All-Season Player of the Year Discussion thread

[Woodsanity]

Clippers beat the Rockets without BG in the RS doesn't say much about Paul's value to the team. In my eyes the Clippers not only match up well against the Rockets but are a clear tier above them as a team. There is some overlap between Paul and BG but they are still a really dam good duo. You can say there is an overlap between almost every duo. Lebron and Wade, Durant and WB, etc.

Also no one said the Clips supporting cast was weak. The starters are freakin fantastic. The bench however is ranked 29th production wise. Which is why the starters play like 40 mpg in the playoffs....

[fuzzy_dunlop]

Yeah the Clippers have awesome top end talent, but the fit isn't ideal. For one thing, the spacing from that frontcourt isn't good which is part of the reason you see Blake taking so many mid range jumpers, and he doesn't get to impact the game with his playmaking as much as you'd want. I think for instance that they'd be a better team if one replaced Blake with Ibaka- the defense would improve substantially and spread PnR with CP is good enough on the other end.

[RSCD3_]

Yeah the Clippers have awesome top end talent, but the fit isn't ideal. For one thing, the spacing from that frontcourt isn't good which is part of the reason you see Blake taking so many mid range jumpers, and he doesn't get to impact the game with his playmaking as much as you'd want. I think for instance that they'd be a better team if one replaced Blake with Ibaka- the defense would improve substantially and spread PnR with CP is good enough on the other end.

Or better yet keep blake and trade deandre for ibaka who is better offensively becuase his spacing is so much better and in the same ballpark if not better defensively than jordan.

Ibaka
Griffin
Barnes
Reddick
Paul

Now blake gets a hell of a lot more space to work with

[Doctor MJ]

I couldn't help but notice after all the conversations I've had lately related to Paul's terrible supporting cast, that the Clippers didn't resemble helpless kittens much at all tonight.

Not saying Paul is anything but outstanding, but I think people have a tendency to really exaggerate the weakness of NBA supporting casts.

I see what you mean, but this game to me wasn't even so much about the Clippers as Houston. Harden was awful, they have no PG, Josh Smith continues to be himself, and the only guys who showed up were Dwight and Ariza. They're still not a great defensive team (at least they don't play that way all the time as they had issues w/ Dallas too), and if they're not shooting well they're toast. I think people just really overestimated them more than anything. Though it still took well above average games from RIvers, Crawford, and Barnes. This was just a weird game.

Houston lost by 16 points at home in the middle of a series they desperately need home court advantage for. So yes, they deserve criticism. But by that same token, the #2 seed needed this game like they needed no other, and the Clippers put them down without shorthanded. Some respect is in order.

Re: people just overestimated the Rockets. Not really. I thought the winner of the Clippers-Spurs was clearly the favorite over the Rockets, so I'm under no illusions there. It's just that losing like this isn't normal no matter how you slice it.

[Doctor MJ]

I couldn't help but notice after all the conversations I've had lately related to Paul's terrible supporting cast, that the Clippers didn't resemble helpless kittens much at all tonight.

Not saying Paul is anything but outstanding, but I think people have a tendency to really exaggerate the weakness of NBA supporting casts.

Maybe it's more the case that CP3 and Blake Griffin playing together somehow limits each others games, sort of like Westbrook and Durant together, as Griffin is more restricted in using his considerable playmaking and passing skills with Paul on the court. We've seen how the Clippers hummed along almost as well with either Griffin gone ('15) or Paul gone ('14).

On a side note, if this is the fully unleashed, 'complete game' Blake Griffin we have talked about in the preseason, then every other playoff team (that may face the clippers) should be very, very afraid....

I think it's been clear for their duration together that CP3 and Griffin are not optimally synergized. When you see a game like last night with Griffin making the plays he does it's actually pretty understandable - a strong playmaker playing next to a ball dominant point guard is going to have that aspect of himself underutilized. Doesn't mean you don't prefer to use the ball dominant point guard to dictate your offense though. I actually thought it was more frustrating early on when we saw Paul's almost unique (among elite point guards) aversion to taking advantage of unready defenses while playing with a guy in Griffin who seems like he could only be optimally utilized with an enthusiastic embrace of the transition game.

