2010-11 Player of the Year thread

[Sinant]

You really think Dirk is #5 in the PO?

I think he has a case for the best player so far.

As much as I hate the argument in the regular season, you gotta factor in team success. Dirk just swept the defending champs. Howard has been sitting at home for a while now. Gotta have him at #3 at least.

Edit: Just realized you did RS+PS, not just PS. My bad. I agree with your list then.

[Sedale Threatt]

Unless he goes apesisht over the last round or two, I've still got him at around fourth. Don't see any way I'm putting him higher than third, barring the above.

[Gongxi]

See, as I said before the Laker series, I had him 6/7, but would've had him as high as 4 if he had played more games. Keeping in mind the "I count playoff games twice as much as regular games" rule I had since this project started, Dirk is going to rise in my rankings as those games missed become and smaller and smaller percentage of the Mavs' total season. Assuming he continues to play well, of course, like he did during the regular season.

It's just funny because you know a lot of people had him nowhere on their radar. Team wins? Suddenly in the conversation for the best player of the year!

[Sedale Threatt]

We get it.

[Gongxi]

You guys hear me, but lots of people aren't listening.

Instead they keep adhering to this "best team must have best player" (or close to it) ideology that's backed up by nothing much at all, but is repeated so often that people just go on to believe it.

You'll have to excuse me if I continue to point it out, hoping to educate some people. Maybe if Memphis wins we'll find out that Zach Randolph, suddenly, is a top 5 player when I'm convinced people previously accused him of empty stats. Funny how having a good team around you can suddenly make you a good player.

[Sedale Threatt]

Maybe if you weren't so pompous and condescending, you'd have a more receptive audience.

[Gongxi]

Probably. But I'm not going to be nice just for the purpose of being nice; I'm not in public relations or something. If people want to continue to use tortured logic, I'll continue to mock them for it.

[sp6r=underrated]

Gongxi

In your post on the prior page you made clear you were frustrated that people weren't listening to your position. You want to not only state your position but also convince people to adopt your general method of evaluating players and move away from what you perceive as highly faulty and stupid logic. Thus, your prior post implies part of the reason you post is to persuade people.

If it is true that you're motivated to persuade people your tone does matter alot and mocking is self-defeating. Of course, if your primary concern is just to state your position position and mock stupidity changing your tone is unnecessary.

But you shouldn't write whiny posts about people not listening because as you acknowledge the way you address other people may contribute to people ignoring you.

Simply put, you can't whine that people are not listening to you without considering changing your tone.

[Doctor MJ]

You guys hear me, but lots of people aren't listening.

Instead they keep adhering to this "best team must have best player" (or close to it) ideology that's backed up by nothing much at all, but is repeated so often that people just go on to believe it.

You'll have to excuse me if I continue to point it out, hoping to educate some people. Maybe if Memphis wins we'll find out that Zach Randolph, suddenly, is a top 5 player when I'm convinced people previously accused him of empty stats. Funny how having a good team around you can suddenly make you a good player.

Oh, I don't think there's anything all that terrible about having your opinion changed about a knucklehead known for being kicked from team to team all of a sudden leading a team to playoff success with individual stats superior to any he's ever had in a regular season previously.

[Sinant]

Probably. But I'm not going to be nice just for the purpose of being nice; I'm not in public relations or something. If people want to continue to use tortured logic, I'll continue to mock them for it.

And you'll continue to get ignored and frustrated about being ignored.

Circle of life.

[Gongxi]

Gongxi

In your post on the prior page you made clear you were frustrated that people weren't listening to your position. You want to not only state your position but also convince people to adopt your general method of evaluating players and move away from what you perceive as highly faulty and stupid logic. Thus, your prior post implies part of the reason you post is to persuade people.

If it is true that you're motivated to persuade people your tone does matter alot and mocking is self-defeating. Of course, if your primary concern is just to state your position position and mock stupidity changing your tone is unnecessary.

But you shouldn't write whiny posts about people not listening because as you acknowledge the way you address other people may contribute to people ignoring you.

