2011-12 RealGM Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[Narigo]

Updated list:

1. Lebron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Chris Paul
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Steve Nash

HM: Westbrook, Dirk, Wade, Duncan,

[mysticbb]

OK, and so per the original point, I'd say it's not the greatest assumption, despite the overall averages being so good. You can't just assume Dirk's a constant +2.1 off the ball while in the game, because what if he's on the court with Terry (+2.7 by this measurement) and Peja (+1.7)? I actually think this is an interesting way to try to measure off-ball impact, but it's obviously missing a little ITO of on-ball activities, the variance/accuracy of RAPM, and the interactive combinations of lineups.

Where did I say that I assume a constant value? Sorry, but you are arguing a strawman.

And the basic idea is that Nowitzki without the ball in his hands helps his team with spacing. Take a look at the difference in spacing and check the numbers on the scoring efficiencies of his teammates with and without Nowitzki on the court. In 12 years of data we see that his teammates in average have better scoring efficiency with Nowitzki on the court. You can either assume that this is due to Nowitzki being extremely lucky all the time or that his presences is opening up things for his teammates.

The last one might not be a huge issue, except in small samples...which of course is what we are talking about when we analyze the Finals and you make the blanket starting assumption that James has to measure out 3 points better in "on-ball" measurements just to equal Dirk Nowitzki's impact. I mean hell, Dirk may just have that impact because of his situational VALUE on the Mavs and not on all other teams, and I would in no way shape or form say that means he played better than an opponent who had a backup as a clone in a single game. Know what I'm sayin?

I understand the point, but we can take a look at several shooting bigs and their effect on offense. My prime example is Vladimir Radmanovic in 2008. The Lakers had clearly better spacing with him on the court leading to the best offense in the league. We can take a look at a guy like Ryan Anderson opening up a lot, not just using the openings created by Howard. I don't see that Nowitzki wouldn't have an additional positive impact off the ball on every other team too.
For the finals he obviously had a similar impact on the performance of his team, while the massive difference between on and off the court was likely caused by the fact that the variance in a smaller sample has a bigger influence.
But, that Nowitzki has such an impact without the ball in his hand is not just seen on the court, but also backed up by the numbers.

It is not some completely insane and unique opinion of mine, but rather something we see in the NBA very often. Nearly all teams are trying to have that shooting big in order to open up the middle for their perimeter players. And it works very well.

Alright, now as I say that, and acknowledge it's a reasonable question to ask about Nash, keep in mind that the Suns still have a good overall offense (9th in ORtg, and climbing as the year went on). The Mavs this year had their offense tumble to 22nd in the league while basing their offense around perhaps the most unorthodox star in the game. They still made the playoffs due to their defense, which Dirk is part of, but does it concern anyone that we're talking about a primarily offensive star here who is requiring a large amount of unusual design, and it's not even getting the team a good offense any more?

Again, Dallas with Nowitzki +5.9, without Nowitzki -7.4 vs. Suns with Nash +4.1, without Nash -6.9. It is not like the Mavericks had insane talent on the team which was hindered by Nowitzki to succeed. And all that while the Mavericks with a little less bad luck could have won against the Thunder. And that doesn't even include the total breakdown of Lamar Odom.

Also, what is exactly "unusual design", when a team needs a defensive C, a wing scorer and wing defender while having a point guard?

[bastillon]

Mystic how do you know Dirk's impact is due to better spacing, not because of how he attracts defensive attention ? do you think putting Radmanovic on Mavs instead of Dirk would make them equally efficient ? how do you seperate spacing effect from all the other stuff ?

[JordansBulls]

Updated list:

1. Lebron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Chris Paul
4. Kevin Garnett
5. Steve Nash

HM: Westbrook, Dirk, Wade, Duncan,

Steve Nash really???

[ElGee]

OK, and so per the original point, I'd say it's not the greatest assumption, despite the overall averages being so good. You can't just assume Dirk's a constant +2.1 off the ball while in the game, because what if he's on the court with Terry (+2.7 by this measurement) and Peja (+1.7)? I actually think this is an interesting way to try to measure off-ball impact, but it's obviously missing a little ITO of on-ball activities, the variance/accuracy of RAPM, and the interactive combinations of lineups.

Where did I say that I assume a constant value? Sorry, but you are arguing a strawman.

And the basic idea is that Nowitzki without the ball in his hands helps his team with spacing. Take a look at the difference in spacing and check the numbers on the scoring efficiencies of his teammates with and without Nowitzki on the court.

What is the purpose of this conversation then? You said I wasn't accounting for Nowitzki's Spacing Effect in the Finals. It' pretty implicit in that statement that it's a constant he carries when he's on the court, is it not?

I'm well aware Dirks' spacing helps -- I have no idea where you thought I said otherwise. I asked you about quantifying since you reacted so incredulously that Dirk was not "obviously" better in the Finals.

This is in the context of the massive WInning Bias people carry, and how it erodes this "discussions."

In 12 years of data we see that his teammates in average have better scoring efficiency with Nowitzki on the court. You can either assume that this is due to Nowitzki being extremely lucky all the time or that his presences is opening up things for his teammates.

