record. He's definitely a better defensive player. It's why to me they are the 2 top candidates. I tend to value winning more than probably others and that's why I favor Leonard. But to back either Leonard or Harden doesn't mean that doing so is trying to slight Westbrook. There's actually a lot of reasons to see Westbrook as a close 3rd in a 3 horse race ... and honestly if the Cavs had a more consistent year you could make a really good argument for LeBron as this has been one of his most efficient seasons.
I'm not shocked that you (and others) would disagree with me ... but numbers only mean so much to me.
Please make up your fucking mind..
Thank you.
Stats and/or data is great to give you information. You have to measure that information based on the direct evidence that you see with your eyes and experience.
LeBron should be the MVP, but sometimes you have to give it to Terry Pendleton.
LeBron is going to finish his career with the highest ratio of titles/supporting talent ever. No one close.
Chamberlain couldn't get a ring early in his career despite individual dominance. Put him with Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker, and you have the NBA's Greatest Team of the first 50 years.
Where is Bird if the Celtics don't steal Parrish and McHale from the Warriors?
Where is Jordan without Bob Whitsitt and Phil Jackson? Scoring 63 in a losing playoff game.
Kareem and Nixon and McAdoo and Wilkes and Worthy and Scott and Thompson.
Dr J and Moses are two of the greatest ever. Couldn't get it done alone. Put them together and for one magical season you have the greatest team in history.
This notion of great teams being "collections of superstars" isn't new. LeBron didn't chase a ring in Miami any more than GM's players have been chasing rings in the past.
If you are Magic and you get drafted by the Lakers who hoodwinked that pick an you join Kareem and your team then hoodwinks more draft picks for guys like Worthy you don't need to seek a super team, you were drafted by one.
Bird played for Aurbach, the greatest GM in the first 50 years who was first smart enough to tie up Larry. He stole Parish for Joe Barely Caring and add hall of fame guys like Dennis Johnson.
When those two started bitching about Lebron I was like - shut the fuck up
I tried to watch 5 minutes of the thunder game last night and it was gross. They go essentially 4 flat the entire time and let westbrooke run around with the ball until he either A decides to shoot or B passes at the end of the shot clock for everyone to heave something up. There is no cohesion or flow to the game. He literally is playing the game for himself and the team just there for window dressing.
I will say that I see a maturity in harden this year even if i do dislike watching him. He stll has the team involved for many of the positions.
Bron just kills everyone. He knows playoffs matters. He knows his ego can handle Kyrie taking a big shot, or wade, or whomever providing he has a ring. He's the MVP.
Remember that block at the end of Game 7 in the finals last year ? Usain Bolt is the only other being on the planet that maybe makes that play...
Even though I'm Miami born, I lost respect for Bron Bron when he went there to win titles...I'm not a fanboy, was down on him for much of his career
But winning in Cleveland - pretty impressive...and his current level of play is off the charts - including defense
He hasn't been the greatest scorer at the end of big games which is the only nip /chink in his armor
If you are an NBA GM and you get one player to put on your team this year and next year, is there even any consideration at all other than LeBron ?
MVP isn't even close
Reluctantly agree - can't hate on his results. Lebron is clearly the most valuable player - otherwise, the Cavs are the Timberwolves.
But if you want to argue about who would have the next-greatest-impact on his squad with their absence, John Wall needs to be in the discussion. Kahwi is right there, too. If either of those two guys aren't there, their teams aren't making the playoffs. And if they were put on any other squad, that team would immediately improve dramatically.
Westbrook is immensely talented - but is he really making those around him better or does he just have the ball in his hands every possession and the others are limited in what they can achieve?
I just can't make the leap to annointing Westbrook as MVP.
Comments
LeBron should probably win the award every year. He's older now though and championships are all he cares about (rightfully so), so he paces himself much more than Harden, Westbrook, or even Curry last year.
I do think stats are playing too important of a role in your opinion that Westbrook is not efficient. The Thunder need him to do what he does. The misses at the rim and pull up jumpers are part of their offense so Adams and Kanter can hit the glass.
And the fact that the Thunder are really fucking bad when he sits tells it all. They are a 20-30 win team without him. That's the definition of valuable.
Leonard was helped immensely by getting drafted by the Spurs. He didn't come into the league as a great offensive player, but at this point he is one. If you placed him on a shitty team like Detroit or Dallas, I think he could average 30.
The Spurs system makes it harder to put up huge scoring numbers. And I get why you are saying about his playmaking abilities, but that's just not really his game, though he is improving as you said.
Pop doesn't play guys huge minutes (Leonard is 39th), they move the ball around, they rank 27th in pace for play. The fact that the Spurs let Leonard put up 25 and Pop lets him go iso regularly speaks volumes to how good he is.
