The issue I have with the NBA comparison is the lack of truly national sports journalists that the NBL has. They'll give voting rights to the Dwayne Russell's and Bill Woods' of the league before they give them to lesser known but more qualified journos (including some of the better bloggers around).

Most journos who work for a big network or paper are just going to vote for the best player on his hometown team, or the leading scorer.

The voting process can favour players on weak teams, but I don't think Randle winning would be a travesty this season.

Who else? Many have been keen on Ogilvy. Now Lisch. But Penney has been doing serious damage. They've all shared the load in Wollongong while Randle has been a stand out in almost every game.

The article mentions Randle having no other stars on his team, but Johnson is 7th in league scoring and first in rebounding. Further, Randle isn't on a losing team - Adelaide are 11-10 and more or less in the four.

Perth hasn't had a clear MVP type. Nor Melbourne.

I think Randle might win 2015/16 with an adjusted voting system anyway.


What's NBA? Media vote at the end of the season?

And AFL is refs voting after each game?

I think something post-game would be good. Panel of media and ex-players?

I agree that Randle winning would not necessarily be a travesty. He's right in the mix for mine.

But I still don't like the current system.

Having every game on TV finally makes it at least possible to have people other than participating coaches/refs voting.
It would also be cool to have a separate one like along the lines of the AFLPA MVP, which is voted like this:

"The MVP is awarded to the player acknowledged by his peers to have displayed leadership, versatility, ability to play under pressure, skill and courage, respect for all players and overall value to a team.
MVP voting is a two-stage process, beginning with each player voting for the three teammates he considers to have been the most valuable this season.
Then, in the second round of voting, all AFL players vote for their MVP on a 3-2-1 basis from the three nominees of the 17 other clubs."

Would be good to get the players' perspectives IMO.

I think the current system with capped 3-2-1 style voting would solve the "best of a bad bunch" problem. It would stop Randle (just using him as an example) from getting the same or more votes as a players on the winning team who would more likely be sharing them.

Uluc's argument basically boils down to "NBL MVP is unfair because it biases against those with good teammates, we should change it to a system that biases against those with bad teammates."

Not to mention that NBA MVPs have also been won for things like not being Michael Jordan (Charles Barkley), being on a team that traded for Pau Gasol (Pau Gasol), not leaving to go to Miami (Derrick Rose)...

And that's on top of the inherent problem with judging things only after the season is over: players who perform well in the first half of the season get forgotten about. And a guy like Lisch is likely to fly under the radar the entire season anyway.

And frankly, given the number of people upset Kevin Lisch isn't in the MVP conversation, isn't he actually in the MVP conversation?

And if Goulding gets mentioned as an MVP candidate one more bloody time...

The argument has always been that it's a "Most Valuable" award, rather than "Best".
Now to some, there's no difference, as in "Player X is the Most Valuable because he's the Best."
However some would argue that "Most Valuable" is about the size of the hole they would leave. ie that say Randle is more VALUABLE to his team.

The problem I have with these systems (and its the same in most sports) is that EVERY game gets the same number of points. So an ugly, sloppy crapfest between two bottom teams gets the same number of points as a ripping cracker between the two best teams.

There's also an inherent problem with these types of points systems. By giving the best player 5 points, its saying he's FIVE times more valuable than a guy who gets one point.

And putting the responsibility on coaches is a joke.
I'm sure there have been some coaches who do their utmost to fair and impartial, and that there have been others who see this as nothing other than a strategic opportunity, plus every opinion in between.

Ultimately, just like with similar awards (such as the Brownlow) I think the league likes the controversy that always results.

And giving three Brownlow votes to the best player is basically saying he's infinitely better than the players who don't get votes. So?

There's also no rule that you have to allocate five votes to anyone. You could give ten different players one vote each, if you wanted.

This bias in this thread is impressive.

This bias in this thread is impressive.

You don't really know who MVP is until you take that player away.

Hawks are pretty ordinary without Penney, but they'd be equally ordinary without Lisch or Ogilvy.

Childress is far and away the MVP of his team as the Kings are absolutely rubbish without him, but he has obviously not played enough to earn it.

But I've no problem with Randle winning the award, he is the only star on the team, even if Johnson is going ok statistically.

