'15-16 RealGM Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[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....? "

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

No, it isn't. Look at definition. You mix two kinds of terms. What is "beauty" that's subjective, but not what is "best". We know that basketball is about outscoring opponent (you agree with that, right?) and thus impact on pts diff defines who is better in basketball. There isn't any other logical way here. The only question is how to decide who impacts the game more and it's very valid question.

[bondom34]

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.



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.

No, it isn't. Look at definition. You mix two kinds of terms. What is "beauty" that's subjective, but not what is "best". We know that basketball is about outscoring opponent (you agree with that, right?) and thus impact on pts diff defines who is better in basketball. There isn't any other logical way here. The only question is how to decide who impacts the game more and it's very valid question.

Best:

that which is the most excellent, outstanding, or desirable.

What is desirable to you? What is excellent or outstanding to you?

Its different than what is to me.

[The-Power]

No, it isn't. Look at definition. You mix two kinds of terms. What is "beauty" that's subjective, but not what is "best". We know that basketball is about outscoring opponent (you agree with that, right?) and thus impact on pts diff defines who is better in basketball. There isn't any other logical way here. The only question is how to decide who impacts the game more and it's very valid question.

Not really. If we're arguing semantics, impact on the actual point differential defines who was more impactful playing for a certain team in a certain role in a certain league environment. Ultimately the impact on the point differential matters but since every players faces different situations there is plenty of room to come up with a reasonable argumentation not solely relying on actual impact.

[HeartBreakKid]

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.



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".

Well, yes, it can be interpreted as that, but it's not supposed to be "most promising rookie" - because realistically, what a player does his rookie year hardly dictates how good they'll be for the rest of their career.

It should be who is the best rookie of that season, otherwise the award has little meaning. If it was about who was the best prospect, then the title would have a different name.

[NinjaSheppard]

Porzingis has zero argument for ROTY.

If you are going to make the +/-, "impact" argument then the candidate is Nikola Jokic. That said I really don't care about RAPM for rookies and the sample size is borderline worthless to me so I'll go with the obvious choice in Towns who is the best rookie I have seen since Duncan.

[RebelWithACause]

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).

Well, Okafor is worse than Porzingis in every statistical measure.

Okafor

17.5/7.0/1.2 on 53.6 % TS

PER 17.2, WS/48 0.04, ORTG 99, -4.0 BPM, -0.8 VORP, TRB% 12.8 %


Porzingis

14.3/7.3/1.3 on 51.8 % TS

PER 17..8, WS/48 0.10, ORTG 103, 0.1 BPM, 1.1 VORP, TRB% 14.1 %

So let's summarize,

Porzingis is a better at rebounding, steals, blocks, rim protection, P&R Defense, better help defender, better passer, better PER, better BPM, better VORP, better WS, better ORTG and DRTG, better RAPM, better RPM, better PT-PM, better at shooting, better floor spacer, better at synergy and video tracking numbers.

Okafor is better at raw scoring, bit better efficiency wise, better at low post scoring

(which is one of the most useless skills there is in most cases)

You might be able to throw out the +/- stats, but you can't throw out literally almost every stat there is!

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

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).

Well, Okafor is worse than Porzingis in every statistical measure.

Okafor

17.5/7.0/1.2 on 53.6 % TS

PER 17.2, WS/48 0.04, ORTG 99, -4.0 BPM, -0.8 VORP, TRB% 12.8 %


Porzingis

14.3/7.3/1.3 on 51.8 % TS

PER 17..8, WS/48 0.10, ORTG 103, 0.1 BPM, 1.1 VORP, TRB% 14.1 %

So let's summarize,

Porzingis is a better at rebounding, steals, blocks, rim protection, P&R Defense, better help defender, better passer, better PER, better BPM, better VORP, better WS, better ORTG and DRTG, better RAPM, better RPM, better PT-PM, better at shooting, better floor spacer, better at synergy and video tracking numbers.

Okafor is better at raw scoring, bit better efficiency wise, better at low post scoring

(which is one of the most useless skills there is in most cases)

You might be able to throw out the +/- stats, but you can't throw out literally almost every stat there is!

