'15-16 RealGM Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[Texas Chuck]

It's not absurd for people, who value actual impact on the court more than pretty box score numbers or style of play.

.

Do tell me then in detail how Porzingis has more impact than Towns this year.

[KTM_2813]

Good afternoon fellas. I just joined the board, and I think this is as good a thread as any to make my first post. Here are my picks for each honor as of now:

Offensive Player of the Year - Steph
Defensive Player of the Year - Kawhi
Rookie of the Year - Towns
Most Improved Player - McCollum
6th Man of the Year - Iguodala
Coach of the Year - Pop
Executive of the Year - Buford

[Doctor MJ]

Why people pick KAT over Porzingis as ROTY? KP is comparable offensive player, but better defensively and thus overall has higher impact.

Agreed, thought the PC board looks deeper into things than which rookie has the prettiest numbers.

@TexasChuck

Picking Okafor over Porzingis seems outrageous.
How would you even try to defend that pick?

First I'm not sure I need to defend it. I mean the idea that Porzingis deserves the top nod over Towns is far more outrageous than my taking Okafor over him.

And let me be clear--I love Porzingis. I would have drafted him at #2 and he has done nothing but make me like him even more this year. But he's been wildly inconsistent. He got a ton of hype for his play early and of course he has the highlights. But his season has gotten overrated.

Okafor hasn't been great either---but he's been more consistent imo and to be as effective as he was offensively with just complete garbage around him and no spacing was pretty impressive. He's already proven he can score in this league and its easy to see him being a lot more effective once he gets some legit teammates.

I'd much rather have Porzingis, but I don't know that his year is better. And suggesting him over Towns is absurd. I mean

Well I think the issue people are getting at here is the 76ers playing offense MUCH better with him on the bench. Okafor has a ton of post skill for a rookie, but teams aren't playing that style of offense any more for a reason. Between the way he completely contorts how the offense must be to something not optimal for this era and the fact that he's horrendous on defense at a defense-first position, a lot of us are looking at Okafor right now and wondering if he'll ever actually be able to add value against starter-level competition.

With Porzingis by contrast is a guy where it's pretty easy to envision potential without it relying on anything that doesn't work well today, so it's pretty easy to see rating Porzingis higher...but frankly I would agree it's not so clear cut. ROY is a weird award. It's not about only value, or only production, or only potential, but all of these influence the ROY-ability of a rookie in the eyes of most. I have no qualm with those who simply decide on their own standard here.

[bondom34]

Agreed, thought the PC board looks deeper into things than which rookie has the prettiest numbers.

@TexasChuck

Picking Okafor over Porzingis seems outrageous.
How would you even try to defend that pick?

First I'm not sure I need to defend it. I mean the idea that Porzingis deserves the top nod over Towns is far more outrageous than my taking Okafor over him.

And let me be clear--I love Porzingis. I would have drafted him at #2 and he has done nothing but make me like him even more this year. But he's been wildly inconsistent. He got a ton of hype for his play early and of course he has the highlights. But his season has gotten overrated.

Okafor hasn't been great either---but he's been more consistent imo and to be as effective as he was offensively with just complete garbage around him and no spacing was pretty impressive. He's already proven he can score in this league and its easy to see him being a lot more effective once he gets some legit teammates.

I'd much rather have Porzingis, but I don't know that his year is better. And suggesting him over Towns is absurd. I mean

Well I think the issue people are getting at here is the 76ers playing offense MUCH better with him on the bench. Okafor has a ton of post skill for a rookie, but teams aren't playing that style of offense any more for a reason. Between the way he completely contorts how the offense must be to something not optimal for this era and the fact that he's horrendous on defense at a defense-first position, a lot of us are looking at Okafor right now and wondering if he'll ever actually be able to add value against starter-level competition.

With Porzingis by contrast is a guy where it's pretty easy to envision potential without it relying on anything that doesn't work well today, so it's pretty easy to see rating Porzingis higher...but frankly I would agree it's not so clear cut. ROY is a weird award. It's not about only value, or only production, or only potential, but all of these influence the ROY-ability of a rookie in the eyes of most. I have no qualm with those who simply decide on their own standard here.

Their offense isn't much worse with him, about 2 points per 100 since Smith was acquired. Noel has a slightly better O rating since the same date.

The issue to me is Philly is just a hard team to truly judge, and if you have a ROY from them you're looking at skillset, not numbers. Personally I don't have Okafor there, but if you do you're not doing it on numbers. This isn't a thread dedicated to "impact rankings" or it would just be a link to RAPM, which seems what lorak is getting at. Its ultimately subjective which is something that gets KAT well into first for most voters I'd think.

