'17-'18 POY discussion

[Outside]

Maybe the wording was too strong but he was clearly their best player in that match and GSW would not have won it without his hyperefficient ISO scoring.

Well yeah, but that one stands out because it was (1) on the road (2) not a complete blowout and (3) a match they'd have lost without him. It's hard to credit one player too much in 30+ point blowouts.

I can't go down these "they never would've won without him" hypotheticals. You make it sound like they would take away his scoring in that game and replace it with nothing. That's not how it works. Remove Durant from that game and whoever gets his minutes almost certainly doesn't score as much, but the others would take up the slack.

Game 1 vs Houston was one of the Warriors' best performances of the season. They moved the ball and had excellent flow on offense, had only 9 turnovers, and found a nice balance between getting everyone involved (24 assists) and taking advantage of Durant in mismatches. Harden got his, Paul had a nice game, but they limited the damage from the others. They played with confidence that they were the better team. They walked onto that court with a mission to take home court advantage and show the Rockets who was the better team in what most people considered the de facto finals, and they did exactly that. They all did it, and they did it together.

That is completely different from game 3 in the finals, where Steph and Klay couldn't get it going, no one else could get it going, and they would've been sunk without Durant's scoring. In game 3 of the finals, the Warriors didn't lead at all until the third quarter, and then only by a few points, and trailed with three minutes to go. In game 1 vs Houston, the Warriors got the lead in the second quarter, were tied at the half, trailed for less than a minute to start the third, and pulled away steadily with one of their third-quarter runs to lead by 17 going into the fourth.

In the Cleveland game, Durant shot 65.2%, and Klay/Steph combined shot 25.9%. In the Houston game, Durant shot 51.9%, and Klay/Steph combined shot 51.5%. In the Cleveland game, Durant had 43 points, 13 rebounds, and 7 assists; in the Houston game, he had 37/3/1. They just aren't comparable.

Alright I concede your point about game 1 in Houston. Let's change it to 'played a crucial role' in a the 7-game win over Houston being the team's leading scorer.

That said, can we agree it's unlikely they even get to WCF without Durant? With Curry sidelined, don't think GSW are any better than the Spurs without KD, would take Pop in that series. Don't think they beat the Pelicans either. It's not like 2017 where the Warriors only really needed KD in the Finals.

I don't see how you can justify KD out of the top 5; all the numbers and accolades seem to indicate he's top 5. Without him, the NBA champions might not even have got out of the first round. Historic Finals number is always an extra since it's the most important stage.

BTW, sorry if I was overly persistent about the Houston game. Hopefully it came across as congenial discussion, because that's how it was from my side.

Unfortunately, I can't agree that they don't get to the WCF without Durant. Again, the assumption seems to be that we eliminate Durant's production, replace it with little or nothing, and expect the same production from everyone else without Durant that they had with him. If they don't have Durant in this hypothetical, does that mean A) they never got him in the first place; B) had him in 2016-17 but didn't in 2017-18; C) had him in the 2017-18 RS but lost him in the PS; or D) something else? The outcome is so different based on the surrounding circumstances.

These guys were pretty good before Durant and got to the WCF with Curry being out for a similar amount of time to start the 2016 PS. The Spurs weren't beating the Warriors this year even if the Warriors don't have Durant and Curry is out. I'd take the 2018 Pelicans as the tougher opponent compared to the 2016 Blazers, but it's not a foregone conclusion to me that the Warriors without Durant lose to the Pelicans. Again, depends on which scenario above we're talking about.

As for Durant being in the top 5, I'm fine with that, but that's not likely where I end up. I don't use an actual formula, but I weight the PS pretty heavily -- 65/35 in favor of the RS, something like that. With that in mind, my top four are:

1. LeBron
2. Harden
3. Davis
4. Giannis

For the fifth spot, I'm considering Oladipo, Durant, and Curry, but I'm leaning toward Curry.

Oladipo had a great season, but he had a chance to lead his team over the Cavs when they were at their most vulnerable, and he couldn't get it done. He really struggled in games 3-5 when they could've put the Cavs away.

I also think it would be odd to not include anyone from the champs in the top 5, especially when my definition of POY is who is most impactful in helping their team win. "Win" means RS games, but also PS games, and in partcular, the title. It's not that winning the title guarantees that team a spot at the top of the POY list, but it sure gives that team a leg up on making the top 5.

So, Durant vs Curry. I can see a case for both. Despite the missed games, I'm going with Curry because his direct production is really good, he's the engine of the team who provides significantly more secondary benefit to the other players, and they play their best when Curry is on a roll. The argument for Durant is based on comparing their direct production. The argument for Curry is based on comparing their direct production and secondary impact.

Maybe I need to take a harder look at Giannis and Davis and whether I should bump one of them out so that I can fit both Curry and Durant in the top 5, but I'm not going to do that just to arrive at an agenda-driven result. Davis and Giannis were both really good in the RS and the PS, so I'm inclined to leave them where they are, and something in my assessment would need to change to knock them out of their current spots.

For Curry and Durant, this is kind of the deal they made -- fewer individual accolades in return for winning titles together. I think they're okay with that choice.

[iggymcfrack]

Regular season on/off
Oladipo: +14.3
Curry: +13.0
Durant: +6.8

Postseason on/off
Oladipo: +19.7
Durant: +10.8
Curry: +4.3

Don’t think it’s fair to criticize Oladipo for not getting past the Cavs. When he was on the floor the Pacers basically performed as well the Warriors did against Cleveland. They just got dominated whenever he was on the bench.

[dhsilv2]

By what metric was Curry "night and day" better than Durant in the regular season? He only played 51 games.

The only players that were objectively better than Durant in the regular season were James, Harden and Davis. The only playeR that was better in the playoffs was James.

"Nice" playoffs is a funny way of qualifying one of the greatest playoff scoring runs in NBA history, and he tacked on 8 boards and 4 dimes a night for good measure. His WS/48 and BPM were better in the playoffs.