The last one might not be a huge issue, except in small samples...which of course is what we are talking about when we analyze the Finals and you make the blanket starting assumption that James has to measure out 3 points better in "on-ball" measurements just to equal Dirk Nowitzki's impact. I mean hell, Dirk may just have that impact because of his situational VALUE on the Mavs and not on all other teams, and I would in no way shape or form say that means he played better than an opponent who had a backup as a clone in a single game. Know what I'm sayin?

I understand the point, but we can take a look at several shooting bigs and their effect on offense. My prime example is Vladimir Radmanovic in 2008. The Lakers had clearly better spacing with him on the court leading to the best offense in the league. We can take a look at a guy like Ryan Anderson opening up a lot, not just using the openings created by Howard. I don't see that Nowitzki wouldn't have an additional positive impact off the ball on every other team too.

You're not following what I'm saying. Dirk's Spacing has value, as do all shooters. What I'm saying is in the way you attempted to quantify his Spacing Effect ("3-point edge to Dirk"), the fact that he's ON DALLAS matters. It's circumstantial. I don't consider "circumstantial value" to equate to "how well someone played a game/series."

I'd actually really be fascinated to hear why anyone would think that, actually.

[ElGee]

Alright so some thoughts post CF:

1. LeBron, pretty easily at #1. I won't say he's clinched it, and I have no qualms about weighting the finals more, but it is going to take something huge to swing it.

2. Durant, yeah I'd say he's earned the right to move up here. He looks incredible.

3. Paul, he drops below Durant but I doubt I'll be swayed to drop him further. As mentioned, when an injury only causes you to look bad in a series you were going to lose anyway, it's hard for me to take it that seriously.

4. Garnett, a very, very impressive year. I do see him as clearly below the Big 3, but I really can't think of anyone else I'd debate over him.

5. ....

Some thoughts on some players listed so far, and thus are logical candidates for the 5th slot:

Kobe: This is one of those times that makes me question whether I really do have an irrational bias against the guy. When people praised him especially early on, all I could focus on was the negative. That being: When a volume scorer all of a sudden becomes more ball dominant, and his teammates all look more passive than they have in years, then to the extent the offense isn't working, I blame everyone involved. Blaming the supporting cast is easy and correct, but the scorer needs to recognize his part in the problem.

The Lakers of course in that time period were really quite weak in their offense, and whenever any one questioned Kobe about it, he bristled and hogged the ball more. How is that not an issue? Of course the Laker offense did improve with time...as Kobe got tired, shot worse, and dominated the ball less.

Still, I'm not going to argue that another Laker shoot be getting arguments here, and the team still was good even if a far cry from last year with Phil Jackson.

Westbrook: I've got a tough time here with Russ. Basically, even though the Thunder now look like title favorites, and a potential dynasy, with him at the helm, I still see problems with him that I wonder would be better if they moved him into a more tertiary role relative to Harden. I'm not willing to champion Harden over Westbrook either btw, and so I'm pretty unlikely to pick either of them for this list, despite the fact that I feel like Durant might be the most fortunate superstar in history for getting those two and Ibaka drafted right after him.

Wade: Actually can't remember whether anyone's listed him or not. His relative weakness as a candidate this year are clear, but if he finishes the season strong, I have a feeling he's going to be all over people's list again, and perhaps mind.

Dirk & Nash: One of these two is probably who'd I'd side with at this point in time. Super good decision makers whose teams are absolutely dependent on them, and hence, valuable, right?

Now, Nash has the rather obvious issue that his team didn't even make the playoffs. One can ask, how valuable can he be if the result of his presence only means a worse draft pick? I don't agree with that, but I will also ask:

If a team is only middling good when based around one star, and that star has an unusual game which might contribute to the team struggling when he goes off the floor, then perhaps in the big picture, he's not actually helping the team as much as he appears?

Alright, now as I say that, and acknowledge it's a reasonable question to ask about Nash, keep in mind that the Suns still have a good overall offense (9th in ORtg, and climbing as the year went on). The Mavs this year had their offense tumble to 22nd in the league while basing their offense around perhaps the most unorthodox star in the game. They still made the playoffs due to their defense, which Dirk is part of, but does it concern anyone that we're talking about a primarily offensive star here who is requiring a large amount of unusual design, and it's not even getting the team a good offense any more?

So I welcome your thoughts. Obviously, I'm critical of the candidacies of all these guys, but there are hundreds of other NBA players not even on my radar right now.

WIth only a few of the relevant players left to play about 1% of their season, my picks are basically locked in stone. If you are flipping stuff around a lot right now, chances are you have an unstable model of evaluation. That, or you are succumbing to huge Winning Bias.

To Doc's points here, my thoughts go something like this:

LBJ, Paul, Durant -- they are going to be 1-2-3. I would have (or still reserve) the outside chance that Wade goes over Durant, but that's probably not going to happen, even if Wade explodes, simply because I think his health earlier was a roadblock to the average title contender's chances. (The Heat certainly fall off without just a phenomenal 10 game stretch from James.)

After that, (Wade,) Dirk, Kobe, Garnett, Westbrook all stand above the rest to me. I could consider some other players being close -- first and foremost Steve Nash (and even someone like Kevin Love), but that's really right around the cutoff for me.

