At first glance I tend to agree...

Is there any chance this lessens the effect of players "stealing votes" from teammates?

I like the game by game system. Definitely don't like coaches voting on it. Would much prefer journalists/media/commentators to do their own votes on a game by game basis. Not sure if I liked the whole "10 points split however you like" system but something that rewards each game is handy as early season games matter just as much as late season games.

Personally I'm keeping a running tally where I do a 5-4-3-2-1 vote every single game on my fantasy spreadsheet.

Kay tends to get overlooked quite a bit here. He has been arguably as important to the cats early run as Cotton. Playing consistently big minutes while not fouling it, with injuries all around him yet performing sublime. Doesn't quite have the scoring punch or draw as many fouls and defenders as Cotton but his effectiveness is right there.

Terrible change. Doing it game-by-game ensures every performance is factored into it. Hopefully it's still coaches who vote on it, they know the true value of opposition players, and they know who's a sieve defensively. Shame the NBL feels the need to copy the NBA when it has a system that works better.

Zing!

Yeah terrible change. Game by game voting ensures the best performer throughout the year gets it. A retrospective "who was the best player" means you end up with the best storyline.

In the NBA voting, there are thousands of journos and media commentators with a good basketball brain.

How many journos in Australia would understand a basketball game enough to vote sensibly? To look beyond the stats and flashy stuff?


And I agree that it should be game by game

Bad move.

The previous system was flawed, but this one is even more flawed IMO.

If done right, this will be a better system.

What about the importance of big games, the injury factor, the import arriving part-way through the season. This system has flexibility to still reward the best player. The people voting just need to pay close attention and know what they're talking about

So Cadee still a chance then.

Man people love complaining

Bit of a BS over the top clickbait heading too.

Haha, yeah this isn't News Corp.

I don't see a problem with the voting format. The arguments are over unknowns at this point. Let a season play out with MVP awarded under this format, and see how the result matches with your opinion. You can argue that the old format wrongly gave it to the player that played every game and maybe put up good numbers on a shit team, or that clearly the best player in the league took the approach to better his teammates and team play than go all-out for himself, thus would not have won MVP in the old system. That was what Bryce Cotton did last year, but he's so good that he still won the award.

This is just like every sports team logo ever created in the age of social media: it's crap. Automatically crap. People are scared of change I tell you.

Sack up.

Anon, you're arguing unknowns at this point. Have you seen the list of people selected to vote on the award? Has a list even been created yet? If I recall, watching Overtime last night, Liam Santamaria wasn't even sure whether he was voting on it or not

Homicide is an adopted national treasure

I think I got the wrong impression initially.
Actually the "Panel of experts" is only used to compile the shortlist of 20. In reality I'm guessing there will only be half a dozen players in the running for most of the votes so I don't think it will take too much expertise to make sure those players make it into the 20.

The actual 3-2-1 voting is only done by the captain, head coach and assistant coach from each club.
No mention of any restrictions on being able to vote for your own club's player, which I think could be a good condition to have.

Bottom line: I dislike the new system a bit less now.
One thing I will say in its defence is that the old system was inherently biased towards players with fewer good teammates - i.e. players on bad teams. The new system at least is free of that, so it has the *potential* to yield better results. It also has the potential to be worse though. I guess time will tell. Just like time will tell how much great play from October & November is completely forgotten by the end of February.

I know that the +/- stat has a lot of detracters, but must admit that it's purely mathematical calculation says a lot about who is most valuable. And, no emotional favourites etc. No love childs, no this team that team, and sorta takes in all aspects of playing well.

Just watching the duke game. Jack White received great wraps for his +115 so far this season. Williamson, on the other hand, who is a much more lethal offensive player, came in at +103. Implication I get is that White does more , overall!???

I think you just pointed out the exact flaw of +/-.

It's especially irrelevant in a team that blows out every game, and is only useful in hhuuuuggggeee sample sizes, otherwise it's all too random.

I would just like to see something similar to the current system but coaches can only vote for players on opposing teams.

Fair comment, Greggo. Thanks.

I think the new system sounds good, and the heading of this thread is inaccurate and miss leading.

