2013-14 Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[bondom34]

Well, for me tonight is the night Lebron is really toeing the line of overtaking Durant. KD still slightly ahead based on what I had as a decent RS advantage, but if they lose to the Clips, its Lebron.

[Arman_tanzarian]

Havnt been around to know the purpose of these threads but Durant is in no way shape or form a better player or even Lebron Equal. However, he did have the better regular season and is the rightful MVP. Lebron is the only guy in the nba capable of nights like this in the playoffs routinely, especially on these situations. Every year it seems he has a legendary performance like this and this is just the second round.

[HeartBreakKid]

Yeah...after tonights game, there is no doubt James has a comfortable lead in post season play, even taking into account quality of opponent.

I think by the end of the year, James will be my player of the year.

[bondom34]

Yeah...after tonights game, there is no doubt James has a comfortable lead in post season play, even taking into account quality of opponent.

I think by the end of the year, James will be my player of the year.

I'm inclined to agree. I'm assuming the Heat make the finals, which to me would require KD to play much better than he has and OKC to at minimum do the same.

[ardee]

The Western Conference is going to be ridiculous if the Warriors land SVG. They have a title caliber roster and now they'll have a great coach.

I used to think that too but they really don't...

Curry is a top 5-7 player in the league but there supporting cast is lacking.

As a second option, Klay is a really amazing shooter and his post-game is improving but he's not a championship caliber second option.... He's not a Blake/Chris, Westbrook, Duncan or Wade.

Iggy I think is very overrated in these parts. Amazing perimeter defender, good as a secondary ballhandler, but he's a rather limited player at this point. Plus/minus overrates him, plus the acquisition of Iggy basically destroyed Barnes, who at this point is not much of a factor. Lee is IMO about as good as Iggy, his rebounding is down from last year and he's still majorly lacking defensively.

Bogut is the real X-factor here. If he stays healthy they're better than the sum of their parts. But he hasn't, so....

They're a good supporting cast around Curry but unless Klay takes a real leap I think they're lacking a real second star, which all the true contenders have.

[HeartBreakKid]

Warriors are a contender, they just need Bogut healthy.

I don't agree with Lee being as valuable as Iggy at all. Lee is very expendable, empty number type of guy. His defense is so bad that he gives up a lot of the points he gives.

[ardee]

Incredible performance by LeBron but I think this thread is reactionary as hell.

It's not like Durant has been crap... 30/9/4 on well above average efficiency against the best defensive team in the league and a top 3 overall team.

If LeBron maintains this level of play against Indiana and OKC/Spurs/Clips then yes he'll be up there probably. But these are probably two of the weakest first two round opponents in a while (despite Brooklyn's post AS record they're still nothing on recent second round teams).

He still has it all to prove over a guy who averaged 35/7/6 on 50/40/90 for a solid 3+ months.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Colbinii]

They're a good supporting cast around Curry but unless Klay takes a real leap I think they're lacking a real second star, which all the true contenders have.

This is really it. Although I agree with all of your post, I would just like to reiterate this. Also, 24 is the age most Good SG make the leap to great, so let's see if Thompson can put everything together this season and put up 20-24 ppg on some absurd efficiency.

[mysticbb]

Curry is a top 5-7 player in the league but there supporting cast is lacking.

In terms of what? Really, that "second star is needed" is just crap, because in the end all what counts is the ability to outscore the opponents. And the Warriors done that to a great degree when Iguodala was on the court. Their roster with Bogut-Lee-Iguodala-Thompson-Curry and then Draymond Green is fine. What they need is a reliable playmaker from the bench, a better wing player than Barnes from the bench and more reliable big men from the bench in terms of health. But similar things can be said about each contending team.

Now, if Stan Van Gundy would become the coach, the team would not suffer from being not well-prepared like they were in G2 against the Clippers, because Mark Jackson had "better things to do". SVG will take care of that. And usually his persona shouldn't be an issue in the first two seasons (at least that's usually the time when a coach is wearing off on those players).

They're a good supporting cast around Curry but unless Klay takes a real leap I think they're lacking a real second star, which all the true contenders have.

I suggest you should think about the game itself again, then try to avoid things like "second star" and "true contender" and you may understand why the Warriors have a roster with the ability to win a championship. We saw worse teams winning championship rings in the past. SVG had the Magic play in average at +6 from 2008 to 2011, being the 3rd best team behind the Celtics and Lakers through that time frame in average. And when you look through those rosters I don't see them as more talented than the current Warriors.

