Halfway home awards

[valporun]

An above average player on a mediocre team could really stand out by putting up big numbers and become eligible for MVP.

This is where he would be a better candidate for League POTY, because he was an above average player on a mediocre team. The League MVP should come from a team in the top tier of the league because that player did what had to be done to lead his team to continue being in that top tier, that makes him valuable, not just his stats.

[StlVUFan]

The MVP should come from a team in the top tier that is valuable to his team's being in the regular season conference title race. How the player helps/leads the team to victory is how true value in a player should be measured.

I believe I did that here. I couldn't be more solid about it being a player who keeps his team in the top tier in the conference race.

Like I've overstated, if we were to lose someone like Buggs or Kevin, and no one else stepped up to help Rowdy, and we fell to 6th place because of it, we're now OUT of the top tier, and it hurts Ryan's value as the league's Most Valuable Player.

OK.  I guess we've both elucidated our definitions of MVP, which stand in disagreement, hence it is not surprising our conclusions differ as well.

Thanks.

[valporun]

I feel it's "elucidated", Stl, because you're looking at stats alone, and I'm looking at how the candidate for MVP helps their team win games to be in the top tier. It doesn't have to be all stats based to be MVP, because some of the MVP traits are also leadership on the court and creating offense or defense. Just going by stats alone is a definition for POTY because that can go to an above average player on a mediocre team. While that doesn't happen often, because too many voters put the blinders on to any players not on the 1st or 2nd place teams, or the MVP, some of the above average players lose credit because they weren't MVP candidates who also qualified for POTY.

[StlVUFan]

I feel it's "elucidated", Stl, because you're looking at stats alone, and I'm looking at how the candidate for MVP helps their team win games to be in the top tier. It doesn't have to be all stats based to be MVP, because some of the MVP traits are also leadership on the court and creating offense or defense. Just going by stats alone is a definition for POTY because that can go to an above average player on a mediocre team. While that doesn't happen often, because too many voters put the blinders on to any players not on the 1st or 2nd place teams, or the MVP, some of the above average players lose credit because they weren't MVP candidates who also qualified for POTY.

Actually I'm also looking at how the candidate for MVP helps their team wins games, but I'm willfully ignoring whether or not their team actually wins those games.

To be candid, I have no proposal for who should be MVP because I don't know how to accurately measure that value.  If this were baseball, I'd get concrete with you and tell you who I think is the leading candidate for MVP (and baseball also has this superfluous extra award).

I will say your position carries more weight in basketball than it does in baseball, because basketball is more of a team sport than baseball is.  That is to say, an offensive possession (with rare exception) requires total teamwork, much like it does in football.  Baseball is a stringing together of individual acts for a collective team goal with some -- but not a whole lot -- of teamwork involved with any one baseball event.

However, I remain unconvinced that the right way to measure the MVP is by looking at the standings first.  For one thing, players on all 10 teams are equally eligible for the award, as far as I understand.

Maybe there is no way to resolve this impasse, I don't know.

[bbtds]

I recently saw Moneyball. Aren't you trying to evaluate only on personal stats in a team concept game. Is that not impossible? It does seem possible in baseball because it is more of an individual talent driven sport. Basketball on the other hand is not. I also believe that the teams performance must go into the evaluation of a player for POTY.

[StlVUFan]

I recently saw Moneyball. Aren't you trying to evaluate only on personal stats in a team concept game. Is that not impossible? It does seem possible in baseball because it is more of an individual talent driven sport. Basketball on the other hand is not. I also believe that the teams performance must go into the evaluation of a player for POTY.

Then it has to be something a lot better than W-L record or place finish.

Yes, I allowed for the possibility that basketball was too much of a team sport to allow for measuring a player purely by his individual statistics.

Unfortunately, there's only one valid solution I can think of: don't give out individual awards, at least not until you can find some accurate way of measuring a player's value.  If you're going to base it on where the team finishes in the standings, you've just turned it into a team award in my opinion.

[bbtds]

If you're going to base it on where the team finishes in the standings, you've just turned it into a team award in my opinion.

