Comments on: So Who’s the MIP? (Episode II)

By: Yariv

Yariv — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 02:00:10 +0000

Basketball Brawl, even if an increase in USG% leads to decrease in WS/48, I would not expect to see a negative correlation between the stats. The reason being, teams will try to adjust USG% so that marginal WS/48 will be equal among players, and this will probably mean higher avarage WS/48 for higher USG% players (this is pretty much hand waving, but this is what you'll see if the drop behaves similarily for different players, generally speaking). So in this case you'll see a general positive correlation.

You might suggest looking for correlation for a player on different seasons, but this will be extremely noisy, with level of player changing, partners and positions changing, etc. And then, of course, is the problem of cause and effect (although in the case of negative correlation, it should be the obvious direction).

By: Darren

Darren — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:05:25 +0000

This is incredible! All that math we learned in high school and college is finally coming in use. How much time did it take you to develop this formula, enter all the data, and come up with your results?

I agree that the formula you used here to determine the MIP is interesting, but like you said, a formula may not be (and probably isn't) the best way of determining who should receive the honor of the most improved player.

By: Basketball Brawl

Basketball Brawl — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 05:32:45 +0000

Justin,

Is there a negative correlation between WS/48 and either minutes per game or USG%? Obviously no matter how negative the correlation, Aaron Brooks probably should not have won last year, but the idea is this:

If there is a negative correlation, then besides just weighting last 3 seasons' WS/48, we would also have to adjust by changes in minutes per game or USG% to come up with a "decreasing marginal productivity"-adjusted expected WS/48.

Voters do have some ground to vote for players with much higher minutes, if they outperformed the expected loss of productivity from those higher minutes.

By: Matt Johnson

Matt Johnson — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:58:12 +0000

@23. Just saying it's a negative factor to consider when looking at how truly useful the player is. If two players scored equally by the above metric, but one player had a massive minutes edge, obviously that player gets the nod, no? So then it's just a question of how much you should weight it, and there is just fierce competition this year with that kind of MPG edge.

By: khandor

khandor — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:30:34 +0000

Derrick Rose, Kyle Lowry, LaMarcus Aldridge, Dorell Wright and George Hill have each improved their play a considerable amount this season.

By: lorrance

lorrance — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:15:38 +0000

With a 6 point 4 rebound improvement and Improvement in all his shooting percentages, Kevin Love should win this award hands down. I think the MIP is usually for someone who either goes from being a mediocre or hardly contributing player to being someone who is producing on an all star level. An all star who becomes a superstar in his third or 4th season shouldn't get that award unless his improvement is so vast it far outweighs someone else. Kevin Love is the first 20 and 15 guy since moses malone if i'm not mistaken.

By: Greyberger

Greyberger — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 04:56:44 +0000

Re:21, that was a response to the 'begs the question why Chandler doesn't get more minutes' part - He's assigned fewer minutes in the hopes of playing more games. In those minutes he's been very valuable - and if his minutes are managed to avoid injuries it stands to reason that his minutes are coming at more critical moments than bench players.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:02:20 +0000

Your data, ie win shares, definitely is non-stationary and auto-correlated. If you wanted to find the most surprising player, wouldn't it make more sense to compare the error terms of an AR model's projection versus the actual to see what player actually had the most surprising improvement given his ascent/descent in recent years?

By: Matt Johnson

Matt Johnson — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 18:11:34 +0000

@13 "Can't say for sure but he has a history of missing games. Some players never play 82 in a season. Kidd and Nowitzki can do 80 or 82 games no problem, Chandler always ends up missing a few.

Fewer minutes might be a way to manage that."

The need to conserve the player to maintain his high level of play is relevant to consider how valuable the player is, no?

By: Larry

Larry — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 08:54:09 +0000

hey neil what about JJ Barea from the mavs, i saw him play last year but this season he has phenomenal often helping Dallas win close games. he has been just amazing, better than jason kidd this year oohh and playing just 20 minutes a game.