Retro POY '07-08 (Voting Complete)

[Sedale Threatt]

Regarding Radmanovic -- a classic example of how stats, even advanced ones, can misconstrue. Unless there's hidden value in a one-dimensional, inconsistent 3-point shooter that I'm missing.

It's called spacing. If a consistent 3pt shooter isn't a great liability on defense and can play in the flow of the offense, he will always be a great contributer for the team and will make the offensive game not only easier for his teammates, but due to his 3pt shot also more efficient.

Look at the Lakers right now, they could really use another consistent 40% 3pt shooter, that would make the life in the paint easier.

Bingo. He was poor in both those areas, in my opinion.

But you raise some great points. L.A. could definitely use another shooter, or three. He just happens to be one of my all-time most disliked Lakers, so I'm bringing a ton of bias to the table here.

[Silver Bullet]

Wait a second, what are you guys talking about ?

Garnett didn't lead the Celtics to the title at all - Paul Peirce was clearly the Celts best player in round 1,2,3. I mean, you remember him going mano-a-mano with Lebron in that series right. You remember, he neutralized what we now think of as possibly the greatest player of all time. And then Ray Allen should've won the Finals MVP - Paul Peirce ended up winning it. KG was the third best player in the NBA Finals.

And then, you are totally overlooking Tom Thibedeau, who had at the very least as much to do with the Celtics defensive resurgence as KG.

And you are totally overlooking team defense - They had the greatest defensive team of all time, sure you can attribute a chunk of it to KG, but if he could've had that drastic an impact, he would've done it on the Timberwolves. You don't need talent to be a premiere defensive outfit, as the Bobcats, Cavaliers and several Rockets outfits have shown in the past few years. But the thing is, they do have defensive talent - the Celtics do - an abundance of it.

The 08 Celtics are one of the greatest teams of all time - but attributing that huge chunk to him - when he was their 3rd best player in the playoffs, is ridiculous.

[mysticbb]

great liability on defense and can play in the flow of the offense

Bingo. He was poor in both those areas, in my opinion.[/quote]

Well, looking at his OnCourt numbers and comparing it to the OffCourt numbers, he was perfect in the Lakers offense. Again, that best OnCourt ORtg in the league didn't happen just by accident. And as I pointed out before, we are talking here about the real result (just adjusted to 100 possessions), not some tweaked numbers or so. You can dismiss that.

He was for sure not a great contributer on defense, but his offensive impact overshadowed the defensive mistakes. In the end that is also something people are usually overrating: the impact of an individual defender. Defense is more a team effort than individual greatness. The same goes for weak defenders. A team can easier compensate a weak defender than a weak offensive player. Look at all those great defensive players, each of them contributed in his way on offense, Ben Wallace or Denis Rodman via rebounding, Bruce Bowen via 40% 3pt shot, you can find such things for each of them. And then you have examples like DeShawn Stevenson, great defensive effort, but zero help on offense. Overall the Mavericks are way better with him off the court.
As I said, it is easier to compensate for a weaker defender than for a weaker offensive player.

[Sedale Threatt]

Wait a second, what are you guys talking about ?

I thought that team survived in the playoffs with their defense, and Garnett with the lynchpin. Not only that, he led the team in pretty much every advanced playoff measure possible -- PER, win shares, offensive win shares, defensive win shares, etc.

I'm definitely not going to include Thibodeaux in the discussion. Never, ever, ever, ever am I going to give a coach, certainly not an assistant, the lion's share of credit for what happens on the court. Yes, he came up with a great scheme, one that was critical to their success. But ultimately it's a player's league -- they're the ones out there making it all work.

In other words -- let's swap out Channing Frye for KG and see how great the Celtics look.

[Sedale Threatt]

He was for sure not a great contributer on defense, but his offensive impact overshadowed the defensive mistakes.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. I'd say the fact he was a terrible matchup against, say, Paul Pierce in the Finals was actually pretty costly. Certainly not the deciding factor, for sure; they were just a better team across the board. But it definitely didn't help.

At any rate, having seen him pretty regularly for several seasons, I feel safe in saying he has one of the lowest IQs of any Laker in recent seasons. It was like he was out there playing pickup ball, jacking shots whenever, missing rotations, completely oblivious to the rhythm of the game.

