What Makes an NBA MVP?

[bigh0rt]

If it were up to you and you alone, what exactly would you analyze, and to what degree, when taking into consideration who deserves to be named the NBA's Move Valuable Player in a given season?

[dizzle]

leading their team consistently, during desperate times, etc..make other players better, being able to lead the team through victory and not trying to aim for stats

[Sauru]

i would start with, if you fail to make the playoffs you cannot be mvp. even if you make the 8th seed with the worst record for playoff teams you can be MVP, as long as you are in.

after that team wins should play a pretty big part followed by stats and the stats of your teammates in some situations(kobe has better stats than nash but nash is making everyone so much better you kinda have to take what they do cause of him into consideration).

then i would take some credit from clutch situations. did you vanish when the game was on the line and did you step up big time and take over when your team needed you to the most.

those are a few of the most important things to me in determining a MVP

[cheater1034]

1) Your team has to make the playoffs
2) Make everyone else better (nash, billups, kidd, lbj, etc)
3) Pass-first mentality (ex. in a double team situation, pass it to an open teammate rather than take a difficult shot)
4) Consistency
5) Ability to step up in important games
6) Play to win, don't play for stats (ex. if you go 16/50 like Kobe and get 50 points, but your team loses)

[emi_b7]

-Leadership
-Stats and iNtangibles
-Make teammAtes better
-Team succesS (playoffs)
-Be clutcH

[bigh0rt]

I find it interesting that a lot of the qualities you mention are all found in players you'd never consider for MVP, not to mention the subjectivity of some of them. You're describing players like Tayshaun Prince, Rip Hamilton, Kirk Hinrich, and Derek Fisher, whom I don't think would even receive a write-in vote if we were to poll who deserves the MVP Award.

For me, the player must be an obvious top level player in that given year. It has to be apparent to everybody paying any attention at all that this guy has been one of, say, the Top 10 Overall performers in a given season. I don't think making the playoffs is a necessary requirement. A single player can only do so much, if the rest of their team is trash. Had Kevin Garnett posted appropriate numbers, I would've had no problem voting for him for MVP despite him playing alongside a bunch of borderline professionals in Minnesota. Teams make the playoffs, not players, and in an MVP, I'm voting for a player, not a team. For example, Dirk Nowitzki didn't win 67 games, the Mavericks did. He contributed to a large capacity, sure, but so did his teammates. I want a player who has played exceptionally well in as many aspects of the game as possible that are quantifiable (see: statistics) as things like 'making his teammates better' and 'looking pass first' are fluff used by announcers more often than not; a player who has performed at top level in the primetime, nationally broadcasted, big games; and on top of all of that, a player who doesn't project a negative image outwardly. I don't want the player representing the league as its Most Valuable Player to be some douche who has little grasp on how to behave socially, etc.

So, I know my qualifications seem to be pretty divergant from the rest so far, which is why it's a rare occasion that I agree with who is awarded the MVP each year.

[Sauru]

i agree they have to be a top talent also. i mean you can just get 12 assists and game and be a mvp. i think being able to say "screw this team i am scoreing this basket" and actually doing it, it what a real mvp is about. the big thing though is to know when to, and when not to, do that. if you score 31 points per game but only shoot 38% you should in no way even be thought of for the mvp cause imo you are actually hurting your team like that.

i agree when you say teams make the playoffs, but real mvp's get thier teams there and thats why you also see the greats in the playoffs. its like i said earlier, knowing when to and when not to take over. if a player goes out and gets 40 a night but thier team aint winning they he needs to change. it always starts at the top and thats the superstar on the team. sometimes a superstar needs to take a back seat to someone with a hot hand, or someone who has a obvious mis match. this is not always the case. good example is iverson. he kinda blew the playoffs for the nuggets.

