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

[drza]

Unless I'm missing something, the available data basically boils down to a single advanced measure that you yourself have acknowledged is flawed.

Otherwise, I haven't seen anything posted in this thread that significantly separates KG from Duncan. He beats him in some areas, Duncan beats him in others.

The Kobe/LeBron comparison, on the other hand, isn't nearly that close. THAT was most definitely a case where one player clearly earned separation from the other.

I simply don't see it in this instance, especially not after what Duncan did in the postseason. Indeed, that year had the exact opposite impact on me -- it merely reinforced by opinion that Duncan was the better player.

I guess it boils down to this -- I'm not understanding how a player who did not significantly outperform another can be ranked ahead, or considered to have permanently surpassed him, especially when his rival ramped up his play, literally in every single category, during the playoffs.

I bought your case for 08, which I'm now kind of second-guessing after seeing your voting record. But in this instance, I haven't seen anything that would justify putting Garnett ahead of Duncan.

You'll note that any post that I actually made in this thread is pro-Garnett, not anti-Duncan.

Absolutely. I feel like I'm approaching this the same way. I'm not trying to punish Garnett rather than reward Duncan for a spectacular -- and better, in my opinion -- season.

Re: your last point (ETA: I see you added another last point. I meant, your unhappiness that you voted for KG in '08 after seeing my voting record), I saw you mention that before and I'm still not sure how to respond. I considered send you a PM or something like I should apologize, but really, I don't know what I'm supposed to be sorry for. I believe that Kevin Garnett was the best player in the NBA from about 2003 - 2008. I haven't voted him as such...I voted KG third (behind Duncan) in '07, a year in which he also received 4th and 5th place votes from other people. I voted him 5th in '06, one of 5 people to vote that way. Bastillion, the other person that you mentioned as someone supporting KG here, didn't vote for KG at all from '05 - '07. I don't see how either of our voting histories reflects some sort of illogical fanaticism.

Also, regardless of how I vote, should I apologize for putting information out there? Nothing that I said in '08 was untrue. You read everything that everyone wrote in that thread, with multiple people making cases for each of the main candidates, and decided to vote for KG. But I'm somehow a bad guy in this?

Re: Stats. All stats are flawed if they're being used as a standalone means to evaluate something as complex as basketball. Box score stats are flawed. PER is flawed. Win Shares are flawed. Wins Produced is flawed. Net +/-, APM, etc. All are flawed. But my stance (in this, as well as any other thread I've ever been in) is that if you understand where the flaws lie and use them in conjunction with other available data, you can piece together a more complete story than you could with observation or any one stat alone. I've also used the same 4 stats, when available, in every year so far: PER, WS, WP, some type of +/-. Well, here is what those stats say about 2003:

PER: KG 26.4, Duncan 26.9
WS: KG 15.6, Duncan 16.5
WP: KG 31.5, Duncan 25.8
Net +/-: KG +22.8, Duncan +14.3
(The APM link I have combines '03 and '04, so I didn't include it here, but KG is firmly ahead there as well)

There's not a huge difference here, but where there is space between the two it is to KG's advantage. So, based off my observation I thought KG was the better player. Based on the breadth of the advanced stats that I always consider (i.e. I'm not just picking one that says what I like and then alternating when it doesn't. You can find me making the same kind of across-the-board comp between KG and Amare in the '08 thread as I just made here), it appears that Garnett measures out a bit better.

I might look at some of the things I lump under "intangibles" back in the '09 thread, when I described my methodology. I thought it was very impressive that Duncan led that team to a title in the circumstances that he did, but I thought KG's ability to do what he did with the team that he did more impressive. The highest net +/- since they started tracing that stat was cool, and the lead-your-team-in-every-category thing was singular in history. But when you combine those two individual records together, and put that with the 51 wins with (IMO) terrible support...as I said, that was one of the most impressive seasons that I've seen. You don't have to agree, but this is my opinion and part of the basis for my vote.

