RealGM

Posted: **Sun Oct 7, 2012 9:33 pm**

ushvinder88 wrote:It's obvious the criteria is which player got to play on a team that won, rather than who actually was the best. Surprising though that the criteria doesnt have magic above bird in 1985 when magic was clearly better in the playoffs.

Interesting.

"It's obvious you're using a two-headed coin, I just can't figure how you end up getting tails half the time."

Posted: **Mon Oct 8, 2012 6:08 pm**

ushvinder88 wrote:Larry Bird being chosen as the 1981 player of the year is probably the weakest choice ever. He wasn't even top 10 in PER during the regular season, did absolutely nothing in the nba finals. Moses Malone, Dr. J and Kareem were all better that year.

Using PER as an argument is always a bad start.

Kevin Garnett for 2008 is a hoorendously weak choice too. Played sheltered minutes during the regular season, was the 2nd scoring option in order to win a ring. Chris Paul and Lebron were clearly better players this year.

Yes, using the guy who was the DPOY and 3rd in the MVP vote was such a bad idea... The whole idea of a
veteran team was to distribute the offensive load and then conserve minutes to help the older players (Pierce, KG and Ray were 30, 31 and 32 respectively that season) stay healthy through the RS and into the PS. Don't miss the forest for the trees on that one, especially since KG played 38 mpg in the playoffs.

More particularly, he was the first option in the playoffs. He struggled at times, that's true, but by a rather wide margin, he was the primary volume scoring threat on the team in the playoffs. Pierce's FGA/g don't reflect his overall usage, of course, you have to account for how effectively he was drawing fouls on possessions not recorded in FGA, but still. The team was running the ball into Garnett a LOT, and he was creating with his passing ability and with his scoring threat.

You can certainly make a good argument for Paul and Lebron that year, but you're doing it in a particularly poor fashion.

It's obvious the criteria is which player got to play on a team that won, rather than who actually was the best. Surprising though that the criteria doesnt have magic above bird in 1985 when magic was clearly better in the playoffs.

I'll echo Doctor MJ's comment on that one, because the logic is just abominable.

Posted: **Mon Oct 8, 2012 6:35 pm**

tsherkin wrote:
ushvinder88 wrote:Larry Bird being chosen as the 1981 player of the year is probably the weakest choice ever. He wasn't even top 10 in PER during the regular season, did absolutely nothing in the nba finals. Moses Malone, Dr. J and Kareem were all better that year.

Using PER as an argument is always a bad start.

Kevin Garnett for 2008 is a hoorendously weak choice too. Played sheltered minutes during the regular season, was the 2nd scoring option in order to win a ring. Chris Paul and Lebron were clearly better players this year.

Yes, using the guy who was the DPOY and 3rd in the MVP vote was such a bad idea... The whole idea of a
veteran team was to distribute the offensive load and then conserve minutes to help the older players (Pierce, KG and Ray were 30, 31 and 32 respectively that season) stay healthy through the RS and into the PS. Don't miss the forest for the trees on that one, especially since KG played 38 mpg in the playoffs.

More particularly, he was the first option in the playoffs. He struggled at times, that's true, but by a rather wide margin, he was the primary volume scoring threat on the team in the playoffs. Pierce's FGA/g don't reflect his overall usage, of course, you have to account for how effectively he was drawing fouls on possessions not recorded in FGA, but still. The team was running the ball into Garnett a LOT, and he was creating with his passing ability and with his scoring threat.

You can certainly make a good argument for Paul and Lebron that year, but you're doing it in a particularly poor fashion.

It's obvious the criteria is which player got to play on a team that won, rather than who actually was the best. Surprising though that the criteria doesnt have magic above bird in 1985 when magic was clearly better in the playoffs.

I'll echo Doctor MJ's comment on that one, because the logic is just abominable.

Many people consider chris paul's 2008 and 2009 runs arguable the best ever for pg since magic in 1987. Kevin garnett's 2008 run was probably not even a top 15-20 season ever by a pf. I remember the 2008 season like it was yesterday, garnett was not the best player in the league, he was clearly worse than the 2003-2005 garnett. Again this is an example where realgm selectively chooses player of the year based on team success. However, that theory is thrown out of the window when it comes to the golden boy larry bird and his epic choke job in 1985.

I dont care if PER isnt the only criteria. Dr. J in 1981 was also a much better defender than bird was. Moses Malone outperformed larry bird in both the regular season and the playoffs. The retro player of the year is nothing more than made up revisionism by internet fans.

Posted: **Mon Oct 8, 2012 7:13 pm**

ushvinder88 wrote:Many people consider chris paul's 2008 and 2009 runs arguable the best ever for pg since magic in 1987.

I don't disagree with you here, as it happens, which is why I said that I think you CAN make pretty strong arguments for Paul and Lebron in 2008, but rather objected to your angle of approach, not your result. I merely pointed out that Garnett's selection wasn't this terrible tragedy and injustice, as you implied.

Kevin garnett's 2008 run was probably not even a top 15-20 season ever by a pf.

Performance relative to historical position is interesting, but there's nothing that definitively suggests that a great performance relative to historical PGs is more valuable than what Garnett did in for the Celtics relative to historical PFs. It's an interesting narrative, of course, but it means only so much.