[hova-]

I find it interesting that a lot of the qualities you mention are all found in players you'd never consider for MVP, not to mention the subjectivity of some of them. You're describing players like Tayshaun Prince, Rip Hamilton, Kirk Hinrich, and Derek Fisher, whom I don't think would even receive a write-in vote if we were to poll who deserves the MVP Award.

For me, the player must be an obvious top level player in that given year. It has to be apparent to everybody paying any attention at all that this guy has been one of, say, the Top 10 Overall performers in a given season. I don't think making the playoffs is a necessary requirement. A single player can only do so much, if the rest of their team is trash. Had Kevin Garnett posted appropriate numbers, I would've had no problem voting for him for MVP despite him playing alongside a bunch of borderline professionals in Minnesota. Teams make the playoffs, not players, and in an MVP, I'm voting for a player, not a team. For example, Dirk Nowitzki didn't win 67 games, the Mavericks did. He contributed to a large capacity, sure, but so did his teammates. I want a player who has played exceptionally well in as many aspects of the game as possible that are quantifiable (see: statistics) as things like 'making his teammates better' and 'looking pass first' are fluff used by announcers more often than not; a player who has performed at top level in the primetime, nationally broadcasted, big games; and on top of all of that, a player who doesn't project a negative image outwardly. I don't want the player representing the league as its Most Valuable Player to be some douche who has little grasp on how to behave socially, etc.

So, I know my qualifications seem to be pretty divergant from the rest so far, which is why it's a rare occasion that I agree with who is awarded the MVP each year.

Actually this sounds pretty much like Kobe would be your MVP. He is exceptonally good, his team is not too good. He has done things no other player could have done in this season.

But for me personally its more than that.
I mean you say Dirk didnt win 67 games, the Mavs did. But you saw the playoffs. When you manage to keep Dirk out of the game (or he just chokes) than the Mavs do not win. He is more important than the other players on the team, he is an all-star, a top 10 scorer and maybe even a top 10 player.
Same goes for Nash. He makes his teammates just better, but dont forget about his scoring. Sure he has Amare and Matrix ... but most of the numbers these both are posting are just Nash´s work. Amare has big numbers but he completely relies on Nash.

That is why these both players are the two top candidates.
LeBron is number three for me but that is just because of the regular season success he had compared to the other both. Maybe he is more important, but it also seems like it was not enough to make a better record.

[K0beStar]

Hmm what makes an NBA MVP? Good question..


Kobe

[Drex]

^^ Good question, bad answer.

Of all the definitions of MVP posted here, the one I agree the most is Saurus', but I would count only the top 4 seeds in each conference. If you want to be the regular season MVP, then you have to have the wins. I don't care if they're swept in the playoffs, that's why there's a Finals MVP to reward the best player on the playoffs/Finals.

[Indy]

Hmm what makes an NBA MVP? Good question..


Kobe

Great post. Love seeing that type of an input.

[Slizz]

Great Record
Make Teammates Better
Ability to take over Games and win them (almost) by yourself
Take Responsibilty
Bein' A Leader

[Dean]

I'm surprised noone (that i read) had mentioned any aspect of defence as a trait they'd like in their MVP's.. Sure you can be the greatest scorer/playmaker in all the world, but if your getting torched on D, thats gonna hurt your team more than shooting 30% would..

That being said, what i'd look for is:
- Has the ability to be a great scorer, but only takes over when truley needed (eg, Nash with his 19 or so PPG average, steps into a double overtime game vs Jersey, drops 48, a game tying 3 on the buzzer and several other clutch shots to send it to overtime in the first place)
- Doesnt have to be the greatest defender ever, but just has to be able to hold his own against his opposite. I'd also like someone who can play help defence fairly good - for me help defence is the equivalent of an assist on D
- Like everyones saying, has to have a good record
- Leader. Not necessarily meaning a big talker, just has to lead by example
- Doesnt get caught up in the refereeing.. Sure, you can argue calls, but the second you get whistled for a tech, your hurting your team.
- Realises that teams win games, not individual players, and finally as Emi B7 said,
- Intangiables (sp?)

