Retro POY '94-95 (Voting Complete)

[kaima]

I am all for rewarding Hakeem for his post-season. As long as you remember that he wasn't even a fringe MVP candidate that year. He's not even in D-Rob or Shaq's ball park in the regular season.

This is a general bias of team result.

It's the same with Kobe before Gasol.

Only Jordan has overcome this in the modern era.

Nonetheless, if all this is is an award roundup, then David Robinson>>>Olajuwon. While allowing Hakeem to score 35 a game.

Next up, how David Robinson is better than Malone, while being dominated by Malone in the playoffs to the tune of a 9 point scoring ratio and 9 off David's regular season average.

Robinson's play was almost parody. Actually, beneath parody. We're talking Gallagher humor here. Malone/Hakeem are the mallet, and Robinson's the unfortunate prop that gets smashed to laughs from the yokels.

Come to think of it, David Robinson's peak playoff play was like watching a public execution every season.

I mean would you elevate Pierce above Kobe, if he absolutely tore Kobe a new one in the 08 Finals ?

Was Paul Pierce averaging 35 a game to Kobe's 23? Did he come in with a regular season scoring average at all comparable to Kobe's? Was his role as big as Kobe's?

Please.

Pierce put up 21.8 a game. Kobe scored 25.6 a game.

[Dr Positivity]

Nash is anything but a mediocore half-court guard. The Suns have hardly relied on the fastbreak at all since Marion left, and Nash was always a deadly pnr guard in the halfcourt anyways.

[JordansBulls]

Are people implying Nash was top 5 in 1994-1995?

[kaima]

Would the people considering Stockton over Malone explain why essentially no one thought Stockton was ever better than Malone?

This has to be addressed. The overwhelming consensus was that Malone was better than Stockton in 1995 and every other season they played together.

Why did everyone make a massive error in analysis for a decade?

The problem with Stockton is that, even as I believe his impact was bigger than his numbers, I don't know how big or how to fully prove it.

Malone on the other hand, was a massive presence in both box scores and on-court mentality. It's easy to pick him.

Does that mean he was better? As far as the metrics we tend to use, yes.

The biggest problem Stockton will have is that when his stats really get eye-popping Utah has miserable rosters which waste those stats and, most likely, his peak worth.

I think there's a series from 89 where Malone and Stockton averaged about 30 apiece, and Utah still got swept.

[Doctor MJ]

Are people implying Nash was top 5 in 1994-1995?

Hmm, well I haven't finished my evaluation from this year, but Barkley's on some people's lists, and it's not hard to argue that in peak years Nash contributed more value to his team than Barkley did this year.

[sp6r=underrated]

Are people implying Nash was top 5 in 1994-1995?

Yes. Nash's best years would be top 5 worthy in 1995.

[Silver Bullet]

Are people implying Nash was top 5 in 1994-1995?

Yes. Nash's best years would be top 5 worthy in 1995.

+1

[Manuel Calavera]

To me, Nash is a product of the system, while Stockton, along with Malone, made the system.

Pace-control alone makes me much more impressed with Stockton. Nash is controlled by pace, whereas Stockton controlled it.

Meaning that Nash needs a definite speed to optimize his game, whereas Stockton can play at any speed and manipulates outcome by changing pace depending on moment.

I think Stockton was transcendent. Unfortunately, I think that same point may make him hard to rank in a system such as this.

Oh I object to this characterization of Nash strongly. The idea that Nash can't run a slow offense is totally without merit. The Phoenix offense with Shaq was still more successful than most of the offenses prime Stockton ever ran. People simply think of it as a failure because it wasn't as good as fast Phoenix.

What does it say that Nash is more useful in a fast offense than a slow one? Only that he's skilled at attacking a defense before they're ready to defend. How is that a bad thing?

Re: the term "system" specifically. Traditionally what it means is that a players stats are inflated because "anybody" can put up good stats in that system. It essentially inflates perception of how irreplaceable a guy is. That's not Nash, his standing is based on irreplaceability, not box score statistics.

Actually, if anything I think Stockton was the product of the system, while Nash is the system.

[TrueLAfan]

1. Hakeem
2. Drob
3. Malone
4. Shaq
5. …on the fence between Ewing and Pippen and Barkley. Want to see what else people say.

Other thoughts:

First—I’m glad there’s more notice of David Robinson’s defensive failures against Hakeem/Malone/in the postseason in general. I’m not as interested in DRob’s 24 and 11 as I am Hakeem’s 35 and 13. (Side note: Too much mention of Occam’s Razor in general, since we’re not defining what it means to be over--or under--complicated in discussing an issue…and, like it or not, people look at all sorts of factors in determining NBA player value.)

