Retro Player of the Year 1991-92 UPDATE — Michael Jordan

[One_and_Done]

Barkley isn't getting votes because he's a good offensive player, he's getting votes because of his impact.

Correction, he is getting one vote from someone who is more impressed by the “impact” of going from 33-42 with to 2-5 without (and a net on/off of +6.0) than by the impact of those going from 40-30 with to 2-10 without or those going from 55-21 with to 2-4 without.

Not everybody uses the same methodology you do, or sees the context/sample the same way you do.

[lessthanjake]

I think there’s truth to what you say, but at the same time I think most impact metrics do tend to find more individual impact for top players on offense than on defense. You can see that with something like EPM, where the top bunch of O-EPMs are roughly twice as high as the top bunch of D-EPMs (and I use EPM purposely as an example, since it actually uses defensive tracking data). Some other metrics have the impacts closer than that, but I do think the overall impact-metric picture backs the idea that individual impact on offense is higher. And that also makes intuitive sense, since the offensive team inherently controls what happens more than the defensive team does (and therefore can make sure their best player is more consistently involved on each play on that end, in a way you can’t really do on defense, though obviously big men get the closest to that). So I tend to think it’s something that is actually true, but is perhaps *also* overstated by media focus.

Ya, I get everything you are saying and also as it pertains to the current league but to what extent do these metrics go back to the 80's and 90's which is the period being discussed here? I also added a question about Ewing at the end of that post which if Riley had found a 25ppg scorer(such as Dominique) and Ewing avged 20ppg and they won the title in 92 would Ewing get voted above MJ here?

Yeah, since we don’t have impact metrics going that far back, it’s *possible* this was different. I certainly think there’s a good argument it was different if we go back far enough to like the 1960s. When it comes to the 1980s and 1990s, though, I’m somewhat skeptical that it was different, in significant part because the era (and the team success achieved in it) was generally dominated by guys who were better on offense than on defense (Magic and Bird *definitely* were, and even Jordan was better on offense even though his defense was great). Given that, I don’t get the general sense that individual-offense primacy was different in that era the way we might definitely have when we look at what happened in the 1960s. Of course, that’s me drawing inferences, rather than being anything entirely concrete, but that’s my two cents on that, and I imagine most people probably intuitively feel similarly about it.

As for whether Ewing would get voted above Jordan here if there was a 25 PPG scorer, I guess I’m not sure. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your point is that, due to focus on offense, the 25 PPG scorer would get more of the credit than he deserved, at the expense of Ewing. That’s probably true. But ultimately such a player *would* deserve a good bit of credit if that player taking on the scoring load was impactful enough to put the Knicks over the top. And Ewing would still not actually be as good of a player as Jordan in that scenario. So my guess is Ewing probably wouldn’t get voted POY, because he wouldn’t be seen as quite good enough to deserve it, and I don’t think that’d be wrong. That said, though, it’s hard to really gauge these things, because Ewing winning a title and the Bulls losing would have a significant effect in general on how we think of Ewing and Jordan, so putting Ewing above Jordan in that scenario would probably feel like less of a lift. Maybe Ewing would get it! Or maybe you’d be proven very correct in your theory and the 25 PPG Knicks scorer would be seen as POY. It’s possible!

[penbeast0]

I think there’s truth to what you say, but at the same time I think most impact metrics do tend to find more individual impact for top players on offense than on defense. You can see that with something like EPM, where the top bunch of O-EPMs are roughly twice as high as the top bunch of D-EPMs (and I use EPM purposely as an example, since it actually uses defensive tracking data). Some other metrics have the impacts closer than that, but I do think the overall impact-metric picture backs the idea that individual impact on offense is higher. And that also makes intuitive sense, since the offensive team inherently controls what happens more than the defensive team does (and therefore can make sure their best player is more consistently involved on each play on that end, in a way you can’t really do on defense, though obviously big men get the closest to that). So I tend to think it’s something that is actually true, but is perhaps *also* overstated by media focus.

That may be true today, but general consensus is that the top defenders (Russell, then the likes of Wilt, Thurmond, etc.) were more impactful than the greatest offensive players (Oscar, West, Wilt again) in the 60s. We are looking at the 90s still so not sure EPM ratings are good evidence as the league rules and playstyles have greatly shifted to emphasize offense and nerf defense particularly increased 3 point shooting lessening the impact of great rim protectors. Is it still true in the early 90s?

