Trae Young... The Unlikely MVP.....

[Atlantaholic]

On 3/15/2022 at 3:56 AM, bleachkit said:

He's a great player but I'm not sure he's easy to build around. Seems like finding the right pieces to go with him has been a challenge. 

Outside of Collins who is a #3 type guy and Capella who was fantastic last season and average this season, Trae hasn't gotten much in the way of a supporting cast. When Bogi is "good" Bogi Hawks are absolutely elite. It just doesn't happen often. 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

  On a stat sheet rebounds and assists are often equated (double double could mean either) but is a rebound as valuable as an assist?  Hell no. 

You're right... but there's a extra value that should be used for ORs. 

A rebound represents a possession.   That's either a possible + 2 points or a -2 points .  Whereas an assists is a guaranteed 2 points.  So statistically a rebound isn't worth the same point value as a score. BUT... An Offensive rebound can be a momentum killer which has to have some weight. 

Let's just says... the score is 98 - 98..  A team plays awesome defense for 24 seconds and  the other a team get an assisted basket... the score goes to 100-98.

vs. 

The score is 98-98.  A team plays awesome defense for 24 seconds.. a shot goes up and the team gets the offensive rebound.  The score is still 98-98 but now I would suggest that momentum is different. 

Somewhere in the cognitive reasoning, a team that gives up the offensive rebound starts to think.. Why are we playing hard defense if we can't even get the rebound.  I think that's even more destructive to the defense than if the other team were to have just scored on them.   I can take them scoring.. I'll just come back next time and play harder...  but to have them not score and get the offensive rebound to try again... ugh...

 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, shakes said:

Two things are absolutely true:

 

1.  Trae is the most disrespected player in the league

2.  Trae has no business being in the MVP discussion this season.

 

There is literally no one here or anywhere outside of Trae's immediate family who is a bigger Trae fan than me, but I'm not going to listen to MVP talk for a guy on a team this shitty.    All NBA?  Yes.   But MVP, hell no.

 

Why is that though??  You're basically saying that the guy who is surrounded by the better team is more valuable?

This is the thinking as to why superstar calibre players leave small market teams.  This is the flawed thinking that has superstars trying to make Big threes. Namely because I can't get any recognition in this league if I'm dominant but on a sorry team.  Shitty as you said. 

So KD becomes more valuable because he has Draymond, Steph, and Klay helping him make sure that his team wins.   How is that showing Value? 

Here's the litmus to my argument.   Last year, Embiid finished Second in the MVP race.   However, when his team took the court against Trae Young and the shitty Hawks..  His team LOST.  To me.. that suggests that Trae was More valuable than Embiid.  You can play the blame game and blame Ben.. Blame Doc... Blame KD's Big toe...  When it came to winning time, Trae showed up and Embiid went home. 

When does the guy who elevate his team get props? Does he really have to elevate his team higher than these superstar enriched teams to get notice?  That's my point. 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

Trae really isn't THAT disrespected.  He got his well earned media attention last playoffs.  The only two things that really matter for getting media praise is winning and/or being in a big market.  We're neither of those right now.  I guarantee you if we had 48 wins like the Grizzlies, Trae would be in the MVP conversation.  Hell, his numbers would be even better than they are now because they would mean guys were knocking down the open looks he creates.

A lot of the NBA fell in love with Trae last playoffs but if he wants continued respect we need continued winning.  It's not fair to him personally cus he's one guy on a 17 man roster but that's just how it is -- for Trae and every other star player.

I disagree.

I showed you all of the statistics and there is not one of those people who are arguably better than Trae.  Most of them are arguably worse than Trae statistically.   The sad part is that all of them have been in the MVP conversation.   I'm not saying that Trae should be the MVP...  However, what I am saying is that it's very disrespectful for these guys to be in the conversation and nobody mentions Trae Young.   Before you mention that record stuff...

It was only a few weeks (about 2) that they stopped mentioning Lebron in the MVP talk.    Here's how one publication saw it back at the start of February...

 

Listen to the conversation about Lebron:

Quote

Despite his team’s putrid record, LeBron James has to be in the MVP race. His performances this season have been extraordinary for a player in his 19th season, and he continues to make it look normal for a player at age 37 to play as if he was 10 years younger. Regardless, James is once again a top-5 player in the game and belongs in the MVP conversation.

