Who Should Win MVP?

Here are the top contenders. Pick one. If you want someone else then pick 'Other', but specify who that is.

Westbrook

willjr wrote:Westbrook

I agree.

IT

has to be Westbrook, what he's done is even a bigger deal than Oscar for me , because he's done it in less minutes per game.

perhaps one of the best seasons ever by an NBA player, IMO.

When Oscar played assists were not handed out as easy as they are today.

But still I'd have to go with Westbrook.
With Harden a reasonably close second.

But James is still head and shoulders the best player in the game today.If I had to win 1 game and could pick any player to begin to form the team I need James would have to be my #1 pick.

beat

These are my top 4.
There is a strong argument for any of them to win the MVP.

Westbrook
Harden
James
Leonard

Westbrook.

If you can believe anything you read or hear anymore, the only three getting consideration are Westbrook, Harden and Leonard.  Harden, of course is on his self-serving "the MVP needs to come from a winning team" campaign.  Bull.  I go with the MVP actually being the biggest positive difference maker to his team.  Take Westbrook and his incredible season away, and OKC really sinks.  If one did want to debate it from an individual, rather than team standpoint, it looks like Durant held him back.

I agree with beat that James is the best player in the game today. He's already put himself in the ongoing and unsolvable debate of greatest of all time. Deservedly so.

I would have to pick Leonard if only because he contributes so much more on the defensive end of the floor while still scoring from just about every angle. His contributions on both offense and defense leads me to think that he is also a better leader for his team.

His team is also (record-wise) much better than the Thunder or the Rockets., and without him the Spurs may be much closer to a .500 team.

Westbrook, although LeBron is the best player in the NBA.

I voted for Westbrook.  They all have an argument, I know people on this board would say that the Celtics wouldn't be anywhere near where they are without IT, but when you break a 55 year old record you have to win it.

In defense of The Big O, he had no 3 point shot and the awarding of an assist was much stricter back then.  Would Westbrook have averaged a triple double without those advantages?  He averaged 10.4 assists/game this year, 832 total.  How many of those assists would not have been credited back in 1962, when you had to go right up into the shot without taking a dribble to get the credit for the assist?  Now, we see players getting credit for assists even though the recipient of their pass had to take a dribble to get away from a defender.  As far as I am concerned if they have to take a dribble to get a clean shot then your pass didn't create the shot, their dribble did.  Nevertheless, it is what it is and that's how the league accounts for this stat today and it is remarkable that nobody else has done it even with the new stat guidelines.  As I have said many times, there are good reasons why eras should not be compared and, in my opinion, this is one of them.  

Stats aside, though, Russell Westbrook is a force of nature.


bob


.

I think Westbrook's season was more impressive then Robertson's when you factor in the pace of the game and how many more opportunities Robertson had for rebounds and assists, compared to Westbrook.

1961-62 Cincinnati:
71 rebounds per game
27 assists per game
105 shot attempts per game

2016-17 OKC:
46.6 rebounds per game
21 assists per game
87.3 shot attempts per game

bobheckler wrote:I voted for Westbrook.  They all have an argument, I know people on this board would say that the Celtics wouldn't be anywhere near where they are without IT, but when you break a 55 year old record you have to win it.

In defense of The Big O, he had no 3 point shot and the awarding of an assist was much stricter back then.  Would Westbrook have averaged a triple double without those advantages?  He averaged 10.4 assists/game this year, 832 total.  How many of those assists would not have been credited back in 1962, when you had to go right up into the shot without taking a dribble to get the credit for the assist?  Now, we see players getting credit for assists even though the recipient of their pass had to take a dribble to get away from a defender.  As far as I am concerned if they have to take a dribble to get a clean shot then your pass didn't create the shot, their dribble did.  Nevertheless, it is what it is and that's how the league accounts for this stat today and it is remarkable that nobody else has done it even with the new stat guidelines.  As I have said many times, there are good reasons why eras should not be compared and, in my opinion, this is one of them.  