If you actually go back and look at the winners, it is almost always a star from one of the best teams, despite the myths about the system favouring players from weaker teams.

I don't think Randle is the MVP, he gets abused defensively, his efforts at the end are mediocre, and despite the great individual show he puts on he hasn't really made his teammates or team better.

He is an awesome individual talent though and I hope he plays a few more years in the NBL!

Lisch is my MVP.
BEAST!

I think they'll give it to CG43. He puts bums on seats and gets people talking about it.

Be interesting to see how it works out this year.

Ennis missing it a few years back was a joke. He was clearly the league MVP.

Except that if it had been voted on by NBL journalists that year Goulding would have got it ahead of Ennis and Clarke. The voting system mirrored what those who covered the league thought.

Ogilvy and Lisch are both legit candidates, but with those two and Penney on the same team they're going to steal votes off each other.

"The 36ers are 10 wins 8 losses with Randle, id hate to see the record we would have without him, so i reckon its fair to say he makes his team better."

Similar line-ups the past two years with different imports had better records than that. The 36ers were similarly competitive against Perth in Adelaide and United in Melbourne without Randle as they were with him.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching his skills and late-game toughness, but he was effectively an addition given McNeail barely played and he hasn't given the team that big a boost results wise.

Perhaps in fairness to Randle, Gibson's injury seems to have got a lot worse and perhaps he has filled the breach.

But it's taken until the past few weeks for the D to get back to where it was before Randle arrived, and on the weekend the Crocs completely exposed him at that end. Thankfully for the 36ers he more than repaid the favour at the other end!

Goulding, Webster and Holt are no chance whatsoever at MVP.

Agree that the system needs to change.

I'd like to hear proposals for an alternative though.

How many respectable journos do we have?

How many do we need?

Boti Nagy
Roy Ward
Grantley Bernard

Plus a few more. Then add a few respected past players. The GOAT of the NBL- Andrew Gaze. Derek Rucker who's been commentating with Fox Sports.

We could come up with a list of 12-15 respected journos and ex players and then have an NBA style system. Is 12-15 enough? I think so.

Not sure if Bernard is still active but think he'd still follow the league.

Journo emeritus if you like

Luuuc, a two-round voting system would have to be worth considering. Though I wonder what the player filter would really accomplish, even if it were picking 2 from a team of 10.

I think players can be good judges of their opponents. Maybe if one filter is players picking from everyone outside their team. And their votes count rather than just nominating. e.g., which Hawks or United players would their opponents tip as the best? Then involve media or coaches or whoever as the other component.

But the Brownlow system does favour winning teams so there's merit in a game-by-game vote. Not to mention suspense in unveiling.

GB's not covering NBL anymore. Not sure how much he follows the league TBH.

I think a system where those closest to the game vote on game-by-game performance is far superior than one where those who follow to varying degrees vote by memory and perception at the end of the season.

You could tweak the NBL system a little, but it has delivered very good results over a long period of time so I see no reason to change.

Only if you want Vaughan Mayberry to win the award!

I don't think so, I think coaches works well, but I am a fan of making the votes publicly available after the award is given.

I don't think that Brian Conklin winning the award constitutes a "good result".

However, my biggest gripe with the current system is not the voting system, it’s the secrecy and potential for lack of objectivity. So Paul’s suggestion of making the votes public is something that must be done as a bare minimum. And it would be a huge improvement.

LV, look at the winners over the 37 years of the NBL and tell me how many weren't worthy. How many were on non-playoff teams? How many led their team to the GF?

Arm yourself with the actual facts before making an opinion based on one example you believe to be unworthy.

How long has the current system been in place? Since the beginning of the league?

I thought that it used to be a media vote done at the end of the season, but that might have just been something Channel 10 did when they first stuffed up...I mean, broadcast the league.

"How many respectable journos do we have?"

Need to include Isaac and Agent Orange in this list.

Paul, if it's been clearly wrong once in 37 years, then that's once too many. Is it not?

When Andrew Gaze was at his peak, it wouldn't have mattered what system they used- it would always have been him.

Plus, I haven't been alive for 37 years, much less following NBL.

However, Brian Wethers is another example that springs to mind.

"Paul, if it's been clearly wrong once in 37 years, then that's once too many. Is it not?"

No. If I have a system that gets it right 97% of the time in pretty much any area of life I'd be very happy with it.

