Retro Player of the Year 2008-09 UPDATE — Lebron James

[ceoofkobefans]

It’s such a shame that Kobe has arguably his best season and had a year that win POY in most seasons but it overlapped with LeBron hitting his peak so he gets **** out of another POY season

09 Kobe would not be POY 'most seasons'. Kobe played on a team that would have won 55 games without him, and reaped the rewards of that. He's just fortunate the opposing teams were not up to snuff. If KG never gets hurt in 09 then history remembers Kobe as Shaq's Robin, who never won without him. All the guys better than him this year (Lebron, Wade, Dwight, Nash, etc) were stuck on teams with inferior support casts. If anything Kobe is lucky this year.

The 09 lakers prolly don’t make the playoffs without Kobe and Dwight had plenty of help in 09 what are you talking about

[One_and_Done]

It’s such a shame that Kobe has arguably his best season and had a year that win POY in most seasons but it overlapped with LeBron hitting his peak so he gets **** out of another POY season

09 Kobe would not be POY 'most seasons'. Kobe played on a team that would have won 55 games without him, and reaped the rewards of that. He's just fortunate the opposing teams were not up to snuff. If KG never gets hurt in 09 then history remembers Kobe as Shaq's Robin, who never won without him. All the guys better than him this year (Lebron, Wade, Dwight, Nash, etc) were stuck on teams with inferior support casts. If anything Kobe is lucky this year.

The 09 lakers prolly don’t make the playoffs without Kobe and Dwight had plenty of help in 09 what are you talking about

Dwight's starting line-up was Shard/Hedo/Jameer/[random throw in]. Odom is better than all those guys except maybe Shard, and Odom was the Lakers 6th man.

Jameer was basically an average point guard who got a BJ Armstrong all-star replacement nod. Hedo was an above average starter in his prime, but not really anything more. Good on O, bad on D. That was a fairly weak support cast for a 59 win finals team.

The Lakers cruise to the playoffs without Kobe.

[Djoker]

All of us here are engaging in conjecture, that’s how rankings work. That said, there’s some pretty strong evidence that Kobe isn’t providing the lift you think he is, and I cited a lot of it in the 2008 thread that you were just complaining about.

- Kobe’s record in games from 00-07 without Shaq is 135-137
- From 00-04, in games without Kobe, Shaq had the Lakers playing at a 60+ win pace
- In 2008 without Pau/Bynum the Lakers were 11-9 with Kobe
- In 2008 the Lakers were 24-11 with Bynum
- In 2008 the Lakers were 22-5 with Pau

The evidence doesn’t suggest Kobe has this huge lift his fans want him to. I’m not an advanced stats guy, but the advanced stats hate him. The conventional numbers don’t like him either once you look past volume scoring (e.g. CP3 & Nash contribute more pp100 than him once you factor in assists). Then you look at the guys he’s being compared to, and they seem to be lifting teams in a way he has always failed to, with no difficulty (e.g. Dwight in 08 and 09, Lebron in 09 and 10, Nash in 06 and 10, etc).

We can’t be 100% certain of anything. But I see Pau, a guy who led 50ish win teams in a deep West with a mediocre support cast, and Odom who is a proven 2nd best player on playoff teams, and Bynum who had grown into an elite center, and Ariza who is an elite 3&D wing, and Fisher who is a solid starting point guard, and Radmanovic who is a very good bench player, and decent bench guys like Farmer and Walton, and I feel pretty confident this team was winning 55-ish games even without Kobe.

And I'm not alone in that view:
viewtopic.php?t=2342758

Why don't you add 1997-1999 Kobe while you're at it. This is just ridiculous. Pre-2001 Kobe wasn't even his prime.

W-L record just doesn't have the predictive power that MOV does.

Here are the point differentials. If I have time later I'll calculate the SRS but MOV is still quite accurate. The issue if anything is sample size anyway not the adjustments for competition.

Without Kobe

2001 Lakers: +1.9 MOV (14 games)
2002 Lakers: +12.5 MOV (2 games)
2004 Lakers: -1.8 MOV (17 games)

2001-2004 Lakers: +0.6 MOV --> 42-win pace (33 games)

2005 Lakers: -5.2 MOV (16 games)
2006 Lakers: -7.0 MOV (2 games)
2007 Lakers: +1.2 MOV (5 games)

2005-2007 Lakers: -4.0 MOV --> 29-win pace (23 games)

2010 Lakers: +5.6 MOV (9 games)
2012 Lakers: -2.5 MOV (8 games)
2013 Lakers: -0.8 MOV (4 games)

2010-2013 Lakers: +1.3 MOV --> 45-win pace (21 games)

Even the Shaq teams didn't come close to 55-win pace without Kobe. So yes your argument is pure baloney.

