NBA: Did Kobe Deserve His MVP?

[Latrinsorm]

Kobe Bryant has won one (1) MVP, in 2008. I have mentioned before how MVPs in the recent era (1983-present) have universally gone to players on 1/2 seeds or named Michael Jordan, so let us consider those teams for 2008. All stats follow at the end, marked with *.

East

Boston Celtics: 66-16
This was the first year of Ubuntu, and while Garnett received significant love in the MVP vote (3rd most share and 1st place votes), it's pretty clear that Pierce was nearly as important to the team's success as Garnett was, and it's conceivable that this and distaste with superteaming took votes from the Big Ticket.

Detroit Pistons: 59-23
Perhaps as a consequence of being eviscerated by LeBron James and 4 guys named Ira the previous year, or perhaps from general Pistons fatigue, a single Piston received a single 5th place vote: Rasheed Wallace.

West

San Antonio Spurs: 56-26
The West had two teams tied for the second best record, but the Hornets won out due to some tiebreaker or other. Plus, this was the year immediately following Tony Parker's FMVP. Unlike the Celtics' top two, Ginobili was indistinguishably productive from Duncan, and had a better net. (You thought Parker would be at their level? Ha! Ha!) All told, Duncan never really had a serious case, and his MVP share of .020 reflects that, and I have refrained from including Spur stats.

New Orleans Hornets: 56-26
This season marked the Hornets' complete return to New Orleans following Katrina and Chris Paul basically ripping the league a new asshole with a back-spasm riddled David West, Tyson Chandler, 30 year old Peja, and Mo Peterson. Seems like a great time to be an MVP, right? But...

Los Angeles Lakers: 57-25
This was the year the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol halfway through, one of the very rare years Andrew Bynum missed games due to injury, and before Lamar Odom came into his own as a Sixth Man force. The result is that no Laker comes close to Kobe in regular season WS, and everyone felt kind of bad about crapping on Kobe for the previous three years, and he's got those rings, shucks, let's give him the MVP. This despite the fact that Chris Paul outdid him in every single advanced statistical category, became the second player in NBA history to record 900+ assists and more than 4 assists to the turnover (after John Stockton), and Kobe being stuck in the 5 seed and destined for another first round KO before a miracle trade brought Pau Gasol to LA. After all, Chris Paul is only in his 3rd year, he'll have plenty of time at an elite level barring some kind of catastrophic injury, like a torn meniscus or something... I mean, what are the odds of that happening...?

The answer to the title question is no. No. No no no no no. Chris Paul was the better and more valuable player with a worse supporting cast that year, and his team finished an entire 1 win behind Kobe's team in the standings. There is no objective justification for Kobe winning the 2008 MVP. That the very same voters comically gave 3rd season point guard Derrick Rose the 2011 MVP is even more evidence: they obviously realized how mistaken they were in 2008.


*

on = net points scored per 100 possessions while on the court
off = as above, while off the court
net = the difference (on - off)
WS = Win Shares, a metric that very accurately converts box scores to wins
WS% = a player's WS divided by his team's wins
PER = Player Efficiency Rating, a metric devised by John Hollinger to do exactly what it says
USG = Usage rate, an estimate of the relative possessions used by a player
Pts/Touch = that same estimate of raw possessions divided into points scored, providing a rough estimate of scoring efficiency

Garnett
on: +16.9
off: +4.7
net: +12.2

WS: 12.9
WS%: 19.6%
PER: 25.3
USG: 25.5%
Pts/Touch: 1.048

Pierce
on: +14.4
off: +4.7
net: +9.7

WS: 12.4
WS%: 18.8%
PER: 19.6
USG: 24.8%
Pts/Touch: 1.025

Billups
on: +10.8
off: +3.9
net: +6.9

WS: 13.5
WS%: 22.9%
PER: 23.6
USG: 23.0%
Pts/Touch: 1.077

Bryant
on: +9.2
off: +2.0
net: +7.2

WS: 13.8
WS%: 24.2%
PER: 24.2
USG: 31.4%
Pts/Touch: 1.022

Paul
on: +8.4
off: -0.8
net: +9.2

WS: 17.8
WS%: 31.8%
PER: 28.3
USG: 25.7%
Pts/Touch: 1.012

[Warriorbird]

So we heard you like LeBron.

[Latrinsorm]

LEBRON SHOULD HAVE WON MVP 2004-PRESENT AND TWICE IN 2007 :[
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time
ELEVEN-time

No but seriously, did you look at the stats? CP3 was robbed.

