2022-23 RealGM All-Season Awards - Discussion Thread

[Doctor MJ]

And I am saying it is an unprecedented hypothetical. If a player misses the entire regular season, but comes back for the play-in and carries (in that 2003 Duncan / 1994 Hakeem sense) his team to the title from there, the idea of voting for someone who played no regular season games would certainly be unprecedented, but I do not see much cause to question it on that basis.

This is not the first time a GM has switched teams, and so I'm saying that if you can find a previous example that fits, you can reference it and possibly get me to change the criteria.

Short of that, the criteria are as I've defined them.

“This is not the first time that a player has missed the entire regular season, so I am saying if you can find a previous example of a player missing the entire regular season and still getting PotY votes, you can reference it.”

I think you need to think harder about what you're trying to do here.

When I say "you can reference it and possibly get me to change the criteria", it's because I decide the criteria in the project that I created, ran, and maintained for years.

You do not get to define your own criteria in this project. If you don't want to participate, no one is forcing you to.

[AEnigma]

This is not the first time a GM has switched teams, and so I'm saying that if you can find a previous example that fits, you can reference it and possibly get me to change the criteria.

Short of that, the criteria are as I've defined them.

“This is not the first time that a player has missed the entire regular season, so I am saying if you can find a previous example of a player missing the entire regular season and still getting PotY votes, you can reference it.”

I think you need to think harder about what you're trying to do here.

When I say "you can reference it and possibly get me to change the criteria", it's because I decide the criteria in the project that I created, ran, and maintained for years.

You do not get to define your own criteria in this project. If you don't want to participate, no one is forcing you to.

I think you need to think about tautologies. You run the project and say you are open to different approaches to the vote, including gesturing at prior actions taken, but then when I discuss a hypothetical that did not happen and has never happened, suddenly I need to dig up an instance I can reference? Are you interested in a discussion of what it means for an individual to be the defining team-builder in a given year, or are you intentionally trying to shut down anything that goes outside of your personal boundaries using a framework you already know to be dead on arrival.

[AEnigma]

How about you thoroughly spell out any and all rationale that is and is not allowable so I know how I can avoid treading on the toes of your personal criteria.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I always thought this was a very subjective vote just how we define as best XXX lol

I rarely vote mostly just discuss but still

[eminence]

If nobody is actually voting for Connelly this season I vote we put the hypotheticals away as largely useless.

[ShaqAttac]

I ain't allowed to vote for sum reason. doc said sumthn about a processs but uhhhhhhhhh

poy prob would go

1. jok, prob shoulda won mvp and killed every1 in the pos. best passer ever, unstoppaable scorer, maybe his d is fiine. his "impaact" was crazy so
2. bron, went crazy in the rs, ended the dubs on a bum leg, wentt out swingin vs the nuggs, we prob win if he healthy
3. book, was as good as any1 round 1 n 2, but wasnt all that in the rs. saved kd from an all-time choke vs the clips. best scorer in the pos for sho. also played good d
4. tatum was great in rs n good in pos, but celts made thingss harder than it shoulda been in rounds 1 n 2 and then choked hard to miami
5. adpoy, was kinda bummy in the rs but went crazy in the pos, choked hard vs the nuggs tho. we prob win if he healthy

hm: freak, was crazy in the rs and went off in pos even though he was injurred. bucks mighta won everthin if he was healthy. i woulda put embiid, but his thiccness always gettin hurt

i woulda put butler top 5 but he folded hard n the last 3 rounds. bam low-key carried

opoy prob goess
1. jok, duh, see above
2. book, scored like crazy in the yoffs and was passin p good too.
3. bron, 2nd best passer n was scoring great too till he got hurt

dpoy prob goes
1. dray, best rs d, went crazy in the playoffs
2. adpoy, went crazy in the playoffs. didnt do all that in the rs
3. triple-j, was prob memphis best player, went crazy in the pos and was great in the rs too