Stats aside, though, Russell Westbrook is a force of nature.


bob


.

bob

Sure it's true that the game has changed - but that doesn't mean that a fair comparison can not be drawn between generations.
Here's a comparison on assist between Robertson and Westbrook.


* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 1961-62 league average of 47.8 assist per game
* Robertson averaged 9.2 assist per game
* Accounting for 19.2% of the assist in a game

* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 2016-17 league average of 45.2 assist per game
* Westbrook averaged 10.8 assist per game
* accounting for 23.9% of the assist in a game

Edge to Westbrook - 23.9% to 19.2%

swish

swish wrote:

bobheckler wrote:I voted for Westbrook.  They all have an argument, I know people on this board would say that the Celtics wouldn't be anywhere near where they are without IT, but when you break a 55 year old record you have to win it.

In defense of The Big O, he had no 3 point shot and the awarding of an assist was much stricter back then.  Would Westbrook have averaged a triple double without those advantages?  He averaged 10.4 assists/game this year, 832 total.  How many of those assists would not have been credited back in 1962, when you had to go right up into the shot without taking a dribble to get the credit for the assist?  Now, we see players getting credit for assists even though the recipient of their pass had to take a dribble to get away from a defender.  As far as I am concerned if they have to take a dribble to get a clean shot then your pass didn't create the shot, their dribble did.  Nevertheless, it is what it is and that's how the league accounts for this stat today and it is remarkable that nobody else has done it even with the new stat guidelines.  As I have said many times, there are good reasons why eras should not be compared and, in my opinion, this is one of them.  

Stats aside, though, Russell Westbrook is a force of nature.


bob


.

  bob

 Sure it's true that the game has changed - but that doesn't mean that a fair comparison can not be drawn between generations.
Here's a comparison on assist between Robertson and Westbrook.

   
* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 1961-62 league average of 47.8 assist per game
* Robertson averaged 9.2 assist per game
* Accounting for 19.2% of the assist in a game

* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 2016-17 league average of 45.2 assist per game
* Westbrook averaged 10.8 assist per game
* accounting for 23.9% of the assist in a game

  Edge to Westbrook - 23.9% to 19.2%

  swish

Swish,

And who decides what's an assist and what is not, the 1962 stat keepers or the 2017 stat keepers? The more physical game of the 1962 players, perhaps because they were less athletic and therefore grabbed more or because "continuation" was more allowed and so you made more sure to wrap them up, or the "don't even act like you touched me or I'll fake cerebral hemorrhaging" players of 2017? Handchecking or no-handchecking?

I don't see how you can significantly change the rules and then say you can correlate the numbers just based upon recorded stats. The recordings themselves are suspect because they were based upon different standards.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:

swish wrote:

bobheckler wrote:I voted for Westbrook.  They all have an argument, I know people on this board would say that the Celtics wouldn't be anywhere near where they are without IT, but when you break a 55 year old record you have to win it.

In defense of The Big O, he had no 3 point shot and the awarding of an assist was much stricter back then.  Would Westbrook have averaged a triple double without those advantages?  He averaged 10.4 assists/game this year, 832 total.  How many of those assists would not have been credited back in 1962, when you had to go right up into the shot without taking a dribble to get the credit for the assist?  Now, we see players getting credit for assists even though the recipient of their pass had to take a dribble to get away from a defender.  As far as I am concerned if they have to take a dribble to get a clean shot then your pass didn't create the shot, their dribble did.  Nevertheless, it is what it is and that's how the league accounts for this stat today and it is remarkable that nobody else has done it even with the new stat guidelines.  As I have said many times, there are good reasons why eras should not be compared and, in my opinion, this is one of them.  

Stats aside, though, Russell Westbrook is a force of nature.


bob


.

  bob

 Sure it's true that the game has changed - but that doesn't mean that a fair comparison can not be drawn between generations.
Here's a comparison on assist between Robertson and Westbrook.

