RealGM Top 100 List #8

E-Balla · Post #361 » by **E-Balla** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:27 pm

ardee wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:
1986:

Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance

HOF level post man.

But I have to disagree that Magic was better than Bird in the 1986 Playoffs.

I'm voting Magic here and this may seem like a quibble, but '86 Playoffs Bird was a different animal.

And honestly it doesn't just show up in the numbers, even though he had 26-9-8 on 50/40/90+.... 127 ORtg! His efficiency worsened a little bit against Houston but he was still very easily the best player in the series.

The first three rounds were comparable to '09 LeBron: not in terms of raw numbers but in overall play and sheer mastery of the game. Against Chicago (admittedly a poor opponent), Atlanta, and Milwaukee, he had a 129 ORtg... Scored 27 ppg on just 24.1 USG! Just think about how insane that is. To me, if anything, it shows you how key Bird was to the Celtics' incessant moving the ball.

He was 28-8-8 against Chicago in an easy win. In game 2, when Jordan had his famous 63, Bird matched him shot for shot down the stretch and finished with 36/12/8. His help on Jordan also helped the Cs finally shut him down in game 3.

Bird completely outplayed Nique in the second round, who btw was the MVP runner-up (undeserved, but it has to count for something...) It was worse than Olajuwon vs Robinson or LeBron vs Rose. Game 5 was probably the most one-sided game I've ever seen. The Cs were so in control they looked like they could just play around with the Hawks and blow them out, but then took it up another notch in the third quarter.

That 36-6 3rd quarter of the Hawks closeout game remains my favorite Larry Bird moment. The Hawks didn't even stop trying, they were killing themselves trying to compete, but Bird was unstoppable. He was blocking Nique's shots, stealing rebounds, initiating fast-breaks, and when they failed he got back across half court and got McHale and Parish easy baskets. Honestly, watching that quarter reminds me of when a 6'5 guy came to my local court a couple of years ago. We thought he'd post the hell out of us, but he just started dropping 3 after 3 after 3 and we couldn't do jack. On the other end he must've blocked half the shots our team put up.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_eN0xPjzfY[/youtube]

This was the pinnacle of basketball. 36/10/5 is something we see fairly often these days but when you actually watch the game, I've never seen someone so thoroughly dominate a game in every facet AND make it look so easy at the same time.

No one is denying how spectacular he was in these games and series but these were some weak teams and Boston could've beat them even without him. Against the Hawks he did have one of the most memorable moments of his career making it look easy vs Nique though.

He had one of his best games ever in the closeout against Milwaukee, and the first signature moment with three-pointers. He spent the first three quarters dissecting the Bucks with touch passes and his help defense, and sealed things in the fourth by draining 4 straight threes to put them away.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFamuwa96sM[/youtube]

That touch pass at the start makes me happier than my ex ever did. (Saying things like that probably has to do with it, but still)

And you know about the Finals.

Man, that post made me feel like voting for Bird. I better go watch Magic's skyhook game.

Point being 1986 was one of the years I feel no one was close to Bird at all. It was like a 1991 Jordan or 1967 Wilt season.

They have most of the 86 Lakers Mavs series on youtube. Watch games 4-6 and watch Magic closely. He was spectacular in those games basically controlling the pace, the boards, and getting to the line at will. I completely respect your opinion but I don't see how anyone can see how Magic played against Houston and Dallas and come to the conclusion that Magic wasn't close to Bird at all.

I will say I never watched the whole Celtics Bucks series only one game that played n=on NBA TV and Bird specific highlights on Youtube. I have watched the whole Finals, the whole WCF and WC semis, and the whole EC semis from 86.

EDIT: I also meant to put Magic's playoffs as slightly over Bird's. I just copy pasted and forgot to change that.

Basketballefan · Post #362 » by **Basketballefan** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:37 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:I have to agree, its criminal that Magic didn't crack even the top 7.

Outside of this site he'd be a lock for top 5.

Again, the issue here is pure longevity, and it's not like "outside of this site" people would object to saying he had a longevity problem.

I really can't work up any outrage at all for those who don't take longevity that seriously, I'm basically fine with it, but longevity is a very real thing and the only thing you should even consider doing if you think people are taking it too seriously is attempt to get more mathematically rigorous. Short of that, you're just blowing hot air.

Magic played at an all star level for 12 years, with many of them being at an Mvp level...stop acting like his longevity was garbage. People value those "extra years" too much, if you're still elite and are a big contributor on a contending team fine, but if you are just putting up decent numbers but aren't an elite player anymore then it's not a big deal to me. In other words extra seasons when a player is just stat padding don't add a ton of value. Magic's superstar longevity is as good as anyone's. That's a fact. Deal with it.

90sAllDecade · Post #363 » by **90sAllDecade** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:38 pm

And for those saying Olajuwon didn't have brilliant basketball intelligence, I very much disagree.

English wasn't Hakeem's first language and he was more humble due to his religion, but if you read his autobiography Living the Dream and his interviews about teaching current NBA superstars about the post game, his basketball intelligence is sky high. This is the same man who devised moves with counter moves on top of counter moves in the post and the same intelligence helped shape his all time defensive dominance.

