Retro Player of the Year 2002-03 UPDATE — Tim Duncan

[Djoker]

Well there is a pretty easy way to look up how Kobe produced without Shaq this year.

With Shaq: 34.9 points and 7.4 assists per 100 possessions on 56.2% true shooting
Without Shaq: 42.8 points and 6.6 assists per 100 possessions on 50.9% true shooting

If you assess Kobe as an elite defensive wing still, or think he fits with other stars better than McGrady does, I understand preferring him to McGrady as an overall player, but offensively I do not think Kobe reaches that level until 2006.

The lower efficiency without Shaq can be more easily explained by the much higher shot volume than by Shaq making things easier on Kobe (although there is probably some of that). 34.9 points vs. 42.8 points per 100 is a world of difference.

[AEnigma]

Well there is a pretty easy way to look up how Kobe produced without Shaq this year.

With Shaq: 34.9 points and 7.4 assists per 100 possessions on 56.2% true shooting
Without Shaq: 42.8 points and 6.6 assists per 100 possessions on 50.9% true shooting

If you assess Kobe as an elite defensive wing still, or think he fits with other stars better than McGrady does, I understand preferring him to McGrady as an overall player, but offensively I do not think Kobe reaches that level until 2006.

The lower efficiency without Shaq can be more easily explained by the much higher shot volume than by Shaq making things easier on Kobe (although there is probably some of that). 34.9 points vs. 42.8 points per 100 is a world of difference.

I think most people recognise that it is usually a negative when a player takes ten additional shots and only manages to score eight additional points, but I understand why you are happy to run with that narrative.

[Djoker]

Well there is a pretty easy way to look up how Kobe produced without Shaq this year.

With Shaq: 34.9 points and 7.4 assists per 100 possessions on 56.2% true shooting
Without Shaq: 42.8 points and 6.6 assists per 100 possessions on 50.9% true shooting

If you assess Kobe as an elite defensive wing still, or think he fits with other stars better than McGrady does, I understand preferring him to McGrady as an overall player, but offensively I do not think Kobe reaches that level until 2006.

The lower efficiency without Shaq can be more easily explained by the much higher shot volume than by Shaq making things easier on Kobe (although there is probably some of that). 34.9 points vs. 42.8 points per 100 is a world of difference.

I think most people recognise that it is usually a negative when a player takes ten additional shots and only manages to score eight additional points, but I understand why you are happy to run with that narrative.

Sure it's a negative. It's just that the said negative comes with the territory of taking many more shots. Efficiency and volume are inversely proportional.

[70sFan]

Your sample is more misleading, because T-Mac had back issues in 2004, and because the previous 3 year sample consists of 18 games spread out in clumps of 4-1, 1-5, and 3-5 (once you take out the game T-Mac wasn't healthy enough to start in and was held to 25 mins in).

How is my sample misleading? Yeah, Tracy didn't miss many games throughout his Magic career and that's why your sample is misleading - because it takes the vast majority of the OFF sample from a season that was significantly worse for Orlando (both with and without Tmac) and you compare it to the seasons when Magic were a playoff team.

It's true that Tracy had health issues but it didn't stop him from playing on all-nba level later - which suggests that your imaginary ~20 wins difference in quality doesn't correspond with the reality.

Closer inspection reveals:

- In 01 the 4 wins the Magic eeked out without T-Mac were against 4 terrible teams (25 win Hawks twice, 23 win Vancouver once, and the Cavs without Z-Ill; the Cavs were 15-41 that year without Z-Ill).

Beating 20+ teams consistently suggests that your assumption of "15 wins might be generous" for them doesn't have much to back up. Beating poor teams suggests that you are better than these teams, which suggests that Magic were not 15 wins level team without Tracy.

- In every other year they were a losing team without T-Mac

Yes, but they went 3-5 in 2003 which again doesn't support that 15 wins pace you suggested.

