Retro Player of the Year Project

[semi-sentient]

Now, we're in 1965, and many people are arguing "Wilt took the Celtics to the limit" and therefore he's retaining a lot standing in voting. And we don't even have much evidence. In 2008 -- a year rife with full game film and an RPOY thread with painstakingly detailed posts that extend beyond stats -- there's a guy who averaged 30-8-7, posted huge value metrics, and we *know* was a massive reason his mediocre team pushed the 66-win champion Celtics to the brink in the playoffs...and most people were downgrading him because of that.

That's all misleading. Wilt posted great numbers against the Celtics, much better than what LeBron did when he faced the Celtics in 2008. The 2008 Celtics were taken to 7 games by the Hawks as well, and in their other two series they went to 6 games. The only other opponent that the Celtics faced in 65 was the Lakers and they took care of them in 5 games. I don't see anyone boosting Wilt that much either. He's likely going to end up 4th or 5th in the voting, so that says a lot about how little we're valuing his statistics and advanced metrics like WS, PER, etc.

LeBron's 30-8-7 also didn't hold up in the post-season (unless we want to count the Wizards series -- one of the worst defensive teams in the league), and part of the problem that I have with his numbers is that they didn't seem to make the Cavs that much better on offense. The team was still ranked 20th in the league, so those are empty stats if I've ever seen them. In the case of Kobe (3rd) and CP3 (5th), both of their teams were among the top 5. Yes, they had more help, but I'm not sure what the point is in bragging about a players offense if his team sucks offensively.

LeBron didn't enjoy nearly the same amount of team success -- despite playing in a pretty weak conference -- as KG, Kobe, and Paul, nor did he receive as much recognition from the media/peers in terms of awards. He was, at least that year, the poorest defender of the bunch and the only arguments to be made over any of those 3 guys involve advanced metrics that not everyone buys into (WS, PER).

[lorak]

[

LeBron's 30-8-7 also didn't hold up in the post-season (unless we want to count the Wizards series -- one of the worst defensive teams in the league),

Well, almost all of you count somethign like that in 1965 thread, where you put West above Robertson, because he scored a lot against very, very bad defensively team from baltimore...

[bastillon]

LeBron's 30-8-7 also didn't hold up in the post-season (unless we want to count the Wizards series -- one of the worst defensive teams in the league), and part of the problem that I have with his numbers is that they didn't seem to make the Cavs that much better on offense. The team was still ranked 20th in the league, so those are empty stats if I've ever seen them. In the case of Kobe (3rd) and CP3 (5th), both of their teams were among the top 5. Yes, they had more help, but I'm not sure what the point is in bragging about a players offense if his team sucks offensively.

Cavs in 2008 playoffs(ORtg/Drtg):
with Bron 108/102
w/o Bron 86/108

LeBron lifted a team that would have been one of the worst of all-time on offense to the level that was at least somewhat competitive on playoff level. after James the most mins: Ilgauskas, Szczerbiak, Ben Wallace, Gibson, Varejao, Joe Smith. they'd hardly score 60 pts without LeBron.

conversely, Lakers' ORtg in Bryant's absence was 101, exactly the same as Hornets. so these teams scored 15 pts more per 100 possessions without their main stars. this isn't because LeBron was inferior offensively to Paul or Bryant. in fact, James played a better series against the Celtics than Kobe.

He was, at least that year, the poorest defender of the bunch and the only arguments to be made over any of those 3 guys involve advanced metrics that not everyone buys into (WS, PER).

where did you get that ? LeBron in 2008 playoffs played the best defense I've ever seen him play. not only Paul Pierce was his bitch, but he also contributed a lot to team defense, as evidenced by Drtg 6 pts better when he was on the floor. my memory is that whenever LeBron was off the floor Pierce started rolling and laughing at Szczerbiak.

and as far as advanced stats, LeBron blows Kobe out of the water... in every single one of them. +/-, WS, WP, PER, anything. Kobe isn't even in the same league.

[semi-sentient]

Like I said, outside of advanced metrics you can't put together a very good argument for LeBron.

