Who's the NBA MVP? - Bill Simmons

[grndmstr_c]

Would they slip that much with Jason Terry in Billups' spot? Probably not.

Just curious. How much do y'all think the Mavs would slip if you replaced Dirk with Rasheed? It strikes me as an interesting question because I don't think it's very hard to make the argument that Sheed is at least as good as Terry, all things considered, yet my strong intuition is that the Mavs would slip more following that swap than the Pistons would following a hypothetical JT/Billups swap.

[chumdawg]

Yes, quite intriguing question. My guess is that it's very, very close. AJ's preferred style seems to be one that slows the game down, that in effect takes away the advantage otherwise gained from a terrific offensive player. My guess is that if you swap Dirk and Rasheed--and bear in mind that I think a whole hell of a lot of Rasheed--the Mavs win maybe six or seven fewer games. Sims would be interesting to see.

But the Pistons, on the other hand, seem to rely so heavily on playing as a cohesive unit--at least on the defensive end. Terry is about the last guy I would imagine them having success with.

Yeah, I think I can see it. I think I can see the Pistons dropping to the Heat's level quicker than I could see the Mavs dropping to the Suns' level, if that particular trade was made.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, that's not fair at all. We are talking about decisions on the margin here. What you are suggeesting is almost akin to saying "It doesn't matter who we get to play starting center, because the other eleven players are what they are."

You are focusing too much on the other eleven and not enough on the player in question. I think it's pretty self-evident that one player--any player--can help or hurt a team. Yes, worse teams will improve more than better teams will, when a great player is introduced. But all teams will improve nonetheless, if the added player is that good.

The challenge is to calibrate the scale based on the other eleven players, not to ignore the other eleven players altogether.

I may be misinterpreting what you're saying but if you adjust for the other 11 players aren't you essentially making a judgement on which MP3 candidate is the most talented?

[chumdawg]

No, I don't think so. Not necessarily, anyway. Let's say we have Michael Jordan in his prime. Let's magically add him to the Blazers this year. The Blazers get better. A whole hell of a lot better. Maybe they even make the playoffs.

Now let's go back in time and add him to the Pistons. The Pistons get better, too. They win 70 instead of 65, or whatever it is.

Jordan was still the same Jordan, on both teams. But he helped the lesser team a lot more, in terms of absolute games won.

I'm just saying that there is some way, even if it's not precise, to take this sort of thing into account. In other words, in a perfect system Jordan may not be penalized for playing on the Pistons rather than the Blazers, if voters understand that five additional games to the Pistons means more than all those additional games to the Blazers.

But to your question of whether our MP3 judgment is or is not still based on who is most talented, I'm afraid I don't have a good response. So many interlocking criteria, so much subjective judgment, it's hard to tell. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea of a lesser talented guy being more valuable, in general, than a more talented guy. On a case-by-case and team-by-team basis, sure. Are the Mavs going to benefit more by adding Steve Nash or by adding Shaquille O'Neal? Well, to answer that question you have to consider who is already there. It's just a quirky award, sometimes.

[dirno2000]

No, I don't think so. Not necessarily, anyway. Let's say we have Michael Jordan in his prime. Let's magically add him to the Blazers this year. The Blazers get better. A whole hell of a lot better. Maybe they even make the playoffs.

Now let's go back in time and add him to the Pistons. The Pistons get better, too. They win 70 instead of 65, or whatever it is.

Jordan was still the same Jordan, on both teams. But he helped the lesser team a lot more, in terms of absolute games won.

I'm just saying that there is some way, even if it's not precise, to take this sort of thing into account. In other words, in a perfect system Jordan may not be penalized for playing on the Pistons rather than the Blazers, if voters understand that five additional games to the Pistons means more than all those additional games to the Blazers.

ok, I see what your saying. That's actually a pretty rigorous exercise. First you have to quantify how many wins the player is worth to his team. Then, and this is the hard part, you have to develop a scale where 25 Laker additional losses=15 additional Mavs losses= 22 additional Cav losses etc. If a voter is willing to put that much thought into it I'm all for it. Usually, when I hear writers talk about a players value to his team they don't adjust for the fact that marginal wins are harder to come by for good teams.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

If Dirk can play at this level for three or four more years he'll definitly be one of the greats to play the position...especially if we win a title.

Without question.

Personally, I think Dirk is already there as far as the power forward position is concerned. I think most of us here feel that he probably should be MVP this year, but even if he doesn't win the award, he's definitely a lock for first team All-NBA again. This will give him two selections. Kevin McHale, for example, only had one.

If he ends his career with an MVP award and a championship, that easily puts him in the same class as Malone, Pettit, Duncan, Hayes, and McAdoo.

[rabbitproof]

The knife cuts both ways.

If focusing on "biggest impact if missing/replaced" is a reflection of how weak a team is and not how valuable a particular player is... then is not focusing on a team's overall record a reflection on strong a team is and not how valuable a particular player is?

Both measures are influenced by the strength of the supporting cast.

[chumdawg]

You know, it's kinda funny. Back in '03 or '04, neither Dirk nor Nash were given serious MVP consideration, where they? (Bear in mind their team won 60 games in '03!) Then you split them up, and Nash immediately wins the MVP the next season, and now it looks like either he wins it again or his old running mate Dirk does.

Maybe we should careful about dismissing Billups out of hand...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You know, it's kinda funny. Back in '03 or '04, neither Dirk nor Nash were given serious MVP consideration, where they? (Bear in mind their team won 60 games in '03!) Then you split them up, and Nash immediately wins the MVP the next season, and now it looks like either he wins it again or his old running mate Dirk does.

Maybe we should careful about dismissing Billups out of hand...

Part of it imo was a backlash against nelson. He had the reputation of a tricked up system. It is funny that they got no mention at all however, kind of sad, but those were the heady shaq/duncan/kg days. Those days seem over..