PDA

View Full Version : MVP voting makes no sense



Sick96stang
01-28-2009, 10:51 AM
MVP = most valuable PLAYER

So why look at a teams record when determing if a player deserves the MVP? It's done in every sport. From what I've heard the logic is that, that player helped their team get there to therefore they deserve it. So

Player A: 63% comp, 5000 yards, 37 TD's, 14 INT's, 2-14
Player B: 58% comp, 3500 yards, 30 TD's, 14 INT's, 13-3

Now with today I'm sure player B would get the MVP but how does that make any sense? Player A not only performed better than player B he did it with less talent around him, so how does that make any sense to give it to player B just because he was on a better team when it's called a most valuable PLAYER award?

JRRBadBoy4Life
01-28-2009, 11:28 AM
Player A wouldn't have a 2-14 record with those numbers. What is this nonsense?

papi93
01-28-2009, 11:38 AM
Player A wouldn't have a 2-14 record with those numbers. What is this nonsense?

With the Lions defense, it would be possible.

Sick96stang
01-28-2009, 11:39 AM
Player A wouldn't have a 2-14 record with those numbers. What is this nonsense?

Sigh... point being was why would you look at a teams record when determing who should win an MVP.

JRRBadBoy4Life
01-28-2009, 11:43 AM
Sigh... point being was why would you look at a teams record when determing who should win an MVP.

I'd like to see the last time a quarterback had those type of numbers on a team that's 2-14. An MVP gets his team more wins than that. If Calvin Johnson grabbed 20 TD passes, 90 catches, for 1500 yards and the Lions weren't at least .500, I would be shocked.

kethnaab
01-28-2009, 11:53 AM
I'd like to see the last time a quarterback had those type of numbers on a team that's 2-14. An MVP gets his team more wins than that. If Calvin Johnson grabbed 20 TD passes, 90 catches, for 1500 yards and the Lions weren't at least .500, I would be shocked.


90/1500/20
78/1331/12

so an additional 12 passes (less than 1 per game) for an additional 169 yards (about 10 yards/game) and an additional 8 TDs (1/2 TD per game) would get the Lions an extra 8 wins?

I don't think so

Sick96stang
01-28-2009, 11:54 AM
I'd like to see the last time a quarterback had those type of numbers on a team that's 2-14. An MVP gets his team more wins than that. If Calvin Johnson grabbed 20 TD passes, 90 catches, for 1500 yards and the Lions weren't at least .500, I would be shocked.

Alright here's a different example just for you

Player A: 65% comp, 5000 yards, 34 TD's, 17 INT's 7-9
Player B: 63% comp, 4000 yards, 27 TD's, 12 INT's 12-4

Player A teams doesn't make the playoffs, player B team does. Player B would get the MVP.

kethnaab
01-28-2009, 11:57 AM
or...

what if the team was 11-5 and missed the playoffs?

I agree with the OP (for a change)

he's 100% on point here.

JRRBadBoy4Life
01-28-2009, 12:13 PM
90/1500/20
78/1331/12

so an additional 12 passes (less than 1 per game) for an additional 169 yards (about 10 yards/game) and an additional 8 TDs (1/2 TD per game) would get the Lions an extra 8 wins?

I don't think so

Wow, you just fukin know it all don't you? I was just throwing out some numbers, I didn't know what his actual numbers were. You are way too smart for this forum. Go join ESPN(serious)

kethnaab
01-28-2009, 12:20 PM
Wow, you just fukin know it all don't you? I was just throwing out some numbers, I didn't know what his actual numbers were. You are way too smart for this forum. Go join ESPN(serious)

u mad?

http://scottdesignworks.com/portfolio_images/w_toro_blk.jpg

JRRBadBoy4Life
01-28-2009, 12:55 PM
u mad?

http://scottdesignworks.com/portfolio_images/w_toro_blk.jpg

Not mad. I'd consider my comments more of a compliment to you than anything. You obviously know your NFL more than anyone on this forum. I hear NFL Network has some openings. In all honesty, I respect your knowledge.

VDubb
01-28-2009, 01:31 PM
It seems like you're having trouble with the word "Valuable."

If a player has a great season, but his team doesn't win many games, he's not really adding value to the team as a whole. In my eyes, it's the "Most Valuable Player (to his team)" award.........there has to be a certain level of success on a larger scale (ie: playoffs) to be able to consider someone as having significant value......

