2012-13 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[JordansBulls]

Could this be a 2004 season where all 5 of the top players lost with HCA in the playoffs? In this case only 3 players are possible though.

Rote formulas FTW.

Not sure what you mean here. You saying Rote Formula but the fact remains they will still be the top 3 players in the league this year.

[mysticbb]

How come Dwight over Kg and Timmy?

They are close, but I weighted the minutes differently, because it is essentially not Howard's fault that the team did not play more games overall. Try to imagine Howard for Garnett or Duncan on the Celtics respectively Spurs. Do you really think the teams do worse?

Nonetheless, the numbers I use have an error, and they may as well overrate Howard here and underrate Garnett/Duncan by a bit, which would lead to a shift that Howard would be below those two.

Youre overrating George IMO Hibbert had the better plus minus numbers in the playoffs and the pacers werent the same team in regular season with his and injury. The pacers had strong starting lineup and george cant be top 5

That might be right. It is entirely possible that the algorithm split up the impact on both while George was actually less responsible. The difference is not that big, in the end. I wouldn't fight to the death about it. If someone feels that it should be different, so be it. I think I captured it nicely. We may know more about that next season, when I can test this season's numbers in a retrodiction.

You must seriously be delusional putting George at 4........ with his numbers he could be the best defender ever invented and still he wouldn't be deserving of top 10, let alone top 5. Melo not in top 10? Dude was 4th in PER.
By far the worst list I have seen yet, your bias is way too obvious.

You may very well believe that I put a factor into the equations which lowered Anthony's numbers specifically. Makes no sense to me and I can assure you I didn't do that at all, but well ... :)

And if PER would be as good in terms of explaining and predicting as my metric, I would probably use it. But matter of fact is: PER is far worse at that,therefore I prefer my metric here.

Well, this is the one I use:

As I said, those are by v-zero until march.

So if you have access to some numbers that cover a greater span, would you be able to share it?

At that point? No, tbh.

However he's not an anchor like Marc or Sanders, two guys who RAPM ranks him ahead of. My opinion, he's a terrific team defender in Chicago's scheme but he's overrated here. Not someone who can build a defense around.

RAPM tells you the impact per possession, it doesn't tell you how that player is doing it or in what role. Gibson might very well do much different in a different role, I'm not denying that at all. But here comes the issue with your way of interpreting those numbers: RAPM is not telling who is the best player, it merely quantifies the amount of changes per 100 possession a player makes in comparison to an articifical average player. There is more to a player than that.

I can throw out a huge number of absurd assertions that RAPM makes, if that'd make you blink, but you seem to adore the stat so much that it wouldn't, so I won't expect anything.

You are wrong on that. You are not happy with the numbers, but that doesn't allow you the conclusion that I would take them at face value.

1) Nash is a better defender than Durant (0.1 to 0)
2) Vince Carter is a better defender than LeBron (2.4 to 1.4)
3) Amir Johnson has more offensive impact than Kobe (1.9 to 1.8)

Those statements are not making any sense at all. You are still talking about v-zero's version. I get different numbers. And having a 0.1 point difference and concluding that makes one "a better defender" is completely stupid, to being with. Nash does not become "a better defender" at all, in fact, defensive RAPM does not tell you per se who are the better defenders, but by how much the defensive efficiency changes with a specific player on the court in comparison to an artificial average player. That change on defense may as well come from a more efficient offense with less turnovers and less defensive rebounds for the opponents, which means less higher efficient opportunities via breaks (fastbreaks or secondary breaks), because the team is facing a set defense. And that is just one aspect here. I could name a few more.

Really, you need to learn what the numbers are even saying, it makes no sense to use numbers without having a clue about it. That goes in both direction, either dismissing it, because you fail to understand them or using them in the wrong context to prop up a player.

Maybe these are just sample size errors that are cleared up by the new ones you have access to, in which case I'd like to see it.

Well, and that is something to consider as well. Sample size, and the fact that those numbers represent approximations, which have an error anyway (you can easily assume +/- 0.5 for each here, for example).

For Bryant we have a pretty consistent picture here. For sure, the numbers might overrate the negative impact on defense, but it is not that likely that this is to a huge degree. Matter of fact is, Bryant's defensive failures were seen by a lot of people, and they were talked about basically during the better part of the season anyway (heck, D'Antoni called him out for that; not that it changed it, but anyway ...). I'm not exactly talking against a great wall of evidence to the contrary here. ;)

[lorak]

In v-zeros approach until March? Yeah, but in my approach until the first two playoff rounds it does not! Parker is +1 defensively, and James is +2.5. Gibson is per possession at +4.5, behind Garnett's +5. and on par with George and Tony Allen.

Will you publish your numbers somewhere? Or at lest could you give us top 10 on offense and defense?

[mysticbb]

Will you publish your numbers somewhere? Or at lest could you give us top 10 on offense and defense?

I probably will publish that, but I become more and more reluctant, because, as it seems, either people put way too much stock into it, or they use specific player results to assert that this method wouldn't be good at all.

[GSP]

How come Dwight over Kg and Timmy?

