Retro POY '00-01 (Voting Complete)

[drza]

Big day today at work, so not sure how much I'll be around before this ends. Let me get out my votes now, for posterity

1) Shaq - Obvious. The "switch" that he flipped was kind of annoying, but when he flipped it the season was over.

2) Garnett - Came down to a toss-up between KG and Duncan for this slot, and after re-visiting just how even they were as players that year I'm giving KG the nod for (slightly) winning their 1-on-1 battle in the postseason.

3) Duncan - Could have easily been in the 2 slot.

4) Kobe - His first truly elite season in my eyes

5) Iverson - Could have gone Webber, one of the cousins, or Kidd here pretty easily. Ultimately, I think I went AI because he had the best cases made for him in this thread an no one really put much into the other options to counter his momentum. I guess it's not too late to change my mind if someone blows me away with an argument for one of the other guys, but barring that it's the Answer her.

[semi-sentient]

Bumped VC off my list and added AI. Lots of good arguments made to support AI and I can't ignore them, and thinking back I remember just how feared, and at times unstoppable he was when he was really on. That, and I don't feel right about leaving an actual MVP off of the list, especially one that at least got his team to the Finals.

[mysticbb]

Please explain this vote.

Provocation. I thought it could initiate an interesting discussion. Unfortunately I didn't have any time since then. Anyway I changed my vote and took out Malone. Bryant is now 3rd, in no way he should be placed ahead of Duncan, and Ray Allen gets the 5th place.

[semi-sentient]

[An Unbiased Fan]

Will try to write a more detailed post later.

1) Shaq
2) Kobe
3) Duncan
4) Webber
5) Iverson

[sp6r=underrated]

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

hm
T-Mac
VC
Ray Allen
Kidd

[bastillon]

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

I put Duncan ahead of Garnett, because of superior team results. I think his impact was a bit larger. there was essentially non existent difference between them and I didn't wanna use 4-game sample as an indicator. Spurs were after all thoroughly dominant in the RS and the best team in the NBA... Duncan's support wasn't very good and not THAT much better than Garnett's.

for further explanation, go to page 1 or 2. I posted some stats regarding this.

Kobe goes beyond the two, because I think he wasn't as impactful as these two. Lakers were still great when he wasn't playing and although they dominated in the playoffs, competition kinda sucked that year and they would dominate with Duncan or Garnett in Kobe's place as well... imagine the defense!

Carter goes above T-Mac because of team results (no argument swayed me). I'm surprised though that nobody remembers how Oakley criticized Vince publically for not showing up in the first round and after he sent that message, Vince went nuts and played incredibly well. his leadership was very questionable though. Oak was their vet/locker room presence.

[lorak]

mysticbb and bastillon – how you guys explain Carter (or Allen...) in top 5 and Iverson off the list? AI was better in regular season and playoffs, he won head to head matchup with Carter (h2h seems very important to you bastillon) and still you leave him off…. how it’s possible? The same question to Gongxi (Kidd in top 5, AI off the list)

[bastillon]

I don't have Iverson in TOP20 so obviously I'm biased here. things that make me so sceptical:

1.bad fit
can't play with SG; can't play with normal PG -> therefore he has to play with tall PG who are usually very poor players. AI forces me to play with another bad player with him. in reality, it screwed 76ers spacing because their backcourt couldn't buy an efficient long jumpshot to save their lives.

2.bad character
can't play with another volume scorer on his team because of his ego; needs touches/shots. Stackhouse and Hughes got traded because of him. I don't want my star player to have problems playing with anybody. he should put those things aside and act as a professional. AI didn't manage to do so.

3.low impact
AI historically doesn't make much impact, either it's +/- or games with/without. it's unsurprising for me because the only thing that he does above average is volume scoring where he is below average in terms of efficiency so it's not THAT valuable either. he's a poor defender, one of the worst rebounders for his position, TOV prone etc. creating off the dribble and volume scoring is valuable, but when you have so many flaws I'd be better off without you.

4.underrated teammates
people are acting as if those Sixers were epic scrubs, yet somehow they managed to do well without Iverson and there were many valuable players. Hill was a very good defender, Mutombo was a DPOY and multiple all-star, Larry Brown remains one of the best coaches ever, McKie 6MOY etc. this is a very good and underrated cast, sort of like Kidd's Nets in their finals runs or LeBron's Cavs in '09. they could win a hell lot with different backcourt too.

and don't even get me started on practice, leadership, overgrown ego etc. nah, man, Iverson is nowhere near TOP5 in my book. I don't even think it's realistically possible to build a championship team around him and I defy you to make one that could win with AI as the man.

[lorak]

I don't have Iverson in TOP20 so obviously I'm biased here. things that make me so sceptical:

1.bad fit
can't play with SG; can't play with normal PG -> therefore he has to play with tall PG who are usually very poor players. AI forces me to play with another bad player with him. in reality, it screwed 76ers spacing because their backcourt couldn't buy an efficient long jumpshot to save their lives.

