possibility of KG=dpoy, Rajon=MIP, & doc=COY?
Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman
-
rambo_ortega
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,510
- And1: 22
- Joined: Jan 22, 2004
-
ilikepistonslol
- Junior
- Posts: 441
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 21, 2007
LucerneStDoggz wrote:These have to happen, or the NBA will still be a huge joke, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get screwed out of all 3 awards, since we're hated because of superiority.
okay i usually abstain from other teams forums outside of GT's, but WTF is this?
Is this the same complex that some (not all) Laker fans had about the NBA hating Kobe?
I think Garnett has a great shot at winning DPOY.
-
Pogue Mahone
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,006
- And1: 738
- Joined: Aug 09, 2003
- Location: In the Sun
- Contact:
-
FWIW, using my TEN+ rating, Rondo isn't the most improved player. That isn't to say that he hasn't improved because he has. His level of impact, on a per minute basis, was far and away the best on the team last season after Paul Pierce. Now that he is sharing the floor with more talented teammates at the offensive end and has reined in his ability to accumulate steals somewhat in the name of better overall team defense at the other end of the court, he has less opportunity to gather individual numbers.
Year - Ten+ - Fair Salary
2008 - 147 - $12,964,740.66
2007 - 135 - $11,195,646.09
In both years, he has been what I refer to as 'All-Star' level (130 is the breakpoint for All-Star.) In fact, his 147 rating this season is on the cusp of 'Superstar' (150-189 TEN+.)
Rondo is drastically improved; that much is readily apparent from watching both actual games and tracking his performance statistically. He just isn't the most improved player in the league, imo. One thing to keep in mind is that despite playing primarily against other teams' starting units, he not only maintained past performance, he improved upon it. That is positively, absolutely huge.
My TEN+ system last year didn't choose Monta Ellis as most improved player, btw. In fact, TEN+ said it was Jose Calderon. And I think it was right, too, especially when one considers the major jumps in efficiency for Calderon despite using more possessions and on a per minute basis. It's not that Ellis was a bad choice; it is just that Calderon was a better choice.
In 2007, TEN+ had Rondo as the rookie of the year. Yes, Roy was valuable, no doubt. Just not as valuable as Rondo on a per minute basis.
Now, if you want to argue that he was more valuable because he played more minutes and, therefor, had greater overall impact, fair enough. It wouldn't make it necessarily true though, imo. If that is the case, shouldn't it be called 'The Rookie Who Plays The Most Minutes' award?
Furthermore, if you were take minutes played and multiply it by the TEN+ rating to get an overall 'value' (remember, TEN+ is a per minute measure that attempts to incorporate defense), here are the results for both Roy and Rondo in 2007. Any guesses which is which?
Player A - 247507
Player B - 236388
As much as I love watching Garnett and fully appreciate his overall impact to the team (which I believe to be a very real thing), I don't think you can give him the MVP-- or at least you shouldn't. Lemme clarify. He shouldn't be awarded the MVP if the reason for giving him in the award is because of some 'aura' or 'mystique'. I feel that would somewhat taint the award.
I mean, as a Sox fan, for years I have had to listen to dolts like McCarver and Morgan wax the Jeter carrot about how 'special' he was/is. Sure, some, most or all of it may be true. It doesn't cover up the fact that Jeter has poor range and is often out of position on defense. Yet because of his 'specialness' he received three gold glove awards. That would be like giving Marbury the citizenship award for attempting to tag female interns or booking him to lecture his deep, inner thoughts via public speaking engagements.
Now, it could be argued that Garnett's overall impact is somewhat obfuscated to the average observer because he is sharing the ball with other talented teammates. I believe that to be the case. I also consider him the best player on the team with the best record in the league.
I want Garnett to win but I don't want it to be for the wrong reasons. I mean, many of the posters here when we acquired Garnett were up in arms because they thought we gave too much. Which is fine because in a way I don't necessarily blame them. When you hear regurgitated platitudes like 'He makes his teammates better', 'He sacrifices for his teammates', 'All he cares about it is winning', et frickin cetera, well, it becomes to the point that you don't believe it and if you try to swallow it, it takes a heavy dose of salt.
