All-Season Player of the Year Discussion thread

[JordansBulls]

which player had the better PS run so far?
Lebron: 29.9/10.9/8.4 25.6 PER 0.49 TS% 0.181 WS48 6 OBPM 5 DBPM
Curry: 28.5/5/6.3 24.7 PER 0.609 TS% 0.231 WS48 9,2 OBPM -0.4 DBPM

Kinda close overall if you look at it like that, but even if you leaned one way or the other, the fact is that Curry's regular season was a much bigger gap between the two.

[Doctor MJ]

Quoting a post I made elsewhere on RealGM just now:

Should LeBron James win the Finals MVP even if the Cavaliers lose the series to the Warriors? Why?

Vote in the above poll.

My real opinion is "depends", but I voted "no" because I feel like making points against all the pro-LeBron stuff I'm hearing.

As of right now, here are the Warriors' ORtg/DRtg differentials in all of their playoff series:

vs Pellies: +8.5
vs Grizz: +8.8
vs Rockets: +8.3
vs Cavs: +7.5

As you can see that Cavs are basically only doing about what anyone else has done against the Warriors, and it hasn't been close. For further perspective, here are the differentials between other finals in the past decade:

2014 +16
2013 -0.8 (Miami actually lower than Spurs despite winning the series)
2012 +4.5
2011 +2.8
2010 +4.0
2009 +10.3
2008 +9.2
2007 +7.2
2006 +1.0
2005 -2.3 (Champ Spurs outscored)

So basically, there's a pretty clear trend that close series are within 5 of each other, and most series are in this range. I have a problem with giving the MVP of a series to a guy whose teams got blown out.

I'd imagine this all sounds quite strange to people, because they don't feel like this has been a blowout, but by objective standards it has been. And oddly, I'd argue the reason why it doesn't feel like it is because people's perceptions are biased precisely against the things they'd consider most important. Yeah it was close in all of the Warriors' wins for most of the way...and then when it really mattered, the Warriors destroyed the Cavs each time. Yeah the Cavs edged out a 2-1 lead...and then the Warriors made adjustments and have won both games in blowouts since.

Where I'm getting at with all of this, is that if Game 6 goes like the previous two, no one should see this series as the Cavs being ridiculously impressive. They will have been beaten much more soundly than a typical finals loser. And while I'm all for a Finals MVP to go to someone on the losing team in principle, I think it's basically a given that you've got to truly push your eventual conqueror to the brink for that to make sense. Not factoring that in means that you're basically punishing the star of the winning team for not playing more desperately when he had no reason to do so.

Hopefully we all know that you'd never want LeBron to play like this if things were going as designed. It's incredibly impressive that he can do what he is doing of course, and I'm happy to praise him for it, but Curry's not doing something "wrong" because he's actually playing within a smart offensive scheme.

Okay now as I say all of that, as I said, my real answer is "depends", because the series isn't over. If the Cavs do come back and make the Warriors have to fight tooth and nail to scrape out this title, I'll probably be on board the LeBron train too. But those who are simply looking at LeBron's production right now and haven't notice that the Warriors are totally handling the Cavs, and specifically handling the Cavs offense, are really missing the key takeaways from a coaching or scouting perspective.

[JoeMalburg]

My real opinion is "depends", but I voted "no" because I feel like making points against all the pro-LeBron stuff I'm hearing.

As of right now, here are the Warriors' ORtg/DRtg differentials in all of their playoff series:

vs Pellies: +8.5
vs Grizz: +8.8
vs Rockets: +8.3
vs Cavs: +7.5

As you can see that Cavs are basically only doing about what anyone else has done against the Warriors, and it hasn't been close. For further perspective, here are the differentials between other finals in the past decade:

2014 +16
2013 -0.8 (Miami actually lower than Spurs despite winning the series)
2012 +4.5
2011 +2.8
2010 +4.0
2009 +10.3
2008 +9.2
2007 +7.2
2006 +1.0
2005 -2.3 (Champ Spurs outscored)

So basically, there's a pretty clear trend that close series are within 5 of each other, and most series are in this range. I have a problem with giving the MVP of a series to a guy whose teams got blown out.