I mean, are you looking at Durant's numbers on the season in a larger context or are you just assuming they're not as good as they actually are and taking them for granted?

Well the default stat we all look at is RPM to get a feel for the player. He was 24th. He played 68 games so while he played more than curry, he wasn't an iron man. WINS from RPM gets KD to 22nd so even if we adjust for minutes and get out some lower minute guys, no reason to think KD was a top 10 guy yet. Moving to box score metrics to see where KD sits. He's 12th and essentially tied with Dipo in VORP. He makes it to 9th in WS. 10th in WS/48 once we clear out some noise. 12th in BPM.

I see zero reason to think KD was a top 5 regular season player. I don't see a reason to move him over Ben Simmons for regular season play only. Sure I agree that his playoffs were worth upgrading that status but you're asking me to move him up a lot here. Not just a few places.

RPM puts LeBron 12th. So LeBron's playoffs was enough to move him up 11 spots to #1 but Durant's playoffs wasn't enough to move him up more than a few places? Did Robert Covington have the 8th best regular season in the league? That's what RPM is telling us.

As for the other advanced stats you're just splitting hairs. His VORP was 4.5 compared to 5.6 for 5th place. His WS/48 was .215 to .230 for 6th place. He was 6th in the league in PER, 6th in ppg, 7th in "ESPN rating", 9th in NBA's PIE, 10th in TS%, 12th in Net RTG. He was in the top 10 or close to it for literally everything outside of RPM, which, not only do I have issues with using as an end-all-be-all, but also ranks everyone's #1 POY 12th.

All of this is on top of the Warriors coasting for significant stretches, them missing key parts of their rotation for the entire year, and Durant being asked to do about as much as anyone else in the league on both sides of the ball.

Even if you give him 10th best regular season, he had the 2nd best postseason (which I would have to give more weight) and won Finals MVP on the best team in the league. That, to me, is a better season than everyone but LeBron, Harden and MAYBE Davis.

No stat tells us or tires to tell us who is x level good. You're misusing RPM if you use it that way. Covington is among the best defensive players in the league however so making a case he's a top 15 player isn't hard to do. KD's RPM gives me reason to be suspect in his box score metrics (which as we covered don't justify him in the top 5). This matches the eye test that KD is a ball stopper and the talk of his defense is very much overrated.

As for playoffs, there's really no comparison between KD and Lebon for playoff performances. That said you keep going back to scoring and if that is really your reason for KD being so high, we're not likely to see eye to eye. Scoring is a far lower value event than most fans seem to think of it as.

[ztejas]

Well the default stat we all look at is RPM to get a feel for the player. He was 24th. He played 68 games so while he played more than curry, he wasn't an iron man. WINS from RPM gets KD to 22nd so even if we adjust for minutes and get out some lower minute guys, no reason to think KD was a top 10 guy yet. Moving to box score metrics to see where KD sits. He's 12th and essentially tied with Dipo in VORP. He makes it to 9th in WS. 10th in WS/48 once we clear out some noise. 12th in BPM.

I see zero reason to think KD was a top 5 regular season player. I don't see a reason to move him over Ben Simmons for regular season play only. Sure I agree that his playoffs were worth upgrading that status but you're asking me to move him up a lot here. Not just a few places.

RPM puts LeBron 12th. So LeBron's playoffs was enough to move him up 11 spots to #1 but Durant's playoffs wasn't enough to move him up more than a few places? Did Robert Covington have the 8th best regular season in the league? That's what RPM is telling us.

As for the other advanced stats you're just splitting hairs. His VORP was 4.5 compared to 5.6 for 5th place. His WS/48 was .215 to .230 for 6th place. He was 6th in the league in PER, 6th in ppg, 7th in "ESPN rating", 9th in NBA's PIE, 10th in TS%, 12th in Net RTG. He was in the top 10 or close to it for literally everything outside of RPM, which, not only do I have issues with using as an end-all-be-all, but also ranks everyone's #1 POY 12th.

All of this is on top of the Warriors coasting for significant stretches, them missing key parts of their rotation for the entire year, and Durant being asked to do about as much as anyone else in the league on both sides of the ball.

Even if you give him 10th best regular season, he had the 2nd best postseason (which I would have to give more weight) and won Finals MVP on the best team in the league. That, to me, is a better season than everyone but LeBron, Harden and MAYBE Davis.

No stat tells us or tires to tell us who is x level good. You're misusing RPM if you use it that way. Covington is among the best defensive players in the league however so making a case he's a top 15 player isn't hard to do. KD's RPM gives me reason to be suspect in his box score metrics (which as we covered don't justify him in the top 5). This matches the eye test that KD is a ball stopper and the talk of his defense is very much overrated.

As for playoffs, there's really no comparison between KD and Lebon for playoff performances. That said you keep going back to scoring and if that is really your reason for KD being so high, we're not likely to see eye to eye. Scoring is a far lower value event than most fans seem to think of it as.

Scoring is literally, by the rules of the game, the HIGHEST value a player can provide. You have to SCORE more points than the other team to win. If you score more points per possession than the other team then you win the game. You can't win just by playing defense and passing the ball. All of the GOATs were efficient volume scorers when they needed to be except for Russell who played in an era that isn't even relatable to today's game.

And honestly, if you think ROCO is anywhere near one of the 15 best players in the league I think I'm done with our discussion. Cheers.

[Outside]

Regular season on/off
Oladipo: +14.3
Curry: +13.0
Durant: +6.8

Postseason on/off
Oladipo: +19.7
Durant: +10.8
Curry: +4.3

Don’t think it’s fair to criticize Oladipo for not getting past the Cavs. When he was on the floor the Pacers basically performed as well the Warriors did against Cleveland. They just got dominated whenever he was on the bench.

On/off for an entire postseason run is problematic enough when it comes to the top guys because the off portion is so small for guys who play heavy minutes and everything can be skewed by blowouts and garbage time.

