MVP Watch 2008... Part 5

[TheKingNbooby]

As much as i love the cavs and how i want Lebron to be MVP, it hands down has to belong to Chris Paul. KG has to legit #1 ooptions along side him, Kobe has 2 former all stars. Chris Paul has Morris Peterson and surprisingly good David West, and they have a great shot to get THE number 1 seed in the big bad west after not making the playoffs last year.

[eatyourchildren]

Thank you yaya banana for a well-written post. I don't know who you are or who you root for, but that was good.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

Without taking a side, let me try to repeat what has been said, multiple times, in this thread. Clearly there is a strong correlation between box stats and (some canonical measure of) player performance. It is not surprising that top players have top stats.

I'm glad we you acknowledge that. I'm sad it even had to be said.

If all the info we had was the box score, we'd have to concede that we can at best make a noisy inference about performance. However, there are also significant aspects of performance that do not show up.

Now, how signficant? More significant than what we see through stats (not necessarily the box score, mind you)? Less? How much less? Some people would have you believe that what isn't measured is nearly as imprtant as what is. I can't find anyway in which one could defend that claim. If that were the case, we'd see a list of the greatest players dominated by those with great stats and great intangibles, and then a more or less even peppering of those with good stats but not good intangibles or good intangibles but not good stats.

But that's not the case. The vast majority of great players also enjoy great productions in their prime. Jud Buechler, for all his intangibles, does not rise to the top 300 players in the game, I'm sure.

So exactly how much less worth do the intangibles have? That's the question. The production is clearly tantamount. What percentage of measured production are intangibles worth? That's the discussion we should be having. Instead, we skip that and immediately presume that although someone may not have the production of someone else, his immeasurable intangibles clearly make up the difference and then some. I'm not so accepting.

Real life scenario: LeBron's production trumps Kobe's this year. Some will say, well Kobe's intangibles make up for it. Well that's purely subjective and speculative. We don't know that. Kobe's production trumps KG's this year. Some will say, well KG's intangibles make up for it. Well that's purely subjective and speculative, too. We don't know that. What are we going by? What their coaches say? Their record? Their own coaches most probably are still in the coaching mindset and saying what they think their team will respond best to, at best. Or they're horribly biased, at worst. Other coaches? I think other coaches are dealing with their own team and preparing for the next team to play more than they are scanning the league, watching footage of everyone's every game and determining who the best player is. I doubt many people outside of places like this board and a few writers do that at all.

Implicitly, to claim that you are assuming that the differences in observables between top players significantly outweigh the differences in out-of-box performance. That assumption is untenable - for example, compare Marbury's best year with that of other point guards.

Again, Marbury's very best year was great if you look at three stats. Looking into more...well, you'll see he was an above average player and that's about it. However, he did garner two All-NBA 3rd team selections in his career, so I guess those of you saying that statistics indicating that Marbury was only an above average player at his absolute peak are wrong actually have a much bigger fish to fry in the 'experts', because twice they've named him as a top 3-4 PG in the league (depending on what you consider Iverson).

If you're against stats, the Marbury argument isn't the horse you want.

Unfortunately, given the non-verifiable nature of "intangibles", the only way to substantiate the claims being made in this thread are by appeals to authority - otherwise we'd just keep going in circles.

]

Well I just showed authorities found in 10 minutes that lead us in that direction.

And the point about appeals to authority are simple: if a rational observer (us) knows that someone has far better information about a particular issue, and has little incentive to misreport his information, then he would put substantial weight on the authority's message.

I wonder if a coach would have an incentive to misreport his information. I wonder if LeBron would have any reason not to tell the world that, yes, he is indeed the best player in the world. Probably wouldn't have any fallout, would it?

Of course there are going to be differences in opinion, even amongst experts, due to differences in their measure of performance or other biases in inference; but when there is a strong consensus, as there seems to be this year, strong inferences can be made by the observer.

The differences amongst experts would seem to lead one to think that they evidence should be brought forth and debated. Apparently not, though. And what concensus has been forged this year? I'm not seeing one. I'm seeing alot of people saying LeBron would be a no-brainer for MVP if he were on a better team. Is that what you mean?

BTW, Ilikethegrizz, your list of experts has basically one coach saying that TD was the best in 2003 - which doesn't seem like a particularly controversial opinion, or too inconsistent with what has been said in this thread.

