2021-22 RealGM All-Season Awards - Discussion Thread

[jalengreen]

I'll have to think about Smart some more too. Didn't think he was a deserving DPOY winner and while the Celtics have continued to be great defensively in the playoffs, it feels like more of a defensive by committee team.

Good thoughts in general, and the debate on Smart is one we're all trying to figure out where we stand on things.

I actually think it's quite reasonable to question whether Smart should be the top DPOY candidate for the Celtics, but to this point, I've kept circling back to him.

But the more general thing that I think we're seeing here is this:

If Player X has more impact/value/etc than anyone else by playing Role Y, but Team Z has the best defense without relying on Role Y the same way, should we consider giving someone from Team Z the nod over Player X?

What if we end up concluding that Team Z's approach is the best and it's really not something that a Role Y player is that valuable in?

Answers of "no" are understandable, but I have to say "yes". Doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to give the ward to the best guy at the thing on the best team at that thing, but it something I have to consider.

In the case of Smart specifically, there are also a few things going on:

1. He's the venerated leader of the Celtic defense. He sets the tone for this defensive culture.

2. His leadership is quite vocal and involves a great deal of on-court coaching which is a valuable and often underrated thing.

3. Playing him at the 1, means you don't have to play another 1. The Celtics defense is the best in the game because there are no weak points. While most teams simply deal with defensive weaknesses from their 1, the Celtics have a guy who can guard point guards very well and switch on to Giannis effectively.

The last point is so underrated specially with how we've seen weak defensive guards get attacked and exposed these playoffs like Dangelo, Ja, Trae, Cp3, Conley, Mitchell. Smart is a tank

he is and you can even add pritchard there as we saw him get relentlessly targeted and abused by butler in G1 when smart wasnt playing. it's incredibly important from a team-building perspective, but i'm not sure how much extra weight should be given to it in an individual DPOY discussion

[eminence]

Is anyone considering voting for anyone other than the main 7 mentioned for POY? Jokic/Giannis/Embiid/Curry/Tatum/Luka/Butler

If so I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning

Maybe there is a super-slight chance for Draymond...? Other than a 2016-tier performance on the Finals, the top 7 seems pretty much locked.

Interesting thought.

I think you may be right, though I agree it would take a huge performance. Even then he's probably only in HM territory for me.

If the Warriors roll in the Finals one of the key takeaways from the season should be that the Warriors when 95% healthy were the clear class of the field in both the RS and playoffs.

[HeartBreakKid]

3. Playing him at the 1, means you don't have to play another 1. The Celtics defense is the best in the game because there are no weak points. While most teams simply deal with defensive weaknesses from their 1, the Celtics have a guy who can guard point guards very well and switch on to Giannis effectively.

This can be said about every position, that's not a real additive advantage. If you play strong defenders at every position then of course you will not have any weaknesses at any position. That is not a point guard exclusive advantage.

[Doctor MJ]

3. Playing him at the 1, means you don't have to play another 1. The Celtics defense is the best in the game because there are no weak points. While most teams simply deal with defensive weaknesses from their 1, the Celtics have a guy who can guard point guards very well and switch on to Giannis effectively.

This can be said about every position, that's not a real additive advantage. If you play strong defenders at every position then of course you will not have any weaknesses at any position. That is not a point guard exclusive advantage.

You have a valid point that in theory this can apply to any position, but I'm not sure what you mean by it not being a "real additive advantage". The Celtics have found a new level of defense this year. They found it because they slid Smart down to the 1 rather than having to try to deal with the defensive shortcomings of Isaiah/Kyrie/Kemba. That's as real as anything, no?

If your point is that attributing this impact to Smart doesn't seem right, that's not unreasonable. Views can vary in terms of how to allocate the credit, I'd just note that when you can have your 1 guard Giannis, that's pretty amazing.

[Doctor MJ]

3. Playing him at the 1, means you don't have to play another 1. The Celtics defense is the best in the game because there are no weak points. While most teams simply deal with defensive weaknesses from their 1, the Celtics have a guy who can guard point guards very well and switch on to Giannis effectively.

