View previous topic :: View next topic |
Who should win MVP? |
Brittney Griner |
|
16% |
[ 7 ] |
Nneka Ogwumike |
|
23% |
[ 10 ] |
Breanna Stewart |
|
30% |
[ 13 ] |
someone else |
|
28% |
[ 12 ] |
|
Total Votes : 42 |
|
Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 7:30 am ::: MVP |
Reply |
|
Monday Poll time!
Changing the criteria. Shades had a good idea, the poll is now limited to those who meet the standards met by previous MVPs:
At least 43.4 FG%
At least 15.5 ppg
No more than three games missed
Play for a .500 or better team
Leads her team in scoring
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 7:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Regarding the last pick (someone else) - is there anybody else that meets the criteria?
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22478 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 7:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
list is short. Cambage should be up there even though Diggins is the leading scorer.
Diggins: 21.9 ppg, 5.8 apg, 4.6rpg, 38.6 FG%, 35.3 mpg
Cambage: 20.1 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 2.1 apg, 2.6 bpg, 55.7 FG%, 31.1 mpg
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22478 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 7:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ALL WNBA TEAMS
First Team:
G: Diggins-Smith
G: Taurasi
F: Stewart
F: N. Ogwumike
C: Cambage
Second Team
G: Loyd
G: Gray
F: Charles
F: A. Wilson
C: Griner
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 10:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy wrote: |
Regarding the last pick (someone else) - is there anybody else that meets the criteria? |
No, but the MVP voters could do something unprecedented
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63930
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 10:14 am ::: Re: MVP |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
Monday Poll time!
Changing the criteria. Shades had a good idea, the poll is now limited to those who meet the standards met by previous MVPs:
At least 43.4 FG%
At least 15.5 ppg
No more than three games missed
Play for a .500 or better team
Leads her team in scoring |
I object to that last criteria being associated with me. It wasn’t researched by me and it was something you came up with that’s not very intuitive and makes your algorithm as problematic as it is. In this era of teams having multiple MVP candidates, it wouldn’t be wise to eliminate someone by this criteria.
In the case of Cambage and Diggins, you eliminate Cambage who meets the first four standards, by Diggins who fails to meet one of those standards. Does that make sense?
And similarly with other teams, when one of the two best players on the team edges out somebody in scoring, that should eliminate the other important aspects, such as rebounding or whatever else that might be particularly outstanding? If Taurasi were to edge out Griner in scoring, would that really mean Taurasi is the most important player on the team? Really now? You could have similar situations with Stewart & Loyd and Fowles & Moore.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22478 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 10:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
At least 43.4 FG% - plausible
At least 15.5 ppg - yes
No more than three games missed - yes
Play for a .500 or better team - yes
maybe it should be 3/4 to get put on the poll. having only three on the list when there's at least 7-8 legit contenders this season. Yes, Diggins & Cambage should be on the list. As should Taurasi, Gray & Loyd.
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 10:26 am ::: Re: MVP |
Reply |
|
Shades wrote: |
pilight wrote: |
Monday Poll time!
Changing the criteria. Shades had a good idea, the poll is now limited to those who meet the standards met by previous MVPs:
At least 43.4 FG%
At least 15.5 ppg
No more than three games missed
Play for a .500 or better team
Leads her team in scoring |
I object to that last criteria being associated with me. It wasn’t researched by me and it was something you came up with that’s not very intuitive and makes your algorithm as problematic as it is. In this era of teams having multiple MVP candidates, it wouldn’t be wise to eliminate someone by this criteria.
In the case of Cambage and Diggins, you eliminate Cambage who meets the first four standards, by Diggins who fails to meet one of those standards. Does that make sense?
And similarly with other teams, when one of the two best players on the team edges out somebody in scoring, that should eliminate the other important aspects, such as rebounding or whatever else that might be particularly outstanding? If Taurasi were to edge out Griner in scoring, would that really mean Taurasi is the most important player on the team? Really now? You could have similar situations with Stewart & Loyd and Fowles & Moore. |
Your idea was to limit the poll to players who meet the criteria that past MVPs have met. Every MVP has been her team's leading scorer, whether you like it or not.
Not sure what you mean by "this era" of teams having multiple candidates. We've had that since day one. Cooper and Swoopes finished in the top three of MVP voting as teammates in 1999. In the 2009 the top four vote getters were two pair of teammates.
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Ay Mate
Joined: 12 Nov 2016 Posts: 1280
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 10:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I’m going with Taurasi because she’s having an outstanding season and her team is currently riding an 8 game winning streak. Liz Cambage would be my 2nd choice I guess.
No one on the Sparks is having an MVP season IMO. Other choices are Skylar Diggins, Breanna Stewart and I can’t think who else i’d put on this list at the moment.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 32341
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 10:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Ay Mate wrote: |
No one on the Sparks is having an MVP season IMO. Other choices are Skylar Diggins, Breanna Stewart and I can’t think who else i’d put on this list at the moment. |
That's the problem of having three super or close to superstars on one team. They have to share the ball. Still a nice problem to have.
_________________ For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63930
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 10:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
“My idea” wasn’t intended for your poll. I just did the research to possibly explain why Diggins wasn’t a Top 10 MVP candidate according to wnba.com, since they didn’t explain why she wasn’t and people wanted to know why.
