2013-14 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[mysticbb]

Do you not think Paul rightfully deserves some criticism for how he played? Especially in some crucial situations?

http://bkref.com/tiny/hSsH6

The Clippers' players against the Thunder. They were +9 against them when Paul was on the court. And you want to critize him for what? The Clippers wouldn't even have been in a position to make it a competition against the Thunder without Paul. Seriously, trying to put blame on the best player of that team makes zero sense, when in fact the correct call in game 5 would have at least see that series advance to game 7.

[Texas Chuck]

Didnt ask you and don't care what those numbers say really at all nor am I remotely interested in your opinion since it takes nothing else into account whatsover. I am capable of looking up the +/- data on my own, but thanks.

Im interested in Bob's opinion tho which is why I asked.

[bondom34]

Didnt ask you and don't care what those numbers say really at all nor am I remotely interested in your opinion since it takes nothing else into account whatsover. I am capable of looking up the +/- data on my own, but thanks.

Im interested in Bob's opinion tho which is why I asked.

Actually Chuck, good point now that I think of it more. I'm one who has just this season started to question Love's real impact since his teams still haven't made the playoffs. Though CP3 is clearly above that threshold, he's below another which is what you're talking about, and I'm giving him a pass there. I don't know why, and can't explain it logically though, and its gonna be something I have to think about. Good point.

[mysticbb]

Didnt ask you and don't care what those numbers say really at all nor am I remotely interested in your opinion since it takes nothing else into account whatsover. I am capable of looking up the +/- data on my own, but thanks.

Haha, pretty telling your ignorance on that matter. Seriously, get a clue. Trying to put blame on Paul in that series makes no sense, and if you had watched the series play out (and at that each single second), you would know that. What kind of context do you need for those numbers? Really? Please tell me, what kind of context do you need when a team is clearly outscoring the other team with a certain player on the court while getting outscored without him? How much sense does that make it you to put then the blame on the player which whom the team played their best basketball? Are you even interested in looking at how a player played and how the team did WITH him?

[ceiling raiser]

Didnt ask you and don't care what those numbers say really at all nor am I remotely interested in your opinion since it takes nothing else into account whatsover. I am capable of looking up the +/- data on my own, but thanks.

Im interested in Bob's opinion tho which is why I asked.

Just curious, what's your reasoning with regards to the bolded?

[Texas Chuck]

Im not sure why Im bothering engaging with you but I'll bite.

1. I watched every second of the Clippers/Thunder series. So I saw how Paul played.
2. Im not surprised the Clippers fared well with Paul on the court. He is an extremely talented player who clearly impacts the game in a positive way for his team.
3. That said, he came up short when his team really needed him in key spots multiple times. He made some particularly horrible decisions. We criticize guys for missing shots which is odd since that is simply going to happen about 1/2 the time even for the best players, but we won't criticize the best PG in the league for making terrible, brain-dead decisions at both ends with the game on the line.


I don't believe the best way to evaluate a player is to take their cummulative +/- and if its positive praise them, and if its negative, to criticize them. That's overly simplistic for me. It does make it easier to claim you are right tho--so there's that.

[Texas Chuck]

Didnt ask you and don't care what those numbers say really at all nor am I remotely interested in your opinion since it takes nothing else into account whatsover. I am capable of looking up the +/- data on my own, but thanks.

Im interested in Bob's opinion tho which is why I asked.

Just curious, what's your reasoning with regards to the bolded?

because I already know that's what mystic is going to post. I can and have already looked up Paul's statistical performance. It added nothing to the discussion.

[microfib4thewin]

Playoff +/- doesn't interest me much given the small sample size. However, there is a pretty big difference between Paul's +/- and Griffin's +/-. +9 doesn't interest me nearly as much as the difference between +9 and +1 if that makes any sense. Even if you don't put much weight in this I think you should at least consider it before making your conclusion.

[Texas Chuck]

Playoff +/- doesn't interest me much given the small sample size. However, there is a pretty big difference between Paul's +/- and Griffin's +/-. +9 doesn't interest me nearly as much as the difference between +9 and +1 if that makes any sense. Even if you don't put much weight in this I think you should at least consider it before making your conclusion.

I said nothing about Blake being better in the PS than Paul. I said that Blake was better in the RS(and he was especially considering games missed by Paul) and that Paul didnt do anything in the PS to elevate him above Blake in my mind.

[mysticbb]

3. That said, he came up short when his team really needed him in key spots multiple times. He made some particularly horrible decisions. We criticize guys for missing shots which is odd since that is simply going to happen about 1/2 the time even for the best players, but we won't criticize the best PG in the league for making terrible, brain-dead decisions at both ends with the game on the line.

Do you not get that the Clippers wouldn't even be in a situation to "come up short", if it weren't for Paul? Seriously, if Paul makes the few mistakes he made in the 1st quarter, then he brings back the Clippers in the 4th, but they still lose, would you still focus on the last few seconds? Or would you now change you view on things and claim that the first few seconds of the game were more important?

