BuzzerBeater Forums

In BB, the MVP award isn't that valuable except in high leagues. Most players that win MVP are in bot leagues and not very good.

This makes logical sense, but the fact is, how long would it take for people to look at the market and retrain their mind to realize MVP, oh that guy could be trained until $200 000 now!

For simplicity, HOF should remain higher.

Also to be fair, being a perennial allstar is just a step under HOF. When I think perennial allstar, I think of a 8+ time all star. That sounds like a borderline-HOF.

one more thing: who said it's season MVP? you can also have match MVP, and you don't need to be a legendary player to be the best player of a match once in a while.

I was the MVP for my high school team. I was MVP for the league. Not the region. Not the state. And wasn’t even good enough for D.III college, let alone G leagues. Overseas. Or NBA.

By BB logic, I’d be announcer potential. But I have an MVP trophy.

Should I be better than the guy who did not win MVP? Or may have gone on to play D. I, and in the NBA, but just wasn’t “as valuable” to his HS team as I was?

MVP is a subjective measurement of who was most valuable to their team.
HOF is an OBJECTIVE measurement, of who was routinely and consistently the most dominant player of their generation.

To me there’s no debate that HOF should be higher than MVP.

I also find the logic of X players in HOF and only Y% are MVPs. But Z% of MVPs are in the HOF.

So is Steph Curry or Derrick Rose or Steve Nash a better PG than John Stockton? Stockton never won an MVP. Stockton was such a phenomenal PG he was able to create Karl Malone into an MVP award. But Stockton never won an MVP himself. So then his he less good and less potential than Harden, Westbrook, etc.?

By that logic, you might have been a High School Hall of Famer as well, and that would almost never make it to the NBA either. Keeping it to a single league makes it a better comparison.