Post by eric on Mar 21, 2015 14:48:42 GMT -6
What if we take the best stat and see who has the highest for every year? We get...
18 of 34 is 53%, which for first order isn't too bad. What if we require that an MVP play for the top two team in either conference UNLESS they lead the league with a BQ of 210+ for a top four team? Then we get...
Now we're up to 24 of 34, 71%. That seems pretty good to me. We can also see what rank the actual MVP was in BQ to see which awards were the shadiest:
That's 18 BQ leaders, 5 runners-up, 4 to show, 2 superfectas... and then five no t all shades.
2011
Everyone knows the Rose MVP was shady. Even in the "anybody but LeBron" category you had Dwight Howard 2nd in BQ (for a mediocre team), Chris Paul 3rd (to make up for 2008), or Pau Gasol 4th (as a player for the second best Lakers). Rose's BQ of 125.70 is the third worst of any actual MVP.
2008
Blatant career achievement award. Chris Paul's 2008 was the 11th best BQ in history at the time. His 28 point lead over second place LeBron James was the 6th largest at the time. His Hornets had a total of 1 less win than Kobe's Lakers, and Kobe's Lakers were a five seed before they acquired Pau Gasol midseason. Total farce. Speaking of total farces...
2006 and 2005
Enjoy retirement Steve Nash, but you know those MVPs were pretty bogus. In each year Garnett and LeBron were the clear BQ elite, but in each year the Cavs and Timberwolves were pretty bad. 3 and 14(!!!) seed in 2006, each 9 seeds in 2005. Nowitzki wasn't that far off the pace in 2006, and the Mavs won a best-in-West 63 games, so he makes the most sense that year. 2005 is somewhat defensible for Steve because the Suns were the overall #1 seed and none of the other teams produced significant challengers. The most credible candidate that year was Chauncey Billups at 121.14, so giving it to Steve's 118.68 isn't that reprehensible. Speaking of reprehensible...
2001
Allen Iverson fares unbelievably poorly in BQ. His value of 93.57 is by far the worst of any MVP, mostly because Wins Produced thinks he's a complete sham: 147th (!!!!!) in 2001. By comparison he was 10th in Win Shares and 11th in VORP. I didn't keep close track of where every MVP ended up, but I know for sure that Iverson was the only one to not be in the top 60 of WP because that's how many results it loads per page. I haven't gotten into the guts of WP, but it seems to disfavor Iverson types: no offensive rebounds, tons of turnovers without assists, and of course the brutal field goal % (traditional and effective). What makes it most incredible is that the 76ers were a pretty good defensive team (5th in the league), which usually goes a long way to propping up inefficient combo guards (see Rose, Derrick), but WP just crucifies Iverson.
It's also pretty interesting that the shams are very strongly concentrated in recent history. Malone over Jordan is infamous, but Malone had good years both of those years. Voters didn't hit the bull's eye, but at least they hit the target. It's also pretty interesting that literally every one of the five shams was in favor of a guard. Composite metrics can be pretty unforgiving of passing. Win Shares for example requires between a 3 and 4 to 1 ratio of assist to turnover to generate positive results depending on the year, yet many observers will christen a good passer with much less modest requirements. Many observers will even tell you that the point guard is the most important position on the floor, for instance to justify the openly horrible Rajon Rondo trade, yet an All-NBA point guard has never won the Finals MVP.
.
Anyway, let's compare the totals for each awarding scheme: the real life voters vs. the BQ method.
We took away from Barkley, Bryant, Iverson, Moses, Nash, and Rose.
We gave to LeBron, Magic, Jordan, Marion, Dirk, CP3, Robinson, and Shaq.
All in all I'm pretty happy with that. I don't like taking from Barkley, but if it means giving to Jordan that works for me. I don't like giving to Marion, but 2005 is a disaster year no matter what we do. We could institute a minimum BQ requirement of 140 to win the MVP, and if no one gets it then the MVP isn't awarded that year, but that strays from the exercise of finding who SHOULD have won MVP each year.
year value name
2014 198.45 Durant
2013 200.76 James
2012 156.42 James
2011 168.84 James
2010 201.93 James
2009 219.12 James
2008 196.65 Paul
2007 158.64 Nowitzki
2006 172.65 James
2005 184.71 Garnett
2004 195.36 Garnett
2003 177.90 Garnett
2002 182.97 Duncan
2001 154.26 Shaq
2000 198.21 Shaq
1999 95.67 Kidd
1998 162.33 Malone
1997 168.66 Jordan
1996 198.45 Robinson
1995 184.17 Robinson
1994 204.42 Robinson
1993 176.43 Jordan
1992 183.21 Jordan
1991 214.86 Jordan
1990 209.94 Barkley
1989 230.70 Jordan
1988 228.66 Jordan
1987 180.48 Johnson
1986 178.59 Bird
1985 175.38 Bird
1984 154.98 Bird
1983 168.63 Johnson
1982 173.46 Johnson
1981 150.84 Erving
18 of 34 is 53%, which for first order isn't too bad. What if we require that an MVP play for the top two team in either conference UNLESS they lead the league with a BQ of 210+ for a top four team? Then we get...
