Sultan of Swat
Staff member
I think this could be a good debate.

Should the Most Valuable Player award be awarded to the best player in the league or to the most valuable player on a team that wouldn't have the same success if he wasn't part of that team?


Lets say a player in the NBA gets 31ppg 6apg 6rpg but his team only wins 30 games during the NBA season.

Another player get 23ppg 6apg 7rpg but his team finished with the best record in the NBA. They wouldnt have the same record if he wasn't playing for them.

Who deserves it?

You can use that example when you make your argument.


4 legs good 2 legs bad
I don't think the best player in the league will necessarily have the best stats. For example, Kobe Bryant averages around 30 ppg. If he wanted to he could average over 40 without a problem. If your team only wins 30 games you are not the best player in the league, no matter what your stats are.

I don't think the MVP award should have to go to the best player on the best team, but it should definitely go to a player on a successful team, otherwise that player isn't all that valuable.


Staff member
I dont think the MVP should go to a player on a team who misses the playoffs. In baseball barely anybody makes the playoffs so that should mean even moreso there.

There are exceptions sometimes though. Last year Pujols won the MVP on a team that missed the playoffs by 3 games. He was easily the best player in the league though and he won it.


Certified Shitlord
The MVP is just as it sounds: the most valuable player. Not the best, the most valuable. I also think it's fairly wrong to say that MVPs are only on playoff teams. Let's say a baseball team goes 40-122, flat terrible. They bring on a young guy who ends up hitting .330 with 45 HR and 120 RBIs and he's the only change to their team in terms of roster and they end the year 80-82. Still not a great season, but damn fine compared to their recent accomplishments. I'd say that player is a solid candidate for MVP because of all the value they brought to the team.


Son of Liberty
I agree and think it should go to the most valuable, not the best player. It doesn't have to be a player on a team that makes the playoffs, just a player that made the most significant impact on that team. In Con's example, I would agree that player definitely is an MVP candidate regardless of the team not making the playoffs.


Staff member
Personally I would have two awards....

1 for the best player in the league during the season and 1 for being the most valuable player to your team. The latter would be the MVP And the former could be called something else...player of the year award or somethin