Retro POY '90-91 (Voting Complete)

[tha_rock220]

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

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

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

[lorak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

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

As everyone else said, 1 & 2 are easy.

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

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

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

Honorable Mention:

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

Mullin - Love how he plays.

Drexler - Another year leading a contender.

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

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

[Doctor MJ]

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

[CellarDoor]

Jordan
Magic
Barkley
Malone
Pippen

[Doctor MJ]

'90-91 Results

Code: Select all

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


[drza]

Random note: Player "advocates"

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

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

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

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

[Dr Positivity]

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

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

[Gongxi]

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

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

[sp6r=underrated]

I agree with Drza, though I think the occasional joke is okay. The strong advocate for a player has contributed a lot to the project. Often times their forceful arguments bring a lot more discussion than the neutral analysis. Some have been successful like Drza with KG, while others have not like MysticcB. But these have been the posters who have really made the project work.

[Doctor MJ]

Random note: Player "advocates"

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

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

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

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

I think this is a fair point.

[drza]

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

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

If we were having a discussing on international law with a bunch of people that spent an inordinate amount of time watching, analyzing and discussing international law then no, in fact you couldn't bamboozle me with paragraphs and paragraphs on the subject. I'd have a strong understanding of the subject, and I'd be able to read what you wrote, discern the dross from the things worth further consideration.

This isn't a courtroom, nor is it a classroom where we're all forcibly influenced by the knowledge of a superior whose job is to educate. This is a discussion between basketball nerds, all of whom have different perspectives and experiences with what we've seen and what we know. I'm not "advocating" for KG or (I'm sure) Kaima for Malone or Mystic for Dirk just because we're homers for them, we're advocating because we believe them to be better players than they are generally credited with being. In this discussion, we make our case for why we believe that to be true with a group of people that know as much about the game in general as we do. It gives both sides the chance to learn.

I've already pointed out how Kaima's posts have helped me learn some things about Robinson and Malone that I wasn't considering before. By the same token, because other folks also know the game maybe you can point out where some of my KG arguments come up short and then I learn something from that end as well.

If you don't watch Dirk every game, no matter how great you think your system is, you probably don't understand his game as well as Mystic does. And you know what? All he's doing is putting his interpretation out there...you don't HAVE to believe it. Hell, you don't even HAVE to read it. But I think you'd be doing yourself a disservice by ignoring what someone writes just because you didn't agree with it coming in, and I DEFINITELY think that belittling the people that choose to put the time and energy in towards putting their opinion out there does nothing but hamstring this project. To me, it's analogous to the other kids in class making fun of the guy that is working hard and raising his hand to answer the questions. All if does is make something that should be a positive into a negative, and frankly doesn't make anything better.

The point is, if you disagree with a so-called advocate's points, then argue the POINTS. Don't argue the PERSON, and definitely don't argue that they shouldn't "ADVOCATE". Because all "advocate" means in this setting is putting in extra time and energy to analyze, inform and persuade. Which is exactly the way that the most productive discussions occur.

[Doctor MJ]

I'll chime in a bit further. While the ideal member of the panel is someone who consistently provides large amounts of insight across the board, I think we can do a lot worse than an advocate presuming that that advocate makes good arguments and responds to others questions and arguments reasonably.

Part of what's difficult, should we try to crack down on advocate-ism, is that there's a natural tendency to become an advocate over what we've thought about the most. This can be called a bias, but it's typically a much different thing than someone who loves a player because he's from their team/town or because of pre-rational memories (i.e. the guy on the poster in your childhood bedroom).

[Gongxi]

*Putting in the extra time to analyze, inform, and persuade on behalf of one player only.

There's quite a few people who make informative posts and at the end the come to a conclusion and share it. They look at a situation and end up coming to a result. Then there's other people, who already have a result, and try to find ways in which to arrive at that. The former is awesome. The latter, not so much.

Me personally, I'm not very interested in looking at this project by breaking down Xs and Os or looking at individual game footage, because that's very limited. I'm looking at the macro level. I don't care how Dirk went about scoring such-and-such on such-and-such a percentage. I'm interested in that he did it, period. I don't need someone going into how so-and-so's lesser production is explained by this and that when all we really need to know is that his production was lesser.

My point is we can all look find things to support our presumptions, but if we're promoting those and leaving the things out that don't, we're not doing anyone a service at all. I could write quite the post about how Mark McGwire didn't win the MVP when he broke the HR record in '98, but if I don't mention Sosa's year, it's meaningless.

[drza]

I'll chime in a bit further. While the ideal member of the panel is someone who consistently provides large amounts of insight across the board, I think we can do a lot worse than an advocate presuming that that advocate makes good arguments and responds to others questions and arguments reasonably.

Part of what's difficult, should we try to crack down on advocate-ism, is that there's a natural tendency to become an advocate over what we've thought about the most. This can be called a bias, but it's typically a much different thing than someone who loves a player because he's from their team/town or because of pre-rational memories (i.e. the guy on the poster in your childhood bedroom).

