In an attempt to boost readership I'm going to try to keep this short.
First, Kobe Bryant is going to win the MVP award, that's been obvious to me since the Gasol trade. The Lakers have the best team on paper and Kobe is the best player on that team, and media types have this guilt complex over him not winning it in the past. It's ironic that in the year when Dirk Nowitzki had the best regular season production and thus won the MVP he laid an egg in the first round of the playoffs and was immediately criticized as not being MVP worthy. I say ironic because for fans the MVP has transformed into this validation of a player being the best in the NBA even though that's not what the award SHOULD mean. It's even more ironic when you consider that the voters almost always give the award to the most popular players on the most popular teams. Surely, Suns fan believed that they had the best player in the NBA for two seasons even though there were a handful of players that contributed more to their teams than Steve Nash. But, Steve Nash was the most popular player on the most exciting team. Consider the Rookie of the Year award. Kevin Durant has produced the most for his team, but Luis Scola is a major contributor on a playoff team. Fortunately, the ROTY doesn't have this ridiculous framework around it. It's just the guy producing the most. It's not even the most popular player, think back to Okafor v. Howard? Well if you look at the stats that season you will notice they are comparable, but Okafor averaged about 3 more points per game. Howard was 19 and people were raving that he was the next Shaq - MUCH more publicity, yet Okafor produced slightly more individually and thus won the award.
Does anybody really think Tony Parker is the most Valuable Spur? Not many. Then how in the HECK did he win the 2007 Finals MVP? Oh, that's right, because he PRODUCED the most for the Spurs in that series - shredding Cleveland's defense over and over. The world didn't end when Tony Parker won the MVP award. People still consider Duncan and Ginobili the superstars of that team.
This brings me to the MVP award and how the arguments are being framed for Kobe.
First, a little background info: any candidate whose team does not win 50 games is immediately excluded from the club along with this worthless Moses Malone allusion. (I swear to God I've heard his name so much this year I'm starting to think he is still playing.) Apparently you could put up 40 10 and 8 and if your team does not win 50 games - nothing else matters. Here's the argument for Kobe in a nutshell:
Kobe Bryant was the most statistically dominating presence the last 5 some odd years but failed to win the MVP award because his team sucked. Now, his team is great, and even though his individual numbers are not the best in the league, it would be a crime to deny him the award since he was denied back when he DID have the most statistically dominating numbers in the NBA.
This argument was particularly strong when it was a two-horse race between LeBron and Kobe for much of the season(in spite of head to head match-ups) since LeBron '08 was seen as Kobe '06, and Kobe '08 seen as Nash '06.
This argument started looking a little weaker once Chris Paul's Hornets were a top the west and Paul's individual production was more than Kobe's. Now that the Lakers will finish a game or so ahead of the Hornets, Kobe is the most popular player on the most popular team - thus he will win the award by a mile. Here's the problem with the arguments:
Kobe Bryant was NOT the most statistically dominating presence the last 5 some odd years. In 2006 Dirk Nowitzki, and LeBron James had a higher PER than Kobe Bryant, and Dwayne Wade was not far behind. I know every single Kobe fan out there balks at the PER stat, but let's get one thing clear - while PER doesn't indicate best player by any means, it does indicate most productive, and there's no way you can argue that a player DOMINATED his contemporaries if he's not even first in PER.
As a side note, all three of above mentioned players went farther in the playoffs than Kobe and DWade and Dirk were the best individual players in the NBA Finals that season.
Taking this argument further, Kobe has never had the most productive regular season in his career. Therefore, the argument that he so clearly deserved it in 2006 is false. He didn't SO CLEARLY deserve it. LeBron took an equally weak supporting cast to 50 wins. Ironically, Kobe still got a ton of votes (no one was making the Moses Malone argument against Kobe that year.) and split votes with LeBron James. Thus, Steve Nash came away with the award - which everyone can agree he certainly didn't deserve.
LeBron '08 is not Kobe '06. LeBron HAS BEEN the most productive player this season. He has statistically dominated everyone but Chris Paul this season, and is first in PER at over 30. If you leave Paul out of the equation, LeBron's production has been significantly more than Kobe's this season. As I've already pointed out, Kobe wasn't even the most productive player in '06 much less SIGNIFICANTLY ahead of his contemporaries, like LeBron is this season.
