There’s one factor that is rarely mentioned about Brock Purdy that is causal to the success of CMC, Williams, Deebo, etc. and ensures that Purdy is indisputably the literal most valuable player in the NFL this season: his contract.
Yes, there is no doubt that Purdy has the most valuable contract in the league.
In fact, I think it raises the question of whether the optimum NFL strategy should be to continually try to find a good enough rookie contract QB and to use the additional money to be able to keep signing great pieces around him and on defense.
In other words, as much as I love Brock, I think there is at least an argument to be made for the 49ers to let him go in three years to sign elsewhere and using that savings to remain elite everywhere else while trying to find Purdy 2.0.
The problem is that transitioning to a new younger QB has a great deal of switching cost, unless you have really invested heavily in draft capital in finding their replacement
Optimal is probably get the late round QB a year before he replaces the other guy, get him integrated into the system and take over in year 2, rinse and repeat
That strategic argument has been made repeatedly, and even the teams that do it successfully begin to panic and pay their QB rather than recycle the position for cheap. Seattle, for example, was at their best when Russell Wilson was young and cheap enough that they could pay Marshawn Lynch and the killer defense, with Wilson only throwing 400-450 times a year.
I think a lot about how influential FJM was and the rise of sabermetrics, and how people like Ethan and myself go what we wanted - only in the worst way. The Old Guard was insufferable but there's been a corrosive effect on both gameplay and award debates thanks to the utter dominance of analytics. The MVP debates are so dull. Acuna swept the first place votes despite Betts having an almost equally good year. Acuna had the WAR edge and that was that. I miss healthy disagreement. Every sportswriter is an identical analytics obsessive with identical opinions.
I became a devotee of Bill James in the early 2000s and LOVED the SABRmetric revolution. And now....yeah I feel like it was a perfect example of "be careful what you wish for." More statistical analysis is great, but I think we've gone way to far now and are sucking some of the fun out of the game. At the point where we are criticizing hitters in baseball for not having the best launch angle on their hits we've lost the plot.
It's interesting with Purdy - I don't recall people objecting to Kurt Warner being called great back in the day. And he had the exact confluence of factors that Ethan called out for Purdy.
OT, but here's Jay Caspian Kang on the NBA from Twitter: "I’ve said this before, I’ve reported on politicians, police departments, celebrities, activists, universities, and pretty much everything under the sun. The NBA by far was the most paranoid, silly, and nasty organization I’ve ever reported on. All these reporters know it too." Specifically mentions Udoka and Wiggins stories. Would be interesting to hear your take.
One reason defensive players don't get MVP credit is they *prevent* things from happening while QBs make things happen. I'd say a little prevention is as good as a pound of cure, and I ask the metrics boys to redouble their efforts to measure defensive contributions.
Defensive backs in particular are the Admiral Jellicoes of the NFL. Jellicoe commanded Britain's Grand Fleet in WW1 and it was said that he was the only person who could lose the war in an afternoon. Anyone seeing a DB getting repeatedly torched deep can relate.
You could make an identical argument for interior offensive linemen, though, and I find it pretty uncompelling. There's a gulf of difference between understanding that a bad player at X position is a critical weakness, and inferring that therefore a good player at X position is among the most valuable in the league.
If you want to limit damage then it pays to have a good player at the most vulnerable positions. I'd argue DB is one of them. Bad linemen can be dealt with easier (shifting assignments, RB in the backfield to block) than bad secondary play. It's not a *good* thing to have to deal with, but it's more manageable.
An all-pro cornerback opens up all kinds of possibilities for the defense, lets others roam a bit and take chances, cuts off a big part of the field etc. Bad corners are exploited for big gains and PI calls.
I know this is unrelated to the post, but since Raheem brought it up in that tweet... LeBron absolutely should not have been MVP "every year." LeBron has 4 MVPs, and he's deserved 4. Maybe 5, if you want to give him Nash's in 2006. But no others. There's this narrative out there that LeBron should've won like 10 MVPs if it weren't for those darn clueless voters, and that's just not true if you actually go season by season and examine it rationally. And he didn't lose out on any because of 'voter fatigue.'
Rose beat him head to head more in the Regular Season, beat his SUPERTEAM on opening night and had a better record in the season where LeBron tried to rig the league. It's always odd to me that people bring up that season.
If Durant joins the Warriors but a prime version of Kawhi whoops the Dubs all regular season and gets the Spurs to a superior record, that guy wins MVP 10 of 10 times. That's how regular season narratives have always worked
While I endorse a lot of the thinking in this piece, I think the conclusion is wrong for two reasons:
- It undervalues CMC's value in keeping the 49ers out of 3rd and long in the first place (which Ethan mentions, but I don't think gives CMC enough credit for).