[Warriorbird]

I'm going to let you in on something shocking. The MVP is awarded both based on statistics and who appeals to journalists.

[Latrinsorm]

Hey bro, I didn't say Kobe didn't get the 2008 MVP, I said he didn't deserve it insofar as objective justification is concerned. Of course he appealed to journalists, not least for the reasons I already cited, but that's a crappy way of doing things and a crappy thing to do to Paul, to say nothing of Peter and Mary. Is the greatest NBA player named Peter Maravich or Tripucka? Why in the world would you go by "Kelly" instead of "Pete"? Maybe it ran together and sounded like "Pee Tripucka"?

As you can see, there are just too many questions surrounding this award. Kobe didn't deserve it.

[DoctorUnne]

Didn't Kobe objectively deserve to win the MVP in some of the seasons where he didn't?

[tyrant-201]

Didn't Kobe objectively deserve to win the MVP in some of the seasons where he didn't?

Kobe never deserved to win anything ever. Anything he ever won he did it because he had a strong supporting cast. Unlike Lebron. Lebron won his championships being the only player on the court for his team.

[SHAFT]

Who cares? He won it. Did he deserve all of his rings? Is that the next question?

[Ceyrin]

Who cares?

Fixed

[RichardCranium]

No but seriously, did you look at the stats? CP3 was robbed.

This. Kobe got his "lifetime achievement MVP" the year Chris Paul put up better numbers than Steve Nash did in either of his MVP years.

[Latrinsorm]

Didn't Kobe objectively deserve to win the MVP in some of the seasons where he didn't?I can look. Do you have any in mind? He's never finished higher than 4th in the league in Win Shares, which is pretty astonishing. He passed Shaq in Win Shares for the first time in 2003 (can't be MVP without being the most valuable on your own team), and as I've cited before you need to be a top 2 seed to get serious MVP consideration, so using that metric his eligible years were:

2004 (possible gray area, the Lakers had the 3rd best record but because the Timberwolves and Spurs were in the same division they got the 2 seed)
2008 (already addressed)
2009
2010
2011

2004
Garnett won, and was ahead of Kobe in team wins (2), WS (7.6), and WS% (12.4%). Kobe did finish ahead of Shaq in the MVP vote for the second year in a row, though.

2009
LeBron won, and was ahead in team wins (1), WS (7.6), and WS% (11.2%). Kobe didn't even lead his own team in WS, finishing 1.2 behind Pau, but he still finished 2nd in MVP voting. Pau received 0 votes.

2010
LeBron won, and was ahead in team wins (4), WS (9.1, coming within 0.3 of doubling Kobe up), and WS% (13.8%). Kobe again finished behind Pau in WS (1.6), but finished 3rd in MVP voting while Pau received 0 votes.

2011
Rose won, and was ahead in team wins (1), WS (2.8), and WS% (3.1%). "Aha!" you might say, "that one's pretty close!" Yes, this only means that Rose didn't deserve it either. (Also, Kobe was behind Pau, Pau got no votes, blah blah blah racism.)

But you do bring up a good point, it's plausible that CP3 isn't the only guy to get robbed. I happen to have a cold and therefore lots of spare time on my hands, I think I'll go through year by year and see how well the WS methodology stands up.

[Latrinsorm]

Kobe never deserved to win anything ever. Anything he ever won he did it because he had a strong supporting cast. Unlike Lebron. Lebron won his championships being the only player on the court for his team.Hey, any guy that can drain 20 shots simultaneously as documented in Drew's .gif is obviously doing it alone. Jamie Madrox would win every game.
Who cares? He won it. Did he deserve all of his rings? Is that the next question?Rings aren't awarded (except to Elgin Baylor). The MVP is, and that decision making process is absolutely subject to criticism.

I would say he does not deserve the cachet of what "5 rings" has come to mean, especially when it is inevitably used to compare him favorably with Jordan, because that is a Terrence's apples situation.

[Latrinsorm]

Ok, so first of all is "best WS of top 2 seeds in each conference" even a good metric for predicting MVP? As it turns out, pretty good:

1. The writers have awarded 33 MVPs since 1981, of which 30 were in the top 2 seeds. The exceptions are Michael Jordan 1988 (3 seed), Moses Malone 1982 (6 seed), Julius Erving 1981 (3 seed but tied for wins with overall #1 seed Boston).