And for the sake of argument, Kobe '08 isn't Nash '06. Kobe's more productive, more worthy, the most popular player on the most popular team like Nash, but he's different. He is not the catalyst behind their team. He is the wingman in the triangle offense which features a dominant center, an athletic SF/PF combo, sharpshooters galore, and the winning-est coach in NBA history. Nash was the catalyst - Kobe is the strongest link in th echain. I'm not saying Nash is better or was more worthy - hell no. But it is worth pointing out that without Gasol and Bynum the Lakers a .500 Kobe led team. This is longer than I wanted it to be. For what it's worth, I will not be upset if Kobe wins the MVP. He is the most popular (and best) player on the best team - and that is what the award has come to signify by the voters.
However, the framework being used to justify his MVP is flawed.
Kobe Bryant is wildly popular and LOOKS the most like Michael Jordan in the eyes of fans. Because of this, everyone thinks it is an error of history that he has never won an MVP before. It's not. He's never been the most productive player for an 82 game season.
And I wonder what Tim Duncan thinks every-time some media type claims that "Kobe Bryant has been the best player in the game for a while now."
Good read.
But the fact is he IS the best player, period.
Who is the one guy no one wants to have to guard?
Using your criteria, LeBron is not eligible anyway...his team has 45 wins.
The Lakers do not have a dominant center. We have one young, very talented, but UNproven kid in Bynum, who hasn't even played half the year.
Gasol is a one-time all star, and very very good but hardly dominant. No player on the team other than Kobe is an all-star. He has played through injuries, came up HUGE in the last two victories, and is deserving this year - forget all the other years he didn't win.
THIS year he deserves it.
It's a wrap after the last two games.
I am a CP3 fan, but if he wins, it's will be due to media bias (and/or) personal judgement of Kobe, similar to that of Barry Bonds.
LAKERS IN JUNE...regardless.
I'm sure Kobe'd RATHER have that anyway.
Bleed - thanks for the comments. Whether or not Kobe is the best player is a different argument.
You can certainly make the argument he's the game's best. I feel there is plenty of reasons to believe that he's NOT the best, but it's a good topic for debate. As a Laker's fan, I can see why you would obviously think Kobe is the game's best where as I think LeBron is (I'm a cleveland fan)
Either way, there is plenty of ammo for both being the "Best"
However, that's not what this post is about. It's about how the MVP argument has been framed - incorrectly!
I wasn't talking about just Bynum, I was talking about the young athetic combo in Odom and Bynum. And you are kidding yourself if you think Gasol is not a top 5 center in the NBA.
Duncan,
Yao,
Howard,
Gasol
if you consider him a center.
He starts at center and is 7 feet tall so I consider him a center. If he's a PF, now he's more a top 10 player because you've got Amare, Bosh, Dirk, Garnett, and Boozer in there before him.
But still, a top 10 player at any position in the NBA deserves a little more praise than: "he's a 1 time all-star." Please. Ben Wallace has many all-star selections. Tell Mitch to trade Ferry Gasol for Wallace straight up. See how long it takes Mitch to die from laughing so hard.
You stated Kobe was "going to win the MVP award" and that it "didn't upset you" but you never stated who you think SHOULD win the MVP award?
Or do I even need to ask?
I've been arguing that the award is flawed since last season. I even wrote a blog about it that I will repost Thursday.
I had LeBron as my pick for much of the season but the Cavs are playing terribly right now. I could see giving it to him if his team failed to win 50 games in the West but a sub-50 win season in the East is inexcusable.
What are your thoughts on the trade that brought Wally, Big Ben, Delonte, and Joe Smith to Cleveland now? When it went down, you categorized it as "nothing short of incredible."
You also told Lakersfan19II that he didn't "watch the Cavs" or he didn't "know anything about basketball" after he said he thought "the trade was awful."
How much criticism should LeBron receive for the Cavs struggles recently?
What types of players does LeBron need around him? I keep hearing that LeBron needs to be surrounded by shooters. But wasn't D. Jones one of the best 3-point shooters in the league. Donyell Marshall Sasha Pavolovic can/could shoot. Gibson is money from the 3-point line. Szczerbiak is supposedly one of the best shooters in the league too.
Maybe some of the finger pointing should be directed at LBJ.
He pounds the pumpkin too much and his teammates are forced to sit and watch him.
The guy is a great player but of course he's going to get his numbers when he has the ball in his hands 95% of the time.
