APBRmetrics

[Ben]

I imagine this will look a lot different than the actual voters' ballots.

[Ben]

ESPN is saying Nash will be named MVP.

[jeffpotts77]

I think it's ridiculous that Nash is winning MVP. It's also absurd that Shaq has only won it once in his illustrious career.

[gkrndija]

Shaq isn't MVP material. He can't hit free throws and gives the opposition a good chance to get the ball back without giving up points or time. But the worst part about his game is that he sits on the bench when Miami needs a defensive stand. The pick-and-roll against Shaq guarantees a good scoring oppurtunity, especially when he's played a lot of minutes. Shaq can't be MVP when he is one of the worst players on the floor, if he's not riding the bench, during cruch time.

Many question Nash's defence, but at least he plays when the game is on the line. Plus the center position is more important to team defence than PG.

[moneyp]

[Kevin Pelton]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/basketball/nba/specials/playoffs/2005/04/27/spurs/1.html

[gkrndija]

[moneyp]

[gkrndija]

[Ben]

Nash got 1066 points with 1270 as the maximum possible. As of now, if APBRmetrics had been the voters, Nash would have received 434 points.

[jambalaya]

looking at the MVP this year and back over the last 10 years, i would conclude that it is usually a two man race. because of the scoring system and herd mentality. occasionally three and at most four. there can still be debate about who should be that 2, 3 or 4 but if you want to predict this award in the future i'd say you can concentrate almost exclusively on the likely top 4.

an extended list is appropriate for a different measure of deserving. maybe the APBR can offer a substitute for the ibm award that died in 2001-02, which was exclusively stat based and aimed at rewarding on that basis, often as a consolation prize to an MVP runnerup who wasnt favored by the writers.

the poll here this year didnt get that many votes, was more adhoc than fully developed, and didnt produce a conclusive answer. the question was stated as "Who's the MVP for 2005" which could be interpreted as will be selected or deserving. an organized inclusive process with defined award standards for exactly what the award is measuring and drawing votes on, that got 50-100 stat analyst votes, might be noteworthy. 25 probably isnt. using the NBA's top 5 voting or something similar would probably be better than a single selection of the best which provides no ranking of the rest. if folks wanted to put in more effort and maybe get more attention to it.

for prediction (which is a sidestory and not the main focus for here) i think it comes down to looking at the story as much as the stats. it is sportswriters who are voting, not pure stats guys. nash had the compelling story this year, shaq had a fresh version of the old story but it wasnt enough. i dont think it was decided by the stats. it is usually impressive stats vs. impressive stats and then i think the story usually provides the difference rather than rigorous analysis of the stat differences and their reputed value. at least for most of the writers i would guess.

[Mike G]

[kjb]

Having talked with a number of these writers, there's a thread of anti-stat in the vote. Some that I've spoken with (who say they voted for Nash) did it because they think they perceive some ineffable "value" in Nash. It's not that they're outright saying "stats are worthless" but rather that they believe Nash is providing "something" to the Suns that cannot be quantified.

[Ben]

[FrontRange]