[Cavsfansince84]

Yeah, since we don’t have impact metrics going that far back, it’s *possible* this was different. I certainly think there’s a good argument it was different if we go back far enough to like the 1960s. When it comes to the 1980s and 1990s, though, I’m somewhat skeptical that it was different, in significant part because the era (and the team success achieved in it) was generally dominated by guys who were better on offense than on defense (Magic and Bird *definitely* were, and even Jordan was better on offense even though his defense was great). Given that, I don’t get the general sense that individual-offense primacy was different in that era the way we might definitely have when we look at what happened in the 1960s. Of course, that’s me drawing inferences, rather than being anything entirely concrete, but that’s my two cents on that, and I imagine most people probably intuitively feel similarly about it.

As for whether Ewing would get voted above Jordan here if there was a 25 PPG scorer, I guess I’m not sure. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your point is that, due to focus on offense, the 25 PPG scorer would get more of the credit than he deserved, at the expense of Ewing. That’s probably true. But ultimately such a player *would* deserve a good bit of credit if that player taking on the scoring load was impactful enough to put the Knicks over the top. And Ewing would still not actually be as good of a player as Jordan in that scenario. So my guess is Ewing probably wouldn’t get voted POY, because he wouldn’t be seen as quite good enough to deserve it, and I don’t think that’d be wrong. That said, though, it’s hard to really gauge these things, because Ewing winning a title and the Bulls losing would have a significant effect in general on how we think of Ewing and Jordan, so putting Ewing above Jordan in that scenario would probably feel like less of a lift. Maybe Ewing would get it! Or maybe you’d be proven very correct in your theory and the 25 PPG Knicks scorer would be seen as POY. It’s possible!

I'd like to see Ben Wallace and Dwight's epms and whatnot first before I'd comment more. Seeing as that was an even more defense focused era than the early 90's were but at the same time they were lesser off players than Ewing, Robinson and Hakeem were. Obviously drastically so with Ben. I don't have an agenda here btw, I'm just throwing it out for consideration. Re the 25ppg scorer my point wasn't so much that he would have stolen credit from Ewing as that Ewing prob needed one in order to win(I mean he came within a game 7 of winning without one) but more so how people would view him based on only averaging 20ppg. That's the main thing. I think by the 1980's we'd already gotten to a place where a guy averaging less than 20-21ppg(outside of a pg like Nash or Magic) made it really hard to win an mvp or get consideration for poy in a project such as this. 08 KG maybe being the one exception.

[70sFan]

Barkley isn't getting votes because he's a good offensive player, he's getting votes because of his impact.

Correction, he is getting one vote from someone who is more impressed by the “impact” of going from 33-42 with to 2-5 without (and a net on/off of +6.0) than by the impact of those going from 40-30 with to 2-10 without or those going from 55-21 with to 2-4 without.

Not everybody uses the same methodology you do, or sees the context/sample the same way you do.

Yeah, some people just don't use any methodology.

[One_and_Done]

Correction, he is getting one vote from someone who is more impressed by the “impact” of going from 33-42 with to 2-5 without (and a net on/off of +6.0) than by the impact of those going from 40-30 with to 2-10 without or those going from 55-21 with to 2-4 without.

Not everybody uses the same methodology you do, or sees the context/sample the same way you do.

Yeah, some people just don't use any methodology.

I'm glad I'm not one of those people, especially the ones who go off nostalgia.

[OhayoKD]

I think there’s truth to what you say, but at the same time I think most impact metrics do tend to find more individual impact for top players on offense than on defense. You can see that with something like EPM, where the top bunch of O-EPMs are roughly twice as high as the top bunch of D-EPMs (and I use EPM purposely as an example, since it actually uses defensive tracking data). Some other metrics have the impacts closer than that, but I do think the overall impact-metric picture backs the idea that individual impact on offense is higher. And that also makes intuitive sense, since the offensive team inherently controls what happens more than the defensive team does (and therefore can make sure their best player is more consistently involved on each play on that end, in a way you can’t really do on defense, though obviously big men get the closest to that). So I tend to think it’s something that is actually true, but is perhaps *also* overstated by media focus.

That may be true today, but general consensus is that the top defenders (Russell, then the likes of Wilt, Thurmond, etc.) were more impactful than the greatest offensive players (Oscar, West, Wilt again) in the 60s. We are looking at the 90s still so not sure EPM ratings are good evidence as the league rules and playstyles have greatly shifted to emphasize offense and nerf defense particularly increased 3 point shooting lessening the impact of great rim protectors. Is it still true in the early 90s?