[mysticbb]

Well, for me tonight is the night Lebron is really toeing the line of overtaking Durant. KD still slightly ahead based on what I had as a decent RS advantage, but if they lose to the Clips, its Lebron.

I don't see how someone can look at them objectively and can conclude that there was some sort of "decent advantage" for Durant based on their regular season play. Durant had the better narrative, which gave him the edge in the MVP voting process, but in terms of real oncourt playing level there was never a sizeable gap in favor of Durant. In fact, I argue that despite James being not as good as in past seasons, he was still the better overall player. People complain about James taking some energy off on the defensive end, which is true, but that is in comparison to himself, not in comparison to Durant, who wasn't a good defender either. The only advantage Durant has in comparison to James is his shooting, other than that James is better in every aspect of the game. And the gap in terms of playmaking is really big. While James is clearly a well above average playmaker, Durant is not (despite his assists numbers). James helps his teammates to perform better in average, Durant does not do that. For me, James was already better in the RS, the current playing level of both taken into account, the difference just increased to a point that it is highly unlikely that James will end up being behind Durant, no matter what kind of narrative will be written after the finals.

But I see that playing level itself is not that important of a factor anyway, given the fact that Kevin Love is hardly found among the Top 5 and some of those people even discussing Westbrook being a Top5 player. Looks like judging players on their own abilities and how they impact the game overall is still not that popular. Many just seem to go with "take the best/better players from the best/better teams" and put them into some order defined by their scoring abilities/volume first and then adjust slightly based on the remaining part of the game.

[ardee]

I suggest you should think about the game itself again, then try to avoid things like "second star" and "true contender" and you may understand why the Warriors have a roster with the ability to win a championship.

What does this even mean?

In the 3-point era, here is the list of teams that have won a title with one or less All-Star:

1994 Rockets
1998 Bulls (Pippen was easily an AS level, just injured over the ASB)
2003 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2011 Mavericks

I think it's fair to not include the '98 Bulls. So 30 out of 34 teams had at least 2 All-Stars. That's 88%.

Do you think that's a coincidence? There's a reason that Duncan's 2003 run and Dirk's 2011 run are regarded the way they are. A second shot creator is almost a necessity. That's why I'm talking about Klay, if his post-game continues to improve it'll give another dimension to their offense, which will mean that there'll be someone besides Curry who can be relied on.

SVG is a phenomenal coach but there are going to be instances in the Playoffs when the offense breaks down and you need reliable creators.

You're the one who's just looking at numbers and not 'thinking about the game' if you think that regular season SRS is all that matters.

[kabstah]

It's not like Durant has been crap... 30/9/4 on well above average efficiency against the best defensive team in the league and a top 3 overall team.

Memphis isn't the best defensive team in the league by any metric, even if we only consider the time that Gasol was healthy. 54 TS% / 106 ORTG isn't well above average efficiency either.

[kabstah]

I suggest you should think about the game itself again, then try to avoid things like "second star" and "true contender" and you may understand why the Warriors have a roster with the ability to win a championship.

What does this even mean?

In the 3-point era, here is the list of teams that have won a title with one or less All-Star:

1994 Rockets
1998 Bulls (Pippen was easily an AS level, just injured over the ASB)
2003 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2011 Mavericks

I think it's fair to not include the '98 Bulls. So 30 out of 34 teams had at least 2 All-Stars. That's 88%.

Do you think that's a coincidence?

I don't think it's a coincidence, but I do think you may have the causality backwards. Teams that win the title usually win lots of RS games, and teams that win lots of RS games are more likely to have their players represented in the ASG.

As for GSW, scoring points wasn't the problem for them against the Clippers. Their offense actually performed well above their RS expected level.

[ronnymac2]

Well, for me tonight is the night Lebron is really toeing the line of overtaking Durant. KD still slightly ahead based on what I had as a decent RS advantage, but if they lose to the Clips, its Lebron.

