MVP

[Fidel]

This is a piece from insidehoops, i liked it (I don´t share every point though) and I post it here because I had several arguments with people about Iverson not at all deserving MVP (I think these were on nbatalk). What do you think about that?

"There seems to be this unfortunate misconception of the MVP award that people refer to when they don't feel like giving it to the best player in the league. The so called "most valuable to their team". This has never been the intention otherwise there was no justification for giving it to Jordan so many times or Magic or Bird or Kareem. Since arguably they all played for good teams and perhaps were not "the" most valuable to "their team" as much as say scorers such as George Gervin, Bob MacAdoo, or Dominique Wilkins was. A corollary to this is that Shaq has Kobe or Duncan has Robinson etc., etc. Didn't Jordan have Pippen and Bird have McHale, Johnson, Ainge and Parrish; and didn't Magic and Kareem have each other and James Worthy?

With the inertia behind giving it to Iverson this year we are once again hearing this common refrain. But it is questionable whether he is even the most valuable to his team. He scores a lot of points to be sure and his team won a lot of games this year...in the East. What he doesn't do is shoot well or defend well. Big guards eat him alive and his shooting percentage is below average for a player of his caliber. Tracy McGrady had a better year in the East but he doesn't play with Iverson's talented but under- appreciated supporting cast.

The clear MVP is Shaquille O'Neal. His numbers once again are monstrous and if you ask every player and coach in the league who messes up their game plan more than any other player it's Shaq. When the GM's were polled this year on the player they would choose to build their franchise around it was overwhelmingly Shaq. The only GM's who didn't pick him picked Tim Duncan, because he is younger.

Iverson is a great scorer and competitor but there are probably three to four other players more deserving of the award. You should ask yourself, If I was drafting any player in the NBA for one season only based upon how they played this year who would that pick be?"

[MFFL]

Without question - Shaq. He is the best player at the position that is hardest to fill. He dominates the league. He is unstoppable.

[Fidel]

Just what I thought [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Murphy3]

i would go with shaq, but i actually think they'll give it to iverson

[TheKid]

I like Iverson personally. Shaq is the most dominant force, but Iverson is much more valuable to his team. Look at the last game he played, LITERALLY he carried that team to victory.

[Murphy3]

and shaq hasn't carried his team to victory the first two games of the second series?

[TheKid]

He's had dominating games yes, but when you have someone else on your team scoring 20 points, it can be disputed. Iverson scored 54 points, the only other person to score in the double digits was Snow with 10!!!!! That's amazing, the dude shot 21 for 39. 54%, not dunking the ball on someone smaller than him either. They were shots HE created, far more of an MVPish performance than Shaq.

[Murphy3]

it doesn't matter how you score your points...whether it's by hitting a three or by making a low post move.
yes, iverson is more exciting, i know that.

but the lakers would be at best 1-1 in the series, maybe 0-2 if shaq wasn't carrying them. yes, carrying the lakers like iverson did in game 2.

yes, iverson had a spectacular game, but o'neal has had two spectacular games, back to back

[djb]

But don't forget the Sixers are playing the Raptors while the Lakers are playing the Kings.

[Murphy3]

basically, you can't say that allen had an mvp performance and then say that shaq didn't.
over the past few weeks, shaq has been more dominating than anyone in the nba.

[TheKid]

Well I was basically using that last game to show how important he's been to his team, this year. MVP is based off of the regular season not the playoffs. IMO during the regular season, Iverson has basically been the heart soul and has carried that team right into the best record in the east.

[Murphy3]

there's no doubt that neither the lakers or the sixers have any kind of shot to reach the finals or even go deep into the playoffs without iverson or shaq.

yes, iverson is what makes the entire team go, but shaq is what makes the lakers go and what makes them a title contender. personally, i don't think the sixers have much of a shot against the lakers if they meet in the finals.

yeah, i agree, iverson will probably win the mvp this year but their's alot of teams that have one guy that basically carries them.
it's nothing new.

i don't know, i hate to see the mvp go to a guy that shoots the ball soooo poorly

[Fidel]

I think you might be missing the point of the article.
The question is: should the MVP be given to the player most valuable to his team or to the best player in the league. The author (and I) think it was mostly given to the best player in the league in the past.
If thats the concept then clearly, Allen Iverson is not the MVP. There are just better players around (Shaq, Duncan, Mc Grady, Kobe). Yes Iverson can dominate, but his shooting and defense are iconsistent. The same way he carried the sixers to a win in game 2 he carried them to a loss in game 1 (on 11-34 shooting).
He barely shot 40% for the season (30% 3pt) and no matter what else he does for the team, these are just no MVP numbers. Also the sixers played in the poor east and in the west Iversons poor shooting would have resulted in a L more often I think.

