Retro POY '01-02 (ends Thu morning PST)

[Tesla]

1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. Kobe
4. Kidd
5. Tmac

[Dr Positivity]

Unless somebody has a really good argument convincing me, I'm voting Shaq the next 3 years. The name of the probject is Player of the Year... to me 00, 01, and 02 belong to Shaqtus. I think he was the league's alpha dog and held the conch so to speak

[Sedale Threatt]

I know some people feel a lot differently about this, but do 15 games missed really make THAT much of a difference in the discussion, especially when you're talking about someone as dominant as Shaq?

It's almost a 5th of the season (IIRC, there were also some conditioning concerns), and I think Duncan played well enough in the regular season that I gave him the edge, but barely. To me, 2001-02 was kind of a breakout season for Duncan where he started really imposing his will on teams, which was not really the case in prior seasons. Had Duncan regressed in the playoffs like he did in '00-01 against the Lakers (and I intend on punishing him for it when we get to that year) then I'd have probably given Shaq the top spot rather easily. Instead, he put up some incredible numbers overall despite not having a good enough cast to really compete with the Lakers, and his first round numbers are nothing to scoff at either.

That doesn't mean I won't change my mind though. There's lots of room for debate and maybe as I look deeper into the numbers I'll have a change of heart.

I can tell you that in 2000-01 missed games isn't going to factor in as much because Duncan was not nearly as good in the regular season and he played poorly against the Lakers in the playoffs. Essentially, he's going to go from 1st to 3rd, with Shaq and Kobe occupying the 1/2 spots.

One thing to keep in mind, don't forget that Shaq was pretty dominant against Sacramento as well -- games of 27/18, 28/7 (14 for 18 shooting); 41/17 and 35/13 after L.A. had fallen behind 2-1. So he wasn't just beating up on N.J.'s stable of chumps in the playoffs.

That's a good point, and now you got my juices flowing a little.

One thing that's not shown in those numbers is the amount of attention he attracted from Webber and Divac, in addition to having those guys in constant foul trouble. I'm still struggling with how to really weigh the post-season when one player gets all the way while another guy, while dominant as hell, doesn't quite make it. I didn't really give Kobe any extra credit for that in 2008-09, nor did I give Wade the nod in 2005-06.

Still, I think I have to weigh it somehow because Shaq really did rape the hell out of the Nets, and he was the biggest factor against the Kings -- which was the true NBA Finals for me.

Definitely a lot of factors to consider, more than I was expecting before I started thinking about it. Duncan really did have a spectacular season. But Shaq -- he was just so freaking dominant, like a force of nature. When he wanted to play, there was no one better. But the fact there is a qualification there isn't anything to be proud of on his part.

[An Unbiased Fan]

While I think he impacted his team in winning more than Bryant, it's really mind-boggling on how he won 44 games with that supporting cast. Again I know Kobe was the better defender between the two, but McGrady was no slouch, I just felt he helped his team in more ways than Bryant did, despite having an absolute mediocre supporting cast.

I would point out that the Magic were a 41 win team before Tmac came to them. So his supporting cast wasn't that horrible. He also played in an extremely weak conference, where 44 wins isn't too impressive.

[An Unbiased Fan]

#1 Shaq

RS - 27.2/10.7/3.0
PS - 28.5/12.6/2.8
Finals MVP
All-NBA 1st team

Shaq's last dominant year. He played only 67 games, but made up for it in the playoffs. He led the league in PER and won Finals MVP by dismantling the Nets weak frontcourt.

#2 Kobe

RS - 25.2/5.5/5.5
PS - 26.6/5.8/4.6

All-NBA 1st team
All-D 2nd team

Kobe leap frogged Duncan due to the 2002 SA vs LA series. I think TD had a better regular season, but came up very short in the playoffs, and as a big man only shot 45%.

