Top Five Most Annoying MVP Criteria

5. Scoring- This is not just annoying as a criterion for MVP voting. Scoring is vastly overrated as a general method of judging players. More important than scoring is efficiency. Efficiency means getting the most output (points) out of the least input (possessions), and defensively, allowing the fewest points per possession. Successful teams are efficient in their offense and force their opponents to be inefficienct defensively. Successful players help their teams to be efficient on offense and prevent opponents from being efficient on defense.

Efficient players shoot a high field goal percentage, shoot a lot of free throws, especially at a high percentage(1), help teammates get high percentage shots, and maximize the number of possesssions (rebound well for their position, don't commit turnovers), and force the opposing team to take low percentage shots and turn the ball over.

Example: What's more valuable, 28.7 points on 19.2 field goal attempts, or 31.1 points on 25.5 attempts?(2) That's 2.5 more points with 6.3 more attempts. Well, in 2001, Allen Iverson and his 31.1 points on 42% shooting, high turnovers, overdribbling, and lack of synergy with teammates got 93 first-place votes compared to 7 votes for 28.7 points on 57% shooting Shaq, who rebounded well for his position, and made Derek Fisher look like an NBA caliber point guard, and convinced people that Kobe was a young Jordan.

Wait, what am I talking about? Iverson led the league in scoring! He's the MVP!

4. Team success- An MVP candidate's team's win/loss record is one of the biggest factors in MVP voting. It's probably the number two thing voters consider after the player's statistics. Unfortunately for the validity of this criterion, there are factors besides a player's greatness that affect his team's win/loss record. I feel like the point of an MVP award is to factor out those other things, and consider strictly the merits of a specific player.

I would have ranked this higher, but it's not terrible as a tiebreaker or x-factor that could push one candidate past an otherwise similarly deserving player. Also, as annoying as the reasoning behind it is (Premise 1. Player A's team won more games than Player B's. Premise 2. The better player's team wins more games. Conclusion: Player A is better), it's usually at least a little true.

Example: Are averages of 24.6 points, 8.9 rebounds, and 3.4 assists MVP-worthy? Hell no, you say? Well, what if I told you that his team won 67 games? Ladies and gentlemen, the second worst MVP in at least 30 years, Dirk Nowitzki.

3. Lifetime Achievement Award- This one's pretty self-explanatory. It should be noted that in the same way that veterans have a foot in the door, younger players are not given enough consideration (see Paul, Chris 2007-8).

Examples: Karl Malone 1997 (over Jordan!) and 1999. If you could go in a time machine and tell the 1997 voters that Malone would win the award in 1999, do you think they still would have voted him over Jordan? Me, neither. Also, Julius Erving 1981 (over Bird and Abul-Jabbar), and Kobe Bryant 2008 (you know this was decided in February, right?)

2. Foundational players vs. X-factors- Foundational players lay the foundation for team success. They do the things that are taken for granted: play efficiently, make teammates better, protect the rim or control the tempo, depending on their postion and role, of course. Those kinds of things. X-factors are players who can swing a game one way or the other, but really they need more effective teammates to put them in a position to win.

Without its foundational player, a team collapses. This is why they're more valuable than X-factors. If you take Barbosa off the Suns, the offense loses a little of its firepower. If you take Nash off the Suns, even with Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, Raja Bell, Leandro Barbosa et al., the offense falls apart.

People realize this with Nash and the Suns, in part because he's a point guard, and because the offense is so Nash-centric, but they often don't in other cases. People were calling Daniel Gibson the player of the game over Lebron in last years Eastern Conference Finals Game 6 with his 31-6-2 performance over Lebron's 20-14-8 (and a lot of hockey assists). Here's the problem with that: two days earlier, Lebron had his 48-points-including-the-last-25-for-the-Cavs game, and the Pistons decided they would allow any result besides Lebron going off again, even if it meant Gibson went berserk. Take Lebron off the team and and Boobie wouldn't get an open shot.

Or take the next round, the NBA Finals. Tony Parker, a point guard who doesn't set up his teammates or really make things easier for them, but who is nonetheless a co-anchor of the offense, wins the Finals MVP over the team's offensive co-anchor, who makes teammates better, and is also the defensive anchor.(3) Take Parker off the Spurs and they struggle. Take Duncan off the Spurs and they crumble. Which one is "Most Valuable?"

