Retro POY '08-09

[Silver Bullet]

Not to draw attention away from bastillon, but can someone let me know if my posts are rational/thought-out enough to remain a voting member here?

Yes, you made pretty strong arguments. Better than mine, I still can't figure out what I think.

[semi-sentient]

Just read the original rules and the preference is to vote after hearing everyone's take. Since I think it's fairly close between LeBron and Kobe for #1, I'll retract my list in the event that my opinion changes based on things I hadn't considered, and I may end up changing 3-5 in addition.

I can tell you that when the regular season ended it was clearly LeBron, then after the Finals I leaned very slightly towards Kobe, but now for whatever reason I'm leaning LeBron again.

I always have trouble weighing the importance of the post-season because some players don't have the opportunity to have long runs, but great playoff runs can definitely elevate a player who was not quite as good as another in the regular season. It'll be interesting to see some other unique perspectives outside of just statistical dominance.

[Silver Bullet]

I am the guy who last year created this thread
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=900389

In a nutshell, I argued that the Lakers supporting cast was not dependable and did not show up for big games. They had bigger names - but they're pieces were a much worse fit compared to Lebron. In the past two years, they have blown multiple leads of 20+ including a 22 pt and 26 pt lead in the Finals.

Now here is why I bring this up. When you look at the Lakers supporting cast vs the Cavaliers supporting cast and look at how they perform against "Good" teams, the Lakers cast shoots 17% worse against good teams than it does against lottery bound teams while the Cavaliers cast only shoots 4% worse. The Lakers SC shoots 13% worse from 3, the Cavaliers cast shoots 16% better.

Performance against Good Teams vs Performance against Poor Teams



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

We see that the 4% drop in FG% that the Cavs supporting cast has is better than the 6% drop in FG% Lebron suffers. At the same time, LBJ's FG attempts go up by almost 5 shots per game when facing elite teams, while his team mates shots go down by 1.5 attempts. When you look at assists we see that they go down across the board for the Cavs. What this tells me, is that James is dominating the ball more against better teams, as evidenced by his 4.5 increase in FGA and 0.4 increase in TO's. At the same time, he is getting to the line less, which possibly tells me that his shot selection gets worse against elite teams. At the same time, the rest of the Cavaliers cast is standing around - because we know that the ball is moving less.
And that confirms what I see from the eye test. Against the Magic, there were a whole bunch of Cavs just standing around waiting to get the ball. At the same time, in signature games, their performance improves relative to the other elite team in the league, substantially. This tells me that the Cavs supporting cast is a bit better than it seems and doesn't get utilized properly in big games.

My point being: that Lebron putting up bigger numbers does not neccesarily equal Lebron having a better series. And saying that Lebron's supporting cast is weaker than Kobe's, thus he should get more of the credit for his team's success is not fair.

Looking at Gasol's stats, he gets substantially less points (10%), less rebounds (-13%), less assists (-28%), turns the ball over more (12%) and gets to the free throw line less (16%). At the same time, Kobe picks up the slack for Gasol and Fisher (wouldn't bother analyzing him in detail but he's does everything worse against elite teams while jacking up substantially more shots) by changing his shot selection (5% fewer 3PA and 5% better 3FG%), creating more (his assisted field goals go from 41% against poor teams to 34% against elite teams) and rebounding substantially better (+20%).

[ElGee]

This is why I always use the HCA factor, because it shows you were the superior team all along, but just didn't pull thru when needed the most.

Not to sidetrack from the discussion, but HCA doesn't do this at all. Trades, injuries, schedule and gelling could all produce a "better" team with a worse record by playoff time. Not to mention it completely overlooks the matchup element -- the Lakers have been better than the Bobcats for years, but they don't match up well with them.

[Doctor MJ]

This is why I always use the HCA factor, because it shows you were the superior team all along, but just didn't pull thru when needed the most.

Not to sidetrack from the discussion, but HCA doesn't do this at all. Trades, injuries, schedule and gelling could all produce a "better" team with a worse record by playoff time. Not to mention it completely overlooks the matchup element -- the Lakers have been better than the Bobcats for years, but they don't match up well with them.

I'll also say that I see the HCA as useful for a totally different reason. Assuming injuries etc aren't in play, I see how you do when teams have a chance to really figure you out while playing with maximum intensity as totally huge. I don't really buy that upsets of HCA say much about clutch/choke.

Now that said, part of the problem with relying too much on HCA is the matchup element. If we find that LeBron's teams consistently get upset by a variety of other teams, that tells you something about a fundamental flaw. Losing one series to a team that beat you in the regular season with LeBron being basically unstoppable on the other hand is not something that means a whole lot other than that Orlando gets to the finals and Cleveland doesn't.