They are close, but I weighted the minutes differently, because it is essentially not Howard's fault that the team did not play more games overall. Try to imagine Howard for Garnett or Duncan on the Celtics respectively Spurs. Do you really think the teams do worse?

Nonetheless, the numbers I use have an error, and they may as well overrate Howard here and underrate Garnett/Duncan by a bit, which would lead to a shift that Howard would be below those two.

Oh ok I can understand that minutes played are important I see.

[ardee]

My Top5 would look like this:

1. James
2. Paul
3. Durant
4. George
5. Westbrook

mystic I'd really like to hear your reasoning for Paul over Durant.

[SideshowBob]

Will you publish your numbers somewhere? Or at lest could you give us top 10 on offense and defense?

I probably will publish that, but I become more and more reluctant, because, as it seems, either people put way too much stock into it, or they use specific player results to assert that this method wouldn't be good at all.

Not everyone does that though. Don't sell us all short here

[GSP]

Cp3 and Kd both equal last 2 years IMO. Both by Srs +5.5 all impact offense difference was playoffs last year Cp3 struggle against Spurs and Kd owned them. This year opposite was true VS Grizz

[SideshowBob]

Cp3 and Kd both equal last 2 years IMO. Both by Srs +5.5 all impact offense difference was playoffs last year Cp3 struggle against Spurs and Kd owned them. This year opposite was true VS Grizz

So you've downgraded Durant by 0.5. Was that on offense or defense?

[GSP]

Cp3 and Kd both equal last 2 years IMO. Both by Srs +5.5 all impact offense difference was playoffs last year Cp3 struggle against Spurs and Kd owned them. This year opposite was true VS Grizz

So you've downgraded Durant by 0.5. Was that on offense or defense?

That was for offense and it mainly comes from because I was underrating Westbrooks offense this year. IMO Kd isnt special defensive player but hes not bad either just average.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

Any possibility Wade sneaks into the 5 spot if he has 2-3 more good games and Miami wins the series?

Not necessarily as good as game 4, but say to the tune of 24/5/5 or so on good efficiency.

[colts18]

Any possibility Wade sneaks into the 5 spot if he has 2-3 more good games and Miami wins the series?

Not necessarily as good as game 4, but say to the tune of 24/5/5 or so on good efficiency.

No. He was awful in this playoffs.

[SideshowBob]

Cp3 and Kd both equal last 2 years IMO. Both by Srs +5.5 all impact offense difference was playoffs last year Cp3 struggle against Spurs and Kd owned them. This year opposite was true VS Grizz

So you've downgraded Durant by 0.5. Was that on offense or defense?

That was for offense and it mainly comes from because I was underrating Westbrooks offense this year. IMO Kd isnt special defensive player but hes not bad either just average.

Got it. So how'd you see him last year and how would you gauge the jump from 2012 -> 2013? (Open question, I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts on Durant's improvement in the last year, while considering the team shifts with Harden moving out).

[GSP]

So you've downgraded Durant by 0.5. Was that on offense or defense?

That was for offense and it mainly comes from because I was underrating Westbrooks offense this year. IMO Kd isnt special defensive player but hes not bad either just average.

Got it. So how'd you see him last year and how would you gauge the jump from 2012 -> 2013? (Open question, I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts on Durant's improvement in the last year, while considering the team shifts with Harden moving out).

IMO 12 playoffs Kd and 13 Kd was same player. He had more assists but thats because someone has to to have that with no Harden and Kmart is not great playmaker. Better scoring but with Harden last year Kd didnt have as much role onball so that could be deceiving for stats. I like to hear what others think tho.

RS Per 36
12 - 26.2ppg 0.61ts
13 - 26.3ppg 0.647ts

PS Per 36
12 - 24.5ppg 0.632ts
13 - 25.2ppg 0.574ts

[sp6r=underrated]

Any possibility Wade sneaks into the 5 spot if he has 2-3 more good games and Miami wins the series?

Not necessarily as good as game 4, but say to the tune of 24/5/5 or so on good efficiency.

I would consider it. Slots 4 and 5 to me are debatable with three guys assured of being top 5 (Lebron, Durant and Paul). This is because the quality of candidates for the bottom 2 spots is very low relative to most years.

Westbrook and Wade is an interesting debate. Westbrook had a better RS mainly due to the fact that he was durable. However Westbrook got hurt and couldn't go in the PS. Do we really think Wade should pass Russell on the basis of his PS performance? I'm not sure. There were several games were I think Wade was actually a negative due to how ineffective he was. However was he really that bad that an injured Wade is < Westbrook. It is an interesting debate.

[E-Balla]

So how'd you see him last year and how would you gauge the jump from 2012 -> 2013? (Open question, I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts on Durant's improvement in the last year, while considering the team shifts with Harden moving out).

I think this season's KD is the same KD we saw to end last season. Overall I'd probably take 2012 for the playoff performance but this season's KD is a better player. Some would say that's me over valuing results and team situation but I do think role has to do with how good you are and KD's role last year put his skill set to better use.

[Vinsanity420]

As weak as this year is, 1 or 2 good playoff games from Wade does not equal Top 5 consideration.