Playstyle is besides the point really. Using EPM here is basically circular reasoning. Tbf, straight-rapm has the highest o-rapm scores outpacing the highest d-rapm scores and I don't generally don't disagree with "individual offense outpaces individual defense on it's own" but that line doesn't really mean much with players like Ewing who are at the top 10 percent in terms of both scoring and creation on the side of the court they're "weak at" while the offensive players they're compared to do not even crack the top 30-50 percent at their strongpoint (paint-protection). And obviously, by demonstrated impact, Ewing's defense is more than enough in a comparison with Barkley, regardless of whatever priors people are bringing with them.

[AEnigma]

^ Yep, the directional skew matters less than the total.

Still, if we want to use league offensive rating as a proxy for “offensive skew”, by BBR estimates, we cross 100 in 1978, then up to 103.8 in 1979, then 105.3 in 1980, then 107.6 in 1984. It stays above 107 until 1994 (106.3), jumps back up with the shortened line, then falls further down to 105 in 1998 and 102.2 in 1999. It stays under 105 until the 2005 rule changes (2002 was 104.5, 2004 was 102.9), at which point we are brought back up to 106.1. The league hovers there for a few years, then climbs above 107 from 2008-11, then falls down to 104.6 in 2012 (lockout years not good for offence) and stays below 107 until the 2017 rule changes (108.8), which marked the start of this current offensive era.

Based on those trends, I feel safe saying that all else being equal, defence outweighs offence at 104.5 or lower.

[konr0167]

1. Jordan

So Magic’s gone, Hakeem can’t make the playoffs. This goes to him pretty easily. Bad defense vs Portland and 2 series go longer than you’d expect with a POYand 50-win help but no real competition to be honest.


2. Hakeem


Second best player in the league. Biggest wowy I guess. Good on both ends. Can’t really say he’s 1 missing the playoffs and missing 10 games doesn’t help.

3. David Robinson

It’s a pretty weak year after the top 2 and Drob has pretty great rs impact.. Misses 14 games and the playoffs though.

4. Pippen

Best defensive wing in the league and one of the best playmakers.


5. Malone

Leads Utah to almost 60 wins and a conference finals appearance. Has a lot of help though. Honestly should have done alot more with stockton and eaton as teammates in general

[Lebronnygoat]

I think Karl Malone has a case over Jordan.

In their opening series, Malone faced a top 5 defense where he was 30 ppg on +6.9rTS, and won in a do or die tight series. That is more impressive than Jordan with the best team in basketball winning and averaging what he averaged vs an expansion team who had one of the worst defenses in playoff history. Karl Malone could have done the same damage if he so pleased to that Miami, a lot of all time greats could have. The performances that are indicative of their impact as players should be the last 3 rounds (all 3 for Malone) as they’re actually capable defenses…
Though, it’s very easy to argue Malone takes this

Jordan vs the Knicks: 31/6/4 on +1.8rTS

Jordan vs the Cavs: 32/7/6 on -0.8rTS.

Malone vs the Sonics: 29/11/3 on +9.4rTS.

I’m taking Malone vs the Sonics or Clippers, quite clearly, over any of these series.

Vs the same competition

Jordan vs Blazers: 36/5/7 on +9.6rTS

Malone vs Blazers: 28/12/3 on +10.7rTS

I also think Malone is clearly the more impactful defender, peaked as a defender this year. Malone translated and rose more/at a better rate than Jordan did.

Regular season wise: Malone was 28.1/11.3/3.0 per75 on +6.8rTS, and Jordan was 29.6/6.3/6.3 on +4.8rTS per 75.

You can really say Malone had the better scoring season via, regular season, playoff translation and playoff resilience. Malone was also quite clearly more impactful as a defender. Jordan is clearly the better playmaker, but, those duties really dipped down when you’re talking 1992 and 1993 (and onwards). Karl Malone has a SERIOUS case over Jordan. Sorry I was too late to make a response, I made a better formatted response yesterday but the page refreshed and deleted everything.

[AEnigma]

^ Agree Malone had an outstanding postseason as a scorer. It was by far the best of his entire career, with three of his ten most efficient scoring series all occurring this year. I am cooler on his defence and am uncertain of the potential reliance on Stockton in this period before he developed into an all-time mid-range shooter, but you make good points about the series to series production.

