Broussard: Rondo Could be MVP in 2013

[BballTim]

Well that fun little tangent about how Steve Nash didn't deserve the MVP in 05 but did deserve it in 06 has really run off the rails.

Comparing individual statistics of Ray Allen and Dirk Nowitzki is irrelevant.

Dirk was the best player by far on the team with the best record, and was the most efficient player in the league.

He deserved the MVP.

  He's probably one of the few players in the league who can ever claim to be the most efficient player in the league without finishing in the top 10 in TS% or the top 20 in sFG%. He was also finished outside the top 10 in the league in scoring and rebounding and, let's face it, his defense isn't his calling card. Whether he deserved the MVP or not is far from a slam dunk.

2nd in PER (behind Wade, who only played 51 games)
2nd in estimated Wins Added (behind Kobe)
1st in WinsharesPer48, 1st in win shares, 5th in points scored, 13th in defensive win shares, 1st in offensive win shares...

And if you filter out guys with less than 50 starts or less than 10ppg, Dirk has the 5th best TS% in the league that year as well, behind just Shane Battier, Amare, Dwight Howard, and Kevin Martin.

On top of all that, he was the best player on a 67 win team, a team whose second best player was either Jason Terry or Josh Howard, depending on how you felt about either.

What part of that isn't a slam dunk?

  I'd say the not being in the top 10 in scoring or rebounding, not being in the same area code of the leaders in assists and (obviously) not being on the all-defense teams makes it not a slam dunk.

Of the MVP's of the last 10 years, do you know how many were not the best player on the team with either the best or second best record in the NBA?

2. Kobe Bryant in 08, Steve Nash in 06.

Being the best player on the best or second best team is a huge precursor to success in the MVP race.

  The fact that those two votes are right before and right after the Dirk vote makes it seem like less of a precursor at that time.

Ha, like all our discussions, Tim, I disagree.

  I guess if you didn't disagree, we'd have fewer discussions. But I'd be more convinced in this case if the league's history was littered with players who were clearly undeserving of their MVP awards but got it mainly because of team success. I doubt that's the case.

[fairweatherfan]

Of the MVP's of the last 10 years, do you know how many were not the best player on the team with either the best or second best record in the NBA?

2. Kobe Bryant in 08, Steve Nash in 06.

Being the best player on the best or second best team is a huge precursor to success in the MVP race.

The Heat had the 4th-best record last year.

[BballTim]

overall the career offensive output of the two players (including efficiency) are extremely similar.

No disagreement there.  The difference is Dirk has a far more versatile game with a nice array of moves.  As a result he takes less 3s than Ray, and as a result he's managed to shoot over 50% twice.  It also helps that he can go down low on bad shooting nights, whereas we would see some pretty ugly shooting numbers from Ray on those nights.

  Or maybe we see Ray more often so we notice more of those bad shooting nights. It's true that he misses more shots those nights but he gets more points from his makes. If you look at fg% in games from 07-08 to 10-11 (the last 4 full seasons) Ray has about 18 more total games with a fg% of under 30%. Switch to eFG%, and Ray has about 1 more bad night a year.

  Beyond that, though, you said that Ray's never been as efficient as Dirk's 50/40 year for a whole season. Ray's had multiple seasons where he scored more efficiently than Dirk's best year.

I guess I wasn't clear enough when I said efficient.  I was saying Dirk shot better.  Obviously Ray is a specialist and all his extra 3s make up for that but I was trying to say that Dirk is more efficient from all over the floor.  He's taking less efficient shots and making them. 

That's not taking anything away from Ray.  He happens to specialize in what is arguably the most efficient shot, which results in boosted TS% and eFG% stats.  That has nothing to do with the fact that Dirk has a much larger and more versatile game.

EDIT:  Not to mention those multiple seasons are once when Ray had Pierce, KG, and Rondo and his numbers saw a spike.

  What you're saying about Ray vs Dirk isn't true at all. First of all, in Dirk's 50/40 year he hit 51% of his twos and 42% of his threes. In 10-11 Ray hit 52% of his twos and 44% of his threes. Ray just took a lot more threes than Dirk so that dragged down his overall fg%. Beyond that, you can check out their fg% for different distances from the basket for the last 5 years from hoopdata. Dirk looks like he's a little better from 16-23 feet, Ray's better on threes. At the rim, 3-9 feet and 10-15 feet from the basket, you'd have to do the math to see for sure who's better.

If you think Dirk having a much more versatile game is false or that he doesn't take higher difficulty shots then I'm not going to argue with you.  If you also think Dirk is a one-dimensional offensive player that doesn't affect much beyond putting the ball in the basket, fine.

