US Open

Allow me to preface everything else I say by stating that I have never watched more than ten minutes of golf in my life. The US Open last weekend was incredible. Tiger Woods comeback, through clear pain, was unbelievable. It brings back images of Michael Jordan with the flu, Emmit Smith with a dislocated shoulder, or Amare Stoudemire coming back from surgery. It had the elements of pain, recovery, heart, and determination. The ratings on Sunday were somewhere around 8.5 that is incredible. If the USGA had the foresight to have the playoffs immediately after teh event we would have seen an even greater spike. I happened to be traveling during the playoff on Monday. It was difficult to even listen to talk radio because every two minutes we were getting an update. Don’t get me wrong I was engaged, but I could have done with fewer updates. On another note, Rocco Mediate certainly made the most of his opportunity. he is doing interviews and having a lot of fun. I almost wish he could have won so we could have heard his reaction. It would have been legendary.

New Format

Okay, clearly I do not have time to sit down and write out long winding posts. Unfortunately, the level of research takes far too much time. From here on out, I will be posting much shorter reaction type pieces. This approach will allow me to post a greater amount of content while still keeping up with everything else in my life.

Hero shots

How is that NBA players continue to take shots that are so detrimental to their teams. Last nights Celtics-Cavaliers game was a wonderful example. For whatever reason TNT decided to emphasize Doc Rivers halftime speech in which he ripped his team for taking what he called hero shots. Basically,  these are shots from deep three point land, early in the shot clock. These shots are meant to make the player look good, in spite of the low percentage.

The problem I have is the bias against bench players and big men that permeates the comments. When a guy like Shaquille O’Neal, Yao Ming, or Dwight Howard, catches a ball on the perimeter during a pick and roll and shoot with the shot clock winding down they are ripped for taking the shot. Even though, taking the shot is frequently the best choice.

A player like LeBron James seems to be allowed to take as many shots as he wants with 12-15 seconds left on the SC after dribbling for eight seconds while his teammates stand around watching. I think this is mostly an Eastern Conference problem as I have noticed the problem with greater frequency in the slower  paced games. The difference in the West, with so many teams running, is that taking a hero shot actually comes in the flow of the offense. Usually a screen is set, the big man does not flash well enough and you get a player like Steve Nash shooting three with 19 seconds to play. Doing it this fast means the defense is not set and even on a miss there is a decent chance of getting a rebound.

So why do players continue to do it? For some teams (See: Warriors, Suns, etc.) it fits their style of play. A hero shot spreads the defense during transition and opens passing lanes. A couple of these in the first quarter changes the complexion of the entire game. Teams that play a slower style, (See: Spurs, Pistons, etc.) however, only suffer a detriment. When every possession means so much this is basically akin to a turnover. The benefit is from the result of hitting one. Lets look at a scenario. Your team is up six with 1:30 to go. your opponent has just gone on a 7-1 runin the last minute. They have all the momentum. You get the ball after a missed free throw and dribble up the court. As the point guard you look to the coach for the play. The first step is a pick and roll with your team’s center. He sets the pick, you step out, suddenly you have a small space in front of you. Your a little deeper than your comfortable with, but know if you try to dribble closer the gap will be closed. You jack the deep three. It hits the rim and your stomach sinks. Somehow you get a shooter’s roll and the shot falls. Your crowd goes nuts. Your whole team is psyched. You now have a nine point lead with 1:21 to go and all the momentum back in your favor. The other teams calls a timeout.

Clearly, this is the extreme case, but the draw is the same throughout the game. One big play can change things for the better. Most players think they are good enough to make up for a couple of bad plays. Until a coach, like Doc Rivers las night, chastises his team for everyone of these shots, they will continue. As previously illustrated a hero shot can be a part of a team’s style; however, for the teams that abuse it, it will only be a hindrance.

As always I’d love to hear your comments and thank you for reading.

NBA MVP

Every year the debate rages. Who should be chosen as MVP of the Association. The hang-up stems from the meaning of valuable. Is it something financial, statistical, or intangible.

Logic would seem to dictate that value is somehow intrinsically financial. Value is something we measure in our checkbooks. Perhaps a measure of money paid against money earned for the organization best indicates value. This type of measure clearly favors those who outperform their contracts. Guys who come out of nowhere, to become all-stars, maybe even carrying their teams to the playoffs. If this is the measure used by all of the voters, then Chauncey Billups would surely have won a couple of years ago. Here he was solid player, but clearly outperformed his contract. On the flip side, LeBron James should have won every Value award since entering the league. He is currently tied for the 29th most well-paid player in the league, and this is a drastic improvement over past years. This is a player who carried his team to the finals, has two all-star MVP’s, and has a stat line rivaling that of some of the greatest players ever. The Cavs were a perennial lottery loser in the years B. K. (before the King). People even jokingly (sort of) call the franchise the Cleveland LeBrons. Now, while he may be able to carry his team to the playoffs, maybe even through as he did last year he can not win it all alone. For proof see player: Bryant, Kobe Bean. The revenue LeBron has brought to the Cavs is incomprehensible. How many more tickets and jerseys have they sold. What will their next TV contract look like? How many other players will want to come play with the chosen one.