He would often analyze and breakdown an opponents offense and defense, visualize his moves in preparation nights beforehand against the opposition, and mentally likened basketball to chess. Using psychological preparation and physical tactics & skills.

Some excerpts, Hakeem Olajuwon's autobiography "Living the Dream"
pg 200:

When I analyze and opponent - or a teammate, for that matter - I try to see their weaknesses. You can break down most players that way. No matter how strong a player is in one area, if he is weak in another you can neutralize him by forcing him to go there again and again. It doesn't take long to find out. Usually if one is a good shooter he doesn't like to drive; if he's a good driver he can't shoot. You use that knowledge. If a player is a weak foul shooter, foul him; if he can't hit jump shots in the fourth quarter, dare him to beat you by playing loose late in the game; if he is soft to his right, don't let him go left. If you take away all options except the one a player is weak at you have taken away his game.

pg. 202 speaking about Michael Jordan

I understood his game very well because if I were an outside player these are decisions I would make, the moves I would use. I'm an in-between player too. When I play a guy who is almost my size I just post him up; when I play big guys I go outside, make a move, use my fakes, and come at them. I know I can't do it in the paint, but on the outside I have room. I stay on the attack, I don't let the defender make decisions for me, I make my own decisions.

pg, 203 on Jordan, Dikembe Mutombo and the art of shot blocking

Against a big, solid seven-footer like Dikembe Mutombo I can play a cat's game, he doesn't understand it. Mutombo has to play a big man's game to be effective, and he usually is. But when the Rockets use our quickness, move up the court, dribble, shoot he can't keep up.

When I've had success against Michael Jordan it's been by coming from the weak side and surprising him. I hide behind the Bull’s center and try not to let Jordan see me. Because I am usually smaller than the opposing center I can get away with this, I can literally hide. Some shot blockers like Mutombo, want you to see them; they stand tall and large in the paint and turn drivers away with their size. Guards don’t like shot blockers; once they sense you’re around they don’t come in. But I’m not that big, my shot blocking is all timing, not size. I stand behind the center but I’m always watching the play on the other side of the court, and as soon as Jordan beats his man I come over. You can’t be too eager, I’ve tried that and it doesn’t work. If I get there too soon he changes hands or alters his shot or dishes it off. If I get there too late the shot is gone already. I have to get there at exactly the right time. I study Michael Jordan’s moves to learn when the right time is: it’s when the move is finished and the ball is just being released. As he is releasing it. And I get him – he’s just seen me but it’s too late and he knows I’ve got him; he tries to change the shot but he can’t change this one, he changes it right into my hand – he gets upset.

pg. 235 on defensive intimidation by showboating, insecure trash talking versus letting your game speak for you.

But you don't have to push someone down and step on him to be intimidating. You don't need to do that if you depend on your skills. Let your game speak for you. Your game should intimidate them; the way you play, not what you say.

You are intimidating when your man tries to shoot the ball over you and you contest it and your skills make him change. He shoots it higher and you still get it. He says, "Wow, this guy's going to block it every time." So now he comes into the paint and wants to shoot and he sees you're going to block him, so he passes it out. Your intimidating with your skills, not with your mouth.

Basketball is a game of timing and opportunities and possession, like life in general. Sometimes you catch somebody at their weakest point, when they’re off balance, or you have a step on them - and you explode. You are in a position of strength and he is in a position of weakness, you have the upper hand at that particular time and you can use it to your advantage.

Pg. 234 on the Rockets offense and adjustments

In order for our entire offense to be effective I must show the opponents that I'm going to score if they let me. I have to be a threat, otherwise they won't double team me. So I have to prove I can score and I have to do it immediately. I don't want to give the opposition time to run someone at me or to develop a rotation so my teammates will be covered. I want to damage them early..

...At the same time our coach is watching the rotation. Who moves to double team me? How does the rest of the team react, what shifts are made to cover our other players on the floor? The opponents will, of course, have spent a lot of time developing a system to stop me and to cut down the options for the rest of my team. My coach will design a game plan to counter their game plan. For instance, when the Rocket’s guard throws the ball into the pivot Rudy will see if the defense is coming from the baseline or from another angle to guard me, and he will use that knowledge to put our guys in the best position to receive a pass and score. If they collapse on me I can toss the ball inside to one of my men cutting to the basket or outside to a guard for a three point shot. If a man runs at the shooter he can pass it around the perimeter until an open man gets it or he can step inside the defender and shoot. There are thousands of options and they all change each time someone handles the ball. It’s chess with big guys.

He may have not been as expressive about it or screamed it at people, but his basketball brilliance was always there. When I have time I’ll post more about his strategy against Ewing and Shaq. You can read his book he explains it all.

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Dream-My-L ... 0316094277

ceiling raiser · Post #364 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:39 pm

Basketballefan wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:I have to agree, its criminal that Magic didn't crack even the top 7.

Outside of this site he'd be a lock for top 5.

Again, the issue here is pure longevity, and it's not like "outside of this site" people would object to saying he had a longevity problem.

