2018-19 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[E-Balla]

I missed a lot of good conversation so:

My top 5 is pretty set and I don't see much changing unless Kawhi beats the Bucks vastly outplaying Giannis and makes the Finals look like the 2015 Finals.

1. Giannis
2. Jokic
3. Harden
4. PG13
5. Kawhi

Everyone has major negatives outside of Jokic, Giannis, PG13, and Harden to me. KD got hurt in the playoffs, Curry has gone through the moments in tough situations, Embiid was terrible offensively against Toronto, Kawhi missed a quarter of the season resting and is probably the freshest player in the playoffs (not to mention he's blunting his offensive impact so his numbers look better than how he affects the team), Dame looked horrible against Golden State and was the 2nd best player on his team against Denver, and maybe there's someone else I'm missing that deserves a mention but I can't think of anyone.

KG going from '04 to '05 saw his On court +/- go way down and his Off go way up. By all +/- impact studies he was considerably less effective in '05 than '04.

I''m not sure if on/off is the best indicator - but I've stumbled into this conundrum before while assessing KG (and Duncan).

To me, Kevin Garnett's 3 "main years" when he's really in his peak is 2003, 2004 and 2005.

You are right in that 2005 his impact stats are not as good as 2004. However, in 2003, his impact stats are the best in the NBA - that is quintessential high +/- KG and I still feel like people are scared to say Kevin Garnett was better than Tim Duncan in 2003. I ask myself all the time - do I really have Duncan as the best player in 03 because I truly think this or because I am just following everyone else?

I mean, Tim Duncan won a championship with a non star studded team while KG was bumped in the first round, however - Duncan's "bad" team wasn't actually bad relative to KG's, it was superior and much better coached (some how this gets lost in the shuffle, the Spurs were just a more efficient machine than pretty much any version of the Timberwolves even 04).

Even in the playoffs Kevin Garnett was good in 2003 - if we want to cut it down to just first round performances so the sample sizes are even, KG in 03 (27/16/5, 51%/60%, 5 FTA, 3 TOV) still looks a bit better looking than Duncan in 03 ( 19/16/5, 52%/69%, 9 FTA, 3.7 TOV, 3.5 BLK) or KG in 04 for that matter (26/15/7, 45%/71%, 8.5 FTA, 4.5 tov).


But perhaps the greater point is this - what are really the two big Kevin Garnett years? The two years where he is most accomplished from a narrative stand point? 2004 (his MVP season) and 2008 (his championship season).

What are the only two years Kevin Garnett ever won POY? 2004 and 2008 (and really, in 2008 he was hardly the only candidate). Kevin Garnett was a better player in Minnesota than he was in Boston, and the level of competition wasn't really worse in the 00s than what he faced in 08 yet he still won POY.

I'm late but I feel like people forget those +/- numbers are estimates. We don't truly know anyone's actual on court ratings and on/off prior to 2008.

Now into your actual point, I'm sorry it's crazy. KG having a better first round than Duncan is irrelevant when he averaged 27/15/5 the rest of the way. That whole postseason Duncan only had a negative +/- twice even though they went 16-8. It's legitimately a postseason performance only 5 players can say they've ever come close to. KG isn't one of those 5. To take KG over him that year you'd basically have to ignore the fact that Duncan played 3 series consecutively better than any KG ever played, for what reason? Because he was #1 in RAPM (which is technically just an estimated number, not a solid number as we don't have real possession numbers), and Duncan was 4th? Is that a big enough gap to justify what everyone's eyes saw?

As far as competition goes who was KG's competition in 08? Chris Paul, a 0 time POY and Kobe, another 0 time POY in a season that's not his best according to anyone?

Now who is his competition in 03? Duncan, a top 5 player all time in his best season. T-Mac, during a season just as good as Wade and Kobe's best. Shaq in his last MDE level season (where he outplayed KG head to head in the playoffs). Kobe in what many would call his best season (where he also outplayed KG head to head in the playoffs). Dirk in a year he had his highest est. on/court rating and by far his highest est. on/off that's arguably his best year prior to 09.

03 along with 90 and 09 are probably the years with the toughest POY competition. KG not winning is a testament to the other players in the league not to some narrative driving Duncan over him. Like really the idea that his competition in 08 was anywhere near close to 2003? Crazy.

Tim Duncan is an even greater example.

The years Tim Duncan won a championship as the 'guy' were 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007.

The years he won the retro player of the year were 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007.

Isn't that a bit too much of a coincidence? Was Tim Duncan really better in 1999 than he was in 2002? That's incredibly hard for me to believe (just glancing, he was better in 02 than in 99) - and his competition Shaq in 1999 was worse than he was in 2002? (offensively sure, but defense and games played - nope, seems like 99 Shaq was better than 02 Shaq).

This is an absurd opinion to hold. 99 is Shaq's worst prime defensive year. He lead LA to a 23rd ranked defense and they underachieved all year, even if IMO he was the best player in basketball. The defense argument vs 02 ain't holding up to scrutiny though, he was also a more complete offensive player in 02 even if he was banged up all year.

That's equally as hard for me to believe.

The narratives around Duncan, Shaq and Garnett getting POYs are highly tied to the years they won big accolades, the correlation is as high as you could possibly get actually.

