The coveted SectionEE Mid Conference Play Awards have been handed out. Let the debates begin.
http://sectionee.blogspot.com/2012/01/mid-conference-play-horizon-league.html (http://sectionee.blogspot.com/2012/01/mid-conference-play-horizon-league.html)
I don't want to be picky, but Ryan Allen is our premier defender, not Kaylon Williams. Williams is a very good defender and should be somewhere on the list of great H-League defenders, but Ryan Allen defends at an NBA level. Ask Darius Johnson-Odom from Marquette, Alex Young from IUPUI, or Julius Mays from WSU. Mays is the only one of those three who is definitely not headed to the NBA, but he got shut down all the same - 5 of 7 games at least scoring 21, then scored 3 on Ryan Allen.
One of the reasons we lost yesterday to YSU was because it took us too long to put Ryan Allen on Blake Allen. Ryan spent the first half guarding Kendrick Perry, who scored most of his nine points in the second half when Ryan switched to Blake. Blake Allen scored 22 in the first half, five in the second - he only attempted one shot in the second half.
Williams' best job on D was probably Jordan Taylor from Wisconsin. Scored 15, but shot 35%. Allen was busy guarding their sharpshooter Ben Brust. He ended up shooting 1 of 9 and scored 5 points. Three days earlier, Brust scored 25 as they beat UNLV.
I'm sorry to respond with a long post, but it annoys me when people see Ryan Allen destroy on defense and then completely ignore him when it's time for recognition.
In Milwaukee, we like to talk about how the team responded after being blown out at Valpo and that's why they won the last nine in conference last year. The truth is, defense became much more of a priority, and Ryan Allen - whose offense was a liability last year - began playing significant minutes.
You guys have seen Allen's defense yourself twice - last year, he guarded Ryan Broekhoff in the conference tournament. This year at the ARC, he took fellow wing Matt Kenney.
Please, keep an eye on Ryan Allen's defense the rest of the season. You won't be disappointed.
For what it's worth, I cannot choose between Ryan Allen and D'Aundray Brown as best defender. They are both NBA-level defenders.
Quote from: blackpantheruwm on January 21, 2012, 11:28:34 PMOne of the reasons we lost yesterday to YSU was because it took us too long to put Ryan Allen on Blake Allen. Ryan spent the first half guarding Kendrick Perry, who scored most of his nine points in the second half when Ryan switched to Blake. Blake Allen scored 22 in the first half, five in the second - he only attempted one shot in the second half.
It seems Ryan Allen stuck to Blake Allen as an Allen wrench fits a bolt or screw, so to speak. It works best when using Allen device on Allen device. ;D
Quote from: blackpantheruwm on January 21, 2012, 11:28:34 PMOne of the reasons we lost yesterday to YSU was because it took us too long to put Ryan Allen on Blake Allen. Ryan spent the first half guarding Kendrick Perry, who scored most of his nine points in the second half when Ryan switched to Blake. Blake Allen scored 22 in the first half, five in the second - he only attempted one shot in the second half.
Maybe Brent should reconsider his Coach of the year pick, ha! He did tell me that was the toughest category to pick for obvious reasons. Hopefully Allen will guard Boggs or Kenney again next weekend.
Quote from: sectionee on January 22, 2012, 08:54:47 AM
Quote from: blackpantheruwm on January 21, 2012, 11:28:34 PMOne of the reasons we lost yesterday to YSU was because it took us too long to put Ryan Allen on Blake Allen. Ryan spent the first half guarding Kendrick Perry, who scored most of his nine points in the second half when Ryan switched to Blake. Blake Allen scored 22 in the first half, five in the second - he only attempted one shot in the second half.
Maybe Brent should reconsider his Coach of the year pick, ha! He did tell me that was the toughest category to pick for obvious reasons. Hopefully Allen will guard Boggs or Kenney again next weekend.
Coach of the Year is always very difficult to pick. Usually it's won by the coach whose team most exceeds expectations. Which is why I laughed - hard - when Ray McCallum Sr. was picked as Preseason Coach of the Year.
