Retro Player of the Year 2001-02 UPDATE — Tim Duncan

[One_and_Done]

Shaq playing so well in the other rounds is important, because it further highlights how incredible Duncan was in limiting him in Rnd 2 with minimal help (and while still having the energy to go off himself). Giving it to Shaq would just be punishing the clearly superior Duncan for having much worse team mates.

[B-Mitch 30]

Conversely Jake, Shaq winning in the Conference Finals in the first place is kind of tainted by Tim Donaghy's allegations that the series was fixed by the referees and league. I personally don't believe him, but there were some absurd calls, like the officials calling a foul for Kobe after he elbowed Mike Bibby in the face.

[lessthanjake]

Shaq playing so well in the other rounds is important, because it further highlights how incredible Duncan was in limiting him in Rnd 2 with minimal help (and while still having the energy to go off himself). Giving it to Shaq would just be punishing the clearly superior Duncan for having much worse team mates.

I think it’s fine if that’s how you think of it, but I think most people do not think of POY as just a mechanical question of “Who was the best player in the NBA this year?” If that’s the question, then I think the answer in 2001-02 was Duncan. But, for most people, the significance of players’ achievements that year also comes into play to a large degree. In which case, it’s a balancing test between those two things. Shaq clearly achieved significantly more than Duncan in 2001-02, leading his team to a title while being the clear best player in the conference finals and finals. You’re free to give that no weight and to just rely entirely on a reasonable belief that Duncan was the better player that year. But, for most people, achievements matter. Is that entirely fair to players with worse teammates than other players? Perhaps not. But it’s a team sport, so nothing is ever on a level playing field in that regard (indeed, even the question of who was “better” between two players is materially confounded by two players being in entirely different team situations), and there’s no way around the fact that while team results matter in team sports, individual players don’t entirely control those team results.

Conversely Jake, Shaq winning in the Conference Finals in the first place is kind of tainted by Tim Donaghy's allegations that the series was fixed by the referees and league. I personally don't believe him, but there were some absurd calls, like the officials calling a foul for Kobe after he elbowed Mike Bibby in the face.

It’s definitely not clear what went on there, and I think it’s fine if someone wants to ding Shaq’s and Kobe’s team achievements a bit this year based on that. But ultimately, regardless of any of that, Shaq was fantastic in the conference finals, and his team did get to the finals (whether you think they got some undue referee help or not), where Shaq again played fantastically in a victory. Basically, this issue can nibble around the edges a bit, but there’s no way to truly get around the fact that Shaq achieved way more than Duncan in 2001-02.

[OhayoKD]

Shaq playing so well in the other rounds is important, because it further highlights how incredible Duncan was in limiting him in Rnd 2 with minimal help (and while still having the energy to go off himself). Giving it to Shaq would just be punishing the clearly superior Duncan for having much worse team mates.

I think it’s fine if that’s how you think of it, but I think most people do not think of POY as just a mechanical question of “Who was the best player in the NBA this year?” If that’s the question, then I think the answer in 2001-02 was Duncan. But, for most people, the significance of players’ achievements that year also comes into play to a large degree. .

Thankfully, it doesn't for most 2024/2025 POY voters. Duncan was better and will easily win this thread accordingly.

[AEnigma]

I don't see alot of consistency in your past voting RE: docking points for injuries, e.g. you voted Eddie Jones in 00 who missed a similar number of games, and only added 4 games of PS value, or your vote for Shaq last year. It seems completely arbitrary as a justification here.

The injury cut off for me is below 70 games, just to clarify.

It literally is not, because you voted a worse and less accomplished version of Shaq second despite playing 16 fewer games (and 19 fewer than your supposed cutoff). And seeing as you have also claimed to care deeply about free throw variance, I may as well point out this is his best regular season from the line since 1994, and outright the best postseason of his entire prime.

I am tired of going through this with you every other thread.

[lessthanjake]

Shaq playing so well in the other rounds is important, because it further highlights how incredible Duncan was in limiting him in Rnd 2 with minimal help (and while still having the energy to go off himself). Giving it to Shaq would just be punishing the clearly superior Duncan for having much worse team mates.

I think it’s fine if that’s how you think of it, but I think most people do not think of POY as just a mechanical question of “Who was the best player in the NBA this year?” If that’s the question, then I think the answer in 2001-02 was Duncan. But, for most people, the significance of players’ achievements that year also comes into play to a large degree. .

Thankfully, it doesn't for most 2024/2025 POY voters. Duncan was better and will easily win this thread accordingly.

