All-Season Player of the Year Discussion thread

[HeartBreakKid]

It's kinda funny… you have a bunch of people claiming that his path to the finals was a cakewalk, and we should've expected nothing less even with love out and a hobbled kyrie. Then you have people saying the cavs have no chance and the warriors are going to wipe the floor with them. At the very least, it's becoming clear we just can't count a team with lebron out at this point in his career.

I just wonder how much people watched lebron's road to the finals. After round one, it was pretty damn ugly. He got it done, which is the most impressive part, but he dragged them there. It was by no means easy. I'm leaning towards warriors in 6, but hey… we now have a week to think about it!

Yeah this is essentially the point I was making last week when I asserted we shouldn't be ignoring Lebron and focusing so heavily on Paul and Harden behind Curry. I know some just want to trash the East. The same guys preaching how great the Hawks were all year now describing them as obvious pretenders that we all should have known etc... but Lebron's performance has been tremendous. I know his efficiency is down but he's been really really good.

And yeah the bottom line for me is this: Lebron gives you a chance every year. The Cavs (and Heat last year) aren't teh best team in the Association especially not with a hobbled Kyrie and to a lessor extent missing Love, but Lebron still makes it possible. I expect the Warriors to win, but I totally disagree with Doc's assertion that the Cavs aren't worthy champions. They don't give style points. Any team that wins 16 games in the tournament is worthy.

But the Hawks are obvious pretenders. How can anyone say otherwise at this point?

He's been excellent, but there is certainly a lot of winning bias here. I have a hard time not seeing players like Anthony Davis not dominating James bracket and producing similar results. It's been a competitive year, but it's almost seems like people are going to be basing their POY directly with how far the MVP candidates got in the playoffs. Who ever wins the championship between Curry/James will get #1, runner up #2, 3rd is Harden due to conference finals, 4th is CP3 because he won round 1, 5 AD because he made the playoffs, Westbrook because he just missed the cut.

[Texas Chuck]

I love what Anthony Davis is becoming, but I don't see any basis for claiming he could carry a team the way Lebron is. Especially not considering the injuries. Great talent and impressive stat lines /= being able to duplicate what Lebron is doing. This is what Lebron does.

IDK. It feels like people are just tired of him and anxious to get the next guys up or something. It's like what happens every year on here in regards to the Spurs--everyone dismisses them as too old and every year they are among the handful of legit contenders. Sometimes the best is just the best is just the best. IDK track record seems like it should count for something. Not in this particular project since its just who had the best year, but I think we are way too quick to make some assumptions based on a relatively small amount of data while ignoring guys and teams with enormous amounts of data suggesting they remain at the top of the mountain.


I'm not basing my results solely on how far guys get. For instance I have Paul over Harden despite the Rockets beating the Clippers but I can't imagine not re-thinking where Lebron belongs in light of what he's done. And yeah I know the East isn't murderer's row, but you got to beat who they put in front of you and the Cavs are doing that and doing it very impressively and he of course is at the heart of all of it.

I don't even like Lebron so I hate being put into the roll of his shill, but I don't see any arguments any longer for anyone not named Steph Curry. Of course, like trex, I'm finding myself more and more realizing scoring efficiency isn't the be-all end-all that its been made out to be for some time here. Other things matter a great deal too--some of which are hard to define by any of the available stats, boxed, advanced, composite whatever.

I saw firsthand in 2011 how the role players' unquestioning belief in Dirk gave them all so much confidence and helped to elevate their level of play around him. Well Lebron is like that, only much moreso for the current Cavs. He just makes playing the game so much easier for everyone around him. He takes all the pressure, his presence on the court makes things so much easier, and he gets guys confidence so high that even when he takes his rests the team continues to play at a high level.

bottom line is the guy is still a beast. And while you think AD(and maybe others) could do what he's doing. I feel quite strongly no other player in the league could do what he's doing with the Cavs.

[HeartBreakKid]

IDK. It feels like people are just tired of him and anxious to get the next guys up or something. It's like what happens every year on here in regards to the Spurs--everyone dismisses them as too old and every year they are among the handful of legit contenders.

But James is seen as a contender just like the Spurs are, but should he be seen as the best player in the world? I have serious doubts about that. He even placed 3rd in MVP voting.

IDK track record seems like it should count for something. Not in this particular project since its just who had the best year, but I think we are way too quick to make some assumptions based on a relatively small amount of data while ignoring guys and teams with enormous amounts of data suggesting they remain at the top of the mountain.