Ever think they won big accolades because they were better? Sometimes a cigar is a cigar.

I'd take Shaq in 99 over Duncan but they went head to head that year and Duncan averaged 29 ppg on 60 TS% (which is absurd in that league environment) while Shaq played great but not too special. Duncan then followed that up with one of the 20 best Finals performances ever against NY. The argument for him over Shaq is as simple as his superior postseason performance coupled with Shaq's clear coasting the regular season actually negatively affecting his team.

As far as 02 goes both players were better first off. Shaq in 99 wasn't the defender or passer he was in 02, Duncan improved by leaps and bounds and regularly played like he did in the 99 playoffs, if not a little better. The big difference here in favor of Duncan is health and him vastly outplaying Shaq head to head. Unfortunately Shaq's season didn't end there and after that he averaged 30/14/2 in an iconic series against the Kings putting up 41/17 and 35/13 facing elimination and he followed that up with a top 15ish Finals performance ever and arguably the most dominant finals performance ever. Like he averaged 36/13/3 on 63 TS% in the last 7 games of the playoffs.

But we are also talking about 76 Erving going against 76 Kareem - 76 Kareem had a much better year than he did in 75. However, Kareem did not even make the playoffs that year (but famously won MVP despite not making the post season).

Julius Erving being superior to Kareem Abdul-Jabar doesn't sound that accurate to me, it sounds like that's just the year he's "supposed" to win it.

Whether or not Kareem had a better year is irrelevant when Dr. J also had a way better year in 76.

Julius Erving in 75 won the MVP in the RS - but was upset in the post season, so yes, I would also argue that his season might not have been as good as his 76 season. However, his competition in 75 was iwaaaay nferior - Rick Barry is really not that great of a player, and that was a year where everyone was giving their votes to Bob McAdoo (he placed second). Julius Erving is not an inferior player to Rick Barry, much less Bob McAdoo.

The highest placing ABA player that year in 1975? Artis Gilmore. Who won the ABA Championship that year? The Kentucky Colonels.

Dr.J was in his peak for 1975, he very much was the same player as he was in 76 - his sample size over his MVP RS kind of points to this. I hate to use the "no one at the time argument thought this" - but, well, I don't think anyone in 1975 thought Artis Gilmore was better than Dr.J.

Dr.J had the best RS of his career in 1975, and had already been an ABA champion the year right before so it's not like he was an RS darling - everyone already knew his play was not empy, it transfers over into post season play and not only did he not win RPOY, he placed 4th place behind Rick Barry, Bob McAdoo and Artis Gilmore. I would argue it is very hard that one of those guys was better than Dr.J that year, but all three? Almost zero chance.

Look at 75 and 76 Dr. J. His scoring, efficiency, assist percentage, steal percentage,and usage all went up. His turnover percentage went down. His rebounding percentage was the same. How the **** is that his best regular season? If anyone is focusing on accolades and narratives it seems like you're focusing on his co-MVP (because unlike his superior 74 and 76 seasons he couldn't even win MVP straight out) and ignoring he was better in literally every way in 76. You're looking at team wins and talking about narratives being a problem at the same time.

In the playoffs he went from 27/10/5 on 50 TS% while getting upset in what's one of his worst series if not his worst series to 35/13/5/2/2 on 57 TS% in what's one of the most dominant back to back series performances ever to upset a Nuggets team that was 2nd in SRS the next season in the NBA. Dr. J wasn't just better in 76 he was miles better.

As far as Artis, Bob, and Rick Barry go:
Artis outplayed him in the 1 game tie breaker, averaged 23 ppg while anchoring the #1 defense, won a ring, and didn't have a terrible series to get upset. You play to win the game, postseason performance is above all else.

Bob McAdoo on the other hand was amazing. He averaged 35 ppg on 57 TS% in the regular season (aka the same as Dr. J in the 76 postseason) and 37 ppg on 53 TS% against a top 2 frontcourt ever, the best team in the league, and the best defense in the league (a -6.4 defense). What exactly is Dr. J's argument over him? He was better in other seasons outside of 75?

And Barry is simple. The best shooter in the league, and a strong defender averaged 31/6/6 in the regular season leading a supporting cast with one other above average player (who was a rookie) to the #2 offense. He then took that weak team to the Finals and averaged 30/4/5 to sweep a Wizards team that would've went down as one of the best teams of the decade outside of the Bucks and Lakers.

You play to win the game and they weren't so far from him in the regular season that their amazing postseasons should've elevate them over Dr. J playing like ass to get upset.

Fair enough, though it's worth mentioning Walton didn't get POY. Hey, Kareem did pretty well for himself - he only won like 7 of the POYs, but I'm just saying there's a chance he might have lost one or 2 of them to some guys with sexier stories.

I have no attachment to the 70s, Kareem or Dr.J - I just was reading the RPOY threads in the 70s a month or 2 ago and simply was not all that convinced of the arguments made in some threads. Not saying every post has to be an ElGee book, but a lot of them were kind of just write offs due to lack of success coded in prettier words.

