The Most Valuable Player is presented to the NBA player who receives the highest point total from a panel of chosen sportswriters. These sportswriters cast a vote for their first, second, and third place selections. First place votes receive five points, second place is worth three points, and third place is worth one point. The player who receives the highest point total is then awarded the distinction of Most Valuable Player.
The MVP has historically gone to the best player on one of the teams with the top record in the NBA. No player whose team has won less than 50 games has won the award in the past 25 years.
The Most Valuable Player Award is one of the greatest honors in basketball. It should be regarded with distinction. It shouldn't be a popularity contest controlled by PR much like the ridiculousness that has become the NBA All-Star Game.
The distinction of MVP should not blindly award the best player on the best team. The voting panel needs to do their job or a new committee or criteria should be developed in order to guarantee that the NBA player who is of the most value to his team receives the credit that he rightly deserves.
Team success should not be the barometer by which an individual player is considered to be of most value to his team. Rather than award the title of Most Valuable Player to the best player on the top team, it should go to the NBA player who is of most value to his particular team, with less significance placed upon that team’s win-loss record. Basketball is a team sport. No one player can win consistently without the luxury of a quality-supporting cast.
The value o####reat player encompasses a myriad of basketball intangibles that sadly, are not always guarantors of victories.
Nowhere is this more evident than the Most Valuable Player Award tallies of Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell. Bill Russell won the MVP award in 1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1965. The Celtics won the NBA championship in every one of those seasons but 1958.
Wilt Chamberlain didn’t enter the NBA until the year after Russell won his first MVP. Chamberlain was MVP in 1960, his rookie season, and again in 1966, 1967, 1968. Wilt was 1st team All-NBA every season he was MVP. [Read]
This is super read...
Thank you ...your one of the best in fox sport.
good bye for now....gotten myself into trouble by reading some body's blog and was thinking @ loud while writing my comment...
didn't meant to, but kobe's haters just gotten the best out of me.
Kobe sacrifice and push himself to the extent, and played his heart out .
Team record is a big part of the MVP consideration, as it should be. History supports that notion. A classic example is the '72/73 season. Tiny Archibald led the NBA in scoring AND assists! Only time it's been done. He finished 3rd. Dave Cowens won and Kareem came in second. They had the far superior team records.
The most measurable criteria would be individual stats and team records. Then it becomes totally subjective.
LeBron has great stats. They're better than last year, but the team record is worse than last year. Cavs wouldn't have made playoffs in West.
KG is one of my favorite players. Boston's turnaround is unprecedented. But some would argue that Pierce is the MVP of that team. Celts have a trio of Hall of Famers and play in a weak conference.
I think it comes down to Kobe and Chris Paul. Both have outstanding statistics and their teams have the best records in the highly competitive Western Conference.
Both teams had good turnarounds from last season - Hornets 17 games better, Lakers 15 games better. The diffence here is how Kobe led his Lakers thru the injury bug this year. Bynum and Ariza ended up with season ending injuries and other players missed several games. Kobe is playing thru an injury that needs surgery. Had he opted for the surgery, the Lakers most likely wouldn't even be in the playoffs much less having the top seed.
Kobe is 2nd in scoring in the NBA despite his pinkie and ring finger being taped together. Hold your hand up and imagine how you would shoot and pass the ball.
Last edited by InnocentBystander on April 19th at 4:40 PM.
I'm a Laker fan. But when you add up all the subjective criteria and add that to individual stats and team records, I believe that Kobe will get the MVP...IMHO.
Kobe has done all this year and giving him the MVP award would atleast make him proud of what he had accomplished for the advancement of the Lakers team. Giving him the MVP will make every NBA player in the league put forth extra effort to offer their best each and every season because at the end of the day they'll be rewarded for that.
This sounds more like a campaign for CP or KG as MVP.
1) "It shouldn't be a popularity contest controlled by PR much like the ridiculousness that has become the NBA All-Star Game."
You mean like the Laker organization sending out Pro-Kobe flyers to the voters?
2) "Rather than award the title of Most Valuable Player to the best player on the top team, it should go to the NBA player who is of most value to his particular team, with less significance placed upon that team’s win-loss record."
