Retro POY '01-02 (ends Thu morning PST)

[semi-sentient]

I wonder if there is also an advanced metric that explains why Garnett consistently "anchors" below average defensive teams while Duncan regularly "anchors" one of the leagues best defenses. If teammates are THAT important, then perhaps it's time to stop calling Garnett a defensive anchor. I'm beginning to think his defense is way overrated, particularly when others have gone out of their way to discredit the impact of certain perimeter defenders.

[NO-KG-AI]

I wonder if there is also an advanced metric that explains why Garnett consistently "anchors" below average defensive teams while Duncan regularly "anchors" one of the leagues best defenses. If teammates are THAT important, then perhaps it's time to stop calling Garnett a defensive anchor. I'm beginning to think his defense is way overrated, particularly when others have gone out of their way to discredit the impact of certain perimeter defenders.

Structure?

[bastillon]

which perimeter defenders ? Peeler ? Gill ? Wally ? c'mon now.

[semi-sentient]

which perimeter defenders ? Peeler ? Gill ? Wally ? c'mon now.

Kobe, McGrady, Wade, etc. Don't we always here about how little impact perimeter defenders have compared to bigs?

I'm bringing this up because I see no reason to give KG or Dirk the nod over either Kobe or McGrady. Both of their teams sucked defensively, and neither of those guys can score, set up their teammates, or take over games when needed the same way, nor do they require as much defensive attention from opposing teams.

[bastillon]

which perimeter defenders ? Peeler ? Gill ? Wally ? c'mon now.

Kobe, McGrady, Wade, etc. Don't we always here about how little impact perimeter defenders have compared to bigs?

I'm bringing this up because I see no reason to give KG or Dirk the nod over either Kobe or McGrady. Both of their teams sucked defensively, and neither of those guys can score, set up their teammates, or take over games when needed the same way, nor do they require as much defensive attention from opposing teams.

Wolves were 3rd in ORtg though so not sure if his offense was worse than Kobe's or T-Mac's and Garnett finished 2nd in DPOY and made all-defensive 1st so contemporary observers seemed to appreciate his defense as well.

I don't know what to do with KG at this point. he's playing large mins at SF so his impact is significantly lessened, but we know for a fact that he's capable of playing PF because he had done that before... this REAL tough case.

as for as Kidd, his impact is big, but you can't compare Nets '02 to Nets '01. there is nothing except Byron Scott that links those teams. completely different teams.

[bastillon]

how much do you value Kidd's defense guys ? Nets won primarily because of that and as a point guard Kidd doesn't seem like a legit anchor.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I can see the case for Kobe. My problem with his 2002 campaign is I didn't think of him as a top 5 player in the RS and the post-season didn't change my mind. His play in the Sacramento Series was poor for large portions of the games (2-5), and he had a lot of cold starts in the SA series. The counter-point to this position is his defense was very effective at shutting down the Kings perimeter players, and he did turn around the 4th quarter as accurately pointed out by the only unbiased poster in this thread; An Unbiased Fan. I just don't feel comfortable elevating him over T-Mac who I felt was the better player in the RS that.

My opinions on Kidd's season change all the time. I doubt I'll reach a firm opinion on it in this thread.

My ambivalence for this season is different from 01 were I have the LA duo basically locked in at 1-2. Shaq and Kobe were the best players in the PS by such a large margin that it will take a very well articulated argument to change my opinion.

I would point out that Kobe was poisioned with the infamous burger when LA went up to Sactown, and that was the major reason for his play in game 2-5. LA was a very different team with a subpar Kobe, and I feel LA would have won that series in 5 or 6 if he was healthy. Kobe had 30 points in Game 1 before he was poisioned.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/acc ... atl=google

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120408038.html


Tmac had a stellar RS, BUT played subpar defense back then like his cousin. And while many downgrade his supporting cast, it should be noted again, that Orlando won 41 games only 2 years before Tmac came there, and never really expanded on that with him. I would also point out that Tmac lost to a Baron led Hornets team in the 1st round. This is the same series where Tmac proclaimed himself the best player, and proceed to choke away game 1, and lose the series in 4 games.

Back in 2002, you would be hardpressed to find anyone outside of Orlando who thought Tmac was the better player that year. I wish message board posts from back then were still around. Wing players by most accounts went like this in 2002

1) Kobe
2) Pierce
3) Ai <---- I didn't agree with this
4) Tmac or Vince

I'm actually surprised at how little respect Pierce has gotten so far.


One more thing about Kidd. He was my MVP that year, but not POY. His horrible shooting knocks him down.

[semi-sentient]

Haha... I forgot about the burger incident!

