2013-14 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[Texas Chuck]

Texas, unless you think Chris Paul had a bad series, what relevance does him messing up a few times really mean? Him choking away his victory doesn't really demote his status of best PG, and if it does - who surpasses him in that realm and why?

I think Chris Paul is the best PG in the league. I didn't ever say that he wasnt. I simply said I thought Blake Griffin had the better year.

I also think its okay that we criticize Paul for making some crucial mistakes at crucial times. It doesnt mean I think he's no longer a good player. I thought Lebron was still the best player in the world right after the 2011 finals happened, but I felt it was fair to criticize his 4th quarter disappearing act.

[Texas Chuck]

What were these times Paul came up short? Do you merely mean his team not winning the game or him specifically?

him specifically

Well, if you're focused entirely on his performance and not on the outcome of the game, I don't see how the couple mistakes he made in Game 5 can have such a large effect on how you view his play throughout the series, where - like mystic said - the Clippers were much better with him on the floor and he dominated offensively.

Honestly, it's hard to take seriously anyone who points to the OKC series as evidence of CP3's inadequate talent as opposed to the GSW series where he was much worse. We all know that that is entirely predicated on the outcome of the series without regard to the actual performance of the players involved in that outcome.

Again, this keeps getting lost because apparantly Chris Paul has become a sacred cow we cant criticize. My point at the start of all this was that Blake Griffin deserves to be ahead of Chris Paul in POY talk. I think without question Griffin had the better RS and Paul didnt do enough in the PS to make up that ground.

I also think Paul made some critical mistakes at the worst possible times and I think its okay to mention that and criticize him for it. But I never said he was terrible, in fact I said quite the opposite of this.

[CBA]

Fair enough. I hadn't read the beginning of your argument.

[ElGee]

Texas, unless you think Chris Paul had a bad series, what relevance does him messing up a few times really mean? Him choking away his victory doesn't really demote his status of best PG, and if it does - who surpasses him in that realm and why?

I think Chris Paul is the best PG in the league. I didn't ever say that he wasnt. I simply said I thought Blake Griffin had the better year.

I also think its okay that we criticize Paul for making some crucial mistakes at crucial times. It doesnt mean I think he's no longer a good player. I thought Lebron was still the best player in the world right after the 2011 finals happened, but I felt it was fair to criticize his 4th quarter disappearing act.

This has come up every year in this thread since its inception and I think there are two really germane issues for people who "criticize" and/or do so more at the end of games.

(1) Late-Game Bias.

If you acknowledge that all points are the same, and all plays count the same, then why is the end of the game ever more important? As an example (since I'm quoting Chuck), if you believe "pressure" is greater at the end of games, then why does it matter that the pressure is greater? All the possessions are still the same...

(2) Losing Bias.

The gist of this very real phenomenon is something called anchoring. It's super powerful and unavoidable. So when I ask you why the Heat LOST, I activate all the "negative" Heat plays you have stored in your long-term memory. As you bring those into your Working Memory, you start to really crystalize all that negativity in the "negative Heat playoff plays" file into the "general Heat playoff" file in your memory cabinet. If I THEN ask you about the good things they did, you are literally (neuro-physically) less able to access those positive memories, and even if you were, it would now take more of those memories to "undo" the opinion you've crystalized in the "general Heat playoff" file.

And the catch with Losing Bias is that you start implicitly asking yourself how a team lost right after they lost. You subconsciously start the aforementioned process. This is what makes this a bias -- it's cognitive autopilot. (Winning Bias is the exact inverse of this process.)

And that's my issue with good posters -- Chuck you're not the first -- to say something like "Player X should be criticized for [pick negative action]. It's often done without perspective of the entire picture. That is to say that a +5 guy is still a +5 guy, regardless of whether he makes 5 "obvious" bad plays a game or 10. A great game is still a great game, even if the dude air balls the final free throws.

The totality of contribution is all that should matter, right? And if it's all that should matter, all the criticizing is just focusing on negativity. I can criticize every player ever, quite easily, especially from game-to-game. But isn't the goal to set the needle just right -- weigh positive against negative, another positive against negative, and on and on until the scale has stopped teetering and you say "based on all the evidence, this guy played X well?"