[lorak]

[ This isn't a thread dedicated to "impact rankings" or it would just be a link to RAPM, which seems what lorak is getting at. Its ultimately subjective which is something that gets KAT well into first for most voters I'd think.

Subjective? So ROTY isn't about which rookie is the best?

Chuck,

check how KP's better range (3p shot) changes opposing teams defenses or how much better he is at defending pick and roll.

[bondom34]

[ This isn't a thread dedicated to "impact rankings" or it would just be a link to RAPM, which seems what lorak is getting at. Its ultimately subjective which is something that gets KAT well into first for most voters I'd think.

Subjective? So ROTY isn't about which rookie is the best?

Chuck,

check how KP's better range (3p shot) changes opposing teams defenses or how much better he is at defending pick and roll.

"Best" is subjective. I think Towns was/is best.

[lorak]

"Best" is subjective.

So what is your definition of best?

I think Towns was/is best.

Why?

[Mutnt]

POTY:

1.Curry
2-5. Westbrook/Durant/Kawhi/LeBron

Honestly, after Curry, the other spots in the Top 5 are very much open for me. I see good arguments for all four of the candidates I listed.

Westbrook just impacts the game in so many ways. It's easy to say he's overly reckless, prone to bad shooting nights, not a good 3pt shooter, has turnover issues, questionable off-ball, has questionable decisions etc. but the dude is never even close to useless out there on the court. Always plays hard, solid defensively for a guard, one of the GOAT rebounders for his position, averages over 10 apg (assists about 50% of his teammates baskets when he's on the court, probably influences even more than that), puts an enormous pressure on defenses with his slashing ability and is a good scorer as well.

Durant is basically as good as ever almost. Super good, super efficient, super dominant scorer, Respectably decent all-around game, seems to be doing better defensively this year too.

Kawhi is easily the best defender of the group, very good impact offensively as well, especially good in his role. In a vacuum, he probably has the best case for 2nd place (since he's comfortably the main reason the Spurs are in discussion for one of the best teams of all-time) but on the other side of the spectrum, I kinda feel there's a certain type of credit the Spurs have earned at this point. They're just super good and deep, and Pop is the GOAT coach. The Spurs are literally the only team that can DNP the entire starting lineup and still be competitive with 80% of the teams. They're not as reliant on one player as they are on the collective following the system and everyone benefits from it.

LeBron would probably be 5th if I had to close the votes right now. He has had another relatively tough year for him, especially shooting the ball, but his defense has looked much more consistent this year. He's also noticeably been trending upwards in the last couple of weeks (possibly readying himself for the postseason). Finally, all the negativity suspended over Cleveland across the year: Blatt firing, Lue not doing any better, maybe LeBron is the real coach and only authority, Love being underused/ignored, Kyrie & LeBron can't coexist, unable to string pretty much any impressive winning streaks over the course of the season etc. etc. Obviously people are gonna point the finger at LeBron, there's plenty of reason to, but at the end of the day, you take him off the team and they go from a 60-win team/potential Finalist to an absolute mess dumpster fire of a team.

OPY:

1.Curry
2.Durant
3.Westbrook

HM: CP3

DPY:

1.Kawhi
2.DAJ
3.Whiteside

ROY:

1.KAT
2.Jokic
3.Porzingis

MIP:

1.Mahinmi
2.Crowder
3.Giannis

6th Man:

1.Iggy
2.West
3.Thompson (dunno if he counts, started like 30 games)

COY:

1.Kerr/Walton (obviously if you're gonna break the RS win record you deserve this)
2.Pop
3.No one else is close.

EOY:

1.Buford (easily)
2.Ainge
3.Cho (basically turned Lance Stephenson into Jeremy Lamb; signed Lin in Free Agency; got Batum for Henderson,Vonleh from Portland; added Courtney Lee from Memphis and drafted Kaminsky, who might be a solid player in the future if he can find how to be useful offensively - The result is a much improved Charlotte team from last year and that's with MKG sidelined).

[bondom34]

"Best" is subjective.

So what is your definition of best?

I think Towns was/is best.

Why?

I think Kat has shown a greater skillset and more an ability to carry a bigger workload at a high level. Which is what I'd call "best" in this case, simply put.

[lorak]

"Best" is subjective.

So what is your definition of best?

I think Towns was/is best.

Why?

I think Kat has shown a greater skillset and more an ability to carry a bigger workload at a high level. Which is what I'd call "best" in this case, simply put.

