Retro Player of the Year Project

[JoeMalburg]

Love this project, great work all.

A question: were any alternative point distribution systems other than the 10-7-5-3-1 system?

For example i'd prefer a limited individual distribution system where a total of 26 points have to be distributed among 3-7 players with no player receiving more than 10 total points.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

Love this project, great work all.

A question: were any alternative point distribution systems other than the 10-7-5-3-1 system?

For example i'd prefer a limited individual distribution system where a total of 26 points have to be distributed among 3-7 players with no player receiving more than 10 total points.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

No, it was always 10-7-5-3-1, and this was something I insisted on.

2 big things:
1) There is no "best" way to do it. No matter what we did, it would still be arbitrary, and still not be sufficient to capture all each player accomplished in a particular season. So agonizing over it to my mind is means the double whammy of deluding ourselves about our capabilities with this method and then beating ourselves up when we fall short of those impossible standards.

2) Given (1), there is at least some benefit to using the same voting scheme the NBA used. It means that we aren't siding with any particular poster's opinion, and it means that POY share results can then be compared to MVP share results in as close to an apple-to-apple fashion as possible.

I get your thinking though, and certainly your method if implemented well would give more fine-tuning power than the one we used.

[JoeMalburg]

A good call to be sure!

[old rem]

I seen NBA back when the Stars were Cousy and Mikan and Pettit......and I can't accept Oscar Robertson does not rate higher. Okay.. half the voters here were not BORN when Oscar was the unstoppable STAR. I HATE to compare across eras of the game.. but OSCAR? Has to be a candidate for GOAT.

[penbeast0]

Hard to put Oscar as GOAT when in his own day he was a second tier star. The first tier stars were Wilt and Russell or Russell and Wilt; everyone else was a step down (Oscar and Jerry, then Pettit and Baylor). That and his team results were a bit underwhelming even with Jerry Lucas who was a very good player in his day as well; West did a lot better in LA than Oscar did in Cinncinnati (though Baylor was generally considered better than Lucas).

[Albanian Damien]

I know this project is long done but I feel like the fact that Kobe isn't POTY in 05-06 or even one of the years he won back to back is an absolute travesty, and that's coming from a Kobe hater.

[Quotatious]

I know this project is long done but I feel like the fact that Kobe isn't POTY in 05-06 or even one of the years he won back to back is an absolute travesty, and that's coming from a Kobe hater.

I swear, I'll never understand why people get so offended if someone says that Kobe wasn't the best player in 05-06. I've never even heard a convincing argument why he should be ranked ahead of LeBron, and I don't even have those two guys as #1 and 2 that year...I have Wade and Dirk #1 and 2, then LeBron #3 and Kobe #4.

In Kobe's championship seasons, LeBron was just a much better player. Wade was IMO better, too.

Kobe's best chance for #1 would be 2008, he's 1a/1b with CP3 that year, to me (with LeBron and KG #3 and 4).

[lorak]

I know this project is long done but I feel like the fact that Kobe isn't POTY in 05-06 or even one of the years he won back to back is an absolute travesty, and that's coming from a Kobe hater.

So please tell us why you think so? What are premises to think he was POTY in 2006? Because you have a lot of arguments in '06 thread showing, that other players deserved it more.

[BuzzerBeaterBry]

I swear, I'll never understand why people get so offended if someone says that Kobe wasn't the best player in 05-06. I've never even heard a convincing argument why he should be ranked ahead of LeBron, and I don't even have those two guys as #1 and 2 that year...I have Wade and Dirk #1 and 2, then LeBron #3 and Kobe #4.

Never? Tell me if this is at least a little convincing.

Kobe's help = worst cast in the league
'06 Lakers = just Kobe
'06 Lakers = top 10 offense in the league
'87 Jordan + same level of cast = 12th ranked offense in the league

Pretty impressive but the scary thing - Kobe was injured for the first month of the season

Healthy '06 Kobe and Lakers = top 5 offense in the league

In terms of defensive capabilities, he was easily a top 2 perimeter defender in the league. And in terms of consistency, he'd definitely bring it up in the playoffs (if given the chance).

Coaches and players all thought Kobe was hands down the best player in the league.

And it'd be a bit hard to say Kobe wasn't the best player, because he was under poor team circumstances that have nothing to do with him as an individual player.