The number of voters in this project is a minuscule number of people, a significant portion of whom apparently come from a discord that you have with your friends. That’s fine, but there’s no real reason to think it’s particularly indicative of what the broader public thinks (or even the broader public limited just to people who are highly informed about basketball). The last time POY voting was done for this year, Shaq won pretty comfortably, with a number of voters participating that is quite likely to be much higher than the number of people who will vote in this thread (though even that wasn’t a significant number of people in the grand scheme of things). Again, I think it’s fine to think of POY as a mechanical question of who was the best player, but I don’t think that’s how most people would think about it if asked who the POY was in a given year.

[AEnigma]

Duncan has a stronger case for season-long relevance this year than Jokic had in 2022 or 2024 or Jordan did in 1988.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

POY

1. Shaquille O'Neal - 1st Team All-NBA. Shaq once again stepped up in the PS and led the Lakers to a championship and this time with less help than in 2001. He struggled in the Spurs series and it was almost enough to bring him down but not quite considering his utterly dominant play in the other rounds. He is definitely the playoff MVP here and as such narrowly wins the #1 spot. Averaged 27.2/10.7/3.0 on 59.0 %TS (+7.0 rTS) in the RS then 28.5/12.6/2.8 on 57.7 %TS (+6.4 rTS) in the PS.

2. Tim Duncan - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. Duncan was probably the rightful RS MVP considering a lack of star 2nd option and strong team result and he played very well in the PS albeit in a 2nd round loss to the eventual champs. Given his defensive dominance, he has a solid case as the #1 here but ultimately I think accomplishments gap puts him in #2. Averaged 25.5/12.7/3.7 on 57.6 %TS (+5.6 rTS) in the RS then 27.6/14.4/5.0 on 55.0 %TS (+3.7 rTS) in the PS.

3. Kobe Bryant - 1st Team All-NBA. 2nd Team All-Defense. Unlike 2001, Kobe in this one had a pedestrian PS run, scoring quite inefficiently through the first three rounds although he arguably outplayed Shaq in the Spurs series. Still, he's a distant 2nd place to Shaq overall in the PS and as such, he's behind the two big dogs. Averaged 25.2/5.5/5.5 on 54.4 %TS (+2.4 rTS) in the RS then 26.6/5.8/4.6 on 51.1 %TS (+0.6 rTS) in the PS.

4. Kevin Garnett - 2nd Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. Another solid all-around season from KG, almost like clockwork at this point but with nothing to show for it in the PS. As usual, the argument against him is being unable to carry a heavy scoring load in the second season. Averaged 21.2/12.1/5.2 on 53.6 %TS (+1.6 rTS) in the RS then 24.0/18.7/5.0 on 51.4 %TS (-1.6 rTS) in the PS.

5. Jason Kidd - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. Even though he finished 2nd in MVP voting, I'm not really sold on Kidd's offensive impact given the Nets' ineptitude on that end (-0.5 rORtg which is 17th in the league). He was the best player on the team that made the NBA Finals so he deserves some credit. His lack of scoring threat probably means a lot of his assists were "Rondo assists" without leverage so he didn't improve his teammates shot quality a lot. It's also worth noting that the East was a much weaker conference and the Nets would probably lost in the 2nd round in the West in the best case scenario although Kidd relatively played well in the PS and he was a really good defender which increases his value. He averaged 14.7/7.3/9.9 on 48.4 %TS (-3.6 rTS) in the RS then 19.6/8.2/9.1 on 49.2 %TS (-1.9 rTS) in the PS.

HM: Dirk Nowitzki - 2nd Team All-NBA. Short PS run but played well. Still considering putting him over Kidd.

OPOY

1. Shaquille O'Neal - Dominant scorer who manufactures easy shots for his teammates thanks to gravity.

2. Kobe Bryant - Less efficient scoring than usual.

3. Dirk Nowitzki - Fantastic scorer.

DPOY

1. Tim Duncan - Anchored the #2 defense. Elite paint protector.

2. Kevin Garnett - Elite mix of horizontal and vertical game as usual.

3. Kenyon Martin - Helped anchor the #1 defense on the Nets.

[B-Mitch 30]

It literally is not, because you voted a worse and less accomplished version of Shaq second despite playing 16 fewer games (and 19 fewer than your supposed cutoff). And seeing as you have also claimed to care deeply about free throw variance, I may as well point out this is his best regular season from the line since 1994, and outright the best postseason of his entire prime.