If that's how you want to vote, so be it. That's not how I do it.

[bastillon]

Like I said, outside of advanced metrics you can't put together a very good argument for LeBron.

If that's how you want to vote, so be it. That's not how I do it.

raw numbers favor LeBron too. team success was similar to Kobe as he lost to the same team winning more games. LeBron also played better vs Celtics than Kobe did. Cavs were 0-6 without LeBron that year. meanwhile Lakers kinda sucked when Gasol missed some ~10 games at the end of the season. the only reason why you would put Bryant ahead of LeBron is some crazy intangibles not measured by +/-. James has everything else as I look at it. so there's that.

[semi-sentient]

LeBron's 30-8-7 also didn't hold up in the post-season (unless we want to count the Wizards series -- one of the worst defensive teams in the league),

Well, almost all of you count somethign like that in 1965 thread, where you put West above Robertson, because he scored a lot against very, very bad defensively team from baltimore...

There wasn't a big gap between West and Oscar to begin with. Oscar was the better offensive player whereas West was clearly the better defensive player. Oscar didn't play as well in the post-season and Jerry really stepped up his game, so that's enough to put him ahead. West didn't just have a big series against Baltimore though, although you gotta admit 46 per game -- or was it 41? -- is obscene regardless of who the competition is. The bottom line is that his #2 guy was out and he really elevated his game to get his team a date with the Celtics, and even then he still put up 33 per game against the best (by far) defense in the league.

[JordansBulls]

Could you imagine doing a project like this for Baseball?

[Optimism Prime]

Could you imagine doing a project like this for Baseball?

No. Baseball sucks. That's why I joined a basketball forum.

[semi-sentient]

LeBron lifted a team that would have been one of the worst of all-time on offense to the level that was at least somewhat competitive on playoff level. after James the most mins: Ilgauskas, Szczerbiak, Ben Wallace, Gibson, Varejao, Joe Smith. they'd hardly score 60 pts without LeBron.

No kidding? That would be kind of hard to do with 4 players on the floor. This kind of thinking cracks me up. If they didn't have LeBron then the team would surely be structured differently so saying that they suck without LeBron doesn't tell me much. The team is built around LeBron and the intention was very clearly for him to dominate the ball, which he did. Their strength, as a team, was defense.

conversely, Lakers' ORtg in Bryant's absence was 101, exactly the same as Hornets. so these teams scored 15 pts more per 100 possessions without their main stars. this isn't because LeBron was inferior offensively to Paul or Bryant. in fact, James played a better series against the Celtics than Kobe.

No, he didn't. Where did you get that idea? LeBron played poorly in his first 4 games and the only reason his numbers are even respectable are because he had a huge game 7. Statistically, they are about a wash so I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that he had a better series. I'd call it about even, all things considered. Neither guy was particularly spectacular on either end of the floor. They had some very good games, but those are overshadowed by their bad games.

KB: 42.8 MIN, 25.7 PTS (.505 TS%), 4.7 REB, 5.0 AST, 2.7 STL, 0.2 BLK, 3.8 TOV
LJ: 43.3 MIN, 26.7 PTS (.480 TS%), 6.4 REB, 7.6 AST, 2.1 STL, 1.3 BLK, 5.3 TOV

where did you get that ? LeBron in 2008 playoffs played the best defense I've ever seen him play. not only Paul Pierce was his bitch, but he also contributed a lot to team defense, as evidenced by Drtg 6 pts better when he was on the floor. my memory is that whenever LeBron was off the floor Pierce started rolling and laughing at Szczerbiak.

Paul Pierce was his bitch? Didn't he drop 41 points in a crucial game 7?

and as far as advanced stats, LeBron blows Kobe out of the water... in every single one of them. +/-, WS, WP, PER, anything. Kobe isn't even in the same league.

Only a select few people take those stats seriously to begin with, so like I said, outside of advanced metrics you can't make much of an argument. If we're going to look at WS, PER, and other cumulative stats then Russell has no business being discussed over Wilt in the 60's. Clearly there's a hell of a lot more to it than those advanced stats.

