RealGM Top 100 List #9

[drza]

A few thoughts...

1) Bird, Olajuwon and KG are potentially a very interesting compare/contrast group because stylistically they are a bit of a continuum. Said another way, if you mixed Bird and Olajuwon together stylistically, the result would be someone who looked a lot like Garnett.

2) I think the conversations about Bird's off-ball savant nature and Olajuwon's relative offensive impact through the years are fascinating, and actually should be amplified in a comparison. I hear echoes of the Russell/Wilt and Walton/Kareem discussions here.

3) Bird (like Russell and Walton) played in a way that probably isn't fully captured by box score stats, because his approach let him maximize his team's output whether his own numbers were brilliant or not (though often they were). On defense it is common to separate "man-to-man defense" from "help defense" when evaluating a player. You rarely here those separations when it comes to offense, but I think the separation would be just as fitting. Hakeem (especially in the playoffs) might have better "man-to-man offense" than Bird with crazy box score feats. However, even in the playoffs, I'd argue that Bird's "team offense" impact is better than Hakeem's. And like on defense, I suspect that the "help offense" is ultimately more valuable than the "man-to-man offense" because it improves the whole team which can have a larger effect than any 1 player. So even when Hakeem is scoring 35 points on 65% TS (but with a negative assist-to-turnover ratio) I strongly suspect that Bird is having a larger positive effect on his team's offense even if Bird were averaging 20 points on 48% TS (but with an assist/TO ratio over 2 on good volume).

4) On both offense and defense, Garnett is high up on the "help" continuum. He was a great and versatile 1-on-1 defender, but it was his ability to either physically move to help his teammates or orchestrate/coordinate the defensive whole that really makes him an all-time defender. Similarly, Garnett is a great 1-on-1 offensive player, but his help-offense abilities are closer stylistically to Bird more-so than early Hakeem. The shallow way to see this is by looking at boxscore feats, like KG and Bird being 1-2 in the 20/10/5 streaks.

However, the effects are also noted in the trends from the impact-type studies. When we talk about spacing effects for Dirk, that holds true for Bird (a lot) and to some extent Garnett as well. When we talk about floor general effects from the frontcourt for players like Walton, this holds true for Bird and Garnett as well. Ironically, both Bird and Garnett had playoff outings with extremely low TS% but excellent assist/turnover marks. I argue that their help-offense holds steady and hugely impactful even when their shot is off.

5) The elephant in the room for Olajuwon is that even if his offense might not always be hugely impact, his defense seemingly always was. But a lot of his candidacy is built on him being an ultimate 2-way threat, and I'd like to explore more to the extent that htis is true.

Gotta go now. Hopefully this can get some talk started, and if not that I can weigh in more later.

[tsherkin]

A few thoughts...

1) Bird, Olajuwon and KG are potentially a very interesting compare/contrast group because stylistically they are a bit of a continuum. Said another way, if you mixed Bird and Olajuwon together stylistically, the result would be someone who looked a lot like Garnett.

I disagree, since KG posted way less often/effectively than Olajuwon did, despite how frequently he used the 17-footer, and wasn't nearly as good a shooter as was Bird. He was also far less frequent in his transition play/efficacy and even Bird used the low block more often than KG... And movement around screens even more.

I don't think that mix looks lik KG at all, I think he looks more like Injured C-Webb with a better J and better high-post passing (offensively). Garnett didn't really do a lot of what Dream or Bird did offensively in terms of style, so mixing them together doesn't, IMO, really create that style match.

[lorak]

Robinson '95 WCF

http://i.imgur.com/IhMcAg3.png


Shaq '95 Finals

http://i.imgur.com/aVybOhH.png[/spoiler]
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1330591

Interesting that Robinson scored just as well as Shaq vs Hakeem - both averged 0.97 ppp. Yet, Robinson is criticized for his performance, while Shaq is often praised for how he was doing against Olajuwon.

[therealbig3]

The votes as I've got them so far:

Larry Bird - 9 (trex_8063, Warspite, Baller2014, DQuinn1575, Basketballefan, batmana, john248, Clyde Frazier, DHodgkins)

Hakeem Olajuwon - 7 (colts18, therealbig3, fpliii, RayBan-Sematra, andrewww, ronnymac2, GC Pantalones)

Kobe Bryant - 2 (An Unbiased Fan, ardee)

Oscar Robertson - 1 (Owly)

Kevin Garnett - 1 (Doctor MJ)

Moses Malone - 1 (tsherkin)


Note: I think it's pretty clear who acrossthecourt and 90sAllDecade are going to vote for, but I didn't see an official vote from you guys, so I didn't include it.