To add onto this, both the Clippers and Sonics underwent a significant midseason coaching change. The Sonics were 20-20 when George Karl took over, then went 27-15 (52.7-win pace) the rest of the way. They went on to lead the league in SRS the subsequent three years. Not a tough defence yet, but definitely a team better than their record — and you can see that in their 3-1 elimination of the 55-win Warriors.

The Clippers were 22-25 when they hired Larry Brown, then went 23-12 (53.9-win pace) the rest of the way. This signal is noisier because it partially reflects Doc Rivers’ own absences (35-24 with, 10-13 without), but all the same, another team better than its record.

[Cavsfansince84]

^ Agree Malone had an outstanding postseason as a scorer. It was by far the best of his entire career, with three of his ten most efficient scoring series all occurring this year. I am cooler on his defence and am uncertain of the potential reliance on Stockton in this period before he developed into an all-time mid-range shooter, but you make good points about the series to series production.

Personally I'm not too sure about Malone being overly reliant on Stockton in the early 90's period. He was so good at getting position down low and scoring or getting to the line back then along with running the floor. I'm sure it helped to have Stockton delivering the ball but I also think he had a very good low post game back then(even if he lacked a lot of moves) that any pg should have been able to make it work.

[AEnigma]

^ Agree Malone had an outstanding postseason as a scorer. It was by far the best of his entire career, with three of his ten most efficient scoring series all occurring this year. I am cooler on his defence and am uncertain of the potential reliance on Stockton in this period before he developed into an all-time mid-range shooter, but you make good points about the series to series production.

Personally I'm not too sure about Malone being overly reliant on Stockton in the early 90's period. He was so good at getting position down low and scoring or getting to the line back then along with running the floor. I'm sure it helped to have Stockton delivering the ball but I also think he had a very good low post game back then(even if he lacked a lot of moves) that any pg should have been able to make it work.

That is generally where I lean, but there is at least enough uncertainty where I am willing to entertain the idea that someone like Mark Jackson might not have been able to draw out the same gaudy efficiency.

[Lebronnygoat]

^ Agree Malone had an outstanding postseason as a scorer. It was by far the best of his entire career, with three of his ten most efficient scoring series all occurring this year. I am cooler on his defence and am uncertain of the potential reliance on Stockton in this period before he developed into an all-time mid-range shooter, but you make good points about the series to series production.

To add onto this, both the Clippers and Sonics underwent a significant midseason coaching change. The Sonics were 20-20 when George Karl took over, then went 27-15 (52.7-win pace) the rest of the way. They went on to lead the league in SRS the subsequent three years. Not a tough defence yet, but definitely a team better than their record — and you can see that in their 3-1 elimination of the 55-win Warriors.

The Clippers were 22-25 when they hired Larry Brown, then went 23-12 (53.9-win pace) the rest of the way. This signal is noisier because it partially reflects Doc Rivers’ own absences (35-24 with, 10-13 without), but all the same, another team better than its record.

So who’s your player of the year? Obviously hearing Malone over Jordan is like, bruh. But actually speaking meritful information upon these two, who are you giving the POY? MJ has playmaking, but by my tracking of game 1 & 2 in 1992 finals, didn’t seem like he was great at all. I just think, it’s unfair to say Jordan was undisputedly the best.

[ceoofkobefans]

1992 is a really tough year to vote on and I think you can argue a lot of guys in different spots here. This is one of the deepest years weve gotten to so far but let me attempt to make ballot

POY

1. Michael Jordan

not much to say here. Its arguably MJs peak season, the bulls are the best Offense and overall team being spearheaded by him, and He's in the midst of the greatest scoring peak in nba history (30.1 IA PTS/75 on +4.8 RTS in The RS which goes up to 34.6 on +4.7 per Thinking Basketball to give you some numbers). Don't think even the biggest of MJ haters could make a legitimate argument against MJ being 1.

2. Hakeem Olajuwon

now after MJ (who I'd have in the GOAT tier when evaluating play for this season) there's a relatively huge drop-off and I think there's a cluster of players who are all in the same tier of MVP caliber, but not clear BITW players. I give Hakeem the nod at two here because he's giving you elite two way play (albeit a down year for him but the cast is horrendous) and He's in the midst of arguably the greatest defensive peak ever. He did a great job of floor raising a mostly lackluster Rockets team to a 40-30 record when he played (they went 2-10 and had a -10.1 SRS without Hakeem) and could've likely made the PO if not for Hakeem missing 12 games. think you could argue others over him and if I wasn't health taxing there's a good chance I put Drob here but I like Hakeem at 2.

