I agree with you but that's where I think the logic is flawed. The pendulum swings with each big performance when we should look at the seasons as a whole. Harden has had bigger games but they get glossed over. Hopefully, Harden finishes the season strong but for Media to say Giannis won after last night is wrong imo.
In 10 or so years, we will look back at this time (2015-2019) and it will be clear that James Harden was by far the best player in the league who wasn't on the Warriors or named LeBron James. He will have only 1 MVP and THREE runner-up MVPs. He will be the only player to lead a team to a Game 7 vs. the KD Warriors. The media at large nitpicks his game, and moves the goalposts every season, but Harden will have the last laugh. I expect at least 3 more seasons of 30ppg+ and even if he never gets a ring, he will go down as a top 30 player of all-time.
I think that's fair. I'm also of the opinion that "big games" shouldn't really be given extra emphasis, since that is just a narrative-based argument that is too subjective and affected by one's personal biases. As long as human beings are voting for the award, though, it's bound to happen.
I don't totally disagree with this. At its most fundamental level I think this is right. But If the effect on their particular team was still the determining argument then I think Harden should still win it. However, I also think on a more meta level it's good to give it to the transcendent players like Harden this year and Lebron years past (or Curry). I think it's those players that move the game forward. The become the bossfight that the other players have to raise their levels to compete with. I also feel like trying to decide the impact of a player on a particular team, which no one can really know, is difficult. Whereas, doing the little switcheroo game with moving the individual between teams helps create perspective.
Following your argument, then Denver is the best team in the west cos they play in the most competitive division and if swapped with GSW or Rckets would win more games? The health of the squad is irrelevant to the discussion. If the east is as easy as some claim, why didnt the rockets (or anyone else in the west) have a more dominant performance against them? The Bucks beat the rockets twice, and are deserving of their 60+ wins. They would likely have the best record even if playing in the west. Outside of GSW (and even that is dubious), there is no other team that can be said to be better than the bucks this regular season. Playoff basketball is a different animal.
no, health isn’t irrelevant at all...bad health affects teams in a negative way, and the Rockets have missed multiple starters for many games The East is far weaker than the West, that’s not even a debate, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t a few good teams there. If u don’t think the Rockets would have a better record if they got to beat up on the Knicks, Cavs, Bulls, Hawks, Hornets, etc with a team as healthy as the Bucks have been then you’re fooling yourself. When I checked last week, the Bucks were only 7-6 against WC playoff teams. Now let them play all those teams 3 or 4 times instead of twice, and let’s see what their record would be then.
Adding to how weak the East is: There are 5 teams in the NBA with less than 30 wins. Only 1 is in the west. The Bucks have played these 5 teams 17 times (12-5) >20% of the season, the Rockets 9 times (8-1). Odd that the Bucks dropped so many games to those teams but I am confident the Rockets could have easily added 7-8 more wins.
Unless you have stats that shows that one conference was more injured than the other, then health is irrelevant to the claim that there are many easy teams to beat up in east, when none of the west teams have been able to beat up on said 'weak' east. If the top west teams cannot beat up on the east, then the argument of top eastern teams doing better cos they can beat up on weaker teams does not hold To give a similar argument, Bucks were 8-2 against the SouthWest that the rockets get to play 4x while the Rockets were only 6-4 against the EastCentral that Milwaukee plays 4x. Rockets play in the weakest division in the west, while Milwaukee plays in the toughest division in the East. Imagine if the Bucks could also get to play 4x against such a weak division.
