2010-11 POY Voting Thread - Congrats Dirk Nowitzki!

[Doctor MJ]

Alright guys. So here's the deal, in addition to the list of people at the beginning of this thread, there were a few people from the RPOY project who basically participated to the bitter end (when it was damned hard keeping the momentum alive) who submitted votes. I really don't have the heart to not count their votes. They've earned a spot.

However, I'm not still not counting every vote that was submitted here because I did mean what I said before. If I wanted this to be open to everyone who happened to want to cast a ballot at a particular time, I'd put it on the General Board. For me these projects are meant to be inclusive for basically anyone...who is willing to stay committed to a discussion-based project.

Without further ado:

'10-11 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Dirk Nowitzki    19   3   1   0   0 216   0.939
2. LeBron James      3  10   6   3   1 140   0.609
3. Dwight Howard     0   7  10   5   1 115   0.500
4. Dwyane Wade       1   3   4  11   3  87   0.378
5. Derrick Rose      0   0   1   3  11  25   0.109
6. Kevin Durant      0   0   1   0   5  10   0.043
7. Chris Paul        0   0   0   1   2   5   0.022


[Doctor MJ]

So if Dirk gets .900, he will edge out Baylor for #20 on the overall list. That's like exactly where he should be. Also looks like something #16 for Lebron and #19 for Wade. Looks pretty good for both as well

Hopefully sentient will update the DOLEM site. If he hasn't done it by tomorrow I'll post more details. But for now:

LeBron moves up from 18 to 16.
Wade moves up from 21 to 19.
Dirk moves up from 28 to 21 (and is only kept from entering the top 20 by Wade's move)
Howard moves up from 45 to 34
Durant moves up from 69 to 64
Rose enters the list at 70.
Paul despite his votes falls from 37 to 38 due to being passed by Howard.

[kaima]

Alright guys. So here's the deal, in addition to the list of people at the beginning of this thread, there were a few people from the RPOY project who basically participated to the bitter end (when it was damned hard keeping the momentum alive) who submitted votes. I really don't have the heart to not count their votes. They've earned a spot.

I don't fully see the logic in that, particularly to the side of coherence. Certain posters have helped to shift outcome with arguments and votes in certain threads -- for certain years -- therein already shifting results in an asynchronous manner.

Further, there are posters that have basically just cast votes year after year, while others -- though bowing out early -- vigorously debated for multiple threads.

And that doesn't even begin to account for certain posters that shifted standards depending on player(s). Or those born to different eras, more familiar with some than others.

I suspected that I would be left out, and as someone who was invited into this, rather than asking for a vote, that doesn't particularly bother me.

The logic, beyond some sort of "punishment", does however.

In that same sense, to be coherent, I think it would make sense -- under your own rubric -- to either re-debate and vote certain threads, or simply delete votes from people like myself.

Coherence -- in the context of argumentation and justification of votes, or for them, over the course of 'decades' of NBA play -- doesn't seem to be the baseline for these threads, or many arguments, though. Which was disappointing for me as the project dragged on, truth be told.

I would hope that you take into consideration the points made in this post, at least if the point is at all supposed to be a long-form, contiguous voting pattern that dovetails with posters providing real argumentation.

Is quantity also quality? Is a 'present' vote that is nothing beyond that standard, really worth more than information argued out in-depth, but in a more limited number of threads, by certain posters?

From a number of standpoints, it seems that this is not the point at all.

The project itself, it would seem, under your own standard has lost coherence, which is not to say cogency. Is it?

And if a vote is all that matters, well, it seems you have some re-tallying to do. If not? Well, then that's quite a bit more messy, I would say. Specifically as relates to this project's aggregate relevance by your own argued standard.

In any case, best of luck with future projects.

[_SRV_]

Jesus Christ, .900? Funny compared to how people had him after the first round. Are we sure this isn't the Retro Finals MVP award, again? It really is kinda jaw-dropping how strong the perception/narrative that the best player holds the championship trophy at the end of every season. No other sport has such a culture around it...

Just out of curiosity and justification sake, what would you vote for the '06 season?