I really can't work up any outrage at all for those who don't take longevity that seriously, I'm basically fine with it, but longevity is a very real thing and the only thing you should even consider doing if you think people are taking it too seriously is attempt to get more mathematically rigorous. Short of that, you're just blowing hot air.

Magic played at an all star level for 12 years, with many of them being at an Mvp level...stop acting like his longevity was garbage. People value those "extra years" too much, if you're still elite and are a big contributor on a contending team fine, but if you are just putting up decent numbers but aren't an elite player anymore then it's not a big deal to me. In other words extra seasons when a player is just stat padding don't add a ton of value. Magic's superstar longevity is as good as anyone's. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Why specifically do you feel this way? I'd be interested in a breakdown with your evidence/reasoning.

Purch · Post #365 » by **Purch** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:45 pm

Comparing the longevity of Karl Malone and Hakeem

Seasons played

Malone-19
Hakeem-18

Seasons played averaging 30+ Minutes

Malone-19
Hakeem-15

Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-17
Hakeem-12

Post Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-18
Hakeem-12

All Nba 1st teams

Malone-11
Hakeem-6

Seasons shooting 50%TS or more

Malone-19
Hakeem-16

Seasons with an offensive rating of 100+ or more

Malone-18
Hakeem-16

Seasons playing 80 or more games

Malone- 17
Hakeem- 5

Seasons missing 20+ games

Hakeem-6
Malone-2

Seasons being Top 5 in WIN SHARES

Malone-13
Hakeem-2

Seasons being Top 5 in PER

Malone-13
Hakeem-7

DQuinn1575 · Post #366 » by **DQuinn1575** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:48 pm

magicmerl wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: BIRD - by good distance | Post season: BIRD - by good distance
Regular season: EVEN | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: EVEN | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: BIRD - by a decent distance | Post season: BIRD - slightly
Regular season: BIRD - slightly | Post season: BIRD - slightly
Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance

So when they are contemporaries, Bird wins comfortably in the larger sample size (the regular season). For the playoffs, was either the East or the West unusually bad? The East has been weak for the last 15 years or so, which is a factor in why KG/Shaq/Duncan did not make the finals more than they did (because they had to go through each other). Did Magic or Bird play in the 'big boys' conference which could be a factor in their postseason results?

The west was way worst than the east every year in the 80s

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Post #367 » by **Texas Chuck** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:50 pm

Basketballefan wrote:Magic played at an all star level for 12 years, with many of them being at an Mvp level...stop acting like his longevity was garbage. People value those "extra years" too much, if you're still elite and are a big contributor on a contending team fine, but if you are just putting up decent numbers but aren't an elite player anymore then it's not a big deal to me. In other words extra seasons when a player is just stat padding don't add a ton of value. Magic's superstar longevity is as good as anyone's. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Can we stop with the notion that a player past his prime is stat-padding? I mean seriously. Unless you have an actual basis for an accusation of a specific player doing so can't we accept that a guy can still enjoy playing and still be a contributing player with out cynically thinking that he's trying to pile on stats to make the HoF or to impress some kids on a message board?

Purch · Post #368 » by **Purch** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:57 pm

Comparing the longevity of Karl Malone and Larry Bird

Seasons played

Malone-19
Bird-13

Seasons played averaging 30+ Minutes

Malone-19
Bird-13

Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-17
Bird-11

Post Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-18
Bird-9

All Nba 1st teams

Malone-11
Bird-9

Seasons shooting 50%TS or more

Malone-19
Bird-13

Seasons with an offensive rating of 100+ or more

Malone-18
Bird-13

Seasons playing 80 or more games

Malone- 17
Bird-4

Seasons missing 20+ games

Bird-3
Malone-2

Seasons being Top 5 in WIN SHARES

Malone-13
Bird-6

Seasons being Top 5 in PER

Malone-13
Bird-6

DQuinn1575 · Post #369 » by **DQuinn1575** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:00 pm

GC Pantalones wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: BIRD - by good distance | Post season: BIRD - by good distance
Regular season: EVEN | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: EVEN | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: BIRD - by a decent distance | Post season: BIRD - slightly
Regular season: BIRD - slightly | Post season: BIRD - slightly
Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance

So when they are contemporaries, Bird rushes in the larger sample size (the regular season). For the playoffs, was either the East or the West unusually bad? The East has been weak for the last 15 years or so, which is a factor in why KG/Shaq/Duncan did not make the finals more than they did (because they had to go through each other). Did Magic or Bird play in the 'big boys' conference which could be a factor in their postseason results?

Well that's why for Magic I kinda ignored how he played against the creampuff teams in my sample and I focused on the great teams he played and like teams they played. Magic still outplayed Bird in those series. I don't give magic credit for just making it the the Finals and CF yearly but I give him credit for laying well in the Finals and CF.

After the 82 regular season being even AND the 84 playoffs being close the post lost all credibility to me.
82 magic was 3-4 guard in the league according to players and writers.

84 finals were lost by tragic Johnson.
Lakers should have been world champs

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Basketballefan · Post #370 » by **Basketballefan** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:00 pm

fpliii wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Again, the issue here is pure longevity, and it's not like "outside of this site" people would object to saying he had a longevity problem.