But in 2001 they were winning and 76ers backcourt played very good.

2.bad character
can't play with another volume scorer on his team because of his ego; needs touches/shots. Stackhouse and Hughes got traded because of him. I don't want my star player to have problems playing with anybody. he should put those things aside and act as a professional. AI didn't manage to do so.

C’mon, we are talking about 2001, not 1997.

AI historically doesn't make much impact, either it's +/- or games with/without.

Huh? You have +/- data for 2001? I guess not… and for the rest you ignoring information provided earlier in this thread:

Here’s the numbers for 2001 Philadelphia
With AI: 50-21, .704%, 104 ORtg, 99 DRtg, +5 efficiency differential
Without AI: 6-5, .545%, 103 ORtg, 102 DRtg, +1 efficiency differential

Overall your bias against AI is obvious, your arguments aren’t even focused on 2001 season and you ignoring available data - games with and without, h2h matchup with Carter, MVP and ALL NBA voting and so on.
It’s sad that some people can’t put their bias away and try to be a little bit objective.

[ronnymac2]

I remember thinking this year that Kobe, T-Mac, Vince, Iverson, and KG were the future of the league who were awesome right now. I have to leave Tracy and Vince off. IMHO, for young players who had to carry a large burden for their teams, they played great, especially in the playoffs.

Tracy **** an ECFinalist up, dropping 40 and near triple doubles. Can't guard Allen, Robinson, and Cassell. Not his fault they lost.

I remember Vince's series against NY. Those Knicks teams played slow-assed basketball, very defense-oriented. The stats aren't there, but he impressed in that series. He played well. Then, against a team which imo was actually a legit Eastern Conference contender and had a very, very good defense (and a superstar guard), Vince played great. He almost took his not-very-impressive team to the ECF against them. Even in the games where he wasn't dropping 50 or 30, he was doing other things to make up for it, like rebounding well or passing or blocking shots. He kept his to's down the whole series.

I like Vince over McGrady here. This was McGrady's first year as a real star, and he had to learn some things. He had never been to the playoffs yet as the man. He still needed to develop some things mentally and skill-wise.

Vince, meanwhile, was ascending already. His development was further I think. He was a top-notch shooter from the outside (40% from 3 for a guy known primarily as a slasher/finisher is pretty sick). Tracy has a slight edge on defense, rebounding (though McGrady's rebounders were worse than Vince's which affect the numbers a bit), and maybe even passing, but the passing isn't a significant edge, and since I like Vince's shooting and experience as the man and because he had greater team success, I'd give Vince the edge over McGrady this year. He was great.


Why is Kobe, a comparable wing to these two (6'6 to 6'8 range, complete players, high-flyers, next-Jordan's, dunkers, popular, etc.), superior? Well, Kobe had greater team success (a lot of the credit for that should be attributed to him though), was a better defender (Kobe gained weight this off-season to guard post-up players better....he sucked at it in 2000, but improved in 2001), and played at a level in the playoffs that was spectacular, even compared to the other's stellar performances. It wasn't about stats for Shaq or Kobe or the team. That team was just dominant, playing at their absolute maximum potential, and Kobe was a big reason for that. He killed the Spurs, and played well in the finals.

I'm taking KG over Vince and Tracy because a 20-10-5-elite d big man with versatility is pretty damn sweet. He was developing like they were. He played well in the playoffs against a monster frontcourt.

Kobe is going over KG. The finals run isn't something I can ignore. I think this version of Kobe, dropping 28-5-5-, had come into his own. KG doesn't really have any advantage over Kobe, unless I think he was the better player at the time. At worst, they are even. I'd give the edge to Bryant, as his offense was deadly then.

Iverson goes ahead of Vince and Tracy. Not because of the MVP...I'm not afraid of leaving MVP's off my top 5's. Semi brought up a good point....I feared that guy. Like, I know he could shoot you out of games and everything (although Mufasa's great post explains why he necesarily had to keep shooting and play like he did). But when he's on, or even near his average, he was possibly the most unstoppable 1 vs. 1 player ever ito....if he wants to get to a space on the court, he will. That's valuable, because then every defender has to keep an eye on this guy. What happens then? Well, maybe Eric Snow makes an easy little baseline cut that Alvin Williams doesn't see, Snow gets that split second of freedom, and then lays the ball up.

I also want to talk about Iverson's intangibles. Not just in this season, but in his career. It isn't just "he's small and tries really hard." The dude really does bring it like few ever have. I mean, if I'm this guy's teammate, and I see him with a long list of injuries, and yet he's still in the finals going "aw, **** it, I got one shot against TEAM INVINCIBLE, but I'm still going to drive full speed into the paint against a guy who outweights me by 150 lbs. to give us a chance," I'm not going to let excuses affect my play. IIRC, George Lynch was injured during that series, but he played spot minutes. Eric Snow had a screw in his hand or ankle, but he played a lot. I think Mckey was hurt, too. I really think Iverson's mentality of "If I can walk, I can play" forced an ideology of toughness upon that team.

