Retro POY '00-01 (Voting Complete)

[lorak]

Well, do you have anything to support this conclusions? Really, I would like to know because for example people often says that he gambled a lot but nobody supports that with any evidence. Or that he was bad or average defender but again – no data to support that.

Iverson didn't get all those steals because he was a ballhawk and constantly stripped his defender. He got them because he played passing lanes well, and that requires that you gamble on defense. Yes, he's alert out there and does a good job of intercepting the ball, and that's to his credit, but we shouldn't confuse that with disrupting the offense (the way that Kobe did by hounding McKey down the court) or forcing guys into bad/long shots by preventing penetration and then challenging those shots.

Ok, Iverson wasn’t great defender, he couldn’t do things like Kobe with McKie. – here I agree. But I don’t agree that he gambled more than other players who had a lot of steals. He was very quick, he was smart (of course basketball wise) and that was enough to be very good in that aspect (stealing) of game.
BTW, Larry Brown doesn't allow his players to gamble much

Like I said, at best, he might be considered above average, and I think that's being generous because no one considered him a good defender back then.

Well, in fact there were some people – coaches! – who thought that Iverson was among best defenders in 2001. He got one vote in DPOTY voting, but ok, I suppose it was some biased journalist (probably the same, who give him one vote year earlier in MVP voting ;/). But he also get several points in All Defensive Teams voting : he missed second team, but with Snow was 5th/6th best defensive guard of that season http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/awards01.html

With AI: 50-21, .704%, 104 ORtg, 99 DRtg, +5 efficiency differential
Without AI: 6-5, .545%, 103 ORtg, 102 DRtg, +1 efficiency differential

That's fine, but if you accept that the teams defense fell off without AI, then you'll have to accept that he had very little impact on offense seeing as how their oRtg stayed the same.

Fine with me because Phila wasn’t offensive team, and even 1 point increase in ORtg with Iverson is impressive when we look at how this team was built.

I also want to point out that while you're praising AI for his post-season, you're ignoring what Kobe did.

Oh no, I’m not ignoring that (in fact despite my obvious support for AI I’m still undecided how my ballot from 3rd to 5th spot would look like). I just think that Iverson’s 2001 run was more impressive than Kobe’s. You know, Bryant still was a second banana and it’s a lot easier to score when you had prime Shaq on whom opposite teams defenses were focused.

Oh, and another thing that bothered me about AI in that series was how he ignored Deke. Mutombo was having his best offensive series of the post-season, and he was being ignored time and time again -- and he did, in fact, look frustrated on several occasions where he called for the ball only to watch AI dribble around and jack up a long shot.

Yeah, Mutombo had really good series offensively, but do you really believe that he could do more than 17 ppg (or something like that, I don’t remember exactly)? I mean, he never was a scorer and 17 point is very much for player like him.

[lorak]

BTW, one more thing about advanced stats.

Advanced stats suggested that Cavs should won with Celtcis, or with Magic year ago. But that didn’t happened because the game is still much bigger than what we call “advanced stats” but what in fact is still very primitive in attempt to describe the game of basketball.

I guess twenty years from now, when something really advanced will be created (data and stats based on videos) we would laugh at ourselves that we fell in love with +/-, WP, WS, TS and other so called “advanced stats”.

I hope you're not lumping me in with the folks that rely almost exclusively on advanced stats, because I have RARELY used them in my arguments.

Oh no, it wasn’t directed to any poster. Just a general thought. I hope I didn’t offended anybody.

[ElGee]

this Iverson crap got way out of hand. his teams were shooting so poorly from 3s because Iverson needed this type of players around him. what's more important, Iverson directly affected their poor shooting by being himself not a threat from the outside as well as needing tall defensive PG (Snow in this case) for him in the backcourt so he could exist on defense. put Mike Bibby instead of Iverson, suddenly you're also changing Snow because you don't him anymore. you need Snow with AI however.

this is what's most annoying about Iverson. either way, you're screwed. you can be the worst backcourt in history by putting him with normal PG in the same line up (meaning AI guards SGs which is ridiculous) or you can be acceptable defensively, but at the same time you're screwed offensively because Snow isn't any threat offensively.

76ers were misconstructed on offense, but it was BECAUSE of Iverson.

This is true to some degree - abstractly I suppose it's the biggest downside of Allen Iverson.