As a next step, I might look at some hypotheticals (again, something that I've done several times so far even in cases that don't involve Garnett). I might question whether Duncan could have matched those 51 wins for those Wolves as I don't see who initiates the offense without KG nor do I see where Duncan's advantages would have correspondingly strengthened the team. On the other hand, when I look at the level that KG played at that season and compare how he and Duncan did in their respective 6-game series against the Lakers, I do believe he could have led the Spurs past them as well. Obviously this is subjective, but by now this is a tertiary comparison.

But the bottom line, is, I thought Garnett was better at the time, and as I look in hindsight I don't see anything that has compelled me to change my mind. I'm not controlling your vote, nor am I leaving Duncan completely off of my ballot in some misguided attempt to belittle him. Once this is all said and done, the take-aways that have the potential for staying power are 1) the share leaders and 2) the yearly winners. Whether my top-2 is flip-flopped from yours is hardly going to affect either category. And again, I don't see why I should have to apologize just because my opinion is different than yours and the reasoning that I use to support my decisions might make other people think about how they choose to vote. Frankly, I thought that was the whole purpose of this project. If we were just going to toe a company line and/or everyone was always going to agree, why are we doing this? And if we weren't supposed to try to make cases for one player over another, why the discussion? Why not just vote and be done? I'm just really not getting how all of a sudden I'm a public enemy here.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Duncan
2. Garnett
3. McGrady
4. Kobe
5. Dirk

Duncan vs Garnett. This was always close, still I keep being amazed at how highly people seem to think of Garnett, and it seems to be really based around +/- stats. Weird for me to not really be a part of that group, because I really was on that bandwagon quite early on. I guess what it comes down to is that I use +/- more as part of a general checklist than as something where I put a lot of stock into who is #1 and who is #2.

Take a look at Dirk this year, who is on my ballot where he isn't for most people, but he's only at #5, not higher as some have him. Team net +/- of +18, that's fantastic. Thing is, he never did that well again. This would be fine if this really were Dirk's best year - but I don't think it was. I do think Dirk peaked a few years later. How do you reconcile that +/- disagree with that? Well, I could be wrong of course in my perception, but we know that there are factors that sway +/- outside of a player's actual ability - not enough to create apparent greatness out of nothing, but enough that assuming perfect precision is a really bad idea.

Duncan's #3 in the league in +/- this year. According to Winston's list of best players in the decade, Garnett beats him +11.7 to +11.2 over the 10 years where Garnett was still getting big numbers basically the whole time. Meanwhile, what I saw this year was Duncan taking a maddeningly inconsistent supporting cast (Parker was the #2 player, and often he was "rested" because Speedy Claxton was playing better) to the promised land. Various teams threatened to beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, Duncan actually did it.

There is also the matter that, all things being equal, it's easier to have the big +/- on a weaker team.

Garnett's superior +/- is something I factor in, but I don't have enough confidence in it that it overwrites everything else. Duncan gets the nod.

Kobe vs McGrady. Was leaning toward Kobe, but got swayed to McGrady. TMac really does look a might better. I am also impressed by the way he was consistently stepping up his game come playoff time. Yeah he didn't get out of the 2nd round, but he was never supposed to. Meanwhile, why does Kobe keep getting less efficient in the playoffs while having the benefit of Shaq?

Dirk - should not be overlooked. He was really quite close to winning a championship this year as a clear superstar.

Honorable Mention -

Shaq - Bound to cause a collective WTF from the group. I'll preface this by saying he'll be my #1 the next 3 years. If you don't put 100% into the regular season, but come back to your old uber-dominant self and win the 'chip, I'll overlook things - but you're playing with fire. What did the Lakers achieve this year? 50 wins and a 2nd round exit. That's it. That's crap. And that is not Kobe's fault. The team was still totally out of the top 8 seeds well into the year because Shaq insisted on doing nothing for his health when it wasn't on "company time". So they have to play a tough Minnesota team in the first round, and an even tougher Spur team in the second which they can't overcome. Shaq plays great, but what does it amount to? Well, hey, it's still a top 10 year, but there are 5 guys who did more over the whole season.

