Trivia Stat and the Horror of the Answer

I love individual awards. Greatest things since the the great Edsel Ford. I believe individual awards prove beyond any doubt who was greater than who. Barely ahead of stats in so doing.

I'm particularly a fan of the All-Star MVP award (shows who excels against the best in the world), the NBA finals MVP award (shows who's a clutch performer on the biggest stage of all), and the regular season MVP award (shows who's greatest over the long haul). I have lists of the winners of those three awards pasted on my ceiling so they can be the last thing I see as I turn out the light each night.

There have been 41 NBA seasons when all three awards were given out. My favorite thing in the world is to look down those three lists (I recently bought a special pair of infra-red glasses so I can even do so with the lights out) and salivate over all the players who have won all three awards in the same year.

I think anyone who has captured all three awards in the same season is indisputably one of the elite of the all-time elite. Certainly top 20 of all-time. Oh wait. There aren't 20 such instances.

Okay, top 15 of all-time. Oh wait. There aren't 15 such instances.

Okay, top 10 of all-time. Oh wait. There aren't 10 such instances.

Okay, top 5 of all-time. Oh wait. There aren't 5 such instances.

What's going on here? Could it possibly be that the inconsistency between the various awards (producing only three such instances involving two players) means that awards could possibly be flawed as the end-all and be-all in designating greatness? Could it be that, based on awards, an all-time fantasy team should rightly consist of only two players? Well, at least fantasy teams are truly what their name implies.

And, if awards aren't the mecca of greatness, could individual statistics be similarly flawed? After all, it seems as though almost anyone can search and search and search until (s)he finds some stat that will support his or her contention. Sometimes seems like (how shall I put it?) auto-recreation. If all the stats are right, how is it that so many of them would point in different directions? Am I going to have to stop the practice of prostrating myself before that curtain marked "Hollinger" and start paying no attention to that man behind the curtain?

Oh the horror! Oh the disillusion of it all!

But wait. Maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel (vision). I once heard someone say, "It's all about the team." I'll have to look into that tomorrow. Was I perhaps channeling Dr. Naismith when I heard that? Who knows? I'm may even wind up replacing those lists with some team photos. After all, tomorrow is....another day.

Sam

Shaq - 2000
MJ - 1996, 1998

Of course, the NBA Finals MVP award didn't start until 1969 with the great Jerry West being the only player in the history of that award to receive that award despite being on the losing team. So, there could have been additions to that list like Mikan and Russell, but we'll never know.

I'm sure Mrs. Sam must be thrilled with the lists being above the bed.

bob

.

Mrs. Sam must have the forebearance of a saint.

Sam,

You are remarkable as you combine the technical skills of a professional statistician and the writing ability of Samuel Langhorne Clemens!

Isn't Willis Reed on this list for 1970?

"Statistics are for losers"
- Red Auerbach

"Would you clean up that ceiling? I simply asked you to put up a little wallpaper!!"
- Mrs. Sam

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"
- Nick Bystrom, my late statistics professor and the school's former mens basketball coach

"You're lucky you hit that extra credit question on the exam"
- Professor Nick again

More useless stats:

There are only 6 players that were NBA scoring leaders the same year they won an NBA Championships: Joe Fulks (1x), Mikan (2x), Lew Alcindor (1x, obviously before he became Kareem), Jordan (6x), Shaq (1x).

There has only been 3 players that were the DPOY and won NBA Championships that year: Jordan (1x), Hakeem (1x), Kevin Garnett (1x).

Does this mean that scoring is more important than defense for winning championships, or does it mean that since the DPOY didn't exist until Sidney Moncrief won the first two years straight in 1983-85 we can't say for sure? Considering 3 of the scoring champions who won NBA championships did that before the creation of the DPOY, it would stand to reason it's an invalid comparison. If you take those 3 players our of the analysis and only look at post-DPOY era players, then it's equal. Being a defensive standout is equally valuable to a team winning the championship as being the scoring champion. Or is it? Would it not sound reasonable for Mikan and ESPECIALLY Russell to have won DPOYs and championships the same year? Russell would OWN that category. If you take that into consideration and give credit to those two men, then being a defensive standout is MORE valuable than being the scoring champion, no? Compare the relative successes of Russell's defense versus Wilt's offense. In this case, the immovable object beat the irresistable force 11-2.

An individual player can become the scoring champion by taking a ton of fga an not even have to shoot at a high fg% because he offsets it with fga. Defense is team oriented.

This is also the downside of trying to compare eras statistically. Hell, they didn't even keep track of blocks or turnovers or steals when Russell played. Not that it would matter to John Hollinger, since he doesn't weight those stats heavily anyway.

bob

.

just to show how different the thinking is from board to board, he's an interesting discussion I found at a site I used to frequent about LeBron vs Larry Bird.... thought some of y'all would get a kick out of it.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/132816-LeBron-James-vs.-Larry-Bird

Sam wrote:


And, if awards aren't the mecca of greatness, could individual statistics be similarly flawed?

Am I going to have to stop the practice of prostrating myself before that curtain marked "Hollinger" and start paying no attention to that man behind the curtain?

Oh the horror! Oh the disillusion of it all!

Sam-

I was in Nicaragua and El Salvador for the last month, and off the grid for the most part, so I'm catching up on my emails (and the board) today. The below link came across my breaking news update feed into my inbox a little while ago. Hollinger must read this board, as this footage is apparently Hollinger's reaction to your post. Seems like you pulling back the curtain really affected him. He doesn't look like he's taking it very well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_NwvO1UxN8&feature=related



He really goes off on a tangent after the first minute, but that first minute or so is pure gold. Now I see how he had Cleveland and Utah, errrr, I mean Orlando and PHX (couldn't even get right on his second try) in the Finals last year.

Actually, there were four triple winners. I saw Duncan's name for 2000, when he shared the award with Shaq. Oh well, it still works. And, Worcester, Ii personally think Mrs. Sam has one of the nicest forebearances I've ever seen. It was what first attracted me to her.

And BSH, thanks for the Hollinger exposé. I particularly liked his revelation about his connection with Special Farces.

Sam

Sam-

I thought you might get a chuckle out of that one. Had a good laugh myself.

BSH,

Glad you're safely back from your latest endless summer. The smell of fall is in the air. Or maybe it's just Doc's brain trying to figure out how best to utilize these guys. I don't know if you saw Bob Heckler's post a couple of weeks ago about the Celtics outweighing everyone. So we've got that going for us. LOL.

Sam

Sam,
You really need to forget about that team concept thingy. There is just no way to quantify what a team really does, it surely won't get you on ESPN. This has to be the most well thought out and serious post that you have ever written. Great job!

Thanks Mulcogi I couldn't resist. Hope I didn't bug anyone. Just a long-held belief, for whatever it's worth.

Sam