'15-16 RealGM Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[HeartBreakKid]

Weren't there discussions about the Cavs being the all time great offense just a couple of weeks ago?

Perhaps but I personally was waiting until I saw Cleveland go against the West champ before I took it too seriously.

And again I don't want to imply I think the series is already over. Tomorrow could change everything...but I do think y'all understand why I'm bringing this stuff up.

The Hawks were the 2nd highest rated defense during the RS, and that series is when the Cavs offense really got going. The Cavs have never faced a bad defense the entire playoffs, while a team like the Warriors has played two bad ones and one mediocre one.

[Nbafanatic]

Weren't there discussions about the Cavs being the all time great offense just a couple of weeks ago?

Perhaps but I personally was waiting until I saw Cleveland go against the West champ before I took it too seriously.

And again I don't want to imply I think the series is already over. Tomorrow could change everything...but I do think y'all understand why I'm bringing this stuff up.

The Hawks were the 2nd highest rated defense during the RS, and that series is when the Cavs offense really got going. The Cavs have never faced a bad defense the entire playoffs, while a team like the Warriors has played two bad ones and one mediocre one.

By "mediocre" do you mean the Thunder? Do you understand that they focused and played a whole other level of defense in the playoffs compared to the regular season? Have you seen the problems their length and athleticism caused to the Warriors?

[HeartBreakKid]

Perhaps but I personally was waiting until I saw Cleveland go against the West champ before I took it too seriously.

And again I don't want to imply I think the series is already over. Tomorrow could change everything...but I do think y'all understand why I'm bringing this stuff up.

The Hawks were the 2nd highest rated defense during the RS, and that series is when the Cavs offense really got going. The Cavs have never faced a bad defense the entire playoffs, while a team like the Warriors has played two bad ones and one mediocre one.

By "mediocre" do you mean the Thunder? Do you understand that they focused and played a whole other level of defense in the playoffs compared to the regular season? Have you seen the problems their length and athleticism caused to the Warriors?

Yes, and I was waiting for this.

The fact is the Thunder were not a great defensive team until this one series. Even with the Thunder playing their best ball, you do realize that if you were to compare them to the Hawks - the Hawks are supremely more talented on the defensive end, and it's not close. Outside of Kyle Korver, the Hawks are pretty much littered with either plus defenders or defensive specialist.

So if a mediocre defense played "a whole other level", what does that equate too? The goat defense? A top 5 defense? A top 10 defense? Does a locked in Thunder defense equate to better defense than the Atlanta Hawks - who were the 2nd best defense over a much longer stretch than the Thunders sub 10 game span? I mean it's just more romanticism for the Warriors lure to feed on. If a team like the Thunder can go "on" and give GSW's offense trouble because a scrub like Dion Waiters is playing the best ball of his life, why aren't the Warrior's offense being questioned(how many players are on the Hawks or even Raptors that are better defenders than someone like Waiters. The Raptors had a better defense during the RS, and also had stretches where they were "locked in" during the post season, why is this ignored)? I mean even Portland was giving them problems in games where Curry played..

If there is one thing not to question the Cavs, it is their offensive power...they are a glass cannon.

[Nbafanatic]

The Hawks were the 2nd highest rated defense during the RS, and that series is when the Cavs offense really got going. The Cavs have never faced a bad defense the entire playoffs, while a team like the Warriors has played two bad ones and one mediocre one.

By "mediocre" do you mean the Thunder? Do you understand that they focused and played a whole other level of defense in the playoffs compared to the regular season? Have you seen the problems their length and athleticism caused to the Warriors?

Yes, and I was waiting for this.

The fact is the Thunder were not a great defensive team until this one series. Even with the Thunder playing their best ball, you do realize that if you were to compare them to the Hawks - the Hawks are supremely more talented on the defensive end, and it's not close. Outside of Kyle Korver, the Hawks are pretty much littered with either plus defenders or defensive specialist.

