MVP Watch 2008... Part 5

[tkb]

While I'll be equally as happy weather Paul or Kobe gets MVP, I feel that it should go to the guy who shoots a better fg% than his teams average.

FG% became more or less useless when they started using the 3P-line because it doesn't accurately account for how efficient a player is as a scorer if they shoot 3-pointers (and both players do). Not including ability to knock down 3-pointers and ability to both draw free throws and knock them down is a major flaw to your argument IMO.

Kobe, as a scorer is more efficient than Paul because he draws more fouls. Just look at their TS%. Now, this isn't to hate on Paul because scoring is something Kobe is flat out better at, as he should be. Both when it comes to volume and efficiency.

There is a decent case to be made for Paul, but this isn't it.

[carrottop12]

I have to give it to Kobe because of the defenses he faces. He is the #1 and #2 option on his team according to the opposing teams defensive plans no matter if Gasol or Bynum are healthy or not. And he still averages almost 30 a game, and IMO this is his best year as a playmaker that he has ever had.

Mix that with the health of his team and their place in the West. He's had a tremendous year.

[garcia3]

While I'll be equally as happy weather Paul or Kobe gets MVP, I feel that it should go to the guy who shoots a better fg% than his teams average.

My God, what a whack logic this is.

In that case, anyone could make a case for anyone as far as who should win the MVP trophy. Come on man, stop the hating, or should I say, the HIDDEN HATE you have against..., oh well, you know who

[G35]

-= original quote snipped =-



My God, what a whack logic this is.

In that case, anyone could make a case for anyone as far as who should win the MVP trophy. Come on man, stop the hating, or should I say, the HIDDEN HATE you have against..., oh well, you know who

Hmmm guess I don't have anything to say, you said what I was thinking.....

[Doctor MJ]

This should clear up the MVP debate

Source: NYPost

MVP - I can go with either Kobe Bryant or Chris Paul and have done so repeatedly over the last few weeks on NBATV. Because I cannot make up my mind, I'm choosing whichever player takes his team higher in the Western Conference.

First or second, Kobe is well worth the price of admission or staying up until 1 a.m. on the East Coast 95 percent of the time, as long as you don't mind his man scoring nearly as many as he does. His stats and perfect attendance are sensational (28.5 points, 6.4 rebounds and 5.4 assists) considering he didn't allow a tumultuously negative offseason (of his own design) affect his game.

At the same time, he is not solely responsible for the Lakers' soaring in the standings. Yes, he makes teammates better, but they deserve a lot of credit, too, for improving (Andrew Bynum, a prime example) on their own, and the incoming player (Pau Gasol) made Kobe better. Furthermore, if Bryant wasn't setting up perimeter shooters and drivers for dunks, Lamar Odom is almost as capable. Contrary to popular distortion Kobe does not deserve this honor based on Lifetime Achievement, but strictly on this simonized season. Only once in 11 previous seasons (eight spent alongside Shaquille O'Neal) was he so much as a legitimate candidate, and Steve Nash simply outdid him.

Paul, on the other hand, is responsible for just about every thought and deed leading to a Hornets basket - his own, a team top 21.2 points, and teammates, 11.5 dimes, an inhuman 4.6-to-1 assist-turnover ratio. That adds up to nearly 44 points per game, five more than Kobe. Plus, Paul is the NBA's steal leader. Who knew Wake Forest would be such a hotbed after Tim Duncan, Muggsy Bogues, Len Chappell and Billy Packer left town?

I'm really not impressed with his reasoning.

[Bgil]

So now it's just a game of degrees. If TMac's season in 02-03 was ALOT more efficient that Kobe's this year- and it was- than you'd contend that Kobe's defense more than makes up for, and I just don't see it. I'm not feeling you famioly. And I don't think most people are either. Of course, Laker fans do .

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Even T-Mac said Kobe was better. Kobe finished higher in MVP voting. And I posted links to tons of others saying Kobe was better including writers from SI, USA Today etc.
Obviously you're wrong. You know it now and that's clearly why you made a post with ZERO EVIDENCE in it.

You just showed me some great exceptions to the rule. Do I need to show you many more examples of great defensive players getting smoked, or can you accept this obvious truism? Just let me know.