Besides that, exaggerating isn't a good way to make your case, and I'm sure you know as well as I do that you have to consider the players situation (teammates, system, etc) when analyzing some of those stats. Even then it's difficult to take much out of them outside of saying stat a > stat b. Anyway, there isn't that big of a gap between the two players, noting that you conveniently ignored the most important part of the season:

Regular Season

Code: Select all

         PER   TS%   eFG%   OWS   DWS   WS    WS/48
===================================================
Kobe     24.2  .576  .503    9.5  4.3   13.8  .208
LeBron   29.1  .568  .518   10.7  4.6   15.2  .242

Playoffs

Code: Select all

         PER   TS%   eFG%   OWS   DWS   WS    WS/48
===================================================
Kobe     25.0  .577  .514   2.4   0.8   3.2   .178
LeBron   24.3  .525  .444   1.0   1.2   2.2   .187

The biggest reasons that I gave Kobe the edge is because he ran one of the best offenses in the league (even before they got Gasol they were top 3 and on pace for 57 wins) and played extremely well throughout the WC playoffs. None of those teams were poor defensive teams either. They were all above average and in the case of the Spurs they were the #3 team in the league. That holds a lot more weight than LeBron having a big series against the 25th ranked defense of the Wizards and running an offense that's ranked 20th.

Chris Paul's run is more impressive than LeBron's, which is why I had a really difficult time picking between Kobe and CP3.

[semi-sentient]

Like I said, outside of advanced metrics you can't put together a very good argument for LeBron.

If that's how you want to vote, so be it. That's not how I do it.

raw numbers favor LeBron too. team success was similar to Kobe as he lost to the same team winning more games. LeBron also played better vs Celtics than Kobe did. Cavs were 0-6 without LeBron that year. meanwhile Lakers kinda sucked when Gasol missed some ~10 games at the end of the season.

I'd thought I'd give this "kinda sucked" thing a little more thought and look at what actually went down. I took it a step further and accounted for the games where the Lakers were without Bynum as well.

The Lakers played 20 games without Bynum or Gasol (mostly Turiaf playing center), which gives us a fairly decent sample size to analyze how Kobe and the Lakers played without them. Overall, they played .500 ball, winning 6 on the road and 4 at home. They played a fairly difficult schedule with 11 road games to 9 home games, and only 4 of their opponents were below .500. In fact, they played a total of 8 50-win teams and 13 playoff opponents. It's amazing what happens when you actually look into the situation with a little bit of effort.

In those games, Kobe put up 32.4 PTS (.564), 7.6 REB, 5.6 AST, 1.1 STL, 0.3 BLK, and 3.3 TOV

I should also re-state that prior to Bynum going down with an injury (which was of course before Gasol), the Lakers were on pace to win 57 games.

Thoughts?

the only reason why you would put Bryant ahead of LeBron is some crazy intangibles not measured by +/-. James has everything else as I look at it. so there's that.

So Wilt will be getting your #1 vote every year from 1960-1964 onward then because he had the best advanced stats?

Make sure you ignore the playoffs and all the lack of intangibles that work against him...

[bastillon]

Thoughts?

my memory: Lakers had an easy schedule at the start and Bynum was great before the injury.

Bryant without all-star big (or big playing like one) wasn't able to lift his team much above .500. that means you shouldn't punish LeBron for lack of team success when he didn't have right pieces either.

So Wilt will be getting your #1 vote every year from 1960-1964 onward then because he had the best advanced stats?

I look at both +/- and boxscore. LeBron comes out ahead on both. Wilt sucks at +/-. I value +/- more actually, which I had said already on this forum many times before.

No kidding? That would be kind of hard to do with 4 players on the floor. This kind of thinking cracks me up. If they didn't have LeBron then the team would surely be structured differently so saying that they suck without LeBron doesn't tell me much. The team is built around LeBron and the intention was very clearly for him to dominate the ball, which he did. Their strength, as a team, was defense.

so why do you punish LeBron for not leading those scrubs to better offensive results ? it wasn't possible because they sucked.

