Retro Player of the Year UPDATE 1999-2000 — Shaquille O’Neal

[capfan33]

1. Shaq- One of the greatest peaks ever capped with a title, easy choice.
2. Mourning- Superb defensive campaign and barely lost in the semi-finals to a good Knicks team.
3. KG- Probably the third-best player in the regular season but a very underwhelming playoff run puts him below Mourning.
4. Reggie- Another excellent playoff run for one of the greatest risers ever, and the closest he would ever get to winning a finals.
5. Duncan- I'm not really sure how to rank a guy who gets injured entirely missing the playoffs but I think he's the 2nd best player behind Shaq and I'm not particularly enamored by Malone's playoff run, so I feel justified in putting him here.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

POY

1. Shaquille O'Neal - 1st Team All-NBA. 2nd Team All-Defense. MVP. Finals MVP. One of the greatest peaks ever. This year, Shaq was unstoppable combining unbelievable offensive force with good solid defense. Even when the Lakers were missing Kobe, Shaq put the team on his big back and carried them to the promised land. Averaged 29.7/13.6/3.8 on 57.8 %TS (+5.5 rTS) in the RS then 30.7/15.4/3.1 on 55.6 %TS (+4.8 rTS) in the PS.

2. Alonzo Mourning - 2nd Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. DPOY. Led a strong Miami team on both ends and had a good PS as they lost in the 2nd round. Extremely effective defender and for me the most impactful in the league on that end. 21.7/9.5/1.6 on 59.6 %TS (+7.3 rTS) in the RS then 21.6/10.0/1.4 on 54.2 %TS (+2.5 rTS) in the PS.

3. Kevin Garnett - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. KG had become a fantastic two-way player and while he isn't a go-to scorer, he contributes well on offense by setting screens, crashing the boards, handling the ball and making good passes with his best deliveries probably into the post. His defense is incredible versatile and he's able to cover a lot of ground with his horizontal game. His PS was subpar with both underperforming and losing in the 1st round. If he was a bit better, he gets the #2 spot but as is I'm comfortable slotting him here. Averaged 22.9/11.8/5.0 on 54.5 %TS (+2.2 rTS) in the RS then 18.8/10.8/8.8 on 44.1 %TS (-6.1 rTS) in the PS.

4. Karl Malone - 2nd Team All-NBA. Karl Malone is still a metronome producing another strong all-around RS followed by an equally strong PS. Utah only made it to the 2nd round as they aren't an elite squad any more. Averaged 25.5/9.5/3.7 on 58.2 %TS (+5.9 rTS) in the RS then 27.2/8.9/3.1 on 58.4 %TS (+7.3 rTS) in the PS.

5. Gary Payton - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. Payton led a pretty mediocre Seattle team in to the PS playing well throughout the year and combining all-time great guard defensive with all-NBA level offense in one package. Payton was the best pure PG in the league this season and arguably the best guard as well. Averaged 24.2/6.5/8.9 on 53.5 %TS (+1.2 rTS) in the RS then 25.8/7.6/7.4 on 51.8 %TS (-0.7 rTS) in the PS.

HM:

Kobe Bryant - 2nd Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. Kobe had defining moments in the PS as a #2 to Shaq closing out Game 7 of the WCF and then Game 4 of the Finals. Still he got injured in the FInals and could have cost his team the title. Gun to my head, I'm taking Payton over Kobe for this year because of the value lost but I anticipate Kobe making possibly the next 12 ballots after this one.

Tim Duncan - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. On pace to finish as high as #2 then he gets injured late in the season and completely misses the PS and his ballot run is derailed.

Reggie Miller - Just too mediocre of a regular season. Not on the level of Payton and Kobe when it comes down to it.

OPOY

1. Shaquille O'Neal

2. Karl Malone - Very strong scoring and effective passing.

3. Reggie Miller - Effective scorer with insane off-ball game. Great offensive piece.

DPOY

1. Alonzo Mourning - 1st Team All-Defense. DPOY. Best overall defender and paint protector in the league.

2. Kevin Garnett - 1st Team All-Defense. Terrific defensive versatility and horizontal defense with effective paint protection.