One last comment. I cringe everytime I see you bring up PER.
PER overrates players that score a lot of points, but do so inefficiently. It also relies on box score stats. Box score stats aren't enough to tell the whole story on what happens on defense and defense is what separates Kobe from guys like Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul, and still LeBron James.
Bottom line, there are far too many intangibles that cannot be measured by a box score.
Example: Dwyane Wade had the highest PER last season and only a fool would believe he was better than Kobe OR LeBron.
Thanks for commenting on my blog. If this is short I'd hate to see long.
I don't understand your logic. Yes Lebron is having a huge stat year. Kobe had the highest scoring season since early in MJ's career and didn't win because what happens is that when a player has bad players around him his personal stats seem to go up but if you don't contend for the East/West best record you don't get MVP.
The new has worn off Lebron and he's finishing his 5th year now. Voters now expect him to win big because he's either the first or second best player in the league no matter who you are and he has to win big to win MVP now. He's no longer a wonder kid.
He has to produce a winner and I think he will in time. Somewhere.
MY POINT is that Kobe is MVP THIS year...I could care less "how the MVP argument has been framed"
The man has LEAD this team all year, and when the so-called experts said before this past weekends games that it all comes down to this -and he responded with resounding victory-...what more needs to be said?
Had the Hornets won, I would have no problem with Paul winning, I also believe KG is a worthy candidate. Bottom line is the Lakers laid it down on Friday...then for good measure, put an exclaimation point on the season with a smack down on the defending champions.
Not only is he the MVP this year, he is the best player on the planet right now...
..ask your man Prince James.
(he ain't a king without a crown)
Shaq said it too. I think the players opinion holds more weight than yours , mine, or the media hacks that get to vote...poll the PLAYERS, coaches & GM's.
I bet they got Mamba too.
LeBron's the future...no doubt LEGIT.
But he comes in 4th this year.
Good write-up on the MVP scenario Tsunami. Thought it was interesting how you cited 'guilt' among voters as a possible factor in Kobe's successful MVP run this year.
That same 'guilt' worked against Nash for a THIRD consecutive MVP last year, a season in which his play was even better that the previous two MVP campaigns.
You made good points all the way through, however, your blog could have done without the Nash disrespect. For whatever the criteria are... he is a 2-time MVP.
Hoffman - the trade hasn't helped the Cavs yet. Since the trade, the defense has been deplorable and the offense has been pretty damn bad too. What you have to realize though, is that guys like Anderson Varajeo, Sasha Pavlovic, and Boobie Gibson were thrust back into the rotation as soon as they came back from their injuries. All three of those guys have been HUUUUGE disappointments since they've returned from injury. In addition, Wally is missing wide open jumpers. You can't fault LeBron for that. Yes, LeBron should shoulder the blame for what has happened with his team.
Since the trade he his assist numbers are down and the Cavs have been a .500 team because he hasn't been as clutch as he was in the first 2/3 of the season. For that I do not think he deserves the MVP. As I stated in a previous blog, I don't WANT him to win the MVP. I want him to stay hungry.
Chris Paul is without a doubt my pick MVP for this season, but as I said, I'm not surprised that Kobe is winning it, nor do I think it's a bad choice.
James had no doubt who would get his vote if he had one. "I'd give it to Kobe Bryant," James said before last night's game. "What he has done this whole year, carrying that team to the No. 1 team in the West right now and playing probably the best basketball all-around . . . "I've been quoted as saying Kobe has been the best player in our league for the last five years," James said. "He hasn't been named MVP, and I don't know why. This is his year."
Hoffman:
as far as PER goes, your arguments do NOTHING to support your claim or negate mine. You say that PER overvalues players that are volume scorers - who do so inefficiently.
Let's look at the top 10 guys in PER right now.
1 LeBron James, CLE .484
2 Chris Paul, NOR .485
3 Amare Stoudemire, PHO .589
4 Kevin Garnett, BOS .540
5 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL .482
6 Kobe Bryant, LAL .460
7 Tim Duncan, SAS .496
8 Manu Ginobili, SAS .458
9 Chris Bosh, TOR .495
10 Chauncey Billups, DET .447
Billups, Ginobili, and Bryant are the only people at .460 or below. And all three of them are excellent 3 point/FT shooters, so their true shooting percentage is good.