I remember the 2008 season like it was yesterday, garnett was not the best player in the league, he was clearly worse than the 2003-2005 garnett. Again this is an example where realgm selectively chooses player of the year based on team success. However, that theory is thrown out of the window when it comes to the golden boy larry bird and his epic choke job in 1985.

That's one way to look at it. Remember, though, that the RPOY Project defined their goal as this:

Our definition for the Player of the Year was the player who had the best season, including both regular season and playoffs.

It didn't say most productive, it didn't say best player, it said best season factoring in both the RS and the PS. That changes the tone of what happened a lot, and will invariably weight towards players who were able to accomplish more in the PS as well. Don't forget that Garnett's raw scoring average dropped because of his teammates and minutes and he had what was arguably the best offensive season of his career in terms of facilitating team offense and per-possession production.

In any case, you have a subjective opinion that is different from the consensus, which is cool. There were a number of intriguing candidates that year... and Garnett didn't win unanimously. He was neck-and-neck with Bryant (.692 to .650 POY shares), with Paul and James next at .592 and .554, respectively. It was a tight race, and like any vote, it's more about who was in the top group than the final result (unless it was a really strongly one-sided vote, which this wasn't). You're using an example that really doesn't support your argument all that much, though, because Garnett was a reasonably strong candidate and the basic premise of the project was designed to reward postseason play. Calling it revisionist history misses the point and makes you seem oddly bitter over the results, since you don't seem to understand the notion behind the project.

I dont care if PER isnt the only criteria. Dr. J in 1981 was also a much better defender than bird was. Moses Malone outperformed larry bird in both the regular season and the playoffs. The retro player of the year is nothing more than made up revisionism by internet fans.

Yes, Dr. J was a better defender in 81. But yes, Bird was a 21/11/5.5 player in the RS who was still a very good help defender. There are some intriguing arguments for both players when you look at the RS, and then Bird was a 22/14/6 player come the playoffs. Played pretty well, at least until the Finals.

But what you may be forgetting is this:

81 Erving

RS: 24.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 4.4 apg, 57.2% TS, 113 ORTG, great defense
PS: 22.9 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 3.4 apg, 52.7% TS, 105 ORTG, less effective defense

That's a pretty steep drop-off in efficacy. He played three rounds, lost to Bird's Celtics and looked worse in the playoffs than he did in the RS. Noticeably so, at that, including WAY worse at scoring efficiently compared to the regular season. His offensive productivity and efficiency tailed off pretty badly.

Now, 81 Bird

RS: 21.2 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 5.5 apg, 52.8% TS, 107 ORTG
PS: 21.9 ppg, 14.0 rpg, 6.1 apg, 53.2% TS, 109 ORTG

Hmmm.... Unlike Erving, Bird didn't actually worsen compared to his RS performance... he actually improved on the glass and as a playmaker, scored slightly more and very slightly elevated his efficiency. The exact opposite of what happened with Dr. J. Inclusion of the postseason begins to matter!

Now, let's look at the Philly/Boston series in the ECFs, which was neck and neck through the first four games before the Sixers dropped the last three in a row.

Bird: 26.7 ppg, 6.7 FTA/g (don't have data beyond FGM, FTM, FTA and PTS)
Erving: 19.9 ppg, 5.0 FTA/

What should be sharply apparent to you there is how much less effective Erving was in that series compared not only to the regular season but compared to the previous two rounds of the playoffs. In a comparison considering the efficacy of a player in both the regular season and the postseason, a stinker performance in the conference finals is going to factor in rather heavily when you're going head to head against a guy who stuck it to that same player's team rather angrily. Now, there's no efficiency data there, of course, but I think it's pretty clear that Bird was torching the Sixers pretty badly. There's only so much that can be said there, since he had a roughly 6-point increase in his scoring volume and commensurate increase in FTAs of nearly 75%. That's the rough profile of Bird kicking Erving's Sixers in the teeth.

Now, the Finals, over which you weep so readily, the 6-game victory of Moses Malone's Rockets.

Bird: 15.3 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 7.0 apg

Right off of the bat, we see a decline in scoring volume. Not good, but there's a significant rebounding and passing increase as well to compensate. 45.98% TS. Rough, ugly, terrible.

Game-by-game:

G1: 9/17 FG, 0/0 FT, 18 pts, 21 reb, 9 ast, 5 tov
G2: 8/18 FG, 3/3 FT, 19 pts, 21 reb, 3 ast, 5 stl
G3: 3/11 FG, 2/4 FT, 8 pts, 13 reb, 10 ast, 5 stl
G4: 3/11 FG, 2/2 FT, 8 pts, 12 reb, 7 ast and a bad turnover late in the 4th
G5: 5/16 FG, 2/2 FT, 12 pts, 12 reb, 8 ast,
G6: 11/20 FG, 4/5 FT, 26 pts, 13 reb, 5 ast

In the elimination game, he scored16 pts in the second half and 7 of them in the last 3 or 4 minutes.

Looking at that narrative, he struggled from the field in the middle three games while continuing to hit the boards and play an important role as a passing hub. You know from watching that he played good help defense and then he rammed Houston in the teeth in the elimination game. Not quite the picture painted by the overall series averages, which is often the case. Also looking at how he began and ended the series, as well as his performance outside of scoring, it kind of changes the whole tone of how people approach that series. He's not a perfect player, but given his RS performance, his performance overall on the playoffs (especially through the first three rounds and how he kicked in Erving's Sixers in the ECFs) and then how he closed out Game 6 against Malone's Rockets, it's really not all that surprising that he won the RPOY vote.

