Hakeem Olajuwon should have won 3 MVP awards in a row!

He had a very good case in 92/93, but Barkley was deserving as well. Could go either way there.

In 94/95, I thought Robinson far and away deserved it. Remember, MVP is a regular season award.

 

Should total MVPs be used when ranking the GOATs?

I mean, Hakeem only won 1 but Karl Malone and Steve Nash won 2 each. But I'd put Hakeem above them in the GOAT list everyday and twice on Sunday.

 

So should have Nash. The nba reward system is messed up. But who cares. We still have the rings baby.

 

I understand what the op is trying to say, but the mvp is just much about team success as anything. Barkley got it in 93 cuz his team had the best record in the west and he was the best player. In 94, the rox had the 2nd best record in the league and had a great record. In 95, they were a 6th seed and robinson team was a 1 seed. Although dream did have a great season, robinson and shaq had equal yrs and in the regular season and their teams had better record.

 

Instead of adding up total MVP, I'd look at "MVP award shares" based on percentage of maximum award points one accumulates (available at basketball-reference). Olajuwon had 2.611 MVP shares over his career. Karl Malone had 4.296 (thanks to 9 top-5 finishes in MVP voting). Steve Nash has had 2.383.

 

I'll give credit where credit is due (ugh). Karl *spitting it out of my mouth* has had a more consistent career. Although having a GOAT PG spoonfeeding you all those points might have helped Karl's consistency.

But, at the end of the day, does Karl Malone go down as the better player then Hakeem on that mythical GOAT list? I mean, his MVP award shares also point to his favor. This is what rankles me as Hakeem was the more complete player, and again, I'd put Hakeem above Karl on that list every single time.

 

I am not this bored

 

You make a very good point...however, I think Barkley was robbed earlier in his career by Magic Johnson, who was still very good, but his MVP seasons had passed him already.

Magic Johnson

88-89 Lakers go 57-25, lose in the Finals to the Pistons, Kareem retires.

Magic's stats: 22.5 ppg, 8 rpg, 12.8 apg, and 1.8 spg, 51% fg, 91%ft

89-90 Lakers go 63-19 but lose in the Western Semi-finals to the Suns 4-1.

Magic's stats: 22.3 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 11.5 apg, and 1.7 spg, 48% fg, 89%ft

he drops in every category, but with a 42 year old Kareem retiring, the Lakers become even more uptempo and use Worthy, Scott and others better in their offense, thus the better record.

Only difference is, Magic isn't even questioned as a leader...this was his team



Charles Barkley

88-89 76ers go 46-36 and lose in the 1st round of the playoffs 3-0 to the Knicks. Maurice Cheeks is traded away at age 33. Rick Mahorn and Johnny Dawkins join the 76ers

Barkley's stats: 25.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.6 spg, on 58% fg, and 75% ft


89-90 76ers go 53-29 and win the division (3rd in the Eastern Conference), but lost in the 2nd round to the Bulls 4-1.

Barkley's stats: 25.2 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.9, 1.9 spg, on 60% fg, and 75% ft

Rebounding went down, since he finally got some help from Mahorn, and shooting 60% at 6'4-6'6 as a forward is amazing.


The Lakers were already a championship team...5 times in the 80's and made it to the Finals a year before.

I'm not taking any credit away from Magic Johnson, because he had a great year, and led a younger, but more athletic team to the best record in the league. Plus, Pat Riley still coached the team.

I truly feel that, since Kareem retired, everybody assumed that the Lakers would never be able to get back to an elite level...however, in his last season at 42 years old, Kareem averaged 10 ppg, and the rest of his stats dramatically dropped and at times could be a liability...but who was ever going to not play Kareem Abdul Jabbar?

So on paper the Lakers looked worse, with no post up with an almost sure 2 points or free throws, but in reality they got better with athleticism and youth and an offense centered on the basketball knowledge of Magic Johnson.

Barkley on the other hand was on a mediocre 76er team who was trying to recover from losing Moses Malone and Julius Erving.

They didn't have Billy Cunningham coaching them anymore and Mo Cheeks was getting old. They weren't going anywhere.

Then in 90, Barkley puts up a great year and with some help from Mahorn inside, leads the team to 53 wins and an division title. Plus, he was only 26 years old at the time, compared to Magic who was in his mental prime at 30 years old.

Its hard to argue against Magic, but I feel Barkley had more impact on his team to overachieve than Magic did doing what the Lakers always did in the 80's...be successful.

I think Barkley had to do much more for his team night in and night out just to have a chance at winning...similar to Dream in 94. They both had good role players around them, but nobody really to take the pressure of them...their teams went as far as they could take them.

Magic had Worthy, Scott, Green, Woolridge, Mychael Thompson, Michael Cooper, and a rookie Vlade Divac and a great coach in Riley.

Barkley had Mahorn, Hersey Hawkins, Johnny Dawkins, Mike Gminski, and Ron Anderson

I would say Barkley gets the MVP in 1990

 

I think while this may be a good judge of players, it's pretty bad when it comes to judging GOAT. That's more about peak play and championships, and Hakeem's got both over Malone and Nash.

But I do agree that in 95, DRob deserved the MVP no matter how you look at it.

 

Barkley's MVP was very well deserved. David Robinson's in 95 was even more so. Sometimes things happen for a reason..... who knows if Hakeem would have still risen to the occasion and "Bamboozled" Mrs. Robinson and the Spurs if he won MVP instead.

I don't care if Hakeem has 1 MVP's or 5. He's still the GREATEST CENTER OF ALL TIME in my book.

 

There's a ridiculously large problem with your analysis here.