It’s not really my idea if you’re going to tack on an idea of your own.
Explain how you can eliminate teammates by virtue of scoring alone, but then league-wide Diggins you don’t consider a candidate, even though she leads the league in scoring. Being the leading scorer is the most important criteria according to you, whether it’s volume shooting or not.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Last edited by Shades on 06/18/18 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 10:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Shades wrote: |
Explain how you can eliminate teammates by virtue of scoring alone, but then league-wide Diggins you don’t consider a candidate, even though she leads the league in scoring. Being the leading scorer is the most important criteria according to you, whether it’s volume shooting or not. |
The criteria are all equally important and have been met by every previous MVP. Why arbitrarily pick one to ignore?
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63930
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 11:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I just explained why they aren’t equally important. You can’t explain why Diggins isn’t a candidate league-wide but she can eliminate Cambage as a candidate. If volume shooting eliminates a candidate at the league level it should also eliminate her on the team level.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 11:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Shades wrote: |
I just explained why they aren’t equally important. You can’t explain why Diggins isn’t a candidate league-wide but she can eliminate Cambage as a candidate. If volume shooting eliminates a candidate at the league level it should also eliminate her on the team level. |
Diggins doesn't eliminate Cambage. Cambage eliminates herself. How can you be MVP if you're not ever your team's #1 option?
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
basketballologist
Joined: 05 Aug 2013 Posts: 355
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 11:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I still say Nneka... She has been more valuable to the Sparks thus far, considering going 2-1 and beating (Minnesota and Phoenix) without Parker, Lavender, and Vadeeva. Most Valuable means most valuable to your team.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 11:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
Shades wrote: |
I just explained why they aren’t equally important. You can’t explain why Diggins isn’t a candidate league-wide but she can eliminate Cambage as a candidate. If volume shooting eliminates a candidate at the league level it should also eliminate her on the team level. |
Diggins doesn't eliminate Cambage. Cambage eliminates herself. How can you be MVP if you're not ever your team's #1 option? |
Was Ogwumike the #1 option in 2016? Or was Parker the #1 option, as a scorer and facilitator?
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12608 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 11:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
Shades wrote: |
I just explained why they aren’t equally important. You can’t explain why Diggins isn’t a candidate league-wide but she can eliminate Cambage as a candidate. If volume shooting eliminates a candidate at the league level it should also eliminate her on the team level. |
Diggins doesn't eliminate Cambage. Cambage eliminates herself. How can you be MVP if you're not ever your team's #1 option? |
She Should Be But Thats not her fault , Blame that on Drop Dead.
_________________ 3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63930
Back to top |
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67111 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 12:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Shades wrote: |
See how close these teammates are in scoring? Wouldn’t it beyond ridiculous to eliminate any of them based on ppg alone? Of course, it’s beyond ridiculous. |
We're already eliminating people on ppg alone. Sorry, Chiney, your 15.3 isn't good enough even though you meet all the other criteria. But if you'd hit one more bucket you'd be an MVP candidate!
_________________ I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009 Posts: 6827
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 2:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It is not that deep
for this poll there are 5 criteria that have applied to every previous MVP winner, so when these criteria are applied to the current season the above candidates are what is left.
It does not mean that we can't have a winner this season that breaks the pattern. A player like Cambage could win as the 2nd best scorer on her team especially when it is really close. A player like Diggins could be the first to win with a FG% lower than 43%, also come seasons end Cambage could be the top scorer on the Wings or Diggins could be above 43% so not making the list ATM does not mean they won't make the same list at a later time. Parker or Gray could win even though Ogwumike is the only one who fits the criteria from her team as the Sparks are doing that super team thing where you can definitely makes arguments for the other two players as all are putting up very strong stat line for their position and Parker is Parker could be enough to over ride the previous criteria. This could be the year things change.
But the 5 criteria above have applied to all previous winner so using them as a starting point also makes sense even if they leave some very qualified candidates off the list. It is an attempt to create an equation to predict the outcome not create a list of candidates everyone agrees on.
I would also go one step further and guess that if the vote was today the MVP would be on that list of three above.
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7418 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 06/18/18 9:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
pilight wrote: |
Shades wrote: |
I just explained why they aren’t equally important. You can’t explain why Diggins isn’t a candidate league-wide but she can eliminate Cambage as a candidate. If volume shooting eliminates a candidate at the league level it should also eliminate her on the team level. |
Diggins doesn't eliminate Cambage. Cambage eliminates herself. How can you be MVP if you're not ever your team's #1 option? |
Was Ogwumike the #1 option in 2016? Or was Parker the #1 option, as a scorer and facilitator? |
Excellent point. It was CP3's change of focus that propelled that team to the 'ship. It was when she saw herself as creator rather than scorer that led to the emergence of Nneka, since Nneka was the primary recipient of CP3's creations. Either by direct pass (assist) or the pass that led to the assist to Nneka. But it was Nneka who finished - with a league leading FG%. And CP3 had nothing to do with all that rebounding Nneka did. She was simply on fire.
This just points out the fallacy of anyone needing to decide who is the "#1" option to award MVP. Stats + eye test. Who is dominating on a team that is winning?
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
|
|