That said, I don't see the issues in LA as being as problematic as those in OKC.

[fuzzy_dunlop]

^
yeah that would work too but Ibaka is also just better than DJ so it's not so much about fit in that case.

[Doctor MJ]

I couldn't help but notice after all the conversations I've had lately related to Paul's terrible supporting cast, that the Clippers didn't resemble helpless kittens much at all tonight.

Not saying Paul is anything but outstanding, but I think people have a tendency to really exaggerate the weakness of NBA supporting casts.

The top 4 Clippers players after Paul were never weak, it's what's after them that's pretty bad, and that shows more against deeper teams in longer runs, like the Spurs series, than it did in this one game.

In any case, there's quite a few factors that affected this one win before you make the conclusion that the supporting cast is or isn't as bad as advertised. The Clippers weren't playing well until midway through the 3rd anyway, and Houston's bad play after that point is not a usual thing either. Doc's gameplanning was really good, and he somehow always finds a way to slow down Harden. I know you're one of the biggest proponents here of Jordan as a not great defensive player, but whatever the numbers say, you at least have to acknowledge he can be very effective after a game like this. They usually just direct Harden to him and he's both scared and ineffective going at the rim against him.

There's also the factor already mentioned that Griffin's and Paul's games overlap a little, so when either of them is out, there's still enough playmaking and ball movement for every rotation player to be engaged on offense and motivated to play some defense. Running the offense through Blake has proven to be very effective, specially when both Redick and Crawford can also take some of the ball-handling and creating duties.

TL;DR- I don't think this one game should affect Paul's evaluation at all.

It's a bit unclassy to make the post I did after one game, and I'm a little embarrassed by it to be honest, but I've just been in conversations with folks telling me that Paul's teammates are awful from the 3 despite me pointing out that the Clippers have been elite from the 3 according to the data all year. I just detect a stereotypical perspective of people arguing for the guy leading the worse team: "Ugh look at how awful everyone around him is?". And I'm just pointing out: They aren't perfect, but people need to be able to keep perspective and see the good as well as the bad. We've seen what Chris Paul's teams do when he has a weak supporting cast, these Clippers are far better than that, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Re: Jordan. My issues with Jordan are specific. They at times are big enough he's hurting his team so I'm not saying they are minor, but I don't think there's any doubt that he at times can be quite helpful. My howling reaction to Jordan really came because of Doc: I think it's so problematic to let a guy adopt a stat-heavy game and then praise him as the best defensive player in the world when he has clear weaknesses to work through...and to do it while he's a pending free agent. I'm not expecting Machiavellian feats of negging from Doc, but at this stage to me the market for Jordan is north of who he is as a player, and the Clippers may well be forced between offering him a deal large enough it keeps them from making any serious improvements to their team or letting him walk.

Re: Harden. I'm in this weird boat with the Beard. I've been a proponent of his since his time in OKC, on record at the time saying I trade Westbrook before I gave up Harden, and often times defending him since then against people who to my mind just won't acknowledge his brilliance...

But in the current MVP race I argued pretty fiercely against Harden, in part because we've seen his Houston playing style struggle against tough defenses these past couple years whereas increased defensive intensity seems to phase Curry's impact considerably less. (Though to be clear, I've also said I had no problem with people putting Paul ahead of Harden too, this isn't about me being a Curry homer, he was just central to the MVP debate this year.) Maybe Harden will respond in this series, I can't claim to know the future. But it's been my suspicion for a while now that the way Harden is currently playing just doesn't scale that well when we reach elite competition.

To be clear: I'm not saying that Harden himself can't scale and lead a top tier championship contender. I think he can. I just think that in order to do that, he may well need to adjust his attack. While that adjustment could take many forms, I'd start by pointing out that the initial thing in OKC that left Jeff Van Gundy shouting in incoherent excitement was Harden's vision and playmaking rather than his scoring. Harden makes great plays now too of course, but they come out of a very predictable initial attack. I think more variance in the attack focusing on more of a balance between Harden's scoring and playmaking may be what's needed for Harden to truly have an argument as the best of the best.