His enormous amounts of data suggest he is a worst player than he used to be, so it would correlate with him not being the best player in the world.

I'm not basing my results solely on how far guys get. For instance I have Paul over Harden despite the Rockets beating the Clippers but I can't imagine not re-thinking where Lebron belongs in light of what he's done. And yeah I know the East isn't murderer's row, but you got to beat who they put in front of you and the Cavs are doing that and doing it very impressively and he of course is at the heart of all of it.

So do you think that if another POY candidate was put on the Cavs, they would have been eliminated at this point?

I don't even like Lebron so I hate being put into the roll of his shill, but I don't see any arguments any longer for anyone not named Steph Curry. Of course, like trex, I'm finding myself more and more realizing scoring efficiency isn't the be-all end-all that its been made out to be for some time here. Other things matter a great deal too--some of which are hard to define by any of the available stats, boxed, advanced, composite whatever.

All the great players impact the game outside of scoring efficiency, that isn't something exclusive to James. Also James scoring efficiency isn't mediocre, it is awful. He is a forward shooting sub 50 TS. The fact that he is being compared to Stephen Curry is worrying to me.

Objectively speaking, Stephen Curry is better than Lebron James these playoffs. James plays significantly more minutes, scores less, on over 10% worse TS and can't move without the ball (only time he is decent at that is when he is looking to post up). It's really clear who is more effective. I think James playmaking has been phenomenal, his impact is really like a point guards - but Curry isn't exactly lousy on that end either. Being a general is really the only advantage James has over Curry, and Curry is a fine commander himself.

I'll give it to James that he is playing great defense, though during the RS he went through big stretches where he was really lazy - but I think people are also underselling that the Cavs are playing great defense in general. No Kevin Love is already a plus for them defensively. Shampurt is playing stellar defense, Mozgov is the first traditional anchor James may have played with, TT is a competitor on that end, Smith/Del/Irving have all played solid defense despite being inconsistent to bad during the RS.

The Cavs also have not played against a team that has an actual offensive anchor, and we're in the 4th round of the playoffs already. Unless James is playing some all time great level defense, I don't see how that is enough to put him over Curry (who also has many intangibles that are not captured by stats).

bottom line is the guy is still a beast. And while you think AD(and maybe others) could do what he's doing. I feel quite strongly no other player in the league could do what he's doing with the Cavs.

I don't know, elevating other people's games, going beyond stats - how doesn't that describe someone like Chris Paul? Isn't just saying AD is just a guy putting up great stats just underrating the guy at this point? It's almost like people are afraid to admit that he might be the best player in the world already. The guy looked no less impactful than Stephhen Curry did during their series yet he has been pseudo forgotten.

[Doctor MJ]

I will say immediately SMALL SAMPLE SIZE that's jumping to some conclusions that you even know you are better than to say.

I"m just going to leave my quote here with your line next to it and say: I don't think you read my post carefully.

Also especially in the playoffs teams take their best defensive lineups out when Lebron leaves the floor to conserve their energy (Jimmy, George, Kawhi/ their rim protector immediately come off the floor when Lebron sits and come right back in when he checks back in). Especially in the playoffs teams adjust their rotations way more towards the opponent way more than keeping the rotation in the regular season.

Also I think you are responding to my earlier comments in the thread when I specifically mention here through my O rating of +5 that this is probably the worst he's been offensively since pretty much 11. His defense this year is why I think his global impact is still pretty much makes him the best player in the league and why it's close to last year (he was meh on D but better in the 14 playoffs). I'm probably as pro Curry as anyone can get I think his offensive level is rare at this point (above peak Durant, Dirk, Kobe and at worst on their level) . I just also happen to think he's closer to a 0 defender despite than what his RPM says.

Back to Bron's D it has been extremely impressive post break/ 15 playoffs. The reads he's making are brainy again, crazy amounts of energy and he's cleaning the glass and just really good at sliding the nail and rotating down on bigs that have allowed Tristan to be super aggressive on the pick and roll with his mobility showing/ blitzing a lot. I was pretty much one of the first ones who was calling him out last year when his D went to **** so it has taken quite a huge improvement for it to impress me.

Re: "talking about his defense". Yes and I'm talking about his global impact, which includes the defense.

Re: 0 defender whatever RPM says. As I think you've seen me say before: Don't just take his ORPM and ignore the DRPM. The DRPM might be showing additional offensive impact. The number to look at first and foremost is the overall numbers. The sub-numbers are there to help understand but there's no way to completely separate the subs.

