'15-16 RealGM Player of the Year Discussion Thread

[PaulieWal]

I don't think Kerr and Walton should qualify for this award. I get it, they are going to break 72 wins but still. Walton was on the bench for half the season and now Kerr is back. I see it like MVP voting. You can't win the award if you are going to miss, say 20-30 games.

I understand this notion and it is perfectly reasonable to not vote for Kerr here. But: a coach missing games and a player missing games is vastly different. Let's be clear, even though Kerr wasn't coaching at the line he still impacted the team. The Warriors play Kerr's system, Kerr was in contact with Walton all the time and also attended practice frequently. This is the main reason why it is absolutely justified to credit Kerr with all the wins this seasons as it was his team from start to finish.

So yeah, I understand if someone doesn't have Kerr on their ballot. Pop, Stotts, Stevens etc. all did a great job at managing their teams and these guys deserves all the praise. But to me, Kerr is still a candidate regardless of how many games he couldn't attend.

Yeah, I am well aware that Kerr was still attending practices and formulating strategies with Walton before his return. But my point still stands. If you are not on the bench for whatever reason for half the season you automatically get disqualified in my eyes. In-game coaching is only a part of what coaches do but it's still a significant part of what they do. Yeah, it's not exactly the same as a player missing games but it's almost like that.

[HeartBreakKid]

I don't think Kerr and Walton should qualify for this award. I get it, they are going to break 72 wins but still. Walton was on the bench for half the season and now Kerr is back. I see it like MVP voting. You can't win the award if you are going to miss, say 20-30 games.

I understand this notion and it is perfectly reasonable to not vote for Kerr here. But: a coach missing games and a player missing games is vastly different. Let's be clear, even though Kerr wasn't coaching at the line he still impacted the team. The Warriors play Kerr's system, Kerr was in contact with Walton all the time and also attended practice frequently. This is the main reason why it is absolutely justified to credit Kerr with all the wins this seasons as it was his team from start to finish.

So yeah, I understand if someone doesn't have Kerr on their ballot. Pop, Stotts, Stevens etc. all did a great job at managing their teams and these guys deserves all the praise. But to me, Kerr is still a candidate regardless of how many games he couldn't attend.

He might be in charge, but not showing up and that team going like 30-0 despite that doesn't make it seem like the coach is super important.

If coaches didn't have to be on benches for every game, Jerry Sloan, Phill Jackson and other old ass coaches would still be coaching - it matters quite a bit.

[The-Power]

I understand this notion and it is perfectly reasonable to not vote for Kerr here. But: a coach missing games and a player missing games is vastly different. Let's be clear, even though Kerr wasn't coaching at the line he still impacted the team. The Warriors play Kerr's system, Kerr was in contact with Walton all the time and also attended practice frequently. This is the main reason why it is absolutely justified to credit Kerr with all the wins this seasons as it was his team from start to finish.

So yeah, I understand if someone doesn't have Kerr on their ballot. Pop, Stotts, Stevens etc. all did a great job at managing their teams and these guys deserves all the praise. But to me, Kerr is still a candidate regardless of how many games he couldn't attend.

He might be in charge, but not showing up and that team going like 30-0 despite that doesn't make it seem like the coach is super important.

The Warriors play Kerr's system on the court and the team he by the way already coached over the course of an entire season and prepared before this season was entrusted to his lead assistant coach, who follows his direction, during games. He still was present, gave instructions and talked to players and assistant coaches every day. The only things he didn't do was taking time-outs, substituting players and calling immediate plays.

If you believe the Spurs or Celtics wouldn't be able to roughly sustain their success during the regular season in case their respective coaches miss some games, especially if they are still present off the court, then we simply have to disagree here. I also don't believe that coaching at the sideline is the most important part of the job, actually not even close to it, in particular during the regular season. I would even strongly disagree with this notion. But to each his own, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Texas Chuck]

Sure, but its different for different teams. If I'm the Warriors I'm simply playing my rotations and daring you to beat me knowing unless everything goes just right, you can't. But for most other teams you are having to make in-game adjustments based on match-ups, foul trouble, fatigue, who just doesn;t have it that night.

So for Kerr to miss games, no big deal. But for a lot of other teams, what the coach does in game is very very important.