Simply put, you can't whine that people are not listening to you without considering changing your tone.

Why would you assume the same people I'm talking to are the same people who I'm getting through to? We all know that when challenged, people usually dig in their heels and argument their point stronger than ever. The people whose minds I'm hoping to change are the folks lurking, not the people arguing against me. Is Bgil ever going to come to his senses? Of course not. Does that mean he doesn't deserve to get slapped down? Of course he does. For the benefit of the reader.

You guys hear me, but lots of people aren't listening.

Instead they keep adhering to this "best team must have best player" (or close to it) ideology that's backed up by nothing much at all, but is repeated so often that people just go on to believe it.

You'll have to excuse me if I continue to point it out, hoping to educate some people. Maybe if Memphis wins we'll find out that Zach Randolph, suddenly, is a top 5 player when I'm convinced people previously accused him of empty stats. Funny how having a good team around you can suddenly make you a good player.

Oh, I don't think there's anything all that terrible about having your opinion changed about a knucklehead known for being kicked from team to team all of a sudden leading a team to playoff success with individual stats superior to any he's ever had in a regular season previously.

He played pretty much the same game last year. And earlier this year. Only in the past month or so have I heard people singing his praises. I wonder what changed. Wait, don't tell me.

Probably. But I'm not going to be nice just for the purpose of being nice; I'm not in public relations or something. If people want to continue to use tortured logic, I'll continue to mock them for it.

And you'll continue to get ignored and frustrated about being ignored.

Circle of life.

Why would you think I'm ignored or frustrated? I just enjoy repeating myself, to hammer home the point so many people want to avoid, and make it so they can't.

[GreenHat]

You guys hear me, but lots of people aren't listening.

Instead they keep adhering to this "best team must have best player" (or close to it) ideology that's backed up by nothing much at all, but is repeated so often that people just go on to believe it.

You'll have to excuse me if I continue to point it out, hoping to educate some people. Maybe if Memphis wins we'll find out that Zach Randolph, suddenly, is a top 5 player when I'm convinced people previously accused him of empty stats. Funny how having a good team around you can suddenly make you a good player.

Oh, I don't think there's anything all that terrible about having your opinion changed about a knucklehead known for being kicked from team to team all of a sudden leading a team to playoff success with individual stats superior to any he's ever had in a regular season previously.

Except if he had played at the SAME level but Marc Gasol for example had **** the bed against the Spurs and they lost to them no one would have given Randolph any credit. Why should how Randolph is evaluated be dependant on how Gasol plays (or any of his other teammates)?

What if Parker and Ginobli had just caught fire in that series and the Spurs won but Randolph played at the same level? He wouldn't have gotten any credit for his play this season at all. Again why should how Parker and Ginobli play have such a HUGE impact (it should have some just not this much) on the evaluation of Randolph?

I agree with Gonxi in that people play the result of the team competition too much when comparing players. The better team will win like six/seven times out of ten not every time (when playing another good team) and more importantly the best player doesn't always happen to be on the better team either.

[supfoo]

fwiw i'm sure the clippers would have kept randolph had they had known that blake would be out for the season and that they'd bomb in the 2010 off-season. he wasn't exactly kicked from the team for his bad attitude or anything like that. it was more about fit and salaries.

i agree he's getting a lot of attention mostly because of his team's success but he's also taken and made a lot of big shots down the stretch in the previous series against the spurs. i know the value of of "clutch" is still under debate for most people here but it does kinda elevate him to a greater status in the eyes of the general nba fan. otherwise, his playoff stats aren't much better than his regular season stats if you factor in the difference in minutes.

he's basically been the same type of player for the past 5 years or so.

[JordansBulls]

You guys hear me, but lots of people aren't listening.

Instead they keep adhering to this "best team must have best player" (or close to it) ideology that's backed up by nothing much at all, but is repeated so often that people just go on to believe it.

You'll have to excuse me if I continue to point it out, hoping to educate some people. Maybe if Memphis wins we'll find out that Zach Randolph, suddenly, is a top 5 player when I'm convinced people previously accused him of empty stats. Funny how having a good team around you can suddenly make you a good player.

