Retro POY '02-03 (ends Tue morning PST)

[An Unbiased Fan]

I'll let people know while Shaq has my vote for 2000 and 2001 he doesn't have it for 2002, and I'm more than willing to give you the explaining.

Hmmm, Shaq has my vote for 2000 and 2002, but not 2001. Although I see a case for TD in 02'(although his playoffs will knock him to 3rd with me).

Who's '01? AI? I thought Shaq would be a no brainier in '00 and '01.

Kobe

[Gongxi]

Hmmm, Shaq has my vote for 2000 and 2002, but not 2001. Although I see a case for TD in 02'(although his playoffs will knock him to 3rd with me).

Who's '01? AI? I thought Shaq would be a no brainier in '00 and '01.

I think AUF will be voting for Kobe based on his excellent performance in 01 playoffs. I could be wrong though.

[Baller 24]

Kobe

lol explain to me please how he was more dominant and impacted the team compared to Shaq?

[Sedale Threatt]

Classic.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Kobe

lol explain to me please how he was more dominant and impacted the team compared to Shaq?

When we get to that year, I will be more than glad to do that. I just don't want to take this thread off-topic.

[Sedale Threatt]

Kobe

lol explain to me please how he was more dominant and impacted the team compared to Shaq?

I saw probably 80-90 percent of their games, and I'm here to tell you -- he wasn't, and didn't.

Basically, here is the difference between 00, when Shaq was one vote away from a unanimous MVP, and 01 -- one point and one rebound per game, and a drop in consistent defensive intensity. That's about it.

So if one picks Shaq in 00, I don't see any way they can't pick him the following year as well.

[Sedale Threatt]

At any rate, yeah, that's getting way ahead of the curve. So we'll leave it for a few more days.

[bastillon]

the only difference between Duncan and KG in '03 was how well their supporting casts played yet Duncan is winning this thing in a landslide. although you might have a great case for Timmy in a lot of years, this was KG at his best, even better than in '04. the only reason why you would knock him is because he played with D-League teammates. there wasn't one legit starter on that team. this was one of the greatest seasons ever IMO... whatever, at least the guy above him also had one of the greatest seasons ever

btw. I think Spurs would be better off with KG actually. they had perfectly suited team for Garnett. Parker and Manu were penetrating guards at the time and couldn't shoot as well as later. Garnett would kill to play with penetrating guy. the best one Garnett played with was Rondo and obviously it's not the same KG nowadays. with Garnett's passing/shooting ability their spacing would be great and they'd improve offensively because of that. you won't get far offensively when most of your team are inside scorers. fortunately they had great defense to make up for that.

we could get to 2002 faster, cause this year won't produce much more discussion IMO.

[sp6r=underrated]

Kobe

lol explain to me please how he was more dominant and impacted the team compared to Shaq?

I saw probably 80-90 percent of their games, and I'm here to tell you -- he wasn't, and didn't.

Basically, here is the difference between 00, when Shaq was one vote away from a unanimous MVP, and 01 -- one point and one rebound per game, and a drop in consistent defensive intensity. That's about it.

So if one picks Shaq in 00, I don't see any way they can't pick him the following year as well.

I'm taking Shaq in 01, but I will say over the entire season Shaq was better in 00 than in 01 by a larger difference than you think. Shaq just put in much more effort defensively that year. His defensive rotations during the first 2/3 of the 01 season were pathetic. It isn't surprising that the second he start trying again on defense in 01, the lakers instantly became a dominating defensive team.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Kobe

lol explain to me please how he was more dominant and impacted the team compared to Shaq?

I saw probably 80-90 percent of their games, and I'm here to tell you -- he wasn't, and didn't.

Basically, here is the difference between 00, when Shaq was one vote away from a unanimous MVP, and 01 -- one point and one rebound per game, and a drop in consistent defensive intensity. That's about it.

So if one picks Shaq in 00, I don't see any way they can't pick him the following year as well.

As far as dominance, I would agree. But let's not forget the way 2001 went down, and how much Shaq coasted that year especially on defense. Kobe put up a great year, and even greater playoffs. But again, let's save this for later.

[bastillon]

oh, btw. Garnett finished ahead of Duncan in DPOY voting - 3rd to 4th.

[semi-sentient]

I'd agree Duncan, and KG should both be #1 and #2, but I'm curious to know the response to:

Good points, and for now I have no counter. Ranking Mcgrady and Kobe is tough, so I don't really take issue with him being above Kobe.

You raise some good points about the inclusion of more playoff games, so perphaps I'll rethink how much I should value that in this case.

[Sedale Threatt]

I think Spurs would be better off with KG actually.

I love these hypotheical "I think" statements.

How much better could the Spurs have been? They won the championship, playing off of Duncan in a pretty huge way.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I'd agree Duncan, and KG should both be #1 and #2, but I'm curious to know the response to:

Good points, and for now I have no counter. Ranking Mcgrady and Kobe is tough, so I don't really take issue with him being above Kobe.

You raise some good points about the inclusion of more playoff games, so perphaps I'll rethink how much I should value that in this case.

My problem with Tmac was his lackluster defense, and that he played more games against a horrible Eastern Conference, where Kobe was All-D 1st team, and had to face tough West teams most of the time.

Tmac's stats are slightly better, Kobe's defense was much better.

[Silver Bullet]

I'll let people know while Shaq has my vote for 2000 and 2001 he doesn't have it for 2002, and I'm more than willing to give you the explaining.

You can start tommorrow.