Very important point. But I think we must be aware that this makes us enter philosophical terrain. Because what you're saying, in essence, is that it is Smart's offensive ability (being a capable PG) that allows his team to have an oversized and switch-heavy built in the first place. That makes him the nucleus of that team's defense. I think that's fair to consider.

However, is that really fundamentally different from looking at other players' offensive games and assess defensive value based on that? An offensive star player may play in such a way that minimizes turnover risk and maximizes offensive efficiency of the team, which in turn has positive effects on the defensive side. Another offensive star player may allow for a team construction or line-ups that are defensive-oriented without losing (too) much on offense.

The former I've heard in debates about Dirk Nowitzki. The latter is something that is at times brought up with Curry (allowing GSW to play with two defense-first players that do not space the floor, like Looney, Green and to some extent GPII) but could also be brought up for heliocentric approaches like Luka this year, or Harden and LeBron in the past, where one offensive engine allows the team to be built around offensively limited players that can fully exert themselves on defense.

I assume most of us would feel uncomfortable having any of the aforementioned players (besides prime LeBron) anywhere near a DPOY discussion, even if we can acknowledge their impact on roster construction and the defensive focus of role players that allowed them to have some really good defenses at some point in time.

So the question then becomes: how does the Smart situation fit into this debate, which is very different but – at the same time – similarly looks at the offensive qualities of the player in question to assess defensive impact at the team level? Or does the fact that Smart's own defensive ability is still key in this context render this a situation that is per se not comparable to the others?

But that would feel mostly like a philosophical choice around the spirit of the award, because the impact is there for the other players as well – and we'll have to decide how to deal with that. This seems rather unproblematic for POY debates where impact can be analyzed holistically, but I find it to be much more problematic when it has to be broken down to defensive and offensive splits.

i would look at it from a different angle

when a player does somethingh in offense that allows his team to be better in defense, like low turnovers, that is part of his defensive impact

when a player does somethingh in offense that allows his team to play more defensive lineups without losing much on offense, that is his -offensive- impact in the way of versatility

putting actual examples

smart doesnt do anythingh in offense than the average point guard wouldnt do as far as helping the defense, he is not out there with a historically great turnover profile (chris paul) or somethingh like that, is not what he does in offense that helps celtics defense

what he does, is being more switchable than other point guards AND being a much better defender than the average point guard

an argument for smart as dpoy would argue that he "takes away" more points off the opposite offense over the average point guard, than even the best centers "take away" over the average center

someone like curry is the opposite, is not that he makes warriors defense better, is that his offense is versatile enough he can play with non shooters like dray and looney and still have his impact so warriors can play defensive lineups with a couple non shooters and know curry will still be impactful

So, you're getting at something really important:

The fact that a guy's "on-court offensive impact" can be influenced by his defensive capacity and vice versa.

I find it tricky to have a definitive answer to how to reckon with this discrepancy, and it's why I always emphasize above all to focus on a player's overall numbers as the north star rather than offense or defense, because if you do the opposite, you have a tendency to bias your overall assessment.

The example I've seen a fair amount this season is the idea that Steph Curry is an offensive star so we should dismiss the fact that he has the best on-court DRtg in the league among all big minute players as noise, and express disappointment that the team's ORtg isn't better with him on the court, completely ignoring the fact that his overall numbers have generally been well ahead of any teammates.

So yeah, if you want to "re-allocate" apparent defensive impact to the offensive side of the court in such cases, that makes sense to me, or if you want to take the DRtg literally that makes sense to me too, but whatever approach you use, you have to make sure you're not taking half the data as real and the other half as noise or else you'll end up with a biased result.

[falcolombardi]

Very important point. But I think we must be aware that this makes us enter philosophical terrain. Because what you're saying, in essence, is that it is Smart's offensive ability (being a capable PG) that allows his team to have an oversized and switch-heavy built in the first place. That makes him the nucleus of that team's defense. I think that's fair to consider.

However, is that really fundamentally different from looking at other players' offensive games and assess defensive value based on that? An offensive star player may play in such a way that minimizes turnover risk and maximizes offensive efficiency of the team, which in turn has positive effects on the defensive side. Another offensive star player may allow for a team construction or line-ups that are defensive-oriented without losing (too) much on offense.

