web analytics
<

Menacingly Vengeful Pasta

Photo via Carlos Porto on Flickr

The MVP race. Yup, that ole bit.

It’s been a while since the MVP debate has been an enjoyable conversational topic for NBA enthusiasts. For the past two years, Lebron James has rendered the entire affair meaningless, what with his 31+ PER here, and his 29-7-8 per game numbers there, and the 60 wins, and the Cleveland, and the what not.

This year, however, Lebron finally gave us enough of a reason to completely discredit his candidacy – be it by playing at only 95% of his previous world-best capacity while adjusting to new a completely new set of teammates (how dare he!), or choosing where he’d like to continue his career (no, seriously, how dare he!). Sadly, the ensuing blabbering has turned into such a wild mess of Derrick Rose hating and Dwight Howard knocking and advanced stats this and watch the games that it has been grating at best, sickening at worst, and generally about as fun as an NCAA title game.

Of course, if this isn’t the first NBA piece you’ve ever read then, you know this. If it is, I’d like to introduce myself: I am Noam Schiller, 15 time NBA MVP winner, and have won 20 titles with the best team to ever play in the NBA, the Noamsville Noams.

For the sake of this piece, though, I will be working under the assumption that you recognize me as no more than a punk who just happens to have a keyboard. Given this assumption, nothing that I might happen to write here can change your opinion on this monstrosity of an award show. Whether you’re pro-Rose, pro-Howard, still think that being the best player in basketball should be rewarded even if Lebron happened to piss some dudes off this summer, are part of a Kobe Bryant campaign that is suddenly gaining momentum which I can’t for the life of me explain, like Kevin Durant’s beautiful face too much to give it to anybody else, or are behind some mysterious candidate X (Pooh Jeter Pooh Jeter Pooh Jeter), you’re staying in your camp after reading this.

Now, unlike most of the internet these days, I’m cool with that. I’m all for pluralism. It has enhanced the way we consume basketball and live our everyday lives in unmeasurable ways. Whenever something remotely interesting happens, we have millions of marvelous minds working towards instantly providing us with analysis and perspective and sometimes just plain humorous snark through a handful of mediums. And while the occasional flash of idiotism may rear its ugly head more often once we provide more voices with the necessary microphones, this is a small price to pay for what can only be described as a blossoming fountain of knowledge.

That knowledge, however, is key. That sharing of mindsets through which we strengthen each other, even when the other side doesn’t agree with us. When that knowledge is absent – or even worse, present yet ignored – pluralism crosses the line from a melting pot of opinions and intellectual tools to a random assortment of statements, each more dogmatic than the other. And unless you’re Kevin Smith’s career, Dogma never gets you anywhere.

And yet, when this dogmatism is contested, those who dare stand up to it are called haters. Those who provide statistical analysis suddenly don’t watch the games – this despite the fact that NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would spend the time glossing over sheets of numbers without actually being interested in whatever it is that the numbers represent. And the saddest thing is, you don’t even have to contest an opinion to be caught in the crossfire. All one has to do is ask “why?”, even if it’s just out of curiosity, before he is buried in a flurry of capitalized letters and exclamation points.

Well, I’ll ask it anyway. Why?

How can we excuse not using data when it’s staring us in the faces? Because we didn’t like math in high school? Because we’re too manly to sit down in front of a sheet, put on the reading glasses that we don’t want people to know we have, and let our minds out for a jog? Because we want to feel closer to the people who did it in the old days? Let me tell you a secret – the old days were awful. We’re much better than them. This isn’t “hating” – it’s evolution.

Take your “advanced stats”. Bill Simmons recently wrotethat Rose is “The guy whose MVP candidacy got crapped on by the entire blogosphere because his plus/minus and true shooting percentage weren’t quite good enough”. Well, aren’t those valid concerns? It’s not like basketballvalue.com draws random numbers and inserts them into their plus/minus tables – this is data that describes things that are happening on the court, in games. Ditto for TS%, or rebound rate, or Synergy numbers, or even pretentious tell-all numbers like PER or Win Shares. I agree that one always must use caveats, always use context, never take these numbers for their face value without checking and double checking, but to ignore them completely? To discredit their value while putting one’s entire weight on ambiguous statements like “value to the team” or “where would they be without him”?

This writing may (will) be seen as a specific indictment towards those on the Rose side of this MVP debate. Though I will not deny that I am opposed to the Rose movement, I promise you, besmirching it is not my intention. All other MVP candidates have major flaws to their campaigns, all of them well documented basically everywhere, and Rose has had a mind-boggling season for a thrilling team.

But it just so happens that Rose’s specific flaws, like Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony and Allen Iverson before him, are the flaws of a player whose statistical pedigree lacks in respect to the success of his team, his ability to pass the eye test, and his ridiculously passionate fan base. And while the latter two are not bad things – the eye test is ultimately the reason we watch sports, and passionate fan bases are to be encouraged – ignoring statistics when they are right there just because they don’t support my premise is just that: ignorant.