[ElGee]

Full disclosure -- I watched almost no RS basketball. A lovely personal change if I may say so. I did follow the year closely, but didn't start watching games nightly until the PS. As such, I don't want to offer too many thoughts. But a few things stood out to be about the Clippers the last 13 games:

1. Blake Griffin's really good. Defends a lot smarter -- he used to be completely lost on times on defense. Not sure what the RAPM says about his splits or synergy, but he's much better on this end to me. On offense, also way smarter -- better passing, more in control, better outside shot. Frankly, he reminds me a lot of Karl Malone. Not as good as peak Malone, but a very good ball player. (Check got buckets and he has him at +1.2 on defense.)

2. Chris Paul isn't quite as good as he used to be.

I saw a slightly lesser effective player than in years past. So either the defenses were CRAZY good at disrupting what he likes to do, or he's slightly less effective. And he looked not quite as quick or crafty to me, starting from the top disrupting off the PnR, and ending with how he finished down in the lane. [Edit -- just checked his shot distribution -- fewer of his shots are at the rim than ever before by a sizable margin.]

[Texas Chuck]

ElGee.

obviously that's technically the case and I won't attempt to argue otherwise.

And absolutely this "losing bias" you speak of is real, as is "winning bias" making one focus on say the play of Westbrook in the same game I criticize Paul for.

I concede all of those points.

Nor will I attempt to change the mind of the people who view all possessions as teh same. I just disagree.

And sure you can simply add up their contributions and if the stats say the team played X points better or worse with him on the floor then that's it. It's valid. I just don't personally find it quite that simple. I think we have too much evidence of guys who consistently play better in the PS--when most guys play worse, and guys who play better in the 4th quarter or in the perhaps arbitrarily defined "clutch" situations or in game 7s or whatever for me to not give them additional credit for their performance when the game is there to be won or lost in the moment(and there isnt time to overcome mistakes or for the other team to overcome your good plays). And if I did find it that simply I wouldnt come here and discuss it. I would simply go to B-R.com or another top stat site and look at the data and be done with it.

So how I do give credit to those guys without questioning the poor play at those key moments of those whom their team depends on most? The way I personally deal with is to give additional weight to plays that happen with less time to overcome/protect the results.

I don't dismiss the idea of how a team performs with a player on the court being relevant, tho I find looking at 5-man units to be more telling since that is how the game is played out.

[ElGee]

And sure you can simply add up their contributions and if the stats say the team played X points better or worse with him on the floor then that's it.

To be clear, my post had nothing to do with "statistics." "+5" was quantifying some perception of a player's goodness -- it could be from your brain synthesizing all the data or it could be with heavy use of stats -- doesn't matter.

I think we have too much evidence of guys who consistently play better in the PS--when most guys play worse, and guys who play better in the 4th quarter or in the perhaps arbitrarily defined "clutch" situations or in game 7s or whatever for me to not give them additional credit for their performance when the game is there to be won or lost in the moment(and there isnt time to overcome mistakes or for the other team to overcome your good plays).

Interesting. Without writing a novella, care to present some of this evidence as to why you value the last few minutes more than the first? I've dug pretty hardcore into "clutch" and PS performance, and that has actually changed my mind on this very issue (I used to be 4th-quarter obsessed).

Doesn't it seem strange to say Dirk played better in the 2011 Finals because he made a bunch of shots in the 4th quarter instead of the 1st quarter?

[bondom34]

ElGee, strong content as always, and thanks for the thoughts as I was sort of in agreement w/ Chuck on some points. As for the thought of the clutch (winning time) debate, I don't completely know how to define it but I understand what Chuck says when he mentioned inherent pressure due to knowing there wasn't any more time left. I'd liken it to working with a tight deadline on an assignment at work, if you know something needs to be done ASAP, are you able to do it well? Employers may look highly on those who are capable of that, where if you know you have time to make it up later, its not as high pressure a situation. Thats at least how I look at it, I'll let Chuck speak for himself. I'm not completely oriented toward it, but I do think there's at least a little something to it.

[kabstah]

I have yet to see anyone prove that out-scoring the opponent by X points in the 4th quarter better correlates to winning the game than out-scoring the opponent by X in any other quarter. If anything, the numbers I've seen indicate winning the first and third quarters have the best correlation to winning overall.

[mysticbb]

1. OK, so you enjoy pointing out others mistakes. Good times.

2. I meant not what I always took Cuban to mean in that interview (which I agree w/ him as well). I don't even know quite how to explain it, but maybe with an example. Nearly every team incorporates veterans in a locker room to bring in a "winning presence". Derek Fisher on OKC, Jason Kidd was with the Knicks last season just for 2 quick ones. Don't you see any value in that, even if their on court impact isn't great (or even positive)?