Remember, you're operating from an errant understanding of what the project was about. It wasn't about the "best player" in the sense of who was individually the best in the RS... that's not even what the MVP is about. The project was rating the best combination of RS and PS performance and results, and given that Bird was an elite performer in both the regular and postseason and the specific results he had, that's not a bad fit.

Posted: **Tue Oct 9, 2012 12:04 am**

The gap in the regular season between bird and dr.j was massive, dont even try and make it sound like it was close. Hey since you tried using his playoff run as a reason as to why you rank him above dr. j and moses in 1981. Where is the same argument for magic in 1985, oh I forgot, for that the playoffs is irrelevant because bird was awesome in the regular season?

1985 playoffs:
Bird: Per of 20.9, TS% of 53.6 and win shares per 48 of .155
Magic: Per of 22.3, TS% of 59.9 and win shares per 48 of .21

Thats called getting outplayed in the playoffs. However I am sure you will make an excuse to disregard bird in 1985, while somehow blaming moses and dr.j for thier shortcoming in 1981. Even though the gap between moses/dr. j and bird in 1981 during the regular season was massive.

Moses was the best player on the court in the 81 playoffs, not bird. Moses lead the playoffs in points, rebounding, had a better per, was clearly more central to how his team got to the finals compared to bird. Had much better regular season numbers. Moses or Dr. J were the player of the year in 81, not bird.

Posted: **Tue Oct 9, 2012 1:05 am**

ushvinder88 wrote:The gap in the regular season between bird and dr.j was massive, dont even try and make it sound like it was close. Hey since you tried using his playoff run as a reason as to why you rank him above dr. j and moses in 1981. Where is the same argument for magic in 1985, oh I forgot, for that the playoffs is irrelevant because bird was awesome in the regular season?

1985 playoffs:
Bird: Per of 20.9, TS% of 53.6 and win shares per 48 of .155
Magic: Per of 22.3, TS% of 59.9 and win shares per 48 of .21

Thats called getting outplayed in the playoffs. However I am sure you will make an excuse to disregard bird in 1985, while somehow blaming moses and dr.j for thier shortcoming in 1981. Even though the gap between moses/dr. j and bird in 1981 during the regular season was massive.

Moses was the best player on the court in the 81 playoffs, not bird. Moses lead the playoffs in points, rebounding, had a better per, was clearly more central to how his team got to the finals compared to bird. Had much better regular season numbers. Moses or Dr. J were the player of the year in 81, not bird.

Listen dude.

You're treating this as if everyone involved was of one mind. They weren't. It's a group project. People have different ways of thinking. The points you bring up are nothing new. If you don't want to use the project that existed because you disagree with the final voting that's fine, but right now you just sound ridiculously naive.

The primary goal of all of these projects is to learn. People dive into history, they discuss, they debate, they bring in qualitative and quantitative research, they gain new tools for their future analysis. We do the voting because that's the hook that gets people in, not because we live and die by the results.

If you are incapable of seeing all of this, if you truly just object based on results that deviate from your own, then you can only be guaranteed that you won't be involved in these discussions, and you won't learn.

Beyond that, I doubt you have any inkling how an undertaking like this truly works. A lot of work, by a lot of people. For you to come in and think you can simply dismiss it so quickly based on "figuring out" how we all thought is pretty funny, which was my first response to you was itself so dismissive. You dug in just deep enough to see the evidence that shot your negating theory to hell, and this led you not to reconsider your thinking, but instead to accuse us all of not only superficial thinking, but of a shared bias which apparently made us fail at even our superficial standards. It's pretty hard to imagine a conclusion that is further from reality.

Posted: **Tue Oct 9, 2012 2:56 am**

ushvinder88 wrote:The gap in the regular season between bird and dr.j was massive, dont even try and make it sound like it was close. Hey since you tried using his playoff run as a reason as to why you rank him above dr. j and moses in 1981. Where is the same argument for magic in 1985, oh I forgot, for that the playoffs is irrelevant because bird was awesome in the regular season?

I haven't addressed the 85 season, so bringing that up without addressing what I actually said is poor approach.

Meantime, the gap between Bird and Dr. J in the 81 regular season is overblown, but that's less important given that the RPOY project was EXPLICITLY about not just the RS but the playoffs as well.

Moses was the best player on the court in the 81 playoffs, not bird. Moses lead the playoffs in points, rebounding, had a better per, was clearly more central to how his team got to the finals compared to bird.

Moses scored more, it's true... but you neglected to mention that he was 4.6 ppg BELOW his playoff average during the Finals. He fell off rather sharply come the Finals and underperformed considerably, which factors in as well. There was a key stretch in game one where the Celtics had 6 offensive rebounds to maintain an extended possession near the end of the game that helped them win, and Moses couldn't do anything about it. Rick Robey defended Malone effectively in Game 3 when Malone injured Parish and knocked him out of the game. Rockets got lucky in Game 4, coming up dry big time in the fourth, but Boston bricked free throws left, right and center to hand the game away. I could go on, but you're ignoring the facts and points I'm making to wank about 1985 instead of addressing the comments about the other seasons you wanted to discuss, which suggests to me that you don't want a debate at all, you just want your point to be true regardless of whether or not it matches reality.