So yeah, im probably the most critical MVP judge ever, but thats what i'd like in my NBA MVP.

[Drex]

You would never give an MVP trophy, right? j/k, nice list

[Scotty]

I would analyze exactly what it is...
The Most Valuable Player...

[Dean]

You would never give an MVP trophy, right? j/k, nice list

Sure i would, permitting your name is Steve Nash
But to do that, i'd have to overlook the defensive aspects..

Nah, i realise noone is gonna fit those qualities to a T, but were i picking, i'd look at finding a guy who best fits those things..

[1CenT]

I wouldn't take team success into HUGE consideration.. i'll try to find the best player that is having a huge impact statistically and in team..

Nash's first mvp, was a huge impact on team, and good stats... so much impact on the team that the team went crazy....

I do believe Kobe or Lebron deserved the MVP last year... Kobe avged 35points a game, he made the team win some games... Lebron was like 30/6/7... his team was great, if you score 30 points a game, and lead the team in assist and rebound the ball, you are prob 1 of the best player in the league, is not the best...


However the NBA takes team success more and more important.. Dirk however, was 1 of the best individual players this year... Lebron had a drop off, Wade was injured.. Kobe and Nash were close..

Last year Nash wasn't better than Kobe/Lebron... He had a good season, he ran the suns team.. but look who also helped the "depleted" Suns, didn't marion avg 21 points 11 rebounds, 2+ assists, 2 steals and 2 blocks? Those are borderline MVP numbers... They had 2 guys carry the load.. Kobe and Lebron didn't..

Anywayz my guideline is basically PERFORMANCE..
Say a future super-star(hmm sum1 like hakeem) is on a depleted team and averages 35 pounds, 14 rebound, 5 assists, 4 blocks, 2 steals but wins like 30 games because he has a horrible team... He will still deserve the MVP if the 2nd best performer is say a 25ppg 6assist guy won 70 games with 3 more all-star lvl players and a veteran proven team with a deep bench..

[Carmo]

I find it interesting that a lot of the qualities you mention are all found in players you'd never consider for MVP, not to mention the subjectivity of some of them. You're describing players like Tayshaun Prince, Rip Hamilton, Kirk Hinrich, and Derek Fisher, whom I don't think would even receive a write-in vote if we were to poll who deserves the MVP Award.

For me, the player must be an obvious top level player in that given year. It has to be apparent to everybody paying any attention at all that this guy has been one of, say, the Top 10 Overall performers in a given season. I don't think making the playoffs is a necessary requirement. A single player can only do so much, if the rest of their team is trash. Had Kevin Garnett posted appropriate numbers, I would've had no problem voting for him for MVP despite him playing alongside a bunch of borderline professionals in Minnesota. Teams make the playoffs, not players, and in an MVP, I'm voting for a player, not a team. For example, Dirk Nowitzki didn't win 67 games, the Mavericks did. He contributed to a large capacity, sure, but so did his teammates. I want a player who has played exceptionally well in as many aspects of the game as possible that are quantifiable (see: statistics) as things like 'making his teammates better' and 'looking pass first' are fluff used by announcers more often than not; a player who has performed at top level in the primetime, nationally broadcasted, big games; and on top of all of that, a player who doesn't project a negative image outwardly. I don't want the player representing the league as its Most Valuable Player to be some douche who has little grasp on how to behave socially, etc.

So, I know my qualifications seem to be pretty divergant from the rest so far, which is why it's a rare occasion that I agree with who is awarded the MVP each year.

Actually this sounds pretty much like Kobe would be your MVP. He is exceptonally good, his team is not too good. He has done things no other player could have done in this season.

