All-Season Player of the Year Discussion thread

[Texas Chuck]

Oh goodie, the strawman accusations......

I looked back through this forum and don't see hardly any talk about the Hawks being pretenders until the ECF. Hence me thinking that much of this talk is inspired by that. It doesn't mean it's wrong to discuss it now, but I admit that I find it odd how many guys pimped the Hawks(and Korver) here all year and now are ready to bury them.

Now I believe they proved themselves over the RS. 60 wins and a very good record against the best teams in the West isn't a fluke. I don't how else to put that. I can understand people being underwhelmed by some of their playoff performances, but advancing is still advancing. And this weak SRS you complain was 4th in the entire Association behind only the Warriors, Clippers, and Spurs.

I'm glad none of this applies to you specifically who always knew they weren't really any good. Not everyone was as prescient it seems.

edit: Will just drop this here so we can see what some of the Hawks talk here looked like prior to the ECF:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1372101#start_here

[bondom34]

To address Chuck's point, I felt they were good, but never a threat to win a title. I wouldn't have picked them at any point to do that, and think they pretty much reached what they would be expected to. They were never a "bad" team, but they weren't ever a real title contender in my mind.

[JoeMalburg]

I don't see why Chris Paul is getting blamed and downgraded for his teams collapse. He played brilliantly in games 5-7 while his team struggled. He put up 26-10-5, 51-35-94, .632 TS%, 127 O rating. The Clippers got outscored by 24 points in the 23 minutes he was off the court during the 3 games.

Here is what CP3, Blake, and DeAndre did in those 3 games:
Per36 minutes:
21-8-4, 2 TOV, 2.4 blk+stl, 3.4 PF, .665 TS%

Here is what there main roleplayers did (Barnes, Redick, Crawford, and Rivers):
11-3-2, 1.2 TOV, 1.7 blk+stl, 4.8 PF, .373 TS%

They shot a combined 14-67 (.209) from 3.

The Clippers stars played well so they should bear no blame for the series. Its the role players that struggled mightily.

Excellent statistical support for your seemingly bulletproof argument.

It's my observational hypothesis that Chris Paul has never had role players teammates play even slightly above average in a playoff series. Is this true to any degree based on stats you have or recall?

At what point, if any, do we call into question Paul's leadership or intangible ability to elevate teammates?

Is it fair to assert that Paul is considered difficult to play with? A bit of perfectionist; Not as supportive as some millennial millionaire role players might prefer?

Could that and should that be considered when we evaluate him as a player, notably one who plays a natural leadership-oriented position?

Finally, is he the best player ever to not reach a conference finals?

[E-Balla]

I don't see why Chris Paul is getting blamed and downgraded for his teams collapse. He played brilliantly in games 5-7 while his team struggled. He put up 26-10-5, 51-35-94, .632 TS%, 127 O rating. The Clippers got outscored by 24 points in the 23 minutes he was off the court during the 3 games.

Here is what CP3, Blake, and DeAndre did in those 3 games:
Per36 minutes:
21-8-4, 2 TOV, 2.4 blk+stl, 3.4 PF, .665 TS%

Here is what there main roleplayers did (Barnes, Redick, Crawford, and Rivers):
11-3-2, 1.2 TOV, 1.7 blk+stl, 4.8 PF, .373 TS%

They shot a combined 14-67 (.209) from 3.

The Clippers stars played well so they should bear no blame for the series. Its the role players that struggled mightily.

He's getting blamed and downgraded for his play in games 1 and 2.

[Clyde Frazier]

My general thoughts on the hawks season and level of play:

I don’t think they were quite as good as their record having played in the eastern conference. That said, they consistently beat western conf playoff teams, so it’s not as if they weren’t competitive.

I see their playoff performance as a combination of injuries and forced execution. They might’ve been closer to blazers east than spurs east in the sense that their starting 5 needed to be hitting on all cylinders to perform well. They had some depth to plug in, but not in the way the spurs have been able to the last few seasons. When guys were banged up or had an off shooting night, the offense as a whole deteriorated.

Korver specifically seemed pressured to perform and rushed a lot of his shots that you wouldn’t see in the regular season. They admittedly couldn’t run as much to get him those 3s in transition he loves. Carroll had a great playoffs and gets hurt. Horford again when healthy was excellent for them, yet wasn’t healthy to start the playoffs. I’m not about to yell “see! hawks were just a reg season team!” from the rooftops, but teague needed to be that guy to step up more often than he did. Seemed like he was too hesitant to take over, even though he can get to the rim at will against seemingly any team.

