Retro POY '04-05 (Voting Complete)

[sp6r=underrated]

This was the last year that Duncan and Garnett were both still hitting 101 with their fastball over the course of a full season. To me, they were clearly the 2 best players in the league.

Agreed.

While I am a TD fan, one of the reasons I don't like McHale is because he deprived us of what should have been the Magic/Bird level rivalry of the 00s.

[Sedale Threatt]

Shaq / Duncan wasn't a bad substitute.

EDIT -- But yeah, it is a true crime that KG wasted so many incredible seasons on such bad teams. I'm trying to think of another player in a comparable situation, and I'm coming up blank. Oscar Robertson?

[sp6r=underrated]

A large part of it is how close the two are in age. Duncan is less than a month older than Garnett. There are the similarities between the two. Both were great defensive big men who also excelled on offense. They spent many years playing the same position.

There is also the contrast in style between the two in style of play and in personality. TD is in the traditionalist image of how a big man should play. KG pointed more at the future. KG with his explosive personality and the stoic Duncan. It was a great rivalry it should have been better.

[Sedale Threatt]

Oh yeah, no question. See my edit. They should have gone head to head in a couple of WCFs at least. The hardest thing in basketball is to find the elusive superstar; Minnesota had him, but could never come up with enough pieces. A shame.

[sp6r=underrated]

David Robinson had quite a few seasons with a poor supporting cast in his prime. Check out the 59 win Spurs with Elliot, AJ, and a lot of crap coached by Bob freakin Hill.

[Gongxi]

Just for posterity's sake, I'm going to say that throughout this thing I'm going mostly by on-court production, with games in December mattering as much as games in March, and games in the playoffs meaning only about 50% more than games in the regular season. Which is to say: if you play 20 playoff games and 82 regular season games, your regular season still accounts for roughly 2/3rds of where I'm placing you. Why? Because a 20 game sample size pales in comparison to 82 or, together, 102 games.

Also, I don't much care about how well your team did. It's basketball, not ping pong- one player can't dictate whether an entire team wins or loses. That said, the Gongxi top 5 for 2004-2005 are:

1- Kevin Garnett
2- Tim Duncan
3- Shaquille O'Neal
4- Steve Nash
5- Dirk Nowitzki

The voting this year was very close between Shaq and Nash. I'm not going with either, and I'm not putting either of them at 1 or 2. Garnett was simply a cut above the rest this year, although he didn't play as well as he did in 03-04. Duncan was a notch below, and once he was in the playoffs faltered a bit (by his standards).

Then we have a drop off. Nash and Shaq? Long threads and arguments have been made about Nash that don't need to be rehashed here. Nash gets a lot of credit for the turnaround in Phoenix that I don't think is entirely deserving. The year before the Suns' two best players (Marbury [ugh] and Stoudamire) played 34 and 55 games respectively. Considering Nash is already an improvement over Marbury, factoring in his health, and then Amare's health. Again...great point guard, but I'm not buying. Coincidentally, who does he fall behind? Shaq, who also garnered a **** ton of MVP votes based upon his arrival to a team and its quick rise. I believe Shaq just had the better season: 23/10 on 58% TS with a 27 PER. Plus there's that whole defensive side of the equation, where Shaq is roughly the size of Mt. Rainier in the paint and Nash is...not particularly good.

Another drop off and we're left with Nowitzki, Bryant, James, and Wade. To a lesser extent, you have Yao, Pierce, Iverson, and McGrady. I guess I could see some type of argument for those 'lesser' guys if you have a mild buzz going on or something, and I could legitimately see any argument for those first guys after this last drop, but me? I'm going with Nowitzki, I guess. As compared to the previous year, where there were 7 legitimate “Top 5” guys, this year is a little lacking on that fifth dude. I'd rather give it to no one and give an extra vote for 5 to Nash from the year before, to be honest.

[Sedale Threatt]

David Robinson had quite a few seasons with a poor supporting cast in his prime. Check out the 59 win Spurs with Elliot, AJ, and a lot of crap coached by Bob freakin Hill.

Absolutely. I've softened my stance on David in the past year or so. Granted, his playoff performances weren't always the best. But he really did have some pretty damn average supporting casts.

[Sedale Threatt]

To me, it looks like it breaks down into two groups: KG/Duncan for the top two slots, then Shaq/Nash for the next two, then whoever else for No. 5.

I think KG technically had a better season than Duncan, but I have one problem -- no matter what the stats show, I just think Duncan is a better player. Every bit KG's equal as a defensive player, probably even better, and a better offensive player as he can legitimately carry you down the stretch.