I do think the POTY's team should at least finish in the top half of the standings. Not necessarily in 1st or 2nd place. If there is no evaluation on how the team finishes then I think you are missing a large component of the value of a player. The value that a player can push his team into at least the top half of the standings. I don't think that this can be totally ignored in a team sport. Otherwise you have the NBA........slightly kidding. 

[StlVUFan]

If you're going to base it on where the team finishes in the standings, you've just turned it into a team award in my opinion.

I do think the POTY's team should at least finish in the top half of the standings. Not necessarily in 1st or 2nd place. If there is no evaluation on how the team finishes then I think you are missing a large component of the value of a player.

I'm not missing it.  I'm waiting for a valid way to *measure* it.

[crusaderjoe]

An above average player on a mediocre team could really stand out by putting up big numbers and become eligible for MVP. But if you put that same player on a good team, he might have more reasonable numbers. That is why it is important for the MVP to come from a good team (final four?).

I guess someone should get in touch with Antwaan Randle El and tell him that the Silver Football he won in 2001 needs to be returned to the Trib.  Or are your comments exclusively related to basketball?

[valpo84]

Sorry but have to weigh in here. MVP is a measure of how would that team have done without that player. To use the analogy of Ryan, if Buggs or KVW go down, and we lose a bunch of games, then one might argue KVW or Buggs were more valuable. So be careful about MVP. If Valpo continues to win some and lose a couple more, the argument may be that Ryan was able to push Valpo to wins. POTY is much simpler, in my humble opinion. If Ryan continues nailing double doubles, scoring big despite KVW or Buggs being out, then it shows he maybe the best player in the league because he'll face tougher Ds. That's why I am not opposed to two different awards. STL, have to respectfully disagree. Andre Dawson in 1987 is a great example. He not only was the POTY that year, but without him the Cubs win 10 games, Wrigley is torn down for a parking lot, and Cubbie fans never have the Zimmer of '89. Andre deserved that MVP because he performed above the call of duty and at a bargain (signed a blank contract to be filled in by management). (FN -- he was awarded damages in a collusion suit with the owners later).

[StlVUFan]

STL, have to respectfully disagree. Andre Dawson in 1987 is a great example. He not only was the POTY that year, but without him the Cubs win 10 games, Wrigley is torn down for a parking lot, and Cubbie fans never have the Zimmer of '89. Andre deserved that MVP because he performed above the call of duty and at a bargain (signed a blank contract to be filled in by management). (FN -- he was awarded damages in a collusion suit with the owners later).

Dawson made far too many outs (for example).  He had a great year, but both Jack Clark and Dale Murphy created more runs.  Salary is irrelevant to me.

[valporun]

STL, have to respectfully disagree. Andre Dawson in 1987 is a great example. He not only was the POTY that year, but without him the Cubs win 10 games, Wrigley is torn down for a parking lot, and Cubbie fans never have the Zimmer of '89. Andre deserved that MVP because he performed above the call of duty and at a bargain (signed a blank contract to be filled in by management). (FN -- he was awarded damages in a collusion suit with the owners later).

Dawson made far too many outs (for example).  He had a great year, but both Jack Clark and Dale Murphy created more runs.  Salary is irrelevant to me.

Winning the MVP while playing for a last place team doesn't show true value to a team. I mean if Dawson was a true value to the Cubs, he would have helped provide that leadership that took the Cubs out of last place, and into a playoff contender in the old NL East, but the Cubs had too many factors that limited Dawson's value. As we've seen anymore, anyone can hit 49 home runs, but doing this on a team who might go on to win the division is better value, than just hitting 49 homers on a bad team. The 49 homers and game-changing catches are a good reason to give him a POTY award, but not MVP. That might have just been a year when the voters didn't have better options?

[valpo04]

STL, have to respectfully disagree. Andre Dawson in 1987 is a great example. He not only was the POTY that year, but without him the Cubs win 10 games, Wrigley is torn down for a parking lot, and Cubbie fans never have the Zimmer of '89. Andre deserved that MVP because he performed above the call of duty and at a bargain (signed a blank contract to be filled in by management). (FN -- he was awarded damages in a collusion suit with the owners later).