You haven't shown anything. You said it was "consistent" and it's clearly not. Do you really want to see Wade vs Hinrich and Kobe, Redd vs Kobe, or Kobe vs Bowen?
TMac vs Bowen - 27 games
20ppg on .400 shooting. 3.3 apg, 2.4 TOV

Kobe vs Bowen 28 games
26.7 ppg on .421 shooting, 3.3 apg, 3.8 TOV

Wade vs Hinrich 14 games
18.2 on .426, 5.6 apg, 4 TOV

T-Mac vs Kobe 17 games
Tracy McGrady - 20.6ppg, .398 fg%, .280 3pt%, 5.2 rbs 5.3apg, 0.9 stl, 2.3 TOV
Kobe Bryant - 28.3ppg, .423 fg%, .291 3pt%, 5.3 rbs, 5.4 apg, 1.4 stl, 3.1 TOV,



Further you ignored the "more" and "less" quote because it shows your theory, even if true, doesn't support your conclusion.

You've lost this argument.

If TMac's season in 02-03 was ALOT more efficient that Kobe's this year- and it was- than you'd contend that Kobe's defense more than makes up for, and I just don't see it.

Not just Kobe's defense but T-Mac's complete lack of it. He wasn't even an average defender that season according to his own team. Again, his coach even blasted him in the media several times for it.
Moreover, 1% TS doesn't equal "ALOT" buy anyone's metric.

I've adequately poked enough holes in your assertions that they no longer hold water and the discussion is over. Thanks for playing.

[Doctor MJ]

Doctor MJ, as far as performance on the court goes, getting to the playoffs or not is mainly a team thing. That historic TMac year, his team won 42 games and he missed seven of them. One slightly better player and they 5 or 6 more. Two slightly better players they might win nine more. He gets that, wins 51 games and then he 'had a better season'? What if he gets Pau Gasol, does the exact same ****, and wins 56? Then was his performance good enough? He had a season for the ages regardless. Same, to lesser extent, for Kobe and LeBron in 05-06. Those and Wade's championship season are rather clearly better than Kobe this year. Maybe Kobe's 02-03.

I'm not gonna fault a player for his teammates- I'm just looking at seasons, not dishing out MVPs. I'm not gonna say "Oh, to have a great season you really would've needed David West instead Pat Garrity on your team." That's just silly.

Consider: The next year McGrady's team was the worst in the league. Are we really to believe that McGrady led a bunch of guys with zero talent to 40+ wins one year, and half that the next, and that the difference was between those years was how well McGrady was playing? Considering that it's essentially impossible for a team to win less than 10 games, that would mean McGrady's impact the first year produced at least 3 times as many wins as the second. That's silly.

My point is that players who put up big numbers on mediocre teams tend to be credited with "being out there alone" when the reality far from that. If you look at McGrady's +/- from 02/03, you see it's quite good (+12 or so), but it's hardly off the charts. If I'm going to credit a guy on a mediocre team with a better year than a superstar with great stats on a team with 55+ wins, I better see something completely amazing.

I already agreed that Wade's title season was better than Kobe's current when you factor in the playoffs, are you saying regular season only or what? If that is what you are saying, I guess I don't have a problem with that as I look back retroactively. I will say though, that while Wade was a top contender for my MVP that year (#2 to LeBron), he wasn't in most people's books, so I'd have to question if you really thought at this time 2 years ago that Wade's year was so incredibly amazing.

[Don Draper]

You haven't shown anything. You said it was "consistent" and it's clearly not. Do you really want to see Wade vs Hinrich and Kobe, Redd vs Kobe, or Kobe vs Bowen?
TMac vs Bowen - 27 games
20ppg on .400 shooting. 3.3 apg, 2.4 TOV

Kobe vs Bowen 28 games
26.7 ppg on .421 shooting, 3.3 apg, 3.8 TOV

Wade vs Hinrich 14 games
18.2 on .426, 5.6 apg, 4 TOV

1. You act like there is no help defense in the NBA
2. Bruce Bowen has Tim Duncan clogging up the middle
3. The Bulls were a good defensive team before this year

You have to take stats in context. Nothing is 1 vs 1 in the NBA. Any team that has this mentality would be consistent losers.

Also, Kobe Bryant's defense is vastly overrated...