I'm not saying he was the best player in '06, but he definitely has a great argument.

Kobe's best chance for #1 would be 2008, he's 1a/1b with CP3 that year, to me (with LeBron and KG #3 and 4).

He was clearly the best player in the league that year imo. I don't think CP3 really has a good argument over him.

Hornets = 111.5 ORTG (5th in the league)
Lakers (after Gasol trade) = 116.6 ORTG (most all-time)

However, that was only for a thirty-six game stretch, but it's still adequate info to conclude that Kobe was on par or better than Paul offensively.

He also tied DPOY Garnett for all-defensive votes and was the only player in the league to acquire a vote from every single coach. So the difference in defensive production produced from their teams was their casts, not Paul and Kobe. If anything, Kobe was clearly a better defender than Paul that year.

Kobe also lead the playoffs in 4Q scoring and was very efficient, despite having a drastic fall of production in the finals due to disappearance of his cast. Meanwhile, Paul couldn't even make it past the second round.

I thought it was pretty nonsensical to not have Kobe #1 in '08 and even more absurd to have KG of all players over him.

[tsherkin]

Never? Tell me if this is at least a little convincing.

Kobe's help = worst cast in the league
'06 Lakers = just Kobe
'06 Lakers = top 10 offense in the league
'87 Jordan + same level of cast = 12th ranked offense in the league

Let me counter that by noting that the 06 Lakers produced an offense of 108.4 and the 87 Bulls 108.6. Looking at league ranking isn't necessarily all that useful without the absolute values.

The 06 Lakers were +2.2 relative to league average, the Bulls +0.3 because league average was 108.3 as opposed to 106.2 in 2006.

Food for thought, that. There were three teams in the league at 113+ in 1987, and the BEST offense in the league in 2006 was at 111.8 (one of four teams with 110+, compared to 6 in 1987).

Context matters.

[BuzzerBeaterBry]

Let me counter that by noting that the 06 Lakers produced an offense of 108.4 and the 87 Bulls 108.6. Looking at league ranking isn't necessarily all that useful without the absolute values.

The 06 Lakers were +2.2 relative to league average, the Bulls +0.3 because league average was 108.3 as opposed to 106.2 in 2006.

Food for thought, that. There were three teams in the league at 113+ in 1987, and the BEST offense in the league in 2006 was at 111.8 (one of four teams with 110+, compared to 6 in 1987).

Context matters.

Or it could've been that defenses were simply better in '06 than in '87.

In the 80s, defense was still considered a new concept, and they never really started to become adept until the 90s. It's up to you how you want to interpret the numbers, but this is irrefutable - relative to their time, the Lakers were much better offensively than the '87 Bulls. You compare things from different eras by comparing what they did in that era. What the Lakers did compared to their era was better than what the Bulls did compared to their era.

[tsherkin]

Or it could've been that defenses were simply better in '06 than in '87.

Mmmm. Yes and no. The league was different then compared to now. Remember that the Lakers in 06 were the 5th-most prolific team in the league from 3. They were only 19th at actually making them at 34.9%, but 1583 3PA is around 4.1x as many 3s as the ENTIRE LEAGUE attempted in the 86-87 season. That had a reasonable impact on L.A.'s individual team efficacy, and on Kobe's own ability to score in that volume (remember, he was taking 6.5 3PA/g that season at 34.7%). L.A. was at 53.9% TS compared to Chicago's 52.8%, and that monstrous gap in 3P shooting plays a key role in describing individual offensive differences. They made up for it with offensive rebounding to some extent, but I mean, these are not apples-to-apples comparisons, and the inferences you're making here don't really follow the context of the situations involved.

There's some level of chicken and egg here. Kobe didn't do anything MORE impressive than did Jordan in 87, and league-specific ranking is misleading. The Lakers were solid on offense to be sure, but he had more help than people want to believe... and a fantastic season, on top of that. Bryant didn't have the kind of help prerequisite to postseason success and that's fine, and people want to bag on their frontcourt and everything, but he had the tools to perform well on offense at a team level, which is something often overlooked in these sorts of discussions. People bag on Smush, for example but 4.0 3PA/g at 36.6% did help. Yeah, he was a tool and a low IQ player and everything, but specifically in terms of contributing to offensive efficacy, he had utility, as did Brian Cook, as did Lamar Odom. As did the team's offensive rebounding, which ranked 8th in the league.