3. Tim Duncan -1st Team All-Defense. Huge paint protector on a #1 defense. Injury reduces value. Robinson still contributes a ton to the Spurs defense.

[OhayoKD]

Voting Post

1. Shaq

This should be unanimous.

Lakers were a 40-win team without Shaq from 00-02 and this should be the weakest year in terms of support. 67-wins gives Shaq's 2000 an empirical argument as the third best regular-season of the decade along with KG's 2004 and Duncan's 2002/2003. The knock here, is the postseason, particularly regarding his defense:

Spoiler:

I know nothing about this source, but these numbers don't line up with NBA.com stats:

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting?Season=1999-00&dir=A&sort=Less%20Than%205%20ft.%20FG%20PCT

If you take a look on Lakers opponents shooting profile, it looks quite odd. Lakers were 8th in opp. FG% in the paint, which is good of course but not top tier. On contrary, Lakers seems to look like absolutely elite at defending jumpshots. They were the best in opp. FG% both from midrange and three point line. Although some of it certainly was the fact that Shaq was a solid rim protector (allowing his teammates to be more agressive on perimeter), giving Shaq all the credit for that doesn't sound reasonable to me. Like, you can't convince me after watching over 30 2000 Lakers games that Shaq was the reason for their best 3P shooting defense...

About rim protection - it's true that Shaq was a solid rim protector. Lakers finished 3rd in opp. FGA and 8th in FG% in the paint that season, which definitely puts them among the best in the league. Unfortunately, it didn't translate to the playoffs, coming from 57.5% on 22.9 FGA to 59.6% on 23.6 FGA (and keep in mind that defensive environment became way better in the playoffs). Part of that is because Shaq was intimidating, but fairly limited rim protector. He could make you rethink it twice with his sheer size, but you can also take him away from actions relatively easily - as he had low motor and rarely got advanced reads right.

You actually bring up very solid point regarding Shaq's man defense. That's definitely his strength and here is where I'd see his highest value. We do know that man defense has his ceilling in value though, you usually don't become the best defender in the league strictly because of his man defense.

All in all, I didn't want to call Shaq bad defender but he's not elite. He's a player with some very important strengths and weaknesses, depending on matchup he could either be key factor on defense or be exploited.

The Lakers were significantly worse in the playoffs than in the regular-season on the back of their league-best defense turning below average as Shaq got cooked by several opposing bigs. Shaq is also not quite an RAPM darling consistently trailing Duncan and KG in sourced sets.

All said, the notion of Shaq as "the most dominant player ever" or even "the most dominant player preceding Lebron" is rather dubious for me.

Fortunately, the bar to win in 2000 is not "most dominant player ever", it is to be better than everyone else including a Duncan who misses the playoffs with an injury and Garnett notching a singular playoff win. Shaq, still the league's best scorer and creator, clears that easily.

2. Kevin Garnett

Another regular-season carry job followed by an expected postseason loss though by srs the Wolves overperform a bit (+4 PSRS) against the 59-win near-champions. More competitive than Malone's Jazz were actually. We're also now in a time-stretch where he looks like the 2nd or 3rd data-ball best player per RAPM.

3. Tim Duncan

top 2 regular season leading a 64-win team when he plays. I'm not big into penalizing players for unfortunate injury timing and I don't think any of the considerably worse players people would consider ranking ahead did enough in the postseason to justify such votes.

4. Reggie Miller
Assessing him as the lead on a team on one of 2 teams that played the champions quite even. I think it was more an ensemble effort though


5. Alonzo Mourning

Yeah, why not. Lost to a contender in a close series following a productive regular season. Signals aren't great and some questions regarding value should be asked for trailing mashburn in minutes for the RS and the postseason.

