Retro POY '87-88 (Voting Complete)

[Manuel Calavera]

Hey guys, I won't get time to count up the votes until later this afternoon/evening.

Good because I'm late

1. Magic
2. Jordan
3. Bird
4. Dominique
5. Barkley

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. Jordan
2. Magic
3. Bird
4. Nique
5. Barkley

I do feel a reluctance to vote Jordan at 1 yet again, but it sure seems to me that Magic actually had a bit of an off-year, and the Lakers title wasn't due to them being better than future years, but simply weaker competition.

Magic's still clearly ahead of Bird though based on the playoffs. Magic was great, and led his team to the promised land again. People give excuses for Bird and the Celtics that I'd be more sympathetic toward if it weren't for the fact that the Celtics made a habit of underachieving in the playoffs, and when they did, Bird tended to underperform as well. That's not going to result in me vastly penalizing him over his whole career, but when it happens, it's going to let an all-timer like Magic slide past him pretty easily.

Nique gets the 4 spot reluctantly. In general I tend to think he's overrated - one of the high volume, mediocre efficiency. When you're by far the volume scorer on a successful offense, it's hard to criticize that much. Atlanta's offense was essentially unstoppable in the playoffs with Nique making the bulk of the impact.

Barkley at #5. Put a lot of thought into this.

First thing I want to address is the idea that he was somehow sabotaging the team. Now, this wasn't a successful team - however - the offense's ORtg was just as good as it had been the previous two years, and that time from is when they lost Moses and Erving. In fact it was as good as the offense was for the all-time great '83 76ers. So this was not a case of the team jettisoning a good system so that Barkley could ballhog.

It was mentioned that Barkley led the team in 3's. It's true, but he shot about this many 3's his whole career, and always at poor percentage, even when leading fantastically successful offenses. Fine to wonder why he did that and to say he might have been even better with better shot selection, but Barkley's the GOAT of efficiency among volume scorers. Doesn't make sense, to me, to imply he was doing something majorly wrong here.

In then end, I debated Barkley & Malone, and I just feel that if you gave Barkley a team as well constructed as Malone had, they probably get more than 47 wins.

Honorable Mention:

Malone/Stockton - I remember that Lakers/Jazz series as a young Angeleno. I had a bet of a dollar predicting the Jazz would win one game, by opponent said it would be a sweep. Then the Jazz take it to 7, HA! I've debating how much to weigh the fact the Jazz took 3 games off the Lakers, but the fact is that over recent years, I've come to the conclusion that big time teams often let early round opponents hang in there too long. In the end, this is a 47 win team, that didn't get out of the first round again until 1991, so no, I don't think this is a team that was one win away from winning a title, nothing like that.

Malone & Stockton still get my honorable mention, they were great. However, this is the year they both started putting up huge numbers, and the team didn't improve tremendously. Doesn't mean they should be banned from the top 5, but I don't feel weird leaving them out.

Hakeem, still almost made my top 5, but this RS was his low point until his pouting fiasco a few years later. Now, he put up fantastic numbers in the PS - in a first round exit where his team didn't even hold serve. As we've seen, opponent's can come up with strategies to let the star get his that are very successful. I can't let his PS sway me that strongly.

Worthy/Isiah - All-star players with great heroics.

[Doctor MJ]

Ok, last call.

[Doctor MJ]

'87-88 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Michael Jordan   13   8   0   0   0 186   0.886
2. Magic Johnson     8   7   6   0   0 159   0.757
3. Larry Bird        0   6  15   0   0 117   0.557
4. Hakeem Olajuwon   0   0   0   8   4  28   0.133
5. Charles Barkley   0   0   0   5   6  21   0.100
   Dominique Wilkins 0   0   0   6   3  21   0.100
7. John Stockton     0   0   0   1   4   7   0.033
   Karl Malone       0   0   0   1   4   7   0.033


[Doctor MJ]

Alright, so Sedale's vote: I counted his vote based on his 1-4 comments, which mentioned Malone as the other contender for the 4th spot.