In Garnett's case, all those things are true thankfully. Who is to say that Joe Dink, Future MVP candidate who doesn't do those things but is a media and league darling (I am particularly looking at you Paper Tiger in Orlando) gets those things said about him in support of his candidacy despite him not really having those qualities? He would in no way be an actual surefire MVP but because he puts up big 'numbers' and he has the media eating out of his hand, who is to say that a vote for him wouldn't be taken from a more deserving candidate? And like I said, what if those platitudes were thrown around to describe him to further cement his legitimacy?
The argument, imo, for Garnett's MVP legitimacy is that he anchors not only the best defensive unit in the NBA, the unit is historically good defensively (when comparing it to the rest of the league.) This is well supported by not only his personal defensive counting stats but also by his unit's dominance.
Secondly, despite sharing possessions with two other scorers and sharing rebounds with a host of other teammates, Garnett still maintains averages of 19 PPG and 9 RPG (one of only eight players, league-wide, to accomplish that feat and the lowest MPG average of that group.)
And lastly, his team's offense is at it's best when he is in the game.
Quick Total: Elite Scorer/Rebounder combo ... Check! Anchors the best defensive unit ... Check! Offense is at it's best when he is in the game ... Check!
Considering he has averaged the least amount of minutes of any of the candidates (and, as a result, the least amount of counting stats) is partly because his team has been so dominant and there has been a greater amount of blow-outs/extended bench time. He shouldn't be penalized for his team being so good when he is in the game, imo.
Year - Ten+ - Fair Salary
2008 - 147 - $12,964,740.66
2007 - 135 - $11,195,646.09
In both years, he has been what I refer to as 'All-Star' level (130 is the breakpoint for All-Star.) In fact, his 147 rating this season is on the cusp of 'Superstar' (150-189 TEN+.)
Rondo is drastically improved; that much is readily apparent from watching both actual games and tracking his performance statistically. He just isn't the most improved player in the league, imo. One thing to keep in mind is that despite playing primarily against other teams' starting units, he not only maintained past performance, he improved upon it. That is positively, absolutely huge.
My TEN+ system last year didn't choose Monta Ellis as most improved player, btw. In fact, TEN+ said it was Jose Calderon. And I think it was right, too, especially when one considers the major jumps in efficiency for Calderon despite using more possessions and on a per minute basis. It's not that Ellis was a bad choice; it is just that Calderon was a better choice.
In 2007, TEN+ had Rondo as the rookie of the year. Yes, Roy was valuable, no doubt. Just not as valuable as Rondo on a per minute basis.
Now, if you want to argue that he was more valuable because he played more minutes and, therefor, had greater overall impact, fair enough. It wouldn't make it necessarily true though, imo. If that is the case, shouldn't it be called 'The Rookie Who Plays The Most Minutes' award?
Furthermore, if you were take minutes played and multiply it by the TEN+ rating to get an overall 'value' (remember, TEN+ is a per minute measure that attempts to incorporate defense), here are the results for both Roy and Rondo in 2007. Any guesses which is which?
Player A - 247507
Player B - 236388
As much as I love watching Garnett and fully appreciate his overall impact to the team (which I believe to be a very real thing), I don't think you can give him the MVP-- or at least you shouldn't. Lemme clarify. He shouldn't be awarded the MVP if the reason for giving him in the award is because of some 'aura' or 'mystique'. I feel that would somewhat taint the award.
I mean, as a Sox fan, for years I have had to listen to dolts like McCarver and Morgan wax the Jeter carrot about how 'special' he was/is. Sure, some, most or all of it may be true. It doesn't cover up the fact that Jeter has poor range and is often out of position on defense. Yet because of his 'specialness' he received three gold glove awards. That would be like giving Marbury the citizenship award for attempting to tag female interns or booking him to lecture his deep, inner thoughts via public speaking engagements.
