BuzzerBeater Forums

yep, i'll take a couple weeks off, let all this heat die down.

yep, i'll take a couple weeks off, let all this heat die down.

LOL It's all good, Rad Ranga. At leat you stepped up when none of us did.

I'm happy to do tomorrow's games if you want. HOWEVER, despite what I just wrote about lengthier writeups, tomorrow's will be short and sweet as I'm pissin' it up this weekend. I won't get to them until Saturday morning...er...afternoon!

yep, i'll take a couple weeks off, let all this heat die down.

LMAO

Mate don't take it to heart. If you have a look at the couple of seasons before you joined the PL you'll see Naker appealed a fair few of my votes

His "Veterans" needed their votes lol

dont forget to tip for tomorrow nights games

im looking at you Iwen, Datzilla, SKyhookz, crazy australian, matt1986, JW and koops

we can't have anymore people clogging up the bottom of the scoreboard where i am!

...and usually by the time the appeal was resolved his players had been sold and were playing in Siberia anyway.

I agree the shooting percentage is the most important thing here. If a player on the losing team scored a crapload of points, and hit them at a high percentage, then I see no reason why they can't get 3 votes (unless their team got grossly blown out by like 40 points).

If they shot at a low percentage, there's a strong case for not giving them a vote at all.

i'm going to go out on a limb here and put forward an alternative point of view...

a player on a losing team should very very rarely get 3 pts unless he was incredible compared to every other player, and the score was close. I make this point cos in real life, and in NBA 2K, a player will very rarely get "player of the game" if their team lost, regardless of how well they played. And I reckon that kind of makes sense. How could a player be the "most valuable player" of a game if their team didn't even win?

Anyways, just wanted to bring it up as a point for discussion - not passionate about it or anything so whatever the masses agree to, i'm happy with :)

As generally i end up with the final say if it goes to a dispute i thought I'd cherp up just so people know my thought pattern for this sort of dealio.


As Yoda has said if there is an appeal i will generally rule in favor of the winning teams player. My theory is the game is about the team winning and not an individual getting the best stats, the MVP is meant to be the most valuable player in the game and once again not the highest stats, in my mind its very hard for someone on a losing team to be the most valuable in the game as the simple fact is they haven't achieved the soul reason for going out there, to win the game of basketball. If a guy scores 30 points yay good on him impressive stats, end of the day if his team loses it means nothing, its a team sport if his team loses he has failed. 20 points on a winning team means more to me as he has helped his team achieved what they set out to do, the best player on the losing team hasn't.


Having said that there are exceptions of course its not completely straight forward, If a player scores 50 points on 70% shooting in a team his team loses by 8 points a case can be made he was the only reason it was close so while his team didn't achieve its goal he sure as hell busted his ass to try and make it happen.

I also take into account opponents, if someone scores 50 on my nanna or half of it is in junk time then that isn't that valuable it is, 9 out of 10 players would have done the same to poor old nanna Joyce....


Sincerely, your friend C-Cat

You obviously have not seen how my team plays without patient!

Ok I'm going to use an example from AFL.

Gary Ablett Junior.

His team lost almost every game in their debut season, and yet he was still one of the biggest contenders for the brownlow / MVP.
why... because even tho his team lost, and usually by a lot of points, he was the best player on the field
are you going to say he can't be that good, coz if he was his team would have won?

sorry but i can't agree with this line of thinking, and i think its an individual award and i haven't based it solely on scoring.

if you want to make it a rule that 3 points goes to a player from the winning team which just happens to be a super well balanced team, over a team with 1 super star and 4 lesser players, then someone else can do the write ups coz i just don't see it that way. Without that superstar player, that team would have lost by a hell of a lot more, and their contribution to the game in adverse circumstances should be bloody well recognised.

i've had a shit day and have my back up a bit.
so i apologise if i offend anyone

Rangry

I'm with the Ranga,

It's called MVP. P standing for Player. Not Team. If you want to know who the best team is just look at the ladder. It's not the MVP fault he is surrounded by deadshit's, that's the coaches or the owner of the teams problem.