Second—Mutombo did do a poor job against Shaq in 2001. Mutombo was a good man defender who was slowing down,/ and Shaq used his first step and quickness against Deke in 2001. Mutombo wasn’t a bad defender, he was the wrong type of defender (a big body—though still not as big as Shaq—that didn’t have much quickness) against Shaq. In 2001, you’re not going to block many/any of Shaq's shots with length or keep Shaq out of the paint. You can keep passes away for him, and deny him his footwork…but that’s not what Deke was able to do at that point in his career.

Third--John Stockton had great numbers. But I can’t go with the idea that he was better than Karl Malone in the RS or the playoffs. The difference between them wasn’t large—like, maybe, the difference between Pippen and MJ in one of Pippen’s really good years—but confusing statistical efficiency with value is a mistake, IMO. I have to agree with the point that people “relate” more to Stockton, especially after the fact. And I think the idea that we somehow “appreciate” or “understand” Stockton and/or his role better now is equally loopy. Dude played forever, was a great player forever, was well known and well liked. And was (at least) as much a product of an effective system as Magic Johnson or Steve Nash. Wayne Winston? Not to be rude about it, but if you think that John Stockton was more valuable than Shaquille O’Neal--or, for that matter, Steve Nash--for the decade of the 2000s, you have to have been dropped on your head really hard several times and still be reeling around the fountain. (Okay, maybe being rude is a good call at a time like this.) It’s a classic example of someone who becomes wedded to an analytic tool to the point where he/she can’t see the obvious mistakes it’s making.

[Silver Bullet]

1. Hakeem
2. Drob
3. Malone
4. Shaq
5. …on the fence between Ewing and Pippen and Barkley. Want to see what else people say.

Other thoughts:

First—I’m glad there’s more notice of David Robinson’s defensive failures against Hakeem/Malone/in the postseason in general. I’m not as interested in DRob’s 24 and 11 as I am Hakeem’s 35 and 13. (Side note: Too much mention of Occam’s Razor, in general, since we’re not defining what it means to be over--or under--complicated in discussing an issue…and, like it or not, people look at all sorts of factors in determining NBA player value.)

Second—Mutombo did do a poor job against Shaq in 2001. Mutombo was a good man defender who was slowing down,/ and Shaq used his first step and quickness against Deke in 2001. Mutombo wasn’t a bad defender, he was the wrong type of defender (a big body—though still not as big as Shaq—that didn’t have much quickness) against Shaq. In 2001, you’re not going to block many/any of Shaq's shots with length or keep Shaq out of the paint. You can keep passes away for him, and deny him his footwork…but that’s not what Deke was able to do at that point in his career.

Third--John Stockton had great numbers. But I can’t go with the idea that he was better than Karl Malone in the RS or the playoffs. The difference between them wasn’t large—like, maybe, the difference between Pippen and MJ in one of Pippen’s really good years—but confusing statistical efficiency with value is a mistake, IMO. I have to agree with the point that people “relate” more to Stockton, especially after the fact. And I think the idea that we somehow “appreciate” or “understand” Stockton and/or his role better now is equally loopy. Dude played forever, was a great player forever, was well known and well liked. And was (at least) as much a product of an effective system as Magic Johnson or Steve Nash. Wayne Winston? Not to be rude about it, but if you think that John Stockton was more valuable than Shaquille O’Neal--or, for that matter, Steve Nash--for the decade of the 2000s, you have to have been dropped on your head really hard several times and still be reeling around the fountain. (Okay, maybe being rude is a good call at a time like this.) It’s a classic example of someone who becomes wedded to an analytic tool to the point where he/she can’t see the obvious mistakes it’s making.

Any explanation for why Shaq's at 4 ?

[Baller 24]

5) Ewing

I know you said you have not much time, but would you care to explain this?

Again, I haven't read everything in this thread, but noting that I was leaning towards Barkley, until I saw the Suns go 10-4 without him, and although his level of production increased in the playoffs, I feel Ewing was just better from a two-way standpoint all throughout the regular season, add in the defense, the fact that he was higher in MVP voting, and it's Ewing for me. I'm noticing Barkley really put it to another level in the playoffs, but Ewing wasn't "bad" to say the least himself.

[TrueLAfan]

Any explanation for why Shaq's at 4 ?

