Retro POY '04-05 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

If anybody noticed, Steve Nash is not in my top five. I do not hate Steve Nash. He is arguably the GOAT shooter, GOAT ball-handler, and is a top 5 passer/playmaker ever imo. This is a fantastic skillset. I think Steve Nash is a great player. I try to emulate his shooting technique (with limited results, even relative to my intramural competition).

I do not believe he was better than these five players this season.

He is not a product of any system. You make yourself. Nash made himself as a basketball player. His impact on that particular team was no doubt insane. Obviously Nash fans have given evidence of this here; and I remember watching Phoenix games without Nash that year. It was pathetic. They weren't very good without him orchestrating the offense and scoring and passing and doing what Steve Nash does.

However....

How was this team built around Nash? He had two great shooters on the wings, a pf who could shoot and REALLY finish in Marion, and arguably the best finisher in basketball in pre-injury Amare (who played out of position at C which accentuated his quickness against slower C's). It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that Phoenix minus Nash is going to suck ass.

Think about it. Without Nash, how is the team built? Phoenix needs to outscore teams because with or without Nash, the defense and rebounding of this team is pretty bad (partially because the defensive players aren't that great, partially because your players at the big man positions are playing out of position...so you are undersized and can get pushed around....you can't control the middle).

How is a team with two shooters (and Q-Rich cannot create his own shot except in the post....in Phoenix, he never posted up because Mike D never let him), Shawn Marion (no ability to create his own shot), and Amare-without the jumper he has today- supposed to score a lot of points efficiently?

Nash, with his considerable talents, makes the offense super powerful because the finishers/shooters get to finish and shoot with Nash orchestrating things perfectly. THAT is Nash's impact. It is very real, and it is produced by him. He wasn't magically created by any system or coach.

IMHO, Phoenix in 05 is a case of building a team perfectly around one player so much that you are completely dependent on that player. I think the Suns are a lottery team without Nash. No team was more dependent on one player. He was the all-important cog, the **** transcendental signifier for the Phoenix structure.

1.) Dependence does not make one player better than another. Just because team A is more dependent on player A' than team B is dependent on player B' doesn't mean player A' is a better basketball player than player B'.

2.) I don't think a team built like Phoenix was can win a title. In most years in NBA history, that team would have ran into a team with a constant that could handle Phoenix. Unfortunately for Phoenix, this was no exception. Tim Duncan was that constant for his team, and the Spurs used him to take Phoenix down.

What have I learned from this? Well, Steve Nash was CLEARLY the MVP of the regular season. His team falls to dust without him. It deconstructs without him. Doesn't make him the best player that year though.

[NO-KG-AI]

If I'm not mistaken, Kobe played at around 230 pounds that year, and seemed sluggish in comparison to his usual self. That may have something to do with it ronnymac.

[ronnymac2]

^^^Yup, I remember that now. That could be it.

[ElGee]

My 2005 POY Ballot:

1. Tim Duncan
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Steve Nash
4. Dwyane Wade
5. Shaquille O'Neal

Explanations later if I find time.

[mysticbb]

I don't quite understand why Nowitzki isn't on everyones ballot in this season. Why? Nowitzki made All-NBA 1st team that season over Garnett, McGrady was All-NBA 3rd, btw., Nowitzki was 3rd in MVP voting. Nowitzki's boxscore numbers 26/10/3 with 1.2 steals and 1.5 blocked shots per game. He led his team to 58 wins in a tough Western Conference which had six 50 wins teams, he was 5th in PER, 2nd in Win Shares, 1st in WS/48.
Nowitzki had a +15.3 Net+/-, his OffCourt Net was -6.0, the only Mavericks with a negative OffCourt value. The team was without him 102.0 to 106.6 per 100 possessions which equals to a 32.6 win% or 26.7 wins, with him on the court they were 114.1 to 104.3 which means 81.5 win% or 66.8 wins. His Net+/- is better than Nash's, only Duncan and Ginobili (from all players mentioned in this thread) have a higher Net+/-. It is the same picture in APM, players like Garnett, Nash, McGrady have all lower APM. All statistical evidence and all evidence we have from the observers from that time are saying that Nowitzki is at least a Top5 player in that season.
Why is someone leaving him off the ballot?

[Silver Bullet]

1. Steve Nash



2. Shaq
3. Dirk Nowitzki
4. Ray Allen
5. Tim Duncan

[semi-sentient]

(I'm still in shock that Garnett was #1 in '09 and that Kobe's never going to be #1).

'08 you mean? Yeah, that's unfortunate. Lots of people had Kobe 3rd/4th in the voting that year, and I just didn't see the justification for ranking him that low.

