#12 Highest Peak of All Time (Walton '77 wins)

[drza]

BTW, I'm still considering whether or not Erving should go over Walton or not. I personally don't see Erving as a clone of LeBron, or so close that "if I voted for LeBron, I have to vote Erving next"...but I do actually somewhat feel like that about Walton in comparison to Hakeem/Duncan/Garnett...and I personally would have gone with those 3 in some order for the last 3 spots

(+ others many times said that Walton’s impact on defense was GOAT level)

I don’t agree with that and the more closely I look at Walton, the more I think he is slightly overrated.
Elgee’s research tells us that:

[b]

Portland 1977:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   43-21    113.4    105.1       +8.3
W/O Walton    6-12     105.7    110.0       -4.3       0.26      61%
Total Difference                            +12.6


Portland 1978:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   48-10    110.4    100.4       +10.0
W/O Walton    10-14     101.0    104.3       -3.3      -0.07     58%
Total Difference                            +13.3


If we combine the two seasons and pro-rate the records to 82-games:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS   %Road Games
With Walton   61-21    112.0    102.9       +9.1
W/O Walton    31-51    103.0    106.7       -3.7       0.07     60%
Total Difference                            +12.6


So based on pure with/without data Blazers defense was better with Walton by -4.9 ppg in 1977 and -3.9 in 1978. Overall -3.8 over these two seasons, and sample is really big, because we have 42 games without Walton.

Of course these result aren’t pace adjusted and that’s the problem. It’s very probable that Blazers played faster with Walton than without him. The only question is how much faster exactly? I have hundreds of with/without players seasons in my data base and the biggest increase in pace without given player is +5.1 (Reggie 1996, 6 games without). Then Price 1989 (7 games w/o), KG 2006 (6) and Price 1995 (34) with +4.1 each.

Among players similar to Walton I have Gasol 2008 (55 games w/o) and Lakers with him played slower than without Pau. The same with Grizzlies 2008 (-2.2). Vareajo 2011 (51 games w/o) also made Cavs play slower (-0.4) and -2.4 in 2008 (34 games w/o) . NYK 1987 also played slightly slower with Ewing (-0.7, 32 games w/o), but in 1998 they played faster with him (+4.0, 55 games w/o). Gasol 2005 (26 games w/o) and Hakeem 1991 (26) are also examples when teams played faster with their star big man, but not much faster: +1.0 each. Similar story with KG 2009 (25 games w/o, +0.1 faster pace) and so on.

So it’s rather unreasonable to assume 77-78 Blazers with Walton would play faster than 2-3 possessions per game. (more reasonable is assumption that pace wouldn't change or would be slower WITH Bill) So lets look how PTB drtg would look like if we assume they pace was slower by 2 possessions without Walton.

In 1977 Blazers pace was 108 and -1.5 drtg (relatively to league average). Assuming 110 pace with Walton PTB drtg during 64 games with Bill was -4.0 and +9.5 in 18 games without him.
In 1978 Blazers pace was 104,2 and -3,7 drtg. Assuming 106,2 pace with Walton Blazers drtg was -6.4 with him and +4.0 without.

So it looks like he transformed the worst defense in the league into the best. But were Blazers really that bad defensively without Walton? In 1979 Blazers drtg was -0.7, so still better than average, despite the fact Walton didn’t play at all and Lucas with Hollins missed many games.

And when we look at Blazers drtg in 77 and 78 with/without Walton without assumption that pace changed we would see that:
1977: -2.2 with, +2.4 without
1978: -7.9 with, -4.3 without

So these results without assumption about changing pace are much more consistent with what happened in 1979. So without a doubt Walton’s impact on defense was positive, but in no way it was GOAT level. For example we all know Russell lifted average, or slightly above average defensive team to -10 drtg during his peak. That’s GOAT level impact. Or 2009 KG +1.2 drtg team (25 games w/o KG, pace slower by 0,1) lifted to -8.1. Or Duncan 2004: from -3.5 (13 games w/o, pace faster by 1.0) to -9.0. Or 2005 Duncan: from -1.1 (16 games w/o, pace faster by 0.9) to -8.0. Or 1992 DRob: from +2.6 (14 games w/o, pace slower by 1.6) to -5.0 drtg. Walton’s defensive impact seems like tier below these 4 players who really had GOAT level defensive impact.

