What Determines Who Is The Most Valuable Player In The NBA

The term, "value", tends to be a term that is often misused, especially in the world of basketball. The pinnacle of individual greatness is when one wins the NBA's highly coveted MVP award. This award is given to the player who has proven to have the most "value" towards his team. However, the criteria of who wins the MVP has been somewhat confusing in recent years. The reason why it is confusing to determine who is most deserving of MVP is because the criteria for the award seems to change year after year. What do I mean by this?

Stephen Curry is wildly considered Golden State's most valuable player, even if he is arguably not their best individual player. The numbers and the statistics prove those facts as well. Golden State is considered to be widely unbeatable because of Curry's otherwordly shooting. Despite harboring four all stars (soon to be five), if Curry is not playing for the Warriors, they prove to be very vulnerable. At one point, the Warriors were 21-20 in games where Kevin Durant played and Stephen Curry did not. That is a .500 pace which would amount to maybe an 8th seed in the Western Conference at best. Their offensive numbers also see massive dips in his absence.

Curry had a very impressive season in his first MVP campaign, but it was also because there was a narrative that went in his favor.

However, this dynasty didn't begin with the signing of Demarcus Cousins. In 2015, Stephen Curry won his first MVP award. He won the award based off of the "best player on the best team" narrative. That is a convincing argument. that season, Stephen Curry averaged 23.8 points, 7.7 assists, 2.0 steals, 48/44/91 shooting splits and did it all playing just over 32 minutes a game. The Warriors won 67 games, and it's even more impressive when you consider the amount of fourth quarters Curry sat because the team was so dominant. Curry was the reason why. So of course, he deserved that MVP.

However, many believed James Harden was robbed. Harden that same season averaged 27.4 points, 5.7 rebounds, and 7.0 assists. The Rockets lost then-versatile wing Chandler Parsons in free agency, and Howard's injured back made him miss half the regular season. In spite of that, he led the Rockets to 56 wins, the sixth best offense in the league and the Western Conference Finals, including a 3-1 comeback against the heavily favored Los Angeles Clippers. Curry had a better individual season in terms of what his team did, but it can be argued Harden had a heavier load, and did more with less. Of course, no one would deny Curry was fully deserving of MVP the next season, and since he was the first ever unanimously voted MVP that year, there's no need to go into why.

But then, two seasons later, the MVP was Russell Westbrook. Westbrook did the unthinkable, and averaged a triple double in Kevin Durant's absence. Only Oscar Robertson can say he averaged a triple double. But remember, Curry won his MVP because he was the best player on the best team in the NBA. Not necessarily because he had the greatest individual impact. The Thunder had a 47-35 record, 6th in the Western Conference and lost 4-1 to MVP candidate James Harden and the Houston Rockets. However, Westbrook still won MVP? Was it because he had a statistically historic season? It surely can't be he was the best player on the best team like Steph was. You can actually argue Westbrook isn't even top 5 in the NBA. So why did the criteria change?

Russell Westbrook had an unbelievable statistical season, but he wasn't the best player on the best team that year. So did he benefit from a change in the narrative once again?

Another player that is always injected into the MVP debate is LeBron James. Many people believe LeBron is deserving of MVP every year because of his individual impact on teams that don't have him. When LeBron left Cleveland for the first time in 2010, they missed the playoffs the next four seasons. When he returned, they made four straight Finals. When LeBron joined Miami, they made four straight Finals. When he left, they have missed the playoff twice and haven't gone beyond the 2nd round in his absence.

In his 16th season, LeBron James is averaging practically identical points, rebounds and assists (27.7/7.7/7.0) as he does for his career (27.2/7.4/7.2) and could lead LA to their first playoff appearance in six years.

He's already taken a team full of young sophomores and juniors into a top 4 seed into the Western Conference that James was supposedly going to flounder in. Meanwhile, the Cavalier team that he left doesn't have a chance of making the playoffs in the "weak" Eastern Conference that LeBron dominated for 8 years. Isn't that tremendous value? Doesn't the fact that he is able to take supporting casts of any kind and put them into title contention status year after year make him deserving of MVP?

Whoever wins MVP this year, it will be interesting to see what narrative will dominate the conversation.

Unfortunately, MVP changes based off what the popular narrative of the season is. If we go by the narrative of the best player on the best team, Kawhi Leonard is the clear MVP, is he not? The Raptors harbor the best record in the league right now at 23-9 and he's averaging career highs in points (26.3) and rebounds (8.4). If the MVP is based off of how one's former team is doing, it's LeBron James, as the Cavs are 7-23 with one of the worst records in the league. If the MVP is awarded on how who has the best statistical season, Curry averaging 50/50/90 shooting splits would do the trick, right? Or maybe Giannis Antetokounmpo averaging 26.6 points, 13.2 rebounds, 6.1 assists and 58% shooting?

Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see what predominant narrative will dominate the MVP conversation this season, as there are plenty of deserving candidates.