2012-13 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[CBA]

Parker is not a better off-ball player than Deron, seriously? Have you watched Deron play? Parker is in constant motion, he's great at that, but Deron is one of the best screen-setters at the PG position, if not the best. I didn't actually count, but there were numerous times he freed up Lopez for an easy basket just by setting a hard screen on his man. Parker can't do that. And Parker isn't a threat as a shooter, at least not nearly as good as D-Will. D-Will is probably the 2nd best off-ball PG in the league, after Curry.

You don't need to be a great 3 point shooter to be a great off-ball player, see: Wade. Movement, cutting to the basket, slashing on the catch and mid range shooting can be important as well.

A big mark on Avery was his insistence on playing Deron off the ball with another point guard where his play consistently suffered.

A strange thing to say considering Deron scored less, assisted the ball less and turned over the ball more, and produced a lesser offensive team despite player with good offensive talent.

These are all very negligible differences, which can easily be explained by differences in coaching and teammates.

And I've already pointed out that the Nets do NOT have good offensive talent. There's D-Will and Lopez. Joe Johnson sucks, Gerald Wallace was historically bad, and nobody else really provides anything offensively. Are we really going to compare that to the Spurs offensive talent?

Singularly, the differences may be negligible. In combination, the difference is not negligible.

I consider a good offensive player someone who can create their own shot efficiently. Green, Kawhi (so far) and Splitter are great role players but not as offensively talented as Joe Johnson and Lopez.

And despite the Spurs obvious advantage in offensive talent and coaching, their offense was barely any better than the Nets offense this year. A .1 difference in ORating, so they were pretty much identical. The Spurs advantage as a team over the Nets has to do with the vast gulf in defense between the two teams.

My mistake, their offense seems to have fell off a good deal after last I checked, though that was probably due to Parker's injury toward the end of the season.

It's not without evidence, it's based on my analysis of their skillsets and based on what I saw this season...the Nets offense is heavily ISO-based with a lack of shooters, which is the total opposite of what you want when you have a great PG. We all saw how good the Spurs offense is and is predicated on ball movement, player movement, and PnRs, which is exactly what a great PG needs. I think Deron would do GREAT in that kind of offense, that plays exactly to his strengths.

Again, Deron doesn't get credit for what he didn't do. If he had actually played "similar" despite the lack of shooters, then it would be impressive. Playing worse doesn't earn points, definitely not enough to say he had a better season than Parker.

I disagree. I don't think you could plug any PG in for Parker, but I think if you plug in CP3, Curry, or D-Will, the Spurs would do better.

A thought that can't be proven and thus pretty much irrelevant as to who had a better season this year.

[therealbig3]

I guess I'm just coming at this a different way, I'm not strictly looking at who had a better season regardless of context. I disagree with SideshowBob and his assessment that RPOY should be results-oriented only, I think it should be a microcosm of the top 100 thread or the peaks project, where you consider portability and how certain factors can affect how a player performs that are outside of his control.

ElGee explained it better: there are certain players that look better than they actually are because of things like coaching and teammates, and that they shouldn't be rewarded for that. Similarly, certain players look worse than they are because of the same reasons (or lack thereof). They shouldn't be penalized for that.

[therealbig3]

I'd also point out that Joe Johnson and Lopez do not create their own shot efficiently, and Wallace is a negative impact offensive player. Lopez thrives when someone like Williams creates for him and feeds him the ball on the move, and he's still not anywhere close to Duncan.

Kawhi, Green, and Splitter, in addition to guys like Manu and Duncan, are much better offensive support than Johnson/Lopez/Wallace.

[SideshowBob]

I don't know if I said strictly results-oriented, just that I'd lean towards that line of thinking in a POY style project. I think its possible to take that approach and still discern a player's quality while accounting for outside factors that affect their situations (good or bad).

ElGee explained it better: there are certain players that look better than they actually are because of things like coaching and teammates, and that they shouldn't be rewarded for that. Similarly, certain players look worse than they are because of the same reasons (or lack thereof). They shouldn't be penalized for that.

I agree with the above.

[therealbig3]

Ah, my mistake then.

[ardee]

Well this is pretty confusing, but I think I arrived at a conclusion.