I'd actually love to see this addressed by some of the other panelists, but on the other hand...is it damning either way? If If the impact was huge and the question is just whether that influence was more on offense than defense...couldn't the response be "so what"? I had a similar reaction last year in a discussion about Jason Kidd...if the overall impact is there, I don't know that it matters so much which side of the ball that influence is on.

[lorak]

^
Maybe because it's strange that big man who isn't scorer (like Shaq) or streach PF (like Dirk) has GOAT level offensive impact?

And BTW, if we are talking about overall impact, then looking at Elgee's simple adjustment, we should discuss these players now:
(some aren't available anymore, but I will list all players, who have at least 8.0)

Robertson 1972 (18g) 10.82
Lanier Mil 1980 (56g) 10.82
Walton 1978 (24g) 10.37
(Duncan 2005 (16g) 10.3)
(Jordan 1992-93 (7g) 9.42)
Walton 1977 (17g) 9.07
Worthy 1986 (7g) 8.96
(Duncan 2004-05 (29g) 8.64)
Gasol LAL 2008 (55g) 8.62
(Magic 1989 (5g) 8.6)
(Magic 1988 (10g) 8.21)
Nash 2005-07 (16g) 8.18

[drza]

I'd be curious of who the panel members think will be the next 10 names to go off the list. I know ElGee has talked about his 13 "sacreds", of which 11 are now in and Walton/Doc are battling it out now. Who is on the horizon? In the last few threads I've been seeing Dirk and Wade get mention. Kobe's had his name called in this thread, and UBF is making his presence felt so it must be in the vicinity of Kobe time. And if peak Kobe and Wade are in the conversation, I'm sure '03 TMac will get some run as well. Saw someone mention DRob. I have to feel like Oscar and West will start getting some play soon. Is this essentially the current list? Anyone I'm neglecting?

Barkley, K. Malone, M. Malone, and Nash as well, at least imo.

My rough list right now has all the guys you mentioned and the 4 players I mentioned going next in some order.

Alright, conversation seems to have bogged a bit. In an effort to spark some talk...

If the bolded above are the list right now...how about some loose categories?

Centers: Walton, Robinson, Moses

PFs: Dirk, Karl, Barkley

Wings: Erving, Kobe, TMac, Wade, West

PGs: Oscar and Nash

Per-category, do you guys have rough orders for the moment? I'm trying to get a handle on who's next. We've obviously got some big Kobe and Dirk supporters in the house. At the moment I'm a bit partial to Oscar as next up...is anyone willing to argue Nash over him? I'm also pretty high on Robinson, despite the fact that every time we do one of these projects I get re-convinced that maybe he wasn't as impactful as I thought...I still think he's better than Moses was, though. The Kobe/TMac/Wade order could be a knock-down drag-out on it's own, and where does West fit into that group? And I've already been called out for not having Dirk clearly ahead of Karl and Barkley...is that where this debate is right now, with Dirk on an island ahead of the other two?

Even if we're a bit bogged down on Walton vs Doc, which seems to be the case at the moment, there's still a whole lot of stuff we could talk about as the projects enters a bit of a transition point...

[ElGee]

You mean is it damning to turn an average defense to the top of the league? Is this really a question?

Not a single person has mentioned Walton as a GOAT defender because that title belongs to Bill Russell. Walton IS a GOAT defensive candidate post merger, and those numbers certainly do not do a thing to suggest otherwise. The idea that we should assume the team slows down seems so unlikely (even if remotely possible) that's it's silly to consider. Every contemporary, teammate, coach, and David Halberstram discuss how Walton was the trigger for the fastbreak offense with his defense and outlet passing, and that Portland badly missed that when he was out of the lineup.

