MVP Worthiness Scenario

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Inspired by Droid101:


Why do we reward a player who missed games? I'd rather give it to the guy who played about as well, but played all 82 games.

I thought it was an interesting topic of discussion.


Two scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Team A go 52-30 with Player A playing all 82

vs

Scenario 2:

Team A go 52-30 with Player A playing 72 and Team A loses all 10 games Player A misses by an average of 20 points


In which scenario is Player A more deserving of the MVP?

[kshutts1]

You mean Tracy McGrady?

I pick TMac.

[UK2K]

When Team A plays in the west and Team B plays in the east.

The disparity is that bad.

[Practice?]

Inspired by Droid101:



I thought it was an interesting topic of discussion.


Two scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Team A go 52-30 with Player A playing all 82

vs

Scenario 2:

Team A go 52-30 with Player A playing 72 and Team A loses all 10 games Player A misses by an average of 20 points


In which scenario is Player A more deserving of the MVP?

The problem is if the team loses all 10 games, their record is actually impacted. This is a more realistic view of what happens if an MVP caliber player goes down and their team loses all 10 games:

Scenario 1:

Team A go 52-30 with Player A playing all 82

vs

Scenario 2:

Team A go 42-40 with Player A playing 72

Obviously the player is talented, but him sitting out does not do his team any favors if they lose every game he sits. It is ridiculous to say that him sitting impacts the team record, and then create a hypothetical situation where the end results is some how magically the same record in each scenario.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

The problem is if the team loses all 10 games, their record is actually impacted. This is a more realistic view of what happens if an MVP caliber player goes down and their team loses all 10 games:

Scenario 1:

Team A go 52-30 with Player A playing all 82

vs

Scenario 2:

Team A go 42-40 with Player A playing 72

Obviously the player is talented, but him sitting out does not do his team any favors if they lose every game he sits. It is ridiculous to say that him sitting impacts the team record, and then create a hypothetical situation where the end results is some how magically the same record in each scenario.

I agree.

Let's discuss this in real terms:

LeBron has missed 10 games - his team is 2-8 in those games.

Let's say they win 55 games - with him playing just 72 games (going 53-19 with him in the lineup)

Of course it's worse than if they would've won 63 with him playing 82, but is that not better than if they won 55 games with him playing 82?

[Practice?]

I agree.

Let's discuss this in real terms:

LeBron has missed 10 games - his team is 2-8 in those games.

Let's say they win 55 games - with him playing just 72 games (going 53-19 with him in the lineup)

Of course it's worse than if they would've won 63 with him playing 82, but is that not better than if they won 55 games with him playing 82?

Right, but let's discuss in real terms based on the original argument in the other thread, which was Harden vs LeBron.

Harden has played 48 games leading the Rockets to 33-15.

LeBron has played 40 games, with the Cavs record sitting at 30-20 (28-12 with LeBron).

Now, LeBron has been efficient and effective when on the court, but ultimately, Harden has been on the court more which is more valuable to his team. LeBron sitting adds no value to his team.

By excluding the time missed in your evaluation, it is similar to looking at per-36 stats. Per 36, Hassan Whiteside looks great because he has been efficient, but ultimately we can only evaluate him based on what he has actually attributed. His actual contributions are still pretty good, but it is still not the same value of somebody who actually plays 36 minutes and puts up more overall contribution.

[GimmeThat]

This is what/how I thought about the mvp scenario in another way.

Given the assumption that the voting members of the award are rationale and objective.

which means that players who are recieving votes must had met certain critrias


Set the award statistical equation to one end being that of a constant balue "let say 50"

Whoever is voted ON with the award, would then change the equation in the values of each categories statistical importance.


The biggest problem with this method, is when a multiple mvp candidates come along, which then the voting members are faced with the possibility of having the equation blown up. Dealing with the issue that whether or not one single player receiving the award multiple times, has already alter one players significance in the history book in general, instead of just on a year by year basis.


This might work better in the fmvp scenario more than anything, since the players who would be eligible for this award would vary more often.


p.s. the common denominator between the song 99 problems, and kobe's 81 points. Is that they both work as duct-tapes so beautifully.

[Practice?]

This is what/how I thought about the mvp scenario in another way.

Given the assumption that the voting members of the award are rationale and objective.

which means that players who are recieving votes must had met certain critrias


Set the award statistical equation to one end being that of a constant balue "let say 50"

Whoever is voted ON with the award, would then change the equation in the values of each categories statistical importance.


The biggest problem with this method, is when a multiple mvp candidates come along, which then the voting members are faced with the possibility of having the equation blown up. Dealing with the issue that whether or not one single player receiving the award multiple times, has already alter one players significance in the history book in general, instead of just on a year by year basis.


This might work better in the fmvp scenario more than anything, since the players who would be eligible for this award would vary more often.


p.s. the common denominator between the song 99 problems, and kobe's 81 points. Is that they both work as duct-tapes so beautifully.

lol what?

[T_L_P]

Definitely Player A.

It shows he can establish a winner culture, unlike Player B.

[SexSymbol]

Playing > Not playing.
Simple as that.
And stop that LeBron MVP bullshit propoganda, there's 10 teams currently with better recs than the Cavs, so they're literally not a top 10 team now

[Quickening]

Playing > Not playing.
Simple as that.
And stop that LeBron MVP bullshit propoganda, there's 10 teams currently with better recs than the Cavs, so they're literally not a top 10 team now

Stop the MVP propaganda full stop, seasons got a long way to go and cavs are on a win streak, lets see where they end up.

[Practice?]

Stop the MVP propaganda full stop, seasons got a long way to go and cavs are on a win streak, lets see where they end up.

Then why are we even discussing this?