KG and Paul's contributions to their TEAM this year rank ahead of Kobe's on this one.. sorry
If Kobe's gonna win it, you gotta be pulling for the first scenario above to decide things.
It would be nice if the league would do something to clarify the situation.
My opinion is that the award should be defined as "best player", and players and coaches should vote, with a caveat that they can't vote for someone on their team.
Since the league seems to be just fine with things as they are regarding bigger issues like 48-win teams missing the playoffs while 37-win teams are in, I don't see them doing anything different about the MVP popularity contest.
Just got done watching Chris Paul's dirty play against Dallas. I've never seen a player get such a free pass from officiating. I'd groan out loud if sports writers chose him to represent the NBA as its premier player.
Hoff, you know I respect you, but I wonder if you even read what you're saying.
A 7-3 stretch without Garnett is a knock against him, yet you're willing to write off a 25-5 record by saying it's "a very small sample size". Seriously? Do you know how completely ridiculous that sounds? You're going to set more store in a 2-3 stretch than in a 25-5 record? A 2-3 stretch that came all on the road and right as Garnett was coming back from injury?
Tom - It always amuses me when announcers talk about what a great character guy Chris Paul is. Apparently they all missed the memo that he had a reputation as a dirty player in college and that he once PUNCHED AN OPPOSING PLAYER IN THE NUTS!! Seriously, it still amazes me how everybody gave him a free pass on that.
I think you're trying to make a lot of connections to prove your opinion that KG is MVP.
25-5 IS a relatively small sample size considering both Kobe's Lakers and Paul's Hornets played 52 games against a much stronger conference.
I didn't put more stock in the 2-3 stretch than I did the 25-5, I just thought it was telling because it consisted of back-to-back games against high quality teams. The Warriors, one of the teams the C's lost to in that succession would have been a 4th seed in the East.
What I'm trying to say is that Boston's record should be taken with a grain of salt. Do you honestly believe they would have won as many games if they were in the West?
Tom7 - CP3 has a lot of people fooled but like I said earlier in the season, they don't call him "Baby Isiah" for nothing. He's cutthroat as they come.
nba is the worst - I think the players and coaches should vote too.
CAMike - 1. No, I mean like the voters voting for anyone but Kobe because they dislike him personally. Trust me, there are more than a few of those guys. It's love or hate Kobe and I would wager that the balance is equal, both in the media and by the fans.
InnocentBystander - I agree with everything in your comment. Like I said in the article, the notion that Paul is playing with a bunch of scrubs is false and they didn't come from nowhere either. They were in the playoff race last year until the injury bug hit.
Damn Hoff, stop being such a tease with the article. You get to the good part and link away.
You're pushing Kobe a little too hard here, particularly where you're downing CP3 and pushing Kobe, but since I'm already sold on Kobe for MVP it's all good in my book.
I really didn't down CP3, or at least that wasn't my intent.
I think Kobe, LeBron, and CP3 were neck and neck in their value to their teams. LeBron was great individually but I think he took a step backwards this year in regards to making his teammates better.
CP3 was fantastic but I think his supporting cast is very similar to Kobe's. Kobe has a deeper bench but the Hornets are very talented. They didn't come from nowhere this season.
Kobe gets the nod because he showed up big towards the end of the season, when his team needed him most and the Lakers got the #1 seed.
KG plays with the best supporting cast and he plays in an inferior conference. Not to mention, many people thought Pierce was an MVP candidate too.
This debate has gotten really lame, so let me just post on it once more and we can leave it at that.
You're absolutely right in Kobe coming through when it mattered most, and CP3 and his squad not doing what they needed to do to secure first, but the idea that Chris Paul plays with better talent isn't really true. Your point about David West not improving much from the previous season is valid, but CP3 makes Tyson Chandler what the dude is. Don't you remember him in Chicago aside from that one good season where him and Eddy Curry were balling it up? He was terrible. Peja isn't the second best shooter in the game, but even if he were, he's hardly a huge difference maker. He falls asleep in the clutch and is good for keeping the defense honest, but he's certainly not as great as the Kobe for MVP folks make him out to be.