[Fidel]

Oh,
that was not directed to anybody in particular.

[TheKid]

Fidel that's my point. That's why I said he's not the most dominant because that goes to Shaq. Shaq is also the best player in the league, there is not a player I would take before him. However I'm saying, MVP, most valuable player to the team. Now some would argue and say McGrady, however that team made the playoffs last year without him and less talent.

For instance, Iverson shot poorly in game one, very poorly and they lost. That's my point, they rely on HIM to carry the team. They rely on him to lead them to victory. If he doesn't they lose, if he does well they win! Shaq on the other hand, if he doesn't they look to Kobe. NOW, Kobe has the "ability" to be that player but he still hasn't figured it out yet, how to be a leader.

Yes the East is much weaker, no disagreement there. You're probably right, Lakers would beat Philly, but this I do know, take Iverson off the 76ers, they're not even a playoff caliber team. Take Shaq off, the Lakers are atleast a 7 or 8 seed, just like Orlando was an 8 seed last year.

[Murphy3]

i agree, iverson can score points, but alot of players would score as much or more if they put up as many shots as he did.
yes, he can do some amazing things. that's obvious, but he's not an mvp.
an mvp doesn't shoot 40% from the field. he may win it, but it's just becaus of all of the publicity he's had.
i would take michael finley on this dallas mavericks team over iverson.

[Fidel]

Ok the Kid,
then we have just different concepts of MVP. You would give it to the player most valuable to his team and there are reasons to do so. I would just give it to the best player in the league (which was mostly the case in the past).
Also I think Murph has a good point there. Let Dirk shoot 40 a game add his usual 10 Ft, how many points do you think he would average? If the Mavs were still as good a team is another question.
One other thing: I think most of the sixers "support" cast is clearly underrated. I think there have been a lot of games when others made up for Iversons poor shooting, especially on the defensive end. The sixers are clearly a defensive team, and defensively Iverson is not their focus point. So one could argue that it doesn´t really matter for them who misses all the shots as long as they make stops on the defensive end. Would Iverson have the same rep if he was playing for the Bucks? I don´t think so because his weaknesses would become much more obvious there (they need to make shots).

[Murphy3]

too much is made of players that score alot of points but can't shoot.
what the hell does it mean? it means that they take alot of shots.
yes, i know he creates well. but alot of players do and alot of players shoot much better than he does.
yes, he's an amazing talent and very important to the team. but a guy that shoots 40% is not an mvp of the league.

[TheKid]

I can agree with you two to a certain extent. Certain players do have that capability. It's funny you point out about Dirk, I was saying something similar to that on another post. Definately Dirk could, but not every player has that capability to get off 30 shots. For instance, Travis Best is a good player, who is quick and has the ability to get his own shot off. However do you really think he would average 31 points if he was put in Iverson's position? No. Someone like Dirk, yes, someone like Fin, yes, someone like Nash No, someone like Howard, HELL NO!

So there is something to be said for someone who has the ability to get off those shots, it's more than just throwing the ball at the basket hoping it goes in. While he may shoot a lot and have a poor game like he did in game 1, he turned around and had an AMAZING game in game 2. What I'm saying is, Iverson may shoot a poor percentage, but the guy is a winner. Not to mention, the guy is 6'0", 165 that's pretty impressive if you ask me.

[Murphy3]

why is he a winner?
what has he won in the NBA?
let's make him win something first.
he hasn't proven that by him shooting 30 times a game that he can lead his team to a championship.
he may be hurting the team by taking so many shots...and by taking so many poor shots.
maybe if he took 20 shots and was more selective, maybe his team would be better.
let him prove something, let him prove that his style of play is conducive to winning a championship.

yes, it is amazing that he can hit some of the shots that hits. but alot of players could average 30 points a game if they shot 30 times a game.
therefore, he's not an mvp. what he's doing wouldn't be that special if he wasn't 6'0.

[Fidel]

Just what I said Murph,
IMO the team makes up for his poor shooting alot of times.

[TheKid]

Well you say alot of players could average 30 points well how come we haven't had many in the last 7 years? We've had about four or five if I'm not mistaken.

You want to concentrate on statistics, all I know is this, the guy shot terrible from the field, and YOU say took ALOT of bad shots and hurt his team? If he didn't take so many poor shots his team would be better? OK, the man lead the NBA in scoring, his team had the best record in the EAST which turned out to be third or fourth best in the NBA. However he's hurt his shot selection is hurting his team?

Now if you want to say he's not a winner yet because he hasn't won an NBA title, that's fine. That's your opinion, and it could be valid too. However I guess from now on I'll say, Stockton and Malone are not winners, I'll say Barkley is not a winner, Pete Maravich is not a winner, Elgin Baylor is not a winner.