The former I've heard in debates about Dirk Nowitzki. The latter is something that is at times brought up with Curry (allowing GSW to play with two defense-first players that do not space the floor, like Looney, Green and to some extent GPII) but could also be brought up for heliocentric approaches like Luka this year, or Harden and LeBron in the past, where one offensive engine allows the team to be built around offensively limited players that can fully exert themselves on defense.

I assume most of us would feel uncomfortable having any of the aforementioned players (besides prime LeBron) anywhere near a DPOY discussion, even if we can acknowledge their impact on roster construction and the defensive focus of role players that allowed them to have some really good defenses at some point in time.

So the question then becomes: how does the Smart situation fit into this debate, which is very different but – at the same time – similarly looks at the offensive qualities of the player in question to assess defensive impact at the team level? Or does the fact that Smart's own defensive ability is still key in this context render this a situation that is per se not comparable to the others?

But that would feel mostly like a philosophical choice around the spirit of the award, because the impact is there for the other players as well – and we'll have to decide how to deal with that. This seems rather unproblematic for POY debates where impact can be analyzed holistically, but I find it to be much more problematic when it has to be broken down to defensive and offensive splits.

i would look at it from a different angle

when a player does somethingh in offense that allows his team to be better in defense, like low turnovers, that is part of his defensive impact

when a player does somethingh in offense that allows his team to play more defensive lineups without losing much on offense, that is his -offensive- impact in the way of versatility

putting actual examples

smart doesnt do anythingh in offense than the average point guard wouldnt do as far as helping the defense, he is not out there with a historically great turnover profile (chris paul) or somethingh like that, is not what he does in offense that helps celtics defense

what he does, is being more switchable than other point guards AND being a much better defender than the average point guard

an argument for smart as dpoy would argue that he "takes away" more points off the opposite offense over the average point guard, than even the best centers "take away" over the average center

someone like curry is the opposite, is not that he makes warriors defense better, is that his offense is versatile enough he can play with non shooters like dray and looney and still have his impact so warriors can play defensive lineups with a couple non shooters and know curry will still be impactful

So, you're getting at something really important:

The fact that a guy's "on-court offensive impact" can be influenced by his defensive capacity and vice versa.

I find it tricky to have a definitive answer to how to reckon with this discrepancy, and it's why I always emphasize above all to focus on a player's overall numbers as the north star rather than offense or defense, because if you do the opposite, you have a tendency to bias your overall assessment.

The example I've seen a fair amount this season is the idea that Steph Curry is an offensive star so we should dismiss the fact that he has the best on-court DRtg in the league among all big minute players as noise, and express disappointment that the team's ORtg isn't better with him on the court, completely ignoring the fact that his overall numbers have generally been well ahead of any teammates.

So yeah, if you want to "re-allocate" apparent defensive impact to the offensive side of the court in such cases, that makes sense to me, or if you want to take the DRtg literally that makes sense to me too, but whatever approach you use, you have to make sure you're not taking half the data as real and the other half as noise or else you'll end up with a biased result.

i think what you mention is a different discussion

one of how important curry -defense- is to warriors defensive success

if curry was a on-ball player ala harden and this made draymond and looney lineups less effective offensively but warriors kept playing them we would see warriors offense be worse but defense remain (as they would still have the same players playing, maybe even improve a bit defensively if on ball curry reduces turnovers)

in that circunstance we would consider curry a -worse- offensive player as he would create a worse offensive result than now, but the -same- defensive player as defensive results probably would remain

that is what i mean

[sp6r=underrated]

Hypothetical: Miami puts Spo on the trading block. how much would you trade for him if you were the Sixers, Mavericks or Lakers?

[Doctor MJ]

i would look at it from a different angle

when a player does somethingh in offense that allows his team to be better in defense, like low turnovers, that is part of his defensive impact

when a player does somethingh in offense that allows his team to play more defensive lineups without losing much on offense, that is his -offensive- impact in the way of versatility

putting actual examples

smart doesnt do anythingh in offense than the average point guard wouldnt do as far as helping the defense, he is not out there with a historically great turnover profile (chris paul) or somethingh like that, is not what he does in offense that helps celtics defense

what he does, is being more switchable than other point guards AND being a much better defender than the average point guard

an argument for smart as dpoy would argue that he "takes away" more points off the opposite offense over the average point guard, than even the best centers "take away" over the average center

someone like curry is the opposite, is not that he makes warriors defense better, is that his offense is versatile enough he can play with non shooters like dray and looney and still have his impact so warriors can play defensive lineups with a couple non shooters and know curry will still be impactful

So, you're getting at something really important:

The fact that a guy's "on-court offensive impact" can be influenced by his defensive capacity and vice versa.