First of all the media is only voting to come up with a list of the top 20 players, to stream line that give them a list of players averaging 10ppg or more, which is currently around 30 players, and obviously reduce this list of anyone who was cut by the end of the season or who played less than 60% of the season. Then have them vote on their top 20 from that list of around 30, this ensures that no real left field players make the list.

Then the coaches and captains vote on the list of 20, to narrow it down to the MVP, I agree with the stipulation that you can not vote on players from your own team, this then gives you the MVP

To me this set up should lead to a good MVP being selected each year and it wont be any worse in the end than the old system anyway.

As far as people thinking that only the late games will count, i say this, if you perform in Oct-Dec and not in the last couple of months are you really the MVP?? I also think that most coaches and captains will be smart enough to consider the season holistically and not just narratives and the last couple of rounds.

"I also think that most coaches and captains will be smart enough to consider the season holistically and not just narratives and the last couple of rounds."

I think the best way to factor the season as a whole is to get them to vote on who was most valuable in each game they were directly involved in.

Its not like the current system was perfect,

I agree with the last 2 or 3 MVPs but look at these examples

2014 Clarke over Ennis - even though Ennis probably one of the best players to ever play in the NBL and lead his team to the title, not saying Clarke was bad but Ennis was MVP and best player in most peoples eyes.

2015 Conklin over Wilbekin - Wilbekin again a better talent and took Cairns to a GF on a budget roster, whilst Conklin missed the playoffs.

So even if the new system isnt perfect, the old one wasnt either, so I'm happy to see the new system given a go and see how the results stack up

I can definately see the argument for keeping the old system as it had a decent result each year, and probably got it right in most peoples eyes 80% of the time, but maybe this new system will be better, only time will tell.

FWIW i think Cotton should win this years MVP so far, leading scorer and best player on an 8-1 team that is top of the ladder, albeit only early in the season, so if someone else wins it they better out perform him form here on in. So thats my basis to see if the new system works or not, and if Cotton doesnt win, you need to have a case as to why the winner out performed him for the last 2/3rds of the season. Randle, Ware, Bogut the next in line at this stage.

One reason im happy with not voting on each game, is that Trimble would likely be leading or very close to it whilst on the bottom team. Nothing against Trimble and not saying he isnt good, but if your MVP your team should be better than 1-7, i think this new system may consider winning more and who has been good enough to get their teams to playoffs.

Sure you can argue Trimble was as good as Cotton, but didnt have the team with him to make playoffs, but i do still think thats a tough sell.

This is sort of what lead to the Conklin over Wilbekin scenraios that i referenced in an earlier post.

I think the best way to factor the season as a whole is to get them to vote on who was most valuable in each game they were directly involved in.

"2014 Clarke over Ennis - even though Ennis probably one of the best players to ever play in the NBL and lead his team to the title, not saying Clarke was bad but Ennis was MVP and best player in most peoples eyes."

Interestingly, when they did "expert" picks at the end of the season all three of Goulding, Clarke and Ennis got selections, with Goulding getting the most. That year the count was a close vote, as it should have been, what Clarke did in that Hawks team was super.

Your comment about Wilbekin is exactly why game-by-game voting is important. His middle third of that season he played some very average ball and rightfully would have received few votes. He wasn't a clear candidate for that reason, but those who didn't remember that large patch thought he should have been.

The case you could make for that season was Childress who was the clear MVP by a country mile before he got injured. If you wanted to do part game-by-game, part end-of-season vote to get the best of both worlds he might have won it that year, and I don't think many would have complained about that.

"What I think would be good is if each game, captain & coach both vote 3-2-1 for their opponent"

I like this solution, or just removing the individual cap on votes for each player in the current system. Eg: a coach votes only for the oppo and gives their best three players a rating out of 10, or something like that.

Well based largely on performance in the NBL Ennis made NBA, Clarke got a European gig, this shows who the better player is.

Same with Wilbekin who went on to big gigs in Europe and Conklin who played the 2016 season in the NBL again.

To me this is the market place showing who is the better player and real MVP of their respective seasons, especially considering Ennis and Wilbekin won more too.

So to me any system that didnt pick those 2 as the MVPs in their seasons was wrong in my view, so happy to try something else.