KG for MVP

[ILikeTheGrizz]

-= original quote snipped =-



Consider: The next year McGrady's team was the worst in the league. Are we really to believe that McGrady led a bunch of guys with zero talent to 40+ wins one year, and half that the next, and that the difference was between those years was how well McGrady was playing? Considering that it's essentially impossible for a team to win less than 10 games, that would mean McGrady's impact the first year produced at least 3 times as many wins as the second. That's silly.

My point is that players who put up big numbers on mediocre teams tend to be credited with "being out there alone" when the reality far from that. If you look at McGrady's +/- from 02/03, you see it's quite good (+12 or so), but it's hardly off the charts. If I'm going to credit a guy on a mediocre team with a better year than a superstar with great stats on a team with 55+ wins, I better see something completely amazing.

The team is what it is. I'm not giving McGrady credit for being the only guy out there. All I'm saying is if he had a better supporting cast and wins ten more games, suddenly that's a great season now? Again, this isn't the MVP, I don't know why we have to look at team success. I'm just talking about what wings have had more productive seasons.

I already agreed that Wade's title season was better than Kobe's current when you factor in the playoffs, are you saying regular season only or what? If that is what you are saying, I guess I don't have a problem with that as I look back retroactively. I will say though, that while Wade was a top contender for my MVP that year (#2 to LeBron), he wasn't in most people's books, so I'd have to question if you really thought at this time 2 years ago that Wade's year was so incredibly amazing.

27/7/6 with 2 steals and a block on 58% TS? Even with 4 TOs, that's a damn good season. Most people's books had Shaq as the leader of that team and while I don't think he was it's not really the point. I'm not talking about MVP. I'm talking about who has had better wing seasons. That works itself into the MVP discussion this year, but it's superfluous whether or not most people thought Wade was the MVP then. He was even better the next season until he was hurt- I thought clearly the best player in the NBA.

[Doctor MJ]

Grizz let me be clear, to me the MVP *is* who had the best season. By definition. If I think a guy had the best season out there, I'm not going to DQ him from the most prestigious award in the game based on arbitrary criteria.

If you want to talk about "most productive" seasons, we can, but to me productivity is only one factor in a player doing his job as well as possible, and hence only one factor in a player's MVP candidacy.

So yeah, I think that when a team is really clicking on all cylinders, it has a lot to do with the star player helping the team in ways that can't be measured in a PER like stat. I saw Kobe as someone who always took away some from the team even as he gave quite a bit to it in previous years. This year, I see a guy who has really taken a step forward in those intangibles.

[og15]

Why are you guys going off-topic and avoiding this whole MVP thing?

The fact remains, Kobe has been a top player for a decade so stop this oh well one player out-performed Kobe in this blah blah season!

Oh and if you've been watching ESPN (or lets say BSPN) for the past 2 hours, you'll notice, they haven't shown ONE HIGHLIGHT of the Hornets vs. Kings game!

I wonder why

It must be a conspiracy against Kobe, because the people who vote for the awards have no access to boxscores, can't see highlights anywhere else, and never watch any games themselves. So with them depending on ESPN for their NBA news, ESPN is trying to hide that Paul had a very poor shooting game and lost to the Kings at a critical point during the season. Is that what you wanted to say but in coded words? Common man, let's not start this world against Kobe nonsense again, it's what annoys a lot of people who actually like Kobe but can't stand his fans.

-= original quote snipped =-



The assist to turnover ratio is the only thing that seems to impact the game though. NOH is an slightly above average scoring team and an average assisting team. Their fg% is above average but not elite. Their 3pt shooting is great but that's got little to due with Paul and can mostly be attributed to Peja.

Interestingly enough, Paul's adjusted +/- is 0.76 which is not notable for any reason except that it's so low. His steals are the result of gambling that make the Hornets 6.5 points per 100 possessions better defensively when he's OFF THE COURT.

http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers. ... 8&team=NOH

I actually disagree that is the reason why. Paul is actually good at not gambling wildly for steals. He's no Larry Hughes on Washington from 04-05, but

I have Kobe ahead of Paul now. Now of course there's still games left, but NOH had to take advantage of that Sacramento game, and while all season they've usually been a good 4th quarter team, they did not produce well in the 4th quarter of that game (though they did make a viable comeback effort). Kobe can further solidify his case with a solid game in a win against San Antonio IMO.

So yeah, I think that when a team is really clicking on all cylinders, it has a lot to do with the star player helping the team in ways that can't be measured in a PER like stat. I saw Kobe as someone who always took away some from the team even as he gave quite a bit to it in previous years. This year, I see a guy who has really taken a step forward in those intangibles.