Let’s say that Gasol and West wash each other out, Chris Paul makes Tyson Chandler a hell of a lot better than Kobe makes Lamar Odom or any of his other guys. To be fair, he made Drew really good, but Drew wasn’t there for the whole ride so the degree to which Kobe made everyone better is substantially lowered at the point when Bynum went out.
The “he makes his teammates better” argument and the “he has worse talent around him” argument aren’t the two arguments I think are valid when it comes to Kobe taking the cake, what I give Kobe the MVP for is the fact that despite all the injuries he came through for his team when it mattered most and he got them first place in the West.
Being a Boston fan it's tough to disregard KG or Pierce; but I have to agree with you Hoff. This year his intesity is so obvious (look it his TOs) and the way he plays so unselfishlessly adds crdence to your analogy. Russsel never had the scoring stats although his rebounding stats were unbelievable. They didn't keep track of blocked shots at that time because that would have been interesting to see his numbers in that category. Also, he didn't just swat it into the stands but actually directed it to his teammates. Kobe has done everything necessary to win without the aid o####reat supporting cast-there is some talent there though. To summarize, I would have to say it should come down to KG and Kobe with the trophey going to Kobe regardless of how the playoffs turn out. I'm not sure if they pick the winner prior to the playoffs or not-feel free to fill me in on that. Superbly written Hoff!!
I'm just pointing out the fallacy of using a 10 game stretch to prove a point, then saying a 30 game sample is too small.
"What I'm trying to say is that Boston's record should be taken with a grain of salt."
What I'm trying to say is that's a load of ####. Boston dominated the league this year like no team has done since MJ's Bulls. Unlike the Mavs last year, their point differential actually indicated that they would win more than 66 games, they didn't just get lucky.
30 games is over a third of the season, it isn't a small sample. I could prove that it's statistically significant by running the numbers, but I doubt you'd be convinced.
Lets just say that the Celtics had played 22 more games against the West. They'd need to go only 13-9 over that stretch to come out with the most wins against Western Conference teams. On the other hand, if LA wanted to beat Boston's conference record under the same circumstances, they'd have to win all 22 extra games against Eastern Conference opponents.
As I've said before when similar things were said about LeBron, the strength of schedule argument is extremely weak. 56 games on the schedule are identical between any two teams, and the difference between schedules when all is said and done is tiny. The difference between the weakest strength of schedule and the strongest this year? 3 percentage points.
I don't know what to say here, because I don't know what point-- if any-- Hoffman was trying to make.
There are no true MVP guidelines that all voters can follow. To one guy, the award should go to the best player. To another guy, it should go to the most valuable, etc. Someone else might say it's for the best player on the best team.
It's all subjective, and because of that, largely MEANINGLESS.
What I think ISN'T meaningless is placing in the MVP voting. That recognition alone says-- without debate-- you WERE one of the better players that season.
What I'm going to do when I get a second, is go through the MVP voting of the past ten years, and award points to each position in the standings. For example, if it's a top ten list, the guy who finished in first will get 10 points. A second-place finish will net you nine points, etc.
Then, over the past six years or so, we can tally up all of the, what I'll call, "position points," and see where guys fall.
Nash has two MVPs, but only a total of 29 points for his career. Kobe has no MVPs, but a total of 39 points for his career.
So I think until we have some tool/formula like that, that takes all of the MVP voting into consideration, and doesn't JUST focus on who won, I render the MVP meaningless.
As is stands now, we remember who won and who didn't win. But few if any of us know who showed up in the top ten in voting the most often. To me, that's the best indicator of how good someone really is.
Someone twenty years from now will say, "Steve Nash was great, he won two MVPs." The truth is Steve Nash was great for only four or five seasons out of his entire career-- and the MVP voting, the fact he never got a top ten vote other than in the years he won, reflects that more accurately.
But overall, as it stands now, the MVP award is junk. Kobe, LeBron, Paul and KG all can win it, and all deserve it. Singling one guy out, and then saying he was better than the other guys is junk. Maybe Kobe beats LeBron by a hair. Was he THAT MUCH more of an MVP? Of course not. People vote for different reasons.
Maybe we should JUST look at the total number of MVP votes a guy got over his career. We can then divide that by season, and come up with a stat like MVP votes per season. That stat would be far more valuable than simply tracking who won and who didn't.