Kidd - Great player. I wanted to put him in the top 5, but there's just no room.

Pierce - I really feel like Pierce didn't get enough respect by the group when we did the 2008 voting. Garnett was better but Pierce is quite good. He did took these Celtic teams to respectability without much help.

Iverson - I'm not his biggest fan, but he really did lead the Sixers to some significant success.

Wallace - Squeaks into the top 10. Clearly I'm more impressed with the guy that some others are.

[NO-KG-AI]

This Duncan/Garnett thing seems pretty similar to Wade/Kobe in 05-06.

Personally, before I knew about APM and things like that, I thought Duncan and Garnett were close enough this season that Duncan's title run should push him over the top.

I flip back and forward, but if you held a gun to my head, I'd give Duncan POY.

I hear the argument for Garnett here though, and to be quite honest, I still had Kobe over Wade back in 05-06, because I felt like he was flat out, the better player, so the reasoning is similar.

[semi-sentient]

The biggest difference is that Garnett won't be left off of 5 ballots the way Kobe was in 2005-06.

[Sedale Threatt]

...

Good post overall. I acknowledge that I've taken some snarky, passive/aggressive shots -- for that, I apologize. I very much admire your tone and tenor.

Overall, though, I still don't believe you're coming to a conclusion based on objectivity and/or available data, as you have claimed, rather than relying on numbers to support your existing opinion. Yes, there is a certain uniformity to your approach. But you're obviously not lacking for brainpower, so coming up with a compelling argument on someone's behalf -- in this case Garnett, with 08 being the best example -- is relatively simple.

Look at your previous assertion that this was the season that fully separated Garnett from Duncan, even though there's really nothing to support that.

We've got a decent edge in a couple of advanced measures, and two more assists per game, and...what else? Yet this constitutes a clear separation? (The lead-team-in-every-category thing means almost nothing in the scope of this comparison, in my opinion; highly impressive, but it's significantly more a measure of his poor support than his versatility.)

So it basically boils down to whether 51 wins/first round ouster with bad team is more impressive than 60 wins/championship with solid team. And here is the impasse. It's your opinion that the latter is better, and deserves more recognition. I couldn't disagree more, especially when you factor in what Duncan did during his playoff run.

But as you said -- it's your opinion; why should you change it? You make some great points near the end of your post. I can't disagree with any of it. The whole point was to have discussions, and you're obviously bringing a lot to the table.

I guess it just feels to me like you're really bending over backwards in this particular thread to make a case here, well beyond simply providing fodder for debate.

The use of hypotheticals are a huge source of that. I find them to be generally useless at best, and in this particular case grossly unfair for Duncan. Again -- we don't have to guess, or concoct a hypothesis, or suppose how he might perform under a certain set of circumstances. We already know.

Giving KG fantasy bonus point here to take the luster of Duncan's postseason -- which should be a massive factor in the discussion, in my opinion -- borders on the disingenuous.

[drza]

I'm still having trouble with my ballot. I know that KG and Duncan are 1-2. I know that I've got TMac above Kobe. But I can't decide where to put Shaq, and the Dirk contingent has been swaying me with their arguments. If he moves into the top-5 then I have to leave someone off that I hadn't intended to. Tough decision.

[Dr Positivity]

long post

And....that is why I rank prime Kobe over prime KG...and part of the reason why I rate 03 Bryant over 03 Garnett.

Really good post ronnymac. Makes me think I underrated this year's Kobe just a tad

One of the ideas I've been pushing a lot lately is that great offense can help create great defense, particularly from a perimeter player who handles a lot of the scoring and playmaking load. The reason is because the more offensive "share" one player has, the less offensive burden is placed on the rest of the team, which means they can concentrate more on defense. This is partly general effort/energy level and coaching emphasis, but also in how the GM constructs the team and whether he needs to bring in offensive minded players or more defensive/rebounding ones. An excellent example is this year's Heat. Their team set-up was Wade doing everything offensively and the other 4 guys mainly playing d and rebounding. As a result their d and rebounding was excellent which carried them to 47 wins. Someone may look back at this year and say Wade's season was overrated because the Heat finished 19th offensively and 6th defensively so the latter was why they were good instead of him, but I'd disagree, he played a very big part in making them so strong defensively because of how much offensive share he took of his teammates' hands. That's why great defensive teams will as often be built around an offense first perimeter player as their best player, as much as a big man

[drza]

...

