2012-13 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[ardee]

Can you put that 18 EV and 15 OC in context? How good are those numbers?

15 OC's in two games is very good. 20 would be elite.

18 raw EV over two games (9.0 per game) in perspective:

Pau Gasol led the 2010 FInals in raw EV contributions (9.1 per game).
Kobe was second with 7.8.
Dirk 2011 CF 8.1.
Paul 2011 1st round v LA 10.8.
Kobe's 2010 CF against Pho 11.7.
Wade 2011 Finals 12.6.
James 2010 1st round v Chicago was 17.3.

Where did you get EV numbers?

That's his own formula I think. He had a lot of articles about it on his blog but they're gone.

[ardee]

Duncan was awful. Was he even better defender than Lebron this season?

Yes. Easily. Lebron barely played defense for half the year.




And can we all agree this is the weakest top 5 ever? Even Lebron is rapidly dropping in stock but nothing short of a collapse of 2011 proportions can take him out the top spot.

Yes, I agree.

Early in the season it seemed like we were heading for an epic '03 type of season... Then KD, Paul and Carmelo cooled down. Kobe got injured. Harden was poor in the Playoffs. Even LeBron hasn't been as good as we'd have thought.

In the three point era, I can't think of a year as weak as this in terms of top end besides probably '04.

[therealbig3]

I mean, because of injuries, the top 5 in general is pretty weak, but only mainly because of the 4 and 5 spots. The top 3 is incredibly strong, which is kind of a reason why it's set in stone for so many people.

LeBron at absolute minimum is having a year at least on par with his 2012 season, which is considered a top 10 peak all time, and probably even higher. So you're having one of the best seasons of all time by a player in LeBron, and imo it's a season better than anything we've seen from a non-LeBron player since peak Shaq.

Durant has been completely overshadowed by LeBron, when he probably just had a season better than any post-Jordan wing OTHER than LeBron. IMO, it's the best year by a non-LeBron player since 04 KG.

CP3's season was pretty much just as good as his 2012 season, without an injury-riddled decline in the playoffs. So he was all-time great at the PG position this year. Meaning he's not a weak choice for #3 historically at all.

After that, yeah, it gets pretty weak, but the top 3 is pretty strong.

[semi-sentient]

1. LeBron
2. Durant
3. CP3
4. Duncan
5. Kobe

Regarding Kobe, there isn't anyone else that I can think of that had a comparable regular season, and he had an incredibly strong 2nd half run once things started clicking a bit and everyone got healthy (25.8 pts, 6.6 reb, and 7.7 ast). The other candidates (Wade, Curry, and Melo) weren't as good in the regular season and certainly haven't done enough in the post-season to close the gap. Parker might have a shot depending on how the rest of the series goes. He did miss some extended time in the RS and played poorly after returning from injury, but he's had a strong playoff run. I guess he'll be the one that I keep an eye out for as he's the only one that I can see dislodging Kobe. For now though this list is pretty firm unless Parker goes bananas the rest of the series.

[ardee]

1. LeBron
2. Durant
3. CP3
4. Duncan
5. Kobe

Regarding Kobe, there isn't anyone else that I can think of that had a comparable regular season, and he had an incredibly strong 2nd half run once things started clicking a bit and everyone got healthy (25.8 pts, 6.6 reb, and 7.7 ast). The other candidates (Wade, Curry, and Melo) weren't as good in the regular season and certainly haven't done enough in the post-season to close the gap. Parker might have a shot depending on how the rest of the series goes. He did miss some extended time in the RS and played poorly after returning from injury, but he's had a strong playoff run. I guess he'll be the one that I keep an eye out for as he's the only one that I can see dislodging Kobe. For now though this list is pretty firm unless Parker goes bananas the rest of the series.

Replace Duncan with Parker and that's probably my ballot.

Good call on Kobe, he's been working his way back into contention for me with Curry's flameout against the Spurs, Marc ditto.

[colts18]

How is Kobe's season any better than Curry's? If you want to use 2nd half stats, Curry had 26-7-4 with 48/46/89 shooting. Curry was taking an absurd 8.9 3PA/game and making 4.1 3PA/game.

Curry led his team to 47 wins compared to Kobe's 45 wins despite Kobe having Dwight Howard starting at center while Curry had 41 starts of some dude named Festus Ezeli and Bogut who averaged 6/8 on 45 FG%.

