Retro POY '07-08 (Voting Complete)

[lorak]

... of which vast majority of time was spent during blowouts.

Vast majority? It was less than a half of all minutes he was rested....

(and it wasn't 100, but 72... nice manipulation)

I looked at wrong column - confused 2009 with 2008, but point still remains: during time when he was rested Cavs played much worse without him and most of this minutes weren't in blowouts.

[bastillon]

if you take out game #3 and #4 vs Wizz and game #2 and #3 vs Celtics, LeBron played in 44/48 MPG. I don't wanna base my analysis on 30 min sample that's also screwed by another 40 min sample of blowouts. the only time LeBron played less than 41:25 mins was in game 1 of the Celtics series - he played only 38 MPG in that game but I seriously doubt whether he was helping with his almost-quadruple-double of 12 pts (2-18), 9 rebs, 9 ast and 10 turnovers. using plus/minus in this situation shows either:
1) you're unfamiliar with this statistic and have no clue about its results
2) you're biased and using this statistic to prove your faulty thesis

I think it's 2) in your case.

[lorak]

And I think you are biased toward KG and don't want to admit that some players were better than Garnett in 2008 playoffs.

[tkb]

I'm probably going:

1. Kobe Bryant
2. Kevin Garnett
3. LeBron James
4. Chris Paul
5. Tim Duncan

[Sedale Threatt]

Final.

1. Garnett -- I was leaning heavily in his direction anyway, but drza's excellent posts clinched it. Great impact on championship team, DPOY, outstanding postseason did it for me.

2. LeBron -- Had another outstanding, historically good season. Probably would have been No. 1 were it not for his terrible series against the Celtics.

3. Kobe -- Led the Lakers back to the Finals, winning the MVP en route. But like LeBron, I mark him down for having a subpar series against the Celtics.

4. Paul -- I feel bad that I couldn't rate him higher, as this was a breakout season by a potential all-time great. But I can't make a case for putting him above any of the other three.

5. Duncan -- It was down to him and Dirk for the fifth slot, and I gave it to Tim for having another quietly excellent season while leading a depleted team to the WCF.

[drza]

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 ?

There's a difference between "getting all of the credit" and "getting the credit due to the best player on the team". The best player on a team shapes the squad's personality, leads the team, and takes a larger responsibility for both success and failure than does anyone else from their second in command to the last player on the bench. Now, that supporting cast will play a large part in how high the team can actually reach, but the leader is the one generally given responsibility for making sure that the team performs at the highest level that they can with what they were given.

For instance, Kobe doesn't get ALL of the credit for the Lakers being contenders...but he gets a lot of it, because he is the best player on the team. And that's well and good. But with Garnett, the tendency of some detractors is to over-emphasize everyone else in the attempt to minimize what he did. I mean really, look at that list. At least half of your bullet points were completely inconsequential (Powe went from 11 mpg to 14 mpg??? Really???). And even among your larger points, none of them were nearly AS large as Garnett's addition as the focal point of the team.

In fact, every significant bullet point that you make above was influenced by Garnett. Doc is on record as saying he hired Thibideau because of the Garnett trade, when otherwise he was leaning more towards a teaching assistant coach. Pierce, Allen and Doc (as well as others) are all on record with how Garnett led the team from day one to change the culture, making things like defense, hard work in practice and togetherness the foundation of those Celtics and providing the energy and intensity to keep the team on-track over the marathon season. The young players on the team are on record describing how Garnett was their mentor, the player they could go to with problems, the one who influenced their on-court play, the one that kept them focused. The vets that came to the team like Cassell or PJ Brown are on record saying that they came to the Celtics in large part to play next to Garnett on a team they thought could win the title.

That's the point.

Not that nobody else had any influence on things, but that Garnett was by far the BIGGEST influence in the biggest turnaround in NBA history.

Not that Garnett was the only player out there playing defense, but that he was by far the BIGGEST reason for the Celtics producing one of the best defenses in NBA history.

