Jump to content

NBA 2017: Playoffs? Playoffs?!


Relic

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not sure about that. In general, I don't think individual basketball players have as big an outcome on a game as quarterbacks in football or starting pitchers in baseball (I don't know enough about hockey to say one way or the other about how important goalies are). Obviously the great players do have a very large impact, but overall I think basketball is the most team-orientated of the big four. Which to me means that the individual-focused awards should consider how much better the team itself is with the individual player's contributions.

I'm really surprised to hear you say that.  I think that a star NBA player has far more impact on their team than a starting quarterback or a starting pitcher.  A pitcher only pitches a third of the time at most in the playoffs, and less than that in the regular season.  A quarterback is only on the field for about 40% of his team's plays.  A star NBA player is on the court 90% of the time in the playoffs, plays both offense and defense, and is one of only five guys. 

If you look at the NBA since 1990 and ask "who is the best player in the league this year?"  Not MVP arguments, just who is straight up the best.  My list would be:

1990-94: Michael Jordan

95-96: David Robinson?  Olaujuwan? Malone?

96-98: Michael Jordan

99-05:  Shaq

06-09:  Kobe

10-16:  Lebron

You know how many championships do those guys have?  Even if we don't count Olaujuwan (it's possible hindsight is making me think he's the best because of the championship), the best player in the NBA won the championship 14 times in the past 27 years.  That is better than 50%!

Stars have more impact in the NBA than any other sport.  In the past 27 years there are only two teams that won a championship without having a clearly top 5 NBA player.  The 2004 Pistons and maybe (maybe!) the 2011 Mavs.  In the NFL, you can definitely win a Super Bowl with a terrible quarterback (see 2015 Broncos).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Leonard deserves the MVP simply because the Spurs would still find a way to win fifty games without him.  Not that he's not a great player and he deserves to be in the conversation, but the Spurs are such a system team that I doubt they'd be that much worse without him.  They wouldn't have a prayer of winning a title, but they'd still be a top West playoff team I'm guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Not sure about that. In general, I don't think individual basketball players have as big an outcome on a game as quarterbacks in football or starting pitchers in baseball (I don't know enough about hockey to say one way or the other about how important goalies are). Obviously the great players do have a very large impact, but overall I think basketball is the most team-orientated of the big four. Which to me means that the individual-focused awards should consider how much better the team itself is with the individual player's contributions.

Basketball is the only team sport I can think of where the same player can be a complete game changer both on offense and defense and play 90% of each game.

Plus the "star rules" which are the reality of the NBA make that effect even more pronounced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Stars have more impact in the NBA than any other sport.  In the past 27 years there are only two teams that won a championship without having a clearly top 5 NBA player.  The 2004 Pistons and maybe (maybe!) the 2011 Mavs.  In the NFL, you can definitely win a Super Bowl with a terrible quarterback (see 2015 Broncos).

This. There's a reason Lebron's made the Finals 6 straight years (and will probably make it 7 this year), Jordan could've won championships in 8 straight years and Bill Russell won 11 titles. It's impossible for any NFL QB to match that as one guy out of 22.

Tom Brady is probably the greatest winner the NFL has ever seen and he's been to 3 Superbowls in the last decade. His ability to singlehandedly control his own destiny is just really limited by comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I'm really surprised to hear you say that.  I think that a star NBA player has far more impact on their team than a starting quarterback or a starting pitcher.  A pitcher only pitches a third of the time at most in the playoffs, and less than that in the regular season.  A quarterback is only on the field for about 40% of his team's plays.  A star NBA player is on the court 90% of the time in the playoffs, plays both offense and defense, and is one of only five guys. 

If you look at the NBA since 1990 and ask "who is the best player in the league this year?"  Not MVP arguments, just who is straight up the best.  My list would be:

1990-94: Michael Jordan

95-96: David Robinson?  Olaujuwan? Malone?

96-98: Michael Jordan

99-05:  Shaq

06-09:  Kobe

10-16:  Lebron

You know how many championships do those guys have?  Even if we don't count Olaujuwan (it's possible hindsight is making me think he's the best because of the championship), the best player in the NBA won the championship 14 times in the past 27 years.  That is better than 50%!

Stars have more impact in the NBA than any other sport.  In the past 27 years there are only two teams that won a championship without having a clearly top 5 NBA player.  The 2004 Pistons and maybe (maybe!) the 2011 Mavs.  In the NFL, you can definitely win a Super Bowl with a terrible quarterback (see 2015 Broncos).

