2013-14 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[Doctor MJ]

Memphis? 56 wins last year and they were on a 56 win pace when Marc played this year. Not to mention the amazing defensively play against OKC so far (and the clutch play).

Well funny you should mention last year
When we started taking the Griz seriously and then they got swept by SA.

I'm not saying they can't possibly win but if the question is whether OKC is being exposed or Memphis has taken a huge leap forward, I'm inclined to say the former.

[sp6r=underrated]

I don't think it is an either or situation. Oklahoma City is being exposed a bit and Memphis is a dangerous playoff team. With regards to the former, a major role is the limitations of Brooks. He has consistently shown a lack of imagination in both his rotations and offensive scheme.

This is repetitive but their playoff run from 2011-14 needs to be given a bit more respect.

Vs Los Angeles 7-6, 2.9 MOV
Vs Oklahoma City 10-7, -0.88 MOV
Vs San Antonio 4-6, -2.5 MOV

In only one of those seven series were they dominated. Indiana gets a lot of credit for going 5-8 against Miami over the last two years. Memphis has done better than that mark against three different contenders over 40 games who each play a different style. While I don't think Memphis can win it all as taking out Oklahoma City, Los Angeles, San Antonio and Miami in the same playoffs would be too much for even a regular title contender. I still would consider them an extremely dangerous opponent for any club in a seven game series, including Miami.

[HeartBreakKid]

Memphis? 56 wins last year and they were on a 56 win pace when Marc played this year. Not to mention the amazing defensively play against OKC so far (and the clutch play).

Well funny you should mention last year
When we started taking the Griz seriously and then they got swept by SA.

I'm not saying they can't possibly win but if the question is whether OKC is being exposed or Memphis has taken a huge leap forward, I'm inclined to say the former.

Memphis is the same team to me as well. Just seems like they gameplanned for OKC extremely well.


Plus this was a squad that already had problems with finding scorers when they had Kevin Martin, get rid of him and that problem is amplified even more.

[E-Balla]

Carmelo in the top 5 is crazy to me. Was Carmelo even better than he was last year?

Are the Knicks really that much worse than they were last year, when they grabbed a high seeding in the East?

Not making the playoffs is a pretty big deal, and Carmelo's numbers largely stayed the same despite his team allegedly getting much worse, if he has more responsibility to carry, shouldn't they have increased?

I just don't see it. Why Carmelo for instance and not Davis or Love? They also beasted and had no playoff results. Not to single you out, but I find that Carmelo has been getting a boost from the narrative of his team being bad. Nearly every team in the East is bad, yet he couldn't make the playoffs over them? I mean is Paul Milisap isn't working with anyone, his team was expected not to make the playoffs even when he had Horford.

Well Melo played way more minutes and he played way better defense this year so I'd say he was better.

And stop looking at how teams overachieved and look at gow they played. Outside of Melo who on the Knicks was on the level of an average starter (hell even a below average starter) all season long. Not one person.

Anthony Davis isn't in the same league yet and I personally had Love over Melo even though Love had a way better team around him.

He played one more minute, and his stats didn't increase much at all. Way better defense? I guess, but seems pretty negligible still.


As for your question, maybe Iman or Chandler - but to counter your point, if you had asked me the same question for the Knicks last year I would have said the same exact thing.

How many average players are on starting line ups in the East?

I don't get it, there needs to be a better reason than his team being bad for him being a top 5 player. His numbers are great, but it's not like there aren't other players with great numbers themselves. Hence why I cited Anthony Davis, where is the proof that Davis is far below Anthony?

Melo played 500 more minutes.

Iman had the most zero point games of any starter and defensively he's too out of control to be consistently great and barely played consistently due to it.

Tyson plays no defense any more (his defensive on/off was negligible).

Last year they truly had JR, Kidd, and Tyson playing at a high level most of the year and Kenyon for a few games. And a lot of teams in the East had a lower SRS but most teams over the Knicks had at least 2 better.

The proof for Davis is that Melo's team plays way better with him on the floor and Davis' team doesn't.

[Doctor MJ]

The proof for Davis is that Melo's team plays way better with him on the floor and Davis' team doesn't.