From NBC Sports:

Quote

 

Here are the players with the highest odds to win the MVP:

Joel Embiid -115

Nikola Jokic +175

Giannis Antetokounmpo +600

Ja Morant +2000

Luka Doncic +2800

DeMar DeRozan +3300

Stephen Curry +5000

Devin Booker +8000

Kevin Durant +20000

LeBron James +30000

James Harden +50000

Jayson Tatum +50000

 

I'm not saying that Trae should win it.  But damnit, he should be in the conversation. 

[Diesel]

My hope is that Trae keeps Crucifying these teams for 40 points.... and we win out getting the 6th seed.   If that doesn't get him the MVP.. then nothing will. 

 

 

[shakes]

16 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Why is that though??  You're basically saying that the guy who is surrounded by the better team is more valuable?

This is the thinking as to why superstar calibre players leave small market teams.  This is the flawed thinking that has superstars trying to make Big threes. Namely because I can't get any recognition in this league if I'm dominant but on a sorry team.  Shitty as you said. 

So KD becomes more valuable because he has Draymond, Steph, and Klay helping him make sure that his team wins.   How is that showing Value? 

Here's the litmus to my argument.   Last year, Embiid finished Second in the MVP race.   However, when his team took the court against Trae Young and the shitty Hawks..  His team LOST.  To me.. that suggests that Trae was More valuable than Embiid.  You can play the blame game and blame Ben.. Blame Doc... Blame KD's Big toe...  When it came to winning time, Trae showed up and Embiid went home. 

When does the guy who elevate his team get props? Does he really have to elevate his team higher than these superstar enriched teams to get notice?  That's my point. 

last year was last year and the Hawks weren't shitty then.

 

I disagree with you on your post.   Individual star players in basketball have more of an effect no winning than star players in any other team sport.  Therefore, the team's result has a greater blame/credit ratio for the star players than in other sports.  So in basketball I believe that the team's result should be a major factor in determining MVP.

 

I don't see any relevance to your second paragraph about how my line of thinking is what leads players to leave small market teams.   The last 5 MVP winners come from middle to small markets so that's a bunch of nonsense.

KD never won MVP playing for GSW so don't understand teh point of that paragraph either.

next paragraph is also irrelevant.  post season has no bearing on MVP.

 

your last paragraph proves my point.   First as I just showed your logic is flawed since the last 5 MVPs did not come from super teams in big markets.   As for your question in bold, the answer is pretty simple and answers itself.   The guy who elevates his team gets props when he actually elevates his team to a spot in the playoffs.

 

 

 

[shakes]

8 minutes ago, Diesel said:

My hope is that Trae keeps Crucifying these teams for 40 points.... and we win out getting the 6th seed.   If that doesn't get him the MVP.. then nothing will. 

 

 

nothing will?   

 

 

How about crucifying teams for 40 points and ending up with a top 4 seed in the playoffs.   I guarantee that would get him a lot more MVP consideration.

[REHawksFan]

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

I keep saying it and maybe most folks disagree but rebounds is the most over weighted statistic in the league.   80% of all these guys rebounds are uncontested defensive rebounds.   The league by in large doesn't make a lot of effort on the offensive glass in the regular season so grabbing a defensive rebound is often just a function of where your defensive assignment puts you.   On a stat sheet rebounds and assists are often equated (double double could mean either) but is a rebound as valuable as an assist?  Hell no. 

Agreed.  And not only that, we see nearly every game there are multiple instances where there's 2 or 3 players by themselves (no offensive player around) and they decide who gets the board. I've even seen Trae jump out of the way of a board if Clint is nearby so he can grab it and hand it to Trae. 

Rebounding numbers appear to be a product of a number of things:  effort, luck, positioning, and, in some cases, manipulation by players. 

 

 

[macdaddy]

Steph finished 3rd in MVP voting last year and the team finished 8th in the west.  They were .500 or below the whole season before winning their last 6 games and were promptly booted from the playoffs.

It's not just "not enough wins" that is keeping Trae out of MVP consideration.   

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, shakes said:

I disagree with you on your post.   Individual star players in basketball have more of an effect no winning than star players in any other team sport.  Therefore, the team's result has a greater blame/credit ratio for the star players than in other sports.  So in basketball I believe that the team's result should be a major factor in determining MVP.

 The guy who elevates his team gets props when he actually elevates his team to a spot in the playoffs.

