This is something I've thought a lot about over the past maybe 5-7 years; while "groupthink" is of course addressed as a factor, I'm pretty sure its worth getting even more specific and mentioning who everyone else is tailing.
Meaning: I'm quite curious what impact Zach Lowe's absence from coverage has had on the opinions and voting of NBA media at large.
So I actually had a line in here in an early draft that I removed for being too cluttered, but you're the second person to mention him, so maybe i should put it back in.
A few years ago I looked at Lowe's impact specifically, and while it's hard to isolate, it's worth noting that at some point he started releasing his official picks after the ballots were due. We know Zach doesn't like the influence he has, and he gave up his real ballot at some point a few years ago, too.
But your point stands that it's an easy crutch for anyone to be like "well, Zach picked him, too!"
I’m sure that the voting base for awards is more tapped in and invested than the average fan, but I have seen groupthink made so much worse by social media among friends who don’t watch that much basketball. When people don’t watch games but can scroll twitter and see hot takes from smart people, it homogenizes the common opinion. While quality analyses has never been more accessible, it feels like social media has created fake ball-knowers who don’t watch games.
But the problem is you leaped to "it's groupthink!" Is it?
That's the assumption but I've got another theory tied to your Twitter theory: we're just smarter. The voters coalesce around the RIGHT vote. Outside of 2023, which wasn't impacted by Twitter but instead most by that backlash you're talking about reverberated through ESPN, what are wwe going to argue was a truly wrong vote?
Is a wide disparity in votes "better?" If it was more spread out among lesser candidates, is that better? That happened more when team employees had votes, you'd also have a lot more agent-relationship-driven voting that occurred.
I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion that the MVP is under siege from groupthink; that's a short hand solution to "I want the votes to be closer" but they probably shouldn't be. By 82 games, we should know.
Fair criticism, although I think I'm probably more in the middle of the groupthink is bad/good than my piece might make it sound.
There are clear benefits to the voters having access to more high-level discussion, analysis, and statistics than they could have had without social media. But there is also, undoubtedly, a darker side, a pressure to conform.
In my original draft, I had this quote from Sam Amick to HoopsHype from a few years ago: “Fear of social-media reprisal, if you will, is real. It’s hard to not see that as a factor. I can’t specifically think of any situations where I was unsure of who to vote for and leaned a certain way because of that factor, though… But there are definitely some people who feel that a few years ago, had votes not been publicized, Stephen Curry wouldn’t have won unanimously. In 2015-16... you were going to look like an idiot if you voted for anybody else other than Steph.”
It's not about if Steph deserved unanimous MVP or not, it's that there was a perceived pressure to vote the right way! And every bit of research I did on MVP voting had various voters all saying something along the lines of "well, it never impacted ME, but I know it impacted SOME voters," ha.
You can't and shouldn't force close races, as you say; but I actually think there IS some value from more votes spread among lesser candidates, if just to challenge assumptions and make for a more rigorous debate! Every MVP winner has won by at least 39 first-place votes since 2007; if 10 of those were spread around elsewhere, that won't hurt the final result but could make people feel more comfortable going against the grain where and when they feel it appropriate.
Let me caveat this with common sense; I originally wrote and then removed a paragraph about the guy who voted for Domantas Sabonis third for DPOY last year. Votes that crazy obviously contribute nothing to the conversation, so I guess there's a messy conversation about where the line should be drawn.
In summary, groupthink isn't always bad when it's an informed voter base coalescing around the best candidate. But when it leads to lazy ballots ("who did Zach Lowe pick?") or people nervous to vote for the guy they genuinely think is right (Andy Larsen story), it can be a problem!
Ah I remember that Silver article! Yeah, I've tried to hold myself accountable on things like trade grades and preseason bold predictions -- it's the best way to figure out why my internal compass is steering me wrong (and, as a bonus, readers seem to like it!)
First, great research and article! My personal opinion is NBA people spend WAAYY too much time pontificating on MVPs, Allstars, etc etc when they could be talking about the game of basketball, but that doesn't diminish the work you've put into this piece!
Second, I'm always annoyed when people say Steph was the first Unanimous MVP without mentioning the rules change that happened the prior year requiring your vote to be public. There were plenty of Unanimous MVPs before Steph that were just hosed by random beat reporter being an anonymous homer.
Thanks, and I tend to agree. I had to do a weekly MVP ranking for a site one time. It was horrible.
Funny you say that -- Sam Amick had a quote in the HoopsHype article I reference about exactly that:
“Fear of social-media reprisal, if you will, is real. It’s hard to not see that as a factor. I can’t specifically think of any situations where I was unsure of who to vote for and leaned a certain way because of that factor, though… But there are definitely some people who feel that a few years ago, had votes not been publicized, Stephen Curry wouldn’t have won unanimously. In 2015-16, it kind of reached a point where there were no other candidates [perceived to be on the same level] so you were going to look like an idiot if you voted for anybody else other than Steph.”
This is something I've thought a lot about over the past maybe 5-7 years; while "groupthink" is of course addressed as a factor, I'm pretty sure its worth getting even more specific and mentioning who everyone else is tailing.
Meaning: I'm quite curious what impact Zach Lowe's absence from coverage has had on the opinions and voting of NBA media at large.
So I actually had a line in here in an early draft that I removed for being too cluttered, but you're the second person to mention him, so maybe i should put it back in.
A few years ago I looked at Lowe's impact specifically, and while it's hard to isolate, it's worth noting that at some point he started releasing his official picks after the ballots were due. We know Zach doesn't like the influence he has, and he gave up his real ballot at some point a few years ago, too.
