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

[ronnymac2]

^^^Before responding...we are talking about the 2002 season, correct? I don't understand what you mean by "If Shaq at least went to the Finals." The Lakers won the title in 2002.

[Gongxi]

Ha, whoops. Yeah, thought of the wrong year. Saw 2002 and thought of 02-03. Disregard the last paragraph- even playing into June he didn't trump Duncan's year.

[ronnymac2]

Does anybody really think Tim Duncan was a better basketball player than Shaquille O'neal in 2002? Really? I mean.....screw the title. Forget the raw stats. Forget PER. Who is the better basketball player?

Well, the thing is throughout the season, we were all used to Shaq being the best player in the NBA for like the previous 4 seasons (when he played), so we were all conditioned to see him as the best player until overwhelming evidence proved otherwise. I forget the real cognitive phenomenon (I've had a couple), but it's basically the idea of the instant replay in the NFL: if there's not totally incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the ruling on the field (the status quo) stands.

So, yeah, Shaq was seen as the better player throughout the season, I'd bet. But looking at in retrospect, without the recency effect kicking it, you can get a clearer picture. And that has nothing to do with titles (for me, at least) and nothing to do with anything but plain old production on the basketball court. Not my random, untrustworthy "gut" feeling. An actual analytical and objective appreciation of what happened. Shaq played better when he was on the court. I don't think he was on the court enough, as a percentage as compared to Duncan, to overcome that.

I didn't ask who was seen as the better basketball player? I asked who was the better basketball player. I'm not looking for how players were seen back then. If I did, I'd just look at the MVP voting and vote accordingly.

Do you really value games missed that much? To the point where you say "Shaq played better when he was on the court," and then take Duncan because Shaq missed 15 regular season games?

I mean...maybe if the Lakers and Spurs met in the playoffs and Duncan's team had HCA advantage because Shaq mis....hmmmm....damn, Shaq's Lakers had HCA in those playoffs against the Spurs. And then the Lakers won. I guess Shaq missing those games didn't cost them in any way against the Spurs either.

And Shaq played in 19 playoff games. Every game in the playoffs, he played in.

And in your words, Shaq was the better player on the court.

I mean, if nothing negative resulted from Shaq missing time, and Shaq was the best player in the NBA, and he has the statistical domination over the league and the championship at the end, how the hell is Tim Duncan supposed to be considered better?

You are looking at one stat and weighing it a lot. A LOT. That's like me taking ppg and saying Iverson was the best that season. I don't see how games played in the regular season should be an issue in this situation.

[Gongxi]

So if Shaq only played in the playoffs and not at all in the regular season, you'd have him as the POY? I don't care how good you are, if you don't play enough, you're not getting player of the year. Likewise, I'm not going to vote for Jordan in 93-94.

[ronnymac2]

^^^If Shaq hadn't played at all, the Lakers might not make the playoffs........

Using an extreme like that isn't helping your argument. I specifically pointed out that Shaq missing those 15 regular season games in reality didn't hurt them this season against the Spurs or the league in general. They beat SA en route to a title.

What if Shaq had played 81 games? What is the cut-off point?

[Gongxi]

There is no cut off point. If someone's PER was 50 and they played 50 games, they'd still be good in my mind. But 15 games in this situation is too much for me.

It doesn't matter if it hurt or helped the Lakers- I don't give a **** about how the team did, that's not how I rate these players. He wasn't 15% better than Duncan that year, so missing 15% more games than Duncan drops him down a notch.

[ronnymac2]

^^^All right. Seems like a really odd weight to put on regular season games played, but if that is your criteria, then okay.

[ElGee]

^^^All right. Seems like a really odd weight to put on regular season games played, but if that is your criteria, then okay.

Ronny, how do you balance it?

HCA carries a certain amount of value, so your player would have to do enough to 1) make the playoffs and then 2) overcome HCA, no? (Or at least overcome HCA, all things being equal, against the specific player your comparing him to...)

[bastillon]

I thought about Duncan vs Shaq. Spurs lost against the Lakers because of 2 reasons:
-first, they were unable to close games
-second, they had injured two of the top3 players on their team

neither one of these is caused by Shaq. he is widely regarded as a liability in crunch time and obviously he has nothing to do with DRob and Smith's injury (Rob didn't play at all, Smith limited). so I'm not going to look at team results in this case and instead try to consider the individual play.

playoff head2head

Code: Select all

          MPG   PPG   TS%   APG   TOV   RPG   BPG   SPG
Shaq     39.0  21.4  0.49   3.2   3.0  12.2   3.0   0.6
Tim      44.6  29.0  0.52   4.6   4.6  17.2   3.2   1.0

Shaq was vastly outproduced pretty much across the board. I'm really shocked how poorly Shaq played during that series. that must have been one of his worst series ever if not the very worst. Duncan on the other hand wasn't maybe efficient (still more efficient than Shaq anyway), but he was just amazing... 29/17/4.6 ? who else has done that ? I thought it was close, but this series proved to me that Duncan was clearly better player. boxscore stats don't even show how badly Shaq struggled on the pick and rolls (this is the exact same year when Mike Bibby got his ~70 mln contract on Shaq's ass).

