2021-22 RealGM All-Season Awards - Discussion Thread

[Doctor MJ]

Updated list (x out of 18)

–––––––––––– RAPM, EPM, LEBRON, RAPTOR | Minutes
Grant Williams: 17th, 17th, 18th, 16th | 2nd
Gary Payton II: 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 1st | 18th
Tyler Herro: 10th, 13th, 15th, 14th | 1st
Pat Connaughton: 18th, 18th, 15th, 12th | 6th
Kevin Love: 14th, 3rd, 6th, 6th | 17th
Bogdan Bogdanovic: 5th, 6th, 5th, 5th | 7th
P.J. Washington: 7th, 11th, 12th, 18th | 15th
Cameron Johnson: 13th, 8th, 10th, 3rd | 5th
Tyus Jones: 12th, 9th, 9th, 10th | 13th
DeAnthony Melton: 11th, 5th, 8h, 8th | 11th
Jordan Clarkson: 2nd, 6th, 7th, 5th | 4th
Jaden McDaniels: 16th, 16th, 17th, 15th | 9th
Terance Mann: 9th, 11th, 13th, 13th | 3rd
Luke Kennard: 8th, 10th, 14th, 10th | 10th
Devin Vassell: 15th, 15th, 11th, 17th | 8th
Otto Porter Jr.: 6th, 13th, 1st, 4th | 16th
Chris Boucher: 4th, 3rd, 4th, 9th | 12th
Immanuel Quickley: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd | 14th

So I see GPII and Quickley – and to lesser extents OPJ, Love and Boucher – as candidates with overall very high relative scores but relatively low minutes totals. Then you have Bogdan and Clarkson – and to a lesser extent Cam Johnson – with overall above-average relative scores and relatively high minutes totals. Not sure how to reconcile this into a ranking and I also don't want to just blindly use the scores – but I do think it nicely narrows down the field.

To me, it looks like this (based on this overview):

Top-Tier: GPII, Quickley, Bogdan, Clarkson
2nd-Tier: OPJ, Love, Boucher, Cam

Obviously we can debate a lot about how to interpret it, how to weigh the different metrics, how to best account for minutes played, how to factor in the playoffs, to which extent we want to consider context factors (usage, role, team strength etc.) and so on. I think a lot of players have reasonable arguments, and I'm just happy that we get to talk candidates for an award many of us seemed to have struggled with (perhaps already in the past, but certainly this year).

Love that you're laying this out for folks, but wanted to talk more about Payton vs Porter and the use of cumulative stats.

As I said before, by bball-index, the folks who make LEBRON, Porter ranks above Payton by their cume stat. If Porter continues that lead in any similar cume stat that we're aware of (and please post a conflicting stat if you're aware of one), then what specifically is the case for Payton over Porter?

To be clear as I say this: You personally might just be more impressed with what Payton did than Porter all things considered and that's fine, but from a perspective of your statistical table - which tends to be focused on rate stats - what's the argument for a guy whose limited minutes keep his cume value add below someone else?

[falcolombardi]

Hmm. I think we should talk about this.

First, you're aware that the vast majority of 6MOY have played more than 24 MPG right? (37 out of the 40 winners by my count.) While playing more than 24 MPG doesn't necessarily mean you're in the top 5 in minutes. I believe more than half the winners have averaged more than 30 MPG, which almost always would make you a top 5 minute guy for your team.

With this in mind, are you saying that there should exist a 6MOY award but that the vast majority of guys who have ever won it shouldn't have been eligible?

I do want to hear your answer and thoughts, but I'll just say:

With these awards, I always try to understand the theory behind the award's creation, and I don't think folks thought of this award as intended to be the best player not good enough to be one of his team's best 5 players.

Yes i actually think that the award is not the best thought one

Allowing guys like ginobili (who oddly enough didnt win it too much when he was the best "sixth man" for like a decade) to count as sixth man just because he was not in the initial five man lineups when games started feels like gaming the system

Imagine if lakers decided for some reason to sub lebron in after 2 minutes of every game and how ridiculous it would be to consider him the lakers sixth man

The award as it is now would allow any star or superstar to game the system to get the award if they wanted

A "best actual bench player who is probably not in his team best 5 players" imo makes more sense than "best player in the league that tecnically comes off the bench even if he is top 3 in his team"

If you let starters and even stars be rules lawyered as sixthman cause they were not on the court during tip off then what is the point of the award? What is it actually about?

A prize that rewards surprisingly good actual bench guys is more worthwhile

I get your point of view, but what you see as "gaming of the system" is to me the inspiration behind the award in the first place.

When you talk about it being a Being of the Bench-Level Players, this isn't an award that team sports typically have, and the reasons are clear. In a sport with N man lineups, fans generally care much about the N+1 guy, just like they don't care about the N+2 guy.

The concept of the 6th Man, so far as I'm aware, comes out of Red Auerbach's decision, first with Frank Ramsey, later with John Havlicek, to stagger his most offensively capable players so that he'd always have offensive creators on the floor for 48 minutes. Fundamental then "the best 6th Man" always actually meant "Hey, we know you don't care about bench players, but this guy is a star who is sacrificing for the team!".