coy
1. spo, he da real mvp tbh. how vincient cookin the celtics
2. malone, nuggs d was p good despite ppl saying jok couldnt lead good d n nuggs won chip
3. ham, bro **** up kerr real good. prob played dlo too much but o well. plz keep him.
4. brown, bro took the champs to 7 with a team no1 thought would do anythin. sac gonna go crazy
5. thibs, new york was actually goood. i didnt see that comin

eoy
1. pat, duh, undrafted guys playin like all-stars. I thought lowry was over-the-hill but man be cookin.
2. malone, got all the right players to win a chip without big fas
3. rob, bro got a team from 13th to the wcf. cant have him lower
4. perry, got ny from laughin-stock to legit without any superstars. dam
5. McNair, also no superstars, almost kicked out the champs. Bros went from no playoffs to a threat real quick

Ppl say i needa put more effort so hopefully that was enough

[ShaqAttac]

“This is not the first time that a player has missed the entire regular season, so I am saying if you can find a previous example of a player missing the entire regular season and still getting PotY votes, you can reference it.”

I think you need to think harder about what you're trying to do here.

When I say "you can reference it and possibly get me to change the criteria", it's because I decide the criteria in the project that I created, ran, and maintained for years.

You do not get to define your own criteria in this project. If you don't want to participate, no one is forcing you to.

I think you need to think about tautologies. You run the project and say you are open to different approaches to the vote, including gesturing at prior actions taken, but then when I discuss a hypothetical that did not happen and has never happened, suddenly I need to dig up an instance I can reference? Are you interested in a discussion of what it means for an individual to be the defining team-builder in a given year, or are you intentionally trying to shut down anything that goes outside of your personal boundaries using a framework you already know to be dead on arrival.

doc also said i cant vote coz of some process thing. i aint been here long but all this seems kinda random

[Colbinii]

I think you need to think harder about what you're trying to do here.

When I say "you can reference it and possibly get me to change the criteria", it's because I decide the criteria in the project that I created, ran, and maintained for years.

You do not get to define your own criteria in this project. If you don't want to participate, no one is forcing you to.

I think you need to think about tautologies. You run the project and say you are open to different approaches to the vote, including gesturing at prior actions taken, but then when I discuss a hypothetical that did not happen and has never happened, suddenly I need to dig up an instance I can reference? Are you interested in a discussion of what it means for an individual to be the defining team-builder in a given year, or are you intentionally trying to shut down anything that goes outside of your personal boundaries using a framework you already know to be dead on arrival.

doc also said i cant vote coz of some process thing. i aint been here long but all this seems kinda random

It is a standard process that people need to be involved in the discussion or have a history here to vote. Nothing new.

[ShaqAttac]

I think you need to think about tautologies. You run the project and say you are open to different approaches to the vote, including gesturing at prior actions taken, but then when I discuss a hypothetical that did not happen and has never happened, suddenly I need to dig up an instance I can reference? Are you interested in a discussion of what it means for an individual to be the defining team-builder in a given year, or are you intentionally trying to shut down anything that goes outside of your personal boundaries using a framework you already know to be dead on arrival.

doc also said i cant vote coz of some process thing. i aint been here long but all this seems kinda random

It is a standard process that people need to be involved in the discussion or have a history here to vote. Nothing new.

was i not in da discussion? also how long i gotta be here to have a history. i been postin for months

[AEnigma]

If nobody is actually voting for Connelly this season I vote we put the hypotheticals away as largely useless.

They are irrelevant to the vote itself but I do want to explore these “limits” on “appropriate” rationale.

What if an executive signs and/or drafts Players X, Y, and Z. None of them have a notable year but they are all young. Then, at that year’s trade deadline, he makes moves that clear capspace for the impeding free agency of Player A, whose hometown team is that team, while simultaneously picking up competent roleplayers J, K, and L. As part of those trades, he trades future picks to obtain an unprotected pick from a team who will be in the lottery that year, off the express rationale that he thinks the lottery options this year are historically good, and the top two picks especially are among the most obvious top two the league has ever seen. As a final bonus, he hires a coach Player A loves.