[90sAllDecade]

Just look at Bird's long list of playoff failures

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.


So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

[Quotatious]

I'm voting for Hakeem as well. My reasoning would be eerily similar to the Hakeem vs Magic thread. I'll post a short writeup about it later on.

I wouldn't be mad if Bird got the #9 because he'd be right there behind Magic, and I think they really should be ranked within two spots - to this day, it's so difficult to determine who was better, it's pretty amazing. That being said, I think that Olajuwon should be ranked over both...

Pretty shocked to see tsherkin voting for Moses at this stage - I don't think he has any really good case (except for longevity) to be ranked over anyone in the the Oscar, Dirk, KG, Kobe, Doc, West group, let alone Hakeem or Bird. A center with his defensive deficiencies can be really problematic (I'd hate it if that sounded like I'm intentionally focusing on his weaknesses instead of strengths, but I think most of us are more or less aware what his strengths were - excellent low post scorer, great in terms of drawing fouls, terrific rebounder, very strong and a workhorse down low)

[ElGee]

In the past, I was a bit fuzzy on Robertson and West. It was the WOWY data for the time that really threw me. West does things that I think are better, while Robertson has that on-ball OG floor general thing going on. These two guys, to me, were really the two best offensive players in the history of the sport until Bird and Magic came along. Oscar won out for me in the past based on West's injuries. BUT, I've got new information.

When you control for West's teammates, however, he looks even better while Robertson doesn't. Frankly, I've done a lot of double-takes looking at Wests results, which have caused me to re-examine the Lakers teams of the 60's. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around how Oscar could be better peak-to-peak, when you factor in West's (apparent) defensive advantage. I think that's what we see in this absolutely crazy results:



First, I've incorporated error-rates in WOWY now so we can see that Oscar's 61 season, where he misses 9 games, makes it actually unlikely that the Royals were a 9-win team without him. This is not to say they couldn't have been an outlier on the bad-side of things like the Celtics were on the good side, but it's also plenty likely they would have been a 20-win team.

Jumping forward to 65-66, he misses 9 more games and the Royals this time show up at a 33-win pace. From 67-68, if we control for Happy Hairston Oscar misses 13 games at the Royals play at a 20-win pace. From 69-70, 16 more games at a 21-win pace. I have little doubt that the Royals without Oscar Robertson were terrible. And that suggests good, but non-precise things about Oscar Robertson. My opinion of him doesn't really change...



Now look at Jerry West, WOWY HOF member. It's not just the degree of change with West that we see with Oscar on the Royals...it's the consistent height of the change. Now, I think the Lakers teams were clearly better than the Royals, and that's not to be overlooked, but think of some of Wilt Chamberlain's teams of the period. Now look at Jerry West's Lakers.

In 1961-62, WITHOUT Elgin Baylor, West's Lakers were a 35-win team. But then West got better. From 63-64 they were a 33-win team without West and a 50-win team with him (and Baylor). The 66 team played 54 games without Elgin Baylor...at a 54-win pace. 67-68, the heart of West's prime, see LA as a 54-win team, peaking at a comparable level to Wilt's 76ers (!) in 1968 with West. The 69 Lakers, with Wilt and Baylor play 21-games at a 43-win pace...add West and it jumps to 57. (Keep in mind, the league had more parity in the 60's which means it was hard to generate high SRS numbers.)

Perhaps the most telling of them all is the 70-71 stretch. In 1970, the Lakers played 26 games without Baylor or Wilt but with West in the lineup...again they were a 50-win team. Really, I'm not anti-Clark, LaRusso, Barnett or whomever was there (Mel Counts and Keith Erickson in 70), but at what point do you throw your hands up and say holy $^%* can this guy cover up anything? Because in 1971, without West, the Lakers then play like a 36-win team. Even in the twilight, removing Hairston from the team, the Lakers still play at obscene levels with West and look completely pedestrian without him.