1. LeBron James (duh)
2. Kevin Durant (I personally see a very small argument for CP3, based on his Playoffs being slightly better, but the regular season gap was pretty massive IMO, so KD gets this comfortably)
3. Chris Paul (he threatened to fall out of the top 3 some way into the regular season but he turned it up like crazy at the end, had this great stretch where he was putting up 08 and 09 type of numbers.... Then had himself a pretty good first round in a loss)
4. Steph Curry (just for lack of options. He had a great regular season, a fantastic first round, followed up by an ok second round. I think the hype was getting a bit silly and people weren't noticing the duds he was producing vs. SAS but it's all right, he deserves this)
5. Kobe Bryant (I don't care if you disagree, but I think his regular season was great enough to warrant this. Literally no one with a comparable regular season had a good enough Playoffs to overtake him, Harden, Parker, no one.)

So yeah, that's probably my ballot.

So Kobe's lack of a post season helped him? Makes no sense. James Harden literally did the same thing Kobe Bryant did but more.

You're not reading.

My implication was that his regular season was the fourth best in the league, and only Curry had a good enough Playoffs from those beneath him to overtake him in the overall season rankings.

[Mutnt]

Has therealbig3 actually formulated an argument for Deron over Parker? Or are we supposed to take seriously the idea that Parker was completely replaceable in some intangible way that Williams wasn't.

That's not an argument, he 'broke-down' Pop system (which is tailor made for Parker's slashing and running around screens) and assumed D-Will would have no problem with that. Cool, you have every right to believe D-Will would fit better than Parker (if that's in question), but remind me again why this is relevant? D-Will didn't play for the Spurs, ranking him above Parker on some assumptions how he'd play for a better team is bogus. It's like saying: ''Kobe is top 3, he just didn't have a healthy team. If Kobe played for Indiana instead of the Lakers he'd better than anyone not named James/Durant. So yeah, Kobe's in my top 3.'' Doesn't that, in a player of the year scheme, sound stupid to you?

[Mutnt]

Deron is a better scorer, passer, and overall offensive player than Parker, and this is evident by watching them play and seeing Deron's superior court vision and passing ability. Deron shoots better from the perimeter, and although not as good as Parker in terms of penetrating and finishing at the rim, is quite good in his own right. And due to his superior passing and shooting ability, he runs the PnR better than Parker as well.

These things are not in question. You're judging POTY based on who the better player is, which is invalid. Nowitzki won this competition in 2011, judging by you James should've easily won it since he's better than Nowitzki at everything except shooting. Just pencil James, Durant, Kobe, CP3 every year then, they're better at most things than other people.

I think Parker puts up numbers that look similar to Deron's, because he's in a system that would benefit any other star PG tremendously, and even then, Parker was pretty inconsistent and had an overall unimpressive playoffs. I do think Deron was far more irreplaceable, because he IS the Nets offense, which WASN'T nearly as tailor-made to his strengths as the Spurs system was to Parker's strengths, and the Nets offense is so much more dependent on D-Will than the Spurs offense on Parker. The fact that he was still able to put up similar numbers in a system far less conducive to a PG's success tells me he's a better player.

Again, the system is there because of Parker's ability. Not the other way around (you don't even read my posts right?). D-Will would most like do good (he's an all-star level talent after all) but he doesn't play for Pop. He plays for his own team that can run any system for him. Fault the Nets for not optimizing D-Will's talents (and D-Will sucking almost half the year) not Parker for playing in Pop's system.

It's hard to compare their playoff numbers, because D-Will was eliminated in the 1st round, while Parker had a deep playoff run as a result of being on a much better team, but I don't see D-Will struggling nearly as much against the Warriors or Heat, thanks to his better shooting and better passing. D-Will put up pretty good overall numbers against the Bulls, and played pretty similarly to Parker against the Grizzlies. Both teams were excellent defensively.

No it's not. D-Will was eliminated by a depleted Chicago team, Parker went to the Finals and almost won the title ( we are talking a couple of bounces close here). Knock Parker all you want, but he immensely contributed in SAS playoff run. Even if he sucked almost the whole Finals, he still did more than D-Will. Doesn't matter if D-Will had a lesser team (tbh, the dude had a Top 5 Center, Joe Johnson, G-Wallace, one of the best rebounders in the league, and a couple of decent proven NBA role players... he still didn't do jack).

BTW, Parker barely shot any better at the rim than D-Will this season, according to BBR: 67.0% vs 66.5%.

than D-Will really must work on his mid-range game

[therealbig3]

Doesn't that, in a player of the year scheme, sound stupid to you?

Not to me, no. Unless a player undergoes a massive transformation in their game, I don't think players dramatically change from one year to the next. So yeah, my top 5 player list is pretty consistent every year, unless there are injuries or a significant improvement/decline in certain players.