That executive then suddenly retires. The team wins the top two picks (both theirs and the traded pick) in the lottery, and his successor drafts those obvious top two picks and signs the hometown star free agent but otherwise does nothing. Players X, Y, and Z all make huge leaps the next year, and the team eventually cruises to an easy title. The original executive is hired by another team at midseason, and starts a similar process of rebuilding for future picks and trading for unrealised young talent. Does that executive merit consideration, or can you only look at the moves he made with his new team?

[eminence]

If nobody is actually voting for Connelly this season I vote we put the hypotheticals away as largely useless.

They are irrelevant to the vote itself but I do want to explore these “limits” on “appropriate” rationale.

What if an executive signs and/or drafts Players X, Y, and Z. None of them have a notable year but they are all young. Then, at that year’s trade deadline, he makes moves that clear capspace for the impeding free agency of Player A, whose hometown team is that team, while simultaneously picking up competent roleplayers J, K, and L. As part of those trades, he trades future picks to obtain an unprotected pick from a team who will be in the lottery that year, off the express rationale that he thinks the lottery options this year are historically good, and the top two picks especially are among the most obvious top two the league has ever seen. As a final bonus, he hires a coach Player A loves.

That executive then suddenly retires. The team wins the top two picks (both theirs and the traded pick) in the lottery, and his successor drafts those obvious top two picks and signs the hometown star free agent but otherwise does nothing. Players X, Y, and Z all make huge leaps the next year, and the team eventually cruises to an easy title. The original executive is hired by another team at midseason, and starts a similar process of rebuilding for future picks and trading for unrealised young talent. Does that executive merit consideration, or can you only look at the moves he made with his new team?

I'll be honest, I've never voted on EOY and don't plan on ever doing so, so I'm not all that interested in it. I just don't think we have near enough info on the topic to bother.

But if y'all really want to, have fun.

[OhayoKD]

yep Doc we argued about this before, but I don't see any justification for insisting on the following together:

1. Nothing about prior season should be considered in vote
2. But oh if I think you made mistakes before that you now fixed, you can't get a vote either.

I strongly disagree with one in principle for reasons we've gone over. Long-term planning is a thing. And I even more strongly disagree with 2. It basically says once you made a bad decision(or sometimes you made a good decision that blew up in your face) no matter how well you perform I won't consider you.

One of your favorite players is Steve Nash, and while you disagree, this guy wasn't even good really until he was 26. Wasn't a legit superstar until 30. Under these parameters we should have written him off when he was getting benched for Robert Pack or Travis Best well into his NBA career. But we know that is silly. We know he is allowed to get better. Why can't executives?

First: I never said you had to ignore all prior context when doing your vote. In fact I said that it was unreasonable to expect that any of us could. I've just emphasized that there is a difference between using past as context, and with literally re-crediting the GM repeatedly with making a single move every year. Acquiring Jimmy Butler is an EOY worthy move, it doesn't mean you win EOY from that point onward so long as you keep your job.

Second: I'll emphasize again the difference between the criteria I set as a project runner and my own personal stance as a voter:

As a project runner, I have zero problems with someone choosing Pelinka as EOY simply on the basis of trading away Westbrook.

As a voter, I'm not that impressed with a GM managing to partially undo a mistake he previously made which I think a good GM wouldn't have made.

Re: Why can't execs get better? They can, and if you personally think that Pelinka is now the smartest GM in the game, then it certainly makes sense to see him as an EOY candidate. I, as a voter, am more skeptical than that.

Not trying to frustrate you, but to be honest Doc I am not following what you want from us on that vote.

Are we only allowed to factor in decisions a gm made this year? How do we avoid double-crediting gms if we're also going to factor in their decisions year to year like you did with westbrook?

[Colbinii]

It should be up to each person in how they factor in previous moves by a GM.

I see an issue with voting for Riley in 2020 because he signed Butler, and then voting for Riley in 2023 because he still has Butler [double dipping Butler].

However, my rationale for last year, justifying Meyers, was referencing the Wiggins deal from 2021. Why? Because we didn't know how that deal would actually workout since Wiggins never played with Curry/Green/Klay in 2021.