Oh, I don't think there's anything all that terrible about having your opinion changed about a knucklehead known for being kicked from team to team all of a sudden leading a team to playoff success with individual stats superior to any he's ever had in a regular season previously.

Except if he had played at the SAME level but Marc Gasol for example had **** the bed against the Spurs and they lost to them no one would have given Randolph any credit. Why should how Randolph is evaluated be dependant on how Gasol plays (or any of his other teammates)?

What if Parker and Ginobli had just caught fire in that series and the Spurs won but Randolph played at the same level? He wouldn't have gotten any credit for his play this season at all. Again why should how Parker and Ginobli play have such a HUGE impact (it should have some just not this much) on the evaluation of Randolph?

I agree with Gonxi in that people play the result of the team competition too much when comparing players. The better team will win like six/seven times out of ten not every time (when playing another good team) and more importantly the best player doesn't always happen to be on the better team either.

How can you tell me that Memphis was the better team? It was a momumental upset.

[nonemus]

Wade vs Lebron (Second Round):

Lebron: 28/8.2/3.6 with 3.4 TOV and 1.8 STL/ 1.8 BLK per game on 55.3% TS in 45.6 MPG
Wade: 30.2/7.0/4.8 with 3.0 TOV and 2.0 STL/ 0.6 BLK per game on 61.6% TS in 39.2 MPG

Dirk's second round stats:

25.3/9.3/3.5 with 1.8 TOV and .8 STL and .5 BLK per game on 67.1% TS in 37.3 MPG

[RocketPower23]

Gongxi is so smart; he is the sweet nectar that we are ever so lucky to voraciously suck from. Your knowledge bestows everyone on this basketball message board, kudos good sir.

Anyways, so far it has to be between James & Wade; both playing at a high level.

James
Wade
Dirk
Howard
Durant
Rose
Bryant
Paul

[nonemus]

I like Gongxi;s posts and demeanor. I agree with him on 99% of things, and there has to be someone who can stand up to the majority of realgm (ie unintellectual fans) in a sardonic manner...

[RocketPower23]

I agree, the content in his post are usually worth looking at. The pompous and pretentious way he goes about presenting his posts however are unnecessary; if a poster has a different view on things and has their own bases of determining why, leave at that, you don't have to throw it in their faces why your opinion is better than their own. Now if they're being unreasonable and close minded, then they're not really worth arguing with in the first place. This is basketball message board after all, there's no need for that sort of attitude here. Basically, just chill the f out.

[Gongxi]

Who knew I was so excited when I posted?

[GreenHat]

Oh, I don't think there's anything all that terrible about having your opinion changed about a knucklehead known for being kicked from team to team all of a sudden leading a team to playoff success with individual stats superior to any he's ever had in a regular season previously.

Except if he had played at the SAME level but Marc Gasol for example had **** the bed against the Spurs and they lost to them no one would have given Randolph any credit. Why should how Randolph is evaluated be dependant on how Gasol plays (or any of his other teammates)?

What if Parker and Ginobli had just caught fire in that series and the Spurs won but Randolph played at the same level? He wouldn't have gotten any credit for his play this season at all. Again why should how Parker and Ginobli play have such a HUGE impact (it should have some just not this much) on the evaluation of Randolph?

I agree with Gonxi in that people play the result of the team competition too much when comparing players. The better team will win like six/seven times out of ten not every time (when playing another good team) and more importantly the best player doesn't always happen to be on the better team either.

How can you tell me that Memphis was the better team? It was a momumental upset.

Huh? I never said that.

I said the better team doesn't always win.

I disagree with your assertion that it was a "monumental upset" though. Memphis was only about 3.5-1 for the series and thats with a lot of dumb public money going on the #1 seeded Spurs. You can get higher odds than that on some single game baseball games (if an ace is facing a crappy team). A lot of smart money was on Memphis before the series, it wasn't as crazy an upset as people think.

But yeah I never said Memphis was better.