Retro POY '07-08 (Voting Complete)

Moderators: penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063

User avatar
Optimism Prime
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 3,374
And1: 35
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
 

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#221 » by Optimism Prime » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:21 am

Whew. Just read through the entire thread. Lots of debate here...

Optimism Prime wrote::Here's how I'm weighing things (mentioned earlier, trying to expand upon it a bit more here): What if the teams were disbanded, each player put up for draft, no salary cap, for that year only? Who would I want to be my top-five franchise players? I'll go into it with some knowledge of what happened that year (obviously), but the "best player on the champion" argument simply doesn't always fly with me. Sometimes, sure; but if I'm looking at individual players, and who would give me the best chance to win a ring... team success doesn't necessarily equal a great personal season. Doesn't mean I'm going to go with "great individual stats on a bad team;" you need to lead your team to wins, too.

Here's what I'm looking at, in approximate order:

-Domination. Was Player X a force of nature that season? How did his stats compare to the rest of the field?
-Did he make the playoffs? If not... good luck getting a vote from me. Once we hit the playoffs, anything could happen. Like I said, I want the player who will give me the best chance to win... whether or not that matches up with what actually happened is more or less a moot point.
-Gut instinct. How comfortable do I feel trusting him down the clutch?
-Personal feelings. Do I just not like the guy? This is only going to be about 1% of my final decision, so I'll try to be as unbiased as possible.


Rankings:

Like nearly everyone, my top four are the same; order is the only thing to be determined.

1. Garnett: An anecdote, if you'll forgive me. I've only seen Garnett play in person once (back when he was on the Wolves). My clearest memory of that game was him warming up. Some players were shooting, goofing off. Garnett wasn't. He was totally focused. In the layup line, he somehow threw it down both effortlessly and giving off the impression that the basket had killed his mother. I don't know how to describe it. The guy is just... a unique player. That game (along with the "I hate to lose" interview) made a huge difference to me in how I view him. I always worried that we'd never know how good he actually was, that we'd never see him in his prime, not having to carry a team by himself. This year, we got to see it. Garnett transformed that team. I'm not saying that he was the difference between a lottery-bound team, and the eventual champions. I do think that the Allen/Pierce combo would've been great--with Rondo and Jefferson, especially. But at the same time, I can't deny the impact that KG had on the Celtics from the moment the trade happened. The advanced statistics are great, yes, but to me... there's not a player this year who would've given me a better shot to win.
2. Paul: This is tough. I'm having a hard time choosing between Paul and Bryant, even after the eleventy-billion posts about it. My first, gut instinct is to go with Paul, who had an incredible PG season. I'll take an epic floor general. But it's close. drza's post about Paul ("The Maestro") was a factor here--the fact that Paul was willing to do whatever it takes to get the best out of his team says a lot to me. Raise your hand if you ever thought Tyson Chandler could be part of an unstoppable force on offense (in this case, the Paul-to-Chandler oop)? Not me, that's for sure. But the guy got it done.
3. Bryant: This is more 2b than 3. But I had to pick one.
4. Lebron: Testament to his peers that a 30/8/7 season only gets him in fourth place.
5. I'll actually go with someone I'm not sure has gotten mentioned yet... but was third in Win Shares and WS/48, third in PER, first in TS%, and put up a 25/9/1.5/2... Amare Stoudemire.




tl;dr Ballot:
1 Kevin Garnett
2 Chris Paul
3 Kobe Bryant
4 Lebron James
5 Amare Stoudemire
Hello ladies. Look at your posts. Now back to mine. Now back at your posts now back to MINE. Sadly, they aren't mine. But if your posts started using Optimism™, they could sound like mine. This post is now diamonds.

I'm on a horse.
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,206
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#222 » by ElGee » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:29 am

Optimism Prime wrote:Garnett: An anecdote, if you'll forgive me. I've only seen Garnett play in person once (back when he was on the Wolves). My clearest memory of that game was him warming up. Some players were shooting, goofing off. Garnett wasn't. He was totally focused. In the layup line, he somehow threw it down both effortlessly and giving off the impression that the basket had killed his mother. I don't know how to describe it. The guy is just... a unique player. That game (along with the "I hate to lose" interview) made a huge difference to me in how I view him. I always worried that we'd never know how good he actually was, that we'd never see him in his prime, not having to carry a team by himself. This year, we got to see it. Garnett transformed that team. I'm not saying that he was the difference between a lottery-bound team, and the eventual champions. I do think that the Allen/Pierce combo would've been great--with Rondo and Jefferson, especially. But at the same time, I can't deny the impact that KG had on the Celtics from the moment the trade happened. The advanced statistics are great, yes, but to me... there's not a player this year who would've given me a better shot to win.


I think this sums up KG very well...but I'm fairly confident the exact same thing would have happened if he were traded to a contender in 2007. So, how am I supposed to weigh that in comparing 2007 and 2008? I suppose if you believe if he just the best player in the world period, it doesn't matter either way. But I see him as a touch past his prime (he had knee issues for while, remember)m so...Did he suddenly become better in 08? Should he just get a boost for circumstance? There are a lot of good pro-KG arguments in this discussion, I'm just not sure how to deal with this issue.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#223 » by mysticbb » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:31 am

Optimism Prime wrote:5. I'll actually go with someone I'm not sure has gotten mentioned yet... but was third in Win Shares and WS/48, third in PER, first in TS%, and put up a 25/9/1.5/2... Amare Stoudemire.


Don't let the boxscore stats fool you here. Stoudemire has zero positive impact on the game. His APM (adjusted +/-) for that season is -2.2, hardly something you expect from a Top5 player.

