Retro POY '92-93 (Voting Complete)

[bastillon]

Don't want to get into it too much, but it's true that Jordan, Barkley, and Hakeem were the consensus Top 3 during the regular season. The MVP vote that year was relatively close between them. But Jordan had, even by his standards, a great postseason, along with perhaps his best Finals performance. That was enough to push him ahead for me and, I suspect, others.

yeah finals have been brought up over and over again. how is this a deciding factor and Cavs/NYK series entirely dismissed ?

Mysticbb even cherry picked 2 great games from MJ's NYK series so that Jordan looks like he's dominating that defense, nevermind that in the rest of those games he maybe got to 40% FG (didn't check the actual numbers) and played sub-par, not only for his standards.

also, I don't see how Jordan seperated himself from Barkley and Olajuwon in the playoffs. if took all series into account, along with the level of opposition and their impact, I thought Olajuwon was the best, Barkley and MJ coming tied at 2nd.

[JordansBulls]

And Phil Jackson wasn't even a top 7 coach all time at that point. That is where you are mistaken.

I agree with you about MJ over Hakeem but this is just silly. PJ may not have had the resume of a top 7 coach all time at that point, but he clearly was easily a top 2-3 coach in ability in 1992 or 1993.

I agree that he was a top 2-3 coach at the time, but all time I wouldn't say he was top 7 at that point in time.

Also how do you justify putting a guy 3rd who not only was the Season and Finals MVP winner two years in a row, but who also raised his season ppg and playoffs ppg to the highest ever for a player that won the title the next season?

[JordansBulls]

Don't want to get into it too much, but it's true that Jordan, Barkley, and Hakeem were the consensus Top 3 during the regular season. The MVP vote that year was relatively close between them. But Jordan had, even by his standards, a great postseason, along with perhaps his best Finals performance. That was enough to push him ahead for me and, I suspect, others.

yeah finals have been brought up over and over again. how is this a deciding factor and Cavs/NYK series entirely dismissed ?

Mysticbb even cherry picked 2 great games from MJ's NYK series so that Jordan looks like he's dominating that defense, nevermind that in the rest of those games he maybe got to 40% FG (didn't check the actual numbers) and played sub-par, not only for his standards.

also, I don't see how Jordan seperated himself from Barkley and Olajuwon in the playoffs. if took all series into account, along with the level of opposition and their impact, I thought Olajuwon was the best, Barkley and MJ coming tied at 2nd.

If Hakeem was the best in the playoffs then his Win Shares per 48 minutes would have been greater than MJ's. Neither that nor his PER nor his Total Win Shares was higher.

Also Hakeem went down in round 2 to a team that didn't even make the finals and he had the same record as that team as well.

[mysticbb]

unless your basketball math skills are nonexistent, it's easy to see something's not right with this equation. conclusion: someone is overrated. tell me who. my money is on Jordan here. I can't see any other explanation having seen what happened in 94.

Well, or your "basketball math skills are nonexistent", thought of that at least once? Why has EVERYONE besides you Jordan at #1 and you even wanted to put him at #4? You are comparing the performance of a different team, a team which mainly won their games due to effort, to the performance of a team which depended on Jordan way more. The Bulls in 1993 were the 2nd best offensive team in the league, one year later they went down to 14th. And I pointed out in the thread about 1994 that the Bulls also played really well once they added Luc Longley and the style they played became a little different. The TPO is also a system in which limited offensive players can excel, if they get the plays right. The Bulls 1994 were really good at offensive excecution in comparison to the supporting cast 1993.

As I said the Bulls lost 3 of their 4 games without Jordan, at least two of those games would most likely be wins with Jordan. A little bit more consistency by Pippen and Grant and that team would have had again the best record in the league. The less wins had more to do with a lack of effort in the regular season than with a Jordan being worse. In fact Jordan played even better than in 1992 during the regular season.

One year later the Bulls had a lot of more motivation, especially Grant and Pippen played great in the regular season (except for those games they missed ;)), they wanted to prove in the regular season that they can win without Jordan, something they hadn't done one year before.

And really, what do you expect from a player other than bringing his best effort in the finals and leading his team to the title? Even if you assume he had the best supporting cast, which isn't quite right as I showed (and Pat Riley was seen as the better coach in 1993 by the way ;)), what other could have been done than winning the championship? You expected them to win it all, Jordan done that. Punishing him for that is ridiculous.

[sp6r=underrated]

I agree that he was a top 2-3 coach at the time, but all time I wouldn't say he was top 7 at that point in time.