I find it tricky to have a definitive answer to how to reckon with this discrepancy, and it's why I always emphasize above all to focus on a player's overall numbers as the north star rather than offense or defense, because if you do the opposite, you have a tendency to bias your overall assessment.

The example I've seen a fair amount this season is the idea that Steph Curry is an offensive star so we should dismiss the fact that he has the best on-court DRtg in the league among all big minute players as noise, and express disappointment that the team's ORtg isn't better with him on the court, completely ignoring the fact that his overall numbers have generally been well ahead of any teammates.

So yeah, if you want to "re-allocate" apparent defensive impact to the offensive side of the court in such cases, that makes sense to me, or if you want to take the DRtg literally that makes sense to me too, but whatever approach you use, you have to make sure you're not taking half the data as real and the other half as noise or else you'll end up with a biased result.

i think what you mention is a different discussion

one of how important curry -defense- is to warriors defensive success

if curry was a on-ball player ala harden and this made draymond and looney lineups less effective offensively but warriors kept playing them we would see warriors offense be worse but defense remain (as they would still have the same players playing, maybe even improve a bit defensively if on ball curry reduces turnovers)

in that circunstance we would consider curry a -worse- offensive player as he would create a worse offensive result than now, but the -same- defensive player as defensive results probably would remain

that is what i mean

Hmm, not sure I follow - and not sure I really need to. Feel free to ignore this post if it's irrelevant.

But to be clear, I wasn't intending to argue how important Curry's defensive action was to the Warriors' defensive success, but rather that the line blurs between action on one side of the ball and impact on the other.

[falcolombardi]

So, you're getting at something really important:

The fact that a guy's "on-court offensive impact" can be influenced by his defensive capacity and vice versa.

I find it tricky to have a definitive answer to how to reckon with this discrepancy, and it's why I always emphasize above all to focus on a player's overall numbers as the north star rather than offense or defense, because if you do the opposite, you have a tendency to bias your overall assessment.

The example I've seen a fair amount this season is the idea that Steph Curry is an offensive star so we should dismiss the fact that he has the best on-court DRtg in the league among all big minute players as noise, and express disappointment that the team's ORtg isn't better with him on the court, completely ignoring the fact that his overall numbers have generally been well ahead of any teammates.

So yeah, if you want to "re-allocate" apparent defensive impact to the offensive side of the court in such cases, that makes sense to me, or if you want to take the DRtg literally that makes sense to me too, but whatever approach you use, you have to make sure you're not taking half the data as real and the other half as noise or else you'll end up with a biased result.

i think what you mention is a different discussion

one of how important curry -defense- is to warriors defensive success

if curry was a on-ball player ala harden and this made draymond and looney lineups less effective offensively but warriors kept playing them we would see warriors offense be worse but defense remain (as they would still have the same players playing, maybe even improve a bit defensively if on ball curry reduces turnovers)

in that circunstance we would consider curry a -worse- offensive player as he would create a worse offensive result than now, but the -same- defensive player as defensive results probably would remain

that is what i mean

Hmm, not sure I follow - and not sure I really need to. Feel free to ignore this post if it's irrelevant.

But to be clear, I wasn't intending to argue how important Curry's defensive action was to the Warriors' defensive success, but rather that the line blurs between action on one side of the ball and impact on the other.

there is a certain bluring between offensive and defensive impact to be sure

but we cannot assume that every defensive team with a offensive superstar is only good in defense because of the offensive work the star does (imagine if we gave iverson the credit for 2001 sixers defense for example using sinilar arguments that are often used for curry)

example: "iverson offense allows sixers to play defensive lineups so iverson has a big defensive impact, probably all D worthy", it would give iverson credit for somethingh that should be going to mutombo instead

of course is perfectly possible that curry is a strong defensive plus at this point without who the warriors defense wouldnt be the same, but it wouldnt be because "he makes draymond playable" as often people do

