Retro POY '03-04 (Voting Complete)

[tha_rock220]

1. Garnett
2. Duncan
3. Shaq
4. Kobe
5. Peja

[TrueLAfan]

1. KG--Best season ever for a PF? If not, then close.
2. Duncan--Missed games and not a standout year for TD, but it was a lousy season for individual performances.
3. Shaq--Missed games, began a slow slide to exit his peak period. Still a great player.
4. Kirilenko--Have a look at that Utah team. Ouch. They won 42 games, and AK was the main reason.
5. Wallace--Great D and emotional leader.

I'm surprised at how little love AK is getting. Look at his supporting cast...Carlos Arroyo playing over 350 minutes for the first time in his career, a much less productive Raja Bell, DeShawn Stevenson, Raul Lopez and Greg Ostertag. The team lost Malone and Stockton and dropped a total of 5 games. I know Sloan had a great system in place and all, but I think AK had more to do with holding the fort than anyone/anything else. Productive on offense, 5th in DPOY voting, played a full season, carried a lousy team that had lost two HOF players to 42 wins...AK's still solid.

[ElGee]

That's why an incomplete player like Ben gets the nod. Simply put he was the foundation on which the Pistons built something that was the total anti-thesis of the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, and he really was at his best come playoff time. The anchor of maybe the best defense I've ever seen.

I'm still not really understanding how Ben Wallace or Jermaine O'Neal are cracking the top 5?

Ben Wallace is essentially a negative on offense. Yes, he provides offense rebounding and he's an OK passer. He's not shooting it a lot or turning it over. But teams don't have to pay attention to him outside of about 10 feet. When he catches it around the rim (or rebounds it there) and someone is nearby, they foul and his free throw shooting is so poor it becomes an inefficient possession (49% FT). Based on the numbers, this happens about twice a game. He scores a few points on dunks and put-backs, but he's also missing 5 shots per game. Overall, it's about 11 possessions of usage per game at an eye-popping .441 TS%. He makes up for this with 4 offensive rebounds a night, but I'm not sure that completely offsets the fact that teams really don't have to worry about him unless he's standing under the hoop or dives to the rim. Somehow -- team success? -- he went from vastly underrated as a contributing defender and rebounder, to vastly overrated.

How would Wallace pass any of the criteria tests people have been using? Would you want him over every player in the league but 4 for a season? Is he better than all but 4? Does he provide more value than everyone but 4? Did he play better than everyone but 4?

Doc, I just quoted your blurb because it was the latest, but I think a lot of people are using this reasoning and I'm not sure why. First, this was pre-rule change NBA. Notice the difference the rule changes had (perhaps amplified by an influx of young talent).

Year Ortg FG%
2003 103.6 .442
2004 102.9 .439
2005 106.1 .447
2006 107.2 .454

The Pistons maximized the way the game was officiated. A more conservative line of officiating in the playoffs and they would have fouled out instead of allowing around 0.94 points per possession. (That is the one defense I will provide for Kobe in those Finals -- he was beat up and hacked a lot in Detroit, and that's simply how they let them play.) This is not to minimize the Pistons, but they were a stacked defensive team who ended up with second best DRtg in the league, 7.5 points better than average.

Now, if this were somehow all Ben Wallace, then I can see the argument. But, clearly it's not.

Since he became a starter in 2000, here are the DRtg's of his team and standing relative to league average, as well as the other starting big he played with:

2000 101.7 (9) - 2.4 -- Doleac/Amaechi
2001 101.8 (8) -1.2 -- Joe Smith
2002 102.4 (8) -2.1 -- Cliff Robinson
2003 99.9 (4) -3.7 -- Cliff Robinson
2004 95.4 (2) -7.5 -- Okur/Campbell/Sheed
2005 101.2 (3) -4.9 -- Sheed
2006 103.1 (5) -3.1 -- Sheed

*Billups arrived in 2003, Tayshaun Prince in 2004.

In 2004, The team's DRtg was 96.5 with Wallace on, 99.4 with him off.

