NBA

[rome8180]

I don't think he's a terrible candidate. I just think Harden deserves it more. It's a weird year and both candidates would represent a break from history, but Harden less so since an MVP has actually been selected from a 3rd place team before. And of course, Harden's generally more efficient.

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

Win Shares looks like the best individual stat for MVPness, both as a predictor and in causation - makes sense for a player who statistically helps his team get the most wins to be considered most valuable.

In the LeBron/Renaissance era of the NBA, starting with the 2009 MVP award, the leader in WS has won the award 6 out of 8 seasons. The exceptions were Rose (5th in WS) over LeBron in 2011 and Curry (3rd in WS) over Harden in 2015. The winners were LeBron, LeBron, Rose*, LeBron, LeBron, Durant, Curry*, Curry (non-WS leaders are asterisked).

In the exceptional season by Rose, his team had the best record in the league at 62-20. In the exceptional season by Curry, his team had the best record in the league at 67-15.

This season, Harden is the leader in WS with 14.72. Westbrook is 5th with 12.68. Westbrook's number would make him the worst MVP winner in terms of WS in the past 12 seasons (Steve Nash's MVPs in 2004 and 2005 were a disaster in terms of WS - a different case of irrationality from this year's triple double phenomenon). The "best record" exception clearly does not apply to Westbrook, as his team will finish 10th in the league with at least 14 fewer wins than Rose's Bulls and 19 fewer wins than Curry's Warriors.

This is an unprecedented MVP choice in what I would consider the current era of basketball, where people have no excuse not to understand the most basic advanced stats that touch on efficiency. The only real reason driving voters to make such an exception for Westbrook is the triple double, and it will be remembered 20-30 years from now as just another testament to how dumb America was in 2017.

 

[ZackM]

The entire concept of a triple-double is meaningless. 10 is an arbitrary threshold for measuring a statistical achievement.

 

[DurhamSon]

The entire concept of a triple-double is meaningless. 10 is an arbitrary threshold for measuring a statistical achievement.

Yeah, someone made this whole point on /r/nba by showing their stats in Octal. Then the top 3 guys all had "triple doubles" but the disparities in shooting percentages was even more magnified.

 

[DurhamSon]

This is the year the Cavs are in serious trouble:

Ty Lue is absolutely clueless out there. There is zero added value to whatever he draws up, ZERO. He lets the players do what they want out there with no consequences, but still plays the starters and LBJ too many minutes. Bottom 5 coach in the league.

All the additions except for injured Korver have been awful. Deron Williams is a massive, massive washed up net negative.

Role players have regressed in a huge way: Iman Shumpert's play and stats will make you want to stab an icepick in your eye. He's a cancer.


Even IF they make the finals, it will be because they drove LeBron into the ground, and they'll have absolutely nothing left in the tank no matter who they face.

 

[CK86]

I just can't believe how many minutes they played LeBron even being up 26 in the 4th. He played 45 of 48 minutes - why?

Also Kyrie says his knee was bugging him after the 1st game against Atlanta - he plays 45 minutes tonight.

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

The MVP-winning shot:

 

[childress22]

This is an unprecedented MVP choice in what I would consider the current era of basketball, where people have no excuse not to understand the most basic advanced stats that touch on efficiency. The only real reason driving voters to make such an exception for Westbrook is the triple double, and it will be remembered 20-30 years from now as just another testament to how dumb America was in 2017.

If Harden were to win -- which, thankfully, I think won't happen -- it will rank in the pantheon alongside Nash and Steph as a testament to how dumb we were in 2017 for completely ignoring defense while drooling over something like "true" shooting percentage. Harden is a sieve on defense, plays on the fifth-worst defensive team in the league, and his team gives up 5 more points per 100 possessions when he's on the floor than when he's off.

 

[childress22]

I don't think he's a terrible candidate. I just think Harden deserves it more. It's a weird year and both candidates would represent a break from history, but Harden less so since an MVP has actually been selected from a 3rd place team before. And of course, Harden's generally more efficient.

