RealGM

Playoffs are valued as even more important by some, even though the number of games is far less than RS. What is it worth if a player is the best player on a team that wins much in the PS? Not everyone wins a championship so number of series wins (which can be valued in relation to level of opposition) also means winning and success, as winning one playoff series is obviously less than more series wins.

Obviously talent level on a given player's team is significant and affects overall value of the best player on that team.


Also, if a team barely loses a series or number of series, how much does that affect the perception of a best player on that team's value?

There are numerous examples of players whose team barely lost a series and had they won, they could've gone much further in the PS and even won the title. Give examples if you like of this.


An example is Duncan, whose team lost to Lakers in 2004 on Fisher's shot with 0.4secs left, which had they won that game could've won the series and even won the title. Also in 2013 when they should've beaten the Heat. He wins at least six titles and maybe seven, as mostly the best player, and maybe that rates him in top 5 even alltime, certainly most would rate him higher.

migya wrote:Playoffs are valued as even more important by some, even though the number of games is far less than RS. What is it worth if a player is the best player on a team that wins much in the PS? Not everyone wins a championship so number of series wins (which can be valued in relation to level of opposition) also means winning and success, as winning one playoff series is obviously less than more series wins.

Obviously talent level on a given player's team is significant and affects overall value of the best player on that team.


Also, if a team barely loses a series or number of series, how much does that affect the perception of a best player on that team's value?

There are numerous examples of players whose team barely lost a series and had they won, they could've gone much further in the PS and even won the title. Give examples if you like of this.


An example is Duncan, whose team lost to Lakers in 2004 on Fisher's shot with 0.4secs left, which had they won that game could've won the series and even won the title. Also in 2013 when they should've beaten the Heat. He wins at least six titles and maybe seven, as mostly the best player, and maybe that rates him in top 5 even alltime, certainly most would rate him higher.

So, you're asking good questions that I don't think there can be any objective, consistent answer for.

Clearly there are two things going on:

1. The goal of the game is to win, and winning a series means being a quality team typically at the apex of their effort and imagination. Winning that last game of the series thus typically means more than just winning another game in terms of the basketball information gain.

2. Perception & legacy based on the narratives that emerge afterward.

Worth noting that neither of these are necessarily about the best player on the team, though of course whatever happens good or bad, the best player will typically have that sentiment attached to his performance most. But for example, I like looking at guys who could be considered "big 5" guys for a winning team based on minutes played, +/-, etc. For me, much of the meaning of the playoffs in terms of player proof-of-concept are for the guys who teams end up swearing by over the course of playoff series - which is another way I'm focused more on what you might call the "good starter" level of player rather than the star level. I'm as interested in stars as the next guy, but while identifying stars in the first place sometimes takes skill for an NBA franchise, once they're established their strengths and weaknesses tend to be known things you just look to build around as best you can.

But most of your rotation, no matter who you are, is going to be made up of guys whose success in the league is about them figuring out to fill in gaps for any given lineup, and it turns out predicting which guys are going to be able to do this is not something I'd say scouts are that great at, for reasons I think are pretty understandable:

Mostly the guy's with the best "role player talent" for the NBA, are either playing as stars at lower levels when they're scouted for the draft, or they're probably not getting scouted at all. So you're talking about a talent pool that's going to be asked to completely shift how they play in the pros in terms of giving up primacy, which involves all sorts of intangible factors that can't necessarily even be expected to stay the same as the payer ages.

This then to say that the players who end up really standing out at completing solid playoff lineups are in some ways the most interesting thing in team building, and I like to note those players as well as consider which coaches, execs, and stars seem to be able to identify and appreciate these players, and which don't.

Doctor MJ wrote:

migya wrote:Playoffs are valued as even more important by some, even though the number of games is far less than RS. What is it worth if a player is the best player on a team that wins much in the PS? Not everyone wins a championship so number of series wins (which can be valued in relation to level of opposition) also means winning and success, as winning one playoff series is obviously less than more series wins.

Obviously talent level on a given player's team is significant and affects overall value of the best player on that team.


Also, if a team barely loses a series or number of series, how much does that affect the perception of a best player on that team's value?

There are numerous examples of players whose team barely lost a series and had they won, they could've gone much further in the PS and even won the title. Give examples if you like of this.


An example is Duncan, whose team lost to Lakers in 2004 on Fisher's shot with 0.4secs left, which had they won that game could've won the series and even won the title. Also in 2013 when they should've beaten the Heat. He wins at least six titles and maybe seven, as mostly the best player, and maybe that rates him in top 5 even alltime, certainly most would rate him higher.

So, you're asking good questions that I don't think there can be any objective, consistent answer for.

Clearly there are two things going on:

1. The goal of the game is to win, and winning a series means being a quality team typically at the apex of their effort and imagination. Winning that last game of the series thus typically means more than just winning another game in terms of the basketball information gain.

2. Perception & legacy based on the narratives that emerge afterward.

Worth noting that neither of these are necessarily about the best player on the team, though of course whatever happens good or bad, the best player will typically have that sentiment attached to his performance most. But for example, I like looking at guys who could be considered "big 5" guys for a winning team based on minutes played, +/-, etc. For me, much of the meaning of the playoffs in terms of player proof-of-concept are for the guys who teams end up swearing by over the course of playoff series - which is another way I'm focused more on what you might call the "good starter" level of player rather than the star level. I'm as interested in stars as the next guy, but while identifying stars in the first place sometimes takes skill for an NBA franchise, once they're established their strengths and weaknesses tend to be known things you just look to build around as best you can.