The rules here are that you've got to use the same type of thinking for all 5 votes. I understand putting more thought into #1 than #5, but I don't want PJ Brown votes. Voters do Brown type votes to give a guy an honorable mention. Makes sense if people only care about who finishes 1st, but I've been clear that I want to measure more than that. I've been trying to encourage literal "honorable mentions" to serve that purpose, and I'd ask that people use that as the way they honor guys who did something special but who aren't actually a top 5 guy that year.

[semi-sentient]

Site updated: www.dolem.com/poy


The only change in the top 10 is that Jordan's lead has grown and Magic moving up a couple of spots, passing up D-Rob and LeBron. Magic should leap frog Garnett, Olajuwon, and Kobe after the next round of voting.

All-Time POY Award Share Leaders

Code: Select all

1.  Michael Jordan      8.720
2.  Tim Duncan          6.153
3.  Shaquille O'Neal    5.910
4.  Karl Malone         4.649
5.  Kobe Bryant         3.658
6.  Hakeem Olajuwon     3.588
7.  Kevin Garnett       3.388
8.  Magic Johnson       2.901
9.  David Robinson      2.431
10. LeBron James        2.267

[kaima]

My vote:

Barkley at #5. Put a lot of thought into this.

First thing I want to address is the idea that he was somehow sabotaging the team. Now, this wasn't a successful team - however - the offense's ORtg was just as good as it had been the previous two years, and that time from is when they lost Moses and Erving. In fact it was as good as the offense was for the all-time great '83 76ers. So this was not a case of the team jettisoning a good system so that Barkley could ballhog.

[...]

In then end, I debated Barkley & Malone, and I just feel that if you gave Barkley a team as well constructed as Malone had, they probably get more than 47 wins.

Based on?

One interesting fact (maybe two, factors within a larger scale or statement): Malone was on the second team for All-NBA D, and second in the NBA on defensive WS.

I don't necessarily think Malone was better for the season, but I do find it curious that Barkley is assumed to not only be better, but be a better fit for Utah, and more likely to create wins. History doesn't really bear this out, and some specifics for this season suggest the opposite.

If Utah is considered over and over again as a defensive team during this period, I think it's important to note that Malone was a very good defender, as was Stockton.

The same can't really be said for adversaries/rivals at their positions during this time.

Malone/Stockton - I remember that Lakers/Jazz series as a young Angeleno. I had a bet of a dollar predicting the Jazz would win one game, by opponent said it would be a sweep. Then the Jazz take it to 7, HA! I've debating how much to weigh the fact the Jazz took 3 games off the Lakers, but the fact is that over recent years, I've come to the conclusion that big time teams often let early round opponents hang in there too long.

So, Utah took the Lakers seven, merely by accident? How many seven game series in history do you believe this of? That's pretty dangerous, and doesn't speak well of Magic's leadership -- extrapolated, the fact that the Lakers went the distance in three straight series doesn't help on that score, particularly if we're to believe that they were only bored.

But then, I don't believe this, particularly in this regard. Utah was a troublesome matchup for LA. A big presence in the middle, a fast, elite facilitating lead guard and a burgeoning superstar forward that was a huge handful both on the block and on the break.

That Stockton and Malone get little to no credit for pushing the Lakers 7, while Barkley is defended and, through that, rewarded and assumed to be better than both of them while playing for a 36 win team, doesn't really cohere for me on broad, analytical logic.

I find it odd how the team argument is used against Malone and Stockton, even when they do well -- and when another star that did far worse under the same rubric is brought in, he's thoroughly defended and put over them on polling based on...well, that selfsame defense of his team's miserable record. And somehow, we're to assume that he'd do better than Malone if the roles were reversed.

My head is spinning.

I would think that, if the team aspect was going to be used in argumentation, the guys on a team that won enough games to qualify for the playoffs, then won a round without homecourt and, then, pushed the world champs to a game 7 would get more credit on this front than a guy who played on a 36 win team. Like, a lot more.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe that if Barkley had ever pushed the Celtics or Lakers of this period to the brink, that this would be played up far more than this very same factor is for Malone or Stockton historically, or just relative to this single season.