If you do decide that those flaws Rose represents aren’t as condemning as Dwight Howard’s inability to provide a go-to option on offense down the stretch or Lebron James’ failure to lead a team to the amount of wins they were supposed to win on paper because our paper got it wrong – then that’s fine. But you need to back it up. And yes, I expect there to be some statistical data there. And no, “this is what my eyes tell me” doesn’t cut it. Because all I need to do is send you to the nearest M.C. Escher painting to show you how easily eyes can be deceived. And even if your eyes are absolutely, positively, completely perfect in every single way (otherwise known as being Paul George) – could it possibly hurt to use your other senses too? To gain the ability to use another useful tool? To check and double check, if for no other reason, just to set an example for those damn “stat guys”?

This stands not only for those defending their arguments, but for those attacking others. Valid points may be concocted in places other than your own mind, because there are millions of fantastic minds out there. Including yours. Respect those other minds by reading what they say, contemplating their points, carefully building your counter. If I tweet about Derrick Rose’s defense, and you immediately respond by talking about his carrying the offense in crunch time, then you have failed. You arrived at a boxing match with a baseball bat. Sure, that bat may help you in bludgeoning me to death, but that’s not what we’re here for.

A final, hypothetical argument.

Lets say that you support Derrick Rose for MVP. Since it seems like the majority of the NBA community does at this point, you probably do. Now, say that I come up to you and say “you know what? Rose has been great this year, but looking at how great Blake Griffin has been playing, and how he’s been a beacon of hope for a moribund franchise going nowhere I think he’s the most valuable player. Because that’s how I define VALUE.”

You, being the rational and intelligent reader that you are, start laughing. Perhaps you call me a funny name, or toss a beverage at me. But I’m a persistent little bugger. I show you ratings and attendance numbers for the Clippers, providing indisputable proof that Blake has single-handedly made the team relevant again. I hand you a 70 foot billboard covered in a fantastically crafted collage of tweets going insane about the former Oklahoma star. I point out how Baron Davis – BARON DAVIS – bothered to get into shape (albeit two months late) for the guy. I call Clipper Darrell, ask him what he thinks about Blake Griffin, record the ensuing rant, and play it to you in it’s entirety with unicorns frolicking around us and bubble gum raining from the sky. I can’t convince you – not when my premise is so foolish – but you can’t convince me either. MVP is subjective, that’s how I define it, and you have to live with that.

Or, instead, we can live in a society where foolishness is unacceptable and opinions, even if they are just opinions, lead to people being held accountable. I like that better. But hey, what do I know – I think Dwight Howard is the MVP.

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but stressing the relative importance of stats in the MVP debate without using any specific data to support your argument was quite a fit...

I agree with the general feeling stemming from the comments, that is stats are key in lighting the few players who are significant by their numbers in the game, such as Howard, Durant, James, Bryant or Rose. An extension of this statistical approach is the impact of these players on their team, translated for the stat-hater as "without this guy, this team wouldn't be on top of their game, as opposed to a team a la Clippers, where Griffin is impressive but doesn't turn the whole team spirit around (yet).

I personally do not think commercial criteria should be taken into account, but America has its own ways and business is obviously central in NBA decision process. My favorite tiny (no pun intended) example was Nate Robinson's second slam dunk contest win, which imho he didn't deserve. Another big internet-related example is the sum of top-play videos from the past two years, in which LeBron James was overrepresented to a you're-gonna-make-me-vomit extent. Who is their right mind would put a replay with an obvious travel in a top 10? A basket-ball fan - never -, a marketing rep., probably.
But ok, let's play by the ruler's rules, the NBA has to make money so we can enjoy the game season after season. The most important in that regard is to remember the business must serve the game, not the other way around. What I mean to say by that is that advertising a bankable player who brings success to his franchise makes sense, surrounding a player whose team is struggling with too much hype hurts the game and, even worse, hurts the player - e.g. Elton Brand in Chicago. Basket-ball will always be a collective sport (stress on both collective and sport).

In the end, the last element in the long line of arguments for the MVP is that plus factor, an almost irrational gut feeling, that moment when every fan and every journalist goes from objectively adding a series of stats to crazy passion, when the only answer to "why do you think this player should be MVP" becomes "I don't know, he's the MVP, that's all". With this loss in objectivity, the final steps in the race will be marked by the little things, attention to detail, a word during an interview, a photograph, that one dunk.

Those two last categories, that's where Derrick Rose wins it for me. He incarnates the future of NBA, by his humility and dedication to hard-word, the game, his teammates, his city. That would be a tie with Durant actually. The quiet guys, the nice guys. That's where Howard or James lose it. Dwight, when will you grow up and stop getting technicals? LeBron, where and when did you lose your humanity? Every lord has won many battles and honors, but how can you call yourself a King when you've never reached the crown? Kobe, well he's like the queen of England. You HAVE to have some respect for the majesty, whether you like it or not, considering the past and the (LAL) dynasty, but the image already seems to fade away, and the body hurts so much, doesn't it, go take some rest soon, you've already given us so much, your power is so immense I'm sure your kingdom will soon find a great heir.

