SoF'nAwesome wrote:Individual achievements? Rings
MVPs
In this particular case, scoring champion.
koberulz wrote:You do realise it's a media-voted award that tends to go to whichever player makes for the best story, right?
koberulz wrote:I struggle to think of a more meaningless achievement.
koberulz wrote:WTF?
SoF'nAwesome wrote:MVP award goes to the best player in the league, period.
A player scoring beastly is meaningless to you?
Elaborate.
koberulz wrote:Except the years it doesn't (which is most of them). Like every year in the 90s that the media got sick of giving it to Jordan, so they gave it to the next-best player. Or the year Nash won it because nobody wanted to give it to Bryant. Or the year Bryant won it because they realised they fucked up not giving it to him before.
koberulz wrote:The MVP award isn't supposed to go to the best player in the league in the first place.
koberulz wrote:There are a million different definitions of 'valuable'. Only one of them is 'best'.
koberulz wrote:Who says anyone was 'scoring beastly'? The scoring title just goes to whoever has the highest PPG total. Which favors players on shitty teams, because they have to shoulder more of the scoring load, disfavors pass-first players, favors guys who play more minutes, favors guys who get more shots up, and tells you very little about how good someone is at a) helping their team win or b) scoring.
koberulz wrote:Rings aren't an individual achievement.
SoF'nAwesome wrote:So, you are saying the years Nash & Kobe got the MVP, they were not the most deserving ones?
Who is the MVP award supposed to go to & why?
koberulz wrote:There are a million different definitions of 'valuable'. Only one of them is 'best'.
Agreed.
So the Lakers were a shitty team in the 99-00, 05-06, 06-07 seasons?
No, it's not. But having a ring is an individual achievement for a player.
koberulz wrote:Anyone who's played 55 games in the regular season.
koberulz wrote:So how does it necessarily follow that the MVP is the best player?
koberulz wrote:I said it favored players on shitty teams, not that they'd be the only players to win, but...yeah. The 06 Lakers were the definition of a one-man team, the threepeat Lakers had Shaq, Kobe and a bunch of scrubs (and Kobe of 2000 wasn't exactly 2006 Kobe)...
koberulz wrote:...no, it's not. You said that yourself a sentence ago.
SoF'nAwesome wrote:koberulz wrote:Anyone who's played 55 games in the regular season.
I struggle to think of a more meaningless sentence.
Because there can only be one best player. And that best player is the best because he has all the definitions of 'valuable' in him.
I can bring all the examples from history and show you that it doesn't "favor" players on shitty teams. In some cases, at best.
The fact that Kobe has 5 rings is an individual achievement for him.
koberulz wrote:...no, because 'valuable' doesn't mean 'best'. Some people think the best player on the best team is the most valuable. Other people think the best player on the worst team is the most valuable. How can one player be both of those?
koberulz wrote:Not in any but the most vapid sense. Horry having 7 rings is also technically an achievement for him, but that doesn't make him better than Kobe.
SoF'nAwesome wrote:It's not team's MVP, it's NBA's MVP
I never said that the number of rings define which player is better.
koberulz wrote:I never said that the number of rings define which player is better.
Then why are you using it to determine which player is better?
benji wrote:LeBron is such a choker. And people were talking about him as an all-time great. As having possibly surpassed Kobe. What a joke.
velvet bliss wrote:Andrew, you the real MVP.
Andrew wrote:He who flops and flails to the Finals and a title, flops and flails best.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests