2010-11 Player of the Year thread

[fallacy]

@fallacy

As nonemus pointed out, there are statistical arguments that go both ways. I want to make clear though, the idea of "it's even more impressive when you consider Westbrook's ball hogging" cuts both ways.

Rose (and Westbrook) is an on-ball player, Durant is an off-ball player. Two different roles, that really shouldn't be compared simply by comparing stats apples-to-apples. I cut a player like Durant slack for not getting assists because of his role. It bothers me though when an off-ball scorer is passive, and some of Westbrook's "ball hogging" amounts to Durant not being more assertive.

We also need to factor in efficiency context. While I get annoyed when people say "The Bulls would have ZERO offense with Rose!", the reality is that whenever the Bulls offense breaks down, it's Rose who is expected to make something happen. Durant does not carry the same kind of burden in OKC.

Last part of the deal right now I think is that people are equating the two teams because they got knocked out at roughly the same point. They shouldn't do this. The Bulls had a brilliant season that got ended by a dream team that really is starting to come together. The Thunder was a 4 seed with a rep for not being able to hang with elite teams who got to the WCF by beating an 8 seed in 7 games with HCA.

While I was more impressed with Durant than Rose in the post-season, I have trouble seeing that as enough to overcome the regular season. And in the regular season, remember Durant was playing a slightly lesser role than the year before on a team with no major SRS improvement.

Not going to reply to the whole post, but just some of the major things I think are wrong.

You say that the Thunder looked unimpressive because they "played an 8 seed to 7 games." I think everyone will agree that the Thunder played much tougher teams than the Bulls did in the playoffs.

Denver is a much, much, much better team than the Pacers. The Nuggets were the best team in the NBA after the trade deadline. Their team might not have been perfect for the playoffs, but were still infinitely better than the Pacers.

Memphis, again, was a better team the the Atlanta Hawks. Memphis would probably beat Atlanta in 6 games.

No one could argue that Rose was near Durant's postseason production, actually he is much closer to Westbrook than Durant is that aspect. So I agree with you there.

And again, I don't see any statistical measurement that shows that Rose was better in the regular season either. People seem to want to try to bend stats to try to discredit why Durant's stats are better instead of just accepting the stats (or facts). People think that there is no offensive weapons around Rose, but in reality the Bull's have a much more balanced offensive team than the Thunder.

The Bull's had 3 players that averaged over 17 points a game, and 4 that averaged 12 a game. OKC's third highest scoring player averaged barely over 12 points. So let's stop this, "Rose has no other option's on his team!!! OMG!" train of thought, he had more weapons than Durant or Westbrook.

[Doctor MJ]

Not going to reply to the whole post, but just some of the major things I think are wrong.

You say that the Thunder looked unimpressive because they "played an 8 seed to 7 games." I think everyone will agree that the Thunder played much tougher teams than the Bulls did in the playoffs.

Denver is a much, much, much better team than the Pacers. The Nuggets were the best team in the NBA after the trade deadline. Their team might not have been perfect for the playoffs, but were still infinitely better than the Pacers.

Memphis, again, was a better team the the Atlanta Hawks. Memphis would probably beat Atlanta in 6 games.

No one could argue that Rose was near Durant's postseason production, actually he is much closer to Westbrook than Durant is that aspect. So I agree with you there.

And again, I don't see any statistical measurement that shows that Rose was better in the regular season either. People seem to want to try to bend stats to try to discredit why Durant's stats are better instead of just accepting the stats (or facts). People think that there is no offensive weapons around Rose, but in reality the Bull's have a much more balanced offensive team than the Thunder.

The Bull's had 3 players that averaged over 17 points a game, and 4 that averaged 12 a game. OKC's third highest scoring player averaged barely over 12 points. So let's stop this, "Rose has no other option's on his team!!! OMG!" train of thought, he had more weapons than Durant or Westbrook.

-Where I'm coming from when talking about team success is trying keep people from going nuts based on the post-season. OKC did what they were supposed to do in the post-season, really nothing more. So the baseline team success from the regular season is really how you should look at the team, and of course there regular season level wasn't in the same league as the Bulls.

