Suns Lose to Hawks. Polish the MVP Trophy for Nash

Stats aren't everything. Statistically speaking David Robinson should have won like 5 MVPs. And based on PER he'd be a top 5 player of all time (even after guesstimating Wilt and Kareem's adjusted PER). But would anyone in their right mind make the argument that David Robinson deserved more MVPs or was even a top 5 center (let alone top 5 player) of all time. Sometimes statistics just don't tell the whole story.

I don't know if Nash should three-peat on MVP's (Wade constantly amazes me with his game), but if the Suns keep on playing like ass, then maybe he does deserve it. Especially if they continue to lose to bottom-feeders like Atlanta and Seattle, and getting pushed to overtime by the likes of Portland.

 

nash has NO BUSINESS winning the award, it's not like there isn't a shortage of superstar talent!

 

Agree on a statistical metric (hopefully a good one and not the crappy "Efficiency" rating on NBA.com, getting input from leading figures in the stats community wouldn't hurt), then give the award to the player who comes out on top based on the numbers. Make it clear that that's JUST what the numbers say, and that while you're confident in the quality of the system, it's possible (and probable) that it doesn't account for everything.

If sometime later you discover flaws in the system or come up with a better metric, then don't be afraid to implement the new system and to publicize how things would have been had this new system been in place before.
IMO, that would only be right.

 

It's going to be a damn travesty when nash doesn't win the award this year. A dark day in mvp land.

 

I just want to make this clear, the past 10 posts IS NOT what I think. this is Jimraynor's thoughts basically summed up.

it is his opinion that it should be objective, and to be objective, this is the way.

i really can see nash winning it, but of course in jim's way, there is no way in hell he should.

we just see it in 2 different ways

and jim does not like reporters

 

No he doesn't. He's been sensational this season, but let's set the facts straight. The Heat are defending champs and have been struggling to even maintain a .500 record in the Eastern conference with Wade running the show. There's no way in hell Dwayne Wade is a more viable candidate than Tracy McGrady, who has carried his team to 15 wins over .500 without Yao Ming in the much tougher Western Conference at a time when people wondered if the Rockets could even make the playoffs.

Dwayne Wade belongs in "best player in the league" talks, yes. MVP talks, no way. Not right now.

 

I am not sure what is more interesting.....

1) That Nash is SO important to the team's success, that they completely fold when he is out (fold to BAD teams). What does that say about Nash? (or Dantoni's scheme for that matter)?

or

2) That their TWO other ALL STAR players in Stoudamire and Marion can't carry the load while Nash is out (can't carry the laod against BAD teams). What does that say about their ability to carry a team?

Stoudamire and Marion are great players. But they are augmented GREATLY by Nash. Alone they are lost. In many regards they are a product of their system.

If I was a Suns fan, I would be VERY disturbed that their team's offense is so highly disrupted by Nash not being in the lineup. Clearly they need him. But they have to be able to win games without him during the regular season, especially with TWO ALL STARS available to them.

 

Well, before Nash and the current system, they had Marbury, Stoudamire, and Marion. Those guys got good stats and were a low tier playoff 1st round and out team. If they don't have Nash, they still need a floor general. Barbosa is a stud quick ass gunner penetrator, but not necessarily a floor general.

People shouldn't be so shocked at how bad the Suns are now. Aside from Nash, they're also missing Kurt Thomas, and they really only ran a 7 or 8 man rotation when they were fully healthy. Replace Nash with Marbury and make the Suns fully healthy, they'd be right back to where they were before Nash (perhaps a little better) as an 8th seed, maybe 7th. But that isn't surprising to me at all.

 

Reading by the posts, I don't think many people get the gist of initial obejction made by me, francis 4 prez, and Jim.

A P3O is completely right in pointing out that statistical ordering may change depending on certain changes in the assumptions behind the methodology. What statistical metric do well, IMHO, is distinguishing different "class" of players, so that it doesnt churn on absurd implications that suggests, for example, Skip is better than Chris Paul (although they may be certain anomolies a la Hayes last year). But as far as different players of similar calibre, the result from statistical metric isn't robust so one has to take a pinch of salt before taking them on. To begin with, the notion of most valuable player is only partially defined, so all metrics PER, +/- are incomplete to certain effect, and produce partial ordering at best.

However, as far as I am concerned nobody here is arguing for MVP awards to be decided by simple mechanical ordering. The gist of debate is not whether MVP awards should be decided on "objective measures" or "subjective" analysis - that certainly wasn't my intention anyway. I admit that statistical metric is incomplete and to certain extent we have to allow certain subjective perspectives into the framework, such as peer review. And as a matter of fact, that is why I actually like the voting method of deciding the MVP even if I do not think journalists like Stein is better at making such discrete judgement than say durvasa or Heypartner on this board. In fact, there would be nothing intellectually more arrogant than to claim "true" knowledge of the matter, and disregard other's opinion to be irrelevant.