STA1011
01-28-2009, 03:21 PM
Player A: 96.2 rating, 65% , 5069 yds, 34 tds, 17 ints, 8-8 (defense was 13th worst in conf in PPG)
Player B: 95 rating, 66.8%, 4002 yds, 27 tds, 12 ints, 12-4 (defense was 4th best in conf in PPG)



Player B got it bc his team made the playoffs. The system is flawed, obviously. Player B's team would've been nowhere near as good as they were without him.

Negatron617
01-28-2009, 04:04 PM
i agree its def not consistant and results in controversy but i do believe the most valuable thing in sports is winning. thats what everybody plays for. thats what owners pay for. winning should def be taken into account. i dont care how valueable a guy is supposed to be....the real value is in having your team win....if your team doesnt win much than there really isnt any TEAM value...its only individual value. but yea. there is no formula or process to determine an mvp....shiiiit....their isnt really any concrete criteria....so yea

kethnaab
01-28-2009, 04:46 PM
there has to be a certain level of success on a larger scale (ie: playoffs) to be able to consider someone as having significant value......


okay, what about improvement?


New Orleans Saints:

2005 - 31st in points scored
2006 - 5th in points scored

that was what Drew Brees brought to the table when he came to the Saints in 2006.

daveygun
01-28-2009, 05:33 PM
i agree with op, the fact peyton manning got the mvp was a joke. if it werent for drew brees i think saints would have the number 1 pick as teh lioons wud have beat them in week 16 serial.

also to those who say colts would do nothign with another qb, u cant just say that we will never know unless manning gets injured. what wud u guys do if sorgi came in and took the colts to 11-5.

all in all. brees was robbed, and brady>manning

Sick96stang
01-28-2009, 09:53 PM
It seems like you're having trouble with the word "Valuable."

If a player has a great season, but his team doesn't win many games, he's not really adding value to the team as a whole. In my eyes, it's the "Most Valuable Player (to his team)" award.........there has to be a certain level of success on a larger scale (ie: playoffs) to be able to consider someone as having significant value......

He's still adding to the value of his team. If a player has better stats than anybody else in the league how could you possible say anybody was more valuable to this team than that player? It's not his fault the rest of his team sucked. He didn't add any less value than anybody else because the rest of his team sucked and that's why they missed the playoff's.

Sick96stang
01-28-2009, 09:55 PM
i agree its def not consistant and results in controversy but i do believe the most valuable thing in sports is winning. thats what everybody plays for. thats what owners pay for. winning should def be taken into account. i dont care how valueable a guy is supposed to be....the real value is in having your team win....if your team doesnt win much than there really isnt any TEAM value...its only individual value. but yea. there is no formula or process to determine an mvp....shiiiit....their isnt really any concrete criteria....so yea

Well if thats the case the MVP should be given every year to the player with the most TD's, at least from an offensive standpoint and I'm sure you know as well as I do 90+% of the time an offensive player wins it. The person who scores the most TD's is the person who is helping their team win the most games.

Sick96stang
01-28-2009, 09:57 PM
i agree with op, the fact peyton manning got the mvp was a joke. if it werent for drew brees i think saints would have the number 1 pick as teh lioons wud have beat them in week 16 serial.

also to those who say colts would do nothign with another qb, u cant just say that we will never know unless manning gets injured. what wud u guys do if sorgi came in and took the colts to 11-5.

all in all. brees was robbed, and brady>manning

Brees was robbed but Brady > Manning is false. It's pretty much the same thing. Everybody considers Brady better because he has more rings well rings are a team effort where as individual stats are more of an individual effort. So if anything Manning > Brady. Yes I know Manning had more talent around him and that's a good portion I'm sure of why he has such better stats than Brady, Brady had the better defense which is a good portion of why he has more rings but when comparing two individuals I'm gonna go with the player who has the better stats over the guy who has more rings for the reason listed above.

VDubb
01-29-2009, 09:44 PM
okay, what about improvement?


New Orleans Saints:

2005 - 31st in points scored
2006 - 5th in points scored

that was what Drew Brees brought to the table when he came to the Saints in 2006.

It's a one year award, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying Brees deserved MVP over LT?


He's still adding to the value of his team. If a player has better stats than anybody else in the league how could you possible say anybody was more valuable to this team than that player? It's not his fault the rest of his team sucked. He didn't add any less value than anybody else because the rest of his team sucked and that's why they missed the playoff's.

Wins are the bottom line in sports, and the guy who meant the most to the SUCCESS of his team, should be given the award. Stats are not the only thing that's looked at........


The person who scores the most TD's is the person who is helping their team win the most games.

That's not always true though..........say Calvin Johnson has 39TDs next year, but the Lions go 4-12......would he be the MVP?