This should paint a picture of a very good defensive player (1.8 steals, 3.0 blocks, 8.4 DRB in 2004). But we already knew that. To claim that in an offensively driven sport, Wallace is better than all but four players in the world because he's a very good defender alone seems unheard of. I just don't see the evidence for anything even approaching that type of value/impact. If Wallace were that big of a defensive presence, he would single-handedly be warping team's into all-time defenses, would he not? In 2004, It was the addition of Rasheed Wallace that put that Pistons defense over the top. Even then, they were fairly close to a complete defensive team, with the physical and quick-handed Billups, the length of Prince and Sheed (who combined for 76 blocks in the postseason), and off the bench the ruggedness of Elden Campbell and the ball-hawking of Linsdey Hunter.

In the Finals, I'm not sure Big Ben wouldn't have been saddled with more foul trouble if Shaq received more touches or if Karl Malone were healthy.

And finally, the Pistons clamp down in the Finals wasn't utter defensive dominance -- there were other factors at play, especially on the other side of the ball. The Lakers averaged 1.028 points per possession in the first 3 rounds. The Pistons gave up .981 points per possession in the Finals. Good, but nothing amazing. They were, however, highly efficient on offense throughout the series, scoring around 1.08 points per possession against the Lakers, well above their postseason average.

[ElGee]

Well, Wallace seems to be the opposite of that. My contention would be that the most valuable contribution that a big man can make is dominating defensively and on the glass. Now obviously, to be the truly super-elite you have to contribute on offense as well. But if Big Ben was so good defensively and as a rebounder that he still had a big net effect on the team despite being an offensive zero, then I say he deserves to be in the '04 conversation as much as Nash was in the 05-07 conversations.

Wanted to address this as well. This is logically sound, the problem is the degrees -- Nash on offense, Wallace on defense -- are not comparable. When he's not on the team or out of the game, the Suns offense suffered significantly. When Wallace went out of the game...the Detroit defense was still quite good!

In other words, Nash ran the Phoenix offense, Wallace was a part of the Pistons defense.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm surprised at how little love AK is getting. Look at his supporting cast...Carlos Arroyo playing over 350 minutes for the first time in his career, a much less productive Raja Bell, DeShawn Stevenson, Raul Lopez and Greg Ostertag. The team lost Malone and Stockton and dropped a total of 5 games. I know Sloan had a great system in place and all, but I think AK had more to do with holding the fort than anyone/anything else. Productive on offense, 5th in DPOY voting, played a full season, carried a lousy team that had lost two HOF players to 42 wins...AK's still solid.

Y'know I'll think more on him. I was hugely impressed at the time, but his subsequent struggles have re-cast him in my eyes in a more negative light.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey ElGee, you're making good points. Here's something I'll ask: The people picking Billups instead of Ben, does that seem significantly less crazy to you? On one level that would make sense - but when you look at:

-Ben gets most MVP votes on Pistons.
-Ben plays most minutes on Pistons.
-Ben has best +/- of any Piston who was there all season, and went through the roof in the playoffs.

And also, I think it's dead wrong to diminish the defense of those Pistons. Some perspective: The Pistons DRtg throughout the playoffs was 92.0. The next best defensive champion of the past decade was 97.7. Huge difference man. This was the best defensive team we've seen in a good while - the one defensive team so good they could win a title despite having a mediocre offense (18th in the regular season - and it did get less efficient in the playoffs - which to be fair is somewhat to be expected, but certainly doesn't score points in a discussion about the importance of the defense) - and Ben Wallace was the heart and soul of it.

Also, though I've just used those ratings, we need to be careful using them in the playoffs, and particularly in assessing just one series like the Finals. In any one matchup, anything can happen. I haven't double checked the rating you came up with, but do you remember how the series went? How I saw it was that after a certain point the Lakers just crumbled. How did the defense do early on? Well, in the first two games Detroit won, they held the Lakers to 75 & 68 points respectively with FG% under 40. I really don't see how you can look at that series and think Detroit won it with offense.

With that said, I'm not entirely comfortable ranking Ben above a guys like, say, Dirk - so I am still mulling it over.

[bastillon]

1.Garnett
2.Nowitzki
3.Duncan
4.Shaq
5.Kobe

Nowitzki is underrated. led his team to 52 wins, was part of one of the greatest offenses ever, great +/-, great PO, full package. on top of that he played many more games than Duncan in RS.