Actually here it is:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1007686#p23270359

Seriously? I mean, really, seriously?

[Gongxi]

My vote is in there, why do you ask?

And about the Sports Guy: exactly! One of the reasons I can't stand the dude, as entertaining as he can be, is because of that narrative bull. One of the reasons he gives for Jordan being the best ever is "command of the room". "Command of the room", are you **** kidding me? Let's just do this on how they played basketball, the real MVP is enough of a joke as is.

[_SRV_]

Because it was very similar scenario, only the opposite roles, and you didn't hesitate on making it "Wade's year". Despite Dirk leading the league in PER and WS, and finishing second in MVP votes.
Your lack of consistency is screaming.

[kaima]

And about the Sports Guy: exactly! One of the reasons I can't stand the dude, as entertaining as he can be, is because of that narrative bull. One of the reasons he gives for Jordan being the best ever is "command of the room". "Command of the room", are you **** kidding me? Let's just do this on how they played basketball, the real MVP is enough of a joke as is.

I believe in the "it" factor, but I also think it's a Hollywood stage presence argument rather than proof of athletic greatness.

The Sports Guy's narrative is disturbing to me only because so many people take it seriously -- he often mis-remembers events, plainly twists them to fit arguments that he has arrived out through pre-existing notions and underlying bias (particularly for the Celtics, obviously), and tries to cover for so much of this through compounding allegory/analogy that appeals on some sort of 'Family Guy' (ugh) scale.

From my perspective, it's all pretty awful.

And he gets away with it, most of all, in regards to the NBA, moreso than MLB or NFL. Why? Because he knows more about that sport?

Hardly. Or perhaps he understands its intertext, and its meta-trappings -- such as those you've complained about in this thread.

The MLB has such a rich history, much of it based on statistical obsession and analysis and, later, the ability to analyze decades of tape (my particular preference, if allowed the choice) that the type of arguments that The Sports Guy makes for the NBA simply wouldn't pass the smirk test, be taken seriously, were they used in relation to the latter sport, as broadly and shamelessly.

In basketball, there's always the sense of the moment -- not relative to the greatness of the past, in deference or respect, but as an element that MUST be better than what has come before -- and this obviousl,y leads to analysis that is zero-sum through team-result.

The reason why Chris Paul was, magically, one of the best players in the league in a six-game playoff series, and possibly the best PG again, only to be an also-ran within a couple weeks of elimination.

It rather reminds me of my own introduction to the NBA, watching Magic and the Lakers from infancy.

By the time I actually paid any attention, say by five, it was myth made real. An assumption that couldn't be disproven.

When I later thought about skillsets, it was an odd deconstruction that started with my favorite player and has continued; that is, did it matter that Magic was a mediocre, at best, defender?

I've wrestled with that since I was about 13. (kosher cliche?)

These are, I believe, the types of questions that Simmons can dismiss, simply by offering up pop-culture-narrrative schtick; the thing about that is, of course and appropriately, it all has a very short shelf life as far as sell-thru. A decade from now, it may be like reading Latin or Aramic.

To me, the Bill Simmons pose, the sophistry of it, is to make emotional arguments that have little technical merit.

It's mental and emotional blackmail, by way of retardation or neoteny.

It's a five-year old making arguments to an adult audience, itself little more than a debased example (redundant) of the Id let loose.

And the dramatic argument -- relative to cinema -- is negatively applied in another sense: it's too limited.

Great drama can be great tragedy as well. Can be individual greatness failing Quixotic-like in its cause.

But rarely is this narrative painted in sports.

Tellingly, one of the few times it has been, it was for a New England team.

The rest of the time, we're only to respect cliched sports movie-like endings made real -- and I never even liked the schmaltz of Hoosiers -- that point to a league that is intent on simple narratives so obvious they could be directed by Ron Howard, propped up by guys who couldn't even make Jimmy Kimmel more entertaining than Letterman's zombie corpse routine ("i-rony").

Personally, I'd rather watch something from Hitchcock or Kubrick (though the idea that I'd ever want to watch Howard is laughable). Even though, unlike Ron Howard, they never won the Academy Award.

