All-Season Player of the Year Discussion thread

[fuzzy_dunlop]

^
1) again, this is a bad stat (NPI RAPM), I think 1 needs better stats 2 start considering Green as the best player in the league remotely seriously.
2) Curry does concrete things that are unique- his shooting necessitates EXTREMELY aggressive PnR coverage, 2 the point that his teammates play 4 on 3 more often then not. This is not something that can be replicated elsewhere I don't think.
3) A big theme of the Warriors offense is "inversion"- bigs creating 4 smalls. This is done partly because their smalls happen 2 be the best shooting tandem in league history, partly because their bigs are terrific passers, and partly because those same bigs can't finish very well themselves.

2 sum up: Green is an outstanding player and would remain outstanding regardless of team context. He does however benefit in concrete ways from the situation he's in, and not only in the sense that other coaches would perhaps misutilize him.

[SideshowBob]

I think the distinction between "impact" and "goodness" is absolutely huge when we talk about the epistemology of basketball, but to me it's pretty clear that you can't in practice use "goodness" for debates such as these. But then we may have different semantics in play.

Why not Doc?

Open question, which direction is everyone leaning for this project (impact or goodness), and why so?

[bondom34]

I think the distinction between "impact" and "goodness" is absolutely huge when we talk about the epistemology of basketball, but to me it's pretty clear that you can't in practice use "goodness" for debates such as these. But then we may have different semantics in play.

Why not Doc?

Open question, which direction is everyone leaning for this project (impact or goodness), and why so?

For me, goodness. And this discussion is somewhat of the reason why (at least in how I'm reading it). The NPI data is telling people that certain players offer more in terms of impact than others, which seems to be causing a genuine discussion into the rating of a player over the entire season plus playoffs, when in reality to me it should be the other way around. The data should support an argument, not be an argument.

If I look at GSW as the example and say that I believe these numbers, I'm saying that Green had at least as much (more actually) impact on GSW's success than Curry over the entire season, and the only point which shows this is the NPI. If I look at "goodness" (or what I interpret that to be), its pretty easily Curry by any means, with Green a rather distant second most likely. This, all along, has been my issue with using a lot of the RAPM data available for the season as it seems we've gone from constructing an arguement using the available data to using the available data and completely starting an arguement based off of that single point. If one stat is making you reconsider this much, I feel like you're putting way too much faith into it.

[Texas Chuck]

Re: Doc's post on Green/Curry.

Green is a supporting actor. And this year his performance was Oscar worthy in that role. Curry is the star that gets the picture made.

And if we are worrying about semantics and defining terms: We really need to stop using +/- or RAPM and "impact" interchangably(sp).


edit: And bondom summed up much of how I feel in terms of using that stat and terming it impact.

[Doctor MJ]

I think the distinction between "impact" and "goodness" is absolutely huge when we talk about the epistemology of basketball, but to me it's pretty clear that you can't in practice use "goodness" for debates such as these. But then we may have different semantics in play.

Why not Doc?

Open question, which direction is everyone leaning for this project (impact or goodness), and why so?

Hmm, let me be as clear as I can about something:

You're not actually supposed to have complete choice on the matter. I'm sure people can hide it from me, and I'm really not looking to bust people, but I'll share again something I've shared before:

In the RPOY project there was a guy who voted Wilt #1 in 1969. That struck me as odd given that Wilt had gone to a loaded Laker team and hadn't been able to really impact them. So I asked him his reasoning.

He said he voted Wilt #1 because he felt like in a more typical situation Wilt would have been the most impactful player.
I asked for clarification: So you acknowledge that Wilt's actual play in 1969 did not contribute value anything like this, and you're ignoring this in your vote. He said yes. And I said no, you can't do this. This is about what the guy actually gave us this year. Tweak your answer around that actual criteria. He refused and quite the project.

Now look: I am not saying that you cannot think about how the players would do in other contexts as part of your voting. I'm not so rigid as that. But make sure you're not making votes that rationalize away deficiencies of the current context. What we saw this year from these players in their work for your team HAS to matter in your thinking or else you're not answering the question that was posed.