We don't actually have any WOWY for the 2008 and 2009 Lakers. And besides the samples are still small. 20-30 games isn't a lot at all. But whatever data we have gives very low probability of what you claimed which is that Kobe-less Lakers could win 55 games.

[One_and_Done]

All of us here are engaging in conjecture, that’s how rankings work. That said, there’s some pretty strong evidence that Kobe isn’t providing the lift you think he is, and I cited a lot of it in the 2008 thread that you were just complaining about.

- Kobe’s record in games from 00-07 without Shaq is 135-137
- From 00-04, in games without Kobe, Shaq had the Lakers playing at a 60+ win pace
- In 2008 without Pau/Bynum the Lakers were 11-9 with Kobe
- In 2008 the Lakers were 24-11 with Bynum
- In 2008 the Lakers were 22-5 with Pau

The evidence doesn’t suggest Kobe has this huge lift his fans want him to. I’m not an advanced stats guy, but the advanced stats hate him. The conventional numbers don’t like him either once you look past volume scoring (e.g. CP3 & Nash contribute more pp100 than him once you factor in assists). Then you look at the guys he’s being compared to, and they seem to be lifting teams in a way he has always failed to, with no difficulty (e.g. Dwight in 08 and 09, Lebron in 09 and 10, Nash in 06 and 10, etc).

We can’t be 100% certain of anything. But I see Pau, a guy who led 50ish win teams in a deep West with a mediocre support cast, and Odom who is a proven 2nd best player on playoff teams, and Bynum who had grown into an elite center, and Ariza who is an elite 3&D wing, and Fisher who is a solid starting point guard, and Radmanovic who is a very good bench player, and decent bench guys like Farmer and Walton, and I feel pretty confident this team was winning 55-ish games even without Kobe.

And I'm not alone in that view:
viewtopic.php?t=2342758

Why don't you add 1997-1999 Kobe while you're at it. This is just ridiculous. Pre-2001 Kobe wasn't even his prime.

W-L record just doesn't have the predictive power that MOV does.

Here are the point differentials. If I have time later I'll calculate the SRS but MOV is still quite accurate. The issue if anything is sample size anyway not the adjustments for competition.

Without Kobe

2001 Lakers: +1.9 MOV (14 games)
2002 Lakers: +12.5 MOV (2 games)
2004 Lakers: -1.8 MOV (17 games)

2001-2004 Lakers: +0.6 MOV --> 42-win pace (33 games)

2005 Lakers: -5.2 MOV (16 games)
2006 Lakers: -7.0 MOV (2 games)
2007 Lakers: +1.2 MOV (5 games)

2005-2007 Lakers: -4.0 MOV --> 29-win pace (23 games)

2010 Lakers: +5.6 MOV (9 games)
2012 Lakers: -2.5 MOV (8 games)
2013 Lakers: -0.8 MOV (4 games)

2010-2013 Lakers: +1.3 MOV --> 45-win pace (21 games)

Even the Shaq teams didn't come close to 55-win pace without Kobe. So yes your argument is pure baloney.

We don't actually have any WOWY for the 2008 and 2009 Lakers. And besides the samples are still small. 20-30 games isn't a lot at all. But whatever data we have gives very low probability of what you claimed which is that Kobe-less Lakers could win 55 games.

Some Kobe fans consider 01 to be peak Kobe.

I don't really care what WOWY or MOV says.

[Djoker]

All of us here are engaging in conjecture, that’s how rankings work. That said, there’s some pretty strong evidence that Kobe isn’t providing the lift you think he is, and I cited a lot of it in the 2008 thread that you were just complaining about.

- Kobe’s record in games from 00-07 without Shaq is 135-137
- From 00-04, in games without Kobe, Shaq had the Lakers playing at a 60+ win pace
- In 2008 without Pau/Bynum the Lakers were 11-9 with Kobe
- In 2008 the Lakers were 24-11 with Bynum
- In 2008 the Lakers were 22-5 with Pau

The evidence doesn’t suggest Kobe has this huge lift his fans want him to. I’m not an advanced stats guy, but the advanced stats hate him. The conventional numbers don’t like him either once you look past volume scoring (e.g. CP3 & Nash contribute more pp100 than him once you factor in assists). Then you look at the guys he’s being compared to, and they seem to be lifting teams in a way he has always failed to, with no difficulty (e.g. Dwight in 08 and 09, Lebron in 09 and 10, Nash in 06 and 10, etc).