[BuzzerBeaterBry]

Mmmm. Yes and no. The league was different then compared to now. Remember that the Lakers in 06 were the 5th-most prolific team in the league from 3. They were only 19th at actually making them at 34.9%, but 1583 3PA is around 4.1x as many 3s as the ENTIRE LEAGUE attempted in the 86-87 season. That had a reasonable impact on L.A.'s individual team efficacy, and on Kobe's own ability to score in that volume (remember, he was taking 6.5 3PA/g that season at 34.7%).

Okay. But just to remind you, like you said, the Lakers were only ranked 19th in the league. And that notion that teams benefited from three point shooting goes the same for the entire league.

'87 NBA = .538 TS%
'06 NBA = .536 TS%

But evidently, the more, modern league still shot at a lower percentage than the older league.

And accounting just 2PT %

'87 Bulls = .482 2PT%
'06 Lakers = .486 2PT%

L.A. was at 53.9% TS compared to Chicago's 52.8%

I'm not sure if you're using this as an argument. But just to make sure, it's only expected, since the Lakers had a higher ORTG than the Bulls

and that monstrous gap in 3P shooting plays a key role in describing individual offensive differences. They made up for it with offensive rebounding to some extent, but I mean, these are not apples-to-apples comparisons, and the inferences you're making here don't really follow the context of the situations involved.

You're right, and that's why I compared them relative to their league.

There's some level of chicken and egg here. Kobe didn't do anything MORE impressive than did Jordan in 87, and league-specific ranking is misleading.

I disagree. A healthy Kobe still lead his team to a top 5 offense for a sixty-seven game stretch. I thought that impressive enough, considering the team circumstances he was playing with.

IMO, peak Kobe was more impressive than 3rd year Jordan

People bag on Smush, for example but 4.0 3PA/g at 36.6% did help.

I think that was more of a result of teams focussing on Kobe, but you're still right - he did get more help than most people would acknowledge.

As did the team's offensive rebounding, which ranked 8th in the league.

Jordan's Bulls were also ranked 8th in the league in that aspect.

I see your point though.

[tsherkin]

Okay. But just to remind you, like you said, the Lakers were only ranked 19th in the league. And that notion that teams benefited from three point shooting goes the same for the entire league.

'87 NBA = .538 TS%
'06 NBA = .536 TS%

But evidently, the more, modern league still shot at a lower percentage than the older league.

Yeah, but L.A.'s league-relative ranking is irrelevant. The league is larger and the baseline ORTG differs, and the quality of teams present in the league was also different, so contextually those league-years couldn't really be more different.

And accounting just 2PT %

'87 Bulls = .482 2PT%
'06 Lakers = .486 2PT%

Sure, sure, but Chicago was rocking 35% ORB and a .245 FT/FGA margin compared to L.A.'s 28.8% and .245. 13.1% to CHI 13.4% TOV... we're seeing where this is going, right? The Bulls smashed the offensive boards to get their way because the league hadn't yet discovered the tools involved in the 3. The Lakers rocked a 49.5% eFG against 47.8% from Chicago, which was a point of separation there, and a stretch 4 coupled with mad volume from Kobe really helped pave that way.

Again, people kvetch about his roster, but even though the Lakers weren't that impressive from 3 relative to the league, the difference in strategy between the two teams was separated by a league-wide difference in understanding the 3pt shot and its value, which made a major difference in Kobe's ability to drive L.A.'s offense... and not just on his own, but with the aid of Smush and Cook, Odom (all over 36%) and even Vujacic (> 34%). That made a MASSIVE difference in their ability to produce equivalent offense.

I'm not sure if you're using this as an argument. But just to make sure, it's only expected, since the Lakers had a higher ORTG than the Bulls

L.A. was actually at -0.2 team ORTG compared to Chicago (108.4 compared to 108.6 for the Bulls).

You're right, and that's why I compared them relative to their league.

But this is sort of a dreadful thing to do, because it really doesn't reflect the difference in offensive support between Chicago and L.A., in Los Angeles' favor which changes the point of comparison here, team offensive performance.

