MOTM poll winners

[Wander]

DBR: Our defense has been terrible for years, it’s the huge obvious weakness of our team, and we desperately need to improve to at least an average defense if we’re going to win the national title.

Also DBR: Let’s vote for the leading scorer every game in our MOTM polls!

That’s only a SLIGHT exaggeration. The vast majority of the polls, Duke’s leading scorer wins. There are a two exceptions: if a reserve player scores a bunch, or if two players both score a lot of points (say, 25 points and 22 points), SOMETIMES the second guy wins. But the winner is always primarily based on scoring - sure, some of us individually vote differently, and sometimes the leading scorer happens to also be someone who played great defense or who had a lot of assists, but the overall picture is inescapable.

My challenge to DBR: next game, completely ignore points scored when choosing your MOTM. Obviously, offense is half the game, and that shouldn’t be a general rule for the entire season. But defense is what we all agree needs the most work, and there should be more than zero MOTM winners (poll winners, not just individual people voting) that are primarily decided by defense.

[OldPhiKap]

Are you counting rebounds as defense?

I don’t disagree although with zone it is harder to pick one person as opposed to say a Matt Jones lockdown job in m2m. At least for me, given that I am still in disbelief that we play more than nominal zone.

[CDu]

On a team that doesn't have an elite individual defender, and especially on a team that plays a lot of zone (which inherently reduces individual defensive contributions), it's really hard to point out a superlative defensive effort.

I do think that in years past, someone like Matt Jones gets underappreciated for some of his lockdown efforts. But this team doesn't have a Matt Jones on it.

[Wander]

I don’t disagree although with zone it is harder to pick one person as opposed to say a Matt Jones lockdown job in m2m. At least for me, given that I am still in disbelief that we play more than nominal zone.

On a team that doesn't have an elite individual defender, and especially on a team that plays a lot of zone (which inherently reduces individual defensive contributions), it's really hard to point out a superlative defensive effort.

I agree with you guys that a zone makes it harder to identify good individual defensive play, but I don't think it eliminates it or even reduces it. For example, I think Grayson had an excellent defensive effort against Miami - one that we would have lost the game without - and it largely went unnoticed.

[kAzE]

Well, as someone who voted for Wendell Carter as MOTM in the Miami game, I resent the stereotype that we always vote for the leading scorer. But seeing as how Gary got the vast majority of the votes, you're probably right . . .

I usually vote for the guy who in my opinion had the biggest positive impact on the game as a whole, regardless of the box score, even if a bench guy who never gets credit has a decent game. But at the same time, I don't begrudge anyone else for voting for who they thought was MOTM. What's the harm, right? It's not like that player has to go run the country for the next 4 years or anything

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Can anyone not on a mobile device consolidate MOTM results for the year? Maybe the last few years?

I promise sporkz!

[Wander]

Can anyone not on a mobile device consolidate MOTM results for the year? Maybe the last few years?

This year Bagley has 7, Grayson has 4, Trent has 2, Carter has 1, Robinson has 1, and Bolden has 1. Two games we didn't vote on. 12 of the 16 winners were the leading scorer in the game.

[Henderson]

With much respect to my brother Wander, I think DBR participants are capable of developing their own criteria for MOTM, which may vary from game to game and voter to voter. I don't think we need instructions on how to do it.

[elvis14]

With much respect to my brother Wander, I think DBR participants are capable of developing their own criteria for MOTM, which may vary from game to game and voter to voter. I don't think we need instructions on how to do it.

I disagree. I think quite a few people need instructions on how to vote for the MOTM. For example, vote for the actual man of the match not the guy that did something cool that one time the guy or surprised everyone by stepping up and scoring 5 points when 0 were expected (meanwhile the guy that goes for 33/15/6 doesn't get a unanimous vote, etc).

[Wander]

With much respect to my brother Wander, I think DBR participants are capable of developing their own criteria for MOTM, which may vary from game to game and voter to voter.

I agree criteria is loose and should be loose, and also we don't need to take these things super seriously in the first place. But my argument is that the criteria is not nearly as variable as you think. It's extremely formulaic. The formula is:

1. The leading scorer wins.
2. Unless someone who plays less than 15 minutes a game scores like, 8 points or more in non-garbage time.

