2012-13 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[Doctor MJ]

The offense clearly changed and it clearly had a positive effect on the team, anyone who followed the team can attest to that. They turned the season around after they had a players only meeting not just because they started playing weaker compition. Had the Lakers not made the change and had Kobe not taken a larger role in the offense the team would not have made the playoffs.

Why aren't you addressing his numbers? If you mean to say that you acknowledge that the offense was not literally more effective but there were defensive benefits caused by the shift, you should say that. Otherwise you implying that it was obvious that the offense improve in the face of someone giving numerical evidence showing no clear signs just makes you seem like you don't understand what he's saying.

I understand what he's saying he clearly stated "The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams" and that's not true. As for the numbers let me ask you do you think the Lakers offense was the same before the team approach changed since according to Elgee it was no different. Like I said had Lakers not changed they don't make the playoffs.

At this point I'll readily agree that it probably would have been better if he'd used a less inflammatory adjective, but c'mon, language is always only an indirect description and he provides the precise numbers he using to make the assessment. The numbers are what matter, address them as best you can.

What do I think? Well clearly the offense changed.

Was it better judging just by observation? I don't really believe in being able to do that unless the differences are absolutely glaring. If you watched the Lakers and think you were able to see that they were glaringly better but you weren't able to see the only minimal change in quantified effectiveness, I'd ask you what you think that means.

If you are willing to say you think that ElGee's numbers are just wrong, I admire that and we should get a second source.

If don't dispute the numbers, then what is it you are saying you see when you watch the game that's so clear and significant but does not include an intuition actual count?

[Doctor MJ]

1. LeBron
2. Durant
3. CP3
4. Duncan
5. Kobe

Regarding Kobe, there isn't anyone else that I can think of that had a comparable regular season, and he had an incredibly strong 2nd half run once things started clicking a bit and everyone got healthy (25.8 pts, 6.6 reb, and 7.7 ast). The other candidates (Wade, Curry, and Melo) weren't as good in the regular season and certainly haven't done enough in the post-season to close the gap. Parker might have a shot depending on how the rest of the series goes. He did miss some extended time in the RS and played poorly after returning from injury, but he's had a strong playoff run. I guess he'll be the one that I keep an eye out for as he's the only one that I can see dislodging Kobe. For now though this list is pretty firm unless Parker goes bananas the rest of the series.

I'm sorry if this seems like I'm picking at you on all sides.

How does Kobe's injury and lack of playoff availability factor in for you? This has been something that's been important to you in the past iirc.

ftr, while I don't have Kobe a serious contender here for other reasons, I'm inclined to let such injuries slide when I don't think they actually matter. So a guy on a high seed missing the playoffs is a big deal, but a guy on a low seed missing the playoffs isn't necessarily.

[semi-sentient]

Dude, the part where he elaborates on "terrible teams" by providing precise numbers for how he actually sees things was in the post that you replied to until you chopped it out. That's the point. I don't fault you for not responding to everything anyone includes in their post, but when you chop out the objective part of the post and label the post subjective it's problematic.

OK, I see what he's saying now. I thought the SRS numbers were for the Lakers and not their opposition. That's still not a great argument considering no analysis was done on the Warriors opponents outside of what I provided, not that it would make a big difference seeing as how the Lakers played a larger percentage of road games.

[semi-sentient]

How does Kobe's injury and lack of playoff availability factor in for you? This has been something that's been important to you in the past iirc.

I already sort of answered that. Kobe had a better regular season than both Curry and Parker (and Duncan), and I don't think they've done enough to overtake him. I gave Duncan the edge because he's been really strong defensively and somewhat consistent offensively. Curry wasn't bad in the playoffs, but he had a lot more bad or sub par games than good games.

Parker still has a shot of elevating himself in my rankings if he finishes strong, but his past two games have been awful so he's not doing himself any favors.

[Bruh Man]

At this point I'll readily agree that it probably would have been better if he'd used a less inflammatory adjective, but c'mon, language is always only an indirect description and he provides the precise numbers he using to make the assessment. The numbers are what matter, address them as best you can.

What do I think? Well clearly the offense changed.

Was it better judging just by observation? I don't really believe in being able to do that unless the differences are absolutely glaring. If you watched the Lakers and think you were able to see that they were glaringly better but you weren't able to see the only minimal change in quantified effectiveness, I'd ask you what you think that means.

If you are willing to say you think that ElGee's numbers are just wrong, I admire that and we should get a second source.