Re: One game shouldn't affect Paul's standing. This is where it gets interesting. It's not about the one game, it's about people thinking seriously about how they've judged Paul's supporting cast and how they've let that shape their opinion of Paul's candidacy here.

Put another way: It's not about "Wow, these guys can hit 3's without Paul", it's about "Huh, these guys have been hitting 3's all year, why did I think of them as if they were standing around helpless?".

[bondom34]

I couldn't help but notice after all the conversations I've had lately related to Paul's terrible supporting cast, that the Clippers didn't resemble helpless kittens much at all tonight.

Not saying Paul is anything but outstanding, but I think people have a tendency to really exaggerate the weakness of NBA supporting casts.

I see what you mean, but this game to me wasn't even so much about the Clippers as Houston. Harden was awful, they have no PG, Josh Smith continues to be himself, and the only guys who showed up were Dwight and Ariza. They're still not a great defensive team (at least they don't play that way all the time as they had issues w/ Dallas too), and if they're not shooting well they're toast. I think people just really overestimated them more than anything. Though it still took well above average games from RIvers, Crawford, and Barnes. This was just a weird game.

Houston lost by 16 points at home in the middle of a series they desperately need home court advantage for. So yes, they deserve criticism. But by that same token, the #2 seed needed this game like they needed no other, and the Clippers put them down without shorthanded. Some respect is in order.

Re: people just overestimated the Rockets. Not really. I thought the winner of the Clippers-Spurs was clearly the favorite over the Rockets, so I'm under no illusions there. It's just that losing like this isn't normal no matter how you slice it.

But it kinda is. Houston didn't really do anything terribly abnormal defensively, they gave up a similar amount as they have been. They just showed what a lot argued, which is they're not a team built for the postseason and when they have to grind a win out they rarely do. LA actually fought which is a big kudos to them bit no dock on CP. As for the synergy views I don't know if I'd agree fully either, especially on OKC, but not really on LA either. OKC hasn't had a single issue really.

[Doctor MJ]

I see what you mean, but this game to me wasn't even so much about the Clippers as Houston. Harden was awful, they have no PG, Josh Smith continues to be himself, and the only guys who showed up were Dwight and Ariza. They're still not a great defensive team (at least they don't play that way all the time as they had issues w/ Dallas too), and if they're not shooting well they're toast. I think people just really overestimated them more than anything. Though it still took well above average games from RIvers, Crawford, and Barnes. This was just a weird game.

Houston lost by 16 points at home in the middle of a series they desperately need home court advantage for. So yes, they deserve criticism. But by that same token, the #2 seed needed this game like they needed no other, and the Clippers put them down without shorthanded. Some respect is in order.

Re: people just overestimated the Rockets. Not really. I thought the winner of the Clippers-Spurs was clearly the favorite over the Rockets, so I'm under no illusions there. It's just that losing like this isn't normal no matter how you slice it.

But it kinda is. Houston didn't really do anything terribly abnormal defensively, they gave up a similar amount as they have been. They just showed what a lot argued, which is they're not a team built for the postseason and when they have to grind a win out they rarely do. LA actually fought which is a big kudos to them bit no dock on CP. As for the synergy views I don't know if I'd agree fully either, especially on OKC, but not really on LA either. OKC hasn't had a single issue really.

Losing by 16 points at home is not an average playoff performance even if you're an 8 seed playing a 1, and this was a team in the Rockets who already won in the first round playing against an exhausted opponent missing their best player. There's being skeptical of the Rockets' playoff capability...and then there was Game 1 against the Clippers. They are 2 different levels.

[bondom34]

Houston lost by 16 points at home in the middle of a series they desperately need home court advantage for. So yes, they deserve criticism. But by that same token, the #2 seed needed this game like they needed no other, and the Clippers put them down without shorthanded. Some respect is in order.

Re: people just overestimated the Rockets. Not really. I thought the winner of the Clippers-Spurs was clearly the favorite over the Rockets, so I'm under no illusions there. It's just that losing like this isn't normal no matter how you slice it.