[ardee]

I mean, because of injuries, the top 5 in general is pretty weak, but only mainly because of the 4 and 5 spots. The top 3 is incredibly strong, which is kind of a reason why it's set in stone for so many people.

LeBron at absolute minimum is having a year at least on par with his 2012 season, which is considered a top 10 peak all time, and probably even higher. So you're having one of the best seasons of all time by a player in LeBron, and imo it's a season better than anything we've seen from a non-LeBron player since peak Shaq.

Durant has been completely overshadowed by LeBron, when he probably just had a season better than any post-Jordan wing OTHER than LeBron. IMO, it's the best year by a non-LeBron player since 04 KG.

CP3's season was pretty much just as good as his 2012 season, without an injury-riddled decline in the playoffs. So he was all-time great at the PG position this year. Meaning he's not a weak choice for #3 historically at all.

After that, yeah, it gets pretty weak, but the top 3 is pretty strong.

Agree on LBJ.

KD was great, but putting him above Wade and Kobe peak wise is IMO a litle too far. I have his peak at about 18-19 right now. He is a better pure scorer than either of them but I still think his floor game isn't as complete as theirs, he's too turnover heavy at times, and he's not as impactful a defender as those two when they're locked in.

Clippers CP3 I think has been getting dreadfully overrated for the last couple of years in an all-time sense. His '08 and '09 seasons were all-time great at the PG position for sure, but there's a clear separation between those and '12 and '13. He's definitely the 3rd best player in the league for sure but that's not saying much historically. He's quite lax on scoring sometimes, not aggressive enough, right now he's more of an improved Stockton than the Oscar type of player he was in New Orleans.

[E-Balla]

I'd take Stockton over what CP3 did this year. The playoffs gave me some hope for him but that's the only extended flash of old CP3 he showed all year.

[semi-sentient]

How is Kobe's season any better than Curry's? If you want to use 2nd half stats, Curry had 26-7-4 with 48/46/89 shooting. Curry was taking an absurd 8.9 3PA/game and making 4.1 3PA/game.

Curry led his team to 47 wins compared to Kobe's 45 wins despite Kobe having Dwight Howard starting at center while Curry had 41 starts of some dude named Festus Ezeli and Bogut who averaged 6/8 on 45 FG%.

... and the Warriors were 19-18 during that stretch (Lakers went 26-11 when Kobe completely took over the offense), so how much did Curry's increased production really help the team? Stuff like this gets very tricky to factor in, but Kobe had to shift gears several times during the season and his final shift to primary play-maker landed them in the playoffs after starting off with a losing record -- a record which was a direct result of injuries, the inability of other players to adapt, and an early coaching/system change. He was essentially doing the job that Nash was incapable of doing while maintaining his scoring.

The Lakers having a higher rated offense despite all those issues also works towards Kobe's favor in my view.

[ElGee]

How is Kobe's season any better than Curry's? If you want to use 2nd half stats, Curry had 26-7-4 with 48/46/89 shooting. Curry was taking an absurd 8.9 3PA/game and making 4.1 3PA/game.

Curry led his team to 47 wins compared to Kobe's 45 wins despite Kobe having Dwight Howard starting at center while Curry had 41 starts of some dude named Festus Ezeli and Bogut who averaged 6/8 on 45 FG%.

... and the Warriors were 19-18 during that stretch (Lakers went 26-11 when Kobe completely took over the offense), so how much did Curry's increased production really help the team? Stuff like this gets very tricky to factor in, but Kobe had to shift gears several times during the season and his final shift to primary play-maker landed them in the playoffs after starting off with a losing record -- a record which was a direct result of injuries, the inability of other players to adapt, and an early coaching/system change. He was essentially doing the job that Nash was incapable of doing while maintaining his scoring.

The Lakers having a higher rated offense despite all those issues also works towards Kobe's favor in my view.

The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams. In the first 45 games, they had a 2.1 SRS. In the last 37 games (4-1 without Kobe), they had a 0.8 SRS. The offense that Kobe "took over" didn't change -- it was +2.9 before the "change" and +2.9 after the change.

The GS offense didn't change either...until the PS, when it jumped 2.4 points to +3.4 (maintaining 107 ORtg vs. tougher opponents).

[Bruh Man]

How is Kobe's season any better than Curry's? If you want to use 2nd half stats, Curry had 26-7-4 with 48/46/89 shooting. Curry was taking an absurd 8.9 3PA/game and making 4.1 3PA/game.