Since certain posters decided to use the "what if Dirk was healthy" argument to bump Kobe out of the top 5 in a year where he was great on both ends (02-03, sorry but that just doesn't sit well with me), maybe we can use the "what if Kobe wasn't poisoned" argument for 2001-02?

[NO-KG-AI]

I wonder if there is also an advanced metric that explains why Garnett consistently "anchors" below average defensive teams while Duncan regularly "anchors" one of the leagues best defenses. If teammates are THAT important, then perhaps it's time to stop calling Garnett a defensive anchor. I'm beginning to think his defense is way overrated, particularly when others have gone out of their way to discredit the impact of certain perimeter defenders.

To expand on this, Duncan has only been on one top 5 offensive team(and they were 5th), and I don't think Duncan has played on teams devoid of offensive talent.

Is Duncan overrated offensively, or is Garnett just significantly better on that end because he's had multiple top 5 finishes, and as high as 3? Not really, and I think it's a similar dynamic. Pop has an outstanding defensive system that is standing strong to this day, and every Spur closes out and rotates extremely well, even when they aren't outstanding man defenders. Much like Flip did a great job of utilizing Garnett's passing and shooting to space the floor out, and using his post game just enough to keep the 3 point shots falling.

Kobe, McGrady, Wade, etc. Don't we always here about how little impact perimeter defenders have compared to bigs?

I'm bringing this up because I see no reason to give KG or Dirk the nod over either Kobe or McGrady. Both of their teams sucked defensively, and neither of those guys can score, set up their teammates, or take over games when needed the same way, nor do they require as much defensive attention from opposing teams.

I'd have to disagree there, 5-6 assists is usually a much bigger impact passing the ball from a big man, than 5-6 from a wing player. I think Garnett's passing is a huge reason why his teams that aren't that talented offensively still rank highly in offense, even when he isn't scoring huge volumes or Shaq like %'s.

I remember when Sedale was saying "just 2 more assists" between Garnett and Duncan, and while it doesn't seem like a lot, 2 assists is a huge difference between two bigs IMO.

Just a bunch of tangents

[bastillon]

tough year to rank but definitely Kidd doesn't belong to TOP5:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=ZJUbM

my TOP5 no order:
Timmy, KG, Shaq, T-Mac, Kobe

-Kobe played very poorly in the playoffs for his standards
-IIRC SAS were injured in the playoffs (D-rob ? Smith ? )

Shaq-Duncan 1st-2nd
KG-McGrady 3rd-4th
Kobe 5th

the only question for me is KG vs T-Mac and Shaq vs Duncan.

[Doctor MJ]

how much do you value Kidd's defense guys ? Nets won primarily because of that and as a point guard Kidd doesn't seem like a legit anchor.

Not quite answering you're question but my thoughts on your statement: The fact that an offense-first guy is on a defense-first team isn't necessarily that damning. In the case of Iverson it's important because people tend to say he had nobody on his team when in fact the strategy was to sacrifice supporting cast scoring in favor of defense. That's not what happened in Jersey.

Kidd clearly helps his teams. His +/- is pretty regularly strong. No reason to think of him not as the clear star of the Nets. That said, I don't think it's a coincidence that he's never led an elite offense and that he's not a great scorer, and I do think he got overrated this year a bit because the team got to the finals when in reality they'd be a 1st round out in the west.

[bastillon]

I just think that you have to show your dominance at either end by leading your team to proper results. IMO Kidd hasn't done that. his NJN were mediocre offensively. defense wasn't anchored in a traditional way by Kidd because they had a lot of good versatile defenders that could guard many positions. young K-Mart was quite a beast too. I remember him dunking on Sheed once (in 04) so hard that I think it could compete with Pippen beasting Ewing.

btw, UAF:
2001-02 NBA 0.310 (4)
McGrady's MVP Shares, AHEAD OF KOBE, CARTER AND IVERSON.

so clearly your consensus is some imaginary consensus.

[sp6r=underrated]

I would point out that Kobe was poisioned with the infamous burger when LA went up to Sactown, and that was the major reason for his play in game 2-5. LA was a very different team with a subpar Kobe, and I feel LA would have won that series in 5 or 6 if he was healthy. Kobe had 30 points in Game 1 before he was poisioned.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/acc ... atl=google

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120408038.html


Tmac had a stellar RS, BUT played subpar defense back then like his cousin. And while many downgrade his supporting cast, it should be noted again, that Orlando won 41 games only 2 years before Tmac came there, and never really expanded on that with him. I would also point out that Tmac lost to a Baron led Hornets team in the 1st round. This is the same series where Tmac proclaimed himself the best player, and proceed to choke away game 1, and lose the series in 4 games.