Some might not agree, but I think this is very true

[ILikeTheGrizz]

Grizz let me be clear, to me the MVP *is* who had the best season. By definition. If I think a guy had the best season out there, I'm not going to DQ him from the most prestigious award in the game based on arbitrary criteria.

Well to me, the MVP unfortunately has alot to do with the team around you. The "best player" for this year is LeBron, hands down. He's nowhere near my MVP though. It's unfortunate that it's different but it's been that way for awhile. It just didn't matter throughout most of the 80s and 90s as the best player was on very good teams.

If you want to talk about "most productive" seasons, we can, but to me productivity is only one factor in a player doing his job as well as possible, and hence only one factor in a player's MVP candidacy.

To me "most productive"= "best". I don't know how it can be otherwise without, again, now including a players teammates in his play somehow. Again, if TMac had David West instead of Pat Garrity I'm sure he would've won several more games. I'm not sure how that makes his individual season better though.

So yeah, I think that when a team is really clicking on all cylinders, it has a lot to do with the star player helping the team in ways that can't be measured in a PER like stat. I saw Kobe as someone who always took away some from the team even as he gave quite a bit to it in previous years. This year, I see a guy who has really taken a step forward in those intangibles.

I see a team clicking as a team clicking. Everyone playing their role. That doesn't mean the star player is playing any better than his stats show than any other player in the league, though.

[Bgil]

-= original quote snipped =-
1. You act like there is no help defense in the NBA

You have to take stats in context. Nothing is 1 vs 1 in the NBA. Any team that has this mentality would be consistent losers.

We know this. There is also a thing we could classify as "help offense" (screens, picks, assists, plays etc.) so this is as close as we can get from a box score. Either way, his point is that great defense doesn't do much to limit great offense and therefore offense is more important. However, we can see that great defense can and has limited the production of great offense on a consistent basis. That sample sizes are large enough that this can not be disputed.
Additionally, Kobe's "superior defense" which I use as part of my argument includes his contributions to help and team defense as well.

Also, Kobe Bryant's defense is vastly overrated...

KG for MVP

KG's defense is overrated. We he gets good defensive help he becomes a much better defender just like Kobe (see international play for instance). KG's defense in Minnesota for the last few seasons was worse than Kobe's defense during the same time period (yes, I live in MN and watched most of their games).

Paul Pierce for MVP.

[og15]

1. You act like there is no help defense in the NBA
2. Bruce Bowen has Tim Duncan clogging up the middle
3. The Bulls were a good defensive team before this year

You have to take stats in context. Nothing is 1 vs 1 in the NBA. Any team that has this mentality would be consistent losers.

Also, Kobe Bryant's defense is vastly overrated...

KG for MVP

I don't think the point was that there's no help defense in the NBA, but that other good players have not performed well against certain competitions. Now of course with Kobe it hurts him more because people will say Shaq was there, and even if he's missing, bad shooting for him is like 50%+ FG anyways. And also because the Lakers lost the series while he performed poorly, if they won, it wouldn't really be as big a deal, though it would've taken some miracle for them to win with Kobe shooting like that.

But looking at the examples, Wade for example struggled against Hinrich, and some other smaller quicker defenders because he wouldn't use his jumpshot (which is quite good now from mid-range even though some people still don't realize it), but instead would try to get to the rim like he does on other guys, and he would pick up charges etc.

Now of course with Bowen, he is a good defender, but the Spurs are also a very good defensive team. He wouldn't be able to have the same defensive impact on Toronto as he does on San Antonio because the help and defensive system are not comparable.

Also I disagree Kobe is "vastly overatted" defensively, though I think his teams defense/defensive system is underatted by some. The same people who would previously argue that Kobe was handicapped by poor defensive teammates even though he was playing good defense would now want to argue that Kobe has single handedly made the defense better this season even though it previously wasn't possible for one player to do that. In reality, the team as a whole has improved defensively, and Kobe has continued playing well in that avenue.

[Bgil]

Also I disagree Kobe is "vastly overatted" defensively, though I think his teams defense/defensive system is underatted by some. The same people who would previously argue that Kobe was handicapped by poor defensive teammates even though he was playing good defense would now want to argue that Kobe has single handedly made the defense better this season even though it previously wasn't possible for one player to do that. In reality, the team as a whole has improved defensively, and Kobe has continued playing well in that avenue.

