Retro POY '07-08 (Voting Complete)

[semi-sentient]

Well, probably not for someone who thought the Lakers wouldn't be a contender after that Gasol-trade. Btw, the Lakers went from a scoring margin of 5.8 to 9.1 after that trade.

When did I say that the Lakers wouldn't be a contender in the current discussion? I consider any top 4 team in the league a contender depending on who they face and what the circumstances are. I said simply that most didn't expect them to get to the Finals, which is exactly what the consensus amongst Lakers fans late in the season. Most of us figured that we'd have to go through the Spurs to reach the Finals, and that didn't seem realistic until Ginobili started having ankle issues and we got closer to the WCF, which clearly affected the outcome of the series. No one expected Gasol to play that well against Duncan either, and I think you are forgetting that we didn't know what was going on with Bynum or Ariza early on in the playoffs.

Take a look at what Simmons had to say, and pay attention to who he said our worst-case opponent was and how much he's harping on the health of Bynum.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ons/080326

If that isn't enough, this very question DID come up, and conveniently enough, I made a post on the first page in that thread saying that injury issues were the biggest factor. Most people thought the Lakers were serious contenders HEALTHY, but without Bynum and Ariza, it was kind of up in the air.

Read here: Are the Lakers still 'legit' title contenders?

Don't act like the Lakers were shoe-ins to meet the Celtics in the Finals. The West was tough that year and the only reason you'd suggest otherwise is to diminish what Kobe did in the playoffs.

well, that kinda exposed his credibility. I don't think he can be trusted anymore in this particular discussion.

I don't think posters who blindly follow false accusations are particularly trustworthy either.

[ronnymac2]

This is going to be tough for me. I remember thinking back then that Lebron James was the best player in the league and I knew he wasn't going to win MVP because he had bad teammates and his team's record was very average. It was average through no fault of his own. He wasn't quite the 09 LBJ, but he was very close. Still...he wasn't Lebron of 09, and Kobe and KG of 08 were better than the 09 versions of each, so the gap gets smaller. Chris Paul obviously has to enter the discussion, but....I had the feeling back then that a lot of teams were caught off guard by the hornets. Not that that reflects poorly on Paul's spectacular play, but this whole "they only won 1 game less than LA" is a bit overstated.

Although......

The way they performed in the playoffs impressed me. You don't surprise people in the playoffs. And Paul was great. So I'm going to accept him into the discussion.

Are there five players in the race? Let's see....I love Wade, but he was injured a lot. A lot. I kind of can't put him in this race. He's out. Dirk? Not this year. KG and Dirk play the same position, and KG was clearly the better player imo. He's out. Nash? Nah, Paul was better. Melo was a chucker still at that point. I'm a Melo fan, but no to this year. Roy and Deron. No and no. Not over Paul. Not in 08.

I'm looking at Duncan right now. I remember him not doing so well throughout the 08 playoffs offensively. He did get his team to the 08 WCF despite having an unhealthy team. Do I think he could do what KG did that year? Not sure. Since his offense declined that year, that takes the main advantage he has over KG in general and lessens it a bit. Then, take into account that KG was more dominant statistically and won a title as the best player on his team, and I think I'd have to give the edge to KG.

Timmy vs. Dirk becomes a debate for fifth. I'm not sure how I'm going to compare Paul's play/playoffs vs. Kobe's play/playoffs/finals appearance vs. KG's intangibles/play/title vs. Lebron being the best player.

[Silver Bullet]

Well, probably not for someone who thought the Lakers wouldn't be a contender after that Gasol-trade.

well, that kinda exposed his credibility. I don't think he can be trusted anymore in this particular discussion.

but expectations is an interesting argument guys. what do you think of Celtics being ranked amongst 1-6 seeds in the east having as many as 48-55 wins ? doesn't Garnett get the credit for demolishing this anticipated barrier ? he should, in my opinion. imagine people were concerned about their defense

Why is Garnett getting all the credit ?