What I specifically called out for Oladipo was games 3-5.

Game 3 (92-90 Pacers) - 18 pts, 6 reb, 7 ast, 3 stl, 5 tov, 5-15 FG, 1-8 3PT, 48.6 TS%
Game 4 (104-100 Cavs) - 17 pts, 6 reb, 5 ast, 0 stl, 3 tov, 5-20 FG, 3-8 3PT, 38.3 TS%
Game 5 (98-95 Cavs) - 12 pts, 12 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 2 tov, 2-15 FG, 1-7 3PT, 31.6 TS%

Indiana went into game 3 tied 1-1 with the Cavs. Indiana lost two of those three, and the only game they won was when Bogdanovic went off for 30. The Cavs were ready to fall, and Oladipo put up three really poor shooting games in a row. If they win two of those three, they're set up to close out the series at home in game 6. That's no guarantee facing LeBron, but this was the Cavs at their postseason worst. The Pacers relied on Oladipo to lead them in scoring, this was his chance to step up and announce his presence among the league's elite players on the postseason stage, and he didn't get it done.

Oladipo is a fine player who had a great breakout season, and he's the biggest reason the Pacers exceeded expectations. But we're talking about POY here. At the end of the RS, I had Oladipo in 5th. After the PS, I have him in 7th. I'm not saying he's trash. He had good games in the Cleveland series. But when we're talking POY and I'm assessing a guy who had a chance to knock LeBron and Cavs out, the fact is that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.

[Joey Wheeler]

I can't go down these "they never would've won without him" hypotheticals. You make it sound like they would take away his scoring in that game and replace it with nothing. That's not how it works. Remove Durant from that game and whoever gets his minutes almost certainly doesn't score as much, but the others would take up the slack.

Game 1 vs Houston was one of the Warriors' best performances of the season. They moved the ball and had excellent flow on offense, had only 9 turnovers, and found a nice balance between getting everyone involved (24 assists) and taking advantage of Durant in mismatches. Harden got his, Paul had a nice game, but they limited the damage from the others. They played with confidence that they were the better team. They walked onto that court with a mission to take home court advantage and show the Rockets who was the better team in what most people considered the de facto finals, and they did exactly that. They all did it, and they did it together.

That is completely different from game 3 in the finals, where Steph and Klay couldn't get it going, no one else could get it going, and they would've been sunk without Durant's scoring. In game 3 of the finals, the Warriors didn't lead at all until the third quarter, and then only by a few points, and trailed with three minutes to go. In game 1 vs Houston, the Warriors got the lead in the second quarter, were tied at the half, trailed for less than a minute to start the third, and pulled away steadily with one of their third-quarter runs to lead by 17 going into the fourth.

In the Cleveland game, Durant shot 65.2%, and Klay/Steph combined shot 25.9%. In the Houston game, Durant shot 51.9%, and Klay/Steph combined shot 51.5%. In the Cleveland game, Durant had 43 points, 13 rebounds, and 7 assists; in the Houston game, he had 37/3/1. They just aren't comparable.

Alright I concede your point about game 1 in Houston. Let's change it to 'played a crucial role' in a the 7-game win over Houston being the team's leading scorer.

That said, can we agree it's unlikely they even get to WCF without Durant? With Curry sidelined, don't think GSW are any better than the Spurs without KD, would take Pop in that series. Don't think they beat the Pelicans either. It's not like 2017 where the Warriors only really needed KD in the Finals.

I don't see how you can justify KD out of the top 5; all the numbers and accolades seem to indicate he's top 5. Without him, the NBA champions might not even have got out of the first round. Historic Finals number is always an extra since it's the most important stage.

BTW, sorry if I was overly persistent about the Houston game. Hopefully it came across as congenial discussion, because that's how it was from my side.

Unfortunately, I can't agree that they don't get to the WCF without Durant. Again, the assumption seems to be that we eliminate Durant's production, replace it with little or nothing, and expect the same production from everyone else without Durant that they had with him. If they don't have Durant in this hypothetical, does that mean A) they never got him in the first place; B) had him in 2016-17 but didn't in 2017-18; C) had him in the 2017-18 RS but lost him in the PS; or D) something else? The outcome is so different based on the surrounding circumstances.

These guys were pretty good before Durant and got to the WCF with Curry being out for a similar amount of time to start the 2016 PS. The Spurs weren't beating the Warriors this year even if the Warriors don't have Durant and Curry is out. I'd take the 2018 Pelicans as the tougher opponent compared to the 2016 Blazers, but it's not a foregone conclusion to me that the Warriors without Durant lose to the Pelicans. Again, depends on which scenario above we're talking about.

As for Durant being in the top 5, I'm fine with that, but that's not likely where I end up. I don't use an actual formula, but I weight the PS pretty heavily -- 65/35 in favor of the RS, something like that. With that in mind, my top four are:

1. LeBron
2. Harden
3. Davis
4. Giannis

For the fifth spot, I'm considering Oladipo, Durant, and Curry, but I'm leaning toward Curry.

Oladipo had a great season, but he had a chance to lead his team over the Cavs when they were at their most vulnerable, and he couldn't get it done. He really struggled in games 3-5 when they could've put the Cavs away.

I also think it would be odd to not include anyone from the champs in the top 5, especially when my definition of POY is who is most impactful in helping their team win. "Win" means RS games, but also PS games, and in partcular, the title. It's not that winning the title guarantees that team a spot at the top of the POY list, but it sure gives that team a leg up on making the top 5.

So, Durant vs Curry. I can see a case for both. Despite the missed games, I'm going with Curry because his direct production is really good, he's the engine of the team who provides significantly more secondary benefit to the other players, and they play their best when Curry is on a roll. The argument for Durant is based on comparing their direct production. The argument for Curry is based on comparing their direct production and secondary impact.