When you called "best" subjective term, you made mistake, because "best", unlike for example "beauty", doesn't depends on subjectivity. (we can say who is the best sprinter, because it can be objectively measured; we can't say which painting is the most beautiful, because every man could find different qualities attractive.) And definition you provided is incorrect according to dictionaries:

1
: excelling all others <the best student>

2
: most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction <what is the best thing to do>

3
: most, largest <it rained for the best part of their vacation>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/best

In basketball context, where what matters in the end is point differential, the best player would be that one, who improves his team pts diff the most. (excels all others in that; is the most productive in that)."Greater skillset" might be part of that, but doesn't have to be, so it's not essentially definiens of definition of "best". "Carry bigger workload" is probably the same what I'm talking about, so the question is - how do you measure it? And if you don't, then how do you know who carry bigger workload? Or if this isn't connected with pts differential, then why it should matter in basketball, when we talk about "best"? And if you don't agree with dictionary's definition of "best", then why it is so? How do you want to communicate with other people, if you create own definitions?

[bondom34]

So what is your definition of best?



Why?

I think Kat has shown a greater skillset and more an ability to carry a bigger workload at a high level. Which is what I'd call "best" in this case, simply put.

When you called "best" subjective term, you made mistake, because "best", unlike for example "beauty", doesn't depends on subjectivity. (we can say who is the best sprinter, because it can be objectively measured; we can't say which painting is the most beautiful, because every man could find different qualities attractive.) And definition you provided is incorrect according to dictionaries:

1
: excelling all others <the best student>

2
: most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction <what is the best thing to do>

3
: most, largest <it rained for the best part of their vacation>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/best

In basketball context, where what matters in the end is point differential, the best player would be that one, who improves his team pts diff the most. (excels all others in that; is the most productive in that)."Greater skillset" might be part of that, but doesn't have to be, so it's not essentially definiens of definition of "best". "Carry bigger workload" is probably the same what I'm talking about, so the question is - how do you measure it? And if you don't, then how do you know who carry bigger workload? Or if this isn't connected with pts differential, then why it should matter in basketball, when we talk about "best"? And if you don't agree with dictionary's definition of "best", then why it is so? How do you want to communicate with other people, if you create own definitions?

Again, simply put, because if that's what you want, and you feel RAPM does that, you have an RAPM rank.

Also, best isn't defined only by point differential at an individual level, nor is ROY defined as "best" rookie. In this case, KAT puts up similar numbers to Porzingis with an equal or better skillset and doesn't have as much talent around him while doing it at a larger volume. I really don't see much an argument for Zinger for ROY unless your only criteria is RAPM.

[lorak]

If "best" in basketball context doesn't depends on pts diff, then on what if we want to stick to definition of "best"? "Excelling all others in basketball" means....? Really "having better skillset" and not "better impact on pts dif"? Since when basketball is about skillset and not about winning games?

PS
Not only RAPM is behind KP over KAT. I talked for example about pick and roll defense, what synergy data confirms. And p&r defense is one of the most important aspects of the game today. As well as spacing, where KP also has advantage.

[KD35Brah]

DPY:

1.Kawhi
2.DAJ
3.Whiteside

Not high on Green?

I think he's top 2 at worst.

[bondom34]

lorak, because Towns numbers (not RAPM) all are better than Porzingis. There's more to the game than a small handful of cherry picked stats. Towns is showing better assist numbers, scoring at a higher efficiency, and is a better rebounder. He's playing with no other remotely decent first option and an equally bad coach to KP. His team is much better when he's on court offensively and his team's defense is giving up an extra 4-5 ppg on 3 pointers, which is likely none of his fault.

[Texas Chuck]

yeah I have less than zero interest in this being a referendum on RAPM. I respect other poster's choosing to go that route if they feel strongly about it, but if your criticism of my preliminary picks is based primarily on that you'd be wasting your time with me telling me I need to re-align to RAPM(or any limited statistical measurement).

[HeartBreakKid]

Porzingis is a much better defender than Towns (doesn't know how to defend the pick and roll). Towns is a good rebounder and can get block shots on the weak side, but other than that he looks as lost as any other 19 year old rookie.


Porzingis efficiency is bad but I think his skill set is probably better for winning atm. He can lock down the paint, guard pick and roll, guard 4s - he's a very good player defensively already.

I don't think it's as clear cut in Towns favor.

[lorak]

lorak, because Towns numbers (not RAPM) all are better than Porzingis.

That's not true - for example synergy p&r defense... you over and over again focusing just on few box score numbers, when there is so much more important things in basketball.