Now speaking more broadly as a poster, the value vs goodness thing is something I struggle with, and LeBron is a great case of it.

I didn't vote for LeBron in 2011 despite the fact I felt like I would have if he stayed in Cleveland. He wasn't a worse player, in fact he was better, because he could do the old stuff and he was learning new stuff, but the fact was that he had a particular task in Miami, and what he did was not the most impressive performance I saw that year (Dirk was my choice). (Also to be clear, I'm pretty sure some voted LeBron #1, and that's fine.)

I find this at times tough to justify, but I still have the opinion I do because I find it even tougher to justify other positions.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Doc's post on Green/Curry.

Green is a supporting actor. And this year his performance was Oscar worthy in that role. Curry is the star that gets the picture made.

This makes me think of Girl, Interrupted. Something of a vanity piece for Winona Rider that ended up launching Angelina Jolie's career.

Original movie poster:



Awkward later poster trying to capitalize on the fact that Jolie is the entire reason to see the movie:

[Doctor MJ]

And if we are worrying about semantics and defining terms: We really need to stop using +/- or RAPM and "impact" interchangably(sp).

Well no one should say "so & so's impact this year was +7.3" or "so & so's RAPM was +7.3 therefore he had more impact than everyone +7.2 and below" but I don't see anything wrong with using words influenced by stats. Quite clearly, APM and all it's subsequent cousins are attempts to measure something. If we can't describe what that something is in words, that how do we make use of it?

I feel like that the objection is not that "impact" is one of the main words used but rather that its felt that people are asserting that the stat perfectly quantifies "impact". Fine to object to that, but that's a more broad issue that is much bigger than this particular family of stats.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm objecting to the use of them interchangeably. I understand what those stats are attempting to measure. And I have no issue with that or people using them.

But almost no makes the distinction you just made when using them to define impact. That's my beef.

[PaulieWal]

There's no way Green was a top 7 player in the NBA this year. He's what Q likes to call a "super role player". He's more like a top 20-25 player. He's in a perfect situation in GSW where he can contribute a bit offensively with his scoring and playmaking but defensively is where he earns his bread. My dislike for his whining aside, objectively he isn't a top 7 player. His "impact" is enabled by the make of the team but that doesn't mean his "goodness" is that of a top 7 or 10 player in the league.

Just because a player is a vital cog in a machine doesn't mean he's a top X player.

[Dr Spaceman]

So my response didn't exactly get my point across well. I'll try again, and I hope you're not reading this as "I just won't go there", and instead "These are the specific reasons I don't think it works in this case".

I think the distinction between "impact" and "goodness" is absolutely huge when we talk about the epistemology of basketball, but to me it's pretty clear that you can't in practice use "goodness" for debates such as these. But then we may have different semantics in play.

To me:

Impact or lift - raw form of value, how much you're actually helping your team
Goodness - your general capability to add value to NBA teams

So first, if you're thinking of different definitions, please share them.

Your take seems to fit with my definitions though if it's essentially, "Green may be able to have more impact on the Warriors, but it's context-specific impact. In a more average situation, Curry would be more valuable."

So the reason I brought up the impact/goodness thing is because it can clarify what i'm about to bring up a little bit. I'm gonna hijack the term "resiliency" here and define it as "A defense can't stop you from doing what you want to do". So I think resilience can be a function of goodness, or maybe just goodness in specific areas, but it's really just a way for me to solidify my thinking. Impact+resilience is how I've been evaluating players, and this is how I'm approaching the Green debate. Just to illustrate:

High impact, high resiliency: Stephen Curry, LeBron James
High Impact, low resiliency: Draymond Green, Kyle Korver
Low impact, high resiliency: Carmelo Anthony

So with Green specifically: any argument that he's a top 7 or 10 or whatever player has a lot to do with what he can do as a 2-way guy, ir. we know his defense is great, but is his offense good enough for him to have that impact? Because let's be honest, he's a barely passable shooter, has zero isolation game, zero in-between game, and not a whole lot else. When we're talking about Draymond on offense, we're talking about his playmaking.

