All-Season Other Awards Discussion thread

[fuzzy_dunlop]

^
<=7 games should never be a big deal for some1 interested in out of sample prediction (and why else would one use impact stats?).

[sp6r=underrated]

Just gonna toss this out there, and its not a popular opinion at this point, but I feel like the playoffs have been proof that even with "team ball" taking over the league, in the end you need studs to win it all. GSW plays team ball to an extent, but they have the studs to back it up. The Spurs do too, but at this point they don't quite have the one guy to just give the ball and say "win it", same with the Hawks. I think the playoffs are showing you need that as much as team play.

There has been a shift to team play over superstar ball. The ideal is to have a superstar that can be integrated into a team game. Your post seems to indicate that the Spurs loss to Los Angeles revealed a foundational flaw which was mistaken. GSW played at a GOAT level and San Antonio didn't. However, they were playing at a championship level this year and lost a coin toss series in which you can argue they marginally outplayed another title caliber club.

[bondom34]

Just gonna toss this out there, and its not a popular opinion at this point, but I feel like the playoffs have been proof that even with "team ball" taking over the league, in the end you need studs to win it all. GSW plays team ball to an extent, but they have the studs to back it up. The Spurs do too, but at this point they don't quite have the one guy to just give the ball and say "win it", same with the Hawks. I think the playoffs are showing you need that as much as team play.

There has been a shift to team play over superstar ball. The ideal is to have a superstar that can be integrated into a team game. Your post seems to indicate that the Spurs loss to Los Angeles revealed a foundational flaw which was mistaken. GSW played at a GOAT level and San Antonio didn't. However, they were playing at a championship level this year and lost a coin toss series in which you can argue they marginally outplayed another title caliber club.

Ah, sorry, and didn't really mean it entirely for that, but meant it more toward ATL. I agree the team concept is optimal, but to really win you still need a guy to just give the ball to and say do something sometimes. GSW has Curry or Klay, ATL had no one. The Spurs are more an exception to the rule, but I think are going to suffer unless Leonard really makes a leap offensively. They won't fall off a cliff, but they don't have a great offensive difference maker to me. As great as Kawhi is, he's not that IMO.

[bondom34]

Just gonna toss this out there, and its not a popular opinion at this point, but I feel like the playoffs have been proof that even with "team ball" taking over the league, in the end you need studs to win it all. GSW plays team ball to an extent, but they have the studs to back it up. The Spurs do too, but at this point they don't quite have the one guy to just give the ball and say "win it", same with the Hawks. I think the playoffs are showing you need that as much as team play.

I think this year has helped us better understand what the new balance is. With the way the Spurs won last year, I had a real thought that we might see a new era where superstars were far less important than they were before. Had the Hawks won it all, that would be cemented.

Mind you, I never thought the Hawks would win, but since I never predicted they'd win 60 games either, I wasn't going to say anything was impossible.

I also think though that there still is some shift in the balance toward the coach's side, and that the superstars who shine the brightest now have shifted a bit. I think Curry may well be the flag-bearer for it: A guy with an ultra-outlier ability that can be used as rapidly as a gamer launches an attack with his keyboard. That specific combination, that particular reliance on a superstar, might actually be the key to generating "team ball" - a flowing offense that let's everyone get involved - against the toughest of defenses.

See above post for a better explanation, but agree w/ everything here .

[RSCD3_]

Just gonna toss this out there, and its not a popular opinion at this point, but I feel like the playoffs have been proof that even with "team ball" taking over the league, in the end you need studs to win it all. GSW plays team ball to an extent, but they have the studs to back it up. The Spurs do too, but at this point they don't quite have the one guy to just give the ball and say "win it", same with the Hawks. I think the playoffs are showing you need that as much as team play.

There has been a shift to team play over superstar ball. The ideal is to have a superstar that can be integrated into a team game. Your post seems to indicate that the Spurs loss to Los Angeles revealed a foundational flaw which was mistaken. GSW played at a GOAT level and San Antonio didn't. However, they were playing at a championship level this year and lost a coin toss series in which you can argue they marginally outplayed another title caliber club.