[Doctor MJ]

i think what you mention is a different discussion

one of how important curry -defense- is to warriors defensive success

if curry was a on-ball player ala harden and this made draymond and looney lineups less effective offensively but warriors kept playing them we would see warriors offense be worse but defense remain (as they would still have the same players playing, maybe even improve a bit defensively if on ball curry reduces turnovers)

in that circunstance we would consider curry a -worse- offensive player as he would create a worse offensive result than now, but the -same- defensive player as defensive results probably would remain

that is what i mean

Hmm, not sure I follow - and not sure I really need to. Feel free to ignore this post if it's irrelevant.

But to be clear, I wasn't intending to argue how important Curry's defensive action was to the Warriors' defensive success, but rather that the line blurs between action on one side of the ball and impact on the other.

there is a certain bluring between offensive and defensive impact to be sure

but we cannot assume that every defensive team with a offensive superstar is only good in defense because of the offensive work the star does (imagine if we gave iverson the credit for 2001 sixers defense for example using sinilar arguments that are often used for curry)

example: "iverson offense allows sixers to play defensive lineups so iverson has a big defensive impact, probably all D worthy", it would give iverson credit for somethingh that should be going to mutombo instead

of course is perfectly possible that curry is a strong defensive plus at this point without who the warriors defense wouldnt be the same, but it wouldnt be because "he makes draymond playable" as often people do

Sure, which is why it's helpful to have things like +/- data to tell the difference between someone like Curry and someone like Iverson beyond what their box score tells us. That data isn't going to tell us specifically whether Curry/Iverson's defensive action is making a big difference, but if an offensive star has clearly the biggest overall effect of anyone on his team and seems to have defensive impact based on the +/- data, then there's probably an effect along the lines being discussed going on in addition to whatever other effects are in the mix.

[falcolombardi]

with curry there is somethingh i consider really odd

some of his most impressive seasons have actuallt been of the "floor raising" kind, the 2022 and 2015 warriors were stacked defensive teams that mainly curry made above average in offense, to say nothingh of the 2019 warriors post durant injury being somewhat short on offensive talent at that point but curry "floor raising" their offense against toronto

i would go as far as saying i am more impressed by the 2015 or 2022 warriors succes than the 2017 or 2018 warriors succes

but because floor raising has been so diminished these last few years (often to prop up curry by diminishing other offensive players labeled as "floor raisers") it plays against curry now

we have had all these years of "curry people" like ben taylor or posters telling us that making a moderate offensive talent team good is barely relevant to win (even though that is exactly how curry won his 2015 ring) than now curry doing the same thingh would be subject to the same diminishing

so it feels like instead a lot of people are now tying curry offense to the warriors -defense- instead if that makes sense, because by the same standarss that were used to prop up curry before, his recent (offensive) results look lackluster and hard to brag about

[Doctor MJ]

with curry there is somethingh i consider really odd

some of his most impressive seasons have actuallt been of the "floor raising" kind, the 2022 and 2015 warriors were stacked defensive teams that mainly curry made above average in offense, to say nothingh of the 2019 warriors post durant injury being somewhat short on offensive talent at that point but curry "floor raising" their offense against toronto

but because floor raising has been so diminished these last few years (often to prop up curry by diminishing other offensive players labeled as "floor raisers") it plays against curry now

we have had all these years of "curry people" like ben taylor or posters telling us that making a moderate offensive talent team good is barely relevant to win (even though that is exactly how curry won his 2015 ring) than now curry doing the same thingh would be subject to the same diminishing

so it feels like instead a lot of people are now tying curry offense to the warriors -defense- instead if that makes sense, because by the same standarss that were used to prop up curry before, his recent (offensive) results look lackluster

Sounds like you feel like pointing to the defensive side of the ball is moving the goalposts, and I understand feeling that way, but the throughline has always been to look at overall impact, and thus we point to the defensive side of the ball when the overall impact seems to be their but the offense seems less.

