say a person had a phenomenal season, they put up great numbers all across the board but their team record sucks, Should this person be considered an MVP over the other guy who's also having " a pretty good season" but their team has a way better record?
2007-01-25 04:36:48 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Basketball
it has to be in between an mvp cant be from the worst team ever but they cant be the mvp just because their team is good. kobe should have won it last year because he is the best player, brought his team to the playoffs, scored 81, and almost beat the number two seed, the suns, in the first round of the playoffs.
2007-01-25 11:12:26 · answer #1 · answered by michael 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It goes with both. I think they figure that if your team sucks and that you're the only good player in it, you'll have less trouble putting up big numbers compare as if you were with a better team.
Plus, it goes with logic as well. If you're a good player, you should be able to make your team win. Meaning: if you're an excellent player but your team still loses, well, you might not be as great as it seems.
Also, teams with good records have much more vision than the other teams. So if your team sucks, there is just little chance that you'll be a candidate for MVP.
To be MVP, you need to be a great player, put up great stats and make your team and teammates better. It's like a triangle with a criteria on each side and you need 3 of them.
2007-01-25 13:04:28 · answer #2 · answered by m_dl05 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a combination of both team record is defiantly a factor, The MVP should go to the best player on the best team in the NBA and right now my guess would have to be Steve Nash.
2007-01-25 16:42:55 · answer #3 · answered by hayden_mail 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the guy with pretty good season and his team has better record should be the MVP.
That means Dirk should be the MVP this season
2007-01-25 14:02:53 · answer #4 · answered by Sam 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is both and the NBA considers both to.
In order to be MVP you should have the amazing stats and your teams should be very good. You can average 30 points and 10 assists and your team is terrible you wont get because of your team is not good.
2007-01-25 22:19:14 · answer #5 · answered by ALPAN 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the sport. Basketball, you should put up huge numbers on a lousy team if you are a superstar quality player. In football, Walter Payton ran for a ton of yards, many of them on terrible teams and he earned every yard he got. Ernie Banks got 2 consecutive MVP awards on TERRIBLE Cubs' teams. In baseball, if you put up huge numbers on a lousy team, you earned them. Lousy teams can have their superstar pitched around all year long. Look at the Yanks - who do you pitch around in that lineup? They have to pitch to guys like A-Rod or the next guy will kill them nearly as easily.
2007-01-25 13:22:50 · answer #6 · answered by hankshammers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
improve the team. the numbers mean nothing without context. MVP should mean if you took this player off the team, their record should plummet. they should not only help win games but make other people better.
2007-01-25 13:05:20 · answer #7 · answered by Alex 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
team better
2007-01-25 12:49:46 · answer #8 · answered by paul lee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