In the end, this is a 47 win team, that didn't get out of the first round again until 1991,

Well, returning to prior threads, something like the Warriors series is used against Stockton and Malone even when, or because, they're the only ones to really play well (in particular, Nelson's gameplan was to throw up to four guys on Malone and dare the rest of the Jazz to shoot; only Stockton was capable, while Malone still scored 31 a game against this type of planning). This somehow proves that their impact is overrated.

While, contrasted, a guy like Barkley (or Akeem, for others) has a miserable team that doesn't even make the playoffs and, well, that just proves he's playing for a bad team. It has nothing to do with him, and no one would ever suggest that Barkley's impact was low.

The argument is all over the place.

The team aspect is used pretty capriciously, it would seem.

so no, I don't think this is a team that was one win away from winning a title, nothing like that.

I'd say Utah, though not that talented 1-12, was a good SG (meaning an SG with range, decent playmaking ability, and ballhandling; not J. Malone in other words) away. Even at the time, that's what people thought.

It's pretty much proven out through Hornacek. Unfortunately, Utah's FO didn't make this trade until the 1994 season.

I wouldn't say that this was asking for too much on the help front, yet it made a great deal of difference.

Malone & Stockton still get my honorable mention, they were great. However, this is the year they both started putting up huge numbers, and the team didn't improve tremendously.

When had Utah ever pushed an opponent, let alone the world champs, to the brink of elimination in a seven game series before Stockton and Malone?

Try, never. But, for some reason, this entire event doesn't count.

Doesn't mean they should be banned from the top 5, but I don't feel weird leaving them out.

I find it odd, in the team standardization, which seems to shift not only by season but also by player.

Hakeem, still almost made my top 5, but this RS was his low point until his pouting fiasco a few years later. Now, he put up fantastic numbers in the PS - in a first round exit where his team didn't even hold serve. As we've seen, opponent's can come up with strategies to let the star get his that are very successful. I can't let his PS sway me that strongly.

Does this mean that Akeem was a low-impact superstar? Or, could it be that the Rockets just weren't very good?

[Doctor MJ]

Wow, that's a lot.

Based on?

One interesting fact (maybe two, factors within a larger scale or statement): Malone was on the second team for All-NBA D, and second in the NBA on defensive WS.

I don't necessarily think Malone was better for the season, but I do find it curious that Barkley is assumed to not only be better, but be a better fit for Utah, and more likely to create wins. History doesn't really bear this out, and some specifics for this season suggest the opposite.

If Utah is considered over and over again as a defensive team during this period, I think it's important to note that Malone was a very good defender, as was Stockton.

The same can't really be said for adversaries/rivals at their positions during this time.

Utah was a fantastic defensive team before Malone was even on the team. I consider Eaton the clear top reason for the Jazz great defense. Forced to pick one, yes I prefer Malone's defense, but I do think Barkley gets something of a bad rap here. It's not like Barkley never played on a good defense.

Also, I didn't say Barkley was a better fit for Utah than Malone, I was talking generally about talent and design of supporting cast. The 76ers were clearly quite poorly designed.

So, Utah took the Lakers seven, merely by accident? How many seven game series in history do you believe this of? That's pretty dangerous, and doesn't speak well of Magic's leadership -- extrapolated, the fact that the Lakers went the distance in three straight series doesn't help on that score, particularly if we're to believe that they were only bored.

But then, I don't believe this, particularly in this regard. Utah was a troublesome matchup for LA. A big presence in the middle, a fast, elite facilitating lead guard and a burgeoning superstar forward that was a huge handful both on the block and on the break.

That Stockton and Malone get little to no credit for pushing the Lakers 7, while Barkley is defended and, through that, rewarded and assumed to be better than both of them while playing for a 36 win team, doesn't really cohere for me on broad, analytical logic.

I find it odd how the team argument is used against Malone and Stockton, even when they do well -- and when another star that did far worse under the same rubric is brought in, he's thoroughly defended and put over them on polling based on...well, that selfsame defense of his team's miserable record. And somehow, we're to assume that he'd do better than Malone if the roles were reversed.

My head is spinning.

I would think that, if the team aspect was going to be used in argumentation, the guys on a team that won enough games to qualify for the playoffs, then won a round without homecourt and, then, pushed the world champs to a game 7 would get more credit on this front than a guy who played on a 36 win team. Like, a lot more.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe that if Barkley had ever pushed the Celtics or Lakers of this period to the brink, that this would be played up far more than this very same factor is for Malone or Stockton historically, or just relative to this single season.