I don't think the 04 Magic support cast was worse either;

Then don't use it, it's not about being worse or better (although you have no arguments supporting that claim) but about being completely different. You shouldn't put two completely different teams together to create on-off sample, especially when the years aren't weighed the same way.

2003 and 2004 Magic teams are like 2 completely different teams. Do you agree with that?

[Lebronnygoat]

Might as well start talking about 04 and skip this year’s discussion. One of the most obvious years. Duncan in ‘04 actually also seems to have the best argument…

[Paulluxx9000]

Duncan
KG
Dirk
Kobe
Shaq
Duncan’s at his best now here’s the final version

Spoiler:

Tim Duncan. You could say he was already the best player. You could. Really. He’s that good. He can pop, he can pass, he can block, he can step out and stop. He needs a little time to figure it out but man, it’s only a little. KG, Shaq, Duncan. Side by side by side in their primes. That’s just incredible. I’m a Duncan over Hakeem guy. No he didn’t move as much. No he didn’t spin like a ballerina. But he was there, where he needed to be, whenever he needed to be, again and again and again and again and again. Bowens. Robinson. Manu. Tika Taka. Twin Towers. No matter what Duncan was there. On and off, placed in a straight jacket. Given little privilege over the guy seated at the end of he bench. Duncan didn’t get to be an icon. But he was always there all the same. He’s a monster to score on. He’s a monster to defend. Shaq is shaq but if there was no shaq Duncan would be next. Triples and doubles galore. And he can pass it, really pass it. Not just praying on neanderthal defensive schemes like the Jordans and Hakeems, but make for others when making is hard.
And you never want to try him at the basket. Unless you’re shaq. And like the tortoise vs the hare, even the quick and fast will run into trouble if they confuse Mr.Duncan as some statue. He’s not the full thing but he’s already pretty close. He’s the best of his era. And when he faces Malone he might already be BITW.
He’ll get better no doubt. He has work to do containing penetration. Work to do as using his unusual ball control to turn doubles into near triples and work to do timing when he jumps. But the key qualities are all there and the Spurs win with what was close to about any team ever as a 2 man team.

Last time he lost but this time he wins and boy did he deserve it. Best in the world. Best of the decade. Almost. Pure basketball there might have been no one better until the alien drafted next season.
KG

Spoiler:

He’s mostly there now. Kevin Garnett. Where Duncan is strong, he’s nimble. Duncan waits, he traverses. A versatile offensive piece, hitting jumpers, can handle the ball, can post, and of the bigs can pass it the best. A foreshadowing of the Giannis/AD types. He’s not quite there, no one is, but at this point in league history he was a unicorn. Maybe a little more power would have done him better in the playoffs, but he mostly delivered anyway. I will not fault someone for the failures of others.

To start the oughts Shaq was Duncan’s main challenger. Now diesel is replaced with ticket. With Kobe Bryant and Shaq on the same floor Garnett looked the best by far. Just as he does the next one. He’s not Duncan but he’s damn close.
Dallas has it’s man. Dirk Nowitski is tall and strong and can shoot incredibly well. Monstrous in the post efficient at the hole unrivalled in-between and accurate from deep. Dirk was a do-it-all at delivering baskets. His passing is just okay but just okay was enough with how scary defenses and centers found Dirk’s arsenal. You can’t confuse him with some incredible defender but he’s okay there too. He’s still figuring things out now but the full package is fantastic and it’s approaching fast.
LA’s Hierarchy shifts.

Spoiler:

Kobe’s a superstar though he doesn’t play as super as last time. He can roam, he can drive, he can dunk (not like MJ). He doesn’t have the size to get by or through traffic like a Lebron, or even just get by like Jordan. But he’s smart, precise with his moves, and is a truly versatile piece able to do everything well and, if he has to face the traffic, he can shoot over it as well as nearly anyone. He would have been incredible with illegal defense, but he’s good enough now. There is no three-peat without Mamba.

Whatever happened off the court Kobe took over on it steering LA short of a 4 peat.
Diesel isn’t so dominant but still.

