Retro POY '04-05 (Voting Complete)

[drza]

vs Garnett? Well, I'm not sure how to make my point here. It's become quite clear I don't think as highly of Garnett as a lot of people here do (I'm still in shock that Garnett was #1 in '09 and that Kobe's never going to be #1). With that said, Garnett really didn't play as well this year as in years previous. Yeah you can put some blame on Spree and Cassell, but Garnett was a +/- monster from '01-02 to '03-04 and this year he fell to just good. The vibe on the T-wolves this year was just nothing like what it was previously, or like Garnett's Celtics were like.

I do feel I should point out that even with his fall in APM, Garnett still finished solidly ahead of Nash in that measure. As well as in ever other "advanced" stat. For whatever that's worth, I only mention it because I'm seeing APM often used as a negative for KG in this thread, but in reality he was still solidly over the player that a lot of people are putting in their #1 slot based on his impact.

So are we gonna discuss ranks 2 to 5, or do you guys need more time -

I also find it interesting that you are so adamant that Nash is #1, when he played so few minutes (especially compared to the others that are under consideration) and his PER/Win Shares numbers weren't better than his position contemporaries (like Arenas, Marbury, etc.). I mean after all, weren't you the one that wrote long posts in the '08 thread for why both of those things should disqualify KG as a possible #1? I mean, you didn't even include Garnett in your top FIVE, yet Nash (with similar weaknesses that you railed against) is so clearly number one to you that it's not worth discussing?

[Silver Bullet]

I also find it interesting that you are so adamant that Nash is #1, when he played so few minutes (especially compared to the others that are under consideration) and his PER/Win Shares numbers weren't better than his position contemporaries (like Arenas, Marbury, etc.). I mean after all, weren't you the one that wrote long posts in the '08 thread for why both of those things should disqualify KG as a possible #1? I mean, you didn't even include Garnett in your top FIVE, yet Nash (with similar weaknesses that you railed against) is so clearly number one to you that it's not worth discussing?

Because discussing stats with regards to Nash is like reading a book about Music - I mean, I am surprised that this is even a question, did you guys not watch the 05 Phoenix Suns ?

Nash doesn't have similiar weeknesses - we're talking about two positions that are totally different, rebounding is massively over rated by every major stat - passing is by a mile the most under appreciated part of basketball statistical analysis--

And most people have been doing a good job - I mean, everything I could possibly say is already in that Jimmy 76 post - If that's not gonna sway you, nothing else will.

I think you guys are just wasting your time, at this point, if Nash is not your number 1, then nothing is gonna sway you - because in all likelihood you didn't see that many Suns games. And if he is your number one, that means you were watching and I highly doubt anything is gonna sway your mind.

[sp6r=underrated]

I do remember going into the 2005 season, me any my friends getting pumped when the knicks went into Minnesota and won to open the season. At the time I thought this was a sign NY was really going places, in retrospect it was more a warning about the disaster that was coming in Minnesota.

[lorak]

I think you guys are just wasting your time, at this point, if Nash is your number 1, then nothing is gonna sway you - because in all likelihood you didn't see that many games. And if he is not your number one, that means you were watching and I highly doubt anything is gonna sway your mind.

Fixed.

[drza]

I also find it interesting that you are so adamant that Nash is #1, when he played so few minutes (especially compared to the others that are under consideration) and his PER/Win Shares numbers weren't better than his position contemporaries (like Arenas, Marbury, etc.). I mean after all, weren't you the one that wrote long posts in the '08 thread for why both of those things should disqualify KG as a possible #1? I mean, you didn't even include Garnett in your top FIVE, yet Nash (with similar weaknesses that you railed against) is so clearly number one to you that it's not worth discussing?

Because discussing stats with regards to Nash is like reading a book about Music - I mean, I am surprised that this is even a question, did you guys not watch the 05 Phoenix Suns ?

Nash doesn't have similiar weeknesses - we're talking about two positions that are totally different, rebounding is massively over rated by every major stat - passing is by a mile the most under appreciated part of basketball statistical analysis--

And most people have been doing a good job - I mean, everything I could possibly say is already in that Jimmy 76 post - If that's not gonna sway you, nothing else will.