There's more to the game than a small handful of cherry picked stats. Towns is showing better assist numbers, scoring at a higher efficiency, and is a better rebounder.

You saying such first sentence and then cherry pick 3 stats from several dozens available...

And you avoid answer to question: "If "best" in basketball context doesn't depends on pts diff, then on what if we want to stick to definition of "best"? "Excelling all others in basketball" means....? "

[bondom34]

lorak, because Towns numbers (not RAPM) all are better than Porzingis.

That's not true - for example synergy p&r defense... you over and over again focusing just on few box score numbers, when there is so much more important things in basketball.

There's more to the game than a small handful of cherry picked stats. Towns is showing better assist numbers, scoring at a higher efficiency, and is a better rebounder.

You saying such first sentence and then cherry pick 3 stats from several dozens available...

And you avoid answer to question: "If "best" in basketball context doesn't depends on pts diff, then on what if we want to stick to definition of "best"? "Excelling all others in basketball" means....? "

"Best" is a subjective term, hence the purpose of this thread.

Again, if you'd like to define "best" then I'd just say "Look at RAPM and there's the POY list". It is too dependent on role and what a player is asked to do as well as those around him are asked to do to be a definition of best. I don't have the synergy numbers, but PnR defense is dependent on a lot of variables, not just a single defender.

Best is a holistic term where you'll likely use a criteria defined by yourself, for yourself. I use a mixture of box and plus/minus and on/off with watching guys play. Apparently some use strictly PM numbers which seems very limiting and inflexible to me. But I'd say to each his own and if reasoning is given I have no issue with someone's ideas if they are sound.

[lorak]

yeah I have less than zero interest in this being a referendum on RAPM. I respect other poster's choosing to go that route if they feel strongly about it, but if your criticism of my preliminary picks is based primarily on that you'd be wasting your time with me telling me I need to re-align to RAPM(or any limited statistical measurement).

Forget about RAPM. Focus on defense and explain how Towns is comparable to KP on that end. And there is offense, where think about how better 3p shot affects spacing and how important it is. Because KP might not have flashy box score offensive numbers, but his higher 3p volume alone is really big thing for offense and at least partly eliminates Towns' advantage from volume and efficiency.

I also think you guys are looking at big men from "old" perspective, when post man was ideal PF/C. But now other skills are more important, especially p&r defense (because offenses are build around that play) and spacing. So bigs, who can defend p&r are generally more valuable on defense than those, who cant (and it's not like KP is bad at rim defender, actually he is slightly better than KAT too). Also bigs, who can hit 3p are generally more valuable on offense, even if their efficiency is bad they still provides a lot of offensive value, because such big with 3p shot is better for team spacing, than big with only midrange game and elite post skills.

[Dr Spaceman]

lorak, because Towns numbers (not RAPM) all are better than Porzingis.

That's not true - for example synergy p&r defense... you over and over again focusing just on few box score numbers, when there is so much more important things in basketball.

There's more to the game than a small handful of cherry picked stats. Towns is showing better assist numbers, scoring at a higher efficiency, and is a better rebounder.

You saying such first sentence and then cherry pick 3 stats from several dozens available...

And you avoid answer to question: "If "best" in basketball context doesn't depends on pts diff, then on what if we want to stick to definition of "best"? "Excelling all others in basketball" means....? "

"Best" is a subjective term, hence the purpose of this thread.

Again, if you'd like to define "best" then I'd just say "Look at RAPM and there's the POY list". It is too dependent on role and what a player is asked to do as well as those around him are asked to do to be a definition of best. I don't have the synergy numbers, but PnR defense is dependent on a lot of variables, not just a single defender.

Best is a holistic term where you'll likely use a criteria defined by yourself, for yourself. I use a mixture of box and plus/minus and on/off with watching guys play. Apparently some use strictly PM numbers which seems very limiting and inflexible to me. But I'd say to each his own and if reasoning is given I have no issue with someone's ideas if they are sound.

Also "Rookie of the year" can be interpreted a number of ways, just like any other award. Even if KP was the better basketball player this year (not a sure thing but debateable) Bondom and Chuck could still vote for KAT simply because he shows more future promise or was impressive for other reasons. It's not as simple as "best player who is a rookie".

Also re: RAPM numbers, what you have to understand is that KP was playing a well-defined role on a team that had playoff hopes to start the season. KAT meanwhile has been on a full-blown experimental team which has tried everything from LaVine at PG to a Towns/Dieng front court. KAT had goals this season, but among them "drive the scoring margin as high as possible" was not the priority. Thus you can plenty argue he accomplished his goals just fine.