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

[bastillon]

Mystic, my argument against Nowitzki is that he got injured in the playoffs. I'm especially hard ass on that. it'll be a consistent thing and I'll punish players who got injured in the playoffs heavily. simply I think this is what matters and if you're not playing in the most important moment of the most important series of games of the season, then to my understanding your value is severely limited as far as winning a championship and helping your team to achieve it as an individual. after all, it's all about championships, not RS etc.

so Dirk was injured. Kobe, in fact, was injured too... but he didn't miss any games because of that and still vastly helped his team after the injury. that's where he edges Dirk. when you're limited by injury, it's one thing. when you're flat out unable to play, I'm gonna punish you severely.

bastillon - Do you have any issues with Dirk or McGrady being picked over Garnett, or just Kobe? Just curious.

I'd have issues with Dirk because of his injury in the playoffs. other than that I could live with Dirk over KG as this is supported by something. I do believe Garnett seperated himself from Nowitzki, but I give much value to +/- numbers and I've been extremely impressed by how Nowitzki measures out in this decade as we've moved through this project. also, Mystic convinced the crap out of me and whereas I was extremely sceptical of Nowitzki > KG before this project (and I actually argued passionately against this notion in the past), I'm now comfortable with someone taking Dirk ahead of KG... but there were some years when Garnett was clearly better player than Nowitzki based on several factors and I think 2003 is one of these (2004 and 2008 being others). this, IMO, was Garnett's THE best year as an individual. he flat out did some amazing things aforementioned by drza, and I don't believe Dirk could match them in 2003... but the real, clear seperation is the injury. that's kind of a knock-out thing for me and I already responded to Mystic in depth about this soo...

as for McGrady, I could live with him over Garnett. again, KG was IMO clearly better player, but this is hardly an easy call. you really have to go in-depth to see this. what hurts T-Mac is how easily his contributions can be limited. we can talk about his versatility all we want but unless he's scoring at all time level, he won't have THAT kind of impact. now McGrady was epic scorer during the course of that season but when it really mattered rookie Tayshaun locked him up and IIRC he struggled against his defense heavily the last 3 games (and I believe he blew 3:1 lead in that series). so T-Mac's impact, unlike Garnett's, can be vastly reduced when you take away one aspect of his game. that's not happening with KG. passing, rebounding, shot altering, orchestrating offense... (I could go on) he had it all. you can't limit him as you can T-Mac. this is where I think Garnett decisively edges him.

Ronnymac,
your argument for Kobe over Garnett was based on three things:
1) coaching
2) iso scoring and offense
3) clutchness

1.I do understand your argument and I still think Flip did a good job with this Wolves team. he wasn't great by any means but he did well. he recognized Garnett's passing ability and was able to capitalize on that with his scheme which resulted in top ranked offenses year in year out. I give him credit for that. I'd like to point out, though, that there was a big gap between '03 Wolves and '06 Wolves. '03 were scrub role players that fit well within their system and understood their place. later Minny consisted of primadonna chuckers that had absolutely no f*ckin clue about the concept of team-ball or winning. '03 Wolves could at least hit 3P shots when left open. late Wolves were nothing short of useless. drza already pointed out in 07 thread how bad they were, you can go check on that. I'd like to give you example of Ricky Davis that not only was an important player in Minnesota (meaning the coach relied upon him), but was made their GTG and primary facilitator. he had a big role in that team. now that being said, look at results of his teams:

Cleveland - LeBron James
Boston - Al Jefferson
Wolves - Roy (traded for Foye)
Heat - Beasley
Clippers - Griffin

Ricky Davis managed to lead his teams to two TOP1 finishes, one TOP2, another TOP5 finish and then another finish in TOP14. and these are not MVP finishes, nor they are season standings. I'm talking about lottery finishes. you can't win when your WHOLE team is built of such parts. other then a lottery-talisman, Ricky Davis is completely, absolutely useless as a basketball player. he's a definition of a loser.

now having said that, I understand that Flip still had some impressive results with those Wolves teams and I give him credit for that....

but how is this even relevant to this discussion if the guy you're defending plays alongside offensive genius that is vastly superior to Saunders ? if anything coaching was CLEARLY in Kobe's favor meaning that it's Garnett who would get advantage in our discussion in this area. you can't give Flip the benefit of the doubt here while at the same time Phil is being overlooked. that ain't right.

