Retro Player of the Year UPDATE 1999-2000 — Shaquille O’Neal

[Djoker]

Let's do Shaq.

RS Performance: 25 points (All-Time)
PS Performance: 50 points (Historic)
Accomplishments: 19 points (Championship + MVP + FInals MVP + 1st Team All-NBA + 2nd Team All-Defense)

.

The implication Shaq was better in the postseason when
-> The Lakers far underperformed their regular season (despite getting alot more kobe byrany)
-> Lakers specifically collapsed in terms of paint-defense (whose responsible for that do we think?)
-> His defense goes from league-best to below average
-> His offensive numbers aren't better in the postseason

is pretty odd.

Lakers only really underperformed in the Portland series which is a legitimately great team. In the Finals, they did about as expected considering Kobe's injury. Plus historic is relative to other players. A lot of people had Shaq-like RS but very very few if any had a 2000 Shaq-like PS.

[jjgp111292]

#1 is right there with '87 Magic, '91/96 MJ and '12/'13 LeBron as no-brainers lmao

[AEnigma]

The implication Shaq was better in the postseason when
-> The Lakers far underperformed their regular season (despite getting alot more kobe byrany)
-> Lakers specifically collapsed in terms of paint-defense (whose responsible for that do we think?)
-> His defense goes from league-best to below average
-> His offensive numbers aren't better in the postseason

is pretty odd.

Lakers only really underperformed in the Portland series which is a legitimately great team. In the Finals, they did about as expected considering Kobe's injury. Plus historic is relative to other players. A lot of people had Shaq-like RS but very very few if any had a 2000 Shaq-like PS.

Seems like what you really mean is that very few ever scored 38 points a game in the Finals. Nothing about his western conference run nor his overall run is particularly abnormal for players of this calibre.

[Djoker]

The implication Shaq was better in the postseason when
-> The Lakers far underperformed their regular season (despite getting alot more kobe byrany)
-> Lakers specifically collapsed in terms of paint-defense (whose responsible for that do we think?)
-> His defense goes from league-best to below average
-> His offensive numbers aren't better in the postseason

is pretty odd.

Lakers only really underperformed in the Portland series which is a legitimately great team. In the Finals, they did about as expected considering Kobe's injury. Plus historic is relative to other players. A lot of people had Shaq-like RS but very very few if any had a 2000 Shaq-like PS.

Seems like what you really mean is that very few ever scored 38 points a game in the Finals. Nothing about his western conference run nor his overall run is particularly abnormal for players of this calibre.

Well yea.. that finals performance was a big part of it.

But anyways it's not controversial to say that 2000 Shaq PS was historic. It's one of the greatest ever by a big man.

[OhayoKD]

The implication Shaq was better in the postseason when
-> The Lakers far underperformed their regular season (despite getting alot more kobe byrany)
-> Lakers specifically collapsed in terms of paint-defense (whose responsible for that do we think?)
-> His defense goes from league-best to below average
-> His offensive numbers aren't better in the postseason

is pretty odd.

Lakers only really underperformed in the Portland series which is a legitimately great team. In the Finals, they did about as expected considering Kobe's injury. Plus historic is relative to other players. A lot of people had Shaq-like RS but very very few if any had a 2000 Shaq-like PS.

They went from 17th in regular-season srs to 96th in sans PSRS and that latter is significantly inflated by the Suns who beat the Spurs without Tim Duncan. For reference they performed worse than the 86 Rockets against much weaker opposition

Kobe plays way more minutes and contributed more in the playoffs than the regular-season. Not sure why you're ignoring defense to say Shaq didn't get worse.

But anyways it's not controversial to say that 2000 Shaq PS was historic. It's one of the greatest ever by a big man.

Who cares if it's controversial. If you have to ignore defense to say it was historic, then it obviously wasn't.

[Djoker]

The implication Shaq was better in the postseason when
-> The Lakers far underperformed their regular season (despite getting alot more kobe byrany)
-> Lakers specifically collapsed in terms of paint-defense (whose responsible for that do we think?)
-> His defense goes from league-best to below average
-> His offensive numbers aren't better in the postseason

is pretty odd.

Lakers only really underperformed in the Portland series which is a legitimately great team. In the Finals, they did about as expected considering Kobe's injury. Plus historic is relative to other players. A lot of people had Shaq-like RS but very very few if any had a 2000 Shaq-like PS.

They went from 17th in regular-season srs to 96th in sans PSRS and that latter is significantly inflated by the Suns who beat the Spurs without Tim Duncan. For reference they performed worse than the 86 Rockets against much weaker opposition

Kobe plays way more minutes and contributed more in the playoffs than the regular-season. Not sure why you're ignoring defense to say Shaq didn't get worse.

But anyways it's not controversial to say that 2000 Shaq PS was historic. It's one of the greatest ever by a big man.

