BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

lol i dunno why I'm replying as i really don't care that much, probably more to be a cunt and rile you up now that you've mentioned your shitty


But just thought I'd point out how horrible that example is for your argument

Ablett didn't win the brownlow despite probably having a better season then when he did win it. Had he played last season like that at Geelong who were successful instead of Gold Coast who wasn't its pretty likely he'd have won it. So was probably a good example for me to use but not for you I could be wrong but i cant really remember any games he polled 3 votes where they got completely smashed, or even 2 votes for that matter.


I see peoples point that its the "Most Valuable PLAYER" but i think what people on my side of the fence are trying to point out is who is he most valuable to? I don't think himself or his mothers scrap book really counts because if he isn't getting his team over the line he cant be to much value to them....



Like i said i dont really care, I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, your wrong but we cant all be right and I'm more then happy for you to keep doing it in your votes hahaha. Pretty sure I've smashed a team and the opposition got the 3 votes several times but it doesn't bother me its up to the person who puts the time in to do the votes as far as I'm concerned, its a nice little extra we get and is not something people should expect and expect to be 100% right every single time, beggars cant be choosers. There hasn't been an appeal for yonkers so i think people are pretty willing to accept what ever the voter hands out now days anyway.

I mostly agree with C-Cat but often in a very close game and especially if the game went to OT I look at who steppend up in the clutch for either team. Sometimes it is someone who didn't have much influence on the game otherwise so they wont get a vote but sometimes it can be a good tie breaker. But in very close games where it is down to the wire I think being on the winning team or not is irrelevant.

Scenario:

Maggots vs Rangas

Maggots have 5 players with 20 points each.
Rangas have Gab Wall with 39 and 6 randoms with 10.
1 second to go and a random Ranga takes the shot to win.

According to some if he makes the shot Gab Wall gets the MVP, if the random misses then one of the Maggots gets the MVP. I think that is total bull. In a blowout or big win the MVP should come from the winning team except in very unusual circumstances, in a close game I don't rate getting the win very much at all.

Surely no one has an issue with a team losing a close game having the MVP. I'm talking in games were people play Patient and then lose by 20 points....

Not sure if any of the other managers who do write ups check it but I eliminate the garbage quarters and I find that quite often those who play patient and lose by a big margin tend to have their go to man jack up like 15-20 points per garbage quarter. ;)

If LORDY plays Patient, the score is 80 all at the start of the 4th, then Underwood who had scored 60 of his team's 80 on 75% shooting gets injured and the team loses by 20 then I still think he has a fair shot to be the MVP depending on the stats of the players on the winning team (lets say no-one else had more than 20 PTS or 8 REB or 4 AST). But if I did give him the MVP I would feel a little uneasy.

its a big fkn gray area and it all comes down to opinion.