At the end of the day, they still made it to the ECF, and I believe the series would’ve looked different had they been at full strength. Sure, every team was banged up at that point, but that doesn’t change the fact that things could’ve turned out better for them.

[Doctor MJ]

Man, I can't tell you how annoyed I'm getting with people outside of RealGM picking the Cavs with a tone that implies that "they know" how things like this work without giving a lick of evidence that they do detailed analysis. It's happening seemingly everywhere I go.

Part of what's annoying about it, is that I know these people who basically are asserting LeBron is LeBron and will therefore win, barely remember the Spurs series at this point but if the Cavs get slaughtered will simply pivot and destroy LeBron as not having killer instinct. No matter what happens, they have something to go on and on about as if they know, and but they don't put the effort in to ever in fact figure out a way to know anything.

[trex_8063]

Oh goodie, the strawman accusations......

I looked back through this forum and don't see hardly any talk about the Hawks being pretenders until the ECF. Hence me thinking that much of this talk is inspired by that.

That may or may not be the case (I haven't really paid attention), but in HBK's defense, HE clearly states his own personal shift of opinion on the Hawks as a result of the playoffs as a whole (performances against Nets and Wizards a big chunk of that).

edit: Will just drop this here so we can see what some of the Hawks talk here looked like prior to the ECF:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1372101#start_here

Well, much of this was from way back around the All-Star break (before they finished up the season a somewhat more pedestrian 17-11, I believe it was).

As I read on in the thread you've linked, I read tones of concern (or at least confusion, as in "where did the Hawks of two months ago go?") as early as that first round series.

[Texas Chuck]

FYI--Trex I didn't link that thread as support of my argument. I put it up so we could all see what was being said no matter what the result.

My issue was less with HBK's view on the Hawks which he is absolutely entitled too. My issue was in general with his implication that anyone not calling the Hawks pretenders were the ones required to post an argument for it. The Hawks made their own case with 60 wins and a trip to the ECF. Sorry, but its up to those who think that a mirage to prove why, not the other way around.

He then proceeded to make his case. I still disagree with much of it, but I have no issue with him feeling differently. I merely had issue with his initial presumption. And I even acknowledged that my comments specifically did not apply to him. But even more that than I have a major issue with the Hawks(and East) being used so heavily against Lebron.

If the PC board is consistent about one thing it is this: we should judge a player by their own play and not that of their team(read: teammates). And this despite the fact that every player has both the ability and the incentive to effect those teammates play to the positive. . But we are constantly preaching how that does not matter.

But somehow the "poor" play of Lebron's opponents must matter. Even tho the only influence he can have on them(or should want to have on them anyway) is to actually make their performance worse as a result of his play. So ironically the better he and his team perform, making his opponents look worse as a result, the more some posters will call into question his performance. This is bizarro world logic. Yet somehow we should be judging Lebron on them?

That just frankly makes zero sense to me. And beyond that--so people believe his opponents(Hawks included) are subpar? Fine. The Cavs swept two of their opponents and after a rocky start against a team full of veterans and lots of experience against Lebron with a coach known for his ability to scheme defenses against a specific opponent they reeled off 3 wins in a row to close them out and if we look at the overall series they dominated the Bulls in a number of areas.

We've had teams out of the East whom were more highly thought of than the current Cavs who didn't perform as well getting out of the East, but we didn't have all this talk. I don't get it. I just don't get what more honestly people expect Lebron and teh Cavs to do.

[Texas Chuck]

Man, I can't tell you how annoyed I'm getting with people outside of RealGM picking the Cavs with a tone that implies that "they know" how things like this work without giving a lick of evidence that they do detailed analysis. It's happening seemingly everywhere I go.

Part of what's annoying about it, is that I know these people who basically are asserting LeBron is LeBron and will therefore win, barely remember the Spurs series at this point but if the Cavs get slaughtered will simply pivot and destroy LeBron as not having killer instinct. No matter what happens, they have something to go on and on about as if they know, and but they don't put the effort in to ever in fact figure out a way to know anything.

I might be guilty of being one of these simpletons, but....

I expect Golden State to win this series in 4-6 games with 5 or 4 both more likely than 6 imo. But should the Cavs win my expectation is fully that its because "Lebron is Awesome Baby" simply because I can't see any scenarios where barring major injury/suspensions where Cleveland can beat them if Lebron isn't otherworldly.