Who cares if it's controversial. If you have to ignore defense to say it was historic, then it obviously wasn't.

Sure it's historic because Shaq's offense was GOAT level for a big.

Again, accounting for Kobe's injury in the Finals, the only series the Lakers really struggled was the WCF against a really good Blazers team.

[Special_Puppy]

FWIW for specific numbers. The Lakers relative offensive efficiency rose from 3.2 in the RS to 8.8 in the Playoffs. The Lakers relative defensive efficiency dropped from -5.9 in the RS to 1.0 in the Playoffs though.

[lessthanjake]

I think it’d be a bit silly to use small-sample team data to draw some strong conclusion about how an individual player played on one side of the ball in one playoffs. To begin with, single-season playoff offensive and defensive ratings are small-sample data points that are subject to a good bit of noise. But even beyond that, one individual player is obviously not the only thing that affects team offensive and defensive rating—there’s nine other players on the court at any given time. It is quite common for teammates and opposite to play notably better or worse than normal. So, did Shaq play a lot worse on defense in the 2000 playoffs than he did in the regular season? Maybe. The team’s playoff rDRTG is a data point in favor of that argument, but it is hardly conclusive at all.

And it starts to be even less conclusive when we realize that the Lakers gave up 9 fewer points per 100 possessions in the playoffs with Shaq on the floor than with Shaq off the floor. The off-sample is obviously quite small, so I wouldn’t draw a strong pro-Shaq conclusion from that piece of information, but it does go to show that some of the 2000 Lakers drop in relative defensive efficiency in the playoffs was actually driven by giving up a lot of points with Shaq off the floor (which probably was just noise, given that the team did well defensively with him off the floor in the RS).

[70sFan]

I think it’d be a bit silly to use small-sample team data to draw some strong conclusion about how an individual player played on one side of the ball in one playoffs. To begin with, single-season playoff offensive and defensive ratings are small-sample data points that are subject to a good bit of noise. But even beyond that, one individual player is obviously not the only thing that affects team offensive and defensive rating—there’s nine other players on the court at any given time. It is quite common for teammates and opposite to play notably better or worse than normal. So, did Shaq play a lot worse on defense in the 2000 playoffs than he did in the regular season? Maybe. The team’s playoff rDRTG is a data point in favor of that argument, but it is hardly conclusive at all.

And it starts to be even less conclusive when we realize that the Lakers gave up 9 fewer points per 100 possessions in the playoffs with Shaq on the floor than with Shaq off the floor. The off-sample is obviously quite small, so I wouldn’t draw a strong pro-Shaq conclusion from that piece of information, but it does go to show that some of the 2000 Lakers drop in relative defensive efficiency in the playoffs was actually driven by giving up a lot of points with Shaq off the floor (which probably was just noise, given that the team did well defensively with him off the floor in the RS).

I think the playoff DRtg alone is not enough to decide that one player disappointed in the playoffs, but I tracked almost all games from that run and Shaq was underwhelming for my eye. Not really bad for Shaq standards - it's just that people always kept talking about Shaq caring about defense and being DPOY caliber in this one outlier year... and I don't see it. He had the same problem he always had (poor fundamentals, low motor, silly fouls, no consistency as a rim protector) and the strengths he provided weren't that different from what he did in the surrounding years.

[lessthanjake]

I think it’d be a bit silly to use small-sample team data to draw some strong conclusion about how an individual player played on one side of the ball in one playoffs. To begin with, single-season playoff offensive and defensive ratings are small-sample data points that are subject to a good bit of noise. But even beyond that, one individual player is obviously not the only thing that affects team offensive and defensive rating—there’s nine other players on the court at any given time. It is quite common for teammates and opposite to play notably better or worse than normal. So, did Shaq play a lot worse on defense in the 2000 playoffs than he did in the regular season? Maybe. The team’s playoff rDRTG is a data point in favor of that argument, but it is hardly conclusive at all.

And it starts to be even less conclusive when we realize that the Lakers gave up 9 fewer points per 100 possessions in the playoffs with Shaq on the floor than with Shaq off the floor. The off-sample is obviously quite small, so I wouldn’t draw a strong pro-Shaq conclusion from that piece of information, but it does go to show that some of the 2000 Lakers drop in relative defensive efficiency in the playoffs was actually driven by giving up a lot of points with Shaq off the floor (which probably was just noise, given that the team did well defensively with him off the floor in the RS).

I think the playoff DRtg alone is not enough to decide that one player disappointed in the playoffs, but I tracked almost all games from that run and Shaq was underwhelming for my eye. Not really bad for Shaq standards - it's just that people always kept talking about Shaq caring about defense and being DPOY caliber in this one outlier year... and I don't see it. He had the same problem he always had (poor fundamentals, low motor, silly fouls, no consistency as a rim protector) and the strengths he provided weren't that different from what he did in the surrounding years.