Had much better regular season numbers. Moses or Dr. J were the player of the year in 81, not bird.

You continue to prove that you don't know what you're talking about here, and don't understand the nature of the RPOY project.

But for giggles, let's look at 85.

Bird was at .900 shares, Magic was at .800 shares. Bird had 14 first place and 7 second place votes, Magic 7 and 14. Basically everyone knew it came down to Magic and Bird.

RS: 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 6.6 apg, 58.5% TS, 119 ORTG, 10.5 OWS, 15.7 WS and .238 (leading the league in all 3), All-Star, All-NBA 1st Team, MVP

PS: 26.0 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 5.8 apg, 53.6% TS, 113 ORTG,

Finals: 23.8 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 5.0 apg, 52.7% TS

18/6/9 in game one, the Memorial Day Massacre, on 8/14 shooting and 31 min. Could have padded his stats, didn't.

30/12/3 on 9/21 FG, 11/11 FT in Game 2, scored 12 in the 3rd quarter but couldn't stop Kareem (who scored 30 and rocked like 10 skyhooks made in the game).

20/7/3 on 8/21 FG and 4/5 FT in Game 3.

26/11/5 on 8/16 and 10/12, including 11 pts in the 4th, as well as the assist on the winning bucket by DJ.

20/7/7 on 8/17 and 3/5. Definitely a game that Magic and Kareem dominated. Magic had 26/17 and 3 of the last 7 L.A. buckets (Kareem had the other 4).

28/10/3 on 12/29, 4/5. DJ and Ainge MISSED 25/31 shots. Worthy and Kareem scored 28 and 29 points. Magic had 14/10/14 on 5/15 FG and 4/4 FT, with 5 PF and 4 TOV but had a couple of key drives at the end of the 4th.

Magic

RS: 18.3 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 12.6 apg, 4.0 tpg, 63.7% TS, 123 ORTG
PS: 17.5 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 15.2 apg, 59.9% TS, 122 ORTG, led the playoffs in OWS (2.0) and WS (3.0).
Finals: 18.3 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 14.0 apg, 3.3 tpg, 56.9% TS

When you look at it that way, it's a reasonably tough argument. Magic had some big games, Bird had some big games. Bird dominated the regular season and played well through the playoffs... Magic had a strong RS and dominated through the playoffs. They met one another in the Finals and dueled it out, with good and bad performances.

It's not nearly as clear-cut as you'd like for the sake of bending reality to your narrative. There's a very good pro-Magic argument, absolutely, but your approach is extremely weak and heavily flawed, riddled with bias and subjectivity.

Posted: **Tue Oct 9, 2012 3:19 am**

tsherkin wrote:
ushvinder88 wrote:The gap in the regular season between bird and dr.j was massive, dont even try and make it sound like it was close. Hey since you tried using his playoff run as a reason as to why you rank him above dr. j and moses in 1981. Where is the same argument for magic in 1985, oh I forgot, for that the playoffs is irrelevant because bird was awesome in the regular season?

I haven't addressed the 85 season, so bringing that up without addressing what I actually said is poor approach.

Meantime, the gap between Bird and Dr. J in the 81 regular season is overblown, but that's less important given that the RPOY project was EXPLICITLY about not just the RS but the playoffs as well.

Moses was the best player on the court in the 81 playoffs, not bird. Moses lead the playoffs in points, rebounding, had a better per, was clearly more central to how his team got to the finals compared to bird.

Moses scored more, it's true... but you neglected to mention that he was 4.6 ppg BELOW his playoff average during the Finals. He fell off rather sharply come the Finals and underperformed considerably, which factors in as well. There was a key stretch in game one where the Celtics had 6 offensive rebounds to maintain an extended possession near the end of the game that helped them win, and Moses couldn't do anything about it. Rick Robey defended Malone effectively in Game 3 when Malone injured Parish and knocked him out of the game. Rockets got lucky in Game 4, coming up dry big time in the fourth, but Boston bricked free throws left, right and center to hand the game away. I could go on, but you're ignoring the facts and points I'm making to wank about 1985 instead of addressing the comments about the other seasons you wanted to discuss, which suggests to me that you don't want a debate at all, you just want your point to be true regardless of whether or not it matches reality.

Had much better regular season numbers. Moses or Dr. J were the player of the year in 81, not bird.

You continue to prove that you don't know what you're talking about here, and don't understand the nature of the RPOY project.

But for giggles, let's look at 85.

Bird was at .900 shares, Magic was at .800 shares. Bird had 14 first place and 7 second place votes, Magic 7 and 14. Basically everyone knew it came down to Magic and Bird.

RS: 28.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 6.6 apg, 58.5% TS, 119 ORTG, 10.5 OWS, 15.7 WS and .238 (leading the league in all 3), All-Star, All-NBA 1st Team, MVP

PS: 26.0 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 5.8 apg, 53.6% TS, 113 ORTG,

Finals: 23.8 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 5.0 apg, 52.7% TS

18/6/9 in game one, the Memorial Day Massacre, on 8/14 shooting and 31 min. Could have padded his stats, didn't.

