Retro POY '90-91 (Voting Complete)

[Manuel Calavera]

1) Michaell Jordan
2) Magic Johnson
3) David Robinson
4) Karl Malone
5) Charles Barkley

[kaima]

I'm not arguing anything except Malone did not lack all-star talent,
which was the original claim.

Even when you then add that some of that All-Star talent wasn't really All-Star talent. Um...

I don't know how the discussion became All-Star talent, but in the context of our disagreement my argument was depth.

You also claimed that no one over Malone in all-time rankings had more support. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

He had a top 10 player in the league for a decade and a handful of decent 3rd wheels in Eaton/Malone/Hornacek. Nobody's saying those guys were HOFers, but they were good players, enough to make an all-star team once, and when you add that to Stockton it's more than enough for all-star talent...

From a scoring perspective, Eaton was a non-starter, J. Malone was far too limited.

Hornacek was the only so-called third piece that I really like for those Stockton/Malone Utah teams.

whether they had the depth after that is a different question. It's not like Malone was unlucky to not have John Stockton AND another perenniel all-star like Chris Mullin or Dikembe Mutumbo. That would've given him more luck than anyone.

Really? Would that automatically make Malone's Jazz better than the 80s Celtics? The 60s Celtics? The 72 Lakers? The 80s Lakers? The 96 Bulls? The 97 Rockets? The 08 Celtics?

Just from a star-laden or talent perspective.

And in that Jazz system dominated by 2 players it's hard to imagine a 3rd guy thriving at their level without reducing their effectiveness anyways

Since when is it about individual stats? That's been my point the whole time -- depth, and complementary ability.

Anyways I just watched the 4th quarter of the Houston-Utah Game 5, which I thought wasn't on youtube for some reason. Karl Malone is absolutely at fault for letting that game go.

Absolutely? Who put Utah in position in the first place? Further, where was the help? Even when Houston's making the run, it's balanced. Drexler, especially. Stockton was MIA the whole game. Doesn't that rather undermine your argument? Especially since you're trying to use this as a microcosm or indictement on Malone's career.

Teams make runs. Utah had theirs, and then Houston responded.

During the last 8 minutes of the game, Olajuwon scored 10 points, Malone had 7. For what it's worth, Houston won by 4.

Utah appeared to have much more trouble getting the ball to Malone than Houston did in getting the ball to Hakeem. The Houston doubles were much more effective -- which begs the question of who was more at fault, the perimeter players or Malone inside.

I tend to think that the Houston rotations were better, and part of that is Utah's floor spacing. As an example, with about 4:35 to play Utah works a screen with Malone and Benoit under the basket, Malone then receives a pass from Hornacek on the left block, Hakeem immediately covers from the top of the key off Carr to double, leading to a pass from Malone, for rotational purposes, that itself leads to...Houston's defense rotating back out with time because the spacing is so porous off the weakside.

Carr dives, but much too slowly relative to Olajuwon's double, he also doesn't do enough to rub Horry off on the rotation, and then compounds it by continuing to run a route that's already no-go on coverage (though you could argue rebounding position); all this begs the question of why Carr was at the top of the key, if not to keep Olajuwon out of the paint (suffice it say, Utah did a terrible job of this). Utah then simply is left with Stockton's penetration and a weak (though open) Benoit three off of it. In all, Utah wasted about 22 seconds with this.

The next play, Malone makes his move to the basket, gets good position quickly and...Stockton loses it on a Drexler steal.

I saw a lot of this happening, from my cursory look again at the tape.

I will say that Utah got outside looks. They didn't tend to cash them in -- particularly Benoit (2-8).

Houston's spacing is better, because Utah has to come farther for collapse purposes. This is the result of Houston's shooters.

Though there's no doubt that Hornacek shot well, both Stockton and Benoit were miserable on three pointers. There really were no shooters after that, while Houston had about 6 rotation guys that could spread the floor.

After Utah goes up 82-75 and Hakeem misses 2 FTs with 5 minutes left, aka when it looks like Houston is absolutely dead, Malone misses a jumper and then doesn't touch the ball except to turn it over until it's 85-82 Houston.

Utah also burnt way too much clock.