I read your post. And using on-off for 107 minutes of off which 23 minutes were garbage time is not really worth discussing.

Where in your post do you focus on the On with Lebron on the floor where we 570 minutes which is a pretty decent sample where the team is running pretty much the same best offense/ strong defense in the playoffs.

My reply is exactly how it should have been. You really are going to jump to conclusions on 84 minutes of game time in 14 games? It takes one stretch of them going -10 in a 5 minute stretch against the Warriors to completely change the numbers around. Doesn't mean the bench was performing worse or better. It's too soon to tell. Small Sample Size.

But I'm not jumping to conclusions, that's the point. I'm trying to keep people from saying "well, LeBron is God, so stuff like this happens". No, generally it doesn't. LeBron in the past has had a lot of trouble with his teammates disappearing in the playoffs. This year, however much luck is involved, I don't see what the basis for saying that his teammates have been ineffective. And sure, give LeBron some credit for helping his teammates be functional, but just remember that LeBron never in the past had the ability to make his teammates work seamlessly as they plowed through the playoffs round after round, so do we really think he's figured out the way right when he's become to hurt to shoot straight?

And to emphasize again: I'm not making any assumption or predictions about what comes next when I say this. It may easily not continue in the next round, and of course, when that happens then Cleveland is in trouble.

Someone in another thread asked me something like "So you think the Cavs' cast would have done this well if they were in the West?", and the answer is no I don't. I think that the weak competition is part of it, and I think luck is part of it (as is the coaching and LeBron himself), I'm just saying I don't see what the basis is for trying to rationalize an explanation where LeBron is seen as just as effective as his scoring has fallen flat simply because his team has won their games.

Re: What about the On court time. Glad you're bringing this up so I can clarify: Obviously LeBron's cast isn't just out there when he's on the bench. The real point, which clearly I haven't expressed well, is that in general they've been successful, both when LeBron's on the court and when he's off. I cannot prove that the reason for this isn't that LeBron carries the team to inevitable success when he's on the court and then dumb luck happens when he's off the court, but I think the simplest explanation to how LeBron could possibly seem to carry his team even more effectively when he's clearly not at 100% is that that's not what's happening. LeBron's by far the MVP of his team, but the Cavs are where they are because the rest of the team is playing quite effectively in a way that merely having LeBron out there cannot guarantee, which we know from prior experience.

[RSCD3_]

I"m just going to leave my quote here with your line next to it and say: I don't think you read my post carefully.



Re: "talking about his defense". Yes and I'm talking about his global impact, which includes the defense.

Re: 0 defender whatever RPM says. As I think you've seen me say before: Don't just take his ORPM and ignore the DRPM. The DRPM might be showing additional offensive impact. The number to look at first and foremost is the overall numbers. The sub-numbers are there to help understand but there's no way to completely separate the subs.

I read your post. And using on-off for 107 minutes of off which 23 minutes were garbage time is not really worth discussing.

Where in your post do you focus on the On with Lebron on the floor where we 570 minutes which is a pretty decent sample where the team is running pretty much the same best offense/ strong defense in the playoffs.

My reply is exactly how it should have been. You really are going to jump to conclusions on 84 minutes of game time in 14 games? It takes one stretch of them going -10 in a 5 minute stretch against the Warriors to completely change the numbers around. Doesn't mean the bench was performing worse or better. It's too soon to tell. Small Sample Size.

But I'm not jumping to conclusions, that's the point. I'm trying to keep people from saying "well, LeBron is God, so stuff like this happens". No, generally it doesn't. LeBron in the past has had a lot of trouble with his teammates disappearing in the playoffs. This year, however much luck is involved, I don't see what the basis for saying that his teammates have been ineffective. And sure, give LeBron some credit for helping his teammates be functional, but just remember that LeBron never in the past had the ability to make his teammates work seamlessly as they plowed through the playoffs round after round, so do we really think he's figured out the way right when he's become to hurt to shoot straight?

And to emphasize again: I'm not making any assumption or predictions about what comes next when I say this. It may easily not continue in the next round, and of course, when that happens then Cleveland is in trouble.

Someone in another thread asked me something like "So you think the Cavs' cast would have done this well if they were in the West?", and the answer is no I don't. I think that the weak competition is part of it, and I think luck is part of it (as is the coaching and LeBron himself), I'm just saying I don't see what the basis is for trying to rationalize an explanation where LeBron is seen as just as effective as his scoring has fallen flat simply because his team has won their games.