Does this make sense? I don't want to be a micro-manager on this, but there's something concerning to me when I see an interpretation of an award that a) doesn't seem to fit with historical norms and b) specifically forces the quality of the candidates to be weaker than it has in the past, I feel like people at the very least need to ruminate.

Is it really sacrificing when you play starter minutes, finish the game and only really miss the tip off?

The definition of sixth man is pretty vague and arbitrary (and exploitable)

That it has always been done that way doesnt necesarrily mean is the correct way, just like you have talked about in regards to finals mvp award

[Doctor MJ]

Is it really sacrificing when you play starter minutes, finish the game and only really miss the tip off?

The definition of sixth man is pretty vague and arbitrary (and exploitable)

That it has always been done that way doesnt necesarrily mean is the correct way, just like you have talked about in regards to finals mvp award

Good thoughts.

On sacrifice:
1. Whether it actually involves a meaningful "sacrifice" is debatable, but I do believe that that was how it was seen. We can certainly have the conversation of how it should steer our thought on this award if we believe that they were simply wrong in an assumption.

2. Being a starter has always been seen as a big deal on basically every level of the sport as far as I know. Even ignoring the sheer buzz of having your name called out and specifically cheered to start every game, there's the matter that when you're trying to get people to pay you, it virtually always helps to be able to say you were a starter rather than a backup...with the one possible exception being if you won 6MOY or came quite close (which has everything to do with why the award was created).

3. It's still considered a pretty big deal in basketball conversation when someone with stature agrees to leave the starting lineup while considered to be one of the team's Top 5 players. When Iguodala became the 6th Man in Golden State, even before the team success happened, it had people curious.

4. These players play something midway in between "star minutes" and "back up minutes", so as long as that's the case, that player's production is getting sacrificed compared to what we would expect him to reach if he played more.

(On the last: That presumes the player was physically capable of playing the same way while playing more minutes of course. That's certainly a thing to be brought up for individual players where there are doubts.)

Re: definition vague and arbitrary. Is it? The criteria of coming off the bench more than starting seems pretty straight forward. What makes you feel as you do?

Re: exploitable. There's truth in that, but the same is true in all awards, no? Teams can try to play in a way where they think it might nudge their MVP/ROY/DPOY/MIP candidate over the top too. The question isn't whether a team could choose to exploit to try any of these things, but where in NBA history we can find it.

Of course, more common than this is probably just good old-fashioned hype, which you can do without sacrificing optimal basketball play to help your man get his roses.

I personally want to be clear that fear-of-exploit is something I alluded to my posting about Quickley. While I don't think the Knicks are exploiting the system to make Quickley a candidate - if they were, they'd play him a lot more - there is something that just seems problematic about someone who isn't being strategically staggered so much as being unwisely underused.

These awards are meant to highlight something that will shine a spotlight on the organizations the players play for where something unequivocally great is happening, and to me this isn't what's happening in New York at all.

This to say that I'm not sure if I'll have IQ on my 6MOY ballot or not. Still thinking it through.

Going to respond to your last in another post.

[Doctor MJ]

That it has always been done that way doesnt necesarrily mean is the correct way, just like you have talked about in regards to finals mvp award

Well, that's true.

What I'll emphasize though is that "correct" here, to the extent it can exist as an objective thing at all, has to have a motivation attached to it that is stronger than other approaches.

I believe I've spelled out the original motivation of the award as I see it - a way to point spotlight on someone is doing spotlight-worthy stuff in a less glamourous role.

If you believe another motivation for a 6th Man Award would be superior, please expound.

If that's not the case, perhaps you're talking about an issue that's more granular we can zoom in on.

[falcolombardi]

Is it really sacrificing when you play starter minutes, finish the game and only really miss the tip off?

The definition of sixth man is pretty vague and arbitrary (and exploitable)

That it has always been done that way doesnt necesarrily mean is the correct way, just like you have talked about in regards to finals mvp award

Good thoughts.

On sacrifice:
1. Whether it actually involves a meaningful "sacrifice" is debatable, but I do believe that that was how it was seen. We can certainly have the conversation of how it should steer our thought on this award if we believe that they were simply wrong in an assumption.

2. Being a starter has always been seen as a big deal on basically every level of the sport as far as I know. Even ignoring the sheer buzz of having your name called out and specifically cheered to start every game, there's the matter that when you're trying to get people to pay you, it virtually always helps to be able to say you were a starter rather than a backup...with the one possible exception being if you won 6MOY or came quite close (which has everything to do with why the award was created).

3. It's still considered a pretty big deal in basketball conversation when someone with stature agrees to leave the starting lineup while considered to be one of the team's Top 5 players. When Iguodala became the 6th Man in Golden State, even before the team success happened, it had people curious.

4. These players play something midway in between "star minutes" and "back up minutes", so as long as that's the case, that player's production is getting sacrificed compared to what we would expect him to reach if he played more.

(On the last: That presumes the player was physically capable of playing the same way while playing more minutes of course. That's certainly a thing to be brought up for individual players where there are doubts.)