Rockets took the Lakers to 7 last year. Hawks and Cavs took the Celtics to 7 the year before. I'm not saying I ignore what happened, I just don't assume that that means that the teams involved where about as good as each other. I don't believe that a 47 win team that takes the champs to 7 should be considered to be a 60 win team when measuring the team success of a player.

Re: coherence. C'mon, you know what happened. When faced with explaining a tough choice between two options, it's human nature to defend the negatives of the one you pick, and attack the positives of the one you didn't pick. It's for this reason that many times in this project I've "apologized" to a player because most of my comments about him are negative due to my wish to explain my choice, and it doesn't seem fair to the guy since he wouldn't be mentioned at all if he weren't great.

I could of course write in more detail about my decision making, but honestly it doesn't seem to me like it would be all that beneficial for the project, and I'm having trouble making the time to even write as much as I am.

When had Utah ever pushed an opponent, let alone the world champs, to the brink of elimination in a seven game series before Stockton and Malone?

Try, never. But, for some reason, this entire event doesn't count.

Again, it counts, the question is how much it should count. Should I treat the team like they won 60 games?

Hakeem, still almost made my top 5, but this RS was his low point until his pouting fiasco a few years later. Now, he put up fantastic numbers in the PS - in a first round exit where his team didn't even hold serve. As we've seen, opponent's can come up with strategies to let the star get his that are very successful. I can't let his PS sway me that strongly.

Does this mean that Akeem was a low-impact superstar? Or, could it be that the Rockets just weren't very good?

I'm leaving the quote from me in this one because your comment seems so off. My comment has nothing to do with blaming the Rockets for being bad. My comment is all about how much you much weight you give a few games where a player looks way better than normal but his team loses.

[kaima]

Wow, that's a lot.

Quantity versus quality?

Utah was a fantastic defensive team before Malone was even on the team.

Yet Malone's presence in this season, along with Stockton's, immediately changed the perception surrounding the team.

And with good reason. Utah was not doing anything, really, close in the playoffs to what they did here, before Malone/Stockton.

That's my point. To treat this as meaningless, or even a negative, while Barkley is seen as a hero for a 36 win season is what I find confounding.

I consider Eaton the clear top reason for the Jazz great defense. Forced to pick one, yes I prefer Malone's defense, but I do think Barkley gets something of a bad rap here. It's not like Barkley never played on a good defense.

My point would only be who fit better, and thus the question of why Barkley would be seen as a player that out-flanks Malone in impact for this type of team, or overall. The best that can be said about Barkley's defense, most years, is that it wasn't detrimental.

I do think his freakish athleticism would cover for him much of the time, early on. But Malone's ability was far better even at this point -- when Malone was still developing, and Barkley was close to his best defensively.

If Malone's defense is only a slight positive (again, seemingly being underrated) over Barkley, then I can't see how Barkley's offense was that much better than Malone's, if at all.

Also, I didn't say Barkley was a better fit for Utah than Malone, I was talking generally about talent and design of supporting cast. The 76ers were clearly quite poorly designed.

My point was design as well, in that Malone was arguably a better fit for Utah than Barkley would have been.

It was curious to me that you thought Malone was a worse fit for Utah than Barkley. It still is.

As for Utah versus the Sixers, they were better, yes, but the idea that they Utah was very well designed is not something I agree with.

Rockets took the Lakers to 7 last year.

The question would be, how do you individuate that value? When the other team's best player is Ron Artest, I think we enter into apples versus oranges territory.

Certainly, I've seen great players be praised many times in this project for playing on a team that pushed a superior opponent. I've also seen Karl Malone and John Stockton's worth questioned when they lost to an inferior opponent early.

I don't believe that a 47 win team that takes the champs to 7 should be considered to be a 60 win team when measuring the team success of a player.

I think there's plenty of room to give credit within that variance.

Your initial statement seemed to imply that this meant very little. My question remains, why is it somehow more of a positive to be on a 36 win team, than to change the landscape and perception of a franchise while pushing the best team in the league to the limit?