Spoiler:

This is for the Diesel. He misses so many games and it just matter because wow. No one and I mean no one twists a defense like Shaq. Heavy but quick. Big and fast. You must double shaq. If not triple him. His only weakness is someone usually needs to bring him the ball but wow is it worth it. And now he’s learnt how to pass. The only knock is his defense and it’s a knock. So much so the old fossil of an offense chicago took out of it’s misery in the finals worked like a charm. But Duncan’s still a year off. And Jordan isn’t even a top 3 reason why Chicago is a perimeter buzzsaw.

His year ends with Duncan.

[capfan33]

1. Duncan- One of the greatest seasons and title runs ever albeit my guy Dirk didn't get to play a full series against the Spurs, and I think they had a punchers chance of winning.
2. KG- Major points for me are him outplaying Shaq H2H and somehow going 6 games against the Lakers with very minimal help while putting together an exceptional regular season campaign that would probably be a shoo-in for MVP if Duncan didn't exist. And especially in a season where his play did translate to the playoffs he's an easy pick at 2.
3. Shaq- Still really good this season although a clear step down from his 3 peat dominance. Also missed some time which dings him compared to KG.
4. TMac- Crazy regular season numbers for a perimeter player in this era, probably fluky to a degree but it still happened and I also think his series against Detroit was incredible given the opponent. I don't hold the last few games against him too much given his supporting cast and the overperformance the first few games, they never should've been in a position to win in the first place.
5. Kobe- Honestly not sure about this pick, Dirk, Nash and Kidd are the other candidates. While he made the finals, the mediocrity of the east makes it difficult for me to go with Kidd, especially when he was a worse player than the other candidates. I think Kobe played a bit better in the playoffs compared to Dirk although I could be convinced otherwise, so tentatively going with him.

[ceoofkobefans]

2003 continues the trend the 2000s has had of having very strong comp with a lot of guys i could see being on my ballot. I feel fairly confident in the top 3 but choosing between like shaq dirk kidd tmac pierce for the last two spots is ROUGH but let me try to rank them

POY

1. Tim Duncan

Yes I'm sure the guys who put a ton of weight into impact metrics will try and argue for KG but This is TD by a pretty comfortable margin. He leads a fairly lackluster team (for the standard of how good they performed) to 60 wins and a 57 win pace based on NRTG/SRS and goes on to have one of the greatest PO runs in league history (you could argue the best by a non MJ or LeBron player). Duncan averages 23/4/13 with 3.6 stocks PER GAME on +4.5 rTS in the RS and ups that to 25/5/15 with 4 stocks PER GAME on +6.2 rTS% in the PO with a supporting cast of 20 y/o Tony Parker peak Bruce Bowen 3rd year Stephen Jackson 37 y/o David Robinson who retires in the offseason rookie Manu Ginobili and Malik Rose, which isn't an all time bad supporting cast in general but for a 60 win team that won a championship it's not very impressive at all. Duncan goes on to beat 4 other players In consideration for a t5 spot in my ballot in the last 3 rounds, beating kobe and shaq on the lakers in 6 (albeit kobe is playing through a shoulder injury), Dirk, as well as Steve Nash on the Mavs in 6 (although Dirk missed 3 games), and Jason Kidd in the finals in 6 where he has one of the best closeout games in the finals with 21/10/20 and 8 blocks. I did some partial tracking for duncan in game 6 where he created 16 shots (4 were screen creations) was double teamed 18 Times (where he had 9 of his 10 assists and only 1 TOV) and allowed 22 points on 34 True shooting attempts against him (the Nets shot 9-33 against him and 6-28 on contests, and he allowed a 32.5 TS% overall on shots against him)

2. Kevin Garnett

2003 is in my mind probably KG's 2nd best season and he has a very impressive floor raising season in the RS but as he generally does he isn't the same performer in the PO and the wolves lose to the lakers in 6 despite a pretty impressive series from Troy Hudson.