I think your main issue here is you're taking POY to be the best player, not the person with the best year. In a single year there's 1 goal, win a ring. The narrative matters there mainly because the "narrative" is how and why one player won while the other didn't. Duncan not winning in 02 seems like an issue with him winning in 99 until you remember he ended Shaq's season in 99 but not in 02 so Shaq was able to turn in 2 monster performances to take the top spot. I think of it like a race, and if you drop out early you can keep that first spot, but you can also be surpassed.

Let's say Kawhi eliminates the Bucks and somehow beats the Warriors, should he not be POY because Giannis was better up until losing? I'd say Kawhi should be POY for turning in a performance in the last 2 rounds good enough to drag the Raps to a finals win.

[Doctor MJ]

That would matter a lot more in a sport where you can be straight mediocre through the regular season and still make the playoffs.

Similar HCA would matter more in a sport where we didn't see 6 seeds win the title, and defending champions regularly not seem to care about HCA.

You're quite right though that Toronto did very well without Kawhi, and had they done less well, he probably plays more.

Not 100% sure I'm reading this right, but I think you should value HCA/high seeds a bit more. In the 40 years of the 3pt line only 6 teams have won multiple series on the road on the way to a title. The '95 Rockets the only team to ever win 3 on the road. Only 3 real 3 seeds or lower have won the title ('95 Rockets, '07 Spurs, '11 Mavs - '02 Lakers/'04 Pistons were technically 3 seeds, but had HCA over the 2 seeds they faced).

This is because typically the better teams have better seedings not because it's near impossible for the better team to win a series with 3/7ths of the home games instead of 4/7ths of the home games.

Avoiding tough opponents on the other hand IS a pretty big deal, and so I'll grant that typically contenders do try to make sure they don't have to face good opponents earlier than they have to.

But if you're the Warriors, what is the motivation for playing your stars even 70 games?

[HeartBreakKid]

Let's say Kawhi eliminates the Bucks and somehow beats the Warriors, should he not be POY because Giannis was better up until losing? I'd say Kawhi should be POY for turning in a performance in the last 2 rounds good enough to drag the Raps to a finals win.

no?




I would think that Leonard should not be player of the year for playing inferior basketball than Giannis yet winning a title.

[Basileus777]

But if you're the Warriors, what is the motivation for playing your stars even 70 games?

Avoiding having to do what Houston did and play a 5+ SRS team in the first round and then your biggest threat in the 2nd?

Just in terms of sheer probability, playing more difficult opponents and playing more playoff games increases your odds of losing. And it increases attrition both in terms of fatigue and injuries.

[eminence]

That would matter a lot more in a sport where you can be straight mediocre through the regular season and still make the playoffs.

Similar HCA would matter more in a sport where we didn't see 6 seeds win the title, and defending champions regularly not seem to care about HCA.

You're quite right though that Toronto did very well without Kawhi, and had they done less well, he probably plays more.

Not 100% sure I'm reading this right, but I think you should value HCA/high seeds a bit more. In the 40 years of the 3pt line only 6 teams have won multiple series on the road on the way to a title. The '95 Rockets the only team to ever win 3 on the road. Only 3 real 3 seeds or lower have won the title ('95 Rockets, '07 Spurs, '11 Mavs - '02 Lakers/'04 Pistons were technically 3 seeds, but had HCA over the 2 seeds they faced).

This is because typically the better teams have better seedings not because it's near impossible for the better team to win a series with 3/7ths of the home games instead of 4/7ths of the home games.

Avoiding tough opponents on the other hand IS a pretty big deal, and so I'll grant that typically contenders do try to make sure they don't have to face good opponents earlier than they have to.

But if you're the Warriors, what is the motivation for playing your stars even 70 games?

Not saying HCA is everything, but just that your initial post seemed to undervalue RS success/seeding a bit imo. Obviously the main driver is that better teams will have better seeds.

[Doctor MJ]

But if you're the Warriors, what is the motivation for playing your stars even 70 games?

Avoiding having to do what Houston did and play a 5+ SRS team in the first round and then your biggest threat in the 2nd?

Just in terms of sheer probability, playing more difficult opponents and playing more playoff games increases your odds of losing. And it increases attrition both in terms of fatigue and injuries.

Playing 82 games increases attrition in terms of fatigue and injuries. My point is that teams are already seeking to strike a balance here and that a Kawhi Finals MVP this year will shift that targeted balance.

[Doctor MJ]

Not 100% sure I'm reading this right, but I think you should value HCA/high seeds a bit more. In the 40 years of the 3pt line only 6 teams have won multiple series on the road on the way to a title. The '95 Rockets the only team to ever win 3 on the road. Only 3 real 3 seeds or lower have won the title ('95 Rockets, '07 Spurs, '11 Mavs - '02 Lakers/'04 Pistons were technically 3 seeds, but had HCA over the 2 seeds they faced).

This is because typically the better teams have better seedings not because it's near impossible for the better team to win a series with 3/7ths of the home games instead of 4/7ths of the home games.

Avoiding tough opponents on the other hand IS a pretty big deal, and so I'll grant that typically contenders do try to make sure they don't have to face good opponents earlier than they have to.

But if you're the Warriors, what is the motivation for playing your stars even 70 games?

Not saying HCA is everything, but just that your initial post seemed to undervalue RS success/seeding a bit imo. Obviously the main driver is that better teams will have better seeds.