But for me personally its more than that.
I mean you say Dirk didnt win 67 games, the Mavs did. But you saw the playoffs. When you manage to keep Dirk out of the game (or he just chokes) than the Mavs do not win. He is more important than the other players on the team, he is an all-star, a top 10 scorer and maybe even a top 10 player.
Same goes for Nash. He makes his teammates just better, but dont forget about his scoring. Sure he has Amare and Matrix ... but most of the numbers these both are posting are just Nash´s work. Amare has big numbers but he completely relies on Nash.

That is why these both players are the two top candidates.
LeBron is number three for me but that is just because of the regular season success he had compared to the other both. Maybe he is more important, but it also seems like it was not enough to make a better record.

An MVP can't just disappear in important games. What you are saying is like saying that if a team goes 1-81 and they won that one game because I dominated in it but we lost the 81 games because I played crap, I should be considered for MVP because my team relies on me to win games. That's gay.

[TSquared]

sad to say but the MVP award is being based on popularity level of the player dont u think so?

[Drex]

Not really Iverson, Shaq, Wade, TMac, KG, just to name a few, a very popular players with nice numbers (except Shaq and Wade, sadly), but none of them are in the talk for the MVP.

[1CenT]

sad to say but the MVP award is being based on popularity level of the player dont u think so?

I don't think so, the last 4 years MVP weren't won by popular playesr were they? Well
Counting that Dirk wins it this year
Dirk, Nash, Nash, KG? Duncan?

Its not like AI, Kobe and Shaq, Tmac, Yao are winning all the MVPs, however Shaq deserved ever part of the MVP in his years....

He made his team better, he was dominant on offence/defence

[hova-]

I find it interesting that a lot of the qualities you mention are all found in players you'd never consider for MVP, not to mention the subjectivity of some of them. You're describing players like Tayshaun Prince, Rip Hamilton, Kirk Hinrich, and Derek Fisher, whom I don't think would even receive a write-in vote if we were to poll who deserves the MVP Award.

For me, the player must be an obvious top level player in that given year. It has to be apparent to everybody paying any attention at all that this guy has been one of, say, the Top 10 Overall performers in a given season. I don't think making the playoffs is a necessary requirement. A single player can only do so much, if the rest of their team is trash. Had Kevin Garnett posted appropriate numbers, I would've had no problem voting for him for MVP despite him playing alongside a bunch of borderline professionals in Minnesota. Teams make the playoffs, not players, and in an MVP, I'm voting for a player, not a team. For example, Dirk Nowitzki didn't win 67 games, the Mavericks did. He contributed to a large capacity, sure, but so did his teammates. I want a player who has played exceptionally well in as many aspects of the game as possible that are quantifiable (see: statistics) as things like 'making his teammates better' and 'looking pass first' are fluff used by announcers more often than not; a player who has performed at top level in the primetime, nationally broadcasted, big games; and on top of all of that, a player who doesn't project a negative image outwardly. I don't want the player representing the league as its Most Valuable Player to be some douche who has little grasp on how to behave socially, etc.

So, I know my qualifications seem to be pretty divergant from the rest so far, which is why it's a rare occasion that I agree with who is awarded the MVP each year.

Actually this sounds pretty much like Kobe would be your MVP. He is exceptonally good, his team is not too good. He has done things no other player could have done in this season.

But for me personally its more than that.
I mean you say Dirk didnt win 67 games, the Mavs did. But you saw the playoffs. When you manage to keep Dirk out of the game (or he just chokes) than the Mavs do not win. He is more important than the other players on the team, he is an all-star, a top 10 scorer and maybe even a top 10 player.
Same goes for Nash. He makes his teammates just better, but dont forget about his scoring. Sure he has Amare and Matrix ... but most of the numbers these both are posting are just Nash´s work. Amare has big numbers but he completely relies on Nash.

That is why these both players are the two top candidates.
LeBron is number three for me but that is just because of the regular season success he had compared to the other both. Maybe he is more important, but it also seems like it was not enough to make a better record.