I am tired of going through this with you every other thread.

I think I said Shaq's defense was better that season, though obviously one can question how relevant that was considering the lack of playoff success. In all honesty, my vote for Shaq that year was motivated by what I saw a great team turnaround, and if I had to vote again, I probably would have left him off, as I think I've been pretty consistent at not voting for players who missed a lot of games so far.

[lessthanjake]

Duncan has a stronger case for season-long relevance this year than Jokic had in 2022 or 2024 or Jordan did in 1988.

But Jokic and Jordan weren’t playing in a year with 2001-02 Shaq. It obviously matters how strong the other players’ cases are that year. Shaq was one of the top couple players in the NBA in 2001-02 (while playing at a level that probably would’ve been the best player in plenty of other years) and also played fantastically while winning the title. In a year like 2024, there’s clearly no player that fits that bill, so it’s a very different situation. If you plug 2001-02 Shaq into 2024 (along with the achievements he had in 2001-02), then Jokic probably wouldn’t be POY. In 1988 and 2022, there arguably is a player that at least comes close to fitting the bill. And I think it’d be perfectly justifiable to give Curry POY in 2022 or Magic POY in 1988, precisely because even though Jokic and Jordan were better players, Curry and Magic were still truly great and achieved significantly more (though I tend to think neither 2022 Curry nor 1988 Magic performed *quite* as well as 2001-02 Shaq, so it’s a slightly smaller hurdle for Jokic and Jordan to get over IMO). Similarly, as I’ve already said, I think the vote for this year could go either way, because I think Duncan was the better player, but Shaq was still truly great and achieved significantly more. FWIW, I also think Giannis is the pretty clear POY in 2021, even though I think Jokic was better than Giannis that year. Giannis was close to as good as Jokic and achieved more, so he is the pretty clear POY to me.

[OhayoKD]

Duncan has a stronger case for season-long relevance this year than Jokic had in 2022 or 2024 or Jordan did in 1988.

But Jokic and Jordan weren’t playing in a year with 2001-02 Shaq.

How is 01-02 Shaq a stronger opponent than 88 Magic?

[One_and_Done]

Duncan has a stronger case for season-long relevance this year than Jokic had in 2022 or 2024 or Jordan did in 1988.

But Jokic and Jordan weren’t playing in a year with 2001-02 Shaq.

How is 01-02 Shaq a stronger opponent than 88 Magic?

Or 2022 Giannis and Embiid. Or 24 Luka. I think this version of Shaq would be #1 most years, but this feels like punishing Duncan for his team. The Lakers would have been around 500 without Shaq, whereas I doubt the Spurs win 20 without Duncan. Duncan got them to 58 wins, and lost in a competitive 5 game series where the losses were by 6, 10, 2, and 6. I don't see what more Duncan could have done. He completely outplayed Shaq in the match up.

[lessthanjake]

Duncan has a stronger case for season-long relevance this year than Jokic had in 2022 or 2024 or Jordan did in 1988.

But Jokic and Jordan weren’t playing in a year with 2001-02 Shaq.

How is 01-02 Shaq a stronger opponent than 88 Magic?

I simply think 2001-02 Shaq performed a bit better than 1988 Magic. That is a real rabbit hole, and it’s a subjective question about two players in different eras who played different positions, and I do think there’s scope to disagree there, particularly since Shaq missed a few more RS games. FWIW, I also think 1988 Jordan performed better than 2002 Duncan, which would also affect the analogy you’re trying to raise. But again, that’s a pretty irrelevant rabbit hole. The bottom line is basically that, as I said, for most people, determining the POY in a given year is going to be about balancing how well someone believes the relevant players played and how much they achieved. The bigger the achievement gap between two players, the more a player would need to have played better individually in order to be POY. And vice versa as well. The assessment of how well players played is a subjective one, so you and I could weight these two factors equally and come out to different results in a given year if we disagree on how well we think the relevant players played. Similarly, we could agree on how well the relevant players played but come to different results if one of us weights team achievements more highly than the other. In this 2001-02 season, I think it could go either way and is just dependent on those kinds of personal assessments. And I think it could go either way in 2022 and 1988 too, for similar reasons. Of course, someone is also free to have their assessment completely ignore team achievements. That’s an option too, but I think the vast majority of people would weigh team achievements in a POY vote.

[OhayoKD]

I think it’s fine if that’s how you think of it, but I think most people do not think of POY as just a mechanical question of “Who was the best player in the NBA this year?” If that’s the question, then I think the answer in 2001-02 was Duncan. But, for most people, the significance of players’ achievements that year also comes into play to a large degree. .