OPOY

1. Shaq
2. Reggie Miller
3. Gary Payton

DPOY
1. Alonzo Mourning
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Tim Duncan

[homecourtloss]

1999-2000 RPoY

1. Shaq—one of the best seasons by any player ever. Roster wasn’t as good as it looks on paper, but the GOAT coach, Phil Jackson, puts it all together like he did before with the Bulls. Obviously this season could be looked at differently had the Blazers not collapsed on game 7. O’Neal’s expanding offensive arsenal combined with his physical uniqueness is difficult for any team to handle.
2. KG—playoffs series vs. Blazers wasn’t ideal but he was carrying a team that had no business winning 50 games against a very talented Blazers’ team that was championship worthy AND the series was generally close.
3. Zo Mourning—caps off a great three year stretch as still an elite defender with an expanding offensive arsenal+high motor.
4. Duncan—it’s just a shame he got injured and it’s the joy time in his first 6 seasons he misses any games at all. Yes, he didn’t play in the playoffs but was clearly a top 2 player in the NBA.
5. Karl Malone—remarkable durability continues. Had a better offensive season than he did in the previous season. He was completely outgunned vs. the Blazers but was the only one doing anything.

[Djoker]

Having watched a lot of Shaq recently (including Orlando days for P/M tracking), I got a strong impression that circa 2000 he was a much better defender. Fouled less, stayed in the paint, and made better rotations as well. He definitely leaves a lot to be desired compared to the best defensive bigs of the era (Duncan, Mourning etc.) and his defense was never elite but none of those guys do what Shaq does on offense. Anyways OhayoKD saying that Shaq's defense was weak and implying that he was some sort of liability in the 2000 PS seems flat out inaccurate to me. Using team metrics alone is not serious because by that logic you have to give him credit for being a defensive GOAT in the 2001 PS. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle that Shaq was an effective and positive impact defender though clearly not an elite defender. Because the eye test actually corroborates that IMO.

[penbeast0]

Lakers dominated this season and it wasn't close. Kobe was good but it was clearly Shaq's team. The postseason wasn't as dominant but they still won the title.

Portland was the 2nd best RS team and WCF; Rasheed their best player. Indiana 3rd in RS and made finals from the east led by Reggie Miller. Then came Utah and Karl Malone, San Antonio and Tim Duncan, and Phoenix where Jason Kidd got rookie Shawn Marion. Minnesota with Garnett, New York with aging Ewing, Charlotte with Eddie Jones, and Philly with Iverson.

Shaq was MVP and scoring leader, Mutombo led rebounding, Kidd assists and Mourning won DPOY. In terms of compilation stats, Shaq led them all with Karl Malone the consensus second best.

PLAYER OF THE YEAR
1. Shaquille O'Neal -- big separation over the next group which is reasonably interchangeable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Karl Malone -- Stockton let the Jazz down against Portland, though the Blazers defense lessened Malone's impact
3. Alonzo Mourning -- Strong defense but got out thugged in the playoffs by the Knicks
4. Tim Duncan -- missed the playoffs with injury
5. Kevin Garnett -- unimpressive 1st round exit despite Terrell Brandon playing well

[DCasey91]

Having watched a lot of Shaq recently (including Orlando days for P/M tracking), I got a strong impression that circa 2000 he was a much better defender. Fouled less, stayed in the paint, and made better rotations as well. He definitely leaves a lot to be desired compared to the best defensive bigs of the era (Duncan, Mourning etc.) and his defense was never elite but none of those guys do what Shaq does on offense. Anyways OhayoKD saying that Shaq's defense was weak and implying that he was some sort of liability in the 2000 PS seems flat out inaccurate to me. Using team metrics alone is not serious because by that logic you have to give him credit for being a defensive GOAT in the 2001 PS. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle that Shaq was an effective and positive impact defender though clearly not an elite defender. Because the eye test actually corroborates that IMO.

What is your opinion on this? As bigs mature they get better as a defender despite losing some type of athletcism, explosiveness


Which is replaced with smarts, experience, stamina and maturity which if being relative still having elite athletic ceiling but not quite obviously being older vs younger makes the player just better in the end.

