Hoops

Future MVPs to be Determined Based Only on Jan/Feb Games

being a good scorer on a team of other good players is harder because there is more competition and it is also more valuable because it results in winning games.

anyone on a team that loses more than half its games should be out of the running because they must not be valuable enough.

that's right. being a good scorer just because you are the best of a bad bunch does not mean you are valuable it just means you have crappy teammates. being a good scorer on a team of other good players is harder because there is more competition and it is also more valuable because it results in winning games. so anyone on a team that loses more than half its games should be out of the running because they must not be valuable enough. if you are good enough to carry a crappy team to a winning record then you are valuable and should be in the running.

"A good player is more valuable to a shit team than to a team that can cover for his absence."

It is an award for the most valuable player in the league, not to a team.

A good player is wasted on a shit team because there is no value in not even making the playoffs

But yes, results such as Conklin and Clarke, highlight the problem of having a good player in a shit team

Kay is a distant second behind Cotton in Perth so there is no vote splitting needed.

No really, is this a joke?

Don't people usually look at season averages when looking at stuff like this? They would capture all games.

"Winning 21 games as the best player is FACT, not just narrative."

It is very much a narrative. Without insight into each of those games you don't know how much he contributed. In how many was he their best player?

If you look at his 10 worst statistical games in wins (basically half his team's wins), he averaged 10.7 points, 3.8 assists and shot 32 per cent from the floor. His overall numbers for the season were 15.2 points, 4.3 assists and 39 per cent.

Now Scottie contributed a lot with his leadership and defence, but if the guy producing those numbers is your poster boy for the MVP voting system being broken, I don't know you've got much of a case. One thing's for certain, 'he' didn't win 21 games, his team did.

Players don't win games, teams win games.

Anyone who doesn't even watch all of their own teams games, I wonder how many other teams games they saw? Doesn't sound like someone in a position to vote objectively.

My point is an opinion of an overall season can miss plenty of what actually happens in the season, as you have shown by being so strong in yours on Wilbekin/Conklin while missing plenty of their games.

Saying Cairns won 21 games because of Wilbekin might not be true if he didn't play particularly well in a number of those. It is inventing a narrative that Cairns weren't very good so only the fact Wilbekin was great allowed them to win so many games.

That narrative might be true, it might not, but when people who saw each game vote after each game they know exactly what happened. The whole season is made up of each moment on the court, and that's what I think should personally be used to decide MVP, not story lines.

Anyway, we're not going to agree on this, so happy to disagree. While I strongly disagree with the change, I don't really care that much in the big picture, league HQ is doing a good job running the NBL and who wins MVP is really not a major part of why I enjoy the comp.

"Casper Ware wouldn't be in the conversation for MVP though. He still would need to do a hell of a lot to make up for his poor first 1/4 of the season. Cotton would be miles ahead of him at the moment."

Not under the current "what have you done for me lately?" system though!! One more good game and the people with goldfish attention spans like Homicide will have him at the front of the pack

Casper Ware wouldn't be in the conversation for MVP though. He still would need to do a hell of a lot to make up for his poor first 1/4 of the season. Cotton would be miles ahead of him at the moment.

Conklin winning MVP was a bit of a shock for me at the time. I remember Childress basically had it locked up until his injury. Conklin was solid but I thought others including Ced Jax were more of a favourite than him to win it that year

Melbourne's slow start*

Casper Ware went from under performing and one of the reasons for Melbourne's hot start to MVP chatter real quick..

That's exactly the point again, you are judging MVP on your opinion of the whole season, having already admitted you didn't see a number of Cairns' games. To me, you are highlighting the weakness of that system in your attempt to justify it, because you're showing how much perception can influence it.

The game-by-game basis ensures people who have seen the game and what happened to influence each game vote at the time, giving IMO a better reflection of the season. Now who gets to vote and in what format I'm open to change if a better method can be found.

On Wilbekin I agree that some are looking back through rose coloured glasses, he only shot 39% from the field and 28% on 3pts that season whilst averaging 15 & 4. He was Cairns best player yes but more than a few guys had better seasons than him that season and he had a poor GF series too.

Brownlow the umpires award 6 votes after each game. Best on ground 3 votes, next best 2 votes and then 3rd best 1 vote which still isn't a great system as umpires generally favour ball winners the ones they seem up close and it's almost impossible for key position players like full forwards to win the award. It's always been deemed a midfielder's award and of course favours gun midfielders on crap teams that rack up a lot of possessions.

Even though there have been a few ordinary decisions like Clarke & Wethers winning it the NBL had it right having the coaches, who know what's really going on vote on a game by game basis.

This new voting system will heavily favour those come home with a wet sail rather than fully taking into account the whole season.

in AFL the umpires get together and vote 3-2-1 after each game

Don't forget Shane Woewoedin

Yep, the same as the year before! Ennis led Perth to 21 wins, one less than the year before, he must have been a negative influence ;-)

Naming the few perceived exceptions in the system's history isn't really good justification. Nor is saying you think Wilbekin's a better player.

The reality is Scottie didn't just have a few quieter games, he had basically a third of the season where he was below average. Same with Cedric Jackson that year, played some awesome basketball, led his team to the title, but was poor in the middle of the year. The best player that season was Childress by a long way, his injury opened up the door.

As I said earlier though, I have no problem changing the current system, but the best way to reflect what happened on the court is to vote after each game, whichever system you choose.

Brian Wethers is in mourning.

"Ask any coach and most fans which 2 out of these 4 guys they would pick to play for their life, based on their form in 2014 or 2015 NBL"

That's exactly the point though, you're justifying using a system that relies on memory of an overall season using memories of an overall season! The current system goes away from people's recollections of what happened and instead uses immediate recall of a game just completed.