That's been arguably the biggest knock on Kevin over the years, and I think it really hurts him in this particular comparison, no matter what he stats might say. That's completely independent of S.A. winning a title that year; I just think Duncan is a better player, period.

I'm going to file Gongxi's post away as I think he makes a really good case for Shaq over Nash.

I don't think either had mind-blowingly spectacular seasons, but their arrivals sparked major improvements on their respective teams. Phoenix's being so dramatic, going from 29 to 62 wins, was the only reason he beat Shaq in the MVP voting, IMO. But as Gongxi showed, there were more factors involved.

Will probably focus on Nowitzki, Stoudemire and LBJ for the fifth spot. At this point I'm leaning towards Amare for his outstanding postseason.

[Dr Positivity]

I expected a lot of KG debate for this one. Well let's look at some stuff. The Wolves were 6th offensively and 15th defensively. The Spurs were 8th offensively and 1st defensively. KG's career is hard one of the most difficult to gauge to me because the biggest reason he wasn't winning like Duncan was his consistently mediocore defensive teams and NOT a lack of offensive support. This tells me either a) KG's defense is overrated, or b) Flip's defensive system was realllllly bad. I don't know if you can chalk it up to the rest of the roster alone. If you look at the all-time defensive anchors like Hakeem, Duncan, Robinson, Howard... these guys could lead top 3-5 defenses without perimeter guys particularly known for it. A lot of those teams have good offensive players who could fit in a great defense if they had an elite guy backing them up.

The thing about Flip is he went to the Pistons and coached 5th, 7th, and 4th defensive teams, the last two without Ben Wallace. That would indicate to me Flip was not single handidly submarining the Wolves d. All coaches know what good defense is and what it takes to play it...

I just can't give KG the credit as an equal defensive anchor as Tim Duncan when the team defense results are so lopsided. Whether it was because he was misused, what's clear is his defensive impact was not the same as Duncan's for one reason or another. If the impact on the game wasn't there, I can't vote for him, even if it wasn't his fault. Sort of like how you can't vote for Wade in his injured years even if it wasn't the fault of his caliber of ability...

[ronnymac2]

I think Timmy and KG were the stars here. Shaq will most likely be third. This was his last true dominant season; I think he's closer to TD and KG than anybody else is to him.

Who else is there to consider? Lebron? Ehh...possibly. Kobe? He got injured at the wrong time though, his stats weren't mind-boggling, and his play wasn't up to par with other great years. Still, simply because of his abilities, he has to be considered.

What about Tracy McGrady?

Dirk could be interesting. Dwyane Wade performed amazingly well as the season progressed this year. Nash is an option, too.

For the two Heat players, how should one value their injuries in the post-season? Wade got hurt at a critical time, but was playing amazingly well in that Detroit series. Shaq was hurt the whole playoffs after, in a regular season game, Jermaine O'neal kneed him in the thigh. Shaq didn't have the best mobility that playoffs. Still, he performed well individually in the finals two games against Detroit when they needed him. Miami didn't win, but Shaq played well.

[Tesla]

1. Duncan
2. Shaq
3. Nash

4. KG
5. Billups

HM: Manu Ginobli, Dirk, Ben Wallace, Wade

I felt Shaq was just a smidge better than Nash that year, even though Nash edged him out for official MVP voting, I put Duncan number 1 because of the big picture, he led his team to a championship and nobody was dominant enough to be considered better despite not winning the title (like Lebron over Kobe last year for instance). Still though, Manu was huge in that run, so I don't know how comfortable I am with Duncan at number 1. Nash imo should be top 3, he was the improbable MVP, the cinderella story of the year. KG didnt make the playoffs, I really don't care how dominant he was no reason he should be in the top 3 IMO. He didn't have a memorable year what so ever, and I know its not his fault he had a crap cast, but still... it just wasnt the ideal year for him despite all of his on-court abilities. 5th to me had to go to a Detroit Piston, I struggled between Billups and Big Ben, ben was DPOY but I always felt Billups was the best player on that team marginally. I feel Duncan/Shaq/Nash should be top 3 though, in any order, but those to me are clearly the top 3 of the year.

[Gongxi]

As anyone who's read any of my posts through these threads could guess, I disagree with almost every sentence and the entire logical progression of Tesla's post. No offense but just....ughhh.

[Tesla]

Nothing wrong with that Gongxi, you value "on-court production" much more heavily than I do for POY. No offense taken, people are going to have a different process.

Personally, I don't have any of this to a consistant science in my own process, but I value just the general success of that player of that year the most, for instance, Kobe this year 04-05 (for all his abilities) has no buisness being considered, he had a completley unsuccessful year. KG on the other hand, had statistical success and average team success, but overall for a player of his stature he IMO had a disappointing overall year, but he's still top 5 despite that.

