Retro POY '99-00 (Voting Complete)
Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 315
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 27, 2010
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
1. Shaq
2. Mourning
3. KG
4. K Malone
5. Payton
HM: Kobe, Carter, Iverson, Duncan
2. Mourning
3. KG
4. K Malone
5. Payton
HM: Kobe, Carter, Iverson, Duncan
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
- Tim_Hardawayy
- RealGM
- Posts: 29,433
- And1: 8,088
- Joined: Sep 17, 2008
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
ElGee wrote:Can those advocating Alonzo Mourning explain in greater depth why they have him so high? I never thought of Mourning as a top 4 or 5 player at any point in his career, and this would clearly be the year where he achieves that, but I'm not sold.
Here's how I see Mourning:
Excellent defensively. I think I'd rather have Shaq that year though, or prime Duncan, or maybe even prime KG, etc. This was a Pat Riley coached team, with good defensive pieces in place at many positions and a partner in crime in PJ Brown (I've come to believe interior defensive tandems are devastating, so I would expect better results if Zo were a defensive behemoth). The heat were -3.1 relative to league average in DRtg.
They did protect the paint very well, but we already knew that's where Mourning excels (3.9 bpg). But he does foul a lot -- more per game than any other starting center -- and I remember him being prone to some mistakes outside the paint (see: going for steal against Ewing in G7), although I'd trust a Heat's fans analysis of this more than memory.
Offensively, Mourning's the No. 1 option, but the team (Mash, Hardaway, Leonard) had quality offensive options and shooters. What I think sets Mourning apart from other elite bigs -- and this stood out in the two 4th quarters I just rewatched -- is his passing. He doesn't make teams pay for doubling him with the best, quickest available pass. As a result, the Heat don't retain an advantage when teams double him. Miami's ORtg was +0.4 relative to league average.
All told, I see an elite center, an excellent defensive anchor, but not someone I'd love to have late in games who isn't affecting games the way Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan, etc. did. Top 10? Sure. Top 5? Maybe. But No. 2? Wouldn't he have propelled that team to better than a 2.75 SRS if that were the case? (Note: the SRS is almost identical to Minnesota's that year.)
Those are all fair criticisms. As far as defense goes, Hardaway, Leonard and Mash were all below average perimeter defenders (Tim especially limited due to his knees getting worse), and our best backup, Thunder Dan, was also limited with back problems. So the team's perimeter defense was probably the weakest it had been during the Zo/Hardaway era.
Offensively, again, this was probably the weakest perimeter threat those Heat teams produced. Tim and Dan limited by injury, Leonard coming in overweight and then missing the last half of the season with injury. If you look at that team, the only somewhat reliable option on offense outside of Zo was Jamal Mashburn, who was often criticized for his fear of taking the big shot, which cost the team in game 7 vs the Knicks.
This is the year where everything started to click for Zo as a player, offensively and defensively. His only major weakness was probably passing, but he still cut down on his turnovers.
Unfortunately, it was also the year Tim Hardaway and the rest of his supporting cast really started to decline. Tim and Leonard especially, shooting a combined 40% from the field and missing a combined 59 games. Riley saw this, and upgraded the roster in the offseason, but it was too late because of Zo's kidney issues.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,518
- And1: 1,852
- Joined: May 22, 2001
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
Count me among those that doesn't understand shy so many are saying that KG had a "poor" postseason. The Webber comparison is completely illogical...or maybe it's telling. Both Garnett and Webber had poor shooting postseasons, but Webber's value was tied hugely to his offense. If he's shooting inefficiently AND averaging only 3 assists per game, then there wasn't anywhere else that he could make a huge impact.
The Jason Kidd argument is more fitting as Garnett had a huge offensive impact despite the poor shooting (similar to Kidd). But Garnett also had a huge defensive impact, bigger than any that Kidd or Webber have ever achieved.
In the postseason, Garnett 8.8 assists with a 38% assist percent and only an 11.5% TO percent. That is phenomenal. That is remarkable. Do you know how many times Jason Kidd averaged at least 8.8 assists with a 3.3 assist%/TO% ratio in the postseason in his CAREER? Once. You know how many times Nash has done it? Zero. Magic never did it. John Stockton did it 4 times. Payton's never even averaged 8.8 assists in any postseason in his career, before we even get to the efficiency.