Garnett - more "valuable" than good to me. And he was very good -- his best season since 2008. But just because there was crazy impact, I think you have to really consider the empty gas tank that he just kept finding a way to replenish -- there were a number of times in the last 2 rounds he flatlined a bit though. Furthermore, he just wasn't the same player he was in 2008, so despite tremendous value as Boston's only big, their defensive captain, and only post presence, he ran into trouble at times in all those areas. (Bosh just being on the court in G7 affected a lot of his value, for example.)

Kobe - While I don't necessarily agree with Doc's train of thought about "blame" here, I do think that Bryant was a glorified gunner this year. This is not to say he wasn't good, but I don't think he was quite as good as Allen Iverson in 2001. Remember, I championed Iverson in 01 and gave him a vote, and I think Iverson was a gunner too.

Basketball is about the ability to raise the probability of your own team's ability to score on a per possession basis (Global Offense) and limit the opponent to do the same (Global Defense). I don't think Bryant was very good on defense this year, although under Mike Brown there were times he was decent. But on offense, he was less of a play-maker at times, and as a shooter, highly inefficient at times. When you ramp up your possessions (True Shot Att's), you are hurting the team more by being inefficient.

You're never going to impress me by taking 25 shots a game on low efficiency when you have other skilled players on your team.

Westbrook - Another reason why assists is one of the worst stats we have. Westbrook's assists plummeted this year. In the near future, someone will make that "evidence" that he started passing less or wasn't able to distribute at well, when in reality the on-ball roles of Durant and Harden increased. (Harden, btw, I consider to be a top-15 player.) Wsetbrook's role has always been to create havoc with his penetration, and he does that, and he's basically a hybrid guard who scores and passes plenty. His shooting numbers increased from the floor despite the terrible offenses across the league, and he's clearly a major, major cog in a super-elite offense.

I'm not sure he's necessarily better than he was last year -- I can't really comment on his defense this year -- but from what I see, right in the same ballpark which puts him quite close to these players.

Nash - Another good year from Nash, the gy can still play. Comparable to last season, and I think people need to consider the mileage as well again. Played 31 mpg and was more like a Super Stockton (late-career) than a prime Nash to me. I'd love him as a "secondary" offensive player (still running the offense when in the game) but I don't think you can expect huge minutes in a deep playoff run based on how he looked. He didn't go over 40 min in a game all year and in the last 5 weeks never over 35.

Dirk - I have him at No. 5 right now pretty solidly, and think he's being underrated due to...his team getting worse. How much do people actually think Nowitzki declined??

His splits this year before and after the ASB:
19.6 ppg 54.5% TS
23.6 ppg 57.9% TS

Of course, last year he was 23.6 at 59.5% TS in a higher scoring environment with better teammates. *Shrug.*

So then he gets into the playoffs, and what does he do? 26.8 ppg 56% TS, the usual non-existent TOV rates. His DREB% did decline from 23 to 18 - definitely an eroding factor as he ages.

FWIW, Dirk's 3rd in non-prior informed RAPM, had a lowish variance +10 1-year APM as his team was -7.4 without him and +5.9 with him. I don't see a lot of difference from last year, except he wasn't afforded the opportunity to be on TV all the time and his team wasn't as good. I could even understanding people taking him 4th here.

[Doctor MJ]

]If Miami wins the series, you don't say "it's obvious." No one does. This, despite Dirk playing exactly the same. This is nothing I haven't said before. It's Winning Bias.

I wanted to get back to this since I lost track of it before. Your core point is valid, but obviously (that word again) there was a difference in perception of how each player was playing before the series was finished. The "WTF is happening to LeBron!" discussion was at almost full blast when the series was 2-2 at a time when Miami was still widely perceived to be the favorite to win and many thought Dallas was lucky not to be down at least 3-1. There was no similar freakout occurring with Dirk.

Now, it's true that the LeBron freakout wouldn't have happened to nearly the same degree if Miami had won all of those games, the fact that there was a disproportionate freakout hear while Miami still looked like they'd win basically says the issue is not Winning Bias.

Seems to me the argument that might have a better chance here toward what you've mentioned is that people are just focused too much on direct scoring impact, which is of course, always a danger. Still, LeBron's "aura" of indirect impact seemed to shrink here whereas Dirk's remained strong (though obviously not as strong as Wade's was) - and as I write that sentence I can see you possibly going nuts at my abstractions...but do you not understand what I'm talking about?

I'm with you that the spacing impact of Dirk is not unique to Dirk (though he's obviously extreme on this front), and that there are related types of impact a player like LeBron who scares the hell out of the opponent, but the thing that's startled me in LeBron's two walkabout ordeals is how his passivity seemed to broadcast signals to the defense diminishing the impact along these lines you'd normally just assume as part of the LeBron package.

[Doctor MJ]

WIth only a few of the relevant players left to play about 1% of their season, my picks are basically locked in stone. If you are flipping stuff around a lot right now, chances are you have an unstable model of evaluation. That, or you are succumbing to huge Winning Bias.