Just remember how common it is for defending champs to coast through the regular season and not seem to care about earning the #1 seed. I'm not describing a novel phenomenon, I'm describing something so common it's a cliché.

[E-Balla]

Let's say Kawhi eliminates the Bucks and somehow beats the Warriors, should he not be POY because Giannis was better up until losing? I'd say Kawhi should be POY for turning in a performance in the last 2 rounds good enough to drag the Raps to a finals win.

no?




I would think that Leonard should not be player of the year for playing inferior basketball than Giannis yet winning a title.

The hypothetical isn't just him winning the title. It's him winning the title upsetting Milwaukee and Golden State while averaging 32 ppg on 64 TS%. You'd think that wouldn't put him over Giannis? What matters outside of winning? If Giannis isn't good enough to beat him with a superior supporting cast and Kawhi proves that wasn't a fluke by killing Golden State, why does it matter if he slugged through the regular season?

Is the regular season the point, or is it only relevant to figuring out who makes the postseason and who plays who?

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

KG going from '04 to '05 saw his On court +/- go way down and his Off go way up. By all +/- impact studies he was considerably less effective in '05 than '04.

I''m not sure if on/off is the best indicator - but I've stumbled into this conundrum before while assessing KG (and Duncan).

To me, Kevin Garnett's 3 "main years" when he's really in his peak is 2003, 2004 and 2005.

You are right in that 2005 his impact stats are not as good as 2004. However, in 2003, his impact stats are the best in the NBA - that is quintessential high +/- KG and I still feel like people are scared to say Kevin Garnett was better than Tim Duncan in 2003. I ask myself all the time - do I really have Duncan as the best player in 03 because I truly think this or because I am just following everyone else?

I mean, Tim Duncan won a championship with a non star studded team while KG was bumped in the first round, however - Duncan's "bad" team wasn't actually bad relative to KG's, it was superior and much better coached (some how this gets lost in the shuffle, the Spurs were just a more efficient machine than pretty much any version of the Timberwolves even 04).

Even in the playoffs Kevin Garnett was good in 2003 - if we want to cut it down to just first round performances so the sample sizes are even, KG in 03 (27/16/5, 51%/60%, 5 FTA, 3 TOV) still looks a bit better looking than Duncan in 03 ( 19/16/5, 52%/69%, 9 FTA, 3.7 TOV, 3.5 BLK) or KG in 04 for that matter (26/15/7, 45%/71%, 8.5 FTA, 4.5 tov).


But perhaps the greater point is this - what are really the two big Kevin Garnett years? The two years where he is most accomplished from a narrative stand point? 2004 (his MVP season) and 2008 (his championship season).

What are the only two years Kevin Garnett ever won POY? 2004 and 2008 (and really, in 2008 he was hardly the only candidate). Kevin Garnett was a better player in Minnesota than he was in Boston, and the level of competition wasn't really worse in the 00s than what he faced in 08 yet he still won POY.


Tim Duncan is an even greater example.

The years Tim Duncan won a championship as the 'guy' were 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007.

The years he won the retro player of the year were 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007.

Isn't that a bit too much of a coincidence? Was Tim Duncan really better in 1999 than he was in 2002? That's incredibly hard for me to believe (just glancing, he was better in 02 than in 99) - and his competition Shaq in 1999 was worse than he was in 2002? (offensively sure, but defense and games played - nope, seems like 99 Shaq was better than 02 Shaq). That's equally as hard for me to believe.

The narratives around Duncan, Shaq and Garnett getting POYs are highly tied to the years they won big accolades, the correlation is as high as you could possibly get actually.

So the thing is: We're not just talking about "weaker supporting cast, weaker team result, but everything about the player is the same". Context shifts, the things that were working before stop working and the player's impact literally wanes a good deal. Are you going to try to normalize for all of that to ensure that the POY goes to the "best" player every year?

My conclusion is that "best player" evaluations are much harder to pin down and best left for multi-year holistic analysis. In a given year, what we can look at is how the player achieved what he did, and look at the various stats and team accomplishments to provide context for the scale of the achievement.

Why not try? It should be a difficult thing to assess, not an easy thing.

Re: Erving. His '76 playoffs were literally the most impressive thing he ever did though. We're not just talking about knocking him in '75 for getting destroyed in the first round against a vastly inferior team, we're talking about the fact that what Erving did in the '76 playoffs was probably more impressive than any other playoff run by any other player the entire decade. The Nets had no business beating the Denver Rockets in those finals, yet they did and Erving played like a god against the best team in the league who would soon enough display the best defense in the entire NBA the following year.

But we are also talking about 76 Erving going against 76 Kareem - 76 Kareem had a much better year than he did in 75. However, Kareem did not even make the playoffs that year (but famously won MVP despite not making the post season).

Julius Erving being superior to Kareem Abdul-Jabar doesn't sound that accurate to me, it sounds like that's just the year he's "supposed" to win it.

Julius Erving in 75 won the MVP in the RS - but was upset in the post season, so yes, I would also argue that his season might not have been as good as his 76 season. However, his competition in 75 was iwaaaay nferior - Rick Barry is really not that great of a player, and that was a year where everyone was giving their votes to Bob McAdoo (he placed second). Julius Erving is not an inferior player to Rick Barry, much less Bob McAdoo.

