How to interpret MVP?

On another board, I read a pretty good way of look at the MVP. You take all the MVP candidates, and you replace them on their roster with an average player at that position. How much does their chances of winning a championship reduce? For whichever player that the reduction is the greatest, they should be the MVP. It isn't exact, of course, since determining odds for winning it all is subjective, but I think intuitively it makes a lot of sense and helps narrow down the field. Let's use this interpretation to compare Kobe, Dirk, and Nash.

Let's start with Kobe. If at the beginning of the season Kobe was replaced on the Laker's roster with, say, Cuttino Mobley... how much less would their chances of winning a championship be? Well, it would probably be roughly 0%, because it's unlikely they'd even make the playoffs. Right now the Lakers maybe have a 5% chance (1/20), considering they'd be underdogs in each playoff round. So, Kobe's net impact towards getting a championship is 5%.

Next is Nowitzki. If he was replaced with an average PF, Tim Thomas for instance, at the beginning of the season, what would their chances at a championship be? I think they'd still have a good shot of making the playoffs -- maybe 8th or 7th. But, at best, they'd be in the same position the Lakers are in right now which optimistically put their odds at 5%. Right now, I think a conservative estimate of their odds at winning it all is 25% (1 in 4). So, that's a net improvement of 20%.

For Nash, suppose we replace him with an average PG like Rafer Alston (sub in whoever you'd consider "average"). This one is more difficult to figure out. We know the last few seasons the Suns have generally played very poorly in the games Nash has missed due to injury. But with Amare and Marion healthy for the most part this season, and Barbosa and some other nice players, not to mention a very good coach, I have hard time believing they'd miss the playoffs entirely. I think they could still get in as one of the bottom seeds. Similar to the Mavs. Maybe a 2% chance of winning it all? Right now, what would their odds be? Certainly not any better than the Mavs. Let's put it at 20%. That would mean Nash's net impact towards winning a championship is 18%. Pretty close, but not quite up to Dirk.

I think it makes sense to look at MVP in this way, since the ultimate prize is to win the championship. It eliminates all the players on non-playoff teams or on non-contenders in a natural way, and gives great players on great teams more credit. Of course, when you use this method to compare impact of players like Dirk and Nash, things get very subjective. Maybe my guesses are wrong, and I have it backwards.

What do you guys think? What are some other ways to interpret the MVP for our league? Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on who the MVP should be. Personally, I think it should be Dirk.

 

I think it should be interpreted the other way. We are talking about the league's MVP not the team's MVP. The league MVP should be one who has one of the best individual performance that season and would have helped improve over 90% of the teams if he were to play for that team.

Rather than replacing Kobe/Dirk/Nash with anyone else at their position in their current team, we'd need to think how Kobe/Dirk/Nash would help the rest of the teams in the league if they were to play for them. Sadly none of the dumbass voters think that way.

Kobe should be the front runner for the MVP award this year.

 

<div class="quote_poster">dallasdude Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think it should be interpreted the other way. We are talking about the league's MVP not the team's MVP. The league MVP should be one who has one of the best individual performance that season and would have helped improve over 90% of the teams if he were to play for that team.

Rather than replacing Kobe/Dirk/Nash with anyone else at their position in their current team, we'd need to think how Kobe/Dirk/Nash would help the rest of the teams in the league if they were to play for them. Sadly none of the dumbass voters think that way.

Kobe should be the front runner for the MVP award this year.</div>

So I guess we should just give the MVP to whoever leads the NBA in scoring every year?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Marbire Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">So I guess we should just give the MVP to whoever leads the NBA in scoring every year?</div>

Not if he shoots 40% and doesn't do anything else to help the team other than throw the rock.

 

<div class="quote_poster">dallasdude Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think it should be interpreted the other way. We are talking about the league's MVP not the team's MVP. The league MVP should be one who has one of the best individual performance that season and would have helped improve over 90% of the teams if he were to play for that team.

Rather than replacing Kobe/Dirk/Nash with anyone else at their position in their current team, we'd need to think how Kobe/Dirk/Nash would help the rest of the teams in the league if they were to play for them. Sadly none of the dumbass voters think that way.

Kobe should be the front runner for the MVP award this year.</div>

To me, "Most Valuable Player" should go to the player who provided the most value to his team. And every team has different needs. Kobe might be a "better" player than Steve Nash, but which of those players would help the Cavs or the Rockets more? As great as he is, Kobe would basically be duplicating whatever LeBron and T-Mac does for those teams. I don't think it makes much sense to flatly say, "player A would help every team in the league more than player B."

 

The thing is, thinking about what someone could do on another team isn't really going to prove anything. You can only go by what you know and what you have seen. Saying that player X will do this or that on team Y isn't really helpfull, and making predictions like that is probably the reasons for bad trades.

 

Very interesting observations, Durvasa...much respect

 

<div class="quote_poster">dallasdude Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Not if he shoots 40% and doesn't do anything else to help the team other than throw the rock.</div>

So what has Kobe done for the Lakers other then score? Lakers are eeking into the playoffs with a losing record since the all-star break.

The MVP should be a player that propels his team to an elite level. There is no question that Kobe is an amazing talent, and probably the best offensive player in the league. But his team isn't very good, and he isn't making them much better. Granted without Kobe, the Lakers go to the lottery...but with him, they're barely over 500. That's not MVP worthy to me. You need to lead your team to the next level...not wallow in mediocrity.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Premium Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">So what has Kobe done for the Lakers other then score? Lakers are eeking into the playoffs with a losing record since the all-star break.