Back in 2002, you would be hardpressed to find anyone outside of Orlando who thought Tmac was the better player that year. I wish message board posts from back then were still around. Wing players by most accounts went like this in 2002

1) Kobe
2) Pierce
3) Ai <---- I didn't agree with this
4) Tmac or Vince

I'm actually surprised at how little respect Pierce has gotten so far.


One more thing about Kidd. He was my MVP that year, but not POY. His horrible shooting knocks him down.

1. AUF, thanks for the trip down memory lane, the tainted hamburger. BTW, I doubt anyone remembers this. Supposedly before game 1 Kobe went to a movie theater and a fan talked trash about the lakers to him, without realizing it was Kobe. LOL.

2. On a more serious note, my problem with the tainted hamburger story is two things. First, were do you draw the line. I remember someone bringing up that Dirk had a death in the family before the GSW series. I know TD's father died right before the LAL series and he just returned from his funeral. Second, how do you address the injuries to Peja that caused him to miss the first four or five games (haven't looked it up) and was totally ineffective after he returned. If were going to write off Kobe's performance, shouldn't we also try to figure out how the kings would have done with a healthy Peja. How would the Spurs have done with a healthy Admiral? I just find it very difficult to answer these questions, but that is part of the analysis and if I want to be a part of the project I should consider these questions more.

3. Overall though, good arguments for why I should put Kobe over T-Mac.

[semi-sentient]

To expand on this, Duncan has only been on one top 5 offensive team(and they were 5th), and I don't think Duncan has played on teams devoid of offensive talent.

Is Duncan overrated offensively, or is Garnett just significantly better on that end because he's had multiple top 5 finishes, and as high as 3? Not really, and I think it's a similar dynamic. Pop has an outstanding defensive system that is standing strong to this day, and every Spur closes out and rotates extremely well, even when they aren't outstanding man defenders.

It's not similar. There is a huge gap in terms of defense. The Spurs were regularly among the best, whereas the Wolves were below average/average the majority of the time.

On offense, the Spurs only had one season where they were below average on offense, and really, they weren't that far behind Minnesota even though Minny was typically higher rated in offense.

Code: Select all

        Offense                Defense

1999-00 (SAS 11th, MIN 17th)   (SAS 1st, MIN 11th)
2000-01 (MIN 8th,  SAS 12th)   (SAS 2nd, MIN 12th)
2001-02 (MIN 3rd,  SAS 9th)    (SAS 1st, MIN 15th)
2002-03 (MIN 5th,  SAS 7th)    (SAS 3rd, MIN 16th)
2003-04 (MIN 5th,  SAS 16th)   (SAS 1st, MIN 6th)
2004-05 (MIN 6th,  SAS 9th)    (SAS 1st, MIN 14th)
2005-06 (SAS 10th, MIN 28th)   (SAS 1st, MIN 10th)

Edit: I do agree that Pops has better defensive schemes, but remember how the voting turned out in 07-08? Garnett beats out Kobe because people were raving about how he came in and changed everything, and people were going out of their way to talk down how much guys like Perkins, Pierce, and Allen were contributing, never mind the defensive schemes of one Tom Thibodeau. Has Duncan ever come close to getting that kind of credit? IMO, people overrated Garnett that season and the result was that he stole a POY.

[An Unbiased Fan]

btw, UAF:
2001-02 NBA 0.310 (4)
McGrady's MVP Shares, AHEAD OF KOBE, CARTER AND IVERSON.

so clearly your consensus is some imaginary consensus.

MVP shares reflect the regular season only. Tmac's mouth and inablity to back it up in 2002 playoffs hurt him in people's eyes. Pierce outperformed him and made the ECF. Kobe won the title, and many had AI over him(which I didn't agree with).

[NO-KG-AI]

To expand on this, Duncan has only been on one top 5 offensive team(and they were 5th), and I don't think Duncan has played on teams devoid of offensive talent.

Is Duncan overrated offensively, or is Garnett just significantly better on that end because he's had multiple top 5 finishes, and as high as 3? Not really, and I think it's a similar dynamic. Pop has an outstanding defensive system that is standing strong to this day, and every Spur closes out and rotates extremely well, even when they aren't outstanding man defenders.

It's not similar. There is a huge gap in terms of defense. The Spurs were regularly among the best, whereas the Wolves were below average/average the majority of the time.

On offense, the Spurs only had one season where they were below average on offense, and really, they weren't that far behind Minnesota even though Minny was typically higher rated in offense.