IMO, peak Kobe was more impressive than 3rd year Jordan

Pretty much nothing about his performance suggests that, no. He was neither a better scorer nor a better playmaker, and as a focal guy in that role, the major separation between those two is team 3pt shooting. That doesn't support your conclusion at all.

I think that was more of a result of teams focussing on Kobe, but you're still right - he did get more help than most people would acknowledge.

Oh, never let me overcredit Smush: he only ever accomplished anything because he was explicitly a roleplayer working off of a star. What I'm saying is that Kobe had the guys who could make shots above the break-even level from 3, and in some cases well above, leading a prolific attack at a percentage which had a strong impact on team offensive efficacy... which is an advantage Jordan did not have in 87.

Jordan's Bulls were also ranked 8th in the league in that aspect.

Sure, but they were also 6, 7% better than the Lakers because of prevailing league strategy of the time.

[BuzzerBeaterBry]

Yeah, but L.A.'s league-relative ranking is irrelevant. The league is larger and the baseline ORTG differs, and the quality of teams present in the league was also different, so contextually those league-years couldn't really be more different.

Ahh, I see.

So your reason for the higher baseline ORTG is b/c there were less teams, meaning more quality? But then shouldn't defenses improve as well by that logic?

Sure, sure, but Chicago was rocking 35% ORB and a .245 FT/FGA margin compared to L.A.'s 28.8% and .245. 13.1% to CHI 13.4% TOV... we're seeing where this is going, right? The Bulls smashed the offensive boards to get their way because the league hadn't yet discovered the tools involved in the 3. The Lakers rocked a 49.5% eFG against 47.8% from Chicago, which was a point of separation there, and a stretch 4 coupled with mad volume from Kobe really helped pave that way.

But even if we were to take three pointers out of the equation, the Lakers were still the better offensive team. And just like you said, teams then were more accustomed to shooting three-pointers, so if anything, the Bulls should've shot higher.

Again, people kvetch about his roster, but even though the Lakers weren't that impressive from 3 relative to the league, the difference in strategy between the two teams was separated by a league-wide difference in understanding the 3pt shot and its value, which made a major difference in Kobe's ability to drive L.A.'s offense... and not just on his own, but with the aid of Smush and Cook, Odom (all over 36%) and even Vujacic (> 34%). That made a MASSIVE difference in their ability to produce equivalent offense.

Are you saying that Kobe had more help?

But this is sort of a dreadful thing to do, because it really doesn't reflect the difference in offensive support between Chicago and L.A., in Los Angeles' favor which changes the point of comparison here, team offensive performance.

You're basing it off of three-pointers, even though the whole league benefited even more from it. There isn't a problem in comparing their ranks, since while team A did this, other teams did that as well.

Oh, never let me overcredit Smush: he only ever accomplished anything because he was explicitly a roleplayer working off of a star.

Yeah, pretty much. Couldn't even last in the league after he had left Kobe.

[tsherkin]

So your reason for the higher baseline ORTG is b/c there were less teams, meaning more quality?

Nope. I'm saying in a league with 5-7 fewer teams, specific ranking doesn't line up accurately and doesn't really reflect anything, plus because of the higher baseline ORTG, you need to accept that specific deviation from league average isn't the same because it's harder to reach those higher levels. There were fundamental differences in pace, use of the 3pt shot, offensive rebounding and a variety of other factors which make a direct comparison of ORTGs very difficult... and even a relative comparison challenging.

But even if we were to take three pointers out of the equation, the Lakers were still the better offensive team. And just like you said, teams then were more accustomed to shooting three-pointers, so if anything, the Bulls should've shot higher.

Were they? They were a LOWER ORTG with weaker offensive rebounding, didn't do anything better below the arc, weren't meaningfully superior at moving the ball around and no better at protecting the ball.

Are you saying that Kobe had more help?

100%. I'm not saying he had a wildly superior team, but specifically as a result of 3pt shooting around him (and his own usage of the shot, a shot he wasn't especially good at hitting in bulk), the team was able to perform nearly as well as Jordan's 87 Bulls in terms of absolute ORTG. And he still had Odom helping him out in a host of different ways as a big ball-handler, rebounder, etc.