Right there is an example of Stockton/Malone's impact. Yet they get, seemingly, no credit for this.

Re: coherence. C'mon, you know what happened. When faced with explaining a tough choice between two options, it's human nature to defend the negatives of the one you pick, and attack the positives of the one you didn't pick. It's for this reason that many times in this project I've "apologized" to a player because most of my comments about him are negative due to my wish to explain my choice, and it doesn't seem fair to the guy since he wouldn't be mentioned at all if he weren't great.

Broadly, I have no problem with the Barkley choice. But I do question its justification, and I have broadly gotten the feeling that Malone/Stockton, maybe because of the very fact that they were a tandem, take more negatives on team failures than other stars.

When they also get so little credit, again seemingly, for a relatively good year in team success when looking at the regular season+playoffs -- wherein the lack of more than 47 wins is focused on, and the fact that they pushed the eventual champs seven is, contrasted, dismissed -- I see a lack of over-arcing fairness and base logic in that.

When it's then claimed that Utah wasn't that effected by their combined or individuated presence(s), even considering that this was easily Utah's best season ever, I really question what the underlying standard is for them, and why it seems so much higher than a Barkley or Olajuwon.

All that conflated, we're left with one last questionable point: you state that Utah wasn't that close to the championship on a talent level, yet somehow it's expected that Utah should have done better than win 47 games and push the Lakers to 7.

My argument or issue, then, is not with the number of words used but the argument expressed in them, and how it doesn't seem to cohere between players. 50/100/however many more words aren't likely to change that finding.

Again, it counts, the question is how much it should count. Should I treat the team like they won 60 games?

I think it should count at least as much in the positive column as the loss to Golden State was treated as a negative. Just as a base standard. But that doesn't seem to be the case -- in both seasons, the simple assumption seems to be that Malone and Stockton were low-impact paper tigers, no matter the evidence.

That was and is my problem with the argument.

Hakeem, still almost made my top 5, but this RS was his low point until his pouting fiasco a few years later. Now, he put up fantastic numbers in the PS - in a first round exit where his team didn't even hold serve. As we've seen, opponent's can come up with strategies to let the star get his that are very successful. I can't let his PS sway me that strongly.

Does this mean that Akeem was a low-impact superstar? Or, could it be that the Rockets just weren't very good?

I'm leaving the quote from me in this one because your comment seems so off. My comment has nothing to do with blaming the Rockets for being bad. My comment is all about how much you much weight you give a few games where a player looks way better than normal but his team loses.[/quote]

My question was a broadly technical one. When a star performs well, yet goes down early and easily on a team basis, is he low-value? That was the assumption as to Stockton and Malone's worth against Golden State -- even as they both played great -- so I figured the same value may apply here.

On both counts, I would highly disagree.

What I would say this returns to is the difficult task of parsing superstar impact on a team, year to year. Is Jordan really only worth three wins for the 94 Bulls?

I don't think these are easily answered questions, but at the same time I would hope that we could find a standard that fits coherently when analyzing all these players, instead of a system that rewards some for team failure and negates team success for others.

That's what I saw here.

[Doctor MJ]

Quantity versus quality?

Nah.

If Malone's defense is only a slight positive (again, seemingly being underrated) over Barkley, then I can't see how Barkley's offense was that much better than Malone's, if at all.

Significantly more efficient volume scorer, better rebounder - particularly evident on the offensive end, a more capable perimeter ball handler, better passer.

The question would be, how do you individuate that value? When the other team's best player is Ron Artest, I think we enter into apples versus oranges territory.

Certainly, I've seen great players be praised many times in this project for playing on a team that pushed a superior opponent. I've also seen Karl Malone and John Stockton's worth questioned when they lost to an inferior opponent early.

I think it should count at least as much in the positive column as the loss to Golden State was treated as a negative. Just as a base standard. But that doesn't seem to be the case -- in both seasons, the simple assumption seems to be that Malone and Stockton were low-impact paper tigers, no matter the evidence.

That was and is my problem with the argument.

In reality I do give some weight to taking a team to 7 games, but not as much, I think, as others do.