I don't see how someone can look at them objectively and can conclude that there was some sort of "decent advantage" for Durant based on their regular season play. Durant had the better narrative, which gave him the edge in the MVP voting process, but in terms of real oncourt playing level there was never a sizeable gap in favor of Durant. In fact, I argue that despite James being not as good as in past seasons, he was still the better overall player. People complain about James taking some energy off on the defensive end, which is true, but that is in comparison to himself, not in comparison to Durant, who wasn't a good defender either. The only advantage Durant has in comparison to James is his shooting, other than that James is better in every aspect of the game. And the gap in terms of playmaking is really big. While James is clearly a well above average playmaker, Durant is not (despite his assists numbers). James helps his teammates to perform better in average, Durant does not do that. For me, James was already better in the RS, the current playing level of both taken into account, the difference just increased to a point that it is highly unlikely that James will end up being behind Durant, no matter what kind of narrative will be written after the finals.

But I see that playing level itself is not that important of a factor anyway, given the fact that Kevin Love is hardly found among the Top 5 and some of those people even discussing Westbrook being a Top5 player. Looks like judging players on their own abilities and how they impact the game overall is still not that popular. Many just seem to go with "take the best/better players from the best/better teams" and put them into some order defined by their scoring abilities/volume first and then adjust slightly based on the remaining part of the game.

I agree with everything in your first paragraph and disagree with everything in your second paragraph. Is there an AND.5 to give?


Golden State was my darkhorse to win the West all year long. But when Bogut went down, they had no shot.

If healthy, they can beat any team in the West and give Miami a good fight. A defense keyed by Bogut and Iggy with Green/Klay surrounding them is really a championship caliber defense. Green is an elite championship role player, Bogut is a top-3 defensive player in the NBA, Iggy is the perfect glue guy, and Thompson and Lee provide solid, versatile offensive threats next to the best shooter in NBA history, a guy who has shown he can take on a tremendous offensive load. To be honest, with Jordan Crawford and Steve Blake, I thought they solved their bench scoring/playmaking issues quite well. Thought those were astute moves. Really a shame Bogut went down. Clippers/Warriors at full strength would have been Western Conference Finals worthy material in Round 1.

[mysticbb]

What does this even mean?

That the playing level is the deciding factor, not that someone is perceiving a player as "star". Most of the "stars" are considered such players rather after the fact than before anyway. Let a team with just "one star" win multiple times and there will be enough people out there appointing another player on that team to be the star, because of their previously existing perception that a title winner needs a "second star". That's how the 1991 Bulls all of the sudden had a second star in Pippen albeit the impact by Grant was likely bigger. Well, do you know that people before 1991 basically believed that a "star player" like Jordan is not the right best player on a team which want to win a championship? It was all about their perception and had nothing to do with the real analysis of the game itself. Just like you taking a small amount of events and make conclusion based on that.

There's a reason that Duncan's 2003 run and Dirk's 2011 run are regarded the way they are.

Yes, and that reason is that people judging individual players based on their scoring output and the respective team success, they are not judging teams. Sure, Duncan and Nowitzki had an above average impact on the game in those respective seasons, even by the standard of best players on title winning teams, but nonetheless those "starless" casts were still pretty good teams, and nothing suggests that a lesser "star" like Curry can't be surrounded by a better cast than either the 2003 Spurs or 2011 Mavericks and can't play at such a high level. And contrarily to people's belief the data we have suggest that Iguodala was in fact a great perimeter defender in 2014 while Pippen was not in 1998. And yet, you easily consider Pippen having played at an "All-Star" level while you wrote that Iguodala would be "overrated".

In the end, it is about the ability to consistently outscore opponents. The higher the degree, the higher the chances of winning a championship. But winning that elusive championship is not just determined by the own playing level, but also by the opponents as well as luck. Just look at the game between the Nets and the Heat tonight; let Pierce, Johnson and Teletovic each make just one of their 3pt attempts more and the Nets win that game. And it is not like they hadn't had the somewhat open opportunity for that possible made. That would push the 3pt% for the team to 36%, nothing fancy, but would have been enough to score 3 points more than the Heat. Those are small difference in the end also deciding whether a team wins or not; some 3pt shooting in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

A second shot creator is almost a necessity.

The average scoring numbers for Scottie Pippen during the Bulls 6 championship runs: 16.8 points per 36 min on 52 TS%. That is something even Iguodala can produce. Then we add Thompson on top of that ... Really, the Warriors have enough offensive potential to be good enough offensively overall. The Warriors didn't lose game 7 against an incredible good Clippers team, because they failed to score, they lost, because they couldn't stop an superior offensive team in that game.