[lorak]

Its not just ESPN's projections. Most everyone thought they'd be in the low-mid 50s-

Ok, but if we use wins above projections as criterion for COTY, then Charlotte coach should win. I looked at APBR contest and both GSW and SAS probably would win around the same amount of games above projections (on average Spurs were projected to win 56,6; Warriors 61,1, so using current W%, both should have end with +12,3 games more than expected ), but the biggest surprise would be Hornets with projection at 34,4 and pace to 48,1 wins, so +13,7 (and in better conference).

[The-Power]

Sure, but its different for different teams. If I'm the Warriors I'm simply playing my rotations and daring you to beat me knowing unless everything goes just right, you can't. But for most other teams you are having to make in-game adjustments based on match-ups, foul trouble, fatigue, who just doesn;t have it that night.

So for Kerr to miss games, no big deal. But for a lot of other teams, what the coach does in game is very very important.

I'm not denying that in-game coaching is important. It is, and it is actually very important in the postseason regardless of the team. But a) I would object the claim that it is the most important part of the job and, something to keep in mind, b) you are replacing your coach with his lead assistant, not a bag of apples.

He might not be as good as your head coach in terms of in-game adjustments, but these are all good and experienced basketball minds who can figure out where the problems are in a specific game, what possible adjustments could be made, which player is overchallenged or how to react to foul trouble. Maybe not as effective but they are paid to discuss those things with the head coach anyway. While I would say many of them probably lack the required authority, foresight, philosophy and/or people's skills to become a really good head coach, all of this isn't really important in this particular situation and I do believe that most of them are technically schooled enough to deal with what you brought up in your first paragraph for a limited period of time.

[PaulieWal]

Sure, but its different for different teams. If I'm the Warriors I'm simply playing my rotations and daring you to beat me knowing unless everything goes just right, you can't. But for most other teams you are having to make in-game adjustments based on match-ups, foul trouble, fatigue, who just doesn;t have it that night.

So for Kerr to miss games, no big deal. But for a lot of other teams, what the coach does in game is very very important.

Exactly. Calling timeouts at the right moment, timely subs, exploiting or creating mismatches is still a huge part of RS games even if the planning isn't at the level of PS games. I really, really disagree with anyone who tries to discount in-game coaching.

[Dr Spaceman]

Its not just ESPN's projections. Most everyone thought they'd be in the low-mid 50s-

Ok, but if we use wins above projections as criterion for COTY, then Charlotte coach should win. I looked at APBR contest and both GSW and SAS probably would win around the same amount of games above projections (on average Spurs were projected to win 56,6; Warriors 61,1, so using current W%, both should have end with +12,3 games more than expected ), but the biggest surprise would be Hornets with projection at 34,4 and pace to 48,1 wins, so +13,7 (and in better conference).

Well good thing wins above projections isn't my only criterion, as I made clear in my original post.

[Doctor MJ]

For COY I am probably going with Pop/Stevens/Stotts with HM to Spo and Clifford.

I don't think Kerr and Walton should qualify for this award. I get it, they are going to break 72 wins but still. Walton was on the bench for half the season and now Kerr is back. I see it like MVP voting. You can't win the award if you are going to miss, say 20-30 games.

Yeah for me its simple--it means whatever Kerr and Walton are doing during games isn't something that someone else couldn't do--since each of them did it. Now in-game coaching is only so much of the job--obviously a ton of work is done outside of those 48 minutes 82 times a year. But its hardly nothing either. And it becomes only more crucial in the playoffs. To me it just goes to show the huge talent advantage the Warriors have and not that Kerr/Walton are automatically the best coaches in the league.

I know we can point to the improvements over Mark Jackson and I do give Kerr a lot of credit--but I think we have to all be honest and realize you probably could have found 75 guys who would have been improvements over Jackson, maybe more considering how wheels-off he could be and how difficult he was to get along with.


I do agree the award shouldn't always go to the coach of teh bad team who got good like it does a lot. But nor should it automatically go to the coach with the best talent either.

I would just say that NBA-level coaching basically isn't about what you do in the middle of any given game. Yes there's a baseline of competence, and yes there are guys particularly gifted and making quick adjustments, but the big thing is figuring out how your team should be playing in general.