Jeter's had some decisions that I haven't quite agreed with, but if the free throw shooting were merely adequate instead of awful, we'd have victories over Wisconsin, Butler and YSU, be 16-4 and undefeated in conference right now. Our coaching staff has done EVERYTHING they can to try and fix the problem, but it's psychological.
Consider these losses:
Wisconsin, 60-54 - 7-17 FT
Butler, 54-50 - 12-19 FT
YSU, 68-66 - 10-21 FT
Hell, even our close victories featured some of the worst free throw shooting:
Valpo, 57-55 - 9-18 FT
Green Bay, 64-63 - 11-19 FT
UIC, 73-71 OT - 19-33 FT
NIU, 59-57 - 13-25 FT
If we had shot 75% free throws in any of those losses, we'd have won or at least been there in the final possessions. In the games we won, we'd have a better lead and wouldn't need the heroics of Kaylon Williams to bail us out.
As a whole the HL seems pretty poor at the line. It's impressive they even staye in some of those games with those numbers.
Anyone care to give any insights why the FT line hasn't been better to HL teams? I know one of my recruiting details I would focus on is FT shooting, not just PPG, assists, rebounds, or 3-PT%, like some armchair coaches care about. The FT line helps get an idea of clutch shooters that you want having the ball in their hands in the closing seconds. Ask the head coaches of high school teams, they always want their best FT shooters getting the ball in the final two minutes of a close game.
Section EE has D'Aundrey Brown as a potential Player of the Yeay. Huh?? He isn't in the top 10 in scoring, rebounding, assts, blocks, FG %, FT % or 3 pt %. He is first is steals, but is only .3 steals per game a head of Kendrick Perry, who is also 5th in scoring and 3rd in assts.
Brown is a nice player but not even first team material in my humble opinion.
He is listed as an MVP not POTY. i didn't write that post, but I do think you have to include someone from the top team in the league. Brown is just as good a pick as anyone else on that squad. He is the best defender in the league at his position and can score. I maybe would've went with Kamczyc, but again it wasn't my post. Anyways, appreciate your comment and thanks for reading! Let's win two this week.
There is no way Jeter should be placed ahead of Drew or even Slocum at this point. Valpo lost 2/3 of it's scoring from last year, a player destined to be pre-season POY, and its head coach. We were picked to finish below Milw, but finished the 1st half ahead of them. Last but not least, I could never vote for a coach who refused to do the only right thing and suspend his star player for even one game for multiple violations of the law during the off season. I have far more respect for Coach McCallum for making the difficult decision to suspend Holman for multiple games and suffer the consequences. how much easier it would have been to bring him back from the beginning and make up some convenient excuse about believing in remediation over punishment.
Can't argue with the point on Williams. This was done before Milwaukee got blown out of the gym against CSU. Lots of options for all the league awards, it is going to be an exciting second half.
Quote from: wh on January 23, 2012, 09:20:22 PMThere is no way Jeter should be placed ahead of Drew or even Slocum at this point.
I would probably go for Slocum as COY over Bryce, only because I don't believe in giving a rookie coach the COY. No offense to what Bryce has done, but it's his first year in the spotlight. My opinion may be pre-mature at this time, but I'm going with it only because no one believed that YSU would be in the top tier, or even close to it. I think that's more compelling in the second half than what Bryce has done. Will YSU continue to pile up the wins, or will they screw up somewhere, and wind up in 7th or 8th in the final standings?
Quote from: sectionee on January 23, 2012, 08:47:44 PM
He is listed as an MVP not POTY. i didn't write that post, but I do think you have to include someone from the top team in the league.
In my opinion MVP and POTY are synonymous, and therefore it is superfluous to have both. And team standings have zero to do with it. It's an individual award, about measure the value players bring to their teams. What those teams do with that value is immaterial.
If the team is terrible what value does the player have? None, in my opinion. It's all a crapshoot, I believ an MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 or so in the league. We should continue this discussion after one of our guys wins it at the end of the year.