Game 1: http://www.nba.com/games/20020505/SASLAL/recap.html

TD - 26 on 9-30 FG, 21 rebs, 5 assists, 4 blocks
Kobe - 20 on 8-18 FG, 2 rebs, 4 assists
Shaq - 23 on 9-22 FG, 17 rebs, 4 blocks

No one shot great in this game, both Shaq & Kobe sustained injuries during it, and TD failed to capitalize by shooting a dismal 9-30 from the field.

Game 2: http://www.nba.com/games/20020507/SASLAL/recap.html

TD - 27 on 10-19 FG, 17 rebs, 5 assists, 10 turnovers, 5 blocks
Kobe - 26 on 12-25 FG, 4 rebs, 6 assists, 3 steals
Shaq - 19 on 7-16 FG, 7 rebs, 5 assists

Shaq is hobbled, and TD leads SA to a HCA stealing game 2 win.

Game 3: http://www.nba.com/games/20020510/LALSAS/recap.html

TD - 28 on 9-26 FG, 12 rebs
Kobe - 31 on 15-31 FG, 6 rebs, 6 assists
Shaq - 22 on 10-20 FG, 15 rebs

"Bryant scored 11 of his 31 points in the final 12 minutes on 5-of-5 shooting as the Los Angeles Lakers defeated the San Antonio Spurs, 99-89, and grabbed a 2-1 lead in their best-of-seven Western Conference semifinal series."The Spurs had stolen HCA, and Kobe went into SA and took it right back. TD had his 2nd horrible shooting performance of the series, and did nothing to stop the collapse in the 4th.

Game 4: http://www.nba.com/games/20020512/LALSAS/recap.html

TD - 30 on 9-15 FG, 11 rebs, 6 assists, 4 blocks
Kobe - 28 on 10-27 FG, 7 rebs
Shaq - 22 on 9-18 FG, 11 rebs, 5 assists

"The San Antonio Spurs need someone who can make big shots at the end of playoff games. Someone like Kobe Bryant.

Bryant made a fantastic follow shot with 5.1 seconds remaining, completing a stirring comeback and giving the Los Angeles Lakers an 87-85 victory over the Spurs, who again stumbled down the stretch.

For the second straight game, the Lakers shut down the Spurs, rallied behind Bryant and stunned a huge Alamodome crowd. The two-time defending champions opened a commanding 3-1 lead in their Western Conference Semifinal series and can wrap it up with a win at home Tuesday.

"This game was a lot like the first three," Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said. "We did a lot of good things to give us a chance to win, but L.A. came through and it was another disappointing loss."

Just as he was Friday, Bryant was phenomenal in the fourth quarter, scoring 12 of his 28 points. In the last three minutes, he drilled two 3-pointers to tie the game before making the game-winner that extended the Lakers' NBA-record playoff road winning streak to 11 games.

"I love playing in pressure-type situations," Bryant said. "I've grown into this role, to deliver when the game is on the line."

"Coming out of the huddle before the last shot, I said to him, 'Bring it home for us,'" Lakers forward Samaki Walker said. "And he said, 'This is what I live for.' He's that kind of player."

Both coaches were blown away by Bryant's ability to take over the endgame."


Game 5: http://www.nba.com/games/20020514/SASLAL/recap.html

TD - 34 on 11-23 FG, 25 rebs, 4 assists, 6 turnovers
Kobe - 26 on 10-20 FG, 8 rebs, 5 assists
Shaq - 21 on 7-18 FG, 11 rebs, 6 blocks

"The Los Angeles Lakers used a familiar formula to get back to the Western Conference finals: Kobe Bryant making shots in the fourth quarter and the San Antonio Spurs missing them. Bryant scored 26 points and again starred down the stretch and the Lakers dispatched the sputtering Spurs in five games with a 93-87 victory."


Duncan put up decent numbers, inlcuding a MONSTER game 5, but Kobe outperformed him, especially in the 4th and led LA to the WCF. So this is what gives Kobe the slight edge over Duncan, IMO. Shaq had a subpar series, but made up for it in the 2 following series.