Yeah, I think that’s perfectly plausible and I trust your view on this more than my own pretty vague recollection of those playoffs (I don’t recall watching much of the playoffs that year to be honest). So I don’t disagree with the conclusion you present above. My point was more just that I don’t find the specific data that was previously presented by others to be all that convincing regarding Shaq’s individual defense in those playoffs. I’d say that even just your personal eye test is something I’d personally put more weight on than changes in team rDRTG over small samples that are in part skewed by awful defense in the “off” portion of the sample.

I also note that it sounds to me like your conclusion is actually different than the one being asserted by others. You seem to be saying you don’t think Shaq’s defense was particularly impressive that year in general, as opposed to saying it was impressive in the RS but bad in the playoffs. That strikes me as an interesting difference actually, and one that bears on how good Shaq’s year was overall. I think Shaq is POY in 1999-2000 even if we took the dimmest view of his defense, but in the broader scheme of things your view perhaps actually puts this season for Shaq lower on an all-time peak list (and perhaps less far ahead of other players in this season).

[AEnigma]

70sFan specifically said “in that run”, which is a reference to the postseason. But unless the argument is that Shaq suddenly stopped trying to play good defence in the postseason, separating his regular season defence from his postseason defence feels like an effort to pick and choose whatever results best advance the popular narrative.

And I know the popular narrative is that Phil Jackson finally convinced Shaq to try, that the result was a 67-win title-winning regular season, and that Shaq became lazy again and the Lakers went back to a more typical regular season level, but nothing supports that to any significant degree. Yeah, Shaq was probably more engaged than usual that season (to make a definitive statement would require dozens of games closely tracked across multiple seasons), but no data supports Shaq having some outlier defensive season in any rate sense. To the extent we agree it is the best of his career, it is only by slight margins.

Where Shaq did provide abnormal value was in his minutes played: it was the second-highest minute load of his career, and by far his most minutes played since 1995. Prime Shaq was always a capable shot-blocker, always a capable rebounder, always stout in the post, etc., but you do not go from 23rd to 1st to 21st on defence by one player simply being a little more active on the boards, a little more careful with rotations, a little more willing to contest players at the rim…

[70sFan]

I think it’d be a bit silly to use small-sample team data to draw some strong conclusion about how an individual player played on one side of the ball in one playoffs. To begin with, single-season playoff offensive and defensive ratings are small-sample data points that are subject to a good bit of noise. But even beyond that, one individual player is obviously not the only thing that affects team offensive and defensive rating—there’s nine other players on the court at any given time. It is quite common for teammates and opposite to play notably better or worse than normal. So, did Shaq play a lot worse on defense in the 2000 playoffs than he did in the regular season? Maybe. The team’s playoff rDRTG is a data point in favor of that argument, but it is hardly conclusive at all.

And it starts to be even less conclusive when we realize that the Lakers gave up 9 fewer points per 100 possessions in the playoffs with Shaq on the floor than with Shaq off the floor. The off-sample is obviously quite small, so I wouldn’t draw a strong pro-Shaq conclusion from that piece of information, but it does go to show that some of the 2000 Lakers drop in relative defensive efficiency in the playoffs was actually driven by giving up a lot of points with Shaq off the floor (which probably was just noise, given that the team did well defensively with him off the floor in the RS).

I think the playoff DRtg alone is not enough to decide that one player disappointed in the playoffs, but I tracked almost all games from that run and Shaq was underwhelming for my eye. Not really bad for Shaq standards - it's just that people always kept talking about Shaq caring about defense and being DPOY caliber in this one outlier year... and I don't see it. He had the same problem he always had (poor fundamentals, low motor, silly fouls, no consistency as a rim protector) and the strengths he provided weren't that different from what he did in the surrounding years.

Yeah, I think that’s perfectly plausible and I trust your view on this more than my own pretty vague recollection of those playoffs (I don’t recall watching much of the playoffs that year to be honest). So I don’t disagree with the conclusion you present above. My point was more just that I don’t find the specific data that was previously presented by others to be all that convincing regarding Shaq’s individual defense in those playoffs. I’d say that even just your personal eye test is something I’d personally put my weight on than changes in team rDRTG over small samples that are in part skewed by awful defense in the “off” portion of the sample.

I also note that it sounds to me like your conclusion is actually different than the one being asserted by others. You seem to be saying you don’t think Shaq’s defense was particularly impressive that year in general, as opposed to saying it was impressive in the RS but bad in the playoffs. That strikes me as an interesting difference actually, and one that bears on how good Shaq’s year was overall. I think Shaq is POY in 1999-2000 even if we took the dimmest view of his defense, but in the broader scheme of things your view perhaps actually puts this season for Shaq lower on an all-time peak list (and perhaps less far ahead of other players in this season).

