Who Is Your Player of The Year?

[JoseA]

After watching the Kansas game yesterday to me is obvious Durant will win POY.....clear cut, he carries the team.

Never before have such stats been seen from a freshman, Texas would be in trouble without him and we got a taste of it when he went down yeserday

He is so tough to guard they say and he is such a non-selfish player

[Zen653]

Oden is scoring at a 62% rate, which makes his lower 15.4 ppg at least as impressive; plus, he's capturing 9.5 rebs per contest. Durant's FG% is the lowest of the three, 48.9%, which takes away from his otherwise sexy 25.4 ppg, but he does shoot a lot of 3-ptrs.

Shooting percentages tend to be higher for centers because they take easier shots. That doesn't necessarily make them better scorers. One has to also consider the degree of challenge to the field goal attempt, and whether it was a high or low percentage play based on the specific circumstances.

As a Celtics fan, I've been watching some Ohio State games to get a better read on Greg Oden as a potential Boston draft pick, and I can't say I'm convinced that he's the best player this year. Take the OSU-Wisconsin game, for example. Oden seemed to be a non-factor in the entire second half. He did a nice job on the defensive end, altering shots and setting some effective picks. He also showed some adroit ball-handling skills in the way he reached for balls down at his ankles, but that was pretty much it. His shot seemed flat, he hardly scored any points, he looked way too tired during the closing minutes, and his offensive rebounding was virtually non-existent in clutch situations. He consistently got out-hustled by smaller players on the offensive glass. At times, he seemed too soft. On the other hand, he did have one of those 'in your face' jaw-dropping power dunks.

I guess I'm not sure what to think about Oden. I can't really offer a complete evaluation about someone I've only watched a couple times. Nor am I convinced that anyone can fairly evaulate him when he himself admits that he's still a work in progress. It's also important to note that he plays in a terrible system for his development. Ohio State doesn't draw up plays for him. The Buckeyes play a lot like the Jim O'Brien Celtics teams of the early 2000s. Lots of outside shots, with Oden just standing around under the basket. It's unfair to judge his offense when he doesn't get an opportunity to showcase anything on that end of the floor. I do think it's fair to say, however, that he should develop into a top notch player given normal development time, better conditioning, and a system that plays more to his strengths as a bigman. Whether he rises to the occassion remains to be seen, and that's why I have to give him an incomplete. He's too raw offensively and the wrist injury pesents yet another question mark.

I'll go with Durant for Player of the Year, but I wouldn't be surprised if Tucker or even Acie Law IV take it. Upper classmen tend to have an advantage in winning these awards.

[BravesRule22]

I am changing my vote for Tucker to Acie Law

[dlb]

Shooting percentages tend to be higher for centers because they take easier shots. That doesn't necessarily make them better scorers. One has to also consider the degree of challenge to the field goal attempt, and whether it was a high or low percentage play based on the specific circumstances.

Yes, hitting a higher percentage of your shots necessarily makes you a better scorer. You don't get any points for degree of difficulty. This is basketball, not figure skating.

[Zen653]

I think there's a distinction to be made between shooter and scorer. Hitting for a high percentage, by definition, makes you a better shooter. But a scorer also needs volume, he needs to amass a high point total. That's why in comparing players, you have to look beyond the shooting percentage. You can't have a lineup of five centers taking 2-foot hook shots. You need a balance between inside players (who will usually have a higher shooting percentage) and outside threats (who will register higher point totals but will also miss more shots because of the higher level of difficulty.) It's rather absurd to simplistically conclude that basketball is all about shooting percentage. Michael Jordan had a career FG% of .497. Mark Blount has a career FG% of .514. Would you take Blount over Jordan?

[BravesRule22]

Originally Posted by dlb

Yes, hitting a higher percentage of your shots necessarily makes you a better scorer.

Eh, thats not really true

As Zen pointed out, depends on what comparison you are making, if you have the 2 players scoring equally then of course you would take the higher % guy but if 1 is scoring 10 points less a game but has a higher % then so what ?

Give me the guy that scores more but has the worse %

[bedir than average]

My goodness its the Wilt v Russell debate!


Yeah, when we are talking about such a vast point difference, the only choice is to go with the one who is far superior in actually scoring. Within a few percent, fine, go with the money shooter.

[dlb]

I think there's a distinction to be made between shooter and scorer. Hitting for a high percentage, by definition, makes you a better shooter. But a scorer also needs volume, he needs to amass a high point total. That's why in comparing players, you have to look beyond the shooting percentage. You can't have a lineup of five centers taking 2-foot hook shots.

You are so close to the truth that you can almost touch it. First, a guy who scores at a low rate is a bad scorer, and cannot improve himself with volume of shots. Eventually the horn will sound and the team that shot the better percentage (given a roughly equal number of possessions), will win.

Second, basketball is a team game. You are right, a team of five centers will not be effective. The team's goal is to get the highest percentage shot out of every possession. This means that the primary objective is to get a layup, either via a fast break, by feeding the post, or on a drive to the basket. If the defense stops this (which they often do), there needs to be a plan B. This usually involves a jump shot. The percentage will necessarily be lower, but the smart coach adjusts for this fact by making lower percentage shots a lower percentage of his offense.

As an example, I remember a game in which Georgia Tech beat North Carolina by two points on a last-second three pointer, taken by a guy who was not a proficient three-point shooter. After the game, the press asked Dean Smith about his team's failure to adequately guard the guy who took the shot.

Smith replied, "It wasn't a failure. The defense did exactly what it was supposed to do. Give that man a wide open shot from 20' and 9 times out of 10, we'll win the game. We were guarding the guys who had a good chance of beating us; not the guy who didn't."

Another bit of Smith's perspective: there were often decent shooters who would score 25 - 30 points against the Tar Heels in losing efforts. In post-game interviews, the press would ask Smith how his team let "Jones" go for 28 (or whatever). Smith would reply, "Yes, Jones went for 28, but he only shot 45% for the game. We can beat just about anybody who only shoots 45%."

As for Jordan, his 49.7% is an incredibly good average at the NBA level. You won't find many teams that can go 49.7% for the season. Add that some of those shots were 3-pointers, and the number gets even better.

Which brings me to my final point. In the era of the 3-point shot, you cannot assess a player or team on shooting percentage alone. You have to look at Points Per Opportunity.

The best PPO formula that can be derived from published box scores is Opportunities = FGA + FTA + TO and PPO = TotalPoints/Opportunities. A PPO of .85 is very good. Anything better is excellent offense or atrocious defense by the opponent. This is because there will always be at least some turnovers and nobody shoots 100% from the free throw line.

[bedir than average]

dlb, you know of any place doing Plus/Minus for NCAA Hoops? I have seen some for the NBA, but not for college where the rotations are a little more frequent.

[dlb]

Sheesh, bedir, I don't even know what Plus/Minus is. Enlighten me.