3. My response is OK, I knew Durant had a poor series, I would say Westbrook had a better one and would have said that before knowing. As well, I'd tell you they had the exact same plus/minus after game 1 which heavily skewed the numbers. And what if I told you that though Paul had a positive differential, thus far in the playoffs Durant has a net rating of +5.5 in the playoffs total, but it jumps to +10.7 in the 4th quarter, where Paul is -+ 5.5 overall but in the fourth quarter it drops to -0.1? Again I'm of the thought with Chuck that there is a time in the game where it does matter more (I hate the term "clutch), but a "winning time" if you will. So Paul may be close or even better overall, but his production seems to be less of a factor in the late portions of the game.

OK, I'm seriously finished with this, as its going nowhere, but we just differ in how these rankings are made, and I just don't enjoy seeing people be disparaged when you disagree w/ them anywhere, even if it isn't me.

1. Where did I say that I would enjoy this? Really, as I said before, you are interpreting my words in one direction only, and it seems as if you assume I just have "bad intentions" for posting. Why not assume that I really meant what I wrote, when the words are "I feel it is necessary to point out mistakes in the thought process or provide other insights, when I believe I can contribute"? Why do you feel the need to interpret the words in a way which would portray me as "just a jerk"?

2. Why do you assume the teams are incorporating the veterans for their "winning presence"? Is Caron Butler playing, because he was sitting on the bench in a suit for the 2011 Mavericks? Is that really your idea why those players on the roster? If Derek Fisher wouldn't help the Thunder to perform better on the court (which is seen in the results, btw.), do you believe he would get the playing time? And what exactly is Fisher doing on the court in order to help the Thunder to play better? Maybe understand his action ON THE COURT first, before assuming, he just plays because of a supposed "winning presence"? And the impact on the court needs to be evaluated based on the possible replacement level, in which case someone like Kidd or Fisher performed above that level, even when their boxscore numbers wouldn't tell you that. Those two players are two pretty good examples why the incorporation of the playing level of the team WITH those players on the court is important in order to judge a player's impact correctly. If just their mere presence in the locker room would be enough to help the team, those players wouldn't play, but would probably just get a coaching job like Scalabrine did.

3. That focus on the last quarter is a sample size issue. Why do you believe that this smaller sample tells you more about the player than the whole sample does? That is a cognitive bias here, which is applied to the evaluation of players, which is not making much sense. For Paul we see his "clutch +/- numbers" in the RS being better than in "non-clutch" minutes. And when we look at the 2012 playoffs, for example, it is the same, better +/- numbers in clutch than in non-clutch. Can you imagine that you are getting lost in a small sample here rather than in a real evaluation of the player itself and how he supposedly act under "pressure"?
Just to understand that better: NBA.com has the clutch numbers listed for 5 min and 3 min left. Paul's +/- numbers in the last 5 min says (per 36 min): 0.0; for the last 3 min: +8.5 Now, if you are completely consistent, the last 3min should mean more than the last 5, therefore his clutch numbers would match the non-clutch numbers. So, then we can reduce the sample even further to the last minute, and his numbers are again way worse, but if you judge him on that, you have a 6 min sample left! And those 6 min have the 5-point swing of the game 5 due to bad ref decisions included. Just to get a grasp here, if we just put that 5pt swing into it again, his per 36 min numbers for the last 3 min in clutch would go from -21 to +8. If you see that, do you really feel a lot of confidence to judge Paul's "winning presence" on that small sample?

4. I don't disparaged people for disagreeing with me, I disparage bad reasoning!

[Texas Chuck]

Interesting. Without writing a novella, care to present some of this evidence as to why you value the last few minutes more than the first? I've dug pretty hardcore into "clutch" and PS performance, and that has actually changed my mind on this very issue (I used to be 4th-quarter obsessed).

Doesn't it seem strange to say Dirk played better in the 2011 Finals because he made a bunch of shots in the 4th quarter instead of the 1st quarter?

Im not going to try and present any evidence. I trust you have looked into the matter enough that there is nothing I could post here that would change how you look at it. And more importantly I have no vested interest in changing how you look at it. I can see that perspective and its completely logical.