In ability he clearly was.

Also how do you justify putting a guy 3rd who not only was the Season and Finals MVP winner two years in a row, but who also raised his season ppg and playoffs ppg to the highest ever for a player that won the title the next season?

I already told you I agree with you.

[bastillon]

love your reasoning guys. not the "put Jordan lower than Barkley and Hakeem" but "how the hell can you put MICHAEL JORDAN THIRD ?!!ONEONE!!". the biggest problem with arguing against Jordan is that if Jordan supporters say "he's MJ" and use it in a serious debate as a legit argument, they will be seen as making valid point. people think it's an insult to argue for other players in this case, let alone two at the same time, just because this is Jordan. nobody really wonders why Jordan is a better player than Barkley/Dream career-wise. nobody really cares that it's all other years that made him better, all years BUT this. the "he's MJ" is a valid point and no argument can beat it.

that's what I'm calling Sacred Cow Syndrome. SCS baby.

[mysticbb]

OT: Your humble opinion is wrong. The Mavs were down by 16 with about 8 minutes to go in the 4th quarter of game 3 when he got injured. Spurs dominated game 2 and game 3 and led almost the entire way in game 1 and only lost the lead in the final moments because of epic foul shooting by Dallas. I think they hit something like 40 in a row in that game

OT: Well, the series ended with that game? ;) The Mavericks replaced Nowitzki with Walt Williams! They had the best team in that season, highest SRS. They proved they can win on the road, they done that several times. Anyway, we might have had that dispute already in the 2003 thread? Not quite sure, but I doubt we will solve that in this thread.

[JordansBulls]

Hold up. The Rockets were 55-27 and went the distance in round 1 against the 41-41 Clippers and barely won the game 5.

[sp6r=underrated]

OT: Your humble opinion is wrong. The Mavs were down by 16 with about 8 minutes to go in the 4th quarter of game 3 when he got injured. Spurs dominated game 2 and game 3 and led almost the entire way in game 1 and only lost the lead in the final moments because of epic foul shooting by Dallas. I think they hit something like 40 in a row in that game

OT: Well, the series ended with that game? The Mavericks replaced Nowitzki with Walt Williams! They had the best team in that season, highest SRS. They proved they can win on the road, they done that several times. Anyway, we might have had that dispute already in the 2003 thread? Not quite sure, but I doubt we will solve that in this thread.

Agreed on your final sentence. But I just wanted to make clear to people even without that injury they almost certinally would have had to come back from 2-1 down. A lot of people think Dirk got injured really early in the game.

The dumbest mistake Cuban made was going for that massive roster overhaul after the 03 season. Great owner but there was no need to massively disrupt that roster especially to add in more offensive firepower. Their offense did get slightly better but their D collapsed.

[bastillon]

If Hakeem was the best in the playoffs then his Win Shares per 48 minutes would have been greater than MJ's. Neither that nor his PER nor his Total Win Shares was higher.

Also Hakeem went down in round 2 to a team that didn't even make the finals and he had the same record as that team as well.

that's (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

Well, or your "basketball math skills are nonexistent" are not existing, thought of that at least once? Why has EVERYONE besides you Jordan at #1 and you even wanted to put him at #4? You are comparing the performance of a different team, a team which mainly won their games due to effort, to the performance of a team which depended on Jordan way more. The Bulls in 1993 were the 2nd best offensive team in the league, one year later they went down to 14th.

wonder why you mentioned team ORtg but left the defense off your post. perhaps that's because they IMPROVED without Jordan defensively ?

And really, what do you expect from a player other than bringing his best effort in the finals and leading his team to the title? Even if you assume he had the best supporting cast, which isn't quite right as I showed (and Pat Riley was seen as the better coach in 1993 by the way ), what other could have been done than winning the championship? You expected them to win it all, Jordan done that. Punishing him for that is ridiculous.

I expect those playoff series not to be close at all (based on clearly superior SC). they were extremely close vs NYK and Suns.

One year later the Bulls had a lot of more motivation, especially Grant and Pippen played great in the regular season (except for those games they missed ), they wanted to prove in the regular season that they can win without Jordan, something they hadn't done one year before.

you do realize that by using this argument you're just diminishing MJ's leadership which has always been his great quality but now seems as having little-to-no impact if players are more motivated without him ? you do realize that, don't you ?

[sp6r=underrated]

Hold up. The Rockets were 55-27 and went the distance in round 1 against the 41-41 Clippers and barely won the game 5.

