April 13, 2006

Nash: Almost definitely a commie.

posted by everett at 02:39 AM on April 13, 2006

Let's see Smush Parker, kwame Brown, Chris Mims, Lamar Odom, Luke Walton, Brian Cooke. I can't imagine any of the other MVP candidates making these players better and leading them to the playoffs. Kobe is not only the best player in the NBA, he is the most valuable player on a winning team. No disrespect to the others.. What has Shaq won without Kobe? The only contender is Billups who leads the best team in the NBA, he's clutch and whenever he say's boo, Nash becomes ghost just like the others and he exerts his will on the team and game. Cleveland is 4th or so in the East, the lakers 7th in the West. All Kobe has is Odom who is playing his best ball ever after 3/4 of a season with Bryant, he's looking Scottie Pipinish. Remember Nash left his buddies in Dallas and they are winning (more) with Jason Terry. Let's give the GM's and coaches in Phoenix,Dallas,Detroit, and Cleveland(?) the credit they deserve and Kobe Bryant the MVP...

posted by Sputnik at 05:40 AM on April 13, 2006

Nash or Lebron. Kobe loves being on a seventh place team a little too much. If any of these other players got to jack as many shots as he, they'd have some pretty ludicrous scoring numbers too. Though I do agree that Kobe is better than them all. Just not the MVP. In fact - not even really in the top five. Right now I'd go: Lebron Nash Dirk Brand Wade Billups Kobe

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:47 AM on April 13, 2006

Kobe minus Shaq equals 7th place. Shaq plus wade equals a championship posibility. No brainer

posted by mustang71 at 08:03 AM on April 13, 2006

Are we talking about numbers (stats), all-around play or what the team is without vs. with the player? Nobody really knows, which is one of the problems with the NBA MVP system.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 08:41 AM on April 13, 2006

not a diss on kobe or bkdet, but i think that triple doubles can be a bit misleading and I'd be reluctant to hold that up as a credit to a player. how many triple doubles has jason kidd had when he shot something like 4 for 19 and made 2 free throws? i think the total picture, the averages and whatnot, are a better measure. though there must be some uber stat about effectiveness and such that 82games.com (who tip Billups) has come up with.

posted by gspm at 09:25 AM on April 13, 2006

you all are so wrong. You and I know that Kobe is the MVP. And I have FACTS to back it up, you just have emotion and popularity to go with your selections. First off, Kobe basically is playing with BENCH players! Other than Lamar Odom, NO ONE on the Lakers is a starter! All these other candidates have bonafied starters and Detroit in itself is an ALL-STAR team! How hard is it to look good when you have Ben Wallace and Co. on the floor with you??? And as for the others like Steve Nash? He has some pretty decent players too. The lakers have a complex system known as the Triangle. It has taken the team all season to learn it and now you see the results are starting to happen. They have won 8 of 11 games and are peaking at the right time. I doubt they get far in the Playoffs. They still have limitied talent and really need a player or two like these other teams, for them to reach the championship. But the main reason Kobe should get it is he plays BOTH ENDS of the floor. He guards the other teams BEST player. Nash and Lebron and Dirk DO NOT! Nash and Dirk are not good defensive players at all. Just bodies. What Kobe has done offensively to keep his team afloat in the playoff hunt, until his team got the triangle is amazing. not just amazing, it hasnt been done since the days of Jordan and his 81 point game is one for the ages. He carried this team on it's back because no one elese could make shots! Now that the team has begun to show life, Kobe has become the TEAM PLAYER everyone says he is not. Jordan was the SAME way until about 1990. It is sickening how you all make this a popularity contest. If that rape charge had never happened, or Shaq had not left, I dare say you all would be singing Kobe's praises. The guy deserves it. There is no better clutch player in the game. No better 4th quarter guy. Kobe has made more important shots and kept his team in games more than anyone! Lebron doesnt want the ball at the end of games and neither does Elton Brand. All of these other nominees have good players around them. I would say if the Lakers add someone like a Kevin Garnett( free agent this coming year and he bought a home here in LA recently), The Lakers will be a threat next year. Kobe is the best and deserves the MVP.

posted by bluekarma at 10:56 AM on April 13, 2006

bkdet you are a fool. All round talent??? Lebron??? He plays weak defense. He doesn't play the other teams best players! Kobe will aways guard the other teams best player(usually a guard) even when he is much smaller! Remember how he took on AI? And Lebron plays in the weak Eastern Conference, along with Billups! Yea, don't forget that the West is still the harder Conference to win in.