I think you might be a touch too obsessed with Winning Bias. The unstable model criticism is absolutely valid though. I've never been comfortable enough with a particular quantitative model to stabilize generally and with my outside distractions this year - and the bizarreness of this season - I've really never felt settled on my list.

'Preciate your thoughts on the specific players.

[MisterWestside]

Now, it's true that the LeBron freakout wouldn't have happened to nearly the same degree if Miami had won all of those games, the fact that there was a disproportionate freakout hear while Miami still looked like they'd win basically says the issue is not Winning Bias.

I think that the "disproportionate" noise that you heard came from those who have "I don't like LeBron no matter what he does" Bias. If Miami loses, they'll rip him even if he averages 50 per game against his opponent. If Miami wins, "he plays with Wade/Bosh so there should be an asterisk". Remember, Miami did have a 2-1 lead in the series, and some pundits were still disgruntled with LeBron anyway. Winning was inconsequential.

For people who don't fall into that group, ElGee is correct; it's Winning Bias. They don't actually care about LeBron's performance against Dallas; just the fact that the team didn't win (see '09 ECF for another example). That's it.

[Doctor MJ]

Now, it's true that the LeBron freakout wouldn't have happened to nearly the same degree if Miami had won all of those games, the fact that there was a disproportionate freakout hear while Miami still looked like they'd win basically says the issue is not Winning Bias.

I think that the "disproportionate" noise that you heard came from those who have "I don't like LeBron no matter what he does" Bias. If Miami loses, they'll rip him even if he averages 50 per game against his opponent. If Miami wins, "he plays with Wade/Bosh so there should be an asterisk". Remember, Miami did have a 2-1 lead in the series, and some pundits were still disgruntled with LeBron anyway. Winning was inconsequential.

For people who don't fall into that group, ElGee is correct; it's Winning Bias. They don't actually care about LeBron's performance against Dallas; just the fact that the team didn't win (see '09 ECF for another example). That's it.

Well of course, you're getting into a valid point: The roots behind the LeBron hate actually is Winning Bias. It's just that now we've gone beyond that.

However, I'll admit I'm someone who has maintained LeBron is the best in the game, and I thought he played badly against Dallas too.

[MisterWestside]

However, I'll admit I'm someone who has maintained LeBron is the best in the game, and I thought he played badly against Dallas too.

Sure, and for the record I agree with you. ElGee just wants to make sure that Miami winning/losing the series had nothing to do with your position

I've seen many great performances in team losses, and crappy ones in team wins. Was MJ's 63 against the Celtics always seen as a brilliant performance, or did people assign mythical status to it in hindsight after the Bulls ran off their string of titles?

[ElGee]

]If Miami wins the series, you don't say "it's obvious." No one does. This, despite Dirk playing exactly the same. This is nothing I haven't said before. It's Winning Bias.

I wanted to get back to this since I lost track of it before. Your core point is valid, but obviously (that word again) there was a difference in perception of how each player was playing before the series was finished. The "WTF is happening to LeBron!" discussion was at almost full blast when the series was 2-2 at a time when Miami was still widely perceived to be the favorite to win and many thought Dallas was lucky not to be down at least 3-1. There was no similar freakout occurring with Dirk.

Now, it's true that the LeBron freakout wouldn't have happened to nearly the same degree if Miami had won all of those games, the fact that there was a disproportionate freakout hear while Miami still looked like they'd win basically says the issue is not Winning Bias.

Seems to me the argument that might have a better chance here toward what you've mentioned is that people are just focused too much on direct scoring impact, which is of course, always a danger. Still, LeBron's "aura" of indirect impact seemed to shrink here whereas Dirk's remained strong (though obviously not as strong as Wade's was) - and as I write that sentence I can see you possibly going nuts at my abstractions...but do you not understand what I'm talking about?

I'm with you that the spacing impact of Dirk is not unique to Dirk (though he's obviously extreme on this front), and that there are related types of impact a player like LeBron who scares the hell out of the opponent, but the thing that's startled me in LeBron's two walkabout ordeals is how his passivity seemed to broadcast signals to the defense diminishing the impact along these lines you'd normally just assume as part of the LeBron package.

Unless I've misspoken, it should be clearly noted that the Winning Bias here is about Dirk, not really about LeBron. The "we all hate LeBron" thing is in effect, to a degree, but that's not really what I'm focusing on. Dirk just didn't play a very good series. James didn't play a very good series either (and it looks real bad by his normal standards).

I've posted the actual EV from their series, but I want to put something into perspective using Box-Only EV based on a blog post I just did.

James' Finals box-only EV was the 3rd-worst series of his career (of 20).
Nowitzki's Finals box-only EV was the 3rd-worst series of his career (of 24).

Yet people sit here and say it's "obvious" Dirk was better. And I say that, yes, while there are other factors (people hate LeBron, people compare LeBron to himself, LeBron's team lost, scoring is a big issue as you said) the biggest factor in that is that Dirk's team won.

WIth only a few of the relevant players left to play about 1% of their season, my picks are basically locked in stone. If you are flipping stuff around a lot right now, chances are you have an unstable model of evaluation. That, or you are succumbing to huge Winning Bias.