Garnett turned in one of the best passing performances in NBA history, and even with his shooting difficulties he still averaged 19 ppg. Yes, he shot inefficiently, but you can't miss the forest for the trees here as he was huge on offense. I mean, think about that for a second. What Garnett accomplished as a passer in the '00 postseason would be an exceedingly rare thing...AMONG THE GREATEST POINT GUARDS OF ALL-TIME.
And on defense? I mean, come on. I've seen others already post this in this thread, but to reiterate: KG held All Star Rasheed Wallace to 13.5 points in 42 minutes, while in the rest of the playoffs Sheed averaged 22.3 points per 42 minutes (against frontlines led by Malone and Shaq, both of whom that season were considered good interior defenders). And according to the numbers posted earlier in this thread, the Blazers as a team scored more than 4 points LESS per 100 possessions against the Wolves than against the Lakers and Jazz.
As far as I can tell, Garnett combined a peak-Jason-Kidd offensive performance with a peak-Tim-Duncan defense performance in the 2000 postseason against a juggernaut opponent. Come on now. Yeah, the shooting percentage is ugly, but on total-game impact I can't see how Garnett's 2000 postseason impact comes up short to anyone outside of Shaq.
The Jason Kidd argument is more fitting as Garnett had a huge offensive impact despite the poor shooting (similar to Kidd). But Garnett also had a huge defensive impact, bigger than any that Kidd or Webber have ever achieved.
In the postseason, Garnett 8.8 assists with a 38% assist percent and only an 11.5% TO percent. That is phenomenal. That is remarkable. Do you know how many times Jason Kidd averaged at least 8.8 assists with a 3.3 assist%/TO% ratio in the postseason in his CAREER? Once. You know how many times Nash has done it? Zero. Magic never did it. John Stockton did it 4 times. Payton's never even averaged 8.8 assists in any postseason in his career, before we even get to the efficiency.
Garnett turned in one of the best passing performances in NBA history, and even with his shooting difficulties he still averaged 19 ppg. Yes, he shot inefficiently, but you can't miss the forest for the trees here as he was huge on offense. I mean, think about that for a second. What Garnett accomplished as a passer in the '00 postseason would be an exceedingly rare thing...AMONG THE GREATEST POINT GUARDS OF ALL-TIME.
And on defense? I mean, come on. I've seen others already post this in this thread, but to reiterate: KG held All Star Rasheed Wallace to 13.5 points in 42 minutes, while in the rest of the playoffs Sheed averaged 22.3 points per 42 minutes (against frontlines led by Malone and Shaq, both of whom that season were considered good interior defenders). And according to the numbers posted earlier in this thread, the Blazers as a team scored more than 4 points LESS per 100 possessions against the Wolves than against the Lakers and Jazz.
As far as I can tell, Garnett combined a peak-Jason-Kidd offensive performance with a peak-Tim-Duncan defense performance in the 2000 postseason against a juggernaut opponent. Come on now. Yeah, the shooting percentage is ugly, but on total-game impact I can't see how Garnett's 2000 postseason impact comes up short to anyone outside of Shaq.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,317
- And1: 2,231
- Joined: Nov 23, 2009
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
ElGee wrote:
Excellent defensively. I think I'd rather have Shaq that year though, or prime Duncan, or maybe even prime KG, etc. This was a Pat Riley coached team, with good defensive pieces in place at many positions and a partner in crime in PJ Brown (I've come to believe interior defensive tandems are devastating, so I would expect better results if Zo were a defensive behemoth). The heat were -3.1 relative to league average in DRtg.
And it’s very good result because Zo and PJ were the only very good defenders on that team.
Hardaway/Carter, old Majerle (34 years), Mashburn – that’s Heat’s starting unit. From the bench was Weatherspoon, undersized big and in fact he was the only valuable big player from the bench. Then Lenard (53 games), Thrope (37 years old, 51 games) and Mark Strickland (58 games). Nobody else played more than 34 games.