Russell played on all-star teams. Replace Russell with Wilt or Shaq, or whomever, and those Celtics teams would still have won all those titles. He was great-- don't get me wrong-- but he wasn't better than Wilt. No way. He had the benefit of playing on sick teams before the age of free agency. I take those titles with a grain of
Last edited by TrainOntheBall on April 20th at 1:38 PM.
Hoffman
At no time has Kobe been placed under more pressure than he is now. So much is expecteed of him now that he's finally got a team around him. My only concern is that without Bynum they may well not be able to acquit themselves well. With Bynum they're more effective than without him.
Hoff - wrote my first piece on Fox in nearly 3 months. Would love it if you can drop a message or 7. I want people to read this. One of my most passionate post.
You know where I stand with Kobe. He's should be top 2 MVP, if not, winning it this year.
You two are my biggest critics. If something I write doesn't make sense or is off base in your opinion, you guys really let me have it. You don't mix words either.
Well, the interesting thing about Kobe this season is that he fits the criteria to win the award no matter WHICH WAY you wanna analyze it. None of the other candidates can say that.
But I believe I have found a flaw in this article.
The only reason Shaq should have won the MVP award in 04-05 was because of the TEAM TURNAROUND. Shaq's stats were great at 22 ppg, 10 rpg, and 2 bpg...but there were MANY other players with better OR SIMILAR stat lines. SUCH AS:
Dirk Nowitzki (26 ppg, 10 rpg, 1.5 bpg - ALL statistical improvements from the year before)
Allen Iverson (30 ppg, 7 apg, 4 rpg, 2.5 spg)
LeBron James (27 ppg, 7 apg, 7 rpg, 2.2 spg - all improvements)
Garnett (22 ppg, 13.5 rpg, 5.7 apg)
Which team would have been the worst if you took that player off of it? Gotta be the 76ers...unless you think that Chris Webber's 15 ppg that season would have carried the team without A.I. Cavs come close, though...then Miami, then Minnesota (they had Sprewell, Cassell, and Wally) and Dirk easily had the best cast of these 5 examples. Shaq at least had Wade (and his own MVP-caliber season)...LeBron and A.I. were COMPLETELY alone on their teams...
Who meant the MOST to their team that season WHILE ALSO meaning the most to the ENTIRE LEAGUE that season: either A.I. or LeBron. easy. But A.I. made the playoffs over LeBron...
Meant the most to their TEAM: A.I., LeBron, Shaq, or Nash.
Shaq's stats DIDNT improve, while other players' did. The only career high he hit that season was FG%, and only by like a decimal point...
The ONLY reason Shaq deserved it that year was the team turnaround... (even though the Heat DID make the playoffs the year before, mind you...Wade's rookie season)
My point is...if you thought Shaq should have won it in 04-05, then how could you not think Garnett should win it this year?? It uses the same criteria... the same criteria you de-funk in your article. Shaq improved the team by 17 wins IN THE EAST and had decent stats...and you say he should win it. Garnett improved his team this year by 42 WINS!!! (Also in the East) and had decent stats (19 ppg, 9 rpg, 1 bpg)...but he shouldnt win it? Doesnt add up...
But yes...Kobe should have won it in 05-06. We all knew that as soon as '81' happened...damn amazing...
So why did Nash win in 04-05? Its simple...and I remember this back as it was happening...I don't think Phoenix won A SINGLE GAME that Nash sat out with injury that season...that's why he won. That's the criteria the league used for that season...that and the whole 'makes teammates better' thing. which is horribly subjective... (as in, if a teammate improves, then it MUST be due to the other 'MVP candidate' teammate, right??)
anyways, this was a GREAT post. I just wanted to point out what I thought was a contradiction of point.
I do think the players and coaches need to have a say in the MVP voting (don't forget that prior to 1979, the MVP was voted on by the players). Any voting process wipes out the possibility of objectivity. It's virtually impossible to not eliminate biases that occur (historical note: Many people believe Rick Barry lost the MVP in 1975 because of his arrogant personality). All told, when it comes to MVP, I say Kobe because not only did his team win, but he carried them at times and overcame those early trade demands to do so. Another great read, Hoffman.