I really can't work up any outrage at all for those who don't take longevity that seriously, I'm basically fine with it, but longevity is a very real thing and the only thing you should even consider doing if you think people are taking it too seriously is attempt to get more mathematically rigorous. Short of that, you're just blowing hot air.

Magic played at an all star level for 12 years, with many of them being at an Mvp level...stop acting like his longevity was garbage. People value those "extra years" too much, if you're still elite and are a big contributor on a contending team fine, but if you are just putting up decent numbers but aren't an elite player anymore then it's not a big deal to me. In other words extra seasons when a player is just stat padding don't add a ton of value. Magic's superstar longevity is as good as anyone's. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Why specifically do you feel this way? I'd be interested in a breakdown with your evidence/reasoning.

A good example would be Shaq, from 07-2011 he was no longer elite and a borderline all star player at best..yes his numbers might've been decent but he wasn't having a huge impact on his teams imo. I don't value those type of years very much..so if you can consider Shaq elite from his rookie year until 06 that's 14 elite seasons. So with that he would legitimately have better longevity than Magic or Bird. Duncan would as well. Or if you use Garnett as an example, he was elite probably from 00-09 i suppose..from 10-13' he was still a very good player but no one would've considered him a top 15 player in the league at that point. His years before 2000 are hardly worth mentioning. However i'm just trying to make the point that when you consider Magic's years at an MVP-level, it's long as anyone's or close to it. I'm not denying that his longevity isn't the greatest, i just don't think it's all that bad.

ronnymac2 · Post #371 » by **ronnymac2** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:05 pm

drza wrote:My impressions of Hakeem (as compared to Robinson, Duncan and/or Garnett)
Physically: Hakeem always struck me as athletic, but not in the same way that Robinson was. Robinson was longer, seemed faster, and seemed to jump higher. Olajuwon always seemed to be built like a tall short guy (if that makes sense. In other words, he was so proportioned that he didn't give the overwhelming impression of height that Robinson, Kareem or Sampson gave). I also don't have memories of overwhelming speed from Olajuwon, though he seemed quick enough to get his hand on everything in the paint (be it a block or a steal) so that impression isn't exactly air-tight. His agility and maneuverability were amazing, though, and I remember how whenever this would be noted the announcers would always point out his background as a soccer player.

Just want to comment on this.

Hakeem Olajuwon and Michael Jordan are the GOAT in NBA history at the most important physical attribute in any sport: balance. Quickness and speed and vertical leap help in basketball, but what really matters is the ability to stay balanced after an expression of quickness/speed/vertical. Can you jump, land, and have enough balance to execute a quick lateral move, pivot, and second jump?

For me, the thing that makes Hakeem such a special interior defender is that he could leave his man on the left box to stop a guard going baseline, react to the guard passing to the offensive player Hakeem left alone, turn around by torquing his hips yet remain balanced, and spring up without gathering to block the shot. It's like, even when the offensive player makes an intelligent response to Olajuwon's initial defense, Olajuwon's body from the neck down remains composed, no matter how aggressive his initial defense was, and it allows him to make a second strong defensive play in less than a second.

I like "proportioned" as a description, too. Hakeem's center of gravity seemed optimal for functional use in basketball. I believe both Shaquille O'Neal and Moses Malone, two players who made a living out of physically overpowering players, described Hakeem as the strongest player they ever faced. Hakeem didn't have beach muscles like David Robinson, but those are useless in basketball anyway. Olajuwon is one of the greatest man-to-man post defenders in NBA history thanks to that functional strength, which also allows him to establish position against any defender before executing his low-post arsenal.

In my opinion, while somebody like David Robinson is the superior run/jump athlete (barely), Hakeem is the superior athlete for basketball. He might be the greatest all-around athlete FOR BASKETBALL in NBA history when you account for what is necessary offensively and defensively (Shaq's build is optimal for offense, but suboptimal for defense).

And that motor...like I said, that 1987 Seattle 2OT Game 6 is the hardest I've ever seen a C play. 53 minutes. He was non-stop. It was like watching 1988 Michael Jordan. Not every play was perfect, but he tried doing amazing things on every play.

Basketballefan · Post #372 » by **Basketballefan** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:06 pm

Chuck Texas wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:Magic played at an all star level for 12 years, with many of them being at an Mvp level...stop acting like his longevity was garbage. People value those "extra years" too much, if you're still elite and are a big contributor on a contending team fine, but if you are just putting up decent numbers but aren't an elite player anymore then it's not a big deal to me. In other words extra seasons when a player is just stat padding don't add a ton of value. Magic's superstar longevity is as good as anyone's. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Can we stop with the notion that a player past his prime is stat-padding? I mean seriously. Unless you have an actual basis for an accusation of a specific player doing so can't we accept that a guy can still enjoy playing and still be a contributing player with out cynically thinking that he's trying to pile on stats to make the HoF or to impress some kids on a message board?

See my response to Fpliii in regards to that...perhaps i didn't word it the best way but all i'm saying is if you are putting up decent stats at a non-elite level i don't think it should bare a ton of weight in all time lists.

ceiling raiser · Post #373 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:09 pm

Basketballefan wrote:
fpliii wrote:Why specifically do you feel this way? I'd be interested in a breakdown with your evidence/reasoning.