Mea Culpa.

I don't disagree Porzingis is a better player. And I certainly don't disagree he's not a better prospect. But my interpretation of the award is different than just best player. For instance last year I thought Harden had a real argument for MVP but I didn't think he was the best player in the league--or even 2nd best.

That said I can't ignore the strong arguments made for having Porzingis over Okafor and I will likely change this by the time I have to cast an actual vote.

[RebelWithACause]

Spoiler:

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).

Well, Okafor is worse than Porzingis in every statistical measure.

Okafor

17.5/7.0/1.2 on 53.6 % TS

PER 17.2, WS/48 0.04, ORTG 99, -4.0 BPM, -0.8 VORP, TRB% 12.8 %


Porzingis

14.3/7.3/1.3 on 51.8 % TS

PER 17..8, WS/48 0.10, ORTG 103, 0.1 BPM, 1.1 VORP, TRB% 14.1 %

So let's summarize,

Porzingis is a better at rebounding, steals, blocks, rim protection, P&R Defense, better help defender, better passer, better PER, better BPM, better VORP, better WS, better ORTG and DRTG, better RAPM, better RPM, better PT-PM, better at shooting, better floor spacer, better at synergy and video tracking numbers.

Okafor is better at raw scoring, bit better efficiency wise, better at low post scoring

(which is one of the most useless skills there is in most cases)

You might be able to throw out the +/- stats, but you can't throw out literally almost every stat there is!

Mea Culpa.

I don't disagree Porzingis is a better player. And I certainly don't disagree he's not a better prospect. But my interpretation of the award is different than just best player. For instance last year I thought Harden had a real argument for MVP but I didn't think he was the best player in the league--or even 2nd best.

That said I can't ignore the strong arguments made for having Porzingis over Okafor and I will likely change this by the time I have to cast an actual vote.

Didn't want to harp on you in any way Chuck.

Seriously, Porzingis is the closest thing there is right now to Dirk, you should hop on the train before it's too late

[lorak]

No, it isn't. Look at definition. You mix two kinds of terms. What is "beauty" that's subjective, but not what is "best". We know that basketball is about outscoring opponent (you agree with that, right?) and thus impact on pts diff defines who is better in basketball. There isn't any other logical way here. The only question is how to decide who impacts the game more and it's very valid question.

Not really. If we're arguing semantics, impact on the actual point differential defines who was more impactful playing for a certain team in a certain role in a certain league environment. Ultimately the impact on the point differential matters but since every players faces different situations there is plenty of room to come up with a reasonable argumentation not solely relying on actual impact.

Yes, but it points us in direction of some kind of relativism. I mean, it applies even in 1on1 sports like chess, because one might say that 1 player winning over another could be affected by how they were raised as a children, how they were trained and so on (I know, it's extreme example, but I want to illustrate the point). Of course in basketball it's more obvious and that's why we always try to adjust to that, some models do it methodological, while others leave a lot for inconsistency, interpretation, because that adjustments depends on human "eye" - and that's often very misleading.

BTW, do you know that such approach allows to reasonably argue, that championship team wasn't really the best in given year? Or that Curry isn't leading scorer in the NBA?

Spaceman,
if ROTY doesn't mean the best rookie, then ok. But I think that award doesn't have much sense then and criteria to pick such rookie would be so inconsistent, even contradict to each other, that it's pointless.

[lorak]

Porzingis has zero argument for ROTY.

If you are going to make the +/-, "impact" argument then the candidate is Nikola Jokic. That said I really don't care about RAPM for rookies and the sample size is borderline worthless to me so I'll go with the obvious choice in Towns who is the best rookie I have seen since Duncan.

You guys keep talking about +/-, but no one responded to points about how KP is better defensively and how his spacing partly negates KAT's advantage from volume and efficiency on offense. Really, p&r defense + spacing, two the most important things in modern basketball, KP has advantages here and you are ignoring them. Not nice.