3. Kobe Bryant

finally kobe has surpassed Shaq and is the best player on the lakers (although the gap is small it is now in kobe's favor), Kobe and Shaq are still the league's top duo but the lakers are a very bad team outside of the two and it showed when one played without the other (the lakers went 5-10 with a -4.2 NRTG in the 15 games shaq missed, and if you look at in game data the lakers are a -4.9 NRTG with kobe on the court and shaq off and a -5.2 with shaq on and kobe off) when they played together the lakers are able to perform well (45-22 with a +4 NRTG when shaq played which is a 55 and 53 win pace and a +7.3 NRTG when they shared the court which is a 61 win pace) but the lakers have no real depth and their other starters are comparable to what other stars are dealing with or worse (Derek Fisher, 32 y/o Robert Horry, 33 y/o Rick Fox who only plays 4 games in the PO, Devean George, Samaki Walker, Mark Madesen, and Brian Shaw is their main rotation although Stantislav medvedenko starts 10 games and averages 10.7 mpg in 58 games on the season) despite this the lakers still manage 50 wins in the west and had a top 10 SRS and NRTG (+2.7 and +2.5) and make the second round of the playoffs losing in 6 to the spurs where kobe has a pretty solid series averaging 32/4/5 per game on +3.7 rTS despite playing through a shoulder injury. 03 is the year where Kobe's shooting (especially deep shooting) hits the next level and hes consistently a legitamate 3pt threat shooting 38.3% from 3 on the year on 4 3s a game in the RS and 40.3% from 3 on 5 attempts per game in the PO. I do think you could argue Kobe over KG but KG does a better job in the RS and does more impressive floor raising so i give him the edge here.

4. Tracy McGrady

speaking of impressive floor raising jobs on bad teams Tracy McGrady finally gets his first (and sadly last) shout here in his best season. the magic only go 42-40 this year with a -.4 SRS and a +.1 NRTG but Tmac misses 7 games where the magic went 3-4 with a -1.4 NRTG (-3.6 SRS) and the magic were a very injury prone team this year. looking at their main rotation Mike Miller misses 32 games and the PO, Gordan Giricek misses 55 games, Grant Hill misses 53 games and Drew Gooden misses 63 games. the magic had to start 10 different players 20+ games and the names aren't great, but Tmac leads the league in scoring and shoots 38.6% from 3 on 6 attempts a game to just barely sneak the Magic into the playoffs where they blow a 3-1 lead they should've never had to the detroit pistons which after the pistons lock tmac down in the last 3 games. I could see Tmac higher on the list but depending on how high or low you are on the group here i could potentially see him off the list

5. Jason Kidd

now I was gonna put shaq here which i generally do when ranking players in 2003, but Shaq misses a decent stretch of time this year and Jason Kidd has yet another fantastic year with the nets leading them to a 49-33 record and a t5 SRS and NRTG, and takes them back to the finals again where they lose in 6 to the spurs in a year where Kidd is starting to add a 3 ball to his game and is an improved scorer averaging 21 IA PTS/75 on above league average shooting in the RS and 20.2 on -.1 rTS in the PO as the nets run through a pretty weak east but they sweep the 1 seed pistons who had a t5 NRTG and SRS in the league where kidd averages 24/6/10 with 3 steals a game on +.7 rTS and holds chauncey billups to 10/6/2 on an abysmal 41.8 TS%. i more than understand giving shaq the nod here (or even dirk despite missing the last 3 games against the spurs in the second round) but i don't think theres a super big gap between them and Kidd misses 2 games all year and makes the finals so I'm giving him the nod in the last year he really has a chance.

HMs: Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce

OPOY

1. Kobe Bryant
2. Dirk Nowitzki
3. Tracy McGrady
HMs: Shaquille O'Neal, Allen Iverson

DPOY
1. Tim Duncan
2. Ben Wallace
3. Kevin garnett
HMs: Jason Kidd, Jermaine O'Neal

[One_and_Done]

The Lakers were 6-8 in games Shaq missed. In no way, shape, or form, had Kobe 'surpassed' Shaq, something particularly obvious the next year when Kobe's erroneous belief he was better than Shaq killed the Lakers in the finals.

