I didnt suggest all-star voting influences MVP voting directly but all-star voting was a proxy I thought of for favorable opinion that might indeed be a useful variable in a set of many.
Those who are voting for All-star selections [fans, coaches] do not participate in voting for MVP so that opinion represents point of view of different groups of people.
Mark wrote:
I do think that prior year MVP voting is a significant indicator or factor for current year MVP voting You didnt need it to get a good match, and there are reasons you may not want it in, but from the outside it seemed worth mentioning. Media articles on MVP race often say things like it is "a guy's turn" and some of these guys are voters.
I thought about using voting from previous year but... how does it affect voters? In a positive or negative way? I couldn't answer that question with certainty so I didn't use it.
Mark wrote:
As for media market size I still think it can have an effect, but I took a quick look at last 20 years and did find that small market Karl Malone did get first MVP the year he most deserved it
But Malone also won in 1999 when Tim Duncan was equally deserving it while playing in the bigger market...
Mark wrote:
If you want to look at that or not that is up to you. Perhaps the media effect may show up more in how high the also-ran candidates were vs. what stats would suggest. There may be more distortions on that than who is the #1, the MVP.
I looked at that and I couldn't find a pattern there.
Arizona is small media market size, right?
So how to explain Nash's and Barkley's MVPs? _________________ regards
wiLQ
How big of an anomaly was 2006? Wasn't Nash an anomoly in 2005 too? If I recall correctly, if he got no mvp points for leading the league in the assists, a different player on Phoenix would have won the MVP point race.
That's true. But what's wrong with assumption that leading league in assists by wide margin was a statistical reason which separated Nash from Marion or Amare?
Ben wrote:
Also, leading the league in assists never provided the margin of mvp point victory for another player,
That's true... but that only proves a point that PG was never involved in close voting. For example, IMO it would have helped Magic twice if it weren't for weak team records of his opponents. _________________ regards
wiLQ
For what it may be worth in the future, looking at the data for the period studied, I see a "big" has won 3 times in a row but not 4. MVP voters know that bigs are important and give them their due but they may not want to stay on that same note too long without bouncing back to recognize the guards with pizazz that many fans identify with more.
Billups playoffs MVP may have been seen as "enough" and hurt his chances of getting a regular season MVP with the "handicaps" of an old storyline, multiple all-star teammates and less personal publicity than others. Perhaps you have to exceed a higher threshold to be awarded multiple times (include the finals MVP)?
Nash won his statistical category, Billups did not. If you increased that weight can Nash win in 2005-6 without altering your otherwise accurate fit with the past? I see Magic Johnson is the only guard to win MVP without winning a stat category and maybe he was treated like a "big" in that regard?
For what it may be worth in the future, looking at the data for the period studied, I see a "big" has won 3 times in a row but not 4. MVP voters know that bigs are important and give them their due but they may not want to stay on that same note too long without bouncing back to recognize the guards with pizazz that many fans identify with more.
From 1987 to 1992 Magic and Jordan won 6 MVPs in a row... so it looks like a legit argument only in past 15 years.
What's more, from 1982 to 1986 "big" has won 5 times in a row...
Mark wrote:
Billups playoffs MVP may have been seen as "enough" and hurt his chances of getting a regular season MVP with the "handicaps" of an old storyline, multiple all-star teammates and less personal publicity than others. Perhaps you have to exceed a higher threshold to be awarded multiple times (include the finals MVP)?
But Billups won Finals MVP two years before "losing" in MVP voting not a year before.
What's more, Jordan won Finals MVP in 1997 and then won 1997/98 season MVP in close voting so it didn't look like finals award hurt his chances.
Mark wrote:
Nash won his statistical category, Billups did not. If you increased that weight can Nash win in 2005-6 without altering your otherwise accurate fit with the past?
No. Increasing that weight in a way that Nash could win in 2005/06 would alter results big time.
For example it would change outcomes of Jordan vs Malone in 1996/97, Stockton vs Robinson in 1994/95 and Robinson vs Olajuwon in 1993/94... _________________ regards
wiLQ
I apologize for a such late response... I simply forgot about that post...
cwood wrote:
what about including a lagged team improvement variable? i know with nash that there still was carry over in terms of what he "meant" to his team which should be represented by the increase in wins when he came to the team.
It didn't help Shaq in 1993/94 while he was playing his second season with Magic.
What's more, IMHO Nash in 2005/06 meant to Suns even more than a year before so I don't see why we should assume it was a result of "lagged team improvement".
cwood wrote:
I like these articles, it takes a lot of the subjectivity out of the mvp talk.
Thanks. It was one of the reasons why I started working on it.
cwood wrote:
what was your method? did you tweak the values until you got a perfect fit for the historical mvps or did you do some type or regression?
I thought that I've explained the whole process in article on 82games.com.
To make a long story short, it was a mix of observations and tweaking.
Of course maybe someone can find a way to improve formula while using some type of regression... I couldn't. _________________ regards
wiLQ
I guess it's somewhat unclear what he is trying to do here.
I think that behind every winner of MVP there are reasons why he was chosen so he can't be any random player. Especially with so many votes needed for first place.
That said I think there must be a formula which can describe it and that's exactly what I'm looking for.
Why I think it could be useful?
Because I believe that when we find all the reasons behind winners we could apply it to the future situations and predict voting results before they actually occur. That way we could concentrate on discussions "who SHOULD win" not those "who WILL win" with all the guessing.
Why am I trying to explain Nash's unusual case?
Because IMHO his MVP in 2006 is a sign that at least one ingredient is missing from the formula. I couldn't find it by myself so I asked statistical oriented community.
BTW, I was really curious what such well-known and respected community think about that idea (and that part of my post was kind of omitted). _________________ regards
wiLQ
I didnt speculate there was any limit to how many times non-bigs could win in a row, just bigs.
The 5 bigs in a row failing partly outside the study is worth considering but I suggested that factor for the period of study and Magic/MJ (and all the commercial hype associated) heightened the focus on the guard with the ball in his hand all the time and I would tend to think it will be harder to get 4 bigs in a row these days. Not impossible, the other factors of deserving still in play and so it could happen, overcoming the mild concern I raised.
You clarified that the stat category leader weight couldnt be adjusted and keep or improve the fit, thanks for checking. I still personally believe though that in Billups case it was a factor why he did not win and his finals MVP was a factor as well (though it didnt hurt Jordan, Billups is a very different case.), perhaps along with your 3 all-star teammate theory. Environmental factors like these could play a role in cases that vary from the answer produced by the weights that gave you a great fit, even conditional ones that could be affected by personal specifics. But you will be the judge of what to include & exclude.
Good luck with the project. Your future MVP articles will be a reference point for upcoming MVP discussions.
I'll bump this thread because I remember when the original article came out in 82games.com and I couldn't imagine Billups being the MVP.
What the OP might be missing is that Nash was the reigning MVP having a career year. He won last year, is there a reason for him not to win again?
There has to be a carryover of some of the factors that won him the prize the year before, unless something happens that make people think he's nomore worth all those wins for his team.
It's kinda obvious if you think about it, unexpected success can elevate a guy to stardom, but there's no reason to send him back down unless those success goes away.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