Oh well.

[Optimism Prime]

1. Nash
2. Duncan
3. Shaq
4. Garnett
5. Dirk

[mysticbb]

'08 you mean? Yeah, that's unfortunate. Lots of people had Kobe 3rd/4th in the voting that year, and I just didn't see the justification for ranking him that low.

Oh well.

I guess that get cancelled out by a couple of people who have Bryant as #1 whenever he was healthy for the whole season. ;)

[Silver Bullet]

'08 you mean? Yeah, that's unfortunate. Lots of people had Kobe 3rd/4th in the voting that year, and I just didn't see the justification for ranking him that low.

Oh well.

I guess that get cancelled out by a couple of people who have Bryant as #1 whenever he was healthy for the whole season.

There's only 1 such person - and that too is a stretch because even Unbiased Fan didn't put him at 1 most seasons. I've only had Kobe at 1 for two seasons so far, that is not unreasonable at all-

Meanwhile, there is a group of 15 guys, who are group voting and have the same results year in and year out i.e. If KG plays more than 50 games, put him in the top 3, put whoever won the championship in the top 3, and fill the 3rd spot with one of your favourites.

[mysticbb]

Meanwhile, there is a group of 15 guys, who are group voting and have the same results year in and year out i.e. If KG plays more than 50 games, put him in the top 3, put whoever won the championship in the top 3, and fill the 3rd spot with one of your favourites.

Well, in your simplistic view, maybe. ;)

Garnett got 9 votes combined in 2006 and 2007, 1 3rd, 1 4th and 7 5th place votes. He played 76 games in each season.

[drza]

'08 you mean? Yeah, that's unfortunate. Lots of people had Kobe 3rd/4th in the voting that year, and I just didn't see the justification for ranking him that low.

Oh well.

I guess that get cancelled out by a couple of people who have Bryant as #1 whenever he was healthy for the whole season.

There's only 1 such person - and that too is a stretch because even Unbiased Fan didn't put him at 1 most seasons. I've only had Kobe at 1 for two seasons so far, that is not unreasonable at all-

Meanwhile, there is a group of 15 guys, who are group voting and have the same results year in and year out i.e. If KG plays more than 50 games, put him in the top 3, put whoever won the championship in the top 3, and fill the 3rd spot with one of your favourites.

I see your point, since KG has gotten more than 1 top-3 vote in exactly 2 of the 5 years we've done so far. I don't know how I didn't notice that 15-man block voting pattern sooner!

[Doctor MJ]

What have I learned from this? Well, Steve Nash was CLEARLY the MVP of the regular season. His team falls to dust without him. It deconstructs without him. Doesn't make him the best player that year though.

Okay, I want to say one thing, and I'll preface by saying I wouldn't think twice about your vote if you hadn't said this statement, so by no means am I pressuring you to change your thinking.

The only reason why this is called the Retro POY project and not the Retro MVP project is because I thought it would make it more clear that we weren't just using the regular season. This is not something I meant people to think of as a totally different animal - so if anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. But again, the MVP award's criteria are left purposefully vague, so I'm not about to get anal about how people are doing their voting as long as I can see some logic behind it (and I don't think you're without logic ronny).

[Doctor MJ]

'04-05 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Tim Duncan       13   4   1   0   2 165   0.868
2. Steve Nash        4   4   5   1   0  96   0.505
3. Kevin Garnett     2   6   1   5   2  84   0.442
4. Shaquille O'Neal  0   3   3   4   3  51   0.268
5. Dwyane Wade       0   1   3   5   2  39   0.163
6. Dirk Nowitzki     0   1   3   2   3  31   0.163
7. Amar'e Stoudemire 0   0   1   1   1   9   0.047
8. Manu Ginobili     0   0   1   0   1   6   0.032
9. LeBron James      0   0   1   0   0   5   0.026
10. Tracy McGrady    0   0   0   0   3   3   0.016
    Ray Allen        0   0   0   1   0   3   0.016
12. Allen Iverson    0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005
    Chauncey Billups 0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005


[Optimism Prime]

'08 you mean? Yeah, that's unfortunate. Lots of people had Kobe 3rd/4th in the voting that year, and I just didn't see the justification for ranking him that low.

Oh well.

I guess that get cancelled out by a couple of people who have Bryant as #1 whenever he was healthy for the whole season.

There's only 1 such person - and that too is a stretch because even Unbiased Fan didn't put him at 1 most seasons. I've only had Kobe at 1 for two seasons so far, that is not unreasonable at all-

Meanwhile, there is a group of 15 guys, who are group voting and have the same results year in and year out i.e. If KG plays more than 50 games, put him in the top 3, put whoever won the championship in the top 3, and fill the 3rd spot with one of your favourites.