#3 Duncan

RS - 25.5/12.7/3.7
PS - 27.6/14.4/5.0
MVP
All-NBA 1st
All-D 1st

MVP year for Duncan, that ended with a thud in the playoffs. See post above for explaiantion.


#4 Kidd

RS - 14.7/7.3/9.9
PS - 19.6/8.2/9.1

All-NBA 1st
All-D 1st

Good all-around year. Put up trip-doub type numbers leading NJ to the Finals. Great on defense, and the best passer during the year.

#5 Pierce

RS - 26.1/6.9/3.2
PS - 24.6/8.6/4.1

All-NBA 3rd

Underrated year. Pierce was the best wing player not named Kobe this year. Was solid the whole season, and amped it up in the playoffs.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

He also played in an extremely weak conference, where 44 wins isn't too impressive.

I just wanted to point out, the strength of conference argument in relation to regular season wins is an extraordinarily weak one. The conference you are in only determines around 20 of the 82 games on your schedule every season, and beyond that, you have to go through and actually research whether a team actually played better or worse vs a specific conference.

If you actually want to prove the conference argument, you have to show McGrady and the Magic fared worse in games against the West than the East, and the same in reverse for the Lakers and Kobe.

[semi-sentient]

Well, I already done flip-flopped my #1 and #2. Reasons are listed in my OP, although I'm going to give it more thought. It's a really tough choice.

[An Unbiased Fan]

He also played in an extremely weak conference, where 44 wins isn't too impressive.

I just wanted to point out, the strength of conference argument in relation to regular season wins is an extraordinarily weak one. The conference you are in only determines around 20 of the 82 games on your schedule every season, and beyond that, you have to go through and actually research whether a team actually played better or worse vs a specific conference.

If you actually want to prove the conference argument, you have to show McGrady and the Magic fared worse in games against the West than the East, and the same in reverse for the Lakers and Kobe.

Fair enough. Orlando was 29-25 vs the East, and 15-13 vs the West. In the West the Magic are a #8 seed. Back East they ended up in the 4 vs 5 matchup. I just think the pressures on a team to make it out West, were tougher than what a team out East had to deal with. Conference foes battle each other tougher because seeding is on the line.

[Silver Bullet]

He also played in an extremely weak conference, where 44 wins isn't too impressive.

I just wanted to point out, the strength of conference argument in relation to regular season wins is an extraordinarily weak one. The conference you are in only determines around 20 of the 82 games on your schedule every season, and beyond that, you have to go through and actually research whether a team actually played better or worse vs a specific conference.

If you actually want to prove the conference argument, you have to show McGrady and the Magic fared worse in games against the West than the East, and the same in reverse for the Lakers and Kobe.

That's a weak argument -

Look at this schedule for two .500 teams-

Team 1 -
Jan 1 - Raptors
Jan 3 - Knicks
Jan 5 - Bulls
Jan 6 - Pacers
Jan 9 - Mavericks
Jan 11 - San Antonio
Jan 13 - Clippers

Team 2 -
Jan 1 - Lakers
Jan 3 - Jazz
Jan 5 - Spurs
Jan 6 - Nuggets
Jan 9 - Knicks
Jan 11 - Raptors
Jan 13 - Bulls

You don't think it's easier for Team 1 to go 2-1 on it's Western Road trip, than it is for Team 2 to win .666 against the West ?

By the time Team 1 goes on it's Western road trip, it's could've gone 3-1 over it's last 4 games and feeling fairly good about itself. It goes into Dallas high on confidence and having good chemistry.

Team 2 could very well have gone 1-3 in it's Jan 1-10 games, and by the time it's going on the Eastern roadtrip, it is exhausted, low on confidence and having chemistry problems -

You don't think Team 1 has an advantage, when it comes to back to backs and situations where there are 4 games in a week or 5 games in 7 nights -

[Tim_Hardawayy]

He also played in an extremely weak conference, where 44 wins isn't too impressive.