I ask you this about last year, which player clearly deserved it more than Conklin?

I'm proposing a system that would get it right 100% of the time. That is, 37 years in a row!

Wilson, Jackson, Wilbekin would have all been "right" candidates last season. All more deserving than Conklin. Perhaps there were others too but those are the ones who spring to mind.

Most “Valuable” player should not go to a guy who’s been so valuable that his team’s out of playoff contention three quarters of the way through the season. (Unless, perhaps, he’s on a team of complete hacks with a hopeless coach. Which was not the case).

Basketball is a team sport with 5 players on the court. Value is determined by how much you contribute to your team’s success. I could envisage examples where individuals from moderate or lowly teams could be deserving winners (eg: Rotnei Clarke. Chris Goulding would also have been a worthy winner that year). However. If your team is completely unsuccessful and playing dead rubbers for the last few weeks of the season then it should be an uphill battle to win MVP, and you certainly shouldn’t win it against star candidates from good teams as happened last season. And it’s very reasonable to suppose that the voting system was responsible for that bad result.

"I'm proposing a system that would get it right 100% of the time. That is, 37 years in a row!"

Is there one? In any walk of life?

Using a system that is similar to the system they use in the NBA would get it right 100% of the time.

And keep in mind that by "right", I mean *not clearly wrong*.

Which is what happens in the NBA, funnily enough.

And I think having 12-15 voters would be enough diversity to ensure accurate results as well.

And, I totally agree with Chalmers point about selection of quality candidates.

I would suggest a system where by people can self apply to be appointed to the MVP panel. The NBL can also approach people themselves- so the application could go both ways but ultimately the NBL puts together a list of qualified candidates.

This should include journalists- including expert analysts who are not necessarily on the payroll of a major news organisation eg: Bloggers- and past players and coaches who still have a keen interest in the league. Preferably those who still have an active role eg: Commentators.

"Wilson, Jackson, Wilbekin would have all been "right" candidates last season."

All of them were good candidates once Childress was out of the picture, but none were standouts over Conklin due to some poor sections of the season.

Wilson - Averaged under 15ppg, shot 38% and had 12 turnovers to 13 assists across his first five games, in which many agreed he was hurting the team more than helping it.

Wilbekin - Averaged under 12ppg at 31% across a 12-game stretch mid-season, that's almost have the season.

Jackson - Shot below 40% in 20 of 28 games, had 13 games with four or more turnovers.

All of those guys had very good but sometimes flawed seasons that stopped them being clear cut favourites.

Conklin wasn't as brilliant at his best but was more consistent (only 3 games with single-figure efficiency - Cedric & Scottie both had 9, Jamar 4), hence why he made the All-First team alongside Childress, Motum, Jackson and Wilbekin.

Out of interest, top five efficiency ratings for last season:

Childress 25.2 (18 games)
Motum 17.7 (22 games)
Conklin 17.5 (28 games)
Wilson 17.4 (24 games)
Worthington 17.0 (27 games)

"I would suggest a system where by people can self apply to be appointed to the MVP panel."

I've covered the NBL as a journo very closely for seven seasons now, but my level of knowledge of what happens on the court isn't close to the coaches who spend hours studying film and understanding who does what for each team.

We have a system that is better than the AFL or NBA because the most knowledgeable people vote, not those who can't do it so they write about it or officiate it!

Make the votes of coaches available to add greater accountability and it is one of the best systems going around.

Wilbekin was *easily* the most valuable player on the team who finished on top. That was completely obvious last season and is even more obvious with the benefit of hindsight which has shown how far Fearne's mighty have fallen without him. Pointing out that he had a poor stretch does nothing to nullify the overall influence that he had in leading the Taipans to 2 games clear on top of the table.

Jackson isn't a great shooter and regularly turns it over a lot. The same applied to Darryl McDonald. Next....

(Btw, why doesn't "Conklin played on a sh!t team and therefore wasn't that valuable" trump a couple of issues with the game of a guy who is excellent in so many areas?)

Wilson started poorly, but so did the Tigers in 1997 when they were 3-9...you know this history so well.

I get that you're trying to make a case for Conklin. But my point stands. It is simply unfathomable to me that a guy whose team was literally out of playoff contention with ages left in the season was a deserving winner. Perhaps if Conklin had averaged 25 points a game, if his team was infinitely better with him on court, and he led the league in efficiency I could be convinced otherwise. But that was not the case.