   
* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 1961-62 league average of 47.8 assist per game
* Robertson averaged 9.2 assist per game
* Accounting for 19.2% of the assist in a game

* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 2016-17 league average of 45.2 assist per game
* Westbrook averaged 10.8 assist per game
* accounting for 23.9% of the assist in a game

  Edge to Westbrook - 23.9% to 19.2%

  swish

Swish,

And who decides what's an assist and what is not, the 1962 stat keepers or the 2017 stat keepers?  The more physical game of the 1962 players, perhaps because they were less athletic and therefore grabbed more or because "continuation" was more allowed and so you made more sure to wrap them up, or the "don't even act like you touched me or I'll fake cerebral hemorrhaging" players of 2017? Handchecking or no-handchecking?

I don't see how you can significantly change the rules and then say you can correlate the numbers just based upon recorded stats.  The recordings themselves are suspect because they were based upon different standards.


bob


.

bob


I'm not comparing generations - what I am comparing is the rate of domination by each player within that particular record breaking year.

And here are the bottom line figures for
* Rebounds - Robertson - 8.4%
Westbrook - 12.8%
* Scoring - Robertson - 10.6%
Westbrook - 15.6%

Again the edge to Westbrook

swish

swish wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

swish wrote:

bobheckler wrote:I voted for Westbrook.  They all have an argument, I know people on this board would say that the Celtics wouldn't be anywhere near where they are without IT, but when you break a 55 year old record you have to win it.

In defense of The Big O, he had no 3 point shot and the awarding of an assist was much stricter back then.  Would Westbrook have averaged a triple double without those advantages?  He averaged 10.4 assists/game this year, 832 total.  How many of those assists would not have been credited back in 1962, when you had to go right up into the shot without taking a dribble to get the credit for the assist?  Now, we see players getting credit for assists even though the recipient of their pass had to take a dribble to get away from a defender.  As far as I am concerned if they have to take a dribble to get a clean shot then your pass didn't create the shot, their dribble did.  Nevertheless, it is what it is and that's how the league accounts for this stat today and it is remarkable that nobody else has done it even with the new stat guidelines.  As I have said many times, there are good reasons why eras should not be compared and, in my opinion, this is one of them.  

Stats aside, though, Russell Westbrook is a force of nature.


bob


.

  bob

 Sure it's true that the game has changed - but that doesn't mean that a fair comparison can not be drawn between generations.
Here's a comparison on assist between Robertson and Westbrook.

   
* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 1961-62 league average of 47.8 assist per game
* Robertson averaged 9.2 assist per game
* Accounting for 19.2% of the assist in a game

* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 2016-17 league average of 45.2 assist per game
* Westbrook averaged 10.8 assist per game
* accounting for 23.9% of the assist in a game

  Edge to Westbrook - 23.9% to 19.2%

  swish

Swish,

And who decides what's an assist and what is not, the 1962 stat keepers or the 2017 stat keepers?  The more physical game of the 1962 players, perhaps because they were less athletic and therefore grabbed more or because "continuation" was more allowed and so you made more sure to wrap them up, or the "don't even act like you touched me or I'll fake cerebral hemorrhaging" players of 2017? Handchecking or no-handchecking?

I don't see how you can significantly change the rules and then say you can correlate the numbers just based upon recorded stats.  The recordings themselves are suspect because they were based upon different standards.


bob


.

bob


  I'm not comparing generations - what I am comparing is the rate of domination by each player within that particular record breaking year.

  And here are the bottom line figures for
 * Rebounds - Robertson - 8.4%
                   Westbrook - 12.8%
 * Scoring -   Robertson - 10.6%
                   Westbrook - 15.6%

Again the edge to Westbrook

swish

Swish,

Could you provide the link to those numbers? Thanks.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:

swish wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

swish wrote:

bobheckler wrote:I voted for Westbrook.  They all have an argument, I know people on this board would say that the Celtics wouldn't be anywhere near where they are without IT, but when you break a 55 year old record you have to win it.