[Doctor MJ]

Any possibility Wade sneaks into the 5 spot if he has 2-3 more good games and Miami wins the series?

Not necessarily as good as game 4, but say to the tune of 24/5/5 or so on good efficiency.

Hard to imagine.

When I give a guy like Wade slack for being "quiet", it's based on the idea that he's giving the team roughly what they need at the time. The moment it becomes clear that he can't turn it on and do more when they need him to, the benefit of the doubt goes away.

I won't say it's absolutely impossible, but it would take a heck of a lot more than Wade simply returning to "fantastic sidekick" mode.

[Doctor MJ]

So I'm really having trouble coming to conclusions after the Top 3 here. I'm going to say some stuff, just because I figure it might be beneficial. I'm going to give the heads up that I'm not really considering Kobe. I don't have a problem with talking more about that, but it seems to me it's already being discussed a ton. I'd prefer to here more detailed analysis on other guys:

-Parker & Duncan. At this point these guys are both strong contenders for me, but I don't really believe in them to any massive degree. The Spurs were elite all year again with these guys playing barely more than they sat, and where the Spurs come out exceptionally strong in the playoffs, it always seems like it has everything to do with a coaching adjustment. This is not to say I don't believe in Parker & Duncan at all, rather, it's more like I'm pretty confident how I see them, and it's legit, but not what I'd normally consider for inclusion in my Top 5.

-Curry. This is probably the guy I've been thinking more about than anyone else. This guy was absolutely THE story in the playoffs until his team got eliminated, and this was after a regular season where you could find knowledgeable people gushing about him in ways you just don't normally see for non-MVP candidates. Curry, to my mind, might actually be a worthy Top 5 guy, but I lack certainty. Here's the dilemma:

We know that teams were successful in "taking him out" of the game by diverting enough resources to make it happen. Is it a sign of weakness that they were able to do this? Or is it a sign of strength that teams were so desperate they had to do this, and thereby left themselves open to attack in a variety of other ways? Playing into this is the interpretation of the team results. If we interpret the Warriors run literally, one can easily construct the narrative that this Spurs team was so fine-tuned that only an outlier like Curry (or a LeBron or a Durant) could really mess them up. Should we think that highly of the Warriors run, or should we see them more as a gimmick that just got a little further than expected before being figured out?

-Melo. Was in my Top 5 pretty much all year, but much of that had to do with an impression that the Knicks really were something special built around Melo. It's hard to look at them in this way right now, but am I overreacting? Of course relating to all of this is that in general I think Melo's impact throughout his career has been nothing to shout about, so me putting him in the Top 5 has everything to do with thinking that in this role on this team he's actually having the impact that his skillset implies he's capable of. At the end of the day though, this year doesn't look ridiculously different from his other "good" times.

-Gasol. I was all set to give Gasol serious attention in my Top 5 until the Grizz got beaten so badly on the WCF, so again we're talking about me possibly overreacting. The thing is that with Gasol I always saw him as a really nice player and yes his team MVP, but still only the best of an ensemble that wasn't really elite. Not drastically different from how I see the Nuggets. With the play in the first two rounds it felt like I'd underestimated what a foundation they'd built around Gasol, but when all was said & done, beating two injured teams and then getting swept does not make me inclined to take them that seriously.

-Harden. At this point I'm not likely to vote Harden. It's not that I don't believe in him being able to become something more going forward, but the Harden unipolar model as it stands doesn't seem like something that scales.

-George. I haven't been seriously considering him, but maybe I should? I certainly understand how a great two-way player can bypass more one-dimensional guys before you know it, but all year when I looked at his offense, it felt overblown to me. Like he's starting to get played in a starring offensive role because that's the potential they see in him, but at this point it's still a forced fit. And then of course he got more attention when the Pacers did well in the post-season, but to me that was the Roy Hibbert story more than anything else.

-Westbrook. Hard to imagine getting past the injury here.

[E-Balla]

^ What was your regular season top 10. Hard to tell you some of those issues without knowing that.



Curry - If you had him in your regular season top 10 I think he's easily top 5. Again you can call what he did against the Spurs a fluke because it is but a player like Curry that excels in the easiest shots a defense will give you (a pull up off a screen even if he's guarded) is a fluke against anyone. Also I personally go with the "you play who's in front of you" mindset and he didn't just murder the Spurs. Denver got some too.

Melo - I depends on where you had Gasol, Parker, and Curry before the playoffs. I won't say Duncan because he's been at best average offensively and the Spurs defense fell off a bit in the postseason but personally I don't think Melo was better than Parker. So in my eyes it's a Curry, Melo, Gasol battle for the 5th spot. Gasol might lose out because while I do respect his defense he played like crap in the elimination round (Curry and Melo weren't impressive but they did nothing to lose value IMO). I'm completely lost on Melo v Curry though.

And I think the Knicks still were very good. Tyson was injured in the playoffs, Melo had a torn shoulder, JR played the worst ball of his life, and they still ended up going to 6 against Indiana. It took a perfect storm of issues to eliminate the team and they still only fell 2/3 games short of expectations.