I think you guys are just wasting your time, at this point, if Nash is not your number 1, then nothing is gonna sway you - because in all likelihood you didn't see that many Suns games. And if he is your number one, that means you were watching and I highly doubt anything is gonna sway your mind.

There is, of course, a third option. That some of us watched the Suns play, but still don't think he was number one. I mean, because it is possible for people to disagree and stuff. Isn't that the whole purpose of this project, so we could discuss it?

And besides, you didn't really address the point I was making. I know that a case can be made for Nash, just like a case could be made for Garnett in '08. I personally don't have Nash at #1, but I can at least understand and respect the argument. But you were SO adamant against KG and, like I said, you specifically cited minutes played and him not being dominant with respect to other players at his position in PER and Win Shares. Those were two direct lines of logic that you used to attack Garnett. And Nash is weak in those EXACT SAME WAYS. He didn't play nearly as many minutes as the other players under consideration for this year, and he didn't separate himself in PER/Win Shares from his position counterparts. I'm talking players like Marbury and Arenas, so rebounding has nothing to do with why they measured similarly to Nash.

My point is, I KNOW that Nash is a lot better than Arenas, and it doesn't bother me that he didn't play so many minutes...he didn't need to. But how can you use two different lines of attack to try to bring down one player in one year, then just completely ignore those exact same factors in another year? Doesn't that seem somewhat hypocritical?

[Silver Bullet]

Because it's two totally totally different situations - how can I judge a point guard who makes others better by sacrificing his stats the same as the most statistically dominant power forward of all time.

Because, the Celtics totally overhauled their team, the Suns just added Nash - If the Celtics had only added KG and they had gone from 23 to 66 wins, I wouldn't even have looked at his PER, WS, Minutes or any of the above.

Btw, Nash's minutes are fine historically - they might be on the lower side, but they won't be an outlier.

Big Men are supposed to have big numbers because all stats are skewed to favor them, point guards are not supposed to have big numbers, because most point guards with big numbers don't win a lot.

Btw, I compared KG to players that are more or less like him, Bosh, Amare, Duncan, Boozer et. all for the current era - Malone, Duncan, himself, Shaq, Robinson et. all for all time.

Be my guest and compare him to any point guard from the last 20 years, I'm sure he'll come out more than okay-

[Doctor MJ]

I do feel I should point out that even with his fall in APM, Garnett still finished solidly ahead of Nash in that measure. As well as in ever other "advanced" stat. For whatever that's worth, I only mention it because I'm seeing APM often used as a negative for KG in this thread, but in reality he was still solidly over the player that a lot of people are putting in their #1 slot based on his impact.

A reasonable thing to bring up.

I've mentioned before my thoughts on APM. I only go so far with it, and Nash in '05 is a good case study. Nash had through the roof +/-, and best on his team APM that year - and of course in later years had through the roof APM. Meanwhile we know APM is at it's absolute worst when there's not much sample size to separate out what a player does without a teammate (called the multicollinearity problem). What it amounts to is that it really doesn't make sense to hold APM against Nash here - there's lots of noise, and all of the later evidence we see points toward Nash's true +/- impact being at the upper end of the error, and his teammates being on the lower end.

For what it's worth, this issue is something that bothered me at the time. At the end of the regular season I put Shaq at #1 ahead of Nash just because of I couldn't properly defend the question "How are you so certain that Nash is much more valuable than Amare & Marion?". I felt Nash was in fact that valuable in my gut, but I just wasn't confident enough to go against the greatest player since Jordan.

Then the playoffs happened and Marion was a complete joke and Nash got even better. Then the next year happened and they did so well without Amare. Then the next few years happened, and Nash further proved that he was way more valuable than his teammates. The uncertainty is gone.