No? Hmm, I wonder what Bgil would think about that.

Note that given the nature of the issue that we are looking to authority to resolve (the component of performance that is off-box and difficult to properly elucidate), it is unlikely that we can make further inferences based on what their "reasons" for their choice (except when they say "I'm giving mvp to xxx as a lifetime achievement award" - ie when they have a different conception of the problem as us). Perhaps we could if we had the opportunity to sit down with them for a few weeks and watch game film 24/7 - too bad we can't and we're stuck with their terse pronouncements.

It is too bad, because given the "nature of the issue" it's tremendously important to know what their criteria for "best player" and "MVP" is and if it's the same. Or if "The Best Player for the Last Five Years" is equal to "The Best Player for Each of the Last Five Years" or if it's more akin to finishing second in that running every year while a different player finishes first. Unfortunately, we don't know.

What we do know is that some segment of the NBA fanbase will use these vague and unspecified statements to prop up their own argument although they too don't know the context, while some of the fanbase doesn't put much stock in John Salley saying Kobe is better than Jordan or Shaq saying KG doesn't play defense and instead chooses to argue the merits of the player on their own, without falling back on random comments that may or may not be even relevant to the conversation, let alone correct.

Good talk though.

[Kobay]

What intangibles has KG brought? WHy couldn't he use em in Minnesota???

[ILikeTheGrizz]

What intangibles has KG brought? WHy couldn't he use em in Minnesota???

Maybe the same reason Kobe couldn't use them in 04-05? Media bias, I assume?

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-



True but the award was tainted when those 22 people left him off the ballot a couple years back. They're all feeling guilty now.... Can't keep giving the award to the Dirk's, Nash's and Paul's of the world, ya know.

I don't understand this idea.

Just because a player may be considered the best in the L doesn't mean he fits the criteria for MVP.

This is the first year Kobe has ever been on a 50+ win team and clearly been its most dominant player/leader.

This year you see most people have LeBron at 3rd or 4th and he has had a spectacular individual season; he just hasn't had the team record. It is quite consistent with Kobe's finishes in the previous few years.

It seems to me some people can't get past the fact the MVP isn't an award given to the best player in the league.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

And can't get past the fact that that's not always Kobe anyway.

[yaya banana]

-= original quote snipped =-
Now, how signficant? More significant than what we see through stats (not necessarily the box score, mind you)? Less? How much less? Some people would have you believe that what isn't measured is nearly as imprtant as what is. I can't find anyway in which one could defend that claim. If that were the case, we'd see a list of the greatest players dominated by those with great stats and great intangibles, and then a more or less even peppering of those with good stats but not good intangibles or good intangibles but not good stats.

But that's not the case. The vast majority of great players also enjoy great productions in their prime. Jud Buechler, for all his intangibles, does not rise to the top 300 players in the game, I'm sure.

So exactly how much less worth do the intangibles have? That's the question. The production is clearly tantamount. What percentage of measured production are intangibles worth? That's the discussion we should be having. Instead, we skip that and immediately presume that although someone may not have the production of someone else, his immeasurable intangibles clearly make up the difference and then some. I'm not so accepting.

That seems to me to be a massive mischaracterization of your opponents in this thread. And to be clear, it's not what I'm claiming.

Real life scenario: LeBron's production trumps Kobe's this year. Some will say, well Kobe's intangibles make up for it. Well that's purely subjective and speculative. We don't know that. Kobe's production trumps KG's this year. Some will say, well KG's intangibles make up for it. Well that's purely subjective and speculative, too. We don't know that. What are we going by? What their coaches say? Their record? Their own coaches most probably are still in the coaching mindset and saying what they think their team will respond best to, at best. Or they're horribly biased, at worst. Other coaches? I think other coaches are dealing with their own team and preparing for the next team to play more than they are scanning the league, watching footage of everyone's every game and determining who the best player is. I doubt many people outside of places like this board and a few writers do that at all.

Clearly I wasn't claiming that their own coaches would be unbiased. Other coaches are not going to have good info about the nuances of performances of the top players - because they are too busy? Given that a great deal of their job is figuring out how to deal with these top players - and they have access to huge amounts of manpower and technology to gather information - this somehow doesn't ring true.