Tequilla
Posts: 11,334
Butler Cabin Supporter
10000 Comments 250 Answers 500 Awesomes
7:07PM
I'm not shocked that you (and others) would disagree with me ... but numbers only mean so much to me.
Please make up your fucking mind..
Thank you.
As for Westbrook, I understand the argument that you are making. If a voter is going to support him, I absolutely agree that that's the logic that you use. What I have a hard time reconciling is the fact that when Westbrook has played without Durant the team has gone downhill in a hurry. The fact that Durant checked out of OKC by basically having a belief that he'd never be able to win a title with Westbrook doesn't help his reputation. He's the hardest MVP candidate that I can remember at least since mid-2000s Kobe in a similar situation. The biggest difference is that wasn't a year where there were Harden/Leonard caliber performances to go with it.
The Spurs I think are a really interesting team at this point. They were 61-21 this year with a team that I have a hard time deciding if the surrounding talent is good or not. Aldridge I think it's fair to say is starting the decline phase of his career at the age of 31 and just had his worst season since 2010. Parker's 34 at this point and you have no clue what you are getting out of him on a nightly basis ... same with Ginobili at 39. If I asked what Danny Green averaged per game and set the over/under at 10 points a game ... wouldn't most take the over? He's averaged 7 points per game each of the last 2 years (that's Bruce Bowen territory). It's part of the reason that earlier in the season I looked at Pau as being one of their primary offensive options at the end of the game. It's just when you look at the surrounding talent and compare to either Houston or OKC, while the names are bigger on the Spurs at this point, they are all aging and the core as a whole just isn't that impressive ... I mean Patty Mills is probably one of their 4-5 most important players now ... just crazy. No doubt that Pop gets as much out of that team as possible ... and it is difficult to figure out how much of that falls on Pop versus Leonard on the court.
So I guess the question that I have is that is the MVP of the league someone that moves the needle enough to take a team out of the lottery and into a playoff team without home court advantage that will likely lose in 5 in the 1st round? Or is the MVP a player that resides on a Top 3 team in the league?
I have a lot more respect to anybody that makes a vote for Westbrook based on the idea tied to making his team better whether it is plus/minus or whatnot than just blindly looking at the triple double and drawing the line there. But at the same time, I don't think a vote other than Westbrook is indefensible at all ... it's really one of the more compelling MVP votes in any sport that I can remember in a long time.
Hence why to me numbers only mean so much ...
Remember that block at the end of Game 7 in the finals last year ? Usain Bolt is the only other being on the planet that maybe makes that play...
Even though I'm Miami born, I lost respect for Bron Bron when he went there to win titles...I'm not a fanboy, was down on him for much of his career
But winning in Cleveland - pretty impressive...and his current level of play is off the charts - including defense
He hasn't been the greatest scorer at the end of big games which is the only nip /chink in his armor
If you are an NBA GM and you get one player to put on your team this year and next year, is there even any consideration at all other than LeBron ?
MVP isn't even close
LeBron is going to finish his career with the highest ratio of titles/supporting talent ever. No one close.
Chamberlain couldn't get a ring early in his career despite individual dominance. Put him with Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker, and you have the NBA's Greatest Team of the first 50 years.
Where is Bird if the Celtics don't steal Parrish and McHale from the Warriors?
Where is Jordan without Bob Whitsitt and Phil Jackson? Scoring 63 in a losing playoff game.
Kareem and Nixon and McAdoo and Wilkes and Worthy and Scott and Thompson.
Dr J and Moses are two of the greatest ever. Couldn't get it done alone. Put them together and for one magical season you have the greatest team in history.
This notion of great teams being "collections of superstars" isn't new. LeBron didn't chase a ring in Miami any more than GM's players have been chasing rings in the past.
If you are Magic and you get drafted by the Lakers who hoodwinked that pick an you join Kareem and your team then hoodwinks more draft picks for guys like Worthy you don't need to seek a super team, you were drafted by one.
Bird played for Aurbach, the greatest GM in the first 50 years who was first smart enough to tie up Larry. He stole Parish for Joe Barely Caring and add hall of fame guys like Dennis Johnson.
When those two started bitching about Lebron I was like - shut the fuck up
I will say that I see a maturity in harden this year even if i do dislike watching him. He stll has the team involved for many of the positions.
Bron just kills everyone. He knows playoffs matters. He knows his ego can handle Kyrie taking a big shot, or wade, or whomever providing he has a ring. He's the MVP.
But if you want to argue about who would have the next-greatest-impact on his squad with their absence, John Wall needs to be in the discussion. Kahwi is right there, too. If either of those two guys aren't there, their teams aren't making the playoffs. And if they were put on any other squad, that team would immediately improve dramatically.
Westbrook is immensely talented - but is he really making those around him better or does he just have the ball in his hands every possession and the others are limited in what they can achieve?
I just can't make the leap to annointing Westbrook as MVP.