[falcolombardi]

with curry there is somethingh i consider really odd

some of his most impressive seasons have actuallt been of the "floor raising" kind, the 2022 and 2015 warriors were stacked defensive teams that mainly curry made above average in offense, to say nothingh of the 2019 warriors post durant injury being somewhat short on offensive talent at that point but curry "floor raising" their offense against toronto

but because floor raising has been so diminished these last few years (often to prop up curry by diminishing other offensive players labeled as "floor raisers") it plays against curry now

we have had all these years of "curry people" like ben taylor or posters telling us that making a moderate offensive talent team good is barely relevant to win (even though that is exactly how curry won his 2015 ring) than now curry doing the same thingh would be subject to the same diminishing

so it feels like instead a lot of people are now tying curry offense to the warriors -defense- instead if that makes sense, because by the same standarss that were used to prop up curry before, his recent (offensive) results look lackluster

Sounds like you feel like pointing to the defensive side of the ball is moving the goalposts, and I understand feeling that way, but the throughline has always been to look at overall impact, and thus we point to the defensive side of the ball when the overall impact seems to be their but the offense seems less.

i actually dont , based on the games i have watched of the warriors i actuslly think curry has been a good defender, and it seems like impact stats say the same thingh

i have no issue thinking curry is a impactful defensive player (although him being a -huge- part of warriors defensive succes when draymond, payton and others look clearly more important seems a tougher sell) so i agree with a fair amount of curry value being defensive now

what i notice is that by the same "ceiling raising" philosophy that so many people use, they should be as dismissal of curry offense (cause he is "just" floor raising the warriors there) as they have been in the past of other players

[Texas Chuck]

Hypothetical: Miami puts Spo on the trading block. how much would you trade for him if you were the Sixers, Mavericks or Lakers?

None of those teams would pay what it cost. Lakers and Mavs don't have assets to throw around. Lakers owe more picks, but they also in theory have 2 stars already and are the Lakers so getting another one is just a matter of time. Dallas needs to save its assets for when a star wants Dallas and they can use the volume picks/swaps package.

And Philly seems to still believe in Doc for whatever reason.

Spo is a great coach and if Dallas already had their roster or had done what bad teams are supposed to due and stocked up on assets, I'd easily give 2 firsts for him. But can't afford him now.

[sp6r=underrated]

Hypothetical: Miami puts Spo on the trading block. how much would you trade for him if you were the Sixers, Mavericks or Lakers?

None of those teams would pay what it cost. Lakers and Mavs don't have assets to throw around. Lakers owe more picks, but they also in theory have 2 stars already and are the Lakers so getting another one is just a matter of time. Dallas needs to save its assets for when a star wants Dallas and they can use the volume picks/swaps package.

And Philly seems to still believe in Doc for whatever reason.

Spo is a great coach and if Dallas already had their roster or had done what bad teams are supposed to due and stocked up on assets, I'd easily give 2 firsts for him. But can't afford him now.

I just through out this hypo to figure out what value people place on a head coach. Spo is pretty much universally regarded well on this board and the coaching for the Sixers/Mavs/LAL is still questioned. Thought it be a fun hypo.

Fair to say in your mind, assuming your team had a normal level of assets and was in a spot similar to DAL/PHI/LAL you'd value Spo at 2 first rounders?

[Doctor MJ]

with curry there is somethingh i consider really odd

some of his most impressive seasons have actuallt been of the "floor raising" kind, the 2022 and 2015 warriors were stacked defensive teams that mainly curry made above average in offense, to say nothingh of the 2019 warriors post durant injury being somewhat short on offensive talent at that point but curry "floor raising" their offense against toronto

but because floor raising has been so diminished these last few years (often to prop up curry by diminishing other offensive players labeled as "floor raisers") it plays against curry now

we have had all these years of "curry people" like ben taylor or posters telling us that making a moderate offensive talent team good is barely relevant to win (even though that is exactly how curry won his 2015 ring) than now curry doing the same thingh would be subject to the same diminishing

so it feels like instead a lot of people are now tying curry offense to the warriors -defense- instead if that makes sense, because by the same standarss that were used to prop up curry before, his recent (offensive) results look lackluster

Sounds like you feel like pointing to the defensive side of the ball is moving the goalposts, and I understand feeling that way, but the throughline has always been to look at overall impact, and thus we point to the defensive side of the ball when the overall impact seems to be their but the offense seems less.