Vivaldi or Beethoven (though we are arguing Romanticism, aren't we?) rather than Katy Perry. HL Mencken rather than David Brooks.

Maybe things simply have gotten worse.

Then again, I could as easily say Shirley Manson over Katy Perry, and Christopher Hitchens over David Brooks.

For that matter, I'd take Hollinger over Ric Bucher. And The Sports Guy is disturbingly close to the latter option.

Most disturbingly, so is the overall NBA narrative. Perhaps as shown by some of these threads.

[Doctor MJ]

kaima, understandable you'd feel the need to respond. I'm responding publicly here because you wrote publicly. I don't want to get into a long public conversation here though I'd appreciate you taking this private if you want to continue.

You mention that I asked you to join the project. This is partly true. I asked you if you wanted to join the project with the understanding that it was a long-term commitment, and you agreed. I did this after you'd made some strong posts arguing for Karl Malone in the project threads...and you lasted in the project basically until Malone's rookie year and then disappeared.

You entered the discussion for this year's POY after the playoffs had ended, and did so to criticize people before saying you didn't want to be involved if it meant dealing with the things you criticized.

And now when I make a decision to not bend the rules for you, and after you fail to give the effort you committed yourself to, you take the time to tell the guy who has given orders of magnitude more effort to build a project that is fun, community-building, and educational what all he has to re-do in order to make it meet with your logical standards.

Do you see how you're coming across here?

I think you're intelligent and knowledgeable, and if you'd done what others had done I'd have given you a vote here. I am not punishing you. I am however rather bemused by your intellectual hubris.

There is no such thing as a perfect project. I don't need your IQ, I need your BBIQ and your elbow grease.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm getting more and more reason to be skeptical about how the next project will go...

[kaima]

kaima, understandable you'd feel the need to respond. I'm responding publicly here because you wrote publicly. I don't want to get into a long public conversation here though I'd appreciate you taking this private if you want to continue.

So why not lead the way, by example?

I didn't feel that I was particularly personal with you, yet you're now being specifically personal about my posting history in a public forum.

While asking me not to reply publicly to that.

Huh.

You mention that I asked you to join the project. This is partly true. I asked you if you wanted to join the project with the understanding that it was a long-term commitment, and you agreed.

And life happened, as did disenchantment that came about due to standards that were disturbingly close to what Gongxi has mentioned.

I'm not perfect, and I didn't necessarily live up to my word, point blank. But I don't know if I believe that the project lived up to its argument, as antecedent.

Which frustrated me at the same time I had other commitments.

I did this after you'd made some strong posts arguing for Karl Malone in the project threads...and you lasted in the project basically until Malone's rookie year and then disappeared.

Certainly, the idea that I would stick in the project for Malone's rookie year is...bizarre.

I certainly didn't vote for him. In fact, the last year I voted for him was 1989.

And I made it beyond that rookie year, as point of fact.

But it seems that you think my contribution is limited to Karl Malone. I wouldn't agree, and it wasn't my purpose to only vote for Malone seasons or push Malone in a generalized context, as its own or only purpose. I argued for him because I think he's one of the players that gets hurt the most by team-result arguments, as a macro bit of revisionism.

You entered the discussion for this year's POY after the playoffs had ended, and did so to criticize people before saying you didn't want to be involved if it meant dealing with the things you criticized.

Hm?

I believe I said that I'd bow out if not given time to consider my vote. I never said that anyone had to agree with me.

All I did was point out my disagreement with certain arguments, particularly Dirk's unquestionable ascendency.

And now when I make a decision to not bend the rules for you, and after you fail to give the effort you committed yourself to, you take the time to tell the guy who has given orders of magnitude more effort to build a project that is fun, community-building, and educational what all he has to re-do in order to make it meet with your logical standards.

I notice that you're being very broad about this, instead of really considering my arguments on a logical scale.

You're emotionalizing this. And attacking me personally.

While I questioned your logic, I don't believe I questioned your character, or attacked you personally.