Now evaluating Chicago's playoffs is more debatable. Obviously if you think they were a much worse team in the playoffs, that's relevant to this discussion. Personally there really wasn't a question in my mind that a Miami team clicking on all cylinders would be a favorite over the Bulls, so I don't really see a big discrepancy there.

-"Production" is a trickier concept than people want to admit. If you look at ElGee's game tracking method, Rose comes out well ahead of Durant:

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/04/22/exp ... th-sample/

Now, I'm not saying you have to think that metric is right, but if you're honest with yourself, you know how a metric would come out this way: Rose is more involved with the average Bull possession than Durant is. Durant's edge is one of efficiency. It's not a minor edge, but to say that it's clear that he gets the productivity edge over Rose is no given.

-Kind of frustrating that you talk about "people" saying Rose has no help when you respond to me, and I specifically distanced myself from those people while making a point you didn't address. Fine that you don't respond to all my points, but when I could literally reprint my point and it would seem a good response to your response, it's a little discouraging.

[fallacy]

-Any metric that has players like Jameer Nelson, Billups, Westbrook, Gortat, and Noah as being better than Durant, I can't put any real value into, so I won't bother debating any of that. And if you do agree that the stat you posted does have real value and players like Nelson are much, much better than Durant, I'd have to question your basketball knowledge.

- Both teams matched their playoff expectations, neither team underperformed what they were expected to do. If anything, most people expected OKC to lose in the second round before the playoffs started, so OKC was closer to over performing expectations than the Bulls. I don't really understand where you were going with that, but I agree. I guess?

- Not talking to you specifically about Rose "not having any help" just the casual fans. Most people seem to think that bulls have no offensive options where they actually have more than OKC. OKC's fifth leading scorer this year was Nazr Mohammed. Let that one seep in.

That was more of a point that people try to discredit all the stats that show Durant was better in the regular season by trying to put a fake context around that stats that doesn't exist. That's the most annoying thing from my perspective.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not sure yet. I know what I posted last night about sliding him out of my top five, but I thought Durant sputtered pretty noticeably -- again -- at times in the playoffs. I think I had Rose third coming in, and I wasn't among the outraged that he won the MVP.

Frankly, in a strange way his crappy play sort of illustrates just how important he was/is to the Bulls. I know defense was their meal ticket, but he's the only guy that can do anything for himself offensively. Without him, they withered down the stretch in four straight games against a team they swept in the regular season.

Does that make any sense?

I does, but keep in mind that that they withering against a super-team playing very well is not the same as withering generally. When we talk about a team falling apart without a star, we typically mean that the team would fall quite a few spots in the standings without the guy. Losing to Miami is no great sin.

At any rate, my top four is pretty concrete except for positioning. The last slot is down to Durant, Rose and Paul. It all depends on how much punishment Rose deserves for a truly awful performance, whether or not Durant made up any ground and how much credit to give Paul after (for him) a so-so regular season against a spectacular, but tiny, playoff sample.

Yeah, no argument.

[Gongxi]

Are you an OKC fan, fallacy?

[Doctor MJ]

-Any metric that has players like Jameer Nelson, Billups, Westbrook, Gortat, and Noah as being better than Durant, I can't put any real value into, so I won't bother debating any of that. And if you do agree that the stat you posted does have real value and players like Nelson are much, much better than Durant, I'd have to question your basketball knowledge.

- Both teams matched their playoff expectations, neither team underperformed what they were expected to do. If anything, most people expected OKC to lose in the second round before the playoffs started, so OKC was closer to over performing expectations than the Bulls. I don't really understand where you were going with that, but I agree. I guess?

- Not talking to you specifically about Rose "not having any help" just the casual fans. Most people seem to think that bulls have no offensive options where they actually have more than OKC. OKC's fifth leading scorer this year was Nazr Mohammed. Let that one seep in.

That was more of a point that people try to discredit all the stats that show Durant was better in the regular season by trying to put a fake context around that stats that doesn't exist. That's the most annoying thing from my perspective.

-You did it again. I'm trying to make a point where I feel like I have to introduce something along the way just for point of reference, and you argue the point of reference.

I'm just trying to illustrate: Rose is a more active participant on his team, as on-ball players typically are. The argument for Durant via his efficiency is that Rose's participation is more replaceable than Durant's, but "production" metrics that assign a particular value to that efficiency are to some degree arbitrary.

-People expected OKC to lose in the 2nd round because they thought they'd play a superior team. Instead they played an 8 seed everyone expected they'd beat, hence them getting one round deeper into the playoffs isn't really something that should change opinions from where they were in the regular season. So that's my point, just that people shouldn't get fooled into thinking that the team success of the Thunder and Bulls were comparable.

-Okay, I getcha.

[fallacy]

-You did it again. I'm trying to make a point where I feel like I have to introduce something along the way just for point of reference, and you argue the point of reference.

I'm just trying to illustrate: Rose is a more active participant on his team, as on-ball players typically are. The argument for Durant via his efficiency is that Rose's participation is more replaceable than Durant's, but "production" metrics that assign a particular value to that efficiency are to some degree arbitrary.

-People expected OKC to lose in the 2nd round because they thought they'd play a superior team. Instead they played an 8 seed everyone expected they'd beat, hence them getting one round deeper into the playoffs isn't really something that should change opinions from where they were in the regular season. So that's my point, just that people shouldn't get fooled into thinking that the team success of the Thunder and Bulls were comparable.

-Okay, I getcha.

- If all you were trying to argue is that Rose is more active (has the ball) more often than Durant, then I agree. If you were trying to argue that Rose is better because he has the ball in his hands more than Durant, I disagree greatly.

- I agree with you to an extent. Regular season success does mean something, but mostly just to put you in a better position for the postseason. For example, if the 72 win Bulls lost in the first round and the 7th seed in the East went on to the ECF, I would say that the 7th seed has a more successful season than the Bull's did. So basically, I think the Thunder and the Bulls both had the same success as each other this season. The postseason is ultimately how you judge a team's success.

- All right, cool.

[ElGee]

-Any metric that has players like Jameer Nelson, Billups, Westbrook, Gortat, and Noah as being better than Durant, I can't put any real value into, so I won't bother debating any of that. And if you do agree that the stat you posted does have real value and players like Nelson are much, much better than Durant, I'd have to question your basketball knowledge.

- Both teams matched their playoff expectations, neither team underperformed what they were expected to do. If anything, most people expected OKC to lose in the second round before the playoffs started, so OKC was closer to over performing expectations than the Bulls. I don't really understand where you were going with that, but I agree. I guess?

- Not talking to you specifically about Rose "not having any help" just the casual fans. Most people seem to think that bulls have no offensive options where they actually have more than OKC. OKC's fifth leading scorer this year was Nazr Mohammed. Let that one seep in.

A few things here:

1. Nazr Mohammed was NOT OKC's 5th leading scorer this year. Serge Ibaka was by ppg (9.9) or by total points Jeff Green. If you remove two players bc of trade, then it's Mohammed...only Nick Collison was 5th in the playoffs (6.7 ppg) and Mohammed played all of 33 minutes. So it's a pretty disingenuous statement.

2. I post individual leaders from samples because most people find them interesting (I find them interesting) and there is something to be gleaned from the numbers, even if the samples aren't comprehensive. Durant is one of the most interesting to me...

The issue of Nelson (big playoffs last year), Westbrook (all-nba 2nd team) or Noah coming out better than Durant has more to do with Durant than them. Those players obviously aren't chopped liver. So what's being reflected here, regardless of the precision of the measurement or the methodology?

It's that Kevin Durant is a one-dimensional basketball player (relative to the other elite). And for the record, Durant WAS +1.0 better than Westbrook in the regular season. Last year's 6 games against Artest hurt him. (They won't as much in the next batch of published numbers with a doubled sample size.)

But of all the stuff a guy can do on the court -- score, create, rebound, grab lose balls, generate turnovers, lock up a man on the ball, great play help defense -- Durant really excels in ONE area. I'm not saying he's Allan Houston -- at least Durant has his rebounding up, and he's certainly a passable defender -- but ITO of the elite players in the league, his *production* is relatively one-dimensional. That's what his consistently underwhelming EV number is saying...just like it says the same thing about Ray Allen (to a lesser degree).