If don't dispute the numbers, then what is it you are saying you see when you watch the game that's so clear and significant but does not include an intuition actual count?

Well I think there are multiple things that made the Lakers more dangerous on offense the second half of the season. Chemistry played a big role, players took time to adjust to one another and understand eachothers games.

The shift to a less D'Antoni style of play was also helpfull in slowing down the offense and running more post up plays instead of having your big man(Gasol) shooting a bunch of threes.

A healthier Dwight Howard was also quintessential to the Lakers improved play the second half of the season, he was a shell of his former self to start the year.

Kobe taking on a bigger facilitator role was also part of it, I believe Lakers won 9 out of 11 during that stretch if I'm not mistaken.

Having Steve Blake was also huge, with Nash missing a lot of games a Duhon/Morris rotation is one of the worst pg rotations you will see.

I'm not saying its a huge improvement, but it was a shift in style of play and to me that played a huge part in why Lakers started winning games. They also improved defensively and that is mainly due to Dwight getting healthy.

[Narigo]

1. LeBron James
2. Kevin Durant'
3. Chris Paul

4-5. Kobe or Westbrook or Parker or Duncan

[semi-sentient]

They also improved defensively and that is mainly due to Dwight getting healthy.

I think it was part Dwight, part Clark replacing Pau who's a sieve on defense, and part slowing the tempo while playing more out of the post.

[MeloMIracle]

I am confused as to why people are putting Kobe ahead of Melo. Is team success not a factor at all here?

[Vinsanity420]

If I could vote a coach in instead of a player right now... would have Pops up there in a heartbeat. Limiting LeBron + Having a system that gets unknown players like Danny Green/Gary Neal go bananas is Top 5 material.

[mysticbb]

I wrote that 3 weeks ago:

Interesting results, but let us check how the Lakers did in the last 40 games with and without Bryant on the court.

With Bryant (2691 possessions):

Ortg: 110.3 (+4.4, would be 6th in the league for the season)
DRtg: 109.6 (-3.7, would be 27th in the league for the season)
Net: +0.7 (would be 12th in the league for the season)

Without Bryant (1071 possessions):

Ortg: 105.2 (-0.7, would be 16th in the league for the season)
DRtg: 98.9 (+7, would be 1st in the league for the season)
Net: +6.3 (would be 5th in the league for the season)


The Lakers mainly won their games, because they played incredible defense when Bryant was NOT on the court. Bryant's positive impact on offense is seen, but his negative impact on defense is too. Bryant does not belong into any Top5 of this season; at the end of Top15 due to his offensive production, efficiency and impact, but his bad defense (average as 1on1 defender, really bad as help, transition and overall team defender) makes any argument for Top5 invalid.

[CBA]

The offense actually WAS more effective.

The first 42 games of the season:
Fast Break Points Allowed: 15.5
Points Off Turnovers: 16.6
Offensive Rebounds: 12.3
Turnovers: 15.0 (3.4 for Kobe)
FG%: .453
FT%: .696
PTS: 102.4

After Kobe switched to primary play-maker:
Fast Break Points Allowed: 16.5 (36 games)
Points Off Turnovers: 14.8
Offensive Rebounds: 10.9
Turnovers: 15.2 (4.1 for Kobe)
FG%: .470
FT%: .688
PTS: 102.9

So basically they scored about the same amount of points but shot a better percentage from the field. Their offensive rebounding dipped (could have been by design or a function of shooting better) as well as their FT shooting. With Kobe dominating the ball they played at a slower pace and were more effective as a result. It wasn't all him obviously since they became a bit more athletic/better defensively when Gasol was replaced by Clark, but you can't sit here and say that they weren't more effective offensively.

You're not accounting for the opponents played.

[semi-sentient]

You're not accounting for the opponents played.

There is no easy way to account for that, just as there is no easy way to account for injuries. The Lakers FC was depleted towards the end of the season and they were forced to play Morris and Duhon, neither of which even belong in the NBA.

[CBA]

You're not accounting for the opponents played.

There is no easy way to account for that, just as there is no easy way to account for injuries. The Lakers FC was depleted towards the end of the season and they were forced to play Morris and Duhon, neither of which even belong in the NBA.

Well, ElGee seemed to do the hard work for you, though I suppose it is possible that his numbers are wrong:

The Lakers finished 26-11 because they played terrible teams. In the first 45 games, they had a 2.1 SRS. In the last 37 games (4-1 without Kobe), they had a 0.8 SRS. The offense that Kobe "took over" didn't change -- it was +2.9 before the "change" and +2.9 after the change.