I feel that. I just think you guys aren't giving yourselves enough credit. It doesn't matter how much someone spouts off about their favorite player, if the arguments that they're making are worthless then the guys in this project are strong and smart enough to cry 'BS' and keep it moving. I don't want to say names in a negative light, but I've seen some folks attempting to advocate for players in ways that weren't effective to me. They said a lot, but I didn't agree with either their logic or their analyses. I read everything they wrote, realized that it wasn't convincing, and moved on.

Just because someone really likes a player, doesn't mean they have a case. And just because someone has a case, doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with them. My point is, everyone should be allowed (nay, encouraged) to make the strongest case they can make for any and everything that they choose to. That puts info out there and encourages discussion. To me, that's the strength of this project. The members of this project are strong. Let everyone choose on their own what they will and won't believe, and what they will and won't argue. Snide "oh, here we go again with another guy that's trying to put info out there that I don't agree with" comments are tired and tiring. At least to me.

[drza]

*Putting in the extra time to analyze, inform, and persuade on behalf of one player only.

There's quite a few people who make informative posts and at the end the come to a conclusion and share it. They look at a situation and end up coming to a result. Then there's other people, who already have a result, and try to find ways in which to arrive at that. The former is awesome. The latter, not so much.

Me personally, I'm not very interested in looking at this project by breaking down Xs and Os or looking at individual game footage, because that's very limited. I'm looking at the macro level. I don't care how Dirk went about scoring such-and-such on such-and-such a percentage. I'm interested in that he did it, period. I don't need someone going into how so-and-so's lesser production is explained by this and that when all we really need to know is that his production was lesser.

My point is we can all look find things to support our presumptions, but if we're promoting those and leaving the things out that don't, we're not doing anyone a service at all. I could write quite the post about how Mark McGwire didn't win the MVP when he broke the HR record in '98, but if I don't mention Sosa's year, it's meaningless.

Actually, no it's not. Because you wouldn't be standing up, making a case for Mcguire in a vacuum, and then people can vote only on that. If this project were going through every year in baseball history, first of all, we'd all ALREADY KNOW that McGuire was battling Sosa. Also, the first post in the baseball 1998 thread would have links to summaries from 1998 that point out exactly who the leaders were in every category. Then, over the course of the discussion, we would have more than 100 posts from about 20 - 30 different baseball nerds all discussing aspects of 1998. Sosa is covered.

Again, give the project participants some credit. We're not NBA virgins. Maybe we can't all watch all 82 games for all 30 teams every season and recall them with perfect accuracy, but most of us have watched a TON of NBA action through the years and can tell if what someone writes is complete BS. But in your baseball analogy, if someone pointed out that Sosa played in a worse hitter's park than McGuire, that McGuire had a great hitter both in front and behind him in the order, and that over the course of the season Sosa hit against pitchers with a cumulative ERA of 3.91 while McGuire did most of his damage against pitchers with a cumulative ERA of 5.23, that would all be great info to have. And the only person likely to have that info is the huge Sosa fan that has been following this debate closely for years and has compiled a bunch of info on the subject. By your logic, the Sosa fan should keep this info to himself because he doesn't have a similar cache of data on every great player. That's ridiculous. This project is helped by the Sosa fan, because he's bringing something to the table that others didn't consider.

[Gongxi]

If someone came into the argument and only posted information that was favorable to only McGwire or only Sosa, and omitted everything else, they wouldn't be doing a service at all.

Unless we're pretending that these guys doing this in our project only know of stats that are favorable to their favorite players. Like you said: we're not NBA virgins; I high doubt that's the case.

[drza]

Why isn't it a service? Under the context of a project where all of us non-NBA virgins have access to all of the places where everyone gets their data and there are more than a hundred other posts in the topic, why isn't it a service? Are you compelled to only read the posts of the person that favors McGwire? Are you compelled to only consider their info? No, you're not.

If a poster brings up stat that are only favorable to McGwire, you know what could happen?

1) A reader sees it and says to themselves 'BS, let me bring some more data to the table that shows why the first set of stats is incorrect or incomplete'. And the discussion goes up a notch.

2) A reader sees it and says to themselves, "Interesting, but not enough to convince me," and they keep it moving.

3) A reader sees it and says "Hmm, I never considered that before. Let me take another look at how I was making my judgments." And the discussion goes up a notch. Maybe someone even changes their minds about something now that they have more info to consider.

4) A reader sees it and says "Wow, that was so convincing that I'm immediately going to vote only based on the info in this post and ignore everything that runs counter to it"

Now, in this project, there is extremely little of #4 going on because of the fact that we all know basketball. If someone brings up an esoteric stat that runs counter to intuition, the stat and the poster both go on trial (in a good way) until either the post is discredited or the poster further supports their point enough for people to consider it. And all of the other 3 points are either a non-issue or a big positive pushing the quality of thought and discussion in the project forward.

So I repeat...why "isn't this a service at all"?

[Gongxi]

Because it's misleading, especially if there's no homer for the other side to offer a counterpoint.

[drza]

But why's it misleading? My stance is that the posters in this project are intelligent enough to tell the real from the fake. If that's the case, we're not going to fall for the okey-doke and are going to make someone saying something counter-intuitive really back up and prove their point. If an advocate can be convincing in the face of skepticism, there must be something legit in their info. Do you disagree?

Let's pinpoint where the negative is, here.