This is the first year Unbiased Fan hasn't listed him #1.

[bastillon]

damn I should've voted while I was still there. although I gave my list, it was unofficial and incomplete so I understand why I'm out.

anyway, my voting, just for fun:
1.Nash
2.Tmac
3.Dirk
4.Manu
5.Shaq

extremely poor year by my standards. couldn't include KG, Kobe, LeBron because I don't rate people who didn't make the playoffs. Timmy is hurt by RS injury (only 66 games) and poor play in the finals (the only team with competent defensive bigs in those playoffs). wanted to include Wade, but a guy who gets injured in the postseason doesn't present a lot of value to me. Tmac gets a big boost for the playoffs where he played well against favored team. Manu IMO led those Spurs in the playoffs and this is easily backup up by stats. also, he dominated the Pistons, which was the most important moment of the year. Shaq easily had the 2nd best RS, but he played poorly in the postseason... + the injury.

[bastillon]

as I read through this thread, I'm surprised to see Duncan so high. he wasn't Spurs best player after the injury and he missed many games in the RS. I think it hurts him ton.

I'm also surprised by how high Shaq finished. played poorly in the playoffs, his team underachieved, wasn't even Heat best player come playoff time.

the way I see it is without injuries, it goes like this:
1) KG
2) Duncan
3) Shaq
...) Wade, Nash, Dirk, Tmac in some order

but: KG didn't make the playoffs what puts him out of this discussion by my standards; Duncan got injured, Wade got injured, Shaq got injured and what you're left with isn't much considering that Kobe had a down year, LeBron was only a sophomore etc.

so while Nash wasn't the best player to build around, the circumstances made it so that he was clearly the best player in the league at the end of the day. well, that actually might have been KG but considering my playoff-criterion...

I'd like to hear the reasoning for Manu over Nash and Duncan over Shaq/Dirk specifically from drza. by your ranking system, Spurs had 2 of TOP3 players in the league and yet they barely won against a Pistons team without any superstar. Pistons must have been GOAT like team to be competitive.

[Jim Naismith]

'04-05 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Tim Duncan       13   4   1   0   2 165   0.868
2. Steve Nash        4   4   5   1   0  96   0.505
3. Kevin Garnett     2   6   1   5   2  84   0.442
4. Shaquille O'Neal  0   3   3   4   3  51   0.268
5. Dwyane Wade       0   1   3   5   2  39   0.163
6. Dirk Nowitzki     0   1   3   2   3  31   0.163
7. Amar'e Stoudemire 0   0   1   1   1   9   0.047
8. Manu Ginobili     0   0   1   0   1   6   0.032
9. LeBron James      0   0   1   0   0   5   0.026
10. Tracy McGrady    0   0   0   0   3   3   0.016
    Ray Allen        0   0   0   1   0   3   0.016
12. Allen Iverson    0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005
    Chauncey Billups 0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005


Doctor MJ,

I'm going through the old RPoY voting data.

You indicate that 20 voters had Duncan on their 2005 ballot (for 1st through 5th place).

But the PoY Shares were calculated as if there were 19 voters total. For example, Duncan has 165/(19*10) = .868 Shares.

Am I missing something here?

[Doctor MJ]

'04-05 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Tim Duncan       13   4   1   0   2 165   0.868
2. Steve Nash        4   4   5   1   0  96   0.505
3. Kevin Garnett     2   6   1   5   2  84   0.442
4. Shaquille O'Neal  0   3   3   4   3  51   0.268
5. Dwyane Wade       0   1   3   5   2  39   0.163
6. Dirk Nowitzki     0   1   3   2   3  31   0.163
7. Amar'e Stoudemire 0   0   1   1   1   9   0.047
8. Manu Ginobili     0   0   1   0   1   6   0.032
9. LeBron James      0   0   1   0   0   5   0.026
10. Tracy McGrady    0   0   0   0   3   3   0.016
    Ray Allen        0   0   0   1   0   3   0.016
12. Allen Iverson    0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005
    Chauncey Billups 0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005


Doctor MJ,

I'm going through the old RPoY voting data.

You indicate that 20 voters had Duncan on their 2005 ballot (for 1st through 5th place).

But the PoY Shares were calculated as if there were 19 voters total. For example, Duncan has 165/(19*10) = .868 Shares.

Am I missing something here?

Long time ago so I don't remember. All I can say is that if you go through and tally it up to 20, and the data looks plausible, I'll take your word on the new numbers.