You can throw out numbers from Ray's by far best shooting year if you want, that doesn't convince anybody that he has the same game inside the arc as Dirk.

  Haha. You were crowing about Dirk's 50/40 years, claiming that Ray's never had such an efficient year:

  "It's the impressiveness of hitting over half your shots with the efficiency of a post player or Jordan-esque slasher, in the body of an elite 3pt shooter who takes the majority of their shots outside of 7 feet.  It's not all about shooting, Ray's the best all time and he's never been that efficient for a whole year."

  I show you that Ray *has* been more efficient for a whole year and you whine that I'm throwing out numbers from Ray's best shooting year. That's pretty nonsensical.

  This, of course, ignores the fact that I used Ray and Dirk's shooting *over the last 5 years* to show that it's not true that "Dirk is more efficient from all over the floor". If you want to drop your prior argument and go with "Dirk isn't more efficient from all over the floor, but takes higher degree of difficulty shots" go ahead. If you've given up on defending your original claims then I guess we are done arguing.

[mgent]

overall the career offensive output of the two players (including efficiency) are extremely similar.

No disagreement there.  The difference is Dirk has a far more versatile game with a nice array of moves.  As a result he takes less 3s than Ray, and as a result he's managed to shoot over 50% twice.  It also helps that he can go down low on bad shooting nights, whereas we would see some pretty ugly shooting numbers from Ray on those nights.

  Or maybe we see Ray more often so we notice more of those bad shooting nights. It's true that he misses more shots those nights but he gets more points from his makes. If you look at fg% in games from 07-08 to 10-11 (the last 4 full seasons) Ray has about 18 more total games with a fg% of under 30%. Switch to eFG%, and Ray has about 1 more bad night a year.

  Beyond that, though, you said that Ray's never been as efficient as Dirk's 50/40 year for a whole season. Ray's had multiple seasons where he scored more efficiently than Dirk's best year.

I guess I wasn't clear enough when I said efficient.  I was saying Dirk shot better.  Obviously Ray is a specialist and all his extra 3s make up for that but I was trying to say that Dirk is more efficient from all over the floor.  He's taking less efficient shots and making them. 

That's not taking anything away from Ray.  He happens to specialize in what is arguably the most efficient shot, which results in boosted TS% and eFG% stats.  That has nothing to do with the fact that Dirk has a much larger and more versatile game.

EDIT:  Not to mention those multiple seasons are once when Ray had Pierce, KG, and Rondo and his numbers saw a spike.

  What you're saying about Ray vs Dirk isn't true at all. First of all, in Dirk's 50/40 year he hit 51% of his twos and 42% of his threes. In 10-11 Ray hit 52% of his twos and 44% of his threes. Ray just took a lot more threes than Dirk so that dragged down his overall fg%. Beyond that, you can check out their fg% for different distances from the basket for the last 5 years from hoopdata. Dirk looks like he's a little better from 16-23 feet, Ray's better on threes. At the rim, 3-9 feet and 10-15 feet from the basket, you'd have to do the math to see for sure who's better.

If you think Dirk having a much more versatile game is false or that he doesn't take higher difficulty shots then I'm not going to argue with you.  If you also think Dirk is a one-dimensional offensive player that doesn't affect much beyond putting the ball in the basket, fine.

You can throw out numbers from Ray's by far best shooting year if you want, that doesn't convince anybody that he has the same game inside the arc as Dirk.

  Haha. You were crowing about Dirk's 50/40 years, claiming that Ray's never had such an efficient year:

  "It's the impressiveness of hitting over half your shots with the efficiency of a post player or Jordan-esque slasher, in the body of an elite 3pt shooter who takes the majority of their shots outside of 7 feet.  It's not all about shooting, Ray's the best all time and he's never been that efficient for a whole year."

  I show you that Ray *has* been more efficient for a whole year and you whine that I'm throwing out numbers from Ray's best shooting year. That's pretty nonsensical.

  This, of course, ignores the fact that I used Ray and Dirk's shooting *over the last 5 years* to show that it's not true that "Dirk is more efficient from all over the floor". If you want to drop your prior argument and go with "Dirk isn't more efficient from all over the floor, but takes higher degree of difficulty shots" go ahead. If you've given up on defending your original claims then I guess we are done arguing.

At some point we started talking about careers.  It's tough to keep up when you ignore the overall point of peoples' posts or questions you don't want to answer and focus on a disputable, often irrelevant opinion.  You usually then throw out something indisputable with a twist on the person's words, which might make you look smart but makes for a really annoying and dead-end debate.

