View Full Version : ALL: Can a player on a bad team be a All-Star/Pro Bowler/MVP/etc?
Satan
01-22-2009, 11:32 PM
I've heard this argument repeatedly lately, that a player on a bad team cannot be one of the above because "he is not helping his team win". I've heard this applied to Danny Granger, Philip Rivers, Chris Bosh, Drew Brees, etc.
I find it to be completely idiotic, these are the same analysts that say "one player doesn't make a team" when they start talking out of the other side of their ass. Sometimes, guys have great years in spite of the poor play around them. I will agree that the MVP should at least come from a playoff team or a team that is in the hunt though.
White Rhino
01-22-2009, 11:59 PM
It would be hard to make an argument for a player to get the MVP of league, but being an All Star or a ProBowler is about stats and being one of the best players at their position during the course of the season. I would say an MVP candidate would suggest that there is no way the team would have had a winning season without.
Archangel
01-23-2009, 12:10 AM
What Rhino said. All-Star/Pro Bowler is an individual accolade, based on fan favouritism, stats, entertainment value etc. There's a reason why Vince Carter, even though he's never won shit, makes the trip to All Star Weekend year after year: People want to see him do his thing.
MVP is different. "Most Valuable Player" of a given league implies that that player does more than just do the ooh-aah flashy stuff and put up numbers; to be valuable, you have to win. So yeah, if you don't get your squad into the playoffs, you're not really that valuable. Hell, in his MVP year, AI got the Sixers into the Finals by himself. That's value right there.
The NBA, at least, has got it good these days. All the big names (except Dirk) play on playoff teams, while the biggest stars (Kobe, Howard, Bron) are actually playing for the top teams in the league.
Hodge
01-23-2009, 12:12 AM
I think an argument can be made in your favor. A examples I can think of include Gretzky when he first went to the Kings or Michael Jordan and the Bulls. Sure he had Pippen and Rodman but honestly, what were they without him?
Archangel
01-23-2009, 12:45 AM
Jordan won his first MVP in Scottie's first year. He put up crazy numbers before, but the awards (and championships) went to Magic and Bird. And as for what would who have been without whom, the Bulls weren't a playoff team before Pippen arrived, but got 55 wins and a playoff berth in '94, during Mike's absence. Not saying Pip's better than MJ, but still, they were a playoff team with one of the best records in the East.
Hodge
01-23-2009, 12:57 AM
Jordan won his first MVP in Scottie's first year. He put up crazy numbers before, but the awards (and championships) went to Magic and Bird. And as for what would who have been without whom, the Bulls weren't a playoff team before Pippen arrived, but got 55 wins and a playoff berth in '94, during Mike's absence. Not saying Pip's better than MJ, but still, they were a playoff team with one of the best records in the East.
I guess that the argument could be that a true All-Star/MVP increases the greatness of those around him. Then the argument could be made against Pippen and Rodman who weren't too much without Jordan.
That's as far as my basketball analogy goes. Going back to hockey though; without Gretzky names like Messier and Fuhr wouldn't have been as big as they were.
I may have wandered a bit off-topic here. The point I'm trying to make is that a truly great player can make a team great. I'm of the mindset that anyone in professional sports has the potential to be great. They've played that sport for practically their whole lives, they've been scouted, practiced, spent millions on, etc. Some are better than others, mind you, and the truly great have the ability to bring out/increase that potential in those around them.
I have to give more credit to Pippen. I am 10 years removed and can't remember exact details. Never mind that the bullshit Carter pulled in Toronto has left a continuing bad taste in my mouth towards basketball.
The bulls were a decent team during Jordan's first retirement. He (Pippen) was really good, but he didn't get them new rings. After Jordan's second retirement he all but faded into obscurity though.
Draven X 23
01-23-2009, 01:05 AM
MVP is much different then the rest. MVP means different things to different people. Personally I think of it as 'Where would this team be without this player?'
Like Pujols. Where would St. Louis be without him?
But then you can look at the AL Race where the top 4 vote getters played on the same team. Pedroia/Youkilis and Mauer/Morneau. Can someone be the most valuable player when someone else on his team is just as deserving?
Hodge
01-23-2009, 01:34 AM
Arch pretty much trumped my argument with a good point about how many championship Jordan won without Pippen. Albeit, Jordan was past his prime then.