Here are the changes the Celtics made:
- Remove Al Jefferson (that in itself improves their defense)
- Hired Tom Thibedeau
- Traded for Ray Allen
- Rondo matured one year and started to come into his own.
- Perkins matured one year
- Glenn Davis matured one year.
- Tony Allen came back from injury
- Added PJ Brown
- Added James Posey
- Paul Peirce got healthy
- Got rid of defensive sieves in Scerbiak and Gerald Green
- Brian Scalabrine went from playing 20mpg to 10mpg in just 48 games
- Leon Powe went from 11mpg to 14mpg

At this point, even before you add Garnett, you'd have a team in contention for the 4th seed, and a team that would be drastically improved from the preceding year's team.

Then you added two playoff vets in Cassell and House and got rid of an offensive blackhole and malcontent in Green and got rid of a low efficiency high turnover guy in Telfair.

Are you guys saying all of these changes had no effect on the Celtics ?

[semi-sentient]

^^^ Pierce being healthy has been overlooked. In 2006-07, the Celtics were 20-27 with Pierce (and Al Jeff missed about 10 of those games) and 4-31 without him. That tells you right there how crappy they were outside of him. Throw Allen and Garnet in the mix with a healthy Pierce and duh, major improvement from one season to the next.

[ElGee]

Are we done with 09? I thought that ended tomorrow...?

[ElGee]

There seems to be a lot of debate surrounding Garnett -- here is my post from the "Garnett 08" thread, with a few edits to make more sense:

This is not a fair assessment of Garnett's impact on that team.

First, let's take the opening 32 games of the season, when the Celtics nearly went 32-0 (OT loss @ Cleveland, missed last second loss @ Orlando, last second home loss to Detroit). Yes, the Celtics would have been solid without KG, but we shouldn't penalize for that because the team is so good. I'd draw a parallel to the 96 Bulls and Michael Jordan - they're still a playoff team without him. I'm pretty sure MJ's still winning that MVP if he misses a dozen games and the Bulls "only" win 68.

When Garnett went down they were 34-7 (Washington gave them fits that year for some reason and they lost two the Wizards, one to Toronto in one of the most ridiculous shooting displays ever - http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... der_by=pts).

34-7 is a 68-win pace. They won 24 games the year before, but that's not an accurate barometer because they were 20-27 with Pierce. Then again, they lost Al Jefferson but added Ray Allen. So where does that put them? These things are tricky to ballpark, but I'd guess Vegas puts the over/under at 43-wins for that team. Tops. No one blinked when Allen was traded.

When Garnett arrived, most people still didn't think it would work. They were picked to finish between 1st and 6th in the East (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... review0708), compared to the "experiment" of the Barkley Rockets, and everyone wondered about their depth and defensive ability. 30% of GM's thought they wouldn't win the Atlantic: http://www.nba.com/preview2007/gmsurvey ... tions.html 48-55 wins was the popular opinion.

Yes, it sounds crazy in retrospect to question their defense, but that's part of what made Garnett so valuable to that team. It was a single-season value; Once it was imparted (commitment to defense, unselfishness), it couldn't be undone even if KG left. Which is part of the reason they had a quality W-L record without him -- he had literally sold Pierce and Allen on defense and unselfishness as a gateway to the title. As Bastillon noted, it's not surprising that they defeated vastly inferior competition in a small sample. Against the quality opponents the results were not so, well...68-win paced.

KG ostensibly returned after the All-Star break, but he was rusty and was eased back into the lineup. They went on a difficult west coast trip and lost the first 3 games to Denver (50-wins), Golden State (48-wins) and Phoenix (55-wins). By the Phoenix game the Celtics looked almost re-synchronized, but Phoenix just played well. The Celtics then won 10 in a row and finished 25-5 after that (68-win pace again).