A good example would be Shaq, from 07-2011 he was no longer elite and a borderline all star player at best..yes his numbers might've been decent but he wasn't having a huge impact on his teams imo. I don't value those type of years very much..so if you can consider Shaq elite from his rookie year until 06 that's 14 elite seasons. So with that he would legitimately have better longevity than Magic or Bird. Duncan would as well. Or if you use Garnett as an example, he was elite probably from 00-09 i suppose..from 10-13' he was still a very good player but no one would've considered him a top 15 player in the league at that point. His years before 2000 are hardly worth mentioning. However i'm just trying to make the point that when you consider Magic's years at an MVP-level, it's long as anyone's or close to it. I'm not denying that his longevity isn't the greatest, i just don't think it's all that bad.

Shaq - Okay, that's understandable.
Duncan - That's fine, but which seasons do you consider to be elite?
Garnett - Disagree about 10-13. Those were still elite defensive seasons, by and large. I'm not sure if he'd be top 15, but I think we have to consider him.

Regarding Magic in particular, which seasons specifically do you feel he was playing at an MVP level? How many MVP level seasons, in terms of level of play, do you you think Hakeem had?

I have no problem with your opinion, just trying to understand where you're coming from here. Thanks for the response.

Jim Naismith · Post #374 » by **Jim Naismith** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:12 pm

Purch wrote:
All Nba 1st teams
Malone-11
Hakeem-6

There are two forward slots but only one center slot on the First Team. So it might be more difficult to make the 1st Team for Hakeem compared to Karl Malone.

Bill Russell made it 3 time only, since he had Wilt as competition. In fact, in both 1961 and 1962, Russell was MVP and only made the 2nd Team!

Here are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Team centers for Hakeem's career:

Hakeem's 1st or 2nd team finishes: 9

Owly · Post #375 » by **Owly** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:14 pm

magicmerl wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: BIRD - by good distance | Post season: BIRD - by good distance
Regular season: EVEN | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: EVEN | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: BIRD - by a decent distance | Post season: BIRD - slightly
Regular season: BIRD - slightly | Post season: BIRD - slightly
Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance

So when they are contemporaries, Bird wins comfortably in the larger sample size (the regular season). For the playoffs, was either the East or the West unusually bad? The East has been weak for the last 15 years or so, which is a factor in why KG/Shaq/Duncan did not make the finals more than they did (because they had to go through each other). Did Magic or Bird play in the 'big boys' conference which could be a factor in their postseason results?

Assuming this isn't a set up, the Lakers competition conference wise was significantly weaker through the first decade of their career (though it swung substantially in the other direction for Magic's final two years.

Boston's strength of schedule '80 to '92
1980 -0.43
1981 0.17
1982 -0.03
1983 -0.01
1984 -0.14
1985 -0.18
1986 -0.36
1987 -0.07
1988 0.22
1989 0.1
1990 -0.76
1991 -0.6
1992 -0.21

LA's strength of schedule '80 to '91
1980 -0.51
1981 -0.57
1982 -0.5
1983 -0.49
1984 -0.44
1985 -0.87
1986 -0.9
1987 -0.98
1988 -1.03
1989 -0.79
1990 -0.04
1991 -0.01

The difference between Boston and LA's SoS (negative means LA's is easier, positive means Boston's is)
1980 -0.08
1981 -0.74
1982 -0.47
1983 -0.48
1984 -0.3
1985 -0.69
1986 -0.54
1987 -0.91
1988 -1.25
1989 -0.89
1990 0.72
1991 0.59

And the easiest (relative to league strength) schedule's of all time: http://bkref.com/tiny/z5H04

Of course good teams can't play themselves, and whilst that must be figured in to accounts of strength of schedule, it's hard to be too critical of teams for that.

The softness of the West is particularly notable in the lack of contenders. From '85 to '88 there was only one (non-Laker) team in the West with an SRS over +4. And LA didn't even have to go through them ('87 Mavericks, +5.55, fell in the first round). Though the SRS only swung in '90 the contender situation moved a year earlier ('89 Suns, +6.84, swept by LA in the conference finals).

Post #376 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:17 pm

Basketballefan wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:I have to agree, its criminal that Magic didn't crack even the top 7.

Outside of this site he'd be a lock for top 5.

Again, the issue here is pure longevity, and it's not like "outside of this site" people would object to saying he had a longevity problem.

I really can't work up any outrage at all for those who don't take longevity that seriously, I'm basically fine with it, but longevity is a very real thing and the only thing you should even consider doing if you think people are taking it too seriously is attempt to get more mathematically rigorous. Short of that, you're just blowing hot air.

Magic played at an all star level for 12 years, with many of them being at an Mvp level...stop acting like his longevity was garbage. People value those "extra years" too much, if you're still elite and are a big contributor on a contending team fine, but if you are just putting up decent numbers but aren't an elite player anymore then it's not a big deal to me. In other words extra seasons when a player is just stat padding don't add a ton of value. Magic's superstar longevity is as good as anyone's. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Just stop. Don't even bother replying to me on this because we're not in a debate. All I'm trying to do is get you to understand how other people form opinions that differ from you without being crazy/stupid/evil.