Good post overall. I acknowledge that I've taken some snarky, passive/aggressive shots -- for that, I apologize. I very much admire your tone and tenor.

Overall, though, I still don't believe you're coming to a conclusion based on objectivity and/or available data, as you have claimed, rather than relying on numbers to support your existing opinion.

There's some truth in this. In fact, I don't know that I've ever claimed otherwise. While we're doing the seasons that I really remember, my first test is always observation. I certainly wasn't relying on advanced stats to form my opinion back in '03...in fact, I don't even think I knew much (if anything) about advanced stats then. That was back when I was single with DirecTV, so I was spending WAY too much time watching basketball. And my opinion at that time was that Garnett established himself as the best player in the league that year. That, years later, the advanced stats that I have access to tells the same story is if anything validation to me for my previously held opinion, but it wasn't the foundation for that opinion.

Look at your previous assertion that this was the season that fully separated Garnett from Duncan, even though there's really nothing to support that.

We've got a decent edge in a couple of advanced measures, and two more assists per game, and...what else? Yet this constitutes a clear separation? (The lead-team-in-every-category thing means almost nothing in the scope of this comparison, in my opinion; highly impressive, but it's significantly more a measure of his poor support than his versatility.)

Again, my realization that I believed KG to be the best player in the NBA was based off observation, not a statistical analysis. And it really wasn't even that in depth at the time, it was more of an 'aha!' moment for me. I can even tell you exactly when it happened. I had been having Garnett/Duncan debates for years, but I wasn't even thinking particularly about Duncan at the time. It was during the 1st round of the '03 playoffs, when the Wolves were playing the Lakers. I think it was in game 2. Garnett was having a ridiculous game, but at some point he made a crazy baseline turnaround 'J' while on the move over a double-team...I remember that I thought the shot had no chance when it left his hands. And when it went in it just clicked to me that in a playoff game with Shaq and Kobe, Garnett was just clearly the best player on the floor and that I wasn't surprised. That in the back of my mind I expected him to be. Now, there's not possibly a less-scientific reason for that moment to have been the tipping point for me...I expect that it's just when my gut caught up with what my mind had already decided. Either way, though, I reiterate that my observations are what brought me to that point and it was years later that I found that the numbers generally supported my opinion.

As to the advanced stats/assists/lead-team-in-every-category thing...we clearly see it differently. Perhaps, again, it's because I didn't start at the numbers and go backwards but was instead forming this opinion as I watched. I remember thinking at the time that KG had to be just about perfect at everything on every night or else the team was going to lose badly, and that I didn't think anyone else in the league was having to pull such a heavy load. I remember thinking that he was playing pseudo-point guard, and that I couldn't imagine anyone else being able to take such a large part in the offense while having to do everything else as well.

So when, years later, I find out that no one else ever HAS led their team in every category I believe it, and it reminds me again how unique and absurd what KG was asked to do was. And it's not JUST because he had a poor cast...his 6 assists per game were, if I'm not mistaken, the most by a power-forward in NBA history (and if I'm wrong, they're close). They would have been the best assist numbers on a LOT of teams. And they weren't just empty stats...he led the team to a top-5 offense with all of those hats on. So it's not just "two assists", it's an entire facet of the Wolves offense that I'm not sure any other modern big (ETA: except maybe Webber stylistically, though he never showed he could have such a big impact) could have replicated.