[Texas Chuck]

Seriously, Porzingis is the closest thing there is right now to Dirk, you should hop on the train before it's too late

Believe me---I am a huge fan of the kid already. I thought the Knicks got an absolute steal at the time and felt like Philly in particular made a huge mistake in passing on him for Okafor as I thought Porzingis the better prospect and the fit with Noel seemed much more natural(or Embiid if he ever gets on the court).

But I will say despite his off the court nonsense and his defensive liability, I have been impressed with how well Okafor has been able to score against NBA defenses while surrounded by just total garbage. And in watching him play his skills do impress me. Now he's got miles to go in his all-around game and he's got a ton of growing up to do--and I wouldn't be shocked if he never reaches Al Jefferson levels of play.

I'll also say that if Vogel had gone to Myles Turner earlier at PF, he'd be getting strong consideration from me because honestly I've been more impressed with him than anyone not named Towns since he started played full-time. Was really low on him coming into the year and am willing to eat some crow--this kid looks like a real steal.

[Texas Chuck]

Porzingis has zero argument for ROTY.

If you are going to make the +/-, "impact" argument then the candidate is Nikola Jokic. That said I really don't care about RAPM for rookies and the sample size is borderline worthless to me so I'll go with the obvious choice in Towns who is the best rookie I have seen since Duncan.

You guys keep talking about +/-, but no one responded to points about how KP is better defensively and how his spacing partly negates KAT's advantage from volume and efficiency on offense. Really, p&r defense + spacing, two the most important things in modern basketball, KP has advantages here and you are ignoring them. Not nice.

I'm not ignoring them. I think you are reaching for something to defend your choosing him based on +/- numbers. Because those 2 factors aren't nearly enough to suggest he deserves the ROY over Towns. I mean 1 made 3 a game at 33% just isn't some kind of special spacing and Towns has been the superior mid-range guy on similar volume particularly on longer 2's that also provide spacing.

[Quotatious]

Okafor being anywhere near Towns or Porzingis is an absolute joke, even if just because of the fact that he only played 53 games, and Porzingis/Towns have already played 70+.

Towns would be my pick for ROY, for sure. Porzingis clear #2. Jokic clear #3.

[Texas Chuck]

Okafor being anywhere near Towns or Porzingis is an absolute joke, even if just because of the fact that he only played 53 games, and Porzingis/Towns have already played 70+.

Towns would be my pick for ROY, for sure. Porzingis clear #2. Jokic clear #3.

Games is a pretty odd argument if you don't note that his minutes played surpass Jokic's to date. Obviously Jokic will pass him barring injury, but Okafor has a large enough sample size to rate.

Obviously we've covered what everyone thinks of his level of play which is what should really matter and I'm certainly regretting having brought him up.

[lorak]

BTW, re: KAT is more skilled. The only one statistic describing skill, so FT%, favors KP right now. Slightly (1,3 percentage point), but still. It's also worth to keep in mind, that KP so quickly moved up in mock drafts after workouts, because basically every scout was impressed by his skillset. He also has better wingspan than KAT - with almost SF mobility - what is important for big man's skillset. So I'm not sure from where "KAT is more skilled" come from.

[lorak]

Porzingis has zero argument for ROTY.

If you are going to make the +/-, "impact" argument then the candidate is Nikola Jokic. That said I really don't care about RAPM for rookies and the sample size is borderline worthless to me so I'll go with the obvious choice in Towns who is the best rookie I have seen since Duncan.

You guys keep talking about +/-, but no one responded to points about how KP is better defensively and how his spacing partly negates KAT's advantage from volume and efficiency on offense. Really, p&r defense + spacing, two the most important things in modern basketball, KP has advantages here and you are ignoring them. Not nice.

I'm not ignoring them. I think you are reaching for something to defend your choosing him based on +/- numbers. Because those 2 factors aren't nearly enough to suggest he deserves the ROY over Towns. I mean 1 made 3 a game at 33% just isn't some kind of special spacing and Towns has been the superior mid-range guy on similar volume particularly on longer 2's that also provide spacing.

What about defense? It's really just "1 factor"?

