APBRmetrics

After the last game with Westbrook's 40-point point triple-double, he is out of MVP race. You can't miss three straight threes without giving the ball to anyone else in the end of the game (despite the poor shooting) only to lose by 3 to an another MVP contender's team. And let's add considerably decreasing playoff chances into the mix.

Statistically he had a great night with 40 points 13 assists 11 rebounds. But he definetely lost MVP race already. This is one of those things metrics and advanced stats struggle to capture.

In the same game, Harden fouled out before any of that. He didn't win the game; his teammates did.
Does that hand the MVP to Curry?

Fouling out with 33 seconds left is nowhere near the same thing. Actually fouling can be a good thing and you will see a lot of former great players complain that today's players don't get into a foul trouble.

Although I'm more of a fan of Westbrook than Curry and Harden, they will be the only two players in the MVP race. The last reamining games will decide the winner.

BTW, if we go by your logic that he wasn't even in the game, Westbrook hurt his team in the end. Harden didn't have any effect.

Hmm.
In the pbp, I see Westbrook hit 3 straight 3-pointers from 3:12 to 0:25 in the game.
He assisted on 2 other FG in the span, bringing OKC from 7 down to within 2.
He then missed 3 shots in the final 0:20, including a 33' shot at the buzzer.

If he could always score 9 points on 5 shots (not counting a 3.0 sec possession at end of game) in 3 minutes, that would be .900 eFG% and >100 pts per 36 minutes.

No MVP for you!

Mike G wrote:Hmm.
In the pbp, I see Westbrook hit 3 straight 3-pointers from 3:12 to 0:25 in the game.
He assisted on 2 other FG in the span, bringing OKC from 7 down to within 2.
He then missed 3 shots in the final 0:20, including a 33' shot at the buzzer.

If he could always score 9 points on 5 shots (not counting a 3.0 sec possession at end of game) in 3 minutes, that would be .900 eFG% and >100 pts per 36 minutes.

No MVP for you!

You know, people will only remember the last minute. I was talking about that. If we are going to talk about the last quarter, Westbrook is 3/11 from the field and 2/5 from the line. He even missed 2 freethrows and 1 shot in that span you mentioned. I mean It wasn't "straight" field goal mades. He also got 3 rebounds and 2 assists.

Harden was 4/6 in the last quarter along with 2 assists and 2 rebounds. And Harden's team won the game by only "3" thanks to 3 straight 3-pointer misses by Westbrook in the last 20 seconds.

Westbrook would never win the MVP anyways because of his team's standing.

Mike G wrote:...
If he could always score 9 points on 5 shots (not counting a 3.0 sec possession at end of game) in 3 minutes, that would be .900 eFG% and >100 pts per 36 minutes.
...

I'm trying to figure out whether this is deliberate irony.

As we discussed before, with Iverson on the floor Sixers won "a lot" more (as pointed out by Mike G. +19 wins per season average in his 1996-2006 sixers career which is truly astronomic) and gained a significant boost in TS% and decrease in TO%.

I also mentioned, Sixers won more when Iverson shot more. For details I referred to this post from 2005. http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-stat ... empts.html

Randomly, I came upon an another work of someone else from 2011 that analyses 9 players' primes (between 4 and 9 years depending on the player) and eventually prove Sixers won more when Iverson shot more. But what's more interesting is out of 9 great wing scorers in NBA history (Iverson, Jordan, Kobe, T-mac, Carter, LeBron, Wade, Arenas, Wilkins), Iverson's the only one whose team got better when he shot more although his TS% is the worst out of those 9 and the second worst in games with 30+ fga. On the contrary Wade and Kobe hurt their teams really bad when they shot more. https://elgee35.wordpress.com/2011/02/1 ... -part-iii/

With all of these I think Iverson is a big outlier for today's metrics that every analyst should be aware of and take lessons from it since there can be player actions that impact the game considerably but even the new player-tracking cameras can't capture. Advanced metrics are not at that point that beats "biased" eye test of people that know and watch the game, yet. There's a reason with 100% roster turnover, PER (which is a really bad metric that I never used it in my blends) beats xRAPM. http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.bl ... trics.html

BTW a little bit out of topic but this made me wonder why do people here use xRAPM, RPM, BPM or WS to evaluate player greatness when PER (which I don't like) is better than them at out-of-sample prediction accuracy with 100% roster turnover? I hate PER but if it's more accurate than other metrics at out-of-sample prediction with 100% roster turnover, it means it's better when it comes to value players solely regardless of the teams, teammates and the system they play in. Other metrics I mentioned will beat PER always at predicting at team level because of low roster-turnover rate but it's a whole different story here.

NateTG wrote:

Mike G wrote:...
If he could always score 9 points on 5 shots (not counting a 3.0 sec possession at end of game) in 3 minutes, that would be .900 eFG% and >100 pts per 36 minutes.
...

I'm trying to figure out whether this is deliberate irony.

Well, sure. I left out the fact that Westbrook missed a pair of FT; so really his TS% was only .750 in the last 3:12.
So to be accurate, his per36 avgs "in the end" were 101.3 Pts, 33.8 Reb, and 22.5 Ast

People who hate basketball have said they should just make the score 100-100 and play for one minute: That's the only minute that's worth watching.
I didn't realize some fans also think it's all about the final minute.

Well most of the fans will remember the last minute in these games. That's what I meant. Don't get too dramatical Mike.

Also, he missed a fga in that span too

My bad on the FGx; I am not experienced at reading pbp.
The last minute is most memorable in some games. But why would you clearly remember the desperation shots in the last :20, and not the previous 3 minutes?

Westbrook rested the first 3 minutes of the 4th quarter. OKC behind by 9 when he re-entered. They go on to tie the game. Not only was he scoring, dishing, and rebounding, he was the one guy who had the wherewithal to foul someone at the end.

These facts are all part of the record. When you claim "people" or "most fans" focus on the same select events that you do, you're fooling only yourself.
Anyone can cherry-pick events, but that's not what analysis is.

Also, Westbrook fouled out Harden, and there isn't a stat that contains this.

with Iverson on the floor Sixers won "a lot" more (as pointed out by Mike G. +19 wins per season average in his 1996-2006 sixers career ..

For the record, I wrote "almost 19 wins per 82 games"; but Iverson averaged 68 games in his 10 full years there. So 15-16 wins per year, relative to no-Iverson.

Mike G wrote:My bad on the FGx; I am not experienced at reading pbp.
The last minute is most memorable in some games. But why would you clearly remember the desperation shots in the last :20, and not the previous 3 minutes?

Westbrook rested the first 3 minutes of the 4th quarter. OKC behind by 9 when he re-entered. They go on to tie the game. Not only was he scoring, dishing, and rebounding, he was the one guy who had the wherewithal to foul someone at the end.

These facts are all part of the record. When you claim "people" or "most fans" focus on the same select events that you do, you're fooling only yourself.
Anyone can cherry-pick events, but that's not what analysis is.

Also, Westbrook fouled out Harden, and there isn't a stat that contains this.

with Iverson on the floor Sixers won "a lot" more (as pointed out by Mike G. +19 wins per season average in his 1996-2006 sixers career ..

For the record, I wrote "almost 19 wins per 82 games"; but Iverson averaged 68 games in his 10 full years there. So 15-16 wins per year, relative to no-Iverson.

Alright, those were my opinions no matter what. Let's see how the MVP balloting will go.

Well let me correct it, it's "almost" 19 games per 82 games in that 1996-2006 sixers era then