[LA Bird]

Player of the Year
1. Tim Duncan
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Tracy McGrady
4. Dirk Nowitzki
5. Kobe Bryant

Duncan with a near perfect season. Nothing to nitpick other than FT% which weirdly fell off a cliff after last year. Garnett is a clear #2 for me. Led the Wolves in every box stat and also improved into one of the best mid-range shooters in the league. This is one of the best floor raising seasons in history and the only problem with evaluating it is how hilariously bad Minnesota was without him (-17.5 net). Good thing is we would get to see how well KG maintains his impact on a better team the very next season.

Explained earlier why I'm not high on the Lakers duo for this season already so not too difficult for McGrady to be ahead in his peak year. Some people dismiss 03 TMac as a fluke because of his 3pt shooting but he was already at 36% the previous seasons. Compare that to 02 Kobe shooting 25% from three yet nobody complains about his 03 season being a fluke despite an even higher (non-heave) 3pt percentage. Young Dirk still puzzles me. Career high +13 on-court and +20 net is historical stuff but the impact numbers never held up in the playoffs in these early years. Maybe he is underrated on defense with his quickness? I don't know and the current me don't have the time to go back and track tons of old games anymore. Honorable mention to Kidd who had his peak season and would be top 5 in a less stacked year.

[Homer38]

The Lakers were 6-8 in games Shaq missed. In no way, shape, or form, had Kobe 'surpassed' Shaq, something particularly obvious the next year when Kobe's erroneous belief he was better than Shaq killed the Lakers in the finals.

Read this part....

Kobe and Shaq are still the league's top duo but the lakers are a very bad team outside of the two and it showed when one played without the other (the lakers went 5-10 with a -4.2 NRTG in the 15 games shaq missed, and if you look at in game data the lakers are a -4.9 NRTG with kobe on the court and shaq off and a -5.2 with shaq on and kobe off

[One_and_Done]

The Lakers were 6-8 in games Shaq missed. In no way, shape, or form, had Kobe 'surpassed' Shaq, something particularly obvious the next year when Kobe's erroneous belief he was better than Shaq killed the Lakers in the finals.

Read this part....

Kobe and Shaq are still the league's top duo but the lakers are a very bad team outside of the two and it showed when one played without the other (the lakers went 5-10 with a -4.2 NRTG in the 15 games shaq missed, and if you look at in game data the lakers are a -4.9 NRTG with kobe on the court and shaq off and a -5.2 with shaq on and kobe off

Plus minus data can be misleading for a host of reasons, but that 6-8 record is pretty notable, especially when considered in the context of Kobe's record in games without Shaq from 00-04 (23-26), and in games without Shaq from 00-07 (135-137), and Shaq leading the Lakers to a 60+ win pace in games without Kobe from 00-04.

Also just watching the games, it was very clear Shaq was still more impactful; this year, next year, and the year after that.

[Homer38]

The Lakers were 6-8 in games Shaq missed. In no way, shape, or form, had Kobe 'surpassed' Shaq, something particularly obvious the next year when Kobe's erroneous belief he was better than Shaq killed the Lakers in the finals.

Read this part....

Kobe and Shaq are still the league's top duo but the lakers are a very bad team outside of the two and it showed when one played without the other (the lakers went 5-10 with a -4.2 NRTG in the 15 games shaq missed, and if you look at in game data the lakers are a -4.9 NRTG with kobe on the court and shaq off and a -5.2 with shaq on and kobe off

Plus minus data can be misleading for a host of reasons, but that 6-8 record is pretty notable, especially when considered in the context of Kove's record in games without Shaq from 00-04 (23-26), and in games without Shaq from 00-07 (135-137), and Shaq leading the Lakers to a 60+ win pace in games without Kobe from 00-04.