[OhayoKD]

Anyway for POY, I'm thinking something like
1. Jokic
2. Butler
3. Booker
4. Tatum
5. Davis

I don't have any firm placements after 1 and am open to considering folks like Embid, Giannis, Lebron, and Steph

KD and Lillard like a reach. Am wondering if I should drop Butler significantly but it feels wrong to punish Jimmy for playing through injury after he got further than other candidates

[Doctor MJ]

Not trying to frustrate you, but to be honest Doc I am not following what you want from us on that vote.

Are we only allowed to factor in decisions a gm made this year? How do we avoid double-crediting gms if we're also going to factor in their decisions year to year like you did with westbrook?

Asking questions is reasonable.

I'll say first and foremost: I'm not trying to create an EOY criteria that's contradictory to what the NBA EOY is, and so I really am open if people can point to evidence that what I'm outlining does contradict.

The only thing that I've specified here is that because is had "Year" in the name, it should be about the actions the exec took this year. The meaning of those actions and how impressive those actions are given your awareness of the broader context is up to you. If you think a particular move was genius and another move was dumb luck, vote accordingly.

Re: how avoid double-crediting GMs if factor in previous year's decision like Westbrook. Okay #1 thing here: Me being less impressed as a voter on Pelinka is not the same thing as me saying that other voters have to see it a particular way. I don't mind in the slightest others voting for Pelinka, it's just that for me as a voter, I'm not that impressed with his moves. I think it was obvious that they needed to do whatever they could to get rid of Westbrook since before they acquired Westbrook, and I don't really think getting DLo & co was super amazing.

[Colbinii]

Not trying to frustrate you, but to be honest Doc I am not following what you want from us on that vote.

Are we only allowed to factor in decisions a gm made this year? How do we avoid double-crediting gms if we're also going to factor in their decisions year to year like you did with westbrook?

Asking questions is reasonable.

I'll say first and foremost: I'm not trying to create an EOY criteria that's contradictory to what the NBA EOY is, and so I really am open if people can point to evidence that what I'm outlining does contradict.

The only thing that I've specified here is that because is had "Year" in the name, it should be about the actions the exec took this year. The meaning of those actions and how impressive those actions are given your awareness of the broader context is up to you. If you think a particular move was genius and another move was dumb luck, vote accordingly.

Re: how avoid double-crediting GMs if factor in previous year's decision like Westbrook. Okay #1 thing here: Me being less impressed as a voter on Pelinka is not the same thing as me saying that other voters have to see it a particular way. I don't mind in the slightest others voting for Pelinka, it's just that for me as a voter, I'm not that impressed with his moves. I think it was obvious that they needed to do whatever they could to get rid of Westbrook since before they acquired Westbrook, and I don't really think getting DLo & co was super amazing.

By this same token, Booth's [Denver] moves were even more simpler.

They had two players who were young and coming off injuries [Murray and MPJ]. They traded a back-up PG for a starting 3+D Wing with championship experience.

To me, that is just as obvious, if not more so than what Pelinka did.

But you are right--getting Dlo and Co wasn't amazing. They should have just gotten Conley instead of Dlo.

But, what LAL did doesn't matter at this point because LeBron tore a tendon in his foot. I firmly believe had he not torn his tendon, there would be a different team hosting a parade this week, but because of that major injury, Booth trading a back-up PG for a 3+D wing and keeping a young core intact is more impressive.

I get it, results matter, but Pelinka's move also put the ball in Reaves hands more [Since Dlo isn't really a PG, he is an undersized SG with some PG skills], and him becoming the 6MOY for you has everything to do with this trade.

[Doctor MJ]

It should be up to each person in how they factor in previous moves by a GM.

I see an issue with voting for Riley in 2020 because he signed Butler, and then voting for Riley in 2023 because he still has Butler [double dipping Butler].

However, my rationale for last year, justifying Meyers, was referencing the Wiggins deal from 2021. Why? Because we didn't know how that deal would actually workout since Wiggins never played with Curry/Green/Klay in 2021.

