The percentage is purely intended to capture what percnetage of the team's winning is attributable to the player. The idea essentially is to translate "win shares" attributable to the player to an "MVP score" based on the team's win/loss ranking. Sure, one can play around with that top score. I chose 17 so that I could do a league wide seed (see MVP2 rating, posted above) and have that be on the same scale as an MVP score based on per conference seed. I could then average the two, which is what I did above. I'm not particular wedded to one approach over another. I think there's value is looking at the score based on per conference seed, since I think that's a more accurate reflection of how well positioned a team is to win a championship. Are you saying this because you think that formula makes more sense, or because Harden ends up being on top that way?
Why not? How valuable you are to your team is not just a function of how good you are. It's also determined by your circumstances which can be outside your control. LeBron would be a less valuable player if he played in the West, and Harden would be a more valuable player if he played in the East. I'm comfortable with that statement.
I have claimed Harden as my favorite player for a while but he does too poorly on the 50% of the game called defense to deserve MVP. Westbrook is an inefficient checker so no MVP. LeBron needs his superfriends so definitely no MVP. So I guess Kawhi, though I don't know how great he is at creating offense cuz I have not seen him enough lately
Obviously it makes more sense. You just made up some formula to make you look like a genius but in reality its idiotic. Why would reward westbrook for his team having the least wins? The more wins you lead your team to the more valuable you are. Is westbrook more valuable to his team because they have less wins compared to the cavs, hou, and sa? And why would you reward lebron for being in the east? He is valuable to the cavs because he put the cavs in the east? Or hes not as valuable as harden and kawhi whose teams has more wins despite being in more competitve cknference Keep it simple
I am glad he is not voting for MVP. Reward a player for choosing lesser competition. It doesn't make him more valuable to his team, period.
Hmmm. I'm OK with you calling it idiotic if you want to bring up counter-points for me to respond to, but your accusation that I'm just attempting to look smart is insulting. I am seriously answering the question posed by the OP, because I find the topic interesting. That is all. How do you decide how many wins a player has lead his team to? I assume you wouldn't merely look at team with the best record (which could overly award a player who is fortunate to be on a team with great teammates). Nor would you merely look at win shares, which could favor a player racking up stats on a bad team and not accomplishing all that much. What I chose to look at is a percentage of the wins that I could attribute to the player -- i.e. the ratio of the player's win shares to his team's win total. This in itself is not the final measure of a player's value by my reckoning. It's one component. The second component is looking at how well the team is positioned at the end of the regular season to make a championship run. There are any number of ways one could assign a number to cover that second component. It is these two components, taken together, that I use to formulate my MVP rating. If you apply my approach to past seasons, I believe you'll find that the player with the highest rating is very consistently a player on a great team. I'm confident of that. I answered the question more than a few times already in this thread. The questions you are asking here suggests that you believe how "valuable" a player is should strictly be about how impressive the player's performance has been. Therefore, it stands to reason that being in a weaker conference makes the player less valuable, since having a lesser record in the lesser conference is unimpressive. I don't define player value in that way. To me, the ultimate prize is winning a championship. So my approach to the MVP award follows from that. In my view, a player's "value" should be evaluated in terms of how instrumental he was in getting his team to be in position to make a championship run. On that basis, I believe giving a player some extra credit for leading his team to a #1 seed is warranted, even if him doing so is less "impressive".
Thanks, I really enjoyed your answers, and I was looking for those types of answers. Not based merely on feelings but numbers. I personally do not like the winshare/total wins. I think it goes against teams that are actually winning. Nor do I like the conference speration, as the MVP voting is for the regular season performance and not about likelihood to championship. Team sucsees must play bigger factor as it was the deciding factor in most MVP voting. Anyway it is an interesting subject that worth having a real discussion about.
With all do respect to Wall and Thomas, both have a great season, they do not compare to the top 4 candidates. Those 4 at the top just gives us the best MVP race in the modern basketball.
He deserved it two years ago and he does again this season and he's not going to win either time, for opposing reasons in both cases. Pure BULLSHIT. Nevertheless, accepting it now will make it far easier when he is shafted again, hopefully Harden is prepared for the outcome better this time and aims for the ring this season.
It's not right. Fans need to step up on social media and make a case for harden because he's done everything that is required of an MVP and he's probably going to lose again.
Cool. I think everyone agrees that MVP voting should factor in both individual performance and team success in some way. The question is what exactly do we mean by both, how should they be weighted, and then how should they be combined to form the final MVP ranking. Without defining each of those steps, we risk losing objectivity. That's because without a formula to use as a guide, we are liable to fall back to cherry-picking criteria or stats that benefit our favorite player. That's the nature of a sport fan. Regarding team success, I agree that MVP voting should be based on regular season. A playoff seed, or if you like a team ranking based on regular season win/loss record, is based only on the regular season, as is just a pure win/loss record.
Was asking in the context of durvasa attempting to quantify a stat for wins that each player is responsible for. Of course for MVP, you should take many things into account.
That would be one legitimate approach. There are many ways to calculate win shares, one could pick their favorite or take an average over all of them. I use win shares in my formula as well. The reason I don't favor relying solely on win shares is that I don't think it gives sufficient weight to players contributing to wins on elite teams. And I also don't particularly like applying an arbitrary cutoff like "any player who is on a team that's ranked below this cut-off line is disqualified"; though I think a cutoff is fair if a player can't lead his team to the playoffs.
Why not? Because you're taking a potentially objective measure in overall record W/L and replacing it with a subjective measure in conference standing.
I think an argument could be made that you are double-valuing Wins, though. You already factor in Wins, then you do it again by factoring in Seeding, which is very much a function of Wins. That arguably results in overvaluing one or two games (not to mention the case like Karl Malone where he tied for 1st once, and got a 2nd Seed), when you already statistically reward more Wins in comparison to other players anyhow.
Again its a joke that westbrook gets the biggest "share of wins" only because his team won the least games And lebron gets the highest "seed factor" even though his team has the 4th most games won in the league Cant be more idiotic. Sorry i meant subjective than that This what happens when someone begins to make up his own formula LOL