This is of course actually a big thing for me, but it's interesting to hear it used to champion Melo when Melo supporters to this day on the whole refuse to ignore what +/- said about his time in Denver.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think it is an either or situation. Oklahoma City is being exposed a bit and Memphis is a dangerous playoff team. With regards to the former, a major role is the limitations of Brooks. He has consistently shown a lack of imagination in both his rotations and offensive scheme.

This is repetitive but their playoff run from 2011-14 needs to be given a bit more respect.

Vs Los Angeles 7-6, 2.9 MOV
Vs Oklahoma City 10-7, -0.88 MOV
Vs San Antonio 4-6, -2.5 MOV

In only one of those seven series were they dominated. Indiana gets a lot of credit for going 5-8 against Miami over the last two years. Memphis has done better than that mark against three different contenders over 40 games who each play a different style. While I don't think Memphis can win it all as taking out Oklahoma City, Los Angeles, San Antonio and Miami in the same playoffs would be too much for even a regular title contender. I still would consider them an extremely dangerous opponent for any club in a seven game series, including Miami.

You raise good points, and we'll see. To me though there's a real problem in the fact that in this entire run they only pulled off one serious upset, and the very next year the team they had upset swept them.

Hence, if Memphis wins this series, the salient trend for Memphis that stands out consistently is that Memphis really knows how to stop OKC, which means a really strong and smart defensive team is doing well against a team with huge star talent but seemingly prehistoric offensive strategy. If we can agree the OKC issues are real then, I don't see any reason to think that it means Memphis has taken an amazing step forward.

They do remain though a very admirable team. Gasol and Conley are so smart, and lord Allen is fierce.

[sp6r=underrated]

You raise good points, and we'll see. To me though there's a real problem in the fact that in this entire run they only pulled off one serious upset, and the very next year the team they had upset swept them.

I think the Clippers series from last year has to be considered a serious upset. The Clippers from a point differential perspective outplayed the Griz last year by a real difference. Then there is this:

Although how big of an upset would it be really? Very clearly they have the two best players in the series and a system that uses them well. Typically you win series like that.

Judging by your standard, I don't know you can conclude that wasn't a serious upset.

Blake and Paul have gotten banged up a lot in recent years going into the playoffs so I may be forgetting the health issue. Is there an injury from the Clippers series that I'm forgetting?

I don't see any reason to think that it means Memphis has taken an amazing step forward.

I wasn't arguing they've taken a dramatic step forward but that there a more dangerous team than recognized.

[Doctor MJ]

You raise good points, and we'll see. To me though there's a real problem in the fact that in this entire run they only pulled off one serious upset, and the very next year the team they had upset swept them.

I think the Clippers series from last year has to be considered a serious upset. The Clippers from a point differential perspective outplayed the Griz last year by a real difference. Then there is this:

Although how big of an upset would it be really? Very clearly they have the two best players in the series and a system that uses them well. Typically you win series like that.

Judging by your standard, I don't know you can conclude that wasn't a serious upset.

Blake and Paul have gotten banged up a lot in recent years going into the playoffs so I may be forgetting the health issue. Is there an injury from the Clippers series that I'm forgetting?

It's absolutely the health issues of LAC & OKC last year that make those not major upsets.

Griffin went for 13 & 5 against Memphis last year and scored a total of 4 points in the two final games (in part because he missed the last one). So in other words, the Grizzlies got incredibly lucky played two crippled teams in the first two rounds, and then they got swept by the only team they pulled a serious upset over previously.

[sp6r=underrated]

thanks for the reminder. The injuries to Blake had been forgotten.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm just spitballing here but an interesting idea came to me with the discussion of upsets and injuries.

One advantage an ensemble team has over a superstar team is that the later has placed all of their eggs in a few baskets. It is a significant risk to depend mostly on one or two players. Superstar teams choose to take this risk because they believe the benefit will be larger than the cost. An ensemble team doesn't take this risk. By depending upon several players they insulate themselves from the damage of a single injury.

The risk of injury to a superstar is a structural flaw in superstar teams just as the lack of a dominant individual player is a structural flaw in an ensemble team. No one would say that a superstar team's victory over an ensemble club shouldn't count because no one on the ensemble team hit fifth gear.

So is it really fair to say to say the victory doesn't count when one of the superstars get hurt?

Both defeats are due to a risk in how the team is built.