No, he didn't. Where did you get that idea? LeBron played poorly in his first 4 games and the only reason his numbers are even respectable are because he had a huge game 7. Statistically, they are about a wash so I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that he had a better series. I'd call it about even, all things considered. Neither guy was particularly spectacular on either end of the floor. They had some very good games, but those are overshadowed by their bad games.

boxscore stats look quite similar but:
1) LeBron's defense vastly impacted the Celtics, particularly Pierce. Kobe meanwhile did nothing on defense and was being hidden guarding Rondo while Allen and Pierce were torching the Lakers. that's partly on Kobe and even if it's not, then there's no bonus for letting Allen and Pierce go off like that. LeBron contributed a lot more on defense in that series.

2) Kobe didn't face the similar defensive pressure. LeBron had some guys on his team that Celtics were blatantly ignoring. Kobe had Gasol, Odom and better shooters... and didn't have Ben Wallace on offense.

[semi-sentient]

my memory: Lakers had an easy schedule at the start and Bynum was great before the injury.

Why don't you just give credit where credit is due? Why do you think Bynum got off to such a great start? Why was he getting so many dunks and easy buckets in pick-n-roll situations, or open looks as a result of not having to face any double-teams? Because opponents were staring at Jeannie Buss's tits? No, it was because Kobe took a big step forward as a leader and was playing the smartest basketball of his career by getting others involved and toning down his scoring to contribute in other areas.

Also, the Lakers played 20 home games (including the one Bynum was injured in) and 16 road games. Their record was 25-11. Of their 36 opponents, 20 where playoff teams and 17 were 50+ win teams. I'd hardly call that an easy schedule.

Bryant without all-star big (or big playing like one) wasn't able to lift his team much above .500.

Did you even read what I wrote? Look at who they played during that stretch. That was a very difficult schedule in which they mostly had to rely on Ronny Turiaf (and under-sized PF) playing center, with no kind of respectable big behind him. The fact that they even played at .500 is pretty damn amazing considering their opponents.

that means you shouldn't punish LeBron for lack of team success when he didn't have right pieces either.

What do you mean by punish? You're acting like LeBron was in a league of his own and just dominating everyone or something. Yeah, he had nice numbers, but was he playing a smarter brand of basketball than Kobe or CP3? Was he a better leader? Better defender overall? Nope, not in my eyes. Now I fully understand that he didn't have the right pieces around him, but he wasn't that much better as an individual offensive player that I can ignore the Cavs record in a weak conference. I can't help but look past the fact that the Western Conference was incredibly tough that year either, and I certainly can't look past the fact that the Cavs were a terrible offensive team and a slightly above average defensive team. It's just not that impressive.

When you add in the fact that Kobe was recognized as the MVP, All-NBA 1st Team, All-Defensive 1st Team, was better in the playoffs as a whole -- it's pretty hard not to give him the edge. If you think that a vote for Kobe is punishing LeBron then I don't know what to tell you. That's not how I'm looking at it at all. Do you think LeBron is being punished by those voting CP3 or Garnett above him as well? I certainly hope not.

Anyway, I did give LeBron the #1 vote in 2009 because I felt he played smarter and really focused on the defensive end from start to finish. I think that was as big a factor in their 21 game improvement as getting Mo Williams. The fact that he played smarter and became a better leader meant the Cavs played more as a team and the results really do speak for themselves. The Cavs were one of the best offensive teams in the league (b-r.com seems to be down, but I recall them being top 5) and also improved defensively to be one of the best.

[semi-sentient]

1) LeBron's defense vastly impacted the Celtics, particularly Pierce. Kobe meanwhile did nothing on defense and was being hidden guarding Rondo while Allen and Pierce were torching the Lakers. that's partly on Kobe and even if it's not, then there's no bonus for letting Allen and Pierce go off like that. LeBron contributed a lot more on defense in that series.

BS. Did LeBron's defense on Pierce cause Ray Allen to average only 9.3 PPG with a .460 TS%? You are overrating LeBron's defense here. Big time. I'm not saying he was poor defensively, but if you seriously think he has that much of an impact on the Celtics as a whole then you are indeed overrating him. Nothing that I saw from that series led me to believe that LeBron was having a huge impact outside of a couple of really impressive individual performances against Pierce.