The next piece of evidence is to look at other teams. Stern here is, again, simply wrong. Orlando, for instance, bumped it's pace from 88 to 94.2 in 2002 without McGrady (control for Hill). In 6 games without him the next year, 88.9 to 94.1. And in 04, 88.8 to 92.2. In 2007, before his shoulder injury, Miami played over 8 possessions faster w Wade in. (7g) The 86 Celtics without McHale played 5 possessions faster (15g). The 91 Celtics without Bird, controlling for McHale, played nearly 5 possessions faster (22g), because with Bird they were a 9 SRS team and without a .500 team. The 84 Lakers were over 4 pos faster with Magic, and on and on...When your team gets weaker or loses a major component, you either

(a) slow the game down to decrease number of possessions to keep it closer
(b) speed up by shifting to offensive lineup

It's unlikely Portland did B. If you want to assume there wasn't much of a change, look at the numbers without a pace change as an estimate.

-in 1977, a constant pace still gives Portland a defensive change from +1.4 to -2.1. 3.5 point change should not be looked at as evidence that "man, that guy was overrated on defense!"

-in 1978, a constant pace still gives Portland a defensive change from -1.2 to -3.8.

So I think if you make some unlikely assumptions, and view the sample as giving you a fair "result," taking teams that are around average on defense and bringing them to the top of the league with 3 or 4 point swings is DPOY stuff right there. Another way to look at the data would be

Portland 77 w Walton -2.1 (would be 2nd)
Portland 77 PS w Walton -5.4
Portland 78 w Walton -3.8 (would be 2nd)

How is this damning at all??

Then, to bring up 1979, when the team SRS was 1, after adding No. 1 pick Thompson and Owens giving them 18-9 at center, after they were trucking along with Walton for over 100 games at 9...I mean, where did that come from? If you don't think it's defense, doesn't that make Walton an offensive machine to you? I actually 1979 as a 3rd data point reinforcing Walton's value/impact in his 77-78 peak.

Understand, also, what small change in pace would do. Let's say

In 1977, Walton in 108.5. Walton out 106.7. Then you'd see a change from +2.8 to -2.4.
In 1978, Walton in 104.7. Walton out 102.8. Then you'd see a change from +0.2 to -4.3.

[drza]

^
Maybe because it's strange that big man who isn't scorer (like Shaq) or streach PF (like Dirk) has GOAT level offensive impact?

And BTW, if we are talking about overall impact, then looking at Elgee's simple adjustment, we should discuss these players now:
(some aren't available anymore, but I will list all players, who have at least 8.0)

Robertson 1972 (18g) 10.82
Lanier Mil 1980 (56g) 10.82
Walton 1978 (24g) 10.37
(Duncan 2005 (16g) 10.3)
(Jordan 1992-93 (7g) 9.42)
Walton 1977 (17g) 9.07
Worthy 1986 (7g) 8.96
(Duncan 2004-05 (29g) 8.64)
Gasol LAL 2008 (55g) 8.62
(Magic 1989 (5g) 8.6)
(Magic 1988 (10g) 8.21)
Nash 2005-07 (16g) 8.18

I hadn't seen this post when I put my last one up, but I obviously agree with this line of thought. As I mentioned, right now Oscar is tentatively slotted in as the next major addition on my list after Walton/Erving. In fact...is there a reason that Oscar shouldn't be more heavily in the debate WITH Walton/Erving?

[lorak]

You mean is it damning to turn an average defense to the top of the league? Is this really a question?

Some top defenses were +4, others +8, so it depends. Blazers with Walton were +4/+5.

Not a single person has mentioned Walton as a GOAT defender

Some persons during this project said that Walton have GOAT defensive level impact.

The idea that we should assume the team slows down seems so unlikely (even if remotely possible) that's it's silly to consider.

Data suggests otherwise. Assumption that team with star big man play faster than without him is silly. Usually it's the other way around.