Quote from: sectionee on January 23, 2012, 11:44:07 PMI believe an MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 or so in the league
The MVP should come from a team in the top tier that is valuable to his team's being in the regular season conference title race. How the player helps/leads the team to victory is how true value in a player should be measured.
The POTY can be anyone in the conference. That is more of an individual award. It shouldn't matter if he comes from the 1st or the last place team. This award measures the way the player played. It doesn't matter if he was valuable to his team winning a conference title or helping his team get to .500.
If POTY had to come from the best team in the league, then it discredits some players for working hard to do something to help their team win, or even "upside" their draft/professional status. Remember, POTY is a player respected as the BEST PLAYER in the conference for that year.
Consider this, let's say Valpo has an major injury happen in the second half of the conference season to Buggs or Kevin, and we struggle horribly in the spots where they led us, and we finish in 6th place, but Ryan continues to get his double-doubles and leads the team his way. Why should Ryan be penalized for an injury to a teammate, when he continues to put up numbers that qualify him to be POTY? Just because he didn't keep us in the top tier, he should lose all chance to be POTY with the best numbers of anyone in the conference?
I always find it funny when people say, 'if we would have hit more FTs, we would have won or won by a bigger margin,' or similar statements about shooting. It is such a hypothetical statement to make. It is impossible to say that if you would have hit more FTs, what the final score would have been. With the ups and downs throughout a game, maybe an increased lead would have driven the other teams to change their approach (shooting/making more 3's, going inside more, etc). Too many variables to say that it is a given that with more made FTs, the score would have been so much more dramatically different.
After sleeping on it I completely agree with valporun. Thanks for typing all that up!
Quote from: wh on January 23, 2012, 09:20:22 PMI have far more respect for Coach McCallum for making the difficult decision to suspend Holman for multiple games and suffer the consequences. how much easier it would have been to bring him back from the beginning and make up some convenient excuse about believing in remediation over punishment.
I'm not sure you can give much credit to Coach McCallum. I believe it was the woman AD that held out that Holman should be suspended (or "under treatment" longer) and she finally fell to pressure from McCallum (and of course the e-mail writing message board fans :) ).
Quote from: sectionee on January 23, 2012, 11:44:07 PM
If the team is terrible what value does the player have? None, in my opinion.
The same value he would have if the team was great. It's an *individual* award.
Quote from: valporun on January 24, 2012, 01:49:49 AM
Quote from: sectionee on January 23, 2012, 11:44:07 PMI believe an MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 or so in the league
The MVP should come from a team in the top tier that is valuable to his team's being in the regular season conference title race. How the player helps/leads the team to victory is how true value in a player should be measured.
The POTY can be anyone in the conference. That is more of an individual award. It shouldn't matter if he comes from the 1st or the last place team. This award measures the way the player played. It doesn't matter if he was valuable to his team winning a conference title or helping his team get to .500.
Sorry, but I reject your definition. Players from all 10 teams are eligible for the award. Players generate value by what they do as individuals. Thus, MVP = POTY
Now, College Basketball may be too much of a team sport for my argument to work like I absolutely believe it works in baseball. But nobody has made that counter argument yet, so I remain steadfastly unmoved in my opinion.
Quote from: valporun on January 24, 2012, 01:49:49 AM
Quote from: sectionee on January 23, 2012, 11:44:07 PMI believe an MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 or so in the league
Consider this, let's say Valpo has an major injury happen in the second half of the conference season to Buggs or Kevin, and we struggle horribly in the spots where they led us, and we finish in 6th place, but Ryan continues to get his double-doubles and leads the team his way. Why should Ryan be penalized for an injury to a teammate, when he continues to put up numbers that qualify him to be POTY? Just because he didn't keep us in the top tier, he should lose all chance to be POTY with the best numbers of anyone in the conference?
And he should likewise be qualified for MVP by the exact same reasoning.