Whatever someone like Manu Ginobili has in terms of being able to do all the little things, Vlade was the complete opposite.

[drza]

Wait a second, what are you guys talking about ?

Garnett didn't lead the Celtics to the title at all - Paul Peirce was clearly the Celts best player in round 1,2,3. I mean, you remember him going mano-a-mano with Lebron in that series right. You remember, he neutralized what we now think of as possibly the greatest player of all time. And then Ray Allen should've won the Finals MVP - Paul Peirce ended up winning it. KG was the third best player in the NBA Finals.

And then, you are totally overlooking Tom Thibedeau, who had at the very least as much to do with the Celtics defensive resurgence as KG.

And you are totally overlooking team defense - They had the greatest defensive team of all time, sure you can attribute a chunk of it to KG, but if he could've had that drastic an impact, he would've done it on the Timberwolves. You don't need talent to be a premiere defensive outfit, as the Bobcats, Cavaliers and several Rockets outfits have shown in the past few years. But the thing is, they do have defensive talent - the Celtics do - an abundance of it.

The 08 Celtics are one of the greatest teams of all time - but attributing that huge chunk to him - when he was their 3rd best player in the playoffs, is ridiculous.

This is untrue on so many levels that, short of risking the ire of the mods, I'll simply say that if you watched all of the Celtics' playoff games we have vastly different methods of evaluation. Outside of it being pretty visibly obvious, this is a case where I would think even folks that don't like stats would have to say that the stats speak for themselves:

Garnett led the team in points and rebounds in the postseason, one of only 13 players in the last 50 years to average 20/10 (of any 2 stats) through the playoffs on a championship team (Others: Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Mo Malone, Kareem, Elvin Hayes, Cowens, Wilt, Reed, Russell).

Garnett led the Cs in postseason PER...by a lot (5.6 higher than Pierce, who was second)
Garnett led the Cs in postseason Win Shares...by a lot (Pierce was more than a full win behind)
Garnett led the Cs in postseason on/off +/-...by a LOT (KG's was +17.8, Pierce was +6.4)

In fact, Garnett in '08 became only the 11th player to lead a championship team in postseason PER and Win Shares since the league began keeping all relevant stats in 1980. (The first 10? Kareem, Mo Malone, Bird, Magic, Isiah, Hakeem, Jordan, Shaq, Wade, and Duncan).

I mean, I could go on, but Garnett was so obviously the best player on that team that it really seems like a waste to spend a lot of time there. I guess I'll let the responses decide whether more time is needed there or not.

[Gongxi]

No drza, I don't think we need to get caught up in that. It was such a close year among the top 5 (although, truth be told, I've already made my tentative list back to 04-05 and they've all been stupidly close), that trying to figure out how the top 3 on one individual team were arranged would be a huge tangent on a thread that's already going to have a lot going on. Especially since it should already be pretty clear.

[TrueLAfan]

Okay. I’ll probably be breaking ranks with people to a certain degree here.

1. Kobe Bryant
2. Chris Paul
3. LeBron James
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Steve Nash

HM-- Chauncey Billups


Kobe—Gets it by a hair.
Paul—If he had been able to make a three in the playoffs, I probably would have put him at #1. Yes, he was that good.
LeBron—Crappy team. Looking back, everyone thought Larry Hughes(!) was going to really help…seems like a joke now. But LeBron didn’t play that well in the post season. Doesn’t affect him much here because…
KG—More valuable than his numbers. But…his numbers were very good, but far from great. The Celtics were great when KG was great…but they were great when he was lousy or off the court too.
Nash—A team in transition, with ill-fitting pieces and players coming and going. By month, the Suns went 16-4, 12-8, 13-7, and 13-7 (and 2-0). That type of consistent excellence for a mixed up team requires a special type of leadership, and that leader was Nash. Had a poor playoff series against the Spurs, or I would have put him over KG, no questions asked.

Chauncey—Got forgotten. Someone explain to me how that happens to the best player on a 59 win team. But he did fold up in the playoffs…worse than Nash.

[Sedale Threatt]

No drza, I don't think we need to get caught up in that.