i actually dont , based on the games i have watched of the warriors i actuslly think curry has been a good defender, and it seems like impact stats say the same thingh

i have no issue thinking curry is a impactful defensive player (although him being a -huge- part of warriors defensive succes when draymond, payton and others look clearly more important seems a tougher sell) so i agree with a fair amount of curry value being defensive now

what i notice is that by the same "ceiling raising" philosophy that so many people use, they should be as dismissal of curry offense (cause he is "just" floor raising the warriors there) as they have been in the past of other players

Okay, so I'll just say:

For me ceiling vs floor raising is more about process evaluation than it is about specifically classifying a guy as "a mere floor raiser" if his team doesn't have an elite ORtg. Certainly there are aspects of proving you can do your thing toward a high ceiling effect and a grander sense of accomplishment of being a major cause of outlier performances, a guy's approach doesn't necessarily become "floor-oriented" just because his team isn't putting up elite ORtg.

[dontcalltimeout]

DPOY

I'm kinda zeroing in on Marcus Smart and Draymond Green for reasons that are probably obvious.

I'm chewing on what to do with Giannis. I've picked him as my DPOY twice, and the way he played in the playoffs to me is DPOY worthy...but I just think the Bucks were capable of more defensively in the regular season.

This gets into a couple broader points of debate between me and other folks.

When I see a core have a considerably softer team performance in the regular season than they've done in the past, and I think it's literally wise for them to do this from the perspective of conserving some energy for the playoffs, I tend to be fine using the term "coasting". And if you coast, and then you don't actually achieve a victory in the playoffs that re-writes your team's achievement for the season, I'm cautious about elevating you.

Had things gone a bit different in the playoffs, it's not hard to see how Giannis might have become my POY & DPOY yet again...but they didn't. On the other hand, if the Celtics win the title, maybe concerns like mine above will seem less consequential.

Let me also put forth the names Jayson Tatum & Andrew Wiggins, who to me seem like the next guys to consider from the 2 NBA Finalists...which also happen to have been the two dominant defensive teams all season long.

I also feel I must mention the Memphis Grizzlies. Jaren Jackson Jr. seems the guy to talk about here, but I'm open to others. He's clearly the most spectacular defender on their team, but he's so mistake prone that maybe he's not the guy. Regardless, if it ends up turning out that the Grizzlies actually are more effective against the Warrior offense than even the Celtics, I'm sure I'll be thinking about the guys in this club.

Finally: Rudy Gobert certainly merits discussion. My inclination at this point is to not have him on my ballot, not because I think he's definitively unworthy, but just because the Jazz defense this year was not a success. Hard to achieve, even when you're capable of it, when the context you're in doesn't support you reasonably.

[

Is anyone considering Horford for DPOY? He's the guy that looked to me like his presence allowed Boston to play the best version of themselves. He's third on the team in minutes after the two J's, his presence is correlated with their best deterrence of rim shots and corner threes. The Celtics have been able to weather RW3's up and down health and some of that is due to Horford. (Now, at some point we could just say, look Tatum is leading the team in minutes and has the best playoff on-court DRtg of any of the starters. His performance was much quieter against Miami, but I thought he was really good in the first two rounds).

re: JJJ. He looked great against Golden State, but was pretty sad against Minnesota IMO. He couldn't average even 25 MPG because of his foul trouble.

[Doctor MJ]

DPOY

I'm kinda zeroing in on Marcus Smart and Draymond Green for reasons that are probably obvious.

I'm chewing on what to do with Giannis. I've picked him as my DPOY twice, and the way he played in the playoffs to me is DPOY worthy...but I just think the Bucks were capable of more defensively in the regular season.

This gets into a couple broader points of debate between me and other folks.

When I see a core have a considerably softer team performance in the regular season than they've done in the past, and I think it's literally wise for them to do this from the perspective of conserving some energy for the playoffs, I tend to be fine using the term "coasting". And if you coast, and then you don't actually achieve a victory in the playoffs that re-writes your team's achievement for the season, I'm cautious about elevating you.

Had things gone a bit different in the playoffs, it's not hard to see how Giannis might have become my POY & DPOY yet again...but they didn't. On the other hand, if the Celtics win the title, maybe concerns like mine above will seem less consequential.

