2012-13 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[Vinsanity420]

I like that Ray Allen is watching this... the young generation take over his 3 point crown. Stephen Curry broke the 3 point record during the RS, and now Danny Green is sniping away in the finals.

[ElGee]

Raw EV per game through 5 games of the Finals:

Green +9.6
James +8.3
Leonard +6.6 (best defensive results in Finals)
Bosh +6.5 (second-best defensive results)
Parker +3.3
Duncan +2.9
Wade +2.7

Green's improvement on his 3-point shooting from the RS (44 to 68%) is currently the difference (after 5 games) between a 106.3 ORtg for the series and a 112.2 ORtg that the Spurs boast.

The margin, of course, between the Heat being comfortably up 3-1 (now 3-2) and heading back home to this psychological state that sparks Losing Bias is basically two buzzer-beaters in G1 -- Tim Duncan's shot at the end of the first half with less than a second left, and Tony Parker's at the end of the 4th quarter.

Furthermore, to give any Spur series MVP consideration other than Green (the clear leader) and maaaaybe Leonard boarders on lunacy -- at what point do people want the award to be about what happened on the court? Then again, the media has a history of lazy, scoring-biased Finals awards, so none of us should be surprised if they award it to Parker if he passes green in raw points per game in Miami.

[Bruh Man]

Raw EV per game through 5 games of the Finals:

Green +9.6
James +8.3
Leonard +6.6 (best defensive results in Finals)
Bosh +6.5 (second-best defensive results)
Parker +3.3
Duncan +2.9
Wade +2.7

Green's improvement on his 3-point shooting from the RS (44 to 68%) is currently the difference (after 5 games) between a 106.3 ORtg for the series and a 112.2 ORtg that the Spurs boast.

The margin, of course, between the Heat being comfortably up 3-1 (now 3-2) and heading back home to this psychological state that sparks Losing Bias is basically two buzzer-beaters in G1 -- Tim Duncan's shot at the end of the first half with less than a second left, and Tony Parker's at the end of the 4th quarter.

Furthermore, to give any Spur series MVP consideration other than Green (the clear leader) and maaaaybe Leonard boarders on lunacy -- at what point do people want the award to be about what happened on the court? Then again, the media has a history of lazy, scoring-biased Finals awards, so none of us should be surprised if they award it to Parker if he passes green in raw points per game in Miami.

Lol at the Heat being comfortably up 3-1 by winning game one when they are now down 2-3, what kind of math is that? Also isn't Green thier ppg leader? Or is it Parker?

Anyway my money is still on Parker if he has a solid game 6 and Spurs win, Green had an Amazing game 3 and 5 not so spectacular the other games. Question would you still think Green is FMVP if Heat win next 2 games while Green continues his hot shooting? Would be craziest fmvp ever, just goes to show how poorly the Stars are playing in this Finals.

[Vinsanity420]

What was LeBron's Game 5 EV?

[HeartBreakKid]

I've had Leonard as Spurs FMVP up until last nights game where Danny Green exploded. Still think Leonard deserves it, he won't get it because his stats aren't great, but I think he is playing phenomenal.

[Doctor MJ]

I like that Ray Allen is watching this... the young generation take over his 3 point crown. Stephen Curry broke the 3 point record during the RS, and now Danny Green is sniping away in the finals.

The really amazing thing is that Green really isn't in Allen's league at all. With Curry we're seeing Allen getting surpassed by someone just plain superior, but with Green what we're seeing is that the shift in team strategy is so extreme that even role players are doing from the perimeter what only the very best of the best could previously threaten to do.

[Doctor MJ]

Raw EV per game through 5 games of the Finals:

Green +9.6
James +8.3
Leonard +6.6 (best defensive results in Finals)
Bosh +6.5 (second-best defensive results)
Parker +3.3
Duncan +2.9
Wade +2.7

Green's improvement on his 3-point shooting from the RS (44 to 68%) is currently the difference (after 5 games) between a 106.3 ORtg for the series and a 112.2 ORtg that the Spurs boast.

The margin, of course, between the Heat being comfortably up 3-1 (now 3-2) and heading back home to this psychological state that sparks Losing Bias is basically two buzzer-beaters in G1 -- Tim Duncan's shot at the end of the first half with less than a second left, and Tony Parker's at the end of the 4th quarter.