In defense of The Big O, he had no 3 point shot and the awarding of an assist was much stricter back then.  Would Westbrook have averaged a triple double without those advantages?  He averaged 10.4 assists/game this year, 832 total.  How many of those assists would not have been credited back in 1962, when you had to go right up into the shot without taking a dribble to get the credit for the assist?  Now, we see players getting credit for assists even though the recipient of their pass had to take a dribble to get away from a defender.  As far as I am concerned if they have to take a dribble to get a clean shot then your pass didn't create the shot, their dribble did.  Nevertheless, it is what it is and that's how the league accounts for this stat today and it is remarkable that nobody else has done it even with the new stat guidelines.  As I have said many times, there are good reasons why eras should not be compared and, in my opinion, this is one of them.  

Stats aside, though, Russell Westbrook is a force of nature.


bob


.

  bob

 Sure it's true that the game has changed - but that doesn't mean that a fair comparison can not be drawn between generations.
Here's a comparison on assist between Robertson and Westbrook.

   
* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 1961-62 league average of 47.8 assist per game
* Robertson averaged 9.2 assist per game
* Accounting for 19.2% of the assist in a game

* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 2016-17 league average of 45.2 assist per game
* Westbrook averaged 10.8 assist per game
* accounting for 23.9% of the assist in a game

  Edge to Westbrook - 23.9% to 19.2%

  swish

Swish,

And who decides what's an assist and what is not, the 1962 stat keepers or the 2017 stat keepers?  The more physical game of the 1962 players, perhaps because they were less athletic and therefore grabbed more or because "continuation" was more allowed and so you made more sure to wrap them up, or the "don't even act like you touched me or I'll fake cerebral hemorrhaging" players of 2017? Handchecking or no-handchecking?

I don't see how you can significantly change the rules and then say you can correlate the numbers just based upon recorded stats.  The recordings themselves are suspect because they were based upon different standards.


bob


.

bob


  I'm not comparing generations - what I am comparing is the rate of domination by each player within that particular record breaking year.

  And here are the bottom line figures for
 * Rebounds - Robertson - 8.4%
                   Westbrook - 12.8%
 * Scoring -   Robertson - 10.6%
                   Westbrook - 15.6%

Again the edge to Westbrook

swish

Swish,

Could you provide the link to those numbers?  Thanks.


bob


.

No link involved - just my own personal research taken from BASKETBALL-REFERENCE

All below stats taken from basketball reference

* used 36 minutes per game for player averages
* Rebounds - Robertson - averaged 10.1 per game - league averaged 120.2 per game ( 10.1 divided by 120.2 = 8.4%
* Rebounds - Westbrook - averaged 11.1 per game - league averaged 87.0 per game ( 11.1 divided by 87.0 =12.8%

* used 36 minutes per game for players averages
* Points - Robertson - averaged 25.0 per game - league averaged 236.4 ( 25.0 divided by 236.4 = 10.6
* Points - Westbrook - averaged 33.0 per game - league averaged 211.2 ( 33.0 divided by 211.2 = 15.6

swish

"don't even act like you touched me or I'll fake cerebral hemorrhaging"

My ex wife would say that to me. In court. Not the basketball court.

bobheckler wrote:

swish wrote:

bobheckler wrote:I voted for Westbrook.  They all have an argument, I know people on this board would say that the Celtics wouldn't be anywhere near where they are without IT, but when you break a 55 year old record you have to win it.

In defense of The Big O, he had no 3 point shot and the awarding of an assist was much stricter back then.  Would Westbrook have averaged a triple double without those advantages?  He averaged 10.4 assists/game this year, 832 total.  How many of those assists would not have been credited back in 1962, when you had to go right up into the shot without taking a dribble to get the credit for the assist?  Now, we see players getting credit for assists even though the recipient of their pass had to take a dribble to get away from a defender.  As far as I am concerned if they have to take a dribble to get a clean shot then your pass didn't create the shot, their dribble did.  Nevertheless, it is what it is and that's how the league accounts for this stat today and it is remarkable that nobody else has done it even with the new stat guidelines.  As I have said many times, there are good reasons why eras should not be compared and, in my opinion, this is one of them.  