30/12/3 on 9/21 FG, 11/11 FT in Game 2, scored 12 in the 3rd quarter but couldn't stop Kareem (who scored 30 and rocked like 10 skyhooks made in the game).

20/7/3 on 8/21 FG and 4/5 FT in Game 3.

26/11/5 on 8/16 and 10/12, including 11 pts in the 4th, as well as the assist on the winning bucket by DJ.

20/7/7 on 8/17 and 3/5. Definitely a game that Magic and Kareem dominated. Magic had 26/17 and 3 of the last 7 L.A. buckets (Kareem had the other 4).

28/10/3 on 12/29, 4/5. DJ and Ainge MISSED 25/31 shots. Worthy and Kareem scored 28 and 29 points. Magic had 14/10/14 on 5/15 FG and 4/4 FT, with 5 PF and 4 TOV but had a couple of key drives at the end of the 4th.

Magic

RS: 18.3 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 12.6 apg, 4.0 tpg, 63.7% TS, 123 ORTG
PS: 17.5 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 15.2 apg, 59.9% TS, 122 ORTG, led the playoffs in OWS (2.0) and WS (3.0).
Finals: 18.3 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 14.0 apg, 3.3 tpg, 56.9% TS

When you look at it that way, it's a reasonably tough argument. Magic had some big games, Bird had some big games. Bird dominated the regular season and played well through the playoffs... Magic had a strong RS and dominated through the playoffs. They met one another in the Finals and dueled it out, with good and bad performances.

It's not nearly as clear-cut as you'd like for the sake of bending reality to your narrative. There's a very good pro-Magic argument, absolutely, but your approach is extremely weak and heavily flawed, riddled with bias and subjectivity.

I never said magic should be the consensus choice for player of the year in 1985, what i am implying is that he has a much stronger case for 85 than bird does for 81. Larry Bird's overall playoff is so mediocre that 1981 is actually being chosen as a great year for him. If shaq or lebron put up numbers that aweful, they would get flamed for it. Its just unfortunate that the mancrush for larry bird continues. He was the best from 84-86, but the player of the year in 81, please.

I do know what i am talking about here, its just that this forum in general has players that are very open to criticism, and certain players are protected. Bird being player of the year in 81 isnt reality, its made up revisionism. Just for giggles, post larry bird's stats in the 1981 finals, he averaged what, like 15 ppg on 41% shooting. Oh yeah that seals the deal for his case against moses and dr. j.

Posted: **Tue Oct 9, 2012 1:10 pm**

ushvinder88 wrote:I never said magic should be the consensus choice for player of the year in 1985, what i am implying is that he has a much stronger case for 85 than bird does for 81.

And he nearly won the 85 vote, so what's the problem? He was represented strongly in the 85 vote, just like others were likewise represented strongly in the 81 vote.

Larry Bird's overall playoff is so mediocre that 1981

That's not a universally shared opinion, no. He played just fine for three rounds before the Finals, kicking Erving's Sixers in pretty badly, and then he struggled with his shot in the Finals but affected the game with help D, dominant rebounding and passing, opening and closing the series with strong scoring performances. That's not really "mediocre," especially not with back-to-back 21 rebound performances.

He was the best from 84-86, but the player of the year in 81, please.

I do know what i am talking about here, its just that this forum in general has players that are very open to criticism, and certain players are protected. Bird being player of the year in 81 isnt reality, its made up revisionism. Just for giggles, post larry bird's stats in the 1981 finals, he averaged what, like 15 ppg on 41% shooting. Oh yeah that seals the deal for his case against moses and dr. j.

No, I think you don't. I appreciate that you have basketball knowledge, but I think you're still orbiting the basic idea of what the point of the RPOY project was all about.

Also, ushvinder, why would you say "post Bird's stats in the 1981 Finals?"

If you were reading, you'd know I already have. I've posted Bird's RS and PS stats for 81, including the specific stats for the ECFs and the Finals. Go back and read a little more instead of skipping past what you don't want to read.

Posted: **Tue Oct 9, 2012 3:36 pm**

ushvinder88 wrote:The gap in the regular season between bird and dr.j was massive, dont even try and make it sound like it was close.

Are you kidding? Bird had something like 8 20-20 games in 12 games at one point. He came to LA and dropped 36-21-5 on them, and then went to Seattle the next night and went 23-17-8. He had injuries, yes, but when he was playing he was ridiculously dominant.

Don't understand where you're coming from with the anit-Bird arguments :-?

Posted: **Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:14 am**

lmao @ mentioning Dr J and Moses and complaining about Bird's poor playoff stats. have you seen what these two posted against Bird ? they both got severely outplayed by Bird in the playoffs. I see no case for either of them over Bird that year based on their h2h meetings in the postseason.

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:12 am**

I do think we will, and that's why I stated that this format works just fine for the purposes of ranking POY (top 5). It will also work well to rank a few players in an all time setting, but when we get a bit down the list this system won't really work for that IMO. You even stated the reason for why it won't work for those players in your own post TLA when you said people will be surprised at how few players will receive votes each year. :eek1:

Posted: **Mon Mar 4, 2013 11:07 pm**

Kobe not winning RPOY in 08 just proves how much of a joke this website really is :lol:

Posted: **Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:43 pm**

First time taking a look at this and some of the threads.