Orlando, for instance, bumped it's pace from 88 to 94.2 in 2002 without McGrady

6 games sample. Really? That's all you got? I at least provided several examples on big samples (and could provide many more)... yours are mostly on small samples, so basically worthless.

And keep in mind big man influences team pace different way than small players.

-in 1977, a constant pace still gives Portland a defensive change from +1.4 to -2.1. 3.5 point change should not be looked at as evidence that "man, that guy was overrated on defense!"

That kind of impact isn't special if we are talking about GOAT level defensive impact or top 12 peak of all time. So yes, he is overrated if his impact was so "small".

Then, to bring up 1979, when the team SRS was 1, after adding No. 1 pick Thompson and Owens giving them 18-9 at center, after they were trucking along with Walton for over 100 games at 9...I mean, where did that come from? I

Where? So explain why their defense without Walton and with Hollins and Lucas missing a lot of games was still slightly better than average? This is actually true result, not some stuff based on assumptions with higher pace you like to force here.

[ElGee]

I'm leaning heavily toward Walton here, but I'd love a crafty Dr. J argument...

As for the next group of players, I do see another "pack" of guys, perhaps I need to give them a name as well. As is the case with the Sacreds, I've done a lot of work trying to differentiate the pack, and I'll outline where I stand on them.

Robinson -- he has my 14 vote until someone can prove otherwise. This is mostly because of his defense, which is uber portable, and his second-optionness no longer being a bad thing to me (see: helping good teams win more).

---

Wade v Kobe v T-Mac -- an epic wing debate. I'm leaning Wade in 2011 because of his defense. But then again I've asked about wings being on better teams where each of these 3 guys would get to shine defensively because they wouldn't have to have offensive loads in the 50% range. As of now, Wade has my 15 vote though.

---

West v Oscar v Barkley-- West would have my 16 vote, Oscar my 17 vote. West's 1968 season is just sick to me. It is one of the view cases where I look at the in/out data we have as a real tipping point in my mind, mostly because of what the "on" looks like. If I told you that there's a player in the late 60's and he played with:

Mel Counts
Elgin Baylor
Gail Goodrich
Archie Clark

And 51 games into the season they had an 8.1 SRS, and most of it was from their offense (which was performing waaay better than any offense in NBA history up that point and would for quite some time-- +8.7 using pace estimation and assuming a constant pace), would you take notice?

Then what if I told you in the last 31 games of the year, this player was injured and his team played BELOW .500 basketball? Because that's what happened to Jerry West and the Lakers in 1968 (not in that order, of course).

I include Barkley in this pack because 3 guys are really offensive savants to me, and coincidentally I have them quite close because neither does much on defense. Still, Jerry West impresses me the most.

---

Malone v Nash v ... Chris Paul -- Surprised I haven't heard CP3 yet. I see him as a guy in this pack that I have more questions about but I can't move out of this next group of 15 or so (Dwight Howard and Pippen included in that bunch). Malone and Nash are obviously the staples, and I'm ending up debating them with Kobe a lot, although that might sort itself out if we can hash out some epic Kobe-Wade-T-Mac debate.

The thing about Malone is his defense...how good was it really? I view it as pretty solid. I think underrated in many ways like Bird's (Malone obviously has a rep as a good man defender, which is not as important, but he was a pretty good team defender by eye test...and then of course you pair him with a defensively oriented center and Utah had great defenses for years. I find this to be thought-provoking, as we know he was a beast on offense, although clearly below Nash, Paul, Barkley, even Kobe, Mac, etc.

Now that I think about it, Paul v Nash would be a fun debate.