And when, years later, I find out that no one has ever recorded a higher on-court/off-court +/- value I believe it, because it reminds me again of just how high of a level Garnett had to maintain every game just to keep his team in it. No disrespect to Duncan or anyone, because maybe if his teammates were worse and he'd have had to do carry that load he could have. But he didn't have to. And if we're avoiding any hypotheticals, then in this instance I know that Garnett did something that I don't know that Duncan could have.

So it basically boils down to whether 51 wins/first round ouster with bad team is more impressive than 60 wins/championship with solid team. And here is the impasse. It's your opinion that the latter is better, and deserves more recognition. I couldn't disagree more, especially when you factor in what Duncan did during his playoff run.

But as you said -- it's your opinion; why should you change it? You make some great points near the end of your post. I can't disagree with any of it. The whole point was to have discussions, and you're obviously bringing a lot to the table.

I guess it just feels to me like you're really bending over backwards in this particular thread to make a case here, well beyond simply providing fodder for debate.

The use of hypotheticals are a huge source of that. I find them to be generally useless at best, and in this particular case grossly unfair for Duncan. Again -- we don't have to guess, or concoct a hypothesis, or suppose how he might perform under a certain set of circumstances. We already know.

Giving KG fantasy bonus point here to take the luster of Duncan's postseason -- which should be a massive factor in the discussion, in my opinion -- borders on the disingenuous.

Again, we've each spent some time on this now and we clearly know where we disagree. I think the 51-wins/ouster vs 60-win/championship line of thought is a gross oversimplification. Maybe once we move further back in time where my memory is fuzzy (or non-existent) and even the advanced stats become a lot more sparse I'll be swayed by this type of argument, but for a year like this that's right in my wheelhouse I know it's a more in-depth comp than that.

And in this particular thread, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I made a single allusion to a hypothetical until my most recent post after you'd already called me out on that (and even then it was as like a 4th-level thought, not a decision-maker). As far as I remember, the only things that I posted in this thread were why I thought the 51 wins, poor support, huge impact and doing everything for the team were so impressive. Frankly, I don't think I even mentioned Duncan's name or the Spurs at all until my last post, again, after you'd already called me out. Now, I can't answer for if Bastillion quoted something that I put in a previous thread from last year. That's not in my control. Like I said earlier, I stand by what I said then but that was another discussion. I don't know that I would have broached it so aggressively here. But be that as it may, as I hope I've made clear, my thoughts that Garnett was better don't have anything to do with a hypothetical. They're all about what I saw, corroborated by the available advanced stats that I have access to, in conjunction with my thought process about what makes a player impressive. At the end of the day, that's all I can vote on.

[Silver Bullet]

So based on observation, you thought KG was a better player than Shaq ?

Enough. The part I edited out was pure negativity. We don't need people questioning other people's opinions by making condescending jokes. No more of this from anyone.

~Doc

[drza]

So based on observation, you thought KG was a better player than Shaq ?

Edited

Yes, from about 2003 on I've felt that KG was a better player than Shaq.

And by the way, this was a great addition to the discussion.

[Silver Bullet]

So based on observation, you thought KG was a better player than Shaq ?

What drugs were you on ?

Yes, from about 2003 on I've felt that KG was a better player than Shaq.

And by the way, this was a great addition to the discussion.

Edited.

[lorak]

1. Duncan
2. Shaq
3. TMac
4. Kobe
5. KG

Tough year, I think the toughest of all so far – so many all time great players in their prime. And no room in top 5 for Dirk, Webber, Kidd or Iverson.

[drza]

So based on observation, you thought KG was a better player than Shaq ?

What drugs were you on ?

Yes, from about 2003 on I've felt that KG was a better player than Shaq.

And by the way, this was a great addition to the discussion.

It's still better than your super biased posts - whereby the same player is the POY no matter how many games he wins or how he performs.

Indeed.

[Sedale Threatt]

...

Another good post. I appreciate the time and effort, and especially the tone. Even though I disagree with your conclusion -- this is one of those "lock" seasons for me -- it's a model for future discussion.