So clearly a value-added approach skews heavily toward the young, the improving, and the underpaid. So where does the next argument take us. The “best” player? Now we debate between a statistical and “watch the damn game!” approach. Year after year, players like Tracy McGrady, Carmelo Anthony, Allen Iverson, and Kobe Bryant fill stat sheets with points. Players like Jason Kidd fill every slot. Many people think this is the best way to determine an MVP. Allow me to play Devil’s advocate for a moment. What stats are most important? Points? A ballhog that scores fifty a game while his team is in the basement and people want to award him for that. So lets look at rebounds. Kevin Garnett, Moses Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Bill Russell, and many other MVP winning big men would tell you the value of this category. In fact simply leading the league in this (not that it is simple to do by any stretch of the imagination) will garner some votes. It is amazing how many championships these men have also. Maybe there is some merit here, but let us move on. How about assists. The list that ends with Steve Nash and begins with Bob Cousy, the second all-time winner, is filled with people who were among the leaders in this category. My question is: If this is so important where are John Stockton and Jason Kidd (2nd and 3rd in assists per game). Steals and blocks lend themselves to another award so don’t quite fit into this discussion on their own. It is worth noting however that they should be considered more by those taking a statistical approach. Leading or being in the top ten of multiple statistical categories seems to be the best route to winning the MVP.

But to the best should there be something more? Something intangible. The “it” quality of a winner. A three at the buzzer to win should count a lot more than a three with 2:53 to go in the second quarter. A fifty point performance to clench the division needs to carry more weight than a sixty point effort in a loss in December. So clearly the voters need to watch games and not rely purely on statistical measures. with 30 teams playing 82 games this is not all that easy (1, 230 games total). This is why voting is divided up among 125 media members. (three from each NBA city and National writers to fill out the rest).The thought is that amongst these people every game will be seen by several of them and this measure can be taken into account. Add to that seeing highlights of the most relevant plays and hearing the ongoing discussion down the stretch. Also many websites compile stats that attempt to measure this, such as crunch time numbers. A problem with this approaches also stems from the fact that the debate can influence the outcome. people are asked to give pre- and mid-season favorites which prematurely narrows the field.

The Maurice Podoloff trophy is given based on a few historical criteria. For example, the only player to ever win the award without his team winning fifty games is Karl Malone, in the strike shortened season. Every player to win has been in the top fifteen of several important statistical categories and usually leads one. Players are expected to play a certain amount of games and the ones they miss are rarely for suspension. Until recently, being American born was a prerequisite; however, players like Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki have changed this trend. The rules of the contest also dictate that the player be a great value specifically to his team not just the league as a whole.

Taking all that into account is very difficult to do. To determine who I would vote for each year I use a little statistical analysis, some gut feeling, and some outside input. The following is a breakdown of how I think the determination should be made. A committee should be formed specifically to undertake the statistical and financial aspects outline hereafter. The most important thing a player does is help his team win games. The only way to win games is by scoring more points than the opposing team. To that end, the point differential when a given player is in the game compared to when he is out should be used. This differential should adjusted to a per minute basis and compensate for the amount of points the team scores. The per minute and team scoring adjustments eliminate biases toward low minute and high scoring team players. I would call this number the impact factor. Once this has been determined the financial value should be considered. The Salary of the player should be divided by his estimated revenue generation, ERG. Finally the voters should be left determine the intangibles. The voters should be instructed to only include what they have seen. Voting should be expanded to include some players and coaches both current and former. Perhaps allowing the all-stars to vote with the stipulation of no self votes. Since the player who wins should be an all-star this would mean several of the voters will have played against the player several times. The number of voters should dilute any bias this may inherently bring. The total number of voters should be around 200 - 250. Once these three numbers are calculated they should each represent one-third of the total. The historical criteria such as fifty wins should remain however I would amend it to anyone on a team with one of the ten best records in the league. Only players who play at least 80% of the minutes played by the minutes leader in the NBA should be considered. If a player is unable to play sufficient minutes to help their team it does not matter how good they are.

This is my template for deciding an MVP. I think it does a good job eliminating most of the biases of the other methods. I know some people will not like having such a stat based award; however, I believe this is what is happening anyway. Using a single statistical measure should eliminate any bias of Award races, legacy awards, previous years playoffs, and other outside facotrs that should not come into play. One factor not accounted for by this system is strength of schedule. A later post will include a way to compensate for that with a change in the scheduling format please look for that in the coming weeks. The current system allows for arbitrary rules like this one from my dad, “a player should not be allowed to win multiple MVP’s without winning a championship.” or rules like “well he has been so close for so many years he deserves to have at lest one in his career. If you have any other fators you believe should be included or other changes that should be made, please post a comment. As always I only ask that they be constructive and on topic. Please bring in historical or clerical errors to my attention so I may amend them.