Not that he was the only good player, but that he was the BEST player on a team that won 66 games and the NBA title.

This is the type of credit that Garnett should rightfully receive for his work with the 2008 Celtics. He wasn't alone by any stretch, but he was the catalyst, the leader, and the best player on a team that set a lot of history. If anything, this debate with you just further emphasizes to me some of the reasons why KG gets my vote as the player of the year 2008.

[Sedale Threatt]

Don't forget Tony Allen's return from injury. Where would the Celtics have been without him.

[Silver Bullet]

Don't forget Tony Allen's return from injury. Where would the Celtics have been without him.

Yea, you say it jokingly. But you guys keep repeating the biggest turnaround in history, but it's not like the Celtics would've won 22 games without Garnett.

And the point regarding Tony Allen is, that even without KG, when you look at all the other changes, they had the personnel to be a top 10 team defensively.

EDIT: And as good as the 08 Celtics defense was, and I think it's the greatest defense in history, the 04 PIstons were right there with them defensively. Now when you look at any stat, the 04 Pistons went from a pretty good defensive team, to perhaps the 2nd best defense in history just by adding Rasheed Wallace. Any stat you go by, they had significant improvement - no way they win that ring without him. Yet nobody ever even tried making a case for Wallace. KG has a similiar impact, and he's nearly the unanimous choice for MVP ?

[lorak]

I want to add one thing. KG’s impact on 2008 Celtics was big, no doubt about it, but was it bigger than for example Patric Ewing’s? In first half of the 90s Ewing also was anchoring some all time great defenses, but he never won title because he never had Paul - I won head to head battle with LeBron and saved our season - Pierce, or Ray Allen but John – 0/11 from downtown in final game – Starks. That’s the difference between KG 2008 and early 90s Ewing, but I highly doubt anybody will vote for Ewing as top 2 or the best player in any season.

[Sedale Threatt]

And as good as the 08 Celtics defense was, and I think it's the greatest defense in history, the 04 PIstons were right there with them defensively. Now when you look at any stat, the 04 Pistons went from a pretty good defensive team, to perhaps the 2nd best defense in history just by adding Rasheed Wallace. Any stat you go by, they had significant improvement - no way they win that ring without him. Yet nobody ever even tried making a case for Wallace. KG has a similiar impact, and he's nearly the unanimous choice for MVP ?

Close, but you picked the wrong Wallace.

Now, if you're talking Ben, then yeah, that's a good comparison. And if Ben was putting up 20/10 in the postseason, and a great regular-season PER, and sparked a historically good turnaround, then yeah, he'd most certainly be in the discussion for that particular year.

But he didn't, so he's not, so why muddy the water here with an inappropriate comparison?

EDIT: One last thing. Before you bring up the fact that Ben was already there, and Rasheed's trade put them over the top, the Pistons were a great defensive team before he showed up. With him, they moved a whopping two slots, from 4th to 2nd, in defensive rating. Boston, on the other hand, moved from 16th to 1st after KG's arrival.

[Sedale Threatt]

I want to add one thing. KG’s impact on 2008 Celtics was big, no doubt about it, but was it bigger than for example Patric Ewing’s? In first half of the 90s Ewing also was anchoring some all time great defenses, but he never won title because he never had Paul - I won head to head battle with LeBron and saved our season - Pierce, or Ray Allen but John – 0/11 from downtown in final game – Starks. That’s the difference between KG 2008 and early 90s Ewing, but I highly doubt anybody will vote for Ewing as top 2 or the best player in any season.

To the victor go the spoils.

[Sedale Threatt]

At any rate, my mind is already made up, so I'm going to try to get into the habit of vacating once I vote. On to 06-07.

