BuzzerBeater Forums

I think it was yoda that said the West teams are all 'business' that's why we don't appeal, either that or the complete opposite and we're the only ones who realise its just a bit of fun and only the opinion of the person putting the time in to write the report or maybe we're just not as big a sooks as the rest of u :P

The North does not appeal either, it is just the sooky South and the exasperating East. We just take the pain. Except for Naker. But we still do not know why he is in the North. Was not he in the West last season? Is that the biggest drop ever?

Maybe the boys in the East can follow my lead - My opponent managed to get the 3 votes in a 40 point win to me and you didn't hear a complaint!

im just very passionate about my favourite player

but i fully accept the judges verdict

all good & now im moving on to my next spanking when haggards ream me tomorrow & i score another 0 votes :(



hey i just remembered

was it your game last season v koop when u spanked him but it was wazza v your team & wazza got 3?

i remember that 1 roflmao

Last edited by abigfishy at 8/18/2011 6:35:57 AM

haha well I don't know about why the rest of you appeal, but the reason that I personally like to appeal is because I like to see how different people think about the value of different players. I don't appeal just to get my guys more points as there is absolutely no chance of me ever winning an MVP title, because frankly, I am unlikely to ever keep a player on my team for long enough :P

correct and you will not that i did not appeal.

Oops I guess that was one of mine. However I think I am on the same side of the fence as Rad Ranga and opposite Monkeybiz and a lot of others. My opinion is the best player in the game should get the votes, not just the best player on a winning team, regardless of the margin. Even more if it is one star alone having to battle an entire team I am likely to give some credit.

Remember ages ago, maybe it was before your time, we had the discussion of LeBron and 4 girl scouts against a NBL team. The final score could easily be 100-50 but with LeBron scoring 50 and being clearly the best player on the court I would still give him the 3 points. Others like Monkey have said they would never give it to him for being on a team that lost so badly and so a random NBL guy that scored 20 would get the 3 points for dominating a girl scout.

The good news is C-Cat doesn't agree with me, he is on Monkeys side that the MVP is for the best player on the winning team. It's just a matter of opinion. No-one has had more of their MVP votes overruled than me and look through all the appeals threads and find a single time that I minded. It is all just subjective in my opinion anyway. Monkey and C-Cat have one opinion and Rad Ranga and I have another. The great news is if I do give votes to the loser in such a circumstance, because C-Cat has the opposite point of view you have an outstanding chance of a successful appeal.

If I get overruled, so what? It's happened so many times in the past and will happen so many more in the future. As long as the players involved in the match are happy it is all good.

As so many people have pointed out it is just a bit of fun and I actually am much more happy to have people reading, discussing and debating the MVPs than being indifferent. We have 48 people in here and it is amazing that almost everyone is so totally reasonable and cooperative.

I like having a good discussion and in Red Ranga's game , it is hard to argue Wall was the best player in the game so he was not "lebron with 4 girl scouts".

The stats are as follows:
G. Wall 48 13 - 28 0 - 1 8 - 8 -25 7 13 4 3 2 2 5 34 11.0

Wall grabs 7 of his 13 rebounds in the 4th Q during garbage time and shot horribly

Opposing C:
E. Volavc 23 8 - 11 0 - 0 1 - 2 +12 2 6 0 1 1 3 3 17 12.5

Shot a really high %

The point I want to make is that ANY team can pad their player's stats by playing him 48 minutes a game. That doesn't make that player the best player in the game. Like I've said earlier, its like Kendrik Perkins (Wall) playing the whole 48 minutes against Dwight Howard (Volavc) and Dwight got the job done in 24 minutes and with no need to come back out in the 4th, they used a lesser player to play. If you gross up Volavc's stats to 48 minutes, his stats are very similar to that of Wall but that is besides the point.

Why should players be rewarded for playing the whole game to have padded stats?? This isn't what MVP should be about. If this is the case, we might as well all run 5 man rosters and play them 48 minutes each to maximise the stats and increase their chances of MVP selection.

Well the GE actually makes that a good option for winning not just for padding stats and grabbing MVPs. In normal games you have to be careful of your minutes so that your stars will end up with 60-70 minutes for the week. In the PL mins don't matter. For very deep and even teams like you or Billy Hoyles Boys it makes sence to spread the minutes evenly. For shallow teams with stars like SmeltzTroopers and Melbourne Goldfish that actually do better in games where Smeltz and Xie do play all 48 minutes. So while stats padding is a factor, it is also helping them to win by playing their stars 48+. It is probably the same with the Rangas and the Great Wall. An exhausted Wall at 48 minutes is still better than his backup.

As for Dwight vs Perkins, 1 minute of Dwight is better than any amount of Perkins and actually now probably less of Perkins is better. When he was on the Celtics with Allen, Garnett and Pierce it didn't matter if he was totally incompetent in offence, now it does. If he is playing next to Ibaka and Sefolosha where are the baskets coming from? Can Durant average 60 a game?

Last edited by yodabig at 8/18/2011 8:42:41 PM

For very deep and even teams like you or Billy Hoyles Boys it makes sence to spread the minutes evenly. For shallow teams with stars like SmeltzTroopers and Melbourne Goldfish that actually do better in games where Smeltz and Xie do play all 48 minutes. So while stats padding is a factor, it is also helping them to win by playing their stars 48+. It is probably the same with the Rangas and the Great Wall. An exhausted Wall at 48 minutes is still better than his backup

True, it is probably their best interests to run their star players 48 minutes but why should the opponents be penalised for having that depth? So does the fact Dwight can afford to take a breather when his team is up by 20 make him less of a MVP candidate because he didn't play the whole game to pad his stats? My personal opinion is that it isn't all about the stats but more about efficiency and what they did in those minutes they were on.

I was using Dwight vs Perkins as an example and not to be taken on a full in depth NBA analysis. Perkins is a NBA player by his own right. Obviously not as gifted as Dwight but if you have him marked by some colleague kid for half the game, he'd prob still put up big stats.

I agree that efficiency is a factor that must be considered. Remember the Naker efficiency debate of 1/17 vs 0/8? One thing where I think we would both agree is that 24 PTS in 24 minutes is a lot better than 28 PTS in 48 minutes. However someone coming on in garbage time and hitting 10 points in 8 minutes doesn't impress me as much.

It just so happens Dwight is my favourite NBA player, even though I am a Bulls fan and I love Rose as well. I have a Dwight jersey which is my only current one (my Pippen one is getting very old and too small now).

Perkins vs College Kid

Perkins stat line.
18 REB 6 BLK 2/3 FGS 5 PTS 1 AST.

One thing where I think we would both agree is that 24 PTS in 24 minutes is a lot better than 28 PTS in 48 minutes

Agreed

However someone coming on in garbage time and hitting 10 points in 8 minutes doesn't impress me as much.

This is more true for the losing team where their stars are against the winning team's scrubs in the 4th as is the case of Ranga's game. Padding stats when being marked by scrubs is hardly worth any consideration for MVP