So this is one case where context is extremely important in looking at the record with and without (especially since all other with/without metrics, like on/off and APM, as Bastillon posted, had KG as most valuable).

And on top of all of that, Garnett anchored one of the most dominant defenses in NBA history (after years of defensive mediocrity) -- I don't think Ray Allen was responsible for that impact. Do you think if Garnett never even arrived, and instead they traded Al Jefferson for an average PF, that the Celtics would even win 50-games that season? (Again, remembering that most people thought that's the number they would win with Garnett?

[Silver Bullet]

Are we done with 09? I thought that ended tomorrow...?

No both threads run parallel for 1 day - the way this thing is set up.

[Silver Bullet]

There seems to be a lot of debate surrounding Garnett -- here is my post from the "Garnett 08" thread, with a few edits to make more sense:

This is not a fair assessment of Garnett's impact on that team.

First, let's take the opening 32 games of the season, when the Celtics nearly went 32-0 (OT loss @ Cleveland, missed last second loss @ Orlando, last second home loss to Detroit). Yes, the Celtics would have been solid without KG, but we shouldn't penalize for that because the team is so good. I'd draw a parallel to the 96 Bulls and Michael Jordan - they're still a playoff team without him. I'm pretty sure MJ's still winning that MVP if he misses a dozen games and the Bulls "only" win 68.

When Garnett went down they were 34-7 (Washington gave them fits that year for some reason and they lost two the Wizards, one to Toronto in one of the most ridiculous shooting displays ever - http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... der_by=pts).

34-7 is a 68-win pace. They won 24 games the year before, but that's not an accurate barometer because they were 20-27 with Pierce. Then again, they lost Al Jefferson but added Ray Allen. So where does that put them? These things are tricky to ballpark, but I'd guess Vegas puts the over/under at 43-wins for that team. Tops. No one blinked when Allen was traded.

When Garnett arrived, most people still didn't think it would work. They were picked to finish between 1st and 6th in the East (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... review0708), compared to the "experiment" of the Barkley Rockets, and everyone wondered about their depth and defensive ability. 30% of GM's thought they wouldn't win the Atlantic: http://www.nba.com/preview2007/gmsurvey ... tions.html 48-55 wins was the popular opinion.

Yes, it sounds crazy in retrospect to question their defense, but that's part of what made Garnett so valuable to that team. It was a single-season value; Once it was imparted (commitment to defense, unselfishness), it couldn't be undone even if KG left. Which is part of the reason they had a quality W-L record without him -- he had literally sold Pierce and Allen on defense and unselfishness as a gateway to the title. As Bastillon noted, it's not surprising that they defeated vastly inferior competition in a small sample. Against the quality opponents the results were not so, well...68-win paced.

KG ostensibly returned after the All-Star break, but he was rusty and was eased back into the lineup. They went on a difficult west coast trip and lost the first 3 games to Denver (50-wins), Golden State (48-wins) and Phoenix (55-wins). By the Phoenix game the Celtics looked almost re-synchronized, but Phoenix just played well. The Celtics then won 10 in a row and finished 25-5 after that (68-win pace again).

So this is one case where context is extremely important in looking at the record with and without (especially since all other with/without metrics, like on/off and APM, as Bastillon posted, had KG as most valuable).

And on top of all of that, Garnett anchored one of the most dominant defenses in NBA history (after years of defensive mediocrity) -- I don't think Ray Allen was responsible for that impact. Do you think if Garnett never even arrived, and instead they traded Al Jefferson for an average PF, that the Celtics would even win 50-games that season? (Again, remembering that most people thought that's the number they would win with Garnett?

Again, Elgeee, you're doing the same thing everyone else is doing i.e. assigning all the credit to KG.

1. Nobody blinked when Ray Allen was traded, because everyone was anticipating the KG trade. And my timing might be totally off, but weren't they both traded for on the same day.

2. They added Thibodeau - nearly everybody has given the guy tons of credit for their defensive turnaround. I'm not saying it's all because of him, but you guys are giving the guy zero credit.