year value name
2014 198.45 Durant
2013 200.76 James
2012 156.42 James
2011 168.84 James
2010 201.93 James
2009 219.12 James
2008 196.65 Paul
2007 158.64 Nowitzki
2006 165.30 Nowitzki
2005 134.85 Marion
2004 195.36 Garnett
2003 172.32 Duncan
2002 182.97 Duncan
2001 154.26 Shaq
2000 198.21 Shaq
1999 92.67 Malone
1998 162.33 Malone
1997 168.66 Jordan
1996 198.45 Robinson
1995 184.17 Robinson
1994 147.15 Hakeem
1993 176.43 Jordan
1992 183.21 Jordan
1991 214.86 Jordan
1990 206.97 Jordan
1989 185.94 Johnson
1988 228.66 Jordan
1987 180.48 Johnson
1986 178.59 Bird
1985 175.38 Bird
1984 154.98 Bird
1983 168.63 Johnson
1982 173.46 Johnson
1981 150.84 Erving
Now we're up to 24 of 34, 71%. That seems pretty good to me. We can also see what rank the actual MVP was in BQ to see which awards were the shadiest:
year rank BQ name
2014 1 Durant
2013 1 James
2012 1 James
2011 7 Rose
2010 1 James
2009 1 James
2008 6 Bryant
2007 1 Nowitzki
2006 8 Nash
2005 9 Nash
2004 1 Garnett
2003 2 Duncan
2002 1 Duncan
2001 32 Iverson
2000 1 O'Neal
1999 2 Malone
1998 3 Jordan
1997 2 Malone
1996 2 Jordan
1995 1 Robinson
1994 4 Olajuwon
1993 4 Barkley
1992 1 Jordan
1991 1 Jordan
1990 3 Johnson
1989 3 Johnson
1988 1 Jordan
1987 1 Johnson
1986 1 Bird
1985 1 Bird
1984 1 Bird
1983 3 Malone
1982 2 Malone
1981 1 Erving
That's 18 BQ leaders, 5 runners-up, 4 to show, 2 superfectas... and then five no t all shades.
2011
Everyone knows the Rose MVP was shady. Even in the "anybody but LeBron" category you had Dwight Howard 2nd in BQ (for a mediocre team), Chris Paul 3rd (to make up for 2008), or Pau Gasol 4th (as a player for the second best Lakers). Rose's BQ of 125.70 is the third worst of any actual MVP.
2008
Blatant career achievement award. Chris Paul's 2008 was the 11th best BQ in history at the time. His 28 point lead over second place LeBron James was the 6th largest at the time. His Hornets had a total of 1 less win than Kobe's Lakers, and Kobe's Lakers were a five seed before they acquired Pau Gasol midseason. Total farce. Speaking of total farces...
2006 and 2005
Enjoy retirement Steve Nash, but you know those MVPs were pretty bogus. In each year Garnett and LeBron were the clear BQ elite, but in each year the Cavs and Timberwolves were pretty bad. 3 and 14(!!!) seed in 2006, each 9 seeds in 2005. Nowitzki wasn't that far off the pace in 2006, and the Mavs won a best-in-West 63 games, so he makes the most sense that year. 2005 is somewhat defensible for Steve because the Suns were the overall #1 seed and none of the other teams produced significant challengers. The most credible candidate that year was Chauncey Billups at 121.14, so giving it to Steve's 118.68 isn't that reprehensible. Speaking of reprehensible...
2001
Allen Iverson fares unbelievably poorly in BQ. His value of 93.57 is by far the worst of any MVP, mostly because Wins Produced thinks he's a complete sham: 147th (!!!!!) in 2001. By comparison he was 10th in Win Shares and 11th in VORP. I didn't keep close track of where every MVP ended up, but I know for sure that Iverson was the only one to not be in the top 60 of WP because that's how many results it loads per page. I haven't gotten into the guts of WP, but it seems to disfavor Iverson types: no offensive rebounds, tons of turnovers without assists, and of course the brutal field goal % (traditional and effective). What makes it most incredible is that the 76ers were a pretty good defensive team (5th in the league), which usually goes a long way to propping up inefficient combo guards (see Rose, Derrick), but WP just crucifies Iverson.
It's also pretty interesting that the shams are very strongly concentrated in recent history. Malone over Jordan is infamous, but Malone had good years both of those years. Voters didn't hit the bull's eye, but at least they hit the target. It's also pretty interesting that literally every one of the five shams was in favor of a guard. Composite metrics can be pretty unforgiving of passing. Win Shares for example requires between a 3 and 4 to 1 ratio of assist to turnover to generate positive results depending on the year, yet many observers will christen a good passer with much less modest requirements. Many observers will even tell you that the point guard is the most important position on the floor, for instance to justify the openly horrible Rajon Rondo trade, yet an All-NBA point guard has never won the Finals MVP.
.
Anyway, let's compare the totals for each awarding scheme: the real life voters vs. the BQ method.
bq real name
0 1 Barkley
3 3 Bird
0 1 Bryant
2 2 Duncan
1 1 Durant
1 1 Erving
1 1 Garnett
1 1 Hakeem
0 1 Iverson
5 4 James
4 3 Johnson
6 5 Jordan
2 2 Karl
1 0 Marion
0 2 Moses
0 2 Nash
2 1 Nowitzki
1 0 Paul
2 1 Robinson
0 1 Rose
2 1 Shaq
We took away from Barkley, Bryant, Iverson, Moses, Nash, and Rose.
We gave to LeBron, Magic, Jordan, Marion, Dirk, CP3, Robinson, and Shaq.
All in all I'm pretty happy with that. I don't like taking from Barkley, but if it means giving to Jordan that works for me. I don't like giving to Marion, but 2005 is a disaster year no matter what we do. We could institute a minimum BQ requirement of 140 to win the MVP, and if no one gets it then the MVP isn't awarded that year, but that strays from the exercise of finding who SHOULD have won MVP each year.
