2010-11 POY Voting Thread - Congrats Dirk Nowitzki!

[mysticbb]

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

WS/48 can explain wins much better than PER, it is also much better at predicting out of sample data than PER. How did you come up with the conclusion that PER is good, but WS bad?

[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.

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)

Me and you see eye to with the cognitive methodology behind these assessments, even if we differ in the actual mechanics of getting there, but I just can't let it go as easily as you can. As I've said, we're not trying to sway a national election or implement a major foreign policy move with billions of lobbyist dollars to work around: there's like 100 people here tops that take this seriously, and you'd think a heartfelt appeal to logic over story would win them over. Slowly, I think it's happening, but man...it is slow, and there's a lot of resistance to it.

Relatedly, the comical thread of the day on the GB would be "How many rings must LeBron win to pass Kobe?" I think I've blown a couple minds saying that the answer is 0: he just needs to play better than Kobe. There's some guys that honestly think I'm trolling by saying that, and that's really sad. But funny.

mysticbb, I never said I couldn't accept someone coming up with Nowitzki being the best. If you're not gonna read my posts, why should...nevermind. Just pretend I said something about your communication skills or intelligence (sardonically mocking your comments to me, but I guess you didn't get that) and go about your day. I don't have time for you.

[mysticbb]

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."

Can you show me how you come up with 17 points via FT? Because if we apply the regular season average conversation rate to each player in the finals (and doing the same for the Mavericks), I get 9. I also checked the games and only in one game it actually made a difference in terms of the outcome of the game. Only in game two would the Heat with their average FT% make it a "tie", because we could have expected them to make 2 more than they did. That still leaves us with Dallas scoring more overall, while having 3.5 wins and the Heat 2.5.

The difference isn't huge, but the last two games were clear wins for the Mavericks, while only the first one was a clear win for the Heat. Overall for that series the Mavericks played better than the Heat. They were more efficient by using their possessions. Wouldn't you agree?

So, what exactly is the point here? Do you think that James playing bad in this series wasn't on him? Should we ignore those games? Did James really impact the games before that much more that it didn't make a difference? What was James' real impact over the season? Or are you also only evaluate how James could have, if he would have ...?

We have to keep in mind that we are talking about a team game, and how someone is effecting this team game without the ball seems to be an important point. You are accepting this on the defensive end, but somehow I have the feeling you aren't accounting for that on the offensive end. Unless you think that is only a minor part or we can even completely ignore that, you are missing something, I would say.

[DocHoops]

human beings who understand the game and write about it combined with our own eyes can explain wins much better than PER, Win Shares or any other completely made up meaningless statistic.

[mysticbb]

Just pretend I said something about your communication skills or intelligence (sardonically mocking your comments to me, but I guess you didn't get that) and go about your day.

Where do you got the impression, that I cared about that? You obviously failed to get the point, you felt offended by my comment, but instead of proving me wrong, you actually made all the effort to prove me right. You are incapable of coming up with a coherent description of your evaluation process, you failed to prove me wrong on my accusation that you are lacking the proper way to explain what you mean. But as overconfident as you are, you are blaming it rather on everyone else.

I don't have time for you.

Maybe in that case you might just delete your account here, because I bet the majority of people around here don't need someone who isn't contributing to the actual evaluation process, but rather whining about all the other "stupid" posters. Are you on a mission? Don't you have anything better to do? It would help the forum (and especially the conversation about players), if you either start contributing in a constructive way, show us that you can do it better than other people, just show how to evaluate players properly, that would be the GREATEST response you can give, or you can just leave. As long as you don't do it, your posts are basically providing only small entertainment for those of us (like me) who have fun by calling out people.

[JordansBulls]

human beings who understand the game and write about it combined with our own eyes can explain wins much better than PER, Win Shares or any other completely made up meaningless statistic.

Can you do the same thing in Baseball without slugging %, HR, RBI's, ERA's, etc?

This isn't track and field where the guy who is the fastest is automatically the best.

[mysticbb]

human beings who understand the game and write about it combined with our own eyes can explain wins much better than PER, Win Shares or any other completely made up meaningless statistic.

Here is a list, why you should think about that again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[Gongxi]

mystic, if you're going to try to talk to me, you should probably read my posts, because you've failed spectacularly to understand anything that's being said. I supplied my criteria over a year ago. It's no surprise to anyone, and there's no reason to reinvent the wheel by repeating it over and over.