I'd imagine this all sounds quite strange to people, because they don't feel like this has been a blowout, but by objective standards it has been. And oddly, I'd argue the reason why it doesn't feel like it is because people's perceptions are biased precisely against the things they'd consider most important. Yeah it was close in all of the Warriors' wins for most of the way...and then when it really mattered, the Warriors destroyed the Cavs each time. Yeah the Cavs edged out a 2-1 lead...and then the Warriors made adjustments and have won both games in blowouts since.

Where I'm getting at with all of this, is that if Game 6 goes like the previous two, no one should see this series as the Cavs being ridiculously impressive. They will have been beaten much more soundly than a typical finals loser. And while I'm all for a Finals MVP to go to someone on the losing team in principle, I think it's basically a given that you've got to truly push your eventual conqueror to the brink for that to make sense. Not factoring that in means that you're basically punishing the star of the winning team for not playing more desperately when he had no reason to do so.

Hopefully we all know that you'd never want LeBron to play like this if things were going as designed. It's incredibly impressive that he can do what he is doing of course, and I'm happy to praise him for it, but Curry's not doing something "wrong" because he's actually playing within a smart offensive scheme.

Okay now as I say all of that, as I said, my real answer is "depends", because the series isn't over. If the Cavs do come back and make the Warriors have to fight tooth and nail to scrape out this title, I'll probably be on board the LeBron train too. But those who are simply looking at LeBron's production right now and haven't notice that the Warriors are totally handling the Cavs, and specifically handling the Cavs offense, are really missing the key takeaways from a coaching or scouting perspective.

[/quote]

As usual you shave a really good and reasoned argument and nothing you say is intentionally or overly subjective. I hate to disagree, and that's not even the right term, but let me offer a dissenting viewpoint.

While I will agree that Curry can not be punished for wisely playing within a system that in all probability will win out over the decidedly disadvantaged Cavs over a seven game series, it also speaks additionally to the sizable chasm in responsibility taken on by each team respective superstar. While I conceded that both the eyeball test and the numbers must acknowledge that Steph Curry appaers to have become a bonafide Superstar this season, the old school in me and a great number of fans needs him to prove it when it matters most.

Most of his evidence has been compiled against opponents that were not even fringe contenders in games with a lot less at stake. In the finals Curry has been solid, he has had spectacular moments feasting on the exhausted Cavs late in games. On the one hand that is just smart basketball it it is coming up big when it matters most, a win-win. On the other, the Warriors lost two games, and should have lost three but caught a lot of breaks in game one with Curry finding his rhythm. Through three games he was shooting below 40% and until his late spurt (which wasn't enough) in game three, he was hoovering around 1 of 4 from deep) If the Warriors don't catch some probability in the late stages of game one it's 3-0 and they probably lose the series on a fluke a la the 2005 Pistons or 1988 Pistons, I imagine you as a numbers guy will back me in saying the Pistons won those series by the numbers. If not please tell me why so I can make sure I am prepared for that argument if it ever comes.

Anyway, with LeBron doing something of such historical significance, for the first time we have someone meeting the "West precedent" if it goes to seven it's a lock for me unless somehow he's not the key reason. If not, but he plays like he did in games 1,2,3 and 5 and it's close like games 1-3...I still give him the nod likely.

Before it starts, what are the odds this series gets to seven based on the numbers? A healthy 67 win team against a 53-win team missing it's 2nd and 3rd most utilized players and possessing no other players who can create shots for themselves or others? Facing a team with five current or former all-NBA players as well as Draymond Green and Harrison Barnes in their early prime?

The reason I lean towards James is the literal sense of the word, valuable. There is no argument that Curry is more valuable to the Warriors than James is to the Cavs. While James usage rate allows him to put up ungodly raw numbers, it also forces him out of his lane and away from the style of play we saw in Miami the last few seasons where he was one of the most efficient scoring superstars in NBA history. Meanwhile Curry does what he does best and has the liberty to pick his spots when he feels that shooters rhythm to make seemingly impossible shots look fundamental. Iguodala, while not more valuable, nor out-performing Curry, has arguably had a more profound impact on this particular series for the Warriors, their is no such secondary contributor for James, setting aside the aforementioned, and obvious talent and depth disparity among the teams cores.