And that period covers peak Baylor, post-injury Baylor, VBK's "Princeton" sets with Clark involved as a guard-heavy offense, Wilt coming, and then late-Wilt + Goodrich, Hairston, etc. To wrap, I'd say this echoes what we've just talked about with Bird and portability. When you are an incredible shooter, an excellent passer (high offensive IQ) and can defend...you bring a super high ceiling to teams. That West seemed to have video-game type efficiency also reinforces some kind of savant-like impact on the game throughout pretty much his entire career.

Spoiler:

So I now have West above Oscar despite West missing 2 playoffs in his prime

[RSCD3_]

Some of these have been posted in other threads, but for recap.....

Post-prime Bird in his final season (triple-double with 49 pts):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woAK1i-o2wI[/youtube]

Just how tough is that game-saving clutch three-pointer at 6,45? Drexler was all over his crippled body.

Amazing stuff, even of it is only regular season. [On a side note: the vast majority of these Bird videos on youtube are - for obvious reasons - PLAYOFF (!) games, against the best teams like the Lakers, Sixers, Bucks, Hawks, Pistons etc... very rarely against teams like the Bullets or Nets or Kings... so most of the footage shows him dismantling top opponents, in playoff time.]
An old and weary Celtics team against the high-flying powerhouse Blazers. Bird still gets the job done.
I like another vid from his last season... the highlights of his last game at the Boston Garden against the Cavs:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAYS9DYZ15g[/youtube]

So the penultimate game of his career, he hadn't even started for weeks... and he does this? Just a beauty to watch. He destroys the Cavs with his passing. It's like 14 assists?

That last game video is insane, he is limited in mobility to an extreme but here he is making several passes for buckets from a standstill position.

It shows that Bird's passing is arguably GOAT and its crazy because he is finding his teammates while they're making simple cuts and taking advantage of all available space.

I feel like Bird could have done a great job of supporting teams with lesser teammates because he could just find people from a standstill and with his great off ball movement he could find passing lanes before it was easy to spot and get there and make quick decisions.

[tsherkin]

Pretty shocked to see tsherkin voting for Moses at this stage

If you read my post, you'll understand why. I did it to geneate discussion on a muluple-MVP player more than because I believe him to be top 10 material.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

As I said, I honestly didn't know what to do with Dream's With/Without numbers in 1991. Fatal's post quelled my uncertainty and contextualized the numbers to indicate there wasn't a bigger problem with Olajuwon's play on the court. As I said, how each of his teammates do when he's out (or in!) is a credit to them.

I'm voting for Olajuwon because he gives me the best chance to win the most titles of anybody else left. His career value is higher. This dude led very good defensive teams throughout his prime. I've talked a lot about his years in the 1980s because I feel that's what most weren't so sure of, but at his peak in 1994, he led a dominant —4.9 defensive team, second only to the legendary (GOAT-level in the A.B.E — After Bill Era) New York Knick defense that he incidentally torched in the finals to the tune of 27 points on 50 percent shooting.

I think the larger problem is that he was replaced in the starting lineup by someone who was roughly the equivalent of Perkins and they didn't get worse.

When people talk about the problems of with/without stats, the backups are largely the problem. Maybe your backup is Dennis Rodman ready for a breakthrough. Not true in this case....

Olajuwon's problems playing *with* his teammates can't just be hand-waved by bad coaching/strategy. We're not going to assume an alternate world where Olajuwon was always playing well with them. We still have to consider what was actually happening.

I'm glad you mentioned Dennis Rodman.

Larry Smith wasn't roughly the equivalent of Kendrick Perkins. On the contrary, he was closer to the Worm than I think you give him credit for. Smith is the 3rd greatest offensive rebounder (going by recorded offensive rebound rate) in NBA history. Mr. Mean's offensive rebound rate of 16.8% led the NBA in 1991.

I invite you to consider the chance that in the 1991 sample of games Olajuwon missed, Smith helped extend possessions with his offensive rebounding, giving his teammates another opportunity to score per possession. As Fatal posted before, other streaky Rocket players like Vernon Maxwell and Sleepy Floyd appeared to go buck wild offensively, something they were prone to do for short stretches, but not with consistency throughout their careers.

More shots for players on unsustainable hot streaks. This is perhaps why Houston's offense didn't collapse with Olajuwon's absence.

[ronnymac2]

Something else Fatal said struck me as interesting not just in the case of Hakeem but in the case of any offensive player. I'm not just talking about offensive anchors, but any offensive player. For any offensive player to be able to help surrounding players, those surrounding players need to be able and willing to receive the impact. An offensive player's impact is merely an offer to coalesce his talents with others.