[semi-sentient]

was part of one of the greatest offenses ever

Based on what?

They don't even rank in the top 100 in offensive rating, FG%, PPG, etc.

[bastillon]

ORtg relative to league average:

Code: Select all

year   team   ortg
2004   Dallas Mavericks*    9,2
2005   Phoenix Suns*     8,4
1997   Chicago Bulls*     7,7
2002   Dallas Mavericks*    7,7
1998   Utah Jazz*     7,7
1996   Chicago Bulls*     7,6
1988   Boston Celtics*    7,4
2007   Phoenix Suns*    7,4
1982   Denver Nuggets*    7,4
2004   Sacramento Kings*    7,4
1992   Chicago Bulls*     7,3
1987   Los Angeles Lakers*     7,3
2003   Dallas Mavericks*     7,1
1998   Los Angeles Lakers*    6,9
1997   Utah Jazz*    6,9
1995   Orlando Magic*    6,8
1991   Chicago Bulls*    6,7
1987   Dallas Mavericks*    6,6
1998   Seattle Supersonics*    6,6
1999   Indiana Pacers*    6,5
1995   Seattle Supersonics*    6,5
2008   Utah Jazz*    6,3
1995   Phoenix Suns*    6,2
1985   Los Angeles Lakers*    6,2
2005   Seattle Supersonics*    6,1
1986   Los Angeles Lakers*    6,1
1989   Los Angeles Lakers*    6
1995   Utah Jazz*    6
1990   Los Angeles Lakers*     5,9
1983   Los Angeles Lakers*    5,8
2001   Milwaukee Bucks*    5,8
2008   Phoenix Suns*    5,8
1992   Cleveland Cavaliers*    5,7
1996   Utah Jazz*    5,7
2009   Portland Trail Blazers*    5,6
2006   Dallas Mavericks*    5,6
2008   Los Angeles Lakers*    5,5
2001   Los Angeles Lakers*    5,4
1990   Philadelphia 76ers*    5,4
1994   Phoenix Suns*    5,4
1992   Golden State Warriors*    5,4
1999   Los Angeles Lakers*    5,4
1983   San Antonio Spurs*    5,4
1996   Orlando Magic*    5,3
2009   Miami Heat*    5,3
2009   Phoenix Suns    5,3
2006   Phoenix Suns*    5,3
1989   Phoenix Suns*    5,3
1993   Phoenix Suns*     5,3
1987   Boston Celtics*    5,2
2003   Milwaukee Bucks*    5,2
1989   Philadelphia 76ers*    5,2
1988   Los Angeles Lakers*     5,1
1983   Denver Nuggets*    5
1977   Houston Rockets*    5
1990   Phoenix Suns*    5

oh, actually they were THE best offense ever.

[ElGee]

Hey ElGee, you're making good points. Here's something I'll ask: The people picking Billups instead of Ben, does that seem significantly less crazy to you? On one level that would make sense - but when you look at:

-Ben gets most MVP votes on Pistons.
-Ben plays most minutes on Pistons.
-Ben has best +/- of any Piston who was there all season, and went through the roof in the playoffs.

And also, I think it's dead wrong to diminish the defense of those Pistons. Some perspective: The Pistons DRtg throughout the playoffs was 92.0. The next best defensive champion of the past decade was 97.7. Huge difference man. This was the best defensive team we've seen in a good while - the one defensive team so good they could win a title despite having a mediocre offense (18th in the regular season - and it did get less efficient in the playoffs - which to be fair is somewhat to be expected, but certainly doesn't score points in a discussion about the importance of the defense) - and Ben Wallace was the heart and soul of it.

Also, though I've just used those ratings, we need to be careful using them in the playoffs, and particularly in assessing just one series like the Finals. In any one matchup, anything can happen. I haven't double checked the rating you came up with, but do you remember how the series went? How I saw it was that after a certain point the Lakers just crumbled. How did the defense do early on? Well, in the first two games Detroit won, they held the Lakers to 75 & 68 points respectively with FG% under 40. I really don't see how you can look at that series and think Detroit won it with offense.

