Looking back, I think he should definitely win it. OKC would be one of the worst teams in the league without him.
1) Russ has been playing 1vs5 all season. Harden has a team built around him, with more depth
Every post seems to be overrating the Rockets depth, without Harden they wouldn't get in the playoffs 100%.
Agreed. But the rockets are a team built around Harden's skillset, with a good bench. Drop Harden on the Thunder and he would be doing the same stuff Russ has done all season.
Did he scored all those points in the last minutes of the game including a long shot 3 pointer in the last second which won the game for his team?
Kawhi isn't your TRUE MVP anymore?
to use it as an argument against Westbrook's candidacy (in favour of Harden) without mentioning that Harden is actually the player at number 1.
This is all not true. First he's not "much more efficient". Westbrook is shooting 42.6% and Harden is shooting 43.9%. That's "much more efficient"?! What about Kawhi then with over 48% shooting? Second, more efficient offence? Worse supporting cast? Let's examine that shall we? Want some stats? Let's compare OKC and Houston when both are on and off the court:
I just listed 6 stats that go to the root of your argument, and refute it. Westbrook is much more valuable to his team than Harden. (OKC are +12.5 with Westbrook ffs while Houston are only +1.5 with Harden, what are you arguing about?)
He still is. Harden deserves it more than Russ, Kawhi deserves it more than Harden.Kawhi isn't your TRUE MVP anymore?
Just as a matter of interest, GSW are +17.0 when Steph is on the court. As a comparison, they are +6.2 with KD, +7.4 with Klay and +12.5 with Draymond. I just remember when they used to give it to the most valuable player on the best team. Oh well! Happy days!
People actually want to agree with Cowherd? I mean, if cowherd thinks harden should be the mvp, that's reason enough to give the mvp to russ
True (although Cowherd thinks that LeBron should be MVP each year regardless of anything).Although I can see that average being a factor for some but he still would have been around the same running if he had averaged slightly below a triple double, just like no one is discounting Harden because he averaged a couple of rebounds less, or at least would be for anyone who watched their teams this season. Both have been brilliant, there's one award at the end of the day.
There is no way that Russ would have win it (if he wins it in the first place) if it wasn't for the triple doubles. He is leading the sixth best team in the conference (best overall), I doubt that anyone with a team who has such a poor record has ever won it. In fact, in the last 20-30 years, no player who hasn't finished top 2 in the conference has won it, and I think that it perfectly fine and just. MVP should lead one of the top teams to greatness, not just to playoff.
If Harden's teammate were rated less than Russ', but now everyone says that Harden has a better supporting crew, isn't that a point in Harden's favor? He is making his teammates better, while Russ is making them worse. Russ keeps the ball too much and shoots too much. Of course that his teammates aren't going to play that well when they barely see the ball.
I am talking about averaging triple double, not accumulating triple doubles. At the end of the day his numbers and impact on his team is far too high to ignore, as is Harden's. He could be averaging 9 rebounds instead of whatever he is now and he 'should' be around the same point in the running. Note that I am talking based on his performances as compared to the rest, not how the voting is usually done. On that I already said the triple double average will be a big factor.
I think it has to be the best player in the best/second best team. I think that any Warriors players should be disqualified this season (Curry disqualified himself for not being nowhere as good as last season, and Zaza disqualified KD) considering that it is the only time in the history of the league where a single team has two superstars and two other top 10-top 15 players.
Or maybe that those players performed better than people expected? Happens all the time.
That is pure, unadulterated, horseshit. Sorry.
He was as good as he needed to be so that his team had the best record in the NBA - very similar to 14-15 when he was also MVP. That's why with KD out they were still able to go on a 13 game winning run (including wins at San Antonio, Houston and OKC). He hasn't got a chance at the MVP this year but just like LeBron he gets taken for granted no matter what he does these days.
It's pretty clear that both him and LeBron are far ahead of both Harden and Russ when it comes to ability. The fact that Curry so easily stepped up when it was needed and there was a slight scare of losing the top spot, shows that. Russ and Harden, especially the former, have little chance to get a ring, so it was pretty obvious this was the way for them to get the recognition, which they deserve anyway. Curry or LeBron have bigger aims, than caring about the regular season MVP. I don't think he's being taken for granted, though, as far as I can see. The narrative was obviously going to be around Durant and his addition, it's something 'new and exciting' as opposed to the guy who was already voted a unanimous MVP the previous season, similar to LeBron who people only appreciate if he does something absolutely out of this world, when in fact even at their 75% they perform better than most others. That syndrome is everywhere, even in football with none other than Messi.
Nope. I love Steph, but he is nowhere near LeBron, and so 'just like LeBron' for Steph cannot be used in any contest. LeBron can do feck all in regular season and it doesn't matter, he guarantees a final for his team, and in the final, you cannot ask for a player who increases the likelihood of winning it. That isn't the case with Steph yet.
Let's not ruin a good story by pointing out that the 0-11, 0-10 and 0-8 were all in games Durant played in and the Dubs were 2-1 in those games, and in the one they did lose he went 13-17 in 3s the next game.
We probably should forget that, as that was an anomaly which rarely happens with Curry, what is more important is that he didn't let it continue past a couple of games and changed gears, really brilliantly, for the next over a month or so and sailed his team home effortlessly, which shows how good he is.
I think for a short while I almost believed that myself. Based on the last month or more, it's not even close. The defense has actually improved and once they got their rotations sorted the team is playing the best basketball it has played all year. This is Steph's team. No ifs, ands or buts.
That was atrocious, wasn't it. Cannot understand for the life of me how people who are payed to watch NBA, watched Rose and LeBron playing that year, and decided that Rose was better.
To be fair, Durant was playing better than Curry until Durant's injury (and quite better in the first couple of months).