The highest placing ABA player that year in 1975? Artis Gilmore. Who won the ABA Championship that year? The Kentucky Colonels.

Dr.J was in his peak for 1975, he very much was the same player as he was in 76 - his sample size over his MVP RS kind of points to this. I hate to use the "no one at the time argument thought this" - but, well, I don't think anyone in 1975 thought Artis Gilmore was better than Dr.J.

Dr.J had the best RS of his career in 1975, and had already been an ABA champion the year right before so it's not like he was an RS darling - everyone already knew his play was not empy, it transfers over into post season play and not only did he not win RPOY, he placed 4th place behind Rick Barry, Bob McAdoo and Artis Gilmore. I would argue it is very hard that one of those guys was better than Dr.J that year, but all three? Almost zero chance.

Re: Kareem should win 9 POYs. I didn't understand how Walton could win an MVP over Kareem until I watched them play head to head. It's a Curry vs Durant situation. Walton made Portland play like they did, and it was a better way of playing than how a Kareem-dictated team played. Proactive, energetic, confident. Kareem's teams when he was the dominant stylistic force just didn't work like that, and didn't work that well.

I'm not saying Kareem didn't deserve a lot of POYs, but Kareem was an individualist in a team game and the shape of his impact followed from that. Additive rather than multiplicative. Big, but able to be surpassed by the type of star who made his team catch fire, and also something that seemed to get weighed down when Kareem wasn't in his best mental place. And part of that specifically were the cluster headaches that afflicted him in ways a stuffy nose just doesn't an athlete.

Again, not looking to deny narrative impact here, but it's one thing to say we shouldn't count series victories and quite another thing to ignore the fact that monster performances in the biggest stage are what define the legacies of all these players, and so the literal weight of the playoff series is so high that narrative center of mass simply has to be based around them.

Fair enough, though it's worth mentioning Walton didn't get POY. Hey, Kareem did pretty well for himself - he only won like 7 of the POYs, but I'm just saying there's a chance he might have lost one or 2 of them to some guys with sexier stories.

I have no attachment to the 70s, Kareem or Dr.J - I just was reading the RPOY threads in the 70s a month or 2 ago and simply was not all that convinced of the arguments made in some threads. Not saying every post has to be an ElGee book, but a lot of them were kind of just write offs due to lack of success coded in prettier words

.

Doing a quick response here because RealGM's interface has killed my longer posts on 2 separate browsers. Ugh.

1. I'm the guy who forced the KG vs TD discussion in a major thread years ago, so I'm with you. I really think there are good arguments either way and only feel strongly that there's no justification for a tier difference between the two.

2. Don't downplay KG in '08. He had never shown that kind of defensive impact before. I'm not saying KG wasn't a more capable basketball body in '05, but it's not just a title thing. KG revolutionized the sport in '08 and completely changed how we saw his capabilities specifically. I still think it's basically a given that KG had more impact in '08 than in '05-07.

3. I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove by doing things like pointing out the correlation between Duncan's titles and POYs. Winning bias is a thing and this was widely discussed as a problem while we went through those votes. You're not going to fix this by pointing out "winning bias", the only way to help is to be there when we have discussions and make specific cases for the play of one player over another.

4. If you let POY be judged by pure goodness then you end up with people doing what they tried to do in the RPOY project: Vote Wilt Chamberlain every single year saying "I don't care what he accomplished on the court, or the fact he sabotaged his team, I'd draft him first, so I'm voting for him first." It just doesn't make sense to have Player of the Year awards and not focus on what happened on the court.

5. If on the other hand all your saying is that we should look to assess achievement by normalizing for contextual advantages and disadvantages, well, that's what voters are already supposed to do.

6. But understand broadly that some things can be analyzed in granular detail and some things are really best done through holistic analysis. When laying things out for participation by a group, the tangible stuff works better. I don't take POY shares that seriously when I do my GOAT list, but the RPOY process definitely helps inform my holistically assessed GOAT list.

7. You're skeptical that Erving could be better than Kareem, I get that. I think you need to understand that Erving played proto-LeBron in the ABA and he couldn't do that as well in the NBA because the NBA's spacing at the time was a traffic jam by the rim. I do think Erving had more impact than Kareem in '76, and I think Walton had more impact than Kareem (at least per minute) in '77 & '78, and I don't think any of this should be considered an upset for the same reason that today we see superstars play like Erving & Walton, but we don't see guys slowly and methodically scoring from the interior, which is what Kareem was all about.

8. Erving "same player" '75 & '76. Players don't play equally well in all series of their prime. What Erving did in the '76 playoffs is the most noteworthy accomplishment of his career. If he had runs like that in a whole bunch of other years, he'd be a strong GOAT candidate. But he didn't so he isn't.

9. I'm aware Walton didn't get the POY in '77, but I don't think your point is about who actually won out but about tendencies. Winning bias is an issue but so is scoring bias. Kareem won POY in '77 because of the scoring edge, plain and simple, despite some of us speaking quite a bit about Walton's transformational offensive impact on his team. I'm not saying the Kareem supporters were definitively wrong of course, but I think we'd both expect Walton to win that award due to his team winning the title if he scored similarly to Kareem. Whatever winning bias there was there, it was overwhelmed by scoring focus.