As I said, I replied on logical grounds. I'm not seeing any counter-argumentation to those points.

I note this without malice, as I have never disliked you, or thought of you as some pernicious force.

Even now, I just question your, cause and effect, overall analysis and logical application so far as rules in this project. That's it.

And that's the level I'd prefer arguing on.

If I'm not, now, allowed to disagree with you on logical standards, well, then I'll leave.

But ratiocination is rather inherent, and yet you're trying to make this a subjective plea on an emotional scale -- that because you run the project, you shouldn't be questioned in this manner or on grounds of context and logic. That's what I see. Analytically.

Do you see how you're coming across here?

I...wait, I've got a kettle whistling, and a pot of coffee to start.

I think you're intelligent and knowledgeable, and if you'd done what others had done I'd have given you a vote here.

Like I said, I could have managed votes throughout.

I didn't because I didn't think that would be coherent to my history of detailing my beliefs.

But if an all-present vote is all that matters, then, yes I failed. Blatantly.

I also had my doubts: about the project, the assumptions made on team result and legacy, as well as my ability to find enough tape as we went on to support my beliefs. Or my votes.

I am not punishing you.

I know.

I don't feel all that bad about it.

My point is, what's the macro-logic?

If the all-present vote is required, I failed before I started. And it would be a mistake -- if this isn't some attempt at punishment, or negative-reinforcement -- to consider my earlier arguments and to count my votes.

My point is that the damage, if that's how you see it, has already been done. So why would I be stopped from voting?

Logically, it appears to be punishment. That's what I see.

Without rancor. I honestly think you're generally a credible source, even if I disagree with you on occasion.

I am however rather bemused by your intellectual hubris.

I don't believe I'm smarter than you, or the room.

But I do disagree with your logic here.

There is no such thing as a perfect project. I don't need your IQ, I need your BBIQ and your elbow grease.

And I believe that I provided more of that than some people that voted in far more POY threads.

Hence, my disagreement with you.

It's pretty simply. Really.

[mysticbb]

I wouldn't. I'm assigning values for an all-in-one metric. Synergy just breaks down different situations. Furthermore, rebounding is included for me, and Dirk's DREB the last 2 years has basically been the lowest of his career. Curious, what do the synergy numbers say? Can you post them? How do they treat forced TOV in help situations like steals and charges?

They assigned the real points per play to those players. For Nowitzki it was 0.82 points per play for the whole regular season and playoffs. 0.76 on Isolations, 0.72 on post-ups, 0.8 on p&r man, 0.9 on spotup, 1.07 off screens. Overall Nowitzki ended up with the 70th best value, 34th on postups and 30th on p&r.
There is no specific count for forced turnovers.

The thing is that those Synergy Sports values are basically in agreement what I think Nowitzki can do. They are also in agreement with the defensive RAPM value for Nowitzki (if we take the impact on defense due to more efficient offense and Nowitzki going back on defense rather quickly into account). Your numbers are not.

[mysticbb]

Small sample size? To me, it's the opposite -- Nowitzki's season, and career, are being defined by twenty games, while the other 82, wherein he was often an after-thought, are forgotten.

And that is the mistake in your evaluation. After 29 games a lot of people had Nowitzki as being the #1 in the MVP race. Then he got injured and dropped and never really came back to that point in people's mind, while in reality he was basically back to that level for the remaining 35 games. If we exclude the road trip in which he had to deal with the minor shoulder injury, we have:

1st 29 games: 24.1/7.4/2.5 on 63.2 TS% in 35.4 minutes
Last 30 games: 23.7//.1/2.8 on 63.2 TS% in 33.7 minutes

21 playoff games: 27.7/8.1/2.5 on 60.9 TS% (while having to deal with the finger injury in the finals and the sinus infection) in 39.3 minutes

We are talking about a sampe of 80 games in which Nowitzki had 24.9/7.5/2.6 on 62.5 TS% in 35.8 minutes. Against teams with an average SRS of 1.25, well above average. Those 80 games from which Dallas won 63 define Nowitzki's season, not just 21 games. I bet if Nowitzki wouldn't have faced that injury, he would have been among the Top3 on every list before the playoffs.