Offensively, Mourning's the No. 1 option, but the team (Mash, Hardaway, Leonard) had quality offensive options and shooters. What I think sets Mourning apart from other elite bigs -- and this stood out in the two 4th quarters I just rewatched -- is his passing. He doesn't make teams pay for doubling him with the best, quickest available pass. As a result, the Heat don't retain an advantage when teams double him. Miami's ORtg was +0.4 relative to league average.
You know, it’s hard to be efficient team on offense without a point gaurd. Hardaway played only 52 games, the rest of the time Carter was their starting PG. They also had many other injuries (Majerle, Lenard, Strickland, Thorpe – they all missed a lot of games) so it’s hard to play at consistent level when key players are missing.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Senior Mod - Clippers
- Posts: 8,070
- And1: 1,420
- Joined: Apr 11, 2001
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
1. Shaq. No brainer.
2. Zo. Another no brainer for me. Great offense, great defense, great leadership. The Heat didn't need Alonzo Mourning to pass the ball. They were in the top 10 in the league in assists and below the league average in turnovers. They clearly weren't having problems with ballhandling. What they did have problems with offensively was inside scoring, scoring efficiency, and going to the line. Zo did exactly what he was supposed to, in the RS and playoffs.
3. Payton. Still a great defender, and led a mediocre team to the playoffs. The Sonics would have taken the Jazz, too--Payton walked all over Stockton--but Horace Grant was completely dominated by Malone, and Brent Barry had a lousy series too.
4. Malone. His last elite season; smart player. Better defender than the numbers show. Showed up for the playoffs too. He didn't shoot all that well against the Blazers, but he worked his a** off on the low post and went to the line 11 times a game. He averaged over 26 ppg., and even though he only shot 43% from the field, he got those points on less than 20 shots a game.
5. KG. It's between Duncan and KG, and Duncan didn't play in the playoffs. But the TWolves desperately needed KGs offense in the postseason--and I don't mean passing. Those eight assists a game are lovely. But the Twolves already had an excellent PG who was having a great series. The rest of the rotation shot well too. And the Twolves averaged only 85 points a game, and two of their losses were by four points or less. It's not an insult that a smart, savvy vet took him out of his game. I would have had KG around third or fourth based on RS; he drops to fifth by a hair.
2. Zo. Another no brainer for me. Great offense, great defense, great leadership. The Heat didn't need Alonzo Mourning to pass the ball. They were in the top 10 in the league in assists and below the league average in turnovers. They clearly weren't having problems with ballhandling. What they did have problems with offensively was inside scoring, scoring efficiency, and going to the line. Zo did exactly what he was supposed to, in the RS and playoffs.
3. Payton. Still a great defender, and led a mediocre team to the playoffs. The Sonics would have taken the Jazz, too--Payton walked all over Stockton--but Horace Grant was completely dominated by Malone, and Brent Barry had a lousy series too.
4. Malone. His last elite season; smart player. Better defender than the numbers show. Showed up for the playoffs too. He didn't shoot all that well against the Blazers, but he worked his a** off on the low post and went to the line 11 times a game. He averaged over 26 ppg., and even though he only shot 43% from the field, he got those points on less than 20 shots a game.
5. KG. It's between Duncan and KG, and Duncan didn't play in the playoffs. But the TWolves desperately needed KGs offense in the postseason--and I don't mean passing. Those eight assists a game are lovely. But the Twolves already had an excellent PG who was having a great series. The rest of the rotation shot well too. And the Twolves averaged only 85 points a game, and two of their losses were by four points or less. It's not an insult that a smart, savvy vet took him out of his game. I would have had KG around third or fourth based on RS; he drops to fifth by a hair.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,518
- And1: 1,852
- Joined: May 22, 2001
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
1) Shaq
2) Garnett
3) Zo
4) Payton
5) Kobe
HM: Malone
Still not real settled with my order, but unfortunately life calls so I don't know if I'll get to return to this thread (I may tomorrow evening, we'll see) and I wanted to at least put my initial vote out there just in case.
