Who is the 2010-11 NBA MVP ? (MikeG, 2010)
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:08 am
page 1
Mike G
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:20 am Post subject: MVP Race 2011 Reply with quote
Place your vote and hopefully your reasons.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
back2newbelf
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 275
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:50 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Nowitzki. Reasons: On/Off, RAPM, team win % with him vs without him
_________________
EvanZ
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:12 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
My vote is for Howard. I think Rose is going to win the award for recognition of his high USG rate and lack of any All-Star teammates this season. I think that's a decent argument.
But this just goes to show how little voters/media care about defense.
_________________
greyberger
Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Posts: 52
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Howard should win it. Rose has got it in the bag though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BobboFitos
Reply with quote
I voted for Howard. I agree w/ SVG that Howard has more impact per possession than any other player in the game.
The funny thing is "people" (I suppose casualfan media) view Dwight Howard as primarily a rebounder/defender, however what he does on offense is super elite as well. Not really getting enough credit, I have him as the best player this season. (By a decent margin - enough anyway to make this an easy decision for me)
Mike G
Rose has got it in the bag? How, when, why?
Because the Bulls have momentarily got the best record, except for the Spurs?
Boozer, when healthy, is all-League or All-star at least. Noah might be even better. Deng is no slouch. The bench is deep. Do voters pretend they don't know these things?
The standings may shift in the next week or two. Does that change the value of the MVP candidates?
bbstats
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul Pierce is the leader in RAPM times Minutes%. So...yeah.
_________________
Mike G
Reply with quote
At this point it's Dwight with 4 votes, LeBron 2, Dirk 1, Pierce 1.
I got Rose's historic statistical similars --
Code:
dif yr per-36 rates Sco Reb Ast PF Stl TO Blk
.00 2011 Rose, Derrick 28.0 4.5 8.0 1.6 1.0 3.3 .6
.33 1996 Anfernee Hardaway 25.0 4.6 7.1 2.0 2.1 2.8 .5
.38 2002 Jerry Stackhouse 23.8 4.5 5.9 2.2 1.1 3.7 .5
.40 2005 Kobe Bryant 27.5 5.7 5.6 2.5 1.2 3.8 .8
.42 2004 Tracy Mcgrady 26.4 5.7 5.4 1.8 1.3 2.5 .6
.42 1996 Terrell Brandon 24.9 4.3 7.7 2.1 1.9 2.0 .5
.42 2006 Tony Parker 25.7 3.8 7.6 2.2 1.1 3.4 .1
.42 1970 Jerry West 27.2 3.6 6.4 2.0 2.1 3.4 .3
.43 2005 Dwyane Wade 26.6 5.3 6.7 2.9 1.5 4.1 1.0
.46 2006 Lebron James 30.8 6.6 6.1 2.0 1.3 2.8 .7
.52 1967 Oscar Robertson 24.9 4.1 8.1 2.5 2.4 3.5 .4
.52 2005 Allen Iverson 28.3 3.7 7.3 1.7 2.2 4.2 .1
Only the most similar season per player.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
back2newbelf
bbstats wrote:
Paul Pierce is the leader in RAPM times Minutes%. So...yeah.
I'll have an update tomorrow, I don't think that statement is true anymore
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Rose has got it in the bag? How, when, why?
Because the Bulls have momentarily got the best record, except for the Spurs?
Boozer, when healthy, is all-League or All-star at least. Noah might be even better. Deng is no slouch. The bench is deep. Do voters pretend they don't know these things?
The standings may shift in the next week or two. Does that change the value of the MVP candidates?
bolded is pretty much true. they chose not to believe chicago is really deep.
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greyberger
Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Posts: 52
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Boozer, when healthy, is all-League or All-star at least. Noah might be even better. Deng is no slouch. The bench is deep. Do voters pretend they don't know these things?
That's a pretty good way of putting it. Boozer and Noah aren't mentioned unless it's in reference to their injuries. Deng is completely overlooked, as are the key bench players. They might as well be invisible.
There are some good examples of the conventional MVP wisdom in this recent Ric Bucher chat. Ric has a vote, doesn't he?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BobboFitos
greyberger wrote:
Mike G wrote:
Boozer, when healthy, is all-League or All-star at least. Noah might be even better. Deng is no slouch. The bench is deep. Do voters pretend they don't know these things?
That's a pretty good way of putting it. Boozer and Noah aren't mentioned unless it's in reference to their injuries. Deng is completely overlooked, as are the key bench players. They might as well be invisible.
There are some good examples of the conventional MVP wisdom in this recent Ric Bucher chat. Ric has a vote, doesn't he?
In a nutshell:
Quote:
dominick w (arab alabama)
Why is dwade not getting more mvp love?his stats are very close to Lebrons and hollinger has him ranked high yet no one talks bout him for mvp. very sad in my oppinon
Ric Bucher
(1:20 PM)
I would hope because MVP is not about statistics.
Apparently there are a select few among us who are so amazing in terms of their basketball instincts and selection, I suppose, that they can ignore stats and make declarative statements about the relative value of those players. Maybe one day I will be that amazing!
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
I'll go out on a limb and guess that Ric Bucher refers to statistics when they support his observations. Others among us may have a preconception based on stats, and confirm this via observation.
Bucher's observation tells him that Orlando has much more talent around Dwight than the Bulls have in support of Rose. But a response comes in claiming the Bulls have 3 players (same 3 I named) who are better than anyone around Dwight. Bucher seems to agree, and so he has made no argument whatsoever. Just that he likes Rose.
The article was from awhile ago, right after the deadline trades. This Rose For MVP groundswell has taken me by surprise. Guess I need to dig more for these sentimental sea changes.
_
Mike G
To get the mvp candidates, I just multiplied 5 stats:
My own eWins/484 and eWins/82 games; PER; b-r.com's WinShares and WS/48.
Everyone who is Top 10 in any of e82, PER, or WS is included.
Code:
smvp statistical mvp e484 e82 PER WS ws48
2693 James,Lebron 2.30 14.5 26.7 12.9 .234
2297 Howard,Dwight 2.16 13.1 26.3 12.9 .239
1546 Paul,Chris 1.80 10.7 24.5 13.0 .251
1387 Rose,Derrick 2.09 13.1 23.3 10.8 .201
1382 Wade,Dwyane 2.05 12.2 25.1 10.7 .206
1322 Love,Kevin 1.88 11.5 24.5 11.5 .217
1310 Gasol,Pau 1.75 11.1 23.3 12.7 .229
971 Durant,Kevin 1.81 11.3 23.9 10.3 .192
962 Nowitzki,Dirk 1.89 9.5 24.3 9.8 .224
920 Bryant,Kobe 2.06 11.9 23.7 8.9 .178
673 Westbrook,Russel 1.92 11.5 23.7 8.1 .159
664 Aldridge,Lamarcu 1.63 11.0 21.8 10.0 .171
652 Ginobili,Manu 1.75 9.1 22.1 9.2 .202
652 Randolph,Zach 1.79 10.3 22.2 9.0 .176
576 Griffin,Blake 1.82 11.6 21.7 8.4 .149
562 Pierce,Paul 1.55 9.1 19.4 10.2 .202
426 Stoudemire,Amare 1.76 10.9 23.0 7.2 .134
Pretty sharp dropoff from 10 to 11, and I think only 10 can be in a poll here.
kjb
If I had a vote, and I had to cast it today, I'd cast it for Lebron, who I think is having a terrific season. No way he'll get it since he's officially the latest "bad guy" in the grand tradition of pro rasslin'.
I reserve the right to change my mind at the completion of game 82, however.
page 2
Author Message
bbstats
Well-with the new RAPM this morning, my head tells me Dirk.
EDIT: I made a blog post on the subject.
DSMok1
I just averaged ezPM100, RAPM (1Yr), and ASPM.