The point I wanted to make, and quite well summarised by francis 4 prez, is that there seems to be a bias towards Nash in the MVP system. The argument with PER was precisely brought to illustrate this point. Now being a casual follower of basketball here, I couldn't find particularly good website to back up my point with factual evidence. So I apologize for speaking based on baseless conjections, and false factual statement that may come up. But as far as I am concerned, the whole point of MVP award is that, in a way, it is a life-time recognition awards. Something that players can look back their career with pride and a sense of achievement. Espeically if they didn't win the title like Karla and Stockton . So in many ways, I actually prefer the current procedure of subjective voting, though I would prefer if coaches and players have say in the matter. I like the fact that MVP hasn't been necessarily awarded to the best player, and handed in a way such that it took into account of general picture of player's achievement and their career.

My objection to current environment is that such subjective perspectives have been used to justify why a particular player deserved the award every time. Many people seems to me have set a side Nash as their MVP, and challenging others to come up with a convincing case against (1) Nash, and (2) player of their choice. But this is extremely difficult for the fact that Nash is a terrific player and to exclude him from any MVP talk is extremely difficult in the sense that Kevin Garnett, D.Wade, Dirk Douchenbag, cannot be made irrelevant. So it is clear to me that since Phoenix record far superior to any MVP contender beside Dirk, they are using the team argument as a "tie-breaker" to eliminate D.Wade, KG, Arenas, and then proceed to eliminate Dirk by ambiguous cliche "Nash makes everyone better". But as far as I am concerned, Nash has already won two MVP awards, which wasn't exactly a clean case, and media's willingness to award him another one is clearly a trait that goes against the tradition of MVP voting, and constitute clear bias towards Nash.

There is a lot of time before deciding on MVP, and I wouldn't necessarily rule out Nash all together if he can put himself within top 3 of many statistical metrics. However, based on current individual production and consideration of past awards, he shouldn't be awarded at this moment in time.

 

hiroshi-

you, jim and francis4 prez do have one thing in common, what is all the ruckus about nash? however, 3 of you have different points of views on why nash shouldn't be an mvp. Yes there are similarities, but i think it is interesting, IMO of course, how different people come to their ideas in different ways.

Jim is actually saying stats, and whichever is the best one available, should be the deciding factor. francis 4 prez says, insofar as the past 20 years have gone, is bemoaning the fact that the criteria is never the same.

by the way, what do you think is the traditional way of voting for the mvp?
I would surmise that you would come up with something a little different from francis 4 prez. Jim doesn't go into it because he hasn't liked it, and not only because nash was the winner but past indescretions based on how he views the award should be voted.

 

Well, first of all, the "he should be ranked against individual players on this season alone" is contrary to the history of the award. As Hiroshikun said, the award has traditionally had a lifetime achievement component which is lead to the "spread the wealth around" logic. MJ would have at least 2 more MVPs without that logic. Why should Nash of all people be the first one where that argument should not apply, just so we can give him his 3rd straight MVP?

Second, there are a few arguments to be made that other players actually are better this year. Dirk has a higher PER, more wins and less All Stars to play with for example.

Third, the "lookee, his team sucks" without him argument is also pretty stupid in this case. The Suns play a 7 man rotation, 3 of these guys are out right now, so it's not just about Nash missing and evferything falls apart, it's almost half the rotation missing and the team starts losing.

So, while Nash has a pretty damn good year, 1) he doesn't have anywhere near enough career success so far to warrant 3 straight MVPs 2) other players have at least comparabale stats and one even has more wins too boot even though the rest of his team isn't better than the rest of the Suns and 3) the Suns are severely undermanned right now and their losing is not only a result of Nash missing.

Basically, he plays pretty damn well, he should get consideration, it would be absolutely ok if he finishes 2nd or 3rd, but if he wins it, it would be a travesty.

 

where can one get a full list of PER?

 

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/jh_ALL_PER.htm

1) DWADE: 30.05
2) Dirk: 29.07
3) Yao: 27.07
...
7) Nash: 24.80

The difference between DWade & Nash is a whopping 5 PER points, the difference between Dirk & Nash is still 4 points.


Just to show what kind of gap we're talking about:

The difference between Dirk & Nash (4 Pts PER) is about as big as the difference between Nash & Josh Howard (21 PER) or Shawn Marion (20.77 PER).
The difference between Wade & Nash (5 Pts PER) is as big as the difference between Nash and Caron Butler (19.76).


There's no way Nash should be MVP when he's so far behind and his team isn't doing anything earth shattering.

 

"dirk has less All Stars to play with."

this is a cliche

some hard stats I could find

i took 8 players that have played the most for the mavs and suns

roland rating for the suns is -17.6
same for mavs 3.9
net production
suns -3.9
mavs .2

even if you were to take the top 5 it would go something like this
roland suns 16.4
mavs 24.9

net prodcution
suns 15.7
mavs 20.5

these are just a few stats. what is the point? playing with two allstars does not make your team a better one. a more balanced team, such as the mavs have, should be a better team.

based on some of these stats alone, then it is clear the mavs have a better team without dirk than the suns without nash.

 

That's rediculous

Just look up the next 5 Players after Nash & Dirk in the PER List and you see why.

 

just because you play with 2 "allstars" you have a better team?
"one even has more wins too boot even though the rest of his team isn't better than the rest of the Suns"

where did you get that idea?

these numbers disprove that. i will get the per in a sec

 

to make it clear, the statement that dirk isn't considered because he has less allstars to play with than nash, is based on this assumption. nash has better players than dirk, so he is better regarded.

that simply is not true. the mavs have a "better" overall team