Re: What about the On court time. Glad you're bringing this up so I can clarify: Obviously LeBron's cast isn't just out there when he's on the bench. The real point, which clearly I haven't expressed well, is that in general they've been successful, both when LeBron's on the court and when he's off. I cannot prove that the reason for this isn't that LeBron carries the team to inevitable success when he's on the court and then dumb luck happens when he's off the court, but I think the simplest explanation to how LeBron could possibly seem to carry his team even more effectively when he's clearly not at 100% is that that's not what's happening. LeBron's by far the MVP of his team, but the Cavs are where they are because the rest of the team is playing quite effectively in a way that merely having LeBron out there cannot guarantee, which we know from prior experience.

If What you say is true than Blatt has to get credit for getting this team to play so well in the playoffs.

He might be the hidden x factor that's been lumped into the lebron james credit.''He's arguably outcoached the 3 " media darlings " he's been up against and if he can be as good vs GS he'll be able to get them out of their comfort zone and maybe steal a win or something.

[MO12msu]

I don't know, elevating other people's games, going beyond stats - how doesn't that describe someone like Chris Paul? Isn't just saying AD is just a guy putting up great stats just underrating the guy at this point? It's almost like people are afraid to admit that he might be the best player in the world already. The guy looked no less impactful than Stephhen Curry did during their series yet he has been pseudo forgotten.

Just want to say I completely agree with everything you're saying. There seems to be a strong wining bias going on. I saw a bunch of diverse top 5s before the playoffs and now all I see is:

1.Lebron/Curry winner 2. Finals loser 3. Harden 4. Chris Paul 5.AD

I don't think it's coincidence that this is the exact order that people got eliminated.

Sure, Lebron has stepped up his defensive effort the second half of the season and playoffs, but in general his shot is still as broke as it has been and straight up missing open shots does not help your offense no matter how much people would like to argue that he's "sacrificing his efficiency." I would agree with that notion if he was just forcing a bunch of shots but half the time he's just missing easy ones. If we're going to say that his playmaking has been amazing, well that really doesn't differentiate him from any of the others, who all are elite playmakers besides AD.

The winning bias isn't just lebron though. I remember after the Spurs series people were starting to argue for Paul being more impactful than Curry. Now it's dead quiet on that front. I thought that was just another example that shows how the PC board is no less reactionary than the masses.

And completely agree with regards to AD. He more or less maintained his level of play during the playoffs, just because we know he hasn't reached his ceiling yet, doesn't mean we should be afraid to prop him up if all the advanced stats(boxscore & on-off) say that he's a top 4 player in this league. He may not be the all-time great defender we know he can be yet, but that doesn't mean he's not a very impactful defender, it's hard not to be impactful when you got his athleticism and length. Also, I say AD isn't an elite playmaker but he provides the same threat of lobs that Chandler and Jordan do, with the added bonus of also providing spacing through the pick and pop, and hitting his free throws. He helps any guard with lanes to the basket whenever he sets a screen.

I'd be surprised if my top 5 from the regular season changed, since my whole top 5 pretty much maintained their level of play from the regular season. LeBron would have to put up a historical finals to move up and I probably still wouldn't have him number one because I do doubt that he could've accomplished these things in the west. Not to mention the fact that I don't think he's been the best player in these playoffs.

[fuzzy_dunlop]

^
Yeah I agree with this, I've been surprised by the winning bias going on here TBH. My ballot is HIGHLY unlikely to change at this point, so with very high probability it'll be:

1. Curry
2. CP3
3. Harden
4. AD
5. Lebron

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

IDK. It feels like people are just tired of him and anxious to get the next guys up or something. It's like what happens every year on here in regards to the Spurs--everyone dismisses them as too old and every year they are among the handful of legit contenders.

But James is seen as a contender just like the Spurs are, but should he be seen as the best player in the world? I have serious doubts about that. He even placed 3rd in MVP voting.

IDK track record seems like it should count for something. Not in this particular project since its just who had the best year, but I think we are way too quick to make some assumptions based on a relatively small amount of data while ignoring guys and teams with enormous amounts of data suggesting they remain at the top of the mountain.

His enormous amounts of data suggest he is a worst player than he used to be, so it would correlate with him not being the best player in the world.

