My First Award and Why I Don't Necessarily Agree With the Reasoning

[Gustav 6,407]

I'll admit I was surprised to see Taro on the list of nominees for MVP this season. I knew I'd done well--in fact, S80 was my best yet--but I had no clue I was being considered. I wasn't right on top of the points list, but those who were generally had another top player on their team, something which has in general contributed to a sense of "well, maybe they're not the most valuable player" in past seasons.

 

So, I can understand why that may have tipped the scales somewhat in favor of Taro, especially when compared to the handful of players from Vancouver who made it to the top statistically. But that wasn't the whole thing, though--the point that seemed to sway most of the voting was that, among nominees, and potentially among all players, Taro accounted for the greatest portion of a team's offense, recording either a goal or an assist on something like 45% of Davos' points (as compared to, I think, 42% from the next-highest nominee). It does seem like a logical step, and I don't disagree with it being used. 

 

This led to me being named (co-)MVP this season, tied with Moscow's Duncan Idaho. I did not attempt to affect the voting in my favor in any way--I said nothing in the discussion thread, and, in fact, I took Taro clear out of the equation when submitting my own vote. I don't like the idea of being able to vote or campaign for myself when other nominees don't have the same opportunity, so I refused to even consider it. My vote, personally, went to Idaho, the nominee who received the most attention in discussion apart from myself.

 

Would I have voted for Taro had he not been my own player? Perhaps. The above argument is at least valid, and I can understand why someone would hear it and decide to vote that way. But I think that, had it never been raised, I never would have stood a chance. Idaho had a good number more goals, and both he and Groovy Dood succeeded more physically. And, of course, there's always the outside chance that Camus would have generated sufficient hype to be considered (though it's historically been tough for a goaler to win MVP). And that's a thing that I don't remember ever being brought up before. If this were the S79 MVP, I'd be writing an article about how I'm happy I was nominated, and that's it.

 

My main issues with the reasoning used, regardless of whether or not I would have voted Taro in a more neutral setting (because, again, I find it unfair to try to definitively state that I would or would not), are basically this:

• It's a new decision-making tool. I don't dislike it at all, but it hasn't been used too much in the past and precedent does happen to be a thing. I'd love for it to be part of future decisions, but for something new being a MAJOR part in discussion, I'm less enthusiastic about.
• I do wonder how many votes were based solely upon that metric. It's an impressive one, but as I said earlier, there's really nothing else about Taro that screams MVP on the surface level. I think "he did a lot of his team's stuff himself" is a really valuable part of MVP voting, and it is something I've considered strongly in the past without using actual numbers (think like, "the next-highest player on Player A's team is 20th in points, but the next-highest on Player B's team is 6th, so Player A was more of a star"), but I also think there's a legitimate argument for things like direct contributions (i.e. goals, the main reason why Idaho ended up getting votes in combination with a good amount the "being the team's clear #1 player" thing as well). 
• If that's the only thing that determined voting for some, I'm worried that in the future we might see some deserving defenders and goalers being FISTED ANALLY BY A CIRCUS MONKEY because they don't fit into that stat the right way. I voted Idaho over Camus this past season (with Taro out of the picture), but if I felt Camus deserved it over Idaho the discussion might have been confusing had I been a part of it.

 

It's totally possible to think Taro should have won MVP and back it up with good, legitimate reasoning. Do I, personally, think so? Maybe, but I'm not entirely convinced. Regardless, I've won an award--I've FINALLY won an award, I should say; this is my first one ever after losing the Wylde in S68 and outright campaigning against myself to lose the Knight in S72--and I'm going to enjoy it.

 

Until next week!

Edited November 23, 2021 by GustavMattias

[BOOM 8,745]

Don't be modest. You deserved it just as much as Idaho. Congratulations. 

[OrbitingDeath 3,183]

thanks for the vote gustav, honored to share this award with you

[bigAL 2,176]

1 hour ago, OrbitingDeath said:

thanks for the vote gustav, honored to share this award with you

How are your players always so damn good???

[BOOM 8,745]

26 minutes ago, bigAL said:

How are your players always so damn good???

 

[OrbitingDeath 3,183]

21 hours ago, bigAL said:

How are your players always so damn good???

 

I'm paying the simmers.

[bigAL 2,176]

1 hour ago, OrbitingDeath said:

 

I'm paying the simmers.

Hmm, you only seem to be excellent in even numbered seasons.....

Spoiler

hahaha no no no dear god don't start this shit again

 

[OrbitingDeath 3,183]

9 minutes ago, bigAL said:

Hmm, you only seem to be excellent in even numbered seasons.....

  Reveal hidden contents

hahaha no no no dear god don't start this shit again

 

It's the price difference between the two unfortunately.

[BOOM 8,745]