Olajuwon was on the Rockets in 1992. Barkley was not on PHX in 1992. Therefore, you could find a way to attribute Barkley's success to Phoenix's. However, Olajuwon's increase in stats (slight when compared to the impact of bringing in Barkley for Chambers, Hornacek, etc.) could not have been the sole reason for Houston's +13 games over the 2 seasons. Not even close..

So I don't think you can use Houston's +13 as part of your argument. Therefore, to me, it seems like Phoenix's success (and increase in success) was the reason Barkley's slightly inferior stats could still win out. (Though media attention and Barkley's personality surely contributed, too)

 

I think the NBA is a little inconsistent with the definition of the award over the years...look at these examples:

1975-76 season, Kareem wins the MVP and has a monster season. No doubt about his performance at all. However, his team goes 40-42 and misses the playoffs

Why didn't McAdoo win it, even though he put up similar #'s and his team made the playoffs as a top 3 seed? Or Rick Barry who's team had the best record?

Then jump ahead to 1986 where Michael Jordan displays a scoring clinic for 85 games. He scores the most points in a season since Wilt Chamberlain and all the rule changes as a guard!

he averages 37.5 ppg, 5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.9 spg, 1.5 bpg, on 48% fg and 85% ft
But as great as he was, the Bulls only won 40 games, and were swept 3-0 in the 1st round.

However, Magic Johnson has a tremendous season himself, as he leads the Lakers to 65 wins and a championship.

The problem I have with this is that the very next season, Michael Jordan puts up similar numbers:

35 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 5.6 apg, 3.2 spg, 1.6 bpg, on 54% fg and 84% ft, and the Bulls won 50 games this season. He also winst he Defensive Player of the Year award as well.

Magic Johnson's numbers are also very similar to his previous season's #'s, and only win 3 less games (62) and repeat as champions...something that had not been done in 19 years at that point.

I know this is a regular season award, but the Lakers had to be the favorites to win it all that season.

So Michael Jordan wins the MVP, despite his team winning 12 fewer games than Magic, and his team still isn't considered a serious contender...

but the previous season, Jordan has a modern-record breaking season, but wins 25 less games. I just don't see the consistency.

Then in 89, Jordan has perhaps his best all around season, averaging

32.5 ppg, 8 rpg, 8 apg, 2.9 spg, and shooting 54% fg and 85% ft.

But the Bulls win 3 fewer games than the year before, and the award goes to Magic, who's team wins 5 less games than the previous season.

How Michael doesn't win the award in 89 doesn't make sense to me, considering he didn't win when he had a record breaking year in 87, but he won when his team won only 3 more games the previous season.

In 1990, I feel Barkley or Jordan could've won it over Johnson, but I think Johnson got it because he led a team without Kareem to 63 wins. But I already made a case about this in a previous post.

Jordan's #'s did drop across the board, except for scoring which only improved by a point...I could see why he didn't win...he had to be held at a greater standard after the NBA witnessed 1986-1989 Jordan.

Lastly, Karl Malone's MVP in 1997 still doesn't make sense to me...his team won fewer games, he had an average season to his standard...he barely averaged 10 rpg as a power forward...

then to top that off they gave him another MVP in the 99 strike season... he didn't average 10 rpg as a power forward...and Tim Duncan and Shaq both had superior seasons over Malone. Duncan's team even had the same record.

But going by what the NBA did for Jabbar and Jordan...Tmac should've had an MVP in 2003 and Kobe should've had one in 2006...since those were amazing single season performances individually.

Also, how Duncan and Shaq, who have 8 titles and 6 Finals MVP's between them only have 3 NBA MVP's is beyond me...Karl Malone and Steve Nash each have 2...simply doesn't make sense.

 

TheBlackKnight, you seriously must lead all members of this board in most non-quoted words per post.

 

When a guy like Steve Nash wins multiple mvp's you realize how utterly irrelevant the award is. What kind of mvp has never been to the finals?...ugh

 

It did take Jordan another 3 years after his first MVP to reach his first NBA Finals.

Unfortunately, Nash happened to peak late in his career. I don't hold it against him. He was pretty close to getting to the Finals in multiple seasons, but things didn't break his way.

 

haha, I wouldn't doubt it.

But I honestly do feel that the NBA picks and chooses when they want to factor in more on team success and when they want to factor it more on individual success.

I don't mind it being on team success, but they should stick with that.


However, when the award is called the "Most Valuable Player"...Valuable is the key word there.

Does that mean, the player is most valuable to getting the high amount of wins, such as Steve Nash, Tim Duncan, Shaq etc.?

or does that mean the player is so valuable that without them playing at a very high level every night, their team has no chance of winning...(i.e. Jordan 1987, Dream 1994, Tmac 2003, Kobe 2006, Lebron 2007, Wade 2009, etc.)

The NBA can easily make a case for both sides, but I think they need to choose a clear cut decision...however I think Kobe still deserved the 2006 MVP over Nash, and I'm not even a Kobe fan...hard to argue against 81 points and 35 ppg. The Suns without Amare was still MUCH More talented than the 2006 Lakers.

 

Dream missed alot of games due to injury in 94/95.

David Robinson had Rodman as his PF, so he was free to score all he wanted cause Rodman cleaned up the boards.

 

Well, it's not about getting there before you become an MVP. Nash won't go to the finals as the top guy on a team, like most mvp's do...and it isn't because he didn't have enough help. He's been a part of some of the most talented teams of a few years ago.

I don't believe that at all. Does no one think it's a bit fishy that he just happened to peak at 30+ years old when he switched to a team and system that maximized his talents - playing for a coach that didn't care for his lack of defense? Maybe, just maybe he was already at his peak in Dallas.

I don't hold anything against him at all. I think he's the same very good all-star caliber player he was in Dallas - the player he is when he has to defer some of the decision making to other good players, the player we saw playing off of Shaq early last season.

 

leebigez is always legit!