(Top 50 players overall shown, where top 50 is average of Value and Average)
Per 100 possessions:
Code:
Name Average
LeBron James 6.3
Chris Paul 6.2
Dwight Howard 5.8
Manu Ginobili 4.9
Dwyane Wade 4.9
Steve Nash 4.7
Dirk Nowitzki 4.6
Paul Pierce 4.5
Kevin Garnett 4.3
Pau Gasol 4.3
Kobe Bryant 4.0
Nene Hilario 3.7
Derrick Rose 3.5
Al Horford 3.4
Tim Duncan 3.4
Kevin Love 3.3
Andre Iguodala 3.2
Lamar Odom 3.1
Kevin Durant 3.1
LaMarcus Aldridge 3.1
Tyson Chandler 3.0
Chris Bosh 2.9
Rajon Rondo 2.8
Gerald Wallace 2.8
Russell Westbrook 2.6
Zach Randolph 2.6
Ronnie Brewer 2.6
Blake Griffin 2.5
Amir Johnson 2.5
David West 2.5
Deron Williams 2.4
Ray Allen 2.4
Carmelo Anthony 2.4
Tony Parker 2.4
Andre Miller 2.3
Rudy Gay 2.3
Emeka Okafor 2.2
Luol Deng 2.1
Kyle Lowry 2.1
Eric Gordon 2.1
Elton Brand 2.1
Josh Smith 2.1
Andrew Bogut 2.0
Paul Millsap 2.0
George Hill 2.0
Joe Johnson 1.9
Landry Fields 1.8
Andrei Kirilenko 1.8
Kevin Martin 1.5
Amare Stoudemire 1.2
And (rate+3) * % Possessions
Code:
Name Value
LeBron James 7.3
Chris Paul 7.1
Dwight Howard 6.8
Pau Gasol 5.8
Dwyane Wade 5.7
Manu Ginobili 5.4
Paul Pierce 5.4
Steve Nash 5.2
Kevin Love 5.2
Kobe Bryant 5.1
Derrick Rose 5.0
LaMarcus Aldridge 5.0
Kevin Durant 4.8
Dirk Nowitzki 4.7
Blake Griffin 4.5
Rudy Gay 4.5
Lamar Odom 4.4
Russell Westbrook 4.3
Al Horford 4.3
Nene Hilario 4.1
Zach Randolph 4.1
Chris Bosh 4.1
Luol Deng 4.1
Deron Williams 4.1
David West 4.0
Tim Duncan 4.0
Ray Allen 4.0
Gerald Wallace 3.9
Kevin Garnett 3.9
Tony Parker 3.8
Andre Iguodala 3.8
Carmelo Anthony 3.8
Elton Brand 3.7
Josh Smith 3.7
Rajon Rondo 3.6
Paul Millsap 3.6
Kyle Lowry 3.5
Andre Miller 3.5
Tyson Chandler 3.4
Landry Fields 3.4
Amare Stoudemire 3.3
Eric Gordon 3.2
Emeka Okafor 3.1
Kevin Martin 3.1
Andrew Bogut 3.1
Joe Johnson 3.0
Andrei Kirilenko 3.0
George Hill 2.7
Ronnie Brewer 2.7
Amir Johnson 2.5
I voted Lebron, but Howard and CP3 are also viable candidates, particularly Howard since Howard's D is likely underrated by ASPM.
EDIT: Updated and expanded post.
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 181
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
In a "normal" LeBron year, I'd give it to him.
But since some of his metrics across the board have taken a teeny hit since he's paired up with Wade and Bosh, I feel that opens the door for Howard to take MVP in my eyes.
When strictly comparing Howard to Rose, the big fella has him beat in adjusted plus/minus, statistical plus/minus, PER, WARP, and Win Shares per 48. Basically, there's no evidence whatsoever that Rose is better than Howard in almost any linear metric out there. But of course, since Rose is "leading" the Bulls to the No. 1 seed in the East, has exceeded the narrative that was bestowed upon him before the season began, and is a nice guy, he'll win MVP but not deservingly so.
Meanwhile, Howard has anchored the Magic's offense and defense. Thanks to Howard, the Magic are still an elite defensive team, which makes him a shoe-in for DPOY again. Thanks to Howard, the Magic are still an above-average offensive team, despite an offense that has regressed thanks in large part to Nelson's descent and the midseason trades that have been nothing more than a wash at this point. Howard has become a complete two-way player, with elite production on both sides of the ball, and he's had to navigate the Magic throughout the season due to trades that have significantly altered the team's identity. Plus, Howard has the "benefit" of carrying an inferior supporting cast compared to the Bulls.
I'd have no qualms giving the MVP to LeBron, but I really think Dwight has gone above and beyond to earn the award.
_________________
@erivera7
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3596
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Fantastic.
Now, can we see the average "3Rate" for Love and Durant?
And the avg * %Poss for Wade?
DSMok1, you wrote "per minute". You mean per 48? per100?
It's now Dwight 6, LeBron 5, Dirk 2, Rose 1
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Reply with quote
shouldn't kevin garnett be on this list? best defender/rebounder (and DPOY candidate) and an efficient scorer on the league's 2nd best defensive team that also happens to have one of the league's best records?
as opposed to kevin love who is the best player on a team that won't win 25 games and may not even win 20?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
erivera7 wrote:
..
I'd have no qualms giving the MVP to LeBron, but I really think Dwight has gone above and beyond to earn the award.
Ah, you're biased.
The really sad thing about giving the award to a lesser player is when that winner gets demolished in the playoffs by the true MVP. Think Shaq vs Iverson in '01 Finals. Jordan vs Malone or Barkley. Duncan vs 'shoulda won' Kidd.
If LeBron or Dwight wins, AND Rose outplays that winner in the playoffs, we have a more intriguing story. I just don't want to see Rose's career peaking at age 22. That's pretty early to have such pressure.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DSMok1
@ Mike G
Updated post with additional data (limiting results to the top 50 in combined Value and Rate data). Rate is per 100 possessions, Value is including replacement level of -3.
_________________
GodismyJudgeOK.com/DStats
Twitter.com/DSMok1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
erivera7
Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
erivera7 wrote:
..
I'd have no qualms giving the MVP to LeBron, but I really think Dwight has gone above and beyond to earn the award.
Ah, you're biased.
I don't think I am. There's a legitimate argument for Dwight to win the award. I don't think that's bias.
Mike G
OK, taking liberties to abbreviate avg(ezPM+RAPM+ASPM) as ERA, I also added 3 to that number, multiplied it along with the Poss%ERA and the original 5 metrics; and took the square root, just to keep it in fewer digits.
Ranked by that conglomerate metric, shown as smv2. Earlier version retained, as smv1.
Code:
smv1 smv2 stats mvp e484 e82 ERA eraP PER WS ws48
2693 428 James,Lebron 2.30 14.5 6.3 7.32 26.7 12.9 .234
2297 371 Howard,Dwight 2.16 13.1 5.8 6.82 26.3 12.9 .239
1546 317 Paul,Chris 1.80 10.7 6.2 7.06 24.5 13.0 .251
1382 249 Wade,Dwyane 2.05 12.2 4.9 5.70 25.1 10.7 .206
1310 236 Gasol,Pau 1.75 11.1 4.3 5.84 23.3 12.7 .229
1387 212 Rose,Derrick 2.09 13.1 3.5 4.98 23.3 10.8 .201
1322 209 Love,Kevin 1.88 11.5 3.3 5.24 24.5 11.5 .217
962 185 Nowitzki,Dirk 1.89 9.5 4.6 4.66 24.3 9.8 .224
920 181 Bryant,Kobe 2.06 11.9 4.0 5.09 23.7 8.9 .178
971 169 Durant,Kevin 1.81 11.3 3.1 4.82 23.9 10.3 .192
smv1 smv2 stats mvp e484 e82 ERA eraP PER WS ws48
652 167 Ginobili,Manu 1.75 9.1 4.9 5.39 22.1 9.2 .202
562 150 Pierce,Paul 1.55 9.1 4.5 5.37 19.4 10.2 .202
664 142 Aldridge,Lamarcu 1.63 11.0 3.1 4.95 21.8 10.0 .171
673 127 Westbrook,Russel 1.92 11.5 2.6 4.30 23.7 8.1 .159
652 122 Randolph,Zach 1.79 10.3 2.6 4.10 22.2 9.0 .176
576 119 Griffin,Blake 1.82 11.6 2.5 4.49 21.7 8.4 .149
Kevin Garnett has played 1925 minutes which is just 27.5 minutes * 70 games (by Bos). He displaces Amar'e at #17.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Crow
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
DSMOk1 did you multiply just the offensive parts of those 3 metrics by % Possessions or the overall ratings?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSMok1
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 610
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Crow wrote:
DSMOk1 did you multiply just the offensive parts of those 3 metrics by % Possessions or the overall ratings?