[Doctor MJ]

Man, I can't tell you how annoyed I'm getting with people outside of RealGM picking the Cavs with a tone that implies that "they know" how things like this work without giving a lick of evidence that they do detailed analysis. It's happening seemingly everywhere I go.

Part of what's annoying about it, is that I know these people who basically are asserting LeBron is LeBron and will therefore win, barely remember the Spurs series at this point but if the Cavs get slaughtered will simply pivot and destroy LeBron as not having killer instinct. No matter what happens, they have something to go on and on about as if they know, and but they don't put the effort in to ever in fact figure out a way to know anything.

I might be guilty of being one of these simpletons, but....

I expect Golden State to win this series in 4-6 games with 5 or 4 both more likely than 6 imo. But should the Cavs win my expectation is fully that its because "Lebron is Awesome Baby" simply because I can't see any scenarios where barring major injury/suspensions where Cleveland can beat them if Lebron isn't otherworldly.

People saying the Cavs will give a decent fight aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people picking the Cavs and saying it like everyone else doesn't know basketball. Hearing it all over sports radio, and a guy just interrupted a conversation I had to inform me unequivocally that this was the Cavs all day. "They're too tough, and the Warriors have no playoff experience". Thanks dude, I'll be sure to...not ask you about anything you think you know ever.

I know we often say that people outside of RealGM and a few other places don't know there stuff, and living in Los Angeles I expect this when people talk about LA teams, but the way picking LeBron's team has become a trendy way to show you're a basketball Buddha filled with secret knowledge that let's you see what will happen with getting into any matchup details is driving me nuts.

[bondom34]

And this is why I'm glad I don't listen to some talk radio. My belief in Lebron is there, but just to keep CLE from being blown away, I wondered if Klay was out if it would allow them into the series, but can't see them winning now, though I want them too. Also could use less Lebron hot take threads if that happened.

Appropos of the CP3/Curry/Lebron convo earlier:

http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/06/02/top ... s-decline/

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... ingle=true

First, Chris Paul ranks atop both per-minute metrics, providing further evidence that, common misperceptions aside, he has been a strong playoff performer. His 0.291 AWS/Min and 0.185 DRE/Min are on par with his season totals (0.295 and 0.179, respectively). Indeed, 2015 is his best playoff showing in a Clippers uniform, his highest AWS/Min since 2011, and his best DRE/Min since 2008.

[RSCD3_]

So who played better last night?

[JLei]

So who played better last night?

Lebron did. But you would have to expect him to.

He's the better player (not offensively but perhaps in this series he can hang there due to my next point) and matchup wise Golden State is much less equipped to handle him than Cleveland is to handle Curry.

Pretty much all of Golden State's dudes get crushed by him in the post (except Draymond and Iggy kindaaa but Iggy still a bit too small) and those 3-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-3 pick and rolls can get him a switch into a more favorable matchup (Klay just got raped everytime they switched it). It's just a battle against the shot clock whether Cavs can get into an action where Lebron can power dribble into the lane or is forced to take a jumper late shot clock. And generally when he got into the lane he scored and when he had to take a jumper it was not good.

Cavs have mobile bigs who are comfortable showing (Especially Tristan) and Kyrie's one redeeming defensive quality is he's gotten good at going over the screen (which you must do against Curry). Also Shumpert is an excellent defender when he isn't put on someone where he can ball watch. And he will stay focused on Curry.

Golden State just has a vastly superior team and depth.

[Mutnt]

Since the season is pretty much over my final ranking is:

1. Curry
2. LeBron
3. Paul
4. Harden
5. Davis
------------
6. Westbrook
7. Griffin
8. Kawhi
9. M.Gasol
10. Draymond

Notes:

- LeBron: Despite this clearly being a down year offensively for LeBron (in comparison to himself, of course) he was still very good on that end coupled with a bigger defensive impact throughout the year. He was a top 5 performer in the RS and even though his shooting was pretty atrocious in the PS he still drew more defensive attention than pretty much anyone else and the Cavs benifited from his playmaking, the ball-movement and 2nd chance opportunites. His defensive impact was much greater than that of CP3 and Harden.

- Davis: Hard for me to really extrapolate the value of AD. His boxscore numbers are insane but I have a feeling that the numbers should translate into game impact more. He's only leading an above average team and it's not like he doesn't have some talent to work with.