An offensive player's impact isn't constant; it's dependent on the yielding nature and the competence of those who surround him. It can be received well. It can be rejected. Sometimes surrounding players simply don't know what to do with it.

[RSCD3_]

I shall be voting For LARRY BIRD

Even though his prime is short his impact is enormous

He arguably had the most diverse skillset on offense if you consider isolation scoring just one piece of the puzzle

Great Shooting
Savant like passing ability
Great Off ball ability
The strength to post up smaller guards
Excellent maneuverability to take full advantage of his athleticism
A good offensive rebounder
Good at attacking closeouts

His defense also wasn't as bad as people said, though he could be attacked in individual match-ups with 3's he acceptable at guarding 4's, he also was a great help defender and could affect the defense by picking off or deflecting passes that he anticipated.

[lorak]

In 1961-62, WITHOUT Elgin Baylor, West's Lakers were a 35-win team. But then West got better.

Really he was better in '63 than in '62?

Besides I have two more questions:
- what are West's in/out numbers in 1964? (that's 9 game sample, so as big as several Oscar's)
- what about your SIO numbers and Oscar in 1972, when he looks as good as Duncan or Walton?

When you are an incredible shooter, an excellent passer (high offensive IQ) and can defend...you bring a super high ceiling to teams.

The same can be said about Oscar - in fact he was even better shooter than West, probably worse defender (but still underrated) and had even higher IQ..

[ceiling raiser]

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon
But I vehemently disagree with that. ronnymac2 and fatal9, along with 90sAllDecade and fpliii, have done extensive breakdowns of Hakeem's early career, and they've convinced me that Hakeem was basically the same player pre-93 as he was from 93 onwards.

I wouldn't go this far, because I think Hakeem clearly leveled up in '93 and with a deeper look the distinctions between the different phases of his career become clearer. Fundamentally he has most of the same qualities, but accumulation of all the little things added up to make him considerably better. My argument is more so that, even if in those early years he is not quite up to his GOAT peak standards, that shouldn't keep us from understanding the tremendous two way value Hakeem still provides, the rarity (and consequently the value) of having a player who in himself provides so many key things at such a high level, the qualities which made him so hard to deal with in the playoffs (people seem to want to dismiss this as some sort of a lucky occurrence or sample size issue, when they'd be better served to understand why his game translates so well and why other players don't), among other things. There are clear weaknesses that exist in Hakeem's game in his younger years especially compared to his peak form which should be accepted, but I just dislike the use of generalizations and heuristics to accommodate long held sticky feelings that were initially created by winning bias (KG is a victim of this too).

Don't want to snip the rest of this tremendous post, but I just wanted to agree with this, and comment on the matter.

As I've said before, I only started watching in 92-93, so everything I know about Hakeem during his pre-peak seasons is due to watching/reading after the fact. fatal9, 90sAllDecade, ronnymac2, and a couple of others have really helped me flesh out pre-peak Hakeem in my mind.

I do think playing during the summer in college with Moses helped Hakeem a ton defensively. Competing against him extensively really gave him experience bodying up with one of the best offensive centers of the era. As Hakeem noted though, he didn't get a chance to work on his offense as much:

But I never stopped competing against him, and as I got better I started to challenge his shot more often. I was quick enough to cut him off sometimes and force him to go with the running hook. I only hoped I could get it, or make him change his shot and maybe miss. I was bothering his shot!

I was so busy on defense that my offense was not productive. I would run and try to beat him down the floor and sometimes I would get a nice dunk, but when I tried to post up, Moses would just move me away from the box. I couldn’t get close, I wasn’t strong enough to pound against him, I would feel like I was running into a wall. I would get the ball, but it on the floor, do my turnaround, and he would challenge it. “Gotta be hungry for those blocks and rebounds,” he said, . “Eat ‘em up.” He was dominating me, that was very clear.

Now, fast forward to the summer of 92 (I might've missed something, but I'd think Moses was no longer at Fonde after being traded; there's also, unless I missed them, no mention of Hakeem working out extensively during summers after 83 and before 92). He finds a trainer (Hakeem calls him "Charles", but I'm not sure about his full name), and does two things, both presumably for the first time ever:

1) Starts to build muscle/endurance:

I started building by using light weights scaled to my abilities. At first it was strange. I had to get used to the technique and the concentration. But the more I wired with these weights the more I relaxed. In three days I really grew to like it.