Watch Houston, they get the ball to Hakeem quickly. Utah? I saw one play where Stockton/Malone initiate a pick and roll, which inexplicably leads to Stockton deciding to curl and pass to his right rather than go to Malone. They then rotate the ball on the perimeter, and get a lousy shot.

If Malone's help was so great, why is it that no one else seems to step up? Why are no questions asked of Stockton, the same guy you credit as more than enough help? He seemed to play like crap in this game.

Houston's doubles were partially more effective because Utah often were playing a game of three-on-five.

Plays involving Carr (before he fouled out) as a draw on Olajuwon seem to fail in rotational purposes, then compounded by the fact that Houston clearly wants to see Benoit shoot -- which he does.

Sloan seems oblivious.

After the lead is gone there's a shot of him looking at his shoes like he wants to puke. If you're going to lose, at least go down swinging. Malone folded that game and the rest of the team followed him.

Let's look at some facts.

One, Utah was in a very bad position against the best C in the league before the series even started. They literally had no Center, after Felton Spencer got injured. This left them way undersized, lacking in talent and took away, arguably, their best bench scorer as Carr became basically 6 fouls and out.

Two, Houston won whenever Drexler scored 30+. They lost every time he didn't. Isn't this the same guy you lumped in with a Houston team you said lacked talent?

Three, no secondary scorer for Utah ever reached the 30 point mark in this series. In four different cases, more than one player scored thirty for the Rockets -- in game two, they got 32 from Kenny Smith, 30 from Drexler, 27 from Olajuwon and 21 from Robert Horry.

And four, Malone scored 35 in this game, the only opposing post player in those playoffs to outscore Olajuwon in a closeout game. He also made a three that at least made it interesting with 14 seconds left (remained a one possession game).

I don't think Malone outplayed (or even played as well as) Olajuwon, but I also question whether he had as much support. Game 5, says no -- and since that was your focus in questioning Malone, I rather question on this side how it helps to prove your, I think, original point that Malone had plenty of star-level help.

Part of it is being a big who needed the ball passed to him, but again, that's a fault of his game if so.

This is the case for just about all bigs not named Barkley. Not seeing how there's much of an indictment here.

[kaima]

This is all very well. But part of being great is being timely.

Timing is era. Timing is often luck. It's peaking in a serendipitous context.That's not to say that's all there is to the description of "timing", but that it actually is so contradictory because it's so expansive.

As far as your meaning, I gave examples of Malone being timely. Barkley as well.

I could give more examples of players ranked ahead of them not being timely on the big stage. Many times over.

Somehow it matters greatly, when you give examples of Malone failing in the moment. If not, why bring those moments up? What was the point, now that it seems you're devaluing and running from it as a standard? It seems, again, that it only counts against some players -- others are immune.

When a counter-example is used, or the same is shown of a player ranked over Malone, it automatically becomes beside the point from your perspective.

Which actually is my point, conveniently. This is all about championships. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I don't purely agree with that metric. Obviously you do.

I've tried to follow your standards here, and compare players based on them. But they seem to be ever-changing.

First it was surrounding talent. Then it was all-star talent. And, then, it became "big moments". In all three I countered as best as I could, and all three times you seemed disinterested in the standard you originally argued for Malone V these other great players.

Now it seems that it's all about how Malone isn't "EPIC" enough to be argued. I hate to admit it, but I really have no substantive argument against that. But I also think that there isn't much substance in the argument itself.

And this matters when ranking Malone against EPIC players.

But it doesn't matter at all when we see that some of those same "EPIC" players screwed up in big moments as well.

Again, because, simply, of the championship argument.

As far as timing, that's a double-edged sword on many levels.

Looking at the RealGM list, there are quite a few slots I disagree with -- that includes not just where Malone ended up, but Baylor and Barkley as well.

What we're left with is, actually, simple: two people that have different standards in all-time player rankings. I don't think it's an automatic that you had to win a championship to be a top-ten player. Many disagree.

I'll leave it at that, and try to salvage this thread's purpose.

[lorak]

We are talking only about 1991. Besieds it kind of funny how Robinson's HUGE advantage on D is ignored here, while for example in All Time League no way Barkley 1991 wuld be pick before Robinson 1991. I remember some ATL threads and Barkley defense was criticized as much as possible. Now suddenly it doesn't matter.