As I wrote above, I think Garnett's postseason has been terribly undersold. I saw it mentioned that the Blazers series was relatively close and that the other Wolves were shooting well, so if Garnett would have scored more efficiently as opposed to doing things like the "pretty assists" they could have pulled the upset. The thing is, that completely ignores that the series was relatively close and the other Wolves shooting well BECAUSE of the other things Garnett did. It's not coincidence that KG has the worst shooting performance of his career in the same series where he had the best passing. The Blazers, an excellent defense, geared their entire game-plan around preventing Garnett from scoring. He responded to that by turning in possibly the best passing perfromance by a big man in NBA history, ensuring that he rest of his teammates could play to their max. And when you combine that with the defensive masterpiece he threw, I think he turned in a very impactful postseason (I regret the lack of +/- this year, as I'd be willing to bet his +/- scores would have been huge).
The rest of the top-5 is very fluid to me. I've been convinced by the arguments I've seen thus far to put Zo at 3 and Payton at 4. The general consensus is that Malone rounds out the top-5, but Semi made a nice argument for Kobe's postseason and I do remember him coming up big there. I haven't done nearly the analysis that I normally do, nor have enough posts been written to fully flesh this out, but from my gut I'm picking Kobe #5 for now. If I get to come back and re-visit this before the thread closes I could end up making sweeping changes, but for now I'm satisfied with this vote.
2) Garnett
3) Zo
4) Payton
5) Kobe
HM: Malone
Still not real settled with my order, but unfortunately life calls so I don't know if I'll get to return to this thread (I may tomorrow evening, we'll see) and I wanted to at least put my initial vote out there just in case.
As I wrote above, I think Garnett's postseason has been terribly undersold. I saw it mentioned that the Blazers series was relatively close and that the other Wolves were shooting well, so if Garnett would have scored more efficiently as opposed to doing things like the "pretty assists" they could have pulled the upset. The thing is, that completely ignores that the series was relatively close and the other Wolves shooting well BECAUSE of the other things Garnett did. It's not coincidence that KG has the worst shooting performance of his career in the same series where he had the best passing. The Blazers, an excellent defense, geared their entire game-plan around preventing Garnett from scoring. He responded to that by turning in possibly the best passing perfromance by a big man in NBA history, ensuring that he rest of his teammates could play to their max. And when you combine that with the defensive masterpiece he threw, I think he turned in a very impactful postseason (I regret the lack of +/- this year, as I'd be willing to bet his +/- scores would have been huge).
The rest of the top-5 is very fluid to me. I've been convinced by the arguments I've seen thus far to put Zo at 3 and Payton at 4. The general consensus is that Malone rounds out the top-5, but Semi made a nice argument for Kobe's postseason and I do remember him coming up big there. I haven't done nearly the analysis that I normally do, nor have enough posts been written to fully flesh this out, but from my gut I'm picking Kobe #5 for now. If I get to come back and re-visit this before the thread closes I could end up making sweeping changes, but for now I'm satisfied with this vote.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
- Silver Bullet
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,313
- And1: 8
- Joined: Dec 24, 2006
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
LOL -
what post season ?
4 games does not constitute a frikkin season -
he played in 4 games in the playoffs - and you keep pumping up his stats as if he had some monster outing -
Not to mention, he has a pretty decent supporting cast this year, so you can't even use that excuse.
And from what I remember it was Sheed playing him straight up most of the time - and Sheed shut him down completely in Games 1 and 4.
what post season ?
4 games does not constitute a frikkin season -
he played in 4 games in the playoffs - and you keep pumping up his stats as if he had some monster outing -
Not to mention, he has a pretty decent supporting cast this year, so you can't even use that excuse.
And from what I remember it was Sheed playing him straight up most of the time - and Sheed shut him down completely in Games 1 and 4.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
- NO-KG-AI
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 42,990
- And1: 18,026
- Joined: Jul 19, 2005
- Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
Silver Bullet wrote:
Not to mention, he has a pretty decent supporting cast this year, so you can't even use that excuse.
