2010-11 POY Voting Thread - Congrats Dirk Nowitzki!

[hironimus]

i'm more a reader than a poster, but i wanted to express my admiration of mysticbb. i would have stopped bothering with gongxi long time ago.

yet, please don't stop posting. the posts in this thread were highly entertaining and expressed some solid views i wouldnt had myself but the arguments are mostly logical and coherent

[JordansBulls]

No no, when did you stop beating your wife? Seriously, get the **** out.

You've added nothing here but a crusade for your boy. If you want to believe he's the best this season, go at it. Many people are swept up in that right now, although I predict as time goes on less will feel that way in retrospect. But to try to pretend that it's inconsistent of me and my process to vote Wade #1 in 2006 while not having Dirk #1 this year is where you've shown a bright, blinding bias, that I have no interest in arguing with, but every interest in laughing at.

So I'll mock and laugh. Not so much engage- not anymore, as you've been ever so unappreciative when I have given you information (Nuh uh you didn't give me information, you just said all you used was PER!)- just chuckle at your blindspot.

Auf wiedersehen.

But when you are 5th all time in playoff scoring and 4 guys in the finals average more ppg than you including a 6th man on the other team and you lose with HCA with 2 other allstars on your team who also averaged more than you, how in the world do you stay at #1 for the season? Finals is the biggest stage. IF Albert Pujols is in the World Series and had been the best all year long, but plays well below average and loses even as the favorite, then he wasn't the best that season in baseball.

[tschoerk]

he added nothing?

actually he brought stats and facts.
you only stated subjective opinions.

win: mysticbb

Subjective opinions + insults
WIN: mysticbb

[Gongxi]

No no, when did you stop beating your wife? Seriously, get the **** out.

You've added nothing here but a crusade for your boy. If you want to believe he's the best this season, go at it. Many people are swept up in that right now, although I predict as time goes on less will feel that way in retrospect. But to try to pretend that it's inconsistent of me and my process to vote Wade #1 in 2006 while not having Dirk #1 this year is where you've shown a bright, blinding bias, that I have no interest in arguing with, but every interest in laughing at.

So I'll mock and laugh. Not so much engage- not anymore, as you've been ever so unappreciative when I have given you information (Nuh uh you didn't give me information, you just said all you used was PER!)- just chuckle at your blindspot.

Auf wiedersehen.

But when you are 5th all time in playoff scoring and 4 guys in the finals average more ppg than you including a 6th man on the other team and you lose with HCA with 2 other allstars on your team who also averaged more than you, how in the world do you stay at #1 for the season? Finals is the biggest stage. IF Albert Pujols is in the World Series and had been the best all year long, but plays well below average and loses even as the favorite, then he wasn't the best that season in baseball.

HELLOOOOO narrative!

Yes, if Pujols was the best player over 162 games and then didn't play well and lost over 7 games, as long as the #2 guy wasn't close, he'd still be the best player that year.

And I didn't know things like ppg, ts%, usg%, trb%, a/to, mpg, etc were subjective. These two guys have taught me something new!

Win: Learning!

[JordansBulls]

No no, when did you stop beating your wife? Seriously, get the **** out.

You've added nothing here but a crusade for your boy. If you want to believe he's the best this season, go at it. Many people are swept up in that right now, although I predict as time goes on less will feel that way in retrospect. But to try to pretend that it's inconsistent of me and my process to vote Wade #1 in 2006 while not having Dirk #1 this year is where you've shown a bright, blinding bias, that I have no interest in arguing with, but every interest in laughing at.

So I'll mock and laugh. Not so much engage- not anymore, as you've been ever so unappreciative when I have given you information (Nuh uh you didn't give me information, you just said all you used was PER!)- just chuckle at your blindspot.

Auf wiedersehen.

But when you are 5th all time in playoff scoring and 4 guys in the finals average more ppg than you including a 6th man on the other team and you lose with HCA with 2 other allstars on your team who also averaged more than you, how in the world do you stay at #1 for the season? Finals is the biggest stage. IF Albert Pujols is in the World Series and had been the best all year long, but plays well below average and loses even as the favorite, then he wasn't the best that season in baseball.

HELLOOOOO narrative!

Yes, if Pujols was the best player over 162 games and then didn't play well and lost over 7 games, as long as the #2 guy wasn't close, he'd still be the best player that year.

And I didn't know things like ppg, ts%, usg%, trb%, a/to, mpg, etc were subjective. These two guys have taught me something new!

Win: Learning!

Except this wasn't 2009 and 2010 Lebron who ran away with the league stats wise and had the best record. If he was better it was only marginally better during the season, but a finals performance like that when favorite and when you have guys on your team produce like they did will knock you down. Just like Dirk in 2006 could have been argued as the best in the league until the finals.