The MVP should be a player that propels his team to an elite level. There is no question that Kobe is an amazing talent, and probably the best offensive player in the league. But his team isn't very good, and he isn't making them much better. Granted without Kobe, the Lakers go to the lottery...but with him, they're barely over 500. That's not MVP worthy to me. You need to lead your team to the next level...not wallow in mediocrity.</div>

If Nash or Dirk were on the Lakers instead of Kobe, the team would be even worse.

 

<div class="quote_poster">dallasdude Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">If Nash or Dirk were on the Lakers instead of Kobe, the team would be even worse. </div>

Exactly. You put anyone on the Lakers besides Kobe, the Lakers wouldn't be any better off, maybe even worse. But let's not get into another Kobe argument (hopefully). I think the MVP is interpretted as, the best player on a top seeded team in their conference. Is that what I think MVP should be interpretted as? No. But that is what the league interprets it as

 

That's a pointless argument. The reason they wouldn't be as successful is because that team is built around Kobe Bryant. The same thing would happen if you stuck Kobe in Dallas or Phoenix.

People try their hardest to eliminate all subjectivity from the voting process, but its not possible IMO. What the league needs to do is more strictly lay down what they want to the award to recognize. Based on the history of the award, an MVP must be apart of a championship contending team. And I don't think that's wrong either. Durvasa said it in another thread, but the difference between 1-2 seed and a 4-5 seed is much more significant than the difference between a 7-8 seed and a lottery team. Once you seperate the contending teams, you just have to pick out the candidates that are most valuable to their teams. Teams like Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, and Houston have less worthy candidates, because they either have multiple stars or they have a lot of depth. This year, Dirk, Nash, and Duncan are the most obvious choices and I don't find anything wrong with that.

 

To me the MVP should be the best player throughout the year. I know MVP stands for Most Valuable Player, but I think the award should just go to the best player in the league. And I think its difficult to interpret how Mobley, Alston, and Tim Thomas would fair with the respective teams listed, because how do we really know how they would help/not help the team. I pick Kobe for the MVP, because to me he played the best this year.

 

<div class="quote_poster">TwinTowers Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">To me the MVP should be the best player throughout the year. I know MVP stands for Most Valuable Player, but I think the award should just go to the best player in the league. And I think its difficult to interpret how Mobley, Alston, and Tim Thomas would fair with the respective teams listed, because how do we really know how they would help/not help the team. I pick Kobe for the MVP, because to me he played the best this year.</div>

You don't really know. But then, how do you really know who's played the best? Just going by the numbers, you could make a case that Nowitzki and Duncan was better than Kobe.

 

<div class="quote_poster">dallasdude Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">If Nash or Dirk were on the Lakers instead of Kobe, the team would be even worse. </div>

Impossible to say. Maybe worse, maybe better. There sure is a whole lot of room for improvement for a team that is only 1 game over the 500 mark, and eeking into the playoffs. Not very hard to do much worse. 3 or 4 games give or take, and Lakers go to the lottery.

Besides that, MVP voting should not be based on "what if's". We have statistical data, and actual scenario's on which to evaluate a player for MVP. Therefore it's pointless to judge who should be MVP based on hypothetical situations.

 

Um.. I really don't no what playoff sucess has to do with MVP.. But, the way you interpret it, it makes it seem like the MVP has to be from the best team in the league and has the highest chance to win a championshiip.

 

This is a ramble, it probably doesn't have a coherent theme.

Sometimes I feel like the MVP distracts the attention from basketball being a team game into making it very individual-oriented, and that players will try to focus on statistical accomplishments to get awards that give a player such a high level of respect instead of focusing on the team as #1.

And the awards do change how the public perceives players, I think Nash (in the general public's opinion) went from probably a top 10 or a top 15 player to a top 3 or top 5 because of receiving those MVPs. Although he played great and plays his position very well, he has a good coach, good players who will play the system and a good system to play in.

Same thing with Tim Duncan, (the system is a very well run system at every position), same thing with AI (he wouldn't have been able to produce such high ppg if Larry Brown didn't let him take so many shots, which b/c of high ppg helped him win MVP), Shaq needs his other players to space the floor, feed him the ball, hit their shots, Kobe to be a scoring threat, etc.

Sometimes I think that if Jason Kidd, Kirk Hinrich, Chris Paul were in Phoenix during the big turn around, those players would be highly praised. Same thing if Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, Tmac, etc were on the Lakers team with Shaq they might have rings and be considered in higher regard. Or if Shaq didn't have a good coach and was on the Grizzlies, Warriors, Raptors, etc and had no rings and no MVP, although he could try as much as he wanted on those teams it might not be enough.

Well I guess what I meant, although it probably didn't make sense at all is that its a team game and I think the "star" players contributions are over praised with awards like MVP, all-nba, etc while players who probably if put in a similar situation would thrive, as well role-players who do the little things because their statistics often don't reflect their contributions and their willingness to take a lesser role, get disproportionate amount of praise.

 

<div class="quote_poster">The Legend Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Um.. I really don't no what playoff sucess has to do with MVP.. But, the way you interpret it, it makes it seem like the MVP has to be from the best team in the league and has the highest chance to win a championshiip.</div>

Don't they give out the MVP award only after the first round of the playoffs end? An MVP candidate should atleast help his team get past the first round in the playoffs.

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Based on your definition, I'd probably vote for Shaq or Duncan every year for the MVP award. I think they are the only two players in the league you could surround 11 guys with regardless of talent and still make the playoffs.</div>

Actually, personally that's how I'd define "best player" as opposed to "most valuable player."

I agree with you on Duncan; not Shaq though. Not at this point in his career.