- While many 3rd and long conversions go to someone other than CMC, he plays a role even then because of the attention that has to be paid to him.
The 49ers offense was very good before CMC's arrival. There was a reason they came within a quarter of becoming Super Bowl Champions three years ago with essentially the same personnel.
But the addition of CMC has taken it to a whole new level, a level that I don't think any other NFL team (except perhaps the '90 49ers) has reached. When healthy, they are almost impossible to stop, and a huge part of the difference is how many extra yards CMC gets on runs and how dangerous he is in the air as well.
Raheem Mostert is a quality running who I was bummed to see leave SF, and yet there is a huge difference between what he does for a team and what CMC does. It's why the 49ers are so much harder to stop than the Dolphins, despite the fact that the Fins arguably have two wide receivers who are more dangerous than Aiyuk and Deebo, at least in the air.
This is the piece that analytics cannot fully capture. This offense was elevated because of CMC. You see in games like the Eagles where he takes two defenders with him and that leaves the middle of the field wide open for Purdy to hit Deebo on a key third down that leads to a td. A 49ers content creator last showed how all of the other skill players performance was elevated by CMC's presence on the field via analytics. There's a case for both Purdy and CMC to be co-MVP similar to what happened in 97 with Sanders/Farve. But with all that said, Tyreek Hill should absolutely be the MVP. I hate he got hurt as it killed his chance at getting to 2K, which he had a pretty decent shot it before the injury.
Being a diehard Niner fan for over 40 years now, I think the “value” that people are missing with both Brock and CMC is that they are both the perfect pieces to complete the puzzle. The team has been extremely talented for the last 4-ish years, but Jimmy would always do something stupid at a key moment (or just get hurt and that was it for the year) whereas Brock seems to be like Shannahan playing a video game. There were a string of fantastic running backs, but none were nearly as well rounded as CMC (and they also couldn’t ever play a full season). These two are the cogs that make the machine run at full capacity and, therefore, are immensely valuable.
This whole issue stems from the fact that football, as a matter of game design, has a deep flaw: the QB position is simply too central to the game. It's like if basketball had a rule that the point guard has to shoot first on any possession, with his teammates only allowed to shoot if they got an offensive rebound. If you were designing a new game you would never make one position so much more important than any other position in the way a QB is.
This is why the NFL feels compelled to try and make it almost illegal to hit the QB at all, it really is that devastating when a QB gets injured. I don't know how you solve this problem without fundamentally changing the rules of the game in such a way as to almost make it an entirely different game
I, humbly, suggest that it is bad that “elite” media conversation as to *team* sports has become increasingly dominated by quasi-autistic and somewhat socially awkward internet dorks. Something is lost. Especially, in regard to football.
Anyway, any analysis as to “value” will be undercooked. For instance, there is no agreement as to what “valuable” even means. What are you weighing? Most valuable to a specific team? Most as measured if a player is put on a different team? These are very different things...
Next. How do you account for and control all the team and game specific variables? (You can’t...)
Etc.
All you have left is broad and general rules of thumb like QB’s are more valuable than other positions. But using broad general rules to determine specific things at extreme outlier decision points, is the road to ruin.
You are better off shrugging your shoulders, showing humility, conceding its not a science, and not thinking too hard about it. “Whose season was this?”
I tend to come down on the side of the netds. QBs are move valuable. It's obviously true.
Buy you make a good point about balance. I've been watching Swamp Kings, which is awesome, and the stuff in there about leadership, working out, culture, etc resonates particularly because of some of the footage they got. There definitely are other important factors besides talent and completing passes. But talent and completing passes are the most important things.
I’m submitting a loaded example to elucidate a principle. Who is more valuable to Memphis, an efficient wing going for 15/5/5 and playing excellent defense or an efficient wing who goes 9/4/3 and plays good defense but keeps Morant out of trouble. (Jack Haley was valuable!).
I think Purdy said CMC for MVP because it’s awkward and tacky to say “me”. He could have just as likely said Deebo or Trent Williams or [any other talented teammate of his]. Not that he doesn’t sincerely believe it, just more so that it’s an awkward question to answer gracefully. Naturally, the nerds freaked out about it.
i think the upcoming Ravens Niners game looms large over the MVP convo
if the Ravens beat the Niners and also win out, or lose one of their non-Niner games and it’s not Lamar’s fault/he still has a good game, I think he’ll win it
if the Niners beat the Ravens and Purdy has a good game, he’ll win it
There are also many elements of QB performance that are scheme or situation based - the Purdy stat on 3d down conversion seems pretty relevant, but it would be nice to account for easy throws (open receivers, good protection, good play calls) also. Lots of stats (in all sports) are pretty absurd - “60 yard TD pass” on a screen, wide open end zone receivers, or plays where the receiver does all the work - those all benefit the QB’s stats disproportionately.