I admitted I might not have been clear with my statement.  I don't see how Dirk isn't more efficient from more areas on the court, and it's that versatility which allowed him to shoot 50%.  He also takes less efficient shots and takes them on a team where he is the best player and all the attention is on him.  Ray was the fourth on that team.

EDIT:  I also like how you say you used Ray and Dirk's shooting over the last 5 years to show Dirk wasn't more efficient from other areas of the court.  You did this when you said "Dirk looks like he's a little better from 16-23 feet, Ray's better on threes"?? 

And I'd say 49% compared to 43% is more than a little better (from 16-23).  Now imagine if Dirk swapped with Ray on the Celtics.

[BballTim]

Of the MVP's of the last 10 years, do you know how many were not the best player on the team with either the best or second best record in the NBA?

2. Kobe Bryant in 08, Steve Nash in 06.

Being the best player on the best or second best team is a huge precursor to success in the MVP race.

The Heat had the 4th-best record last year.

  So, the precursor's hit 4 times in 7 years?

[BballTim]

I admitted I might not have been clear with my statement.  I don't see how Dirk isn't more efficient from more areas on the court, and it's that versatility which allowed him to shoot 50%.  He also takes less efficient shots and takes them on a team where he is the best player and all the attention is on him.  Ray was the fourth on that team.

  A couple of things: The main reason that Dirk hit 50% from the field and Ray doesn't isn't because he's more efficient from more areas of the court. It's because Ray takes so many more threes than Dirk. Over their entire careers, Dirk shoots 50% on twos and 38% on threes. Ray shoots 48% on twos and 40% on threes. There's not much seperation between the two players either inside or outside the arc.

  Also, being on the same team with PP/KG/Rondo hasn't done a lot to change Rays shooting. He was still 48% on twos and 40% on threes for his career before he joined the Celts.

EDIT:  I also like how you say you used Ray and Dirk's shooting over the last 5 years to show Dirk wasn't more efficient from other areas of the court.  You did this when you said "Dirk looks like he's a little better from 16-23 feet, Ray's better on threes"?? 

And I'd say 49% compared to 43% is more than a little better (from 16-23).  Now imagine if Dirk swapped with Ray on the Celtics.

  Yes, I didn't want to do out all the math. Ray was better on threes. Dirk was better on 16-23 feet. Ray also looks to have a better fg% near the basket. The numbers look to be very close at 3-9 feet and 10-15 feet. Dirk's advantage from 16-23 feet is fairly sizeable (as you pointed out).

  But considering how close their overall two point shooting numbers are and how many shots Dirk takes from that distance, Ray would almost certainly have a better overall fg% inside of 15 feet than Dirk. So "Dirk is a better shooter from all over the court" really boils down to "Dirk is better at shooting long two point jumpers than Ray".

[mgent]

  A couple of things: The main reason that Dirk hit 50% from the field and Ray doesn't isn't because he's more efficient from more areas of the court. It's because Ray takes so many more threes than Dirk. Over their entire careers, Dirk shoots 50% on twos and 38% on threes. Ray shoots 48% on twos and 40% on threes. There's not much seperation between the two players either inside or outside the arc.

I guess 2 percent isn't MUCH separation, but it's about what I expected.  Same as their total career FG%.

But when you add that to the higher ppg, lower amount of turnovers, higher degree of difficulty, wider versatility, extra defensive attention, and higher unpredictably I tend to give him more credit.  He's been in the top 5 for scoring more times than he's been in the top 10 for shot attempts.  He is responsible for the most efficient shooting performance of all time. 

[BballTim]

  A couple of things: The main reason that Dirk hit 50% from the field and Ray doesn't isn't because he's more efficient from more areas of the court. It's because Ray takes so many more threes than Dirk. Over their entire careers, Dirk shoots 50% on twos and 38% on threes. Ray shoots 48% on twos and 40% on threes. There's not much seperation between the two players either inside or outside the arc.

I guess 2 percent isn't MUCH separation, but it's about what I expected.  Same as their total career FG%.

  Interesting. When you were talking about how much more efficient I'd have guessed that you were describing more seperation. If Ray made 1 more 2 point shot every 5th game he'd have the same fg% inside the arc as Dirk. I don't see how that slight of a difference translates to "more efficient from all over the floor".

But when you add that to the higher ppg, lower amount of turnovers, higher degree of difficulty, wider versatility, extra defensive attention, and higher unpredictably I tend to give him more credit.  He's been in the top 5 for scoring more times than he's been in the top 10 for shot attempts.