It was impressive relative to his standards, because he put more effort on that end on consistent basis and he seemed to understand the team defensive identity better than before (although I'd say it's more reflective of Phil coaching work). He was definitely more motivated than on average year. the most important issues he always had weren't healed though and teams in the playoffs could exploit that.

I don't know if I am low on Shaq's peak all-time. Maybe in a sense that I value guys like Kareem and Hakeem a bit higher, which is unusual for most lists, but I wouldn't say I am low on him. Unless you have very unrealistic view of his level (unstoppable force that will dunk on you 95% of the time without double teams and that was any defense proof), I don't think I will be far lower. I find his offense extremely impressive with only two centers finishing higher than him on that end all-time. His offensive style was very resilient and hard to scheme against. He also fits fairly well with perimeter volume scorers and that's not something you can say about all post players. His off-ball offensive game is probably the most underrated thing in the league history.

Defense is quite a weak point in comparison to top 10 centers all-time though. He's not a bad defender in absolute sense, but it hurts when you have glaring weaknesses on that end when you compete with two-way monsters like Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt or Duncan.

About this specific year - I have him very far ahead of anyone else, it's a very clear POY choice (one of the clearest ever). Healthy Duncan was always a strong competitor, but he wasn't healthy that year and neither he was close in the RS. The next year is much more interesting on that matter.

[capfan33]

I would generally agree with lessthanjakes point that you have to be careful using offense/defense splits in the playoffs specifically due to how individual playoff series can be very weird when it comes to splits. The archetypal example I use for this is the 72 WCF between the Lakers and Bucks where I want to say the Bucks had a -12 defense, or something along those lines.

Based on the numbers it looks like Kareem is having Russell+ levels of impact defensively. But if you actually watch or read about the series, it was a gritty, grind it out affair that was physical and defensively oriented with major injuries to the Bucks, and it's pretty evident that Kareem was not actually having -12 Russell+ level impact defensively, it's a function of how the series was played contextually (although his defense was superb).

But even when looking at the overall splits, the Lakers clearly fell off in the playoffs compared to their regular season dominance, which I do think dings this season somewhat even though Shaq is a clear #1. And I also agree that this idea that Shaq all of a suddenly decided to try and play defense for the only time in his career is a bit odd and is not something we typically see of players. Moreover, Shaq generally had bad habits on defense that weren't just a function of motor/effort ala Kareem, and so once again, the idea he just turned his brain on and gained defensive IQ for a single season doesn't really pass the smell test.

[One_and_Done]

1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. KG
4. K.Malone
5. Mourning

Shaq is an easy (and hopefully unanimous) #1 for me. He was at his absolute peak this year, which ranks favourably among the best peaks of all-time. Unstoppable on O, and providing a good amount of interior D and intimidation inside.

Duncan was still one of the top 2 players in the league this year, and as I explained earlier in this thread his injury can only be held against him by me so much. He holds the #2 spot, for his huge 2 way impact (especially on D).

KG led a solid by not spectacular Wolves team to 50 wins. That isn’t the sort of lift we see from Duncan or peak Shaq, but it’s still an easy #3 for me.

K.Malone has declined slightly from his best, but his 2 way impact was still borderline MVP level (especially in a weak year like 00). He’s a worthy #4 for me, and his impact can be seen clearly on the 55 win Jazz. After that, I default to Zo. I don’t think he was quite as good as he used to be, and his kidney issue was potentially already affecting him. However, the real drop comes next year, so for now he stays in my #5 spot. I also considered Grant Hill very strongly here.

[lessthanjake]

I don't see the logic in punishing guys much for random injuries that took place at inconvenient times. Like, Kobe got hurt in the finals, so his injury matters less than Duncan's injury in the 1st round? How does that work? If Duncan had Shaq then the Spurs get past the 1st round and Duncan comes back for Rnd 2 and nobody cares about or remembers his injury.

The injury isn't irrelevant, it's keeping Duncan from #1 because with the games he missed in the RS and PS he can't compete with Shaq's peak year, but Duncan's still going to be in my top 5.

I see the point in punishing random injuries because those injuries are affecting what that player contributed in games for the given year. If a player gets injured and is DNP in the PS, he's giving his team zero contribution across the board. Thus Duncan is not making my ballot and Kobe almost certainly isn't. Without injury they probably both would but you can't rank players on what ifs.

You have to rank players on what happened, but what happened is also based on opportunity.

There are years Kobe or Barkley got eliminated in the 1st round. So am I to assume they were healthier than Kawhi in 2017, when he got a random injury 2 rounds later? I think that's kind of ridiculous.

Duncan was hurt, which matters, but it also matters that the injury wasn't that severe and he could have come back the next round if he had been fortunate enough to have a support cast as good as some of these other guys.