3. As noted, in my previous post, they added a bunch of talent - not just Ray Allen. Just take two moves, removing Al Jefferson and Gerald Green in itself improves them defensively. When you replace those two with Tony Allen and PJ Brown and increase Rondo and Perkins minutes, that in itself would be enough to get you a top 10 defensive line up.
Rondo, Peirce, Brown and Perkins are all exceptional defenders - The only question mark would be Ray Allen.
So yes, Garnett impacted the team, sure -

4. You obviously cannot discount his injuries totally - He missed a ton of games, and by your admission wasn't 100% effective for another 10 games or so - So basically you are saying Garnett in 60 games was better than Duncan in 82.

5. The Lakers went to the Finals, won 57 games, were top 6 in defense and Kobe put up better numbers than Garnett. So you're suggesting that Garnett was so much better than Kobe (and Paul) that his contributions over 60 games are greater than their contributions over 82 ?

[Optimism Prime]

Again, Elgeee, you're doing the same thing everyone else is doing i.e. assigning all the credit to KG.

1. Nobody blinked when Ray Allen was traded, because everyone was anticipating the KG trade. And my timing might be totally off, but weren't they both traded for on the same day.

2. They added Thibodeau - nearly everybody has given the guy tons of credit for their defensive turnaround. I'm not saying it's all because of him, but you guys are giving the guy zero credit.

3. As noted, in my previous post, they added a bunch of talent - not just Ray Allen. Just take two moves, removing Al Jefferson and Gerald Green in itself improves them defensively. When you replace those two with Tony Allen and PJ Brown and increase Rondo and Perkins minutes, that in itself would be enough to get you a top 10 defensive line up.
Rondo, Peirce, Brown and Perkins are all exceptional defenders - The only question mark would be Ray Allen.
So yes, Garnett impacted the team, sure -

4. You obviously cannot discount his injuries totally - He missed a ton of games, and by your admission wasn't 100% effective for another 10 games or so - So basically you are saying Garnett in 60 games was better than Duncan in 82.

5. The Lakers went to the Finals, won 57 games, were top 6 in defense and Kobe put up better numbers than Garnett. So you're suggesting that Garnett was so much better than Kobe (and Paul) that his contributions over 60 games are greater than their contributions over 82 ?

Way off--a month apart (June 28 for Allen, July 31 for KG)

[ElGee]

There seems to be a lot of debate surrounding Garnett -- here is my post from the "Garnett 08" thread, with a few edits to make more sense:

This is not a fair assessment of Garnett's impact on that team.

First, let's take the opening 32 games of the season, when the Celtics nearly went 32-0 (OT loss @ Cleveland, missed last second loss @ Orlando, last second home loss to Detroit). Yes, the Celtics would have been solid without KG, but we shouldn't penalize for that because the team is so good. I'd draw a parallel to the 96 Bulls and Michael Jordan - they're still a playoff team without him. I'm pretty sure MJ's still winning that MVP if he misses a dozen games and the Bulls "only" win 68.

When Garnett went down they were 34-7 (Washington gave them fits that year for some reason and they lost two the Wizards, one to Toronto in one of the most ridiculous shooting displays ever - http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... der_by=pts).

34-7 is a 68-win pace. They won 24 games the year before, but that's not an accurate barometer because they were 20-27 with Pierce. Then again, they lost Al Jefferson but added Ray Allen. So where does that put them? These things are tricky to ballpark, but I'd guess Vegas puts the over/under at 43-wins for that team. Tops. No one blinked when Allen was traded.

When Garnett arrived, most people still didn't think it would work. They were picked to finish between 1st and 6th in the East (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... review0708), compared to the "experiment" of the Barkley Rockets, and everyone wondered about their depth and defensive ability. 30% of GM's thought they wouldn't win the Atlantic: http://www.nba.com/preview2007/gmsurvey ... tions.html 48-55 wins was the popular opinion.