I did think Brown moving AI to shooting guard in some season called 1999 (never heard of it) was the right move for AI and the team. Iverson has serious limitations as a player, most notably he's a 6-foot shooting guard. That's an issue. But he provided some value for that team -- I think you can argue he was a top-10 player in a few seasons (1999?) -- and in 2001 he really was less of a "chucker" than in surrounding seasons.

Here are his TS% relative to league average (how long before B-R adds league-adjusted percentages?)

1999 -.003
2000 -.034
2001 EVEN
2002 -.031
2003 -.019
2004 -.038

So, his scoring efficiency was average in 2001, which was a large deviation on those teams. He was incredibly high variance in the playoffs, but I think it was just enough to keep squeaking out 7 game series (3 really good games and 3 really bad games from your No. 1 scoring option will do that in a 7 game series). Couple that with the undeniable fact that Philadelphia had no real viable scoring options or players who could create their own shot, and for at least that season, Iverson is in the conversation among the NBA's best.

Furthermore, I think pairing him with a low-post scoring option could have created more opportunities for Iverson to drive more successfully or create more for others. Outside of AI, I look over that roster and think Aaron McKie was probably the next best 76er at creating his offense. Iverson's doing this on his own, and we've seen what that does to other players' efficiencies.

[semi-sentient]

I think he could have done a little better in terms of scoring, yes. We'll never know though. Deke really wanted to accept the challenge of going against Shaq which was evident by him calling for the ball so much after establishing good post position. He was having success near the basket, and he probably figured that it would tire Shaq out a little if he stayed aggressive which would in turn prevent him from getting shat on by Shaq on the other end (man did Shaq have some vicious dunks on Mutombo).

As for your point on Kobe's post-season and having Shaq to take pressure off of him, you're right and that's a valid point. Regardless, he still dominated and it's not like he was being guarded by AI. He did that against Doug Christie (all-league defender) and ... well, the Spurs didn't have an answer for him, lol.

[Sedale Threatt]

Yeah, no question playing next to Shaq was an immense help.

But let's play the hypothetical game and replace Iverson with Kobe. Given 30 shots a game, anybody seriously think he couldn't put up even better numbers, with better defense?

[ElGee]

^^^To be fair, who was guarding Kobe on the Spurs? Antonio Daniels?

[lorak]

Yeah, no question playing next to Shaq was an immense help.

But let's play the hypothetical game and replace Iverson with Kobe. Given 30 shots a game, anybody seriously think he couldn't put up even better numbers, with better defense?

Oh man, I played that game over and over again with my buddies in 2001

[Sedale Threatt]

I don't even particularly like those exercises, either. You play who you play against, and you play who you play with. It's just...guys are talking about having their attitude readjusted regarding on AI, and I'm not seeing it. Certainly not based on a couple of articles where Larry Brown raves about his attitude.

[bastillon]

I'd like to hear the argument for Duncan over Garnett since so many people have him higher and there's NOTHING that seperates them aside from different teammates.

[Sedale Threatt]

If nothing separates them, then how does KG get the nod?

[bastillon]

If nothing separates them, then how does KG get the nod?

Duncan is 2/3 and Garnett isn't even on the ballot on most people's lists. what the hell are you talking about ?

[Sedale Threatt]

Simple question: If nothing separates them, then how does KG get the nod?

(BTW -- I agree that leaving him off the ballot is ridiculous, especially in favor of one-way players like AI, Carter and McGrady. Webber, too. I have him fourth, could have easily gone third.)

[bastillon]

I didn't say KG gets the nod, but if he did it would be on the basis of having slightly better h2h series. I think they should be a wash for whatever the place you like.

Kobe on the other hand has no business being so high when his team was 11-3 without him, which is pretty much damning in my book. raising your team to new levels is the most important and I don't think Kobe outplayed top notch players in that regard. also, he played 68 so he clearly should be below those who are even with him in production and yet outlasted him in mins. on the basis of those two arguments I'll put Kobe out of the top3, unless someone convinces me. it's not even that much about games (though they are a factor if others are even), but mainly this 11-3 thing. it makes me wonder...

TOP5 no order:
Shaq, KG, T-Mac, Bryant, Carter

now it's just a matter of ranking them within this group. I don't think anyone comes close to their impact.

[lorak]

Guys, I think Webber should get more love. Look how people saw league at the time:

All NBA Teams voting
1. Iverson 612 points
2. Duncan 608
3. Webber 596
4. Shaq 581
5. KG 424
6. Kidd 423
7. Kobe 411
8. TMac 318
9. Carter 287
10. Mutombo 238

MVP voting
1. Iverson 1121
2. Duncan 706
3. Shaq 578
4. Webber 521
5. KG 151
6. TMac 64
7. Malone 21
8. Kidd 18
9. Kobe 11
10. Robinson 8

So Webber was clearly top 5 player and now it seems he became very underrated on real GM.