I love Magic Johnson. I've made it clear time and again. He was my hero growing up. I don't like seeing him sink on my or any other person's list. There's nothing for me to "deal with", other than an acceptance of something that I don't like, and that happens to be the exact same thing that YOU don't like.

Maybe at some point I'll change my mind and he'll go back up my list, but my reasoning for dropping him has to do with nothing other than trying to be as fair as possible.

Post #377 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:19 pm

90sAllDecade wrote:My vote is for Hakeem as well.

He is a consensus top 2 defensive player which is comparable to Magic and Bird's offense and better than Garnett's defense due to having both a strong horizontal, vertical and dominant shot blocking/steals. Hakeem's offense is much more impactful than Bird's and Magic's defense. He is also a better offensive anchor in the playoffs than Garnett and improved on both sides of the ball in the playoffs versus Bird and Garnett. He also needed less help to win and won a championship without a staked roster, which Bird, Garnett and Magic needed to win.

Hakeem also has better longevity and a higher peak than Bird, Garnett and Magic.

Hakeem was one of my favorite players during the early 90s. I have the utmost respect for the guy, and he's one of the most skilled players of all time. It seems like people championing for him hang on to the "won a title without another all star" a little too much, though. We have to look at his career as a whole and evaluate him as such.

It brings me back to dirk where if you were a fan of his before 2011, you knew he had been just as good for a few years. It was 2011 that just validated it for all the casual fans out there who wrongly criticized him. Of course winning that ring put him in new territory as an all time great, but it personally didn't change my opinion of him in relation to how good he was as a basketball player.

ceiling raiser · Post #378 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:23 pm

90sAllDecade wrote:He may have not been as expressive about it or screamed it at people, but his basketball brilliance was always there. When I have time I’ll post more about his strategy against Ewing and Shaq. You can read his book he explains it all.

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Dream-My-L ... 0316094277

Great quotes. I'd started typing some stuff up starting with his rookie season, but I haven't had a chance to add to it recently. Here's what I have so far:

Coach Fitch and the Twin Towers:

Spoiler:

Coach Fitch’s offensive game plan began with the center. The ball was always pounded into the post, into the big man’s hands first. From there he could shoot, dish off, pass it back out. All plays began with the big man because a dominant big man would always draw two men to guard him, which meant that somewhere on the floor one of the other four players was open. It’s simple arithmetic. The big man’s job was to decide whether the shot was there or if it was one or two passes away. Basketball is a team game, not one man against another, and Coach Fitch knew he could begin all offensive schemes by going to the one man the opponents had to respect. If a center can be guarded one-on-one by the opposing center this plan does not work, but with a dominant big man this scheme will work every time.

The Rockets had drafted me mostly as a defensive player. At UH, with defenders all over me, my offense had not been established. The Rockets knew I could block shots, they knew I could rebound, they knew I was an athlete and could run the floor and finish the fast break. If that’s all they saw when I got to the pros they would have been very happy. But when practice started I just started playing naturally, like I was at Fonde. It was the first time in a structured team situation that I wasn’t playing against a zone. I could put the ball on the floor, I could make my moves, I was free!

When Coach Fitch saw I could play offense he put me and Ralph at double low post. Although I was smaller than Ralph and a lot of the centers around the league, my game was more of a big man’s game than Ralph’s. Part of this had to do with physique. Ralph was tall and very skillful but he was thin. His strength was his shooting touch, his height, and coordination. He had great moves. In college, where he had dominated and been one of the best college players in history, his ams was throwing and catching lob passes. He had the ability to reach in and grab lobs and rebounds that never came down to smaller players, then turn around and put the ball in the hoop. He had a nice shooting touch from inside and outside.

But Ralph was so tall and light and his knees were so high he was vulnerable to bulkier, more muscular centers who would lean on him and push away from the basket. Other centers were heavier and rougher than he was and his knees, very fragile and tender joints, would take a pounding, and his game would suffer.

People looked at Sampson, 7’4”, and expected him to be a traditional center, to go down into the paint and post up and fight. When he chose to shoot jump shots instead, because that’s the way he could be most successful, they criticized him and called him soft. That was unfair and untrue.

Synergy with Sampson:

Spoiler:

Then I showed up and could play the post. I was solid enough to take the pounding. I was known as a shot blocker and rebounder, anything I contributed on offense was a bonus. This was a bonanza for Coach Fitch. Now he had two big men.

I was very happy to be playing with Ralph. He took half the load of expectations and pressure off my shoulders. He was a three-time All-America, a college basketball Player of the Year, he was bigger than I was, he was supposed to be better. I didn’t think I’d have any problem fitting together on the team with him.