But your point stands that it's an easy crutch for anyone to be like "well, Zach picked him, too!"
Great stuff Mike!
I’m sure that the voting base for awards is more tapped in and invested than the average fan, but I have seen groupthink made so much worse by social media among friends who don’t watch that much basketball. When people don’t watch games but can scroll twitter and see hot takes from smart people, it homogenizes the common opinion. While quality analyses has never been more accessible, it feels like social media has created fake ball-knowers who don’t watch games.
For sure. those people existed before and were just box-score-watchers ha, but It’s just easier to fake intelligence now as you say
As always, great stuff in the way of the approach, but I don't agree with the conclusion, Mike. You did the work of outlining what happened, I did this during the 2020 shutdown. https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/nba-mvp-race-is-over-giannis-vs-lebron
But the problem is you leaped to "it's groupthink!" Is it?
That's the assumption but I've got another theory tied to your Twitter theory: we're just smarter. The voters coalesce around the RIGHT vote. Outside of 2023, which wasn't impacted by Twitter but instead most by that backlash you're talking about reverberated through ESPN, what are wwe going to argue was a truly wrong vote?
Is a wide disparity in votes "better?" If it was more spread out among lesser candidates, is that better? That happened more when team employees had votes, you'd also have a lot more agent-relationship-driven voting that occurred.
I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion that the MVP is under siege from groupthink; that's a short hand solution to "I want the votes to be closer" but they probably shouldn't be. By 82 games, we should know.
Fair criticism, although I think I'm probably more in the middle of the groupthink is bad/good than my piece might make it sound.
There are clear benefits to the voters having access to more high-level discussion, analysis, and statistics than they could have had without social media. But there is also, undoubtedly, a darker side, a pressure to conform.
In my original draft, I had this quote from Sam Amick to HoopsHype from a few years ago: “Fear of social-media reprisal, if you will, is real. It’s hard to not see that as a factor. I can’t specifically think of any situations where I was unsure of who to vote for and leaned a certain way because of that factor, though… But there are definitely some people who feel that a few years ago, had votes not been publicized, Stephen Curry wouldn’t have won unanimously. In 2015-16... you were going to look like an idiot if you voted for anybody else other than Steph.”
It's not about if Steph deserved unanimous MVP or not, it's that there was a perceived pressure to vote the right way! And every bit of research I did on MVP voting had various voters all saying something along the lines of "well, it never impacted ME, but I know it impacted SOME voters," ha.
You can't and shouldn't force close races, as you say; but I actually think there IS some value from more votes spread among lesser candidates, if just to challenge assumptions and make for a more rigorous debate! Every MVP winner has won by at least 39 first-place votes since 2007; if 10 of those were spread around elsewhere, that won't hurt the final result but could make people feel more comfortable going against the grain where and when they feel it appropriate.
Let me caveat this with common sense; I originally wrote and then removed a paragraph about the guy who voted for Domantas Sabonis third for DPOY last year. Votes that crazy obviously contribute nothing to the conversation, so I guess there's a messy conversation about where the line should be drawn.
In summary, groupthink isn't always bad when it's an informed voter base coalescing around the best candidate. But when it leads to lazy ballots ("who did Zach Lowe pick?") or people nervous to vote for the guy they genuinely think is right (Andy Larsen story), it can be a problem!
We saw something similar with presidential polls in swing states last year. When information about who was wrong is made highly accessible, looks like you get people bending over backwards to not look like they were wrong! https://open.substack.com/pub/natesilver/p/theres-more-herding-in-swing-state?r=fjran&utm_medium=ios
Ah I remember that Silver article! Yeah, I've tried to hold myself accountable on things like trade grades and preseason bold predictions -- it's the best way to figure out why my internal compass is steering me wrong (and, as a bonus, readers seem to like it!)
First, great research and article! My personal opinion is NBA people spend WAAYY too much time pontificating on MVPs, Allstars, etc etc when they could be talking about the game of basketball, but that doesn't diminish the work you've put into this piece!
Second, I'm always annoyed when people say Steph was the first Unanimous MVP without mentioning the rules change that happened the prior year requiring your vote to be public. There were plenty of Unanimous MVPs before Steph that were just hosed by random beat reporter being an anonymous homer.
Thanks, and I tend to agree. I had to do a weekly MVP ranking for a site one time. It was horrible.
Funny you say that -- Sam Amick had a quote in the HoopsHype article I reference about exactly that:
“Fear of social-media reprisal, if you will, is real. It’s hard to not see that as a factor. I can’t specifically think of any situations where I was unsure of who to vote for and leaned a certain way because of that factor, though… But there are definitely some people who feel that a few years ago, had votes not been publicized, Stephen Curry wouldn’t have won unanimously. In 2015-16, it kind of reached a point where there were no other candidates [perceived to be on the same level] so you were going to look like an idiot if you voted for anybody else other than Steph.”
So, in conclusion, Jokic should win MVP in a landslide.
Lol. Btw, did you see your guy Aaron Gordon getting his glow-up for his shooting?
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/how-nuggets-aaron-gordon-timberwolves-julius-randle-have-reinvented-themselves-to-help-contenders/
https://x.com/owenlhjphillips/status/1921050837566046325
And another big publication had it, too, although I can't find it right now.
That's cool, and the graph really shows the dramatic improvement better than my "trust me."
Annnnd....whoooossshhhhh...
All the fun got tucked out of and entertaining MVP race. Not everything needs to be quantified to death. Call it a tie, let Jokich and Shai share it.
Sorry Barron, that wasn’t my intention! Just thought it was interesting when I was poking around.
You don’t have to read it.