Other than that your ranking looks good.
User avatar
Optimism Prime
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 3,374
And1: 35
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
 

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#224 » by Optimism Prime » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:37 am

ElGee wrote:
Optimism Prime wrote:Garnett: An anecdote, if you'll forgive me. I've only seen Garnett play in person once (back when he was on the Wolves). My clearest memory of that game was him warming up. Some players were shooting, goofing off. Garnett wasn't. He was totally focused. In the layup line, he somehow threw it down both effortlessly and giving off the impression that the basket had killed his mother. I don't know how to describe it. The guy is just... a unique player. That game (along with the "I hate to lose" interview) made a huge difference to me in how I view him. I always worried that we'd never know how good he actually was, that we'd never see him in his prime, not having to carry a team by himself. This year, we got to see it. Garnett transformed that team. I'm not saying that he was the difference between a lottery-bound team, and the eventual champions. I do think that the Allen/Pierce combo would've been great--with Rondo and Jefferson, especially. But at the same time, I can't deny the impact that KG had on the Celtics from the moment the trade happened. The advanced statistics are great, yes, but to me... there's not a player this year who would've given me a better shot to win.


I think this sums up KG very well...but I'm fairly confident the exact same thing would have happened if he were traded to a contender in 2007. So, how am I supposed to weigh that in comparing 2007 and 2008? I suppose if you believe if he just the best player in the world period, it doesn't matter either way. But I see him as a touch past his prime (he had knee issues for while, remember)m so...Did he suddenly become better in 08? Should he just get a boost for circumstance? There are a lot of good pro-KG arguments in this discussion, I'm just not sure how to deal with this issue.


Well, it's a year-by-year thing. For 06-07, I won't be looking at what he did after--like I say in my intro, I'm doing this based on which player I'd want on my team from that year, given their resume.

He got a boost for sublimating his personal stats for the sake of the team, for being an incredibly vocal leader, for being the one guy that I'd most want on my team (if only so I wouldn't have to play against him). As a player, he didn't improve at all, but I think his will/personality/charisma/force, whatever you want to call it was off the charts. Same with Lebron in 08-09 (though that was more playful "We're such good friends, let's win this one!" , less "SO HELP ME GOD, I WILL KILL YOU IF YOU SCREW UP THAT ROTATION"). Both got teams to buy completely into their method or orchestration, whatever you want to call it. That said--now that I've cast my ballot--if it were between 09 Lebron and 08 KG, I'm going with the guy who'll be a more positive locker room presence.

This year, though, it was KG, the green-wearing wrecking ball. I would not have wanted to get in his way.
Hello ladies. Look at your posts. Now back to mine. Now back at your posts now back to MINE. Sadly, they aren't mine. But if your posts started using Optimism™, they could sound like mine. This post is now diamonds.

I'm on a horse.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,740
And1: 21,678
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#225 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:40 am

ElGee wrote:I think this sums up KG very well...but I'm fairly confident the exact same thing would have happened if he were traded to a contender in 2007. So, how am I supposed to weigh that in comparing 2007 and 2008? I suppose if you believe if he just the best player in the world period, it doesn't matter either way. But I see him as a touch past his prime (he had knee issues for while, remember)m so...Did he suddenly become better in 08? Should he just get a boost for circumstance? There are a lot of good pro-KG arguments in this discussion, I'm just not sure how to deal with this issue.


A great point.

The way I've been thinking on it is related but a bit different: More than anything else, it wasn't Garnett's personality that rallied the Celtics into a frenzy that year, it was the recognition of the windfall of talent and the fact that that talent's prime was receding in the rear view mirror quickly. Let's think on Kobe for a minute here, because if KG is the #1 guy this year, he's beating out Kobe. If Kobe had gotten traded to a team with comparable talent and just as good of a fit, do you think the adrenaline on the team would have been significantly less?
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Gongxi
Banned User
Posts: 3,988
And1: 28
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#226 » by Gongxi » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:45 am

ElGee wrote:I think this sums up KG very well...but I'm fairly confident the exact same thing would have happened if he were traded to a contender in 2007. So, how am I supposed to weigh that in comparing 2007 and 2008? I suppose if you believe if he just the best player in the world period, it doesn't matter either way. But I see him as a touch past his prime (he had knee issues for while, remember)m so...Did he suddenly become better in 08? Should he just get a boost for circumstance? There are a lot of good pro-KG arguments in this discussion, I'm just not sure how to deal with this issue.


I have the same thought process and that's why I can't look to team success as anything other than a kind of tiebreaker. Garnett might win this voting, but I'm fairly confident he won't crack the top 3 in 06-07. Was he that much worse? Was his competition that much better? I don't think 'yes' is the appropriate answer to either of those. But the voting will reflect that and it's somewhat intellectually dishonest.

I mean, someone said if the Lakers had won the title they'd have Bryant first. So the whole of judging his performance for the entire season comes down to like two games? I'm not trying to insult anyone but come on. That's ridiculous. If you think he was the best throughout the year, that's cool, a decent case can be made for that. But it shouldn't hinge around one series wherein one team won 4 games before the Lakers could win 3. That's just so arbitrary.
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,206
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#227 » by ElGee » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:48 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElGee wrote:I think this sums up KG very well...but I'm fairly confident the exact same thing would have happened if he were traded to a contender in 2007. So, how am I supposed to weigh that in comparing 2007 and 2008? I suppose if you believe if he just the best player in the world period, it doesn't matter either way. But I see him as a touch past his prime (he had knee issues for while, remember)m so...Did he suddenly become better in 08? Should he just get a boost for circumstance? There are a lot of good pro-KG arguments in this discussion, I'm just not sure how to deal with this issue.


A great point.

