What's an MVP to you

[Dmon3k]

Well with the NBA season coming to a close soon and the mvp race there heating up I just wonder what everyone's thoughts are on what makes a player a mvp. Is it solely a statistical thing. Do you go with the best player on the best team argument (ie Nowitzki or Nash) Or do you go along the line of without this player the team would suck (Lebron or Kobe) Or is there another criteria you look at when making your own decisions on who the mvp should be. I only focused on bball since its in season and I watch it more than hockey, but your thoughts on the award in any sport.

[Mike]

A MVP, no matter what league they play in, is someone who has numbers above and beyond the rest of the players in the league. Some say that it should be someone who is leading their team while having good stats. I agree to a point on that, but if someone is having just an outstanding season, no matter if they are in last or first, they should get chosen.

I am also not sold on the idea of the writers picking the MVP, I think it should be left up to the players that are in the league

[BtownJay]

No way should players vote on the MVP award... they don't see near as much of all the games that writers/experts do.

MVP = Most Valuable Player. IMO a MVP can not be on a last place team no matter what his stats are. What or who was he valuable to? Just picking the guy with the best stats would turn the award into the "Player of the Year".

[BtownBeers]

I tend to agree with Jay here, maybe there should be a player of the year as well but it can't be strictly statistically based.

One of the main reason I think that is because a star player on a bad team of course will have huge numbers because they are the only chance the teams typically have of winning so the numbers are inflated because of the amount opportunities they get being on a horrid team.

A player that statistically and non-statistically leads their team to win games and is a key role players in how the rest of the team performs is an MVP caliber team. <-- Edit player.

[Rusty27]

Originally Posted by BtownJay

MVP = Most Valuable Player. IMO a MVP can not be on a last place team no matter what his stats are. What or who was he valuable to? Just picking the guy with the best stats would turn the award into the "Player of the Year".

This is tough,and I don't have the answers here. So,this is just a question.
What is the difference between a last place team and the best team to nort make the playoffs? Both teams watch the playoffs at home.Yet Ryan Howard wins the MVP(as you know,I feel he deserved it).So,with your thinking,I think
I can say what or to who was he valuable?An MVP would have to go to at least a pennant winner.Not sure I agree with this line of thinking.

[BtownBeers]

For that example, I think that the Phils late push for a playoff spot was in large part becuase of Howard. Without him they would have a much much harder time making that push.

If big Al didn't get hurt for that period of time he may have run away with the MVP.

[BtownJay]

I see what you mean Rusty... however, the Phils had the best 2nd half record in the NL and scored the most runs in the NL... and they almost made the playoffs. BUT, in the long run, they still missed it the same as the Pirates did. Then would the MVP have to come from a playoff team?

[Rusty27]

So if Ryan Howard had the same numbers on a last place team or a third place team,he shouldn't have won? Where do you draw the line. 90 wins? 85 wins?

[BtownJay]

Originally Posted by Rusty17

So if Ryan Howard had the same numbers on a last place team or a third place team,he shouldn't have won? Where do you draw the line. 90 wins? 85 wins?

Personally i determine it by "in the playoff race" and "out of the playoff race". Ie... if the Phils were out of it with months to go, no i do not think Howard would have deserved it. I then would have given it to Pujols.

[Rusty27]

Originally Posted by BtownJay

I see what you mean Rusty... however, the Phils had the best 2nd half record in the NL and scored the most runs in the NL... and they almost made the playoffs. BUT, in the long run, they still missed it the same as the Pirates did. Then would the MVP have to come from a playoff team?

That's what I don't know. What if Rocco Baldelli hits 70 home runs 150 RBI
.381 BA and the Devil Rays win 59 games.I say he's the MVP
I guess I say it's just a judgement call every year.I think MVP and best play
are nearly the same or totally different and there's really no right or wrong either way.It's so open to interpretation.
I know a big problem is in the NBA.Kobe is an ass and the Lakers suck,but he's the best player. What do you do?

[BaldBil]

The MVP in my mind is the player who has the most impact on his team no matter where they finish.

It can be a player on a last place team with gaudy stats, re: Ande Dawsom with the Cub the year they finished last.

It can be a player on the champion whose stats aren't so great, re: Kirk Gibson with the Dodgers.

It a a subjective award and I think overall the writers have done a decent job. There have been years however where they screw it up. The Mo Vaughn year uppermost in my mind.

[BtownBeers]

Is Kobe really the best player or simply the best scorer? Does he do anything to benefit his team taking 3 million shots a game and scoring 50 points every game? To me his value to his team is in scoring points, where as MVP players (especially in the NBA) bring a lot more to their team offensivly and defensivley.

I think you're right rusty its really a judgement call and a number of things have to be factored in. This is a debate where there really is no right or wrong answer and typically when any MVP is chosen it is not necessarily the right or wrong person to win it. There is usually a handful of players worthy of winning it. Luck of the draw I guess.

[Rusty27]

Yeah,I think you have to take everything into consideration and there will be different factors given more weight each year like what you just brought up with Kobe. Or like last year with Pujols' injury and a late Phillies surge.