And seriously, he made two bad decisions, then had bad luck where he gets fouled and it is not called. If the refs correctly send him to the line in game 5 with those 2 seconds left, he converts both FT, the Clippers would win, would you change your view on Paul? Think about that for a second, and try to understand how little sense your focus on the end of the game actually makes.

I don't believe the best way to evaluate a player is to take their cummulative +/- and if its positive praise them, and if its negative, to criticize them. That's overly simplistic for me. It does make it easier to claim you are right tho--so there's that.

I NEVER SAID THAT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST WAY. You are such a dishonest guy when it comes to a situation, where your fantasy about a player is challenged with facts, it is incredible. Everytime you start making up stuff like that. Seriously, you done that in the last conversation as well. What do you gain with such nonsense?

[colts18]

How did you get that?

Paul, when available, played ca. 71.83% of the available minutes; Durant played 84,29% of the available minutes. That is based on the average of their RS mpg and PS mpg (not weighted). Now, Paul has 7.03*0.7183= 5.05; while Durant has 5.98*0.8429=5.04. As I said, the difference is small with just 0.01.

You may disagree with that kind of way, but when a player played in more than 3/4th of the RS and is fully available in the PS, I will not held that against him. Though, 62 games is the least amount of games possible for that, while everything below would be adjusted downwards taking those 62 games as the reference.

Your stats say that Durant=CP3 per game. Considering that Durant played 100% of the season while CP3 played 3/4 of the season, that means CP3 had only 3/4 the value that Durant had in the season.


Plus you have to regress CP3's numbers more. It's unlikely that he would put up that same +7 over 82 games rather than 62. So you have to give more credit to the guy who did it longer

[bondom34]

3. That said, he came up short when his team really needed him in key spots multiple times. He made some particularly horrible decisions. We criticize guys for missing shots which is odd since that is simply going to happen about 1/2 the time even for the best players, but we won't criticize the best PG in the league for making terrible, brain-dead decisions at both ends with the game on the line.

Do you not get that the Clippers wouldn't even be in a situation to "come up short", if it weren't for Paul? Seriously, if Paul makes the few mistakes he made in the 1st quarter, then he brings back the Clippers in the 4th, but they still lose, would you still focus on the last few seconds? Or would you now change you view on things and claim that the first few seconds of the game were more important?

And seriously, he made two bad decisions, then had bad luck where he gets fouled and it is not called. If the refs correctly send him to the line in game 5 with those 2 seconds left, he converts both FT, the Clippers would win, would you change your view on Paul? Think about that for a second, and try to understand how little sense your focus on the end of the game actually makes.

I don't believe the best way to evaluate a player is to take their cummulative +/- and if its positive praise them, and if its negative, to criticize them. That's overly simplistic for me. It does make it easier to claim you are right tho--so there's that.

I NEVER SAID THAT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST WAY. You are such a dishonest guy when it comes to a situation, where your fantasy about a player is challenged with facts, it is incredible. Everytime you start making up stuff like that. Seriously, you done that in the last conversation as well. What do you gain with such nonsense?

I'm sorry to interject, but mystic, you've done this same thing in multiple threads. You state a simple plus/minus and use it to base an arguement. If someone disagrees you call them foolish and site a metric that you use which noone else knows of that makes little sense in some ways (see above post about Paul and Durant). If anyone disagrees again you simply continue to try to belittle them. Though I still rank Paul in my personal top 5, to each his own, and Griffin to me had more RS influence than Paul as well. I completely understand Chuck's arguement here, and it can't be statisically defined. I'm as much of a believer in advanced metrics as just about anyone, but there's something to just being able to drag a team to a win no matter what.

[mysticbb]

Your stats say that Durant=CP3 per game.

Actually, the stats say now that Paul has 0.2 points per game more. And I really don't care whether you believe that someone should get more "value", because he was lucky enough to not get injured. I explained my method, either you get it or not.

And as I said before, NOBODY has to agree with that at all. If you feel, that Durant done more and therefore should be ahead, feel free to do that. If you are consistent with your method, I have not much of a problem with that.

Plus you have to regress CP3's numbers more. It's unlikely that he would put up that same +7 over 82 games rather than 62. So you have to give more credit to the guy who did it longer

What? Seriously, I don't give Paul credit for his 20 games missed, I just don't see any reason to punish him for that. And I don't see how you can even come close to believe that you could judge whether Paul could sustain that level or not. :nonono:

[mysticbb]

I'm sorry to interject, but mystic, you've done this same thing in multiple threads. You state a simple plus/minus and use it to base an arguement.

Yes, as an argument how well the Clippers played as a team with Paul on the court during the series against the Thunder. What else would you use to get a grasp on that besides the number which is directly connected to the real result (I used üer 100 poss numbers, which aren't exactly simple plus/minus).

If someone disagrees you call them foolish and site a metric that you use which noone else knows of that makes little sense in some ways (see above post about Paul and Durant). If anyone disagrees again you simply continue to try to belittle them.

Well, what else should I do? I explained my metric more than once and I'm probably one of the most open persons when it comes to those kind of stuff, always trying to answer questions. What else should I do? And yes, if someone is ignorant, I will call him that. And if you don't understand something, please feel free to ask.