I was also thinking of the 2004 TB Lightning. A reasonably mediocre team that made it to the Stanley Cup Championships riding on Khabibulans shoulders though.
MVP is different. "Most Valuable Player" of a given league implies that that player does more than just do the ooh-aah flashy stuff and put up numbers; to be valuable, you have to win. So yeah, if you don't get your squad into the playoffs, you're not really that valuable. Hell, in his MVP year, AI got the Sixers into the Finals by himself. That's value right there.
A. I don't think the NBA MVP includes the playoffs, though I could be mistaken.
B. I very much doubt AI alone got them to the playoffs. I can't speak to the NBA but in MLB even the greatest players in their greatest seasons only provide maybe 15 wins beyond what a normal average player does.
C. Of course a good player on a bad team SHOULD and occasionally does win individual accolades. Value is helping your team win games, whoever does that the most is most valuable. If the REST of your team stinks, not your problem. Albert Pujols was the NL MVP regardless of how bad Joel Pineiro or Braden Looper are.
MVP is much different then the rest. MVP means different things to different people. Personally I think of it as 'Where would this team be without this player?'
Like Pujols. Where would St. Louis be without him?
Roughly 12 wins worse in the standings, depending on which metric you use. That gap is more than any other player in baseball last year.
But then you can look at the AL Race where the top 4 vote getters played on the same team. Pedroia/Youkilis and Mauer/Morneau. Can someone be the most valuable player when someone else on his team is just as deserving?
Yes again. Having multiple valuable players doesn't decrease your value. This is the stupidity of the "added playoff value" thing. It's like somehow your team has to be good enough to make the playoffs but bad enough that there isn't another player close to your stature. No. That's silly. There isn't some magic range in which an individual can be valuable. Every action taken on the court/field/rink adds value to your team and at the end of the year the player who did that the most is the MVP.
Archangel
01-23-2009, 08:22 AM
A. I don't think the NBA MVP includes the playoffs, though I could be mistaken.
B. I very much doubt AI alone got them to the playoffs. I can't speak to the NBA but in MLB even the greatest players in their greatest seasons only provide maybe 15 wins beyond what a normal average player does.
C. Of course a good player on a bad team SHOULD and occasionally does win individual accolades. Value is helping your team win games, whoever does that the most is most valuable. If the REST of your team stinks, not your problem. Albert Pujols was the NL MVP regardless of how bad Joel Pineiro or Braden Looper are.
A) No, it doesn't, as was all too visible by 2007 MVP Nowitzki's Mavs bowing out in the first round.
B) The impact of one superstar on a well coached team in the NBA is far larger than that in any other major sport, with the exception of F1. maybe hockey with its similarly small team/roster sizes, but I don't know nearly enough about that sport to make such a statement. You take LeBron, Howard, CP3 or Kobe away from their teams, and they WILL crash from the very top of the league (where they are now) into lottery territory. Without Duncan, the Spurs would still be the most successful team to never win a championship.
As for AI, look at the Sixers' 2001 roster. Each and every one of them was a role player built by Larry Brown around Iverson to defend and to maximise AI's ability to get to the hole. And seriously, Matt Geiger? Todd McCullough? Tyrone Hill? Journeymen, at best. Jumaine Jones? Aaron McKie? Decent players, but hardly All-Star material. The only other star player on that roster was Deke (who was about 63 years old even then), and of the other guys one may have heard of, only Lynch and Snow were in their primes: Raja Bell didn't make a name for himself for another couple of years. And that motley crew was the only team to win a game against the 2001 Lakers (easily the best post-Jordan team) in the playoffs. Guess on the back of whose 48 points.
C) A guy on a non-playoff team can still be scoring champion, Most Improved Player, ROY, Slam Dunk champion, All-Star MVP, what have you. Maybe even Sixth Man. But the way I see it, in pro basketball, the value of a player is directly proportional to his ability to get his team into the playoffs. Not win championships, there are other accolades for that; but if your team can't make 16 out of 30, maybe you're not really that valuable.
misterfatt
01-23-2009, 12:49 PM
michael vick should have been the NFL mvp in 2003 and 2007.
Archangel
01-23-2009, 12:54 PM
More like NDFL MVP.