But consider that Westbrook has the ball in his hands more...and creates more (8.6 OC/100 to 5.7 for Durant) and draws more fouls (7.4 FD/100 to 4.9 for Durant). Those rates are pretty accurate even with smaller samples. We can say "hey, Rose or Durant have the rock more, so I'm not that impressed," but there's a reason most players in the NBA don't have the ball a lot and don't do that much when they have it...and OKC still boasted a 110+ offense with Westbrook having the ball that much. Rose is in a similar boat. Even LeBron, who is "criticized" for ball-dominance...as if having the ball a lot and constantly doing a lot of good stuff is bad.

Whether Durant brings more value in other areas is absolutely debatable and a good question for a such a big scorer/star, but this isn't different than something like +/- data. Dude has an excellent 1 yr/2 yr APM on basketball value...but his team was +4.1 with him and +4.4 without him this year. Not exactly an obvious endorsement for him as a top-3 player...

[fallacy]

So basically that measurement values players that have the ball in their hands the majority of the time and then great defensive players. Out of the top 9 players on the measurement are all players that are the primary ball handlers of their teams and the other was Howard.

It's a good stat, but highly flawed. I'd like to see the new batch with more sample size. The fact the stat has Tyson Chandler as a much better offensive player than Durant, Nelson as three times better offensive player than Durant, and Billups twice as good on offense as Durant; and Deron Williams as the best offensive player in the NBA is worrisome.

[ElGee]

So basically that measurement values players that have the ball in their hands the majority of the time and then great defensive players. Out of the top 9 players on the measurement are all players that are the primary ball handlers of their teams and the other was Howard.

It's a good stat, but highly flawed. I'd like to see the new batch with more sample size. The fact the stat has Tyson Chandler as a much better offensive player than Durant, Nelson as three times better offensive player than Durant, and Billups twice as good on offense as Durant; and Deron Williams as the best offensive player in the NBA is worrisome.

I'll try to keep this theoretical and to the point of POY. (If you want to dissect EV, feel free to do so on my blog where we can discuss it ad nauseam. You aren't interpreting those numbers quite right, and BTW Chandler was a record-level efficiency player this year...so that too becomes a bit of a theory question.)

Let's think about this, as it's been levied against LeBron James as I mentioned. It's not that players who have the ball rank highly in EV/are better at basketball and more productive. It's that players who have the ball and do good things with it are better.

There's a huge difference.

Ray Felton, Tyreke Evans, John Wall and a number of other players have a high offensive load and have the ball a lot. They don't compare to Steve Nash or Derrick Rose ITO of what they do when they have it.

It's bizarre to me to celebrate a certain prototype -- like 1987 Magic Johnson or Steve Nash -- who constantly had the ball and either scored or created, but try to use that as an argument against LeBron James or even Derrick Rose.

You say it's a flaw in the stat, but I say, wouldn't you want a stat that reflects that? Are the best offensive players in the league guys who shoot 10 shots a game or rarely have the ball or are one-dimensional? It seems to me great offensive players constantly put pressure on a defense and have to score at a decent enough rate with a decent enough efficiency to be sparking offenses. The degree to which they can do this determines how good they are, in one sense. Does it not?

Curious how else you see top offensive players...

[fallacy]

I'll try to keep this theoretical and to the point of POY. (If you want to dissect EV, feel free to do so on my blog where we can discuss it ad nauseam. You aren't interpreting those numbers quite right, and BTW Chandler was a record-level efficiency player this year...so that too becomes a bit of a theory question.)

Let's think about this, as it's been levied against LeBron James as I mentioned. It's not that players who have the ball rank highly in EV/are better at basketball and more productive. It's that players who have the ball and do good things with it are better.

There's a huge difference.

Ray Felton, Tyreke Evans, John Wall and a number of other players have a high offensive load and have the ball a lot. They don't compare to Steve Nash or Derrick Rose ITO of what they do when they have it.

It's bizarre to me to celebrate a certain prototype -- like 1987 Magic Johnson or Steve Nash -- who constantly had the ball and either scored or created, but try to use that as an argument against LeBron James or even Derrick Rose.