I think a top 3 of Ennis, Clarke, Goulding for that season, sounds around right, but i the 'experts' picked Goulding over Ennis they were the wrong 'experts' in my view. This is one reason why I am happy that media are not picking the actual MVP and just voting on what will be a fairly obvious list of 20 that will basically pick its self. As their are very few media types I would want voting on the actual MVP around the NBL at this point.

You can't use subsequent achievements outside the NBL to prove who was more valuable in the NBL.

Having said that, I've always thought that Ennis was more valuable than Clarke that season (and I say that as someone who loves Rotnei). Some people argue that what Beal did should detract from Ennis's value. Others will argue that Beal did what he did largely as a result of Ennis's value. It's always a subjective thing, and no voting system is going to eliminate that completely.

Oh yea I love Clarke too, not a knock on him, just that Ennis was better.

Ask any coach and most fans which 2 out of these 4 guys they would pick to play for their life, based on their form in 2014 or 2015 NBL

James Ennis
Rotnei Clarke
Scottie Wilbekin
Brian Conklin

I know im picking Ennis and Wilbekin

So would like to find a system that correctly picks them as MVP too.

As i said current system isnt that bad, gets it right probably 80% of the time, but why not try and find a system that improves on that.

Even though its also not perfect i think the NBA system gets the better MVP and is one of the best systems around as compared to the NBL old system or the brownlow in the AFL, so happy for the NBL to try for a system closer to the NBA system.

"Ask any coach and most fans which 2 out of these 4 guys they would pick to play for their life, based on their form in 2014 or 2015 NBL"

That's exactly the point though, you're justifying using a system that relies on memory of an overall season using memories of an overall season! The current system goes away from people's recollections of what happened and instead uses immediate recall of a game just completed.

So while some remember Wilbekin had an awesome season and would vote that way, his end of the year and playoffs were outstanding but his middle section was well below MVP level, something a game-by-game system balances out.

Now the current system is far from perfect - allowing coaches to vote for their own players and capping how many votes a player/team can get probably weren't great ideas - but that doesn't mean the concept of game-by-game should be done away with.

Brian Wethers is in mourning.

I see your point, but picking Wilbekin who is a better player than Conklin is the correct result to me, so I'm going with what achieves that over the current system that picked Conklin.

I didnt see every game but Wilbekin was the best player i saw that season, regardless of the odd quieter game, especially with what he acheived taking Cairns to the top of the table and the GF, which is something that is rarely done in Cairns and in the regional markets.

Where as the Crocs missed the playoffs with Conklin

At some point winning has to matter too imo.

Yea Brain Wethers another example as to why its not a bad idea to try something new with MVP voting.

Naming the few perceived exceptions in the system's history isn't really good justification. Nor is saying you think Wilbekin's a better player.

The reality is Scottie didn't just have a few quieter games, he had basically a third of the season where he was below average. Same with Cedric Jackson that year, played some awesome basketball, led his team to the title, but was poor in the middle of the year. The best player that season was Childress by a long way, his injury opened up the door.

As I said earlier though, I have no problem changing the current system, but the best way to reflect what happened on the court is to vote after each game, whichever system you choose.

Yep, the same as the year before! Ennis led Perth to 21 wins, one less than the year before, he must have been a negative influence ;-)

How they do it in footy for brownlow? Just do NBL same way. Should be MVP medallion too. Not trophy. And a dinner and you got to dress good.

Brownlow the umpires award 6 votes after each game. Best on ground 3 votes, next best 2 votes and then 3rd best 1 vote which still isn't a great system as umpires generally favour ball winners the ones they seem up close and it's almost impossible for key position players like full forwards to win the award. It's always been deemed a midfielder's award and of course favours gun midfielders on crap teams that rack up a lot of possessions.

Even though there have been a few ordinary decisions like Clarke & Wethers winning it the NBL had it right having the coaches, who know what's really going on vote on a game by game basis.

This new voting system will heavily favour those come home with a wet sail rather than fully taking into account the whole season.

Wilbekin was the star and only MVP contender on a team that went 21-7, in Cairns, which is easily their best season ever and would be one of the best seasons in the post 2000s outside of the bigger city teams.

Not sure how they could of achieved that with Wilbekin being poor for a third of the season? Unless we going to claim that Cam Tragardh was the reason Cairns got that 21-7 record or something?

Wilbekin was clearly balling that season,he was on an ok squad, but was hardly star studded, and they exceeded everyone's expectations and most Cairns fans wildest dreams.