Ah, sorry, and didn't really mean it entirely for that, but meant it more toward ATL. I agree the team concept is optimal, but to really win you still need a guy to just give the ball to and say do something sometimes. GSW has Curry or Klay, ATL had no one. The Spurs are more an exception to the rule, but I think are going to suffer unless Leonard really makes a leap offensively. They won't fall off a cliff, but they don't have a great offensive difference maker to me. As great as Kawhi is, he's not that IMO.

The main reason klay is at a slight decline in the playoffs is because he is trying to do something with the ball once he gets it, yeah he's athletic and good in straight line drives but asking him to create for you in the clutch is something opponents would live with

[Doctor MJ]

^
<=7 games should never be a big deal for some1 interested in out of sample prediction (and why else would one use impact stats?).

fuzzy a request for the future: Please quote the post you're responding to. Most generally it just makes things clear in such cases where the post you're responding to isn't right next to the new post, and especially when that's the case and your post ends up on a separate page. But also it's frustrating in this case because I feel like I have to repeat myself now rather than just clarify matters:

I spoke about what the series meant for each coach. This is a specific test for both coaches. The general expectation is that the Warriors when in a competitive series. If that doesn't happen, then there are possibilities that have pretty profound explanations.

I talked about what it could mean for Blatt to win. Well, see the thing is, this Cavs team shouldn't be able to win the title. They are very much an injured team, even to the point that the lone superstar left playing every game to the max has more hurts than fingers and is shooting worse than he's shot in I don't know how long. Given what we saw of them this year, they should not be able to be the best team in the league in this state. If they win the title thus, there's some very interesting insight we'll hopefully glean, and it might come with a recognition that this guy really knows how to game plan for specific opponents.

Why is this single 7 game series so crucial? Because thus far we haven't seen he and his team do anything against a team that at this point I see as anywhere near a contender. The the magic the Cavs seem to have now utterly evaporates against the Warriors then there's no reason to look at the Cavs in their injured state as anything more than a bottom tier West playoff team. That's not "dismissal with small sample size" thing, it's a flat out statement that there's no may be no reason at all for us to see the injured Cavs as anything more than we would have thought they'd be when we first saw the injuries. Because the two "quality" teams the Cavs beat were a Bulls team that was ready to implode and a Hawks team that struggled to beat an injured Wizards team, and in the end, those may not be things we should be impressed by.

The 7 game series thus wouldn't be as big of a deal if we could have confidence that the accomplishments to this point were themselves a big deal.

On the other side of things, Kerr of course can put himself and his team as not simply champions but truly dominant champions who will be strong contenders for a dynasty with a dominant win here. And for he and his staff, if they "figure out" the Cavs and the emerging trends that have let the Cavs advanced to this stage then what we have is a year defined as much by the Warrior staff knowing the right move from start to finish when basically no one else showed they did. That's legendary.

But if the Warriors lose of course, it all looks very different. Unlike the Cavs, the Warriors have accomplished things of import and it's not the end of the world, so Kerr's year will be respect regardless. But being seen as respected and being seen as legendary, definitely not the same thing.

As far as limited the impact of 7 games on our perception, true enough. I would simply point out that there's a difference between identifying the most probable narrative and setting that narrative in stone.

[Doctor MJ]

The main reason klay is at a slight decline in the playoffs is because he is trying to do something with the ball once he gets it, yeah he's athletic and good in straight line drives but asking him to create for you in the clutch is something opponents would live with

I'm sorry, just jumping in here in reaction, but:

Slight decline? His advanced metrics have basically drop down to the kind of average-level guy he was before this year despite the fact he has an alpha taking on more than ever in the playoffs.

I suppose I'm biased though: As much as I heap praise on the Warriors for not doing the Love trade in retrospect (after I was all for it before the season), the whole "Splash Bros" thing is just so absurd to me. People actually talk about this as if it's a 2-headed monster where the other superstars of the world have nothing like it, and this has everything to do with why Thompson made an All-NBA team, but to me he still hasn't shown he deserves to be talked about as anything like this. Yes he's the second scoring option on a great team, and for that he deserves legit credit, but there's no reason to talk about Thompson as the reason why Curry has some kind of unusual advantage most Finals MVPs don't have. Frankly, to me the far bigger piece is Green given that the Warriors are where they because their defense is awesome too. I have faith that Curry could lead an outstanding offense without Thompson, but injuries to the defense I think would take their toll much more easily.