They didn't quit in the finals either. The Lakers had to give it their all (their considerable all).

Plus, Iverson's underrated in general. He wasn't bad moving without the ball and coming off screens to hit mid-range jump shots. He was actually better from 3 than Kobe this year. He drew 10 fta per game without the new hand-checking rules. He wasn't a good defender, but the steals are nice. It is something to watch out for when you are making swing passes and cross-court passes.

Iverson also performed very well in the biggest games. He dropped 46 trying to take down MIL in game 6, then put 44/6/7 to finish them off in game 7. In the first round, IND stole HCA, so Iverson dropped 45/9 on them, then killed them in INDY.

Toronto...yeah, he had 50 point games, but what I like is the 16 assists he dished out in gm 7. 21/16...not quite Frazier's 36/19, but pretty damn good.

gm 1 of the finals.....he outplayed a GOAT peak player who had a GOAT game himself. Ummmm....that's impressive.

I think I just talked myself into putting Iverson third.

Final Vote:

Shaq
Duncan
Iverson
Kobe
Garnett

[bastillon]

Huh? You have +/- data for 2001? I guess not… and for the rest you ignoring information provided earlier in this thread:

you do understand what "historically" means, don't you ? it means that there's +/- data about Iverson later from his career and he was never as impactful as top players in the league. I see no reason why he would be much better in 2001.

as for h2h matchup with Carter, how did that prove that AI's better ? he had much better teammates so he won, but Carter outproduced him easily:

Code: Select all

          MPG   PPG   TS%   APG   TOV   RPG   SPG   BPG
Carter   44.6  30.4  0.57   5.6   2.1   6.0   1.9   2.0
Iverson  46.0  33.7  0.50   6.8   3.0   4.4   3.1   0.3

in fact, that's yet another important argument.

[lorak]

I see no reason why he would be much better in 2001.

Because +/- data is inconsistent from season to season...

[bastillon]

I see no reason why he would be much better in 2001.

Because +/- data is inconsistent from season to season...

but there's a large sample on Iverson's career and it would be drastically different from his usual impact if Iverson was such a game changer in 2001. he wasn't one of the top players in the NBA, more like Amare with his game (though Amare is worse probably)

[Optimism Prime]

1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Tim Duncan
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Vince Carter

[lorak]

I see no reason why he would be much better in 2001.

Because +/- data is inconsistent from season to season...

but there's a large sample on Iverson's career and it would be drastically different from his usual impact if Iverson was such a game changer in 2001.

You have to explain why you put Carter above Iverson. We don’t have +/- data for 2001 season, but if your reasoning is as above then it still don’t explain why 2001 Carter > 2001 AI because according o Ilardi’s 6 seasons +/- Carter and Iverson were at the same level. Besides, for god sake, +/- isn’t the holy grail!

[semi-sentient]

Looks like the top 3 are pretty clearly defined at this point (Shaq, Dunca, and Kobe), while AI and KG duke it out for that 4th/5th spot. Very interested in seeing how that turns out.

[bastillon]

You have to explain why you put Carter above Iverson. We don’t have +/- data for 2001 season, but if your reasoning is as above then it still don’t explain why 2001 Carter > 2001 AI because according o Ilardi’s 6 seasons +/- Carter and Iverson were at the same level. Besides, for god sake, +/- isn’t the holy grail!

I think 2001 Carter was far better than any version from 2003-2008 period. therefore he can still destroy AI in +/- and if you look at how his team did without him, it supports that theory. also, Carter outproduced AI easily in h2h. since you gave me that argument, why don't you explain that ? "ball (stats) don't liee!!"

[lorak]

You have to explain why you put Carter above Iverson. We don’t have +/- data for 2001 season, but if your reasoning is as above then it still don’t explain why 2001 Carter > 2001 AI because according o Ilardi’s 6 seasons +/- Carter and Iverson were at the same level. Besides, for god sake, +/- isn’t the holy grail!

I think 2001 Carter was far better than any version from 2003-2008 period. therefore he can still destroy AI in +/- and if you look at how his team did without him, it supports that theory.

Do you know how Phila did without Iverson in 2001? Look at the data I showed earlier.

And also I can say that 2001 Iverson was better than any other version – he never again was so close to MVP or NBA finals.

Bottom line is that +/- data which is available for us doesn’t show Carter’s advantage so you can’t use this as a argument.

also, Carter outproduced AI easily in h2h. since you gave me that argument, why don't you explain that ? "ball (stats) don't liee!!"

Because stats don’t tell whole story. The fact is Iverson as a leader of his team won with Carter’s team. That’s all what matters in h2h matchup.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Looks like the top 3 are pretty clearly defined at this point (Shaq, Dunca, and Kobe), while AI and KG duke it out for that 4th/5th spot. Very interested in seeing how that turns out.

I'm surprised Webber is off so many ballots.