One last thing -- Garnett has few peers as a front court passer, but Duncan isn't terribly far off. He was excellent that year, especially in the postseason. A much smaller body of work, and lesser numbers, but still -- yet another facet of his game that is very much underrated.

[Dr Positivity]

On the whole, though, I agree with ElGee. In basketball as in everything else, to the winner goes the spoils. When we look at everything that we know, it seems obvious to me to the point of self-evident that an early-mid 2000s Garnett with reasonable help wins titles. But thinking that he would win a title, even supporting that notion with a bevy of logical reasoning, still very rarely trumps if a player really DID lead a team to a title. I don't think it's coincidence that in every season but '09 and '04 the best player on the championship team has ended up #1 in the vote. '09 and '04 were two absurdly historic seasons for two all-time players that didn't have much support behind them. Those types of seasons don't happen often historically, which is why when all is said and done the ratio of "best-player-on-best-team" POY winners will likely be much, much higher than "best player in league but couldn't get his team to a title for whatever reason" POY winners.

So bringing it back to KG, the fact that he had such poor support so consistently means that the only way he can win in this type of project is if he performs at a level so far above his competition that there's no legitimate way not to vote for him. And let's face it, there were some really great players all playing at their peaks in this time period, so KG just wasn't going to separate himself from them to that extent very often. He showed he could play at their level and beyond, depending on what you buy or don't buy about the stats out there, but he wouldn't get the chance to prove-positive he could win a title until years later, at the tail-end of his prime. Which in basketball years is a lifetime later.

I don't disagree with your sentiment here drza, saying that we should vote for the best player, rather than the guy who won it all.

My opinion is Duncan was a better player than KG, wins or not. My basis for this would be

- I prefer Duncan's offense. He's a post player which by nature gets him shots closer to the basket than KG's jumpshots typically did, his doubles in the post create 3s on the outside. KG took a ton more long 2s and long fadeaways and while he was one of the best ever at these shots, I think shots close to the basket and from 3 which Duncan's game creates, are the more preferrable skillset than long 2s which are usually the worst shot in basketball

- I am more assured in Duncan's defensive impact. The Spurs finished top 3-5 defensively almost every year in Duncan's prime, whereas the Wolves had far too many mediocore defensive teams like in this season (where they finished 16th). You can say that's his teammates' fault, but then you could also turn that around and say KG's offensive game didn't support getting great defense from teammates like some of the other elite players. See my Dwyane Wade example in the above post for how great offense from a star can make it easier to build a great defensive team...

- KG was heavily criticized for late game performances and coming through in the playoffs. Duncan is probably the most underrated big game player ever.

If you feel KG is the best player in the league still that year that's fine, but I don't. In my opinion it's at worst a draw... and then Duncan's playoff performance gives him the edge, for me.

[Gongxi]

On the whole, though, I agree with ElGee. In basketball as in everything else, to the winner goes the spoils. When we look at everything that we know, it seems obvious to me to the point of self-evident that an early-mid 2000s Garnett with reasonable help wins titles. But thinking that he would win a title, even supporting that notion with a bevy of logical reasoning, still very rarely trumps if a player really DID lead a team to a title. I don't think it's coincidence that in every season but '09 and '04 the best player on the championship team has ended up #1 in the vote. '09 and '04 were two absurdly historic seasons for two all-time players that didn't have much support behind them. Those types of seasons don't happen often historically, which is why when all is said and done the ratio of "best-player-on-best-team" POY winners will likely be much, much higher than "best player in league but couldn't get his team to a title for whatever reason" POY winners.

This disturbs me too. I think thing like this and my related whining need to be repeated early and often. So far I'm 7-for-8 in not voting the best player on the best team as POY, but...what are you gonna do? I just hate the idea that a couple lucky bounces here, some freak rebounds there allows people to decide who was the best player from November to June.

[drza]

Was a hard one, but I've got to vote.