That's the counterpoint as I see it, and I think both sides have their merit.

[Doctor MJ]

Voting Panel (thus far):

1. Doctor MJ
2. fuzzy_dunlop
3. fpliii
4. PaulieWai
5. Clyde Frazier
6. RSCD3
7. Dr. Spaceman
8. trex_8063
9. Quotatious
10. MO12msu
11. bondom34
12. HeartBreakKid
13. Chuck Texas
14. JordansBulls

Updated list.

As stated before, those with a prior track record of quality contribution to these projects I'm pretty cool about letting them join in even after the finals are over if they let me know. If that's not you though and you sent me a PM, please send me another one ASAP.

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

My real opinion is "depends", but I voted "no" because I feel like making points against all the pro-LeBron stuff I'm hearing.

As of right now, here are the Warriors' ORtg/DRtg differentials in all of their playoff series:

vs Pellies: +8.5
vs Grizz: +8.8
vs Rockets: +8.3
vs Cavs: +7.5

As you can see that Cavs are basically only doing about what anyone else has done against the Warriors, and it hasn't been close. For further perspective, here are the differentials between other finals in the past decade:

2014 +16
2013 -0.8 (Miami actually lower than Spurs despite winning the series)
2012 +4.5
2011 +2.8
2010 +4.0
2009 +10.3
2008 +9.2
2007 +7.2
2006 +1.0
2005 -2.3 (Champ Spurs outscored)

So basically, there's a pretty clear trend that close series are within 5 of each other, and most series are in this range. I have a problem with giving the MVP of a series to a guy whose teams got blown out.

I'd imagine this all sounds quite strange to people, because they don't feel like this has been a blowout, but by objective standards it has been. And oddly, I'd argue the reason why it doesn't feel like it is because people's perceptions are biased precisely against the things they'd consider most important. Yeah it was close in all of the Warriors' wins for most of the way...and then when it really mattered, the Warriors destroyed the Cavs each time. Yeah the Cavs edged out a 2-1 lead...and then the Warriors made adjustments and have won both games in blowouts since.

Where I'm getting at with all of this, is that if Game 6 goes like the previous two, no one should see this series as the Cavs being ridiculously impressive. They will have been beaten much more soundly than a typical finals loser. And while I'm all for a Finals MVP to go to someone on the losing team in principle, I think it's basically a given that you've got to truly push your eventual conqueror to the brink for that to make sense. Not factoring that in means that you're basically punishing the star of the winning team for not playing more desperately when he had no reason to do so.

Hopefully we all know that you'd never want LeBron to play like this if things were going as designed. It's incredibly impressive that he can do what he is doing of course, and I'm happy to praise him for it, but Curry's not doing something "wrong" because he's actually playing within a smart offensive scheme.

Okay now as I say all of that, as I said, my real answer is "depends", because the series isn't over. If the Cavs do come back and make the Warriors have to fight tooth and nail to scrape out this title, I'll probably be on board the LeBron train too. But those who are simply looking at LeBron's production right now and haven't notice that the Warriors are totally handling the Cavs, and specifically handling the Cavs offense, are really missing the key takeaways from a coaching or scouting perspective.

As usual you shave a really good and reasoned argument and nothing you say is intentionally or overly subjective. I hate to disagree, and that's not even the right term, but let me offer a dissenting viewpoint.

While I will agree that Curry can not be punished for wisely playing within a system that in all probability will win out over the decidedly disadvantaged Cavs over a seven game series, it also speaks additionally to the sizable chasm in responsibility taken on by each team respective superstar. While I conceded that both the eyeball test and the numbers must acknowledge that Steph Curry appaers to have become a bonafide Superstar this season, the old school in me and a great number of fans needs him to prove it when it matters most.