Talking briefly about 2011 Finals Dirk sure I am consistent in saying he, and not Wade, is the best player in that series and largely due to the 4th quarter. I feel that way because every single game in that series was extremely close in the 4th quarter and he was the best player on the court in the 4th quarter throughout the series.

Now you probably think that's silly or arbitrary--after all FGs and FTs don't give you more points in the 4th than they do in the first. But like bondom alluded to, I think some people can rise to the moment and some player's can't or at least don't quite as often. I think lots of guys can play just fine in the RS or in the 2nd Q or in game 2. But not every one can hit those shots like Ray Allen does or Robert Horry did.

But Im not trying to change you or mystic or anyone else's mind on this. I get this is primary a numbers-based forum and my take on this is based not on scientific data but simply on my own common sense view as someone who has played in a bunch of big(relatively obviously) games and watched a ton more. I know that's not as sound an approach as pouring over infinite stat sheets, but nevertheless....

[Jaivl]

Interesting. Without writing a novella, care to present some of this evidence as to why you value the last few minutes more than the first? I've dug pretty hardcore into "clutch" and PS performance, and that has actually changed my mind on this very issue (I used to be 4th-quarter obsessed).

If you consider scoring as a somewhat random variable and "change" a missed shot into a made one, that changes the whole match. Not only you miss a rebound, a possible fast-break opportunity; a posession (IMO) cannot be explained as a isolated variable: there is always the psychological factor (not all players react the same way to a made basket in their face, a defensive mistake, or a successful defense, a good 2vs1, etc, that can lead to more changes in future posessions), and more subtle stuff. Better teams can correct those "changes", but probabilistically, the chance to do it is bigger when you are in the 1st quarter than when you are in the 4th.

I know it's a bad explanation, but I don't think can explain it better in English Plus, usually in the 4th quarter the scoring efficiency goes down due to players being more tired and yeah, more pressure, so scoring is usually more difficult.

I do put a little more stock in 4th quarter play. But well, that's my opinion and I understand that you don't have to agree with it.

[ElGee]

There are some great points being brought up here -- I'll quickly respond but this topic doesn't need to be belabored (full threads have been given to it) so the focus can shift back toward specific players this year.

ElGee, strong content as always, and thanks for the thoughts as I was sort of in agreement w/ Chuck on some points. As for the thought of the clutch (winning time) debate, I don't completely know how to define it but I understand what Chuck says when he mentioned inherent pressure due to knowing there wasn't any more time left. I'd liken it to working with a tight deadline on an assignment at work, if you know something needs to be done ASAP, are you able to do it well? Employers may look highly on those who are capable of that, where if you know you have time to make it up later, its not as high pressure a situation. Thats at least how I look at it, I'll let Chuck speak for himself. I'm not completely oriented toward it, but I do think there's at least a little something to it.

Exactly. The more work a company asks someone to do under a deadline, the more valuable "working under deadlines well" becomes. If 100% of a company's projects were under time crunches, you'd only have to evaluate employee performance under pressure. If 5% of your projects were under time crunches, you might not care if your sales prodigy freezes like a deer in the headlights under deadline pressure, because he's already exceeded sales by 238%.

In basketball, the game is the time crunch. (There's literally a clock ticking down to the deadline. ) That's really the business analogy -- what were your sales over the entire quarter? is like asking what was your performance over the entire game? When you send that report to the stakeholders at the end of each quarter, it doesn't matter if you barely make the quota (analogous to winning a close game) at the last minute, or if you bang out 97% of the quota in the first week and then fall apart mentally as the deadline approaches and you scramble to just barely make it. You sold the same amount either way.

Plus, usually in the 4th quarter the scoring efficiency goes down due to players being more tired and yeah, more pressure, so scoring is usually more difficult.

Yes, but if everyone found it harder to score, that would make 4th-quarter scoring less important -- it's harder to change the scoring differential if fewer points are being scored.

I think some people can rise to the moment and some player's can't or at least don't quite as often.

Absolutely -- but the crux of the issue is how far one takes it (how meaningful it is). To summarize: Players and teams can't just flip a switch and enact a "just enough to win" impact on the game. It's not like a team says "we are down 7 with 6 minutes left, now we'll try...and by try we mean outscore our opponent by 8 points over the next 6 minutes." (Which would be +64/game.) Forget data and empiricism for a moment -- this explanation does not make logical sense because if a team were so good, they wouldn't be behind late in the game in the first place, and of course they'd never unless they were really careless with their superpowers.