Players who are truly great at playmaking as the lead guy on their team become so because the threat of them saying "**** it, I'll score myself" is a losing proposition for the defense. As much of a wizard as Steve Nash was, we're not talking about him as an all-time offensive player if he doesn't have the ability to score at will. Now I'm completely open to seeing Dray as some new breed of playmaker that just does it in a different way and thus doesn't need to be a scorer, but that's not what I see when I watch him. He gets around his own lack of scoring by leveraging Curry's scoring threat to bend defenses.

I know he's a unique puzzle piece made to fit around a star, but how many teams actually have a Curry (or can even attempt to approximate him?) Even if we say he can do it alongside any similarly talented star even without the Curry-isms, how many teams actually have one of those? Maybe I'm underestimating the guy, but I don't see him as a "bend the defense and make the right pass" kind of guy, rather he's great at making the right decisions about attacking a defense that's already broken. Now that's valuable and all, but I think we know the truly hard part is the actual bending of the defense, otherwise why wouldn't Rondo be the best point guard?

This is where the context-specific stuff comes into play for me. Draymond doesn't scare defenses by himself. If a defense decided to stop concerning themselves with Curry and focus on stopping Draymond, don't you think they could do it rather easily? And if you accept that his offense is stoppable, doesn't his case for top 7 totally fall apart?

I think the Hawks' flame out this year is something we should really pay attention to. No one was right or wrong about what Korver was doing, but the fact is in the playoffs when teams started treating him like a star he stopped being able to do his thing. That's what I mean by resilience.

Now I have a tendency to look at Curry and see such a special snowflake that I just attribute everything the Warriors do to his uniqueness, so if that's what I'm doing here let me know. But I think y point is a good one, that it's possible both that Draymond provides more lift to the Warriors and that Curry is the one more deserving of praise.

Spoiler:

If this is the case, I don't necessarily disagree - though I'm not ready to even accept Green was more impactful to the Warriors, only that the data makes us consider this - but something that's been asserted a lot this year by smart people that I don't necessarily accept is that guys like Green are a new category of "context-specific superstars" which should be praised like crazy but still kept in a ghetto compared to more traditional superstars.

I'll put it like this: I think it's pretty easy to imagine players as puzzle pieces. A guy like Curry has a relatively simple shape that covers a lot of "space", aka impact or contribution, because he had outlier abilities in skills a team needs at its foundation. I would think then that a guy like Green would be seen as one of those weird spidery pieces that fits in the gaps between Curry and other simple shaped players.

To me the assumption about Green being "context-specific" is that you can't put that spidery piece in any other puzzle and expect it not to overlap with other players, and hence he'd be less valuable. But that falls apart if the spidery shape Green is currently taking isn't something he has to do, but rather is simply something he was able to take because he's a shape-shifter far more flexible than most the simple shape guys are.

Now, I don't think there's any doubt that Green only has the impact he does because of how Golden State has decided to build and use him. I'm not literally suggesting you could put him in anywhere and he'd have this impact. I think it's pretty clear actually that in practice Curry would contribute more impact to other teams than Green. But the reason why I think it's clear, is because at this point I'm convinced even the stupidest coach would know how to use Curry, and I'm not convinced of that with Green.

And this gets us to something I've long said: I don't think it makes sense to say that a player is worse in an absolute goodness sense of the word simply because he's played with coaches who didn't understand how to use him. Interestingly I've long said this with Nash, and Curry is essentially the New Nash (they aren't identical of course, but the connection has become pretty clear). Likely not that long ago Curry never has this zenith because teams don't realize how devastating of an effect he can have given his fragile physique and the basic fact that no one built around 3's like this.

So, a possibly delicious irony: What if the "context-specific" ghetto of Green is basically the same type of ghetto that guys like Nash or Curry would have had in earlier eras, and the certainty we have that Curry is the superior player is based on us being in a transitory period where one group of players is now understood but another group of player is only beginning to be understood?

Lots of good stuff here and I don't disagree, just want to note that I am under no illusion that a player like Draymond can't be as valuable as you insinuate here. Just that I think he currently isn't.