The way I've been thinking on it is related but a bit different: More than anything else, it wasn't Garnett's personality that rallied the Celtics into a frenzy that year, it was the recognition of the windfall of talent and the fact that that talent's prime was receding in the rear view mirror quickly. Let's think on Kobe for a minute here, because if KG is the #1 guy this year, he's beating out Kobe. If Kobe had gotten traded to a team with comparable talent and just as good of a fit, do you think the adrenaline on the team would have been significantly less?


Haha well, technically, yes. KG isn't normal. But your point still stands -- if Kobe were traded, his new teammates would be more amped than they were that opening night without him.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
User avatar
Silver Bullet
General Manager
Posts: 8,313
And1: 10
Joined: Dec 24, 2006

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#228 » by Silver Bullet » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:48 am

mysticbb wrote:
Optimism Prime wrote:5. I'll actually go with someone I'm not sure has gotten mentioned yet... but was third in Win Shares and WS/48, third in PER, first in TS%, and put up a 25/9/1.5/2... Amare Stoudemire.


Don't let the boxscore stats fool you here. Stoudemire has zero positive impact on the game. His APM (adjusted +/-) for that season is -2.2, hardly something you expect from a Top5 player.

Other than that your ranking looks good.


Can we please take a detour and reach some sort of a conclusion on APM. To me it's a useless stat, but it's dictated the voting for this whole year.

I mean, the standard deviation on that thing is probably 10 points, which makes it unusable.
User avatar
Optimism Prime
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 3,374
And1: 35
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
 

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#229 » by Optimism Prime » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:57 am

Silver Bullet wrote:
mysticbb wrote:
Optimism Prime wrote:5. I'll actually go with someone I'm not sure has gotten mentioned yet... but was third in Win Shares and WS/48, third in PER, first in TS%, and put up a 25/9/1.5/2... Amare Stoudemire.


Don't let the boxscore stats fool you here. Stoudemire has zero positive impact on the game. His APM (adjusted +/-) for that season is -2.2, hardly something you expect from a Top5 player.

Other than that your ranking looks good.


Can we please take a detour and reach some sort of a conclusion on APM. To me it's a useless stat, but it's dictated the voting for this whole year.

I mean, the standard deviation on that thing is probably 10 points, which makes it unusable.


I don't understand APM; it'll have no effect on my voting until I do.

Mysticbb, not sure why I picked Amare, to be totally honest. Just a gut feeling. It's not that scientific, but I'll take it. ;) It's 1/832of the vote, anyways... not a big deal.
Hello ladies. Look at your posts. Now back to mine. Now back at your posts now back to MINE. Sadly, they aren't mine. But if your posts started using Optimism™, they could sound like mine. This post is now diamonds.

I'm on a horse.
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,003
And1: 5,070
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#230 » by ronnymac2 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:30 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:This was a tough year. I hope all the years aren't like this.


My first thought was "No way, rarely will you see a toss up like this one". Then I thought about it, and I could see '05-06, '04-05, and '03-04 all being kinda like this. After that it will calm down I think - which is interesting if my prediction comes true, implies that the less fresh the memory, the more certainty.


I think a good testing ground for your prediction will be the early 90's, involving Charles Barkley.

04 is going to be a nightmare, 05 is going to annoy the hell out of me personally, and 06 is going to be a year of fantastic debates. I can't wait for 06.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,740
And1: 21,678
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#231 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:52 am

ronnymac2 wrote:I think a good testing ground for your prediction will be the early 90's, involving Charles Barkley.


An excellent sample to bring up. Thing is, the Houston trio was older, two of the guys had already won titles, and the guy coming in wasn't the biggest star of the 3, wasn't in great shape, and wasn't the best of leaders. If you want to say "See KG has way better off the court impact than Barkley" that makes sense. But Kobe's much more like KG than Barkley.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
ronnymac2
RealGM
Posts: 11,003
And1: 5,070
Joined: Apr 11, 2008
   

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#232 » by ronnymac2 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:59 am

^^^Nah, I said early 90's, meaning 90-93. It was directed more towards Barkley being in the MVP conversations with Magic and MJ and Hakeem, yet he isn't seen as a player on their level today. So it'll be interesting to see what people say about him in that time-frame.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won
It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle
Open your heart and hands, my son
Or you'll never make it over the river
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,740
And1: 21,678
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#233 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:04 am

Silver Bullet wrote:Can we please take a detour and reach some sort of a conclusion on APM. To me it's a useless stat, but it's dictated the voting for this whole year.

I mean, the standard deviation on that thing is probably 10 points, which makes it unusable.


Well first off, we're not going to enforce any conclusions about advanced statistics here. People are welcome to ask for explanations of stats, and voice their opinions, but if someone else uses a stat you don't like simply as part of their reasoning in making their vote, please leave it alone.

To mention something relevant to the immediate conversation: By +/- Amare doesn't look as good as some other guys, even if you don't use APM. However, by the raw team net +/-, the team certainly did better with him on the court than with him off of it.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,740
And1: 21,678
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#234 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:05 am

ronnymac2 wrote:^^^Nah, I said early 90's, meaning 90-93. It was directed more towards Barkley being in the MVP conversations with Magic and MJ and Hakeem, yet he isn't seen as a player on their level today. So it'll be interesting to see what people say about him in that time-frame.


Ah, yes very interesting.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,859
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#235 » by drza » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:08 am

ElGee wrote:I do not have Garnett at #1 as of right now. I didn't think of his as #1 during that season. I do think he was the most valuable player, but a lot of that is circumstance. My understanding is that this is a "best player" project, and he wouldn't be my first pick in that regard.