Crow
I guess I may have taken % possessions wrong. So % possessions is % of team possessions the player is in the game, not the % of possessions he "used" on offense?
DSMok1
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Crow wrote:
I guess I may have taken % possessions wrong. So % possessions is % of team possessions the player is in the game, not the % of possessions he "used" on offense?
Yeah, this is % possessions played.
Crow
Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Alright, thanks for the clarification.
YaoPau
What are your definitions of value?
For me, the MVP should go to the player whose regular season performance helped his team's title chances the most. I think winning a title is the point of playing, so if you look back and say "that guy's performance in the regular season helped set his team up for a title run more than any other player", he should get MVP.
So stuff like luck, leadership, clutchness, and winning the important games against contending rivals makes a difference, and I think these analyses of overall efficiency are trying to fit an estimate to something we can break down further.
LeBron has cost the Heat several games by failing in the clutch, as they're 2-8 in close games. The Heat are 0-6 against the Celtics and the Bulls, and had they won those games they'd be the #1 seed easily. But instead they're on pace to have to win three road series to win the title. Unless you think his efficiency is so extraordinarily high that that stuff doesn't make a difference, LeBron isn't the MVP. And when I look at his 1-year APM and see it's just a hair above Rose's and below Dirk/Howard/Aldridge/Garnett, and his box score numbers are down from past years, I think he's in the discussion but likely not the best choice.
Howard/Aldridge/Nash/Paul have all been great this year, but have they increased their team's title chances dramatically? The way the playoffs usually play out, an elite player on a bad team is basically the same as an elite player on a #4 seeded team imo.
I think Dirk, Garnett, Ginobili are the three guys with elite efficiency and plusminus numbers who are on elite teams. I think Rose has to be in the discussion if the Bulls get the #1 seed, as he's been efficient enough, and he's been their undoubted leader all season, and beaten every top team. Kobe, Gasol deserve mention too, I just wonder if this is the year Gasol cancels Kobe out. It's between Dirk and Rose for me right now, with the other guys in the hunt if their teams move up in the standings.
page 3
Author Message
EvanZ
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:07 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, the only way I'd give Rose the award is if value was defined in terms of productivity per $ of salary (he makes $5.5M this season). And if that were the criterion, then Westbrook would be in the running, too ($4M). And that's probably a very important part of it. I don't think Chicago could afford Boozer without Rose being so cheap.
_________________
greyberger
Ric Bucher held anothed chat and gets a little worked up about the role of stats in public evaluation of players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
EvanZ
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 276
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:11 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I like poster "Mayo"'s question:
Quote:
Does the definition of "Most Valuable Player" account for parody?
Laughing
erivera7
Bucher's response to the question about Westbrook's numbers compared to Rose is flat-out arrogant: "Because statistics don't determine who the better player is."
So then what determines it? Fulfilling a narrative? I didn't know we're in the business of writing compelling children stories.
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YaoPau
Reply with quote
OKC net rating with Westbrook on the floor: +1.3
OKC net rating with Westbrook off the floor: +10.9
Seems like that could be fluky, as he's had decent plus minus numbers in past years. But I think you have to at least consider why that's happening, as elite players usually don't have those splits.
Most of us assume Westbrook is a very good defender, but his lineups have been terrible defensively this year. Offensively he's not a particularly efficient scorer, he doesn't spread the floor with a 3pt shot (which can really limit that offense with him and Thabo in the backcourt), and while he can run an offense, I've never thought of him as an elite passer.
I think Bucher handled it fine. He said stats are valuable, but you have to look at how a player is being used on his team, and how his style fits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
BobboFitos
erivera7 wrote:
Bucher's response to the question about Westbrook's numbers compared to Rose is flat-out arrogant: "Because statistics don't determine who the better player is."
So then what determines it? Fulfilling a narrative? I didn't know we're in the business of writing compelling children stories.
The bigger issue that you/me/we don't seem to really dive on is that it's unbelievably presumptuous that the individual voter (we'll focus on Bucher, since he was the one who said that above) thinks they have that innate ability - that apparently 99.9% of other basketball viewers do not possess - to gauge true value. As in, they are allowed to completely disregard stats, because the stats paint a picture oftentimes completely different than the narrative they had planned/wanted to write about. So, simply create a new metric - we'll call it "what I think" - and if the player in question leads in that metric, well then, he deserves the award!
So for Bucher, well, Rose has a 107.4 WIT while Dwight is only 94.6 WIT, so hey, maybe if Dwight saved some orphans from a burning building he'd accumulate 15 WIT points to become the true MVP of this season.
--
The other issue as well is that the phrase above - "statistics don't determine the better player" - is actually not completely wrong. Well, on the surface it's ludicrous - but I'd counter by saying that the statistics that don't determine the better player are probably poor statistics! Or, at least, are useful in a different/appropriate context. For example, points per game is a statistic, and Monta Ellis averages 24.1 points. Rajon Rondo averages 10.2. Well then, points per game says Monta is "better" than Rondo! Well, not so fast. PPG is a statistic that has some value, but it's not a baseline for player A vs player B. etc etc.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BobboFitos
YaoPau wrote:
I think Bucher handled it fine. He said stats are valuable, but you have to look at how a player is being used on his team, and how his style fits.
Because the chat was linked I decided to read it, and he did not say this. Prefacing his comment ("statistics don't matter") by saying fit, style, context etc. are important when looking at said statistics, well, it would have gone a long way. Still doesn't make him right, but at least it salvages him somewhat and it's no longer completely ignorant. Instead he said:
Quote:
Ric Bucher
(1:43 PM)
No, thank you. To be clear, stats can be very valuable - in gauging a player's improvement, efficiency, etc. But using them to compare players on different teams in different systems with different roles...well, a lot of people (who don't work in or around the NBA) do it. But it doesn't make it right.
He is saying the statistics accrued on team A do not translate to team B. Last time I checked, teams are fairly similar, albeit with different levels of success. You need some people who can score. Need some people who can rebound. Need some people who can defend. Maybe you get some people who can do all 3. Maybe throw in some passing. Last time I checked, as well, roles translated fairly similarly from team A to team B - Dwight Howard is going to still be the best defender in the league if he's on the Minnesota Timberwolves. If he's on the Wizards, Jazz, or Nuggets, well, seems to me he'll still do the same things he does with the Magic.
I'm of the opinion the onus is on others who claim the opposite. What player has been wildly successful on one team, and then completely awful on another, in the same year? Sure, at the margins (again, due to fit, system, role, etc.) actual numbers will adjust slightly, but people, it's not drastic. It's the same game with the same rules whether you're in New York or California.
Quote:
Ric Bucher
(1:50 PM)
This is hard to say without coming off as arrogant, but I'm going to try: the access I have, and have had for nearly 20 years, informs my opinion. You don't have that access. I understand that. Some who do, don't know what to do with it or don't utilize it, for whatever reason. More than anything, I remain teachable. When I write or say something, it's almost never without having checked it out with people in the league whose opinions I trust, and who will tell me when I'm off. I don't cite those people because they're usually multiples, but rest assured my understanding of who is good and who is not, who is doing what and who is not, is not based on my thoughts alone.
I'll continue to stake my beliefs in numbers because they remain objective. The day of the insider informant are numbered. I suppose he's clinging to these beliefs - that his inside access has allowed him to have more correct and credible understanding of who's doing what in each game and for each team - pretty strongly, because there was never an alternative.
Everything can be measured. The holes in basketball analysis stem from those measurements not being accurate (or, more on point, FULLY accurate) - not that they are immeasurable.
_________________
-Rob
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 206
BobboFitos wrote:
Quote:
Basketball is a sport where box score statistics simply can’t come close to measuring total impact. Part of that is because score keeping doesn’t even try to measure everything it good – which is why PER and pretty much any stat based entirely on box score numbers doesn’t come close to measuring defensive impact.
