- Thread starter
- #1
MHSL82
Well-Known Member
Moving the discussion posts to this thread because I want the data on one page. DO STILL COMMENT IN THE OTHER THREAD, AS THAT WILL BE UPDATED AND DISCUSSION POSTS WILL BE MOVED LATER.
Nuggets vs. Jazz - Box Score - October 18, 2017 - ESPN
MVP1: Ricky Rubio - 10 assists accounted for 20 points, plus 9 points, plus 5 rebounds.
MVP2: Joe Ingles - 11 points, 6 assists (12 points), and 5 rebounds.
HM3: Rudy Gobert - 18 points, 1 assist (2 points), and 10 rebounds. Blocks underwhelming though altered shots and offenses staying away from him is beneficial. 6 turnovers disappointing.
HM4: Derrick Favors - 14 points, 4 assists, and four rebounds
HM5: Donovan Mitchell: Didn't shoot well, but still managed double figures, dished the ball out four times, played defense (block and steal), had a great +/- (+22), and as a rookie, given the tiebreaker.
HM6: Joe Johnson - 13 points vs Burks 16, but more assists and rebounds.
HM7: Alec Burks: Simply playing in not getting injured should give him a mention. Just kidding. 16 points off the bench is a good contribution.
I think it's too much data to rank every player, every game.
I think either someone falls into MVP and HM awards, or they don't.
Going as deep as HM7 is too much. Maybe that's only applicable for 52 point wins.
I think only players who deserve MVP or HM should be awarded as such, for every game.
Thanks for your feedback. This is the way I stay interested. This is how I follow along. When my life gets busy, I will drop a few things unless it is interesting to me. Unfortunately, I know that it is not interesting to most people. I want to see an accumulative thing at the end of the year that seems as exact as possible. I used to do three MVPs and two Sixth Man's but I kept finding four MVPs and three sixth man's.
To clarify, really only one MVP or two who are arguable. But I had three people or four people I wanted to mention in some way. I am just taking this to the extreme.
Jazz vs. Timberwolves - Box Score - October 20, 2017 - ESPN
1. MVP1: Ricky Rubio - 19 points, 10 assists, and 5 rebounds? Yeah, that's MVP.
2. MVP2: Rodney Hood - 20 points and 4 assists.
3. HM3: Favors: Had a chance to be MVP with the game winner, but way off and then a turnover.
4. HM4: Gobert - Couldn't put him lower but more egg than ahh.
5. HM5: Joe Ingles - Dependable, but not as good as the Game Opener.
6. HM6: Sefolosha - Good contribution off the bench.
7. HM7: Udoh - Good defense - 3 blocks.
Meant "ehh than ahh." But it autocorrected and I manually did not correct.What does this mean?
Thanks for explaining.
I didn't know you did this in the past, and felt too constrained with 3 MVPs and 2 6th mans.
It makes sense then as to why you are expanding it so much to this level.
What do you think about not having MVPs when it's a bad loss?
On the MLB postgame radio show, they have each of the 4 broadcasters pick MVPs. And they can't pick the same one. And they have to come from the local team.
It frustrates me to hear 4 players mentioned as MVPs when it's an obviously bad loss.
I think if they have to pick 4 MVPs for every game, then they have to pick some from the opposing team during a bad loss.
It's insulting to hear someone mentioned as a MVP after a bad loss, nonetheless 4 MVPs.
Or if they have to pick 4 MVPs, and can only pick the local team, then they should be allowed to pick the same as one of the other broadcasters.
Hence, for your system, I think it's fine then to mention as many people as you want to mention. I just think to be fair, then you should also mention what they did wrong during bad losses.
I think your example of how you mentioned a mistake by Favors, in the next post, is a balanced assessment.
I thought about starting at 5 points for a loss, so it would be:
1. MVP1 - 5 points
2. MVP2 - 4 points
3. HM3 - 2 points
4. HM4 - 1 points
I could even do:
1. MVP1 - 5 points
2. MVP2 - 4 points
3. HM3 - 3 points
4. HM4 - 2 points
5. HM5 - 1 point
But then I wanted to be consistent.
I thought the MVP1 and MVP2 could be close but should be clearly better than HM3. HM3 and HM4 be close, but HM5 clearly be the fifth wheel. So that's why I had the points staggered in the regular and hypothetical loss.
Thunder vs. Jazz - Box Score - October 21, 2017 - ESPN
Difficult.
1. Rudy Gobert - Tempted to give Rubio the third in a row, but Ricky's 6 turnovers, poor shooting, and Rudy's 3 offensive rebounds are three strikes. Plus, I assume defensively Gobert is contributing more than his numbers.
2. Joe Ingles - Yeah, I know. It doesn't make sense to deliberate between Ricky and Rudy, but then give the second spot to someone else than the runner up. Oh well. Shot well, defended well.
3. Ricky Rubio - Still, 16 points and >5 assists and rebounds each is good.
4. Derrick Favors - Box Score check athalf suggested Favors contributed most to their halftime lead. Counts for something.
5. Donovan Mitchell - 6 assists! But mostly, Westbrook did poorly, was he Mitchell's guy?
6. Joe Johnson - 12 points off the bench and got rebounds and defenses
7. Alec Burks - Did more and shot better than Sefolosha.
Thunder vs. Jazz - Box Score - October 21, 2017 - ESPN
Difficult.
1. Rudy Gobert - Tempted to give Rubio the third in a row, but Ricky's 6 turnovers, poor shooting, and Rudy's 3 offensive rebounds are three strikes. Plus, I assume defensively Gobert is contributing more than his numbers.
2. Joe Ingles - Yeah, I know. It doesn't make sense to deliberate between Ricky and Rudy, but then give the second spot to someone else than the runner up. Oh well. Shot well, defended well.
3. Ricky Rubio - Still, 16 points and >5 assists and rebounds each is good.
4. Derrick Favors - Box Score check athalf suggested Favors contributed most to their halftime lead. Counts for something.
5. Donovan Mitchell - 6 assists! But mostly, Westbrook did poorly, was he Mitchell's guy?
6. Joe Johnson - 12 points off the bench and got rebounds and defenses
7. Alec Burks - Did more and shot better than Sefolosha.
Favors lack of rebounding is worrysome.
At the end of the playoffs, I said Favors was about done being a good starting caliber player.
I didn't think his decline could only be explained by injuries.
He's shown some resurgence with his scoring, but 3 games in and he hasn't topped 4 rebounds in any of them. .
I like a lot of things about this year's lineup. But for this team to be as best as possible, it will need Favors to rebound a lot.
Agree. I need the big men to get rebounds and blocks. I need the point guards to get assists and steals. I would like the shooting guards to score. Small forwards should do a bit of everything and fill in everywhere else.
I remember an Ilgauskas possession when he missed 4 layups in a row, and kept getting his own rebound. That might be an extreme example in terms of number of missed shots in a row, but the point remains that offensive rebounds can come at the expense of one's own FG%.