I think it's quite strange to treat losing in 7 games to a superior team as the converse of getting upset. Winning in an upset is the converse of losing in an upset. Losing to a favorite in 7 games is the converse of winning as a favorite in 7 games. When the upset occurs, both teams face significant changes in esteem. When a favorite wins in 7, people typically don't reassess that team much at all, so why would the team that loses in 7 get a total makeover?

Your initial statement seemed to imply that this meant very little. My question remains, why is it somehow more of a positive to be on a 36 win team, than to change the landscape and perception of a franchise while pushing the best team in the league to the limit?

Right there is an example of Stockton/Malone's impact. Yet they get, seemingly, no credit for this.

I don't understand what kind of an answer you need here. I thought I explain the situation with my little "human nature" speech.

No, it's not more of a positive to be on a 36 win team than it is to be on a 47 win team.

Broadly, I have no problem with the Barkley choice. But I do question its justification, and I have broadly gotten the feeling that Malone/Stockton, maybe because of the very fact that they were a tandem, take more negatives on team failures than other stars.

When they also get so little credit, again seemingly, for a relatively good year in team success when looking at the regular season+playoffs -- wherein the lack of more than 47 wins is focused on, and the fact that they pushed the eventual champs seven is, contrasted, dismissed -- I see a lack of over-arcing fairness and base logic in that.

When it's then claimed that Utah wasn't that effected by their combined or individuated presence(s), even considering that this was easily Utah's best season ever, I really question what the underlying standard is for them, and why it seems so much higher than a Barkley or Olajuwon.

All that conflated, we're left with one last questionable point: you state that Utah wasn't that close to the championship on a talent level, yet somehow it's expected that Utah should have done better than win 47 games and push the Lakers to 7.

I wouldn't say Malone/Stockton take on more negatives because they're a tandem. I do think the fact that they are a tandem influences people to split up the credit a bit more, and that you can make a good case that that's not justified.

"Easily their best season ever", I don't agree with that statement. This marked the 5th season in a row they won between 40 and 49 games, and their 3 of those seasons where they got to the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Re: "wasn't that close to the championship on a talent level, yet somehow it's expected that Utah should have done better". lol, man it feels like you're spending time thinking on how to make my words look contradictory instead of trying to see where I'm coming from. I'll break the statement down:

"wasn't that close to the championship on a talent level" - my statements are about what was actually accomplished, not about talent level. I don't understand how you think I was assessing talent at all here.

"yet somehow it's expected that Utah should have done better" - I said nothing about expected/should've of course, but if you mean that Malone's standing raises in my eyes with more team success, you're correct. You seem to imply that I'm basically ignoring team success and would pick Barkley no matter what, but I've picked Malone over Barkley many, many times in this project.

So let's re-package that statement: "Utah didn't accomplish that much, but if they had accomplished more, I'd think more highly of their players." Seems not only coherent, but actually self-evident.

My question was a broadly technical one. When a star performs well, yet goes down early and easily on a team basis, is he low-value? That was the assumption as to Stockton and Malone's worth against Golden State -- even as they both played great -- so I figured the same value may apply here.

On both counts, I would highly disagree.

What I would say this returns to is the difficult task of parsing superstar impact on a team, year to year. Is Jordan really only worth three wins for the 94 Bulls?

I don't think these are easily answered questions, but at the same time I would hope that we could find a standard that fits coherently when analyzing all these players, instead of a system that rewards some for team failure and negates team success for others.

That's what I saw here.

I think you interpret too literally.

The key thought for me in this case was just that I was more impressed with Barkley than with Malone. Two similar players, that when I think about in comparison at this point in their career, I just don't feel right putting Malone ahead. The arguments defending Barkley's negatives here for example, if I had put Malone over Barkley, and someone had come back with those arguments, I wouldn't have had an answer for them.

I bring up the team success because to me it's the obvious thing that a Malone supporter would want to hear me discuss. My arguments are to illustrate that the difference in team success aren't that dramatic, and that Philly's poor year isn't due to a fundamental flaw in Barkley's ability. They are meant to explain why I don't weigh the more heavily than I do, not to somehow say that Barkley gets a boost for superior team success. They are a plus in Malone's column, it's just not enough for me to toss everything else out.