I'm not basing my results solely on how far guys get. For instance I have Paul over Harden despite the Rockets beating the Clippers but I can't imagine not re-thinking where Lebron belongs in light of what he's done. And yeah I know the East isn't murderer's row, but you got to beat who they put in front of you and the Cavs are doing that and doing it very impressively and he of course is at the heart of all of it.

So do you think that if another POY candidate was put on the Cavs, they would have been eliminated at this point?

I don't even like Lebron so I hate being put into the roll of his shill, but I don't see any arguments any longer for anyone not named Steph Curry. Of course, like trex, I'm finding myself more and more realizing scoring efficiency isn't the be-all end-all that its been made out to be for some time here. Other things matter a great deal too--some of which are hard to define by any of the available stats, boxed, advanced, composite whatever.

All the great players impact the game outside of scoring efficiency, that isn't something exclusive to James. Also James scoring efficiency isn't mediocre, it is awful. He is a forward shooting sub 50 TS. The fact that he is being compared to Stephen Curry is worrying to me.

Objectively speaking, Stephen Curry is better than Lebron James these playoffs. James plays significantly more minutes, scores less, on over 10% worse TS and can't move without the ball (only time he is decent at that is when he is looking to post up). It's really clear who is more effective. I think James playmaking has been phenomenal, his impact is really like a point guards - but Curry isn't exactly lousy on that end either. Being a general is really the only advantage James has over Curry, and Curry is a fine commander himself.

I'll give it to James that he is playing great defense, though during the RS he went through big stretches where he was really lazy - but I think people are also underselling that the Cavs are playing great defense in general. No Kevin Love is already a plus for them defensively. Shampurt is playing stellar defense, Mozgov is the first traditional anchor James may have played with, TT is a competitor on that end, Smith/Del/Irving have all played solid defense despite being inconsistent to bad during the RS.

The Cavs also have not played against a team that has an actual offensive anchor, and we're in the 4th round of the playoffs already. Unless James is playing some all time great level defense, I don't see how that is enough to put him over Curry (who also has many intangibles that are not captured by stats).

bottom line is the guy is still a beast. And while you think AD(and maybe others) could do what he's doing. I feel quite strongly no other player in the league could do what he's doing with the Cavs.

I don't know, elevating other people's games, going beyond stats - how doesn't that describe someone like Chris Paul? Isn't just saying AD is just a guy putting up great stats just underrating the guy at this point? It's almost like people are afraid to admit that he might be the best player in the world already. The guy looked no less impactful than Stephhen Curry did during their series yet he has been pseudo forgotten.

Appreciate the response.

Curry is playing better offensively and frankly is the better offensive player at this point. I don't disagree.

No I don't think Harden or Paul or AD could do what Lebron is doing with the Cavs. Obviously I could be wrong as we will never know, but that's what I think. I respect you feel differently. And sure Paul does do a lot of the same things James does in terms of running an offense and leadership. But he doesn't have the impact James has in other areas imo.

Yeah maybe I am guilty of not being ready to acknowledge Davis as the best player in the world. I wouldn't use the term "afraid" maybe, but "leery" probably fits me. I freely admit I'm a big believer in sample size and guys replicating it. I've never hidden how little esteem I hold for one year wonder types(obviously not saying this about AD by any means). I do tend to default to the more proven until I feel I have enough evidence suggesting the new should take precedence. And no doubt that is probably a bit of a flaw in how I view players/teams. I admit that its taken me until the post-season to fully buy into just how great the Warriors are for instance.

[Dr Spaceman]

I think we should have a discussion about competition level. It's the subtext in all these LeBron discussions and it is likely that it's shaped a huge part of our rankings.

I've noticed two camps:

1. Those who are so impressed by LeBron's playoff performance that they'll put him comfortably #2
2. Those who still have LeBron in the 4/5 range and are skeptical that his playoffs are actually enough to put him ahead of guys like Harden and Paul (this is where I stand)

And really the main divider of these two is how you view the East. If you think the Cavs are an actual 11 SRS postseason team, then yeah what LeBron is doing is extraordinary, probably the best postseason of anyone and one of the best in his career. If on the other hand you think the East playoffs have not been a challenge, you probably feel that the Cavs are right around the level of the Rockets or someone, it's hard to justify James taking that big a leap relative to the guys battling it out in the Wild West.

So let's talk about this. How much stock should we put into beating up Atlanta and Chicago? How good would the Cavs do in the West? Is a "dominant" performance against the Hawks worth more than a "great" performance against the Clippers, Spurs, or Rockets?