Again, Marbury's very best year was great if you look at three stats. Looking into more...well, you'll see he was an above average player and that's about it. However, he did garner two All-NBA 3rd team selections in his career, so I guess those of you saying that statistics indicating that Marbury was only an above average player at his absolute peak have a much bigger fish to fry in the 'experts', because twice they've named him as a top 3-4 PG in the league (depending on what you consider Iverson).

If you're against stats, the Marbury argument isn't the horse you want.

All-NBA teams are voted on by the media - not our preferred choice of experts. Also, if the stat you have in mind is PER, it's argued pretty convincingly that PER underweights PG play - for example, just compare his best PER to other point guards. If you have other stats in mind, i'd like to hear them.

Well I just showed authorities found in 10 minutes that lead us in that direction.

and I pointed out that these arent the authorities we have in mind, save for one.

I wonder if a coach would have an incentive to misreport his information. I wonder if LeBron would have any reason not to tell the world that, yes, he is indeed the best player in the world. Probably wouldn't have any fallout, would it?

I do believe that coaches of other teams would be relatively unbiased in their relative evaluation of top players - especially compared to journalists or fans. As for Lebron? Do you consider him an appropriate authority? i don't, given my previous post.

The differences amongst experts would seem to lead one to think that they evidence should be brought forth and debated. Apparently not, though. And what concensus has been forged this year? I'm not seeing one. I'm seeing alot of people saying LeBron would be a no-brainer for MVP if he were on a better team. Is that what you mean?

I think that, basically, the quotes from coaches have mostly been to support kobe's candidacy - and that these quotes have been laid out previously in this thread.

It is too bad, because given the "nature of the issue" it's tremendously important to know what their criteria for "best player" and "MVP" is and if it's the same. Or if "The Best Player for the Last Five Years" is equal to "The Best Player for Each of the Last Five Years" or if it's more akin to finishing second in that running every year while a different player finishes first. Unfortunately, we don't know.

That's possible. However, taken in context, I'm inclined to believe that we can infer a substantial amount in the dimension of performance that we are interested in.

[SA37]

Pathetic. Even more pathetic is Hollinger's "deciding whether he wants out or not" reasoning.

I would say that is a much better reason to not give the MVP to Kobe than to give the MVP to him because he has never won one.

I mean, honestly, do you honestly believe Kobe really thought his team was capable of helping him this much or being this good? There is no way. That is why he wanted out and why he demanded a trade to a contender: he didn't think the roster could compete.

Turns out it could. Now everyone feels like he is some great teammate and leader.

Doesn't seem to follow a logical sequence...

[Kobay]

-= original quote snipped =-



I don't understand this idea.

Just because a player may be considered the best in the L doesn't mean he fits the criteria for MVP.

This is the first year Kobe has ever been on a 50+ win team and clearly been its most dominant player/leader.

This year you see most people have LeBron at 3rd or 4th and he has had a spectacular individual season; he just hasn't had the team record. It is quite consistent with Kobe's finishes in the previous few years.

It seems to me some people can't get past the fact the MVP isn't an award given to the best player in the league.

only thing is Lakers being in the west doesn't get the leasure to beat up miami and drop 81 on toronto every 2 extra times and other leastern conference teams. Its rather pathetic to compare teams in the west to east considering #3 seed would have barely made it to the western conference po's this years.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Maybe the same reason Kobe couldn't use them in 04-05? Media bias, I assume?

The season that Kobe played 66 games and had a coaching change midway? Inflammatory post, I assume?

[SA37]

What intangibles has KG brought? WHy couldn't he use em in Minnesota???

The same intangibles Kobe brought by ripping his owner and GM.

And isn't it Laker fans that love to talk about defense? Now that someone has actually had a huge hand in making his team one of the top defenses in the league, it is suddenly, what intangibles has KG brought?

Some of you Kobe backers have no limits.

When it is Chris Paul, stats don't matter and his defense isn't as good.

When it is LeBron, his injury/holdout situation doesn't matter and his wins are too low, despite the fact Laker fans still contend Kobe was MVP on a 45-win team.

When it is Garnett, stats suddenly matter and he doesn't offer the same defensive motivation to his teammates as Kobe does to his....?