Furthermore, to give any Spur series MVP consideration other than Green (the clear leader) and maaaaybe Leonard boarders on lunacy -- at what point do people want the award to be about what happened on the court? Then again, the media has a history of lazy, scoring-biased Finals awards, so none of us should be surprised if they award it to Parker if he passes green in raw points per game in Miami.

Great to see your EV on this.

The really sad thing if they end up giving it to Parker isn't that the wrong guy gets it, it's that the voters will be running away from what should be a historical moment. Nothing could be more noteworthy to Pop coaching the Spurs back 6 years after Duncan's prime to a title with a virtual nobody as the Finals MVP.

[bondom34]

I like that Ray Allen is watching this... the young generation take over his 3 point crown. Stephen Curry broke the 3 point record during the RS, and now Danny Green is sniping away in the finals.

Sorry if we're not supposed to do gifs in here, but saw this on Grantland today and this post just made me think its too good to pass up...

[mysticbb]

Lol at the Heat being comfortably up 3-1 by winning game one when they are now down 2-3, what kind of math is that?

Given the fact that the Spurs are up by +3 per game, that does even make less sense to say.

Also isn't Green thier ppg leader? Or is it Parker?

Green is the scoring leader with 18 ppg, Parker has 16.2 ppg. Also, Green is assisted on 83% of his field goals, which isn't surprising, because often he is just the lucky guy to get that open shot. If Green could handle the ball and make plays like others, he wouldn't be in that position.

[Dr Positivity]

Switching G1 to a Heat win and leaving the rest as is would've made it 3-1 MIA after 4 Gs, with that said, Miami probably plays a different game if leading in the series in G2 or G4 instead of trailing with their season on the lines, especially considering their weird on-off history

[mysticbb]

Switching G1 to a Heat win and leaving the rest as is would've made it 3-1 MIA after 4 Gs, with that said, Miami probably plays a different game if leading in the series in G2 or G4 instead of trailing with their season on the lines, especially considering their weird on-off history

There is actually no proof that a team plays different from one game to another based on the previous result. BUT assuming that the Heat win game 1 is not reasonable at all either. We are assuming that somehow they could have erased a 4 pt deficit just by their own strength as if the Spurs had nothing to do with it. And with the average scoring margin, assuming a 3-2 for the Heat at that point would actually mean that this would just based on luck for the Heat or bad luck for the Spurs. No idea, why that should be done in the first place. We can assume such switch, if the Heat would have indeed outscored the Spurs in average and can indeed address that win in game 1 with luck for the Spurs, but that is not the case.

[Dr Positivity]

Switching G1 to a Heat win and leaving the rest as is would've made it 3-1 MIA after 4 Gs, with that said, Miami probably plays a different game if leading in the series in G2 or G4 instead of trailing with their season on the lines, especially considering their weird on-off history

There is actually no proof that a team plays different from one game to another based on the previous result. BUT assuming that the Heat win game 1 is not reasonable at all either. We are assuming that somehow they could have erased a 4 pt deficit just by their own strength as if the Spurs had nothing to do with it. And with the average scoring margin, assuming a 3-2 for the Heat at that point would actually mean that this would just based on luck for the Heat or bad luck for the Spurs. No idea, why that should be done in the first place. We can assume such switch, if the Heat would have indeed outscored the Spurs in average and can indeed address that win in game 1 with luck for the Spurs, but that is not the case.

I didn't mean that it was about momentum or the previous game, just that there's a difference in a team's play between leading in a series and trailing in it regardless of how they got there. And that since MIA was for all intents and purposes facing elimination in games 2 and 4 it changed how they would approach the game and the case would've been the same for the Spurs if they were down 2-0 and 2-1 with their season on the line

I understand people like ElGee have a viewpoint that words like 'desperation' and 'playing with an edge' due to context are folly and biased towards winners, when in reality it's just random outputs. But I have reasons for believing that's not the case. For example, virtually if not all all of those players (possible exception of Battier, LOL) believe momentum, teams raising their game and getting locked in an elimination game and becoming prone to lapses when they're comfortable, greater intensity in a close 4th quarter and even clutch finishers and hot shooters, exists. And if they believe that it WILL affect their games. If the players in a sport believe it's being waged on a psychological level, how logical is it to say that it's not? Doesn't that its players bought into that part of the game, ensure that it exists? Secondly this is a league where just playing on a homecourt and having fans cheering for them and sleeping in their own bed or waking up with their GF/wives or whatever reason HCA is so powerful, seems to have a significant impact on a team's play and energy. So how can we say these guys are built like mental machines performing on a game to game basis regardless of context, if they can't even replicate their play in another city? Third, players do not expend as much energy as they can for 48 minutes a game, because they can't. They come closer to it in the Finals than the regular season, but there's still a picking of spots. eg. Norris Cole plays with twice the defensive energy Tony Parker does, because Parker has to same himself for offense, etc. If one accepts this it's easier to see how Miami having more 'desperate' energy and 'intensity' trailing 2-1 instead of leading 2-1 heading into G4 in SA can happen