From the 80's-present this is largely a list of the best player on the title team, except for some 80's years and the 09-10 Lakers.

Imo Magic is No.1 in 85, despite playing along with Kareem. I'd say he was more central to LAL's success than Bird was to that of Boston. Magic dominated throughout the playoffs and consistently came up big while his level of play didn't drop, and their defense is basically a wash, both are below average for megastar standards.

Kobe not winning once in 08-10 is a joke also. 09 much less than 08 and 10 because LeBron went apeshi*t on the league in both the playoffs and regular season. It's the LeBron or, should I say LeChoke pick in 2010 that really irks me. Kobe dominated the playoffs after a regular season after which he and the Lakers had lots of doubters coming into the 1st round. He was clutch as hell most of the time, whereas LeBron purposely went fishing against Boston. To me, that's downright inexcusable. Pau's peak coinciding with a rejuvenated Kobe was great timing, though Kobe averaged something like 30+ppg on high 50's TS% after the OKC series and people forget there was talk of him earning FMVP should the Lakers lose pre-G7. G3 and G7 (considering overall performance by both teams not as much) were stinkers in an otherwise amazing series from him.

FWIW check the clutch data on NBA.com's new engine, or rather, stats candyland. For eye-test purposes, G6 vs PHo is all you need to see. He rebounded from a bad shooting performance by destroying the Suns' hopes in the 4th.

Posted: **Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:01 pm**

Kobe Bean wrote:

Kobe not winning once in 08-10 is a joke also. 09 much less than 08 and 10 because LeBron went apeshi*t on the league in both the playoffs and regular season. It's the LeBron or, should I say LeChoke pick in 2010 that really irks me. Kobe dominated the playoffs after a regular season after which he and the Lakers had lots of doubters coming into the 1st round. He was clutch as hell most of the time, whereas LeBron purposely went fishing against Boston. To me, that's downright inexcusable. Pau's peak coinciding with a rejuvenated Kobe was great timing, though Kobe averaged something like 30+ppg on high 50's TS% after the OKC series and people forget there was talk of him earning FMVP should the Lakers lose pre-G7. G3 and G7 (considering overall performance by both teams not as much) were stinkers in an otherwise amazing series from him.

I've said this time and time again. Of course, on the PC forum being anti-Kobe makes you knowledgeable about the game of basketball.

Here is an article about that debate:

A Tale of Two Game Fives: LeBron Quits, Kobe Fights

Bryant authored a tremendous individual performance in game five--scoring 38 points in 44 minutes while also grabbing five rebounds and leading the Lakers with four assists--but the rest of the Lakers did not show up and the Celtics won 92-86. Gasol (12 points) was the only other Laker to score in double figures but he shot just 5-12 from the field as the Celtics repeatedly bullied him out of the post. The Celtics used screen/roll plays with Pierce to good effect, forcing switches that enabled Pierce to evade Artest's physical defense; Pierce scored 27 points on 12-21 field goal shooting and he also received ample support from Garnett (18 points, 10 rebounds), Rondo (18 points, eight assists, five rebounds) and Ray Allen (12 points).

Even though the Lakers lost, game five demonstrated the gulf that exists between Kobe Bryant and LeBron James in terms of championship character. While James has more raw physical talent than Bryant at this stage of their careers and James has also dramatically narrowed the gap between them from a skill set standpoint, Bryant is still ahead of James in terms of understanding what it takes to be a winner. I am generally reluctant to compare the NBA game to the FIBA game but it is striking to note that the version of Team USA led by James, Dwyane Wade and Carmelo Anthony had no answer in the 2006 FIBA World Championship when things got tough versus Greece; few people probably remember that Team USA took an early lead in that game, prompting James to haughtily declare in reference to Greece, "They don't know what to do." It is easy to be a front runner--James' Cavs did a lot of laughing and dancing as they cruised through the 2010 regular season--but it is not quite so easy to know what to do when your opponent punches you in the mouth; after Greece figured out what to do James had no response as Team USA went down in flames. In marked contrast, the 2008 edition of Team USA won the Olympic gold medal after Bryant took over down the stretch versus Spain in the championship game; in fact, when Team USA Coach Mike Krzyzewski called a timeout during a key segment of the fourth quarter versus Spain he went to Bryant--not James or anyone else--and specifically said that it was time for Bryant to take over.

What does that have to do with game five of the Finals? When the going got tough in game five of the Eastern Conference Finals, LeBron James quit playing aggressively, setting the tone for a monumental collapse by the team with the league's best regular season record; when the going got tough in game five of the NBA Finals, Bryant did whatever he could to keep the Lakers afloat even as his teammates disappeared. Bryant spent the early part of the contest trying to get his teammates involved offensively. During the first quarter, ESPN Radio's Hubie Brown declared, "Kobe is the story. He's making them double team him and he's finding the free people." Brown later called Bryant "the best player in the playoffs" and he criticized the Lakers for not running more offensive actions/sequences to create easier shots for Bryant. Brown also said that on several possessions Artest messed up the offensive flow because he did not pass the ball to an open player in the post (sometimes Bryant, sometimes another player). ABC's Mark Jackson made a similar observation when he said that sometimes Bryant pops open off of screens but the Lakers' passes "are not on point" and that this lack of precision/timing enabled the Celtics' defense to recover.