Stats aside, though, Russell Westbrook is a force of nature.


bob


.

  bob

 Sure it's true that the game has changed - but that doesn't mean that a fair comparison can not be drawn between generations.
Here's a comparison on assist between Robertson and Westbrook.

   
* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 1961-62 league average of 47.8 assist per game
* Robertson averaged 9.2 assist per game
* Accounting for 19.2% of the assist in a game

* Based on 36 minutes per game
* 2016-17 league average of 45.2 assist per game
* Westbrook averaged 10.8 assist per game
* accounting for 23.9% of the assist in a game

  Edge to Westbrook - 23.9% to 19.2%

  swish

Swish,

And who decides what's an assist and what is not, the 1962 stat keepers or the 2017 stat keepers?  The more physical game of the 1962 players, perhaps because they were less athletic and therefore grabbed more or because "continuation" was more allowed and so you made more sure to wrap them up, or the "don't even act like you touched me or I'll fake cerebral hemorrhaging" players of 2017? Handchecking or no-handchecking?

I don't see how you can significantly change the rules and then say you can correlate the numbers just based upon recorded stats.  The recordings themselves are suspect because they were based upon different standards.


bob


.

bob

 Comparing Generations is really quite simple - because there are some constants that have not been effected by any rule changes - which have had a tremendous impact on the  game over the years - just pure evolution - no different than what we have witnessed in the non sports world.
  Perhaps the best place to view this steady upward climb in athletic performances is to note the record breaking generational differences of performances in the OLMPICS.
But back to basketball
 Huge advancements in the following facets of the game
 * Shooting percentages
 * Use of non shooting hand when dribbling -  as most players are now ambidextrous when handling the ball
 * Size - especially weight
 * And perhaps the most important facet of all - Race - where there is now a total domination by black players in the speed-quickness aspects of the game by players under 6'8". That's a complete turnaround from the way it was when the Celts won their 1st championship in 1957. This special talent has even  given blacks a huge edge in football where they dominate at the speed-quickness positions.

   Perhaps you had to play back then to fully realize just how much the game has changed.

  swish

I would agree the 6'3" to 6'7" players generally now are so much more advanced/ripped and athletic than the 60s- 70-s and even 80's counterparts, remember guys like Jack Marin, Dick Van Arsdale, Kevin Louchery, Don Nelson, Bobby Gross, Chris Ford, Steve Mix....etc those type of players would have difficulty making a roster today.

cowens/oldschool wrote:I would agree the 6'3" to 6'7" players generally now are so much more advanced/ripped and athletic than the 60s- 70-s and even 80's counterparts, remember guys like Jack Marin, Dick Van Arsdale, Kevin Louchery, Don Nelson, Bobby Gross, Chris Ford, Steve Mix....etc those type of players would have difficulty making a roster today.

 oldschool

The below printout is for the year 1957-58, Russell's 1st full year in the league, and list the players under 6'8", who played at least 1100 minutes - that's a figure that will put them in the top 7 or 8 in the rotation.

* Note the very low 2 point shooting percentages - ranging from a high of .452 to a low of .345
* 42 of the 46 players were non black for a 87.0 percentage - only numbers 13, 25, 27 and 34 were black.

  http://bkref.com/tiny/8mM94


  swish

And here's the list of players for the 2016-17 season
* Total players - 141
* Total non black American - 4 - 2.8% ( numbers - 45, 49, 93, 118, )
* Total non black International - 5 - 4.3%
* Total black International - 1 - 0.07%
* Total black American - 130 - 92.2%

It was a white game back in those early years - now it's dominated by blacks.

swish