The rest of these players all score a lot of points very efficiently. And since most of my PER arguments are used AGAINST KOBE, it makes no sense that you bring up this idea that it overvalues guys that score a lot inefficiently - that's basically saying, "PER OVERVALUES PLAYERS LIKE KOBE BRYANT!" Since I generally use PER as an argument AGAINST KOBE worshipping, it makes no sense why you always make that argument.
Are the top 10 scorers in the NBA the top 10 in PER?
1. LeBron James
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Allen Iverson
4. Carmelo Anthony
5. Amare Stoudemire
6. Dirk Nowitzki
7. Kevin Martin
8. Micahel Redd
9. Richard Jefferson
10. Chris Bosh
So Amare, Dirk, and Bosh improved their rank from Scoring to PER, LeBron stayed put, and everyone else dropped spots. Therefore, 6 out of 10 players in the top 10 in scoring had a lower PER rank than scoring rank. ARGUMENT REFUTED.
Now look at the guys on that list that ACTUALLY score a lot and aren't even ON the PER list. AI, Martin, Redd, Jefferson - VOLUME SCORERS who often do so inefficiently. Melo is way too one dimensional, he's a pure scorer, that's why he doesn't crack the top ten in PER.
Therefore, PER values are LOWER for people who score inefficiently.
Innocent, it's not RIDICULOUS. It's not an emotional statistic. We can't all watch 82 games for 30 teams every year and give a point value system to every dribble a guy makes. What we can do is develop a formula that rates measurable productivity. Does PER leave out intangibles like Defense and leadership? Yes. Does that mean the things PER DOES tell us are wrong, no - just maybe INCOMPLETE.
If you are going to make the case for Kobe Bryant based on the fact that his intangibles are SO MUCH greater than the people above him in productivity, I think Kevin Garnett's defense and intangibles might have something to say about that. Not to mention his team has a better record.
Hoffman I notice you put LOL at the start of every post of mine like it's a big joke.
Just because Rooster isn't here anymore to copy and paste old posts which make you look like a fool, there is no need to get so cocky and condescending.
Hoffman - since I know you will take the books I am writing in response and just throw it out the window, at least answer these simple questions.
1.) What percentage should a positional player shoot to be considered efficient? Keep in mind that of 126 players who have made at least 300 field goals this season, 33 of them have a FG% above .500
2.) Which players exactly on my top ten PER list, are being OVERVALUED by scoring a lot. (Hint, I already answered this)
3.) How does the point "PER overvalues players who score a lot inefficiently" make Kobe Bryant seem like a better player than LeBron James. (It's not true, but even if it WAS, wouldn't it in essence be saying, PER values guys like Kobe more than guys like LeBron?)
4.) How the hell does Chris Paul have the 2nd highest PER in the NBA in spite of being 21st in scoring?
I don't put 'LOL' at the start of every comment I post on your blog. I think you're a good writer and you know a fair amount about the game, I'm just never surprised to find that the theme of your blog is anti-Kobe or pro-LeBron.
You may not "WANT" LeBron to win MVP but that has been the theme of nearly every blog you've written this season. You haven't talked about Chris Paul all season until it became apparent that LeBron would not win the MVP.
My criticism of PER has nothing to do with Kobe or LeBron. I just find it comical that you always bring it up like it should end a debate when in reality, it should only be used to begin one.
How is Rooster going to "make me look like a fool?" By posting comments where I predicted the Cavs to lose to both the Nets and Pistons last year or where I said the NBA Finals would go 5 games when it only took the Spurs 4?
I'm not correct all the time. Like my good friend Tom7 says, a prediction is just that, a prediction. It's not a prophesy. I'll continue to speak my mind and for the record, I've been right far more than I've been wrong.
Rookie of the Year - Mike Conley Jr.
Sixth Man of the Year - Leandro Barbosa, Manu Ginobili, Kenyon Martin
Assist leader - Steve Nash
Rebound leader - Dwight Howard
Scoring Champion - Carmelo Anthony
Defensive Player of the Year - Kobe Bryant
MVP - Kevin Garnett
Western Conference Regular Season Champion - Phoenix Suns
Eastern Conference Regular Season Champion - Chicago Bulls
2007-2008 NBA Champion - Phoenix Suns
Fine. John Hollinger thinks Kobe is the fourth most deserving. And he had the Raptors ahead of the Spurs, and he has David Robinson ahead of Wilt in career PERs. So knock yourself out!