Edited. You clearly crossed a line there. Check your PM. ~Doc

[An Unbiased Fan]

human beings who understand the game and write about it combined with our own eyes can explain wins much better than PER, Win Shares or any other completely made up meaningless statistic.

Can you do the same thing in Baseball without slugging %, HR, RBI's, ERA's, etc?

This isn't track and field where the guy who is the fastest is automatically the best.

All those stats depend heavily on things like ballpark size, steroid abuse, batting order, etc.

I think what Dochoops is refferring to is context. Which is something you can't put a number on.

For example, if we were to look at Kevin Love's stats vs Dirk's without context.......well, you get the picture.

[Gongxi]

But the point is that that context is available through other, objective, non-falsifiable data. The eye test is none of that.

[mysticbb]

It's no surprise to anyone, and there's no reason to reinvent the wheel by repeating it over and over.

It was a surprise to someone who asked you regarding this, and you came up with "lol". That for sure didn't help him to understand your evaluation process. If you have it written down somewhere, just give me the freaking link to that post in which you explain how you weight those different boxscore entries. Is that really too much to ask for?

And if that is so clear and so easy, why didn't you come up with the numbers you based your voting list on? You have made a vote, thus I can assume you have made that analysis, didn't you?

Btw, only because someone isn't responding to something, doesn't mean he isn't understanding it. I usually ignore stupid parts of posts. And unfortunately you provided a lot of stupid comments in this thread recently.

But the point is that that context is available through other, objective, non-falsifiable data. The eye test is none of that.

That is a good one. Which data is helping you to evaluate a player in that said context?

[ElGee]

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."

Can you show me how you come up with 17 points via FT?

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... -a-culprit

[mysticbb]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... -a-culprit

Ok, Hollinger is making the mistake by assuming the FTA distribution was the same during the regular season and the finals. That is not true. It makes not much of a difference for the Heat, he correctly has 118 mades instead of 105 for them, but it makes a difference for the Mavericks. With that FTA distribution we would have expected them to make 125, not 121.

Jason Terry for example usually got 2.6 FTA per game while making them with 85%, in the finals he had 4.7 FTA per game, but only converted them with 75%. Only Nowitzki, Cardinal and Haywood were more accurate during the finals (+6), the rest of the Mavericks were below their season averages (-10). Thus we are getting overall 13-4 = 9.

Edit, forget about that, Hollinger made the mistake of confusing the numbers. He made the wrong statement that the Mavericks made 125 free throws, but were only expected to make 121. It was the other way around. The Mavericks were expected to make 125 while only making 121. Thus he had the correct distribution used, just mixed up the results.

[ElGee]

I haven't checked the numbers, but I believe it's 13 PLUS 4 = 17, no? At least Hollinger asserted so... (goes to check numbers)

[mysticbb]

I haven't checked the numbers, but I believe it's 13 PLUS 4 = 17, no? At least Hollinger asserted so... (goes to check numbers)

First rule: CHECK THE NUMBERS! ;)

Do the same exercise for Dallas, and the Mavs had 125 points instead of an expected 121, with Nowitzki’s scintillating 45-of-46 providing the difference.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... inals.html

Dallas made only 121. He confused the numbers. Thus 13-4=9 is correct.

[ElGee]

Hahaha. I just checked and you are indeed right. Hollinger with the classic sign error.

[HeatRing2012]

detective mysticbb

[JordansBulls]

Dirk Nowitzki and Mavs become first team in NBA history

To defeat three teams that each had a

ALL-NBA 1st team player and ALL-NBA 2nd team player:

Kobe and Gasol
Durant and Westbrook
LeBron and Wade

[SaveOurBullets]

Is there any RPOY winner that was more unexpected than Dirk this past season? He was supposed to be falling off the radar, if anything. Looking at the list, I could see Wade in '06 (maybe people weren't expecting a jump that quickly), Garnett in '08 (before the trade, at least), and Duncan in '99 (like Wade, but probably to a lesser extent given his rookie season and Jordan's exit).

[JoseRizal]

Dirk Nowitzki and Mavs become first team in NBA history

To defeat three teams that each had a

ALL-NBA 1st team player and ALL-NBA 2nd team player:

Kobe and Gasol
Durant and Westbrook
LeBron and Wade