[TrueLAfan]

I've got a couple of people to talk about that haven't been mentioned yet, including one who is the most polarizing player of the last 15-20 years. And this is a rough year, because there's not (in my opinion) a player or two that really "stick out" from the group. Anyway, some thoughts on some of the players involved in the mix this year:

Nash--He's right on the cusp of the "needs to play more" argument. But this may have been his best year, and that's saying a lot. Amare had great numbers...but I thought/think that a lot of what Amare gets on offense is predicated and dictated by Nash. (And I personally think that if Amare was in a situation without a premier perimeter player, he'd find that out pretty fast.) I put Nash ahead of Amare. Frankly, I put Nash ahead of everybody. He had more impact on his team than anyone else...and it was a really good team.
McGrady--Underrappreciated year for TMac. Yao played well, but could only stay on the court for 30 mpg. After that, in MP, it was Bob Sura, David Wesley, Juwan Howard, and Jon Barry...a capable, but hardly overpowering group. And it was in flux; none of those players played more than 61 games for the Rox. McGrady played 3000+ minutes and was a stabilizing force. I know people will look at efficiency, but I think that's a bit overrated in terms of effect on the team--definitely so in this case. If his team had won 40 games, McGrady would be behind the others I mention here. But the Rockets won 50 and took the Mavs to 7, and McGrady was a stud in the series.
KG--The biggest difference between the 2004 and 2005 Twolves, as noted by drza, was the injury reduced playing time (and effectiveness) of Sam Cassell in 2005. It hurt the Wolves...a lot. I am sure someone will talk about something like advancved +/-, or point out that the team only had a slightly better record in games Cassell played. But Cassell was slowed a little by hip surgery before the 2005 seasons, and when Cassell hurt his hamstring at the beginning of January, that was pretty much it for Minnesota. Why is this important? Because we're not talking about Kevin Garnett. I think the TWolves without Garnett (with a replacement level player) would have won many fewer than 44 games. But the heart of the team, IMO, was Cassell (in the same was that Garnett was for the Celtics years later)--and I think a top 5 player in his prime should have shouldered that responsibility more than KG did in 2005. On paper, you make the argument that Garnett was better in 2005 than in 2004--better shooting, higher Reb %, better offensive efficiency. On paper, KG does better. But that's why statistical analysis should always be trumped by observation. Garnett was not as valuable in 2005 as 2004. Good enough to be in the top 5 in 2005? Maybe. But not as good as he is on paper.
Shaq--I've got to say that I never thought Shaq should have been in the top 5 this year. I appreciate what he did to help Miami. But he was markedly worse than he had been a few years earlier...he reached more on D, which meant more fouls. His D was worse. He was turning the ball over a lot more. He was starting from a high point, of course, but that all bothered me a lot in the MVP voting at the time and still does. I thought Wallace had slumped too, and Ben played Shaq well in that series...kept him off the boards, uses his wingspan to deflect a couple of passes, got Shaq in foul trouble a few times. In previous years, Shaq could've used his quickness...and he just couldn't now.
TD--Still great. Didn't play enough to be #1 or #2, IMO. I remember thinking at the time that he'd fallen off a bit during the regular season, because of the injuries. But he got the motor going by the midpoint of the playoffs...he averaged 24.1-12.7-2.7 in the final 15 playoff games, and went to the line nearly ten times a game.
Dirk--Bad series against the Rockets; was good to very good in the losing effort against the Suns. big secret this year...Dirk stepped up his D. for a late period Nellie team, the Mavs were good on D...and it was definitely not because of Jerry Stackhouse, Michael Finley, Josh Howard, or Jason Terry. One of Dirk's best years, and that's saying a lot.
Wade--I agree with Doctor MJ...it was Wade's team, especially by the end of the year and in the playoffs. The 59 wins and playoff success has more to do with Wade than Shaq.
AI--The difference between the Wolves without KG and the Sixers without AI is not readily apparent to me. Wasn't then, isn't now. It's fashionable to bash AI...tantrums, lousy efficiency, chucker. Certain players suffer from statistical analysis, and AI is on top of the list. He certainly isn't my type of player. But he took lousy teams into the playoffs many times, and this was one of them. I won't put him in the top 5 this year...but he's definitely not far off.
Kobe--Here's what I mean about efficiency being somewhat overrated in terms of team success. On paper, Kobe and TMac have similar seasons; Kobe played fewer minutes, but was more efficient. But I am not all convinced that the other Laker starters and bench was much worse than those of the Rox. And I definitely don't think they're 17 games worse...and the Lakers won 34, while the Rockets won 51. I flat out think McGrady helped his team a lot more than Kobe did. A lot more. Kobe doesn't make my top 10 this year.