[Onus]

Re-quoting myself again here because I want y'all to see this, and I want to be able to find it again later.

Not sure if I'd go that far, but definitely in the lower half.

I'm finding the reactions like this absolutely fascinating.

The Warriors had one of the most dominant regular seasons of all-time.
The Warriors only lost 2 games in a series twice, and immediately after the 2nd loss, they proceeded to sweep the remaining games of the series handily.

In short, quite literally, we haven't seen the Warriors truly tested to their full capabilities...and yet people are confident the team is weak. How the hell does this happen?

I'm going to guess it's a few things:

1) They didn't play any teams that were seen as amazing going in to the series - and to be clear, that's a legit reason for caution in calling the Warriors historically great.

2) They fit every stereotype of a team where "you can't win that way".

3) Perhaps most tellingly: I think when people watch the Warriors play, the way the Warriors play, it tends to make them feel like the team is just getting lucky. The game is close, the game is going back & forth, and the BAM, the Warriors make a 15 point run. In a box score we call that a blowout, but watching it game by game, it doesn't feel like a blowout. It feels like a close battle where the Warriors just got hot, and y'know, live by the 3, die by the 3.

But the sun also rises. A team doesn't either hit their 3's or miss them, it hits them at a certain rate. And if a team currently isn't hitting them like normal, well what has defined "normal" for them is that it's only a matter of time when they start hitting them.

And then they bury you.

It's not so simply as to just say "this is normal", but while watching a couple games and dismissing the trend as fluky makes sense, again, over the course of the entire season the Warriors dominated on a historical level. I mean, Curry this year just had the single best all-season raw +/- since Michael Jordan. Take any player playing right now, none of them have ever had a year where their team consistently destroys opponents when he's on the floor like Curry experienced this year...

How can this be, and it also be true that his team was glaringly weak for a champion?

I won't say it's impossible, but I think folks are not able to see what the Warriors have done in a truly even handed light if they are confident this is so.

Most 4th Quarter Points in Final since 1991
1995 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5
2000 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5 (61.1% TS)
2015 Stephen Curry 10.8 (75.1% TS)
1997 Michael Jordan 10.7 (55.1% TS)
1998 Michael Jordan 10.6 (50.6% TS)
2011 Dirk Nowitzki 10.3 (68.0% TS)
1993 Michael Jordan 10.3
2015 Lebron James 10.2 (51.7% TS)

I want to add this to what you're saying. Curry very obviously took over in the 4th quarter and once he started being aggressive in winning time, he blew the Cavs out. I'm not sure how that's not clutch personified

[bondom34]

Okay this got weird fast. Sorry, but there's no way you could reasonably call Green a top 10 player unless you literally are working backward from the plus/minus numbers. I'm getting that he's a fantastic defensive player, but he's possibly/probably not even top 5 at his own position. I'm still with everyone that Curry gets POY, but the waxing poetic has gotten to a point where we seem to shift goalposts on each debate. In one debate Curry is causing his teammates to be fantastic and gets credit for making the team run, yet in others now we have Green possibly having a nearly the same impact or resiliency. I'm just baffled as to what is being discussed in some ways as this has seemed to turn from using the numbers to support a debate to using debate to support the numbers.

I'm sounding like a lunatic, which I accept entirely, but even after a fantastic season we're seemingly moving credit around everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

[RSCD3_]

Spoiler:

Okay this got weird fast. Sorry, but there's no way you could reasonably call Green a top 10 player unless you literally are working backward from the plus/minus numbers. I'm getting that he's a fantastic defensive player, but he's possibly/probably not even top 5 at his own position. I'm still with everyone that Curry gets POY, but the waxing poetic has gotten to a point where we seem to shift goalposts on each debate. In one debate Curry is causing his teammates to be fantastic and gets credit for making the team run, yet in others now we have Green possibly having a nearly the same impact or resiliency. I'm just baffled as to what is being discussed in some ways as this has seemed to turn from using the numbers to support a debate to using debate to support the numbers.