By the way, I just checked my inbox today, and I saw the message you left about a month ago. I'm sorry I didn't respond, but I appreciate the thoughts. And I had no problem making that comment. Again, great read, and can't wait for the next one.
Last edited by DownsA529 on April 21st at 8:55 PM.
Just got to reading this last night. Really good stuff Hoffman. I am with you totally on Kobe this year (as well as 2 years ago, maybe even last year). He really has become one of the best at making others better while running the offense, but I guess I cut against the grain, b/c I considered him a great team player even in the early part of the decade (when I didn't like him). The offensive flow in LA right now is awesome, and like most things, it starts with the best player.
I understand your point about Nash being more worthy of MVP when Dirk won than the 2 previous times he won, but you know I disagree with you that Dirk did not deserve it last year. He was the MVP of the REGULAR SEASON last year; he carried that team to the #1 seed in the West. Where would Dallas have been last year without Dirk? I wonder if you asked Kobe that year who he would rather play with (or any other player) who they would pick. Nash can be overpowered and neutralized by making him run on D and sending the double. He has great players to pass the ball to. Dirk, despite being called "soft," is almost NEVER neutralized, is a decent defender (although obviously not a “defensive stopper”) and a good rebounder. His problem is that he is not the strongest PF in the league, but he has no consistent help on the frontline. Let’s not lose sight of the fact he is there to score, it’s not his problem Dallas can’t get a decent athletic center (who are admittedly hard to find). How was Kobe doing before Bynum emerged? Playing well, but finding it hard to win.
I like Damp okay (overpaid, but I would argue underrated). Things could be worse. I would like him much more at 20-25 minutes than a starter, but Dallas obviously does not have that option. With Dallas’ roster, their options are to play slow or play small. This hurts them against the best teams. But this does not mean Dirk is incapable or in my opinion even “soft.”
Continued:
He is a great athlete who can runs the floor and usually commits himself on both ends, it’s too bad the same can’t be said for any C he has ever played with (Bradley, Diop (who is more of a ‘PF/C), and Damp). Even though Dirk is not the most capable C in the league, the fact he can play the position at all should tell you all something. He needs help, has been waiting on it for years, that is the bottom line (unless you want to bash the guy for not being Wilt, lol). The guy can't do it all, he can only play one position at a time.
I wonder if this lineup (last year's PHO team, minus Nash plus Dirk) could win anything:
Barbosa
Bell
Marion/Diaw
Dirk/Marion
Amare/Dirk/Thomas
I don't understand why people don't see the value of having a 7' who can RUN THE FLOOR, even if he is not the greatest or strongest defender, that length creates all kinds of matchup problems on both ends. Most big men lag the offense and defense, I would rather have a guy who doesn't have to ride the bench after running a 30 yard sprint.
Kevin Garnett is worthy but we all know that he plays with two other future Hall-of-Famers. I don't care what kind of intensity on defense Garnett brings to Boston, you can make the same argument for Kobe and CP3 with their respective teams.
Besides, Doc Rivers has done a more admirable job as a coach keeping Boston together and having a brand new team gel in its first season and accomplish the record that they have. Rivers has been there for 82 games. Garnett played in 71 games. That's my other argument.
Lastly, KG didn't even average 10 boards a game so how can you say he's MVP. Yes, his stats are lower because of Pierce and Allen, so that should show people that Boston has multiple valuable players on their team that could pick up the slack if another were to go down.
CP3 is worthy, but then again he also plays with two or three other All-Stars in West, Peja, and Tyson. Not to diminish what Paul has accomplished but Kobe Bryant, in my opinion, is more of an impact player both offensively and defensively. Kobe can score 50 anytime he wants, Paul can't. Kobe can guard the best PG, SG, and SF on an opposing team, Paul can only guard PG's. These are huge points that I'm making that you won't find on a stat sheet.
FInally, if Bynum hadn't missed 47 games or if Pau Gasol hadn't missed 10 games in March, we all know that the Lakers would have easily won 65+ games.
I love basketball. While many basketball fans enjoy the month of March, I prefer the months of April, May, and June. I look forward to productive chats, heated debates, and honest opinions.