BTW, even people at the time think that Robinson was much better:
MVP voting:
Magic 497 pts
Robinson 476
Barkley 222

So Robinson was closer to Magic than Barkley to him. And suddenly 4 post season games are supposed to change that? And Robinson even didn't played bad in post season...

Re: "people at the time thought Robinson was much better". That's just silly. First off, a one spot difference in MVP voting is never "much better".

That's not only "one spot" but 250 points difference. That's big. According to MVP voting Robinson was close to Magic (21 pts), but no way Barkley was close to Robinson. That year it was clear that Jordan was no 1 and then was TWO man race for place no 2. Then was Barkley and then other players. So at least 4 groups and there was clear big separation between each other.

And now some posters don't even put Robinson in top 5.

Anyway, my votes:

1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Robinson
4. Barkley
5. Malone

[ElGee]

My 1991 POY Ballot:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Karl Malone
4. Charles Barkley
5. David Robinson

Unfortunately, we're running out of seasons I remember/I didn't have cable then. That, coupled with a lack of research time right now and dwindling online videos is starting to make my vote feel too stat-based.

Anyway, the top 2 are self explanatory. I remember constantly fearing Charles Barkley and being impressed by him and the numbers certainly support that. He's right in that range where missed games are an issue for me and thus I've penalized him accordingly. I still thought about Chuck over Malone because if we adjust for pace his scoring is actually fairly consistent throughout the decade. This is Malone's worst TS% year relative to league average until 1994, and I consider his passing and defense improved throughout those years. Nonetheless, he's still giving you 40 and 16 playoff games (G2) against really good playoff teams like Portland. Someone needs to check his vitamin supplements.

David Robinson falls behind those guys for basically the same reason he always falls behind them. I've tried to be fairly consistent about how I judge his contributions, and in his second year in the league he was a monster, a force, a defensive wrecking ball...in most situations. I'm with a number of voters in sharing concerns about his 13 FGA performance against Nellie's small ball (part 1 - er, 2. Or is it 3?) There was a significant drop in pace in those days between regular season and playoffs, and with Robinson's "limitations" on offense I think it was clearly harder for him to dominate a halfcourt game in which defenses had multiple days to scheme specifically for the Spurs.

[sp6r=underrated]

I don't have time for a long explanation

1. Jordan: His best season
2. Magic: I explained my thoughts earlier on him. What he accomplished his final few years is sadly under appreciated.
3. Malone
4. Barkley
5. Robinson

[kaima]

1) MJ
2) Magic
3) Chuck
4) Mail






5) Mermaid

Malone and Barkley were a tossup. The more I analyze Robinson, the more I wonder...still ranks. Which is kind of...rank.

HM: Stockton, Mullin, Pippen

Both Mullin and Stockton were better this season than the proceeding when looking at regular season+playoffs.

Some numbers:

Jazz/Suns

Stockton: 18 PPG, 12.75 APG, 4.5 REB, 1.5 STL, 62% FG, 50% 3P, 2.8 A/TO ratio

Johnson: 12.75 PPG, 9.75 APG, 3.25 REB, 0.5 STL, 30.1% FG, 14.3% 3P, 3.25 A/TO ratio

Jazz/Blazers

Stockton: 18.4 PPG, 14.6 APG, 4.8 REB, 2.8 STL, 47.6% FG, 35.3% 3P, 5.2 A/TO ratio

Porter: 22.2 PPG, 6.8 APG, 3.4 REB, 1.8 STL, 50% FG, 33.3% 3P, 3.09 A/TO ratio

Playoffs overall

18.2 PPG, 13.8 APG, 4.7 REB, 2.2 STL, 53.7% FG, 40.7% 3P, 3.9 A/TO ratio

Regular Season

17.2 PPG, 14.2 APG, 2.9 REB, 2.9 STL, 50.7% FG, 34.5% 3P, 3.9 A/TO ratio

Mullin

V Spurs

25 PPG, 7.25 REB, 3.5 APG, 1.75 STL, 1.25 BLK, 52% FG, 100% 3P

V Lakers

22.5 PPG, 7.25 REB, 2.25, 2 STL, 1.75 BLK, 53.1% FG, 66.6% 3P

Playoffs overall

23.8 PPG, 7.3 REB, 2.9 AST, 1.9 STL, 1.5 BLK, 52.7% FG, 69.2% 3P

Regular season

25.7 PPG, 5.4 REB, 4.0 AST, 2.1 STL, 0.8 BLK, 53.6% FG, 30.1% 3P

(keep in mind, Mullin was injured during the playoffs; missed a couple of games, battling a knee injury; played 46 minutes per)

And I had to mention Pippen. Not only because of his play, but to avoid being seen as the Marc Stein of these threads: i.e. the Bob Sugar of white star PR.