With that said, I'm not entirely comfortable ranking Ben above a guys like, say, Dirk - so I am still mulling it over.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm diminishing that defense. It was an all-time good defense, although I do use league average as a barometer, and the 2008 Celtics were 8.9 points better than league average. The Spurs that year were better in the regular season. The average efficiency in those playoffs was 98.8, so let's not take the 92.0 out of context. They were a great defense and great in the postseason, my point was their offense/Lakers defense was actually a bigger shift from the norm in that series that led to the lopsided result.

To me, breaking down that Finals round isn't as simple as how you're making it out to be. I actually thought the Lakers inability to get a stop down the stretch in the first two games set the tone for the series. To quote Shaq after game 1, "we could not get any stops."

LA stole game 2, but the tone of the series was set. Great defense from the Pistons and that Detroit offense clicking as a single unit maybe better than it ever had. Game 3 was close at halftime (39-32) and then Billups picked up where he had left off in LA, scoring 8 quick points out of the gate. It was a 14-point game, which seemed even larger with the pace that slow. The Lakers looked broken at that point and never recovered.

[D Nice]

Something isn't right here.

You guys are knocking Kobe down 1-2+ spots for his poor finals appearance (he was NO worse than the 3rd best player in the league before the finals, and how poorly he played is being overstated), but you guys are pimping Big Ben over Chauncey despite the fact Chauncey was CLEARLY the superior player to Ben in the finals (you can thank Shaq's pick and roll defense for that). Something ain't right. I know there is a bias here towards bigs, but c'mon.

Anyway, just my 2 cents, but Billups or JO deserve the #5 spot.

[semi-sentient]

ORtg relative to league average:

...

oh, actually they were THE best offense ever.

Interesting, didn't know that.

[Doctor MJ]

but you guys are pimping Big Ben over Chauncey despite the fact Chauncey was CLEARLY the superior player to Ben in the finals (you can thank Shaq's pick and roll defense for that).

I'm not quite the target here because I'm not knocking Kobe below 3, but I don't agree with your train of thought. 1) Billups didn't stand out THAT much in the Finals. He's my pick for Finals MVP, but by no means was he the team's star every game - and Ben was easily the most dominant player on the court for the series clincher. 2) Your point in parens. It's one thing to adjust rankings dramatically based off a player just getting much better or worse through no fault of the opposing team, but you're right, Billups looked better than he actually was in the finals because of the matchup (and Shaq and Payton both should get a ton of blame for that) - and when rating Billups for the year, people shouldn't let one favorable matchup weigh too heavily.

[lorak]

1. KG
2. Duncan
3. Shaq
4. KB
5. Ben Wallace

[ElGee]

MJ - I just realized I never answered your other question about Billups. I'd say it seems slightly less crazy to pick him, but I still strongly object to the idea.

I looked over more candidates this year than any we've done so far, and I don't think that's simply because it's further back in time. A lot of people had down years, and this was the year before the rule changes so I think a LOT of voters here are being swayed by lower efficiency and scoring numbers. I mean, pace was a touch slower along with lower efficiency and shooting numbers. Teams were giving up 80 ppg in the playoffs. And we look at the usual cast of characters and try to somehow DQ them because of injury or lower performance.

Then people feel some need to explain the Pistons. I see them as having five really good starters (all top 40?) who played well together, were well coached, and together formed a defensive nightmare for opponents. I don't know how any of them could crack the top 15 based on any criteria though, so it's perplexing to me, and I'm fairly open-minded and enjoy hearing the arguments, but I don't think "anchored championship defense" and was "heart of team" makes someone more of a player, let alone top-5. (I feel like if we extended this to a 10-player ballot the same people would have these Pistons at No. 10 to "acknowledge" them, if that makes sense.)

Similarly for Billups, I don't think he was better, played better, had a better season, would be better in a hypothetical setup or whatever criteria people want to use than all but 4 NBA players in 2004. Bilups shot 39% in the regular season! Worse in the playoffs! If I recall, Larry Brown was frustrated at him because it took him a while to play the system the way he wanted him to (he did down the stretch, and everything gelled perfectly).

We've discussed conflating team and individual success quite a bit in this project, but I don't think there's been anything remotely close to these votes for the Pistons.

If Russell Westbrook, Ray Allen, Shane Battier, Chris Bosh and Andrew Bogut united, beat down three flawed teams and won a title (because, you know, that team would be really good), it would somehow change any of those players as individuals? Let's assume that the consensus top-2 players on the team both have horrific TS% as well and didn't have career years.