Don't know the in line age ranges for this but I'd say it would throw up some interesting results imo.

Kind of like early peak for all timers (23/24) then peak years (23 onwards) and then culmination of Athleticism but not athletic peak+ maturity (28 or what have you onwards).

Pretty sure there's a pattern here.

[capfan33]

Having watched a lot of Shaq recently (including Orlando days for P/M tracking), I got a strong impression that circa 2000 he was a much better defender. Fouled less, stayed in the paint, and made better rotations as well. He definitely leaves a lot to be desired compared to the best defensive bigs of the era (Duncan, Mourning etc.) and his defense was never elite but none of those guys do what Shaq does on offense. Anyways OhayoKD saying that Shaq's defense was weak and implying that he was some sort of liability in the 2000 PS seems flat out inaccurate to me. Using team metrics alone is not serious because by that logic you have to give him credit for being a defensive GOAT in the 2001 PS. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle that Shaq was an effective and positive impact defender though clearly not an elite defender. Because the eye test actually corroborates that IMO.

What is your opinion on this? As bigs mature they get better as a defender despite losing some type of athletcism, explosiveness


Which is replaced with smarts, experience, stamina and maturity which if being relative still having elite athletic ceiling but not quite obviously being older vs younger makes the player just better in the end.

Don't know the in line age ranges for this but I'd say it would throw up some interesting results imo.

Kind of like early peak for all timers (23/24) then peak years (23 onwards) and then culmination of Athleticism but not athletic peak+ maturity (28 or what have you onwards).

Pretty sure there's a pattern here.

Well, Kareem almost certainly peaked on defense in Milwaukee. Hakeem as well probably peaked earlier on in 89/90.

[OhayoKD]

Having watched a lot of Shaq recently (including Orlando days for P/M tracking), I got a strong impression that circa 2000 he was a much better defender. Fouled less, stayed in the paint, and made better rotations as well. He definitely leaves a lot to be desired compared to the best defensive bigs of the era (Duncan, Mourning etc.) and his defense was never elite but none of those guys do what Shaq does on offense. Anyways OhayoKD saying that Shaq's defense was weak and implying that he was some sort of liability in the 2000 PS seems flat out inaccurate to me.

Wierd strawman. Ohayo simply implied that the player on a team that collapsed in terms of team performance despite his help improving (which you countered with cherrypicking) was not actually better in the playoffs just because you cherrypick him averaging a high number of points in one series and ignore everything else. Kobe averaged 8 more minutes in the postseason with similar rate production and effeciency

Using team metrics alone is not serious

As opposed to...using nothing? Not sure what the 2001 Lakers defense has to do with my logic either. The claim was Shaq got worse in the 2000 playoffs. By my logic, and as I imagine you plan on arguing, he got better in the 2001 playoffs. The question is why you only attribute the team's translation with him in one of the two seasons.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle that Shaq was an effective and positive impact defender though clearly not an elite defender. Because the eye test actually corroborates that IMO.

What eyetest? It's 2024. Simply referring to an eyetest of sorts isn't going to cut it. The Lakers got worse in the postseason despite Shaq having more help and they got worse in the areas he's most directly responsible. In lieu of an actual argument, the natural conclusion is he got worse. But you insist he got better based on basically nothing and I imagine will suddenly 180 in 2001 when actually the "team metrics" prove he got better.

[DCasey91]

Having watched a lot of Shaq recently (including Orlando days for P/M tracking), I got a strong impression that circa 2000 he was a much better defender. Fouled less, stayed in the paint, and made better rotations as well. He definitely leaves a lot to be desired compared to the best defensive bigs of the era (Duncan, Mourning etc.) and his defense was never elite but none of those guys do what Shaq does on offense. Anyways OhayoKD saying that Shaq's defense was weak and implying that he was some sort of liability in the 2000 PS seems flat out inaccurate to me. Using team metrics alone is not serious because by that logic you have to give him credit for being a defensive GOAT in the 2001 PS. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle that Shaq was an effective and positive impact defender though clearly not an elite defender. Because the eye test actually corroborates that IMO.