You say it's a flaw in the stat, but I say, wouldn't you want a stat that reflects that? Are the best offensive players in the league guys who shoot 10 shots a game or rarely have the ball or are one-dimensional? It seems to me great offensive players constantly put pressure on a defense and have to score at a decent enough rate with a decent enough efficiency to be sparking offenses. The degree to which they can do this determines how good they are, in one sense. Does it not?

Curious how else you see top offensive players...

Let me put it this way. Stats, like ideas, unto themselves are neither good nor bad; it's the actions that follow the ideas which are good or bad. For example, the idea of murder itself is not wrong but going out and performing the action of murder is wrong.

Kind of back on topic, the stat itself has nothing wrong with it. What I find as flaws, someone else finds as a fascinating interpretation of how you applied other stats into a new one.


But to answer your question, I think the best offensive player is someone who doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, but can iso when you need a score. This way you can have more than one ball-dominant player on your team. This is what Impresses me most about Lebron and Wade and why I think they're so good. The most important thing that a great offensive player needs to do is score at a high efficiency when he increases his volume. I never really consider high volume/low efficiency scorers as highly as high volume/high efficiency scorers.

[Gongxi]

Did you get that thing about ideas from House? I just saw that episode. God, I hate that show. So are you an OKC fan?

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm convinced House is a documentary about waste in the medical system. Every patient receives several tests that were needless and highly expensive. General practitioners, which should be the center of any functioning medical system, instead are marginalized on House. Watch the fox documentary House on waste in the American health care system if you want to know why America spends such a needlessly high percentage of our GDP on health care without getting better outcomes.

[fallacy]

Did you get that thing about ideas from House? I just saw that episode. God, I hate that show. So are you an OKC fan?

lol yeah, there was something similar on House. Yeah, i'm on OKC fan.


This is now a House thread; 13 is hot. jk

[Doctor MJ]

But to answer your question, I think the best offensive player is someone who doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, but can iso when you need a score. This way you can have more than one ball-dominant player on your team. This is what Impresses me most about Lebron and Wade and why I think they're so good. The most important thing that a great offensive player needs to do is score at a high efficiency when he increases his volume. I never really consider high volume/low efficiency scorers as highly as high volume/high efficiency scorers.

Surely the ability to distribute effectively must come into play somewhere, no?

[Doctor MJ]

Did you get that thing about ideas from House? I just saw that episode. God, I hate that show. So are you an OKC fan?

Hey, I like House! Well, it's getting pretty tired now, but the main character is fun, and Thirteen is indeed hot.

[fallacy]

But to answer your question, I think the best offensive player is someone who doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, but can iso when you need a score. This way you can have more than one ball-dominant player on your team. This is what Impresses me most about Lebron and Wade and why I think they're so good. The most important thing that a great offensive player needs to do is score at a high efficiency when he increases his volume. I never really consider high volume/low efficiency scorers as highly as high volume/high efficiency scorers.

Surely the ability to distribute effectively must come into play somewhere, no?

Of course, but to be a great offensive player you don't necessarily need to be a great distributer. You can have good distributers that are bad offensive players, like Jose Calderon. You can also have terrible distributers that are great offensive players, like Shaq.

No one is going to argue that Melo or Dirk are great distributers, but they are some of the best offensive players we have in this league.

Then of course you have players like Lebron who can do everything while maintaining a high efficiency, but a player like that comes around every 20 years or so

[Doctor MJ]

But to answer your question, I think the best offensive player is someone who doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, but can iso when you need a score. This way you can have more than one ball-dominant player on your team. This is what Impresses me most about Lebron and Wade and why I think they're so good. The most important thing that a great offensive player needs to do is score at a high efficiency when he increases his volume. I never really consider high volume/low efficiency scorers as highly as high volume/high efficiency scorers.

Surely the ability to distribute effectively must come into play somewhere, no?

Of course, but to be a great offensive player you don't necessarily need to be a great distributer. You can have good distributers that are bad offensive players, like Jose Calderon. You can also have terrible distributers that are great offensive players, like Shaq.

