PEx Alert: Welcome to the new PinoyExchange. For access issues, bug reports and technical concerns, please email us at [email protected] Thank you!

UAAP Individual Awards

ProkorpyoProkorpyo Member ✭✭✭
It is that time of year when again the volleyball coaches' is about to meet when among the topics to be discussed is how the individual awards are to be determined.


Let us take the cue and start our discussion about the individual awards now, not late in the season when the awards are just about to be given, and certainly not after the awards are already given. People's opinions and positions by then seem to be the reverse engineering of their desired results.


This is the right time, when the first game is yet to be played and the first ball yet to be hit.
«13456720

Comments

  • masyadong OA naman, ang aga-aga pa para mag-hype, tsarot !
  • ProkorpyoProkorpyo Member ✭✭✭
    To make our discussion more nuanced, consider this history of UAAP Individual Awards from this Lasallian's recollection.


    Pre-S63:
    Up until S62, the only awards given by the UAAP were the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award and sometimes the Best Coach award.


    The champion coach got the Best Coach award and the MVP was the player picked by the champion coach from the champion team.


    Starting S63:
    It was during UST-hosted S63 when the UAAP started giving the familiar individual skill awards, well except the Best Scorer award.


    This was the season when the ROY award, the Best Spiker, the Best Blocker, the Best Server, the Best Setter awards were first given in the UAAP.


    As for the Best Digger and the Best Receiver awards; there were seasons when only the Best Libero award was given (meaning the Best Digger and Best Receiver were merged into the Best Libero award); while other seasons, the Best Libero and Best Receiver awards were given (meaning Libero = Digger); but most seasons, both Best Digger and Best Receiver awards were given and named as such.


    Why the inconsistency?


    Because of. . .


    Fact #1: Individual awards has never been part of the FIVB's Rules of the Game.


    There is no procedure, method nor even guideline espoused by the FIVB concerning individual awards.


    There are trends, of course, on how the awards are being given in the FIVB-sanctioned games like the World Championships, Grand Prix, and the Olympics; but the FIVB leaves it to the organizers of those events how to determine their respective individual awardees.


    This is wise of the FIVB since they are giving the different confederations, leagues, and organizers the freedom to value and highlight the skills and character important to each of them.


    Be wary of people and sites saying they are using the official FIVB method of determining individual awardees. There is no such thing.


    So how was it done?


    As the UAAP was yet to use any statistical system at that point, the methods used in determining the awardees were subjective.


    From direct polling, to ranking, to handpicking, to various distributions based on teams' final rankings (e.g. 3 or 4 awards for the champion team, 2 or 3 for the runner-up, 1 or 2 for the 3rd, 1 or 2 for the 4th); from considering all the players, to limiting the choices to just the F4 teams; the methods were varied.


    So who chooses what method to use?


    Fact #2: The host has the prerogative how the individual awards are determined.


    It is one of their prerogative.


    The host discusses the process, among other things, during the coaches' meeting before the start of the season. Before the start of the season, to give teams the opportunity to question the method chosen by the host. However, there has never been a case when the host's choice has been questioned, except one, sort of, more on that later. The host is generally given all the freedom in running the tournament. It is the host's turn to run the UAAP the way they want it to be ran.


    As can be imagined, different teams have different philosophies and have different preferences in giving out the individual awards that, of course, they implement during their hosting. This ever-changing process in giving the awards led to the confusion of those not familiar with how the UAAP works.


    Starting S69:
    In 2006, the International Volleyball Federation's Volleyball Information System (FIVB-VIS), the official statistics collection system of the FIVB, reached our shores and the UAAP tapped adm's volleyball program head Sherwin Malonzo-owned TMX, one of the two VIS-service provider in the country, to operate the VIS for the league.


    The VIS report included the different skill categories (Spike, Block, Serve, Dig, Set and Receive) and in addition the Scoring category which led to the UAAP to give out the Best Scorer award.


    TMX started pushing, from the very start, for solely statistics basis of the individual awards, including MVP, thereby taking the decision away from the host, game officials, and/or coaches to the VIS.


    This did not sit well with many teams considering TMX is strongly associated with one team. Moreover, many teams found it hard to keep track of the statistics because of the novelty of the VIS then, and because. . .


    Fact #3: Different coaches have different appreciation of VIS.


    Due to varying interest and maybe competence, coaches view statistics differently, from being trivial to being invaluable.