3.clutchness - someone pointed out that Garnett measured better than Kobe in this area in 2003. I'm not sure if that's true so I'll try to run some numbers later.

if these two points don't sway things in Kobe's favor, then your whole argument is based on scoring/offense. I see no reason to think Kobe was vastly better offensive player (which he would have to be in order to match Garnett's defensive impact).

ORtg
Lakers 107.2 (4th)
Wolves 106.1 (5th)

Lakers were marginally better offensively that year and Garnett didn't have Shaq on his team who was pretty big factor, both literally and figuratively. with that gap being so small and one player having decisive edge in terms of supporting cast, I think Garnett actually should get the edge here. I simply doubt Kobe could achieve similar results had he been given similarly bad cast. in fact, Lakers without Shaq and with Kobe were clearly worse offensive team (at least I think so based on their 5-10 record or whatever).

[ElGee]

I realize it's (unfortunately) too late to affect people's thoughts on this, but I blame the schedule for that.

I had a similar analysis regarding Kevin Garnett that drza had. I argued for a while that he was the most underrated player in basketball, and then in 2002 I thought he was in the ballpark of Tim Duncan, but I needed to see a little something extra. In 2003, I saw that.

Garnett was a guy who looked like a klutz in 1995 when he worked out for NBA teams. He fumbled through the drills, could barely shoot...but when he scrimmaged, he was described as dominant on both ends. That he possessed nearly every element of basketball at such a young age -- man defense, help defense, rebounding, passing, unselfishness, leadership -- rendered his scoring an obvious weak point. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't up to par with his other all-world abilities. That he was having such a positive influence on games at such a young age (pretty much post lockout, when Minnesota went 47-35 when KG was 23) told me that he was really good at everything else, and it mattered.

In 2003, I saw KG's scoring game catch up. His scoring numbers and efficiency went up, but to me, this was a byproduct of endless work on a jumper that was a line-drive when he entered the league. That, and a lot of footwork leading to unstoppable turnarounds and pivots out of the post. And he had range out to the 3-point line. He's been criticized for being too unselfish down the stretch -- there were times I've felt that way, although in 03 and 04 not so much -- but KG's clutch stats according to 82 games were .534 eFG% and 30.4 points, better than Duncan's 33.1 on .487 eFG%.

So I spent much of that year -- supported by the success of a not-so-good TWolves team -- arguing KG was the best in the league (given Shaq's, um, physical state). I felt that way in the spring. I felt that way during the playoffs, when I saw Garnett with

Szczerbiak
Rasho
Hudson
Joe Smith
Peeler

take on a 3-time defending champion (albeit weaker) Lakers team led by Shaq with

Kobe
Fisher
Horry
Fox
George

and play them fairly close. G1 KG went 23-14-7, but it wasn't close to enough. Kobe and Shaq went off, and I don't see how KG was supposed to stop either. Game 2 Kobe cooled way off, and KG put forth one of those "that guy is insanely good performances", 35, 20 and 7. I did receive a few phone calls that day saying "you might be right about KG, that was amazing."

Game 3 Minnesota stunned LA in G3 -- KG had 33-14-4 and 4 blocks. "Only" 15-31 shooting this time. In G4 at Staples, the Lakers overcame an 11-point 3rd Q deficit to win a close game. KG made two key buckets late, but also missed 2 FT's. He had 28, 18 and 5. Shaq was better: 34,23 and 6. G5, LA exploded for a 51-33 stretch from the end of the 2nd to the 4th -- Kobe had 16 in the 3rd. LA was 12-23 from downtown. KG"s teammates shot 41%. He had 25 and 16. Game 6 KG wasn't superhuman anymore and LA was too much, blowing open a 6-point game in the 4th behind 14 from Kobe. 5 Lakers were in double-figures -- they had 34 assists.