Is this what everyone's arguing??

[Doctor MJ]

ElGee, I'll say first off, I'd like to see your arguments for someone else as opposed to against Wallace. I don't think of him as being a top 5 type player, he's there because of my issues with others, so maybe you could sway me on some other player.

To respond to your post:

Re: Westbrook, Allen, etc. My first thought when I see this is that there are a couple of clear "top 10 at peak" players on the team. Having a season where it all comes together and the luck that POY competition is really weak could certainly push an Allen or a Bosh into the top 5 imho. Now, you did provide the caveat that those guys didn't have particularly good years - hey if they aren't impressive enough, I'm not going to force a title winner into my top 5. I expect to have some years like that in the 70s.

I'll also mention that I do consider this to be a bit of a special year for Ben because of how good the defense was and how central he was to that. You did point out that the defense in the regular season wasn't all-time great level, which was because it only got to that level when Sheed came in. Does the fact that Sheed was necessary hurt Ben? Sure. How much? Good question worthy of discussion. No one's capable of all-time great level defense by themselves, and while Sheed's talented, he's a puzzle piece who can severely hurt a team without good leadership in place, hence why Detroit got him for a song.

Re: Billups at 39%. Well, dude always got a lot of free throws. His TS% was 55. Now I have to ask your opinion on Billups in general. I've got him as a top 10 player over multiple season. He did have better seasons later on, but not orders of magnitude different. I'm guessing you think I overrate him, care to expound on that?

[drza]

Just in case I don't get to tomorrow...

1) Garnett
2) Duncan
3) Shaq
4) Kobe
5) Ben Wallace

I just can't make myself deduct enough points from Kobe for his issues and attitude to get him under Wallace. Maybe if I had been able to really spend some good time on this and really look harder into it (Ben's postseason +/- really weighed on me for a moment), but as it is I just can't justify it to myself. Bastillion's Nowitzki argument was interesting, and I thought the AK47 mention was as well, but for now these are my rankings.

[mopper8]

ElGee, I'd like to point out that the criteria laid out for this was:

-The criteria of "best season" is meant to emulate MVP thinking. Obviously different people think about MVP differently, so it's okay that the same holds for our POY. That said, this is a proof-in-pudding award. If a player got injured, got disgruntled, etc one season, that has to be factored in.

When I look at this project and think about who I would choose, though I'm not voting, I tend to think, "what will this season be remembered for?" and start there. Maybe that seems way too subjective or whatever, but I think a retrospective take on the season should consider things in a historical context. Given that, I don't know how you can ignore the historicity (is that the right word?) of the Piston's success and further Ben's role in it. I wouldn't put him #1, but I think he'd certainly be in my top-5, b/c for me this season was as much about the taking down of LA's (albeit injured) mini-dream team as it was about anything else.

I do think KG is a clear choice for #1, but I can't look past the fact that for me that season was as much defined by the Pistons upset of the Lakers, and their crazy good defense in general, and Ben Wallace's role in all that, as it was about anything else.

I don't know if you find that persuasive at all, but I felt like chiming in.

[Dr Positivity]

Hmm my ballot shakes out a little differently than most so far

1. Kevin Garnett

Very clear choice considering Duncan, Shaq, AND Kobe were in the 65-69 game range. Every 1st place vote should be for KG IMO.

After that I have a bit of a cunundrum. The 3 BEST players clearly are Duncan, Kobe, and Shaq. However the GP makes this a bit difficult. Take a guy like JO. Played 78 games, dropped 20/10 while anchoring a top 3 defense, Pacers win 61 and get the best record in the league and lost in 6 to the eventual champions. Considering the Lakers lost in 5 and the Spurs lost to the Lakers, you can argue the Pacers have as much right to '2nd best in the league' honors as those two teams. The main argument against JO is he had a .48 TS% but the Pacers won 61 games, how much could it have hurt his team? Then there's Dirk who won 52 games despite having a team playing 0 defense and he also played 77 games. The question is how much should these guys be rewarded for playing more games?