I think you might be a touch too obsessed with Winning Bias. The unstable model criticism is absolutely valid though. I've never been comfortable enough with a particular quantitative model to stabilize generally and with my outside distractions this year - and the bizarreness of this season - I've really never felt settled on my list.

I think it's fair to criticize my delivery. But I don't think "being obsessed" is a bad thing in this case. I'm obsessed with Late-Game Bias too, because the two biggest mistakes I probably see people make over and over in basketball analysis are

(1) "clutch" (and they can't explain why it matters more, but it just does!)
(2) When someone's team wins, they get a HUGE break/boost

This is something I fight constantly because it's HARD to analyze play. We have a good gist for who is good and who isn't (and sometimes people whiff fairly badly when they commit the third biggest evaluation mistake - only focus on scorers), but differentiating among the "good" is no easy task. Defensive value, off-ball value, etc. are often heavily overlooked. Suddenly, someone's team wins and ALL we are bombarded with and left with in our feeble little brains is all the GOOD that contributed to that while overlooking any bad. I find this to be perversely powerful in basketball, and after bringing up countless examples in the project people still commit the error IMO.

So, I think it's fair to criticize my persuasiveness since what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears. But I've learned how powerful variance is, role players are, how easy an upset is EVEN IN A 7-GAME SERIES, etc. so much so that to legitimately talk about which team won in a close series seems essentially irrelevant from how a star played. I will go as far to say with a huge degree of confidence that if Dirk Nowitzki missed ONE more shot in last year's NBA Finals (in G2), the Mavericks lose the series and he would be criticized for flaming out (again) in the Finals.

Was MJ's 63 against the Celtics always seen as a brilliant performance, or did people assign mythical status to it in hindsight after the Bulls ran off their string of titles?

MJ was considered a ball-hog who couldn't lead a team to a title because he scored too much. This was the criticism and the world didn't even have Skip Bayless! What's concerning about the MJ narrative shift (or any other one) is that no one learned their lesson. Instead of saying "crap, maybe I shouldn't pay attention to the confounds of a team winning and how that messes up my extreme dichotomous judgments," everyone just said "MJ 'gets it' now...oh, the 63-point game is on. Gosh MJ was good!" They don't actually realize they view that game differently now.

[mysticbb]

What is the purpose of this conversation then?

You wanted to have an estimate of the value Nowitzki gives over James off the ball. I gave you an estimate, which is OBVIOUSLY as every other basketball stats not a constant value, but influenced by variance in the given game. The players can also have a bad game in terms of moving without the ball as well as they can have a bad game shooting the ball. And I'm really shocked right now that you are honestly trying to spin that the other way here.

You said I wasn't accounting for Nowitzki's Spacing Effect in the Finals.

And you don't do that. You are so obsessed with detecting biases in other people that you are ignoring your own biases and completely dismissing the possibility that you are missing something here. The main difference between James and Nowitzki off the ball during the finals was that one guy was standing on the perimeter watching his teammate work while the other was moving without the ball and setting screens. With the ball I agree that there wasn't much of a difference, well Nowitzki scored at a higher rate and was the best defensive rebounder in the finals, James was good for the most part as playmaker with the ball in his hand. But James being static when not having the ball gave the Mavericks even the chance to double off of him. And that is not something related to any kind of "winning bias" you are trying to see here, but more related to the fact that this game is about playing 5 on 5 AND the way the players are distributing themselves on the court is an important factor. Well, Phil Jackson for example has spacing as the most important factor for a good offense. Maybe this guy is right and you are missing something here?
When James moves better without the ball (as he is doing in this season for example), it not only helps his teammates, but gives him also the chance to be in a better position as a recipient of the ball.

It' pretty implicit in that statement that it's a constant he carries when he's on the court, is it not?

What? There is nothing in my post implying that the value would be constant. In no way or shape did I EVER say that one of the values I used would be constants for individual players. The values are average values, not constant.

I'm well aware Dirks' spacing helps -- I have no idea where you thought I said otherwise. I asked you about quantifying since you reacted so incredulously that Dirk was not "obviously" better in the Finals.

No idea that you are "well aware" of that. The numbers you used to show that James and Nowitzki were rather equal had nothing to do with off ball game at all. Maybe you are aware of that, but in that case you are rather dishonest in your approach here. Because, if there was one thing obvious, it was that the Mavericks with Nowitzki played much better than without him, while that wasn't much of a case for the Heat during the finals.

This is in the context of the massive WInning Bias people carry, and how it erodes this "discussions."

No, in that case it is more related to the fact that you WANT to see that winning bias in the people, and in order to justify your opinion about that you are even go as far as making stuff up like saying I would talk about some sort of constant value. Really, look at yourself at least once.

What I'm saying is in the way you attempted to quantify his Spacing Effect ("3-point edge to Dirk"), the fact that he's ON DALLAS matters. It's circumstantial. I don't consider "circumstantial value" to equate to "how well someone played a game/series."