With Garnett, I ain't saying he wasn't great - I've still got him at #5 - but he was clearly not having the impact of before. If you think he was so incredibly great that even not at his best he was better than Nash, cool. I don't. I think that Nash indeed does have superstar impact that only a handful of guys have surpassed in the last decade, and while I think peak Garnett is one of those guys, I don't think any of them surpass peak Nash unless they are firing on all cylinders.

[drza]

Coming into this thread, my rankings probably would have been KG, Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Manu 1 - 5, with Nash and Wade both getting honorable mentions.

As this thread has gone along I have added TMac to the discussion, but he still couldn't get past honorable mention. Nash has moved up a bit, because I do see some interesting similarities between what he did in Phoenix in '05 and what KG did in Boston in '08, but I think on the whole KG's '08 was a bit better across the board so it didn't move Nash beyond where he landed. Manu has also moved up a bit, after I was reminded of just how strong he was that year and I decided how to mentally put him into context. Shaq and Dirk both slid due to their postseason struggles, while Wade moved up because of his postseason brilliance. In the end, here are my rankings:

1) Kevin Garnett. He was the best player in the league entering the season, and he did nothing in '05 to dissuade me from that. He was the offensive focal point for his team in a way that few forwards have ever been, as only LeBron and Bird have surpassed both his scoring and assist numbers from '05 in a single season since 1980. He was also one of the best defensive players in the league as well as the rebound champ. Overall, he led a team of old, injured chuckers to one of the better offenses in the league and a respectable defense against the odds while carrying a team with a whole lot wrong with it to 44 wins. Since we're going chronologically backward in this project, Garnett in '05 is the first player we've encountered to lead the league in PER, Win Shares, and Wins Produced in the same season.

2) Tim Duncan. As I said before, I think KG and Duncan were just clearly the two best players in the world in 2003 and 2004, and according to the advanced stats they were still 1-2 in '05. Not going to penalize either of them just because one of them got ouchy injured (but still was able to lead a team to the title) and the other was surrounded by garbage. Even with the injury that slowed his production late and the questions that some had about his Finals MVP, Duncan had enough of a gap over the rest of the league that I still have him solidly at second.

3) Manu Ginobili. One of the most underrated players of this era IMO, because his role isn't to carry the team alone. But I think he's the best #2 option since Kobe, and if you consider Kobe really a #1b then Manu is the best #2 since Pippen. He is knocked for not playing a lot of minutes, but he played almost as many as Nash and beat him convincingly across the body of advanced stats (box score and APM) in the regular season. In the postseason he picked it up even further, arguably leading his team to a title as he dominated the postseason advanced stats even over Duncan and he led the whole NBA in postseason on/off +/-.

4) Dwyane Wade - The arrival of Shaq that season obscured from many just how good Wade was during the regular season, but he burst onto the scene and made it obvious that the Heat was his team in a postseason that included keying a second round win with Shaq missing half of the games. Was magical when healthy, but got injured at the wrong time and team lost the conference finals in 7. If he'd stayed healthy I think they'd have beaten the Pistons and taken on the Spurs in the Finals, and that likely would have been enough to get him ranked over Manu. So, he drops one spot in deference to his ill-timed injury.

5) Steve Nash - Gets the boost for being the centerpiece in a huge turnaround, as well as the corresponding intangibles. Continued to be strong into the playoffs, especially in a dominating performance in the second round over his old team. I don't believe he was actually as good of a player as some of his competition (including at least one, if not both of the guys that got pushed to my HM list), but the pro-Nash argument in this thread got him into my top-5.

HM:

Dirk - Was just a step behind Garnett and Duncan statistically, led a great team for first time without his old cohort, but wasn't that special in the playoffs. Still was top-5 worthy, but Wade and Nash moving into the top-5 pushed Dirk and Shaq out.

Shaq - Like Nash, got a big boost for triggering a huge turnaround. Also measured out slightly better in the advanced stats in the regular season than did Nash and would have gotten my regular season MVP vote over Nash for that reason. Was injured in the postseason, which hurt, but he did play in every game against the Pistons and put up solid numbers. Nash in the postseason was better, though, and Wade's ascension on my list cost Shaq a spot

TMac - Was very good. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, KG may have been the only forward besides LeBron and Bird to average at least 22 and 5.7 in the last 30 years...but only if you don't count McGrady as a forward. If you do, he would also join that list. He played very well in '05, he just couldn't break into what turned out to be a pretty strong group in front of him.