And that formula will predict the MOTM in about 90% of cases. And the remaining 10% is still decided by offense.

[BD80]

I think clutch baskets should be a criterion.

Of course, offensive efficiency might be important to some, such as scoring 30 points on 14 shots.

Some might find leading the team in minutes to have value, particularly when it is virtually EVERY minute of the game.

But then, this is the internet, full of capriciousness and whimsy.

[CameronBornAndBred]

My challenge to DBR: next game, completely ignore points scored when choosing your MOTM. Obviously, offense is half the game, and that shouldn’t be a general rule for the entire season. But defense is what we all agree needs the most work, and there should be more than zero MOTM winners (poll winners, not just individual people voting) that are primarily decided by defense.

I'm curious. Was "defense" the reason you gave Grayson the MOTM last game? Because while he had 5 steals, he also had 4 turnovers. Coupled in with a less than par offensive output, that doesn't add up to a MOTM for me.

[CDu]

I agree criteria is loose and should be loose, and also we don't need to take these things super seriously in the first place. But my argument is that the criteria is not nearly as variable as you think. It's extremely formulaic. The formula is:

1. The leading scorer wins.
2. Unless someone who plays less than 15 minutes a game scores like, 8 points or more in non-garbage time.

And that formula will predict the MOTM in about 90% of cases. And the remaining 10% is still decided by offense.

I think there are certainly games where this complaint has merit. I just don’t think you chose the right game to make this point.

Allen had 5 steals, which is fantastic. He also shot 1-6 from 3 and 2-9 overall, drawing no FTs. Trent shot 9-14 from the field and 6-9 from 3, while adding 6-8 FTs. And he wasn’t a slouch on defense, getting a block. Allen had 4 boards, 3 assists, 4 turnovers. Trent had 5, 1, and 4. And in the clutch stretch of the game, Trent hit big shot after big shot.

So while I would agree that Allen had an underrated performance, I don’t think it at all unreasonable or uneducated to suggest he was the better overall performer in that game.

Heck, I don't even think Allen was the best defensive performer on the team. I'd give that to Wendell Carter, with his 12 defensive rebounds, 2 steals, and 4 blocks (including arguably the game-sealing block on Huell). If anyone deserved the not-best-scorer-MOTM, I think it would be Carter.

[kAzE]

I think many regular posters on DBR will take an analytical approach to MOTM, while more casual fans will go by the box score, or just with personal preference. Neither way is incorrect, but I like to look at who certain posters vote for. I always seem to end up voting the same way as certain DBR-ers, even when that player isn't the majority voter-getter

[budwom]

Well, as someone who voted for Wendell Carter as MOTM in the Miami game, I resent the stereotype that we always vote for the leading scorer. But seeing as how Gary got the vast majority of the votes, you're probably right . . .

I usually vote for the guy who in my opinion had the biggest positive impact on the game as a whole, regardless of the box score, even if a bench guy who never gets credit has a decent game. But at the same time, I don't begrudge anyone else for voting for who they thought was MOTM. What's the harm, right? It's not like that player has to go run the country for the next 4 years or anything

For years I loved watching the Montreal Canadians (when they were subperb) and on every broadcast the CBC had, postgame, Les Trois Etoiles (three stars) which allowed them to spread the
praise a bit...one of their nuanced practices was often naming the opposing goalie as the third star, implying that if he hadn't played so heroically, the heroic Canadiens would have scored 12 goals.
So we could always name, let's say, Roy Williams as our third star..

[Wander]

I'm curious. Was "defense" the reason you gave Grayson the MOTM last game? Because while he had 5 steals, he also had 4 turnovers. Coupled in with a less than par offensive output, that doesn't add up to a MOTM for me.

It is. A couple games ago I decided I was mostly going to ignore offense for a few MOTM votes - we already had the #1 offense in the country, and defense is what we needed to improve. Grayson's defense was excellent last night - at least 4 of his steals (and maybe all 5, I can't remember one of them) were really great effort plays, and I thought his defense beyond the steals was good too. I agree the turnovers were bad, but even outside of my looking for defense theme, everyone had lots of turnovers. So for the sake of voting, turnovers were sort of a wash.