I'm not sure if this is correct but it is something to consider.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm just spitballing here but an interesting idea came to me with the discussion of upsets and injuries.

One advantage an ensemble team has over a superstar team is that the later has placed all of their eggs in a few baskets. It is a significant risk to depend mostly on one or two players. Superstar teams choose to take this risk because they believe the benefit will be larger than the cost. An ensemble team doesn't take this risk. By depending upon several players they insulate themselves from the damage of a single injury.

The risk of injury to a superstar is a structural flaw in superstar teams just as the lack of a dominant individual player is a structural flaw in an ensemble team. No one would say that a superstar team's victory over an ensemble club shouldn't count because no one on the ensemble team hit fifth gear.

So is it really fair to say to say the victory doesn't count when one of the superstars get hurt?

Both defeats are due to a risk in how the team is built.

I'm not sure if this is correct but it is something to consider.

Interesting observation particular in the context where we sure seem to be seeing that these ensemble clubs seem to struggle in the playoffs.

I don't think you're wrong at all, but if we're talking about actually being a contender, we still seem to me to be in a situation where you go with the stars if the stars are smart and coachable. The shift is that we've realized that you might be just as well off jettisoning your superstar talent for pocket change if he refuses to listen to his coach.

[sp6r=underrated]

I'm just spitballing here but an interesting idea came to me with the discussion of upsets and injuries.

One advantage an ensemble team has over a superstar team is that the later has placed all of their eggs in a few baskets. It is a significant risk to depend mostly on one or two players. Superstar teams choose to take this risk because they believe the benefit will be larger than the cost. An ensemble team doesn't take this risk. By depending upon several players they insulate themselves from the damage of a single injury.

The risk of injury to a superstar is a structural flaw in superstar teams just as the lack of a dominant individual player is a structural flaw in an ensemble team. No one would say that a superstar team's victory over an ensemble club shouldn't count because no one on the ensemble team hit fifth gear.

So is it really fair to say to say the victory doesn't count when one of the superstars get hurt?

Both defeats are due to a risk in how the team is built.

I'm not sure if this is correct but it is something to consider.

Interesting observation particular in the context where we sure seem to be seeing that these ensemble clubs seem to struggle in the playoffs.

Is it really the case that ensemble teams are struggling this year? By struggling I am assuming you mean post-season performance relative to their expected post-season performance based on RS performance.

Western Conference

LAC vs GSW

I think this series has gone based on how you would have expected

Push

Portland vs Houston

Out of the two clubs Houston is more the superstar team. They are more dependent on their top players than Portland.

One interesting thing I've noticed about ensemble teams is that their players get elevated above their place when there team wins. This is becoming the case with Portland. A lot of people are acting as if Aldridge is potentially top 5. That's nuts.

Advantage: ensemble

OKC vs Memphis

Memphis has performed better than you would have expected under their RS performance

Advantage: ensemble

SAS vs Dallas

Dallas is clearly the more superstar driven team and has outperformed expectations. However there over performance isn't due to Dirk the Superstar carrying them to victory. He was actually quite poor. Instead it was their supporting cast that carried them. Nonetheless, I'll code this as a victory for the superstar club.

Advantage: superstar

Eastern Conference

Miami vs Charlotte

Miami is the more traditional superstar club and performed better than their RS numbers. Their over-performance is due to the play of their superstar.

Advantage: Superstar

Toronto-Brooklyn

Brooklyn has over performed relative to the RS but I'm not sure how to code this. They both look like to ensemble clubs to me. Brooklyn is more the ensemble club based on their RS numbers. No one stands out statistically on an individual level. The evidence if it leads in any direction supports the ensemble club but I don't find it decisive enough.

Advantage: Push

Indiana vs Atlanta

Both teams are closer to the ensemble route than superstar. Out of the two clubs Indiana is more the superstar team than Atlanta. No one on Atlanta has either the offensive duties of Paul George or the defensive duties of Hibbert. Part of the reason Atlanta has over-performed by taking Indiana's reliance on Hibbert's defense and making it a liability.

Advantage: ensemble

Chicago-Washington

The ensemble Bulls were a dud and their lack of a dominant individual player seems to have been the reason.

Advantage: Superstar

Overall: 3-3

From my perspective it looks relatively even.