So if a mediocre defense played "a whole other level", what does that equate too? The goat defense? A top 5 defense? A top 10 defense? Does a locked in Thunder defense equate to better defense than the Atlanta Hawks - who were the 2nd best defense over a much longer stretch than the Thunders sub 10 game span? I mean it's just more romanticism for the Warriors lure to feed on. If a team like the Thunder can go "on" and give GSW's offense trouble because a scrub like Dion Waiters is playing the best ball of his life, why aren't the Warrior's offense being questioned(how many players are on the Hawks or even Raptors that are better defenders than someone like Waiters. The Raptors had a better defense during the RS, and also had stretches where they were "locked in" during the post season, why is this ignored)? I mean even Portland was giving them problems in games where Curry played..

If there is one thing not to question the Cavs, it is their offensive power...they are a glass cannon.

Sincerely, I think you are lacking some context, here. First off, yes, the Hawks was the second ranked defense in the league playing 65% of their games against the mighty eastern conference. Second, the Thunder clearly started to up their defense in the San Antonio series, it was clear that their length and ridiculous recovery actions were getting into the mind of the Spurs players, as they started to pass up shots and being tentative... In a sense, it was 2012 all over again. I understand that Duncan and Manu decided to show their ages in the worst possible time, but the point still stands.

The Hawks have very good and high IQ team defenders, but they don't have neither the athleticism of the Thunder or a guy who can really give James some trouble one on one. Adding to that, both Adams and Ibaka are better defensive anchors than Millsap and Horford, who are greater rotation guys. The Hawks just matchup terribly bad with the Cavs, the same way this Cavs team matchup terribly with the Warriors.

[Basileus777]

Calling the Thunder defense a mirage or romanticism is more than a bit silly considering what they did to a 67 win San Antonio team before they even took the Warriors to the brink.

[Texas Chuck]

Sincerely, I think you are lacking some context, here. First off, yes, the Hawks was the second ranked defense in the league playing 65% of their games against the mighty eastern conference. Second, the Thunder clearly started to up their defense in the San Antonio series, it was clear that their length and ridiculous recovery actions were getting into the mind of the Spurs players, as they started to pass up shots and being tentative... In a sense, it was 2012 all over again. I understand that Duncan and Manu decided to show their ages in the worst possible time, but the point still stands.

East had a better record against the West this year. And the West was very top heavy in terms of quality. Hawks had to face consistently better competition in the East this year. I mean get past the top 4 teams and its pretty bleak in the West. 5 if you want to count the Blazers.

And the Hawks in 2016 so from January on were the best defense in the entire league and by a pretty nice margin. That is a really good defensive team and Millsap and Horford the best defensive big pairing in the entire Association.

So yeah if the Cavs lit them up that should impress people--or it should be written off as unsustainable shooting numbers. But not because the Hawks weren't a really strong defense because they absolutely were.

[Nbafanatic]

Sincerely, I think you are lacking some context, here. First off, yes, the Hawks was the second ranked defense in the league playing 65% of their games against the mighty eastern conference. Second, the Thunder clearly started to up their defense in the San Antonio series, it was clear that their length and ridiculous recovery actions were getting into the mind of the Spurs players, as they started to pass up shots and being tentative... In a sense, it was 2012 all over again. I understand that Duncan and Manu decided to show their ages in the worst possible time, but the point still stands.

East had a better record against the West this year. And the West was very top heavy in terms of quality. Hawks had to face consistently better competition in the East this year. I mean get past the top 4 teams and its pretty bleak in the West. 5 if you want to count the Blazers.

And the Hawks in 2016 so from January on were the best defense in the entire league and by a pretty nice margin. That is a really good defensive team and Millsap and Horford the best defensive big pairing in the entire Association.

So yeah if the Cavs lit them up that should impress people--or it should be written off as unsustainable shooting numbers. But not because the Hawks weren't a really strong defense because they absolutely were.