What is your opinion on this? As bigs mature they get better as a defender despite losing some type of athletcism, explosiveness


Which is replaced with smarts, experience, stamina and maturity which if being relative still having elite athletic ceiling but not quite obviously being older vs younger makes the player just better in the end.

Don't know the in line age ranges for this but I'd say it would throw up some interesting results imo.

Kind of like early peak for all timers (23/24) then peak years (23 onwards) and then culmination of Athleticism but not athletic peak+ maturity (28 or what have you onwards).

Pretty sure there's a pattern here.

Well, Kareem almost certainly peaked on defense in Milwaukee. Hakeem as well probably peaked earlier on in 89/90.

Keem won 2 MVPs at the start with the Lakers mind you and with Keem I have around 93ish, Ewing 94ish, Robinson 94/95 though kept it as with other anchors (Mutumbo, Duncan, Parish, Wilt's peak etc)

I'm super high on postional stuff (fukn hate players getting sucked in so easily today) it's kind of like right movement is right even if it appears less.

[Paulluxx9000]

Merry Christmas everybody!

1 Shaq
2 Tim Duncan
3 Kevin Garnett
4 Alonzo Mourning
5 Jason Kidd
And finally, Diesel delivers

Spoiler:

This is for the Diesel. He misses so many games and it just matter because wow. No one and I mean no one twists a defense like Shaq. Heavy but quick. Big and fast. You must double shaq. If not triple him. His only weakness is someone usually needs to bring him the ball but wow is it worth it. And now he’s learnt how to pass. The only knock is his defense and it’s a knock. So much so the old fossil of an offense chicago took out of it’s misery in the finals worked like a charm. But Duncan’s still a year off. And Jordan isn’t even a top 3 reason why Chicago is a perimeter buzzsaw.

He didn’t figure out how to be a DPOY and Rasheed had his way, but he can defend well enough and he’s the best attacker by a landslide. He’s 2nd best and the best wasn’t at his best so what can he be but 1st.
Duncan is still the same, maybe still the best when he played but I can’t reward him for when he didn’t.

Spoiler:

Tim Duncan. You could say he was already the best player. You could. Really. He’s that good. He can pop, he can pass, he can block, he can step out and stop. He needs a little time to figure it out but man, it’s only a little. KG, Shaq, Duncan. Side by side by side in their primes. That’s just incredible. I’m a Duncan over Hakeem guy. No he didn’t move as much. No he didn’t spin like a ballerina. But he was there, where he needed to be, whenever he needed to be, again and again and again and again and again. Bowens. Robinson. Manu. Tika Taka. Twin Towers. No matter what Duncan was there. On and off, placed in a straight jacket. Given little privilege over the guy seated at the end of he bench. Duncan didn’t get to be an icon. But he was always there all the same. He’s a monster to score on. He’s a monster to defend. Shaq is shaq but if there was no shaq Duncan would be next. Triples and doubles galore. And he can pass it, really pass it. Not just praying on neanderthal defensive schemes like the Jordans and Hakeems, but make for others when making is hard.
And you never want to try him at the basket. Unless you’re shaq. And like the tortoise vs the hare, even the quick and fast will run into trouble if they confuse Mr.Duncan as some statue. He’s not the full thing but he’s already pretty close. He’s the best of his era. And when he faces Malone he might already be BITW.
He’ll get better no doubt. He has work to do containing penetration. Work to do as using his unusual ball control to turn doubles into near triples and work to do timing when he jumps. But the key qualities are all there and the Spurs win with what was close to about any team ever as a 2 man team.