3. Clyde Drexler

Clyde is an elite all around player, and was one of the only stars in the league that consistently shot 3s (4.4 3s a game at 34%). 92 is his peak season that led the trailblazers to the 2nd best record and srs in the league while also leading the blazers to the finals averaging 26/7/7 in raw per game averages in the PO and he doubles up as a high quality defender. I think 3 is a tad generous but at the same time I'm giving him a boost in the ranking for being the best offensive and overall player on a finals team and i could see him lower (or even as an HM)

4. Karl Malone



5. David Robinson

if this was purely the RS, Drob would be 2nd on this list (especially if i wasn't considering health) but Drob is a huge PO dropper and he missed 17 games, including every PO game for the spurs which gives him a dip for me. He's an elite scorer and an all time defender with impressive wowy data (the spurs were 42-26 with a +4.8 NRTG with drob and fell to a 5-9 record with a -3.4 NRTG).


OPOY

1. Michael Jordan

no explanation needed hopefully?

2. Charles Barkley

3. John Stockton

HMs: Karl Malone, Clyde Drexler

DPOY

1. Hakeem Olajuwon

2. David Robinson

3. Patrick Ewing

HMs: Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman

[OhayoKD]

This will be a lazier ballot than usual.

1. Micheal Jordan
2. Patrick Ewing
Clear 1 for me here. Yes, Ewing's Knicks went 7 games but the Bulls were never that close to losing.

New York basically had two legitimately good quarters through the first five games and managed to convey that into a 2-3 deficit, which is impressive relative to the quality of the team but not inherently *dangerous* (beyond the fact that yeah if Jordan or Pippen tweak an ankle late then they might be ****).

93 is a significantly fairer case I think (2-0 start, Ewing's scoring gets better facing the Bulls, and Knicks are comparable to a coasting Chicago in the regular-season). Like with Magic last thread, that specific vote can swing based on argumentation. Here I'm pretty set though. Ewing's scoring gets worse this time and Jordan doesn't have a stretch comparable to his first 3 games facing New York. That said, we don't have much to go with in terms of impact-on-winning for Ewing statistically, so there's some leeway here, particularly if you view ewing's creation as close to what lebronny tracked.


And, contrary to the usual suspects empty claims, no, Jordan is not a "great 2 way player" in 92 as he is getting torched on the perimeter vs playoff juggernaut Clyde Drexler- ontop of being below average at the most important part of defense and being one of the most break-down prone defenders in the league, with the ultimate result of Chicago not being observably negatively affected (defensively) by his absence.

Not if malone is only "decent"

3. Karl Malone
4. Hakeem Olajuwon

I'll let others do the work for me regarding Malone'

Spoiler:

The weak side stuff is less important back then but acting as a body in the paint if not a shot blocker, being big and taking up space and then also guarding post ups from the post up bigs. In 92 you're better off posting Eaton. Rim deterrence is something Eaton has over Malone but he was playing half the games and they still had a top 10 defense.

I think Karl Malone has a case over Jordan.

In their opening series, Malone faced a top 5 defense where he was 30 ppg on +6.9rTS, and won in a do or die tight series. That is more impressive than Jordan with the best team in basketball winning and averaging what he averaged vs an expansion team who had one of the worst defenses in playoff history. Karl Malone could have done the same damage if he so pleased to that Miami, a lot of all time greats could have. The performances that are indicative of their impact as players should be the last 3 rounds (all 3 for Malone) as they’re actually capable defenses…
Though, it’s very easy to argue Malone takes this

Jordan vs the Knicks: 31/6/4 on +1.8rTS

Jordan vs the Cavs: 32/7/6 on -0.8rTS.

Malone vs the Sonics: 29/11/3 on +9.4rTS.

I’m taking Malone vs the Sonics or Clippers, quite clearly, over any of these series.

Vs the same competition

Jordan vs Blazers: 36/5/7 on +9.6rTS

Malone vs Blazers: 28/12/3 on +10.7rTS

I also think Malone is clearly the more impactful defender, peaked as a defender this year. Malone translated and rose more/at a better rate than Jordan did.

Regular season wise: Malone was 28.1/11.3/3.0 per75 on +6.8rTS, and Jordan was 29.6/6.3/6.3 on +4.8rTS per 75.

You can really say Malone had the better scoring season via, regular season, playoff translation and playoff resilience. Malone was also quite clearly more impactful as a defender. Jordan is clearly the better playmaker, but, those duties really dipped down when you’re talking 1992 and 1993 (and onwards). Karl Malone has a SERIOUS case over Jordan. Sorry I was too late to make a response, I made a better formatted response yesterday but the page refreshed and deleted everything.