[drza]

1) Jordan
2) Magic

Here it gets hard. Like ElGee, a combo of fading memory and lack of time for research for this year is making me feel less confident. I'm leaning heavily upon my impressions and the arguments in this thread. My impression/memory is that Robinson was the best of the rest, but the pro-Malone contingent has done a better job of arguing their point in this thread than the pro-Robinson contingent. It is difficult, at least at first blush, to justify why Robinson couldn't do more against the Warriors. It's not quite Dirk-in-07 because at least Robinson was hugely effective at what he did, but I needed to see someone that watched that series in-depth break down why the Warrior's success shouldn't reflect badly upon Robinson. And I haven't seen that here, which gives me pause.

All things being equal, I tend to rate Barkley below players that produce similarly on offense but also do well on defense.

So, barring a change (and I doubt there'll be time for that) my vote is:

1) Jordan
2) Magic
3) Malone
4) Robinson
5) Barkley

HM: Pippen, who I would like to rank but I can't justify over 5 franchise guys that I think were just better at this point in their careers.

[lorak]

1) Jordan
2) Magic

Here it gets hard. Like ElGee, a combo of fading memory and lack of time for research for this year is making me feel less confident. I'm leaning heavily upon my impressions and the arguments in this thread. My impression/memory is that Robinson was the best of the rest, but the pro-Malone contingent has done a better job of arguing their point in this thread than the pro-Robinson contingent. It is difficult, at least at first blush, to justify why Robinson couldn't do more against the Warriors. It's not quite Dirk-in-07 because at least Robinson was hugely effective at what he did, but I needed to see someone that watched that series in-depth break down why the Warrior's success shouldn't reflect badly upon Robinson. And I haven't seen that here, which gives me pause.

I don't have time, but in short: Spurs lost this series on the perimeter.

G2
Mullin .597 TS%, 27 pts
Hardaway .563, 20
Richmond .383, 16
Sarunas .743, 16


Anderson .529, 19
Strickland .311, 8
Elliot .129, 1
Pressey .524, 12

G3
Mullin .679, 22
Hardaway .656, 22
Richmond .774, 27
Sarunas .615, 21


Elliot .661, 24
Strickland .429, 16
Anderson .409, 11
Pressey .621, 7

G4
Mullin .652, 23
Richmond .585, 17
Hardaway .583, 32
Sarunas .709, 14

Strickland .517, 21
Elliot .640, 23
Anderson .250, 8
Pressey .375, 6

Only 1 time Warriors player had game with below .550 TS%. In spurs only 3 times they were above that mark...
Only 4 times Warriors player scored below 20 points. In Spurs only 3 times they scored above 20 points...

[An Unbiased Fan]

#1 MJ
#2 Magic
#3 Barkley
#4 DRob
#5 Malone

[TrueLAfan]

That's a bit of a false argument...the Warriors were among the league leaders in threes, and got something like two thirds of their total team scoring from their starting PG, SG, and SF. They had no interior play, on offense or defense. Rod Higgins, Tom Tolbert, Alton Lister, Tyrone Hill, Jim Petersen, Steve Johnson, and Paul Mokeski combined to score--are you ready?--2583 points out of the team's 9564. 27% of the team's total point from the two frontcourt positions. That's horrible. So you pretty much knew going that the Warriors were going to score on your from the perimeter.

But let's be real. That's not why the Warriors won. Their scoring went down in the series against San Antonio by nearly four points a game. They didn't more scoring fromthe perimeter than usual; Run-TMC averaged aboput 71 a game in the series; they averaged about 72 in the regular season. The Warriors won not because of what they did, but of what San Antonio didn't do. When Alton Lister went down, the Warriors lost (by far) their best interior defender. During the season, the Warriors' opponents put up 115 points a game. The Spurs were more than seven points a game below that. And their leading scorer and MVP candidate had undersized and poor defenders on him and didn't raise his scoring.