It is amazing, dumbfounding and infuriating to listen to Mike Wilbon repeatedly act like it is somehow Bryant's fault when the Lakers go through stretches in which none of his teammates can make a shot. When Wilbon talks about Bryant he uses the classic "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of faulty thinking: if Bryant's teammates play well then this "proves" that Bryant has a great supporting cast but if Bryant's teammates play poorly then Bryant is supposedly being selfish. The reality is that the Lakers have a good (not great) starting lineup and a terrible bench; Bryant is responsible for creating a large portion of the Lakers' offense and he is also the eyes/ears of the defense. Bryant's teammates combined to shoot 18-51 from the field in game five even though most of them got wide open shots because Bryant faced double and triple teams. Was it selfish of Bryant to shoot more often in the third quarter or was he just exercising common sense? The truth about game five is that in the first half Bryant repeatedly set up his teammates, as Hubie Brown mentioned, but when it became apparent that his teammates had nothing to offer Bryant took it upon himself to "activate the ball." If LeBron James or Dwyane Wade had scored 19 points in a quarter Wilbon would have fallen over praising them but when Bryant does it this supposedly is a reflection of some kind of character flaw.

It is also odd that Wilbon kept insisting that Boston's strategy was to let Bryant score and shut down everyone else. If that were the case then why did the Celtics send three or four bodies at Bryant if he even got close to the paint? Why did the Celtics trap Bryant with two defenders several feet behind the three point line? No, Boston's strategy was to make Bryant work hard for every shot even if that meant that other Lakers would get wide open shots; the Celtics certainly made every effort to recover to Bryant's teammates when Bryant passed the ball but the Celtics showed that they were quite content to watch any Laker but Bryant shoot wide open shots (as long as those shots were not layups).

Game five did much to destroy the bizarre myth that Gasol has become the best big man in the NBA. Gasol is a solid All-NBA Third Team player but he is not an "elite" player or a "franchise" player if those terms are used in any meaningful way. Gasol played extremely passively throughout game five, getting his shot blocked repeatedly, setting soft screens while failing to roll aggressively to the hoop and committing many defensive gaffes. Gasol does not need to elbow people in the head or get technical fouls; that has nothing to do with being tough and it has nothing to do with why Gasol is often labeled "soft." Gasol does not consistently display the mental and physical toughness to do what his team needs him to do based on his skill set and role. In this series specifically, the Lakers needed for Gasol to establish an aggressive post presence at both ends of the court; he did so at times and he ultimately came up big in game seven but during game five (and at other points during the series) he got bullied far too often when he played defense and he allowed Garnett and especially Boston's starting center Kendrick Perkins--who guarded Gasol whenever Bynum went to the bench and Gasol shifted to center--to push him almost out to the three point line on offense; don't just take my word about that: after game five, Lakers assistant coach Frank Hamblen said, "Pau has to do a better job of holding position."

After Bryant scored 19 straight third quarter points (and 23 straight points overall) he called a play for Gasol, but Gasol failed to hold off Garnett in the post, so Garnett tipped and stole Luke Walton's entry pass, a turnover that resulted in a fastbreak basket for the Celtics. It is a major fallacy to look at Gasol's high shooting percentage and declare that he should get more shot attempts; Gasol's field goal percentage is high precisely because he is primarily shooting dunks, layups and wide open jumpers, shots that are obtainable for the most part only when Bryant creates them. That is not to say that Gasol never makes a good one on one move but many of his high percentage shots are the result of Bryant drawing a double team, whether or not Bryant gets the assist on the play--that is one reason that I call the assist a "semi bogus" stat, because it does not really indicate how an open shot is actually created; the other reason is that scorekeepers do not strictly adhere to the rule book definition of an assist.

Earlier in the third quarter, Garnett scored an easy layup after Gasol messed up a defensive coverage; as ABC's Jeff Van Gundy pointed out, Bryant was correctly playing off of Rondo to cut down his passing angles to shooters coming off of screens but since Bryant was not pressuring the ball and there was no weakside help it was Gasol's responsibility to play behind Garnett--but instead Gasol fronted Garnett and Rondo simply lobbed the ball Gasol's head to an unguarded Garnett.

While we are examining myths and misconceptions that game five helped to debunk, let's return for a moment to a point that I made earlier during the playoffs: it became chic among some media members in Cleveland to assert that former Cavs Coach Mike Brown is a good game planner but that he is not good at making in game adjustments. I explained that this is a nonsensical distinction because the most important aspect of coaching is game planning; most of the so-called "in game adjustments" are in fact simply examples of a team following what was detailed in the game plan relating to the most likely scenarios to happen in a given game (i.e., if the opposing team goes small then we will react a certain way, if the opposing team posts up Player X then we will double team off of Player Y, etc.). If you don't believe me that this whole "in game adjustment" idea is nonsense then take heed of what Van Gundy said during ABC's game five telecast: responding to a question from play by play announcer Mike Breen, Van Gundy stated that playoff series are not decided by in game adjustments because "You are who you are by this time of the year and you have to go with your best stuff and expect them to go with their best stuff."

'10 though, I guess you can still go with Bron over Kobe reasonably. I used to as well.

'08.... Hell, I have no words.