Third up is a third all-timer. He’s mostly there now. Kevin Garnett. Where Duncan is strong, he’s nimble. Duncan waits, he traverses. A versatile offensive piece, hitting jumpers, can handle the ball, can post, and of the bigs can pass it the best. A foreshadowing of the Giannis/AD types. He’s not quite there, no one is, but at this point in league history he was a unicorn. Maybe a little more power would have done him better in the playoffs, but he mostly delivered anyway. I will not fault someone for the failures of others.
Mourning. A strong study castle at the rim. He can move a bit too. He also scores though his offense depends on others. He’d have been a monster a decade back. But a new decade brought in new standards. Mourning is merely a star. Not super.
Finally there’s Kidd. The best ever defensive guard? 204. 6’4, He’s strong and stout which means when attackers are thinking of driving he spooks them alot more often than a jumpy shotblocker like Jordan or Wade. He’s a mini-duncan in a way. On time, at the right place at the right time in the right way. He just knows where he needs to be and why he needs to be there. And he knos where the others need to be and makes sure they get there too. And he’s an incredible passer. If he was just a little scarier attacking the other ballot his playmaking would be elite. Instead he is merely good on offense and very good on defense. You shouldn’t confuse him for Lebron on either end but good + good can be great all the same (though not as great as it used to be).

[lessthanjake]

Having watched a lot of Shaq recently (including Orlando days for P/M tracking), I got a strong impression that circa 2000 he was a much better defender. Fouled less, stayed in the paint, and made better rotations as well. He definitely leaves a lot to be desired compared to the best defensive bigs of the era (Duncan, Mourning etc.) and his defense was never elite but none of those guys do what Shaq does on offense. Anyways OhayoKD saying that Shaq's defense was weak and implying that he was some sort of liability in the 2000 PS seems flat out inaccurate to me.

Wierd strawman. Ohayo simply implied that the player on a team that collapsed in terms of team performance despite his help improving (which you countered with cherrypicking) was not actually better in the playoffs just because you cherrypick him averaging a high number of points in one series and ignore everything else.

Lol at the person who definitely doesn’t operate alt accounts referring to themselves in the third person while defending their arguments.

In any event, by what basis can we say that Shaq’s help improved in the playoffs? That seems like a very tenuous and convenient assumption, especially since we could easily use the exact same logic about team results to suggest that the opposite occurred (and unlike regarding Shaq, that conclusion would be backed up by Shaq’s playoff on-off, though obviously that “off” sample is tiny).

[Djoker]

Wierd strawman. Ohayo simply implied that the player on a team that collapsed in terms of team performance despite his help improving (which you countered with cherrypicking) was not actually better in the playoffs just because you cherrypick him averaging a high number of points in one series and ignore everything else. Kobe averaged 8 more minutes in the postseason with similar rate production and effeciency

Help isn't just Kobe. How did the other players in his supporting cast do in the PS?

As opposed to...using nothing? Not sure what the 2001 Lakers defense has to do with my logic either. The claim was Shaq got worse in the 2000 playoffs. By my logic, and as I imagine you plan on arguing, he got better in the 2001 playoffs. The question is why you only attribute the team's translation with him in one of the two seasons.

Evaluating individual defense always has huge error bars. It seems you're unwilling to accept that. Do you actually believe that Shaq was elite defensively in the 2001 playoffs because team data strongly suggests it.

What eyetest? It's 2024. Simply referring to an eyetest of sorts isn't going to cut it. The Lakers got worse in the postseason despite Shaq having more help and they got worse in the areas he's most directly responsible. In lieu of an actual argument, the natural conclusion is he got worse. But you insist he got better based on basically nothing and I imagine will suddenly 180 in 2001 when actually the "team metrics" prove he got better.

Again, Kobe being slightly better doesn't mean the whole supporting cast is better. I don't insist he got better. Not at all. I just don't insist that he got worse which you're doing. And yes.. eye test is important.

[OhayoKD]

Having watched a lot of Shaq recently (including Orlando days for P/M tracking), I got a strong impression that circa 2000 he was a much better defender. Fouled less, stayed in the paint, and made better rotations as well. He definitely leaves a lot to be desired compared to the best defensive bigs of the era (Duncan, Mourning etc.) and his defense was never elite but none of those guys do what Shaq does on offense. Anyways OhayoKD saying that Shaq's defense was weak and implying that he was some sort of liability in the 2000 PS seems flat out inaccurate to me.