Actually, his post pretty much clinched KG as No. 1 for me. I knew he'd had a good postseason, but I didn't realize how good. Some pretty historic names to be associated with.

[Sedale Threatt]

I know this much -- Vladimir Radmanovic is not in my top five.

[wigglestrue]

Garnett didn't lead the Celtics to the title at all - Paul Peirce was clearly the Celts best player in round 1,2,3.

Horse****.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _2008.html

Atlanta - Garnett outperformed Pierce by a WIDE margin in every Celtics win. Cleveland - KG outperformed Pierce in Game 1, big time; pretty much a toss-up in Game 2, but KG gets the edge in my view; both had great Game 5's, but KG's was better; Pierce obviously had a legendary Game 7. Detroit - KG had the better Game 1; KG had a much better Game 3; KG had a much better Game 5; Pierce had a much better Game 6. So far that's KG having the better game in Celtics wins 10 times; Pierce 2 times. Now we get to LA, where you say Ray was the best player and Pierce won the Finals MVP. Los Angeles - the three of them pretty much equal in Game 1, Pierce the most efficient but KG and Ray were more active, so...draw; Pierce had the best Game 2, but Ray and KG weren't too far behind; Ray had the best Game 4, but Pierce and KG weren't far behind; Rondo probably had the best Game 6, KG the 2nd best, Ray a close 3rd, and Pierce a distant 4th. So basically, who had the best Lakers series is a toss-up. In other words, KG was absolutely without a doubt the Celtics' best player throughout the entire playoffs.

[drza]

Kobe—Gets it by a hair.
Paul—If he had been able to make a three in the playoffs, I probably would have put him at #1. Yes, he was that good.
LeBron—Crappy team. Looking back, everyone thought Larry Hughes(!) was going to really help…seems like a joke now. But LeBron didn’t play that well in the post season. Doesn’t affect him much here because…
KG—More valuable than his numbers. But…his numbers were very good, but far from great. The Celtics were great when KG was great…but they were great when he was lousy or off the court too.
Nash—A team in transition, with ill-fitting pieces and players coming and going. By month, the Suns went 16-4, 12-8, 13-7, and 13-7 (and 2-0). That type of consistent excellence for a mixed up team requires a special type of leadership, and that leader was Nash. Had a poor playoff series against the Spurs, or I would have put him over KG, no questions asked.

Chauncey—Got forgotten. Someone explain to me how that happens to the best player on a 59 win team. But he did fold up in the playoffs…worse than Nash.

I realize that I have a tendency to make wall-of-words posts, and I'm trying to avoid doing that, but this topic was essentially the entire point of my first post in this thread (i.e. that KG's numbers were right there with LeBron and Paul as the best in the league that season). Was I not convincing, or is it the type of thing where you're already sure enough about your own evaluation that you can't really be swayed (which is certainly fair, of course).

Another stat that would directly refute your last line that I bolded is that during the '08 playoffs, the Celtics were - 8.8 points/48 minutes during the time when Garnett wasn't on the court. When literally any other player on the team outside of KG or Ray Allen (-2.6) was out, the team was still a net positive, but when Garnett was out the team fell apart. http://www.82games.com/0708/playoffs/0708BOS.HTM

I just don't think the reality meshes with the recollection in many cases about just how central Garnett was to that '08 title run for the Cs, but when you take a step back and really look at the numbers his impact was pretty enormous in those playoffs.

(ETA 82games.com link)

[wigglestrue]

KG—More valuable than his numbers. But…his numbers were very good, but far from great. The Celtics were great when KG was great…but they were great when he was lousy or off the court too.

One of the few times I've ever seen TrueLA make a bad (and already refuted) point.

[Dr Positivity]

I actually have Garnett in 1st. I think the mental impact he had in that Celtics turnaround transcends on court production. Now credit should also be given to Pierce and Allen and their HOF vetness, but to me the defining part of the Celtics was their intensity... I think KG was the main ticket. He was my MVP vote that year for the same reason. Nobody had more impact on a team IMO

[Gongxi]

I realize that I have a tendency to make wall-of-words posts, and I'm trying to avoid doing that, but this topic was essentially the entire point of my first post in this thread. Was I not convincing, or is it the type of thing where you're already sure enough about your own evaluation that you can't really be swayed (which is certainly fair, of course).