I somewhat agree, but the point is that they didn't defend on the level the Thunder did against the Warriors or Spurs. And to be playing against 3 more title contenders opponents is harder than playing against 5 or 6 slightly better treadmill teams in the same conference, I'm sure you get my point. Lebron's ownage of Durant aside, I think the Thunder would be favorites against the Cavs playing the level of ball they were playing against the Warriors, but the Cavs would have a real chance, of course. Again: The Hawks were a good defense and I'm not trying to discredit them really, but they lacked the two strongest ingredients to make things tougher for Lebron: A good enough one on one defender and a true defensive anchor behind. The result of that was too much overhelping, open passing lanes and panic. The Cavs did a great job exploiting that, good for them.

And you're wrong, the west turned the tables at the end anyway, winning against the east.

[therealbig3]

LOL at saying the Thunder weren't a great defense.

Clearly, a focused Thunder were a dominant defense, and they proved that not just against GS, but against SA too.

[Doctor MJ]

Weren't there discussions about the Cavs being the all time great offense just a couple of weeks ago?

Perhaps but I personally was waiting until I saw Cleveland go against the West champ before I took it too seriously.

And again I don't want to imply I think the series is already over. Tomorrow could change everything...but I do think y'all understand why I'm bringing this stuff up.

The Hawks were the 2nd highest rated defense during the RS, and that series is when the Cavs offense really got going. The Cavs have never faced a bad defense the entire playoffs, while a team like the Warriors has played two bad ones and one mediocre one.

I understand that, but I think you can also understand the source of my skepticism here - which thus far seems quite prescient, no?

[mikejames23]

For the Spurs Offense - it dropped a totality of about 1 O-Rating, from 110 to 109. In regular season terms they would drop from 4th best to 5th best, right behind Toronto. So regardless of what we saw, it didn't have that drastic of an effect on the overall scheme of the Spurs O.

I agree w/ the gist of Heartbreakkid’s post. That is, even when the defense picks up, it’s not picking up a colossal amount like some of the other posts are implying. A team typically follows regular season trends closely.

[Doctor MJ]

For the Spurs Offense - it dropped a totality of about 1 O-Rating, from 110 to 109. In regular season terms they would drop from 4th best to 5th best, right behind Toronto. So regardless of what we saw, it didn't have that drastic of an effect on the overall scheme of the Spurs O.

I agree w/ the gist of Heartbreakkid’s post. That is, even when the defense picks up, it’s not picking up a colossal amount like some of the other posts are implying. A team typically follows regular season trends closely.

Right but the Spurs spent the season on cruise control. Aldridge played 57% of the team's minutes in the RS but 78% in the series.

As a point of comparison, back with the Nash Suns, they would really let him rest a lot in the regular season, and that was why when he was out there clicking in the playoffs the Suns offense put up numbers well beyond what would typically be called "GOAT levels". A team that goes all in in a series like that should be much stronger than they were in the regular season, and I think a lot of credit has to go to the Thunder for making the Spurs look worse despite this.

[mikejames23]

For the Spurs Offense - it dropped a totality of about 1 O-Rating, from 110 to 109. In regular season terms they would drop from 4th best to 5th best, right behind Toronto. So regardless of what we saw, it didn't have that drastic of an effect on the overall scheme of the Spurs O.

I agree w/ the gist of Heartbreakkid’s post. That is, even when the defense picks up, it’s not picking up a colossal amount like some of the other posts are implying. A team typically follows regular season trends closely.

Right but the Spurs spent the season on cruise control. Aldridge played 57% of the team's minutes in the RS but 78% in the series.

As a point of comparison, back with the Nash Suns, they would really let him rest a lot in the regular season, and that was why when he was out there clicking in the playoffs the Suns offense put up numbers well beyond what would typically be called "GOAT levels". A team that goes all in in a series like that should be much stronger than they were in the regular season, and I think a lot of credit has to go to the Thunder for making the Spurs look worse despite this.

Hmm, It's actually the defense that drops off from starting 5 to bench play for SA. The O-Rating is fairly predictable
http://cdn1.bloguin.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2016/04/Screenshot-2016-04-02-23.54.14-645x356.png

The season wasn't complete there but it's a very large sample size.

Good point nonetheless.