On the court we complemented each other well. His game made things very simple for me. Because he was such a good shooter his shots were always around the basket. Ralph made a high percentage of his shots and when he missed he was always close; he would lean and shoot off the glass and the ball would bounce off the rim and sit right up for me. I would go over my man and get a slam dunk. I got my best highlights on power put-backs of Ralph’s missed shots. When we ran down the court afterward he would shake my hand for helping him out; it made his shots easier to take knowing I was there to rebound for him. He’d say “Hey, Dream!” and we’d talk for a second and plot out a play. That’s when I knew he generally liked me. I came to the team not to compete with him, not to take the team away from him, but to complement him. And when he said, “Let’s do this” and sketched out a play, that motivated me. I didn’t want to disappoint him. I said, “Let’s do it!” I showed Ralph I was backing him. “I’m right there with you!” I wanted him to know that I had good intentions toward him, that anytime he said something like that it meant a lot and I was ready.

Sometimes he would call me aside during a time-out and we’d talk. If a particular player was giving me difficulty Ralph would say, “Don’t worry about him, just turn around on him. Just make your move.” He knew my game, he knew my strengths. He was very much a leader. I had watched him closely through college and I respected him. There was never any conflict between Ralph and me.

On Artis Gilmore:

Spoiler:

On facing Moses Malone in the pros:

Spoiler:

On the Celtics:

Spoiler:

On Kareem:

Spoiler:

And, of course, in the Middle was Kareem.

I had heard about the sky hook for so long, and now I was on the court against it.

We were the Twin Towers, we were young, we were supposed to be the future of the game, we played to win. But there was a certain angle when Kareem went up with his shot—from the right side of the basket, halfway to the three-point line—it looked so simple, so effortless, I just couldn’t help but stop to look at it. The sky hook was the perfect shot; I don’t know how anyone ever stopped it.

Ralph guarded him since he was two inches taller than Kareem and at least had a chance to get in Kareem’s way. My only chances was to come off my man and come from the weak side to try to get a piece of the ball from behind.

The sky hook began with the legs. Kareem had amazingly strong legs, an extremely strong base, and when he spread them it was very hard to get near him. You had to expect the hook so you tried to deny him the post, but he was agile and strong and a fighter and he usually got his position. He would get the ball and your troubles were just beginning. Of course the hook was his first option, so you had to play him close, get a body on him and try to make his take-off difficult. But Kareem was also smart and quick, and to keep his man honest he would often fake the hook and turn to the middle of the lane where he was about a foot from the basket and could lay the ball in with either hand if you let him. So you couldn’t give him the middle, you had to beware of that move. Kareem also had a good court sense and a great eye; when Magic or Byron Scott would cut to the basket he would drop them the ball for the lay-up, so you had to respect the pass.

You had to respect everything. You couldn’t overcommit to the right, you were never going to touch the sky hook from the left, and if you bumped him in the middle you’d be called for the foul.

The sky hook itself was the best shot in the game and the most difficult to block. When Ralph went out I had to guard Kareem and it seemed that every time I looked around there was a ball coming down into the basket. Kareem would dribble, sort of rock to his right to both fake and clear you out, then turn away from you, and as you tried to jump with him he would lift off his left foot and hold his left arm parallel to the ground, the point of his elbow like a led pipe in your chest. By the time I got to the league he had taken the shot so many times it was automatic.

Kareem was so quick with the hook he would be at the top of his jump and you’d be trying to figure out when exactly to lift off. Kareem had an answer for that, too. The secret to shot blocking is timing, but he would be so high that you’d have to use all your strength just to get near the ball. Kareem used an arc, not a flat shot, which made it even more difficult to touch. And on top of all that he would freeze you. He would get to the top of his jump, balance the ball on his fingertips, cock his wrist, and pause—not for long, just long enough either to get you off the ground or keep you on it. That little moment with the wrist made the shot devastating. No—impossible. Either way, when I jumped at his shot it wasn’t there. Kareem was three inches taller than I was and when I looked at where the ball was—on top of his arm held all the way straight up above his head and over his far shoulder—I got discouraged. I was a shot blocker but I knew I couldn’t block that shot. It was up so high, all I could do was hope that he missed.

Mostly I’d try to bother Kareem’s shot, make him work for position, make him jump higher than he usually would because I was sixteen years younger than he was and he’d know I was going to jump as high as I could. I used every edge I could get and I hoped that maybe by making him change his shooting arc even a little it might throw off his rhythm or perspective or stroke. I can’t say I was very successful. But then, neither was anybody else. The sky hook was unstoppable.

Being an in-between player, and the fade-away:

Spoiler:

I was excited finally to be in the NBA. Instead of being stifled by college zones, now I could post up and take my jump hook and my turnaround jump shot, I could put the ball on the floor and show my moves. I was getting ready to play the big man’s game.

When you see a big man posting up, his legs spread wide, his butt out to keep the defender as far away as possible from his heads and the ball, *this is a statement*. His posture says: I am at work. He is in no mood to wait, this man is ready. When he reaches up with his shooting hand, fingers outstretched, muscles tense as if he’s leaning against a door trying to hold off invaders, this is a *call*. At that point, he’s no longer playing, he’s serious. He’s giving the point guard a target—not a suggestion, a *demand*—and the point guard had better get him the ball right away.

For a while I enjoyed playing the big man’s position. It was what I had looked forward to. I was a shot blocker and that’s one of the things the big man was supposed to do.

Shot blockers don’t like to get their own shots blocked. We feel embarrassed; we are used to rejecting others, we don’t know how to take rejection. So if you can reject someone’s shot the first time you can get them thinking: Wow! This is how those other guys feel.