Malone was not really even on my radar for this year but Jordan-ish scoring while likely anchoring a top 10 defense seems worthy of a top 3 selection.

Hakeem at 4 hurts the soul and frankly 40-30 with a team I think was pretty bad doesn't really tell me he was worse than my 2 or 3, but...what I think and what the evidence suggests are two different things and while the 10-point swing for this year is great, a larger sample has the Rockets cast being outlierly good during 91 (fwiw, when elgee there was shooting variance there). Combined:

Spoiler:

2) Hakeem has a longer absence (plays 56 games) in '91 where he isn't nearly as missed and Houston aren't nearly as bad (e.g. Ben's old spreadsheet had 3.7 SRS in, 1.4 SRS change for an implied 2.3 SRS without with 26 games missed - or to somewhat combine the points the joint 91-92 version has 2 SRS, 3.8 SRS change for an implied -1.8 SRS out ... here the larger sample will be taken from '91, as that's where the larger out sample was).

Hakeem has a mark of +3.8. good, but not so good it demands a top 3 spot here in what was a down-year from tracked and basketball reference production ontop of non-playoff year preceded by 2 not so great postseasons.

That +3.8 turns +5 if you credit Hakeem, averaging 5 more points on better efficiency and creating(by lebronny's tracking) 15 times a game under Rudy T, and posting the highest assist quality by my own tracking thus far, as the driver of a further +2.6 improvement for a team featuring basically the same players except the best guys actually missed more games in 93.

At full-strength, per Ben, they were roughly +5 which suggests Hakeem was by far the primary driver of a 7-point turnaround.

Alternatively, if one just uses 1992, peak Hakeem looks like a {b]+14[/b] year player(+16 using ben's number).

If one decides to extend the without beyond 91 he approaches and eventually crosses +10.

And that is the regular season. Here's what happens in the playoffs:

Spoiler:

All of this had a profound impact on the Houston offense. From 1993 to 1995, the Rockets were about a point better than the defenses they faced in the regular season, averaging 109 points per 100 possessions. But in 57 playoff games, with Hakeem ramping up, Houston was 5.3 points better than the defenses it faced, posting a 111 offensive rating. So while the Rockets hovered around 50-wins during the season with a small margin of victory, in those 57 playoff games they posted a 7.6 SRS (62-win pace) by maintaining a small margin over the best teams in the league. Hakeem’s inelasticity as a player likely turned Houston into a resilient team.

Take a guess whose numbers rise more than any other MVP ever:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2314623

There's a variety of ways to interpret the data but however you do, assuming a consistent approach, Olajuwon should grade out as significantly more valuable than this thread's #1 next year. If you were one of those who decided, on much weaker evidence, that Jordan's individual brilliance was enough to net him #1's when he was getting destroyed in the 2nd round, I would hope you are consistent and acknowledge that Olajuwon's mini-era, where he is the league's best defender, potentially it's best creator, one of it's best scorers, and it's statistical pinnacle (okay, not going to push too hard if someone shouts back "But Robinson!') starts a year before he breaks through and wins.

Certainly if you were one of those declaring that Jordan was "easily the best" in 89 on the basis of ****, I would hope you keep that tune fresh when it's the Dream-man's turn. Not doing so would be:

Spoiler:

It is would be "funny" to see arguments that where used to bring down up Jordan in 1988 or 1989 are the same that are used to bring up down Magic this year.
It really would puts into perspective some of 1988 and 1989 season votes.
I can't wait to see the discussions for 1993. It will be "funny"

funny...

5. Pippen

Top 5 postseason play last year translates into top 5 regular season play this year. Down series vs the Knicks, but phenomenal in the finals.

OPOY
1. Jordan
2. Kevin Johnson
3. Malone

DPOY
1. Ewing
2. Hakeem
3. David Robinson

[AEnigma]

Votes are tallied. I recorded 12 approved voters: Djoker, AEnigma, B-Mitch 30, ShaqAttac, ILikeShaiGuys, Penbeast, OhayoKD (submitting “kola’s” ballot as his official one), narigo, ceoofkobefans, konr0167, One_and_Done, and trelos. DJoker, AEnigma, B-Mitch 30, trelos, OhayoKD, and ceoofkobefans also voted for both Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year. Please let me know if I seem to have missed or otherwise improperly recorded a vote.