And this was before I'd ever seen a single advanced stat.

When you keep in mind that he was the unanimous POY the very next year in this project, without having that different of a season (his teammates changed more than anything), it doesn't seem like such a stretch to assert he was the league's best, save for a healthy Shaq maybe.

Then, the Lakers played Tim Duncan...and that brilliance couldn't be overlooked either.

Finally, if Ben Wallace is receiving votes for defense and rebounding, how good must Garnett be providing comparable defense and rebounding, with about 9,000 times better offense?

[ElGee]

Mystic, my argument against Nowitzki is that he got injured in the playoffs. I'm especially hard ass on that. it'll be a consistent thing and I'll punish players who got injured in the playoffs heavily. simply I think this is what matters and if you're not playing in the most important moment of the most important series of games of the season, then to my understanding your value is severely limited as far as winning a championship and helping your team to achieve it as an individual. after all, it's all about championships, not RS etc.

so Dirk was injured. Kobe, in fact, was injured too... but he didn't miss any games because of that and still vastly helped his team after the injury. that's where he edges Dirk. when you're limited by injury, it's one thing. when you're flat out unable to play, I'm gonna punish you severely.

bastillon - Do you have any issues with Dirk or McGrady being picked over Garnett, or just Kobe? Just curious.

I'd have issues with Dirk because of his injury in the playoffs. other than that I could live with Dirk over KG as this is supported by something. I do believe Garnett seperated himself from Nowitzki, but I give much value to +/- numbers and I've been extremely impressed by how Nowitzki measures out in this decade as we've moved through this project. also, Mystic convinced the crap out of me and whereas I was extremely sceptical of Nowitzki > KG before this project (and I actually argued passionately against this notion in the past), I'm now comfortable with someone taking Dirk ahead of KG... but there were some years when Garnett was clearly better player than Nowitzki based on several factors and I think 2003 is one of these (2004 and 2008 being others). this, IMO, was Garnett's THE best year as an individual. he flat out did some amazing things aforementioned by drza, and I don't believe Dirk could match them in 2003... but the real, clear seperation is the injury. that's kind of a knock-out thing for me and I already responded to Mystic in depth about this soo...

as for McGrady, I could live with him over Garnett. again, KG was IMO clearly better player, but this is hardly an easy call. you really have to go in-depth to see this. what hurts T-Mac is how easily his contributions can be limited. we can talk about his versatility all we want but unless he's scoring at all time level, he won't have THAT kind of impact. now McGrady was epic scorer during the course of that season but when it really mattered rookie Tayshaun locked him up and IIRC he struggled against his defense heavily the last 3 games (and I believe he blew 3:1 lead in that series). so T-Mac's impact, unlike Garnett's, can be vastly reduced when you take away one aspect of his game. that's not happening with KG. passing, rebounding, shot altering, orchestrating offense... (I could go on) he had it all. you can't limit him as you can T-Mac. this is where I think Garnett decisively edges him.

Ronnymac,
your argument for Kobe over Garnett was based on three things:
1) coaching
2) iso scoring and offense
3) clutchness

1.I do understand your argument and I still think Flip did a good job with this Wolves team. he wasn't great by any means but he did well. he recognized Garnett's passing ability and was able to capitalize on that with his scheme which resulted in top ranked offenses year in year out. I give him credit for that. I'd like to point out, though, that there was a big gap between '03 Wolves and '06 Wolves. '03 were scrub role players that fit well within their system and understood their place. later Minny consisted of primadonna chuckers that had absolutely no f*ckin clue about the concept of team-ball or winning. '03 Wolves could at least hit 3P shots when left open. late Wolves were nothing short of useless. drza already pointed out in 07 thread how bad they were, you can go check on that. I'd like to give you example of Ricky Davis that not only was an important player in Minnesota (meaning the coach relied upon him), but was made their GTG and primary facilitator. he had a big role in that team. now that being said, look at results of his teams:

Cleveland - LeBron James
Boston - Al Jefferson
Wolves - Roy (traded for Foye)
Heat - Beasley
Clippers - Griffin