posted by bluekarma at 11:01 AM on April 13, 2006

How hard is it to look good when you have Ben Wallace and Co. on the floor with you??? It is very hard to look good when your entire team is an "all-star team". Who do you pick on a team full of all stars? The best player...Chauncey Billups! It's not about popularity, but if it was, Kobe would probably be the favorite for his scoring and flare alone with stiff competition from Wade and James! But it's not about that, it's about the ability of a player to have his success translate into a better team, players becoming better because of his leadership. And then there's the stats. Jordan got into the minds of his teammates and challenged (threatened according to Bill Cartright, Horace Grant and others) them to be better! Kobe does the same thing, but his team is still a team that heavily relies on him to score, not defend, pass or rebound, just score! That makes him a one-demensional player. Don't get me wrong, he can defend, but in order for his team to win, he has to throw up a lot of shots! It's a team game not a popularity contest or else we could include KG and Paul P. as serious candidates! With my above statement about success and leadership, it seems Nash should be the winner, but as I have said Billups is the best player on the best team, which he leads!

posted by bkdet at 11:12 AM on April 13, 2006

bluekarma- your argument about playing both ends of the floor is valid, but isn't likely to be taken seriously on account of your tone... And if you'll direct your attention to the post from a few days back (wish I knew how to link to it) you'll see that we've been down this road before, and no one argues Kobe's talent - only that MVP's are rarely awarded to players on bubble teams- which, despite your suggestion to the contrary, is not a point in favor but rather a point against... Regardless of your impassioned punctuation...

posted by MW12 at 11:17 AM on April 13, 2006

Kobe is the best at being the best individual player on a team, but not the best at making his team work to get the win. If he does not score a lot, his team does not win and they are barely holding on to spot 7 in the west!

posted by bkdet at 11:19 AM on April 13, 2006

Billups. Best team(by far) + team leader = MVP. The parentheses are not part of the math equation by the way and are mearly parentheses.

posted by gradys_kitchen at 12:54 PM on April 13, 2006

I noticed that lilnemo used turnovers per game as a mark against certain players. Is there a better stat for turnovers that measures turnovers against time on the court (i.e., a rate stat)? I'm just curious because these guys who are high up on the TO list obviously get a lot of minutes, and TOPG may not be the most useful stat.

posted by holden at 12:59 PM on April 13, 2006

Okay -- I actually found the sortable stats at ESPN for TO/48 (turnovers per 48 minutes), which gets to the rate stat issue I raised. Here is a quick comparison for those individuals with TOs listed as an issue in lilnemo's analysis (plus Nash, who was surprisingly omitted -- perhaps lilnemo is a commie himself):

posted by holden at 01:17 PM on April 13, 2006

I don't think Iverson is considered an MVP candidate this year because his team is 37-41 overall, 15-23 on the road, and 21-27 in the eastern conference. He's missed about 8 games to injury (not that should matter too much). And really, the 76ers just haven't looked too competitive this year

posted by lilnemo at 01:50 PM on April 13, 2006

I guess I should wait to see if you agree with me first...lol My bad!

posted by bkdet at 02:04 PM on April 13, 2006

Billups . The best TEAM player on the best TEAM . Nash , nope . Won't get past round 1 . Kobe , nope , a one man team . Dirk #2 , Lebron #3 . Nash shouldn't have won it last year and if he wins it this year somethings wrong .

posted by alvinthefirst at 02:55 PM on April 13, 2006

Hey i know that kobe is a one man team but if u think about it right now where would the lakers be without kobe. But i dont think hell get it im not a fan of kobe at all. I think Lebron may get it cuz ppl are saying that billups should get the mvp but umm he has 3 other all stars on his team and lebron had ummmmmmm no all stars not and dominant but im not a fan of lebron either and ppl think that it was a smart idead for him to be in that game last night in the 3rd qrt and they where getting smoked i thought it was dumb and new that was gonna happen

posted by chitownjordan at 05:04 PM on April 13, 2006

Jason Richardson Ridiculous, you can't make any decent argument for him, not in a million years.

posted by everett at 05:11 PM on April 13, 2006

What did he do for the Warriors? They are like 16 games under .500. He is a great player, but he is not winning games for his team. At least Kobe has pulled his crummy team in to the playoffs.

posted by everett at 06:34 PM on April 13, 2006

Wait... I do think you can make arguments for Nash, Lebron, dirk, Billubs, and even Kobe, if you really try. But J-rich? 13th in ppg is not really that great... All these other guys we're talking about have two or three top five categories... J-rich likes to throw up the three ball, and he makes quite a few of em, but other thatn that he just isn't as effective as any of the other players we are talking about here. Not to mention the fact that He plays on an awful team.