And from what I remember it was Sheed playing him straight up most of the time - and Sheed shut him down completely in Games 1 and 4.
1) lol, yea, two rookies starting, and Brandon and Sealy. that's tremendous, and definitely on par with the Blazers.
2) Sheed never played him straight up, or it would havelooked like 08 all over again. You remember what you want to remember.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
- Optimism Prime
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 3,373
- And1: 31
- Joined: Jul 07, 2005
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
1 Shaquille O'Neal
2 Gary Payton
3 Alonzo Mourning
4 Karl Malone
5 Kevin Garnett
2 Gary Payton
3 Alonzo Mourning
4 Karl Malone
5 Kevin Garnett
Hello ladies. Look at your posts. Now back to mine. Now back at your posts now back to MINE. Sadly, they aren't mine. But if your posts started using Optimism™, they could sound like mine. This post is now diamonds.
I'm on a horse.
I'm on a horse.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,707
- And1: 19,412
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
ElGee wrote:Isn't looking at these just indicative of the perception at the time anyway? I'm trying to avoid them until seasons I don't remember...
My point is how it's being used. Using All-NBA voting to compare Payton to other guards makes sense since that's what was being done by the voters. It is indicative of perceptions of the comparison between guys of the same position. The voters weren't judging Payton vs Garnett, so the voting tells you nothing about how they were perceived relative to each other.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,518
- And1: 1,852
- Joined: May 22, 2001
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
Silver Bullet wrote:LOL -
what post season ?
4 games does not constitute a frikkin season -
he played in 4 games in the playoffs - and you keep pumping up his stats as if he had some monster outing
It's interesting that we have several people argue that, because his shooting efficiency was poor in the postseason, Garnett's season-ranking should be docked. When some of us note that KG did so great at everything outside of shooting that his net impact was still hugely positive, your comeback is... "4 games does not constitute a frikkin season"
I mean, you can't have it both ways. If we're going to concentrate on the negative that happened in the postseason (poor shooting efficiency), then we have to balance that by also talking about the great positives that happened in the postseason (historic passing that made his teammates better, excellent defense, huge impact).
If we're going to minimize the postseason for being inconsequentially short, then we look more at the regular season where KG was All NBA and All Defense 1st team and 2nd overall in the MVP ballot.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
- Silver Bullet
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,313
- And1: 8
- Joined: Dec 24, 2006
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
drza wrote:Silver Bullet wrote:LOL -
what post season ?
4 games does not constitute a frikkin season -
he played in 4 games in the playoffs - and you keep pumping up his stats as if he had some monster outing
It's interesting that we have several people argue that, because his shooting efficiency was poor in the postseason, Garnett's season-ranking should be docked. When some of us note that KG did so great at everything outside of shooting that his net impact was still hugely positive, your comeback is... "4 games does not constitute a frikkin season"
I mean, you can't have it both ways. If we're going to concentrate on the negative that happened in the postseason (poor shooting efficiency), then we have to balance that by also talking about the great positives that happened in the postseason (historic passing that made his teammates better, excellent defense, huge impact).
If we're going to minimize the postseason for being inconsequentially short, then we look more at the regular season where KG was All NBA and All Defense 1st team and 2nd overall in the MVP ballot.
I've never brought up KG's post-season, even once.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,317
- And1: 2,231
- Joined: Nov 23, 2009
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
drza, The point is 2000 KG overall played worse than usually in playoffs. And great assists numbers can’t change that. His PER was one of the lowest in his career: 20.5 (year earlier 24.1 and during EVERY next post season he was around 25; of course until now, when he isn’t himself after knee injury). WS tells the same story: 0.102 WS/48 for a player who usually had around 0.150.
So it’s not that he was shooting poor but overall still was great because his passing was amazing. Sure, he was very good, but not as good as his usually production, not as good as many other players in 2000 playoffs – PER overvalues inefficient scorers, so it’s not surprisingly that he had relatively high PER, but WS/48, more balanced metric, shows that he was at 41 place (minimum 3 games and 24 minutes per game).