Wierd strawman. Ohayo simply implied that the player on a team that collapsed in terms of team performance despite his help improving (which you countered with cherrypicking) was not actually better in the playoffs just because you cherrypick him averaging a high number of points in one series and ignore everything else.

Lol at the person who definitely doesn’t operate alt accounts referring to themselves in the third person while defending their arguments.

Ohayo thinks his lawyerness doth cry wolf too much

Wierd strawman. Ohayo simply implied that the player on a team that collapsed in terms of team performance despite his help improving (which you countered with cherrypicking) was not actually better in the playoffs just because you cherrypick him averaging a high number of points in one series and ignore everything else. Kobe averaged 8 more minutes in the postseason with similar rate production and effeciency

Help isn't just Kobe. How did the other players in his supporting cast do in the PS?

That's a question for you to answer. I'm not making your argument for you.

As opposed to...using nothing? Not sure what the 2001 Lakers defense has to do with my logic either. The claim was Shaq got worse in the 2000 playoffs. By my logic, and as I imagine you plan on arguing, he got better in the 2001 playoffs. The question is why you only attribute the team's translation with him in one of the two seasons.

Evaluating individual defense always has huge error bars. It seems you're unwilling to accept that. Do you actually believe that Shaq was elite defensively in the 2001 playoffs because team data strongly suggests it.

I believe he was better than he was in the regular-season yes, though I also believe Horace Grant and Kobe deserve credit too. Just like Kobe and the shooters deserve some credit for the offense improving in 2000.

What eyetest? It's 2024. Simply referring to an eyetest of sorts isn't going to cut it. The Lakers got worse in the postseason despite Shaq having more help and they got worse in the areas he's most directly responsible. In lieu of an actual argument, the natural conclusion is he got worse. But you insist he got better based on basically nothing and I imagine will suddenly 180 in 2001 when actually the "team metrics" prove he got better.

Again, Kobe being slightly better doesn't mean the whole supporting cast is better.[/quote]
8 minutes per game more of a player doesn't seem "slight" to me.

I just don't insist that he got worse which you're doing. And yes.. eye test is important.

And that eyetest is where exactly? Show me it was not Shaq who was getting cooked in the paint please.

[LA Bird]

Kevin Garnett

We're also now in a time-stretch where he looks like the 2nd or 3rd data-ball best player per RAPM.

Besides the version from ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt (which relied on 97 RAPM as prior), KG doesn't rank that high in any of the other RAPM sources between 1998 and 2002.

thebasketballdatabase.com: 31, 48, 17, 25, 16
basketball-analytics.gitlab.io: 27, 21, 18, 33, 12
nbarapm.com (2 year): -, 27, 18, 15, 13

He moves up a bit when we filter out low minute players but still, KG wasn't yet the impact monster he would become from 2003.

[ShaqAttac]

SHAQ
MVP and chip. 67 wins. Maybe his d gets worse but he still win and no one good gets close so.

DUNCAN
2nd best player and it not like mo or kg did much in the pos

KG
i know he got pretty great impact. 4-1 l to por but por almost wins chip so.

ZO
61 wins but takes l to the knicks. dpoy and scores good too.

RASHEED
i don't see how it matters reggie made finals when wallace took champs to 7. great d and good o and look like he caused the most trouble for shaq

[konr0167]

00 ballot
1. shaq ( i mean obvious 1 only thing you can hold against him is that the lakers number 1 regular season defense does pretty badly in the playoffs being like +3)
2. kg (great regular season but kinda chokes playoffs (lucky duncan is injured for them or they prolly swap))
3. duncan (great in the regular season once again and playoffs show how reliant spurs offense is on him)
4. alonzo (wins dpoy and plays well in the playoffs but losses due to mashburn and tim hardaway going a combined 9/35 with just 22 points while alonzo puts up 29 and 13 on 60% ts)
5. karl malone (great 1st round vs seattle but does struggle vs a great blazers defense which isn't surprising and he's obv very good in the regular season while not being completely embarrasing in the playoffs which to me is enough to warrant a t5 spot)

[AEnigma]

You guys really need to make a sincere effort to post before the deadline. These late ballots while I am about to finish tallying waste a lot of my time.