But most of your rotation, no matter who you are, is going to be made up of guys whose success in the league is about them figuring out to fill in gaps for any given lineup, and it turns out predicting which guys are going to be able to do this is not something I'd say scouts are that great at, for reasons I think are pretty understandable:

Mostly the guy's with the best "role player talent" for the NBA, are either playing as stars at lower levels when they're scouted for the draft, or they're probably not getting scouted at all. So you're talking about a talent pool that's going to be asked to completely shift how they play in the pros in terms of giving up primacy, which involves all sorts of intangible factors that can't necessarily even be expected to stay the same as the payer ages.

This then to say that the players who end up really standing out at completing solid playoff lineups are in some ways the most interesting thing in team building, and I like to note those players as well as consider which coaches, execs, and stars seem to be able to identify and appreciate these players, and which don't.

Good points that have meaning but my point is that since a team's playoff success, usually defined as series won and championships won The best player, particularly if he is seen as a star, will receive most of the credit, obviously without analysis as most people do, for the team's success. More series wins, usually more that player is seen as successful and better than if his team had less series wins.

eg. Has the 76ers beat the Lakers in 1980 finals, say in game 6, best Celtics in ecf 1981 and then beat low talent Houston team in finals, and beat Lakers in finals in 1982, that'd be 3 straight titles as a lone star player for Erving, fmvps also with that. That's a heap of success and likely elevates him for most ahead of Bird and Magic.

I can't say I attach a numerical value ['how much'] to the accomplishment that could be expressed in a way that satisfies your question. Such as: a guy does it once, that's '1 pt' or whatever.

I don't know that I'd like to place too heavy an emphasis on such a criterion anyway. Suppose a guy is saddled with scrubs and either cannot make the playoffs or get by the first round: he would score 'zero' on such a scale, despite [potentially] having some REALLY impressive seasons (think Jordan on the mid-late 80s Bulls, or Garnett on a number of TWolves squads).

Questions I would have on the very notion:
*are we talking about being the "best player" for just that one series, or who was the clear best player for the year as a whole?
**Should there be credit for BOTH things? Or less credit for one vs the other?
***Is winning the 1st round as BP valued same as winning Finals as BP?
etc etc


And lastly, I would say that quite often the answer is "it depends". For instance, should whomever you consider the "best player" on the '04 Pistons get the same credit per series as say....any one of '88-90 Michael Jordan? Because the former is not the 'best player' by even remotely close to the same margin as Jordan was on those squads.


And what of the strength of opponent faced [and WHEN they had to face them]?.....

The '18 Houston Rockets were title winners in MOST years, realistically. They just happened to exist in a year that had an all-time tier team; and they didn't even get to go as far as the Finals before they faced them. Bad luck, that.

The '07 Suns had to face the best possible opponent the league had to offer in the 2nd round, 'cheating' them out of some potential series wins [if the Spurs had been delayed to the conference finals or even the Finals (to say nothing of the 'Horry hip-check' outcome)]. Bad luck, that.

etc etc

trex_8063 wrote:I can't say I attach a numerical value ['how much'] to the accomplishment that could be expressed in a way that satisfies your question. Such as: a guy does it once, that's '1 pt' or whatever.

I don't know that I'd like to place too heavy an emphasis on such a criterion anyway. Suppose a guy is saddled with scrubs and either cannot make the playoffs or get by the first round: he would score 'zero' on such a scale, despite [potentially] having some REALLY impressive seasons (think Jordan on the mid-late 80s Bulls, or Garnett on a number of TWolves squads).

Questions I would have on the very notion:
*are we talking about being the "best player" for just that one series, or who was the clear best player for the year as a whole?
**Should there be credit for BOTH things? Or less credit for one vs the other?
***Is winning the 1st round as BP valued same as winning Finals as BP?
etc etc


And lastly, I would say that quite often the answer is "it depends". For instance, should whomever you consider the "best player" on the '04 Pistons get the same credit per series as say....any one of '88-90 Michael Jordan? Because the former is not the 'best player' by even remotely close to the same margin as Jordan was on those squads.


And what of the strength of opponent faced [and WHEN they had to face them]?.....

The '18 Houston Rockets were title winners in MOST years, realistically. They just happened to exist in a year that had an all-time tier team; and they didn't even get to go as far as the Finals before they faced them. Bad luck, that.

The '07 Suns had to face the best possible opponent the league had to offer in the 2nd round, 'cheating' them out of some potential series wins [if the Spurs had been delayed to the conference finals or even the Finals (to say nothing of the 'Horry hip-check' outcome)]. Bad luck, that.

etc etc

In regard particularly to superstars; players who are top 50 alltime, for example,winning more in the playoffs could raise there rating, legacy, alltime. Obviously in the example of the best player on the 04 Pistons, doesn't compare to a star like Jordan on nonchampionship Bulls teams. In my example of Dr.J winning in the early 80s, it certainly would raise his career view. In reality it isn't right to include team success, unless that player really did elevate his team, moreso directly with late game performance that leads to the series or even title win. Jordan is an example of pulling his team to constant playoff series and title wins. Even in 98 he came up big at the end of game 6 and won it for the Bulls. Someone like Robinson and Garnett were the reasons their teams made the playoffs and largely won any playoff series. Take Robinson away from the preDuncan Spurs and they are most likely a 30 win per season team, at most.