I'm sounding like a lunatic, which I accept entirely, but even after a fantastic season we're seemingly moving credit around everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

You've misunderstood Spacemans point he was saying Draymond has Low resiliency because if defense keyed into him, Ie defended him like a star they'd be able to take away what he likes to do rather easily.

[bondom34]

Spoiler:

Okay this got weird fast. Sorry, but there's no way you could reasonably call Green a top 10 player unless you literally are working backward from the plus/minus numbers. I'm getting that he's a fantastic defensive player, but he's possibly/probably not even top 5 at his own position. I'm still with everyone that Curry gets POY, but the waxing poetic has gotten to a point where we seem to shift goalposts on each debate. In one debate Curry is causing his teammates to be fantastic and gets credit for making the team run, yet in others now we have Green possibly having a nearly the same impact or resiliency. I'm just baffled as to what is being discussed in some ways as this has seemed to turn from using the numbers to support a debate to using debate to support the numbers.

I'm sounding like a lunatic, which I accept entirely, but even after a fantastic season we're seemingly moving credit around everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

You've misunderstood Spacemans point he was saying Draymond has Low resiliency because if defense keyed into him, Ie defended him like a star they'd be able to take away what he likes to do rather easily.

No, I understood, I just greatly disagree. This just is being run in a circle.

[Dr Spaceman]

Spoiler:

Okay this got weird fast. Sorry, but there's no way you could reasonably call Green a top 10 player unless you literally are working backward from the plus/minus numbers. I'm getting that he's a fantastic defensive player, but he's possibly/probably not even top 5 at his own position. I'm still with everyone that Curry gets POY, but the waxing poetic has gotten to a point where we seem to shift goalposts on each debate. In one debate Curry is causing his teammates to be fantastic and gets credit for making the team run, yet in others now we have Green possibly having a nearly the same impact or resiliency. I'm just baffled as to what is being discussed in some ways as this has seemed to turn from using the numbers to support a debate to using debate to support the numbers.

I'm sounding like a lunatic, which I accept entirely, but even after a fantastic season we're seemingly moving credit around everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

You've misunderstood Spacemans point he was saying Draymond has Low resiliency because if defense keyed into him, Ie defended him like a star they'd be able to take away what he likes to do rather easily.

No, I understood, I just greatly disagree. This just is being run in a circle.

Ok, could you explain in greater detail what you mean then? Because I'm lost dude. I don't know what's remotely controversial about saying "Draymond does certain things really well, but it's easier to stop him than Curry".

[Quotatious]

After a lot of deliberation, my top 5 right now would be:

1. Curry
2. Harden
3. CP3
4. LeBron
5. Davis

Westbrook very close 6th after Davis.

It feels a little harsh to put LeBron just 4th (I think he was the best player in the postseason, although Curry, Harden, CP3 and Davis were pretty good, as well), but I'm not very high on LeBron's RS.

CP3 had a very nice under-the-radar season, and his playoff performance was terrific considering that he was basically day-to-day with hamstring injury for like 75-80% of the playoffs, at least.

[bondom34]

Spoiler:

You've misunderstood Spacemans point he was saying Draymond has Low resiliency because if defense keyed into him, Ie defended him like a star they'd be able to take away what he likes to do rather easily.

No, I understood, I just greatly disagree. This just is being run in a circle.

Ok, could you explain in greater detail what you mean then? Because I'm lost dude. I don't know what's remotely controversial about saying "Draymond does certain things really well, but it's easier to stop him than Curry".

That wasn't what I was denying. I'm denying this:

We have multiple convos, people saying well Curry deserves so much extra cred because he opens things up for Green and the team, the other players are lost w/o him. Then we have threads saying the other players are amazing and deserve all the praise themselves. We're looking to give all the credit to Green, and all the credit to Curry, when in reality its not that way. Not but one page ago it was nearly stated that people would look back and change opinions based solely off RAPM numbers, after watching an entire season in which not one person would honestly say to themselves Green deserves to sniff a spot on this list. I get the desire to want to put a single number on a player's use, but its not possible, and looking at it that way is just making this really questionable thinking. Either Curry gets credit for Green, or Green gets credit for Green.