2. Of those 30, 20 led all 4 teams in Win Shares, and all 3 of the (1) exceptions led all 5 teams in Win Shares.

3. Of those 23 to lead all teams in Win Shares, only 8 did not also lead in WS%. It was never the case that an MVP led eligible teams in WS% but not raw WS. This suggests that WS% is not a useful indicator of voter trends, although I do think it's a useful indicator of supporting cast.

The 10 players who were on top 2 seeds but didn't lead in WS present an interesting trend:

2011 Rose
2008 Bryant
2006 Nash
2005 Nash
2001 Iverson
1998 Jordan
1997 Malone
1993 Barkley
1990 Magic
1984 Bird

Everyone from 2001-present is a small guy. The 97-98 cases are interesting because each year's guy who could make the statistical case he was snubbed was given the other award; so Jordan should have won in 1997 and Malone in 1998. That leaves only Barkley listed at PF or higher. While obviously Magic played forward with a PG hat on and Bird was 6'9" so "small" doesn't really apply to them, "playmaker" does. Why does the WS methodology underrate playmaking? Because the crucial factor is not just the plays you make for your team but its ratio to the plays you take from it with turnovers. Guys like Iverson, Bryant, and Rose are especially hurt by this, because as score-first types they amass more turnovers on attempted scoring plays. The concept of evaluating assists in ratio with turnovers is relatively recent and still fringey (very much like the evaluation of stolen bases in MLB).

4. Another interesting thing to look at of these 10 is how many were overall #1 seeds, and as it turns out 5 were. Also discarding the Jordan-Malone serendipitous makeup, that leaves 3 players:

2008 Bryant
2006 Nash
2001 Iverson

I've already gone into 2008.

Nash in general is interesting, because he's the only MVP in the writer era not to lead his own team in Win Shares (3rd in 2005, 2nd in 2006), even though he has an exceptional a/t ratio of 3 and famously efficient shooting. Additional points against are he's a poor rebounder even for a PG, he was never regarded as a strong defender (and this was more pronounced in those days before an understanding of pace percolated into the NBA mindset), and Dallas had gotten better 2 years in a row after he left (compare to Cleveland going from #1 overall seed to #1 overall draft pick after LeBron left). The top 4 seeds in 2006 were:

Detroit/Billups - 64 wins, 15.5 WS (led team by 4.4), +10.4 on/off
Miami/Wade - 52 wins, 14.4 WS (led team by 7.4), +15.2 on/off
Spurs/Duncan - 63 wins, 10.8 WS (led team by 1.2), +4.2 on/off
Suns/Nash - 54 wins, 12.4 WS (2nd to Marion's 14.6), +9.1 on/off

I mean, how does Nash end up with that? I would vote for Wade especially because of his defense, but it's got to be between him and Billups and that's it, right? And the pattern strongly favors Billups: led WS, overall #1, playmaker. What does Nash's case have that Billups' case doesn't have more of in that year?

This is also, of course, the year the Heat went on to win the championship in a totally legitimate and unsuspicious manner. Imagine what it does for Wade's legacy to join the club of MVP Champions (currently 12 men), or imagine how it buttresses Billups' shaky HoF candidacy to have that hardware on his mantel. LeBron probably still joins Wade in Miami, he was already dealing with the "whose team is it???" garbage, but maybe getting an MVP gives Wade more MVP traction in later votes, splits more from LeBron?

Now, AI:

76ers/Iverson - 56 wins, 11.8 WS (led by 5.3), +4.1
Bucks/Allen - 52 wins, 13.7 WS (led by 5.2), +6.3
Spurs/Duncan - 58 wins, 13.2 WS (led by 1.1), +12.5
Lakers/Shaq - 56 wins, 14.9 WS (led by 3.6), +15.6

Doesn't this seem like another for Shaq? You could give Duncan a little edge for being a great defender, but how do you end up with Iverson? By these metrics he's not even on the podium. I'll tell you how you end up with AI: scoring leader. Jordan did a lot of great things for the league, but in retrospect it's a shame that the greatest player ever also happened to be the greatest scorer ever and happened to make isolation basketball photogenic.

.