Actually, PBP driven metrics do a pretty reasonable job of measuring total impact. They're not perfect, but they're pretty damn good. Accordingly, LeBron and Dwight impact the game more than Rose - and although Rose is having a strong season, he falls quite short of those guys.
Being able to throw away certain stats (when they don't fit an argument) because "player X does more than what the stats say!" and be able to get away with that is totally disingenuous and a poor argument. Hey, people - if Rose is doing so much that's not in the contemporary boxscore - whether it be his plus minus, which does NOT point toward Rose over others, or the fact he brings his teammates Gatorade and makes them all happier which in turn "makes them better" - then why aren't those same people trying to measure and place value on those certain things? It's too lazy to just deem his contributions "there", but at the same time "immeasurable", and conclude he's the MVP.
Okay we're talking about me saying "can't come close" and you saying "pretty reasonable", which sound to me like individual outlook might be the only difference. I'd love however to hear what makes you feel that they do a "pretty damn good" job.
As far as "why aren't people trying to measure...?", this to me doesn't seem like an argument. It's fine to be frustrated that critics aren't getting more directly involved, but effect critiquing is not dependent on such involvement, and there are a host of reasons why someone isn't actively involved in stat creation. You want to express frustration with the passivity that's cool, it's just not an argument against their criticisms.
Personally, I just don't see how you can look at LeBron last season and this season and think his net impact each season has been proportional to his productivity. And don't chalk up my skepticism to me being a big believer in Rose, because I'm actually not. I've written two articles that the Bull community have loved, and I've been quite surprised because in both I make clear I have doubts about the guy - they were just so used to Rose getting trashed in comparisons to LeBron, etc, that they liked someone being even-handed (though admittedly at this point, the mainstream media really seems on his side).
___
bbstats
Quote:
Personally, I just don't see how you can look at LeBron last season and this season and think his net impact each season has been proportional to his productivity.
Haha...uh. What?
You have already dichotomized something that we cannot be sure of: that productivity and net impact are different.
In the stats world, those two are veeeerrrry similar. So maybe...define?
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 206
bbstats wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I just don't see how you can look at LeBron last season and this season and think his net impact each season has been proportional to his productivity.
Haha...uh. What?
You have already dichotomized something that we cannot be sure of: that productivity and net impact are different.
In the stats world, those two are veeeerrrry similar. So maybe...define?
Huh, I'm not sure what to make of how strange this to you. Surely you're familiar with the idea of VORP? Just talking economics, you could say I'm talking about revenue vs profit.
Every basket X shoots, others could have shot. The fact that there is only 1 ball and 5 guys means that the productivity between teammates inherently gets distorted relative to their actual ability to produce, hence the true measure of net impact contrasts what is produced with what could be produced with other available options.
I have a hard time believing I'm talking anything new to the board with this, so what am I missing?
bbstats
Quote:
Huh, I'm not sure what to make of how strange this to you. Surely you're familiar with the idea of VORP?
VORP refers to value, specifically Value over replacement player...which I would agree is a different concept than per-possession impact, but you made no such comparison.
You mentioned "productivity" as being different from "net impact"...both very vaguely. "Value" and "value over replacement" are two still-separate (although not mutually exclusive) ideas. I think on this board we would use more specific terms than just "productivity" and "net impact."
If by "net impact" you are referring to unadjusted plus-minus (since you constrained the idea to its limitations in explaining "actual ability to produce" due to multicollinearity), then we are in complete agreement, but I don't think anyone on this board would use raw plus-minus in good faith. Adjusted plus-minus, advanced statistical plus-minus, etc all try to measure the same thing: a player's effective productivity; that is, their overall "impact" on the game. EDIT: - while holding other variables (like teammates, etc) constant
Furthermore, if anything, a player's "positive description x" will be at the very least PROPORTIONAL to "positive description y" across the board, which you were suggesting. Specific players, on the other hand, might fall short in some metrics but succeed in others (which I think you were trying to suggest about James in 2010?).
Crow
All MVP evaluations that I have seen (though I haven't really gone looking for them) are based on season average data. Inclusion of all games is natural, but I'll offer this different perspective and possible MVP criteria:
Playing well in games your team wins.
For simplicity I looked at GameScore >20 for the top 4 vote-getters in this poll and whether their team won and Win % when over GS20.
Here are the results:
GS>20 Wins W / GS>20
Rose 30 22 73.3%
Nowitski 25 18 72.0%
Howard 31 20 64.5%
James 38 28 73.7%
Some might want to also know who plays well in team wins against top teams. As a tie-breaker or as additional interesting information going into the playoffs.
mathayus
bbstats wrote:
Quote:
Huh, I'm not sure what to make of how strange this to you. Surely you're familiar with the idea of VORP?
VORP refers to value, specifically Value over replacement player...which I would agree is a different concept than per-possession impact, but you made no such comparison.
You mentioned "productivity" as being different from "net impact"...both very vaguely. "Value" and "value over replacement" are two still-separate (although not mutually exclusive) ideas. I think on this board we would use more specific terms than just "productivity" and "net impact."
If by "net impact" you are referring to unadjusted plus-minus (since you constrained the idea to its limitations in explaining "actual ability to produce" due to multicollinearity), then we are in complete agreement, but I don't think anyone on this board would use raw plus-minus in good faith. Adjusted plus-minus, advanced statistical plus-minus, etc all try to measure the same thing: a player's effective productivity; that is, their overall "impact" on the game. EDIT: - while holding other variables (like teammates, etc) constant
Furthermore, if anything, a player's "positive description x" will be at the very least PROPORTIONAL to "positive description y" across the board, which you were suggesting. Specific players, on the other hand, might fall short in some metrics but succeed in others (which I think you were trying to suggest about James in 2010?).
This is a strange conversation. We're clearly talking past each other, and you really talking to me like I know nothing about basketball statistics which to me seems unwarranted - but hey maybe I'll think otherwise when we're done.
I feel like part of the problem is that I'm dancing around trying to express concepts that I think can be conveyed in a sentence with the proper analogy, and you're interpreting that to be me hand waving. Meanwhile the way you feel like all-purpose general terms have super-specific meaning just seems strange to me - though I understand the benefit of specialized vocabulary in some circumstances.
I'll just try to be very precise with my terminology and minimize my analogies.
According to Hollinger, "The player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player's per-minute productivity." Now, PER's just one of a whole slew of metrics that are all basically the same with differences in weights and nuance in factor - so anything like that, that's productivity (yes I understand the per-minute aspect, let's not a little division get between friends).
The notion of productivity here is the same as it is generally, it is about what is produced by the entity in question. In this case points, assists, etc, they are all looked at as products of the player, and rated accordingly. That's who I've always known productivity to be talked about in basketball statistics, and since the quote I used comes from an article written by Hollinger this year, it is still certainly still considered valid among the most well established in APBRmetrics.
Now, to be fair, these advanced productivity stats do factor in efficiency and do do normalization of some sort. That does imply a zero point around which we can talk about positives and negatives, which begs the adjective "net". If this is the source of your confusion, then I guess I do understand.
When I talk about "net impact", I do so as an ideal. It is how much you are truly helping or hurting your team. Unadjusted +/- is not "net impact" though it could definitely be looked at as an attempt to approximate net impact (and I'm saying nothing about what I think about that stat in this post, I don't want to get conversation off track)
So when I talk about productivity correlating with net impact, that's what I'm talking about.
Now consider, LeBron's PER has dropped from 31 to 27 this year. By Hollinger's method, LeBron's productivity rate is at 87% of what it was before.
On LeBron's old team, he and his 31 PER leaving resulted in the team going from winning 66 games, to what, 15 games? Say a 50 game drop. Do you really think there's any way we could form a ratio using those numbers and his 27 PER from this year to determine how Miami would do without him?
I want to be clear, I'm not asking for miraculous precision, I mean do you have any confidence that you could even find the right trajectory using that type of information?
I don't see how you can without first developing a solid understanding of what LeBron's bringing that isn't replaceable. And that's my point, and why I have great difficulty having faith in anyone simply looking at productivity statistics to determine who the MVP is.