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 24, 2012, 09:18:03 AM
Quote from: valporun on January 24, 2012, 01:49:49 AM
Quote from: sectionee on January 23, 2012, 11:44:07 PMI believe an MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 or so in the league
Consider this, let's say Valpo has an major injury happen in the second half of the conference season to Buggs or Kevin, and we struggle horribly in the spots where they led us, and we finish in 6th place, but Ryan continues to get his double-doubles and leads the team his way. Why should Ryan be penalized for an injury to a teammate, when he continues to put up numbers that qualify him to be POTY? Just because he didn't keep us in the top tier, he should lose all chance to be POTY with the best numbers of anyone in the conference?
And he should likewise be qualified for MVP by the exact same reasoning.
NO, he would lose the league MVP because Valpo fell out of the top tier. Why reward the MVP to a player that would lead a piss-poor team just because he has POTY numbers? If Ryan continued to do the same thing he did all season, but no one else stepped up to keep Valpo in the top tier, it no longer makes Ryan the MVP because he CAN'T do it all himself. I would give him POTY if he continued this kind of work, as the individual on the team that kept playing hard, but he would not be the league's MVP because the Crusaders would have fallen out of a chance to win the HL regular season title due to his teammates not working with him to keep the team in the race. With the team falling out of the top tier, he would no longer have the same value as a player who worked to help keep his team in top tier. We've seen that we don't have the consistency outside of Ryan and Kevin to keep the team going. It's always a guess to see if Jay, Matt, Will, Ben, or anyone will step up to help in the scoring column, or any of the defensive categories necessary to win games. Right now, my team and league MVP would be Rowdy, but if for some reason we fall out of the top tier, but Rowdy continues to play at his level, then he would only be the team MVP and league POTY, not league MVP because the team failed in helping to keep up their end of the competitiveness to win games when we needed them.
What is being implicitly rejected here -- by me -- is your very definition of MVP. Maybe it would help if you fully explicated it for me.
I will do the same in the meantime: Most Valuable Player = player who brings more value to his team than any other player brings to their team. How do we measure value? I would argue we start with statistics, and we resort to advanced metrics (if such exist -- I don't know if they do or not like they absolutely do in baseball) to accurately measure that value, factoring out team context (which is unfair), venue effects, etc., until we have an accurate measure of that player's value.
That value is then a resource to the team. What the team *does* with that value is *then* accurately measured in the standings. To bring standings into the MVP definition is a corruption of the original intent, in my opinion.
Quote from: valporun on January 24, 2012, 01:49:49 AMThe MVP should come from a team in the top tier that is valuable to his team's being in the regular season conference title race. How the player helps/leads the team to victory is how true value in a player should be measured.
I believe I did that here. I couldn't be more solid about it being a player who keeps his team in the top tier in the conference race.
Like I've overstated, if we were to lose someone like Buggs or Kevin, and no one else stepped up to help Rowdy, and we fell to 6th place because of it, we're now OUT of the top tier, and it hurts Ryan's value as the league's Most Valuable Player.
An above average player on a mediocre team could really stand out by putting up big numbers and become eligible for MVP. But if you put that same player on a good team, he might have more reasonable numbers. That is why it is important for the MVP to come from a good team (final four?).
Quote from: johnestuff on January 24, 2012, 12:17:04 PMAn above average player on a mediocre team could really stand out by putting up big numbers and become eligible for MVP.
This is where he would be a better candidate for League POTY, because he was an above average player on a mediocre team. The League MVP should come from a team in the top tier of the league because that player did what had to be done to lead his team to continue being in that top tier, that makes him valuable, not just his stats.
Quote from: valporun on January 24, 2012, 11:36:52 AM
Quote from: valporun on January 24, 2012, 01:49:49 AMThe MVP should come from a team in the top tier that is valuable to his team's being in the regular season conference title race. How the player helps/leads the team to victory is how true value in a player should be measured.
I believe I did that here. I couldn't be more solid about it being a player who keeps his team in the top tier in the conference race.
Like I've overstated, if we were to lose someone like Buggs or Kevin, and no one else stepped up to help Rowdy, and we fell to 6th place because of it, we're now OUT of the top tier, and it hurts Ryan's value as the league's Most Valuable Player.