An MVP can't just disappear in important games. What you are saying is like saying that if a team goes 1-81 and they won that one game because I dominated in it but we lost the 81 games because I played crap, I should be considered for MVP because my team relies on me to win games. That's gay.

I think youre talking about Dirk. Well youre right, but that is not what I was saying. He disappeared in the Playoffs which are not important for MVP votings. I just said that his team seems to rely on him and was abel to win 67 games ---> He is very important and had success.
But as I said same goes for Nash and I wouldnt mind seeing him taking home the trophy.

[Axel]

You're describing players like Tayshaun Prince, Rip Hamilton, Kirk Hinrich, and Derek Fisher, whom I don't think would even receive a write-in vote if we were to poll who deserves the MVP Award.

- Consistency

btw, I didn't notice those qualities in the players you mentioned. Tayshaun Prince and Rip Hamilton are simply pieces to the puzzle. They do not significantly make their teammates better. Kirk Hinrich has intangibles, and makes his teammates better to a degree, but he's not great at anything in particular.

Derek Fisher is having one of the worst seasons of his career. I don't even see why you mentioned him.

[Andrew]

To me, making the Playoffs has to be the standard for a player to be eligible for the regular season MVP award. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar won the award in 1976 despite the Lakers missing the Playoffs but it was kind of an unusual exception to an award that has traditionally gone to a player on a team that qualifies for the postseason. The better the team's record (and thus seeding), plus factors such as all-time highs for single season records should be taken into account as well.

The player also has to stand out on the team, particularly for a club that has been very successful. Basketball is a team sport and greater success is the product of a strong squad but MVP calibre stand out as the most important player on their team, which usually means being one of the top players at their position - if not one of the top players, period - in the league. It's an aspect that's difficult to measure since the old standard of "take (insert player's name here) and his team wouldn't be half as successful" could be applied to pretty much any elite player in the NBA. However, I think it's fair to say that the player with the most impressive statistical contribution and the one who steps up in clutch situations can be deemed the most important and thus an MVP candidate.

Speaking of statistical contributions, I believe they should count for something as well. It's easy to dismiss impressive statistics on the basis that a player is on a bad or mediocre team and thus has a greater opportunity but the ability to shoulder so much of the load, produce impressive numbers and help a team to a playoff berth is a noteworthy achievement, particularly if the team's record far exceeds expectations given the personnel, thanks in no small part to their top player. Similarly, rare statistical feats should be taken into account in my view. If a player was to average a triple double over the course of the season while leading his team to a decent record - say, 45-37 and the fifth or sixth seed - then he's proven his worth as a player and the huge impact he's capable of having even if his team's record isn't the league's best. You could factor the amount of help (or lack thereof) in there as well.

I would suggest that the typical MVP, in a nutshell, would meet the following criteria:

• Team has qualified for the playoffs with one of the better records in the league due to the efforts of their MVP candidate
  
  OR
  
  Team has qualified for the playoffs with a record that exceeds expectations given their roster, due to the efforts of their MVP candidate
  
• Clearly the standout player on his team; the key to their success. League MVP candidates must be the most valuable player on their own teams.
  
• Impressive statistics that rank among the NBA's leaders

The weakness with using such criteria is that if followed to the letter, it's quite likely the same player (or two to three players) would have a monopoly on the award. During their most successful years, players such as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar should have been the players to win the award every year, according to that criteria. That's why variables such as career years, all-time highs for single season records and noteworthy statistical milestones have to come into play; it would also account for other players who took home MVP honours during the careers of those all-time greats, otherwise few would be able to challenge their claim to the MVP trophy.

[shadowgrin]

Most Valuable Player. I would just translate it as it is.

The team must be good with their "MVP" playing. If you remove a player from his team, the team will be a disaster and be bunched with other horrible teams.

I would not consider Kobe because the Lakers are still horrible even with Kobe. (Save me the "KG argument" aka his "teammates suck")
Playoff horrible or lottery horrible, it doesn't matter, horrible is horrible.