NBA Most Valuable Player 2017
Russell Westbrook may be the best player in the National Basketball Association right now. Averaging a triple-double for a season is amazing, and it's remarkable how he has stayed healthy for the entire season despite playing with the athleticism, intensity, and ferocity he does. However, he shouldn't be the 2016-2017 NBA Most Valuable Player.
When did a player on a team that went 47 and 35 ever win an MVP? This goes against tradition of rewarding the best player on the best team, unless the best team won by committee rather than having a dominant superstar.
I remember the last time a single player willed his team to victory for an entire season, and that was Kobe Bryant during the 2005-2006 season. He scored 81 points in a single game during that season, averaged 35.4 points per game, and led the Lakers to the seventh seed with 45 wins and 37 losses. But he didn't win MVP; Steve Nash did, because he was able to orchestrate his team to the second seed and 54 victories.
Another reason Westbrook shouldn't win MVP is because there have been more deserving players that have not won the MVP. The last time a player was unfairly robbed of a deserving MVP-award was in 2002 when Tim Duncan won over Jason Kidd. Jason Kidd led the New Jersey Nets to the first seed in the Eastern Conference, doubling the team's win-total from the year prior from 26 to 52. Westbrook has more impressive individual statistics, but Kidd took a lottery-team to the best record in the East and then to the NBA Finals (although MVP-awards don't take postseason-success into consideration).
Is Westbrook a better leader than Kidd? No. Is Westbrook a better passer/facilitator? No. Did the Oklahoma City Thunder win their conference? No.
I know people want to reward Westbrook for his amazing season, but give him Most Improved Player or something, not MVP. What message will we be sending when the sixth seed that won only 47 games has the MVP?
I'm not saying that the most dominant individual player shouldn't win MVP, but the fact of the matter is that traditionally, the NBA has awarded the MVP to great leaders on great, winning teams, and I don't think that's a bad tradition. Otherwise, Kobe should have won in 2006, and Chamberlain should have won in 1962 when he averaged 50.4 points per game.
If Westbrook shouldn't win, who should? The other leading candidate seems to be James Harden. His stats are unreal and would seem more impressive if it wasn't for Westbrook. 29.1 points, 11.2 assists, and 8.1 rebounds. If it wasn't for Westbrook taking the scoring-title, James Harden would have been the second player to lead the league in points per game and assists per game in the same season.
But why should James Harden win? He led his team to the third seed and 55 wins. It is much more respectable than Westbrook's sixth seed and 47 wins, but people are saying that more credit should go to Mike D'Antoni than Harden. It may be true, but D'Antoni's high-octane offense produced another MVP years ago in Steve Nash, and Harden had better numbers than Nash. D'Antoni's offense was critical, but it doesn't discount James Harden's individual greatness.
Maybe you don't want offense to be rewarded. Maybe you think anyone could get Harden-like numbers in a D'Antoni-offense. If so, we are looking at reigning Defensive Player of the Year Kawhi Leonard, who led his team to the second seed and 61 wins. He averaged 25.5 points, 5.8 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 1.8 steals, and 0.7 blocks per game. He's not as physically dominant as LeBron James, ferocious as Westbrook, or skilled as Stephen Curry, but maybe he's the type of player we should be rewarding.
Perhaps we are so acclimated to his greatness that we take him for granted, but LeBron James is also highly deserving of the award. He averaged 26.4 points, 8.7 assists, and 8.6 rebounds, while leading his team to the second seed with 51 wins. It's the first time he has averaged 8 and 8, which would seem more impressive if it wasn't more Westbrook and Harden. He was more 'valuable' to his team than Kawhi Leonard, with better individual stats, and the Spurs operate more by committee, thanks to Gregg Popovich's coaching.
Or perhaps we should look at this simply and logically. Which team had the best record? The Golden State Warriors. Who was the best player on that team? It's debatable whether it was Kevin Durant or Stephen Curry, but Durant missed 20 games and Curry only 3, so the tiebreaker would go to Curry. The Warriors averaged the most points per game, but their offense was dominated by three people averaging over 20 points a game: Curry, Durant, and Klay Thompson. Draymond Green was the only other player averaging double-figures at 10.2. Although the Warriors' offense wasn't balanced from 1 to 12, the top three scorers averaged similar numbers as far as points per game. Curry averaged 25.3, Durant 25.1, and Thompson 22.3. Thus, one can argue that the Warriors also play by committee, like the Spurs. Curry wasn't the dominant scorer he was last year, because of Durant's presence, and so I can see why Curry wouldn't win the MVP-award this year.
One team no one is talking about is the Boston Celtics. They won the Eastern Conference with Isaiah Thomas averaging 28.9 points and 5.9 assists. Why shouldn't he win MVP? He should certainly get some votes.