[Clyde Frazier]

There seems to be a strong wining bias going on. I saw a bunch of diverse top 5s before the playoffs and now all I see is:

1.Lebron/Curry winner 2. Finals loser 3. Harden 4. Chris Paul 5.AD

I don't think it's coincidence that this is the exact order that people got eliminated.

I think you're really overstating this here. People are talking about the possibility of lebron moving to #1 if he has a great finals and they upset the warriors. Not some defacto "whoever wins the finals will be #1". I also still see plenty of paul > harden supporters. Is where players get eliminated influencing the results? Sure, but why wouldn't it if this is an "all season" award?

[RSCD3_]

I think we should have a discussion about competition level. It's the subtext in all these LeBron discussions and it is likely that it's shaped a huge part of our rankings.

I've noticed two camps:

1. Those who are so impressed by LeBron's playoff performance that they'll put him comfortably #2
2. Those who still have LeBron in the 4/5 range and are skeptical that his playoffs are actually enough to put him ahead of guys like Harden and Paul (this is where I stand)

And really the main divider of these two is how you view the East. If you think the Cavs are an actual 11 SRS postseason team, then yeah what LeBron is doing is extraordinary, probably the best postseason of anyone and one of the best in his career. If on the other hand you think the East playoffs have not been a challenge, you probably feel that the Cavs are right around the level of the Rockets or someone, it's hard to justify James taking that big a leap relative to the guys battling it out in the Wild West.

So let's talk about this. How much stock should we put into beating up Atlanta and Chicago? How good would the Cavs do in the West? Is a "dominant" performance against the Hawks worth more than a "great" performance against the Clippers, Spurs, or Rockets?

Thats why these finals mean so much. Warriors SRS is over 10 and the combined Cavaliers opponents is 6.89

If the cavs success continues to shine through even at 80% against the warriors than we either need to give lebron more credit, give his roleplayers a lot more credit, give blatt a lot of props but more likely some combination of the three.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

I think we should have a discussion about competition level. It's the subtext in all these LeBron discussions and it is likely that it's shaped a huge part of our rankings.

I've noticed two camps:

1. Those who are so impressed by LeBron's playoff performance that they'll put him comfortably #2
2. Those who still have LeBron in the 4/5 range and are skeptical that his playoffs are actually enough to put him ahead of guys like Harden and Paul (this is where I stand)

And really the main divider of these two is how you view the East. If you think the Cavs are an actual 11 SRS postseason team, then yeah what LeBron is doing is extraordinary, probably the best postseason of anyone and one of the best in his career. If on the other hand you think the East playoffs have not been a challenge, you probably feel that the Cavs are right around the level of the Rockets or someone, it's hard to justify James taking that big a leap relative to the guys battling it out in the Wild West.

So let's talk about this. How much stock should we put into beating up Atlanta and Chicago? How good would the Cavs do in the West? Is a "dominant" performance against the Hawks worth more than a "great" performance against the Clippers, Spurs, or Rockets?

This is a good question. Since I fall more into group #1--tho I think once he returned from his rest he was better in the RS than he gets credit for--I'ss state why:

Guys can only play who gets put in front of them. So if Lebron and the Cavs had an easier path than the Warriors, and I think we'd all agree that they did, how much does that detract from his performance? For me there are two main factors and a third smaller one why I'm more impressed with what Lebron has done than Paul or Harden(or AD):

The Cavs are doing what they should do against this competition--going through it without much struggle. Two sweeps and beating a team that is a tough matchup for them in 6. If they were going 6 or 7 in every round then yeah its not that impressive. But hard to fault Lebron for his team doing about as good as could be expected against who they got to play. And frankly the Warriors haven't exactly faced murderer's row themselves. Pelicans, even with AD, weren't ready for that. Memphis was banged up and Houston was gutsy, gutsy, but they were also missing key guys and were wildly inconsistent. Too much is made of the East all the time, but this year in particular I think its getting oversold.

Love is out. Kyrie has been very limited. Yes the role players have been quite good. I don't share Doc's view that this is luck or that this is exclusive of Lebron at all. I think even when Lebron sits the confidence and lack of pressure they feel makes it much easier to succeed. I posted this once already, but I saw this same thing in 2011 with Dirk. All those guys knew Dirk was going to be the best player on the court and come through in the clutch for them and so they knew they just had to do their part--and they all performed terrifically throughout the playoffs. Well same thing here except Lebron likely inspires even more confidence than Dirk because of his ability to impact games defensively as well.