Maybe I need to take a harder look at Giannis and Davis and whether I should bump one of them out so that I can fit both Curry and Durant in the top 5, but I'm not going to do that just to arrive at an agenda-driven result. Davis and Giannis were both really good in the RS and the PS, so I'm inclined to leave them where they are, and something in my assessment would need to change to knock them out of their current spots.

For Curry and Durant, this is kind of the deal they made -- fewer individual accolades in return for winning titles together. I think they're okay with that choice.

Don't worry, the Houston game reference was just part of a larger point but if you did disagree with it it's fine to argue and we ended up agreeing anyway, so it's all good.

I don't know how you can be so sure Klay/Draymond + very little depth would beat the Spurs. This is not 2016, in order to acquire Durant GSW had to really gut their depth. Sans Durant and Curry, don't think they're any better than the Spurs team that showed up in the playoffs, they could easily lose such a series. Take the scenario where KD is replaced by an average starter, regardless of the reason why; I'd take the Spurs in such a series, I'd also take the Pelicans with Curry being rusty after his long time off. In any case, no way do they win the Rockets series.

Your argument for Curry over Durant is true for the RS, but Curry missed basically half the season. In the postseason it just doesn't hold up though, everything suggests Durant was more impactful and lineups with him and no Curry fared better than the other way round. Durant led the postseason in plus/minus by a lot... nothing really suggests Curry had better 'secondary impact' this postseason, well on the contrary. Though I do grant you that pre-2018 playoffs that argument held up strongly.

[Outside]

Don't worry, the Houston game reference was just part of a larger point but if you did disagree with it it's fine to argue and we ended up agreeing anyway, so it's all good.

I figured as much, but I've found that it helps to ask the question and make sure my posts are being received as intended. Thanks for the discussion

I don't know how you can be so sure Klay/Draymond + very little depth would beat the Spurs. This is not 2016, in order to acquire Durant GSW had to really gut their depth. Sans Durant and Curry, don't think they're any better than the Spurs team that showed up in the playoffs, they could easily lose such a series. Take the scenario where KD is replaced by an average starter, regardless of the reason why; I'd take the Spurs in such a series, I'd also take the Pelicans with Curry being rusty after his long time off. In any case, no way do they win the Rockets series.

Again, it matters which scenario we're talking about without Durant, and it sounds like you're replacing him with an "average starter" while also expecting everyone else's production to stay the same. I don't think that's how it goes.

The Spurs staggered into the PS, coming within a game of missing the playoffs altogether. They weren't a very good team this year. I don't see how the Warriors without Durant lose to them under pretty much any scenario.

Your argument for Curry over Durant is true for the RS, but Curry missed basically half the season. In the postseason it just doesn't hold up though, everything suggests Durant was more impactful and lineups with him and no Curry fared better than the other way round. Durant led the postseason in plus/minus by a lot... nothing really suggests Curry had better 'secondary impact' this postseason, well on the contrary. Though I do grant you that pre-2018 playoffs that argument held up strongly.

To nitpick on another fact (sorry), Curry missed 7 of 21 games, which is a third of the PS, not half.

I agree Durant was better than Curry in the PS overall, but in several games of the WCF and the first game of the finals, the opponent's strategy was to lure the Warriors into Durant isolations which disrupted the Warriors' offensive flow, in particular their quality three-point opportunities that result from their ball and player motion. That meant Durant had to make those isolation twos at an extremely high rate to match the Warriors normal points per possession, which sometimes he did but sometimes he didn't. Luring the Warriors into Durant isolations boosted Durant's scoring, but it also almost cost the Warriors the WCF.

I'll take Durant overall over Curry in the PS considering the games Curry missed and the rust he had to shake off once he got back, but it's not as if Durant didn't have negatives or that his high-volume scoring was unequivocably a plus. In his top 10 scoring games in the PS, Durant was +34 and the Warriors were 6-4. In the other 11 games when he scored the fewest points, Durant was +176 and the Warriors were 10-1.

I'm not putting all of that on Durant. In some of those games, the rest of the team had an off game and settled too easily for Durant isos, but I do think it's clear that the Warriors are at their best when the ball moves and scoring is distributed as opposed to games when they lean too much on Durant iso action.

[dhsilv2]

RPM puts LeBron 12th. So LeBron's playoffs was enough to move him up 11 spots to #1 but Durant's playoffs wasn't enough to move him up more than a few places? Did Robert Covington have the 8th best regular season in the league? That's what RPM is telling us.

As for the other advanced stats you're just splitting hairs. His VORP was 4.5 compared to 5.6 for 5th place. His WS/48 was .215 to .230 for 6th place. He was 6th in the league in PER, 6th in ppg, 7th in "ESPN rating", 9th in NBA's PIE, 10th in TS%, 12th in Net RTG. He was in the top 10 or close to it for literally everything outside of RPM, which, not only do I have issues with using as an end-all-be-all, but also ranks everyone's #1 POY 12th.

All of this is on top of the Warriors coasting for significant stretches, them missing key parts of their rotation for the entire year, and Durant being asked to do about as much as anyone else in the league on both sides of the ball.

Even if you give him 10th best regular season, he had the 2nd best postseason (which I would have to give more weight) and won Finals MVP on the best team in the league. That, to me, is a better season than everyone but LeBron, Harden and MAYBE Davis.

No stat tells us or tires to tell us who is x level good. You're misusing RPM if you use it that way. Covington is among the best defensive players in the league however so making a case he's a top 15 player isn't hard to do. KD's RPM gives me reason to be suspect in his box score metrics (which as we covered don't justify him in the top 5). This matches the eye test that KD is a ball stopper and the talk of his defense is very much overrated.

As for playoffs, there's really no comparison between KD and Lebon for playoff performances. That said you keep going back to scoring and if that is really your reason for KD being so high, we're not likely to see eye to eye. Scoring is a far lower value event than most fans seem to think of it as.