I completely understand Chuck's arguement here, and it can't be statisically defined.

So, we are back to something which isn't measureable, but should for sure have some sort of influence on the game result? Really, if it is not seen in the results (which is part of my metric via RAPM, btw.), and I can't see it in the boxscore data (which is in the second part of my metric included), where should it be seen and how can it then have influence on the result at all?

[Texas Chuck]

Do you not get that the Clippers wouldn't even be in a situation to "come up short", if it weren't for Paul? Seriously, if Paul makes the few mistakes he made in the 1st quarter, then he brings back the Clippers in the 4th, but they still lose, would you still focus on the last few seconds? Or would you now change you view on things and claim that the first few seconds of the game were more important?

Im changing nothing. I've always been consistent that I think the game changes at the end. I absolutely view how players play at the end of close game as more important than how they play in the 1st quarter.

And yes I understand that points are points no matter when they come. I believe that playing when there arent 3 quarters left to come back is a more pressure situation and thus I put more weight on it.

[Texas Chuck]

And seriously, he made two bad decisions, then had bad luck where he gets fouled and it is not called. If the refs correctly send him to the line in game 5 with those 2 seconds left, he converts both FT, the Clippers would win, would you change your view on Paul? Think about that for a second, and try to understand how little sense your focus on the end of the game actually makes.

He made more than 2 mistakes imo. I also don't waste my time on worrying about ref's calls. Players can't control that so its irrelevant to how they performed.

[Texas Chuck]

[

I don't believe the best way to evaluate a player is to take their cummulative +/- and if its positive praise them, and if its negative, to criticize them. That's overly simplistic for me. It does make it easier to claim you are right tho--so there's that.

I NEVER SAID THAT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST WAY. You are such a dishonest guy when it comes to a situation, where your fantasy about a player is challenged with facts, it is incredible. Everytime you start making up stuff like that. Seriously, you done that in the last conversation as well. What do you gain with such nonsense?

I never said you did. I simply said that I did not. I can understand why you read that implication into my post considering the content of your post interjecting yourself into a question I directed towards someone else. Im not sure what exactly you are accusing me of making up, but it's frustrating that you attempt to make everything personal.

[mysticbb]

I've always been consistent that I think the game changes at the end. I absolutely view how players play at the end of close game as more important than how they play in the 1st quarter.

Well, if that is true, than why wouldn't you change your view on Paul, when he would be perfect in the 4th quarter, while the mistakes would have come earlier?

And yes I understand that points are points no matter when they come. I believe that playing when there arent 3 quarters left to come back is a more pressure situation and thus I put more weight on it.

So, you actually value a close win more than a blowout win? Just asking?

He made more than 2 mistakes imo. I also don't waste my time on worrying about ref's calls. Players can't control that so its irrelevant to how they performed.

Well, actually you do let that interfere with your player assessment, because quite frankly, if Paul makes 2 FT at the end and the Clippers win that close game, according to your presented logic that elevates him in your book. So, because the refs made a mistake, Paul is seen worse by you. That's why I said that you might think about it for a second. ;)

[mysticbb]

Didnt ask you and don't care what those numbers say really at all nor am I remotely interested in your opinion since it takes nothing else into account whatsover.

[

I don't believe the best way to evaluate a player is to take their cummulative +/- and if its positive praise them, and if its negative, to criticize them. That's overly simplistic for me. It does make it easier to claim you are right tho--so there's that.

I NEVER SAID THAT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST WAY. You are such a dishonest guy when it comes to a situation, where your fantasy about a player is challenged with facts, it is incredible. Everytime you start making up stuff like that. Seriously, you done that in the last conversation as well. What do you gain with such nonsense?

I never said you did. I simply said that I did not. I can understand why you read that implication into my post considering the content of your post interjecting yourself into a question I directed towards someone else. Im not sure what exactly you are accusing me of making up, but it's frustrating that you attempt to make everything personal.

:crazy:

As I said, as dishonest as it gets. What do you gain by this? Really, I really want to understand why you feel the need to blantanly lie about something. You clearly stated that "it would make easier for me to claim I'm right", what else would you mean by the bolded words?

And please, if you just want an answer by one user specifically, use a PM! Seriously, asking something in an open discussion is bound to be read and also answered by everyone. If you want a private discussion, do that, but a forum is the wrong place for that.

[colts18]

Plus you have to regress CP3's numbers more. It's unlikely that he would put up that same +7 over 82 games rather than 62. So you have to give more credit to the guy who did it longer

What? Seriously, I don't give Paul credit for his 20 games missed, I just don't see any reason to punish him for that. And I don't see how you can even come close to believe that you could judge whether Paul could sustain that level or not.

You have to punish him for that. Each game he misses in the standing counts the same. It's not like every game from missed game #10-20 counts half as much. Each game is important when you factor in HCA. Maybe if CP3 palyed every game, his team would have had HCA vs the Thunder which could have been the difference maker in the series.

You still have to regress that +7 value because +7 over 62 games is not the same as +7 over 82 games. By that logic, Nick Collison and Ginobili=LeBron which we know is not true.