[Dr Spaceman]

No, I understood, I just greatly disagree. This just is being run in a circle.

Ok, could you explain in greater detail what you mean then? Because I'm lost dude. I don't know what's remotely controversial about saying "Draymond does certain things really well, but it's easier to stop him than Curry".

That wasn't what I was denying. I'm denying this:

We have multiple convos, people saying well Curry deserves so much extra cred because he opens things up for Green and the team, the other players are lost w/o him. Then we have threads saying the other players are amazing and deserve all the praise themselves. We're looking to give all the credit to Green, and all the credit to Curry, when in reality its not that way. Not but one page ago it was nearly stated that people would look back and change opinions based solely off RAPM numbers, after watching an entire season in which not one person would honestly say to themselves Green deserves to sniff a spot on this list. I get the desire to want to put a single number on a player's use, but its not possible, and looking at it that way is just making this really questionable thinking. Either Curry gets credit for Green, or Green gets credit for Green.

Okay. Just for the record, I had Green at #9 in December... well before any of these numbers came out. I think I'm being fairly consistent in how I evaluate these things. I don't know if you're responding to my posts or just frustrated in general, but I don't think lumping everyone who uses RAPM together is helpful.

[bondom34]

Ok, could you explain in greater detail what you mean then? Because I'm lost dude. I don't know what's remotely controversial about saying "Draymond does certain things really well, but it's easier to stop him than Curry".

That wasn't what I was denying. I'm denying this:

We have multiple convos, people saying well Curry deserves so much extra cred because he opens things up for Green and the team, the other players are lost w/o him. Then we have threads saying the other players are amazing and deserve all the praise themselves. We're looking to give all the credit to Green, and all the credit to Curry, when in reality its not that way. Not but one page ago it was nearly stated that people would look back and change opinions based solely off RAPM numbers, after watching an entire season in which not one person would honestly say to themselves Green deserves to sniff a spot on this list. I get the desire to want to put a single number on a player's use, but its not possible, and looking at it that way is just making this really questionable thinking. Either Curry gets credit for Green, or Green gets credit for Green.

Okay. Just for the record, I had Green at #9 in December... well before any of these numbers came out. I think I'm being fairly consistent in how I evaluate these things. I don't know if you're responding to my posts or just frustrated in general, but I don't think lumping everyone who uses RAPM together is helpful.

Just a general frustration that it seems some (and again sorry but this wasn't at anyone in particular but now you're here and I'm looking like a lunatic ). We've gotten to a point in thought where there seems to be a disconnect between how we decide who is "good" or "top X". Its gone from watching and using stats to support to using stats to support watching at times. I've never questioned something because a statistic tells me to, I've questioned things and found statistical support or denial of them. As well, I find it bizarre that we're in a strange circle of credit giving to this GSW team where everyone is ready to jump on the bandwagon full gear with this team being the best anyone can remember when frankly I feel like there's a few I can remember who were better or darn close. We have threads where people say GSW is nowhere w/o Curry, then we have others saying the team is great, then others saying Green is having as much impact as anyone. The starting point is just off to me.

And honestly 9 seems way way way too high. He's Korver with a better team lead. Korver was debunked in the PO, and I was on his bandwagon. If they're similar players, then they should be ranked similarly. Green is maybe, maybe top 5 at his position.


Edit: And a final finish to the rant, then I'm done w/ it, but the numbers are just flawed to begin with. We're using information that changed pretty greatly in 2 months (which were basically PO only). In those months, Green jumped plus 3. Teague jumped over plus .5. Robert Covington .3 (without playing really). Lebron almost plus 2.

[Dr Spaceman]

http://espn.go.com/blog/marc-stein/post/_/id/3896/lebrons-handling-of-blatt-unbecoming

Everyone has of course seen this by now but it’s very relevant here. This is not a good look for LeBron, and it’s hard not to see this as having a direct bearing on the team’s ultimate results. They don’t beat the Warriors either way, but this is outright malevolence. This is now snowballing quite a bit, could this impact anyone’s rankings?