DRose Getting The Shaft On Projected MVP Voting

[RamiTheBullsFan]

You don't think accusations of bias and racism were aimed at the media? The media who vote for the MVP? I think you would be surprised.

I think it is safe to assume that there are some Dr. Jack Ramsay's in there that make up a small faction of MVP voters who need to retire. But, in large part, people who vote on the MVP award go by the criteria (or something relative close to it) which I described.

The best player on the group of elite teams has not always won it as FirstTimer claimed.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

I think it is safe to assume that there are some Dr. Jack Ramsay's in there that make up a small faction of MVP voters who need to retire. But, in large part, people who vote on the MVP award go by the criteria (or something relative close to it) which I described.

maybe, it's hard to say exactly what their criteria is...

to me, i guess its the player that had the best season...meaning they not only lead their team to a good record, but they had a good statistical season as well...they are valuable to the team but also have individual value

a bit of the MVP is, i can say for sure, dependent on team success.

The best player on the group of elite teams has not always won it as FirstTimer claimed.

depends what you mean by elite..when's the last time an MVP has been on a team lower than a 4 seed?

if you mean elite by having other stars on your team..i think you can be an elite team but not have other stars on your team

but thats my opinion..i dont think FT is arguing that the MVP has played with a superstar every year...because that isnt the case...there are quite a few MVPs that have, though

 

[FirstTimer]

Based off of last season, the media has little-to-no business projecting Anthony in front of Derrick Rose.

Media projections must be new to you.

The Bulls depend on Rose as the only facilitator offensively who was exceptional. Anthony sometimes gave up the ball, but not as often or as effectively as Derrick Rose.

The Knicks' offense was less dependent on Anthony's floor presence, on any given night, than the Bulls' offense was upon Derrick Rose.

LOL at you crying.

ESPN wants to know what thing:

:umad:

if I need a game-winning shot in one possession, I would rather have Anthony take the shot. However, Anthony has a very head-scratching shot-selection and he never gives up the ball in clutch situations.

Gee, I wonder why.





You ***** like a woman.

Go take a midol and enjoy the season.

Also, enjoy Melo's MVP.



You still have Rose all over your chin.

 

[FirstTimer]

Here are my projections for MVP:

LeBron
Wade
Melo
Amare
CP3
Blake Griffin
Kobe

Gasol

ZBo

Noah

Deng

D12

Ricky Rubio

Brandon Roy


Rose



:yeah:

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

depends what you mean by elite..when's the last time an MVP has been on a team lower than a 4 seed?

if you mean elite by having other stars on your team..i think you can be an elite team but not have other stars on your team

but thats my opinion..i dont think FT is arguing that the MVP has played with a superstar every year...because that isnt the case...there are quite a few MVPs that have, though

Let's use the 1993 year as an example. The Suns had a few more regular season wins than the Bulls but it was obvious that Jordan was still the best player in the NBA by far. And the Bulls were still very much an elite team with an elite record.

I believe that Charles Barkley won the award over Jordan because his team was more reliant on Chuck's presence to rack up regular season wins than the Bulls were upon Jordan's presence.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Here are my projections for MVP:

LeBron
Wade
Melo
Amare
CP3
Blake Griffin
Kobe

Gasol

ZBo

Noah

Deng

D12

Ricky Rubio

Brandon Roy

brian scalabrine

Rose



:yeah:

fixed

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Let's use the 1993 year as an example. The Suns had a few more regular season wins than the Bulls but it was obvious that Jordan was still the best player in the NBA by far. And the Bulls were still very much an elite team with an elite record.

I believe that Charles Barkley won the award over Jordan because his team was more reliant on Chuck's presence to rack up regular season wins than the Bulls were upon Jordan's presence.

right...barkley had his best statistical season then as well 25 and 12

i dont think its solely(oh well this guy did more with less) i think it has to do with

A. how good was your team?
B. how good were your stats..and overall efficiency?
C. who did you have around you?

I think C is more reserved when you are differentiating between guys like jordan and barkley

i think that also supports the case for the best player in the nba not winning the mvp every year...because jordan was the best that year..i think when you look at all the factors chuck had the better season arguably though

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

right...barkley had his best statistical season then as well 25 and 12

i dont think its solely(oh well this guy did more with less) i think it has to do with

A. how good was your team?
B. how good were your stats..and overall efficiency?
C. who did you have around you?

I think C is more reserved when you are differentiating between guys like jordan and barkley

i think that also supports the case for the best player in the nba not winning the mvp every year...because jordan was the best that year..i think when you look at all the factors chuck had the better season arguably though

That is a very good interpretation to me. And it is nowhere near as simple-minded as what some people in this thread have suggested.