Okay so I think I need to dive into this given the questions of other people. Here's what you wrote last year for Meyers:

He re-tooled with the right guys, the Wiggins trade came to fruition and was able to keep all the assets (Wiseman, Kuminga, Moody) as the team re-builds.

I can't claim to have remembered this from a year ago, but re-reading it, it's clearly in this grey area we're dancing around and yet at the time it didn't set off any red flags for me. To try to express why, I feel like this falls in a category of "I love when a plan comes together" - the jury was still out a year ago, but now I'm seeing where they're doing and it's really impressive - which there is a track record of guys getting NBA EOY love for.

Colbinii and voter-me see this differently - I didn't have Meyers in any of the 5 guys I mentioned last year - but it seems overly persnickety to object as a runner to stuff like this when I know guys have gotten the EOY based on perspectives like this.

I think with AEnigma's post, what popped out to me was the specific reference to Jimmy Butler in a list of moves, because I know how prominent that move was in getting Riley the EOY in 2020...which was kinda the "plan comes together" year for the Heat know that I ponder it with our current discussion in mind.

Perhaps there's an inconsistency in my approach here, and if there is, I apologize. I want to be clear though that I have no fundamental problem with someone voting for Riley for EOY this year, I just think it's critical to use arguments that are not evergreen. Riley has arguably been the most capable GM in the league non-stop for the last 20+ years...but it's not every year that he's a big EOY candidate. So if he is this year, why this year?

[Doctor MJ]

If nobody is actually voting for Connelly this season I vote we put the hypotheticals away as largely useless.

They are irrelevant to the vote itself but I do want to explore these “limits” on “appropriate” rationale.

What if an executive signs and/or drafts Players X, Y, and Z. None of them have a notable year but they are all young. Then, at that year’s trade deadline, he makes moves that clear capspace for the impeding free agency of Player A, whose hometown team is that team, while simultaneously picking up competent roleplayers J, K, and L. As part of those trades, he trades future picks to obtain an unprotected pick from a team who will be in the lottery that year, off the express rationale that he thinks the lottery options this year are historically good, and the top two picks especially are among the most obvious top two the league has ever seen. As a final bonus, he hires a coach Player A loves.

That executive then suddenly retires. The team wins the top two picks (both theirs and the traded pick) in the lottery, and his successor drafts those obvious top two picks and signs the hometown star free agent but otherwise does nothing. Players X, Y, and Z all make huge leaps the next year, and the team eventually cruises to an easy title. The original executive is hired by another team at midseason, and starts a similar process of rebuilding for future picks and trading for unrealised young talent. Does that executive merit consideration, or can you only look at the moves he made with his new team?

Let me ask: How do you think NBA EOY voters would deal with this? along with, What basis leads you to this conclusion?

I don't want to be constraining voters into a much smaller box than is typically allowed for EOY voters, and so if I am, then I should loosen up.

[Colbinii]

It should be up to each person in how they factor in previous moves by a GM.

I see an issue with voting for Riley in 2020 because he signed Butler, and then voting for Riley in 2023 because he still has Butler [double dipping Butler].

However, my rationale for last year, justifying Meyers, was referencing the Wiggins deal from 2021. Why? Because we didn't know how that deal would actually workout since Wiggins never played with Curry/Green/Klay in 2021.

Okay so I think I need to dive into this given the questions of other people. Here's what you wrote last year for Meyers:

He re-tooled with the right guys, the Wiggins trade came to fruition and was able to keep all the assets (Wiseman, Kuminga, Moody) as the team re-builds.

I can't claim to have remembered this from a year ago, but re-reading it, it's clearly in this grey area we're dancing around and yet at the time it didn't set off any red flags for me. To try to express why, I feel like this falls in a category of "I love when a plan comes together" - the jury was still out a year ago, but now I'm seeing where they're doing and it's really impressive - which there is a track record of guys getting NBA EOY love for.

Colbinii and voter-me see this differently - I didn't have Meyers in any of the 5 guys I mentioned last year - but it seems overly persnickety to object as a runner to stuff like this when I know guys have gotten the EOY based on perspectives like this.