10. Did Kareem wrongly miss out on other POYs because he was wrongly "blamed" for his team's lack of success? Perhaps. Definitely debatable. The question in those years isn't about whether those other guys matched Kareem's best, but about whether Kareem was having the impact on his team to warrant the POY. And on that front, I think it's important to take these concerns seriously. If a Kareem-level today went from Milwaukee to LA and nothing all that dramatic happened to either team, that player's impact would be seriously questioned and analyzed, and I think it should be.

[eminence]

This is because typically the better teams have better seedings not because it's near impossible for the better team to win a series with 3/7ths of the home games instead of 4/7ths of the home games.

Avoiding tough opponents on the other hand IS a pretty big deal, and so I'll grant that typically contenders do try to make sure they don't have to face good opponents earlier than they have to.

But if you're the Warriors, what is the motivation for playing your stars even 70 games?

Not saying HCA is everything, but just that your initial post seemed to undervalue RS success/seeding a bit imo. Obviously the main driver is that better teams will have better seeds.

Just remember how common it is for defending champs to coast through the regular season and not seem to care about earning the #1 seed. I'm not describing a novel phenomenon, I'm describing something so common it's a cliché.

Champs tend to let up the next season (something close to the tune of 4-5 wins fewer on average), that's true, but I'm not exactly sure how it's useful here, if you could expand a bit for me?

[Doctor MJ]

Not saying HCA is everything, but just that your initial post seemed to undervalue RS success/seeding a bit imo. Obviously the main driver is that better teams will have better seeds.

Just remember how common it is for defending champs to coast through the regular season and not seem to care about earning the #1 seed. I'm not describing a novel phenomenon, I'm describing something so common it's a cliché.

Champs tend to let up the next season (something close to the tune of 4-5 wins fewer on average), that's true, but I'm not exactly sure how it's useful here, if you could expand a bit for me?

Well look, you know that Pop has made it a think for players to skip games simply to preserve them for the playoffs. All I'm talking about is that this is going to be more of a thing if Kawhi gets to sit out a quarter of the season for no particular reason and then seems unstoppable in the playoffs because he has more energy than other guys who played more.

I'm not predicting this, to be clear, because I don't think Toronto gets passed Milwaukee. But if Kawhi ends up seen as the best player of the playoffs, wins Finals MVP, gets the SI cover, etc after unapologetically skipping a lot of the regular season, other players are going to say "You need to let me do that" to their franchises.

[eminence]

Just remember how common it is for defending champs to coast through the regular season and not seem to care about earning the #1 seed. I'm not describing a novel phenomenon, I'm describing something so common it's a cliché.

Champs tend to let up the next season (something close to the tune of 4-5 wins fewer on average), that's true, but I'm not exactly sure how it's useful here, if you could expand a bit for me?

Well look, you know that Pop has made it a think for players to skip games simply to preserve them for the playoffs. All I'm talking about is that this is going to be more of a thing if Kawhi gets to sit out a quarter of the season for no particular reason and then seems unstoppable in the playoffs because he has more energy than other guys who played more.

I'm not predicting this, to be clear, because I don't think Toronto gets passed Milwaukee. But if Kawhi ends up seen as the best player of the playoffs, wins Finals MVP, gets the SI cover, etc after unapologetically skipping a lot of the regular season, other players are going to say "You need to let me do that" to their franchises.

Mmkay, I think we were just coming at it from different angles. I agree with all that.

I was approaching it from a team's perspective of it not generally being worth it to lose those couple of games/seeds in terms of title chances (imo at least). Obviously if everyone wound up doing it that'd be a different story.

[Joey Wheeler]

How’s he clearly been better this series ?

Kawhi's been the better scorer and that carries a fair bit of weight but he hasn't been clearly better. Giannis has been pretty inefficient but this is the only game I'd consider poor offensively and his passing, rebounding, defense have all been better than Kawhi's. His defense in particular has been ridiculous and Kawhi, as good as he can be, can't get even approach the impact Giannis has on a teams offense.

His scoring has been incredible. I think only Durant is above him in that regard at the moment and it's not by much. He can score on a high volume and efficiency and is pretty much unstoppable once he gets to his spots. He's also got almost Jordan-like turnover economy considering how much he handles the ball. When you consider both the scoring and turnover economy, there's a great case for Kawhi as the best offensive player in these playoffs. He's certainly clearly above Giannis on offense; Giannis is nowhere near as polished on that end and isn't really a scoring threat outside the paint.

Defensively Kawhi has been excellent too and he's actually been taking on Giannis (successfully) far more than the other way round. Giannis is still better on defense, but the gap is much smaller than on offense.

If we're talking about overall offense we need to consider passing as well. Points created via assist in this series are 17ppg for Giannis vs 7ppg for Kawhi which is a significant difference. Kawhi has been better offensively this series and likely overall but its not like Giannis has been awful in the playoffs. 26ppg at 58% TS% in 33min pg with another 13ppg created via assist is really, really good.