Yes, some people are better under pressure, but effect is almost undetectable* (because differences under pressure are small and because "pressure" moments make up such a small amount of the game).

Spoiler:

For instance, in one study I looked at all 5-and-5 clutch shots from 2001-2011. Of the players who took at least 250 shots, Mehmet Okur is the biggest outlier in shooting efficacy. In (an unweighted) calculation of relative eFG%, Okur improves by 8.1%. Okur took 277 clutch shots, - so 4.2% of his total shots were in the clutch. His improvement led to an average of 0.46 points/game (47 extra points distributed across 101 games).

Perhaps more important is the distribution among this group in their non-clutch performance. The standard deviation among their clutch shooting is 2.4%. Among non-clutch...2.3%. The largest outlier in non-clutch situations is Nash (+3.01 STD) and in clutch situations Marion (+2.53). Thus, we do not see any significant ability for people to flip some switch and create additional separation in performance during "clutch" moments.

[O_6]

Entering these Conference Finals, this is how I rank the top players of this year...

1. Durant
2. LeBron (Whoever wins a ring will very likely be #1, if neither win it I'd lean Durant)

3. Griffin (Paul may still be the better player, but Griffin had the better year)
4. Paul (really wanted to put Curry here but the difference on D is too large to ignore)
5. Curry

6. George (Needs title to break into my Top 5, playoffs are why he is ahead of Love/Melo)
7. Love
8. Melo
9. Noah
10. Harden

I think my Top 5 is pretty much set, a fantastic Paul George ECF/Finals run leading to a Pacers championship is pretty much the only thing that will get me to shake up the Top 5 at this point. I haven't read much of this thread (although I plan too), but I assume that Paul George is going to be a semi-controversial figure in this discussion.

The problem with Paul George is how awful his 2nd half was and how mediocre an offensive threat he is for a guy in the Top 10. Love, Melo, and Harden are all better offensive players than George at this point. But all 3 of those guys are poor defensive players. Love, Melo, and Harden are all defenders who get exploited by the opposing offense because they are sieves. Paul George on the other hand is one of the 5 best wing defenders in the league and considering the amount of minutes he plays, he may have been the single most valuable wing defender in basketball this year. That additional defensive value he provides over Melo/Love/Harden/Dirk/etc. is enormous and makes him a more complete threat than those guys. His offense was pathetic during the 2nd half of the NBA season and if this was just regular season only I'd have him as a borderline Top 10 guy. But he has been strong on offense in the playoffs (22/9/4 + .575 TS%) and is playing like a legitimate superstar right now. I expect to see Paul George ranked all over the place but I currently have him at 6th and that's likely where he ends up.

Curry/Griffin/Paul are pretty clearly the 3-4-5 in the league this year imo. How you want to rank them is the hard part. I consider Chris Paul the 3rd best player in the game and nothing this year really changed that opinion. But in terms of this season only, I feel like Griffin and Curry both have very strong arguments considering the Games Played difference. I'd give the 3rd spot to Griffin because I feel like he clearly reached the 3rd highest ceiling of any player this year outside of LeBron and Durant. He has become a dangerous offensive player and is simply a bull down low. His ability to score near the rim on the low post is why I believe he is clearly better than Kevin Love right now.

So then it comes down to Paul vs. Curry for 4th which is a fun debate. They both faced off head to head and held their own. Although CP3 is a machine on offense I feel like you could argue for Curry as a superior offensive player. Curry's edge as a scorer is pretty damn large and shouldn't be overlooked (24.0 PPG / .610 TS% vs. 19.1 PPG / .580 TS%). But CP3's edge as distributor and defender is just too much for Curry to make up. Curry does have the games played edge but I still feel like Paul is the most complete PG in the league.

[Doctor MJ]

So my thoughts right now:

Durant & LeBron - Are 1 & 2 for now, and really there's just no way for LeBron to surpass Durant for me until all is said & done. Durant had the clearly superior regular season. If LeBron has any major mark against his post season, he's not going to be able to pass Durant up.

Curry - While I don't see Curry as a clear cut #3 guy in the league in general, I really can't see an argument for anyone else over him this season that persuades me. Paul is the obvious one to think of as the superior player, but he missed a bunch of time and when he returned in the playoffs his team was lucky to beat Curry's despite the Warriors being injured and questionably coached before falling in the next round.

There's also the matter that among the list of guys below the Big 2, Curry is the one who shows the clearest signs of having a game that is very robust in the playoffs.