(TLDR) Here's the classical argument. Surely, stats are important, but in the end it's all about the gut feeling.

Awesome stuff, Noam. I think you know that I've been supporting Dwight for MVP for a while and this piece really articulates some of the stuff I've been trying to get across. Great read.

Rational discussion will trump visceral argument in terms of results because rational discussion will tend towards being results oriented while visceral reaction places a premium on personal satisfaction. The two are not always in competition but when they are rationality is the better choice.

If you honestly believe that visceral reactions stemming flawed belief systems will consistently produce the best results in any area of life then there is little chance of finding common ground with you. You seem to be playing the devil’s advocate here rather than espousing personal belief so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

The annual MVP race in the NBA is imperfect. How it is imperfect is a matter for debate, but that it is imperfect is not. This leaves room for improvement in the process, which should be sought after. One method of improvement would be codification of value, allowing everyone voting on the award to do so from the same frame of reference. Another method of improvement would be a shift in the tone of the discussion from argument to debate.

What an ambiguous mass of people want is immaterial. The importance of the matter in question is immaterial as well. Whether trivial or life-changing, whether it is popular or not, if a process can be improved it should be. Therefore I do not assume that people want to have this debate and I certainly do not assume the debate is important in any meaningful way. I deem those concerns irrelevant to whether a reasonable debate is preferable to an alternative format that ignores or downgrades reason in favor of personal bias and emotion.

I am only speaking for myself here since I have no page views to push for and no investment in catering to the desires of fans. Noah may (and probably does) disagree with at least some of what I have said.

TLDR version: I do not assume anything regarding whether it is important or popular to have a debate rather than an argument. My estimation of a debate’s worth is not tied to those factors. Improvement for improvement’s sake is enough for me, and I believe a debate is an improvement over an argument.

but why do you (and noah) assume that people want to have what you call a "debate" in the first place? and why do you assume that it's important that a reason-giving Habermasian discussion about the MVP of the NBA occur, other than you (and some other geeks on the internet) enjoy having one?

I enjoyed your take on the MVP debate and the current norms of argument in general immensely.

"Most fans are looking for narratives in sports to identify with; to the extent you want to dispute these narratives that have become their identity, to them it feels like you’re attacking them personally."

As for that incarnation of being a fan, while it undeniably exists it is also undeniably flawed. The team a fan roots for is not an extension of that fan's personal self. If a fan can't step back enough from "their team" to realize that; then the points they choose to raise and defend will be severely compromised.

If a person weighs in on a subject with no aim beyond demonizing those with opposing views (or conversely defending dogmatically their personal view against all contrary evidence) they may be arguing, but they are not engaging in debate. The interwebs can disagree with that all they want; they will still be wrong. Abundant proliferation of that (or any) mindset does not make it a correct or logically valid one. Just ask all those people who "knew" the Earth was flat and located at the center of the universe.

also the idea that you expect a cogent discussion to result from a twit is amusing.

"You arrived at a boxing match with a baseball bat. Sure, that bat may help you in bludgeoning me to death, but that’s not what we’re here for."

I don't think the interwebs agree with you on that last point. And I think it's naive to think that the advanced stats movement is just about advanced stats, as is the reaction to it, but that's a whole different discussion. You want to have a discussion about the relative merits of basketball players, but few people actually give a crap about that, and most of them work for basketball teams. Most fans are looking for narratives in sports to identify with; to the extent you want to dispute these narratives that have become their identity, to them it feels like you're attacking them personally.

Noam, what's your take on Howard's propensity for getting techs and getting suspended? Whether the techs are valid or not is kind of immaterial, don't you think? Shouldn't an MVP-type leader be able to curb his emotional reactions because he knows it's hurting the team?

Oh, and I don't think your Griffin argument is that ridiculous. If the league is steadfastly refusing to define "value," why can't economic value be included? Why can't influence on ratings or ticket sales be included? It's certainly valuable to that team's franchise, and to the league.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Celts need more 'urgency'Rotoworld.comDerek Rose: Beast of the EastOlogyESPN (blog) -Hardwood Paroxysm -CBSSports.comall 972 news articles » Posts Related to Washington Wizards [...]

  2. [...] Celts need more 'urgency'Rotoworld.comDerek Rose: Beast of the EastOlogyESPN (blog) -Hardwood Paroxysm -CBSSports.comall 961 news [...]

  3. [...] Rajon Rondo says Celts need more 'urgency'Rotoworld.comProBasketballTalk -Ology -Hardwood Paroxysmall 1,011 news [...]