Yeah, I would be open to allowing the current coaches to vote, Paul, in addition to journos in the NBA style system. Because as I said earlier- it would add the transparency that is currently sorely missing.

The game by game voting system needs to be replaced. You can virtually guarantee that Conklin would have got 4 or 5, maybe even 7 or 8 of a possible 20 votes in many games last season. Whereas Jackson would have had Webster taking votes off him and Wilson and Motum would have been stealing votes off each other, and the line.

and the like*

I don't want Andrew Gaze anywhere near a revised media figure voting system. He'd vote for a Melbourne player every time, and probably spell his name wrong.

Actually Chalmers the opposite is true- I think he'd vote for anyone *but* a Melbourne United player.

"The game by game voting system needs to be replaced."

That's the only way to do it. Voting at the end of the season makes it hard to accurately reflect the season. How many people actually remember Wilbekin's long down stretch last season?

Any analysis of last year shows Conklin performed at a similar level to Wilbekin, Jackson and Wilson, yet based on memory you believe him winning MVP was a travesty.

That's one important reason why game-by-game voting is important.

Statistically as an individual, Conklin did well. You can provide "analysis" of his individual statistics but it does not make a case. We're talking about Most Valuable Player. "Value" = contribution to success.

Kevin Love did well in 2011 for the Timberwolves when he averaged about 30 points and 25 rebounds (Ok, it was more like 20 and 15....), but he didn't get anywhere near the MVP did he? The Timberwolves finished 17 and 65.

You can put up nice numbers but if your team is crap then you shouldn't be the MVP. As a general rule. Nothing you've said in this thread has even gone close to showing why Conklin was a deserving exception to that rule.

And, to repeat, the whole point of this thread is that the NBL's system is such that it advantages people like Conklin. It has resulted in someone winning an MVP who did not deserve it. Not just "debateably" wasn't the most deserving winning, but someone won who uncategorically did not deserve it. Therefore, the system needs to be replaced.

Again, actually do some research about who has won the MVP, the facts just don't support the myth that the system favours players on poor teams.

The fact is that Conklin was the 2015 NBL MVP.

Again, once is once too many.

But you haven't presented a case against Conklin winning MVP, and you haven't presented a case for anyone who stood out above him, you just seem to be going on perception.

Suggesting his team didn't make the finals is not a strong argument given his supporting cast was Norton, Steindl, Gladness, Holmes, Blanchfield and half a Markovic.

Compare that to the supporting cast most of the other contenders had and it makes Conklin's consistent efficient all the more impressive and important for his team.

Paul do you actually think Conklin was a deserving winner?

I thought you more or less conceded earlier that he wasn't. Unless I was making up implications of your posts.

You obviously haven't been reading my posts! Childress was the standout last season, Conklin, Motum, Jackson, Wilson and Wilbekin were the next lot.

Once Childress got injured one of those guys who had a very good but not great season was going to win it. I've seen no case to show Conklin is less deserving than any of those other guys.

Gary Ablett would have about 6 Brownlows if his team's record didn't count.

His team's record doesn't count, it's done on game-by-game voting!

So this is what confuses me. Why, Paul, when this award is called the "Most Valuable Player", would you even have a guy whose team finished 11-17 in the same group as guys whose teams went 21-7, 19-9, and 17-11?

(Unless, as I've already said, his teammates were total hacks, or he completely dominated the league, or you could show clearly that his team would be far far worse without him. None of which are the case).

In other words, surely team success is of prime importance here?

Team success is relative.

If a player is at a club with a small budget he shouldn't be disadvantaged, just as someone recruited by a high-spending club shouldn't get an advantage because they have better teammates.

You can say a player has good teammates stealing votes, but they also have good teammates making their job easier.

I think the Brownlow method should be the method used in the NBL. You wouldn't see the Conklin's/best of a bad bunch getting too many of the 2's and 3's unless they dominated, which he didn't.

Paul, do you think the Crocs would have still won a handful of games without Conklin?

I don't like the 3-2-1, but it would be good to tinker with it so if three players all stand out for one team they don't get maxed out of the voting.