I’m not sure it should matter at all that you think Duncan “could have come back the next round if he had been fortunate enough to have a support cast as good as some of these other guys.” The voting guidelines specifically say: “You can factor things like degree of difficulty as defined by you, but what you can't do is ignore how the player actually played on the floor this season in favor of what he might have done if only...” Talking about how he might’ve been able to come back if only his team had won without him seems like a pretty textbook exactly of ignoring what occurred in reality in favor of an if-only. Duncan didn’t play in the playoffs, so I don’t think it should matter whether he might’ve hypothetically been able to play in later rounds or not.

That said, to address your point about Kobe/Barkley/Kawhi, I do tend to think that it’s right not to punish someone too much for being injured in a later round that another player didn’t get to. To me, if Player A lost in the first round of the playoffs, while Player B won in the first round of the playoffs while playing exactly as well as Player A did and then was injured for the second round of the playoffs, there’s no difference between the players. If comparing to Player A, I wouldn’t penalize Player B for being injured in a round that Player A did not play in. However, it would be a significant negative for Player B if he were being compared to a Player C that was healthy in the playoffs and played well in additional rounds. I also probably wouldn’t weigh Player B’s playoff performance very highly compared to a player who performed worse in the playoffs (or perhaps who didn’t play in the playoffs at all) because there basically wasn’t any championship equity there since Player B got injured. So a player who played better than Player B in the RS might be ahead of Player B overall despite performing worse in the playoffs when they both played (or despite not playing in the playoffs at all). But the same would also be true for Player A—who might well be ranked below someone who played better in the regular season but missed the playoffs or played badly in the playoffs, because playing well in a first-round loss just isn’t that meaningful. In other words, to me, being injured in a round is basically just akin to having lost in the prior round.

Obviously this gets complicated with something like Giannis 2021—where he was injured during a round but did actually come back later and do really well. That’s a more complicated situation, and is one I see much less negatively than one where the player never came back in the playoffs. Of course, that can be to the benefit of a player whose team can stay afloat in the playoffs without them, but it seems like the right approach to me when an exercise is about what happened in reality, rather than what might’ve happened in some hypothetical entirely-even-playing-field world. Of course, a situation like Giannis 2021 still should be discounted to some degree, because he obviously had some playoff games he did not contribute to at all, but he also later made massive contributions in the Finals, so that’s far more meaningful playoff contribution than someone who got injured and never came back.

[B-Mitch 30]

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Shaquille O’Neal

Despite my dislike of Shaq’s free throw issues, it’s impossible not to acknowledge his offensive dominance this year. The Lakers were in the top 8 of turnover percentage, offensive rebounding, and free throws per field goal attempt, while having an above average eFG, with Shaq leading the NBA in scoring and field goal percentage. His stats in the playoffs were even better, as he won his first championship.

2. Karl Malone

Malone’s turnover problem was less of an issue this year, and he had probably his best shooting season we have shot chart data for. The Jazz’s offense was arguably better than the Lakers’ in some respects, and Malone had a good postseason, reaching the second round after scoring his playoff career high, and managing to win a game against a loaded Trail Blazers team.

3. Kevin Garnett

The Timberwolves were above average offensively, except when it came to free throws per field goal attempt, but they compensated for this a bit by having one of the best free throw percentages in the league. KG was clearly the engine that made the team go, being either 1st or 2nd on every positive box score, and having his best season shooting three-pointers. Of course, Minnesota lost badly to the Trail Blazers, but I’m going to give KG a little slack for not doing well against a team with Pippen, Sabonis, Steve Smith, Damon Stoudamire, Rasheed Wallace, Detlef Schrempf, and Jermaine O’Neal on it.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Kevin Garnett

Of teams in the top 9 of eFG and defensive rebounding, the Timberwolves had by far the best turnover percentage (which admittedly was slightly below league average). Still, KG was clearly doing his best on that front, being one of the best big men at getting steals ever. He obviously also led the Wolves in every other defensive stat, while being good at avoiding personal fouls, unlike the rest of the team.

2. Shaquille O’Neal

The Lakers had a great defense, and while Shaq was far from the only reason for that, him being 2nd in defensive rebounds and 3rd in blocks certainly didn’t hurt. His weight gain limited his effectiveness outside of the paint, but I can’t imagine a player you’d least want to get physical with than Shaq.

3. Eddie Jones

After the Wolves and Lakers, the Hornets were the most well rounded defensive team this season, being in the top 13 of eFG, turnover percentage, defensive rebounding, and fouls per field goal attempt. Jones led the NBA in steals, and his defensive on-off numbers were the best amongst the team’s starters (46.8% eFG when he was on vs 50% when he was off, and a 4.1% reduction in their opponent’s offensive rebounding percentage).

Player of the Year

1. Shaquille O’Neal

While having Kobe and the Lakers cavalcade of all time role players definitely helped Shaq against the Blazers superteam, the fact was that he won when Garnett couldn’t. The man was and arguably still is the strongest televised NBA player ever, and in the first 46 minutes of a game, there was no one you wanted to get the ball to more than him.