Re: definition vague and arbitrary. Is it? The criteria of coming off the bench more than starting seems pretty straight forward. What makes you feel as you do?

Re: exploitable. There's truth in that, but the same is true in all awards, no? Teams can try to play in a way where they think it might nudge their MVP/ROY/DPOY/MIP candidate over the top too. The question isn't whether a team could choose to exploit to try any of these things, but where in NBA history we can find it.

Of course, more common than this is probably just good old-fashioned hype, which you can do without sacrificing optimal basketball play to help your man get his roses.

I personally want to be clear that fear-of-exploit is something I alluded to my posting about Quickley. While I don't think the Knicks are exploiting the system to make Quickley a candidate - if they were, they'd play him a lot more - there is something that just seems problematic about someone who isn't being strategically staggered so much as being problematically underused.

These awards are meant to highlight something that will shine a spotlight on the organizations the players play for where something unequivocally great is happening, and to me this isn't what's happening in New York at all.

This to say that I'm not sure if I'll have IQ on my 6MOY ballot or not. Still thinking it through.

Going to respond to your last in another post.

Whether it actually involves a meaningful "sacrifice" is debatable, but I do believe that that was how it was seen

i can agree with this reasoning, i just doubt if it still applies. In practice it feels more like a starter who gets to pad awards by not being in the court during tip off

Players like harrel or jamal crawford or jordan clarkson. The guys actually winning these awards actually -gain- notoriety by being "sixth men" instead of starters. Jamal crawford legacy has been heavily boosted by having all those 6moy awards to point towards compared to being a starter

When Iguodala became the 6th Man in Golden State, even before the team success happened, it had people curious

I think the issue here is that it feels like iguodala or ginobili were all stars padding an award they were "overqualified" for. They were for all intents and purposes stars on their teams, ginobili was a near mvp contender and iguodala won a fmvp

The all nba or mvp awards already exist to define the best players

Sixth man awards feels like "best player who just skips the first minute of the game" which could be peak jordan if he wished to gain the award

You compare it with mip dpoy roy but those award are much less arbitrary defined.

6man can be as loose as best player who skips the first minute which is much more arbitrary than being thr best rookie.

Ginobili is actually one of the few winners who sacrificed reputstion by becoming a sixth man as he was an actual all-nba player so people assumed he couldnt ve that good if he came off the bench

Ginibili should have won that award every year of his prime he qualified and it would have been a disservice to ginobili rep that he qualified for it as people reduced him to "just a good sixth man"

I much prefer the idea of huge impact bench guys line gary payton jr getting some recognition for their low minutes impact

[falcolombardi]

That it has always been done that way doesnt necesarrily mean is the correct way, just like you have talked about in regards to finals mvp award

Well, that's true.

What I'll emphasize though is that "correct" here, to the extent it can exist as an objective thing at all, has to have a motivation attached to it that is stronger than other approaches.

I believe I've spelled out the original motivation of the award as I see it - a way to point spotlight on someone is doing spotlight-worthy stuff in a less glamourous role.

If you believe another motivation for a 6th Man Award would be superior, please expound.

If that's not the case, perhaps you're talking about an issue that's more granular we can zoom in on.

I think somethingh like what gary payron jr did this year is somethingh more interesting to highlight and laud that "all star or high level player who fits arbitrary definition of sixthman" (the definition being not playing the first minute of the game)

It gives a spotlight to noteworthy guys in the actual less glamorous back up roles line gary payton jr, nick collison, etc

Rather than give the spotlight to all stars like ginobili and iguodala who already have them as stars who just happen to fit the loose definition of sixth man even when they win fmvps or are their team offensive superstar

As i say this i am aware ginobili oe iguodala are outlier in this case and the usual sixthman winners are not real stars

But that the potential exists for a mvp level player to qualify as sixth man feels too exploitable which is why i like the idea of awarding guys who are not top 5 in minutes but are extremely impactful

Gary payton jr or kevon looney are arguably top 5 players for warriors and an award like this could give them the deserved spotlight that bench guys usually dont get

[The-Power]

Updated list (x out of 18)

–––––––––––– RAPM, EPM, LEBRON, RAPTOR | Minutes
Grant Williams: 17th, 17th, 18th, 16th | 2nd
Gary Payton II: 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 1st | 18th
Tyler Herro: 10th, 13th, 15th, 14th | 1st
Pat Connaughton: 18th, 18th, 15th, 12th | 6th
Kevin Love: 14th, 3rd, 6th, 6th | 17th
Bogdan Bogdanovic: 5th, 6th, 5th, 5th | 7th
P.J. Washington: 7th, 11th, 12th, 18th | 15th
Cameron Johnson: 13th, 8th, 10th, 3rd | 5th
Tyus Jones: 12th, 9th, 9th, 10th | 13th
DeAnthony Melton: 11th, 5th, 8h, 8th | 11th
Jordan Clarkson: 2nd, 6th, 7th, 5th | 4th
Jaden McDaniels: 16th, 16th, 17th, 15th | 9th
Terance Mann: 9th, 11th, 13th, 13th | 3rd
Luke Kennard: 8th, 10th, 14th, 10th | 10th
Devin Vassell: 15th, 15th, 11th, 17th | 8th
Otto Porter Jr.: 6th, 13th, 1st, 4th | 16th
Chris Boucher: 4th, 3rd, 4th, 9th | 12th
Immanuel Quickley: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd | 14th