The battle between Shaq and TMac for 3rd came down to the wire. At the time I thought Shaq the better, more dominant player. Every regular season advanced stat has them neck-and-neck. And this is with TMac wide-open and Shaq working himself into shape. If I were a coach this would be a clear advantage for TMac, but since I'm just a voter I have to say that this suggests Shaq was just the better, more impactful player when he wanted to be. Which matches my memory, so that's where I'm going. For the first half of the decade, I essentially had Shaq/Duncan/KG as the best players in some order in just about every year.

Next, the battle between Dirk and Tmac/Kobe for the 4th/5th/6th slots. At the time I was more impressed with what TMac was doing on his own than I was with Kobe was doing next to Shaq. And after reading through this thread and crunching my own numbers I'm satisfied with that order.

Dirk and Kobe, though...when this thread began I expected to have Kobe at 5. But Dirk was a special case that year. I remember thinking he (and the Mavs) were insanely lucky that Webber got hurt and thus ended that series early, but on the flipside the same thing happened a round later when Dirk got hurt and essentially ended the Spurs series. He very well could have been the best player on a championship team without the injury, but we've been holding injuries against players for the most part...but then again, he didn't even get hurt until the WCF which is beyond where Kobe got...and Kobe actually was injured himself. It's a quandry. But in both the regular season and postseason Dirk had slightly better numbers than Kobe, and the posts from Mystic and Doc MJ helped convince me that Dirk should be top-5.

1) Garnett
2) Duncan
3) Shaq
4) McGrady
5) Dirk

HM: Kobe

[Sedale Threatt]

This disturbs me too. I think thing like this and my related whining need to be repeated early and often. So far I'm 7-for-8 in not voting the best player on the best team as POY, but...what are you gonna do? I just hate the idea that a couple lucky bounces here, some freak rebounds there allows people to decide who was the best player from November to June.

In no other major team sport can a single player influence the outcome as much as basketball.

In football, you're one of 22 players, not including specialists. In soccer, one of 11. In baseball, one of nine. In hockey, one of six, with a tremendous reliance on team depth. Basketball, one in five.

As such, I don't have any problem putting a premium on winning.

In most cases, lucky bounces of the ball didn't have anything to do with it. Surely it can't be a coincidence that nearly two thirds of the league's championships can be directly traced to seven players -- Russell (11), Kareem (six), Jordan (six), Mikan (five), Duncan (four), Bryant or Shaq (four) and Bird (three).

Certainly all of those guys needed help. Nobody ever one anything on their own. But in basketball, the individual can have more impact than any other sport. Which is why it's so heavily recognized.

[Gongxi]

But every year we're voting for only five people. With the right team, any of those five could be the best player on a championship team. If we were comparing Jud Buechler to Magic Johnson, you'd have a point. Kobe Bryant to Kevin Garnett? Tim Duncan to Shaquille O'Neal? Dwayne Wade to Steve Nash? Not so much. It's way more important to look at their individual seasons then it is to talk about how they "led their team" when any of them can do it, given the right GM at the right time.

[Doctor MJ]

This disturbs me too. I think thing like this and my related whining need to be repeated early and often. So far I'm 7-for-8 in not voting the best player on the best team as POY, but...what are you gonna do? I just hate the idea that a couple lucky bounces here, some freak rebounds there allows people to decide who was the best player from November to June.

I'm inclined to agree that people go a little overboard with anointing the champ as the POY. I've got only two years where the playoffs changed my #1 vote (Duncan '07, Wade '06), and only 3 seasons where my #1 vote was the champ ('07, '06 and '03).

Still, I think my POY list looks more like the norm than it looks like your list. Your view tends to be defined by a guy looking incredible leading trash to respectability. It's a defensible position, perfectly legit. My view is shaped by the fact that there've been quite a few superstars on mediocre teams who have later proved to be much more easily replaceable than many thought. The best player can't make a contender out of nothing, but supporting casts thought to be nothing have a tendency to "overachieve" when given an extended period to develop without having to defer to their superstar teammate. So I tend to be more impressed by guys who've proven incredibly value to a really successful team.