1. The Compensation Vote: MVP voters are instructed to vote for the number-one choice, a number-two choice, and a number-three choice. But they often don't. They vote for a player who simply and obviously does not belong in the top three because they want to make sure that a certain player gets some recognition.

Take last year. Carmelo Anthony, Baron Davis, and Tony Parker each got a third place vote. Amare got two, and Dwyane Wade and Shaq each got three points. Chauncey Billups got four. You can see the rest of the voting here. As good as they guys were, you'll never convince me that any of them, or a few others as well, deserve to be in the top three.

It's going to happen again this year, too. Voters are going to turn in their ballots and say with a straight face, "I believe that Turkoglu/Gasol/Bosh deserves a top-three vote over some combination of Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, or Lebron James. Not that those guys have been bad. I just don't think they have been on the same level as Turkoglu/Gasol/Bosh." They don't really think this. At least I hope not. More likely, they don't think the gap between the Turkoglus and the Ginobilis is as wide as the voting gap will surely show, so they skew the voting by turning their votes into honorable mentions.

Here's a litmus test that any candidate should have to pass: Can I picture David Stern saying into a microphone, "Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm proud to present the award for the 2007-2008 National Basketball Association's Most Valuable Player to (insert player) of the (insert team)." No offense to the Elton Brands and Chauncey Billupses of the NBA, but there are only a handful of players each year who can legitimitely be considered top-three candidates, so stop skewing the voting.

More importantly, stop annoying me.



(1) Even a relatively low percentage is efficient in the grand scheme of things. A 60% free throw shooter going to the line for two is like a 60% field goal shooter taking a shot, i.e. it's good.
(2) Obviously, there are a lot more factors that go should go into determining the MVP, but these facts alone should settle it between the two mentioned.
(3) The same thing nearly happened in 2005, but with Manure Ginobili instead of Parker.

David's Awards: 2008 Defensive Player of the Year

1. Kevin Garnett: KG's DPOY resume, like his MVP resume, is based less on numbers and more on intangibles, specifically changing the culture of the team, especially so on defense. The Celtics went from 17th to first in defensive efficiency in one year. He's their best defensive player and makes all his teammates play defense, too. Therefore, he's my pick.

David's Awards: 2008 Sixth Man of the Year

1. Manu Ginobili- In a close election, Ginobili beat Leandro Barbosa in the official balloting 615 to 283, out of a possible 620, and 123 to 1 in first place votes.

In the 51 games he came off the bench, he averaged 18.2/4.5/4 on 44/40/85 shooting, in 29 minutes. That's 25.1/6.2/5.5 per 40 minutes.

2-5. Barbosa, Jason Terry, and some others. Who cares? This award barely deserves a mention anyway. Of course, barely a mention is more than Executive of the Year, Most Improved Player, J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award, will receive in DBT.

NBA Playoffs 2008 Preview Part II: The Western Conference

First Round:

1. Los Angeles Lakers
Record (pythagorean): 57-25 (59-23)
Home Record: 30-11
Away Record: 27-14
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 3
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 6

vs. 8 Denver Nuggets
Record (pythagorean): 50-32 (51-31)
Home Record: 33-8
Away Record: 17-24
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 11
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 10

Notes: The Denver offense is based on running off of turnovers and opponent's missed shots. The Nuggets' offense and defense are both gimmicky, and I don't see the Lakers failing to prepare and brushing the Nuggets aside. Lakers in four.

4 Utah Jazz
Record (pythagorean): 54-28 (59-23)
Home Record: 37-4
Away Record: 17-24
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 1
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 12

vs. 5 Houston Rockets
Record (pythagorean): 55-27 (55-27)
Home Record: 31-10
Away Record: 24-17
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 17
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 2

Notes: Houston went 24-20, 22-0, then finished 9-7. Unfortunately for the Rockets, I don't see them going back to their 22-0 form. Also, even though Utah has higher seed, Houston has a better record and therefore home court advantage. Utah in six.