[lorak]

Here's some data to the discussion about pace. Big men with at least 10 games missed. Negative value means that team played SLOWER with given player than without him:

Code: Select all

diff pace   year   player   G without
-6,8   1987   Barkley   14
-5,6   2007   P. Gasol   23
-4,1   1995   Barkley   14
-2,4   2008   Varejao   34
-2,2   2008   Gasol-MEM   43
-1,8   2008   Gasol-LAL   55
-1,1   2008   KG   11
-1,1   2000   Ewing   20
-1   2003   DRob   18
-1   1987   Ewing   19
-1   2004   Duncan   13
-0,9   2005   Duncan   16
-0,8   1996   Rodman   18
-0,7   1986   Ewing   32
-0,4   2011   Varejao   51
-0,3   2010   P. Gasol   17
0,1   2009   KG   25
0,2   1992   Cummings   12
0,6   1994   Barkley   17
0,8   1997   DRob   76
0,9   1999   Ewing   12
1   1991   Hakeem   26
1   2005   P. Gasol   26
1,2   1991   Barkley   15
1,3   1975   Jabbar   17
1,6   1992   DRob   14
1,6   1991   Cummings   15
4   1998   Ewing   56


[colts18]

Vote: Walton 77

This has to go to Walton. When Walton played, the Blazers were playing better than the 86 Bulls. When he was out, they played like a below average team.

[ThaRegul8r]

Vote: Walton 77

This has to go to Walton. When Walton played, the Blazers were playing better than the 86 Bulls.

I wasn't aware this was some special feat.

[drza]

I'm leaning heavily toward Walton here, but I'd love a crafty Dr. J argument...

As for the next group of players, I do see another "pack" of guys, perhaps I need to give them a name as well. As is the case with the Sacreds, I've done a lot of work trying to differentiate the pack, and I'll outline where I stand on them.

Robinson -- he has my 14 vote until someone can prove otherwise. This is mostly because of his defense, which is uber portable, and his second-optionness no longer being a bad thing to me (see: helping good teams win more).

Interesting. I can never get over how amazing Robinson was when he burst onto the scene in the NCAA tourney, then how he took the NBA by storm from day 1. With the criteria you laid out here, do you see Robinson as having a case over Walton? Robinson was arguably better on defense, and is there a way to quantify the value of an excellent finisher (capable of scoring 30 ppg under the right conditions) vs. a high-post hub that wasn't as much of a scoring threat?

[drza]

Vote: Walton 77

This has to go to Walton. When Walton played, the Blazers were playing better than the 86 Bulls.

I wasn't aware this was some special feat.

If the '86 Bulls is the bar, we're oing to have a LOT of folks with cases...

[colts18]

Interesting. I can never get over how amazing Robinson was when he burst onto the scene in the NCAA tourney, then how he took the NBA by storm from day 1. With the criteria you laid out here, do you see Robinson as having a case over Walton? Robinson was arguably better on defense, and is there a way to quantify the value of an excellent finisher (capable of scoring 30 ppg under the right conditions) vs. a high-post hub that wasn't as much of a scoring threat?

I think we can all agree that despite Robinson's issues, he was a better offensive player than Walton. Walton was a better passer (Robinson was no slouch), but Robinson was on another level scoring wise. Robinson would routinely average 8-10 FTA per game while Walton wasn't creating FT's (3 FTA/game). That's pretty huge difference.


As far as defense, I think I would take Robinson. As I outlined in the past, Drob has a case for GOAT defensive player (post-Russell). Look at the 92 Spurs for example. They finished 1st in D rating despite DRob missing 14 games. Just look at their D rating's in those 14 games and playoffs. It's amazing that they finished so far ahead of the pack when Robinson played. Of course they also fell off the cliff in 97 with Robinson.

I feel like Peak Robinson is ahead of Walton on both sides of the ball, but I can't put DRob ahead because Walton put it together in his peak while Robinson fell short in his peak (he was fine in the playoffs outside of 94-96). If Robinson faced anyone other than Hakeem in 95, we might have voted Robinson in the top 5-7.

[Josephpaul]

"]

Voting has been really scarce in this thread so far, from a quick glance.

Kobe talk has taken over now, so I'm staying out of it until it passes.

so it crime to think hes a top 15 peak?