Scoring is literally, by the rules of the game, the HIGHEST value a player can provide. You have to SCORE more points than the other team to win. If you score more points per possession than the other team then you win the game. You can't win just by playing defense and passing the ball. All of the GOATs were efficient volume scorers when they needed to be except for Russell who played in an era that isn't even relatable to today's game.

And honestly, if you think ROCO is anywhere near one of the 15 best players in the league I think I'm done with our discussion. Cheers.

If you don't think defense can have the same impact as scoring, I think you need to do more analysis.

What is an ROCO?

[clyde21]

No stat tells us or tires to tell us who is x level good. You're misusing RPM if you use it that way. Covington is among the best defensive players in the league however so making a case he's a top 15 player isn't hard to do. KD's RPM gives me reason to be suspect in his box score metrics (which as we covered don't justify him in the top 5). This matches the eye test that KD is a ball stopper and the talk of his defense is very much overrated.

As for playoffs, there's really no comparison between KD and Lebon for playoff performances. That said you keep going back to scoring and if that is really your reason for KD being so high, we're not likely to see eye to eye. Scoring is a far lower value event than most fans seem to think of it as.

Scoring is literally, by the rules of the game, the HIGHEST value a player can provide. You have to SCORE more points than the other team to win. If you score more points per possession than the other team then you win the game. You can't win just by playing defense and passing the ball. All of the GOATs were efficient volume scorers when they needed to be except for Russell who played in an era that isn't even relatable to today's game.

And honestly, if you think ROCO is anywhere near one of the 15 best players in the league I think I'm done with our discussion. Cheers.

If you don't think defense can have the same impact as scoring, I think you need to do more analysis.

What is an ROCO?

Robert Covington

[dhsilv2]

Scoring is literally, by the rules of the game, the HIGHEST value a player can provide. You have to SCORE more points than the other team to win. If you score more points per possession than the other team then you win the game. You can't win just by playing defense and passing the ball. All of the GOATs were efficient volume scorers when they needed to be except for Russell who played in an era that isn't even relatable to today's game.

And honestly, if you think ROCO is anywhere near one of the 15 best players in the league I think I'm done with our discussion. Cheers.

If you don't think defense can have the same impact as scoring, I think you need to do more analysis.

What is an ROCO?

Robert Covington

Gotcha, I was thinking that but I figured I'd ask. I watched 30+ 76er games and that was a new one for me.

[iggymcfrack]

Regular season on/off
Oladipo: +14.3
Curry: +13.0
Durant: +6.8

Postseason on/off
Oladipo: +19.7
Durant: +10.8
Curry: +4.3

Don’t think it’s fair to criticize Oladipo for not getting past the Cavs. When he was on the floor the Pacers basically performed as well the Warriors did against Cleveland. They just got dominated whenever he was on the bench.

On/off for an entire postseason run is problematic enough when it comes to the top guys because the off portion is so small for guys who play heavy minutes and everything can be skewed by blowouts and garbage time.

What I specifically called out for Oladipo was games 3-5.

Game 3 (92-90 Pacers) - 18 pts, 6 reb, 7 ast, 3 stl, 5 tov, 5-15 FG, 1-8 3PT, 48.6 TS%
Game 4 (104-100 Cavs) - 17 pts, 6 reb, 5 ast, 0 stl, 3 tov, 5-20 FG, 3-8 3PT, 38.3 TS%
Game 5 (98-95 Cavs) - 12 pts, 12 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 2 tov, 2-15 FG, 1-7 3PT, 31.6 TS%

Indiana went into game 3 tied 1-1 with the Cavs. Indiana lost two of those three, and the only game they won was when Bogdanovic went off for 30. The Cavs were ready to fall, and Oladipo put up three really poor shooting games in a row. If they win two of those three, they're set up to close out the series at home in game 6. That's no guarantee facing LeBron, but this was the Cavs at their postseason worst. The Pacers relied on Oladipo to lead them in scoring, this was his chance to step up and announce his presence among the league's elite players on the postseason stage, and he didn't get it done.

Oladipo is a fine player who had a great breakout season, and he's the biggest reason the Pacers exceeded expectations. But we're talking about POY here. At the end of the RS, I had Oladipo in 5th. After the PS, I have him in 7th. I'm not saying he's trash. He had good games in the Cleveland series. But when we're talking POY and I'm assessing a guy who had a chance to knock LeBron and Cavs out, the fact is that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.

Ok, that’s 3 bad games where he still contributed by playing good D. What about the other 4?

Game 1: 32/6/4/4, 11/19 FG, 6/9 from 3
Game 2: 22/3/6/2, 9/18 FG, 2/8 from 3 in 28 minutes
Game 6: 28/13/10/4, 11/19 FG, 6/8 from 3
Game 7: 30/12/6/3, 10/21 FG, 4/9 from 3

Defensively, he contributed every game. Offensively, he came up huge in 3 games and played good enough to give them a chance to win 2 more games. If McMillan would have not been an idiot and sat him the whole first quarter of Game 2, they win the game and probably the series. If LeBron misses a buzzer beater, they win the series. If he had one other player on his team close to as good as the 4th best player on the Warriors, they win the series. Overall, I think Oladipo played very well in the playoffs. I think his playoffs were clearly better than Curry on a per game basis, and about on the same level as Durant’s.

[Missing Rings]

Scoring is literally, by the rules of the game, the HIGHEST value a player can provide.

No it isn't. If this were the case we should not do any player analysis and give the top scorer the MVP every season. Players can provide more value (many basketball people use the term impact) to the basketball court in different ways. Draymond Green is a better basketball player than Nikola Vucevic for example.

You have to SCORE more points than the other team to win. If you score more points per possession than the other team then you win the game.

You can generate points (and net points) for your team by doing things other than score. If you steal the ball and pass it to your teammate for an open lay-up, who is producing those points?

You can't win just by playing defense and passing the ball.

You can't win by only scoring and not passing or playing defense. In fact, all championship teams have been able to do all 3.

All of the GOATs were efficient volume scorers when they needed to be except for Russell who played in an era that isn't even relatable to today's game.