Mike G
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:20 am Post subject: MVP Race 2011 Reply with quote
Place your vote and hopefully your reasons.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
back2newbelf
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 275
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:50 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Nowitzki. Reasons: On/Off, RAPM, team win % with him vs without him
_________________
EvanZ
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:12 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
My vote is for Howard. I think Rose is going to win the award for recognition of his high USG rate and lack of any All-Star teammates this season. I think that's a decent argument.
But this just goes to show how little voters/media care about defense.
_________________
greyberger
Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Posts: 52
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Howard should win it. Rose has got it in the bag though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BobboFitos
Reply with quote
I voted for Howard. I agree w/ SVG that Howard has more impact per possession than any other player in the game.
The funny thing is "people" (I suppose casualfan media) view Dwight Howard as primarily a rebounder/defender, however what he does on offense is super elite as well. Not really getting enough credit, I have him as the best player this season. (By a decent margin - enough anyway to make this an easy decision for me)
Mike G
Rose has got it in the bag? How, when, why?
Because the Bulls have momentarily got the best record, except for the Spurs?
Boozer, when healthy, is all-League or All-star at least. Noah might be even better. Deng is no slouch. The bench is deep. Do voters pretend they don't know these things?
The standings may shift in the next week or two. Does that change the value of the MVP candidates?
bbstats
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul Pierce is the leader in RAPM times Minutes%. So...yeah.
_________________
Mike G
Reply with quote
At this point it's Dwight with 4 votes, LeBron 2, Dirk 1, Pierce 1.
I got Rose's historic statistical similars --
Code:
dif yr per-36 rates Sco Reb Ast PF Stl TO Blk
.00 2011 Rose, Derrick 28.0 4.5 8.0 1.6 1.0 3.3 .6
.33 1996 Anfernee Hardaway 25.0 4.6 7.1 2.0 2.1 2.8 .5
.38 2002 Jerry Stackhouse 23.8 4.5 5.9 2.2 1.1 3.7 .5
.40 2005 Kobe Bryant 27.5 5.7 5.6 2.5 1.2 3.8 .8
.42 2004 Tracy Mcgrady 26.4 5.7 5.4 1.8 1.3 2.5 .6
.42 1996 Terrell Brandon 24.9 4.3 7.7 2.1 1.9 2.0 .5
.42 2006 Tony Parker 25.7 3.8 7.6 2.2 1.1 3.4 .1
.42 1970 Jerry West 27.2 3.6 6.4 2.0 2.1 3.4 .3
.43 2005 Dwyane Wade 26.6 5.3 6.7 2.9 1.5 4.1 1.0
.46 2006 Lebron James 30.8 6.6 6.1 2.0 1.3 2.8 .7
.52 1967 Oscar Robertson 24.9 4.1 8.1 2.5 2.4 3.5 .4
.52 2005 Allen Iverson 28.3 3.7 7.3 1.7 2.2 4.2 .1
Only the most similar season per player.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
back2newbelf
bbstats wrote:
Paul Pierce is the leader in RAPM times Minutes%. So...yeah.
I'll have an update tomorrow, I don't think that statement is true anymore
BobboFitos
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Cambridge, MA
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Rose has got it in the bag? How, when, why?
Because the Bulls have momentarily got the best record, except for the Spurs?
Boozer, when healthy, is all-League or All-star at least. Noah might be even better. Deng is no slouch. The bench is deep. Do voters pretend they don't know these things?
The standings may shift in the next week or two. Does that change the value of the MVP candidates?
bolded is pretty much true. they chose not to believe chicago is really deep.
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greyberger
Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Posts: 52
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Boozer, when healthy, is all-League or All-star at least. Noah might be even better. Deng is no slouch. The bench is deep. Do voters pretend they don't know these things?
That's a pretty good way of putting it. Boozer and Noah aren't mentioned unless it's in reference to their injuries. Deng is completely overlooked, as are the key bench players. They might as well be invisible.
There are some good examples of the conventional MVP wisdom in this recent Ric Bucher chat. Ric has a vote, doesn't he?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BobboFitos
greyberger wrote:
Mike G wrote:
Boozer, when healthy, is all-League or All-star at least. Noah might be even better. Deng is no slouch. The bench is deep. Do voters pretend they don't know these things?
That's a pretty good way of putting it. Boozer and Noah aren't mentioned unless it's in reference to their injuries. Deng is completely overlooked, as are the key bench players. They might as well be invisible.
There are some good examples of the conventional MVP wisdom in this recent Ric Bucher chat. Ric has a vote, doesn't he?
In a nutshell:
Quote:
dominick w (arab alabama)
Why is dwade not getting more mvp love?his stats are very close to Lebrons and hollinger has him ranked high yet no one talks bout him for mvp. very sad in my oppinon
Ric Bucher
(1:20 PM)
I would hope because MVP is not about statistics.
Apparently there are a select few among us who are so amazing in terms of their basketball instincts and selection, I suppose, that they can ignore stats and make declarative statements about the relative value of those players. Maybe one day I will be that amazing!
_________________
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
I'll go out on a limb and guess that Ric Bucher refers to statistics when they support his observations. Others among us may have a preconception based on stats, and confirm this via observation.
Bucher's observation tells him that Orlando has much more talent around Dwight than the Bulls have in support of Rose. But a response comes in claiming the Bulls have 3 players (same 3 I named) who are better than anyone around Dwight. Bucher seems to agree, and so he has made no argument whatsoever. Just that he likes Rose.
The article was from awhile ago, right after the deadline trades. This Rose For MVP groundswell has taken me by surprise. Guess I need to dig more for these sentimental sea changes.
_
Mike G
To get the mvp candidates, I just multiplied 5 stats:
My own eWins/484 and eWins/82 games; PER; b-r.com's WinShares and WS/48.
Everyone who is Top 10 in any of e82, PER, or WS is included.
Code:
smvp statistical mvp e484 e82 PER WS ws48
2693 James,Lebron 2.30 14.5 26.7 12.9 .234
2297 Howard,Dwight 2.16 13.1 26.3 12.9 .239
1546 Paul,Chris 1.80 10.7 24.5 13.0 .251
1387 Rose,Derrick 2.09 13.1 23.3 10.8 .201
1382 Wade,Dwyane 2.05 12.2 25.1 10.7 .206
1322 Love,Kevin 1.88 11.5 24.5 11.5 .217
1310 Gasol,Pau 1.75 11.1 23.3 12.7 .229
971 Durant,Kevin 1.81 11.3 23.9 10.3 .192
962 Nowitzki,Dirk 1.89 9.5 24.3 9.8 .224
920 Bryant,Kobe 2.06 11.9 23.7 8.9 .178
673 Westbrook,Russel 1.92 11.5 23.7 8.1 .159
664 Aldridge,Lamarcu 1.63 11.0 21.8 10.0 .171
652 Ginobili,Manu 1.75 9.1 22.1 9.2 .202
652 Randolph,Zach 1.79 10.3 22.2 9.0 .176
576 Griffin,Blake 1.82 11.6 21.7 8.4 .149
562 Pierce,Paul 1.55 9.1 19.4 10.2 .202
426 Stoudemire,Amare 1.76 10.9 23.0 7.2 .134
Pretty sharp dropoff from 10 to 11, and I think only 10 can be in a poll here.
kjb
If I had a vote, and I had to cast it today, I'd cast it for Lebron, who I think is having a terrific season. No way he'll get it since he's officially the latest "bad guy" in the grand tradition of pro rasslin'.
I reserve the right to change my mind at the completion of game 82, however.
page 2
Author Message
bbstats
Well-with the new RAPM this morning, my head tells me Dirk.
EDIT: I made a blog post on the subject.
DSMok1
I just averaged ezPM100, RAPM (1Yr), and ASPM.