So I see GPII and Quickley – and to lesser extents OPJ, Love and Boucher – as candidates with overall very high relative scores but relatively low minutes totals. Then you have Bogdan and Clarkson – and to a lesser extent Cam Johnson – with overall above-average relative scores and relatively high minutes totals. Not sure how to reconcile this into a ranking and I also don't want to just blindly use the scores – but I do think it nicely narrows down the field.

To me, it looks like this (based on this overview):

Top-Tier: GPII, Quickley, Bogdan, Clarkson
2nd-Tier: OPJ, Love, Boucher, Cam

Obviously we can debate a lot about how to interpret it, how to weigh the different metrics, how to best account for minutes played, how to factor in the playoffs, to which extent we want to consider context factors (usage, role, team strength etc.) and so on. I think a lot of players have reasonable arguments, and I'm just happy that we get to talk candidates for an award many of us seemed to have struggled with (perhaps already in the past, but certainly this year).

Love that you're laying this out for folks, but wanted to talk more about Payton vs Porter and the use of cumulative stats.

As I said before, by bball-index, the folks who make LEBRON, Porter ranks above Payton by their cume stat. If Porter continues that lead in any similar cume stat that we're aware of (and please post a conflicting stat if you're aware of one), then what specifically is the case for Payton over Porter?

To be clear as I say this: You personally might just be more impressed with what Payton did than Porter all things considered and that's fine, but from a perspective of your statistical table - which tends to be focused on rate stats - what's the argument for a guy whose limited minutes keep his cume value add below someone else?

It's a very fair question. I think I'll just have a couple quick notes to outline my line of thinking (recognizing that I do not feel strongly either way at this point, so this is just a thought exercise).

1. You pointed to LEBRON where Porter indeed ranks higher when minutes are taken into account. What bears mentioning is that OPJ and GPII rate out almost identical by this measure (1.93 to 1.91). So if we just go by this measure (and put playoffs aside, too) then it is indeed tough to justify GPII over OPJ. But there are pretty sizable gaps in all other metrics.

RAPM: 2.05 to 1.7 | 26th to 42nd ranking in the league
EPM: 3.5 to 0.1 | 94th to 69th percentile in the league
RAPTOR: 6.0 to 2.5 | 7th to 50th ranking in the league

So if we create ‘wins added’ rankings based on these stats (which we could calculate, at least a minutes-adjusted ranking, but I'm too lazy right now) then GPII comes out clearly ahead of OPJ even with his lower minutes. The gap in minutes (just a tad over 300) isn't big enough to make up for the otherwise massive difference in those metrics (at least for EPM and RAPTOR, as RAPM is a lot closer).

RAPTOR actually provides a WAR number and for that one GPII (6.5) is solidly ahead of OPJ (4.8). edit: Now, which metrics do we trust most? I'm sure you can speak better to it as I haven't been following the advanced stats development all that closely over the past couple years.

2. I also believe that OPJ has a better argument if we're just looking at the RS (which most of these metrics do unless I'm mistaken). But in the playoffs, what I saw was that GPII just changed the games more in favor of the Warriors. OPJ still had his impact for the most part and he also played more minutes due to GPII's injuries. But man, I'm not sure when I've last seen a bench player coming into games in the Finals and completely changing the dynamics of the game for the better of his team. I suppose I just really value this highly because it shows that this player can be a true difference maker at the highest level of basketball.

Perhaps I overvalue a single series here and again, I'm not firm on my stance that GPII is the 6MOY or even necessarily to be ranked ahead of OPJ. But when you look at how much impact he has had this season whenever you he entered the court, it's hard not to look at this Finals run as just a fitting conclusion of his season instead of an outlier.

Lastly, there's also the question of cumulative versus peak impact. If I have a player who's a +1.0 for 82 games in the RS and the same in the playoffs, and I have another player who's a +0.5 for 82 games but then a +2.0 in the playoffs – who would you rather have, and who's more deserving of your vote for an award? Player A probably has had more cumulative impact, but when Player B just reaches higher heights when it matters, it's tough for me to go against this player unless he has just been infinitely worse in the RS (which is not the case here).

[Doctor MJ]

Players like harrel or jamal crawford or jordan clarkson. The guys actually winning these awards actually -gain- notoriety by being "sixth men" instead of starters. Jamal crawford legacy has been heavily boosted by having all those 6moy awards to point towards compared to being a starter

Good thoughts in general, but on your specifics:

Can you really say that you don't think the voters overrated the actual play of those players?

I ask because we're talking about criteria now, but if its actually voter evaluation-wrongness that's made you feel this way, that's a bit different.

[Doctor MJ]

That it has always been done that way doesnt necesarrily mean is the correct way, just like you have talked about in regards to finals mvp award

Well, that's true.