Paul & Griffin...& Love - Paul & Grififn is a fun debate this year. I can see cases either way, and could write a ton on that.

But what about Love? (What about our promises?!!!!)

Love's someone whose placement I've yet to nail down. For much of the season, quite frankly, I could make arguments he deserved to rank 2nd ahead of LeBron. Couldn't say that about anyone else in the league (other than Durant of course). The argument against him is clear to me: The approach used to have this impact is seems to fail astonishingly once the defense gets serious. Obviously that's a reason to exclude him from serious consideration altogether if you take it far enough.

So, what about Love? (You cut my wings, now I am falling!!!). What's y'all's take on him?

Other guys:
Basically, I'd say my candidates are the guys listed above, plus the stars still remaining. Obviously if George or Westbrook goes crazy from here on out, that'll change things.

[HeartBreakKid]

So my thoughts right now:

Durant & LeBron - Are 1 & 2 for now, and really there's just no way for LeBron to surpass Durant for me until all is said & done. Durant had the clearly superior regular season. If LeBron has any major mark against his post season, he's not going to be able to pass Durant up.

Curry - While I don't see Curry as a clear cut #3 guy in the league in general, I really can't see an argument for anyone else over him this season that persuades me. Paul is the obvious one to think of as the superior player, but he missed a bunch of time and when he returned in the playoffs his team was lucky to beat Curry's despite the Warriors being injured and questionably coached before falling in the next round.

There's also the matter that among the list of guys below the Big 2, Curry is the one who shows the clearest signs of having a game that is very robust in the playoffs.

Paul & Griffin...& Love - Paul & Grififn is a fun debate this year. I can see cases either way, and could write a ton on that.

But what about Love? (What about our promises?!!!!)

Love's someone whose placement I've yet to nail down. For much of the season, quite frankly, I could make arguments he deserved to rank 2nd ahead of LeBron. Couldn't say that about anyone else in the league (other than Durant of course). The argument against him is clear to me: The approach used to have this impact is seems to fail astonishingly once the defense gets serious. Obviously that's a reason to exclude him from serious consideration altogether if you take it far enough.

So, what about Love? (You cut my wings, now I am falling!!!). What's y'all's take on him?

Other guys:
Basically, I'd say my candidates are the guys listed above, plus the stars still remaining. Obviously if George or Westbrook goes crazy from here on out, that'll change things.

I like Love more and more every year, but there's always a weird feeling in my gut about him since we've never seen him play in a post season game. It makes it hard for me to envision how good he really is.

I don't think Love is top 5 this year. I think Howard is better, he rivals Love in rebounding, gets a lot of points himself, and while Love can stretch the floor, Dwight makes that up plus more by destroying him on the defensive end where Love is arguably a negative outside of his rebounding (albeit that is a big part of his game to negate considering he's an all time great at that end in my opinion). I do think it is hard to judge Dwight's defensive impact given the Rockets are not a good defense, but it's really Mchales fault for not utilizing his defensive talent properly (and he has a lot of it outside of Harden).


Griffin vs Love is fun, I thought Love was better for most of the regular season but that was because I missed most of Griffin's run as "the guy". I am really impressed by how physical Griffin's post game has become, it's certainly a type of play that is very effective, and an attribute Love doesn't match. Griffin's ability to stretch is really awesome too, doesn't quite have the 3 point range, but long 2s for a 4 is a great shot in my opinion if you're shooting at the clip Griffin does.

Rebounding wise Love is superior, but Griffin is a great rebounder himself, Jordan gets most of the boards on his team though.

Love is a smart passer, but Griffin is a guard out there, a true playmaker, and the guy has legitimate handles, probably the best for a power forward off the top of my head today.

I have to say, I think I'd have to change my rankings and put Blake over Love.

So my rankings would probably go something like this

1) James (if he continues to destroy the playoffs)
2) Durant
3) Paul
4) Curry
5) Griffin

6) Howard
7) Love


George is some where in 8-10, have to think about how to end my top ten.

Do you guys think Anthony Davis has a case for #10? Obviously very high chance of empty stats, but what he's done is pretty damn impressive. I wouldn't be surprised if he could out play someone like Harden in a playoff series.