    The UAAP continued to give the individual as before, but this time the statistics provided by the VIS guided the decision.


    TMX continued to push and there was a constant clash between. . .


    Fact #4: There are two schools of thought among coaches regarding the MVP awards.


    More on this during La Salle's hosting, but the contending schools of thought were those who took TMX's position of wanting to base the award solely on statistics; and those who believed intangibles, which cannot be measured by statistics, should be the basis of the MVP award.


    These two schools of thought went to heads until. . .


    S72:
    FEU, the host, tried the VIS and at the same time started what turned out to be a long trial-and-error of compromises to accommodate the contending ideals.


    The host opted to give out the individual skill awards to the stat leaders of the different skill categories. They also introduced the concept of MVP of the Season award, which would be determined by coaches' rankings of players short-listed by VIS excluding their own players (e.g. UST coach did not rank UST players).


    It was an obvious compromise, which tried to incorporate the salient features of the schools of thought--coaches' chose (i.e. the accounting for the intangibles) from short-listed players (i.e. filtered by TMX).


    The players were short-listed for the MVP of the season award via a new concept TMX introduced: the Ranking Points.


    The Ranking Points* were given per skill as follows:
    Rank 1: 50
    Rank 2: 49
    Rank 3: 48
    . . .
    Rank 40: 11
    Rank 41 and onwards: 10
    *take note of this Ranking Point formula because TMX changed it controversially in a later season


    It was a compromise because the statistics group did not get their preference of purely statistical basis (Ranking Points) and the intangible group did not get their preference of balloting since the coaches did not really directly vote. It was more of blind voting because the coaches ranked the players with the highest average ranked getting the award.


    Notice that the novel concept introduced by FEU was not the MVP of the Finals, as most articles say, but was the MVP of the Season.


    The unqualified MVP (pre-S72) was chosen by the champion coach from the champion team, exactly how the MVP of the Finals since its inception is determined.


    Therefore, FEU retained the pre-S72 MVP award and just renamed it as MVP of the Finals.


    It is, therefore, Cheng and Dy who can trace their awards back to UAAP greats Santos (DLS), Semana (FEU), Hernandez (DLS), Penetrante (DLS), Ege (FEU, 3-times), Ortega (DLS), delos Angeles (FEU), Botor (UST), etc.; while Baron can trace her award to only as far back as Vivas (FEU) in S72.


    This is the reason why comparing 3-time MVP Ege (FEU) and Valdez (adm) is technically incorrect.


    Dimaculangan from the champion UST got the S72 MVP, while the very first MVP of the Season went to the statistical leader Vivas from the host and powerhouse FEU that missed the semis for the very first time that season.


    Many coaches were not satisfied with the result of this compromise, which became apparent in the following season.


    S73:
    During the coaches' meeting of S73, La Salle announced that the host was foregoing her prerogative to decide on the procedure of determining the individual awards and was leaving the decision to the experts of the sport (i.e. the volleyball coaches).


    TMX then took the floor and started presenting a statistical based procedure in determining individual awardees but was stopped by La Salle's board member saying it was not up to TMX to decide, it was up to the coaches, and TMX was there only to observe and implement the coaches' decision.


    It was during the coaches' discussion that it became obvious there were two school of thoughts regarding the MVP awards. One group wants a purely statistical basis to do away with subjectivity and politics. While the other group has the traditional view that purely statistical basis can encourage stat padding, which no coach wanted and which many believed happened the previous season; and that intangibles--like leadership, teamwork, heart, etc.--which cannot be measured by statistics, are more important in determining the awardees. Intangibles best judged (subjective) by the coaches.


    It was also during these discussions that it became apparent that the result of the compromise of the previous season did not sit well with the coaches.


    This is not a critique of Vivas. FEU presented the procedure of determining the S72 Season MVP to the coaches before the start of the season and nobody questioned it. Vivas deserves the MVP award she got. Nevertheless, the circumstance surrounding her MVP award had left a bitter taste in the coaches' mouths.


    FEU used to be always in the finals, it was seldom they finish third; one can count in one hand the times they finished fourth. Therefore, FEU missing the semis was almost sacrilegious, and it happened that season. This sent shockwaves in the UAAP.


    To put it in perspective, imagine the shock if La Salle, after a decade of making the finals and winning 6 titles in that run, does not make the final four this year, multiply that by three, or four even. That was how big a deal FEU not making the semis in S72 was, during their hosting no less. That was the context of Viva's MVP.