While I'm not going to argue that anyone is as good a coach as Pop, and thus I'm fine with Pop winning every year, to me the transition Golden State made last year was astonishingly impressive just in terms of how it went from a dysfunctional environment without any serious Xs & Os philosophy to a healthy environment with great schemes and players accepting new roles and challenges even when their egos had to sacrifice. Other than Pop, I don't know who am coaches can seriously claim to have done anything more impressive.

I think that Walton was only a small part of that so by no means am I set on him being an elite coach already, but I'm sold on Kerr, and I think it actually quite fitting if he shares the COY with an assistant.

[Doctor MJ]

Sure, but its different for different teams. If I'm the Warriors I'm simply playing my rotations and daring you to beat me knowing unless everything goes just right, you can't. But for most other teams you are having to make in-game adjustments based on match-ups, foul trouble, fatigue, who just doesn;t have it that night.

So for Kerr to miss games, no big deal. But for a lot of other teams, what the coach does in game is very very important.

My issue with this in general is that I've seen basically every coach makes some seemingly boneheaded adjustments, and I've seen plenty of coaches miss things I'm surprise they miss. This stuff happens not because I'm awesome at reading a game because I'm really not, it's just that it's really hard really figure things out on the fly at this level. If you're making an in-game adjustment, then you're basically talking about being presented with either 1) something you knew would be very tough for your team to ever match up with, and you're on to Plan B, C, or D for desperation, 2) truly something novel that you couldn't really prepare for.

I think also that Golden State last year basically showed textbook how truly massive adjustment successes tend to work in the NBA: They don't happen minute to minute, they happen over the course of a series, and you actually have quite a lot of time to figure it out if there really is a counter that works well enough.

By this same token, when we talk about the Warriors doing fine in the regular season without Kerr, you're basically talking about teams not making serious adjustments because they have a different team every night, and even if someone thinks they have the perfect anti-Warrior ploy, are they seriously going to try to role it out for one game?

And of course, to the extent you're simply talking about adjusting over the course of many games, well, Kerr doesn't need to be on the court to play a role in that.

Realistically the big difference this year has to do with Curry taking on more volume scoring on and off-ball, and Green becoming more the on-ball focus when Curry is off-ball. Using this approach might have been bad, but it was clearly really, really good, and given this success, I don't see a lot of room to be unimpressed.

I'll add that I don't know the details of how they approached this new strategy, but that unless it's something Walton insisted upon in spite of Kerr, and thus was only done because of Kerr being away, it's pretty hard for me to separate which of the coaches did what job.

[Dipper 13]

Seeing this ElGee post from last year, I wonder where Curry will be ranked after this season ends.

viewtopic.php?p=44669200#p44669200

Since I've been quoted a bunch, I thought I'd add some context by sharing a ranking I made last fall after going through some offensive and defensive peaks. Some players might have multiple years at the same peak. Jerry West's best year was 1968, but missing 40% of the season dropped his value below his 1966 season.

Another thing I did was separate offensive and defensive portability. Defensive portability is fairly consistent -- players don't run into redundancy a lot -- but offensive portability is more variable and can have a larger impact. It's also important for people to understand that your portability rating (5-point likert scale from -2 to +2) is related to your offensive SIO. This is because portability is a concept to describe how much your value carries through as you scale up onto better teams (are your returns diminishing?).

Steph Curry would definitely replace David Thompson if I updated from this year.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm surprised that 2015 Stephen Curry was only #38 on his list last year. Someone like Cowens vs Curry is a pretty hard sell in the favor of Cowens, even for those skeptical of how good Curry was last year.

[Dr Spaceman]

I'm surprised that 2015 Stephen Curry was only #38 on his list last year. Someone like Cowens vs Curry is a pretty hard sell in the favor of Cowens, even for those skeptical of how good Curry was last year.

It's an awkward phrasing, but what he meant was Curry would be somewhere on the list, bumping everyone else down and ultimately moving Thompson out of the top 40. I think he just forgot about Byalor being there.

[SideshowBob]

I'm surprised that 2015 Stephen Curry was only #38 on his list last year. Someone like Cowens vs Curry is a pretty hard sell in the favor of Cowens, even for those skeptical of how good Curry was last year.