[ElGee]

Totally totally disagree. The way people have been voting so far, it seems like they don't watch the NBA at all. You guys have been focusing on Statistics wayyy too much.

For example, sure the Rockets were without T-Mac and Yao towards the end, but they played impeccable defense. Nothing anyone in the East put up comes even in the same stratosphere. Why should we expect Kobe not to struggle against Battier and Artest - I mean, that is a ridiculous expectation. Battier plays Kobe better than any other guy in the World, better than Bowen or Artest ever did. And then you're getting help from Artest. I mean what is with the dig at Brooks and Scola ? sure they're not big names, but if Aaron Brooks hits a clutch 3, it's still a clutch 3.

So yeah, I think perfect angry faces and clutch 3's should count a lot more, because your focus has been solely on Statistics. If you went by statistics alone, then Nash, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Iverson et. all would have zero MVPS and you'd think Deron Williams was closer to Jose Caledron than he's to Chris Paul.

First of all, to say the defense of the Eastern teams isn't in the same stratosphere as the Rockets is a bit difficult for me to stomach. The Magic, Celtics and Cavs had the best defensive ratings last season. The Rockets were a very good defensive team and played excellent defense in that series, but it's not as extreme as you're making it out to be. LA still scored 111 and 118 points in games in that series. Chuck Hayes was very active on pick and roll defense and rotations and made a number of nice plays, but I think the crux of your point is with regards to Bryant, and Hayes had little to do with that (I recall two or three nice switches in LA, but Kobe probably played 500 offensive possessions in that series).

I'm not slighting those 3 players, just pointing out Bastillon's double standard of making extreme statements denigrating LeBron for his competition, but calling Kobe "dominant" when struggled against a team with a core that simply isn't very good (unless you think that core is a 50+ win). Without Yao, Houston was too small inside, yet the series went 7.

In general, great offense beats great defense. Basketball is a scoring-heavy game. But great defense (individually, team) can slow down good offense. We should see those offensive numbers drop slightly. When there is an extreme drop, I think it's fair to say the offensive player/team had a bad performance. Yes, it may have been influenced heavily by the increased quality of defense, but I want players who can separate themselves and still play well against the best competition. In other words, if you can simply maintain you're averages and efficiency against the 93 Knicks, you're doing something well.

Are you being serious about angry faces?

[ElGee]

I think you'd have to watch the whole series over again to judge his D. 5 possessions out of 90 isn't exactly a good measure. what I remember from that series is how I bashed James on another forum for his pathetic D during that series. I recall one moment when he flat out didn't know what was happening and Pietrus, who he was guarding, just cut to the basket for wide open lay-up... and then there were (IIRC) game 3 and game 4, when Alston repeatedly torched Cleveland.

But LeBron's defensive "usage" isn't 100%. This is the primary reason why individuals have a much greater offensive effect than defensive effect. LeBron can only guard his man when his man tries to score -- which is usually on order of 10 or 15 times a game. Most wing players don't face 10 or 15 field goal attempts a game (unless you include plays where they are screened, which, as anyone who has graded defense knows, is a shaky road to go down).

So, I'm being lazy and not breaking down the game possession-by-possession, and simply noting those five plays alone make it hard for him to be some giant defensive liability in that game, just by virtue of the fact that perimeter defenders don't usually have a high "usage against," if you will, unless they are matched up with LeBron, Kobe, Carmelo...

If I have some time today I might review the tape, since this and the ball dominance has become such a large issue.

[Silver Bullet]

How many people are actually open to changing their opinions based on compelling arguments - and I ask this because I don't know if guys like penbeast and Warspite are even reading this thread. Seems to me, you guys came in, posted your opinions (rankings) and left it at that.

If that were the case, there'd be no point in having a discussion, we could've just done a poll for each year and left it at that. There are 31 people on the voting panel, but it seems like only 5-6 are contributing to the discussion.

[mysticbb]

The way people have been voting so far, it seems like they don't watch the NBA at all. You guys have been focusing on Statistics wayyy too much.

An amazing statement. Can I assume that you watched every single second of last years regular season and playoffs?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

That picture is essential useless. You are adding up percentage points, what kind of thing is that?

The basic idea of yours isn't that bad, but how you are approaching that is really bad.

I took a look at the numbers presented by 82games.com ( http://www.82games.com/0809/COM4S0.HTM ). I wanted to see how the players and their supporting cast are really doing by normalizing that stuff to 36 minutes and using the combination out of ts% and to-r (ef = ts%*(1-to-r) to judge about them against the different opponents.