You're the one who's just looking at numbers and not 'thinking about the game' if you think that regular season SRS is all that matters.

I'm looking at the results and HOW those results are achieved; that's what I'm doing. And there is nothing which leds me conclude that a team needs a "2nd star player" in order to achieve a good enough playing level to be a contender. That is all based on narratives; people concluding stuff based on their hindsight knowledge in which they appoint players to be "stars". That narrative will change as soon as the next champion is crowned and did not have that prior narrative. I had that conversation on the Bulls board multiple times, because the people believe in such "easy solutions" to a problem they have deemed to be the major cause of everything. For a lot of Bulls fans that was the lack of the "2nd star" player; somehow easy to fix by trading Deng for Eric Gordon for example, because Gordon somehow was that "2nd star player" while Deng was not. That the one guy showed to have a positive impact on the results above the impact of the other didn't matter, because somehow the scoring part was what determined the "star player".

Teams are playing basketball, and each player on that team fulfills a certain role. The guy with the most points scored plays just a role as well, he is just rather seen as the star than the guy being responsible to keep the defense together.

[ardee]

Well, for me tonight is the night Lebron is really toeing the line of overtaking Durant. KD still slightly ahead based on what I had as a decent RS advantage, but if they lose to the Clips, its Lebron.

I don't see how someone can look at them objectively and can conclude that there was some sort of "decent advantage" for Durant based on their regular season play. Durant had the better narrative, which gave him the edge in the MVP voting process, but in terms of real oncourt playing level there was never a sizeable gap in favor of Durant. In fact, I argue that despite James being not as good as in past seasons, he was still the better overall player. People complain about James taking some energy off on the defensive end, which is true, but that is in comparison to himself, not in comparison to Durant, who wasn't a good defender either. The only advantage Durant has in comparison to James is his shooting, other than that James is better in every aspect of the game. And the gap in terms of playmaking is really big. While James is clearly a well above average playmaker, Durant is not (despite his assists numbers). James helps his teammates to perform better in average, Durant does not do that. For me, James was already better in the RS, the current playing level of both taken into account, the difference just increased to a point that it is highly unlikely that James will end up being behind Durant, no matter what kind of narrative will be written after the finals.

But I see that playing level itself is not that important of a factor anyway, given the fact that Kevin Love is hardly found among the Top 5 and some of those people even discussing Westbrook being a Top5 player. Looks like judging players on their own abilities and how they impact the game overall is still not that popular. Many just seem to go with "take the best/better players from the best/better teams" and put them into some order defined by their scoring abilities/volume first and then adjust slightly based on the remaining part of the game.

You're contradicting yourself. You say all that you're concerned with is 'playing level' and then go on to prop LeBron based on how much of a 'better player he is'. But where do you get this from? By all statistical measures, Durant was superior during the regular season. 2014 individual RAPM hasn't been uploaded to the Goolge Doc so not sure about that particular measure. But overall, Durant kept OKC at a higher playing level without Westbrook (5.2 SRS) for 35 games than LeBron did the Heat WITH Wade (3.9 SRS). Add that to his statistical superiority in pretty much every category (PER, WS, VORP, ASPM pretty much equal), what makes you so confident LeBron was a better player in the regular season?

It seems you're going just by potential and ability, and hypotheticals, which is something you've actively campaigned against for someone like Kobe, for instance. This is in contradiction with, "judging players on their own abilities and how they impact the game overall". Because frankly you seem keen to argue LeBron over Durant but there's no proof that of the above to support your case.

[mysticbb]

You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not, because my statement that "he is a better player" is based on him playing at a higher average "playing level". That is my way of judging players and considering them to be better, you just haven't understood that part.

The thing I argued about is not, that someone had Durant ahead of James after the regular season, but the implication that there was some sizeable gap, which shouldn't be closed already just based on the additional games we have available. I see people trying to rationalize their idea of keeping Durant above James just for the sake of having Durant ahead of him, not based on their respective average playing level shown. That's what I argued for, not that there is no argument for having Durant ahead of James after the RS.

[kabstah]

Well, for me tonight is the night Lebron is really toeing the line of overtaking Durant. KD still slightly ahead based on what I had as a decent RS advantage, but if they lose to the Clips, its Lebron.

