by Michael 'wiLQ' Wilczynski
Comments can be directed to wilq@orion.media4u.pl

Are you tired of reading that this year's race for MVP is really, REALLY tight?
Well, you have found your place.
However, there's also a dark side to that, the following article could be wrong.

Why?

Because 2005/06 season is a perfect example of a situation where there's not enough historical data to work with so it's impossible to make any certain conclusions.

On the bright side, after I investigated the last twenty MVP winners (see http://www.82games.com/wilq.htm), I'm sure about one point, whoever wins that award will become a pioneer in some way:

As for Chauncey Billups, he can become the first winner who played alongside three all-stars. Last year there was already a concern about an MVP candidate who played with two all-stars so maybe three will be considered by voters as too many?

As for Kobe Bryant, he can become the first winner whose individual achievements were by far more important than number of wins collected by his team.

However, if history before the introduction of the shot-clock can be any indication... in the 1961-62 season Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in one game and averaged 50 points and 25 rebounds per game for the whole year. His team won more games than this year's Lakers (49 to 45) and guess what, he still did not win the MVP award! Bill Russell from 60-wins-Celtics did.

What's more, during last twenty years there wasn't single MVP winner from team which didn't win at least 61% of its games (equivalent of 50 in full season) and which was outside Top3 in its a conference considering number of wins. Lakers won 55% of its games and were only sixth in West considering number of wins...

Is it the time when voters shift their main focus from "team success" to "player's individual achievements"?

As for Tim Duncan, he can become the first player who won that award after the worst season of his career. Can a player have an off year and still be the most valuable player in whole league?

As for LeBron James or Dwyane Wade, they can become the youngest winners. MVP's from the last two decades have an average age of 29 years old. The youngest winner during that stretch was Michael Jordan in 1987/88 season. He was 25 years old then. LeBron James is only 21 while Wade is 24 years old. Is this the case when the argument "he is still very young and will win many awards in future" will lose its power?

As for Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki, it can be the first time ever when non-US born players win MVP in back-to-back seasons. (I know that Tim Duncan was born on the Virgin Islands but it's widely considered as a part of USA as opposed to South Africa or Germany). Is this another sign of increased international influence on NBA? Do voters have any patriotic feelings after Team USA lost during Olympic Games? Regarding Nash there's also another very uncommon factor. His team played by far better than expected after the loss of Amare due to surgery but still they weren't as spectacular as they were last year... So how important to voters are facts that were supposed to happen if they surprisingly didn't?

I cannot answer to any of aforementioned questions because it's not up to me. I'm not a fortune-teller and I'm not able to estimate which of the above statement will have the strongest influence on voters.

All I can do is assume that all of the above questions will have slight or equal importance and then use historical data from previous twenty years and try to predict the winner.

[Again, a full explanation of this tool can be found at the previous article: wiLQ: Predicting the NBA's Most Valuable Player]

Important note: I have to admit that I was wrong about one part of my formula. During the last couple of days some of the players missed a couple of games because they were resting for the playoffs. According to my formula that fact was automatically decreasing their chances for MVP because of games_played/4 part which is obviously the wrong approach. I implemented games played into my formula because I wanted to assure that players who missed many of them wouldn't be considered as strong candidates. However, that's exactly the purpose of minimal requirement which is set at 70 games played... So I used the same information twice. It was a mistake so my formula definitely have to be modified. Games_played/4 part have to be left out of equation. What's funny about it, that it doesn't change anything about predicting winners from the last twenty years. The formula still suggests them correctly and the only difference is that some players from distant places slide closer to the top (sometimes even to second place) ...

So here's the bold prediction for the 2005-06 season using modified MVP Points.

Stats

Player	Team	GP	Min	FGM	FGA	3M	3A	FTM	FTA	REB	AST	ST	TO	BK	PF	DQ	PTS	TC
Billups Chauncey	Det	81	2926	423	1012	184	425	465	520	252	699	71	170	8	160	2	1495	6
James Lebron	Cle	79	3363	875	1823	127	379	601	814	556	522	123	260	66	181	0	2478	0
Nowitzki Dirk	Dal	81	3087	751	1564	110	271	539	598	728	226	58	156	83	164	1	2151	8
Duncan Tim	San	80	2789	574	1185	2	5	335	533	881	253	70	198	162	219	2	1485	9
Nash Steve	Pho	79	2799	541	1056	150	342	257	279	333	826	61	276	12	120	1	1489	2
Wade Dwyane	Mia	75	2896	699	1413	13	76	629	803	430	503	146	268	58	217	0	2040	9
Bryant Kobe	Lal	80	3274	978	2173	180	518	696	819	425	360	147	250	30	233	1	2832	14
Brand Elton	Lac	79	3099	756	1435	1	3	440	568	790	208	81	173	201	227	0	1953	0
Gasol Pau	Mem	80	3132	600	1194	3	12	425	617	713	371	46	235	153	184	1	1628	1
Kidd Jason	Njn	80	2978	366	905	139	395	194	244	580	672	150	192	29	157	0	1065	2

MVP Points

Rank	Player	Team	Tendex	Ws	Ws-1	Conf	Cat	t-1	MVPp
1	Billups Chauncey	Det	23,39	64	54	5		1	63,89
2	James Lebron	Cle	31,64	50	42				58,64
3	Nowitzki Dirk	Dal	27,71	60	58				58,21
4	Duncan Tim	San	23,21	63	59	2			57,71
5	Nash Steve	Pho	26,39	54	62		4		56,39
6	Wade Dwyane	Mia	27,90	52	59			1	53,89
7	Bryant Kobe	Lal	28,89	45	34	-5	2	1	52,14
8	Brand Elton	Lac	28,27	47	37	-5		1	50,26
9	Gasol Pau	Mem	24,25	49	45	-5		1	45,75
10	Kidd Jason	Njn	23,58	49	42	-5			44,83

Ws = Wins
Ws - 1 = Wins in previous season

Conf = Bonuses for place in conference's standings
(+2 for just winning, +5 for winning with at least 4 game advantage, -5 for not having at least third most number of wins in the conference),

Cat = Bonuses for individual statistical achivements like winning in points, assists or rebounds per game
(+2 for just winning, +4 for winning with at least 10% advantage over second place)

t - 1 = Bonus for improved tendex by at least three points (checked only when that 1 point would make difference at top 5)

MVPp = MVP Points

If it weren't for all aforementioned doubts Billups would be an easy choice. Statistically he was the best player from the team which was by far better than last year and it became by far the best in its conference. He also had a career year. During last twenty years it was the best foundation to be named MVP...but it can be true only until 2005/06 awards because of his teammates. If playing alongside three all-stars will be very important during voting then leading candidate is LeBron James...of course assuming that his young age won't be discouraging to voters...

If MVP voters go for Nash or Bryant, it will be the proof that my idea was only a nice-looking curiosity and it will become the last part of that series...

Important note: Dear reader, please remember that MVP Points are not reflecting my private opinion about that subject because it doesn't matter. I do not participate in official balloting. This idea was an attempt to get inside of the heads of the voters from past two decades to find out what aspects convinced THEM that a player is MVP worthy...

The launch of the recent 82games.com Research Program has brought us a flurry of very interesting ideas for NBA analytical articles, many of which we hope will eventually find their way to publication on the site.

Also see:
- wiLQ: Extreme Individual Performances and their Results (03/17)
- wiLQ: Predicting the NBA's Most Valuable Player (02/24)