OK. I guess we've both elucidated our definitions of MVP, which stand in disagreement, hence it is not surprising our conclusions differ as well.
Thanks.
I feel it's "elucidated", Stl, because you're looking at stats alone, and I'm looking at how the candidate for MVP helps their team win games to be in the top tier. It doesn't have to be all stats based to be MVP, because some of the MVP traits are also leadership on the court and creating offense or defense. Just going by stats alone is a definition for POTY because that can go to an above average player on a mediocre team. While that doesn't happen often, because too many voters put the blinders on to any players not on the 1st or 2nd place teams, or the MVP, some of the above average players lose credit because they weren't MVP candidates who also qualified for POTY.
Quote from: valporun on January 24, 2012, 01:47:54 PM
I feel it's "elucidated", Stl, because you're looking at stats alone, and I'm looking at how the candidate for MVP helps their team win games to be in the top tier. It doesn't have to be all stats based to be MVP, because some of the MVP traits are also leadership on the court and creating offense or defense. Just going by stats alone is a definition for POTY because that can go to an above average player on a mediocre team. While that doesn't happen often, because too many voters put the blinders on to any players not on the 1st or 2nd place teams, or the MVP, some of the above average players lose credit because they weren't MVP candidates who also qualified for POTY.
Actually I'm also looking at how the candidate for MVP helps their team wins games, but I'm willfully ignoring whether or not their team actually wins those games.
To be candid, I have no proposal for who should be MVP because I don't know how to accurately measure that value. If this were baseball, I'd get concrete with you and tell you who I think is the leading candidate for MVP (and baseball also has this superfluous extra award).
I will say your position carries more weight in basketball than it does in baseball, because basketball is more of a team sport than baseball is. That is to say, an offensive possession (with rare exception) requires total teamwork, much like it does in football. Baseball is a stringing together of individual acts for a collective team goal with some -- but not a whole lot -- of teamwork involved with any one baseball event.
However, I remain unconvinced that the right way to measure the MVP is by looking at the standings first. For one thing, players on all 10 teams are equally eligible for the award, as far as I understand.
Maybe there is no way to resolve this impasse, I don't know.
I recently saw Moneyball. Aren't you trying to evaluate only on personal stats in a team concept game. Is that not impossible? It does seem possible in baseball because it is more of an individual talent driven sport. Basketball on the other hand is not. I also believe that the teams performance must go into the evaluation of a player for POTY.
Quote from: bbtds on January 25, 2012, 12:04:36 AM
I recently saw Moneyball. Aren't you trying to evaluate only on personal stats in a team concept game. Is that not impossible? It does seem possible in baseball because it is more of an individual talent driven sport. Basketball on the other hand is not. I also believe that the teams performance must go into the evaluation of a player for POTY.
Then it has to be something a lot better than W-L record or place finish.
Yes, I allowed for the possibility that basketball was too much of a team sport to allow for measuring a player purely by his individual statistics.
Unfortunately, there's only one valid solution I can think of: don't give out individual awards, at least not until you can find some accurate way of measuring a player's value. If you're going to base it on where the team finishes in the standings, you've just turned it into a team award in my opinion.
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 25, 2012, 12:23:43 AMIf you're going to base it on where the team finishes in the standings, you've just turned it into a team award in my opinion.
I do think the POTY's team should at least finish in the top half of the standings. Not necessarily in 1st or 2nd place. If there is no evaluation on how the team finishes then I think you are missing a large component of the value of a player. The value that a player can push his team into at least the top half of the standings. I don't think that this can be totally ignored in a team sport. Otherwise you have the NBA........slightly kidding. :)
Quote from: bbtds on January 25, 2012, 12:32:22 AM
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 25, 2012, 12:23:43 AMIf you're going to base it on where the team finishes in the standings, you've just turned it into a team award in my opinion.