[tha_rock220]

1. Jordan
2. Magic
3. Barkley
4. Malone
5. David Robinson

But let's be real. That's not why the Warriors won. Their scoring went down in the series against San Antonio by nearly four points a game. They didn't more scoring fromthe perimeter than usual; Run-TMC averaged aboput 71 a game in the series; they averaged about 72 in the regular season. The Warriors won not because of what they did, but of what San Antonio didn't do. When Alton Lister went down, the Warriors lost (by far) their best interior defender. During the season, the Warriors' opponents put up 115 points a game. The Spurs were more than seven points a game below that. And their leading scorer and MVP candidate had undersized and poor defenders on him and didn't raise his scoring.

The Warriors did what the 96 Sonics did to Hakeem and the Rockets. They played a masked zone and made it hard for the Spurs to get Admiral the ball in the post.

[lorak]

That's a bit of a false argument...the Warriors were among the league leaders in threes, and got something like two thirds of their total team scoring from their starting PG, SG, and SF. They had no interior play, on offense or defense. Rod Higgins, Tom Tolbert, Alton Lister, Tyrone Hill, Jim Petersen, Steve Johnson, and Paul Mokeski combined to score--are you ready?--2583 points out of the team's 9564. 27% of the team's total point from the two frontcourt positions. That's horrible. So you pretty much knew going that the Warriors were going to score on your from the perimeter.

But let's be real. That's not why the Warriors won. Their scoring went down in the series against San Antonio by nearly four points a game. They didn't more scoring fromthe perimeter than usual;

They did - Run TMC +Sarunas scored more pace adjusted against SAS than in regular season.

And, what's much more important, they were doing it more efficient, while Spurs perimeter players were less effective:

Run TMC +Sarunas
RS: .577 TS%
1st round: .615 TS%

Elliot+Anderson+Strickland+Pressey
RS: .535 TS%
PS: .506 TS%

You see? That's not Robinson's fault that his partners were missing wide open shots (and that opportunities were created because of Warriors defense was collapsing on Robinson) or that they couldn't stop opposite perimeter players.

Lakers in second round were much worse matchup for Warriors with Magic, Scott and Worthy on the perimeter. And that’s it.

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. Jordan
2. Magic
3. Malone
4. Barkley
5. Robinson

As everyone else said, 1 & 2 are easy.

One thing I wanted to mention regarding how low Magic's playoff PER is: It's true that the big factor is how point guards are treated by PER in general. However, notice Magic played 43.3 MPG in the playoffs. So on one level, Magic's per possession productivity is less impressive. On a different level though, Magic's 31 years old, having his last real season ever due to HIV, and he's playing more MPG in the playoffs than almost anyone - including iron men like Malone & Jordan who are much younger at the time. I really think Magic ends up a strong GOAT candidate if plays out his career like his body was capable of.

Malone vs Barkley. Gave Malone the nod reluctantly. In my head, Barkley's the more dangerous player, but it's funny: While Barkley's his most unstoppable in this year and earlier, it's his later years where he's more likely to just destroy teams in the playoffs in a deciding game. While he led his team well in these playoffs, Malone was the one more likely to put up a 30-15 type game. When you then consider the time Charles missed, I'm giving Malone the nod.

Robinson grabs the 5th spot. I'm tending to favor the dominant PFs over Robinson right now, but it's hard to see anyone else moving above him.

Honorable Mention:

Pippen - Jordan's Robin arrives. Stellar year, can see why some have him in their top 5.

Mullin - Love how he plays.

Drexler - Another year leading a contender.

Stockton - Typical Stockton year, solid in the top 10.

Dumars - People tend to rag on Dumars saying "well what did the Pistons do when Dumars was their best player"? Well they got to the conference finals, upsetting Bird's Celtics in the process. Coulda done worse.

[Doctor MJ]

Last call. Let me know any changes you make from this point on.