A star NBA player on a team of scrubs will achieve nothing; Westbrook this season proves that and there's tons of other examples as well (Kevin Garnett's time in Minnesota for instance). A star starting pitcher can't do everything for their team, but it is within their power to win every single game that they start. And a star QB on a team of scrubs can at least make their team a contender.

All the guys you mentioned, in the seasons they won championships they had other all-stars on their teams and those guys were also important pieces of every game. By contrast, when Clayton Kershaw is on the mound, he is more important than every other player in the game combined for his team's chances of winning that game. And when Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, etc. are in their prime; they can bring a team to the brink with no help at all (e.g. Brady in 2006).

Obviously stars are very important in the NBA, and certainly the marketing and appeal of the game is more star-driven than the other sports. But a team of solid journeymen without an all-time great will do better than NFL team with one of a McCown as QB, or an MLB team with no starter with a sub 3.50 ERA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

A star NBA player on a team of scrubs will achieve nothing; Westbrook this season proves that and there's tons of other examples as well (Kevin Garnett's time in Minnesota for instance). A star starting pitcher can't do everything for their team, but it is within their power to win every single game that they start. And a star QB on a team of scrubs can at least make their team a contender.

All the guys you mentioned, in the seasons they won championships they had other all-stars on their teams and those guys were also important pieces of every game. By contrast, when Clayton Kershaw is on the mound, he is more important than every other player in the game combined for his team's chances of winning that game. And when Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, etc. are in their prime; they can bring a team to the brink with no help at all (e.g. Brady in 2006).

Brady's 2006 team was hardly without talent - offense, defense and special teams were all rated top 8 in DVOA.  Was Brady suiting up on defense and ST and I just missed it?  In contrast, the 2007 Cavaliers were horrible and Lebron James still took them to the Finals.  That team didn't even have 4 other NBA level starters, let alone stars to go with him. 

For starting pitching, if you only look at the sample of games they pitch, then yes, I would agree that they have a comparable impact on the game as a star NBA player.  But there are plenty of pitchers who have had absolutely awesome seasons and didn't even qualify for the playoffs.  That's because one pitcher can't help you win a championship to nearly the extent an NBA star can.  In contrast, if you have a healthy top 3 NBA player, you'll make the playoffs every single season, even if the rest of your team is entirely scrubs (see 2007 Cavaliers, 2017 OKC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just mathematically each person on a basketball team is going to mean more. One person on the court represents 20% of the teams people at all times. 

Other sports of course have positions that vary much more widely than basketball. The difference in a Center and a point guard isn't as much as the difference between say a linebacker and a kicker. 

I'd say goalies in goalkeeper sports might be the closest to having the most impact on a team sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

A quarterback is only on the field for about 40% of his team's plays. 

I agree that NBA stars have a greater impact on the game than QBs, but there's another way to look at this that might aid

@Fez's argument. Because the QB has a much smaller window to impact the game (4-5 minutes in a 60 minute game), having a great QB will maximize the minimal time they actually have to make said impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing about pitchers and goalies is they can't actually win you the game. At their very best, they can keep you from losing by keeping the other team from scoring.

This may feel like a pedantic distinction but if they give up an early run or goal, even if it's not their fault, their ability to turn the game around is limited. The ability of Lebron or Kawhi (or even moreso Olajuwon) to impact the game on both ends of the floor makes NBA stars way less situation dependent in terms of their ability to impose their will than pitchers, goalies or even QBs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jaime L said:

Through the time Westbrook came back into the game in the 4th, he'd put up an immaculate, efficient 38/7/7 and was +11 in 33 minutes. But OKC was down 5 because in the 5 minutes he wasn't in the game OKC was -16

So Westbrook doesn't get his usual rest and is hurried back in the game. He has zero lift in his legs and goes an ugly 2/11 down the stretch though context is everything. 

Even in losing, impossible to watch that series and not conclude Westbrook was way more valuable than Harden. Not only that but it presented the strongest case for vindicating the principal critique that he's been an unprecedented ball hog that murders his team's flow. But after watching that game after game, I don't get what the other option is. Alex freaking Abrines bricking more 3's? Roberson trying to raise his 12% FT percentage for the series? 

Westbrook outplayed everyone Houston threw at him including his MVP rival. It's just in the 8 minutes each game he sat everything fell apart, every damn time. You can argue, as I have, that he doesn't make his teammates materially better. But this series indicates, more than anything, his teammates are a fucking disaster without him.