In the end it's just an award......who cares.......

Sick96stang
01-30-2009, 12:26 AM
It's a one year award, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying Brees deserved MVP over LT?



Wins are the bottom line in sports, and the guy who meant the most to the SUCCESS of his team, should be given the award. Stats are not the only thing that's looked at........



That's not always true though..........say Calvin Johnson has 39TDs next year, but the Lions go 4-12......would he be the MVP?


In the end it's just an award......who cares.......

If Calvin Johnson has 39 TD's he should absolutely be the MVP it wouldn't even be a question. It is true though whoever has the most TD's is helping their team win the game the most at least from an offensive standpoint.

johnny87
01-30-2009, 12:40 AM
It is true though whoever has the most TD's is helping their team win the game the most at least from an offensive standpoint.

so your basically saying that Lendale white helped his team more than Adrian Peterson?

hmm interesting.

BeanieWells
01-30-2009, 12:50 AM
Playing in the NFL is about getting to the playoffs and eventually the super bowl. The MVP award is basically the guy who is most valuable in getting his to the playoffs. I don't see why anybody who has the best stats with a ****ty team around him and not making the playoffs should get the MVP when they haven't reached the teams main goal of reaching the playoffs.

_Translucency
01-30-2009, 12:58 AM
It never has been about who is the best player in a given league. It is, typically, the best player on a good (read: playoff-bound) team.

Johnny Rotten
01-30-2009, 01:44 AM
The MVP is supposed to be the leagues most valuable player to their team, not the player with the best stats. Stats are meaningless in football.

JuanDenver
01-30-2009, 01:59 AM
Because it would be dumb to award a player for hogging the ball for 70 games.

GPx
01-30-2009, 02:26 AM
Player B should be MVP.

Sick96stang
01-30-2009, 09:25 AM
so your basically saying that Lendale white helped his team more than Adrian Peterson?

hmm interesting.

Well according to people on here the MVP is the person who helped their team win the most games and what's a better way to judge how much somebody helped their team win games than by TD's? Personally I think overall stats should be looked at it and that team records don't mean anything when determining an MVP.

Sick96stang
01-30-2009, 09:27 AM
Playing in the NFL is about getting to the playoffs and eventually the super bowl. The MVP award is basically the guy who is most valuable in getting his to the playoffs. I don't see why anybody who has the best stats with a ****ty team around him and not making the playoffs should get the MVP when they haven't reached the teams main goal of reaching the playoffs.

Because you're penalizing a better player for not having as good of team around him, how does that make sense to do that? Say player A is a better player than player B but player B has a better team around him. How does it make sense to give player B the award when player A is the better player?

Sick96stang
01-30-2009, 09:29 AM
The MVP is supposed to be the leagues most valuable player to their team, not the player with the best stats. Stats are meaningless in football.

Yea you're right so why are you going to give it a player who had had a better team rather than the player who was actually better? Like said there could be a player who was all around better than another player but because his team didn't make the playoffs they would give it to the player who wasn't as good.

sammy21
01-30-2009, 10:00 AM
I'd like to see the last time a quarterback had those type of numbers on a team that's 2-14. An MVP gets his team more wins than that. If Calvin Johnson grabbed 20 TD passes, 90 catches, for 1500 yards and the Lions weren't at least .500, I would be shocked.


90/1500/20
78/1331/12

so an additional 12 passes (less than 1 per game) for an additional 169 yards (about 10 yards/game) and an additional 8 TDs (1/2 TD per game) would get the Lions an extra 8 wins?

I don't think so


Wow, you just fukin know it all don't you? I was just throwing out some numbers, I didn't know what his actual numbers were. You are way too smart for this forum. Go join ESPN(serious)


I lol'd. He does know way too much for his own good. hah.

kethnaab
01-30-2009, 01:05 PM
just trying to keep it real

BeanieWells
01-30-2009, 05:25 PM
Because you're penalizing a better player for not having as good of team around him, how does that make sense to do that? Say player A is a better player than player B but player B has a better team around him. How does it make sense to give player B the award when player A is the better player?

Player b leads the team to victories and playoffs while player a doesn't...There is a reason why guys like Kevin Durant and Calvin Johnson do not get considered for MVP.

Sick96stang
01-31-2009, 08:41 AM
Player b leads the team to victories and playoffs while player a doesn't...There is a reason why guys like Kevin Durant and Calvin Johnson do not get considered for MVP.

Yes but how does that make any sense? Like I said you're giving the MVP not to the best player but rather a good player who was lucky enough to be on a good team.