This is not a comparison of the NBA to baseball or Football that's not credible for the argument.   This is NBA basketball.   IN Basketball, if Trae were on a team that won more games, many here say that he would be in consideration for the MVP.   That in itself speaks to team accomplishment is more important than individual accomplishment when it comes to the highest Individual award..

Make that make sense.

 

[Diesel]

10 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Steph finished 3rd in MVP voting last year and the team finished 8th in the west.  They were .500 or below the whole season before winning their last 6 games and were promptly booted from the playoffs.

It's not just "not enough wins" that is keeping Trae out of MVP consideration.   

If it's not enough wins... what is it.  Trae is probably the best offensive player by stats.  I'm not saying he is deserving of the award... I'm saying that he's not even listed in the top 10 MVP conversation.   Rudy freaking Gobert has gotten in the top 10 MVP conversation. 

 

[shakes]

2 minutes ago, Diesel said:

This is not a comparison of the NBA to baseball or Football that's not credible for the argument.   This is NBA basketball.   IN Basketball, if Trae were on a team that won more games, many here say that he would be in consideration for the MVP.   That in itself speaks to team accomplishment is more important than individual accomplishment when it comes to the highest Individual award..

Make that make sense.

 

I already did in my previous post to you.  If you're not going to read it I'm sure not gonna say it again.

 

 

[Diesel]

3 minutes ago, shakes said:

I already did in my previous post to you.  If you're not going to read it I'm sure not gonna say it again.

 

 

You said "The guy who elevates his team gets props when he actually elevates his team to a spot in the playoffs."

This is the flaw...and why I said.. guys leave their original teams to sign up for teams that are filled with stars.  It improves their winning. 

Trae can force his way to Phoenix.. and he would have to do 3/4s of what he does now and he would immediately get consideration.  How does that make him MORE VALUABLE?

 

 

[macdaddy]

20 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I'm not saying he is deserving of the award... I'm saying that he's not even listed in the top 10 MVP conversation. 

This is my issue too.   It's ridiculous that he's not in the top 10.   

[shakes]

45 minutes ago, Diesel said:

You said "The guy who elevates his team gets props when he actually elevates his team to a spot in the playoffs."

This is the flaw...and why I said.. guys leave their original teams to sign up for teams that are filled with stars.  It improves their winning. 

Trae can force his way to Phoenix.. and he would have to do 3/4s of what he does now and he would immediately get consideration.  How does that make him MORE VALUABLE?

 

 

covered all that in my post which had a lot more than the one line you quoted.  Not repeating it.

[Diesel]

 disagree with you on your post.   Individual star players in basketball have more of an effect no winning than star players in any other team sport.  Therefore, the team's result has a greater blame/credit ratio for the star players than in other sports.  So in basketball I believe that the team's result should be a major factor in determining MVP.

Like I said, the other sports are irrelevant to the conversation. 

I don't see any relevance to your second paragraph about how my line of thinking is what leads players to leave small market teams.   The last 5 MVP winners come from middle to small markets so that's a bunch of nonsense.

KD never won MVP playing for GSW so don't understand teh point of that paragraph either.

next paragraph is also irrelevant.  post season has no bearing on MVP.

I used the wrong term small market.  Better used  More winning.   You said you answered....

My question was If Trae goes to Phoenix and gives 3/4 of the effort he gives now... He will get consideration.. HOW IS THAT More valuable??

your last paragraph proves my point.   First as I just showed your logic is flawed since the last 5 MVPs did not come from super teams in big markets.   As for your question in bold, the answer is pretty simple and answers itself.   The guy who elevates his team gets props when he actually elevates his team to a spot in the playoffs.

As we read through your post... just like your other posts.. there's a lot of dismissal but no answers.  A dismissal is not an answer to the question.. It's what we call avoidance.   Like I said about your last statment of your first post which is pretty much your only attempt at the answer...  It leads to players seeking to be on better teams... Like "Trae going to Phoenix"...  That does nothing to improve his value. 

The problem is that you and others fail to recognize that  the player with the greatest gravity is the most valuable... by definition.  Trae's gravity is the greatest in the league. 

We now will await your latest dismissal. 

[REHawksFan]

1 hour ago, shakes said:

covered all that in my post which had a lot more than the one line you quoted.  Not repeating it.

