Curry/Nash - 2MVPs each, Kobe/Durant - 1MVP each

[StrongLurk]

It's interesting how Kobe and Durant are ahead of Curry and Nash in the all-time rankings (Curry closer than Nash), yet Curry and Nash have more MVPs.

It's kind of amazing how Kobe and Durant each only have 1 MVP. I confidently rank Durant ahead of Curry all-time...yet people can make a good argument that Curry's last 5 years are better than Durant's best 5 years and maybe even Kobe's best 5 years.

Idk, Curry is such an enigma and hard to rank all time.

[SouBeachTalents]

What other years should Kobe & especially Durant have been MVP?

[Mr Feeny]

Durant has double Curry's FMVPs. He has double the seasons where he was the best player on a championship team. When they were both in their primes, in the same tifle team, Durant was the number 1 option. Because he was the better player.

MVPs, though, dont always mean you're the best player. If they did, Jordan, Lebron, and shaq would each have 8+.

[Stephonit]

Awards are determined by the eye of the beholder. Wins are less influenced by such biases.

I confidently rank Curry ahead of Durant all-time. Why would anyone do otherwise? Durant's 2014 MVP year impressive as it was wasn't as stunning as Curry's 2016. Curry's team won the only playoffs match-up that pitted them against each other. Curry's been to the finals more times without Durant than Durant has without Curry. When Durant was racking up points in their series with the Rockets the Warriors were losing. It was when play went through Curry that the Warriors started winning.

LeBron and Shaq weren't the best player for 8 years.

[GimmeThat]

here's the math behind it

set current interest rate at n

say one investment is set at cap of 9,000 with a return of n+2, and the other investment is set at cap of 10,000 with a return of n+1.5

rational people would find the first investment being the better choice.

however, due to black market activities, there's actually a population where excess cash is depreciated due to the inability to reinvest them elsewhere generating a return exceeding n.

thus, by mass volume of the ignorant not having a life outside of basketball, there are actually arguments about the second investment being the better option floating around in existence.

note to self - n is correlated with the percentage of income of basketball activities NBA receives, thus, higher the n, the less value the award becomes

[Mr Feeny]

Awards are determined by the eye of the beholder. Wins are less influenced by such biases.

I confidently rank Curry ahead of Durant all-time. Why would anyone do otherwise? Durant's 2014 MVP year impressive as it was wasn't as stunning as Curry's 2016. Curry's team won the only playoffs match-up that pitted them against each other. Curry's been to the finals more times without Durant than Durant has without Curry. When Durant was racking up points in their series with the Rockets the Warriors were losing. It was when play went through Curry that the Warriors started winning.

LeBron and Shaq weren't the best player for 8 years.

Yeah fair enough. I thought Lebron was the best 2008 onwards (maybe 2009) and probably stopped at 2013. You could argue that he was still the best in 2016 but was saving himself for the big moments, and therefore his numbers weren't as impressive.

[SouBeachTalents]

here's the math behind it

set current interest rate at n

say one investment is set at cap of 9,000 with a return of n+2, and the other investment is set at cap of 10,000 with a return of n+1.5

rational people would find the first investment being the better choice.

however, due to black market activities, there's actually a population where excess cash is depreciated due to the inability to reinvest them elsewhere generating a return exceeding n.

thus, by mass volume of the ignorant not having a life outside of basketball, there are actually arguments about the second investment being the better option floating around in existence.

note to self - n is correlated with the percentage of income of basketball activities NBA receives, thus, higher the n, the less value the award becomes

Shut the fck up

[GimmeThat]

Shut the fck up

you know what they say about the dogs who bites the hand that feeds them right? just like the girl who's dad missed her dance recital

[MrFonzworth]

here's the math behind it

set current interest rate at n

say one investment is set at cap of 9,000 with a return of n+2, and the other investment is set at cap of 10,000 with a return of n+1.5

rational people would find the first investment being the better choice.

however, due to black market activities, there's actually a population where excess cash is depreciated due to the inability to reinvest them elsewhere generating a return exceeding n.

thus, by mass volume of the ignorant not having a life outside of basketball, there are actually arguments about the second investment being the better option floating around in existence.

note to self - n is correlated with the percentage of income of basketball activities NBA receives, thus, higher the n, the less value the award becomes

You didn't consider the fact that Steve Nash is living rent free in your head

[ImKobe]

Durant and Kobe are better players, so maybe MVP is a meaningless award?

[warriorfan]

Durant has double Curry's FMVPs. He has double the seasons where he was the best player on a championship team. When they were both in their primes, in the same tifle team, Durant was the number 1 option. Because he was the better player.

MVPs, though, dont always mean you're the best player. If they did, Jordan, Lebron, and shaq would each have 8+.

This guy couldn

[MrFonzworth]

[QUOTE=warriorfan]This guy couldn

[Bronbron23]

It's interesting how Kobe and Durant are ahead of Curry and Nash in the all-time rankings (Curry closer than Nash), yet Curry and Nash have more MVPs.

It's kind of amazing how Kobe and Durant each only have 1 MVP. I confidently rank Durant ahead of Curry all-time...yet people can make a good argument that Curry's last 5 years are better than Durant's best 5 years and maybe even Kobe's best 5 years.

Idk, Curry is such an enigma and hard to rank all time.

MVPs matter for sure but there not the bar. There's fmvp's, scoring titles, first team defensive teams. You could also just look at who was the best player in the league for the longest. Often times mvp's arnt even the best player. Kobe was the best player in the league for a few years anyway. I'm not sure if nash or Steph ever were. You could argue Steph in 15-16 but his finals performance makes it questionable.

[And1AllDay]

Shaq only has 1 too

[StrongLurk]

Guys, I'm well aware there is more to rankings than MVPS.

I just find the debate of who is better between Durant and Curry fascinating, and even putting Kobe in the comparison.

I think Durant might be the best out of all three...and yet you can make good arguments that Curry and Kobe are better.