The thread is about the 2003 season,the other seasons don't matter....I can't reward Shaq for that year since he was out for the first 12 games because he was out of shape to start the season and the lakers had a well below average at the backup center position in 2003 and in other year before if you want to talk about the others years

Shaq in 2003 was still a great player but not 2000 or 2001 Shaq

[One_and_Done]

Read this part....

Plus minus data can be misleading for a host of reasons, but that 6-8 record is pretty notable, especially when considered in the context of Kove's record in games without Shaq from 00-04 (23-26), and in games without Shaq from 00-07 (135-137), and Shaq leading the Lakers to a 60+ win pace in games without Kobe from 00-04.

The thread is about the 2003 season,the other seasons don't matter....I can't reward Shaq for that year since he was out for the first 12 games because he was out of shape to start the season and the lakers had a well below average at the backup center position in 2003 and in other year before if you want to talk about the others years

Shaq in 2003 was still a great player but not 2000 or 2001 Shaq

For reasons I can only guess at, you keep mentioning Shaq's back up. Who cares? Do you think Kobe's back-up was any good? Should your 5th best starter even matter much? Do you think that when D.Rob was out, and the Spurs were 15-3, Duncan was playing with a really good back-up 5? (He wasn't, the back up bigs were M.Rose and 40 year old Kevin Willis). Do you think KGs 5th best starter was good? Alot of these years KGs 4th best starter was well below average for their position. T-Mac had a whole team of below replacement level guys for the most part.

[ceoofkobefans]

The Lakers were 6-8 in games Shaq missed. In no way, shape, or form, had Kobe 'surpassed' Shaq, something particularly obvious the next year when Kobe's erroneous belief he was better than Shaq killed the Lakers in the finals.

Read this part....

Kobe and Shaq are still the league's top duo but the lakers are a very bad team outside of the two and it showed when one played without the other (the lakers went 5-10 with a -4.2 NRTG in the 15 games shaq missed, and if you look at in game data the lakers are a -4.9 NRTG with kobe on the court and shaq off and a -5.2 with shaq on and kobe off

Plus minus data can be misleading for a host of reasons, but that 6-8 record is pretty notable, especially when considered in the context of Kobe's record in games without Shaq from 00-04 (23-26), and in games without Shaq from 00-07 (135-137), and Shaq leading the Lakers to a 60+ win pace in games without Kobe from 00-04.

Also just watching the games, it was very clear Shaq was still more impactful; this year, next year, and the year after that.

while yes plus minus data can be misleading the lakers being straight up bad without kobe and shaq on the floor seems very reasonable how bad is more so the question and that is a very disingenuous sample to use considering kobe improves considerably from 00 to 01 and onwards and if you look at NRTG the Lakers are a +1.9 NRTG in games shaq missed and kobe played (47 win pace and went 22-24 which is a 39 win pace), and they have a +2.3 NRTG with shaq and without Kobe in the same span (48 win pace although they went 19-7 which is a 60 win pace) and the same size for kobe is 20 games larger and the sample is pretty much just coming from 01 and 04 for kobe. The Lakers also go 2-5 and a -5.4 NRTG in the 7 games without either in this span (23 and 25 win pace) and have a -7.2 NRTG in the 1,865 minutes kobe and shaq were both off the court from 01-04 (+4.4 with Shaq no Kobe, -3.1 with kobe no shaq, +9.3 with both) and i would also like to point out that the Lakers never had a true backup center they would run one of their 4s at the 5 (in 03 specifically this is Samaki Walker Mark Madsen and Stanislav Medvedenko who are all really bad NBA Players who were pretty much exclusively end of bench guys that wouldn't play in the PO) and they were better suited to replace Kobe than they were to replace Shaq which is a big part of why the lakers struggle so mightily when shaq sits. not gonna address the rest of the post I'm not gonna waste my time I just wanted to add some context to the data you were using to try and support your claims

[penbeast0]

Sure it's a negative. It's just that the said negative comes with the territory of taking many more shots. Efficiency and volume are inversely proportional.