I am not a Spurs-fan by any stretch of the imagination. I am always annoyed by the Spurs' consistent success year after year, but I respect them, and my vote would go to Kawhi Leonard.
When did a player on a team that went 47 and 35 ever win an MVP? This goes against tradition of rewarding the best player on the best team, unless the best team won by committee rather than having a dominant superstar.
I remember the last time a single player willed his team to victory for an entire season, and that was Kobe Bryant during the 2005-2006 season. He scored 81 points in a single game during that season, averaged 35.4 points per game, and led the Lakers to the seventh seed with 45 wins and 37 losses. But he didn't win MVP; Steve Nash did, because he was able to orchestrate his team to the second seed and 54 victories.
Another reason Westbrook shouldn't win MVP is because there have been more deserving players that have not won the MVP. The last time a player was unfairly robbed of a deserving MVP-award was in 2002 when Tim Duncan won over Jason Kidd. Jason Kidd led the New Jersey Nets to the first seed in the Eastern Conference, doubling the team's win-total from the year prior from 26 to 52. Westbrook has more impressive individual statistics, but Kidd took a lottery-team to the best record in the East and then to the NBA Finals (although MVP-awards don't take postseason-success into consideration).
Is Westbrook a better leader than Kidd? No. Is Westbrook a better passer/facilitator? No. Did the Oklahoma City Thunder win their conference? No.
I know people want to reward Westbrook for his amazing season, but give him Most Improved Player or something, not MVP. What message will we be sending when the sixth seed that won only 47 games has the MVP?
I'm not saying that the most dominant individual player shouldn't win MVP, but the fact of the matter is that traditionally, the NBA has awarded the MVP to great leaders on great, winning teams, and I don't think that's a bad tradition. Otherwise, Kobe should have won in 2006, and Chamberlain should have won in 1962 when he averaged 50.4 points per game.
If Westbrook shouldn't win, who should? The other leading candidate seems to be James Harden. His stats are unreal and would seem more impressive if it wasn't for Westbrook. 29.1 points, 11.2 assists, and 8.1 rebounds. If it wasn't for Westbrook taking the scoring-title, James Harden would have been the second player to lead the league in points per game and assists per game in the same season.
But why should James Harden win? He led his team to the third seed and 55 wins. It is much more respectable than Westbrook's sixth seed and 47 wins, but people are saying that more credit should go to Mike D'Antoni than Harden. It may be true, but D'Antoni's high-octane offense produced another MVP years ago in Steve Nash, and Harden had better numbers than Nash. D'Antoni's offense was critical, but it doesn't discount James Harden's individual greatness.
Maybe you don't want offense to be rewarded. Maybe you think anyone could get Harden-like numbers in a D'Antoni-offense. If so, we are looking at reigning Defensive Player of the Year Kawhi Leonard, who led his team to the second seed and 61 wins. He averaged 25.5 points, 5.8 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 1.8 steals, and 0.7 blocks per game. He's not as physically dominant as LeBron James, ferocious as Westbrook, or skilled as Stephen Curry, but maybe he's the type of player we should be rewarding.
Perhaps we are so acclimated to his greatness that we take him for granted, but LeBron James is also highly deserving of the award. He averaged 26.4 points, 8.7 assists, and 8.6 rebounds, while leading his team to the second seed with 51 wins. It's the first time he has averaged 8 and 8, which would seem more impressive if it wasn't more Westbrook and Harden. He was more 'valuable' to his team than Kawhi Leonard, with better individual stats, and the Spurs operate more by committee, thanks to Gregg Popovich's coaching.
Or perhaps we should look at this simply and logically. Which team had the best record? The Golden State Warriors. Who was the best player on that team? It's debatable whether it was Kevin Durant or Stephen Curry, but Durant missed 20 games and Curry only 3, so the tiebreaker would go to Curry. The Warriors averaged the most points per game, but their offense was dominated by three people averaging over 20 points a game: Curry, Durant, and Klay Thompson. Draymond Green was the only other player averaging double-figures at 10.2. Although the Warriors' offense wasn't balanced from 1 to 12, the top three scorers averaged similar numbers as far as points per game. Curry averaged 25.3, Durant 25.1, and Thompson 22.3. Thus, one can argue that the Warriors also play by committee, like the Spurs. Curry wasn't the dominant scorer he was last year, because of Durant's presence, and so I can see why Curry wouldn't win the MVP-award this year.
One team no one is talking about is the Boston Celtics. They won the Eastern Conference with Isaiah Thomas averaging 28.9 points and 5.9 assists. Why shouldn't he win MVP? He should certainly get some votes.
I am not a Spurs-fan by any stretch of the imagination. I am always annoyed by the Spurs' consistent success year after year, but I respect them, and my vote would go to Kawhi Leonard.
Comments
Post a Comment