The efficiency stats frustrate me sometimes. In this case, the guys have nearly identical shooting percentages, though Harden nominally leads by .013 in FG%, .002 in 3Pt%, and .006 in FT%. The biggest difference is that Harden takes 2.2 more threes a game. In a vacuum, sure, a Harden 3FGA is worth more than a Harden 2FGA. But on a team like the Rockets, where Harden's .346 is basically the worst of rotation players who shoot threes, it seems weird to credit him for jacking up nearly 10 treys a game when he's got better shooters like Anderson, Gordon, and Beverly around him. Westbrook leads OKC in 3FGA too, with 7.2 attempts, but he actually is one of the more efficient shooters on the team (which sucks from outside, shooting .327 on the year).

 

[torontoduke]

KAT puts up a monster 40 and 21 game lastnight, Wiggins scores 41. They still lose to the Lakers.

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

This is an unprecedented MVP choice in what I would consider the current era of basketball, where people have no excuse not to understand the most basic advanced stats that touch on efficiency. The only real reason driving voters to make such an exception for Westbrook is the triple double, and it will be remembered 20-30 years from now as just another testament to how dumb America was in 2017.

If Harden were to win -- which, thankfully, I think won't happen -- it will rank in the pantheon alongside Nash and Steph as a testament to how dumb we were in 2017 for completely ignoring defense while drooling over something like "true" shooting percentage. Harden is a sieve on defense, plays on the fifth-worst defensive team in the league, and his team gives up 5 more points per 100 possessions when he's on the floor than when he's off.

My opinions on this issue are based on the assumption that we are still far, far away from defense being a consideration for MVP voting, especially given that there is no offensive player of the year award. If defense actually mattered, Rudy Gobert would be in the top 3 in MVP consideration, along with Kawhi.

The leaders in overall win shares this season are 1. Harden, 2. Gobert and 3. Kawhi. Harden at 14.8 and Gobert at 14.1 are lapping the field - Kawhi is 3rd at 13.4, and then there are a bunch of guys very close to Kawhi. In an intelligent society, Gobert - who is arguably as impactful on defense as Harden is on offense, and is the 2nd most valuable player based on advanced metrics while playing on a better team than Westbrook - finishes ahead of Westbrook in MVP voting.

At least we are somewhat close to efficiency and other "advanced" stats mattering to voters. Arguing anything with defense in mind is like arguing that people shouldn't vote politically with racial or religious prejudices as a factor. We're so extremely far away from the day that defense matters in MVP voting that I'm not willing to consider defense when I analyze it personally, though you can continue to beat that drum in your analysis while voters completely ignore it for another few decades.

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

If this quote said "WIN SHARES" instead of "WINNING," Harden would be basketball Jesus.

 

[rome8180]

I don't think he's a terrible candidate. I just think Harden deserves it more. It's a weird year and both candidates would represent a break from history, but Harden less so since an MVP has actually been selected from a 3rd place team before. And of course, Harden's generally more efficient.

The efficiency stats frustrate me sometimes. In this case, the guys have nearly identical shooting percentages, though Harden nominally leads by .013 in FG%, .002 in 3Pt%, and .006 in FT%. The biggest difference is that Harden takes 2.2 more threes a game. In a vacuum, sure, a Harden 3FGA is worth more than a Harden 2FGA. But on a team like the Rockets, where Harden's .346 is basically the worst of rotation players who shoot threes, it seems weird to credit him for jacking up nearly 10 treys a game when he's got better shooters like Anderson, Gordon, and Beverly around him. Westbrook leads OKC in 3FGA too, with 7.2 attempts, but he actually is one of the more efficient shooters on the team (which sucks from outside, shooting .327 on the year).

He scores more points per possession than Westbrook. Why wouldn't get credit for that? That seems like the most fundamental way to measure offensive contribution possible and not some fancy or deceptive advanced stat.

 

[rome8180]

I also don't see a big difference in their supporting rosters and yet Harden's team is significantly ahead of Westbrook's in wins. And by the way, while Harden's defense is just barely in the positive (1.4 DBPM), it's not like Westbrook is a lockdown defender.