    It was the worst nightmare of the coaches who hate stat padding. This swung the opinion of the coaches towards the intangibles and away from the stats. It is not enough to be the statistical leader to be the MVP; it must also be accompanied by team results.


    With the way the discussion was going, the host could have had their way, La Salle being among those who prefer the traditional view of giving importance to the intangibles over statistics, mainly because of the Lady Spikers' team-oriented philosophy and not really individual performances. La Salle was also uncomfortable that TMX, which was strongly associated with one school, was aggressively pushing for control of the individual awards. Nevertheless, the host still deferred to the coaches.


    At the end of the discussion, the consensus among the coaches was to adjust the compromise of the previous season. The VIS would still provide the short-listed players, three from each teams, but this time, only from the final four teams; then the coaches and game officials would vote with the coaches excluding their own players. So unlike the previous season, the coaches and official, instead of just ranking, would directly vote for their choice this time.


    The Maizo-Alarca Controversy:
    At the end of the elimination, the MVP race turned controversial mainly because it was so very close between two players. On one side, a charming Aiza Maizo of the second-running UST (10-4), who led in the Ranking Points and got two skill awards (Best Scorer and Best Receiver) and on the other side was one Jacq Alarca, who also had two skill awards (Best Spiker and Best Server), of the front-running De La Salle which steam-rolled through all opponents not losing a match (on court that is because the one vs UE was reversed due to the Yeung-Garbin incident) and dropping just four sets (plus the three which was reversed) along the way.


    Considering the discussion about the MVP award at the beginning of the season, one would expect Alarca to be the runaway winner, but the coaches voting resulted in a deadlock. This necessitated the game officials also to cast their votes and after the Head Referee and Commissioner voted, it was still deadlocked. The vote of the Tournament Director broke the tie.


    The result became controversial because of news that the host favored its own player to get the MVP award, which in a way was true because the Tournament Director came from the host. However, it only came to that because the voting was hopelessly deadlocked until the very end. The Tournament Director vote was consistent with La Salle's team-oriented philosophy, which was a vote for Alarca.


    S74:
    It came to no surprise that in S74 host Adm, being the main proponent of the purely statistical basis for MVP, announced that all awards (except Final's MVP) would be based on statistics. No more polling, nor ranking like in the past.


    Sherwin Malonzo, the volleyball program head of adm and the owner of TMX, presented to the coaches how the Season MVP would be determined.


    The Ranking Point (RP) formula TMX introduced in S72 would be used and the Season MVP would be the player with the highest overall statistical points (OSP) computed as:


    OSP = (((Scorer RP + Spiker RP + Blocker RP + Server RP + Digger RP + Setter RP + Receiver RP) x 10) + (Sets won x 30)) / total sets played


    In short, the coaches did not have any input in determining the Season's MVP anymore; instead, accounting just the team's performance.


    A player's chance of being the Season's MVP improves as her team wins more sets, and more importantly, do it in the least sets possible.


    Fast forward to the end of the eliminations.


    No lady eagle led any skill category, much less in the ranking points.


    To everybody's surprise, the host, through TMX, started distributing ballots containing short-listed players for each skill categories and asked the coaches to vote for their choice for the different awards. This was contrary to what the host announced in the coaches' meeting before the start of the season.


    La Salle did not vote and instead requested for the minutes of the coaches' meeting from the host.


    When the minutes was clear, the process of determining the awardees: statistics-based and no voting.


    This prompted La Salle, already assured of four awards, to haste in drafting a Letter of Clarification to the UAAP Board. Haste because with the voting done and the results already in, letters to the awardees might be sent soon.


    When La Salle handed the Letter of Clarification to the UAAP President, which was of course the senior board member of the host Adm, Mr. Palou informed DLSU that there was no need any more for the Letter of Clarification. The host was not pushing through with the balloting. They would just follow what they announced during the coaches meeting.


    What could have been the result of the balloting that led to the change of heart?


    S75:
    NU, the host of S75, opted for status quo. They would be adopting the processes of the previous season without changes.


    La Salle was already tracking the VIS by that time and therefore was not surprised when a letter of invitation for the MVP came. What surprised the Lady Spikers was the recipient of the letter.