There is some degree of inverse correlation quite possibly (haven't run the numbers) but it is a long way from inversely proportional. Many players can scale up efficiently. I remember seeing a study on it but it was a long long time ago (Iverson and Kobe were still stars) and it found just a relatively weak correlation. Curious if there is new data that supports this idea.

[Cavsfansince84]

Sure it's a negative. It's just that the said negative comes with the territory of taking many more shots. Efficiency and volume are inversely proportional.

There is some degree of inverse correlation quite possibly (haven't run the numbers) but it is a long way from inversely proportional. Many players can scale up efficiently. I remember seeing a study on it but it was a long long time ago (Iverson and Kobe were still stars) and it found just a relatively weak correlation. Curious if there is new data that supports this idea.

Ya I agree that its not a hard and fast thing that increased volume means less efficiency. It might be more relevant though for seasons where due to injury one star is taking an extra 5-10 shots in stretches of games. MJ for instance had some of his best efficiency seasons in his higher volume seasons but its not quite the same as what Kobe did in this season.

[lessthanjake]

I think it’s hard to imagine there’d be a hugely negative correlation between volume and efficiency, for the simple reason that teams tend to give more volume to a player the better they are.
So if Player A has more volume one year than another, it’s probably in part because they were a better player that year—and obviously being better will tend to make a player more efficient. If there’s still a negative correlation it actually is indicating that players that are better on average still are less efficient on average when they have higher volume.

[B-Mitch 30]

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Kevin Garnett

Once again, Minnesota was probably the best offensive team that wasn’t loaded with talent, or had two of the best offensive players ever on it (the Mavs with Dirk and Nash). KG also literally led the team in every stat category while playing in every game, honestly unbelievable.

2. Dirk Nowitzki

Despite playing with Nash, I think Dirk was the more important part of their partnership, thanks to his scoring, rebounding, and absurdly low turnover percentage. He also had a better playoff run than KG, coming close to beating the Spurs, before a knee injury that thankfully turned out to be a sprain. I think the fact the Mavs lost after Dirk was sidelined is telling however.

3. Tim Duncan

The Spurs weren’t the best offense in the regular season or playoffs, but they were still pretty good, being in the top 5 of eFG and free throws per field goal attempt, while Tim improved his stats in the playoffs. Duncan also had probably his best season passing the ball, and of course won in the Finals, while playing with a supporting cast that weren’t exactly world beaters.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Tim Duncan

The Spurs as per usual had one of the best defenses in the NBA, and Duncan did most of the work, being 2nd in the league in blocks, and 3rd in defensive rebounds, almost single handedly keeping the team average in that stat.

2. Ben Wallace

Like last season, Wallace was one of the quickest big men defenders ever, while also being 3rd in blocks and leading the NBA in rebounds. As a result, the Pistons were extremely well balanced defensively, being 5th in eFG, 1st in defensive rebounding percentage, and 15th in turnover percentage and fouls per field goal attempt.

3. Jason Kidd

Kidd had probably his greatest season in 2003, and shined defensively as he nearly led the Nets to a Finals upset over the Spurs. In addition to New Jersey having the best defense in the league, Kidd used his athletic peak (as he would injure his knee in 2004) to rank 5th in steals and 2nd on the Nets in defensive rebounds, with nearly 5 per game.

Player of the Year

1. Tim Duncan

Obvious choice considering his championship and offensive and defensive player rankings.

2. Dirk Nowitzki

Dirk had probably his best season prior to his mid 2000’s run of dominance, nearly making the Finals. He also had some of the best defensive box score numbers of his career, being 4th in defensive rebounds and averaging over a block and steal per game, with the Mavs defense also well above average.

3. Jason Kidd

Kidd has his best scoring season prior to his knee injury, having an above average true shooting percentage of 18.7 points per game, while leading the NBA in assists. Combined with his defense and playoff run, and I think he deserves this spot.

4. Kevin Garnett

Once again, KG’s quick defeat in the playoffs hurts his ranking a bit. Even still, he managed to give the Lakers a tough fight, and was still one of the best defenders in the game, as well as its best regular season offensive player.