2. Kevin Garnett

KG certainly had the most unique season of his career, with his good three-point shooting. He was also arguably the best two-way player in the league already, being a much better passer than Shaq, though Shaq’s near-unguardability likely created just as many opportunities for teammates.

3. Karl Malone

Despite his age, Malone and the Jazz were still good on defense, though some of this could be due to Greg Ostertag, who was an excellent defender, despite a reputation for laziness. Still, Malone didn’t hinder the team, and his offense seemed to reach its technical peak this year.

4. Alonzo Mourning

I don’t think Mourning was as good a defender as Eddie Jones, despite his reputation, along with leading the NBA in blocks, but the Heat were still good defensively, had a nice playoff run, and Mourning was the most efficient scorer in the league besides Shaq.

5. Eddie Jones

Jones was no slouch offensively, averaging 20 points per game on above average efficiency. Of course the Hornets lost in the first round, but considering what this Sixers squad accomplished next year, I’m willing to chalk that up to the Hornets just being overwhelmed by a good defense and Iverson’s scoring.

[One_and_Done]

I see the point in punishing random injuries because those injuries are affecting what that player contributed in games for the given year. If a player gets injured and is DNP in the PS, he's giving his team zero contribution across the board. Thus Duncan is not making my ballot and Kobe almost certainly isn't. Without injury they probably both would but you can't rank players on what ifs.

You have to rank players on what happened, but what happened is also based on opportunity.

There are years Kobe or Barkley got eliminated in the 1st round. So am I to assume they were healthier than Kawhi in 2017, when he got a random injury 2 rounds later? I think that's kind of ridiculous.

Duncan was hurt, which matters, but it also matters that the injury wasn't that severe and he could have come back the next round if he had been fortunate enough to have a support cast as good as some of these other guys.

I’m not sure it should matter at all that you think Duncan “could have come back the next round if he had been fortunate enough to have a support cast as good as some of these other guys.” The voting guidelines specifically say: “You can factor things like degree of difficulty as defined by you, but what you can't do is ignore how the player actually played on the floor this season in favor of what he might have done if only...” Talking about how he might’ve been able to come back if only his team had won without him seems like a pretty textbook exactly of ignoring what occurred in reality in favor of an if-only. Duncan didn’t play in the playoffs, so I don’t think it should matter whether he might’ve hypothetically been able to play in later rounds or not.

That said, to address your point about Kobe/Barkley/Kawhi, I do tend to think that it’s right not to punish someone too much for being injured in a later round that another player didn’t get to. To me, if Player A lost in the first round of the playoffs, while Player B won in the first round of the playoffs while playing exactly as well as Player A did and then was injured for the second round of the playoffs, there’s no difference between the players. If comparing to Player A, I wouldn’t penalize Player B for being injured in a round that Player A did not play in. However, it would be a significant negative for Player B if he were being compared to a Player C that was healthy in the playoffs and played well in additional rounds. I also probably wouldn’t weigh Player B’s playoff performance very highly compared to a player who performed worse in the playoffs (or perhaps who didn’t play in the playoffs at all) because there basically wasn’t any championship equity there since Player B got injured. So a player who played better than Player B in the RS might be ahead of Player B overall despite performing worse in the playoffs when they both played (or despite not playing in the playoffs at all). But the same would also be true for Player A—who might well be ranked below someone who played better in the regular season but missed the playoffs or played badly in the playoffs, because playing well in a first-round loss just isn’t that meaningful. In other words, to me, being injured in a round is basically just akin to having lost in the prior round.

Obviously this gets complicated with something like Giannis 2021—where he was injured during a round but did actually come back later and do really well. That’s a more complicated situation, and is one I see much less negatively than one where the player never came back in the playoffs. Of course, that can be to the benefit of a player whose team can stay afloat in the playoffs without them, but it seems like the right approach to me when an exercise is about what happened in reality, rather than what might’ve happened in some hypothetical entirely-even-playing-field world. Of course, a situation like Giannis 2021 still should be discounted to some degree, because he obviously had some playoff games he did not contribute to at all, but he also later made massive contributions in the Finals, so that’s far more meaningful playoff contribution than someone who got injured and never came back.

Duncan isn't getting credit for games he didn’t play, but he's also not getting written off as injured for the whole playoffs. He didn't have a playoff ending injury, just an untimely one.

[One_and_Done]

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Shaquille O’Neal

Despite my dislike of Shaq’s free throw issues, it’s impossible not to acknowledge his offensive dominance this year. The Lakers were in the top 8 of turnover percentage, offensive rebounding, and free throws per field goal attempt, while having an above average eFG, with Shaq leading the NBA in scoring and field goal percentage. His stats in the playoffs were even better, as he won his first championship.