And the difference on defense isnt small. It's no knock on Kawhi but Giannis, due to his size and position, can impact a teams offense much more than Kawhi can. His defensive numbers in this series are more like what you'd expect from a top notch defensive center.

14 drebs per game
3 blks pg
1.3 stls pg
1.7 deflections pg
92 drtg (100 drtg off court)
DFG% 39%

After this game 4 I'm not even sure we can say Giannis is better defensively in this series. Kawhi has been neutralizing Giannis (as far as that's possible) and helping off him to blow the Bucks offensive actions time and time again. He's clearly the best player in this series.

[inDe_eD]

His scoring has been incredible. I think only Durant is above him in that regard at the moment and it's not by much. He can score on a high volume and efficiency and is pretty much unstoppable once he gets to his spots. He's also got almost Jordan-like turnover economy considering how much he handles the ball. When you consider both the scoring and turnover economy, there's a great case for Kawhi as the best offensive player in these playoffs. He's certainly clearly above Giannis on offense; Giannis is nowhere near as polished on that end and isn't really a scoring threat outside the paint.

Defensively Kawhi has been excellent too and he's actually been taking on Giannis (successfully) far more than the other way round. Giannis is still better on defense, but the gap is much smaller than on offense.

If we're talking about overall offense we need to consider passing as well. Points created via assist in this series are 17ppg for Giannis vs 7ppg for Kawhi which is a significant difference. Kawhi has been better offensively this series and likely overall but its not like Giannis has been awful in the playoffs. 26ppg at 58% TS% in 33min pg with another 13ppg created via assist is really, really good.

And the difference on defense isnt small. It's no knock on Kawhi but Giannis, due to his size and position, can impact a teams offense much more than Kawhi can. His defensive numbers in this series are more like what you'd expect from a top notch defensive center.

14 drebs per game
3 blks pg
1.3 stls pg
1.7 deflections pg
92 drtg (100 drtg off court)
DFG% 39%

After this game 4 I'm not even sure we can say Giannis is better defensively in this series. Kawhi has been neutralizing Giannis (as far as that's possible) and helping off him to blow the Bucks offensive actions time and time again. He's clearly the best player in this series.

I agree. In a weird way, I think the quad flare up might actually be helping him on D. He doesn’t need to be fast to guard Giannis in the half court, just strong and long, and the lack of explosiveness is pushing him to rely on those two attributes. Incredible performance given the circumstances.

[Texas Chuck]

7. You're skeptical that Erving could be better than Kareem, I get that. I think you need to understand that Erving played proto-LeBron in the ABA and he couldn't do that as well in the NBA because the NBA's spacing at the time was a traffic jam by the rim. I do think Erving had more impact than Kareem in '76, and I think Walton had more impact than Kareem (at least per minute) in '77 & '78, and I don't think any of this should be considered an upset for the same reason that today we see superstars play like Erving & Walton, but we don't see guys slowly and methodically scoring from the interior, which is what Kareem was all about.

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the Doctor and Walton having arguments against Kareem. However I'm am struggling with the relevance of how the game is played 40 years later in determining who was having more impact then. I mean take Shaq in the early 00's. I wouldn't say KG was having more impact from 00-03 than Shaq despite clearly having a game that more resembles what the game looks like today and despite being a huge KG guy I'd guess you wouldn't either, right?

Maybe I'm missing something here though? I'm struggling with how what happens today has any impact on who was better then.

[Joey Wheeler]

If we're talking about overall offense we need to consider passing as well. Points created via assist in this series are 17ppg for Giannis vs 7ppg for Kawhi which is a significant difference. Kawhi has been better offensively this series and likely overall but its not like Giannis has been awful in the playoffs. 26ppg at 58% TS% in 33min pg with another 13ppg created via assist is really, really good.

And the difference on defense isnt small. It's no knock on Kawhi but Giannis, due to his size and position, can impact a teams offense much more than Kawhi can. His defensive numbers in this series are more like what you'd expect from a top notch defensive center.

14 drebs per game
3 blks pg
1.3 stls pg
1.7 deflections pg
92 drtg (100 drtg off court)
DFG% 39%

After this game 4 I'm not even sure we can say Giannis is better defensively in this series. Kawhi has been neutralizing Giannis (as far as that's possible) and helping off him to blow the Bucks offensive actions time and time again. He's clearly the best player in this series.

I agree. In a weird way, I think the quad flare up might actually be helping him on D. He doesn’t need to be fast to guard Giannis in the half court, just strong and long, and the lack of explosiveness is pushing him to rely on those two attributes. Incredible performance given the circumstances.

Yup, Giannis is just having no success driving on him and he's not really an off ball threat so Kawhi can help off him and blow up the Bucks offensive actions.

Also it might sound weird but it'd be a better look for Kawhi if Raps lost in 6 rather than in 7. If it's a series decided by homecourt, well I'm pretty sure Toronto would have been the #1 seed without Kawhi's RS "load management". If Raps lose in 7, they basically lost because Kawhi was resting for 1/4 of the RS...

[HeartBreakKid]

Another thing I was wondering is why Bill Russell lost POY in 1958 but Kareem won in 1980 (unanimously much less)?