The biggest issue with Garnett he wasn't really a true #1 scoring option. Now, that doesn't preclude someone from being the game's best, but KG's offense wasn't quite where it was at his peak in Minnesota. He was heavily criticized in Boston at times during the playoffs because of lack of offensive aggressiveness. Obviously, we have to weigh this against his defense.

He was excellent in the Detroit series, peaking in game 5. Pierce was better during the Finals. I think I want my #1 player to be the best player on the floor during the NBA Finals (if he's playing in them) and to be a larger offensive presence. These are my reservations about KG...counter-arguments?


Silver Bullet wrote:
So Paul Peirce and Ray Allen were responsible for the Celtics winning the Final.

You have Kobe first if they win that one series.

But somehow KG benefits from all of this ?


I've seen enough posts like teses from thoughtful posters that might still be on the fence that I think I should give my 2 cents about why I think Garnett was the best player on the floor during the NBA Finals. Both Pierce and Allen were great, and I respect the heck out of what they did those Finals. I even understand why Pierce was the Finals MVP. But let me at least give another perspective on what KG brought to the table specifically in the Finals (this'll be long, but in a 20-page thread hopefully some will find it worth it to read).

I'll start off broad, big picture. First and foremost, Garnett was the defensive epicenter of a team that won with defense first. I've read a lot of testimony about how poorly Kobe played during the Finals, and though those directly on him (mainly Allen, with Pierce and Posey also taking their turns) deserve credit it has to be noted that they were able to be much more aggressive on the perimeter because they knew that the interior help defense (spear-headed by Garnett) had their backs. Plus, Kobe knew it as well, so some of those jumpers that missed or were blocked, may well have been times that he would have drove against most defenses. But not this one.

Also, for the series as a whole Pierce and Allen did lead the team in scoring (21.8 and 20.3 ppg, respectively) and scored more efficiently than Garnett, but Garnett dominated the glass in addition to his defense(13 rpg in one of the rare cases that I've been able to find where the same player led their team in rebounds, blocks and steals in the Finals) and his 18.2 ppg. It should also be pointed out that while Pierce and Allen spent the majority of their time matched up 1-on-1 against Vlad Rad, Derek Fisher and Sasha Vujacic (Kobe spent a lot of time on Rondo) KG was being guarded by Gasol with first Lamar Odom and later Kobe Bryant sagging off of their man to double KG often even before the entry pass (the same defensive set-up that gave Duncan fits in '08, and Howard fits in '09).

That said, those are macroscopic big-picture arguments. I'd like to bring the focus in a bit to specific games.

Game 1: The series opener. Garnett led the Celtics with 24 points and 13 boards. In the first half of the game, he was the one that kept the Celtics in it when the Lakers were off to a strong start. Garnett scored 16 points on 6-of-9 shooting and grabbed 6 boards during the first half, when Pierce (3 points, 1-for-4 FG) and Allen (6 points, 2-for-8 FG) were off. On KG's back, they went into the half only down 5 points.

When they came out in the 3rd quarter, the Celtics went on a 12-5 run to briefly take the lead, and that run was entirely fueled by the Pierce/KG 2-man game that the Cs had just used to polish off the Pistons at the end of game 6. Pierce scored/assisted on all 5 of the scoring possessions, while KG scored/assisted on 4 of the 5. The Lakers had crept back up by 4 points when Pierce went down with the knee injury. Because of that injury/return and the subsequent 2 huge treys that Pierce hit when he returned, for many Game 1 is remembered as Pierce's game. What isn't often remembered is that during the time that Pierce was out the Cs had actually re-gained the lead, or that after Pierce's treys there was still a whole 4th quarter to play.

In the 4th Q, KG couldn't buy a shot. He was ice-cold, going only 1-for-6 from the field. That often gets remembered. What doesn't get remembered is that in the 4th quarter the entire game shifted to purely defense and grinding. The Celts held the entire Lakers team to only 15 points on 5-of-18 FG shooting. And in this ugly, grind it out period, Garnett made the 2 most impactful sequences that sealed that game.

1) With 9:44 left and the Celtics up 3 points with the ball, someone threw a pass that sailed over everyone's head towards the backcourt. It looked like either the start of a Lakers' fast break or at the least a backcourt violation turnover. But Garnett took off after the ball and plastic-man lunged over halfcourt to save it back to PJ Brown, who set up Cassell for a jumper. On the ensuing defensive possession, Garnett stole a pass from Kobe. Cassell missed for the Cs, but on the next possession Garnett set up Posey for a 3-pointer with 8:44 left. In a minute the Celtics lead went from 3 points to 8 points with Garnett tied into every score and the defensive stops. Timeout Lakers.

2) With 1:49 left the Cs were still hanging onto their 5 point lead and had the ball. Rondo gets fouled and makes the first FT, but misses the second. Garnett gets into the lane and keeps the rebound alive, and the Lakers eventually knock it out of bounds trying to keep it from him. On that possession, Posey spots up for a 3-ptr but misses. Nobody boxes out Garnett, who follows the miss with a put-back dunk posterization of Pau Gasol that becomes an instant classic moment. Kobe gets fouled and makes 2 FTs at the other end to cut it back to 6, but on the next possession they go back to Garnett, who draws the shooting foul and makes both free throws. Celtics up 8, 1 minute left, timeout Lakers, game-over.

Game 4: The comeback game. Pierce, Allen, Posey and House were all critical to that comeback. But the lynchpin was Garnett. Consider, the Lakers came out hyped that game and punched the Cs in the mouth. But they were only up 11 when Garnett had to go to the bench with 2 fouls. It was with him on the bench that the lead ballooned up over 20 points. The team was down 21 entering the 2nd quarter when Garnett came back in and helped right the ship, and by the time KG sat the last minute to prevent picking up another foul the lead was down to 13. Of course, in that last minute without KG the Lakers immediately pushed the lead back to 18 by the hslf.

