MVP, POY, Which is it?

[Bald Husky]

Which player had the best individual performance LY in WCBB? In all the POY awards she was eligible for, Paige Bueckers was voted the winner.
Every year, whether it be basketball, baseball, football, etc., there is always a player that is left out in the cold. This player may have had a great season, but the outcome was pointed toward a player who had a better impact performance on a winning team.

I have said this to my friends for years that the voting criteria is far too broad, and possibly confusing at times to the actually voters. IMHO, there should be two awards, in every sport, amateur or professional, with two separate questions.
First would be the "player of the year". This winner would be for the player with the best statistical year, with the most important aspect being that he/she could come from a poor team, not a winner as is most of the past winners.
The second award would be "The most valuable player". This award is for the player that had the most impact on a team, most likely a winning or championship team. The criteria is completely different, which I said before could confuse many voters.

Being very un-biased, I believe the "player of the year" was Caitlan Clark. The stats she put up were undeniably ridiculous and like Paige, she was a freshman.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paige would be the "most valuable player". Hard to deny the impact she played on a team filled with underclassmen and reaching the FF.

So, what is your opinion. If you were an UN-BIASED judge, how would you vote for these separate awards? I would be interested to know who you would vote for, and if you agree that there should be separate awards issued in this category.

 

[jcoton56]

They may not be mutually exclusive.

 

[diggerfoot]

You cannot remove subjectivity from the process. There are too many variables, such as variations in competition, roles required and the relative statistical void that is defense. In the example you gave, the unbiased consensus by non-UConn affiliated experts was that Bueckers is a better defender than Clark, who played for a team that gave up the most points in WCBB. How does that objectively factor into the decision? It doesn’t.

 

[oldude]

The problem with using stats to determine POY awards, is that stats often reflect things like overall competition level, coaching philosophy or roster strength/weakness. No doubt Clark had a wonderful year. She lead the nation in scoring. But if you look at the next 3 top scorers in the nation, they are all from mid-major schools.

Through the years UConn has had more than their share of POY’s. None of them ever lead the nation in scoring or any other statistical categories as I recall. So long as Geno is coaching it’s unlikely that any UConn player ever will lead an NCAA statistical category. I guess I’m fine with the way it is.

 

[bluedevil]

The problem with using stats to determine POY awards, is that stats often reflect things like overall competition level, coaching philosophy or roster strength/weakness. No doubt Clark had a wonderful year. She lead the nation in scoring. But if you look at the next 3 top scorers in the nation, they are all from mid-major schools.

Through the years UConn has had more than their share of POY’s. None of them ever lead the nation in scoring or any other statistical categories as I recall. So long as Geno is coaching it’s unlikely that any UConn player ever will lead an NCAA statistical category. I guess I’m fine with the way it is.

Wasn't it said that the only person who could hold Michael Jordan to under 20+ points per game was Dean Smith?

 

[Majic Hands]

Awards are what they are.

Award are subjective. Self promotion for the sport, School, professional organization.

If Clark and Becker's had been swapped between UConn and Iowa, the awards could have fell out for Caitlin just like they did for Beckers.

 

[oldude]

Awards are what they are.

Award are subjective. Self promotion for the sport, School, professional organization.

If Clark and Becker's had been swapped between UConn and Iowa, the awards could have fell out for Caitlin just like they did for Beckers.

Kaitlyn Kardashian does have a nice ring to it.

 

[eebmg]

Awards are what they are.

Award are subjective. Self promotion for the sport, School, professional organization.

If Clark and Becker's had been swapped between UConn and Iowa, the awards could have fell out for Caitlin just like they did for Beckers.

My feeling without any evidence is that if Caitlyn and Paige were switched, UConn would have been as good while Paige would have improved on the Iowa record

I think Geno would easily put Caitlyn in the best positions and lowered her TO's etc and we all know she is perhaps even more receptive than Paige to Geno's step on their throat mentality.

I think Paige would have self diagnosed the Iowa team and worked under the hood so to speak at getting more contributions from others, voicing / feeling more displeasure at such poor defense and not accepting losses as readily. Result, better W-L.