[mysticbb]

I didn't mean that it was about momentum or the previous game, just that there's a difference in a team's play between leading in a series and trailing in it regardless of how they got there.

But we don't see that on the team level. While it might be (or even is) true that individual players are reacting differently to circumstances, we have multiple individuals interacting here and those events might cancel each other out. Some players may be better under pressure, some may be worse, some need to be in the lead to be more relaxed and better, and so on. How would you be able to make a useful distinction between all that?

At the end we can look how they play, and in average there is no indication that a team will play worse or better depending on the series standing.

[Dr Positivity]

Is that evidence reliable? eg. How can one separate on paper whether a team that goes up 3-1 in a series in a 3 point game, did it because there's no correlation between series standing and performance, or whether there is and they'd have won by 15 if they were trailing 1-2 instead heading into it and it just so happens they won the game in spite of the other team having a greater motivation to win, because their quality gap is large enough?

To give two examples from MIA's last 2 playoff runs. In 2012 they trailed 3-2 @ Boston, while in 2013 they were leading 3-2 at IND. To me I have little doubt, that if they were leading 3-2 in that Boston game w/ Boston looking to push it to 7 instead, while if they were trailing 3-2 in that IND game and fighting to stave off elimination, their performance would've been different, making it more likely Boston wins the 2012 games and forces G7 and MIA wins the 2013 G to stay alive and force/win G7. But I guess it's hard to prove.

[mysticbb]

But I guess it's hard to prove.

Especially not with anecdotal evidence. ;)

Really, for me it is the reliable enough to know that I can't deceiver whether a team is supposed to win a game, because they are now leading a series or are down. There are so many individual factors which could play a role, that it becomes unlikely that a series/game is decided by one of those factors. The best predictor is team average performance level, to be more precise, using the minute weighted average value for each player involved gives the best prediction. I never have tested it for specific series standings, but I know that including "runs" did lead to worse predictive power.

[ronnymac2]

at the inclusion of Duncan or Parker on any list.


You know, one game isn't going to do a damn thing at this point. I think my list is done. I'd still hear arguments for Harden vs. Curry though. One more game until voting.

1. LeBron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Chris Paul
4. Steph Curry
5. James Harden

[nunemouse]

But SHOULDN'T Duncan or Parker be on everyone's top 5? If the POY has an emphasis on post-season play, shouldn't it also have a greater emphasis on finals play within the postseason itself? If Kobe doesn't get to be top 5 because he missed the playoffs (Understandable), shouldn't guys like Duncan or Parker be put over guys who got out in the first round (Harden)?

[Doctor MJ]

But SHOULDN'T Duncan or Parker be on everyone's top 5? If the POY has an emphasis on post-season play, shouldn't it also have a greater emphasis on finals play within the postseason itself? If Kobe doesn't get to be top 5 because he missed the playoffs (Understandable), shouldn't guys like Duncan or Parker be put over guys who got out in the first round (Harden)?

The reason why the award is not called "All-Season MVP", is because I didn't want a guy to get the edge simply because his team allowed him to play more. Improving your play from the regular to the post season absolutely helps you, but more of the same should not.

Re: Missing the playoffs. A player who misses the playoffs while his team plays is hurting his team just as much (more really) as if it were happening in the regular season. No one questions holding missed regular season time against a player if it is big enough in scale, so they should also factor this in in the playoffs.

With that said, if you had Kobe in your top 5 in the regular season, this was already based on team play you were expecting to result in a first round exit. Kobe missing time in a series his team was expected to lose can be argued to be not that big of a deal. For those with that thinking, I understand the Kobe selection.

[CBA]

1. Lebron
2. Durant
3. CP3
4. Harden
5. Duncan

[Dr Positivity]

1. Lebron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Chris Paul
4. Marc Gasol
5. Tony Parker