You're basing it off of three-pointers, even though the whole league benefited even more from it. There isn't a problem in comparing their ranks, since while team A did this, other teams did that as well.

That's not relevant. It specifically aided the Lakers and did not help the Bulls. That makes it a difference between their respective abilities to reach that level.

[Quotatious]

Kobe's help = worst cast in the league

No, KG's teams were even worse both years. Kobe had a very good player like Odom and a GOAT coach like Phil.

'06 Lakers = top 10 offense in the league

Kobe's offensive impact was HUGE, there's no denying that, but it's not the reason why I'm not as high on him as most people. His defense was terrible that year.

'87 Jordan + same level of cast = 12th ranked offense in the league

Odom was a much better offensive player than anyone Jordan played with in '87 (Oakley was a comparable overall player, but most of his value was on defense and on the boards, not on offense), and Phil Jackson with 9 rings under his belt was a far better coach than Doug Collins in his rookie coaching season.

Pretty impressive but the scary thing - Kobe was injured for the first month of the season

Doesn't matter, he was healthy enough to play. Many guys play through minor injuries. I only care about injuries when they are serious enough to force a player to miss games.

Healthy '06 Kobe and Lakers = top 5 offense in the league

Like I said, to me, he WAS healthy (come on, he played 80 of 82 possible games), and they weren't top 5 offensively. I'll tell you something about that - I don't even care about team offensive rating when I compare single players. This is a team game, can't equate a team's offensive performance with their star's individual ability. We have stats to measure individual offensive ability, so why look at team results?

By the way - peak Wade led #19 and 20 offenses in the league in '09 and '10 - does it mean that Wade sucked as an offensive anchor, or he wasn't close to Kobe, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that basically any player evaluation stat indicates?

Here's what plus minus says about Wade and Kobe in '06 (both guys playing on their peak-ish level):

Kobe +18.9 offense, +6.5 defense, +12.4 overall
Wade +13.7 offense, -1.9 defense, +15.6 overall

So, Kobe's offensive impact was higher, but Wade's defense was so much better that it outweighs Kobe's offensive edge. Wade compares favorably in terms of boxscore metrics and he led his team to a title in spectacular fashion.

In terms of defensive capabilities, he was easily a top 2 perimeter defender in the league.

I'll stop right here. No point in discussing Kobe with you if you believe that. Kobe was certainly NEVER a top 2 perimeter defender in the league, let alone in '06...Pretty much any statistic shows that Kobe was a really bad defender in '06, no matter if it's boxscore-derived or +/-:

-1.5 defensive BPM

+6.5 defensive on/off court rating (which means that his team was allowing 6.5 more points with him on the court, per 100 possessions, compared to the time he spent on the bench)

-1.4 defensive RAPM for that year (for the sake of comparison, Wade was at +1.5 that year, FAR better)

Coaches and players all thought Kobe was hands down the best player in the league.

I stopped caring what coaches and players say many years ago. They say so many ridiculous things that you're MUCH better off trusting stats.

Kobe to me is the single most overrated player in NBA history. Well, he's tied with Isiah Thomas in terms of his overratedness, they are 1a/1b to me. His statistical output is underwhelming (I mean advanced stats) relative to his reputation in the basketball world (and so is Isiah's).

[BuzzerBeaterBry]

No, KG's teams were even worse both years. Kobe had a very good player like Odom and a GOAT coach like Phil.

Ok, but Kobe's cast was still horrendous.

Kobe's offensive impact was HUGE, there's no denying that, but it's not the reason why I'm not as high on him as most people. His defense was terrible that year.

I understand his defensive consistency was poor that year, but every now and then, you'd see him lockdown elite players in 4Qs, so it's not as poor as you think.

Odom was a much better offensive player than anyone Jordan played with in '87 (Oakley was a comparable overall player, but most of his value was on defense and on the boards, not on offense), and Phil Jackson with 9 rings under his belt was a far better coach than Doug Collins in his rookie coaching season.

While Kobe had a better second option and a better coach, outside of that, the rest of the cast was worse than what Jordan had. So I'd say they'd about balance each other out or were at least similar in terms of offensive impact.

Doesn't matter, he was healthy enough to play. Many guys play through minor injuries. I only care about injuries when they are serious enough to force a player to miss games.