CunningRunt
01-27-2009, 08:03 PM
How the fuck did Chad Pennington come in second in the MVP vote this year and NOT make the Pro Bowl? What a disgrace.
I've heard this argument repeatedly lately, that a player on a bad team cannot be one of the above because "he is not helping his team win". I've heard this applied to Danny Granger, Philip Rivers, Chris Bosh, Drew Brees, etc.
I find it to be completely idiotic, these are the same analysts that say "one player doesn't make a team" when they start talking out of the other side of their ass. Sometimes, guys have great years in spite of the poor play around them. I will agree that the MVP should at least come from a playoff team or a team that is in the hunt though.
I just noticed that sentence there.
Why?
If you accept the premise (which I do) that a player is a player, a team a collection of players, and never the two shall meet (in terms of honors) why should a the MVP come from a team in the hunt/playoffs?
If you put Albert Pujols last year on the 1899 Cleveland Spiders he's still the MVP because he increased his team's win total more than any other player. What his team's TOTAL win count is is an issue out of his control and has nothing to do with his individual value. (though I guess his offensive events would be weighted differently in 1899)
redsox39
01-29-2009, 11:50 AM
It would be hard to make an argument for a player to get the MVP of league, but being an All Star or a ProBowler is about stats and being one of the best players at their position during the course of the season. I would say an MVP candidate would suggest that there is no way the team would have had a winning season without.
QFT
redsox39
01-29-2009, 11:53 AM
I just noticed that sentence there.
Why?
If you accept the premise (which I do) that a player is a player, a team a collection of players, and never the two shall meet (in terms of honors) why should a the MVP come from a team in the hunt/playoffs?
I love it!
However, the reality is, the Heisman trophy is pretty much an MVP award given to the Best overall player. When was the last time a Buffalo Bulls or San Diego State or Hofstra player won it? It goes to the best player on a Top 5 team typically for the last 20 years...
I love it!
However, the reality is, the Heisman trophy is pretty much an MVP award given to the Best overall player. When was the last time a Buffalo Bulls or San Diego State or Hofstra player won it? It goes to the best player on a Top 5 team typically for the last 20 years...
When did I say anything about the Heisman?
Anyways college sports are tougher because of competition strength diversity (so while a Colt Brennan might have the best numbers, what do those numbers mean?).
redsox39
01-29-2009, 12:10 PM
When did I say anything about the Heisman?
Anyways college sports are tougher because of competition strength diversity (so while a Colt Brennan might have the best numbers, what do those numbers mean?).
True.
I was just using the Hesiman as an example.
As much as we want to say MVP's go to the best player...the only time that happens is when you have a monster year. I think Baseball does the best job at giving the MVP award out correctly, but even still, as of recently it seems to be going to the Best player on the Best team...
Fast Fact! in 1910, Kurt Cobain started the post season awards we are obsessed with, by offering a new car for the player with the highest batting average.
Archangel
01-29-2009, 12:16 PM
Bron has put up monster numbers every year since he was a rookie; he's only been getting MVP considerations since the Cavs went deep into the postseason, and rightfully so. If you're good enough, odds are that any capable management (meaning, NOT Billy King or the Knicks) will build a competent team around you. I think that that's the difference between being a good player and being valuable to your franchise and the league. Obviously, this works best in basketball, where "building a better team" around a star can be as little as trading for a better point guard...
As much as we want to say MVP's go to the best player...the only time that happens is when you have a monster year. I think Baseball does the best job at giving the MVP award out correctly, but even still, as of recently it seems to be going to the Best player on the Best team...
The 2008 Phillies MVP was easily Jimmie Rollins or Chase Utley (and possibly Cole Hamels or Brad Lidge) before it was Ryan Howard. Yet Ryan Howard finished ahead of them, and in fact ALL PLAYERS other than Albert Pujols in the NL MVP race.
The 2008 Twins MVP was easily Joe Mauer before it was Justin Morneau. Yet Mauer finished 4th, Morneau 2nd. To say nothing of Morneau WINNING in 06 ahead of Mauer along with Jeter, Hafner, Ortiz, and others.