[drza]

Simple question: If nothing separates them, then how does KG get the nod?

(BTW -- I agree that leaving him off the ballot is ridiculous, especially in favor of one-way players like AI, Carter and McGrady. Webber, too. I have him fourth, could have easily gone third.)

If literally nothing separated them then in a perfect world they'd end up tied in the vote, right? Each splitting the 2/3 vote entirely.

But if you mean more along the lines of "why should you vote for KG over Duncan", I guess the argument would be that over the course of the season they were pretty close to equal and in the postseason KG slightly outplayed him head-to-head.

:Shrugs: If you're interested we can go ahead and touch off the Duncan/KG debate I spoke of, but in the context of a simple answer for your simple question I don't see a lot there to separate them outside of preference, because I just as easily could have wrote the above section in Duncan's favor and say that even if KG slightly outplayed him Duncan's team won so he should get the nod. We're supposed to be making this more about the individual than the team, but we've seen that team results definitely play a part in the vote and that's cool.

Overall, I just think Bastillion's underlying point (if I may speak for him) is more related to my fiirst paragraph, that Duncan and Garnett really should be going back-to-back and flip-flopping order but in reality Duncan is going to outscore KG in a landslide this year. Which doesn't seem quite right if there's no clear reason for Duncan that separates him from Garnett by as much as he will be in these results.

[lorak]

TOP5 no order:
Shaq, KG, T-Mac, Bryant, Carter

now it's just a matter of ranking them within this group. I don't think anyone comes close to their impact.

So you’re obviously biased if you think that Carter or TMac had more impact than Duncan, Iverson, Webber or even Kidd.

[Sedale Threatt]

I didn't say KG gets the nod, but if he did it would be on the basis of having slightly better h2h series. I think they should be a wash for whatever the place you like.

Kobe on the other hand has no business being so high when his team was 11-3 without him, which is pretty much damning in my book. raising your team to new levels is the most important and I don't think Kobe outplayed top notch players in that regard. also, he played 68 so he clearly should be below those who are even with him in production and yet outlasted him in mins. on the basis of those two arguments I'll put Kobe out of the top3, unless someone convinces me. it's not even that much about games (though they are a factor if others are even), but mainly this 11-3 thing. it makes me wonder...

TOP5 no order:
Shaq, KG, T-Mac, Bryant, Carter

now it's just a matter of ranking them within this group. I don't think anyone comes close to their impact.

No Duncan? Seriously?

[bastillon]

forgot

[drza]

I didn't say KG gets the nod, but if he did it would be on the basis of having slightly better h2h series. I think they should be a wash for whatever the place you like.

Kobe on the other hand has no business being so high when his team was 11-3 without him, which is pretty much damning in my book. raising your team to new levels is the most important and I don't think Kobe outplayed top notch players in that regard. also, he played 68 so he clearly should be below those who are even with him in production and yet outlasted him in mins. on the basis of those two arguments I'll put Kobe out of the top3, unless someone convinces me. it's not even that much about games (though they are a factor if others are even), but mainly this 11-3 thing. it makes me wonder...

TOP5 no order:
Shaq, KG, T-Mac, Bryant, Carter

now it's just a matter of ranking them within this group. I don't think anyone comes close to their impact.

I'm not so down on Kobe for the 11-3 that the Lakers went without him. After all, I was championing KG in '08 when the Celtics went 9 - 2 without him. I don't know if the level of competition that the Lakers faced was as miserable as what the Celtics beat up on, but in the end I don't know that a great team's record over a short period without one of their stars is really that compelling.

The games played argument, I can see used as a tie-breaker among players that were otherwise close. And I guess if the Lakers' record without Kobe can convince you that he was more expendable to the Lakers than, say, Duncan or Garnett were to their teams, then I can also see how that could be a tie-breaker.

But for the most part, unless someone misses 30 games like Webber did in '02 or KG did in '09 I tend to vote more for just who I think was the better player, not so much about the games played.

[Gongxi]

I can see where bastillon is coming from re: Kobe, in that he's consistent, but I'm not buying. Still, props to you bastillon for consistently looking at team record with and without a player, not just when it works in your favor.