[Gongxi]

And that's where I'm fairly confident the difference between him and Dirk was large enough to handle the last 6 games of the season. Dwight? I think so, but that's a better debate.

Regardless, if LeBron and Dirk played exactly the same and the Heat won (which was obviously very possible), very few people, if anyone, would have Dirk first. Which makes one wonder if people are approaching this project with the right mindset.

And, note, I'm not the only person that has noticed this.

[RocketPower23]

That's a flawed way of thinking. "If they played exactly the same way", I'm not even sure how to approach that. Dirk made big shots and plays that led to his team winning games, now under the assumption that they lost, it's very possible that Dirk doesn't make the plays needed to win those games, so he doesn't play *exactly* the same. It's problematic IMO.

[Gongxi]

Say he still did, but the Heat shot better from the line. It's not a flawed way of looking at it all. The fact of the matter is through 5 games, the difference in the series was basically nothing. It could've easily been a sweep for the Mavs (in which case I'm sure LeBron would be way lower) or a sweep for the Heat (in which Dirk would be way, way lower). But either way, such small differences make that up that it's pretty inconsequential to heavily base a whole season's body of work on the outcome of one series (I mean, it still would be even if the series was a blowout, but when it's so close, it's even more ridiculous).

If a team is good enough to warrant beating another team 55% of the time, the shortest statistically significant series would be 269 games. Think about that. Then think about the narrative that Dirk would have if the Mavs lost, and the narrative LeBron would have if the Heat won. Recognizing that, ignore all those narratives, and look at how the players played over the entire season.

To bring it back home: star players can play exactly the "same" and have the end result dependent upon other players. Kobe's game 7, for example: he would've gotten the stupid narrative of being a choker or something had Artest not shown up. Artest did, and Kobe was recognized as just having an off game. The difference can be vast, and it can have very little to do with what the player himself did.

[drza]

I do believe this vote was a bit narrative driven. People really think Dirk has become THAT much better THIS year. I can't pull my thoughts around this.

I'm not sure I get this. I mean yeah, everyone votes differently, but was Dirk ever really THAT far out of the vote? For me personally, I had Dirk in my top-5 in 3 of the last 4 votes I did (I missed the 2010 vote), and in the one I left him out he was a virtua-tie for 5th and I just picked Duncan. But I had him as high as 2nd place in those votes, and I readily admit that he would have finished higher than the 4th I gave him in 2007 if not for his nightmare playoffs. I guess I just don't see where there's that much difference between a perennial top-5 guy and a #1 vote after an excellent run, not enough for all of the votes to have to be "narrative driven".

1.) The ease with which Nowitzki has been given the number one spot (don't think he deserves this many shares).

2.) Semi-unrelated to this project, but the amount of Dirk> "Player X who was superior to Dirk before 2011." They weren't saying that in 2010, when Dirk was just about equal to his 2011 self. I'm not saying Dirk isn't better than the Player Xs, but people are coming out of the woodwork with that type of thing. Your favorite player has been involved in these Dirk comparisons.

3.) I honestly don't think people can have Dirk at one and Lebron at two without admitting their judgments and rankings are narrative driven a little bit. If you really count LBJ's Finals against him, you'll have him lower than Wade and Dwight as well, not just the guy who won the title (For instance, I have James in fourth). If LeBron's Finals are merely a blemish on an all-around great season, then the King should take the number one spot regardless of any team accomplishment.

Wade/Dwight/Dirk are way too close together as players for LBJ's Finals to only nudge Dirk- the guy on the best team of the 2011 season- ahead of him. I feel it has to be one or the other. James atop, or James a dud.

Maybe I am being too polarizing about James here. If so, then just say you blame me for that and we'll let it go.

I agree with (2), totally. That Dirk suddenly jumped several tiers from so-called afterthought to possibly best forward ever in the various threads in the last few weeks is narrative driven. Though I'd argue that even that is as much about under-rating before as it is over-rating now. A fair bit of both, actually, as I still don't think he's the best forward ever but it wouldn't have been ridiculous to put him comparisons with those other players even before this championship run.

I don't agree with (1) or (3), though. I don't think it's unusual at all for a player that flirts with the top-5 every year to earn a #1 ranking. And since the whole basis for RPoY was to be an MVP vote, and not a "best player" vote, I see even less issue with that. In a year where no player just completely separated himself fro the pack, having a #1 that was in the upper tier then had a great postseason run (as an individual) that translated to team success as well...I don't think it has to be narrative for most folks to vote that #1.