I do think the POTY's team should at least finish in the top half of the standings. Not necessarily in 1st or 2nd place. If there is no evaluation on how the team finishes then I think you are missing a large component of the value of a player.
I'm not missing it. I'm waiting for a valid way to *measure* it.
Quote from: johnestuff on January 24, 2012, 12:17:04 PM
An above average player on a mediocre team could really stand out by putting up big numbers and become eligible for MVP. But if you put that same player on a good team, he might have more reasonable numbers. That is why it is important for the MVP to come from a good team (final four?).
I guess someone should get in touch with Antwaan Randle El and tell him that the Silver Football he won in 2001 needs to be returned to the Trib. Or are your comments exclusively related to basketball?
Sorry but have to weigh in here. MVP is a measure of how would that team have done without that player. To use the analogy of Ryan, if Buggs or KVW go down, and we lose a bunch of games, then one might argue KVW or Buggs were more valuable. So be careful about MVP. If Valpo continues to win some and lose a couple more, the argument may be that Ryan was able to push Valpo to wins. POTY is much simpler, in my humble opinion. If Ryan continues nailing double doubles, scoring big despite KVW or Buggs being out, then it shows he maybe the best player in the league because he'll face tougher Ds. That's why I am not opposed to two different awards. STL, have to respectfully disagree. Andre Dawson in 1987 is a great example. He not only was the POTY that year, but without him the Cubs win 10 games, Wrigley is torn down for a parking lot, and Cubbie fans never have the Zimmer of '89. Andre deserved that MVP because he performed above the call of duty and at a bargain (signed a blank contract to be filled in by management). (FN -- he was awarded damages in a collusion suit with the owners later).
Quote from: valpo84 on January 26, 2012, 05:55:46 AMSTL, have to respectfully disagree. Andre Dawson in 1987 is a great example. He not only was the POTY that year, but without him the Cubs win 10 games, Wrigley is torn down for a parking lot, and Cubbie fans never have the Zimmer of '89. Andre deserved that MVP because he performed above the call of duty and at a bargain (signed a blank contract to be filled in by management). (FN -- he was awarded damages in a collusion suit with the owners later).
Dawson made far too many outs (for example). He had a great year, but both Jack Clark and Dale Murphy created more runs. Salary is irrelevant to me.
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 26, 2012, 07:46:21 AM
Quote from: valpo84 on January 26, 2012, 05:55:46 AMSTL, have to respectfully disagree. Andre Dawson in 1987 is a great example. He not only was the POTY that year, but without him the Cubs win 10 games, Wrigley is torn down for a parking lot, and Cubbie fans never have the Zimmer of '89. Andre deserved that MVP because he performed above the call of duty and at a bargain (signed a blank contract to be filled in by management). (FN -- he was awarded damages in a collusion suit with the owners later).
Dawson made far too many outs (for example). He had a great year, but both Jack Clark and Dale Murphy created more runs. Salary is irrelevant to me.
Winning the MVP while playing for a last place team doesn't show true value to a team. I mean if Dawson was a true value to the Cubs, he would have helped provide that leadership that took the Cubs out of last place, and into a playoff contender in the old NL East, but the Cubs had too many factors that limited Dawson's value. As we've seen anymore, anyone can hit 49 home runs, but doing this on a team who might go on to win the division is better value, than just hitting 49 homers on a bad team. The 49 homers and game-changing catches are a good reason to give him a POTY award, but not MVP. That might have just been a year when the voters didn't have better options?
Quote from: valporun on January 26, 2012, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 26, 2012, 07:46:21 AM
Quote from: valpo84 on January 26, 2012, 05:55:46 AMSTL, have to respectfully disagree. Andre Dawson in 1987 is a great example. He not only was the POTY that year, but without him the Cubs win 10 games, Wrigley is torn down for a parking lot, and Cubbie fans never have the Zimmer of '89. Andre deserved that MVP because he performed above the call of duty and at a bargain (signed a blank contract to be filled in by management). (FN -- he was awarded damages in a collusion suit with the owners later).