OT to the Jordan-Hakeem debate and I'm not trying to make an argument for Hakeem here. I posted a link to that game on page 1, if you want to see an all time great player just going off watch Hakeem in that game.

[ElGee]

No - someone in the cast isn't overrated. Notice you didn't mention a single thing about Jordan or his play, but are trying to reverse-engineer Jordan's contributions by framing the players around him.

The difference in wins is easily accounted for by schedule, fatigue, ceiling effects, variance/luck and just the simple human element that in 1993 EVERY NBA team was jacked up to play the Bulls and no one cared about playing the Houston Rockets. Wins are a team stat, not an individual one.

that's because I put a lot of emphasis on how individual stats translate to wins. being fan of Nash, you should know better. now MJ's stats have been translating into wins... in general. this year, though, record doesn't reflect his individual accomplishments.

schedule, fatigue etc. what's your evidence supporting that ? I can argue all those factors favored Bulls, so unless you provide something stronger, this isn't really a good argument to back-up your statement in this debate.

And the problem is not that you have Jordan at No. 3. It's how you have him at No. 3. People not only think it's weak but it's also the opposite of your own criteria. You said "I will use playoffs primarily" and you didn't mention this RS wins "argument" in 1995 for Hakeem, and suddenly it's popping up here in 1993 to place someone over Michael Jordan. That someone happens to be Hakeem.

well I think Hakeem was better in the playoffs too... :shruggs:
27/14/5/2/5 isn't some pedestrian playoffs. go look at how teams played him in those playoffs. Seattle triple teamed him repeatedly and don't even get me started on Clippers. Horry wasn't even a legit 3P shooter at the time (and Maxwell was never that, obviously).

So, Seattle triple-teamed Hakeem and that somehow makes him a better player, but what Jordan did against arguably the greatest defense ever double (or triple) teaming is...? You keep bring up the Cavs series -- I'm not getting it. How is winning the title with one of the greatest playoff performances ever a negative? Curious, did you watch the 1993 playoffs?

Nash has nothing to do with Jordan. My coming around on Nash has to do with watching him orchestrate the Suns offense -- he literally has the ball and is running PnR action the majority of the time he's on the court -- and those offenses being historically good. His on/off numbers on offense are astounding, seemingly independent of who his teammates are. The Bulls offense was 2nd in the league in 1993 with Jordan as the No. 1 option, so I'm not sure what your point is there, about Michael or the team.

It's easy to argue schedule and fatigue: Their SRS was 6 (Houston's 3) despite a comparable number of wins. Fatigue is an obvious inference from watching them and noting that they played months more basketball than everyone else in the previous 2 years. I'm assuming you were in France in 1993 and I'm telling you it was a BIG DEAL when the Bulls came to town (they were on national TV every week) and no one cared when Houston came. That, and luck, make a difference over an 82-game schedule. Oh, and Scottie Pippen probably had his worst regular season of his prime.

[bastillon]

Nash has nothing to do with Jordan. My coming around on Nash has to do with watching him orchestrate the Suns offense -- he literally has the ball and is running PnR action the majority of the time he's on the court -- and those offenses being historically good. His on/off numbers on offense are astounding, seemingly independent of who his teammates are. The Bulls offense was 2nd in the league in 1993 with Jordan as the No. 1 option, so I'm not sure what your point is there, about Michael or the team.

if Nash's boxscore numbers reflected his value, then Nash is a borderline all-star. in reality he's a legit superstar. conclusion: boxscore numbers don't always reflect player's value. in Jordan's case they did... usually. 93 ? I don't believe they did. team success should've been greater otherwise (both RS and playoffs).

So, Seattle triple-teamed Hakeem and that somehow makes him a better player, but what Jordan did against arguably the greatest defense ever double (or triple) teaming is...?

it wasn't even my point. I mentioned this by the way.

ok, I think I'm gone. I've spent way too much time than I should have anyway.

[JordansBulls]

Hold up. The Rockets were 55-27 and went the distance in round 1 against the 41-41 Clippers and barely won the game 5.

OT to the Jordan-Hakeem debate and I'm not trying to make an argument for Hakeem here. I posted a link to that game on page 1, if you want to see an all time great player just going off watch Hakeem in that game.

Yes he played great in that game, however the Rockets were the #2 seed and the Clippers were the #7 seed.

[mysticbb]

Mysticbb even cherry picked 2 great games from MJ's NYK series so that Jordan looks like he's dominating that defense, nevermind that in the rest of those games he maybe got to 40% FG (didn't check the actual numbers) and played sub-par, not only for his standards.