I already explained my rationale:

ElGee explained it better: there are certain players that look better than they actually are because of things like coaching and teammates, and that they shouldn't be rewarded for that. Similarly, certain players look worse than they are because of the same reasons (or lack thereof). They shouldn't be penalized for that.

[Mutnt]

Not to me, no. Unless a player undergoes a massive transformation in their game, I don't think players dramatically change from one year to the next. So yeah, my top 5 player list is pretty consistent every year, unless there are injuries or a significant improvement/decline in certain players.

Well, D-Will isn't the same player he was in Utah. Actually, I think there is suffice evidence that shows D-Will being very inconsistent with his game. He can go from a very good 3PT shooter to dropping by 7% within a year (a lot of times, he can't keep his shooting touch for a month). He also seems bulkier now and has a harder time getting into the lane. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Even if D-Will is still a more skilled player than Parker, he wasn't more productive this season and it's that simple.


I already explained my rationale:

ElGee explained it better: there are certain players that look better than they actually are because of things like coaching and teammates, and that they shouldn't be rewarded for that.

[/quote]

I disagree with that premise, because it's predicated on non-actual presumptions. Are we assessing which players had the biggest impact in their role relative to their team success, or are we looking at who the most skilled players are?

I ain't punishing Parker because of coaching, he's one of the reasons Pop's system is able to function at a high level now that Duncan is past his peak. The teammates argument is invalid. The Spurs (outside Duncan, Kawhi and Parker) aren't supremely talented. They're made up out of one-dimensional role playing shooters that nobody wanted and Pop picked up at a scrapyard (Green, Bonner, Neal), Manu was horrible this season (worse than Joe Johnson), Splitter is mediocre at best, Diaw can only pass, Mills, De Colo and T-Mac are end-of-the-bench players, Stephen Jackson got waived...

Similarly, certain players look worse than they are because of the same reasons (or lack thereof). They shouldn't be penalized for that.

In a POY context? Of course they should... I don't care if they weren't producing because of bad teammates or incompetent coaching, they just didn't produce enough to be in the Top 5.

[therealbig3]

Then just rank everybody based on stats with no player analysis. Just rank the 5 players who you think had the best numbers.

And my whole premise is that Deron was a more productive player than Parker, because he has more impact on the game, even if his box score stats are slightly worse (and they are only slightly worse). Parker's numbers are inflated imo. IDK how many times I have to say that I'm rejecting your notion that Parker is the system...the system makes Parker imo.

With much worse offensive support and coaching, D-Will led a pretty much identical offense. And that's because he's a better player.

And I know Parker missed 16 games on the season. In those 16 games, the Spurs had a 107.5 ORating vs an average 106.1 DRating. Meaning the Spurs were still a +1.4 offense without Parker during the season, meaning he wasn't nearly as instrumental to the system as you say he is (and some of these games were without Duncan/Manu/Kawhi/Green as well). On the season, they were +2.4. That's barely a dropoff.

[Mutnt]

Then just rank everybody based on stats with no player analysis. Just rank the 5 players who you think had the best numbers.

Nah, otherwise I'd have Kobe in there somewhere, but I don't. But that's whole different topic I've already debated in the past.

And my whole premise is that Deron was a more productive player than Parker, because he has more impact on the game, even if his box score stats are slightly worse (and they are only slightly worse). Parker's numbers are inflated imo. IDK how many times I have to say that I'm rejecting your notion that Parker is the system...the system makes Parker imo.

But he was not. You've got no proof he was, actually there's more proof out there he wasn't.

So let me get this straight. Deron's impact somehow transcends box-scores while Parker's doesn't, in fact, Parker's impact is even inflated by playing for the Spurs (even though he runs the system perfectly, that somehow is to his discredit). Okay dude.

Like I said, when Duncan was in his prime-self, and Parker was just beginning his NBA career, Pop had a totally different system predicated more on Duncan because Parker did not yet prove he can shoulder a bigger offensive responsibility. Once Pop recognized his skill-set, he adapted the system to get him better shots (loop play etc.) and with Duncan nearing retirement, Parker's role on offense is bigger than ever (especially with Ginobili playing 25 minutes and sucking ass to the point that Joe Johnson looks like a superstar compared to him).

With much worse offensive support and coaching, D-Will led a pretty much identical offense. And that's because he's a better player.

You realize Lopez and Joe Johnson were better offensively than Duncan and Ginobili were this season, right? The Spurs offense was great because they had a lot of guys contributing. We're talking about guys who can't even dribble the ball (outside of Kawhi) and they produced little points but on high FG%. Why? Because Parker got them easy looks (assisted on 40% FG when he was on floor). Of course the Spurs had a better system and chemistry, but Parker still had to be on the floor, doing his thing and producing. Everything else is irrelevant.