I would like MVP to incorporate a WAR concept or the HOF analysis - dominant in the era - and compared in some fashion to players at the same position.
The QB is only “more valuable because the ball is in is hands” if he does something particularly special or unique with it. If you could separate routine/expected success from extraordinary, player specific success, then you might have something.
So MVP for Basketball used to be the best player on the best team or one guy kept winning so the writers gave it to the MVP to the best challenger. Chuck won against MJ for having best record, or Karl won against MJ for being top challenger to Bulls second dynasty and the writers just wanted new blood, however at some point this changed. That's the oddity because it's never been the "best" even now people want new blood.
However if you aren't competing for a chip or don't get a chip then even if your dominant they won't reward you, choke on it Westbrook and Harden, both won by statistical nerd manipulation IMO, and Embid campaigning for the MVP was just vulgar and he had his proxies drag race into it which was just pathetic even though I like Embid as a person he wanted it too bad, so choke on the damn thing if you want it that bad.
In the NFL though why didn't Jerry Rice ever get run when Montana or Young won their MVP's? No one ever thought Jerry was unimportant but I don't recall it ever being much of a discussion. Also those 9er teams were STACKED from head to toe yet I don't recall anyone saying Joe wasn't worthy or Steve, and it wasn't just the offense there was serious pro bowlers and HOF on both defenses from Ronnie Lott to Deion Sanders.
In the 90's Troy never got any love but Emmitt did, and Jim Kelly got nothing but Thurman Thomas did, we have Barry Sanders winning half of one when his team was mostly mediocre. The biggest kick was that Brady won just 3 MVP's and every year he won the MVP he lost the Super Bowl (at least he got there though)... it's all just mostly rubbish.
There’s one factor that is rarely mentioned about Brock Purdy that is causal to the success of CMC, Williams, Deebo, etc. and ensures that Purdy is indisputably the literal most valuable player in the NFL this season: his contract.
Yes, there is no doubt that Purdy has the most valuable contract in the league.
In fact, I think it raises the question of whether the optimum NFL strategy should be to continually try to find a good enough rookie contract QB and to use the additional money to be able to keep signing great pieces around him and on defense.
In other words, as much as I love Brock, I think there is at least an argument to be made for the 49ers to let him go in three years to sign elsewhere and using that savings to remain elite everywhere else while trying to find Purdy 2.0.
The problem is that transitioning to a new younger QB has a great deal of switching cost, unless you have really invested heavily in draft capital in finding their replacement
Even then, most first round QBs are no good, and most QBs are not at their peak in their first year
Optimal is probably get the late round QB a year before he replaces the other guy, get him integrated into the system and take over in year 2, rinse and repeat
That strategic argument has been made repeatedly, and even the teams that do it successfully begin to panic and pay their QB rather than recycle the position for cheap. Seattle, for example, was at their best when Russell Wilson was young and cheap enough that they could pay Marshawn Lynch and the killer defense, with Wilson only throwing 400-450 times a year.
I think a lot about how influential FJM was and the rise of sabermetrics, and how people like Ethan and myself go what we wanted - only in the worst way. The Old Guard was insufferable but there's been a corrosive effect on both gameplay and award debates thanks to the utter dominance of analytics. The MVP debates are so dull. Acuna swept the first place votes despite Betts having an almost equally good year. Acuna had the WAR edge and that was that. I miss healthy disagreement. Every sportswriter is an identical analytics obsessive with identical opinions.
I became a devotee of Bill James in the early 2000s and LOVED the SABRmetric revolution. And now....yeah I feel like it was a perfect example of "be careful what you wish for." More statistical analysis is great, but I think we've gone way to far now and are sucking some of the fun out of the game. At the point where we are criticizing hitters in baseball for not having the best launch angle on their hits we've lost the plot.
It's interesting with Purdy - I don't recall people objecting to Kurt Warner being called great back in the day. And he had the exact confluence of factors that Ethan called out for Purdy.
OT, but here's Jay Caspian Kang on the NBA from Twitter: "I’ve said this before, I’ve reported on politicians, police departments, celebrities, activists, universities, and pretty much everything under the sun. The NBA by far was the most paranoid, silly, and nasty organization I’ve ever reported on. All these reporters know it too." Specifically mentions Udoka and Wiggins stories. Would be interesting to hear your take.