Ricky Davis managed to lead his teams to two TOP1 finishes, one TOP2, another TOP5 finish and then another finish in TOP14. and these are not MVP finishes, nor they are season standings. I'm talking about lottery finishes. you can't win when your WHOLE team is built of such parts. other then a lottery-talisman, Ricky Davis is completely, absolutely useless as a basketball player. he's a definition of a loser.

now having said that, I understand that Flip still had some impressive results with those Wolves teams and I give him credit for that....

but how is this even relevant to this discussion if the guy you're defending plays alongside offensive genius that is vastly superior to Saunders ? if anything coaching was CLEARLY in Kobe's favor meaning that it's Garnett who would get advantage in our discussion in this area. you can't give Flip the benefit of the doubt here while at the same time Phil is being overlooked. that ain't right.

3.clutchness - someone pointed out that Garnett measured better than Kobe in this area in 2003. I'm not sure if that's true so I'll try to run some numbers later.

if these two points don't sway things in Kobe's favor, then your whole argument is based on scoring/offense. I see no reason to think Kobe was vastly better offensive player (which he would have to be in order to match Garnett's defensive impact).

ORtg
Lakers 107.2 (4th)
Wolves 106.1 (5th)

Lakers were marginally better offensively that year and Garnett didn't have Shaq on his team who was pretty big factor, both literally and figuratively. with that gap being so small and one player having decisive edge in terms of supporting cast, I think Garnett actually should get the edge here. I simply doubt Kobe could achieve similar results had he been given similarly bad cast. in fact, Lakers without Shaq and with Kobe were clearly worse offensive team (at least I think so based on their 5-10 record or whatever).

82 games clutch stats:

KG 30.4 points/48 .534 eFG% .
Kobe 37.3 points/48 .424 eFG%.

[semi-sentient]

What's their TS%, or at a minimum, FT%? These guys are typically put on the line in late game situations, so these things need to be known.

Edit: BTW, I did an exercise a while ago where I looked at players in the clutch for the post-season (using the same criteria as 82games). Here's what Kobe did in the 02-03 post-season, in the "clutch":

Code: Select all

Year   Age   G    MIN   PTS   TS%   REB   AST   STL   BLK   TOV   OPP WIN%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003   24    5    4.7   5.4   .586  1.0   0.2   0.0   0.0   0.4   .677

[ElGee]

What's their TS%, or at a minimum, FT%? These guys are typically put on the line in late game situations, so these things need to be known.

82 games doesn't have TS%.

What I posted seems like a good summary though. FT shooting is built in to the scoring -- Kobe attempts 9.0/48, KG 9.0/48.

KG 11.9/22.4 FGA's
Kobe 13.2/33.3 FGA's

KG with an extra assist per 48.

Not great stuff from Bryant. Other notables:

Shaq .569 eFG% 36.3 points
McGrady .476 eFG% 37.7 points
Duncan .487 eFG% 33.1 points

EDIT: If you read what I noted on the series above, I think it's evident Kobe had a good clutch postseason.

[bastillon]

my take on Duncan vs KG is similar to drza's.

while I give credit to Timmy for winning that championship, as I've previously argued his cast has become underrated over time, because nobody paid attention to why they won in the first place. they won because of historically bad competition and terrific defense where his teammates were pretty much defensive all-stars with his coach as one of the best ever in that regard too.

now what I'm gonna say is important to understand the whole thing: I'm arguing that notion "Duncan led the historically bad support to the title" is overrated here, not Timmy himself. their championship team wasn't that good (like 4th SRS that year ?) and hadn't it been for the injuries I'd put my money on somebody else to win that championship... but that takes nothing away from Duncan, because when I evaluate him as a player I look at the impact he had and contributions he produced as an individual. Duncan was a great, great player in that postseason (and RS too) and I respect the crap out of him as a player.

that being said, I believe Garnett was a better individual player. I think after seperating their impact, KG edges Duncan in 2003. there are couple of factors that convince me:

1) leading that crap to 51 wins is IMO more impressive than leading Spurs cast (and Pop) to 60W. the difference in SC is IMO bigger than 10 wins. Bruce Bowen would be 2nd best player on Wolves. he was one of many on his team... etc. the point is that Garnett's impact on team success was bigger IMO.