I think Duncan would've won this matchup easily had he been given similarly talented cast.

the question for me isn't whether Duncan deserves no.1, it's whether Shaq wasn't largely overrated because of his stats in the finals against McCulloch or whatever. still, can't place him any lower than 2nd because there weren't any strong 1st tier candidates.

[bastillon]

I just watched game 1 Spurs-LA on YouTube. good stuff. Timmy was clearly the best player overall, even with his poor shooting. he still got to the line and compensated a little bit there, and more importantly he was spectacular in everything else. demanding double-teams, passing, defending Shaq etc. Shaq on the other hand was playing most of the game 1 on 1, while it was Duncan who was swarmed by multiple defenders after the first dribble. it's one game, but it further convinced me that Timmy was the best basketball player on the planet.

[Baller 24]

Yeah, I was just about to point that out, the head 2 head battles, Timmy dominated in every single statistic, but again that takes nothing away from Shaq's impact. I think of them neck and neck, especially with the superior defense Duncan provided, but when I look up and down the roster, I really have NO idea how the '02 Spurs won 59 games with the guys they had on their team. Duncan's 1B or 2nd option was a 11PPG perimeter player, Shaq's was a premier perimeter player that was a tier one shooting guard in the entire league playing phenomenal defense.

[TrueLAfan]

TD--Nothing original to say. He's Tim Duncan. He was one of the top two players in the league this year. He was spectacular in the playoffs (albeit in a losing effort). Yawn. Side note: Did anyone else know that this is the only season where Tim Duncan led the league in a statistical category other games played? True. He's near his peak. How great is a peak Tim Duncan? #1 great.
Shaq--You can measure the difference between Shaq and TD in microns this season, as far as I'm concerned. Except for one thing...Shaq missed 15 games and barely played 2400 minutes. TD didn't miss a game and was over 40 a game; he played over 3300 minutes. Even if you think Shaq was better...was he enough better to compensate for the value of Duncan playing over 35% more? It's true that, as people are noting, Shaq played all the playoff games...but I think you have to reduce the value of regular seasons games a lot--too much--to make up for that. Don't get me wrong...this is a problem that will dog a lot of other great player (Walton and West come to mind). And I'm going to put Shaq as number 2, with a bit of reluctance. But not much. He was #1 in the previous two seasons (where he played 20-30% more)
McGrady--McGrady was only slightly lesser than he had been in 2003, IMO. And the Magic were still decidedly lopsided...who were their interior scorers and rebounders in 2002? Right, right...they dug up Horace Grant and Patrick Ewing, who promptly scored under a thousand points in well over 3000 minutes of play and had a rebound rate of 13.4 and let themselves get boxed out nine tiems out of ten. If Grant or Ewing had had anything left in the tank, this team would have won 50+ games...I cant blame McGrady for that.
Kidd--So close between Dirk and Kobe and Kidd. Dirk had Nash (who was really good this year) and Finley (who was overrated, but above average) and a team whose other players were largely overhauled in mid-season in what ended being a lateral move that put added pressure on Dirk and Nash. The Nets had greater depth (Martin, Jefferson, Kittles) and, IMO, better role players (Van Horn, MacCulloch, Williams). In general, the thoughtful argumetns for Kidd rpesented here have been a bit stronger...so I go with him. Kidd filled gaps better...that Nets team was a poor rebounding team; Kidd's ability to hit the boards saved them there. Dirk did what was necessary too, of course. But I have to think as a leader that Kidd was more important, so I'm going to give him the nod based on that. I agree that Kidd's season was maybe a bit overrated. That being said, he's a player who I think has more impact than his numbers, sometimes much more. His numbers are often mediocre; his play isn't.
Kobe--The chicken or the egg. Was Shaq great because of Kobe, or vice versa? Or is it a mix? And if it's a mix...who helped who more? At this time, I think it's a no-brainer...it's still Shaq's team. In a way, I think this hurt Kobe a bit later--there are pluses to not being the man on a team, and Kobe got in some trouble later when he was talking the talk without actually having to--and possible being able to--walk the walk as well as he thought he could. But he's close to as great a second banana as you can get.