One of my favorite plays was to hide behind the guard and come from the weak side and block people’s shots. I would literally hide, crouch down behind the man I was guarding. I would defense my man but keep an eye on the man with the ball, and when he got by his defender I would wait until he had committed himself and then go over and swat his shot away. He never even saw me coming. I could see the surprise on his face. “Where did he come from?” That was real fun.

But while I played the big man’s position I also found out that I wasn’t a classic big man. I was too small.

I was 6’11”. The Rockets and the Cougars before them had all said I was seven-foot because it seemed more impressive, but when I was measured I actually stood 6’11”, which in terms of NBA centers wasn’t big at all. I was an in-between player. Everywhere we played teams would either put their center on me, in which case I was at a height disadvantage, or guard me with their power forward, who would play me physical. Every night I had to go up against men who were either several inches taller or many pounds heavier than I was, sometimes both. Before long it became clear to me that I had to make up for this with speed and quickness. I would take a pounding but I either could shoot over or go around the power forwards. It was the centers who presented the problem. That’s when the fade-away jumper came into play. If I went straight up with my jump shot I would get it slapped back at me, but I found that if I stepped back and learned away from these big men they couldn’t touch it.

Unfortunately, coaches don’t like the fade-away. Not Bill Fitch, not Guy Lewis, not any coach I played for. They always teach you that you’re falling away from the basket and aren’t in position to get the rebound. (People said the same thing about Kareem’s sky hook.) They would rather I took the ball to the basket strong, not fade away. However, if the fade-away was working—and I practiced that shot so much I became confident of it—they wouldn’t say anything.

Comments on the season as a whole:

Spoiler:

Greatness · Post #379 » by **Greatness** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:24 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Here is how it looks now:

Magic 13 -- GC Pantalones, magicmer1, basketballefan, JordansBulls, Chuck Texas, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier, trex 8063, ardee, batmana, andrewww, An Unbiased Fan, john248

Bird 6 -- DQuinn 1575, Baller 2014, Warspite, DannyNoonan 1221, rich 316, RSCD3

Hakeem 4 -- Heartbreak Kid, threalbig3, Gregoire, ronnymac2

KG 2 -- Doctor MJ, PC Productions

lukekarts, and Ryoga Hibuki look interested in joining; I will probably reopen the panel after next thread. I may also cut some of the posters that have not been active or were just active for the first 1 or 2.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to contribute last thread and won't be able to for the next few weeks because of school. I don't mind being cut, I just want to enjoy reading some the great analysis.

E-Balla · Post #380 » by **E-Balla** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:25 pm

Owly wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
GC Pantalones wrote:Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: BIRD - by good distance | Post season: BIRD - by good distance
Regular season: EVEN | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: EVEN | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance
Regular season: BIRD - by a decent distance | Post season: BIRD - slightly
Regular season: BIRD - slightly | Post season: BIRD - slightly
Regular season: BIRD - by decent distance | Post season: MAGIC - by decent distance

So when they are contemporaries, Bird wins comfortably in the larger sample size (the regular season). For the playoffs, was either the East or the West unusually bad? The East has been weak for the last 15 years or so, which is a factor in why KG/Shaq/Duncan did not make the finals more than they did (because they had to go through each other). Did Magic or Bird play in the 'big boys' conference which could be a factor in their postseason results?

Assuming this isn't a set up, the Lakers competition conference wise was significantly weaker through the first decade of their career (though it swung substantially in the other direction for Magic's final two years.

Boston's strength of schedule '80 to '92
1980 -0.43
1981 0.17
1982 -0.03
1983 -0.01
1984 -0.14
1985 -0.18
1986 -0.36
1987 -0.07
1988 0.22
1989 0.1
1990 -0.76
1991 -0.6
1992 -0.21

LA's strength of schedule '80 to '91
1980 -0.51
1981 -0.57
1982 -0.5
1983 -0.49
1984 -0.44
1985 -0.87
1986 -0.9
1987 -0.98
1988 -1.03
1989 -0.79
1990 -0.04
1991 -0.01

The difference between Boston and LA's SoS (negative means LA's is easier, positive means Boston's is)
1980 -0.08
1981 -0.74
1982 -0.47
1983 -0.48
1984 -0.3
1985 -0.69
1986 -0.54
1987 -0.91
1988 -1.25
1989 -0.89
1990 0.72
1991 0.59

And the easiest (relative to league strength) schedule's of all time: http://bkref.com/tiny/z5H04

Of course good teams can't play themselves, and whilst that must be figured in to accounts of strength of schedule, it's hard to be too critical of teams for that.

The softness of the West is particularly notable in the lack of contenders. From '85 to '88 there was only one (non-Laker) team in the West with an SRS over +4. And LA didn't even have to go through them ('87 Mavericks, +5.55, fell in the first round). Though the SRS only swung in '90 the contender situation moved a year earlier ('89 Suns, +6.84, swept by LA in the conference finals).

In the regular season the SRS barely matters unless we are talking about the difference in say a 60 win team with and easy schedule and a 60 win team with a hard schedule and even then the difference is minimal.