Who knows, but he did average over 20ppg in their wins so he was obviously very important in their ability to over-achieve last season.

It was very impressive the way he changed his game from an undersized centre to a mobile power forward in one off-season and then was the best PF in the league.

Nice evasion of the question :-)

I think if you answer "yes" it becomes clear why Conklin should not have been anywhere near the MVP.

But my answer isn't yes. Take 20 points out of those wins and how many do they get? Who would have picked up the slack on that Crocs team

When Conklin's efficiency rating was below 14 the Crocs were 1-5, when it was between 14-19 they were 3-6, when it was 20+ they were 7-6 (with those losses against the top four).

Those stats suggest his performance was pretty important for the team.

Stop avoiding presenting a case for your argument, either you've got something to show Conklin wasn't at a similar level to Wilson, Jackson and Wilbekin or you don't.

So, you believe that Crocs team would not have won a handful of games without Conklin, even though they had a bunch of seasoned NBL players (Markovic, Blanchfield, Holmes) a one dimensional but decent 7 foot interior player (Gladness) and a bunch of decent and improving youngsters (Steindl, Norton etc)??

Well if you honestly believe that, then the idea that Conklin is in the MVP picture makes a lot of sense. Because if you think they would've won 2 or 3 games without him then you’re arguing he’s worth 8 or 9 wins.

I think they had a team that was capable of getting to 5 or 6 wins without him.

If you look at the others we have discussed- and especially Wilbekin- and the composition of those rosters, how successful those teams were and the roles they played on those successful teams, then those guys were all very valuable.

This alone tells you how important Conklin was to the Crocs' performance:

When Conklin's efficiency rating was below 14 the Crocs were 1-5, when it was between 14-19 they were 3-6, when it was 20+ they were 7-6 (with those losses against the top four).

Paul, your stat shows that Conklin was valuable to his team.

The other guys were valuable to their teams too- the difference being that their teams were much more successful. Being valuable in a successful team makes you more valuable than being valuable in a crap team.

For example when Wilbekin's efficiency was 10 or less, the Taipans were 6-6. When his efficiency was 11 or more they were 15-1.

But it's not Conklin's fault he wasn't on a talented team. A player can't do anything else but be valuable to his team.

My point is Conklin last season was at a similar level to Jackson, Wilbekin and Wilson - I'm not disputing them as legitimate candidates - and you still haven't provided anything to refute that.

If you're going to claim the MVP system is broken because Conklin won it, you need to provide something pretty good to back that up.

"The year before ennis was easily mvp he shouldn't be punished for being on a strong team. Clarke was great and should be up there but he wasn't as good as ennis."

The majority of journos etc asked actually said Goulding was MVP that year, so the claim it was easily Ennis doesn't really hold water.

ROFL.
Doesn't matter what system you use there will always been controversy. In fact, people's criticism of the "system" seems to stem from not liking particular results.
Conklin was an ok winner. I don't think he was my pick, but IIRC I had him in my starting 5, he was the best PF in the comp last year.
In the previous year, I think a lot of people thought Ennis was the best player, but you will always have disagreement.

Votes need to be done round by round, but they must also be made public. (A Brownlow style count might be ok.)

Dazz the voice of reason!

"Does anyone really believe Goulding is better than ennis."

It's not about that, it's about what they did in the season in question. Goulding, Ennis and Clarke all had outstanding seasons and would all have been worthy winners.

Personally, the slight thing that had me put Goulding ahead was he carried a team with limited offensive ability, Ennis was a finisher on a team that had been a top two scoring team for the previous four seasons, and probably the best team at creating open-court scores from their defence.

It's not Conklin’s fault that he didn’t have better teammates but he could have helped them win more than 11 games- a Most Valuable Player needs to do so. Wilbekin or Cedric Jackson would’ve, and we all know Wilbekin and Jackson are better players. Motum and Childress would too- the only reason they couldn’t be included is because they missed too many games.

Conklin effectively did a Steven Bradbury, aided and abetted by a game-by-game system that places as much importance on games played when the Crocs have already missed the playoffs as games that propelled the Taipans to the top of the ladder!

The system isn’t "broken" but it could be better.

And I gave an NBA style system as an example of something better. Tell me - and this is a legitimate question- has anyone from a team with a 32-50 record ever won the NBA MVP?