- Westbrook: I'm aware that a lot of advance and off/on metrics aren't really in love with Westbrook seeing how he's dominating the boxscore like crazy and I agree to an extent, he's not having as much actual game impact as some people would like to believe. With that said, he was still amazing and considering what a god-awful situation the Thunder had this year (injuries, changes, injuries, changes, injuries) I can see how it would be difficult (even moreso than usual) for a guy like Russ to know how to play to his team strengths, so I guess everyone just said ''screw it, give Russ the ball and let him improvise''. I don't think a lot of players in the league would be able to do a better job in his shoes.

- Draymond: Basically the 2nd most impactful player on one of the best teams of all-time. Obviously, there are guys more talented than him but the guy just fits and contributes in his role so perfectly that it's almost unbelievable. Arguably the best defensive player in the league, versatile on both ends of the court, great rebounder, very good passer & solid ball-handler making him a Griffin-like playmaking force, can stretch the floor (even though he hasn't shot it well in the PS). Just so consistent and so useful on so many occasions.

[HeartBreakKid]

FYI--Trex I didn't link that thread as support of my argument. I put it up so we could all see what was being said no matter what the result.

My issue was less with HBK's view on the Hawks which he is absolutely entitled too. My issue was in general with his implication that anyone not calling the Hawks pretenders were the ones required to post an argument for it. The Hawks made their own case with 60 wins and a trip to the ECF. Sorry, but its up to those who think that a mirage to prove why, not the other way around.

He then proceeded to make his case. I still disagree with much of it, but I have no issue with him feeling differently. I merely had issue with his initial presumption. And I even acknowledged that my comments specifically did not apply to him. But even more that than I have a major issue with the Hawks(and East) being used so heavily against Lebron.

If the PC board is consistent about one thing it is this: we should judge a player by their own play and not that of their team(read: teammates). And this despite the fact that every player has both the ability and the incentive to effect those teammates play to the positive. . But we are constantly preaching how that does not matter.

But somehow the "poor" play of Lebron's opponents must matter. Even tho the only influence he can have on them(or should want to have on them anyway) is to actually make their performance worse as a result of his play. So ironically the better he and his team perform, making his opponents look worse as a result, the more some posters will call into question his performance. This is bizarro world logic. Yet somehow we should be judging Lebron on them?

That just frankly makes zero sense to me. And beyond that--so people believe his opponents(Hawks included) are subpar? Fine. The Cavs swept two of their opponents and after a rocky start against a team full of veterans and lots of experience against Lebron with a coach known for his ability to scheme defenses against a specific opponent they reeled off 3 wins in a row to close them out and if we look at the overall series they dominated the Bulls in a number of areas.

We've had teams out of the East whom were more highly thought of than the current Cavs who didn't perform as well getting out of the East, but we didn't have all this talk. I don't get it. I just don't get what more honestly people expect Lebron and teh Cavs to do.

No one is saying James is bad, he is being compared to the best players in the world. If one is arguing that James is great due to how great he has played in the playoffs, how is it illogical to then question his level of competition? This is literally done in basketball at every level, in every era and really this is seen in every single sport - this is not something exclusive to Lebron James; far from it.

The only team the Cavs made look worse than they were may have has been the Hawks (who already got their shine knocked off way before facing Cleveland), and it's hard to overlook that the Wizards probably would have beaten the Hawks if Wall didn't break his hand. This isn't some hindsight thing, the Bulls didn't look very good all season, the Hawks looked good but there was always questions on how they would play in the playoffs (these questions are asked by ALL ensemble teams that do not have superstars, this is not just a bias toward the Hawks) - and the Hawks didn't look shiny as soon as the playoffs started & I am not sure if the Celtics are really even worth mentioning they were fodder. I honestly thought the Hawks were the real deal based on how they played some of the better teams (especially based on how they played the Cavs), but for what ever reason they just weren't as good in the Post Season as they were in the RS - they pretty much made me look stupid for saying they were a contender.

So sure, James didn't have great competition and that is not really his fault - but was he super duper dominant? Did he actually do something that the other superstars of the league may not have been able to do? It doesn't seem that clear to me. You can ask "what else can James do" - he could shoot post 50 TS% (I mean that's really not asking much) it is not like he's had a perfect playoffs, far from it, he's not maxed out - we've seen him have better playoff series against the poor East in prior years. In conjunction with his subpar RS (by his standards), he came into the post season an MVP candidate but not a serious favorite, he had a decent amount of ground to make up against his peers - and to boot all his peers actually had really good playoff showings (which is kinda rare, usually some MVP candidates drop off in the post season).