No evidence but just my own little hypothetical

 

[D J B]

Which player had the best individual performance LY in WCBB? In all the POY awards she was eligible for, Paige Bueckers was voted the winner.
Every year, whether it be basketball, baseball, football, etc., there is always a player that is left out in the cold. This player may have had a great season, but the outcome was pointed toward a player who had a better impact performance on a winning team.

I have said this to my friends for years that the voting criteria is far too broad, and possibly confusing at times to the actually voters. IMHO, there should be two awards, in every sport, amateur or professional, with two separate questions.
First would be the "player of the year". This winner would be for the player with the best statistical year, with the most important aspect being that he/she could come from a poor team, not a winner as is most of the past winners.
The second award would be "The most valuable player". This award is for the player that had the most impact on a team, most likely a winning or championship team. The criteria is completely different, which I said before could confuse many voters.

Being very un-biased, I believe the "player of the year" was Caitlan Clark. The stats she put up were undeniably ridiculous and like Paige, she was a freshman.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paige would be the "most valuable player". Hard to deny the impact she played on a team filled with underclassmen and reaching the FF.

So, what is your opinion. If you were an UN-BIASED judge, how would you vote for these separate awards? I would be interested to know who you would vote for, and if you agree that there should be separate awards issued in this category.

Speaking of stats, here's an interesting article about Paige's Synergy stats. As the article states, "Synergy compiles basketball data to provide advanced analytical feedback for coaches, scouts and executives. It breaks down player performance in very specific game situations like pick-and-roll ball handling in single coverage and non-post-up shots around the basket. It then ranks players in those categories against their competition."

I haven't seen Clark's Synergy stats, and I'm sure they're impressive also, but the numbers for Paige put her in rarified air indeed.

Just how good is UConn's Paige Bueckers? Let the stats tell the story

 

[baggerbob]

Which player had the best individual performance LY in WCBB? In all the POY awards she was eligible for, Paige Bueckers was voted the winner.
Every year, whether it be basketball, baseball, football, etc., there is always a player that is left out in the cold. This player may have had a great season, but the outcome was pointed toward a player who had a better impact performance on a winning team.

I have said this to my friends for years that the voting criteria is far too broad, and possibly confusing at times to the actually voters. IMHO, there should be two awards, in every sport, amateur or professional, with two separate questions.
First would be the "player of the year". This winner would be for the player with the best statistical year, with the most important aspect being that he/she could come from a poor team, not a winner as is most of the past winners.
The second award would be "The most valuable player". This award is for the player that had the most impact on a team, most likely a winning or championship team. The criteria is completely different, which I said before could confuse many voters.

Being very un-biased, I believe the "player of the year" was Caitlan Clark. The stats she put up were undeniably ridiculous and like Paige, she was a freshman.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paige would be the "most valuable player". Hard to deny the impact she played on a team filled with underclassmen and reaching the FF.

So, what is your opinion. If you were an UN-BIASED judge, how would you vote for these separate awards? I would be interested to know who you would vote for, and if you agree that there should be separate awards issued in this category.

Ernie Banks in baseball many years ago was MVP on a bad team, the Chicago Cubs. But he had 2 amazing back to back years.

 

[eebmg]

Speaking of stats, here's an interesting article about Paige's Synergy stats. As the article states, "Synergy compiles basketball data to provide advanced analytical feedback for coaches, scouts and executives. It breaks down player performance in very specific game situations like pick-and-roll ball handling in single coverage and non-post-up shots around the basket. It then ranks players in those categories against their competition."

I haven't seen Clark's Synergy stats, and I'm sure they're impressive also, but the numbers for Paige put her in rarified air indeed.

Just how good is UConn's Paige Bueckers? Let the stats tell the story

Rarified is too weak, "Best Ever"

 

[CL82]

Awards are what they are.

Award are subjective. Self promotion for the sport, School, professional organization.

If Clark and Becker's had been swapped between UConn and Iowa, the awards could have fell out for Caitlin just like they did for Beckers.

True, but is that because the brand value for UConn or the fact that being coached by Geno for a season makes even a good player a better one?

 

[oldude]

Ernie Banks in baseball many years ago was MVP on a bad team, the Chicago Cubs. But he had 2 amazing back to back years.