But it kinda is. Houston didn't really do anything terribly abnormal defensively, they gave up a similar amount as they have been. They just showed what a lot argued, which is they're not a team built for the postseason and when they have to grind a win out they rarely do. LA actually fought which is a big kudos to them bit no dock on CP. As for the synergy views I don't know if I'd agree fully either, especially on OKC, but not really on LA either. OKC hasn't had a single issue really.

Losing by 16 points at home is not an average playoff performance even if you're an 8 seed playing a 1, and this was a team in the Rockets who already won in the first round playing against an exhausted opponent missing their best player. There's being skeptical of the Rockets' playoff capability...and then there was Game 1 against the Clippers. They are 2 different levels.

True enough, but to an extent it wasn't a 16 point loss until they flat quit the last few minutes. To me it was really much more an indictment on them than anything LA did. I predicted a 5 or 6 game LA win preseries, and Houston looked to confirm it last night.

[RSCD3_]

OK so is blake griffin a darkhorse for anyone's fifth pick?

[MO12msu]

OK so is blake griffin a darkhorse for anyone's fifth pick?

For me, he'd have to pass one of Davis, Harden, or Lebron at this point. Don't think I'm open to dropping Davis out, but I could be be convinced about the others.

I think Lebron has kinda gotten a pass for uneven and honestly underwhelming play, probably due to the fact that he's Lebron and we just assume that he will "turn it on." My question is, when do we penalize the dude for having it "turned off" for like 40% of the season and postseason?

[RSCD3_]

OK so is blake griffin a darkhorse for anyone's fifth pick?

For me, he'd have to pass one of Davis, Harden, or Lebron at this point. Don't think I'm open to dropping Davis out, but I could be be convinced about the others.

I think Lebron has kinda gotten a pass for uneven and honestly underwhelming play, probably due to the fact that he's Lebron and we just assume that he will "turn it on." My question is, when do we penalize the dude for having it "turned off" for like 40% of the season and postseason?

If he loses in the second round while putting up the kind of stats he's been doing doing so far...Damn I still dont think i could drop him, this is pretty hard. I would put griffin above westbrook though

so

Paul
Davis
Curry
Lebron
Harden
Griffin

That's still six and unless harden struggles hard It would be tough...

[ceiling raiser]

OK so is blake griffin a darkhorse for anyone's fifth pick?

I need to make up my mind about his playoff defense first. I think I like what I've seen but I'm not confident enough yet to form a strong opinion. I also have questions about playoff defense for my 5 and 6 though (Leonard and Davis in some order).

[PaulieWal]

OK so is blake griffin a darkhorse for anyone's fifth pick?

I need to make up my mind about his playoff defense first. I think I like what I've seen but I'm not confident enough yet to form a strong opinion. I also have questions about playoff defense for my 5 and 6 though (Leonard and Davis in some order).

Hmm...you still have Leonard close to your top 5 after an uneven showing in the playoffs? He had a great first 3 games but wasn't really good in the last 3.

[HeartBreakKid]

OK so is blake griffin a darkhorse for anyone's fifth pick?

I need to make up my mind about his playoff defense first. I think I like what I've seen but I'm not confident enough yet to form a strong opinion. I also have questions about playoff defense for my 5 and 6 though (Leonard and Davis in some order).

Hmm...you still have Leonard close to your top 5 after an uneven showing in the playoffs? He had a great first 3 games but wasn't really good in the last 3.

I do, he was still pretty damn good. I think he is close to top 5. I've said this before, but I think he may be better than Harden still, and after last nights game Harden hasn't exactly had a good showing against LAC either (worse than any game Kawhi has had by a lot).

My top 4 will likely have Curry, CP3, Davis, James. 5th is between Leonard, Griffin, Harden and Westbrook.

[PaulieWal]

I need to make up my mind about his playoff defense first. I think I like what I've seen but I'm not confident enough yet to form a strong opinion. I also have questions about playoff defense for my 5 and 6 though (Leonard and Davis in some order).

Hmm...you still have Leonard close to your top 5 after an uneven showing in the playoffs? He had a great first 3 games but wasn't really good in the last 3.