Meh, I'm so sure about that. Kobe couldn't really sit out at all, considering his team's level of talent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzCUzbKsHbE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4dU9I3c3Aw (made private)

The video that was made private was actually posted by Pro Shot Shooting System. Kobe was explaining why players sit out, because they want to take care of their stats

And remember how Kobe tore his index finger? Instead of sitting out and healing it, he changed his entire release.

(2006) And if you look at the stats, that injury had a big impact on him.

First month (injured) - 30.8 PPG + 5.3 RPG + 4.6 APG + 1.1 SPG + 0.5 BPG on .504 TS%
Next three months (healthy) - 36.9 PPG + 5.3 RPG + 4.5 APG + 2.1 SPG + 0.3 BPG on . 576 TS%

Team offensive rank (first month) - 18th
Team offensive rank (next three months) - 5th

Huge difference.

If we were to still ignore this, it still doesn't change the feat Kobe displayed, carrying a very, weak team to a top 5 offense for a sixty-seven-game stretch.

Like I said, to me, he WAS healthy (come on, he played 80 of 82 possible games), and they weren't top 5 offensively. I'll tell you something about that - I don't even care about team offensive rating when I compare single players. This is a team game, can't equate a team's offensive performance with their star's individual ability. We have stats to measure individual offensive ability, so why look at team results?

Team stats can help evaluate a player's overall production in such ways that individual stats can't - like when/where/how that player obtained his stats.

By the way - peak Wade led #19 and 20 offenses in the league in '09 and '10 - does it mean that Wade sucked as an offensive anchor, or he wasn't close to Kobe, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that basically any player evaluation stat indicates?

Here's what plus minus says about Wade and Kobe in '06 (both guys playing on their peak-ish level):

Kobe +18.9 offense, +6.5 defense, +12.4 overall
Wade +13.7 offense, -1.9 defense, +15.6 overall

So, Kobe's offensive impact was higher, but Wade's defense was so much better that it outweighs Kobe's offensive edge. Wade compares favorably in terms of boxscore metrics and he led his team to a title in spectacular fashion.

I'm not a big fan of player evaluation stats or +/- stats. I don't feel '06 Wade was anywhere close to peak Kobe in the RS. But I don't want to get into another argument on criteria.

So if these stats are your reason, then I'll just leave it at that. I respect you and your opinion.

I'll stop right here. No point in discussing Kobe with you if you believe that. Kobe was certainly NEVER a top 2 perimeter defender in the league, let alone in '06...Pretty much any statistic shows that Kobe was a really bad defender in '06, no matter if it's boxscore-derived or +/-:

-1.5 defensive BPM

+6.5 defensive on/off court rating (which means that his team was allowing 6.5 more points with him on the court, per 100 possessions, compared to the time he spent on the bench)

-1.4 defensive RAPM for that year (for the sake of comparison, Wade was at +1.5 that year, FAR better)

You misread. Key word - capabilities.

And again, I'm not a big fan of stats that attempt to evaluate a player's overall production.

I stopped caring what coaches and players say many years ago. They say so many ridiculous things that you're MUCH better off trusting stats.

Only a small minority believes in those ridiculous things. And it's never because of their lack of knowledge. It's because of ridiculous reasoning.

And stats like BPM say far more ridiculous things, lol.

But when nearly every coach and player tells you that Kobe is the by far the best player in the league, it'd become reasonable to believe so. These are the same players and coaches who have to study their opponents, especially the Kobe, staying up all night, preparing for him. They know their stuff more than practically anyone on this board does. So that gives a good reason to believe that Kobe was the best player back in '06.

Kobe to me is the single most overrated player in NBA history. Well, he's tied with Isiah Thomas in terms of his overratedness, they are 1a/1b to me. His statistical output is underwhelming (I mean advanced stats) relative to his reputation in the basketball world (and so is Isiah's).

Your opinion. I think he's both overrated and underrated. More-so underrated on this board.

IMO, the most overrated players of all-time are probably Jordan, Iverson, and maybe Lebron.

[eminence]

Hmm, just wanted to say that the link to the website for it seems to be down. Hope that's not permanent.

[Jim Naismith]

Updated: http://rpoy.dolem.com

Awesome! Thanks sentient!

This site recently stopped working. I loved the site and hope it can be restored somehow.