At the end he has played in more games against better competition, with better numbers while winning more than Kevin Durant. And you have Durant over Nowitzki and want to tell someone you are balance regular season and playoffs correctly? What is the reason for you picking the worse player as the 2nd best of the season? What exactly did Durant better than Nowitzki? Scoring a bit more points on way more scoring attempts in a higher paced game? Because Durant is inferior in everything else.


And I have no idea why you think you were left out for personal reasons. Doc MJ pretty much explained it very clear. It has nothing to do with some personal issues, it has all to do with your lack of participating in an actual discussion before the last day of the voting process.

[RocketPower23]

Well deserved for Dirk. I did think Howard earned the second spot over LeBron, but it's not a slight in anyway. I'm a bit surprised to see Kobe not earn a single vote. I didn't vote for him, but I had Rose, Durant, Kobe and Paul all clustered up competeing for that fifth spot. But seeing Paul ahead of Kobe (looking at the final voting tally), despite the fact that he had an underwhelming regular season and his Playoffs efforts have been hyped up quite a bit (Paul had a couple dominant games, followed up by a few solid efforts and then one stinker), Kobe could have been placed on someones ballot. I was happy to see Zach Randolph get some credit (even though he didn't get a vote), he's a player to me that grew leaps and bounds this season. Good discussions all around, until next year....hopefully.

[HeatRing2012]

lol @ the guy putting Durant over Dirk

I mean, really - nobody from all those gazillion users on realGm would put Durant over Dirk with a straight face. except for this guy.

ask yourself this Kaima:
(using random numbers)
95% of the users thought Dirk is the best in the league
99.9% of the users thought he is at least top3 with the usual suspects in front of him (Howard, Lebron)

now you come out of your hole and stating that Durant is better than Dirk?

do you honestly think you are the one sane person on this board and everbody else is just stupid?

----

anyway, I'm glad that Lebron ended at 2nd.
I like the ranking. It's hard to plug in Wade somewhere when theres still a guy like Howard around. so im fine with the top4.
my 5th place would have been different - but that doesn't matter in the end, the top 4 are correct

[Gongxi]

Because it was very similar scenario, only the opposite roles, and you didn't hesitate on making it "Wade's year". Despite Dirk leading the league in PER and WS, and finishing second in MVP votes.
Your lack of consistency is screaming.

What are you saying, I'm a Wade or Heat fan?

LeBron was clearly the best player this year through the regular season and, I believe, including the playoffs. In 2006, it was obvious that no one was clearly the best player through the regular season- or even the playoffs. Pretty simple. Your lack of logic is screaming.

[mysticbb]

Your lack of logic is screaming.

No, no, it is not his lack of logic, it is your lack of communication skills. You are unable to describe your reasonings well.

Well, if I get your idea correctly, you basically want to judge players by a somewhat fantasy scenario in which every player gets the perfect fitting average players around him. The player who comes out of that scenario with the most wins is your best player of a season. That is fine, and in such a scenario I would also pick James. BUT there is something inherently wrong with such an assessment: We completely ignore the actual playing level of said players during the REAL played out season. Players can be more impactful than others due to different circumstances, some circumstances are completely out of the player's hand, others are not. But at the end it makes more sense to evaluate the real games, and judge players upon their respective impact in those games. James for me didn't live up to his own abilities due to his surrounding cast. It wasn't needed that James played at such a high level as in previous seasons and it was by his own choice. When we look back at that season will we really say: Yes, James played like the clear best player in that season? Or do we rather say: Well, James could have been the best, if he had played like that?
I think the latter is the truth here. While James could have very well played like the clear-cut best player in 2010-11, he didn't do it for the whole season including the playoffs. The difference might be marginal for some, but for me it was big enough in the end. But well, I had said before the playoffs started that on possession basis Nowitzki and James were basically equal and only the missed games by Nowitzki are the reason for him being only 3rd (together with Wade btw.) behind James and Howard. But obviously those missing games didn't hurt his team overall, they won it all in the end.