2) Garnett as an individual measured out better statistically. one area where Duncan was better is WS, but players on better teams are also favored because team defensive rating is in the formula for individual DRtg and inDRtg is included in the formula for Win Shares. Duncan, that way, benefited from having defensive all-stars and historically great coach on top of it and that's the reason why Spurs defense was so great. don't get me wrong, Duncan obviously contributed tons to that, but I don't think he was a better defender than Garnett as DWS would indicate. KG actually finished higher in DPOY voting (3rd vs 4th) and he's slightly better in defensive +/- as well (-9.6 vs -9.0). I think if we took Garnett's numbers and posted them on a team with Spurs team results, then his Win Shares would be higher than Duncan's. this isn't really a hypothetical... as an individual Duncan didn't show me enough to think of him as a superior defensive player. aside from Win Shares, advanced stats are rather in KG's favor. his boxscore numbers were just slightly better.

3) but what really convinced me is +/-. I know some people don't pay attention to that stat at all and some people are sort of using double standard here by using this for Nash and then dismissing in Garnett's case ( ).

let's just take a look at this for a moment:
http://yfrog.com/8384338855j
just kidding, but that one's good too
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7048/kgvsduncan.png

the whole point of +/- being flawed is that it doesn't always seperate player's impact from his teammates and thus ends up with too low/high rating. now this is something that clearly ISN'T the case here. while Duncan plays alongside several players with significant +x rating, Garnett is actually the one hurt by his teammates, because so many of them are in negative range. that, to me, is really telling. you can have great +/- numbers but it happens hardly ever that you have high +/- numbers when most of your teammates are either bad or awful.

combine that with the fact that it's actually the highest measured +/- ever, Garnett being the only one posting leading-all-five stats, highest APG season for a PF (and for all bigs after pace-adjusting), anecdotal evidence of Troy Hudson and co. being a truly terrible pack and I believe this is a fairly strong case for KG in 2003.

[Silver Bullet]

eDITED

[sp6r=underrated]

My vote:
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Shaq
3. Duncan
4. T-Mac
5. KG

I have no idea how a 50 win team that was bounced out of the 2nd round and had the GOAT coach could have the two best players on it.

Edit: You should really refrain from calling people biased after this ballot.

[semi-sentient]

Yeah, I'd have to agree. I really thought Duncan would get the unanimous vote this season, but that doesn't look to be the case. I have to say that I disagree with a lot of the votes, and I'm still not sure that I agree with mine... heh.

[Dr Positivity]

I am shocked at how many #1 votes Garnett got this round. Duncan in 03 had basically the best year you can possibly have...

[Silver Bullet]

I can't fathom why anybody would think that Duncan would get the unanimous vote, when Shaq was by quite a distance the better player that season -

Up until 2003-04, there was never a point where anybody even faintly whispered that Duncan was Shaq's equal. Find me one article from 1999 to 2003 that even suggests that Duncan is at Shaq's level.

And then you have Kobe, who was widely considered the best player in the league - this is the year, when the guy almost outscored a whole team by himself - had 19 games of 40 or more including 9 games in a year - 3 games of 50 or more, 5 triple doubles, plus games of 28,9,8 - 28,11,9 - 22,9,11-13,12,9- 15-9-13
a game with 12 3PM an NBA record and another with 9 3PM.

I don't see how anybody can have a huge issue with me ranking these guys 1 and 2.

[Sedale Threatt]

I'm a Laker fan, and I have an issue with it.

[Silver Bullet]

I'm a Laker fan, and I have an issue with it.

Okay, explain the issue ?

There is no way I can put Duncan above Shaq for any year from here on out -

So that leaves Kobe -

If you say put Duncan at 2 and Kobe at 3 - sure, I don't have a problem with that -

If you say put Duncan at 2, T-Mac at 3 and Kobe at 4 - Well, I can see an argument, but there's no way I can do that when everybody and their grandma knew in 2003 that Kobe was the alpha-dog and T-Mac was just getting there -

If you say put Kobe at 5 or out of the top 5 - I see no argument for that.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm a Laker fan, and I have an issue with it.