And finally the more minor reason--winning playoff series is hard. And its important. I know most disagree with me that its irrelevant because its team, but winning 3 series should never be taken for granted. Paul and the Clippers beating the Spurs is obviously more impressive than any of the Cavs series and some may feel its more impressive than all combined and I get that. But winnings series is hard. And it should be valued.

[Texas Chuck]

duplicate--sorry

[MO12msu]

I think you're really overstating this here. People are talking about the possibility of lebron moving to #1 if he has a great finals and they upset the warriors. Not some defacto "whoever wins the finals will be #1". I also still see plenty of paul > harden supporters. Is where players get eliminated influencing the results? Sure, but why wouldn't it if this is an "all season" award?

Because if WHERE the player gets eliminated is influencing the result more than HOW the player played(regular and postseason) then I don't think we're actually trying to find the player who played the best for all of this season. I know people interpret player of the year differently, but I still feel as if the essence of the discussion should be focused on how the players actually played.

Strictly for me, if everyone is playing really really similar in the playoffs to how they played throughout the larger sample size of the regular season, then I'll feel pretty confident keeping my rankings very similar from the end of the regular season.

I'm also not sure that if it was anyone other than Lebron having the season & playoffs he's had and making it through the East, that people would be so open to propelling that player to #1 for the season. But that's besides the point.

[Clyde Frazier]

I think you're really overstating this here. People are talking about the possibility of lebron moving to #1 if he has a great finals and they upset the warriors. Not some defacto "whoever wins the finals will be #1". I also still see plenty of paul > harden supporters. Is where players get eliminated influencing the results? Sure, but why wouldn't it if this is an "all season" award?

Because if WHERE the player gets eliminated is influencing the result more than HOW the player played(regular and postseason) then I don't think we're actually trying to find the player who played the best for all of this season. I know people interpret player of the year differently, but I still feel as if the essence of the discussion should be focused on how the players actually played.

Strictly for me, if everyone is playing really really similar in the playoffs to how they played throughout the larger sample size of the regular season, then I'll feel pretty confident keeping my rankings very similar from the end of the regular season.

I'm also not sure that if it was anyone other than Lebron having the season & playoffs he's had and making it through the East, that people would be so open to propelling that player to #1 for the season. But that's besides the point.

I agree with you that how the player played is very important. I'd like to think most of us are above the "oh [insert player here] didn't get to the conf finals, why should we even bother giving him credit for what he did up to that point?" I also think some context is needed beyond just looking at their individual performance at face value. I don't see myself ranking lebron ahead of curry, but I do think the playoff run he's had has moved him up somewhere in that top 3 range as opposed to 4/5. Are people really ready to look at his 49% TS in the playoffs and just say "bleh, lebron doing his best iverson impression"?

[fuzzy_dunlop]

I think we should have a discussion about competition level. It's the subtext in all these LeBron discussions and it is likely that it's shaped a huge part of our rankings.

I've noticed two camps:

1. Those who are so impressed by LeBron's playoff performance that they'll put him comfortably #2
2. Those who still have LeBron in the 4/5 range and are skeptical that his playoffs are actually enough to put him ahead of guys like Harden and Paul (this is where I stand)

And really the main divider of these two is how you view the East. If you think the Cavs are an actual 11 SRS postseason team, then yeah what LeBron is doing is extraordinary, probably the best postseason of anyone and one of the best in his career. If on the other hand you think the East playoffs have not been a challenge, you probably feel that the Cavs are right around the level of the Rockets or someone, it's hard to justify James taking that big a leap relative to the guys battling it out in the Wild West.

So let's talk about this. How much stock should we put into beating up Atlanta and Chicago? How good would the Cavs do in the West? Is a "dominant" performance against the Hawks worth more than a "great" performance against the Clippers, Spurs, or Rockets?

Thats why these finals mean so much. Warriors SRS is over 10 and the combined Cavaliers opponents is 6.89

If the cavs success continues to shine through even at 80% against the warriors than we either need to give lebron more credit, give his roleplayers a lot more credit, give blatt a lot of props but more likely some combination of the three.

the finals are still <=7 games bruh

[ceiling raiser]

I think we should have a discussion about competition level. It's the subtext in all these LeBron discussions and it is likely that it's shaped a huge part of our rankings.