[AEnigma]

Votes are tallied. I recorded 13 approved votes: Djoker, AEnigma, B-Mitch 30, ShaqAttac, OhayoKD, penbeast0, capfan33, konr0167, Paulluxx, Narigo, One_and_Done, homecourtloss, and trelos. DJoker, AEnigma, B-Mitch 30, OhayoKD, and trelos voted for both Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year. Please let me know if I seem to have missed or otherwise improperly recorded a vote.

1999-2000 Results

(Retro) Offensive Player of the Year — Shaquille O’Neal (3) (Unanimous)

Code: Select all

Player       1st   2nd   3rd   Points  Shares
1. Shaquille O’Neal   5   0   0    25    1.000
2. Karl Malone   0   3   0    9    0.036
3. Reggie Miller  0   2   2    8    0.032
4. Gary Payton    0   0   2    2    0.080
5. Kevin Garnett    0   0   1    1    0.040

(Retro) Defensive Player of the Year — Alonzo Mourning

Code: Select all

Player         1st   2nd   3rd   Points  Shares
1. Alonzo Mourning  4   0   0    20    0.800
2. Kevin Garnett    1   3   0    14    0.560
3. David Robinson   0   1   1    4    0.120
3. Shaquille O’Neal    0   1   1    4    0.120
5. Tim Duncan    0   0   2    2    0.080
6. Eddie Jones    0   0   1    1    0.040

Retro Player of the Year — Shaquille O’Neal (Unanimous)

Code: Select all

Player      1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts  POY Shares
1. Shaquille O’Neal  13  0  0  0  0   130  1.000
2. Kevin Garnett  0  4  7  0  2    65   0.500
3. Alonzo Mourning  0  5  2  4  2   59   0.454
4. Tim Duncan   0  3  2  3  2   42   0.323
5. Karl Malone   0  1  2  3  2   28   0.215
6. Reggie Miller  0  0  0  2  0   6   0.046
7. Gary Payton   0  0  0  1  1   4   0.031
8. Rasheed Wallace  0  0  0  0  2   2   0.015
9. Jason Kidd  0  0  0  0  1   1   0.008
9. Eddie Jones   0  0  0  0  1   1   0.008

In the prior project, there were 24 votes, with no overlap. These are the aggregated results of the two projects across 37 total ballots:

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

Player   1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts  POY Shares
1. Shaquille O’Neal  370  0  0  0  0   370   1.000
2. Alonzo Mourning  0  21  7  5  3   200   0.541
3. Karl Malone   0  4  12  10  3   121   0.327
4. Kevin Garnett  0  6  10  3  12    113   0.305
5. Gary Payton   0  1  6  9  5   69   0.186
6. Tim Duncan   0  4  2  7  3   62   0.168
7. Allen Iverson  0  1  0  0  1   8   0.022
8. Reggie Miller  0  0  0  2  1   7   0.019
9. Kobe Bryant  0  0  0  0  4   4   0.011
10. Grant Hill   0  0  0  1  0   3   0.008
11. Rasheed Wallace  0  0  0  0  2   2   0.005
12. Jason Kidd  0  0  0  0  1   1   0.003
12. Eddie Jones  0  0  0  0  1   1   0.003
12. Vince Carter   0  0  0  0  1   1   0.003

2001 thread is open.

[Top10alltime]

My 00 Shaq tracking for the g2 finals

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9iM2mTvPlZvpOmr3epz0MkLuoRwf36lxNMvaGwlZOM/edit?usp=drivesdk

Final tally -

22x doubled
26 DTOs
12 EDTOs
7 creation
80 possessions available

13 PP
5 EPP
5 IPP

7 PPD
6 IPPD
1 EPPD
74 possessions available