Why do you see the ensemble clubs as such big disappointments?
___________________

I agree that you are better off with a superstar if you have the option. The sport of basketball supports the superstar theory. The NBA's financial system almost makes a superstar team mandatory. In a salary cap sport it is vital to get production above salary. Superstars are the most underpaid players in the NBA save rookies due to max contracts. Ensemble teams would be more successful if you kept a soft cap and eliminated max contracts.

I think teams err is in treating players in the 7-15 range as if they're top 3. You're likely to enjoy more success if you build your club as an ensemble team if you don't have a top 3 player. Teams have gotten a lot better at recognizing this over the years and I hope the trend continues.

[mikejames23]

The idea of a ensemble team being > than a superstar team is crazy talk. Every title winner is led by a superstar. The only exception I can see in the recent era is the Detroit Pistons - and they were known for their defense. Good offensive teams that rely on role-players never go all the way. I have seen this happen to the Spurs over... and over... and over again. Pop consistently overachieves with great role-players in the regular season... but on playoff time he's left heavily relying on TD, Parker, Manu.

[sp6r=underrated]

The idea of a ensemble team being > than a superstar team is crazy talk.

Stop creating straw men.

[mikejames23]

The idea of a ensemble team being > than a superstar team is crazy talk.

Stop creating straw men.

There isn't one.

Also, your idea of the Blazers being an ensemble team isn't right, considering LMA's series averages... those are superstar numbers/impact.

[E-Balla]

The proof for Davis is that Melo's team plays way better with him on the floor and Davis' team doesn't.

This is of course actually a big thing for me, but it's interesting to hear it used to champion Melo when Melo supporters to this day on the whole refuse to ignore what +/- said about his time in Denver.

Well in that case Melo was putting up low on/off numbers on very good teams. This is the first bad team he's been on and his on/off in this type of situation speaks for itself.

[Doctor MJ]

Well in that case Melo was putting up low on/off numbers on very good teams. This is the first bad team he's been on and his on/off in this type of situation speaks for itself.

The former would mean he had a great supporting cast and wasn't able to capitalize and get to the promised land, if we're saying the data is meaningful. Most who believe in Melo will not accept this.

[lorak]

Portland vs Houston

Out of the two clubs Houston is more the superstar team. They are more dependent on their top players than Portland.

Not true. Rockets without Harden and DH still have Asik and Lin in S5 and is around 50 W% team, while Portland without Lilard and LA is deep lottery team. Also - Blazers leading in this series was achieved because of Aldridge's play, who was basically superstar in god mode.

OKC vs Memphis

Memphis has performed better than you would have expected under their RS performance

Arguable. Matchups matter and there's long history that Memphis is bad matchup for Thunder. So what we see is what was expected.

[sp6r=underrated]

Portland vs Houston

Out of the two clubs Houston is more the superstar team. They are more dependent on their top players than Portland.

Not true. Rockets without Harden and DH still have Asik and Lin in S5 and is around 50 W% team, while Portland without Lilard and LA is deep lottery team.Blazers leading in this series was achieved because of Aldridge's play, who was basically superstar in god mode.

Almost all statistical metrics agree that Harden and Howard carry far weight than any individual Blazer. Relative to the Rockets the Blazers are the ensemble team.

OKC vs Memphis

Memphis has performed better than you would have expected under their RS performance

Arguable. Matchups matter and there's long history that Memphis is bad matchup for Thunder. So what we see is what was expected.[/quote]


Saying they have matchup advantages is just conceding the Grizzlies ensemble cast allows them to outperform expectations vs the Superstar Thunder. It would be no different than me saying Miami is a bad match-up for Charlotte because they have no one to check Lebron and accordingly saying the result is what we expected.

So yes Memphis exceeded expectations.

Overall the results do not support the view that this year ensemble clubs have dramatically underperformed expectations as Doc alleged. Superstar teams do enjoy an advantage but it isn't as large as people think.

[Quotatious]

Not true. Rockets without Harden and DH still have Asik and Lin in S5 and is around 50 W% team, while Portland without Lilard and LA is deep lottery team.

Rockets without BOTH Howard and Harden would be a 50% team? How so? I think they'd be on the level of this season's Lakers, Kings or Jazz without these two.