1991-92 Results

(Retro) Offensive Player of the Year — Michael Jordan (Unanimous)

Code: Select all

Player       1st   2nd   3rd   Points  Shares
1. Michael Jordan   6   0   0    30    1.000
2. Kevin Johnson  0   2   0  6    0.200
3. Clyde Drexler   0   1   1    4    0.133
3. Karl Malone   0   1   1    4    0.133
5a. John Stockton   0   0   3    3    0.100
5b. Charles Barkley   0   1   0    3    0.100
5b. Mark Price   0   1   0    3    0.100
8. Tim Hardaway   0   0   1    1    0.033

(Retro) Defensive Player of the Year — Patrick Ewing

Code: Select all

Player         1st   2nd   3rd   Points  Shares
1. Patrick Ewing    2   2   2    18   0.600
2. David Robinson    2   2   1    17    0.567
3. Hakeem Olajuwon    1   2   1    12    0.400
4. Dennis Rodman   1   0   0    5    0.167
5. Buck Williams   0   0   1    1    0.033
5. Andrew Lang   0   0   1    1    0.033

Retro Player of the Year — Michael Jordan (3)

Code: Select all

Player      1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts  POY Shares
1. Michael Jordan  11  1  0  0  0   117   0.975
2. Patrick Ewing  1  4  2  1  0   51   0.425
3. Clyde Drexler  0  1  3  4  0   34    0.283
4. Karl Malone   0  2  2  2  2    32   0.267
5. David Robinson   0  2  2  2  1   31   0.258
6. Hakeem Olajuwon  0  2  2  0  4   28   0.233
7. Scottie Pippen   0  0  1  2  3   14   0.117
8. John Stockton   0  0  0  1  0   3   0.025
9. Larry Bird   0  0  0  0  1   1   0.008
9. Charles Barkley   0  0  0  0  1   1   0.008

In the prior project, there were 23 votes, with no overlap. These are the aggregated results of the two projects across 350 total ballots:

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

Player   1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts  POY Shares
1. Michael Jordan  34  1  0  0  0   347   0.991
2. Karl Malone   0  16  10  3  2    173   0.494
3. Clyde Drexler  0  8  12  8  1   141    0.403
4. Patrick Ewing  1  4  4  12  4   98   0.280
5. David Robinson   0  4  4  6  3   69   0.197
6. Hakeem Olajuwon  0  2  4  0  5   39   0.111
7. Scottie Pippen   0  0  1  4  12   29   0.083
8. Charles Barkley   0  0  0  1  2   5   0.014
9. John Stockton   0  0  0  1  1   4   0.011
10. Kevin Johnson   0  0  0  0  3   3   0.009
11. Larry Bird   0  0  0  0  1   1   0.003
11. Brad Daugherty   0  0  0  0  1   1   0.003

1993 thread will open shortly.

[trex_8063]

That's crazy. Oakley was a super effective role player, to the point he made an all-star team for his defensive game. That's not easy to do when you're not putting up stats, not unless you deserve it. He was a brutal defender and enforcer, and tough on the boards. He wouldn't be as good in today's game, but in the early 90s he was a killer at the 4.

Super effective rebounder and an era-appropriate physical defender, sure. Dumb as a bag of bricks on offense, though, which was a theme for those Knicks. Lots of good defensive help; almost none on O.

Once he was allowed to play a bigger role on a less stacked team, Anthony Mason was an all-nba teamer. He was able to score, pass, defend and rebound at a high level. He made multiple all-star teams, an all-nba team, and got MVP votes two separate years.

Those MVP votes can't be taken seriously. Literally 7 points and no first-place nominations in 97, and 1 point with no first-place nominations in 01. He was a 1-time All-Star and he made a single All-NBA team. Scored more than 14.6 ppg twice in his career, and one year in took him over 43 mpg to do it, the other almost 41.

Mase was pretty good, but let's not overplay what he was.

Particularly in '92. Mason was a late-bloomer, and hadn't yet developed those "point-forward" skills in '92 (which also happens to be one of his worst FT-shooting seasons, fwiw).
He was basically a league-average player in '92 (or negligibly above at best)......which is reasonably nice to have in the guy who is 6th in minutes; but yeah: let's not overstate things.

X-Man was one of the best wing defenders of his era, as well as an Artest style enforcer. He was also a good offensive player, and had led rag tag underdog teams on upset playoff runs. He was probably the best player on a WCF team.