One reason defensive players don't get MVP credit is they *prevent* things from happening while QBs make things happen. I'd say a little prevention is as good as a pound of cure, and I ask the metrics boys to redouble their efforts to measure defensive contributions.
Defensive backs in particular are the Admiral Jellicoes of the NFL. Jellicoe commanded Britain's Grand Fleet in WW1 and it was said that he was the only person who could lose the war in an afternoon. Anyone seeing a DB getting repeatedly torched deep can relate.
You could make an identical argument for interior offensive linemen, though, and I find it pretty uncompelling. There's a gulf of difference between understanding that a bad player at X position is a critical weakness, and inferring that therefore a good player at X position is among the most valuable in the league.
If you want to limit damage then it pays to have a good player at the most vulnerable positions. I'd argue DB is one of them. Bad linemen can be dealt with easier (shifting assignments, RB in the backfield to block) than bad secondary play. It's not a *good* thing to have to deal with, but it's more manageable.
An all-pro cornerback opens up all kinds of possibilities for the defense, lets others roam a bit and take chances, cuts off a big part of the field etc. Bad corners are exploited for big gains and PI calls.
I know this is unrelated to the post, but since Raheem brought it up in that tweet... LeBron absolutely should not have been MVP "every year." LeBron has 4 MVPs, and he's deserved 4. Maybe 5, if you want to give him Nash's in 2006. But no others. There's this narrative out there that LeBron should've won like 10 MVPs if it weren't for those darn clueless voters, and that's just not true if you actually go season by season and examine it rationally. And he didn't lose out on any because of 'voter fatigue.'
He should have won Rose's MVP.
Rose beat him head to head more in the Regular Season, beat his SUPERTEAM on opening night and had a better record in the season where LeBron tried to rig the league. It's always odd to me that people bring up that season.
If Durant joins the Warriors but a prime version of Kawhi whoops the Dubs all regular season and gets the Spurs to a superior record, that guy wins MVP 10 of 10 times. That's how regular season narratives have always worked
You really think it’s odd?
I think Dwight deserved that one.
While I endorse a lot of the thinking in this piece, I think the conclusion is wrong for two reasons:
- It undervalues CMC's value in keeping the 49ers out of 3rd and long in the first place (which Ethan mentions, but I don't think gives CMC enough credit for).
- While many 3rd and long conversions go to someone other than CMC, he plays a role even then because of the attention that has to be paid to him.
The 49ers offense was very good before CMC's arrival. There was a reason they came within a quarter of becoming Super Bowl Champions three years ago with essentially the same personnel.
But the addition of CMC has taken it to a whole new level, a level that I don't think any other NFL team (except perhaps the '90 49ers) has reached. When healthy, they are almost impossible to stop, and a huge part of the difference is how many extra yards CMC gets on runs and how dangerous he is in the air as well.
Raheem Mostert is a quality running who I was bummed to see leave SF, and yet there is a huge difference between what he does for a team and what CMC does. It's why the 49ers are so much harder to stop than the Dolphins, despite the fact that the Fins arguably have two wide receivers who are more dangerous than Aiyuk and Deebo, at least in the air.
This is the piece that analytics cannot fully capture. This offense was elevated because of CMC. You see in games like the Eagles where he takes two defenders with him and that leaves the middle of the field wide open for Purdy to hit Deebo on a key third down that leads to a td. A 49ers content creator last showed how all of the other skill players performance was elevated by CMC's presence on the field via analytics. There's a case for both Purdy and CMC to be co-MVP similar to what happened in 97 with Sanders/Farve. But with all that said, Tyreek Hill should absolutely be the MVP. I hate he got hurt as it killed his chance at getting to 2K, which he had a pretty decent shot it before the injury.
Being a diehard Niner fan for over 40 years now, I think the “value” that people are missing with both Brock and CMC is that they are both the perfect pieces to complete the puzzle. The team has been extremely talented for the last 4-ish years, but Jimmy would always do something stupid at a key moment (or just get hurt and that was it for the year) whereas Brock seems to be like Shannahan playing a video game. There were a string of fantastic running backs, but none were nearly as well rounded as CMC (and they also couldn’t ever play a full season). These two are the cogs that make the machine run at full capacity and, therefore, are immensely valuable.
This whole issue stems from the fact that football, as a matter of game design, has a deep flaw: the QB position is simply too central to the game. It's like if basketball had a rule that the point guard has to shoot first on any possession, with his teammates only allowed to shoot if they got an offensive rebound. If you were designing a new game you would never make one position so much more important than any other position in the way a QB is.