Thoughts on 15 Curry's offense? Given you missed out on the POY thread. Seems like you regard him quite a bit lower than a lot of us (given he's getting traction in this project already), but I recall you saying you had a tough time gauging just how valuable he could be on offense.

EDIT: And 15 Harden and Westbrook while we're at it

Are 15 Harden and Westbrook that much better than 14? To clarify on Curry, I mean he would supplant Thompson from the list (who I'd probably have below Baylor). As to where, I'm not sure. Probably top 30, but not 20. I'm still not clear on Curry.

So sounds like he had him mid-20s which is lower than he went (#17) and much lower than where some of us had him (I had him top 15, I think Dr. Spaceman was at least making his case within the top 10).

[Dr Spaceman]

I think Dr. Spaceman was at least making his case within the top 10).

Yup, I saw the quartet of Magic/Bird/Curry/Dirk as essentially a toss-up, and 2-3 of those guys could fit in the top 10. I ultimately sided with Curry due to the instant punishment nature of his offensive game, as opposed to the other guys who like to work out of the high post as opposed to being able to pick up the dribble and shoot anywhere.

Assuming no one is able to implement a legitimate counter for Curry in the playoffs, I think this is going to go down as the GOAT season for me, edging out Shaq again due to the instant punishment nature. I think Steph's offense is a tier above everyone else right now.

[LA Bird]

Question: Is anybody concerned about Kawhi's low total minutes and how it would affect his overall ranking?
His minutes are only around peak Ginobili / Bobby Jones level and those two usually get penalized for their limited playing time.

[MisterHibachi]

Regarding CoY discussions:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/matt_winer/status/717093275157471232[/tweet]

[Texas Chuck]

Question: Is anybody concerned about Kawhi's low total minutes and how it would affect his overall ranking?
His minutes are only around peak Ginobili / Bobby Jones level and those two usually get penalized for their limited playing time.

As long as he keeps playing big minutes in the playoffs(2014 an aberration because they were blowing teams out) then its no concern for me as I know the context of Pop trusting his depth--much like I'm not one who holds that against Duncan in the 2nd half of his career because his playoff minutes were still significant.

I do wish Kawhi was playing 75+ games tho and if that trend continues it will be a minor issue for me.

[SideshowBob]

Question: Is anybody concerned about Kawhi's low total minutes and how it would affect his overall ranking?
His minutes are only around peak Ginobili / Bobby Jones level and those two usually get penalized for their limited playing time.

Nah. Not too concerned with missed time for players as long as they're healthy during late season/postseason time. ElGee's research has shown that missed time in the RS does not drastically affect the player's value towards the team's title chances as long as they're making a difference in the playoffs (though injury hampering play during the playoffs would obviously be penalizing).

OTOH, not being able to play during this time (whether your team makes the cut or not) is bad. AD for example, gets a 0 for this year.

As for MPG, I mean Curry's only playing like a minute more per game than Kawhi is. Sustaining a high level of play for >40 MPG throughout the season is a plus, but I expect most star players to be sitting right around the 36 minute level and would only really penalize if I saw the physical incapability to play enough minutes, not when it's a simple matter of staggered lineups or massive blowouts.

[RSCD3_]

Question: Is anybody concerned about Kawhi's low total minutes and how it would affect his overall ranking?
His minutes are only around peak Ginobili / Bobby Jones level and those two usually get penalized for their limited playing time.

Nah. Not too concerned with missed time for players as long as they're healthy during late season/postseason time. ElGee's research has shown that missed time in the RS does not drastically affect the player's value towards the team's title chances as long as they're making a difference in the playoffs (though injury hampering play during the playoffs would obviously be penalizing).

OTOH, not being able to play during this time (whether your team makes the cut or not) is bad. AD for example, gets a 0 for this year.

As for MPG, I mean Curry's only playing like a minute more per game than Kawhi is. Sustaining a high level of play for >40 MPG throughout the season is a plus, but I expect most star players to be sitting right around the 36 minute level and would only really penalize if I saw the physical incapability to play enough minutes, not when it's a simple matter of staggered lineups or massive blowouts.

What about Duncan 2000 or Kobe 2013?