[Silver Bullet]

And as good as the 08 Celtics defense was, and I think it's the greatest defense in history, the 04 PIstons were right there with them defensively. Now when you look at any stat, the 04 Pistons went from a pretty good defensive team, to perhaps the 2nd best defense in history just by adding Rasheed Wallace. Any stat you go by, they had significant improvement - no way they win that ring without him. Yet nobody ever even tried making a case for Wallace. KG has a similiar impact, and he's nearly the unanimous choice for MVP ?

Close, but you picked the wrong Wallace.

Now, if you're talking Ben, then yeah, that's a good comparison. And if Ben was putting up 20/10 in the postseason, and a great regular-season PER, and sparked a historically good turnaround, then yeah, he'd most certainly be in the discussion for that particular year.

But he didn't, so he's not, so why muddy the water here with an inappropriate comparison?

EDIT: One last thing. Before you bring up the fact that Ben was already there, and Rasheed's trade put them over the top, the Pistons were a great defensive team before he showed up. With him, they moved a whopping two slots, from 4rth to 2nd, in defensive rating. Boston, on the other hand, moved from 16th to 1st after KG's arrival.

Which is exactly my point. They were not 16th. The whole team was injured the year before - you can't use the stats from the previous season to extrapolate thier improvement. With young players, and health, they would have drastically improved anyway, without making any changes.

[drza]

But you guys keep repeating the biggest turnaround in history, but it's not like the Celtics would've won 22 games without Garnett.

And the point regarding Tony Allen is, that even without KG, when you look at all the other changes, they had the personnel to be a top 10 team defensively.

EDIT: And as good as the 08 Celtics defense was, and I think it's the greatest defense in history, the 04 PIstons were right there with them defensively. Now when you look at any stat, the 04 Pistons went from a pretty good defensive team, to perhaps the 2nd best defense in history just by adding Rasheed Wallace. Any stat you go by, they had significant improvement - no way they win that ring without him. Yet nobody ever even tried making a case for Wallace. KG has a similiar impact, and he's nearly the unanimous choice for MVP ?

I want to add one thing. KG’s impact on 2008 Celtics was big, no doubt about it, but was it bigger than for example Patric Ewing’s? In first half of the 90s Ewing also was anchoring some all time great defenses, but he never won title because he never had Paul - I won head to head battle with LeBron and saved our season - Pierce, or Ray Allen but John – 0/11 from downtown in final game – Starks. That’s the difference between KG 2008 and early 90s Ewing, but I highly doubt anybody will vote for Ewing as top 2 or even the best player in any season.

I'll address these two together, because both are making several pretty huge leaps that aren't well supported.

Yes, Sheed made a huge impact on that Piston's team defense...but he was the finishing piece. The defense, led by 4-time defensive player of the year Ben Wallace, was already right at the top of the league. Adding Sheed moved them from defensively elite to absurd. That wasn't the situation in Boston. You've made claims that the Celtics D would have been top-10 without Garnett, but that's extremely debatable...a unit of second year Rondo, Ray Allen, Pierce, Big Baby and Perk without Garnett ever having been there likely doesn't yield a top-10 defense. Even so, there's a chasm-like difference between "maybe, possibly top-10 in 2008...maybe" (Denver and Dallas were top-10 defenses in '08) and "arguably best defense in history".

That's a much, much, much bigger defensive impact than Sheed ever had in Detroit. And that's only operating on one side of the ball. In addition to his role as defensive anchor, Garnett in the playoffs was also the leading scorer, leading rebounder, and one of the key distributors on the team. Sheed was an offensive role player. And again, this isn't even touching on everything else like leadership and "intangibles". That's just a really poor comp.

As for Ewing, he was an all-time great player so there's no shame being compared to him. But the reason that he likely won't get voted the best player was that he obviously wasn't. You mention Starks going 0-for-10 against the Rockets in the Finals, but what you DON'T mention is that Ewing was getting absolutely throttled by Hakeem in that series. Even if Starks HAD been hitting, Ewing just clearly wasn't as good as his opponent. Then, you reference Pierce and Allen and point out Pierce's great game 7 against the Cavs, but funny that you don't mention Pierce and Allen combining to go a Starks-like 2-for-18 from the field with 10 turnovers in a game against the Cavs...that the Celtics still won, because Garnett was balling. Ultimately, the difference between '08 Garnett and early '90s Ewing is that Garnett played on the level of the absolute best of his competition as an individual AND he led his team to the ring, two things that Ewing couldn't do against the best-of-the-best.