Sure he may have been up and down at times on the boxscore with scoring type numbers, but he was still consistent enough to lead his team in scoring with a healthy 15ppg (9th in the NBL), whilst being (4th in assists), so couldnt have been too bad for too long.

But Wilbekin also clearly bought value outside of the box score.

He literally won 10 more games than Conklin with similar level of team mates on a similar budget team,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but in my opion (and many others) Wilbekin was clearly the best player that season, and on the best team in a small market regional team at that! So he gets my MVP nod every day of the week.

Agree on Childress, but he missed too many games to be MVP, had he played the whole season the kings may have made playoffs too.

Thats the flaw in vote every game system is guys who light up the scoring numbers on bad teams, every team has 1 guy, gain an advantage over guys on better teams who may score less because they are on a deeper roster and willing to sacrifice to make the team win, ie putting winning ahead of stats. Im sure if they were selfish and just wanted their stats Ennis or Wilbekin could have taken more shots scored an extra 5ppg and padded their stats, which coincidentally may have got them the MVP but probably wouldnt help their team win, and could have cost them some wins.

Not saying Conklin was a bad player in 2015, but Wilbekin put up at the very least similar over all numbers and won an extra 10 games and gave Cairns a historically good season.

To me that is more important than a little bit of scoring consistency that Conklin had over Wilbekin, also you could argue that Conklin played as an A grade player for the whole season solidly and consistently but didnt lead to much team success, where as Wilbekin played as an A+ for 2/3rds and a B grader for 1/3rd so would still land on an A overall anyway, and Wilbekins best games were better than Conklins which is also important to me, and then you take into account the extra winning it over takes that in importance in my view.

On Wilbekin I agree that some are looking back through rose coloured glasses, he only shot 39% from the field and 28% on 3pts that season whilst averaging 15 & 4. He was Cairns best player yes but more than a few guys had better seasons than him that season and he had a poor GF series too.

That's exactly the point again, you are judging MVP on your opinion of the whole season, having already admitted you didn't see a number of Cairns' games. To me, you are highlighting the weakness of that system in your attempt to justify it, because you're showing how much perception can influence it.

The game-by-game basis ensures people who have seen the game and what happened to influence each game vote at the time, giving IMO a better reflection of the season. Now who gets to vote and in what format I'm open to change if a better method can be found.

I think judging NBL MVPs in hindsight of the season is the best way to do it. I mean we've already had some very strange MVP selections that almost no one would agree with with the current model. And people can say they feel like the early season won't be taken into account, I think that is a bit short sighted. It's true that the latter part of the season may be slightly accentuated in importance, but it is the latter games that matter most and really shape the upcoming finals. If you're a god in the first half of the season and suck in the second, you're not as good as someone who sucks in the first half then really lifts the game in crunch time, in my opinion. And players who are good enough to have sustained, slow burn the whole time will not go ignored. There's also the fact that, under current (or former) rules, players who were surrounded by other good talent were often penalized by the fact that, on occasion one of their teammates would score higher than them. This is how you have a travesty like Rotnei Clarke beating out James Ennis for MVP. That should never have happened and under new rulings, it wouldn't again.

Casper Ware went from under performing and one of the reasons for Melbourne's hot start to MVP chatter real quick..

Melbourne's slow start*

Conklin winning MVP was a bit of a shock for me at the time. I remember Childress basically had it locked up until his injury. Conklin was solid but I thought others including Ced Jax were more of a favourite than him to win it that year

Casper Ware wouldn't be in the conversation for MVP though. He still would need to do a hell of a lot to make up for his poor first 1/4 of the season. Cotton would be miles ahead of him at the moment.

''That's exactly the point again, you are judging MVP on your opinion of the whole season''

Yes well dont you want the MVP to be the best player from the whole season??


Thats personally what I want and think is the best model.

Whilst i didnt see 100% of Cairns games I would have seen 80% of all NBL games that season, so i think thats plenty of a sample size to judge who the best players are.

Again i go back to 21 wins at Cairns!!! (for comparrison sake in 2016 with a similar Aussie core, actually adding Wortho they won 12 games, thats how VALUABLE Wilbekin was)


For me in any season the MVP should be one of the best players in one of the best teams, and a guy who takes a team to historically best season, unexpectedly, is a great candidate, especially over a guy who misses the playoffs.