I'll go with...

1. Nash
2. TD
3. Wade
4. Dirk
5. TMac

HM: KG, AI, Chauncey

[semi-sentient]

Regarding your last point about the Lakers roster not being 17 games worse, I have to disagree. T-Mac, who was injury free and played 12 more games than Kobe, had Yao Ming for 80 games. Kobe and Odom missed a total of 34 games. That's enough for a few wins, I'd imagine, and in that respect McGrady certainly did help his team win more games by being on the court more often.

Still, the Lakers were 25-25 with Kobe and Odom playing, and Ming has a much bigger impact than Odom/Butler (both perimeter oriented). The biggest difference is that pairing a perimeter star like McGrady with a very good center like Yao Ming gives you a more balanced attack so I don't think it's particularly surprising that they won 51 games as both guys were healthy. That's a recipe for success and about the least I'd expect.

That said, I'll repeat that I'm not advocating a spot for Kobe in the top 5. He didn't deserve it based on missing too many games, in addition to his performance towards the end of the regular season which resulted in a lack of team success.

[Doctor MJ]

Regarding your last point about the Lakers roster not being 17 games worse, I have to disagree. T-Mac, who was injury free and played 12 more games than Kobe, had Yao Ming for 80 games. Kobe and Odom missed a total of 34 games. That's enough for a few wins, I'd imagine, and in that respect McGrady certainly did help his team win more games by being on the court more often.

Still, the Lakers were 25-25 with Kobe and Odom playing, and Ming has a much bigger impact than Odom/Butler (both perimeter oriented). The biggest difference is that pairing a perimeter star like McGrady with a very good center like Yao Ming gives you a more balanced attack so I don't think it's particularly surprising that they won 51 games as both guys were healthy. That's a recipe for success and about the least I'd expect.

That said, I'll repeat that I'm not advocating a spot for Kobe in the top 5. He didn't deserve it based on missing too many games, in addition to his performance towards the end of the regular season which resulted in a lack of team success.

Mmm, we've seen McGrady without Yao, the results aren't anything like 2-19.

[semi-sentient]

Mmm, we've seen McGrady without Yao, the results aren't anything like 2-19.

How about that 1-18 start from Orlando just a season earlier, including an 18-game losing streak?

PS: Not that it matters, but Kobe was playing with Plantar Fasciitis that season, although I don't recall specifically how long it was an issue for.

[TrueLAfan]

Well, this is early Yao...who had three times as many turnovers as assists, wasn't a great rebounder, and couldn't stay out of foul trouble so that he could play more than 35 minutes a game (Yao played over 36 minutes only 7 times that year). Odom actually played as much as Yao did. Caron Butler played a lot (2700 minutes) more than either...over 800 minutes more than any Rocket besides Yao and McGrady. I think Yao was better than Odom...but not that much, not in 2005. And Butler was better than anyone else the Rockets had in their lineup. Also--and this is painful to say--Chris Mihm wasn't that bad in 2005. He hacked, sure. But he had a nice touch around the basket and scored pretty well. He and Cook basically combined for 15 points a game. I know Cook and Odom often played on the perimeter on offense...but, first, I'm not sure that's a minus. And when you've got a listed PF/C threesome combining for over 26 points and around 17 boards in 64 minutes a game, you're doing okay. Not great by any means, but okay.

Combine that with the fact that the Rockets had to scramble a lot more with their lineups because of injury. (the top 5 Laker starters averaged about 73 starts; the top 5 Rockets averaged about 64, and it went downhill from their for the Rox, who had 16 different players start 2 or more games that year), and I'm not sure the Rockets were much better, if at all...but, like I said, I feel pretty comfortable saying the Rockets without McGrady weren't 17 games better than the Lakers without Kobe. We'll just be disagreeing about this.

[semi-sentient]

Points taken about supporting cast injuries, but I still feel that Yao has considerably more impact than anyone on the Lakers roster outside of Kobe -- on both ends of the floor. Having that inside/out game would have done wonders for the team. It's not so much that Yao is way better than Odom or anything, but he brings balance to the team and just fits much better next to Kobe.

I would have gladly traded both Odom and Butler for Yao (Rockets would have laughed me out of town), and I feel very confident in saying that the Lakers would have seen a pretty significant improvement overall.

Regarding Mihm, he was serviceable on offense, but he was an atrocious defender/rebounder. A reserve at best.

[Doctor MJ]

Mmm, we've seen McGrady without Yao, the results aren't anything like 2-19.

How about that 1-18 start from Orlando just a season earlier, including an 18-game losing streak?

Touche