I'll admit, that's my stance. But to hit the nail on the head:

I just don't think the reality meshes with the recollection in many cases about just how central Garnett was to that '08 title run for the Cs, but when you take a step back and really look at the numbers his impact was pretty enormous in those playoffs.

I think you're exactly right: I think he was clearly central to Celtics having won that title and I think his impact was very enormous. But, I don't think that means he was the best player that year. That's all.

[drza]

I realize that I have a tendency to make wall-of-words posts, and I'm trying to avoid doing that, but this topic was essentially the entire point of my first post in this thread. Was I not convincing, or is it the type of thing where you're already sure enough about your own evaluation that you can't really be swayed (which is certainly fair, of course).

I'll admit, that's my stance. But to hit the nail on the head:

I just don't think the reality meshes with the recollection in many cases about just how central Garnett was to that '08 title run for the Cs, but when you take a step back and really look at the numbers his impact was pretty enormous in those playoffs.

I think you're exactly right: I think he was clearly central to Celtics having won that title and I think his impact was very enormous. But, I don't think that means he was the best player that year. That's all.

Fair enough. Despite my already being pretty active in this thread, I haven't actually made my overall case for Garnett yet. Maybe by the time we're done I'll have changed your mind, and if not...eh, it won't be for lack of trying.

[JordansBulls]

Top 5 that year are:

Garnett
Lebron
Kobe
CP3
???? - Duncan

How to decide on the order.

CP3 led in WS that season and led in PER in the playoffs but he did lose with HCA that season as well.

Lebron led in PER and Scoring that season and went 7 against the C's even though he had a horrible series against the Celtics, but still he was the underdog and wasn't supposed to win anyway.

Kobe carried his team to the finals and dominated the western playoffs, but didn't have a good finals. Pierce pretty much matched him that year in the finals.

KG carried his team for most of the year except game 7 against Cleveland and in the NBA Finals. However he did win DPOY and was a top 3 in MVP voting. He also led in WS for the playoffs

Duncan - Was still a top 5 player, but definitely not the best.


So if I had to choose in 2008, I would probably go.

1a Lebron (best overall numbers and lost as the underdog)
1b. Garnett (Won the title and DPOY and led in WS for the playoffs)
1c Kobe (carried his team to the finals, but subpar finals for top 2-3 player in the league)
1d. CP3 (great all around numbers in the season and playoffs, but losing game 7 at home hurt a lot on his ranking here even though he is in a 4 way tie.
5. Duncan.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm a huge Duncan fan (as anyone who reads this board knows), but I think people have to take him to task for his PS performance. He was quite bad in the NO and LAL series.

[Sedale Threatt]

Lebron led in PER and Scoring that season but went 7 against the C's. Horrible series against the Celtics, but still he was the underdog and wasn't supposed to win anyway.

This is where the whole HCA standard descends to the level of farce.

For two years straight Player A has a phenomenal regular season. In Year 1, his play drops in the postseason and his team loses. In Year 2, his play improves and his team loses. But because his team did not have home court in Year 1, he receives no penalty, whereas he does for Year 2.

This makes zero sense, in my opinion.

[JordansBulls]

Lebron led in PER and Scoring that season but went 7 against the C's. Horrible series against the Celtics, but still he was the underdog and wasn't supposed to win anyway.

This is where the whole HCA standard descends to the level of farce.

For two years straight Player A has a phenomenal regular season. In Year 1, his play drops in the postseason and his team loses. In Year 2, his play improves and his team loses. But because his team did not have home court in Year 1, he receives no penalty, whereas he does for Year 2.

This makes zero sense, in my opinion.

That's where you are wrong. In year 1 he got his teammates going in the playoffs and defended the better player in the series, while in Year 2 with a much better team he did not get his teammates going and took the worse defensive assignment when he is young himself.

And again the years are different. Had Garnett or Kobe won the finals MVP this year they would be #1.

Whereas in the 2009 year, Kobe was still top 3 overall in the season and then won finals mvp and title.

I'm not going to give title of best player in the league to a player because he won the title unless everyone else that was a top 4-5 player that season didn't perform well.