I just wanted to point out, the strength of conference argument in relation to regular season wins is an extraordinarily weak one. The conference you are in only determines around 20 of the 82 games on your schedule every season, and beyond that, you have to go through and actually research whether a team actually played better or worse vs a specific conference.

If you actually want to prove the conference argument, you have to show McGrady and the Magic fared worse in games against the West than the East, and the same in reverse for the Lakers and Kobe.

Fair enough. Orlando was 29-25 vs the East, and 15-13 vs the West. In the West the Magic are a #8 seed. Back East they ended up in the 4 vs 5 matchup. I just think the pressures on a team to make it out West, were tougher than what a team out East had to deal with. Conference foes battle each other tougher because seeding is on the line.

I don't know if I could agree with your last 2 sentences, but I do agree playoff seeding and playoff success is an important factor when considering conference.

I just think that's where the argument needs to be made. Arguing against Orlando making the playoffs in the West (they would've been tied with Utah for the 8th seed), or for a Western team advancing further in the East playoffs, is reasonable.

But saying Orlando wins less than 44 because they played in the East rather than the West is reaching.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

He also played in an extremely weak conference, where 44 wins isn't too impressive.

I just wanted to point out, the strength of conference argument in relation to regular season wins is an extraordinarily weak one. The conference you are in only determines around 20 of the 82 games on your schedule every season, and beyond that, you have to go through and actually research whether a team actually played better or worse vs a specific conference.

If you actually want to prove the conference argument, you have to show McGrady and the Magic fared worse in games against the West than the East, and the same in reverse for the Lakers and Kobe.

That's a weak argument -

Look at this schedule for two .500 teams-

Team 1 -
Jan 1 - Raptors
Jan 3 - Knicks
Jan 5 - Bulls
Jan 6 - Pacers
Jan 9 - Mavericks
Jan 11 - San Antonio
Jan 13 - Clippers

Team 2 -
Jan 1 - Lakers
Jan 3 - Jazz
Jan 5 - Spurs
Jan 6 - Nuggets
Jan 9 - Knicks
Jan 11 - Raptors
Jan 13 - Bulls

You don't think it's easier for Team 1 to go 2-1 on it's Western Road trip, than it is for Team 2 to win .666 against the West ?

By the time Team 1 goes on it's Western road trip, it's could've gone 3-1 over it's last 4 games and feeling fairly good about itself. It goes into Dallas high on confidence and having good chemistry.

Team 2 could very well have gone 1-3 in it's Jan 1-10 games, and by the time it's going on the Eastern roadtrip, it is exhausted, low on confidence and having chemistry problems -

You don't think Team 1 has an advantage, when it comes to back to backs and situations where there are 4 games in a week or 5 games in 7 nights -

Silver Bullet, Unbiased Fan actually gave me a reasonable and fair response, and looked up his information.

You made up a completely fabricated hypothetical with selective data to prove your point.

I hope you see the difference. I'll let someone else respond to this post if they actually feel its a relevant point, I don't.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Fair enough. Orlando was 29-25 vs the East, and 15-13 vs the West. In the West the Magic are a #8 seed. Back East they ended up in the 4 vs 5 matchup. I just think the pressures on a team to make it out West, were tougher than what a team out East had to deal with. Conference foes battle each other tougher because seeding is on the line.

I don't know if I could agree with your last 2 sentences, but I do agree playoff seeding and playoff success is an important factor when considering conference.

I just think that's where the argument needs to be made. Arguing against Orlando making the playoffs in the West (they would've been tied with Utah for the 8th seed), or for a Western team advancing further in the East playoffs, is reasonable.

But saying Orlando wins less than 44 because they played in the East rather than the West is reaching.

Think of this way. When LA played Sactown, SA, Dallas, Portland, etc., those teams all raised their games because it was a rivalry game. I think teams typically let down against out of conference foes.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

Think of this way. When LA played Sactown, SA, Dallas, Portland, etc., those teams all raised their games because it was a rivalry game. I think teams typically let down agianst out of conference foes.