He wasn't Seattle X in 92. He was like a 14/6/2 defensive specialist who, as he did in all but two seasons of his career, scored below league average efficiency.

X-man is a weird one to evaluate on offense, as that aspect of his game seems to fall off relatively early in his career without a notable injury [that I'm aware of] to blame it on. It could be a "bad fit" situation in, well.......just about anywhere except Seattle, apparently: note that from '87-'91 he's never lower than 17.3 PER or +1.2 OBPM in Seattle, but immediately drops to sub-15 PER and negative OBPM when he's traded to Phoenix. Then as a Knick [while still in his late 20s], he falls marginally lower. Then briefly pops back up to 16.3 PER [still -0.1 OBPM] for one year in Boston, before then going into quick decline in his 30s.

But still, even in that '87-'91 Seattle stretch.....
He averaged ~30 pts/100 poss at league-average or worse shooting efficiency, was a near-zilch playmaker (managed as many as 3 apg just ONCE) who was also rather turnover-prone (Ast:TO ratio of 0.91, and a mTOV% of 9.43% [which is kinda bad for a wing]).
He's maybe like a Norman Powell level offensive player, in his best offensive years (which '92 is not one of).


As to the "best player on a WCF team", I'd at least highlight that was after going 39-43 in the rs [+0.08 SRS]. Them advancing that far feels pretty flukey. When they met the eventual champions, they got whupped soundly (compared to the '92 Knicks when they met the eventual champion: took them to 7 games [one of only TWO times the Bulls title teams were so tested]).

New York loaded up on defenders and did not have a ton of particularly competent offensive help around Ewing.

Agree. Mark Jackson is a decent facilitator, though doesn't leverage much scoring against it. And yet he's fairly clearly the single-biggest piece of offensive help Ewing has.
Starks is probably the second-best piece of offensive help, but notably collapses [as usual] in the playoffs.
McDaniel was, in his best years, like a Norman Powell-level offensive player (obv better defensively), and does NOT appear to be having one of his better offensive years in '92, fwiw.
Oakley was, as you said, a defensive guy who's barely scoring above Ben Wallace level volume (though at least decent efficiency); is at least a good offensive rebounder.
Mason does not yet have his playmaking chops and is shooting below 65% at the line, and is thus a pretty darn limited offensive player.
Wilkins was NEVER a truly good offensive player......he just kept getting the playing time because the Knicks didn't have better options all through the 80s [and early 90s]. He was a guy who scored middling or slightly above average volume on [consistently] below average shooting efficiency ('94 is the ONLY season of his career where he topped league-average), was a mostly ineffective playmaker who also has a marginally poor turnover economy. If there's an offensive prize to be found in that package, I'm just not seeing it.

I'm not saying these guys "sucked" on offense, or that this constitutes a "bad" offensive supporting cast.......but it's not "good" either. When your strongest offensive supporting cast player is Mark Jackson and 2nd-best is an early-prime [pre-peak, 26 mpg] John Starks, that's probably not a strong offensive cast.
But there's a load of defensive support there: Oakley, Xavier, Starks, Mason (even Wilkins is fair).

It's a decent cast overall [if a little over-balanced on one side of the ball], but not one that I'm going to get all gooey about. If I were to rank the supporting casts each "team's best player" had, it's certainly in the top half, maybe in the top 10. Very doubtful it's in the top 5 [or even 6-8].
The success achieved with that is......idk, pretty good, I think: 51 wins, 7th-best SRS, beat a decent Piston team in the 1st round (more soundly than the 3-2 edge suggests), and then gave the eventual champions their biggest challenge of their title run.


I'd NOT have voted Ewing 2nd on my ballot, but a fair chance he could make my top 5 (rough cut that I'd done some years ago, I had him 6th behind Jordan, Malone, DRob, Clyde, and Pippen).

.

[trex_8063]

...

fyi, I just watched your video from this season of David Robinson H2H with Moses Malone (by the box, an aging Malone actually outplays Robinson in this game).

Several plays where Moses looks very much like a flopper (just sort of flailing his arms and making a big show of the contact). Trying to remember, was he always like that, or was it something he adopted late in his career?

[70sFan]

...

fyi, I just watched your video from this season of David Robinson H2H with Moses Malone (by the box, an aging Malone actually outplays Robinson in this game).

Several plays where Moses looks very much like a flopper (just sort of flailing his arms and making a big show of the contact). Trying to remember, was he always like that, or was it something he adopted late in his career?

He played that way throughout his prime, I always say that Moses was the ultimate flopper of the 20th century