HM Dirk, Payton, Nash

[bastillon]

I can't justify Kidd over Kobe. there is nothing to support it.

[drza]

Alright, I'll be the one to make cases for Dirk and KG. There were some interesting similarities, in that both at that time were playing much more like small forwards than they would later in their careers and both were flirting with a jump to the super-elite that each would make in coming years.

Dirk: Though he continued to develop into a better player over the next few years, this was Dirk at his nightmare-matchup best because of his work beyond the 3-point line. He was knocking down about two treys per game on about 40% shooting in '02...he'd improve that percentage slightly in later years, but at about half of the volume. He was a shade quicker in '02 than he was at his peak as well, so his face-up dribble drives off of the threat of that 3-pointer were deadly. The Mavs offense was wide-open fun-and-gun, and Dirk and Nash played off each other beautifully that season. Also, this was probably the year where Dirk, Nash and Finley were all closest to their prime at the same time before Finley declined. This was the first of a 3-year run where the Mavs were the #1 offense in the NBA built around Dirk's talents, and they were #1 by a pretty solid margin over the second place team.

KG: This was a transition year for Garnett as well. It would be the last year that he spent the majority of his time at small forward, and in a lot of ways it seemed like Flip was experimenting with him. This was the year that zone defense was allowed in the league, and Flip jumped on that with two feet breaking out this crazy 1-2-2/3-2 zone that featured KG at the top of the key with a job description that I can best describe as..."guard everybody, then go get the rebound". If you get a chance, go back and watch some of those games from '02 because it was kind of amazing to watch...KG would be at the point of the zone near half-court defending the PG as he crossed the midline, then he would essentially follow the ball. If the PG passed to the wing, KG would go to the wing and trap, if the ball went into the post then he followed it down there, if it then went back up top then KG did too. And then, when the shot went up, KG was supposed to get the board. Never really seen anything like that at the pro level.

The other big transition, and one that would actually pay dividends the following year, was that this was the season that Flip started using KG as a primary distributor. He'd been a 20-10-5 guy for a couple of seasons already, but always playing off of Terrell Brandon as the PG/main initiator. In '02 Brandon went down with a career-ending injury, though, leaving the team to back-up Chauncey Billups. We all know what Billups eventually became, but for all intents and purposes '02 may as well have been Billups' rookie year. He was a very good shooter, but he hadn't learned to defend his position or run a team as a PG yet (that would come in time). So, once Billups took over the point, KG started running more of the show. This was the first of four straight years when the Wolves would be a top-6 offense with KG taking a more active role in offense initiation.

Neither Dirk nor Garnett could compete with Duncan or Shaq for the top spot this year, but I think both were right there on the next level down. This was right at the peak of the era of power forwards, where the West was king and every strong team but the Lakers was built around a stud PF. No disrespect to the wings and guards that were great then, but I do think that the PFs (include Webber and even Sheed in there) were generally more valuable and impactful than their perimeter brethren at the time and were the biggest reason for the absurd disparity in quality teams between the West and the East, where the little guys ruled.

[semi-sentient]

This was the first of a 3-year run where the Mavs were the #1 offense in the NBA built around Dirk's talents, and they were #1 by a pretty solid margin over the second place team.

Nash is the biggest reason for that. Just about every team he's been on over the past 10 years has been either #1 (by a fair margin) or #2 in the league. When he went to Phoenix, they immediately jumped to the top (from being among the worst), and while the Mavs made it back to #1 in 05-06, that was largely because the Suns had injury problems (and yet they were still the #2 offense). It seems to me that Nash should be getting more credit for that offense being consistently #1 than Dirk.

PS: Can a serious argument be made for Dirk in the top 3/4 when he doesn't stack up defensively even with some of the premier wings in the league (Kobe and McGrady, in particular)? Yeah, he can hit some shots, but he's a poor defender and I still don't believe he puts anywhere near as much pressure on defenses as the wings I mentioned.

[mysticbb]

This was the first of a 3-year run where the Mavs were the #1 offense in the NBA built around Dirk's talents, and they were #1 by a pretty solid margin over the second place team.

Nash is the biggest reason for that. Just about every team he's been on over the past 10 years has been either #1 (by a fair margin) or #2 in the league. When he went to Phoenix, they immediately jumped to the top (from being among the worst), and while the Mavs made it back to #1 in 05-06, that was largely because the Suns had injury problems (and yet they were still the #2 offense). It seems to me that Nash should be getting more credit for that offense being consistently #1 than Dirk.