The second half, though, was the masterpiece. Pierce (14 points), Allen (10 points), Garnett (10 points), House (9 points) and Posey (8 points) all contributed about equally to the scoring column. But the only reason the Cs could play House for so much of the half was because Pierce and Garnett (3 assists each in the 3rd quarter) could handle the distribution which let House (a natural SG in a PG's body) play off the ball. But more importantly, the only reason that the Cs could play with 4 wing shooters for most of a half is because Garnett DOMINATED the paint. In that fateful 3rd quarter, Gasol and Odom combined to shoot 1-for-5 from the field with KG as the only interior defender. And KG grabbed almost as many 3rd Q rebounds (5) as the entire Lakers TEAM (6). Individual game +/- is a very sketchy, very noisy stat to track...but this was a time I think it was right, as Garnett's interior mastery that helped spearhead the turnaround led to him posting a +17 for the game against Pierce's +9 and Allen's +6.

Game 6: The Eff-you game. This game is remembered as the 39-point blowout, one of the biggest wins in Finals history. Ray Allen set a 3-point record in this game. Rajon Rondo flirted from a distance with a quadruple-double. But really, if you look at it, Garnett was the one that came out and put his foot on the Lakers' throats. Rondo was 2-for-8 from the field with 3 boards and 1 assist at the half, and Allen sat out most of the first half with an eye injury. It wasn't until the second half, with the game already a blowout, that Allen hit his 6 more 3-pointers and Rondo contributed another 15 points and 7 assists.

No, in the first half, the player that made it a blowout was Kevin Garnett. Garnett, who scored 10 points with 3 boards in the first quarter when Kobe was on fire and keeping the Lakers in it. Garnett, who re-entered the game with 7:31 left in the second quarter and the Celtics only up by 3 points and immediately touched off a huge run that would have the Cs up 23 at the half. Garnett, who had two of the signature moments of the series in that half when he tied up a frustrated Pau Gasol for a jumpball and also hit probably the highlight shot of his career, a crazy hanging, fading, one-handed runner in the lane in which he got fouled and was flat on his back when it went in. Garnett, who had as many field goals in the first half as the ENTIRE LAKERS TEAM.

At the half KG was dominating the game with 17 points on 8-for-12 FG, 6 boards, and 3 assists. Celtics up 23. Game over. Yes, after it was decided Allen and Rondo put some icing on the cake, but Garnett was locked into eff-you mode in that game on a level that I hadn't seen since Game 7 against the Kings in '04. If the game was close he was absolutely headed for 30 and 15. That game was his.

In summary, you can make (and I just made) a very strong argument that Garnett was the best player on the floor in 3 of the 4 Celtics Finals wins. As I said at the start, I give Allen and Pierce all types of credit for their play in that series and I'm not campaigning against Pierce's Finals MVP. But when you look at it in depth, Garnett definitely played a huge role (and likely the largest role) specifically in the Finals for the Cs bringing home the title.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,740
And1: 21,678
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#236 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:38 am

Alright so my top 5:

1. Kobe
2. Paul
3. LeBron
4. Garnett
5. Nash

The big debate is where to put Garnett. I think people made some great points for him being #1, in the end I just can't. He missed a lot of time, his team didn't totally fall off without him and had other stars, and the off court impact I just can't give him full credit for that relative to other guys who I think would have had some impact like that too if they'd been in the same situation.

Kobe over Paul was my main debate at the time, and nothing really swayed me. I give Kobe a lot of credit for making the transition to using a superior supporting cast.

LeBron was really right up there with Kobe & Paul - tiebreaker goes to the guys who missed less time.

Nash gets the 5th spot. I think very highly of Nash, and I just don't have a reason to really knock him down here. The thing that knocks the wind out of his sails is his GM's lack of confidence in him, but to me that was obviously a mistake. Taking the season at face value, he still led his team to a stellar record, doing all the right things.

Honorable Mention:

Pierce - wouldn't fault people for having him in the top 5. Arguments have been made he was the true star of the Celtics, and I understand why. In the end, I just don't see him as that much of a standout.

Dwight - Agree with some of the other small knocks people've mentioned for this year, and he just squeaked into my top 5 the next year.

Duncan - On face value, he's the obvious #5 guy. Duncan leading a team to the WCF, feels like a lock. But his play really did drop off from the previous year, from this point onward I've been spending more time marveling at how Pop used the good luck of getting DRob & TD to build a great team environment that seems to keep on going no matter what.

Dirk - Yeah, solid as always. Also a reasonable top 5 pick. Personally I take peak Nash over peak Dirk, I know others disagree.

Billups - Best player on a consistent 60 game winning team in their swan song. The lost Big Ben, no problem. Next year they lose Chauncey, big problem.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
bastillon
Head Coach
Posts: 6,927
And1: 664
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
Location: Poland
   

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#237 » by bastillon » Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:12 am

great post drza. I'm going to refer to this in the future.

some things that made me change my mind:
-Silver Bullet pointed this out: CP doesn't get a playoff boost over LeBron and Kobe because he never got to face Celtics historical defense. I remember Rajon Rondo playing him to a standstill during that season; these games were really feisty because of the two. I don't think Paul would've done any better against Celtics defense.

now, without Bryant's finals, he's even better than Paul, especially against the same opponent. I remember Kobe totally dominating the Spurs that year. I'm going to give Bryant an edge here.

-Doctor MJ pointed this out: Paul's PM ratings weren't close to other candidates that year. I remember a discussion on APBR board at the time about whether Paul is a liability on defense and how his size hurt him because he couldn't contest shots. some analysts made a research and actually a lot of short PGs were bad in PM numbers.