2. Karl Malone

Malone’s turnover problem was less of an issue this year, and he had probably his best shooting season we have shot chart data for. The Jazz’s offense was arguably better than the Lakers’ in some respects, and Malone had a good postseason, reaching the second round after scoring his playoff career high, and managing to win a game against a loaded Trail Blazers team.

3. Kevin Garnett

The Timberwolves were above average offensively, except when it came to free throws per field goal attempt, but they compensated for this a bit by having one of the best free throw percentages in the league. KG was clearly the engine that made the team go, being either 1st or 2nd on every positive box score, and having his best season shooting three-pointers. Of course, Minnesota lost badly to the Trail Blazers, but I’m going to give KG a little slack for not doing well against a team with Pippen, Sabonis, Steve Smith, Damon Stoudamire, Rasheed Wallace, Detlef Schrempf, and Jermaine O’Neal on it.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Kevin Garnett

Of teams in the top 9 of eFG and defensive rebounding, the Timberwolves had by far the best turnover percentage (which admittedly was slightly below league average). Still, KG was clearly doing his best on that front, being one of the best big men at getting steals ever. He obviously also led the Wolves in every other defensive stat, while being good at avoiding personal fouls, unlike the rest of the team.

2. Shaquille O’Neal

The Lakers had a great defense, and while Shaq was far from the only reason for that, him being 2nd in defensive rebounds and 3rd in blocks certainly didn’t hurt. His weight gain limited his effectiveness outside of the paint, but I can’t imagine a player you’d least want to get physical with than Shaq.

3. Eddie Jones

After the Wolves and Lakers, the Hornets were the most well rounded defensive team this season, being in the top 13 of eFG, turnover percentage, defensive rebounding, and fouls per field goal attempt. Jones led the NBA in steals, and his defensive on-off numbers were the best amongst the team’s starters (46.8% eFG when he was on vs 50% when he was off, and a 4.1% reduction in their opponent’s offensive rebounding percentage).

Player of the Year

1. Shaquille O’Neal

While having Kobe and the Lakers cavalcade of all time role players definitely helped Shaq against the Blazers superteam, the fact was that he won when Garnett couldn’t. The man was and arguably still is the strongest televised NBA player ever, and in the first 46 minutes of a game, there was no one you wanted to get the ball to more than him.

2. Kevin Garnett

KG certainly had the most unique season of his career, with his good three-point shooting. He was also arguably the best two-way player in the league already, being a much better passer than Shaq, though Shaq’s near-unguardability likely created just as many opportunities for teammates.

3. Karl Malone

Despite his age, Malone and the Jazz were still good on defense, though some of this could be due to Greg Ostertag, who was an excellent defender, despite a reputation for laziness. Still, Malone didn’t hinder the team, and his offense seemed to reach its technical peak this year.

4. Alonzo Mourning

I don’t think Mourning was as good a defender as Eddie Jones, despite his reputation, along with leading the NBA in blocks, but the Heat were still good defensively, had a nice playoff run, and Mourning was the most efficient scorer in the league besides Shaq.

5. Eddie Jones

Jones was no slouch offensively, averaging 20 points per game on above average efficiency. Of course the Hornets lost in the first round, but considering what this Sixers squad accomplished next year, I’m willing to chalk that up to the Hornets just being overwhelmed by a good defense and Iverson’s scoring.

I'm pretty sure Eddie Jones was never a top 10 player in the league.

[lessthanjake]

You have to rank players on what happened, but what happened is also based on opportunity.

There are years Kobe or Barkley got eliminated in the 1st round. So am I to assume they were healthier than Kawhi in 2017, when he got a random injury 2 rounds later? I think that's kind of ridiculous.

Duncan was hurt, which matters, but it also matters that the injury wasn't that severe and he could have come back the next round if he had been fortunate enough to have a support cast as good as some of these other guys.

I’m not sure it should matter at all that you think Duncan “could have come back the next round if he had been fortunate enough to have a support cast as good as some of these other guys.” The voting guidelines specifically say: “You can factor things like degree of difficulty as defined by you, but what you can't do is ignore how the player actually played on the floor this season in favor of what he might have done if only...” Talking about how he might’ve been able to come back if only his team had won without him seems like a pretty textbook exactly of ignoring what occurred in reality in favor of an if-only. Duncan didn’t play in the playoffs, so I don’t think it should matter whether he might’ve hypothetically been able to play in later rounds or not.