The actually GOATS did a lot more than Kevin Durant.

[Missing Rings]

Scoring is literally, by the rules of the game, the HIGHEST value a player can provide.

No it isn't. If this were the case we should not do any player analysis and give the top scorer the MVP every season. Players can provide more value (many basketball people use the term impact) to the basketball court in different ways. Draymond Green is a better basketball player than Nikola Vucevic for example.

You have to SCORE more points than the other team to win. If you score more points per possession than the other team then you win the game.

You can generate points (and net points) for your team by doing things other than score. If you steal the ball and pass it to your teammate for an open lay-up, who is producing those points?

You can't win just by playing defense and passing the ball.

You can't win by only scoring and not passing or playing defense. In fact, all championship teams have been able to do all 3.

All of the GOATs were efficient volume scorers when they needed to be except for Russell who played in an era that isn't even relatable to today's game.

The actually GOATS did a lot more than Kevin Durant.

[Outside]

Regular season on/off
Oladipo: +14.3
Curry: +13.0
Durant: +6.8

Postseason on/off
Oladipo: +19.7
Durant: +10.8
Curry: +4.3

Don’t think it’s fair to criticize Oladipo for not getting past the Cavs. When he was on the floor the Pacers basically performed as well the Warriors did against Cleveland. They just got dominated whenever he was on the bench.

On/off for an entire postseason run is problematic enough when it comes to the top guys because the off portion is so small for guys who play heavy minutes and everything can be skewed by blowouts and garbage time.

What I specifically called out for Oladipo was games 3-5.

Game 3 (92-90 Pacers) - 18 pts, 6 reb, 7 ast, 3 stl, 5 tov, 5-15 FG, 1-8 3PT, 48.6 TS%
Game 4 (104-100 Cavs) - 17 pts, 6 reb, 5 ast, 0 stl, 3 tov, 5-20 FG, 3-8 3PT, 38.3 TS%
Game 5 (98-95 Cavs) - 12 pts, 12 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 2 tov, 2-15 FG, 1-7 3PT, 31.6 TS%

Indiana went into game 3 tied 1-1 with the Cavs. Indiana lost two of those three, and the only game they won was when Bogdanovic went off for 30. The Cavs were ready to fall, and Oladipo put up three really poor shooting games in a row. If they win two of those three, they're set up to close out the series at home in game 6. That's no guarantee facing LeBron, but this was the Cavs at their postseason worst. The Pacers relied on Oladipo to lead them in scoring, this was his chance to step up and announce his presence among the league's elite players on the postseason stage, and he didn't get it done.

Oladipo is a fine player who had a great breakout season, and he's the biggest reason the Pacers exceeded expectations. But we're talking about POY here. At the end of the RS, I had Oladipo in 5th. After the PS, I have him in 7th. I'm not saying he's trash. He had good games in the Cleveland series. But when we're talking POY and I'm assessing a guy who had a chance to knock LeBron and Cavs out, the fact is that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.

Ok, that’s 3 bad games where he still contributed by playing good D. What about the other 4?

Game 1: 32/6/4/4, 11/19 FG, 6/9 from 3
Game 2: 22/3/6/2, 9/18 FG, 2/8 from 3 in 28 minutes
Game 6: 28/13/10/4, 11/19 FG, 6/8 from 3
Game 7: 30/12/6/3, 10/21 FG, 4/9 from 3

Defensively, he contributed every game. Offensively, he came up huge in 3 games and played good enough to give them a chance to win 2 more games. If McMillan would have not been an idiot and sat him the whole first quarter of Game 2, they win the game and probably the series. If LeBron misses a buzzer beater, they win the series. If he had one other player on his team close to as good as the 4th best player on the Warriors, they win the series. Overall, I think Oladipo played very well in the playoffs. I think his playoffs were clearly better than Curry on a per game basis, and about on the same level as Durant’s.

I'm not saying Oladipo was terrible. I'm saying he had three poor offensive games out of seven. We're talking about assessing him on the POY ranking. After four good games and three bad ones, I dropped him from fifth to seventh. James Harden had pretty good averages too, but after doing poorly in several games in the WCF, particularly the second halves of games 6 and 7 when his team needed him most, I dropped him from first to second. That seems reasonable.

As for the part bolded above, I don't see how you can make that claim. It's a lot harder to perform at a high level over multiple rounds of the playoffs. Here are their stats.

http://bkref.com/tiny/O5Pjw

[iggymcfrack]

On/off for an entire postseason run is problematic enough when it comes to the top guys because the off portion is so small for guys who play heavy minutes and everything can be skewed by blowouts and garbage time.

What I specifically called out for Oladipo was games 3-5.

Game 3 (92-90 Pacers) - 18 pts, 6 reb, 7 ast, 3 stl, 5 tov, 5-15 FG, 1-8 3PT, 48.6 TS%
Game 4 (104-100 Cavs) - 17 pts, 6 reb, 5 ast, 0 stl, 3 tov, 5-20 FG, 3-8 3PT, 38.3 TS%
Game 5 (98-95 Cavs) - 12 pts, 12 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 2 tov, 2-15 FG, 1-7 3PT, 31.6 TS%

Indiana went into game 3 tied 1-1 with the Cavs. Indiana lost two of those three, and the only game they won was when Bogdanovic went off for 30. The Cavs were ready to fall, and Oladipo put up three really poor shooting games in a row. If they win two of those three, they're set up to close out the series at home in game 6. That's no guarantee facing LeBron, but this was the Cavs at their postseason worst. The Pacers relied on Oladipo to lead them in scoring, this was his chance to step up and announce his presence among the league's elite players on the postseason stage, and he didn't get it done.

Oladipo is a fine player who had a great breakout season, and he's the biggest reason the Pacers exceeded expectations. But we're talking about POY here. At the end of the RS, I had Oladipo in 5th. After the PS, I have him in 7th. I'm not saying he's trash. He had good games in the Cleveland series. But when we're talking POY and I'm assessing a guy who had a chance to knock LeBron and Cavs out, the fact is that he didn't take advantage of that opportunity.