And those are just last year's MVP. Heck even Pedroia was a dicy pick for the actual AL MVP. I'd say he was in the pack I'd find acceptable, though I'd have picked Mauer, Sizemore, ARod, Quentin, Hamilton, Bradley, and others before him. The tough thing there was the clear-cut best numbers guys last year (Quentin, ARod, even Kinsler at 2B like Pedroia) all missed 30ish games so it fell to that pack rather than a clear cut person.
As recently as 2006 both MLB MVP choices were flatout wrong.
The Dude
01-29-2009, 12:19 PM
mvp? no
all-star, all-pro, pro-bowl, DPOTY, OPTY? absolutely
Bron has put up monster numbers every year since he was a rookie; he's only been getting MVP considerations since the Cavs went deep into the postseason, and rightfully so. If you're good enough, odds are that any capable management (meaning, NOT Billy King or the Knicks) will build a competent team around you. I think that that's the difference between being a good player and being valuable to your franchise and the league. Obviously, this works best in basketball, where "building a better team" around a star can be as little as trading for a better point guard...
But you just said it again.
"odds are"
"capable management"
"competent team around you"
Why should those things factor into an award? Obviously baseball is the "purist" statistical sport for comparison, with isolatable numbers for players, uniform goals for players (score runs on offense, prevent them on defense), and a large sample size (as opposed to basketball or football, with many different goals and standards and for football a short season) but the same principles should be able to apply to basketball.
LeBron, 05-06: 31.4 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 6.6 AST, 1.6 STL, 0.8 BLK, .480 FG%, .335 3P%, .738 FT% over 42.5 minutes played per game in 79 games
LeBron, 06-07: 27.3 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 6.0 AST, 1.6 STL, 0.7 BLK, .476 FG%, .319 3P%, .698 FT% over 40.9 minutes played per game in 78 games
The Cavs made the 07 NBA Finals. 06 they made the Eastern Conference Semis. LeBron scored, rebounded, assisted, and blocked less in fewer minutes and one fewer game, shooting at a worse rate in every category in 07 vs. 06. Rightfully he finished 2nd in MVP voting 05-06 but 5th 06-07 despite the team's success around him.
I understand that other sports like basketball have more statless events (like simple presence altering the way a play breaks down, regardless of actual statistical impact) but still ultimately isn't the best scorer the one with the most PPG (or at least someone in the top 5 or whatever)?
mvp? no
all-star, all-pro, pro-bowl, DPOTY, OPTY? absolutely
Why? I ask you again, why should 2008 Albert Pujols on the 1899 Cleveland Spiders not be the MVP? This FireJoeMorgan (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/10/albert-pujols-was-not-good-enough.html) article has a wonderful quote:
"But as unthinkably dangerous as the Cardinals’ slugger was, he couldn’t get his team to the postseason. Howard did."
You're right. Albert Pujols did not nearly pitch well enough, or for enough innings (Can you believe zero innings? What a bum!) for the Cardinals to to make the playoffs. (The Phillies had a team ERA of 3.88; the Cardinals 4.19. Albert Pujols? More like Albert Not A Very Good Pitching Coach!)
Pujols should have lobbied to have St. Louis the city moved to Oregon, where his Cardinals would have won the NL West by two games and he would be lauded as a clutch MVP baseball superhero with quality intangibles and a leader with the uncanny ability to come through when it counts. But unfortunately, Pujols has never been good at getting entire cities to spontaneously change their geographical locations.
Why does team environment alter who you are as a player? Or, as FJM takes it a step further, why does the performance of OTHER TEAMS, which you have absolutely ZERO connection to (taking away even a mystical "Team player" aspect or whatever) affect your value? Why would 2008 Albert Pujols of the 2008 Cardinals be MVP playing in the NL West, but is somehow less so playing in the NL Central?
The MVP talk is always hard to answer. Either is the player with the best stats no matter what team he is on or a player whose stats are good and on a playoff team.
It is funny because the cy young award can go to anyone with the best stats no matter how the team did.
With the MVP I have a hard time picking a side. I find it hard when a team has two choices like boston or the twins. That said if I don't feel there is a great player on a playoff team and a guy had a great year, like arod on the rangers a few years back, then I can see someone on a losing team winning.
The MVP talk is always hard to answer. Either is the player with the best stats no matter what team he is on or a player whose stats are good and on a playoff team.