[CellarDoor]

Jordan
Magic
Barkley
Malone
Pippen

[Doctor MJ]

'90-91 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Michael Jordan   22   0   0   0   0 220   1.000
2. Magic Johnson     0  22   0   0   0 154   0.700
3. Karl Malone       0   0   9   8   3  72   0.327
4. Charles Barkley   0   0   6  10   4  64   0.291
5. David Robinson    0   0   5  10   4  56   0.255
6. Scottie Pippen    0   0   0   0   4   4   0.018
8. Clyde Drexler     0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005
  Hakeem Olajuwon    0   0   0   0   1   1   0.005


[drza]

Random note: Player "advocates"

I've seen more passive-aggressive criticisms in this thread about how we don't need more advocates for individual players. But once again, in this thread, it seems to me that the "advocates" are the ones that are carrying this project. Everyone here knows basketball, knows the NBA, knows the commonly held beliefs that are prevalent about different players in this era. But one of the strengths in this project is the discussion, the bringing forth of information and interpretation that runs counter to the norm.

The so-called advocates seem to be putting in more time and energy to really illustrate circumstances and breaking down exactly why the stats and results might look like they do. Everyone has only one vote, and no one is forced to vote against their beliefs, so there's no downside to posters advocating for one player. On the other hand, there is huge upside in extra info and analysis bringing perspective that other folks that might not follow a player as closely wouldn't have.

One example for me is the Karl Malone/David Robinson debate. This year I voted for Malone over Robinson. I never, never, never thought that I'd do that. But Kaima has done a great job over the last several threads of re-framing the way I look at the two, and in this thread I couldn't justify leaving Robinson on top. The way it has played out has done more to make me question Robinson than it does to make me think more of Malone, but I've had to think more about that as well.

The point is, Kaima is a Malone and anti-Robinson advocate. And in so being, he is bringing useful information into this project that wouldn't otherwise be there. I don't agree with him in a macro sense and I don't have to vote in any way that I don't want to because of his arguments, but I appreciate his perspective and in reading his posts I feel like I'm better informed than I was when this project started. I guess I just don't get the negative response, the consistent digs, the exasperation that several of the project members keep putting out there about us so-called advocates. We only get one vote. And we're putting a lot of time, energy and information into our posts. Maybe I'm coming off as sensitive, but seriously, it's time to lay off with the comments.

[Dr Positivity]

Kaima if you believe Karl Malone is commonly robbed of a top 10 spot of all time that's fine by me. But to argue the only reason people putting him below guys like Hakeem, Jerry West, Oscar, Moses etc. is because Karl didn't have enough help, is ludacris. Kevin Garnett with the TWolves is a guy who's career arguably got burned by playing with nobody. That I can buy. David Robinson had a one man band most of the time. But Karl Malone? He had another top 10 player his entire career in Stockton. He had Sloan's system which encouraged everyone busting their tails. He had some other good players like Eaton/Malone/Hornacek. He didn't have the most stacked team of anyone in the top 20, but he was nowhere near a victim of circumstance, IMO. The "Well if he got to play with another top 10 player and then a perenniel all-star as a 3rd option and they'd win titles easy" card could be played with basically every guy in the top 25. What if David Robinson played with Clyde Drexler and Kevin Johnson for 15 years? What if Patrick Ewing played with Scottie Pippen and Mark Price for 15 years?

The argument I'd be interested in is what makes Karl Malone's game better than 5 guys commonly listed ahead of him like West, Moses, Oscar, etc. That's how the argument for Malone in the top 10 is made, if success if thrown out the window

[Gongxi]

No one enjoys someone who, sure, posts facts, but only facts that support one side. I'm sure most of us could do that about a great many subjects- not just basketball- that we're versed in. I could bamboozle you with paragraphs upon paragraphs exhibiting the failure of international law and how it's not only unnecessary but, in fact counterproductive, but I'd be purposely leaving out a lot of other stuff in order to do that. And that's pointless.

If we want to make this a courtroom style setting and argue on behalf of one player against another in a series of posts, alright I guess. I'd rather not- I'm looking at this more cohesively and universally- but it does seem as if some people are already doing that, ie: "Alright, this season I'm going to argue in favor of [X], specifically in relation to [Y], and maybe I can sway some people. If [Y] doesn't have anyone doing that for him...oh well, democracy in action." Sure, you can do it, I'm just not sure why.