Really, the quality of your argumentation is going really down here, it really looks like the typical responses by people here on the board who are only concerned about them winning a debate rather than actually analyzing the game.
The "circumstantial" value is here due to Nowitzki's skillset, which is the driving factor to allow the players to play way better. There is a reason that over 12 years Nowitzki's teammates played better with him on the court than without him, and in the majority of the possessions Nowitzki was on the court the plays weren't run for him, but for one of his teammates. The way the defense has to react to Nowitzki is giving his teammates more time to make a pass or the shot. Nowitzki's movement without the ball is helping to open up the middle or is just helping to create a better passing angle. Nowitzki's teammates are changing their shot selection with him on the court. A good example would Barea, who took 58% of his shots in 2011 in the paint with Nowitzki on the court while it went down to 48% without Nowitzki. Or Shawn Marion having more open shots from midrange with Nowitzki than without him leading to a difference of converting those shots with 37% over the last 2 seasons with Nowitzki on the court and with 27% without him. Those differences can't be explained by "winning bias", that is a result of different spacing. Completely dismissing that thing by arguing a strawman (constant value) or trying to detect a "winning bias" will always make you miss an important part of the game. And that part of the game differed between James and Nowitzki during the finals as well.

And that kind of value would give Nowitzki to ALL teams. Obviously, there are teammates needed to convert the opportunities given, but other players instead of Nowitzki wouldn't give the teammates those opportunities. Trying to dismiss that value by saying "circumstantial value because he is on Dallas" is ignorant here and just related to the fact that you don't have a point of comparison. Well, maybe you should have watched some of the games he played for Germany and then compare that with the games without him, maybe you wouldn't dismiss that as quickly as you do it right now.

[therealbig3]

Don't want to interrupt the debate, but I've got a question.

@mysticbb:

How do you think Durant compares to Dirk, in terms of providing that spacing that you're talking about? It would seem that guys who are deadly shooters that move very well off the ball (Miller, Allen, Durant, Dirk) would provide spacing that would be hugely beneficial to an offense.

[mysticbb]

Yet people sit here and say it's "obvious" Dirk was better. And I say that, yes, while there are other factors (people hate LeBron, people compare LeBron to himself, LeBron's team lost, scoring is a big issue as you said) the biggest factor in that is that Dirk's team won.

Two things to consider here: You are putting too much faith into your ability to watch, see and understand AND you are trying to interpret the word "obvious" as if that means people think there was some sort of huge difference between those two in terms of overall play with the ball. You are getting to worked up about it, because you are making two mistakes here, things you only want to see in other people.

But I don't think "being obsessed" is a bad thing in this case.

Being "obsessed" with something makes you biased and you are ignoring your own bias here pretty heavily. When you are obsessed with something, you can't see clear anymore and you will have the tendency to miss important things. In that case it is really obvious that you are just trying to justify your own biased opinion without having anything to back it up besides your own on ball related analysis. Take a step back and look at yourself for a second and how much bias is influencing your own argumentation here.

(1) "clutch" (and they can't explain why it matters more, but it just does!)
(2) When someone's team wins, they get a HUGE break/boost

The issue is that you are not talking to people obsessed with "clutch" or "winning" here, neither Doc MJ nor myself are "obsessed" with that kind of things. But you are arguing as if we would be some sort of fanboys blinded by our wrong focus on things like clutch or winning.
When we go back to last year, you were also so obsessed with showing that the difference between the Heat winning and losing would have been some sort of luck/bad luck from the free throw line. You were so confident about that part that you didn't even check the numbers and obviously missed the mistake Hollinger made. You showed a clear bias here, a confirmation bias, those numbers by Hollinger were enough for you to conclude that the Mavericks just won, because of variance at the free throw line. And right now I have a hard time seeing that you learnt from your mistake.

[mysticbb]

How do you think Durant compares to Dirk, in terms of providing that spacing that you're talking about? It would seem that guys who are deadly shooters that move very well off the ball (Miller, Allen, Durant, Dirk) would provide spacing that would be hugely beneficial to an offense.

Well, it is different, because Durant, Miller or Allen are actually helping themselves more with that by getting into good shooting position than helping their team overall. I hardly see plays in which the Thunder use Durant as a decoy to get someone else a good shot. I don't see Harden getting better looks when being with Durant on the court, and while it made a difference for Westbrook last season (at least my impression), I think that Westbrook can break the defense down this season as well. For me the effect Harden has on Westbrook is bigger. Well, when Harden and Durant are on the court, Westbrook gets constantly those open midrange shots, that is a result of spacing. The effect is smaller for Durant than for Nowitzki. One of the reasons is the fight for the post position. While teams are trying to not give Nowitzki position in the post, they aren't that concerned about Durant on this part.

So, overall the ability to move without the ball is helping a team, but in the case of Durant, Miller or Allen we see a big part of that help already in their scoring efficiency. It is also a different effect when comparing a big and a small. So, when Durant plays the PF position, it becomes a bigger factor. We could also take a look again at Radmanovic and the 2008 Lakers. The offense got especially great when Radmanovic played PF next to Bynum or later Gasol. The reason here is that most times the more agile bigger defender is going out to the perimeter, in a lot of cases is that the defender being most important for the help defense. Now, when you combine that big-shooter-effect with being a post-threat, we are getting a player being really, really helpful for the offense even when he does not have the ball in his hands. The defense just has to react to the size and skills of such a player. Well, when you have a smaller player, the defense can just say that they give the smaller player a bit more room while defending the teammates more, that can work. But do that with Nowitzki and he kills your team from the midpost area.