3 Phoenix Suns
Record (pythagorean): 55-27 (54-28)
Home Record: 30-11
Away Record: 25-16
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 2
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 16

vs. 6 San Antonio Spurs
Record (pythagorean): 56-26 (55-27)
Home Record: 34-7
Away Record: 22-19
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 15
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 3

Notes: Both teams have gotten worse since last year. The Spurs have forgotten how to score and Tim Duncan is noticeably in decline. The Suns are no longer the best offensive team and are just as bad defensively. On one hand, the Suns are 3-1 vs. the Spurs (compared to 3-7 the last three regular seasons, and 3-8 in the playoffs), with the one loss coming by three points (81-84). On the other hand, I have a hard time counting out the Spurs, or counting on the Suns. Therefore, I have to predict the Spurs uglying up the series and pulling it out in seven.

2 New Orleans Hornets
Record (pythagorean): 56-26 (56-26)
Home Record: 30-11
Away Record: 26-15
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 5
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 7

vs. 7 Dallas Mavericks
Record (pythagorean): 51-31 (54-28)
Home Record: 34-7
Away Record: 17-24
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 8
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 9

Notes: The Mavericks are only 16-13 since the Kidd trade, but a lot of the losses have been close (seven by a combined 25 points), while most of the wins have been lopsided (only four were by single digits- 8, 9, 7, and 3, to be specific). Conclusion: the Mavericks are better than their record. The Hornets have been very good, but have little playoff experience. I see the Mavs pulling this one out in six.

Second Round:

1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. 4 Utah Jazz: This matchup, should it occur, would showcase the fourth and fifth highest scoring teams in the NBA (behind Golden State, Phoenix, and Denver). The teams have been about the same during the regular season, but I think the Lakers will fare better in the playoffs because of this: Jerry Sloan's teams are usually the hardest-working ones in the league, so when everyone else ratchets up the intensity, they stay at the same level, while Phil Jackson's teams often coast during the regular season and turn it up in the playoffs. Though I would root for the Jazz, I'd have to say Lakers in six.

3 San Antonio Spurs vs. 7 Dallas Mavericks: When Dallas let Steve Nash go a few seasons ago, they redesigned the team to beat the Spurs. They've been pretty effective at it (1-3 in 2005 (but Dallas outscored San Antonio over the four games), 2-2 (with +16 scoring margin) and 4-3 (very nearly 6-1) in the playoffs in 2006, 3-1 last season, and 1-3 this season (even though they outscored the Spurs), and San Antonio is well below the level it's been at the last few seasons. Therefore, I'm picking the Mavericks in six.

Conference Finals:

1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. 7 Dallas Mavericks: The Lakers barely won the season series 3-1 with the wins coming by margins of 4 (in OT), 2, and 4, and the Mavs' pre-Kidd win by 7. Lakers in seven.

NBA Playoffs 2008 Preview Part I: The Eastern Conference

First Round:

1 Boston Celtics
Record (pythagorean): 66-16 (67-15)
Home Record: 35-6
Away Record: 31-10
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 9
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 1 (by far)

vs. 8 Atlanta Hawks
Record (pythagorean): 37-45 (36-46)
Home Record: 25-16
Away Record: 12-29
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 16
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 18

Notes: Celtics in four. Not much else to say.

4 Cleveland Cavaliers
Record (pythagorean): 45-37 (40-42)
Home Record: 27-14
Away Record: 18-23
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 20
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 11

vs. 5 Washington Wizards
Record (pythagorean): 43-39 (40-42)
Home Record: 25-16
Away Record: 18-23
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 12
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 24

Notes: The Cavs are a better team than their record shows. Throw it the seven games Lebron missed (0-7) and they're a 49 win team. However, they're only 14-13 since the new guys joined the team. Washington, however, is the same team they've been the last few years. Arenas should help, but not much. Caron is their best and most important player. The Cavs should win, but with Coach Mike at the helm, who knows. Cavs in six.

3 Orlando Magic
Record (pythagorean): 52-30 (56-26)
Home Record: 25-16
Away Record: 27-14
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 7
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 5

vs. 6 Toronto Raptors
Record (pythagorean): 41-41 (49-33)
Home Record: 25-16
Away Record: 16-25
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 10
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 13

Notes: Both teams are better than their records indicate, but Orlando is just better. Magic in five.