Ok, that’s 3 bad games where he still contributed by playing good D. What about the other 4?

Game 1: 32/6/4/4, 11/19 FG, 6/9 from 3
Game 2: 22/3/6/2, 9/18 FG, 2/8 from 3 in 28 minutes
Game 6: 28/13/10/4, 11/19 FG, 6/8 from 3
Game 7: 30/12/6/3, 10/21 FG, 4/9 from 3

Defensively, he contributed every game. Offensively, he came up huge in 3 games and played good enough to give them a chance to win 2 more games. If McMillan would have not been an idiot and sat him the whole first quarter of Game 2, they win the game and probably the series. If LeBron misses a buzzer beater, they win the series. If he had one other player on his team close to as good as the 4th best player on the Warriors, they win the series. Overall, I think Oladipo played very well in the playoffs. I think his playoffs were clearly better than Curry on a per game basis, and about on the same level as Durant’s.

I'm not saying Oladipo was terrible. I'm saying he had three poor offensive games out of seven. We're talking about assessing him on the POY ranking. After four good games and three bad ones, I dropped him from fifth to seventh. James Harden had pretty good averages too, but after doing poorly in several games in the WCF, particularly the second halves of games 6 and 7 when his team needed him most, I dropped him from first to second. That seems reasonable.

As for the part bolded above, I don't see how you can make that claim. It's a lot harder to perform at a high level over multiple rounds of the playoffs. Here are their stats.

http://bkref.com/tiny/O5Pjw

Both Oladipo and Durant held pretty close to their regular season averages in the playoffs while Curry’s took a major dip. If you compare Oladipo and Durant, Durant has a little higher ORPM meaning that the impact metrics acknowledge Durant’s a little better offensively and should have slightly better numbers, but Oladipo still crushed him overall in RPM due to his superior defense.

As for it being easier to maintain higher playoff numbers over more rounds, that may be true if you’re having abnormally high numbers over a short sample or if the one playing more rounds is facing tougher competition as the playoffs go on. In this case however, both players were just maintaining their regular season averages, and the team Durant faced in the Finals is the same team Oladipo faced in the first round so Durant’s “disadvantage” is minimal. Just giving KD blanket extra credit for going extra rounds is just rewarding him for joining a superteam in the first place.

[iggymcfrack]

Let's talk about some of the other awards for a while as I'm getting a little sick of the Oladipo/Durant/Curry debate. How about Coach of the Year? I feel like Stevens has first locked up by a country mile, but from there on out, it gets a little more interesting.

D'Antoni probably got more out of playing "his system" through the regular season than anyone but Stevens, leading them to a franchise record 65 wins along the way. Then the playoffs come around and he sticks with "his system" of playing super short rotations in the postseason, even though one of his stars is an incredibly injury-prone 33 year old, and the other has notoriously struggled with fatigue in the playoffs and is being targeted defensively every single play, making him even more tired. Then Paul gets hurt, Harden disappears the entire second half of Game 7, and the team as a whole has such dead legs that they miss 27 threes in a row. Isn't that kind of on him? Couldn't he have found a few minutes for Ryan Anderson each game when Curry was on the bench? Isn't giving Gerald Green 25 MPG instead of 18 better than running all his starters into the ground? I just think it's interesting because this is probably the only situation where a coaching award is given for the regular season and postseason combined, and I do feel like D'Antoni made some mistakes in that series that may have cost them the championship. At the same time, however, very few coaches even get them that close, and the mistakes he made were small and far from insurmountable.

Going into the postseason, I would have had Stevens and D'Antoni a clear 1 and 2. Now I think I wanna slide Popovich up to the 2 spot. He's really the only reason that team managed to win 47 games and make the playoffs. The talent on that roster is almost like Cleveland without LeBron. If he and D'Antoni were to meet in the playoffs, it's a clear mismatch and not in D'Antoni's favorite. So then, it's a question of the 3rd slot. The only other real contender I like for the 3rd spot is Quinn Snyder. Casey let his team fall apart in 4 games and got justifiably fired. Brett Brown was completely overmatched by Stevens and lost in 5 with superior talent due to getting outcoached. With Synder, all appearances are that he's good at his job, but I'm just not confident on the level of impact that he's having the same way I am with Stevens or Pop or even D'Antoni. If Gobert takes another month to come back from injury, he probably misses the playoffs. I think right now I'd go:

1. Stevens
2. Popovich
3. D'Antoni

I'm very open to arguments though, and that 3rd spot is far from set in stone. I was kind of figuring it out as I was writing it actually. Anyone have strong feelings that Snyder is smarter and more of a difference maker than MDA?

[therealbig3]

Let's talk about some of the other awards for a while as I'm getting a little sick of the Oladipo/Durant/Curry debate. How about Coach of the Year? I feel like Stevens has first locked up by a country mile, but from there on out, it gets a little more interesting.

D'Antoni probably got more out of playing "his system" through the regular season than anyone but Stevens, leading them to a franchise record 65 wins along the way. Then the playoffs come around and he sticks with "his system" of playing super short rotations in the postseason, even though one of his stars is an incredibly injury-prone 33 year old, and the other has notoriously struggled with fatigue in the playoffs and is being targeted defensively every single play, making him even more tired. Then Paul gets hurt, Harden disappears the entire second half of Game 7, and the team as a whole has such dead legs that they miss 27 threes in a row. Isn't that kind of on him? Couldn't he have found a few minutes for Ryan Anderson each game when Curry was on the bench? Isn't giving Gerald Green 25 MPG instead of 18 better than running all his starters into the ground? I just think it's interesting because this is probably the only situation where a coaching award is given for the regular season and postseason combined, and I do feel like D'Antoni made some mistakes in that series that may have cost them the championship. At the same time, however, very few coaches even get them that close, and the mistakes he made were small and far from insurmountable.