Dawson made far too many outs (for example).  He had a great year, but both Jack Clark and Dale Murphy created more runs.  Salary is irrelevant to me.

Winning the MVP while playing for a last place team doesn't show true value to a team. I mean if Dawson was a true value to the Cubs, he would have helped provide that leadership that took the Cubs out of last place, and into a playoff contender in the old NL East, but the Cubs had too many factors that limited Dawson's value. As we've seen anymore, anyone can hit 49 home runs, but doing this on a team who might go on to win the division is better value, than just hitting 49 homers on a bad team. The 49 homers and game-changing catches are a good reason to give him a POTY award, but not MVP. That might have just been a year when the voters didn't have better options?

MVP should be the one guy in the league that you would pick first to be on your team for that whole season, if you had a time machine and could go back to the beginning of the season with the stats of how they all played that year.

If you were starting a team to play the 1987 season you absolutely would pick Andre Dawson first knowing he would hit 49 home runs and drive in 137 runs.

It's silly to discount the value of a player because the other players on the team aren't good.

BTW... Dawson beat Ozzie Smith and Jack Clark... who played on the NL Champion Cardinals. 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1987.shtml#NL_MVP_voting::none

[valporun]

I understand where you're coming from on this, valpo04, but how does that equate to being the league's MVP? I would rather have the MVP be someone who is leading their team to victory, with how they play in leading their top tier of the conference team to victory, otherwise, what we're saying here is "Hell, if the MVP should just be ANYONE, then let's give it to Ben Averkamp of the currently 0-10 Loyola Ramblers". How exactly would his play say that the league should want to give him the MVP award, if he can't help his team get a victory?

[StlVUFan]

I understand where you're coming from on this, valpo04, but how does that equate to being the league's MVP? I would rather have the MVP be someone who is leading their team to victory, with how they play in leading their top tier of the conference team to victory, otherwise, what we're saying here is "Hell, if the MVP should just be ANYONE, then let's give it to Ben Averkamp of the currently 0-10 Loyola Ramblers". How exactly would his play say that the league should want to give him the MVP award, if he can't help his team get a victory?

Because that's not his fault.

[valpotx]

I am in agreement with a few posters here in that the MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 of the conference when relating to college basketball.  If you are the only good person on your team, you can rack up 30 ppg, 10 rebounds, etc.  That doesn't make you the MVP of the league, that makes you the only option on your team.  Was Kevin Love even close to the MVP last year in the NBA?  No, that is because he was the only one able to produce numbers on his team, so it was much easier for him to average what he did.  Heck, he barely made the all-star team.

[bbtds]

Because that's not his fault.

Or is it?

[StlVUFan]

Because that's not his fault.

Or is it?

Then measure it accurately, and I'll buy in.

[StlVUFan]

I am in agreement with a few posters here in that the MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 of the conference when relating to college basketball.  If you are the only good person on your team, you can rack up 30 ppg, 10 rebounds, etc.  That doesn't make you the MVP of the league, that makes you the only option on your team.  Was Kevin Love even close to the MVP last year in the NBA?  No, that is because he was the only one able to produce numbers on his team, so it was much easier for him to average what he did.  Heck, he barely made the all-star team.

Now *that* finally begins to make sense.  I'm not on board yet, but it sounds plausible.

[motowntitan]

sectionee

nice write up.  My only two changes would be

1) to add K Perry from YSU as at least a runner up for MVP.
2) to add in all other Horizon league teams except CSU as most disappointing.  We really stunk in up for the most part in the non-conference games.   

[vu84v2]

I would not consider Valparaiso dissapointing overall (despite the losses to three Summit League teams).  Having two players ruled ineligible plus Wood transferring the Michigan State are major obstacles to overcome.  Considering everything, Valparaiso has not dissapointed so far.

[vuweathernerd]

I would not consider Valparaiso dissapointing overall (despite the losses to three Summit League teams).  Having two players ruled ineligible plus Wood transferring the Michigan State are major obstacles to overcome.  Considering everything, Valparaiso has not dissapointed so far.

not to mention the changes in roles that players have had to make after last year's graduations.