It doesn't seem likely that the offense improved at all as it moved from Kobe as the focal point to Kobe as the focal point.

[An Unbiased Fan]

1. LeBron
2. Durant
3. CP3
4. Duncan
5. Kobe

Regarding Kobe, there isn't anyone else that I can think of that had a comparable regular season, and he had an incredibly strong 2nd half run once things started clicking a bit and everyone got healthy (25.8 pts, 6.6 reb, and 7.7 ast). The other candidates (Wade, Curry, and Melo) weren't as good in the regular season and certainly haven't done enough in the post-season to close the gap. Parker might have a shot depending on how the rest of the series goes. He did miss some extended time in the RS and played poorly after returning from injury, but he's had a strong playoff run. I guess he'll be the one that I keep an eye out for as he's the only one that I can see dislodging Kobe. For now though this list is pretty firm unless Parker goes bananas the rest of the series.

I tend to feel the same way, except I lean Parker over TD.

I see a lot of parallels between 2013 Kobe and 2000 Duncan. I had Kobe at #4 at the end of the RS, but thought for sure he would be passed up by multiple players in the PS. I think Parker has a shot to overtake if he's not hurt, and leads SA to a title/FMVP. Both Parker/Curry are tied right now for me at #5.

1. LeBron
2. Durant
3. CP3
4. Kobe
5. Parker/Curry

I am confused as to why people are putting Kobe ahead of Melo. Is team success not a factor at all here?

I think in general, playoff performances can be a plus or minus for a player. Usually its a plus because stars typically play well, but with Melo.....I think many felt he vastly under-performed on an individual level. You could call it the "A-Rod" effect. Melo shot 25.8 FGA on 49.7% TS, and only 1.6 apg in the playoffs.

[mysticbb]

It doesn't seem likely that the offense improved at all as it moved from Kobe as the focal point to Kobe as the focal point.

Indeed. The offense with Bryant on the court during the first 42 games was at 110.4 ORtg, during the last 40 games it was at 110.3 ORtg. The offense did not improve at all. The major change for the Lakers was actually their defense without Bryant on the court during those last 40 games. They played at 98.9 DRtg, which is incredible good.

[An Unbiased Fan]

It doesn't seem likely that the offense improved at all as it moved from Kobe as the focal point to Kobe as the focal point.

I'm confused, by this statement. Kobe was the focal point after Nash went down the first week.

[semi-sentient]

The entire point that seems to be getting overlooked is that Kobe was the one constant throughout the season. The fact that their offense didn't shift much speaks favorably of him relative to this entire discussion, unless you want to turn a blind eye to all the roster issues throughout the course of the season of course.

Kobe's defensive impact is no different than any of the other guards mentioned (which is to say that it's minimal given that defense is played as a team), and dRtg can't possibly tell me who was on the floor for either team at the time that Kobe was off. If you guys value it then cool, but I've never given that serious weight in any of my rankings and I never will.

[HeartBreakKid]

One constant? Kobe was better at the start of the season, and who cares if he was constant if he wasn't that good in the first place? He plays the worst defense out of any of the players getting mentioned by far, he's not exactly having the GOAT offensive season, and his team is crap and part of it is his fault.

[mysticbb]

Kobe's defensive impact is no different than any of the other guards mentioned (which is to say that it's minimal given that defense is played as a team),

That is not true at all. The defense is played by the defense, but a single player may still be able to influence that in one way or the other. Bryant's way of playing defense is especially harmful, because it makes it easier for the other team to score from the perimeter. He is not recovering correctly from the help, he has trouble finding his man in transition and his roaming around causes mulitple issues in the Lakers rotation and thereby putting them into a worse position for defensive rebounds.

and dRtg can't possibly tell me who was on the floor for either team at the time that Kobe was off. If you guys value it then cool, but I've never given that serious weight in any of my rankings and I never will.

Bryant during the last 40 games has clearly the worst OnCourt DRtg of all Lakers' players with reasonable minutes. The only player with a worse OnCourt DRtg than Bryant on the team among all Lakers' is Goudelock, who played 6 min overall. And then we can use ridge regression for example, to determine that as well.

You may want to ignore the seen evidence and the numbers, but overall Bryant's defense this season was bad and his defensive impact clearly negative.

[semi-sentient]

One constant? Kobe was better at the start of the season

What? No.

This is why you have to watch the games instead of looking at statistics. Kobe definitely played better basketball in the 2nd half of the season.

I bet his oRtg was higher though! lol...