I'll conceed that Fish over Smush and Vlad over Walton/Cook are definite defensive improvements. It kinda just highlights how horrible the defenders on our team were last season when you have a defensive upgrade by putting rather famous defensive liabilities in their place.

[etopn23]

T-Mac vs Kobe 17 games
Tracy McGrady - 20.6ppg, .398 fg%, .280 3pt%, 5.2 rbs 5.3apg, 0.9 stl, 2.3 TOV
Kobe Bryant - 28.3ppg, .423 fg%, .291 3pt%, 5.3 rbs, 5.4 apg, 1.4 stl, 3.1 TOV,

I love when people just put up stats expecting people not to check the circumstances behind them.

In 98 and 99, McGrady had virtually no PT on the Raptors. Pretty sure you should of factored that out.... along with the games McGrady left early due to injury. From 01-05 it's a virtual wash (hell, statistically McGrady has a slight edge in that span); in recent years Kobe has been lighting up McGrady.

That has alot to do with McGrady's decline thanks to injury.

[Doctor MJ]

Well to me, the MVP unfortunately has alot to do with the team around you. The "best player" for this year is LeBron, hands down. He's nowhere near my MVP though. It's unfortunate that it's different but it's been that way for awhile. It just didn't matter throughout most of the 80s and 90s as the best player was on very good teams.

LeBron's 3rd in my MVP race. He's pretty far from the top two now, but earlier in the year he was closer, and the main thing that kept him from #1 at that time was that he missed quite a few games.

Oh and if the question was who the most productive player was this year, is would be Chris Paul hands down for me, not LeBron James.

To me "most productive"= "best". I don't know how it can be otherwise without, again, now including a players teammates in his play somehow. Again, if TMac had David West instead of Pat Garrity I'm sure he would've won several more games. I'm not sure how that makes his individual season better though.

There are 10 guys on the court at any given time, and only 1 ball. Productivity measurement basically ignore what 9/10 of the guys on the court are doing plus ignore things like bringing the ball up against press and the pass before the pass. I honestly don't understand how anyone can think box score stats can be anything like the whole picture.

-= original quote snipped =-



I see a team clicking as a team clicking. Everyone playing their role. That doesn't mean the star player is playing any better than his stats show than any other player in the league, though.

True, but it is proof that he's not getting in the way of his team clicking which I think is a lot more common than people realize.

A bit of a tangent, but will help you see where I'm coming from. I really like +/- analysis. Now, I'm not someone who says player X is better than player Y because he has a +10 instead of a +9. However, to me if you're really lifting your team, the vast majority of the time you can see it based on how the team does with you compared to without you. In +/-, it's basically common sense that the better your teammates are, the harder it is to separate yourself from them. Yet, mostly the stars of great teams separate themselves as much as stars of mediocre ones. To me that says that the notion that guys on mediocre teams are doing significantly more lifting is an illusion caused by the fact that they don't share the ball as much (hence inflating production stats). This of course doesn't mean that they aren't capable of having similar impact on a better team, and it doesn't mean that they are holding their team back necessarily. However, it does mean that they've really got no big claim over the guys on better teams, and do have one big minus.

Bottom line, I'm most impressed when I see a guy achieving great separation from teammates on a great team.

[Doctor MJ]

btw, all in favor of calling the Production MVP the "Hollinger MVP" say aye.

Example sentence: In '04-05 Kevin Garnett won the Hollinger MVP because in spite of not leading his team anywhere that would be considered valuable, he did have impressive box score stats.

(Yes, Hollinger really did vote for KG as MVP that year)

[ILikeTheGrizz]

And to me, it's not crazy that he was the best player in the NBA that year. His team just sucked.

[Doctor MJ]

And to me, it's not crazy that he was the best player in the NBA that year. His team just sucked.

The team actually did a lot better when he was off the court that year than it had in previous years.

Not saying Garnett was "a problem" that year. The problem was Spree and Cassell acting like brats. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest Garnett was not as effective that year.

We're probably reaching the point where we won't get any further. If you take away one thing from this conversation, remember what I said about 10 guys and one basketball. Really think about what that means. I do get that players can be overrated by team success, and that stars can get disproportionate credit for it, but productivity really, really is not everything.