    La Salle expected Ara Galang to be named the MVP, but it was Abi Marano who received the letter of invitation.


    The Lady Spikers called up TMX to clarify the mix-up and inquired if they, TMX, had made changes to the MVP selection process and if they did made changes, did they inform the coaches and the Board?


    TMX confessed that they made an "improvement" in the MVP selection and failed to inform the coaches, the Board, and even the host. They did it unilaterally. TMX argued that it should not matter, as the award would go to La Salle either way.


    That was not the point, of course.


    La Salle called for an emergency Board meeting where TMX was asked to explain.


    TMX explained in a letter, ". . .We would like to apologize for any confusion the new equation we used in determining the Season MVP of the UAAP Season 75 Volleyball Tournament may have caused. . ."


    ". . .Due to our eagerness to test the new equation, we tried it to determine the Season 75 MVP. Thinking that the equation was a sound improvement, we then submitted the results to the Tournament Host. . ."


    In short, TMX was saying, that though they unilaterally changed the formula, it was the host who had the final say.


    Things were not looking good for TMX because of this serious breech, until NU took the responsibility for not making sure any anomaly happened.


    In fairness to NU, they were clear from the beginning to the end that they were not changing a thing. Status quo. How could they have known that TMX changed the formula without informing anybody?


    Nevertheless, NU chose to fall on their sword and owned to the brouhaha saying they should have known of the changes and should have informed the Board and the coaches.


    In the end, the Board decided:


    1. The Season MVP should be determined using the official formula (i.e. awards going to Ara Galang (DLSU) for the Womens' and Red Christiansen (DLSU) for the Men's).


    2. Having been leaked in the social media already, to save the players who already received letters of invivatation as MVPs determined using the altered formula (i.e. Abi Marano (DLSU) for Womens' and Mark Alfafara (UST) for Men's) from humiliation of their awards being taken away, the Board decided to be Solomonic and name the two as co-Season MVP.


    3. That in the future, the Board would first discuss the result of the individual awards before the host send the letters of invitation.


    4. It was up to the next host what formula to adopt in their hosting.


    Anyway, the "improvement" TMX made was in the computation of the Ranking Points.


    To distinguish between the different formulas, let us call the Ranking Points formula first used in S72 as RP72 and the "improved" Ranking Points formula used by TMX in season 75 as RP75.


    RP75 for different skills were given as follows:
    Rank 1: 100
    Rank 2: 90
    Rank 3: 81
    Rank 4: 73
    Rank 5: 66
    Rank 6: 60
    Rank 7: 55
    Rank 8: 51
    Rank 9: 48
    Rank 10: 46
    Rank 11: 45
    ...
    Rank 35:21
    Rank 36 and onwards: 20


    The OSP formula was not changed.


    If TMX did not change the RP formula, Marano (DLSU) would have been a one-time MVP, Galang (DLSU): two and Valdez (adm): 2, and Morente (adm) would have been S79 Season MVP.


    Comparing the two formulas, RP72 and RP75, here are some observations:


    1. RP75 favors the specialists over two-way players--a player who tops two or three categories has a higher chance of being MVP than a player who maybe not as highly ranked but place consistently high across all categories.


    2. RP75 favoring specialist should make it easier for setters and liberos, the most specialized roles, to be MVPs; but this is not so because the OSP formula has a bias for Spikers. RP75 only worsen this bias for offensive players and against players with no or low offensive output (i.e. setters and liberos).


    3. The range of RP72 was 10-50 that increased in RP75 to 20-100. This, in effect, increased the RP (individual performance) component of the OSP.


    In short, RP75 favors specialist spikers and it lessens the impact of team performance in determining the MVP.


    Is this what the coaches wanted? Or was it only TMX who intended this "improvement"?


    Coach Ramil wanted to discuss this with the other coaches, but...


    S76:
    Adu, the host, said to be able to move forward from the brouhaha of the previous season, they would be adopting the RP75.


    Season MVP was determined using this formula ever since.


    This season also saw the result of the individual awards being discussed in the Board before release that led to. . .


    S77:
    Arado (UE) led all rookies in both OSP and RP75 followed by Laure (UST). It was close, not very, but close enough that the Board decided to give co-ROY awards.


    Also in S77, the Board instructed TMX to stop releasing individual rankings starting the second round.


    A particularly nasty site and group of fans that had the penchant for fabrication and launched attacks on the league when their fabrication did not match the official results.