It seemed that most people who voted for Bob Petitt said that Russell would have clearly been POY had he not been hurt, and that the Celtics were the best team in the league (based on the RS and their SRS this does seem true).

For those who don't know, the Hawks beat the Celtics in a 7 game series, where Russell was injured the last couple games or so.

In 1980 Kareem gets hurt in the NBA finals as well, but Magic Johnson has an all time great finals game (like Bob Petitt did) and the Lakers end up winning the title.

Both Kareem and Russell were seen as the best players in the league.

The Celtics were upset, but it's not like the Hawks were fodder, they nearly beat the Celtics 2 seasons later in a 7 game series as well.

Anyone want to chime in?

[Doctor MJ]

7. You're skeptical that Erving could be better than Kareem, I get that. I think you need to understand that Erving played proto-LeBron in the ABA and he couldn't do that as well in the NBA because the NBA's spacing at the time was a traffic jam by the rim. I do think Erving had more impact than Kareem in '76, and I think Walton had more impact than Kareem (at least per minute) in '77 & '78, and I don't think any of this should be considered an upset for the same reason that today we see superstars play like Erving & Walton, but we don't see guys slowly and methodically scoring from the interior, which is what Kareem was all about.

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the Doctor and Walton having arguments against Kareem. However I'm am struggling with the relevance of how the game is played 40 years later in determining who was having more impact then. I mean take Shaq in the early 00's. I wouldn't say KG was having more impact from 00-03 than Shaq despite clearly having a game that more resembles what the game looks like today and despite being a huge KG guy I'd guess you wouldn't either, right?

Maybe I'm missing something here though? I'm struggling with how what happens today has any impact on who was better then.

I think the reality is that a lot of what "today's game" is, is stuff that would have worked in earlier times if any coach had tried it.

Not saying that like it's a hard and fast rule, but let's consider:

Why would we be concerned about Kareem's game today? Slow to develop, tends to leave his teammates falling asleep, isn't really that well utilized for passing to open teammates. All that stuff was relevant back then too. It obviously didn't keep Kareem from being a being a great, great player, but we're not talking about things that had zero effect, nor are we talking about things a smart coach couldn't spot and plan against.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Walton & Erving showed signs off night & day team impact on a level Kareem didn't. If you build around these guys well enough, you end up with quite modern coaching strategies.

Re: Shaq & KG. Remember that I'm drawing a distinction between the ABA & NBA for Erving. I'm not saying Erving must have had more impact in the NBA than Kareem because Erving's game is more modern. I'm saying that it should be no surprise that in the ABA, aka "the future of basketball", a proto-LeBron was having a kind of impact Kareem couldn't necessarily touch.

By that same token, before pace & space Shaq was the more impactful player than KG. After pace & space, well, I'd love to see a young Shaq, but clearly Shaq at his biggest wouldn't handle today's game as well.

[Doctor MJ]

Another thing I was wondering is why Bill Russell lost POY in 1958 but Kareem won in 1980 (unanimously much less)?

It seemed that most people who voted for Bob Petitt said that Russell would have clearly been POY had he not been hurt, and that the Celtics were the best team in the league (based on the RS and their SRS this does seem true).

For those who don't know, the Hawks beat the Celtics in a 7 game series, where Russell was injured the last couple games or so.

In 1980 Kareem gets hurt in the NBA finals as well, but Magic Johnson has an all time great finals game (like Bob Petitt did) and the Lakers end up winning the title.

Both Kareem and Russell were seen as the best players in the league.

The Celtics were upset, but it's not like the Hawks were fodder, they nearly beat the Celtics 2 seasons later in a 7 game series as well.

Anyone want to chime in?

I mean, Russell lost to an opponent who beat his team and one the final. That's not analogous to what happened with Kareem, so why would you expect analogous treatment from voters? I'm not sure what's confusing here.

[HeartBreakKid]

Another thing I was wondering is why Bill Russell lost POY in 1958 but Kareem won in 1980 (unanimously much less)?

It seemed that most people who voted for Bob Petitt said that Russell would have clearly been POY had he not been hurt, and that the Celtics were the best team in the league (based on the RS and their SRS this does seem true).

For those who don't know, the Hawks beat the Celtics in a 7 game series, where Russell was injured the last couple games or so.

In 1980 Kareem gets hurt in the NBA finals as well, but Magic Johnson has an all time great finals game (like Bob Petitt did) and the Lakers end up winning the title.

Both Kareem and Russell were seen as the best players in the league.

The Celtics were upset, but it's not like the Hawks were fodder, they nearly beat the Celtics 2 seasons later in a 7 game series as well.

Anyone want to chime in?

I mean, Russell lost to an opponent who beat his team and one the final. That's not analogous to what happened with Kareem, so why would you expect analogous treatment from voters? I'm not sure what's confusing here.

They were both injured late in the finals despite being the favorites up to that point, yet had different results playing against the POY finalist both in winning the NBA championship and winning POY - how is that not analogous? Analogous does not mean exact.

How can you not see that the situations are comparable? If the Sixers had won with Dr.J leading them then he may have placed 1st instead of 2nd like Bob Petitt did. I don't know if Dr.J was as good in 1980 as Pettit was in 1958, but just saying the situations are comparable.