That said, to address your point about Kobe/Barkley/Kawhi, I do tend to think that it’s right not to punish someone too much for being injured in a later round that another player didn’t get to. To me, if Player A lost in the first round of the playoffs, while Player B won in the first round of the playoffs while playing exactly as well as Player A did and then was injured for the second round of the playoffs, there’s no difference between the players. If comparing to Player A, I wouldn’t penalize Player B for being injured in a round that Player A did not play in. However, it would be a significant negative for Player B if he were being compared to a Player C that was healthy in the playoffs and played well in additional rounds. I also probably wouldn’t weigh Player B’s playoff performance very highly compared to a player who performed worse in the playoffs (or perhaps who didn’t play in the playoffs at all) because there basically wasn’t any championship equity there since Player B got injured. So a player who played better than Player B in the RS might be ahead of Player B overall despite performing worse in the playoffs when they both played (or despite not playing in the playoffs at all). But the same would also be true for Player A—who might well be ranked below someone who played better in the regular season but missed the playoffs or played badly in the playoffs, because playing well in a first-round loss just isn’t that meaningful. In other words, to me, being injured in a round is basically just akin to having lost in the prior round.

Obviously this gets complicated with something like Giannis 2021—where he was injured during a round but did actually come back later and do really well. That’s a more complicated situation, and is one I see much less negatively than one where the player never came back in the playoffs. Of course, that can be to the benefit of a player whose team can stay afloat in the playoffs without them, but it seems like the right approach to me when an exercise is about what happened in reality, rather than what might’ve happened in some hypothetical entirely-even-playing-field world. Of course, a situation like Giannis 2021 still should be discounted to some degree, because he obviously had some playoff games he did not contribute to at all, but he also later made massive contributions in the Finals, so that’s far more meaningful playoff contribution than someone who got injured and never came back.

Duncan isn't getting credit for games he didn’t play, but he's also not getting written off as injured for the whole playoffs. He didn't have a playoff ending injury, just an untimely one.

But it *was* a playoff-ending injury in reality, because Duncan did not play in the playoffs at all. To parse a playoff injury based on when a player might’ve been able to come back doesn’t really make much sense if the player never did end up playing in the playoffs. It’d just be ranking players based on hypotheticals and “if-onlys,” which is something that is explicitly not allowed.

[One_and_Done]

I’m not sure it should matter at all that you think Duncan “could have come back the next round if he had been fortunate enough to have a support cast as good as some of these other guys.” The voting guidelines specifically say: “You can factor things like degree of difficulty as defined by you, but what you can't do is ignore how the player actually played on the floor this season in favor of what he might have done if only...” Talking about how he might’ve been able to come back if only his team had won without him seems like a pretty textbook exactly of ignoring what occurred in reality in favor of an if-only. Duncan didn’t play in the playoffs, so I don’t think it should matter whether he might’ve hypothetically been able to play in later rounds or not.

That said, to address your point about Kobe/Barkley/Kawhi, I do tend to think that it’s right not to punish someone too much for being injured in a later round that another player didn’t get to. To me, if Player A lost in the first round of the playoffs, while Player B won in the first round of the playoffs while playing exactly as well as Player A did and then was injured for the second round of the playoffs, there’s no difference between the players. If comparing to Player A, I wouldn’t penalize Player B for being injured in a round that Player A did not play in. However, it would be a significant negative for Player B if he were being compared to a Player C that was healthy in the playoffs and played well in additional rounds. I also probably wouldn’t weigh Player B’s playoff performance very highly compared to a player who performed worse in the playoffs (or perhaps who didn’t play in the playoffs at all) because there basically wasn’t any championship equity there since Player B got injured. So a player who played better than Player B in the RS might be ahead of Player B overall despite performing worse in the playoffs when they both played (or despite not playing in the playoffs at all). But the same would also be true for Player A—who might well be ranked below someone who played better in the regular season but missed the playoffs or played badly in the playoffs, because playing well in a first-round loss just isn’t that meaningful. In other words, to me, being injured in a round is basically just akin to having lost in the prior round.

Obviously this gets complicated with something like Giannis 2021—where he was injured during a round but did actually come back later and do really well. That’s a more complicated situation, and is one I see much less negatively than one where the player never came back in the playoffs. Of course, that can be to the benefit of a player whose team can stay afloat in the playoffs without them, but it seems like the right approach to me when an exercise is about what happened in reality, rather than what might’ve happened in some hypothetical entirely-even-playing-field world. Of course, a situation like Giannis 2021 still should be discounted to some degree, because he obviously had some playoff games he did not contribute to at all, but he also later made massive contributions in the Finals, so that’s far more meaningful playoff contribution than someone who got injured and never came back.

Duncan isn't getting credit for games he didn’t play, but he's also not getting written off as injured for the whole playoffs. He didn't have a playoff ending injury, just an untimely one.

But it *was* a playoff-ending injury in reality, because Duncan did not play in the playoffs at all. To parse a playoff injury based on when a player might’ve been able to come back doesn’t really make much sense if the player never did end up playing in the playoffs. It’d just be ranking players based on hypotheticals and “if-onlys,” which is something that is explicitly not allowed.

In previous years there have been votes for guys like Barkley who missed the playoffs entirely that year. I don't give Barkley credit for performing well in the playoffs those years, but I'm not going to treat him as an injury write off just because he didn't actually play in the playoffs.