Jacob deGrom is perhaps the best pitcher in baseball, having won consecutive CY Young awards in 2018 & 2019, playing for a mediocre Mets team. His W-L record in those 2 seasons was a pretty average 10-9 & 11-8, but his SO, ERA and every other stat was off the charts.

Baseball is probably the only team sport where player stats can be truly representative of an MVP year, since the basic matchup of pitcher vs hitter is an individual one.

 

[Majic Hands]

True, but is that because the brand value for UConn or the fact that being coached by Geno for a season makes even a good player a better one?

If just those two were swapped places Miss Clark would have had Geno and Chris as her coaches along with the "UConn" mystique and Paige wouldn't.

Hells bells! Caitlin at UConn, there probably would have been more than three consecutive 30-point games. Caitlin has no problem with shooting first.

I would even take it a step further. My thought would be that if they had swapped places Paige would have been the point guard for Iowa and Kaitlyn Clark would have been an off guard just as Paige at UConn. Simply due to better coaching and understanding how to balance a team to maximize their effectiveness.

Also, in regards to Caitlin Clark and Iowa. I'm of the opinion that if Iowa had a serviceable point guard and having Caitlin at the off guard they would have been a lot more dangerous team last year.

 

[JonathanXIV]

I think this, in my view, needless debate, between "best player" and "MVP" stems from the origin of the MLB MVP award.

The award began in 1911 as the Chalmers Award, honoring the "most important and useful player to the club and to the league". This award was discontinued in 1914. From 1922 to 1928 in the American League and from 1924 to 1929 in the National League, an MVP award was given to "the baseball player who is of the greatest all-around service to his club".

Starting in 1931, the Baseball Writers Association began awarding the MVP. Their voting criteria is the same now as it was in 1931. It is as follows:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

I think that the references to "club" and value to "team" have led to a conversation among voters as to distinguishing between the concept of "valuable" versus "best." Which is why some will argue that one can't be the MVP if they are not on a winning team (how can you be "valuable" if your team is losing). I will never understand the argument that a player can't contribute "value" to a poor team. It seems pretty obvious that the team would be a lot worse without that player.

I think all of this misses the point. The inclusion of the word "value," as in "value of a player" better defines it. Simply put, the best player contributes the most to a team winning. The relatively new concept of "win shares" puts a numerical value to this basic, common sense concept. Let's stop overthinking it. The best play is the "most valuable." No need to try and split hairs between "best" and "valuable." Otherwise, let's just redefine MVPs as the best player with other good players on his/her team.

Finally, back to the original point. I think by almost any criteria, Paige was the best and most valuable player in WCBB last year.

 

[Ace565]

POY means more than just scoring points. Both are good players but when I watch Paige play, she is exciting to watch and I enjoy what she does for the team not for herself. She can score anytime at will and does when needed. But her selflessness with her team, her incredible shotmaking, her dime passes, and leadership on a team with many freshman and no seniors or AA players, exuding confidence in her and her teammates set her apart from any other player in women's basketball. I even remember Geno asking reporters the question "who has done more for their team this season than Paige has accomplished". It was stated many times that Paige earned and deserved every award she received. Don't get me wrong, Caitlyn is a good player and scorer but POY means more. Paige is definitely more!

 

[eebmg]

POY means more than just scoring points. Both are good players but when I watch Paige play, she is exciting to watch and I enjoy what she does for the team not for herself. She can score anytime at will and does when needed. But her selflessness with her team, her incredible shotmaking, her dime passes, and leadership on a team with many freshman and no seniors or AA players, exuding confidence in her and her teammates set her apart from any other player in women's basketball. I even remember Geno asking reporters the question "who has done more for their team this season than Paige has accomplished". It was stated many times that Paige earned and deserved every award she received. Don't get me wrong, Caitlyn is a good player and scorer but POY means more. Paige is definitely more!

I certainly prefer Paige in a direct comparison and view her as the best player in the country and prefer many aspects of her game and leadership but Caitlyn may very well be the 2nd best player in the country and I think she was robbed not being First team AA. She is far more than a 'Good' Player and scorer.