I also realized I was getting immediate benefit from these workouts. When I took my shot or worked on my moves all the pain that I usually had in my knees and ankles went away. I was used to having my back ache and my muscles be tight and sore after a good session on the court—if you don’t really work out you can’t do the moves—but now everything seemed so relaxed and easy. Still, I would go to sleep *tired* at night and be sore in the morning. I knew if it was just me I would feel so tired I wouldn’t go work out the next day, but Charles really pushed me and I would warm up and be surprised to feel my body respond and recover quickly.

2) Works on his offensive moves:

I had never worked on my moves before. During the summers at Fonde I just played and competed, and whatever I wanted to try I tried in game competition. I had never stood off to one side and worked on footwork or leaping or any technique at all, I had worked on learning what worked, I had worked on winning. This was very different.

There was music in the background, a tape of pop music, and it made me creative. I had a lot of energy. I would shoot my jumper and see how high I could go and release the ball. In my mind I saw myself making each move and I felt like it was art. I would fake right, fake left, spin to the baseline. There was a rhythm, like I was dancing to the music. I felt like I was dancing on the court.

My jump hook had extra spring. Everything was sharp. I would make a jump hook, get tossed the rebound, take one bounce, and *go!* I could tell I was on top of my game. In athletics everything is control, you don’t do anything in a lazy way. I had energy and my breathing was wary because I was in condition.

I would shoot twenty-five jump hooks from the right side. Not just ordinary jump hooks, we were talking about preparing at a certain angle and jump hooks of a certain height. You did it right or you did it over. I stopped thinking about the jump hook and just shot it.

Then we worked on shooting jumpers from behind a pick. Sometimes in the past I would get the ball and realize I didn’t want to shoot it. Now I began thinking like a guard, like the in-between player I was. I would work on making my inside foot, the one closest to the basket, hit the floor just as I got the ball so when I jumped to shoot I was already squared up, shoulders facing the basket. It’s all in the footwork. Inside foot, outside foot, spring. If your feet are underneath you and your shoulders are not spinning to catch up, you will be balanced, your elevation will be better, you will jump higher and straighter and will have more time to take a good look at the basket. I saw how high I was jumping and that I was getting a good release. My shot was falling very softly. I was even hanging for a while and I had time, If I didn’t like the shot I was taking, to make different choices. I could pass in front of me; I had time to find an open man on the perimeter. I was in control.

All of a sudden basketball became new again! I pictured myself shooting from the outside. My game had been all spinning moves for a couple of years; every game I was going up against men bigger than I was but not as mobile, and I could spin in the paint and lose them. Now I began to bring those moves outside. If you can handle the ball a little bit outside you can spin and shoot the jumper, which makes your game much more dangerous because now they have to come get you and you can go right around them. When I pictured that I really got motivated!

I've become a pretty big skillset guy in the last year or so, and am generally inclined to pick a guy after he adds to his game (MJ/Kobe/Wade after working with Grover, MJ/Shaq after being introduced to the triangle, Kobe/LeBron after working with Hakeem during the summer, Wilt changing his game with Hannum, Hakeem here, etc.). Maybe I'm adjusting too much for this, but it seems like a very big deal to me.

ElGee's research here:

viewtopic.php?p=40727720#p40727720

supports there being a distinct advantage offensively between the Rockets before and after Summer 92 as well.

90sAllDecade stated a couple of threads ago that 95 was probably the end of Hakeem's defensive prime, and 96 was the end of Hakeem's offensive prime. Somebody else (not sure if it was fatal9, 90sAllDecade, or ronnymac2) noted that Hakeem's discipline defensively improved, which supports this quote:

But the next time I tried it Shaquille straightened out. That’s when I realized how quick Shaquille was. In the league when they go for the fakes they never recover. But that’s what was different about Shaquille, he recovered and was there for the block. Shaquille wanted to block everything. I remembered how that felt.

This is just one datapoint, but the general trend is that the ratio of Olajuwon's Hakeem's PF:BLK decreased as his defensive prime progressed (the numbers are unstable from 95-96 on, which seems to support 94-95 as the end of his defensive prime IMO):



I'm not sure when Hakeem's defensive peak was exactly, but without looking at the DRtg trends, assuming a gradual loss in athleticism (which I don't feel comfortable judging, since I didn't watch Hakeem extensively at the time), it looks like it predated his offensive peak by a few years, if we place it at the intersection of his improved discipline with the decline in his athleticism (though somebody else can feel free to correct me here).