This is a 50 win team that couldn't even make the conference finals and they had the two best player in the league. Give me a f-cking break, and he has the nerve to call other people biased. I'll say one thing this saves me the time of wondering what his ballot will be for 2000-2002 Shaq/Kobe every year.

[Silver Bullet]

My vote:
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Shaq
3. Duncan
4. T-Mac
5. KG

I have no idea how a 50 win team that was bounced out of the 2nd round and had the GOAT coach could have the two best players on it.

Edit: You should really refrain from calling people biased after this ballot.

1 ballot doesn't make a person biased - I'd put my voting record up against anybody.

I am not the guy who keeps putting my favorite players at the top.

[Silver Bullet]

I'm a Laker fan, and I have an issue with it.

This is a 50 win team that couldn't even make the conference finals and they had the two best player in the league. Give me a f-cking break, and he has the nerve to call other people biased. I'll say one thing this saves me the time of wondering what his ballot will be for 2000-2002 Shaq/Kobe every year.

Actually, I will be voting 1. Shaq 2/3 Kobe/Duncan - the next 3 years.

I would love to hear how you think that is biased - Name a guy other than KG who has a case to break into the top 3.

EDIT: Maybe Webber for 1 of the years.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm a Laker fan, and I have an issue with it.

This is a 50 win team that couldn't even make the conference finals and they had the two best player in the league. Give me a f-cking break, and he has the nerve to call other people biased. I'll say one thing this saves me the time of wondering what his ballot will be for 2000-2002 Shaq/Kobe every year.

Actually, I will be voting 1. Shaq 2/3 Kobe/Duncan - the next 3 years.

I would love to hear how you think that is biased - Name a guy other than KG who has a case to break into the top 3.

EDIT: Maybe Webber for 1 of the years.

Kobe being number 2 in 2000 or 2002 is basically pure homer votes.

[Silver Bullet]

I'm a Laker fan, and I have an issue with it.

This is a 50 win team that couldn't even make the conference finals and they had the two best player in the league. Give me a f-cking break, and he has the nerve to call other people biased. I'll say one thing this saves me the time of wondering what his ballot will be for 2000-2002 Shaq/Kobe every year.

So wait - are you suggesting that at no point was Kobe a top 3 player from 2000-2003 ?

[NO-KG-AI]

I can't fathom why anybody would think that Duncan would get the unanimous vote, when Shaq was by quite a distance the better player that season -

Up until 2003-04, there was never a point where anybody even faintly whispered that Duncan was Shaq's equal. Find me one article from 1999 to 2003 that even suggests that Duncan is at Shaq's level.

And then you have Kobe, who was widely considered the best player in the league - this is the year, when the guy almost outscored a whole team by himself - had 19 games of 40 or more including 9 games in a year - 3 games of 50 or more, 5 triple doubles, plus games of 28,9,8 - 28,11,9 - 22,9,11-13,12,9- 15-9-13
a game with 12 3PM an NBA record and another with 9 3PM.

I don't see how anybody can have a huge issue with me ranking these guys 1 and 2.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm a Laker fan, and I have an issue with it.

This is a 50 win team that couldn't even make the conference finals and they had the two best player in the league. Give me a f-cking break, and he has the nerve to call other people biased. I'll say one thing this saves me the time of wondering what his ballot will be for 2000-2002 Shaq/Kobe every year.

So wait - are you suggesting that at no point was Kobe a top 3 player from 2000-2003 ?

I'm voting Kobe number 2 for 2001. You are a **** moron if you vote for him top 3 in 2000. I mean this sincerely. You are a **** moron if you vote for him top 3 in 2000.

I strongly disagree with him being top 3 in 2002. He turned in a sup-par post-season, as the second best player on his team, after a RS when he was far from consensus top 5. I can see placing him at 5 or 4, but it is very hard to stomach him at 3.