And it's not about 3p average per game, well not only about it, but above all about how consistent threat from 3p line changes opposing teams defenses. Even if he is making jus 1 per game on not so good % it's enough to keep defenses honest, enough to space floor better than if he would have only very good midrange shot. Really, go through modern history and check how good were offenses with big who had 3p shot and how worse with big without consistent three but very good midrange. That's not coincidence.

[bondom34]

Skilled as in overall ability. Towns is a post up big who can shoot the 3, but his coach limits his shooting. He's got much better post skills than KP. FTs aren't the only show of skill, Okafor has no skill, which is clearly false in his post game. Rondo has no skill, which he clearly does in his ball handling, Tristan Thompson has no skill, which he does in offensive rebounding.

Edit: RE defense:

KAT is in the 46th percentile of post up defense.

KP is in the 15th percentile in post defense.

Defense is a lot of factors.

[PaulieWal]

I am excited for this year's project again. I just hope it doesn't devolve into a RAPM (+-) project like it did at times last year. I am not someone who dismisses RAPM but I don't agree with anyone who tries to take RAPM literally or uses it heavily to decide their rankings.

I feel like the word "impact" has become bastardized in some ways on the PC board. To me rankings will always be a combination of "goodness + impact" not just impact.

Looking forward to another good year of discussions.

[The-Power]

Yes, but it points us in direction of some kind of relativism. I mean, it applies even in 1on1 sports like chess, because one might say that 1 player winning over another could be affected by how they were raised as a children, how they were trained and so on (I know, it's extreme example, but I want to illustrate the point).

This is a poor analogy, though. In the context of basketball, I'm talking about hypothetical but reasonable contexts within the broad current setting. It's not about hypothetical developments of players. To imply that the context (teams, roles etc.) doesn't matter to determine who is better or worse is an indefensible stance in my mind.

If one player has to play chess blindfolded underwater without oxygen feed while the other player gets the chance to play on a table in his living room while watching his favorite tv-show, you can't say with any kind of certainty that one player is superior to other in chess in general. Context matters.

Of course in basketball it's more obvious and that's why we always try to adjust to that, some models do it methodological, while others leave a lot for inconsistency, interpretation, because that adjustments depends on human "eye" - and that's often very misleading.

Yeah, but adjustments are necessary. They can be flawed, they can be controversial but this is why we discuss about players and teams in the first place. Using quantified impact stats can help to get an idea of what an impact a certain player has, but to use them without context and - especially when it comes to broad questions - without using more accessible information is an even more flawed approach.

BTW, do you know that such approach allows to reasonably argue, that championship team wasn't really the best in given year? Or that Curry isn't leading scorer in the NBA?

The team that wins the championship must not be the best team in the league, depending on one's criteria. Curry being the leading scorer, on the other hand, is not challengeable using the universally accepted definition. If you change 'leading scorer' to 'best scorer', or if you want to use a different definition of a leading scorer*, then it's a different story and of course the answer could reasonably be another player. I'm not sure where you're going with this, though.

*something we can see in soccer, for instance, when the international top-scorers are being determined as they use different multipliers for different leagues

[lorak]

FTs aren't the only show of skill, Okafor has no skill, which is clearly false in his post game. Rondo has no skill, which he clearly does in his ball handling, Tristan Thompson has no skill, which he does in offensive rebounding.

I'm not saying FT is the only skill, so stop with straw man. I'm saying FT% is the only skill, which we can easily, without any doubt, measure.

And if you are explaining Town's 3p shooting by coach, then we can say the same about KP's efficiency (or post up, or whatever we want really). He has poor coach, who doesn't know how to use him, coach who forces triangle (or whatever they try to play) and ballhog in Melo. Such argumentation works two ways, remember that.

Edit: RE defense:

KAT is in the 46th percentile of post up defense.

KP is in the 15th percentile in post defense.

Defense is a lot of factors.

How many teams has post up as no 1 option over p&r? How often overall is postup used and how p&r? You really want to negate, that p&r is more important in modern basketball?!