So it’s not that he was shooting poor but overall still was great because his passing was amazing. Sure, he was very good, but not as good as his usually production, not as good as many other players in 2000 playoffs – PER overvalues inefficient scorers, so it’s not surprisingly that he had relatively high PER, but WS/48, more balanced metric, shows that he was at 41 place (minimum 3 games and 24 minutes per game).
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 48,993
- And1: 40,939
- Joined: Feb 06, 2007
- Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
1. Shaq. No explanation needed.
2. Mourning. I kinda feel like ElGee; I've never, ever put him on this level level. Looking at the numbers, though, he had a pretty damn good season, while absolutely dominating on defense. There's such a huge gap after Shaq, and such a dearth of other no-brain picks, that I don't have much of a problem putting him here.
3. Payton. I remember being in total awe of Payton at this stage of his career. I loved his game, loved his attitude, loved everything about him. Except shoot a bit better -- and he was still giving you a couple of 3s per game -- there wasn't anything he couldn't do for his position.
4. Malone. Another year, another great season. Rounding up, 26/10/4 with the second-best PER in the league at 36, while leading an aging team to 55 wins, is pretty impressive in my book. Could have been better against the Blazers, but I don't think it was a meltdown or anything like that. Just took too long to get going.
5. Garnett. At this point, I'm totally KG'd out. Every little slip, every little shortcoming, there's some sort of thesis to explain why it wasn't really that big of a deal, or actually benefited the team. Whatever. He's such a great all-around player, I can't leave him off the ballot.
2. Mourning. I kinda feel like ElGee; I've never, ever put him on this level level. Looking at the numbers, though, he had a pretty damn good season, while absolutely dominating on defense. There's such a huge gap after Shaq, and such a dearth of other no-brain picks, that I don't have much of a problem putting him here.
3. Payton. I remember being in total awe of Payton at this stage of his career. I loved his game, loved his attitude, loved everything about him. Except shoot a bit better -- and he was still giving you a couple of 3s per game -- there wasn't anything he couldn't do for his position.
4. Malone. Another year, another great season. Rounding up, 26/10/4 with the second-best PER in the league at 36, while leading an aging team to 55 wins, is pretty impressive in my book. Could have been better against the Blazers, but I don't think it was a meltdown or anything like that. Just took too long to get going.
5. Garnett. At this point, I'm totally KG'd out. Every little slip, every little shortcoming, there's some sort of thesis to explain why it wasn't really that big of a deal, or actually benefited the team. Whatever. He's such a great all-around player, I can't leave him off the ballot.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,205
- And1: 713
- Joined: May 28, 2007
- Contact:
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
drza wrote: Come on now. Yeah, the shooting percentage is ugly, but on total-game impact I can't see how Garnett's 2000 postseason impact comes up short to anyone outside of Shaq.
Really? How about losing a game by 3 points while going 6 of 20 from the field? Or 5 from 20 in a 8pt loss? Seriously, that wasn't just ugly, that was really ugly.
A comparison between 4 bigs:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=0Twa6
Garnett was the worst of those 4 in the regular season and was worse than Malone and Mourning in the playoffs. If you want to ignore the facts, you can claim Garnett had a huge impact in the playoffs, but the facts are: He was so bad at scoring that the Timberwolves lost in the 1st round.
Voting:
1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Alonzo Mourning
3. Karl Malone
4. Tim Duncan
5. Kevin Garnett
HM: Gary Payton, Jason Kidd and Kobe Bryant
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,041
- And1: 1,202
- Joined: Mar 08, 2010
- Contact:
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
mysticbb wrote:drza wrote: Come on now. Yeah, the shooting percentage is ugly, but on total-game impact I can't see how Garnett's 2000 postseason impact comes up short to anyone outside of Shaq.
Really? How about losing a game by 3 points while going 6 of 20 from the field? Or 5 from 20 in a 8pt loss? Seriously, that wasn't just ugly, that was really ugly.
This is where I see a lot of people in this project go and I think it's a trap/bias that too many people are falling into. If we only focus on one thing, it's easy to hype a player up/knock him down.
Only most of these players aren't one dimensional. Basketball isn't one dimensional.