-LeBron was REALLY bad during Celtics series. it had nothing to do with him figuring out their defense. the defense forced him to make jumpshots, I remember Pierce daring him to shoot and he just bricked a shot after shot, made a mistake after mistake. majority of the series was James sucking.

what strikes me the most is that as much as his supporting cast sucked overall, he still managed not to be their best player at times; as Ilgauskas outplayed him in game 1 and Varejao did too in couple of his horrendous performances. his incapabilities outside of the paint cost his team the first game (Allen and Pierce never showed up for that game and KG carried them by himself scoring like 28 on great eff). see, this is the most important here. if LeBron was at least solid or didn't put up as many shots or turned the ball over less, the Cavs would've won the game.

that's why I think LeBron's playoffs are very overrated. he failed on every account. the reason why Cavs had a 7-game series with Celtics had little to do with his play. they were winning because of the defense and Ray Allen having off-court issues. when Ray/Pierce stepped up, Celtics won every game. this would've been a sweep, had they met in the finals.

Game 2 - Pierce/Ray - 35-7-5, 11/23 FG
Game 5 - Pierce 29-7-3, Rondo 20-13 as
Game 7 Pierce 41-3-5

if Boston had been at its normal game, this series would go no further than 4 games. I'm not going to give LeBron credit for Ray Allen's son being ill at that particular time. I believe otherwise series wouldn't go anywhere near 7th game.

series stats:

Code: Select all

               PPG   FG%   RPG  APG   TOs
    KG        19.6  54.5   10.9 3.1   1.1
    Pierce    19.4  40.4   5.0  3.6   3.4
    Rondo     10.6  42.6   4.1  6.0   2.6
    Allen      9.3  32.8   3.3  2.3   1.6

    LBJ       26.7  35.5   6.4  7.6   5.3


the big difference between LeBron's series was that had James played better, the Cavs would've won the series, because of Ray Allen. Kobe on the other hand, would have to put up 20 fadeaway shots and make them so that the Lakers could compete. this is a big difference.

but then again, Bryant's defense in the finals was pathetic and he should be partly responsible for Ray Allen going off on Vujacic, why didn't he ask to guard him ? LeBron's defense was great in that series, vastly limiting Pierce, which Bryant wasn't able to do either.

Dr MJ wrote:The big debate is where to put Garnett. I think people made some great points for him being #1, in the end I just can't. He missed a lot of time, his team didn't totally fall off without him and had other stars, and the off court impact I just can't give him full credit for that relative to other guys who I think would have had some impact like that too if they'd been in the same situation.


shouldn't KG get a free pass on this when his team was BY FAR 1st in the league at the time ? I mean after that abdominal strain (not the knee injury as someone implied) Garnett could play in all games, as he did in the very same game he injured himself (and made a game winning steal on Telfair diving to the floor, how's that for leadership ?), but why would they bother to do so when in fact they still led the league by a wide margin and thus there was no need to rush him back in the game.

see, this is what I don't understand. Garnett played 40 MPG on a crappy team, but people don't believe he'd be playing similar mins in '08 if there was any need for that in the first place ? the very reason why it wasn't the case was because of how they blew out the opposition. you're talking about over 10 PPG point differential. you can look up how many teams dominated their peers like that.

the time Garnett missed was because of:
-blowouts
-leading the league by a wide margin when he was injured

there's little evidence to assume he wasn't ABLE to play more mins.

note that in the playoffs he played 40 MPG unless it was a blowout. hard to hold this mins argument against him. if anything, this is part of what makes him so great. he was able to make this kind of impact while playing significantly less than other candidates.

------------------------------------------------------------


this discussion solidified my opinion on KG at #1

1.KG
2.Kobe
outperformed Paul while playing against the same opponent, he had great numbers before the finals.
3.Paul
he'd play much worse against the Celtics, but not that bad... James couldn't hit a jumper to save his life.
4.LeBron
5.Nash
I'm going with Nash over Dirk because it's a wash and playoff performance can be linked to their competition. Dirk was guarded by David West... Nash had Bowen and Spurs defense all over his ass.

top HM:
Dirk
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#238 » by mysticbb » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:42 am

Silver Bullet wrote:Can we please take a detour and reach some sort of a conclusion on APM. To me it's a useless stat, but it's dictated the voting for this whole year.

I mean, the standard deviation on that thing is probably 10 points, which makes it unusable.


Uh, what? Using it as a tool alone to evaluate players is the wrong thing, but taking it into considerations is another one.

Stoudemire's numbers:

APM

2004/05: +2.6
2006/07: +1.3
2007/08: -2.2
2008/09: -1.2
2009/10: -6.2

Stabilized 2003-2009: -0.3

Regularized APM

2006/07: +0.1
2007/08: +0.8
2008/09: 0.0
2009/10: -1.2

2006-2010: -0.4


Amare Stoudemire 2008 together with Steve Nash +460 in 2222 minutes, without Steve Nash -43 in 455 minutes.
Stoudemire in games without Nash from 2004/05 to 2009/10: 23.4/8.8/1.3 per 36 minutes on 56.4 TS%, 13.9 TO-R, 0.35 Win% or 28.7 wins per 82 games
Stoudemire in games with Nash from 2004/05 to 2009/10: 24.2/9.4/1.4 on 63.2 TS%, 11.1 To-R, 0.705 WIn% or 57.8 wins per 82 games

Those numbers for Stoudemire in 2008 are not a fluke. Stoudemire is a shell of the player without Steve Nash on the court than with Nash together. We are not talking about a small difference anymore, look how is scoring efficiency goes down from being elite to being only above average, look how is turnover ratio is getting worse, in 2008 he played a lot of minutes with Nash which is the reason for his good Net+/-, but overall he is exposed without Nash on the court. To get a better impression: Nash in 2008 played 558 minutes without Stoudemire and was +87 during that time.

