Ive always questioned why it would be called the Most Valuable Player.

Unless that player is in the team that wins the Championship, what is so valuable about them?

I prefer the term 'Best'

I prefer the term 'Not too shabby'..

skip, I don't agree. An individual can be the best and most valuable player even though they don't win the championship. You can't take anything away from that player just because the rest of the team was not up to scratch to win the championship. It is an individual award and judgement should be made on an individual basis, whereas winning the championship is a team achievement. By your reasoning, every player on a championship team should be named MVP because it was the combination of all of them to win the championship. I think Ballinger is a worthy recipient of the award yet the 36ers did not even make playoffs. He personally played consistently well throughout the season to have earned to honour.

Unlike Fisher's ideasm I think this system is the fairest because it recognises the best player throughout the season and not just at the very end because they win the championship.

I don't mind the current system either, but it's easily corrupted (even unintentionally if a coach is really predisposed to one of his players). If Fisher votes maximum for Redhage every time, his chances of winning increase significantly. Goorjian, for example, might really value other contributions from teammates and spread votes amongst Wortho, Draper, Hinder, etc and no King would have a chance.

Increasing the panel a little could address that - votes from refs (assuming they don't already) or noted media?

To avoid using the MVP title as mentioned above 174223, perhaps just refer to it as The Andrew Gaze Medal, Brownlow style. Might give it a bit more prestige in the general sporting landscape than the NBL MVP currently may or may not have.

EC - your MVP would be Phil?

i think the way the brownlow is done with the refs doing a 3-2-1 vote at the end of each game would probably be best because there is no biast coaches or stuff like that

Refs? - no way. The only award receiving is an award voted on by your peers.

But seriously, I think that making the coach's votes public, would add to the MVP and if coach's are being biased this will force them to re-think there voting.

And the winner is... Daniel Joyce!

EC - But what value has that then contributed? Surely success must come with being the MOST valuable.

If the team doesnt even make the playoffs I cannot justify a player from that team being regarded as the most valuable player. However they could still be regarded as the best player. There is a difference.

I would have to say Anstey at this point would be the most valuable player. The Tigers would struggle to be top 6 without him.

Sorry Skip, I'm with EC on this one. The 'P' in MVP stands for player and should have nothing to do with the team (or specifically the success level of that team) for which the player plays.

Also, success should not just be playoffs and championships. I think the Slingers were successful this season in not finishing last (sorry Dicko).

While I don't necessarily agree with Fisher's bias point as I feel the coaches are professional enough to be above this, who knows what goes on with some of the lower vote allocations.

A 3-2-1 Brownlow style would be great but harder to accept if the Referees were involved (Nah don't give him the 3 votes 'cause he was a real dickhead when I called that fifth foul on him). Maybe both coaches with a 3-2-1.

IMO the end of season transparency idea is the best fix for the current system. This way we'll all be able to see SOJ getting just as many votes from opposing coaches as from Dad (thanks XY I hope he gets traded to the 36ers!)

blazefan - What sort of V for value has that player produced then?

skip, its beyond the control of the MVP as to how the rest of the team plays. If he busts his guts every game and has a high level of productivity as a result of it, why should he not be worthy of the award? He is an MVP because regardless of ladder position, he would be highly sought after. That's what makes him "Valuable".

Skip, not sure what you mean there. If it was to do with my SOJ reference, please ignore it as this name should never come up in a thread to do with MVP (or at least not for the next few years :-|)

Also, there is a difference bewteen valuable and value.

I don't think I've seen Corey Williams' name mentioned amongst MVP contenders, yet his value to the Crocs since coming in would be unmeasurable.