Well, you are wrong. Nowitzki had the higher OnCourt ORtg in 2003 and 2004 when both were together on the team. The Mavericks also continued to have a great offense after Nash left. They were 4th in 2005, 1st in 2006 and 2nd in 2007. Until the Kidd for Harris trade they were also 1st in 2008.

[mysticbb]

PS: Can a serious argument be made for Dirk in the top 3/4 when he doesn't stack up defensively even with some of the premier wings in the league (Kobe and McGrady, in particular)? Yeah, he can hit some shots, but he's a poor defender and I still don't believe he puts anywhere near as much pressure on defenses as the wings I mentioned.

That is one of the biggest misconceptions here. The defensive impact of wing players isn't that big. Usually even with his not so good defense (Nowitzki is average, btw.) Nowitzki has a bigger defensive impact just by his defensive rebounding abilities. I know that is hard to accept, but the APM numbers are really showing that. Additional to that Nowitzki was 1.2 steals and 1.2 blocks per game player from 2001 to 2005.

And your "putting pressure on defense" is the biggest joke ever. Nowitzki was constantely the core of a great offense, neither Bryant nor McGrady did that. The numbers (all offensive numbers) aren't supporting your claim.

[CellarDoor]

Sorry for my absence, final semester and finals kicked my behind pretty handily.

1. TD. I can't imagine a lot needs to be said here.
2. Shaq. Ditto.
3. TMAC. TLAF expressed my views pretty completely.
4. Kobe. It's sick that the Lakers routinely had two of the top 5 here...
5. Kidd. Just a terrific year. Nevermind the weak conference, he got it done.

[semi-sentient]

That is one of the biggest misconceptions here. The defensive impact of wing players isn't that big. Usually even with his not so good defense (Nowitzki is average, btw.) Nowitzki has a bigger defensive impact just by his defensive rebounding abilities.

I didn't say it was, but Dirk has always been a below average defender for his position so his impact is even less than guys like Kobe and McGrady who can at least be disruptive. Say what you will about being overrated, but Kobe's defense was very good during the 3-peat. The Mavs were one of the worst defensive teams in the league as well, so how can any reasonable argument be made for Dirk on the defensive end?

There is just no way in the world that Dirk had a bigger impact on the defensive end than Kobe. Grabbing more rebounds doesn't mean he has a bigger impact. Go watch some of those playoff series and see how he is hounding ball handlers (disrupting offensive sets), cutting off passing lanes, doubling, etc. Dirk does none of that. He gets rebounds as a result of being tall and playing closer to the basket, and that's about it.

I know that is hard to accept, but the APM numbers are really showing that.

It's hard to accept because it conflicts greatly with observation.

Additional to that Nowitzki was 1.2 steals and 1.2 blocks per game player from 2001 to 2005.

I'm might very well get waived from RealGM if I see people trying to make those same arguments for Iverson in the coming seasons as a way to justify him as a competent defender or worthy of a top 3 spot.

And your "putting pressure on defense" is the biggest joke ever. Nowitzki was constantely the core of a great offense, neither Bryant nor McGrady did that. The numbers (all offensive numbers) aren't supporting your claim.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying here. Kobe, even with Shaq, received more attention than Dirk from opposing defense. Why? Because he had range and could penetrate far more effectively, so that made him more difficult to guard and just more potent overall. You can even go back a season earlier and see how he was triple-teamed at times in the Finals against the Sixers WAY out on the perimeter, and I know Dirk never got that kind of attention from opposing defenses. Dirk scores more efficiently than Kobe, that much is clear, but what else does he do? Does he run the Mavs offense the way that Kobe runs the Lakers (although that responsibility is shared)? Does he penetrate and get his teammates dunks and wide open 3-pointers? No, he's mostly out on the perimeter, because that's what he does.

Having said that, he picked up his play big time in the post-season, so he has a reasonable argument for being top 5. I don't think he deserves to be placed ahead of Kobe or McGrady, but he might have a legit argument over Kidd.

[semi-sentient]

Well, you are wrong. Nowitzki had the higher OnCourt ORtg in 2003 and 2004 when both were together on the team.

Fair enough. I looked at their normal oRtg, in addition to taking into account that Nash scores very efficiently and creates for his teammates in making my judgement. I can't just look at oRtg by itself and come to any conclusions, otherwise I'd have to accept that Amare has similar impact to Nash on offense, which is kind of absurd.

The Mavericks also continued to have a great offense after Nash left. They were 4th in 2005, 1st in 2006 and 2nd in 2007. Until the Kidd for Harris trade they were also 1st in 2008.

They are well behind the Suns though on average, despite having more offensive weapons or guys that can create for themselves.