2008

Stoudemire with Nash: +9.9 per 48 minutes
Stoudemire with Nash: -7.7 per 48 minutes

Nash with Stoudemire: +9.9 per 48 minutes
Nash without Stoudemire: +7.5 per 48 minutes

For Stoudemire that is a 17.6 points per 48 minutes swing, for Nash it is 2.4.

Using Hollinger's unadjusted PER as the basis to make that adjustment for 2008 for Stoudemire without Nash, we will get a 0.82 factor which would result into 22.7 PER. Would anyone vote for Stoudemire being on a 29 wins team with a 22.7 PER? Who exactly thinks about putting David Lee into the Top5 for 2010? That is what Stoudemire basically is without Nash.
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,859
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#239 » by drza » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:09 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:The way I've been thinking on it is related but a bit different: More than anything else, it wasn't Garnett's personality that rallied the Celtics into a frenzy that year, it was the recognition of the windfall of talent and the fact that that talent's prime was receding in the rear view mirror quickly. Let's think on Kobe for a minute here, because if KG is the #1 guy this year, he's beating out Kobe. If Kobe had gotten traded to a team with comparable talent and just as good of a fit, do you think the adrenaline on the team would have been significantly less?


TrueLAfan wrote:I just don’t think his intangibles were epically high. They were great, but not that high. And they’d have to be top put him in the top 3. I still have him fourth. He was great.


(ETA: I think the best quotes are the first one I list from Scal and the last one I list from Gabe Pruitt, so if you don't want to read through this whole long post I'd recommend at least checking out those two quotes.)

One last chapter in my Garnett dissertation for '08: what is the actual story behind his "intangible" effect that season? We've talked a lot about his on-court contributions which (at least in my opinion) were tangibly measurable as right there at the top of the league. But I can't remember a time in recent memory when one player was credited by so many as having a huge off-the-court benefit on an entire team the way that Garnett was. I could be wrong, because I don't follow the other superstars of this generation close enough to know what is written about them on a daily basis. But Garnett was universally credited by everyone in the Celtics organization from the top (Doc Rivers, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen) to the bottom (Leon Powe, Brian Scalabrine, Gabe Pruit) as the difference off the court. Mike Gorman, the Celtics commentator who has been doing their games since the dawn of the Larry Bird era, came to the same conclusion. Opposing coaches weighed in with the same up-close observations. So, while Garnett's off-the-court/"intangible" team effect isn't really quantifiable (after all, it's intangible), I do have some quotes from different people that were there that tried to explain it in their own words (some of the articles I had saved have been deleted in the 2+ years since they were written, but I'll post the links for the ones that still work).

1) Brian Scalabrine on the difference in the team's focus. (I'm starting off with Scal because he is a vet player that has been on different teams, he was a Celtic both before Garnett got there and after, and he is not one that holds his tongue from saying what he believes.) From a Chuck Klosterman NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sport ... ref=slogin

I try to get a sense of what ethereal elements might have altered the chemistry of the Celtics, but I am told that the difference is not intangible; it’s tangible, and it’s not complicated. “This is my seventh year in the N.B.A. I’ve been to the finals twice, and those teams were great. But they were not like this team,” Scalabrine says. “And the reason why is Kevin Garnett. The media perception about Garnett is real. When Kevin walks into the facility and the weight room, he jokes around and makes fun of guys. But then about 15 minutes before practice, it’s all focus. It’s all work. If he is not clear about something, we don’t move on until we are all clear. He solves a lot of problems. I mean, I’ve played with good players. I played with Jason Kidd, and Kidd is an incredible gamer. But he was never as demanding of his teammates the way Kevin is. Not half as much. Not a quarter as much."

“Look, I can keep saying a million clichés, but those clichés are going to be true,” Scalabrine says. “Are we more focused? Yes, we are more focused. That is true. But here’s the basic thing: Basketball involves only five guys, playing both offense and defense. The impact of one person can be immense. It’s much larger than in any other sport. So when you add Kevin Garnett, the defensive intelligence he brings is huge. It’s not just that he’s adding 20 points and 10 rebounds a night. There are other guys who can get you 20 and 10 who are not the player that he is. He demands a different level of focus from everybody. So that sounds cliché, but it’s the truth. It’s the truth.”


2) Doc Rivers on how he doesn't have to police the team because KG does it (I used to have a better link, where Doc told a story about pre-season practice when Pierce was loafing a bit and KG called him out on it, loudly, in front of the whole team. After that Pierce picked it up and everyone else followed suit, because if KG did that to the Captain then everyone knew that he wasn't going to spare them. Unfortunately, that link seems to be gone into cyberspace. So here's a different quote):

"The other night, I felt like we won by 1,000 points, and I was worried about this one," Boston coach Doc Rivers said. "It's the kind of game that can be a trap against a team that plays as hard as Philly. But the reason I didn't have to worry was I knew Kevin would not let them let down."

http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... n-mvp.html

(From that same article, quotes from Philly assistant coach Jim Lynam and the response from Doc:)

"That guy," Jim Lynam said, speaking of Boston's Kevin Garnett, "it's easy to say you like him because his talent is that obvious. But he's got something else, something special about how he comes at you. Something almost Birdlike." He said the last part quieter, as if it should be more solemn than the rest. It is not something the Sixers assistant coach says lightly, or often.
"No," Lynam agreed. "It is not."

Rivers was given the Bird analogy, for fierceness of play, for sheer competitiveness, and he nodded. "Yes," Rivers said, "and Russell. He's got that demeanor. Bird and Russell."