Lebron isnt the best player in the league. He may have the best stats, but if Lebron might have made his teammates better instead of scoring 30 points a game, he might have had a chance to win the MVP this season.
Sound familiar?
Lebron is still lack on defense and of course Kobe will be on the 1st Team Defense AGAIN.
So give it up already.
Like I said before. A season of better stats doesnt compare to a man that can score 40 at will. Who has made his team the BEST in the MOST competetive conference in NBA history.
Sorry.
You could say Lebron flew yesterday and turned water into wine.
That still doesnt make him better than the greatest.
If he does this for, lets say, three more seasons in a row, then we can start talking about Lebron being the best.
We've already had Vince Carter, Ray Allen, Tracy Mcgrady, Dwyane Wade already do the ONE AND DONE.
Don't forget my top ten teams to begin the season:
Here are my top ten teams in the NBA this season. My rankings are not predicting win-loss records or playoff seeds. This is simply who I think will be the best in the league.
1. Phoenix Suns - will be playing with a chip on their shoulder from the season opener...
2. San Antonio Spurs - it's difficult to predict against the greatest power forward of all-time but it's even more difficult to repeat.
3. Boston Celtics - Paul Pierce advanced to the East Finals with Antoine Walker. KG made it to the West Finals with Cassell and Sprewell. Boston will return to prominence.
4. Denver Nuggets - old habits are hard to break but it's time for AI to assume the role of fascilitator and play second fiddle to Melo. Denver's success will ride on Nene's committment. He's one of the most talented pivotmen in the league and defended Duncan better than anyone in last year's playoffs.
5. Dallas Mavericks - Dallas will have a good regular season followed by another early exit out of the playoffs. Every team in the league thinks they can beat the Mavericks now.
6. Utah Jazz - great coach, great defense. Utah will sorely miss Derek Fisher.
7. Chicago Bulls - if they can fetch Kobe or a low post scorer, they'll catapult themselves into the top 4 teams in the league.
8. Houston Rockets - enough talent to win the championship. How badly to Tracy and Yao want to get to the next level?
9. Detroit Pistons - solid core of veterans. Weak psyche. Flip Saunders will be a memory by next season.
10. Los Angeles Lakers - the team that began last season 26-14 was no fluke. Unfortunately, injuries took their toll.
Let's take a look at those predictions too.
2007-2008 NBA Predictions
Rookie of the Year - Mike Conley Jr.
- Why didn't you include my comments on ROY?
Here a highlight: Greg Oden would have been my choice but unfortunately he was dealt a season ending injury. I know that Durant is the next logical choice but I don't think he has the strength necessary to make an immediate impact. He may average close to 20 points per game but his FG% will be in the low 40's and the Sonics may end up being the league's worst team.
With Portland's surprise season, I think Greg would have been a LOCK.
Sixth Man of the Year - Leandro Barbosa, Manu Ginobili, Kenyon Martin
- Looks like Ginobili will win this one.
Assist leader - Steve Nash
- Nash was in 1st place until Phoenix traded for Shaq and went 3-9 over their next 12 games. Lil' Stevie struggled mightily during that stretch.
Rebound leader - Dwight Howard
- Correct
Scoring Champion - Carmelo Anthony
- I was wrong. LeBron won the scoring championship but maybe it came at the expense of his team?
Defensive Player of the Year - Kobe Bryant
- I was wrong. Guess he'll have to settle for MVP.
MVP - Kevin Garnett
- I was wrong. Guess he'll have to settle for Defensive Player of the Year.
Western Conference Regular Season Champion - Phoenix Suns
First of all very solid piece, as usual. And I do respect what you're saying in that contrary to what I and others say, Lebron isn't Kobe of 06. It's a valid point. I've also never really heard it put any better than your strongest link in a chain versus catalyst comment in terms of Kobe and Nash. Honestly, most of your points strike me as solid.
At the end of your entire piece I was kind of left sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out how to respond to it seeing as I'm one of the folks that says Kobe should be the MVP, but the only real thing that comes to me is the Cavs standing in the East. I can understand Lebron finishing behind the Celts and Pistons, but not even winning 50 games as Lebron has gotten us used to? It just doesn't FEEL right, and I think that's what it boils down to. People FEEL like rewarding a guy who's 4th in the East is wrong.