This attitude is exactly why I'm staying out of it. This is not indicative of a constructive conversation. And as I can only control and am responsible for my own actions and not those of anyone else, I'm not even getting into this.[/quote]
Well you post read like its bad thing to talk about kobe and his peak.

[ardee]

---

West v Oscar v Barkley-- West would have my 16 vote, Oscar my 17 vote. West's 1968 season is just sick to me. It is one of the view cases where I look at the in/out data we have as a real tipping point in my mind, mostly because of what the "on" looks like. If I told you that there's a player in the late 60's and he played with:

Mel Counts
Elgin Baylor
Gail Goodrich
Archie Clark

And 51 games into the season they had an 8.1 SRS, and most of it was from their offense (which was performing waaay better than any offense in NBA history up that point and would for quite some time-- +8.7 using pace estimation and assuming a constant pace), would you take notice?

Then what if I told you in the last 31 games of the year, this player was injured and his team played BELOW .500 basketball? Because that's what happened to Jerry West and the Lakers in 1968 (not in that order, of course).

I include Barkley in this pack because 3 guys are really offensive savants to me, and coincidentally I have them quite close because neither does much on defense. Still, Jerry West impresses me the most.

Not sure what you're insinuating, my friend. The Lakers were 28-23 51 games into the '68 season. They then finished 23-7. What do you mean that they played below .500 without West ? And which West season are you looking at to vote?

I'm having a hard time deciding between '65, '66 and '70.

[ElGee]

I'm leaning heavily toward Walton here, but I'd love a crafty Dr. J argument...

As for the next group of players, I do see another "pack" of guys, perhaps I need to give them a name as well. As is the case with the Sacreds, I've done a lot of work trying to differentiate the pack, and I'll outline where I stand on them.

Robinson -- he has my 14 vote until someone can prove otherwise. This is mostly because of his defense, which is uber portable, and his second-optionness no longer being a bad thing to me (see: helping good teams win more).

Interesting. I can never get over how amazing Robinson was when he burst onto the scene in the NCAA tourney, then how he took the NBA by storm from day 1. With the criteria you laid out here, do you see Robinson as having a case over Walton? Robinson was arguably better on defense, and is there a way to quantify the value of an excellent finisher (capable of scoring 30 ppg under the right conditions) vs. a high-post hub that wasn't as much of a scoring threat?

I don't think it's impossible for David Robinson to have been a better player at his peak. I do see Walton having a defensive advantage AND an offensive one though. I'll take a high-post, passing hub, outside shooting big man on offense who fits with a billion types of teams and can score 15 or 30 depending on what you need over someone who seems miles behind as a passer, and worse as a screener and BBIQ guy, etc. (although Robinson can be very active around the hoop). Of course, Walton might not look as good if you trade him to a different as well...

Defensively, I like Walton more. Higher motor and smarter. We don't know exactly how the DRtg of the teams stacks up, we don't know the on/off or DRAPM, etc. but we do know we are talking about sizable effects with both. Individually, Robinson's about a 24% DREB% man on teams ranging from even (93) to +320 (92) in rebounding differential. Walton's a GOAT-level 32-34% DREB% guy on +160 to +260 differential teams (with him missing 25% of the season, it's reasonable to think the effect would be larger). Walton's a 5% blk% guy basically, Robinson is more like 6%. But the motor and IQ is Walton's biggest edge -- just never really seen someone so active with such court coverage.

And no, there's no way to quantify the difference in those kinds of players that I can see, other than to look at other archetypes. I think Walton fits great on certain offenses, whereas Robinson would do a better job picking up slack on more unipolar teams.

I'll also add, while discussing David Robinson, that there is something to be said about "being there." This is something that irks me about the Dirk chatter and in general, any opinion that comes out of left field. If something analytically surprises you, you have an unstable model. You need to re-evaluate your own methods, not make huge external shifts. If Dirk 11 surprised you a lot, the answer is not to deify Dirk 11, it's to figure out what the heck you were missing. (Personally, the 2004 Pistons did this to me and I became a much better predictor after I figured out why.)

