Bird should have at least 1 more season MVP trophy....but that was an AMAZING decade---talent-wise....Kareem...Magic...Jordan...Moses...Bird...Barkley...Isiah...McHale...Dominique....etc.
I know that Isiah rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his comments about Bird in 87, but he should have won it in 88-89, imo. He was the best player on the best team that year. How did Jordan win in 87-88? Yeah, his stats were great, but Chicago wasn't even in the top 2, record-wise. What a joke. There's no way that he should have won it that year, imo. It should have been Magic.
You seem to be all over the place.
Bird deserves the MVP over Kareem and Dr. J because he lead his team to an improved record. It doesn't seem to matter that Kareem and Dr. J had better seasons.
But now in '88, Jordan who improved his teams win total by 10, the biggest improvement in the whole NBA that season, and had a better statistical season than anybody doesn't deserve the MVP? He basically won 50 games by himself. But established guys like Bird and Magic, both surrounded by several HOFers deserve the award even though their teams actually got worse from the year before?
No, it doesn't in this case, because the impact that they had on their respective teams wasn't nearly as dramatic as Bird's was.
As for Jordan, look, I'll be the first to admit that I hate the guy. He ruined the game, imo, but that's not the issue here (although I'm sure that now my opinion means even less after such a comment. Sigh.). The MVP is supposed to go to the best player on the best team, is it not? The Lakers had the best record that year (again), but you could also make the argument that Bird deserved it that year as well, for carrying Boston without McHale and averaging 29.9 ppg. At 31! I think Bill Simmons put it perfectly in the book of basketball, though, when he said that by that time everyone was tired of voting for Larry, haha, which is a shame.
A lot of different people have a lot of different definitions for MVP, but for me it's definitely not the best player on the best team, it's just the player who played the best that season (though many times, that will be the best player on the best team). (Also for me best player is synonymous with most valuable player).
And for your definition, for arguments sake, what makes the '80 Celtics the best team? Their 61 wins is neck and neck with LA's 60 and Philly's 59. If anything, didn't the playoffs show both Philly and LA as better teams than the Celtics that year?
Also for your definition (best player, best team), doesn't that mean Celtics turnaround shouldn't factor in? I mean if Kareem or Dr. J sat out a season, then came back, Philly and LA would have seen huge turnarounds too, and again if turnaround does factor in, why wouldn't it factor in for Jordan who in '88 when the Bulls improved a league best +10 in the win column?
And you could even argue Bird wasn't even the best player on his team, just look at Max's win share compared to Bird's, also look at how Max was the Final's MVP in '81 over Bird. (To be clear, not saying Max was ever better than Bird, just that me have been playing better on the Celtics at the time).
Bird for MVP is just not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.
I agree that everyone differs on what an mvp is, but I never said that I agreed that it should always be the best player on the best team, it's just that, 88 Jordan and 08 Kobe aside, that's the typical way in which the mvp has been decided over history. I don't know how Kobe won that award, when it was clearly Garnett's, but whatever. We all know about the tremendous impact he had on our franchise from day one
Now, what made the 80 Celtics the best team? Um, their record. That single season turnaround should obviously factor in - how could it not (in this argument)? Saying that Kareem and Dr J would have netted the same results after sitting out a year is absurd, because players don't just retire for a year and then come back, aside from Dave Cowens, haha, so I really don't know why you brought that up. Why not say that for the best player on every team throughout history, then, and see what might have happened? You're missing the point - Bird was a rookie, and he took the Celtics from the basement to the top of the league in his first year, so by your standard of greatest impact, which I agree with, it's not even a debate. Bird should have had that MVP.
As for factoring in postseason success, the last time I checked, the MVP isn't chosen based on what happens in the playoffs, so that point has no merit, imo. I'm not trying to be nasty or argumentative, but that's why they had, in those days, a playoff MVP, instead of a Finals MVP, in addition to the regular season MVP award. Yes, the 76ers and Lakers were better in the postseason, but again, the year before, the Celtics hadn't even made the playoffs, so to make it to the ecf is even more of an incredible achievement, imo. Bird had the biggest impact on his team and was their best player, so how is Kareem more deserving? The year prior, with that same roster, the Lakers were 47-35, but then Magic shows up and really made all of the pieces fit, and they improved by 13 games, so you could make the argument that Magic was more valuable to the Lakers than Kareem was. However, even with all of that factored in, neither of them had the impact that Larry had on the Celtics in year 1 of his career. It's not even close.
I've also read how Fitch said that Bird was robbed of the 1981 playoff MVP, so that's where that came from. I know that Max was an integral part of that team, but he wasn't the one hitting the game winning jumper off the glass in game 7 vs the 76ers, or was the guy who led the Celtics from 3-1 down to win that series with 32, 25, and 23 points in the final three games of that ecf; and when you compare their respective stats for the 81 postseason, it's not even close. Max averaged 16.1 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 2.7 apg, 0.7 spg, and 0.9 bpg, to Bird's 21.9 ppg, 14 rpg, 6 apg, 2.3 spg, and 1 bpg. I'm assuming at that time that the 'playoff MVP' was decided upon a player's total postseason contributions and not just what he did in the finals, right?
Last point - I've seen the win shares stat, but I'm not familiar with how it works, so you'll have to explain that to me, but that's still a relatively-new statistic anyway. It wasn't even around at the time, so using it now to justify Max's winning of that particular award doesn't really add much to the conversation, imo.