Weird to say in a matchup of MVP candidates that the one getting knocked out in 5 games is the clearer choice than ever, but here we are (or at least here I am.) 

 

Plus/minus isn't an effective stat to use on isolated games. Way too little discretion. For example, last game Gibson had the highest +/- . On Friday Olapido lead the team in +/-. On Wednesday Kanter's and Adams were heads and shoulders above everyone else on the team, and in game 1 Westbrook's +/- was worst on the team. It's a pretty useless stat in isolation like that. So he was worst more often than he was best. But I'd not use this as an argument against him, rather to point out how useless +/- is in isolation over small samples. Much more a reflection of sub/rotation patterns, match ups, late-game tactics, etc. Over a season it can have some meaning. Over 1 series or 1 game it's just meaningless.

But to get to the larger argument of support, perception can lead and there's a difference between impact and value. A quarterback will by definition have more of an impact that a left guard. That's written into the position. In basketball, much less so...in fact the greatest given is that a center will almost certainly have the most defensive impact, but on offence it's much more a matter of style, choices, etc. But a point guard who calls his own number as often as he calls the entire rest of the team will necessarily, absolutely and without question go the furthest to determining that team's fate. To perceive that as value is IMO flawed, but I can see why it will...has to...look that way. But is it good for the team, and does it have to be that way? 

Going into game 5 Westbrook was something like 10th or 11th on his team in TS% for the playoffs. I think it'll be up some after game 5, but i'd be surprised if he was any better than middle of the pack. (Edit, I checked, and he was  7th...but to be fair, amongst people getting regular burn, he was 5th out of 8 players.)

TS% is the best measure of how effectively people are scoring when given shot opportunities, and while a good point guard can and will raise his teammate's effectiveness in this area, the fact that many/most teammates as it was were performing as well or better and he was still monopolizing the shots at (again) historic levels really doesn't support the idea that he's dragging them kicking and screaming to victory.

And that's without getting into the idea that he's in the meanwhile not giving anyone else an opportunity to get into a rhythm. The fact that his late game effectiveness plummeted game after game...and was known and still he kept doing the same things is not, IMO, some kind of nod to his stoicism, but a furtherance of his belief that he and only he can/will win the game. And that becomes self-perpetuating when you're a point guard. But because he is so clearly determining everything out there, the naked eye can and will mistake that with th precepts on he's there only hope. And any kind of volume stat will back that up, because if you pitch all the innings, you're going to get all the wins and strikeouts and shutouts, etc. And that's largely what RW does...again, he often takes more or about the same number of shots as the rest of the starters combined.

To contrast, in the series RW took 34 shots per 100 possessions. Harden took 25. That's an astonishing difference. Can you imagine how much Harden would be perceived to impact the game/his team if he was taking 50% more shots a game than he already is, and how 'useless' his teammates would appear to the naked eye? Harden's teammates seem more effective in part because they get a lot mor opportunity to seem so; Lou is only 3.6 Fga/100 behind Harden, and Hordon's only 0.4 behind him. Whereas Kanter is almost 8 Fga/100 behind, and next is Olapido at almost -10.

 

Uh, got run, more later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Relic said:

Yeah, the supporting cast question has been answered definitively, i think.

 

There was no such question.  Just people refusing to admit the obvious :P

 

16 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

 It's like they watched Russ ball hog and play like he's on a frenzied coke binge for 82 games. You can't then all of the sudden when you are getting killed in the playoffs say to those guys -ok NOW do something- even though you've been watching Russ all year.

That's another thing I like in an MVP, making your teammates better. Not making them look like trash.

 

How do we know he did not make them better? None of his teammates have any track record of doing anything playing without Russ, like ever.  (accept maybe for Taj Gibson, when he was the 5th / 6th option on the Bulls and much, much younger).  What if this is all they can become at this stage in their careers, despite Russ making things easy for them?

Do we really know if Oladipo is actually any good? (By the way, playing with Russ, he had the best shooting percentage of his career).  Andre Robertson, who cannot score unless it's a layup? Grant? The Skinny Spanish Rookie? The so-called Mcbuckets, whom the imploding Bulls gave away for nothing (even though they should need outside shooting as they are one of the worst 3-point shooting teams in the NBA).