And I know Parker missed 16 games on the season. In those 16 games, the Spurs had a 107.5 ORating vs an average 106.1 DRating. Meaning the Spurs were still a +1.4 offense without Parker during the season, meaning he wasn't nearly as instrumental to the system as you say he is (and some of these games were without Duncan/Manu/Kawhi/Green as well). On the season, they were +2.4. That's barely a dropoff.

Hmm, if you're willing to knock Parker because you feel (based on a couple of RS games) he can easily be replaced by a scrub PG and the Spurs will barely lose anything in the long run, then by all means go ahead. I just hope you're consistent with this logic and therefore drop Duncan out of your Top 5/10 list, since the Spurs seem to do fairly okay in his absence as well...

[therealbig3]

I just hope you're consistent with this logic and therefore drop Duncan out of your Top 5/10 list, since the Spurs seem to do fairly okay in his absence as well...

And if you've read my posts at all, I don't have Duncan in my top 5 for the same reason. I think Duncan and Parker would look a lot worse without Pop.

And you're just totally wrong with Lopez/Johnson vs Duncan/Ginobili. Just unbelievably wrong.

[Mutnt]

And you're just totally wrong with Lopez/Johnson vs Duncan/Ginobili. Just unbelievably wrong.

From an offensive standpoint, you think Duncan/Ginobili are currently better than Lopez/JJ? Wow...

[HeartBreakKid]

And you're just totally wrong with Lopez/Johnson vs Duncan/Ginobili. Just unbelievably wrong.

From an offensive standpoint, you think Duncan/Ginobili are currently better than Lopez/JJ? Wow...

Duncan vs Lopez offensively? Probably a wash at this point. Duncan is a superior play maker though.

Ginobli vs JJ? More or less a wash. I thought Manu was better than JJ this season, and JJ is a ball stopper.


Think you're overrating the Nets quite a bit, especially Joe Johnson.

[therealbig3]

And you're just totally wrong with Lopez/Johnson vs Duncan/Ginobili. Just unbelievably wrong.

From an offensive standpoint, you think Duncan/Ginobili are currently better than Lopez/JJ? Wow...

Absolutely, it's not even debatable.

Duncan is not the self-creator that Lopez is anymore, but that's not all that important really when you're a #2 option. You need to be able to PnR and PnP as a big man finisher, and Duncan is a lot better at that than Lopez still. He's a much better passer. He's a much better screen setter. And he's still a very capable low post scorer, although maybe not on Lopez's level. Overall, no question Duncan's a better offensive player than Lopez, especially as a complimentary piece to his PG.

What exactly did Johnson do better than Ginobili? I'm really curious. For as much as Manu struggled in the playoffs, he was leagues better than Joe Johnson. In the regular season, it wasn't even close.

And can you name me any players of offensive value outside of Joe Johnson or Brook Lopez on the Nets outside of Deron? Because I can't name any. The Spurs have Kawhi, Splitter, Green, Neal, Diaw, and Bonner. One-dimensional or not, they have specific roles that they excel in. Diaw is a fantastic high-post passer, and he's a capable post scorer against certain matchups. Green and Neal are excellent shooters. Kawhi is a very good shooter and slasher/finisher, with a bit of a post game as well. Bonner is a stretch 4 and is another fantastic shooter. Splitter is an excellent PnR big man. Andray Blatche and Keith Bogans were probably the 4th and 5th best offensive players on the Nets this year. Let that sink in...

[therealbig3]

How is Manu and JJ a wash? Manu isn't nearly the ball-stopper/ball-hog that JJ is, he's a much better passer, and he's a much more efficient scorer.

Manu was clearly better than JJ this year.

[Mutnt]

lmao.

Lopez is the more efficient scorer, a better low post threat (sans passing, which isn't really needed because he's rarely double-teamed or in any serious position to pass), a better shooter, a better offensive rebounder. Lopez can roll quite well himself and I don't suspect popping is his weakness, since he's got better range than Duncan. Basically you just said Duncan plays as a 2nd option on a team with a better system, with better chemistry and more shooters, and he's a better passer and screen setter, thus he is a better offensive player than Lopez. lol.

Ok, maybe I overvalued Joe Johnson a tad. I expect him to do a bit better next year, with a whole season playing for a new team under his belt...