[therealbig3]

I keep shuffling players around, but the guys that are consistently on my list outside of the two obvious ones are CP3, Curry, Griffin, Melo, and Howard. TBH, I just don't know much about Love's season, didn't really follow him. Could someone make a case for him? I'd be very interested in reading it. From what I did see from Love this year, he's still a bad defender, and that's always something that's very hard to reconcile for me when a player is a PF or C, because that's such an important defensive position. Offensively, he looks fantastic though.

LeBron and Durant are my top 2, not sure how to rank them at this point, because I think LeBron has been clearly superior in the playoffs, even after taking competition into account. But Durant was superior in a far greater sample size during the regular season. Playoffs matter more to me, but neither one has played much in the playoffs so far. So I'm calling it a toss-up right now.

Curry and Griffin would probably be my next 2. CP3 rounds out the top 5 most likely. Only reason he drops below Curry and Griffin is because of the missed games during the RS. I didn't see much of a difference between the 3 of them come playoff time, so the RS counts for a little more in this case, and I thought those 2 had better RS runs.

There's virtually no chance for a guy like Westbrook to make my top 5.

[Doctor MJ]

I like Love more and more every year, but there's always a weird feeling in my gut about him since we've never seen him play in a post season game. It makes it hard for me to envision how good he really is.

I don't think Love is top 5 this year. I think Howard is better, he rivals Love in rebounding, gets a lot of points himself, and while Love can stretch the floor, Dwight makes that up plus more by destroying him on the defensive end where Love is arguably a negative outside of his rebounding (albeit that is a big part of his game to negate considering he's an all time great at that end in my opinion). I do think it is hard to judge Dwight's defensive impact given the Rockets are not a good defense, but it's really Mchales fault for not utilizing his defensive talent properly (and he has a lot of it outside of Harden).


Griffin vs Love is fun, I thought Love was better for most of the post season but that was because I missed most of Griffin's run as "the guy". I am really impressed by how physical Griffin's post game has become, it's certainly a type of play that is very effective, and an attribute Love doesn't match. Griffin's ability to stretch is really awesome too, doesn't quite have the 3 point range, but long 2s for a 4 is a great shot in my opinion if you're shooting at the clip Griffin does.

Rebounding wise Love is superior, but Griffin is a great rebounder himself, Jordan gets most of the boards on his team though.

Love is a smart passer, but Griffin is a guard out there, a true playmaker, and the guy has legitimate handles, probably the best for a power forward off the top of my head today.

I have to say, I think I'd have to change my rankings and put Blake over Love.

So my rankings would probably go something like this

1) James (if he continues to destroy the playoffs)
2) Durant
3) Paul
4) Curry
5) Griffin

6) Howard
7) Love


George is some where in 8-10, have to think about how to end my top ten.

Do you guys think Anthony Davis has a case for #10? Obviously very high chance of empty stats, but what he's done is pretty damn impressive. I wouldn't be surprised if he could out play someone like Harden in a playoff series.

I would agree with you about the uneasy feeling about Love without having the playoffs as reference. Normally I roll my eyes would people jump to that type of argument, but then normally we don't see a team with such extreme negative trends in the clutch.

It's seems to me entirely possible that just with a solid coaching framework much of these issues could be solved. Yes there's something to be said for Love being a big, and offensive bigs tend to be more limited in the clutch because of their reliance on perimeter players, but no one is seriously suggesting that that should be used heavily against all offensive bigs. Griffin's name is all over here, everyone knows about Shaq's issues, and none of those guys have the outside shooting game. I also have a tough time really saying that Griffin is a better passer than Love. Love's always impressed with his full court awareness and passing accuracy, and he's averaging 4+ assists as a big while playing with a pass-only point guard in Rubio. Griffin's a smart guy and all, but if Love looks dumber to you, I would submit that that likely has much to do with doing the best he can in a rather dysfunctional set up.

But none of those guys are as suspect on defense as Love is either. Love's superstardom is built on an offensive game that, like all big man offensive games, can be "solved for" at least partially when the most crucial times hit. It's then a question of how "partial" of a solution we're really talking about, and if it's enough to drive him clearly out of Top 5 levels when it's all on the line. It may very well be.

As for Howard and the blame of McHale, I'm quite wary of blaming a coach to advocate for a POY candidate. I think it's fine to do so when talking about more vague questions like "who is better?", or when trying to really judge careers, but if a coach decides to play prime Shaq as a point guard then that coach's stupidity is going to keep Shaq off my ballot.