3) Effect on the young players on the team, from working habits to in-game effects to helping them understand that they deserve their spot if they work for it. Many various quotes from many various people:

Raptors Coach Sam Mitchell on Kendrick Perkins: “Kevin has made Kendrick Perkins a better player, not skill-wise but in attitude," Mitchell said. "You watch his attitude. He has confidence. Everyone can play. But who can play with confidence? Now Kendrick Perkins has confidence.“…"You look at this [Celtics] team last year," Mitchell went on. "Paul [Pierce] didn't have the type of year he is having. Kendrick Perkins wasn't playing with the fire and the passion that he has now. You bring Kevin Garnett and put him on the team and all of a sudden everybody's confidence goes up, everybody plays with a little more pride. What he brings on the court is infectious. It just spreads through the locker room. And that's what people never give him credit for.”

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... ss/?page=2

Kendrick Perkins on KG: "When he's on the court, he's not acting. That's him all day long. He really is zoned out -- that's Kevin Garnett. It's like he's in his own world at all times. On the court that's not a front, that's not an act. That's him."

KG on young players, specifically Big Baby: "It starts in practice," Garnett said. "You don't just show up game night, smell the popcorn popping and turn it on. You have to be able to prepare yourself, come in here and work your ass off." Here's his take on emerging rookie Glen Davis, for example: "His work ethic, I told him from Day 1, is going to be what makes you," Garnett said. "If you want to be a normal player, that's fine. But I will be damned if you come in here with the personnel and people that we have and give a subpar practice when we are out there busting our asses."

KG on Rondo: "It's no excuse," Garnett said of Rondo's youth as a starter. "He's been put in that position for a reason. If Doc (Rivers) didn't believe in him, or thought he was too young to have it, he wouldn't have put him in that position. It wasn't like he took it off the table, or it was given to him, he earned it. He busts his ass and works for it. I have to remind him of that. You worked for this. You have to embrace it. You are going to make mistakes, but you have to better yourself."

Powe on KG: "In my eyes, there ain't never any days off for me," said second-year power foward Leon Powe. "He will stress that throughout the whole practice, throughout everywhere. His intensity is so high. I bring my intensity up all the time to try and match his."

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/sports/x1046091796

4) Doc and teammates on him providing the energy and making the team feel like a family:

Ray: "It just seems that you always need that little bit of fire," said teammate Ray Allen, "You catch a little fire and then he knocks down some shots for us. He definitely brings a lot of intensity, and I think a lot us feed off of it."

Doc: "It is amazing. What you guys don't see is when the lights are off and he's in the locker room or on the bus or on the airplanes." Rivers spoke of the recent red-eye flight back from Los Angeles. "When we landed at 8 (a.m.), he never slept. I watched two games, took an hour nap, and woke up and ... you could hear him all the way. I mean, he's in the back of the plane and you can hear him dancing and laughing. It's amazing. It's just rare when one of your best players is an energy guy as well. "That's a rare combination."

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/sports/x625197597

15th man Gabe Pruitt: "I remember when we were overseas I got a call and it said come to Glen (Davis') room. So [the rookies] went to Glen's room and there was a guy with two suit racks. KG walks in and is like, 'Pick out three suits, it's on me.' We looked at each other like, 'Whoa' and started shopping through them and picked out three suits. They're really nice suits from Italy and that was my first time really getting a suit like that because I don't really wear suits. But I was pumped that he said that when I walked in and saw the selection and they custom made everything -- the shoes, the jacket, all that stuff -- so I was pretty excited about that."

Pruitt again: "For the most part he's always full of energy and full of stories. Every day you come looking forward to another story that happened to him these past years. When he comes in you're looking forward to it and he stops and sits down and you get into it, it's like 'I wonder what's next.' There's always something that makes you say, 'Oh wow,' something crazy like that. He's always full of energy, always keeping spirits up. If you're down, he's somebody who will pull you to the side and talk to you. He's a real clam off the court and on the court he's energetic and crazy, but he's a really good guy both ways. He really helps me out when I need help or times when stuff comes up, he's the guy I go to and talk to."

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=7841

So in summary...I disagree with those that say that Garnett's talent was the primary/only thing he brought to the team and that it could have been replaced by any star player. I do think his effect was different than what you might expect from adding someone like Kobe, because of the aspects of his personality that are unique to him. The Celtics played with an edge, an attitude all season, and that came in large part from Garnett. The Celtics worked harder that season than anyone, and that came in large part from Garnett. The entire Celtics philosophy from that year was UBUNTU, the idea that togetherness and unity should go above everything...and again, you have even the last guy on the roster testifying that much of that came from Garnett. If you replaced KG that year with '08 Duncan or Dirk or LeBron there may not have been a huge difference in talent, but I absolutely think there would have been a huge difference in the team. Garnett's personality became the personality of the 2008 Celtics. It may not be a quantifiable effect, but if you listen to what those closest to it described, I think you can get a feel for what they were talking about.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
User avatar
Optimism Prime
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 3,374
And1: 35
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
 

Re: Retro POY '07-08 

Post#240 » by Optimism Prime » Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:06 pm

Okay, I'm kind of dissuaded from Amare as my #5 pick... but at the same time, I don't know who else to go with here. The top four were one tier; the next group were another, but picking one is splitting hairs. Doctor MJ, I'll edit my rankings post in a bit when I pick someone... don't tally my fifth vote yet.
Hello ladies. Look at your posts. Now back to mine. Now back at your posts now back to MINE. Sadly, they aren't mine. But if your posts started using Optimism™, they could sound like mine. This post is now diamonds.

I'm on a horse.

Return to Player Comparisons