  Agree about the higher ppg. If you're talking about the lower amount of turnovers, you also have to talk about the lower amount of assists you get from Dirk. I don't think that the slight differences in ppg and usage before Ray joined the Celts would cause defenses to pay much more attention to Dirk than Ray, and you'd have to consider Dirk's height advantage over his defender when you decide on degree of difficulty.

  BTW, I agree that Dirk's a better scorer than Ray, but the difference isn't huge. But I still don't think that someone who's a little better scorer than Ray and really isn't a good facilitator would be among the best of all time in terms of helping his team offensively.

He is responsible for the most efficient shooting performance of all time.

  What is this "most efficient shooting performance of all time" that he's responsible for?

[mgent]

48 points on 15 shots.  12 FGs, 24-24 from the line.

Did it in the playoffs but broke the regular season record too.

[BballTim]

48 points on 15 shots.  12 FGs, 24-24 from the line.

Did it in the playoffs but broke the regular season record too.

  Oh, you're talking about a single game.

  Apparently, on 2-25-06, Arenas was 13-16 from the field (7-10 on threes) and 13-14 from the line, 46 points. 2 less points, 1 more shot, but 10 fewer fta. Clearly more efficient. And Gilbert had 1 fewer turnover as well.

[mgent]

48 points on 15 shots.  12 FGs, 24-24 from the line.

Did it in the playoffs but broke the regular season record too.

  Oh, you're talking about a single game.

  Apparently, on 2-25-06, Arenas was 13-16 from the field (7-10 on threes) and 13-14 from the line, 46 points. 2 less points, 1 more shot, but 10 fewer fta. Clearly more efficient. And Gilbert had 1 fewer turnover as well.

Not from a true shooting perspective. 

[BballTim]

48 points on 15 shots.  12 FGs, 24-24 from the line.

Did it in the playoffs but broke the regular season record too.

  Oh, you're talking about a single game.

  Apparently, on 2-25-06, Arenas was 13-16 from the field (7-10 on threes) and 13-14 from the line, 46 points. 2 less points, 1 more shot, but 10 fewer fta. Clearly more efficient. And Gilbert had 1 fewer turnover as well.

Not from a true shooting perspective.

 From a true shooting perspective Dirk used 25.6 shooting possessions to score 48 points, Gilbert used 22.2 shooting possessions to score 46 points. Do the math, but Arenas is obviously more efficient.

[mgent]

48 points on 15 shots.  12 FGs, 24-24 from the line.

Did it in the playoffs but broke the regular season record too.

  Oh, you're talking about a single game.

  Apparently, on 2-25-06, Arenas was 13-16 from the field (7-10 on threes) and 13-14 from the line, 46 points. 2 less points, 1 more shot, but 10 fewer fta. Clearly more efficient. And Gilbert had 1 fewer turnover as well.

Not from a true shooting perspective.

 From a true shooting perspective Dirk used 25.6 shooting possessions to score 48 points, Gilbert used 22.2 shooting possessions to score 46 points. Do the math, but Arenas is obviously more efficient.

Okay so NOW you can agree that efficiency stats don't tell you everything about efficiency?

[BballTim]

48 points on 15 shots.  12 FGs, 24-24 from the line.

Did it in the playoffs but broke the regular season record too.

  Oh, you're talking about a single game.

  Apparently, on 2-25-06, Arenas was 13-16 from the field (7-10 on threes) and 13-14 from the line, 46 points. 2 less points, 1 more shot, but 10 fewer fta. Clearly more efficient. And Gilbert had 1 fewer turnover as well.

Not from a true shooting perspective.

 From a true shooting perspective Dirk used 25.6 shooting possessions to score 48 points, Gilbert used 22.2 shooting possessions to score 46 points. Do the math, but Arenas is obviously more efficient.

Okay so NOW you can agree that efficiency stats don't tell you everything about efficiency?

  I'd need you to explain further to answer that. I don't know why Gilbert having a more efficient scoring game than Dirk proves anything.

[D.o.s.]

TANGENT: Prior to general mental shenanigans and the knee surgery(/ies?), Arenas could absolutely score at will... and it was a lot of fun to watch.

(and there's also some prime 06-07 Suns footage to ogle here too).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dbAUDS6LjE

Anyway, Rondo MVP? It's possible, but I think the biggest hurdle in voters mind's would be how much he appears to single-handedly help his team. Even though we know the team runs on Rondo, he's still playing with two future-hall-of-famers (contrasted to Derrick Rose or Steve Nash, the last two PG's to win MVP). Let's call this Tony Parker syndrome.