You said on my blog that you didn't believe that Kobe could keep the Cavs at .500 whereas Lebron could do the same exact thing with Kobe's Lakers, and I don't disagree with half of that point. But I do truly believe that while Lebron would lead the Lakers just as far as Kobe, that Kobe would have the Cavs at the same level as Lebron has them right now. Particularly the pre-trade Cavs.
As noted in The Wages of Wins, Hollinger begins in the same place where we start – specifically he notes that wins are determined by offensive and defensive efficiency. Offensive efficiency is determined by points per possession. Defensive efficiency is determined by points allowed per possession. Having each noted this relationship, though, we go in different directions. We employ regression analysis to determine the value – in terms of wins – of the various components of offensive and defensive efficiency. In other words, we go entirely where the data takes us. Hollinger does not statistically derive his values, but takes a different approach.
Why We Create Models
Having noted the importance of offensive and defensive efficiency, Hollinger proceeds to discuss a variety of measures of performance which serve as building blocks for PERs. These building blocks include Points per Shot Attempt, Pure Point Rating, Assist Ratio, Turnover Ratio, Rebound Rate, and Usage Rate. He defends these measures as “improvements” over existing metrics, often noting that the rankings that result evaluate players in a fashion consistent with what NBA observers would believe. In other words, his metrics fit what he believed about the players before he started.
Unfortunately, this is not the way science works. We do not begin with our beliefs, play with the numbers until our beliefs are confirmed, and then call it a day.
Models are not evaluated in terms of whether they are consistent with what we believe, but in terms of their ability to explain what we purport to explain (and furthermore, provide predictive power).
This is point that is often lost in discussions of how to measure player performance in sports. Let’s think about baseball for a moment. People who study baseball would argue that batting average – hits divided by at-bats – is not as good a measure of performance as OPS – on base percentage plus slugging average. The reason for this conclusion is that OPS is a better predictor of runs scored and wins than batting average. In other words, OPS is superior to batting average because it does a better job of explaining how many runs a team scores. One would not argue that OPS is better simply because it ranks players in a fashion that fits our prior beliefs.
In examining Hollinger’s metrics, though, it is not clear that his measurements are trying to explain anything more than what he originally believed about the players. He offers various weights for the statistics the NBA tabulates, and at times it appears he is constructing these weights in terms of points scored. But he never establishes that the chosen weights allow him to predict how many points a team scores or how many games the team wins. Without knowing precisely what and how well PERs explains and/or predicts it becomes very difficult to verify Hollinger’s claim that this metric is “accurate.”
Looking at the specific weights Hollinger chooses we see another problem. In discussing the NBA Efficiency metric – which the NBA presents at its website – I argued that this measure fails to penalize inefficient shooting. The regression of wins on offensive and defensive efficiency reveals that shooting efficiency impacts outcomes in basketball. The ball does indeed have to go through the hoop for a team to be successful.
The same critique offered for NBA Efficiency also applies to Hollinger’s PERs, except the problem is even worse. Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points.
Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA played does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots.
But again, our model of wins suggests that inefficient shooting does not help a team win more games. Hence the conflict between PERs and Wins Produced. Hollinger has set his weights so that inefficient scorers still look pretty good. We argue that inefficient scoring reduces a team’s ability to win games, and therefore these players are not nearly as effective as people might believe.
Measuring Perceptions
Although PERs may not be the best measure of a player’s contribution to wins, it may offer a good measure of people’s perceptions of performance (after all that appears to be the author’s intent). An earlier version of NBA Efficiency was Robert Bellotti’s Points Created model. The simplified version of Points Created is the same as NBA Efficiency, except Bellotti’s model incorporates personal fouls. In defending this model Bellotti noted in 1992 that “the NBA’s Most Valuable Player has finished either first or second that season in my Points Created rankings.” In other words, Points Created is accurate because it mimics perceptions.
Hollinger has a simplified version of PERs called Game Score, and for the 2005-06 season I found a 98% correlation between NBA Efficiency and Hollinger’s Game Score measure. In sum, it appears that Hollinger, Bellotti, and NBA Efficiency are offering very similar statements about productivity. And one can show – via an examination of voting for the MVP award and the coaches’ voting for the All-Rookie team – that metrics like NBA Efficiency are capturing people’s perceptions of performance.