Why don't we look at game 7 though when Pierce dropped 41 points when he and LeBron were in a shootout contest? Where was the defense at? That was Pierce's best effort of the playoffs and it came in the most crucial game of the series.

Anyway, I can't take you serious if you're going to make comments like "Kobe was being hidden on Rondo". Because he's a liability on defense, right?

2) Kobe didn't face the similar defensive pressure. LeBron had some guys on his team that Celtics were blatantly ignoring. Kobe had Gasol, Odom and better shooters... and didn't have Ben Wallace on offense.

Proof? Kobe received a tremendous amount of attention from the Celtics defense and if there was any difference then I doubt it's very noticeable.

And the idea that Kobe had better shooters is laughable. In the playoffs, Gibson shot .452, Pavlovic .444, and West .429 from long range. The Lakers had Derek Fisher at .440 and Luke Walton at .423, and no one else shot better than 40%. Radmanovic was struggling with his shot and he was largely ineffective in the Finals because of constant foul trouble trying to guard Pierce.

[bastillon]

ok, I'm not getting into this discussion because the same arguments were already told in 2008 thread. if we re-do the project in the reverse order, I'll rejoin the discussion.

what I wanted to say though is that Sam Jones got way too much credit in comparison to Hal Greer. in the 60s Greer was a 10-time all-star and 6-time all-NBA 2nd meanwhile Sam Jones was 5 time all-star and 3-time all-NBA 2nd. there were few people who thought Sam was a better player. rightfully so, IMO, because Sam Jones was a scorer and nothing beyond that - very little playmaking, poor defender (watched some 60s games last night, Sanders once criticized his defense). he was a great midrange shooter, pretty much automatic and his shot creation was a very valuable asset to any team. however, Greer was also making plays for his teammates, could regularly act as a secondary PG, was a better ballhandler, passer, defender and although a worse midrange shooter, had more range.

IMO Greer was clearly better and sometimes he didn't even get consideration for #5 meanwhile Sam Jones repeatedly made our ballot. revisionist history.

[penbeast0]

We will see if Greer gets any credit with the Sixers but Sam was the second best player on one of the greatest teams ever . . . either he or Havlicek and if you say Havlicek you have to assume he's a defensive monster. He was very good but I remember reading the posts about Russell having to put in Embry so he could cover Chet Walker because they had no one else who could handle him. Makes me think Hondo's man defense is better against 2/3 types or else Walker was that player that just had his number. But, add that niggling doubt to Havlicek's consistent poor shooting and Jones's good shooting on a team that needed it and for that 3 year period where Sam was peaking, he's a legit contender for a #5 spot. Not an All-Star for 10 years like Greer but a star for a couple of years that just happened to be the years where a player of his type can slip in at the #5 spot.

[Doctor MJ]

IMO Greer was clearly better and sometimes he didn't even get consideration for #5 meanwhile Sam Jones repeatedly made our ballot. revisionist history.

You keep saying "revisionist history" and it keeps not being at all correct. Jones finished in the top 5 for MVP these last two years, so we aren't deviating from that. More than that, Jones ranks much higher on the MVP share list than Greer.

[Dr Positivity]

The guy who got the short stick compared to Jones is Jerry Lucas, who barring a 64 surprise or sympathy vote will end up with ZERO shares or votes. Tough. He helped the Royals get 1st in ORTG all decade and was willing to adapt his game.

[bastillon]

You keep saying "revisionist history" and it keeps not being at all correct. Jones finished in the top 5 for MVP these last two years, so we aren't deviating from that. More than that, Jones ranks much higher on the MVP share list than Greer.

MVP Shares aren't good way of evaluating TOP10 players. they're better when it comes to MVP-caliber player whom obviously both Joesn and Greer aren't.

how would you respond to Greer getting twice as many all-NBA/all-star selections in the 60s ? players with comparable all-NBA (7 times 2nd team) and all-star (10-time) recognition: John Stockton, Jason Kidd, Clyde Drexler, Nique, Gary Payton, Pippen, Frazier, Allen Iverson. I think every single one of these guys got some POY recognition and Greer was ignored.

there are about million players with 6 all-star games/3 all-NBA selections, but 10 all-star selections and 7 all-NBA are elite usually.