Obviously, this effect depends on the teammates being able to use the opportunities given to them, but without the opportunities they aren't helping much anyway. A good example would be the difference here between Bryant and Nowitzki in terms of time with the ball. Nowitzki doesn't have the ball in his hand as often, but that also means that someone else has, likely a smaller guy, who can play to his strength with the ball. But when someone like Bryant is controlling the ball, how is a smaller player next to him in a position to play to his strength? That is an important aspect here, also with the Thunder and Durant. When Durant is moving without the ball, even if he doesn't give the same spacing effect, he still allows Westbrook to play with the ball. Imagine Durant would be more like Anthony and would demand more iso plays, Westbrook would likely be in a worse position. How much that effect is worth, is not easy to determine and I wouldn't try to put a number on it, but that is at least something we should consider as well.

[ardee]

As the postseason has continued, mine is probably looking like:

1. LeBron
2. Durant (if he outplays LBJ in the Finals it becomes interesting)

3. Paul (great regular season, don't blame him for the Spurs loss as he was injured. Against the Grizzlies, prior to the injury he was great.)

Big gap now.

4. Kevin Love: A superfluous regular season. He was probably worth the most wins to a team this season. I don't mean win shares, I just mean in an intangible sense. If he and Rubio had both not got injured the Wolves might actually have been a Playoff team.

5. Kobe or Garnett. Can't decide. Kobe had some great playoff scoring performances, and KG was very good defensively after the ASG and also an efficient shooter. Can't decide for now.

[drza]

Still settling on my final order. For now, it's pretty much set in stone that LeBron is number one. After that I expect to have Dirk, Durant, KG and Paul in some order. I just have to take the time to figure out what that order should be, unless I see some really great points made for someone else that moves them into the debate as well.

[bastillon]

@Doc, what does it matter whether Clippers could beat the Spurs ? how does that impact Paul's individual performance ? we have to make a clear distinction between individual impact and outcome of the games (which is also heavily dependent on outside factors). so I couldn't care less whether Spurs won, or whether Clippers could beat them. all I care about is how Paul played individually (i.e. what his individual impact was). and with all that in mind, Paul's injury makes it nearly impossible for me to win an NBA title because he got injured late in the 1st round. I don't see how anyone would take an injured player over healthy one. Bryant for example, despite being criticized, will clearly have bigger postseason impact. he was still going for 30+ vs OKC's elite defenders when Paul was badly struggling vs Tony Parker.

[ElGee]

Mystic - In general, I give you the benefit of the doubt because English isn't your native language. But I'm just floored right now given how many things you have misread, misinterpreted, made up, or attributed to me out of left field.

First, you jump into the conversation I was having with Doc to say

Dirk's role in the Mavs offensive was to run as a primary scoring hub/threat, not turn it over much and shoot the hell out of the ball.

That is WRONG. How many plays did they really run for Nowitzki? In most plays Nowitzki was used as a decoy, in order to draw the attention of the defense out of the zone to give the perimeter players opportunities to attack the basket.

No where did you actually refute my categorization of Dirk's role, because I don't think a knowledgable human being could object to what I wrote. Perhaps you don't know what the word "threat" means, but that's something you should look up before shouting "WRONG."

Then you decided to go on another diatribe about my comment "his worst offensive series since 2007," which you said you misread. OK, so then I asked you abut your off-ball calculation and two points specifically in the method. I then said, in the context of asking you about quantifying something that I've specifically written about before

I actually think this is an interesting way to try to measure off-ball impact, but it's obviously missing a little ITO of on-ball activities, the variance/accuracy of RAPM, and the interactive combinations of lineups.

For you to then say

You said I wasn't accounting for Nowitzki's Spacing Effect in the Finals.

And you don't do that.

I'm well aware Dirks' spacing helps

No idea that you are "well aware" of that. Maybe you are aware of that, but in that case you are rather dishonest in your approach here.

is just whacky. I don't know how else to say that nicely, other than to genuinely ask if you believe that I don't think spacing is an issue in basketball, and how you come to that conclusion? When I post information as a reference point (which is what I did for Doc), do you want me to write footnotes in each instance explaining all the possible holes and vagaries in every metric??

Now, any Spacing Effect obviously isn't a true mathematical constant. I would hope that you would give ME the benefit of the doubt and wouldn't just automatically assume I'd say something so moronic, especially when I rant about variance every 3 posts. It seems really obvious to me that "SCREEN SETTING" or "SHOOTING THREAT ON PERIMETER" are relatively constant values within a 7-game series against one opponent, UNLESS one of the teams makes a drastic adjustment (eg, we aren't going to have this play set picks, or defensively we are now going to leave this player open.)

Feel free to explain how you think, in the context of impacting a game by 1-3 points per 100 (?) that this is a highly variable talent. But otherwise, identifying the degree of that Effect is the crux of the issue since you've objected so vehemently to the "on-ball" analysis that reveals such a close level of play. (And as an aside, I'd like to add that James was subpar in the Finals relative to himself defensively, which is part of the reason I think fatigue was such an issue, and also the type of thing where EV could equally be as off as any Spacing Effect, but I don't see you haranguing away on that front.)