There was no point in, say, 1994 or 1995 where ANYONE was talking about David Robinson as a GOAT-level player. GOAT athlete, yes. Player? No. No. No. For anyone to insinuate that if he didn't play Hakeem Olajuwon he would be viewed as having a Sacred Peak violates the opinion at the time strongly. Any such chatter would have swept out of the blue based on some sort of Winning bias, solo act, in the moment reaction.

I thought Robinson was underrated and he very much impressed me. He finished 2nd in MVP voting in 1994 (his peak IMO because I think it was his defensive peak, which is his best asset). The Spurs then lost a 4-gamer to the Jazz in which they were just smoked in the 2nd and 3rd games (26 and 30 point leads heading into the 4th, respectively). But this isn't damning at all given sample and the way those games played out (frankly they needed a PG).

The 95 Spurs were a more synergistic team (frankly Bob Hill was more stable than John Lucas too). It felt like a bit of jump from Sean Elliot, even if his 2nd-scorer mold was in the Glen Rice, Allan Houston vein (hopefully people realize that's not a bad thing with all the talk of shooters and spacing). That team finished slightly better than the year before, Robinson won MVP with a similar vote share, then basically did what we've seen Dwight Howard do in first rounds past: averaged 19 ppg and 6.7 rpg on 49.3% TS against Denver. NO ONE was talking about Robinson as being historically impressive, because he wasn't.

In the next round against the Lakers, he did average 30 ppg (53.7% TS) in nearly 45 mpg, along with 15.7 rpg and 3.7 blocks. People liked that, but make no mistake, it was not generating buzz. Frankly, I remember more media attention around (a) the Jazz as a possible favorite to make it out (b) The Suns, although injuries derailed that train and (c) of course the Knicks. IE Malone, Barkley, Ewing. Plus the 95 Lakers were a Cinderella team that was a dead-even 0 SRS squad, led by Van Exel, Campbell, Divac and Ceballos. G2 of the series went to OT in SA and Robinson was 6-26 from the floor. (Somewhere, Kobe's like "see! what's up now talking heads!?") The Spurs won in OT behind a 22 point 22 rebound game from Dennis Rodman (you read that right). They went on to win the series in 6 (losing a closeout game at home), but this felt like "that's what we expected, EASILY" from Robinson and SAS.

PS All this should force you to ask yourself, "Am i placing too much emphasis on the team success years?" In other words, has the extra exposure to the player made me think higher of them (ie team simply got better around him), or is it that the player in question got better and that's why the team has the extra exposure??

For me these are super hard questions historically and I find myself drifting away from the team success years in many cases:

02 Duncan > 03 Duncan
03 Garnett > 04 Garnett?
94 Robinson > 95 Robinson
93 Hakeem > 94 Hakeem?

and so on...

[JordansBulls]

I'm surprised 2004 KG went ahead of 93 Barkley or 97 Malone and even 83 Moses.

[ElGee]

For those who weren't there, I always encourage getting a barometer with something like POMs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/pom.html

It's a slightly different type of vote than MVP (less team, more statistical, shorter peak bursts of play), but it gives you a feel of how "high" someone was regarded in certain seasons and throughout certain seasons. Note the guys we've enshrined so far (post 1980):

Bird 86 2x POM (coming off a 2x POM year in 85)
Magic 87 2x POM
Jordan 91 2x POM (coming off 2x year in 90)
Hakeem 94 1x (coming off 2x in 93)
Shaq 00 3x!
Duncan 03 0x (coming off 2x in 02)
Garnett 04 4x (split votes, coming off 2 of last 3 in 03)
LeBron 09 4x (split votes, coming off 2 in 08)

And yes, one thing you might notice is Garnett thrashing Duncan in the overlapping years that were discussed so...oh wait, they weren't discussed.

[Josephpaul]

It's been rather difficult to tell on what methods voters are using.

[Josephpaul]

Kobe was player of the month twice in 05-06 while Steve nash never player month. Unreal... Not even once. Kobe was also player of the month 2x 09