We can’t be 100% certain of anything. But I see Pau, a guy who led 50ish win teams in a deep West with a mediocre support cast, and Odom who is a proven 2nd best player on playoff teams, and Bynum who had grown into an elite center, and Ariza who is an elite 3&D wing, and Fisher who is a solid starting point guard, and Radmanovic who is a very good bench player, and decent bench guys like Farmer and Walton, and I feel pretty confident this team was winning 55-ish games even without Kobe.

And I'm not alone in that view:
viewtopic.php?t=2342758

Why don't you add 1997-1999 Kobe while you're at it. This is just ridiculous. Pre-2001 Kobe wasn't even his prime.

W-L record just doesn't have the predictive power that MOV does.

Here are the point differentials. If I have time later I'll calculate the SRS but MOV is still quite accurate. The issue if anything is sample size anyway not the adjustments for competition.

Without Kobe

2001 Lakers: +1.9 MOV (14 games)
2002 Lakers: +12.5 MOV (2 games)
2004 Lakers: -1.8 MOV (17 games)

2001-2004 Lakers: +0.6 MOV --> 42-win pace (33 games)

2005 Lakers: -5.2 MOV (16 games)
2006 Lakers: -7.0 MOV (2 games)
2007 Lakers: +1.2 MOV (5 games)

2005-2007 Lakers: -4.0 MOV --> 29-win pace (23 games)

2010 Lakers: +5.6 MOV (9 games)
2012 Lakers: -2.5 MOV (8 games)
2013 Lakers: -0.8 MOV (4 games)

2010-2013 Lakers: +1.3 MOV --> 45-win pace (21 games)

Even the Shaq teams didn't come close to 55-win pace without Kobe. So yes your argument is pure baloney.

We don't actually have any WOWY for the 2008 and 2009 Lakers. And besides the samples are still small. 20-30 games isn't a lot at all. But whatever data we have gives very low probability of what you claimed which is that Kobe-less Lakers could win 55 games.

Some Kobe fans consider 01 to be peak Kobe.

I don't really care what WOWY or MOV says.

Ok so then you don't care about actual data. Keep making conjectures but I for one won't take them seriously.

[One_and_Done]

People thinking your particular brand of advanced stats aren't persuasive doesn't invalidate their opinion. You know what I find compelling? The actual win loss records.

[OhayoKD]

Voting Post

1. Lebron James

This should be unanimous.

My thoughts:

1. LeBron James

I'll have LeBron at #1 for leading his team to huge numbers - 66-16, 8.68 SRS, +10.0 Net Rtg - with a lackluster roster and recording some eye-popping individual numbers - but I feel like the "GOAT season" arguments are a little over-the-top

GOAT season is not clear but...

When you take an all-time playmaker at 21:
viewtopic.php?t=2428804
viewtopic.php?p=116406463#p116406463

Add the ability to shut down and make elite shooting guards run for their life while having an offense frequently decide driving against 3-4 defenders is better than risking facing you inside at 22
viewtopic.php?p=116555458#p116555458

And then add apex Jordan's scoring in the playoffs after starting the series with a basket-less refutation of the Jordan rules 2.0:
viewtopic.php?p=111950624#p111950624

You get the best perimeter player ever...by far
viewtopic.php?p=108089880#p108089880

Could have turned it over less in game 4. Could have been better in game 6. But game 1 was the best game any perimeter player has ever played. And those 6 games constitute a better series than any other perimeter player has ever played. Completing a postseason performance better than any other perimeter player has ever completed, following a regular season on a different planet than what anyone had put before.

There's a reason the people who would contest "best perimeter player ever" have bunkered in on

1. It's an outlier, too good to be real!

(against someone who sees teams improve by an average of 12 points over the course of this and the following 12 years, dominates RAPM despite a bunch of years spent staggering with Wade, and puts up a similar season and postseason run the next year up until an elbow injury)

and

2. This team was built to juice Lebron's impact!

(Pretending a team where Lebron doesn't even bring up the ball the most, doesn't have notable lob-threats, and has to manage with the team's best rim-protector being washed for half the year is somehow equivalent in fit to the Bulls)

When you play so well those comparing you to an alleged "goat" have to find reasons to pretend what actually happened doesn't count?

That's an easy #1 to me.

2. Kobe Bryant

A little bumpy with the Rockets but all considered an excellent regular-season, followed up with an excellent postseason, culminating in a dominant finals performance.