**Shrug.** I thought Orlando underperformed all year. Thought Malone had at least as good of a regular season. Thought Shaq regressed on D. Thought Shaq showed signs of the petulance and immaturity that marred his final season with Orlando.

[kaima]

Doctor MJ was kind enough to invite me into the voting, so here's hoping this is a kickoff to a series of not-too-terribly-ridiculous-votes:

1)Hakeem
2)Shaq
3)Malone
4)DRob
5)Barkley

Pippen got overshadowed by not just the guys above but also MJ -- I mean, by the playoffs, who was leading that team? Who owned it?

Stockton deserves mention. I really don't know if I'm being fair to him, but it comes down to whether I think he was better than Karl. I don't.

He could have slipped in anyway, but I feel like Malone got left in no man's land against the Rockets that year.

Robinson continues to disturb me no matter what I do with him, rankings-wise. I look at that regular season, but then I look at that series...again and again, it comes back to, not just lowered numbers, but yet another series where a star player positionally showed that Robinson was in a different strata. And I don't mean that positively.

I feel sympathy for Barkley. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but he played better overall than Robinson against Houston, and this was while he was breaking down physically.

I understand the other side of that. He might have brought it on himself.

[Silver Bullet]

1. Shaq
2. D-Rob
3. Hakeem
4. Malone
5. Barkley

[Dr Positivity]

My vote

1. Hakeem
2. Shaq
3. Karl Malone
4. David Robinson
5. Patrick Ewing

Hakeem is the fairly easy #1 for me. He killed everyone.

Shaq very nearly had the best regular season, then performed admirably throughout the playoffs. He had the 2nd best reg. season and 2nd best playoffs. So it's fitting he is 2nd.

Originally I had Drob over Malone but some of the arguments and looking things over made me reconsider. For one thing Malone was pretty damn good against Houston. I especially like how he got to the FT line over 20 times in both Games 4 and 5, leading to very efficient nights (31 points on 17 shots, then 35 points on 21 shots). Furthermore Karl had a pretty awesome regular season himself. He put up 27/11/3 in all 82 games, Utah went 60-22 and Malone finished 3rd in MVP voting. He actually got more 1st place votes than Shaq and almost as many points which is surprising because that regular season is often remembered as the Shaq and David Robinson year

And then there's Drob's performance. It's been much discussed. It wasn't good. Despite being the top regular season player, I have to dock him to below Shaq and Malone who were a bit worse in the RS but far superior in the postseason. If we're doing the playground test based on these years (basically you get one of the players and their performances for a year), I couldn't take Drob over Shaq and Malone who will get you far enough in the regular season and then will be a much better option from there.

After that there's a drop-off to 5th where I debated between Barkley and Ewing. I chose Ewing for playing more and being healthier, plus missed layup aside he played pretty well in that Game 7. I care about commitment. I'm not sure Barkley had it at this point.

[NO-KG-AI]

Hakeem
Shaq
Robinson
Malone
Ewing

Hakeem is my numero uno, he did the damn thanggg.

I think Robinson and Shaq are a tier up from the last two, but Shaq was awesome in the playoffs, and even got his against Hakeem, where as Robinson got mashed.

[JordansBulls]

I asked this before but I'm curious on how Ewing was 4th in MVP voting but didn't make an All NBA Team

[Silver Bullet]

I asked this before but I'm curious on how Ewing was 4th in MVP voting but didn't make an All NBA Team

Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem ??

[sp6r=underrated]

I asked this before but I'm curious on how Ewing was 4th in MVP voting but didn't make an All NBA Team

Kinda of obvious. Centers dominated the MVP voting that year, and only one Center can make each All NBA team

MVP Voting
1. Robinson
2. Shaq
4. Ewing
5. Hakeem.

Robinson and Shaq doubled up Ewing in MVP vote share. That means there was a large consensus that those two were better than Ewing. So at best Ewing could get 3rd Team All NBA.

The gap between Ewing and Hakeem was very small. There was no RS consensus that Ewing was better than Hakeem. All-NBA vote went for Hakeem so Ewing didn't make an All-NBA team.

[ronnymac2]

I guess it's time to vote. Barkley vs. Ewing ends up being a legit comparison. I give the edge to Charles as a player, but he was injured in the playoffs. The tiebreakers are pretty even. I don't know....Charles still played in all the games and gave it his all, but I can't help but think it affected his play in such a close series. Kaima talked about how they started giving it to KJ more. I don't know...I think Patrick edges him out there. Very close though.

Final Vote:

Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'neal
Karl Malone
David Robinson
Patrick Ewing