It is funny because the cy young award can go to anyone with the best stats no matter how the team did.
With the MVP I have a hard time picking a side. I find it hard when a team has two choices like boston or the twins. That said if I don't feel there is a great player on a playoff team and a guy had a great year, like arod on the rangers a few years back, then I can see someone on a losing team winning.
But it's like you said, it's all or nothing.
Assuming equal outside forces (defense, position, baserunning, etc):
Playoff Pat: .300/.400/.500, 40 HR
Loser Lou: .350/.450/.550, 45 HR
Who's the MVP?
Jericho
01-30-2009, 06:55 PM
But it's like you said, it's all or nothing.
Assuming equal outside forces (defense, position, baserunning, etc):
Playoff Pat: .300/.400/.500, 40 HR
Loser Lou: .350/.450/.550, 45 HR
Who's the MVP?
Playoff Pat. He was obviously more valuable, because his team could win it all. His value paid off more than loser lou
Playoff Pat. He was obviously more valuable, because his team could win it all. His value paid off more than loser lou
But that's the product of the team, entirely, not him.
By the logic that leads to your conclusion shouldn't you ONLY be able to win/be nominated for individual Oscars (Best Actor/Actress, etc) if the film you're in wins/is nominated for Best Picture? After all, if the overall product isn't successful how good can your individual performance be?
But, of course, a film is a combination of many many individual performances. A Heath Ledger can be up for an individual performance in a film like TDK that the Academy normally wouldn't give a second look to. Albert Pujols is not better or worse for what the Cardinals around him do, neither is Ryan Howard thanks to the Phillies. If you accept that premise then you are, as the FJM post jokes, saying that Albert Pujols wasn't a good enough pitcher to win the MVP.
Jericho
01-30-2009, 07:07 PM
But that's the product of the team, entirely, not him.
By the logic that leads to your conclusion shouldn't you ONLY be able to win/be nominated for individual Oscars (Best Actor/Actress, etc) if the film you're in wins/is nominated for Best Picture? After all, if the overall product isn't successful how good can your individual performance be?
But, of course, a film is a combination of many many individual performances. A Heath Ledger can be up for an individual performance in a film like TDK that the Academy normally wouldn't give a second look to. Albert Pujols is not better or worse for what the Cardinals around him do, neither is Ryan Howard thanks to the Phillies. If you accept that premise then you are, as the FJM post jokes, saying that Albert Pujols wasn't a good enough pitcher to win the MVP.
That's not the fucking same, although by my logic, yes, the Best actor was also obviously the MVP of their movie
That's not the fucking same, although by my logic, yes, the Best actor was also obviously the MVP of their movie
Why isn't it the same? A hitter could hit 1.000/1.000/4.000 and play perfect defense and his team could still theoretically miss the playoffs (given a normal season that'd be about 600 HR, so a minimum 600 team runs scored). Meaning a player could literally be absolutely, impossibly perfect and the team could fail around him. A team (and their success) is just as much as a film (and it's success) about the performance of MANY, not one.
Jericho
01-30-2009, 07:14 PM
Why isn't it the same? A hitter could hit 1.000/1.000/4.000 and play perfect defense and his team could still theoretically miss the playoffs (given a normal season that'd be about 600 HR, so a minimum 600 team runs scored). Meaning a player could literally be absolutely, impossibly perfect and the team could fail around him. A team (and their success) is just as much as a film (and it's success) about the performance of MANY, not one.
Well,I was going by your Lou and Pat scenario. In that scenario,Pat wins. If someone hit 600 homers, then I think OSUMike must be that team's pitcher for them not to kill the league. But no one with an impeccable record is going to be denied MVP. You tell me. Is it all stats that determine value, or does success factor in as well?
Well,I was going by your Lou and Pat scenario. In that scenario,Pat wins. If someone hit 600 homers, then I think OSUMike must be that team's pitcher for them not to kill the league. But no one with an impeccable record is going to be denied MVP. You tell me. Is it all stats that determine value, or does success factor in as well?
I don't mind using team success as an absolute tiebreaker, but then the question becomes one of margin. (why I responded to jax that "like you said, it's all or nothing.") Once you accept the following two premises:
1. Team success can/should be a factor in the decision of individual awards
2. BUT a sufficiently successful player on a bad team (the ARod with Texas case) can override this
Then the question is margin as I said. How much batting average does team success count for? How many home runs?