Really, the quality of your argumentation is going really down here, it really looks like the typical responses by people here on the board who are only concerned about them winning a debate rather than actually analyzing the game.
The "circumstantial" value is here due to Nowitzki's skillset, which is the driving factor to allow the players to play way better. There is a reason that over 12 years Nowitzki's teammates played better with him on the court than without him, and in the majority of the possessions Nowitzki was on the court the plays weren't run for him, but for one of his teammates. The way the defense has to react to Nowitzki is giving his teammates more time to make a pass or the shot. Nowitzki's movement without the ball is helping to open up the middle or is just helping to create a better passing angle. Nowitzki's teammates are changing their shot selection with him on the court. A good example would Barea, who took 58% of his shots in 2011 in the paint with Nowitzki on the court while it went down to 48% without Nowitzki. Or Shawn Marion having more open shots from midrange with Nowitzki than without him leading to a difference of converting those shots with 37% over the last 2 seasons with Nowitzki on the court and with 27% without him. Those differences can't be explained by "winning bias", that is a result of different spacing. Completely dismissing that thing by arguing a strawman (constant value) or trying to detect a "winning bias" will always make you miss an important part of the game. And that part of the game differed between James and Nowitzki during the finals as well.

And that kind of value would give Nowitzki to ALL teams. Obviously, there are teammates needed to convert the opportunities given, but other players instead of Nowitzki wouldn't give the teammates those opportunities. Trying to dismiss that value by saying "circumstantial value because he is on Dallas" is ignorant here and just related to the fact that you don't have a point of comparison. Well, maybe you should have watched some of the games he played for Germany and then compare that with the games without him, maybe you wouldn't dismiss that as quickly as you do it right now.

Well, again, *I'm not ignoring Spacing.* The "circumstantial" value I mentioned isn't something you even address here -- I'm talking about the degree to which that effects Dirk's Spacing Effect. It will be present every where he goes, but it will be of different value in Dallas than if he were traded tomorrow, dependent on shooters, penetrators and scheme. How you can flip out about Spacing being relatively constant in a series and then simultaneously object to me saying, like every other "value," it's conditional?

KG has huge value on Boston right now -- they have no bigs. If he played with 3 clones of himself, he would have less VALUE, but it wouldn't change how well he played in a series when he was on the court. Thats the point -- it's not merely specific to Spacing, but obviously the impact of one's Spacing will be dictated by role and teammates (as I said, with Terry and Peja on the court, what do you think the effect looks like)?

The issue is that you are not talking to people obsessed with "clutch" or "winning" here, neither Doc MJ nor myself are "obsessed" with that kind of things.

And where did I say you were?

But you are arguing as if we would be some sort of fanboys blinded by our wrong focus on things like clutch or winning.

NO. What I'm saying is so powerful is that someone as smart, thoughtful and knowledgable as Doc would drop the blanket statement that it was "obvious" Nowitzki played better in the Finals, not really because of anything to do with LeBron James (although that might magnify it), but because the Dallas Mavericks won the NBA Finals. More importantly, he represents the beliefs of the majority here. That's entire point of this discussion with Doc, and it's germane because every year this stuff dictates people's impressions heavily, and it probably gets worse in time. The brain LEANS towards dichotomy because it's simpler storage, and because it can't function in ambivalence.

When we go back to last year, you were also so obsessed with showing that the difference between the Heat winning and losing would have been some sort of luck/bad luck from the free throw line. You were so confident about that part that you didn't even check the numbers and obviously missed the mistake Hollinger made. You showed a clear bias here, a confirmation bias, those numbers by Hollinger were enough for you to conclude that the Mavericks just won, because of variance at the free throw line. And right now I have a hard time seeing that you learnt from your mistake.

I was "obsessed" with a simple conclusion? You mean, everyone drew extreme conclusions about 2 players based on a team result in a high-variance sport after the closest Finals basically ever? And I pointed out it was the closest FInals and that made me "obsessed with showing that the difference between the Heat winning and losing would have been some sort of luck/bad luck from the free throw line," even though I CITED someone else's post on that matter as an illustration of how close the series was?

It's the last sentence that really makes me cry. Team's don't win games because of one thing, play, quarter, etc. It's the collective result of the entire game. If you've pretty much read anything I've written, this is a constant theme. What would make you conclude that "those numbers by Hollinger were enough for [me] to conclude that the Mavericks just won, because of variance at the free throw line?????"

I didn't appreciate your attributions last year, when it wasn't enough for you to say, "Hey, ElGee, Hollinger's numbers are wrong but your basic point still stands," you had to come up with some crazy conspiracy theory about how, while I was working in the morning and reading TrueHoop, I was browing around looking for false data to prove a point about how close the Finals were. Now you say "I didn't learn from my mistake." What mistake would that be, exactly?

Like most of this exchange, it's just unnecessarily combative and misses the point. For goodness sakes, you mentioned the word "bias" 12 times on the last page to me, when we were talking about measuring a Spacing Effect.