I’ve read more than my fair share of MVP articles lately. In fact, I make it a habit to search ‘MVP’ on Google News couple of times per week and check out what the latest trend is (T-Mac seems to be the hot commodity right now). While usually there is a good point or two in these articles, there always seems to be at least one major fallacy that ends up destroying the validity of the argument. Today I will list the most common fallacies that people make when talking, writing, and thinking about the MVP race.
1) The word value in the Most Valuable Player title is very open to interpretation. Therefore not too much importance should be attached to it. Some people think value is measured by how much the situation would be changed without the ’object’ (use to be Kobe fans, now LeBron), others believe ‘valuable’ things must come from very respected sources (the Dirk Nowitzki connundrum). Being such a subjective word, this creates a real problem when people need to decide matters based on its definition. Therefore in the end, rather than assuming your definition of the world ‘valuable’ is what should be the basis for the MVP award, you should also explain why that interpretation of the word ‘valuable’ has more merit in the basketball context than any other.
2) There should definitely be a consistency to the MVP award. Therefore those that argue “Kobe deserved it couple of years ago, but just because a mistake was made in not giving him the MVP, doesn’t mean LeBron shouldn’t get it this year” are commiting a major reasoning fallacy. If the panel that picks the MVP award begin using different criterias for selecing their MVP every year, then the title will truely Exercise/”>Lose credibility. So the argument that should be made is not that LeBron should be MVP. Instead the case should be made against why individuals who have the most impressive stats and whose team would suffer most without them – dont get MVP.
3) There needs to be consistency in an MVP argument. You can’t argue that LeBron has a much more horrible team than Kobe’s, and then dismiss people who say the East is weak. If you want to compare teams then you should do it against teams in your own conference, or just suck up the fact that the East IS really weaker. Of course, LeBron’s MVP chances really fall when you compare a team like the Cavaliers and the 76ers and realize that there is only a 4 loss difference between them.
4) Stats are flawed by nature, they should never be the main focus of an MVP discussion. Yes LeBron does average more assists per game but does that mean he’s a better passer? Not at all. It could be that LeBron’s teammates are more proficient at hitting open jumpers, it could mean that the L.A. team has a tendency to pass twice after a Kobe drive and dish to set up the perfect jumper, or it could perhaps mean the exactly opposite. At the end of the day, its not as strong an argument as it might look on paper.
5) When you compare a player on a very strong team to a player on an average team – you need to consider things besides wins. When a great team is winning and killing opponents, the importance of stats really goes down. If the Lakers are up 10 throughout the game and Kobe’s teammates are doing a good job, does that mean that Kobe should still try at all costs to get his stats? Absolutely not. A smart player, an MVP player, will realize that he should step up only when he needs to. Just because a bad team struggles alot and always needs its best player to play 100% it shouldn’t take away from a great player on a great team just having to be average for 50% of the time because that is what benefits his team most. Great players should not be punished for their team being succesful!
6) A team’s bad record without the player is not necessarily a good thing to mention in MVP arguements. The whole point of the MVP award has to do with how much value a player brought to his team. So if you sat out 25 games with a broken leg - thats on you as the franchise player, and the fact that the team went 0-25 without you is something you shouldn’t hold any responsibility for. Especially if the injury was something minor, then you should be accounted for every loss your team got.
7) The strength of a players team often comes into play when determining an MVP. As hard as it is valuing a single player, valuing a whole team is that much harder – especially when you need to consider the team without its star player. Therefore no real evaluation is accurate enough to make a sound judgement on it. Can you definitely say the trio of West, Chandler, Stojakovic is worse than Odom, Gasol, Fisher? I wouldn’t be confident enough in making such a statement and relying on it to prove that what Paul has done is much more impressive than Kobe. In fact, the strength of a team without its best player is a very speculative area that should be left to crazy bloggers like me and not used to make MVP decisions.
Putting it all together
At the end of the day, it is clear that one single argument is not enough to decide the MVP. It cant be based solely on best team, best stats, best player even. It is a combination of all the little intricacies that make up a regular season in the NBA - but of course you knew that already. So the tough part is knowing how much to value each of the criterias. For me, Chris Paul and Kobe Bryant have accumulated amazing statistics and win percentages on a very tough conference with teams that in my oppinion are not so much worse than the likes of Cleveland – and my choice of MVP would go to the player that leads his team to the best record at the end of the season. Of course, in making this statement I have broken just about every rule I spent ages writing above….but then again thats the whole point, in the NBA MVP debate, no one is clear of slipping up.