I'm going to say

2. Tim Duncan
3. Jermaine O'Neal
4. Shaq
5. Kobe

I think Duncan was good enough in the time he did play, to get the edge over JO despite the lesser GP, but I'll put him over Shaq and Kobe who had their warts this season. Shaq gets the edge over Kobe because of the latter's play in the Finals, he played like a total dong.

I'm surprised Billups and Ben Wallace are getting votes here... sure they won, but I think it's undeniable they weren't at the level as players of JO, Dirk, Kidd, or Tmac, horrible team and all. Just comparing Ben Wallace and JO I don't see any way to pick Ben. Whatever difference in defense (it certainly can't be big) is more than made up by the MASSIVE offensive differential between the two...

[ronnymac2]

To me, Shaq, Garnett, and Duncan, ito quality of the player, were the three best players this year. If I was picking a guy for one year from this season to build a team around (just this year), I'd take those three.

I'm going to have to go to tie-breakers. KG has the following advantages: WCF appearance, one of the greatest games I have ever seen (that gm 7....I mean, wow, just wow....His defense in the first half kept them in it against a potent Kings offense...and his fourth quarter was spectacular.....I've never seen a guy except maybe Magic Johnson literally go grab the big defensive rebound after causing the miss, bring the ball up the floor, pass it to the wing, and then go down to the post to receive the pass from said wing....he literally did it all), and the best combo of stats and accolades.

I don't think Tim Duncan was that much worse as a player from 03 to 04, which makes things interesting, considering I think he's a superior player to KG. He was a dominant 2-way player.

This version of Shaq was pretty damn scary. He gets underrated by the numbers, but damn. He got his team to the finals and played well against Ben and Sheed.

Just as an aside....I find this season to be very odd. Peja and JO are MVP candidates. Some of the best defensive teams ever all coincidentally played THIS season (pretty sure...ito raw defensive rating). Shaq and Kobe had their drama, Kobe had Colorado, the team had injuries, and they had four HOF's on the same team which made Shaq's and Kobe's numbers take a hit. The Mavs were loaded with offensive talent and no defense at all. The Kings were no longer the Kings anymore. The Nets began to slide. Detroit became a force in the East this year. The second and third best scorers in the league scored 24 pgg, which I find unusually low. LBJ, Wade, and Melo are here. Yao improves.

2004 was definitely a year of transition for the NBA. The league has been different since then.

Anyway....

Based on raw talent and getting to the finals with some nice performances, I'll put Kobe at 4.

I'll put McGrady at 5 because of his abilities. Nobody else impresses me. If put on title teams (instead of the garbage he had), everybody would realize T-mac was better than Wallace, Chauncey, JO, and Peja. The only guys I thought about over McGrady were Kidd and Dirk. They were tough to leave out. I don't feel Dirk was in a great situation, and he played well in the playoffs. I do feel Tracy was better at this point though. I don't see why McGrady couldn't do what Dirk did that year. McGrady also has some statistical domination with a very good PER and scoring title, which evens out Dirk's greater team success I guess.

Jason Kidd plays this whole season injured. He was a **** warrior. IIRC, his knee-cap was messed up badly. Yet he was a leader- he played great basketball. Still, his injury affected him. Uninjured Kidd doesn't shoot 0-8 in that gm 7. He fought like warrior, but he just didn't have enough in the end. Jason was very hard to not put on the list.

Shaq vs. Duncan vs. KG.....It's basically splitting hairs, but......Shaq was at times an idiot this year. He missed some games. He performed insanely well, but I'll put KG and Duncan higher because they played at a similar level a bit more consistently.

Tim Duncan was great in the playoffs. The only reason his numbers went down against LA is because Karl Malone was playing tremendous post defense (that Yao and KG were exposed to as well). Shaq being in the middle helps, too. But man....Timmy nutted on LA with that crazy shot, and if Fish hadn't answered, we could have seen Duncan vs. KG.

I want to go with Timmy, but....I can't get that gm 7 out of my head. There are just certain performances that you just keep remembering. Can't let it go. I think Duncan is the slightly superior player, but Garnett imo defined what he was as a player this year, especially with that gm 7 performance. That's showing up. That pinnacle of excellence....can't be ignored.

Final Vote:

KG
TD
Shaq
Kobe
T-Mac