I do, he was still pretty damn good. I think he is close to top 5. I've said this before, but I think he may be better than Harden still, and after last nights game Harden hasn't exactly had a good showing against LAC either (worse than any game Kawhi has had by a lot).

My top 4 will likely have Curry, CP3, Davis, James. 5th is between Leonard, Griffin, Harden and Westbrook.

Will have to disagree. That's okay though, I really don't see how Leonard has a case for top 5 this year based on a good 2 months in the RS and 3 good playoff games but maybe I am not seeing something you guys are and need more time to get there. Or maybe you guys are over-analyzing .

[ceiling raiser]

OK so is blake griffin a darkhorse for anyone's fifth pick?

I need to make up my mind about his playoff defense first. I think I like what I've seen but I'm not confident enough yet to form a strong opinion. I also have questions about playoff defense for my 5 and 6 though (Leonard and Davis in some order).

Hmm...you still have Leonard close to your top 5 after an uneven showing in the playoffs? He had a great first 3 games but wasn't really good in the last 3.

Yeah. I think I buy into the near-GOAT perimeter defense argument. A concern always is though, when awesome defensive wings take on a larger offensive role, their usually strong D usually takes a hit (either due to issues with motor or focus). I think that's what we saw from Butler this regular season, for instance.

My evaluation process isn't perfect, but currently I look for a player to demonstrate the ability to impact games towards the end of the season (getting into playoff form). It's going to be a major point trying to determine if it was just a small sample issue, or if a hole in his game was exposed. I don't have tremendous confidence in my ability to decide one way or the other out of one series, but answering that question will help me decide if Kawhi has a place on my ballot.

[Dr Spaceman]

OK so is blake griffin a darkhorse for anyone's fifth pick?

With the way LeBron is playing at the moment... I suppose it's possible. Most likely candidate to replace James in the top 5 is Kawhi, but if Blake has a truly outstanding playoff run (and he's well on his way) he's another guy I'd consider. I was underwhelmed with his regular season, but outside my top 4 (Davis, Paul, Curry, Harden) all of the remaining candidates had regular seasons ranging from shaky to concerning. Blake could separate himself from the fray with a stellar postseason run.

James has become the wildcard on my ballot. He's playing really poorly, and frankly it looks like the same type of flaws we were seeing in Nov. I have some serious thinking to do about what is going on with LeBron- I think we were right to write off the early season as back struggles/chemistry issues, but during the playoffs it's starting to look like this version of LBJ has exploitable holes in his game, and that's really damning. And frankly if things don't turn around I may end up looking at his early season struggles far more critically, and there's enough noise around the whole Blatt situation that there really has to be some signal. I don't know guys, all of this is adding up to look not well for James.

I think I have a clear cut top 4 as of now, with basically Curry/Paul having a shot at #1, Davis probably capped out at #3, and Harden incapable of falling past #4 on the strength of his regular season. The fifth spot is where I can fit somebody in, and Kawhi/Griffin are the most likely candidates if James tumbles.

[PaulieWal]

Yeah. I think I buy into the near-GOAT perimeter defense argument. A concern always is though, when awesome defensive wings take on a larger offensive role, their usually strong D usually takes a hit (either due to issues with motor or focus). I think that's what we saw from Butler this regular season, for instance.

My evaluation process isn't perfect, but currently I look for a player to demonstrate the ability to impact games towards the end of the season (getting into playoff form). It's going to be a major point trying to determine if it was just a small sample issue, or if a hole in his game was exposed. I don't have tremendous confidence in my ability to decide one way or the other out of one series, but answering that question will help me decide if Kawhi has a place on my ballot.

To be fair Leonard wasn't playing his Pippen level defense the entire season. He was way better on both ends of the floor over the last two months of the season. Before exploding offensively he was a 15/7/3, 52% TS guy for more than half the season. His defense wasn't Pippen level to start the season either. It was only when he came back from his injury/post-all star break that he looked extremely sharp defensively and played like a star offensively. I am not saying he was a bad defender, he was still damn good but he certainly wasn't that good to start the season.

Again, I feel like I am missing something and I am really trying hard to see what some of you are seeing but I have never been this far apart on a guy before relative to some of the good posters here like you, Spaceman etc.