(Top 50 players overall shown, where top 50 is average of Value and Average)
Per 100 possessions:
Code:
Name Average
LeBron James 6.3
Chris Paul 6.2
Dwight Howard 5.8
Manu Ginobili 4.9
Dwyane Wade 4.9
Steve Nash 4.7
Dirk Nowitzki 4.6
Paul Pierce 4.5
Kevin Garnett 4.3
Pau Gasol 4.3
Kobe Bryant 4.0
Nene Hilario 3.7
Derrick Rose 3.5
Al Horford 3.4
Tim Duncan 3.4
Kevin Love 3.3
Andre Iguodala 3.2
Lamar Odom 3.1
Kevin Durant 3.1
LaMarcus Aldridge 3.1
Tyson Chandler 3.0
Chris Bosh 2.9
Rajon Rondo 2.8
Gerald Wallace 2.8
Russell Westbrook 2.6
Zach Randolph 2.6
Ronnie Brewer 2.6
Blake Griffin 2.5
Amir Johnson 2.5
David West 2.5
Deron Williams 2.4
Ray Allen 2.4
Carmelo Anthony 2.4
Tony Parker 2.4
Andre Miller 2.3
Rudy Gay 2.3
Emeka Okafor 2.2
Luol Deng 2.1
Kyle Lowry 2.1
Eric Gordon 2.1
Elton Brand 2.1
Josh Smith 2.1
Andrew Bogut 2.0
Paul Millsap 2.0
George Hill 2.0
Joe Johnson 1.9
Landry Fields 1.8
Andrei Kirilenko 1.8
Kevin Martin 1.5
Amare Stoudemire 1.2
And (rate+3) * % Possessions
Code:
Name Value
LeBron James 7.3
Chris Paul 7.1
Dwight Howard 6.8
Pau Gasol 5.8
Dwyane Wade 5.7
Manu Ginobili 5.4
Paul Pierce 5.4
Steve Nash 5.2
Kevin Love 5.2
Kobe Bryant 5.1
Derrick Rose 5.0
LaMarcus Aldridge 5.0
Kevin Durant 4.8
Dirk Nowitzki 4.7
Blake Griffin 4.5
Rudy Gay 4.5
Lamar Odom 4.4
Russell Westbrook 4.3
Al Horford 4.3
Nene Hilario 4.1
Zach Randolph 4.1
Chris Bosh 4.1
Luol Deng 4.1
Deron Williams 4.1
David West 4.0
Tim Duncan 4.0
Ray Allen 4.0
Gerald Wallace 3.9
Kevin Garnett 3.9
Tony Parker 3.8
Andre Iguodala 3.8
Carmelo Anthony 3.8
Elton Brand 3.7
Josh Smith 3.7
Rajon Rondo 3.6
Paul Millsap 3.6
Kyle Lowry 3.5
Andre Miller 3.5
Tyson Chandler 3.4
Landry Fields 3.4
Amare Stoudemire 3.3
Eric Gordon 3.2
Emeka Okafor 3.1
Kevin Martin 3.1
Andrew Bogut 3.1
Joe Johnson 3.0
Andrei Kirilenko 3.0
George Hill 2.7
Ronnie Brewer 2.7
Amir Johnson 2.5
I voted Lebron, but Howard and CP3 are also viable candidates, particularly Howard since Howard's D is likely underrated by ASPM.
EDIT: Updated and expanded post.
erivera7
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 181
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
In a "normal" LeBron year, I'd give it to him.
But since some of his metrics across the board have taken a teeny hit since he's paired up with Wade and Bosh, I feel that opens the door for Howard to take MVP in my eyes.
When strictly comparing Howard to Rose, the big fella has him beat in adjusted plus/minus, statistical plus/minus, PER, WARP, and Win Shares per 48. Basically, there's no evidence whatsoever that Rose is better than Howard in almost any linear metric out there. But of course, since Rose is "leading" the Bulls to the No. 1 seed in the East, has exceeded the narrative that was bestowed upon him before the season began, and is a nice guy, he'll win MVP but not deservingly so.
Meanwhile, Howard has anchored the Magic's offense and defense. Thanks to Howard, the Magic are still an elite defensive team, which makes him a shoe-in for DPOY again. Thanks to Howard, the Magic are still an above-average offensive team, despite an offense that has regressed thanks in large part to Nelson's descent and the midseason trades that have been nothing more than a wash at this point. Howard has become a complete two-way player, with elite production on both sides of the ball, and he's had to navigate the Magic throughout the season due to trades that have significantly altered the team's identity. Plus, Howard has the "benefit" of carrying an inferior supporting cast compared to the Bulls.
I'd have no qualms giving the MVP to LeBron, but I really think Dwight has gone above and beyond to earn the award.
_________________
@erivera7
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3596
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Fantastic.
Now, can we see the average "3Rate" for Love and Durant?
And the avg * %Poss for Wade?
DSMok1, you wrote "per minute". You mean per 48? per100?
It's now Dwight 6, LeBron 5, Dirk 2, Rose 1
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bchaikin
Reply with quote
shouldn't kevin garnett be on this list? best defender/rebounder (and DPOY candidate) and an efficient scorer on the league's 2nd best defensive team that also happens to have one of the league's best records?
as opposed to kevin love who is the best player on a team that won't win 25 games and may not even win 20?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike G
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
erivera7 wrote:
..
I'd have no qualms giving the MVP to LeBron, but I really think Dwight has gone above and beyond to earn the award.
Ah, you're biased.
The really sad thing about giving the award to a lesser player is when that winner gets demolished in the playoffs by the true MVP. Think Shaq vs Iverson in '01 Finals. Jordan vs Malone or Barkley. Duncan vs 'shoulda won' Kidd.
If LeBron or Dwight wins, AND Rose outplays that winner in the playoffs, we have a more intriguing story. I just don't want to see Rose's career peaking at age 22. That's pretty early to have such pressure.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DSMok1
@ Mike G
Updated post with additional data (limiting results to the top 50 in combined Value and Rate data). Rate is per 100 possessions, Value is including replacement level of -3.
_________________
GodismyJudgeOK.com/DStats
Twitter.com/DSMok1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
erivera7
Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
erivera7 wrote:
..
I'd have no qualms giving the MVP to LeBron, but I really think Dwight has gone above and beyond to earn the award.
Ah, you're biased.
I don't think I am. There's a legitimate argument for Dwight to win the award. I don't think that's bias.
Mike G
OK, taking liberties to abbreviate avg(ezPM+RAPM+ASPM) as ERA, I also added 3 to that number, multiplied it along with the Poss%ERA and the original 5 metrics; and took the square root, just to keep it in fewer digits.
Ranked by that conglomerate metric, shown as smv2. Earlier version retained, as smv1.
Code:
smv1 smv2 stats mvp e484 e82 ERA eraP PER WS ws48
2693 428 James,Lebron 2.30 14.5 6.3 7.32 26.7 12.9 .234
2297 371 Howard,Dwight 2.16 13.1 5.8 6.82 26.3 12.9 .239
1546 317 Paul,Chris 1.80 10.7 6.2 7.06 24.5 13.0 .251
1382 249 Wade,Dwyane 2.05 12.2 4.9 5.70 25.1 10.7 .206
1310 236 Gasol,Pau 1.75 11.1 4.3 5.84 23.3 12.7 .229
1387 212 Rose,Derrick 2.09 13.1 3.5 4.98 23.3 10.8 .201
1322 209 Love,Kevin 1.88 11.5 3.3 5.24 24.5 11.5 .217
962 185 Nowitzki,Dirk 1.89 9.5 4.6 4.66 24.3 9.8 .224
920 181 Bryant,Kobe 2.06 11.9 4.0 5.09 23.7 8.9 .178
971 169 Durant,Kevin 1.81 11.3 3.1 4.82 23.9 10.3 .192
smv1 smv2 stats mvp e484 e82 ERA eraP PER WS ws48
652 167 Ginobili,Manu 1.75 9.1 4.9 5.39 22.1 9.2 .202
562 150 Pierce,Paul 1.55 9.1 4.5 5.37 19.4 10.2 .202
664 142 Aldridge,Lamarcu 1.63 11.0 3.1 4.95 21.8 10.0 .171
673 127 Westbrook,Russel 1.92 11.5 2.6 4.30 23.7 8.1 .159
652 122 Randolph,Zach 1.79 10.3 2.6 4.10 22.2 9.0 .176
576 119 Griffin,Blake 1.82 11.6 2.5 4.49 21.7 8.4 .149
Kevin Garnett has played 1925 minutes which is just 27.5 minutes * 70 games (by Bos). He displaces Amar'e at #17.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Crow
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
DSMOk1 did you multiply just the offensive parts of those 3 metrics by % Possessions or the overall ratings?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSMok1
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 610
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Crow wrote:
DSMOk1 did you multiply just the offensive parts of those 3 metrics by % Possessions or the overall ratings?