When we look at the Heat with and without James, we can see them having a scoring margin of 2.5, which is equal to a 48 wins team. When James played, he brought them up to a +8.4 per 100 possessions, enough for a 62 wins team. That is huge, but in the end James brought a support which was capable to outscore their opponents up to a level which was still below the level of the Mavericks with Nowitzki. You can now claim that this was all just due to the supporting cast fitting better or whatsoever, but the fact remains that the Mavericks without Nowitzki playing were just lottery material. Even if you can't understand how Nowitzki was able to push them to that limit, you can at least acknowledge those facts and put them into your evaluation process.

In a team game we have to include the player's ability to fit into the team they are playing for. If we don't do that, we ignore the way the players actually performed throughout the season. In the end the way you are doing it is more based upon a belief than about the reality.
That those players could have performed differently in a different scenario and could have achieved different things should be clear. That isn't rocket surgery. ;)

[NO-KG-AI]

I think what is rubbing me the wrong way, is that I feel like Dirk could have won this award based on his strong regular season, and dominant first 3 rounds, but if Dallas didn't win(even with Dirk doing exactly what he did in the finals) he wouldn't be getting all of this love, and I just don't like it.. =/

[_SRV_]

Because it was very similar scenario, only the opposite roles, and you didn't hesitate on making it "Wade's year". Despite Dirk leading the league in PER and WS, and finishing second in MVP votes.
Your lack of consistency is screaming.

What are you saying, I'm a Wade or Heat fan?

LeBron was clearly the best player this year through the regular season and, I believe, including the playoffs. In 2006, it was obvious that no one was clearly the best player through the regular season- or even the playoffs. Pretty simple. Your lack of logic is screaming.

Dirk had the highest PER, biggest WS, and finished second in MVP voting behind Nash in '06, and had an amazing playoffs, until the collapse, the same thing with LeBron this year, in '06 you disregarded that and gave it to the Finals winner, now you complain about the Finals getting the same treatment you gave, my logic is pretty sound.

Dirk in 06
PER - 28.1
Win sahres - 17.7
MVP ranking - 3rd - 544 points
Remarkable PO serieses, 1st round sweep, Spurs (champion) and Suns (both contenders)

LeBron in 11
PER - 27.3
WS - 15.6
MVP ranking - 3rd - 522 points
Remarkable PO serieses, almost the same as Dirk.

It is very similar situation, by the rules for this award, set in this forum, by the same people, you among them, Dirk lost in 06, the rest should be forgone conclusion.

[Gongxi]

Your lack of logic is screaming.

No, no, it is not his lack of logic, it is your lack of communication skills. You are unable to describe your reasonings well.

Well, if I get your idea correctly, you basically want to judge players by a somewhat fantasy scenario in which every player gets the perfect fitting average players around him. The player who comes out of that scenario with the most wins is your best player of a season. That is fine, and in such a scenario I would also pick James.

Awesome. The best player in the league gets my vote as the Player of the Year in this project, I've been pretty clear about that for...damn, a year now.

BUT there is something inherently wrong with such an assessment: We completely ignore the actual playing level of said players during the REAL played out season. Players can be more impactful than others due to different circumstances, some circumstances are completely out of the player's hand, others are not. But at the end it makes more sense to evaluate the real games, and judge players upon their respective impact in those games.

I don't give players credit for 'circumstances'.

James for me didn't live up to his own abilities due to his surrounding cast. It wasn't needed that James played at such a high level as in previous seasons and it was by his own choice. When we look back at that season will we really say: Yes, James played like the clear best player in that season? Or do we rather say: Well, James could have been the best, if he had played like that?

He played like the best.

I think the latter is the truth here. While James could have very well played like the clear-cut best player in 2010-11, he didn't do it for the whole season including the playoffs. The difference might be marginal for some, but for me it was big enough in the end. But well, I had said before the playoffs started that on possession basis Nowitzki and James were basically equal and only the missed games by Nowitzki are the reason for him being only 3rd (together with Wade btw.) behind James and Howard. But obviously those missing games didn't hurt his team overall, they won it all in the end.