Except you didn't cover anything.  The point here is OF COURSE teams with multiple all stars are going to win more than a team with one all star.  It doesn't mean that the all star who happens to be by himself is less valuable than the one that plays with 2 or 3 others.   

I agree that in the NBA one player can have a much greater impact on the team results than in other sports.  So how much more impact will 2 or 3 all star players have?  It lessens the need for the best player to be at his best every single game. They can still win without him or when he has a below average game. 

Trae avgs 28 pts per game.  When he scores less than his avg, the Hawks are 12-22.  When he hits his avg or higher the Hawks are 22-12.   

For other stars that have better players around them, those numbers aren't nearly as skewed. For instance:

Bucks are 15-16 when Giannis doesn't hit his avg but 28-10 when he does.

Bulls are 16-17 when DeRozan doesn't hit his avg but are 25-10 when he does.

Celtics are 20-19 when Tatum doesn't hit his avg but are 21-9 when he does.

Philly is 17-19 when Embiid doesn't hit his avg but are 24-7 when he does.

Dubs are 27-13 when Curry doesn't hit his avg but are 20-9 when he does.

Grizz are 28-14 when Morant doesn't hit his avg but are 20-8 when he does.

 

The discrepancy between when Trae hits his number vs doesn't compared to the same discrepancy for other players shows that Trae's impact is far more valuable than these other players. When he's "ON" the TEAM record is no different than any of these other players when they are "ON". But when he's "OFF" the team falls off a cliff whereas all of these other teams tread water at worst.  

 

 

 

[Diesel]

56 minutes ago, REHawksFan said:

Except you didn't cover anything.  The point here is OF COURSE teams with multiple all stars are going to win more than a team with one all star.  It doesn't mean that the all star who happens to be by himself is less valuable than the one that plays with 2 or 3 others.   

I agree that in the NBA one player can have a much greater impact on the team results than in other sports.  So how much more impact will 2 or 3 all star players have?  It lessens the need for the best player to be at his best every single game. They can still win without him or when he has a below average game. 

Trae avgs 28 pts per game.  When he scores less than his avg, the Hawks are 12-22.  When he hits his avg or higher the Hawks are 22-12.   

For other stars that have better players around them, those numbers aren't nearly as skewed. For instance:

Bucks are 15-16 when Giannis doesn't hit his avg but 28-10 when he does.

Bulls are 16-17 when DeRozan doesn't hit his avg but are 25-10 when he does.

Celtics are 20-19 when Tatum doesn't hit his avg but are 21-9 when he does.

Philly is 17-19 when Embiid doesn't hit his avg but are 24-7 when he does.

Dubs are 27-13 when Curry doesn't hit his avg but are 20-9 when he does.

Grizz are 28-14 when Morant doesn't hit his avg but are 20-8 when he does.

 

The discrepancy between when Trae hits his number vs doesn't compared to the same discrepancy for other players shows that Trae's impact is far more valuable than these other players. When he's "ON" the TEAM record is no different than any of these other players when they are "ON". But when he's "OFF" the team falls off a cliff whereas all of these other teams tread water at worst.  

 

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

Ja at #4????? SMH.  That's laughable.

ESPN NBA MVP Straw Poll 3.0 Results

	PLAYER	TEAM	1ST	2ND	3RD	4TH	5TH	TOTAL VOTES	TOTAL POINTS	PREV. RANK
1	Nikola Jokic	DEN	62	31	4	0	3	100	860	2
2	Joel Embiid	PHI	29	37	34	0	0	100	719	1
3	Giannis Antetokounmpo	MIL	9	30	55	6	0	100	593	3
4	Ja Morant	MEM	0	1	2	22	20	45	103	6
5	Jayson Tatum	BOS	0	0	2	22	17	41	93	N/R
6	Luka Doncic	DAL	0	0	0	22	21	43	87	9
7	Devin Booker	PHX	0	1	3	14	18	36	82	T-10
8	Stephen Curry	GS	0	0	0	9	7	16	34	4
9	Kevin Durant	BKN	0	0	0	3	4	7	13	8
10	Chris Paul	PHX	0	0	0	1	4	5	7	5
11	LeBron James	LAL	0	0	0	1	2	3	5	N/R
12	DeMar DeRozan	CHI	0	0	0	0	3	3	3	7
13	Trae Young	ATL	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	N/R

 

 

 

[Spud2nique]

6 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Ja at #3?????

You mean 4…