[lorak]

Ultimately, the difference between '08 Garnett and early '90s Ewing is that Garnett played on the level of the absolute best of his competition as an individual AND he led his team to the ring, two things that Ewing couldn't do against the best-of-the-best.

First, Ewing didn’t won title because his supporting cast was worse than Garnett’s. Sorry but Starks - 0/11 – was Pat’s second bannana, on the other hand Garnett had Pierce, who played as good as LeBron in deciding game or all time great shooter Ray Allen. Sure, Pierce had bad games, but in most important moments he step up, he played as good as LeBron. On the other hand Ewing’s partners shoot 0/11 (for example).

Second, Ewing had great games in playoffs, even in 1994. For example game 7 against Pacers, I doubt that KG had so good game in 2008…
24 pts, 22 rbs, 7 ast and 5 blk and some clutch baskets in close game.

Or what about deciding game year earlier, against Bulls, when Ewing was very good, 26 pts on great shooting, 13 rbs, but again – his support was bad (for example Starks 1/5 from downtown, or Rivers completely outplayed). Or maybe we should talk about 1992 and infamous Charles Smith game? Or about how Knicks upset Celtics in 1990 and Ewing had GREAT games?

Bottom line – Ewing, just like KG, anchored all time great defenses, but he never had as good players around him as Pierce or Allen and that’s why nobody will vote for him as top2 player in 1992, 1993 or 1994.

[Doctor MJ]

Copied from the '08-09 thread:


A few things guys:

1 - As mentioned before, it's fine for you to change your mind on your voting, but please only vote in one post. Meaning, edit the post. With some people's votes, I had to 1) recognize it was a replacement vote, 2) go back and find the original vote, 3) remove that first vote from the scoring. Huge pain in the ass that should not be necessary.

2 - There were some votes from people not in the project. Everyone should check the list on the main project page to make sure they're in the project and talk to me if they're not. If you know you are not in the project, it's okay to make a vote, but please make very clear that you're not in the project when you do that to make it easier on me.

3 - This is MOST important: Tone down the negativity. I'm getting PMs from people saying that the attacking of others credibility is making this not fun for them, and that they may leave the project. This might seem trivial, but it's not. This is a long project. For all of us it's going to be a huge time suck. I sure as hell don't want to get to the '70s and be left with a half dozen people cursing at each other. Not everyone knows as much as you - deal with it. I will be keeping an eye out for odd behavior, but in the scale of things, having a sketchy voter is not nearly as bad as losing multiple good posters - which I guarantee you will happen if we don't turn that frown upside down.

Cheers,
Doc

[drza]

Ultimately, the difference between '08 Garnett and early '90s Ewing is that Garnett played on the level of the absolute best of his competition as an individual AND he led his team to the ring, two things that Ewing couldn't do against the best-of-the-best.

First, Ewing didn’t won title because his supporting cast was worse than Garnett’s. Sorry but Starks - 0/11 – was Pat’s second bannana, on the other hand Garnett had Pierce, who played as good as LeBron in deciding game or all time great shooter Ray Allen. Sure, Pierce had bad games, but in most important moments he step up, he played as good as LeBron. On the other hand Ewing’s partners shoot 0/11 (for example).

Second, Ewing had great games in playoffs, even in 1994. For example game 7 against Pacers, I doubt that KG had so good game in 2008…
24 pts, 22 rbs, 7 ast and 5 blk and some clutch baskets in close game.