What I'll emphasize though is that "correct" here, to the extent it can exist as an objective thing at all, has to have a motivation attached to it that is stronger than other approaches.

I believe I've spelled out the original motivation of the award as I see it - a way to point spotlight on someone is doing spotlight-worthy stuff in a less glamourous role.

If you believe another motivation for a 6th Man Award would be superior, please expound.

If that's not the case, perhaps you're talking about an issue that's more granular we can zoom in on.

I think somethingh like what gary payron jr did this year is somethingh more interesting to highlight and laud that "all star or high level player who fits arbitrary definition of sixthman" (the definition being not playing the first minute of the game)

It gives a spotlight to noteworthy guys in the actual less glamorous back up roles line gary payton jr, nick collison, etc

Rather than give the spotlight to all stars like ginobili and iguodala who already have them as stars who just happen to fit the loose definition of sixth man even when they win fmvps or are their team offensive superstar

As i say this i am aware ginobili oe iguodala are outlier in this case and the usual sixthman winners are not real stars

But that the potential exists for a mvp level player to qualify as sixth man feels too exploitable which is why i like the idea of awarding guys who are not top 5 in minutes but are extremely impactful

Gary payton jr or kevon looney are arguably top 5 players for warriors and an award like this could give them the deserved spotlight that bench guys usually dont get

Lots of interesting thought here, but now I'm really focused on your thought about Looney.

I share your feeling that Looney deserves consideration for some kind of minor accolade. I really love what he's become.

I'd honestly listen to a proposal for a new award in which someone like him would make sense as a candidate...but 6th Man when you're jumping center just doesn't make sense to me on any kind of semantic level, and so I don't think it'll make sense to others as they try to intuit what you're meaning. A different name seems a requirement to me.

[falcolombardi]

Players like harrel or jamal crawford or jordan clarkson. The guys actually winning these awards actually -gain- notoriety by being "sixth men" instead of starters. Jamal crawford legacy has been heavily boosted by having all those 6moy awards to point towards compared to being a starter

Good thoughts in general, but on your specifics:

Can you really say that you don't think the voters overrated the actual play of those players?

I ask because we're talking about criteria now, but if its actually voter evaluation-wrongness that's made you feel this way, that's a bit different.

I am not talking as much about whether they deserved their awards, but about whether it was really a "sacrifice" for them to be (technically) sixth men when it gave them more glory and notoriety that doing exactly the same thingh and same minutes with the starter designation

[Doctor MJ]

- If Giannis is top 3 in both offense and defense, that very likely means he's in the range of +6.75 in per game impact. Maybe we can be more conservative, say it's a down year for defense, and Giannis gets into the top with an impact closer to +2.25, and he's overall +6.50 or something.

- In terms of "pure" player evaluation, Jokic and Curry have to be pretty special to surpass that. Anything north of +6.0 usually means you're on the top of the mountain.

Grappling with stuff in this vein right now.

As I said during the regular season, I'm uncomfortable with people projecting impact for Giannis based on what we see him as capable of given that the Bucks seemed to be showing signs of underperforming in the regular season as champions and veteran teams often do.

While the Bucks didn't pull any upsets in the playoffs, they performed well enough to be seen as in the conversation for being as good as the Celtics, and this doesn't fit with the regular season when you zoom in more closely than the record.

Relevant raw regular season +/- data:

Giannis '18-19 +12.1 (per 100)
Giannis '19-20 +15.8
Jrue '20-21 +8.7
Giannis '20-21 +8.4
Tatum '21-22 +12.1
Brown '21-22 +10.1
Jrue '21-22 +9.4
Giannis '21-22 +8.0

To clarify why I show this data:

- Giannis every year since hitting prime. Notice the dramatic drop off compared to his MVP years.
- Top performer by this metric on the Bucks included each year, and that's Jrue the last two years.
- Tatum included because he's the main guy I'm thinking about in comparison to Giannis.
- Brown included as the 2nd best of the Celtics players, noting a major gap below Tatum.

Now while I understand that data like this never amounts to "proof", the question on my mind is this:

If coasting in the regular season has much to do with why Giannis isn't putting up numbers anywhere near in the ballpark what he did in his MVP years, so we really think a Giannis 4-7 points below his capacity is accomplishing more than Tatum was in this regular season?

Feel free to chime in with any perspective pertaining to that, but that question leads to another playoff-driven question:

If I believe that Giannis is better when he needs to be than Tatum, and that I saw this once again in the playoffs, but I don't think he was the more valuable player over the course of the season, what should it take for me to move Giannis past Tatum in my POY?

For some, the answer is quite clear:

"If I think Player X is better than Player Y, and I saw him achieve this over the duration of the playoffs, then Player X is my choice regardless of the regular season."

But I really don't like dismissing the importance of the regular season. While I'm completely fine with siding with the playoffs over the regular season in a more classic debate - Player A was more valuable and led the better team in the regular season, but Player B was the more valuable player and led his team in victory over Player A's team, gimme Player B - if you coast in the regular season, and can't then pull off the "upset" in the playoffs, am I really supposed to ignore that the guy on the more successful team in all seasons was the more valuable player over the course of the entire run?

