PBA BPC, MIP selection criteria are fine but their application need fine tuning


The 2020 PBA Awards Night drew a lot of flack from PBA fans and observers, because some, mostly from the Phoenix side, weren’t satisfied with the results, particularly how votes by the PBA Commissioner’s Office became the swing factor for winner in at least two of the major awards.

Final tally from the Commissioner’s Office showed that the results for the Best Player of the Conference and Most Improved Player races were seemingly decided by votes from the Commissioner’s Office which, incidentally, were awarded to Barangay Ginebra players.

Thing is, the application of the criteria was unfair to both Stanley Pringle and Justin Chua. When the weight of each criteria is applied to the tabulation, Pringle would have won the award against Matthew Wright anyway but Chua should have gotten the nod instead of Prince Caperal

Allow me to explain.

Since the 2011–12 PBA season, the criteria used to select the PBA Most Valuable Player is 40% on average statistical points, 30% on press and media votes, 25% players’ votes, and 5% Commissioner’s Office.

The tally sheet reported by several media outfits revealed the following results:

2020 PBA BPC actual tally
Stats (40%) Media (30%) Players (25%) PBA (5%) Total (100%)
Pringle 641 632 67 300 1640
Wright 657 868 53 1578
Pogoy 657 141 10 150 958
Parks 704 118 4 50 876
Abueva 684 59 36 779
Perez 658 0 10 668

It is not divulged how the PBA applies the criteria but the anomaly can easily be spotted. How can the PBA votes, which has a mere weight of 5%, give Pringle a 250 point advantage over Bobby Ray Parks when Parks could only muster a measly 63 point advantage over Pringle in the stats department, which should supposedly has a weight of 40%,  despite having a substantial edge.

There should be nothing wrong with the criteria. Its interpretation and application that needs fine tuning.

If I be allowed to give my input on the criteria interpretation, I would assign the proper weight to each item in the criteria and the leader of the specific item gets an advantage based on how big his lead is over his adversaries.

This would bring the following tally, where Pringle would still nip Wright for top honors:

2020 PBA BPC weighted tally
Stats (40%) Media (30%) Players (25%) PBA (5%) Total (100%)
Pringle 36.42 21.84 25.00 5.00 88.26
Wright 37.33 30.00 19.78 87.11
Pogoy 37.33 4.87 3.73 2.50 48.43
Parks 40.00 4.08 1.49 0.83 46.40
Abueva 38.86 2.04 13.43 54.34
Perez 37.39 0.00 3.73 41.12

The Most Improved Player is solely selected by votation: 40% from media, 40% from players, and 20% from the Commissioner’s Office.

Again, Caperal earned a 2,000 point advantage from the 20% PBA votes whereas Justin Chua could only secure a 1,697 edge from the 40% media votes despite having landslide edge.

2020 PBA MIP actual tally
Media (40%) Players (40%) PBA (20%) Total (100%)
Caperal 303 144 2000 2447
Chua 2000 96 2096

Observe how Chua could have turned the tables and win by a photo finish if my interpretation had been applied:

2020 PBA MIP weighted tally
Media (40%) Players (40%) PBA (20%) Total (100%)
Caperal 6.06 40.00 20.00 66.06
Chua 40.00 26.67 66.67

The PBA needs to fine-tune the application of its awards criteria. It seems the weight assigned to each item are merely props.

As seen, they could have been lucky on th case of Pringle but no so on Chua.

It’s a sad, enraging incident when future actual PBA award winners are not the deserving winners according to standards they, themselves, set.

By Armando M. Bolislis