Now, it could be argued that Garnett's overall impact is somewhat obfuscated to the average observer because he is sharing the ball with other talented teammates. I believe that to be the case. I also consider him the best player on the team with the best record in the league.
I want Garnett to win but I don't want it to be for the wrong reasons. I mean, many of the posters here when we acquired Garnett were up in arms because they thought we gave too much. Which is fine because in a way I don't necessarily blame them. When you hear regurgitated platitudes like 'He makes his teammates better', 'He sacrifices for his teammates', 'All he cares about it is winning', et frickin cetera, well, it becomes to the point that you don't believe it and if you try to swallow it, it takes a heavy dose of salt.
In Garnett's case, all those things are true thankfully. Who is to say that Joe Dink, Future MVP candidate who doesn't do those things but is a media and league darling (I am particularly looking at you Paper Tiger in Orlando) gets those things said about him in support of his candidacy despite him not really having those qualities? He would in no way be an actual surefire MVP but because he puts up big 'numbers' and he has the media eating out of his hand, who is to say that a vote for him wouldn't be taken from a more deserving candidate? And like I said, what if those platitudes were thrown around to describe him to further cement his legitimacy?
The argument, imo, for Garnett's MVP legitimacy is that he anchors not only the best defensive unit in the NBA, the unit is historically good defensively (when comparing it to the rest of the league.) This is well supported by not only his personal defensive counting stats but also by his unit's dominance.
Secondly, despite sharing possessions with two other scorers and sharing rebounds with a host of other teammates, Garnett still maintains averages of 19 PPG and 9 RPG (one of only eight players, league-wide, to accomplish that feat and the lowest MPG average of that group.)
And lastly, his team's offense is at it's best when he is in the game.
Quick Total: Elite Scorer/Rebounder combo ... Check! Anchors the best defensive unit ... Check! Offense is at it's best when he is in the game ... Check!
Considering he has averaged the least amount of minutes of any of the candidates (and, as a result, the least amount of counting stats) is partly because his team has been so dominant and there has been a greater amount of blow-outs/extended bench time. He shouldn't be penalized for his team being so good when he is in the game, imo.
-
GuyClinch
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,345
- And1: 1,478
- Joined: Jul 19, 2004
Considering he has averaged the least amount of minutes of any of the candidates (and, as a result, the least amount of counting stats) is partly because his team has been so dominant and there has been a greater amount of blow-outs/extended bench time. He shouldn't be penalized for his team being so good when he is in the game, imo.
Of course the flip side of this is that the C's are good without him. They were 11- 2. So yes he earned less stats because he was on the bench but part of that was that the C's were good enough to do serious damage without him at all. Sorry but I don't really see the straight up stat argument for KG.
But fear not - MVP is not judged by just stats.
I forget who said it (might have been an ESPN guy - "the horror") but there are three ways you can give out the NBA.
The guy who is so important to his team they would probably suck without him -
Chris Paul wins that one.
The guy who puts up monster stats (on a very good team) -
Kobe.
The best player on the best team
Garnett wins that one.
Garnett absolutely has a good shot. There are several factors that may hurt the other guys. I consider them "political" factors if you will. Kobe is kind of aloof and I think the rape thing has hurt him with alot of the media.
Chris Paul got tarnished by several key losses including one in which Deron Williams schooled him. And Lebron is tarnished because of his teams crappy overall play.
KG doesn't have as much "postive" going for him as the other guys so he might not win it - but he is relatively unsullied. Even PP who could submarine the guy with some innocous coments like "I am a big part of the team too" is campaigning for KG and giving him all the credit.
I suspect Kobe will win it though.
He is on the second best team - puts up monster stats - and I think his team would be much worse without him. Objectively I would have to go with Kobe. But his media repuation and his past transgressions work heavily against him.
It's going to be Celtics Lakers in the finals though - and that's far more important then award talk. That matchup might have to do alot with Rondo vs. Farmar! Kinda scary..
Pete