One more wrinkle I should bring up that possibly helps Giannis here:

The Bucks were missing Middleton.

Had Middleton been there, and that been enough for the Bucks to get past the Celtics, I'll readily acknowledge that I'd expect Giannis would move past Tatum on my board, and it bugs me that injuries to a 3rd party might swing my POY vote...but that is how it goes sometimes unless you specifically decide to give complete benefit of the doubt to those with injured teammates.

Additionally, it has to be noted, that the Bucks had Middleton for the bulk of the regular season and were not a better team than the Celtics then, so while it makes sense to argue that a healthy Bucks team beat the Celtics in the playoffs...when you do that, you could be said to be furthering the point of their regular season - that is the vast majority of the competitive basketball they actually played - was a bit lackluster.

I think that circles the issue at hand pretty well, so I'm going to leave the POY discussion where it lies, but I will note that I'm chewing on this from an OPOY/DPOY perspective too. While realistically neither is going to make my OPOY ballot, my instinct is to put Giannis ahead of Tatum for DPOY based on how Giannis (again) looked to me in the playoffs, but that implies that I rank Tatum as the stronger offensive players...which isn't really how I feel either.

[jalengreen]

OPOY

Curry
Luka
Embiid

Curry is likely the most dangerous offensive weapon of the year. His 3 point shot making literally changes the entire game and makes the crowd go frenzy. Luka strikes to me as a great offensive anchor, as its sometimes a solo act type of deal on the Mavs. Embiid who barely missed my Top 5 is a consistent league leading scorer type threat, and his offense is resilient vs Top talent.

surprised to see jokic as someone's #1 for POY but not in their OPOY ballot. do you rate his defense higher than most people (and in turn offense lower if you have the same assessment of total impact)?

[The-Power]

OPOY

Curry
Luka
Embiid

Curry is likely the most dangerous offensive weapon of the year. His 3 point shot making literally changes the entire game and makes the crowd go frenzy. Luka strikes to me as a great offensive anchor, as its sometimes a solo act type of deal on the Mavs. Embiid who barely missed my Top 5 is a consistent league leading scorer type threat, and his offense is resilient vs Top talent.

surprised to see jokic as someone's #1 for POY but not in their OPOY ballot. do you rate his defense higher than most people (and in turn offense lower if you have the same assessment of total impact)?

Was coming here to post the same thing. I think that one requires some elaboration for me to understand.

[Dutchball97]

Interesting to see that for all the talk about how close it'd be between Jokic and Curry it seems like Jokic is clearly running away with POY. 8-2 in 1st place votes and even some people who have Curry 3rd below Giannis as well. Even though I am one of the 2 with Curry 1st, I'm not too bothered since Jokic is my current favorite player. It's just that looking at the discourse happening right before the voting started you expect the Curry supporters to either be waiting till the last day or they have already been talked out of their selection by the overwhelming support for Jokic we've seen so far.

[Jaivl]

Interesting to see that for all the talk about how close it'd be between Jokic and Curry it seems like Jokic is clearly running away with POY. 8-2 in 1st place votes and even some people who have Curry 3rd below Giannis as well. Even though I am one of the 2 with Curry 1st, I'm not too bothered since Jokic is my current favorite player. It's just that looking at the discourse happening right before the voting started you expect the Curry supporters to either be waiting till the last day or they have already been talked out of their selection by the overwhelming support for Jokic we've seen so far.

I was a pretty vocal Jokic supporter, but it's closer than I thought before, and I might lean Curry at #2 instead of #3.

There was a hole on my analysis - I unintentionally used team ORtg instead of on-court DRtg, which is what I usually use and SHOULD be used.

[Texas Chuck]

-- Luka would be next, but he gets downgraded for being heavy and out of shape and taking months to come around (I can even make the argument that he never fully did). He’s a great talent, but he’s awful defensively.

Luka wasn't top three after the RS and didn't make the top five in my POY ballot, but his defensive impact is virtually nil compared to the other POY candidates, and defense elevated them over Luka for POY.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I did want to follow up on this.

There has been a ton of talk about Curry being able to be part of a great defense used to elevate him over Jokic. And let me be clear, I think Steph is clearly a better defender than Luka Doncic is so this is not intended to suggest otherwise.

Dallas had not an elite defense obviously, but a really good one. I think you might be overselling the negative aspects of his defense based on the results. Luka gets blown by as an individual defender quite a bit. So its really obvious to see him look bad on defense. But he's gotten way better off ball, where he anticipates things well. He is a very good defensive rebounder. His size means there are more places to put him defensively and he can switch a lot of matchups other PG's can't.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is much like Dirk who if you put him in space, he could get clowned, he wasn't nearly as bad as his reputation. And we have some metrics that paint Luka to not be the trainwreck defensively you paint him as.

But let's say he is as bad as you think, and my take is a bit homer. I'm not so naive as to not realize my perception to be skewed and I'm making excuses for him. Then it goes back to that first point--if you can still have a very good defense with him, is it that fatal of a flaw? He's not Trae for instance.