Thankfully, it doesn't for most 2024/2025 POY voters. Duncan was better and will easily win this thread accordingly.

The number of voters in this project is a minuscule number of people, a significant portion of whom apparently come from a discord that you have with your friends. That’s fine, but there’s no real reason to think it’s particularly indicative of what the broader public thinks (or even the broader public limited just to people who are highly informed about basketball).

Did anyone claim it was? The POY does not exist to reinforce consensus. It does offer an interpretation of history, and if said interpretation proves compelling enough(and it will have to be uniquely compelling given how status-quo biased basketball is), perhaps it will affect how a number of people not participating view things. For that possibility, i'd be disappointed if people voted differently because of some obligation to convention.

The last time POY voting was done for this year, Shaq won pretty comfortably, with a number of voters participating that is quite likely to be much higher than the number of people who will vote in this thread (though even that wasn’t a significant number of people in the grand scheme of things). Again, I think it’s fine to think of POY as a mechanical question of who was the best player, but I don’t think that’s how most people would think about it if asked who the POY was in a given year.

I think for most people being the best player is a big factor in a POY vote. How big a factor is another matter but by the precedent set of this project, winning a title is not enough if another player is perceived to have played significantly better

[lessthanjake]

But Jokic and Jordan weren’t playing in a year with 2001-02 Shaq.

How is 01-02 Shaq a stronger opponent than 88 Magic?

Or 2022 Giannis and Embiid. Or 24 Luka. I think this version of Shaq would be #1 most years, but this feels like punishing Duncan for his team. The Lakers would have been around 500 without Shaq, whereas I doubt the Spurs win 20 without Duncan. Duncan got them to 58 wins, and lost in a competitive 5 game series where the losses were by 6, 10, 2, and 6. I don't see what more Duncan could have done. He completely outplayed Shaq in the match up.

I’m a little confused how 2022 Giannis is particularly relevant. The Bucks won a few more RS games than the Nuggets and lost in the second round instead of the first round (though, FWIW, to the losing finalist instead of the title winner). That is more team achievement, but the difference isn’t particularly significant. Same with 2022 Embiid. Comparing the achievements of 2022 Jokic to 2022 Giannis/Embiid is really not comparable at all to comparing the achievements of 2002 Duncan to 2002 Shaq. Shaq won the title!

And yeah, you may be right that there’s nothing else Duncan realistically could’ve done. But it’s a team game, and if team achievements weigh significantly in POY voting (which, as I’ve said, they don’t *have* to, but they do for the vast majority of people—in large part since team achievements go to how significant that player was in the given year), then, fair or not, a player with a worse team is just at a disadvantage in terms of POY voting. I’ll also note that, as it relates to Duncan, there will be other years where he’s at an advantage in this regard, so it’d more than balance out for him IMO.

[AEnigma]

Even in the 2010 project, Kareem won 1973, 1978, and 1979 while accomplishing less than Duncan did this year and looking worse in the postseason. Yes, it is a comparative exercise, and Shaq is better competition, but “distance by which a player needs to outpace the actual title-winner to be ranked above them” is an ultimately arbitrary determination (much like setting hard cutoffs for games played).

[OhayoKD]

But Jokic and Jordan weren’t playing in a year with 2001-02 Shaq.

How is 01-02 Shaq a stronger opponent than 88 Magic?

I simply think 2001-02 Shaq performed a bit better than 1988 Magic.

Well this is back to the mechanical question of who played the best. For voters Magic performed at least comparably to Jordan over the season, performed better vs a common opponent, won more regular-season games and won the title.

Considering what just took place in 2001, seems safe to assume voters will think Duncan performed better than Shaq over the course of the season, and completely dominated him head to head, ontop of winning as many regular-season games.

Seems natural Duncan would perform better than Jordan then.

[lessthanjake]

Even in the 2010 project, Kareem won 1973, 1978, and 1979 while accomplishing less than Duncan did this year and looking worse in the postseason. Yes, it is a comparative exercise, and Shaq is better competition, but “distance by which a player needs to outpace the actual title-winner to be ranked above them” is an ultimately arbitrary determination (much like setting hard cutoffs for games played).

The “Yes, it is a comparative exercise, and Shaq is better competition” is an extremely important caveat. I doubt 1973, 1978, or 1979 Kareem would’ve gotten POY if 2002 Shaq existed in those years. Instead, the championship teams in those years were genuine ensemble casts lacking any player anywhere near the level of prime Kareem or prime Shaq.