That's a subjective argument with no statistical backing though.

More likely (and I should research this data, maybe will if I get deep enough into this), the record balances out because there were more poor teams in the West than there were in the East.

East teams who missed the playoffs that year were 227-347, a winning percentage of .395, while West teams who missed the playoffs were 174-318, a winning percentage of .354. So it could be argued that there were more easy games on the schedule for a team that played in the West.

[Silver Bullet]

I just wanted to point out, the strength of conference argument in relation to regular season wins is an extraordinarily weak one. The conference you are in only determines around 20 of the 82 games on your schedule every season, and beyond that, you have to go through and actually research whether a team actually played better or worse vs a specific conference.

If you actually want to prove the conference argument, you have to show McGrady and the Magic fared worse in games against the West than the East, and the same in reverse for the Lakers and Kobe.

That's a weak argument -

Look at this schedule for two .500 teams-

Team 1 -
Jan 1 - Raptors
Jan 3 - Knicks
Jan 5 - Bulls
Jan 6 - Pacers
Jan 9 - Mavericks
Jan 11 - San Antonio
Jan 13 - Clippers

Team 2 -
Jan 1 - Lakers
Jan 3 - Jazz
Jan 5 - Spurs
Jan 6 - Nuggets
Jan 9 - Knicks
Jan 11 - Raptors
Jan 13 - Bulls

You don't think it's easier for Team 1 to go 2-1 on it's Western Road trip, than it is for Team 2 to win .666 against the West ?

By the time Team 1 goes on it's Western road trip, it's could've gone 3-1 over it's last 4 games and feeling fairly good about itself. It goes into Dallas high on confidence and having good chemistry.

Team 2 could very well have gone 1-3 in it's Jan 1-10 games, and by the time it's going on the Eastern roadtrip, it is exhausted, low on confidence and having chemistry problems -

You don't think Team 1 has an advantage, when it comes to back to backs and situations where there are 4 games in a week or 5 games in 7 nights -

Silver Bullet, Unbiased Fan actually gave me a reasonable and fair response, and looked up his information.

You made up a completely fabricated hypothetical with selective data to prove your point.

I hope you see the difference. I'll let someone else respond to this post if they actually feel its a relevant point, I don't.

Tim Hardawayy,

First of all there is no such thing as a fabricated hypothetical - that doesn't make any sense -
And a hypothetical by definition can't have selective data - not to mention my post doesn't include any data to begin with.

Second, you're asking people to prove a flawed point - and when someone points out the fallacy, you're just going to ignore it, because it serves your purposes. Anybody with one eye knew that from 1999-2003, the Conference imbalance was at it's worst in history. There were multiple articles every year arguing for the abolishment of Conferences, because it was unfair to the Western Conference teams and because it made the Finals a laughter fest.

Third, this is basic common sense. The ordering makes a ton of difference even if each team played the exact same teams all season - Battling night in and night out in the early 00's against the Trailblazers, Kings, Jazz, Mavericks, Spurs, Timberwolves, Lakers was a lot different than battling the Raptors, Knicks, Heat and Bulls while flying over every now and then for a road trip.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

Tim Hardawayy,

First of all there is no such thing as a fabricated hypothetical - that doesn't make any sense -
And a hypothetical by definition can't have selective data - not to mention my post doesn't include any data to begin with.

I was kind of rambling there, sorry.

As for the actual point about regular season record being significantly influenced by the Conference, and this having a measurable impact relevant to the purposes of this project, I'm sure if its meaningful, someone else among the 20-30 involved in this project will use it as an argument as well. Nobody has tried to do it yet. Maybe you are the pioneer who will open others eyes.

[drza]

Early thoughts:

*Shaq vs Duncan for #1 this year. I'm leaning Duncan, but it's close enough that I'm still thinking on it.