As for Garnett's situation, first of all it's 4 games. Unless he was incredibly good or incredibly bad, I don't see why it would factor that much. Yes, some people weigh postseason a lot, but what do those people want in a best of 5 against the second best team in the NBA?
Minnesota didn't lose by 30 points a game. If Garnett makes 2 or 3 shots more per game, they suddenly upset (?) a vastly superior team and KG's series is being talked about by you guys as an all-time classic. And that's what silly about placing so much emphasis on one area: 2 possessions shouldn't be able to swing a series from "he was terrible" to "he was legendary."
To me, this was KG's first time on the big stage. I was impressed, but thought the poor shooting/offensive efficiency was a result of inexperience. I just didn't think he was ready to handle a team like Portland at the time.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,205
- And1: 713
- Joined: May 28, 2007
- Contact:
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
ElGee wrote:Only most of these players aren't one dimensional. Basketball isn't one dimensional.
Well, scoring well below scoring efficiency will hurt your team, taking 20 shots and doing that, will hurt the team even more on offense. He can do everything else really great, if he fails to score efficient enough, that doesn't really matter. And we are not talking about making 60% of his shots or so. It would have been enough to win both games, if Garnett would have made 43% of his fga instead of 28%. ;)
ElGee wrote:To me, this was KG's first time on the big stage. I was impressed, but thought the poor shooting/offensive efficiency was a result of inexperience. I just didn't think he was ready to handle a team like Portland at the time.
Calling it "inexperience" doesn't make his performance better.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,041
- And1: 1,202
- Joined: Mar 08, 2010
- Contact:
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
mysticbb wrote:ElGee wrote:Only most of these players aren't one dimensional. Basketball isn't one dimensional.
Well, scoring well below scoring efficiency will hurt your team, taking 20 shots and doing that, will hurt the team even more on offense. He can do everything else really great, if he fails to score efficient enough, that doesn't really matter. And we are not talking about making 60% of his shots or so. It would have been enough to win both games, if Garnett would have made 43% of his fga instead of 28%.ElGee wrote:To me, this was KG's first time on the big stage. I was impressed, but thought the poor shooting/offensive efficiency was a result of inexperience. I just didn't think he was ready to handle a team like Portland at the time.
Calling it "inexperience" doesn't make his performance better.
No it doesn't...my comment was a critique, not an excuse.
I think you're missing the point. If a player's season is being determined by 2 possessions per game over 4 games, something's wrong with the evaluation method. That goes for anyone, not just Garnett.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,205
- And1: 713
- Joined: May 28, 2007
- Contact:
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
ElGee wrote:I think you're missing the point. If a player's season is being determined by 2 possessions per game over 4 games, something's wrong with the evaluation method.
I don't think so. Those 2 possessions are a part of the equation, those two possessions are bringing his average values down. Just focus on everything the player done right, but ignoring the things he done wrong isn't a good evaluation method at all. In average he was a really weak playoff scorer, weak enough to cost his team the chance to win. That cancels his great effort on defense and his passing game out. Might sound a bit harsh, but that is the overall result.
You should also keep in mind that the team ORtg correlates to a mixture of ts% and turnover rate with a linear correlation coefficient of 0.94.
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
- Tim_Hardawayy
- RealGM
- Posts: 29,433
- And1: 8,088
- Joined: Sep 17, 2008
Re: Retro POY '99-00 (Ends Wed. morning)
I think part of the reason people don't typically think of Zo up there as an elite player is due to the fact that this was his first truly elite season. Bigs do tend to mature later than wing players, and this was a definite case of that.
However, once it was taken away from him next year, all we're left to remember is mostly the immature Mourning... the one who had an even weaker post game, shot far too many jumpers, and let his temper get the best of him.
If he stays healthy, he is probably a top 5 player for the next 2-3 years, and we're left with a much different lasting impression of Zo.
However, once it was taken away from him next year, all we're left to remember is mostly the immature Mourning... the one who had an even weaker post game, shot far too many jumpers, and let his temper get the best of him.
If he stays healthy, he is probably a top 5 player for the next 2-3 years, and we're left with a much different lasting impression of Zo.