[The-Power]

But let's say he is as bad as you think, and my take is a bit homer. I'm not so naive as to not realize my perception to be skewed and I'm making excuses for him. Then it goes back to that first point--if you can still have a very good defense with him, is it that fatal of a flaw? He's not Trae for instance.

Not trying to argue your overall point but a quick follow-up: has he proven that you can have a very good defense with him? Because the defense with him on the court was merely mediocre overall. The main reason Dallas has had a good defense stems from the time he sat on the bench and/or missed time. Of course he's not Trae, I doubt anyone would suggest that.

[Texas Chuck]

But let's say he is as bad as you think, and my take is a bit homer. I'm not so naive as to not realize my perception to be skewed and I'm making excuses for him. Then it goes back to that first point--if you can still have a very good defense with him, is it that fatal of a flaw? He's not Trae for instance.

Not trying to argue your overall point but a quick follow-up: has he proven that you can have a very good defense with him? Because the defense with him on the court was merely mediocre overall. The main reason Dallas has had a good defense stems from the time he sat on the bench and/or missed time. Of course he's not Trae, I doubt anyone would suggest that.

So Dallas must have been Memphis minus Ja incredible on defense when he sat then? Because a top 6 defense if Dallas is mediocre in all Luka minutes is really impressive.

Also hearing this and knowing the Ja situation, curious how many other offensive stars are like this. Where obviously the player replacing them won't have the offensive impact, and is thus likely to be a better defender, though not necessarily.

[Outside]

-- Luka would be next, but he gets downgraded for being heavy and out of shape and taking months to come around (I can even make the argument that he never fully did). He’s a great talent, but he’s awful defensively.

Luka wasn't top three after the RS and didn't make the top five in my POY ballot, but his defensive impact is virtually nil compared to the other POY candidates, and defense elevated them over Luka for POY.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I did want to follow up on this.

There has been a ton of talk about Curry being able to be part of a great defense used to elevate him over Jokic. And let me be clear, I think Steph is clearly a better defender than Luka Doncic is so this is not intended to suggest otherwise.

Dallas had not an elite defense obviously, but a really good one. I think you might be overselling the negative aspects of his defense based on the results. Luka gets blown by as an individual defender quite a bit. So its really obvious to see him look bad on defense. But he's gotten way better off ball, where he anticipates things well. He is a very good defensive rebounder. His size means there are more places to put him defensively and he can switch a lot of matchups other PG's can't.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is much like Dirk who if you put him in space, he could get clowned, he wasn't nearly as bad as his reputation. And we have some metrics that paint Luka to not be the trainwreck defensively you paint him as.

But let's say he is as bad as you think, and my take is a bit homer. I'm not so naive as to not realize my perception to be skewed and I'm making excuses for him. Then it goes back to that first point--if you can still have a very good defense with him, is it that fatal of a flaw? He's not Trae for instance.

It's a safe bet that you watched more Mavs games than I did. My biggest concern about my voting is that I didn't watch as many games of other teams as I usually do (that's just how life worked out). I seriously considered abstaining from voting since I didn't have the viewing volume that I usually do.

That's not to say that I base everything on the eye test, because I don't, but I'm not comfortable going solely off numbers. I think there's much to be gained by seeing the schemes teams run and how players fit into them. For example, Minnesota was eighth in the RS is ORtg and was considered pretty good offensively -- they were ranked above Miami, Brooklyn, Philly, Dallas, and Golden State. But watching them play, I cringe at how basic their offense is. They rely heavily on isolating DLo, Ant, or KAT and letting them break down the defense or go iso for a shot. It actually seemed like a high-school level offense that worked well because of the individual talent of their players. Such a rudimentary offense worked in the RS, but it fell off a cliff in the PS against a good defense in Memphis, going from 114.3 RS (8th of 30) to 106.4 PS (13th of 16).

I can look at the difference in RS and PS performance and make the assumption that their offense wasn't resilient, but watching them tells me why. That kind of thing is why I'm comfortable giving Gobert the top spot in DPOY, because I can see everything that he does and everything that his teammates aren't doing. For him to individually drag that group to 10th in RS DRtg is remarkable.

So back to Luka. My RS sample size watching him was small. Other than games against Golden State, I may have seen Dallas only a few times, and I'm more likely to have a cold one in my hand than a clipboard to track possessions. (Well, I never have a clipboard to track possessions, but you get the idea.) But one thing I do pay more attention to is defense, and in particular, off-ball defense. Maybe I'm missing something here, but whenever I paid attention to Luka's off-ball defense, I didn't like what I saw, so it concerns me that you're arguing it has improved. Did I just miss it? Did I not watch them enough?

I did watch quite a bit of Dallas in the PS, not just against GS but also against Utah and Phoenix. It is obviously fresher in my memory than the RS, plus a much larger sample size for me. Based on what I saw in the PS, Luka was bad at multiple aspects of defense, even rebounding. He obviously collects a lot of defensive rebounds (11th in the RS in total DReb), but I saw him routinely stand there, not put a body on someone, and let opponents go past him for offensive rebounds. For off-ball defense, I saw him routinely stand there, not rotate or rotate late, and not play with effort. He is something of an offensive savant, knowing exactly where everyone is, and like late-career LeBron, he leverages that ability on defense to anticipate passes and jump into passing lanes for steals or move into position on his assignment to deflect the ball away.