3. Dwight Howard

The league's best defender while spearheading an offense that rendered, plausibly the best defensive non-big in history, mostly helpless to stop it. Much has been made about Dwight's on/off but focusing on full games presents him in a far more favorable light:
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/orlando-magic-record-with-and-without-dwight-howard-by-season
That'll do for me,

4. Dwayne Wade

You can conceivably argue for him as the league's 2nd best attacker. Pair that with good defense and you have a player who can finish top 4 winning 43 games. It also doesn't hurt he outscored a 47-win team in a near draw (positive M.O.V, 7 games)

5. Dirk Nowitzki

Strong regular season and an alright playoffs.

OPOY

1. Lebron James
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dwayne Wade

DPOY

1. Dwight Howard
2. Lebron James
3. Kevin Garnett

[Jaivl]

It’s such a shame that Kobe has arguably his best season and had a year that win POY in most seasons but it overlapped with LeBron hitting his peak so he gets **** out of another POY season

09 Kobe would not be POY 'most seasons'. Kobe played on a team that would have won 55 games without him, and reaped the rewards of that. He's just fortunate the opposing teams were not up to snuff. If KG never gets hurt in 09 then history remembers Kobe as Shaq's Robin, who never won without him. All the guys better than him this year (Lebron, Wade, Dwight, Nash, etc) were stuck on teams with inferior support casts. If anything Kobe is lucky this year.

The 09 lakers prolly don’t make the playoffs without Kobe and Dwight had plenty of help in 09 what are you talking about

They do 100% on the East, probably not on the West as it would require 46+ wins, but they are at least .500. Pau and Ariza are much better this year, and Bynum actually exists for a good chunk of the season.

[70sFan]

Kobe played on a team that would have won 55 games without him, and reaped the rewards of that.

Why not 65 wins? Wouldn't that make Kobe even worse? Isn't it all that matters for you?

[One_and_Done]

It's important to give Kobe his due. He's a top 25 player all-time. As far as floor raising goes though, it's not his strong suit. Without a stacked team Kobe squads tend to hover around 500.

[70sFan]

It's important to give Kobe his due. He's a top 25 player all-time. As far as floor raising goes though, it's not his strong suit. Without a stacked team Kobe squads tend to hover around 500.

How is he a top 25 player if you genuinely believe that he's incapable of lead mediocre (but not bad by your assessment) rosters above 50% wins and he doesn't provide any lift to good teams (Lakers won 57 wins next year, so that gives Kobe a lift of 2 wins right?)? You shouldn't limit yourself, player of this profile isn't anywhere near top 25.

Of course your evaluation is completely off base and you just dislike Kobe for some reason, but at least be consistent.

[One_and_Done]

It's important to give Kobe his due. He's a top 25 player all-time. As far as floor raising goes though, it's not his strong suit. Without a stacked team Kobe squads tend to hover around 500.

How is he a top 25 player if you genuinely believe that he's incapable of lead mediocre (but not bad by your assessment) rosters above 50% wins and he doesn't provide any lift to good teams (Lakers won 57 wins next year, so that gives Kobe a lift of 2 wins right?)? You shouldn't limit yourself, player of this profile isn't anywhere near top 25.

Of course your evaluation is completely off base and you just dislike Kobe for some reason, but at least be consistent.

Because Kobe does still give you an relatively efficient high end volume scorer whose inelastic offense helps in the playoffs most years. Kobe's top 25 argument is probably better made by his ceiling lift for a team who is already really good, rather than a floor raiser.

[70sFan]

It's important to give Kobe his due. He's a top 25 player all-time. As far as floor raising goes though, it's not his strong suit. Without a stacked team Kobe squads tend to hover around 500.

How is he a top 25 player if you genuinely believe that he's incapable of lead mediocre (but not bad by your assessment) rosters above 50% wins and he doesn't provide any lift to good teams (Lakers won 57 wins next year, so that gives Kobe a lift of 2 wins right?)? You shouldn't limit yourself, player of this profile isn't anywhere near top 25.

Of course your evaluation is completely off base and you just dislike Kobe for some reason, but at least be consistent.

Because Kobe does still give you an relatively efficient high end volume scorer whose inelastic offense helps in the playoffs most years. Kobe's top 25 argument is probably better made by his ceiling lift for a team who is already really good, rather than a floor raiser.

Alex English gives you relatively efficient high volume scoring that translates well to the playoffs. Do you also consider him for top 25?

So your only reason to put Kobe in top 25 is that he won rings on stacked teams. I thought you don't care about rings.