And, even though these players may have value in the right context, the real problem is that the squad is very poorly constructed, especially in the guard / wing rotation. The pieces don't fit.  It is full of athletes trying to play basketball with little shooting, little natural flow / basketball IQ, little creativity / shot creation.   When the playoffs come, and everyone is hustling (except, maybe for James Harden :)), you need some extra buckets out of nowhere (like Lou Williams, and Eric Gordon did again and again, and even Nene, and  Anderson did every once in a while). OKC guys do look like trash because they are not capable of doing those things.

 

15 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

I dont think an mvp should tolerate that much scruberry on his squad.

 

What does he do not to tolerate?  Shoot 1000 free throws a day with Robertson?

 

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

To contrast, in the series RW took 34 shots per 100 possessions. Harden took 25. That's an astonishing difference. Can you imagine how much Harden would be perceived to impact the game/his team if he was taking 50% more shots a game than he already is, and how 'useless' his teammates would appear to the naked eye? Harden's teammates seem more effective in part because they get a lot mor opportunity to seem so;

 

There is an identification problem here.  A chicken-egg problem, if you will.  RW does try too much.  In this series, he particularly forced it 4th quarters, and ended up hurting his shooting percentage, increase # of shots and usage even more (and they were already high).  Seems to me that he was convinced that that was the only way they could win:  I hate ball hogs, I hated Kobe (and watched pretty much all of his games for 8 years straight), yet in this particular instance, even as I was thinking "Dude, enough, stop jacking" I was also convinced that that is the only way OKC can have a chance.  

So, are OKC folks less effective because they don't get enough chances?  Or are they do not get enough chances because they are mostly ineffective? If Lou Williams was in the OKC squad, would he have gotten the Robertson treatment from Russ?

 

Ultimately, we will never know what would have happened if Russ has a slightly better fitting roster.  For example take: any guard / wing from OKC's bench.  (Grant? Abrines? Cole? whoever). Switch him with Lou Williams.  Or even Eric Gordon.  There is no doubt in my mind that  OKC will win that series.  But obviously, there is no way to know. And that's why this MVP discussion is so fascinating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aeu said:

 

How do we know he did not make them better? None of his teammates have any track record of doing anything playing without Russ, like ever.  (accept maybe for Taj Gibson, when he was the 5th / 6th option on the Bulls and much, much younger).  What if this is all they can become at this stage in their careers, despite Russ making things easy for them?

Do we really know if Oladipo is actually any good? (By the way, playing with Russ, he had the best shooting percentage of his career).  Andre Robertson, who cannot score unless it's a layup? Grant? The Skinny Spanish Rookie? The so-called Mcbuckets, whom the imploding Bulls gave away for nothing (even though they should need outside shooting as they are one of the worst 3-point shooting teams in the NBA).

 

Yup.

Also, Dunder Mifflin is being a bit ridiculous in his blaming of Russ.

I was suprised when Chicago just gave up McDermott but clearly they were disappointed with him because if you recall, they traded up in that year's draft to get him, they were very keen on him. He may still have a good career and wasn't used much in OKC, but still, he may not be the second Kyle Korver after all.

Gibson is useful, and that is the best you can say. Oladipo is just about good enough to be a starting shooting guard as I've said for two years now. He is not a no. 2 option. Adams is clearly limited offensively, and that probably will not change to a large degree. Roberson is a small forward who actually cannot make free throws, hence the drama we witnessed. You normally only see this with centers. Small forwards are supposed to be scorers/shooters.

I did like the look of Grant though, OKC may want to keep him around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jaime L said:

The other thing about pitchers and goalies is they can't actually win you the game. At their very best, they can keep you from losing by keeping the other team from scoring.

Clearly you haven't watch this clip enough times. 

But anyway, I'm not denying the importance of superstars in the NBA; of course they're important. However, having an NBA superstar is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to win; if their teammates are awful enough. Whereas a superstar starting pitcher (obviously only for the games they play) or quarterback can have a lot more success even with awful teammates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Yup.

Also, Dunder Mifflin is being a bit ridiculous in his blaming of Russ

Whoa, lets stop that right there before it goes any farther. I didn't blame Russ for anything. I just don't think he should get mvp this year, along with 100s of other players. I think he's a great player and i would love him on my team. 

I was just responding to the claim that Russ tried hard while his teammates are all such scrubs they offered no help to Russell's one man show. Part of an mvp imo, a big part is making others around you better (or at least not worse) . That's easier said than done, but being mvp should have that high of a standard. 

Just from the numbers oladipo produced in OKC pretty much that same as he did in orlando. His scoring went down a little but most everything was pretty similar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...