And as for (3), I think there's a lot more room for nuance than that. Coming into the postseason, I think the majority had LeBron as one of their top-2 players. By the time the Finals rolled around, I think LeBron was well on his way to a .900 count himself in the RPoY vote. So I do think that he had room to move down and still be ahead of the others. Similarly, Dirk was also in the mix and could thus move up with a strong playoffs and Finals. Which, at least on my ballot, he did.

[RocketPower23]

I just don't agree with that way of thinking. Never did. When someone say "if team A hit their free throws, they would have won". Maybe, but maybe team B starts taking it to the rim to get to the line themselves or starts hitting the shots they were missing earlier in the game. They're too many variables to put up hypotheticals like that IMO. It's an interesting way of thinking, sure, but it's still problematic.

[Gongxi]

It's not about that, though. It's about how winning and losing changes the perceptions of players. Jordan went from a ballhog to the GOAT overnight. Was he really that much better in 91 than he was in 90? I don't think anyone believes that.

The fact of the matter is if the Heat hit more free throws (for example), and Dirk still plays heroically, we could easily have a different champion with the two players in question having played exactly the same. Don't kid yourself, though, we both know: the results of this project would then be totally different from how they are now.

And that's **** up.

[RocketPower23]

I disagree with you on the end result. Just because the (media's) narrative would differ, wouldn't make it accurate. I happen to think Dirk deserved to be the POY of year, even under your hypothetical scenarios. But would the voting here be different? Possibly, wouldn't make it right in my eyes.

[Gongxi]

No, it wouldn't be right, I agree. And if you think Dirk should be first, regardless, then props to you for being consistent and rational, I just happen to disagree.

But I'm damn sure the voting would be different as a whole, which would mean that the narrative/team success (virtually inseparable, those two) is playing a role, which is really, really bad. I've always taken the RPOY to just be voting on the best player (I know Doc said it would be an MVP including the playoffs initially, I just think the real MVP should go to the best player, so it's a no-brainer for me), and it sickens me to see the team success/narrative at work. The more recent you are to the event, of course, the more it looms.

[RocketPower23]

Eh, no need to get so worked up about it, all discourse is good discourse.

[Gongxi]

I just punched a baby.

[ElGee]

I just don't agree with that way of thinking. Never did. When someone say "if team A hit their free throws, they would have won". Maybe, but maybe team B starts taking it to the rim to get to the line themselves or starts hitting the shots they were missing earlier in the game. They're too many variables to put up hypotheticals like that IMO. It's an interesting way of thinking, sure, but it's still problematic.

I don't like this argument though. It's fantastic to point it out -- we shouldn't pretend that changing something earlier might change how ensuing events unfold -- but it sort of undermines the whole point without much cause to do so. Teams *SHOULD* be trying to maximize possessions throughout a game. To pretend that they suddenly have the control to do so because they "need" it makes little sense, especially when two teams are historically close through 6 games.

I think there is an illusion of control in basketball. (Perhaps caused by something as simple as regression to the mean.) The average MOV in a game is 9 or 12 points (can't remember which). But the average point diff. across the league is obviously 0. Points come in bunches. Variance matters. It's not that teams up by 14 points at halftime "relax," it's that even the greatest team in NBA history playing the worst team in NBA history might not truly be 14 points better per half.

So, it seems so farfetched to suggest a team has that much control that we should throw our hands up in the air and say, "hey, if we spot Miami 17 points in this series from FT's, we really have NO IDEA how that would change things because Dallas would try harder."

(On top of that, I think Dallas played the scoreboard less than any team I can remember seeing in history. Carlisle wants to maximize opportunity at all times. Why would he think he'd say "don't run PnR with Terry and Dirk because we have a 5 point lead?" What evidence is there to suggest Dallas doesn't try to score when up by 8 late (G6) and down by 8 late (G2) in the exact same fashion?)

[JordansBulls]

And that's where I'm fairly confident the difference between him and Dirk was large enough to handle the last 6 games of the season. Dwight? I think so, but that's a better debate.

Regardless, if LeBron and Dirk played exactly the same and the Heat won (which was obviously very possible), very few people, if anyone, would have Dirk first. Which makes one wonder if people are approaching this project with the right mindset.

And, note, I'm not the only person that has noticed this.

Yeah but he 3rd on his team in scoring and his teammate more than likely would have gotten Finals MVP.
So what about 2006? Why wasn't Dirk voted #1? Led all year in PER, WS, WS/PER 48 minutes. Was #1 by a decent margin in WS and WS/PER 48 in the playoffs.