Yes, it sounds crazy in retrospect to question their defense, but that's part of what made Garnett so valuable to that team. It was a single-season value; Once it was imparted (commitment to defense, unselfishness), it couldn't be undone even if KG left. Which is part of the reason they had a quality W-L record without him -- he had literally sold Pierce and Allen on defense and unselfishness as a gateway to the title. As Bastillon noted, it's not surprising that they defeated vastly inferior competition in a small sample. Against the quality opponents the results were not so, well...68-win paced.

KG ostensibly returned after the All-Star break, but he was rusty and was eased back into the lineup. They went on a difficult west coast trip and lost the first 3 games to Denver (50-wins), Golden State (48-wins) and Phoenix (55-wins). By the Phoenix game the Celtics looked almost re-synchronized, but Phoenix just played well. The Celtics then won 10 in a row and finished 25-5 after that (68-win pace again).

So this is one case where context is extremely important in looking at the record with and without (especially since all other with/without metrics, like on/off and APM, as Bastillon posted, had KG as most valuable).

And on top of all of that, Garnett anchored one of the most dominant defenses in NBA history (after years of defensive mediocrity) -- I don't think Ray Allen was responsible for that impact. Do you think if Garnett never even arrived, and instead they traded Al Jefferson for an average PF, that the Celtics would even win 50-games that season? (Again, remembering that most people thought that's the number they would win with Garnett?

Again, Elgeee, you're doing the same thing everyone else is doing i.e. assigning all the credit to KG.

1. Nobody blinked when Ray Allen was traded, because everyone was anticipating the KG trade. And my timing might be totally off, but weren't they both traded for on the same day.

2. They added Thibodeau - nearly everybody has given the guy tons of credit for their defensive turnaround. I'm not saying it's all because of him, but you guys are giving the guy zero credit.

3. As noted, in my previous post, they added a bunch of talent - not just Ray Allen. Just take two moves, removing Al Jefferson and Gerald Green in itself improves them defensively. When you replace those two with Tony Allen and PJ Brown and increase Rondo and Perkins minutes, that in itself would be enough to get you a top 10 defensive line up.
Rondo, Peirce, Brown and Perkins are all exceptional defenders - The only question mark would be Ray Allen.
So yes, Garnett impacted the team, sure -

4. You obviously cannot discount his injuries totally - He missed a ton of games, and by your admission wasn't 100% effective for another 10 games or so - So basically you are saying Garnett in 60 games was better than Duncan in 82.

5. The Lakers went to the Finals, won 57 games, were top 6 in defense and Kobe put up better numbers than Garnett. So you're suggesting that Garnett was so much better than Kobe (and Paul) that his contributions over 60 games are greater than their contributions over 82 ?

I'm not sure how you got "assigning all the credit to KG" from my post. ??

1. Allen was a draft-day trade. Garnett was acquired over a month later.

2. I've given Thibedeau credit, it just needs to be the appropriate amount.

3. PJ Brown played 13 mpg in the playoffs and played 18 regular seasons. I'm not sure why you're mentioning him unless you're just under the impression that he was with the team the whole season. (?)

4. Yes, I'm saying without him in that ~15 game block, he would still be better than TD for me. I penalize for injuries if it makes a huge impact on your season or eliminates you from playing in the postseason (basically, if you can't leave your imprint on the season). 66-wins and 25 healthy playoff games? Not going to bump him below TD, but I think the injury issue is a fair point that is coming up a lot. Wonder how it will be dealt with in 1978.

5. Same issue as #4, only now you have it down to 60 healthy games. (And no, I don't think the post suggests that. It's an attempt to put Garnett's value into perspective.)

[Silver Bullet]

Regarding point 3 - The point wasn't that PJ Brown was added, it was that replacing Al Jefferson with an average player would have a positive impact defensively.

