Phx-Suns.Net

Which team is better: Houston without Harden or OKC without Westbrook? Doesn't make much sense anyway, as I believe coaches have some influence as well
To me the difference in stats between Harden and Westbrook is not as big as the difference in how their teams are doing (I mean, why is the difference between 6 and 8 smaller than 8 and 10? Just because we use the decimal system? If Westbrook deserves to be the MVP with 10.0 rebounds per game, he deserves it with 9.9 as well). I think we can agree that both teams would be irrelevant without their star and that the Rockets are much more relevant with theirs.

I also think Cleveland would very much suck without Lebron, not just because of his on-court contribution, but I believe he keeps that team focused. I don't remember the exact number, but since he came back to Cleveland, their record is horrible without him, I think bottom dweller bad (granted, some of those games other players were out as well). There's also Kawhi of course, but I don't think he gets much consideration because the true MVP on the Spurts is probably Pop.

Evaluating players is hard You can't go wrong with either, but I'd give my vote to Harden. Though if I want to win the championship (this year) I'd take James and probably Kawhi ahead of him.

On a related note, anyone knows how to find team stats with a chosen player on the court vs when he's off the court?

Hermen wrote:On a related note, anyone knows how to find team stats with a chosen player on the court vs when he's off the court?

82games.com has some of that. The on-court/off-court stats they offer are pretty limited and they only update once every couple of weeks or so, but it's something.

And they do seem to suggest that the Rockets without Harden on the court are much better than the Thunder without Westbrook.

Cap wrote:

Hermen wrote:On a related note, anyone knows how to find team stats with a chosen player on the court vs when he's off the court?

82games.com has some of that. The on-court/off-court stats they offer are pretty limited and they only update once every couple of weeks or so, but it's something.

And they do seem to suggest that the Rockets without Harden on the court are much better than the Thunder without Westbrook.

Cool, thanks. Btw, Cleveland is 4-19 without James since he came back from Miami.

I just don't see how you could possibly not give the MVP to somebody who averages over 30/10/10, averages a -triple double-, and gets at least 30-40 trip-dubs in a single season. That is completely insane to put up numbers like that. I can't fathom giving it to some other player whose numbers across the board are inferior and who also plays horrible defense on top of that, just because his team won a handful more games. It would be such a travesty of NBA history to pick Harden for this year's MVP. He has never been the story, never been what we'll remember about the NBA in 2017.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I just don't see how you could possibly not give the MVP to somebody who averages over 30/10/10, averages a -triple double-, and gets at least 30-40 trip-dubs in a single season. That is completely insane to put up numbers like that. I can't fathom giving it to some other player whose numbers across the board are inferior and who also plays horrible defense on top of that, just because his team won a handful more games. It would be such a travesty of NBA history to pick Harden for this year's MVP. He has never been the story, never been what we'll remember about the NBA in 2017.

I agree. Those historic numbers cannot be ignored.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I just don't see how you could possibly not give the MVP to somebody who averages over 30/10/10, averages a -triple double-, and gets at least 30-40 trip-dubs in a single season. That is completely insane to put up numbers like that. I can't fathom giving it to some other player whose numbers across the board are inferior and who also plays horrible defense on top of that, just because his team won a handful more games. It would be such a travesty of NBA history to pick Harden for this year's MVP. He has never been the story, never been what we'll remember about the NBA in 2017.

I don't think there's any question that Westbrook will win. No need to defend that position. But I would vote Harden, because I don't see that hardens #s are worse across the board. I see the numbers as fairly even. And I think the difference in records is pretty substantial. You are right that the triple dub is the story of the season. But it's a shame that people don't realize how close Harden is to those same numbers.

The National Basketball Association Most Valuable Player (MVP) is an annual National Basketball Association (NBA) award given since the 1955–56 NBA season "to the best performing player of the regular season".

Pretty vague definition but you'd have to give it RW on that basis as there is no mention of team.

Which is just as well for him because if I'm starting a new NBA team today and I get to pick anyone first, it's definitely not Westbrook - he's not even in the top 5 for reasons KD knows only too well.

O_Gardino wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I just don't see how you could possibly not give the MVP to somebody who averages over 30/10/10, averages a -triple double-, and gets at least 30-40 trip-dubs in a single season. That is completely insane to put up numbers like that. I can't fathom giving it to some other player whose numbers across the board are inferior and who also plays horrible defense on top of that, just because his team won a handful more games. It would be such a travesty of NBA history to pick Harden for this year's MVP. He has never been the story, never been what we'll remember about the NBA in 2017.