I don't see how someone can look at them objectively and can conclude that there was some sort of "decent advantage" for Durant based on their regular season play. Durant had the better narrative, which gave him the edge in the MVP voting process, but in terms of real oncourt playing level there was never a sizeable gap in favor of Durant. In fact, I argue that despite James being not as good as in past seasons, he was still the better overall player. People complain about James taking some energy off on the defensive end, which is true, but that is in comparison to himself, not in comparison to Durant, who wasn't a good defender either. The only advantage Durant has in comparison to James is his shooting, other than that James is better in every aspect of the game. And the gap in terms of playmaking is really big. While James is clearly a well above average playmaker, Durant is not (despite his assists numbers). James helps his teammates to perform better in average, Durant does not do that. For me, James was already better in the RS, the current playing level of both taken into account, the difference just increased to a point that it is highly unlikely that James will end up being behind Durant, no matter what kind of narrative will be written after the finals.

But I see that playing level itself is not that important of a factor anyway, given the fact that Kevin Love is hardly found among the Top 5 and some of those people even discussing Westbrook being a Top5 player. Looks like judging players on their own abilities and how they impact the game overall is still not that popular. Many just seem to go with "take the best/better players from the best/better teams" and put them into some order defined by their scoring abilities/volume first and then adjust slightly based on the remaining part of the game.

You're contradicting yourself. You say all that you're concerned with is 'playing level' and then go on to prop LeBron based on how much of a 'better player he is'. But where do you get this from? By all statistical measures, Durant was superior during the regular season. 2014 individual RAPM hasn't been uploaded to the Goolge Doc so not sure about that particular measure. But overall, Durant kept OKC at a higher playing level without Westbrook (5.2 SRS) for 35 games than LeBron did the Heat WITH Wade (3.9 SRS). Add that to his statistical superiority in pretty much every category (PER, WS, VORP, ASPM pretty much equal), what makes you so confident LeBron was a better player in the regular season?

It seems you're going just by potential and ability, and hypotheticals, which is something you've actively campaigned against for someone like Kobe, for instance. This is in contradiction with, "judging players on their own abilities and how they impact the game overall". Because frankly you seem keen to argue LeBron over Durant but there's no proof that of the above to support your case.

RAPM for 2014 is available at gotbuckets.com.

Generally speaking, Durant has the edge in box score and box score composite statistics like PER and WS while Lebron has the edge in +/- and blended, all in one metrics. OKC has a sizable SRS advantage over Miami, but that says very little about individual players. Many people refuse to accept that OKC without Durant is just that much better than Miami without Lebron simply because the names on Miami sound more impressive, despite all objective measures indicating the opposite.

[mysticbb]

Generally speaking, Durant has the edge in box score and box score composite statistics like PER and WS while Lebron has the edge in +/- and blended, all in one metrics.

Well, we should keep in mind that Durant also was measured out to be better in IPV, a composite metric. Also, James is mostly leading in metrics, which are using prior seasons in some fashion. Anyway, my metric not using priors and is a blended version of RAPM and boxscore stats has James to be #1 in the regular season. That gap increased since the start of the playoffs.

I just find it interesting that some people seem to make an argument for Durant being #1 based on a supposed sizeable gap in the regular season between those two players, while I can't find such a gap to be "sizeable", even though I can follow the argument that Durant should be placed #1 in the RS (I'm not having to agree with that notion in order to be able to follow the argument made).

Other than that: I fully agree on your point that the difference in playing level between the Heat and Thunder can hardly be used as an argument for Durant here given the fact that the Thunder played actually pretty well even without Durant.

[JordansBulls]

Incredible performance by LeBron but I think this thread is reactionary as hell.

It's not like Durant has been crap... 30/9/4 on well above average efficiency against the best defensive team in the league and a top 3 overall team.

If LeBron maintains this level of play against Indiana and OKC/Spurs/Clips then yes he'll be up there probably. But these are probably two of the weakest first two round opponents in a while (despite Brooklyn's post AS record they're still nothing on recent second round teams).

He still has it all to prove over a guy who averaged 35/7/6 on 50/40/90 for a solid 3+ months.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

This. Some of these guys just don't understand the difference in playing two sub 45 win teams that have a negative SRS rating vs playing juggernaut teams with an even better SRS rating than your team.