Jericho
01-30-2009, 07:21 PM
I dunno, man. You are Stax. I are Jericho. I are over my head here. Laters
I dunno, man. You are Stax. I are Jericho. I are over my head here. Laters
Lawlz. But that's why I hesitate to use team success in any but the absolute closest of scenarios. My Pat/Lou case made you edge to the playoff guy, what about this year's 08 NL MVP?
Winner: Albert Pujols, best defensive 1B in baseball having the greatest offensive season of his already crazy career batting .357/.462/.653 (190 OPS+) w/ 37 HR. Cardinals miss the playoffs.
2nd Place: Ryan Howard, mediocre defensive 1B having the worst offensive season of his solid career batting .251/.339/.543 (124 OPS+) w/ 48 HR. Phillies make the playoffs (as far as the voters knew when they cast their ballots) and ultimately win the World Series.
Even doing power by ISO (.296 Pujols to .292 Howard) the ONLY thing Howard did better was knock out 9 more HR. Was THIS the right MVP choice? I'd say absolutely yes, but obviously plenty of people think another way (given Howard's vote total). And I don't understand that.
hatepoppy
01-30-2009, 07:37 PM
just saw the title of the thread. the answer is yes.
see: tim lincecum
just saw the title of the thread. the answer is yes.
see: tim lincecum
Yea, but usually the CYA is given a little more leeway to go to a good pitcher on a bad team. A la Cliff Lee in the AL as well. Or Jake Peavy last year (though IIRC the ballots had to be cast before voters knew the result of the playin game).
dick_darlington
01-31-2009, 12:39 PM
yes, and andre dawson is living proof.
Archangel
01-31-2009, 01:16 PM
I understand that other sports like basketball have more statless events (like simple presence altering the way a play breaks down, regardless of actual statistical impact) but still ultimately isn't the best scorer the one with the most PPG (or at least someone in the top 5 or whatever)?
Scoring is another debate entirely.
Superstar scorers and winning teams were thought to be almost mutually exclusive until MJ came along, and for a good reason. In recent memory, players like AI, TMac, and Kobe scored shitloads of points whle playing on teams that failed to make the playoffs.
Scoring isn't nearly everything. Last year, the Nuggets had two of the NBA's top five scorers on their roster, averaging around 52 ppg between the both of them - and barely made the playoffs, and were swept in the first. This season, one of them is gone, and the other's scoring has dipped around 5 ppg - and the Nuggets are the #3 team in the West. The problem with superstar gunners is that at some point, their teammates become spectators, and that's no way to win games.
You know, if the award were called "Best Player", then one could simply ask fantasy owners who got the best stats across the board, and give the trophy to him; but it isn't. And the value of a player to his team is shown in his ability to win games first, and the one to put arses in seats second.
Scoring is another debate entirely.
Superstar scorers and winning teams were thought to be almost mutually exclusive until MJ came along, and for a good reason. In recent memory, players like AI, TMac, and Kobe scored shitloads of points whle playing on teams that failed to make the playoffs.
Scoring isn't nearly everything. Last year, the Nuggets had two of the NBA's top five scorers on their roster, averaging around 52 ppg between the both of them - and barely made the playoffs, and were swept in the first. This season, one of them is gone, and the other's scoring has dipped around 5 ppg - and the Nuggets are the #3 team in the West. The problem with superstar gunners is that at some point, their teammates become spectators, and that's no way to win games.
You know, if the award were called "Best Player", then one could simply ask fantasy owners who got the best stats across the board, and give the trophy to him; but it isn't. And the value of a player to his team is shown in his ability to win games first, and the one to put arses in seats second.
I know best scorer isn't everything. My point was that ultimately, while there may be more statless events in a sport like baskbetball, impact events (points, assissts, rebounds, blocks, steals) are still measured.
And how can a worse player be more valuable? I've never understood that separation people make of "OH! It's not called Most Best Player it's Most Valuable Player."
By definition doesn't the best player provide the most value?
yes, and andre dawson is living proof.
Andre Dawson. I'm sure by next year this time he'll be joining Jim Rice dragging down the standards of the Hall of Fame.