[NO-KG-AI]

Regarding point 3 - The point wasn't that PJ Brown was added, it was that replacing Al Jefferson with an average player would have a positive impact defensively.

In Al Jeff's last season with the Celtics, they were actually better with him on the court defensively. (.1 points, but still ).

Gerald Green was at +1.8, with Tony Allen at 0.

Pierce isn't an exceptional defender either, he was decent as a young guy, and basically a big body in the title run. Him being an exceptional defender is something Kobe fans have come up with to explain him getting stifled in the finals. For like the 3-4 years before Garnett arrived, Pierce's teams were better with him off the floor defensively, sometimes as much as 4 points. Though like I said, in 2002 or so, he was pretty damn good.

[Silver Bullet]

Regarding point 3 - The point wasn't that PJ Brown was added, it was that replacing Al Jefferson with an average player would have a positive impact defensively.

In Al Jeff's last season with the Celtics, they were actually better with him on the court defensively. (.1 points, but still ).

Gerald Green was at +1.8, with Tony Allen at 0.

Pierce isn't an exceptional defender either, he was decent as a young guy, and basically a big body in the title run. Him being an exceptional defender is something Kobe fans have come up with to explain him getting stifled in the finals. For like the 3-4 years before Garnett arrived, Pierce's teams were better with him off the floor defensively, sometimes as much as 4 points. Though like I said, in 2002 or so, he was pretty damn good.

Peirce could always play defense. He didn't, because his teams didn't emphasize defense.

As far as plus-minus goes, Tony Allen is a hundred times better than Gerald Green yet Green has the better numbers ?

[NO-KG-AI]

Nah, +1.8 would be a bad thing. negatives are the good one for defense. Just showing that he wasn't a massive detriment, and Allen wasn't a stalwart.

[lorak]

I'm having trouble evaluating Paul, LeBron and Kobe. My feeling is that LeBron was the best of them in the regular season, with Paul second and Kobe third. In the postseason LeBron obviously wasn't efficient against the Celtics, but he came awfully dang close to toppling that team and I credit him for that. So I guess I'm talking myself into having him above the other two.

When it comes to Kobe vs Paul, I'm torn. The stats tell me that Paul was significantly better. I thought that Kobe was pretty strong in the postseason, though. I do feel that he was given some of the credit for the Lakers' run that should have gone to the Gasol/Odom front line. Kobe was definitely the best player, but I think Gasol should have gotten a bit more love.

I'm interested to see if any particularly compelling arguments come to light for any of the above

The problem with Lebron is that he didn't play great defense in 2008, and led the Cavs to only 45 wins in a very weak East. In the playoffs he beat a 43 win Wiz team, but was very erratic on both offense & defense in the Celtic series. He ended up shooting 41% for the playoffs.

Kobe to me was the best. Paul had great numbers, but in the context of the opposing offensive schemes, I would say both were even. Kobe added defense to the equation though, and this along with his leadership, especially 2 weeks before the end of the season and the playoffs, give him the edge.

Re: postseason. I have some experience paying close attention to what happens to a lone-superstar that is expected to do everything when he is leading a team without a lot of talent against great opposition in the playoffs. In most cases your efficiency gets a lot lower, which makes your boxscore stats not as impressive. But I tend to look more at overall impact than purely what the box scores show, which is one of the things I like about the +/- stats. They aren't perfect, but they often seem to show when a player is having a big impact that the box scores don't catch.

That said, LeBron's postseason +30.9 on-court/off-court plus minus was telling to me. He might not have been efficient, he might have been grinding, but dangit he made a lot of people in Boston hold their breaths. To me, that was more impressive than what Kobe accomplished under better circumstances.

Good point. His APM was also great, in fact the best in whole playoffs, better than Garnett's number: 11.56.
So yeah, James wasn't efficient, he had terrible two games against Celtics, but later played very good and case could be made that he was the best player in 2008 playoffs (APM confirms that). For God sake, Celtics almost lose because LeBron, but Pierce saved their season.