Curry led his team to 47 wins compared to Kobe's 45 wins despite Kobe having Dwight Howard starting at center while Curry had 41 starts of some dude named Festus Ezeli and Bogut who averaged 6/8 on 45 FG%.

... and the Warriors were 19-18 during that stretch (Lakers went 26-11 when Kobe completely took over the offense), so how much did Curry's increased production really help the team? Stuff like this gets very tricky to factor in, but Kobe had to shift gears several times during the season and his final shift to primary play-maker landed them in the playoffs after starting off with a losing record -- a record which was a direct result of injuries, the inability of other players to adapt, and an early coaching/system change. He was essentially doing the job that Nash was incapable of doing while maintaining his scoring.

The Lakers having a higher rated offense despite all those issues also works towards Kobe's favor in my view.

The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams. In the first 45 games, they had a 2.1 SRS. In the last 37 games (4-1 without Kobe), they had a 0.8 SRS. The offense that Kobe "took over" didn't change -- it was +2.9 before the "change" and +2.9 after the change.

The GS offense didn't change either...until the PS, when it jumped 2.4 points to +3.4 (maintaining 107 ORtg vs. tougher opponents).

The offense clearly changed and it clearly had a positive effect on the team, anyone who followed the team can attest to that. They turned the season around after they had a players only meeting not just because they started playing weaker compition. Had the Lakers not made the change and had Kobe not taken a larger role in the offense the team would not have made the playoffs.

[semi-sentient]

The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams.

That's highly subjective, and since the Warriors had it even easier it's also a moot point.

Code: Select all

Opponents W-L%        Lakers (16 home, 20 road)   Warriors (21 home, 16 road)
=============================================================================
>= .600  W-L%         8  (3 home, 5 road)         9  (4 home, 5 road)
>= .500 and < .600    11 (6 home, 5 road)         11 (5 home, 6 road)
>= .400 and < .500    4  (2 home, 2 road)         4  (3 home, 1 road)
<  .400               13 (5 home, 8 road)         13 (9 home, 4 road)

Warriors (defenses faced)
Top 10: 10
Above average: 14
Below average: 23

Lakers (defenses faced)
Top 10: 13
Abover average: 17
Below average: 19

In the first 45 games, they had a 2.1 SRS. In the last 37 games (4-1 without Kobe), they had a 0.8 SRS.

I'm not counting the games that Kobe didn't play in, FYI.

Regarding SRS, it doesn't factor in road versus away games, and it certainly can't account for the various injuries. Gasol missed 20 games during that stretch -- and the Lakers were already thin up front with the Hill injury -- not to mention Nash missing 7 games.

I suspect that the Lakers SRS is so low is because they got destroyed by several teams (PHO by 23, OKC by 17, LAC by 24 & 14, BOS by 21). Those are essentially the Lakers worst losses of the season and they happened to come in the 2nd half.

Where are you getting those SRS numbers from anyway?

[Vinsanity420]

Lol, you don't face "terrible teams" for half the year. That just doesn't happen. It's not like the Lakers literally played all the 50+ Win teams in the first half.

Kobe was undoubtedly very good on offense... but his matador D erased a lot of that impact. He's not a Top 10 player this year, IMO.

[Doctor MJ]

... and the Warriors were 19-18 during that stretch (Lakers went 26-11 when Kobe completely took over the offense), so how much did Curry's increased production really help the team? Stuff like this gets very tricky to factor in, but Kobe had to shift gears several times during the season and his final shift to primary play-maker landed them in the playoffs after starting off with a losing record -- a record which was a direct result of injuries, the inability of other players to adapt, and an early coaching/system change. He was essentially doing the job that Nash was incapable of doing while maintaining his scoring.

The Lakers having a higher rated offense despite all those issues also works towards Kobe's favor in my view.

The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams. In the first 45 games, they had a 2.1 SRS. In the last 37 games (4-1 without Kobe), they had a 0.8 SRS. The offense that Kobe "took over" didn't change -- it was +2.9 before the "change" and +2.9 after the change.

The GS offense didn't change either...until the PS, when it jumped 2.4 points to +3.4 (maintaining 107 ORtg vs. tougher opponents).

The offense clearly changed and it clearly had a positive effect on the team, anyone who followed the team can attest to that. They turned the season around after they had a players only meeting not just because they started playing weaker compition. Had the Lakers not made the change and had Kobe not taken a larger role in the offense the team would not have made the playoffs.