I think there are certainly games where this complaint has merit. I just don’t think you chose the right game to make this point.

Allen had 5 steals, which is fantastic. He also shot 1-6 from 3 and 2-9 overall, drawing no FTs. Trent shot 9-14 from the field and 6-9 from 3, while adding 6-8 FTs. And he wasn’t a slouch on defense, getting a block. Allen had 4 boards, 3 assists, 4 turnovers. Trent had 5, 1, and 4. And in the clutch stretch of the game, Trent hit big shot after big shot.

So while I would agree that Allen had an underrated performance, I don’t think it at all unreasonable or uneducated to suggest he was the better overall performer in that game.

Heck, I don't even think Allen was the best defensive performer on the team. I'd give that to Wendell Carter, with his 12 defensive rebounds, 2 steals, and 4 blocks (including arguably the game-sealing block on Huell). If anyone deserved the not-best-scorer-MOTM, I think it would be Carter.

I'm not trying to make a point about the Miami game specifically, or yell at any individual. I agree Carter and Trent are completely reasonable picks for the Miami game. I'm just looking at the overall trend of who wins the polls and saying that it's sort of lame that EVERY winner is basically decided by scoring.

[CDu]

It is. A couple games ago I decided I was mostly going to ignore offense for a few MOTM votes - we already had the #1 offense in the country, and defense is what we needed to improve. Grayson's defense was excellent last night - at least 4 of his steals (and maybe all 5, I can't remember one of them) were really great effort plays, and I thought his defense beyond the steals was good too. I agree the turnovers were bad, but even outside of my looking for defense theme, everyone had lots of turnovers. So for the sake of voting, turnovers were sort of a wash.

I find it weird, though. I don't think Allen was even the most impactful defender last night. He had the most "wow" plays defensively, but overall I would argue that Carter was better defensively. Not that Allen played poorly defensively, but I think Carter's strength on the defensive glass and his presence in the lane were more impressive overall. Allen certainly had some unbelievable moments here and there, as almost all of his steals were "loud" ones.

And this gets at another reason why it tends to go to the best scorer: it's easy to spot good scoring, it's harder to spot good defense.

[brevity]

Somewhat forgotten in this is the voter, and what he or she brings to the poll.

The following guidelines are personal to me and probably meaningless to others:

1. I don’t vote for a MOTM unless I watched the entire game (or as much as was broadcast or clearly streamed).

2. I may monitor the box score during the game, but I ignore it after.

3. I grew up reading newspapers that often listed an unsung player, someone who was not the MVP but deserved to be singled out, even in a losing effort. That idea has stuck with me, and I may sometimes feel compelled to do the same if I felt the supporting contribution was critical. The MVP was very good, but he is going to receive plenty of votes, and doesn’t need mine.

I am disappointed when it comes to many things, but DBR poll results for MOTM is not one of them. Having a unanimous selection is a fine but weird* goal, and I wouldn’t disrupt that just for the sake of being contrarian, but generally I prefer the votes spread out among multiple players.

* Do we really want one player’s performance to be that much better than his teammates? Just curious.

[subzero02]

This year Bagley has 7, Grayson has 4, Trent has 2, Carter has 1, Robinson has 1, and Bolden has 1. Two games we didn't vote on. 12 of the 16 winners were the leading scorer in the game.

Carter deserves more press. He's got such a great post game and his aggression really gives our team a bit of a nasty edge. He just needs to avoid silly fouls. Without him serving as enforcer in the paint, there's no way we win that Michigan State game.

[lotusland]

I vote we all just use our discretion about who is MOTM. Otherwise, if everyone used the same strict criteria we’d all arrive at the same MOTM and there’d be no point in voting. A Mod could just tell us who the MOTM is according to the prescribed criteria instead. I’m pretty sure I voted for the walk-on (Buckmire?) when he scored. I just felt generous and, after all, it’s my vote.