I’m talking about the health of the Bucks this season in comparison to that of the Rockets. If you don’t think that there’s a ton of weak teams in the East then you’re just choosing to be ignorant. How can that even be debated? The top West teams only play those tanking/garbage teams twice. Did I say the entire EC was weak? No. Are these top WC teams losing games to the likes of the Hawks, Cavs, Bulls, Hornets, and Knicks on a regular basis? No. Those are pretty much guaranteed wins, and the Bucks face them at least 3 times each. That last paragraph is another bad argument. Lol, the Pelicans, Mavs, and Grizzlies are better than at least 4 teams in the EC without question. The Spurs are 8th in the West, but would be fighting for 4th in the East. The Kings are eliminated from the playoffs in the West with a record of 39-40, a record that would have them a half game behind the Pistons for 6th in the East. The Bucks were 7-6 against WC playoff teams just last week, WC playoff teams they only have to play twice each. The Rockets are 10-3 against current non-playoff teams in the East. After they beat the Knicks, it will be 11-3. 2 of those losses were early in the season when we were playing like complete sh*t and we’re dealing with injuries. The other one was that game we lost @ Miami when CP3 got injured. The Rockets beat up on the trash that the East has to offer like many WC teams do, they just only get to play them twice unlike the Bucks. The Rockets are also 10-6 against EC playoff teams, and u want to tell me we wouldn’t have the best record in basketball if we had the Bucks health and got to play an EC schedule? Please, 65 wins or more again, and that’s even with Morey’s horrible summer bringing in multiple bonafide scrubs.
A lot of mental gymnastics there buddy a lot of stretching a clear sign you lost ...not worth responding
Hard to quantify, but one thing that gets lost on East/West strength of schedule is *attrition.* It is not just playing good teams. It is playing good teams CONSISTENTLY OVER TIME. Playing GSW 4 times. Playing DEN 4 times. Playing UTAH 4 times. Just over and over again. So yes, Bucks beat some WC teams, but didn't have the *volume* of them and the *attrition* that builds up.
The claim made was that the better records of the raptors (and implicitly bucks) is cos the East is an easier conference. If the East is such a easy conference, why are the top west teams not sweeping through the east? If the West is so much harder, why do the top east teams have similar records against the west, as the west have against the east? BTW the bucks did not force Mowry to pay $140m to an injury prone CP3. Everyone has 15 roster slots, and being prone to injury and how it affects your team performance, is simply a component of evaluating the strength of said team. Saying we are stronger only if we werent having injuries is a silly logic. GSW didnt have Cousins for half of the season and are still #1 cos they have a roster of superstars that can absorb it. The bucks are a better regular season team than this rockets. Both rockets and bucks are currently 20-9 against the opposing conference and the bucks beat the rockets 2x and went 8-2 against the rocket's division. If the east was 10+ games weaker, Rockets should have gone like 28-2 against the east. If the bucks were in the west, they would still be ahead of the rockets in the standings, after all even Denver is above the rockets while Portland is right there. Like I said above, injury is not a valid excuse. Your roster is what it is and each game carries the same weight. The reality is that regular season rewards consistent performance over peak ability (which is one of the reasons why it is possible to have upsets in the playoffs). There are so many scheduled losses in the season and varying strength of schedule, that trying to make the argument that the disparity in wins is due to the east being weak just doesnt hold water. The bucks, like Denver have a solid roster that is well suited to doing well in the regular season, independent of which conference they are in while the current rockets roster is simply not as suited. How well it translates to the playoffs is yet to be seen
Here are the facts: Rockets have a 7-2 record against the East's five weakest teams. That is a a win percentage of 78%. (We'll be 8-2 after tonight, winning 80%.) Bucks have a 13-4 record against the East's five weakest teams. That is a win percentage of 76%. Basically the same win %, but that is 6 extra wins for the Bucks because they play those weak East teams more often. You really think Rockets wouldn't have more wins if we got to play those weak East teams as often as the Bucks do? Bucks get to play those weak teams 8 more times than we do. Extrapolating our win % that is AT LEAST 6 more wins for Rockets. Because the Bucks are a good team. They would make the playoffs in the West. But the fact that the Bucks are good doesn't discount the fact that they play against weaker teams more often. This is the crux of the argument. THEY PLAY WEAK TEAMS MORE OFTEN. The bottom half of the East is a joke compared to the West. Only the Suns are a joke team out West (and Suns beat GSW and MIL this season...)