I've noticed two camps:

1. Those who are so impressed by LeBron's playoff performance that they'll put him comfortably #2
2. Those who still have LeBron in the 4/5 range and are skeptical that his playoffs are actually enough to put him ahead of guys like Harden and Paul (this is where I stand)

And really the main divider of these two is how you view the East. If you think the Cavs are an actual 11 SRS postseason team, then yeah what LeBron is doing is extraordinary, probably the best postseason of anyone and one of the best in his career. If on the other hand you think the East playoffs have not been a challenge, you probably feel that the Cavs are right around the level of the Rockets or someone, it's hard to justify James taking that big a leap relative to the guys battling it out in the Wild West.

So let's talk about this. How much stock should we put into beating up Atlanta and Chicago? How good would the Cavs do in the West? Is a "dominant" performance against the Hawks worth more than a "great" performance against the Clippers, Spurs, or Rockets?

I'm closer to camp (2) as of today. While I do feel Boston and Chicago were physical series, I don't know that they were high quality opponents. I don't have too much of an issue crediting LeBron with a lot of the attention as far as the team offense is concerned, but I do wonder if we're being a bit quick to credit him with the lion's share of the defensive improvement in the playoffs. This campaign down the stretch has clearly been superior on that end to last year (maybe the playoffs for 14 and 15 on D have been close), but I wonder how much of that is due to Thompson (mobility, maybe some leaking effect from offensive rebounds) and Blatt (schemes/rotations). Of course Mozgov has been very valuable since the trade as well.

Atlanta did fold down the stretch, and they didn't have a superb SRS given their record, but I was extremely impressed by Cleveland taking the first two games in the series on the road, with Kyrie limited/out (Korver and Carroll may not have been 100%, but both seemed effective). Two games won't put LeBron in the conversation for the 1 or 2 spot for me, and I'm not sure how much the Finals will change things, unless the offense continues to have this much success, Curry falls off a cliff due to some matchup issue, and it becomes apparent that LeBron is anchoring the defense.

[MO12msu]

I agree with you that how the player played is very important. I'd like to think most of us are above the "oh [insert player here] didn't get to the conf finals, why should we even bother giving him credit for what he did up to that point?" I also think some context is needed beyond just looking at their individual performance at face value. I don't see myself ranking lebron ahead of curry, but I do think the playoff run he's had has moved him up somewhere in that top 3 range as opposed to 4/5. Are people really ready to look at his 49% TS in the playoffs and just say "bleh, lebron doing his best iverson impression"?

I see what you're saying. I guess it just seems like I've seen a lot of reactionary opinions based off the results of series instead of what actually happened to get that result.

I definitely don't view lebron as pulling an iverson, more like a less efficient shooting westbrook with better defense. I just don't see how he has actually played in the playoffs differentiates him from the rest of the top 5 and I'm not sure he would be having that same sort of impact against west opponents. In a way I guess I am with the 2nd group that Spaceman mentioned. It's also hard for me to weigh the playoffs so much as to discount the regular season when the playing field in the playoffs isn't equal at all.

[PaulieWal]

I think my top 5 is going to stay the same more or less. LeBron has been good in these playoffs but I am not sure he's done enough to overtake guys like CP/Harden for an entire season for me. I will have to look at my list again after the Finals. I do think he's been the 2nd best player in these playoffs only but this isn't a Best PS Player thread, it's RPOY.

Question for those who have him #2 behind Curry on their ballot, do you think the Cavaliers would beat the Rockets in the ECF if somehow the Rockets played in Atlanta?

[parapooper]

I think my top 5 is going to stay the same more or less. LeBron has been good in these playoffs but I am not sure he's done enough to overtake guys like CP/Harden for an entire season for me. I will have to look at my list again after the Finals. I do think he's been the 2nd best player in these playoffs only but this isn't a Best PS Player thread, it's RPOY.

Question for those who have him #2 behind Curry on their ballot, do you think the Cavaliers would beat the Rockets in the ECF if somehow the Rockets played in Atlanta?

Did you think the Cavaliers would beat the Bulls and Hawks after Love and Irving got injured? Because nobody seemed to think that and only after the Cavs made these teams look bad were they suddenly talked about like they are complete trash. Their combined RS SRS was about the same as Rockets + Grizzlies.

And do I think the Cavs from the ECF would beat the Rockets minus their #2 and #3 players? - Yes.
Would they beat a complete a complete Rockets team? Don't know, but how does that question help comparing LeBron and Harden?