[An Unbiased Fan]

#1 Tim Duncan:

RS - 20.3 ppg 11.1 rpg 2.6 bpg
PS - 23.6 ppg 12.4 rpg 2.7 apg

-All-NBA/All-D(1st)
-Finals MVP

TD's playoff performance is what put him at #1. There were really no standout players from start to finish in 2005, but TD seperated himself by leading SA to the title.

#2 Wade

RS - 24.1 ppg 5.2 rpg 6.8 apg
PS - 27.4 ppg 5.7 rpg 6.6 apg

-All-NBA/All-D(2nd)

Wade had a very good regular season, and posted great all-around numbers. His playoff performance was even better.

#3 KG

RS - 22.2 ppg 13.5 rpg 5.7 apg
PS - N/A

-All-NBA(2nd)
-All-D(1st)
-Rebounding Champ

KG had an amazingly efficient year. His play on defense and the boards was bigtime. Sadly, the impact of his boxscore didn't translate onto the court, as Minny went from the #1 seed to the lottery in 1 year. KG's reluctance to be elevate his play as a goto guy puts him behind TD and Wade.

#4 Amare

RS - 26.0 ppg 8.9 rpg 1.6 apg
PS - 29.9 ppg 10.7 rpg 1.2 apg

-All-NBA(2nd)

Amare's best year, was a monster throughout. Nash gets all the credit for the Suns teams, but in reality, Amare was their best player before 2006.

#5 "I"verson

RS - 30.7 ppg 4.0 rpg 7.9 apg
PS - 31.2 ppg 2.2 rpg 10 apg

-All-NBA(1st)
-Scoring Champ
-Top 5 in points & assists

Tremendous year for AI. Over 30 points and nearly 8 assists a game. He would be an easy #1 if he was more efficient.

Honrable mention:

Nash - MVP, great leader. But to me, the POY award is not a MVP award.
Shaq - had a great regular season and was the cornerstone workhorse for the Miami turnaround. His playofff performance, however, fell short.
Ray Allen - great year for him, just not good enough.

[lorak]

1. Duncan
2. Garnett
3. Wade
4. Shaq
5. Dirk

[Silver Bullet]

Great - The guy who wins 44 games and misses the playoffs, is the consensus POY on this page and the guy who single handedly orchestrated one of the greatest turnarounds in history has 1 charity point.

And then we have someone voting for Manu Ginobili at 3 - He's one of my favourite players in the league - but do you think if you replaced him with Nowitzki, Kobe, Shaq, Wade, Lebron or a whole bunch of other guys, you wouldn't win at least 72 games ?

[drza]

Great - The guy who wins 44 games and misses the playoffs, is the consensus POY on this page and the guy who single handedly orchestrated one of the greatest turnarounds in history has 1 charity point.

And then we have someone voting for Manu Ginobili at 3 - He's one of my favourite players in the league - but do you think if you replaced him with Nowitzki, Kobe, Shaq, Wade, Lebron or a whole bunch of other guys, you wouldn't win at least 72 games ?

It's an interesting question, and one that I had to spend some thought on. As I said, I feel like Ginobili (especially in '05) was the best true second option we've seen since Pippen in the Bulls championship runs. It'll be interesting to see, but I think that Pippen will have at least a few top-5 finishes over players that I believe to be better than he.

Also, if you look at my voting history, I voted KG 3rd in '06 and 5th in '07 despite the fact that I believe him to actually have been the best player in the NBA in those seasons. But there wasn't enough to support that opinion, as even in the advanced stats he was close enough to some players I considered him better than that I had to give them the vote. Well in this instance, regardless of what I might think, Ginobili measured out better in the advanced stats than all of those players that you mentioned while also playing a huge role in leading his team to a title. So there's just not enough there to support putting Wade, for instance, ahead of him.