Or what about deciding game year earlier, against Bulls, when Ewing was very good, 26 pts on great shooting, 13 rbs, but again – his support was bad (for example Starks 1/5 from downtown, or Rivers completely outplayed). Or maybe we should talk about 1992 and infamous Charles Smith game? Or about how Knicks upset Celtics in 1990 and Ewing had GREAT games?

Bottom line – Ewing, just like KG, anchored all time great defenses, but he never had as good players around him as Pierce or Allen and that’s why nobody will vote for him as top2 player in 1992, 1993 or 1994.

Again, you're combining and ignoring to strengthen your case. The reason that nobody will vote for Ewing at the top of 1992, 93 or 94 is that he was obviously not the top player in those seasons. He just was not as good as an individual player as Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Robinson, etc. in those years. Completely divorced from any team success, just as an individual he wasn't as good as those guys by whatever individual advanced stats or accolades or personal observation or whatever means most people use to evaluate. He just was not as good as those players.

Now, the other topic is team success. That's a different issue, and debating whether or not the Knicks might have won if Starks wasn't so cold...frankly that's beyond the scope of this thread. Maybe the Knicks would have beat the Rockets if Starks wasn't so cold...but again, by however you choose to measure it, Olajuwon was just a far superior player than Ewing. No matter who won the title.

And that's the point. Even if Starks was good enough for the Knicks to win the title in '94, Ewing's overall package still wouldn't have been as good as his competition's, so he still wouldn't have beaten out Hakeem in the (still hasn't happened yet) vote. On the other hand, Garnett's combo of individual stats, accolades, effect on team and team success makes him an extremely viable candidate for POY in 2008 against his competitors, which is why the Ewing comp ultimately fails here.

[lorak]

I think you don’t understand my point.
Both KG 2008 and Ewing (I’ll use 1993 version as example) were anchoring all time great defenses (Knicks 1993 were at the same level as Celtics 2008).

Celtics won title, Knicks 1993 not, so some people gives all credit to KG and all blame Ewing. That’s not fair because their support was completely different and Garnett has much better (Pierce playing like Lebron and Allen – all time great shooter vs John Starks and Rivers….). But in fact Ewing’s 1993 and Garnett’s 2008 production, level of play was very close:

2008 KG
regular - 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1.3 BPG,1.9 TOV, .588 TS%, .539 eFG%
playoffs- 20.4 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.3 spg, 1.1 bpg, 2.1 tov, .542 TS%, .498 eFG%
(BTW, look at Garnett’s big drop off in efficiency)

1993 Ewing
regular - 24.2 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 0.9 spg, 2.0 bpg, 3.3 tov. .546 TS%, .503 eFG%
playoffs- 25.5 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.4 apg, 1.1 spg, 2.1 bpg, 2.6 tov, .535 TS%, .514 eFG%

So really Garnett was better? So much better that many thinks that he was number 1 in 2008, but nobody will vote for 1993 Ewing in top2 – or even top3, he would be lucky if gets some votes in top 5.

Last one point. Look at this two elimination games:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 40CHI.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 80BOS.html

First is against Bulls with Jordan, second against Cavs with LeBron.
Garnett 5/13 FG, 13-13, but Pierce (41pts, 12/23 FG) won head to head matchup with James.
Ewing 12/18 FG, 26-13, but Ewing's second banana scored 14 pts (5/11 FG, 1/5 3PTS).

[ItsMillerTime]

Im not a voter in this thing, just tossing my two cents out

1. Chris Paul - Really had a remarkable season, the best season by a PG since Kidd in 2001. With a lackluster roster, Paul really stepped up and made the Hornets a formidable team.
2. Lebron James- Just another spectacular year for him
3. Kevin Garnett- The true key to the Celtics championship. Best defensive player in the league, and made anchored that historic defense.
4. Kobe Bryant- Another great season for him, but not really MVP worthy, IMO.
5. Dwight Howard - Just a monster in the post.

STAT, Dirk, and Duncan were all close for that 5 spot for me

[Silver Bullet]

Btw, anyone notice what Billups did to Paul - Deron is doing to Billlups...