Crow
I guess I may have taken % possessions wrong. So % possessions is % of team possessions the player is in the game, not the % of possessions he "used" on offense?
DSMok1
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Crow wrote:
I guess I may have taken % possessions wrong. So % possessions is % of team possessions the player is in the game, not the % of possessions he "used" on offense?
Yeah, this is % possessions played.
Crow
Joined: 20 Jan 2009
Alright, thanks for the clarification.
YaoPau
What are your definitions of value?
For me, the MVP should go to the player whose regular season performance helped his team's title chances the most. I think winning a title is the point of playing, so if you look back and say "that guy's performance in the regular season helped set his team up for a title run more than any other player", he should get MVP.
So stuff like luck, leadership, clutchness, and winning the important games against contending rivals makes a difference, and I think these analyses of overall efficiency are trying to fit an estimate to something we can break down further.
LeBron has cost the Heat several games by failing in the clutch, as they're 2-8 in close games. The Heat are 0-6 against the Celtics and the Bulls, and had they won those games they'd be the #1 seed easily. But instead they're on pace to have to win three road series to win the title. Unless you think his efficiency is so extraordinarily high that that stuff doesn't make a difference, LeBron isn't the MVP. And when I look at his 1-year APM and see it's just a hair above Rose's and below Dirk/Howard/Aldridge/Garnett, and his box score numbers are down from past years, I think he's in the discussion but likely not the best choice.
Howard/Aldridge/Nash/Paul have all been great this year, but have they increased their team's title chances dramatically? The way the playoffs usually play out, an elite player on a bad team is basically the same as an elite player on a #4 seeded team imo.
I think Dirk, Garnett, Ginobili are the three guys with elite efficiency and plusminus numbers who are on elite teams. I think Rose has to be in the discussion if the Bulls get the #1 seed, as he's been efficient enough, and he's been their undoubted leader all season, and beaten every top team. Kobe, Gasol deserve mention too, I just wonder if this is the year Gasol cancels Kobe out. It's between Dirk and Rose for me right now, with the other guys in the hunt if their teams move up in the standings.
page 3
Author Message
EvanZ
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:07 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, the only way I'd give Rose the award is if value was defined in terms of productivity per $ of salary (he makes $5.5M this season). And if that were the criterion, then Westbrook would be in the running, too ($4M). And that's probably a very important part of it. I don't think Chicago could afford Boozer without Rose being so cheap.
_________________
greyberger
Ric Bucher held anothed chat and gets a little worked up about the role of stats in public evaluation of players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
EvanZ
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 276
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:11 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I like poster "Mayo"'s question:
Quote:
Does the definition of "Most Valuable Player" account for parody?
Laughing
erivera7
Bucher's response to the question about Westbrook's numbers compared to Rose is flat-out arrogant: "Because statistics don't determine who the better player is."
So then what determines it? Fulfilling a narrative? I didn't know we're in the business of writing compelling children stories.
_________________
@erivera7
I cover the Orlando Magic - Magic Basketball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YaoPau
Reply with quote
OKC net rating with Westbrook on the floor: +1.3
OKC net rating with Westbrook off the floor: +10.9
Seems like that could be fluky, as he's had decent plus minus numbers in past years. But I think you have to at least consider why that's happening, as elite players usually don't have those splits.
Most of us assume Westbrook is a very good defender, but his lineups have been terrible defensively this year. Offensively he's not a particularly efficient scorer, he doesn't spread the floor with a 3pt shot (which can really limit that offense with him and Thabo in the backcourt), and while he can run an offense, I've never thought of him as an elite passer.
I think Bucher handled it fine. He said stats are valuable, but you have to look at how a player is being used on his team, and how his style fits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
BobboFitos
erivera7 wrote:
Bucher's response to the question about Westbrook's numbers compared to Rose is flat-out arrogant: "Because statistics don't determine who the better player is."
So then what determines it? Fulfilling a narrative? I didn't know we're in the business of writing compelling children stories.
The bigger issue that you/me/we don't seem to really dive on is that it's unbelievably presumptuous that the individual voter (we'll focus on Bucher, since he was the one who said that above) thinks they have that innate ability - that apparently 99.9% of other basketball viewers do not possess - to gauge true value. As in, they are allowed to completely disregard stats, because the stats paint a picture oftentimes completely different than the narrative they had planned/wanted to write about. So, simply create a new metric - we'll call it "what I think" - and if the player in question leads in that metric, well then, he deserves the award!
So for Bucher, well, Rose has a 107.4 WIT while Dwight is only 94.6 WIT, so hey, maybe if Dwight saved some orphans from a burning building he'd accumulate 15 WIT points to become the true MVP of this season.
--
The other issue as well is that the phrase above - "statistics don't determine the better player" - is actually not completely wrong. Well, on the surface it's ludicrous - but I'd counter by saying that the statistics that don't determine the better player are probably poor statistics! Or, at least, are useful in a different/appropriate context. For example, points per game is a statistic, and Monta Ellis averages 24.1 points. Rajon Rondo averages 10.2. Well then, points per game says Monta is "better" than Rondo! Well, not so fast. PPG is a statistic that has some value, but it's not a baseline for player A vs player B. etc etc.
_________________
-Rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BobboFitos
YaoPau wrote:
I think Bucher handled it fine. He said stats are valuable, but you have to look at how a player is being used on his team, and how his style fits.
Because the chat was linked I decided to read it, and he did not say this. Prefacing his comment ("statistics don't matter") by saying fit, style, context etc. are important when looking at said statistics, well, it would have gone a long way. Still doesn't make him right, but at least it salvages him somewhat and it's no longer completely ignorant. Instead he said:
Quote:
Ric Bucher
(1:43 PM)
No, thank you. To be clear, stats can be very valuable - in gauging a player's improvement, efficiency, etc. But using them to compare players on different teams in different systems with different roles...well, a lot of people (who don't work in or around the NBA) do it. But it doesn't make it right.
He is saying the statistics accrued on team A do not translate to team B. Last time I checked, teams are fairly similar, albeit with different levels of success. You need some people who can score. Need some people who can rebound. Need some people who can defend. Maybe you get some people who can do all 3. Maybe throw in some passing. Last time I checked, as well, roles translated fairly similarly from team A to team B - Dwight Howard is going to still be the best defender in the league if he's on the Minnesota Timberwolves. If he's on the Wizards, Jazz, or Nuggets, well, seems to me he'll still do the same things he does with the Magic.
I'm of the opinion the onus is on others who claim the opposite. What player has been wildly successful on one team, and then completely awful on another, in the same year? Sure, at the margins (again, due to fit, system, role, etc.) actual numbers will adjust slightly, but people, it's not drastic. It's the same game with the same rules whether you're in New York or California.
Quote:
Ric Bucher
(1:50 PM)
This is hard to say without coming off as arrogant, but I'm going to try: the access I have, and have had for nearly 20 years, informs my opinion. You don't have that access. I understand that. Some who do, don't know what to do with it or don't utilize it, for whatever reason. More than anything, I remain teachable. When I write or say something, it's almost never without having checked it out with people in the league whose opinions I trust, and who will tell me when I'm off. I don't cite those people because they're usually multiples, but rest assured my understanding of who is good and who is not, who is doing what and who is not, is not based on my thoughts alone.
I'll continue to stake my beliefs in numbers because they remain objective. The day of the insider informant are numbered. I suppose he's clinging to these beliefs - that his inside access has allowed him to have more correct and credible understanding of who's doing what in each game and for each team - pretty strongly, because there was never an alternative.
Everything can be measured. The holes in basketball analysis stem from those measurements not being accurate (or, more on point, FULLY accurate) - not that they are immeasurable.
_________________
-Rob
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 206
BobboFitos wrote:
Quote:
Basketball is a sport where box score statistics simply can’t come close to measuring total impact. Part of that is because score keeping doesn’t even try to measure everything it good – which is why PER and pretty much any stat based entirely on box score numbers doesn’t come close to measuring defensive impact.