Plus, Kobe, Shaq and Wade all got injured at bad times. Considering that injury kept me from even discussing KG in '09, I think that is another consistency in the way I've been evaluating. And at that stage of their careers no, I'm not convinced that LeBron would have made the Spurs that much better.

Manu was a BEAST that year. I think that is worth recognizing.

[mysticbb]

Manu was a BEAST that year. I think that is worth recognizing.

This!

Ginobili would not be a top choice as a player to build around for that season, but he did what he did. He was awesome, played great on both ends of the floor, made big plays down the stretch and delivered.

And when I see that Stoudemire can get some votes or even Iverson I know for sure that Manu Ginobili deserves more voting points in the end for his 2005 season.

[Silver Bullet]

Great - The guy who wins 44 games and misses the playoffs, is the consensus POY on this page and the guy who single handedly orchestrated one of the greatest turnarounds in history has 1 charity point.

And then we have someone voting for Manu Ginobili at 3 - He's one of my favourite players in the league - but do you think if you replaced him with Nowitzki, Kobe, Shaq, Wade, Lebron or a whole bunch of other guys, you wouldn't win at least 72 games ?

It's an interesting question, and one that I had to spend some thought on. As I said, I feel like Ginobili (especially in '05) was the best true second option we've seen since Pippen in the Bulls championship runs. It'll be interesting to see, but I think that Pippen will have at least a few top-5 finishes over players that I believe to be better than he.

Also, if you look at my voting history, I voted KG 3rd in '06 and 5th in '07 despite the fact that I believe him to actually have been the best player in the NBA in those seasons. But there wasn't enough to support that opinion, as even in the advanced stats he was close enough to some players I considered him better than that I had to give them the vote. Well in this instance, regardless of what I might think, Ginobili measured out better in the advanced stats than all of those players that you mentioned while also playing a huge role in leading his team to a title. So there's just not enough there to support putting Wade, for instance, ahead of him.

Plus, Kobe, Shaq and Wade all got injured at bad times. Considering that injury kept me from even discussing KG in '09, I think that is another consistency in the way I've been evaluating. And at that stage of their careers no, I'm not convinced that LeBron would have made the Spurs that much better.

Manu was a BEAST that year. I think that is worth recognizing.

So did Many my friend - so are you taking him off your list then ?
Wade played more games than Ginobili and Shaq played 1 less game -

The Bulls were an undefeatable beast - the Spurs are the team that never came close to beating the best team of it's era -
All 2nd options are not created equal -

I think Kobe's the best player in the league - so should I just keep voting for him every year as long as he's not injured ?

[sp6r=underrated]

If by never close, you meant to write they went 11-14 you are right.

[ItsMillerTime]

1. Nash
2. Duncan
3. Wade
4. KG
5. Nowitkzi

HM: Shaq, Iverson, Tmac

[Silver Bullet]

If by never close, you meant to write they went 11-14 you are right.

No, by never close, I meant never close - the score line is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

[ElGee]

Coming into this thread, my rankings probably would have been KG, Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Manu 1 - 5, with Nash and Wade both getting honorable mentions.

As this thread has gone along I have added TMac to the discussion, but he still couldn't get past honorable mention. Nash has moved up a bit, because I do see some interesting similarities between what he did in Phoenix in '05 and what KG did in Boston in '08, but I think on the whole KG's '08 was a bit better across the board so it didn't move Nash beyond where he landed. Manu has also moved up a bit, after I was reminded of just how strong he was that year and I decided how to mentally put him into context. Shaq and Dirk both slid due to their postseason struggles, while Wade moved up because of his postseason brilliance. In the end, here are my rankings:

1) Kevin Garnett. He was the best player in the league entering the season, and he did nothing in '05 to dissuade me from that. He was the offensive focal point for his team in a way that few forwards have ever been, as only LeBron and Bird have surpassed both his scoring and assist numbers from '05 in a single season since 1980. He was also one of the best defensive players in the league as well as the rebound champ. Overall, he led a team of old, injured chuckers to one of the better offenses in the league and a respectable defense against the odds while carrying a team with a whole lot wrong with it to 44 wins. Since we're going chronologically backward in this project, Garnett in '05 is the first player we've encountered to lead the league in PER, Win Shares, and Wins Produced in the same season.