    As these attacks tended to degrade the value of the awards, the Board limited the release of information to make it harder for these people and sites to make convincing fabrication.


    S79:
    Host UST opted to follow the trend in the FIVB-sanctioned events of giving out positional awards instead of the traditional skill awards and left it to the tournament officials to come up with the criteria.


    However, no criteria came up when the tournament started, none still at the end of the first round, and when there was still none at the end of the eliminations; the host wisely decided to revert to the previous seasons' method of awarding.


    Also in S79, the group of Pong Ducanes, Terabyte, who handles the statistics for UAAP basketball ventured into VIS and was tapped by the Board to replace TMX.


    As Terabyte's competence being essentially basketball, they absorbed most of the TMX staff to run the VIS. Even though the VIS outfit changed, old biases persist.
  • ProkorpyoProkorpyo Member ✭✭✭
    Some of the points or questions that caught my attention in the previous discussions about individual awards:


    1. Why are the skills categories presented per set?


    The simple answer is that is how the FIVB-VIS is programmed to report it. To change it would mean our data would deviate from the standard, which would make it hard for us to compare and evaluate our performance with other leagues and countries.


    Normalization (leveling) also make comparisons more accurate by removing the bias towards players/teams who played more sets.


    2. Why does the scoring category not normalized?


    The wisdom of this also escapes me. I think, to some, Best Scorer = MVP and the creator of the FIVB-VIS is one of those.


    3. The data used in determining Ranking Points were already divided by sets, why does the OSP formula divide the Ranking Points by sets again?


    The skills categories are normalized (leveled) per set. Normalized to avoid players/teams who played more sets to be advantaged and players/teams who finished their matches in less sets to be disadvantaged, so that everyone is level. Equal. Good for comparison and ranking.


    The OSP formula dividing RP by sets is to disadvantage players whose team played more sets, or conversely, it is to give players whose team played less sets the advantage. In short, it incentivizes teams and players to finish their matches in as few sets as possible.
  • eklavuuuuheklavuuuuh Member ✭✭✭
    Ang haba ng binasa ko, sir! Basta ang naintindihan ko lang (english kasi), pabago bago sila ng rules.
  • pagodzpagodz Member ✭✭
    ang haba nakakatamad basahin.. :rotflmao:
  • madamexmadamex Member PExer
    Good read. Salamat dito.
  • keira_cruzkeira_cruz member ✭✭✭
    Infer hinanap ko yung "Dear Tita Charo" sa unahan, jk Sir P haha

    Ang haba pero at least para malinawan na ang fans paano nakuha ang awards. Kaya lang basta hindi pabor sa fans luto yan :lol:
  • iskimbertushiskimbertush Member ✭✭✭
    “A particularly nasty site and group of fans that had the penchant for fabrication and launched attacks on the league when their fabrication did not match the official results.


    As these attacks tended to degrade the value of the awards, the Board limited the release of information to make it harder for these people and sites to make convincing fabrication.”

    S-E-B-O
  • damn_ilookgooddamn_ilookgood Member ✭✭✭
    Wow, nice read! One of the best posts in a long while. Didn't know that the MVP criteria kept on changing in the past 10 seasons - changes driven by different coaching ideologies.

    I'm not a coach obviously, but I'd like to see the MVP calculation changed as follows:

    1. Ranking points in Scoring should be retained in the calculations, and the calculation of spiking efficiency should consider the errors.

    2. The ranking points should be proportional to the difference between the players' stat and the bottom stat. I find the current RPs too simplistic - if Jaja and Majoy are the top two spikers, they will get 100 and 90 RPs respectively regardless of the magnitude of Jaja's lead over Majoy.

    Sa taglish, kung 40% efficient si Jaja at 30% efficient si Majoy, di magbabago RPs nila kahit maghalimaw si Jaja to 50% efficiency o di kaya dumikit si Majoy to 35% efficiency.

    3. Win-loss record should not affect the MVP calculations. Think KYK last London 2012 Olympics, MVP kahit fourth place lang ang Korea.

    Stats padding deserves a separate discussion. And I like that you mentioned that site spewing out nonsense info - Maraguinot in close fight with Valdez daw sa MVP race.

    I have additional thoughts pero mamaya na lang hahaha
  • alchegynique03alchegynique03 TamPExer ✭✭✭
    Truth. Good read. Ganun pala iyong nangyari nung time ni Vivas. Tapos iyong Maizo vs Alarca case.