Lakers

vs. Poor teams:

Bryant: 26.8/4.9/5.1 on 0.523 ef
Support: 78.1/37.7/18.0 on 0.540 ef

vs. Average teams:

Bryant: 26.2/5.4/5.0 on 0.508 ef
Support: 55.5/28.1/13.9 on 0.499 ef

vs. Good team:

Bryant: 27.2/5.4/4.4 on 0.513 ef
Support: 56.4/28.3/11.5 on 0.509 ef


Cavaliers:

vs. Poor teams:

James: 27.3/7.5/7.1 on 0.578 ef
Support: 73.1/29.9/12.2 on 0.506 ef

vs. Average teams:

James: 27.0/6.8/6.8 on 0.534 ef
Support: 72.9/27.1/13.5 on 0.502 ef

vs. Good teams:

James: 27.1/7.7/6.8 on 0.509 ef
Support: 67.5/28.7/12.2 on 0.499 ef

Looks like Bryant is beating up on poor teams too. His efficiency his higher than in other games. I also can't see any difference between the performance of Bryant and his supporting cast in games vs. average teams and good teams. In the end Bryant scores a little bit more on less efficiency against good teams than he is doing against poor teams. Not really surprising at all.

James is getting significant worse in terms of scoring and efficiency from Poor to Average to Good , but so is his supporting cast. Especially the scoring production is getting a huge hit against Good teams in comparison to games against Average teams. But overall James and Bryant are scoring the same amount on the same efficiency against Good teams. James still has a huge edge in terms of rebounding and assists. Thus James is essentially better than Bryant against good teams.

[Doctor MJ]

How many people are actually open to changing their opinions based on compelling arguments - and I ask this because I don't know if guys like penbeast and Warspite are even reading this thread. Seems to me, you guys came in, posted your opinions (rankings) and left it at that.

If that were the case, there'd be no point in having a discussion, we could've just done a poll for each year and left it at that. There are 31 people on the voting panel, but it seems like only 5-6 are contributing to the discussion.

Oh I think everyone's open to some degree - and I think most will become more open as we go back in history and we have less experience.

That said, I can't imagine an argument that would make me consider LeBron at NOT #1 for '09.

[Doctor MJ]

Thinking a lot about Howard right now - partly, I'll admit, because I'm marveling at how little consequence his horrendous series against the Bobcats was. After last season I had him at #5, and really didn't think it was close between he and Dirk - now re-considering.

[mysticbb]

How many people are actually open to changing their opinions based on compelling arguments

Are you open to changing your opinion? Just asking, because everything you are doing here is trying to find proof that Bryant was the best player and convince everyone to give Bryant the 1st place vote. ;)

[Optimism Prime]

How many people are actually open to changing their opinions based on compelling arguments - and I ask this because I don't know if guys like penbeast and Warspite are even reading this thread. Seems to me, you guys came in, posted your opinions (rankings) and left it at that.

If that were the case, there'd be no point in having a discussion, we could've just done a poll for each year and left it at that. There are 31 people on the voting panel, but it seems like only 5-6 are contributing to the discussion.

Oh I think everyone's open to some degree - and I think most will become more open as we go back in history and we have less experience.

That said, I can't imagine an argument that would make me consider LeBron at NOT #1 for '09.

This, almost verbatim.

This year and last year, being as fresh in my mind as they are, are pretty set.

One thing I will say about my post, and something I'll be doing in the future (so please hold me to this): I wish I'd made a list of the top 7-10 players; 2-4 of which would have a case for being first, the rest who have an argument for being in the top five. Detail their stats, results, my gut feelings about them, etc. Write all that up in a post. Make a preliminary listing on a piece of paper somewhere, vote on the last day after reading each post.

That'll be my modus operandigoing forward. Sometimes, though, the number one will be set in stone. Sometimes, it'll come down to four guys. 08-09, for me, was the former.

[Optimism Prime]

Also, a disclaimer: Right now, I live in Iowa, and don't have cable. My game-viewing has been limited to say the least, so I've got a bias toward stats.

On that note... can someone direct me to a link explaining what the eff Win Shares are, how they're calculated, and what they mean?

ETA: Found this, now just need to make sure I can understand it all... http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

[Silver Bullet]

Totally totally disagree. The way people have been voting so far, it seems like they don't watch the NBA at all. You guys have been focusing on Statistics wayyy too much.

For example, sure the Rockets were without T-Mac and Yao towards the end, but they played impeccable defense. Nothing anyone in the East put up comes even in the same stratosphere. Why should we expect Kobe not to struggle against Battier and Artest - I mean, that is a ridiculous expectation. Battier plays Kobe better than any other guy in the World, better than Bowen or Artest ever did. And then you're getting help from Artest. I mean what is with the dig at Brooks and Scola ? sure they're not big names, but if Aaron Brooks hits a clutch 3, it's still a clutch 3.