[fuzzy_dunlop]

fuzzy a request for the future: Please quote the post you're responding to. Most generally it just makes things clear in such cases where the post you're responding to isn't right next to the new post, and especially when that's the case and your post ends up on a separate page. But also it's frustrating in this case because I feel like I have to repeat myself now rather than just clarify matters:

I spoke about what the series meant for each coach. This is a specific test for both coaches. The general expectation is that the Warriors when in a competitive series. If that doesn't happen, then there are possibilities that have pretty profound explanations.

I talked about what it could mean for Blatt to win. Well, see the thing is, this Cavs team shouldn't be able to win the title. They are very much an injured team, even to the point that the lone superstar left playing every game to the max has more hurts than fingers and is shooting worse than he's shot in I don't know how long. Given what we saw of them this year, they should not be able to be the best team in the league in this state. If they win the title thus, there's some very interesting insight we'll hopefully glean, and it might come with a recognition that this guy really knows how to game plan for specific opponents.

Why is this single 7 game series so crucial? Because thus far we haven't seen he and his team do anything against a team that at this point I see as anywhere near a contender. The the magic the Cavs seem to have now utterly evaporates against the Warriors then there's no reason to look at the Cavs in their injured state as anything more than a bottom tier West playoff team. That's not "dismissal with small sample size" thing, it's a flat out statement that there's no may be no reason at all for us to see the injured Cavs as anything more than we would have thought they'd be when we first saw the injuries. Because the two "quality" teams the Cavs beat were a Bulls team that was ready to implode and a Hawks team that struggled to beat an injured Wizards team, and in the end, those may not be things we should be impressed by.

The 7 game series thus wouldn't be as big of a deal if we could have confidence that the accomplishments to this point were themselves a big deal.

On the other side of things, Kerr of course can put himself and his team as not simply champions but truly dominant champions who will be strong contenders for a dynasty with a dominant win here. And for he and his staff, if they "figure out" the Cavs and the emerging trends that have let the Cavs advanced to this stage then what we have is a year defined as much by the Warrior staff knowing the right move from start to finish when basically no one else showed they did. That's legendary.

But if the Warriors lose of course, it all looks very different. Unlike the Cavs, the Warriors have accomplished things of import and it's not the end of the world, so Kerr's year will be respect regardless. But being seen as respected and being seen as legendary, definitely not the same thing.

As far as limited the impact of 7 games on our perception, true enough. I would simply point out that there's a difference between identifying the most probable narrative and setting that narrative in stone.

I use ^ to indicate that I'm responding to the immediately preceding post, otherwise I quote. I think this strikes a good balance.

To your point, I still don't see how this isn't a form of gambler's fallacy (where instead of profits/losses we are talking about "significance" or out of sample predictive power). Yes, it's true, this cavs team hasn't really played anybody. They're yet another link in a long chain of EC teams that probably wouldn't have made the finals had they played in the west, but the point is that's all in the past. Now they're <=7 games away from a title and those <=7 games can only carry so much information (no much).

[RSCD3_]

The main reason klay is at a slight decline in the playoffs is because he is trying to do something with the ball once he gets it, yeah he's athletic and good in straight line drives but asking him to create for you in the clutch is something opponents would live with

I'm sorry, just jumping in here in reaction, but:

Slight decline? His advanced metrics have basically drop down to the kind of average-level guy he was before this year despite the fact he has an alpha taking on more than ever in the playoffs.

I suppose I'm biased though: As much as I heap praise on the Warriors for not doing the Love trade in retrospect (after I was all for it before the season), the whole "Splash Bros" thing is just so absurd to me. People actually talk about this as if it's a 2-headed monster where the other superstars of the world have nothing like it, and this has everything to do with why Thompson made an All-NBA team, but to me he still hasn't shown he deserves to be talked about as anything like this. Yes he's the second scoring option on a great team, and for that he deserves legit credit, but there's no reason to talk about Thompson as the reason why Curry has some kind of unusual advantage most Finals MVPs don't have. Frankly, to me the far bigger piece is Green given that the Warriors are where they because their defense is awesome too. I have faith that Curry could lead an outstanding offense without Thompson, but injuries to the defense I think would take their toll much more easily.