[KD35Brah]

For the Spurs Offense - it dropped a totality of about 1 O-Rating, from 110 to 109. In regular season terms they would drop from 4th best to 5th best, right behind Toronto. So regardless of what we saw, it didn't have that drastic of an effect on the overall scheme of the Spurs O.

I agree w/ the gist of Heartbreakkid’s post. That is, even when the defense picks up, it’s not picking up a colossal amount like some of the other posts are implying. A team typically follows regular season trends closely.

That is mostly because of the outrageous game 1 the Spurs played. 134 Ortg / .661 EFG%

After that they were at 104 Ortg throughout the next 5 games. 104 Ortg(would be bottom 4 in the league) / .469 eFG%

Obviously game 1 still counts, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Same thing with Aldridge in the 1st 2 games compared to the last 4.

[HeartBreakKid]

Yeah, you guys are right, let's assume the Thunder are now an all time great defense because they tried for a few games. Let's assume other teams that played comparable or better defense just isn't as good as the Thunder, there is zero bias behind that.

There is a ridiculous double standard here.

People are critiquing the Cavs for losing badly to an all time great team when they didn't have HCA during a post season where there were a ton of blow outs, INCLUDING the Warriors getting blown out.

But SOMEHOW, we're going to draw the conclusion that the Thunder >>> the Hawks on defense - when literally every objective measure would say otherwise.

You know what this really is? The Warriors won their series, therefore people will undermine that they actually underachieved in playing a team that won 18 games less than them. If the Warriors lost that series, which was very likely, who's offense would we be talking about not being that effective at this moment?


The fact is the Cav's offense were better tested against better defense in literally every round of the playoffs vs the Warriors. If we're going to critique the Cavs offense in the post season, then you have to challenge the Warriors...who struggled against inferior defenses.

The reason why I'm getting frustrated is because this is just blind conference bias. There is literally no logic behind implying the Thunder are a better defense than the Hawks, and you HAVE to pretty much imply that if you're questioning the Cavs offense and not the Warriors....

Give the Hawks and the Cavs credit where it is due instead of over analyzing a two game sample size.

[Texas Chuck]

HBK,

It's not even that. It's that basketball theory tells them you can build a better theoretical offense around Curry than you can Lebron so let's look at everything through that lens instead of looking at what's actually happening. I don't necessarily disagree that you could easier build an elite offense around some other players than Lebron, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at what's actually happening IRL.

[HeartBreakKid]

HBK,

It's not even that. It's that basketball theory tells them you can build a better theoretical offense around Curry than you can Lebron so let's look at everything through that lens instead of looking at what's actually happening. I don't necessarily disagree that you could easier build an elite offense around some other players than Lebron, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at what's actually happening IRL.

Curry was a better offensive player than James yes, maybe even in an all time sense.

But the question was brought up BECAUSE of what happened in this current series, which to me makes no sense - because in the playoff the Cavs were praised for their offense. If anything evidence would suggest that the Cavs actually have all time great offensive potential, we've sen glimpses of it in both seasons which would make the James criticism odd.

The question wasn't James vs Curry, it was more along the lines of could you have an all time great offense with James leading it and I think based on what we've seen, it seems likely.

[colts18]

Would anyone here not vote for Curry #1 if the Warriors win the series and he struggles? I could see myself voting LeBron or Draymond #1 in that scenario.

[HeartBreakKid]

Would anyone here not vote for Curry #1 if the Warriors win the series and he struggles? I could see myself voting LeBron or Draymond #1 in that scenario.

James hasn't been the bees knees either, though I thought he had a underrated game 1.

[therealbig3]

I had LeBron and Draymond ahead of Curry regardless of this series, unless Curry made them look awful, which clearly isn't happening.

[JordansBulls]

Would anyone here not vote for Curry #1 if the Warriors win the series and he struggles? I could see myself voting LeBron or Draymond #1 in that scenario.

Not sure how you could vote Lebron #1 if they lose when Curry was unanimous MVP and still would win the title no matter how bad he may have been. Not like Lebron is going thru the playoffs averaging 35 ppg or something like that. And Draymond really hasn't been all that great either. Probably a pick em between him, Klay and Steph in the playoffs.