Actually, PBP driven metrics do a pretty reasonable job of measuring total impact. They're not perfect, but they're pretty damn good. Accordingly, LeBron and Dwight impact the game more than Rose - and although Rose is having a strong season, he falls quite short of those guys.
Being able to throw away certain stats (when they don't fit an argument) because "player X does more than what the stats say!" and be able to get away with that is totally disingenuous and a poor argument. Hey, people - if Rose is doing so much that's not in the contemporary boxscore - whether it be his plus minus, which does NOT point toward Rose over others, or the fact he brings his teammates Gatorade and makes them all happier which in turn "makes them better" - then why aren't those same people trying to measure and place value on those certain things? It's too lazy to just deem his contributions "there", but at the same time "immeasurable", and conclude he's the MVP.
Okay we're talking about me saying "can't come close" and you saying "pretty reasonable", which sound to me like individual outlook might be the only difference. I'd love however to hear what makes you feel that they do a "pretty damn good" job.
As far as "why aren't people trying to measure...?", this to me doesn't seem like an argument. It's fine to be frustrated that critics aren't getting more directly involved, but effect critiquing is not dependent on such involvement, and there are a host of reasons why someone isn't actively involved in stat creation. You want to express frustration with the passivity that's cool, it's just not an argument against their criticisms.
Personally, I just don't see how you can look at LeBron last season and this season and think his net impact each season has been proportional to his productivity. And don't chalk up my skepticism to me being a big believer in Rose, because I'm actually not. I've written two articles that the Bull community have loved, and I've been quite surprised because in both I make clear I have doubts about the guy - they were just so used to Rose getting trashed in comparisons to LeBron, etc, that they liked someone being even-handed (though admittedly at this point, the mainstream media really seems on his side).
___
bbstats
Quote:
Personally, I just don't see how you can look at LeBron last season and this season and think his net impact each season has been proportional to his productivity.
Haha...uh. What?
You have already dichotomized something that we cannot be sure of: that productivity and net impact are different.
In the stats world, those two are veeeerrrry similar. So maybe...define?
mathayus
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 206
bbstats wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I just don't see how you can look at LeBron last season and this season and think his net impact each season has been proportional to his productivity.
Haha...uh. What?
You have already dichotomized something that we cannot be sure of: that productivity and net impact are different.
In the stats world, those two are veeeerrrry similar. So maybe...define?
Huh, I'm not sure what to make of how strange this to you. Surely you're familiar with the idea of VORP? Just talking economics, you could say I'm talking about revenue vs profit.
Every basket X shoots, others could have shot. The fact that there is only 1 ball and 5 guys means that the productivity between teammates inherently gets distorted relative to their actual ability to produce, hence the true measure of net impact contrasts what is produced with what could be produced with other available options.
I have a hard time believing I'm talking anything new to the board with this, so what am I missing?
bbstats
Quote:
Huh, I'm not sure what to make of how strange this to you. Surely you're familiar with the idea of VORP?
VORP refers to value, specifically Value over replacement player...which I would agree is a different concept than per-possession impact, but you made no such comparison.
You mentioned "productivity" as being different from "net impact"...both very vaguely. "Value" and "value over replacement" are two still-separate (although not mutually exclusive) ideas. I think on this board we would use more specific terms than just "productivity" and "net impact."
If by "net impact" you are referring to unadjusted plus-minus (since you constrained the idea to its limitations in explaining "actual ability to produce" due to multicollinearity), then we are in complete agreement, but I don't think anyone on this board would use raw plus-minus in good faith. Adjusted plus-minus, advanced statistical plus-minus, etc all try to measure the same thing: a player's effective productivity; that is, their overall "impact" on the game. EDIT: - while holding other variables (like teammates, etc) constant
Furthermore, if anything, a player's "positive description x" will be at the very least PROPORTIONAL to "positive description y" across the board, which you were suggesting. Specific players, on the other hand, might fall short in some metrics but succeed in others (which I think you were trying to suggest about James in 2010?).
Crow
All MVP evaluations that I have seen (though I haven't really gone looking for them) are based on season average data. Inclusion of all games is natural, but I'll offer this different perspective and possible MVP criteria:
Playing well in games your team wins.
For simplicity I looked at GameScore >20 for the top 4 vote-getters in this poll and whether their team won and Win % when over GS20.
Here are the results:
GS>20 Wins W / GS>20
Rose 30 22 73.3%
Nowitski 25 18 72.0%
Howard 31 20 64.5%
James 38 28 73.7%
Some might want to also know who plays well in team wins against top teams. As a tie-breaker or as additional interesting information going into the playoffs.
mathayus
bbstats wrote:
Quote:
Huh, I'm not sure what to make of how strange this to you. Surely you're familiar with the idea of VORP?
VORP refers to value, specifically Value over replacement player...which I would agree is a different concept than per-possession impact, but you made no such comparison.
You mentioned "productivity" as being different from "net impact"...both very vaguely. "Value" and "value over replacement" are two still-separate (although not mutually exclusive) ideas. I think on this board we would use more specific terms than just "productivity" and "net impact."
If by "net impact" you are referring to unadjusted plus-minus (since you constrained the idea to its limitations in explaining "actual ability to produce" due to multicollinearity), then we are in complete agreement, but I don't think anyone on this board would use raw plus-minus in good faith. Adjusted plus-minus, advanced statistical plus-minus, etc all try to measure the same thing: a player's effective productivity; that is, their overall "impact" on the game. EDIT: - while holding other variables (like teammates, etc) constant
Furthermore, if anything, a player's "positive description x" will be at the very least PROPORTIONAL to "positive description y" across the board, which you were suggesting. Specific players, on the other hand, might fall short in some metrics but succeed in others (which I think you were trying to suggest about James in 2010?).
This is a strange conversation. We're clearly talking past each other, and you really talking to me like I know nothing about basketball statistics which to me seems unwarranted - but hey maybe I'll think otherwise when we're done.
I feel like part of the problem is that I'm dancing around trying to express concepts that I think can be conveyed in a sentence with the proper analogy, and you're interpreting that to be me hand waving. Meanwhile the way you feel like all-purpose general terms have super-specific meaning just seems strange to me - though I understand the benefit of specialized vocabulary in some circumstances.
I'll just try to be very precise with my terminology and minimize my analogies.
According to Hollinger, "The player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player's per-minute productivity." Now, PER's just one of a whole slew of metrics that are all basically the same with differences in weights and nuance in factor - so anything like that, that's productivity (yes I understand the per-minute aspect, let's not a little division get between friends).
The notion of productivity here is the same as it is generally, it is about what is produced by the entity in question. In this case points, assists, etc, they are all looked at as products of the player, and rated accordingly. That's who I've always known productivity to be talked about in basketball statistics, and since the quote I used comes from an article written by Hollinger this year, it is still certainly still considered valid among the most well established in APBRmetrics.
Now, to be fair, these advanced productivity stats do factor in efficiency and do do normalization of some sort. That does imply a zero point around which we can talk about positives and negatives, which begs the adjective "net". If this is the source of your confusion, then I guess I do understand.
When I talk about "net impact", I do so as an ideal. It is how much you are truly helping or hurting your team. Unadjusted +/- is not "net impact" though it could definitely be looked at as an attempt to approximate net impact (and I'm saying nothing about what I think about that stat in this post, I don't want to get conversation off track)
So when I talk about productivity correlating with net impact, that's what I'm talking about.
Now consider, LeBron's PER has dropped from 31 to 27 this year. By Hollinger's method, LeBron's productivity rate is at 87% of what it was before.
On LeBron's old team, he and his 31 PER leaving resulted in the team going from winning 66 games, to what, 15 games? Say a 50 game drop. Do you really think there's any way we could form a ratio using those numbers and his 27 PER from this year to determine how Miami would do without him?
I want to be clear, I'm not asking for miraculous precision, I mean do you have any confidence that you could even find the right trajectory using that type of information?
I don't see how you can without first developing a solid understanding of what LeBron's bringing that isn't replaceable. And that's my point, and why I have great difficulty having faith in anyone simply looking at productivity statistics to determine who the MVP is.