Dawson made far too many outs (for example). He had a great year, but both Jack Clark and Dale Murphy created more runs. Salary is irrelevant to me.
Winning the MVP while playing for a last place team doesn't show true value to a team. I mean if Dawson was a true value to the Cubs, he would have helped provide that leadership that took the Cubs out of last place, and into a playoff contender in the old NL East, but the Cubs had too many factors that limited Dawson's value. As we've seen anymore, anyone can hit 49 home runs, but doing this on a team who might go on to win the division is better value, than just hitting 49 homers on a bad team. The 49 homers and game-changing catches are a good reason to give him a POTY award, but not MVP. That might have just been a year when the voters didn't have better options?
MVP should be the one guy in the league that you would pick first to be on your team for that whole season, if you had a time machine and could go back to the beginning of the season with the stats of how they all played that year.
If you were starting a team to play the 1987 season you absolutely would pick Andre Dawson first knowing he would hit 49 home runs and drive in 137 runs.
It's silly to discount the value of a player because the other players on the team aren't good.
BTW... Dawson beat Ozzie Smith and Jack Clark... who played on the NL Champion Cardinals.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1987.shtml#NL_MVP_voting::none (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1987.shtml#NL_MVP_voting::none)
I understand where you're coming from on this, valpo04, but how does that equate to being the league's MVP? I would rather have the MVP be someone who is leading their team to victory, with how they play in leading their top tier of the conference team to victory, otherwise, what we're saying here is "Hell, if the MVP should just be ANYONE, then let's give it to Ben Averkamp of the currently 0-10 Loyola Ramblers". How exactly would his play say that the league should want to give him the MVP award, if he can't help his team get a victory?
Quote from: valporun on January 26, 2012, 02:30:11 PM
I understand where you're coming from on this, valpo04, but how does that equate to being the league's MVP? I would rather have the MVP be someone who is leading their team to victory, with how they play in leading their top tier of the conference team to victory, otherwise, what we're saying here is "Hell, if the MVP should just be ANYONE, then let's give it to Ben Averkamp of the currently 0-10 Loyola Ramblers". How exactly would his play say that the league should want to give him the MVP award, if he can't help his team get a victory?
Because that's not his fault.
I am in agreement with a few posters here in that the MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 of the conference when relating to college basketball. If you are the only good person on your team, you can rack up 30 ppg, 10 rebounds, etc. That doesn't make you the MVP of the league, that makes you the only option on your team. Was Kevin Love even close to the MVP last year in the NBA? No, that is because he was the only one able to produce numbers on his team, so it was much easier for him to average what he did. Heck, he barely made the all-star team.
Quote from: valpotx on January 26, 2012, 04:01:40 PM
I am in agreement with a few posters here in that the MVP/POTY should come from a team in the top 4 of the conference when relating to college basketball. If you are the only good person on your team, you can rack up 30 ppg, 10 rebounds, etc. That doesn't make you the MVP of the league, that makes you the only option on your team. Was Kevin Love even close to the MVP last year in the NBA? No, that is because he was the only one able to produce numbers on his team, so it was much easier for him to average what he did. Heck, he barely made the all-star team.
Now *that* finally begins to make sense. I'm not on board yet, but it sounds plausible.
sectionee
nice write up. My only two changes would be
1) to add K Perry from YSU as at least a runner up for MVP.
2) to add in all other Horizon league teams except CSU as most disappointing. We really stunk in up for the most part in the non-conference games. >:(
I would not consider Valparaiso dissapointing overall (despite the losses to three Summit League teams). Having two players ruled ineligible plus Wood transferring the Michigan State are major obstacles to overcome. Considering everything, Valparaiso has not dissapointed so far.
Quote from: vu84v2 on January 31, 2012, 12:57:15 AM
I would not consider Valparaiso dissapointing overall (despite the losses to three Summit League teams). Having two players ruled ineligible plus Wood transferring the Michigan State are major obstacles to overcome. Considering everything, Valparaiso has not dissapointed so far.
not to mention the changes in roles that players have had to make after last year's graduations.