But Manu isn't that much better, you're basically getting giddy over slightly better shooting on less volume (which he eviscerated in the playoffs) and an assist more... not to mention the dude became a turnover machine in the last two postseasons... Almost 3 TO's in 27 minutes? I rather have a ball-stopper iso guy.

[therealbig3]

sans passing, which isn't really needed because he's rarely double-teamed or in any serious position to pass

Totally false. He's just way too slow with his reactions, and he does get doubled, he just forces up bad shots instead of making a good pass more often than not. There are also plenty of times there are easy passes to cutters, but Lopez doesn't make them, because as I said, he's too slow with his reactions. He's a good player, but he tends to be a black hole with tunnel vision when he gets the ball in the post. He makes up for it by being a good scorer in the post, but he's pretty one-dimensional offensively and doesn't bring nearly as much to the table as Duncan.

a better shooter

Duncan shot 42.2% from 10-23 feet this season, Lopez shot 40.6%. Duncan also shot with higher volume from that range. Duncan was the better shooter.

a better offensive rebounder

Team strategy. The Spurs intentionally have their guys not crash the offensive glass and get back on defense.

Lopez can roll quite well himself and I don't suspect popping is his weakness, since he's got better range than Duncan.

But he doesn't do it nearly as much, because truth be told, the dude is still pretty soft. He doesn't set screens well, and he doesn't roll enough. He prefers to PnP, which is much less efficient.

And he doesn't have better range than Duncan. Duncan is much smarter with his shot selection though, and prefers not to take so many shots that are just a step inside the 3pt line, like Lopez does.

Basically you just said Duncan plays as a 2nd option on a team with a better system, with better chemistry and more shooters, and he's a better passer and screen setter, thus he is a better offensive player than Lopez. lol.

In addition to being a better shooter. And when deciding who benefits their team more offensively, it makes sense that Duncan's far superior skills in everything but post scoring (which he's not even that much worse than Lopez at, let's be real) makes him a much better 2nd option than Lopez. Passing and screen-setting are huge aspects of offense, especially the Spurs offense. Being a better shooter, and having better shot selection, and being a better roll man, and making better decisions, in addition to not being that much worse as a scorer, in addition to the huge advantages he has in terms of passing and screen-setting, makes Duncan a better 2nd option than Lopez.

But Manu isn't that much better, you're basically getting giddy over slightly better shooting on less volume

56.0% TS vs 52.1% TS isn't slightly better shooting, that's a significant difference. And it's not really my main point about Manu being better. He compliments the rest of his team way better than Joe Johnson does. And he's a much better passer with better court vision than Joe Johnson. And he doesn't rely on killing the clock and taking away opportunities from the rest of his teammates in order to score much more efficiently than Joe Johnson.

which he eviscerated in the playoffs

Still much more efficient than Joe Johnson, without the ball-stopping.

I rather have a ball-stopper iso guy.

Then you're not really understanding offense on the team level and how each player fits with everyone else and affects their game. You're way too focused on the box-score and not enough on HOW these players get their numbers. Some of them do it in an inefficient way that's not conducive to winning basketball (Joe Johnson), and some of them do it in an efficient way that allows all of their teammates to be involved (Manu). And while some players are very good in one aspect of the game (Lopez), they don't have the all-around skill level and IQ as some other players and ultimately have lesser impact playing the same role as that other player (Duncan).

And again, the supporting cast beyond the #2 and #3 options between the two teams isn't even CLOSE. The coaching and offensive system in place isn't even CLOSE. The fact that Deron led an offense pretty much identical to the one Parker led is super-impressive on Deron's part. And his production is barely any worse than Parker's. Parker was a little more efficient, with slightly higher volume scoring. Adjusted for pace, Deron actually had a higher individual ORating, in the regular season (118 vs 116) and playoffs (116 vs 111).

[Mutnt]

To be honest, you make some sound points dude.

Both Duncan and Lopez have their advantages on offense that would suit different teams in different situations. No question, Duncan is the better overall player though, with his rebounding, passing and defensive edge.

I guess what we're debating ultimately comes down to how a player is utilized by his team. I'd imagine Manu would do far worse (if that's possible) if he didn't play for the same team & coach for 10 years now and was just thrusted into a new environment like JJ. I know you know his postseason run was dreadful, and when his team needed him the most, this dude has failed beyond any tangible statistics (talking about Manu here)


I don't wanna turn this thread into a Nets vs. Spurs thing. I just think both Duncan and Parker warrant a place in the Top 5. I don't think anybody clearly produced more, helped more or executed better for their teams than those two, even though the Spurs were still awesome when they were missing some key guys.