[Andrew Bynasty]

As much as i love the cavs and how i want Lebron to be MVP, it hands down has to belong to Chris Paul. KG has to legit #1 ooptions along side him, Kobe has 2 former all stars. Chris Paul has Morris Peterson and surprisingly good David West, and they have a great shot to get THE number 1 seed in the big bad west after not making the playoffs last year.

Worst. Post. Ever.

1. Its Chris Paul that has 2 former (1 current) All-Stars. Kobe has neither.

2. The Lakers will get the #1 seed, not the Hornets.

3. Both teams had nearly the same record last season. The only reason why the Hornets were so bad was because they were plagued with injuries.

4. Kobe plays better defense, and has led his team to a higher seed with less talent when factoring in injuries... (Hornets have been extremely healthy)

[Big Bird]

-= original quote snipped =-



I would say that is a much better reason to not give the MVP to Kobe than to give the MVP to him because he has never won one.

I mean, honestly, do you honestly believe Kobe really thought his team was capable of helping him this much or being this good? There is no way. That is why he wanted out and why he demanded a trade to a contender: he didn't think the roster could compete.

Turns out it could. Now everyone feels like he is some great teammate and leader.

Doesn't seem to follow a logical sequence...

You don't seem to follow too many Lakers games.

He gave his all in the very first game of hte season. Boos were replaced with chants when Bryant almost single-handedly beat the Rockets.

Kupchak has commended him for putting all the off season drama to the back of his mind and playing for the best interest of the franchise - wins.

The Lakers were tied for 1st the game after Bynum went out with 27-11. They had a 7 game winning streak to start the New Year.

How on Earth does all of that mean that he didn't give it a hundred percent for half of the season?!

Bryant was a jerk in the off season. He could've avoided a big portion of what he said or could've used other more reasonable means. But he has never played like he didn't want to be there. Saying that is nothing less than manufactoring another bull reason to deny him the award. Having him at 4th, while he has lead the team that was lottery-bound to the best record in the West and the potential 1st seed, with numerous injuries to his teammates and playing half the season with an injury that needs a surgery (even Hollinger called him out and stated he needs to get surgery and not act like a hero) is not only unreasonable. It's idiotic. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or "oh, the blind Kobe-homer with his Kobe-pity again", but that is the truth.

cheers

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-



I would say that is a much better reason to not give the MVP to Kobe than to give the MVP to him because he has never won one.

I mean, honestly, do you honestly believe Kobe really thought his team was capable of helping him this much or being this good? There is no way. That is why he wanted out and why he demanded a trade to a contender: he didn't think the roster could compete.

Turns out it could. Now everyone feels like he is some great teammate and leader.

Doesn't seem to follow a logical sequence...

You don't seem to follow too many Lakers games.

He gave his all in the very first game of hte season. Boos were replaced with chants when Bryant almost single-handedly beat the Rockets.

Kupchak has commended him for putting all the off season drama to the back of his mind and playing for the best interest of the franchise - wins.

The Lakers were tied for 1st the game after Bynum went out with 27-11. They had a 7 game winning streak to start the New Year.

How on Earth does all of that mean that he didn't give it a hundred percent for half of the season?!

Bryant was a jerk in the off season. He could've avoided a big portion of what he said or could've used other more reasonable means. But he has never played like he didn't want to be there. Saying that is nothing less than manufactoring another bull reason to deny him the award. Having him at 4th, while he has lead the team that was lottery-bound to the best record in the West and the potential 1st seed, with numerous injuries to his teammates and playing half the season with an injury that needs a surgery (even Hollinger called him out and stated he needs to get surgery and not act like a hero) is not only unreasonable. It's idiotic. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or "oh, the blind Kobe-homer with his Kobe-pity again", but that is the truth.

cheers

This has absolutely nothing to do with Kobe not believing in his teammates and ripping his owner and GM to shreds for giving him insufficient talent to compete.

I don't care what kool-aid you want to drink or how much you want to spin things, the fact of the matter is Kobe said himself, via his actions, that he didn't feel his squad was good enough to compete and it was his GM and owners fault.

[tracey_nice]

-= original quote snipped =-



The same intangibles Kobe brought by ripping his owner and GM.

And isn't it Laker fans that love to talk about defense? Now that someone has actually had a huge hand in making his team one of the top defenses in the league, it is suddenly, what intangibles has KG brought?

Some of you Kobe backers have no limits.

When it is Chris Paul, stats don't matter and his defense isn't as good.