[lorak]

The Cavaliers rank right up there with some of the greatest defensive teams in history - if you doubt that, I can do a detailed post later.

I highly doubt it, so please, do it.
Because the fact is that 2008 Cavaliers were mediocre defensive team – in best case…

[Gongxi]

How is it clear cut that Lebron was the best player that year ?

I didn't say it was clear cut that LeBron was the best player that year.

The playoffs mean A LOT more because it's against better competition than you get in the regular season. There are no 20-30 win bottom feeders to beat up on, and as the post season moves along, the challenge gets greater and greater. For instance, in 2008, LA played all of their games against 50+ win opponents. So every game of a series poses a challenge, and there are no gimme games like in the regular season.

And? If you get hot for four games in the playoffs, that's great, but it doesn't outweigh 10 games in the regular season. The sample size is simply too small for me to weigh playoff games any more than double a regular season game. I think that's plenty. That ignores, of course, how match ups can effect stats. See: Westbrook having a field day with Fisher, making his playoffs thus far look downright historic. Or, for a Kobe Kid like yourself, take note of how people like you are convinced that Kobe was the engine that propelled the Lakers to the Finals for several playoffs in the early 2000s, but Shaq always walked away with the Finals MVP. According to many folks like you, that's because of match ups.

When we're supposed to look at the entirety of the season, guess what? I look at the entirety of the season. I'm not going to have 20 games count for any more than half of regular season- certainly not equal to 82 games played from fall to spring, and absolutely certainly not worth more than it. That's just **** crazy.

While it's true that one man can't lead a title to a ring, it's also true that stars do have a major impact on team success in the NBA, as opposed to other leagues. To disassociate team success would be wrong.

Yeah, I go by production on the floor when I rank players. Not whether they have good GMs or not. I know, it's out there. Oh well. If I can deal with you voting for Kobe every year, you can deal with me basing my rankings on the players and not whether or not they have another All-Star on their team. Thanks.

[bastillon]

Good point. His APM was also great, in fact the best in whole playoffs, better than Garnett's number: 11.56.
So yeah, James wasn't efficient, he had terrible two games against Celtics, but later played very good and case could be made that he was the best player in 2008 playoffs (APM confirms that). For God sake, Celtics almost lose because LeBron, but Pierce saved their season.

it makes zero sense to use this sample as a statistical tool, when vast majority of the time James was off the floor, games were no longer important (i.e. blowouts). James pretty much played every minute...

Regarding point 3 - The point wasn't that PJ Brown was added, it was that replacing Al Jefferson with an average player would have a positive impact defensively.

well, either you think posters in this thread are unintelligent or you don't know who you're convincing. you basically pointing out that Al Jefferson made them worse, despite the fact that he was a 20/10 player too. Ray Allen would bring more to the table than Al but that difference wasn't all that big - let's remember that Ray played entire '08 season on bum ankles, both of which required the surgery after the playoffs. role players weren't anything spectacular. Perkins was above average defensively and a horrible liability on offense (turns it over like a mad man bc of bad picks etc) while Rondo was so bad that Doc had to choose between Houses' inability to dribble the ball (anyone remembers Lindsey Hunter ?) and Cassell's lack of "ubuntu".

[lorak]

Good point. His APM was also great, in fact the best in whole playoffs, better than Garnett's number: 11.56.
So yeah, James wasn't efficient, he had terrible two games against Celtics, but later played very good and case could be made that he was the best player in 2008 playoffs (APM confirms that). For God sake, Celtics almost lose because LeBron, but Pierce saved their season.

it makes zero sense to use this sample as a statistical tool, when vast majority of the time James was off the floor, games were no longer important (i.e. blowouts). James pretty much played every minute...

Not ture, he missed almost 100 minutes.

[bastillon]

... of which vast majority of time was spent during blowouts. (and it wasn't 100, but 72... nice manipulation)