5. Kobe Bryant

Kobe had probably his best season prior to his knee surgery in the offseason (which led to further acrimony that most here are familiar with). He averaged 30 points per game on good efficiency, and shot extremely well from three, setting the NBA record for most three-pointers made in a game. I imagine this and his reputation as a shooter from prior seasons created spacing the Lakers badly needed, especially with Shaq missing a lot of time again. In the playoffs Kobe lost to Duncan, but it should be remembered he was dealing with his knee problems and a torn labrum. His defense was also good for a guard, though the Lakers weren’t the best at it.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

POY

1. Tim Duncan - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. MVP. Finals MVP. One of the greatest peaks in NBA history and kind of underrated at that. This year Timmy wasn't just an amazing defender, didn't just carry a weaker than average cast for a championship team but also was a superstar on the offensive end putting up some seriously great numbers while taking on the brunt of the load. Very little to nitpick about this season. Very easy choice. Averaged 23.3/12.9/3.9 on 56.4 %TS (+4.5 rTS) in the RS and then 24.7/15.4/5.3 on 57.7 %TS (+6.2 rTS) in the PS.

2. Kobe Bryant - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. It's easy to look at 2nd round loss and not be impressed but given Dirk's injury and the total ineptitude of the Nets and the entire Eastern Conference, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the Spurs-Lakers series was the real finals and Kobe played really well in this series and all year long. This was the first season that Kobe took the mantle and became the best player on the Lakers. Averaged 30.0/6.9/5.9 on 55.0 %TS (+3.1 rTS) in the RS then 32.1/5.1/5.2 on 53.1 % TS (+2.7 rTS) in the PS.

3. Tracy McGrady - 1st Team All-NBA. Like I broke down in an earlier post in this thread, the only reason I put T-Mac a smidge behind Kobe is that I'm not sold on his winning acumen but don't be mistaken; this was a floor-raising effort of the highest order. McGrady carried an incredibly poor roster to 41-win pace in the RS and then went seven games against a really good Pistons team while playing like an absolute mega-star. Averaged 32.1/6.5/5.5 on 56.4 %TS (+4.5 rTS) in the RS then 31.7/6.7/4.7 on 56.1 %TS (+5.5 rTS) in the PS.

4. Kevin Garnett - 1st Team All-NBA. 1st Team All-Defense. Another fantastic two-way season and another first round exit. It's the same old story with KG and he is making the ballot once again. Averaged 23.0/13.4/6.0 on 55.3 %TS (+3.4 rTS) in the RS then 27.0/15.7/5.2 on 53.9 %TS (+1.5 rTS) in the PS.

5. Shaquille O'Neal - 1st Team All-NBA. This is probably the last prime season of the Big Diesel and though he's the 2nd best player on his own team, he's still a great player. Along with Kobe, he led a very mediocre Lakers squad to contender status. The main issue with Shaq and why he's isn't higher for me is the whole "healing on company time" and the jealousy towards Kobe. There are legitimate criticisms of Shaq as a teammate in this season. Averaged 27.5/11.1/3.1 on 60.2 %TS (+8.3 rTS) in the RS then 27.0/14.8/3.7 on 57.0 %TS (+6.6 rTS) in the PS.

HM:

Dirk Nowitzki - 2nd Team All-NBA. Led a very strong Mavs team in the RS but poor 2nd round against the Kings and then poor Spurs series where he was DNP for half of it.

OPOY

1. Kobe Bryant - Best combo of scoring and creation in the league.

2. Tracy McGrady - Just a smidge behind Kobe based on lack of winning acumen.

3. Shaquille O'Neal - Still a super dominant force down low. Great scorer that also collapses defenses and makes open shots for his teammates.

DPOY

1. Tim Duncan - Anchored the #3 defense. Elite paint protector in both RS and PS leading to a championship.

2. Kevin Garnett - Elite mix of horizontal and vertical game as usual.

3. Kenyon Martin - Helped anchor the #1 defense on the Nets.