Any model that doesnt deliver this and gives us MVPS that win less than half their games is a dud imo, and happy to try and find something better.

My point is an opinion of an overall season can miss plenty of what actually happens in the season, as you have shown by being so strong in yours on Wilbekin/Conklin while missing plenty of their games.

Saying Cairns won 21 games because of Wilbekin might not be true if he didn't play particularly well in a number of those. It is inventing a narrative that Cairns weren't very good so only the fact Wilbekin was great allowed them to win so many games.

That narrative might be true, it might not, but when people who saw each game vote after each game they know exactly what happened. The whole season is made up of each moment on the court, and that's what I think should personally be used to decide MVP, not story lines.

Anyway, we're not going to agree on this, so happy to disagree. While I strongly disagree with the change, I don't really care that much in the big picture, league HQ is doing a good job running the NBL and who wins MVP is really not a major part of why I enjoy the comp.

Yea, i think its a bit harsh to just say its a made up narrative that doesnt reflect what happened in the season though

Its a narrative reflected and supported by the fact of a guy being the best player on a historically great season for the franchise, not sure how that doesnt reflect reality and is a narative that 'might be true or might not be'. Winning 21 games as the best player is FACT, not just narrative.

Id almost say that about any season, if a team wins 20+games, give the MVP to their best player, they deserve it, sure you could argue a guy from another playoff team like Cotton deserves it more, but I wouldnt have been unhappy if Boone was last years MVP either. Much better than a guy from a non playoff team who put up numbers.

Winning is the most important thing imo in all awards, etc.

If your team isnt winning 50% of games you not a MVP, if you were your team would be winning, that is not just a crazy narrative, its supported by fact and the most important fact is winning. For me due to that no playoffs equals no MVP, regardless of any game by game voting system which is flawed anyway.

AFL brownlow system is game by game and often goes to a player that isnt the best player in the comp in anyones eyes.

where as NBA is more narrative based, but goes to guys who make the playoffs and even if you dont agree you generally can see why they got it and they almost always come from the top teams, and atleast playoff teams.

Yea, happy to agree to disagree on this one, as we clearly have different perspectives

Im not totally for or against any system, just think the old system was a dud, so interested to see how the new system goes, and if its also a dud then we can change it too, but only one way to find out if its better is to give it a go, so am glad they are.

Totally agree the MVP isnt really a huge deal anyway and that HQ are doing a great job!

Players don't win games, teams win games.

"Winning 21 games as the best player is FACT, not just narrative."

It is very much a narrative. Without insight into each of those games you don't know how much he contributed. In how many was he their best player?

If you look at his 10 worst statistical games in wins (basically half his team's wins), he averaged 10.7 points, 3.8 assists and shot 32 per cent from the floor. His overall numbers for the season were 15.2 points, 4.3 assists and 39 per cent.

Now Scottie contributed a lot with his leadership and defence, but if the guy producing those numbers is your poster boy for the MVP voting system being broken, I don't know you've got much of a case. One thing's for certain, 'he' didn't win 21 games, his team did.

Exactly, nothing stopping the voters from catching all games in whichever method they chose.

They could literally sit down and do a 3-2-1 for every game if they wanted to.

The problem with end-of year voting, is that some people are too forgiving of absences. A Cotton or Randle comes in, plays the last third of the season, and there are still those who will argue they should be MVP.

But yes, results such as Conklin and Clarke, highlight the problem of having a good player in a shit team

At the moment, probably 2 of your top five, are Cotton and Kay. Should they be forced to split the points?

But yes, results such as Conklin and Clarke, highlight the problem of having a good player in a shit team

that's right. being a good scorer just because you are the best of a bad bunch does not mean you are valuable it just means you have crappy teammates. being a good scorer on a team of other good players is harder because there is more competition and it is also more valuable because it results in winning games. so anyone on a team that loses more than half its games should be out of the running because they must not be valuable enough. if you are good enough to carry a crappy team to a winning record then you are valuable and should be in the running.

being a good scorer on a team of other good players is harder because there is more competition and it is also more valuable because it results in winning games.

anyone on a team that loses more than half its games should be out of the running because they must not be valuable enough.