Most of his evidence has been compiled against opponents that were not even fringe contenders in games with a lot less at stake. In the finals Curry has been solid, he has had spectacular moments feasting on the exhausted Cavs late in games. On the one hand that is just smart basketball it it is coming up big when it matters most, a win-win. On the other, the Warriors lost two games, and should have lost three but caught a lot of breaks in game one with Curry finding his rhythm. Through three games he was shooting below 40% and until his late spurt (which wasn't enough) in game three, he was hoovering around 1 of 4 from deep) If the Warriors don't catch some probability in the late stages of game one it's 3-0 and they probably lose the series on a fluke a la the 2005 Pistons or 1988 Pistons, I imagine you as a numbers guy will back me in saying the Pistons won those series by the numbers. If not please tell me why so I can make sure I am prepared for that argument if it ever comes.

Anyway, with LeBron doing something of such historical significance, for the first time we have someone meeting the "West precedent" if it goes to seven it's a lock for me unless somehow he's not the key reason. If not, but he plays like he did in games 1,2,3 and 5 and it's close like games 1-3...I still give him the nod likely.

Before it starts, what are the odds this series gets to seven based on the numbers? A healthy 67 win team against a 53-win team missing it's 2nd and 3rd most utilized players and possessing no other players who can create shots for themselves or others? Facing a team with five current or former all-NBA players as well as Draymond Green and Harrison Barnes in their early prime?

The reason I lean towards James is the literal sense of the word, valuable. There is no argument that Curry is more valuable to the Warriors than James is to the Cavs. While James usage rate allows him to put up ungodly raw numbers, it also forces him out of his lane and away from the style of play we saw in Miami the last few seasons where he was one of the most efficient scoring superstars in NBA history. Meanwhile Curry does what he does best and has the liberty to pick his spots when he feels that shooters rhythm to make seemingly impossible shots look fundamental. Iguodala, while not more valuable, nor out-performing Curry, has arguably had a more profound impact on this particular series for the Warriors, their is no such secondary contributor for James, setting aside the aforementioned, and obvious talent and depth disparity among the teams cores.

That's the counterpoint as I see it, and I think both sides have their merit.

A good post and I think I'll largely leave it alone.

More than anything else I feel torn here. I don't really have any doubt that LeBron can do more for a bad team than anyone else today, and I think it's quite possible more than anyone else in history. It really bothers me though using what LeBron's in a situation somewhat like that as if it's the greatest thing you could do, because this is NOT how you play great offensive basketball in the NBA and so apples to apples comparisons are not really likely to be possible.

Obviously if LeBron leads the Cavs back now and finishes strong, that changes things. If LeBron goes through and does what I say you can't do if you want to win, and they win the title, then I don't see any argument against him.

Also maybe not obvious but just as true: If LeBron were on the top of my list throughout the year, and he just pivoted to this new role with injuries, by no means would I be saying that's a strike against him. The question is simply whether playing like this right now, should be the thing that dominates the discussion when the vast majority of the sample of both Curry and LeBron throughout the year was not like this, and was healthier from a quality-offense perspective.

For me I think the answer is going to be: Only if in the end I feel like the depleted Cavs were still right there with the Warriors, and thus far ahead of any of the other Warrior opponents in the West. If in the end, the Warriors seem to have simply figured out the Cavs and now have no serious sweat thinking about them, then to me fixating on the Cavs taking an early lead in the series is truly getting distracted from the nuts & bolts reality of the situation.

[JoeMalburg]

A good post and I think I'll largely leave it alone.

More than anything else I feel torn here. I don't really have any doubt that LeBron can do more for a bad team than anyone else today, and I think it's quite possible more than anyone else in history. It really bothers me though using what LeBron's in a situation somewhat like that as if it's the greatest thing you could do, because this is NOT how you play great offensive basketball in the NBA and so apples to apples comparisons are not really likely to be possible.

Obviously if LeBron leads the Cavs back now and finishes strong, that changes things. If LeBron goes through and does what I say you can't do if you want to win, and they win the title, then I don't see any argument against him.