Evidence Contradicting Perceptions
There is evidence, though, that perceptions of performance in basketball do not match the player’s actual impact on wins. And surprisingly, the evidence has very little to do with Wins Produced. Consider the following:
First of all, and this is such a reoccurring theme of every Laker fans responses', you don't read. It's like you think you can fool us by putting "good read" at the beginning of your comment - like because you did that we won't think you're AS stupid as you are. Tsunami is saying how its DUMB that there is this fake criteria that a team should have to win 50 games for him even to be considered in the MVP discussion. So your comment about LeBron not being eligible anyway is retarded. Good attempt though at trying to throw Tsu's own logic in his face. Apparently people have made you out to be a fool using this technique before, so you decided to give it a whirl, eh?
Secondly, so Gasol isn't "dominant" in your eyes, but he's "very very good"? He's too good to be just "good", and he's clearly better than just "very good", so you would rank him at "very very good" just a hair behind KISS MY ####! GASOL IS A GREAT PLAYER! It's like you're trying to make a case for Kobe by saying his teammates really aren't that good. Please, that's weak.
Yea, and if by "media bias" you mean "better stats than kobe with worse players around him and no hall of fame coach all the while having the same record", then yea it'll be a shame if Paul wins.
"The man has LEAD this team all year, and when the so-called experts said before this past weekends games that it all comes down to this -and he responded with resounding victory-...what more needs to be said?"
Um, how about WHAT THE #### ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!
Did you capitalize lead just to make sure we wouldn't miss how stupid you are? And then you make the point of calling them "so-called" experts (like they're not REALLY experts just WANNABE experts), and then go on to make the point that Kobe is CLEARLY the MVP because of what THEY said. ..?
In true Hoffman fashion you responded to absolutely nothing in the blog. You did however give us a riveting basketball analogy. "He pounds the pumpkin too much.." Seriously, what kind of analogy is this bud? Sounds a little raunchy to me. Next time keep your personal life out of these discussions..
I won't even get into PER with you.. Tsu pounded your pumpkin into oblivion before i could get the chance..
Nique-
Love reading your work. I always leave feeling more intelligent. Someone should bottle your thoughts and sell it. It would be like those One-A-Day vitamins. "Take one of these everyday and never have to go to school a day in your life!"
You don't understand Tsu's logic? Since your comparing Kobe to The King, tell me, how does Lebron average 8 assists per game when he has "bad players around him". Yes, Kobe has had monster scoring years. However they've been inefficient and that's all he did, score.
"Voters now expect him to win big because he's either the first or second best player in the league no matter who you are and he has to win big to win MVP now."
Looks like Tsunami needs to edit this blog and X23 needs to change his avatar.
I've tried to be respectful towards you two. I even offered Tsunami an out on the Cleveland 50 win bet but you two continue to disrespect me and anyone else that disagrees with your Cleveland homerism.
1) Like him or not...Bryant is the best player alive right now. END OF STORY.
2) PER IS A JOKE. To many people believe in whatever a computer spits out. Bryant isn't as "nice" as Lebron or Paul, but he is better.
3) quit crying about all the support James doesn't get. You write blog after blog trying to sway people and rant and rave like a child.
James is a phenominal talent and will be the leagues best at some point in his career. Right now he is a very good player that plays on a very inconsistent/average team. As the leader you have to take that on your shoulders.
What does PER have to say about reality. The game is played between the lines....not on a laptop or in a math class.
I think you know the game well enough to lean so much on some statistic that is supposed to be all-encompassing.
Nobody is going to vote for the MVP using the PER stat as some guide. There are far many more important factors to weigh before we get into the super-geeky raw and exploratory formulas. If you were to go by Win Shares, Kenyon Martin got a whole lot playing on those Nets teams that reached the Finals. But the fact of the matter was that without Jason Kidd, that team goes to the lottery. Without Kenyon Martin, the Nets still win because Kidd turns Martin's replacement into a useful contributor. The numbers say one thing, common sense and basketball IQ tell another.
Kobe Bryant's 2006 season was without a doubt one of the top five individual seasons ever. He single-handedly destroyed the competition while leading a team full of bums to 45 wins. He averaged 35+ points per game that year, the most ever averaged in a season since Jordan put up 37 in 1987 (I think) and then Chamberlain in 1962.
Curse is not the word for Cleveland Sports - this is a design that has been well-executed . I love God, but He is NOT a Cleveland Fan. Interestingly , after that period(the one after Fan), Fox Sports notified me that I had 666 characters remaining. Now, I'm rethinking whose architecture this "curse" really is...
kids games