I'll also say what I've said before: You can't judge a guy's defensive rebounding impact very well based on his individual numbers, and Howard in his career has been a poster boy in this regard for the negative direction. Not that's he isn't a big help with defensive rebounding, but the tendency to see him as off-the-charts on this front is a bit much.

Re: Davis, Top 10. A question like this is why I really like that we focus on a Top 5 list here rather than a Top 10. Once you get to 10 guys, you start having to really ask yourself how to compare Davis with the lesser talents who are actually leading their teams somewhere. While it's a good theoretical question to ask, that's partly because there are too many contingencies to have much confidence in a practical answer to a particular comparison.

I've got the biggest mancrush on the 'Brow, but in terms of leading a team to excellence in the NBA, he's basically got no experience in this. I think it's unrealistic to think he could have done it this year "if he just had the right coach and supporting cast" because a coach/cast contraption like that is incredibly hard to come by.

I also think that while he could have been a very nice contributor to a great team this year if he were groomed that way, he wasn't groomed that way, and probably (and hopefully) he never will be.

So would he make my Top 10? It's possible, but unlikely. If he got in there, it would be because my list of "really valuable players this year" hit a wall before the 10th spot.

[ronnymac2]

I like Love more and more every year, but there's always a weird feeling in my gut about him since we've never seen him play in a post season game. It makes it hard for me to envision how good he really is.

I don't think Love is top 5 this year. I think Howard is better, he rivals Love in rebounding, gets a lot of points himself, and while Love can stretch the floor, Dwight makes that up plus more by destroying him on the defensive end where Love is arguably a negative outside of his rebounding (albeit that is a big part of his game to negate considering he's an all time great at that end in my opinion). I do think it is hard to judge Dwight's defensive impact given the Rockets are not a good defense, but it's really Mchales fault for not utilizing his defensive talent properly (and he has a lot of it outside of Harden).


Griffin vs Love is fun, I thought Love was better for most of the post season but that was because I missed most of Griffin's run as "the guy". I am really impressed by how physical Griffin's post game has become, it's certainly a type of play that is very effective, and an attribute Love doesn't match. Griffin's ability to stretch is really awesome too, doesn't quite have the 3 point range, but long 2s for a 4 is a great shot in my opinion if you're shooting at the clip Griffin does.

Rebounding wise Love is superior, but Griffin is a great rebounder himself, Jordan gets most of the boards on his team though.

Love is a smart passer, but Griffin is a guard out there, a true playmaker, and the guy has legitimate handles, probably the best for a power forward off the top of my head today.

I have to say, I think I'd have to change my rankings and put Blake over Love.

Sweet, another convert.

I'm not sure if Love is in my top 10. It's got nothing to do with Minny missing the playoffs either. I understand Minny is flawed as hell. Their bench sucks. They don't have a starting SF. Kevin Martin is crap overall. Rubio and Pek are very good but flawed. The starting lineup is better than the sum of its parts due to fit, but it's not the most talented bunch. Dieng is awesome, but didn't play nearly enough until Pek went down.

I get it.

But Love's skillset has worrisome deficiencies. He's not a great halfcourt offensive creator, and for a guy who is supposed to be a dominant offensive big man...well, we have a problem.

If you're not an all-time great post threat, you better have amazing handles for your position and you better be incredibly intelligent at making use of your scoring prowess to the benefit of your teammates — think Dirk Nowitzki. Love isn't a great ball-handler, and he's not a great passer in the halfcourt. He's a good post scorer, but I wouldn't put him down in the post and expect him to create for himself and others. Very good shooter, especially at the volume he puts up. The best thing about Love is he's a stretch 4 who also can dominate the offensive glass and has great touch around the rim. He's also physical and gets to the free throw line a decent amount.

Great player, but I put Griffin above him without much doubt. I'd put Aldridge above Love as well, though that isn't as clear cut.

[ronnymac2]

Curry and Griffin would probably be my next 2. CP3 rounds out the top 5 most likely. Only reason he drops below Curry and Griffin is because of the missed games during the RS. I didn't see much of a difference between the 3 of them come playoff time, so the RS counts for a little more in this case, and I thought those 2 had better RS runs.

There's virtually no chance for a guy like Westbrook to make my top 5.

I'm thinking Griffin/Curry/Paul make my top 5 in some order, too. I'm still deciding how to handle Westbrook though. My fondness for his game isn't new, because I put him third in 2012, but he did miss a ton of games even by my standards. It's tough.