 

[Zarathustra]

My opinion is that Paige deserves her awards.
However when I write about "C.C." I always write:
" THE GREAT CAITLIN CLARK"! see Iowa Webpage for correct spelling.

 

[darkstar1]

Which player had the best individual performance LY in WCBB? In all the POY awards she was eligible for, Paige Bueckers was voted the winner.
Every year, whether it be basketball, baseball, football, etc., there is always a player that is left out in the cold. This player may have had a great season, but the outcome was pointed toward a player who had a better impact performance on a winning team.

I have said this to my friends for years that the voting criteria is far too broad, and possibly confusing at times to the actually voters. IMHO, there should be two awards, in every sport, amateur or professional, with two separate questions.
First would be the "player of the year". This winner would be for the player with the best statistical year, with the most important aspect being that he/she could come from a poor team, not a winner as is most of the past winners.
The second award would be "The most valuable player". This award is for the player that had the most impact on a team, most likely a winning or championship team. The criteria is completely different, which I said before could confuse many voters.

Being very un-biased, I believe the "player of the year" was Caitlan Clark. The stats she put up were undeniably ridiculous and like Paige, she was a freshman.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paige would be the "most valuable player". Hard to deny the impact she played on a team filled with underclassmen and reaching the FF.

So, what is your opinion. If you were an UN-BIASED judge, how would you vote for these separate awards? I would be interested to know who you would vote for, and if you agree that there should be separate awards issued in this category.

My usual response: stats are overrated. Too much overlap. One award.

 

[hoophuskee]

In my unbias opinion Paige Bueckers is POY and MVP. IMO basketball doesn't have a POY vs MVP because they should be synonymous. In basketball one player affects the game much more than baseball or football. Little things a basketball player does to help win - to help the overall team offense is part of being a POY - not only MVP.

In terms of other sports- for example for all these years Mike Trout is extremely limited in his team's impact which is why his team never gets to the playoffs.

The best player will generally find themselves getting to the playoffs in this generation of basketball. The games of football, baseball vs. hoop are very different. That's why in hoop POY and MVP should usually be the same. In this case Paige was too great to make an exception for either.

 

[Bigboote]

I think this, in my view, needless debate, between "best player" and "MVP" stems from the origin of the MLB MVP award.

The award began in 1911 as the Chalmers Award, honoring the "most important and useful player to the club and to the league". This award was discontinued in 1914. From 1922 to 1928 in the American League and from 1924 to 1929 in the National League, an MVP award was given to "the baseball player who is of the greatest all-around service to his club".

Starting in 1931, the Baseball Writers Association began awarding the MVP. Their voting criteria is the same now as it was in 1931. It is as follows:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

I think that the references to "club" and value to "team" have led to a conversation among voters as to distinguishing between the concept of "valuable" versus "best." Which is why some will argue that one can't be the MVP if they are not on a winning team (how can you be "valuable" if your team is losing). I will never understand the argument that a player can't contribute "value" to a poor team. It seems pretty obvious that the team would be a lot worse without that player.

I think all of this misses the point. The inclusion of the word "value," as in "value of a player" better defines it. Simply put, the best player contributes the most to a team winning. The relatively new concept of "win shares" puts a numerical value to this basic, common sense concept. Let's stop overthinking it. The best play is the "most valuable." No need to try and split hairs between "best" and "valuable." Otherwise, let's just redefine MVPs as the best player with other good players on his/her team.

Finally, back to the original point. I think by almost any criteria, Paige was the best and most valuable player in WCBB last year.

Baseball does have MVPs and (Sporting News) Players of the Year, and they're often not the same. There are sportswriters (especially Mike Trout fans) who push sabermetrics and that the MVP should be the player with the most Wins Above Replacement. If you believe WAR really measures how good a player is, that would be POY, maybe-maybe-not MVP.

I'm absolutely with the OP that MVP and POY criteria are not the same -- much overlap, but not 100%.

 

[The CDR-Ret]

Kaitlyn Kardashian does have a nice ring to it.

Got a good laugh on that one!

The only drawback is that it would another KK to track {Rice, Arnold, ....}