I just think Greer is underrated because he didn't play with Bill Russell. it's easier to be noticed when your team is "doomed" to be extremely succesful regardless of your impact. I liked DavidStern's comparison from another thread: Sam Jones is Reggie Miller, Greer is Ritchmond. this is why it's revisionist history. it's not that Sam Jones wasn't one of the best 2nd fiddle players of the 60s, it's just that Greer was usually considered as better guard.

The guy who got the short stick compared to Jones is Jerry Lucas, who barring a 64 surprise or sympathy vote will end up with ZERO shares or votes. Tough. He helped the Royals get 1st in ORTG all decade and was willing to adapt his game.

Lucas is a 7-time all-star and 5-time all-NBA, but people thought that he was overrated once he leaved Oscar. I've previously refered to one account saying that "Oscar must have dragged him" to all-star games, because Lucas played much worse in his 1st season without him.

another thing is the defense. it's been well established on this board that bigs are the ones responsible for team defense and clearly Lucas must have been an extremely poor defender: 1) Royals were regularly last in DRtg w/ Lucas playing huge mins as starting big on that team, 2) nobody ever refered to him as good defender despite his high reb totals and usually they mention this unless you really suck (Baylor got credited for his defense for that reason, amongst other players), 3) Lucas was an undersized white big without shotblocking.

a player I'd compare Lucas to is David Lee or Troy Murphy. similar style, appearance, stats and both are historically low +/- (or poor impact) players.

[lorak]

I just think Greer is underrated because he didn't play with Bill Russell. it's easier to be noticed when your team is "doomed" to be extremely succesful regardless of your impact. I liked DavidStern's comparison from another thread: Sam Jones is Reggie Miller, Greer is Ritchmond. this is why it's revisionist history. it's not that Sam Jones wasn't one of the best 2nd fiddle players of the 60s, it's just that Greer was usually considered as better guard.

And what's sad most people think that Reggie was better than Richmond, because he played more playoffs games and for better teams (just like Sam Jones vs Greer), while in fact Richmond had more ASG and All NBA selections than Reggie (again - just like Greer vs Jones). Ricmond/Greer was simply better overall player than Reggie/Jones, but Reggie/Jones had more team sucess.

[Doctor MJ]

You keep saying "revisionist history" and it keeps not being at all correct. Jones finished in the top 5 for MVP these last two years, so we aren't deviating from that. More than that, Jones ranks much higher on the MVP share list than Greer.

MVP Shares aren't good way of evaluating TOP10 players. they're better when it comes to MVP-caliber player whom obviously both Joesn and Greer aren't.

how would you respond to Greer getting twice as many all-NBA/all-star selections in the 60s ? players with comparable all-NBA (7 times 2nd team) and all-star (10-time) recognition: John Stockton, Jason Kidd, Clyde Drexler, Nique, Gary Payton, Pippen, Frazier, Allen Iverson. I think every single one of these guys got some POY recognition and Greer was ignored.

there are about million players with 6 all-star games/3 all-NBA selections, but 10 all-star selections and 7 all-NBA are elite usually.

I just think Greer is underrated because he didn't play with Bill Russell. it's easier to be noticed when your team is "doomed" to be extremely succesful regardless of your impact. I liked DavidStern's comparison from another thread: Sam Jones is Reggie Miller, Greer is Ritchmond. this is why it's revisionist history. it's not that Sam Jones wasn't one of the best 2nd fiddle players of the 60s, it's just that Greer was usually considered as better guard.

You need to think this through.

MVP shares aren't a great way a measuring top 10 players? Correct.

Why? Because they only score the top 5.

What does this project have in common with that? Everything. I ripped the 10-7-5-3-1 system directly from the MVP voting.

There's no need to try to come up with a deep explanation for what the problem is here, it's the same one the MVP has.