    Oo nga papa D, W-L records should not affect MVP calculations. Sana iyong ibang teams i-track din iyan, para kung may questions sila, maraise nila gaya ng ginagawa ng La Salle.

    Oo nga Individual awards iyan parang bonus na lang sa player pero syempre dapat sa tama lang at malinaw sa lahat. Para walang isipan ng dayaan daw.
  • alchegynique03alchegynique03 TamPExer ✭✭✭
    Sir Prokorpyo, any news ano gagamitin ng host (FEU) para madetermine ang individual awards. At kung OK ba sa board?
  • isley17isley17 sa tabi tabi ✭✭✭
    Sir Prokorpyo, any news ano gagamitin ng host (FEU) para madetermine ang individual awards. At kung OK ba sa board?

    Beauty and brain daw. :rotfl:
  • alchegynique03alchegynique03 TamPExer ✭✭✭
    isley17 wrote: »
    Beauty and brain daw. :rotfl:

    :rolleyes:
    Maglambingan na lang kayo ni dowaits :glee:
  • damn_ilookgooddamn_ilookgood Member ✭✭✭
    isley17 wrote: »
    Beauty and brain daw. :rotfl:

    30% Swimwear
    30% Evening gown
    40% Q&A :rotfl:
  • alchegynique03alchegynique03 TamPExer ✭✭✭
    30% Swimwear
    30% Evening gown
    40% Q&A :rotfl:

    Nahiya pa kayo hindi niyo pa nilagyan ng audience impact :rolleyes:
  • Here are my thoughts:

    1) Based on the formula, the # of sets played really determines the MVP, much more than the win-loss factor. Before dividing the # of sets played, Baron was 3rd in the MVP race, then suddenly she was # 1 after factoring in the sets played, I actuallt thought of substiuting with sets won or x- sets lost but ang unfair for bottom tier teams, in short walang alternative sa curent formula lol, happy ako for bebe Majoy but sayang lang talaga yung kay Jaja

    2) If the new awards format will be adopted, I'm now wondering if players from the teams who do not enter the semifinals will be included in the awards computation, because I think that's the convention for most tournaments. I think the issue here is the controversy that will happen if players from bottom half teams get good award-worthy stats but don't enter the semis, that will be sad, and will probably be controversial, the committee should explain their scheme to the teams early on. Although, in NCAA, they adopted the new awards scheme but included the lower tier teams in consideration for the awards.

    3) I get the factoring in the win-loss award because it says so much about the team, pwedeng magmamaw ang isang player but 0-14 sila, tapos magMVP siya kasi unti lang ang sets na nilaro nila because nasweep sila, and that's sad kung siya ang MVP
  • isley17isley17 sa tabi tabi ✭✭✭
    30% Swimwear
    30% Evening gown
    40% Q&A :rotfl:

    Divided by number of sets played :rotflmao:
  • ProkorpyoProkorpyo Member ✭✭✭
    Sir Prokorpyo, any news ano gagamitin ng host (FEU) para madetermine ang individual awards. At kung OK ba sa board?
    The coaches' meeting is next week.

    That is the reason why I started this thread.
  • ProkorpyoProkorpyo Member ✭✭✭
    Wow, nice read! One of the best posts in a long while. Didn't know that the MVP criteria kept on changing in the past 10 seasons - changes driven by different coaching ideologies.

    It used to be changing but not anymore. The MVP criteria hasn't change the past five seasons.
  • Robert NestaRobert Nesta Come As You Are ✭✭✭
    RP75 for different skills were given as follows:
    Rank 1: 100
    Rank 2: 90
    Rank 3: 81
    Rank 4: 73
    Rank 5: 66
    Rank 6: 60
    Rank 7: 55
    Rank 8: 51
    Rank 9: 48
    Rank 10: 46
    Rank 11: 45
    ...
    Rank 35:21
    Rank 36 and onwards: 20

    3. The range of RP72 was 10-50 that increased in RP75 to 20-100. This, in effect, increased the RP (individual performance) component of the OSP.

    In short, RP75 favors specialist spikers and it lessens the impact of team performance in determining the MVP.

    =========

    Eto pinaka tumatak saken.

    Yung libero at setter lumiit ang chance mag MVP dahil sa points.
«13456720
This discussion has been closed.