When it is LeBron, his injury/holdout situation doesn't matter and his wins are too low, despite the fact Laker fans still contend Kobe was MVP on a 45-win team.

When it is Garnett, stats suddenly matter and he doesn't offer the same defensive motivation to his teammates as Kobe does to his....?

But, don't you see, when it comes to stats/wins/offense/defense/intangibles ... list goes on; Kobe Bryant has the best combination of any candidate.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

That seems to me to be a massive mischaracterization of your opponents in this thread. And to be clear, it's not what I'm claiming.

I don't think so at all. Clearly, every player has an impact that goes beyond what we can currently measure (I say currently because we don't have official stats for 'lanes closed off on help defense' or 'charges taken', 'successful picks', 'hockey assists' etc although it's concievable we someday could). But too often in this thread someone will compare Paul's production to Kobe's and suddenly someone will chime in with something about Kobe's intangibles, as if CP has none. As if CP's impact is totally derived from the production already quoted and Kobe's is so much more. Kobe's intangibles would have to be at least as far ahead of CP's as Paul's production is ahead of Kobe's to make it a wash, and considering we've ascertained that the intangibles are not as critical as the actual production on the court- and yes, we have agreed on that right? Jud Buechler?- then Kobe's intangibles would have to actually be much better than Paul's for it to be even.

Considering Kobe has not had the finest reputation as an intangible guy for his career- subjective, I know- I would find that hard to believe.

Clearly I wasn't claiming that their own coaches would be unbiased. Other coaches are not going to have good info about the nuances of performances of the top players - because they are too busy? Given that a great deal of their job is figuring out how to deal with these top players - and they have access to huge amounts of manpower and technology to gather information - this somehow doesn't ring true.

If you're Phil Jackson, you played the Cavs once on December 20th, in Cleveland, two days after you played the Bulls in Chicago with a game in Philly the next night, followed by a game in New York the night after that. Four games in six days, all on the road. I doubt he was spending hours upon hours breaking down James gameplay. Even less time comparing that to his superstars game.

On January 23rd the Spurs came to town. The Lakers had been without Bynum for just four games and Gasol had just recently been added to the mix. On the 25th the Mavs played them in LA. On the 27th the Cavs came in. Somehow, I doubt Jackson was busy pouring over footage of LeBron and, again, comparing his strong points and weak points to Kobe. I think he was more busy dealing with the Bynum situation, getting Gasol integrated, and focusing on conference rivals.

Jackson hasn't seen LeBron since and has no reason to prepare for him until June and even then he should and probably will be focused on preparing his own team instead of comparing how LeBron stacks up against the other individual players this season. I don't think he sits around watching Sportscenter and reading ESPN articles online. In fact, I find it hard to believe he reads much about the NBA aside from scouting the entire team he's about to play and keeping up with the Lakers closest competitors W-L record.

So yes, I believe there are many, many, many people more qualified to compare Kobe Bryant and LeBron James this season than Phil Jackson or any other coach. Quite a few of them probably post on this messageboard.

That's all I have time for now, but I'll get back to you, excellent post.

[ILikeTheGrizz]

The same intangibles Kobe brought by ripping his owner and GM.

And isn't it Laker fans that love to talk about defense? Now that someone has actually had a huge hand in making his team one of the top defenses in the league, it is suddenly, what intangibles has KG brought?

Some of you Kobe backers have no limits.

When it is Chris Paul, stats don't matter and his defense isn't as good.

When it is LeBron, his injury/holdout situation doesn't matter and his wins are too low, despite the fact Laker fans still contend Kobe was MVP on a 45-win team.

When it is Garnett, stats suddenly matter and he doesn't offer the same defensive motivation to his teammates as Kobe does to his....?

tracey, try to keep up. He wasn't making an argument for KG to be the MVP. He was simply pointing out how ridiculous it was to try to say the KG 'doesn't have the intangibles'.

I know it's hard but try to sound out the words as you read, it might help.

[tracey_nice]

ILikeWhatever, your reading comprehension is in question( as expected), I was making a simple observation regarding his post an observation which seems very hard for you to understand, which is understandable; I can't fault people for there intellectual limits.

[Kobay]

What are KG's intagibles? Im asking you because i don't remember what he brought in Minnesota. Give me a list that are not related to things that show up on box score.