Also maybe not obvious but just as true: If LeBron were on the top of my list throughout the year, and he just pivoted to this new role with injuries, by no means would I be saying that's a strike against him. The question is simply whether playing like this right now, should be the thing that dominates the discussion when the vast majority of the sample of both Curry and LeBron throughout the year was not like this, and was healthier from a quality-offense perspective.

For me I think the answer is going to be: Only if in the end I feel like the depleted Cavs were still right there with the Warriors, and thus far ahead of any of the other Warrior opponents in the West. If in the end, the Warriors seem to have simply figured out the Cavs and now have no serious sweat thinking about them, then to me fixating on the Cavs taking an early lead in the series is truly getting distracted from the nuts & bolts reality of the situation.

Now that's a sexy post mi amigo.

We're damn near simpatico, but I'm more of a hopeless romantic for the story line. I just wish the Warriors had paid their dues a la every other Champion I've come to respect greatly. I hate the modern johnny-come-lately champions in an era of parity that more resembles parody of the game I came to love. Not that the Cavs elude that gloss, but LeBron is at least that proven commodity. The NBA offers an unparalleled link between individual and team greatness and pardon me if I don't think the children of Dell Curry, Mychael Thompson and the chubby 11 year old I came to know as Day-Day constitute all-time greatness as they approach their fifth series win in total.

In my eyes, at least if LeBron wins the MVP in defeat, all of history will know he was, as he so unnecessary said, the greatest player in the world. And future generations won't foolishly argue that Steph Curry was better or won the MVP for any reason other than being in a more optimal situation and voter fatigue towards LeBron a la Barkley '93, Cowens '73, Malone '97 or Iverson '01.

[RSCD3_]

Anyone considering Iguodala for 5th on the back of him winning the finals MVP.

[Doctor MJ]

Anyone considering Iguodala for 5th on the back of him winning the finals MVP.

Nope, although I do find myself wondering whether he deserves to be rated ahead of Klay Thompson who, bizarrely, now manages to be both the "thank god we didn't trade him" guy and the "nowhere near as good as some thought he was". Speaking generally in the season, I consider Golden State to be a 2-star team, but that second star is Green not Thompson.

[E-Balla]

Quoting a post I made elsewhere on RealGM just now:

Should LeBron James win the Finals MVP even if the Cavaliers lose the series to the Warriors? Why?

Vote in the above poll.

My real opinion is "depends", but I voted "no" because I feel like making points against all the pro-LeBron stuff I'm hearing.

As of right now, here are the Warriors' ORtg/DRtg differentials in all of their playoff series:

vs Pellies: +8.5
vs Grizz: +8.8
vs Rockets: +8.3
vs Cavs: +7.5

As you can see that Cavs are basically only doing about what anyone else has done against the Warriors, and it hasn't been close. For further perspective, here are the differentials between other finals in the past decade:

2014 +16
2013 -0.8 (Miami actually lower than Spurs despite winning the series)
2012 +4.5
2011 +2.8
2010 +4.0
2009 +10.3
2008 +9.2
2007 +7.2
2006 +1.0
2005 -2.3 (Champ Spurs outscored)

So basically, there's a pretty clear trend that close series are within 5 of each other, and most series are in this range. I have a problem with giving the MVP of a series to a guy whose teams got blown out.

I'd imagine this all sounds quite strange to people, because they don't feel like this has been a blowout, but by objective standards it has been. And oddly, I'd argue the reason why it doesn't feel like it is because people's perceptions are biased precisely against the things they'd consider most important. Yeah it was close in all of the Warriors' wins for most of the way...and then when it really mattered, the Warriors destroyed the Cavs each time. Yeah the Cavs edged out a 2-1 lead...and then the Warriors made adjustments and have won both games in blowouts since.

Where I'm getting at with all of this, is that if Game 6 goes like the previous two, no one should see this series as the Cavs being ridiculously impressive. They will have been beaten much more soundly than a typical finals loser. And while I'm all for a Finals MVP to go to someone on the losing team in principle, I think it's basically a given that you've got to truly push your eventual conqueror to the brink for that to make sense. Not factoring that in means that you're basically punishing the star of the winning team for not playing more desperately when he had no reason to do so.