Why aren't you addressing his numbers? If you mean to say that you acknowledge that the offense was not literally more effective but there were defensive benefits caused by the shift, you should say that. Otherwise you implying that it was obvious that the offense improve in the face of someone giving numerical evidence showing no clear signs just makes you seem like you don't understand what he's saying.

[Doctor MJ]

The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams.

That's highly subjective, and since the Warriors had it even easier it's also a moot point.

Where are you getting those SRS numbers from anyway?

When someone quotes numbers, that's the opposite of subjective.

Undoubtedly he's getting SRS numbers by calculating them himself. We shouldn't necessarily take him at his word for it. Anyone care to run the numbers for themselves?

[Doctor MJ]

Lol, you don't face "terrible teams" for half the year. That just doesn't happen. It's not like the Lakers literally played all the 50+ Win teams in the first half.

Chalk it up as hyperbole then. While your reasoning makes sense, clearly if a team was able to have such a dramatic difference in winning percentage that people are bringing it up occur simply due to schedule, a strident adjective seems appropriate.

[semi-sentient]

The offense actually WAS more effective.

The first 42 games of the season:
Fast Break Points Allowed: 15.5
Points Off Turnovers: 16.6
Offensive Rebounds: 12.3
Turnovers: 15.0 (3.4 for Kobe)
FG%: .453
FT%: .696
PTS: 102.4

After Kobe switched to primary play-maker:
Fast Break Points Allowed: 16.5 (36 games)
Points Off Turnovers: 14.8
Offensive Rebounds: 10.9
Turnovers: 15.2 (4.1 for Kobe)
FG%: .470
FT%: .688
PTS: 102.9

So basically they scored about the same amount of points but shot a better percentage from the field. Their offensive rebounding dipped (could have been by design or a function of shooting better) as well as their FT shooting. With Kobe dominating the ball they played at a slower pace and were more effective as a result. It wasn't all him obviously since they became a bit more athletic/better defensively when Gasol was replaced by Clark, but you can't sit here and say that they weren't more effective offensively.

[semi-sentient]

The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams.

That's highly subjective, and since the Warriors had it even easier it's also a moot point.

Where are you getting those SRS numbers from anyway?

When someone quotes numbers, that's the opposite of subjective.

Sorry, what? Saying that the Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams is the opposite of subjective? It doesn't get any more subjective than that.

Why didn't the Warriors finish the 2nd half of the season in similar fashion given that they faced comparable competition?

[Bruh Man]

The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams. In the first 45 games, they had a 2.1 SRS. In the last 37 games (4-1 without Kobe), they had a 0.8 SRS. The offense that Kobe "took over" didn't change -- it was +2.9 before the "change" and +2.9 after the change.

The GS offense didn't change either...until the PS, when it jumped 2.4 points to +3.4 (maintaining 107 ORtg vs. tougher opponents).

The offense clearly changed and it clearly had a positive effect on the team, anyone who followed the team can attest to that. They turned the season around after they had a players only meeting not just because they started playing weaker compition. Had the Lakers not made the change and had Kobe not taken a larger role in the offense the team would not have made the playoffs.

Why aren't you addressing his numbers? If you mean to say that you acknowledge that the offense was not literally more effective but there were defensive benefits caused by the shift, you should say that. Otherwise you implying that it was obvious that the offense improve in the face of someone giving numerical evidence showing no clear signs just makes you seem like you don't understand what he's saying.

I understand what he's saying he clearly stated "The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams" and that's not true. As for the numbers let me ask you do you think the Lakers offense was the same before the team approach changed since according to Elgee it was no different. Like I said had Lakers not changed they don't make the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

That's highly subjective, and since the Warriors had it even easier it's also a moot point.

Where are you getting those SRS numbers from anyway?

When someone quotes numbers, that's the opposite of subjective.

Sorry, what? Saying that the Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams is the opposite of subjective? It doesn't get any more subjective than that.

Why didn't the Warriors finish the 2nd half of the season in similar fashion given that they faced comparable competition?

Dude, the part where he elaborates on "terrible teams" by providing precise numbers for how he actually sees things was in the post that you replied to until you chopped it out. That's the point. I don't fault you for not responding to everything anyone includes in their post, but when you chop out the objective part of the post and label the post subjective it's problematic.