In any event, I don’t see how what I’m describing is “arbitrary.” I’m describing a balancing test, not some arbitrary threshold for something. Nor could there really be any such arbitrary threshold, when the assessment we’re talking about is how much better than another player someone was, since that assessment is wholly subjective. The only threshold that would need to be overcome is the “Do I personally think they were enough better to overcome the fact that this other player won the title?” And that’s a personal assessment that goes to the heart of essentially anyone’s POY vote (unless they don’t care about team achievements at all), rather than some “arbitrary” approach.

[lessthanjake]

How is 01-02 Shaq a stronger opponent than 88 Magic?

I simply think 2001-02 Shaq performed a bit better than 1988 Magic.

Well this is back to the mechanical question of who played the best. For voters Magic performed at least comparably to Jordan over the season, performed better vs a common opponent, won more regular-season games and won the title.

Considering what just took place in 2001, seems safe to assume voters will think Duncan performed better than Shaq over the course of the season, and completely dominated him head to head, ontop of winning as many regular-season games.

Seems natural Duncan would perform better than Jordan then.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. 1988 is obviously not relevant to this thread except as an analogy regarding the overall approach that people take. If people weigh both their personal assessment of how well a player played *and* the player’s achievements in the given year, then of course the ultimate conclusion they come to will hinge significantly on their assessment of how well a player played. If you think Magic Johnson played about as well as Michael Jordan in 1988 or even only bit less well, then it seems pretty natural to vote Magic Johnson as POY. Meanwhile, if you think Michael Jordan played significantly better than Magic Johnson in 1988, then there’d be reason to vote for Jordan over Magic despite Magic having more achievements that year. As it relates to this 2001-02 year, there’s a similar situation. If you think Shaq played about as well as Duncan or even only a bit less well, then it would seem pretty natural to vote for Shaq as POY. And if you think Tim Duncan played significantly better than Shaq, then there’d be reason to vote for Duncan despite Shaq having more achievements. Ultimately, in both scenarios, the end conclusion will depend on exactly how well you assess each player to have played, as well as how much you weight team achievements. If the particular small group of voters here (many of whom are your discord friends) happen to come out one way or another in these specific years, then that’s fine.

More generally, I’m a little confused as to what you think you’re arguing with me about here. Like, are you arguing that team achievements shouldn’t come into play at all? I don’t really think you are, since, for instance, you mention above that Magic “won the title” (while, in contrast, I do think One_and_Done actually is arguing for that sort of approach). But if you are, then I don’t really have much to say other than what I’ve already said about that—i.e. that that’s fine but that I think the vast majority of people do weigh team achievements. Are you trying to talk about other years to argue that my personal approach is inconsistent? That would seem like a tough point to make when: (1) I’m describing a balancing test, which by its nature is an approach that can come to different results depending on *exactly* how the different factors go in any particular year (i.e. a balancing test inherently does *not* require you to always support the player with the most team achievements or the player you think played the best); and (2) I haven’t even expressed a preference regarding 2002 and instead have merely said I think it could go both ways, while also saying that 2022 and 1988 could too (and, I’ll note, I’ve also said that I’d support a player I personally favor less in 2021, due to this same balancing test). There’s nothing inconsistent here at all, and I’d say my assessment of POY is actually quite agnostic to what players I tend to personally like.

[ceoofkobefans]

very stacked year if we were doing a top 7 or 10 id have a real rough time making this

POY

1. Shaquille O'Neal

Shaq Duncan is a split decision you can pick either and I'm fine with it. Shaq and TD perform relatively similar in the RS although I'd give the edge to duncan but i think shaq does enough in the PO (especially the finals) to edge out duncan?

So Duncan has an "edge" when he averages 27 points on 57% true-shooting while Shaq has 27 on 54% true-shooting with 1 less assist and 1 less rebound...but then when Duncan averages 8 more points, 5 more rebounds, and 2 more assists than shaq with the same effeciency gap, Shaq is better?

How did Duncan go from #1 to massively outplaying your #1 and #3 and then fall to 2nd?

It’s basically a tie in the RS I just lean TD bc Shaq and Kobe played with each other. He didn’t massively outplay Kobe and there’s more to the playoffs than just the second round when they played lol Shaq averaged 36/4/12 on +13 rTS in the finals and 30/2/14 on +6.2 rTS in the WCF