I'm sure it's going to revolve around the games missed and lack of consistent effort, but to me it was basically the same situation in 01.

Personally, seven extra games missed don't make all that much difference. But that's just me.

Look, I'll explain why I hold missing games against every other player except Shaq and to a lesser extent Duncan.

The usual rationale for putting games played as a factor in analysis is, because:
1. invariably it ends up hurting the team
2. if you played less games then how does one justify that Player 1's contributions over Player 2's contributions were greater when Player 2 played 15 more games -

Well, in the case of Shaq:
1. He figured out, I'm not sure when, but he and the Lakers collectively figured out that they were best served by not going all out in the regular season and saving their energies for the post-season.

2. He was the best player by a very large margin. If I were the GM of the team, and I could have Shaq for 67 games a year or have Duncan for 80 games a year, I would take Shaq. I don't like judging some players by their stats because in my mind two players can put up the exact same numbers and yet one can be significantly better than the other - but looking at PER's, Shaq is at 29.5 vs Duncan at 26.9 - that is a massive season. Basically, for a big man, this is a GOAT level season. Statistically, it is better than KG's best season (03-04)

3. Before this year, I never saw any evidence that Shaq missing games hurt his team - if you are going to penalize him for missing games, then you also need to give him extra credit for having extra energy in the post-season, that he wouldn't have had - had they lost. He could have very well played 82 games in the regular season, come into the post season at 70% and not been as effective. For me, the two things cancel each other out.

4. To me the Lakers lost because of chemistry issues and because Jerry Buss had by this point raped the roster bare - These are the HOF role players on that team - Robert Horry, Devean George, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw, Mark Madsen and Samaki Walker.

EDIT: At this point they were coming off 3 consecutive championships - Off the top of my head, I don't think any team ever has won 4 straight (maybe the 60's Celtics did, I don't know), so it was a stretch to see them winning 4 straight to begin with.

[Gongxi]

I'd agree Duncan, and KG should both be #1 and #2, but I'm curious to know the response to:

Good points, and for now I have no counter. Ranking Mcgrady and Kobe is tough, so I don't really take issue with him being above Kobe.

You raise some good points about the inclusion of more playoff games, so perphaps I'll rethink how much I should value that in this case.

My problem with Tmac was his lackluster defense, and that he played more games against a horrible Eastern Conference, where Kobe was All-D 1st team, and had to face tough West teams most of the time.

Tmac's stats are slightly better, Kobe's defense was much better.

McGrady's stats are much better as well. And, since individual offense is more important that individual defense...

[bastillon]

in this case I don't think there's any gap between KG and Duncan. they were both playing at absolute all-time level with the only difference being their teammates. I simply think Garnett is a better fit for a team that has plenty of inside scoring regardless of Duncan's presence. Parker, Manu and D-Rob could use some spacing alongside Garnett and I don't know how other teams would stop their pick and pop or high-low KG-DRob. I remember watching '03 playoffs and complaining how bad Wolves centers were because Garnett used to throw them so many passes right under the basket after double-teams and they still couldn't score in those situations. D-Rob at least could dunk pretty well

the bottomline is that I think Garnett was Duncan's equal, but would fit better in that team. it's not that I think Garnett largely seperated himself or anything, it's about fit which is in Garnett's favor IMO.

not that it means anything in this discussion because I won't convince anyone anyway, but at least you can now understand my train of thought.

[Baller 24]

My problem with Tmac was his lackluster defense, and that he played more games against a horrible Eastern Conference, where Kobe was All-D 1st team, and had to face tough West teams most of the time.

Tmac's stats are slightly better, Kobe's defense was much better.

You haven't read anything in the previous pages, check page 3 and Page 6 post about McGrady and Kobe's defense. I have no idea where you get "lack luster" defense from, when witnessing the team throughout an 82 game season showed that he was arguably an above average defender. Plus there was a bunch of other stuff that was in McGrad'y statistical favor, but again check TMACFORMVPs post on Page 3 and the Page 6, there's a long explanation among the defenses between the two.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Good points, and for now I have no counter. Ranking Mcgrady and Kobe is tough, so I don't really take issue with him being above Kobe.

You raise some good points about the inclusion of more playoff games, so perphaps I'll rethink how much I should value that in this case.

My problem with Tmac was his lackluster defense, and that he played more games against a horrible Eastern Conference, where Kobe was All-D 1st team, and had to face tough West teams most of the time.

Tmac's stats are slightly better, Kobe's defense was much better.

McGrady's stats are much better as well. And, since individual offense is more important that individual defense...

How so?
Tmac had 32.1 on 45.7% shooting, 38.6% 3pt, 79.3 FT%
Kobe has 30.0 on 45.1% shooting, 38.3% 3pt, 84.3 FT%

One should also point out Kobe's 35+/40+ streaks where LA went 12-2, and his 40 ppg month.

Overall, Kobe had the better year...

Kobe had 6.9 rpg
Tmac had 6.5 rpg

Kobe had 5.9 apg
Tmac had 5.5 apg

Kobe was All-D 1st team
Tmac was average at best on D

Kobe had to do this against mostly West teams
Tmac had to do it against mostly East teams

[Sedale Threatt]

Look, I'll explain why I hold missing games against every other player except Shaq and to a lesser extent Duncan.

Good post, but I'm not sure where this is coming from. If you read the preceding posts, we're talking about Shaq 00-02, not Shaq 03. Besides, I'm not holding games missed ahead of him. I've got him pencilled in at No. 1 for the next three years, probably 99 as well.