2) Tim Duncan. As I said before, I think KG and Duncan were just clearly the two best players in the world in 2003 and 2004, and according to the advanced stats they were still 1-2 in '05. Not going to penalize either of them just because one of them got ouchy injured (but still was able to lead a team to the title) and the other was surrounded by garbage. Even with the injury that slowed his production late and the questions that some had about his Finals MVP, Duncan had enough of a gap over the rest of the league that I still have him solidly at second.

3) Manu Ginobili. One of the most underrated players of this era IMO, because his role isn't to carry the team alone. But I think he's the best #2 option since Kobe, and if you consider Kobe really a #1b then Manu is the best #2 since Pippen. He is knocked for not playing a lot of minutes, but he played almost as many as Nash and beat him convincingly across the body of advanced stats (box score and APM) in the regular season. In the postseason he picked it up even further, arguably leading his team to a title as he dominated the postseason advanced stats even over Duncan and he led the whole NBA in postseason on/off +/-.

4) Dwyane Wade - The arrival of Shaq that season obscured from many just how good Wade was during the regular season, but he burst onto the scene and made it obvious that the Heat was his team in a postseason that included keying a second round win with Shaq missing half of the games. Was magical when healthy, but got injured at the wrong time and team lost the conference finals in 7. If he'd stayed healthy I think they'd have beaten the Pistons and taken on the Spurs in the Finals, and that likely would have been enough to get him ranked over Manu. So, he drops one spot in deference to his ill-timed injury.

5) Steve Nash - Gets the boost for being the centerpiece in a huge turnaround, as well as the corresponding intangibles. Continued to be strong into the playoffs, especially in a dominating performance in the second round over his old team. I don't believe he was actually as good of a player as some of his competition (including at least one, if not both of the guys that got pushed to my HM list), but the pro-Nash argument in this thread got him into my top-5.

HM:

Dirk - Was just a step behind Garnett and Duncan statistically, led a great team for first time without his old cohort, but wasn't that special in the playoffs. Still was top-5 worthy, but Wade and Nash moving into the top-5 pushed Dirk and Shaq out.

Shaq - Like Nash, got a big boost for triggering a huge turnaround. Also measured out slightly better in the advanced stats in the regular season than did Nash and would have gotten my regular season MVP vote over Nash for that reason. Was injured in the postseason, which hurt, but he did play in every game against the Pistons and put up solid numbers. Nash in the postseason was better, though, and Wade's ascension on my list cost Shaq a spot

TMac - Was very good. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, KG may have been the only forward besides LeBron and Bird to average at least 22 and 5.7 in the last 30 years...but only if you don't count McGrady as a forward. If you do, he would also join that list. He played very well in '05, he just couldn't break into what turned out to be a pretty strong group in front of him.

drza - this is one of the rare instances where I think you're off. I too think Manu has been tremendously underrated, but I see his peak as never really breaching the top 5. I think you are slightly overlooking Manu playing on such a stacked team. Now, if you think he was a 25-5-5 player on high efficiency in any situation, then I understand your vote. I just don't quite see the evidence for that in 2005.

He may very well be the next best #2 since Pippen, but that doesn't mean he is either as good as Pippen or had the impact Pippen did. Bryant's the best shooting guard since Jordan, but he didn't sweep the decade as I imagine MJ might in the 90s.

[sp6r=underrated]

If by never close, you meant to write they went 11-14 you are right.

No, by never close, I meant never close - the facts are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

okay.

[ElGee]

Big Men are supposed to have big numbers because all stats are skewed to favor them, point guards are not supposed to have big numbers, because most point guards with big numbers don't win a lot.

Stats aren't skewed to favor big men, basketball is.

Height is an inherent advantage in the sport.

(SB, not necessarily directed at you, just noting this in general as I've seen it mentioned a few times.)