Hopefully we all know that you'd never want LeBron to play like this if things were going as designed. It's incredibly impressive that he can do what he is doing of course, and I'm happy to praise him for it, but Curry's not doing something "wrong" because he's actually playing within a smart offensive scheme.

Okay now as I say all of that, as I said, my real answer is "depends", because the series isn't over. If the Cavs do come back and make the Warriors have to fight tooth and nail to scrape out this title, I'll probably be on board the LeBron train too. But those who are simply looking at LeBron's production right now and haven't notice that the Warriors are totally handling the Cavs, and specifically handling the Cavs offense, are really missing the key takeaways from a coaching or scouting perspective.

Link me to the original post so I can and 1 that too. Couldn't have said it better if you gave me an hour.

[PaulieWal]

Anyone considering Iguodala for 5th on the back of him winning the finals MVP.

Are you being facetious? Igoudala wasn't even a top 15-20 player this season much less top 5 IMO.

He's become a good role player and credit to him for taking a reduced role but if I had to rank GSW players over the course of the season I'd go Curry, Green/Klay, and then Iggy. He's the 4th best player on his team. Come on now.

[bondom34]

My 5 stands:
In order

Curry
Lebron
Harden
Paul
Westbrook

[PaulieWal]

My 5 stands:
In order

Curry
Lebron
Harden
Paul
Westbrook

I might switch LeBron and Harden but this is also what I am leaning towards as of right now but will think about it a bit more and follow the discussion in this thread as we start voting eventually.

[RSCD3_]

Anyone considering Iguodala for 5th on the back of him winning the finals MVP.

Are you being facetious? Igoudala wasn't even a top 15-20 player this season much less top 5 IMO.

He's become a good role player and credit to him for taking a reduced role but if I had to rank GSW players over the course of the season I'd go Curry, Green/Klay, and then Iggy. He's the 4th best player on his team. Come on now.

Yes that was a little toungue and cheek.

Kawhi and Now iggy, if the cavs win I bet JR smith manages to steal the award.

Yeah beyond curry I have no idea how to rank these guys both among themselves and the rest of the NBA.

My top 5 will probably end up

Curry
James & James
Paul or Davis

[MO12msu]

Immediately Reactionary Post Finals top 5:
1. Curry
2. Harden
3. Lebron
4. Paul
5. Davis

No one else is making it in and my top 2 is set. I still have to figure out how to sort those last 3.

[bondom34]

My 5 stands:
In order

Curry
Lebron
Harden
Paul
Westbrook

I might switch LeBron and Harden but this is also what I am leaning towards as of right now but will think about it a bit more and follow the discussion in this thread as we start voting eventually.

Yeah, as soon as I posted I thought the same but think the playoffs may have done it. Maybe I'll let myself be changed, but the only possible flip is 2/3. Doubtful though.

[JLei]

My 5 stands:
In order

Curry
Lebron
Harden
Paul
Westbrook

This is what I'm thinking too. Top 4 in order.

Might be able to persuaded with Davis over Westbrook.

[bondom34]

Yeah, the more I am thinking I'm gonna have to weigh Harden/Lebron, just b/c of the RS. Gonna do some thinking.

[JordansBulls]

Anyone considering Iguodala for 5th on the back of him winning the finals MVP.

No way. He wasn't even good enough to be a star. To me he is basically in the Billups role in 2004 when he came out of no where.

[RSCD3_]

Anyone considering Iguodala for 5th on the back of him winning the finals MVP.

No way. He wasn't even good enough to be a star. To me he is basically in the Billups role in 2004 when he came out of no where.

Lots of differences there... ( even though it wasn't serious in response. )


1. Pistons were big underdogs
2. There wasn't any player a tier above him

[CBA]

I'll probably have Paul & Davis at 4 and 5 and put some thought into the order of Curry/Harden/Lebron in the first three spots.