2 Detroit Pistons
Record (pythagorean): 59-23 (62-20)
Home Record: 34-7
Away Record: 25-16
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 6
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 4

vs. 7 Philadelphia 76ers
Record (pythagorean): 40-42 (42-40)
Home Record: 22-19
Away Record: 18-23
Offensive Efficiency Rank: 18
Defensive Efficiency Rank: 8

Notes: In the 76ers' favor, they finished the season 24-14 after a 16-28 start. In the Pistons' favor, they have more experience, they're better, they didn't end the season on a four-game losing streak. Pistons in 5.

Second Round:

1 Boston Celtics vs. 4 Cleveland Cavaliers: There are a lot of reasons why the Cavaliers could knock off the Celtics: 1) A lot of players have playoff experience together from the last two years. 2) The Celtics have been playing with playoff intensity and focus all year, while the Cavaliers have been wavering between regular season intensity and pre-season intensity for much of the season. The effort gap will be closed in the playoffs. 3) The Cavaliers have been a better playoff team than a regular season team the last two seasons (very nearly knocked off 64-18 Pistons in 2006, and did knock off higher seeded Pistons last season) 4) The Celtics' best player isn't a clutch player. 5) The Cavs and Celtics split the season series, and one of the Celtics' wins was an 80-70 win over a Lebron-less Cavs team. Put Lebron on the team for that game, and the Cavs probably improve more than 10 points and end up 3-1 vs. Celtics.

Here's the thing. The gap between Boston and Cleveland is so immense that even if all the things above prove true, Boston is still significantly better than Cleveland and should win, albeit uncomfortably. Celtics in five.

2 Detroit Pistons vs. 3 Orlando Magic: Detroit has a lot more experience, but I think what's really going to make a difference is the point guard play. Billups is an excellent game manager, while Jameer Nelson and Carlos Arroyo are not. Why else does Dwight Howard (20.7 point on 59.9% shooting) get only 11.9 field goal attempts per game? Playoff series are about adjustments and the Magic get taken out of Option A too often for my comfort. Pistons in five.

Conference Finals:

1 Boston Celtics vs. 2 Detroit Pistons: The Pistons used to be the hungry defensive team that outworked everyone, but since 2006, they've felt entitled to wins, and have played that way. I remember Chauncey Billups boasting that he was glad the Celtics were getting so much attention because that way, the Pistons could fly under the radar and win the playoffs in the end. But really, the Pistons are better. Just keep saying they're better, but we're better.

The point is that he wanted to make sure that the reporter knew that the Pistons were better. If the Pistons wanted to fly under the radar, they would have said that the Celtics were the team the beat instead of drawing attention to themselves. The Celtics will win in six, but the Pistons wil assure us that the better team lost.

Stephen Curry in the Cone Zone

Friday April 4th
Fifth segment. Not very exciting, but I just wanted to say "Cone Zone."

The 2008 Final Four

The big story about this year's Final Four is that for the first time, all four number-one seeds have advanced. A lot of people think this sucks, but I think it's great.

People like to fit events into a convenient narrative. If George Mason makes it to the Final Four, it's because they played like a team, because their players grew up and developed together while the elite programs' players bolt for the NBA, because of parity, because the elite teams didn't take them seriously, because the elite teams may have more talent, but George Mason is better then the sum of their parts. While all of these are partly true, the biggest reason George Mason was in the Final Four was luck. Not merit. Luck.

While luck is welcome in the first and maybe the second weekend, the Final Four should be reserved for greatness. The teams contending for a championship should be championship-caliber teams. For the first team in a few years, I'm actually looking forward to the Final Four.

I guess I should predict a champion. North Carolina over Memphis in the final. Just a wild guess.

Boston matches single-season improvement record

After going 24-58 last year, the Boston Celtics are 60-15, with 7 chances to add to the record.

The top 10 single-season turnarounds in NBA history:

36- 2008 Boston Celtics (60-24) and 1998 San Antonio Spurs (56-20)
35- 1990 San Antonio Spurs (56-21)
33- 2005 Phoenix Suns (62-29)
32- 1980 Boston Celtics (61-29)
29- 1970 Milwaukee Bucks (56-27)
27- 1989 Phoenix Suns (55-28)
26- 2002 New Jersey Nets (52-26) and 2004 Denver Nuggets (43-17)
25- 1996 Chicago Bulls (72-47)