No one is going to argue that Melo or Dirk are great distributers, but they are some of the best offensive players we have in this league.

Then of course you have players like Lebron who can do everything while maintaining a high efficiency, but a player like that comes around every 20 years or so

You certainly don't need to be a great distributor to be a great offensive player, but you also don't need to be a great scorer frankly. See: Jason Kidd.

Calderon isn't a bad offensive player actually, he's just not great. If he were truly an all-world distributor he would be great.

But anyway the real point is this: Durant doesn't need to be a great distributor to be an offensive player, but in a comparison with players who are better distributors, that disadvantage has to be factored in. I'm sure you don't disagree with this and don't think you've implied as such, but that's how it seems to me.

Rose is doing more stuff than Durant. Doesn't mean he's necessarily better, but you can't look at scoring efficiency alone to make the judgment.

[fallacy]

You certainly don't need to be a great distributor to be a great offensive player, but you also don't need to be a great scorer frankly. See: Jason Kidd.

Calderon isn't a bad offensive player actually, he's just not great. If he were truly an all-world distributor he would be great.

But anyway the real point is this: Durant doesn't need to be a great distributor to be an offensive player, but in a comparison with players who are better distributors, that disadvantage has to be factored in. I'm sure you don't disagree with this and don't think you've implied as such, but that's how it seems to me.

Rose is doing more stuff than Durant. Doesn't mean he's necessarily better, but you can't look at scoring efficiency alone to make the judgment.

-Prime Jason Kidd was 17/11/7, he was a pretty dang good scorer. Current Jason Kidd is not a great
offensive player.

-Calderon is a career 9.8/7 player, that's pretty average to below average.

-Kevin Durant actually isn't a bad passer or distributer. If you followed the playoffs, every game OKC was in the announcers were praising how good KD's court vision on his passes were. He should average more assists but frankly when you're driving and kicking it out to Thabo, Westbrook, or Perkins they're not great outside shooters. But that's neither here nor there, just an aside

-Rose does "do more stuff" but he does a lot of stuff good, and nothing really great. Rose is a good passer, not a great passer. Rose is a good scorer, not a great scorer. Rose is an average to below average shooter, Rose is a good free throw shooter, not great. Rose is a very good rebounder for his position. Rose is a okay 3pt shooter for his position, not great. You see my point.

Where Durant doesn't "do as much" as rose, but what he does, he does it very well. Durant is the best scorer in the league. Durant is a great shooter. Durant is a great free throw shooter. Durant is a great rebounder for his position. Durant is a very good 3pt shooter for his postition. Durant is a great shot blocker for his position. etc and etc.

- I guess it is a debate of quantity over quality or vice versa. Personally, I'll take the player that might not "do as much" but the stuff that he does, he is great at over a player that isn't great at anything but is good at a lot of stuff. Your opinion might differ than mine, but that's just what I prefer.

[Doctor MJ]

-Prime Jason Kidd was 17/11/7, he was a pretty dang good scorer. Current Jason Kidd is not a great
offensive player.

-Calderon is a career 9.8/7 player, that's pretty average to below average.

You talk about Kidd scoring 17 PPG like it's a major accomplishment. If my offense with Kidd is going like I want it, Kidd scores a hell of a lot less than 17 PPG because it's bound to be a very inefficient 17. The major gap between these two players on offense is not caused by Kidd scoring more.

Let's also not that it's pretty silly to talk about Kidd as a 17/11/7 player when he never achieved that, and then talk about Calderon based on on his career average.

Let's at least level the playing field an exaggerate for Calderon too, eh?

"Calderon is a 13/9 player who scores at 62% TS instead of Kidd's 53%"

- I guess it is a debate of quantity over quality or vice versa. Personally, I'll take the player that might not "do as much" but the stuff that he does, he is great at over a player that isn't great at anything but is good at a lot of stuff. Your opinion might differ than mine, but that's just what I prefer.

And my statement to you is that the notion that one must choose between quantity vs quality is a fallacy, Mr. fallacy.

You are entitled to a preference of weighing efficiency more than other people of course, but you have to give quantity some kind of weight as well.