Code: Select all

        Offense                Defense

1999-00 (SAS 11th, MIN 17th)   (SAS 1st, MIN 11th)
2000-01 (MIN 8th,  SAS 12th)   (SAS 2nd, MIN 12th)
2001-02 (MIN 3rd,  SAS 9th)    (SAS 1st, MIN 15th)
2002-03 (MIN 5th,  SAS 7th)    (SAS 3rd, MIN 16th)
2003-04 (MIN 5th,  SAS 16th)   (SAS 1st, MIN 6th)
2004-05 (MIN 6th,  SAS 9th)    (SAS 1st, MIN 14th)
2005-06 (SAS 10th, MIN 28th)   (SAS 1st, MIN 10th)

But I suppose you think they were similar in terms of offensive talent?

[drza]

Right now I'm leaning towards 1) Duncan, 2) Shaq

with Dirk, KG and Kobe at 3 - 5 in some order. If I had to vote right now Tmac and Kidd would be just outside looking in, but a good enough case could potentially get them back in.

As for Duncan vs Shaq, the main knock that I've seen used on Duncan is that in the postseason against the Lakers he wasn't as efficient though he was putting up wild counting numbers. Ironically I'm about to make an argument for Duncan that I usually make for KG: he was great, but his team just wasn't strong enough to keep things competitive with a juggernaut. With Robinson injured the Spurs defense wasn't equipped to really handle the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, so the only way they could stay competitive was for Duncan to have to expend a lot more effort on defense while simultaneously having to do more to carry a pedestrian offense with an opposing defense geared to stop him.

When that much responsibility is put on one player, and he's playing against a team with similar high-end talent but more of it, the tendency is often for the lone stud to be less efficient. It happens. But when that player is doing absurd things like steadily pulling down 20 boards, acting as a hub for teammates with lots of assists, blocking shots and trying to patch every hole defensively, and still scoring a lot (if inefficiently) I still tend to think that player stepped up. Sometimes you just don't have enough ammo as an individual to take out a more talented team. I don't hold that against the individual when his initials are KG, so I'm not about to hold it against Duncan here.

[TMACFORMVP]

I regret my rankings for 02-03. I come into this thread thinking Shaq should be the POY. But when you compare his statistics to 02-03, it's in fact worse all across the board. He rebounds worse, he scores less, he assists less, he shoots nearly 7% worse from the line, blocks at a lesser rate and plays less minutes all while playing the EXACT same amount of games. The main reason why Shaq was not higher than #5 was because of the games missed. But now when he misses the same amount of games, and Duncan has an even better regular season, it's now likely going to be reversed? Hell, the Lakers went 7-8 in the games Shaq missed, better than the 5-10 it was in 02-03. And in the playoffs, he shoots worse, rebounds worse, and assists less than he did in 02-03.

It just shows how much championships come into play when determining this. The big difference of course is Duncan lost in the 2nd round (like Shaq did in 02-03), while O'neal won the championship (like Duncan did in 02-03). Shaq did roughly 29/13/3 in the post-season and 36/12/4 in the sweep of the Nets in the Finals. That sort of dominance probably puts him #1, but Duncan was the MVP, and definitely had the better regular season. He was roughly 26/13/4 on over 50% playing nearly the entire season.

As for Pierce, he was fantastic this year. But it is interesting to note in the playoffs, his 40% from three, and 44% from the field dipped to roughly 40% from the field, and 26% from three. Antoine Walker on the other hand actually shot better on both accounts (and MUCH better from distance), while he still did his 22/9 thing.

Kobe v. McGrady is interesting once again. Jason Kidd gets a tad bit overrated, but a still fantastic season impact wise, roughly 14/7/10, and was amazing in the playoffs. Webber was great, but a bit too many missed games, and intense competition for my liking.

[semi-sentient]

But I suppose you think they were similar in terms of offensive talent?

Talent? I don't know. Garnett clearly has more range and shown that he's a better passer/play-maker, but Duncan makes up for it by scoring more efficiently and having the ability to draw more fouls because he plays more like a big man (I'm not a fan of jump-shooting bigs... at least not as a first option). That doesn't mean that Duncan isn't a pretty good passer himself. He's not that far off as far as career average goes and he's had a couple of 5+ assist post-seasons (averaged more than Garnett in both 01-02 and 02-03).

In general, I think Duncan puts more pressure on defenses, but he's not quite as talented.

[NO-KG-AI]

I meant "do you think they played on teams with similar offensive talent?"

My bad.

also, if Duncan puts more pressure on a defense, it should show with leading greater offenses. Or should we start thinking maybe he is overrated? Seems like a double standard.

5+ assists post seasons aren't as telling as 5+ assists over 82 games. Garnett has been at 8.8 for playoff series, that can ridiculously drive up assists totals over small samples.