I used slightly but I felt more strongly than that I just didn't want to tick off any warrior fans or anything because his box score and TS% aren't that far declined 5 pp100 and -3% TS drop

[Dr Spaceman]

Kerr is pretty much the runaway favorite for COY, barring some massively convincing upset that has everyone reconsider Blatt. I actually think Kerr (& his staff) have had an extraordinary playoff run, and if we're looking for something that puts this team over the top it's got to be this brilliant coaching staff. They largely won the Memphis series with the decision to put Bogut on Allen, they won the Houston series with their unpredictable lineups and Ron Adams' brilliant anti-Harden scheme, and all playoffs long they've made dramatic scoring runs with exquisitely timed super-small lineups.

My question is not so much for this season, but in a global hierarchy- how do we go about doling out credit for these decisions? It feels like everytime the Warriors are brought up it's to mention Kerr "and his staff" and they basically took the celebrity assistant thing to another level entirely. I suppose next season without Gentry will be an interesting litmus test, but for now- the way the Warriors are coached in these playoffs would put him right around the level of Carlisle, maybe a little below Pop for me. I just have trouble with knowing whether Kerr deserves all the credit in the world for hiring geniuses and stepping aside, or whether a lot of schematic decisions were his, stuff like that.

I have been paying especially close attention to him since November when they really started breaking out, and I have a bunch of notes about truly outstanding game-management decisions he's made. He's definitely got that part of the game down. I just wonder about his adjustments and schemes- not whether they're great, they obviously are, but whether he deserves a ton of credit for them.

[Texas Chuck]

Well I'd say through 2 games Blatt is out-coaching Kerr. He has far less options to go to, but he has turned both games(on the road no less) into the games the Cavs have to play. I'd still have Kerr higher than Blatt on my COY ballot and still behind Bud and McHale(i know I'm alone here), but its worth noting.

[HeartBreakKid]

I don't think I'm gonna vote for Bogut for DPOY. He hasn't been that good through out a lot of the playoffs.

[Dr Spaceman]

So there’s no case for anyone besides Iggy for 6MOY, right?

[Doctor MJ]

Let's get discussion going here again. Everyone voter on the list I'd like you to pop in here and give at least some thoughts.

[Doctor MJ]

So there’s no case for anyone besides Iggy for 6MOY, right?

I hadn't thought about the ramifications of the finals in regards to this, but you're exactly right.

It's funny, I absolutely think Iggy shouldn't have won Finals MVP...but I was adamant toward the end of the RS that Iggy should win 6MOY, and was amazed at how people brushed that idea off simply because he didn't fit the "scorer off the bench" model. I think it's all the more clear cut now that Iggy was providing something as 6th Man exceptional valuable that is considerably more impressive than the Lou Williamses of the world give.

[bondom34]

Just to put my votes out there quickly, will try to elaborate later...


ROY: Still like Noel (was between him and Mirotic early) I think I explained this earlier and nothing changed.

6MOY: Still can be talked into a few guys most likely

EOY: Bob Meyers GSW

COY: Leaning Kerr, can be talked into Kidd as well, only because I value doing more with less over doing more with more for this award, though I completely accept that most don't do that. Really think Kidd is a fantastic coach.

MIP: Butler or Giannis still. I get that some people don't like it going to a second year guy, but there was a definite leap made by Giannis as well. I'm torn here.

DPOY: Kawhi (was between him and Gobert early).

OPOY: Curry (was between him, Harden, and Westbrook early).

[bondom34]

A thought, as I lean Iggy too for 6MOY, but I think Tristan Thompson has a case to be made as well.

[bondom34]

And I'm changing my MIP to a guy I entirely forgot but shouldn't have because he wasn't in the PO, but Gordon Hayward has a massive difference and proved his contract was worth it. Looking at his stats the last 2 years shows he really belongs in the convo, he's my vote.

[HeartBreakKid]

So there’s no case for anyone besides Iggy for 6MOY, right?

Isaiah

[bondom34]

So there’s no case for anyone besides Iggy for 6MOY, right?

Isaiah

And Tristan Thompson for me.