Fixing those 3 gives us the following modified MVP totals since 1981:

5 - Jordan
4 - LeBron
3 - Bird, Magic
2 - Moses, Karl, Shaq, Duncan
1 - Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Garnett, Nash, Billups, Nowitzki, Paul, Rose

Fixing the 5 who didn't lead WS but were on #1 overall seeds gives us:

6 - Jordan
5 - LeBron
4 - none
3 - none
2 - Bird, Magic, Karl, Shaq, Duncan
1 - Dantley, Barkley*, Hakeem, Robinson, Garnett, Amare**, Billups, Nowitzki, Paul

*Would have gotten it in 1990 instead at Magic's expense, although Jordan's Bulls were a 55 win 3 seed and Barkley's 76ers were a 53 win 2 seed, so you could talk me into giving this one to Jordan instead.
**Reed and Walton got one too, okay? Get off my back, 2005 was pre-microfracture.

The rich get richer, mostly, but I think it paints an even more unflattering picture of Kobe's place in history: between Duncan and LeBron there would now be 5 different MVP winners in 5 years, none of whom were named Kobe, 2 of whom were guards. Being down 2 to 1 to friggin' Steve Nash is pretty unflattering as it is, but to get shut out by a carousel? I don't know how people make the claim he's top 10 all time now, but I double wouldn't know how they could do so in that alternate reality.

[DoctorUnne]

I can look. Do you have any in mind?

No I just thought I remember reading he got robbed at least once, I presumed during one of Nash's MVP seasons. I would toss out your premise of needing to be on a top-2 seed to win the MVP. That may be true based on how voters vote, but based on objective analysis I think it's completely irrelevant. If your team is a 40 win team with you and a 20 win team without you, you're objectively more valuable than someone who is on a 60 win team that would be a 50 win team without him. Unless you argue that the crucible of being on a playoff caliber team makes win shares harder to earn and therefore more valuable.

[Latrinsorm]

No I just thought I remember reading he got robbed at least once, I presumed during one of Nash's MVP seasons. I would toss out your premise of needing to be on a top-2 seed to win the MVP. That may be true based on how voters vote, but based on objective analysis I think it's completely irrelevant. If your team is a 40 win team with you and a 20 win team without you, you're objectively more valuable than someone who is on a 60 win team that would be a 50 win team without him. Unless you argue that the crucible of being on a playoff caliber team makes win shares harder to earn and therefore more valuable.I can see the argument either way. There have been (admittedly rare) occasions where a great player with nothing around him got not only a top 2 seed but all the way to the Finals (e.g. LeBron 2007, Iverson 2001), so why shouldn't that be a requirement? Plus the whole "make your teammates better" idea... but the honest answer to how LeBron and Iverson got to the Finals in those years is that they were really, really lucky. The 76ers needed 7 games to get past Toronto and Milwaukee and only outscored them by 5 and 2 points total in aggregate, those series could very very easily have gone the other way. The 2007 Eastern Conference was pretty weak, and LeBron needed one of the greatest clutch performances of all time to (barely) get past Detroit in Game 5, and as we all know "clutch" is just "lucky" with an h.

To your last point, though, Win Shares is not a rate stat. As such you can absolutely pump your Win Shares totals by hogging possessions if you are even halfway decent at offense, especially from the 3 point line. (It is impossible to determine if this demoralizes your teammates enough to sap their effort on the defensive end, and Defensive Win Shares rely very heavily on team performance.) I don't think it's to the extent that Bill Simmons suggests, but I do think there is a factor where you have to tone down your individual touches (therefore WS) to get your team to its ceiling, which is usually (but not always) required to win. It's worth wondering whether the increased efficiency in picking your spots mitigates this WS loss, but most guys aren't LeBron or Wilt who can just decide to shoot 60% from the field with limited touches.

It's interesting to think about in general, but for the specific case of Kobe it turns out to not matter: Kobe has never led the league in Win Shares. He's never even been top 3. He was ahead of Steve Nash in both of Steve's MVP years, but that's not saying much... so were Garnett, Dirk, LeBron, Chauncey, Marion, Wade, and Arenas. There's also the point that the 2005 Lakers were objectively terrible and missed the playoffs by 11 games. Not requiring a top 2 seed is one thing, but an MVP on a lottery team is surely a bridge too far. 2006 would be his only chance, and that was the year he put up the most dominant scoring year since Wilt... but that was also the year he put up the highest USG% since that number could be tracked (1974), and the Lakers were still only a 7 seed, and he was still only 4th in WS and 3rd in PER (a stat even more susceptible to volume shooting).

There's just no way to make a case for Kobe with advanced stats.