I think with AEnigma's post, what popped out to me was the specific reference to Jimmy Butler in a list of moves, because I know how prominent that move was in getting Riley the EOY in 2020...which was kinda the "plan comes together" year for the Heat know that I ponder it with our current discussion in mind.

Perhaps there's an inconsistency in my approach here, and if there is, I apologize. I want to be clear though that I have no fundamental problem with someone voting for Riley for EOY this year, I just think it's critical to use arguments that are not evergreen. Riley has arguably been the most capable GM in the league non-stop for the last 20+ years...but it's not every year that he's a big EOY candidate. So if he is this year, why this year?

At the end of the day there is some gray area and I think going back multiple years is where I [and you, obviously] get lost in the sauce.

I understand people wanting to recognize Riley, but I don't think this is the award to recognize him in, even though all the moves he made [Butler, all the 2nd round/undrafted players and their developments, Lowry acquisition] were done over multiple years.

[Doctor MJ]

Not trying to frustrate you, but to be honest Doc I am not following what you want from us on that vote.

Are we only allowed to factor in decisions a gm made this year? How do we avoid double-crediting gms if we're also going to factor in their decisions year to year like you did with westbrook?

Asking questions is reasonable.

I'll say first and foremost: I'm not trying to create an EOY criteria that's contradictory to what the NBA EOY is, and so I really am open if people can point to evidence that what I'm outlining does contradict.

The only thing that I've specified here is that because is had "Year" in the name, it should be about the actions the exec took this year. The meaning of those actions and how impressive those actions are given your awareness of the broader context is up to you. If you think a particular move was genius and another move was dumb luck, vote accordingly.

Re: how avoid double-crediting GMs if factor in previous year's decision like Westbrook. Okay #1 thing here: Me being less impressed as a voter on Pelinka is not the same thing as me saying that other voters have to see it a particular way. I don't mind in the slightest others voting for Pelinka, it's just that for me as a voter, I'm not that impressed with his moves. I think it was obvious that they needed to do whatever they could to get rid of Westbrook since before they acquired Westbrook, and I don't really think getting DLo & co was super amazing.

By this same token, Booth's [Denver] moves were even more simpler.

They had two players who were young and coming off injuries [Murray and MPJ]. They traded a back-up PG for a starting 3+D Wing with championship experience.

To me, that is just as obvious, if not more so than what Pelinka did.

But you are right--getting Dlo and Co wasn't amazing. They should have just gotten Conley instead of Dlo.

But, what LAL did doesn't matter at this point because LeBron tore a tendon in his foot. I firmly believe had he not torn his tendon, there would be a different team hosting a parade this week, but because of that major injury, Booth trading a back-up PG for a 3+D wing and keeping a young core intact is more impressive.

I get it, results matter, but Pelinka's move also put the ball in Reaves hands more [Since Dlo isn't really a PG, he is an undersized SG with some PG skills], and him becoming the 6MOY for you has everything to do with this trade.

To be clear: I have no issues at all with others ranking Pelinka ahead of Booth for EOY. I'm personally low on Pelinka's performance, but that doesn't mean I expect others to be.

I don't want to build up Booth's performance too much here because in the end he's only getting a spot on my ballot because there didn't happen to be 3 GMs I could think of who impressed me more, but I will say that even though it was just role players, I was very impressed by the KCP & Brown moves before the season began. At least for the present I'd prefer both of those guys over anyone on the Lakers other than LeBron, AD or Reaves, and in Denver there's also a matter of fantastic fit.

By contrast, I felt like the move where Pelinka traded Westbrook away seemed to be really focused on acquiring DLo as a plausible 3rd all-star, and to me this was always silly. I do think that Rui & Vando are nice additions, and between them, getting rid of Westbrook, and the fact that the move allowed an existing guy (Reaves) to shine certainly puts Pelinka on the "did positive work this year" side of the ledger and if I had a long enough ballot he'd be on it. I'm just low enough on his performance that he wasn't really someone I was ever considering at #1, and as I looked at the candidates, he didn't make my 3 either.