So while some remember Wilbekin had an awesome season and would vote that way, his end of the year and playoffs were outstanding but his middle section was well below MVP level, something a game-by-game system balances out.

Now the current system is far from perfect - allowing coaches to vote for their own players and capping how many votes a player/team can get probably weren't great ideas - but that doesn't mean the concept of game-by-game should be done away with.

You can't use subsequent achievements outside the NBL to prove who was more valuable in the NBL.

Having said that, I've always thought that Ennis was more valuable than Clarke that season (and I say that as someone who loves Rotnei). Some people argue that what Beal did should detract from Ennis's value. Others will argue that Beal did what he did largely as a result of Ennis's value. It's always a subjective thing, and no voting system is going to eliminate that completely.

"What I think would be good is if each game, captain & coach both vote 3-2-1 for their opponent"

I like this solution, or just removing the individual cap on votes for each player in the current system. Eg: a coach votes only for the oppo and gives their best three players a rating out of 10, or something like that.

"2014 Clarke over Ennis - even though Ennis probably one of the best players to ever play in the NBL and lead his team to the title, not saying Clarke was bad but Ennis was MVP and best player in most peoples eyes."

Interestingly, when they did "expert" picks at the end of the season all three of Goulding, Clarke and Ennis got selections, with Goulding getting the most. That year the count was a close vote, as it should have been, what Clarke did in that Hawks team was super.

Your comment about Wilbekin is exactly why game-by-game voting is important. His middle third of that season he played some very average ball and rightfully would have received few votes. He wasn't a clear candidate for that reason, but those who didn't remember that large patch thought he should have been.

The case you could make for that season was Childress who was the clear MVP by a country mile before he got injured. If you wanted to do part game-by-game, part end-of-season vote to get the best of both worlds he might have won it that year, and I don't think many would have complained about that.

I think the best way to factor the season as a whole is to get them to vote on who was most valuable in each game they were directly involved in.

"I also think that most coaches and captains will be smart enough to consider the season holistically and not just narratives and the last couple of rounds."

I think the best way to factor the season as a whole is to get them to vote on who was most valuable in each game they were directly involved in.

Fair comment, Greggo. Thanks.

I would just like to see something similar to the current system but coaches can only vote for players on opposing teams.

I know that the +/- stat has a lot of detracters, but must admit that it's purely mathematical calculation says a lot about who is most valuable. And, no emotional favourites etc. No love childs, no this team that team, and sorta takes in all aspects of playing well.

Just watching the duke game. Jack White received great wraps for his +115 so far this season. Williamson, on the other hand, who is a much more lethal offensive player, came in at +103. Implication I get is that White does more , overall!???

I think I got the wrong impression initially.
Actually the "Panel of experts" is only used to compile the shortlist of 20. In reality I'm guessing there will only be half a dozen players in the running for most of the votes so I don't think it will take too much expertise to make sure those players make it into the 20.

The actual 3-2-1 voting is only done by the captain, head coach and assistant coach from each club.
No mention of any restrictions on being able to vote for your own club's player, which I think could be a good condition to have.

Bottom line: I dislike the new system a bit less now.
One thing I will say in its defence is that the old system was inherently biased towards players with fewer good teammates - i.e. players on bad teams. The new system at least is free of that, so it has the *potential* to yield better results. It also has the potential to be worse though. I guess time will tell. Just like time will tell how much great play from October & November is completely forgotten by the end of February.

Homicide is an adopted national treasure

Anon, you're arguing unknowns at this point. Have you seen the list of people selected to vote on the award? Has a list even been created yet? If I recall, watching Overtime last night, Liam Santamaria wasn't even sure whether he was voting on it or not

Haha, yeah this isn't News Corp.

I don't see a problem with the voting format. The arguments are over unknowns at this point. Let a season play out with MVP awarded under this format, and see how the result matches with your opinion. You can argue that the old format wrongly gave it to the player that played every game and maybe put up good numbers on a shit team, or that clearly the best player in the league took the approach to better his teammates and team play than go all-out for himself, thus would not have won MVP in the old system. That was what Bryce Cotton did last year, but he's so good that he still won the award.

This is just like every sports team logo ever created in the age of social media: it's crap. Automatically crap. People are scared of change I tell you.

Sack up.

as long as Dwayne Russell Boti Nagy Shane Heal & Homicide are not on the panel it could be good

If done right, this will be a better system.

What about the importance of big games, the injury factor, the import arriving part-way through the season. This system has flexibility to still reward the best player. The people voting just need to pay close attention and know what they're talking about

The previous system was flawed, but this one is even more flawed IMO.

Bad move.

In the NBA voting, there are thousands of journos and media commentators with a good basketball brain.

How many journos in Australia would understand a basketball game enough to vote sensibly? To look beyond the stats and flashy stuff?


And I agree that it should be game by game

I’m sure LV would argue that games played towards the end of the season are worth more than games played at the beginning.

Terrible change. Doing it game-by-game ensures every performance is factored into it. Hopefully it's still coaches who vote on it, they know the true value of opposition players, and they know who's a sieve defensively. Shame the NBL feels the need to copy the NBA when it has a system that works better.

Kay tends to get overlooked quite a bit here. He has been arguably as important to the cats early run as Cotton. Playing consistently big minutes while not fouling it, with injuries all around him yet performing sublime. Doesn't quite have the scoring punch or draw as many fouls and defenders as Cotton but his effectiveness is right there.

I like the game by game system. Definitely don't like coaches voting on it. Would much prefer journalists/media/commentators to do their own votes on a game by game basis. Not sure if I liked the whole "10 points split however you like" system but something that rewards each game is handy as early season games matter just as much as late season games.

Personally I'm keeping a running tally where I do a 5-4-3-2-1 vote every single game on my fantasy spreadsheet.

Anyone know? Fox maybe?