Bringing his best games to the table when it matters most, that is the reason I picked those games. Where was Ewing in those games? What exactly did he to get the nod over Jordan by your standard in game 4, when the Knicks had the chance to take the 3-1 series lead? What did Ewing in game 5 at home, when it was important to secure HCA? Those are the important games.
And it is not like Jordan's support played so awesome. Grant had a bad game 1, Pippen looked absolute horrible in game 2 despite the fact that he made more points than usual, his passing game was off. And Jordan done exactly the opposite of what Robinson did, taking that important shot under pressure and with the defense all over him. Yes, it didn't work out everytime, the reason why his stats in that series doesn't look that great, but he played with effort, strong on the defensive end. When his shot was off he tried to set up his teammates more, he attacked the basket more, grabbing rebounds and drawing fouls. That is the reason the Bulls were able to win that series, that is the reason the Bulls won the championship at the end, that is the reason Michael Jordan was the best player in 1993. Because he done it!

also, I don't see how Jordan seperated himself from Barkley and Olajuwon in the playoffs. if took all series into account, along with the level of opposition and their impact, I thought Olajuwon was the best, Barkley and MJ coming tied at 2nd.

Level of competition? How so? The Rockets needed all 5 games to defeat the Clippers, a team 0.3 SRS team. Look up who defended Olajuwon in that series. After that they lost to the Sonics in the 2nd round. And Barkley was completely "outplayed" by Jordan, if we are using your standard. Jordan finished with a higher PER and WS/48 than both, Barkley got more WS, because he needed more games to reach the finals. Bulls swept the -0.7 SRS Hawks, no surprise here, after that they swept the 6.3 SRS Cavs, then winning against the 5.9 SRS Knicks while the Knicks had HCA and in the finals the Bulls clinched their 3rd title in the row on the road against the 6.3 SRS Suns. What the hell did you expect the Bulls to do? Going undefeated in that season?

[ElGee]

^^^I'm not even getting your point anymore Bastillon...basically Jordan's box score numbers dictate his team should have won more than 57 games and the title?

What should they have won, 67 games again? You don't think the team factors I just explained could result in variance in wins that ranges from 57 to 67 regular season wins?? Or are you just assuming that suddenly, in one year only, MIchael Jordan's box score numbers became a poor reflection of his play (but only in the regular season) and that he single-handedly cost them ~10 wins?

[Dr Positivity]

One my favorite quotes: The difference between science and religiion is science gathers evidence and draws conclusions from it, while religion comes up with the conclusion first and then finds the evidence for it.

I feel like that is applicable here with the words "good judging" and "bad judging" subbed in

[bastillon]

What the hell did you expect the Bulls to do? Going undefeated in that season?

soundly defeating the Knicks and Suns, without neither being in position to win the series at any point.

are you just assuming that suddenly, in one year only, MIchael Jordan's box score numbers became a poor reflection of his play (but only in the regular season) and that he single-handedly cost them ~10 wins?

well, defense could be argued based on improvement without him, but yeah, I kinda feel that way. too little time to elaborate, sorry.

[mysticbb]

The dumbest mistake Cuban made was going for that massive roster overhaul after the 03 season. Great owner but there was no need to massively disrupt that roster especially to add in more offensive firepower. Their offense did get slightly better but their D collapsed.

Well, the reason was getting a suitable backup for Nowitzki, someone they can even use next to him. They thought Jamison and Walker would be those guys. But that was obviously a huge mistake. Offensively that was fine, but defensively they had to play Nowitzki all of the sudden as defensive anchor to make up for the horrible defense of Walker and their perimeter players.
But you have to give them credit for building that team new around Nowitzki after that.

[ElGee]

What the hell did you expect the Bulls to do? Going undefeated in that season?

soundly defeating the Knicks and Suns, without neither being in position to win the series at any point.

are you just assuming that suddenly, in one year only, MIchael Jordan's box score numbers became a poor reflection of his play (but only in the regular season) and that he single-handedly cost them ~10 wins?

well, defense could be argued based on improvement without him, but yeah, I kinda feel that way. too little time to elaborate, sorry.

I think Mufasa hit this right on the head, but...

Why would you expect an individual to "soundly defeat" two elite NBA teams without HCA?

And I think we've reached a point of no return if you're arguing Michael Jordan cost his team 10-wins in the regular season (en route to the championship) and are literally ignoring the other factors that have been presented for why the team won 10 fewer games.