posted by everett at 06:56 PM on April 13, 2006

Yeah Jason Richardson isnt a mvp canidate was he even a all star i dont think he was and hey they may have beat the Mavs but that doesnt mean hes a mvp canidate. So your saying that jason richardson is a mvp canidate cuz he keeps his players in the game then that mean ben gordon is a mvp canidate with his 4th qrt performances but no way is j rich a mvp. GO BULLS!!!!!!!!!!!! SIXERS SUCK (PRACTICE) lol IVERSON WHAT A BALL HOGG hahahahahhaha finnaly he passed the ball his last two games he acually had 15 assist and 10 omg i almost fainted when he had that many assist

posted by chitownjordan at 07:08 PM on April 13, 2006

Regarding whether a player is 'turnover prone', there are factors other than Minutes and Assists to consider. Scoring attempts also put a player at risk of a TO. Even rebounds give you the chance of losing the ball. I happen to have this little formula for estimating 'expected TO' from other stats. It's based on historic trends, and the modern NBA has much fewer TO than in previous decades. Among the league's best 30-or-so players, only Dwight Howard and Kirilenko cough it up more than they 'should', by historic standards, considering all the other things they do. Close to the 'par' mark are Pierce, Arenas, Parker, Carmelo, and Nash. But Wade, Kobe, Lebron are not 'TO-prone'; they just do an awful lot with the ball, and they get (somewhat less than) their share of TO. Dirk, Brand, Garnett, Marion, and Billups get far fewer TO than 'expected'.

posted by mike goodman at 06:32 AM on April 14, 2006

Forgetting the potential flaws in graymatters formula, the conclusions are very interesting, and not without merit. Did you use the formula on only those eight or did you open it up to other possible candidates and/or elite players to see whether they would enhance or diminish your findings?

posted by MW12 at 09:45 AM on April 14, 2006

Why per game instead of totals or per minute stats? Totals have nothing to do with consistency; per game can at least show that. Per minute has nothing to do with player's actual performance. Also, that information was not available. In your own analysis, you looked primarily at per game. Why is it that points, steals, and rebounds are equivalent? Points represent actual scoring, whether by two point, three point, or free throw. Steals and rebounds may or may not result in scoring opportunities. An actual formula would probably break it down by what happened afterwards if that could be determined, as well as apply different factors to offensive and defensive rebounds. Why are blocks and assists twice as valuable? An assist actually results in two points (sometimes three) so I used assists being worth two points. Block means that an actual shot attempt by other side was stopped, so I made it worth two points. Of course, the blocked player might have missed, but there is no way to tell. Why aren't proficiency stats like FG%, 3P%, or FT% taken into account? I'm not saying my formula is correct; I threw it all together in about 15 minutes. I am sure that math wizards could actually apply different or additional factors and apply a better weighting system for different stats. I am just saying that a player's actual value to his team can be valued in some way statistically, as opposed to just subjectively looking at a player and his individual stats and deciding whether you think he deserves to be MVP or not. Though I also know, that this is the reality of how the system works. Also, I am not saying that the MVP should be chosen only by some formula. I am just saying that I think that a player's actual value to his team is sometimes overrated. MW12: Did you use the formula on only those eight or did you open it up to other possible candidates and/or elite players to see whether they would enhance or diminish your findings? I originally included Tony Parker and Shawn Marion because I had heard them mentioned in other discussions. Tony would have finished last and far behind the other candidates under this formula. Marion would have finished ninth and behind Nash on his own team.

posted by graymatters at 01:17 PM on April 14, 2006

DJE, I estimate 'expected TO' by applying these factors to other stats, and adding them up. Ast * .16 Blk * .10 Pts * .08 Reb * .07 Stl * .05 Min * -.005 Minutes is per-game, and the others can be per-40 or whatever. Note the minus sign. Without any justification for these numbers, other than they give a 'best fit' with players' actual TO rate (since 1978, when TO began to be recorded). As I said, most players in 2006 will have fewer TO than this formula predicts. In 1978, almost everyone got more TO. Somewhere I have a better 'modern' formula, but I can't seem to find it.

posted by mike goodman at 06:36 AM on April 15, 2006

Why not eccsport78 ? Can you explain why they wont give him the MVP this year?

posted by STUNNER at 07:14 PM on April 15, 2006

irunfromclones: " With little or no supporting cast, Richardson has been the difference in a lot of wins this season. " hmmmm,,, doesnt that sound a lot like Kobe, having little or no supporting cast? But the difference is that he actually got his team into the playoffs. He was truely the difference in games for the Lakers. He did what was needed to get his team into the playoffs, Richardson quite frankly didnt do enough. And i never said that the MVP winner had to come from a winning team, just that well in mostly all the time, the MVP comes from a winning team, a playoff team.

posted by STUNNER at 11:20 PM on April 17, 2006

leading the league in scoring is gonna be an NBA 1 team nba gonna be 1st team defencive team i mean how can u say lakers are a 7th place team and the heat is a potential championship team yea but look at it this way before shaq came to the heat they went to the second round of the playoffs second round people so he gets there and what happens they make it one round further come on now thats a big upgrade and i guarente that they wont win it this year or next year shaq is simply done and yea so what lakers didnt make the playoffs the year he left and the big part to that is that they didnt have a set coach when rudy t was there they work floating around 6 7 8 th in the west they had like a (20-11) record but when the left they had who for a coach never coach one an nba game in his life lets get serious

posted by DNiCe253 at 04:43 PM on April 22, 2006