You're wrong, Kobe Bean. The project isn't 'give it to the best player on the title team'. It's 'the best player on the title team except Kobe'.

Posted: **Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:21 am**

Figure A:

08-10 Regular Season stats

Code: Select all

Kobe: 27.4/5.6/5.1 with 1.6 steals and 0.4 blocks, 3 TOV on 46% shooting
James: 29.4/7.6/7.7 with 1.7 steals and 1.1 blocks, 3.3 TOV on 49% shooting

Code: Select all

Kobe: 24.9 PER, 57.3% TS, .204 WS/48, Average 1yr APM of +9.1, Simple rating of 12.1
Lebron: 30.6 PER, 58.7% TS, .286 WS/48, Average 1yr APM of +15.2, Simple rating of 19.7

Figure B:

08-10 Playoff stats:

Code: Select all

Kobe: 29.8/5.7/5.5 with 1.6  steals and 0.5 blocks, 3.1 TOV on 46% shooting
James: 31.1/8.7/7.5 with 1.7 steals and 1.3 blocks, 3,5 TOV on 47% shooting

Code: Select all

Kobe: 25.5 PER, 56.9% TS, .203 WS/48, Average 1yr APM of +7.1
Lebron: 30.3 PER, 58.3% TS, .280 WS/48, Average 1yr APM of+14.8

Figure C:

09-10 Clutch stats (Per 48 minutes of Clutch production) [unweighted, 08 wasn't available]

Code: Select all

Kobe: 53/7.9/4.7 with 1.4 steals, 0 blocks, with 3.2 TOV 45.1% FG, +21
James: 56/15.1/10.5 with 3.4 steals and 2.5 blocks, with 4.5 TOV 52.2% FG, +41

But yeah, I guess the fact that James won over Kobe in those years (despite Kobe getting significant portion of votes) means that everyone who participated in the project is a Kobe hater.

Posted: **Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:51 am**

nunemouse wrote:Figure A:

08-10 Regular Season stats

Code: Select all
Kobe: 27.4/5.6/5.1 with 1.6 steals and 0.4 blocks, 3 TOV on 46% shooting James: 29.4/7.6/7.7 with 1.7 steals and 1.1 blocks, 3.3 TOV on 49% shooting

Code: Select all
Kobe: 24.9 PER, 57.3% TS, .204 WS/48, Average 1yr APM of +9.1, Simple rating of 12.1 Lebron: 30.6 PER, 58.7% TS, .286 WS/48, Average 1yr APM of +15.2, Simple rating of 19.7

Figure B:

08-10 Playoff stats:

Code: Select all
Kobe: 29.8/5.7/5.5 with 1.6 steals and 0.5 blocks, 3.1 TOV on 46% shooting James: 31.1/8.7/7.5 with 1.7 steals and 1.3 blocks, 3,5 TOV on 47% shooting

Code: Select all
Kobe: 25.5 PER, 56.9% TS, .203 WS/48, Average 1yr APM of +7.1 Lebron: 30.3 PER, 58.3% TS, .280 WS/48, Average 1yr APM of+14.8

Figure C:

09-10 Clutch stats (Per 48 minutes of Clutch production) [unweighted, 08 wasn't available]

Code: Select all
Kobe: 53/7.9/4.7 with 1.4 steals, 0 blocks, with 3.2 TOV 45.1% FG, +21 James: 56/15.1/10.5 with 3.4 steals and 2.5 blocks, with 4.5 TOV 52.2% FG, +41

But yeah, I guess the fact that James won over Kobe in those years (despite Kobe getting significant portion of votes) means that everyone who participated in the project is a Kobe hater.

That's a very cool story and all, but look at Bron's numbers against good defenses(which he hardly faced), and they nosedive in that time period.

Posted: **Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:41 am**

An Unbiased Fan wrote:That's a very cool story and all, but look at Bron's numbers against good defenses(which he hardly faced), and they nosedive in that time period.

That is the SAME for Bryant as well, and James still comes up ahead of Bryant against good defensive teams.

It is a joke that people here accusing others of biases when they showed a huge bias themselves.

Posted: **Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:36 am**

I don't think anyone is beefing with LeBron in 09. At the same time, his overall stats should be taken with a grain of salt since they're greatly inflated by 09 (playoffs especially). Kobe put up a consistent 30/6/5 @ high 50 TS%. And he only had 3 below average series' in total: 08 Finals, 10 1st Round, 10 Finals. He had many more during which he flat out dominated like his entire 08 WC run, 10 PHO, 09 Denver etc

I think Kobe should have at least one of 08/10 and reasonably both of them. He only has somewhat of a case in 09 for the sake of having a discussion, but the only things he has over LeBron are defense in the playoffs and the ring. LeBron went similarly deep, was more central to Cle's success and dominated his competition much more.

Posted: **Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:12 pm**

It's funny that Lebron played better against the Celtics than did Kobe. But Lebron "choked" and Kobe "carried" the Lakers. Lebron had 1 bad game and lost, Kobe went 6/24 in a win. Lebron went for 27/10/9 in game 6 and lost. Kobe absolutely has no arguments for being over Lebron any year since 09.

2008, I'd personally give it to Kobe, but there are legit arguments for Paul and KG.

RealGM

Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project

Re: Retro Player of the Year Project