This is why the NFL feels compelled to try and make it almost illegal to hit the QB at all, it really is that devastating when a QB gets injured. I don't know how you solve this problem without fundamentally changing the rules of the game in such a way as to almost make it an entirely different game
We need Kendrick Perkins to come in and say voting for the white guy for mvp is racist to make the debate really pop
I, humbly, suggest that it is bad that “elite” media conversation as to *team* sports has become increasingly dominated by quasi-autistic and somewhat socially awkward internet dorks. Something is lost. Especially, in regard to football.
Anyway, any analysis as to “value” will be undercooked. For instance, there is no agreement as to what “valuable” even means. What are you weighing? Most valuable to a specific team? Most as measured if a player is put on a different team? These are very different things...
Next. How do you account for and control all the team and game specific variables? (You can’t...)
Etc.
All you have left is broad and general rules of thumb like QB’s are more valuable than other positions. But using broad general rules to determine specific things at extreme outlier decision points, is the road to ruin.
You are better off shrugging your shoulders, showing humility, conceding its not a science, and not thinking too hard about it. “Whose season was this?”
I tend to come down on the side of the netds. QBs are move valuable. It's obviously true.
Buy you make a good point about balance. I've been watching Swamp Kings, which is awesome, and the stuff in there about leadership, working out, culture, etc resonates particularly because of some of the footage they got. There definitely are other important factors besides talent and completing passes. But talent and completing passes are the most important things.
I’m submitting a loaded example to elucidate a principle. Who is more valuable to Memphis, an efficient wing going for 15/5/5 and playing excellent defense or an efficient wing who goes 9/4/3 and plays good defense but keeps Morant out of trouble. (Jack Haley was valuable!).
Wow Ethan. That was straight up intelligent NFL analysis. Didn’t know that was in your bag. Great job.
I think Purdy said CMC for MVP because it’s awkward and tacky to say “me”. He could have just as likely said Deebo or Trent Williams or [any other talented teammate of his]. Not that he doesn’t sincerely believe it, just more so that it’s an awkward question to answer gracefully. Naturally, the nerds freaked out about it.
i think the upcoming Ravens Niners game looms large over the MVP convo
if the Ravens beat the Niners and also win out, or lose one of their non-Niner games and it’s not Lamar’s fault/he still has a good game, I think he’ll win it
if the Niners beat the Ravens and Purdy has a good game, he’ll win it
There are also many elements of QB performance that are scheme or situation based - the Purdy stat on 3d down conversion seems pretty relevant, but it would be nice to account for easy throws (open receivers, good protection, good play calls) also. Lots of stats (in all sports) are pretty absurd - “60 yard TD pass” on a screen, wide open end zone receivers, or plays where the receiver does all the work - those all benefit the QB’s stats disproportionately.
I would like MVP to incorporate a WAR concept or the HOF analysis - dominant in the era - and compared in some fashion to players at the same position.
The QB is only “more valuable because the ball is in is hands” if he does something particularly special or unique with it. If you could separate routine/expected success from extraordinary, player specific success, then you might have something.
So MVP for Basketball used to be the best player on the best team or one guy kept winning so the writers gave it to the MVP to the best challenger. Chuck won against MJ for having best record, or Karl won against MJ for being top challenger to Bulls second dynasty and the writers just wanted new blood, however at some point this changed. That's the oddity because it's never been the "best" even now people want new blood.
However if you aren't competing for a chip or don't get a chip then even if your dominant they won't reward you, choke on it Westbrook and Harden, both won by statistical nerd manipulation IMO, and Embid campaigning for the MVP was just vulgar and he had his proxies drag race into it which was just pathetic even though I like Embid as a person he wanted it too bad, so choke on the damn thing if you want it that bad.
In the NFL though why didn't Jerry Rice ever get run when Montana or Young won their MVP's? No one ever thought Jerry was unimportant but I don't recall it ever being much of a discussion. Also those 9er teams were STACKED from head to toe yet I don't recall anyone saying Joe wasn't worthy or Steve, and it wasn't just the offense there was serious pro bowlers and HOF on both defenses from Ronnie Lott to Deion Sanders.
In the 90's Troy never got any love but Emmitt did, and Jim Kelly got nothing but Thurman Thomas did, we have Barry Sanders winning half of one when his team was mostly mediocre. The biggest kick was that Brady won just 3 MVP's and every year he won the MVP he lost the Super Bowl (at least he got there though)... it's all just mostly rubbish.