I, too, had mentioned that Dirk would've been as easy 4 for me coming into the playoffs, had he played more games, possibly 3. But he missed them, and that's that. He very clearly played well enough to pass everyone but Dwight and LeBron.

When we look at the Heat with and without James, we can see them having a scoring margin of 2.5, which is equal to a 48 wins team. When James played, he brought them up to a +8.4 per 100 possessions, enough for a 62 wins team. That is huge, but in the end James brought a support which was capable to outscore their opponents up to a level which was still below the level of the Mavericks with Nowitzki. You can now claim that this was all just due to the supporting cast fitting better or whatsoever, but the fact remains that the Mavericks without Nowitzki playing were just lottery material. Even if you can't understand how Nowitzki was able to push them to that limit, you can at least acknowledge those facts and put them into your evaluation process.

Nah. I'm unconcerned with how players fit with their teams when we compared individual players, even if they themselves picked those teams. RPOY, in my interpretation, does not include the players' GM skills.

In a team game we have to include the player's ability to fit into the team they are playing for. If we don't do that, we ignore the way the players actually performed throughout the season. In the end the way you are doing it is more based upon a belief than about the reality.
That those players could have performed differently in a different scenario and could have achieved different things should be clear. That isn't rocket surgery.

Again: fit doesn't concern me, and shouldn't concern this project. If it did, maybe we should put Rose near the top.

Because it was very similar scenario, only the opposite roles, and you didn't hesitate on making it "Wade's year". Despite Dirk leading the league in PER and WS, and finishing second in MVP votes.
Your lack of consistency is screaming.

What are you saying, I'm a Wade or Heat fan?

LeBron was clearly the best player this year through the regular season and, I believe, including the playoffs. In 2006, it was obvious that no one was clearly the best player through the regular season- or even the playoffs. Pretty simple. Your lack of logic is screaming.

Dirk had the highest PER, biggest WS, and finished second in MVP voting behind Nash in '06, and had an amazing playoffs, until the collapse, the same thing with LeBron this year, in '06 you disregarded that and gave it to the Finals winner, now you complain about the Finals getting the same treatment you gave, my logic is pretty sound.

Dirk in 06
PER - 28.1
Win sahres - 17.7
MVP ranking - 3rd - 544 points
Remarkable PO serieses, 1st round sweep, Spurs (champion) and Suns (both contenders)

LeBron in 11
PER - 27.3
WS - 15.6
MVP ranking - 3rd - 522 points
Remarkable PO serieses, almost the same as Dirk.

It is very similar situation, by the rules for this award, set in this forum, by the same people, you among them, Dirk lost in 06, the rest should be forgone conclusion.

Unfortunately, they aren't being compared to each other, but the actual competition that year. If they were, however, I'd still give the nod to LeBron. There's nothing inconsistent about it.

I guess I'm just going to have to live with the label of a 'Dirk Hater', I suppose. Woe is me.

Edit- I do have to marvel at how I'm always the hater of the guy who's getting all the narrative hype and the fanboy for the guy who's getting all the stories about not having "it". Then, when they switch places, my bias (seemingly) shifts too. To wit: my arguing on Dirk's behalf in 2007. Now, suddenly, I have to be the voice of reason against him. It can't be the hype machine going out of control for individual players when their teams win, could it? Nah.

[mysticbb]

I guess I'm just going to have to live with the label of a 'Dirk Hater', I suppose. Woe is me.

Honestly, in which part of his post did he call you a "Dirk Hater"? Because I can't see it. He is calling you out on being inconsistent and so far you haven't explained a tiny little bit why Wade in 2006, not the best player during the regular season and Finals MVP, can be your POY in 2006 while it is not possible for Nowitzki in 2011.

And as I said you are incapable of explaining what "best player" even means to you. I'm not even sure that you evaluate players based upon their ability to play a TEAM GAME. What is your freaking damn criteria in which James played like the best player in a 5on5 game this season? Honestly, that answer is NOT found in any of your posts. The answers to my post you gave are completely useless in the context of the discussion.