*Not sure what to do with Kidd here. Live action, in '02 I thought Kidd should have won MVP over Duncan in large part because of the big turnaround. In hindsight I think Duncan was clearly better/more impactful, but not sure what to do with Kidd. Could end up like '05, where Kidd (in the Shaq/Nash role) moves around a lot based on others' arguments

*I'm surprised that there is such an early consensus that TMac, Kobe and Kidd are definitely the other 3 members of the top-5. I'm not surprised that they're getting votes, nor would I have been shocked if they actually ended up 3 - 5. But I would have thought I'd see more action for Dirk and KG.

*This is the first year with no +/-, which takes away one of the tools I really like to use to gauge impact. Considering that the Wins Produced data is also extremely limited by this point, the only advanced stats left are PER and WS...I don't like/trust them as much in the absence of the other two stats (which I think balances areas where PER and WS come up short), which I'm sure will bug me often moving forward (er...backward through time) in this project.

*I'm not sure how to evaluate Kobe. This will be common moving forward (er, back) for the next few years. I clearly thought, at this point, that it was Shaq's team. But Kobe did a lot as well. I'm just not sure how to measure him vs guys like Dirk, KG or Tmac that I thought were as good/better but in different situations. Will have to marinate on this

[Silver Bullet]

Tim Hardawayy,

First of all there is no such thing as a fabricated hypothetical - that doesn't make any sense -
And a hypothetical by definition can't have selective data - not to mention my post doesn't include any data to begin with.

I was kind of rambling there, sorry.

As for the actual point about regular season record being significantly influenced by the Conference, and this having a measurable impact relevant to the purposes of this project, I'm sure if its meaningful, someone else among the 20-30 involved in this project will use it as an argument as well. Nobody has tried to do it yet. Maybe you are the pioneer who will open others eyes.

because it's obvious -

Only a delusional person would think the Magic or any Eastern team would have the same record in the Western Conference in 2001-02.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

because it's obvious -

Only a delusional person would think the Magic or any Eastern team would have the same record in the Western Conference in 2001-02.

How can you accuse me of fallacies and then make a statement like that?

[sp6r=underrated]

I still haven't figure out who I am going to be voting for. My mind right now is leaning back strongly towards Shaq for the number one position.

The other players I possibly could have in my top 5: Bryant, Duncan, Garnett, Kidd, McGrady, Nowitzki
I guess my order right now is:

1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. McGrady
4. Nowizki
5. Kidd

I am open to persuasion though. I could be convinced for KG being in the top 5. While I do weigh the playoffs a lot (and I'm sure someone like Gongxi would say too much) Head to Head have never meant as much to me as it does to other people. I consider it far worse to get outplayed by an average player or just good player rather than the elite.

I can see the case for Kobe. My problem with his 2002 campaign is I didn't think of him as a top 5 player in the RS and the post-season didn't change my mind. His play in the Sacramento Series was poor for large portions of the games (2-5), and he had a lot of cold starts in the SA series. The counter-point to this position is his defense was very effective at shutting down the Kings perimeter players, and he did turn around the 4th quarter as accurately pointed out by the only unbiased poster in this thread; An Unbiased Fan. I just don't feel comfortable elevating him over T-Mac who I felt was the better player in the RS that.

My opinions on Kidd's season change all the time. I doubt I'll reach a firm opinion on it in this thread.

My ambivalence for this season is different from 01 were I have the LA duo basically locked in at 1-2. Shaq and Kobe were the best players in the PS by such a large margin that it will take a very well articulated argument to change my opinion.

[Doctor MJ]

*This is the first year with no +/-, which takes away one of the tools I really like to use to gauge impact. Considering that the Wins Produced data is also extremely limited by this point, the only advanced stats left are PER and WS...I don't like/trust them as much in the absence of the other two stats (which I think balances areas where PER and WS come up short), which I'm sure will bug me often moving forward (er...backward through time) in this project.

As a farewell to +/- as we go into the past, this is an interesting read:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/w ... 04/13/mvp/

The topic is the 2006 MVP race, but it goes into the roots of the team net +/- stat which was evidently developed by the Timberwolves to illustrate Garnett's impact.