Because missing 1/4 the season due to injury now makes one ineligible for MVP or all-NBA recognition, seems like you're saying it's nearly impossible for a player to be considered the best if he suffers any significant injury within the three-year window. I'm not sure that makes sense.
Also, because the all-NBA teams focus far more on offensive production than defense, there's the all-defense team. Maybe it should be a consideration within your metric?
If Tatum, who led the champion Celtics in points, rebounds, and assists for both the Finals and playoffs as a whole, had won Finals MVP he'd be the fourth best player in the league but he didn't and so he's sixth behind two guys who have never been beyond the second round.
I like it too. Seems how I think about it, judging past few years, weighting playoffs in there. Would love a snapshot of BPA from three, six and nine years ago. Guessing lebron, Steph, lebron but could be surprised as I don’t have remember all the MVPs
I like this exercise, but ultimately, it feels a bit reductive. Why? Because our views on awards are torn between the folks who believe the eye test is enough, the analyticals, and the folks who use both with some personal formula. Ultimately, much of this is due to the imperfect (yet rapidly evolving) nature of our current analytic sets. If data was more reliable (Rudy Gobert*), the analytics would be impeachable, and the "eye test" folks would be seen as dinosaurs (Rudy Gobert*). But here we are... and many of these voters still rely on logical emotion, talking to players, and other less reliable metrics. If we were really looking at the BPA, I'd hope we would measure efficiency and impact, removing emotion and highlighting achievement (both personal and team). Weighing advanced stats like Player Efficiency Rating, Win Shares, Value Over Replacement Player, and Tendex, amongst others, and adding weight to playoff achievement would probably provide a better view than just the award winners. We all know that Jokic would still be number 1 (in stats & our hearts). It would, however, better show the 15-50 players and how they rise and fall.
*Aaron is right that these awards often de-emphasize (or outright miss) defensive impact. That should be accounted for. On the other, the awards and several stats say Gobert is one of the best defenders of all time and yet there seems to be something missing that will probably seem obvious in 20 years.
As an aside, nba culture can be weird. Fans believe the best players alive should have deep playoffs on their resumes at the least. Flip over to baseball, with all timers in Trout or Ohtani, there is no such misgivings. I wish more attention was giving to the depth of the league propelling team success. Nuggets as one end of an example and the Celtics as the other end.
1. a minor thing - since Conference MVP and Finals MVP votes are public, you could also do partial points for that as opposed to just the blanket bonus.
2. a major thing - i would love to know the total number of people who got points. i imagine it won't be the exact same number of people every season, and it would be interesting to know.
I like this metric and agree that playoff awards should be factored in. Would be interesting to see how this stacks up with other yearly player rankings.
Because missing 1/4 the season due to injury now makes one ineligible for MVP or all-NBA recognition, seems like you're saying it's nearly impossible for a player to be considered the best if he suffers any significant injury within the three-year window. I'm not sure that makes sense.
Also, because the all-NBA teams focus far more on offensive production than defense, there's the all-defense team. Maybe it should be a consideration within your metric?
Natural followup post but we gotta see the historical timeline of CBPA!
If Tatum, who led the champion Celtics in points, rebounds, and assists for both the Finals and playoffs as a whole, had won Finals MVP he'd be the fourth best player in the league but he didn't and so he's sixth behind two guys who have never been beyond the second round.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like it too. Seems how I think about it, judging past few years, weighting playoffs in there. Would love a snapshot of BPA from three, six and nine years ago. Guessing lebron, Steph, lebron but could be surprised as I don’t have remember all the MVPs
I like this exercise, but ultimately, it feels a bit reductive. Why? Because our views on awards are torn between the folks who believe the eye test is enough, the analyticals, and the folks who use both with some personal formula. Ultimately, much of this is due to the imperfect (yet rapidly evolving) nature of our current analytic sets. If data was more reliable (Rudy Gobert*), the analytics would be impeachable, and the "eye test" folks would be seen as dinosaurs (Rudy Gobert*). But here we are... and many of these voters still rely on logical emotion, talking to players, and other less reliable metrics. If we were really looking at the BPA, I'd hope we would measure efficiency and impact, removing emotion and highlighting achievement (both personal and team). Weighing advanced stats like Player Efficiency Rating, Win Shares, Value Over Replacement Player, and Tendex, amongst others, and adding weight to playoff achievement would probably provide a better view than just the award winners. We all know that Jokic would still be number 1 (in stats & our hearts). It would, however, better show the 15-50 players and how they rise and fall.
*Aaron is right that these awards often de-emphasize (or outright miss) defensive impact. That should be accounted for. On the other, the awards and several stats say Gobert is one of the best defenders of all time and yet there seems to be something missing that will probably seem obvious in 20 years.
good blog 🫶
As an aside, nba culture can be weird. Fans believe the best players alive should have deep playoffs on their resumes at the least. Flip over to baseball, with all timers in Trout or Ohtani, there is no such misgivings. I wish more attention was giving to the depth of the league propelling team success. Nuggets as one end of an example and the Celtics as the other end.
Great stuff tom!
I enjoyed this a lot, thank you.
love it. 2 comments:
1. a minor thing - since Conference MVP and Finals MVP votes are public, you could also do partial points for that as opposed to just the blanket bonus.
2. a major thing - i would love to know the total number of people who got points. i imagine it won't be the exact same number of people every season, and it would be interesting to know.
I, too, cannot believe how interesting my bellybutton is.
Inventing another fake stat to award to Jokic, never change NBA media!
I like this metric and agree that playoff awards should be factored in. Would be interesting to see how this stacks up with other yearly player rankings.