 

[torontoduke]

Westbrook is a better defender than Harden, but he often takes a holiday at that end of the floor. I remember some discussion about this earlier in this thread.

 

[childress22]

I also don't see a big difference in their supporting rosters and yet Harden's team is significantly ahead of Westbrook's in wins. And by the way, while Harden's defense is just barely in the positive (1.4 DBPM), it's not like Westbrook is a lockdown defender.

I mean, if you're going to use DBPM as your criterion for defensive contributions (and I'm sure there are pros and cons to it), it's probably worth mentioning that Westbrook is tied with Gobert for second in the league (4.6), behind only Draymond (4.9). Westbrook also leads the league in OBPM.

 

[childress22]

In the LeBron/Renaissance era of the NBA, starting with the 2009 MVP award, the leader in WS has won the award 6 out of 8 seasons. The exceptions were Rose (5th in WS) over LeBron in 2011 and Curry (3rd in WS) over Harden in 2015. The winners were LeBron, LeBron, Rose*, LeBron, LeBron, Durant, Curry*, Curry (non-WS leaders are asterisked).

This season, Harden is the leader in WS with 14.72. Westbrook is 5th with 12.68. Westbrook's number would make him the worst MVP winner in terms of WS in the past 12 seasons.

In the LeBron/Renaissance era of the NBA, starting with the 2009 MVP award, the leader in VORP has won the award 7 (ha!) out of 8 seasons. The only exception was Rose (3rd in VORP) over LeBron in 2011. This season, Westbrook is the leader in VORP with 12.38. Harden is a very distant second with 8.8.

Westbrook's VORP of 12.38 is the single highest score in the Basketball Reference database, which dates back to 1974.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_yearly.html

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

VORP is derived directly from BPM, which is, as its name suggests, a stat based on the basic box score inputs of points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. Its only inputs for efficiency are usage and true shooting. Westbrook has been destroying everyone in box score stats all season, so his BPM, and therefore his VORP, are destroying everyone else's. The main argument against relying on VORP/BPM is Westbrook's obvious stat-padding with defensive rebounds.

Whether you want to rely on VORP/BPM or WS will depend on how much you want to emphasize team success and efficiency. WS is basically all offensive rating and defensive rating, which measure efficiency entirely, and is somewhat dependent on the team around the player. The total WS for each player on a team will equal the total wins by the team, so it encompasses team success within the stat itself, which I think is both good and bad for obvious reasons when it comes to MVP voting. For individual performance in the major stat categories, VORP/BPM is king, along with the simpler PER, which is like a helpful gateway drug to get people to convert over to advanced stats.

In short, citing VORP vs. citing WS is basically the exact same argument that everyone is having right now on Westbrook vs. Harden, but in nerd form, using the best all-encompassing numbers available.

I think we can all agree that averaging a triple double should not end the candidacy for every player who did not average a triple double.

 

[childress22]

I'm totally with you there. I couldn't give a fuck about the triple-doubles. I'd just rather see Westbrook, Gobert or Leonard win than Harden because I'm personally prejudiced against his Nash-like defense, and it was also fun to see that VORP correlated also quite well with the MVP winners.

Question, since I'm pretty sure you have a better grasp on the stats than I do: It's weird to me that if WS hews so close to ORtg and DRtg, that Harden (who is not Top 20 in either stat) places out ahead of Gobert (who is 1st in ORtg and 2nd in DRtg). Is that all because the Jazz are five games behind the Rockets?

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

Yeah, I figure Harden's +0.7 edge on Gobert in WS is strongly correlated with the +5 wins for the Rockets over the Jazz, but probably has more to do with minutes played. I don't know the stats that well, just read something short about how they differ. Harden has played about 200 minutes more than Gobert, or about 15% more. Harden has played about 100 more minutes than Westbrook.

Looks like only Towns and Wiggins have played more total minutes than Harden, which might partly explain why Tyus doesn't play much - Thibodeau is running his starters into the ground again. Wiggins, Lavine and Towns are 3, 4 and 6 in minutes per game. Seeing LeBron at #1 for minutes per game is disgusting.