[shutupandjam]

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

This is a tough vote for me because I think Hakeem and Bird both have great arguments at this point, but I'm going with Hakeem. I'm fairly confident Hakeem had the better peak - few players have been the absolute focus of their teams on both sides of the ball and led their team to championships. Hakeem did this two years in a row. He was absurdly dominant in those playoff runs and went through all time greats at his position. His ability to elevate his game in the playoffs was also incredible. In early returns (using non-opponent adjusted numbers), adjusting for expected playoff performance, Hakeem jumps in my expected titles metric from #10 to #5, trailing only Jordan, Shaq, Kareem, and LeBron).

Bird may have had the better "prime," though I'm not as confident about this. Some of Hakeem's regular seasons are concerning to me, but the more I look at those rosters and watch old games, which make it evident that he wasn't being used properly (really poor spacing), the more forgiving I am, especially at this point in the rankings.

Bird never really got to show what he could do with subpar teammates or in a bad situation - he came into the league and immediately got to play Cowens, Archibald, and Maxwell, then played the rest of his career with Parish, McHale, and DJ (79 finals MVP), plus one good year with with Walton. That's not to say I'm not extremely impressed by Bird. I think his ability to have a major positive effect on his offenses with or without the ball is amazing, and he's clearly the better offensive player of the two in my mind.

But regardless of who had the better prime, for me this project is deciding which player would give you more titles on average in any random situation. And if Bird has any prime edge, I don't think it stands up to the edges Hakeem has in longevity and peak play. Because of that, my vote is for Hakeem.

[magicmerl]

Postseason only Prime Kobe (06-10)VS Prime Bird (84-88)

Finals W/L
Bird: 2-2(50%)
Kobe: 2-1(67%)

I'm confused. Is this metric intended to be cited as evidence in favour of Bird because he made the finals four times, or Kobe because he had a better winpct in the finals?

Because I'm definitely in the camp that thinks making the finals and losing is more of an accomplishment than losing even earlier just like making the playoffs is more of an accomplishment than missing the playoffs.

[Purch]

Yea, it's hard to punish someone for losing in the finals, and reward someone for not making it

[Moonbeam]

My main contenders for this vote are Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, Oscar Robertson, and Jerry West.

Based solely on statistics, my formula offers Jerry West as the clear winner, followed by Dr. J, Bird and Oscar in quick succession, and then Hakeem. I'm a big stats buy, but my vote is for Larry Bird. His addition to the Celtics was the key factor in taking a franchise that had won less than 40% of its games the previous two seasons to 9 straight years of winning at least 1 round in the playoffs, including 3 titles and 5 Finals appearances. His emergence as a star ensured that Boston had another era of dominance. While Jerry West had a likewise massive impact on the establishing the Lakers as consistent contenders in Los Angeles, I feel that his road to consistent deep playoff appearances was generally easier than Bird's despite not having the same caliber of teammates overall early on. This is a tough choice, though, and I could be swayed.

Dr. J is a tough call. Many of his best years were played in the ABA, making for a difficult comparison with the others. While the ABA began as clearly a second-tier league, it bridged the gap to finish, and when Dr. J was having his best seasons, the ABA was at its strongest. His play appears to have dipped a bit during his first 3 years with Philadelphia, but his impact was still quite palpable, as Philadelphia went from just having made the playoffs for the first time in 5 years to a Finals appearance in 1977, and they remained contenders with him at the helm until winning in 1983 once Bobby Jones, Maurice Cheeks, Andrew Toney, and Moses Malone had come aboard. If I have to nitpick a bit, I'd argue that Bird was more of the focal point in Boston's 3 title runs than Dr. J was in 1983, and that is really the only point that separates them for me.

Hakeem obviously had a mesmerizing peak in the mid-90s, and I feel as a GOAT-caliber defender his statistical ranking is undersold, but his teams were too often bounced before the second round for me to place him over Bird (or West). Oscar Robertson obviously had awe-inspiring statistics as well, but the relative lack of postseason success likewise applies. I generally feel that titles are overrated, but in separating five candidates that I regard to be on the same tier, postseason success offers some guidance.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Really good posts so far.