But why shouldn't a player from a 32-50 team win MVP?

And I've already mentioned in this thread three NBA MVPs who were bad selections (although I accidentally called Kobe Bryant 'Pau Gasol').

Are votes actually secret in the NBL? This thing about Perth only voting for their own players had to come from somewhere, and when they had an awards dinner didn't they do round-by-round counts? That won't tell you which coach gave which votes, but it'd narrow it down.

"It's not Conklin's fault that he didn’t have better teammates but he could have helped them win more than 11 games- a Most Valuable Player needs to do so."

As I said, team success is relative. A player's team might finish top but have the talent to finish top. Another's may finish 6th but have the 8th most talent in the comp.

Again LV, you have used Conklin winning as evidence the system must be changed, so now you should present a case that shows he was clearly behind Wilbekin, Wilson and Jackson.

So far it just looks like you didn't like Conklin winning and are blaming the system for it.

Conklin effectively did a Steven Bradbury

Paul- Wilbekin was crucial to the success of a team that finished 2 games clear on top of the table. Jackson was crucial to the team that finished 2nd, and Wilson was crucial to the team that finished 3rd.

Conklin was crucial to a team who was out of finals contention with a month to go in the season.

Team success is "relative" of course, but in *this case* when the discrepancy between the teams is *this huge* then you need an *extremely good* case for Conklin if you want him to be in the conversation. The case for Conklin simply is not good enough. I've given you several examples of the types of things you'd need to make a good case, but the case hasn't been made. That's because there isn't a case to be made.

Just re reading this thread- Paul, the stat you quoted yesterday was an impressive illustrator of Conklin's value last season. I’ll admit you’ve demonstrated his value sufficiently to show that he should’ve been in the MVP conversation.

While Conklin did better than I’d realised, he shouldn’t have won it. Especially against Wilbekin- who was *the* key player for the minor premier. But I will concede that Conklin deserved to be in the conversation.

However back to the MVP voting. The biggest issue with the voting system is that not all games are of equal value. If Townsville were to play Sydney this weekend, and Marcus Thornton was to drop 40 points and take Sydney to a double overtime win whilst dominating the later stages of the game, would that be deserving of as many MVP votes as Lisch’s brilliant performance against NZ last weekend? The most reasonable answer is "of course not".

Secondly, the allocation of 20 votes by coaches with complete secrecy is an issue of transparency- illustrated by the drama uncovered earlier this season.

Doing it on a full season basis and allowing media and expert analysts to have a say (perhaps in conjunction with current coaches) would solve both of those issues.

So in other words it's clear that on those two specific points, using an NBA styled system would be an improvement. So why not improve the system if we can?

I like the idea of whose absence will hurt the most rather than who has the best stats. I always hated Carmelo Antony because he would rather chuck up 30 bricks than pass it, which always left him as points leader.

Personally, I reckon Kickert has been valuable more consistently than CG43.

This season I had Ogilvy but he's dropped away.

Right now it's between Randle, Lisch and CG43.

The answer is quit simple really, just call the award 'The Bradbury' and give it to the guy with the highest score at the end of the season based on this simple formula...

+ - Rating multiplied by number of games played.

Takes out any such bias decisions from commentators or other judges and if we want to make it even more Aussie, then divide that end figure by the number of flops!

Goulding and a few others, no chance...

;)

Agree with Hoopie, I would say Kickert is United's MVP (but not a contender for league MVP).

So in other words it's clear that on those two specific points, using an NBA styled system would be an improvement. So why not improve the system if we can?

It would be an interesting numerical analysis if the weekly votes were made public.
At the extreme view, if it follows that having vote-pulling teammates rob you, then Jett is going to be in with a shot.

Overall I think Oglivy is still good enough to take it, assuming he has stopped his ridiculous flopping since last I saw him. If not, then Lisch.

I'm not convinced that the rest of the Adelaide team is so crap as to give Randle the magic boost many think. Especially since whilst Randle is an offensive dynamo, he's not that strong defensively.

I don't agree that "people being forgotten about" is an issue in the NBA.

And yes, Goulding is a candidate. He hasn't been as good as Randle or Lisch (or Webster) but he has played every game. Randle missed the first 3 games and Lisch the first 4. Webster missed 4.

Goulding has been between average and terrible in around half his games.

Haha righto