 

[Lex L.]

right...barkley had his best statistical season then as well 25 and 12

i dont think its solely(oh well this guy did more with less) i think it has to do with

A. how good was your team?
B. how good were your stats..and overall efficiency?
C. who did you have around you?

I think C is more reserved when you are differentiating between guys like jordan and barkley

i think that also supports the case for the best player in the nba not winning the mvp every year...because jordan was the best that year..i think when you look at all the factors chuck had the better season arguably though

I said this before. Barkley won the award that year as much because of the story as it was because of any statistical analysis. Jordan and the Bulls were ho hum for sports writers that year. It was more of the same.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

I said this before. Barkley won the award that year as much because of the story as it was because of any statistical analysis. Jordan and the Bulls were ho hum for sports writers that year. It was more of the same.

i think that may play a role..but its hard for me to say that this aesthetic non-basketball factor plays more role than the actual play on the court

but i think there's truth to what you are saying

 

[Lex L.]

i think that may play a role..but its hard for me to say that this aesthetic non-basketball factor plays more role than the actual play on the court

but i think there's truth to what you are saying

It's more self serving for the sports writers to go after or manufacture a story than it is for them to be purely analytical. Therefore, it should be assumed that they're going after/manufacturing the story.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

It's more self serving for the sports writers to go after or manufacture a story than it is for them to be purely analytical. Therefore, it should be assumed that they're going after/manufacturing the story.

again...there's a difference between centering your criteria and decision around a "story"...and using it as a factor

to assume that the voters(sports writers) are solely looking for a story is a bit asinine though...sure its in their interest....but they also look at the factors i mentioned along with some others

though its hard to exactly know what their criteria is..but if you are right..then there needs to be a serious reevaluation of the MVP criteria..or pehaps changing the nature of the award

 

[TheChicagoFan]

I don't really get why ESPN has all your panties in a bunch. It's ESPN. Why do you care what they think? How often are they right?

 

[Glide2keva]

I think you and I are talking about 2 separate things.

Still was a serious question.

 

[FirstTimer]

I don't really get why ESPN has all your panties in a bunch. It's ESPN. Why do you care what they think? How often are they right?

Because Rami is an asshurt clown.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

FirstTimer, you're a silly 30-something year-old boy. Expressing confusion as to why ESPN would post certain players over more deserving players on zero basis is quite justified. The only one crying is you.

 

[FirstTimer]

FirstTimer, you're a silly 30-something year-old boy. Expressing confusion as to why ESPN would post certain players over more deserving players on zero basis is quite justified. The only one crying is you.

Wrong.

LOL at me crying. You're the one bitching about Rose being "disrespected" all the while seeming shocked that ESPN said something stupid.

Then, you want people here to make a case for it as if anyone here ever defended it or even agreed with the article.

Keep white knighting for Rose and chasing windmills for an argument here for anyone that would put Zbo ahead of Rose.

Keep up the ******ry.

It's cute.

 

[houheffna]

Still was a serious question.

I don't think Rose is yet top 5. He definitely ain't top 3.

Lebron is the best by quite a margin, then Wade, Howard, Durant, Kobe, Melo...they can all make an argument.

And I don't make a decision on who should be MVP until I watch what happens. Over the course of the season, my opinion will change. However, I don't think Rose will repeat.

 

[Icculus]

Melo better than Rose?

:umad:

Kobe is only slightly better than Rose right now at best. I'll agree with you on the others (LeBron, but not by a wide margin, Wade, Dwight, Durantula). Rose is def Top Ten, though.

 

[Icculus]

I don't really get why ESPN has all your panties in a bunch. It's ESPN. Why do you care what they think? How often are they right?

Damn, exactly what I was thinking. ESPN has slightly more credibility than Bleacher Report (FedEx written articles notwithstanding). If I haven't said that before here, I'm saying it now.