I don't think there's any question that Westbrook will win. No need to defend that position. But I would vote Harden, because I don't see that hardens #s are worse across the board. I see the numbers as fairly even. And I think the difference in records is pretty substantial. You are right that the triple dub is the story of the season. But it's a shame that people don't realize how close Harden is to those same numbers.

Kind of agree except for the fact that it is a triple double - like a four minute mile, a century in cricket or perfect game in baseball, it's a defined benchmark of success.

People vote on their on criteria for this award, but the key word for me has always been valuable. Who is more valuable to their team. The clear answer for me is Westbrook. We've seen D'Antoni turbo charge an offense before and Houston certainly has the better parts to work with. How good (or bad) would OKC be if you took Russ off the team? As bad as the Suns? I feel like that team would struggle to beat all but the bottom 5 teams in the league. Whereas Houston would still be in the hunt for a late seed in the playoffs. I know the "what happens when you take the player off of the team" hypothetical has its own issues but in this instance I think it bares out that Russ is the clear favorite.

Most valuable player every year is LeBron. He doesn't get it, but that doesn't change the fact. As Hermen pointed out, they are 4-19 w/o him since his return, Love and Kyrie were career losers before LeBron, and it shows when he's not around.

LeBron is the most feared player in the league. Until he shows noticeable decline he's probably going to remain the best player in the league. Harden, Durant, Curry, Leonard and Westbrook are all terrific players, but I don't think any of them have passed him yet.

Record wise Houston and OKC are not great, despite crazy numbers by Westbrook and Harden. GSW is not winning more than last season and we've seen better from Durant and Curry. I'd give it to LeBron. Or Kawhi.

The Bobster wrote:LeBron is the most feared player in the league. Until he shows noticeable decline he's probably going to remain the best player in the league. Harden, Durant, Curry, Leonard and Westbrook are all terrific players, but I don't think any of them have passed him yet.

I wish there was someone in the east to challenge him, if KD had gone to Washington instead of Golden State, could've been fun.

Ring_Wanted wrote:Record wise Houston and OKC are not great, despite crazy numbers by Westbrook and Harden. GSW is not winning more than last season and we've seen better from Durant and Curry. I'd give it to LeBron. Or Kawhi.

How is Houston's record not great? They have basically the same winning percentage as the Cavs.

I don't think it's fair to bag Harden's defense this year. In past years he's been awful. This year he's putting in the effort and it shows. On the other hand, Westbrook's defense is a bit overrated. He's got all the tools to be a lockdown defender, but he over-gambles in the passing lanes, but thankfully Adams helps protect some of that on the back end. I'm not saying Harden is more valuable than Westbrook necessarily, but that narrative shouldn't be influenced by past defensive reputation.

UglyTruth wrote:

carey wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Watching OKC vs NOP right now. Looks like Pelicans are headed for another loss, 0-3 since Boogie showed up. Westbrook has over 30-10-10 again tonight, and for the season. Ridiculous. Gotta be the MVP.

The Pels have a big 2 and nothing else. Jrue has been trash lately and they have no 3-point shooting. They are playing guys they just signed off the street. Hollis Thompson and Reggie Williams.

They need a 3 & D PG who knows his role.

I could see them maybe trying to pull a trade for Delladadova this summer.

Sorry. Bucks need a 3&D guy as well, and if Delly isn't cutting it over there, he's not gonna make a difference to the Pelicans either.

So, Cousins sits out on suspension and then the Pelicans finally win.

Superbone wrote:So, Cousins sits out on suspension and then the Pelicans finally win.

Awkward.

I saw one of their losses... It feels like their guard play, already minimal as it is, is basically marginalized even further as Cousins and AD take turns to create for themselves. On D they are not forming a particularly formidable wall even if numbers suggest otherwise.

I was actually reasonably high on the Solomon Hill signing, but that's not really turned out well. E'taun Moore can post up some, but his outside shot is also quite useless it would seem.

Carey, your read?

pickle wrote:
Carey, your read?

They don't have any shooters is their biggest problem. Also, if you're going to build around two big men in today's NBA you need to do it the Grizzlies' way. Slow it down and make the game difficult for the other team. They don't play that way. They are trying to run Alvin's offense with 2 big guys. If the limited sample is any indication then it's not going to work.