So my main gripe is this, Chris Paul played 13 more regular season games (too lazy to check, but it's around there) and had a really good post season even in spite of his injury.

CP3 by a lot of people's accounts (I want to say on this board, most) was ranked over James during the RS. He posted better boxscore numbers, better advance numbers and anchored the best offense in the league, and made the most out of a really poorly constructed team that had injury problems to boot (a supporting rosterthat is worse than James most would say - certainly worse post Mozgov trade). The Clippers had a better record than the Cavilers, and that's despite playing against a tougher conference, and they also had a higher SRS by a decent amount.

Chris Paul averaged 22 points on 62 TS% - James averaged 29 points on 49 TS% - per 36 the scoring volume shrinks a bit. I would say that Paul has been the better scorer for his team. What Paul gives up in aggression he makes up with it with far superior shooting distance and efficiency.

A theme in this thread recently is that that you can't just judge someone solely on their TS, very true - James has had many great series overall despite his poor shooting - but does that really work in a comparison with someone like CP3? James passing and playmaking has been a treat to watch no logical person can say that James hasn't been a force offensively, but that's what Chris Paul already does at an all time level (to the point where he is often taken for granted). So even if we wipe away scoring from the equation, can we really say James runs his teams offense better than Paul's (the Cavs do have the highest ORTG in the playoffs, but there's obviously a lot more to consider than that, especially if we take into account the entire season like we are supposed too).

Then there's defense, in which James is clearly a more impactful player than Paul this PS - but by how much? Enough to wipe away any of Paul's strengths? Paul has better better longevity, post season scoring (at least shooting), and overall generalship/playmaking. To boot, James has only started playing real great D in the playoffs, over the course of the RS he was pretty meh, some would even say bad. Chris Paul was a better defender despite being a point guard over the course of the regular season (by a decent amount I would say).

And while James defense has been great, there's still the problem of him not really being tested - he hasn't gone against any great offenses, and he hasn't even really went up against a top ten player until this GSW series. The best player he has faced is probably Jimmy Butler, who James did not guard if I can recall, and Butler was able to score a decent amount despite having to guard James (big time two way play has been a problem for Butler). So while James has been a stellar defender, I'm not sure if there's much to go off of that he has having a GOAT run on that end. GSW is probably the first real good offense he's faced (I consider the Bulls an offensive team, but they're not amongst the elite ones).


So my post is obviously pro CP3 here - but I'm legitimately finding a hard time seeing James having a better season than CP3. I know CP3's standings hurt a lot because he missed 2 post season games, which really only cost his team 1 post season loss (possibly), but the guy carried his team pretty hard in a really important series against the Spurs (he was guarded by Danny Green and Kawhi Leonard with Duncan in the paint).

CP3 is just an example, then there is Curry (who is the favorite, but people were saying that James may surpass him, which I think was a huge long shot), Harden, Davis - I think they all have their cases over James. I think even Blake Griffin is getting seriously over looked too because of his elimination.


James will be in my top 3 or 4, but I'm still not seeing the justification in him being #1 or #2 (or if he is #2, by how much of a margin?). I'm not really interested in debating the quality of James opponents anymore (though I still think it is highly relevant to rating players seasons - James is in a unique situation he is literally the only top ten player in his conference), but what has he done that makes him better than everyone else? Ie; is he a better defender than Davis, scorer, shooter - rebounder? We can't just give him a generic intangible line, that's bringing me back to Kobe Bryant > Lebron James times.

[lorak]

So who played better last night?

Iguodala>LeBron>Irving>Curry.

[Ballerhogger]

Lebron is still the best basketball player. Literally gives you a Finals appearance. Ridiculous/bow.ug.

[Ballerhogger]

So who played better last night?

Iguodala>LeBron>Irving>Curry.

Iggy played great but did not play LBJ minutes and carried the cavs as far as he could.

[Ballerhogger]

Right Now i got Lebron , Curry , AD , Westbrook ,Harden.

[SideshowBob]

Warriors Postseason (17 G)

+10.1 SRS, +5.3 Offense, -5.6 Defense

Cavaliers Postseason (16 G)

+11.0 SRS, +7.1 Offense, -4.9 Defense