[One_and_Done]

How is he a top 25 player if you genuinely believe that he's incapable of lead mediocre (but not bad by your assessment) rosters above 50% wins and he doesn't provide any lift to good teams (Lakers won 57 wins next year, so that gives Kobe a lift of 2 wins right?)? You shouldn't limit yourself, player of this profile isn't anywhere near top 25.

Of course your evaluation is completely off base and you just dislike Kobe for some reason, but at least be consistent.

Because Kobe does still give you an relatively efficient high end volume scorer whose inelastic offense helps in the playoffs most years. Kobe's top 25 argument is probably better made by his ceiling lift for a team who is already really good, rather than a floor raiser.

Alex English gives you relatively efficient high volume scoring that translates well to the playoffs. Do you also consider him for top 25?

So your only reason to put Kobe in top 25 is that he won rings on stacked teams. I thought you don't care about rings.

I don't think English could do the same thing in the 00s.

[70sFan]

Because Kobe does still give you an relatively efficient high end volume scorer whose inelastic offense helps in the playoffs most years. Kobe's top 25 argument is probably better made by his ceiling lift for a team who is already really good, rather than a floor raiser.

Alex English gives you relatively efficient high volume scoring that translates well to the playoffs. Do you also consider him for top 25?

So your only reason to put Kobe in top 25 is that he won rings on stacked teams. I thought you don't care about rings.

I don't think English could do the same thing in the 00s.

Change that for Donovan Mitchell then.

[One_and_Done]

Alex English gives you relatively efficient high volume scoring that translates well to the playoffs. Do you also consider him for top 25?

So your only reason to put Kobe in top 25 is that he won rings on stacked teams. I thought you don't care about rings.

I don't think English could do the same thing in the 00s.

Change that for Donovan Mitchell then.

I mean, if you swapped out Mitchell for Kobe on the Cavs, the Cavs might get worse. As a pretty heliocentric player he's a bad fit on the 25 Cavs. In a vacuum you'd very probably build around Kobe though. I'd certainly take SGA or Luka or Giannis over Kobe to build around, but 2 of those guys need more longevity to place ahead of him all-time.

[70sFan]

I don't think English could do the same thing in the 00s.

Change that for Donovan Mitchell then.

I mean, if you swapped out Mitchell for Kobe on the Cavs, the Cavs might get worse. As a pretty heliocentric player he's a bad fit on the 25 Cavs. In a vacuum you'd very probably build around Kobe though. I'd certainly take SGA or Luka or Giannis over Kobe to build around, but 2 of those guys need more longevity to place ahead of him all-time.

2009 Kobe a heliocentric player?

[One_and_Done]

Change that for Donovan Mitchell then.

I mean, if you swapped out Mitchell for Kobe on the Cavs, the Cavs might get worse. As a pretty heliocentric player he's a bad fit on the 25 Cavs. In a vacuum you'd very probably build around Kobe though. I'd certainly take SGA or Luka or Giannis over Kobe to build around, but 2 of those guys need more longevity to place ahead of him all-time.

2009 Kobe a heliocentric player?

I meant in general, but even for 09 yes. His usage % was over 32. Given the different play style at the time that is incredibly high. Heck, Luka's career average usage is only 35%. Harden, the Helio-king, only has 4 seasons clearly above that (and the 5th is only 0.3 higher). Not sure where you got the idea Kobe wasn't a heliocentric player tbh.

[70sFan]

I mean, if you swapped out Mitchell for Kobe on the Cavs, the Cavs might get worse. As a pretty heliocentric player he's a bad fit on the 25 Cavs. In a vacuum you'd very probably build around Kobe though. I'd certainly take SGA or Luka or Giannis over Kobe to build around, but 2 of those guys need more longevity to place ahead of him all-time.

2009 Kobe a heliocentric player?

I meant in general, but even for 09 yes. His usage % was over 32. Given the different play style at the time that is incredibly high. Heck, Luka's career average usage is only 35%. Harden, the Helio-king, only has 4 seasons clearly above that (and the 5th is only 0.3 higher). Not sure where you got the idea Kobe wasn't a heliocentric player tbh.

So heliocentric is the synonym for high volume scorer for you? That's vary wide definition and most people don't use it in such context.

[One_and_Done]

Obviously not, but you'd expect a high usage from a heliocentric guy. Kobe was definitely heliocentric for the times, though I have said before I think his inability to run an offense would create problems for him today. When a guard has the ball that much you want him to be able to run your offense. Kobe can't play like the Booker type 2 guard either, he's not a good enough 3pt shooter or offball player.