[ElGee]

No, it wouldn't be right, I agree. And if you think Dirk should be first, regardless, then props to you for being consistent and rational, I just happen to disagree.

But I'm damn sure the voting would be different as a whole, which would mean that the narrative/team success (virtually inseparable, those two) is playing a role, which is really, really bad. I've always taken the RPOY to just be voting on the best player (I know Doc said it would be an MVP including the playoffs initially, I just think the real MVP should go to the best player, so it's a no-brainer for me), and it sickens me to see the team success/narrative at work. The more recent you are to the event, of course, the more it looms.

The whole reason I don't base my criteria on "value" (as I do with my MVP vote) is that team circumstance MUST weight heavily into that decision by definition. Why? Because the later one dredges into a season the more opportunity they have to be "valuable" in winning a title, and this is only possible when the team circumstance is good.

MVP vote for RS = 82 games for all
MVP vote for PS = Some guys play No. 1 seeds with bad teams, some guys are on No. 1 seeds and don't even have to sweat having a bad series. One guy could play 4 series and the other 1.

I've never understood how others reconcile these issues other than defaulting to team success, and it makes sense there would be strong influence from team results because that seems to be the definition they are working with. I think that defeats the whole purpose and spirit of a project like this . Most people can read a quick summary of a season and differentiate MVP narrative and who won the title with memorable PS performances.

But to me, it's understandable, and regrettable, that team performance has played such a large part in this. Oh well, it's been that way for a long time, and never really undermined the value of the project (research and discussion). It just changed the voting results. Maybe it will be less of an issue in the top 100... (braces for first time "Rings" are mentioned)

[mysticbb]

But I'm damn sure the voting would be different as a whole, which would mean that the narrative/team success (virtually inseparable, those two) is playing a role, which is really, really bad.

And that's why you dispute every argument presented to you which doesn't fit your view as biased. Typical blind spot bias. Nothing more, nothing less. And you are making rather an effort to find a justification for your accussation that others are biased or driven by the (media) narrative rather than trying to show a proper analysis which includes the playoff games. So far you only presented well known numbers for the regular and trying to spin an argument in your favor, completely ignoring the made points.

I told you that you weren't able to fully explain your evaluation process (that was the point I made, that offended you so much that you made only silly post with stupid insults after that) and you still failed to do it. The numbers you presented would support the notion that James had better boxscore numbers than Nowitzki in the regular season. Nobody EVER disputed that point. And everything which doesn't support your overall view for the season, even though those stuff is used for example by the Dallas Mavericks to evaluate players and making lineup decisions, is ignored. You haven't said anything about the impact a player has without the ball. I haven't seen anything in your posts which would indicate that you can evaluate the differences in the game off the ball.

The same type of numbers I presented to you made me pick James over Howard, Howard over Wade, Wade over Rose and Rose over Durant. The freaking same numbers in which Nowitzki finishes overall as the best after the WHOLE season is played out. Last season James finished ahead of Wade, that is how I listed them, check out my voting history. Do you honestly believe that I just started arguing about stuff like that, because "my boy" actually won? I voted for Nowitzki in 2006 based upon numbers, not because he is one of my favorite players, the same way I came up with the conclusion that Nowitzki doesn't belong into the Top5 in 2009. Why is that so hard for you to accept that someone can come up with Nowitzki being the best (and I should probably say that again, because you might just have ignored it, not by a big margin) without following the "narrative"? Especially when you come in here and provide nothing else than whining about "how the project is so driven by narrative and without deeper analysis". No deeper analysis was seen from you, I never saw a post in which you explained how James is impacting the game, the only thing you wrote about your evaluation is that it is based on production. What that really means and how you weight the different production indicators is left in the dark.

I have no idea why you are using a message board. To laugh about people with a different opinion? Based on what? On your overconfidence? When was the last time someone paid you to make a basketball analysis?

[Gongxi]

And that's where I'm fairly confident the difference between him and Dirk was large enough to handle the last 6 games of the season. Dwight? I think so, but that's a better debate.

Regardless, if LeBron and Dirk played exactly the same and the Heat won (which was obviously very possible), very few people, if anyone, would have Dirk first. Which makes one wonder if people are approaching this project with the right mindset.

And, note, I'm not the only person that has noticed this.

Yeah but he 3rd on his team in scoring and his teammate more than likely would have gotten Finals MVP.

Okay?

So what about 2006? Why wasn't Dirk voted #1? Led all year in PER, WS, WS/PER 48 minutes.

Yes, but about 1%. Well within whatever margin of error someone wants to give to PER, I'd imagine. WS are pretty much garbage.

Was #1 by a decent margin in WS and WS/PER 48 in the playoffs.

WS are pretty much...