Titles doesn't always equate into a winner. A winner is someone who doesn't give up, however responds to adversity with avengence. Someone who responds well to adversity. For instance, when the Mavericks were down 0-2 to the Jazz we responded like "WINNERS". We'll see how we respond now??? Sixers were down in the Pacers series, they responded, they were down in the Toronto series, they responded.

[Fidel]

First thats not the point.
The sixers winning against Indiana just says they won against Indiana, it doesn´t prove AI isn´t hurting the team with his poor shooting. It still could be the case that the team is good dispite AI´s poor shooting and could be better (maybe swept Indiana) if he was more selective with his shots.
Second: a Winner is someone who wins something. Stockton and Malone are great players but they always lost when it counted most. So they are losers and Jordan is a winner.

[TheKid]

You're crazy then. Those two that you referred to as losers, guess what. I'd guarantee you if you took a poll of coaches in the NBA, and said RIGHT NOW you had to choose a point guard of Nash or Stocton and a power forward of Malone or Dirk, the majority would take Stockton and Malone to win RIGHT NOW, not for the future, not for upside but for what they're capable of right now!!!! So we have a bunch of losers on the Mavericks in your eyes, because we're not winning when it counts! Just like Stockton and Malone, we'll have that "someday" tag on us!

There you go again with Iverson hurting his team with his shots. I'll agree for the sake of argument. When he shoots poorly he hurts the team. Obviously though, he's helped the team more than he's helped the team because they had the best record in the East. You can say that the team is good with out him, or maybe they have a lot to do with the success of the team. Take Iverson off that team, and they are a lottery team. It's that simple, no one should or will dispute that. Not even Larry Brown himself! So in MY opinion, the Most Valuable Player is Iverson. That was the question right? You didn't ask who was the best player in the league, you asked who was MOST VALUABLE TO THEIR TEAM.

[Mavinator]

Seeing as how the eastern conference was so dominant this year, it's obvious that they should sweep all the major awards.

[Big Boy Laroux]

i think it's iverson. but that's just me.

[TheKid]

mavinator, lol.

[Fidel]

Ok Kid
I give up. You´re really not logic. Where was I talking about Dirk and Nash? And Iwasn´t talking about charakter I was talking about the fact of winning it all, that´s what makes a winner. And also I was not talking about the Most important to their team, I was talking about the 2 concepts: most important or best player. I clearly opted for best player concept. So the MVP would have to go to Shaq.

[Fidel]

And:
we´re down 3-0 to the Spurs, so yes compared to them we are a bunch of losers right now (you were talking about right now with Stock and Malone).
That doesn´t say anything about the charakter of our players it just says we lost three in a row and others won. So right now we are losers, the Spurs are winners. In the big picture Shaq and Duncan are winners, because they won it all.
I dont know if you follow racing. But there is a F1 driver David Coulthard. He wins arace now and then and is a pretty good driver. But no one would consider him a winner cause he hasn´t won it all yet (world champion). Senna was a winner, Prost, Schuhmacher and Hakkinen are.
Stock and Malone are losers.

[TheKid]

You're right, you never was talking about Nash or Dirk, you said Malone and Stockton are losers. I said well if they're losers, our very own Dirk and Nash are too by YOUR standards!!! That's not my logic that's yours. They're not winning when it counts!

Then I said, most important player is what I think should be the MVP. Which would be Iverson.

[Fidel]

I know what you said, but you just didn´t understand what I was trying to say, and yes by my standards Dirk and Nash and Fin are losers right now (that doesn´t touch what they did this year).

[Fidel]

Just an example:

You didn't ask who was the best player in the league, you asked who was MOST VALUABLE TO THEIR TEAM

I never asked that, and evryone that reads this thread will notice. Basically I was just saying the opposite.

[TheKid]

Well atleast you stand by what you say. Although I don't think they're losers, they layed some very good ground work for next season. It should be a lot of fun for Maverick fans.

[Fidel]

That´s good
no hate in here.
You´ve got your opinion I´ve got mine, we´ve just discussed it, that´s how it should be.

Go Mavs !!!

[Fidel]

.

[Fidel]

Here is a piece from espn.com about the sixers and Iverson. I think the guy has got some good points.

[MFFL]

Nice article! Thanks!

[Murphy3]

the reason alot of players don't average 30 points a game is that they don't take that many shots.
how many players in the nba could average 30 if they took as many shots as iverson?
the list would be very long.

[Murphy3]

how many of them would shoot better than 40%
once again, the list would be very long

[MFFL]

I'm not very impressed with Iverson. He's a great talent, but he reminds me too much of Dominique Wilkins. The rest of the team rarely steps up because they expect Iverson to win the game for them.