Let me also put forth the names Jayson Tatum & Andrew Wiggins, who to me seem like the next guys to consider from the 2 NBA Finalists...which also happen to have been the two dominant defensive teams all season long.

I also feel I must mention the Memphis Grizzlies. Jaren Jackson Jr. seems the guy to talk about here, but I'm open to others. He's clearly the most spectacular defender on their team, but he's so mistake prone that maybe he's not the guy. Regardless, if it ends up turning out that the Grizzlies actually are more effective against the Warrior offense than even the Celtics, I'm sure I'll be thinking about the guys in this club.

Finally: Rudy Gobert certainly merits discussion. My inclination at this point is to not have him on my ballot, not because I think he's definitively unworthy, but just because the Jazz defense this year was not a success. Hard to achieve, even when you're capable of it, when the context you're in doesn't support you reasonably.

[

Is anyone considering Horford for DPOY? He's the guy that looked to me like his presence allowed Boston to play the best version of themselves. He's third on the team in minutes after the two J's, his presence is correlated with their best deterrence of rim shots and corner threes. The Celtics have been able to weather RW3's up and down health and some of that is due to Horford. (Now, at some point we could just say, look Tatum is leading the team in minutes and has the best playoff on-court DRtg of any of the starters. His performance was much quieter against Miami, but I thought he was really good in the first two rounds).

re: JJJ. He looked great against Golden State, but was pretty sad against Minnesota IMO. He couldn't average even 25 MPG because of his foul trouble.

Glad you're bringing him up. I think on a per-minute basis in the playoffs he's got a serious case as the best defensive player on the Celtics, but has he really contributed more total defensive impact than Tatum who plays considerably more and was the key defender against the best offensive player the Celtics have played so far (Durant)?

If you think he has, please expound. Sentimentally, I'm pulling for Al.

Re: JJJ minutes. Yup, it's brutal at times. This is why I say that part of the deal with him and the Grizz as DPOY candidates is dependent on how the Celtic D handles the Warriors. If Celtics do a clearly better job than the Grizz did that makes it easy, but what if in the end we conclude that JJJ was the best defender against the best playoff offense, that will be meaningful to me.

[HeartBreakKid]

3. Playing him at the 1, means you don't have to play another 1. The Celtics defense is the best in the game because there are no weak points. While most teams simply deal with defensive weaknesses from their 1, the Celtics have a guy who can guard point guards very well and switch on to Giannis effectively.

This can be said about every position, that's not a real additive advantage. If you play strong defenders at every position then of course you will not have any weaknesses at any position. That is not a point guard exclusive advantage.

You have a valid point that in theory this can apply to any position, but I'm not sure what you mean by it not being a "real additive advantage". The Celtics have found a new level of defense this year. They found it because they slid Smart down to the 1 rather than having to try to deal with the defensive shortcomings of Isaiah/Kyrie/Kemba. That's as real as anything, no?

If your point is that attributing this impact to Smart doesn't seem right, that's not unreasonable. Views can vary in terms of how to allocate the credit, I'd just note that when you can have your 1 guard Giannis, that's pretty amazing.

I'm saying having a great point guard defender isn't any more additive than having a great power forward defender.

Naturally replacing a bad defender with a good defender will improve defense. That's true of all positions.


On another note!


You cannot really say they added a new level of defense by having Marcus Smart who has been on the team longer than anyone (i know your point is that he has "slid" into the one). They have added Al Horford, Theis, acquired a new coach, have improvements from young raw players like White and Grant. I mean with all of those gigantic variables why would Marcus Smart playing the one (which quite frankly, Marcus Smart has always been a one) be credited as the largest catalyst for that?

The Celtics have had the #1 defense before with Kyrie Irving, and if are looking for a common thing with that team and this team it's that Al Horford (and Theis) was on both teams.

[Texas Chuck]

I mean its easier to find good defenders at positions other than PG, so by the token he helps. Most teams switch everything and most PG's can't. So he helps there.

I definitely think there is an advantage to having PG's who defend well and who can defend bigger players.

Agree though that Smart shouldn't be DPOY and might not even be the best defender on his own team and almost certainly isn't the most important one.