- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Discussions about MVP Awards (In General)
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:44 am
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:44 am
so some guy from Boston, i believe, gave Melo his lone 1st place vote. his reasoning goes like this: LBJ had a stronger team, so melo was more valuable to his own team. this is a common argument in MVP voting (it really becomes big in the NFL)
how does this argument make any sense? is the MVP award really a judgment of teammates and not individuals? that's what you're doing if you buy into this line of thought. you are putting more weight into the quality of the star's teammates than the stars themselves. how is that logical?
you see a similar argument (usually more in the NFL) when a star gets hurt and his backup doesn't suck. the "battle of the backups" is just as illogical as the "battle of the teammates". matt cassell doing well when brady was hurt doesn't indict brady, and cassell being better than peyton manning's backup doesn't make manning inferior, either.
how does this argument make any sense? is the MVP award really a judgment of teammates and not individuals? that's what you're doing if you buy into this line of thought. you are putting more weight into the quality of the star's teammates than the stars themselves. how is that logical?
you see a similar argument (usually more in the NFL) when a star gets hurt and his backup doesn't suck. the "battle of the backups" is just as illogical as the "battle of the teammates". matt cassell doing well when brady was hurt doesn't indict brady, and cassell being better than peyton manning's backup doesn't make manning inferior, either.
19
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:45 am to SlowFlowPro
Le bron is the best period. Just as stupid writers won't vote for a first time candidate for the Hall of Fame. Mariano should be 100% in as should be Lebron
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
My opinion has changed a bit in the last few years. I believe that if they blew up the teams and held a draft, the player that most teams would choose with the #1 pick is the MVP. In this case, it's Lebron hands down
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:51 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
Why we don't have 100% votess for HOF amazes me sometimes
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's silly.
how does this argument make any sense? is the MVP award really a judgment of teammates and not individuals? that's what you're doing if you buy into this line of thought. you are putting more weight into the quality of the star's teammates than the stars themselves. how is that logical?
Not to mention, I think the best player also provides the most value.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:54 am to shel311
quote:
I think the best player also provides the most value.
i think this is obvious, even if that player is on a shitty team. it makes me mad when an MVP candidate on a crap team is dismissed b/c of his teammates for the same reasoning
*ETA: CFB is THE WORST at this
This post was edited on 5/6/13 at 8:57 am
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how does this argument make any sense
With any real thought put into it, the argument makes zero sense.
It is simply a contrived rationalization people make in order to justify why they have ignored stats, talent, and results to base their vote on something usually more subjective.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It doesn't. Neither does his support argument that "Melo made the Knicks relevant for the first time in 19 years." It's pathetic. He basically voted for Melo because he made a big market team a big deal in the league. It's basically the Derrick Rose argument from 2011 without the "humble" angle and with a less quality team. I mean at least that Bulls team won 60+ games. The NYK were the 7th best overall team. They'd have been a 6th seed in the West.
how does this argument make any sense?
This post was edited on 5/6/13 at 8:59 am
Posted on 5/6/13 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
I loathe this reasoning as well and you hear it all the time...like your example:
"I believe Brady is the best player in the league and had a better year than Manning but you take Peyton off of those Colts and they don't win 3 games while the Pats have Belichick! Manning has to be MVP!"
"I believe Brady is the best player in the league and had a better year than Manning but you take Peyton off of those Colts and they don't win 3 games while the Pats have Belichick! Manning has to be MVP!"
This post was edited on 5/6/13 at 8:59 am
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:00 am to shel311
quote:
Not to mention, I think the best player also provides the most value.
For the most part, but this can be argued.
My example would be this NHL season. No doubt in my mind Sidney Crosby is the best player in the league, but the most valuable was easily Bobrovsky. Penguins still won without Sid but the Blue Jackets wouldn't have been anywhere near the playoff hunt without Bobrovsky.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
my thought is stop calling it the Most Valuable Player award if it's really the Most Outstanding Player award....because "Valuable" is a lot different than "Outstanding" since that's who always wins the award.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
Agreed with how dumb this line of thinking is. To further validate the stupidity of the "value to your team" argument in this case you just have to ask yourself one question. If the Knicks had the exact same team but replace Carmelo with Lebron, would their record have been better or worse?
Anyone who doesn't say better is a complete idiot.
Anyone who doesn't say better is a complete idiot.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:08 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
because "Valuable" is a lot different than "Outstanding" since that's who always wins the award.
i think they're the same
the best players provide the most impact, which means they're the most valuable
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so some guy from Boston, i believe, gave Melo his lone 1st place vote. his reasoning goes like this: LBJ had a stronger team, so melo was more valuable to his own team. this is a common argument in MVP voting (it really becomes big in the NFL)
how does this argument make any sense? is the MVP award really a judgment of teammates and not individuals? that's what you're doing if you buy into this line of thought. you are putting more weight into the quality of the star's teammates than the stars themselves. how is that logical?
you see a similar argument (usually more in the NFL) when a star gets hurt and his backup doesn't suck. the "battle of the backups" is just as illogical as the "battle of the teammates". matt cassell doing well when brady was hurt doesn't indict brady, and cassell being better than peyton manning's backup doesn't make manning inferior, either.
The guy is making a VORP argument, which does make sense if you agree with it.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:14 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
my thought is stop calling it the Most Valuable Player award if it's really the Most Outstanding Player award....because "Valuable" is a lot different than "Outstanding" since that's who always wins the award.
This.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:14 am to bobbyray21
quote:
The guy is making a VORP argument
are you saying melo provides more value over an average replacement than lebron?
that mythical "average replacement" person is the backbone of the system. value over ACTUAL replacement is just arguing who has a better team, which has nothing to do with which player is more valuable (that's an argument over which replacement is more valuable)
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:17 am to bobbyray21
Not really. Bc if Lebron we're on the Knicks they'd be much better than they are with value. Even without that, basketball has stats similar to Vorp and Lebron kills Carmelo. League average per is 15, Lebron is 31. Carmelo, without looking it up exactly, is somewhere in the low-mid 20's. Mathematically who has more Vorp? Lebron by a mile. Lebron almost as more value over melo than melo does an average player
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:20 am to tigerfan88
quote:
Carmelo, without looking it up exactly, is somewhere in the low-mid 20's.
i think he's around 26 this year b/c he had a huge jump, but yeah
and PER is mainly an offensive judgment. defensively lebron blows melo out of the water
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
are you saying melo provides more value over an average replacement than lebron?
I'm saying that this is what dude is saying.
This post was edited on 5/6/13 at 9:21 am
Posted on 5/6/13 at 9:21 am to bobbyray21
Well Brees has set a bunch of single season Qb records, but can't win MVP because his defense sucks and the bias for Manning.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News