So yeah, I think perfect angry faces and clutch 3's should count a lot more, because your focus has been solely on Statistics. If you went by statistics alone, then Nash, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Iverson et. all would have zero MVPS and you'd think Deron Williams was closer to Jose Caledron than he's to Chris Paul.

First of all, to say the defense of the Eastern teams isn't in the same stratosphere as the Rockets is a bit difficult for me to stomach. The Magic, Celtics and Cavs had the best defensive ratings last season. The Rockets were a very good defensive team and played excellent defense in that series, but it's not as extreme as you're making it out to be. LA still scored 111 and 118 points in games in that series. Chuck Hayes was very active on pick and roll defense and rotations and made a number of nice plays, but I think the crux of your point is with regards to Bryant, and Hayes had little to do with that (I recall two or three nice switches in LA, but Kobe probably played 500 offensive possessions in that series).

I'm not slighting those 3 players, just pointing out Bastillon's double standard of making extreme statements denigrating LeBron for his competition, but calling Kobe "dominant" when struggled against a team with a core that simply isn't very good (unless you think that core is a 50+ win). Without Yao, Houston was too small inside, yet the series went 7.

In general, great offense beats great defense. Basketball is a scoring-heavy game. But great defense (individually, team) can slow down good offense. We should see those offensive numbers drop slightly. When there is an extreme drop, I think it's fair to say the offensive player/team had a bad performance. Yes, it may have been influenced heavily by the increased quality of defense, but I want players who can separate themselves and still play well against the best competition. In other words, if you can simply maintain you're averages and efficiency against the 93 Knicks, you're doing something well.

Are you being serious about angry faces?

For starters, the Rockets are a much better defensive team without Yao and Mcgrady than they are without them. With Yao, the Rockets allowed the Lakers to score 103ppg in the 3 games, without Yao, without Yao, they allowed 93.5 ppg. And that is fairly easy to see, when you see Yao's ability to guard the pick and roll vs someone like Chuck Hayes. I remember last year claiming that the Rockets without Yao and Mcgrady were just as good a team as they were with both, because they were substantially better on defense, had significantly better ball movement, and had a better offensive distribution when they were out. You'd recall that this Rockets team won 22 games in a row without Yao and with Mcgrady playing a prephiral role. Of course, I was laughed at for saying this. But then we saw the Rockets this season, and they were right there in the playoff hunt most of the year, despite losing Landry and replacing Artest with Ariza (Ariza took a lot more shots at even lower efficiency).

And then, you've said this more than a couple of times in various threads, but great offense does not beat great defense. The Celtics won the title in 08 despite being horrible offensively. The Pistons in 04 were not an offensive juggernaut. None of the Spurs title teams have been anything other than pedestrian offensively. And we've seen great offensive teams like the Suns and Mavericks bow out to great defensive teams, time and time again. Maybe I misconstrued what you meant, because I don't see any evidence to support your assertion.

Lastly, if Houston was too small, and the Lakers were still unable to take advantage of it - that just reflects poorly on Gasol, Bynum, Odom - I don't see how it involves Kobe, other than the fact that his supporting cast is bigger on name recognition than it is in playing.

[Silver Bullet]

How many people are actually open to changing their opinions based on compelling arguments

Are you open to changing your opinion? Just asking, because everything you are doing here is trying to find proof that Bryant was the best player and convince everyone to give Bryant the 1st place vote.

I actually had Lebron at 1. Bastillion's post made me question it, because I remembered last year's Orlando series, and my posts comparing Cleveland's supporting casts to the Lakers.

Having said that, I probably still have Lebron at 1.

[Silver Bullet]

btw, I just noticed. Dwyane Wade did not make an All NBA team in 08-09. Can somebody explain that ?

[mysticbb]

btw, I just noticed. Dwyane Wade did not make an All NBA team in 08-09. Can somebody explain that ?

I guess you mean 07/08 and not 08/09. He didn't make it, because he was injured and only played 51 games.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

btw, I just noticed. Dwyane Wade did not make an All NBA team in 08-09. Can somebody explain that ?

That's not true, he was 1st Team All-NBA with Kobe at the guard position, and missed 1st Team All-Defense with Chris Paul in front of him, despite finishing 3rd in the DPOY voting, higher than both Kobe and Paul. Go figure.

[Wile E. Coyote]

These are my in-progress rankings, without being swayed by any arguments.

Regular Season:

1. LeBron James
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Dwight Howard
5. Chris Paul

Playoffs:

1. Kobe Bryant
2. LeBron James
3. Dwight Howard
4. Dirk Nowitzki
5. Tim Duncan

Final Ranking:

1. LeBron James
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dwight Howard
4. Dwyane Wade
5. Dirk Nowitzki