Thought I'd pay homage to Larry, Kobe, Hakeem's post games/fadeaways since all 3 were excellent.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6AY_alMzsg[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDaY_-p3hSM[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoLVtSMqJV4[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtgogsWXN3U[/youtube]

[90sAllDecade]

Bird had make do with lesser team support only once in his career and he played worse in comparsion to having his stacked teams. I'll get to that post in a moment but first here is the post that prefaced it, it was in a Peak: Bird vs Hakeem thread:

"Hakeem

Bird had significantly more help and less competition to take off pressure and help him dominate. Hakeem was also had to be the #1 scorer on offense as well as the main defensive anchor, unlike Bird who could defer to McHale for lead scorer or the entire team including Walton off the bench for defensive responsibilities.

That 86' Celtics squad was arguably the greatest team ever.

PG: Johnson (5x All Star, HOF, top rated defender)
SG: Ainge (1x All Star two years later)
SF: Bird (Top 10 player, HOF, top rated defender)
PF: McHale (7x All Star, 2x Sixth Man, HOF, top rated defender)
C: Parish (9x All Star, HOF)

Bench: 33yo Walton (2x All Star, HOF, not the same player but the top Drtg on that team, 1986 sixth man of the year)

95' Rockets

PG: Smith
SG: 32yo Drexler (10x All Star, HOF)
SF: Elie
PF: Horry
C: Olajuwon (Top 10 player, HOF, top rated defender)

Bench: Cassell (1x All Star nine years later, but 2nd year player then)

There's no comparison here for supporting cast help to take off offensive and defensive pressure to help dominate those peak years.

Competition Bird faced:

Rd 1. Bulls - 30-52, -3.12 SRS, 2nd year Jordan & SF Woolridge (who wasn't known for defense at all)
Rd 2. Hawks - 50-32, 2.59 SRS, SF Wilkins
Rd 3. Bucks - 57-25, 8.69 SRS, Moncrief & SF Pressey (Moncief was badly hurt and that wasn't the same team that series)*
Finals: Rockets - 51-31, 2.11 SRS, 2nd year Olajuwon & Sampson, SF McCray

Competition Hakeem faced:

Rd 1. Jazz - 60-22, 7.75 SRS, Malone & Stockton, C by committee
Rd 2. Suns - 59-23, 3.85 SRS, Barkley & KJ, C by committee
Rd 3. Spurs - 62-20, 5.90 SRS, Center: Robinson, Rodman & Elliott
Finals: Orlando - 57-25, 6.44 SRS, Center: Shaq & 2nd year Penny

Bird faced much less competition to dominate as well. Hakeem had to dominate on both sides of the ball with much less help and greater competition during his peak.



* The only really strong team the Celtics faced were the Bucks, but Moncief was badly injured, missed a game 1 and wasn't the same player. (partially edited)

NBA PLAYOFFS : On Court or Bench, It's Painful for Moncrief

BOSTON — There probably is no type of pain-killing shot that could have numbed Sidney Moncrief's agony as he witnessed Game 1 of the NBA Eastern Conference final playoff series from the end of the Milwaukee Bucks' bench Tuesday night. The pained expression on Moncrief's face might have been caused by his injured left heel and arch, which have sidelined him for about half of Milwaukee's playoff games. But more likely, it was the result of the 32-point spanking the Bucks were getting from the Boston Celtics.

The Bucks, no doubt, figure that a part-time, hobbling Moncrief is better than no Moncrief at all.
Moncrief, a five-time All-Star who averaged 20 points this season and is perhaps the NBA's best defensive guard, played in three games in the Milwaukee-Philadelphia series. The Bucks won all three games, and lost three of four without him.

Moncrief has compared the pain of running to walking on hot coals, and he says the pain worsens as the game progresses. But when he awakens the next morning, his foot feels fine--until he runs on it for a while."Just jumping straight up and down and running straight ahead, it's OK," Moncrief said. "But my whole game is pushing off. I rely on quickness and jumping ability. I have trouble doing either of those."

David Haskell, the team physician, recently said the only thing that will cure the injury is rest.
"He needs to stop playing for a month to six weeks," Haskell said. "Every time he runs on the foot, it aggravates the underlying condition. Sidney understands the ideology of the problem, which enables him to play in pain. He's always played with painful kneecaps. He's just one of those players who's resigned to play with it."

If the series continues as it started, the Celtics figure to eliminate the Bucks quickly and relatively painlessly. Maybe then, Moncrief can finally rest.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-15/ ... y-moncrief"