But most of defense is the grind of effort throughout the possession and achieving a level of synergy where the group operates as a whole. I don't see Luka doing that much at all. What I saw a lot was the other four guys doing that around him. Brunson's D-LEBRON is slightly worse than Luka's (-0.51 to -0.48), but even Brunson, who gets routinely abused because he's short, puts in effort.

I'm going to pay particular attention to Luka's defensive game going forward. To me, it's the area he needs to address the most to fulfill his potential, with the corollary that he needs to be in better shape to expend the effort on both ends. I'm not expecting him to achieve the level of fitness that Giannis and Curry have, but getting to the point that he can be defensively neutral would be huge to his overall game. But while I'm paying attention to him, I look for that off-ball defensive improvement that you're seeing.

[AussieBuck]

- If Giannis is top 3 in both offense and defense, that very likely means he's in the range of +6.75 in per game impact. Maybe we can be more conservative, say it's a down year for defense, and Giannis gets into the top with an impact closer to +2.25, and he's overall +6.50 or something.

- In terms of "pure" player evaluation, Jokic and Curry have to be pretty special to surpass that. Anything north of +6.0 usually means you're on the top of the mountain.

Grappling with stuff in this vein right now.

As I said during the regular season, I'm uncomfortable with people projecting impact for Giannis based on what we see him as capable of given that the Bucks seemed to be showing signs of underperforming in the regular season as champions and veteran teams often do.

While the Bucks didn't pull any upsets in the playoffs, they performed well enough to be seen as in the conversation for being as good as the Celtics, and this doesn't fit with the regular season when you zoom in more closely than the record.

Relevant raw regular season +/- data:

Giannis '18-19 +12.1 (per 100)
Giannis '19-20 +15.8
Jrue '20-21 +8.7
Giannis '20-21 +8.4
Tatum '21-22 +12.1
Brown '21-22 +10.1
Jrue '21-22 +9.4
Giannis '21-22 +8.0

To clarify why I show this data:

- Giannis every year since hitting prime. Notice the dramatic drop off compared to his MVP years.
- Top performer by this metric on the Bucks included each year, and that's Jrue the last two years.
- Tatum included because he's the main guy I'm thinking about in comparison to Giannis.
- Brown included as the 2nd best of the Celtics players, noting a major gap below Tatum.

Now while I understand that data like this never amounts to "proof", the question on my mind is this:

If coasting in the regular season has much to do with why Giannis isn't putting up numbers anywhere near in the ballpark what he did in his MVP years, so we really think a Giannis 4-7 points below his capacity is accomplishing more than Tatum was in this regular season?

Feel free to chime in with any perspective pertaining to that, but that question leads to another playoff-driven question:

If I believe that Giannis is better when he needs to be than Tatum, and that I saw this once again in the playoffs, but I don't think he was the more valuable player over the course of the season, what should it take for me to move Giannis past Tatum in my POY?

For some, the answer is quite clear:

"If I think Player X is better than Player Y, and I saw him achieve this over the duration of the playoffs, then Player X is my choice regardless of the regular season."

But I really don't like dismissing the importance of the regular season. While I'm completely fine with siding with the playoffs over the regular season in a more classic debate - Player A was more valuable and led the better team in the regular season, but Player B was the more valuable player and led his team in victory over Player A's team, gimme Player B - if you coast in the regular season, and can't then pull off the "upset" in the playoffs, am I really supposed to ignore that the guy on the more successful team in all seasons was the more valuable player over the course of the entire run?

One more wrinkle I should bring up that possibly helps Giannis here:

The Bucks were missing Middleton.

Had Middleton been there, and that been enough for the Bucks to get past the Celtics, I'll readily acknowledge that I'd expect Giannis would move past Tatum on my board, and it bugs me that injuries to a 3rd party might swing my POY vote...but that is how it goes sometimes unless you specifically decide to give complete benefit of the doubt to those with injured teammates.

Additionally, it has to be noted, that the Bucks had Middleton for the bulk of the regular season and were not a better team than the Celtics then, so while it makes sense to argue that a healthy Bucks team beat the Celtics in the playoffs...when you do that, you could be said to be furthering the point of their regular season - that is the vast majority of the competitive basketball they actually played - was a bit lackluster.

I think that circles the issue at hand pretty well, so I'm going to leave the POY discussion where it lies, but I will note that I'm chewing on this from an OPOY/DPOY perspective too. While realistically neither is going to make my OPOY ballot, my instinct is to put Giannis ahead of Tatum for DPOY based on how Giannis (again) looked to me in the playoffs, but that implies that I rank Tatum as the stronger offensive players...which isn't really how I feel either.

Giannis was better in this last regular season than either of his MVP years. It's super weird how much you lean on +/- these days.