Going into the postseason, I would have had Stevens and D'Antoni a clear 1 and 2. Now I think I wanna slide Popovich up to the 2 spot. He's really the only reason that team managed to win 47 games and make the playoffs. The talent on that roster is almost like Cleveland without LeBron. If he and D'Antoni were to meet in the playoffs, it's a clear mismatch and not in D'Antoni's favorite. So then, it's a question of the 3rd slot. The only other real contender I like for the 3rd spot is Quinn Snyder. Casey let his team fall apart in 4 games and got justifiably fired. Brett Brown was completely overmatched by Stevens and lost in 5 with superior talent due to getting outcoached. With Synder, all appearances are that he's good at his job, but I'm just not confident on the level of impact that he's having the same way I am with Stevens or Pop or even D'Antoni. If Gobert takes another month to come back from injury, he probably misses the playoffs. I think right now I'd go:

1. Stevens
2. Popovich
3. D'Antoni

I'm very open to arguments though, and that 3rd spot is far from set in stone. I was kind of figuring it out as I was writing it actually. Anyone have strong feelings that Snyder is smarter and more of a difference maker than MDA?

It's between Pop and Snyder for my #3 spot, and I'm going with Snyder.

[ardee]

Man this 5 spot is such a ****.

[Joey Wheeler]

Don't worry, the Houston game reference was just part of a larger point but if you did disagree with it it's fine to argue and we ended up agreeing anyway, so it's all good.

I figured as much, but I've found that it helps to ask the question and make sure my posts are being received as intended. Thanks for the discussion

I don't know how you can be so sure Klay/Draymond + very little depth would beat the Spurs. This is not 2016, in order to acquire Durant GSW had to really gut their depth. Sans Durant and Curry, don't think they're any better than the Spurs team that showed up in the playoffs, they could easily lose such a series. Take the scenario where KD is replaced by an average starter, regardless of the reason why; I'd take the Spurs in such a series, I'd also take the Pelicans with Curry being rusty after his long time off. In any case, no way do they win the Rockets series.

Again, it matters which scenario we're talking about without Durant, and it sounds like you're replacing him with an "average starter" while also expecting everyone else's production to stay the same. I don't think that's how it goes.

The Spurs staggered into the PS, coming within a game of missing the playoffs altogether. They weren't a very good team this year. I don't see how the Warriors without Durant lose to them under pretty much any scenario.

Your argument for Curry over Durant is true for the RS, but Curry missed basically half the season. In the postseason it just doesn't hold up though, everything suggests Durant was more impactful and lineups with him and no Curry fared better than the other way round. Durant led the postseason in plus/minus by a lot... nothing really suggests Curry had better 'secondary impact' this postseason, well on the contrary. Though I do grant you that pre-2018 playoffs that argument held up strongly.

To nitpick on another fact (sorry), Curry missed 7 of 21 games, which is a third of the PS, not half.

I agree Durant was better than Curry in the PS overall, but in several games of the WCF and the first game of the finals, the opponent's strategy was to lure the Warriors into Durant isolations which disrupted the Warriors' offensive flow, in particular their quality three-point opportunities that result from their ball and player motion. That meant Durant had to make those isolation twos at an extremely high rate to match the Warriors normal points per possession, which sometimes he did but sometimes he didn't. Luring the Warriors into Durant isolations boosted Durant's scoring, but it also almost cost the Warriors the WCF.

I'll take Durant overall over Curry in the PS considering the games Curry missed and the rust he had to shake off once he got back, but it's not as if Durant didn't have negatives or that his high-volume scoring was unequivocably a plus. In his top 10 scoring games in the PS, Durant was +34 and the Warriors were 6-4. In the other 11 games when he scored the fewest points, Durant was +176 and the Warriors were 10-1.

I'm not putting all of that on Durant. In some of those games, the rest of the team had an off game and settled too easily for Durant isos, but I do think it's clear that the Warriors are at their best when the ball moves and scoring is distributed as opposed to games when they lean too much on Durant iso action.

The Warriors are stacked because they have Green and Klay complimenting Durant and Curry. Without their two superstars, you're left with Klay and Dray as your two best players with very limited depth around them. The offense would struggle a lot, no one who can create their own shot. Don't think that team is conclusively better than the Spurs, certainly not to a point where you can be sure of a series win. Even with Durant, the series wasn't that far from going back to San Antonio for game 6...

I was talking about RS, Curry's impact stats looked better but he missed almost half of it. In the postseason, not only did he miss all those games, but every stat favors Durant. Just don't see how you can argue for Curry here; his RS was very good, but he only played 51 games. Only 66 games all season including RS and PS...

Well yeah, the Warriors are at their best when everyone is clicking and the ball is moving, but doesn't seem right to penalize Durant for being the most consistent performer and there being games where Curry/Klay are off and Durant is the only one capable of reliably putting points on the board...

[dhsilv2]

The Warriors are stacked because they have Green and Klay complimenting Durant and Curry. Without their two superstars, you're left with Klay and Dray as your two best players with very limited depth around them. The offense would struggle a lot, no one who can create their own shot. Don't think that team is conclusively better than the Spurs, certainly not to a point where you can be sure of a series win. Even with Durant, the series wasn't that far from going back to San Antonio for game 6...

I was talking about RS, Curry's impact stats looked better but he missed almost half of it. In the postseason, not only did he miss all those games, but every stat favors Durant. Just don't see how you can argue for Curry here; his RS was very good, but he only played 51 games. Only 66 games all season including RS and PS...

Well yeah, the Warriors are at their best when everyone is clicking and the ball is moving, but doesn't seem right to penalize Durant for being the most consistent performer and there being games where Curry/Klay are off and Durant is the only one capable of reliably putting points on the board...

It isn't like KD played 80 games...or even 70 for that matter. Don't get me wrong 17 more games is meaningful, but KD isn't some iron man.